"What are your favorite Tank on Tank Rules?" Topic

I'd like to hear from people who play a lot of games featuring actions with tanks fighting other tanks. I'm not looking for operational level rules, or grand tactical rules, but what is or are your favorite rules for games where a tank will fight another tank (one tank representing one tank in the game)?

I'm asking this purely from a game mechanics basis- what about the mechanics do you like and why? Why does it appeal to you?

For purposes of discussion, let's keep this from the period of the Interwar period (1920's and 1930's) to the modern day.

Is there a tank game who's mechanics REALLY grab you? Please say why.

You can also complain about bad systems- but please say why as well. I'm trying to see what mechanics for tank on tank actions people really like and conversely, what they may not like.

Thanks!

Really REALLY enjoyed the tank rules for Advanced Squad Leader. The hex map makes it clear which facing points which way. Table look-up for this gun vs. that range made a lot of sense, and you eventually began to appreciate the nuance between a 75mm cannon, a 75L, and a 75LL. Ten modifiers on the attacker, ten more on the defender, and you get a grasp on it within a few turns. And the dice game between my penetration factor vs. your armor, with a half dozen possible outcomes based on exactly which die said what, made each roll exciting.

Okay, the game slips deeper into the morass when you start worrying about smoke dischargers, malfunctioned bow machine guns, and whether a retreating crew grabs a Panzerfaust on the way out. But when you stay intent on just tanks against tanks (and maybe even politely skip the "hull impact possibly spraying bits vs. exposed tank commander), I found it to be a pleasure. Even rules for Gun Duels -- do I turn my turret and fire before he turns his turret to fire back -- captured a bit of excitement that taught me some history while learning the process.

Every other rule set eventually seems pale in comparison.

If it's strictly tanks, or I want a fast play, Tigers and Stalins is the best out there!

Of the ones I've played, I think Disposable Heroes is the best. Not too complicated and relatively quick but realistic.

I vote for Tigers and Stalins too.

Thanks for the detailed answer thosmoss. To be clear- I'm not looking for a recommendation for a rules set, but rather a description of the rules you like and most importantly, why you like them.

ASL.

Oh, well I'll change my answer in that case. My favorite tank on tank specific rule is the one used in the Avalon Hill game MBT. First you determine the aspect (front, side, rear) of the target, then roll a percentage dice to determine what part of the vehicle it hits (turret, hull, tracks). Next you check the penetration of the main gun at that range to see if it penetrates that particular location's armor. If I remember correctly there's a chance of a knock out, brew up or a couple of other options on the penetration roll. But it's quick and realistic.

Steve

Have you ever read accounts where several tanks were knocked out in a minute or two of fierce combat? Have you ever played a game where a single tank could knock out two or three enemy tanks in a single turn? Probably not. Not unless you play Panzer War.
Multiple hits can be determined from a single die roll so you save time. In Panzer War a single tank, like a Tiger or Panther or PaK gun can ambush a group of Shermans or T-34s and destroy 2-3 or even 4-5 in a single 75 second game turn.
You can't do that with ASL or MBT.

Not a card activation game. Not IGOUGO.

My favourite tank on tank rules are:

Force on Force by Ambush Alley Games – simple and fast, many levels/types of damage. Good for multiple tanks.

Nuts by Two Hour War Games – you play the individual crew members whom can have varying levels. Good for one tank per player.

Both have solid reaction systems and are not IGOUGO.

Mike

I enjoy the rules in Nuts!
There are no detailed angle vs. thickness vs. penetration at such-and-such location. Those type of technical rules appealed to me when I was younger but not as much now.
In Nuts! there are very basic armor and penetration values.
What makes the game stand out is that the crew is a team. When you activate the tank you activate each crew member. There is real tension in whether or not your loader got another round in fast enough or if the driver is able to take a turn at speed. You may not be able to penetrate the enemy's armor, but you can try to scare them into thinking they are in danger. If you are loaded and your enemy decides to make a dash between terrain features in front of you, you have the chance to test the keen eye of your commander and get a shot in. Crew psychology is important.

You can't do that with ASL

Yes you can.

Check the colored die to see whether you maintained rate of fire.

Panther Pranks.

Frontline Command WWII

Here's a step by step tank AAR for NUTS Final Edition.

link

Used the same rules for an 80+ tank battle at a convention five years ago, each player had 6- 8 tanks.

After third turn they knew the rules and could concentrate on tactics. Each crew member has a role in the tank. So the TC acquires the target, the gunner fires, and the loader reloads. driver, drives.

When is Nuts Final Edition coming out? It's interesting.

Keep 'em coming guys. Just to reiterate- I'm looking for a discussion of mechanics and why- not a recommendation for a rules set. I'm looking to get at what people like in a tank mechanic and why.

I enjoyed the mechanics in Renegade Legion:Centurion. Yes, I know they are Sci-Fi, but that is not relevant to the bit I am thinking of here.

I actually enjoyed the armour represented by a grid of boxes, damage was done by laying a template on the grid with the position determined by die roll. Any armour boxes within the template were marked as destroyed. Different rounds used different templates. It could get a little fiddly, and was slow for large battles, but it was different and fun.

A similar system is used for Armour Grid: Mech Attack.

Beyond that I haven't played a lot of tank on tank miniatures games.

How about this game…..

TGerritsen – Early next week at the latest. I'll also have a ten tank AAR up later today.

Here's a detailed step by step ten tank AAR for NUTS- Final Version.

link

My favorite was the rules from the original Twilight 2000. You rolled for exactly what part of the tank was hit and then you followed the shot on its journey through the target vehicle. ASL is very good for a tank or two but the minutia was TOO detailed for anything more since every tank could do the equivalent of a ballet all the time, for a more interesting take on ASL like rules there is Schewere Kompanie which has the moved/motion, gun duels (roll to see who gets first shot), and variable penetration without some of the strange effects that came from ASL's rules choices).

I like MBT/IDF/Panzer series of games but dislike the total lack of variable armor penetration.

Finally I like the armor penetration rules in Fireball Forward, a shallow range of numbers allows for a large possible variation – up to a Tiger 2 being destroyed by a frontal hit from a 2 pounder (though the odds of that are VERY VERY slim).

Ed, the Nuts tank AAR looks pretty cool.

Mike

I like Jagdpanzer. I like them so much that I've been playing them some thirty years. I found it desirable to change from micro scale to 15mm and decided to alter the rules to suit. So I doubled all ranges and distances.
These rules seem complex at first sight. But it really takes very little time to master them.

Tobruk by AH was amazing.
I suspect that MBT by AH was an attempt to update it.

One of the things I like about tank warfare is simulating the ability to aim at a weak point that is different on all vehicles and facing aspect. I've seen generic hit location tables but they don't faithfully recreate or address the differences and weaknesses between vehicles. I like using a percentage basis for computing the shot, it seems easier to grasp. The die roll modifiers in most games should use different terminology to reflect what is going on with the spotting, range estimation and shot adjustments. It would add a lot more flavor to the game.

I like the MBT, Panzer type systems that do give the ability to simulate firing more than one round/turn. Also Panzer War is one of the best systems simulating tank gunnery and penetration without the math. I'm surprised more people don't play it. Probably because there is no eye candy.

Wolfhag

Speaking of game mechanics:
Another interesting feature of panzer-war.com is the way the hull down factor ties in with armor hit location system.
When the tank is moved to a hulldown position it received a d6 roll for the hulldown protection factor.
A tank has 10 armor values one for each 10 aspect locations. With location #1 being lowest on the tank and location #10 the highest. (Locations #1 and #4 being tracks.) So when a tank is hit by direct fire a d10 is rolled for location of hit. If the number rolled is equal or lower than the hulldown protection factor that hit is instead deflected by the ground and does no damage.

My favourite is actually Tractics. Not the best, certainly too detailed. I do like my games fast these days, but if I really had to play a few tanks Vs a few tanks, I would dig out Tractics. There is something about rolling a d20 to hit, d20 for location, d20 for automatic damage, d20 for potential weak points (e.g. hatch on the front of the T34) d6 for damage and d6 for crew casualties. And we would sometimes roll a d6 where a 1-2 decreased the armour by one column, and a 5-6 increased in by one column – just to add a bit of variability.

I think I need to get out more :-)

The pure tank game I enjoyed the most was probably 'Pattons Best'! Not very useful for table top gaming though.

AHGCs Tobruk was interesting, but flawed in many aspects being designed as a weapons system simulator rather than taking account of terrain, morale, visibility, C3 etc. The nuclear Bofors guns didn't help.

