Not one person has mentioned (and believe me it's important) that an armored cars base strength is 1.
An infantry unit above 80% morale is stronger than an undamaged armored car. Adding to that @ the 99% morale mark a basic "grain fed, low salary" infantry unit has a strength of 1.4 thus is 40% stronger than a metal/oil/cash hungry armored car.
Using them for an identical purpose you would a tank is fundamentally flawed. Tanks have a strength of 4, they're guaranteed a shot every tick and are beasts (bear in mind a battleship fires for 6 a tick and a railgun only 3) tanks are immensely powerful.
Armored cars are excellent in intercepting fleeing troops, dashing past enemy lines after you've popped a hole in them, or if they're inept enough to leave one for you with a red carpet.
They do help maintain overall Inf. morale on ocean "cruises" and represent a stern 1 unwavering power regardless of where they're @ even the crappiest darkest dankest trenches of your enemies rear lines when the new day tick (NDT) hits. So there is some validity to packing them with infantry, but i advise against taking the previous posts on using them like Tanks to heart.
Armored cars are like your cavalry, in fact I'm sure thats what Kostenlose intended them to be similar to when the idea first appeared in their heads. They are designed to be behind enemy lines. They're there to be exploitative and reactive. They share one attribute with Tanks however and this is unquestionable: "If you're going to use them do not be afraid to lose them."
I'm not going to comment the economic/ infrastructural ramifications of the AC currently. That's a whole 'nother topic. And personally i think more people need to be talking about the military functions of these new units. They're being horribly misused and probably turning some fresh meat away from our beloved Sup1914.
Lotus out.
An infantry unit above 80% morale is stronger than an undamaged armored car. Adding to that @ the 99% morale mark a basic "grain fed, low salary" infantry unit has a strength of 1.4 thus is 40% stronger than a metal/oil/cash hungry armored car.
Using them for an identical purpose you would a tank is fundamentally flawed. Tanks have a strength of 4, they're guaranteed a shot every tick and are beasts (bear in mind a battleship fires for 6 a tick and a railgun only 3) tanks are immensely powerful.
Armored cars are excellent in intercepting fleeing troops, dashing past enemy lines after you've popped a hole in them, or if they're inept enough to leave one for you with a red carpet.
They do help maintain overall Inf. morale on ocean "cruises" and represent a stern 1 unwavering power regardless of where they're @ even the crappiest darkest dankest trenches of your enemies rear lines when the new day tick (NDT) hits. So there is some validity to packing them with infantry, but i advise against taking the previous posts on using them like Tanks to heart.
Armored cars are like your cavalry, in fact I'm sure thats what Kostenlose intended them to be similar to when the idea first appeared in their heads. They are designed to be behind enemy lines. They're there to be exploitative and reactive. They share one attribute with Tanks however and this is unquestionable: "If you're going to use them do not be afraid to lose them."
I'm not going to comment the economic/ infrastructural ramifications of the AC currently. That's a whole 'nother topic. And personally i think more people need to be talking about the military functions of these new units. They're being horribly misused and probably turning some fresh meat away from our beloved Sup1914.
Lotus out.