Nashorn useless ??

[Combat_Medic]

Help!

Is there any useful position for a Nashorn (considering the special ability)?

I´ve played it several times and always the same thing happend: You position your Nashorn on a hill hex far behind (since it has weak armor) and spend an additional 40 points of guards (Brummbaer, Sniper, MG 42, etc.) only to learn that it is hunted down by paratroopers or british tanks using vanguard within 2 or 3 rounds.

I have thought of digging in with additional tank suport (eventually 200pts game) but if there is an objective (actually there always is) you will not win by not moving. And besides tanks are rather weak against paratroopers.

On the open field a Nashorn is a waste of points since its fresh meat to any tank destroyer worth half the points.

Any tips for me ?

[Colonel_Coo]

Help!

Is there any useful position for a Nashorn (considering the special ability)?

I´ve played it several times and always the same thing happend: You position your Nashorn on a hill hex far behind (since it has weak armor) and spend an additional 40 points of guards (Brummbaer, Sniper, MG 42, etc.) only to learn that it is hunted down by paratroopers or british tanks using vanguard within 2 or 3 rounds.

I have thought of digging in with additional tank suport (eventually 200pts game) but if there is an objective (actually there always is) you will not win by not moving. And besides tanks are rather weak against paratroopers.

On the open field a Nashorn is a waste of points since its fresh meat to any tank destroyer worth half the points.

Any tips for me ?
Trade it away if you don't collect them all. It is only usefull on large map set-ups where range 20 actually means something.

[PatrickWR]

Pester your opponents into playing larger point games on 3x2 map configurations. Or stop on by the HHR and try out their version of the Nashorn.

[Zhukov]

I think its pretty sweet yo. In big games it looks like the weapon im looking for. It also looks like an Arms race between me and another player by me and average point games have gone up from average games 100 pts, to 150 now nothing has been less then 200pts! Eventually a Nashorn is what all need!

[Joisey]

The "Nashorn is Useless" canard is SUCH A MYTH!

Yes, if you only play tournament games that environment is fairly inhospitable, but why limit yourself to a single dimension of the game.

This weekend I played a 250 point game on six maps of all Charlie-2. I had a German force of 1xKT, 2xNashorn, 2xPak40, 2xMG-42, 4xKar, 1x Hauptman, 1x Brummbar. My opponent had 2xE8, 1xArcher, 2xjeep, 2xEngineer, 2x3"gun, 1xhalftrack, 1xBAR, 1xS.E.Cpt, 5xS.E.

I established a defense perimeter in one corner of the map, set the nashorns up on a hill with wide avenues of fire, and set the Kars up 3 hexes away to keep the paradrops at bay. Then I hunkered down and let the enemy come to me. The Nashorns kept him from coming near me. He lost 4 paratroopers, 2 jeeps, 2 engineers, and one 3"gun. I lost 1 pak 40 and 1 mg-42. So, I won on points. Had he charged me his tanks would have been shot down by the Nashorns and he knew it.

I also had great success with the Nashorns on a giant 25 map megamap where their long range and the ability to defend in depth allowed them to deal death from a distance. Just remember to place a guard perimeter around them to hold off a para attack. On a large map, I'll take a Nashorn over a jagdpanther any day.

[Combat_Medic]

Ok ok, perhaps useless was a wrong word for what I was trying to find out. I try to be more specific.
Last game was a 200pts. round on a 8 map battlefield, setup was on the broad sides.
I had to setup first and put it on a hill section in the south. In addition I placed 2 Snipers, 2 SS Panzergrenadiere, 2 Mauser and 1 MG 42 near it for protection.
The british tank was set up the allowed 5 hexes. (+4 Vanguard means 9)
I lost initative and the tank moved easily within range. Moreover 4 Paratroopers and one Captain landed in my back. With a paratrooper´s 5 points in defense all my guards could not kill a single one.(1 disrupt, but that does not help due to special ability) If I was not to loose my Nashorn I had to retreat. In the next round there was nowhere to hide. Since I would attract defensive fire (2 armor in the back is a nice temptation for any one infantry ;) )1 Paratrooper down, the british tank was damaged but had the chance to shoot back.... Exitus

Perhaps you are right and it is sensless to use a single Nashorn on a field smaller than 3 maps in length.

[XAos]

Nashorn is nearly worthless at the moment.
And it's one of the units thats certain to be less than survivable against aircraft.

[Joisey]

Ok ok, perhaps useless was a wrong word for what I was trying to find out. I try to be more specific.
Last game was a 200pts. round on a 8 map battlefield, setup was on the broad sides.
I had to setup first and put it on a hill section in the south. In addition I placed 2 Snipers, 2 SS Panzergrenadiere, 2 Mauser and 1 MG 42 near it for protection.
The british tank was set up the allowed 5 hexes. (+4 Vanguard means 9)
I lost initative and the tank moved easily within range. Moreover 4 Paratroopers and one Captain landed in my back. With a paratrooper´s 5 points in defense all my guards could not kill a single one.(1 disrupt, but that does not help due to special ability) If I was not to loose my Nashorn I had to retreat. In the next round there was nowhere to hide. Since I would attract defensive fire (2 armor in the back is a nice temptation for any one infantry ;) )1 Paratrooper down, the british tank was damaged but had the chance to shoot back.... Exitus

Perhaps you are right and it is sensless to use a single Nashorn on a field smaller than 3 maps in length.
Okay, I see where you went wrong. First of all, you need to put the Nashorn near the back map edge so that the enemy CAN NOT drop behind you. This also allows you to have more units (or spend less) on the forward perimeter.

Second, if your opponent has tanks with Vanguard ability, have the Nashorn behind a hex of cover. If he wants to rush you then, let him, as he won't be able to hit you but you can punch through that one hex of cover shielding you to hit him. If you had placed you Nashorn thusly, then during your assault phase, after the Cromwell had obligingly closed the distance, you would have plugged his Cromwell and he could not have touched you. Two snipers, two SSPG, two mausers, and one MG 42 only having to cover a 180 degree perimeter instead of 360 would have been plenty to keep 4 S.E. at bay.

[Joisey]

Nashorn is nearly worthless at the moment.
And it's one of the units thats certain to be less than survivable against aircraft.
The Nashorn is in trouble IF the Wirbelwind can NOT abort an aircraft attack with Def fire. I'm hoping that AH gives AA that ability or else an airplane attack will be unstoppable and that will make them a "broken" unit.

[Lotus]

The Nashorn is in trouble IF the Wirbelwind can NOT abort an aircraft attack with Def fire. I'm hoping that AH gives AA that ability or else an airplane attack will be unstoppable and that will make them a "broken" unit.

Probably won't. Defensive fire will give the plane an immediate disruption counter, thereby giving the plane -1 to its attack and defense. I expect AH will consider this enough as the pilot would make his/her own risk assesment. The plane could finish the job and be destroyed doing it. AA will just be a deterrent to taking out things like the Nashorn.

[Autarch]

A unit's limitations and advantages tend to be over amplified in a 100 point skirmish game.

Break it out into a 500 point game and Nashorns really shine with defense in depth to keep enemy tanks out of range.

Of course, that may be eclipsed with the advent of aircraft...

[Mr_G]

Probably won't. Defensive fire will give the plane an immediate disruption counter, thereby giving the plane -1 to its attack and defense. I expect AH will consider this enough as the pilot would make his/her own risk assesment. The plane could finish the job and be destroyed doing it. AA will just be a deterrent to taking out things like the Nashorn.

Some sort of defensive fire VS aircraft would be ok. that way, no player in their right mind would park a plane right next to an AA unit. This might protect high cost+low defense units such as the Nashorn.

[Lotus]

Some sort of defensive fire VS aircraft would be ok. that way, no player in their right mind would park a plane right next to an AA unit. This might protect high cost+low defense units such as the Nashorn.

There will be defensive fire, no doubt. It depends on how you place units, especially true AA units. I think those specifically will tear planes up if close enough. What will be interesting to find out is AA point cost. I anticipate it being similar to that of an AT gun.

[EricM 2404]

AA guns should (considering what Ive seen) pull double duty they can defend against planes and soilders.

[Autarch]

Yeah, but they can only fire at one or the other at a time. Which is what I like about allowing non AA units to fire at aircraft. It's a tough decision. I just don't think ALL ground units should be able to fire at aircraft.

