Tanks

[EUBanana]

Well, I normally go for assault troops as the V Weapon of WW1, and very effective they are too, if rather expensive in the arms cost.

Last game I thought I'd try tanks out instead, so I diligently researched those instead - got tanks up to level 2 before close of play.

I did even use them!

Buuuut.

They are crap. So crap as to be almost useless it seems. Although I liked the cool counter picture for them more than the assault troops picture, they are

a) one shot
b) hardly war winning, I didn't really notice much difference in results from usual
c) inordinately expensive, given a)

I assumed at first it was because I was using naff experimental tanks so doggedly persisted, but nope, even when I got it up to 2 they were still as effective as a chocolate fireplace.


Am I missing something here? A tank starts out with a strength of 1, 2 or 3 depending on tech. I tried to refit them but with no joy, even apparently damaged tanks don't cycle on the refit menu. If you can't fix them or upgrade their strength they seem a bit pointless, in a fight you'll lose the lot.

Or am I missing something and is there a way to increase the numbers?

Bleah. I'm sticking to the stormtroopers in PBEM I think!

[SteveD64]

Just read a book on WWI (imagine that!) and the author claimed that tanks were "hardly a decisive, war winning weapon".  He wasn't very impressed with them.  I've never actually researched them or assault troops as I was knocked out midway through 1917 in my only campaign game.  But tanks for the comments [:'(]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Just read a book on WWI (imagine that!) and the author claimed that tanks were "hardly a decisive, war winning weapon". He wasn't very impressed with them. I've never actually researched them or assault troops as I was knocked out midway through 1917 in my only campaign game. But tanks for the comments [:'(]

They weren't war winning, and needed to be used as part of a proper combined arms doctrine which only began to be formed in the last three or four months of the war, but they certainly got results at Cambrai and Amiens.

Vehicles in general did pretty good at Amiens - they even used armoured cars to rush forward through the hole torn in the front and harass the retreating Germans and prevent them from rallying, one guy managed to shoot up their HQ. [:D]

It is an observation though that far as the game is concerned research is better spent on assault troops rather than tanks, IMHO.

[SteveD64]

Yeah, I guess the question is what's the point in buying tanks?  If I ever last long enough in my campaign games I might be able to contribute an answer.  [:)]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Yeah, I guess the question is what's the point in buying tanks? If I ever last long enough in my campaign games I might be able to contribute an answer. [:)]

Assault troops are really war winning, level 2 assault troops ignore trenches completely. [:D].

I'll have those over tanks any day...

[FrankHunter]

Tanks aren't the greatest weapon at Level 1 but they do get better.  Level 3 tanks will ignore trenches up to Level 3 and treat Level 4 trenches as if they were level 1.  They also have roughly a 50% chance of destroying a level of trench (Level 1 tanks have a 25% chance).  Level 2 Assault troops don't destroy trenches, they just ignore them.

Tanks also only count as 1 stacking point compared to 3 for Assault troops.  Of course this being WW1 they are often a one shot item.

They are also a lot cheaper to build in terms of manpower albeit much more expensive in arms points.  For a country with lots of production and low manpower reserves facing extensive enemy trenches they are probably the better deal versus assault troops.