"Praise for TW&T" Topic
19 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Action Log
25 Nov 2015 1:40 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from WWII Discussion board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleInfiltrate a WWII German base with these agents of SABRE!
Featured Workbench ArticleWhen combatpainter criticized a recent Workbench entry, I challenged him to show that he could do better...
Featured Profile ArticlePaul Glasser almost missed out on his most-enjoyable game at Gen Con 2008.
Featured Book Review
|
Achtung Minen | 25 Nov 2015 1:29 p.m. PST |
I just downloaded Troops, Weapons and Tactics again and am as impressed as when I originally saw these rules. It really is a skirmish game unlike any other, and I think the Lardies perfectly captured the scale and period with TW&T. Units perform exactly as they should, whether the light machinegun fireteam in an infantry section or the maneuver team—the focus on the former is really to keep the squad support weapon firing and the focus of the latter is to flank and assault. While squads in other games feel very undifferentiated (just a group of shooty-types with subtly different weapon scores), the Lardies have baked the real feel of war directly into the game. Kudos! It's somewhat sad to say that CoC, with it's new age mechanics, has largely eclipsed TW&T with its success. CoC is a fine game, but for those of us that like grittier, old-school games where you slowly but surely loose control over the chaos of battle, TW&T is extremely hard to beat. Perhaps as a result of CoC, however, TW&T never got the full support that other Lardies games get. I, for one, would love to see an Early War manual with troop organization, weapons and tips for national characteristic cards. I would even argue that TW&T is overdue for a 2nd edition, particualrly to get the IABSM 3rd edition treatment (clarify, updating and standardizing the core rules). It's true that Platoon Forward was seemingly written exactly for TW&T, but there is still so much more that could be done. What do you think? What supplements would you like to see? What are your experinces with this fantastic, if sadly little-known game? |
Weasel | 25 Nov 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
I've kinda felt the same way. COC is fantastic, but I find that TW&T has a very unique feel that I find myself drawn to. I do think the number of initiative cards needs to be cut down. Drawing 3 or 4 in a row gets a bit silly. |
D A THB | 25 Nov 2015 2:40 p.m. PST |
I like TW&T but have not used it for awhile as I am using CDS right now. I never really got the hang of the armour rules but like everything else. I should be going back to WW2 at some stage and will use TW&T again. |
Zargon | 25 Nov 2015 4:06 p.m. PST |
Agreed, the card pull and unknown blinds movement gave a good feel for now you see them now you don't,and the friction of war in miniature, yes it needs a streamlining (into sections maybe-start with all inf then add-on/bolt-on artillery, tanks etc. But keep it all similar to the original and blend in the bolt-ons. One rule I'd like is if instead of a test on moral for adverse situation to unit, you have a withdrawal option to cover further away from enemy, what think the think tank? :) me I want the War in France 1940 as a good supplemental or maybe a full North Africa? Cheers, oh and a good how to solo (maybe a supplement full of scenarios) |
GoonerFrog | 25 Nov 2015 4:40 p.m. PST |
TW&T is still my favorite Company Level game. I have yet to play CoC. Hope to give it a shot when my French and Viet Minh are complete this Spring. |
GoonerFrog | 25 Nov 2015 5:08 p.m. PST |
Ooops meant Platoon-level. I have run several late-war winter scenarios and they have been great fun. |
Last Hussar | 25 Nov 2015 7:12 p.m. PST |
I miss playing it. The problem is my regular opponent understandably doesn't like how difficult it is to move: you need the right TI cards on the table at the right time. It's frustrating a section under fire stood in the is so difficult to get into cover. We are big fans of IABSM, maybe we could have the elements from that. |
toofatlardies | 26 Nov 2015 2:57 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the kind words about TW&T. For me as a designer, my motivation has always come from a desire to examine and understand the way in which troops actually fought, so things like command and control and friction as well as tactical drills are areas where I put a lot of emphasis. There is actually an early war add on in the 2007 Christmas Special covering the 1940 France campaign as well as a Great War version (Oh What a Lovely TW&T) in the 2008 Christmas Special and Spanish Civil War version in the 2008 Summer Special. To address some key issues; a good friend said to me when comparing TW&T and Chain of Command that TW&T is an excellent simulation which is also a good game, whereas Chain of Command is an excellent game which is also a good