Tanks
»
Tanks
»
General Discussion
»
Ideas for new cards
Rank: Commander
Posts: 138
Thanks: 48 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 19 post(s)
|
A bit of light thread necromancy...
Gentlemen, I'd appreciate a bit of a feedback, as I'd like do Stats for one of my favourite tanks - Panzerspahwagen II L 'Luchs', my admiration for which can be pinned on my time in WoT. So I was thinking...
7-2-0-3 Statline
Blitzkrieg,
Fast,
Recon,
plus something to make it at least somwhat useful in a firefight. Giving it Att 3 would be unfair on Stuart, as Luchs only had a 20mm autocannon. Hence I brainstormed something like this...
Light Gun/Autocannon - +1 Attack when target suffers from Side Shot penalty;
Whole package costed at 11 Points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 43
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: JagdWehrwolf  A bit of light thread necromancy...
Gentlemen, I'd appreciate a bit of a feedback, as I'd like do Stats for one of my favourite tanks - Panzerspahwagen II L 'Luchs', my admiration for which can be pinned on my time in WoT. So I was thinking...
7-2-0-3 Statline
Blitzkrieg,
Fast,
Recon,
plus something to make it at least somwhat useful in a firefight. Giving it Att 3 would be unfair on Stuart, as Luchs only had a 20mm autocannon. Hence I brainstormed something like this...
Light Gun/Autocannon - +1 Attack when target suffers from Side Shot penalty;
Whole package costed at 11 Points. Sounds about right. Restrict Crew to just 2 slots?
Cheers.
|
 1 user thanked Raider4 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 309
Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 38 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Raider4 Originally Posted by: JagdWehrwolf A bit of light thread necromancy...
Gentlemen, I'd appreciate a bit of a feedback, as I'd like do Stats for one of my favourite tanks - Panzerspahwagen II L 'Luchs', my admiration for which can be pinned on my time in WoT. So I was thinking...
7-2-0-3 Statline
Blitzkrieg,
Fast,
Recon,
plus something to make it at least somwhat useful in a firefight. Giving it Att 3 would be unfair on Stuart, as Luchs only had a 20mm autocannon. Hence I brainstormed something like this...
Light Gun/Autocannon - +1 Attack when target suffers from Side Shot penalty;
Whole package costed at 11 Points. Sounds about right. Restrict Crew to just 2 slots?
Cheers. The 20mm gun on Luchs has a high ROF .... 3 attack dice is more appropriare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 138
Thanks: 48 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 19 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Raider4
Sounds about right. Restrict Crew to just 2 slots?
Cheers.
Yes. In such a pipsqueak there's no space for more. Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The 20mm gun on Luchs has a high ROF .... 3 attack dice is more appropriare. I see Your point, but think about it this way. Does it matter how many rounds You're going to pour into Your target, when any one of them does not stand a chance to penetrate it's armour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 309
Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 38 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: JagdWehrwolf Originally Posted by: Raider4
Sounds about right. Restrict Crew to just 2 slots?
Cheers.
Yes. In such a pipsqueak there's no space for more. Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The 20mm gun on Luchs has a high ROF .... 3 attack dice is more appropriare. I see Your point, but think about it this way. Does it matter how many rounds You're going to pour into Your target, when any one of them does not stand a chance to penetrate it's armour? If that were true, then it would matter. However, the 20mm kwk/L55 can perforate most light tanks, range to target being the issue. I would submit to you that the "range" in Tanks is rather short: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/20-mm.asphttp://mr-home.staff.she...c.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdfhttp://www.achtungpanzer.../panzerkampfwagen-ii.htmIn these references, the penetration of the Lynx's gun inside of 200 yards is lethal to the flank and rear armor of the Stuart and can easily penetrate its front armor at 100 yards. The 37mm gun is more effective at range, however it's ROF is lower. The Stuart has good armor for its type though (much better than the Lynx)...giving it 0 armor was probably correct, but its 0 is a lot better than others in that category...I see it as almost worthy of a 1. Of course, penetration isn't always necessary. You can take out tracks, wheels, optics, etc....addressed by Tanks critical hits. ROF matters. I see very few guns worthy of a 2 in Tanks. Heavy MG's, antitank rifles, short barreled guns such as the 37mm on some French tanks and the 57mm on early Chi Ha tanks.... The guns with a 3 will be hard-pressed to hurt anything with armor 1 or greater in the game. That seems about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 257
Thanks: 44 times
Was thanked: 52 time(s) in 40 post(s)
|
Heat stress, warping, unriveting/welding and simply vibrating a plate of armor can cause it to fail against challenges it would ordinarily succeed, making rof a valid counter to lackluster penetration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 138
