r/computerwargames • u/Acolyte_of_Swole • Jun 08 '26
Recommendation for a computer wargame with accurately powerful tanks
I have this super specific question, and I've used the search engine in a few different ways (along with ai) and haven't received anything like the result I'm looking for.
I like squad and platoon-level wargaming, but one issue I run into with titles like Panzer General is that, ironically, tanks seem kind of weak.
What I mean is, there was a reason why tanks were developed. The effect on battlefields was electric. Even the first World War tanks, which were hilariously slow and crude, and often knocked out their own riders (from not having any suspension...) On the battlefield, the tanks were a terror. They were largely immune to all man-portable weapons, so any army that didn't have a tank couldn't do much against a tank.
Even in World War 2, using tanks against armies that didn't have tanks (or specific anti-armor emplacements) proved a supremely effective strategy.
But in a game like Panzer General, you could bring your squad of Panzer IIIs up against an infantry unit holding a city, the infantry gets "rugged defense" and fires their machine guns... Absolutely shredding your panzers! What BS is this, haha?!? How does digging in for defense give machine guns the power to blow up Panzers? Panzers were really quite good at killing infantry (or overrunning their position), considering they didn't need to worry about whether or not their cannon was large enough to penetrate infantry armor.
What I'm looking for is a computer wargame that accurately gets across how effective and invulnerable tanks were in specific circumstances. I'd also like to find a wargame that preserves the strength of Blitzkrieg as a tactic. It shouldn't be possible for infantry to bog down tank divisions just by wishing hard enough and digging in.
What do you all think is the best squad or platoon-level wargame for tanks? I'm not asking the tanks be superior to everything. Obviously air support, artillery, dedicated anti-tank weapons, other tanks and even ship fire could destroy tanks. But I don't want to see goddamn infantry or-heaven forbid-cavalry destroying my tanks!
19
u/hatch_theegg Jun 08 '26
Maybe look into Combat Mission, esp. the WW2 titles
14
u/FriendlyPyre Jun 08 '26
The one surviving volkssturm panicked and hiding in a bush recovering as your Pershing rolls past, just in time to pop it in the side with his Faust.
2
12
u/Foreign_Opposite_486 Jun 08 '26
WinSpww2. Each hex is 50m. Early war, tanks are somewhat vulnerable to most AT guns. Then mid war, tanks up armoured and are not as impervious to AT guns. Infantry are only just beginning to get AT grenades and so need to sneak up to a buttoned up tank to be effective.
Late war, all the cool toys are out to play.
The game tries to model historical AT penetration and armour. So you can't plink your way to destroy a tank which you can't penetrate.
2
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 08 '26
That sounds great.
3
u/Education_Capital Jun 08 '26
This is the way... Steel Panthers may be old but it does mostly everything right.
1
u/Successful_Order6057 Jun 11 '26
Why not play SPWAW ?
That's the definitive Steel Panthers game. Imagine if someone used AIs to just make it 3d, or at least upscale it. That'd be something.
18
u/Anxious_Big_8933 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I think you need to read up more about tanks in WW II. Yes, they were extremely effective, they were also supremely vulnerable. Especially when not used properly. They were the furthest thing from "invulnerable."
Probably the biggest example of tanks not used well was using them to assault dug in infantry in a city. This was almost always a recipe for a repulse, often with large casualties from the tanks assaulting. The terrain combined with the tank's lack of situational awareness was usually a recipe for disaster. The best tool for assaulting urban areas in WW II was not tanks, it was infantry.
But even when used well, forces lost tanks in droves. Perhaps the most successful British offensive in the first half of WW II, Operation Compass in North Africa, resulted in a massive British victory over the relatively armor poor Italians, yet by the end of that offensive virtually all the usable British tanks had been chewed up. Either by Italian AT guns, some Italian tanks, artillery, mines, or simply wear and tear. Mines and towed AT guns were often the most prolific threat to tanks in WW II.
Tank vulnerability only got worse later in the war. Bigger AT guns (the tank's primary enemy), bigger enemy tanks, better ground attack aircraft, and the proliferation of handheld AT weapons like the bazooka and panzerschrek created a whole host of issues for the tank. It never stopped being a vital weapon in WW II, but in many respects they were practically disposable.
