"Help with rule design." Topic

I found a bunch of pdf files with different 1/72 scale (20-25mm) rules for WW2. Now I have been wanting to make a 1:1 scale tank on tank battle system. What i have in mind involve; Armor ratings on all sides, glancing and penetrating blows, results based on where the round hit in accordance to fuel and ammo stores even drivers and commanders. I even wanted to do the tank cannons to be made in accordance to their ability to penetrate certain armor as it was in the past. Halftracks, spgs like Katyusha and even even the Wespe, being involved possibly. My final desire is incorporating super tanks like ratte or KV-VI and then tesla coils or other wunderwaffe. Any ideas or other help would be appreciated, or if you want to help with the rules and such, it would be appreciated!

Take a look at AH's Tobruk and Patton's Best. They are very different games, both providing aspects of what you're trying to do. Might give you some ideas. Or some solutions.

first words of advice…

what is the scale of the game?

then decide what inputs the game needs?

then decide what outputs the game needs?

If you want to discuss game design with me, and I am always happy to help with game design/advice email me at Darren.webber@btopenworld.com

what do you mean by inputs and outputs?

ok – an input is any thing that comes into the game, such as how measurement is handled – how things move in reality, how much time is represented, how long such an action takes.

Outputs are what the rules output – results of combat, morale results, dice tests, etc. how far the unit moved.

Game inputs during the game are normally player actions.
Game outputs are how the rules work.

email me!

Alright, email sent!

Just buy Tractics, and or the 25mm/28mm Battleground rules set, and you'll be set.

You'll have to come up with your own stats for the supertanks, but that should be pretty easy to do with the others as examples to work from.

Well if you can find an old copy of the Zimmerman rules, Angriff. These came out in the late 60's to the early 80's.They will fulfill your needs. Have used them from 6mm to 1/72 with some minor range & move mods. Lots of vehicles with actual armor stats used or if the vehicle is not listed just look it up in your reference book and use historical data to fill in the needed stats.
The only set of rules I have known to do this.
link

One aspects really not articulated yet well in many games systems when it cones to vehicles are;
1 – morale
2 – Command and control

I can see it easily swallowing you up with all the resolving of armour values etc, but modelling (rules wise) of the 'human' side of things is essential I'd say. I'll clarify I have no experience with a game that is all vehicles only, and am fairly squarely in the platoon 28mm scale side if things.

I don't like FOW as a system but kne thing that struck me was how vehicle platoons took morale tests due to casualties like infantry do. Tanks moving up to a position all confidently only to get jumpy and reluctant one they realise that enemy infantry are there too, and don't have the protection of their own infantry. It's an interesting but potentially tricky sift of thing to model. You could have a simple 25% casualties and take a leadership test sort of thing. A fail makes the platoon 'shaken' resulting in them not wanting to advance or move nearer to a visible enemy. Another tests taken later on against a shaken unit will result in them bugging out.

Then there's C&C where by the command tank adds a morale (or fortitude, or whatever you want to call it) bonus, radios maybe allow for a turn's move out of LOS of other members of the same platoon, etc etc. (assuming it is WWII you are doing etc)

Also all my talk of being in LOS, yet visibility, especially within a moving WWII AFV must have been tricky and restricted. My platoon scale (28mm) rules accounted for a dead zone within 3" of the tank whereby the main gun couldn't be fired at infantry, and all MG fire had a 4+ save against it fir infantry too. Spotting rolls were increasingly hardest to pass the further around the sides of the tank enemy units are, and even more so if the vehicle moved or went flat out.

I hole my ramblings help a bit, there's many things to consider, and do tell us what scale etc your gane will be (28mm, 1:72, 1:300?)

Ark3n

You look like you need to do a couple of months work before you even look like you want to start writing actual rules. What I would do is set up a battalefield looking like you would want to play with your rules. Imagine what area you want it to represent (roughly) and make sure you ajust untill it looke like you want it. You could even look at real maps/google saterlite pictures to see if it looks even vacuely like a map. However this is optional as few wargamers realy even want to think about how to portray the real world even approximately. Having done that set out the two side (use cards if no vehicals). From there imagine the battle, moving the cards and getting a feel for the result you want. You need the data on penetration and armour thickness available but thats just data. When you have got a good idea of what your battle looks like and what you want to considere, then and only then, is the time to start writing the rules. You have to have a good idea of the result before you can write the rules to make it happen. We reacon it took us about 2000 hrs to write ours. Most were fun and we learnt immence ammounts and are still learning.

Anybody can write thousands of rules. The trick is to get most of the way with only a few well chosen rules. The trick is to end up with a game where the rules are simple but the game is not. Chess is brain bending but has very few rules.

It proably helps to buy or borrow lots of commecial rules once you know what sort of game you want.

Thanks for all the help guys. I am working on the aspects and I am an avid military otaku history nerd so I can do tactics and the research, right now I got rules from site that has a list if rules wether PDF or for sale by different companies so I will update everyone as I can. Also watching Girls Und Panzer for inspiration while I do research. I was thinking of unit cost based on cost to manufacture. Commands and morale will be another aspect I am adding, I start my major basics tommorow.

