The Missing Mechanized Unit: Assault Guns

[lozmoid]

Agree with everything you just said. So basically, we could try and either come up with rules for SPGs and Tank Destroyers, OR, we could try and come up with something for Assault Guns in general which would cater to both anti-armour and artillery roles, like you said. The former would require two different miniature units for both the TD and the SPG, whilst the latter would only require the one miniature.

[CWO Marc]

I think treating them differently would be more realistic.  Instead of viewing tank destroyers and assault guns as variants of each other, I think instead that tank destroyers should be seen as variants of tanks, while assault guns should be seen as variants of artillery pieces.  Artillery isn’t a subject I’m as familiar with as tanks, but as far as tanks go I know that Germany produced tank destroyer versions of several of its classic tanks such as the Jagdtiger and the Jagdpanther.  They were produced as units which had the advantage of being cheaper to make (since they lacked a rotating turret) and of being able to carry heavier frontal armour and a more powerful main gun.  The tradeoff was that their non-rotating superstructure had tactical limitations in combat with true tanks.

[Commander JayVon]

I am typing this from a phone, so I apologize if the formatting is off.

We shouldn’t forget the basis of this unit, mobile support for infantry. This is the core. However, I still stand by the idea that it should have defensive anti-tank abilities. One, SPG, TD, and SPA were a loose family in the war. Two, many nations gave the weapons both anti-tank and infantry support rolled into one vehicle, not all, but many.

If however we made a seperate TD unit, what are the values? It certainly can’t be more expensive than the tank.

I think our best bet is to keep this unit multi-roled. Oh, and as for blitzing? When paired with a unit that can, yes.

[lozmoid]

Hmm, okay. If we were to keep the one unit multi-roled then perhaps its functionality would depend on the type of battle being fought! For example, if your SPG unit is involved in a battle with enemy Tanks only then it would automatically assume an anti-armour role (basically it would become a Tank Destroyer), and I see no reason why this would not work in both attack and defence. However, if the battle involves NO enemy Tanks then your SPG unit automatically takes on an anti-personnel role (it becomes an Assault Gun/Self-Propelled Artillery) looking for ‘soft’ targets, i.e. regular Infantry, Artillery, Anti-Aircraft Guns and perhaps Mechanised Infantry as well.

Or… maybe the SPG’s role could be designated by the owning player’s choice. For example, if your SPG is in a battle with enemy Tanks and other enemy units then you could choose whether your unit(s) becomes a Tank Destroyer OR an Assault Gun. But this choice would have to be uniform for all of your SPGs involved in the battle; you couldn’t split them into both camps (that would over-complicate things too much).

I personally would prefer to have two different minatures/pieces with two different rules for both Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns but I just don’t think this will work very well on the global/grand strategic level; I think it would work very well on the theatre level downwards, however. Also, the two extra units would really clog up the game board.

So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles. I agree that in no way should this SPG unit be more expensive than the Tank, which currently costs 6 in the 1940 & Global games. In terms of its combat capabilities I think it could possibly act like a Sub in that it gets a ‘first strike’ shot at 1, during the opening fire step, as suggested above. It then wouldn’t fire along with the rest of your units during their fire step. Hits scored by TDs could only be assigned to enemy Tanks. Hits scored by AGs can not be assigned to Tanks but perhaps they could function in some other way?

What do you all think of this so far? Are we any closer?

[crusaderiv]

I personally would prefer to have two different minatures/pieces with two different rules for both Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns but I just don’t think this will work very well on the global/grand strategic level; I think it would work very well on the theatre level downwards, however. Also, the two extra units would really clog up the game board.
I agree with you.

So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles.
That’s the best way to save spaces and money for extra pieces but there’s another solution.
If self propelled gun,long range artillery and anti tank gun are availbale only in weapons development players will buy those news weapons and didn’t used anymore the original one.

