"Are you a tank enthusiast?" Topic

Finally I got round to updating the format of our vehicle specification data cards. Some may be horrified by the detail required:-

Main gun Caliber, natures of ammunition available, Turret Armour, Hull Armour, sights, smoke discharges, co-axial machine gums, radios and more.

Without this being represented to me a game would be worthless as the vehicles would not be adequately represented and hence boring. Of course who/how often you play may also impact your approach to detail.

Where do you stand, normal or "Tank Freak" like me.

Does the game require that detail and scale down that low? If so it's fine and I've played games needing that. Get more than a platoon out there and it's often too much. My preference is to more look at the effect of the tank on the overall battle, so a generic firepower and armor stat are sufficient.

I prefer some level of detail. Details such as Front/side/rear armor values, gun range and damage, machine guns, and auxiliary systems like radios and smoke launchers.

I game Grand Tactical so that is way too much detail for me

When we play at a lower level, although I am somewhat of a tread head I would say "normal"

If it's binary, "normal." I prefer stands which are a platoon of tanks, which generally works out to a lot less detail.

If you want to TC a single tank, more power to you.

But of curiosity, do the data cards include bad transmissions or inadequate drive trains? How about ground pressure, horsepower to weight ratio, fuel consumption and fuel capacity? A tendency to throw treads in tight turns? Many things are important to tank performance.

My experience is that limitations of real terrain and even war games approximations means that companys are about the tactical limits in relatively tight terrain (visibility 1500 to 500m. Obviously in Urban terrain the fights are even more compressed possibly as low as a platoon or even less in some cases. Larger war games in my experience fail miserably as they do not reflect real frontages and terrain densities. Surprisingly even Napoleonic battles do better in representing real frontages than many more modern games. My co-author and I are playing a Large game of several battalions over a protracted timescale. What is increasingly clear is that a company battle can take hours and that reducing it to something like 3 to 4 tanks without representing the grinding slowness of combined arms is almost holey in-representative.
The limitations and advantages with tanks as we portray them leads to a more representative low level tactics and increases the effective timescales of an engagement. My impression is that even our timescales may err on the short side compared to the real world but as you would expect precise timing are difficult as every situation in the real world is complex. To be honest even with simple rules like hours, the terrain impact is so complex, generalized timing is difficult and poses complex issues on timing of replacement even for us as top level commanders with more complete but not perfect overviews of the situations than real commanders.

robert piepenbrink one advantage of more modern army's is that their Horsepower to weight ratios are more similar or at least not as disparate as for WW2. While we could model failure rates we don't, as they would tend to be common to both sides so to some limited extent they cancel out. In addition while they are real, simplification by eliminating them does make the learning experience easier. What is crucial and we do represent is ground pressure, CVR-T's opperating in the Falklands being an extremes in terms of the impact of low ground pressure vehicles.

Obviously vehicle weight is a key factor with respect to weight so capacities of roads and bridges so this is a vital parameter. In our current game some roads can only be used without damage by vehicles of 15 tonne or less. Running 60 ton tanks along them renders them impassible to trucks etc due to collapsing bridges and culverts and general tearing up of the road surface by a 60 ton tank unless repaired by engineering vehicles in timescales outside our current game.

I don't need super detail. there was a set of rules in MWAN years ago that had a table of light, medium, and heavy guns vs. light, medium, and heavy armor. That's good enough for me.

nothing like failing to pen armour by a few mm
I tried a set of rules that took into account the shape of the armour as well, ie rounded or flat or angled
it was too slow for anything other than a few tanks per side

My rules take most of that into account. As for mechanical reliability, we have modeled that too but usually don't. Only if it is particularly relevant to the specific scenario. Otherwise we figure if the tank was in good enough shape to make it to the battle, it's good enough to fight for a little while.

Longest game we ever did was once a week or more for about 12 hours a day for a year, WWII Germans defending an open area and a large town against the Soviet Union. Large river off to one side with two big bridges. About 3,000 figures, 1,000 vehicles, 100+ aircraft all with Roco Minitanks, Airfix and similar figures and 1/72nd scale planes. We had about 15 players cycle through in the course of a year, about 10 at most on any give day, and typically about 6 or 7 players.