WRG 1925-50 is good enough for most things and lets you run large battles reasonably quickly, even if you might quibble about the Tiger 1s armour ratings and somewhat eccentric penetration tables.

Can I vote for Tigers and Stalins too?

TGerritsen,
Here is a list of mechanics I've developed for things I wanted to see in a tank-tank game using 10 second turns. I hope they answer your question and give you some ideas. These mechanics concentrate on gunnery details and different gunnery techniques used by real tank gunners during WWII. The accuracy levels and round dispersion are determined from trial fire results from German, American and Russian publications.

Hit Location: I use a scaled image of vehicles and AT guns for their front, front 45, side, rear 45 and rear aspects for the target. Surrounding the picture is square with tick marks showing .2 meter increments in the vertical and horizontal used to measure the rounds dispersion from the aim point. When firing at a target I have a clear transparent overlay for aiming/cross hair that is just like looking through a real German, American or Russian gun sight (visual effect only). Depending on the crew training, range and magnification you can aim at any location, turret or hull or only center mass. It depends on range, fire control and crew training. Link to image will follow later in message.

Gunnery: Each gun type has a base accuracy rating in 100m increments from 1-27 (actually A-AA) and is different for each type of ammo (AP, APCR, HE, HEAT, etc). This is determined by the basic accuracy of the round and the gun sight type/magnification. I use a spreadsheet formula to compute these using the rounds muzzle velocity, trajectory and other Error Budget factors. There is no math computation for the player other than addition or subtraction for the accuracy modifiers. I use a mil relationship from trial firings of the real weapons. A weapon with a mil accuracy of 1 mil will have a base dispersion/accuracy of .5 meters at 500m, 1 meter at 1,000m, 1.5 meters at 1,500m, etc.

Gunnery Modifiers: The gun chart has all of the values needed for determining how accurate the round will be (its dispersion value in mils at target range) as there is no magic "To Hit" number. By going down the range column on the gun chart you can determine which rounds will be most accurate, Time of Flight (used for hitting moving targets) and penetration. You can also determine accuracy using Burst on Target or Ranging Fire techniques. Further down in the column you can determine your aim point options and other modifiers. It's all there on the one gunnery chart using one column for the look up. The initial shot has a few more steps than follow up shots. Sorry, no image for the chart for now.

There are additional general modifiers for Crew Training, Haze, Concealment and Lighting conditions and you can only make one selection in each category in the correct range column. These modifiers shift the base accuracy value up or down, think of them as die roll modifiers.

There are no range modifiers anywhere because modifiers are used at the targets range column. This really helps simplify things. Each range column may have a different value and are figured using a mil formula. So a value of +1 at 1000m would be a +2 at 2000m and +3 at 3000m. It's already figured into the range column.

Follow Up Shot accuracy is determined by the results of the previous shot with successive shots getting more accurate simulating bracketing. The closer you are on the first shot the better chance you have of hitting on your second. A miss on the first shot by 2 meters or more may take three shots or more to finally get a hit. Hopefully the target cooperates. Follow Up shots are a little quicker to play through.

Risk/Reward Decision: The player can decide to shoot early in the game turn before an opponent with an accuracy penalty or wait to fire later with increased accuracy. This rewards units in ambush, tracked a target for 1+ turns or if they out range their opponent they can take their time estimating range and laying the gun. It basically simulates using Battle Sight for the first round and Burst on Target for follow up for getting off quick shots or Ranging Fire and Bracketing for taking your time with better accuracy. Battle Sight and Burst on Target has a range limitation so a gun with a higher muzzle velocity can use it to a longer range than a lower velocity gun. This can be a big advantage in getting off the first shot. Each gun and sight combination is different.

Penetration: I've developed a nomograph comparing the penetration and armor values and rolling a D20 to randomize it (modifiers not shown). To cause maximum damage (especially with APHE rounds) you need a 20% over penetration of the armor. Penetration that is equal to the armor value only has a 50% chance of causing real damage but may cause spall damage. All of the armor values are pre-computed for slope and compound angles on all surfaces, no math involved.
Link: tinyurl.com/khdcmvv

Explanation: The red line shows a penetration of 160mm against an armor value of 130mm and with a 20% over penetration it successfully penetrates causing full damage. The green line shows 160mm penetration against 150mm armor value. It will penetrate on a 1-17 on a D20 and if not penetrating will cause spall damage. Still a WIP.

