Cheap Versus Expensive: Manipulating Panzer Stats in Arms Against Tyranny

[@MrSampurchase]

Can't overstate the value of not having to lose your efficiency on the cheap tank when you only have one TD battalion. As you get better tech for your TD you can upgrade the stats of your divisions incrementally with comparatively less impact than switching over a whole 45 factory line of production.

[@Nerazmus]

9:17 Yes you are. 62.5 * 1.25 = 78.1 exactly as it shows It's really simple, (base + additions) * (multiplications), i.e. it's not 25% of current value, but 25% of the base value with addition modifiers. So you are getting that % bonus to the flat bonus from armour, ticks, skirts and such To further confirm it, In the first example we have 96.8 in total +30% from welded and +25% from sloped 96.8 = (base+add) * 1.55 -> (base+add) = 62.45 So sloped armour is providing 62.45 * 0.25 =15.6 armour So removing it should give us 96.8-15.6 = 81.2 armour exactly as we see it do.

[@counterfactualgaming]

Yeah, it's the whole "current value" thing that's confusing. Like I say, you really need to pay attention to the tooltips before committing to a module.

[@JasonWolfeYT]

I do the same thing every time I do a 77% world conquest with FDR. I spam the 1938 medium with 38 max armor and autocannon1. After I cap the allies from France enforcing naval treaty, I mass convert in 1940 to howitzer2 and the chromium armor upgrade. I only start improved mediums after all 3000 old tanks are converted. Put 1 tank per infantry division.

[@counterfactualgaming]

I chuckled at your answer because I forgot France will enforce the treaty sometimes. "Hey FDR, we're in a political crisis and not the world's largest naval power. How about complying with the naval treaty?" "How about no? Also, all your base now belong to us."

[@sld1776]

I haven't tried that. I wait until Mexico nationalizes the oil fields and go on a rampage.

[@larsn97]

Nice tipp with the cheap medium tanks plus one medium AP tank division with amor. This is the same way I build tanks for some months. But I think both tank designs themselves could be a better: 1) For the medium AP tank I would go for wet ammunition storage and easy maintenance instead of the 2 heavy machine Guns. The reasion is that building for soft attack is 30% more expensive than on the cheap medium tanks. Also I would max out Armor (14 with 1941 tech) and compensate for the speed loss with Engines (13). This results in a bit cheaper tank (20 vs 21 IC) and gives better important stats for the division. 2.1) For the cheap medium tank I would increase the soft attack in the Support modules: 2 Heavy Machine Guns, 1 Additional Machinegun and 1 Basic Radio. For the 2 IC more (11.4 vs 9.4) you get 36% more soft attack (34 vs 25) which is deftly worth the investment. 2.2) Another better cheap medium tank would be to use the Improved Automatic Cannons, 2 Heavy Machine Guns and 1 Basic Radio. The IC cost is the same but you are getting +3 soft attack, + 2 hard attack, (+ 25 piercing) and even a bit speed with NO downsides. (You could of course add Easy Maintenance to both your and my cheap medium tank to lower the IC cost to 8.8).

[@counterfactualgaming]

I actually want to have a whole video dedicated to reliability and reliability-based modules. I think there's something sus in equipment-lost-to-attrition mechanics or the reports in theater view. Either they modules aren't working as advertised, or theater view is lying to me sometimes. Or both. :shrugs: Another avenue for testing.

[@larsn97]

@@counterfactualgaming ​This might be the case. I did not test how reliability affects the performance of the tanks. But my guess would be that having less could (and should) have some negative consequences. That is why I declined to not have less reliability in my designs than your tank designs. I used the ammunition storage only to compensate for the use of even more extra armor and bigger engine. (-12% + 15% = +3%). The use of the easy maintenance model in some of my tanks is for the -5% IC reduction. Which is in my opinion extremely strong independently from the 10% more reliability. Lowering your tank cost with no do-sids is one of the best modules. The only reason to not take it is if you need a stats edge which is more a multiplayer thing. So my design 2.1) is probably better when the additional machinegun is replaced with easy maintenance. But I personally like to max out pushing the power of my divisions. What are your thoughts on my tank designs besides the reliability?

