Wolfhag | 30 Oct 2014 12:50 p.m. PST |
I'll be putting on a 1:1 miniatures tank warfare game I'm calling "Treadheads" (at least for now) at ConQuest Avalon in Sacramento on November 9 from 11:00am to 4:00pm. These are homegrown rules I've been working on for quite awhile and have had mostly favorable responses at other conventions (no one has threatened to shoot me so far). You are all invited. The gunnery system is designed in a non-traditional manner using a randomized dispersion around an aim point over a target scale drawing to determine hit location rather than a normal "To Hit with Die Roll Modifier System" and rolling on a hit location chart. In the game you actually lay a gun sight reticule over a scale image of a target just as a tank gunner would lay his gun on a target. For more information here is a small eight page slide show: link Thanks Wolfhag |
Saber6 | 30 Oct 2014 5:08 p.m. PST |
Would like to see it in action, could be done like Ace of Aces |
Ron W DuBray | 31 Oct 2014 8:23 a.m. PST |
you do know GW did this same thing back in the days between RT and 2nd edition? link |
Wolfhag | 31 Oct 2014 12:30 p.m. PST |
Ron, Wow – never knew 40k did that! Everyone has their own preferences for a game, I have mine. My main interest in tank warfare is gunnery and the nuances of what goes on inside the turret with the crew to get a hit as soon as possible AND make corrections when they miss. Different guns and vehicles have different characteristics that give them strengths and weaknesses under certain conditions which can be exploited. I've always felt that just giving these strengths and weaknesses various die roll modifiers did not do them justice and the entire "To Hit + DRM" method has real limitations when trying to squeeze more detail out of it. However, it is extremely playable and in some cases does not do a bad job at simulating historic accounts. Many people play and enjoy them (as I have) and some designers make money too which is the best thing for the hobby. I feel it's impossible to recreate a playable hit location chart that does justice to all vehicles and the differences and design of their armor configuration. If you examine most tanks in detail you'll find some angled surfaces that have a high chance of deflecting a round (generally 70+ degrees) and in some cases the horizontal angle can make a huge difference in the true armor thickness. Most have weak locations that can be exploited if hit on purpose or by accident. This is all nothing new and other rule sets have addressed them with greater or lesser success. Treadheads is my attempt at it. For me (a self confirmed gunnery junkie) the biggest thing is exactly where did the round go and if I did miss then just how close was it but using real gunnery trajectories and factors, not subjective and abstracted values. Any system that puts a crosshair on a transparency that can be placed over a scaled image/drawing of the target increases the visual feedback to the players like a video game. It also opens up a lot of possibilities without impacting play like hitting weak spots and ricochets without additional effort like rolling dice and checking charts on the player's part. If done right it can be pretty cool. If done wrong it's a pain. A near miss with the round going just over the turret and about a foot from the tank commander with his head out of the hatch generates a lot more excitement in a game than rolling a 5 and missing because you needed a 1-4 to hit. We've had cases where the tank commander did get hit by an errant 88mm round too. It brings a smile to everyone's face, including the player on the receiving end. In reality when a round is fired from any weapon it will drift around the aim point with many different physical and environmental factors affecting it. It's not randomly hitting or missing a target based on a % number. I'll address the three factors that most affect it that I've used in my simplified gunnery model: range estimation, aiming error and inherent accuracy of the round itself. Most first round misses are because of poor range estimation which can be overcome to an extent by a high muzzle velocity and crew expertise. The lower the muzzle velocity the more accurate the range estimation needs to be to get a first round hit. Most people estimate range with a 20% error and a range finder can make it 5-10%. Better crews are more accurate because they know how to estimate the range better than poor crews. This is the main reason for the justification of the beneficial DRM for Elite/Veteran Crews. The aiming error can be 1-2 feet per 1000 yards depending on the quality of the optics, magnification, gunner expertise and time spent laying the gun on the target. Spend more time and be more accurate but give the enemy more time to target you. That's the tradeoff I try to simulate. The inherent accuracy of the group fired can be a diameter of 1-4 feet per 1000 yards and there are many small factors that generate it. Add up all three (they call it the Error Budget) and randomize it in a bell curve and you have somewhat of a gun fire simulator with the round landing somewhere around the cross hairs on the target (not randomly on the target). I've checked my results against historical test firings and use a spreadsheet formula to calculate it out in 100 meter increments. Smaller targets get hit less because they are smaller, not because of a DRM. Guns with a high muzzle velocity are more accurate because the flat trajectory helps overcome the human error estimating range, not because of a DRM. At close range you can hit almost exactly where you aim under mostly ideal conditions. At long ranges it's really a matter of luck as the inherent dispersion of the round can be larger than the target even if you have the exact range estimation and aim point. I hope I've explained this correctly. The human variable is how the crew decides to engage the target. It is mostly a choice between sacrificing accuracy for speed or spending more time estimating range and laying the gun for increased accuracy. That's up to the player with some restrictions and can reflect the real advantage of a gun with a higher muzzle velocity. There are more realistic but unplayable ways to do it. I know, I've tried them. If you'd like to simulate the historical nuances between vehicles and weapon systems with more than a die roll modifier and make the same decisions and tradeoffs tank commanders and gunners needed to make then Treadheads might be for you. I feel with enough input and feedback it can turn into an enjoyable and playable system. I'll be at game conventions in northern California which is where I live. In rare cases LA or San Diego. Wolfhag |
