"Review a form for a new version of Tractics" Topic

I'm helping a friend out that is doing a rewrite of Tractics. The biggest thing it can benefit from is to improve the design and layout along with some new play aids. Here is one I just finished:
link

The row in red is for the penetration. The black row is the basic hit # for exposed / hull down vehicles. I can't respond to questions about any of the values, numbers, etc. None are finalized at this point. This is a draft for the German 75mm gun. I'm looking for feedback and suggestions from people that have done this type of thing before. Is it easy to read, etc. I know it's a little "busy" but I'm trying to fit two to a page.

He'll be at DundraCon this weekend in San Ramon with the game if you want to have a look.

Wolfhag

Looks pretty good, and always enjoyed Tractics.

He might want to consider rounding the ranges to 20" = 500m, since 21 is just a bit odd, and much harder to remember for 1,000m+, etc.

Sure, people will get the hang of it, but rounding off seems better, at least to me.

Also strange are the measurements in inches, but also miles. I think it is better to go all metric, or statute miles, so pick one for consistency.

Tractics was the first set of WW2 rules I every played, and as such I have fond memories of it, but I'm with Mako, where ever possible round things off. There is an enormous wealth of technical and tactical detail to be had from Tractics, please use the KISS principle for actual game mechanics.

Best of luck!

But if it were simple it wouldn't be Tractics then would it? Only kidding.

He want's to use miles rather kilometers as it's informational only and those Yanks can wrap their brains around and relate to distances in miles better than kilometers.

I don't know why he rounded to a 1 rather than a 0.

I do know he want to use a compound angle to determine total armor thickness. He has a thing for that sort of detail.

If you like 1:1 vehicle ratio, the nuances of armor penetration and armor, somewhat abstracted ambush and recon rules, observation and spotting rules and detailed hit locations then these are the things he's working on.

The form I designed integrated 6 different look up areas on charts. He's actually fighting back at a few guys that want to complicate things to keep it simple.

Thanks for the feedback.

Wolfhag

Okay ignoring the data….sorry but this is a real mess. Here's what I would do to help clean it up.

• Having the weapons along the top is very confusing. At first i thought the various columns were for each weapon. You need a chart identifier that is big and bold like A1 or just number 7.
  
• Why are the three blue range bands at the bottom there? Two are duplicates and the third is better left off.
  
• Do the modifiers on the bottom (Panzer Ace, Target Concealment) apply only to this chart or to all charts? If to all, take that section off here and put it on the QRS.
  
• Shade the columns not the rows. Alternate white/light gray.
  
• The space for rule exceptions should apply only to that chart otherwise they should be in the rule book.
  
• You've got notes in gray in the range bands. Do these apply only to that ammo at that range? If so fine, otherwise they should be somewhere else.
  

My $0.03 USD
YMMV

Not sure who owns the rights to Tractics these days. I was the original publisher. Later sold it to TSR, Inc.

Don, you might want to check and see if it returned to you hen they were bought by Wizards. Now if Hasbro wants to revamp it…

Extra Crispy,
I was not satisfied with the end result which is why I'm looking for outside opinions. I never player Tractics so I'm not sure of how close the similarities are are how he intends to use the name, if at all, in the future. He's using a D20 for die rolls. He references Tractics as a comparison. He really admires the game. It's not going to be a game for someone with no knowledge of tank warfare.

Clarifications: All of the notes on the sheet would apply to that weapon and ammo, including the notes in the gray bands. The notes in the gray bands are the first things to change. I did different colors for the rows because visually you have to follow across from the ammo type several columns and can get thrown off to another row. I know I was in trying to follow it. I'm sure others are different. But then I guess you could reference the range first and then ammo type. I was going to have everything in a column like in the long, very long and extreme bands but it looks even busier putting in redundant numbers in three consecutive columns. He wants to do accuracy based on 500m range bands but detail the penetration in 7"/175m increments. The "Range Inches" and "Range Band" is redundant at the bottom again for helping visual acquisition.