[@drsudy9640]

Excellent - finally a video that gets this principle. Well done! In fact, If you rush improved mediums, you can start a production line early that produces very cheap tanks for the duration of the war that form the backbone of your tank divisions. If you also in parallel rush 1943 heavies and add 1 heavy 1943 TD with 17 sloped armor and armor skirts to your cheap divisions you can actually build tank divisions with so much armor that it costs the enemy more in IC to build dedicated TD battalions that can pierce your cheap + heavy td tank division. I also prefer going for maximum firepower (even at the cost of the additional civ factories) by putting imp medium howitzers on my cheap tanks but i see the appeal of your steel only close support gun strategy If you want to go even more cost effective, use a super armored heavy SPAA battalion as they need only 36 units vs 50 for a TD. I prefer the additional piercing of the TD but this is an option.

[@counterfactualgaming]

I didn't show it in the video (it was so long already), but I did some tests with dirt cheap light tanks that I bolstered with super-heavies of various types. It was almost comical watching AI divisions fail to pierce Panzer I's and II's.

[@drsudy9640]

Light tanks are not as great because you need 60 per battalion vs 50 for mediums. I create a specialized cheap anti tank recon with full fuel drums for cheap piercing and range on my main tanks. Otherwise they aren’t because there’s an effective 20% “tax” due to battalion size. Super heavies support companies are just not cost effective and they are too slow, you can get nearly as much armor for a similar cost by having a heavily armored 1941 or better yet 1943 heavy TD with around 30 ic per TD

[@counterfactualgaming]

@@drsudy9640 Definitely. Super-heavies are for the fun of it in almost all cases I can think of. Even using Italy's special bonuses to super-heavies from their tree didn't make them cheap enough to justify using them on a large scale.

[@jaxkommish]

Good stuff, CFG. I hadn't run the math out that far so thank you. Keep up the good work

[@tijmenwillard2337]

For your tier 2 AI division, this one doesn't actually occur on the battlefield, because the AI rarely ever researches anything better than AA1. I checked this on the game files a while ago and it tended to hold up pretty well in game. They may have sneakily updated this, as I last checked this well over half a year ago, but I highly doubt that they did.

[@mekolayn]

The best part of this video is that it only shows the pure stats and lets you make a conclusion yourself - if you want and can make more expensive tanks then there's not only no reason to not do so, but actually a benefit in doing so because those would indeed be better tanks. And if you like to RP then there's actually a merit in making cheap tanks as now you have a reason to put TDs that were highly present in WW2 but aren't popular to use in HoI4, but with them you would perform better than opponents.

[@wendydelisse9778]

Tank design speed is situational of course. Sometimes an even more minimalist tank design speed of 7.0 kilometers per hour is better when a tank is strictly intended to accompany infantry, but sometimes a speed closer of more than 10 kilometers per hour is better. For example, if you are the Soviet Union and you want an infantry division tank that won't slow down your infantry when conquering the forests of Finland, a 7 kilometer per hour design speed is good enough. (Light tanks should be 10% faster at 7.7 kilometers per hour.) If you have a cavalry division design or a Japanese bicycle division design that might have to fight in various places in an environment of rivers or jungles or forests, it might be theoretically worthwhile to have a 11.2 kilometer per hour tank design speed if you can get that fast, so as not to ordinarily slow down your bicycle soldiers or cavalry when crossing a river or when travelling through jungle or forest. (Light tanks should then ideally be 10% faster at a design speed of 12.3 kilometers per hour.) In the game start year of 1936, you are probably not going to reserch enough tech to get an 11.2 kilometer per hour tank, but if possible, get the tech for a 7.0 kilometer per hour tank. When moving through jungle and forest and when crossing rivers, tanks suffer a special 40% speed penalty in comparison to infantry and cavalry and mechanized battalions, so ideally you want your tanks to be at least 7/4 as fast as infantry or cavalry or mechanized that they are meant to accompany, and an additional 10% faster for light tanks for the sake of the recon support company 10% speed boost. Ideal does not always happen, and for some Hearts of Iron 4 countries that ideal might not happen before World War 2 is over, but it is a good idea to have at least a 7.0 kilometer per hour design speed for your tanks, since getting your infantry slowed down unnecessary in jungle or forest or in river crossings can lead to bad results. Overall in Hearts of Iron 4, somewhere between 7.0 and 11.2 kilometers per hour is a good tank design speed, and 10% higher for light tanks than your other tanks so as to be able to provide a speed boost if you decide to use your light tank as a recon tank. The right design speed for each country will usually gradually go up as the year progresses beyond the game start year of 1936, and will vary from country to country. Even the numbers 7.0 and 11.2 are not true limits on what is good practice for tank design speed. If you are playing for example as some small desert country with camel soldier ability, and there are no nearby rivers and jungles, maybe 6.8 kilometers per hour is the right tank design speed for you, a speed just a little bit faster than your camel soldiers are likely to travel in desert conditions.

