Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 pancakeonions wrote:
It sounds like it's a bit closer to the X wing experience than say, a deep simulation of tank battles.

That's about what I can handle these days, so I'm guessing it will slot nicely into what limited brain power I have these days.

This, along with your signature, it very important to take to heart I think. Rolling dice is amazing for the spirit, and light games are just as good a heavy ones.

And yes, Armada looks fantastic!

Drop in later and tell us what you think of your investigation / purchase of World of Tanks. Have fun!

GW should make a similar game only for their tanks and publish it in WD. It would fit with their current model of putting their hands in lots of stuff.

Otherwise, wake me when the Moderns come out.....

 Easy E wrote:
GW should make a similar game only for their tanks and publish it in WD. It would fit with their current model of putting their hands in lots of stuff.

Otherwise, wake me when the Moderns come out.....

That would be fun, I’m sure there was a battle report 20 odd years ago in a white dwarf that was about 95 % tanks and such. Think it was space wolves vs traitor catachan guard.

 Easy E wrote:
GW should make a similar game only for their tanks and publish it in WD. It would fit with their current model of putting their hands in lots of stuff.

Otherwise, wake me when the Moderns come out.....

How modern do you want it? (year bracket)

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
GW should make a similar game only for their tanks and publish it in WD. It would fit with their current model of putting their hands in lots of stuff.

Otherwise, wake me when the Moderns come out.....

How modern do you want it? (year bracket)

I suspect he's talking about an updated version of the already existing Modern tanks game that uses the plastic vehicles made for Team Yankee (including Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Wars).

Yup. I am interested in Arab-Israeli Wars specifically but also Cold War Goes Hot too.

I dont see that happening anytime soon sadly.

(and the modern version of Tanks dont exist anylonger either, seems they are going all hands on the WoT fan product)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At2hJmdc_hA

excellent review, honest and intelligent critique. Highlights the poor initiative / movement system to the letter. Seems this was such an opportunity for GF9 to imrove Tanks, and they totally dropped the ball in replace of a lazy, glossy re-skin. We played the original last week again. Such a hard pass.

Mr.Giggles wrote:
So my regular wargaming opponent wants to play Tanks. We both love the scale and the simplicity of the rules. The fact that you can get a full game in, in not much over 30 mins is amazing. I've already got a full 100 point US Sherman platoon and planning to get an Italian platoon as soon as possible. He's doing Germans and Russians.

The point of this thread is to ask if the game has a following here, as I've not seen any threads about it.

It would also be the type of game I could imagine playing at a tournament or other gaming event.

Anyone here playing it and if so, how popular is it in your area?

Thanks

I've played it. I play Flames of War, and it is to Flames of War as Kill Team is to 40k.

The way I approach is is as a board game. I own a bunch of tanks, and all the pieces and cards, and if someone ever wants to play it we just set up and play it. Some people I've played with enjoy it, but mostly they're not "wargamers".

It is not the most tactically deep game, basically a dice chucker, but it is adequately fun if you're just looking for an hour's entertainment.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:



It is not the most tactically deep game, basically a dice chucker, but it is adequately fun if you're just looking for an hour's entertainment.

Kinda the whole idea behind the product.. a lunch break game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Mr.Giggles wrote:
So my regular wargaming opponent wants to play Tanks. We both love the scale and the simplicity of the rules. The fact that you can get a full game in, in not much over 30 mins is amazing. I've already got a full 100 point US Sherman platoon and planning to get an Italian platoon as soon as possible. He's doing Germans and Russians.

The point of this thread is to ask if the game has a following here, as I've not seen any threads about it.

It would also be the type of game I could imagine playing at a tournament or other gaming event.

Anyone here playing it and if so, how popular is it in your area?

Thanks

The way I approach is is as a board game. I own a bunch of tanks, and all the pieces and cards, and if someone ever wants to play it we just set up and play it. Some people I've played with enjoy it, but mostly they're not "wargamers"..

This is true for me as well. I've played it with people who have never seen minis before, never rolled dice in such a fashion. They enjoy it. As for my actual crew, they want more -- even out of a one hour lunch game. Since i own painted tanks and the box set, there's no harm in keeping it. Tanks won't see a lot of table time, however.

