Per the image, this formation lacks transport for the infantry to keep up with the armor.
This formation is already covered by others that are better formulated (e.g. Light Armor Infantry, and Light Armor Assault, etc.)
I recommend eliminating this formation or adding motorized/mechanized transport.
Allow the Light Armor Infantry formation to focus on tank heavy with Truck or APC as it does now.
Modify the Assault Infantry formation to focus on infantry heavy (as it does) with added Truck or APC.
Attachments
asltinfbde.jpg (166.74 KiB) Viewed 251 times
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
In this case, the infantry has the needed mobility and transport.
Attachments
litearmaslt.jpg (171.8 KiB) Viewed 251 times
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
A tangent--the choice of the word "Assault" in the name of formations. The use of the word is inconsistent. I assumed Assault meant infantry-heavy formation with combined arms. However, Light Armor Assault (earlier image) is tank-heavy with combined arms. Very few infantry.
As with other formations, Siege implies artillery, and uses the term Heavy as a modifier to imply even more artillery.
If it were me, I would simply use--
"Motorized Assault BDE/CORPS/DIV" --infantry-heavy, with supporting trucks, tanks and artillery.
"Mechanized Assault BDE/CORPS/DIV" --infantry-heavy, with supporting APC, tanks and artillery.
"(Light/Medium/Heavy) Shock BDE/CORPS/DIV" --tank-heavy formations, with supporting mechanized infantry and artillery.
It gives the player the hint of the system--what to expect.
Is there Medium or Heavy Infantry? If not, why keep using the word Light? Was it to differentiate with RPG and MG? Motorized Light Infantry and Mechanized Light Infantry are used as formation names. Light infantry usually implies just the troops. Like mountain troops, airborne, etc. Leg infantry.
"Motorized MG BDE/CORPS/DIV" --MG infantry with supporting trucks.
"Mechanized MG BDE/CORPS/DIV" --MG infantry with supporting APCs.
etc.
The above is the way most independent units are named already.
It does get somewhat strange, because MG's and RPG's are just supporting weapons. They don't constitute the core of Regiments, let alone Corps and Armies. Every infantry formation should have some of both once they are re-discovered.
DISCLAIMER: I only have a limited view of OOB's. I'm not sure how walkers, etc. are handled.
Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen!
*Please remember all posts are made by a malevolent, autocratic despot whose rule is marked by unjust severity and arbitrary behavior. Your experiences may vary.
Considering the current price for Transports in Manpower and that even light tanks can be made very slow (-70%) to save fuel, this OOB still serves it's purpose.
Indeed I will propably prefer it over the Motorized light tank one, because of those factors.
But I still think stuff like "1 subunit Tanks" and "Motorized" should be options we toggle, not a completely new OOB we have to institutionalize for Every. Single. Combination.
for that matter, I'd like an actual list of existing OOBs in the manual - literally just a breakdown of trooptypes per oob. (Light Infantry being 100% infantry, Grenadier being 80% infantry, 10% RPG, 10% Machinegun, that sort of deal)
... and incidentally, a way to tell my staff council to never even look at Motorized OOBs as discovery targets o_o
