I supppose I am thinking of this differently. If you and I are shooting at each other from the same distance, but I can’t penetrate your armor while you can penetrate mine, I don’t really see that as first strike. I see that as a 4/4 vs. a 3/3. First strike would mean to me that you are shooting at me before I can even shoot at you. I can see the argument of ‘I can shoot at you effectively before you can shoot at me effectively’ but really that still means 4/4 vs. 3/3 to me. Just my viewpoint, not necessarily right.

I’m not so sure if I would want them to be that cool. Superfortresses are pretty dern powerful.

The wording was just to give you an alternate way to say it. I was hoping for simpler wording, don’t know if I achieved that or not - it was pretty clear from the get go.

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 blitz and produce-in-Germany-only are both good. Sounds like Tigers don’t have the range or speed of regular tanks.

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.

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?

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.