"Discouraging tank parks?" Topic

Look I understand that the whole ‘tank car park' thing is simply a function of ground scale. I am certainly not a FOW or Team Yankee hater – I think they are both great rulesets. But much as I understand about ground scale, I still prefer my tanks to look naturally spaced.

So my question is this – have you tried local or homebrew rules, outwith of tournaments obviously, to discourage tank car parks? How have they faired?

Would this work?

Dense Targets and Gunnery obscuration

Any tank in that is closer than its own width to another friendly tank is a -1 to hit owing to being a ‘dense' target.

Any tank firing its main gun that is closer than its own width to a friendly tank that is also firing its main gun suffers a +1 to hit owing to dust obscuration of its view of the target

Thoughts or other solutions please!

More artillery should help

The usual culprits are two: ground scale and "command distance." In Team Yankee vehicles have to be within 6" of each other. Get out 8 of your favorite tanks and place them withing 6" and have them not look like a parking lot.

TY expands it to 16" if they are, basically, in line formation. Okay, take those 8 tanks and spread them as far apart as possible while remaining within 16". I bet you end up almost "hub to hub."

One option is to make command radius a function of unit size. You could add a house rule, for tanks, they get 3" for every tank in the unit. So 8 tanks = 24 inches. This would allow them to disperse. Whether players actually do is not a rules problem.

With ground scale, switch to 6mm. I play Flames of War in both 15 and 6. I enjoy the game either way but frankly I like how it looks in 6mm better, if I leave the rules as written.

Different from the greater FOW community norm but I base all my vehicles on a basic terrain base slightly larger than the vehicle model size all round. Base height matches up to the foot soldier bases.

By default the vehicles are spaced apart if placed adjacent because of the base edge overage.

Your dense targets rules above would make the player think twice about "lining them up" tactic. The first rule I would test out. The game time or ground scale I think precludes the second rule… the dust and smoke would drift away or the vehicles be slightly forward/behind the front line (offset stagger).

M aka WR

P.S. I use 20mm miniatures for FOW. One reason why I decided to base my miniature vehicles was to protect the fenders and fine detail – glued parts of the undercarriage etc. Gives the fingers something else to grab.

To myself for a moment:
In FiveCore, extra results on the firing dice carry over to nearby units.

If I fire on you and the dice generate a kill and a retreat, then the target unit dies and the closest unit within a few inches will retreat.

In a dice pool system like IABSM, just carry over half the score rolled to nearby elements, or some such.

In FOW, I dunno. Let the firer roll their attacks again, but hitting on a 6, against other stands within X inches?

Just need some slightly larger artillery templates to discourage that.

Perhaps a minimum spacing rule too, if people don't get the hint.

Add some tank destroyer armed airplanes and have them attack each turn at the beginning of the turn with rockets and 20mm or better cannons against thin top armor and those tank parks would be a thing of the past.

Yea, if not properly spaced, you get to attack multiple vehicles in one aircraft pass, or artillery barrage.

Now you are talking, Mako11!

Depending on the rules air and arty are the most often cited reason to not bunch up. Amd they just don't matter in reality.For the reasons cited by Mark high troop density is simply a fundamental characteristic of many games today, especially those designed primarily to sell a line of miniatures.

Combine figure sales goals (the more the better) with the realities of human ergonomics and table availability (4'x6' is readily available at the FLGS and makes it easy to reach the middle of the table) and you get…high troop density.

To avoid the issue there are only two solutions: when playing games with associated figure lines ignore suggested game size and play one level down or just with fewer troops. Or play other games designed specifically for fewer troops. You'll have more time and money left over and usually a lot more fun.

Remember, what some decry as "tank parking lot" others (manufacturers) celebrate as revenue, regardless of the effect on the look and feel of a game.

Artillery is your friend. Played a FOW some tie back (which I rarely play since FOW is not a favorite by any stretch, but I'll play anything). Had (by luck) a sizable chunk of US arty. When the long time FOW German player lined up his panzers in the tried and true FOW parking lot, I rewarded him by stomping them to death with copious amounts of US arty.

And VIS has it right. And if you want to be really cynical about it, FOW/TY is a miniatures marketing scheme masquerading as a set of wargame rules.

Base your afvs. I base my 1/285th on 30mmx30mm bases and they look great when deployed on the tabletop. Just the right amount of spacing between afvs.

I do not know why you could not do the same thing with 10,15 or even 1/72 or 1/76 afvs. Use magnetic sheets on the bootom of your bases to protect your vehicles when in storage.

