I just want to point out we're probably disagreeing because of contrasting views on how the game should be played, with your goal being to simplify/standardize each system as much as possible, whereas I try and specialize/extrapolate them in a balanced way instead.
I see it like this:
To me, you're turning Chess into Draughts (Checkers)
[oversimplifying]
To you, I'm turning Draughts (Checkers) into Chess
[overcomplicating]
However there's nothing wrong with either, as they are born of different ideals/intentions, all of which have valid points
With that said, onto my responses
the interwar medium chassis is just as good as the 1936 light chassis, save for 2kmph less speed (negligible, speed barely matters) 35% less base reliability (also doesn't matter), and .9 IC more cost. in exchange you get tanks that simply by merit of 2 secondary turrets and medium tier turrets - even before you unlock medium cannons/howitzers - will grant better stats for cost than lights.
(...)
I guess your gripe is that you feel speed is too expensive on the interwars, and you can't really "convince" someone that speed isn't useful.
To me, speed and reliability are both important, and trying to shoehorn both onto a IW Medium is expensive IMO
Speed
is useful, because of the greater capability to react to changing/unexpected circumstances it provides. It may seem redundant (and may eventually turn out to be so), but that is forgivable when viewed as a contingency plan (one I am personally thankful to have)
Reliability is good because it allows you to keep a tank in service longer. Having reliable designs means that even after fighting, more will go into surplus when new tanks are produced; a surplus that can be committed to training more divisions or kept in reserve for quickly rejuvenating particularly battered divisions
no tactic is worth designing a division around IMO
The Combat Tactics (Blitz and Breakthrough) are simply tools used to enhance the more influential 'Player Tactic' of blitzkrieg
The ability to exploit openings made in enemy frontlines by break
out attacks, following them through in break
through pushes, can lead to encirclements or forcing your opponent to react, which I'd say it is rather worth it.
but if you insist on it, it is STILL better to get 51% hardness with fewer, cheaper interwar mediums than with even 1936 lights.
As you mentioned a paragraph ago, IW Mediums are slow and unreliable.
Being slow means they can't benefit from the tactics as much (+50% movement in combat doesn't do as much to 4km/h compared to 9km/h), and less reliability means they get hit harder by attrition in any form, particularly low supply, which is very detrimental in prolonged offensives
So while you can reach the hardness threshold with IW Mediums (which may be cheaper and have better offensive stats), they don't benefit from the tactics (the reason you want to surpass the threshold) to the same extent as their contemporary basic/improved Light counterparts, or even later Mediums
All I'll say, as unconvincing as it probably is, is that there is a reason MP tank designs have gone from targeting 8kmph to 4 over the past few years... if speed isn't worth the premium against competent opponents, it really isn't worth it against the AI who will let you walk circles around them with infantry.
Even a competent opponent slips up, and that's where speed matters
Speed doesn't have to be worth a 'premium'; you use Lights to get it in the early game, and swap to Mediums when they have better base speed later on. You think it's worth a premium because as I said before, you're trying to shoehorn it where it isn't meant to be
You can encircle AI with infantry, but not to the same degree that you can with fast divisions. Practicing with fast divisions also prepares you for both SP and MP
Like I mentioned at the beginning, the MP vision is around simplicity and standardization (Checkers over Chess), and that means they would naturally lean more into the 'Infantry Tank' philosophy of tank design/use, instead of 'blitzkrieg'
You also can absolutely have good 8kmph interwars but at that point your cost is about the same as a light tanks' for most stats, and I'll give that in that case the lights' reliability, being the only real difference, puts them ahead slightly.
8km/h is the universal standard because of Mech I, but it should by no means be considered the fastest you should aim for. Lights can reach 10 and still have decent stats, and with some clever template design your divisions can reach >50% hardness before even getting Mech, making a 1939 blitzkrieg possible
I don't think you really need to care about 51% hardness for the purposes of tactics rolls, they're an afterthought.
I feel like people don't give them enough credit, even if it's probably deserved; I just want to believe that they can/could be useful
Tactics rolls (outside of guerilla tactics spam on the defensive) are really not that reliable or impactful compared to the default options anyway.
They can be, or at least they should. The pick rate of Blitz specifically can be reliably boosted quite a lot:
- National Preference
- Field Marshall Preference
- General Preference
- Panzer Leader Trait
- Reconnaissance Initiative
Once it starts being picked often, I'm confident it can be considered impactful
The speed bonus they both provide is also instrumental in performing break
through pushes and closing encirclements against unprepared forces (Either behind the frontline or the frontline itself from the flank), compared to break
out attacks against established frontlines
Breakthrough, the best offensive tactic for tanks, only requires 50% hardness if your general doesn't have a skill advantage.
You can't always guarantee a skill advantage, and if you have Blitz appear more often through the method mentioned above, Breakthrough essentially becomes the critical hit, boosting the stats slightly.
Being pedantic, but both tactics require
over 50% hardness, so the minimum is 51%
Reliability also doesn't matter if you play smart and don't send your tanks to attack through the mountains or in the snow. If you're not taking attrition, your reliability doesn't matter.
Depending on the circumstance, you
can't play smart. There's only so much you can plan for, and depending on how varied your theatre of war is, making a chunk of your army season/region-locked (moreso than normal) really limits your possibilities. Mountains, fine; you always know about them because they don't move (shocker), and you shouldn't use tanks on mountains anyway.
But what happens if a tile suddenly turns to mud? Or the heat/snow goes on longer than you can wait? One slip-up and 'Woops!' you lose half a tank division, putting it out of commission for however long it takes to replenish them.
You'll also take small amounts of attrition from things like supply shortages, which if you're making deep pushes can bite you hard if you have low reliability
Just as an aside, I'm probably against using low reliability in large quantities so much because to me, even if it can be made to work in the current version, it isn't how it is/was intended to work.
It goes against the
spirit of the game; what the devs consider when creating/balancing things, and what players should think of first when they learn the mechanics
To end this batch, what are your thoughts on Self-Propelled Arty? Do you see value in using it as your primary source of Soft Attack, taking some weight off the mainline tanks? I know people get uppity about the combat width