[@counterfactualgaming]

Don't want to spoil it, but your comments about speed are relevant to the next video I'm working on. There may be some speed configurations that let you go much faster, but cut your total tiles moved by 20% or more. 😬

[@wendydelisse9778]

I am looking forward to your next video then. There is a subtopic that might be useful to cover in that video. Some people say that anything more than 5 1/2 kilometers per hour is overkill for an infantry tank. There are some situations where they are right. To begin the explanation of those types of situations, in forest and jungle, towed artillery battalions and towed anti-tank battalions receive about 1/2 of the speed penalty relative to infantry that tanks receive, and towed anti-air about 1/4 the tank speed penalty relative to infantry. Some countries can't afford a tank destroyer battalion instead of a towed anti-tank gun battalion. Some countries can't afford to have a medium tank battalion or two in place of a towed artillery battalion. For such countries, a 5 1/2 kilometers per hour tank design speed might actually be a correct choice. Also, there might be situations where having an anti-air battalion of some sort is important, due perhaps to a need for additional anti-tank ability or else in order to conserve space for a 5th support company, but cannot afford to have self-propelled anti-air instead of towed anti-air. If you are the Soviet Union about to invade Finland though, you can build up the overland transportation system enough to make the needed substitutions in some divisions without causing major supply problems, and 7.0 kilometers per hour is then not speed overkill for your tank hull designs. Furthermore, near the southern coast of Finland are some plains regions. Adding in a tank recon company to one or two of the re-worked divisions, and also substituting cavalry for infantry, then results in your having one or two speed-enhanced 7 kilometer per hour cavalry divisions that can race through 80 kilometers or so of coastal plains in just 12 hours if undefended by Finland. Cavalry draws much less fuel than a corresponding division design with motorized, reducing strain on the possibly combat-damaged overland transportation system, and although a 7 kilometer per hour tank speed with recon for cavalry only barely outraces the infantry analogue division design in forest and jungle, outside of forest and jungle, an overall tank speed of 7 kilometers per hour (and a 7.7 kilometers per hour special case for light tanks) can actually enhance the base speed of cavalry beyond the cavalry base speed of 6.4 kilometers per hour. With 7 kilometers per hour tank design speed, you thus also attain the beginnings of a tank design speed that can be useful for cavalry divisions. Short version: There can be situations in some countries, especially jungle countries, where a tank design speed of more than 5 1/2 kilometers per hour is not worthwhile for a number of years after the game start year of 1936.

[@wendydelisse9778]

Correction: Oil-poor jungle countries are especially prone to not being able to make use of faster tanks. If you are playing as oil-poor Brazil, you can't afford the oil to replace your towed anti-tank battalions with tank destroyer battalions. Towed anti-tank battalions get even more of a speed penalty in jungle than in forest. Of course, if you are playing as oil-rich Venezuela, you can afford the oil to have some army divisions with tank battalions instead of towed artillery battalions, and tank destroyer battalions instead of towed anti-tank battalions. Without towed battalions slowing you down to below infantry battalion speed in jungle and forest, tank design speeds of 7 kilometers per hour and greater then become worthwhile in jungle and forest and river regions, in order not to slow down the infantry battalions, and in order to be able to make use of cavalry battalions for greater than infantry battalion speed in forest and jungle.

