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

@amanntai:

You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?

So, you feel that pairing 1:1 is more complex in this case than simply giving +1A to MechInf or INF and +1A to Mech Artillery because a Tank is present?

I’m pondering on that specific point, that’s why I ask.
It is not that unbalancing if the three units together gets the 2 bonus.

In my House Rules, Submarines only hit warships or transports, they cannot hit planes.
But it is the only restriction.
Planes can hit Sub and Destroyer presence is not necessary.
Un-submerged Submarine can be hit by planes.
So, I simplified this aspect.

@amanntai:

@Baron:

@amanntai:

You say factoring in what the other side has is too complex, but then you have a complicated mutually exclusive double bonus on the assault artillery. Submarines already cause you to take opposing forces into consideration, why not anti-tanks?

So, you feel that pairing 1:1 is more complex in this case than simply giving +1A to MechInf or INF and +1A to Mech Artillery because a Tank is present?

I’m pondering on that specific point, that’s why I ask.
It is not that unbalancing if the three units together gets the 2 bonus.

In my House Rules, Submarines only hit warships or transports, they cannot hit planes.
But it is the only restriction.
Planes can hit Sub and Destroyer presence is not necessary.
Un-submerged Submarine can be hit by planes.
So, I simplified this aspect.

Actually, I think 1:1 pairing was a rule designed merely to prevent one unit from providing the same bonus to more than one unit. Technically, both giving and receiving a bonus is still 1:1 pairing. Plus, realistically, tanks, infantry, and artillery working together would create an effective fighting force. The double bonus also encourages building a variety of units.

Fine. I will change that in my HR and allows such 1:1:1 combined arms for MI:MA:Tank.
This will provides A2:A3:A3= A8 and D2:D3:D3= D8 for A8 D8 = 16 points for 15 IPCs but only for 3 units.
against 5 Infantry defending at 2 gives: D10 for 5 hits:
Overall %*: A. survives: 9.1% D. survives: 88.9% No one survives: 2%

So this 16 pts/15 IPCs/3 hits group is not so unbalancing after all.

To get a comparison point,
2 Tanks and 1 Infantry = A7 D8 C15, 3 hits against 5 Inf A5 D10, 5 hits gives this result:
Overall %*: A. survives: 10.5% D. survives: 87.5% No one survives: 2.1%

Of course, Infantry move only at 1 but 9.1% of survival is not that powerful.

Against 2 Infantry and 2 Artillery at 14 IPCs but 16 Pts (A8 D8)
Overall %*: A. survives: 33.9% D. survives: 60.9% No one survives: 5.2%
Still better and it is 1 IPC less than MI:MA:Tk cost.

Against 2 Infantry and 2 Anti-Tank Artillery at 16 IPCs (A8 D12), 4 hits:
Overall %*: A. survives: 11.5% D. survives: 84% No one survives: 4.5%

@CWO:

@Baron:

Marc, do you think that naming such unit as Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun can be more accurate (and still used in the military, or at least not used in a complete different way) that Anti-Tank Gun, in a game perspective, since the unit I want to create is built to make a defensive counter-weight against all type of unit moving at 2?

I think your best option would be for you to give whatever name you prefer to the house rule units that you design, and to give them whatever combat characteristics you think would be interesting for them to have, without trying to achieve historical accuracy.

Here’s my basic opinion about this sort of thing.  If a house rule designer, for whatever reason, feels that it’s important for his house rules to reflect historical reality, then what he should do is “follow the evidence”.  By this I mean: find out what historical WWII weapons were actually called, what their capabilities were, and what kind of things they were used for, and then design house rules to fit that historical reality.  That’s one approach, and it’s the one for which I have a personal preference.

A different approach – which I think is perfectly valid too, even though it’s not an approach I care for personally – is for a person to focus on developing a house rule concept that he likes, without worrying about whether it fits historical reality.  This approach basically means saying “wouldn’t it be cool if there was a new unit that has an attack value of x, a movement value of y, plus such-and-such a combined-arms bonus” and designing a unit around that concept.  There’s nothing wrong with doing this sort of thing, as long as the person makes it clear that they’re not trying to make their concept fit reality.  And in fact, they may even discover (after they’ve designed their cool new unit) that there actually was a WWII weapon which corresponds to their concept.  That’s a nice thing when it happens, but it isn’t really required to make this approach work.