The key to that level of detail is have rules that are intuitive, and easy to understand with very quick fire resolution, and lots of playing aids. Everyone got their own dice, and measuring sticks and set of charts. We had big posters of the firing charts printed up and hung on the wall. You always rolled the same dice each time, so no asking how many dice do I roll for this.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Always do what works for you i.e. when it comes to wargaming. IMO a good game has a balance or complexity & playability. Those two qualities are generally up to the individual gamer & his crew.

And yes I like Tanks too, but they must be supported by Infantry or vis versa … 😁

Yes, not to mention amount of ammunition by types, since for some vehicles and eras, it is surprising how few AP rounds are available.

Yep I like the tank details and I also play 1-1 model-vehicle when I can. Once outside of that scale I don't care and really start to look for counters instead of minis.

A few years ago I converted the tank-on-tank combat procedures from an Arab-Israeli rule set into an Excel spreadsheet. It had all these fancy modifiers for hull down, moving, first round second round etc, but the upshot and the end of all those variables in almost every case was 1st round hit 50% chance, second 85%, third 99%.

It was slightly more nuanced for the earlier period where it's T34s versus Shermans etc, but not much more.

I found I actually preferred the simple version even using the same types in a WW2 context. If I were doing a 1/32 game where there's one tank on the table I'd go for a higher level detail but not otherwise.

My rule-of-thumb is "only model that which commander would know". If you are playing as the tank commander then your level is accurate. Any level above and you are actually sacrificing simulation verity, not increasing it.

Rich Bliss, you approach is not uncommon, however real commanders have a much better appreciation built up over years of experience in many cases. Good commanders think at least 3 levels down. Now as a single player I do not have subordinates and rules, with the best will in the world, are no replacement for an intelligent real person reporting on real world situations. For this reason my opinion from 30th March post is, in my opinion, is correct no rules could work out even likely timescales for say a platoon action so we have to work that out at the relevevant level. Hence to me your assumption about what the general knows is not possible without a real world to act as the data supply or a reasonably credible simulation of that, which we cannot provide without the use of intelligence to drive the scenario low level simulation (Me and my opponent).

Richard Bliss – I made a mistake, apologies, this data would be available to a company commander it represents both his tank and those of his sub-ordinates so it is what he knows.

However a good company commander needs to know how his platoons are doing and have a very
good idea what the tanks of his 3 platoons are doing at any one time. This does not invalidate my post of 31 Mar 2022 10:59 a.m. PST
but does add to it.

It does raise some interesting philosophical issues about defining clearly what a commander does know at any one time.

(Aotrs Commander here. I'm swiping UshCha's account for a moment, since I couldn't log into mine (maybe it was deleted…? It didn't recognise my email anyway.))

Anyhow, I have pursuaded UshCha that it would be pertinent to the debate in hand to actual showing the potentially intended audience the stat blocks; and thus hopefully get some feedback would help us work out which one is actually better.

So, in order:

The current stat blocks to be revised

My (currently-discarded) revision of said stat blocks

And UshCha's proposed new one.

This is very similar to the current one, and is a bit of a mock-up and the data/colouring isn't quite correct, as it is also the prototype for actually explaining the stat blocks.

On the other hand, it's provided last since it will be illustrative what people can read out of the stat blocks cold anyway. (Especially since MG of course uses mostly real (i.e. not game term) acronyms.)

It does raise some interesting philosophical issues about defining clearly what a commander does know at any one time.

Correct. So if you are going to simulate being a battalion or regimental commander, who is not normally at the FEBA engaged in combat, all you know is messenger, radio, recon reports, and maybe digital C3 info for modern times. If you are at the FEBA engaged in combat the overall command is going to a subordinate. Alexander the Great led from the front and trusted his other commanders but only exerted control of his Companion Cavalry.

Until modern times, commanders mainly got info from messengers which can get delayed, lost, or deliver wrong reports. They can also deliver a report that is no longer valid to act on because by the time a new command is implemented the situation has greatly changed. These are command problems rarely addressed in war games because of 100% intel and the god's eye view of the battle.

There are always exceptions. During VN it was not unusual for a battalion commander flying over his command micro-managing platoons and even squads to the dismay of his company and platoon leaders. So in a situation like that it would be historical for a player to have a god's eye view and move individual squads around, unless his chopper was shot down of course.

With today's digital battlefield and GPS a battalion or even regimental commander would have a god's eye view of his units in the battlefield too. As long as they worked of course.

