"what are complex granular armor rulesets" Topic

I would love to know what the most complex, densest rules there are for ww2 armor?

is there something the equivalent of command at sea or fighting wings for armorder land warfare in ww2

I would look at Tractics and Tank Charts.

The Armor, Panzer, 88 series from Yaquinto?

thanks i have not heard of most of those. Tractics i had heard of but with such a comical sounding name i never thought it anything serious.

i thought Yaquinto just did board wargames, – they do miniature rules also?

Trobruk by AH was very dense and just miniature rules put in a board game format. Tractics was very dense.

The Panzer series are easily convertible to miniatures. The designer used to do miniatures games at Midwestern conventions in the 1980s. See link: link

The Panzer series is now produced by GMT Games and they have greatly expanded it with a number of additional boxed supplements, plus there is MBT for modern gamers. You can go to the page for MBT where just by looking through the rules and data cards you can clearly see that it is a "crunchy" game:
link

Tractics was recently republished in a modern format, but is still as complex and time consuming as it was 40+ years ago!

thanks – i just looked into tractics – sounds like it needs 3 players minimum, i am just looking at solo projects myself

that Advanced Tobruk Stuff keeps getting my attention -it works for miniatures? though its probably too pricey to try and get all the games and expansions

i saw there actually was miniatures rules set version of Panzer

Echo thoughts on "88" – Had counters but easily converted to minis

AHGCs Tobruk was the densest I played, although rolling 40 separate shots per turn for a Bofors gun vs an acquired target became a little dull.

At an individual weapon systems level it was OK, as a simulation of company/battalion level armoured combat it was rubbish as there was no morale, no C2, no unit integrity, no counting for target density and not even any natural cover.

It was essentially a boardgame version of the sort of weapons system focussed computer simulation that RAND favoured in the 1970s. In the end I just used the counters and board but adjudicated things with WRG 1925-50.

If all you are interested in is the minutiae of tank A firing at tank B with ammo type C at range D and angle E, then it is OK.

I agree with the old Tank Charts. You couldn't just shoot at a target, you first had to "acquire" a target. Seen was not the same as "acquire". Lots of modifiers to that chart. Once "aquired" you then could calculate a shot. If you hit, then you could see where you hit the target, then compare penetration to armor thickness. Ah, such memories (Aaaaaagh!).

Tobruk. Definitely Miniatures friendly.

The Advanced Tobruk System (ATS) is kind of a mess. There are varying games and modules, different sets of rules/charts, upgrades, etc., with no rhyme or reason to much of it. The system does trace back to Avalon HIll's Tobruk, but trying to figure out which games are in order, what goes to what, etc., can be quite the challenge. I bought one of the games and tried it out, but just had so many questions that we eventually gave up on the series.

I like Tractics (started with it back in '73) and have lots of additional stuff I developed for it over the years. You do not need 3 players any more than any other tactical game with "orders". It does generic(fy) weapons like ASL but after some research I came up with more weapon specific results if you need them plus additional vehicles (lots of empty spaces while still having many variations on the popular ones). If interested reply and I will give my email.

Having played both sets, I feel the old Tractics is more dense and crunchier than the old AHGC Tobruk. A slight less dense, but still crunchy, rules set is the old Battleground WWII system. It has recently been updated for combat in the 1968-90 era. I've been tempted to get a copy, but don't game in that period.

I've not played anything more dense/crunchy/detailed than Tractics or Tank Charts.

Always thought that Tobruk was Tractics with 2D6.

There has been a re-print of Tractics in the year or so. Better charts too

I would love to know what the most complex, densest rules there are for ww2 armor?

WWII tank-tank game (soon to be combined arms) with the rules derived from the real manuals and formulas and details from "WWII Ballistics and Armor" book.

Two-page Quick Start rules including detailed and customized data card and one-page Quick Reference Chart. There are a few different versions in development.

Vehicles and guns perform pretty much as they do in real life. The rules are historical and not abstracted or dumbed down to be fair and balanced (reality sucks). If you have an inferior vehicle and gun you'll need good tactics and crews. However, there are ways to even out a scenario. The system is not very good for tournaments but is excellent for replaying historical scenarios and recreating the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

Playable as miniatures (any scale) or board game. 6-15mm is best at 1" = 25m. Boardgame is one hex = 33m with a 100m megahex. The player controls 5-10 vehicles. We've played up to 6 players per side. It is great for solitaire play.

A recent playtester said it was crunchy but fun and easy to play. One playtester described it as "Birds of Prey" for armor warfare except more playable. It is more playable than Tobruk, Tractics, ASL, and other popular games. The president of a large board game publishing company gives it a thumbs up because of the intuitive and interactive game system.

We consulted former tank crewmen and driver mechanics at museums in the US, Europe, and Russia for documentation, performance, and details.

Units are always active and can react and change orders at any time. It's always your turn to do something so players need to stay alert as there is no waiting for your "turn."

Uses a playable simultaneous movement system that speeds up the game. It is the easiest part of the game.

Players can perform any action or tactic real armored units performed as real crews did. The catch is you need to execute your order before your opponent with a minimum of luck. Your real knowledge of tank combat will help but your knowledge of previous game systems will be almost worthless.

Players roll a D6 or a D20, no buckets of ice.

Four target aspects (front, oblique, side, and rear) hit location, armor values, and ricochet chance.

Interactive Gunnery Sequence: When the shooter rolls a D20 to shoot the target player rolls a D20 for a potential SNAFU. When the shooter rolls a D20 for hit location the target player rolls a D20 for a potential ricochet. Interactive historical rates of fire. I Go Before You Go because I'm quicker. You go after me if you are still alive.

Under certain conditions, the Precision Aim rules allow the shooter to modify the D20 hit location roll +/-4 to target a weak spot.

Damage is based on the level of penetration and round size/weight. Armor Shot Traps and weak spots are modeled.

Target engagement is based on reaction, spotting, traverse speeds, and crew types. Overwatching in the right direction allows a better chance of a first shot.

Players can use a Snap Shot to trade decreased accuracy for increased speed to shoot first. Just as in real 1:1 combat, seconds count.

Potential historical SNAFUs (jam, misfire, crew panic, incorrect range estimation, recoil malfunction, loader slip/mistake, etc). No order is guaranteed to execute as planned. No tank is completely safe.

Spalling damage (if penetration is 5mm < armor) generates crew suppression and potential damage.

Limited Intelligence: Must fire at the same target again if there is no visual of fire or crew bail out.

Faster weapons platforms, crews, and guns seize the initiative. With all other factors being equal better crews will perform better and be quicker.

Many of the rules can be optional and you can use your own gunnery, hit location, armor, and damage rules.

No unit activations, command points, command interrupts, IGYG, initiative determination, or other traditional abstracted rules. This speeds up the game and generates more action and player decision points.

Wolfhag

I played Tractics solo. You can pretty much play any ruleset solo.
Take a look at Panzer War. Free on Line. It might be dense enough. panzer-war.com

i saw there is a tank tactics guide for ATS that contains a basic tank game – i wonder how basic

i just saw now that the Panzer miniature rules are actually on WGV so i hae to get them some time.

Its probably more the command and control stuff i like to be complex rather than the exact fine details of what the precise angle of impact of a shell might be

- that said though that "Combined Arms" game mentioned above has my attention, i will chekc out Panzer WAR – didnt know it was all online!

Panzer War is good from the aspect that the designer used the "WWII Ballistics and Armor" book to design his gunnery, armor penetration, and damage rules which are very "crunchy." I borrowed some things from him.

Regarding Command & Control: I see it as a function of radio range and communications. Once a unit is given an order or assigned an objective they would attempt to carry out the order without needing to be activated or given the same order over and over again from turn to turn. Overwatch would be a default order.

