Are there any plans to rework Armored Cars?

[TheMeInTeam]

The current system--where you can produce a barebones LT for less than the cost of a AC--is silly because tanks were rarely used for MP duty. Taking their suppression would restore the previous state where AC did have a use. In other words, it would restore the previous state, which should be the objective.

i think part of the reason for disagrees (though i didn't give one) is that it would not restore the previous state, because garrison damage/occupation laws are very different from previous and thus so is the cost proposition of garrison divisions.

players are using bargin bin light tra...er...tanks because they cost less and have more hardness. and to be fair, those are glorified armored cars. they have wheel suspensions, minimal armament, and their armor rating is worthless enough that even infantry kit research (without the piercing tech) is sufficient to pierce them.

thus, players will likely not be happy that they can no longer produce what amounts to armored cars by using the tank designer, and thus have to pay even more for garrisons when they are already pretty ahistorical in damage potential/cost as a mechanic right now.

ac are worthless in terms of stats too. the very highest tech one fights like a bad early tech light tank. i don't see an issue with reducing their cost to price out light tank designs for that role

MPs are also a bit of a noob trap.

i broadly agree with this (my garrison practices are basically identical to yours), but i do toss in mps in ~1944+ when wrapping up achievement runs and such. doctrines, spirits and real template designs etc are worth more, but at some point you're capped on meaningful combat equipment + industry tech and you have more military xp than you need. at that point, you can spend the glut of xp to stuff a division with 25 battalions of light tank and slap a mp in it.

the reason i still agree that it's a "noob trap" is that people will make these investments at a point where alternatives would contribute much more significantly to their ability to actually gain the territory to garrison in the first place.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

Armored cars don't need be fixed, theyre a niche thing.... if anyone want RP germany occupations just play it and build it.

I don't ever heard about armored cars in .. battle of Stalingrad? Midway?

Make no-sense to me, beat heads to make a niche unit "useful", its like discuss how to make the rocket interceptors useful...

We do build trucks, are RL trucks more expensive ou cheaper than armored cars? Whats next? introduce police uniform production line for the sake of make occupations the greater greater sink hole of IC and manpower?

Armoured Cars should be a subbranch of Motorized research tree, like Mechanized. Perhaps standartize all motorized stuff on a "designer".

So we can have a "motorized designer", the basic template will be a truck/car "frame", with a engine. if we add artilhery or rocket, it will become a "motorized artilhery". if we add armor module it become a "armoured cars" or a "mechanized".

That way, standartized with a designer, the armoured cars can have a versatile use without seems a "niche unit" for the sake of IC sink.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Armored Cars had (and still have, look at the HMMWV) many benefits that are very hard to model properly in HOI4.

• They provided a lot of suppression not only because of their armor and machine gun but also because of their mobility. They were destined to escort supply columns and patrol towns.
• They provided offensive power to motorised troops, as they could be used to suppress enemy positions and be highly mobile at that
• They were great for recon, as the enemy could only return fire if they had anti armor equipment
• They provided mobility to commanders while also keeping them safe from small arms fire. This enabled commanders in the field to move around and keep better overview and provide more accurate orders

So to implement something like this into HOI4 a few values should change:

• Suppression should be way higher than that of a tank. Not because an armored car has more firepower or armor, but because they were able to cover way more ground due to the mobility (on roads) they provide. It was not the primary target to drive into some forests and swamps to root out resistance, armored cars were there to drive from town to town go keep check on vital points.
• Mobile Infantry should lose some breakthrough, while armored cars should gain a lot (not as high as tanks) but ACs should be a viable support unit to increase offensive power of divisions
• Their recon value should outclass every other unit just because of their combination of mobility, armor and armament. Light tanks (while having more firepower) have way less mobility (on road speed compared to armored cars, fuel efficiency, tanks need more supply to cover large areas), and can therefore not scout as efficient
• Armored cars should increase coordination to resemble their mobility on the battlefield and improved command and control.

Wow now that you mention it Im shocked recon doesnt add coordination. That seems perfect logically while not being an unbalanced benefit. Smart call.

In terms of suppression, I think thats a good call too, because then you could have 3 choices for garrison duty that would all be viable:

Light Tanks - most expensive upfront cost but take the least losses over time
Recon - lowest manpower requirement because it can get around to areas so quickly, but not as durable as tanks so relatively more losses over time
Cavalry - cheapest upfront cost, but highest manpower usage and has no durability

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Try fix the source of problem. Quick fix is give light tank a minimum cost. And medium, heavy tank too to prevent exploit Then everything returns as before.

Dont light tanks already have a minimum cost?

 

[Lamartine]

You can spend the glut of xp to stuff a division with 25 battalions of light tank and slap a mp in it.

Note that if you are going all in on 25b Cavalry + MP you can purchase the Proper Heritage officer corps for 35xp, add all the Cav battalions for free, then switch your officer corps back. But that only reduces the Cav cost from at most 125xp to at least 70xp, so the broader point still stands.

 

[Cavalry]

Dont light tanks already have a minimum cost?

