Motorized is super good now

[Phleem]

Motorized units now have high breakthrough and some hardness, making them work well when attacking. As others have noticed, if you’re just min/maxing, they work better than tanks in most situations, certainly cost for cost.

It seems wrong for the “realism”: Why are my trucks “harder” than my light tanks?! And more breakthrough than mechanized?!

And wrong for balance: Why should I build any expensive tanks or mechanized?

Does anyone know why this was done? And is there any acknowledgement from Paradox that it needs to be fixed?

 

[Michael Gladius]

They shouldn't have hardness, but motorized should be overpowered compared to dismounted infantry. Numerically inferior British forces in 1940 (North Africa) and NATO forces in Korea shredded numerically superior dismounted armies (Italian & Chinese, respectively) after about 7 days of sustained fighting.

 

[Iskulya]

There's been a lot of questionable balance choices.

I still think it's funny that, in response to people pointing out that tanks are too expensive for their performance, the cost of heavy tanks was increased.

Air is probably (in my unscientific estimate) 33-50% more important than it was before, and it was already the undefeated, reigning champion. I don't really care about realism, it's a non-sequitur when people invoke that, it doesn't make for good gameplay which is the only thing that really matters. Don't really relish the idea of having to wait 1.5-2.5 years for air to receive a rework that nerfs it into the ground either.

 

[Iskulya]

They shouldn't have hardness, but motorized should be overpowered compared to dismounted infantry. Numerically inferior British forces in 1940 (North Africa) and NATO forces in Korea shredded numerically superior dismounted armies (Italian & Chinese, respectively) after about 7 days of sustained fighting.

Motorized has always been a bit of an awkward duckling in the game, at least until now and it's OP state. You got a bit more speed, but the expense of production was quite a bit higher than normal infantry. Their use was super niche, exploitation divisions to help fill in the gaps left by advancing tanks, that was the only use I ever found for motorized *divisions* proper.

I once played a game as the US and only produced motorized infantry instead of normal infantry(except for garrison duties), and the cost was quite a bit more than I had expected it to be, and the combat performance wasn't really any different from normal infantry. This was way before NSB, of course.

Definitely, I think they were perhaps a bit too weak before, but now we're here and it's too much.

 

[Michael Gladius]

Motorized has always been a bit of an awkward duckling in the game, at least until now and it's OP state. You got a bit more speed, but the expense of production was quite a bit higher than normal infantry. Their use was super niche, exploitation divisions to help fill in the gaps left by advancing tanks, that was the only use I ever found for motorized *divisions* proper.

I once played a game as the US and only produced motorized infantry instead of normal infantry(except for garrison duties), and the cost was quite a bit more than I had expected it to be, and the combat performance wasn't really any different from normal infantry. This was way before NSB, of course.

Definitely, I think they were perhaps a bit too weak before, but now we're here and it's too much.

The best way to get both realism and gameplay right is to reduce the ORG loss and increase the recovery rate for motorized units (and the reverse for dismounted). Dismounted infantry runs out of steam faster and recovers more slowly, so their offensives tended to start-stop rather than be continuous. Thus, motorized can grind down dismounted ORG and then hammer them in retreat faster than the latter can recover.

 

[Jays298]

Well you'd have to define what overpowered really is. Breakthru on its own isn't a huge deal. Neither is the "hardness". With the lack of armor, it is easily pierced. Plus still somewhat high IC costs.

But it does make Motorized divisions more viable as kind of a middle ground between infantry and light tank / spg divisions.

It's not a great offensive option. It is really just an explotation division for after the enemy is already in retreat or deorg'ed.

Put it another way, if motorized is so great, would you rather have 6 tanks, 4 motorized, or 6 motorized, 4 tanks?

 

[sdplissken]

I always thought they were going to allow us to design our own half tracks soon, as it’s available currently you use half track in the designer. For probably katyusha and mechanized which might change things up a bit. Motorized like many have noted were really important overall in the war and performed really well on all fronts. Much better than leg infantry.

 

[FindFloppies]

Thus, motorized can grind down dismounted ORG and then hammer them in retreat faster than the latter can recover.

Motorized can make you see 'overrun' often against leg infantry. Can cause chuckling...

(and that was before this patch!)

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

There's been a lot of questionable balance choices.

I still think it's funny that, in response to people pointing out that tanks are too expensive for their performance, the cost of heavy tanks was increased.

Air is probably (in my unscientific estimate) 33-50% more important than it was before, and it was already the undefeated, reigning champion. I don't really care about realism, it's a non-sequitur when people invoke that, it doesn't make for good gameplay which is the only thing that really matters. Don't really relish the idea of having to wait 1.5-2.5 years for air to receive a rework that nerfs it into the ground either.