Even a disrupted plane shouldn't have much trouble taking out a Nashorn. And with no cover roll it's night night Nashy.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Another strategy would be putting your own aircraft behind the Nashorn :D

Speaking seriously: MAybe fighters have the SA - Planes destroyed by this units fire are removed immediately from the board. This simulating that the fighter gets the bomber before he reaches its target.

[Joisey]

Yeah, but they can only fire at one or the other at a time. Which is what I like about allowing non AA units to fire at aircraft. It's a tough decision. I just don't think ALL ground units should be able to fire at aircraft.

Even a disrupted plane shouldn't have much trouble taking out a Nashorn. And with no cover roll it's night night Nashy.
AA will be no "deterrent" to an airplane attacking a Nashorn. If it means killing a unit 2.5 times the point value of the plane, who cares if you lose the plane.

The $64 question is whether the ATTACK can be stopped by AA or aircraft or not. Disrupting a cheap plane is inconsequential.

If air attacks cannot be stopped by any means, then the air rules will be "broken" and alot of ground units become obsolete.

[Aries]

Without being able to stop an attack the arircraft become Kamikaze (or guided Air to Ground missiles) against thin skinned expensive ground units. All AA units needs is the AA version of the BAR Covering Fire to inhibit attacks this round IF THEY HIT for at least a disruption. Would not want the AA to just be able to look at a aircraft and scare it away.

[jiminy_fatal]

All I want them to do is post the information immediately so we don't have to bicker endlessly with conjecture..


WOuldn't that be beneficial to everyone?

[Aries]

No endless bickering and conjecture on a forum board discussing a wargame and how it relates to actual history..... What would we talk about??? :D :D

[shadowhooch]

All I want them to do is post the information immediately so we don't have to bicker endlessly with conjecture..


WOuldn't that be beneficial to everyone?

WORD.....to your wizard.

[PatrickWR]

If it helps clear things up, Y2UAsk stated that the article from 2 weeks ago IS INDEED the complete set of air rules for Contested Skies.

The article that gives the air rules contains all of the air rules printed on the Set III insert.

Steve

[Joisey]

I think its confirmed that the air rules don't allow you to stop an air attack. Therefore no unit can be "defended" by AA and the Nashorn is dead man walking.

[boersma8]

Considering the release of set III, introducing airplanes into the game, there have been many complaints claiming that under the current rule system this would render weak armour units such as the nashorn as practically useless. I don't think this is quite true. Consider of course placing your Nashorn in cover ( An airplane itself never has cover, I haven't read anywhere that the unit attacked does not have cover!!!). Then surround your Nashorn with say Luftwaffe infantrymen (4) in a star shaped pattern. When an airplane wants to attack your Nashorn, the infantrymen (or Wirblewind!) will be able to use defensive fire against them. This would cause inmmediate disruption if succesful. This would result in a -1 penalty to the plane's attacks. If the Nashorn succeeds at its cover roll the worst that can happen to it is disruption, anyway! It would not be destroyed! Your (other) anti-air units might then deal with the now disrupted plane fairly easily at a -1 defense. Of course it's still possible to lose the Nashorn, but by no means certain! The chances of losing the plane, however, are extremely high!

King Tiger ( My favourite tank so far!)

[shadowhooch]

Considering the release of set III, introducing airplanes into the game, there have been many complaints claiming that under the current rule system this would render weak armour units such as the nashorn as practically useless. I don't think this is quite true. Consider of course placing your Nashorn in cover ( An airplane itself never has cover, I haven't read anywhere that the unit attacked does not have cover!!!). Then surround your Nashorn with say Luftwaffe infantrymen (4) in a star shaped pattern. When an airplane wants to attack your Nashorn, the infantrymen (or Wirblewind!) will be able to use defensive fire against them. This would cause inmmediate disruption if succesful. This would result in a -1 penalty to the plane's attacks. If the Nashorn succeeds at its cover roll the worst that can happen to it is disruption, anyway! It would not be destroyed! Your (other) anti-air units might then deal with the now disrupted plane fairly easily at a -1 defense. Of course it's still possible to lose the Nashorn, but by no means certain! The chances of losing the plane, however, are extremely high!

