It is generally quite expensive but altogether a better choice than motorized in every way in offensive combat. This comes at higher costs and slower speeds in the earlier models (though NSB allows variants which can compensate). Under normal (major nation) circumstances you are in 95% of all battlefield cases much better served by the tank, both have comparable costs/production times (the destroyer even uses more Tungsten). Mechanized infantry can be considered motorized infantry with higher attack, hardness, breakthrough, and some armour. I have never seen even the Soviet Union building better than light tank II in 1941/42 in 8 game starts a Germany. Plus you have to worry about conserving fuel for your airplanes and ships. Heavy tanks will just drain the hell out of your fuel storage, and thus you gotta trade. Look at the piercing value of the tank destroyer - it is MUCH higher than the one of the tank on which chassis the tank destroyer is built.īut said condition will only apply to minors starting way backwards. Answer (1 of 7): Not in the current meta, withe MtG, where Fuel is an important resource for your country. Yes, in exactly one situation: The enemy fields tanks a class higher than yours. Originally posted by egp_2401:So I am producing medium tanks to make them my main tank but I saw the tank destroyer variant and researched it, I see that the breaktrhough value(I am talking about the first medium tank for Germany)is MUCH lower and soft attack is also quite lower, I want to use tanks as independent units that do not neccesarly need infantry support, so are tank destroyers worth producing?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |