I like the idea, and I think it would be easy to implement.
Also, Italy has significantly less income than other nations, so the reduction cost of armored units would be greatly magnified for them. (2 tanks on round 1, instead of 1 tank maximum purchase on round 1.)
I would include France, however. Since their nation is in exile for the majority of the game, they cannot do the same research and development other nations do, thus, by the time they reclaim their factories, they cannot build armor on par with major European nations any longer.
Tried this light tank deal for the Italians and Japanese sometime back when we were using ILs 1939 map. 3-2-2-5 units. Thought it worked great.
If 2 axis nations have light tanks, the same should go for UK, France and ANZAC.
Only really Germany and Russia and latter America had decent tanks, the rest were not so good.
Good idea IL. The best British tanks were American made.
I’m not so sure about the attack factor of 3 for light tanks. Basically, you would be saying that a Carro Armato or a Type 95 tank can attack as strongly as a Panther or T-34 and that just doesn’t seem right to me. I think the Attack factor should also be lowered to 2. OR, raise the attack factor of the heavier tanks to 4. So German, American and Russian tanks would be 4-3-2-6 while Japanese, Italian, British, ANZAC and French tanks would be 3-2-2-5. But would that be giving the heavier tanks too high of an attack value?
I would like some opinions on which might be the better option:
Light tanks 2-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
Heavy tanks 3-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)
OR
Light tanks 3-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
Heavy tanks 4-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)
I am very curious to see what everyone thinks on this.
I am personally not real big into “making the game historical”. It is supposed to be a balanced strategy game with vestiges of historical abstraction. If you really want to get technical, most sides in the war used a light or medium tank for all their pursuits in the war. The Stuarts and the Shermans are all the Brits and the Americans used. The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany. Bust seriously, the purpose of the game is to be balanced, not historical.
Light tanks 3-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
Heavy tanks 3-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)
This above
Over technicalization.
Best to spend the effort on combined arms rules for ground/air and naval elements.
Holy crap this is a heated issue. I personally like the idea of adding light tanks. What about using the Heavy Bombers rule only the opposite? Just an idea
The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany.
Not quite true. The KV series of tanks were Heavy tanks, the the USSR had those in 1941. And the later IS-2 was definitely a heavy tank.
The biggest problem, which you all seem to be ignoring, is that neither the war, nor A&A, START IN 1942. How can you claim the Italians and Japs should get worse tanks for the whole game, when in RL the tanks they used in 1939-1941 were, for all intents and purposes as good as the tanks other nations used in that period? Only once other nations upgraded to better tanks from 1942 onwards did the Italians fall behind.
If you want to add a ‘light tank rule’ for historical purposes everyone will need to use light tanks for the first few turns, then be allowed to buy normal tanks after, say, turn 3. Otherwise you are just adding compexity for no reason, or at least no historical one.
Actually, I would say all tanks are A: 3 D: 2 but you can combine it with an infantry for it to D: 3 if they are American, Russian or German. Potentially British.
Italy, ANZAC, Japan and France would not be able to combine these.
It’d be more in line with BLITZKRIEG since Germany could combine an infantry iwth a tank, and a tank with a tactical bomber for extra punch on offense and defense, more akin to what they actually did.
