Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks


  • Customizer

    @Black_Elk:

    I prefer number 4 too. But just curious, if such a unit class was adopted what sort of sculpt would you use for it? Does HBG have something at the ready?

    I would think from an ease of adoption perspective it would be a lot easier to introduce a second class of tank, then something like a gun unit or second class of artillery. I say this mainly because there are OOB boards that already have units one might use. Thinking here of the big tanks in 41 or the skinny tanks of D Day. Whether they fit the role or not is another question, but at least therespective pieces we could use. Otherwise I guess you’d have to kit bust a model set, or bring in pieces from another game maybe? Did you have something in mind like that for anti tank guns?

    Finally I think I would rather have a stronger unit at a cost of 5, as opposed to a somewhat weaker unit at 4. Just to fill the 5 spot, that has been kind of lacking ever since AA50.

    HBG has enough models for everyone to have SPA and TDs if you use the Katyusha as the Soviet SPA.

    As for your 5 IPC unit somewhere on the site someone mentioned using the “Classic” armor stats for tank destroyers. The guys from the Dicetruction podcast HR SPAs from HBG as follows M2 C5 A2 D2 awarding plus 1 to infantry and mechs at 1:1 ratio.


  • 2017 '16

    @CWO:

    And just to follow up on my last post, here’s a suggestion: try to avoid blending too many capabilities into a unit type. Keep their capabilities clear and focused and specialized. There was a lot of controversy on this forum last year about tactical bomber house rules, with various people expressing the opinion that it was being turned into a magical unit that could do everything – and do all of those things superbly. Real weapon systems don’t work that way because real weapons, like all pieces of engineering, are design compromises.

    So my suggestion, to keep things nice and clean and well-defined, would be to look at things the following way:

    • For a self-propelled unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in an offensive role, use a tank.

    • For a self-propelled unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in a mixture of offensive and defensive roles, use a tank destroyer.

    • For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in a defensive role, use an anti-tank gun.

    • For a self-propelled unit that is good at bombarding enemy fixed positions (trenches, bunkers, buildings, etc.) in support of offensive operations, use a self-propelled gun. And don’t give it any anti-tank capabilities.

    • For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that is good at bombarding enemy fixed positions (trenches, bunkers, buildings, etc.) in support of offensive operations, use a regular field artillery piece or divisional artillery piece (depending on the caliber you want, if that’s a consideration).

    • For a static (non-self-propelled) unit that is good at shooting down enemy planes, use an anti-aircraft gun.

    • Avoid creating imaginary units that have imaginary capabilities. For instance, you’ll notice that I didn’t include a “static (non-self-propelled) unit that has good anti-tank capabilities in an offensive role” category in my list because as far as I know, no such thing existed in WWII, and because the concept itself doesn’t make sense to me. An anti-tank gun is fundamentally a defensive weapon, and I can’t visualize it being used in an offensive role to any significant extent.

    Thanks Marc.
    Very informative post for those who wants to create additional ground units (mechanized or not).

    I was in the same state of mind about anti-tank gun on offense. I wasn’t either able to visualized it out.
    I was naively thinking that all artillery weapons were used on offense and defense.
    That’s why I thought, at first, that ATG should have the same offensive bonus toward Infantry.

    Now it is clear that such a thing was much more unusual and with the war going on, they built Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers as ATG on offense. Mobility and armour were necessary in combat zone.
    So ATG were built on mounted and motorized plate-forms.

    So, if there is no such offensive warfare with ATG, then it would be a non-sense to give a +1A bonus to Infantry.
    If there is a +1 bonus to give, it must be a on defense.

    I see it right this time, isn’t?


  • 2017 '16

    @amanntai:

    I like option 3 the best. Honestly, if I ever adopt ATGs as a HR unit, I would opt for that. It’s offensive value is really low compared to the others, but it offers the most defensive value of any of the option, so a Russian player being hammered by Germany would still conceivably choose it. Plus, as I pointed out, I feel the strong defense/terrible offense is a nice historically fitting feature.

    But choose whatever you want, it’s your game.