I'll go over the data cards after reviewing the rules again. One thing I ran into was that using real terms and nomenclature from the manuals meant educating the players in order to understand and play the game. That's something I could not do with new players at conventions so I had to dumb down the terminology. Former tank crewman understood everything.

Wolfhag

One of the issues I have when operating as even a battalion commander in a war game is the fact I have to issue orders based on what I assume will be the situation a few hours hence. Now some big games I have seen avoid this by just having lots of companies on table and not covering the real time scales high level commanders work on, replacing troops that need to rearm, so that momentum is maintained. This to me wholly negates the point of high level command. Even GPS does not give clairvoyance to battalion commanders.

It is an interesting issue, we would NEVER introduce a full set of Maneouver Group to a convention game, even if we had them which in the UK are not the same thing. Similarly you would not introduce ASL in full to a convention.
There are lots of sorts of rules all fulfilling different aspirations.

Maneouvre Group is aimed at players that want to understand in part what it is like to command a combined arms unit, not pulling so many punches that its just a die rolling exercise requiring little planning or forethought.

To some this is just too much effort, to the likes of us its a challenge to be met and enjoyed. Its what the players decide is there "sweet spot".

I didn't introduce the full version either. The issue was the military gunnery jargon, things like battle sight, burst on target, snap shot, bore sight, precision aim. It was new to them. My rule of thumb was if I needed to explain a rule more than twice I needed to get rid of it or re-write it.

I made changes and now players can use the same tactics just as real crews did without knowing the terminology.

Example:

Battle Sight is a few seconds quicker but has a slight accuracy penalty. It's the players decision to choose.

I would not say my system is "designed" to teach people the real thing. However, being Time Competitive rather than IGYG or unit activation it comes across that way and there is more reliance on player decisions than die rolls.

Wolfhag

"Good commanders think at least 3 levels down"

You'd have to be an amazing commander to think three levels down. The battalion CO knows what all his sections are doing?

Perhaps you meant two levels down, which is the more commonly accepted span of control.

"Good commanders think at least 3 levels down"

Are these statements opinions or found in some training or manual?

Wolfhag

Quotes from commanders in the 6 day war.

"Good commanders think at least 3 levels down"

Does "at least" imply that thinking even further down the command chain is to be encouraged?

I'm not sure that the above quote necessarily refers to issues of command/control oversight. Rather, I wonder if it refers to the desirability of a senior commander to be cognizant of the "facts of life" confronting lower echelon commands

FWIW.

Interesting discussion, nevertheless.

B

Blutarski , correct, He needs to appreciate what is going on down at that level, experience filling in the expected fine detail. He would not be commanding 3 levels down, that would be stupid, even in our own games, nevermind the real world. Intrestingly even as higher levels we don't plan where elements go we just put a ring round the area where the unit will deploy. Deplyement in detail we kleve till we get to deploy where we have time to look at the terrain in detail.

I Googled it and could not find anything on it but it only makes sense. I think it also shows a good commander needs to rely on his subordinates to look good and jump in 1-3 level below him to get the job done when he needs to.

Wolfhag

I guess as its not going well, Russian generals are jumping in 4 or more levels down, and paying the price.

A Plt Ldr has to know what his troops in his Sqds/Fire Tms know and are doing.

A Co Cdr, has to know what his Plts & Sqds know and are doing.

But we all know about the fog of war.

And in many cases, you can't see your troops but rely on radios for giving orders, receiving SITREPs, locations, status of numbers, ammo, etc., etc.

The point is that "SH*T" happens in a wargame. Well designed ones means you do not have instance responce to an enemy plan so he can force you to march to his tune. Your deployment needs to account for the unexpected. To be honest a real game of DBM was proably the first to get some of this. However competition games upped the number of troops limiting the maneouvre scope of the game.

Funny this is now sort of way off topic but fun.

I have about 2,000 Tank Museum 1/144 scale German and Russian tanks and AT guns. Does that qualify as an enthusiast?

Wolfhag

U Be A mad man !!!! 😨

Albeit I've got about that or more in my 6mm Epic/Sci-fi forces … 🖖

Here is a two-sided data card for the German Panther A I've used in the past:

This is what I used when play testing with an 18 year old and a 14 year old (had a slight learning disability) who had never played a miniatures war game before. Once they learned to navigate the data card and understood the OODA Loop concept (basically immediately issue a new order after executing one and not wait for your "turn" like other games) they were pretty much on their own.

