[Global 1940] Additional Unit Stats

[Rebhot]

Hello all,

I recently purchased a bunch of additional pieces off HBG’s website with the intention of adding them to my upcoming game of Global 1940. For each of the playable nations (excluding China and France) I added pieces to represent Armored Cars, Motorized Artillery, Tank Destroyers, and Heavy Tanks. Below are the proposed stats that I gave them, and I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on them and if they seemed balanced or not?

C=Cost, A=Attack, D=Defense, M=Movement

Mechanized Infantry*: C 4:, A 1:, D 2:, M: 2, Supported by either Artillery, Blitz with tank and Heavy Tank

Armored Cars: C: 4, A: 2, D: 2, M: 2, N/A, No Blitz

Artillery*: C: 4, A: 2, D: 2, M: 1, Can support any Infantry

Motorized Artillery: C: 5, A: 2, D: 2, M: 2, Can support and Infantry, No Blitz

Tank Destroyer: C: 5, A: 2, D: 3, M: 2, Can support TAC, No Blitz

Tank*: C: 6, A: 3, D: 3, M: 2, Can support TAC, Can Blitz

Heavy Tank: C: 7, A: 4, D: 3, M: 2, Can support TAC, Can Blitz

• = Units already in base game added for reference

[Hambone]

Those are pretty close to the values to the HR games I’ve played with a couple exceptions.

Tank destroyer the Att & Def is flipped so A:3 D:2 due to weaker armor or lack of turret the defense should be less, main gun was usually as good or better than medium tanks so attack should be the same.

Heavy tank cost should be higher.  We’ve played it between 8-10 ipc and landed on 8 for heavy tank and 10 for a researched heavy tank.

The Armored car we used in our first game last weekend.  We used an Att of 2 but I’m wondering if it should be a 1. Mainly because we added a combined arms mod of +1 when paired with any 1 land unit and limited it to 1 Armored car per battle so it didn’t get out of hand.  Ideally you would pair it with a tank so that 1 tank would Att/Def at 4.  If a tank wasn’t available pair it with an Artillery, etc. The thinking is that the Armored car represent recon units of all types which by having a recon element it would give an advantage in battle.  I’ve heard this similar idea but slightly different so others are thinking about this unit as well.

Just a few suggestions.  The good thing about house rules is that you can use them the way you want, tweak them to make them better or get rid of them if they don’t work.  Its a process I enjoy!

[RellHaiser]

Hambone, I must say I disagree with your tank destroyer implementation and prefer Rebhot’s. Unless we’re talking about turreted tank destroyers like the Hellcat (which HBG has) they should really be weaker on attack due to lack of a turret, and stronger on defense due to low profile allowing for use in ambushes. The German StuG III is really the archetypal example of this. Even though it began as an assault gun for use in supporting infantry, sporting a short 75mm gun 24 calibres in length, constant upgrades eventually had them carrying 75mm L/48 guns and doing very well with these ambushing Allied and Soviet armour.

[Leatherneckinlv]

I agree as well that tank destroyers are better defensively but they can get a boost of +1 with mech Infantry
for every three TD’s you must purchase a tank as to not just have TD’s on board

a combined arms of 1 Mech, 1 SP (SPs are a German national advantage), 1 Tank, TD’s are not in this mix and 1 Tac all units in task force fight at a +1 1st round of combat…Russian NA is heavy armor and Tankograd

Tankograd is 2 Russian tanks purchased are immediately placed in a factory and may non combat move …then rest of units purchased are placed in factory

[Rebhot]

Hambone, thank you for the ideas! I am now thinking about changing the cost of the heavy tank up to 8 to see how it goes. I think for now I am not going to include the recon combined arms, though it does seem very interesting. As for the whole tank destroyer bit, it looks like RellHaiser, Leatherneckinlv, and I share the same idea of the strength of the TD comes from being on the defensive. That being said it is all a matter of opinion I think both ideas are valid. It looks like I will just have to play more games it see what plays best…. oh darn

Leatherneckinlv, I am pretty sure that I tried at least some of these before, Tankograd sounds familiar but I dont remember hearing of or using the rest. Are they official rules or other house rules?

There is another idea that I have been thinking of well and I thought I might as well ask it in this to see what people think. I have an idea of splitting Mechanized Infantry into both Mechanized and Motorized, but I am having trouble trying to make them both unique. Any ideas?

[CWO Marc]

Here are a few comments on some of the items mentioned above.  They mainly relate to weapon systems about which there are differences in terminology.  There’s generally no hard-and-fast answer, because the concepts of these systems have evolved over time and because different countries sometimes use similar terms for different systems (or use different terms for the same system)…but for whatever it’s worth, here’s the way I’d apply those terms in an A&A context.

• Mechanized infantry vs. motorized infantry.  In modern (post-WWII practice), the distinction is sometimes made between vehicles from which the infantry is meant to fight and vehicles which are primarily meant just to transport troops (who disembark to go into combat).  IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) fall into the former group, and APCs (armoured personnel carriers) fall into the latter group.  At the time of WWII, that precise distinction didn’t yet exist as far as I know.  A more appropriate WWII-era distinction, in my opinion, would be to use “mechanized infantry” to designate troops whose vehicles allow them to operate alongside tanks, both in terms of cross-country mobility (half-tracks or fully-tracked vehicles) and of armour protection (though on a lighter scale, i.e. protection against shrapnel and rifle/machine gun bullets).  “Motorized infantry” would refer to troops who travel in soft-skinned fully-wheeled vehicles, such as trucks and motorcycles.

• Tank destroyers.  As has been noted above, “tank destroyer” can actually mean two very different types of WWII weapons, and they would require very different A&A combat values.  One type could be called the “heavy turretless tank destroyer,” as exemplifed by various German designs such as the Jagdpanther.  Typically, these designs would combine the lower part (the drive section) of a medium or heavy tank with a heavily-armoured box-like superstructure and a gun of much larger caliber than the one carried by the normal turreted tank whose drive section is being used.  They were cheaper to construct than turreted tanks, had more punch, had more resistance to frontal damage and had a lower (hence less visible) profile, but they were slow and their turretless design greatly reduced their ability to engage battlefield targets.  They were great for defensive uses, where mobility wasn’t too important, but not so good for offensive action.  The other type could be called a “light turreted tank destroyer”.  I’m not as familiar with those, but I think the British and the Americans were the main ones to use them.  They typically, as far as I  know, consisted of a medium-caliber anti-tank gun mounted in a turret on what was basically a light tank chassis.  They were very cheap to build, relatively fast, and had wide firing arcs, but they lacked the firepower and the armour protection to get into a serious slogging match with heavy tanks (or wih German-type tank destroyers).

• Motorized artillery, if I’m not mistaken, was actually called self-propelled artillery.

• I note that your armoured cars have the same attack value as artillery, which seems overpowered to me.  WWII armoured cars were mainly used as scout or patrol vehicles, with purely defensive firepower dangerous only to infantry, i.e. a machine gun.  One notch below a light tank in combat effectiveness, in other words.  I don’t think they’d have much of a role in A&A.

[Hambone]

Valid points by all of you guys on the tank destroyer.  That’s the beauty of House Rules, you get choose which works best for your group/game.

We use an anti tank gun sculpt with Cost: 4 Att: 1 Def:3 which is basically the defensive unit in the way you are using the tank destroyer.  High powered gun in an ambush mode.

I can see switching the TD to being more defensive if we didn’t already have a unit for that situation.

Thanks for the post Rebot and let us know how you new units worked out in your game.

[Rebhot]

CWO Marc, I thought about calling them SPGs but I refrained because I didn’t want to confuse some of the people who were going to playing in this upcoming (Two have never played before, with limited knowledge on the subject). Thank you for the distinction between Motorized and Mechanized! As it currently stands that game basically lumps them together though as you pointed out, they can be quiet different. Mechanized Infantry was in infancy at the end of World War 2, though a distinction can be made which you already pointed out. My current idea would be to make the Motorized Infantry into more of a support unit than an offensive one with the ability being able to tow normal artillery or potentially any additional “leg” infantry unit. You are right about the UK and USA being the primary users of turreted tank destroyers, though some examples do exist for other nations though they are much more rare and most don’t have models (or at least I could not find them).

Hambone, I like the idea of the anti-tank gun a lot. Also that would give my idea of Motorized Infantry something else to tow if I do in fact end up implementing the unit at a later date.

Again thank you all for the input and ideas. I will certainly update this with how the game went once it finishes up. Also if you guys have any other ideas on how to flesh out the unit roster, I am certainly open to hearing them!

[barney]

Hi RebHot

Baron helped me crunch the numbers on ( I call it “mobile artillery” ) and he made a good argument that tank purchases could be adversely affected. So we came up with:

C5 A2 D2 +1 when paired 1:1 with tank M2 gives +1 A to infantry/mech infantry at 1:1. Also can blitz but gives no blitz ability to any units.

I’ve found it to work pretty good as you definitely want to pair them up with tanks and use mech inf as your fodder. Makes for a nice mobile force.

I also Have “Close Air Support” where Tac Bmbrs give +1 A to inf/mech. It really promotes Tac buys but fighters are still popular for air fodder and the big D4. Plus they still boost the Tac. I find it fun anyway.

Changed AAGuns to C4 A0 D1 M1 can fire at up to Two Air Units. Can take undefended territory. Can Amphib attack. Promotes their being purchased a lot more. It’s good have one with a small group of blockers. Makes using the Tac in the infantry support role a little more risky.

Got a pile more but will leave it at that for now : )

[Rebhot]

barney,

Thank you for the input! It is definitely something to consider as I draw closer to the game. I like the idea of tanks supporting the “mobile artillery” not sure if I will incorporate the the blitz portion but it has me thinking about it. The changes to TAC is something that I will certainly get behind! The AA ones looks interesting. I am liking the idea that they can capture territory, though the amphibious assault bit seems strange because of their 0 attack value. Are you suggesting that if taken on an amphibious assault where enemy planes are present, the AA would be able to roll before combat and try to shoot down the planes like it can during a normal land battle? Also I would certainly love to hear all the other ideas that you have. I am loving all this feedback. Thanks again!

[baron Münchhausen]

AAA have no attack value in itself but allowing to amphib with them is just to haste the pace.
That way, you can load a TP with one Inf and AAA, then unload both in amphib. if you win the fight, your AAA will defend next turn.
Or, if loosing, you can sacrifice an AAA for an attacking unit with a combat value.

This AAA rule was more to streamline the move of all combat units.

[barney]

yea as Baron says if they survive they’ll be there to defend without having to bring another trprt in ncm just to land them. Since a lot of counterattacks are inf/air, they’re nice to have along, but at the cost of not adding to the attack.

The reason for the blitz ability is tanks and mechs w/tanks can blitz so it seemed that the arty should be able to as well. Makes the blitz a lot more powerful. Although you could always bring them up in ncm to reinforce so they can still stay with the overall force. Just my preference.

Idk if you’re familiar with triplea but it has a mod that uses the new units. “Global 40 house Rules”. It’s in the “Redesign Thread” here in House Rules. The notes are in code form so can’t really post them here.

Another unit I really like is the “Escort CV”. C9 A0 D1 M2 +1 w/NB. Can carry 1 ftr or Tac. Has DD sub blocking abilities.

[Rebhot]

barney and Baron Munchhausen,

Thank you for AAA explanation, it makes sense and appears balanced. The blitz idea makes more sense with the added context, thank you for that one! I just learned of TripleA yesterday when I signed up for the forum (Definitely going to be downloading it and giving it a try). I have known about this site for a while but I never chose to do anything than use the calculator. I can’t believe I have missed out for so long. The community here seems great!

[Narvik]

In case you ask me, I think all this additional units should be Techs, or Weapons developments, and because of that, they should be stronger and better than the units they replace, or else it would make nonsense to buy them. If the old 75 mm horse drawn artillery have the same combat value as a self propelled 155 mm artillery, then why botther ?

Self propelled artillery cost 6 IPC, A2, D2 and boost 2 matching infantry units.

It can boost 2 other units because it has better mobility than the horse drawn artillery. I am by far not as good in math as Baron, but I figure a buy of 12 IPC (1 S.P Art + 2 inf) gives you 6 pips in attack. That is as strong as 2 Tanks, but you get more fodder. That makes sense.

Now, if the S.P. Art should cost 5 and only boost 1 inf, that is 8 IPC, or 9 if the inf is a Mech, but you only got 4 pips. That is the same combat value as the old art/inf combo, only more expensive, hardly what I call an improvement, or battlefield game changer.

I think the Heavy Tank should cost 8 IPC, A3, D3 but absorb 1 hit, as in the A&A 1914 rules, or take 2 hits to kill, like a Battleship on land. I dont know what is best. But I do know that the Heavy tank was a hard target, not a push over. When you pay for extra panzer and protection you get a Blockhouse on wheels, and that should not be easy to kill. The light Tank was easy to kill, not the King Tiger. I think all Tanks should A3 D3 because even if the guns were bigger and giving stronger firepower, the Heavis lost a lot all round combat effectivness in mobility, because of the weight. The Heavis never made the same shock wave as the medium Tanks, because they were too slow. But, of course, all Tank types should be able to boost the Tac and Blitz.

