British 2lb AT Gun Query

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Matt1066
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:50 pm

British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Matt1066 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:10 am

British North Africa list has the 2lb AT gun at List 4, whereas Consolidated Arsenal has it on List 2.
Is the CA generally considered the list to use? Obviously I’ll discuss it with my regular opponents but wondered if there was already a general consensus?
Thanks, Matt
The Wargames Table

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7073
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:29 am

I cannot see it being list 2 - what are the stats for it in the CA.
FWIW Pak 36 is list 4 in the main rule book

Matt1066
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Matt1066 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:29 pm

It’s AP 5 and HE 1.
The PAK36 (37mm) is list 3 or 4 depending on whether it’s AP 5 or 7, and it’s HE 3
Thanks, Matt
The Wargames Table

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7073
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Truscott Trotter » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:07 pm

Looking at the latest Handbook - Blitzkrieg - it agrees with the pdf lists and the other campaigns and has the 2pdr at list 4. Not sure there are any AT guns at list 2.

The old Coculator page Rich posted give a formula which puts the 2 pdr at list 3 but then it is only ever a rough guide - I would go with the BK listing.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Seret » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:52 pm

Matt1066 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:29 pm
It’s AP 5 and HE 1.
That'll be why it's List 2 then.

The formula for AT guns is to take the AP plus half the HE value (so 5.5). Then divide that in half, rounding down. So technically List 2 is correct, but it's so close to being a List 3 gun that I'd be inclined just to put it there myself. It does its main job of knocking holes in tanks just as well as other List 3 AT guns like the Soviet 45mm and Pak 36. Nobody is taking these little early war AT guns for their HE shells.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7073
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Truscott Trotter » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:58 am

Erm the pak 36 is list 4 just like all the other light AT guns in BK. (25mm/ 1pdrs guns are list 3 - hence my thinking list 2 is a typo)
I suspect Rich rounds up :)

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Seret » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:16 am

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:58 am
I suspect Rich rounds up :)
Personally I world love it if he started rounding up from x.5, that's how it's supposed to be done!

He's always rounded down though, which would kind of be OK if he was consistent, but he isn't. I fully understand that he publishes what he thinks things should be, but when he publishes things like the CoCulator and then ignores it himself it does sow the confusion that leads to threads like this.

Basically support list values are whatever Rich thinks they should be, even if that differs from the way of working them out that Rich himself previously published. He's not super into that level of detail, so you've just got to roll with it. It's not a big deal IMO. If you want very consistent support list numbers then just work them out yourself.

Or, even easier, just look at the CA.

Tomm
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Tomm » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:29 am

Isn't the rule to round to an even number?

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7073
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Truscott Trotter » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:39 am

No Rich is consistant rule book = pdf list = BK lists but does not = 2 page coculater issed 4 years ago

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: British 2lb AT Gun Query

Post by Seret » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:49 am

Truscott Trotter wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:39 am
No Rich is consistant rule book = pdf list = BK lists but does not = 2 page coculater issed 4 years ago
Except when he isn't. PSCs often tweak values, or reprint stuff which is itself an error or inconsistent. And why design the CoCulator (and then publish two different versions of it!) and then not use it? That's the definition of inconsistent.

Look, if you're the kind of person who likes things to be tidy and logical and neat you're going to be disappointed. Rich is a great games designer and a historian but by his own admission he finds this detail-oriented stuff like watching paint dry and has no appetite for it. So you either just accept the "officially blessed" numbers with their wonky bits, or you redo them yourself on a level playing field. But you won't get both.

Which, via a roundabout route brings us back to the OP:
Matt1066 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:10 am
British North Africa list has the 2lb AT gun at List 4, whereas Consolidated Arsenal has it on List 2.
Is the CA generally considered the list to use? Obviously I’ll discuss it with my regular opponents but wondered if there was already a general consensus?
Basically if you're the type of person who likes the idea that all the different guns are worked out using the same system and consistently costed and you're not bothered about that source being "unofficial", then the CA is the way to go. If you're the kind of person who wants to stick to what's "official", even if the numbers are a bit opaque and sometimes don't match up, then go with the books. If you're trying to get consensus among a group of wargamers (good luck with that!) then just sticking with the published values probably saves argument. Even if they aren't "right" it's probably not worth squabbling over.

Post Reply