King Tiger ( My favourite tank so far!)


The Nashorn has "Tail Silhoutte" and fails all cover rolls. That's the problem. Maybe the only unit with a true problem; but 49 points is a lot to lose with no chance to live. And, in your scenario above, you've just spent 12 points on inferior infantry men only to have them fail in their mission to defend the Nashorn.

[Bobsalt]

Considering the release of set III, introducing airplanes into the game, there have been many complaints claiming that under the current rule system this would render weak armour units such as the nashorn as practically useless. I don't think this is quite true. Consider of course placing your Nashorn in cover ( An airplane itself never has cover, I haven't read anywhere that the unit attacked does not have cover!!!). Then surround your Nashorn with say Luftwaffe infantrymen (4) in a star shaped pattern. When an airplane wants to attack your Nashorn, the infantrymen (or Wirblewind!) will be able to use defensive fire against them. This would cause inmmediate disruption if succesful. This would result in a -1 penalty to the plane's attacks. If the Nashorn succeeds at its cover roll the worst that can happen to it is disruption, anyway! It would not be destroyed! Your (other) anti-air units might then deal with the now disrupted plane fairly easily at a -1 defense. Of course it's still possible to lose the Nashorn, but by no means certain! The chances of losing the plane, however, are extremely high!

King Tiger ( My favourite tank so far!)

I think the average Allied opponent would be delighted with this. I think I remember that the Luftwaffe infantry have a cost of 3 (is that right?). Using 4 of them, when added to the cost of the Nashorn, means you've spent 57 points on one unit and its bodyguards. If your goal is just to make sure you get defensive fire on the aircraft, you can do it with only 3 LI, each adjacent to the Nashorn with a hex between each LI. Still, that adds up to 54 points - over half your force.

I think you have to accept that the Nashorn just isn't an effective piece in a 100-point game. That isn't a crticism of WotC's depiction of it - the Nashorn in real life was a thin-skinned vehicle with a big gun, which is exactly how WotC has modeled it. As a support unit, it just isn't suited to the small-unit combat modeled in A&AM. Now, in a large point game (250+), that's another story. With points available to use in screening it and some intelligent house rules to prevent Teletroopers from beaming down next to it, the Nashorn becomes a difficult tactical problem in a large game.

[Joisey]

I think the average Allied opponent would be delighted with this. I think I remember that the Luftwaffe infantry have a cost of 3 (is that right?). Using 4 of them, when added to the cost of the Nashorn, means you've spent 57 points on one unit and its bodyguards. If your goal is just to make sure you get defensive fire on the aircraft, you can do it with only 3 LI, each adjacent to the Nashorn with a hex between each LI. Still, that adds up to 54 points - over half your force.

I think you have to accept that the Nashorn just isn't an effective piece in a 100-point game. That isn't a crticism of WotC's depiction of it - the Nashorn in real life was a thin-skinned vehicle with a big gun, which is exactly how WotC has modeled it. As a support unit, it just isn't suited to the small-unit combat modeled in A&AM. Now, in a large point game (250+), that's another story. With points available to use in screening it and some intelligent house rules to prevent Teletroopers from beaming down next to it, the Nashorn becomes a difficult tactical problem in a large game.
Well, I think the liability for the Nashorn extends to any build point game. This is because it will always be worth trading an attack plane for a Nashorn, which will be worth twice what the plane is worth. When I say the Nashorn has been rendered unplayable, I'm assuming AA units (or as someone else aptly called them, reprisal units) will take out the offending plane, but you still lose the Nashorn during simultaneous fire.

As pointed out, the problem is especially accute for the Nashorn, which never makes cover rolls AND has a defense of 2. The Lee is 37 points, never makes cover rolls, and has a defense of 3 (as if you needed ANOTHER reason not to play this unit). Brummbars, Panzer IV's and Panthers are also in trouble, although their plight is not as hopeless, merely severe. I would have thrown Katyushas in too, but at least it's an even trade on points with them because they are as cheap as the attacking plane. Still, if you were COUNTING on a rocket salvo, one plane can ruin your day.

