Posts made by B.AnderssonGameMaster

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink:

@Amon-Sul:

My opinion is that it should be 2nd variant.

the 3rd one is simply too powerful and the first one is really good to.

2nd one isnt that strong it increases battleships power to 5 but its just on 1

so battleship from 4 hits on 6 tries now has 5 six from 6 tries

i dont say it doesnt worth anything but its very weak compering to the oders

Well Amon-Sul, if you think all variants are weak, what other NAs do you compare it to? At the same time you say variant 3 is too powerful and mention that variant 1 i really good! Why not variant 1? Hmmm… confused! :-?

Looks like #3 will be the most favored variant. I would rewrite this variant like this:

3. Tiger Tank Battalions
The massively powerful Tiger tanks were assigned to heavy tank battalions to support other units for special operations, to be deployed en masse for decisive shock action.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks, but only one per turn. A Tiger tank attack and defends on a 4 or less. Each Tiger tank costs 6 IPC’s and may be rebuilt if destroyed. Tigers have a movement capability of 2, but cannot blitz as regular tanks.

Any comments?

However I will wait for at least 15 votes before any decision will be taken. But I like it! :D

@The:

I like # 3…If you play with the NAs,then you MUST have some sort of tank NA for the Germans.Even though,historically, their tanks were initally inferior to the Russians’ T-34/76,the Germans need “something” to represent the later models that were so superior to anything the Allies had.

Well, try this one if you just want your German tanks to be more important! It represent the supreme tactics and doctrine that German units possesed.

Blitzkrieg
German warfare combined the use of mobile units with the close support of airpower into a steel juggernaut emphasize speedy movement and maximization of battlefield opportunities.
Each of your attacking fighters give one matching tank an increased attack factor of 5 or less. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The increased attack ability is for the first round only and is cancelled if defending fighters are present.

If you want more NAs please take a look at “Revised Weapons Development & National Advantages” in this forum, A&A R.

@KCgamer:

What about transport ability? Can 1 tiger still be transported with an infantry or does its larger size and heavier weight restrict the transport’s ability to the Tiger only?

Only one Tiger per transport sound reasonable to me! What do you think?

@Ring:

I’m not sure I can see opening fire for the Tiger. The units that have it fire in a circumstance that justifies opening fire. Subs fire a salvo from stealth, AA guns shoot as the planes are enroute to the target and battleships soften the shore before the ground troops hit it. From your post, Tigers are just tanks that are bigger and better but not necessarily first-strikers?

No you are wrong, cause that is exactly what they are, first-strikers! In tank to tank combat, the Tigers were incredibly good at killing other tanks, reaching kill ratios up to 13:1 in many cases. Allied tanks could only knock out a Tiger at point blank were as the Tiger could take out any allied tank in a respectable range. However, because of the immobility and limited numbers of the Tiger tanks, it was possible to avoid confronting them with tanks, and instead, Allied forces would try to bypass and isolate them, or destroy them with heavy artillery or airpower.

@Ring:

No blitz and produce-in-Germany-only are both good. Sounds like Tigers don’t have the range or speed of regular tanks.

Yes, I think so too!

@Ring:

I like #3. It is simple, which is good, and the cost vs. advantage would be worth it to me as a German player and acceptable to me as an Allied player.

It is simple but don’t represent a super weapon to me, and that is what I would like it to be! I want it to be super cool like Superfortresses! Don’t you?

@Ring:

If any other advantages are given to the Tiger, what about also tacking on the disadvantage of reduced effectiveness vs. fighters, such as defending at a 3 instead of a 4?

Well, my suggestion was that the opening fire ability is cancelled if defending fighters are present (talking about variant #1). But a change like that is first of all based on game balance, history comes in second place!

@Ring:

Additional wording option:

You may build Tiger tanks. Tigers are tank units that attack and defend on a 4 and cost 6 IPCs. You may build one per turn only in the Germany territory, unless you already have three. Tiger tanks must be clearly designated.

Well, this is exactly what my option #4 says

@88:

The only issue with cost is that it is an NA- so keeping it in line with free NAs is a must (Atlantic Wall, Fortress Europe, Wolfpacks etc. are all free of charge). Therefore I would vote for a reasonable charge of 6 IPCs, with no ability to blitz (choice #2 with minor changes). Can you believe after all that I was so willing to go to 6 IPCs? Good job taking an idea and running with it. I’m impressed, especially by your research.

….I may be beating a dead horse here, but I think it’s important, as I see alot of people’s ideas influenced heavily by the way things occurred rather than by the possibilities of what could occur- a crucial difference.

I agree with you! However if one find a NA too powerful it’s simply not balanced. Ihave playtested #1 and #2 today (A&A:E). I must say that the response was that it is a bit too much. Maybe restrict it to 2 Tigers rather than 3, or lets say in #1 that the opening fire ability is cancelled if defending fighters are present. 6 IPC’s would not just be acceptable for the Allies, it would be almost as much over kill as Superfortresses!

Tigers in both variants #1 and #2 were verry agressive when used all three together against anything. I used all three of them in Affrica in company with a few (4-6) infantry and a fighter. I also had my NA Blitzkrieg. Allies never had a fair chance to take hold in Affrica.

