I’m looking forward to seeing the Osnaz minis in particular… :wink:
Lets Talk Mobile Artillery
-
@Imperious:
You talking about SPA: self propelled artillery?
these would be 3-3 costing 6, except when they roll a one they pick the land unit they want to kill…tank destroyers
Bystander 1 :-D Brilliant!!
Bystander 2 :cry: Genius…shear genius…
Me :| Well, I think choosing a target on a 1 is a novel idea, but perhaps too powerful. I take it that ability is in place of supporting infantry. The thing is about tank destroyers is that they were powerful but vulnerable due to really light armor. I say cost 6, attack 4, defend 2 is both more historically accurate, and more unique than just being an “anti-tank”.
Still, if it doesn’t support infantry, can it really be called “artillery” based on AA standards and tradition? Also, from a technical standpoint, I don’t think we can call a tank destroyer “artillery”. While a TD may have a bug gun, the gun must be able to fire at extreme angles in order to qualify.
Here’s my idea:
Name Attack Defend Cost Move Special
Light Mobile Artillery 2 2 5 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Heavy Mobile Artillery 3 2 6 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Still, I really like the tank destroyer idea. At this rate, we’ll overload the game with unit types.
-
yes only one type…tank destroyer which is a subset of SPA
3-3 however. these had decent armor plating even 3-4 units is possible.
-
The tank destroyers I remember had no tops.
-
Here’s my idea:
Name Attack Defend Cost Move Special
Light Mobile Artillery 2 2 5 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Heavy Mobile Artillery 3 2 6 2 Can support inf on 1-1 basis
Why would I ever want to purchase these units?
The armor unit which is 3 Attack, 3 defense, 2 move (can blitz, which artillery cannot) 5 IPC cost is just plain better than the Light Mobile Artillery for the same cost, and the Heavy one just isn’t good enough for 6 IPCs.
-
I figured moving 2 in addition to supporting inf was worth an extra IPC, but I see your point. my idea would only create a headache anyway w/ too many ground units.
-
I figured moving 2 in addition to supporting inf was worth an extra IPC, but I see your point. my idea would only create a headache anyway w/ too many ground units.
Many of the units you proposed suffer from that issue as well. Revised or AA50 are games played at a grand strategy level, where you command armies. The sort of division you propose concerning artillery/mech artillery/etc. is more suitable for games played at a lower level (operational/tactical)
-
exactly:
the only other land units to consider is another plane ( fighter-bomber,divebomber,torpedo bomber)
Mechanized/Motorized Infantry
fort or fortress or coastal battery
HQ unit
Heavy Bomber (as a tech unit)
Heavy tanks/ elite armor
rockets ( as per technology)
new factory and AA flak guns ( depending on if the AA42 has new ones or not)
Jet fighter ( as per technology)
possible escort carrier
tokens for oil, damaged ships, AA flak level, ports
-
OK. So, should SPA be a Tech to replace my Heavy Bombers Tech? Or are you saying keep HB tech and use separate pieces for that technology?
-
SPA replaced ‘heavy artillery’ tech. That OOB Technology is totally bogus, while SPA did require some research to develop them like heavy tanks.
-
What are we considering as SPA, becasue if you include tank destoyers i would say they should be good on the defensive, but if you are including rocket artillery they would be good on the offensive.
What if you didn’t have SPA, just a tank destoyer unita and a rocket artillery unit