[boersma8]

Well,it seems now that the stats for the sturmovik have been made known, that the Nashorn might still stand a chance of survival. That is,if you at least manage to disrupt it by defensive fire. I made a couple of dice rolls ( sorry, but I'm really bad at maths...) and about have the time the nashorn wasn't destruyed out right. ( Many times damaged, sometimes only disrupted). Having this in mind it'd become a bigger bet to take it on. On the other hand, even using two sturmoviks is an option. You'd still be using fewer points (42) than the nashorn's 45 and I'm quite sure two of them will be able to take it out! Also, there's nothing against placing it in the same hex.It's a good trade off.....Moreover, I'm sure more powerful allied planes are yet to be released....

[PatrickWR]

Well, I think the liability for the Nashorn extends to any build point game. This is because it will always be worth trading an attack plane for a Nashorn, which will be worth twice what the plane is worth. When I say the Nashorn has been rendered unplayable, I'm assuming AA units (or as someone else aptly called them, reprisal units) will take out the offending plane, but you still lose the Nashorn during simultaneous fire.

Man, I love the HHR Nashorn. 35 points, loses Tall Silhouette, packs the same punch....it's great. I played one in a game last weekend and did some serious damage before a KV-1 came along and I had no where to run.

[Joisey]

Man, I love the HHR Nashorn. 35 points, loses Tall Silhouette, packs the same punch....it's great. I played one in a game last weekend and did some serious damage before a KV-1 came along and I had no where to run.
Maybe you could start a thread listing all the reasons why HHR rules are better than the official ones! :)

[polish_horsy]

but the cards are ugly.

:)

[Joisey]

I think the HHR cards are quite attractive---just look at those BEAUTIFUL new cost numbers on the German armor! ;)

[Mr_G]

Well, I think the liability for the Nashorn extends to any build point game. This is because it will always be worth trading an attack plane for a Nashorn, which will be worth twice what the plane is worth. When I say the Nashorn has been rendered unplayable, I'm assuming AA units (or as someone else aptly called them, reprisal units) will take out the offending plane, but you still lose the Nashorn during simultaneous fire.

As pointed out, the problem is especially accute for the Nashorn, which never makes cover rolls AND has a defense of 2. The Lee is 37 points, never makes cover rolls, and has a defense of 3 (as if you needed ANOTHER reason not to play this unit). Brummbars, Panzer IV's and Panthers are also in trouble, although their plight is not as hopeless, merely severe. I would have thrown Katyushas in too, but at least it's an even trade on points with them because they are as cheap as the attacking plane. Still, if you were COUNTING on a rocket salvo, one plane can ruin your day.

units with Antiair should fire at Aircraft during the Aircraft phase... that would solve some problems and make them more attractive as antiair units than regular anti infantry units.

[dracos42]

How about using the Nashorn in an Assault scenario, the one in the back of the rule book? Have the Germans be the attackers, 120 pts of Germans vs 80 pts of Allies. Then the Nashorn can sit back and engage in long-range gunnery against the defenders.

Does anyone play assault scenarios?

Michael

[capchris]

Use the Nashorn to draw those pesky Paras and Brit vanguard tanks into your rear area. Swarm the objective with what you've got left (all SSPG, right?). Win by objective on turn 7.

Who knows, it might work!

[fifleche]

I LOVE playing "assault" scenarios! To me, it's more realistic than a "meeting engagement" where 2 forces must rush a central objective. How often did two near-equal forces rushed an uncontested location to see who could wrest it :confused: Much more realistic to see a defender being attacked by a force roughly twice the size to capture their defensive location :cool:

And, IMHO, the Nashorn would even be better in a defending role than on the offense...

[polish_horsy]

well, if you are the defender the attacker has 120... and probably a plane. ergo Nashie is toast at the end of turn 1 and all you got left is 35 points. Good luck. Tell 'em to fire to the last man.

[fifleche]

If you opponent has a plane, wether your attacker, defender, playing 3000 pts on each side, your Nashorn is -DEAD- :eek:; it's the point of the whole thread.

That, or fighters have some kind of "interception" against ground targets (notice how they didn't show us any fighters up to date?)

[polish_horsy]

in refering to the assault scenario the attacker is likely to be the only one who has the luxury of a Nashorn since the defender cannot be expected to spring for a plane.

that was my point. it seemed you were describing using the Nashorn as a defender in an assault scenario which could be a dangerous move. basically rolling the die and hoping the attacker doesn't get a plane.

[Lotus]

If you opponent has a plane, wether your attacker, defender, playing 3000 pts on each side, your Nashorn is -DEAD- :eek:; it's the point of the whole thread.

That, or fighters have some kind of "interception" against ground targets (notice how they didn't show us any fighters up to date?)

The 1000 pt game I played(lost) w/ Hornet, Stoj, and Senior saw 2 Nashorns crippled by planes and easily finished off thereafter by cavalry and a T-34/85. They didn't stand a chance. I lost 2 planes but the 2 Nashorns never became an issue.

Want to keep Nashorns alive? Play big games and put in more Nashorns than the other side has planes. ;)

[MektonZero]

The "Nashorn is Useless" canard is SUCH A MYTH!

Yes, if you only play tournament games that environment is fairly inhospitable, but why limit yourself to a single dimension of the game.

This weekend I played a 250 point game on six maps of all Charlie-2. I had a German force of 1xKT, 2xNashorn, 2xPak40, 2xMG-42, 4xKar, 1x Hauptman, 1x Brummbar. My opponent had 2xE8, 1xArcher, 2xjeep, 2xEngineer, 2x3"gun, 1xhalftrack, 1xBAR, 1xS.E.Cpt, 5xS.E.

I also had great success with the Nashorns on a giant 25 map megamap where their long range and the ability to defend in depth allowed them to deal death from a distance. Just remember to place a guard perimeter around them to hold off a para attack. On a large map, I'll take a Nashorn over a jagdpanther any day.

It's going to be interesting when set III comes out. Dropping 4 Sturmovics on top of 2 Nashorns isn't going to be a picnic for the Nashorns. Best case for the Nashorns is that they set up in the corners such that only 1 Sturmovic, the one in the Nashorn's hex, can attack the rear armor and that both same hex Sturmovics are disrupted by defensive fire. The other two Sturmovics can attack from 4 hexes away and should be able to avoid defensive fire disruption. Each Nashorn has a 36% chance of being destroyed, and a 27% chance of being damaged making them easy prey for a followup attack if any of the Sturms survive.

If the Sturmovics get their shots off from the front, but out of the range of disrupting defensive fire (greatly increasing their chances of survival), they have a 15% chance to destroy each Nashorn, a 28% chance to damage them and a 31% chance to disrupt and giving excellent odds on the followup attack.

[Autarch]

How about using the Nashorn in an Assault scenario, the one in the back of the rule book? Have the Germans be the attackers, 120 pts of Germans vs 80 pts of Allies. Then the Nashorn can sit back and engage in long-range gunnery against the defenders.

Does anyone play assault scenarios?

Michael

Yes, I submitted an assault scenario to the design contest.

[Richter von Manthofen]

One point: We have all the air rules, that is true, but a SA specifying that the plane goes down before firing is not impossible for future planes, AA units.

[boersma8]

Man, I love the HHR Nashorn. 35 points, loses Tall Silhouette, packs the same punch....it's great. I played one in a game last weekend and did some serious damage before a KV-1 came along and I had no where to run.

I think the normal price (45pnts) is just fine considering the Nashorn's abilities. ( at least before the introduction of planes to the game....) I don't like the tall sillouette, though. Without this it would be quite a big gamble to engage one with a plane. The Nashorn might get cover and surrounding units might finish off the plane if disrupted first by defensive fire first. Great idea getting rid off the tall silouette ( the King Tiger for example is much higher and bigger and doesn't get it.....)

[MektonZero]

One point: We have all the air rules, that is true, but a SA specifying that the plane goes down before firing is not impossible for future planes, AA units.

Seven Whirbelwinds firing from 0-1 hexes at a single target don't have this ability. You'd be hard pressed to name an AA unit with more than 7 times the firepower of a Flakpanzer IV at point blank range.

[jeffgoboom]

I agree with Richter von Manthofen, we'll probably see a unit in the future that will have the ability to immediately destroy air units. My money is on a plane that is basically worthless against any other units but has a special ability against planes.

