Tanks are weak

[seashell]

except the is2 which has 3 he all the others all have 1 he on its main gun.
you are always forced to buy infantry guns, motorized or not to kill infantry and anti tank guns at long range.
Then I can even attack move 17 pdr to kill panthers sitting in a field
17 pdr wins sometimes
artillery is a small problem but you can just
counter battery
move away
buy a replacement

Tanks still die to repeated HE shelling.
It's always the infantry and supporting guns doing all the dirty work and maybe just 1 or 2 tanks behind solely to provide the gun
The mobility is irrelevant since you often need infantry to screen for your expensive tanks
Armor too since the infantry gets shot at so they reveal the enemies in the first place.

A blob of panthers is so much easier to kill then a wave of infantry.

I complain since I never get good results with armored divisions while bullying others are easy or manageable in infantry decks even with koruck, 184, ak, and tartalek

[Mainly.-]

Just because you can't rush the enemy with a tank blob like in RD doesn't mean, that tanks are weak. Bring recon and use tanks and infantry together.

[Raoule]

Yeah, its an old problem. Its still the same as it was in the first game. Its an urgent task and will be modded for sure.
The field guns shouldnt be more tanky than an actual tank. Also the mobility let them act as an attacking weapon which can be pulled right into a tank fight, which should not be the intention of those war material.
Its also not fine that they can one shot every armor while only the biggest arty or full barrage can silence a field gun in seconds. Pretty unrealistic and a huge fun killer. Tanks cant even defend themself with MG because of the range... For now, its broken imo

[TasteDasRainbow]

Anti Tank guns are designed to kill tanks, that's what they do. There's a reason combined arms and tactical infantry deployment is the strongest form of combat theory/practice presentable to this date.

And infantry aren't harder to kill, they're harder to finish off. That doesn't still mean that their groups aren't essentially inoperational after you engage them. Taking a group of 13 men down to 5 essentially negates their strength against other full infantry sections unless you give their weapons favorable positioning obviously.

If you're hoping to simply blob your troops, tell them to kill bad guys, and get upset when they get killed, that's not how combat works. You have to scout for enemy guns, you have to kill them with infantry or crewed weapons, you have to secure the flanking areas so you can move your armor in for domination after their flanks are secured. If you run into enemy AT, back your armor out and shell it or move your infantry up.

[Jam292]

I like how thinks are mostly now, but I agree mobility is an issue. Truck and non-tracked vehicles are too fast when off road, so halftrack use is just about the armor. AT guns should be completely stationary once placed and above a certain caliber (Pak 75 and up) you shouldn't even be able to change it's direction of fire without a vehicle assist. Dudes pushing pak 88 and 17pdr guns is just ludicrous.

[TasteDasRainbow]

Originally posted by Jam292:

I like how thinks are mostly now, but I agree mobility is an issue. Truck and non-tracked vehicles are too fast when off road, so halftrack use is just about the armor. AT guns should be completely stationary once placed and above a certain caliber (Pak 75 and up) you shouldn't even be able to change it's direction of fire without a vehicle assist. Dudes pushing pak 88 and 17pdr guns is just ludicrous.

I think that would completely break the game entirely, making tanks the most op potential in the game. That would only be practical if AT had it's realistic stealth back, meaning you don't see the AT gun for some 3 shots or only with recon, which in turn would trigger every armor player again because then they have to do infantry work before they can move their tanks up.

[seashell]

Originally posted by Mainly.-:

Just because you can't rush the enemy with a tank blob like in RD doesn't mean, that tanks are weak. Bring recon and use tanks and infantry together.

I mean I can do that.
Just that as a result of that you need lots and lots of infantry in your deck
And armor divisions punishes by having the 5th slot and after cost 3 points usually

So I mean what's the point and tank divisions when you need more infantry do help your tanks anyway.
The extra 1 2 point slots for tanks are not really useful.

[♔ Affable 7th Wave Teaboo ♔]

Balance decision to encourage combined arms use, I imagine.

And yes, tanks should die to many repeated HE impacts. When HE explodes against the thick armour, it sends shock through the tank's internals, crew, and damages external elements. Subjected to such shocks tank's various systems just begin to fail. Both Panther and Tiger's cooling system was notoriously sensitive to shock, and even if it did not put the tank instantly out of action, it meant that it had to get back to the repair shop, or risk ruining its engine.

[TasteDasRainbow]

Originally posted by ♔ Affable 7th Wave Teaboo ♔:

Balance decision to encourage combined arms use.

And yes, tanks should die to many repeated HE impacts. When HE explodes against the thick armour, it sends shock through the tank's internals, crew, and damages external elements. Subjected to such shocks tank's various systems just begin to fail. Both Panther and Tiger's cooling system was notoriously sensitive to shock, and even if it did not put the tank instantly out of action, it meant that it had to get back to the repair shop, or risk ruining its engine.

