Welcome, coolhandluke!
To further clarify, Germany may move out of the sea zone in combat movement even if its ships end up in a friendly sea zone. Moving to avoid combat in this situation is considered a valid combat move.
Heavy Tanks - a new technology
-
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?
-
sorry to correct you in some points but ;-)
In 1932 Germanys “Heereswaffenamt” buyed a Carden-Loyd Tank from Vickers for test purpose. During this test it became obvious that this chassis was not capable of carrying the 20mm gun but twin mg. 5 companies designed a light tank of about 5 to 6 tons mainly for training purposes. The desing from Daimler-Benz on top of a chassis from Krupp was ordered and produced under the codename of LaS Ia (“Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper” - “agricultural hauler”), since Germany was prohibited to produce military devices. In fact this tank was allready outdated, when the first prototype was finished in 1934.
1934 the Heereswaffenamt" called out for a heavier training tank of about 10t wich had to be able to carry the 20mm gun. 3 companies applied and MAN won and developed the LaS 100 later known as the Panzer IIa1.
It was still a prototype that was build 11 times in 1935. Due to some changes another prototype was build 25 times and was later known as Panzer IIa2.
In 1936 the design was changed again and the Panzer IIa3 was build 50 times. Still it was not ready to be produced masses and it still was handled as pre-series.
In 1936 and 1937 the design was changed again but this time a lot more was redesigned so about 100 of those Panzer IIb (2/LaS 100) were built.
The last pre-series version Panzer IIc changed the chassis and this was the basis for the Panzer IIA that went into series in 1937. At that time it’s main purpose was to fill the gap between the Panzer I and the Panzer III and IV which were not ready at that time.Panzer III was commissioned in 1935. Out of the 4 competiting desings the one from Daimler-Benz was chosen. There were some pre-series designs (A-E) until the Panzer IIIF went into mass-production in 1939. This design carried a rather weak 37mm gun which was replaced by a 50mm gun in 1941-1942 with the Panzer IIIG.
At the same time weht the Panzer III was commissioned the Panzer IV was commissioned as well. Both tanks were supposed to support the lighter tanks Panzer I and II.
1936 Krupp presented its prototype with a 75mm gun and it was approved. 35 of the pre-series Panzer IV A were build in 1936. It was for test and training only.
The Panzer IV B (which was built 45 times in 1937) was the first Panzer IV that saw battle since it was used in the poland campaign. Still it was pre-series.
The first Panzer IV that went into series in 1938/39 was the Panzer IV C. 140 of them were built and this version had the largest allotment of Panzer IV’s in the poland campaign.
Another 45 Panzer IV D which were built late in 1939 took part in the poland campaign.
The Panzer IV was redesigned in built until the end of the war allthough in 1944 it became obvious that it was inferior to the newer allied tanks.Since the german leadership was pleased with the designs of the Panzer III and Panzer IV the development of heavier tanks was not prosecute ver hard. So it was 1938 when the first prototype of a 30t tank was assembled and 1940 when a 35t prototype was built. Anyways this development was not prosecutet until the german tank divisions met the russian T34 tank. This tank was devastatingly superior to the german tanks at that time so it was not earlier than 1942 when the german leadership commissioned heavier tanks. 2 Companies applied and MAN won.
The were to built a tank 30t-35t in weight but due to the quick development the first prototype of the Panzer V Panther wheighed 47t.
After some pre-series tanks the Panzer V D Panther went into series in November 1942.The Panzer VI Tiger went into series in August 1942. It carried the famous 88mm gun know from the aa-guns. With it’s thick armour it weighed 56t.
It’s purpose was to support the offensive actions against the soviet union. It had to be strong enough to fight the KV-1 (russia’s heavy tank).However since the war changed in 1942/43 and germany more and more had to defend instead of attack, the tiger, as any other tank, off course was used in defensive roles. It did well in that ruling the battlefield.
There is a story whereas a single tiger was able to shoot more than one our without being attacked, since the enemy where affraid of this tank.
The was the rumor, that it needed 5 shermans to destroy one tiger and from thos 5 shermans only one may return home safely.
The Tiger was used very well in the normandy. But it was not a defensive tank in purpose. Every offensive action that took place involved tigers.As you said the tiger was unreliable, it needed lots of fuel, it was heavy and thus not that movable in terrain and quite slow, it’s production quite expensive and difficult, but nevertheless… where this tank (and even moreso the King Tiger) entered the battle, it dominated the the battelfield. offensive as well as defensive.
btw. i voted for number 5 the NA ;-)
-
….The Tiger was used very well in the normandy. But it was not a defensive tank in purpose. Every offensive action that took place involved tigers… where this tank (and even moreso the King Tiger) entered the battle, it dominated the the battelfield. offensive as well as defensive.
btw. i voted for number 5 the NA ;-)
Nice Kaladesh! How about No3, the opening fire variant! If one thinks about weapons development, it is quite obvious that Rockets is much more in favor to Germany than any other nation! And I do think a Heavy Tank development would be more useful for the Allies than Rockets! The original Rocket Technology in A&A Clasic is just like an advantage (compare it to one free infantry unit variant, Conscripts, BCT etc)! In the end of the war both US and Russia had heavy tanks that were as powerful as Germany’s! No nation had ballistic missiles, except Germany!
How ever I would like to know if you have play tested No5 yet and the reactions?
-
opening fire in every combat round is to powerful … give 'em a few inf as cannonfodder allong and they will kill everything.
and yes … us and russia did have heavy tanks … the pershing as an example was able to fight the tiger …
nevertheless during the war (until it’s very end) there was no tank that was able to take it one on one with a tiger tank.
and rockets … sure germany was the first nation to develop and use them but they did not have that much of a effect on the outcome of the war.
However for gamebalance it is just ok to let all nations have them. germany has the best use of it since it may reach two ic’s. Allthough in the game i played we usually won’t use rockets. We spent ipc everwhere else :roll: -
opening fire in every combat round is to powerful … give 'em a few inf as cannonfodder allong and they will kill everything.
and yes … us and russia did have heavy tanks … the pershing as an example was able to fight the tiger …
nevertheless during the war (until it’s very end) there was no tank that was able to take it one on one with a tiger tank.
and rockets … sure germany was the first nation to develop and use them but they did not have that much of a effect on the outcome of the war.
However for gamebalance it is just ok to let all nations have them. germany has the best use of it since it may reach two ic’s. Allthough in the game i played we usually won’t use rockets. We spent ipc everwhere else :roll:Well, The IS-2 was a more powerful tank in many aspects, faster as well as better protected and a bigger gun!
Germany can reach three ICs not two, and as you said no one spend ICs on Rockets! Why not replace it with something worth some 30 IPCs on average??? Like Heavy Tanks! You think the opening fire variant is to powerful! It is realistic in our opinion if one take a look on the words we been writing in the last posts! Yes, it is powerful, I agree! It is supposed to be, cause it is a development not an advantage! I would be careful to say that this variant of Heavy Tanks is too powerful,! Explain in statistics, please!
:-?On average 2 heavy tanks will score one hit each cycle of combat. If we suppose that the defender takes infantry units as cassualties, of which three are needed on average in order to score a hit in defense. Then one could say that:
In offense; For every sixth heavy tanks you bring into combat, you will spare one cassualty of your own!
In defense; For every twelfth heavy tanks you bring into combat, you will spare one cassualty of your own!
It is of cause in a small combat the opening fire will come in to play! But I would not agree it would be too powerful! To buy some 10 tanks and develop the Heavy Tank technology cost some 80 IPCs!!! You must be realistic when you make a statement, like “too powerful”!
:wink: -
You might want to slow down movement to 1,since heavy armor didnt go that fast…
You are right about that heavy tanks like the Tigers were not that fast! But just marginally slower than Panthers, but their heavy weight could also be a problem for bridges among other things! How ever these machines were much faster than infantry! Also a tank unit represents a mix of tanks, light, medium, and heavy as well as assault guns! :wink:
-
hmm i will try to give some statistics… just to show what i mean.
the numbers i choose are for clarification only and to show the ratiosi assume a battle with 10 tanks and 10 infantry against 10 tanks and 10 infantry.
the normal result without heavytanks would be as follow:Round 1:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm -> 5 hits 10arm -> 5 hits
10inf -> 1,67 hits 10inf -> 3,33 hitsRound 2:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm -> 5 hits 10arm -> 5 hits
1.67inf -> 0,28 hits 3,33inf -> 1,11 hitsRound 3:
attacker: -=- Defender
5,56arm -> 2,78 hits 8,05arm -> 4,025 hitsRound 4:
attacker: -=- Defender
1,54arm -> 0,77 hits 5,27arm -> 2,635 hitsresult:
Defender holds approximately 4,5 tanks left. that equals 22,5 IPCnow lets have heavy tanks in attack:
Round 1:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm 10arm
10inf 10infOF (opening fire):
10arm -> 5hitsNF (normal fire):
10arm -> 5 hits
10inf -> 1,67 hits 5inf -> 1,67 hitsRound 2:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm 10arm
3,33inf 3,33infOF (opening fire):
10arm -> 5hitsNF (normal fire):
3,33inf -> 1,11 hits 8,33arm -> 4,165 hitsRound 3:
attacker: -=- Defender
9,16arm 7,22armOF (opening fire):
9,16arm -> 4,58hitsNF (normal fire):
2,64arm -> 1,32 hitsRound 4:
attacker: -=- Defender
7,84arm 2,64armOF (opening fire):
7,84arm -> 3,92hitsAttacker wins with approximately 7.84 tanks left which equals 39,2 ipc
so all in all not only that the attacker wins instead of the defender, only in this one battle he keeps 39,2 ipc which would be destroyed otherwise and he even inflicts 22.5 ipc more damage.
when using it in defense this would be even more powerful.
and as i said this was just one single battle.of course the development would cost the attacker quite a bunch of ipc, but the difference in power seems a bit to high to me
off course others may have different opinions. and one wouldn’t invent heavy tanks and just use them once or twice.
and there are nations that could not afford this development to counter it in defense (for example russia.)
this development would be in favour of the germans of course. and if used right … it would empower them a lot. -
Well Kaladesh, heavy tanks cost some 30 IPCs on average and another 50 IPCs to buy 10 tanks thats some 80 IPCs! Germany starts with some, Iknow that! However it is expensive, if US develop heavy bombers they would force Germany to develop Jets! And Us also may provide russia with some lend lease fighters or develop heavy tanks in Ásia some where in China, that would be a nasty bitch to fight for Japan! Those US heavy tanks could also be used to reinforce Russia (no lend lease)! My suggestion is that you try this variant and tell me what you think. I do belive in that you will find this tech balanced! :wink:
-
Um…whoever said that a Tiger could stop an entire armored division…I hope they aren’t serious…Because that’s a rather ludicrous thing to assert.
-
Um…whoever said that a Tiger could stop an entire armored division…I hope they aren’t serious…Because that’s a rather ludicrous thing to assert.
I have no time these days to explain in detail, but I try to give you something to think of!
If a Royal Tiger defends in a position were only a frontal attack would be able No Sherman would knock it out, not even in a close range! And if a Royal Tiger get the first tanks in a “convoy” o(armored division) on a road it would most certainly stop the convoy for a while until airsupport arrive!!! There are historical examples of this, but due to lack of time I need to come back for details on this later on.
Suggested Topics
