Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jenska

Bazookas can be more effective than AT in some circumstances, but head-to-head they don't do so in simple situations.

You have to keep in mind the difference in HP's and attack/defense strengths for each unit as well as the cost. At 1000 production units, you get ONE AT or 4 Bazookas. Thats 200 HP's vs 600, 1800 defense vs 1600, but only 600 attack vs 1000. Now armor has different A/D values against infantry vs artillery, but by putting some rifles or militia in the mix the bazookas survive longer than you might expect and you should ALWAYS have some infantry in an AT formation otherwise you lose the REAR area advantage of the AT units.

Some other items to keep in mind:
1. If you want to go on the offense against armor bazookas DO NOT have a terrain penalty, so the 1000 attack is still 1000, but the AT gets reduced to 300 or even 150 if you're not on the plains
2. You can buy 250, 500 or 1500 points worth of bazookas all at once, but not AT's, they're 1000 each.
3. Horses may not be expensive, but one horse carries 2500 bazooka attack and 4000 defense and 1500 hit points (cost 2700 prod, 10 raw), roughly the same cost (2400/10) gets you 2 horses and 2 AT's for 600 attack, 3600 defense and 400 hit points.
4. Bazookas entrench twice as fast as AT's
5. AT's have a higher defense initiative, but they have the same offensive intitiative.
6. Bazookas are FRONT line units, ATs are REAR

IMO - AT's are best in a static or slow moving situation, either to slow an advance or consolidate gains. Bazookas are better suited to a faster advance or to cover a rapid retreat.

I'm going to be experimenting with several interesting unit mixes soon, so I may start some new threads focusing on them.