Yeah, at least it made some kind of sense to have Italian units be German recasts; we know they have to cut some corners here and there, and the Italians DID use a good bit of German equipment, especially the Italian Social Republic toward the end.
It would have made so much more sense to give the French US units, as at least in the late-war period the Free French made extensive use of US gear. (Free French forces liked to wear their Adrian helmets as a distinguishing feature out of national pride, but even this was limited to what they could scrounge.) Leclerc’s armored columns, for example, rode into Paris in Shermans.
Love those French T-34 tanks. If they would have had T-34’s the French would have stopped the Germans.
That’s not necessarily true. Tactics played a big role in the Germans overrunning France. The British and French actually had more tanks than the Germans and some of the French tanks were considered superior. Unfortunately, they didn’t mass their tanks like the Germans did and were torn apart piecemeal. Also, the British and French commanders used outdated strategies and couldn’t cope with the rapid moving Blitzkrieg style of war that the Germans employed. So, even if the French had T-34s, I imagine the outcome would have been pretty much the same.
OK, duly noted. The T-34’s didn’t do much for the Soviets either until their tactics caught up with the technology. Just for the record, though, I don’t think the French produced anything really competitive with the Germans’ Panzer III’s & IV’s (which were, admittedly not the bulk of the German forces yet by 1940) much less the T-34, which was truly ahead of its time when it first came out.
Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.
Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.
Anything is possible but this is hard to believe. :|
Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.
I’m not so sure. The Char B and Somua had good theoretical stats, but their crew division-of-labor problems were severe; particularly their 1-man turrets, put them at a huge disadvantage.
DrLarsen,
You are correct. They were the best tanks on a 1v1 basis, but the lack of communication and commander task overload enabled the Germans to easily annihilate them.
Jack,
The tanks were excellent. The crews were French. (No explanation necessary)
Remember, it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog that counts.
Well, no so fast: it wasn’t the French crews fault that their tank designers had saddled them with a VERY poorly thought-out division-of-labor arrangement. This is not a problem with the soldiers, but the leaders/ designers. Crew arrangement is a vital aspect of design! So I’d say that these flaws arguably made the French tanks “paper tigers” with good stats but poor real-world performance.
An interesting comparison for the Char B is the US M3 Lee/Grant. Stats-wise the two match up well. In practice the M3 did fairly well in the early-war era; the Char B, not so much. The M3 was much liked by the Brits during the North Africa campaign, and they eagerly snatched up as many as they could get their hands on. So what was the key difference between the 2 designs? The US tank had two more crew members in the turret…
General preparedness and warfighting capabilities were sorely lacking in many French ground units.
Forget the exact name, but a sizeable French tank contigent was destroyed because they neglected to recon the area before eating lunch.
Nothing against the French, but one of their best units is the “Foreign” Legion. Kind of tells you something.
True, but I think my point still stands; crew arrangement is a design issue.
Keep in mind also that the issues you’re addressing are primarily still ones of leadership, not crew competence or bravery. I’m just trying to be fair to the individual French fighting man, not defend French leadership or tactics.
Quote from Inmajor:
OK, serious question;
Does anybody think that by having different classes of tanks, artillery, infantry , planes ,etc. opens up the inevitable fact that the combat system would have to be expanded to a 12d system to accommidate all these units. the 6d system seems stretched to the max to me. what do you think?
I was doing some more thinking and I found a way to include up to 10 different types of land units without resorting to 12-siders. I’m sure others have come up with similar systems (there are only so many possible permutations using 6-siders, after all.) Nevertheless, I think it shows that a set with a wide range of alternatives pieces is quite feasible as an upgrade accessory (and this is just land units and only limiting ourselves to 6-siders…)
| Unit
Infantry
Elite Infantry*
Light Tank
Armored Infantry
Artillery
Medium Tank
Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun
Heavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun
| Attack
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
|
*Elite Infantry would include things like Paratroops with the ability to jump from bombers and/or air transports and Marines with bonuses on amphibious landings.
Hey Dr Larsen,
I really like your ideas for all these units. Very creative yet also historically accurate. I have a few questions:
1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right? (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right? Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?
DrLarsen - EXCELLENT!
You have adhered to a formula that I really like - Attack+Defense+Move(-1)=Cost
The -1 is because 1 Move is standard for all pieces, and you should be paying a premium for an extra move space.
There is still room in your chart for more units - Mech Inf still has a spot:
| Unit
Infantry
Mech Infantry | Attack
1
1 | Defense
2
2 | Move
1
2 | Cost
3
4 |
The only difference between the two is one move point, for which you pay an extra IPC. I like this because “Armored Infantry” could be half-tracks, and Mech Infantry could be trucks.
btw, the beautiful table above is dedicated to reloader, who showed me that a decent table is possible on this forum…
I like your idea about the additional infantry unit. I’m torn between that and using the truck as a pure transport unit that can be used to move regular infantry and/or artillery units 2 spaces…
1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right? (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right? Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?
In answer to knp’s Q’s
<1, Yes (If you prefer to refer to them as Mech. Infantry and prefer to use the truck as a combat unit, it could be called a “Motorized Infantry” unit.)
