I recently added tanks to my Chain of Command experience and it was quite different than what I expected. Most games I play have lots of tanks, Battlegroup Kursk, and Panzer for example. Well, in those games, you bring lots of tanks to the table. In Chain of Command, it would not be odd to bring one tank to the party. So for trying out the rules, I brought a T-34/85 and a Panzer III/M. The two tanks on paper are not really classed in the same league with advantage going to the T-34. Perhaps in a later article, we'll talk about activation's and the crews that drive these tanks. Here is how our experience went.
At the start of the game, the Russians kept control of the phases very well. With confidence, they brought on the T-34 first. What I didn't realize is that in practice, they don't move very fast. They can do a full speed move of 3D6 inches over open ground, which seems great, but if you roll terribly will leave you not moving very fast. The T-34 does have the Fast characteristic which does it give it a boost to it's movement which can help. Just not with my dice rolling, every movement bonus would help as there was over 6ft of table to cover moving about 8 inches a phase. Also hampered by the fact that I have other troops to bring on leaving that tank sitting still some phases.
The Panzer on the other hand has an Average speed characteristic not allowing it to move as fast. Now this is great from a historical standpoint as it is generally accepted that the T-34 was a great balance of firepower, armor and speed. Speed is well represented here by the characteristics that modify the base dice rolls for movement. Those characteristics also modify your ability to cross different terrain types. I'm happy with the movement system so far.
Back at the battle, the lumbering giants moved for firing positions. Now this was interesting for me to work with because I'm used to tanks just plowing forward and moving to battle lines and then shooting back and forth at each other until one side is done. Here, this is much different as your tanks will move at different speeds making you really think about lanes of travel and how to coordinate those movements with their fellow tank mates. However, for my first armor game, we only had one tank per side, not much of an issue. However, moving forward still took a lot of thought.
Since we only had one tank apiece, this made the armor a valuable asset that we didn't want to squander. Even though there was little in the way of anti-tank weapons, there was a fear in losing these things that did have them moving quickly to the forward areas and then moving much more slowly to gain a firing position that left them protected on the flanks from infantry attacks. As it played out, my Russian troops were pinned in forests without the ability to move forward, so the tank was going to support by firing into the German defenders to dislodge them. However, the Panzer was waiting as they were defending the far edge and it didn't have to move far to provide support. In fact, after the Russian tank finished its final move, it was not in an angle to attack the Panzer.
On the next phase, the Panzer made a lucky roll, moved forward to put itself in a great firing position and fired it's main gun. Now this is where we get to talk about shooting mechanics and the abstraction of armor vs. AP rounds. My favorite tank game is Panzer 2ed by GMT games. Its a board game with lots of charts and lots of vehicle data. The tanks come on their own stat cards with information for armor based on angle of attack and hit location and gunnery charts for various ranges. It looks like a lot, it is, but easy to work through when deciding the fate of those little tank crews. In Chain of Command, tank stats cover one line of information and only one stat for armor and one for AP, armor piercing value. This number is a value of die 6 that are rolled to determine hits. So how does this compare to a chart heavy experience? Pretty good actually.
You see, in my opinion, Chain of Command is focused on the soldier. As such, I think this makes for a narrative game. With one platoon for each player, it's easy to really focus on the troops well being as you don't have large amounts of infantry that can die and be replaced. The same goes for tanks. With only one tank, you can really focus on the narrative aspect of armored conflict because the stats are simple. But don't let that one number fool you into thinking armor rules are a simple thing. Let me explain how you can use these rules to replicate real world issues not covered in charts.
For an attack, you roll two dice modified by in game factors such as movement. Compare with a chart and that tells you if the round hits. Simple. Then you have to roll to see how effective the hit is vs the target armor. To determine how effective the shot is, you roll a number of dice equal to your AP rating. When hitting the front of a tank, you score a hit on a 5 or 6. Keep track of the hits because your opponent will roll a number of dice equal to his armor and cancel a hit for each 5 or 6 rolled. So with good dice rolling, your tank can absorb a lot of damage. But I still need to answer how this is realistic. It's realistic in the narrative sense. You see, those dice represent more than just the strength of your attack, they represent a wide range of factors that would take many charts to replicate and would really increase the length of combat results in a negative way.
This one number you roll with can represent everything from wind speed, ground temperature, shot angle deflection vs armor angle, quality of metal and construction that day by the factory workers assembling the tank and the AP round, quality of powder in the round, defects in the armor casting, weak weld spots on the armor, and you could go on and on in a narrative sense describing how the shot hits based on some random dice. I know that is taking it rather far, but I find it really helps to put story into your tanks because they will be few and precious to your side.
In game mechanics, you compare the number of hits with the number of saves and check on a chart that describes the damage done, if any. For my battle, lets just say that the Panzer was lucky. The T-34 had armor rating of 7 and the Panzer had an AP score of 7. So fairly evenly matched on paper. The Panzer scored a hit and then rolled two "hits" for the effectiveness of the shot. I honestly thought my T34 could handle such a weak shot, but I rolled 0 saves and netted a total of 2 hits to compare on the damage chart. You then roll a die 6 and that gives you the final damage result. I rolled a 6 and the chart says the main gun is out of action the rest of the game. Well, T34 survives, but is now rendered useless. That is a level of detail not even covered in Panzer. That little bit really adds to the narrative element of the game which again makes this system shine.
