[deleted]

[deleted]

... And you looked at the wrong stats for both of them... Armored cars have 2 versus infantry(attacking or defending, but 1 in city(along with cutting the HP in half), 1.5 on mountains, and 3 on plains), and infantry have 1.0 and 1.5 against armored(attacking and defending, respectively). And there is a lot more factors than just the attack, the HP of the 2 are different as well. The armored car has 10(5 in cities), the infantry has 15. And there is always the chance that the X-factor is at play for your defeat...

As for a change to them, I'm not really sure. They either need a combat buff or a buff to their intended purpose(IE scouting), preferably the latter. Otherwise, they are just weaker light tanks, in essence.

Edit: And I have voted both, to show the error of your poll

Armored Car has 15 hitpoints and half in cities With the rest of the stats you are right that it favors the Armored Car.

So if 1 Armored Car fights vs 1 Inf, the Armored car should usually win. But of course there can be other factors.

It is also possible that your armored car was hit by artillery or airplanes during the battle. The newspaper only reports the killing blow.

For the record, I would oppose any effort to increase the existing speed and combat capabilities of the in-game armored car brigade. From a historical accuracy standpoint, the in-game armored car unit is just about right. It's fast, it's got a wide reconnaissance radiance for disclosing the presence of enemy units, and it provides relatively effective light armor support to infantry in the absence of enemy light, medium or heavy tank units. It is a well-designed niche unit for fast-moving reconnaissance, and no-one who understands its proper role should ever mass-produce them after light tanks and other fast-moving units become available.

The real problem with the under-use of armored cars is that they must compete for research time against other more important optional combat units like commandos, self-propelled artillery, SPAA, battleships, mechanized infantry, naval bombers, which often already require gold to work them into the 24/7 research schedule.

If the Bytro Labs brain trust wants to increase the use of armored cars, then the developers should consider reducing the length of its upper-level research cycles by half of the current times so the armored car unit can be maintained at then-current tech levels, and perhaps also decreasing the unit's daily oil consumption from 75 to 65 or 50 tons per day.

MontanaBB wrote:

For the record, I would oppose any effort to increase the existing speed and combat capabilities of the in-game armored car brigade. From a historical accuracy standpoint, the in-game armored car unit is just about right.

If the Bytro Labs brain trust wants to increase the use of armored cars, then the developers should consider reducing the length of its upper-level research cycles by half of the current times.

I agree with this (opposing any increase in the speed and combat strength of the armoured cars). These units are fine as they stand, and actually very effective when used correctly.

When researched to a higher level, these units can be very effective when stacked together with an armoured column, because they can be used to race ahead of the main column in specific situations at very high speed (level 4 armoured cars can go at 70 km/h). At times, reaching a spot ahead of an enemy unit can make a big difference.

However, I do not think there should be any reduction of the upper-level research cycles. Players who want to have high speed units for blitzkrieg attacks should have to sacrifice developing something else instead. No reason to make it easier for them to be researched. As it is, the armoured car research costs less and takes less time than most other units anyway.

True, they can race ahead. In practice, I haven't seen armoured cars above LV. 1. There may be some people that research the higher levels. They are great for recon. If an unescorted AC comes too close on enemy territory, a LT will destroy it. After LTs are available, I rarely see armored cars for long. My kill ratio for AC is currently 1.67 against humans. If my enemy has tanks, I'm more likely to need tanks with my limited resources (manpower) than AC.

In your own provinces, units travel at 100%. Enemy units at 50%. In enemy provinces, it is the reverse.

If the province is unoccupied, an AC is great. If it is occupied, not so great.

On plains:

LT LV1 40 kph; AC Lv1 45 kph (on enemy territory 22.5 kph)

LT LV2 45 kph; AC LV2 50 kph (on enemy territory 25 kph)

The enemy LT on it's territory can outrun your unescorted AC and destroy it.

If an AC attacks a lone infantry (the infantry uses its defense value).

A lot of players do not know how to use armoured cars properly. Then they describe the unit as 'worthless', which is a bit like someone who does not understand the concept of electricity saying that electical extension wires are useless. Many use their armoured forces for massive frontal assaults against enemy positions, which is daft, instead of trying to break through the enemy front line and then exploiting that breakthrough to maximum effect.

Say you achieve a breakthrough, as good panzer commanders using blitzkrieg tactics will try to do. What you must do next is to exploit the breakthrough as best you can. To do this, your armoured columns need to drive through the enemy's rear at the highest possible speed, in order to cause the greatest possible disruption.

