PDA

View Full Version : TRACKS OF GLORY?



Gunner
12-04-2013, 16:35
After watching an episode of Greatest Tank Battles, I wonder if Ares has entertained the thought of using their system for tank warfare.

Along side of enjoying WWI dogfights and Napoleonic naval warfare, I like anything to do with WWII tank battles.
And the cards would be on dry land, not water or up in the air.

Many models and countries to choose from, very appealing to the eye and I would think doable with the Company they are using.

I would contribute to another KS with pleasure.:beer:

7eat51
12-04-2013, 16:42
I'm in. When do we start?

Ed, my first four wargames were Richthofen's War, Tobruk, WS&IM, and Waterloo, RW being the first. Almost 40 years later, I am collecting WoG, SoG, and A&A armor/infantry/artillery minis. What is that I see on the horizon, Grenadiers of the French Imperial Guard? To this day, I prefer WWI aviation, AoS, and WWII armor - all tactical. I don't think it would take much to rekindle Napoleonic land given my increased interest in ACW.

csadn
12-04-2013, 18:04
So long as they don't call the Infantry version _Holes of Glory_.... ;)

On a serious note: I don't really see why they'd need a [n]oG system to maneuver tanks -- they're not that fast, and handling isn't exactly a big deal.

Gunner
12-04-2013, 18:17
Mr. optimistic is at it again.

RichardPF
12-04-2013, 19:27
So long as they don't call the Infantry version _Holes of Glory_.... ;)

On a serious note: I don't really see why they'd need a [n]oG system to maneuver tanks -- they're not that fast, and handling isn't exactly a big deal.

I'm with Chris on this.
A vehicle with a revolving gun turret and tracks that can run in opposite directions from each other simultaneously probably does not need this movement system.

Gunner
12-04-2013, 20:15
I'm with Chris on this.
A vehicle with a revolving gun turret and tracks that can run in opposite directions from each other simultaneously probably does not need this movement system.

That's what I get for not thinking it through. Forgot about the turret. You guys are right.:drinks:
Sorry Chris.:cry:

Old Ironsides
12-04-2013, 21:22
Sorry, I just do not see this one working. There are already many viable games that include tanks. In most cases tanks were part of the combined arms concept so seperating tanks, Infantyr and even Artillery does not really work for me.

David Manley
12-05-2013, 00:32
I don't see this either. The card manoeuvre system is good, but its like wave piercing catamarans and surface effect ships - good at what its good for, lousy in many other applications.

Berthier
12-05-2013, 01:25
The card system applied to land combat is tricky for all the reasons mentioned, however I could see it working for Renaissance peirod with tercios, ancients with phalanxes etc. However there are plenty of very good systems for these periods already so the need for another in a crowded market is pretty low and the wide scale appeal of those periods might also be insufficient.

The game system appears to work best in non terrestrial (land) games, thus at sea, in the air and in space all of which have now been released in one form or another. There may be scope for further naval period games as mentioned by others, but given that SOG hasnt even hit the "real" marketplace yet to judge if it is a successful product, a long time is going to pass before they would consider going down that road.

Capn Duff
12-05-2013, 04:31
Do you not think the card system would work for linear tactics land game?, WAS, WSS, 7YW?

Berthier
12-05-2013, 05:34
Chris
Yes I think it could work for this period of regimented movement by formation, linear battle lines etc. The difficulties of accounting for terrain or buildings, redoubts etc could be overcome, gradients of land could be dealt with similarly to how SOG deals with sail settings, a different movement arrow for rising/falling terrain, artillery could be also handled relatively easily as could line of sight.

Command and control would not require a great deal of innovation either, the main problem I would see would be unit density. All the games based around this system have low unit density, SOG will work best with maybe up to 4 ships aside before becoming complex to manage, WOW similarly shines with smaller numbers of aircraft and requires multiple players for larger battles. Doing a 7yw battle as a skirmish could be designed but a full battle could be more challenging. At this level, the best systems in terms of playability and "fun" I've played have been the ANcient Battles/Memoir/Napoleonic Battles/Battle cry system all derived from Borg's game system and all usuable with minis or blocks. 7YW or WAuS etc would also work under that system and would be easy to get into but the periods are not as well known so may have smaller appeal. One of the things about Ares designs is they do try to have a mas market appeal in as much as any "wargame" can.

Capn Duff
12-05-2013, 10:58
Yes I agree, the cards would solve the, wheel and facing of regiments, arrows length for difficult terrain perhaps.
What I don't see is, as you say , number of units controllable, it would mean a large number of decks I suppose which would make it non viable.

