Cheap tanks and cost efffectiveness (build more tanks?)

User avatar
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015 21:33

Re: Cheap tanks and cost efffectiveness (build more tanks?)

Postby Rabidnid » Sun 21 Oct 2018 23:48

varis wrote:120pt tanks seem to consistently underperform in WarGame. Would probably swap to a 50pt tank. Best always depends on what your opponent is rolling.

The only exception is the 125 point T-72S in the NSWP tank deck.

I use the 85 point wilk and the 105 point challenger as my fighting tanks, some cheaper tanks as general fire support and the heaviest possible tanks as the attack or defence centrepiece.

The 40 point leopard and the 45 point T-72 being my picks in most decks. The 45 point chieftain is so damn slow. For me at least these support tanks have to be at least as fast as the APC or they are a liability more than an asset. All the older generations of tanks have that issue for me.

My favourite IFV is the base version of the warrior. 15 points and 3 front with high speed and ludicrous range, it will beat any similarly priced Red IFV and can have pretty solid days versus heavier. The speed and the range are both major advantages compared to other IFVs. The East German BMP-2s are a close second. Red APCs/IFVs with less than 3 FA are too easy to deal with for the many 16 AP rockets Bluefor has.

User avatar
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland

Re: Cheap tanks and cost efffectiveness (build more tanks?)

Postby varis » Thu 8 Nov 2018 14:44

Tanks just under 100pts tend the be the mainstay of the armored force as they dominate over most units on the battlefield, yet the enemy is unlikely to wield high profile counters like ATGM planes against them. I would maybe put them in stacks of 2 and micro them with a fair amount of effort.

I think four stacks of these tanks have been a favourite tactic of highly aggressive RD players for a very long time. Charge down the road with these and infantry and if you get a high concentration of force organized together it's very hard to stop. My firstmost defense against such charges is a heavy cluster bombers such as the Mig-25.

The 50 pts tanks I might use as meatshields in pushes at times but more likely they perform as fillers in holding the line and are parked somewhat in the back row for meeting engagements. I hardly micro them as they can provide fire at a long range and the higher value tanks, AA and infantry have more value that needs protection. Redfor has a number of tanks which are slightly weak on armour but the AP and range/accuracy are really good so they fit this job well. Stabilizers are usually not very good but it's not a problem in this scenario.

User avatar
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 10:15

Re: Cheap tanks and cost efffectiveness (build more tanks?)

Postby KampfKeksKrieger » Thu 8 Nov 2018 21:56

T55a.jpg (139.5 KiB) Viewed 204 times

my light tanks are not that good in terms of kills yet, but I love them like few things more only.
You can have a AP gun with 10 and more (I find 10 much, compared to 1-2 of a Autocannon; i still feel reminded of the 10 in W:EE and the feeling doesnt die out that this still remains true), so I feed glad to play T34 to have armor, a good gun, now they have 1700 m very nutty range, can annoy, and shoot essential targets. And an mg is also important.

The t55 is the key, because he can do the same as a 50 point tank, required, that you dont run into your own silliness.

Tanks get smoke ball nowadays into their position to simulate forest to hide from planes.
I look for many more opportunities to make tanks, which is best fun; even if you shred them 50:1 without any chance to survive. I can play thousands of hours until I learn to flank and ambush properly. Its really just neccessary to panic a target, and once its done...

you are glad with light tanks.

Light tanks can do a huge amount of moral damage, which is essential support, because break moral, break the front line, break even hard tanks. Just follow the frequency, that you know the meaning of resistant targets.

But how many large tanks can you afford? Not as many as atgms on the field. So in 80% of ground units, a light tank is a good unit for it, and it requires you to command it really, and the reward is, that you do with 20 points, what others need 180 points.

but infantry still remains a bit more resilant than tanks, or is it just me???
lstr 19 siege.jpg
lstr 19 siege.jpg (400.75 KiB) Viewed 204 times

Master Sergeant
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu 9 May 2013 00:42
Location: California

Re: Cheap tanks and cost efffectiveness (build more tanks?)

Postby Eltango » Tue 20 Nov 2018 08:00

Man, du bist gut! Cheap tanks only have a chance if you use them right, in open field and in 1v1 duel you will lose them. Instead, I apply a technique from General Giap (Vietnam) which is : Grab them by the belt. During the Vietnam war, the Americans had amassed an unbelievable firepower. Each infantry squad has an M-60 + a grenade launcher M-79, and on the sky there were gunships, CAS and B-52.
So the Viets had to come up with something new, its called "Grab them by the belt" doctrine. Meaning you have to get close to the US troops on the ground in order to avoid the American devastating fire support. in Red Dragon, i set up traps or ambushes for the unexperienced guys who rush in with all their mighty expensive heavy tanks.

20160511171833_1a.jpg (40.79 KiB) Viewed 119 times

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest