How to treat heavy armor battles
#1
10 years ago
Brandley2…
Volunteer ModeratorPosts: 1,043
There is a lot of discussion on the balance feedback section about the asymmetrical balance between soviet and Nazi armor. I have had some success in treating battles this way when they are strictly tank to tank (as soviets)
Imagine you're playing a game of chess. The German player has only 1 queen. Powerful versatile and can easily beat anything that isn't also a queen
The soviets however have two knights. Not as powerful or useful but certainly can protect each other.
If these two knights split up and do not stay within their L shaped movement of one another the queen can quickly pick one of them off without the other knight being able to turn around and kill the queen.
In all its really a battle of who engages first on what ground.
To get away from the chess metaphor lets show you an example.
A single IS-2 will not win against a single Tiger (assuming all things are equal, such as equal ground, both tanks fire their first shot at the exact same moment, there are no infantry or other weapons, and against front armor and all shots hit)
However, If that IS-2 had even the lowly T-34/76 by its side against a single tiger. The tiger probably would have a difficult time destroying the IS-2 because of the extra damage and just the threat of ram.
Please don't yell at me about the current balance and the stats of each individual tank. That is not the purpose of this post (which is why it is in strategy discussion)
This is to discuss how this current design of armor battles where either side can win but it all depends on how they fight it and when they attack.
In conclusion I ask you how you treat armor battles. I'm interested to see what the community likes to do on a strategic level ^_^
Imagine you're playing a game of chess. The German player has only 1 queen. Powerful versatile and can easily beat anything that isn't also a queen
The soviets however have two knights. Not as powerful or useful but certainly can protect each other.
If these two knights split up and do not stay within their L shaped movement of one another the queen can quickly pick one of them off without the other knight being able to turn around and kill the queen.
In all its really a battle of who engages first on what ground.
To get away from the chess metaphor lets show you an example.
A single IS-2 will not win against a single Tiger (assuming all things are equal, such as equal ground, both tanks fire their first shot at the exact same moment, there are no infantry or other weapons, and against front armor and all shots hit)
However, If that IS-2 had even the lowly T-34/76 by its side against a single tiger. The tiger probably would have a difficult time destroying the IS-2 because of the extra damage and just the threat of ram.
Please don't yell at me about the current balance and the stats of each individual tank. That is not the purpose of this post (which is why it is in strategy discussion)
This is to discuss how this current design of armor battles where either side can win but it all depends on how they fight it and when they attack.
In conclusion I ask you how you treat armor battles. I'm interested to see what the community likes to do on a strategic level ^_^
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
I always do my best to be at max range with my SU-85 and Panther (unless my Panther is up against a SU-85).
Conscripts and Field Guns are in my opinion the core of any Soviet army.
personally in 1v1's i use T34/76's in combination with ZIS AT guns... since most germans usually go for T3 armor. using true sight to flank german tanks.. If a tiger comes along... again using truesight to get to its flank to ram it, works well.