"1967 What a Tanker" Topic

Yes, today we were doing the excellent game 'What a Tanker' but using my Arab Israeli variant link
If you want to see how our games went, please go to this link

Enjoy!

Saw a video today on a Mk1V panzer that got knocked out then used by Israel today.

Interesting?! – I know Syria used PZKW IV H and J in wars up to 1967, but I don't think Israel used them (They evaluated them and put them in museums, or left them to rot where they were destroyed!)

Neat set up and cool looking tanks.

Unfortunately I despise "What a Tanker" (IMO the absolute worst of the TFL games out there). If ever a game needed a complete re-write, this is it…

Glad someone is enjoying it!:^))

I'm curios as to why, Maggot? I quite enjoy the game and have had a fun time each time I played it. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes, but I am curious. Why don't you like it? (Genuinely curious, not trying to start something.)

Herkybird, besides the pzkw IVs, they also had a couple of Stugs. Mostly on the heigts.

Read a great account of their tank gunnery how during the '65 'water wars' over some farming canal they fired a couple of hundred rounds at a Syrian tank for naught. Let's just say that heads rolled and gunnery doctrine went heavy handed but the results in '67 speak to the efforts having paid off.

Indeed Troopwo, I have StuG IIIs and PzKW IVs in my Syrian box. I have visited Israel several times and been to the Golan Heights. Yes, the Syrians had several Panzer IVs dug in occasionally shelling the Israeli settlements on the other side of lake Kinneret (the sea of Galilee), which resisted Israeli counter fire. As you say, this got the IDF Armoured force to look at gunnery practice, which indeed paid dividends, and the PzKW IVs were actually destroyed mainly by Centurions, this nearby one was abandoned when the Syrian crew saw they were overmatched…

I've played WaT three times. Disclaimer: I've lost every game I've played so maybe I'm biased.

It's a command dice driven game like all TFL games. That means you don't always get to do what makes sense or do what you want to do when you want to do it. You do what the dice allows you to do and you figure that out yourself and there are generally many options. That gives players a lot of agency which can be a good thing. Some people call it the tail wagging the dog. There is a lot of thinking that can go into game turn which can take time.

On the other hand, if you need a specific die roll # to perform your next action and you don't get it your turn is over after you roll the dice and you do nothing for the turn. I think that's one of the biggest complaints.

What many players like is looking at the 4-6 command dice they've rolled and attempting to put together strategy and tactics for a turn that can allow you to perform from 0 to 3+ actions. Randomly limiting what you can or want to do is a good way to simulate friction and Fog of War.

Most games have a system that when it is your turn or you activate, a shooting command is magically executed immediately, no planning or real engage and shoot maneuvers are needed. WaT is more historical and realistic in that manner.

WaT is one of the only games that has players performing the same spot, engage, shoot and reload, shoot & scoot actions of a real tank crew. Great if you like that level of detail in a 1:1 game.

I've always said you should judge a game based on how well the designer met his goals of what he wanted to achieve. I think the TFL use of command dice does reflect the friction of war and limit what player can do achieves the designers intent. It really does not matter if you like it or not as that's a personal preference.

The multiple options for actions the dice presents forces players to think "tactically" what they can do next. Some vehicles have an advantage and can convert a die to a different command they want to issue so not all vehicles perform the same which is a good thing. Do all players like that approach? No.

In one game my opponent got a good roll and moved into my LOS directly into where I was over watching, spotted, halted, engaged, shot, reversed back out of my LOS and reloaded but since it was not my turn I was helpless.

Overall, I was impressed but it took him almost 2 minutes to figure just exactly how he was going to do it. However, as a player I was muttering to myself, "That could never happen." Could it have happened historically? Possibly but a long shot. Ideally, I'd like to see the reason for it.

I don't recall if there is a way to react or interrupt an opponent mid turn but the GM never gave me the option but there is probably a way I'm not familiar with.

I've seen players line up a shot and then three turns in a row get bad rolls resulting to no shot. It would be nice if there was some historical reason attached to it.

My limited experience with WaT is that it normally takes too long, especially for new players, to figure out what he is going to do after rolling the dice because there can be so many options. It seemed like operating more than two tanks was going to be a long game. I think the damage rules are too dice based, complicated and not historic but does work within the framework of the game. You could always use your own.

