Drako's Tanks House Rule - Tank Classes

Cheers Drako, I look forward to reading this later on the weekend, thanks for posting your ideas.

Interesting…

Heavy tanks should be attacking at 4, not defending. They move slower and maneuverability is a function of defense more than offense.

Light tanks are good, Since they cost 5 i can see using them but i don’t understand this:

Scouts: Can be paired with Artillery, 2 Light Tanks to 1 Artillery to increase Artillery’s attack from 2 to 3
Search: Can spot enemy Tank Hunters

There is no “search” so don’t get that. also, don’t like the scout rule.

Tank hunters rules are way too complicated, i suggest these units just rolling a 1 in combat get to pick what they hit on land and forget all the search rules.

This is a house rule so basically you can do what you want in your own basement, but if I can weight in, it should look like this ,

Heavy Tanks are hard hitting with thick armor but slow moving. I say move 1 space, attack at 4 or less, defend at 2, and absorb one hit in the first round of combat only, like the A&A 1914 Tank. It will be too strong to let it soak hits every round.

Medium Tanks are the OOB Tanks, cost 6, A 3 D 3, move 2 spaces and can Blitz.

Light Tanks were obsolete when the war started, and if they can be purchased they should be the poor mans choice. Maybe some powers like France, Italy and UK can start with a fistful of Light Tanks, and maybe even some true neutrals like Sweden and Spain too ?
Light Tanks cost 5, attack 1 and defend 2, but can blitz and move 3 spaces. They are weak in attack and dont belong in the main battle field, but their great manouverabiltiy make them strong in defense.

I dont fancy a dedicated Tank Destroyer unit, even if HBG makes the pieces, because it introduce targeting, which is not an A&A option.

I would like to see a self propelled artillery unit, that can move 2 spaces and keep up with the Tanks and Mechs, and still boost infantry. Should cost 5, move 2, A2 D2 and boost inf

During WWII I guess all units had it own scouts units inherent, or imbedded, so no need for a dedicated scout piece, not at this strategigal level anyway

just remember that with more unit types, you need more space and a larger map too

Light tanks weren’t exactly obsolete. In fact, most of the tanks when the war started were light tanks. Germany had tons of Panzer Is and eventually Panzer IIs. Also tank manufacturers continued to produce new light tanks throughout the war. Look at the American line of light tanks, M2A2s, M3 and M5 Stuarts, M22 Locust, M24 Chaffee, and the M42 Walker Bulldog, which was actually produced after WW2.

Militairy planners made mistakes too. It becomes more and more clear that the US made horable and deadly choices when planning their armor. And yes light armor was obsolete at the outbrake of the war. Germany was the first to acknowledge that, but it is a second thing to stop production immediatly. You need to change your production lines, make new designs etc. That cost years! The US choose not to do that, but in stead keep production output high of obsolete models. At a deadly cost. The models you mention are revisions of the standard design. The USSR was lucky to make some good design chooses before the war. They could modify them and became the best tank builders of the war.

I’ve considered a houserule including heavy tanks. My version would give the USSR heavy tanks from the beginning for historical accuracy and for balance purpose!

@GiddyXray:

I’ve considered a houserule including heavy tanks. My version would give the USSR heavy tanks from the beginning for historical accuracy and for balance purpose!

I wasn’t aware of the USSR having appreciable heavy tank forces at the start of WWII.  Could you indicate what tank model you’re referring to?

Regarding Drako’s proposals: while I can see the attraction of wanting A&A house rules that differentiate between tank types (which came in all sorts of interesting varieties in WWII), I’d be cautious about introducing complex rules for using them (notably as illustrated by the proposed tank destroyer rules).  A&A is a simplified portrayal of WWII technology, with diffrences between units are depicted in a simplified way.  Basically, these differences are expressed by their cost value, attack value, defense value, movement value, and by special modifiers that apply when unit X is paired with unit Y.

As I understand Drako’s proposal (which I admit that I didn’t study in detail), there seems to be extensive use of pairing modifiers to explain why, for example, a heavy tank is different from a light tank.  I think that these gradations between tank types are perhaps too fine to reflect accurately how armoured forces were used in WWII. Remember that A&A units represent fairly large formations (such as divisions or corps) and that WWII armoured formations generally were not homogeneous – meaning that, for instance, you generally wouldn’t have an armoured division consisting entirely of light tanks, another one consisting entirely of heavy tanks, and so forth.  So it would be problematic to implement complex pairing modifiers which are based on the assumption that a particular tank unit consists entirely of one type of tank, and that this type of tank is sufficiently distinctive from other types of tanks to represent a fundamentally different type of fighting machine.

In WWII, tank differences were mainly a matter of degree rather than of fundamental type.  At the time of WWII, technology wasn’t capable of producing a tank with superb performance in all three of the basic elements of tank design: firepower, protection and mobility.  Designers therefore had to compromise: they could either produce a balanced design which delivered reasonably good performance in all three areas (medium tanks tended to reflect this design philosophy, though there were enough exceptions to make life interesting), or they could emphasize one or two elements at the expense of degrading performance elsewhere in the design triangle.  The Maus, for example, was massively armoured and carried a very large and powerful gun, but it moved at a crawl, was incapable of crossing bridges because of its weight and was difficult to transport by rail because of its width.  Tankettes, which were popular in the 1920s, were the reverse of the Maus in terms of their design: they were fast and agile and could be built cheaply in large numbers, but they lacked offensive punch and offered little protection to their crews.  Even in the medium tank category, you can see design trade-offs.  The Sherman, for example, was an excellent vehicle from au automotive point of view and was easy to manufacture and maintain (as one might expect from its Detroit origins), and by the standards of 1939 its firepower and protection would have been considered more than adequate.  Unfortunately, by the time it went into service in 1942, it was facing tanks that made its gun and its armour look woefully inadequate.  The Russians did much better with the T-34/76, and even better with the T-34/85, producing what was arguably the best medium tank of WWII.  The similar Panther was technically superior in some respects, but it was much more complicated to manufacture and maintain than the T-34, so it was inferior to the T-34 in what could be called the fourth element of tank design: affordability.

Tanks destroyers are interesting because they tackled the traditional design trade-offs of tanks in a novel way: by scrapping the conventional hull-and-rotating-turret configuration of standard tanks.  This allowed designers to produce, at relatively low cost, either light, mobile, but poorly-protected tank-killers (the American approach) or heavily-armoured, powerfully-gunned but slow tank killers (the German approach).  The trade-off in both cases, however, was to produce a machine armed with a gun that could only be aimed at a target by turning the whole vehicle around, which was a tactical limitation; as a result, tank destroyers were more useful for static defense situations than for offensive action.

@drako9374:

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that there are too many pairing modifiers? Maybe even more so that, because of how WW2 was and how the game is, there shouldn’t be a separation of classes?

I’m basically saying that each of the four proposed units comes with what seems to me to be an excessively large and excessively complicated package of defining characteristics.  This high degree of complexity may have two undesirable effects.  First, it may make the units unfamiliar-looking and difficult to use, which is never a good idea if you want players to adopt something you’re proposing.  Second, the large number of details which you’re using to differentiate between the four tank types may actually have the opposite effect, in the sense that they might create confusion in the mind of a player about exactly what a unit is for, and about what the advantages and disadvantages of buying it are.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to go back, as a starting point, to the OOB concept of single tank type with OOB values for cost, movement, attack and defense, and with certain set abilities that relate to things like blitzing and unit pairing.  Then, from that starting point, see what kind of plausible type differentiations you can make simply by adjusting the values, but without changing the abilities or the rules for combat.  Those adjustments will make it easy for players to make the kind of simple purchasing judgments that reflect the way tank design choices actually worked in WWII…choices like “if I choose type X, I can build more tanks because they’re cheaper but I get tanks that (for example) have less attack power.”  In other words, focus first on the basic tank design trade-offs of firepower, armour protection, mobility and affordability (in A&A terms: attack, defense, movement and cost), without changing the basic way in which tanks operate or fight or interact with other units.  That way, players won’t have to un-learn how tanks function OOB and re-learn how they work under the house rule.

