How do you think about this.
Kingtiger 4-6-3-8. 46points. Same as the Super Pershing.
Jagdtiger 3-6-3-8 42points

Thanks Raider4

Sounds good, I will try this at my next game.

Grand. I'd love to hear whether you think they're either under- or over-costed, and how they play in the game.

Cheers.

And the Germans have a disadvantage. In the Command phase, they can use Blitzkrieg or do repair but the other nations can use there traits AND do repair.

Edited by user Sunday, February 26, 2017 7:35:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Wrong and wrong.
Why the hell Tiger II should have a Heavy rule when it's side armour was pretty much the same as Tiger I? And even more so for Jagdtiger? Why JTiger has Attack 7 when it's 12.8cm Kwk had a comparable penetration performance to KTigers 8.8cm?

Tiger II with Your stats, but dropping Heavy at 44 pts. makes sense.

As for JagdTiger I'll quote myself from a different thread:

Jagdtiger or officially Panzerjäger Tiger Ausf. B
Initiative 1 Attack 6 Defence 3 Damage 8 Assault Gun, Big Gun, Impenetrable, Slow 47 Pts.

Horribly overloaded, nose heavy, barely moving chassis armed with a monstrous gun and a frontal armour like nothing else fielded throughout the war.

Special rules:
Rule created to show massive difference between Jagdtiger's frontal (250mm) and side (85mm) armour. I'm thinking about...
Impenetrable - this tank ignores one Hit or Critical Hit (chosen by attacking player) from every attack made against it, which does not benefit from Side Shot rule.

Slow - this tank can only make one move (one arrow).



I was actually pondering the same problem, as I was sorta toying with the idea of "Cracking the code 2.0". Looking at Your math I believe that You right in Your assessment of M10>Achilles case (Natinal rule cost difference).
Otherwise basic system seems to work to a certain degree:
Sherman V 5 4 1 4 at 15 points
+1 +2 -1 -1 in points summary (+1 for INI, +10 for ATT, -7 for DEF, -1 for DAM equals +3 total)
Achilles 6 6 0 3 with Cautious (assuming free) at 18 points.

Sherman 75mm 6 4 1 6 at 20 points
+0 +1 -1 -3 in points summary (+0 for INI, +5 for ATT, -7 for DEF, -3 for DAM equals -5 total)
M10 6 5 0 3 with Cautious (assuming free) at 15 points.

Only when M36 comes into play things get weird, as it seems to be 2 pts too cheap.

Two remaining cases are complicated by unusual chassis in case of Germans and lack of Cautious rule for Soviets.

T-34 4 4 1 5 with Fast at 18 points
+2 +1 -1 -2 in points summary (+2 for INI, +5 for ATT, -7 for DEF, -2 for DAM equals -2 total)
M10 6 5 0 3 at 14 points.

In this case system goes out of the window, unless we'll make an assumption it's just a straightforward transfer from U.S. vehicle corrected for National rule and loss of Cautious cost.

And I'm not even going into Germans...

I kind of agree that we probably won't find the formula, even if such a thing exists, but so far we've been pretty close in points cost and that should be enough to keep us going with some vehicles until their eventual official release.

Edited by user Monday, February 27, 2017 9:59:29 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The frontal armor rule already exists in the form of the SP having 3 Defense without Heavy Tank.

Well, You can say that about pretty much every tank in game that does not have Heavy rule... And it's just my take on JagdTiger as I felt it's worth noting the thickest frontal armour ever fielded (which is about three times thicker than its sides). So how about a version closer to the core game.
1-6-3-8 Assault Gun, Blitzkrieg, Big Gun, Cost: 45

Optional rules:
Impenetrable (Cost +3) - If the tank is not defending from a side shot, re-roll one defence die.
Slow (Cost -7) - Tank can move only one arrow per turn.



Ideas can be wrong. Different does not mean right.



And why Tiger I has Heavy Tank? Is it because it was classed as Heavy Tank or because there is a specific wording of a rule in TANKS game?

"Do not substract any Defence Dice when this tank is a target of a Side Shot."