[Commander JayVon]

So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles. I agree that in no way should this SPG unit be more expensive than the Tank, which currently costs 6 in the 1940 & Global games. In terms of its combat capabilities I think it could possibly act like a Sub in that it gets a ‘first strike’ shot at 1, during the opening fire step, as suggested above. It then wouldn’t fire along with the rest of your units during their fire step. Hits scored by TDs could only be assigned to enemy Tanks. Hits scored by AGs can not be assigned to Tanks but perhaps they could function in some other way?

This would be our best option.

Since the “one-shot” ability would only take place during defensive step (though, some work can be done for the offensive step, possibly) at only the roll of 1, it wouldn’t overwhelm tanks per say, but it could add a chance to remove one from play, which is good.

As for the leftover hits? You could consider them just what happens when you overwhelm any enemy in normal, technically, let em’ go. There are no more applicable units to select in such a case.

Or, you could do a ratio basis. For example, if the attacking player has two tanks, and the defending player four assault guns, they may one select two to sally forth against the tanks.

[lozmoid]

Okay, first of all let’s talk about the ‘Tank Destroyer’ role of this new SPG unit. I think that both attacking and defending TDs should each get a Surprise Strike die roll (during step 2 of the conduct combat phase), before all other land units fire (during steps 3 & 4).

Question: Should the attacker fire with their TDs first, just like Subs in naval combat? Or should the defender fire first? Or should both sides fire simultaneously? Think about the element of surprise during land combat.

Question: Should either side have a slight advantage over the other? This normally lies with the defender; however, attacking Subs have the advantage during naval combat in that they fire at 2 whilst defending Subs fire at 1. One could argue that the same be said of Tank Destroyers whose job was to seek out or hunt enemy Tanks. What do you think?

Any hits scored by TDs are assigned to the opposing side’s Tanks.

Question: Should these Tanks then be removed immediately from the battle? You may say that killing the Tanks outright is perhaps too harsh, and I suppose that’s fair enough. Alternatively, should there be some way in which they could be ‘saved’ from dying before getting to return fire? i.e. any Tanks that are hit by TD fire are instead moved behind the casualty strip and now get to fire a parting shot (in steps 3 & 4). So should the Tank casualties be destroyed immediately or just critically damaged before returning fire? I prefer the second option.

This process will be repeated for each round of combat, providing that there are any remaining TDs on either side.

And that’ll do her for the moment. What are your thoughts?

[Gargantua]

It shouldn’t be like a submarine suprise strike.

But the advantage COULD be, that when rolling your TD’s on defense @2, hits are DIRECTLY allocated to enemy mechanized units, OR tanks, BEFORE infantry.

IE, whoever has suffered hits from a tank destroyer, must select his tanks as casualties first.

Cost 5, attack 2, defense 2, move 2, opponent must select tanks/mech/td units as first casualties from hits suffered

[lozmoid]

Thanks for the input, Gargantua,  :-)

It shouldn’t be like a submarine suprise strike.

Why not? I think this would be an interesting combat dynamic. Do you think that TDs should fire in steps 3 & 4 like all other land units then?

But the advantage COULD be, that when rolling your TD’s on defense @2, hits are DIRECTLY allocated to enemy mechanized units, OR tanks, BEFORE infantry.

Are you saying that defending TDs should fire at 2 and that attacking TDs should fire at 1? That gives the advantage to the defender, and I for one am happy with that. But I would say that whilst hits must be assigned to Tanks as a priority, they could also be assigned to Mechanised Infantry if there are no Tanks left to hit. Remember, that the Tank Destroyer’s main objective is to kill enemy Tanks (and I suspect they would have treated Mech Infantry of secondary importance).

However, I would say that hits scored by TDs should not be assigned to Infantry, Artillery or AA Guns, as their shells are anti-armour and are used only for peircing the armour of enemy vehicles. And in some way that I haven’t worked out yet, this will be what the ‘Assault Gun’ capability of the SPG unit will be for…

IE, whoever has suffered hits from a tank destroyer, must select his tanks as casualties first.

Yep. Then Mech Infantry (if there are any).

