AI Values

Sharpe · AI Values

Proposed baselines (feel free to modify to conform to AV range boxes)

75/L24 (0-3) 8/ (4-8) 7/ (9-10) 6

M4A1 Sherman (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7

105mm (0-4) 9/ (5-10) 8/ (11-20) 7
-1 to Cover Rolls vs soldiers

150mm (0-4) 10/ (5-10) 9/ (11-20) 8
-1 to Cover Rolls vs soldiers

All attacks with range 11+ must have a spotter and are resolved as Indirect Fire.

Am I on the right track?

TorontoBizz

Looks good.

NeuralDream

At short range, tanks typically use their MGs. HE ammo is used against static positions, such as entrenched MGs and of course against Anti-Tank Guns. Most tanks, such as M4A1 Sherman and Stug, had no more than 12 HE rounds and they couldn't spend them against infantry unless in exceptional situations. When a tank entered an enemy town it would usually work its MGs.

Would you consider having two Anti-Soldier values (like the two Anti-air values of aircraft)? One Vs. Soldier-Infantry and one Vs. Soldier-Artillery, with the latter including Anti-tanks, Anti-air, entrenched MGs and other practically stationary units?

Zeus

Why the difference between a Panzer IV and a Sherman? They both fired a 75mm HE shell, with almost equal explosive filler, and both had coaxial and hull-mounted MGs, so even if you combine main gun and MG's into a single AI stat they should be the same AI-wise.

BTW the hull mounted MG could only fire forward obviously, so if you combine it into the main attack stats, it should only apply when attacking a target in front of the tank.

In gun-armed tanks, the MG's were mainly meant for close-in defense against infantry, while the main gun was the main offensive weapon. Maybe it's an idea to have a "Turret MG" ability allowing Vehicles to make defensive fire attacks against enemy infantry moving into their hex (using MG-only stats)? This would give them some defense against enemy infantry swarming in to close assault it - exactly what the MG's were meant for! You could choose to only allow it if the tank is in a clear hex, to represent it being a lot easier for infantry to close with an enemy tank under cover of buildings, trees or whatever.

The recommended ratio of the StuG's total of 44 rounds was 12% (5) AT, 65% (29) HE and 23% (10) smoke, according to Osprey's New Vanguard 019. This sounds a bit more believeable than only 12 HE shells Smile

, as after all it's an assault gun - it was meant mainly to deal with enemy infantry and fixed positions, and if possible leave enemy tanks to the high velocity gun equipped tanks.

The Sherman and Panzer IV (up to F1) had the infantry support role as well, so while I can't find exact figures right now, I doubt that less than 50% of their ammunition would be of the HE type. (New Vanguard 028 does mention that while a full range of ammunition types was developed for the 75mm L/24 howitzer (HE, AP, smoke, cannister), it essentially remained an HE weapon system.

NeuralDream

I'll come back with exact numbers or HE shells, because I had StugB, not G in mind. Let me see...
Also, IMO the hull-mounted MG should be ignored. It just had too narrow front view to be of much use IMO.

NeuralDream

My sources have the following initial configurations:

Tiger: AP 46, HE 46
Pz4G: AP 72, HE 15
Pz3H: AP 99, HE 24
M10: AP 45, HE 10
Sherman 76: AP 56, HE 15
Char B1 (not the hull-mounted gun) : AP 29, He 45
Stuart: AP 144, HE 30
S-35: AP 90, HE 28
R-35: AP 30, HE 40
H-39: AP 38, HE 42

These are the initial, average recommended numbers of shells for each tank. Of course, a tank commander could decide to take different distribution of shells depending on mission.

I don't have a strong opinion on this subject. I just wanted the other side of the matter to be heard. E.g. do we really want Panhards and 232s to be worse than stugs against mobile infantry ? Especially at distance 0-1.

Sharpe

Zeus

NeuralDream

NeuralDream

So, do we go with one combined Anti-Soldier attack or one Anti-Infantry & one Anti-Artillery like we did for the aircraft? The latter is easier to stat, because Sharpe has already prepared the HE-based stats I had prepared the MG-based stats. The former could also be done somehow, I guess.

Sharpe

I'd prefer one value. Use MG values out to 400m if those are higher than HE.

Zeus

Let's try to get this sorted Smile

!

What are the decisions to be made before vehicle's AI stats can be determined? Some may already have been made but haven't been published yet, or I just didn't see them Embarassed

, and in some cases, I might be stating the obvious.

1. Have a single anti-Soldier stat line, or an anti-Infantry and an anti-Artillery stat line?

2. Model separate weapons separately (coaxial MG's, hull mounted MG's, rear turret/hull MG's), or make a single attack value representing the overall firepower? Or model all turret weapons as one combined stat, and model other weapons separately?

3. If modeling all weapons separately, you'll need to determine which weapon is considered the main weapon (the one that is represented by the attack stats). Then you'll need to determine how to handle the other weapons the tank has, if at all (turret guns, hull mounted guns, coaxial MG's, hull mounted MG's, rear turret/hull MG's).

4. If modeling turret weapons or the complete armament as one combined stat, you'll need to determine the main weapon (usually the only non-MG weapon it has), and use its stats as a base. Then, there should be a rule how much any additional weapon (usually MG's) adds to the stats. There should be a difference, however small, between a tank with only a 75mm low velocity gun, one with that gun and a coaxial MG, and one with those guns and a hull-mounted MG etc etc.

5. Of course, you could also model each and every gun separately, with multiple attack stat lines, and have rules for how many guns can be fired when moving or remaining stationary.

In all cases, it would come in handy to have a list of all guns, including MG's (some vehicles and even tanks only had MG's), with their AI stats. These are the stats a vehicle would get if that gun was the only weapon it carried. Then you can either add the effects of any additional weapons (ie their separate abilities or whatever if they're handled separately, or their bonus to the main attack stats).

To illustrate: I myself chose to model each weapon separately, using the following guidelines:

-- a single MG in the front turret has 7/6/5, and dual MG's in the front turret have 8/7/6.

-- the main attack stat always represents the best of any front turret gun (even if a heavier gun is carried in the hull). So if a turret has a 37mm gun which I statted at 6/5/4, it gets those stats if it's the only gun in the turret, but it gets 7/6/5 if it also has a coaxial MG, or 8/7/6 if it has 2 coaxial MG's.

-- if a turret has one MG (front or rear), it gets an SA allowing it to make def fire with 7 dice against enemy Soldiers entering its hex, IF it is on a clear hex. If it has 2 front turret MG's, it gets def fire vs Soldiers with 8 dice, and if it has a rear turret MG in addition to 1 or 2 front turret MG's, it gets +1 on def fire against Soldiers.

-- any hull mounted weapons get an appropriate SA, ie. "Hull Mounted MG" or "Dual Hull MG's" and/or "Rear Hull MG". These give an extra attack against a target in front of (or behind) the unit at 7/5/-, IF the unit is not disrupted (the hull MG's were low priority). And of course I have a "Hull Mounted XXX" (where XXX is the actual gun) for tanks like the B1 bis, M11/39, M3 Lee etc.

I think that this way, any combination of guns and MG's (that I encountered in WW2 tanks that is) is covered and different from each other.

Sorry for the long post, I can get carried away sometimes Razz

.

RAEVSKI

why don't you give armour that is capable of HE a SA
SA High Explosive- once per game my target infantry with HE out to maximum range of gun using 8? dice -1 cover save.
(i know they had many Rounds of HE but use the motto, Keep it simple)

NeuralDream

Apart from the British tanks, all other tanks had HE. From 9 to 50 rounds each. E.g. the Tiger had over 40 rounds and its HE was devastating.

RAEVSKI

I would only allow once per game per vehicle.
The biggest problem for a tank crew is actually spotting the target (infantry) in the first place.
SA High Explosive 10 (or what ever modified for gun) may target infantry using AT ranges for X dice -1 cover.

TorontoBizz

Should HE rounds ignore cover? I think they should. I agree with just once a game.

RAEVSKI

the problem is that some cover is designed to aviod shrapnel. i.e bunkers.

Angel of Death

NeuralDream

With these last comments by AoD, I think I have a good suggestion:

HE and MG as two different attacks. MG gets +1 on each attack die vs soldiers that are not in cover (and generally has less range than HE), while HE has no attack modifier, but reduces the cover roll of the target (or something like that). HE 800-1800m max depending on gun, while MG only 800m max.

NeuralDream

An example would be:

Tiger
----- (0 - 4) (5 - 8) (9 - 14) (15 - 18) or something like that
MG___9_____7_____0______0________ [ with +1 on each die against enemies not in cover ]
HE___9_____8_____7______5_________ [ with -1 for enemy cover rolls ]

Any comments?

Angel of Death

Sorry, busy at work.

Different stats for MG and HE would be great. This allows for diversification.

I'd still prefer actual MG rules for the hullmounted / coaxial Machineguns on tanks.
I.e. grazing fire / double shot. A +1 on each die if not in cover would only be acceptible if it would be a blanket rule for all machineguns.

Anyways, I like it. Let's keep it.