If you stack your armoured cars with your armoured columns, you increase the speed of your armoured column. How does this work?

When you have an armoured car stacked with your column, it can race ahead to grab each undefended enemy province. Unless you are fighting against a player with infinite resources, his troops will almost always be stacked at the front, because nobody can have units in every province (the game system will not allow you to sustain such a large army because you will run out of oil and food if you have too many units). Because the speed of your units will increase once you take a province, by racing ahead and taking the province AHEAD of the main column the armoured cars will boost the speed of the main column. When taken over a number of provinces, this represents a significant increase in the overall speed of the column as a whole. I think the game system is deliberately designed to represent the German use of blitzkrieg tactics in WWII, with this difference in speed between travel in your province and in an enemy one.

I repeat, you do not just send an armoured car into enemy territory to try to swamp them. That would be foolish exactly because of what you described in your post. But if your armoured car is racing ahead of the main column it will not usually have to outrun an enemy tank, it will only have to fall back towards your main armoured column which is coming up behind it. You may get caught out occasionally by a lone LT that is being held in reserve but you should almost always be able to fall back to your main column in time. Because remember, your armoured car is not going on an expedition to change the course of history by itself, it is simply functioning as the advance element of a powerful armoured thrust.

I organise my armour into armoured 'divisions' of four units each (two tanks, one motorised infantry in case you have to fight on unfavourable terrain, and an armoured car for recce and for racing ahead to boost the speed of the main column). In practice it works well. I can usually outrun the LT spammers who have large tank formations, and always run circles around those players who stack their armoured columns with infantry and anti tank guns.

What I do find in practice is that finding a good balance of units, and then using that balance to maximum advantage, is always better than researching ONE unit type to the highest possible level and then spamming it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

That can be a good strategy for using armored cars. I like motorized infantry too. If you can breakthrough, that can be quite effective.

That is fine if your enemy doesn't have an air force in the area. If your enemy recons you, they will know what you are sending before your armored column gets near. If they have tac bombers, they may even be able to destroy your armored car or even your whole stack before it can reach the province. I've seen plenty of armored columns, that weren't escorted by something with decent anit-air, get destroyed by tac bombers .

Another thing to watch out for is artillery, SP artillery and later in game rail guns.

A player with local air superiority and tac bombers can often hold off a much larger force. First, they can recon to see what the enemy has in provinces. If you have no decent anti-air in your, an air force can often destroy your whole stack or damage it enough to often turn the tide. In one game I was losing, my enemy kept sending tanks to capture my province. I kept destroying his tanks in his provinces with my tac bombers because he didn't put any anti-air in with them. I held out for weeks more than i should have. Hint: I had fortifications, infantry defense and anti-tank to hold off his tank assaults. Then I would pick off his tanks in surrounding provinces.

Some players do put a lot of their forces on the front lines. It is unwise to not have reserves behind the front lines. That does leave them open to AC or LT attacks if the enemy can break through. A player with local air superiority and tac bombers could decimate your armored columns.

Sometimes you will achieve a breakthrough and this AC strategy will be great. If you have superior local forces, you may be able to break through. Again with aerial recon, the enemy will see what you are sending.

If both sides have about the same resources to spend, I'd still prefer extra LTs to your ACs. An extra tank in the enemy stack instead of an AC will have more firepower in each round. If the enemy can gain an edge over you in tanks over time, then the enemy could be the one making the breakthrough and sending tanks through your provinces.

If your enemy is building ACs, i would like that. After LT lv 2 is researched, LT has armor attack and defense of 2 to AC LV 2 armor attack and defense of .5. If you can meet a stack of 2 LV 2 LTs, 1 motorized infantry and 1 AC with 3 tanks and a motorized infantry, you have a huge advantage in firepower. The AC's preferred target is armor. With each research level, the light tanks firepower against armor increases while the AC's stays at .5.

If you can break through the front lines, and the enemy is sparsely defended behind the front lines, an AC can speed the advance. A lot depends on what you believe your enemy has to fight back with. As the defender, you want to prevent your enemy from breaking through the front lines. If the enemy does break through, you want to have forces in reserve to deal with the enemy.

If you can break through the front lines, and the enemy is sparsely defended behind the front lines, a LT can speed along. It isn't quite as fast as an AC.

I do use the free ACs for recon.

Lawrence Czl wrote:

That is fine if your enemy doesn't have an air force in the area. If your enemy recons you, they will know what you are sending before your armored column gets near. If they have tac bombers, they may even be able to destroy your armored car or even your whole stack before it can reach the province.

A player with local air superiority and tac bombers could decimate your armored columns.

Sometimes you will achieve a breakthrough and this AC strategy will be great. If you have superior local forces, you may be able to break through. Again with aerial recon, the enemy will see what you are sending.

If both sides have about the same resources to spend, I'd still prefer extra LTs to your ACs. An extra tank in the enemy stack instead of an AC will have more firepower in each round.

Lawrence you are completely missing the point, which is that you have to play with a BALANCE of units. I am not saying that you stack an armoured car with your tanks and then forget about your air force. That is stupid. I am only saying that if you stack an armoured car with your armoured columns it will increase the speed of your armoured columns and that is how you use blitzkrieg tactics.

Blitzkrieg tactics do not involve sending your armoured columns on head on collisions against enemy forces, I think you do not understand this point. You seem obsessed with the idea that you build an armoured formation and then use it to smash your opponents, hence your fixation about the superior stats of the Light Tank unit. If that is how you play, then it is easy to see why you cannot understand how the armoured car unit gives you a massive advantage over an opponent who only has slower units in his armoured columns.

Blitzkrieg tactics involve avoiding enemy formations, running circles around them in order to disrupt their rear area and create chaos. If you understood that you would see that your point about the extra light tank in a stack does not make any sense. An extra light tank costs a lot more resources to build, and it does not speed up your armoured column. If you are stupid and you smash your armoured column into an enemy armoured column, then it is better to have a light tank. But if you use your brains and run circles around the enemy column, then your extra light tank in the column does not give you any advantage. Mobility and intelligent use of your units beats smashing with stronger units every time.

As for your point about air power, you seem to assume that I am going to be stupid and send armoured columns into areas where I cannot provide air cover. Just because you did this against one stupid player does not mean anything, obviously you were playing against a noob who had never met someone with a strong air force before. When I do my blitz attacks, I always provide air cover for my columns. Try using tactical bombers against a column that is moving under the cover of a swarm of interceptors. Your losses in tactical bombers will be enormous and remember that a tactical bomber costs a lot more to build than armoured cars or light tanks. If I am going to lose a few armoured cars but get to shoot down your tactical bombers in return, I figure that I have gained on the exchange.

I repeat, you do not send armoured columns into areas where you do not have air cover. You use your brains and provide air cover when you do this. If you are unable to, then you cannot carry out a blitzkrieg style attack, if you actually understood how blitzkrieg tactics worked you would also understand that the use of air power was always an integral part of the blitzkrieg.

I understand your blitz strategy. I even agree it can work if you can break through.

Armoured Cars are fine. They aren't supposed to be main body corps of your army, but scouts and support as it says in the description. They are good early game, and great scouts later, but they need no buffs.

One other use of the armored car is border patrol, where you have a neighbor who you think may go active against you in the future. You can either park, or use the "add location" to send the AC along a set of fixed points to check for enemy build up. Planes on patrol can also fill this role (and are better for depth of vision) but a parked armored car will create a speed bump against an enemy surprise attack that occurs when you are off line. Also planes are more likely needed on your active front, where an AC might be spared.

Peter Mat wrote:

One other use of the armored car is border patrol, where you have a neighbor who you think may go active against you in the future.

thats pretty smart... I tend to just use them to take enemy provinces if I make a hole in the lines........

MontanaBB wrote:

For the record, I would oppose any effort to increase the existing speed and combat capabilities of the in-game armored car brigade. From a historical accuracy standpoint, the in-game armored car unit is just about right. It's fast, it's got a wide reconnaissance radiance for disclosing the presence of enemy units, and it provides relatively effective light armor support to infantry in the absence of enemy light, medium or heavy tank units. It is a well-designed niche unit for fast-moving reconnaissance, and no-one who understands its proper role should ever mass-produce them after light tanks and other fast-moving units become available.

The real problem with the under-use of armored cars is that they must compete for research time against other more important optional combat units like commandos, self-propelled artillery, SPAA, battleships, mechanized infantry, naval bombers, which often already require gold to work them into the 24/7 research schedule.

If the Bytro Labs brain trust wants to increase the use of armored cars, then the developers should consider reducing the length of its upper-level research cycles by half of the current times so the armored car unit can be maintained at then-current tech levels, and perhaps also decreasing the unit's daily oil consumption from 75 to 65 or 50 tons per day.