Vet Tiger

[polish_horsy]

does it bother anyone else that almost all other heavy armor is now just about useless? And that this thing has over 99% chance to damage a sherman at medium range? Talk about a can't miss crack shot!

[shadowhooch]

I guess the equalizer is....

Do you think you could take it out with 3 Shermans?

If so, then it's still okay because you can get 3 Shermans for the cost of the Vet Tiger.

[TheJudge]

A Tiger should be able to take out 3 Shermans. Simple.

[polish_horsy]

OK. But the Tiger I, King Tiger, Pershing, and IS-2 are now worthless. Some people spent $100 getting doubles of those units. And they now have almost no value. And there is no point in the Jadgtiger either.

[Bobsalt]

I have no problem with the new Veteran Tiger. What I have a problem with is the screwed-up cost. :eek: Either the original cost was too high, or the new one is too low. There is no way you can justify giving this thing *all* those extra dice for only a two point increase. The original Tiger in my opinion should have been in the mid-50's, and this one in the upper 60's to around 70.

Of course, I guess that's what HHR is for, isn't it? A shameless plug... :D

[shadowhooch]

OK. But the Tiger I, King Tiger, Pershing, and IS-2 are now worthless. Some people spent $100 getting doubles of those units. And they now have almost no value. And there is no point in the Jadgtiger either.

I can't agrue against that. The Vet Tiger will be the best of the bunch.

If you are a "power gamer", then it should upset you that those units have been trumped.

However, if you want to throw some "historical" into the mix, just roll a die to see if you get the Regular Tiger vs Vet Tiger in your build. On a 4,5, or 6, you get the Vet. On a 1, 2, 3 you get the Regular.
That's what I do with the Sherman and Vet Sherman Rhino.
I sometimes do it with Mausers and SS PGs too.
Adds a little realism to your build instead of making an "Uber-non historical build".

[Xzuatl]

Of course, I guess that's what HHR is for, isn't it? A shameless plug... :D
Not so shameless in my opinion. HHR is the only reason I am still playing this game. :)

[Zhukov]

OK. But the Tiger I, King Tiger, Pershing, and IS-2 are now worthless. Some people spent $100 getting doubles of those units. And they now have almost no value. And there is no point in the Jadgtiger either.
Well some people just wasted there money. I have spent only $170 in Axis Allies minis and have 3 Tigers alone, 2 IS-2s, 1 KT. Also I have never seen any AAM go for more then 25 on eBay.

I dont think 3 Shermans could take down a Tiger, when Cromwells, Valentines, Pershings, Shermans of all types fail to take down one Tiger.

[Zhukov]

I also think I will now be playing my games with a decency rule. No Vet Tigers and crap.

[Xzuatl]

And why does the Vet Tiger not have overrun? :confused: I guess, being veteran troops, they are more careful driving into enemy soldier occupied hexes. After all, who really wants to clean squished infantry parts from tank treads? :D

[Sherman_buster]

Infantry are only scared of rookie drivers.

[shadowhooch]

I will have to agree that Crackshot is the most broken SA that exists in the game - especially giving it to a tank.

I would have preferred that you get one Crackshot per game instead of getting it every turn for a Veteren crew.
Or re-roll your 1's.

[Bobsalt]

I also think I will now be playing my games with a decency rule. No Vet Tigers and crap.
Careful - if you start with that, before long you'll be house ruling out all the kiddie stuff.

Congratulations on taking your first step to the Dark Side... :D

[PatrickWR]

Jeez guys, just use your normal Tigers as gray-colored Veteran Tigers!!

[Aries]

Is it true the Vet Tiger also lost the Extended Range 10 or did I misread that?

[Uncle_Joe]

I believe it has the ER:10. It traded the Overrun for Crack Shot and 2 points. Pretty good trade, eh?

[Colonel_Panic]

I still don't think the Vet Tiger is overpowered, it is instead hitting where the Tigers should be, undestructable. Three shermans was no match for a Tiger with experienced crew. neither was AT-guns. Bazookas at point blank from behind was a problem, and so was also aircrafts and naval guns.

[shadowhooch]

I still don't think the Vet Tiger is overpowered, it is instead hitting where the Tigers should be, undestructable. Three shermans was no match for a Tiger with experienced crew. neither was AT-guns. Bazookas at point blank from behind was a problem, and so was also aircrafts and naval guns.

And don't forget "Sticky Bombs" from Saving Private Ryan. :D

[Geobaldi]

I just wonder how long it takes some munchkin to come to the inevitable conclusion of a Veteran Tiger/SS Panzergrenadier "Unstoppable" army??

[polish_horsy]

I'll be house-ruling the Vet Tiger down to 14/12/10 dice and using crackshot. That still is a significant improvement in the odds over the original 17/15/12 believe it or not.

As they are written I think the original Tiger is worth 60-63 and the new one is worth 70-75. But the bigger problem is you have no use for the IS-2 and Pershing as they will be easily beaten down trading disruptions for damage on a tank costing the same or less.

[Predator666]

Well it made a fare trade in my eyes. It lost overrun and gained crackshot. It may be the perfect match for an army consisting of tanks...but...Get an army with an M36 and fill in with soldiers.......both AT and AI, easy way to counter it. Add some of the new ami mortars for killin elite soldiers. Its that simple. Get a P-38 if your sceptical. Common ppl, use diff. combos. Its not to overpowed and is easily taken down.

[Colonel_Coo]

Long range for the original tiger was in direct conflict with the Overrun capability.

Now you have a Tiger designed to stay back and shoot. Tiger Haven just became a TIGER HAVEN.

[TheJudge]

I wouldn't say the new Tiger is any better than the old Tiger as far as game play goes. Crack Shot is, imho, the best ability in the game so giving Crack shot to it's already obscene vehicle attack stats is irrelevant. The Anit infantry stats get bigger with crack shot but thats fine for killing Eagles.

In reality, A Tiger, against just about any tank the allies could throw at it, was almost invincible. Not until the specialty tank destroyers came out, did the allies have much chance to kill these monsters. It is well known that a Tigers weak point was its rear so perhaps WOTC went a bit overboard with the rear armor. 7/5 would have been ok and make it less invincible.

I like the big pieces. Why is the IS-26 useless? If you kill each others tanks, you kill each others tanks, its a fair trade right? Or a Pershing? Last I checked, they were both 65 points. If the Tiger is in cover and you aren't, thats your fault.

Oh yeah, this is a game of dice rolls. if you roll 15 dice and the opponent rolls 15 dice, he hits, you miss, just move on to the next game. Big whoop.

I love when people say that old pieces become worthless....why? They are only worthless if you don't use them and if you think every single person that comes through the door at your local store is going to be playing a vet Tiger team. Thats just narrow minded.

Oh yeah, why don't you field an army to beat it? Erf.

[polish_horsy]

Why is the IS-26 useless? If you kill each others tanks, you kill each others tanks, its a fair trade right? Or a Pershing? Last I checked, they were both 65 points. If the Tiger is in cover and you aren't, thats your fault.

