Zug um Zug – Frankreich Zug um Zug – Frankreich

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 - English » Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 166
Registriert:
July 2004
Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Sat, 05 August 2017 11:46
I love M44; especially the way it uses very simple rules to simulate differences in combat capabilties etc. These are just some of my thoughts on adding/changing some of those nuances. No complicted miniature rules re-write. Take them or leave them as you please.

Tankettes:
Heavily armoured tanks get an extra figure, so it makes perfect sense that lightly armoured tankettes lose a figure. I like this rule as it makes perfect sense.

Armoures cars (A/C):
These were also generally very lightly armoured vehicles as well. The rules of Khalkhin-Gol even make reference to that fact. However they are more resilient than even heavy tanks? Speed alone cannot account for this. On average it takes 6 shots to kill a tankette, 9 for a standard tank and 12 for a heavy. An A/C also takes 12 shots to kill on average, however, as a non-retreatable flag result only gives a 1 in 6 chance of a kill, they end up better than heavies.

This gives them an almost invincible air of invulnerability.
In our games thay became the last unit you attacked, and they roamed the battlefield with freedom. It felt very wrong.

I really like the idea of a fast lightly armoured unit, able to rapidly reinforce a threatened part of the battlefield, or strike quickly into the enemy rear to seize objectives, cut of retreats and finish off hapless stragglers. But that mobilty has to come at a price. Yes they have reduced firepower, but only at range, and as their strong armour protects them we found them simply rolling up for close assault all the time.

I therefore think that they should have two figures like tankettes. In fact in official scenarios where A/C's have appeared, they are often given 2 figures. They can then be fired at as a standard armoured unit, withoiut the need to remember you fire at them as infantry and then re-roll hits for grenades.

Their reduced firepower is I believe a nod to a Machine Gun (MG) only armament. A valid point and something I have done that is very similar, but A/C's were armed similarly to many contemporary tanks and tankettes. MG only, or light guns from 20 to 45mm. I therefore would make A/C's have a standard 3/3/3 firepower.

With this I introduce an MG only armament rule that can apply to any tank, tankette or A/C unit. MG only armour units roll 1 die less when battling armour. You could just as easily use the DOW approach and make them 3/2/1.

To finish I give you some other flavour special house rules for armour that I use. Again nothing complicated, but just subtle nuances:
1) One man Turret - Armoured unit affected by this lose 1 combat dice if they battle after moving. This represents that they couldn't conduct mobile warfare very well.
2) Elite armour - I wanted to differentiate between heavy armour and elite armour. Both currently get 4 figures. I leave elite armour at 3 figures but give them an extra battle dice for 4/4/4. Heavy armour remains at 4 figures. This means you could have an elite heavy armour unit.
3) Fast Tanks - +1 movement. e.g BT7.
2) Slow Tanks - -1 movement, but never below 2. e.g.Matilda I/II
      
Zalamence
Senior Member
Mayor

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 185
Registriert:
June 2010
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Sat, 05 August 2017 17:18
A related thought:

I dislike units with rerolls very much. Command car is a super special unit with no direct combat ability, and the rerolls fit the uniqueness of that particular unit. All other types however (Patrol cars, Tigers and Armored cars) are annoying. They can and sometimes do get taken out by single rolls, but often you throw a bucketload of hits without confirming their effect. It is not fun playing against or with them, and luck is a huge factor determining the outcomes of combat they are in. I kind of see the basis for the rules ("theme") but I still don't enjoy games where I or my opponent park a Tiger in the middle of dozen units and just obliterate everything.

Even in the base game, artillery is my least favourite unit type, because sometimes it takes so much dice to get them down. Or just two lucky dice.

OK, enough ranting.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 166
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Sat, 05 August 2017 18:07
Zalamence wrote on Sat, 05 August 2017 16:18

A related thought:

I dislike units with rerolls very much. Command car is a super special unit with no direct combat ability, and the rerolls fit the uniqueness of that particular unit. All other types however (Patrol cars, Tigers and Armored cars) are annoying. They can and sometimes do get taken out by single rolls, but often you throw a bucketload of hits without confirming their effect. It is not fun playing against or with them, and luck is a huge factor determining the outcomes of combat they are in. I kind of see the basis for the rules ("theme") but I still don't enjoy games where I or my opponent park a Tiger in the middle of dozen units and just obliterate everything.

Even in the base game, artillery is my least favourite unit type, because sometimes it takes so much dice to get them down. Or just two lucky dice.

OK, enough ranting.