But that's too low, lower than armor car

 

[z3rO_]

May I interject with a question of only mild relevance to this discussion?

Why are garrisons worth discussing? Even for roleplay purposes, unless you are trying for 1 to 1 WW2 reenactment, Puppeting is just better. Or at least I feel like it.
Especially in current no-compliance land, where you either choose between generating compliance, or crushing resistance.
The only situation where it could be worth it, is if you want Liberated Workers with 100% compliance for factories made of pure communism, but I don't think that is possible wit hany country but the Soviets, even tho it is very flavourful. Where am I wrong?

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

May I interject with a question of only mild relevance to this discussion?

Why are garrisons worth discussing? Even for roleplay purposes, unless you are trying for 1 to 1 WW2 reenactment, Puppeting is just better. Or at least I feel like it.
Especially in current no-compliance land, where you either choose between generating compliance, or crushing resistance.
The only situation where it could be worth it, is if you want Liberated Workers with 100% compliance for factories made of pure communism, but I don't think that is possible wit hany country but the Soviets, even tho it is very flavourful. Where am I wrong?

You cant puppet until the war is over. Mid war garrisons can get very costly.

Also, you dont get factories unless their puppet status is low enough. I think only fascists get puppets low enough by default to get a perventage of their factories, I forget if you get a low amount of civs as commies. Also I believe you get 0 dockyards regardless of the puppet status.

You get to steal puppet manpower, but fighting with their divisions or using their resources raises their autonomy pretty significantly in the latest patches. So then you have to balance that out, which can get annoying if you want to keep their autonomy low.

Theres definitely arguments between to puppet or to annex, depends on a lot of factors. I do both often, steal resource and factory rich land, but then puppet the ones with high manpower or ones that get free factories via focus.

Also sometimes puppets can get you into big problems. Like war goals against you.

 

[z3rO_]

Also, you dont get factories unless their puppet status is low enough. I think only fascists get puppets low enough by default to get a perventage of their factories, I forget if you get a low amount of civs as commies. Also I believe you get 0 dockyards regardless of the puppet status.

You get 65% Mills and 100% Civs with Reichkommisariat+War Reparations, and 75% Mills and 100% Civs with an Integrated Puppet, with a bit of work. Compared to negative manpower from annexing.

You cant puppet until the war is over. Mid war garrisons can get very costly.

However, not having a peace conference is a thing I missed, true. I completely forgot that some wars are very hard to leave from unless you win WW2. Case closed!

 

[The Colonel]

Try fix the source of problem. Quick fix is give light tank a minimum cost. And medium, heavy tank too to prevent exploit Then everything returns as before.

Dont light tanks already have a minimum cost?

Yes, all tanks have a base cost from their chassis.

But that's too low, lower than armor car

AC are just too expensive. They are way worse than equivalent IC light tanks other than being slightly faster, so should just be cheaper, esp. since they are a research trap. I 100% agree about making AC through tank designer rather than research.

Light tanks do have a bit of an exploit where you can make light SPAA that is cheaper than producing normal AA battalions, but since normally you just want support AA companies and the SPAA takes fuel I don't think this is too bad. Also light tanks generally kind of suck so I don't think they need further nerfing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Note that if you are going all in on 25b Cavalry + MP you can purchase the Proper Heritage officer corps for 35xp, add all the Cav battalions for free, then switch your officer corps back. But that only reduces the Cav cost from at most 125xp to at least 70xp, so the broader point still stands.

all true, but again even 70 xp is prohibitive before ww2, while in the 44+ range if i'm doing this at all it will probably be with tanks rather than cav.

Why are garrisons worth discussing? Even for roleplay purposes, unless you are trying for 1 to 1 WW2 reenactment, Puppeting is just better.

can't puppet until war with faction you're fighting ends, unless you've stacked a ridiculous investment of collab from spies to get one that way. you can do that in some places, but it's not realistic to do everywhere

Also sometimes puppets can get you into big problems. Like war goals against you.

while this is definitely true, the only respectable conclusion is that it's bugged.

You get 65% Mills and 100% Civs with Reichkommisariat+War Reparations, and 75% Mills and 100% Civs with an Integrated Puppet, with a bit of work. Compared to negative manpower from annexing.

there are some exceptions to "negative manpower from annexing", especially if you did 2 or more collaboration missions. manpower rich areas give some manpower then, and it's usually more than you lose at 0-5% resistance. can't collab everything though (for truly bargain bin minor nations, you can't collab at all initially, due to insufficient civ factories to create an agency). puppets definitely have a place

 

[Cavalry]

AC are just too expensive. They are way worse than equivalent IC light tanks other than being slightly faster, so should just be cheaper, esp. since they are a research trap. I 100% agree about making AC through tank designer rather than research.

Light tanks do have a bit of an exploit where you can make light SPAA that is cheaper than producing normal AA battalions, but since normally you just want support AA companies and the SPAA takes fuel I don't think this is too bad. Also light tanks generally kind of suck so I don't think they need further nerfing.

light tank in NSB is just too cheap than the non DLC light tank, which AC cost is designed. And light tank for recon support fire is big in soft attack per width. Now I often build light tank every time along medium tank, just for that recon support fire. We can add that to elite infantry too, like the AT regiments.