huevans011 | 31 Oct 2014 3:39 p.m. PST |
Fascinating concept and graphics. |
badger22 | 31 Oct 2014 9:44 p.m. PST |
Give a thought to coming up to Enfilade in Olympia WA on memorial day weekend. I believe it is still the largest wargame con on the west coast. Other, bigger cons out there, but not wargame centric. i would love to see the rules in action. Are you planning on publishing them? What scale are they meant for? I m guessing a small number of vehicles a side correct? Modern only or do you go farther back? I am very interested in hearing more about this Owen |
Mobius | 01 Nov 2014 5:27 a.m. PST |
Make some good looking terrain to play on. |
BuckeyeBob | 01 Nov 2014 4:05 p.m. PST |
Interesting concept. I'm always impressed at some of the innovative gaming concepts that have been appearing lately. Your graphics on page 7 remind me of World of Tank's graphic representations of armor thickness. (not a criticism, just an observation.) |
Wolfhag | 01 Nov 2014 8:37 p.m. PST |
BuckeyeBob. What I'm trying to accomplish is to give a video game "visuals" feel to a miniatures set of rules. That's why the World of Tanks look. With the different colors I'm trying to represent what is behind the armor like transmission, engine, fuel and ammo. This helps a lot in determining damage, fires and explosion not needing a die roll. The graphics are pretty rough as that's not my forte. For tank skirmish games one of the things any rule set has is a hard time simulating is the visuals that immerse the player into the role of a tank crewman like a video game can. Rules mostly relegate the player to rolling the dice with few decisions or latitude of action. There is no getting around it, any game is going to be mostly about the mechanics. More detail normally means more mechanics or rules exceptions. If you can have a miniatures game that allows you to place a gun sight over a target image selecting the exact aim point has the player performing the same actions as a tank gunner somewhat like in a video game. Using a scaled image of the target with five different aspects eliminates a lot of variables like target size, aspect modifiers and special hits/weak locations checks. It eliminates a lot of the mechanics and gives video game like visuals. The 50 "dispersion randomizer" cards eliminate die rolls for vertical and horizontal direction and distance and associated charts so while it looks complicated it moves quickly. The entire shooting and hit location process is at the most just one die roll. When I ran the game at PacifiCon I spent 10 minutes explaining to the players what goes on in a tank turret and the different types of fire control and gunnery. The basic question was do you want to move, shoot quickly with less accuracy (if you are threatened) or take your time and shoot accurately. They determined how long it would take and then have to wait to execute their order. Using a small time slice eliminates complicated turn segments, you just need to make sure movement and shooting is in sync. There is just so much more new information out there to use for game development like manuals, after action reports, ballistic tests and Bird & Livingston's WWII Ballistics book that players are just starting to use. Thanks, Wolfhag |
RetroBoom | 01 Nov 2014 11:37 p.m. PST |
I'll be there running my homebrew on Friday! I will definitely be checking out your event on Sunday! :D |
Wolfhag | 02 Nov 2014 5:00 a.m. PST |
badger22, As far as scale we've been playing 1"=25 meters with 1/300 and FOW tanks. You could do 1"=50 meters too. All of the distances are in meters so you can convert to any scale you like, including 1/72 on a gym floor. The gun charts go out to 3600 meters maximum if the gun was capable of it. I've got decent terrain but nothing special. I think the system will work well up until the advent of the computerized gun systems and chobham armor like the Abrams. I do have infantry and artillery rules in the working too. Hand held AT tank weapons will work the same way as tank gun fire. The target images are an almost endless selection. You can have scaled images of bunkers with openings and loop holes to aim at, buildings, heavy weapons positions, etc. I don't see any reason why you couldn't make your own. In each image I have a vertical and horizontal scale/rules to get the dimensions right. So you could take a picture of one of your nicely painted building miniatures or a historical building and size it correctly, print it out and use it as a target to aim at. I never really thought about publishing them. To do it right it's a lot of work and upfront expense. However, Dana Lombardy, a successful and profitable war game developer has expressed interest in it and I'm meeting with him after some more play testing. Most likely a Kickstarter project if anything. I don't have a website but I'll post more info on Slideshare in the next few days, maybe a Quick Start version. I think there could also be a way to put this on an iPad too. cheesesailor, I'll have it set up in the open games area on Saturday. Stop by. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 02 Nov 2014 11:48 a.m. PST |
