I originally designed this unit independent of any other source in the 1980’s when there was only A&A Classic available.
Artillery: move 1 (same as infantry) Attack value = 4 and Defence value = 1. Cost is 6 PF.
Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks
-
Hi everybody! This topic caught my attention as I have been toying with expanding the G40 unit list for a number of years now. The following two mechanized units have become mainstays that, for me and my group, really fill some of the gaps you guys have identified without getting too crazy/complicated:
TANK DESTROYER
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: target an enemy land unit on a roll of 1 (in both attack and defence)This unit is meant to represent the wide range of direct fire armoured units like assault guns and anti-tank vehicles (StuG’s, Hellcat’s… )
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gunSELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: provides an infantry or mechanized inf with a +1 attack bonus (essentially the same as the trusty artillery, but it moves two.)This unit is meant to represent indirect fire artillery pieces that were capable of moving into position on their own (Hummel’s, Katyusha’s…)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_artilleryJust my two cents :)
-
Thanks for the quick links Admiral T.
Both of your units seems balance and can be introduced as 5 IPCs units.
It provides examples of the offensive units which work against my ATG. -
If we want a strong defensive unit our game, the Blockhouse from HBG is the best choice.
Blockhouse, cost 8, no movement, zero attack, defend at 4 or less and take two hits to kill (it absorb one hit)
If you still want more ideas for a unit that provides a defensive boost Baron, I do something similar to what Narvik outlined earlier. Blockhouse units represent that extra bit (sometimes a substantial extra bit) of preparation defending forces put into creating bunkers, pillboxes, tank traps, trenches, etc… I however like these units simple, cheap and only marginally effective… You in turn see players encouraged to bulk up some of the classically defended territories (like the coast of France, places in Russia and maybe some Italian territories) without completely changing the nature of Axis & Allies combat system.
BLOCKHOUSES
A: 0
D: 0
M: 0
Cost: 2
Special: Increases defence value of one infantry by +1. Can be taken as a casualty in battle. Limit one per territory IPC value.
Blockhouses are ‘built’ on territories much the same way you would build an industrial complex. -
By the way, CWO Marc, I am a big fan of your detailed responses!
-
By the way, CWO Marc, I am a big fan of your detailed responses!
Thanks – much appreciated. Your proposal for three broad new unit types (tank destroyers, self-propelled artillery and blockhouses), which would each represent a range of more specific weapon categories, sounds good, with each of the types you’ve described having a clearly-defined function as well as capabilities reflecting those functions.
-
TANK DESTROYER
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: target an enemy land unit on a roll of 1 (in both attack and defence)SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: provides an infantry or mechanized inf with a +1 attack bonus (essentially the same as the trusty artillery, but it moves two.)These are both great ideas in my opinion. All I need now is a good Light Tank… all the suggestions on these forums seem to be A2 D2 M2 C5, which strikes me as worthless next to A3 D3 M2 C6 regular tanks (and also next to the strictly better Tank Destroyer). Any ideas?
-
TANK DESTROYER
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: target an enemy land unit on a roll of 1 (in both attack and defence)SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
A: 2
D: 2
M: 2
Cost: 5
Special: provides an infantry or mechanized inf with a +1 attack bonus (essentially the same as the trusty artillery, but it moves two.)These are both great ideas in my opinion. All I need now is a good Light Tank… all the suggestions on these forums seem to be A2 D2 M2 C5, which strikes me as worthless next to A3 D3 M2 C6 regular tanks (and also next to the strictly better Tank Destroyer). Any ideas?
I started with this basic values and developed some combines arms bonus for Light Tank in this thread:
Mechanized (MI/ SPA/ SPG-TD) vs Tank (Light/ Medium/ Advance/ Heavy) units
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32892.msg1243157#msg1243157Also many cost structure for these types of units here:
HBG units “Custom” Rules question (Global game)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31368.msg1151376#msg1151376Amongst many ideas, a return to the combat value of Classic Tank:
Light Tank A3 D2 M2 C5, can Blitz, gives +1A to TcB when paired with.
ORLight Tank A2 D2 M2 C5, can Blitz, gives +1A to TcB when paired with,
gets a +1 A/D bonus when paired to a Tank Destroyer, a Medium Tank or a Heavy Tank.This thread can also be interesting:
The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24554.msg843967#msg843967 -
@CWO:
@Baron:
Is it correct to say Anti-tank Artillery, even if ATGun is only a direct fire weapon?