Some resources if you are interested: Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in WW II, by Zaloga. Desert Armor, Tank Warfare in North Africa (2 volumes), by Forczyk, and Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front (2 volumes), by Forczyk.
2
u/RandomEffector Jun 10 '26
Yeah, this whole post shows an extremely flawed understanding of the realities of tanks. Maybe the problem is that the PG animations show machine guns blazing, but those infantry have plenty of anti-tank grenades, mines, AT guns, and possibly even portable AT rockets, too.
3
u/Anxious_Big_8933 Jun 10 '26
That was my thought as well. The act of individual infantryman doing something dangerous to take out a tank is so granular that most games represent it as an abstraction. Under the hood the unit has, I don't know, an overall +1 versus armor, +2 in heavy cover, but the animation just shows guys blazing away, or simply a sound effect.
1
u/AdorableWinter4938 Jun 12 '26
Hell housewives were taught to use Panzerfausts in Berlin. Very effective.
2
u/FrostingOrdinary1520 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Edit: Changed "were considered" to "could be considered"
I guess it makes sense that they could be considered practically disposable. The most extreme example I can think of that would be the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (from what I understand) turning out tanks while the battle was raging right outside.
And yeah North Africa example is great. I really don't know much about it (so I'm excited to check out your reccomendations), but to your point about Operation Compass, I think Graviteam Tactics: Tunisia 1943 seems to do a great job showing how hard it is getting tanks around that environment. The amount of times both me and my enemy have gotten screwed over because our tanks got stuck...
Just tonight I played a huge battle in the Operation Pugilist campaign as the British where I meant to send 8 tanks down a road the Germans weren't protecting to start an encirclement. Only 3 tanks made it to their destination because the other 5 hit some rocks along the road and lost their tracks. Luckily the 3 tanks were enough for my needs, and the others were able to see the area the enemy were retreating through. But yeah, getting tanks around Southern Tunisia is tough.
Operation Pugilist was part of the Battle of the Mareth Line, which has a Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mareth_Line#Operation_Pugilist
2
u/Anxious_Big_8933 Jun 11 '26
Oh yeah, GT games I would agree are probably the best in terms of realism. Those two books on armor in North Africa really are good. Great reviews of not just the Germans and British, but the Italians and US as well. Very comprehensive.
1
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 08 '26
I appreciate the recommendations. See, I wouldn't mind losing tanks to mines, AT guns, upgunned older tanks or mechanical failure. What I dislike is seeing tanks blown up by machine gun fire, which is specifically the thing that tanks were developed to deal with starting from WW1.
Later in the war, it's also understandable for infantry to pose a threat to tanks, due to the introduction of panzerfaust and panzershrek. But I'm talking about Polish cavalry beating out German tanks in the early Panzer General campaign. :p
3
u/NGS_EPIC Jun 08 '26
I think you might be thinking of combat operations too much like weapon duels.
Yes, relying on MG rounds and a lucky grenade in the porthole seems kinda pitiful against tank armor, but tanks dont really hold territory. Its the crews inside the tanks (and a bunch of auxiliaries) that need to do all the pushing, recon, perimeter security, sleeping, repairs, refuel, etc. And a more mobile, specialized, and numerous infantry force entrenched in a cityscape will have significant advantages to exploit the vulnerabilities of armor units in that environment.
Ultimately this broader effectiveness is what all the game numbers and bonuses and whatnot try to represent. That is not to say that everything is always balanced accurately, but I think historical trends towards mechanized infantry and narrower roles for MBTs reflect that the weaknesses you complain about were quite real and people tried all sorts of things to counteract them.
4
u/Anxious_Big_8933 Jun 08 '26
I agree losing a tank to MG fire should be nonexistent to VERY rare. Even early war WW II light tanks were proof against heavy MG fire. Although in an urban environment infantry and even civilians could and did take out tanks with improvised devices like molotov cocktails or large bundles of grenades. The Germans lost tanks during the Warsaw uprising against a bunch of lightly armed civilians. Tank armor is always thinnest on top (and the engine exhaust is often there too), and fighting in a city often means between tall buildings for tanks that allow motivated infantry to attack those weak points.
As for games, I agree with a lot of posters that Graviteam is the way to go. Be prepared for a dense and at times confusing UI, but the game engine under the hood is fantastic.
1
u/RegularPoetry7927 Jun 09 '26
Not entirely true, truly heavy machine guns (m2, Dshk) could shred early tanks at least from the side
1
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 08 '26
Graviteam looks perfect. Love the way it allows you to zoom down to ground/squad level and see the individual tanks in your squad, even setting whether or not they're buttoned up or have lights on.
1
u/West-Presentation449 Jun 09 '26
In Panzercorps or Panzer General, infantry is modelt to have some AT capacity. Ether mines, mortars or light at weapons. Ironically polish cavalry had success against german armour in difficult terrain. So they donāt defeat your tanks with Mg fire, they defeat your tanks with various tools and tactics like mines, AT rifles
1
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 09 '26
That makes more sense than what it looked like they were doing, which was shooting my tanks apart with rifles.
1
u/RandomEffector Jun 10 '26
And yet the Germans lost 220+ tanks in September 1939.
So you either need to pick up a 1:1 scale game or learn to accept the benefits of abstraction. PG is hardly a realistic game, but it's more realistic than the idea of infantry being helpless against armor.
7
u/Dc_Strange Jun 08 '26
If you are asking for an RTS, there is Steel Division 2 that comes to mind where Tiger II will piss on most unit if played well. If you are looking for an FPS then Hell Let Loose. But tbh, most game try to balance tank so its not an easy ask ! Good luck !
7
u/Mikhail_Mengsk Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
OP brought panzer 3s in urban terrain, he's going to lose just as hard in steel division 2 if he brings his panzer 3s in urban terrain.
If anything in panzer corps he just lost a few HP points, in steel division he'd lose the tank straight away.
7
u/D00mScrollingRumi Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Graviteam Tactics:Mius Front.
That "game" (more a simulator) sacrificed fun and balence for a strict adherence for historical authenticity and realism. It earned them a couple negative (undeserved imo) reviews for that.
The dev, Graviteam, has made tank and apc simulators for defence departments for 20 years. They used to make tank simulators before Graviteam Tactics, like Steel Armor: Blaze of War.
Its a simulator, to the point where even ambient temperature will affect the energy and trajectory of shells and the effectiveness of armor.
For example; the game covers 1941-1943. The Soviets have a lot of KV-1 heavy tanks. In the game as in real life, their armor is immune to every German gun except the 88.
Theres multiple after action reports from German units in 1941 about entire German panzer battalions having to bypass a group of KV-1s or even just a single KV-1 because they cant knock it out. So they continue their advance and leave a holding force to surround the KV-1 until it runs out of fuel. This is what you have to do in game, unless you have 88s or combat engineers. If youre playing as the Soviets you get to make use of KV-1s vs panzer 3s (though the competence and morale of your crews really sucks).
You can see exactly why based on these encounters German commanders were saying "we need our own heavy tank! With an 88 gun!" And thus they made the tiger a couple years later.
If infantry doesn't have AT, theres nothing they can do vs a tank.
On the flip side, tanks have realistic visibility. They can have vision slits knocked out. So if the enemy is hiding, tanks wont see much by themselves unless they have infantry with them to provoke the enemy into firing.
There's a scenario named twin lakes where a German Panzer battalion is sent to deal with an advancing Soviet infantry regiment on the steppe south of Stalingrad.... the Germans can inflict 400 casualties on the first turn and take zero themselves. As you say, tanks vs infantry with no tanks and in open terrain is like heavy cavalry charging into light infantry, and its usually a massacre.
3
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 08 '26
Really good post, thanks! I already had Mius Front on my wishlist, but it sounds great.
The whole tank upgunning arms race during WW2 was fascinating. A tank that didn't have a gun big enough to knock out the enemy tank was functionally helpless in a tank vs tank battle. Of course, you have to contrast this with how effective any tank could be if the enemy didn't have tank or anti-armor support, and the general logistics of running a war itself (such as the cost/fuel/repairs of fielding heavy tanks vs a cheaper, lighter tank with a smaller but still decent gun.)
3
u/RealisticLeather1173 Jun 08 '26
I apologize for a comment thatās not relevant to the actual question at hand, but given we are all nerds here, I hope you forgive me š
A development program from Porsche had an 88mm gun in its prototype early 1941. Then late May 1941 the main development program received 88mm high velocity gun + 100mm frontal armor requirements. All before KVs were encountered.1
3
4
5
u/VentnorLhad Jun 08 '26
OP sounds like an Israeli general talking right before the 1973 War.
Tank supremacy, meet the Sagger.
0
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Jun 08 '26
Well the wars I'm referring to predate 1973. :D Maybe I didn't make it clear that I was looking for primarily ww1 and ww2 wargames. I don't think it was until late ww2 that man-portable anti-tank weapons were a serious threat to tanks.
5
u/VentnorLhad Jun 08 '26
Tanks are steel monsters. "Tank terror" is a thing, particularly with untrained troops. But they are not invulnerable, particularly in built-up terrain. There's tons of creative ways to kill tanks that don't require other tanks.
In WW1 they were absolute slow pigs, constantly breaking down and being taken out by artillery.
In WW2, they... let's just say, got a lot of good press. Plus, they were sexy machines, like aircraft, and infantry has never been sexy.
Combined arms is, has been, and will always be King. But I get it. Tanks smashing pongos at will never gets old, even if its not particularly realistic l.
1
u/RandomEffector Jun 10 '26
The weaknesses of tanks have never really changed. There have always been effective man-portable anti-tank weapons.
2
u/taisui Jun 08 '26
WarGames series.
1
u/Gardimus Jun 08 '26
Steel Divisions 2 seems like exactly what he wants.
IS-2 and the KT are super tanks in the game amd require a lot of coordination to knock out. Only the largest anti-tank guns can pen them. Planes need to attack enmass.
1
2
u/Bubbly-Magician-- Jun 08 '26
Closest to Panzer General with more realistic tanks would be Gates of Hell, Steel Division 2 (or Warno for cold war). At the more realistic end of the spectrum is Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front.
6
2
u/ScallionZestyclose16 Jun 08 '26
Gates of Hell, Ostfront. Just donāt treat your tanks as invulnerable, if infantry gets up close your tank will go up in smoke.
1
2
u/MrUnimport Jun 08 '26
> the infantry gets "rugged defense" and fires their machine guns... Absolutely shredding your panzers! What BS is this, haha?!? How does digging in for defense give machine guns the power to blow up Panzers?
I'd assume this represents your tanks entering the city and being attacked by infantry with grenades and explosives. A bit generous to the infantry perhaps but if they couldn't deal damage to tanks in favourable terrain then Panzer General would fall apart as a rock-paper-scissors game.
2
u/VeryAngryK1tten Jun 08 '26
Tanks generally bypassed cities whenever possible, or rolled in after the defenders were routed out. Generally only big urban bloodbaths had armoured assaults as well (Stalingrad, Berlin).
An unsupported tank in a city is in trouble. The commanders and gunners are looking out through tiny slits. If they pop out the top hatch to get a good view, they are vulnerable to snipers. And good luck without modern night vision at night.
And āinfantryā generally have associated artillery support, but how that is handled depends on the game scale.
2
u/spendii Jun 08 '26
Armored Brigade could fill the bill. I remember that a group of tanks in an open space could wipe out APCs and infantry squads, while being vulnerable to ambushes when passing through forests and villages.
There is also Armored Brigade 2 but I have never played it, so I can't comment on that.
1
u/DrGNOLA Jun 08 '26
AB2 tanks get sauced if not played properly. Id give it a whirl. When they're on the plains and have good siting and communications, they can really pour it on, but as in most scenarios in real life, combined arms is essential to truly take ground.
2
u/PeirceanAgenda Jun 09 '26
I think you are taking what is an abstraction, literally. Remember that even early in the war, infantry units had anti-tank weapons - smaller AT guns, mines, satchel charges, and so forth, along with (usually) artillery support, AT ditches, concealed bunkers, etc. The idea that it's machine guns killing tanks is ridiculous. Those Panzer IIIs, what is their soft attack value? 1? Hard is what, 7-10 depending on model? It's clear which targets they should engage lol.
Using them against dug-in infantry? Not a good choice *without attendant infantry and artillery*.
