From: OHara Walter Subject: East Front Tank Commander: Some MORE Observations. I just played my first game versus another human during lunch versus CONSIM lurker Dave Markley. We played two versions of the introductory scenario, one as written (no cards but 6 tanks), one heavily modified (half of your cards must be NON-tanks, so we could learn better). We had seperated three decks into six piles of Russians, six piles of Germans and 3 piles of specials. The second time we played, we came up with a nifty house rule for putting terrain out in a quick game-- deal out specials face down in the grid pattern, turn them over and anything that ISN'T true terrain (including terrain types that are played as instants), is discarded and shuffled back into the special deck. That procedure yielded a nice mix of terrain; Dave got a hill and some woods and I got a hill, a wall, a village, and a wheatfield. The first game was a true bloody slugfest, as you might expect of armored combat at short range in clear terrain. I fielded a mix of KV-1s, a lend-lease Matilda, a JSU-152 and a 88 mm AT gun. Probably an ahistorical deployment, but the object was to learn, not win. Dave had a Pz 38, a Pak 40, a couple of Pz IVs and a Pz VD. Result: Dave's Pz VD, which he didn't opt to move, was the last tank standing, so he pulled off a squeaker. All other cards hit the junk heap. Dave advanced on my right flank, attempting to overun my 88mm AT gun. The AT gun took out his Pz 38 with the first shot of the game, giving me a false sense of confidence. I slagged the Pak 40 with long range fire, which helped. He advanced into melee with his Pz IVs and took out the Sov. AT gun. I countered with the remnants of my force, and we "traded queens--" I lost all my forces on the board trying to repulse his attack, and the PZ VD was left intact. The second game was a lot more exciting. The terrain helped. I started with the JSU 152 in the village. He had the Pak 40 again collocated with a Waffen SS squad, in his woods terrain. Dave had initiative; he promptly wasted my best unit, the 152. Suck! In a fit of pique, I called down serious scunion on him-- the Soviet Rocket Artillery barrage. It didn't work like a charm, only killing the SS. C'est la vie. I took out the Pak 40 with yet another, different AT gun on a hill in my left flank-- not a bad shot for long range, and he had woods to hide in. Dave advanced some a Pz 38 to the woods, it got killed. Dave advanced another tank (I forget which) and I sent my T-34 in to duke it out in melee. BOTH tanks got slagged. At this point, I had an infantry squad, a Matilda, and an AT gun functioning, and Dave had an infantry squad and a killer PzJg III/IV on the board. My only real maneuver was to move the Matilda II into the hills in his position, dominating the landscape. I couldn't hit to penetrate either the inf or the gun at that distance. We had to call the game then, as our lunch hour was over. We both agreed that the mechanics were strongly reminiscient of The Last Crusade, a game we both own and play a lot of. Things I liked: Armor penetration values at long and short range. The specials are not as out in left field like they are in the Last Crusade. You can play a pretty decent game of Tank Commander with only a couple of decks-- I don't think I'll have to buy many more cards than the six decks I already own. Card repitition is pretty endemic in the six decks I have, but that's not so bad once I've played a few games and I understand the mechanics better. I really like the ability to include vehicles from a long range of time periods on the Eastern Front. You can institute a cutoff point for a specific scenario and you won't get the ahistorical play of the Last Crusade (Ever try to take on two King Tigers in the bocage? I have). I also like the random number generation (grafted on the game from Up Front, probably). This is a nice "speed-up" touch, we played several turns in a lunch hour (how many of you can say that of The Last Crusade?). Things I don't like: The card layout is very confusing. I found myself constantly checking the diagram in the rule book to figure out WHICH box represented WHAT information. The card artwork is not quite as stylish as the Last Crusade (but I don't really care about that), nor do they laminate their cards with the same material, making the cards a little thinner and "stickier on the edges." I would prefer some hidden placement (face down) and detection rules like the Last Crusade has. Air support may have been handled better-- the Last Crusade system has a very detailed approach to the support elements, Tank Commander addresses them as special cards for the most part. My opinion is that MIH took a "synthesis" approach to this game-- they waited to see how historical ccgs would be accepted, then grafted together a bunch of different elements into a solid game. There are aspects of Tank Commander I consider unfinished, but what has been published so far is a lot of fun to play and MOST IMPORTANTLY you can play it very quickly once you learn the system. I'm going to raise their grade from a B+ to an A-! Walt From: John Desch Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander: Some MORE Observations. Walt, I'm really glad you had fun playing the game. Your house rule for terrain is an excellent idea and one that should be included as a variant in the advanced rules. A little surprise terrain for those commanders who have