HHRgamer

Sorry to be so late in putting in my two pence here. "Busy at work" is part of my excuse as well.

Zeus identified the two central isues.

RAEVSKI

Sharpe

NeuralDream

The numbers that I suggested were pretty much random and generic (you are right that MG 9 is too high). If you agree with the concept, we can continue with initial guidelines for stats. Also, I will remove the cover modifier suggestion for HE attacks.

As for MG attacks against inf, a group of 5 soldiers that are not in cover should be very easy to kill even with a single MG. Distance is not an issue for typical MG attacks, especially with the superior optics of such tanks, so there is no reason for the attack value to drop too much at long range. Unlike infantry MG teams, tank MGs were almost equally effective at 100, 200 and 500m. Things get harder at 700+.

Who would like to suggest the initial MG/HE guidelines with a few examples of well-known tanks?

Sharpe

I think we should make HE values fit into the AP matrix. That being said:

Sherman

MG (0-5) 8/ (6-7) 5
HE (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7

or

AI (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7

How about if vehicles with a bow MG get a DF attack against soldiers who enter through front arc? That could simulate a BMG without throwing off the numbers.

I'm still not sure that distinguishing between MG & HE adds a whole lot. I still think we should go with the better of the two at any given range. Which weapon to use is a crew decision, not a platoon/company decision. I think we can build the MGs into the stats or an SA like the one suggested above.

The effectiveness of the MG's would show up more in a tank that's not as AI-oriented as the Sherman.

If we are simulating a relativley large period of time in a firefight, the crew might be switching back and forth between weapons. Any added realism might be too complicated since each tank is only so effective at any given range and one number would simulate that. Given the chaos, distractions, etc inherent in combat, I don't see where any auxiliary weapon in a tank should have an effect great enough to warrant extra rules.

Tanks where the MG (or 20mm) is the primary weapon should do better with their MGs.

HHRgamer

I like Sharpe's suggestion. It gives some weight to the hull mounted MG but does not complicate the game by requiring separate shots from the MG and the main gun.

NeuralDream

I'm ok with anything, but even with combined stats we still need a set of guidelines. Anyone willing to write them down?

HHRgamer

I may give the guidelines a try, if anyone is willing to try to apply them and get some proposed cards for tanks moving through the approval process. Is anyone out there interested?

NeuralDream

Sure.

HHRgamer

I am working on proposed guidelines for vehicle anti-infantry values, combining machine gun and high explosive data for one value at each range.
Preliminarily, I am coming to the conclusion that at the (0-1) hex range, tanks would not be able to use high explosive but would instead rely on integral machine guns. My reasoning is that at point blank range, the tank would not be able to deliver the high explosive shell. At just beyond point blank range, the tank gun could deliver the shell, but the blast from the explosion would likely be harmful to the tank as well as the target. Thus tanks firing high explosive are like mortars in the sense that within a certain minimum range the weapon would damage its own crew. If anyone has a source for the minimum ranges at which tanks could use high explosives, or for standard tank anti-infantry tactics in WWII, I would appreciate it.
A second preliminary conclusion is that if a vehicle can fire both its MG and HE at a given infantry target, the cumulative effect of this combined fire should be reflected in the number of AI attack dice. Is there any good reason to simply compare the MG and HE values and pick the higher one?
Also, I would like to know if anyone has armor penetration values for the guns of various nationalities, similar to the penetration values for German guns that came from Tenente Colonelle 08 and which are posted in this thread and in the gallery. I would like to include AV values in my examples, and per Sharpe's suggestion I would like to conform the AI ranges to the AV ranges for simplicity of play. In particular, I'd like to get armor penetration values for the M4A1 Sherman's 75mm/L40 that Sharpe used in his example on this thread.
By the way, studying this problem recently has given me a renewed appreciation of the fine work N.D., Sharpe, and others have done to put FA on a sound footing. I hope we can keep sufficient momentum to enable us to complete it.

Zeus

Pretty much all tank gun barrels could be depressed enough to deliver a shell closer than 10 meters, and I sincerely doubt a non-HEAT HE shell could damage the tank by blast alone if a direct hit with the same shell couldn't penetrate...

If you do go this way, I would suggest to only disallow HE usage against targets in the same hex. I would use a basic distance of 100 meters from hex to hex and forget the fact that theoretically, the distance between two adjacent hexes could be anywhere between 0 and 200 meters; if you want to simulate that, then most SMG's (effective range 100-200 meters max) wouldn't even be able to attack a target in an adjacent hex!

As for using both MG's and HE, I think the barrel would need to be aimed slightly above the target because of the curvy trajectory of an HE shell. Only slightly, but enough to be of no use to the coaxially mounted MG, which with its flatter trajectory would fire over the targets. So using the best of either doesn't sound so strange. Remember, there were numerous tanks in the infantry support role with a low velocity gun which wasn't very effective against vehicles, but they still seemed to prefer it to a tank armed only with MG's.

Note, these are mostly assumptions based on what I've read! I know, just like you're now finding out Smile

, that it's hard to find such detailed operational data.

HHRgamer

Zeus,
The fact that an HE shell hitting the tank would not penetrate doesn't mean that HE exploding at 10 meters' distance would not have the potential to do any damage. The potential for such damage is illustrated by the "blast" SA, which is already assigned to mortars, 75mm IG, sIG 33, and other HE weapons. This SA provides that HE weapons roll a separate attack against each unit in the target hex. The attack has to be made on all units, whether friendly or not, and is not limited to soldiers. Thus, by definition, a tank firing HE on targets in the same hex would also be firing on itself. The AI rule should prohibit use of HE against targets in the same hex.
As to simultaneous use of HE and MG, I see your point about the different trajectories of the main gun and the coaxial MG. There is also the separate issue of whether there are sufficient crew members in a given vehicle who are free to fire both the main gun and the coaxial MG and at the same time keep a lookout, communicate with crew and other tanks, and drive the tank. I agree with you that it is indeed hard to find definitive information on these details.

Assuming that simultaneous use of the main gun HE and a coaxial MG is out, what do you think about the simultaneous firing of the main gun and hull mounted MGs? For example, the Sherman M4A1 had five crew members, one main gun, one coaxial MG, and two hull mounted MGs. The commander, gunner, and loader were in the turret. If we assume that the crew cannot simultaneously fire both the main gun and the coaxial MG, that still leaves the two hull mounted MGs. The driver and assistant driver were in the hull, and each had access to one of the hull-mounted MGs. Assuming the driver and assistant driver were not fully engaged in driving the vehicle, why couldn't the vehicle simultaneously deliver fire from the two hull MGs and the main gun against soldiers within range?

I am thinking that the AI value of a vehicle against targets in the same hex will be limited to the MGs. The attack value will be increased for each MG that can be fired simultaneously.
For targets from one hex up to the limit of MG range (8 hexes?), the AI value will depend on the how many "independent" machine guns are available. Independent means the MG can be aimed and fired independently of, and simultaneously with, the main gun. Examples would be MGs mounted on pintels on the turret, and MGs mounted in the hull, assuming personnel are available to fire them while the main gun is being loaded, aimed, and fired. The AI value will include both the HE value and some added amount for the MGs.
If there is only a coax, then the better of the MG or HE value will be used. Beyond MG range, the AI value will be that of HE only.
What do you think?

Zeus

I agree with your assessment of the Blast SA - but note that this is usually given only to the larger guns firing HE (the 75mm IG being the weird exception here). If the blast radius of a shell is so large as to warrant Blast, then I can understand it could potentially damage the tank itself, but then the Blast SA takes care of that (doesn't it?).

As for MG and HE fire, I have it like this; maybe you can get some ideas from it.

-- the main attack stats reflect the best of the forward turret weapons (ie either the main gun or the coaxial MG/MGs);

-- a coaxial gives 7/6/5 as (minimum) AI stats, and allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;

-- two coaxials give 8/7/6 as (minimum) AI stats, and allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;

-- a rear turret MG allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 dice against Soldiers IF it is in a hex that doesn't give it cover;

-- a combination of one or two coaxial MG's and a rear turret MG allows the Vehicle def fire with 7 or 8 dice (dep. on the number of coaxials) with +1 on each attack die, IF not in cover;

-- a front hull MG allows an extra attack at 7/5/- against a Soldier in front of the Vehicle, IF the Vehicle is not disrupted;

-- an pintle-mounted AA gun allows the Vehicle to attack Aircraft (no def fire against them though), but using it allows adjacent enemies def fire against the Vehicle as a def 3 Soldier. It does not give attacks or a bonus on attacks against Soldiers.

I already statted and printed many Vehicles from France 1940 and North Africa according to these rules, so I'm loath to change them again Razz

, and so far they work very well... But I have to admit that I would like to try making the coaxial MG 8/6/4 or even 7/5/- or something like that. This would give me more room to make even the smaller calibres (37-57mm) HE shells slightly more effective than MG's at long range, which I think they were.

Right now, I have the basic 75mm low velocity guns (like on the early Panzers IV and Shermans) at 9/8/7, and based other HE shells power on this, subtracting or adding dice for less or more explosive filler and for high velocity guns (these tended to bury the shells in the ground).

