Heavy Tanks - a new technology

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:

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.

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 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.

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.

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…

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!