Tank and morale

My question is - if firing to tank gun isnt able destroy enemy tank, crew must make test for morale? For example - gun 50mmL42 has on distance 20''  factor 4, armor is H what means result must be 13 to destroy tank. If result is 11 or less tank crew must make morale test?

Yup. The guys inside the tin box have little chance of knowing if that loud 'bang' on the outside had any chance of breaching their armour, or if they just got lucky and the next round has their name on it. It could narratively represent rattling the crew's nerves, spalling injuries, or damaging something at a level of detail the game doesn't model, such as vision blocks, all entirely possible even with a weapon that has little to no chance of actually breaching the armour.

So, only when table indicates dash, no need roll for penetration and no morale test?

No... it's the hit that causes the morale test.

I could agree with you if table instead of all dashes had printed 12. In table for penetration is wrote ' if the 2d6 dice roll is less than the score required the shot glances off, doing no serious damage The vehicle must still take a morale test for being hit but not destroyed..'

So if table indicate only dash it is not possbile to make dice roll and in consequence morale test.

Well you disagree if you want but that's how we wrote it.

"The vehicle must still take a morale test for being hit"

So just being actually hit will cause a morale test regardless of the penetration target number if there is or isn't one.


As it says on page 37...

"a hit, regardless of the damage result, will require the target to take a morale test"

I cant agree bacuse it makes game unbalanced. In game Ferdinand vs seven T-26 (136 points, 3 BR vs. 126 points, 14 BR) probably has no chance for win game . T-26 can win not harming Ferdinand, only by pinning.

Yes... and that's the reality of tank warfare.

Tanks are suppressed and put of action by non penetrative hits in real life.

For example the reports from Tiger crews at Kursk that AT Rifle pits would force them to withdraw due to damage to optics hit by rounds. All things like that are abstracted into a vehicle being pinned.

As for 'balance' it's not been an issue in six years.

Name me one book that contains the T-26 and Ferdinand on opposing army lists... if you're playing cross-book, you're so far off the reservation, bitching about the game being 'unbalanced' is utterly redundant anyway!

Well Battlegroup isn't balanced...

War isn't.

Greebs wrote:Name me one book that contains the T-26 and Ferdinand on opposing army lists... if you're playing cross-book, you're so far off the reservation, bitching about the game being 'unbalanced' is utterly redundant anyway!

Man, it was only example. If you want you can change T-26 for T-60 - it dosnt make big diference.

Piers wrote:Yes... and that's the reality of tank warfare.

Tanks are suppressed and put of action by non penetrative hits in real life.

For example the reports from Tiger crews at Kursk that AT Rifle pits would force them to withdraw due to damage to optics hit by rounds. All things like that are abstracted into a vehicle being pinned.

As for 'balance' it's not been an issue in six years.

So maybe Tigers, Ferdinads and other expensive tanks are not worth of their price. Here is place for balancing game.

Well they weren't worth their 'price' in WWII.

But again... balancing isn't something Battlegroup is too concerned with.

Well, it's a historically plausible scenario, unlike your first one, which is kind of a big difference when discussing a Historical game.

And maybe Tigers, Ferdinands and other 'expensive tanks' weren't worth their perceived value in real life either.!

Shit, name me a single historical wargame that nails Tank viability balance anyway? Every single one I've heard of either either cuts the Big Cats to the bone, making them 'not worth the price', or doesn't do enough to kerb their on-paper potential (which is all anyone cares about, their IRL performance be damned...) and is unbalanced in their favour instead.

Just a wild thought here... have you ever actually played the game? Because it seems to me like you're just looking at rulebooks and army lists, picking combinations in a vacuum and then declaring the whole affair unbalanced, which is an unfair way to judge a game, especially one with Battlegroup's unconventional approach that, as Piers says, isn't trying to be 'balanced' in the traditional sense.

Of course i played game.
It is one of my last

https://battlegroupwargame.forumotion.com/t226-few-pictures-from-my-last-short-game