Armored Car Division template?

[Karcel]

I know armored cars are great for garrisons but I prefer just using Cav with MP as this usually is enough and cheaper to maintain.
However, I really want to use armored cars in a template that actually fights at the frontlines.
I am at a loss. Wherever I look online I get no clear answer. Not even a suggestion on what a division template with armored cars could even look like.

Lets assume I want 20 width armored car division. What should I put in there? 5 motorized, 5 armored cars(and some support divisions ofc)?

[screamingcrane]

As someone said on another post about what a good template would look like, the ground combat system is getting reworked as we speak so it might be good to hold back on learning all the metas sense they are about to change.

[Mack]

Armoured cars are basically "super light" tanks in the game mechanics.

So for a 20 width you'd just want 5 armour car, 5 motorised, and for support: aa, engineers, arty, recon and signals/rockets/maintenance/logistics for the final slot if you want.

[Karcel]

Originally posted by Mack:

Armoured cars are basically "super light" tanks in the game mechanics.

So for a 20 width you'd just want 5 armour car, 5 motorised, and for support: aa, engineers, arty, recon and signals/rockets/maintenance/logistics for the final slot if you want.

I see, I have one more problem.
Armored cars sure are good against infantry, however, as soon as I research the AP armored car it becomes the only thing I can produce which is not "out of date". So, as soon as I research it all my anti-infantry armored car divisions actually become a little bit worse against infantry while getting better at taking out armored divisions.

Its not even listed as a different equipment, too. I can't make 2 templates, one for Anti infantry and one for anti tanks because as soon as I produce the AP armored cars they replace the anti infantry armored cars.

[Včelí medvídek]

Well you can produce outdated equipment but than is just better dont research AP cars..

Otherwise light tanks are stronger and better all around. Advantage of AC is slightly better terrain bonuses in urban and desert (only speed there which is caped by motorized anyway). They have better production cost (IC, however 42 version need tungsten while light tanks do not) but as they have significantly worse stats (in particular armor and breakthrougth you want from armor) I would bet it will eat more production and manpower on loses (especially as getting armor bonuses will be much harder if at all...) than you save on the production.

Maybe it can be considered for some doctrine bonuses (Mass assault as China...) or to some specific poor terrain where lower fuel and supply usage make difference (again, China, desert..) but in general I would not bother beside recon support unit.

For garrison though AC are far more manpower/production effective than cavalry - due armor/hardiness it will save you tons and tons production and manpwoer loses as time goes in higher resistance areas. I tested it once as Germany controling good part of world (well, most beside US:p and difference was like 200k manpower loses/year, not mention the IC cost (it did not matter anyway at that stage but still something to consider)

EDIT:
For ilustrate what everything change if you repalce 36 light tank by AC. it not only lose msot combat stats, it is even slower than motorized at this stage:p
Even 40 AC < 36 LARM and 42 AC << 41 LARM.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2650386019

EDIT2: at end of the day, only AP cars make at least some sense as it can pierce 39 medium tank while 41 LARM can not... bit opaque and all around hardly worth of effort/troubles with way inferior unit, but if you are desperate for fuel and supply, it is option...

[Mack]

I think the devs made a mistake on the anti-tank armour car. I don't know why they made it a sub-class (like SPAA) instead of just making Anti-Tank Armoured Cars a Tier 4 follow on with the stats of Tier 3 with a decent amount of piercing.

My guess is they didn't want a 4th tier of any equipment, since nothing else on land has a tier 4 for buildable equipment, only navy has tier 4 units. There are a few things like motorised which have a single line with 4 upgrades, but with motorised you still build basic motorised without it becoming obsolete if you upgrade mechanised.

And of course, the intention for AC's is that you use them in garrisons and as recon support and then you can use AT AC's as your support recon and get extra piercing from your recon support?

As per the post above the only real benefit is a slightly reduction in fuel and IC cost. If you want to roleplay the afrika corp then sure, having some of them might be cool but it's a lot of research and XP wasted on very minor difference to just keeping light armour.

btw if you wanted to make two seperate divisions, one with armour car and one with anti-tank armour car, you can still do that by modifying the equipment in the division designer. so even though they're still identical, you can force one template to only use armour cars, and the anti-tank ac template to only use the anti-tank armour car.

[Karcel]

Originally posted by Mack:

I think the devs made a mistake on the anti-tank armour car. I don't know why they made it a sub-class (like SPAA) instead of just making Anti-Tank Armoured Cars a Tier 4 follow on with the stats of Tier 3 with a decent amount of piercing.

My guess is they didn't want a 4th tier of any equipment, since nothing else on land has a tier 4 for buildable equipment, only navy has tier 4 units. There are a few things like motorised which have a single line with 4 upgrades, but with motorised you still build basic motorised without it becoming obsolete if you upgrade mechanised.

And of course, the intention for AC's is that you use them in garrisons and as recon support and then you can use AT AC's as your support recon and get extra piercing from your recon support?

As per the post above the only real benefit is a slightly reduction in fuel and IC cost. If you want to roleplay the afrika corp then sure, having some of them might be cool but it's a lot of research and XP wasted on very minor difference to just keeping light armour.

btw if you wanted to make two seperate divisions, one with armour car and one with anti-tank armour car, you can still do that by modifying the equipment in the division designer. so even though they're still identical, you can force one template to only use armour cars, and the anti-tank ac template to only use the anti-tank armour car.

I see, thats a very informative answer. Thanks for the tip, I didn't think of that. I know AC are not that strong or I could just go for Light Tanks but I just really want to try them once and I wasn't sure how a division template with AC would look like.

[Mack]

That equipment limitation in the division designer I think you might need to use motorised recon for one of them as I believe only one type of armour car is used in the support recon so limiting one will mean it doesn't get the recon equipment.