Oh yeah, this is a game of dice rolls. if you roll 15 dice and the opponent rolls 15 dice, he hits, you miss, just move on to the next game. Big whoop.

I love when people say that old pieces become worthless....why? They are only worthless if you don't use them and if you think every single person that comes through the door at your local store is going to be playing a vet Tiger team. Thats just narrow minded.

Oh yeah, why don't you field an army to beat it? Erf.

OK. I'll walk you through the math. At medium range an IS-2 has a 30% chance to damage a Vet Tiger. The Vet Tiger costs LESS and has an 80% chance to damage the IS-2. You know every german heavy armor build is going to have a Vet Tiger now. So what exactly is the job of the IS-2? To get crushed? To loose the game for you?

[Uncle_Joe]

OK. I'll walk you through the math. At medium range an IS-2 has a 30% chance to damage a Vet Tiger. The Vet Tiger costs LESS and has an 80% chance to damage the IS-2. You know every german heavy armor build is going to have a Vet Tiger now. So what exactly is the job of the IS-2? To get crushed? To loose the game for you?

Come on! Whats the matter with you? Everybody KNOWS that Tigers were unkillable and that none were ever lost in fair combat. The Allies only won because there were 100 Shermans or T34s to every poor, brave Tiger.

I mean its not like the WAllies developed higher velocity guns and special ammo to kill them. They already knew that Tigers couldnt be killed because they were designed and crewed by German Supermen. So the only thing to do is was to swarm them under with impossible odds.

So in that case, the game is mimicking 'reality'. Why bother with those crappy old Allied heavy tanks when you can just play the Shermans again and again? Silly boy. Heavy tanks shouldnt be able to kill Tigers (heck, I bet even an Abrams couldnt have killed one). So the game is just being accurate to reality.*




















*Sponsored by the German Ministry of Propaganda (who luckily still have some believers!)

[TheJudge]

Yeah, I guess the Vet tiger is the be all, end all. I guess we can play a few games with it until we get bored and then quit. Yeah, that sounds about right.

Sorry, Im just not that narrow minded. We had 7 people at our tournament last Saturday and the armies were as follows:

Elite Panzer/Brummbar/infantry
Elite Panzers/Brummbar/Stuka/infantry
Britsh Tanks/Humbers/Infantry
Easy 8/Stuart/Infantry
Kv-1/Katyushas/Infantry
Shermans/Infantry

I didn't see the 7th guy play. Pretty well balanced as I see it. I didn't see a single Tiger team, Pershing, Sherman 105, IS-2, Para Bomb, or anything else people have always whined about as being power gamer pieces. It was fun, competetive, and not stressful.

It sounds to me like if someone shows up with a Vet Tiger team and you are playing Crocs and Stuarts, you stand no chance of winning? Hmmmm...stinks for you I guess but try to have fun anyway and keep your "power gamer" stuff to yourself.

I sure hope I pull one tomorrow, actually 2 or 3 would be nice so i can trade the extras easily, but I will certainly play it once in a while. Thats why I like this game, I try to use all the pieces, get my moneys worth, and have fun doing it. Gee, what a concept!

[Hum_35711]

So what exactly is the job of the IS-2? To get crushed? To loose the game for you?

Don't worry. A 'Veteran IS-2' will be comming out any time now. And then an 'Elite Tiger I' will be released. And then you'll need an 'Elite IS-2' to counter that. And remember, you heard it here first folks.

[Aries]

All the models are done, just need a new paint job and people like us to buy them....

[TheJudge]

Good point Hum. For all the crying about the goof with the Spitfire, did anyone notice how great the P-38 looks? Or that maybe, just maybe, they will make another Spitfire? Wow.

Before Contested Skies, the Germans didn't have a light tank worth a poop and out comes the Stug and Elite Panzer IV, 2 great pieces.

The power creep is there but it makes sense since weaponry got more and more powerful, ie napalm, bigger guns, rockets, V1's & 2's. Tanks also got better and better. Look at some of these 50mm gun tanks and then notice how they gett bigger and bigger as the war goes on and last i checked, the Allies did win. Hey, if it was because of shear numbers, thats ok, I like playing 10 pieces on a squad as much as playing 3 or 4 bigger pieces.

Its all good.

[shadowhooch]

Yes,

Some people call this a "powercreep". But it IS historical.
Some vehicles were flat out better than others.
Some weapons and units weren't nearly as effective as planned. Unfortunately, this inneffectiveness was often realized AFTER the production run and people were using them on the battlefield. You just had to make due with what you had at the time.

Seems like WotC production is functioning similarly. They can't forsee all the strategies. Some units are better than others. Some are overcosted. Some are undercosted. It looks like they try to correct past mistakes by compensating with future units (i.e Elite and Veteran).

Hopefully, they will entertain Re-Costing old units at some point in time so they become playable again (or for the first time).

[horacus]

And, here, both armies are the same point. 100vs100. They are fair matchs, in real history they were about 10-20 russians by 1 german. And they were producet 50,000 T34 against 6,000 panthers for example. Who wins after all, even if the Panther was a better tank.

[Predator666]

The only way I will field a vet. tiger is in one of my groups all armor battles, which are 300+ pts and are all tanks. Nothing else. I hope to use a jagdtiger as my main weapon of death.

[Colonel_Panic]

... in real history they were about 10-20 russians by 1 german. And they were producet 50,000 T34 against 6,000 panthers for example. Who wins after all, even if the Panther was a better tank.
Read the book on Kursk, and the Soviet losses in men and tanks were between 4:1 and 7:1, day after day, month after month.

[tarkin1980]

I don't know what kind of 3 year olds you guys play against, but to me it's always been obvious that medium tanks (shermans) are always superior to big beasts like Tigers in A&AM. It's not THAT hard to disrupt a Tiger, and once disrupted, its a sitting duck. DEAD! It's unbelievable how you can complain about the points cost of the Veteran Tiger when there's stuff like the Bofors (c'mon? NINE points?! I'd pay 19 for it and be happy!). Geez come on folks, that's probably the most broken piece in the game, even with D-day included. :eek:

[Uncle_Joe]

I don't know what kind of 3 year olds you guys play against, but to me it's always been obvious that medium tanks (shermans) are always superior to big beasts like Tigers in A&AM. It's not THAT hard to disrupt a Tiger, and once disrupted, its a sitting duck. DEAD!

Err, I dont think most people are debating that. But they do kind of have a point in that its stupid to use HEAVY tanks to fight this particular HEAVY tank. You have to do it with mediums to have a chance...there's reality for ya!

[Origen]

The Veteran Tiger will be anything but a sitting duck, even while disrupted. A disrupted VT will still hit you on 4+, more than sufficient to grease Shermans. The Green Tiger would get an average of 5 hits at medium range while disrupted, the VT will get 7 or 8. At close range we will still be seeing insta-kills, and at long range you will still see disruption half the time. And we aren't even talking about what happens before the VT gets disrupted, or what happens to tanks with less than 5 armor (such as the medium tanks you are referring to).

Plus the VT will be 50/50 of at least disrupting aircraft, over 50/50 to kill Def 4 infantry or disrupt def 5 infantry. This thing is a monster.

