I suppose they thought it worked because you have to combine AC with something else. I think its rather debatable though.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
But at 51% softness, you could use MOT or MECH, as well as Armour, to get CA, which allows more usefull division compisitions.
AC should have lower softness. They are armored, as the name implies! Their weaknesses can be reflected in other stats. That would fix exploitive units like 3xArm+1AC getting the CA bonus and would give it to units combining Mot and AC which I think is appropriate. I am now modding them to 40. Sure they would get CA all by themselves, but with zero combat width, they would still be useless in combat alone.
I don´t find that AC should be harder than mech infantry. ACs represent those kind of cars full of metal plates (I am sure you have seen photos). Useful to stop small arms and even LIGHT machine guns, but nothing else. They weren´t used except during the first stages of the war and places with difficulty to carry fuel and supplies (like the desert). In the game they can´t be upgraded much, representing that they were a dead end.
Erm you obviously need to get yourself a hand of some ToEs and a decent book on vehicles of ww2 because the recon btns of the Nazi forces had a huge range of very powerful armoured cars which became significantly more powerful as the war progressed. Indeed inthe Late war 'Kampfgruppe' fighting methods the recon btn was used as the core of many of these ad hoc formations.
I think the ACs you talk about ARE NOT the ACs represented as ACs in the game. The ACs you talk about are part of the vehicles of what in the game would be a motorized or mechanized division, or even a panzer division. Of course, that´s only what I think, however, it´s based on a hint the game gives, and is the low ability to upgrade the ACs. Only several stats improve, and they improve slowly.
About the humvees, that´s a modern vehicle, not a WW II one.
I know I'm way off topic, but what looks harder to you? This armored car:
or this tank:
There is no question that the armor technologies advanced dramatically during the war years, but if we are going to give pre-war light armor units 30 softness, the armored cars deserve the same or thereabouts.
BTW as far as being a dead end, here is an armored car in Iraq:
Well, I was talking that the ACs represented in the game (WW II)are a dead end, not that an armoured car is a useless concept in all eras (somebody pointed the Humvee).
Anyway, the colour photo is not of an armoured car, but of a piece of artillery (back in WW II that would be self propelled artillery)
Anyway, the colour photo is not of an armoured car, but of a piece of artillery (back in WW II that would be self propelled artillery)
My 2 cents is that AC should give combat bonus due to recon ability. I guess that a no one would put together a full AC-brigade and throw into combat, but an AC brigade could represent extra recon capacity added to the division. IIRC arrmoured cars operated pretty stand alone, or in small groups, in WW2.
The isrealis extensively used armoured (and non armoured) cars in this role e.g in the six day war. It was very succesful du to the element of surprise, but they also took heavy losses.
There are many modern day armoured cars. The Finns have their Patria SISU, South Africa the BAE Land System's RG32M, the US M1117 Guardian, Poland the AMZ Żubr, etc. All for the same use. Escorts and recon when you need more protection than in a HMMWV.
The isrealis extensively used armoured (and non armoured) cars in this role e.g in the six day war. It was very succesful du to the element of surprise, but they also took heavy losses.
There are many modern day armoured cars. The Finns have their Patria SISU, South Africa the BAE Land System's RG32M, the US M1117 Guardian, Poland the AMZ Żubr, etc. All for the same use. Escorts and recon when you need more protection than in a HMMWV.
The subject was mechanized units of which the panzer divisions, as you said, typically had only one infantry battalion with APCs. The tactic I described was standard procedure in '43 and '44. This tactic was specifically described by Joachim Peiper of Malmedy infamy who was actually a Panzer Grenadier battalion commander during 1943 and 1944. He was promoted to command a panzer regiment just before the Battle of the Bulge. The Battle of the Bulge was his first experience with tanks which was why he ended up losing pretty much the entire tank regiment.
Think about it....how could this tactic have been used BEFORE 1943 when the infantry in a panzer division didn't have even one battalion in APC's. The Germans did not supinely retreat. Their operational doctrine called for immediate counter attacks if at all possible while their opponents were still disorganized after their attacks. And they still made full scale attacks into 1945.
Edit: Yes, this is per their ToE. Yes they were typically equipped below their ToE but that is also true of every unit in every army after even a short time in combat. Regardless of the numbers of APC's in a unit each still had 3 MG42's and they used the tactics they were taught regardless of their numbers.
Last edited:
That these little AC's capturing the attention of so many people in this forum is something that bewilders me. 
Actually I so love these little machines i can't help myself but to add at least an AC regiment to every light armour division. And the new recon feature in DiG is definitely a welcome addition. They also lower the terrain penalties for the division as a whole. On that note, that's why I also throw in some Mech or Mot not just for historical flavor but also for their lower terrain penalties on combats and movements. Not that I don't like the 3 LArm + 1 AC build but it definitely has its share of disadvantages that many people have overlooked.
Actually I so love these little machines i can't help myself but to add at least an AC regiment to every light armour division. And the new recon feature in DiG is definitely a welcome addition. They also lower the terrain penalties for the division as a whole. On that note, that's why I also throw in some Mech or Mot not just for historical flavor but also for their lower terrain penalties on combats and movements. Not that I don't like the 3 LArm + 1 AC build but it definitely has its share of disadvantages that many people have overlooked.
The examples you chose are somewhat misleading. That armoured car looks quite "hard", but I think you'll find the armour is no more than a few mm thick, while even that abysmal light tank example (hardly representative) would have armour thick enough to deflect/absorb shell fragments. Wheeled vehicles, by their nature, suffer when their armour is increased beyond a given point (their ground-pressure is much higher than a tracked vehicle) and in general any tank of any timeframe was much more heavily armoured than a concurrent armoured car. The few exceptions only help to prove the rule.
a) I never suggested that it could be used before 1943...
b) The fact that one commander described it as a tactic (whether or not it was standard) is hardly indicative of its prevalence.
c) In later-1943 and 1944 the bulk of the Ostheer's panzer units were retreating exceedingly quickly through particularly the Ukraine and more generally the entire front. I agree their tactics called for aggressive counterattacks - I have seen little indication however, in my studies of the Eastern Front (my Master's specialization), that they had much opportunity to do so during the period in question.
d) Special circumstances weakened the Ostheer far beyond a typical army in combat. Hitler preferred to send new equipment to build new divisions rather than reinforce old ones, and as early as late 1943 most panzer/panzergrenadier units in the Ostheer were below 20% of their equipment TO&E (including MGs, which is clearly indicated by the unit supply records). Well below the status of any typical army in combat.
I looked up the stats, they are interesting. The AC model was the AB 41 Autoblinda. It had 9mm armor on the hull all around except the bottom and top which were 6mm. The front of the turret was beefed up to 18mm.
The L3/33 tankette had very similar numbers 9mm all around except bottom which was also 6mm. The front of its hull was beefed up to 14mm. Both would be destroyed by a real tank, but both would offer about the same amount of immunity to small arms (soft) attacks. So, IMO according to the rational behind the CA bonus, both would equally serve as a hard complement to soft infantry.
Could I suggest the simple expedient of reducing the softness of AC more significantly with the armour tech for light armour? Currently it gets a -1 softness per rank, if that was imrpoved to -3 or even -5 it could make a much larger impact on softness of the brigade.
Similarly I would advocate a much higher starting softness. They are bulletproof and that should be a much greater reduction in SA values because the rifles don;t work against them and that is a lot of the SA value presumably.
Of course the definsiveness and toughness stats don't work very well at the moment so softness is the only damage redcing element and that is awkward because Acs should be much more vulnerable, esp. to AT weapons.
Similarly I would advocate a much higher starting softness. They are bulletproof and that should be a much greater reduction in SA values because the rifles don;t work against them and that is a lot of the SA value presumably.
Of course the definsiveness and toughness stats don't work very well at the moment so softness is the only damage redcing element and that is awkward because Acs should be much more vulnerable, esp. to AT weapons.
Only when comparing very light (early) tanks to very hard (late) armoured cars. You keep using this as a generalization, when in fact most armoured cars were easily destroyed by "light" anti-tank weapons inherent to infantry, while many tanks weren't (hence the nickname "PaK37: Panzeranklopfgerät"). The need for AT weapons is represented by the non-zero softness of AC brigades. If you'd make ACs harder, that would push many tanks near or past 0% softness just to keep the distinction realistic.
And they do. AC is (vanilla) 70% soft, while infantry is 100%. So, AC is harder than infantry. If what you are pointing is that AC should be har enough to give the CA bonus to infantry units, then that´s a whole different thing.
BTW as far as being a dead end, here is an armored car in Iraq:
Technically this is a wheeled tank destroyer. In game terms it'd be a TD, I think. Also in game terms we think of ACs as being the lighter recon/skirmish types. If you start adding cannons to them and fighthting battles I think Larm or Mech covers that better.
One of the worst things about this forum is demonstrated by this thread. Someone asks a question about Mech versus Mot and we end up discussing Armored cars..
One of the BEST things about this forum is exactly the same. The forum is so much better than an instruction book
One of the BEST things about this forum is exactly the same. The forum is so much better than an instruction book
I call for three types of AC's: light(4x4), medium(6x6) and heavy(8x8), just like tanks or at least additional techs to represent the advancements in the vehicles.
Also back to the orignal thread topic, the description of motorised tech says:
I cant see where "heavier support weapons" bonuses are provided to motorised units. They have the same defensiveness (9) as infantry while mechanised get 10. Defensivess is the trait given to support weapons in the infantry techs.