Arty should discourage tank parks! Or give a plus to a tank being fired at that is next to a previous tgt.

Alternately follow real world tactic (More for the West) advancing, withdrawing tanks are generally not going to be in a line, more likely to be advancing/withdrawing in bounds with a foot on the ground. In a Sqn move this would be at least a Tp, and advancing Tps would still move in bounds.

However one should bear in mind vehicle/ground scales!

Tally Ho!

I don't play FOW so I don't really understand how a set of rules can allow this to happen.

If the tanks are 'authentically' separated then the ground scale must be too small;
If the ground scale is 'reasonable' then the spacing of elements must be out.

For 6mm I have used 1" = 100m for years. It is not very realistic looking but you can do a skirmish on a 30cm sq board.
If the ground scale is too big you just can't have impressively large armies on a 6x4 table.

And I wouldn't increase the effectiveness of artillery to get round a wrong game mechanic.

AGRA.

AGRA … and having buckets of terrain features that are impenetrable to tanks in extended order.

I don't muck about with the rules. I look at the scenario for solutions.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many tanks being deployed on too small a playing area. So the solution, without having to home brew rules, is to design scenarios where there are fewer tanks or else expand the size of the playing area to give vehicles more room to manoeuver.

"I don't play FOW so I don't really understand how a set of rules can allow this to happen."

The short answer is, they don't.

BTW, in a very recent edition of a popular wargames magazine there was a battle report of a WW2 wargaming event where a photo showed tanks all bunched up and in depth. The game wasn't Flames of War either. It's not the rules, it's the players/umpires.

Similar to the last thing Ivan suggested, in my rules, and have heard it as a house rules in other rules: if you destroy an AFV, you can immediately fire on another AFV if within 4" of the first target. (substitute 4" for whatever seems reasonable).

All this talk of "let the arty do it" is just complete nonsense. The presence or absence of arty has NOTHING to do with how many tanks a given rule set allows relative to table space available. It's not like if one side fields a force composed entirely of arty the rules of geometry or or laws of physics are suspended.

A 15mm tank is roughly 1.5" wide. Let's say you space your tanks out with 2" between them. A 5-tank WWII German or American platoon occupies about 16". Two such platoon occupy nearly HALF of your available table frontage on a 6' wide table!

That means before plonking down ANY terrain or other troops, just two of your tank company's 1:1 tank platoons take up nearly half of your total frontage available. Your tactical options at that point? Stay put or advance.

Add in another tank platoon, an HQ platoon, and some supporting infantry and as Mark points out, the table becomes a parking lot by definition and regardless of the enemy's arty and air support. Geometry is geometry.

If you don't want a parking lot then either play with fewer miniatures or on a much larger table. That's it, those are your choices.

The presence of massive enemy arty concentrations doesn't warp space and magically increase the size of the tabletop.

As others have pointed out the problem is not unique to FoW so singling them out is not fair. I've seen many, many Command Decision-style games with tanks so close together that a 20mm miniature man could walk across half the table without touching the tabletop just by walking from tank hull to tank hull. It looks ridiculous but it's all too common.

Manufacturers and game designers bare some responsibility but ultimately it's the gamer's choice. Just show some restraint and play with fewer models.

Or accept that a tank model is 100 tomes overscaled and enjoy the game as is.

You are right Extra Crispy. If you want to be able to see the vehicles, then you have to accept the "tank parks" If you want accurate simulations, be prepared to play with braille counters.

Or accept that a tank model is 100 tomes overscaled and enjoy the game as is.

In that case you must also accept that you're not playing a 20th/21st century tactics game but something closer to a Napoleonic's game in which the units face the tactical threats and opportunities of troops deployed for massed combat rather than the empty battlefield of modern war.

Unit density defines your tactical options. 20th/21st century warfare is defined by low unit density to such a degree that even in WWII, while you had "front lines" at an operational level, at a tactical level the situation was far more fluid. Platoons and companies would try to "tie in" to the unit to their flank but more often than not contact was defined by lots of little penetrations all up and down the "line" as the small unit level. Fighting to your flank was often par for the course. Today's battlefield is even more fluid and is 360 degrees.

To understand just how important that concept of unit density is, let's look at the corollary: a Napoleonic game in which each battalion is one infantry figure but battalions are spaced apart on their usual battalion frontage for scale purposes (eg playing Empire in which each battalion is 1 figure instead of 12 but occupies the usual frontage).

