However, there's still plenty to speculate on how Armored Cars will be introduced. Will they be their own class? How might they compare to the other classes in the game? How might other classes be effected? As my revamped US tech tree accounts for Armored Cars, with several possible branches, it's important for me to describe their potential applicability in the game. So this post aims to identify patterns within the game and then apply my opinions about Armored Cars to them.
In my research into Armored Cars, several patterns have emerged that span across all potential tiers. Whether an Armored Car (henceforth referred to as "AC") may clearly exist at a higher tier or a lower tier, and while there's always going to be exceptions, there's hard details that remain consistent between them.
- Armor: Armor is for all intents and purposes nonexistent, only thick enough to protect against small arms fire. Even the weakest guns in the game should be able to defeat any AC's armor with ease.
- Speed: Without a doubt, ACs should have the highest top speed of their peers. Even some of the slowest ACs go faster than 70 km/h.
- Profile: By and large, ACs have the smallest profiles of any class, even when compared to LTs.
- Guns: Just as ACs are the fastest of their peers, they also have the weakest guns. They often have the lowest calibers, but may make up for this with high firing rates.
From these physical characteristics, we can speculate about how ACs may compare against HTs, MTs, and LTs of the same tier. And for these purposes, I think it's important to think of ACs as their own individual class.
The above image simply demonstrates what the typical armor levels may be between classes of an individual tier. HTs are clearly better armored while ACs have the worst protection. Now with four classes instead of three, MTs are no longer the "average" between the classes. The same can be said for mobility, which the following image shows.
These two spectrums work together to demonstrate the overlap between classes. For instance, when we discuss HTs, there are two extremes that are considered: "Superheavies" such as the Maus and the O-I, and "Heaviums" such as the 113 and the T-10. These are HTs which have exaggerated characteristics indicative of the HT class, and HTs which behave more like MTs than HTs, respectively.
This kind of overlap should be applicable to the other classes. There should be MTs that behave more like HTs (like the Super Pershing) and ones that behave more like LTs (like the Bat-Chat 25 t). Similarly, there's LTs that behave more like MTs (like the T-54 Ltwt.). LTs that take on the characteristics of ACs, as I previously described them, would be tanks like the Type 64 and the ELC AMX bis.
TDs and SPGs are something else entirely. These are not "isolated" classes like LTs, MTs, and HTs. Rather, TDs and SPGs can take on the characteristics of these isolated ones. For instance, there are TDs that behave like LTs, MTs, and HTs such as the M18 Hellcat, SU-101, and the Tortoise, respectively. The same is true for SPGs, although to a lesser extent. This means there should also be AC TDs and SPGs.
What's more, the introduction of ACs as I've described them work to alleviate LTs from their scouting role. They can now be considered as light MTs, or MTs can be thought of as heavy LTs. This also means that LTs should lose their on-the-move camouflage bonus, despite retaining camouflage factors better than that of MTs. The on-the-move camouflage bonus should then transfer over to ACs.
Their small profiles, high speeds, and maneuverability should allow them to take on the scouting role more effectively than any LT could. In order to push them further away from HTs and MTs—the two classes that ACs aren't adjacent to—we also need to discuss the kinds of guns they carry.
There's an interesting pattern with gun calibers I've found, which the following image helps illustrate.
Excluding TDs and SPGs because of their class-encompassing characteristics, the first time we see a conventional 90 mm gun for a HT is at Tier VI, as with the ARL 44. For MTs, this is at Tier VII, as with the T20. For LTs, this starts at Tier VIII, as with the HWK 12. Following this pattern, we should expect 90 mm guns to become common at Tier IX.
Naturally, there are always going to be exceptions. However, this should be the general trend. We can also see this pattern with other calibers. For instance, with 105 mm guns, they become commonplace at Tier VIII, as with the Tiger II. With MTs, they commonly appear at Tier IX, as with the Leopard PTA. Finally, with LTs, they appear at Tier X, as with the Rhm. PzW.. This means that 105 mm guns should begin appearing at Tier XI for ACs, but because there simply is no Tier XI, this means no AC should be able to mount a conventional 105 mm gun, such as the Royal Ordnance 105 mm L7.
View range is another thing to consider. Similar to the trends in camouflage, ACs would have the best view ranges in the game, whereas HTs have the worst.
To sum it up, Armored Cars are dedicated scouts and flankers. Because of their poor armor and relative firepower, in most situations they lack the ability to engage frontally or over long distances. Their small profiles and high mobility should allow them to get in and out of combat with ease. Given their low caliber sizes relative to their peers, the relative gun accuracy can be made higher than average to compensate. Armored Cars should excel at hit-and-run tactics, and with the accuracy to reliably hit enemy weak spots to make up for the poor relative penetration of their guns.
In short, my prediction for the introduction of Armored Cars involves making them their own class. Armored Cars then become the new Light Tanks, taking on all the roles and characteristics of the class as they're intended. Light Tanks then become more medium-ish, as they arguably already are. MTs will also need some slight nerfs in orser to give LTs the flexibility they need.
Remember that these are merely my opinions. What are you anticipating from Armored Cars?
This kind of overlap should be applicable to the other classes. There should be MTs that behave more like HTs (like the Super Pershing) and ones that behave more like LTs (like the Bat-Chat 25 t). Similarly, there's LTs that behave more like MTs (like the T-54 Ltwt.). LTs that take on the characteristics of ACs, as I previously described them, would be tanks like the Type 64 and the ELC AMX bis.