Tank Destroyers are intriguing, is it a Tank or an artillery ?

Cost 5, A2, D3 seems legit. But, should they have the ability to target enemy tanks ? Like the AA gun target aircrafts ? I dont see any rational point in spending a lot of extra dollars in a Tank killer that kills a lot of cheap infantry fodder, while the enemy Tanks survive like they usually do, with or without any Tank destroyers present.
Maybe if defending Tank destroyers fire a preemptive shot at attacking Tanks ? But then we get the issues with sequenced fire resolving, making attacking Tanks obsolete.
Another take is to lets say, if a Tank destroyer rolls a 1, an enemy Tank have to take that hit ?
I dunno, man

[baron Münchhausen]

@Narvik:

Self propelled artillery cost 6 IPC, A2, D2 and boost 2 matching infantry units.

It can boost 2 other units because it has better mobility than the horse drawn artillery. I am by far not as good in math as Baron, but I figure a buy of 12 IPC (1 S.P Art + 2 inf) gives you 6 pips in attack. That is as strong as 2 Tanks, but you get more fodder. That makes sense.

Now, if the S.P. Art should cost 5 and only boost 1 inf, that is 8 IPC, or 9 if the inf is a Mech, but you only got 4 pips. That is the same combat value as the old art/inf combo, only more expensive, hardly what I call an improvement, or battlefield game changer.

Combining Move 1 units with Move 2 unit is distorting a bit the comparison.
Of course, we hope for balance sake that M1 unit will be stronger than mobile unit to compensate for higher mobility.
So, it is right that 2 Infantry and 1 SPA at 6 IPCs (avg 2 pips for 4 IPCs per hit) should be stronger than 2 Tanks.

The main thing to consider is Move 2 capacity.
1 SPArt A2 D2 M2 C5
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
Gives 4 pips on offence and defence for 9 IPCs or 2 pips for 4.5 IPC per hit.
But, Move1 Artillery and Infantry cost only 7 IPCs or 2 pips for 3.5 IPC per hit.
Your average unit is paying 1 IPC to get +1Move.
And this is correctly balanced based on difference between 3 IPCs Infantry and 4 IPCs Mech Infantry.

Your 6 IPCs SPA with +1A to 2 Infantry will be weaker than 5 IPCs SPA:
1 SPArt A2 D2 M2 C6
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
1 MInf A1-2 D2 M2 C4
6 pips on offence and defence for 14 IPCs and 3 hits = 2 pips for 4.67 IPC per hit.

2 Tanks are at 6 pips for 12 IPCs or 2 pips for 4 IPCs per .667 hit.
Of course, you can tell that Tank is 3 pips for 6 IPCs per hit.
So, probably your 6 IPCs SPA, when combined with MInf is the same strength than Tank.

[baron Münchhausen]

Motorized Artillery: C: 5, A: 2, D: 2, M: 2, Can support Mechanized Infantry and Infantry, No Blitz

With these combat values, I would allow blitz when paired to Tank or Heavy Tank.

Simply because Motorized Artillery is a costlier unit and better than MechInfantry, so why denying a combined Move with Tank?

And, in game, you will see that these funny Stug III sculpts with tracks should followed Tank to make sense.

The main point is to restrict blitz capacity to Tank only, so you will need them and you will be ready to purchase Tank to enhanced both MI and MArt mobility.

[Rebhot]

Narvik,

Your ideas make complete sense and seem to work in theory, the only thing is that it is clear that we have very different ideas on how these additional units should be implemented. You are coming form the stance that these should be direct upgrades to the normal units, while I am looking at it with the idea that these units should only flesh out the available unit roster. As I said, I like your ideas and might use them for a different game but for this one, I think it I will be sticking to the rough values I made in my original post. Thanks again!

[Narvik]

What, you are not gonna follow my advice ?

[Rebhot]

Narvik,

Unfortunately for this game, I will not be using the suggestion that you provided. That being said, I will see about using them for the next game I hold after this one. Again though, thank you for the suggestions!

[Narvik]

Relax man, I was just joking  :-D :-D :-D :-D