BTW I don't think the Sherman had 2 hull MG's... Where did you get this info?

HHRgamer

My mistake on the Sherman MGs-- I believe I misunderstood the source, which I did not note. According to the source quoted below, there were three MGs total, but only one in the hull (.30 cal). The others were in the turret (.30 cal coaxial) or on the turret roof (.50 cal anti-aircraft).

Sharpe

The problem is that with 100m hexes, not all attacks in same hex (probably very few) would be within blast range of HE. Bigger guns would not have a 0 range.

Give vehicles have a separate 0-range attack value based on MG only for DF against a Close Assault.

Zeus

HHRgamer

Zeus,
I would of course be very happy to receive your Excel spreadsheet and your SA descriptions and rules on HE and MG for tank AI values.
Sounds like I am getting some consensus from you and Sharpe on ineffectiveness of lower caliber HE guns against infantry as compared to MGs. Before I fold on this issue, however, I think you should consider the following post by Bob Sutton, identified as an "expert" in this area, in response to a question asking him to rate the anti-infantry effectiveness of tank and APC mounted MGs versus tank main gun HE:

NeuralDream

I'm interested to see a comprehensive set of AI guidelines based on the discussions and proposals up to now. I'm confident we'll soon start making vehicle cards.

Sharpe

This is a conundrum. The only qualifications I have about Mr. Sutton is a question of circumstance. A 37mm shell at a pillbox or static position probably does better than a MG. Against moving infantry, I’m not so sure. We really have to draw a line before the complexity makes us nuts and ruins our vision.

At what range does Sutton judge the effectiveness of the weapons? I can’t imagine using a 37mm cannon against infantry 100m away if I had a MG34, but I’ve never been in that situation. I did read about an American platoon of TDs, when confronted by a company of German infantry, they lined up and used the MGs on them.

I do think the tank MGs have big visibility issues and should have a short (400m max) range.

I think 1000m should be top range for HE without a spotter.

A 50mm mortar round is as big as a hand grenade. A tank round of the same size or smaller will have less explosive power. It could kill a dozen men, but every time? Very often? Once in a while? Seldom? I’d guess less rather than more. The story about the French, well, I don’t discount it, but that was a pretty sweet target. On the other hand, first hand accounts say the Italian 47mm had an effective antipersonnel round.

The western Allies didn’t switch to higher velocity cannons because they weren’t killing enough infantry. It was to kill tanks. They kept a mix of low and high velocity cannons in the battalions, I assume, because the guns were complementary. The only deliberate use of TDs against infantry of which I’ve heard is as self-propelled artillery against static positions.

Similarly, the German 88 was used in bombardment situations against fixed targets. I’ve never read of it being employed the way the German 70mm or 150mm infantry guns were used.

I still think the low velocity guns should get the highest AI ratings. That was their job. Also, if we give too much AI value to antitank vehicles, their cost will be very high and their use ahistorical.

Sorry about the random thoughts, but I'm still thinking this through.

HHRgamer

No problem, Sharpe, all suggestions welcome. I think I have a solution to the conundrum. It has finally occurred to me, after mixed results from internet searches, to make use of charts in two rules sets I already own: Command Decision (1st edition) and Look Sarge No Charts (yes, there are in fact charts in these rules, but they don't get in the way of play). Command Decision breaks out vehicle MG and gun HE values separately. Look Sarge appears to combine the MG and HE values to get a composite anti-infantry value, but also gives separate anti-personnel values for a "machine gun platoon," specific anti-tank weapons, and infantry guns.

I have already started a chart for MG and HE values at the standard and extended AAM ranges. The chart incorporates elements from your suggested values and rankings, Neural Dream's suggested values (in the vehicle guidelines thread), Sutton's rankings and ranges, and AAM anti-infantry values and ranges for related weapons (e.g., tripod mounted MGs, 37mm anti-tank guns, and 75mm infantry gun). Now I will incorporate Command Decision and Look Sarge and attempt, from all this, to interpolate appropriate FA values for vehicle HE and MGs against personnel.

As for the values themselves, this is how it is looking:

Suggestions and reliable sources (especially) are welcome.

Sharpe

Notes & Comments

1. The Panzer III is 8/6/0 for the MG added to 6/5/4 for the main gun. I took the best number at each range.

2. Visibility from inside the tank vs a small group of men trying desperately not to be seen is the prime factor limiting vehicle MG range, IMHO.

3. Makes sense. Remember that weight of round does not equal weight of explosive and is not necessarily proportional.

4. Visibility again. 1000m should be limit for unobserved HE fire. Observed fire should only be for units that were trained for this. Longer fire against known static targets is an exception, but this should only occur in assault situations not meeting engagements.

HHRgamer

Thanks for the feedback.

After working on an MG/HE chart for a number of hours today, I think I have some reasonable vehicle MG and HE values which generally come out pretty close to numbers that have been previously suggested. However, I am coming to the conclusion that a combined MG/HE value, taking the highest number of dice, leaves out the significant use of HE against infantry in pillboxes and other fortified positions.

If we simply incorporate the higher of the MG or HE values at each range into the attack matrix, then we end up eliminating the ability to use HE against fortified targets at short and medium range. It would be an ahistorical result for a PzIII, for example, not to be able to use its HE against a fortified target within 500 yards (medium range, 2-4 hexes) because at that range the MG value is higher and is therefore the only option on the matrix. At ranges above 400 yards, the Pz III would be able to use HE, because the vehicle MG drops out of the matrix. Thus instead of taking advantage of a close range HE shot, the PzIII has to back up and fire from further away!

This is a problem if one believes, as originally suggested by AOD and Zeus, that an important element of HE is the extent to which it reduces the target's cover modifier. Following those suggestions, a target of an HE round gets a negative modifier to its cover roll. I think the player should be able, if facing a fortified position within close or medium range, to choose the lower attack number associated with HE for the purpose of getting the -1 or -2 applied to the result of the target's cover roll.

To facilitate that choice, without unduly complicating things, I think the thing to do is to include in the attack matrix both MG and HE values that apply at that range. If one chooses the MG value, one gets the benefit of the higher number of dice. If one chooses the HE value, one gets fewer dice, but can use the following SA:

Sharpe

1. Yes

3. Many Sharpedia units go by AAM values and conventions to fit in with that game. Not all of them have relevance here.

4. Vehicles are bigger and harder to conceal. I'm trying to factor in smoke, higher levels of concern about one's immediate surroundings, etc. I'm not saying such a shot is impossible against soldiers, rather that it's a statistical improbability and would be regarded as a waste of ammo.

I think the last part is sound thinking, but I don't know that it doesn't cross the line of too much complexity. Remember that an attack that exceeds the minimum defense gets a negative cover modifier. So, more dice create the potential for the same result.

HHRgamer

Thanks for the reminder about the -1 to the cover roll when the attacker has more successes than the target's defense:

HHRgamer

Proposed Guidelines for FA Vehicle Anti-Infantry stats—Part ONE
(6th rev., 10 August 2009)

Principles

FA vehicle unit data cards should reflect all of the vehicle's anti-infantry weapons. At the same time, the cards and their use must be kept relatively simple and consistent with established conventions. Thus vehicles are generally not allowed to attack soldiers with both machine guns and high explosives simultaneously.

1. Main gun. The rules will state that the AI (Anti-Infantry) values in the attack matrix will reflect the main gun's values, regardless of whether the vehicle's main gun is a large caliber gun, an autocannon, or a machine gun.

If the main gun is capable of firing high explosive ammunition, an appropriate icon or notation ("HE" or an image of an explosion?) will appear next to the infantry icon on the left side of the attack matrix. The rules will state all vehicles which have a "High Explosive" icon (or notation) next to the infantry icon in the attack matrix will have the "High Explosive" SA, as follows: "When this vehicle attacks enemy soldiers with its main gun, the the target gets -2 to its cover roll." Only the icon or notation will appear on the card. Certain large guns with HE ability will also receive the "Blast" SA as follows:

SA: "Blast — When this unit attacks, make a separate attack
roll against each unit in the target hex. (This includes friendly
units.)"

This language will appear on the cards of the affected vehicles.

2. Additional vehicle guns. In addition to the main gun, vehicles may have additional AI capability, usually in the form of machine guns. The most common vehicle machine guns found in addition to a the main gun are hull machine guns (HMG), coaxial machine guns (CoAX), or pintle-mounted turret (TMG) or "anti-aircraft" (AAMG) machine guns. CoAX MGs are positioned next to the main gun. Pintle-mounted and anti-aircraft machine guns are generally fixed on the top of the vehicle's turret. The presence of any of these common MGs will be indicated by appropriate icons appearing to the left of the attack matrix. The attack values of each such MG will appear superimposed over the icon. The values will be expressed in the form "W/X/Y/Z," with each letter standing for an attack value, and each position corresponding to a standard range. The corresponding ranges for all such MGs will be as follows:

W close (same hex) (100 yds max) all MGs
(HMG, CoAX, TMG, AAMG)
X short (1-2 hexes) (200 yds max) all MGs
Y medium (3-5 hexes) (500 yds max) CoAX, TMG,
AAMG
Z long (6-8 hex) (800 yds max) TMG, AAMG

These ranges are based on other miniatures rules and sources discussed in this thread. HMGs are limited to 200 yards due to their closer proximity to the ground and the limited vision afforded by the gunner's firing slit or periscope. CoAXs go to 500 yards because they are higher from the ground but vision is still limited, with the gunner looking out from inside the turret. TMGs and AAMGs go to 800 yards because they are higher still and because the gunner's upper body extended from a hatch on the turret, thus giving superior visibility (and exposing the gunner to enemy fire).