TDs and SPGs are something else entirely. These are not "isolated" classes like LTs, MTs, and HTs. Rather, TDs and SPGs can take on the characteristics of these isolated ones. For instance, there are TDs that behave like LTs, MTs, and HTs such as the M18 Hellcat, SU-101, and the Tortoise, respectively. The same is true for SPGs, although to a lesser extent. This means there should also be AC TDs and SPGs.
What's more, the introduction of ACs as I've described them work to alleviate LTs from their scouting role. They can now be considered as light MTs, or MTs can be thought of as heavy LTs. This also means that LTs should lose their on-the-move camouflage bonus, despite retaining camouflage factors better than that of MTs. The on-the-move camouflage bonus should then transfer over to ACs.
Their small profiles, high speeds, and maneuverability should allow them to take on the scouting role more effectively than any LT could. In order to push them further away from HTs and MTs—the two classes that ACs aren't adjacent to—we also need to discuss the kinds of guns they carry.
There's an interesting pattern with gun calibers I've found, which the following image helps illustrate.
Excluding TDs and SPGs because of their class-encompassing characteristics, the first time we see a conventional 90 mm gun for a HT is at Tier VI, as with the ARL 44. For MTs, this is at Tier VII, as with the T20. For LTs, this starts at Tier VIII, as with the HWK 12. Following this pattern, we should expect 90 mm guns to become common at Tier IX.
Naturally, there are always going to be exceptions. However, this should be the general trend. We can also see this pattern with other calibers. For instance, with 105 mm guns, they become commonplace at Tier VIII, as with the Tiger II. With MTs, they commonly appear at Tier IX, as with the Leopard PTA. Finally, with LTs, they appear at Tier X, as with the Rhm. PzW.. This means that 105 mm guns should begin appearing at Tier XI for ACs, but because there simply is no Tier XI, this means no AC should be able to mount a conventional 105 mm gun, such as the Royal Ordnance 105 mm L7.
View range is another thing to consider. Similar to the trends in camouflage, ACs would have the best view ranges in the game, whereas HTs have the worst.
To sum it up, Armored Cars are dedicated scouts and flankers. Because of their poor armor and relative firepower, in most situations they lack the ability to engage frontally or over long distances. Their small profiles and high mobility should allow them to get in and out of combat with ease. Given their low caliber sizes relative to their peers, the relative gun accuracy can be made higher than average to compensate. Armored Cars should excel at hit-and-run tactics, and with the accuracy to reliably hit enemy weak spots to make up for the poor relative penetration of their guns.
In short, my prediction for the introduction of Armored Cars involves making them their own class. Armored Cars then become the new Light Tanks, taking on all the roles and characteristics of the class as they're intended. Light Tanks then become more medium-ish, as they arguably already are. MTs will also need some slight nerfs in orser to give LTs the flexibility they need.
Remember that these are merely my opinions. What are you anticipating from Armored Cars?
I really like the way you present everything, but I disagree with one of your points:
ReplyDeleteFurther nerfs to light tanks. It looks like you try to medium-ize lights. The problem is that lights are underperforming and nerfing them even more would simply make them the worst class in the game if ACs get introduced.
Lights should actually be buffed if ACs get introduced. Why? Because lights are ONLY good at spotting and remaining unspotted. If you take away they their movement camo percentage you simply kill the whole class.
ACs should be on par with LTs, both classes having the same puropse, each with it's ups and downs.
ACs should be faster, more maneuvrable and have better camo, trading all armor, ramming resistance, firepower and vehicle HP. Risky class to play but when the risk pays, it pays good. This is truly a class for high-skilled players.
LTs should remain the same: some armor, good enough speed and maneuvrability, good enough camo at the cost of DPM. All-round class, just like it is now, easier to play than ACs but with medium-ish characteristics. Somwhere in the middle: not true scouts, not true mediums. A bit of both.
What should be virtually the same? Viewrange and same on-the-move camo.
ACs are the best at what they are supposed to do while LTs are jack-of-all-trades.
I'd like to hear from you and discuss this further if you wish so! ;)
My interpretation is that ACs, were they to be introduced, would exaggerate the key characteristics of LTs. If you want something that's fast, mobile, or has great camo, why would you choose a LT when an AC does all that stuff better?
DeleteI think ACs should be made the new "scout" class. The only change I'm really advocating for is to remove the on-the-move camo benefit from LTs and give to ACs, and then buffs things like gun handling and DPM for the LTs to compensate. They're certainly made more medium-ish like this, but that's kinda how they're played already: like smaller and faster medium tanks. It's kinda silly that there are MTs capable of doing scouting just as well if not better than LTs. If ACs were to be introduced, LTs would just be made all the more redundant.
Technology is also something to consider, as some MTs become more LT-ish simply because of how they are. Like the Leopard 1 is basically just a larger RU 251, or how the the BatChat 25t is basically just a larger AMX-13 105. This isn't a fault of the developers, rather the tank builders. If these tanks are so similar, they shouldn't be artificially made dissimilar in my opinion.
My solution is to simply embrace the muddied between LTs and MTs. Kind of like how with ships there's "Heavy Cruisers" and "Light Cruisers" I would like to see MTs and LTs be thought of as "Heavy Mediums" and "Light Mediums". Then ACs would be the dedicated scout class, kind of like with how with ships there's Destroyers.