An approach which I do consider to be problematic, however, is to try to distort historical reality in order to justify a house rule concept for a new unit.  Wanting game units and historical reality to match each other is fine, but it has to be achieved by making the units fit history, not by making history fit the units.

For example: in this discussion thread, I’ve tried (to the best of my knowledge) to explain what WWII anti-tank guns were, what they were called (they were called anti-tank guns), what firing characteristics they had and what they were used for.  You’ve made it clear in numerous posts that you don’t like the term “anti-tank gun”, which is perfectly okay with me.  Nobody is forcing you to use the term “anti-tank gun” if you don’t like it.  And there’s nothing wrong with your proposals to give such units a different name – like Anti-Tank Artillery, or Anti-Armour Gun, or Anti-Vehicle Gun – as long as it’s clear that you’re not making any claims about their historical accuracy.

What I can’t understand, however, is your question asking whether it would be historically more accurate to call an anti-tank gun by one of those invented alternate terms because the answer is: no.  Anti-tank guns were called anti-tank guns. As far as I know, the alternate terms you proposed are imaginary ones, not historical ones.  Calling an anti-tank gun by a name that doesn’t really exist is less accurate, not more accurate.  And this accuracy problem can’t be solved by trying to come up with different imaginary terms; the problem is solved either by using the real term (in this particular case, anti-tank gun), or by eliminating historical accuracy as a game design consideration.

If you don’t like a historical term, or if you don’t like the historical characteristics that certain WWII weapons actually had, then by all means feel free to use other names and other characteristics, without worrying about whether a house rule concept you’ve developed actually fits with history.  Everyone has different priorities in the world of game design, and everyone should pursue whatever approach fits those personal priorities. The important thing is to be clear about exactly what it is that you’re trying to achieve.

Thanks for the clarifications Marc.
Probably contrary to what you think on my intent based on the questions I asked, you can be surprised that I’m more for Historical Accuracy approach than the “cool unit” approach.
And I need to have a clear idea on what I’m doing by giving a specific name to this unit, and by giving such or such combat values and bonus to it.

If, for game balance and other playing perspective, the results is different than historical, then it requires a decision which can imply some kind of compromise.
Along the thread, you showed me that the main weapon that really fit with my concept was the Anti-Tank Gun and clearly not an Heavy Artillery.
Then arises the question of finding the appropriate name without betraying the concept or historical facts.
Finding an alternate name which can better describe my concept appear clearly as unhistorical and purely fictional (Anti-Tank Artillery, Anti-Armour Gun or Anti-Vehicle Gun).
Your answer help discard inadequate possibilities.

Anti-Tank Gun IS the historical weapon used against Armoured Vehicles.
So, amongst the three names above, Anti-Tank Artillery seems the less contradictory toward historical facts.
Anti-Tank Gun is an artillery pieces amongst many other types.

The specific weapon is Anti-Tank Gun while the generic name is Artillery.
So all ATGs target enemy’s vehicles, while a few others artillery pieces seems also able to hinder, damage, or destroy Tanks in a specific context: like an intensive defensive deployment (IF what I quoted of Wiki is accurate, your call here… if it’s not tell me. I’m all ears.) But not all types of Artillery pieces can affect Tanks and, for most part, was not their specific function, as you showed: direct fire is the way to destroy a Tank, while indirect fire is not fit to.

So, it appears to me that this is the only compromise between the “in-game” unit concept and the historical weapon.
The game is depicting a strategic level of war while keeping some tactical “flavors” between units.

But now, I will know it is a compromise and not a direct historical transcription.

I think what I’m doing with this unit concept is like the invention of the A&A “tactical bomber” terminology.
As it was not describing a specific group of Fighters or Bombers.
It was more general description of the role and function of planes, not of their specific types.