Yes, that has been my experience with armoured cars. It just doesn't feel right. I haven't played with Tigers yet, but my thoughts are to treat them as a six figure armoured unit. On average it should take 18 hits to kill one. Simply put a 1d6 in their hex and record the losses. Or alternatively give them a standard 3 figures but only score hits on a tank or grenade. At least then you have a target to go at. These figures are also virtually immune to being forced to retreat when cut off. Normally a very valid military tactic, but almost useless against this type. Giving them a finite figure total with normal battle and retreat rules would solve this.
      
50th
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1584
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Sat, 05 August 2017 18:27
I can see the rule with Tigers. There is a picture of a Tiger that was hit by Sherman tanks forty some odd times without penetrating it. But I play a house rule with Patrol Cars, Command Cars and now Armored Cars, on those considered to be infantry, re-rolls of grenade and infantry are a hit, on those that are considered to be armor re-rolls of armor or grenade are considered to be a hit. This takes care of the problem to my satisfaction. (I do leave the Tiger at a re-roll of a grenade because it is tough to penetrate) Try this rule next time and see if you get better results.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 166
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Sat, 05 August 2017 22:45
I found this house rule while looking at totally unrelated stuff. I like it:

"Use 2 figs for Tiger tank unit, and count Armor and Grenade as hit when re-roll.
Same number of dice needed on average to kill the unit, but chance less a factor."

It's by tinsoldier.
      
secret_strategem
Junior Member
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 10
Registriert:
February 2011
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Mon, 11 September 2017 05:14
50th wrote on Sun, 06 August 2017 02:27

I can see the rule with Tigers. There is a picture of a Tiger that was hit by Sherman tanks forty some odd times without penetrating it. But I play a house rule with Patrol Cars, Command Cars and now Armored Cars, on those considered to be infantry, re-rolls of grenade and infantry are a hit, on those that are considered to be armor re-rolls of armor or grenade are considered to be a hit. This takes care of the problem to my satisfaction. (I do leave the Tiger at a re-roll of a grenade because it is tough to penetrate) Try this rule next time and see if you get better results.



I play this exact same house rule. It makes the game feel more realistic indeed.
      
Achtung Panzer
Senior Member
Leutnant

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1144
Registriert:
December 2007
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Mon, 11 September 2017 19:16
My issue with the Tiger House Rule is that Tigers were mechanically unreliable. So the hit & re-roll isn't just about knocking it out but other factors which make it inoperable. Look at the history of Tiger 131 at Bovington Tank Museum, UK - a lucky hit damaged the turret turning mechanism (it didn't actually penetrate the armour) so the crew bailed out.

Lucky roll indeed!
      
LooneyLlama
Senior Member
Lucky Bastard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 885
Registriert:
March 2008
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Mon, 11 September 2017 21:06
I found that when writing scenarios Tiger tanks and artillery can really mess things up when trying to get a balance to the scenario. I try to keep them to a minimum. In an Overlord scenario of mine we played at the WBC my Tiger was taken out with the first roll against it ruining my section of the scenario. They're just too unpredictable.
Artillery is just too powerful to place many in any scenario. I always thought that if you were able to get a unit next to an artillery unit there should be some hit bonus, say stars and grenades.
At the WBC tournament I rolled 32 dice against an armored car(don't ask me why) without killing it. I noticed the same things happening to other players that attacked the A/C. They just run wild all over the map.
They will never be in a scenario I write.
      
red_zebra
Senior Member
Lieutenant

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 356
Registriert:
February 2005
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Thu, 14 September 2017 21:46
I think that the armoured car rules reflects their combat capabilities during the Khalkhin-Gol era.

There was not a lot of AT weapons at that time, their armour was enough to withstand small arms fire.

They where faster and some had as much hitting power as a light tank from the same period.

Now, IMHO, those same rules should not be used to represent Armoured Cars in France 44 or the Eastern Front, where they where very fragile.
      
Major Duncan
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 166
Registriert:
July 2004
Re:Armoured Cars, Tankettes and my general thoughts on armour Mon, 25 September 2017 16:08
red_zebra wrote on Thu, 14 September 2017 20:46

I think that the armoured car rules reflects their combat capabilities during the Khalkhin-Gol era.

There was not a lot of AT weapons at that time, their armour was enough to withstand small arms fire.


Yes, I understand that argument, but why wouldn't the same apply to tanks of that time. Why would armoured cars benefit from poor Anti-tank weapons while tanks don't?
      
    
Vorheriges Thema:Memoir'44 editor not working
Nächstes Thema:Brandenburgers?
Gehen Sie zum Forum: