To Stack? Or to Reap? That is the question

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

I've been having some second thoughts lately on wheter tank reapers is really worth it. Perhaps I'm not seeing enough armor as of late but I hardly ever have an AT issue. I played a game where I invested almost all of my MU into weapon upgrades and it felt to me that it gave me a huge edge with BAR & Nades running amuck. Can I hear some opinions on AT reapers and Stacked players from previous wars? My frist choice was AT reapers when i saw it last war, but now I seem to need more of a strong AI presence with the amount of infantry that is fielded now a days.

[fldash]

In my opinion as a player, Axis being able to rely on Shreks and PAKs as their AT makes their need to use a tank small except in dire circumstances.  Last night, when Jebus and I played Nick and you.  We still had 2 Panthers in reserve we never even used...

[salan]

In my opinion as a player, Axis being able to rely on Shreks and PAKs as their AT makes their need to use a tank small except in dire circumstances.  Last night, when Jebus and I played Nick and you.  We still had 2 Panthers in reserve we never even used...

i was finding that more and more it was more benificial to use tanks only for anti infantry and my ammunition to be based on anti tank.   Ostwinds and puma's are an insanely effecient way to deal with allied infantry, until the allies start hitting tier 4 and get their buffs to antitank (increased range on rrs, raid assault, next gen vehicles, duel rocket racks, tank reapers)   at which point ostwinds are just mince.

I have also been attempting the 10 stug swarm rather then buying anti infantry tanks and putting my ammunition into anti infantry, lmg,mp40s, flamers.  The ostwinds and pumas most definitely raise the k/d ratio and allow me a much easier attrition rate vrs the allies.   while having enough pak/shreks to stop the swarm of shermans can sometimes be an issue when dealing with mass crocs.


all that said, without some form of tank anti tank you are at the mercy of calliope's and no heavy crush.  Also the psychological issue of a  heavy tank is lost.

[salan]

to the original poster...

  Stacked is a over all useful ability.  It allows your troops to vet faster by allowing them abilities that cause more dmg to enemies.

It provides you with versatility where tank reapers specializes you into 1 field.

I know that this is last war, and stacked actually has a buff since this point.  at 55% ammo and 4% manpower, this is the type of force you COULD be fielding ...  as well as pricing changes.

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

Thank you Salan, I still am unsure though I guess I'll have to wait till I get closer and see how many tanks are appearing on the field.

[Tkaudi]

Thank you Salan, I still am unsure though I guess I'll have to wait till I get closer and see how many tanks are appearing on the field.

it all varies on the players.. some spam 7-10 stugs , some will use 5 ostwinds and a few stugs, some will use a heavy tank and fewer support..  Tanks win fights though.. never be found without enough AT either way you go.

[ZOMGZombies]

This is one of those difficult questions of specializing or not specializing.  I think a lot of it depends on how confident you are that whoever you play with can take care of the anti-infantry side of things.  If you have tank reapers you will totally negate Axis armor, and will be able to snipe MGs out of buildings (and blow up said buildings) with ruthless efficiency, but you'll still be standard in the anti-infantry / support department.

Stacked is going to make your company all around more capable, because that decrease in munitions cost can translate to BARs, SMGs, sticky bombs, another ATG, AP rounds, etc. 

So the question is do you want to maintain your balance and improve both sides of your company (AT/AP), or do you want to specialize and rely on your allies to take care of the anti-infantry side of things?