I have no problem with the unit, it's stats, or it's SA. I think they are entirely appropriate. I have a huge beef with the 65 point cost. I think the VT would see serious play even at 85 points, 65 is insane.

JMHO

[Uncle_Joe]

I have no problem with the unit, it's stats, or it's SA. I think they are entirely appropriate. I have a huge beef with the 65 point cost

Yep, thats it in a nutshell!

[polish_horsy]

The vet Tiger is worth 75-80 IMO.

when damaged it still shoots like... well like a regular Tiger. You remember... the one you paid 63 for.

[horacus]

Colonel_panic, I was talking abour how many rusian soldiers were for 1 german soldier. No how many died by one german.

Well, the Vet.Tiger will se a lot of games until there is something bette, and that will be in the next expansion. Everyone knows that.

[Hum_35711]

Plus the VT will be 50/50 of at least disrupting aircraft, over 50/50 to kill Def 4 infantry or disrupt def 5 infantry.

I'm not too sure about these probabilities. It looks like you rushed and got the numbers wrong. I'm going to redo them.

[Hum_35711]

yah, chances of at least disrupting an aircraft are 2/5 or 40%.

[edit: thats at close or medium range]

[Hum_35711]

again, same thing, only 40% chance of 5 hits against infantry at close or medium range. Still respectable though.

[Hum_35711]

wait a minute... did I do that right??? I'm not a mathematician. Somebody fix this!

[Hum_35711]

Is it actually a 29% chance? I give up.

[polish_horsy]

The Vet Tiger has 57% chance to disrupt a 5 defense unit at medium range and 50% chance to disrupt a 4 defense plane at medium range.

But that is a waste of a shot from this beast which has >99% odds to damage a Sherman at medium range.

[Hum_35711]

The Vet Tiger has 57% chance to disrupt a 5 defense unit at medium range and 50% chance to disrupt a 4 defense plane at medium range.

But that is a waste of a shot from this beast which has >99% odds to damage a Sherman at medium range.

whoa whoa whoa, that can't be right at all. How can it have a 50% chance to disrupt a plane with 7 dice??? You need 4 hits. If you take the number of favourable outcomes and divide it by the number of total possible outcomes (which from what I understand is ultimately how probability works) you get a 29% chance to at least disrupt a plane at medium or short range.

[Hum_35711]

can somebody really smart just give us the right answer?

[Hum_35711]

thats it, thats it... I'm getting my dice!

[Colonel_Coo]

whoa whoa whoa, that can't be right at all. How can it have a 50% chance to disrupt a plane with 7 dice??? You need 4 hits. If you take the number of favourable outcomes and divide it by the number of total possible outcomes (which from what I understand is ultimately how probability works) you get a 29% chance to at least disrupt a plane at medium or short range.
7 dice:
Results:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 +N where N is a value from 1 to 6.

That's three successes (the 4, 5, 6 average) plus what ever N is. Half the time N is a 4, 5 or 6 and half the time it is not.

Thus 50% likely to disrupt a 4 defense airplane.

[general hoth]

I'm working on a new ardennes scenario right now where the germans field a king tiger. All i can say is that it does take at least 3 shermans to KO'd the king. haven't seen the new veteran tiger nor its stats but i just can't wait! :)

[mlund]

7 Shots, each is a coin-flip since Crack Shot gives you +1 and Airplanes hit you for a -1.

Odds of 0-3 successes = 50%
Odds of 4-7 successes = 50%

- Marty Lund

[polish_horsy]

can somebody really smart just give us the right answer?

egads man you asked someone really smart and didn't believe my answer!

[Hum_35711]

lol, looks like you guys are right. Man, that Tiger really is a monster.

[Roter_Teufel]

Come on! Whats the matter with you? Everybody KNOWS that Tigers were unkillable and that none were ever lost in fair combat. The Allies only won because there were 100 Shermans or T34s to every poor, brave Tiger.

I mean its not like the WAllies developed higher velocity guns and special ammo to kill them. They already knew that Tigers couldnt be killed because they were designed and crewed by German Supermen. So the only thing to do is was to swarm them under with impossible odds.

So in that case, the game is mimicking 'reality'. Why bother with those crappy old Allied heavy tanks when you can just play the Shermans again and again? Silly boy. Heavy tanks shouldnt be able to kill Tigers (heck, I bet even an Abrams couldnt have killed one). So the game is just being accurate to reality.*

*Sponsored by the German Ministry of Propaganda (who luckily still have some believers!)


Top shelf Uncle Joe. This Tiger is probably the best thing to happen to the German player in a while!!! Anyone who thinks that this tiger is unrealistic and ridiculious - welcome to the real world. The real tiger was a beast and was near unstopable, and WAS crewed by veterans like the Panzer Count, Michael Whittman etc. There were many Tiger crews who had armour scores over 100 so there were alot of veterans out there.

Tiger huntings was either done in massive numbers. I hear the rule was five Shermans for one tiger. The best way was to kill them from the air, but the planes in A&A are not the best option for this.

Good luck to the allies, and to the German player-Greifen Sie mit alles an!!

[Sturmgrenadier]

Top shelf Uncle Joe. This Tiger is probably the best thing to happen to the German player in a while!!! Anyone who thinks that this tiger is unrealistic and ridiculious - welcome to the real world. The real tiger was a beast and was near unstopable, and WAS crewed by veterans like the Panzer Count, Michael Whittman etc. There were many Tiger crews who had armour scores over 100 so there were alot of veterans out there.

Tiger huntings was either done in massive numbers. I hear the rule was five Shermans for one tiger. The best way was to kill them from the air, but the planes in A&A are not the best option for this.

Good luck to the allies, and to the German player-Greifen Sie mit alles an!!
The rule was 3 shermans vs 1 tiger, however another rule was also to avoid fight and call air suport ;) Most of heavy german tanks was destroyed by own crew (coz of lack gasolin/breaked down parts) or by plans, tank busters.
And i totaly agree that real tiger was a pure monster /amen

[IXJac]

Top shelf Uncle Joe.

I think you missed his sarcasm.

[WoB_Particleman]

Just a few points from my mind from reading this.

1- This seems pretty historicaly correct, it took a lot to kill a Tiger. Good job WotC, somewhat accurate unit.

2- I Can't disagree more with "all other heavy armor is now just about useless". Personally, I love it when others tie up so many points in one unit. Makes my 3 Shermans that much better on mass.

3- A Tiger can still only take out one unit per turn, even if it does kill shot them every time.

4- Try playing games using the years as restricters.

Fish
>-D

[IXJac]

2- I Can't disagree more with "all other heavy armor is now just about useless". Personally, I love it when others tie up so many points in one unit. Makes my 3 Shermans that much better on mass.


Your three Shermans or the choice of spending points on one big tank or lots of smaller ones has absolutely nothing to do with whether other heavy tanks are made obsolete by this Tiger or not.

