Micro Armor In Sf Bay Area

[Mk 1]

(cont'd)

 

Now it is the Colin's turn to try to withdraw.

 

But of course Tiger's are not optimized for running. They are not faster than T-34s, much less faster than 76.2mm AP rounds, and their backsides are even MORE vulnerable.

 

The last Tiger turns to make his stand. It was a brief and futile gesture.

 

C.G. managed to sneak off the base of the board to the north with his remaining Pz III, while Colin managed the same with his surviving Pz IV.

 

The bells rang in Moscow that evening. I hope a good time was had by all.

 

This was a test game of the ODGW rules. We started with the "basic" rules, with only three of us. We found them playable, but not entirely satisfying. Two issues bothered us -- while range affected the accuracy of guns, range seemed to have no impact on the penetration of an AP round; and it was entirely too easy to be killed when you were in an ambush position. To this latter point, C.G. positioned a Pz III to watch the logging road, but Manic was able to crest the rise and kill the Pz III before it got a shot off. We all agreed that was what the rules provided for, and also that it was not reasonable.

 

So at that point we switched to the advanced rules. We found these to be quite a bit more satisfying. Range affected both accuracy and penetration. And vehicles in overwatch got reaction fire to targets that entered their observed zones. With that, we found that C.G. was able to pick-off one of Manic's T-34s as they crossed the road. The reaction-fire mechanism gives these rules a capability similar to one of the strong points of Mobius' rules -- namely that a stationary unit (on overwatch) will shoot up a unit that tries to charge it.

 

I like the Eastern Front from 41 to 43 as a test of wargaming rules. It is hard for rules makers to reconcile the strength of Soviet tanks with the actual results of that period. I find too many rulesets that discount Soviet armor and guns. I found that these rules fit my own notions better than most -- Soviet armor was strong, Soviet guns were adequate, particularly at close range. But there is much room in these rules to replicate German successes, as every shot starts with a base number set according to crew quality, which is then modified by the details of the gun, the ammunition, and the situation.

 

In our game the German tanks shot more accurately, and more often, than the Soviet tanks did. But the battlefield was small, and the fighting took place at close quarters, where the Soviets' number carried the day. On the open steppe, it might have been a very different story. So we have more reason to play again, and soon!

 

I hope some of the participants will offer their views too.

 

-Mark 1

[Colin Williams]

If it hadn't been for that one lousy misfire (gotta keep the slave labor out of the 88mm production plants), our Tigers would have wiped out the whole regiment of T34s!

[Mk 1]

If it hadn't been for that one lousy misfire (gotta keep the slave labor out of the 88mm production plants), our Tigers would have wiped out the whole regiment of T34s!

Yeah. To tell you the truth, I'm still not sure about that.

 

Even at 100 yards, I don't see any reason that a T-34 should be punching through a Tiger's front armor, unless maybe if he's not shooting HVAP (and even then it should be rather unlikely).

 

Side armor at <300 yards, yeah I can see it. Should be unlikely, but at least possible. Front? I just don't think so. Only if it hits the MG ball, driver's visor, co-ax, or gunner's direct sight. That should be about what ... a 5% chance or less? And even then, those would probably be "suppress" results while the panzermen re-organize around a wounded crewman, rather than a kill.

 

We might need to up the Tiger's front armor or something.

 

-Mark 1

[Manic Moran]

For the sake of it, I fired up Combat Mission, it rates the 76.2/42 as penetrating about 75mm at 300m with blunt APBC, not enough to beat a Tiger's 102mm at 8 degrees.

 

Speaking of data which we were pondering, the KV-1/1941 is listed as having 100mm up front the turret and 75+20mm @30 degrees on the glacis.

 

NTM

[C.G.Erickson]

While I don't object to the 15% chance of a 76.2mm chance of knocking out a Tiger from the front, I do object to Vlad rolling a 1 out of 20 to knock out said Tiger...LOL

 

German Armament Producers, in designing the Tiger, stated it was to defeat Russian 76.2, as per Waffenmant criteria. Which it did sucessfully.

 

What everyone needs to put into perspective is....A new rule-set was gamed, with the resulting glitches to be debated...

 

Michael, The Bomber you sent in Absentia, while looking good, did nothing to help the Fascist cause...I personally wanted to hang Il Duce myself...LOL

 

C.G.

[Mk 1]

I looked over the Mein Panzer rules regarding the frontal shots on the Tiger again.

 

The rules give the Tiger a frontal armor value of 11. (11 what is not specified.)

 

The rules give the T-34's 76.2mm gun an AP value of 8. (Again no details on 8 what.)