    I think as you said.
    It is this #3 ATG which gives the most the historical feels on ATG role and tactics.
    However, due to the +1 Defense bonus for Infantry,
    makes it less simple than the straight forward ATG #4: A2 D3 M1 C4.

    But, ATG #3 A1 D3 M1 C4, +1 Def bonus to 1 Inf, is similar to A2 D2 Artillery unit.
    It gives 4 combat points and +1 combined arms bonus.

    5 combat points is quite unusual for a 4 IPCs unit because ATG#4 contradicts the A&A basic rule:
    3 IPCs= 3 point / 4 IPCs = 4 points / 6 IPCs = 6 points.

    Based on Marc advices principles about “Keep their capabilities clear and focused and specialized.”,
    ATG #3 provides to players a bright light on its defense capabilities.
    This make for a clear and specialized tactics for this ATG.
    It is useful when defensive is the word, and nothing else.
    But such tactics will have is counter-weight, it is not as versatile and useful as Infantry.
    Going from defense to counter-attack will be quite difficult if Infantry is taken as fodder and most ATG are kept.
    The Artillery bonus could not be use to his maximum effect when too many Infantry are missing.
    There is some challenge here about when it can be good to sacrifice a 4 IPCs ATG units instead of a 3 IPCs Inf.

    So, for all these reasons, I feel that I should prefer ATG#3 instead of the simpler ATG#4.
    @Baron:

    3- Anti-Tank Gun_A1+ 1Def to Inf
    Attack 1
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 4 IPCs
    Gives +1 Def to 1 Infantry

    3 ATG (A3)+ 3 Inf, Attack (A3)= A6 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (A7) Attack. (21 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 29.6% INF. survives: 70.3% No one survives: 0.5%

    3 ATG (D9)+ 3 Inf, Defense (D9)= D18 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (D14) Defense . (21 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 57.3%     INF. survives: 39.7% No one survives: 3%


    4- Anti-Tank Gun_A2 D3 no combined arms  (My prefered one, IMO. No complex bonus.)
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 4 IPCs

    6 ATG (A2) Attack (A12)= A12 value compared to pure 8 Infantry (A8) Attack. (24 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 59.6% INF. survives: 39.4% No one survives: 1%

    6 ATG (D3) Defense (D18)= D18 value compared to pure 8 Infantry (D16) Defense. (24 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 35%     INF. survives: 62.8% No one survives: 2.3%


    3 ATG (A6)+ 3 Inf, Attack (A3)= A9 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (A7) Attack. (21 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 66% INF. survives: 32.9% No one survives: 1.1%

    3 ATG (D9)+ 3 Inf, Defense (D6)= D15 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (D14) Defense . (21 IPCs)
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 47.1%     INF. survives: 50.1% No one survives: 2.9%


    It seems that the #2 ATG gives similar result to #4, except that #2 is inferior in defense.
    Since #4  is a straight forward unit, I preferred that one.
    It is still inferior to Artillery on offense since ATG gives no bonus on attack.
    #4 keeps the defensive factor of Infantry (47% vs 50%) when considering defending with Infantry, even if it receives no combined arms bonus. So the Calc show that ATG is better on defense when an Infantry is alongside with it.

    However, ATG#4 is better on offense (compared to Inf) and better than ATG#3 which is clearly the defensive extreme.

    So, I’m actually pondering between ATG#3 and #4.
    Any decisive argument to help me decide (whether historical POV or game POV)?


  • 2017 '16

    A last question:
    If this is the winner, do you think I should add the +1 pairing bonus with Mechanized Infantry too?
    Anti-Tank Gun
    Attack 1
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 4 IPCs
    Gives +1 Defense to 1 Infantry only

    Since I think this unit represent an higher degree of entrenchment and defensive preparations with building numerous lines of defense against Tanks which imply reinforced fixed positions, I don’t believe that Mechanized Infantry fit well in the combined arms bonus of this Anti-Tank Gun.

    But maybe I don’t have a good understanding of the real military units behind this A&A MI sculpts.

    Do you think it is too restrictive and that MI should also received the defensive bonus?