Panzer War has an accurate and playable variable penetration routine that includes rounded and cast armor against different types of AP and HEAT rounds.

So Wolfhag how the hell do you hit the target? The suspense is killing me! OK. It's a diceless system using a set of 50 Accuracy Cards with the results of the round dispersion (no math for the player) for the final accuracy value A-AA with 27 locations on the accuracy card. The higher the accuracy value the greater the dispersion and it's calculated to give a bell curve result through the 50 cards for each letter entry (I'm sure I've lost you by now but you don't need to know any of this as a player). A random card is picked and the result is the vertical and horizontal distance the "cross hairs" are moved on the target image (using correct aspect) in .1 meter increments shown in the location of the final accuracy value letter. The original aiming point location is shifted in .1 mil increments laterally and horizontally based on the result shown on the card. If the cross hairs are still over the target it hits at that exact location. If not over the target image it's a miss. Some judgment, interpretation and common sense may be needed. No rolling dice for hit location or special hits. No modifiers for target size or aspect as none are needed because you are using a scaled target image to aim at. At close ranges you can hit almost exactly where you aim (Accuracy value "A" or "B" on the card) including turret ring, hull mg, weak spots, etc. At up to 400m a Sherman can aim at the bottom of a Panther mantlet and have a fair chance of bouncing a round into the driver compartment or aiming at and hitting the turret ring. No additional die rolls and accurate for each vehicle type. On a target that is 2m x 2m there are theoretically 400 different hit locations using .1 meter increments and no dice. The Accuracy Cards handle the randomization and eliminate the need for die rolls and additional charts. Some will not like that. For them I do have a chart you can roll a D100 on to give the same results.

Hopefully this image will help explain: tinyurl.com/n2gdcuz

Explanation: The aim point is Center Mass on an M4 Sherman. The final accuracy value is the "H" result on the accuracy card (forget about how we got to that result for now). The dispersion result for "H" is .8m high and .4m to the left where the red dot is located on the gun shield. Now if the aim point had been center mass on the turret the "H" result would have taken the Tank Commanders head off if he had it sticking up.

Hitting moving targets: There is a Moving Target Chart that gives an additional lateral displacement of the round in .1 meter increments based on the target range, aspect, target speed, Time of Flight of the round and crew training using a D20, an additional step. You generally want to aim Center Mass at moving targets because the hull gives more lateral area to hit than the turret.

I probably have not explained the concept well enough but in my play testing it does not take any more time than a game like Panzer or MBT and much simpler, accurate and easier than ASL mechanics. It's still a WIP but I'll be playing/demo at PacifiCon in San Francisco over Labor Day weekend. I've had varied responses from W T F are you talking about, too complicated, too much information it's hurting my brain, more than you need to do, why not just use a D6 hitting on a 3+, etc. If you are a gunnery nut like me you'll most likely appreciate it. I have shown it to a few former Army tankers who said it's accurate and cool. Can't please everyone.

Wolfhag

Hey Wolfhag, couple (OK 3) questions;
1. When you say 'different round have different accuracies' are you meaning things like AP rounds, due to having a flatter trajectory, are easier to hit a target than with HE? (although as LSD a previous discussion how would you account for firing HE at an AFV in terms of damage? Increased spalling? Imposed negative morale modifiers due to a huge explosion going off on the outside of the vehicle?)
2. I understand the Germans with their Zeiss optics (and long barrel guns mid/later war) had a ranged and ranging-in advantage over the allies, do you account for this in any way? (I expect you do!)
How does your system work for a tank that has the turret turned in any way when compared to the nice forward facing image on your diagram? (apologies if you've explained this already…)
Cheers,
Ark

Ark3nubis,
The formula for the basic accuracy of guns takes into account the muzzle velocity (higher for long barrels), range error of 20% (15% for Elite/Veteran and 25% for Green crews) and the sight type & magnification. The sight type and magnification accounts for the aiming error. I took my Grandfathers WWI 6x binoculars with mil marks and a 2-8x rifle scope on top a hill near my house. I then tried sighting in on cars in the area and used a Google map to see how far away everything was. Magnification makes a huge difference in what part of the tank you can aim at and can generate an aiming error off the center of the target of about 2 feet at 1500m with a 2-3x magnification and need to hold center mass. With 7-8x magnification at 1500m you can hold on the turret or hull. Big difference.

HE rounds generally have lower muzzle velocities because they are hollow with thin walls filled with the burster. Thin wall shells do not stand up well to high pressure/high velocities. As far as HE on the outside of tanks I'm checking on after action reports. I think a lot of it would be the perceived danger to the crew forcing them to relocate. I did read that a Sherman penetrated the side turret armor of a Panzer IV with an HE shell (probably delay fuse) at 100m. I would also expect HE would throw off the bore sight and damage optics. I think the Russian 152mm HE rounds could blow the turret off a Panther or Tiger. Anyone have suggestions?

The ranging in advantage with the higher velocity means the first shot will be closer to the aim point (if it misses) and have a better chance of hitting on the second shot. The advantages are by the design, not nationality. Ranging shots generally miss because your range estimation is off so the round goes high or low. The follow up shots are reflected in a more accurate range estimation meaning less dispersion = better chance to hit where you are aiming at. Where you aim at the target matters too. You may aim at the turret and if the round goes 1m high it will be a complete miss. Aiming at Center Mass with a dispersion of 1m high should hit the turret. Sometimes there is a little luck involved. I've set the system up so a good high velocity gun with a good crew and optics under ideal conditions can keep a shot grouping of 60% of the shots in about a 1.5m diameter at 2000m. If the range estimation is correct he'll hit a Sherman sized target almost every shot. I think that's fairly historical, under ideal conditions and after ranging in with 1-3 shots to get the correct range. Once you hit it's easier to keep hitting if nothing changes.

Once ranged in the only errors for dispersion is the inherent accuracy of the gun which can be from .5mil to 1.5mil for HV guns firing AP, optics/aiming error for another .25 to 1mil and then less than ideal environmental and sighting conditions. Some wise guy is going to ask about Muzzle Jump, Parallax, shell temperature variations, muzzle cant, air temp and density, etc. The answer is I've somewhat included them. Not all sources agree on accuracy and other values but I've tried to work out the end results to be as historically accurate as possible but I'm open to suggestions. Using a spreadsheet formula will keep everything proportional – even if using inaccurate data it will be proportionally inaccurate.

The Side 45 hull view or side view with the turret facing frontally at the firing vehicle is something I'm working on. The only thing I can think of is an overlay of the turret front only to put over the target image side and rear views if needed. Not an ideal solution. It would be great to have an interactive/movable 3D image on something like an iPad.

Wolfhag

Well,

There's an app for nearly eberything nowadays so that could be your opener. It could be called Wolfhag's Armour (or I think Armor if stateside) Cracker or WAC for short. A gaming aide sort of thing. Thanks for the response, cheers!

Ark

For Panzer War I was thinking about a separate to-hit line for first shot at target then another line for subsequent shots. It may clutter the charts a bit more but from my calculations it would be more accurate than +1 to the to-hit number.

The major component in accuracy is usually the range error not gun dispersion. Many countries don't include gun jump/throw off in their gun dispersion number when it sometimes contributes just as much to inaccuracy.

My friend has made a less complicated tank combat game call Kampfgruppe: joegoogle.wordpress.com

I am looking into making some apps for mobile phones. But the software that I know the programming language runs $800 USD-1600. Kind of pricey for hobby use.

Here is the info for Error Budget I'm using:
PDF link

and this one:
PDF link

In no way am I using these complicated math formulas but it does serve as a guide. I think test firings under ideal conditions are the best indicator of accuracy with known range. It give a good baseline and benchmark for maximum accuracy. Problem is not all of the references match up.

The spreadsheet formula I use takes the base mil value for each factor I'm using in my Error Budget and then multiplies through 100 meter increments and then adds them up for each 100m range increment. That way I don't need to go into any extra range modifiers or die roll modifiers.

Yes, range error is the biggest reason for missing. That's why once you have ranged in or hit it gets easier. At a certain range the round dispersion can be larger than the target. Example: A gun with a 1.5 mil dispersion firing at a target 2xm x 2m at a range of 1500m will have a grouping of about 2.5m in diameter so even when aim and range are perfect you can still miss. That's how I see it anyhow.

Wolfhag

Here's a few more PDFs on accuracy and dispersion you might take a look at.
PDF link
Dispersions;
PDF link
PDF link

Thanks Mobius, good stuff.

Wolfhag

There is us:-

link

Now this game is not tank only but can be, and we do ply tank only sometimes. However if you look at the comments on this topic they are all about weapon factors and nothing much else. Maneouver Group is much more holistic. The entire system has a very crude but in our opinin very effective driving system. You have Halt, Slow, Fast all of which are cobat speeds, along with two other speeds. Transit # fast and for most tanks only on road and some are too slow to qualify , and turret needs to be to the front or rear to avoid obsicals. Slow transit – This is a pre-programmed move from one pre-surveyed hull down position to another.

MG distiguishes hull from turret and assumes that (very aproximately) based on the WWII findings that hull down covers about 1m of the vehicle. That means it removes 1/3 of hits that would have been achieved.

For tank only battles you will of course need to know when to be turret down, hull down, where and what anti-mobility engineering to use and when to be open topped and closed up. All these things are delt with very simply but effectively and are significant factors. We do not compute lots of data about exactly where you hit a vehicle. Most troops were taught to shoot at the centre of mass. Thre is some option to aim more accurately but it takes time that is not always avaiable.

You would select MG (in our opinion) if your interest was in commanding a tank company (although that as in the real world is a lot of tanks to command) and it behaving in a vaugely believable way. If you want a detailed set of fire factors in a tank crewed by a team that make the German tank aces look like amatures, this is not the set for you. As the armour penetration is flexible you could re-assign values if you have better data. However remember if you are going to play with gunnery to the extreem then it is not neccessarily range, but crossing rate and speed and direction estimation that is key. Also in calculating armour angle in any detail you will need to calculate the angle of the tank to the firer in both horizontal and azimuth.

Oh and we do pay pay lip service to elevation limitations.

Also the ground rules do have a very simple dead ground system.

Note you do not need our terrain its just there if you want it. Personaly I think vehicle battles are best using 1:144 vehicals as it make the board represent a larger scale but it is valid to play at any figure size.

Ushcha,
I've mostly been discussing the firing routines and strategies. I'm wouldn't call my work a "game" as of yet as there is still many areas left open. I'm not working on a game for the masses, just something for my edification. I am working on a gunnery engagement sequence that allows for a good simulation of a duel and shoot out including using turret rotation speeds and decision to fire early in a turn with a penalty or later with a bonus. I downloaded the MG free QRS. Looks like you have everything covered. I like the 1/144 and 1/285 scales best too.

Here is the long explanation for the system I'm working on:
Sample Gunnery Chart and Accuracy Card: tinyurl.com/nogcq94
So exactly how does everything work and why? The formula for the Basic Accuracy Letter is based on the guns mil accuracy (mostly from test firings under ideal conditions as a baseline), the weapons optics (quality and magnification for aiming error), Range Estimation Error and trajectory. The biggest reason for missing the target on the first shot is because the range was estimated incorrectly making the shot go high or low. The Basic Accuracy formula adjusts the ideal accuracy (trajectory) with a 20% range estimation error plus the aiming error. That can be increased or decreased by the crew type. Using a Range Finder gives a 10-15% range estimation error. Using the Accuracy Cards which give the Accuracy Letter for the next shot reflects ranging in and bracketing. Successive shots will give about a 50% less dispersion.

Why use the mil error method and how does it work? One mil = 1 unit of 1000 so an accuracy of 1 mil will put most of the rounds in a 1 meter diameter circle at 1000m and is proportional at all ranges. At 1500m it will be a 1.5 meter circle. At 500 meters a .5 meter circle. The more accurate the gun the lower the mil value. I started by assigning the weapons basic accuracy, range estimation error based on its trajectory and aiming error mil values. These are added together and then multiplied by the correct value for each 100 meter range increment. So if at 1000m the guns basic accuracy is .7 mil, the aiming error is .2 mil and the 20% range estimation error based on the guns trajectory is 1.2 mil that's a total of 2.1 mil/yards at 1000m. At 1500m 3.15 mil/yards, at 2000m 4.2 mil/yards, etc. These values are assigned a letter and entered on the gunnery chart at the appropriate range. All of the traditional die roll modifiers are taken into account proportionally at all ranges in the formula so no need for range modifiers or bands. I think this is a big advantage over the mechanics of manually searching and finding die roll modifiers and the associated mistakes and overlooking modifiers that occur. Especially with players that are not familiar with the game. The crew type basically increases or decreases the basic mil value as does concealment, environmental factors and haze. They make laying the gun and aiming more difficult which increases the diameter of which the rounds will land in and moving the initial aim point further away from its desired location. There is no math other some tracking of modifiers. You can input the values and factors you feel are correct to get the desired outcome. I'm not saying this is a scientific formula, just one to assist in calculating and trying to get the right feel and realistic outcome and increase playability.
Sample gunnery and round dispersion: tinyurl.com/pbcpgqv

