Lets Talk 2 Types of Tanks

When a smaller tank is attacking a larger tank it takes 2 hits to destroy the larger tank.

This is not in keeping with KISS rules. This is because its conditional. It should be the same rule always.

defends at four, Preemptive roll on defence, costs 9.

yes this is better. might even be it.

@Deaths:

I think they should be able to Blitz. you pay a Arm and a Leg for them, and generally  when you move 2 spaces, you can almost be certain the first space would be on improved roads.

Hey, there is a new tech, improved roads, tanks can go three spaces.  :-D  just kidding!

I agree , Tanks do not need any Pre  anything. a 4-4 tank is bad ass enough

@Deaths:

I agree , Tanks do not need any Pre  anything. a 4-4 tank is bad a** enough

But then it is just an all around super tank, not a heavy tank. Maybe those stats would be good for an M1 Abrams, but Heavy tanks in World War 2 were generaly best on the defence and thats what this unit should be, not just anther unit for the sake of another unit that does not have any specfic role to fill.

Let me rephrase then,  a 3,4,2 Tank is Bad Ass Enough, you still don’t need a Pre anything type of deal.

@Deaths:

Let me rephrase then,  a 3,4,2 Tank is Bad a** Enough, you still don’t need a Pre anything type of deal.

Yah but I am afraid that if it costs 8 or 9, and it should cost 9 to show how hard it was to make heavy tanks, then a fighter will almost always be a better buy.

I DisAgree,

A land unit that has a 4 Defense has 1 really big Advantage. It does not have to end it’s move in a Friendly Territory you controlled at the begining of your turn.  You no longer have to commit your fighters to those Iffy Defensive positions either.  It would not take the place of Med Tanks either Based on Cost Alone.  This unit is what you folks sound like you want in a Heavy Unit. A Defensive H. Tank.

8 IPC’s is Just Cost for a 3,4,2 Tank.  Expensive ( Your not going to have a stack of these like you would w/ med. Tanks) yet Cost effective if used correctly.

A Down side could be that only 1 fits in tranny, No infantry ride alongs

A Cost of 8 is also the same (or was) as Trans, and Subs. Both Complicated and Expensive units to Build.

@Emperor_Taiki:

Yah but I am afraid that if it costs 8 or 9, and it should cost 9 to show how hard it was to make heavy tanks, then a fighter will almost always be a better buy.

That makes no sense…  So by that line of thought, Why Does a Bomber cost 12 IPC’s and a A Cruiser Cost 12 pts?

America pumped out far more Bombers then Cruisers And Yet they Cost the Same. But Obviously one was much “Harder” to build. :roll:

Ok, I agree with you.

cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank

@Emperor_Taiki:

Ok, I agree with you.

cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank

You got it.

cept maybe the transport rule, “Must Ride Alone”

I disagree with the transport rule as this conflicts with KISS.

cost 8, defends on 4 and otherwise is a just like a normal tank

Id like it to cost 9, be restricted to one build per turn and if it rolls a ONE it can choose its hit to another land target, or it fires first in combat?

If its a 4-4-2-8, then by the math that has been offered it offers nothing because a group of 3-3-2-5 tanks together make it a weaker unit. say 5 heavy tanks vs 8 normal tanks. math says the 8 will win.

@Imperious:

Id like it to cost 9, be restricted to one build per turn and if it rolls a ONE it can choose its hit to another land target, or it fires first in combat?

If its a 4-4-2-8, then by the math that has been offered it offers nothing because a group of 3-3-2-5 tanks together make it a weaker unit. say 5 heavy tanks vs 8 normal tanks. math says the 8 will win.

What are trying to say? Increasing the cost does what?, you said it yourself, the 8 will most likely beat the 5.  So you want to handicap this unit more by making it more expensive?  And you want to restrict it even more by limiting build limits?

I don’t see the logic.
Adding Special Ability’s Makes more rules to remember and Strays from the KISS method. And only adds cost to the unit that is already handicapped by price when numbers on the board count.  So you give it a Prelimanary Def. Bombard ment. They hit on what 1’s?  A 1-6 chance doesn’t justify for the price increase either. Cool my tank has a AA gun that shoots At land units. And we all know how often these things hit.( not when needed too  :wink:)

You want Def. Bombardment, Invent H. Artillery or a tech that allows such an action to take place. That would make much more sense.

What are trying to say? Increasing the cost does what?, you said it yourself, the 8 will most likely beat the 5.  So you want to handicap this unit more by making it more expensive?  And you want to restrict it even more by limiting build limits?

I like each unit to have some unique ability in AA. To overcome the math of 8 beats 5, you give some flavor to the new unit, but to balance in this case i need to raise the price +1, If you keep it at 4-4-2-8 and include the “roll 1 choose loss” thing its a bit in the other direction. If you feel its now balanced than make your case.  The other thing is 4 is the crossing of the threshold for AA land units because this is D6 system and 4 out of 6 can be exploited by buying about 6 of them and surrounding them with infantry.

Wait: i have a new idea!  Heavy tanks boost the attack of Infantry +1…like artillery, because the gun is a larger caliber. THis is a good rule and i modify it to that:

New rules:

4-4-2-8, and boost 1 matching infantry in attack +1…ok?

I wouldn’t buy a 6-6 tank for 9 IPCs, unless it could do something no other unit could do.  Yes, it has a guaranteed kill, but 9 IPCs wiped out in one hit?  Give me a fighter for the money.  They can die too, but only if you play poorly. You should never leave aircraft on the front line unless protected by large infantry stacks; super tanks will end up like Mantaufel’s panzers in the Bulge.
I prefer a more modest tech based upgrade and a cost of no more than 6 per unit.

I am going to start Italy and Japan with light tanks 2-2-5 and the other countries will have med. tanks 3-2-5.
I will also have US, Germany, and Russiathe ability to buy heavy tanks 4-4-7 with Germany having a few units of Elite SS tanks 3-3-7 and only Germany having super Heavy tanks 5-5-9
Germany, med= PZ III, heavy=Tiger 2, SS=Tiger 1, Super Heavy=Maus
US, med = Sherman, heavy=Pershing
Russia, med=T34-76, heavy=KV-2
The Italians and Japanese will NOT be able to buy anything but light tanks.
Heavy & Superheavy will move only 1 space.
What do you all think?

I think it is silly to call the KV-1 a heavy tank and give it better stats.
I also think that their is little point to having a Tiger II or Maus peice(except that they are big and cool looking) since so few of those weapons were produced in the war. Also, dont you think the German medium tank should be the Panzer IV, for it was the backbone of the Panzer divisions.

Actuall I am using Pz III and IV. When putting pieces on a board you sometimes have to use pieces that that does not always represent historically, but astestically looks better. I like using short barrel tanks when using pewter, they last longer as in not getting bent or broke. The KV-1 was considered a heavy tank before the JS series, plus it had a taller silloutte which shows up better on the board. I am making the same choices when picking my naval fleet. I agree that the Tiger 2 did not have huge numbers, but they did have them and I just want some more options for the German player. My favorite tank was the Panther with that 75L70, sweet gun and a good looking tank. If I add tank destroyer to the game, I will probably use a Jagdpanther instead of a medium tank , again, for looks. I did add the Sherman m4A1 that the candians built which will be produced by Canada.

yes your on the right track. You will soon need some nifty house rules to justify all the new pieces.