Table Tactics New Product Release

True, but I think my point still stands; crew arrangement is a design issue.

Keep in mind also that the issues you’re addressing are primarily still ones of leadership, not crew competence or bravery.  I’m just trying to be fair to the individual French fighting man, not defend French leadership or tactics.

Quote from Inmajor:

OK, serious question;
Does anybody think that by having different classes of tanks, artillery, infantry , planes ,etc. opens up the inevitable fact that the combat system would have to be expanded to a 12d system to accommidate all these units. the 6d system seems stretched to the max to me. what do you think?

I was doing some more thinking and I found a way to include up to 10 different types of land units without resorting to 12-siders.  I’m sure others have come up with similar systems (there are only so many possible permutations using 6-siders, after all.)  Nevertheless, I think it shows that a set with a wide range of alternatives pieces is quite feasible as an upgrade accessory (and this is just land units and only limiting ourselves to 6-siders…)

| Unit                     
Infantry                       
Elite Infantry*         
Light Tank
Armored Infantry

Artillery                     
Medium Tank                       
Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun

Heavy Artillery
Heavy Tank
Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun       
| Attack
1
2
2
2

2
3
2

2
4
3
| Defense
2
2
1
2

3
2
3

4
3
4
| Move
1
1
2
2

1
2
2

1
2
2
| Cost
3
4
4
5

5
6
6

6
8
8
|

*Elite Infantry would include things like Paratroops with the ability to jump from bombers and/or air transports and Marines with bonuses on amphibious landings.

Hey Dr Larsen,
I really like your ideas for all these units.  Very creative yet also historically accurate.  I have a few questions:
1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right?  (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right?  Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?

DrLarsen - EXCELLENT!

You have adhered to a formula that I really like - Attack+Defense+Move(-1)=Cost

The -1 is because 1 Move is standard for all pieces, and you should be paying a premium for an extra move space.

There is still room in your chart for more units - Mech Inf still has a spot:

| Unit
Infantry
Mech Infantry | Attack
1
1 | Defense
2
2 | Move
1
2 | Cost
3
4 |

The only difference between the two is one move point, for which you pay an extra IPC. I like this because “Armored Infantry” could be half-tracks, and Mech Infantry could be trucks.

btw, the beautiful table above is dedicated to reloader, who showed me that a decent table is possible on this forum…

I like your idea about the additional infantry unit.  I’m torn between that and using the truck as a pure transport unit that can be used to move regular infantry and/or artillery units 2 spaces…

1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right?  (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right?  Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?

In answer to knp’s Q’s

<1, Yes (If you prefer to refer to them as Mech. Infantry and prefer to use the truck as a combat unit, it could be called a “Motorized Infantry” unit.)
<2, No: no need.  What makes elite infantry elite is more thorough/ specialized training more so than special weapons tech for the most part.  Since they are “picked men”, though, their #'s could be limited to a certain maximum or to a certain percentage of infantry.  Or they could be upgraded from existing units for a cost of 1, with special limitations that seem appropriate.  (e.g., Marines needing to be trained at a naval base, airborne at an air base or some such thing…)
<3, YES… or TT is able to make them, which is why its on this thread!
<4, Probably; If your campaign start date is later in the war, you could then simply award certain nations with this tech automatically as a national advantage.

The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:

i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.

I see it works that if you add attack defense & move - 1 = cost
Was that by design?

Actually, I just worked out what seemed to make sense intuitively and it just happened to fit the formula advocated by reloader serendipitously!  Now that he’s made us aware of it though, I see that it’s a formula that makes sense.

The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:

i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.

That’s an interesting idea; I use a tech system that lets you target a tech and gradually improve your chances of achieving it by continuing to invest in it.  For some things (like heavy tanks) that nearly everyone probably COULD have achieved if they’d made it a priority, your building breakpoint idea also makes sense.

I’m a fracophile,so I agree with the leadership as France’s problem early on,although it’s always hard to defend the militia later in the war.The Char B/M3 matchup is a good one,
and the allies did have the advantage in armor in 40.I think the Pz III was making its appearence in fair numbers but the I/II were not up to Allied medium types.The Czech tanks were the workhorse for another year and played their part well even as they were adapted to other duties.Tactics was the killer.

Reloader:

Continuing what CWO said, I would argue against Table Tactics making infantry pieces. FMG has two different infantry units for each nation, and I think any more will be overkill.

I would focus more on actual vehicles/tanks/planes/extra unit classes…

I think I’m starting to come more and more reloader’s way on this one…

One key unanswered question is how comfortable you feel, TT, doing figures.  If your reaction is “no problem” then perhaps doing a limited # of elite and/or special infantry units would be worthwhile (Keeping in mind the things I said before about distinguishing features, especially headgear which will make ID from a distance more clear…)

On the other hand, there are lots of HO’s out there that we could use for these things if we want, but not much in the way of plastic mini’s in the right scale for alternate vehicles, and, other than the size, I like what you’ve done so far for armored vehicles, and would love to see what you could do with ships…

One thing that I’m pretty sure we DON’T need any more of is “regular infantry!”

I do have some specific thoughts on your current choices (or omissions, rather) for individual armored vehicles:

Italy: You really should have included the P 40, the best Italian tank of the war; didn’t see much use, as it came a little late, but it was good enough that the Germans snapped up all they could get.  It wasn’t a world-beater, true, but it was at least competitive with the Sherman/ Panzer IV class of mediums.

Japan: You overlooked the Type 3 Chi-Nu and Type 4 Chi-to.  The latter didn’t get past the prototype stage, which might rule it out, but the former was produced in small #’s (but the Japanese didn’t produce any tanks in very large #’s, really) and was kept in reserve for the invasion of Japan that never came…

USSR: You overlooked the IS-2, which saw fairly wide use (over 3,000 produced in the last 2 years of the war), especially in the end game, as the Russians blasted their way through Axis cities…  I don’t know which T-34 you chose, but the T-34/85 was a very successful upgrade that was produced in enormous #’s.  If you really prefer early-war models, the KV-1 was the premier Russian heavy tank until 1942 or so.  (Once the Germans started running out of Panzer I’s & II’s, which had trouble with the early KV’s, and started switching to Panzer IV’s and Panthers, the KV-1 was definitely starting to show its age…)  For a medium/ heavy line-up, I’d say go with either an early-war or late-war line-up as follows:

Early War          Late War
Medium T-34/76             T-34/85
Heavy     KV-1                   IS-2

But note: if you mix-&-match to combine a T-34/85 with a KV-1 you’ve got a bit of absurdity on your hands, cause you’ll have a heavy with a smaller gun than the medium!  If you do the T-34/85, at least upgrade your KV to a KV-85!

UK: You really should have included the Comet.  The Cromwell was a pretty good medium, but its gun just wasn’t quite up to snuff.  The Comet wasn’t that much heavier, but the gun upgrade made a huge difference.  The “ultimate” fix for a UK heavy, the Centurion, came too late to see any action…

@reloader-1:

The best idea I’ve ever heard is to have building breakpoints:

i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.

The only problem I see with that is if one nation, say Germany, builds a bunch of tanks, they could be up to heavies in just a couple of rounds yet another nation, say USA, can’t buy as many tanks because they also have to buy navy and air force to get across the ocean to take on Germany and they will be stuck with light tanks still.
Another idea would be to go by rounds.  After X number of rounds you can upgrade to medium, after Y rounds you can upgrade to heavy.  It seems to me like that would keep things a little better balanced.

The only problem I see with that is if one nation, say Germany, builds a bunch of tanks, they could be up to heavies in just a couple of rounds yet another nation, say USA, can’t buy as many tanks because they also have to buy navy and air force to get across the ocean to take on Germany and they will be stuck with light tanks still.
Another idea would be to go by rounds.  After X number of rounds you can upgrade to medium, after Y rounds you can upgrade to heavy.  It seems to me like that would keep things a little better balanced.

