Critical opinion about tanks

More
7 years 8 months ago #456 by Decebalus
This is a little comment, i have posted on BGG. Maybe interesting here.
---
We now have played scenarios 119 to 134, so my comment is based on some experience. From these 16 scenarios only one was won by the side without tanks! I thin, i really now have a basis to say: tanks in Great War are to strong.

What is the problem?
1st. Tanks are nearly indestructable. Every hit on a tank has to be confirmed with only 1/6th chance. In the open a close range attack of an infantry unit on another infantry unit will kill 2 men, so needs two rounds to kill the unit. An infantry unit in close range against a tank makes 1/6th damage(3*2/6th*1/6) so it needs 12 rounds against an Mk VII. Even considerung that you get 2 VPs, these are very hard to get. - I differ from other comments, that this is the real problem, see below.

2nd. Tanks are too deadly. A tank has 4 dice in Close Combat, because of Tankschreck the enemy will usually flee, the tank will follow up and (if he doenst bog) will get another close combat. Thats 8 dice per activation.

3rd. Tanks are to fast. A tank can (usually) go 4 hexes. 2 hexes normal and 2 hexes follow up. That makes it impossible to avoid tanks. In the end tanks in Great War act like Heavy Cavalry in C&C Napoleonic, breaking through the lines with rapid movement.

4th. Tanks dont bog enough. Obvioulsy bogging was thougth to limit the other problems described. Bogging stops the sweeping movements. Bogging stops the additional combat. Bogging gives you more dice in confirmation. After all games played, i can only say: tanks dont bog enough, and if the do, they are very simple back in the game.

5th. Tanks are to random. Great War is a very luck dependable game. No problem with me. But with tanks this is multiplyed. Confirmation roll and bogging roll makes results absolutely unpredictable. In the one game i won with germans, i had two bursts on a confirmation roll - lucky me. I also had whole games with no failed bogging roll.

I differ from other critics, that point 1 is the most important. IMO it is the speed of the tanks, that makes them the big problem. So for me, making the tanks more vulnerable isnt the best solution for a house rule to make Tanks playable.

At the moment i think, limiting the follow up (and so the second combat) would be the best solution. Maybe using an additional bogging die, if you have to test, would be a good house rule.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #465 by Asroc2000
One of the many great features of the Commands and Colors system games is that scenarios do not have to be balanced, since the game is designed to be played as a two game match, changing sides after each scenario ends, even if the tank is too powerful as you suggest, it will be just as powerful for you next game as it was for the opponent last game.

And of course there are plenty of scenarios with no tanks, and a few with tanks on both sides. I imagine that the future expansions will also add plenty of other non tank scenarios too, and no doubt player designed ones will be forthcoming too.

With match play style, you don't even have to play the same scenarios back to back, thought the appeal of setting up the board once for 2 games has its benefits :)
What I have done in the past, is play a number of scenarios from one side, them sometime later when all is forgotten play them again from the other side, it is interesting to see how different the results can be.

I have played C&C-A, C&C-N, BC(original), BL(original) and Mem'44, and with a lot of experience with the system you also realize that some days, no matter how good your tactics, the cards or the dice or both will go against you, and nothing you do will make any difference. There is a lot of randomness in the system, and tanks, with their all or nothing nature and high unit point value do perhaps make this more obvious.

I will revisit this later when I have played through more of the tank scenarios.

There is also the VP for recon cards often in effect when defending against tanks, which tends to make the attacking player take more chances with movement, and if they push too far on their own and get bogged down near infantry, I suspect they will have a more difficult time.

Personally, if I wanted things to be fair and square I'd play chess or draughts, but we are all different :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #478 by Astavar
If my brain serves me well, from a historical point of view, those tanks were a very hard nutshell to crack in reality indeed, and so were rightly feared. But as soon, as they achieved the breakthrough, they often were sitting ducks, and not being fast or hard enough to maintain a fight behind the enemy lines, the Whippet tanks were created for this.
As I see it, the game models this admirably well. And so I tend to ignore and flee those tanks normally, as long as they are not key to victory. Two victory points is often not worth the fight the put up.
But from a gamey point of view, I sorely and absolutely have to claim that the OP is really right. So my opinion´s a bit split.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #482 by Mark-McG
I've moderated my opinion on Tanks slightly as I've played with them more. I certainly think that Tanks vs Infantry are very hard to destroy, and to an extent the best option is to stay in terrain that causes bogging down.

However, once the artillery and tank vs tank battles come into play, and also more experience, then tanks seem to be far more vulnerable. So I think the tank rules need to be judged in the context of the later war scenarios, rather than the 1916 scenarios.

I suspect there will be a similar experience with Stosstruppen.

"Feed the troops on victory"- Gen. Sir John Monash

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #483 by Astavar
Oho! Stosstruppen?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #484 by Decebalus
@asroc2000: I never talked about fairness. My argument is about unhistorical fast and deadly.

@astavar: How do you flee a tank, that has movement 3 hexes? I have tried fleeing and in the end, i used my command cards for fleeing, whereas the british player used his for following up and fighting. Guess who won the game.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 8 months ago #488 by Astavar
Certainly you won... ;)
No, you can only flee, using terrain for cover, that helps bogging down the tanks. Every other attempt at fleeing will be for naught. That´s true.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 6 months ago #509 by Decebalus
After some test games we have a house rule that is very simple and solves all problems i had:

- Tanks bog with a deadly die or a burst symbol.

Everything else is unchanged.
This rule makes tanks slower and less deadly. It makes is necessary to support tanks with infantry. All good things. Give it a try.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.300 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum