Check this site: http://www.historicalboardgaming.com
There are no rules for those extra units. You have to make them yourself. But then you can better go to the forum for house rules.
Heavy Tanks - a new technology
-
@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 onThank 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
-
@Guerrilla:
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
You are right GG! And therefore our endeavour deserves a small history to bring some realism to it!
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:
-
exactly…Tigers were more of defensive Artillery/Howitzer with a big AT Gun… Same as the US they started with the Sherman and Priest and in the End came out with the 90mm Pershing…
THe Germans neede to develop a defensive tank when it reached the point where its blitzkrieg collapsed…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
exactly…Tigers were more of defensive Artillery/Howitzer with a big AT Gun… Same as the US they started with the Sherman and Priest and in the End came out with the 90mm Pershing…
THe Germans neede to develop a defensive tank when it reached the point where its blitzkrieg collapsed…
GG
So which development of ours do you think it should replace? :wink: :o
OR should one just make a list of more techs? I still think that Coastal Bombardment need to be refreshed, like mine Super Destroyers with 3 in move! -
Well I was thinking Super Destroyers! but the next one is rockets…
GG
-
@Guerrilla:
Well I was thinking Super Destroyers! but the next one is rockets…
GG
Why not have another tech and make it eight!??? Do you have any suggestions for the 8th tech??? It has to be good (not an advantage) and historically correct to gain acceptance by the A&A community!
Or how about this one as the 8th technology?
TECHNOLOGICAL ESPIONAGE
Once a technology has been discovered, any player may use spies to steal that technology.By using spies one will reduce the cost of develop a technology. Every third tech roll per turn is for free, for a technology that is developed by any other player.
-
no… because everyone will get that first and its description is not necessarily “technology”… we need another land technology… Maybe…
8. Heavy Artillery
Each Artillery now supports 2 Infantry units
GG
-
just a few words to the historical tiger tanks …
it is not right, that they were designed as defensive tanks, although when finally in battle they were used as that (not only though).as you stated germany startet the war with light tanks (not really medium).
they were very fast but not that strong or that armored. in fact the allied tanks of france where technically better than the german tanks. they had a bigger armour and bigger guns. anyways germanies army had fought in the spanish civil war with its legion condor where a lot of units used later in ww2 had there first battle experience. (tanks as well as the famous bf109) so the germans were able to develop new tactics with their units and gain crucial experience. (in fact it was at that time that germany realized, that its tanks may be to weak so at that time the development started that resulted in panzer 3 and panzer 4)
at the beginning of ww2 germanys tank division due to its experience developed and used "modern “tactics” that would use the strengths of their tanks while minimizing their weaknesses, whereas the allies in france still used “older” tactics that were appropriate to ww1.
owing to this the german blitzkrieg was that succesfull in france.
finally the new panzer 3 and panzer 4 were available but as operation barbarossa (attack at russia) was underway the germans met a “worthy” opponent in battle. the russian tanks were superior to the germans at that time again having a huge armour (kv1 and kv2), having a good design (t34 with inclined armour, easy produced etc) and being produced in masses.
so it was again at that time (1941) that hitler wanted a much stronger tank that would be superior to all others. strong armour and heavy gun and its main task would be to be an offensive tank !!! hitler still believed in his victory and wanted a strong offensive. this demands resulted in the panzer 5 (panther) and panzer 6 (tiger).
due to its strong armour the tiger tank was not that fast and agile. nevertheless he was used in every offensive from the moment on when it was available. since the war has changed the german forces were on the defense. but as i said all offensives that were launched involved that tiger tanks.
hitler wanted even bigger tanks so the tiger II was developed that was even stronger and with a bigger gun. there were plans for an even much stronger tank called “maus” (mouse) which would be nearly twice as large as the tiger tank. it was not finished though.most tigers were not destroyed in battle but due to technical problems or because they run out of fuel. that does say something about them as well ;-)
so … not a defense invention but it was designed for offense.
-
… not a defense invention but it was designed for offense.
You are right about Tigers intentional purpose (offense), but their design were to be more useful for a defensive role! They were to be used to create breaktroughs, but Medium Tanks were found to be more apposite used to exploit such breakthroughs! Well, I give some history again, but in detail! :wink:
The German Army first used the Panzer I in 1933. The Panzer II was released in 1934. The original 1933 version weighed 7.2 tons, and had a 20 mm cannon and a machine gun in the turret. After many modifications, the Panzer II went into mass production in 1937. By that time the tank weighed 9.5 tons.
Both the Panzer III and Panzer IV were released in 1937. The IV became the backbone of Germany’s Panzer force and the power behind the Blitzkrieg. The Panzer IV was manufactured by Krupp. The armor protection ranged from 8 mm to 30 mm in thickness.The Panzer IV continued to do well as Hitler over-ran Europe and Africa. But the tank met serious resistance during the invasion of Russia in 1942. This lead Germany to develop the Panther tank. Its 75mm gun could penetrate Soviet tanks. Other features included sloped armour to deflect shot, torsion-bar suspension, and interleaved road wheels. The armor was 80mm thick.
Another model released in 1942 was the Tiger Tank, produced by Henschel. It had armor between 25 mm and 100 mm in thickness. The Tiger tended to overheat in battle and suffered problems with the suspension. It was replaced by the Tiger II, also known as King Tiger in late 1943.
The Tiger Tanks was designed to create breakthroughs, as an armored spearhead. But it is in the exploitation of such breakthroughs Medium Tanks were found to be more apposite used to exploit such breakthroughs. The reason was its heavy weight made it slower than other tanks and that it was an incredibly thirsty beast. Tiger Tanks advancing into enemy territory had to frequently stop to wait for fuel trucks to reach them. Therefore the Tiger Tanks were more usual to find in Corps or Army controlled formations, mainly to be used in a defensive role to prevent the breakthrough of Russian armoured forces. The Panzer division usually used medium tanks with a greater range; Pz IVs and Panthers.
Also a big downside of the Tiger Tank was that it was a very complex for production and maintenance, unlike its American and Russian enemies that were mass produced in great numbers and were very reliable in the field.
However what variant did you vote for?
Suggested Topics