You're left with the spectacle of individual guys in shakos running around the tabletop. You might call each guy a battalion, but visually AND tactically that doesn't matter since the player's tactical threats and opportunities are more like a skirmish game and not a brigade or division level game.

If your Napoleonic game features a division per side but each battalion is one figure you're actually playing a skirmish game!

Turning to WWII/Moderns, if your unit density is so high that your troops are literally maneuvering shoulder to shoulder (or hub to hub) then your tactical threats and opportunities are those of a Napoleonic brigade or division commander and not a 20th century small unit commander. You're maneuvering massed blocks of troops, not individual small units in a low density environment.

If you want to be able to see the vehicles, then you have to accept the "tank parks" If you want accurate simulations, be prepared to play with braille counters.

Not true at all. Just reduce the unit density. For example, take your average FoW TO&E and instead of fielding it at 1:1 have each model tank or infantry stand represent about 2 or 3 teams or vehicles.

You get all of the assets of that company-level game but at 1/3 the cost in time and money AND you've effectively tripled the amount of space available for maneuver. Suddenly those small units actually have flanks on a 4x6 table! And you don't have tank parking lots anymore.

Besides, it's in sections of 2 or 3 "things" that most units fight anyway. For example, an M1 Abrams tank platoon fights neither as a single platoon nor as 4 individual tanks at the tactical level. It fights at as two sections each composed of a leader and a "wingman". So it's perfectly reasonable for the gamer in the role of company commander to maneuver his platoons (1 level down) and fight his sections (2 levels down). And you've dramatically reduced troop density and reduced time/money costs.

Infantry platoons usually fight as an assault section and base of fire section with their assets task organized accordingly. They don't fight as one big mass or as 6 to 8 individual fire teams and weapons teams. Again, you've reduced that infantry platoon down from 6 stands occupying a huge area to just 2 stands. If so inclined add in an MG stand to represent the platoon-level weapons squad/section of 2 or 3 MGs

If FoW is your favorite game then just play it one level down. Have each side field one reinforced infantry platoon and maneuver in squads of 2 stands. Adjust morale and related rules accordingly. Instead of fielding entire tank platoons in support just field sections of 2-3 vehicles instead.

It looks better, it saves time and money, and your tactical threats and opportunities are those of a small unit leader and not a Napoleonic brigade commander.

We did a math exercise on FoW tank parking lots a year or more ago.
Given the telescoping logarithmic ground scale it turns out that a company of 10 T34s parked hub to hub on the table are in reality about 100 yards apart.
So I don't think any special rules are needed to prevent this. It LOOKS silly, but you can't do much about it given the scale.

When I first got into the hobby I noticed that an entire AWI regiment on line could hide behind a barn.

No point in adding a bunch of complexity with target density rules. If you're going to implement a house rule, just get to the point and mandate vehicle spacing rather than adding layers of complexity to try and stimulate player behavior.

We have a simple house rule that all moving vehicles must be 1 vehicle width apart unless they are on a road. Players move their vehicles and at the end of the move, space them out appropriately.

I'm more concerned with visual appeal than ground scale and because of their limited visibility, you won't ever have tanks operating so close side by side (while moving).

Visceral Impact Studios

Excellent posts.

A big bug-bear of mine is seeing a wargame table which is totally chock-a-block with units. Even is this is a Napoleonic-era game (which 'looks' OK like that), I still think: so what options do I have as a gamer? Just march my army forward, basically.

Anything after what one might term 'The Age of Rifles' should, I feel, see units occupying perhaps 2% of the table top area – lots of space / low troop density / lots of options for the players.

Might not sell as many figures, but makes for a far, far more interesting game in my opinion.

@Winston

And I played a Civil War game where two lines at opposite ends of a barn couldn't hit each other!

To add to the weirdness, two tanks hub to hub are something like 50 feet apart. Yet in a line of 10, each individual tank is 100 yards from its neighbor.
It's why a pistol shot can't hit anything a glider's wing away, yet we can have 155mm artillery deployed on the table, and you can be out of range of the guns.
The ground scale is…..creative.

I am slowly working on getting my late war FOW Armored Rifle Company ready so I can play at the local game store. (It is one of my sticking points that all my stuff has to be painted before I will play. I know some think that weird.) Anyway while my force will include a platoon of Shermans I have also taken pains to have six M7 Priests along plus a Grasshopper AOP so I can drop copious artillery on the Big Cats the German players bring. While my Shermans might only serve as target practice for the Panthers the arty I think will solve the issue of tanks parks from my opponents.

Look at the company selling the game rule books and figures. What do you think their motive is?