Wolfhag

Possibly the most complex set of armour rules is challenger, however BGMR are pretty close. The latter rules are available from the IO:group site groups.io/g/BGMR and Challenger Ultra Modern Wargames rules by Brice Rea-Taylor is available in PDF format on the web, somewhere, if you search for it. Corps Commander and Korps Commander, also by Bruce, is rather complex as well, but not as much as Challenger.

thanks for the replies, alot to think about – there aare alot mroe rulesets up on WGV for ww2 then i realised – Combat HQ sound interesting if command and control is more its focus

I think what i really loved was the HPS pc wargame "Tigers on the Prowl" and Panthers in the Shadows , and the new version "Tigers Unleashed" where command and control is a big part but also they are pretty detailed with the gunnery aspects.
what is Kampfgruppe Commander like? i see it was originally a CoA game, and CoA always have done pretty complex stuff

Hi PFMODEL! your neuschwerpunkt rules have got my attention, i am not familiar with BGMR though, will check it out

I have seen Wolfhag's rules and they amp up the detail from Tractics by yet another level WRT tank combat detail. The playtest edition of the rules had yet to address command and control and infantry so I cannot say how those aspects are going. Myself getting back into the hobby ten years ago I have become more focused on infantry with armour/vehicles/guns being support elements not the focus like I was back in the '70s as a teen.

I've got Kampfgruppe Commander and really like it for the Command and Control rules.

It's also pretty good for tank to tank but I actually use my own version of Panzer for that using a simplified d10 to hit.

Works a treat :)

Playing Panzer to shoot you need to check up to 8 different charts and tables on the quick reference chart and data card. Crunchy but a pain for me.

Regarding Command & Control:
Q. What types of tactical decisions did Lt. Col. Abrams [the battalion commander] allow his company commanders to make on their own, and what decisions did he reserve for himself?

A. Col. Abrams practiced mission-type oral orders and decentralization was routine. He permitted the broadest latitude in the accomplishment of company missions and radioed any change of the scheme. When we operated outside of a battalion-controlled tactical formation, such as a battalion in march column, or a battalion wedge, for example, we determined the tasking of the team(s), formations and frequently the axis or direction of movement.

It was our decision when to dismount our Infantry or our "bow-gunners," if without Infantry. We also decided when and where to fire tank and artillery munitions once the battle was joined. Tank mounted FOs [forward observers] responded directly to orders from the company commanders. We were given the mission and the freedom to accomplish it.

There was no clear line between what Col. Abrams did or we did. We obviously responded to any change of direction or scheme he directed, yet we were not inhibited by any interference from the commander.

He leap-frogged companies at a moment's notice to maintain pressure on the enemy, and to maintain momentum if in the exploitation. During the exploitation, one soon learned to "keep-em-rolling," guns firing, and to avoid halting to gather up prisoners. His often quoted motto was "The quickest way home is east, e. g.—defeat Germany."

My scenarios are 1:1 with up to a reinforced Company, 1"=25m and a 6-10 foot table. Historically, an engagement like this lasted from a few minutes to an hour. Platoons would have their objectives assigned before the engagement and attempt to seize them as long as the enemy cooperated. C&C comes into play when orders need to be changed or reinforcements called up. Communication range is based on radio transmissions.

I can get crunchy/complex and playable by eliminating traditional rules and die rolls that tell players what they can and can't do replacing them with historical timing values for engagement, reloading, etc.

I let players do whatever real crews did. However, historically, orders are not executed immediately, they take time. When you do execute an order immediately issue your next one and determine the timing it will execute, just as real crews do. That's what drives the game and the sequence of actions without traditional rules. Quicker units get more action.

The infantry rules and hand-held anti-tank weapons work basically the same. When an infantry unit is shot at they don't stand there waiting for their next turn, they immediately react just as real infantry does.

I see small arms fire and firefights as a simultaneous event (unless it is an ambush) with the result determined by the volume of fire against the defender's cover and concealment. I do it in 5 or 10-second turn increments with the infantry using the same simultaneous movement system as vehicles. We get a lot more action and firing without a lot of overhead and rules.

Players can choose to shoot quicker but with an accuracy penalty (Snap Shot).

Wolfhag

Yes Wolfhag, but on Abrams above – where is the random roll for command opportunities? ;)

(it's all there in a nutshell) – this dicta also known to the Germans as Auftragstaktik (mission-type orders).

Anyway, back to crunchy.

This takes crunchy to a new level: phoenixcommand.net
link
YouTube link
YouTube link

Wolfhag