Such a unit would add balance to games with expensive armor but still make a significant spend on a defensive unit and you would have to win initiative to keep the other plane from taking a crack at the armor.

[Andras]

Seven Whirbelwinds firing from 0-1 hexes at a single target don't have this ability. You'd be hard pressed to name an AA unit with more than 7 times the firepower of a Flakpanzer IV at point blank range.

It's not the firepower, its the range. 20mm a/a cannon don't have the range to shoot down a fighter before it makes its attack. 40mm a/a cannon should be able to shoot down planes before they attack because they can attack the plane outside it's own effective firing range.

[boersma8]

One point: We have all the air rules, that is true, but a SA specifying that the plane goes down before firing is not impossible for future planes, AA units.

Yes,Ithink this would be a very suitable and practical solution. The cost of this unit would have to be higher then, but at least you'd really be able to protect your Nashorn effectively

[Joisey]

I agree with Richter von Manthofen, we'll probably see a unit in the future that will have the ability to immediately destroy air units. My money is on a plane that is basically worthless against any other units but has a special ability against planes.

Such a unit would add balance to games with expensive armor but still make a significant spend on a defensive unit and you would have to win initiative to keep the other plane from taking a crack at the armor.
Or we can just houserule that flak units have this ability NOW, and be masters of our own fate.

Which is what I've already proposed.

[fifleche]

Flak 88 should be able to fire at planes off-board! That would be a true deterrent!!!

;)

[Joisey]

Flak 88 should be able to fire at planes off-board! That would be a true deterrent!!!

;)
Flak 88 was used against high altitude targets like bombers.

[fifleche]

Notice the [ ;) ], that means the comment was made tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it wasn't obvious...

Yes, the Flak 88 was used more as an AA unit in the strategic sense rather than on the tactical sense.

[UnionMan]

We generally play 200 point games and the Nashorn really throws a monkey wrench into Allied tank movements. However, I find that when I play the Nashorn my strategy can become myopicaly focused on protecting it rather than defeating the enemy. In many cases my points would have been better spent on a strong and mobile tank.

[MektonZero]

We generally play 200 point games and the Nashorn really throws a monkey wrench into Allied tank movements. However, I find that when I play the Nashorn my strategy can become myopicaly focused on protecting it rather than defeating the enemy. In many cases my points would have been better spent on a strong and mobile tank.

Counting in the defensive forces you had to commit, you could probably have gotten two medium tanks for it. :)

[Bobsalt]

We generally play 200 point games and the Nashorn really throws a monkey wrench into Allied tank movements. However, I find that when I play the Nashorn my strategy can become myopicaly focused on protecting it rather than defeating the enemy. In many cases my points would have been better spent on a strong and mobile tank.

At 45 points, that would equal a Pz IVG and 3 SS Panzergrenadiers, which with the introduction of aircraft to the game I think will be much more useful. Without some sort of house ruling to lessen the danger of aircraft - like saying a dedicated AA unit shoots and applies results before the aircraft fires - I don't see a Nashorn as a good buy.

[MektonZero]

It's not the firepower, its the range. 20mm a/a cannon don't have the range to shoot down a fighter before it makes its attack. 40mm a/a cannon should be able to shoot down planes before they attack because they can attack the plane outside it's own effective firing range.

Ok, I'll agree with that in principle but in practice spotting an incoming aircraft during a battle might not be the easiest thing in the world to do :D

I'd rather it happen on occasion rather than every time. After thinking about it the problem for a few minutes: #1 I'd want to stop some planes from firing, but not with just a simple attack roll applied before the plane fires, that would be far too powerful and #2 we've been told the air rules are set in stone and I doubt they will break the defensive fire mechanic to make an exception (too many exceptions aren't good) and I've come up with a solution that we've already got in the game.

Give large AA guns a version of the Flamethrower mechanic, call it Barrage Fire if you want. Roll enough 6s during your attack against an aircraft at short range and it is destroyed immediately. Make the required number of 6s equal to the defense of the target (assuming that in the future they plan on introducing aircraft with a defense other than 4).

If the Flakpanzer had this SA it would have a 10% chance of killing a Sturmovic before it could fire, 80% of the time it would survive to fire but would still be disrupted. 14 dice would be 20%, 17 dice for 30%, 19 dice for 40%, 22 dice for 50%.