My other questions above are still there.
I don’t know (except from what I read on Wiki) what is the historical role of ATG in offensive situation.
Were ATGs as useful as other Artillery unit or not when moving forward?
For what it worth, I read that they were much more efficient on defense (and they develop Assault Gun for offense).
Your POV can help me decided about the combat value of this game unit.

For instance, this can imply a reduction of the attacking factor (A2) or the +1 Attack combined arms bonus with Infantry.

And if the case, this can be a reason to keep the name Anti-Tank Gun instead, to make a game distinction between Artillery at 4 IPCs (which gives attack bonus) and this ATG unit at 5 IPCs better on defense (which wouldn’t give attack bonus).

Thanks for your reply Marc.

Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Much of anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available.

These point makes me wonder about the usefulness of Anti-Tank Gun in their anti-tank tactics during offensive operations.
As far as I can understand, it seems that Anti-Tank guns were used on offense to support infantry against enemy’s Tank.

But, to what extent? The quote said “Anti-tank tactics” not explicitely Anti-tank guns.
And, as you said, ATG is not self-propelled, it needs to be towed by a jeep or something else, and while being towed it cannot attack anything.
On that point, it is similar to any other artillery unit, howitzer needs also to be towed, set up and fired in a static position.
“If it’s moving, it can’t be fired.  If it’s being fired, it can’t be moved.”
It is completely different with Self-Propelled Artillery, Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer, since they can move by themselves, stop, then fire.
Their operating offensive tactics is clearly different than ATG and Howitzer.

Since Howitzer indirect fire doesn’t require to get enemy’s into line-of-sight, they can stay behind as far as their range allowed it.
But Anti-Tank Guns, to be useful, need to be near the battlefield against Tanks.
So, as far as I understand the tactical operations of such direct fire weapon, you need to tow ATG within line of sight (and probably range of Tanks cannons) before setting them up to fire from a stable position. So ATG is more at risk of being directly aim by enemy’s tank.
Hence, my question.
Was it possible to ATG to be part of offensive tactical operations (“going forward”) to provide attacking Infantry a fire support against defending Tanks as it was possible for Infantry to call for Artillery support from Howitzer, for instance?

Actually, I can hardly figure what was the job of ATG operators in offensive operations. I see them like they were always late behind the main battles (or dead before deploying their guns). I can’t help myself but seeing them setting their ATG underfire while, suddenly, the ennemy retreat a few miles away forcing them to packing up their ammos and ATG, attached to the towing, then while getting to a new firing point, they start again to set up their guns, but again the enemy fall back a few miles. So, the ATG operators have to pack up again their things…

This image makes me doubt about the real effectiveness of ATG on offense, even when it is against Tank.
Hence, unable to give a real support to Infantry units in offensive assault.
(Contrary to howitzers, which can be set-up safely then fired upon far away enemy’s lines and a few yards in front of their own infantry men.)

Hope you better see now why I provided three ATG combat value to choose below which are different solely by their Infantry support bonus.
The Wiki quote down below doesn’t tell much about ATG offensive operation, all I got is about how Russian used them for defense: “Anti-tank defense proper was by 1942 designed in First World War fashion…”

@CWO:

Anti-tank guns are well-suited to killing tanks and poorly suited to bombarding enemy field positions.  Howitzers are well-suited to bombarding enemy field positions but poorly suited for killing tanks.  In other words, each one is useful for one type of job and basically useless for another type of job.

Second, I don’t understand what you mean by “when moving forward”.  Anti-tank guns are towed weapons, not self-propelled weapons.  A jeep (or other vehicle) tows them to the place where they’re needed; the gun is then set up and fired from a static position.  It can’t do both at the same time.  If it’s moving, it can’t be fired.  If it’s being fired, it can’t be moved.  If you want a self-propelled weapon with an effective direct-fire anti-armour capability that can move and shoot at the same time, what you need is a tank or a tank destroyer, not an anti-tank gun.

