Table Tactics New Product Release

Which sculpts from the new table tactics models are in scale with axis and allies models.

Which sculpts from the new table tactics models are in scale with axis and allies models.

Unfortunately, imho, none of them right now.  However, he’s seriously contemplating making a major revision of his latest product to bring them more into scale, which is where we’re at with this thread right now.  He said it woudn’t be too hard for him to scale them down via his electronic modeling program, but he needs the capital to do more runs in the new scale… and while he checks into this, we’re giving him advice on how else to modify/ expand his list of scupts to do a more compatible and/or complete product line…

Did I summarize all this correctly, TT?

Ta-Da!  Here it is!  :-D  My new table of suggestions specifically designed to minimize the # of new sculpts for TT while maximizing the # of unit options for his customer base, and including Italy and Japan (which have no true “heavies” to speak of, but after a bit of digging I found an example of just about everything else in their potential line-up…)

| Unit

Light Tank
(5-15t)
Medium-Light
(15-20t)
Medium Tank
(18-32t)
Medium-Heavy
30-45t
Heavy Tank
(40+ tons)
Super-Heavy
(60+ tons)

Medium Tank Dest.

SP Gun

Heavy Tank Dest.
| Germany

Panzer II

Panzer IV

Panther

Tiger

Nashorn

Hummel*

Elefant
| USSR

T-70

T34

IS-2*

SU-85

Katyusha

ISU-152
| US

Stuart
M24

Sherman

Pershing

M18 Hellcat

M7 Priest

M36

| UK

Crusader

Sherman
Cromwell

Comet*

Achilles TD*

M7 Priest

| Japan

Kyu-Go

Chi-Ha

Chi-Nu*

Type 1 Ho-Ni*

Type 4 Ho-Ro
| Italy

CA L 6/40*

CA M 14/41

CA P 40*

Semovente 75/18

Semovente 90/53
|

Notes on the table above:

1. Bolded vehicles are scupts he’s specifically mentioned that he’s already done (and now just needs to get the size right.)  Bolded labels in the left-had column are the 5 afv-types from my previous chart.

2. The uneven rows between columns are deliberate: one man’s light is another’s medium… so I used a fairly objective standard of tonnage+caliber of main armament, added “tweener” categories of “Medium-Light”, “Medium-Heavy” and “Super-Heavy.”  This way, given a certain range of options, the player’s house rules can determine whether to consider the Panther, for instance, (which, heck, he’s already done) as a medium, a heavy, or even as, say, a special 3/3/2/7 “Medium-Heavy.”

3. Note that the Stuart, Crusader, & T-70 are a half-step heavier than the Panzer II and what the Japanese and Italians classed as light tanks (5-10t, 20mm-40mm guns.)  These three are also and nearly in a class with what the Japanese and Italians classed as “medium tanks,” (which ranged 11-18t, 37mm-57mm guns.)  (Note that the “M” in the Italian tanks nomenclature stands for “Medium” and the Chi-Ha is often called a “medium” even thought it was really closer to an American Stuart than an American Sherman in performance & Stats…) I leave how to handle this discrepancy up for further discussion:

a. If TT does a P40 and Chi-Nu, this partly solves the problem, as it gives both of these nations an 18t+ tank with a 75mm main gun, which is good enough to qualify as a “medium” in my book.

b. If TT also does an Italian “True Light” tank like the L6/40 and one of the Japanese “Ho-Ni” SP guns, it gives these two countries a parallel 4-vehicle range and the end-users could decide whether to consider the “tweeners” as lights or as “mediums” via house rules, as well as whether to consider the Ho-Ni and Semovente as TD’s or SP’s by house rules…

4. The Nashorn and Hummel were built on the exact same chassis mod, the only difference being which gun was installed.  On this scale they’d probably look identical.  Which category to put them in would be another “house rules” question.

More notes:

5. For those unfamiliar with Italian military vehicle nomenclature:

a. The “CA” in the Italian tanks column is my abbreviation for “Carro Armato” which means “Armored Tank.”  It was used for all of the Italian turreted/ tracked/ armored vehicles, and wasn’t just a name for one model.
    b. The “L” abbreviation is for “Leggero” (“light”), “M” for "Medio (“Medium”), P for “Pesante” (“Heavy.”) The numbers in these official designations stand for the weight in tons and the year of adoption.  Hence the L6/40 means (“Light, 6 tons, 1940”) and M14/41 means (“Medium, 14 tons, 1941.”)  The full designation for the P40 was P26/40…
    c.  “Semovente” is Italian for “self-propelled” and was used on all the non-turreted/ tracked guns.  These seem to have been named by their gun: the Semovente 75/18 used the 75/18 gun, etc.

6. If you really want to do a 5-vehicle range for both Italy and Japan, the table above gives very close equivalents between the two nations in 5 categories, though, as mentioned before, an Italian/Japanese “Heavy” is really a “medium” to everyone else.  Again, house rules could determine how to handle this.  As far as the SP guns, I’d say that the 75/18, though one of the best Italian AFV’s would be a low priority for you, as FMG already did it and you already did the 90/53.  For Japanese SP’s I’d say go with the Type 1 Ho-Ni as it was the most widely used one; the Ho-Ro was made in very limited #'s.

One more thing:

7. I put an asterisk beside the ones I think to be the highest priority sculpts to fill out the line-up, with the idea in mind of having at least a 5-vehicle line-up for the four with heavies and a 4-vehicle line-up for the heavy-less Japan and Italy.  As to why I picked what I did:
    a. I picked the Hummel over the Nashorn as I figure it’s easier and safer to go with a shorter/wider barrel.
    b. The IS-2 is key as the only Russian tank that could really match up against a Tiger.
    c.  The US line-up could benefit from an M36, but heck, TT’s already done 6 US sculpts…

That leaves only 8 more total sculpts to put together a 4-6 afv line-up for 6 nations!  Then its just a matter of size and color and its on to the air and sea units…

@DrLarsen:

One more thing:

7. I put an asterisk beside the ones I think to be the highest priority sculpts to fill out the line-up, with the idea in mind of having at least a 5-vehicle line-up for the four with heavies and a 4-vehicle line-up for the heavy-less Japan and Italy.  As to why I picked what I did:
     a. I picked the Hummel over the Nashorn as I figure it’s easier and safer to go with a shorter/wider barrel.
     b. The IS-2 is key as the only Russian tank that could really match up against a Tiger.
     c.  The US line-up could benefit from an M36, but heck, TT’s already done 6 US sculpts…

That leaves only 8 more total sculpts to put together a 4-6 afv line-up for 6 nations!  Then its just a matter of size and color and its on to the air and sea units…

The wespe is a better (105mm) counterpart then the hummel (150mm) to the priest (105mm), imho.  For artillery, I like what you have suggested earlier, except that guns below 100mm should probably be considered light not medium.  Though 3 categories is pushing it for game purposes, I suppose.  A jagpanzer IV might be a better TD than a nashorn, the latter being a cheap to make lightly armored stopgap vehicle.

A jagpanzer IV might be a better TD than a nashorn, the latter being a cheap to make lightly armored stopgap vehicle

and

The wespe is a better (105mm) counterpart then the hummel (150mm) to the priest (105mm), imho

All true, but with the Nashorn/ Hummel I was going for that dual-use piece that could be used as either Nashorn or Hummel depending on end-user requirements.  Also, note that while the Wespe was built on a light tank foundation (Panzer II), the M7 was built on a medium tank, so again, comparability is never exact.  Also, remember that as defined in previous suggestions, the SP gun is a 2/4/2/7 unit, so having a bigger gun (Hummel) and/or armor (M7) to give it some plusses over a standard artillery piece makes sense.  btw, I would suggest that SP guns give the same bonus to infantry as regular artillery, but not TD’s…

For artillery, I like what you have suggested earlier, except that guns below 100mm should probably be considered light not medium.

Keep in mind:
1. the official WotC artillery pieces included a Japanese 70 mm and a German 88 mm.  You could argue that these were bad choices, but the closest German equivalent of the American 105 was probably… the German 105 (and not something bigger.)
2. The British tactical equivalent of the American 105 mm was the famous 25 pounder (87.6 mm)  For instance, the downside for the Brits of using the M7 Priest, which they loved, was that it used the American 105 rather than the 25 pounder used by other British artillery units… and so they started replacing them with the Canadian-made Sexton, a very similar conversion that used the 25 pounder rather than the 105.  I’ve never seen any mention of the Brits seeing the Sexton as at all a “downgrade” from the Priest, tactically-speaking.
3. By far the most widely-used Soviet piece was the 76 mm regimental gun, which would be my recomendation for TT’s Soviet Medium (regular) Artillery.
4. Keeping to the 70-105 mm range for “mediums” allows for the wide range of Soviet 122-152 mm’s, American 155 mm’s and German 150mm’s to fit into the “Heavy Artillery” category.

Given all this, I would suggest that in the WW2 context, 105 mm (or maybe 107 mm to pull in some Soviet designs) is more the “upper end” of medium than its lower end.

Well said, sir.

Hi Imperious! I am the guy whole sells the navy’s and doesn’t use chips. Reason is chips have no weapons!  When i first started playing a friend with some art skill painted a map on a 4x8 sheet of plywood since I had so many pieces. It served for a long time but it’s long since warped and discarded. I have a huge map that is architects paper and it sits under a huge piece of recut glass. I have a different game system. I use the map as a reference point for who is where, but most of my pieces are set up in corps (I use the original AA foam trays for corps units…armoured, infantry, artillery,and air) as well as  army’s and army groups set up in original AA boxes. For me the setting up and moving the units and how each army corps is armed with what  weapons and equipment and to what army he is attached is the enjoyment. What is he facing in his opponent in numbers and weapons and how he plans to overcome them is challenging. what is the grand strategy? What is the armys and the army groups strategic objective? Will i blitz, use paratroops, how do i reinforce?  It does involve a ton of pieces and is expensive but as they say more  is better. The more new pieces Jack makes just adds both realism and tactical problems for me which I just love! I would love to see trucks, sp art, tank destroyers ( I loved the elephants and tigers, they are just too big for me) transport planes, LST’s, trains, paratroops, commandos,  coastal guns, heavy artillery. There is no A-bomb in my game (unless the wifes cat jumps on the table) so the war  often goes into 1946-47 and I use TT helicopters, sp rocket launchers, jets and APC’s as the war grinds on. I have so much stuff that a games take several months to play. I really enjoy reading all you guys posts to steal what  ideas I can to help me improve my game.  Thanks to you all!

RandyJohnwayne is probably the ultimate piece junkie. I know of no other person that can be more committed to having the maximum pieces possible in games.

I hear of battles where he has like 1,000 pieces and rolling out for over an hour. I hope we can get a picture of what kind of house rules allow so many pieces. On ebay he is always selling those Xeno naval units and attack pieces because he is collecting only specific types of pieces and selling the excess.

holy crap , that a great idea.

Jack,

Any update ?

Hey, TT!

Do you have a copy of that new game “Singapore: 1942” that’s discussed a few threads down?  If not pick up one of the Bren carriers from the game off of FMG’s site (their selling individual pieces from that game for just a couple of bucks each; that way you don’t have to spring for the whole game…)

Anyway, I’m thinking that the size of that piece would be the perfect baseline size to you for your smallest light tanks.

Do the rest of y’all out there agree with me?

I’m thinking use:

1. the Singapore-game Bren carrier as a baseline for the light tanks
2. The WotC Panther as a baseline for the medium tanks
3. The TWG Tiger as a baseline for the heavy tanks
4. Keep the sizes fairly uniform within classes: don’t attempt to make them “true-to-scale”… It’s more important for players to be able to quickly recognize type than to have perfect scale.

Thoughts, Gentlemen?

Dr Larsen,

I think that is too big. Honestly, if we are using light med and heavy tanks the difference will be pretty clear.

I prefer using the A&A Panther as my upper range identifier (maybe a tad bit bigger for a Tiger) but no bigger than that.

@reloader-1:

Dr Larsen,

I think that is too big. Honestly, if we are using light med and heavy tanks the difference will be pretty clear.

I prefer using the A&A Panther as my upper range identifier (maybe a tad bit bigger for a Tiger) but no bigger than that.

Agreed
TWG tiger is too big IMO.
Use a tiger 1 just bigger than the panther, obvious difference, use a kv2 for the Russian heavy, obvious difference and you do not need to take up precious board space.

Well guys, I’m looking at the WotC fighter/Tac Bomber/Bomber sizes and seeing a similar range of sizes, which I think is a bigger difference than scales ranges warrant, but as I look at them, I do appreciate the ease in telling them apart…