When it was all done, the T34 backed off as it lost its main gun and didn't want to risk a kill for the Germans. The Germans were able to hold of the Russian assault since the Russians lost their heavy hitter in one shot. Tanks are pretty fragile it seems. Overall, this is not a game for "tread heads" looking to simulate tank warfare on the wide open steppes of Russia. There are other games for that. But, to tell a story about your tank and the crew that runs it, look no further than Chain of Command.
At the start of the game, the Russians kept control of the phases very well. With confidence, they brought on the T-34 first. What I didn't realize is that in practice, they don't move very fast. They can do a full speed move of 3D6 inches over open ground, which seems great, but if you roll terribly will leave you not moving very fast. The T-34 does have the Fast characteristic which does it give it a boost to it's movement which can help. Just not with my dice rolling, every movement bonus would help as there was over 6ft of table to cover moving about 8 inches a phase. Also hampered by the fact that I have other troops to bring on leaving that tank sitting still some phases.
The Panzer on the other hand has an Average speed characteristic not allowing it to move as fast. Now this is great from a historical standpoint as it is generally accepted that the T-34 was a great balance of firepower, armor and speed. Speed is well represented here by the characteristics that modify the base dice rolls for movement. Those characteristics also modify your ability to cross different terrain types. I'm happy with the movement system so far.
Back at the battle, the lumbering giants moved for firing positions. Now this was interesting for me to work with because I'm used to tanks just plowing forward and moving to battle lines and then shooting back and forth at each other until one side is done. Here, this is much different as your tanks will move at different speeds making you really think about lanes of travel and how to coordinate those movements with their fellow tank mates. However, for my first armor game, we only had one tank per side, not much of an issue. However, moving forward still took a lot of thought.
Since we only had one tank apiece, this made the armor a valuable asset that we didn't want to squander. Even though there was little in the way of anti-tank weapons, there was a fear in losing these things that did have them moving quickly to the forward areas and then moving much more slowly to gain a firing position that left them protected on the flanks from infantry attacks. As it played out, my Russian troops were pinned in forests without the ability to move forward, so the tank was going to support by firing into the German defenders to dislodge them. However, the Panzer was waiting as they were defending the far edge and it didn't have to move far to provide support. In fact, after the Russian tank finished its final move, it was not in an angle to attack the Panzer.
On the next phase, the Panzer made a lucky roll, moved forward to put itself in a great firing position and fired it's main gun. Now this is where we get to talk about shooting mechanics and the abstraction of armor vs. AP rounds. My favorite tank game is Panzer 2ed by GMT games. Its a board game with lots of charts and lots of vehicle data. The tanks come on their own stat cards with information for armor based on angle of attack and hit location and gunnery charts for various ranges. It looks like a lot, it is, but easy to work through when deciding the fate of those little tank crews. In Chain of Command, tank stats cover one line of information and only one stat for armor and one for AP, armor piercing value. This number is a value of die 6 that are rolled to determine hits. So how does this compare to a chart heavy experience? Pretty good actually.
You see, in my opinion, Chain of Command is focused on the soldier. As such, I think this makes for a narrative game. With one platoon for each player, it's easy to really focus on the troops well being as you don't have large amounts of infantry that can die and be replaced. The same goes for tanks. With only one tank, you can really focus on the narrative aspect of armored conflict because the stats are simple. But don't let that one number fool you into thinking armor rules are a simple thing. Let me explain how you can use these rules to replicate real world issues not covered in charts.
For an attack, you roll two dice modified by in game factors such as movement. Compare with a chart and that tells you if the round hits. Simple. Then you have to roll to see how effective the hit is vs the target armor. To determine how effective the shot is, you roll a number of dice equal to your AP rating. When hitting the front of a tank, you score a hit on a 5 or 6. Keep track of the hits because your opponent will roll a number of dice equal to his armor and cancel a hit for each 5 or 6 rolled. So with good dice rolling, your tank can absorb a lot of damage. But I still need to answer how this is realistic. It's realistic in the narrative sense. You see, those dice represent more than just the strength of your attack, they represent a wide range of factors that would take many charts to replicate and would really increase the length of combat results in a negative way.
This one number you roll with can represent everything from wind speed, ground temperature, shot angle deflection vs armor angle, quality of metal and construction that day by the factory workers assembling the tank and the AP round, quality of powder in the round, defects in the armor casting, weak weld spots on the armor, and you could go on and on in a narrative sense describing how the shot hits based on some random dice. I know that is taking it rather far, but I find it really helps to put story into your tanks because they will be few and precious to your side.
In game mechanics, you compare the number of hits with the number of saves and check on a chart that describes the damage done, if any. For my battle, lets just say that the Panzer was lucky. The T-34 had armor rating of 7 and the Panzer had an AP score of 7. So fairly evenly matched on paper. The Panzer scored a hit and then rolled two "hits" for the effectiveness of the shot. I honestly thought my T34 could handle such a weak shot, but I rolled 0 saves and netted a total of 2 hits to compare on the damage chart. You then roll a die 6 and that gives you the final damage result. I rolled a 6 and the chart says the main gun is out of action the rest of the game. Well, T34 survives, but is now rendered useless. That is a level of detail not even covered in Panzer. That little bit really adds to the narrative element of the game which again makes this system shine.
When it was all done, the T34 backed off as it lost its main gun and didn't want to risk a kill for the Germans. The Germans were able to hold of the Russian assault since the Russians lost their heavy hitter in one shot. Tanks are pretty fragile it seems. Overall, this is not a game for "tread heads" looking to simulate tank warfare on the wide open steppes of Russia. There are other games for that. But, to tell a story about your tank and the crew that runs it, look no further than Chain of Command.
Comments