The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns

[Commander JayVon]

So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles. I agree that in no way should this SPG unit be more expensive than the Tank, which currently costs 6 in the 1940 & Global games. In terms of its combat capabilities I think it could possibly act like a Sub in that it gets a ‘first strike’ shot at 1, during the opening fire step, as suggested above. It then wouldn’t fire along with the rest of your units during their fire step. Hits scored by TDs could only be assigned to enemy Tanks. Hits scored by AGs can not be assigned to Tanks but perhaps they could function in some other way?

This would be our best option.

Since the “one-shot” ability would only take place during defensive step (though, some work can be done for the offensive step, possibly) at only the roll of 1, it wouldn’t overwhelm tanks per say, but it could add a chance to remove one from play, which is good.

As for the leftover hits? You could consider them just what happens when you overwhelm any enemy in normal, technically, let em’ go. There are no more applicable units to select in such a case.

Or, you could do a ratio basis. For example, if the attacking player has two tanks, and the defending player four assault guns, they may one select two to sally forth against the tanks.

[lozmoid]

Okay, first of all let’s talk about the ‘Tank Destroyer’ role of this new SPG unit. I think that both attacking and defending TDs should each get a Surprise Strike die roll (during step 2 of the conduct combat phase), before all other land units fire (during steps 3 & 4).

Question: Should the attacker fire with their TDs first, just like Subs in naval combat? Or should the defender fire first? Or should both sides fire simultaneously? Think about the element of surprise during land combat.

Question: Should either side have a slight advantage over the other? This normally lies with the defender; however, attacking Subs have the advantage during naval combat in that they fire at 2 whilst defending Subs fire at 1. One could argue that the same be said of Tank Destroyers whose job was to seek out or hunt enemy Tanks. What do you think?

Any hits scored by TDs are assigned to the opposing side’s Tanks.

Question: Should these Tanks then be removed immediately from the battle? You may say that killing the Tanks outright is perhaps too harsh, and I suppose that’s fair enough. Alternatively, should there be some way in which they could be ‘saved’ from dying before getting to return fire? i.e. any Tanks that are hit by TD fire are instead moved behind the casualty strip and now get to fire a parting shot (in steps 3 & 4). So should the Tank casualties be destroyed immediately or just critically damaged before returning fire? I prefer the second option.

This process will be repeated for each round of combat, providing that there are any remaining TDs on either side.

And that’ll do her for the moment. What are your thoughts?

[Gargantua]

It shouldn’t be like a submarine suprise strike.

But the advantage COULD be, that when rolling your TD’s on defense @2, hits are DIRECTLY allocated to enemy mechanized units, OR tanks, BEFORE infantry.

IE, whoever has suffered hits from a tank destroyer, must select his tanks as casualties first.

Cost 5, attack 2, defense 2, move 2, opponent must select tanks/mech/td units as first casualties from hits suffered

[lozmoid]

Thanks for the input, Gargantua,  :-)

It shouldn’t be like a submarine suprise strike.

Why not? I think this would be an interesting combat dynamic. Do you think that TDs should fire in steps 3 & 4 like all other land units then?

But the advantage COULD be, that when rolling your TD’s on defense @2, hits are DIRECTLY allocated to enemy mechanized units, OR tanks, BEFORE infantry.

Are you saying that defending TDs should fire at 2 and that attacking TDs should fire at 1? That gives the advantage to the defender, and I for one am happy with that. But I would say that whilst hits must be assigned to Tanks as a priority, they could also be assigned to Mechanised Infantry if there are no Tanks left to hit. Remember, that the Tank Destroyer’s main objective is to kill enemy Tanks (and I suspect they would have treated Mech Infantry of secondary importance).

However, I would say that hits scored by TDs should not be assigned to Infantry, Artillery or AA Guns, as their shells are anti-armour and are used only for peircing the armour of enemy vehicles. And in some way that I haven’t worked out yet, this will be what the ‘Assault Gun’ capability of the SPG unit will be for…

IE, whoever has suffered hits from a tank destroyer, must select his tanks as casualties first.

Yep. Then Mech Infantry (if there are any).

[crusaderiv]

Cost 5, attack 2, defense 2, move 2, opponent must select tanks/mech/td units as first casualties from hits suffered
My rules is att:3, def 3, move 2, first shott attack against enemy tank/or armoured vh.

[lozmoid]

Now that I think about it some more, it seems that the only purpose for giving a unit a Surprise Strike is to allow it the possibility of eliminating an enemy unit from a battle before that unit can fire. Otherwise, you could say ‘well just let it fire as normal’. So where I said earlier:

Question: Should these Tanks then be removed immediately from the battle? You may say that killing the Tanks outright is perhaps too harsh, and I suppose that’s fair enough. Alternatively, should there be some way in which they could be ‘saved’ from dying before getting to return fire? i.e. any Tanks that are hit by TD fire are instead moved behind the casualty strip and now get to fire a parting shot (in steps 3 & 4). So should the Tank casualties be destroyed immediately or just critically damaged before returning fire? I prefer the second option.

As far as I can see this leads us to two options:

A: Have the Tank Destroyer fire a Surprise Strike at 1 and eliminate (kill) the enemy Tank immediately before the Tank gets to fire. Or…

B: Have the Tank Destroyer fire normally at 2 and merely hit the enemy Tank, moving it to the casualty zone as per usual.

The reason I liked the idea of a TD being able to hit and damage a Tank before that Tank could return fire, is because it would be similar to Shore Bombardment in that respect - but with the difference being that the die roll is targeted. This makes it slightly less harsh for the owner of the Tank as they know they can still shoot with it before it dies.

So what would people prefer to have? I think a Surprise Strike die roll at 2 is probably too powerful, but a regular attack/defence die roll at 2 is not, even though hits are assigned strictly to Tanks. However, this leads me on to thinking about the units that the TD can hit. First and foremost, enemy Tanks. Any remaining hits carried over (or if there were no Tanks) should then be assigned to enemy SPGs. Any remaining hits carried over (or if there were no SPGs) should then be assigned to enemy Mechanised Infantry. Or is that too much? Your thoughts please.

I would like to fine-tune the special abilities of this unit before getting into the stats, but so far I’m inclined to agree that it should indeed be: Cost 5, Move 2 (Blitz only with a Tank).

[Commander JayVon]

I like the proposed new stats of defending at 2, makes them less of a liability on defense when under attack from other units.

However, I also would prefer to keep the Tank Hunter ability, and keep it at 1, so not to overpower the battle, but add a slight edge.

The target should still be allowed the chance to fire back with their tank(s), just like in the current 1940 rules for Shore Bombardment , before being removed from play. The fact that the tank is an automatic target is allowance enough.

I’m on the fence about the unassigned hits going to other SPA units or even mechanized infantry, but I could see an exception on the latter, since they are linked explicitly with the tank movement.

[Imperious Leader]

Forget Assault guns.

Just call them Self Propelled Artillery or Gun  ( SPG)  or Tank Destroyers.

3-3-2-6 unit except when faced against enemy tanks and rolls a 1 during a combat round, an enemy tank ( or other armored unit like Mech Infantry, etc) must be selected as combat loss.

If you want to beef them up, then go 4-3-2-7.

SPG like the German Elephant at Kursk were suited better on defense or at least equal to medium tanks as most SPG.

keeping the stats the same but allowing the ‘one hits tanks’ thing , makes it a minor boost and not overwhelming

[empireman]

Attack:2
Defense:2
Move:2
Cost:5
Attack @ 3 for one round of combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@MacNaughton:

@Imperious:

Cost 5 IPCs, act exactly as Artillery, Move 2. Attack at 3 in the first round if enemy tanks present.

a 2-2-2-5 unit is basically a boosted Mech, the unit needs unique flavor.

Plain artillery is basically a boosted infantry. And it works great.
Mechanical artillery should have the exact same relationship to Mechanical Infantry as regular artillery has to regular infantry.

Did anyone try something like this for his Self-Propelled Guns / Assault guns?

Attack:2
Defense:3
Move:2
Cost:5
Give +1A when paired with one Inf or MechInf?

Is it too overpowered on defense vs Armor A3D3M2C6?

I like the idea to get a combat unit at a slightly lower cost than Armor.

[toblerone77]

HBG has enough SPA and TD unit colors to outfit all player nations with both rspective units. It’s well worth it to spend the coinage to have both of these units available. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeasy.

Just IMO visit www.historicalboardgaming.com and you can have everything you need.

[baron Münchhausen]

@crusaderiv:

I personally would prefer to have two different minatures/pieces with two different rules for both Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns but I just don’t think this will work very well on the global/grand strategic level; I think it would work very well on the theatre level downwards, however. Also, the two extra units would really clog up the game board.
I agree with you. So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles.

@Baron:

@MacNaughton:

@Imperious:

Cost 5 IPCs, act exactly as Artillery, Move 2. Attack at 3 in the first round if enemy tanks present.

a 2-2-2-5 unit is basically a boosted Mech, the unit needs unique flavor.

Plain artillery is basically a boosted infantry. And it works great.
Mechanical artillery should have the exact same relationship to Mechanical Infantry as regular artillery has to regular infantry.

Did anyone try something like this for his Assault Gun
(Self-Propelled Artillery / Self-Propelled Guns / Tank Destroyers)?
Assault Gun, Mechanized Artillery (SPA /SPG / TD):
Attack:2
Defense:2
Move:2
Cost:5
Give +1A when paired with one Inf or Mech Inf
On a “1” rolled, it hits an armored unit (Tank or Mech Artillery).
Can blitz when paired to a Tank or a Mech Inf.

This unit will get both roles as Inf support & Tank Destroyer.
With D2, it is not OP and get a little Humph on a “1”.
I thing it keeps balance vs Armor A3D3M2C6.
I like the idea to get a combat unit at a slightly lower cost than Armor.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

HBG has enough SPA and TD unit colors to outfit all player nations with both rspective units. It’s well worth it to spend the coinage to have both of these units available. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeasy.

Just IMO visit www.historicalboardgaming.com and you can have everything you need.

Interesting set of units.
What would be stats if there is 2 units: 1 TD & 1SPG?

[knp7765]

Tank destroyers and self propelled guns usually will have the same values for attack, defense, movement and cost. The difference will be in their respective special abilities:
Self Propelled Guns can boost Mechanized Infantry attack factor to 2 and can blitz when paired with a Mechanized Infantry unit.
Tank Destroyers do not boost other units, but on a roll of 1 they can target enemy armor units.

However, some will put SPGs at A 2 D 2 M 2 Cost 5. Cost is one more than regular artillery for extra movement.
and Tank Destroyers at A 2 D 3 M 2 Cost 6. Cost is one more than SPGs for higher defense and targeting ability.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks.
Good idea, it goes a little further.

@knp7765:

Tank destroyers and self propelled guns usually will have the same values for attack, defense, movement and cost. The difference will be in their respective special abilities:
Self Propelled Guns can boost Infantry & Mechanized Infantry attack factor to 2 and can blitz when paired with a Mechanized Infantry unit.
Tank Destroyers do not boost other units, but on a roll of 1 they can target enemy armor units.

However, some will put SPGs at A 2 D 2 M 2 Cost 5. Cost is one more than regular artillery for extra movement.
and Tank Destroyers at A 2 D 3 M 2 Cost 6. Cost is one more than SPGs for higher defense and targeting ability.

Is the blitz capacity historical?
I have the impression it should be left to Tanks only.
So it becomes: SPG can blitz if paired with a Tank.
Are you sure that Tank Destroyers should be put at 6?

A2D3M2C5? No blitz by itself, can only blitz if paired with a Tank, no other pairing bonus, but the “1” vs Armored units (Tank, SPG or TD).
The last capacity is useful only when enemy’s Tanks, SPGs or TDs are present.

[baron Münchhausen]

Blitz should be possible to all M2 units when at least 1 Tank is present.
Agreeing or not?

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

HBG has enough SPA and TD unit colors to outfit all player nations with both rspective units. It’s well worth it to spend the coinage to have both of these units available. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeasy.

Just IMO visit www.historicalboardgaming.com and you can have everything you need.

Interesting set of units.
What would be stats if there is 2 units: 1 TD & 1SPG?

I have a formula I’m using that will be part of a larger project I’m working on.

If you look at all the units HBG sells, you can have both TDs and SPArt.

Once I have my project on it’s legs I may post it. Generally speaking most people using custom pieces have a wide range of uses for them. Currently I use these stats:

SPArt- A2/D2/M2/C5 supports infantry/mech+1.

TD- A3/D1/M2/C5 can blitz with tank. Supports light tank +1. US tank doctrine was to use a combination of infantry to support tanks while tanks supported infantry. This is just the way I see TDs. The TDs covered the tanks due to their heavier firepower but their thin armor made them vulnerable to enemy tanks.*

These are just the stats I’m toying with now.

Edit*

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for the reply.

Should I suppose you don’t give the blitz capacity to your SPArt unit, even when paired to Mech Inf?

I’m now wondering should TD better on offence or on defence?

Is there some historical facts which could provides some rationalization?

Here is a post which can be a starting point:
@wittmann:

Stugs and TD did not have a mobile turret, so were better in a static defence and were considerably cheaper to build.
We could go on forever with this!

Or is it just a game matter of finding a specific “nest” for each variety of units?

It seems to me that any special Tank Hunter ability to destroy an armored unit on a hit or a “1” rolled will give more impact to TDs on defence since usually attacker bring fodders with bigger offensive units like Tanks.

With a TD A3D1M2 it is easy to get a simple rule such as: destroy an armored unit when getting a hit on defence, only.

