Anti-Tank Armored Cars

[Kaiser282]

Why doesn't the Anti-Tank variant of the armored car have its own battalion? At 2 width, it's taking up twice the space of any other anti-tank variant in the game.
I mean it would still be questionable in its use but at least it wouldn't be completely useless.
Be helpful for smaller nations to support the majors in stopping tanks.

Edit: Newb mistake on my part. Tank TD take 2 width (except maybe the SH-TD) so even if it did get its own battalion, it would probably get 2 width since its basically half a light tank. (Even though it gets buffed by All infantry modifiers on the wiki)

 

[him_15]

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Hemothep]

Tank Destroyers also have a width of 2. However if you realy want to help the majors keep tanks at bay: Normal AT guns have lower production cost and more hard attack and piercing than the AT-cars.
If you want a speedy unit then the best options are tank destroyers, even for minors. Every armored car except the WW1-Version seems to be a noob trap.

 

[Vlad123]

Tank Destroyers also have a width of 2. However if you realy want to help the majors keep tanks at bay: Normal AT guns have lower production cost and more hard attack and piercing than the AT-cars.
If you want a speedy unit then the best options are tank destroyers, even for minors. Every armored car except the WW1-Version seems to be a noob trap.

I wonder why the paradox, when copying from mods (yes the armored cars are from mods) copies them badly --.-

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I wonder why the paradox, when copying from mods (yes the armored cars are from mods) copies them badly

Why do you assume they copied them? More probable is that they created them using Light Tanks as a model. Light tanks have a combat width of 2, so Armored Cars got a width of 2.

 

[Harin]

Instead of giving AT equipped armored cars their own battalion with nothing but armored cars in it, maybe we need the ability to add a fixed number (say 6 for example) to existing combat battalions in a division. This way units like this do not take up any combat width, but give those battalions some increased stats. If the division has 10 infantry battalions, it could get 60 armored cars spread amongst them and would show up in the division equipment list.

I realize you get the same effect if you just add a battalion of armored cars with a zero combat width to a division, but then players would be tempted to put to many of those battalions in the division and upset balance. By distributing a fixed amount throughout the combat units, balance can be maintained and there becomes a reason to build armored cars.

This could work with other direct fire weapons, too.

 

[Znail]

Armored Cars are pretty useless as part of a division right now, so changing them to combat width 1 would perhaps make people use them as a filler unit.

 

[Vlad123]

Why do you assume they copied them? More probable is that they created them using Light Tanks as a model. Light tanks have a combat width of 2, so Armored Cars got a width of 2.

Time ago, in the forum, much people say can Paradox used the work of modders for add the Armored cars, i not know if include the graphics , but the units ,yes!

 

[GSP Jr]

...much people say......

People say a lot of things about Paradox on these forums, but they aren't "copying" any mod code or graphics.
They pay people to do that stuff. They have to pay attention to copyright laws, lawsuits and plagiarism.

As far as scout cars, every army had them, used them, so it isn't exactly like some modder dreamed them up.

 

[Tarroque]

I wonder why the paradox, when copying from mods (yes the armored cars are from mods) copies them badly --.-

Armoured cars existed in real life, and also in Hearts of Iron 1.

 

[Vlad123]

Armoured cars existed in real life, and also in Hearts of Iron 1.

I know they are in Hoi1...but my personal question are: Why PDX for add these thing(Armored car, etc) are too make too much times? Other games have other thing in D1...a good trade system, a good peace deal, a good political system...now ok, they have added AC...but they are...useles...or they make cheaper...or they are a good sostitute of cavalry for garrison

 

[STABBY5]

I wonder why the paradox, when copying from mods (yes the armored cars are from mods) copies them badly --.-

Copied from real life maybe. I just hate that they are so useless.

 

[KRBLACK]

Am I mistaken, or isn't the armored car recon company strictly superior to motorised recon company? (meaning armored cars aren't completely useless)

Also, I do believe armored cars are good as garrison divisions.

The anti-tank version seems kind of pointless to me though. It is more expensive, and there are better alternatives in the AT-role.
If you want fast AT > Take motorised AT guns
If you want armored AT > Tank destroyers
If you want cheap AT > Towed AT
If you want even cheaper > AT support company

The only potential use case would be if you really want a mobile AT solution and are really short on IC, since motorised AT is slightly more IC costly. This does come with the trade-off that AT AC are 2 width compared to 1 for MAT

 

[Kaiser282]

Am I mistaken, or isn't the armored car recon company strictly superior to motorised recon company? (meaning armored cars aren't completely useless)

Also, I do believe armored cars are good as garrison divisions.

The anti-tank version seems kind of pointless to me though. It is more expensive, and there are better alternatives in the AT-role.
If you want fast AT > Take motorised AT guns
If you want armored AT > Tank destroyers
If you want cheap AT > Towed AT
If you want even cheaper > AT support company

The only potential use case would be if you really want a mobile AT solution and are really short on IC, since motorised AT is slightly more IC costly. This does come with the trade-off that AT AC are 2 width compared to 1 for MAT

I haven't tested it but unless the Recon company raises the piercing value as well when you have that model, it really is incredibly weak and pointless.
I guess you would save oil? Maybe it can be better for Africa? It only takes 2 steel and 1 Tungsten so maybe its resource efficient for that? Maybe a backline response force?

 

[Znail]

As for what Armored Cars are a copy of so is it obviously that they copied Light Tanks as Armored Cars happens to have exactly half the combat stats of Light Tanks.

 

[Ceorl]

I build ACs for garrison whenever I have a relatively low MP faction (Germany, France, etc.). With a production line committed it then makes sense to expand the ACs to my divisions for the AC Recon support (has the best recon bonus I believe). One thing I've wondered, but haven't tested it, is I create priority divisions for attack. If I research better ACs the priority divisions would get the upgraded ACs but I'm unsure how much of a stat boost that would represent relative to the cost.

Main problem is that upgrade idea is way down the tech priority tree. By the time I get to thinking about it the game is either won or lost and the upgrade doesn't really matter.

 

[Znail]

Yes, it would be quite nice if there was AT versions of the earlier Armored Cars as well, or at least for one more. The normal Armored Car isn't really worth using for Recon, despite it's bonus. Light Tanks are nicer as they provide twice as much combat stats. But the AT version is nice as it essentially makes the Recon fill the AT role as well. But the main thing I am missing from Armored Cars is a few bonus HP to account for that they usually carried small infantry squads. A normal Infantry Battalion gives 25HP, but a bonus of 5 or even a total of 5 HP would give a bit of character and also alow for pure Armored Cars units being a thing, wich should be possibe. Right now Armored Cars feels a bit useless outside of Garrisons.