AT Guns

[Uncle_Joe]

I've seen people posting a lot of builds, but I rarely see any AT guns in them (with the exception of maybe the Pak40 to go with the WE Sniper). I take it from that that most people arent fond of the AT guns? If so, why is that?

I ask because in our last few games they have become increasingly used to restrict enemy AFV movement. They tend to be cheap and expendable (for the most part).

Caveat...we tend to stick to 100 point, random map battles at the moment so we dont see a high number of huge tanks. We also dont mix nationalities beyond the reasonable. I'm sure if the battlefields is flooded with the big boys then the AT guns lose some luster.

But for the standard 100 point games, they seem pretty useful to us. Yes, they are vulnerable with the 3 defense, but that is often offset by the fact that they tend to be farther back, in cover.

So, what do some of you vet players think of AT guns and why?

Thanks!

[Himmlers_lover_Urnst]

anti tank guns are alright i guess you could say, i enjoy tossing a pak 38 or the zis russian anti tank gun in my uilds every once in awhile. But there are craptastic ones that don't deserve to even be stored, such as the *** one, the pak 40 and the 6 pounder.

[Colonel_Coo]

I use them (besides the PAK-40) in restricted year scenarios only. Otherwise, YUCH!

[Uncle_Joe]

Why YUCH! though? What is it about them that you dont like?

Obviously they tend to be vulnerable and not very mobile, but you get what you pay for...they also tend to be considerably cheaper than buying a vehicle with an equivalent gun.

[horacus]

I think that the Pak 40 is the best AT gun for his cost, and you don't really nedd to relocate it, beacause it has extended range 10, and the attack of a panzer 4 ausf.g

[Der Leiter]

What is there to like about expensive units with 3/3 defence, and can be hard to position at times because of speed 0/relocate. Most of them simply aren't worth using in a standard game.

In a defender army they can be useful as they're cheaper than tanks and get better cover.

In limited Scenarios such as France 1940 they can be useful when the vehicles available just don't have a high enough attack (although the Elite Panzer solved that for '39-40 games).

In keeping with my other Mobilty vs Firepower vs Defence thread...

They have poor mobility
They have poor defence
Most have moderate firepower

So why take them?

The PAK40 is sometimes an exception since it has decent attack and range 10 for 14 points, but even then it's very vulnerable, and with the release of Set III the Axis(Germany) have a lot of vehicle options for around the same cost that they can take over it.

[Mr_G]

Usefulness of the ATG depends heavily on the choice of terrain. Now, since you cannot build your force in reaction to the terrain, and since you cannot always choose your side of the battle map, most players prefer using tank destroyers or vehicle mounted artillery since they can move them easily in the battle.
Most players aslo seem more interested in destroying the opponent's units in a single stroke rather than use the disruption wave tactic. Since you cannot position yourself for a kill with these units (they are more of a threat than an effective weapon) you have to count on your opponent to close in. A difficult tactic that you must work out outside of the rules and by bluffing your opponent or by thinking ahead. A&AM is too gamey for this to work well. Still, if you know your opponent...

However, ATGs are usefull in certain situations. For me, one is not enough in my builds and I often field 2 or 3 of them because I like to count on multiple hits rather than a single hit.

They are to tanks what snipers are to infantry; less mobile and toast once the opponent gets close.

[RaidingParty]

AT guns have good firepower at low cost. That means you can field more guns and would have a better chance of flanking your opponent.

The trade-off, as Der Lieter noted, is poor defense and poor mobility. Paratroopers, snipers, and cavalry (and now the BMW) are the bane of AT guns. I never play more than 2 AT guns because they are very easy to lose. For the Allies, I pair them with an Inspiring Lieutenant to help with mobility, or an RDC to smoke out tanks in cover. For the Axis, I leave them at range while Panzers move closer and draw more enemy fire.

[mlund]

Anti-Tank guns are bad in the basic, object-based scenarios because the objective on the board is invariably a terrain piece that blocks Line of Sight.

Ergo, you can't set up your anti-tank guns effectively on most maps. You have to move them into a relevant position, and that takes way too much time in a 7-turn game with enemy Armor, Infantry, and Machine Guns wizzing around. Anti-tank guns aren't designed to be wheeled out into the middle of some random, quick and fierce skirmish fighting. You get those things into relevant areas hours ahead of the battle at least.

This translates into their effectiveness in the game too. In a random skirmish you're better off with mobile guns such as those found on tanks or in the hands of infantry specialists (Panzerfaust, Bazooka).

That said, Anti-Tank guns are good to have in the game because they can be made into great scenario pieces. When you have a defensive position they can truly shine.