 

If I look through the other stats, I get the impression that the units used are centimeters of vertical RHA equivelance. Using that hypothesis, the rules provide the Tiger (~10 cm glacis and nose) with 11 cm RHA equivelant protection. That extra bonus could be due to the superior quality of Tiger armor, or it could be an averaging with the turret front, which should have ~12 to 16cm equivelant depending on which part. By comparison, the Pz IIIL rates 7 frontal armor, which reads well on this hypothesis as 7cm RHA.

 

Penetration of 8 cm for the Soviet 76.2mm seems about right.

 

Except ... the rules give a +2 to the penetration for being under 100 yards range.

 

So we had a setting of 10 penetration vs. 11 armor, for a damage value of -1. Reading on the -1 line and making a reasonably lucky throw, a kill was achieved. We mark the tank with flames, but the rules don't specify that it brewed-up, only that it was out of action. Maybe the drive sprocket was shot off and the crew abandoned it, maybe the round went through the MG mount, the co-driver, and the gunner. We don't know. We only know it was out of action.

 

I don't think it was too far off. But I do think it was a bit off. Given the +2 add for close range, I'm thinking that the T-34's (and KV's) gun may be a bit over-rated. Maybe better as a 7 than an 8, since most test data places the BR-350A or B at somewhere between 92 to 74mm of vertical RHA penetration at ranges of 100 to 500 yards/meters. I've never seen any data suggesting it could penetrate 100mm RHA at any range.

 

And the Tiger may be better served by a frontal value of 12 rather than 11. I'm less certain on that, as I don't know how the "average" value of a facing (combining all aspects from the facing) is computed in these rules.

 

Maybe next time we should try these mods and see if we like it better.

 

-Mark 1

[Mobius]

Penetration of 8 cm for the Soviet 76.2mm seems about right. 

309381[/snapback]

At what range?

 

Except ... the rules give a +2 to the penetration for being under 100 yards range.

For every gun? Does all shell penetration increase or falloff at the same rate?

You probably shouldn't mess with the Tiger armor. If the drop off is wrong tweak that.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Mobius

[ShotMagnet]

Do the rules allow for an unlikely kill (like putting it through a vision-slit, or something similar)?

 

 

Shot

[Mobius]

Do the rules allow for an unlikely kill (like putting it through a vision-slit, or something similar)?

Shot

309388[/snapback]

I think a number of them do. Mine allows for a possible penetration value that is double the normal value one in 36 hits.

 

The single armor value for an entire aspect leads to problems too. Like the Tiger going hull down would let the stronger turret take the hits. But if a Mk VI went hull down its weak turret would be what was being hit. With one value they wouldn't change. And if something is hull down with a turret facing different than the hull what value to use? Like to old WRG system.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Mobius

[Mk 1]

At what range?

 

For every gun?  Does all shell penetration increase or falloff at the same rate?

You probably shouldn't mess with the Tiger armor.  If the drop off is wrong tweak that.

With these rules each gun gets an AP value. That value is modified by range, and by shell quality.

 

So a Soviet 76.2mm gun gets 8. Less than 300 yards is a +1. Less than 100 yards is a +2. More than 600 or 900 yards (don't have it in front of me ATM) is a -1. etc. etc.

 

All ammunition has the same chart, but "low quality" AP rounds have different modifier values from "high quality" AP rounds. Rounds smaller than 57mm have a different modifiers. HVAP and APDS have different modifiers. HEAT is unmodified (but spaced armor gets a different value against HEAT).

 

So to the question, all guns of 57mm or higher caliber, with equivelant ammunition type, fall off at the same rate. There is no provision within the structure for making modifications for a specific gun, other than by adjusting the base number or choosing the ammo type.

 

Clearly there is not as much fine distinction, nor as much tuning, as is possible with Panzer War. But the shooting goes much faster. One role to hit, one role for damage, and the modifiers are few enough that within the first game we were starting to go from memory.

 

-Mark 1

[Mk 1]

Do the rules allow for an unlikely kill (like putting it through a vision-slit, or something similar)?

Yes, this in included, but in abstract. All we know is that with a very good die role you get a kill where you would not have expected it. So, when your penetration value is less than the armor value, you have a 10%, or maybe a 5%, chance of a kill. You don't know that you clipped off the cupola (and the TC's head) and freaked out the crew. You don't know that you hit the barrel of the gun near the mantlet just as the loader was shoving a round up the breach. You don't know that you hit the mantlet and drove the co-ax through the gunner's chest and into the TC's pelvis. All you know is that you got a lucky hit, and he is out of action.

