ANTI-TANK UNIT

[empireman]

@Uncrustable:

@Gargantua:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

winner

2nd one!!!
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[techroll42]

Sounds great! Now I know what to do when I have $5 left!

[Gargantua]

Good work Team.

[Guest]

@Gargantua:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

Would anyone ever build mechanized infantry instead of this 2-2-2 unit for $1 more?  The hit-a-tank-on-a-1 feature is very powerful.  Just imagine Germany attacking a Soviet force of 40 infantry/artillery/mech plus a handful of tanks.  A few Stugs could cherry pick the tanks and once the 3s are gone the attacker would take fewer losses on subsequent dice rolls.  This makes the Stug primarily a defensive weapon even when attacking, which is what it should be.

I think it would be better if they have the same mobility and attack/defense characteristics as mech, but have combined arms with armor instead of artillery and can blitz.  The $5 price is justified because you can cherry pick tanks.  That would make it so that people still choose to build artillery, mechanized infantry and armor instead of just a big pile of stugs.

Tank Destroyers (Stugs)
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move: 2
Combined arms: each tank destoyer matched up with an armor unit attacks @2.
Blitz: each tank destroyer matched up with an armor unit that is not also matched up with a mechanized infantry can blitz with the armor unit.
Anti-tank: for every hit @1 by a Tank Destroyer, the opposing side must choose to lose either an armor or mechanized infantry unit if they have one available.  (Note: Stugs kill tanks; mechs protect tanks, so you want to have all 3)

[Gargantua]

I like it Vance. Global needs a $5 item.

I’m a big fan of combined arms coordination,  if you’ve ever studied combat, that’s what it’s all about.  Either you’re kicking butt, or you’re getting your butt kicked.  And it’s often just a one item response to response to response scenario.

That said, rather than self propelled tank destroyers which really could be considered enveloped inside the “armor” unit.

I would personally prefer to see AT-Guns,  There were ALOT more of these in circulation for everyone in WWII.

Attack 2
Def 2
Move 1
Cost 4

Any 1’s force the attacker/defender to select it’s tanks/tank destroyers/mech as casualties first - and in that order.

It becomes a clearly alternate choice for artillery, but you’ll want both, and it won’t intefere with the mobility aspect of mechanized infantry.

[Guest]

You could actually add both of these kinds of units (stugs and antitank guns), and still have valid roles for artillery, mech, and armor.  They each fill a niche and you want to have some of each depending on the situation.  There are lots of naval units to fill all the niches and it feels like there needs to be at least 1 more ground unit that is sort of like artillery and sort of like mech but that is an antidote for tanks.  Stug and/or AT guns would fill that gap.

[lozmoid]

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

[Derek]

@Lozmoid:

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

no to this. HUGE NO actually

it would be spammed beyond control, noone would EVER build anything but this unit on the ground

it has to cost atleast 4, and the not hitting INF is a def no go as even at cost of 4 it would still be spammed beyond control

[techroll42]

Infantry are now outdated, artillery are outdated, mechs are essentially outdated, save for blitzing tanks are outdated, planes are nearly outdated.

Although I think 3 IPC’s cost is probably a typo…

[empireman]

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

There would be:

Light Tank:
A:2
D:2
M:2
C:5

Heavy Tank:
A:3
D:3
M:2
C:6

SPG:
Attack:3
Defense:2
M:2
C:7
Combined arms: Support Infantry

Tank Destroyer:
A:2
D:2
M:2
C:6
Every 1 rolled, remove a mech or tank

[techroll42]

Sounds cool.

[CWO Marc]

@empireman:

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

I’m a bit puzzled by the terminology.  Armour units (in the sense of tanks, SPGs and so forth) are all ground combat vehicles, so they’re a subcategory of Land units rather than a separate category.

[empireman]

@CWO:

@empireman:

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

I’m a bit puzzled by the terminology.  Armour units (in the sense of tanks, SPGs and so forth) are all ground combat vehicles, so they’re a subcategory of Land units rather than a separate category.

Navy, Air, Foot, Armor

[Gargantua]

Foot, Armor

lol…

[knp7765]

I don’t think the SPG should cost 7. SPGs were generally cheaper to build than tanks. They should at least cost 6.

[Rorschach]

@techroll42:

Infantry are now outdated, artillery are outdated, mechs are essentially outdated, save for blitzing tanks are outdated, planes are nearly outdated.

This tbh.

I’m all for customization and house rules in a game, but considering the scale of the game an “armor” unit is not JUST tanks and would definately include SPG’s and other armored + softskinned vehicles.  To add a unique Motorized/Armored Anti Tank unit starts to get into a bit too much specialization if you ask me … especially since having such a unit under the suggestions here would, as techroll states pretty neatly, make all other land units outdated (ie : worthless)

Now, that’s not to say that they can’t be implemented well.  I just think on a D6 set of rules at this scale it will be difficult, unless you’re revamping EVERY section of the armed forces to compensate.

[CWO Marc]

@empireman:

@CWO:

@empireman:

Hey I just thought of this, we would have a new class of units.
Air,Navy,Land, and Armor units.

I’m a bit puzzled by the terminology.  Armour units (in the sense of tanks, SPGs and so forth) are all ground combat vehicles, so they’re a subcategory of Land units rather than a separate category.Â

Navy, Air, Foot, Armor

Substituting “Armour” for “Land units” creates the problem that it leaves out the artillery pieces and the half-tracks, both of which are land units and neither of which are armoured.

[techroll42]

@Rorschach I was referring only to the SPG idea that was 2 atk 2 def 1 move 3 cost.

I like the idea in principle of a $5 SPG, but making it less than that is bad.

[Rorschach]

@techroll42:

@Rorschach I was referring only to the SPG idea that was 2 atk 2 def 1 move 3 cost.

I like the idea in principle of a $5 SPG, but making it less than that is bad.

Ah, I misread.

Even still, I really think the SPG/Anti-Tank unit needs some serious thought and consideration into its values and abilities (and anything less than 5 ipc cost is too little for sure) and probably a revamping many/most other units to account for this new unit.

It’s a great idea … in theory.  In practice, I think it needs a lot of playtesting and thought.

[Gargantua]

I think incorporating TRAINS would be a superior addition, over splitting the hairs between SPG/Tanks/AT-Guns.