@Imperious:
You talking about SPA: self propelled artillery?
these would be 3-3 costing 6, except when they roll a one they pick the land unit they want to kill…tank destroyers
Bystander 1 :-D Brilliant!!
Bystander 2 :cry: Genius…shear genius…
Me :| Well, I think choosing a target on a 1 is a novel idea, but perhaps too powerful. I take it that ability is in place of supporting infantry. The thing is about tank destroyers is that they were powerful but vulnerable due to really light armor. I say cost 6, attack 4, defend 2 is both more historically accurate, and more unique than just being an “anti-tank”.
Still, if it doesn’t support infantry, can it really be called “artillery” based on AA standards and tradition? Also, from a technical standpoint, I don’t think we can call a tank destroyer “artillery”. While a TD may have a bug gun, the gun must be able to fire at extreme angles in order to qualify.
Here’s my idea:
Name Attack Defend Cost Move Special
Light Mobile Artillery 2 2 5 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Heavy Mobile Artillery 3 2 6 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Still, I really like the tank destroyer idea. At this rate, we’ll overload the game with unit types.
yes only one type…tank destroyer which is a subset of SPA
3-3 however. these had decent armor plating even 3-4 units is possible.
The tank destroyers I remember had no tops.
Here’s my idea:
Name Attack Defend Cost Move Special
Light Mobile Artillery 2 2 5 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Heavy Mobile Artillery 3 2 6 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Why would I ever want to purchase these units?
The armor unit which is 3 Attack, 3 defense, 2 move (can blitz, which artillery cannot) 5 IPC cost is just plain better than the Light Mobile Artillery for the same cost, and the Heavy one just isn’t good enough for 6 IPCs.
I figured moving 2 in addition to supporting inf was worth an extra IPC, but I see your point. my idea would only create a headache anyway w/ too many ground units.
I figured moving 2 in addition to supporting inf was worth an extra IPC, but I see your point. my idea would only create a headache anyway w/ too many ground units.
Many of the units you proposed suffer from that issue as well. Revised or AA50 are games played at a grand strategy level, where you command armies. The sort of division you propose concerning artillery/mech artillery/etc. is more suitable for games played at a lower level (operational/tactical)
exactly:
the only other land units to consider is another plane ( fighter-bomber,divebomber,torpedo bomber)
Mechanized/Motorized Infantry
fort or fortress or coastal battery
HQ unit
Heavy Bomber (as a tech unit)
Heavy tanks/ elite armor
rockets ( as per technology)
new factory and AA flak guns ( depending on if the AA42 has new ones or not)
Jet fighter ( as per technology)
possible escort carrier
tokens for oil, damaged ships, AA flak level, ports
OK. So, should SPA be a Tech to replace my Heavy Bombers Tech? Or are you saying keep HB tech and use separate pieces for that technology?
SPA replaced ‘heavy artillery’ tech. That OOB Technology is totally bogus, while SPA did require some research to develop them like heavy tanks.
What are we considering as SPA, becasue if you include tank destoyers i would say they should be good on the defensive, but if you are including rocket artillery they would be good on the offensive.
What if you didn’t have SPA, just a tank destoyer unita and a rocket artillery unit