[@firespark8455]

The Chester concession makes the chromium issue much less of an issue for the USA

[@Tref1366]

The only drawback it costs 25 army XP to add a TD

[@counterfactualgaming]

Yeah. Not my favorite thing in the game.

[@KenshiroPlayDotA]

17:39 : 9.36 IC for the cheap medium tank. *Laughs in IW Medium Tank with riveted armor, the cheapest turret and HMG as the only armament for less than 4 IC apiece, called the trash tank* *This* is the cheapest tank battalion one can get, and it serves a few purposes. As the U.S. in single player, putting 2 factories on the trash tank ASAP is enough to cover all my needs. If one wants to minimize manpower losses in garrisons, this should be the template (with the MP support company if you have army XP to spare), unless one goes really crazy and bumps the hardness even more with heavy or superheavy tanks. It's a medium tank that requires very little army XP and can be quickly produced, so armored divisions can train with those tanks early on. During wars, if the medium tank stockpile/production line isn't large enough to cope with losses, division stats quickly go down the drain as the medium tank battalions aren't at 100%. With the trash tank, at least the average medium tank stats in a division, which then affect the division stats as explained in the video, don't have to use zeros with inexistent tanks in the calculations. One thing I haven't checked yet is whether the AI wants to buy the trash tank. This could have serious implications, as it would boost construction speed of one's own factories, and if lucky, the AI may decide its medium tank stockpile is large enough for its needs and decide not to build actual combat worthy tanks, so making such a trade deal with say Germany as the U.S. would be ideal. For the TD battalion boosting the division's stats, I use it another way ; about 30% of my armored battalions are medium tanks with medium cannons and a good chunk of armor and breakthrough. The remaining 70% are medium TDs also with riveted armor, medium cannons and as many MGs as possible, so the division has as much soft attack as possible, decent armor from the tank battalions and decent hard attack and piercing from the TD battalions. Of course, works best with the AT gun techs and the Superior Firepower doctrine.

[@RedShocktrooperRST]

I'm curious as to if using Small Cannon II for the pen would be overkill in some form. Going with a Panzer III Ausf. E instead of a Panzer IV Ausf A.

[@counterfactualgaming]

Using Panzer IIIs? In HOI4? That's heresy! Seriously, you make a good point. I'd have to test it out.

[@GioMaverick]

the audio is too low

[@counterfactualgaming]

Is it just a little low, or should I crank it up 10-20 db?

[@GioMaverick]

20 would be nice Good work on the vids btw

[@counterfactualgaming]

@@GioMaverick Thanks. I'm still learning audio mixing. For example, this video was made with my tower on the floor because when it's on my desk, I get a weird hum on audio recorded from my mic. 🤷

[@Coid]

In general, it's probably easier to correct if you accidentally go a bit too loud, since it's easy for a listener to turn the volume on KZbin or their headset or phone or computer down but when a device is already on max volume, there isn't a way to make it louder without bringing in an additional speaker unit. @@counterfactualgaming

[@kellymcbright5456]

@@Coidyes

[@tijmenwillard2337]

Your cheap tank has 90% reliability. Might as well slap some extra ammunition on there. Extra breakthrough from a cost free module, I won't say no to that.

[@counterfactualgaming]

You know what? That's not a bad idea given the reliability of that vehicle.

[@CheefCoach]

This is how math is working. Tank chassis have some armor value as number. Than on that number is added things armor stats that are numbers, armored skirts are adding 2 or 3. Than that number is multiplying with sum of all percentages: armor ticks, armor type and sloped armor. So 25% is 25% on basically base stats. AI have division design goal hard coded in HOI4 code. It is in common/ai_templates folder. For example, Germany is programed to have 27 width infantry divisions with 9 infantry battalions and one artillery battalion, engineer, aa and arty company; and rest is filled based on stats criteria.

