There are three points to address about TDs. I am referring to the classic TD
design as a WWII German approach. Fixed mounted, large weapon on a low
silhouette heavily armoured hull.
Firstly the fact that a similarly equipped turreted and fixed mount vehicle
cost the same number of points. This is clearly unfair. The turreted vehicle
should be worth substantially more points. This would require more experience
than I currently have but it may be worth reducing the points
cost of a fixed mounted weapon by 20%, thoughts?
Secondly the classic TD design should allow the mounting of a larger weapon.
To address this I would propose allowing fixed mount weapons to be
VSC+2 maximum. The vehicle would still have to use the proper space for
the weapon. This weapon would still be subject to the reduced cost of a fixed
mount mentioned above.
Thirdly, to increase the armour the vehicle must use spaces equal the VSC.
Armour increase is limited to one factor. The signature of vehicle remains the
same, you can just put more punch in a smaller chassis. I think that it
wouldn't be too unreasonable to allow the overall armour to be increased by
one, you still have to pay the points for it. Thoughts?
Optional, if you think that the TD needs more disadvantage with its new big
gun and armour there are a couple of points you could incorporate. TDs with
oversize guns should pay for Fast Tracked/Wheeled and get Slow movement
and fast is not possible. Or limit the armour increase to only the frontal or
frontal and side armour.
Here are two examples of basic tanks:
MBT Size 3, Armour 3, Signature 3 15x1.6=24 FGP 14.4 FT 9.6 MDC 4 Turreted 40
Sup FC 24 Enh ECM 30 Total 142
TD Size 2, Armour 3, Signature 2 10x1.6=16 FGP 9.6 FT 6.4 MDC 4 Fixed 40 or 32
Sup FC 24 Enh ECM 30 Total 126 or 118
If the points spread seems to be too much I suggest that you try to attack
with several TD platoons. Their turreted opponents are much more flexible.
They are much like the Force, Yoda says you must use them for defense and
never for attack!
Murray Baines (250)356-9668
> Murray Baines <MBaines@vines.gems.gov.bc.ca> wrote:
> There are three points to address about TDs. I am referring to the
Based on modifying an existing MBT hull design to fit a larger gun.
> Firstly the fact that a similarly equipped turreted and fixed mount
A turret mount weapon occupies size class * 3 capacity. A hull mount weapon
occupies size class * 2 capacity. Therefore you can put more things into a
vehicle with a hull mount, or a bigger main gun. A points cost differential
isn't really required, as the capacity difference makes the difference.
> Secondly the classic TD design should allow the mounting of a larger
Yes. I agree with this as well. Even to the extent of allowing size 6 main
guns.
> This weapon would still be subject to the reduced cost of a fixed
No, as I said above.
> Thirdly, to increase the armour the vehicle must use spaces equal the
Just move one level of armour from rear to front of vehicle is easier.
> Armour increase is limited to one factor.
Yes. We don't want too many changes at once.
> The signature of vehicle remains
Standard design system can take this into account already. Lowering an
existing hull design by removing the turret should reduce signature (increase
signature die size). Using a smaller chassis is not the WWII German design
method. They used the same chassis design, modified to accept a larger gun in
a hull mount.
> I think that it
No. Just move the armour around a bit from the rear to the front.
> Optional, if you think that the TD needs more disadvantage with its new
No. Changes design system too much.
> Or limit the armour increase to only the frontal or ...
Yes.
> ... frontal and side armour.
No. Lower hull silhouette should improve signature.
> Here are two examples of basic tanks:
> TD Size 2, Armour 3, Signature 2
Hey, who shrunk the tank! You switched hull sizes! The TD variant should stay
the same vehicle size class as the MBT! That's what it's based on after all!
You're making a different vehicle with similar stats!
> If the points spread seems to be too much I suggest that you try to
Absolutely. You destroy the assaulting tank force first moving backwards as
necessary, then move forward to new defensive lines. If you're getting
outflanked, move back.
> They are much like the Force, Yoda says you must use them for defence
Yes.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Or the max weapon size limit.
> > (increase signature die size). Using a smaller chassis is not the
It was more a case of being able to fit a bigger gun (and actually useful) on
a chassis you already had a production line set up for.
The 38t chassis and running gear, which was completely obsolete except for
internal security and anti partizan was 'recycled' as a decent tank destroyer.
The Pz 3, likewise obsolete as a MBT gained a new lease on life as an assault
gun. Similarly the Pz 4.
The Jagdpanther on the other hand was just plain _mean_.. (Sillynesses
like the Jagdtiger don't count.)
The point is, it takes time to set up a production line, and if you can get
more use out of an existing one, and even remanufacture old tanks, so much the
better.
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Alex Shvarts, Andrew & Brian Martin wrote:
I don't quite agree. I usually end up with extra space anyway (and no, taking
a smaller hull is not the answer due to the armor limit).
> (increase signature die size). Using a smaller chassis is not the WWII
Hetzer doesn't count? Anyway, it's a matter of definitions...
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Barry Cadwgan wrote:
> It was more a case of being able to fit a bigger gun (and actually
Yes, I fully agree. But some designs (e.g. StugIII, Hetzer) were actually
good AFVs unlike stop-gap measures like Marders.
> The Pz 3, likewise obsolete as a MBT gained a new lease on life as an
Except that StugIII production started long before PzIII became obsolete. Long
barrel Stugs did help with T34's before PzIVf2 came out, though.
> The Jagdpanther on the other hand was just plain _mean_..
(Sillynesses
> like the Jagdtiger don't count.)
The Jagdtiger was simply a propaganda weapon. I don't think they ever got any
to the front (or maybe something like 5 of them).
> The point is, it takes time to set up a production line, and if you
Yup. The germans actually used quite a lot of captured/remanuctured
AFVs. Not as MBTs, but for SP arty, recovery vehicles etc.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
Well, good defensive AFVs anyway. Putting in an attack is a little more
difficult.
In games like Spearhead, open topped vehicles like the Marder have a firing
order advantage over fully enclosed vehicles. But then, given their armour,
they need all the help they can get!
> > The Pz 3, likewise obsolete as a MBT gained a new lease on life as
True. My point was that by 1943, the Pz3 as a MBT was not a going proposition.
The Stug was still useful.
> > The Jagdpanther on the other hand was just plain _mean_..
(Sillynesses
> > like the Jagdtiger don't count.)
Oh, they did run one battalion (two operational companies), 512th, which was
wiped out on the western front in 1945 (Ruhr pocket) and was reformed in 1945
and again wiped out in the attack on Paderborn.
All in all it was not a significant weapon. (Scary if it was shooting at you
though.)
> > The point is, it takes time to set up a production line, and if you
Heh. Lots of french stuff... the Lorrain-schlepper (sp) is a
particularly clumsy looking beast.
> On 10 Sep 98, at 15:32, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Barry Cadwgan wrote:
I think I read somewhere that StugIII's as a class got the largest number of
enemy tank kills out of any other class of german armoured vehicle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Richard Slattery wrote:
> I think I read somewhere that StugIII's as a class got the largest
Possibly because they were the only class of german AFVs that were around
(in a tank-killing form) for the entire war. Even shorty-stugs could
knock
out early war light tanks, though the 75/L24 was definitely not a tank
killer gun.