Especially on the late eastern front, where a majority of armor had such poor alloy designations (from lack of resources) that the armor would become so brittle that HE would simply crack the glacis from spalling.

[seashell]

Originally posted by ♔ Affable 7th Wave Teaboo ♔:

Balance decision to encourage combined arms use, I imagine.

And yes, tanks should die to many repeated HE impacts. When HE explodes against the thick armour, it sends shock through the tank's internals, crew, and damages external elements. Subjected to such shocks tank's various systems just begin to fail. Both Panther and Tiger's cooling system was notoriously sensitive to shock, and even if it did not put the tank instantly out of action, it meant that it had to get back to the repair shop, or risk ruining its engine.

if that is the case
but why can't repeated ap bounces do the same thing?

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by bottle:

So I mean what's the point and tank divisions when you need more infantry do help your tanks anyway.

For the same reason Armored Divisions exist today, nearly 80 years after the conclusion of WW2. Tanks are mobile, multi-purpose ground units that can counter nearly any other ground-based combat unit that faces them. They are, however, vulnerable to highly-specialized units that are specifically designed to defeat tanks like AT guns and tank-destroyers.

Infantry help tankers by acting as several sets of eyes to help locate hidden AT threats. Tanks help infantry by providing devastating long-range firepower that infantry squads can't match.

Also note AT units are almost exclusively defensive units, while tanks are line-breakers.

.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by bottle:

if that is the case
but why can't repeated ap bounces do the same thing?

Because physics. ;) HE shells explode on the outside of hard surfaces, sending shockwaves through the entire vehicle that can burst welded seams and send rivets flying, weakening the structural integrity of the entire vehicle AP rounds punch clean through armor and do very localized surface damage.

[seashell]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

while tanks are line-breakers.

But in the game the tank is always sitting in the back if you don't want it to die to anti tank weapons
And infantry is actually breaking the line.

[Jam292]

Originally posted by bottle:

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

while tanks are line-breakers.

But in the game the tank is always sitting in the back if you don't want it to die to anti tank weapons
And infantry is actually breaking the line.

If you glance at an armored warfare doctrine you'll see the same thing. The tanks after the breakthough would want to quickly move on to the next layer of defense or into the operational depths to cause damage. The infantry couldn't keep up unless they too were also motorized. This was a big problem for armies in ww2, but not in our game.

[TasteDasRainbow]

Originally posted by bottle:

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

while tanks are line-breakers.

But in the game the tank is always sitting in the back if you don't want it to die to anti tank weapons
And infantry is actually breaking the line.

That's generally the point. You should look at infantry as the back bone of your army and everything else essentially as support weaponry for them. Your infantry/recon will be your eyes on the front, and will stop any aggressive breakthroughs. They will spot enemies for your weapons to engage. When those enemies are eliminated, they will advance until they encounter more enemies, rinse, repeat.

Your armor is just one of those support cases that provides HE/AP rounds, and can face infantry at range without fear of damage when there is no enemy AT present. When your infantry makes contact with enemy AT, they can engage them if close enough, or you can then call in mortars/arty to damage/suppress the gun, and possibly kill it.

Think of it from a less omniscient point of view where you're not sitting as a god above the battlefield. Infantry are always the ones on the front, making contact and often the first visual of the enemy, and in turn are calling in necessary assets based on said contact.

Even for the strongest armored commander, infantry will be the backbone of their advance. Armor commanders in real life had the advantage of division of arms, where they would simply be called in by infantry or simply organizing an offensive with a battalion. Here, you will have to organize the recon, line infantry, probing/attack infantry, support guns, AT guns, artillery, and AA in order to prepare your armor for most meaningful engagements.

[Pax-Ludwig]

What are you talking about, i managed to get 6 Tiger Tanks right into the enemys center after scouting and pushing out the flanks with inf while the tanks covered them from behind. Ofc you will need strategy in a strategy game. Game is mostly okay at the moment i would say.

Yes it is a bit mico heavy, but you dont need to stress yourself in battle too much to gain important ground. Always take enough recon units and some recon planes, and you should be ready to plan your attack. At the same time, play mind games. Your enemy can't see more than you, if you don't let him. You can engage in smaller groups, from all sides, with infantry and some arty support to keep the enemy on his toes, while bringing in backup for the next bigger push.

I have to say the only game where i was so engaged into the battle and my strategy was in napoleon total war. Yes i know those games are very different, but idk those are the only two games where it really feels like strategy and tactics can counter certain strong units, even a bunch of them. Because of the way and intensity you have to use positioning, tactics and keep a clear mind no matter what, this game feels so good. I dont want to say SD2 is perfect but i dont think that any unit in this game is currently OP or something.

Also its depending on what you play in MP, for an example 10v10 Matches can get messy and spamy, especially for artillery, but in 1v1 to 3v3 or 4v4 it never really seemed like a problem.
Greetings from austria :)