Armored cars lost their use.

[scarface2cz]

This is my standard issue garrison "armored car"

It has same suppression value, has 15% more hardness and costs 1.6 IC less than armored car. So, you save IC when the unit is hit and you save manpower when unit is hit. AND you have cheap pool of shitties you can convert into like recon or flame tanks or whatever.

"Why not wheels?"

Because it lowers hardness.

"Why not mediums?"

Actually you can also use those:

85% hardness, even if you save only 0.8 IC compared to producing armored car. But also bear in mind that MED battalions are smaller (60 AC/LT to 50 MT) so those added IC arent much of an issue-especially if you just use these shitties as base for other tanks via conversion mechanic.

Solution-Add same "IC reduction" that mechanized has to ACs.

If equipment is too cheap, instead of overall increasing prices, simply lower MIL IC production, 1 point would likely be the best.

EDIT:you can get these templates in first few months of the game as any nation due to way that tanks and designer works at the moment. so it may even be faster to get these than to research armored car of the nation doesnt have one.

 

[aletoledo]

Only downside is that it doesn't offer the recon value. If you did armored recon instead, you'd still have a lower value. Of course people don't really value recon for this purpose, but I still chase after this myself.

 

[scarface2cz]

Only downside is that it doesn't offer the recon value. If you did armored recon instead, you'd still have a lower value. Of course people don't really value recon for this purpose, but I still chase after this myself.

Due to AC1 not reaching 12km/h speed, they are useless as recon anyway, since only armored recon or mot recon has 12km/h speeds.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

One thing PDX has missed with that is fuel and maintenance cost in general. I know some would like to burn me alive for saying this, but garrison troops should consume some goods, at least fuel. ACs as a light wheeled vehicle should be obviously far more fuel-efficient than any tracked tank or tankette.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep any ingame stuff solely for the occupation mechanics, but if it's kept there anyway we might as well be presented with some gameplay choices rather than go for an obvious pick.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Why not use the interwar chassis, which IIRC, is cheaper?

 

[scarface2cz]

Why not use the interwar chassis, which IIRC, is cheaper?

Inter war and 1934 costs the same base IC (2 for LT, 3.2 for MT) but 1934 has more reliability and can be converted into more usable pieces.

 

[pdstanbridge]

I was under the impression AC is best used for suppression, so to add to a cavalry division, along with MP support company, and you've a fairly good garrison division.

 

[scarface2cz]

I was under the impression AC is best used for suppression, so to add to a cavalry division, along with MP support company, and you've a fairly good garrison division.

suppression is same on AC/LT/MT-all have 2.5 per battalion. only LT/MT cost half the IC effectively.

 

[pdstanbridge]

suppression is same on AC/LT/MT-all have 2.5 per battalion. only LT/MT cost half the IC effectively.

So one MIL producing AC is more expensive than one MIL producing MT? Surely the production rate offsets this?

 

[scarface2cz]

So one MIL producing AC is more expensive than one MIL producing MT? Surely the production rate offsets this?

No. Look at the bottom two production lines:

As you can see, for every 1.6 AC produced, i produce 2.67 LTs that also cost half of the steel that AC uses.

ACs are simply obsolete by a long shot

 

[Corpse Fool]

Inter war and 1934 costs the same base IC (2 for LT, 3.2 for MT) but 1934 has more reliability and can be converted into more usable pieces.

For lights, IW are 1 IC, '36 at 1.25 IC for the chassis itself. For medium, IW and '36 are both 2.5 IC. So, the light would definitely be cheaper using IW rather than basic.

The reliability means nothing, as does being able to convert them into more usable pieces. This is production that would already be dedicated towards a purpose, and over producing for later conversion doesn't really make sense.

 

[pdstanbridge]

This does not compute. Surely there must be some benefit to producing AC? Maybe some hidden attribute.

 

[Corpse Fool]

This does not compute. Surely there must be some benefit to producing AC? Maybe some hidden attribute.

It was already mentioned by @aletoledo that the AC recon technically has a higher recon value, and will have different movement bonuses when used a company. Which isn't really much of a benefit. There can also be some differences in stats (tanks will have better stats, provided you want to pay for them), and GW cars consume a lot less fuel.

 

[scarface2cz]

For lights, IW are 1 IC, '36 at 1.25 IC for the chassis itself. For medium, IW and '36 are both 2.5 IC. So, the light would definitely be cheaper using IW rather than basic.

The reliability means nothing, as does being able to convert them into more usable pieces. This is production that would already be dedicated towards a purpose, and over producing for later conversion doesn't really make sense.

What version are you using? im at 1.11.5.

 

[Corpse Fool]

What version are you using? im at 1.11.5.

1.11.7.

 

[scarface2cz]

1.11.7.

In that case, balance is even more fkd.

 

[Jays298]

I never saw the point of armored cars anyway.

Would have rather seen them "abstracted" into motorized anyway.

Or a larger motor pool of diverse vehicles.

 

[aletoledo]

Due to AC1 not reaching 12km/h speed, they are useless as recon anyway, since only armored recon or mot recon has 12km/h speeds.

I haven't seen a compelling argument yet or perhaps it's my playstyle, to achieve 12km/h. I generally configure everything to go 4km/h or if I want it to go faster, then 6km/h. Most of my games are attrition against huge stacks, so snaking behind enemy lines rarely happens. So the Interwar AC with 9km/h is more than enough for me.

 

[bitmode]

I never saw the point of armored cars anyway.

Would have rather seen them "abstracted" into motorized anyway.

Armored cars are a gimmick, just like the tank designer. The only way something can exist in a DLC is by being easily abstracted away (base game) but then doing it anyway (DLC).

 

[goodcigar]

Garrison and resistance mechanics are really underwhelming and overly simplistic in general. The whole thing needs a large overhaul. There's barely anything to it and it's barely interactive.

And I'm still not sure the AI even knows how to build effective Garrison templates.