Diamondback
12-05-2013, 11:55
With a mechanized ground game, your variables take three forks:

Propulsion:
->Wheeled vehicles (including half-tracks) are limited by turn rates and speed, and have to move to turn. Linear movement means existing WOG system works here.
->Fully-tracked vehicles, since they can do 360's in one spot, can move anywhere within a certain distance of their center dot as long as it's within a certain arc from centerline either front or rear, representing rate of turn.

Weaponry mount:
->Fixed weapons get a narrow fire arc, a la WOG.
->Turrets get a broader arc, representing variable traverse rates.
->Swivel guns, like AA .50s on vehicle tops, can fire anywhere within range.

Weapon type:
->Direct-fire weapons fire as normal, anywhere up to maximum range.
->Indirect-fire weapons (artillery pieces, mortars, howitzers, Katyusha/Nebelwerfer/Calliope) have a Minimum and a Maximum range. Unless it's documented to have had DF capability, then it can fire as normal.

Gunner
12-05-2013, 12:49
The way everyone is thinking this out, maybe there can be a way. I can almost envision a game on a ping pong sized table with shrubs and markers(for ambush) with rolling hills and using a one card setup.

fredmiracle
12-05-2013, 13:05
Since not a WoG player, I'm still waiting to try the system. But I like the idea of use with formation based pre-20th-century battles. It seems like cards work when there are a specific number of "maneuvers" available and a significant element of preplanning and lag time. Both seem true of, say, Napoleonic land battles. Done well, it might be that cards would encourage historically-minded tactical play

Thinking about the feasibility question, one comment about battles of that period is that individual regiments were (I think) not maneuvering around on their own all that much. Normally it would be, what, brigades or divisions as the maneuver units? So perhaps that fact could be used to make it more tractable (?)--you could issue a card for the entire brigade or division and all regiments would need to follow it within certain tolerances? And maybe you need to preplan cards (like in the SoG standard game) to represent the challenges of exerting command control on such a battlefield. Again maybe allowing some some scope for unit initative in response to unexpected situations or special leadership heroics?

Diamondback
12-05-2013, 13:34
Good point, Fred.

Unrelated note re mechanics: I'd suggest that turret AFV's have hull/turret joined by strong magnets so that turret facing can be retained through any movement, since facing becomes so important--maybe even use the approach a lot of FOW'ers like where a removed turret marks a destroyed vehicle whose hull can still block Line of Fire.

Comte de Brueys
12-05-2013, 14:06
Can't imagine a land battle game with the SoG or WoG movement card system.

Example:

As soon as my King Tiger reaches a good position it will not move anymore. :sly:

The system we use for ships and planes does not know hold-up (anchoring excepted).

Diamondback
12-05-2013, 14:16
Your Konigstiger wouldn't move, all right... because MY P-47 Thunderbolts would rocket, bomb and strafe it into scrapmetal.

:p

Non-moving Move phases could be solved with either a verbal "I'm Staying Put" or a "No Move" move card.

David Manley
12-05-2013, 14:21
Your Konigstiger wouldn't move, all right... because MY P-47 Thunderbolts would rocket, bomb and strafe it into scrapmetal.

or its broken down........

:happy:

Gunner
12-05-2013, 14:23
Can't imagine a land battle game with the SoG or WoG movement card system.

Example:

As soon as my King Tiger reaches a good position it will not move anymore. :sly:[/I]).

Until it's outflanked by a couple of T-74/85's.

csadn
12-05-2013, 17:02
Do you not think the card system would work for linear tactics land game?, WAS, WSS, 7YW?

Ten steps ahead of you -- I already have some rules for exactly that. Each card is a "regiment" (tho' it could be smaller -- witness ACW Union "regiments" with fewer than 200 men); one side is "column" (Marching -- movement, no fire), the other "line" (Combat -- fire, no movement). Swapping from one to the other takes one turn -- the player need only flip the card over. :)

DeRuyter
12-06-2013, 09:53
Until it's outflanked by a couple of T-74/85's.

or 10 Shermans...:cannon:

Comte de Brueys
12-06-2013, 10:16
Nice try comrades.

Ask him for a solution of those threats.

Even if he commanded only a Tiger I. :wink:

Diamondback
12-06-2013, 10:25
Ah, just gimme a sniper rifle. SS bastard's gotta poke his head out of the hatch sometime... and when he does he's getting a .30-06 Springfield right between the eyes.