That alone may suffice to take the current OOB single tank type and divide it into at least two easy-to understand categories, and perhaps more.  If you still want to go beyond that and increase differentiation even further, then try introducing – if absolutely necessary – a very limited number of very simple and clear changes which can be grasped without any effort.  No more than one per unit, ideally.  For instance, as a hypothetical example: “Tank destroyers can’t blitz.”  Period.  No complicated package of extra units pairings.

And watch out, incidentally, for the law of diminishing returns: getting to the point where the complexity required by increasing differentiation overrides any possible advantages which come from this differentiation.  Or, to put it more simply, watch out for the “What’s the point of this unit?” problem which, on the naval side of A&A, can be found with the cruiser unit.

@drako9374:

So you are suggesting I should start with some sort of pre-alpha stage where all the tanks cost, attack, defend, and move the same(example: 6, 3, 3, 2)? And give each type one, maybe two, MAYBE, defining characteristic? After some time, start changing stats and then maybe add an ability and such? Play testing the rule would give some much needed insight…

I wasn’t really thinking about this in terms of alpha and beta stages.  What I was trying to express was the idea that, if your goal to is take the current single generic tank unit and split it into four specialized subtypes (light, medium and heavy tanks, plus tank destroyers), then you should try to do so by making the fewest possible number of changes to the way in which tanks currently work.  The less people have to re-learn about the new units, the more willing they’ll be to use them.

I was also arguing that, if at all possible, the differences between light tanks and medium tanks and heavy tanks and tank destroyers should be expressed through changes to the numbers found in the current OOB specifications for tanks (cost=6, attack=3, defense=3, move=2), not through changes to the special rules which govern how tanks are used (blitzing and combined arms).  This too is in the interest of simplicity and acceptability, and it also reflects the fact that, in my opinion, different tank types in WWII weren’t fundamentally different types of fighting machines which functioned in fundamentally different ways when you paired them with other arms, but rather simply reflected different balances between the various trade-offs that tank designers could make between firepower, armour protection, mobility and affordability (or, to put that last one in different terms, ease of mass production).

To give a couple of examples (but without getting into precise figures, because I’m not good at translating historical data into detailed game mechanics), light tanks in WWII tended to be cheaper than medium tanks and tended to have thinner armour, so your game model should probably give light tanks lower cost and defense values than medium tanks.  Likewise, heavy tanks tended to be rather slow beasts (due to the engine, transmission and suspension technologies available at the time), and they tended to be more heavily armoured than other types (though there were exceptions like the T-35, which weighed 45 tonnes but had surprisingly thin armour).  These might not be the only figures you might need to change to depict these different tank types in a believable way, but it’s a start and it hopefully illustrates the point I’m trying to make.

I think that you should design all four of your tank classes side-by-side, constantly cross-checking them as you go along, to see if you can devise a system that depicts them well simply by adjusting the figures I’ve mentioned.  If you can do so, then that’s great and no further work will be needed.  If, however, you find that you can’t make the system work just by adjusting those figures, then the logical conclusion to draw would be that you need to introduce supplemementary differentiating factors.  That would be the situation in which you’d have a valid reason to start tinkering with the other rules that govern tanks: blitzing and/or combined arms.  But if you find yourself in this situation, try once again to keep the changes to an absolute minimum – meaning very small changes in very small numbers (the ideal number being 1).  Try to stay away from concepts that depend on learning a whole bunch of new special rules that apply to a single unit, or which introduce new processes (like scouting rules) which don’t exist under the OOB rules.  Aim for something that fits as well as possible with the rules as they exist now, so that it can be adoped comfortably and with a minimum amount of mental effort (or playing time).

Or to put it more concisely: print out the first table below and see if you can work out a set of numbers that would adequately represent the four tank types you want to model, without changing anything else about how tanks work in A&A.  If that suffices, then don’t make any other changes.  If it doesn’t suffice, try adding a “Blitz” ability row (see the second table), with just two possible options (yes or no) and see if that solves the problem.  And if that still doesn’t suffice, then consider adding a combined-arms element – but only as a last resort.

I think 3 movement spaces is a bit too much. Also, remember, that Germany didn’t drive their tanks all across Europe and deep into Russia. For the most part they were put on flat-bed rail cars and trained across Europe, then deployed once within operational range. Even infantry were trained across Europe.