 

The single armor value for an entire aspect leads to problems too.  Like the Tiger going hull down would let the stronger turret take the hits.  But if a Mk VI went hull down its weak turret would be what was being hit.   With one value they wouldn't change.  And if something is hull down with a turret facing different than the hull what value to use? 

The difference between hull-down protection for a Tiger and a Pz IVg is a very good example of the kind of distinction these rules lack, and is a weakness.

 

The counter comment is that we were able to actually see the flow of the battle, with platoons maneuvering for position, taking chances, taking casualities, regrouping, and advancing or withdrawing. All in about 7 hours of play. With Panzer War (which, BTW, most of us agree is a tour de force for its ability to capture the technical details of armored combat), we have gone through several 12 hour games where we never saw what happened after the first exchange of fire.

 

Like to old WRG system.

I agree that it is a weakeness of Mein Panzer, but I would not say that it equates to the WRG system. WRG used D6s for everything. Unlikely events are at most a 1 in 6 chance. That means that unlikely events are either too likely, or that they can not be adjudicated, and so are absent from the game. While the choice of dice may seem a trivial matter, it really changes the complexion of the game.

 

Our battle involved 26 tanks on one side versus 16 tanks on the other, 42 total, with most of the combat taking place between about 30 of those tanks. With several tanks taking multiple shots, we had perhaps 60 or 80 shots taken in the engagement. This was a relatively small battle, yet we should absolutely expect to see some things happen that have less than 1 in 6 probability of occuring. Some of those occurances, like the Tiger's gun jamming and the T-34 getting a lucky hit, can change the game.

 

These rules use D20 for everything. So you have the opportunity to adjudicate events with likelyhoods down to 5% ( + a point or two). That seems to be a reasonable balance between playability and detail to me.

 

As I noted, the game board was small (1200 x 2400 yards), the units were small (no one player had more than 8 tanks), and it was tank-vs-tank only. With those conditions Panzer War also would have played notably faster than what we experienced during our past games.

 

That said, after more than a year of playing with Panzer War I was never able to go through a shooting sequence without the rulebook open in front of me. With Mein Panzer, about two hours into our first experience with the "Advanced Rules", we were flowing right along thinking about how we wanted to maneuver our tanks, rather than trying to remember which die to use and how to read the damage chart for an front-engine vehicle penetrated from the side by an AP with HE filler.

 

We'll have to see how we feel after another game or two, as we add infantry and artillery, and scale up our battle boards.

 

-Mark 1

[Mobius]

I agree that it is a weakeness of Mein Panzer, but I would not say that it equates to the WRG system.  WRG used D6s for everything.  Unlikely events are at most a 1 in 6 chance. 

309438[/snapback]

I mean in the case of hull and turret being showing different aspects. There was some odd rule in WRG that tried to handle this for hull down.

 

Of course its faster than Panzer war. There's just one number per gun.

And all guns drop off at the same rate. I have to admit there is a steep learning curve for PW. It not an easy game.

 

42

Edited April 13, 2006 by Mobius

[Guest bojan]

Don't forget that there was a HVAP ammo for a F-34/ZiS-5 guns on the T-34/KV - it could penetrate tigers front on a good day at some small range (IIRC ~100-200m).

[Mk 1]

Don't forget that there was a HVAP ammo for a F-34/ZiS-5 guns on the T-34/KV - it could penetrate tigers front on a good day at some small range (IIRC ~100-200m).

Yes, as mentioned earlier the rules provide for HVAP ammo.

 

We chose, in our game, to provide HVAP for the Pz IIIL's 50mm gun, and the T-70's 45mm gun, but not for the T-34's or KV's 76.2mm guns.

 

Oddly, the game gives better penetration to the Soviet 45mm HVAP than the Soviet 76.2mm HVAP. I have not looked in to those projectiles to judge whether this is reasonable. My suspicion is that the 45mm tank gun is being confused with the longer and more capable 45mm m1942 AT gun.

 

-Mark 1

[Michael Eastes]

Michael, The Bomber you sent in Absentia, while looking good, did nothing to help the Fascist cause...I personally wanted to hang Il Duce myself...LOL

 

C.G.

309207[/snapback]

 

Sorry, comrade, but that aircraft has had a PCS to another front. I no longer have command authority over it. Perhaps you could have an SD "morale assurance" officer assigned to the crew. On the other hand, how many other Axis aircraft were over the battlefield that day?

 

Regarding hanging Il Duce, it's a done deal. If you were sufficiently angry, he does have living relatives, although the one I've seen I'd be more likely to want to hang around with, than to hang.

