Comprehensive AFV Lists

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Post Reply
Lorne
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Lorne »

And two more lists appear on the CoC AFV master list. The latest additions are:

- Italy (to the Armistice)
- Belgium

courtesy of Chris S and Willie B respectively.

Again, I encourage anyone/everyone to take a look at the lists and see where there are errors/omissions.

Cheers,

Lorne

Pilgrim
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Pilgrim »

I've got a query about the types of vehicles going into the lists. Should everything be there, or should there be some pruning to restrict to vehicles that would be encountered supporting Infantry platoon level actions?

Classic example would be British tanks with Close Support Howitzers - Churchill Vs or Churchill VIII springs to mind. Clearly as a wargamer I really want this as a support option for my 1944-54 British infantry - and yes it historically existed - usually two per HQ Troop in Churchill units. The problem is that both these tanks were the mounts of the Squadron Leader, and the 2 IC. Neither of these would involve themselves in direct support of infantry . They would of course sometimes engage in support of one of the normal tank Troops, but to get the CS on table you really should have a whole troop of 4 other Churchills. Same goes for Cromwell CS tanks.

So should we "Play the Period" and not list them, or "Play the Rules" and list everything?

Lorne
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Lorne »

I've adopted the stance that we capture as much as we can. Three main reasons:

1. As evidenced in the active CoC forum discussions, the demand will always tend towards "more!". If we're gathering data now, gather as much as possible - rather than come back and start again later. The lists can always be pared down.

2. Making the lists as comprehensive as possible will (hopefully?) maximise utility and - yes - allow for those odd situations when the unusual becomes manifest e.g. to accommodate those few who aspire to have a game with, say, Russian T35 as the centre piece. At the scale being modelled - 1:1 - it becomes more possible (even fun?) to field the rarer models in a more credible context than those games where there is an inherent figure:vehicle ratio.

3. I am not privileged to Rich's intentions WRT the use or application of the lists we generate. Sure, I (and I'm sure other contributors) have some ideas in that regard, but the intent is to supply as comprehensive a list as possible by way of a blank canvas.

The only restriction I have applied is to limit us to vehicles that actually saw combat. So there is, for instance, no room for the Heer 46 exotica etc. (though if players want to extend CoC into that realm, they're should have no hesitation in whatsoever in doing so.)

Ultimately, the lists will serve only as a central resource, to be used by Rich and/or the wider gaming community as a common resource for the creation of force lists.

So, in the context of the Close Support example you use:

The data for the vehicles will be in the lists. It is down to you, the list creator, to decide how/if you include them as a support option. You may be led by either theoretical TO&E of the time or drawing upon the OOB from a specific action. Use in one context may be in keeping with "Play the Period", though not in the other.

Cheers,

Lorne

User avatar
cstoesen
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:10 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by cstoesen »

I would say have stats on everything. But for Infantry support lists, only include the likely stuff. It comes down to if someone has a vehicle they just have to have on the table, the stats are provided for them to use it but it is outside of the normal support lists.
Chris Stoesen
No matter where you go, there you are -- Buckaroo Banzai
Nil Facilis Est

EvilGinger
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:01 am

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by EvilGinger »

I have Lorne's German list & will be working through it - Steve the Spirit Games Mail order troll has a copy of the reference book Lorne created it from & the nit picking fat git is working hais way through it in detail.

I will be double checking this against other sources though the reference Lorne & Steve are working from is about as comprehensive as they get.

:evil: Ginger
Dark lord at large....

Pilgrim
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Pilgrim »

Quick look at the Germans - Way too many prototypes that never saw service, some never made it past wooden mock ups. Examples - Lose the VK4502 (P) - never built, Klien Tiger, anything with VK in front of it ditto, if you really want to be keep the single Tiger (P) which contrary to most sources did see service with the Stab of sPzJgAbt 653. Lose all the Bergepanzers, Boabachtungs and similar - what is the use of an arty observation tank in a game that does not model artillery? Lose all the Waffentragers & Ceolian - again never saw service.

Frankly there is a big danger here wasting a lot of time and effort making a master list that has no real value other than to show we all have a copy of CD&J. Can't we whittle this down quickly to something both reasonable and more realistic, and only list those versions where there is a difference significant enough to represent different stats in CoC? Sorry to be so negative

Lorne
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:35 pm
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Lorne »

And the list is a final one said who?

Lie any big project, we start with a baseline - in thia case a straight data capture from readily accessible sources. And then refine.

If you have a particularly urgent need for specific vehicle data, you are free to create your own local resource. There's no need to wait for an "official" list. Even better, with some knowledge of German kit, you could join up and help us improve the lists. Ditch negativity, embrace creativity. :)



Pilgrim wrote:Quick look at the Germans - Way too many prototypes that never saw service, some never made it past wooden mock ups. Examples - Lose the VK4502 (P) - never built, Klien Tiger, anything with VK in front of it ditto, if you really want to be keep the single Tiger (P) which contrary to most sources did see service with the Stab of sPzJgAbt 653. Lose all the Bergepanzers, Boabachtungs and similar - what is the use of an arty observation tank in a game that does not model artillery? Lose all the Waffentragers & Ceolian - again never saw service.

Frankly there is a big danger here wasting a lot of time and effort making a master list that has no real value other than to show we all have a copy of CD&J. Can't we whittle this down quickly to something both reasonable and more realistic, and only list those versions where there is a difference significant enough to represent different stats in CoC? Sorry to be so negative

EvilGinger
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:01 am

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by EvilGinger »

Second that there is on first reading stuff on the German list which did not even make it to prototype but as Lorne said its a base line and needs working through.

its better to be over comprehensive than under to start with.

:evil: Ginger
Dark lord at large....

Pilgrim
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Pilgrim »

I sort of remember someone saying the only qualification for inclusion was that they saw service????

I'll knock something together

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7648
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Comprehensive AFV Lists

Post by Truscott Trotter »

Somone has alredy done this - when the same debate was on in Embers of Disagreemnt someone pointed me to a boardgame site that had a spreadsheet showing all the countries equipment dates in AFV, guns etc
Now if only I can find it again.........

Post Reply