[Origen]

Hehe, nice formula, however its not true.
Imagine that unit whit attack value 5 engaging unit with armour 5. Ya have 50% chance to score hit on every single dice. So with this formula ya basically have 50% chance to hit whith 5 dices attacking armour 5. Its BS ;)

Anyway, we all agree (I hope) that every single dice giving ya 50% chance to score hit. We need to score 4 hits on 7 dices. So:

7 dices = 100%,
this means 4 of 7 (4/7) is 57,15%
100 minus 57,15 (100-57,15) = 42,85

With other words we have 42,85% chance to disrupt a 4 defence airplane

If you roll 6 dice, you will get (on average) 3 hits and 3 misses. The seventh die you roll has a 50/50 chance of hitting. This means you have a 50/50 chance of getting at least a disruption result. One reason your math is flawed is this. The average result of 7 dice is not 3.5 hits, because you can't get half a hit from a single die roll. A .5 hit translates to a 50/50 chance of rounding up or rounding down. The actual average of 7 dice is 50/50, three hits or four hits. When making calculations the number set you are using (real, whole, etc.) can alter the final result significantly.

In addition, adding additional dice changes probabilities exponentially. This is why you have 1/6 of rolling a 6 on one die, but 1/36 of getting sixes on 2 dice rolled together. The odds of getting 4 or more hits out of 7 dice is not 4/7, just as the odds of getting 7 hits out of 7 is not 1/7. The odds of 7 hits is actually 1/128.

[polish_horsy]

2 plus 2 = 3 I tell ya now back to scholl with you!

:)

[Lynx7725]

My maths may be off, but..

On a normal Tiger (no Crack Shot), assuming 17/ 15/ 12, to roll 5 or more successes goes to 93%/ 85%/ 61% (no Crack Shot) and 100%/ 99%/ 94% (Crack Shot). This is disruption odds on the Sherman.

6 or more successes: 83%/ 70%/ 39% (no Crack Shot), and 99%/ 97%/ 83% (Crack Shot).

10 or more successes (Sherman killer): 17%/ 6%/ 0% (no Crack Shot), and 68%/ 41%/ 6% (Crack Shot).

Which implies a meeting engagement on open plains would run with the Vet. Tiger at least disrupting one Sherman early (if not damaging it), probably ending with the Tiger dead and at least one damaged and one dead Sherman. 2 dead Sherman if we are lucky. A one-round kill at point-blank range has very good odds for the Vet. Tiger.

Can someone check my calculations? I'm using binomial distribution, no Crack Shot at 0.5, cummulative, and Crack Shot at 0.67, cummulative.

[GrimJesta]

Its bull ****. Go back to scholl and lern how to calculate %.

Uncalled for.

Word to the wise though: make sure you correctly spell "Go back to school and learn how to [x]" or else the statement takes on a really funny irony. :o

-=Grim=-

[Lynx7725]

English is probably not his first language, so some leeway has to be given.

Statistics is probably also not a forte though.

[Sturmgrenadier]

My maths may be off, but..

On a normal Tiger (no Crack Shot), assuming 17/ 15/ 12, to roll 5 or more successes goes to 93%/ 85%/ 61% (no Crack Shot) and 100%/ 99%/ 94% (Crack Shot). This is disruption odds on the Sherman.

6 or more successes: 83%/ 70%/ 39% (no Crack Shot), and 99%/ 97%/ 83% (Crack Shot).

10 or more successes (Sherman killer): 17%/ 6%/ 0% (no Crack Shot), and 68%/ 41%/ 6% (Crack Shot).

Which implies a meeting engagement on open plains would run with the Vet. Tiger at least disrupting one Sherman early (if not damaging it), probably ending with the Tiger dead and at least one damaged and one dead Sherman. 2 dead Sherman if we are lucky. A one-round kill at point-blank range has very good odds for the Vet. Tiger.

Can someone check my calculations? I'm using binomial distribution, no Crack Shot at 0.5, cummulative, and Crack Shot at 0.67, cummulative.
We dont talked about attacking sherman, we talked about attacking planes so AI walue 7/7/6 and no crack shot.

[Sturmgrenadier]

Uncalled for.

Word to the wise though: make sure you correctly spell "Go back to school and learn how to [x]" or else the statement takes on a really funny irony. :o

-=Grim=-
Pay more attention: Location: Sweden. I have no problems whit spelling in swedish ;)

[Sturmgrenadier]

English is probably not his first language, so some leeway has to be given.

Statistics is probably also not a forte though.
Location: Sweden, so no english is not first language.

[Sturmgrenadier]

2 plus 2 = 3 I tell ya now back to scholl with you!

:)
I dont really get ya point...

[rondom]

OK. But the Tiger I, King Tiger, Pershing, and IS-2 are now worthless. Some people spent $100 getting doubles of those units. And they now have almost no value. And there is no point in the Jadgtiger either.
Your false premise is that those units are NOW worthless - they were ALWAYS worthless (or at least worth as much as they are now) because they could never stand against their cost in Shermans (which perhaps the veteran Tiger can - perhaps). Now maybe you didn't play Shermans to keep these other units viable - if you didn't, don't play with the vet Tiger (or any other cost effective tank Avalon Hill might produce). But don't suggest that not making cost effective tanks is the solution (that just leaves the Sherman as the dominant tank, which helps nobody). Yes there are lot of unplayably poor tanks out there. And there always were. You have to deal.

[rondom]

Its BS dude. If ya want % ya have to count all 7 die at once, and probability ya score all at high numer is NOT 50%. Like i told if ya reasoning like that ya have 50% on evry dice so if ya have 5 dice and need to score 5 hits ya have 50% chance to hit. Its bull ****. Go back to scholl and lern how to calculate %. Its doesent really matter what chance ya have to hit at singel dice if tis 50/50, ya have to take all 7 dice and calculate how many HITS ya need on those dices.
Ya need to score 4 hits on 7 dice, and coz its 50% chance on singel dice to score hit ya need at last 57% of them to hit. So ya damn chance to hit is acctualy 43%. Jezz...
And ya have 3/6 of rolling 4,5,6 on one die and (18/36) 1/12 to get 4,5,6 on 2 dice rolled together. Odds to get 2X6 on 2 dices in 1/36 indeed, but what it have to do whith rolling dice that supose hit on 4,5,6?
I'm sorry, but I wrote a binomial probability calculating spreadsheet for an (unpublished) AAM probability article I wrote. It calculates cumulative probabilities (so when I say what is the chance of x hits in y dice I mean *at least* x hits, as this is what you want to know - the chance of a disrupt includes the chance of a damage and a kill - if you want to separate those out you can).

And from that table the chance of 4 (or more) hits with 7 dice is exactly 50%. The chance of a damage (5 hits) is 22.7%. There is no chance of a kill (can't get 8 hits with 7 dice). So the chance of ONLY a disrupt is 27.3% (since the disrupt includes the damage you can just subtract them).

I'm certain the maths in that spreadsheet is accurate, so I'm afraid your 43% figure (however you derived it) is just plain wrong.

[Lynx7725]

I'm sorry, but I wrote a binomial probability calculating spreadsheet for an (unpublished) AAM probability article I wrote. It calculates cumulative probabilities (so when I say what is the chance of x hits in y dice I mean *at least* x hits, as this is what you want to know - the chance of a disrupt includes the chance of a damage and a kill - if you want to separate those out you can).