simulation. He's probably not far out with that description. For us the key issue with TW&T was that the degree of friction the game introduced was entirely historical in that it did reflect the realities of men under fire and their natural caution, along with the importance of leadership on the battlefield. However, wargamers increasingly seem not to want much to do with simulations; even the term is a dangerous one for any game designer to use as it has connotations of tedium and lack of fun, albeit, I would suggest that is incorrect. What we tried to do with Chain of Command was to remove some of the issues which gamers complained about, specifically cards and blinds and replace them with a system which still presented the same issues of battlefield friction and hidden movement with different machanisms which were more easily digestible. As for a second edition, I cannot see it happening. Chain of Command has been hugely popular, but I do think that the general trend among gamers is to look for ever more simplified rules, even to the point where we are getting to a point of over-simplification and removing some of the key elements which make warfare what it is. I honestly think that if we published Chain of Command today it would be a commercial disaster as it is out of step with current trends. That said, I still really enjoy TW&T, I just don't get the chance to play it very often. Rich |
Last Hussar | 26 Nov 2015 11:45 a.m. PST |
I fully appreciate the problems of getting me to act under fire- I have just noticed I'm missing a word, so allow me to reword: My men stood frozen in the open, unable to move into cover. |
Joe Legan | 26 Nov 2015 12:30 p.m. PST |
I playtested both and agree with Rich's statement; "TW&T is an excellent simulation which is also a good game, whereas Chain of Command is an excellent game which is also a good simulation." I have always preferred TW&T as I am a command and control freak. That said I understand that a second edition would not be a best seller. We could start a thread with the best house rules for those interested. I know when I played with Rich he had gotten rid of the unit cards. Joe |
toofatlardies | 26 Nov 2015 1:31 p.m. PST |
"in the open" is an artificiality caused by a flat wargames table. In reality there are any number of folds in the ground which, sensible or not, encourage men to stay there rather than move. |
War Panda | 26 Nov 2015 7:11 p.m. PST |
"We could start a thread with the best house rules for those interested" I'd be very interested in seeing that. I loved the game but never got round to playing it a lot for some reason |
Achtung Minen | 26 Nov 2015 7:56 p.m. PST |
I understand the decision to not "cannibalize" sales from another platoon-level game, but it still is too bad! To me, when most people today hear "simulation," they think the game is going to be an exercise in bullet-counting, where you have to account for every drop of sweat on your Grenadier's brow. That really is too bad, because the games we are trying to describe often don't give a fig about the nitty-gritty. It would surprise many gamers today to tell them that such games abstract the useless bits and are really trying to get the FEEL of war correct. And THAT is what makes them great GAMES, in my opinion! I don't want to watch Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, I want to FEEL the pressure and the hard choices that soldiers have to make when bullets are flying overhead. I want to panic when my squad is stuck on their bellies out in the "open," screaming at each other in complete pandemonium. I want the heartbreak of a plan going all FUBAR and the exhilaration of everything coming together despite the odds… Of scratching out a hard fought victory from the chaos of war. To me, it has never been a choice between "great simulation" or "great game"—a great simulation IS a great game! If I just wanted a good game, then I'd actually love a game of Hearts or Black Lady. If I want to sit in someone else's foxhole for a couple of hours on a Saturday afternoon, then give me TW&T! That said, I think you'd have to have put a heavy investment of your life into reading about WW2 (or Napoleonics, or Ancients etc) to really want that out of your game. I like TW&T because I've held an M1 Garand, seen the flat, hot, dry French countryside, and devoured enough history books to be able to picture what it must have felt like fairly clearly in my head. If all one knows about WW2 is the movie Fury, then you probably wouldn't care about the humble old 5cm mortar or the fact that the stretcher-bearer had to make due in a warzone with just a pistol and a few clips of 9mm parabellum. To me, if you have a healthy imagination that is stocked full of a lifetime of WW2 history and hobby, then you WANT the rules to throw your army into heck. You actually enjoy it. For gamists, it is probably just frustrating to have a game where you don't have complete control from the start, and eventually completely lose control by the end. For me, it is fuel for the imagination, which is the real "play" in the game. |
