Like many of you we had a lengthy discussion the other night during a game with respect to the Ludwig's twin 8.8 cannons and should it get 7 attack dice or 14. We came to the conclusion that given the fact that the Ludwig has the same point value as the Pounder and it is described as firing both cannons at the same time on the same target that it was intended to have 7 attack dice. In short, it is the equivalent of the Pounder to keep the game balanced. I can understand that but at the same time I can also see the argument for letting the Ludwig have 14 attack dice. The 8.8 twin cannons are described as being adapted from the German Tiger tank. Anyone with some historical knowledge of WWII knows that the Tiger tank was one of the most devastating weapons of the ground war precisely because it had such thick armor and a very powerful main gun that could easily knock out the American Sherman tanks. The 17 pound cannon on the Pounder is adapted from the British QF-17 (QF for quick firing). It was primarily a towed artillery piece used as an anti-tank weapon although it was also adapted to some tanks, most noteably the Sherman Firefly. It was about as powerful as the Tiger tank's main gun. That would mean that at best the 17 pounder is equivalent in firepower to "one" 8.8 cannon from the Tiger tank. The rules make it clear that what you see is what you get with respect to what weapons a squad or unit is carrying. Well I see two 8.8 cannons which would make the firepower capability twice that of one 17 pounder QF cannon. So just to be absolutely accurate, yes the Ludwig should be rolling 14 attack dice. But at the same time I fully understand why it's not permitted. It's just one of those short comings in a game that can happen to keep things balanced.

Now with respect to knife fighting. We had a situation in which I had a squad in hard cover by a tank trap attacking an American squad across a corner in soft cover. The question is two part really. 1. Do you resolve all fired weapon attacks, remove casualties and then resolve the knife attacks simultaneusly? 2. Does a squad in cover get to make saves during a knife attack?

as was confirmed via email from DT.com , yes it only rolls the 7 dice . i agree about the twin 88's from a historical perspective , so to reconcile it to my self i simply look at this as : human tech , even reverse engineerd , would still not be to stable as a firing platform , they lack sophisticated gyros and neural helmets and all the things we see in sci-fi later on , so while its supposed to be the combined attack of both cannons , it really represents only being able to fire them one at a time without knocking it over , this also saves ammo so it can fight longer

as for #1 yes , as for #2 no

Thanks InquistorKris. I suspected that there shouldn't be a cover save during a knife exchange given that the two squads are just basically engaged in melee combat and cover saves represent cover from ballistic weapons. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You are also incorrect about your historical knowledge. The 17pdr was later used on a Sherman chasity and called a Firefly. It was a VERY powerful tank actually so much so that it blew the turret off of the Sherman they first tried it on, until they could extend the back of it. It was a DEADLY tank and was able to put the hurt on many German tanks from 44 on.

Infact it is the gun that helped kill Michael Wittman.

- My apologies. I re-read your post and noticed your inclusion of the Firefly. I think it also comes down to targeting. Sure you may get 10-13 shots off as opposed to the 6, but only 7 really are going to put the hurting on a tank.

ALSO if you want to talk historically speaking, the Sherman walker should cost about 1-2pts while the Ludwig "Tiger" should cost atleast 6-8.

Has anyone tried doubling Ludwig's point cost and then using 14 attack dice? I'm curious as to what might happen.

MaxieTPB said:

for 8 points you get 2 pounders , andcan double tap, or double sustained attack it , leveling it easily . once your ludwig is gone , pressuming you have infantry too , this even more over whelms you since i would have 2 cannons and 4 machine guns , so i can attack up to 6 targets a turn .

for 8 points i could get 4 anti tank squads which would put me at a huge advantage since they infantry is just as fast , and more agile on a cramped board than a walker . you are still at a dissadvantage since i only need to get 4 wounds on you , and have 4 weapons that can now do 3 each on the board .

the problem with just doubling the points is that even if you allow it to target 3 targets , by slpitting the twin 88's into 2 seperate stat lines , it still only has 4 life points .

if you start hinking with life points , its not tha same tank anymore , do less than double the double the points , and its under priced for its ability to punch through armor and wallls in some scenarios

so you would be better off proxying the model stat card from dust tactics.com which is better at defending and lasting .

