Anti Tank Guns V Tanks

Laffe said:
Come on, guys how hard can it be???

1) Every gun has X number of crew (usually three). You have to kill them all to silence the gun.
2) There are no stats for the gun, because you fire at the crew.
3) The crew get cover from the gun shield.
4) You can fire at the crew if you can see the gun, even if the crew hides behind the gun shield.

To me, all the above seems logical and realistic. Only omission seems to be the re-crewing issue, but that is probably a game speed/balance thing, otherwise it would take forever to knock out a gun, and a beardy tactic would be to buy lots of cheap squads to hang around near any guns. You could do a house rule if you wanted to though.

"Amen!"
" So say we all!"
or whatever works for you...
Laffe sums it up real good IMO.
 
Agis said:
Laffe said:
Come on, guys how hard can it be???

1) Every gun has X number of crew (usually three). You have to kill them all to silence the gun.
2) There are no stats for the gun, because you fire at the crew.
3) The crew get cover from the gun shield.
4) You can fire at the crew if you can see the gun, even if the crew hides behind the gun shield.

To me, all the above seems logical and realistic. Only omission seems to be the re-crewing issue, but that is probably a game speed/balance thing, otherwise it would take forever to knock out a gun, and a beardy tactic would be to buy lots of cheap squads to hang around near any guns. You could do a house rule if you wanted to though.

"Amen!"
" So say we all!"
or whatever works for you...
Laffe sums it up real good IMO.

Someone watches Battlestar Galactica!
 
with fewer than optimal crew at some point the AT/Artillery guns ROF will drop as would its ability to move.

By the way I think that an AT if it has not on the previuos turn should be able to give reaction fire during current turn but then becomes Slow again i.e. cannot give reaction fire for reaminder of this turn or whole of next turn.
 
with fewer than optimal crew at some point the AT/Artillery guns ROF will drop as would its ability to move.

True, but then a tank should lose either speed or weaponry with each hit, and a machinegun should jam with annoying regularity once the loader isn't there to feed ammo belts properly anymore. It's easier to ignore the effects, though, for the sake of speeding up the game.
 
I know you didn't want any house rules but graywinter came up with a good one if you pay 50% more points for the gun you gain the ambush skill works really great :D
 
Doesnt this just come down to players being logical about it all?


But Im a bit non-plussed by your comment Agis that '3' men were the historical crew for A/T guns.

While it maybe easier in game terms, and I have no problem with that, the historical crew for most A/T guns was certainly not three.

The British 6-Pounder for example required a crew of six. In use with the Americans as the 57mm gun, the crew could be as large as 8 men.

The German 50mm PAK 38 had a 5 man crew and the PAK 40 5-6 men depending on the time. The 7.62mm PAK 36 also had a six man crew.

Only the 28mm sPzB 41 had a crew of three. Even the 37mm PaK 36 had a designated crew of five.

I would be interested to know why the decision was taken to allow only 3 men as it is not due to historical precedent.
 
the man from la mancha said:
I would be interested to know why the decision was taken to allow only 3 men as it is not due to historical precedent.

Basically it boiled down to a game/ army list design decision. :wink:
I wanted the AT guns to be fairly generic.
 
Agis said:
the man from la mancha said:
I would be interested to know why the decision was taken to allow only 3 men as it is not due to historical precedent.

Basically it boiled down to a game/ army list design decision. :wink:
I wanted the AT guns to be fairly generic.

That I can understand... Makes it easier gamingwise. Rapid Fire uses the same principle.
 
Back
Top