Table Tactics New Product Release

[knp7765]

[/quote]

  Love those French T-34 tanks.  If they would have had T-34's the French would have stopped the Germans. 
[/quote]

That's not necessarily true.  Tactics played a big role in the Germans overrunning France.  The British and French actually had more tanks than the Germans and some of the French tanks were considered superior.  Unfortunately, they didn't mass their tanks like the Germans did and were torn apart piecemeal.  Also, the British and French commanders used outdated strategies and couldn't cope with the rapid moving Blitzkrieg style of war that the Germans employed.  So, even if the French had T-34s, I imagine the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

[DrLarsen]

OK, duly noted.  The T-34's didn't do much for the Soviets either until their tactics caught up with the technology.  Just for the record, though, I don't think the French produced anything really competitive with the Germans' Panzer III's & IV's (which were, admittedly not the bulk of the German forces yet by 1940) much less the T-34, which was truly ahead of its time when it first came out.

[reloader-1]

Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.

[Table Tactics]

Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.

Anything is possible but this is hard to believe. 

[DrLarsen]

Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.

I'm not so sure.  The Char B and Somua had good theoretical stats, but their crew division-of-labor problems were severe; particularly their 1-man turrets, put them at a huge disadvantage.

[reloader-1]

DrLarsen,

You are correct. They were the best tanks on a 1v1 basis, but the lack of communication and commander task overload enabled the Germans to easily annihilate them.

Jack,

The tanks were excellent. The crews were French. (No explanation necessary)

Remember, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog that counts.

[DrLarsen]

Well, no so fast: it wasn't the French crews fault that their tank designers had saddled them with a VERY poorly thought-out division-of-labor arrangement.  This is not a problem with the soldiers, but the leaders/ designers.  Crew arrangement is a vital aspect of design!  So I'd say that these flaws arguably made the French tanks "paper tigers" with good stats but poor real-world performance. 

An interesting comparison for the Char B is the US M3 Lee/Grant.  Stats-wise the two match up well.  In practice the M3 did fairly well in the early-war era; the Char B, not so much.  The M3 was much liked by the Brits during the North Africa campaign, and they eagerly snatched up as many as they could get their hands on.  So what was the key difference between the 2 designs?  The US tank had two more crew members in the turret...

[reloader-1]

General preparedness and warfighting capabilities were sorely lacking in many French ground units.
Forget the exact name, but a sizeable French tank contigent was destroyed because they neglected to recon the area before eating lunch.

Nothing against the French, but one of their best units is the "Foreign" Legion. Kind of tells you something.

[DrLarsen]

True, but I think my point still stands; crew arrangement is a design issue.

Keep in mind also that the issues you're addressing are primarily still ones of leadership, not crew competence or bravery.  I'm just trying to be fair to the individual French fighting man, not defend French leadership or tactics.

[DrLarsen]

Quote from Inmajor:

OK, serious question;
Does anybody think that by having different classes of tanks, artillery, infantry , planes ,etc. opens up the inevitable fact that the combat system would have to be expanded to a 12d system to accommidate all these units. the 6d system seems stretched to the max to me. what do you think?

I was doing some more thinking and I found a way to include up to 10 different types of land units without resorting to 12-siders.  I'm sure others have come up with similar systems (there are only so many possible permutations using 6-siders, after all.)  Nevertheless, I think it shows that a set with a wide range of alternatives pieces is quite feasible as an upgrade accessory (and this is just land units and only limiting ourselves to 6-siders...)

Unit                      Infantry                        Elite Infantry*          Light Tank Armored Infantry            Artillery                        Medium Tank                        Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun Heavy Artillery Heavy Tank Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun

Attack 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 3

Defense 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 4

Move 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

Cost 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 8 8

*Elite Infantry would include things like Paratroops with the ability to jump from bombers and/or air transports and Marines with bonuses on amphibious landings.

[knp7765]

Hey Dr Larsen,
I really like your ideas for all these units.  Very creative yet also historically accurate.  I have a few questions:
1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right?  (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right?  Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?

[reloader-1]

DrLarsen - EXCELLENT!

You have adhered to a formula that I really like - Attack+Defense+Move(-1)=Cost

The -1 is because 1 Move is standard for all pieces, and you should be paying a premium for an extra move space.

There is still room in your chart for more units - Mech Inf still has a spot:

Unit Infantry Mech Infantry

Attack 1 1

Defense 2 2

Move 1 2

Cost 3 4

The only difference between the two is one move point, for which you pay an extra IPC. I like this because "Armored Infantry" could be half-tracks, and Mech Infantry could be trucks.

[DrLarsen]

btw, the beautiful table above is dedicated to reloader, who showed me that a decent table is possible on this forum...

I like your idea about the additional infantry unit.  I'm torn between that and using the truck as a pure transport unit that can be used to move regular infantry and/or artillery units 2 spaces...

1> Armored Infantry is the same as Mechanized Infantry, right?  (With armored cars, half-tracks, etc.)
2> The Elite Infantry, would that be a tech?
3> The Light Tank and Medium Tank Dest./SPG is assuming FMG makes those pieces, right?  Same thing with the Heavy Tank?
4> The Heavy Artillery and Heavy Tank Dest./SPG, would those also be techs?

In answer to knp's Q's

<1, Yes (If you prefer to refer to them as Mech. Infantry and prefer to use the truck as a combat unit, it could be called a "Motorized Infantry" unit.)
<2, No: no need.  What makes elite infantry elite is more thorough/ specialized training more so than special weapons tech for the most part.  Since they are "picked men", though, their #'s could be limited to a certain maximum or to a certain percentage of infantry.  Or they could be upgraded from existing units for a cost of 1, with special limitations that seem appropriate.  (e.g., Marines needing to be trained at a naval base, airborne at an air base or some such thing...)
<3, YES... or TT is able to make them, which is why its on this thread!
<4, Probably; If your campaign start date is later in the war, you could then simply award certain nations with this tech automatically as a national advantage.

[reloader-1]

The best idea I've ever heard is to have building breakpoints:

i.e, once you build 8 light tanks, you can build med tanks
once you build 8 med tanks, you can build heavy tanks.

[Table Tactics]

I was doing some more thinking and I found a way to include up to 10 different types of land units without resorting to 12-siders.  I'm sure others have come up with similar systems (there are only so many possible permutations using 6-siders, after all.)  Nevertheless, I think it shows that a set with a wide range of alternatives pieces is quite feasible as an upgrade accessory (and this is just land units and only limiting ourselves to 6-siders...)

Unit                      Infantry                        Elite Infantry*          Light Tank Armored Infantry            Artillery                        Medium Tank                        Medium Tank Dest./ SP Gun Heavy Artillery Heavy Tank Heavy Tank Dest./ SP Gun

Attack 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 3

Defense 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 3 4

Move 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2

Cost 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 8 8

I see it works that if you add attack defense & move - 1 = cost
Was that by design?