@CWO:
@Baron:
Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?
I think your best option would be for you to give whatever name you prefer to the house rule units that you design, and to give them whatever combat characteristics you think would be interesting for them to have, without trying to achieve historical accuracy.
Here’s my basic opinion about this sort of thing. If a house rule designer, for whatever reason, feels that it’s important for his house rules to reflect historical reality, then what he should do is “follow the evidence”. By this I mean: find out what historical WWII weapons were actually called, what their capabilities were, and what kind of things they were used for, and then design house rules to fit that historical reality. That’s one approach, and it’s the one for which I have a personal preference.
A different approach – which I think is perfectly valid too, even though it’s not an approach I care for personally – is for a person to focus on developing a house rule concept that he likes, without worrying about whether it fits historical reality. This approach basically means saying “wouldn’t it be cool if there was a new unit that has an attack value of x, a movement value of y, plus such-and-such a combined-arms bonus” and designing a unit around that concept. There’s nothing wrong with doing this sort of thing, as long as the person makes it clear that they’re not trying to make their concept fit reality. And in fact, they may even discover (after they’ve designed their cool new unit) that there actually was a WWII weapon which corresponds to their concept. That’s a nice thing when it happens, but it isn’t really required to make this approach work.
An approach which I do consider to be problematic, however, is to try to distort historical reality in order to justify a house rule concept for a new unit. Wanting game units and historical reality to match each other is fine, but it has to be achieved by making the units fit history, not by making history fit the units.
For example: in this discussion thread, I’ve tried (to the best of my knowledge) to explain what WWII anti-tank guns were, what they were called (they were called anti-tank guns), what firing characteristics they had and what they were used for. You’ve made it clear in numerous posts that you don’t like the term “anti-tank gun”, which is perfectly okay with me. Nobody is forcing you to use the term “anti-tank gun” if you don’t like it. And there’s nothing wrong with your proposals to give such units a different name – like Anti-Tank Artillery, or Anti-Armour Gun, or Anti-Vehicle Gun – as long as it’s clear that you’re not making any claims about their historical accuracy.
What I can’t understand, however, is your question asking whether it would be historically more accurate to call an anti-tank gun by one of those invented alternate terms because the answer is: no. Anti-tank guns were called anti-tank guns. As far as I know, the alternate terms you proposed are imaginary ones, not historical ones. Calling an anti-tank gun by a name that doesn’t really exist is less accurate, not more accurate. And this accuracy problem can’t be solved by trying to come up with different imaginary terms; the problem is solved either by using the real term (in this particular case, anti-tank gun), or by eliminating historical accuracy as a game design consideration.
If you don’t like a historical term, or if you don’t like the historical characteristics that certain WWII weapons actually had, then by all means feel free to use other names and other characteristics, without worrying about whether a house rule concept you’ve developed actually fits with history. Everyone has different priorities in the world of game design, and everyone should pursue whatever approach fits those personal priorities. The important thing is to be clear about exactly what it is that you’re trying to achieve.
Thanks for the clarifications Marc.
Probably contrary to what you think on my intent based on the questions I asked, you can be surprised that I’m more for Historical Accuracy approach than the “cool unit” approach.
And I need to have a clear idea on what I’m doing by giving a specific name to this unit, and by giving such or such combat values and bonus to it.
If, for game balance and other playing perspective, the results is different than historical, then it requires a decision which can imply some kind of compromise.
Along the thread, you showed me that the main weapon that really fit with my concept was the Anti-Tank Gun and clearly not an Heavy Artillery.
Then arises the question of finding the appropriate name without betraying the concept or historical facts.
Finding an alternate name which can better describe my concept appear clearly as unhistorical and purely fictional (Anti-Tank Artillery, Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun).
Your answer help discard inadequate possibilities.
Anti-Tank Gun IS the historical weapon used against Armoured Vehicles.
So, amongst the three names above, Anti-Tank Artillery seems the less contradictory toward historical facts.
Anti-Tank Gun is an artillery pieces amongst many other types.
The specific weapon is Anti-Tank Gun while the generic name is Artillery.
So all ATGs target enemy’s vehicles, while a few others artillery pieces seems also able to hinder, damage, or destroy Tanks in a specific context: like an intensive defensive deployment (IF what I quoted of Wiki is accurate, your call here… if it’s not tell me. I’m all ears.) But not all types of Artillery pieces can affect Tanks and, for most part, was not their specific function, as you showed: direct fire is the way to destroy a Tank, while indirect fire is not fit to.
So, it appears to me that this is the only compromise between the “in-game” unit concept and the historical weapon.
The game is depicting a strategic level of war while keeping some tactical “flavors” between units.
But now, I will know it is a compromise and not a direct historical transcription.
I think what I’m doing with this unit concept is like the invention of the A&A “tactical bomber” terminology.
As it was not describing a specific group of Fighters or Bombers.
It was more general description of the role and function of planes, not of their specific types.
My other questions above are still there.
I don’t know (except from what I read on Wiki) what is the historical role of ATG in offensive situation.
Were ATGs as useful as other Artillery unit or not when moving forward?
For what it worth, I read that they were much more efficient on defense (and they develop Assault Gun for offense).
Your POV can help me decided about the combat value of this game unit.
For instance, this can imply a reduction of the attacking factor (A2) or the +1 Attack combined arms bonus with Infantry.
And if the case, this can be a reason to keep the name Anti-Tank Gun instead, to make a game distinction between Artillery at 4 IPCs (which gives attack bonus) and this ATG unit at 5 IPCs better on defense (which wouldn’t give attack bonus).