Does that sound reasonable?

[Lotus]

At 45 points, that would equal a Pz IVG and 3 SS Panzergrenadiers, which with the introduction of aircraft to the game I think will be much more useful. Without some sort of house ruling to lessen the danger of aircraft - like saying a dedicated AA unit shoots and applies results before the aircraft fires - I don't see a Nashorn as a good buy.

Ya know, I hate getting the calculator out to justify armies and acceptable losses, etc., but Bobsalt makes total sense here. Out of the handful of games I tested planes in, nothing stops a plane from doing its dirty work. When I played the Sturmoviks last weekend, they gutted Stoj's Nashorns and he pasted them w/ SSPGs. Who cares if you get -1 to each attack die when you get lots of dice to attack with. SSPGs are murderous and comparitively cheap. Good well-rounded soldier for my money. They kill tanks, infantry, planes...what's a Nashorn do? Die before it gets into action. Realistically, when Aircraft finally arrive, if you want a Nashorn to survive to be a killer, put in at least three. Expect to use one...maybe.

[Colonel_Coo]

Ya know, I hate getting the calculator out to justify armies and acceptable losses, etc., but Bobsalt makes total sense here. Out of the handful of games I tested planes in, nothing stops a plane from doing its dirty work. When I played the Sturmoviks last weekend, they gutted his Nashorns and Stoj pasted them w/ SSPGs. Who cares if you get -1 to each attack die when you get lots of dice to attack with. SSPGs are murderous and comparitively cheap. Good well-rounded soldier for my money. They kill tanks, infantry, planes...what's a Nashorn do? Die before it gets into action. Realistically, when Aircraft finally arrive, if you want a Nashorn to survive to be a killer, put in at least three. Expect to use one...maybe.
We still need to SEE the ME-109. It is cheap on cost but we don't know its special ability. Maybe it has something like:
Interceptor: When this unit attacks an aircraft, on 5 or more successes destroy the target immediately.

[Lotus]

We still need to SEE the ME-109. It is cheap on cost but we don't know its special ability. Maybe it has something like:
Interceptor: When this unit attacks an aircraft, on 5 or more successes destroy the target immediately.

That would help. If so, expect to see that SA on the Mustang.

I have my doubts we'll see it tho on either.

[JustAnotherWar]

I think the Nashorn will be made useless because of planes with range 4 vs armor. The only way you can protect it is with a defensive fire attack from a AA unit and unless you crawl the Nashorn up the side of the map protected with AA units it will always be a target because of its 45pt cost Vs a plane's 20 something points.

J.A.W.

[RaidingParty]

If you all think the Nashorn is junk, I'll gladly take that junk off your hands! :D

If you only use the best units to build the best armies, then you're missing out on half the fun! I have fun scoring more challenging victories in less-than-ideal situations (like Japanese vs. whoever). Yes, the Nashorn performs poorly in competition, and will do worse with Set 3 Aircraft. But without Aircraft, it is an interesting unit which calls for new tactics for both players. I also like the official non-historical scenario, which wouldn't be possible without the Nashorn.

There's also the possibility of camouflaged canopies in future sets, which would give soft units like the Nashorn much-needed protection from Aircraft.

[Lotus]

If you all think the Nashorn is junk, I'll gladly take that junk off your hands! :D

If you only use the best units to build the best armies, then you're missing out on half the fun! I have fun scoring more challenging victories in less-than-ideal situations (like Japanese vs. whoever). Yes, the Nashorn performs poorly in competition, and will do worse with Set 3 Aircraft. But without Aircraft, it is an interesting unit which calls for new tactics for both players. I also like the official non-historical scenario, which wouldn't be possible without the Nashorn.

There's also the possibility of camouflaged canopies in future sets, which would give soft units like the Nashorn much-needed protection from Aircraft.

I'm still waiting to get one.
No, I didn't say junk, but plane-fodder...They are all of that. Of course it can only serve to strengthen tactics. ;)
Stojakovik has a great canopied Nashorn. PM him or dig through the modeling 101 threads. It's worth looking at. He should make stats for it.