In artillery jargon, a “gun” in the strict sense of the term is always a direct-fire weapon, meaning a tube artillery weapon designed to shoot at an elevation between 0 degrees and 45 degrees. A tube artillery weapon designed to fire shells at land targets at elevations of 45 degrees and higher (meaning an indirect-fire weapon) is called a howitzer.
“Anti-tank gun” is (to my knowledge) the commonly used term for the type of weapon we’re discussing here. It’s possible that such weapons are also referred to as “anti-tank artillery” (though personally I’ve never heard the term used) because they’re artillery pieces and they’re used against tanks…but as far as I know, the more usual practice is to call these things anti-tank guns. It’s a bit like the practice of calling submarines “boats” rather than “ships”, even though one could plausibly use either term.
One thing to be careful of, however, is this. As I said, it would be reasonable to argue that an anti-tank gun could be called an anti-tank artillery piece because it’s an artillery piece and it’s used against tanks. It would, however, not be correct to make the opposite argument: that all artillery pieces can be considered anti-tank weapons. Not all artillery pieces are capable of being used against tanks. Because of their operational characteristics (their sighting mechanism, the speed at which they can be trained, the elevation of which they’re capable, their rate of fire and so forth), some artillery pieces – especially the big ones – would be utterly or virtually incapable of hitting a tank (especially a moving one) if their crews tried to use them in this capacity. So my recommendation would be to simply stick to the straightforward term “anti-tank gun” because then it will be perfectly clear what’s being talked about.
Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?
That way, the players will not think that this unit is able to directly destroy tank on “1” roll, such as AAGun were made to against planes.
-
I develop a third option for Anti-Tank Gun, and better describe the general behaviour of 3 games unit (from which I will pick one), I just don’t know what is the real historical facts on ATG:
Sorry Marc, I jumped from historical POV to game POV without notice.
So I edited the post to give more details and sort out the confusion.
In game terms, which Anti-Tank Gun seems more consistent with historical uses of this weapon?
Could you help me by giving an advice?Anti-Tank Gun-1
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support, no big difference.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack to 1 InfantryOr
Anti-Tank Gun-2
Not very useful on offensive action and of no real help for Infantry, artillery is very much better.
(Absolutely needs to be mechanized to have some mobility on offense, to give some support to Infantry.)
Better for defensive action, acting better in coordination with entrenched Infantry.
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Defense to 1 InfantryOr
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 InfantryFor the last two ATGs, I think about Fury movie in which German Infantry were help by ATGs against US Tanks and 1 Tank Destroyer which was commanded by Brad Pitt as Sgt.
And also about Russian defensive lines near Kursk against Germans’ Tigers.
I say we should have an artillery for defense. Like a unit that can pair with an infantry or artillery that give them a +1 on defense.
Thanks, I keep the idea.
Below, I found some interesting facts on Anti-tank warfare:
Anti-tank tactics developed rapidly during the war but along different paths in different armies based on the threats they faced and the technologies they were able to produce. Very little development took place in UK because weapons available in 1940 were judged adequate for engaging Italian and German tanks during most of the North African Campaign. Its experience therefore failed to influence US Army’s anti-tank doctrine prior to 1944. From 1941 German anti-tank tactics developed rapidly as a result of being surprised by the previously unknown Soviet tank designs, forcing introduction of new technologies and new tactics. The Red Army was also faced with a new challenge in anti-tank warfare after losing most of its tank fleet and a considerable part of its anti-tank capable cannons.
Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Much of anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available. These are divided as follows:
Operational range over the horizon (20-40 km range) bomber aircraft and long range artillery
Tactical staging areas (7-20 km range) ground attack aircraft and field artillery including MRLs
Tactical zone forming-up area and rear combat zone (2-7 km range) heavy anti-tank guns and mortars
Tactical forward combat zone (1-2 km range) anti-tank guns and tanks deployed in defense
Engagement distance (200-1000 m range) mines and anti-tank rifles
Close combat distance (25-200 m range) infantry anti-tank weaponsGround-to-air cooperation was not yet systematic in any army of the period, but given sufficient warning ground attack aircraft could support ground troops even during an enemy attack in an attempt to interdict the enemy units before they come into tactical combat zone. Various bomb loads can be used depending on what type of tank unit is engaged in at the time or who its accompanying troops are. This is an indirect form of anti-tank warfare where the tanks are denied the opportunity to even reach combat.