<2, No: no need. What makes elite infantry elite is more thorough/ specialized training more so than special weapons tech for the most part. Since they are “picked men”, though, their #'s could be limited to a certain maximum or to a certain percentage of infantry. Or they could be upgraded from existing units for a cost of 1, with special limitations that seem appropriate. (e.g., Marines needing to be trained at a naval base, airborne at an air base or some such thing…)
<3, YES… or TT is able to make them, which is why its on this thread!
<4, Probably; If your campaign start date is later in the war, you could then simply award certain nations with this tech automatically as a national advantage.
The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:
i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.
I was doing some more thinking and I found a way to include up to 10 different types of land units without resorting to 12-siders. I’m sure others have come up with similar systems (there are only so many possible permutations using 6-siders, after all.) Nevertheless, I think it shows that a set with a wide range of alternatives pieces is quite feasible as an upgrade accessory (and this is just land units and only limiting ourselves to 6-siders…)
| Unit
Infantry
Elite Infantry*
Light Tank
Armored InfantryArtillery
Medium Tank
Medium Tank Dest./ SP GunHeavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun
| Attack
1
2
2
22
3
22
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
23
2
34
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
21
2
21
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
55
6
66
8
8
|
I see it works that if you add attack defense & move - 1 = cost
Was that by design?
I see it works that if you add attack defense & move - 1 = cost
Was that by design?
Actually, I just worked out what seemed to make sense intuitively and it just happened to fit the formula advocated by reloader serendipitously! Now that he’s made us aware of it though, I see that it’s a formula that makes sense.
The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:
i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.
That’s an interesting idea; I use a tech system that lets you target a tech and gradually improve your chances of achieving it by continuing to invest in it. For some things (like heavy tanks) that nearly everyone probably COULD have achieved if they’d made it a priority, your building breakpoint idea also makes sense.
I’m a fracophile,so I agree with the leadership as France’s problem early on,although it’s always hard to defend the militia later in the war.The Char B/M3 matchup is a good one,
and the allies did have the advantage in armor in 40.I think the Pz III was making its appearence in fair numbers but the I/II were not up to Allied medium types.The Czech tanks were the workhorse for another year and played their part well even as they were adapted to other duties.Tactics was the killer.
Reloader:
Continuing what CWO said, I would argue against Table Tactics making infantry pieces. FMG has two different infantry units for each nation, and I think any more will be overkill.
I would focus more on actual vehicles/tanks/planes/extra unit classes…
I think I’m starting to come more and more reloader’s way on this one…
One key unanswered question is how comfortable you feel, TT, doing figures. If your reaction is “no problem” then perhaps doing a limited # of elite and/or special infantry units would be worthwhile (Keeping in mind the things I said before about distinguishing features, especially headgear which will make ID from a distance more clear…)
On the other hand, there are lots of HO’s out there that we could use for these things if we want, but not much in the way of plastic mini’s in the right scale for alternate vehicles, and, other than the size, I like what you’ve done so far for armored vehicles, and would love to see what you could do with ships…
One thing that I’m pretty sure we DON’T need any more of is “regular infantry!”
I do have some specific thoughts on your current choices (or omissions, rather) for individual armored vehicles:
Italy: You really should have included the P 40, the best Italian tank of the war; didn’t see much use, as it came a little late, but it was good enough that the Germans snapped up all they could get. It wasn’t a world-beater, true, but it was at least competitive with the Sherman/ Panzer IV class of mediums.
Japan: You overlooked the Type 3 Chi-Nu and Type 4 Chi-to. The latter didn’t get past the prototype stage, which might rule it out, but the former was produced in small #’s (but the Japanese didn’t produce any tanks in very large #’s, really) and was kept in reserve for the invasion of Japan that never came…
USSR: You overlooked the IS-2, which saw fairly wide use (over 3,000 produced in the last 2 years of the war), especially in the end game, as the Russians blasted their way through Axis cities… I don’t know which T-34 you chose, but the T-34/85 was a very successful upgrade that was produced in enormous #’s. If you really prefer early-war models, the KV-1 was the premier Russian heavy tank until 1942 or so. (Once the Germans started running out of Panzer I’s & II’s, which had trouble with the early KV’s, and started switching to Panzer IV’s and Panthers, the KV-1 was definitely starting to show its age…) For a medium/ heavy line-up, I’d say go with either an early-war or late-war line-up as follows:
Early War Late War
Medium T-34/76 T-34/85
Heavy KV-1 IS-2
But note: if you mix-&-match to combine a T-34/85 with a KV-1 you’ve got a bit of absurdity on your hands, cause you’ll have a heavy with a smaller gun than the medium! If you do the T-34/85, at least upgrade your KV to a KV-85!
UK: You really should have included the Comet. The Cromwell was a pretty good medium, but its gun just wasn’t quite up to snuff. The Comet wasn’t that much heavier, but the gun upgrade made a huge difference. The “ultimate” fix for a UK heavy, the Centurion, came too late to see any action…
The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:
i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.
The only problem I see with that is if one nation, say Germany, builds a bunch of tanks, they could be up to heavies in just a couple of rounds yet another nation, say USA, can’t buy as many tanks because they also have to buy navy and air force to get across the ocean to take on Germany and they will be stuck with light tanks still.
Another idea would be to go by rounds. After X number of rounds you can upgrade to medium, after Y rounds you can upgrade to heavy. It seems to me like that would keep things a little better balanced.