With round dispersion in .1m increments there are basically 900 potential hit locations in an area 3m x 3m (30x30=900) with no die rolling needed (it uses the randomized value on the Accuracy Card letter). There is no need for size and aspect modifiers. Hull down factors can be assigned too. If the dispersion from the aim point on the Accuracy Card is over a part of the target that's where it hit. If not over the target it misses.
Sherman Tank Target and Armor profiles: tinyurl.com/pxkat5p

This is still a WIP. Feedback appreciated. I hope I've explained clear enough.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I agree with Shaun. Tractics is awesome

I was just at a friedns house yesterday looking over Tractics for our next game. What do you best about it and are there any changes you'd want to see?

wolfhag

What I like about tractics is you roll for location and then you check penetration of the location. So even with a small gun you can immobilized a big tank by breaking the track even if you have no chance to penetrate th front.
What I would like better is the command and control that Battlegroup Kursk has.

1 mil=1/6400 of a circle or 0.05625 degrees. To convert this to deflection at 1000m = tan(mils x 0.05625) x 1000 = mils x 0.9817.

The only changes I would make Tractics is, as Sylvain states, is to add some command and control. Currently their is none and the lack of it really stands out compared to most other rules produced in the last 15 years. Possibly an upgrade to the armour penetration values to reflect more recent data. I am tempted to convert it from mm to cm as mm just seems to exact and using cm may give some variance to allow for the vehicle being not quite on a level angle. But really, I can play with the data as is.

Since I'm the guy Wolfhag talks about who's doing a remake of Tractics, I'm streamlining what I can (a bit tough to do), and adding some cool features, not the least of which is COMMAND AND CONTROL. This incorporates radio ranges to effect the command and control as well.

Also, to enhance spotting of the enemy I've created a few simple rules that enhance the use of RECON elements. The virtue of this enhancement causes the player to naturally utilize his recon units in the fashion and purpose for which they exist. The also have "stealth" characteristics which allow them to briefly engage the enemy, if necessary, but also allows them to extract themselves from a potentially fateful firefight due to their abstracted "alertness, and swiftness"!

Also, I've added some optional special rules which deal with Battlefield Recovery of shot up tanks and Logistics. The Logistics can be very interesting because it compels the players to avoid the typical "frontal assault" syndrome and instead make effort to outflank the opponent to interdict his supply convoys to the front, forcing surrender (which you never see in a wargame) by cutting off supplies sufficiently that the besieged unit runs out of ammo. It's an optional rule as I said, that would be especially relevant for a campaign game.

Also, there are Fog of War cards to mix it up a bit issued to each side every turn. Some good some bad. Also, something that few if any games have are Surprise Attacks and Ambushes. This adds another bit of "fog" to the game which also cause your forces to perform "mop-up" operations behind the lines or you might find infiltrated enemy hitting from the rear!!! That makes for some excitement.

The basic tank firing and hit location mechanics I'm leaving them alone because that's the best part of the game and the whole point of re-introducing this game.

I'm changing the artillery to behave much more like it really is done in the military. I've seen hardly any game that does it justice, with the possible exception of TACFORCE by GDW (circa 1980?). It'll be much like that but I still am hammering out that part of the game.

My overall goal is to make the game more playable, in some ways more realistic, but at the Battlion or Kampfgruppe level. It's a tall order. But, so far with WOLFHAG's help and some top level gamers here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'll get there and hopefully publish in 2015.

Any comments or input, or interest in what I'm doing is welcome – I'd like to hear from you guys. . .