Field artillery was particularly effective in firing against tank formations because although they were rarely able to destroy a tank by direct penetration, they would severely crater the area preventing the tanks from moving therefore causing them to become nearly stationary targets for the ground attack aircraft, or disrupting the enemy schedule and allowing own troops more time to prepare their defense.
Anti-tank defense proper was by 1942 designed in First World War fashion with several prepared trench lines incorporating anti-tank weapons of different capabilities. Depending on terrain and available line-of-sight, the longer-ranged guns could begin to fire on approaching tanks from as far as 2 kilometers, which was also the range at which German Panther and Tiger tank gunners were trained to fire. Anti-tank guns were usually deployed to cover terrain more suitable for tanks, and were protected by minefields laid at about 500 meters to 1 kilometer from their positions by combat engineers. In the Red Army the anti-tank rifle units would be positioned throughout the forward trench line and would engage the lighter tanks and any other vehicles, such as infantry half-tracks in an attempt to separate them from the tanks. The anti-tank guns deployed further back would often hold their fire until enemy tanks were within the most effective range for their ammunition. Where there were insufficient anti-tank weapons, engineers would construct anti-tank obstacles such as dragon’s teeth or czech hedgehog.
Towed anti-tank guns were thought to be the primary means of defeating tanks. At the battle of Kursk for example, the Red Army deployed more artillery regiments than infantry regiments and towed gun densities reached over 20 guns per kilometer of defended tactical zone. A towed gun was much cheaper than a tank and could be concealed in a shallow position. When time allowed, dugouts with strong overhead cover could be constructed. Guns deployed on reverse slopes and in flanking positions could take a toll of attacking tanks. However, gun crews were vulnerable to artillery, mortar HE fire and enemy infantry. Their positions had to be carefully selected and once engaged, they generally could not redeploy. Experience strongly suggested that towed AT guns were less effective than self-propelled AT weapons and took heavier casualties.
Self-propelled anti-tank guns were rare at the beginning of WW2, although the Belgian Army deployed a few T.15 tank destroyers and the French army was developing several wheeled and tracked designs. The advantages of mobility and even thin armor protection were so compelling that most armies were using self-propelled AT guns by mid-war. Examples of these weapons included the US M10, German Marder II, and Soviet SU-85.
-
@Baron:
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 InfantryPerhaps that last one, but only gives a bonus when the opposing force actually contains at least one tank (any variant of tank, if you use light/medium, etc.)?
EDIT: ON a side note, what piece do you plan on using as the anti-tank?
-
@Baron:
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 InfantryPerhaps that last one, but only gives a bonus when the opposing force actually contains at least one tank (any variant of tank, if you use light/medium, etc.)?
EDIT: ON a side note, what piece do you plan on using as the anti-tank?
I have two types of Artillery units (old Spring 1942 version, I believe, but I can identify them for sure) and more recent ones which are bigger (probably from Second Editions).
I will use the bigger ones as ATG, simply because it is costlier than Artillery (moto: bigger is costlier).
I cannot introduce the kind of limitation on “what the other side bring into combat”. It is an additional layer of complexity.
Another reason is the ATG unit should not only figure the gun but also figure all kinds of defensive counter-measure against Tank and other mechanized units (like minefield, trench, camouflage, deep defensive lines, etc), which level the combat to an even match: 1 unit Attack 3 against 1 unit Defense 3.If you find this unit too OP, you should know it will be counter-balance by this kind of Assault Gun/SPA/Tank Destroyer:
@Baron:
Here is a more A&A paradigm rules version for a single type of Mobile Artillery unit (SPA / SPG /TD):
Mechanized Artillery (Assault Gun)
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Cost: 5
Can only blitz when paired to a Tank.
Infantry Support: Give +1A to a paired Infantry or Mech Infantry
Tank Hunter as a tank support ability: Get +1A/D when paired to a Tank.This unit cannot give and get both bonus as Inf support & Tank support when teamed with both MI and Tank on attack. Player must choose which bonus is given.
I think it could be viable and balance.
My main issue is about the extension of the combined arms bonus toward Infantry for the ATG and toward Mech Artillery with Tank. This depends mostly on historical accuracy.
A) Only +1 offense or only +1 defense or B) both offense/defense?If one unit gives only 1 bonus, the other will get the same.
So, if you feel it is too powerful compared to Artillery unit or Tank, then you can choose ATG-1 or ATG-2.