My idea is to have as much of the most used and applicable rules for that gun on the same sheet and leave the others off. I consolidated two sheets of info on to one half of a sheet of paper. Any rules pertinent to that weapon would be on the sheet so there is no "Master Sheet" to reference and search. It's a slightly different approach. I feel that should help new players come up to speed, be less confusing and less looking up rules or get a reference. Each weapon would have it's own chart (could put an alpha/numeric identifier on it too). I wanted to use the bottom row to indicate where a player could look up specific rules in more detail if needed. The gun stabilizer is not pertinent to the 75mm gun but is just a place holder for now. It was a nightmare looking up info on four different pieces of paper to get the info for accuracy, ROF, penetration, modifiers, etc. I'm attempting to combine them all on one half of a sheet of paper. So when a player shoots he goes to the page for the gun, sees the type of vehicles at the top and their specific ROF (it could differ from vehicle to vehicle) and identifies his. Next he looks for the ammo he's firing on the left. The graphics are for show only. The black numbers under the range bands for accuracy are for fully exposed / hull down so cover most situations. There is a Step by Step process on what to check in a turn it's just not on the sheet. It will be on the next version. The graphics are mostly for show but it does help visually break up all of the numbers, at least for me.

I think my endeavor to get everything on a half sheet is unworkable. I'll go back to the drawing board working on a full sheet using the "Rules as Needed" concept. I know that there is info on color combinations and hues that are easy on the eyes. I'll have to check that out too.

Thanks again.

Wolfhag

I've never played Tractics, but:

1. Don't put ranges in inches on the game aids. Metres, or if you must, yards, but don't mix them.

2. Range bands of 167m for penetration are just weird. Use the same range bands for penetration as for P(hit), and make it some sensible round number like 200m or 250m or 500m.

3. If you are going to put pictures of the rounds on the card, make sure you have them right -- the PaK-40 cartridge was an in-line shape, rather than a necked "bottle" cartridge. Mr. Picky would also like to point out that the PaK-40 was an L/46, not an L/48. And the gun in the StuG was the StuK-40, not KwK-40.

4. The penetration numbers are obviously a bit squinty, as the PzGr 39 has more penetration at 42 ins (1000m) than it does at 35 ins (833m). There is really no point in giving penetration figures to the nearest millimetre; WW2 armoured steel wasn't manufactured to such fine tolerances anyway. 10mm is fine enough to show all the range effects and armour differences you need, 5mm if you really insist, but finer than that is getting silly.

5. Mr. Picky thinks that the hollow charge round was designated PzGr 38 HL, not 39, and you should distinguish the /A, /B and C models. And why can't they hit beyond 1000m?

6. Stabilized gun modifiers seem a bit pointless for AFVs that lack gun stabilization (in WW2, anything that isn't either American or a T-26).

7. Personally, I don't like little pictures of StuGs and iron crosses. Ink that doesn't add information doesn't belong on the card.

I hope the P(hit) and penetration numbers are coming from some rational basis of calculation.

All the best,

John.

Yea, no one is going to want a calculator, or slide-rule to figure out how many meters they are at, distance-wise, when 1" = 23.809m.

Rounding off to 1" = 25 meters or yards is the only sane way forward, from the gamers' perspective (or, 1mm = 1 meter).

1. Don't put ranges in inches on the game aids. Metres, or if you must, yards, but don't mix them.

Right! Different people use different ground scales, depending on the size of their models and the size of their table. So give the real-world date and let each player translate it to fit their own ground scale.

Actual penetration data is usually given for 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 yards/meters, so those are the range categories I would use (in fact, they ARE the categories I use in my home-made rules).

I like the additional data for the other, close ranges as well, especially since in WWII many effective engagements will be below 1,500m.

I cut my teeth on TRACTICS until RPGs (D&D not Panzerfausts) took over my game group. I was thought this would be a great game for a nice spreadsheet application. Has there been thought of make a computer-aided version?

Lost Pict

From what I've read, it was very rare to get a LOS on a target in NW Europe at over 500 meters.

donlowery,
You are correct about the short ranges. Some of the rule summaries I saw on this game were spotting and observation and a "Shoot Out" or "Mexican Standoff" rules that takes into account turret rotation. I doubt if any game is going to introduce anything "new" so it's a matter of how they are presented.

LostPict: I told the guy I'd dump his data into a spreadsheet to test the numbers and see if it gets the right feel and desired outcome. It's actually a game rewritten with Tractics as some basis and "inspiration". I'm sorry if my original post was a little misleading. I'm suggesting a spreadsheet player aid to him.

Wolfhag

John Salt:
You are the man!! If Tom Hanks wants to do another WWII movie I want him to call you for a Technical Consultant spot. I threw the first graphics I had available on the sheet to see how it looks. I'll be more careful with the next version. The penetration numbers I'm not really sure of. They will be modified by compound angles but not hardness or cast vs rolled. I advises him whatever formula he uses is to compare it to historical results.

The stabilized gun info was just a place holder. It was on his modifier sheet that I wanted to try to fit into the form. I've suggested only the info pertinent to the specific weapon on the sheet to eliminate looking up on a master QRS. When you say "I hope the P(hit) and penetration numbers are coming from some rational basis of calculation." are you referring to Dehn, Bird and Livingston, your Python program or some other rational system?

Wolfhag

"2. Range bands of 167m for penetration are just weird. Use the same range bands for penetration as for P(hit), and make it some sensible round number like 200m or 250m or 500m."
I like this if it is done to show that the to-hit number change is sinusoidal. I've gone to this method.
The old 100m 500m 750m etc. columns is so old school.

Just to be on the safe side, I'd suggest you change the name to something other than Tractics. I have no objection to you using it, but someone who has a lawyer on retainer might.

Wofhag, some additional information on the 75mm model 40.
panzer-war.com/page43.html

donlowry.
Again, I wish the designer never mentioned Tractics and I'm suggesting that he drop his mention and admiration of it in his introduction. The game already has a name and it does not begin with a "T" or have "tics" anywhere in it. Never did. I'd hate to have someone put a lot of work into something and then have people compare it to a different system and get the wrong first impression. Sorry if my post gave people the wrong impression, I'll take responsibility for that and will be more careful in the future.

Wolfhag

Mobius,
I can't say exactly how he's going to end up doing it. He has a basic idea and asked for my help is using some real life data from trial firings and formulas to get the right outcome and fit within the system. I did run through a few test cases and it did seems to match up about right at medium and very long distances. Trying to tweak variables to get the right changes to a system with a "Basic To Hit #" is something I've given up on and gone in a different direction.

I'll probably have a new version of the form in a few weeks.

Appreciate all of the comments and help.

Wolfhag

I suggest you take Don Lowry's advice regarding the use of the name TRACTICS. Don, you and I (Mike Reese) have the rights as in COPYRIGHT to TRACTICS. We still do! TSR NEVER had the copyright – they paid for its use and the copyright remained with us. Good to hear you are still alive. Lost contact with Lee Tucker. Understand he divorced, made a $million (don't know the order) and dropped out of sight.

TRACTICS tables should convert to meters from inches. Ground scale was 1"= 25 m.

Hi to you too, John. Long time. We last corresponded when I was working on WRG WWII. Hope they note that there were three pages of corrections included in the final edition plus I published in the IFW NEWS corrected armor stats for at least the German vehicles. Gary hand typed the rules from my hand written copy. No computers at that time – no 20 sided dice either.

If you want detail in AFV combat try BATTLEGROUND WWII – armor rules have the detail although they don't have the angle modification for hitting other than withing 15 degrees to the armor (i.e. all hits are at about 90 degrees or directly right on). You need the basic set and the AFV set or look up the information on their old Yahoo web site done if it still exists. They had some editing problems as well.

If you want the same game and in a more playable form try ARC OF FIRE. This set is available from Brigadegames.com

No TRACTICS 2nd edition. As Don says that name is copyrighted.

Mike Reese the old TankGuy

Hi, Mike! Old wargamers never die, they just play away.

Hi Mike! It's been around 40 years since we met when we played a few times together here in St. Louis, on the huge sand table our club had built in the basement of Oliver Wischmeyer. Tractics was our first serious WW2 ruleset, and for many of us our first serious dip into wargaming (which has become a life-long hobby). Thanks for giving us your time and enthusiastic expertise into the introduction of this fascinating hobby.

Btw, two comments – I always coveted your 1/200th scale "Mercator" armor collection that I think you got while serving in the US Army in Germany (part of which one of our local members bought from you). Recently, I've replaced my own 1/285th scale collection with 1/144th scale miniatures as a substitute for what I think is an "ideal" size wargaming scale. I had web-searched for "Mercator", so was wondering if my memory was correct that this was the manufacturer (I believe there was /is a German company by this name which made a naval ship line).