If you have used any variant of the above mentioned I would love to here how it all came out? Playability is my focus! :wink:

@whoman69:

By your own statistics, such a unit would need to cost 12-15 IPC as they cost as much to build as a bomber or destroyer.

Well, considering the first variant one could always argue about the cost of 8 to 10 IPC´s, anything more than that is out of the question. Both based on history and game balance. For 8 IPC’s there is a incentive to buy a Tiger instead of two regular tanks for 10 IPC’s. I saw your discussion with 88mm, so I keep it there. I think you understand my point. Game balance is in focus! It’s much like Fortress Europe, it’s unrealistic to some extent, but it is cool and game balanced. :wink:

By the way what did you vote for and why? :o

1. Tiger Tank Battalions
The massively powerful Tiger tanks were virtually impervious to Allied tank guns and capable of dominating the battlefield.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks. A Tiger tank costs 8 IPC’s and may be built or rebuilt in Germany only. Tigers have a movement capability of 2, but cannot blitz as regular tanks.They attack and defend on a 4 or less in the opening fire step of combat. Any casualties are destroyed and removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack.

2. Tiger Tank Battalions
The massively powerful Tiger tanks were assigned to special heavy tank battalions to support and reinforce other units during a campaign.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks. A Tiger tank costs 7 IPC’s and may be built or rebuilt in Germany only. They attack and defend on a 4 or less. Moreover a Tiger tank give one matching infantry an increased combat capability; attack on a 2 (even if supported by artillery) and defends on a 3, for the first cycle of combat only.

3. Tigers Tanks
The massively powerful King Tiger was virtually impervious to Allied tank guns and capable of dominating the battlefield.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks, but only one per turn. Your Tigers cost 6 IPC:s, defends on a 4 and attack on a 4. Tigers may be built or rebuilt, if they are destroyed, in Germany only. One can use regular armor painted in black as Tiger tank units.

4. Royal Tigers
The massively powerful King Tiger was virtually impervious to Allied tank guns and capable of dominating the battlefield. A single King Tiger tank could halt the advance of a complete armored division.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks, but only one per turn. Your Tigers cost 6 IPC’s, attack and defend in the opening fire step of combat. Tigers may be built or rebuilt in Germany only. One can use regular armor painted in black as Tiger tank units.

Background
The influence of the Tiger on Allied morale, known as Tigerphobia, was so powerful that British General Montgomery banned all reports mentioning it’s prowess in battle. Perhaps the Tiger’s greatest fame was gained in a single action in Normandy where the famous commander SS Obersturmführer Michael Wittman destroyed an entire column of 25 tanks, 14 half-tracks and 14 bren-gun carriers in a few short minutes with one Tiger. Due to Allied air superiority, the Tigers in Normandy and France were employed mainly in a static defensive role. This conserved fuel as the Tiger normally consumed huge amounts of petrol. It also kept the mechanical breakdowns to a minimum.

Tigers were mechanically unreliable (mostly because of their weight, which strained the entire mechanical system) as compared to the Soviet T-34 or US M4-Sherman. More over they had a small radius of action in contrast to the aforementioned Allied tanks, and were so large that most terrain rendered them practically useless as breakthrough weapons for which they were manufactured. They could not cross most of the bridges in Europe, and had to be shipped by train to the battlefield (they would break down if they had to be driven for any great distance). They guzzled gasoline, were extremely slow (with an average speed of about 4-9 miles per hour on rough terrain or dirt roads - well below the stated maximum design speed of 25 mph), and had an extremely short combat radius and duration. The high kill ratios when they did engage in combat were offset by their tendency to either run out of gas or break down in combat, which resulted in large numbers having to be abandoned (more than were destroyed by Allied tanks). Also, U.S. and British forces had superior mobility due to widespread mechanization, as well as superior artillery and airpower. Because of the immobility and limited numbers of the Tiger tanks, it was possible to avoid confronting them with tanks, and instead, Allied forces would try to bypass and isolate them, or destroy them with heavy artillery or airpower.

The Tiger’s two greatest strengths were its main gun and its heavy armor. The combination of this massive armor and powerful gun made for an almost unbeatable tank. Enemy crews often watched helplessly as their shots bounced off the Tiger and their own vehicles were quickly destroyed, often from great distances. The Tiger I was very maneuverable for its weight and size, and it was only 2km/h slower than the Panzer III and Panzer IV.However the Tigers would have been much more effective if the mechanical reliability was higher.

Each Tiger I tank cost 800,000 Reichmarks, which was equivalent to the weekly wages of 30,000 people, and required 300,000 man-hours to produce. At those rates, the Tigers were very much high end super-weapons, equivalent on a cost basis to something like the U.S. B-29, which cost about a million dollars a piece, or a Navy destroyer.

@Jennifer:

I kind of agree, Mr. G. The US is extremely dull for the first few rounds and after that they are mildly entertaining as you support Russian and British combat initiatives/defend their territories.

However, America is a vital nation to the victory of the allies.

Hi Jennifer,
I have answered you comment in the thread National advantages for A&A Europe under the forum Axis and Allies Europe! What do you think? :D

Well Kaladesh, have you tried the opening fire variant yet? :D I find it balanced and use it every time!

@Jennifer:

I vote 3 hit BBs and attack/defend at 5 but cost 54 IPCs. (You can repair damage at 18 IPCs per pip/dmg point)

I could not possibly think anyone would buy a BB to a cost of 54 IPCs, and why 54!? By the way it is too complicated! :-?

@Commissar_Adam:

HERE ARE SOME IDEAS!! :D

Mechanized Inf: at the begginning of movement pair up 1 inf with each tank(if you choose) the paired up inf now has a move of 2 as long as it travels the same route as the tank.

also you seemed to be having troble on a rule that make heavy tanks reasonable yet worth it, how about this;
tanks attack value is reduced to 2 but each tank rolls 2dice 8)

any replies……comments…please…

Well Commissar_Adam, you should take a look at my threads! Panzergrenadiers is exactly the same as your Mech. Inf.!!!

Your heavy tank variant is interesting, but too weak! A heavy tank tech should also make a bigger punch in defense as well as ofense! Even if the use of 2 dice instead of one is interesting, it is not better than the opening fire (maybe first round only)! My thoughts! Have no time to take it further.

@Erwin:

Maybe that’s partly true, but how fast is a King Tiger? Not fast. And it depends on the Crew and how experienced they are. A T-34 with a Veteran crew would beat a King Tiger with an Experienced or Green crew any day.

Hey Rommel, do you feel well? :-?

@Erwin:

Um…whoever said that a Tiger could stop an entire armored division…I hope they aren’t serious…Because that’s a rather ludicrous thing to assert.

I have no time these days to explain in detail, but I try to give you something to think of!

If a Royal Tiger defends in a position were only a frontal attack would be able No Sherman would knock it out, not even in a close range! And if a Royal Tiger get the first tanks in a “convoy” o(armored division) on a road it would most certainly stop the convoy for a while until airsupport arrive!!! There are historical examples of this, but due to lack of time I need to come back for details on this later on.

Well Kaladesh, heavy tanks cost some 30 IPCs on average and another 50 IPCs to buy 10 tanks thats some 80 IPCs! Germany starts with some, Iknow that! However it is expensive, if US develop heavy bombers they would force Germany to develop Jets! And Us also may provide russia with some lend lease fighters or develop heavy tanks in Ásia some where in China, that would be a nasty bitch to fight for Japan! Those US heavy tanks could also be used to reinforce Russia (no lend lease)! My suggestion is that you try this variant and tell me what you think. I do belive in that you will find this tech balanced! :wink:

@Linkon:

You can balance the 3-hits by allowing attacking, not defending subs hits against the Dreadnaughts to count double.

Too complicated!

@Linkon:

Realistically, the range of their guns scared away the Allied surface ships.

Superior US intel often prevented these Japanese monsters from finding their prey, so it would be safe to say that they were not effectively used in attack. Superior USN air power allowed us to pick the battles where we finally sunk them.

If US have LRA and a lot of aircraft they may be able to avoid ANY major naval combats with any Japanese Dreadnoughts and US ships. The opening fire variant is not just realistic, but also balanced! So you actually says that you prefer the opening fire variant! I agree with you that it is the most realistic and at the same time it is balanced!!! :wink:

@Raarrne:

Well, in the version i put forward, i think that only the armor should be allowed to continue-bringing the infantry for a second strike may be a bit too strong (i really don’t know how it would play out-but Russian Buffers could end up failing (miserably)).

Anyway, if it gets some testing, then definately let me know how they work!

Also, expect more constructive criticism as you put more of these great creative topics forward.

Hi Raarne,
I have tested your rule variant and found it too complicated! For example if you want to attack a second turn with the panzers then one might ask one self if is possible to use these tanks together with other units attacking from another territory? All units must do there combat movement at the same time! So any panzers wont be able to make a second combined (with other units) attack! Hmmmm…… I will stick to the Panzergrenadiers advantage instead! :wink:

@MuthaRussia:

Its a good idea, but Japan has a powerful enough navy, I think this would make the game uneven! :-?

Well, it is an advantage and I really would like to know what you mean with a “powerful enough” in statistics!

However I think you are wrong, since any of these wont be something big! To have any of these BB variants of mine wont be more than having any extra DDs. An extra DD is worth more than any of these variants, it would be like having them all at the same time. Even a submarine would be more. And finally, how many BBs do you think Japan can afford! This would be enough to explain why any of these advantages wont break game balance at all! :wink:

You could also compare it to some other advantages that I found even more powerful like Superfortresses! :wink:

By the way, what did you vote MuthaRussia?

@adaptation:

You might want to slow down movement to 1,since heavy armor didnt go that fast…

You are right about that heavy tanks like the Tigers were not that fast! But just marginally slower than Panthers, but their heavy weight could also be a problem for bridges among other things! How ever these machines were much faster than infantry! Also a tank unit represents a mix of tanks, light, medium, and heavy as well as assault guns! :wink: