Table Tactics New Product Release

[DrLarsen]

A jagpanzer IV might be a better TD than a nashorn, the latter being a cheap to make lightly armored stopgap vehicle

and

The wespe is a better (105mm) counterpart then the hummel (150mm) to the priest (105mm), imho

All true, but with the Nashorn/ Hummel I was going for that dual-use piece that could be used as either Nashorn or Hummel depending on end-user requirements.  Also, note that while the Wespe was built on a light tank foundation (Panzer II), the M7 was built on a medium tank, so again, comparability is never exact.  Also, remember that as defined in previous suggestions, the SP gun is a 2/4/2/7 unit, so having a bigger gun (Hummel) and/or armor (M7) to give it some plusses over a standard artillery piece makes sense.  btw, I would suggest that SP guns give the same bonus to infantry as regular artillery, but not TD’s…

For artillery, I like what you have suggested earlier, except that guns below 100mm should probably be considered light not medium.

Keep in mind:
1. the official WotC artillery pieces included a Japanese 70 mm and a German 88 mm.  You could argue that these were bad choices, but the closest German equivalent of the American 105 was probably… the German 105 (and not something bigger.)
2. The British tactical equivalent of the American 105 mm was the famous 25 pounder (87.6 mm)  For instance, the downside for the Brits of using the M7 Priest, which they loved, was that it used the American 105 rather than the 25 pounder used by other British artillery units… and so they started replacing them with the Canadian-made Sexton, a very similar conversion that used the 25 pounder rather than the 105.  I’ve never seen any mention of the Brits seeing the Sexton as at all a “downgrade” from the Priest, tactically-speaking.
3. By far the most widely-used Soviet piece was the 76 mm regimental gun, which would be my recomendation for TT’s Soviet Medium (regular) Artillery.
4. Keeping to the 70-105 mm range for “mediums” allows for the wide range of Soviet 122-152 mm’s, American 155 mm’s and German 150mm’s to fit into the “Heavy Artillery” category.

Given all this, I would suggest that in the WW2 context, 105 mm (or maybe 107 mm to pull in some Soviet designs) is more the “upper end” of medium than its lower end.

[moralecheck]

Well said, sir.

[Table Tactics]

@DrLarsen:

Which sculpts from the new table tactics models are in scale with axis and allies models.

Did I summarize all this correctly, TT?  Your right on the money.

[RandyJohnwayne]

Hi Imperious! I am the guy whole sells the navy’s and doesn’t use chips. Reason is chips have no weapons!  When i first started playing a friend with some art skill painted a map on a 4x8 sheet of plywood since I had so many pieces. It served for a long time but it’s long since warped and discarded. I have a huge map that is architects paper and it sits under a huge piece of recut glass. I have a different game system. I use the map as a reference point for who is where, but most of my pieces are set up in corps (I use the original AA foam trays for corps units…armoured, infantry, artillery,and air) as well as  army’s and army groups set up in original AA boxes. For me the setting up and moving the units and how each army corps is armed with what  weapons and equipment and to what army he is attached is the enjoyment. What is he facing in his opponent in numbers and weapons and how he plans to overcome them is challenging. what is the grand strategy? What is the armys and the army groups strategic objective? Will i blitz, use paratroops, how do i reinforce?  It does involve a ton of pieces and is expensive but as they say more  is better. The more new pieces Jack makes just adds both realism and tactical problems for me which I just love! I would love to see trucks, sp art, tank destroyers ( I loved the elephants and tigers, they are just too big for me) transport planes, LST’s, trains, paratroops, commandos,  coastal guns, heavy artillery. There is no A-bomb in my game (unless the wifes cat jumps on the table) so the war  often goes into 1946-47 and I use TT helicopters, sp rocket launchers, jets and APC’s as the war grinds on. I have so much stuff that a games take several months to play. I really enjoy reading all you guys posts to steal what  ideas I can to help me improve my game.  Thanks to you all!

[Table Tactics]

@RandyJohnwayne:

I have so much stuff that a games take several months to play.

Only several months, the war lasted 5 years.  I guess you need more pieces.  :-D

[Imperious Leader]

RandyJohnwayne is probably the ultimate piece junkie. I know of no other person that can be more committed to having the maximum pieces possible in games.

I hear of battles where he has like 1,000 pieces and rolling out for over an hour. I hope we can get a picture of what kind of house rules allow so many pieces. On ebay he is always selling those Xeno naval units and attack pieces because he is collecting only specific types of pieces and selling the excess.

[cminke]

holy crap , that a great idea.

[reloader-1]

Jack,

Any update ?

[Table Tactics]

@reloader-1:

Jack,

Any update ?

I just ordered the ejector pins for the Russian’s.  Dame guys forgot to tell me they needed more.  Each set of pieces has it’s own set of ejector pins because they burn the wheels into each pin so you don’t get a flat spot on the tank when it is molded.  I should be shooting the Russian’s next week.

No word on any dollar investments.  :|

[DrLarsen]

Hey, TT!

Do you have a copy of that new game “Singapore: 1942” that’s discussed a few threads down?  If not pick up one of the Bren carriers from the game off of FMG’s site (their selling individual pieces from that game for just a couple of bucks each; that way you don’t have to spring for the whole game…)

Anyway, I’m thinking that the size of that piece would be the perfect baseline size to you for your smallest light tanks.

Do the rest of y’all out there agree with me?

I’m thinking use:

1. the Singapore-game Bren carrier as a baseline for the light tanks
2. The WotC Panther as a baseline for the medium tanks
3. The TWG Tiger as a baseline for the heavy tanks
4. Keep the sizes fairly uniform within classes: don’t attempt to make them “true-to-scale”… It’s more important for players to be able to quickly recognize type than to have perfect scale.

