Sighs & Portents: Soviets need Tank buster plane variant
- Thread starter JayRaider
- Start date
this could be due to the holly wood style most companies apply to tigers and panthers, they where contrary to most thoughts quite simple to kill.
this was due to bad coupling on the turrets and the stress the tracks where under from the wight of the armour and awful housing of the fuel.
gemrman tanks hated russian tanks as if they tried to maintain the speed and distance the t34s achived the vehicle would become a victim to mechanical failure, to the degree many german tank drivers preferd captured uncomfortable rusian machines. when attacking german tanks in the war my grandad was instructed to cause mechanical failure in the tanks, so other men could then assualt the tank or starve it out or allow it to surrender. Trouble is that pre sherman it was thought the tiger was imune to tanks (not infantry)
problem game designers have is how do you get all these crazy varables into a game system, yes you could have infantry take out a tank, but then they would be able to take out every tank and become over powered.... or have wierd effects upon infantry for example....
as for the aircraft the subject of this post,,, it was called the tank killer and they wracked up a huge number of tank kills in WW2 !!! they where also known as the flying tank due to the armour that protected the pilot.
6's at the rear does seem a bit odd,, maybe its been read wrong or a rule has been missed ? without looking cant say much more than that to be honest.
this was due to bad coupling on the turrets and the stress the tracks where under from the wight of the armour and awful housing of the fuel.
gemrman tanks hated russian tanks as if they tried to maintain the speed and distance the t34s achived the vehicle would become a victim to mechanical failure, to the degree many german tank drivers preferd captured uncomfortable rusian machines. when attacking german tanks in the war my grandad was instructed to cause mechanical failure in the tanks, so other men could then assualt the tank or starve it out or allow it to surrender. Trouble is that pre sherman it was thought the tiger was imune to tanks (not infantry)
problem game designers have is how do you get all these crazy varables into a game system, yes you could have infantry take out a tank, but then they would be able to take out every tank and become over powered.... or have wierd effects upon infantry for example....
as for the aircraft the subject of this post,,, it was called the tank killer and they wracked up a huge number of tank kills in WW2 !!! they where also known as the flying tank due to the armour that protected the pilot.
6's at the rear does seem a bit odd,, maybe its been read wrong or a rule has been missed ? without looking cant say much more than that to be honest.
2xD6+2 Is probably the right stat for the 23mm cannon or maybe could be pushed to +3. The German Flack quad 20mm has been prooved in our games to be way over powered with its 4xD6+3 (plus re-rolls) and almost guarantees a kill every time it shoots at aircraft and so we have reduced it to +2, which gives a more balanced game, especially when fired at light vehicles and infantry!
So I suggest you play several games with the current stats and then change to +3 to see ifthat works better, but if your opponant has a Flak38 you will be shot down before destroying any tanks.
So I suggest you play several games with the current stats and then change to +3 to see ifthat works better, but if your opponant has a Flak38 you will be shot down before destroying any tanks.
Indeed, way, way overpowered. The flakvierling was, after all, a quad mount to make up for its poor rate of fire and reliability. Number of barrels does not a super weapon make (and at sea the single 20mm guns used by British MTBs and US PTs was considered superior to the German quad 20mm for this and reliability reasons).
For the Il-2, you just need to equip it with some ordnance - the forthcoming Air Power supplement breaks down ordnance loads for every aircraft featured within (and the Il-2 has some pretty funky kit available for it 
).
Howver, we'll see if we can preview the Il-2 and all its options early in S&P.
).Howver, we'll see if we can preview the Il-2 and all its options early in S&P.
DM said:
Space, as much as anything - there is always going to be a limit as to what goes in the main rulebook, and if we start chopping out ordnance options, where do you stop?
This way, we can provide players with a complete ordnance list for every aircraft they are likely to get their hands on.
There is a lot of wasted space in the rulebook that could have been tidied up such as the duplication weapons stats after each list could have been reduced to one at the end of each nationality and the duplication of German halftacks with just a weapon change could have been reduced to 1 stat per vehicle type with options for armament.
hithero said:
There would have been complaints about flipping back and forth in the book.
hithero said:
Agis felt it was clearer to have one entry for each one.
Opinions vary!
First off I think its bad taste to imply there is wasted space in anyone's book.Criticism is one thing but that's someones art. Actually, its quite the opposite. There is hardly any fluff or other extra stuff. Its all rules, units, and scenarios.
Second, the sturmovik was a big time tank killer and it will be great to see it in the upcoming air book.
Lastly, I agree, I really miss the cards. It would be great if MGP would hire either Hiro or Pietia to produce cards for the game. Those two really have some game.
Second, the sturmovik was a big time tank killer and it will be great to see it in the upcoming air book.
Lastly, I agree, I really miss the cards. It would be great if MGP would hire either Hiro or Pietia to produce cards for the game. Those two really have some game.
