Should tanks fight tanks? It's 1989 and the USSR has just

File: wot_maneuvertactics_armourangling_phil_eng.png (594KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1280x1024px

>>33291032
Tanks should avoid tanks at all costs, but if the situation arises (such as urban combat), make the first shot count.

Also, having superior armor and armor angling. Packing TOW missiles (or EU/Russian equivalent) on support vehicles and active defense is good idea.

Like infantry, use cover and concealment to your advantage. Understand that those are not necessarily mutually exclusive things, but also not mutually inclusive.

Avoid Syrian battle tactics.

>>33291146
>Tanks should avoid tanks at al...


YOU WHAT????????

Since the end of WW2 and the end of Tank Destroyers the MAIN JOB of Tanks is to DESTROY OTHER TANKS

>>33291032
Vehicles do not go 'hunting' other vehicles. They take their objectives and fight what they encounter along the way as possible.

File: M901.gif (22KB, 510x410px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x410px

>>33291169
>end of the tank destroyer

never happened, they just evolved with the times

Correct me if I'm wrong but the role of tanks today is the same as it was in 1914: crossing open areas quickly under fire without dying.

Warfare is just an extended game of capture the flag. Everything is peripheral to parking your ass on the enemy team's flagpole. Infantry are good for going through dense areas. Tanks are good for going through open areas. Nobody sits there and asks "BUT WHAT ARE INFANTRY FOR?" because infantry ARE the army. They are the thing that every other thing exists to support. They are the element that can actually advance across terrain and steal the enemy's shit. Well, tanks are basically that except they're armoured. They are the part of the army that actually parks its ass on the enemy's shit.

>>33291032
What tabletop game is this? Not finding anything relevant on google.

>>33291169
That's the point, both sides are gonna get shredded in an upfront fight. Unless you're fighting a technologically inferior enemy (i.e. most middle eastern countries), you should rely more on air superiority and the likes.

>>33291238
I'm designing it with input from my friends to play.

We model 1/35 scale tanks in between Warhammer and some other equally nerdy shit and I wanted something to use them for.

It's not a wargame so much as it's a tabletop RPG using the 1/35 scale models as representations for your "player character" tank. Should be an interesting challenge having to roleplay all the crew though.

>>33291238
>>33291261
Oh if you mean the picture in the OP it could be anything, I grabbed it off Google.

>>33291261
I was referring to the game in pic but sounds neat IMO. Might see how it turns out.

Are those tanks part of your game as well?

File: m247mule.jpg (27KB, 396x230px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 396x230px

>>33291211
Tanks are harder to kill than crunchies. They are a mobile pillbox with a bigger stick than a crunchie but less than air support.
Pic will mess your stuff up but it doesn't say "were here" quite like a tank.

>>33291270
just saw
>>33291264
Seems like a neat concept, keep me posted

But yeah tanks never go hunting because it's primarily a bad idea, and focus on being supporting elements for other groups. While hunting isn't always bad if you have sufficient intel, just going and looking for them is never really a good idea because of all the wonders of modern warfare (And even stuff from 1989)

Have you ever played the Wargame series? Just curious but it kind of makes a point as to why tank hunting as opposed to combined elements pushing together makes more sense.

>>33291032
>Should tanks fight tanks?
Ideally, no they shouldn't. But in a conventional war between the USSR and NATO it would have been unavoidable.

File: TBBX01-01.jpg (117KB, 690x486px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 690x486px

>>33291238
It's probably Team Yankee.

>>33291290
If I ever get it finished maybe I'll post it up but I doubt it will be anything special.

It's really designed as a way to play with our 1/35th scale models and really have some fun modelling towards specific scenarios, so in that sense it's more a framework than a self-contained game. It's not a "cold war gone hot" simulation game, it's an armoured vehicle combat framework that can be adapted to anything from steampunk land battleships to post-apocalyptic toyota wars. The main focus is on gearwhoring, not simulation. Actually "building" the tank (both literally and in the "character design" aspect) is where my main focus is. I want to give options for unlimited kitbashing.

In terms of gameplay I'm keeping it fairly streamlined. I once played a system that used thirteen dice rolls to determine penetration for vehicles - never again. The goal is to provide a huge wealth of equipment options allowing vehicles to be built literally from the ground up, custom-made down to the fenders, with each option altering the performance of the vehicle, so combat is more based around giving effect to design choices as much as possible and highlighting different equipment's advantages and disadvantages. IRL it probably doesn't matter too much whether you get your face melted off with superheated copper or get your skull perforated with shrapnel so there's some balancing realism with the need to make things feel distinct when, in real life, they're all just slightly different ways to kill people.

And yeah, I've played tons of Wargame. I was never good at it though because I didn't have anyone to stack pubs with.

The current role of tanks, which started in WW2, is to fight everything on the ground
Support infantry that are fighting against dug in enemies, fight enemy armor, slice through enemy supply lines.
Ideally they would have infantry and air support (Combined Arms) but if need be, tanks can work alone to some extent in ways other vehicles cannot.

>>33291322
Now that sounds real fuckin' nato right there. I love customizing shit and making stuff like that

there better be a fucking pastebin at least because it sounds like fun to mess around with friends and whatever.

also
>13 dice rolls
why the fuck would you ever need this

>>33291320
Looks like it, thanks m8

File: 3c4e169a7ef415bb791a9fd38f22e641.jpg (80KB, 700x363px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x363px

>>33291347
Sorry senpai, it literally only exists in my scrapbook at the moment. I'm surrounded by 1/35 scale tanks and nothing to do with them, as are most of my m80s. Basically I want any conceivable thing you could sculpt onto a model to be statted in game and have an effect.

>13 dice rolls
Let me see if I can remember.
Roll 2d6 for hit
Roll 1d6 for concealment save if applicable
Roll 1dN for which compartment of the vehicle is hit (where N is the number of compartments which the gunner has line of sight on) (a compartment might be "turret" or "engine" or "driver"
Roll 2d6 for marksmanship using the shooter's stat. If the roll is high enough you get to choose the compartment to resolve the hit on. You do this second because low rolls here can still allow you to shunt the hit to an adjacent compartment.
Then you'd roll for penetration, which used the reference table based on the angle that the shot was coming from against the penetration of the ammunition used and there was a literal formula used to modify the dice rolls here.
Then you'd have to roll for damage. Each compartment had a list of equipment in so you'd have to roll against the list, and then roll again for that specific piece of equipment to see what damage you actually did to it.
For some equipment like an ammo rack there were further rolls.

It was absolutely retarded, especially considering that mostly it's going through the motions. If you hit a humvee with an HE shell you don't need 13 dice to figure out the result. I forget most of the details though. It was a long time ago.

>>33291186
>muh gavin
fuck off

>>33291412
Holy moly sounds autistic
Kinda neat but seems unnecessarily complex.

Also I should have said pastebin whenever, take your time but it sounds bretty gud.

Is there any site you're using for the "part picker" so to speak or will it resemble world of tanks/armored warfare's use of different modules that may or may not have really existed?

>>33291347

You need it because of autism. Many tabletop games have some super convoluted game systems.

A simple solution to armor values and penetration would be to use dice values and d6/d10. If you have x inches of armor on the front of a vehicle and its shot with an x inch gun the gun gets x dice rolls and the armor removes x dice rolls from the roll. A roll above a certian number on the dice is a penetration and a roll of a natural 6 or 10 is a larger effect maybe. Its simple and clean.

The same system can be used for aiming as well with distance cover and camo reducing a given tanks accuracy over distance.

You might end up rolling a lot of dice but its only two actual rolls and you just throw the dice that are failures away.

>>33291261
Sounds like a current era MechWarrior. If you haven't looked into it, I highly recommend checking it out. Not to play necessarily but it's fairly successful at doing what you are trying to do. Would be a good way to get ideas and pointers as to how to pull shit off with that style

>>33291441
>>33291442
This was made simply for calculating armor penetration in wargames.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/oi1z1bc4vhxokh4/WWII_Ballistics-_Armor_and_Gunnery.pdf

>>33291441
>Kinda neat but seems unnecessarily complex.
Yeah it was a fun novelty and when an improbable shot from a way underpowered soviet AT gun set off a hilarious chain reaction inside a Panzer 3 which caused the sparks from a broken radio to ignite leaking fuel and cause it to go up in a roast it was hilarious, but just too much effort.

>Is there any site you're using for the "part picker" so to speak or will it resemble world of tanks/armored warfare's use of different modules that may or may not have really existed?
More just my general knowledge at the moment, taking cool ideas that I know about from tanks that I know of and throwing them in. The Tiger had a bow machine gun so that goes on the list, which means that you could theoretically take a bow machine gun on your Leopard 2A7 if you wanted, and why not make it a CROWS operated one. Pistol ports on your Merkava? Sure why not. Basically I want to throw every dumb idea and design dead end into the pot and let players choose what to do with it.

As far as how I'm going to limit players to stop them building a ball of death it will be partially with a mass system for the big components (like hull size, armour, suspension, engines, stopping you from going too big) and partially with an internal volume system for medium stuff (like fire suppression systems) (your hull size minus your big components gives you the leftover internal volume you can fill with cool things) and for small things like pistol ports and what king of antenna you want I dunno, that will probably be unlimited.

The goal is to make this fun for modelling as well as designing because I want everyone to actually build the tank that they will play (which is unlikely but meh).

I dunno, it's not massively well developed.

>>33291465
I'll take a gander at it. I'm always open to ideas.

>>33291415
>ctrl+f gavin
>your post

what are you even on about?