Unfortunate news – Ollie Wischmeyer passed away a couple months ago of cancer.

Dave S. – St. Charles, Missouri

He wants to do accuracy based on 500m range bands but detail the penetration in 7"/175m increments.

Keep It Simple. Accuracy and penetration should be using the same range brackets. Otherwise, you need to do two sets of math to figure out the correct band to check, which takes more time.

Do you want to spend your time looking up the right table/table column to use, or do you want to pull all the data from one spot on the table and move on?

Definitely agree with Lion!

Dave
In Germany you cannot sell war toys, so MERCATOR sold their armor as "novelties". The owner has probably passed the company on – if he had someone interested. It was a small family sized business. I do know that MAVIS (?) in England purchased the molds from the owner of MERCATOR so they may still be available from England. The ship line may also have been sold. Dale Bley had my collection for awhile and was getting new models from England – whose quality had suddenly gone way up. These turned out to be MERCATOR's.
Sorry about Ollie. I am having same problems – Non-Hodgkins Lympomia, Atrial Fibrillation, cataracts all since 2008.

Still gaming skirmish 1/48 and Company/Battalion in 15mm, with moderns in 1/600 scale. Ships are now in 1/2400. Had a large WWII and Modern 1/285 collection – sold that to I-94 Enterprisea

Try looking at ARC OF FIRE sold by brigadegames.com for $20 USD I think. Check ArcofFire yahoo group for downloads of the WWI, WWII, and Modern AFV charts. That set is excellent for skirmish in WWII and the modern period. For 1/144 the old WRG rules we used with the 1/200 models are still good.

The word Don is looking for is KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid. The best part of TRACTICS was not the armor piercing/armor slope rules but the variable damage to the vehicle and crew rules for when a vehicle is penetrated. Use the FOW armor rules (double the ranges) with the TRACTICS kill results instead of the Fire Power roll.

Mike, thanks for taking the time here to sew up a few of these loose ends for me. After writing a set of rules inspired from playing Tractics and WRG for so many years, I eventually arrived afterwards at the realization that what I really wanted to create was a WW2 game system that played efficiently, which offered an arena where tactical/doctrinal decision-making would be the primary game focus (I wanted the rules to get out of the way of player's being able to have a more dynamic/flowing battlefield experience – yes, it's KISS-embraced):

An example of a "Player's Unit Panel" and the corresponding miniatures for one particular side/scenario played recently:

(in a scale/focus transitioned from where TRACTICS might be played)

Back on topic to the thread here, I'd suggest that checking out the rules Tank Charts, or even the venerable boardgame Panzer (recently freshened and re-released by GMT) are of similar design/approach using in-depth unit/vehicle game aids.

link

link

Mike Reese and Don Lowry!

I'm doing a Armor Combat Wargame based on TRACTICS that WOLFHAG was referring to. I've been trying to find you guys for a few years and have some very pointed questions about TRACTICS that I've never been able to quite figure out since I bought the game in college in 1975!!!

Originally, my project became a challenge to reprint the TRACTICS rules using modern computer technology to reformat the rules so it wouldn't be lost to the ages. And, I always wanted to reformat and re-organize the rules at the same time. Well, that took some time. Then, the project morphed into redoing the rules with the intention of streamlining the rules and retaining my favorite parts. In this form my hope was to get my local gamers to play it and at the same time actually play the rules with someone who wanted to. By re-writing the rules I figured that be the best way to learn them to be able to make them presentable to my collegues.

The project has taken on a life of it's own – and, I've introduced some interesting uniqueness and other accurate features. I always liked its detail in tank combat aspects. We play tested it in 2013 at KublaCon in San Francisco with some very good feedback.

WOLFHAG has been helping me with developing some new concepts that we find unique. I'm one to see gaming, at least with this game, to return to an "old school" approach. I realize this game is complex and not for the average gamer, but serves as game with a certain honesty without all the ambiguous excessive die-rolling, initiative, saving rolls and things that have no place in realism.

This will never be a "convention crowd-pleaser" and it's not trying to be. My intent is to produce simulation game that operates in a way that someone who's been in the military knows how things really work and terminology that is based in real military language and procedures.

My game design, as TRACTICS is, straight forward, logical, and like a chess game, wherein the player really has to use his tactics and cleverness to pit his wit against his opponent. Inotherwords, the game doesn't suffer from "the tail wagging the dog" syndrome that so many of the wargames of late seem to suffer from. I don't like these games that "run the game for you" with obscure justification for movement and initiative and bogus "saving rolls."

Anyway, anticipate your response so I can discuss clarifications that are germane regarding TRACTICS and your opinions, etc. Of course, I will not be mentioning TRACTICS in my version, though it is the main inspiriation for this project and core mechanics are essentially at the heart of the game. I've changed enough of the game that it's not really the same game anymore.

My goal was originally to improve certain aspects and address some issues and streamline some processes of the original game. However, on that last point I can't say of succeeded much yet. But, I've certainly added some cool stuff a lot which has seldom been seen in other games done this way. In particular Battlefield Recovery and Logistics options. Also, someone in a blog talking about TRACTICS wanted to see Command and Control – well, I've added that along with some very interesting RECON rules which plays a significant role. Battlefield Logistics introduces behind the lines interdiction possibilities. Also, special ambush rules contribute to this concept of cutting off the enemy which gives the player to avoid frontal assaults being the norm. At these conventions that's all I see is frontal assault slugfests or if any attempts at envelopments the movements are so unrealistic as to be laughable – Flames of War comes to mind, not to mention range proximities are ridiculous looking.

Anyway, so far, one of my primary goals in streamlining hasn't been too successful – this, is a bit of dilemma, but still tackling it. The biggest thorn in my side is not the complexity of the armor combat but the level of detail of the infantry combat! I'm open to suggestions by you guys as what your ideas might be on that. The other thing I'm wrestling with the application of artillery that I was never liking about TRACTICS, and I just haven't decided on my final approach to that, but it's one I'm pretty sure I know how I will conceptualize it. Though, your TRACTICS game I feel is perfect in a lot of ways, maybe that's a too strong word, but one thing that brings me back to your method of artillery is yours is the only one that deals with "moving vehicles" being targeted in a way that is thoughtful, and, bears closer examination on how to do that within to confines of my artillery construct.

Anyway, I'd truly like to ask you some questions as soon as possible. Thanks,

- Tibor Ipavic
12th PSYOP Bn, S-2 Section
US Army

'Tractics' is also one of my first WWII Miniature Rules when my Dad introduced me to HO ( ROCO ) Scale back in the 70's…I owned 3 copies over the years.

There are some issues with 'Tractics' and most others WWII Miniatures rules of the time that continued through the 80's.
I will explain one such issue at a later date…Notably the Penetration vs. Armor values that rules don't take into account.

Joe

I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help to you. I had no part in the design of the rules, I just did the graphics, the printing, and the sales. I never even played them.

Well,Don!
That I didn't expect – that's pretty funny. But, thanks anyway. I guess I really need to get in touch somehow with Mike Reese (Tankguy) and pick his brain a bit.

By the way, I always liked the line drawings that, as you said, the graphics you did. So, my compliments.

As for "JoMac67" I would be very curious to hear what your concerns regarding the penetrations vs the tank armor values are. Me and "Wolfhag" have gone over this quite a bit. My research regarding this confirms that the authors got it right, plus or minus a bit, regarding penetration values, as I have confirmed a lot of this and the armor thicknesses are also quite accurate.

What Wolfhag has mentioned to me regarding penetrations based on empirical data gleaned from various American, British, and Soviet test firings indicate that a certain amount of "overpenetration" is required for "full effectual" damage to the target vehicle. However, this starts to get into a realm of parsing that I don't think is really necessary and won't really enhance the game much. Besides it introduces a lot of conditional variables that starts to get very muddy in nailing down dependable values regarding "successfully penetrating" the target.

So, if this is not the issue of what you speak I'm all ears, and if you have comments on my comment above, I'd like to hear that too.

Regards,
Tibor Ipavic

FlyXwire would you mind starting a new thread with more details on your game, or perhaps there is already one I can be directed to?

Monongahela, thanks for showing interest in my game system.

I haven't posted too much about it, because I'm still dabbling with the idea that it's worthy of publishing, but beyond the QRS and the various unit counters player's reference during their game play, I've not written a stitch of explanatory rules text.

Here's a thread about a recent game I put on at a local con using "Battle Tactics":

TMP link

Perhaps that might be a thread where I could forward a few other details and for discussion if your interested Monongahela?