Armored cars might look cool and somewhat battle ready, but they were not meant for intentionally engaging the enemy, it was to give them some defense to cover a retreat if engaged.
I would disagree. They were meant to replace horses in the recon role and the pursuit role. When you have a retreating enemy you want to keep their rear engaged (in combat). It is very true the heavy horse role of breakthrough went to the tanks and armored cars are not meant to engage well prepared enemies, just recon them.but they were not meant for intentionally engaging the enemy
So is there any design or functional difference between the two aside from the tracks? Because if there isn't then they're effectively the same as light tanks on HoI level.
-----
Edit:
@LostinSpice What do you think is the fundamental difference between AC and LArm in HoI?
Don`t have tracks tough. Can`t go off-road in 1940s.Light armor variant cant bè used to make combat battalion of armored car? Some armored car are just faster light armor whit almost the same weapon end weight.
I see recon in game as;
Recon 1. As is now. A generic unit of horses, motorcycles and trucks.
Recon 2. Again a generic unit but now with an attachment of armoured cars. Intended for armoured or favoured divisions.
Recon 3. Again generic unit, now with heavy armoured cars and several light tanks.
This structure would be good as it gives diversity, acknowledges armoured cars are only part of a recon unit and gives light tanks a new role later in the game. Remember, light tanks in a normal battalion won't be in a recon role so won't give any bonuses in this regard.
Also, you can pick which recon type (once researched) you want in a division template.