ANTI-TANK UNIT

What specifically do you mean by an anti-tank unit?  A tank destroyer?  A German 88mm PAK gun?  An American soldier armed with a bazooka?  A German soldier armed with a Panzerfaust?

I think it should be this:

Anti-tank
Cost:6
Attack:3
defense:3
Spec: Blizt (Same as usually)
Tank destroyer: remove 1 tank for every 4 rolled by this unit.

I think it should be this:

Anti-tank
Cost:6
Attack:3
defense:3
Spec: Blizt (Same as usually)
Tank destroyer: remove 1 tank for every 4 rolled by this unit.

Why would you EVER build tanks if this is the case?

You have would have absolutely no reason.  And a hit for every 4 rolled too - so long as there is a tank in the battle!?!?!?!

No offense but a $6 ground battleship that hits on 4 - 4 so long as there are enemy tanks present = STUPID.

@Gargantua:

I think it should be this:

Anti-tank
Cost:6
Attack:3
defense:3
Spec: Blizt (Same as usually)
Tank destroyer: remove 1 tank for every 4 rolled by this unit.

Why would you EVER build tanks if this is the case?

You have would have absolutely no reason.  And a hit for every 4 rolled too - so long as there is a tank in the battle!?!?!?!

No offense but a $6 ground battleship that hits on 4 - 4 so long as there are enemy tanks present = STUPID.

this… is funny lol

it should be if roll a one then you may select an enemy tank as a casualty,

+1 to Uncrustable…

Why would a tank destroyer cost more than a tank itself, let alone essentially become a heavy tank on the game board?

How about:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 3
Cost: 5
Move:1

When Defending, Tank Destroyers roll preemptively- for every hit made, remove enemy tanks, mec, or tank destroyers immediately.  If there are no tanks, the roll is not preepmtive.  If the the attacker has aircraft (spotter) present, the rolls are not preemtive, but still strike tanks/mec/td first.

OR

How about:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

@Gargantua:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

winner

Sounds great! Now I know what to do when I have $5 left!

Good work Team.

@Gargantua:

Tank Destroyers
Attack: 2
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move:2

(Uncrustables) For every hit @1 Tank Destroyers can choose tanks, mec, or tank destroyers as their targets

Would anyone ever build mechanized infantry instead of this 2-2-2 unit for $1 more?  The hit-a-tank-on-a-1 feature is very powerful.  Just imagine Germany attacking a Soviet force of 40 infantry/artillery/mech plus a handful of tanks.  A few Stugs could cherry pick the tanks and once the 3s are gone the attacker would take fewer losses on subsequent dice rolls.  This makes the Stug primarily a defensive weapon even when attacking, which is what it should be.

I think it would be better if they have the same mobility and attack/defense characteristics as mech, but have combined arms with armor instead of artillery and can blitz.  The $5 price is justified because you can cherry pick tanks.  That would make it so that people still choose to build artillery, mechanized infantry and armor instead of just a big pile of stugs.

Tank Destroyers (Stugs)
Attack: 1
Defense: 2
Cost: 5
Move: 2
Combined arms: each tank destoyer matched up with an armor unit attacks @2.
Blitz: each tank destroyer matched up with an armor unit that is not also matched up with a mechanized infantry can blitz with the armor unit.
Anti-tank: for every hit @1 by a Tank Destroyer, the opposing side must choose to lose either an armor or mechanized infantry unit if they have one available.  (Note: Stugs kill tanks; mechs protect tanks, so you want to have all 3)

I like it Vance. Global needs a $5 item.

I’m a big fan of combined arms coordination,  if you’ve ever studied combat, that’s what it’s all about.  Either you’re kicking butt, or you’re getting your butt kicked.  And it’s often just a one item response to response to response scenario.

That said, rather than self propelled tank destroyers which really could be considered enveloped inside the “armor” unit.

I would personally prefer to see AT-Guns,  There were ALOT more of these in circulation for everyone in WWII.

Attack 2
Def 2
Move 1
Cost 4

Any 1’s force the attacker/defender to select it’s tanks/tank destroyers/mech as casualties first - and in that order.

It becomes a clearly alternate choice for artillery, but you’ll want both, and it won’t intefere with the mobility aspect of mechanized infantry.

You could actually add both of these kinds of units (stugs and antitank guns), and still have valid roles for artillery, mech, and armor.  They each fill a niche and you want to have some of each depending on the situation.  There are lots of naval units to fill all the niches and it feels like there needs to be at least 1 more ground unit that is sort of like artillery and sort of like mech but that is an antidote for tanks.  Stug and/or AT guns would fill that gap.

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

@Lozmoid:

I like that, Garg. But how about - hits from AT Guns cannot be assigned to Infantry, Artillery and Anti-Aircraft Guns?

Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1 
Cost 3

Any 1’s force the enemy player to select its Tanks/Tank Destroyers/Mech. Infantry as casualties first - and in that order. Yes to this!

no to this. HUGE NO actually

it would be spammed beyond control, noone would EVER build anything but this unit on the ground

it has to cost atleast 4, and the not hitting INF is a def no go as even at cost of 4 it would still be spammed beyond control

Infantry are now outdated, artillery are outdated, mechs are essentially outdated, save for blitzing tanks are outdated, planes are nearly outdated.

Although I think 3 IPC’s cost is probably a typo…