Thoughts, Gentlemen?

[reloader-1]

Dr Larsen,

I think that is too big. Honestly, if we are using light med and heavy tanks the difference will be pretty clear.

I prefer using the A&A Panther as my upper range identifier (maybe a tad bit bigger for a Tiger) but no bigger than that.

[HBG]

@reloader-1:

Dr Larsen,

I think that is too big. Honestly, if we are using light med and heavy tanks the difference will be pretty clear.

I prefer using the A&A Panther as my upper range identifier (maybe a tad bit bigger for a Tiger) but no bigger than that.

Agreed
TWG tiger is too big IMO.
Use a tiger 1 just bigger than the panther, obvious difference, use a kv2 for the Russian heavy, obvious difference and you do not need to take up precious board space.

[DrLarsen]

Well guys, I’m looking at the WotC fighter/Tac Bomber/Bomber sizes and seeing a similar range of sizes, which I think is a bigger difference than scales ranges warrant, but as I look at them, I do appreciate the ease in telling them apart…

[DrLarsen]

…Oh, and what do you guys think about the lower range?

[DrLarsen]

Gee, I don’t know, guys… I’m looking at all of the tanks side-by-side here, and the TWG tank isn’t really that much bigger… and the WotC Panther is SO close in size to the other WotC mediums…

What would you guys say to the TT Tiger being halfway between the TWG Tiger and the WotC Panther in size?

If that works, then a Pershing and an IS-2 could be the same size, the Panther could be the same size as the WotC model and the Comet could mirror it and players could choose themselves whether to class these two as mediums, as heavies, or maybe even as 3/3/2/7 medium-heavies…

…And IDK about the KV-2.  Way Too tall and ungainly, little-used… It’s really more an SP gun than a tank anyway.  I still like the IS-2, which is also very distinctive, with that massive gun and fairly high profile for a Russian tank (NOT to be confused with the much lower-profile IS-3 that came too late in the war…)

[reloader-1]

Remember we have a good deal of wiggle room in the actual sizes. I have to dig up my post, but a small French light tank would be visibly smaller than a medium or heavy tank.

Here is my post - notice the progression in sizes. Trust me, the difference would be easily visible to the eye. Plus, we are not going to confuse a Tiger with a Panzer II

–--------------------------------------------

Did some measuring of current Axis & Allies tank sizes. No matter the real-world relationship between tank size, the current convention is to stick to a given range, and depending on a tank’s relative size put it either at the top of the range (Panther) or bottom of the range (Type 95), etc.

Here are the measurements: (Length is point to point on longest part of tank / Width is track width)

UK Matilda
20mm L / 9mm W

US Sherman
22mm L / 8mm W

GER Panther
22mm L / 9.5mm W

RUS T-34
21.5mm L / 9.5mm W

JAP T95
19.5mm L / 8.5mm W

ITA M41
20mm L / 9.5mm W

Obviously the Panther is the largest (and widest) tank, and the T-95 is the smallest. Here are my proposed measurements for the French lineup:

Hotchkiss H35
17mm L / 7.5mm W

SOMUA S35
19.5mm / 8.5mm W

Char B1-bis
21.5mm L / 9.5mm W

[CWO Marc]

I agree with Reloader: the A&A convention is for all tanks to be approximately the same size, within a fairly narrow range.  The more a non-A&A tank strays outside that range, the more out of place it will look alongside the A&A units.  The primary way in which A&A tank models are differentiated is by shape, not by size (with the colour being an additional factors that helps tell units apart).

I think part of the problem we’re noticing here is that board members have different views as to what constitutes a noticeable and/or acceptable size differential between units.  For instance, when I look at my A&A and TWG tanks side by side, I find the size difference to be much more striking than Dr Larsen does – strking to the point of rendering the two types incompatible.  In fact there are very few TWG units that I find to be fully compatible with the A&A pieces, the destroyer being one of the rare exceptions.

The approach I’d like to see TT use would be to stick as much as possible to the size range of the existing A&A pieces, and to use shape rather than size as the distinguishing factor between models.

[DrLarsen]

I understand completely what you’re trying to say about the WotC convention being what it is.

Here’s where I have a concern about it in terms of practicality…

So far, WotC tanks have all been within the same category.  It thus didn’t matter if you mixed in, say, the skinny version of the Panther with the wider version or the British Matilda with the British Sherman… A tank was a tank was a tank.

Of course, different countries=different colors, too.

But once we have different types or levels of tank that are the same color, will it be so easy?

Having already experienced the difficulties of using just shape because I’d long been using the (smaller, pre AA40) Stukas as Tac Bombers and bf109’s as fighters, I’m concerned that more differentiation might be helpful once we have multiple tank types, just as WotC radically increased the size of the Stukas once the addition of Tac Bombers became “official.”

Do y’all think the current Stuka/ bf109 difference is too great as well?

(I hope you don’t think I’m being argumentative, I’m just trying to struggle with the dialectic between compatibility/ recognizability thoroughly in the hope that we can find a consensus, so that TT and possibly other future accessory venders will have the clearest possible feedback.)

[DrLarsen]

Oh, quick Q’s RL:

1. Are you counting the barrel overhang in your length measurement?

2. These are all from the latest AA40 sculpts, right?

[DrLarsen]

Wait a minute, they can’t be all AA40 sculpts, since they stopped doing the unique Italian tank in AA40…

So are these all AA50 sculpts, or a mix?