Thanks: 48 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 19 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Zerstorer If that were true, then it would matter. However, the 20mm kwk/L55 can perforate most light tanks, range to target being the issue. I would submit to you that the "range" in Tanks is rather short:... I agree with all statements. Thought while theoryhammer-izing I tend to see 100 meters/yards as in-game Short Range. Originally Posted by: Zerstorer In these references, the penetration of the Lynx's gun inside of 200 yards is lethal to the flank and rear armor of the Stuart and can easily penetrate its front armor at 100 yards. Disagree. 20mm PanzerGranate 39 penetration value for 100 meters is given at 20mm at 30 degrees from vertical. M3 Stuart had 38mm at 17 degrees on the driver plate, 16mm at almost 70 degrees on upper nose plate and 44mm at 23 degrees on lower nose plate. Outside of blind luck (like hitting through driver port for example) there was a marginal chance of causing real damage. Similar goes for the sides where Stuart uniformely had 25mm of armour, but as it was vertical penetration might be possible. Only for PanzerGranate 40 it becomes feasible with 49mm penetration. But this ammo was quite rare (APCR with tungsten core, though apparently steel cores were also produced). Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The 37mm gun is more effective at range, however it's ROF is lower. Stuarts M6 is more effective, period. Available comparative data between the two shows almost tripled penetration value (around 500 meters/yards mark). No argument regarding RoF, as it was hand loaded. Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The Stuart has good armor for its type though (much better than the Lynx)...giving it 0 armor was probably correct, but its 0 is a lot better than others in that category...I see it as almost worthy of a 1. Again disagree, to an extent. Luchs was not so flimsy. Comparing the Stuarts data given above it had 30mm at 10 degrees on the driver plate, 20mm at almost 74 degrees on upper nose plate and 30mm at 22 degrees on lower nose plate. I wouldn't call it much better. Originally Posted by: Zerstorer Of course, penetration isn't always necessary. You can take out tracks, wheels, optics, etc... addressed by Tanks critical hits. ROF matters. I still remain unconvinced wondering how much of an impact a gun like KwK 30 can have on a track... Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The guns with a 3 will be hard-pressed to hurt anything with armor 1 or greater in the game. That seems about right. From a game meta point of view I kind of agree. Originally I was planning Autocannon rule as '+1 Att against targets with 0 Def', but I felt it should have a chance against other targes, so I switched to Side Shot requirement. Ideally I'd combine the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 95
Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 13 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Zerstorer Originally Posted by: Zerstorer The guns with a 3 will be hard-pressed to hurt anything with armor 1 or greater in the game. That seems about right. From a game meta point of view I kind of agree. Originally I was planning Autocannon rule as '+1 Att against targets with 0 Def', but I felt it should have a chance against other targes, so I switched to Side Shot requirement. Ideally I'd combine the two. ---> the +1 against def 0 is a great idea. Or maybe that there is no cover against this gun as it sprays a whole area?! "when firing ignores targets cover (if applicable)" Or on that note" ignores 1 defence through movement and all cover"?! Possibly +1 attack at short range alternatively? stackable with an bloodthirsty driver for attk 2/4 in CC. to represent the ability to spray all hatches vents, exhausts etc at short range? i think attk 2 is good for the luchs. overall I think ur card is great! maybe bump its initiative up to 8 (or 9?!). don't see why it wouldn't be as fast as a Cromwell - or faster. While high rof mayb be able to expose bad manufacturing (in some cases maybe), I don't think this is a valid point here as we generalize for the effectiveness of everything. Imo the very rare chance of luck to bust an old welding or split the turretmount or such is represented in the possibility to actually score a hit at all in the Luchs (rather than giving it attk 0)... Point is: I don't think freak incidents should determine the general ruling. No Luchs-commander would hammer an IS2 to see if its welding may or may not break (rather: have a reliable chance to achieve anything). Something like the rules for Big Gun could work here possibly as a compromise, upgrading one unblocked hit to crit, as its covering its target in shrapnel and explosions/impacts, hitting a weakspot, if there is one. however "Big gun" on a tank with 20mm gun sounds silly, I'm only looking at the rule. ---> I believe (/hope) sooner or later we will see a boatload of ineffective combat vehicles that have other, more subtle influence on the game. Radiotanks/command tanks and Recovery vehicles to name two of the top of my head. Edited by user Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:32:33 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 95
Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 13 post(s)
|
Another card just came to mind, and I know its gonna get alotta heat:
Recovered Tank - 8 points (?! would need a lot of testing)
You may field a tank of any other nation equipped with this card. The tank will lose half of its initiative (rounded down), -1 attack and -2 hullpoints and may only be equipped with your nations hero & upgrade cards. Note: You need to pay the basic costs of the recovered vehicle as well. The recovered vehicle loses its national trait (NOT replaced).
