That option is even worse. We already have artillery for that purpose, don’t we?
The 3 option is awesome… but make it only for the first round, because of the obvious Russian Repercussion(recieved not given :wink: )
GG
three sounds pretty good. one would be complicated, how would you know what tanks are heavy and which tanks arnt?
In option 1, you have to pay for each tank that you already have, effectively upgrading all of them. You wouldn’t have two types of tanks at once.
personally i do not like any of those since all of them are quiet strong … in my view even to strong. i admire your ideas b.andersson, but a tank figthing with a 4 or a tank using opening fire is just to strong.
i could agree on the second but however this does favor the germans in the first who off course would be the most obvious to use a lot of tanks.
opening fire just in the first round might as well be better than opening fire the whole combat but again for a german player who is relying on its tanks this would be to strong anyways. i do not feel very comfortable about this, remember a development should regard more than one nation (which is the case with coastal bombardement which would be of use for japan us, uk and even germany when having seafights) but this heavy tank stuff would be most interesting for germany only (maybe us) so it would be more a national advantage rather than a development for all.
personally i do not like any of those since all of them are quiet strong … in my view even to strong. i admire your ideas b.andersson, but a tank figthing with a 4 or a tank using opening fire is just to strong.
i could agree on the second but however this does favor the germans in the first who off course would be the most obvious to use a lot of tanks.
opening fire just in the first round might as well be better than opening fire the whole combat but again for a german player who is relying on its tanks this would be to strong anyways. i do not feel very comfortable about this, remember a development should regard more than one nation (which is the case with coastal bombardement which would be of use for japan us, uk and even germany when having seafights) but this heavy tank stuff would be most interesting for germany only (maybe us) so it would be more a national advantage rather than a development for all.
Well, Combined Bombardment (CB) will only be useful for US and maybe UK and Japan to small extent. Germany with an assault on UK will cost too much to have any IPC’s left to spend on development!!! So, the question is will Japan develop CB? It is not as likely as Germany will develop Heavy Tanks (HT), since Germany is likely to be economically stronger than Japan. No matter of how good HT is for Germany the CB won’t be better for US than HT, since they with HT stands a good chance to fend off any Japanese assaults in Asia with an IC and the Chinese Divisions advantage! So honestly I my opinion HT is as good as CB for US. HT is much likely better for Axis (mostly Germany) to hunt down any Allies (mostly Russian) in the continent and Africa than CB is for the Axis to launch an amphibious assault on UK or US, but cost a lot more to. CB is really crappy for the Axis and quite crappy for the Allies to, since there are much better technologies for both the Axis and the Allies. It can of cause come in handy some time, but not likely! That is the reason why I think and suggest replacing the crappy CB, since it is really not as much a strong technology than the other technologies. CB is more like a national advantage!
If one thinks that HT is too much in favor for the Axis one can replace the Rockets Tech to V2 Rockets advantage to Germany (use the old A&A Classic rule for Rocket Technology), since it is almost only Germany who will develop this technology. And replace it with HT and at the same time replace the CB with Super Destroyers!
Super Destroyers
Your destroyers are now super destroyers. Like battleships, your destroyers now can conduct bombardment during an amphibious assault at an attack roll of 3 or less. In addition your destroyers now have a movement of 3.
This one would counter the Super Submarine Technology. It would also be a strong incentive for Japan to develop, if the Japanese player has the Tokyo Express advantage!!!
One might also consider to let the Heavy Tanks to be an advantage for Germany, like this one:
Tiger Tanks
A single Tiger tank could halt the advance of a complete armoured division. These tanks were massively protected and had an extremely powerful anti-tank gun, which were more than adequate to deal with any allied armoured fighting vehicle of that time.
Every third tank you have in each combat cycle, attack or defend on a 4.
Alright. Now you’re back in your game, B. Andersson. You’ve managed to impress me before with your creative and effective ideas, but I never spoke up. Now, I can say that you have likely found the advantage that gives you the balance you seek so obsessively.
Your Tiger Tank advantage for Germany should do the trick. You need to leave all of the tech alone. It’s too delicate to mess around with unless you playtest it for weeks. Giving the Germans a useful advantage like that, which doesn’t overpower them too much, should help the Axis out greatly. That power definitely cannot apply to every two tanks that they have, and if it applied to every four, it would be useless. Three is the perfect number.
Congratulations. Even though I may never use it in my own gaming, I think it is a balanced and well thought-out choice. I approve of it.
i must agree with ding_chavez. to value ht as a development one has to test it several times. unfortunately i can’t play that often at the moment. tiger tanks as a NA sounds better to me since it does give germany a favor (which was your intend, i guess) but does not mix the whole balancing making all tanks ht … offering it to all nations who could afford it.
i need to get more time to test your ideas though ;-)
@marine36:
three sounds pretty good. one would be complicated, how would you know what tanks are heavy and which tanks arnt?