-
Their positions had to be carefully selected and once engaged, they generally could not redeploy. Experience strongly suggested that towed AT guns were less effective than self-propelled AT weapons and took heavier casualties.
This specific point, let me doubt that, at least, SPA/SP-ATG could have similar defensive value such as:
Maybe it should be get defense at 3? But this could be too unbalanced, and make this unit too much interesting.
Mechanized Artillery (Assault Gun)
Attack: 2 (3) with Tank
Defense: 3
Move: 2
Cost: 5
Can only blitz when paired to a Tank.
Infantry Support: Give +1A to a paired Infantry or Mechanized Infantry
Tank Hunter as a tank support ability: Get +1A when paired to a Tank.This unit cannot give and get both bonus as Inf support & Tank support when teamed with both MI and Tank on attack. Player must choose which bonus is given.
Maybe we should understand that it is on offense that “towed AT guns were less effective”.
So, that way we can keep, the more generally accepted A2 D2 M2 Cost 5 as the basis for Mechanized Artillery:Mechanized Artillery (Assault Gun)
Attack: 2 (3) with Tank
Defense: 2 (3) with Tank
Move: 2
Cost: 5
Can only blitz when paired to a Tank.
Infantry Support: Give +1A to a paired Infantry or Mechanized Infantry
Tank Hunter as a Tank support ability: Get +1A/D when paired to a Tank.This unit cannot give and get both bonus as Inf support & Tank support when teamed with both MI and Tank on attack. Player must choose which bonus is given.
And its defensive counter-measure should be this Anti-Tank Unit:
Anti-Tank Artillery-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack / +1 Defense to 1 Infantry@CWO:
@Baron:
Is it correct to say Anti-tank Artillery, even if ATGun is only a direct fire weapon?
In artillery jargon, a “gun” in the strict sense of the term is always a direct-fire weapon, meaning a tube artillery weapon designed to shoot at an elevation between 0 degrees and 45 degrees. A tube artillery weapon designed to fire shells at land targets at elevations of 45 degrees and higher (meaning an indirect-fire weapon) is called a howitzer.
“Anti-tank gun” is (to my knowledge) the commonly used term for the type of weapon we’re discussing here. It’s possible that such weapons are also referred to as “anti-tank artillery” (though personally I’ve never heard the term used) because they’re artillery pieces and they’re used against tanks…but as far as I know, the more usual practice is to call these things anti-tank guns. It’s a bit like the practice of calling submarines “boats” rather than “ships”, even though one could plausibly use either term.
One thing to be careful of, however, is this. As I said, it would be reasonable to argue that an anti-tank gun could be called an anti-tank artillery piece because it’s an artillery piece and it’s used against tanks. It would, however, not be correct to make the opposite argument: that all artillery pieces can be considered anti-tank weapons. Not all artillery pieces are capable of being used against tanks. Because of their operational characteristics (their sighting mechanism, the speed at which they can be trained, the elevation of which they’re capable, their rate of fire and so forth), some artillery pieces – especially the big ones – would be utterly or virtually incapable of hitting a tank (especially a moving one) if their crews tried to use them in this capacity. So my recommendation would be to simply stick to the straightforward term “anti-tank gun” because then it will be perfectly clear what’s being talked about.
As I want to create a specific unit meant to figure all kinds of counter-measure against Tank, I think I will finally stick to Anti-Tank Artillery unit.
So this is not limited to the Gun in itself (the main weapon against Tank, as you clearly showed), but can include other kinds of artillery weapons which can be part of the defensive features to slow down, destroy or break Tanks and other vehicles (as the Wiki showed).This name also have the benefits to keep the basic features of Artillery unit:
Moving at the same M1,
Giving the same +1A to Infantry.On offense, it is less efficient than a pure Artillery unit: A2 for 5 IPCs instead of 4 IPCs.
When combined with 1 Infantry: A2+A2= A4 for 7 IPCs while it gives the same A4 for 8 IPCs.
8 Inf+ 8 Art vs 7 Inf+ 7 Anti-Tank Art
Overall %*: A. survives: 79% D. survives: 20.3% No one survives: 0.7%And also less efficient than a Mechanized Artillery which can combine with Tank on a 1 on 1 unit basis.
But, on the same IPCs basis, still get the better on offense because Tank and Mech Art move at 2 and are costlier.
Which is explained by the combined arms with Infantry.But on defense, it is a pretty solid one when combined with 1 Infantry unit:
It gives 2 Defense @3 = D6, 2 hits for 8 IPCs.