It heavily implies that tank described with that rule has a similar armour all around. In the case of Tiger I frontal armour was circa 100mm while side armour circa 80mm. King Tiger's frontal armour was 120mm on lower and 150mm on upper plate, both at a significant angle, while the side armour was only slightly better than on Tiger I. That is the reason why both KT and JT should not have a Heavy Tank rule.



Not really. The caliber is only slightly bigger than Gun mounted on IS-2 (128mm to 122mm). Main difference is that German gun from it's inception was designed as a Anti-tank gun, while Soviet one wasn't (though it proved itself in that role). Also, to quote You:



So far maximum ATT in game is 6. I reckon adding Big Gun will make for a sufficiently formidable boomstick.

I guess I'm a little late to this discussion, nevertheless did I miss the factor of gradual increase in point worth and custom point scales on game-role.

Games like these often have a growth factor for each possible stat. such as a simple multiplier like this (for example):

0 armor = 0 points
1 armor = 1 point
2 armor = 5 points
3 armor = 12 points

this is to prevent games that are not even loosely bound to reality/history to build 10/10/10/10 creatures with all special rules and build effective death-stars for maximum points. T29-fantasy-tank much.

Also these point values tend to differ on different chassis/unit groups. I saw a note going into the point value of nation abilities, but I think each special rule interacts differently with every nation and then again with every role.

For example take the T49 with its 152mm M8E1 gun. This is a very fast light tank with the equivalent of 8 attack die (in this game / not necessarily accurate). However having 8 attack die on a fast (and "big gun"!!! just to be thorough) would/should cost significantly more to field, than said gun on a Sturmtiger / Jagdtiger / ISU 152 /etc., for it counter acts their typical class/role and in THIS board game there is no "fire OR drive", "heavy recoil", "3 turn reload" or "limited ammo" rules. The only way to balance these kind of effect is by different point scales for each nation, vehicle type and at excessively growing costs.

All of this only imo, but I felt this was not (or not enough) considered making the earlier given decoding. Nevertheless I love the effort and hope that GF9 just brings out bigger heaps of content, so people like me don't need to play with custom made KV 1/2 and Kingtigers/jagd-/sturmtigers. Roll 'em out boys

PS: yes yes, none of this needs to be right and I might be way off, but these are things to consider. I tend to go with the gent who pointed out that the creators used realism only for the models and then threw stats and game testing at them as it felt right and until it felt right. Bam - we made a tank.
I think the Sherman having 6 hull/life points showing the randomness/"making-it-fun-and-playable" factor very well.

Edited by user Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:27:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think its 8.5/9 sources. the four stats, #seats, abilities, national ability (+half a source for nation-specific hero cards that form certain synergies unique to that nation), and other "legally" available tanks to that nation (to form synergies with). But yeah, they would technically all need to be accounted for.

thanks for the vote of confidence but I will join you in the inability to do so, haha. I just thought to put out some food for thought for those giving it a crack

Maybe were over think-tanking this anyhow. its not that you can create any tank you want (unless you an alternate universe-scenario). But with only tanks possible that really existed and assuming you're not a balding 47 yo playing local 9 yo's at your comic book store with your custom 20-point-10/10/10/10 Maus-batalion, each commanded by wittman-clones, for the sole purpose of winning - all of this is maybe more precaution than needed. ;)

Sadly, I think this is right, and that we'll never work out the formula, because there isn't one.

Proof?

The only difference between the Pz.III(long) and the Pz.IV(long) is 1 point of Initiative, for a cost difference of 1.

The only difference between the Pz.IV(long) and the original Pz.IVH is 1 point Defence, for a cost difference of 2.

Therefore, each 1 point of Initiative adds 1 point to the cost, each 1 point of Defence adds 2 points to the cost, right?

But, look at the two Tigers. The original Tiger I is costed at 33 points. The desert Tiger has I point of Initiative less, and I point of defence less, so should be (according to the above) be costed at 3 points less than the Tiger I at 30 points.

But it's not, it costs 29 points. Where's the other point loss come from?

As Uthak said, I think tank costs may be worked out to a formula, and then tweaked to make it feel 'right'.