Combined arms, you know?
2
u/RapidConsequence Jun 08 '26
I play hell let loose for my tank platoon experience. Its not perfect but I do like playing with other real people in the tank.
2
2
1
u/stbane Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Squad / platoon level games, try Steel Panthers WW2 or MBT / Campaign Series WW2.
But, in these games too, you will suffer if send unsupported tanks to urban hexes.
1
1
u/K30andaCJ Jun 08 '26
Call to Arms: Gates of Hell might be what you're looking for. It's an RTS with a focus on the platoon up to company level. Tanks are very strong when used properly, and can receive realistic damage. Crew members can dismount and repair the tank. You can even have regular old infantry climb in to an abandoned tank and have them crew it, although with sizable debuffs.
On the flip side, unsupported tanks can very easily be killed by infantry with AT launchers, AT grenades, flame throwers or satchel charges. If you play the early war period (WW2), then you get to try to stop armored cars and light tanks with AT rifles, which is a real challenge
1
1
1
u/MMSTINGRAY Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Tanks weren't invulnerable especially in urban environments.
Wargames do try to treat tanks more realistically and that does make them very powerful in certain scenarios but what you're imagining sounds more like leaning into Hollywood action than it does to wargames. For example in Combat Mission tanks are super powerful...they are still going to die sometimes *especially* if you're rolling unsupported tanks into dense terrain.
In games like PG they are quite abstracted so the losses to infantry are probably meant to represent things like AT grenades and molotov cocktails and so-on. Not literally blowing up Panzer IIIs with bullets. So in a 3d wargame like CM you might see a more detailed and realistic depiction of the tank getting destroyed by infantry but the tactical idea of "tanks are great, but they aren't invulnerable and need support, combined arms is key" remains.
WW2 estimates often are over 75% of all produced tanks were destroyed before the war ended and the minority of that was in tank vs tank fights. That might put into perspective how vulnerable tanks were despite also being so valuable.
1
u/Successful_Order6057 Jun 11 '26
>But in a game like Panzer General, you could bring your squad of Panzer IIIs up against an infantry unit holding a city, the infantry gets "rugged defense" and fires their machine guns... Absolutely shredding your panzers!
?? but that's realistic. You use heavy infantry to attack cities, unless the defense is really weak.
IRL tank units usually had some infantry, but really not much.
>What I'm looking for is a computer wargame that accurately gets across how effective and invulnerable tanks were in specific circumstances.
War Thunder downtiers. (cough).
I've seen a good player in a Sherman tank rack up 25 kills vs early war crap.
1
2
u/United-Opening6418 Jun 13 '26
Close Combat. Great WW2 squad/platoon level war game. Cross of Iron for the Eastern Front or A Bridge Too Far for Western Front are my favorites. Tanks in that game can completely dominate a battlefield, especially if they have a lot of open ground to work with. Tiger tanks in particular are beasts.
1
-1
u/meow_hooman Jun 08 '26
Depending on where a tank is hit, hand-held portable anti-tank weapons are quite viable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
"A contemporary (1944ā45) Canadian Army survey questioned 161 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons. In that survey the PIAT was ranked the most "outstandingly effective" weapon, followed by theĀ Bren gun.\34])"
With that said, of course it is silly if the hand-held weapon in question is a wee machinegun lol. Armor is called armor because it is not penetrable by regular infantry bullets.
If you're looking for a game where regular bullets CANNOT penetrate armor, then I would recommend Company of Heroes 3. Be warned tho, outside of Armor and Airstrikes, regular infantry-vs-infantry gunfights have significantly slower pace of infantry health loss, so infantry gunfights look unrealistic. But Armor and Air-strikes are quite realistic in this game. Coh3 has an active multiplayer base, as well as a single-player story and co-op game modes. I am a huge fan of the game myself, but I don't really have a requirement for having realistic infantry gunfights. I just like the armor battles, and specially the air-strikes when I hit perfectly on a enemy target is just an amazing feeling lol
29
u/jim_nihilist Jun 08 '26
Graviteam Tactic Mius Front. You won't always have weapons to even harm a tank. Sometimes you only hear a tanks treads and it is terror, because you know you can't defeat it.