I suggest dropping tank destroyers all together. I think it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity with minimal benefits. War game the light, med., and heavy tanks first. Keep it simple…like pairing, 1-1 or something to that effect. Keep them all mobile with 2 movement range. Heavy tanks should hit better on offense than defense. Tanks were meant for exploitation purposes and hitting the enemy hard on the move. Heavy tanks were not hindered on movement ranges much differently than the smaller ones.

Historically, the tank destroyer unit idea failed; which is why they didn’t exist after WWII. Tanks are better suited for killing other tanks; build better tanks then. Those units were made specifically to battle other tanks and they usually lost the tactical situations.

In case you ask me, I think the Tank destroyer is not a real Tank, it is more like a self propelled artillery that can target Tanks. Historically the Tank destroyer was a result from the time Germany went from attacking to defending, and they had to cut the cost too. So they skipped the turret and placed the gun directly on the chassis and saved 30 percent of the money, so now they got 9 Tank destroyers from the cost of 6 classic Tanks. When defending you dont need a turret, you just dig the Tank in the ground and sit and wait for a target to arrive.

All Tank types should IMHO be strong in attack, able to blitz and move 2 spaces. The difference is the cost, protection and firepower.

Light Tanks cost 4, A2 D2, move 2 and Blitz. Supreme mobility, can move one additional space after combat even if the other units are stuck in that territory.
Med Tanks cost 6, A3 D3, move 2 and Blitz. Boost a matching Tac to 4 or less, when attacking.
Heavy Tanks cost 8, A4 D4, move 2 and Blitz. Absorb one extra hit in the first round of combat when attacking.

Artillery cost 4, A2 D2, move 1 and boost infantry
Self propelled Artillery, cost 5, A2 D2, move 2 and boost infantry
Tank Destroyer Artillery, cost 6, A2 D2, move 2 and can target enemy Tanks.

This is IMHO how it should look

Tank destroyers was mostly in allied units. Primarily in the US Army.

Self-propelled artillery would be a better term in my humble opinion. The German Heer (Army) had self-propelled Artillery. One of the famous ones being the Ferdinand…that one and their early war self-propelled artillery didn’t really serve in the capacity of the US Army doctrine at the time in the “tank destroyer” roll.

I actually thought of adding Self-Propelled artillery with some of the HBG pieces I have (if I get enough for each country). My idea was for it to cost 5 IPCs…, 2 movement range, normal pairing advantages with 1 infantry or mech for increasing their attack to 2…but when paired with a tank or a mech it could blitz. This type of unit would therefore provide a slightly cheaper method for blitz pairing (mech’s could now blitz with an artillery pieces). Also, all major powers had self-propelled artillery to some degree; so you’d get minimal historical disagreements there.

I recommend against any unit being able to specially hit a different unit (other than the current rules for:  AAA, destroyer/sub/air rules). I think it adds a complexity to the game that acts like the units are individual pieces. Again, remember these units are representational. In real life, an armor division’s combat power consists of about 35% infantry, 40% tanks, and 20% artillery, 5% AAA. But we don’t let tanks throw dice at airplanes like the AAA “units.” Tanks usually beat the snot out of “tank destroyer” units. I personally wouldn’t sign onto a house rule permitting a unit to hit my tanks before the cannon fodder 3 IPC infantry.

Narvik, the pieces with a gun minus a turret in the German Army were not tank destroyers or a cheaper tank. They were mobile artillery or the more correct term “Self-propelled artillery.”

The German Army had Self-Propelled Artillery in their Armor divisions and Mechanized Infantry divisions from the beginning. Their doctrine for that equipment was in keeping with their doctrine for non-self-propelled artillery. Never did they consider that a way to cut corners on costs, ect…in fact towards the end of the war their tanks increased in size…hence the Mark 5 “Panther” and the Tiger II.

The more additional units the more of a chance that there could be a misunderstanding in a game. If you have “Tank Destroyers” and “Self-Propelled Artillery,” then you need completely different sculpts. Plus you don’t want someone getting confused with your other tank sculpts.