Here is another reason not to give too much offensive power to TD (which seems mostly a defensive weapon according to many posters):
@Vance:

@Gargantua:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

Would anyone ever build mechanized infantry instead of this 2-2-2 unit for $1 more?  The hit-a-tank-on-a-1 feature is very powerful.  Just imagine Germany attacking a Soviet force of 40 infantry/artillery/mech plus a handful of tanks.  A few Stugs could cherry pick the tanks and once the 3s are gone the attacker would take fewer losses on subsequent dice rolls.  **This makes the Stug primarily a defensive weapon even when attacking, which is what it should be.  **

I think it would be better if they have the same mobility and attack/defense characteristics as mech, but have combined arms with armor instead of artillery and can blitz.  The $5 price is justified because you can cherry pick tanks.  That would make it so that people still choose to build artillery, mechanized infantry and armor instead of just a big pile of stugs.

Tank Destroyers (Stugs)
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move: 2
Combined arms: each tank destroyer matched up with an armor unit attacks @2.

Blitz: each tank destroyer matched up with an armor unit that is not also matched up with a mechanized infantry can blitz with the armor unit.

Anti-tank: for every hit @1 by a Tank Destroyer, the opposing side must choose to lose either an armor or mechanized infantry unit if they have one available.
(Note: Stugs kill tanks; mechs protect tanks, so you want to have all 3)

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gargantua:

It shouldn’t be like a submarine suprise strike.

But the advantage COULD be, that when rolling your TD’s on defense @2, hits are DIRECTLY allocated to enemy mechanized units, OR tanks, BEFORE infantry.

IE, whoever has suffered hits from a tank destroyer, must select his tanks as casualties first.

Cost 5, attack 2, defense 2, move 2, opponent must select tanks/mech/td units as first casualties from hits suffered

I find this TD stat interesting.
SPArtillery and TD will share same basics:
A2D2M2C5
TD targets directly Armored unit (SPA/TD/Tank) only on defense when getting a hit on a 1 or 2 roll.
Making it better on defense rather than offense.
SPArt will be better on offense while giving +1A Inf/Mech Inf support.

[baron Münchhausen]

I’ve just found that there is many, many threads about Assault Guns / SPA (Self-Propelled Artillery) / SPG / TD / Anti-Tank units/ Mobile Artillery / Mechanized Artillery / etc.

Here just one post which summarize a lot of possibilities:

@Imperious:

Infantry                                 1-2-1-3
Elite Infantry                          2-2-1-4: +1 1st round of Att. or Def.
Mechanized Infantry               1-2-2-4: blitz with tanks
Artillery                                 2-2-1-4: supports infantry in attack
Light Tank                          2-2-2-2@9: blitz, +1 com. Arms w/ Med or Heavy armor on attack
Mechanized Artillery (SPA)      2-2-2-5:supp. inf; 1st strike salvo
SPG (tank destroyer)              2-3-2-5: blitz, tank hunt on roll of 1
SPG (Heavy TD)                     3-4-1-7: tank hunt on roll of 1
Medium Tank                         3-3-2-6: blitz, combine arms w/ Tac
Heavy Tank                            4-4-1-8:

Infantry 1-2-1-3
Conscripts 1-1-1-2 ( can only build if you lose an originally controlled area and only 1 per factory)
Mechanized 1-2-2-4
Artillery 2-2-1-4
Heavy Artillery 3-2-1-5
Light tank ( early war)  2-3-2-5 ( starting tanks for all)
Medium Tank ( mid war) 3-3-2-6 ( can build these only from turn 3)
Heavy Tank ( late war) 4-4-1-8 ( can build these only after turn 6)
Self Propelled Artillery 4-3-2-8 ( if rolls a 1, enemy non infantry unit lost)
Alternate fighter 4-4-4-11

@Imperious:

Right heavy tank moves 1 in combat and 2 in NCM

Light tank at 2-2-2-5 vs. 2-3-2-5  makes me want heavy artillery if the light is 2-2-2-5

Here is two others not so old threads on this topic:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28349.msg1005479#msg1005479

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26708.msg931373#msg931373
Here is one interesting post from this thread:
@knp7765:

@Uncrustable:

Problem is…i don’t think there were any significant number of self propelled artillery in WWII.
Meaning blitzing artillery and artillery that attack on 2 spaces would be historically inaccurate.

A mech artillery unit that could move 2 spaces in NONCOMBAT move only would be more historically accurate.

So you don’t think the Hummel, StuG, M-7 Priest or M-18 could move 2 spaces or blitz? These vehicles were build on tank chassis and were somewhat lighter than tanks so they would be able to keep up with tanks and mechs. Even though they were limited by having a fixed gun that couldn’t traverse side-to-side, they were a little cheaper to make and had a few advantages over tanks. This is why I suggested keeping them the same cost as tanks (@ 6) with less firepower on attack (since they were usually more defensive in nature) and gave them the special ability to target enemy armor at a 1.
There were a lot of SPGs and tank destroyers built during the war, I know Germany made a lot of them. Tanks just got more attention.
@Uncrustable:

I stand corrected.
Though the StuG and M-18 were tank destroyers not artillery.