My OODA Loop timing approach uses the same basis for player actions and the sequence you need to perform them as WaT but with a different approach. The player decides what order he wants to issue and rolls a die to determine how long it will take. It plays a lot quicker so you can command more units. The game is more predictable than WaT but there is the unexpected surprise with a reason behind it.

When playing a game the more I mutter to myself, "Well, that could never happen" the less I enjoy the game. I also don't normally like games where a random die roll determines the initiative.

WaT is a great game if you enjoy the mechanics, tactics and Fog of War it creates. For some players they feel too much at the mercy of the dice. It is playable and fun for our group and we'll play it again this year but you will never please everyone.

Wolfhag

I think you have it in one, Wolfhag! I think WaT works well if you can rationalise what is going on in your mobile tin can!

Sorry for the delay TG, but as to why I dislike it, Wolf captures most of my criticisms. But Ill go a step further: WaT is less a tank game that uses dice to simulate fog and chance, but more a dice game, such as Yahtzee, that uses tanks to simulate just how random dice can be.

I don't mind the "guns not loaded, PVT Snuffy must have accidentally loaded smoke instead of AP" rationale that takes place in every game when the dice Gods go against you, just that it happens SO MUCH in this game. I'm still not loaded two or even three turns in a row? Tank 1 can move 5 inches, but tank 2 hasn't moved 10 inches all game? I've moved 1 inch now I completely lost sight of the tank I was aiming at? Gunner still can't aim? How did we manage to repair that armor plate in the middle of a tank battle?

To me, it's just way too random. I feel like my tank "crews" are all clueless buffoons right off the proverbial recruit training depot; the amount of "failures" to load, aim, acquire far surpasses reality. I can understand missing the target, or failing to pierce armor, but not being loaded turn after turn? Constantly loosing targets? (yes, yes, I know the real "fog of battle" and all that) You can't fire turn after turn!! And I usually play the Germans! They guys who arguably fielded the best trained tanks crews on average throughout the war.

Now, that same mechanic in Chain of Command, I think works much better. Its rare in CoC that a squad cannot do something: maybe you cannot activate the whole squad, but you can still order the rifle team to throw a grenade, or the squad BAR to fire. Dice failures in CoC still allow one to act, almost always. Not so in WaT.

But in the end, you say potato and all that, you have fun, that's all that matters. To say I hate WaT may not be too harsh a response :^))

Thanks for the responses and well thought answers. As mentioned, it is all opinion and we all have one and the right to one. I appreciate the polite and reasoned conversation.

Completely deceived by the title which I assumed referred to link

Mark,
LOL. It took me a few seconds to get it.

Wolfhag

Maggot,
But Ill go a step further: WaT is less a tank game that uses dice to simulate fog and chance, but more a dice game, such as Yahtzee, that uses tanks to simulate just how random dice can be.

I'd have to agree. From my experiences, when rolling multiple dice for any game system to determine actions the results seem to be unrealistically skewed. However, that's the TFL command dice trademark.

Here is a WaT mod: Use one fewer command dice and allow the player to perform one action for free but can only perform that action once. So if you want to shoot but don't get that die, you can shoot once and then perform other actions the dice allow.

For the unexpected or a SNAFU it's commonly said things can go wrong at the worst time. In an AFV game that would be when shooting.

What I do is just before the shooting player rolls to see if he hit the target player rolls a D20 and on an unmodified "1" it is a SNAFU, malfunction, etc. You could make a chart the player rolls on to see what he malfunction is: misfire, jam, etc.

I can post my SNAFU Chart if you like.

Another WaT mod could be rolling a die as a chance to perform an action and it could be tied to historic actions.

I'd use a D10. So an average reload time could succeed on a 1-5. A fast reload time on a 1-7. Slow 1-3. However, if you fail the next turn you automatically get to perform that same action. But if you failed to reload on the previous turn and your next turn you want to react to an enemy threat you can "cancel" the reload order and roll a D10 to react. If you failed to react and the next turn you still want to react it is automatic. When reacting better and unbuttoned crews get a negative modifier with a better chance of reacting. I think you get the idea.

So for each action a tank can perform in WaT give it a 1-9 rating that would be compared to other tanks. I think it would play much quicker because players don't have to figure out all of the permutations and options with multiple dice (but that's the fun part of strategy and problem solving for some players) which makes it more intuitive and easier for new players.

My system just takes it one step further by using historical action timing for orders and one second turns for timing through the unit's OODA Decision Loop rather than IGYG turns.

Wolfhag