Light Italian&Japanese Tanks have anyone thought-about/tried this?

  • I’m kinda boathered about Italian & Japanese tanks having the same strength than other nation’s tanks – 'cause, you know, they only had lighter tanks.

    So I’ve come to this idea (as a house rule): those nations can only buy ‘light tanks’ cost 5; attack @ 3 but deffend @ 2 (move @ 2, can blitz)

    what do you guys think about this?

    I’ve also been thinking about F-17 attack @ 5, defend @ 2 (cost 15?)
    British bombers attack @ 5, defend @ 1 (cost 14?)

    Lancasters a +1 when strategic bombing
    while B17 can only be shoot down by enemy interceptors by rolling @ 1 (instead of @ 2)

  • Great Idea! for every 10 Fiat/Honda $5 tanks you get one for free! Personally I’m sticking with the King Tiger, it may cost $6 but defending at a 3 instead of a 2 makes my day……

  • I like the light tank idea, but maybe they should just be 2/2’s that can move 2 spaces and cost 5.  A 3/2 for 5 is probably a better unit for the axis than a 3/3 for 6 becuase they are usually hte ones attacking with large tank columns.

    I also liked the national advantage that Japan had in AA Revised where their infantry defended on 3 when on an island.  I thought that represented the difficulty America had island hopping, and I’ve found it hard to defend islands with infantry with Japan. It’s usually easier to defend with navy and 1 infantry than stacking infantry.

  • @Gargantua:

    This post will be MAGICALLY ZAPPED into Houlse Rules.

    A place where F-17’s belong in WWII games.

    He clearly meant B-17.  Especially as anyone suggesting alt history ww2 w/ modern tech would never refer to an F17 (a prototype that led to the F18) as a representative of a air superiority fighter.

    That said, the B17, while stout, did not exactly have a greater than average payload so I still see a hit @ 4 as more reasonable.  If you want to represent heavy bomber loads, the B24 Liberator and B29 Superfortress are more realistic.  The B17 could just take loads of damage.

    This is still all house ruley and should be moved.

  • While the Italian tanks were obsolete by the time American forces arrived in the war, during the early stages (1939-1941) they were actually comparable to the British and German tanks of the day.

    The M11/39 and M14/41 were both on the lighter side of medium tanks, but armed with a 47mm (heavier than the 3.7cm Main gun of the early panzer IIIs, and similar to the 5cm Weapon on later models (the Panzer III J to M)).

    The M14/41 could hold its own against Crusaders IIs (40mm gun) and (to some extent, IIIs, with their 57mm weapon), which were their main opponent until the US lend-lease tanks began arriving in large numbers. And even then the serious draw backs of the Grant - hull mounted weapons were of little use in the desert, as you had to expose yourself to return fire more than a tank with turret mounted weapons could (even the Italians learnt this lesson before the Yanks) - allowed the M14/41 to compete with them, albeit with serious disadvantages in terms of main armourment and armour.

    The Italians problem was that they didn’t keep upgrading their tanks. When compared to a Panzer II or III, or a Crusader II the M14/41 was a decent tank. However, it was outclassed by tanks from 1942 and later. Compared to a Sherman, Panzer IV or T-34 it is pathetically under-armoured and under-equipt.

    But how could you represent this in A&A? The Italians get normal tanks for the first few turns, then start paying less and get weaker ones once the US joins in? Or ingnore the bits of the war before the Torch Landings?

    Plus, A&A is not meant to follow history exactly. What if the Italians had put more effort into the P40, with its 75mm gun? Or if they had been Lend-Leased Panzer IVs by their Allies, and relied on foreign-produced tanks like the British?

  • 2020 '19 '18 '16 '15 '11 '10

    Quite honestly, I miss the 5 IPC armour @ 3 and 2. I’d like the option of buying that and augmenting with “heavy armour” at 3 and 3 or 4 and 3. When we used to play Zeno’s World at War, I used to love being able to deploy the SS Panzers and Panzergrenadiers. We were limited to 4 of one and 6 of the other from what I can remember. They added quite an interesting dynamic to the game.

    Every country had some kind of elite forces (marines, guards etc) so there was some balance. Maybe it’s time to make up a house rule for this.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I like the idea, and I think it would be easy to implement.

    Also, Italy has significantly less income than other nations, so the reduction cost of armored units would be greatly magnified for them. (2 tanks on round 1, instead of 1 tank maximum purchase on round 1.)

    I would include France, however.  Since their nation is in exile for the majority of the game, they cannot do the same research and development other nations do, thus, by the time they reclaim their factories, they cannot build armor on par with major European nations any longer.

  • '10

    Tried this light tank deal for the Italians and Japanese sometime back when we were using ILs 1939 map. 3-2-2-5 units. Thought it worked great.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If 2 axis nations have light tanks, the same should go for UK, France and ANZAC.

    Only really Germany and Russia and latter America had decent tanks, the rest were not so good.

  • Customizer

    Good idea IL.  The best British tanks were American made.

    I’m not so sure about the attack factor of 3 for light tanks.  Basically, you would be saying that a Carro Armato or a Type 95 tank can attack as strongly as a Panther or T-34 and that just doesn’t seem right to me.  I think the Attack factor should also be lowered to 2.  OR, raise the attack factor of the heavier tanks to 4.  So German, American and Russian tanks would be 4-3-2-6 while Japanese, Italian, British, ANZAC and French tanks would be 3-2-2-5.  But would that be giving the heavier tanks too high of an attack value? 
    I would like some opinions on which might be the better option:
    Light tanks  2-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
    Heavy tanks 3-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)
    Light tanks  3-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
    Heavy tanks 4-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)

    I am very curious to see what everyone thinks on this.

  • I am personally not real big into “making the game historical”. It is supposed to be a balanced strategy game with vestiges of historical abstraction. If you really want to get technical, most sides in the war used a  light or medium tank for all their pursuits in the war. The Stuarts and the Shermans are all the Brits and the Americans used. The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany. Bust seriously, the purpose of the game is to be balanced, not historical.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Light tanks  3-2-2-5 (UK, ANZAC, France, Italy, Japan)
    Heavy tanks 3-3-2-6 (USA, USSR, Germany)

    This above

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Over technicalization.

    Best to spend the effort on combined arms rules for ground/air and naval elements.

  • Holy crap this is a heated issue. I personally like the idea of adding light tanks. What about using the Heavy Bombers rule only the opposite? Just an idea

  • @ThomasJefferson:

    The Ruskies used the t34, which was by all definitions a medium tank. In fact, the only faction to make heavy tanks was Germany.

    Not quite true. The KV series of tanks were Heavy tanks, the the USSR had those in 1941. And the later IS-2 was definitely a heavy tank.

    The biggest problem, which you all seem to be ignoring, is that neither the war, nor A&A, START IN 1942. How can you claim the Italians and Japs should get worse tanks for the whole game, when in RL the tanks they used in 1939-1941 were, for all intents and purposes as good as the tanks other nations used in that period? Only once other nations upgraded to better tanks from 1942 onwards did the Italians fall behind.

    If you want to add a ‘light tank rule’ for historical purposes everyone will need to use light tanks for the first few turns, then be allowed to buy normal tanks after, say, turn 3. Otherwise you are just adding compexity for no reason, or at least no historical one.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Actually, I would say all tanks are A: 3 😧 2 but you can combine it with an infantry for it to 😧 3 if they are American, Russian or German.  Potentially British.

    Italy, ANZAC, Japan and France would not be able to combine these.

    It’d be more in line with BLITZKRIEG since Germany could combine an infantry iwth a tank, and a tank with a tactical bomber for extra punch on offense and defense, more akin to what they actually did.

Suggested Topics

  • 18
  • 4
  • 30
  • 3
  • 24
  • 13
  • 10
  • 13
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys