It useless in current small maps. Few players will run out of supplies before death, unless the combat intensity is extremely low.
The dense obstacles and micro maps, which cause the loss of mobility advantage, eliminated the possibility of these vehicles launching surprise attacks on the enemy, and they will only serve as feed for anti tank weapons and tanks.
That’s also why people rarely use rider squads.
But how useful is that really since the majority of modes all stop at the frontline. It would be different if maps were huge with a ton of space and you could actually recon into enemy territory.
Armored cars are a very interesting point. However what’s the point of these armored cars being added into a new class, when some armored cars like the Greyhound and Puma are vehicle slots.
Is it because these usually have MGs or auto cannons. Some tanks have auto cannons and yet they are still tanks. So they get divided by their armament? If it’s an armored car with an AT gun it’s a “tank slot” but if it has an MG it’s a support vehicle, except some tanks also just have auto cannons? So tanks with auto cannons are moved to the support slot, and armored cars with AT guns moved to the “tank” slot?
I think we need to look into these roles in depth.
The Rider or biker class is basically a MG nest on wheels. It’s small, fast, can move from one location to the next very quickly.
I used to think halftracks should’ve went to the Rider class but now I see their specialized role. The APC class has halftracks and trucks that are transport vehicles nonetheless armed or not. The armed ones can support the infantry and you can either dump them or have the advantage of mobility and can stay in one spot for a while then move to another spreading troops around.
Vehicles like the Puma we have were intended for recon or support roles, yet they are a tank slot. Does the 234/1, the auto cannon variant, get made into a tank or support slot. Or does the Puma get moved to the support slot. But there are Panzer 3 variants armed with the same exact gun and they are tanks
You’ve got an interesting concept here, but I think all of these would fit much better in the Rider class.
I’ve thrown the idea out to expand the Rider class into being more of a “technical” or general machine gun-equipped vehicle-centric class, basically an APC driver class but without the PC(or A but half the APCs ingame aren’t even armored anyway so ???)
Someone made a thread about a Kettenkrad not too long ago, and another with a trailer that carries supplies, and I think you could absolutely create a new vehicle-based class by combining the two and having small vehicles act as mobile ammo boxes that can even refill AT/AA guns. Would be an interesting idea.
Well, the goal isn’t to make anything overpowered. It would still be rather useful on the maps we have. Such as for giving intel for indirect fire and aircraft, as well as for protecting the flanks.
Exactly, lightly armed and armored vehicles that don’t fit into the APC role could all just be added as Riders. Vehicles akin to and including the Kettenkrad, motorcycles, Jeeps, and lightly-armed armored cars don’t have an overpowering impact like tanks and APCs do. Whether providing fire support with a machine gun, or carrying supplies; they would all be fine in one class with no quantitative limitations. On a side note, I’m slightly upset that they made the Universal Carrier an APC rather than a Rider.
Sure, I wont argue about what is or isn’t an APC and where the line should be drawn. But the UC only has a crew of 4 and can provide fire support. It’s off-putting to see 9 guys come out of it. In real life it was used largely as a utility vehicle in numerous roles other than for simply transporting troops. Such as for reconnaissance, carrying supplies, carrying mortars, and towing.
Could be a Tanker at BR I, or a Rider at BR III+. It might seem overpowered as a Rider, but it would likely be comparable to a mounted HMG in terms of effectiveness. Perhaps it could be balanced by letting frag grenades disable or destroy light vehicles such as the L3. It also a trade-off since it isn’t as versatile as an infantry squad. I think rider would be more fitting.
Interesting concept (reminds me a bit of the ammo and medikit crates you could install on H&G vehicles) but I don’t see the point of adding reconnaissance vehicles as supply vehicles instead of more suitable alternatives (like small trucks, artillery tractors or tankettes)
some armored supply vehicles can be for example (at least for Italy)
This was the favorite argument against APCs, and it proved to be short sighted when they were successfully implemented. These assumptions don’t stand up to the complexity and variability of live games.
I don’t think giving people grenade resupply is a good idea, and armored cars are already in the game so I don’t think splitting them into another class is necessary or beneficial. If anything resupply should be folded into the capabilities of the APC.
I didn’t see much success in them. Their CDs are longer than regular rally. For me, just piloting the plane and pressing the V key can easily destroy all APCs.
In low intensity matches, they are indeed useful, but only for one point.
WELL, interesting idea.
I would suggest adding to the OP’s idea the ability for supply units to become supply zones for tanks. Because in this game it is very hard to get back to the supply zone with tanks.
In WW2 there were various vehicles that accompanied tanks to supply them with shells.