And from that table the chance of 4 (or more) hits with 7 dice is exactly 50%. The chance of a damage (5 hits) is 22.7%. There is no chance of a kill (can't get 8 hits with 7 dice). So the chance of ONLY a disrupt is 27.3% (since the disrupt includes the damage you can just subtract them).
That's a bit odd.. I'm not getting the same figures you got, even though I plugged roughly the same formula into Excel. Binomial, 0.5 (no Crack Shot), cummulative. 4 or more successes I got 23%/ 23%/ 11%. 3 or more I got 50%/ 50%/ 34% though.

With Crack Shot (0.67, cummulative), I get 58%/ 58%/ 36% for 4 or more successes. Unless you are averaging out across all ranges?

[Sturmgrenadier]

I dunno how ya getting those results guys, i dont want to f*** whit anyone, i just cant get how ya doing this... If ya thinking %, ya have 50% chance to hit using 8 dice vs 4 armor. It simply and logical cant still be 50% if ya rolling 7 dice vs 4 armor. Ya just lovered ya odds to hit, coz ya rolling one less dice.

[Sean-Khan]

I only play casually, I like my Tiger I a lot and am going to keep using it. With infantry support I'm able to prevent Sherman swarms from approaching close enough to cause serious harm except with very lucky shots.

A sniper, SS-commander, 3 Kar's and 2 Panzergrenadiers for example would probably work well, except against very infantry -heavy armies with AT capability.

Anyway, a Tiger with Overrun is more interesting unit to play than one with Crack shot!

[Richter von Manthofen]

I am not sure what the whole discussion is about, but 7d6 with 1-3 is miss and 4-6 is sucess gives the following probability table (rounded to 2 digits after the comma:

No. of sucesses - probability of exact this number of sucesses - probability of getting this number or more sucesses:
0 0,78% 100,00%
1 5,47% 99,22%
2 16,41% 93,75%
3 27,34% 77,34%
4 27,34% 50,00%
5 16,41% 22,66%
6 5,47% 6,25%
7 0,78% 0,78%

So the chance of disrupting a 4 defence unit is 27,34% damaging it is 22,66% and an outright destroy is 0%... Thus getting at least a disrupt result is exact at 50%.

PS such assumptions like on six dice you probably get 1,2,3,4,5,6 is a milkmaids approach to statistics...

(PS Binomial distribution is the right thing to take. And if you call me silly, beware I have a degree in statistics ;)

[XAos]

I dunno how ya getting those results guys, i dont want to f*** whit anyone, i just cant get how ya doing this... If ya thinking %, ya have 50% chance to hit using 8 dice vs 4 armor. It simply and logical
It may be simple & logical, but it's not accurate.
With 8 dice the odds of getting 4+successes are 63.6%
With 7 dice they are indeed lower than with 8 and are exactly 50%.

You seem to be confusing the basic concept that with 8 dice you will get an average of 4 successes. With the odds of that result being 50%.

Note; As a general rule you need (2N-1) dice to have 50% odds of getting N+ successes.
I only play casually, I like my Tiger I a lot and am going to keep using it. With infantry support I'm able to prevent Sherman swarms from approaching close enough to cause serious harm except with very lucky shots.

Overun is indeed more interesting than crack shot. And if A/H ever get the metagame balenced so that most forces are a 50/50 mix of infantry & amour. Overun may become a better ability than crack shot.
However, I doubt infantry can stop shermans getting to killing range against a normal tiger. Since 3 shermans should win that fight at medium range.

[Sturmgrenadier]

For like 5 min ago it was post by Origen here (about dimensions, and die… my English is to bad to explain ;)), now its gone; he must delete it of some reason or I duno why I cant se it anymore. Anyway, after his post I tried another formula to compare how many successful respective unsuccessful roll ya can make with 7 dices. Its exactly same amount that I got on both. So it is 50%. Sometimes things that look simple actually are not… Thx Origen for bring some light to my head ;)
And apologize to everyone I disagreed /bow

(It looked so simple... I have to stop to response to posts at 2 am and 7 pm I guess…)
Yeah, yeah im going back to school... but i dont think im going to study english again ;)

[Sturmgrenadier]

It may be simple & logical, but it's not accurate.
With 8 dice the odds of getting 4+successes are 63.6%
With 7 dice they are indeed lower than with 8 and are exactly 50%.

You seem to be confusing the basic concept that with 8 dice you will get an average of 4 successes. With the odds of that result being 50%.

Note; As a general rule you need (2N-1) dice to have 50% odds of getting N+ successes.

Yeap, i got it after a post by Origen (this post is gone now, dunno why).
Thx for explaining

[Origen]

I removed the post because I was rude. I'm sorry about that, but glad it helped. Briefly, you lay out an array where x is the number of possible outcomes on a single die, and the number of dimensions (n) is equal to the number of dice rolled. So, with 2 outcomes on one die you have;
0 - 1
with two dice you have
0 - 1
1 - 2

So, while you would expect that rolling 2 dice with a 50/50 chance to hit on each die would give you one hit, you can see that the actual odds of getting at least 1 hit are actually 3:1 or 75%.

Adding a third die would make this a cube, but that is difficult to portray on a computer monitor.

I like to use shorthand (8 dice equals 4 successes) while I am at the table. If you do so, you can (mostly) correct errors pretty easily by using distribution. For example, Crack Shot with 12 dice. 12 dice, 2/3 chance of hit, 8 hits. Each die has a 2/3 chance of hitting, so I get a 2:1 distribution (2/3 of a hit vs. 1/3 of a miss). In other words, take away 2 hits and 1 miss in the distribution. So, I can reasonably expect to get between 6 and 9 hits (8 - 2, vs 8 + 1). If I need 7 or more hits, I'm in good shape because I only have one possibility (6) out of the 4 (6,7,8,9) that I miss. On the other hand, I am much less likely to get 10 hits than I am to get 6 hits even though they both vary from the "norm" by 2. On 8 dice at 50/50, the distribution is 1:1(1/2 hit vs 1/2 miss). So, while I expect 4 hits, the distribution is 3-5 (4-1 vs 4+1). The chances of me missing entirely are less than that of me hitting, because I only have one chance of missing (3) of the 3 possible outcomes (3, 4, 5).

Again, this isn't in any way "accurate". It is just a simple way of calculating odds in your head while you stand at a table. It will give you the "right" answer (which unit to shoot) 99% of the time, quickly and without a calculator.

[Sturmgrenadier]

I removed the post because I was rude.
Like some of mine posts.. that got deleted to... Maybe i need one or 2 "rude" post somtimes ;)

I'm sorry about that, but glad it helped. Briefly, you lay out an array where x is the number of possible outcomes on a single die, and the number of dimensions (n) is equal to the number of dice rolled. So, with 2 outcomes on one die you have;
0 - 1
with two dice you have
0 - 1
1 - 2

So, while you would expect that rolling 2 dice with a 50/50 chance to hit on each die would give you one hit, you can see that the actual odds of getting at least 1 hit are actually 3:1 or 75%.