@Baron:

I develop a third option for Anti-Tank Gun, and better describe the general behaviour of 3 games unit (from which I will pick one), I just don’t know what is the real historical facts on ATG:

Sorry Marc, I jumped from historical POV to game POV without notice.
So I edited the post to give more details and sort out the confusion.
In game terms, which Anti-Tank Gun seems more consistent with historical uses of this weapon?
Could you help me by giving an advice?

Anti-Tank Gun-1
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support, no big difference.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack to 1 Infantry

Or

Anti-Tank Gun-2
Not very useful on offensive action and of no real help for Infantry, artillery is very much better.
(Absolutely needs to be mechanized to have some mobility on offense, to give some support to Infantry.)
Better for defensive action, acting better in coordination with entrenched Infantry.
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Infantry

Or

Anti-Tank Gun-3
On offense, it is acting like Artillery on Infantry support,
slightly inferior, since it needs to be transported within sight of the enemy,
but it is clearly better on defense with deep entrenched position combined with Infantry.
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 5
Gives +1 Attack/Defense to 1 Infantry

For the last  two ATGs, I think about Fury movie in which German Infantry were help by ATGs against US Tanks and 1 Tank Destroyer which was commanded by Brad Pitt as Sgt.

And also about Russian defensive lines near Kursk against Germans’ Tigers.

Below, I found some interesting facts on Anti-tank warfare:

Anti-tank tactics developed rapidly during the war but along different paths in different armies based on the threats they faced and the technologies they were able to produce. Very little development took place in UK because weapons available in 1940 were judged adequate for engaging Italian and German tanks during most of the North African Campaign. Its experience therefore failed to influence US Army’s anti-tank doctrine prior to 1944. From 1941 German anti-tank tactics developed rapidly as a result of being surprised by the previously unknown Soviet tank designs, forcing introduction of new technologies and new tactics. The Red Army was also faced with a new challenge in anti-tank warfare after losing most of its tank fleet and a considerable part of its anti-tank capable cannons.
Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Much of anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available. These are divided as follows:

Operational range over the horizon (20-40 km range) bomber aircraft and long range artillery
   Tactical staging areas (7-20 km range) ground attack aircraft and field artillery including MRLs
   Tactical zone forming-up area and rear combat zone (2-7 km range) heavy anti-tank guns and mortars
   Tactical forward combat zone (1-2 km range) anti-tank guns and tanks deployed in defense
   Engagement distance (200-1000 m range) mines and anti-tank rifles
   Close combat distance (25-200 m range) infantry anti-tank weapons

Ground-to-air cooperation was not yet systematic in any army of the period, but given sufficient warning ground attack aircraft could support ground troops even during an enemy attack in an attempt to interdict the enemy units before they come into tactical combat zone. Various bomb loads can be used depending on what type of tank unit is engaged in at the time or who its accompanying troops are. This is an indirect form of anti-tank warfare where the tanks are denied the opportunity to even reach combat.

Field artillery was particularly effective in firing against tank formations because although they were rarely able to destroy a tank by direct penetration, they would severely crater the area preventing the tanks from moving therefore causing them to become nearly stationary targets for the ground attack aircraft, or disrupting the enemy schedule and allowing own troops more time to prepare their defense.

Anti-tank defense proper was by 1942 designed in First World War fashion with several prepared trench lines incorporating anti-tank weapons of different capabilities. Depending on terrain and available line-of-sight, the longer-ranged guns could begin to fire on approaching tanks from as far as 2 kilometers, which was also the range at which German Panther and Tiger tank gunners were trained to fire. Anti-tank guns were usually deployed to cover terrain more suitable for tanks, and were protected by minefields laid at about 500 meters to 1 kilometer from their positions by combat engineers. In the Red Army the anti-tank rifle units would be positioned throughout the forward trench line and would engage the lighter tanks and any other vehicles, such as infantry half-tracks in an attempt to separate them from the tanks. The anti-tank guns deployed further back would often hold their fire until enemy tanks were within the most effective range for their ammunition. Where there were insufficient anti-tank weapons, engineers would construct anti-tank obstacles such as dragon’s teeth or czech hedgehog.

Towed anti-tank guns were thought to be the primary means of defeating tanks. At the battle of Kursk for example, the Red Army deployed more artillery regiments than infantry regiments and towed gun densities reached over 20 guns per kilometer of defended tactical zone. A towed gun was much cheaper than a tank and could be concealed in a shallow position. When time allowed, dugouts with strong overhead cover could be constructed. Guns deployed on reverse slopes and in flanking positions could take a toll of attacking tanks. However, gun crews were vulnerable to artillery, mortar HE fire and enemy infantry. Their positions had to be carefully selected and once engaged, they generally could not redeploy. Experience strongly suggested that towed AT guns were less effective than self-propelled AT weapons and took heavier casualties.

Self-propelled anti-tank guns were rare at the beginning of WW2, although the Belgian Army deployed a few T.15 tank destroyers and the French army was developing several wheeled and tracked designs. The advantages of mobility and even thin armor protection were so compelling that most armies were using self-propelled AT guns by mid-war. Examples of these weapons included the US M10, German Marder II, and Soviet SU-85.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare

@amanntai:

I found this on Wikipedia: “As towed anti-tank cannon guns grew in size and weight, they became less mobile and more cumbersome to maneuver, and required ever larger gun crews, who often had to wrestle the gun into position while under heavy artillery and/or tank fire. As the war progressed, this disadvantage often resulted in the loss or destruction of both the antitank gun and its trained crew. This gave impetus to the development of the self-propelled, lightly armored “tank destroyer” (TD).”

It seems clear that towed Anti-tank weapons were mainly defensive in nature, while Tank Destroyers and infantry Anti-tank weapons such as rifle grenades and shoulder-mounted rocket launchers made up the offensive Anti-tank weapons. It is possible for gun crews to move towed Anti-tank guns forward, but hardly practical over a long distance.

Have you considered making this weapon a defense-only unit like AAAs, except without the triple-hit initial roll? For example: A0 D3 NC-M1 C4?

Thanks for the quote.
It shows how ATGs were limited as offensive weapon.

Yes. That is the main reason why I was reluctant to use Anti-Tank Gun for naming this unit.
That wasn’t my initial intent to develop an A&A unit which directly hit Tank unit.

I will rather restrain this unit to A2 D3 M1 C5 and only +1 Defense for 1 Infantry paired 1:1

Or maybe +1 Defense for up to 2 Infantry paired 1 ATG: 2 Inf?
That way, buying ATG + 2 Infantry (11 IPCs) will provides 3 defense @3.
This will be the same value as buying only Infantry for defense or offense.
3 ATG + 6 Infs = A6 D9 + A6 D12 = A12 D21, 9 hits for 33 IPCs
against 11 Infantry A11 D22, 11 hits for 33 IPCs.

The offensive value of 3 ATGs + 6 Infs is similar to offensive value of 11 Infantry:
Overall %*: A. survives: 51.5% D. survives: 47.8% No one survives: 0.8%

The defensive value of 3 ATGs + 6 Infs is similar to defensive value of 11 Infantry:
Overall %*: A. survives: 49.8% D. survives: 48.2% No one survives: 2%

So, such a combat value for ATGs makes it a similar unit for defense as if it is buying only Infantry.

I can accept such value, especially for Russia, since buying a defensive unit which gives worse result than pure Infantry couldn’t be interesting.

If this ATG would have keep +1A for 1 Infantry, this mix of offensive and defensive could have be a counterweight.

Now, when 5 IPCs left from purchase, it becomes an interesting buying for defense against Tank attacking at 3.
It is not eye powder, because a 5 IPCs unit need high values to compensate for the several hits you gain when buying 3 IPCs units: 5 Infantry defending at 2 are much better than 3 ATG defending at 3.
Overall %*: A. survives: 82.5% D. survives: 14.8% No one survives: 2.7%

Do you think it can be acceptable?
It is like the reverse of Heavy artillery Tech, which gives +1A to up to 2 Infantry.

Thinking out loud and inspired by your idea above,
what about this?
Anti-Tank Gun- 4 IPCs
Attack 1
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
Gives +1Def to 1 Infantry

OR more simply:
Anti-Tank Gun- 4 IPCs, no combined arms
Attack 1
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs

OR a boosted one:
Anti-Tank Gun- 4 IPCs, no combined arms
Attack 2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs

What is the real combat value of such units?