 Easy E wrote:
I always thought it would be kind of fun to make a 40K version of TANKS! for the various GW/FW kits bobbing about.

I actually started to do exactly this.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756180.page
Although I wanted a more detailed ruleset than Tanks! and the project petered out, partly because I moved away and lost a group interested in the idea.
I'd probably do it a bit differently now, I've since learnt and experienced more that I feel I could use to improve it.

If you continue the project, you may also want to look at Two Fat Lardies "What a Tanker" for ideas.

 Easy E wrote:
If you continue the project, you may also want to look at Two Fat Lardies "What a Tanker" for ideas.

I looked at it at the time, but didn't really fancy the dice rolling mechanic for the design direction I was going.
I'm also too frugal to buy the rules with no intention to actually use them, so I'm not familiar with the exact rules.

That said, a sort of mash up between that and the mini/event game "Flames of Tanks" was/is tempting as a very simple concept.

IMO games are good if they're either so abstract realism isn't a consideration, or actually realistic enough to give a good account of themselves.
There's an unhappy middleground where you start to hint at realism but fail miserably to actually meet it, which is where Tanks! fits in for me.

I don't think I'll be picking up the project anytime soon though sadly. I've drifted away from 40k into other, better games. Whereas, conversely, my present group's 40k players are more into the game than my last and therefore less open to a homebrewed spin-off.

I recently played World of Tanks (essentially, TANKS! 2nd Ed.) and posted a session report on BGG:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2554812/soviets-against-germans

 Manchu wrote:
I recently played World of Tanks (essentially, TANKS! 2nd Ed.) and posted a session report on BGG:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2554812/soviets-against-germans

A good overview battle.

I especially liked the comment about "breaking the opponents real-life morale"!

I've been collecting the tanks for both the WW2 and WW3 version and got to play the WW3 version recently, doing a 50 pt game as Soviets (T-64 & 2 T-72s) with my son running USA (M1 & 2 M60s).

It really seems like the initiative system is an issue - has anyone found a better way to handle things? I did not enjoy *always* having to move first and end up with my son dictating the flow of the battle.

 Stormonu wrote:
I've been collecting the tanks for both the WW2 and WW3 version and got to play the WW3 version recently, doing a 50 pt game as Soviets (T-64 & 2 T-72s) with my son running USA (M1 & 2 M60s).

It really seems like the initiative system is an issue - has anyone found a better way to handle things? I did not enjoy *always* having to move first and end up with my son dictating the flow of the battle.

You are totally right -- this is the biggest problem with the game. The initiative system has stayed static with the new World of Tanks Release as well. The company had the opportunity to redesign with some innovative vision and they totally dropped the ball.
The new box is a lazy re-skin, with only a few rule tweaks.
I'm sure some home brewed house rule could address it -- but we shouldn't have to with a 2nd edition just released.
I foollishly pre-ordered the game before much info came out, thinking Battlefront would fix the obvioius blunders of the previous incarnation. But, that is placing a lot of
faith in BF / GF9. Not recommended.

Thanks for the reply. That annoys me that Initiative wasn't fixed, and shows there wasn't much thought put into the game side of things (like Wizkid's Attack Wing...).

On initiative, my thought has been to have both sides roll d6 + highest tank's initiative. Alternate moves, with the active player having to move their lowest initiative tanks first.

If the player with advantage has fewer or equal tanks than the other player, he can opt to skip moving - but never skip twice in a row.

For example, player 1 with 5 tanks, player 2 with 3 tanks. Player 2 has advantage.

1st pass
Player 1, moves lowest initiative tank; 4 tanks remain
Player 2, skips. 3 tanks remain

2nd pass
Player 1 moves next lowest initiative tank. 3 tanks remain
Player 2 moves lowest initiative tank. 2 tanks remain

3rd pass
Player 1 moves next lowest initiative tank; 2 tanks remain
Player 2 skips; 2 tanks remains

4th pass
Player 1 moves next lowest initiative tank; 1 remains
Player 2 moves next lowest initiative tank; 1 remains

5th pass
Player 1 moves last tank
Player 2 moves last tank

Move to shooting phase

Or just go full RNG and remove initiative from the tank selection.

