Coastal Guns

@cyanight:

Been working on an Anti-Tank piece. A:2, D:2, M:2, C:5. Just like a sub but targets Tanks and SPA during the fire first phase.

Hi, Cyanight
Here is one of my post in which I tried to summarize as many as possible ideas which I collected on that thread and in some others, maybe you can compare what you are trying to develop with others suggestions. Of course, it is very dense (sorry, for the format). Hope, you find some new ideas.

Re: The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24554.msg1247463#msg1247463

@cyanight:

I think it would be interesting if A&A had Coastal Guns in Normandy that could not move but could fire like AA fire for planes but against ships conducting barrages. What do you guys think of this?

No man, not cool. A coastal gun is in a duel with a battleship, and they aim at each other. The AA gun shoot a lot of shells into the air and hope some aircrafts will hit them. Now since a coastal gun is far more lethal than the same type of gun on a ship, the coastal gun don’t sink even when hit, I figure that a coastal gun defend on 4 or less, cost 10 IPC and take two hits.

Since Normandy is mentioned, do remember that the coastal gun at Pont du Hoc was not operational, and if it where, the Rangers would have disabled it long before the landing started, so the only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII, and the other ships retreated out of range before the coastal gun could hit them too. This was one coastal gun. At Gallipoli during WWI the six French and British battleships were sunk by 141 coastal guns, in 22 batteries. So don’t make the coastal gun too strong. I would love to buy a 6 IPC unit that could sink 3 battleships each round, but it wont be good for balance.

As for your other artillery HRs, I think everything on feet move 1, and everything on wheels move 2. Just to make it elegant and smooth

@cyanight:

Thanks Baron.  That’s a lot of good info… Here is the house rules I have made so far.  I think my AT may be a bit overpowered and my coastal guns too cheap.  What do you guys think?

What a look!!! WOW!!!
To provide some opinion, I need to know in which direction you go:
more game interaction (tactical variations over historical) or more historical basis (over wide variety of in game unit capacity)?
What do you prefer?

@cyanight:

DO you think an Anti-tank should

• Blitz like a tank

• Blitz if supported by a tank

• not blitz at all

No Blitz for the AT, if you want to keep some historical correct touch with the real war.

The true tank was designed as an anti-infantry weapon that would break through the dug-in infantry line as a shock wave, and cut the enemy supply line, forcing the dug-in infantry to surrender. Attached is a pic to understate what I talk about.

The AT-tank was a specialized artillery unit that was designed to target tanks, and as we know artillery don’t blitz. If it should move 1 or 2 depends if it have wheels or not.

About your self propelled artillery unit, I think it should be stronger than the OOB field artillery, because it had bigger guns and more fire power, and because of the greater mobility and maneuverability , it will cover a larger range of action than the field artillery which is stuck at one place and horse depended. So lets give the King of the Battlefield Self propelled artillery an A3 D3 at a cost of 7 or 8. Boost infantry only. Tanks should only be boosted by Tacticals.

I don’t love the sequenced fire phase with preemptive fire, since this is a duel and all actions are supposed to happen simultaneous. The AT were cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack, but very strong in defend. So I figure A1 D3 and target tanks, at a cost of 5 IPC.

@cyanight:

I would like them to be close to historical as possible without breaking the game. :)

The AT-tank was a specialized artillery unit that was designed to target tanks, and as we know artillery don’t blitz. If it should move 1 or 2 depends if it have wheels or not

Is their any room for a fixed Anti-Tank gun? Like a Flak 88 adapted to fire horizontally.

It would be different from the guns mounted on a tank frame, like Stug III, which was built upon a Panzer III frame.

So, you can still get a preemptive anti-tank gun moving like an AAA.
Here I would say:
A0D1NCM1C3, 1 hit, 1 preemptive against 1 Armored vehicule (SPA-ATG-Tank). After first round, act like a regular unit at D@1.

And a Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Gun, which can move at 2.

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that some Stugs III were following the same pace than regular Panzer, and able to give them a good hand on offence (during Russian campaign), even if it wasn’t the “real” Blietzkrieg on France (which do not have such weapon then).
So, for my part, I think it should be played as a MechInf, which need a Tank to be able to blitz.
They were very popular, even more were built than Tank, so I also think it should cost 5 IPCs.

@Razor:

@cyanight:

DO you think an Anti-tank should

• Blitz like a tank

• Blitz if supported by a tank

• not blitz at all

No Blitz for the AT, if you want to keep some historical correct touch with the real war.
I don’t love the sequenced fire phase with preemptive fire, since this is a duel and all actions are supposed to happen simultaneous. The AT were cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack, but very strong in defend. So I figure A1 D3 and target tanks, at a cost of 5 IPC.

I agree about the preemptive fire and the way of seeing action, I would not allow it to a mobile unit.
I agree also with :

cheaper than the true tank, since the turret don’t need to revolve, and this made it weak in attack

However, I would not go below A2 or D2 for AT unit. (For game balance, I see that an offensive first strike must be low such as @1)
AT unit A2D3M2 seems ok with the principle and without the preemptive vs Tank.

At most, a regular attack with a targeting capacity on offence and defence, but then rise the problem about game mechanics, which was resolve by the preemptive strike.

In Axis and Allies:  D-Day they have the very piece you speak of.

It says the following:

Blockhouses (Axis only)

Attack:3
Defense: 1
Move: -

Special Abilities
Fire to Sea:  Blockhouses can make a special targeted attack against the beachheads, when so directed by an order car. Each blockhouse may fire once at an Alllies land unit in a beachhead box within its firing arc, indicated by an arrow (See Special  Combats on page 13 for more information.

~Bull Halsey

Had a rule similar to the one proposed by the Opening Poster in Axis and Allies Revised - Enhanced.  Germany could take a shot or two each round at ships parked in the English Channel - it was not against ships specifically bombarding, but Germany could take its pick of targets.  I think it was 2 shots, but given how many ships there are now, the amount of money on the board, and there being two types of ships that take two hits to sink instead of one, I would say that should be 3 or 4 shots each round during the same part of the round you resolve rockets and sbr attacks.

You would probably have to adjust the allied/axis bids accordingly and/or give the other major powers similar benefits to balance things out again. (Major Powers in my mind are:  The British Empire (except ANZAC), The United States, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany and Japan.)

#houserules

Gentlemen,

––I think ya’ll are doing really well as far as the Coastal Guns rules go,…Well Done

@Razor:

The only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII.

**––I just thought for Historical Accuracy I’d remind you of the U.S. Marine defence of Wake where they damaged and sank ships with Coastal Guns.

Tall Paul**

@Tall:

Gentlemen,

––I think ya’ll are doing really well as far as the Coastal Guns rules go,…Well Done

@Razor:

The only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII.

**––I just thought for Historical Accuracy I’d remind you of the U.S. Marine defence of Wake where they damaged and sank ships with Coastal Guns.

Tall Paul**

One thing to keep in mind when designing house rules for coastal guns is that “coastal guns” (a.k.a. coastal artillery) is a term that can refer to two very different things.  In the broad sense, it refers to any gun situated on a coast and intended to engage targets at sea.  By that definition, coastal guns don’t have to be very powerful weapons.  The coastal guns at Guam which Tall Paul mentions were 5-inch guns, which by battleship standards are regarded as secondary armament.  The narrower definition of coastal guns refers to very heavy artillery pieces (guns that would qualify as primary armament on a battleship) that are situated on a coast, sometimes set in very elaborate fortifications and sometimes mounted on railroad-track turntables.  Actual naval guns with large calibers were often used for this purpose; one example was the Lindemann Battery, which used 16-inch guns originally earmarked for the H-class battleships.

Coastal guns, as far as I know, weren’t responsible for sinking very many ships.  Their basic problem was that they couldn’t move, that their locations were generally known to the enemy, and that the enemy would try as much as possible to bypass them in favour of easier points to attack.  Japan’s conquest of Singapore from the landward side (rather than from the sea side, which was covered by British 15-inch guns) is one example of this principle; another is the choice of Normandy for the D-Day landings, one of its advantages being that it bypassed the powerful German coastal artillery located in the Pas de Calais area, for instance at Cap Nez Gris.