[@patrickhenry1249]

So what do you do if you primarily (or exclusively in my case since I normally play Germany and rivers and amphibious invasions are the bane of every Germany play through) use amphibious tanks? Do you make cheap Light amphibious / schwims and pair them with an up armoured medium amphibious in that case to really bring the cost down / get the most armour for your IC buck? I personally just bite the bullet and switch from schwims to Amphibious mediums with medium cannons for more piercing and soft attack (eventually). Because by the time I research amphibious drive and medium tanks I have the factories to just spam out a few thousand pretty quickly even if they are expensive(I always attack Poland and somebody else in ‘37). TL;DR what’s the best armoured marine division for your buck?

[@counterfactualgaming]

That's a tough question because we are not just talking about production cost but also research time. And there's special forces cap to consider. Consider the following tidbits: The amphibious light tank chassis is basically the same cost as the 1940 medium tank chassis, but it has light tank stats. Taking my cheap panzer and adding amphibious drive to it raises the cost by around 25%. Getting the amphibious drive requires two techs to research, one of which is a 1941 tech. Amphibious tanks use up special forces cap. There is a bonus to producing amtracs in the marine special forces tree. Keeping these things in mind, the difference in river crossings goes like this: Regular medium tanks with MOT with ENG support: -15% attack Regular medium tanks with AMTRACS and ENG Support: +5% attack Light amphibious tanks with AMTRACS and ENG Support: +35% attack Medium amphibious tanks with AMTRACS and ENG Support: +35% attack Note that depending on your mix of tanks and AMTRACs, the amphibious tanks might nearly double your use of special forces cap. My conclusion is that the terrible stats on light amphibious tanks make them not worth using in Barbarossa in1941. The mediums might be worth using, but I think tech rushing AMTRACs while skipping amphibious tanks entirely and pushing the special forces tree to boost the AMTRACs is a better idea.

[@patrickhenry1249]

@@counterfactualgaming Do engineers give 20% over rivers? Or is that from like pioneers or something down the marine special forces doctrines? P.S. I personally go all in for Schwims / Marine mechanized purely because it’s a lot cheaper production wise than doing both Tanks/Mechanized and Amphibious tanks/ Marine Mechanized. Since I’m normally micro’ing my tanks I always felt like it made more sense for fighting the USSR to have tanks that can cross those endless rivers and into Crimea easily, and then for invading Great Britain, or whoever. I also always pair this with Infantry with light tanks and/or Armoured recon instead of making lots of tank divisions since it doesn’t take much armour to beat the AI until about 1944-45. One light tank armoured recon with 9 armour ticks(about 40 armour) gives most infantry divisions (unless they are huge) about 7 armour. Making a line battalion of the same tank(and taking off the recon to save yourself tanks) nets about 17 which is super easy to achieve and has more armour than enemies piercing for most fights for a long time. P.P.S. I think it’s about 6.3 IC for 40 armour Light tanks and you need about 4000 of them for every division assuming you have around 80 I think. For 17 armour when most armies early have like less than 11 piercing it is pretty huge bang for your buck.

[@dominikobora5385]

Close support guns are honestly very niche. They are only any good for early light tanks. Later on you can get autocannon 2 which costs half the IC and no resources ( vs 1 steel for CSG ) and have 20 soft attack vs 25. If you are going to put close support guns on mediums, they cost the same IC as medium 1 howitzer which costs 1 steel and 1 tungsten more but has 10 more soft attack. Most nations have steel so only import you need is tungsten, if you are going to be paying minimum 8.5 IC for a medium then I think its a waste not using howitzer 1. I dont think there is a place for "cheap" mediums with CSG when you could do the same thing with light tanks for 2 IC less. At which point you go back to my first point which leaves CSG without a purpose. Also if you are going to be primarily defending then I would say get 1 man turrets and spend that IC on more tanks or more armor. You can convert later when you are going to be attacking more. If you are a minor in europe that is going to be defending against germany or soviets I nearly always go light tanks with basic AA, fixed super-structure and as much armor as I can. For 5 to 6 IC and only steel you get a tank that you can add to every infantry division that makes your divisions hard to pierce and with support AA can completely ignore enemy air. Later I make a proper division for attacking since cheap tanks are really far more useful for defense as you want to concentrate your forces while attacking.