Your tank crew got their hands on a barely damaged enemy tank. The problem is reading foreign instructions while being shelled though!
not sure if national or global. think this could make for some interesting re-designs. or just a stylish DAK force!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 309
Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 38 post(s)
|
Remember that this is a game with balanced 100 ph lists. It bears a resemblance to history only. Ranking guns by attack dice is not a scientific art from what I see. The Panzer II and Stuart were the quickly seen as ineffective against other tanks and relegated to lesser duties. In game terms, I see them as roughly equal. If anything, I would give the Stuart armor
1, but not rate the Panzer IIL's gun as less than 3. Many a tanker abandoned their vehicles to critical hits that were not penetrations. Some lost their nerve when confronted with sheer volumes
Of ineffective fire. I can see pathetic antiquated or infantry guns, such as the Puteaux 37mm short, Japanese 57mm short, or the Boyes ATR as a 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 43
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
I reckon the difference between an Attack value of 2 and one of 3 is only 1 point anyway.
So, Luchs with Attack 2 = 11 points, with Attack 3 = 12 points.
Not enough to get terribly excited about, For what it's worth, I'd go with Attack 2, but would be more than happy to play it as Attack 3.
Anything with only a Boyes or an MG as it's main armament really shouldn't be in the game. Bad luck, Matilda I fans!
Cheers.Edited by user Wednesday, September 13, 2017 4:55:43 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 309
Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 38 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Raider4 I reckon the difference between an Attack value of 2 and one of 3 is only 1 point anyway.
So, Luchs with Attack 2 = 11 points, with Attack 3 = 12 points.
Not enough to get terribly excited about, For what it's worth, I'd go with Attack 2, but would be more than happy to play it as Attack 3.
Anything with only a Boyes or an MG as it's main armament really shouldn't be in the game. Bad luck, Matilda I fans!
Cheers. A difference if +1 attack dice is more like 5 points. Check the cracking the code thread for ideas. The Sherman is a good example....75mm gun, 4 attack dice, 20 pts. 76mm gun, 5 attack dice, 25 points. I am inclined to think the price difference might be lower for lower attack ratings...perhaps a 3 point shift? I would think the Luchs is close to a Honey...perhaps a point higher if u go initiative 8...so 13 points? Edited by user Wednesday, September 13, 2017 8:13:47 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 43
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: Zerstorer A difference if +1 attack dice is more like 5 points. Yes, going from Attack 4 to Attack 5 is +5 points (Sherman 75 to Sherman 76).
But, going from Attack 3 to Attack 4 is only +3 points (Pz.III(Short) to Pz.III(Long).
If 3 -->4 is +3pts, and 4 --> 5 is +5pts, then going from 5 --> 6 will be +7pts, yes? (This works for both the Sherman(76) and Pershing, going up to Super Pershing).
So, following the same formula, going from 2 --> 3 would be only +1 point, I think.
The actual formula I use is:
Points = (Attack*Attack) - (Attack*4) + 3
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 257
Thanks: 44 times
Was thanked: 52 time(s) in 40 post(s)
|
How does that math check out going from a US m10 to Achilles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 43
Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: CmdrRook How does that math check out going from a US m10 to Achilles? Yeah, there are a small number of vehicles that seem to break any formula. Both the Achilles and the Jackson appear to be wildly under-costed to me - both should be 4 points more. SU-100 should cost 3 points more.
I also reckon that that both the StuG and the Crusader are costed at 2 points more than they should be.
Jut proves that I haven't got something that's perfect, but does seem to give decent results most of the time.
Cheers.Edited by user Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:40:35 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Spelling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cards from Axis&Allies miniatures. You can see front/rear defense, firings close/medium/long range and point cost.  Edited by user Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08:19 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanks
»
Tanks
»
General Discussion
»
Ideas for new cards
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.