3. Simultaneous firing.
a. general rules.

Main Gun + Hull MG OK.
Vehicles may fire the main gun and a hull mounted machine gun simultaneously during the same phase.

Main Gun + other MG not OK.
Vehicles may not fire both the main gun and any other MG during the same phase unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.

CoAX + Hull MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with the vehicle's (front) hull MG unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.

CoAX + AAMG or Cupola MG or Pintle mounted MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with its AAMG, cupola MG, or Pintle mounted MG.

b. Other combinations
Whether vehicles may fire main gun simultaneously with rear turret MG or rear hull MG, or these MGs simultaneously with other MGs will be handled by SA.

.

4. Double shot SA. Double shot SA will be allowed for all vehicle MGs and autocannon, but only when the vehicle did not move in the last phase. (per Zeus and AOD). The lack of movement provides a stable firing platform. Indicate stationary vehicles by placing next to the vehicle another cardboard marker (like "disrupt" and "damage"), a piece of colored glass or plastic, or a green pipe-cleaner. See question below about whether to limit double shot to MGs with a rate of fire at or above a certain minimum.

5. Defensive fire (DF). Vehicles can always defensive fire against other vehicles. However, when a vehicle is in terrain that blocks L/O/S (=cover?), they cannot engage in defensive fire against infantry. As pointed out by Zeus, this mimics the historical instances of infantry sneaking up and close assaulting tanks that were sent into action without supporting infantry.

The rules will not limit any MG to DF only. The limited range of these weapons, the comparatively lower attack values, and the fact that one can only fire the CoAX if one doesn't fire the main gun, should prevent vehicle MGs from being over-powerful.

6. Hull Machine gun (HMG). The rules will state that front mounted hull machine guns may only fire at targets directly in front of the vehicle (define this in terms of hexes and vehicle facing). The hull MG attack values will be lower than for comparable turret-mounted MGs due to further reduced visibility for hull MGs.

7. Turret-top and anti-aircraft MGs (TTMG, AAMG). To fire these MGs the commander/gunner must be exposed (unbuttoned). If there is an enemy unit within two hexes of this unit when this unit attacks with its ________(TTMG or AAMG), the unit gets -1 to each attack die. In addition, any disruption counter placed on this unit as a result of an enemy attack in the next phase will last through the end of the next turn ("headshot"). This can be stated in the rules or placed in an "unbuttoned" SA on each affected vehicle card.

8. Rear turret MGs: Vehicles with a rear turret MG will have the following SA:

Rear turret MG: This vehicle may attack soldiers with attack
values of W/X/Y/Z. The rear turret MG may not fire in the
same phase in which the vehicle's CoAX or TMG fires.

9. Rear hull MG: Vehicles with a rear hull MG will have the following SA:

Rear hull MG: This vehicle may attack soldiers directly to the
rear of the vehicle with attack values of W/X/Y/Z.

Question:

Should Double Shot go for all vehicle MGs when vehicle is stationary, or be limited to MGs which have a minimum rate of fire (say 800 rpm)?
Next steps:

The remaining Parts, which are still in draft form, will be as follows:

Part TWO: a chart of proposed vehicle MG values
and ranges.

Part THREE: a chart of proposed vehicle AI HE values and
ranges.

Part FOUR: a chart showing the representation of both MG
and HE AI capabilities in selected vehicles. [/u]

Angel of Death

Been absent for a while. But here's my take on the queries :

Sharpe

Been digesting the one post. Truly appreciate the clarification.

Agree with AoD about hull MG SA.

Extended Range SA not necessary due to larger number of range boxes.

Can live with Turret MG SA, but still not sure it adds anything.

Don't think Destruction SA is necessary. Effects should be covered by extra dice.

Soft vehicles should flame up so easily that from either Attack Value that it shouldn't be a concern.

Thank you very much for all the work. I have been following it closely. I don't think we'll ever agree on the HE/MG thing, but I trust your instincts. I think playtesting will be the only way to resolve it.

I think you're right about it, but I'm not so sure that it will make a big difference in the game.

HHRgamer

Thanks for the feedback. I plan to have Part TWO up soon.

Zeus

Hi, back after a busy period Wink

. Good to see how much work you got done in the mean time!

HHRgamer

Please let me know some examples of specific Soviet and Japanese tanks that have rear turret MGs. I need to better understand these.

Thanks for the comments. Simplification is good.

I have had to devote extra time to my job lately, which has caused a delay in posting Part TWO. However, the delay has fortuitously given rise to Zeus's helpful comments, which I will try to deal with when the demands of the job ease up a bit. Meanwhile, further comments and suggestions are welcome.

Sharpe

I think Zeus is onto something. Unless the tank has no main gun, put all the MG ability into another form, such as an SA.

We can sort out the Disrupted thing later. Remember the levels of damage are different here.

Sheer genius. My compliments.

Zeus

HHRgamer

Thanks for the additional comments. I have edited the Part ONE post above. Still plan to post Part TWO soon, assuming job demands let up. Meanwhile, please keep the comments and suggestions coming. Thanks.

Sharpe

I think this is close. Instead of an SA, should we use icons and put it in the vehicle card explanation?

HHRgamer

Some choices are: blanket statement in the rules (as in AI values reflect main gun), an SA (as in Turret MG SA), a special icon, or a separate line in the attack matrix.

A blanket statement in the rules would be the place to make clear that MG attack values only apply to soldier targets, and that a vehicle cannot make an MG and main gun attack simultaneously. However, that is not the place to convey vehicle-specific information like MG attack values. SAs would work but perhaps with a common attribute like turret MG it results in unnecessary clutter on the card. If you want to avoid SA clutter, I think an icon showing a turret MG should go on a separate line of the attack matrix with the turret MG values. There is room for a third line in the matrix. This is intuitive, fits with the already-established scheme, and would make it easy for new or casual players to pick right up.

Rear Turret and Rear Hull are rare enough that they are worth an SA. (Front) Hull MG is fairly common, but wouldn't it complicate things too much to add a "Hull MG" line to the attack matrix? It is a relatively short SA which incorporates a well-established concept of defensive fire, so why not an SA for Hull MG also?

Angel of Death

An additional MG icon sounds very reasonable.
It's a standard feature of most tanks so why not. Great idea.

RAEVSKI

it all seems too easy.

HHRgamer

MG icon on a line in the attack matrix? Since I intend to recommend different MG values depending on the historical MG (or MGs), I am having trouble seeing how a standard MG icon on the card, without specific attack numbers at specific ranges, would work.

Sharpe, AOD, can you clarify your suggestions?

Sharpe

Put the icon(s) [a turret and/or a hull with a prominent MG]in the blank area left of the matrix.

Superimpose the attack values (8/6, 7/4. etc) over the icon oir place them underneath. We can put an explanation in the rules where it explains the card.

HHRgamer

Your elegant solution was beginning to dawn on me, Sharpe. I've just been a little slow on this one.

It will be historical and easy to impose standard range bands for vehicle MGs. I'm thinking maximum effective range of 500 yards. We could have a point blank band (0/ same hex), a 200 yard band (1-2 hexes), and a 500 yard band (3-5 hex). With these standard range bands an icon with x/y/z superimposed or next to it will convey the necessary information.

I assume there is agreement that the rear turret MG and the rear hull MG should be handled by SA, since they are not standard.

What say you to the Hull MG? This is common. Do you want another icon with numbers superimposed, or an SA?

Sharpe

I vote icon for hull, a different icon than turret.

And the credit goes to Zeus. He had the idea.

HHRgamer

Yes, thanks to Zeus!

HHRgamer

Third revision of Part ONE, posted above, is up, along with a couple new queries. Thanks to Zeus, Sharpe, AOD, and the rest of the gang. Let me know what you all think, and I'll try to get part TWO up soon.

Angel of Death

I read it. Sounds good. Voting for a hull MG icon too.

So, basically, you can have a load of different tank configurations : for example

Tank with Main Gun Turret , Hull MG and whatever else they bolted on (like a Pz IID and a Sherman).

Tank with Turret MG (like a Pz I and early T-26)

Tank with a Main Gun Turret , and a coaxial MG (like a T-26 1933 and the Stuart) and hull MG('s).

About the Turret MG : is that for the coaxial gun too or is it meant purely for an actual Turret MG configuration (i.e. for early war tanks like the Pz I only) ?

Zeus

Sharpe

Zeus is right again.

Icons for hull and coax MG.

Matrix for vehicles whose main armament is an MG.

SA allowing DF against soldiers entering hex from any side for turret rear MG. Let's stay far away from turret facing.

HHRgamer

Thanks for the feedback.

Turret MG as used above is intended to cover the coaxial and an MG mounted on the top of the turret (pintel-mounted) which sometimes is considered an anti-aircraft MG. It is not intended to cover MGs used as the main gun (Pz I). See question 2 below.

Yes, I realized that turret facing was raised by the rear turret. I didn't intend to include facing for any other turret mounted weapon. However, I agree we should eliminate turret facing altogether if possible. See question 1 below.

Before I do another revision to Part ONE, please let me know what you think of these issues:

1. Rear Turret MG. I agree we want to stay away from turret facing, but that leads to a conundrum with the rear turret MG. Since turrets have no facing, when would one ever use a rear turret MG instead of the coaxial or pintel-mounted turret MG? I suppose one would do so if the rear turret MG had a better attack value, or if there was no coaxial or pintel mounted MG in/on the turret.

2. Vehicles with MG for a main gun. I like the idea of substituting MG value in the matrix for AI if the vehicle had MGs as the main weapon in place of a "main gun" (e.g., Pz I). However, this leads back to the issue identified earlier: the AI value on different vehicles will represent different things. What about indicating, in the matrix, "AI-MG" if the anti-infantry value is based on a machine gun?

3. Hull MG firing arc. Directly in front is not historical. Command Decision and Blitzkrieg miniatures rules allow for 45 degrees either side of straight ahead (for a total arc of 90 degrees). This is simple for inches players, but could also be used for hexes, if one uses the "bottom" sides of the hex directly in front of the hex in which the vehicle is situated to roughly define the permissible arc of fire. Use a top down view and illustrate:
1 hex range = hex directly in front,
2 hex range = hex that is 2 hexes directly in front, + the 2 hexes at forward angle to the hex directly in front.
3 hex range= extrapolate in same manner.

4. Simultaneous firing--hull MG and main gun. I have asked about this earlier and have done some research. If the configuration and number of crew permit, there does not seem to be any reason why a vehicle's (forward) hull MG and main gun could not fire simultaneously. For example, the Pz III had a crew of 5: commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner. The Commander, gunner, and loader were located in the turret. Under this configuration, it seems reasonable that the gunner and loader could fire the main gun or coaxial MG at the same time that the radio operator/bow machine gunner fired the hull MG.
Likewise for the following vehicles:
T-34/76-B, crew of 4: Commander/gunner, loader, driver, hull gunner/radio operator.
M4A1 Sherman, crew of 5: Commander in turret right rear (coax or flex MG), Gunner in turret right front, Loader in turret left rear, Driver in hull left front , Assistant driver in hull right front (w/ hull MG in ball).
Not sure about rear hull MGs firing simultaneously with the main gun-- it would depend on the vehicle configuration and the crew.

5. Simultaneous firing-- coaxial MG and main gun. Command Decision IV allows the main gun and a turret MG to fire at the same target simultaneously. Presumably this includes the coaxial turret MG. Northern Rommel's rules for AAM permit the main gun and coaxial MG to fire simultaneously at any targets which are located in the same hex. One source says the purpose of the coaxial MG was originally to help zero in on the target for the main gun. The problem with this is that it is hard to see how the gunner and loader could fire the coaxial MG at the same time as the main gun. Even well-crewed vehicles such as the Pz III do not appear to allow for this. Any comment?

6. Simultaneous firing--rear MG/ main gun. Command Decision prohibits the rear turret MG (as in the Type 97 Chi-ha) from firing simultaneously with the main gun. Not knowing what the crew size and layout was on the Chi-ha, this sounds like a reasonable rule. Any comments?

7. Simultaneous firing-- pintel-mounted turret MG, or anti-aircraft turret-mounted MG/coaxial MG. Anti-aircraft MG. Command Decision prohibits the anti-aircraft MG from firing simultaneously with any other MG. depending on teh vehicle and crew, why wouldn't the coaxial be able to fire simultaneously with the AAMG mounted on the top of the turret?

8. Double shot for MGs. Are we planning to allow vehicle MGs to have the double shot special ability to reflect the MG rate of fire?
This might make an MG with a lower attack value preferable to a main gun with a higher attack value if the target is not in cover.

9. MG ranges. I know FA rules use the concept of flexible range boxes. However, in drafting a vehicle-specific layout of MG and AI values, I found it very difficult to make a comparison of the MG and the AI attack values when the ranges were not standard. I kept assuming that an 8/6/4 for an MG was at ranges 0-1, 2-4,and 5-8, not at ranges 0 (same hex), 1-2, and 3-5 as proposed. Thus it was hard to know, as a player, whether the main gun or the MG has a higher attack value at a specific range (such as 4 hexes). It was also difficult to determine whether the added reduction of the target's cover was worth the reduced attack value of the AI as compared to the MG. For now I intend to stick with standard ranges. When one has no choice, as for example when attacking a vehicle, differential range boxes are not a problem.

Have to go now, more later . . . .

Sharpe

I have to catch a plane in a few minutes, so I can’t go into depth. Wish I could tell you where, but it’s very hush-hush, Ju’ ‘no.’ All I know is that the Overlord said to pack a Sword, made of Gold, and that I was traveling via Omaha. Anyway, I’ll be shipped back stateside on 10 June.

1. Rear turret/hull MG should give the tank OVERLAPPING FIRE, or something along those lines. It should not be an actual “attack.”
2. I don’t see a problem here. MG attacks and HE attacks from a gun less than 75mm should be about the same. The dice and system should handle the situation.
3. Hull MG would only make DF attacks in a 60 degree arc. It would never make an actual “attack.” Any extra realism doesn’t compensate for added complexity, IMO.
4. See #3.
5. I believe that you fire the coax until you ascertain the range, then switch to firing the main gun. I don’t believe they fired simultaneously.
6. I see MGs smaller than 20mm having double shot.
7. I think MG ranges for the icon values should be 0-2/3-5/6-8, but that’s just an opinion.

Zeus

Do we agree that the primary purpose of a tank's MG's, or at the very least a very important part of their role, is to stave off close assaults by infantry? If we do, maybe you should consider allowing a vehicle with any turret MG to do def fire against enemy Soldiers moving into its hex (if it's on a hex that doesn't give it cover - this allows infantry to sneak up on the tank if it's in a town, forest etc), and if you do that, handling the different turret MG configurations becomes a lot easier Very Happy

.

1 - Rear turret MG. Giving it an extra attack doesn't seem right because of the way it was used. Allowing it def fire against Soldiers doesn't feel right either, because then why shouldn't front turret MG's get this?

If coaxials do allow def fire, then a rear turret MG can allow def fire too if it doesn't have coaxials, or give a bonus to def fire if a coaxial is present too.

2 - Vehicles with MG for a main gun. It's the unit's main gun (however sad that is Wink

), so its main stats (both AI and AV) should reflect this. That it happens to be an MG shouldn't matter.

3 - Hull MG firing arc. I think you have a front-side-rear system in FA? So if the Hull MG description states that "the target should be an enemy Soldier in front of this unit", you're good to go!

4 - Simultaneous firing--hull MG and main gun. I agree that these two are completely separate from each other. Both front and rear hull MG's are not fired by the same person manning the turret main gun, and thus whether or not they get to make an attack and/or def fire has nothing to do with whether or not the main gun fires. Maybe a penalty on firing a rear hull MG should apply if it didn't have a dedicated gunner (it usually didn't). Someone would have to move to the gun to fire it, as opposed to the front hull mg that usually had someone sitting behind it.

5 - Simultaneous firing-- coaxial MG and main gun. These two are in fact fired by the same person (the gunner) usually. I think having to make a choice of which one is best in a certain situation is quite realistic. Also, trajectories of HE shell and MG bullets will be different except at the closest ranges. When firing HE, the barrel will always be aiming at least slightly higher than horizontal, making the coaxial MG useless right then. In some cases, MG's could be aimed separately from the main gun, but even then, a gunner can't aim two guns at the same time accurately. I would stick to your "either-or" solution.

6 - Simultaneous firing--rear MG/ main gun. See 4.

7 - Simultaneous firing-- pintel-mounted turret MG, or anti-aircraft turret-mounted MG/coaxial MG. I think the primary purpose of these guns is always AA. Only in movies do tank commanders expose themselves to a quick hail of fire and their tank to a grenade lobbed into the open hatch by trying to use these guns against infantry. I would just allow the unit to make an attack against Aircraft, and either allow adjacent enemy Soldiers to make a def fire attack against defense 3 (using AI stats for this) before the unit can make the AA attack, or not allow making the AA attack at all if there are adjacent enemy Soldiers.

It should be possible to make this attack and still fire the main gun or coaxial too. Maybe the main gun/coaxial attack should then get a penalty for the commander being busy?

8 - Double shot for MGs. As most tanks had a coaxial, you're giving a lot of tanks double shot then. I think it would be better for KISS to reflect the high rate of fire in the attack stats (and the current 8/6/4 does this IMO).