Before NSB I almost don't use light tank recon, it is too expensive and better use the tank in line battalion. But with NSB the tank cost can be halved, and the small width divisions are much stronger. Though yeah I didn't build AC too, division with just 1 light tank/medium tank is good enough for minors, AC is not good enough as a poor man's tank division.

 

[walt526]

And yes, tanks were used for MP duty. The Germans liked to add outdated tanks or tankettes to security units, for while they may have been useless against a proper enemy, they were very much a deterrent against partisans, who didn't have the weaponry to fight them.

They weren't building bare bones new light tanks to be used for garrison duty that were far cheaper than armored cars. That's the exploit that the developers should be working to close. Simply reducing suppression from tanks from 2 to 1 might alter the calculus in favor of AC.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Simply reducing suppression from tanks from 2 to 1 might alter the calculus in favor of AC.

Well.. it would be 2.5 down to whatever. In the case of droping to 1, manpower sink is 500, bleed 100, IC is 144 sink 28.8 bleed... which is a larger IC sink, but less IC bleed than cars. The tanks arent completely out of the running yet. If this is only applied to lights, medium tankettes take their place (still objectively better than cars). If both tanks are nerfed, we are back to cav or cars, but the cars sink/bleed so much more IC that they are more of a sidegrade that saves you manpower than anything else.

The problem isnt really that the tanks are good (though they are), it has a lot more to do with the cars just being atrociously bad. Even in the Before Times, cars never really stood out.

 

[Cavalry]

May I interject with a question of only mild relevance to this discussion?

Why are garrisons worth discussing? Even for roleplay purposes, unless you are trying for 1 to 1 WW2 reenactment, Puppeting is just better. Or at least I feel like it.
Especially in current no-compliance land, where you either choose between generating compliance, or crushing resistance.
The only situation where it could be worth it, is if you want Liberated Workers with 100% compliance for factories made of pure communism, but I don't think that is possible wit hany country but the Soviets, even tho it is very flavourful. Where am I wrong?

No way to puppeting until you win the war? And in true WW2 setting, one want the most IC or material until the powerful enemy is defeated.

Though I concentrated on defeat enemy at quick at possible and don't use light tank for garrison.

 

[Gran Strategist]

No way to puppeting until you win the war?

That depends on which nation you are playing and the governments they have/you choose.

Germany has a number of choices which can make certain nations puppets after they capitulate and you can set up collaborative governments once captured nations reach 80% compliance if fascist... really only happens if you use collaborative government spy missions before conquering though.

For democracies and general circumstances you have to wait until the end of the war with that faction to make puppets.

As fascists it really should be a priority to do the collaborative government spy action on larger nations as even if you don't make them a puppet you immediately get use of most of their factories and reduced resistance from higher compliance.

People often mention you can suck manpower from puppets to make units but one of the best things about puppets people don't tend to mention is their manpower can be used for garrisons so I usually puppet smaller nations and use their manpower to garrison larger nations (i have high compliance in).

 

[Eisscrat]

Simply reducing suppression from tanks from 2 to 1 might alter the calculus in favor of AC.

Why should a light tank have less suppresion only because its called tank instead of armored car? That would be stupid.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Collab governments are different enough I kind of put them in a separate category than regular puppets, even though technically they are. They can be pretty busted as certain nations, because often (maybe always?) it will spawn a new nation with the generic focus tree, which is insanely powerful for nations like India, France or China, who are very strong in terms of resources/factories but come with a lot of national debuffs.

The fact it spawns mid war is crazy too, because it means you can instantly access all of their resources and factories; believe its 80%, with no garrison issues. As certain minors this can make you hilariously powerful, and can even steal land from your Allies in my experience. Ie as fascist Dutch, if you rush off the collabs against France and surprise attack capitulate them, you go from minor to a major like in a week.

I forget if this is doable as a nation allied with Japan. I want to say your newly spawn collab nation takes all Chinese land occupied by Japan, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

 

[homerCCCP]

Why should a light tank have less suppresion only because its called tank instead of armored car? That would be stupid.

I think it is justifiable to let armored cars have a higher suppression than light tanks. From gameplay pov anyway for obvious reasons, but also from historical pov. Simple text taken from Wikipedia:
"Their appearance is less confrontational and threatening than tanks, and their size and maneuverability is said to be more compatible with tight urban spaces designed for wheeled vehicles"

What I disagree with is to decrease Suppression from light tanks. Current occupation System already provides very harsh penalties. No reason to nerf stuff here.

 

[Corpse Fool]

"Their appearance is less confrontational and threatening than tanks, and their size and maneuverability is said to be more compatible with tight urban spaces designed for wheeled vehicles"

This depends upon the common, real-world definition of what a tank is, and not the min-maxed 'tanks' that we would be using in game for garrisons. Its a lot less sheridan and a lot more wiesel.