Imperial japanese experimental and paper tanks

[Trevor Reznik]

Hi!
Recently i used the WWPD’s Bryan Cook, Dave Hunter and Richard “Vehicle Design System@ for crafting rules on pack of Imperial japanese experimental and paper tanks and tank-destroyers.
I did rules for Super-Heavy Type 4, Chi-RI, Ho-Ri and late variant of Chi-Nu.

What do you think about gaming with vehicles which never went into battle? And what’s your opinion about this rules?

P.S. My inner voice tells me that I’m just unskilled WAACfag that wants play germans without pain, is it true??

Attachments:

1. Japanese-tank-prototype-rules.docx

[Slyde Klewlis]

“What do you think about gaming with vehicles which never went into battle?”

If you have the luxury of a flexible and friendly opponent who is playing the game for enjoyment; (and not there to just get the victory in a competitive tournament) and agrees to try out optional and experimental rules go for it; other wise there is nothing prohibiting you from playing the game by your self to try things out.

“And what’s your opinion about this rules?”

I am gearing up for a campaign in the South Pacific Theatre playing an alternative to the commonly accepted narrative of the history. Experimental Vehicles may make an appearance in latter stages of the war. I am familiar with the rules you are speaking of and I believe these should be included as an option in a possible Third Edition of Bolt Action to cover units the Authors of the Armies books may forget to include and have not thoroughly fact checked before publishing.

I say go for it, every body that runs a club or house based style campaign can edit/re-write/invent rules as necessary.

Many people forget that Bolt Action was not primarily designed as a competitive tournament type system with rules set in stone by G.O.D. or the Grand Order of Designers/Developers. It was meant to be a friendly game in the spirit of fun and enjoyment.

The armies lists in the selectors were intended to add flavor to campaigns for the theatres and time lines for which they were written for; not to field the most powerful force intended to smash in the face of all opponents.

[Richard]

Glad you like the Vehicle Design Rules, they aren’t perfect but a good place to start and mostly right!

The only thing I’d suggest is depending on your scenario I’d make them experiemental unless your ‘background’ includes an reason for them being in full production.

[Zedeyejoe]

“What do you think about gaming with vehicles which never went into battle?”
Fairly pointless. After all its not history.
I used to play a computer WW2 game. Lot of fun and quite realistic.
Tanks took damage but could be repaired and required to be supplied as well.
I was playing as Russians, attacking Berlin when 2 Maus tanks entered the battlefield. Fair enough we are now playing a ‘what if’ I thought. I dealt with the Maus and then entered the next scenario. That one had 6 Maus, you cannot be serious was my response.
I think the fun of playing Japanese is doing your best with what you have available, not imagining ‘might-have-beens’.

[Richard]

No different to fighting ‘out of theatre’ though, it’s all fantasy what if. You just need to understand the expectation before you start a game, afterall a lot of rules are by consent only.

[Dr Dave]

The thing that irks me about the “what ifs” is that it’s usually only applied to one side.

If you’re using Jap heavy tanks, get loads of Pershings as well. And if the Japs look like winning, nuke the place.

[Richard]

But given how the points work a Japanese heavy tank is more of a liability than an asset. Same for any heavy or larger tank. Just a bigger target.

[Author]

Posts