- Marty Lund

[Uncle_Joe]

I guess I'm still fixated on the impossible to close assault vehicles which tend to render most infantry based anti-armor nearly useless. Sure, they can push the armor around, but if they cant kill it they are being shot up the whole time. Even Pzfausts can be largely ignored by the Rhino (since it can always choose to move more than 1 hex away if it wants)

AT guns threaten the movement of those vehicles and can support the infantry. In cover, they have the same potential invulnerability as infantry too. I also dont see them as really that much slower than infantry. They can still move 2 hexes, just only during the Assault phase. So, on the march, they can keep up. They do lose out in being able to positions themselves during the movement phase.

Cost to effectiveness? Well, a lowly Pak38 costs 10 points. At medium range, it puts out 9 AT dice. That is something a Sherman has to respect. Its almost even money for a disruption. For 4 more points, the Pak40 puts out 12 dice out to range 10! That is a good chance at damaging a Sherman at any range and almost a guaranteed damage up closer.

So far, that type of firepower has been enough to discourage movement from enemy AFVs in our games. Paratroops are a problem though as are planes nowadays. But the maps are usually small enough in standard configuration to allow for the support vehicles to come back and blast any Paras that land and trading a few Paras for a few AT guns doesnt seem to be too bad of a trade in the long run, especially since surviving Paras would really have to hoof it to make it back into action (again, on many, but not all maps).

Anyways, its good to see some varying opinions. My evaluation of them is that they can be good if used properly and with a halfway friendly map. If the opponent makes a specific effort to take them out (Paras, air, A/Cs and the like), then they are less useful but at least the force the enemy into reacting. That tells me that they are a concern and that my points were fairly well spent ;). They arent something I'd put in every force, but they definately dont seem to be as bad as some folks seem to think.

[spite48]

I sometimes build armies that are entirely infantry or entirely vehicles to waste my opponent's points spent on addressing a target that is not present in my army.

An all vehicle force is generally more effective than an all-infantry force, however I had a very satisfying win immediately after I acquired my King Tiger. I raved about the toughness of the KT and then fielded an all soldier army to the dismay of my opponent who had guessed incorrectly that I would experiment with the KT.

my 3 or 4 PAK 40 were very useful on a wide open board, and my opponent's token anti-infantry units were quickly neutralized.

Usually I don't play with AT guns, but they can have a role.

[Belisarius]

I agree with everyone who says that the there is a role for the the AT gun, other than collecting dust in your tackle box. But it does depend on what kind of map you are on, and what kind of game you are playing. In the generic 100 pt., 7 turn "meeting engagement," the lack of mobility is a crucial factor, as Der Leiter points out. But, for the Allies, at least, now there is the universal carrier, which offsets that, to a degree. It it now more possible to get the AT gun to a protected spot that can dominate the approaches to the objective.

[Uncle_Joe]

Looking at other projected German builds, I wouldnt be surprised to start seeing even a few of the much maligned 6pdrs and ZIS-2's. Either can make a nice mess out of the new Elite PzIV for half the cost.

[NorthernRommel]

There in lies the problem for the Germans. Their current army is crippled because they have effective infantry but cannot properly field a non-vehicle AT support element. It forces the German player to rely to some extent on vehicles that cannot stand up well to the Allies, or they have to go with King Tigers or heavy tanks that are more survivable but too expensive.

Half-tracks are too expensive, so the Allies also have mobility for their infantry that is more affordable. Even many of their tanks carry infantry, while the Germans cannot (but did do so historically).

The Allies now have a guntowing vehicle (when in fact all vehicles should tow guns). So yet again the Allies will get the element of maneuver increased, while the Germans do not.

Add in Paratroopers, Super Duper Hunting Sniper, and cheap partisans and their ludicrous deployment ability and the situation for the Germans just gets worse and worse. Still though I have fielded a German army of AT guns that can crucify most Russians.......against Americans I rarely bother using them anymore.

[Stojakovic]

I love my PAK 40s. I try to keep them in forest and hill hexs for extra protection. Or else they are going to end up as WIENER SCHNITZEL.

[destructorofner]

I always field AT weapons in one shape or form.

[Mr_G]

Looking at other projected German builds, I wouldnt be surprised to start seeing even a few of the much maligned 6pdrs and ZIS-2's. Either can make a nice mess out of the new Elite PzIV for half the cost.

Hmm. Yes, those ZIS-2 were kinda crappy, but now that there is more German low armored vehicles, it looks a little better.

[Predator666]

The only AT guns I wish to use are the Pak 40 and occasionally the Pak 38. I find them extremely useful in larger point games and a necessity. I've tried taking on heavy tanks without them, and because my strongest tanks are panzer IVs I need Pak 40's to stay alive.

[Dr.Cornelius]

Humber. Sniper. Paratrooper. Cavalry.

Efficient units that eat AT Guns for breakfast. Its too bad that exotic units dominate units like AT Guns and Halftracks that should be staples.

One piece of advice: if you field a Pak 40 invest in a SS-HStFü to keep it in good order, and a BMW to screen.

On another note, I realize it is frustrating to play against the Rhino- but it only has 5 armor and is vulnerable to being destroyed by another tank. Tiger/KT, Guards T-34/85 and JS-2 are good choices to take down Rhinos.