9 - MG ranges. The MG ranges shouldn't depend on the range boxes of the main gun. So they either need their own range boxes, or a blanket rule with tank MG ranges. BTW a hull MG, being closer to the ground and having worse vision, should probably have worse range and stats that a coaxial. Under the normal 0-1/2-4/5-8 rules, I would agree with 8/6/4 for coaxials, and give hull mg's 7/5/- or 8/5/-.

I think the choice between one attack and another one with slightly lower attack stats but with a -1 to cover is quite cool! You can of course make percentage tables to see which one has the better chance, but for many people it will be more of a gut feeling which one to use, which is great!

HHRgamer

Thanks for the feedback. Before I go further, could anyone explain to me what an "overlapping fire" special ability would consist of? I looked at HHR's "covering fire," which is used to soften up a target, but it doesn't seem applicable.

carrion

Unit can Defensive-Fire against Soldiers.

HHRgamer

Zeus,

I agree that a very important role of a tank's MGs is to prevent close assaults by infantry. I had always intended that vehicles with MGs could make defensive fire attacks against soldiers. Your comment caused me to check the proposed rules, as posted by Sharpe, where I see that vehicles may not make defensive fire attacks against soldiers (except for soldier/motorcyles). I certainly agree with you that a vehicle with a turret MG should be able to make a defensive fire attack against enemy soldiers moving into the same hex or any adjacent hex.
Why limit vehicle defensive fire to targets in the open? The attacking infantry will get the benefit of whatever cover is available when fired on, but I don't see why the MG can't fire at soldiers attacking from cover. The sneaking up ability would be better modeled by having certain terrain block line of sight with the result that the soldiers can only receive defensive fire when they are adjacent to the vehicle's hex. Sharpe's comprehensive terrain effects chart specifies that forest, buildings, hills, hedges, brush, and jungle block line of sight. I would not limit the range of a defensive fire attack. Thus the vehicle MG could, in the open, reach out and touch enemy soldiers up to 5 hexes away. The same vehicle in jungle would only be able to make a defensive fire attack against soldiers within 1 hex.
By the way, is there agreement that "overlapping fire" simply means defensive fire? Somehow I had the impression something more was meant, and I haven't been able to find a special ability by this name in the original AAM rules, the advanced or expert AAM rules, the HHR rules, or in Sharpe's draft FA rules.

HHRgamer

Here's what I propose for rear turret MG. This is an attempt to make the rear turret MG less than useless without introducing a full-blown turret-facing rule. Without some special provision, the rear turret MG becomes irrelevant unless it is more powerful than the coaxial MG. The SA attempts to give value to the vehicle's ability to fire the rear turret MG at a 180 degree angle from whatever direction the coaxial MG and main gun are facing in order to hit the other target.

1. Rear Turret MG. SA: This unit may make an additional defensive fire attack of X/Y/Z when the main gun or turret MG makes a defensive fire attack. The additional attack can only be made at targets in a hex located on a straight line drawn from the target of the main gun or turret MG which passes through the center-point or the turret.

What do you say?

HHRgamer

2. Vehicles with MG for a main gun. In the proposed stats I plan to post, there is a difference between MG and HE attacks from a gun less than 75mm, especially if the gun is low velocity. My suggestion for an "AI-MG" label when the main gun is an MG was based on an earlier objection to placing the higher of the MG or HE value in the AI line for all vehicles. If we don't need an "AI-MG" label then I think the stat cards for vehicles which have an MG for a main gun should say so. The general rules, describing stat cards could state that vehicle AI values are based on main guns firing HE unless otherwise stated on the card.

How's that?

carrion

HHRgamer

3. Hull MG firing arc. Perhaps we should allow only a 30 degree arc. One authority gives the Tiger I's front hull mounted MG a 30 degree arc, with 15 degree traverse left and right. Gladys Green, Panzers at War, at 121. The hull MG was operated by the radioman who used a hand trigger and small optical sight.

4. Simultaneous firing--hull MG and main gun. Simultaneous attack allowed. Hull MG not limited to DF only. Shouldn't be that complex to allow vehicle to roll attack for main gun and additional attack for hull MG (if in range), and I suspect it will make some difference when a combined armor and infantry attack comes to close quarters with defending soldiers. If play testing shows this not to be the case, it can be dropped later. Rear hull MG could also fire simultaneously if the target is within 30 degree arc of the rear hull MG.

5. Simultaneous firing--coaxial MG and main gun. Concur with Sharpe and Zeus that this should not be allowed because controlled by the same crew member (gunner).

6. Simultaneous firing-- Rear turret MG and main gun. Allowed only when their respective targets are on opposite sides of the turret, as set out in item 1, "Rear turret MG," above.

7. Simultaneous firing--pintle-mounted (or "anti-aircraft") MG on the top of the turret and coaxial MG. I do not agree that only in the movies do tank commanders expose themselves to enemy fire by opening the hatch and manning the pintle-mounted MG.

According to Steven J. Zaloga and Howard Gerrard, US Army Tank Crewman 1941-1945, the .50 cal. MG mounted on the turret of the M4 Sherman "was intended for anti-aircraft protection, but in fact it was much more often used for self-defense of the tank and for attacking ground targets that did not warrant the use of the main armament." Id., at 20. The same source quotes General Bruce Clarke of the U.S. 4th Armored Division as saying, "We were not able to fight from tanks with the tank commander buttoned up--that has never been successfully done. [Buttoned up] he can't hear or see and so pretty soon he unbuttons. Now if he's got a free .50 cal machine gun, all he has to do is press his thumb and he can pick out a dangerous spot. It may be a bazooka flash or something. He can throw a burst there without even thinking about giving an order." It sounds to me like the commander could give orders to for the gunner to fire the main gun or the coaxial and immediately open up with the .50 cal himself. Thus the MG on the top of the turret should be able to fire simultaneously with the coaxial MG or the main gun.
I agree an exposed commander is easier to hit, but I'm not sure how to incorporate this with a simple mechanic. Perhaps if the tank fires the pintle mounted or AA MG, place an "unbuttoned" marker on the tank and make the tank's defense versus infantry or machine gun fire a 3 during the next phase. The marker would come up at the end of the turn. Would that work? [/b]

HHRgamer

Carrion,
Thanks for the cite. I think something other than an "overlapping fire" SA is necessary to handle the rear turret MG. What do you think of the proposal under #1 above?
I haven't had a chance to work with the card template yet, as I've given priority to the vehicle AI project. I appreciate your tips. Let me know what you think of the rest of these issues.

Angel of Death

Zeus

Firing the AA MG. I like the "Buttoned Up" SA, although I wouldn't mind some sort of actual danger to the officer popping up from the hatch. Headshot (from the official Wehrmacht Sniper) causes the face-up disruption to last until the end of the next turn (no doubt precisely to prevent a player moving second not being affected by it). Maybe something like that is a possibility?

Turret MG and def fire. If you do allow def fire by a turret MG, does it then matter which turret MG it is? If a tank has only a coaxial MG, or only a rear turret MG, could it then do def fire against Soldiers?

If so, you could suffice with a general SA "Turret MG - this unit can make defensive fire attacks with 7 dice against Soldiers" for a unit with either a coaxial or rear turret MG, and an SA "Multiple Turret MGs - this unit can make defensive fire attacks with 7 dice against Soldiers, with +1 on each attack die" for a unit with both a coaxial and a rear turret MG.

The defensive fire references in the abilities should of course be finetuned to your exact way of handling def fire (distance, cover etc).

Hull MG fire arc. In AAM we're stuck with hexes to measure everything, so trying to get a fire arc to 30 degrees might be hard... At least the addition of Vehicle sides narrows the fire arc for forward-only guns considerably, forcing more tactical decisions.

HHRgamer

8. Double shot for MGs. Sharpe says double shot for MGs under 20mm. Zeus suggests reflecting the high rate of fire in the attack stats. I don't mind either way. Does anyone else have an idea on this?

9. MG ranges. I will stick to MG range bands independent of the HE range bands, as follows:
point blank (same hex)
close (1-2 hexes) (200 yards max) hull MG max
medium (3-5 hexes) (500 yards max) coax max
long (6-8 hex) (800 yards max) top of turret max
(pintle mounted or AA MG)

Zeus

Those MG ranges look very good to me!

As for Double Shot: LMG's and SMG's don't get Double Shot even though obviously their rate of fire is a lot better than (bolt action or semi-automatic) rifles. HMG's do get Double Shot for being a very stable firing platform (or that's my interpretation anyway Smile

).

A tank turret is no doubt a stable firing platform too, but not while the tank is moving. How about only allowing the second shot with MG's and 20mm guns if the vehicle didn't move in the movement phase?

As for allowing defensive fire against infantry even when the vehicle is in a cover hex: if you do this, tanks will probably become almost unstoppable to most infantry, as they can't get close. Historically, infantry used the terrain to try to get close, and usually succeeded in this in forests, towns etc. Also, it promotes the use of an infantry screen with your tanks when they have to move into towns or forests, which adds a tactical element.