Adding a third die would make this a cube, but that is difficult to portray on a computer monitor.

I like to use shorthand (8 dice equals 4 successes) while I am at the table. If you do so, you can (mostly) correct errors pretty easily by using distribution. For example, Crack Shot with 12 dice. 12 dice, 2/3 chance of hit, 8 hits. Each die has a 2/3 chance of hitting, so I get a 2:1 distribution (2/3 of a hit vs. 1/3 of a miss). So, I can reasonably expect to get between 6 and 9 hits (8 - 2, vs 8 + 1). If I need 7 or more hits, I'm in good shape because I only have one possibility (6) out of the 4 (6,7,8,9) that I miss. On the other hand, I am much less likely to get 10 hits than I am to get 6 hits.

Again, this isn't in any way "accurate". It is just a simple way of calculating odds in your head while you stand at a table. It will give you the "right" answer (which unit to shoot) 99% of the time, quickly and without a calculator.

Abowe is exactly what "pooped" in my head after ya post :eek:

[polish_horsy]

I dont really get ya point...

My point was that you rudely berate people when your own math is clearly flawed. You act so superior and put people down. Meanwhile I am laughing at the ridiculousness of your post. Luckily for you that you finally realized how silly you were looking and deleted your posts. That is a start. Apologizing to the other person you were so rude to would be a good finish.

[rondom]

That's a bit odd.. I'm not getting the same figures you got, even though I plugged roughly the same formula into Excel. Binomial, 0.5 (no Crack Shot), cummulative. 4 or more successes I got 23%/ 23%/ 11%. 3 or more I got 50%/ 50%/ 34% though.

With Crack Shot (0.67, cummulative), I get 58%/ 58%/ 36% for 4 or more successes. Unless you are averaging out across all ranges?
I should have been a little more clear - I was calculating the chance of getting 4 (or more) successes with 7 dice on a 4,5,6 hits (which is what the vet Tiger is against aircraft). And that is dead on 50%.

For those criticising this, bear in mind that with 8 dice the *expected* result is 4 hits (half miss, half hit), so the chance of getting at least 4 hits is clearly higher than 50%.

In any case the maths don't lie, and the binomial expansion isn't that hard to program. But the results aren't always what you would (incorrectly) intuit.

[polish_horsy]

rondom is correct.

[Origen]

My point was that you rudely berate people when your own math is clearly flawed. You act so superior and put people down. Meanwhile I am laughing at the ridiculousness of your post. Luckily for you that you finally realized how silly you were looking and deleted your posts. That is a start. Apologizing to the other person you were so rude to would be a good finish.

Just for the record, I recieved an apology from Sturm in my private email. I received this apology before responding to the post where he was rude, and before he had been berated for being rude by others on here. It was also after I had deleted a rude response I had given him. I guess we all get a little fired up from time to time. :o

[polish_horsy]

good. I am glad. thanks to all. lets move on.

[Count_Ciano]

I just wonder how long it takes some munchkin to come to the inevitable conclusion of a Veteran Tiger/SS Panzergrenadier "Unstoppable" army??

You mean like this? :D

Possible Munchkin Build:

Vet Tiger x 1 = 65
BMW x 2 = 10
SSPG's x 5 = 25
----
100 pts.

(Munchkin....I like that term! :cool: )

As much as I can see this unit "alienating" units like the King Tiger, why would you pay 6 more points when you can have an older model with crackshot? Although I still think the SS Panther's very playable, that "SS Determination" is a very powerful SA in it's own right.

And as far as heavier allied tanks, such as the Pershing and IS-2, there was already a unit that makes those unplayable (or at the very least, risky) in standard 100 pt. builds; the Wehrmacht Expert Sniper. The headshot SA which causes a 2 turn disruption may be annoying vs. a Sherman/Croc combo (and utterly useless against the Rhino), headshot is downright nasty vs. expensive heavy tanks such as IS-2s and Pershings. That's one of the main reasons allied builds are better done using cheap but powerful units such as KV's, Shermans and Crocs, neutralize "headshot" by spreading out your armor.

Now if a "cracked out" Tiger negates that strategy, then it definitely deserves the designation of "uber"

[Colonel_Coo]

About the only thing I remember from trying to learn statistics on my own was the whole "minus 1" which really is the heart of the matter on odds.

That's why my friends think I am lucky at this game when I attack a 3 defense with Six Dice. Or a 4 defense with 8 Dice.

3 defense is 5 attack dice for Even Odds (50-50) of 1 hit or more
4 defense is 7 attack dice for Even Odds (50-50) of 1 hit or more
5 defense is 9 attack dice for Even Odds (50-50) of 1 hit or more

Notice the "or more" part.

Hence why I reserve my Brumbar Sturmpanzer and SIg-33 attacks against Screaming Eagle Paratrooper until one of the SE' Para's gets hit by a Machine gunner or I get two of them to climb into one hex.

[Geobaldi]

After looking at the "flavor" text on the bottom of the Veteran Tiger card, I notice it specifically mentions M. Wittmann (sp?).

Didn't people call for a "Wittmann" Tiger a few months ago once AH first mentioned "Hero" units? Well, here you go, a PERFECT Wittmann Tiger.

[polish_horsy]

except it should cost 80 and not 65.

[fifleche]

At 80 pts, it would NEVER get played.

Don't get me wrong, YES, I fear & respect the Vet Tiger, but it is NOT overwhelming, even at it's current cost. Sure, it does "invalidate" Allied heavy tanks, like these units weren't already invalidated by units like the WESniper, WO Lt & Pzfaust combo, amongst others... :rolleyes:

I mean, it's like saying something invalidated the PzIIc... Nobody fielded that one competitively anyways :eek:

[polish_horsy]

it would get play at 80.

[fifleche]

All of the current tanks costing 50+ pts see NO PLAY in competitive games.

Thus, all of the current tanks are overcosted in regards to their abilities.

Solution? Either reduce the cost of existing large tanks, or release more cost-effective tanks. Apparently, the second was chosen, to which I agree, as it is easier to implement.

[Lynx7725]

At 100 points I don't see why I should tie up 50+% of my pointage in one explodable package. I rather tie it up in a few explodable packages, in the hopes that some would survive.

I would agree. Pricing it above 70 is going to restrict play to games bigger than 100 points (and it's high time we get some standardized rules for those). 65 is an iffy mark as it is, and I'm seriously favouring 3x Hetzers over 1x Veterinarian Tiger.

[Kriegshund]

An Axis player in a 150pt+ game HAS to play the Vet Tiger at 65pt....hes gotta...

If he doesn't he is a silly silly man... :D

[fifleche]

Bingo! Lynx, you got it right.

Also, you must consider the cumulative effect of attacks in this game. 3 glancing hits = a dead unit in this game, so it is often more cost-effective to buy 3 units instead of only one.

[Uncle_Joe]

I still think it would be better accomplished releasing a complimetary unit than increasing an already high firepower unit's attack by 33%...

How about: Experience Armor Leader. Cost:5 (off the top of my head) SA: Combat Efficiency. When you purchase this unit you may purchase one Vehicle for 20% less. cost. This way he can reduce the cost of the 'overpriced' heavy vehicles while not changing the balance of the lower cost vehicles.