  • I’m not confident it is good idea to create a 4IPC unit that defends on 3 (or that boosts infantry to 3). It is simply way too powerful. Why would Russia, while on the defensive, even bother with tanks or any regular OOB units for that matter? You would find very quickly that the game will spiral into something that would be completely unrecognizable. The defender would suddenly have a significant upper hand economically matching their opponents tanks at 66% the cost. Filling a perceived gap in the unit list really needs to be analysed as to whether or not the new unit will throw a wrench in the existing framework.  For this reason,  I don’t believe that a regular anti tank gun unit as you have presented it is a good idea.

    If you priced it at 5, with a defensive value at 3 and an attack value at 1  and a movement of 1 with no other bonuses… I think you’d be more in business. It’s not too much cheaper than a tank, but you are still getting the same punch. Paying for that higher probability comes at a premium! I mean. … good anti tank fighters require training, support and top notch equipment!


  • 2017 '16

    @Admiral:

    I’m not confident it is good idea to create a 4 IPC unit that defends on 3 (or that boosts infantry to 3). It is simply way too powerful. Why would Russia, while on the defensive, even bother with tanks or any regular OOB units for that matter? You would find very quickly that the game will spiral into something that would be completely unrecognizable. The defender would suddenly have a significant upper hand economically matching their opponents tanks at 66% the cost. Filling a perceived gap in the unit list really needs to be analysed as to whether or not the new unit will throw a wrench in the existing framework.  For this reason,  I don’t believe that a regular anti tank gun unit as you have presented it is a good idea.

    If you priced it at 5, with a defensive value at 3 and an attack value at 1  and a movement of 1 with no other bonuses… I think you’d be more in business. It’s not too much cheaper than a tank, but you are still getting the same punch. Paying for that higher probability comes at a premium! I mean. … good anti tank fighters require training, support and top notch equipment!

    Good points to consider and which need to be answered.
    I believe the maths can contradict the intuitive thinking here.

    Let’s suppose a 42 IPCs stack for reference:
    7 Tanks A21 D21, 7 hits
    14 Infantry A14 D 28, 14 hits
    6 ATGs + 6 Infantry, A12 D36, 12 hits

    Here is the comparative attack and defense values:

    6 ATG (A6)+ 6 Inf, Attack (A6)= A12 value compared to pure 14 Infantry (A14) Attack.
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 22.4% INF. survives: 77.9% No one survives: 0.2%

    6 ATG (D18)+ 6 Inf, Defense (D18)= D36 value compared to pure 14 Infantry (D28) Defense.
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 61.6%     INF. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 1.2%


    Now here is the AACalc:

    Combat Reference for Defense:

    7 Tanks A21 D21, 7 hits against
    14 Infantry A14 D 28, 14 hits
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 0.6% Infantry survives: 99.4% No one survives: 0%

    7 Tanks A21 D21, 7 hits against
    6 ATGs + 6 Infantry, A12 D36, 12 hits
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 0.1% ATG survives: 99.9% No one survives: 0%


    Combat Reference for Offense:

    14 Infantry A14 D 28, 14 hits against
    7 Tanks A21 D21, 7 hits
    Overall %*: Infantry survives: 72.4% Tank survives: 27% No one survives: 0.7%

    6 ATGs + 6 Infantry, A12 D36, 12 hits against
    7 Tanks A21 D21, 7 hits
    Overall %*: ATG survives: 45.7%   Tank survives: 53.2%   No one survives: 1.1%


    The ATG unit mix with Infantry seems to slightly increase defense but it becomes worst on offensive.
    Tanks can better resist to them, than against pure Infantry. And I didn’t consider the Artillery combined arms.


    At low level:
    1 Tank against 2 Infantry:
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 14% Infantry survives: 78.6% No one survives: 7.4%

    1 Tank, 6 IPCs against 1 ATG+1 Inf, 7 IPCs:
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 4.9% Infantry survives: 90.4% No one survives: 4.7%

    But it is not the same cost basis.