By using the battleboard and counting every second tank that you still have in the combat as a 4 (heavy tank), put on the 4 hit area on the battle board! Do this procedure for every cycle of combat! :wink:
@B.:
By using the battleboard and counting every second tank that you still have in the combat as a 4 (heavy tank), put on the 4 hit area on the battle board! Do this procedure for every cycle of combat! :wink:
I believe that you mean every third tank, correct?
To clarify #2,
lets say you have 10 tanks, so 5 of them attack at 4 on the initial round of combat rolls.
When you take losses, can you lose the 5 rolling at 3 and keep the 5 rolling at 4?
or
Do you rehalve the tanks for the next round of combat to keep the 50/50 ratio of 3 and 4 rolling tanks?
not ;-)
first combatcycle:
put 2 tanks on 3 and 1 tank on 4 … repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. at the end of the combat remove casualties.
second combatcycle:
remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting 2 on 3 and 1 on 4 … repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard…
and so on
not ;-)
first combatcycle:
put 2 tanks on 3 and 1 tank on 4 … repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. at the end of the combat remove casualties.
second combatcycle:
remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting 2 on 3 and 1 on 4 … repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard…
and so on
Thank you Kaladesh, for clarifying how Tiger Tanks works! :)
it was a pleasure :D
it was a pleasure :D
Do tou play A&A Europe, if you do I sugget you to take a look at the A&A Europe forum for NAs! :D
@Guerrilla:
The 3 option is awesome… but make it only for the first round, because of the obvious Russian Repercussion(recieved not given :wink: )
GG
How about giving it as an advantage and let German tanks attack and defend in the openingfire step during the first cycle of combat? This one would make it more simple, than every theird tank at 4/4!
I have tested both in a few games and my game friends land I like both variants!
@B.:
it was a pleasure :D
Do tou play A&A Europe, if you do I sugget you to take a look at the A&A Europe forum for NAs! :D
unfortunately i do not have aae and i also do not know anyone who has it :-/
allthough i would like to play it (and pacific) as well but i am not that rich to have 'em all :roll:
another thing Mr Andersson… On variaant one your saying on attack and defense Tanks are better than Fighters… maybe you should reverse them from fighters (Attack 4 dfend 3)
GG
@Guerrilla:
another thing Mr Andersson… On variaant one your saying on attack and defense Tanks are better than Fighters… maybe you should reverse them from fighters (Attack 4 dfend 3)
GG
Well GG then they wouldn’t be worth it, some 30+ IPCs on average! Remember that an artillery and a infantry combination costs 7 IPCs and together are approximately as effective as a heavy tank (4/4). Maybe 3/4 and NO 6 IPC cost and additional cost for each tank you have before the development come in to play.
Why would a 3/4 tank be worth 5 IPCs?
Simply because that a 3/4 tank is more of defensive character, and as a defensive unit it would be cheaper to buy two infantries (can take two hits) at the same cost! Sure the 2 in movement and an approximately 50% better offensive capability would be a strong incentive over the 2-infantry combo, but not better than a artillery and infantry combo for 7 IPCs!
However the 3/4 appers to be a much more balanced variant since it now doesn’t favor Germany much more than any other nation. Imagine US with Chinese Divisions advantage and an IC in Asia that could bring two heavy tanks each turn! Or not to mention if US with Lend-Lease could support Russia with fighters so they could roll for the heavy tank development!
GG, You have been a true light in the darkness of heavy tank development! A 3/4 tank at regular 5 IPCs it is!
Germany began the war with LIGHT TO MEDIUM OFFENSIVE TANKS to perform the battlefield function of offensive breakthrough and were highly successful from 1939-1942 against WWI style opposition. The design of the offensive tank was driven by physical reality to have the maximum cross-country mobility to infiltrate through enemy lines to collapse them from the inside out . The thing that won the “lightning war” (blitzkrieg) battle according to German Panzer General Hans Guderians was TRACKS not tank dueling. The goal was to defeat Army units to win battles and wars not destroy other tanks to chalk up “kill marks” on your gun tubes. The heavy tanks like Tigers were made for tank dueling and hence of a defensive value, to make newly captured areas less susceptible for counter-attacks! :wink:
thanks… I think it will be a much more favorably bought tech and is not as complex… although the ones you have invented already are pretty sweet… :lol:
GG
