cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank
Id like it to cost 9, be restricted to one build per turn and if it rolls a ONE it can choose its hit to another land target, or it fires first in combat?
If its a 4-4-2-8, then by the math that has been offered it offers nothing because a group of 3-3-2-5 tanks together make it a weaker unit. say 5 heavy tanks vs 8 normal tanks. math says the 8 will win.
@Imperious:
Id like it to cost 9, be restricted to one build per turn and if it rolls a ONE it can choose its hit to another land target, or it fires first in combat?
If its a 4-4-2-8, then by the math that has been offered it offers nothing because a group of 3-3-2-5 tanks together make it a weaker unit. say 5 heavy tanks vs 8 normal tanks. math says the 8 will win.
What are trying to say? Increasing the cost does what?, you said it yourself, the 8 will most likely beat the 5. So you want to handicap this unit more by making it more expensive? And you want to restrict it even more by limiting build limits?
I don’t see the logic.
Adding Special Ability’s Makes more rules to remember and Strays from the KISS method. And only adds cost to the unit that is already handicapped by price when numbers on the board count. So you give it a Prelimanary Def. Bombard ment. They hit on what 1’s? A 1-6 chance doesn’t justify for the price increase either. Cool my tank has a AA gun that shoots At land units. And we all know how often these things hit.( not when needed too :wink:)
You want Def. Bombardment, Invent H. Artillery or a tech that allows such an action to take place. That would make much more sense.
What are trying to say? Increasing the cost does what?, you said it yourself, the 8 will most likely beat the 5. So you want to handicap this unit more by making it more expensive? And you want to restrict it even more by limiting build limits?
I like each unit to have some unique ability in AA. To overcome the math of 8 beats 5, you give some flavor to the new unit, but to balance in this case i need to raise the price +1, If you keep it at 4-4-2-8 and include the “roll 1 choose loss” thing its a bit in the other direction. If you feel its now balanced than make your case. The other thing is 4 is the crossing of the threshold for AA land units because this is D6 system and 4 out of 6 can be exploited by buying about 6 of them and surrounding them with infantry.
Wait: i have a new idea! Heavy tanks boost the attack of Infantry +1…like artillery, because the gun is a larger caliber. THis is a good rule and i modify it to that:
New rules:
4-4-2-8, and boost 1 matching infantry in attack +1…ok?
I think a 4-4 tank is good enough.
Now, an Abrams tank would be 5-5, take 3 hits to dissable, not destroy, and cost 12. :wink:
I wouldn’t buy a 6-6 tank for 9 IPCs, unless it could do something no other unit could do. Yes, it has a guaranteed kill, but 9 IPCs wiped out in one hit? Give me a fighter for the money. They can die too, but only if you play poorly. You should never leave aircraft on the front line unless protected by large infantry stacks; super tanks will end up like Mantaufel’s panzers in the Bulge.
I prefer a more modest tech based upgrade and a cost of no more than 6 per unit.
I am going to start Italy and Japan with light tanks 2-2-5 and the other countries will have med. tanks 3-2-5.
I will also have US, Germany, and Russiathe ability to buy heavy tanks 4-4-7 with Germany having a few units of Elite SS tanks 3-3-7 and only Germany having super Heavy tanks 5-5-9
Germany, med= PZ III, heavy=Tiger 2, SS=Tiger 1, Super Heavy=Maus
US, med = Sherman, heavy=Pershing
Russia, med=T34-76, heavy=KV-2
The Italians and Japanese will NOT be able to buy anything but light tanks.
Heavy & Superheavy will move only 1 space.
What do you all think?
I think it is silly to call the KV-1 a heavy tank and give it better stats.
I also think that their is little point to having a Tiger II or Maus peice(except that they are big and cool looking) since so few of those weapons were produced in the war. Also, dont you think the German medium tank should be the Panzer IV, for it was the backbone of the Panzer divisions.
Actuall I am using Pz III and IV. When putting pieces on a board you sometimes have to use pieces that that does not always represent historically, but astestically looks better. I like using short barrel tanks when using pewter, they last longer as in not getting bent or broke. The KV-1 was considered a heavy tank before the JS series, plus it had a taller silloutte which shows up better on the board. I am making the same choices when picking my naval fleet. I agree that the Tiger 2 did not have huge numbers, but they did have them and I just want some more options for the German player. My favorite tank was the Panther with that 75L70, sweet gun and a good looking tank. If I add tank destroyer to the game, I will probably use a Jagdpanther instead of a medium tank , again, for looks. I did add the Sherman m4A1 that the candians built which will be produced by Canada.
yes your on the right track. You will soon need some nifty house rules to justify all the new pieces.
If we’re talking about adding a dedicated heavy tank unit to the game (something that will not happen in AAP40 or AAE40) then I support 4-4-2-8. If we’re talking about adding a heavy tank tech then I propose a simple plus 1 on defense for all tanks, that is, with tanks starting at 6 IPCs (as in AAP40).
Tanks:
3-3-2-6
With heavy tank tech:
3-4-2-6
Alright, no retreat for the heavy tank but not the same cost for all players.
Germany 4-4-2-7
USSR 4-4-2-6
USA 4-4-2-8
I did have some house rules that units were a different cost for the varying nations.
I like the concept.
If USSR only had to pay 6 IPC’s for the heavy tank, then why would they ever buy the regular tank which now costs 6IPC’s.
I think these are technological tanks…requiring a tech breakthrough.
If USSR only had to pay 6 IPC’s for the heavy tank, then why would they ever buy the regular tank which now costs 6IPC’s.
I think these are technological tanks…requiring a tech breakthrough.
Bingo!
As far as tech goes…… I think the countries who actually developed these technologies should automatically get them during the course of the game instead of spending money hoping to get lucky.
Historically they were developed so ther should be no luck or chance involved in getting them. There should be a timeline board which indicates when each country gets its new technology.
Historically they were developed so ther should be no luck or chance involved in getting them. There should be a timeline board which indicates when each country gets its new technology.
Well it’s not bad idea but we should have the choice get a new weapons before the timeline.
Heavy tank and katioucha in 1942?
Jet in 1944?
Heayvy artillery in 1943?
Well then, maybe you could spend IPC’s to take the chance of discovering it early, but if you have no luck you will get it anyway when you should have historically.
Historical games are always great, but some of the fun is to develope technologies that historically were not there. I do agree , it is nice to be able to play someone like Japan and play with historical units and economy and have the rising sun all over the pacific.
I am all for spending IPC’s to speed up development or maybe develop something that was almost available at wars end but as far as spending IPC’s researching something that already existed during the war, I am not for that.This is only my $.02 of course.