Itd be fine in a historical sense for air to stay as the undefeated champ, but most people just want tanks to be more than novelty in terms of usefulness.

In real life, despite air control being immensely important, a ton of research and resources still went into armor. Why do that instead of just more air production? Because it made a huge difference too.

The problem with armor (as I see it), is that it really doesnt help you win wars compared to alternatives. Its so expensive that really only the most powerful majors have the spare military production to use it effectively, but even then it seems your production is better spent elsewhere in almost all cases. You pretty much only do it for fun.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Well you'd have to define what overpowered really is. Breakthru on its own isn't a huge deal. Neither is the "hardness". With the lack of armor, it is easily pierced. Plus still somewhat high IC costs.

But it does make Motorized divisions more viable as kind of a middle ground between infantry and light tank / spg divisions.

It's not a great offensive option. It is really just an explotation division for after the enemy is already in retreat or deorg'ed.

Put it another way, if motorized is so great, would you rather have 6 tanks, 4 motorized, or 6 motorized, 4 tanks?

I disagree completely, breakthrough and hardness make a huge difference on the offensive, even if you ignore armor and damage. Particularly if its a prolonged battle

And for your example? Id rather just dump the tanks completely honestly, which would give me like two more pure motorized divisions of the same size. Armor is that expensive

 

[goodcigar]

I really don't know why they changed Motorized. They're ridiculous now.

 

[sdplissken]

Itd be fine in a historical sense for air to stay as the undefeated champ, but most people just want tanks to be more than novelty in terms of usefulness.

In real life, despite air control being immensely important, a ton of research and resources still went into armor. Why do that instead of just more air production? Because it made a huge difference too.

The problem with armor (as I see it), is that it really doesnt help you win wars compared to alternatives. Its so expensive that really only the most powerful majors have the spare military production to use it effectively, but even then it seems your production is better spent elsewhere in almost all cases. You pretty much only do it for fun.

Is it really that much more expensive or is motorized just that much cheaper now? And I mean historically this is accurate, more Stugs were made than panzer iv, and mechanized/armored cars were the most produced vehicle by far

 

[LordWahu]

I always thought they were going to allow us to design our own half tracks soon, as it’s available currently you use half track in the designer. For probably katyusha and mechanized which might change things up a bit. Motorized like many have noted were really important overall in the war and performed really well on all fronts. Much better than leg infantry.

I heard there was an unused "soldier carrier" module in the code, though I haven't verified that myself

If true, it wouldn't be that hard to make a mod on that front. Even if it isn't it still wouldn't be that hard to add one. Balancing would be tricky, but not impossible

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

Is it really that much more expensive or is motorized just that much cheaper now? And I mean historically this is accurate, more Stugs were made than panzer iv, and mechanized/armored cars were the most produced vehicle by far

And thats ok for the cost disparity, I just want to get more bang for my buck with tanks. As is, you can pretty much do without them just fine or better with the alternatives

 

[Znail]

The motorised buff is kind of interesting as an alternative to tanks for offence was one common request and from a game play perspective so do I like it. It's mostly hardness that seems a bit off and breaks immersion as trucks were hardly armored and it's strange compared with SPG's and SPAA.

Tanks seems to be rather underated now though as I still find them very strong, it just takes a bit of effort as you can get exactly what you need now. It's just that you don't absolutely need tanks, but they are still stronger then motorised and it's nice to have that when it's needed or even just to make battles and wars quicker.

 

[sdplissken]

And thats ok for the cost disparity, I just want to get more bang for my buck with tanks. As is, you can pretty much do without them just fine or better with the alternatives

I understand that the cost has slightly increased but I mean, has it increased that much? I mean in all honesty I have the old numbers. They aren’t that far off.

 

[Qwerlancer]

Buff mechanized equipment by giving them more breakthrough and hardness could balance it.

 

[Cavalry]

Does anyone know why this was done?

Paradox probably not very good players! They lower MOT cost to compensate for the cost to build supply truck and train.

 

[Cavalry]

and NATO forces in Korea shredded numerically superior dismounted armies (Italian & Chinese, respectively) after about 7 days of sustained fighting.

Excuse me it was the job of over powered CAS, the MOT did help them run away from Chinese in the longest retreat ever, losing Seoul in the process.

 

[PorkchopSandwiches247]

I understand that the cost has slightly increased but I mean, has it increased that much? I mean in all honesty I have the old numbers. They aren’t that far off.

Honestly I had a hard time justifying spending production on tanks before. And now that motorized comes with both breakthrough and pretty significant amounts of hardness to boot, their niche is even less necessary in my opinion, particularly when tanks have increased even more in cost.