My advise is very simple… Enlist in the the army, in a amored unit and wait some years with your rules…

Designing any game is part art and part science. The science part is what I would say the easiest. Armor ratings, penetrations data, vehicle layouts,etc. There is a lot of detailed info out there. Are you going to have German tanks pass a breakdown roll every time they have to move?(OK, so somewhat realistic)

The "art" is putting together a turn sequence that is interactive and playable enough to simulate spotting, ROF, reactions and maneuver in the correct ratio. Most guns can get off a round every 10-12 seconds and most vehicles can move 100-120 meters across good ground in that time and ideal conditions. Most engagements were won by the side that spotted and shot first. How will that be handled? How will you reflect different crew types? Do you know enough about the offensive and defensive tactics that both sides used to make sure you can simulate them with your rules? Can you reward sides that use the correct tactics and punish the ones that don't irregardless of the gun and armor ratings? How will you simulate FOW and surprise and other variables and unknowns? Clearly written and play tested rules with lots of examples and play aids always helps. Will you use percentage dice or D6?

Keep in mind, the Allies won the war (Oops, I almost wrote Americans, bad Yankee). In the end Shermans, Churchills and Cromwells did defeat Tigers and Panthers. Tank vs Tank games are not just about shooting. Do your research and review as many rules systems as you can. Watch Youtube videos of archival tank combat footage and WWII tanks maneuvering about today. I saw a video of a guy driving a Sherman around like it was a sports car. Read first person accounts and AAR. "Borrow" what works (most likely they did)and be sure to make it fun. Semi-detailed and abstracted games can be fun where detailed ones are a pain. You can't please everyone so don't try to.

Wolfhag

A lot of tanks either suffered from break down, or some other sparatic failure, but doing that could bog it down. I will keep it as an idea. Tank crews were trained to fire when stopped, because firing on the move, even on a moving targer tends to be a waist of ammo. Meaning something along the lines of 2 shots for not moving, and 1 shot on the move, or coming to a stop. Maybe keeping in mind barrel fluctuation from a sudden stop. Giving it maybe a – for hit. I know about offense and defense, so that wont be as hard to do. I have also come to the decision to do a combination of d6 and d10. Spotting, commands, and morale are also a thing in mind.

As far as the history, everyone knows the Allies won the war, but in a war game, there is always room for a what if scenario. I have came up with an invigorating idea of making a map for a campaign style game. Allies versus Axis. The same was done with Warmachine and Hordes, its like risk, only after moving to a location its followed by a game. Just things i have been thinking about. Also thanks for the ideaabout watching videos, seeing as movies dont get it right all the time.

KyrasMoonhunter,
You are doing it already. Stop writing rules first. Like the man said at 1 round every 10 seconds do you want to shoot twice or only twice in a bound. In my rules you can shoot lots more. In crossfire there are no limits as such to howmany times you can shoot (sort of). Great game untill artillery and tanks came in. Some love it but to me at that point it lost the plot and became to much fantasy. You need a rule free idea of what you want before you write rules.

Also look at the different styles or rules, crossfire is truely unique, Phil Barkers are again quite clever in places. Stargrunt has its deveotees and again it is a diffrent type of game. Maybe even look at squad leader, how not to do it in my opinion too detailed for no real gain. I can't mention mine it would be bias.

Wolfhag is right its not shooting that hard is command and communications. Also you may need to model the down side of stuff. Tanks do have poor visibity buttoned up. The current US field manuals have lots to tell non serving soldiers. Mind you for professionaly written douments they are not that well written and do in plces contradict themselves but are a good start.

AND LOOK AT REAL MAPS. Google earth is FREE.

Keeping in mind the "Hierarchy of Combat" an "Action" is defined as an encounter between two forces neither larger than a battalion or smaller than a squad. It's part of an "Engagement" (Company to Division size, few hours to a few days)that lasts for a few minutes to a few hours but never more than a day. An "Action" fits the description of most Company sized war games. The next level down is a "Duel" between two units or vehicles and last a few minutes. A "Duel" could be defined as one turn within an Action between two Company sized units. A tank duel between 5-10 tanks would be over within a few minutes or the attackers would have broken through or withdrawn. Accuracy of tank fire within 1,000m gives an almost 100% chance of getting at least 1 hit in 3 rounds of firing in 30-45 seconds (ideal conditions). Misses are due to incorrect range estimation, gun laying errors and attempting to hit a moving target (using DRM's in a game). Within 800m most AT guns had a 75%+ chance of hitting a non-moving non-hull down target. In 2 minutes a vehicle moving without stopping at 15mph would move about 800m. In WWII Europe most tank engagements were at 500-1,000m so an attacker concentrating on on maneuvering and penetrating a defense would only be under fire by a specific unit for a as little as 30 seconds and up to few minutes at most and then be out of LOS. In games where a turn is 1-2 minutes (basically a Duel) and Opportunity Fire gives 1/2 ROF the attacker gets shot at only once or twice. Is that the correct ROF to Movement Ratio? A friend of mine was a Gunner in USMC M-48 tanks in the early 1970's (basically a WWII tank as far as 90mm gun and fire control) and he said if you didn't KO your target by the second shot don't expect to get a third. Tank-tank duels are normally over quickly.

If you are going to simulate without abstraction a tank battle on a round-round hit/penetration/damage turn you are going to need 10-12 second turns and you are essentially simulating a "Duel" which will be hard to make playable in a Company sized Combined Arms game which is defined as an "Action".

So the challenge for a game designer is how do you simulate an "Action" with the right balance of abstraction and realism to make it playable? How do you simulate these "Duels" within an "Action"? What factors are important (ROF, movement, C&C, etc) and what ones would be out of the scope of the turn (supply, maintenance, higher level C&C, artillery, etc)? How do tactics and leadership come into play at the Duel and Action level and how do you simulate them and give realistic DRM's? Good luck.

Wolfhag

Play a lot of other people's rules first. Find what you like and what you don't like. Then see if you can melt a lot of what you do like in those rules with your own inspiration. Find some new way of doing something old and see how that makes your game unique.