Just some thoughts on the whole Ludwig vs. Pounder debate

Pounder is a light 4 legged Mech, as the body seems close to M5 light tank of the US. It has a modified Sherman turret with a British 17-pounder AT gun. Probable 3-5 man crew. Don't know the tech of operation but seems like a very stable gun platform, point and shoot. Rapid fire as fast as the crew can load. Ammunition selection could also be a plus as the crew can pick and choose what type of ammo to fire.

Ludwig is a light 2 legged Mech with externally mounted 88's with auto loaders. 2 , maybe 3 crew. I think it would be equivalent to mounting the 88's on a Panzer 1 Hull and expecting it to be stable. As above, don't know the tech but seems like an unstable gun platform. Probably 2/3, to ¾ of Mech's weight has to be traversed to aim the guns. Point of convergence of the main weapons has to complicate aiming. Are the loaders for the guns ammo selective or fixed. Auto loaders are historically unreliable. The above mentioned flaws I think equal out the added firepower.

I think the 7 dice vs. 6 dice is probable accurate.

Then again my assumptions could be full of crap and have no bearing on the debate.

BigDogg said:

Where do you get the info on the Pounder? It looks clearly like a Sherman to me. AND it sounds to be based on the Firefly which was a sherman not a m5.

Your assumption about the Ludwig is correct. It would be similar to when they strapped big guns to Halftracks. They were VERY unreliable as the halftracks were not made to carry such a large gun.

The MCWs are Medium Combat Walkers, so Pounder is equivalent to a Sherman Firefly. I hope we see Heavy and Light combat walkers eventually.

i think the issue of medium vs heavy is pointless as they still have the same basic flaw for firing 2 big guns simultaniously .

the issue for me based on mechanics

a tank is longer than it is high . the turret or what ever is usually on the top about center , maybe a little forward , and compared to a walker would be much more low to the ground with the support of the treads and such to brace it .

these walkers are taller than they are long , with no supports or braces .

its the equivalent of firing a 50 cal sniper rifle standing up , now imagine doing it with 2 ; one in each hand , shooting each at athe same time , no bipod or extrnal supprts , just whatever strength your legs and arms can provide .

as i said above , not having all the furure gyros and neural helmets , i cant imagine 1940's tech would be stable enough to do so .

You are trying to bring to much reality into a fantasy based game.

Vontickkraut said:

no , actually i am poiting to the fact that this is an alt history WW2 game as opposed to AT-43 , WH40k , star trek , starship troopers . the point should be kept in mind that this is only 9 years after the germans discovered the ship , the tech is and should be still in the experimental stage ,

this setting the stage for the game world to continue to grow as they DO get the tech . as i said ablove , this is well before anything like we see in further future sci fi with neural helmets and super gyroscopes .

its 1947 , i wouldnt expect to see better gyros and electronics for atleast another 10 or so years . while they are working hard at uping the tech , they are still at war , and still restricted by material demands of a wold war demand for not just walkers , but small arms , grenades , transports and ships , airplanes , etc ...... .

GrandInquisitorKris said:

See I would COMPLETELY disagree with this. I felt the same as well, BUT when you dig a bit deeper not really the case. I mean your BASIC troops have laser weaponry, and they are 'called' the same things(Panzershrecks for example) but they are vastly different.

This is an ALT history WW2 game, which means it is based on Fantasy, not reality. It has some ties to reality. We are talking about WALKERS, something that doesnt exist, so although you can 'theorize" how they work, you have nothing cement.

Again you are trying to bring to much reality into a FANTASY based game(I didnt say a Sci-Fi super thriller)

Also Im guessing there are actual stabalizers in the mech-walkers.

ALSO, I duel wield 12 gauge shotguns on point CONSTANTLY in Call of Duty Black Ops

Vontickkraut said:

i guess they only named it dust because WH40K was taken then ?

Vontickkraut said:

your point ?

saying you are doing something in a video game which had nothing to do with my example of 50cal sniper rifles , only shows your lack of real world experience and perspective , and thats one of the things that makes dust so interesting is its based on a variation of reality , not the complete lack of it .

I have to agree with Vontickkraut here. Of all the depatures from reality that Dust has, a walker not falling over from firing two 88s simultaneously is pretty close to the bottom of the list.

How much resources went in to making Zombie soldiers and talking apes? If that could be done in X amount of years, I'm pretty sure you could make one heck of a gyroscope. And THAT you might be able to reverse engineer from a space ship, I doubt it had a zombie super ape aboard....

And telling someone they have a lack of real world experience because you dislike their example is not conducive to any debate. I imagine a person firing to 12 gauge shotguns is pretty equivalent to a Mech firing twin 88s. If we can distill our reasoning and accept that in a video game I think we can do the same for this board game...which I think was the point.

In the end, isn't it about fun? I guess you could always kit-bash the models and add a fold up/down stabilizer leg. Just a thought.

-Jeff

GrandInquisitorKris said:

I hate to be rude, so I will refrain from that, if you didnt get the fact I was joking you need a course in internet dialogue. I'll give you a bit of a hand. When someone adds a or a it usually means they are not being serious with that point. I am glad Hanomag got the point I was trying to make. You may want to play something along the lines of Flames of War, or General George's WW2 Toy Soldiers. Both are MUCH more realistic and based on factual events.

This is the thing, you are misundertanding here. There is something you obviously dont 'get' about the mechs. Why would they mount 2 8.8s if they would hit nothing? Obviously they would mount one and add extra ammo.
This game is not a realistic game. It has SOME realistic features to it. BUT it is not based on reality. Hitler wasnt killed as part of Operation Valk.

Im sorry to break that to you my friend.

GrandInquisitorKris said:

Yet you are perfectly fine with MASSIVE cleavage on the tank commanders however correct? I did hear there was an SS unit in the area of Austria that practiced this tactic as it threw off would be attackers.

Then again there are no SS in this game.

For the record, I'm ok with massive cleavage on A LOT of things. On a (I'm sure) unrelated note, I can't wait to see the field medic in the Command Squad.

-Jeff

I think I'll fuel the flames a little:

What about that Ivan with twin 152mm cannons? Fires once, makes stability check, if failed, falls over backwards and is eliminated from the game, LOL

Vontickkraut said:

yet thats the way you came acrosss ......................and still do , so drop the "friend" , its no less rude than anything else you have or had to say , which i pressume is by design .

as for me , i'm done with this "conversation " which puts it politiely .

BigDogg said:

LMFAO!

Ok, as the original poster I guess I'll chime in here. Frankly I have to come down on the side of Vontickraut. Kris you are just trying to apply way too much of your own perception of reality to a fantasy game. It's an alternate time line game, so who says they are having trouble getting materials for bullets and bombs or fuel for vehicles? Maybe in the alternate universe they had all that capability nailed down with huge supplies stockpiled years before the war even started. It's not based on Earth exactly as we know it, but an alternate version, right? This gives a lot of leeway to what is or isn't possible. Mostly it comes down to this. If you want it to be possible in the game, it can be. Trying to apply your understanding of physics and how twin 88's would affect a two legged robot in an alternate universe is like speculating what the price of sugar will be in the year 2598. Obviously in order to make a bipedal tank move around without falling over you have to have a pretty sophisticated gyroscope. They can't even make that happen now in 2010. It's not that hard to imagine that the gyro can easily compensate for the recoil of the two cannons.

Hanomag is also correct, it's all just about having fun. That's why it's ok to incorporate in house rules and even kit bash units to make up your own Mechs if you want to. Again, this is the greatest advantage that a game like Dust Tactics has over video games. You can change it and make it whatever you want to. You aren't restricted by the limitations of the software, or in this case the core rules. Even the game designers encourage being creative with the parameters of the game.

PS, massive cleavage is always good.

All of the arguments are just as valid as each other here.

You could throw in more factors - reload speed, accuracy, training . . . . and the most important - game ballance.

It doesn't really matter which line you want to take on it, the model looks cool and when used effectively in games it is also pretty awesome.

The one thing that I may have missed though is that a turret should give you a 360 degree fire arc - arm mounted weapons can obviously only fire to the front or at least a more limited fire arc.