 

Those terrain boards look great, by the way. So do all the minis.

 

Mark, which rules were we using the night of the I&I Glorious Italian Fantasy Victory Game?

[Mk 1]

Mark, which rules were we using the night of the I&I Glorious Italian Fantasy Victory Game?

We were using Mobius' Panzer War rules.

 

-Mark 1

[Tim the Tank Nut]

If a T34 got a lucky hit apparently the tank crew did have an HVAP round that you just didn't know they had. Give them a commendation for being prepared...

[Mk 1]

If a T34 got a lucky hit apparently the tank crew did have an HVAP round that you just didn't know they had.  Give them a commendation for being prepared...

Or shoot them for unauthorized use of state property!

 

We'll decide after we see how long they survive in combat. We hate to convict dead war heroes, but we have no objection to giving out medals postumously.

 

-Mark 1

[Harold Jones]

It was fun and moved a lot faster than I'm used to for a miniatures game. I prefer abstraction to 'realism' since it seems like realism always slows a game to a crawl. A T-34 killing a Tiger from the front occasionally is something I can accept since the rest of the game played out pretty well. Also, I believe we probably missed stuff that may well have prevented that T-34 from getting its shot off in the first place. For instance the reaction rules may have made a big difference in whether that T-34 lived to shoot or not.

 

One thing that does bug me is the no hull down for Soviet tanks rule , granted low hulls and the inability to depress the gun much makes it difficult to find a good hull down but it is still possible.

 

I still liked the rules enough that I bought a copy, I also got the WWII data book. I bought the electronic version so I'll have something to read on the plane tonight as it turns out I'll be spending this week in SJC as well. I've got an idea for playing over the internet and MK1 has one that sounds fairly interesting as well. Also, there is a somewhat local game store that hosts miniatures gaming so I may drift down there one of these Friday nights and see what's going on.

[Mk 1]

It was fun and moved a lot faster than I'm used to for a miniatures game.

This was my great hope for these rules. So far, it looks like a win!

 

Once again, the real test will be with infantry on the table. I'm holding my enthusiasm in reserve primarily because these rules use fire-team basing instead of squad basing. I see that as a disadvantage to combined-arms gaming.

 

With Squad basing (a la Panzer War):

A Soviet WW2 Platoon ~ 3 stands (2 squads rifle + LMG, 1 squad rifle, 1 of those doubles as platoon CO)

A Soviet WW2 Company ~ 17 stands (3 platoons, 3 50mm mortar teams, 4 HMG teams, 1 command squad)

 

With Fire team basing:

A Soviet WW2 Platoon ~ 9 stands (9 rifle teams, 2 LMG teams, 1 command team)

A Soviet WW2 Company ~ 39 stands (3 platoons, 3 50mm mortar teams, 4 HMG teams, 2 command teams)

 

Now, with 10 to 17 units to move in a company of tanks (depending on nation), versus something like 40 units to move in a company of infantry, there is a GREAT risk that adding infantry will slow the game to a crawl.

 

I would REALLY rather see a ruleset which does not provide such strong incentives to ditch infantry. Oh well, them's the breaks.

 

I prefer abstraction to 'realism' since it seems like realism always slows a game to a crawl.

I prefer "realism". But I believe that a flowing battle is PART of the realism. If the details of armor facings and the mechanics of post-penetration damage slow the game to a crawl, they can induce non-realistic results.

 

It is all a balancing act. The Mein Panzer rules seem to be at a better point on the balance, at least after one try.

 

Two things I observed in this game, that give me GREAT HOPE, are 1) that Manic (and others I culd name) started adjudicating combat, and 2) that he had committed several of the modifiers to memory, all by mid-game. He had never even read the rules! But after seeing several shots worked through, he understood the flow well enough, had the "reference sheet" in front of him for any portions of the tables he required, and was ready to adjudicate for his own troops, quite fluidly, on his own. At one point I recall holding him back, to "check his work" so to say, and having it dawn on me that it was ME that was delaying the game, rather than the rules. Hmmm!

 

In fact I think we were crossing a threshold. I see this as a necessary pre-condition for getting up to battalion / multi-battalion sized games. Once there are fifty or seventy units on a side (infantry included or not), it is NOT possible to have all combat resolved by one umpire or one pair of (opposing) umpires. We will need to have combats resolved by those players whose pieces are involved, in various multiple areas of the board, simultaneously.

 

With a little luck, we may get to the point were we can actually have fun gaming with forces that are reasonably sized, and experiencing some of the tactical challenges that a task force or combat team commander might have seen.