Sorry, old family grudge-match--killing SS was one of Uncle Frank's specialties along with his little piece of the 71st Infantry's advance section. Just wish that, like my grandfather's, a Dracking Frunk relative hadn't swiped and hocked his service sidearm for rotgut money.

Comte de Brueys
12-06-2013, 12:44
Good that Uncle Frank survived his special hobby. :wink:

Normaly Waffen-SS units were no fun to fight against, but the Yankees learned the business in North Africa, Sicilly & Italy and were no easy targets, too. :salute:

My grandfather (mother's side) fought 1944 as a part of the regular Panzertruppe in a Panzer IV versus the Allies in France and the Russians in Czech territory.

I have a picture from him with graves of German Panzermänner buried beside a GI. A good example how soliders honored the fallen of both sides.

Diamondback
12-06-2013, 13:27
Sven, there were both honorable and dishonorable men on all sides--your grandfather, the Japanese ace who refused to attack a hospital-ship C-47 evacuating wounded and medical personnel despite standing orders... IMO, one of the greatest tragedies possible is when evil forces good men to kill one another.

There are few occasions when rejoicing in another's death are appropriate, but I would argue the SS guarding Mauthausen satellite Gunskirchen Lager when he and his unit hit them deserve no mourning--candidly, I consider the storming and liberation of that camp my family's finest hour.

And for the record, I do acknowledge that there's a lot of "gray" in the SS--some of Waffen-SS were simply elite units, sullied by their association with criminals like Himmler and Sepp Dietrich and having to share a banner with the Totenkopf and the Einsatzgruppen. And on the other hand, you have fighter pilot Erich Hartmann, convicted as a war-criminal in unindicted war-criminal Stalin's kangaroo-court for the sole crime of being better than anyone the VVS could throw at him.

The ideal ETO solution, Diamondback's way: Lock Hitler and Stalin in a room, only one man's leaving--and the winner gets a bayonet in the gut anyway.

csadn
12-06-2013, 17:12
Nice try comrades.

Ask him for a solution of those threats.

Even if he commanded only a Tiger I. :wink:

http://bestgamewallpapers.com/files/rush-for-berlin/sherman-firefly.jpg

>:)


And for the record, I do acknowledge that there's a lot of "gray" in the SS--some of Waffen-SS were simply elite units, sullied by their association with criminals like Himmler and Sepp Dietrich and having to share a banner with the Totenkopf and the Einsatzgruppen. And on the other hand, you have fighter pilot Erich Hartmann, convicted as a war-criminal in unindicted war-criminal Stalin's kangaroo-court for the sole crime of being better than anyone the VVS could throw at him.

Recommended Reading: _Die Wacht am Rhein_, Tom Kratman. (In order to save the planet from alien invaders, Germany is forced to "rejuvenate" WW2 vets -- including former SS. The rule is: Any unit which has an actual specific War Crime on its record is excluded from rejuv and reconstitution; so, for ex., 2nd SS Panzer personnel are excluded for Oradour-sur-Glane, and Tulle. The rest -- "the only way out of this unit is Feet First". Herr Oberst has a talent for Ironic Punishment.... >:) )

Andy Blozinski
12-06-2013, 19:04
We knew a guy that got picked to be on Hitler's bodyguard after Operation Valkyrie., He said they all thought Himmler was a weenie. Not his choice of words, but that's the sum of it.

7eat51
12-06-2013, 21:10
I was just looking at this book on amazon about an hour ago, reading some of the reviewer's comments. I am contemplating getting it. Has anyone read it, and if so, any thoughts?

Black Edelweiss: A Memoir of Combat and Conscience by a Soldier of the Waffen-SS

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Edelweiss-Conscience-Soldier-Waffen-SS/dp/0966638980/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386385759&sr=8-1&keywords=black+edelweiss

Пилот
12-08-2013, 19:57
...
My grandfather (mother's side) fought 1944 as a part of the regular Panzertruppe in a Panzer IV versus the Allies in France and the Russians in Czech territory.
...
Then he missed to meet mine grandparents... They fought in Yugoslavia only :salute:

Пилот
12-25-2013, 06:11
Btw, what about fantasy range, "Fangs of Glory"? You know, werewolves and stuff :wink:

David Manley
12-25-2013, 06:25
Btw, what about fantasy range, "Fangs of Glory"? You know, werewolves and stuff :wink:

"Fangs of Gory" perhaps? :thumbsup:

Uthoroc
12-25-2013, 06:53
How about aerial dragon warfare - could even be an add-on to Sails of Glory (Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeraire_(series)), anyone)? Breath of Glory?