The same Defensive value as 3 Infantry units @2 = D6, but with 3 hits for 9 IPCs.
Which still makes 3 Infantry much better on the same IPCs basis comparison.But 3 Infantry on offense only get A3 and 3 hits.
Compared to the A4 of the Anti-Tank combined arms, it is weaker:
24 Infantry (72 IPCs) @1 vs 9 ATArt+INF (72 IPCs), 18 hits @2 =
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.9% D. survives: 65.8% No one survives: 0.3%So this Anti-Tank Artillery have its own niche.
Artillery paired with 1 Infantry is still better on offense but not on defense.
Infantry is still better on defense but not on offense.
And at 5 IPCs, it provides a substantial units which can boost the offensive/defensive value of Infantry.And against Mechanized Infantry, it doesn’t have the offensive value given by combined arms with Tank unit but the defensive capacity is better while it is at the expense of the mobility.
-
@Baron:
@Baron:
Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 InfantryPerhaps that last one, but only gives a bonus when the opposing force actually contains at least one tank (any variant of tank, if you use light/medium, etc.)?
EDIT: ON a side note, what piece do you plan on using as the anti-tank?
I have two types of Artillery units (old Spring 1942 version, I believe, but I can identify them for sure) and more recent ones which are bigger (probably from Second Editions).
I will use the bigger ones as ATG, simply because it is costlier than Artillery (moto: bigger is costlier).
I cannot introduce the kind of limitation on “what the other side bring into combat”. It is an additional layer of complexity.
Another reason is the ATG unit should not only figure the gun but also figure all kinds of defensive counter-measure against Tank and other mechanized units (like minefield, trench, camouflage, deep defensive lines, etc), which level the combat to an even match: 1 unit Attack 3 against 1 unit Defense 3.If you find this unit too OP, you should know it will be counter-balance by this kind of Assault Gun/SPA/Tank Destroyer:
@Baron:
Here is a more A&A paradigm rules version for a single type of Mobile Artillery unit (SPA / SPG /TD):
Mechanized Artillery (Assault Gun)
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Move: 2
Cost: 5
Can only blitz when paired to a Tank.
Infantry Support: Give +1A to a paired Infantry or Mech Infantry
Tank Hunter as a tank support ability: Get +1A/D when paired to a Tank.This unit cannot give and get both bonus as Inf support & Tank support when teamed with both MI and Tank on attack. Player must choose which bonus is given.
I think it could be viable and balance.
My main issue is about the extension of the combined arms bonus toward Infantry for the ATG and toward Mech Artillery with Tank. This depends mostly on historical accuracy.
A) Only +1 offense or only +1 defense or B) both offense/defense?If one unit gives only 1 bonus, the other will get the same.
So, if you feel it is too powerful compared to Artillery unit or Tank, then you can choose ATG-1 or ATG-2.
You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?
-
You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?
So, you feel that pairing 1:1 is more complex in this case than simply giving +1A to MechInf or INF and +1A to Mech Artillery because a Tank is present?
I’m pondering on that specific point, that’s why I ask.
It is not that unbalancing if the three units together gets the 2 bonus.In my House Rules, Submarines only hit warships or transports, they cannot hit planes.
But it is the only restriction.
Planes can hit Sub and Destroyer presence is not necessary.
Un-submerged Submarine can be hit by planes.
So, I simplified this aspect. -
@Baron:
You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?
So, you feel that pairing 1:1 is more complex in this case than simply giving +1A to MechInf or INF and +1A to Mech Artillery because a Tank is present?
I’m pondering on that specific point, that’s why I ask.
It is not that unbalancing if the three units together gets the 2 bonus.In my House Rules, Submarines only hit warships or transports, they cannot hit planes.
But it is the only restriction.
Planes can hit Sub and Destroyer presence is not necessary.
Un-submerged Submarine can be hit by planes.
So, I simplified this aspect.Actually, I think 1:1 pairing was a rule designed merely to prevent one unit from providing the same bonus to more than one unit. Technically, both giving and receiving a bonus is still 1:1 pairing. Plus, realistically, tanks, infantry, and artillery working together would create an effective fighting force. The double bonus also encourages building a variety of units.
-
@Baron:
You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?
So, you feel that pairing 1:1 is more complex in this case than simply giving +1A to MechInf or INF and +1A to Mech Artillery because a Tank is present?
