Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Triumph & Tragedy» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Why you should use tanks. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
juerg haeberli
msg tools
I have read many posts complaining about the weakness of tanks.
I personally dont agree.

Lets look at the following mathematical example.

You want to attack a 3 step inf unit wit 2 3 step ground units.
What ubits should you use ?

2 inf take 1.5 hits and do 2.25 damage.
2 tank take 0.5 hits and do 2 damage.
tank and inf take 1 hit and do 2.5 hits.

This shows that a mixed inf tank attacker hits hardest on offense.
Only tank attacker have the best chances to take a space without losses if the numerical superiority is high enough if it attacks inf only.

Practical example

You as the Russian want to take Persia in one stroke if possible.
Best way to do it is seting up a tank and an inf in Baku and building an inf in Turkmenistan.
Now you attack Teheran with all 3 units ( after building them up to 3 steps ) and have an excellent chance to take Teheran and Persia in one swift stroke with only 3 units.

The strat. move of 6 for tanks is an added bonus.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mbmb
haeberich wrote:
I have read many posts complaining about the weakness of tanks.
I personally dont agree.

Lets look at the following mathematical example.

You want to attack a 3 step inf unit wit 2 3 step ground units.
What ubits should you use ?

2 inf take 1.5 hits and do 2.25 damage.
2 tank take 0.5 hits and do 2 damage.
tank and inf take 1 hit and do 2.5 hits.



Your example is right, but your conclusion is wrong...

Tweak the example and use a defending ARM-3 vs. either attacking INF-3/INF-3 OR INF-3/ARM-3.

2 INF-3 take 1 hit and do 2.5 hits
INF-3/ARM-3 takes 1 hit and do 2.16 (assuming hit is taken on attacking ARM-3)

Same thing is true for a defending fortress.

Armor doesn't shoot at airplanes and doesn't shoot at navy.

It's useful, but overall infantry is better... Especially once you get motorized infantry.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
Thank you for proving my point by using a defending arm.

You are right against fortresses inf is better.

The motorized inf is an inprovment but it costs time and ic and you need luck.

I dont think inf is better than arm or the other way round.
You need both to get the most out of your troops.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mbmb
haeberich wrote:
Thank you for proving my point by using a defending arm.

You are right against fortresses inf is better.

<snip>.


I didn't "prove your point," I refuted it by providing a counter example that showed they ARE weaker (on attack) (in my example). Don't confuse the statement
1) Tanks are weaker than Infantry (which I believe), with
2) Tanks are useless (which I never said and don't believe)

Let me restate it.
The example you picked (defending infantry) is the ONLY example where attacking armor gets a minor combat advantage. In *any* other case (defending forts, tanks, AF, carriers, navy, etc) attacking with 2 infantry is superior to attacking with 1 tank, 1 infantry.

ARM Advantages
1) moves 3 (this advantage disappears once you get Motorized Inf)
2) shoots prior to INF

INF Advantages
1) shoots better at ground (G3 vs G2)
2) shoots better at air (A1 vs A0)
3) shoot better at navy (N1 vs N0)

Armor has utility, I'm not denying it.
Other armor advantages:
1) The extra move is often (but not always) useful in getting extra units into a fight.
2) On defense as a "forward picket" (air also works for this), it can slow an enemy attack and retreat before attacking INF/ARM gets to fire.
3) On attack a decent armor force can clean out a weak infantry before it can retreat.

However in the balance, IMHO infantry is significantly better. We will probably have to agree to disagree...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
juerg haeberli
msg tools
We are not so far apart.
The main body of the ground army should be inf with a good dose of armor ready to be used if opportunity arises.
The dominance of inf is what makes the arm so interersting in many environments.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Classy Andrew
United States
Maplewood
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
haeberich wrote:
We are not so far apart.
The main body of the ground army should be inf with a good dose of armor ready to be used if opportunity arises.
The dominance of inf is what makes the arm so interersting in many environments.


astute. tanks can be effectively employed to flank border limits (situational but powerful), screen infantry, or attack infantry en-mass (so as to kill but avoid loss, if luck holds).

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Besinque
Canada
New Denver
BC
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
au4236 wrote:
haeberich wrote:
We are not so far apart.
The main body of the ground army should be inf with a good dose of armor ready to be used if opportunity arises.
The dominance of inf is what makes the arm so interersting in many environments.


astute. tanks can be effectively employed to flank border limits (situational but powerful), screen infantry, or attack infantry en-mass (so as to kill but avoid loss, if luck holds).



Bingo.

Craig
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmb
Historically, the nations of WW2 built many times more infantry units than armor units. The counter argument is that an armor division was more expensive than an infantry division. In triumph and tragedy the cost of each unit is the same. So an armor unit in the game represents a lot less soldiers than an infantry unit. Let's assume that a block represents 5 armor divisions or 10 infantry divisions. So the game is saying that 10 infantry divisions is slightly better than 5 armor divisions. Maybe. Tough call.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Moody
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Tanks have very situational advantages. Early on, when most attacks are against neutral fortresses you want infantry, and this tends to be the first ground units built.

Personally I prefer a 1 CV armor unit as my land screen over an air unit. The more so when DoW surprise is anticipated. The attacker will almost always be sending in air, but the border limits will generally be infantry, so the tank, even with surprise, gets away.

Key area where tanks have it over infantry is the Med. I prefer a tank in Tripoli so the Axis can hit either Algiers or Suez in one move. Generally supported by Italian fleets.

Also the West, when possible, should on occasion build tanks in Suez. They can surprise a Soviet incursion into Persia headed for India. Been there and done that.

The Soviets can make use of larger tank forces to counter attack in Russia. At least one such force centrally located can react in every key direction, north, south or west.

But then builds are always done to taste and in support of your playing style. :-)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I still think some kind of blitzkrieg option for mechanized units is required. Thats so gamey that you can use the rules to shoot and scoot with a single tank as above, and not even try to use them as historically intended...to breakthrough and encircle the enemy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Szarka
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
When it is your turn to send a VASSAL move, the wait is excruciating. When it's my turn, well, I've been busy.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Talonz wrote:
I still think some kind of blitzkrieg option for mechanized units is required. Thats so gamey that you can use the rules to shoot and scoot with a single tank as above, and not even try to use them as historically intended...to breakthrough and encircle the enemy.


I think the "mobile defense" was not unknown in WW2.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mcszarka wrote:
Talonz wrote:
I still think some kind of blitzkrieg option for mechanized units is required. Thats so gamey that you can use the rules to shoot and scoot with a single tank as above, and not even try to use them as historically intended...to breakthrough and encircle the enemy.


I think the "mobile defense" was not unknown in WW2.


There is no counterattack here. This is not a mobile defence, but a 'creative' use of a game mechanism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean McCormick
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Talonz wrote:
mcszarka wrote:
Talonz wrote:
I still think some kind of blitzkrieg option for mechanized units is required. Thats so gamey that you can use the rules to shoot and scoot with a single tank as above, and not even try to use them as historically intended...to breakthrough and encircle the enemy.


I think the "mobile defense" was not unknown in WW2.


There is no counterattack here. This is not a mobile defence, but a 'creative' use of a game mechanism.


The use of Panzer divisions as mobile fire brigades to cover withdrawals on the Eastern Front actually meshes fairly well with this (although it would be done on a far smaller scale).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Precisely. If the tank unit stands alone and then retreats, it is not a mobile defence at all on the scale you refer to, but simply a gamey play of a loophole.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Quirky One
msg tools
haeberich wrote:


You as the Russian want to take Persia in one stroke if possible.
Best way to do it is seting up a tank and an inf in Baku and building an inf in Turkmenistan.
Now you attack Teheran with all 3 units ( after building them up to 3 steps ) and have an excellent chance to take Teheran and Persia in one swift stroke with only 3 units.

The strat. move of 6 for tanks is an added bonus.


Actually the best tactic is to place and upgrade a tank in Urals and use an inf and another tank from Baku. Then build another inf to take losses and make an amphibious invasion with it. And if you have the builds and a good spring action card, get some extra AF in there as well.

The problem is of course that units from Britain can go for the oil fields and occupy them for free, should Teheran hold for one battle. So move back to back over two seasons, add extra AF to make sure you have maximum odds or place an extra INF to occupy the oil fields yourself and take your time with Teheran or take a chance and risk the oil fields.

I'm not completely sure, but I don't think you can occupy (or rather raid) the oil fields with an AF - as a "picket" to hold off the British. It is enemy territory without troops so it can't be raided. Or is that rule only for colonies and Great power home turf? Either way it takes as many builds and move cards to use another ground troop to do it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andras Libal

Klausenburg
Transylvania
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Another advantage of using tanks for attack in Persia is to completely deny any partitioning from the first stroke. Once you control the land border with Karachi the Brits have to declare war on you to take it.

From the Allied side having an Armor in India makes sense in a similar way denying the otherwise empty territory next to Baku for partitioning (in case Tehran does not fall right away). A bonus advantage of an Armor in India is that you have one more left to build in Britain ... I keep finding that the Brits/Allies are usually a bit short on Inf blocks especially if they try not to invest a lot in French units that can be lost or the US is not in yet.

Armor can nullify Rocket Inf advantage as well - it's really hard to fight against an adversary that has that Tech when you're lacking it, at that point having Tanks becomes much more necessary.

Overall they are more useful in a combined attack force vs Infantry defense where they fire first and then take hits from the defenders instead of the attacking Infantry so that the Inf takes less hits and has more punch remaining, as it was pointed out already.

3 pip Inf + 4 pip armor vs 6 pip inf in defense
4 pip armor fires first, causing 1.33 damage
now the defending 4.66 inf fire back causing 2.33 damage
Armor can take 2 hits Infantry takes the 0.33
now the 2.66 infantry fires causing 1.33 damage
defenders are left with 3.33 infantry
attackers still have 2 pip armor and 2.66 inf
locked into combat with 3.33 defending inf
---
next turn no reinforcements arrive
2 pip armor fires causing 0.66 damage
1.66 defending infantry fires causing 0.83 damage
this all can be absorbed by armor - 1.17 armor remains
2.66 infantry fires for 1.33 damage
- defending infantry remaining: 0.33
- attackers remaining: 1.17 armor and 2.66 infantry


Same attack with 7 pip inf vs 6 pip inf defense
6 pip defense fires causing 3 damage 4 pip infantry remains
4 pip infantry fires causing 2 damage
4 in vs 4 inf remain locked in combat
---
next turn no reinforcement arrive
4 pip defensive inf fires for 2 damage
2 pip attacking inf fires for 1 damage
- defending infantry remaining: 3
- attackers remaining: 1 infantry
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.