    Let’s take a look at a mix of Tank and Infantry:

    Combat Reference for Defense:

    4 Tanks + 6 Infantry, A18 D24, 10 hits against
    14 Infantry A14 D 28, 14 hits
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 4.1% Infantry survives: 95.5% No one survives: 0.3%

    4 Tanks + 6 Infantry, A18 D24, 10 hits against
    6 ATGs + 6 Infantry, A12 D36, 12 hits
    Overall %*: Tank survives: 4% ATG survives: 95.6% No one survives: 0.5%

    Now, we can see that adding ATG doesn’t make such a big difference on defense compared to Infantry.

    It will give a fast boost on defense, slightly above a pure Infantry defense.
    But there is also a drawback, ATG will not give you as good opportunity to make counter-attack as it is possible with an Infantry stack.

    So, this 4 IPCs units create opportunity at small scale to bring more defense at a faster rate.
    But Infantry remains the more useful and versatile units.


    Another point, Tank will not be throw all alone against such defensive lines.
    Mechanized Infantry and 5 IPCs Mechanized Artillery should be bring into the mix with Tank.
    In my HR, all these fast moving M2 units get:
    A8 D8 M2 C15, 3 hits.

    We can also compare in A&A Calc:
    1 MI, 1 MA, 1 Tank, A8 D8 M2 C15, 3 hits against

    2 ATGs + 2 Infs= A4 D12 C14, 4 hits:
    Overall %*: MI,MA,Tank survives: 8.3%    ATG survives: 88.2% No one survives: 3.5%

    For comparison with pure Infantry stack:
    1 MI, 1 MA, 1 Tank, A8 D8 M2 C15, 3 hits against
    5 Infantry A5 D10, 5 hits
    Overall %*: MI,MA,Tank survives: 9.1% ATG survives: 88.9% No one survives: 1.9%

    So, all in all, ATG gives a little “humph” on defense compare to Infantry but bringing also his nemesis in the game, Mechanized Artillery, I think it keeps things well balance and introduce more variety of options for defender, allowing to spent a few extra “1” IPC into this unit.
    But too much, will not work since you will not be able to retake land taken by using ATG on offense.

    That is my answer to :

    Why would Russia, while on the defensive, even bother with tanks or any regular OOB units for that matter?

    Thanks for your reply, I would never get deeper into the maths without it.
    Now, I’m more confident this unit can work.

    One last point, about the 5 IPCs ATG with no combined arms.
    This unit cannot work at all for any optimized playing type of game.
    Since ATG is a defensive unit, it directly compete with Infantry.
    If it is not at all better from any perspective, you will keep buying Infantry instead.

    It is similar to the Cruiser cunundrum, at 12 IPCs this unit is never an optimized purchase.
    Destroyer are always better and have an ASW ability.
    A player which have 5 IPCs, can probably find another 1 IPC to invest into a Tank instead.
    You will get the same defensive power but an higher mobility and triple the offensive.

    Maybe the ATG A1 D3 M1 C4, no combined arms can be OK, for using 1 spare IPC on an immediate urgent situation.

    Maybe there is more to it, at low level of unit interactions. IDK

    But it is clear that between for 12 IPCs, 3 ATG and 4 Inf, it is always better to buy all Infantry.
    Defense values:
    3 ATG (D9) value compared to pure 4 Infantry (D8) Defense.
    Overall %*: ATG. survives: 37.8%     INF. survives: 56.6% No one survives: 5.5%


  • 2017 '16

    Another aspect which can show how
    Anti-Tank Gun
    Attack 1
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 4
    ,
    +1 Def to 1 Inf
    is still balance:

    1 Infantry (A1-2 D2-3) + 1 Artillery = A2 D2 + A2 D2 = A4 D4, 2 hits for 7 IPCs.

    1 Infantry (A1-2 D2-3)+ 1 Anti-Tank Gun = A1 D3 + A1 D3 = A2 D6, 2 hits for 7 IPCs.

    The same overall number are kept, 8 combat points, same hits, same cost.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 5
  • 3
  • 4
  • 16
  • 5
  • 3
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

52
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts