The "right" value for a SHVY?

[wolf90]

I don't think the Cobb calculator does 1/2 armor units beyond 0.5. Everything is rounded up or down over 1.0. So yes, 14.93 is 0.07 from 15.00 VP, which would be exactly 2.5 armor units, which rounds up to 3.

I'm going to jump in here and try to steer this debate a bit. I have a couple of questions - can anyone make an argument for leaving it at 12 VP - 2 armor units? I hear a lot of arguments against it; any dissenting voices?

And perhaps more importantly, has anyone play-tested it with any of these differing values (2, 2.5 and 3 armor units)? I believe dwalend ran some Monte Carlo results a few years back, (which still isn't play-testing) with some interesting results. Henry himself has even questioned whether his calculator fully takes into account stats for units on the extremes.

This is no little thing we're discussing. This is not a "tweak" of a less-than-clear rule. This is a fundamental change in the rules as written. And no promises that any change will occur; I'm just exploring this as far as I can.

(For the sake of discussion, let's focus on the "regular" SHVY and set aside the partial-damage one for the time being . . .)

D.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by wolf90

And perhaps more importantly, has anyone play-tested it with any of these differing values (2, 2.5 and 3 armor units)? I believe dwalend ran some Monte Carlo results a few years back, (which still isn't play-testing) with some interesting results. Henry himself has even questioned whether his calculator fully takes into account stats for units on the extremes.

Some of the early Assault Pack play testing I did at Gen Con bore out the idea the SHVY is too cheap (although we weren't specifically testing its value). The problem we saw was there were no compelling reasons to use other units in its place; it always did better. With a reach as far as a MSL, further than a HVY and the ability to laugh at a single unit with an attack strength of 2 not even able to get a 1-2 attack, it's the obvious choice in almost every case.

What would be interesting is the claim that a SHVY force is a _bad_ idea for a basic Smash the CP defensive force. On paper, it's a juicy target...

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by wolf90

This is no little thing we're discussing. This is not a "tweak" of a less-than-clear rule. This is a fundamental change in the rules as written. And no promises that any change will occur; I'm just exploring this as far as I can.

Just to be clear, I'm under no illusion that anything is going to change, but that isn't going to stop me from trying. :-)

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

What would be interesting is the claim that a SHVY force is a _bad_ idea for a basic Smash the CP defensive force. On paper, it's a juicy target...

I played that as part of my study, solo, but several times to be sure. (I did a lot more than monte carlo runs of the different options.)

Smash-the-CP isn't so good for SHVYs. With 10 AU - 5 SHVYs - you'll lose one to the two missiles, one per turn to rams at M3, one per turn to SBs, then you're out of SHVYs. The ogre is not out of guns or treads. Contrast with 10 HVYs - You'll lose 6-8 HVYs, but you won't run out before the ogre is M1 and stripped of guns.

A SHVY can't replace four LTs in Breakthrough. (A single MSL on the shore can keep the GEVs on the lake honest, maybe worth two LTs.)

In a game of Breakthrough vs an ogre they filled the MSL role better than MSLs.

SHVYs are good at force concentration without giving up mobility or strong defense. That covers many other scenarios.

I think the key question is - why use MSLs when you can have SHVYs? Why use HVYs?

At 2.5 AUs HVYs are viable for force concentration. At 3 AU MSLs are viable for firing over the hedges.

At 2 AU the SHVY makes every other unit a specialist.

[Desert Scribe]

Originally Posted by wolf90

- can anyone make an argument for leaving it at 12 VP - 2 armor units? I hear a lot of arguments against it; any dissenting voices?

Simplicity. It's easier to trade other units for superheavies on a 2-to-1 basis, and they have the same value as howitzers and mobile howitzers. It's also the same 2-1 ratio as a regular vehicle for a light tank or LGEV.

Originally Posted by wolf90

has anyone play-tested it with any of these differing values (2, 2.5 and 3 armor units)?

I've only played superheavies at 2 AU value. They seem to do OK, but attract a lot of fire and end up getting taken out before too long. None of the games I've played or refereed had infantry attacking a SH, so the 2 armor unit cost seems about right to me.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by Desert Scribe

I've only played superheavies at 2 AU value. They seem to do OK, but attract a lot of fire and end up getting taken out before too long. None of the games I've played or refereed had infantry attacking a SH, so the 2 armor unit cost seems about right to me.

Couple of questions for you. (I'd be a liar if I said I were unbiased, but I don't mean for them to be strawmen. I think I can write them not to be.)

Under what conditions would you choose MSL tanks instead of SHVYs?

Under what conditions would you choose HVY tanks instead of SHVYs?

Do you or the other players try to get as many SHVYs on the table as you can? Compared to which other units? Why or why not?

Why do they attract a lot of fire early? What happens when they survive long into the battle?

Why don't you see infantry fight with SHVYs?

(The last two are most interesting because the main reason for moving from D4 to D5 and adding AP guns was specifically because the SHVY attracted a lot of fire and was frequently swarmed by INF. At D4 the SHVY required a screen of other units.)

[brettd]

MSL are better v inf in open terrain as they can stand off.

[Desert Scribe]

Originally Posted by dwalend

Under what conditions would you choose MSL tanks instead of SHVYs?

Outside of towns, or when I need to cover a larger area.

Originally Posted by dwalend

Under what conditions would you choose HVY tanks instead of SHVYs?

When I'm going up against armor outside of town.

Originally Posted by dwalend

Do you or the other players try to get as many SHVYs on the table as you can? Compared to which other units? Why or why not?

I did play a solo game of Mark III attacking with six superheavy tanks as the defenders one time, but I can't remember how it ended.

In the convention games I run, each side will have just one or two superheavies--mainly because that's about all the minis I have, but also because I design the scenario to accommodate up to eight players, and fewer units for everyone helps the game end in the allotted time. I want to get all my toys on the table, so my forces are very heterogeneous.

When I run hex-and-counter games, players haven't taken SHVYs that much. Maybe it's because they're new to the game, or maybe they just want the extra frontage from a couple of conventional units.

Originally Posted by dwalend

Why do they attract a lot of fire early? What happens when they survive long into the battle?

They're big targets that are a little more accessible than Ogres. I think players see SHVYs as a threat, and try to take them out as soon as possible.

Originally Posted by dwalend

Why don't you see infantry fight with SHVYs?

It just hasn't worked out that way in the games I've run.

[Tim Kauffman]

Originally Posted by wolf90

- can anyone make an argument for leaving it at 12 VP - 2 armor units? I hear a lot of arguments against it; any dissenting voices?

I agree with Desert Scribe...

Originally Posted by Desert Scribe

Simplicity. It's easier to trade other units for superheavies on a 2-to-1 basis, and they have the same value as howitzers and mobile howitzers. It's also the same 2-1 ratio as a regular vehicle for a light tank or LGEV.

...and the progression from AU2 SHY to the AU3 SHY to a Mark1 at AU4 when considered as a whole seems very solid Imho.

Any thoughts arising from a sense that it needs tweeked here or there I put down as the nature of the beast...and not something to actually change anything. The fluff clearly mentions all that is needed for this unit to remain as it is.

Originally Posted by wolf90

And perhaps more importantly, has anyone play-tested it with any of these differing values (2, 2.5 and 3 armor units)?
D.

No I have not. I assume it was all play-tested before it went to print. We should really have a official mention from Steve on how much this was actually play-tested at 3AU. That said, it all sounds good to me as-is however.

Keeping in mind, a Scenario can easily dictate that you MUST take units other than SHYs, or a maximum amount for example, limiting their numbers which would prevent the concern that people always will choose SHVs over other units because they are cheaper. I don't see this as a reactionary mechanic to correct a presumed flaw of the SHYs AU cost either. It's a basic rule we already have on the books...just use it.

[Belle Sorciere]

I've seen as a suggestion in a few places a possible 25% armor limit on any one unit. I think I first saw this as a suggestion to avoid the fuzzy wuzzy fallacy (lots of GEVs against one ogre). It is applicable beyond that, of course.