True, but perhaps this reflects reality.  Even if the US planners had put a rush on the Pershing, for instance, they were undoubtedly behind the Germans in the tank arms race… and the Japanese were still relying basically on light tanks late in the war after everyone else still “in the game” (Italy was out by then) had switched at least to mediums.  Why?  For the most part it was a matter of priorities.  Japan was concentrating on building super-battleships, Germany and the USSR on super-tanks and the US and the UK were split in their priorities.

Re: breakpoints

Each nation would have slightly different breakpoints. Japan’s might be as little as 4-5 tanks, while Germany’s could be 10 or so.

OK TT, here’s my first attempt at a proposal for which tanks you should do in a 5-tank series for each of the four countries that had a full range of options:

| Unit

Light Tank

Medium Tank

Medium Tank Dest./
SP Gun

Heavy Tank

Heavy Tank Dest./
SP Gun
| Germany

Panzer II

Panzer IV
or Panther

Nashorn
or JagdPanther

Tiger
or Tiger II

Elefant
or Jagdtiger
| USSR

BT

T34/76
or T34/85

SU-85
or SU-100

KV-1
or IS-2

KV-2
or ISU-152
| US

Stuart

Sherman
(late model)

M10 or
M18 Hellcat

Pershing

M36 TD or
M7 SP Gun
| UK

Crusader

Cromwell

Bishop

Comet

Achilles
|

@Table:

The bunkers are nice but tanks need to be bigger.  :-D

@Fishmoto37:

@Fishmoto37:

@DrLarsen:

Wow! I dug a couple of tanks from The War Game out of storage to compare and I found that the new TT pieces dwarf even them!  TT’s Panther is about the size of TWG’s Tiger!  TT’s Elephant is about the size of TWG’s Maus!  (interesting double irony there, I guess…)  Yeah, I have to say, TT: you’d best scale them down for AAA compatibility.

Yes I got my four sets of TT units yesterday and the tanks are quite large. For the most part not good for AA. Maybe can be used for BotB using ILs larger map. I made my first two bunkers out of the infantry pedestals. Cut the gun off the top and then drilled a small hole in the center of the portal that is located on the edge. Glued a portion of a gun in the drilled hole. Looks like one of those small bunkers on the Maginot line.

Check out my photo of bunker prototypes made from TT infantry units next to AA tanks.

I finally got my bunkers into a game setup. This is ILs 1939 game setup with bunkers made from TTs infantry pedestals. There are four in this photo. One in Gibralter, one on Malta, one in France and one in Germany.

I find it funny that you don’t use chips. It makes the map look small, but whatever you like is fine.

Reminds me of this guy on ebay who sells AA naval pieces. He does this same thing.

@Imperious:

I find it funny that you don’t use chips. It makes the map look small, but whatever you like is fine.

Reminds me of this guy on ebay who sells AA naval pieces. He does this same thing.

I will probably set it up in Europe with chips just before we start the game so it wont be so crowded. Thats what I did in our game last week which was A&AG1940. Europe is even smaller in that game.

DrLarsen, I agree with most of your choices.

I would suggest the T-26 as the Soviet light tank for two reasons: It was heavily produced in the early war years, and also very recognizable.

Secondly, the T-26 allows you to use it and the Panzer II in Spanish Civil War scenarios.

I think Jack should produce a Self-Propelled Artillery piece for all nations as well.

I see this as being one of the most popular pieces, and probably the next piece introduced in a future AA game.

Russia: Katyushas
Germany: Hummel
US: Priest

Etc.

I think this game miss a Heavy Artillery piece, that attacks on 4 or less, defend on 2 or less, and cost 7 IPC.

I also think we need a Blockhouse unit that defend on 5 or less and cost 6 IPC. As in the real world, a blockhouse will assure the destruction of one attacking unit. If you defend a territory with 4 infantry you are never sure they will kill any enemy before they are killed themselves.