You may want to look carefully at your ground scale. Fighting at 1:1 you will be expecting tanks to have alternate positions at 50 yds preferably 75 yds appart. This may be difficult to make look credible at even 1"=25 yds and may look daft at 1"=50 yds unless you go to 6mm tanks. Cheers Brian a definite tread head! |
Wolfhag | 03 Nov 2014 9:30 a.m. PST |
UshCha I'm letting people experiment and play with whatever scale they like and see where it goes. When you start getting tanks hubcap to hubcap you start running into problems. Personally I like 1" = 25 meters (1mm = 1m) and with 16 feet of table you can have a battle field about 4500 meters across. I like the 1/300 scale models because they are easy to paint, everyone will have their own preferences which is why I have distances in meters, not inches. The key thing is the turrets need to turn on the model. People use different definitions for the length and duration of a battle which will effect the size of the playing area. I'd say a "duel" simulating two tanks engaging each other would be about long enough to get off 2-3 rounds so 20-30 seconds. A tank would normally engage in duels until it's ready racks were empty. That would be 2-5 duels. After that they would seek out a secure location to reload the ready rack and probably get a new situation report, send out recon, coordinate flanks and plan next advance. This would simulate a lull in the battle where other strategic and off board actions could take place. Use your imagination. A game like Treadheads would simulate the short duration duels tanks would engage in. It would be up to the player and their imagination to design a scenario with multiple duels and engagements with attack waves, etc. Much of that would determine the scale too. Wolfhag |
Wolfhag | 08 Nov 2014 7:11 a.m. PST |
As I promised I'd post the Quick Start rules for the game at the convention this weekend. link I know, twelve pages is a Quick Start??? It's mostly explanations of the charts and graphics. To reiterate, the game simulates the actions and decisions being performed in a tank turret or with a gun crew in one second increments. The player decides on an action, calculates how long it will take and places his vehicle/gun Action Chit on the turn chart to be executed in the future. After that the player is going to have to wait to perform the action so he's not actually doing something in one second turns. I hope I've explained that clearly. Example: A player sees an enemy tank 45 degrees to his right and wants to engage. His turret rotation is 15 degrees per second and has a Trained Crew (plus two seconds for Engagement and Firing actions). It will take 3 seconds to rotate the turret plus two seconds for the crew type which means he puts his Engagement Action chit five seconds in advance on the turn chart. When the turn comes where his Engagement Action chit is he has now laid his gun on the target and can fire and should have the model turret/gun pointed at it. He needs to get the round off quickly so selects Battle Sight fire control. That will take 4 seconds (a Ranging Shot would have taken 7 seconds) plus the crew modifier of plus 2 seconds means he flips his Engagement Action chit to the "Fire" side and places it on the turn chart 6 seconds in advance. So from seeing the target to getting the round off took 10 seconds. In that 10 seconds a target traveling at 30kph could move about 85-90 meters and maybe be out of LOS of the firing gun by the time he can fire. Guns with a slow turret rotation will have a hard time engaging multiple targets moving quickly from one blocking terrain to another. The game system can simulate this without additional rules like Opportunity Fire and Overwatch. Thanks, Wolfhag |
RetroBoom | 10 Nov 2014 1:32 p.m. PST |
Steve, I'm sorry I couldn't make it to your event. My car started over heating yesterday and prevented me from getting to the show :/ If there's another opportunity to get together, let me know! :) |
Wolfhag | 12 Nov 2014 7:57 p.m. PST |
cheesesailor77, Wish you could have made it, I could have used your models. I'm in the SF bay area and get to Sacramento once in awhile. Here is a link to the after action report of a small demo game I ran at the convention in Sacramento on Sunday. This is still a work in progress and I have not had knowledgeable third parties check my work so feel free to contribute. link Wolfhag |
RetroBoom | 12 Nov 2014 11:05 p.m. PST |
Steve, Im unfortunately moving to the east coast at the end of the year, but if there's ever a chance meet up before then (say, at MWS Sac's December meet up) I'm enthusiastic to play! I'll bring models! :) |
specforc12 | 19 Nov 2014 10:39 a.m. PST |
Dude, that was a sweet AAR – I got into it and felt like I was there . . . very literal, very real feeling. I think it's pretty awesome – I truly like the straightforward, literal, logical action. Love hearing specifically, what happens which each shot – it friggin' rocks!!! Seems like a winner – just adding whatever polish you see fit could really make this thing sing. |
Mobius | 19 Nov 2014 11:20 a.m. PST |
I always thought 'treadhead' was a bit of a pejorative. |
Wolfhag | 19 Nov 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
Mobius, Pejorative – yes, in an affectionate way. In the Marines we call infantry Grunts but they take that as a badge of honor. Grunt can also mean a Marine with Category 4 substandard test scores. I picked Treadheads after much thought. Besides all of the cool German Panzer (fill in the blank) names were taken already. It cuts across nationalities (don't want to be accused of being a German Fanboy)and identifies the game as tank centric but there will be combined arms. I'll be posting some examples of the mechanics of the game in the next few weeks. I'd like to get together with any northern California players too. Wolfhag |
Mobius | 19 Nov 2014 6:30 p.m. PST |
Tankers I knew call infantry 'crunchies'. |