To upgrade tanks or not?

[GaryChildress]

I had a PZ IV in the Norway campaign and it didn't accomplish a whole lot. So I'm wondering, I have two Pz IIIFs and a PZII, should I upgrade them to IVs for the Low Countries campaign? There is a lot of open territory on this map, great for tank warfare, but are tanks in PC up to the task? Should I invest in a 4th tank for this scenario?

If I skip a turn on upgrades I would save some money for the next battle. I probably really didn't need to upgrade my tanks in the Norway campaign. They really didn't do much of anything. Basically I could have kept the 2 PZIs as a clean up crew and saved the price of the two PZIIIs. Now if I upgrade the IIIs to IVs I would have payed double the price than if I had not upgraded to IIIs and simply skipped from Is to IVs. [:@]

This is really annoying. I feel like my tanks are little more than a money pit. Probably better to invest in infantry and back them up with plenty of artillery and I'd be fine.

[krupp_88mm]

keep the panzer III's they have better anti armor stats for now, and against france your going to need it, the IV's are better against infantry at present

you may not know this but upgrading tanks along the III path and the IV path you only have to pay for the price difference which is small, ye a 4th tank is a good idea for france or even a fifth but make sure you have a recon, 6-8 infantry, 4-6 artillery, then if you have extra get a tank, at lest thats the canned by the book plan, or if you dont want too much armor you could always use stukas instead

also i might add i think this feature of upgrade less the difference is cool but takes away form the diversity of the game i think the cost to upgrade should be more than just the difference in price, otherwise i have little incentive to keep my old equipment and lal my tanks look the same, this was certainly not the case in war, many different tnank types were used, even only panzers, i would like the upgrades to cost more than just the difference, it would require the player to be more judicious with upgrades and add diversity in units

also this isnt a good thread for this but i just noticed the difference in quality between 50m and 75mm anti tank guns i negligible was this really the case? i thought the 75mm at gun was alot better than the 50.. i thought they called that the doorknocker

[Greybriar]

For the Norway scenario, I would buy a Fallschirmjäger (paratrooper) instead of a tank.

[zoul310]

Until late 1942 the Pz III is your best bet. Keep them and upgrade them until the J series with long barrel 50mm. They have the best ratio and AT capabilities. Then you can switch them to the PZ IV F2 which is the first with a long barrel 75mm. (You do just like history. When the potential of the PzIII was exhausted, PZ IV became the main battle Tank)

Your Pz II is useless. This is the one to change and upgrade to a III or IV.
My bet would be a core of 4 Pz III to go against tanks and 2 Pz IV that you use to finish off infantry or other soft targets (Artillery).

To Krupp88,
The "doorknocker" was the 37mm (PAK36).
PAK38 was close to the PAK40 because of the use of tungsten shells but very expensive to produce.
This game doesn't give much chance for towed AT guns anyway