 

So while I have some reservations on the infantry (and still unseen arty) rules, I am very enthusiastic about the results seen in our first game.

 

Of course MORE testing seems to be indicated. More, more, MORE!

 

I still liked the rules enough that I bought a copy, I also got the WWII data book. I bought the electronic version ...

Oh boy! So if we ask REAL nicely, you might be able to give us a bit of info on some vehicles not yet in our charts? One or two more test games, and I may go for the rest of the data packs. But I'd sure like to test 'em a bit more. I'm still chafed over having bought Ritter's rather expensive rules (Schwere Kompanie) only to find that they would play even slower than Mobius' rules if applied to formations larger than a few platoons.

 

Also, there is a somewhat local game store that hosts miniatures gaming so I may drift down there one of these Friday nights and see what's going on.

There is a gaming group in the East Bay (EBAG - "East Bay Armchair Generals" or some such) that meets regularly at a game shop in south Oakland. Right now they don't seem to have any micro-armor gamers. But if a few of us showed up and ran a good game, it might become a more popular and regular event.

 

Or we could just stick with my garage.

(I'll make sure we have a larger stockpile of beer next time!)

 

-Mark 1

[Harold Jones]

This was my great hope for these rules.  So far, it looks like a win!

 

Once again, the real test will be with infantry on the table.  I'm holding my enthusiasm in reserve primarily because these rules use fire-team basing instead of squad basing.  I see that as a disadvantage to combined-arms gaming....

I would REALLY rather see a ruleset which does not provide such strong incentives to ditch infantry.

 

Well it seems that the developers agree. I found this on thread in their support forum

Joel pointed out that he and others (MMGers I believe also) use squad based stands instead of the Half Squad based stands as in the rules. This is fine too. As a matter of fact, in the upcoming revision of the MP Core Rules we will be switching the game to squad based stands from the original half squad stands. We hope that simplifying the infantry rules some, to get them in-line with the tank rules, will make the game run and flow better...

 

 

 

 

 

Or we could just stick with my garage. 

(I'll make sure we have a larger stockpile of beer next time!)

 

Works for me, if I get enough notice for the May trip I might even arrange to provide some beer.

[Mk 1]

Of course MORE testing seems to be indicated. More, more, MORE!

Hello? (pfft) Is this thing on? (tap, tap) HALLO? (pfft, pfft)

 

Attention K-Mart Shopp... oops, no, um ... scratch that.

 

Attention BATN-PPs!

 

Are we up for another game yet?

 

The proposal before us:

 

Date: Sunday, May 7 (a week and a half from now)

Probably be an all-day affair again.

 

Location: CG's place.

He's in Vacaville. If you haven't been there, that's about 3/4 of the way to Sacramento from San Jose, along I-80. We can figure out carpools if folks are interested.

 

Game: We'll return to the Eastern Front. This time we add infantry and artillery. Maybe even command & control (not sure yet).

 

CG has finished a bunch more of his excellent gaming boards. But he has not yet built a proper wrack to transport them. So we'll need to go to his place to use them for now.

 

One advantage, we'll be less likelyt to run out of beer at CG's place! (Sorry 'bout that, boyz. Won't happen again!)

 

Who's in?

 

-Mark 1

[Colin Williams]

Unfortunately, it looks like I will be jetting out of town that day. Bummer.

 

Of course MORE testing seems to be indicated. More, more, MORE!

Hello? (pfft) Is this thing on? (tap, tap) HALLO? (pfft, pfft)

 

Attention K-Mart Shopp... oops, no, um ... scratch that.

 

Attention BATN-PPs!

 

Are we up for another game yet?

 

The proposal before us:

 

Date: Sunday, May 7 (a week and a half from now)

Probably be an all-day affair again.

 

Location: CG's place.

He's in Vacaville. If you haven't been there, that's about 3/4 of the way to Sacramento from San Jose, along I-80. We can figure out carpools if folks are interested.

 

Game: We'll return to the Eastern Front. This time we add infantry and artillery. Maybe even command & control (not sure yet).

 

CG has finished a bunch more of his excellent gaming boards. But he has not yet built a proper wrack to transport them. So we'll need to go to his place to use them for now.

 

One advantage, we'll be less likelyt to run out of beer at CG's place! (Sorry 'bout that, boyz. Won't happen again!)

 

Who's in?

 

-Mark 1

315319[/snapback]

[ShotMagnet]

Deleted. Dammit.

Edited April 28, 2006 by ShotMagnet

[Mk 1]

Deleted. Dammit.

Something to say, that was better left "un-said"?

 

-Mark 1