What are the best NSB tank designs? I mainly use mediums and heavy's, but occasionally lights too
What are the best NSB tank designs? I mainly use mediums and heavy's, but occasionally lights too
What are the best NSB tank designs? I mainly use mediums and heavy's, but occasionally lights too
I like to focus on breakthrough and armor while keeping it as cheap as possible for meds.
Cheap mediums biggest AT guns. Rush AT day 1. Mass produce the frickers.
Fast mediums with a howitzer and nothing else, at least for single player. The AI is totally incapable of using tanks so you you only need enough armor to stop infantry from piercing you, and you don't need hard attack at all.
This, hard attack and breakthrough are only key in three scenarios imo:
>against other players
>against majors
>on the highest difficulty/ironman
Even then, against the AI you only really need a few for microing. Soft attack and Org will always be the most crucial stats for basic single player gameplay imo.
Make a soft attack design to melt infantry and a dedicated anti tank design for countering armour. If you use tanks to counter tank you're wasting industry, tanks should focus 100% on their one job, annhilating infantry, and you should instead make a dedicated AT tank and template as needed.
bump
The cheapest tank you can crank out is the best tank you can make.
Bonus points if it requires only steel, but certain upgrades are worth their price in extra resources.
Common sense applies: sloped armor only works if you are having late-war medium or heavy with cranked out armor rating, light should focus on speed (to be paired with motorized). And if you are not facing tanks, then soft attack is more important than anything else. Also, breakthrough > pierce > hard attack.
A very easy to ignore, yet super-important and super-useful component is Easy Maintenance. Apply it to ALL your fricking tanks, even the cheapo pop-gun go-karts, for they will only get cheaper and better with it. It's genuinely better than whatever ellse you plan to cram into its slot, for it offers both reliability and decrease production cost.
tl;dr cheapest tank best tank, everything else is secondary
>zoomer goes full ADD
No, unless you use the same tanks you use for flamethrower company. Which I think they patched out and you no longer can. Best recons is the armoured car, especially the AT variant
> Is it worth then to go for armoured car production
when
a)you're focusing light tanks
b)you're focusing medium tanks
Armoured cars = ultimate garrison
It really depends on what you want to achieve and who you are facing against. But as a rule of thumb, ACs > LArm for recon. They aren't cheaper (since you can get tanks for quarter the pricetag), but those tanks will be virtually useless beyond the 10% speed bonus, and thus invaidating the stat gain from the company itself. Meanwhile making dedicated scout tank will make it more expensive than AC
Besides, the ultimate king is Mot recon. It's the best price-to-value and stat-to-inputs, even if it's not the best in either. It's the golden mean.
Tanks can get you more hardness for less IC.
>Recon support company
>Hardness
Black person, what the frick are you smoking?
Cavalry as garrison is only handy if you're small, your gains are small or you abused the shit out of pre-war espionage.
I just used fully filled divisions(as in the whole grid) with +MP, and cycle spies (with agency upgrades) to both keep the resistance low, and manpower used per suppresion, and only conquer for nice looking borders. Garrison are always 1st priority, and while I understand I don't have hardness, I don't get enough resistance to need it usually.
>I do all this shit
>Instead setting up starting production line and forget I even have an issue to deal with
Using gameplay mechanics that tie well into my "le cavalry Poland" playthroughs, it's not mp where my attention span is on a timer, I can coordinate every division, if I need a well orchestrated push.
>He said, while making cavalry
>Armoured cars = ultimate garrison
As Poland I like grarrisoning with cavalry, the specialized BIG division from the cavalry 0xp tactic + MPolice. Still I wonder whether it's better to have 3 medium divs or 5 light ones, or maybe spread them among divisions and not produce much artillery (only enough for support) but SPA's instead.
Some few more:
Extra Ammo Storage has NO production costs. I repeat - NO production costs.
Squeeze-bore Adaptor is ONLY for tank destroyers. DO NOT put it on your tanks, it's a trap and they will never fully benefit from it anyway
Unless you plan to are the US, Cast Armor is a trap. And even as US, it's a trap for anything that's not a heavy tank. Welded is the best for frontlines. Riveted for support
Gasoline engine is the best one on average and only super-specific situations require to use diesel. Other two are memes.
Regular armor upgrade should NEVER exceed lvl 9, unless you have some insane amount of extra steel (so US or Soviets)
For frontline, you want the max-out turret you can put it. They are all expensive as frick, but nothing wil offer you extra 4-6 breakthrough for mere 0.5 production increase.
bump
Mussolini: ok this moustache guy is totally insane, best ally with him
He got snubbed by the French and by the British, Germany was the best ally Italy was going to get, unfortunately
>Can I get Corsica?
>No
>Can I get something in Africa, you've got so much already?
>No
>Can I get something out of Yugoslavia, at least? You know, the parts with Italians in them?
>Britain will defend the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia to the last drop of Canadian blood
>What am I gonna get then, Mr Chamberlain?
>A thank-you letter from the King and Germans turning Veneto and Lombardy into rubble
>And if we win?
>That's if we win
Is it worth it to make light armor recon?
tanks are shit just build more planes
Why care about the meta when the AI can't handle it and paradox will change it randomly every month
>and paradox will change it randomly every month
I wish
Instead it's just one meta forever once it is introduced, unless some big-ass overhaul is introduced. I mean we have heavy cruiser meta for what now? 4 years? NOTHING was changed with that.
They made subs kinda less broken. But HA are still the undisputed kings of the naval. And you can still switch the naval designer when refitting, which is just crazy broken if you have both coastal defense and raider fleet designers
>HA
I guess you meant CA. They no longer are. BCs took that role with BBA "rebalance". Read - it's the same shit, only twice as effective.
If you want to check range-dominated game, just load HoI2/DH. Especially carriers, which aren't even carriers, just super-long range BBs that deal their damage with air attack.
HoI3 had the best naval combat, for it took into account all the factors, rather than just overfocus on one, and as result, the only meta there is boils down to "build a large, strong navy, I guess".
>Especially carriers, which aren't even carriers, just super-long range BBs that deal their damage with air attack
The fricked up thing is that it's unfixable. If you give carriers the same range as battleships, they get sunk immediately. If you give them 5 or 10 more range, the alpha strike of the carrier will still cripple or outright sink battleships before they can close the distance.
*And it's based on memes anyway. Carriers only started sinking battleships in combat in 1944. Battleships have too high air vulnerability in pretty much every DH mod.
>HoI3 had the best naval combat
How do carriers work in hoi3? I know that the CAGs are modelled as proper air wings, instead of hoi2/dh super gun brigades.
They don't participate in combat on their own (other than token AA) and the fighting is done by your CAGs, this time as actual planes. So it's like you had half of NAV bomber wing that's also one tier lower than your land-based NAV bombers. It's strong if used right, but nowhere near game-breaker and obviously regular ships can close in on carriers (as they move with the rest of the fleet) and butt-frick them with their guns if they aren't properly screened and positioned.
In other words - if you have a BB-heavy fleet with proper screens, you can face a CVBG and if you have some sort of advantage (better guns, doctrines or maybe just commander) you can win that engagement, but obviously if you are facing superior doctrines with superior commanders and swarm of escorts, your BB is going to be sunk one way or another.
It's fun. The only downside is that this is still HoI we are talking about, so you are going to get like 4-5 big naval battles in the whole game and then maybe 2-4 mop-ups if the numbers are good. If AI wasn't making doomstack navies, it would be better, but since it puts all it can into a single fleet, you are facing a choice between getting overwhelmed or putting equal number of ships into the battle and win by superiority (or dumb luck if you have none).
Also, this is the only HoI that uses BCs as intended: a speeder BB that's just there in case of someone decides that yup, your carriers need to be sunk. Absolutely fantastic tandem, where both are made of glass and tissue paper, but dish out damage like crazy and if you screen them properly, you have expensive, but powerful fleet.
In every other HoI BCs have stats that make them unfit in BB role either due to non-existing survivability, or non-existing gun-damage for their pricetag (when 4 still had them as pre-definied unit, they were pretty much a more expensive heavy cruiser that was twice as likely to get hit).
.Carriers only started sinking battleships in combat in 1944
Air power proved their ability to incapacitate battleships long before 1944. I suspect you're using autism and precise wording and definitions to bolster your daft argument?
Nta, but the point here is that BBs are made out of paper in HoI games when it comes to air attack. It's not about them being vulnerable, but being way too fricking vulnerable.
>Air power
Not carrier based.
>autism and precise wording and definitions to bolster your daft argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi
I'll never forgive them for removing the concept of range from naval combat. Shit's more arcadey than Stellaris now, just figure out what gives you the highest light attack per IC.
What game are you talking about you fricking dicksucking moron?
HOI4 you moron
So put that shit in the fricking OP so people know to avoid your shit threads for shit games
I like howitzer, best turret and interleaved wheels for breakthrough, easy maintenance and 3x fuel drums. Medium turret is also fine.
I mean best crew for breakthrough, so 3-man crew for medium.
>and 3x fuel drums.
... why?
I would get 3x extra ammo, that at least makes sense... but fuel?!
Tanks can't push or move quickly when they're out of fuel, having more fuel means more time you can push through bad supply. That's what will stop your tank advance, not base stats.
Based and logistics pilled.
If you can't reach your objective within 2 days, you fricked up big time anyway, so I hardly see the point of gimping your tanks' ability to attack for the sake of making them able to move for 3 days longer. That's still not long enough to hook up the captured rail, meaning the fuel is useless and you won't reach next depo without securing the closest one anyway.
In other words: it's a total overkill for no real gain. I could get a single set of drums when going against Soviets or trying to fight in the North Africa, but anywhere else it's just wasted slot
>Basic b***h is basic b***h
Many such cases
>gimping your tanks' ability to attack
The engine of the Panzer is a weapon just as the main-gun.
Just because you make no real gains doesn't mean others can't either.
Why the frick would you trade 30% reliability for 12 defense and 6 breakthrough?
I've found that my design has enough attack power to push through AI infantry, the division will also have motorized artillery for more soft attack. Preferably I also have yellow or green air and CAS. The tiles tanks will have trouble breaking already are gimping their stats from terrain so being able to keep the fight going longer to give CAS more time to do damage is also useful.
I doubt this would work in multiplayer, I've just found that it's fine for single player.
I like motorized rockets if I have the industrial power for it, but that's just me.
Those are fine too, artillery just works so I'm usually putting research elsewhere.
literally take a fricking shit in the keyboard and smash your dick with it and throw it out the window and then just put artillery in an infantry division and then battle plan to win literally every battle because hearts of iron 4 is a fricking broken shitty fricking piss easy CUM game from fricking morons who make le alt le history le focus le trees instead of ever touching core combat mechanics and making a game that requires any fricking thought or planning or action other than "put le artillery and le support AA in le divisien and then le battle le plan"
i CHALLENGE you to name even ONE situation in HOI4 where you have to build tanks for reason other than roleplay. PROTIP YOU CANT
that pic is very funny though op, i like the idea of mussolini being a sort of bewildered straight man to bonkers hitler
>i CHALLENGE you to name even ONE situation in HOI4 where you have to build tanks for reason other than roleplay
Not OP, but it's simple:
You play as either Poland or China, not to mention any of the Baltics. It's CHEAPER to build firethrower tanks than it's to field artillery for those two in quantity that's meaningful, while getting FAR stronger benefits from it. Nothing multiplies your stats as much as firethrower tanks, and nothing is cheaper than those. In fact, it's the cheapest of all possible support companies you can get, while giving the biggest bang. The smaller your country and its economy/weaker preset, the better off you are with those. It's pretty much as broken as the old Space Marines meta with HSPArt + Marines, except it's super-cheap. You need 12 of those tanks/company, and they can cost as low as 1.5 production and using only steel
Pre-BBA - sure
Post-BBA - the same scheme, but now it has to be BC, rather than CA
All they really "fixed" was just preventing you from cramming specific guns on a CA to make it work, rather than unfrick naval combat resolution and targetting. But it's still swarm DD + light damage BC
Also
>just put artillery in an infantry division
Make that Mot and we can talk. If your entire army is leg infantry, it's going to be a horrible slog and endless meat-grinder, with close to zero overruns.
is spamming heavy cruisers still the best way to destroy the royal navy as the italians?