- specforc12

Sylvain,

Oh, by the way, I'll be moving to Chicago by August and be working on my re-do of Tractics which I'm calling PROWLING PANZERS! If when I get there you want to involve yourself in playtesting and kibitzing over this game I'd welcome your interest. . .

specforc12

Specforc2
Please let me know when you move to Chicago. Send me an email. Sylvainnc.at.yahoo.dot.com
Best
Sylvain

Wolfhag',
As a study I think the gunnery tables are very interesting. Allowing for actual taget size relative to current dispertion (at range) and velocity (which increases apparent dispersion in horizontal and range. Note repartition is to make sure I have understood correctly not lecturing. I may have missed the assessment of velocity to crossing rate and range error.

This is an iterim comment to show you have not been ignored (bit busy at moment). Will have harder look and pass my thoughts hopefully over the next few days. It is VERY interesting as a study.

Ushcha,
It's still a WIP but it's come a long way with some help from some friends. I do have somewhat of a formula for crossing targets using range, angle, MV and target speed that can be tied to one of the accuracy cards for the result. Basically after the dispersion result of the shot (whether it hits or not) you check for the additional lateral "dispersion" caused by the aiming error (leading the target) and target movement.

There have been a number of updates I have not posted. I have put together a "bracketing fire" routine which basically increases the chance of the next shot having 50% less dispersion so being more accurate, no die roll modifiers because there are no dice. The closer you are on the first shot the better your chances of hitting on the next one.

During each turn there are 10 "Action Steps" (for want of a better term) for each 10 second turn and each tank selects the type of action, firing/fire control it will perform (Ranging, Bracketing, Battle Sight, Burst on Target, etc), engage a new target or move. What they select determines in what step they will be performed in. Earlier steps like Battle Sight fire sooner but with a penalty. Then we go through the numbers from 1-10 with the sequence for each one being Hold Fire (from previous turn simulating tracking/ambush), Elite, Veteran, Trained and Green Crews firing in sequence. Immediately after performing the action the tank selects the next action so there is no orders phase. There is a lag time between some actions depending on crew types so better crews can do more in the same amount of time.

There is no "activation" rule but there is a "Situational Awareness" rating for each tank/crew that is like spotting but different. This gives them a better chance of engaging a new target quickly and spotting someone coming into view. Crews can always do something. These are all drafts and I'm not sure what will work or not. The main thing I'm trying to simulate is the gunnery techniques and their advantages and disadvantages along with correct usage. The benefit of using the rounds dispersion rather than a chance to hit means you can select aim points on scaled images of targets and correct (almost) aspect without additional rules, exceptions or die roll modifiers for size, aspect, hit location, special hits, hitting weak locations like turret ring, etc. That also helps with the damage routine too.

Most of the people I've showed it too found the concept hard to understand. Since there is no magic "Hit Number" with die roll modifiers and no dice for the gunnery sequence they seem lost. The accuracy cards generate detailed results like rolling a D100 with bell curve results and with the aim point being moved by the vertical and lateral dispersion results of the Accuracy Cards in .1m increments that gives 900 potential hit locations (subject to dispersion) in a 3m x 3m area without rolling any dice. I'm having a problem explaining it to people but it does work without dice or math (except a few addition or subtractions to the basic accuracy letter).

Wolfhag

Its a very interesting simulation more for sort of "role playing" or in the real world terms a tank training simulator.

How and what can a crew do and how do they do it? It should have interesting results. How much better will the hit rate be with the commander open topped to allow faster aquisition of targets outside the gunners sight.

On thing thay may make an actual run of the game difficult is getting a realistic battle field. It may be the case that you want to try it out with big (1/35 or bigger trabnks outside) so you get a"big traget" to use, to obtaing a good assessment of the actual situation, compared to the card.

It has interesting avenues to explore. Can you, using these sound basics reproduce the standard adage that typicaly only 1/3 of shots hit below 1m. It looks like your analysis could show this on the basis of dispertion for ground that undulates only sightly. Shooting at the centre of mass with even only 1 ft of the tank hidden by ground would significantly alter the hits below 1m.

Clearly as some vehicals like a 38t tank detroyer would be easier to hide and be harder as it is a small target.

As to helpiny you are way beyond help (;-)). Clearly your understanding is well past any I have and as such I can't help. I did read a book many years ago where the commander warned the crews aboat canted trunnion errors as they were about to fight in complex terrain. Your system could help to quntify such issues in a way that is easily understandable and numerate.

Please keep posting.