GrouperKicker
12-25-2013, 08:32
How about aerial dragon warfare - could even be an add-on to Sails of Glory (Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeraire_(series)), anyone)? Breath of Glory?

Oh my! That would be fan-freakin-tastic. Hmm... I think that I need to start searching for some small scale dragon miniatures.

7eat51
12-25-2013, 09:20
How about aerial dragon warfare - could even be an add-on to Sails of Glory (Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeraire_(series)), anyone)? Breath of Glory?

Flames of Glory?

David Manley
12-25-2013, 09:41
How abowritten a set of rules for aerial dragon warfare - could even be an add-on to Sails of Glory (Temeraire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeraire_(series)), anyone)? Breath of Glory?

I did read that someone had written a set of rules for dragons to use with Form Line of Battle, so there's some ideas on this already on the Internet if you hunt around a bit :happy:

7eat51
12-25-2013, 09:52
I did read that someone had written a set of rules for dragons to use with Form Line of Battle, so there's some ideas on this already on the Internet if you hunt around a bit :happy:

Do you know what scale they used? Did they incorporate weather elements like wind, fog, or in urban settings smaug?

Diamondback
12-25-2013, 11:23
Freudian slip, Eric? Smaug was IIRC a dragon from The Hobbit, while smog is urban air...

:P

7eat51
12-25-2013, 12:05
Freudian slip, Eric? Smaug was IIRC a dragon from The Hobbit, while smog is urban air...

:P

As they say, A Freudian slip is when you say one thing, but mean a mother.

Nightmoss
12-25-2013, 13:12
You can stop now. :bleh: :please: :erk:

csadn
12-25-2013, 16:04
Btw, what about fantasy range, "Fangs of Glory"? You know, werewolves and stuff :wink:

I figured to include that in the followup packs. :)

Mizzen
12-25-2013, 23:28
With a mechanized ground game, your variables take three forks:

Propulsion:
->Wheeled vehicles (including half-tracks) are limited by turn rates and speed, and have to move to turn. Linear movement means existing WOG system works here.
->Fully-tracked vehicles, since they can do 360's in one spot, can move anywhere within a certain distance of their center dot as long as it's within a certain arc from centerline either front or rear, representing rate of turn.

Weaponry mount:
->Fixed weapons get a narrow fire arc, a la WOG.
->Turrets get a broader arc, representing variable traverse rates.
->Swivel guns, like AA .50s on vehicle tops, can fire anywhere within range.

Weapon type:
->Direct-fire weapons fire as normal, anywhere up to maximum range.
->Indirect-fire weapons (artillery pieces, mortars, howitzers, Katyusha/Nebelwerfer/Calliope) have a Minimum and a Maximum range. Unless it's documented to have had DF capability, then it can fire as normal.

Would the tank crew be another?

Diamondback
12-25-2013, 23:33
Indeed, Kelly--I was just trying to work out the basic vehicle mechanics--crew qualities could be handled by something like the WGF Aces or SGN Capt/Crew Decks.

Andy Blozinski
12-29-2013, 09:11
With a mechanized ground game, your variables take three forks:

->Fully-tracked vehicles, since they can do 360's in one spot, can move anywhere within a certain distance of their center dot as long as it's within a certain arc from centerline either front or rear, representing rate of turn.

That's not actually true. Some tanks have completely independent track control and can rotate on the spot just as you have stated. Other tanks have constant drive to both tracks in the same direction and you can only break one track to drag yourself around. They do have a turning arc. The practical difference in results becomes more prominent as your speed reduces. The track break tanks cannot rotate on the spot. They are harder to load on to transports as a result.

PilGrim
12-31-2013, 12:13
I can't see how you could handle the log ranges tank actions would need to model in relation to the unit \ card size

Nice idea though

Gunner
12-31-2013, 12:23
No more so than WGF or WGS.

PilGrim
12-31-2013, 12:33
Hardly, air to air ranges are usually quite low - 200yds or less - 50yds was quoted as about close enough by many aces. Tank vs tank engagement ranges are many times that, anything up to 3000yds in extremis - the Poles at the Mace reported losing tanks at that sort of range, although most actions were more in the region of 1000yds depending on terrain - often less of course. Air combat covers the distances at 300+mph, tanks are lucky to do a tenth of that, so you have a situation where the tanks are firing ten times farther than the planes and moving ten times as slow. Even worse, most anti tank ammunition penetration drops off with range so you would probably need several range bands.

Gunner
12-31-2013, 13:00
There you go, using logic again.:beer: