Jump to content

Best / Worst Use of Armor


Winterhawk

Recommended Posts

I was hoping to get some feedback as to what everyone's experiences have been using Tank Groups. Without a more comprehensive manual to detail the modifiers such as terrain, readiness, unit level, etc., it falls to common sense and previous wargame experience to assist you in your decisions as to when, where, how, and even under whom to deploy your armor. Why is never an issue, cause tanks just plain rock.

I've had my own experiences in-game thus far, and I've been met with a few surprises. What have been your observations as to the best / worst use of armor in SC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are good for the movement range they posess, though the actual attack value isn't extraordinary.

You can surround a city such as Smolensk or Kiev and stop the Russians from building those pesky corps. Sometimes you can get through and knock out an air unit or damage an HQ behind the lines.

I'm going tp try a game where I build only armies and sell off my tanks... And we'll see if tanks are really needed in SC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have found that they dont do so well attacking cities, duh. Like Manteuffel said, best use is to exploit a breakthrough with their movement range. France is very constricted but tanks should really come into their own on the steppes of Old Mother Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best use is flanking assaults and pincering invading forces. Taking resources and hitting airfleets (when possible) are also good uses for armor.

The worst is to leave them on partisan duty, or gaurding cities and resources. Thats what corps are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctrine and history have proven that a tank truly comes into it's own in wide open spaces, where it's firepower and maneuverability can be exploited to the full. Yet in SC, I'm not so sure about the less than obvious uses. Neither am I convinced that any one situation provides the tank with a significant advantage.

My armor has experienced, for example, tremendous successes in forested terrain against entrenched armies. Unusual? Perhaps. Too I don't hesitate to throw them against a city where their effect is not indifferent to an attacking infantry unit.

I have to admit that I haven't sat with pen and paper in hand and tested this out to any conclusive degree, but casual observation has demonstrated that Tank Groups are neither weak nor powerful, regardless of the situation. They're just there.

[ July 25, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Winterhawk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armored group success in attacking units that are entrenched, in forested terrain, in cities, etc. can probably be explained by the fact that the armored groups include divisions of mobile infantry, panzer grenadiers, etc. It seems armies still have a slight edge over armored groups in assaulting cities though, as they should.

One area that I noticed armored groups are very inefective compared to the armies and corps is in attacking into the Priapet (sp?) marshes in western USSR, as they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hit 'em a few times with Air Fleets and Armies first, until their entrenchment level is zero. After that the tanks don't seem to have any more problems due to terrain than anyone else.

Just a casual observation. As Winterhawk said, I haven't actually sat down and taken notes, but it seems to work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it seems as if tank groups get a greater penalty for attacking entrenched defenses. So if you use armies to soften up first, and finish them of with tank groups you should get the best results.

Tank groups are also good for counter attacks, and exploiting penetrated lines, just don't run to far ahed of your airsupport and HQ;s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...