HHRgamer

Glad you like the MG ranges. They are based, in part, on statements taken from Panzers at War, by Michael and Gladys Green, at page 121. The Tiger B had three 7.92mm MGs:

1. front hull MG, operated by radio man with a hand trigger,
2. coaxial turret MG, operated by gunner through a foot pedal,
3. "commander's hatch" or "cupola mounted" MG on turret,
operated by tank commander.

According to this source, the training manual stated:

HHRgamer

P.S. still thinking about double shot, defensive fire, and other points.

HHRgamer

4th revision of Part ONE, principles for vehicle AI values, posted above, is now up. May be a bit ragged here and there, but I wanted to get it up for comment.

Zeus

I read through your post, and got the following questions / suggestions / comments:

HHRgamer

Thanks for your comments. I've been away for awhile and will be again soon, but I have not abandoned the project. Once I get Part ONE edited again, perhaps I can finally get some specific numbers up for Part TWO.
The rear turret and rear hull MG language was rough, and I'll try to take another run at it soon.
I like "high explosive" also, but noted some other readers preferred a short one-word description. If there is no renewed objection, I am quite happy to go with "high explosive."
I like the MG range descriptions you propose, and will try to conform the language of the SAs to the standard language.
Any other comments or suggestions?

Zeus

Do we have an example card that shows the AI values of a vehicle?

I'm not sure what the latest version looks like, but maybe we can have two AI stat lines on all cards: one for MG's, and one for HE, with an appropriate icon. Not every vehicle will have both, and in that case the stat line is either empty or not present at all.

A blanket rule can then be added to the main rules that the HE stat line gives -1/2 to cover.

I think an SA that goes for almost all units of a certain type should become a blanket rule, to prevent card clutter.

HHRgamer

Fifth revision of Part ONE, "Proposed Guidelines for FA Vehicle AI stats—Part ONE," is now up on page 3 of this thread.

One question left hanging is posted at the end of the revised part ONE: should double shot be given to all vehicle MGs and autocannon, or should there be a cutoff at a certain rate of fire?

Zeus, thanks for your comments. Sorry, but the two AI stat line idea was rejected earlier in favor of icons:

Put the icon(s) [a turret and/or a hull with a prominent
MG] in the blank area left of the matrix.

Superimpose the attack values (8/6, 7/4. etc) over the
icon or place them underneath. We can put an
explanation in the rules where it explains the card.

(page 3 of this thread, May 22, 2009, Sharpe)

As to the current version of the proposed card, I am going by the version posted by Neural Dream on Jan. 5, 2009 in the general section of the FA forum. http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/ftopic5279-0-0-asc-.php Perhaps once I join photobucket or another service I may be able to post it in this thread, but manipulation of the template to bring it up to date is presently a bit beyond me. N.D., if you're watching, could you help out? Thanks.

Zeus

To determine in which cases a unit should get Double Shot, we need to determine what exactly Double Shot represents.

I've always felt that Double Shot represents an MG being belt-fed, ie capable of sustained fire without having to reload every few seconds. Under my rules, an HMG that is fed by clips/strips/trays, like the Japanese Type 92 or the Italian Modello 37, does NOT get Double Shot.

IMO, Vehicle MG's that are fed by 10-30 round clips likewise don't deserve Double Shot (and I think that means most of them). In fact, because operating a belt-fed weapon on your own (as opposed to a 2 or 3 men crew like HMG's) is not very easy, you might want to consider forgetting about Double Shot for Vehicle MG's altogether.

Also, the official Doube Shot allows two completely separate attacks, for instance against one target in front of the vehicle, and another behind. No matter how high an MG's RoF might be, it doesn't speed up the turret traverse time Smile

. So if you do want to use DS, the second attack should probably be restricted to targets to the same side of the Vehicle as the first target or something like that.

As for Double Shot for main guns, this would probably only apply to the 20mm gun which, while also being fed by clips, had a much higher RoF than other main guns.

HHRgamer

I agree that for most vehicle MGS, double shot should only be allowed against the same target. However, turret traverse time is irrelevant to turret top/ pintle-mounted MGs (TMGs) and AAMGs, isnt it? Didn't these weapons have a very large arc of fire? Perhaps not 360 degrees, but much more than an HGM or CoAX.

Your distinction between belt-fed and clip-fed vehicle MGs for purposes of determining whether to give DS (Double Shot) sounds reasonable. I will need help finding out which vehicle machine guns were clip fed and which belt fed. Here's a starter list, in which I have included some infantry MGs for comparison:

MG vehicle ROF belt fed/DS?shot?
7.5mm Châtellerault
MAC31 "Reibel" (France) R-35 750 rpm 150 round drum

Degtyaryov 7.62 mm T-34/76 ? ?
DP 27 (USSR)

7.7mm Type 97 Chi-ha ? not a belt
(Japan)

BESA 7.92 mm Mk II-IV, 500-800 ?
(.30 cal)) (UK) Valentine +

7.92mm MG 34 Tiger I 800-900 rpm ?

____ mm MG 42 infantry 1550 rpm (infantry) DS

M1919 7.62mm M4A3 Sherman 400-600 rpm ?
(.30 cal) CoAX & HMG

11mm Gras (hvy) Hotchkiss infantry 450-600 DS

M2 12.7mm (.50 cal) (US) M4A3 Sherman ? ?
AAMG

Suggestions and additional data welcome.

Zeus

HHRgamer

Sorry for the confusion. Your suggestion that DS should not be applicable to any vehicle machine guns sounds reasonable to me. Also, giving the 20mm autocannon Double Shot makes sense in light of the very high rate of fire.

I take it you still agree that it makes sense to differentiate between different MGs in terms of attack values.

Before I post some proposed values, I am trying to find a way to compare them with AAM revised attack values. The reason is that FA, at least in its first iteration, should not incorporate attack values which are so different as to radically change the existing play balance.

It appears to me that the AAM system aggregates a vehicle's machine guns and the main gun in arriving at a single anti-infantry number for each range. Compare the AI values of the PAK 36 to the AI values of the early Pzs.

Various vehicle machine guns are listed above in order of increasing attack value from top to bottom. The order generally follows size of the projectile, but there are exceptions (.30 cal 1919 MG). The order is based on the sources and discussion appearing earlier in this thread.

If anyone has different ideas as to the relative anti-infantry value of these MGs, or as to the general approach, please let me know.

Zeus

My turn to apologize for the confusion Smile

. I'm only talking about vehicle MG's here, not infantry MG's.

I had typed a whole dissertation about there being no need to differentiate between different types of vehicle MG, but I'm slowly warming to the concept Smile

. Especially because the MG stats are separate from the HE stats, which makes differentiating between the MG's easier, and the differences between vehicles greater (rather then good HE and bad MG's, and bad HE and good MG's in the end resulting in the same AI stat line).

What would be your proposed stats for the different vehicle MG's?

HHRgamer

Neural Dream should be weighing in soon for help with the proposed vehicle stat card.

I have some proposed stats for different vehicle MGs, with reasonable differences between Coaxial, Hull, Turret, and AA MGs, but I am not satisfied with the overall balance between vehicle MGs and main guns (HE). Thus I want to compare AAM revised's overall attack values for the vehicle against what I propose for the HE and MG separately. Especially in those cases where one or more MGs can fire simulatenously with HE, I want to make sure that I don't completely unbalance the game by making vehicles way too powerful with the combined HE and MG values.

To make the comparison, I need to compare AAM rev. values for static guns against the overall values for vehicles carrying the same guns. Zeus has suggested some comparisons above, and other suggestions would be most helpful.

I am on vacation now, so don't have complete charts to list how the various MGs listed below were all employed (Hull, CoAX, TMG, AAMG), but I'd be interested in comments and suggestions:

MG vehicle ROF attack values
close/short/med/long
7.5mm Châtellerault
MAC31 "Reibel" (France) R-35 750 rpm
CoAX

Degtyaryov 7.62 mm T-34/76 ?
DP 27 (USSR)

7.7mm Type 97 Chi-ha ?
(Japan)

BESA 7.92 mm Mk II-IV, 500-800
(.30 cal)) (UK) Valentine +

7.92mm MG 34 Tiger I 800-
Hull

____ mm MG 42 infantry 1550 rpm DS

M1919 7.62mm M4A3 Sherman 400-600
(.30 cal) CoAX
Hull

11mm Gras (hvy) Hotchkiss infantry 450-600 DS

M2 12.7mm (.50 cal) (US) M4A3 Sherman ?
AAMG

Suggestions and additional data welcome.