I’m pondering on that specific point, that’s why I ask.
It is not that unbalancing if the three units together gets the 2 bonus.In my House Rules, Submarines only hit warships or transports, they cannot hit planes.
But it is the only restriction.
Planes can hit Sub and Destroyer presence is not necessary.
Un-submerged Submarine can be hit by planes.
So, I simplified this aspect.Actually, I think 1:1 pairing was a rule designed merely to prevent one unit from providing the same bonus to more than one unit. Technically, both giving and receiving a bonus is still 1:1 pairing. Plus, realistically, tanks, infantry, and artillery working together would create an effective fighting force. The double bonus also encourages building a variety of units.
Fine. I will change that in my HR and allows such 1:1:1 combined arms for MI:MA:Tank.
This will provides A2:A3:A3= A8 and D2:D3:D3= D8 for A8 D8 = 16 points for 15 IPCs but only for 3 units.
against 5 Infantry defending at 2 gives: D10 for 5 hits:
Overall %*: A. survives: 9.1% D. survives: 88.9% No one survives: 2%So this 16 pts/15 IPCs/3 hits group is not so unbalancing after all.
To get a comparison point,
2 Tanks and 1 Infantry = A7 D8 C15, 3 hits against 5 Inf A5 D10, 5 hits gives this result:
Overall %*: A. survives: 10.5% D. survives: 87.5% No one survives: 2.1%Of course, Infantry move only at 1 but 9.1% of survival is not that powerful.
Against 2 Infantry and 2 Artillery at 14 IPCs but 16 Pts (A8 D8)
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.9% D. survives: 60.9% No one survives: 5.2%
Still better and it is 1 IPC less than MI:MA:Tk cost.Against 2 Infantry and 2 Anti-Tank Artillery at 16 IPCs (A8 D12), 4 hits:
Overall %*: A. survives: 11.5% D. survives: 84% No one survives: 4.5% -
@Baron:
Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?
I think your best option would be for you to give whatever name you prefer to the house rule units that you design, and to give them whatever combat characteristics you think would be interesting for them to have, without trying to achieve historical accuracy.
Here’s my basic opinion about this sort of thing. If a house rule designer, for whatever reason, feels that it’s important for his house rules to reflect historical reality, then what he should do is “follow the evidence”. By this I mean: find out what historical WWII weapons were actually called, what their capabilities were, and what kind of things they were used for, and then design house rules to fit that historical reality. That’s one approach, and it’s the one for which I have a personal preference.
A different approach – which I think is perfectly valid too, even though it’s not an approach I care for personally – is for a person to focus on developing a house rule concept that he likes, without worrying about whether it fits historical reality. This approach basically means saying “wouldn’t it be cool if there was a new unit that has an attack value of x, a movement value of y, plus such-and-such a combined-arms bonus” and designing a unit around that concept. There’s nothing wrong with doing this sort of thing, as long as the person makes it clear that they’re not trying to make their concept fit reality. And in fact, they may even discover (after they’ve designed their cool new unit) that there actually was a WWII weapon which corresponds to their concept. That’s a nice thing when it happens, but it isn’t really required to make this approach work.
An approach which I do consider to be problematic, however, is to try to distort historical reality in order to justify a house rule concept for a new unit. Wanting game units and historical reality to match each other is fine, but it has to be achieved by making the units fit history, not by making history fit the units.
For example: in this discussion thread, I’ve tried (to the best of my knowlege) to explain what WWII anti-tank guns were, what they were called (they were called anti-tank guns), what firing characteristics they had and what they were used for. You’ve made it clear in numerous posts that you don’t like the term “anti-tank gun”, which is perfectly okay with me. Nobody is forcing you to use the term “anti-tank gun” if you don’t like it. And there’s nothing wrong with your proposals to give such units a different name – like Anti-Tank Artillery, or Anti-Armour Gun, or Anti-Vehicle Gun – as long as it’s clear that you’re not making any claims about their historical accuracy.
What I can’t understand, however, is your question asking whether it would be historically more accurate to call an anti-tank gun by one of those invented alternate terms because the answer is: no. Anti-tank guns were called anti-tank guns. As far as I know, the alternate terms you proposed are imaginary ones, not historical ones. Calling an anti-tank gun by a name that doesn’t really exist is less accurate, not more accurate. And this accuracy problem can’t be solved by trying to come up with different imaginary terms; the problem is solved either by using the real term (in this particular case, anti-tank gun), or by eliminating historical accuracy as a game design consideration.
If you don’t like a historical term, or if you don’t like the historical characteristics that certain WWII weapons actually had, then by all means feel free to use other names and other characteristics, without worrying about whether a house rule concept you’ve developed actually fits with history. Everyone has different priorities in the world of game design, and everyone should pursue whatever approach fits those personal priorities. The important thing is to be clear about exactly what it is that you’re trying to achieve.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?
I think your best option would be for you to give whatever name you prefer to the house rule units that you design, and to give them whatever combat characteristics you think would be interesting for them to have, without trying to achieve historical accuracy.
Here’s my basic opinion about this sort of thing. If a house rule designer, for whatever reason, feels that it’s important for his house rules to reflect historical reality, then what he should do is “follow the evidence”. By this I mean: find out what historical WWII weapons were actually called, what their capabilities were, and what kind of things they were used for, and then design house rules to fit that historical reality. That’s one approach, and it’s the one for which I have a personal preference.
A different approach – which I think is perfectly valid too, even though it’s not an approach I care for personally – is for a person to focus on developing a house rule concept that he likes, without worrying about whether it fits historical reality. This approach basically means saying “wouldn’t it be cool if there was a new unit that has an attack value of x, a movement value of y, plus such-and-such a combined-arms bonus” and designing a unit around that concept. There’s nothing wrong with doing this sort of thing, as long as the person makes it clear that they’re not trying to make their concept fit reality. And in fact, they may even discover (after they’ve designed their cool new unit) that there actually was a WWII weapon which corresponds to their concept. That’s a nice thing when it happens, but it isn’t really required to make this approach work.
An approach which I do consider to be problematic, however, is to try to distort historical reality in order to justify a house rule concept for a new unit. Wanting game units and historical reality to match each other is fine, but it has to be achieved by making the units fit history, not by making history fit the units.
For example: in this discussion thread, I’ve tried (to the best of my knowledge) to explain what WWII anti-tank guns were, what they were called (they were called anti-tank guns), what firing characteristics they had and what they were used for. You’ve made it clear in numerous posts that you don’t like the term “anti-tank gun”, which is perfectly okay with me. Nobody is forcing you to use the term “anti-tank gun” if you don’t like it. And there’s nothing wrong with your proposals to give such units a different name – like Anti-Tank Artillery, or Anti-Armour Gun, or Anti-Vehicle Gun – as long as it’s clear that you’re not making any claims about their historical accuracy.
What I can’t understand, however, is your question asking whether it would be historically more accurate to call an anti-tank gun by one of those invented alternate terms because the answer is: no. Anti-tank guns were called anti-tank guns. As far as I know, the alternate terms you proposed are imaginary ones, not historical ones. Calling an anti-tank gun by a name that doesn’t really exist is less accurate, not more accurate. And this accuracy problem can’t be solved by trying to come up with different imaginary terms; the problem is solved either by using the real term (in this particular case, anti-tank gun), or by eliminating historical accuracy as a game design consideration.
If you don’t like a historical term, or if you don’t like the historical characteristics that certain WWII weapons actually had, then by all means feel free to use other names and other characteristics, without worrying about whether a house rule concept you’ve developed actually fits with history. Everyone has different priorities in the world of game design, and everyone should pursue whatever approach fits those personal priorities. The important thing is to be clear about exactly what it is that you’re trying to achieve.
Thanks for the clarifications Marc.
Probably contrary to what you think on my intent based on the questions I asked, you can be surprised that I’m more for Historical Accuracy approach than the “cool unit” approach.
And I need to have a clear idea on what I’m doing by giving a specific name to this unit, and by giving such or such combat values and bonus to it.If, for game balance and other playing perspective, the results is different than historical, then it requires a decision which can imply some kind of compromise.
Along the thread, you showed me that the main weapon that really fit with my concept was the Anti-Tank Gun and clearly not an Heavy Artillery.
Then arises the question of finding the appropriate name without betraying the concept or historical facts.
Finding an alternate name which can better describe my concept appear clearly as unhistorical and purely fictional (Anti-Tank Artillery, Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun).
Your answer help discard inadequate possibilities.Anti-Tank Gun IS the historical weapon used against Armoured Vehicles.
So, amongst the three names above, Anti-Tank Artillery seems the less contradictory toward historical facts.
Anti-Tank Gun is an artillery pieces amongst many other types.The specific weapon is Anti-Tank Gun while the generic name is Artillery.
So all ATGs target enemy’s vehicles, while a few others artillery pieces seems also able to hinder, damage, or destroy Tanks in a specific context: like an intensive defensive deployment (IF what I quoted of Wiki is accurate, your call here… if it’s not tell me. I’m all ears.) But not all types of Artillery pieces can affect Tanks and, for most part, was not their specific function, as you showed: direct fire is the way to destroy a Tank, while indirect fire is not fit to.So, it appears to me that this is the only compromise between the “in-game” unit concept and the historical weapon.
The game is depicting a strategic level of war while keeping some tactical “flavors” between units.But now, I will know it is a compromise and not a direct historical transcription.
I think what I’m doing with this unit concept is like the invention of the A&A “tactical bomber” terminology.
As it was not describing a specific group of Fighters or Bombers.
It was more general description of the role and function of planes, not of their specific types.My other questions above are still there.
I don’t know (except from what I read on Wiki) what is the historical role of ATG in offensive situation.
Were ATGs as useful as other Artillery unit or not when moving forward?
For what it worth, I read that they were much more efficient on defense (and they develop Assault Gun for offense).
Your POV can help me decided about the combat value of this game unit.For instance, this can imply a reduction of the attacking factor (A2) or the +1 Attack combined arms bonus with Infantry.
And if the case, this can be a reason to keep the name Anti-Tank Gun instead, to make a game distinction between Artillery at 4 IPCs (which gives attack bonus) and this ATG unit at 5 IPCs better on defense (which wouldn’t give attack bonus).
-
@Baron:
Where ATGs as useful as other Artillery unit or not when moving forward?
I don’t understand two things about your question.
First, I don’t understand what you mean by “as useful”. Different types of weapons (whatever their type: I’m not just talking about guns) serve different purposes, and their “usefulness” should be judged in terms of how well they do their own job, not on how well (or even whether) they can do another weapon’s job. Example: just because a destroyer is capable of sinking subs, whereas a battleship isn’t capable of sinking subs, doesn’t mean that a destroyer is more “useful” than a battleship; it’s simply a different tool for a different job. Anti-tank guns are well-suited to killing tanks and poorly suited to bombarding enemy field positions. Howitzers are well-suited to bombarding enemy field positions but poorly suited for killing tanks. In other words, each one is useful for one type of job and basically useless for another type of job.
Second, I don’t understand what you mean by “when moving forward”. Anti-tank guns are towed weapons, not self-propelled weapons. A jeep (or other vehicle) tows them to the place where they’re needed; the gun is then set up and fired from a static position. It can’t do both at the same time. If it’s moving, it can’t be fired. If it’s being fired, it can’t be moved. If you want a self-propelled weapon with an effective direct-fire anti-armour capability that can move and shoot at the same time, what you need is a tank or a tank destroyer, not an anti-tank gun.
-
And just to follow up on my last post, here’s a suggestion: try to avoid blending too many capabilties into a unit type. Keep their capabilities clear and focused and specialized. There was a lot of controversy on this forum last year about tactical bomber house rules, with various people expressing the opinion that it was being turned into a magical unit that could do everything – and do all of those things superbly. Real weapon systems don’t work that way because real weapons, like all pieces of engineering, are design compromises.
So my suggestion, to keep things nice and clean and well-defined, would be to look at things the following way:
-
For a self-propelled unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in an offensive role, use a tank.
-
For a self-propelled unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in a mixture of offensive and defensive roles, use a tank destroyer.
-
For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in a defensive role, use an anti-tank gun.
-
For a self-propelled unit that is good at bombarding enemy fixed positions (trenches, bunkers, buildings, etc.) in support of offensive operations, use a self-propelled gun. And don’t give it any anti-tank capabilities.
-
For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that is good at bombarding enemy fixed positions (trenches, bunkers, buildings, etc.) in support of offensive operations, use a regular field artillery piece or divisional artillery piece (depending on the caliber you want, if that’s a consideration).
-
For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that is good at shooting down enemy planes, use an anti-aircraft gun.
-
Avoid creating imaginary units that have imaginary capabilities. For instance, you’ll notice that I didn’t include a “static (non-self-propelled) unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in an offensive role” category in my list because as far as I know, no such thing existed in WWII, and because the concept itself doesn’t make sense to me. An anti-tank gun is fundamentally a defensive weapon, and I can’t visualize it being used in an offensive role to any significant extent.
-
Suggested Topics