valerio | 27 Nov 2015 12:29 a.m. PST |
Rich, I assume you meant and not Coc in your last paragraph? Funny, however: I read both and found Coc much more complicated (actually, a little bit unnecessarily). Twat instead I really love it despite beig not a big fan of cards. I would like to see firetables and charts – especially the one which tells you how many dice to roll depending on the number of men firing – revised for modern warfare. I use them as they are but count ncos and officers as members of the firetea, otherwise the volume of fire is very small. I own rock the casbah and bmaso and they're very good but more about oobs and scenario than rules To the bleeper: yes I like so what?!? |
toofatlardies | 27 Nov 2015 4:48 a.m. PST |
Valerio. Yes, sorry. I did indeed mean TW&T. Achtung. I'm with you all the way on game versus simulation. The two can happily go hand in hand. However, the response to this innocuous statement on TMP tends to be howls of anger followed by derision. I also get a fair number of people calling me elitist because I feel that history is an important part of wargaming. Rich |
Achtung Minen | 27 Nov 2015 9:07 a.m. PST |
War Panda and Joe bring up some good points… While a 2nd edition would be great, I'd probably be happy with just some fan-discussion about clearing up some of the rules and bolting on some house rules. Rich, would you mind if the fans developed the game a little on our own (unofficially, of course)? Also, I got the 2007 Christmas special and it looks great, but I'm curious about some of the vehicle stats. I haven't playtested it, but the Char 1 bismhas armour 8 and weapon strike 7… That's pretty close to late war tanks! Usually TW&T and IABSM tank armour is around 1/10th the real-world thickness in milimeters, but the Char 1 only has something like 60mm frontal armour, if I recall. Again, I haven't playtested it, so maybe Armour 6 would be far too weak in practice. |
Achtung Minen | 27 Nov 2015 10:44 p.m. PST |
Following on this conversation, I wrote a quick manual for Early War German platoons. It covers German airborne, motorised and line infantry from 1939 to 1941. It is a little different than the 2007 Christmas Special Invasion of France list… I just used Chain of Command vehicle stats from the Early War supplements, for instance, because I feel those are more accurate. I also felt that the other list didn't portray the KStN's very well. Admittedly, it was likely true that the KStN's were largely theoretical and may have never been perfectly implemented in the field. Nevertheless, I feel like they should be the starting point and the players themselves should decide how to tweak their forces from there. Let me know what you think! link |
DaveyJJ | 28 Nov 2015 6:51 p.m. PST |
I also preferred TW&T. Weird thing is I printed the PDF and Joe Legan's stuff out (just found in in my TFL binder), but now can't find the PDF anywhere on my system or iPad. May have to contact Rich. |
Achtung Minen | 02 Dec 2015 8:37 a.m. PST |
To Weasel and others, I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on the Tactical Initiative Tally (yes, another rude acronym! When will those Lardies boys grow up!). Weasel mentioned that it can get out of hand, for instance. I think it's a terrific system for modelling the back and forth momentum of battle: Leaders must wait and assess the situation as it changes. The better the leader, the more subtle the opportunity he can see and exploit… Lulls in the fighting, a shift in the enemy's disposition, a moment of confusion or disorder… All represented by higher or lower T.I. cards. Some are available for everyone (no matter the side or rank). Even a junior officer can have a brilliant moment when he seizes the initiative and takes advantage of a narrow window of opportunity to act. Other openings are only going to be discernible to the most trained and experienced tactician. Countless war stories are made up of just this very stuff: the man takes home the Medal of Honor because he was in the right place at the right time, saw crystal clear the opportunity and acted on it. Additionally, the Tactical Initiative Tally makes the battle feel like this great back and forth, where the Tally builds up and each player eyes the card deck eagerly for their Big Man, and then it is all spent and builds up again. The Lardies, as usual, have absolutely captured the feel and stories of the battlefield, and the game really wouldn't be WW2 without this rule, in my honest opinion. |
Joe Legan | 05 Dec 2015 12:17 p.m. PST |
I agree it is a great game. If you want to get rid of the combat table and make it more CoC like the first of my Lazy TW&Ts articles does that. The second does the same for armor. The third moves more towards dark arts. Cheers Joe PS DaveyJJ I actually have my supplement for Platoon Forward done; just trying to get Rich to publish it soon! |
|