Buzzkill

I am trying to catch up with the discussion but just a few thoughts for now. I think that the coax mg was often used as a sighting mechanism for the main gun rather than as an offensive weapon. Its slow traverse and limited elevation would make it fairly useless in close quarters fighting. The Hull MG would obviously be used to attack infantry, as would the commanders MG, but the commanders MG would require the crewman to expose himself (unless in a cupola) to fire it. The commanders MG would also be the AA MG, this was the common role of the M2 .50 mounted on Sherman tanks. A cupola mounted MG would not function as an AA MG due to its lack of elevation and mobility. There is also the practice of German PZ IV's (and probably other models) removing their hull MG and mounting it on the turret in an AA role, so they would typically have one or the other, but not both. Also, I don't think that a belt fed, or magazine fed MG should be differentiated. First, most MG's are belt fed, and many of the magazine fed were just a belt coiled up inside a drum, so essentially they were still belt fed. We are talking about several short bursts, not sustaining full-auto fire. Even a belt fed MG had to be reloaded after 100-200 rounds and continous fire would burn out the barrel in short order. So we are not talking about a signifigant difference in ROF. I like the though process, but I am afraid of overthinking this situation and making it a very cumbersome game mechanic with limited game value. Something simple like HE, MG and AA stats would probably accomplish what we are looking for. If HE is fired then the MG can be fired single shot, if no HE used, fire the MG's with double shot and assign a limited AA value to tanks that typically mounted a suitable AA gun on the turret. The odds of a single tank shooting down a plane should be pretty low. Now, a plane that buzzes a column of Shermans with all those Ma Dueces barking up at him, that is a different story!

HHRgamer

I'm trying to avoid a cumbersome game mechanic by doing the thinking on the front end. This ends up requiring that we spend some time running down blind alleys, and perhaps getting a sore brain, but I hope the result will be worth the trouble.

I have edited the general principles posted at page 3 above to provide the following with regard to simultaneous firing of various vehicle weapons. What do you think?

3. Simultaneous firing (of vehicle-mounted weapons).
a. general rules.

Main Gun + Hull MG OK.
Vehicles may fire the main gun and a hull mounted machine gun simultaneously during the same phase.

Main Gun + other MG not OK.
Vehicles may not fire both the main gun and any other MG during the same phase unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.

CoAX + Hull MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with the vehicle's (front) hull MG unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.

CoAX + AAMG or Cupola MG or Pintle mounted MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with its AAMG, cupola MG, or Pintle mounted MG.

b. Other combinations
Whether vehicles may fire main gun simultaneously with rear turret MG or rear hull MG, or these MGs simultaneously with other MGs will be handled by SA.

HHRgamer

Per Zeus's suggestion, in order to get down to specific numbers I have done a comparison of the AI values of 75mm guns mounted on vehicles and mounted on wheels. I believe the AI values of other gun sizes can be adjusted based on the conclusions reached from the comparison of 75s. Once a reasonable composite AI value is reached for each gun or gun/MG combination, the MG components of those values can then be teased out separately if desired. (yeah, yeah, I know I pushed for breaking out the MG AI values separately, but after 5+ months I'm not sure that I or anyone else on this forum has the energy to do all that work-- perhaps we could take a staged approach and do the easy thing first).

I have tried to get accurate data, but if you can spot errors in the list below, please let me know.

ANTI-TANK GUNS.

I think WOTC rates the Anti-infantry values of anti tank guns which were capable of firing HE too low. (I am assuming all the ATGs in WOTC can fire HE-- I stand to be corrected if anyone has the time to research the issue further). The 17 pounder (=76.2mm), 3" gun M5 (76.2mm), and PAK 40 (75mm) all have an AI rating of 3/3/3, whereas the 75mm gun (75L46) mounted on a Marder II is rated 6/5/4. Since the Marder II had no MG, the difference in values cannot be explained by the effect of a vehicle MG. Perhaps, as Zeus suggests, this is because WOTC assumes that ATGs are always firing armor-piercing shells rather than HE. This is not historical.

The exception to this trend, in the 75mm range, is the US M20 75mm Recoiless Rifle, which gets an AI of 8/7/5. This seems a little too high to me. Is this an instance of the pro-USA bias that some posters have complained about? Perhaps a 7/6/5 AI value would be appropriate if the PAK 40's AI value were raised to 7/6/5.

Do members agree that the crew of an anti-tank gun of MG has a better view and a more stable firing platform than crew members firing the same gun or MG from a vehicle? Do members agree that, aside from the M20 and possible out-liers at other calibers, WOTC's ATG anti-infantry values should be elevated across the board for FA? For instance, what do members think of either lowering the Marder's AI value to 5/4/3 or raising the PAK 40's AI value to 7/6/5?

VEHICLE MOUNTED GUNS.

As to vehicle mounted guns, sometimes WOTC seems to include the value of the vehicle MGs in its composite AI value, and sometimes it doesn't. For example, the Marder, with a 75L46 but no MG, gets a 6/5/4 AI value, whereas the PzIVD--F1, with a 75L24 plus CoAx and Hull MGs, gets 7/7/6.

75mm, no MGs.

On the other hand, the 76.2mmL41 on the Su 76 M also gets a 7/7/6, even without any MGs at all. I realize the barrel of the Su's gun is longer, but I thought that only helped with high velocity (armor piercing) shots. Also, the Pz IV F2, with a 75L43 gun (longer than the SU's), plus 2 MGs, only gets a 7/7/6. Is the SU's gun, or are its HE projectiles, really so superior to both the 75L24 and the 75L43 as to merit giving the SU the same AI rating even though the SU had no MGs? Should the SU's AI value be reduced to something like 6/6/5?

Sticking with the SU for a moment, why should it get a 7/7/6 AI value when the Archer and the Jagdpanzer IV, with the same caliber gun (17 pounder = 76.2 mm, 75L48 for the Jagd), both get only 5/5/4? None of the three vehicles has MGs. Should the Archer's and Jagdpanzer IV's AI both go up to match the SU 76's AI value?

75mm + 1 MG

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer, 75L48 + 1 MG = 6/6/4
Compare Jagdpanther, 75L70, + 1 MG = 6/6/4
with Panther D 75L70 + 1 MG = 7/7/6, and
Cromwell IV, 75L38 + 1 MG = 7/7/6. -Why the difference?

Compare M18GMC 76L52 + AAMG = 6/6/4,
with M18 Hellcat, 76.2 + Hull MG = 6/6/4. - An AAMG is better
than a Hull MG, so shouldn't M18's AI value be higher than that
of the Hellcat?

75mm + 2 MG

Pz IV D, IVE, IV F1 75L24 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
M24 Chaffee 75L38 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Pz IV F2 75L43 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Panther G 75L70 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6

-longer barrels make no diff. on AI value, which seems correct

BT-7A 76mm + 2 x DTMG = 7/7/6 (I think both MGs Hull MG's)
T-34/76 76L30 or 41 + 2 MG = 7/7/6
Comet 77mm + 2 mg = 7/7/6
Compare: Sherman VC Firefly (17 #/ 76.2mm) + CoAx + AAMG
= 7/7/6
-CoAx + AAMG should be better than CoAx + Hull MG, so the
Firefly's AI value should be higher than that of the vehicles
listed above. 8/8/7?

KV-1/42 76L39 + CoAx + Hull = 9/9/7
-Why should the KV's AI values be so much higher than
those of other vehicles carrying 75mm guns and 2 MGs?
Reduce to same or slightly lower than Firefly, say 8/7/6?

75mm + 3 MGs
Sherman DD 75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A1 Sherman 75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A3E8 Sherman (Easy Eight) 76L52 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 7/76
- why is the Easy Eight so much lower than the Sherman DD
and M4A1? Would 9/8/7 be appropriate for all in this group?

75mm + 4 MG
T-35 76.2mmL26, 2 x 34L46 + 4 MG = 10/10/8
- can't really complain about this value too much-- what a
battle-wagon!

I would appreciate feedback from anyone who is still interested in moving FA forward. Now we are into numbers, so perhaps we're getting close. Thanks.

Sharpe

HHRgamer

Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to think some more. For now, I just want to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples. Sharpe wrote: "PS--After we calculate the gun value, we'd replace the close range with MG values if they were higher."

Were your suggested numbers based on the main gun alone? The numbers I included in my examples were intended to represent not just the main gun, but the gun plus whatever added AI effect the MGs (if present) would have at the appropriate ranges. WOTC's values for some vehicles seem to include both an MG and an HE component. I think this approach is realistic. Even though the main gun and certain MGs could not fire simultaneously, both could fire alternately during the course of a phase, which nominally lasts one minute. Presumably while the main gun is being loaded, the gunner or another crew member would be able to give a burst from the MG. Thus while the MGs may not add anything at long range, they could do so at close or medium range. Would it help to posit, for each range where the MG adds to the gun, the amount of the increase?

By the way, during my arduous attempt to develop some proposed separate Hull, CoAx, AAMG, and HE values, on the theory that the vehicle would have to use either MG or HE, but not both, I did notice that on some vehicles the player would be confronted with an interesting choice when firing at infantry in cover. The MG value was sometimes 1 point higher than the HE, thus providing one extra throw of the die. On the other hand the lower HE value gave the benefit, if the target was hit, of a -2 to cover. I think one could develop a playable version incorporating this mechanic, but it would require an additional level of complexity. Using blended values is more consistent with KISS, and with keeping some momentum going with this project.

More later. I hope others will join in the discussion so we can turn this corner and get some vehicle cards going.