one-over-the-world Michelin maps... >The first game was a true bloody slugfest, as you might expect of >armored combat at short range in clear terrain. I fielded a mix of >KV-1s, a lend-lease Matilda, a JSU-152 and a 88 mm AT gun. Was this an 85mm gun or did you capture one from the Germans? ;-) Probably an>ahistorical deployment, but the object was to learn, not win. Dave had >a Pz 38, a Pak 40, a couple of Pz IVs and a Pz VD. The Pz38 wouldn't have shown up on the same battlefield as the Panther, but otherwise your set up looked fine. We had to call the game then, as our lunch hour was >over. Sounds right, about 30 minutes per game. > >Things I don't like: >The card layout is very confusing. I found myself constantly checking >the diagram in the rule book to figure out WHICH box represented WHAT >information. This is very true. The numbers should be labeled and intuitive, especially since there seems to be plenty of room on most of the cards. The card artwork is not quite as stylish as the Last >Crusade (but I don't really care about that), I think some of the cards are excellent while others are so-so. For example, the Pak 40 in the snow looks really cool, but the Elefant silhouette is lost in the background. Some of the Russian AT guns are just plain ugly but most of the tanks look great. Also a couple of the photos on the infantry cards are too dark. >I would prefer some hidden placement (face down) and detection rules >like the Last Crusade has. We will be sure to include these into the advanced rules. Until then you can probably generate up some house rules. I suggest face down card play with a simple spotting table. Include prearranged dummy cards (I seem to have received alot of Wheatfields) in your force deck at a ratio of about one dummy to two real cards. Air support may have been handled better-- >the Last Crusade system has a very detailed approach to the support >elements, Tank Commander addresses them as special cards for the most >part. I'd be interested to hear how TLC approaches this. >>My opinion is that MIH took a "synthesis" approach to this game-- they >waited to see how historical ccgs would be accepted, then grafted >together a bunch of different elements into a solid game. I'm not sure what sort of marketing approach was used, but the way the design unfolded was the result of a lengthy series of discussions (via e-mail) between Ulrich and me. He provided the input on what CCG players liked to see and I provided the miniatures/tread-head stuff. >There are aspects of Tank Commander I consider unfinished, We intend to refine the game and would appreciate your suggestions. Thanks for your feedback and recounting of the two games you played, Walt. The western front edition is sure to have Bocage, and if you don't have any King Tigers yet, let me know, and I'll send them to your ftf opponent. ;-) Keep the stories coming! John T. Desch jtd4@cornell.edu (607)255-5014 From: OHara Walter Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander: Some MORE Observations. >>Was this an 85mm gun or did you capture one from the Germans? ;-) Alright, wise guy! ;-) Maybe this is the place to bring up "the NATORIOUS SS" card (sic)?? Does that mean they liked to swim? >>This is very true. The numbers should be labeled and intuitive, especially >>since there seems to be plenty of room on most of the cards. I couldn't agree more. And the fact that they are labelled incorrectly in my rulebooks doesn't help much. I had to check the errata to determine that the Armor Protection boxes in fact *weren't* the Armor Penetration boxes. >>...[SNIP] plain ugly but most of the tanks look great. Also a couple of >>>the photos on the infantry cards are too dark. The random mix of pictures on some, drawings on the other is a little offputting. It might have been better to lift the Osperey drawings of SS troops (I'm not sure if your photo is accurate), Wehrmacht infantrymen (for "Line troops") and Luftwaffe field troops. They have all been done. >>I'd be interested to hear how TLC approaches this (air support). TLC handles air support by adding individual cards for individual planes in the card mix. I don't advocate this for Tank Commander, per se, as air support wasn't as variated as it was on the West Front. However, a Stuka and Shturmovik card, with special movement rules (and AA ratings on the cards) might have been a step in the right direction. A paranthetical question: the Russian Anti Tank Rifle equipment unit seems to have NO AT rating AND an armour defense rating. I assume the ATR troops weren't walking around the steppes with armour plating on, so... are the numbers switched by mistake? Ditto for the Panzershreck? Also, the rules state that equipment supplements infantry's attack factors. Can I assume that you add the AT rating of a Panzershreck or ATR rifle to the infantry's existing AT capability (usually 0), or does this work differently? Having visited the chili cookoff at the VA state fair over the weekend, the resulting heartburn gave me lots of opportunity to play Tank Commander solo while the rest of my family slumbered. I used the Markley-O'Hara instant battlefield generator and six randomly generated cards for both sides (and eenie, meenie, miney, moe to pick colors in the random number generator). This method yielded a surprisingly balanced series of quick, bloody games. Very enjoyable early morning fun! Of course, I was worthless the next day... Walt