[crusaderiv]

Cost 5, attack 2, defense 2, move 2, opponent must select tanks/mech/td units as first casualties from hits suffered
My rules is att:3, def 3, move 2, first shott attack against enemy tank/or armoured vh.

[lozmoid]

Now that I think about it some more, it seems that the only purpose for giving a unit a Surprise Strike is to allow it the possibility of eliminating an enemy unit from a battle before that unit can fire. Otherwise, you could say ‘well just let it fire as normal’. So where I said earlier:

Question: Should these Tanks then be removed immediately from the battle? You may say that killing the Tanks outright is perhaps too harsh, and I suppose that’s fair enough. Alternatively, should there be some way in which they could be ‘saved’ from dying before getting to return fire? i.e. any Tanks that are hit by TD fire are instead moved behind the casualty strip and now get to fire a parting shot (in steps 3 & 4). So should the Tank casualties be destroyed immediately or just critically damaged before returning fire? I prefer the second option.

As far as I can see this leads us to two options:

A: Have the Tank Destroyer fire a Surprise Strike at 1 and eliminate (kill) the enemy Tank immediately before the Tank gets to fire. Or…

B: Have the Tank Destroyer fire normally at 2 and merely hit the enemy Tank, moving it to the casualty zone as per usual.

The reason I liked the idea of a TD being able to hit and damage a Tank before that Tank could return fire, is because it would be similar to Shore Bombardment in that respect - but with the difference being that the die roll is targeted. This makes it slightly less harsh for the owner of the Tank as they know they can still shoot with it before it dies.

So what would people prefer to have? I think a Surprise Strike die roll at 2 is probably too powerful, but a regular attack/defence die roll at 2 is not, even though hits are assigned strictly to Tanks. However, this leads me on to thinking about the units that the TD can hit. First and foremost, enemy Tanks. Any remaining hits carried over (or if there were no Tanks) should then be assigned to enemy SPGs. Any remaining hits carried over (or if there were no SPGs) should then be assigned to enemy Mechanised Infantry. Or is that too much? Your thoughts please.

I would like to fine-tune the special abilities of this unit before getting into the stats, but so far I’m inclined to agree that it should indeed be: Cost 5, Move 2 (Blitz only with a Tank).

[Commander JayVon]

I like the proposed new stats of defending at 2, makes them less of a liability on defense when under attack from other units.

However, I also would prefer to keep the Tank Hunter ability, and keep it at 1, so not to overpower the battle, but add a slight edge.

The target should still be allowed the chance to fire back with their tank(s), just like in the current 1940 rules for Shore Bombardment , before being removed from play. The fact that the tank is an automatic target is allowance enough.

I’m on the fence about the unassigned hits going to other SPA units or even mechanized infantry, but I could see an exception on the latter, since they are linked explicitly with the tank movement.

[Imperious Leader]

Forget Assault guns.

Just call them Self Propelled Artillery or Gun  ( SPG)  or Tank Destroyers.

3-3-2-6 unit except when faced against enemy tanks and rolls a 1 during a combat round, an enemy tank ( or other armored unit like Mech Infantry, etc) must be selected as combat loss.

If you want to beef them up, then go 4-3-2-7.

SPG like the German Elephant at Kursk were suited better on defense or at least equal to medium tanks as most SPG.

keeping the stats the same but allowing the ‘one hits tanks’ thing , makes it a minor boost and not overwhelming

[empireman]

Attack:2
Defense:2
Move:2
Cost:5
Attack @ 3 for one round of combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@MacNaughton:

@Imperious:

Cost 5 IPCs, act exactly as Artillery, Move 2. Attack at 3 in the first round if enemy tanks present.

a 2-2-2-5 unit is basically a boosted Mech, the unit needs unique flavor.

Plain artillery is basically a boosted infantry. And it works great.
Mechanical artillery should have the exact same relationship to Mechanical Infantry as regular artillery has to regular infantry.

Did anyone try something like this for his Self-Propelled Guns / Assault guns?

Attack:2
Defense:3
Move:2
Cost:5
Give +1A when paired with one Inf or MechInf?

Is it too overpowered on defense vs Armor A3D3M2C6?

I like the idea to get a combat unit at a slightly lower cost than Armor.

[toblerone77]

HBG has enough SPA and TD unit colors to outfit all player nations with both rspective units. It’s well worth it to spend the coinage to have both of these units available. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeasy.

Just IMO visit www.historicalboardgaming.com and you can have everything you need.

[baron Münchhausen]

@crusaderiv:

I personally would prefer to have two different minatures/pieces with two different rules for both Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns but I just don’t think this will work very well on the global/grand strategic level; I think it would work very well on the theatre level downwards, however. Also, the two extra units would really clog up the game board.
I agree with you. So, I think that it may be better to have the one unit with multi roles.

@Baron:

@MacNaughton:

@Imperious:

Cost 5 IPCs, act exactly as Artillery, Move 2. Attack at 3 in the first round if enemy tanks present.

a 2-2-2-5 unit is basically a boosted Mech, the unit needs unique flavor.

Plain artillery is basically a boosted infantry. And it works great.
Mechanical artillery should have the exact same relationship to Mechanical Infantry as regular artillery has to regular infantry.

Did anyone try something like this for his Assault Gun
(Self-Propelled Artillery / Self-Propelled Guns / Tank Destroyers)?
Assault Gun, Mechanized Artillery (SPA /SPG / TD):
Attack:2
Defense:2
Move:2
Cost:5
Give +1A when paired with one Inf or Mech Inf
On a “1” rolled, it hits an armored unit (Tank or Mech Artillery).
Can blitz when paired to a Tank or a Mech Inf.

This unit will get both roles as Inf support & Tank Destroyer.
With D2, it is not OP and get a little Humph on a “1”.
I thing it keeps balance vs Armor A3D3M2C6.
I like the idea to get a combat unit at a slightly lower cost than Armor.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

HBG has enough SPA and TD unit colors to outfit all player nations with both rspective units. It’s well worth it to spend the coinage to have both of these units available. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeasy.

Just IMO visit www.historicalboardgaming.com and you can have everything you need.

Interesting set of units.
What would be stats if there is 2 units: 1 TD & 1SPG?

[knp7765]

Tank destroyers and self propelled guns usually will have the same values for attack, defense, movement and cost. The difference will be in their respective special abilities:
Self Propelled Guns can boost Mechanized Infantry attack factor to 2 and can blitz when paired with a Mechanized Infantry unit.
Tank Destroyers do not boost other units, but on a roll of 1 they can target enemy armor units.

However, some will put SPGs at A 2 D 2 M 2 Cost 5. Cost is one more than regular artillery for extra movement.
and Tank Destroyers at A 2 D 3 M 2 Cost 6. Cost is one more than SPGs for higher defense and targeting ability.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks.
Good idea, it goes a little further.

@knp7765:

Tank destroyers and self propelled guns usually will have the same values for attack, defense, movement and cost. The difference will be in their respective special abilities:
Self Propelled Guns can boost Infantry & Mechanized Infantry attack factor to 2 and can blitz when paired with a Mechanized Infantry unit.
Tank Destroyers do not boost other units, but on a roll of 1 they can target enemy armor units.

However, some will put SPGs at A 2 D 2 M 2 Cost 5. Cost is one more than regular artillery for extra movement.
and Tank Destroyers at A 2 D 3 M 2 Cost 6. Cost is one more than SPGs for higher defense and targeting ability.

Is the blitz capacity historical?
I have the impression it should be left to Tanks only.
So it becomes: SPG can blitz if paired with a Tank.
Are you sure that Tank Destroyers should be put at 6?

A2D3M2C5? No blitz by itself, can only blitz if paired with a Tank, no other pairing bonus, but the “1” vs Armored units (Tank, SPG or TD).
The last capacity is useful only when enemy’s Tanks, SPGs or TDs are present.