|
Post by shmitty on Apr 12, 2008 18:26:51 GMT -5
In looking at models for the game I have come across far more M8 Greyhounds than M20s. So, I think I am just going to buy an M8 and use it as an M20 most of the time. BUt, I thought I would gather some opinions on what an M8 would look like from a game stats standpoint.
Conveniently, it has the same chassis as the M20, so there really shouldn't be in any differences in the base vehicle stats. The M, A, S, W, H, etc should all be the same.
It might make sense to have it only be a Medium Scout rather than Command. This is in spite of the fact that the M8 played a command role in the Cav Recon units, I think it would just be more balanced.
The M8 was armed with a 37mm, .30cal coax, and a .50 cal. Well, the .30 and .50 cals are easy, but what about the 37mm? For ease I am just going to make it similar to a Bazooka 6+2d6, but with better range, say 42" as I would think the range would at least be as good as the .50 cal. Finally I think a 1:2 RoF with Reload would be appropriate.
The crew would consist of a driver and 2 gunners. One gunner could work the 37mm and coax, while the other used the .50 cal.
Normally you have to take a detachment with a light vehicle and exchanging a selection to upgrade it to a medium to get an M20. With the increased firepower, I could see the need to pay an additional cost. I would say that rather than exchanging a unit to upgrade, you must exchange another vehicle selection to upgrade to an M8. That would make it only possible for the Cavalry Detachment to take the M8, but that seems fine and fair.
So, comments?
Late in the war the US was using a canister round in its 37mm guns for Anti infantry work. Maybe it could shoot that to gain an AoE, but the strength would drop to 5+d6. Also, I htink it would be fine to keep the TEG upgrade option form the M20.
I haven't bought my model yet, but when I do I will give it a try and let ya know how it works.
|
|
|
Post by shmitty on Apr 12, 2008 18:43:51 GMT -5
Ok, upon further review the 37m should not have nearly as good of armor penetration as the Bazooka. It falls in between the Bazooka and PTRS.
|
|
|
Post by pixelgeek on Apr 12, 2008 20:10:05 GMT -5
If you have an M8 kit then you have an M20. The difference really only is that the M20 has the turret removed. The AA ring from on top of the turret is them placed around the superstructure where the turret was.
If the M8 has any internal detail then you should be able to strip off the turret and place the AA ring.
|
|
|
Post by evernevermore(john) on Apr 12, 2008 20:15:18 GMT -5
Another option that might work if there isnt detail is to convert the .30 and the 37mm into the Tesla gun that is listed as an upgrade - it will change how your slot the M8 into the army list but it might be worth it
|
|
|
Post by malkcntent on Apr 12, 2008 23:34:45 GMT -5
Tamiya has had an M20 kit 'Coming Soon' for a while now. I'm dying to get one.
We're planning on the M8 and other 'heavy' vehicles for a future expansion. Until then, create your own rules and post them here!
-Matthew
|
|
|
Post by jeffhiatt on Apr 13, 2008 1:33:30 GMT -5
Tamiya has had an M20 kit 'Coming Soon' for a while now. I'm dying to get one. I have been trying to find out when it is going to be available in the States but I have found no information. I am about ready to order a couple direct from Japan so I can have them for Kublacon next month.
|
|
|
Post by shmitty on Apr 13, 2008 10:24:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I have been looking at that kit as well. But in the end I really like the M8 so I will probably just play with one of those.
|
|
|
Post by jeffhiatt on Apr 13, 2008 13:12:53 GMT -5
The way I see it is if you go with a Telsa Gun there it would be just as easy to modify the M8 with a Tesla Gun and go from there.
|
|
|
Post by gimp on May 17, 2008 18:43:15 GMT -5
Italeri has an M20 model available. The 37mm had better penetration than the PTRS, but nothing like the bazooka. It fell about mid-way between the two. Using 5+2d6 would probably work, or only one d6 if people wanted a bit less. Since the 37mm was HE capable, I'd go with 2d6. Using a Tesla gun would be a cool option, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jeffhiatt on May 17, 2008 23:50:59 GMT -5
The Italeri one is 1:32 scale unless thay have started doing 1:48 scale kits.
For stats I would do the 37mm gun with a 5 or 6 + d6 with armor piercing and give the option of loading either a AP, cannister, or HE round.
|
|
|
Post by hannibal on May 18, 2008 11:40:58 GMT -5
That'd be way too powerful given the weapons in this game. I'd probably suggest a single d6, a base strength of 5 or 6 and then the armor piercing ability. I'd try the following: 6+d6, armor piercing. Toss in cumbersome and reload.
|
|
|
Post by gimp on May 18, 2008 18:56:52 GMT -5
That'd be way too powerful given the weapons in this game. I'd probably suggest a single d6, a base strength of 5 or 6 and then the armor piercing ability. I'd try the following: 6+d6, armor piercing. Toss in cumbersome and reload. 5+2d6 would be one less than the bazooka, and not have an AOE. Running 6+d6 with armor piercing would reduce defending armor by 8. That would be significantly more dangerous. Cumbersome means nothing on a vehicle mount, and reload would be expected from the vehicle's crew as with other heavy weapons. With most models running armor 4 or less, that would allow no armor save for those models unless they were in a bunker, and a maximum 50% survival there for armor 3. 5+2d6 doesn't give a great chance for models in the open, but there is a chance. For models in a bunker, average damage of 12 means the model has a fairly good chance. Even maximum damage of 17 gives armor 3 a 6 save. While 5+2d6 would allow a greater possibility of causing two or three wounds, no saves for most models is much more powerful. Even 6+d6 with armor piercing causes two wounds a third of the time. 6+d6 with armor piercing is effectively 14+d6 damage against single wound models
|
|
|
Post by gimp on May 18, 2008 22:04:31 GMT -5
Italeri has an M20 model available. My bad on this one. We use 1/72nd scale vehicle models ('true 25mm?') with 28mm models. 28mm has never really matched any of the standard model scales, so we tend to go with what lets us have the most variety for historical WW2 gaming. I recently picked up four 1/72nd scale Soviet tanks for ~$30 US. I know people claim a lot of different specific scales for 28mm, but: At 1/45: 28mm is 4'2" 1/48: 28mm is 4'5" 1/56: 28mm is 5'2" 1/60: 28mm is 5'6" 1/72: 28mm is 6'7" For the WW2 era, 1/60th is probably the closest, but there is a dearth or available vehicle models. Since base size frequently matters more for standardization on how a model works in a game, so long as everyone is working together, things fit fine with whatever vehicle scale people are comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by hannibal on May 18, 2008 23:36:50 GMT -5
Except the game is about more than single wound models, especially when vehicles are used.
The 37 mm gun is a light anti-tank gun. So when used on vehicles, the discrepancy between 5+2d6 and 6+d6 w/AP comes into play.
With 5+2d6 you get weird results. For example, you're going to average rolling a 12. That's 2 wounds. Against an Armor 7-8 vehicle, thats a 4+/5+. However, it also means you can get a 17 and pop these vehicles outright.
With 6+d6 Ap, you start punching the armor but have a lower chance of "one-rounding" it. You plink away taking 1-2 wounds at a time. I'd actually recommend bringing it down to 5+d6 with AP.
Also its the simple fact that the bazooka/panzerschreck holds a special place of being able to utterly trash any vehicle it hits. The more weapons you introduce that do that, the more you cheapen the impact of alreayd fragile vehicles.
Having played several games (I don't know how many you have), I can say there's a definate difference in feel between +2d6 weapons and AP. I have found how vulnerable vehicles are already to things like bazooka and panzerschrecks and would not want to introduce additional weapons that can one-round a vehicle. I think the "slow and steady" effect of an AP gun works better.
|
|
|
Post by gimp on May 19, 2008 3:40:27 GMT -5
I have less issue with an anti-tank gun being able to one shot a light vehicle than I have with a light anti-tank gun being a bunker buster. The 37mm could trash a light vehicle with one shot. That's why they kept using them until the end of the war. They were far less useful against a bunker. Even against a vehicle, armor piercing is more dangerous. A vehicle is not likely to be in a bunker. 6+d6 with AP against a SdKfz 221 will cause a wound in cover with at best a 5+ save, and have no chance of killing the vehicle. With 5+2d6, average damage rolls of 12 could cause two wounds, but also allow a 2+ save for the same circumstance. A good damage roll could one shot a light vehicle, but that's what the 37mm was there for, and could historically do. Being a threat to a multi-wound model also makes sense, because living tissue doesn't do well against a 37mm round. Against a bunker, using armor piercing would make the 37mm more powerful than the bazooka. The bazooka had a larger shaped charge warhead, and was designed for punching through heavier armor than the 37mm. The 37mm should not be more effective in that case. I can sympathise with not wanting to see light vehicles get popped quickly, but that is what happened when they got hit by anti-tank rounds. I'd much prefer a mechanic that better reflects what a weapon did do to a mechanic that gives two unrealistic outcomes consistently. No light anti-tank weapon should be a bunker buster, and no light vehicle should be immune to one-shots from anti-tank guns. I accept armor piercing for the PTRS because it was largely a high powered sniper rifle used to fire at vision slits of vehicles and bunkers. The 37mm wasn't.
|
|