Heavy Tanks - a new technology

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Kaladesh:

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:

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@adaptation:

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:

[Kaladesh]

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 ratios

i 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 hits

Round 2:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm -> 5 hits 10arm -> 5 hits
1.67inf -> 0,28 hits 3,33inf -> 1,11 hits

Round 3:
attacker: -=- Defender
5,56arm -> 2,78 hits 8,05arm -> 4,025 hits

Round 4:
attacker: -=- Defender
1,54arm -> 0,77 hits 5,27arm -> 2,635 hits

result:
Defender holds approximately 4,5 tanks left. that equals 22,5 IPC

now lets have heavy tanks in attack:

Round 1:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm 10arm
10inf 10inf

OF (opening fire):
10arm -> 5hits

NF (normal fire):
10arm -> 5 hits
10inf -> 1,67 hits 5inf -> 1,67 hits

Round 2:
attacker: -=- Defender
10arm 10arm
3,33inf 3,33inf

OF (opening fire):
10arm -> 5hits

NF (normal fire):
3,33inf -> 1,11 hits 8,33arm -> 4,165 hits

Round 3:
attacker: -=- Defender
9,16arm 7,22arm

OF (opening fire):
9,16arm -> 4,58hits

NF (normal fire):
2,64arm -> 1,32 hits

Round 4:
attacker: -=- Defender
7,84arm 2,64arm

OF (opening fire):
7,84arm -> 3,92hits

Attacker 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.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

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:

[Erwin Rommel]

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.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Erwin:

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.

[Kaladesh]

i will try it … promised ;-)

to erwin rommel:

tank against tank tigers where superior to most other tanks, if positioned right, they where able to destroy nearly every tank at a range, before they might be able to destroy the tiger, sometimes even at a range at which some tanks won’t even reach the tiger.

The king tiger (not royal tiger ;-) ) was even more powerful and as mr. andersson stated, there was no tank that was able to destroy it from the front (at any range) and there was no tank that may come close enough to make a hurting shot from the side (that was weakest) or the back.

On the other hand those tigers weren’t to speedy and airforce was devastating to all tanks.

more than that the allied were affraid of the tigers, sometimes even that much, that a tiger might engage a battle against an overwhelming superior force (in numbers) without even being shot at, since the allied feared it that much, that they didn’t want to engage.
the allied had the rumour that it would need 5 shermans to destroy one tiger, and that from those 5 shermans only 1 would return. (notice … tiger not king tiger)

for some time the allied where afraid that much, that they saw a tiger even in a lot of panzer IV (which on range looked a bit alike) so a lot more tigers were reported, than there actually were. there was even a command, that prohibited to report the sighting of a tiger so not to frighten the oqn troops.

[Erwin Rommel]

Maybe that’s partly true, but how fast is a King Tiger? Not fast. And it depends on the Crew and how experienced they are. A T-34 with a Veteran crew would beat a King Tiger with an Experienced or Green crew any day.

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Erwin:

Maybe that’s partly true, but how fast is a King Tiger? Not fast. And it depends on the Crew and how experienced they are. A T-34 with a Veteran crew would beat a King Tiger with an Experienced or Green crew any day.

Hey Rommel, do you feel well? :-?

[Commissar_Adam]

HERE ARE SOME IDEAS!! :D

Mechanized Inf: at the begginning of movement pair up 1 inf with each tank(if you choose) the paired up inf now has a move of 2 as long as it travels the same route as the tank.

also you seemed to be having troble on a rule that make heavy tanks reasonable yet worth it, how about this;
tanks attack value is reduced to 2 but each tank rolls 2dice 8)

any replies……comments…please…

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

@Commissar_Adam:

HERE ARE SOME IDEAS!! :D

Mechanized Inf: at the begginning of movement pair up 1 inf with each tank(if you choose) the paired up inf now has a move of 2 as long as it travels the same route as the tank.

also you seemed to be having troble on a rule that make heavy tanks reasonable yet worth it, how about this;
tanks attack value is reduced to 2 but each tank rolls 2dice 8)

any replies……comments…please…

Well Commissar_Adam, you should take a look at my threads! Panzergrenadiers is exactly the same as your Mech. Inf.!!!

Your heavy tank variant is interesting, but too weak! A heavy tank tech should also make a bigger punch in defense as well as ofense! Even if the use of 2 dice instead of one is interesting, it is not better than the opening fire (maybe first round only)! My thoughts! Have no time to take it further.

[Atlantikwall]

Hello,

tanks were for offence in the “old” game (3 on attack, 2 on defence) and, of course, mobility. In Revised they made it 3/3. That was a great idea and changed a lot towards buying more tanks and less infantry. So the “logical” improvment would be a 4/3 Heavy-Tank, i.e. 4 on offfence (and not on defence)! The proposals of “every second or third” are too complicated imho and making a unit more expensive if you just have spend lots of money for the tech is not “logical” either imho! Nor should you pay more for new tanks (with tech) than for the old ones (without tech)!

But it like the general idea to replace “combined bombardment” with heavy tanks. Actually I proposed that earlier in the AH forum, but Larry Harries didn`t want to take over this idea when changing the LHTR into version 2!

[B.AnderssonGameMaster]

Well Kaladesh, have you tried the opening fire variant yet? :D I find it balanced and use it every time!