This is a "Time Competitive" game so we use a player operated game clock (NOT PLAYED IN REAL TIME) to count off the seconds/turns one at a time. All units are active and can react and cancel/change orders if they need to subject to Blind Spots. The quickest units shoot first so there are no initiative rules. The time you shoot is kept secret from your opponent creating a realistic Fog of War as no one knows who will shoot next as the clock ticks second to second.

If the Panther (or any unit) wants to fire or react to a threat he signals to "Stop the Clock". After all actions and reactions the clock starts "ticking" again. To shoot roll a D20. In the tan colored row for "Action Timing" it will show how many seconds it will take to shoot based on historical data. Ranging is for the first shot and when moving. Bracketing is for multiple shots at the same target.

At 2:15 the Panther wants to fire a Ranging shot. He "Stops the Clock" and rolls the D20 for a result of 12 taking 13 seconds to engage the target, estimate the range, aim, and fire. He records 2:28 for his turn to shoot (Action Turn).

Then the GM or player(s) announce out loud each second as the clock "ticks" starting at 2:16. If no one is going to shoot then 2:17 is immediately announced (no initiative or activations needed), etc. The game is always moving to the next player action or reaction without the need for additional rules. If anyone wants to shoot or react they "Stop the Clock".

When 2:28 is announced the Panther player "Stops the Clock" again to perform his shooting and observes the results (hit, miss, any visible damage), evaluates the tactical situation (any new threats, visible damage), his options (shoot again at the same target, engage a new target or move) and tactics (Rapid Fire).

He wants to shoot at the same target again so while still at 2:28 rolls a D20 in the Bracketing row for a result of 6 so he'll take 10 seconds to reload, aim and fire. He secretly records 2:38 as the next time to shoot. After he is finished and enemy units are finished reacting the clock starts "ticking" again with 2:29, etc being announced.

You should notice this is exactly what a real crew would do and recreates the OODA Loop. During the game I need to remind players to immediately implement their next order as they are used to playing IGYG games and unit activations with one action per activation or wait for their next turn.

In a Time Competitive game it is always your "turn" to react or issue an order so players need to pay close attention to the game.

Of course if an enemy unit fired and knocked him out before the clock reached 2:28 he does not fire (Time Competitive). Each unit in the game is in their own Action or OODA Loop "bubble" and the game clock synchronizes all of them. If you understand the above example and think and do what a real crew would do you can now play the game. Video examples will help.

The backside for gunnery is pretty standard and you could use whatever rules you'd like. I do include variable penetration, precision aim to target weak spots, shot traps, ricochet chances and critical hits. Players can perform almost any maneuver or use any tactic that was used in the war. This includes Halt Fire, Reverse Slop Defense (turret down, move to hull down and shoot and immediately reverse back to turret down).

But of curiosity, do the data cards include bad transmissions or inadequate drive trains? How about ground pressure, horsepower to weight ratio, fuel consumption and fuel capacity? A tendency to throw treads in tight turns? Many things are important to tank performance.

In a more detailed version there is a maintenance rating, gun depression, flotation rating (ground pressure). The game simulates an engagement that would historically take from a few minutes up to 15 minutes so factors like fuel consumption are not important unless you work them into the scenario.

The process in designing the game was not writing traditional abstracted and artificial rules. I researched to find out the performance factors for different vehicles, guns and their models. Things like turret traverse, reloading, gunnery/engagement times, etc are all measured in seconds. I used those values as a base and a die roll to slightly modify them so they are not predictable. Better crews are a few seconds faster, poor crews a few seconds slower.

I also used first person accounts and AAR's and visited tank museums, including Bovington, read manuals and had real tank crewman (some with WWII tank experience) give their input. For details on Russian tanks I've corresponded with mechanic/drivers in Kubinka in Russia. I've also been able to crawl around inside some tanks to get a better idea of the ergonomics and visibility (or lack of it). I also used a number of British War Office Reports too which were very valuable.

Tank manual: link

Wolfhag

😯 WOWZA !!!!!

I expect to be called a heretic.

What? No activation or initiative die rolls? Off with his head then draw and quarter him.

Detail? We don't need no stick'n detail <stab-slash-stab>.

Wolfhag