Just give all tanks a static nr between 1-6 and roll a dice upon turn activation to find out what tank to move.

Or remove initiative as a system entirely?

I get the theory behind it, you want to represent the ability of some crews and vehicles to react to the situation better than others.
However, this is difficult to do in wargames because sometimes activating first is advantageous, other times it's worse. So 'allowing' better crews to activate first often forces them into a disadvantage.

There may be a nice system to account for that but I can't think of a satisfactory mechanic at the moment.

High skill crews move second and shoot first. However, the requires a Movement and a shooting phase.

I honestly do not recall if TANKS does it that way or if it is simple move/shoot during your activation.

I am vehemently opposed to any alternating activation with separate movement and shooting phases.
It makes my blood boil when you line up a shot and the enemy just drives away. Or you line up a shot on exactly where the enemy was planning to go, so they just change their mind when it's their turn to activate. There is no winning with this mechanic.

I've played it in Killteam and Aeronautica Imperialis and it never makes for a good situation.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I am vehemently opposed to any alternating activation with separate movement and shooting phases.
It makes my blood boil when you line up a shot and the enemy just drives away. Or you line up a shot on exactly where the enemy was planning to go, so they just change their mind when it's their turn to activate. There is no winning with this mechanic.

I've played it in Killteam and Aeronautica Imperialis and it never makes for a good situation.

Fair enough, but the only difference is that the tactics change. instead of lining up a shot where the enemy is, you have to try to anticipate where they are going to be and cover that instead. Just a different way to approach a game.

Another way you could do it is that the Tanks get "ranked" by skill with the player of the lead tank choosing to go top down or bottom up. Alternately, the Tanks could be ranked by crew skill with the units on top acting first and ties giving the player who went last the option to go next or to wait until the next turn. Finally, you just rank them best crew first, with some sort of overwatch mechanic. The easiest is alternate activation with the player with the most tanks going first, but player choice after that.

There are literally 100's of ways to make initiative work in a game like Tanks.

Anticipating where the enemy is going to go doesn't solve anything.
Because they see that you've laid a trap where they *were* going to go, and they go elsewhere instead.

Each of those ideas has significant flaws imo.

Ranked by crew skills with the owner of the highest tank choosing means it's incredibly valuable to have the highest initiative tank, which then imposes it's own abilities on every other tank in the game. Which is a bit strange.

I don't see what the difference between your second alternative and the current system is. Part of the problem is that going first is often a penalty. So forcing "better" vehicles to go first doesn't benefit them.

Adding overwatch in lieu of shooting can mitigate this issue, however it can lead to unsatisfactory stalemates where the tanks with the highest initiative can just all lay down overwatch and make any advance suicidal.

Finally, simply doing alternativing activation by player choice doesn't represent initiative at all. As there's no way for a vehicle's stats to influence things. But otherwise it's simple and effective and very widely used by other games. Hence I suggested it should be used and representing crew initiative just dropped.

Other ideas I've considered include every tank rolling a dice, and activating in the order of their rolls. Some tanks get the ability to push their dice roll higher or lower different amounts to represent their initiative.
It can make things very random, but otherwise doesn't seem awful to me.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I am vehemently opposed to any alternating activation with separate movement and shooting phases.
It makes my blood boil when you line up a shot and the enemy just drives away. Or you line up a shot on exactly where the enemy was planning to go, so they just change their mind when it's their turn to activate. There is no winning with this mechanic.

I've played it in Killteam and Aeronautica Imperialis and it never makes for a good situation.

Doesn't X wing kind of fix this? If I remember correctly (it's been over a year since i've played), "good" pilots tend to move last and fire first. So your ace pilot will scoot into position late in the move phase, and fire early in the shoot phase, hopefully pulling off that great shot.

Am I remembering this correctly? It seemed really cool at the time, and kinda weird other games haven't picked up on it... Move in initiative order, fire in reverse-initiative order or something like that?

That still creates the "feels bad moments" for the low initiative vehicles.
Those vehicles will be absolutely helpless to actually initiate battles themselves and will be almost entirely relying on the high initiative vehicles to dictate which engagements happen.

One game, Schwere Kompanie, instead applies negative to-hit modifiers for slow vehicles engaging targets that didn't start where they were aiming.