That took me like 30 seconds to come up with. And it doesnt invalidate older units. It doesnt dramatically change the interaction between the vehicles as the Vet Tiger does.

[shadowhooch]

At 100 points I don't see why I should tie up 50+% of my pointage in one explodable package. I rather tie it up in a few explodable packages, in the hopes that some would survive.

I would agree. Pricing it above 70 is going to restrict play to games bigger than 100 points (and it's high time we get some standardized rules for those). 65 is an iffy mark as it is, and I'm seriously favouring 3x Hetzers over 1x Veterinarian Tiger.

I agree that more tanks is usually better than 1 tank. But I don't think 3 Hetzers are as good as 1 Vet Tiger. After all, the Vet Tiger is ALSO good against infantry with that crackshot. No matter how many Hetzers live, they suck against infantry.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, 3 Hetzers might BEAT a Vet Tiger, but they are not 'better'.

[Lynx7725]

The really big thing to consider is that 3 Hetzers give me the ability to react to 3 threats rather than one. That, to me, is key -- unless I'm camping on the objective (which in all honesty the VT would be), I cannot be in two places at the same time running the VT.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, in standard play, there is only one objective. So you really only have to be in one place with the Vet Tiger. And its far superior for camping the objective because it basically laughs at CA attempts. It can also defend itself quite well against infantry with 7 dice at +1 unlike the Hetzers who are useless in that role.

So, for 60 points, 3 Hetzer might be completely worthless in the battle. They cant hold the objective and they cant hurt infantry. The Vet Tiger is NEVER a waste. It can always contest the objective better than most units and it is still useful even vs all-infantry builds. That makes it a better buy by a large margin in my book.

[Lynx7725]

Well, there is truth in that, but it really depends on how you design your army build to fight. Personally, I don't think everything has to be a stand-up and smack-down affair, but AAM might not support my theories in this area.

[fifleche]

Do not compare Germans with Germans. Compare the Vet Tiger with 3 Shermans. Who wins? It's a 50% toss up, to me. Whereas 3 Shermans beats a "regular" Tiger I about 80% of the time.

And if you must compare German with German, go with EPIVD's. Those are polyvalent units. (Yup, Elite Tiger has the edge there against the tanks, but those 3 can engage 3 different targets too.)

[Dugger]

Well my opinion is that the Vet Tiger is dangerous and it will make any commander stop and think how to go about taking it out.

Add crack shot is just wacked, this monster is that a monster and yes they were used and i would hate to be the guys in the Shermans face this beast across a field of battle.

Ive tried the 3 Sherman against the TigerI and got creamed and all i get from my shots is a "Ping" from my shells hitting the armour of one. I've tried with 4 and five and sure with five i finally killed it but it cost me two Shermans and 1 damage and by the my opponent finish me off with his SS-PG and his AT guns.

I'm not the best roller of dice and for some reason the Shermans don't like me but come on a 3 or better for the Vet. Tiger to hit armour and infantry thats crazy.
Well that my say When the US gets their P-47 the those tanks better watch out.

Dugger :(

[Uncle_Joe]

Do not compare Germans with Germans. Compare the Vet Tiger with 3 Shermans. Who wins? It's a 50% toss up, to me. Whereas 3 Shermans beats a "regular" Tiger I about 80% of the time.

And if you must compare German with German, go with EPIVD's. Those are polyvalent units. (Yup, Elite Tiger has the edge there against the tanks, but those 3 can engage 3 different targets too.)

So making a new unit that is based on the costing of old units that are underpriced is a GOOD thing? I cant see it. Thats like saying every new infantry unit that comes out has to be cost effective with the SS-Pgr... :eek: The Vet Tiger is clearly underpriced. But thats OK because it does well vs Shermans? Nonsense.

Well that my say When the US gets their P-47 the those tanks better watch out.

No, your P47 better watch out. The Tiger is a fairly effective anti-air platform with the +1 per die. :rolleyes:

[Dugger]

Should it be though?

Dugger

[Lynx7725]

Nope. Not like a single AAMG should have a good chance of shooting down a plane. Convincing it to look elsewhere, maybe.

[Dugger]

Wasn't the P-47 design to be a tank buster and if not what allied plane was?
Dugger

[Uncle_Joe]

Should it be though?

Dugger

No, not IMO. Its a by-product of the SA. And it shouldnt be allowed. In fact, I think 'Elite Crew' should be changed to read:

'This unit gets +1 per attack die when attack Vehicles'. Alternatively, make it 'Vehicles and Soldiers'. But in no case should it be allowed that +1 vs AIRCRAFT.

[Uncle_Joe]

IIRC, P47 was used mainly for interdiction (rail, transport, trucks, marshalling yards etc).

[Lynx7725]

Wasn't the P-47 design to be a tank buster and if not what allied plane was?
Dugger
Heck no! The P-47 is a fighter. It's a very well-armed one and rugged, and that made it good for close support.

You want to see tank busters, look at the Stuka G1 or Typhoon. Those are dedicated close support designs.

[Dugger]

What about the Mosquito?
Dugger

[polish_horsy]

I sure would like to have an A-10.

[shadowhooch]

What about the Mosquito?
Dugger

WHAT ABOUT THE NIGHT WITCH PLANE!?!?!?!?

(Sorry, I had to act like "Stojakovich" because that's what he says in every new unit or plane discussion. All in fun. I really know nothing about the Night Witch plane. :D )

[Lynx7725]

What about the Mosquito?
Dugger
A Mossie, if memory serves, was designed as a light bomber. It's wooden -- yes, dead tree -- frame proved to be very resilient to damage and was famed for it.

There were many variants, most of them armed with cannons and bombs to perform quick strikes against ground and sea targets. 2 are particularly noteworthy: the unarmed Mosquito -- which just plain outran everything the Germans had at the time -- and the Tse-Tse version, with a big cannon (forgot how big) inline with the fuselage and designed to produce big holes in ships.

[NEVjr]

the tse tse had a 6lbr with an autoloader that was intended as a tank buster, but i proved ineffective by the time it was done, and the 18 built were used for anti submarine duty, getting a good deal of kills, 4 u boats i think.

the mosquito was fast like the mustang and FW-190, but it was heavier, so it would hold speed in a climb for longer, enabling a quick dive and long climb to gain altitude on your opponent in a pinch. it also mounted a buttload of guns in the nose, 4x 20mm, and 4x 303s. it also had a death cone that was very very long (the distance from the plane where all guns are hitting in the crosshairs) and the plywood acted like a cushion when it got hit, and absorbed alot of energy with only superficial damage

[Hum_35711]

I got a Vet Tiger in the very first booster I openned. Now you are all going down! Muah ha ha, Muah ha ha, Muah ha ha ha! *squints through monocle, twists mustache.

[fifleche]

So making a new unit that is based on the costing of old units that are underpriced is a GOOD thing? I cant see it. Thats like saying every new infantry unit that comes out has to be cost effective with the SS-Pgr... :eek: The Vet Tiger is clearly underpriced. But thats OK because it does well vs Shermans? Nonsense.Alot of med tanks can do the same as the Shermans. As long as you have a 13+ on your AT rating, you should do fine.

Heck, even 3 Hellcats would kill that one, and EVERYONE agrees that they are overpriced!

It is not just a fact of "unit pricing", mind you, but more of the damage system. "Hits" add on in this game. 3 glancing hits = death, while 1 penetrating hit = (more often than not) damage, while IRL 3 glancing hits is just that, 3 glancing hits. Be prepared to use your touch-up paint. :p

So, I say, and repeat again, the Vet Tiger is GOOD, true. But underpriced? Nope. Previous heavy tanks weren't used that often; and were, more often than not, played by ppl with the "godzilla" syndrome, or who just love to throw bucketloads of dices at once. So they were, in effect, all overpriced. :eek:

[Uncle_Joe]

Heavy tanks weren't used in 'standard' games not because they were overpriced, but because they didnt leave enough room for support under the 100 points (which leads to them being killed easier than they should be). In larger point games, the bigger tanks came off just fine. Even at 125 having a heavy tank can be a serious advantage if you support it properly.

And, any which way you slice it, even IF all the old heavies were overpriced, this is NOT the way to fix it. So now what? Every older heavy EXCEPT the Vet Tiger is totally useless? Great. Gives me a lot of reason to continue buying their sets considering that the next set could completely obviate the need for the previous sets. Its planned obsolescence and its not a marketing strategy that I like to support.

[40roundsready]

does it bother anyone else that almost all other heavy armor is now just about useless? And that this thing has over 99% chance to damage a sherman at medium range? Talk about a can't miss crack shot!


Going back to this original statement, how is it wrong that a Tiger can practically one shot a Sherman? Im not going to say anything about realism and invite all kinds of comments :p but a sherman shouldnt have a chance at medium range against a Tiger....

[Uncle_Joe]

Because it can MISS. The dice are an amalgamation of To-Hit and To-Kill. The Vet Tiger is actually a Leopard2 with laser range finding, a computerized fire control system, and sabot rounds. Pretty cool technology for WW2...

[polish_horsy]

Going back to this original statement, how is it wrong that a Tiger can practically one shot a Sherman? Im not going to say anything about realism and invite all kinds of comments :p but a sherman shouldnt have a chance at medium range against a Tiger....

You're not discussing the original statement. The original statement was that the Vet Tiger has OVER 99% odds to damage a Sherman's front armor at 400 meters. You think that is ok? The Sherman on Tiger hasn't changed. My point is even a Tiger ace didn't have insta death lazers to vaporize tanks without a chance to miss.

I was also lamenting that in my 200-300 point games I can no longer use the IS-2 or Pershing and have any hope to win. The Vet Tiger will be in every 200-300 point game. And it simply is craptastically better than all other heavy tanks. One unit invalidating 5 units is a bad thing in my book. In 200-300 point games there were ways to deal with the rediculous headshot guy. This just makes it impossible to play a heavy.

[NEVjr]

Because it can MISS. The dice are an amalgamation of To-Hit and To-Kill. The Vet Tiger is actually a Leopard2 with laser range finding, a computerized fire control system, and sabot rounds. Pretty cool technology for WW2...

firing 20 rounds in a turn a missing is possible, but it takes a great deal of bad luck in the game, and in real life

[NorthernRommel]

1) Veteran crews should not be buyable unless they are more expensive
2) Veteran crews should be allocated by a random factor (in my case cards)
3) Veteran crews were more about survivability then about being super
great offensively on every shot
4) d6 system does not work well to represent modifiers in this regard.
Only the d10 system works. The Modifier creep is as dangerous to play
as power creep in a d6 system.
5) Power gamers will gravitate towards the most unbalanced unit on
the board.
6) When people can choose the best they will use the best. Its a given.
Expect to see lots of Veteran Tiger - SSPG combos.

[IXJac]

firing 20 rounds in a turn a missing is possible, but it takes a great deal of bad luck in the game, and in real life

Ahh, but the Tiger might not get off 20 rounds. The Tiger's turret rotation was s-l-o-w and it took it f-o-r-e-v-e-r to get its gun on target, in which time a Sherman with its much faster gun laying could rap off three or four shots, or move in such a way as to deny the Tiger a shot.

Not that I'd chose to be in the Sherman over the Tiger in that kind of duel mind. . .

[polish_horsy]

firing 20 rounds in a turn a missing is possible, but it takes a great deal of bad luck in the game, and in real life

take 17 dice... use Vet Tiger crackshot... see how many times you fail to damage a Sherman's front armor. You could do it all freakin' day and not miss. You have to do it hundreds of times to miss.

[XAos]

6) When people can choose the best they will use the best. Its a given.
Expect to see lots of Veteran Tiger - SSPG combos.
Well at least we may see some axis forces being played. Instead of the everyone playing sherman swarms.
The solution to this issue is obvious from your own statement. A/H should make more units at the same cost-effectiveness of the sherman. Not ban the one & only german unit that may actually be a match for it's cost in shermans.

[horacus]

Well, Has I have said, the axis players finally get our Rhino or our sherman.

[spadsept@mac.com]

Ahh, but the Tiger might not get off 20 rounds. The Tiger's turret rotation was s-l-o-w and it took it f-o-r-e-v-e-r to get its gun on target, in which time a Sherman with its much faster gun laying could rap off three or four shots, or move in such a way as to deny the Tiger a shot.

Not that I'd chose to be in the Sherman over the Tiger in that kind of duel mind. . .

Bet it's true, i got a set of RC 15mm infrared combat tank, and duels between tiger and sherman is exactly that. The Tiger got a goot punch, but the turret is slow while the RC sherman is fast, with fast turret and many shots...

[Zar]

Not sure how an elite tiger makes the Soviet JS-2 and US Pershing useless. If you are playing USA how can you justify playing a tiger? I think you all need to stop looking at the mini's as just commodities and look at it as WWII game. Germans use Germans, Soviets use Soviets...etc.

[Bobsalt]

Not sure how an elite tiger makes the Soviet JS-2 and US Pershing useless. If you are playing USA how can you justify playing a tiger? I think you all need to stop looking at the mini's as just commodities and look at it as WWII game. Germans use Germans, Soviets use Soviets...etc.
It makes them useless because even though the point totals for the units are close, with the die roll advantage the Vet-Tiger is by far and away the superior unit. Of course, the big Allied tanks were already obsolescent due to their vulnerability to Headshot, so all this does is make a bad buy a worse one. I think 3 Shermans will still usually take out the Vet-Tiger, especially with the current maps where there is so much cover to be found for them to get to close range.

[NEVjr]

take 17 dice... use Vet Tiger crackshot... see how many times you fail to damage a Sherman's front armor. You could do it all freakin' day and not miss. You have to do it hundreds of times to miss.
exactly, if you can miss a sherman at 100 yards with 20 roundsin anything but thick fog, you probably should not be operating anything that fires projectiles

the allies were hitting the bottom of panther mantlets and bouncing the round into the hull roof often enough to cause the germans to change the mantlet.