Posts made by Kaladesh

that means if you try it 20 times you may once win this battle, statisticly speaking.

but consider loosing this battle will most certainly end up in 19 times loosing the games from thos 20 trys ;-)

that depends on your style of play ;-)

if you want to play a game based on luck … go ahead and try.
i prefer to try to minimize the influence of luck on the outcome of battles.

If it would be that easy that you might invade england in your first turn right before the uk player ever did a single turn, the whole game would be quite inbalanced at least for the uk player.

obviously not ;-)

if you have a lot of luck with your dice it “may” be possible. but most of the time you probably will lose the fight.

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.

somehow i do like the axis most.
Sometimes japan, since it has a lot of possibilities and is often underrated ;-) (at least for one! game)
the other day i prefer germany having major tank battles or harassing the atlantic.

anyway each country is good.
only russia is a bit to thin with possibilites for me.

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.

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:

sorry to correct you in some points but ;-)

In 1932 Germanys “Heereswaffenamt” buyed a Carden-Loyd Tank from Vickers for test purpose. During this test it became obvious that this chassis was not capable of carrying the 20mm gun but twin mg. 5 companies designed a light tank of about 5 to 6 tons mainly for training purposes. The desing from Daimler-Benz on top of a chassis from Krupp was ordered and produced under the codename of LaS Ia (“Landwirtschaftlicher Schlepper” - “agricultural hauler”), since Germany was prohibited to produce military devices. In fact this tank was allready outdated, when the first prototype was finished in 1934.

1934 the Heereswaffenamt" called out for a heavier training tank of about 10t wich had to be able to carry the 20mm gun. 3 companies applied and MAN won and developed the LaS 100 later known as the Panzer IIa1.
It was still a prototype that was build 11 times in 1935. Due to some changes another prototype was build 25 times and was later known as Panzer IIa2.
In 1936 the design was changed again and the Panzer IIa3 was build 50 times. Still it was not ready to be produced masses and it still was handled as pre-series.
In 1936 and 1937 the design was changed again but this time a lot more was redesigned so about 100 of those Panzer IIb (2/LaS 100) were built.
The last pre-series version Panzer IIc changed the chassis and this was the basis for the Panzer IIA that went into series in 1937. At that time it’s main purpose was to fill the gap between the Panzer I and the Panzer III and IV which were not ready at that time.

Panzer III was commissioned in 1935. Out of the 4 competiting desings the one from Daimler-Benz was chosen. There were some pre-series designs (A-E) until the Panzer IIIF went into mass-production in 1939. This design carried a rather weak 37mm gun which was replaced by a 50mm gun in 1941-1942 with the Panzer IIIG.

At the same time weht the Panzer III was commissioned the Panzer IV was commissioned as well. Both tanks were supposed to support the lighter tanks Panzer I and II.
1936 Krupp presented its prototype with a 75mm gun and it was approved. 35 of the pre-series Panzer IV A were build in 1936. It was for test and training only.
The Panzer IV B (which was built 45 times in 1937) was the first Panzer IV that saw battle since it was used in the poland campaign. Still it was pre-series.
The first Panzer IV that went into series in 1938/39 was the Panzer IV C. 140 of them were built and this version had the largest allotment of Panzer IV’s in the poland campaign.
Another 45 Panzer IV D which were built late in 1939 took part in the poland campaign.
The Panzer IV was redesigned in built until the end of the war allthough in 1944 it became obvious that it was inferior to the newer allied tanks.

Since the german leadership was pleased with the designs of the Panzer III and Panzer IV the development of heavier tanks was not prosecute ver hard. So it was 1938 when the first prototype of a 30t tank was assembled and 1940 when a 35t prototype was built. Anyways this development was not prosecutet until the german tank divisions met the russian T34 tank. This tank was devastatingly superior to the german tanks at that time so it was not earlier than 1942 when the german leadership commissioned heavier tanks. 2 Companies applied and MAN won.
The were to built a tank 30t-35t in weight but due to the quick development the first prototype of the Panzer V Panther wheighed 47t.
After some pre-series tanks the Panzer V D Panther went into series in November 1942.

The Panzer VI Tiger went into series in August 1942. It carried the famous 88mm gun know from the aa-guns. With it’s thick armour it weighed 56t.
It’s purpose was to support the offensive actions against the soviet union. It had to be strong enough to fight the KV-1 (russia’s heavy tank).

However since the war changed in 1942/43 and germany more and more had to defend instead of attack, the tiger, as any other tank, off course was used in defensive roles. It did well in that ruling the battlefield.
There is a story whereas a single tiger was able to shoot more than one our without being attacked, since the enemy where affraid of this tank.
The was the rumor, that it needed 5 shermans to destroy one tiger and from thos 5 shermans only one may return home safely.
The Tiger was used very well in the normandy. But it was not a defensive tank in purpose. Every offensive action that took place involved tigers.

As you said the tiger was unreliable, it needed lots of fuel, it was heavy and thus not that movable in terrain and quite slow, it’s production quite expensive and difficult, but nevertheless… where this tank (and even moreso the King Tiger) entered the battle, it dominated the the battelfield. offensive as well as defensive.

btw. i voted for number 5 the NA ;-)

just a few words to the historical tiger tanks …
it is not right, that they were designed as defensive tanks, although when finally in battle they were used as that (not only though).

as you stated germany startet the war with light tanks (not really medium).
they were very fast but not that strong or that armored. in fact the allied tanks of france where technically better than the german tanks. they had a bigger armour and bigger guns. anyways germanies army had fought in the spanish civil war with its legion condor where a lot of units used later in ww2 had there first battle experience. (tanks as well as the famous bf109) so the germans were able to develop new tactics with their units and gain crucial experience. (in fact it was at that time that germany realized, that its tanks may be to weak so at that time the development started that resulted in panzer 3 and panzer 4)
at the beginning of ww2 germanys tank division due to its experience developed and used "modern “tactics” that would use the strengths of their tanks while minimizing their weaknesses, whereas the allies in france still used “older” tactics that were appropriate to ww1.
owing to this the german blitzkrieg was that succesfull in france.
finally the new panzer 3 and panzer 4 were available but as operation barbarossa (attack at russia) was underway the germans met a “worthy” opponent in battle. the russian tanks were superior to the germans at that time again having a huge armour (kv1 and kv2), having a good design (t34 with inclined armour, easy produced etc) and being produced in masses.
so it was again at that time (1941) that hitler wanted a much stronger tank that would be superior to all others. strong armour and heavy gun and its main task would be to be an offensive tank !!! hitler still believed in his victory and wanted a strong offensive. this demands resulted in the panzer 5 (panther) and panzer 6 (tiger).
due to its strong armour the tiger tank was not that fast and agile. nevertheless he was used in every offensive from the moment on when it was available. since the war has changed the german forces were on the defense. but as i said all offensives that were launched involved that tiger tanks.
hitler wanted even bigger tanks so the tiger II was developed that was even stronger and with a bigger gun. there were plans for an even much stronger tank called “maus” (mouse) which would be nearly twice as large as the tiger tank. it was not finished though.

most tigers were not destroyed in battle but due to technical problems or because they run out of fuel. that does say something about them as well ;-)

so … not a defense invention but it was designed for offense.

sure they have an advantage. but you may play with bids. on the other hand … playing with 10 or even 12 vcs it would not make such a big difference if you use leningrad or stalingrad as a vc but when playing with 8vcs (minor victory) that difference may be more influencing for germany just having to take karellia (having one of the two needed vcs AND an ic)

@B.:

@Kaladesh:

it was a pleasure :D

Do tou play A&A Europe, if you do I sugget you to take a look at the A&A Europe forum for NAs! :D

unfortunately i do not have aae and i also do not know anyone who has it :-/
allthough i would like to play it (and pacific) as well but i am not that rich to have 'em all :roll:

it was a pleasure :D

combining vc and ic does not make it interesting enough since it does nto change anything. germany would go after karellia and has both, so i would prefer segregating those two. ic in karelia stalingrad as a vc.

sure … i forgot about the dice :-)
somehow that does make it even more useless to me, as i stated above …
somehow i cant think of a rule which makes kamikaze usefull (even as it should be a national advantage)
and having to bbs in one seazone and not being japan is not the common situation i guess.
a bb having first strike for one round only … may destroy a target that can’t fire back.
but having a ship that has 5/5 attacks and defends at that higher rate every combatcycle. (4/4 is a hitchance of 66% … 5/5 is a hitchance of 83%!!!) when a combat might last one round the opening fire is surely better but if it lasts two or even three or more rounds that 5/5 ship is much stronger (even if accompanied by simple trannies or by subs)
and even if a fight does last only one round … the bb with 5/5 may be better of since it could take a hit and destroy the opposing ship without having to worry about itself (as it would be the case with opening fire in round one).
the opening fire does give japan an advantage agains a slightly stronger fleet by hitting first at opening fire. if fleets get larger the advantage against a stronger enemy would increase with the 5/5 ship since it has its advantage every combatcycle.
5/5 is definetly to strong for me :-)

back to the NA ;-)

fugo sounds interesting indeed ;-) a good oportunitiy to harass us and prepare for an invasion into us ;-)

however i still do not like the kamikaze version.
hitting a capitalship for sure does inbalance the start in my view. now japan could surely destroy the ac in pearl harbour in j1 with a single plane. us would be forced to have their ac and bb together (which would not be the problem) but since japan has its first round before us the attack on pearl harbour would be “standard” … after that this kamikaze would probably become useless since the us would hold its capitalships together. even 2 planes (20 ipc) can destroy the bb (24 ipc). thats a bit too strong to me. at least the enemy fighters may have a chance of hunting down this kamikaze right before they hit the ship. but then kamikaze would be useless as well.
i could not figure out a rule how this kamikaze might become useful but not too strong :-/

and to the dreadnoughts … i already stated it that i belive 5/5 to be to strong as well. 3hit bb or opening fire first round only (due to the larger range of their guns before entering the actual battle) may be a bit more ballanced (and i still believe that japan does not have the ipc to produce a bb early on and if they have enough later, than they might be on the winning run anyways).
the rest goes fine with me :-)

btw. i like to play japan but in my view those two things are a bit overpowered.

not ;-)

first combatcycle:
put 2 tanks on 3 and 1 tank on 4 … repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. at the end of the combat remove casualties.
second combatcycle:
remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting 2 on 3 and 1 on 4 … repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard…
and so on

one thing i would change is for jet fighters … not in this articel, but in understanding the pocedure:

jetfighters do not attack before the aaguns do just because you have the order of battle beginning with the opening fire step (that is the aa gun) if the bomber is still on it’s SBR (or if it is a superfortress) than the jetfighter might fight one combat cycle against those bombers. however the defending player has to choose the number of defending jetfighters prior beginning the battle with the opening fire step, so there may be a situation where your aa guns hit and your jetfighter remain on a CAP without engaging enemies.
this way everything goes fine with the original rules concerning battle order and the like.

btw… good job mr.andersson ;-)

i admire your energy in providing us with your ideas but personally i think your latest ideas are a bit too powerful in my opinion. i do not want to say that they are destabilizing the game, but i think that those ideas are that strong, i can’t judge their impact on the game without testing it a couple of times. as i said before i do not have that much time to play (unfortunately) but i want to encourage you to keep up with your ideas. nevertheless i will state my opinion in a critical way and that is not because i do not like your ideas, but i want to make you think about it in order not to put up some things that will become not as good as your first ideas (and i guess one would realize that after at least a couple of games)
so my objections are just to tweak your ideas and to make you look at it from a different point of view.

so with this bbs. yes they are quite expensive, but if japans has even more than its 2 starting bbs i fear us won’t stand a chance against japan in the pacific. maybe this advantage might favour the axis too much if used right. the three hit bb sounds best for me. not to strong, but strong enought to make a difference in the pacific … (even with your starting bbs) thus allowing japan to spend more ipc in asia.

i must agree with ding_chavez. to value ht as a development one has to test it several times. unfortunately i can’t play that often at the moment. tiger tanks as a NA sounds better to me since it does give germany a favor (which was your intend, i guess) but does not mix the whole balancing making all tanks ht … offering it to all nations who could afford it.

i need to get more time to test your ideas though ;-)