What I’m looking for is a consistent model line of roughly equivalent types. Three nations would have to be exceptions, since they DIDN’T HAVE anything remotely comparable to the Tiger or IS-2 (or even Panther, for that matter…)
Two other nations (the US and UK) had competitive tanks that came too late to make much of an impact, but they COULD HAVE if decision makers had made wise decisions. The whole idea of A&A isn’t just to “refight” battles, (to some small extent and in admittedly an “armchair general” fashion) but to explore “might have beens.”
I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree on having heavy tanks for the UK and USA. They simply did not see combat long enough to merit being used. They were not even a part of Allied tank strategy until very late in the war. The allies used medium tanks supported by tank destroyers, artillery, and air support. I understand the armchair general thing, but design and production of heavy tanks had very little to do with the generals on the ground. I mean if you’re going to make a Pershing, why not a B-29? They are cool vehicles but they are more Post-war than WW2 era. They both saw service for a year at most during the war. I don’t think were going to talk one another into changing our minds though, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, I suppose so, especially as I think doing the B-29 isn’t a bad idea at all… (though perhaps it would be best reserved for a “tech unit” I still sometimes use TT’s B-29’s for exactly that.)
Oh, one more thing: remember that A&A, being a strategic-level game, is actually MORE about procurement decisions than it is about tactics. For tactical games, something like Memoir '44 or ToI is more appropriate (though admittedly, the battle-level A&A versions like D-Day and Battle of the Bulge are more tactical.)
I think if FMG ever gets around to tech units, the heavy bomber should be a B29. Come to think of it, why isn’t heavy tank a tech? I don’t think any country entered the war with a true heavy tank. They were all developed mid to late war were they not? And I understand what you mean about procurement, as a huge part of AA is buying a deploying units. My bad on that one.
I actually have made heavy tanks a tech in some of my experimental variants; then I just went ahead and gave the Germans automatic credit for it as a “national advantage” (note that this game was set in 1942, after the Germans had already started fielding some Tigers and Panthers.)
@Yoper:
US tac bomber should be a P-47 with high velocity aircraft rockets (HVAR) molded onto the wings.
UK tac bomber should be a Hawker Typhoon similarly decked out with wing rockets.
I like the typhoon idea but I think the US tac bomber should be a b-26 marauder.
I actually have made heavy tanks a tech in some of my experimental variants; then I just went ahead and gave the Germans automatic credit for it as a “national advantage” (note that this game was set in 1942, after the Germans had already started fielding some Tigers and Panthers.)
I like the idea of heavy tanks being a tech. I usually play with custom tech rules anyway so maybe I will add that in some how. What cost, attack, defense, and movement values do you give them? I’m thinking 8 IPC 4/4/1? (I would be using them in Global 40)
Movement: I wouldn’t drop their movement to 1. Heavies were generally slower than mediums of the same design-generation, but they’re still much faster than infantry… That’s with the exception of some early-war designs designated “Infantry tanks,” like say the Matilda. Even there, the tanks’ sustained overland speed (think “strategic speed” as opposed to “tactical speed”) would probably justify a 2 movement.
Combat: 4/4 Is probably too strong. I usually drop mediums back to the old MB values of 2/3 and give the heavies a 3/3. If you leave mediums at a 3/3, you could increase one of the values to a four, but I wouldn’t do it for both.
Hey dadler: Here’s my latest table on how to maximize the number of useful units
|
| Unit
Infantry
Elite Infantry*
Light Tank
Armored Infantry
Artillery
Medium Tank
Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun
Heavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun | Attack
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
8
8 |
One of the virtues of this system is that it does provide room for a light tank! Also, our chances of ever having both a heavy tank and a heavy tank destroyer seem remote at this point, but we can dream, can’t we? Heck, we could even maybe put in a Medium-Heavy Tank (Panther ?) at 3/3/2/7 and a Super-Heavy Tank (Maus ?) at 4/4/2/10… But maybe that’s just crazy-talk…
|
Hey dadler: Here’s my latest table on how to maximize the number of useful units
|
| Unit
Infantry
Elite Infantry*
Light Tank
Armored InfantryArtillery
Medium Tank
Medium Tank Dest./ SP GunHeavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun | Attack
1
2
2
22
3
22
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
23
2
34
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
21
2
21
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
55
6
66
8
8 |One of the virtues of this system is that it does provide room for a light tank! Also, our chances of ever having both a heavy tank and a heavy tank destroyer seem remote at this point, but we can dream, can’t we? Heck, we could even maybe put in a Medium-Heavy Tank (Panther ?) at 3/3/2/7 and a Super-Heavy Tank (Maus ?) at 4/4/2/10… But maybe that’s just crazy-talk…
Very cool. Thanks for the ideas. I would use this table but I would make things like Elite infantry and all the heavy stuff dependent upon unlocking them via tech. Do you have anything like this for air and naval units? |
i really would like to see the M18 and the Pershing as the U.S. tanks