Is it to sell you as many figures as they can and tell you to cram as many as possible on the table?

Is it to have a game that recreates the look and feel of a real battle?

The figures are great, the rules are playable enough to have fun. The only solution I see is to put them on the floor and come up with some realistic ranges. There appears to me no other solution than one model equals multiple vehicles.

This can happen in any game where the models are too large for the playing surface. For me micro armor or 1/144 gives the best feel and look on a table 6-8 feet wide and 12-16 feet long playing 1 inch = 25-50 meters. But then I'm not into collecting, building and painting models either.

Wolfhag

Air and artillery assets certainly discourage parking lots in our games of FoW. The down side of dispersing them to the max is also that given the limited ranges of some (most) weapons, you can have a platoon where some are in normal range, some at long, and others out.

I remember as I watched Fury seeing the tightly bunched Shermans and having a FoW moment. But I didn't see anyone criticizing that part of the movie.

Thank you all very much for some thoughtful comments.

Just to repeat, I wasn't having a pop at FOW/TY, I have a lot of experience with all manner of WW2 and Modern rules and I keep coming back to these. The problem is that because they are so popular and elegant, they also tend to attract tourney players who play to win and the aesthetics.(and nothing wrong with that!)

Your points about table size and scenario design are well taken – I shall go away and try harder!

Maybe use the actual rules for targeting grade command radius (Veteran, Trained or Conscript) for direct fire density adjustment. if less than 2 inches separate three tanks or more group in a platoon formation then conscript target, If 2 to 4 inches range separates three or more tank chain, then trained. To have veteran rating no group of three or more tanks can be positioned less than four inches to each other.

Two tanks doesn't make a group for the above adjustment. It is when the third tank arrives and positioned… within 2" = conscript, if within 2-4" then = trained. If over 4" then veteran.

So if the veteran German Panzer IV platoon goes fender to fender… they give up their Veteran rating and become conscript for targeting by direct fire weapons. Artillery bombardment and template use unchanged and follows the rule book for targeting and effects.

Simple…. clean. WR suggestion apart from mounting the miniature vehicles on bases above.

M aka WR

"I understand that the whole ‘tank car park' thing is simply a function of ground scale."

… and this is honestly where the discussion should have ended. If the aesthetic of the game bothers you to the extent that you want to add superfluous rules to make the game look "prettier" then you'll probably be happier playing something else…

You know, this kind of thing was happening when I started gaming….20 years before FoW came out.

Its only a problem if what those COUNTERS represent is hub to hub. At 1"=100yds, a counter 30mm square could, as I understand it, easily contain 4 tanks, and even if those counters are edge to edge, the actual density is still acceptable.

What Last Hussar said. If one tank model = one 'real' tank then a tank park looks wrong. If one tank model = 5, 10 or more tanks occupying the area covered by the model then there's nothing really wrong with the tank park. A number of people are over-thinking this.

I found that taking historically-accurate quantities of arty and using it tends to deter bunching up.

Even worse for the Vietnam games and the 12" Devastating Bombardment templates come out to play…

then you'll probably be happier playing something else…

No, that's exactly the problem – I've tried evertything else! And anyway, as pointed out above, this issue is not confined to FOW….

Are you coming at this the wrong way? What is making making players put their tanks together? Is there gain for them doing something so odd?

No, that's exactly the problem – I've tried evertything else! And anyway, as pointed out above, this issue is not confined to FOW…

Have to agree and I have seen FOW played on large tables that lacked the customary tank parks!!

It is more down to the players,

Tally Ho!

Here's what a lot of players do:

1. Put loads of armoured units on the table, too many for the table size. Tanks are cool, tanks are fun. There's one person in our group…nice chap but he's our youngest member and a complete treadhead. If there are not enough tanks in the game, he's not interested.

2. Try to fire entire armoured units en masse at a single target. So they bunch them up in a way where all the vehicles can see and shoot the target. The reasoning here is that all that massed firepower is sure to destroy the target.

3. Moving inwards through obstacles rather than go around them. This is linked to #2. A unit of 4 armoured vehicles approaches two buildings and a small wood. Rather than go around them, the tanks squeeze through the gap between the buildings or the buildings and the wood so that they can all bring their guns to bear at the target on the other side.

It's all a variation on the old maxim; concentrate your firepower for maximum punch. Having your tanks scattered with only a few of them being able to engage a target undermines that thinking. But I say again, it comes down to the scenario: Are the tanks there to provide the main punch or are they there to support the infantry? The key to making things seem right (and wargaming is very subjective) is in the scenario design. If you're playing a points game between competitive people then you can't complain about tank parks. If you want to do something more realistic or present a challenge to the players, then it's up to you to control the amount of forces and the playing area.

