Assault guns are basically just SPGs or Tank Destroyers.

I guess they would be tanks without being effective against heavy armour and more so against infantry but only on the attack, more like a reversed tank destroyer. I do not hate the idea, I do think it is very hard to implement though.

I can see some problems with it.
- As Jesterthesheep mentioned, why use direct attack unit for fighting infantry if you can use ranged weapons?
- Would tanks still really serve a purpose? Instead of building tanks you can just build SPG and TD and use whichever suits your needs better when they arrive at the frontline.

Motorized infantry will do.

Well yeah but they have a different armour class.

Sat on it for a day and the idea is kinda growing on me. But I'm afraid it turns things around very weirdly in the game.
Right now if you want to fight infantry with heavy armour you use medium or heavy tanks. The main reason tanks are successful in the game is because everyone starts with infantry and that gives the tanks something to destroy. If you add Assault Guns to be able to even more effectively attack infantry than tanks have no more real place in the game. Then the only reason to ever have tanks instead of Assault guns + tank destroyers is if the tanks for example perform better against anti-tank guns then assault guns do. That would mean assault guns would need to have fewer HP within the same armour class. This is already realised in SP artillery and SP rocket artillery. Which is even better because it can fire from a distance.

It does fill a spot in the game that is currently empty though.

Heavy armour > light armour = medium tank
Heavy armour > 1st heavy armour & 2nd light armour= tank destroyer
Heavy armour > 1st light armour & 2nd heavy armour = Heavy tank

There is no heavy armoured unit that performs exceptionally well against unarmored targets. However, if you include the amount of HP units bring to the table the effectiveness from the heavy armoured units I mentioned does look a lot different. In that regard medium tanks are quite capable in taking on infantry.

Having an assault gun could be fun, have the tank be a jack of all trades while bringing some more specific planning and battle executing to the table could be interesting.

So what? It's the same.

If its different it is not the same

Well, good point
Guess I am not categorically opposed to adding more unit types.

What's interesting about this idea is that it is being put down as it would replace tanks.

This is what happened. The most built German WW2 combat vehicle (apart from half-tracks) was the Stug-III-G, an assault gun.


As it is called an Assault gun perhaps it could be extremely powerful offensively but weak defensively.

The game is not a war simulator, they are not trying to copy everything historically accurate for the sake of making the game fun. If that were true out of the 100 divisions you would have 86 would need to be infantry, 8 motorised infantry and 6 would have tanks.

It would replace tanks up to a certain degree, tanks also have lower defence values than attack against infantry and all else. Light tanks do the same thing but with a different armour class. That would turn medium tanks into machines meant for killing light armoured vehicles while the assault gun would be the preferred choice for attacking infantry. It would make the tank into more of a niche type unit.

It is not a bad idea but it would mean the balancing of the game would need some major adjusting as it is now in 1.5.