Anti-Tank Gun- 4 IPCs
Attack 1
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Infantry

First, it gives worst results on offence since it cost the same as an Infantry but at a higher cost.
Second, it is cheap as the other artillery unit which move at 1.
Which can be interesting for Russia which can be broken and have no room for costly investments.
The 4 IPCs leave room for a specific 5 IPCs motorized unit which can move at 2.
The +1 Defense bonus to Infantry is exactly the reverse of the Artillery combined arms : +1 Attack bonus.
This 4 IPCs unit increase the overall defense value compared to pure Infantry:

3 ATG A1 D3 + 3 Inf A1 D3 = A6 D18, 6 hits, 21 IPCs.
7 Infantry A1 D2 = A7 D14, 7 hits, 21 IPCs.
So, comparing each other defensive values:
6 attack @3 vs 7 Defense @2 =
Overall %*: A. survives: 56.9% D. survives: 40.4% No one survives: 2.8%

So, this defensive mix is 15% better on defense than pure Infantry units.

But, this unit provides no offensive value, it cannot combines with Artillery:
Comparing each other offensive values:
6 attack @1 vs 7 Defense @1 =
Overall %*: A. survives: 28.6% D. survives: 71.2% No one survives: 0.5%

Maybe this should be call Anti-Tank Guns and Defenses.

Since it imply better defense than the usual entrenched Infantry unit.

Ok, now, I’m really puzzled if I open the possibility of a 4 IPCs Anti-Tank units:
There is many choices which doesn’t seems bad at first glance.
Can someone help me see which one seems better fit?
Any suggestions to find the more interesting and balance is welcome.
There is 4 options, from the weaker to the stronger:

1- Anti-Tank Gun_A1 no combined arms (This one, is too weak IMO.)
Attack 1
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs

6 ATG (A1) Attack (A6)= A6 value compared to pure 8 Infantry (A8) Attack. (24 IPCs)
Overall %*: ATG. survives: 14.9% INF. survives: 85% No one survives: 0.3%

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 (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 (D6)= D15 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (D14) Defense . (21 IPCs)
Overall %*: ATG. survives: 47.2%    INF. survives: 49.9% No one survives: 2.9%

2- Anti-Tank Gun_A2 +1Def to Inf
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
Gives +1 Def to 1 Infantry

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 (D6)+ 3 Inf, Defense (D9)= D15 value compared to pure 7 Infantry (D14) Defense . (21 IPCs)
Overall %*: ATG. survives: 39.8%     INF. survives: 57.8% No one survives: 2.3%

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 prefered 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)?

@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?

As weird as it seems, for all Powers except USA, I have 2 types of Artillery units. I believe second edition give me a lot of artillery sculpts specific for each country. So I have the older ones, which were more generic.
Unfortunately,1941 have no Artillery unit.
Marc talked about using First edition Flak units for ATG.

@Black_Elk:

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.

At first, in my OP, it was my intent. But slowly I got a better understanding of my concept and I have to reconsider the name and the cost value.
I have 2 “5 IPCs units”: Mechanized Artillery and Heavy Artillery.
I think it is correct.
Also, a 5 IPCs remaining can easily be converted into 1 Artillery (4 IPCs) and taking 1 Infantry (suppose you already planed to produce some of them) the remaining IPC can be upgrade to 1 Artillery.

Maybe ATG is not necessary since it is essentially a defensive unit and Infantry unit already does this job.
But this ATG can create more options,  especially for the Russian.
Instead of relying upon Tank to get some higher defense value this can be done by a cheaper unit.
And it is not at the expense of loosing defense, 4 Infs will provides the same protection than 3 ATG.
In itself this unit is even slightly better on offense, as long as Artillery is not combined to a lonely Infantry.

So a Russian player can now have a viable alternative to Infantry for defending against all MechInf, Mechanized Artillery and Tanks trying to invade Mother Russia.

@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?

@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)?

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?