[@leros6484]

Would you say the damage bonus you get when your armor is over twice the enemy piercing value worth the investment ? As you said, if most divisions have a piercing of 30 in 1940, is it worth the cost to have tank divisions with over 60 armors ?

[@counterfactualgaming]

In MP games, it's not. Stacking piercing is cheaper than stacking armor. Against the AI, 60 armor on panzers is doable and yields substantial dividends. With the added bonus that the first six months of any war is probably decisive in terms of losses. Even if you lose tanks during the first six months, you can probably keep units at near full strength using older models as the enemy simply runs out of good AA and AT guns.

[@leros6484]

@@counterfactualgaminggreat then I’ll make sure to make my tank divisions reach that amount of armor. Thanks a lot

[@counterfactualgaming]

@@leros6484You are quite welcome. 😀

[@ekonomija8718]

Hi ! I have a question : I noticed in your example division templates that you put light recon tanks as support. Is it worth replacing these light tanks with support flame tanks, to get more terrain bonuses ? Thanks !

[@arankoka]

light tanks give speed as any recon, flame tank fighting boni. u can use both.

[@DanGarcia-xd7qv]

Seems that there is a great debate upon how low reliability can go before it has detrimental affects. In the last DLCs, they insisted anything below 85% was to low. Now I see tanks with 65% to 70% reliability acceptable. Did something change in AAT? Or maybe, people always over shot reliability needs just because? It is an interesting discussion, but I have little clue how to answer the question, or devise a test to see how low, is to low. Maybe that is something a person like you can delve into.

[@BobbiusRossius]

reliability only really matters if your taking attrition which you can avoid easily, in MP pretty much everyone runs little to no reliability on tanks at all the only flaw of low reliability is less recovery rate but that's been bugged for over a year and doesn't matter

[@counterfactualgaming]

I plan on it. Part of the problem is that either modules are not working properly, or theater view may be lying as I've seen inconsistent results with reliability modifications. Reliability does matter (look at the attrition losses from my live streams), but how much reliability you need is a question with no clear answer right now.

[@JanHDD]

@@counterfactualgaming I think what he means is it doesn't matter in actual battles. Reliability only determines how many tanks you lose to attrition while walking around in bad terrain. I remember a video by 71cloak suggesting 85% limits the amount of attrition of tanks to the minimum while anything below 50% causes you to lose a lot. That being said if you can micro your tank movement to avoid going through bad terrain you can minimize your losses. Keep in mind if you railway them they don't get any attrition either

[@leros6484]

When 3 different battles happen under CAS range and if your air wing is just big enough to fulfill the combat width, does the air wing helps the 3 battles or one at a time ?

[@counterfactualgaming]

Wings can help multiple battles now. In older versions of HOI4, wings could only contribute to one battle. Now those planes can help any battle in range regardless of wings. If you see contradictory advice, it's probably just older advice getting passed around.

[@Coid]

Those are some amusing splash pages.

[@counterfactualgaming]

Thanks!

[@heffiagametech8094]

Thanks for making me think.

[@counterfactualgaming]

Some people might not think that is high praise, but I think it is a great complement. 😄

[@GreysonH98]

Agian ur videos are so awsome helping me min max hoi

[@counterfactualgaming]

You are quite welcome, Greyson! 😀

[@jaxkommish]

Thanks!

[@counterfactualgaming]

You are quite welcome.

[@bencom01]

Reliability in the 60's is fine? I always go for 100%, or at least 90% + maintenance companies. I can't even imagine how much attrition those guys would get in the soviet union. Also the medium cannon gives you breakthrough, so you can drop the radios. My go to (as a minor with limited resources) is to use very cheap tanks for breakthrough, 1 td if needed for piercing and armor, and sometimes I throw in two pimped 2 spa's for 60-70 soft attack each. spaa to buff the armor isnt bad either, since you only need one, gives you air attack and thats the smallest a battalion can get, so if I didn't need the extra piercing, I'd use spaa instead of td.

[@Nexsyana]

"When I am playing a minor" "I also have 3-4 armour production lines" Yeah no, you are gimping yourself, make a TD with an HMG turret while using SF as a doctrine, very versatile tank

[@davidshepherd8917]

You only get attrition when you’re moving over tiles that have attrition applied, such as mountains or marshes. You don’t get attrition on plains which is what most of the Eastern front is. This changes with mud and deep snow but realistically you can be smart about fighting in those conditions. It’s not the tank’s reliability that matters, it’s the divisions average reliability. A 60% reliability tank will be in a division of roughly 80% reliability so it doesn’t matter. As for SPG’s, it’s not really worth it. You can get less soft attack per combat width it uses up vs medium tanks or tank destroyers. And SPAA well again, 2 combat width and a separate line of production for the same stats a 1 width towed motorised anti air battalion could achieve. Not worth it.

[@bencom01]

@@Nexsyana yeah, and those production lines usually look like '5 on tanks, 1 on flame tanks, 1 on td, 1 on spa, 1 on spaa, 1 on lights (or armored cars if I use that for recon)' and since I dont have to deal with attrition, I don't need more to keep my divisions equipped. In fact, if I have too much surplus and I need my factories elsewhere, I might even drop some of them. Mind you, I dont spam panzer divisions like there is no tomorrow, i can beat the soviets as hungary with 4 in total, or even with two if I'm not trying to solo it. which isn't because I'm such an expert or anything, it's just that the AI is that bad. Sometimes I just go full infantry, and that works just fine. @davidshepherd8917 im pretty sure low supply also increases attrition, and yes, winter, mud, and pretty much everything else you meet in russia too. plains or not, i get less attrition while fighting italy in the alps than I do against the soviets. The average matters when calculating attrition, but if I have 400 tanks that lowers my average, and it is more likely that I lose a tank costing 20IC than a gun that costs 4, then it sure as hell matters to me. And yes, one can argue whats worth it per combat width and what not, but to be fair, it barely even matters anymore. When I feel like, I go with 20w tanks, when I feel like it, I go 30w, both goes through AI like hot knife through butter. If I want to optimize stats and not worry about armor, then 1 towed aa and 1 towed at is plenty enough, but if PDX gave us armor variants, I might as well use them.

[@Nerazmus]

Depends on the tank, imo. For a cheapo tank that you use in super marines or support companies? Sure. For main-line division tank? I'd want at least 80% But it also depends on your industry. If you have enough factories, you can get away with lower reliability.

[@mistertwo6113]

I like your style!

[@JasonWolfeYT]

I don’t get the point of extra cannons. It is a bigger cost % increase than soft attack % increase.

[@Ilya18]

More soft and hard attack per width.

[@counterfactualgaming]

@@Ilya18 That's pretty much the reason. Against humans, the extra hard attack will come in handy when clicking and counter-clicking enemy armor.

[@aomsinzana]

Reliability non existent here 😂

[@counterfactualgaming]

Been talking to the Panther's transmission again, eh? 😂

[@Sengyizhe]

Mans insane, he uses nato symbols

[@heisvi9317]

Another banger

[@counterfactualgaming]

Thanks!

[@icup8647]

You can't get 17 armor ticks in 1936 though?

[@counterfactualgaming]

I should have phrased that better. It's the 1936 light tank Germany starts with. You can just keep adding armor on it via armor upgrade techs instead of researching better tank models. And since you never change the chassis, you can retain most of your production efficiency every time you modify the design by adding armor ticks.

[@icup8647]

@@counterfactualgaming That makes more sense, thanks