If one tank model = one 'real' tank then a tank park looks wrong. If one tank model = 5, 10 or more tanks occupying the area covered by the model then there's nothing really wrong with the tank park.

Except that the tank park formation maneuvers and fights as a close-order phalanx of armored war elephants with ballista mounted on their backs and not as an "open order" tank platoon using fluid, modern tactics. :-)

I found that taking historically-accurate quantities of arty and using it tends to deter bunching up.

In this context bunching up is not a player's tactical choice/mistake. It is an inherent fearture of many games and "spreading out" is NOT an option given the number of models on the table (a 1:1 WWII American tank company fields about 20 tanks excluding infantry support) relative to the typical table size (4x6). The presence or absence of arty has no effect on model density.

In FoW anyway, the other culrpit is "command radius." All tanks have to be within x" so you form line abreast so everyone can shoot.

"Try to fire entire armoured units en masse at a single target. So they bunch them up in a way where all the vehicles can see and shoot the target. The reasoning here is that all that massed firepower is sure to destroy the target"

It is a classic wargames tactic, I have seen a tank at one end of a line fire at a tgt at the opposite end of the line because it could see it, in theory! So much for arcs of fire!

Tally Ho!

The sliding scale doesnt slide far enough for 15mm. It looks okay for 10 and 6mm.

so it is about ratios.

It can be easily displayed visually by setting up the model representation of a platoon of 4 tanks under different rule sets and deploying them at maximum spacing in line to remain in command and at maximum range from an enemy platoon doing the same excercise. You cannot use the excuse that it is the players causing it for the visual effect of crowding or otherwise and it gives a perfectly visible comparison of the visuals of specific rulesets. Actually works for all periods and for comparisons on the visuals for any comparable games. I've used it to settle on figure scales and base sizing

A 6foot wide table in FoW is about 3km wide (taking 32" as 1500m)

How many tanks were there across a 3km frontage in WW2?

We've already established that an entire Soviet MRR would advance on a 3km frontage, in roughly 3 battalion-sized waves.

The divisional assault frontage for a panzer or infantry division was 4km.

Somewhat less for Russian divisions.

So on a 3km frontage? Literally hundreds of tanks.

Each armoured division in Operation Goodwood operated on a roughly one to two km frontage.

"Each armoured division in Operation Goodwood operated on a roughly one to two km frontage."

They were deployed in considerable depth of course:)

The logarithmic ground scale used in FOW make a bit of a nonsense of formation frontages though, the game is aimed at company+ sized battles, so better to think about those.

The solution to 'tank parks' in tactical games is easy, give extra shots at targets in close proximity, even one free attack on one target within 50m is quite sufficient to get wargamers to spread out.

The only problem with that approach is that it assumes the player has that option in the context of FoW (it may or may not work in other situations).

A combination of command and control rules, army lists, and table size all make such dispersion functionally impossible in this context.

It's even worse for certain infantry units such as US Armored infantry platoons dismounting froom their halftracks. They form a solid mass with their vehicles.

Such optional rules and threat of arty can't change the other factors driving the issue. Unit sizes, CnC rules, and tbale size are what they are.3

Martins Rapiers solution is a bit drastic but it is not too far from the real world. Tanks within 40 to 75 m of each other count as a single correction distance apart. Having hit one such tank the second is close to 100% first hit chance instead of maybe 60%. The other issue that as far as I can see is badly served in some wargames (not us of course) is that tanks in defense most definitely will try and have alternate positions. These must be at least the magic 50m apart. Thus tanks in defense need to be at least 100 preferably 150m apart so they can all have one or two alternate positions. That means even with bizarre logarithmic ground scales tanks should not be that close together. Even a platoon in defense will take up something like a km frontage or risk a very high kill rate. It could be acceptable to an attacker to close up to avoid the whole of a platoon but the price is very high in terms of kill rate. Particularly in WWII where hull down offers significant protection and swapping positions gives better survival in defense.

In my opinion the artillery issue is overplayed. Most infantry carriers have minimal Armour but that is more than enough to get troops through an artillery barrage. very few tanks will suffer significant damage from artillery fire. They may lose ariels and the odd view prism but not suffer any lasting damage. However being in an artillery barrage will prevent you seeing anything to shoot at and effectively force the vehicle to move.