[Colonel_Coo]

Humber. Sniper. Paratrooper. Cavalry.

Efficient units that eat AT Guns for breakfast. Its too bad that exotic units dominate units like AT Guns and Halftracks that should be staples.

One piece of advice: if you field a Pak 40 invest in a SS-HStFü to keep it in good order, and a BMW to screen.

On another note, I realize it is frustrating to play against the Rhino- but it only has 5 armor and is vulnerable to being destroyed by another tank. Tiger/KT, Guards T-34/85 and JS-2 are good choices to take down Rhinos.
Agreed on all counts.

SS HFurher is a required must. The new BMW's are excellent.

A T-34 with a 6 defense is a hard target. A 7 defense is worse.

[Uncle_Joe]

Sure, lots of things can take down a Rhino (or the SS-MkIV, or even the Panther). But Infantry in close quarters should be one of them. Also, what happens when they make the SS Tiger or the Veteran Jumbo etc? The rules should make sense where possible and I just see any reason to allow vehicles to me so immune to infantry. The Rhino is only a symptom the of the problem.

[Dr.Cornelius]

Infantry are weaker than vehicles. To fix the imbalance I have even posted a suggestion or two that only involves rulebook changes.

But it is hard to have sympathy if your 100 point army cannot destroy an armor 5 Rhino before turn 7. The Rhino is a near-brokenly strong unit, but is nowhere near the brokenness of the KV-1 + Cossack, and maybe even the BMW.

[Uncle_Joe]

Ok, everyone agrees that the Sherman is a fantastic buy for the points. And, IMO, there is rarely a reason not to buy a Rhino over a Sherman for 5 more points. So that means the Rhino is even more cost effective than the Sherman? Perhaps not, but I dont think 1 Rhino is the problem. Its 2 or 3 with support that is irritating.

And dont get me wrong. Killing a Rhino (or an SS-PzrIV) is not impossible or even that difficult overall. But since infantry cant really affect them and since they are both popular vehicles, the incentive to buy regular infantry is lessened. That is my chief complaint with the darned things. They just nearly invalidate many builds that involve infantry as an integral part. So, its not that they cant be beat (of course they can), but they take some of the fun and variation out of force construction IMO.

For the record, when I'm talking about Infantry, I mean the regular old Rifle/SMG style troops (Garands, SMLE, Mosin, Mauser, MAS etc). Obviously the WE Sniper etc are technically 'infantry', but those are still effective regardless. Its the basic grunts which seem to be lacking in most 'real' builds.

[Dr.Cornelius]

....the incentive to buy regular infantry is lessened. That is my chief complaint with the darned things. They just nearly invalidate many builds that involve infantry as an integral part. So, its not that they cant be beat (of course they can), but they take some of the fun and variation out of force construction IMO.I agree completely. Too many efficient builds (KV/Cossack among them) are invulnerable to infantry. Infantry becomes irrelevant in competitive games.

For the record, when I'm talking about Infantry, I mean the regular old Rifle/SMG style troops (Garands, SMLE, Mosin, Mauser, MAS etc). Obviously the WE Sniper etc are technically 'infantry', but those are still effective regardless. Its the basic grunts which seem to be lacking in most 'real' builds.The R&D team priced the basic 3/3 defense, 8/6/- (and 7/5/-) infantry too high relative to armor and elites. Basic infantry are dead meat against 5 defense elites and cannot harm the most efficient armor. There is no reason the basic infantry should not be reduced to 2 or even 1 point. The 15 unit limit effectively increases the 'cost' of basic infantry in 150+ point games so there is not an issue of the cost being too low.

Your point about basic infantry highlights the frustrating fundamental truth of AAM: we want it to be a reasonably historical, light tactical wargame but it ends up being a fantasy game with WWII figures. That is why specialty units like snipers, paratroopers, humbers, motorcycles, etc. dominate staple units like basic infantry, AT Guns, halftracks, etc.

[NorthernRommel]

Your points are reasonable guys, and thats what I am trying to address.

The true gripe about historical it seems has finally come home to roust. Its not that the rules fixes make the game more complicated. Its more that they fix the game and the reality it represents, and some of the whiners out there dont like that.

War may be hell, but so is game design.

[Colonel_Panic]

When playing assault (defending the objective), and not strictly 100p armies (we usually play quick games around 200p), fielding a few AT-guns will always get the opponents attention. There are a few AT gun eaters out there, polishhorses are my fav AT gun cruncher, butAT-guns are great to keep tanks of you flanks. I fear them, I fear the so much I use my P51 to take them out. Lost too many tanks to AT guns that I thought would be harmless...

So, bottom line here:
Playing A&AM 'tournamentwise' encourage the A&AM The Gathering type of games which I personally just can't stand. Playing with year and slightly larger battles or scenarios encourage a more historical way of playing the game.

[CdtWeasel]

I've learned that Pak 40's don't swim very well.