3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

User avatar
Nixon
Specialist
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat 13 May 2017 22:55
Contact:

3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Nixon » Tue 16 May 2017 01:47

Hey,

I will make it short. The 3rd AD suffers a lot under the unavailability of cheap transports. Sure the HTs are great, but there are a lot of situation where you simply don't want them. The 12th SS for example has access to the Opel Blitz, which helps a lot.

I would therefor suggest a cheaper transport for the 3rd AD.

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Mister Maf » Tue 16 May 2017 02:33

I think this is one of the weaknesses of what is otherwise possibly one of the most well-rounded decks currently in the game. I think it's good this way. Every deck is supposed to have strengths and weaknesses; for armored decks, that's usually infantry and air.
Image

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby TankHunter » Tue 16 May 2017 02:56

If 3rd AD's infantry were not fully mechanized, they should get (few) cards of 4xArm LMG Rifles or 6xArm Rifles in trucks in a later phase. If they were fully mechanized, leave them as is. They are not supposed to be a super strong infantry division. They make up for lack of heavy infantry weapons with half tracks, tanks and artillery.

I'm going to assume that they were fully mechanized because Ford and General f***ing Motors. So I'm against that solely on the basis of realism
Last edited by TankHunter on Tue 16 May 2017 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

User avatar
Nixon
Specialist
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat 13 May 2017 22:55
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Nixon » Tue 16 May 2017 03:07

It would still be their weak point with their infantry being mediocre at best. Their Bazooka is what they have going for them but they are performing bad in their main task, fighting other infantry units to cover armored vehicles. They are also the only division having no option to a cheap transport and are forced to always take a HT. It makes sense considering they were fully mechanized however the balance issue still prevails. I can understand people who want a accurate depiction of the division and maybe there should be a different change to be made but as it stands now i consider the 3rd armored as one of the weakest divisions in the game (focusing on 1v1). Mainly because there heavy reliance of their HTs makes them heavily map dependent.

Edit: Afaik the GMC truck was in battalions attached to the 3rd armored division and is already in the game as an AT towing vehicle.

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby TankHunter » Tue 16 May 2017 04:26

Nixon wrote:It would still be their weak point with their infantry being mediocre at best. Their Bazooka is what they have going for them but they are performing bad in their main task, fighting other infantry units to cover armored vehicles. They are also the only division having no option to a cheap transport and are forced to always take a HT. It makes sense considering they were fully mechanized however the balance issue still prevails. I can understand people who want a accurate depiction of the division and maybe there should be a different change to be made but as it stands now i consider the 3rd armored as one of the weakest divisions in the game (focusing on 1v1). Mainly because there heavy reliance of their HTs makes them heavily map dependent.

Edit: Afaik the GMC truck was in battalions attached to the 3rd armored division and is already in the game as an AT towing vehicle.


The division obviously had GMC trucks, however they weren't used for carrying infantry. Soldiers in armored infantry battalions, like the ones in the 3rd AD, only rode in halftracks. Trucks were used solely for logistical purposes. The 57mm AT guns that were organic to the division's armored infantry battalions were towed by halftracks. The M1 and M5 AT guns that come with trucks are not organic to the division but rather represent an attached towed tank destroyer / AT gun battalion. Tbh 3rd Armored shouldn't even have towed 76mm guns, since it is an idiotic decision to attached towed guns to an armored division, and they operated alongside a towed AT gun battalion. They also had 2 attached TD battalions during the Normandy campaign IRL. One of them was attached to 3rd Armored for nearly the whole war(the other only for most of the Normandy campaign), and both were equipped with M10s. But that's a tangent that has nothing do with the thread other than saying that transport trucks for infantry were not organic to 3rd AD.

Since the Engineer units represent combat engineers that don't appear to be part of the armored infantry Bns, a case could be made for having them available in trucks.

Sidenote: German armor divisions generally have infantry in trucks because they didn't have enough halftracks to outfit more than the first battalion of every panzer division IIRC. It's a realism choice and was actually part of their TO&E. Exception in-game and IRL is Panzer Lehr.

Source: http://www.militaryresearch.org/7-25%2015Sep43.pdf
http://www.ghqmodels.com/pdf/toe1-usarm ... lion44.pdf
Last edited by TankHunter on Fri 19 May 2017 22:31, edited 2 times in total.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

User avatar
Nixon
Specialist
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat 13 May 2017 22:55
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Nixon » Tue 16 May 2017 05:01

Considering the realism aspect i would like the devs to try out a 5 point decrease to bring them in line with the infantry of the 12th SS and 21st Panzer. It is a difficult balance decision if they should be 35 points or 40 points considering that they come with an HT but you have to take into account that they are the least cost efficient infantry unit in all armored divisions (so far) especially because you only get 65 points per tick in phase A.

A different approach could be to keep the costs as it is but give them 1 sub machine gun or BARs. However i don't know how it would effect the historical accuracy.

User avatar
Saavedra
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Saavedra » Tue 16 May 2017 09:50

Nixon wrote:It is a difficult balance decision if they should be 35 points or 40 points considering that they come with an HT but you have to take into account that they are the least cost efficient infantry unit in all armored divisions


They have an AT weapon that can kill any vehicle at close range up to, and including, a King Tiger. That sounds pretty damn cost-efficient to me. If you want them to face off against regular infantry, you should use the halftracks you paradoxically want to get rid of to support them. Also, in phase A, you get mortars both infantry and vehicle-mounted.

User avatar
FLX
Major-General
Posts: 3998
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 10:43
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby FLX » Tue 16 May 2017 11:33

Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.
Image
Be nice or I nerf your favorite unit !

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3705
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Drang » Tue 16 May 2017 11:41

FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.


HAIL!

User avatar
Nixon
Specialist
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat 13 May 2017 22:55
Contact:

Re: 3rd Armored cheap infantry transport required

Postby Nixon » Tue 16 May 2017 14:39

FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.


I don't know why people think that a slight change will remove their weakness. I don't want them to be captain america after all. At the moment however they are one of the worst infantry units in the game, especially when compared to other armored division infantry and the concept of balancing this out with the required support of a HT leads to obvious problems.

Maybe in the future, when ranked data is available, things will change.

Edit: Another possible change would be to reduce the cost of the HT by 5 points. It would sharpen the profile of an fully mechanized armored division, differentiate them further from other armored divisions like the 12th SS and could solve some issues in phase A.

It would also effect other units that can get the HT however these would only be the Bofors and they AT guns. The At guns however already have the jeep/gmc as a transport available.
Last edited by Nixon on Tue 16 May 2017 17:18, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests