Chain of Command revisited

A few years ago we tried our first Chain of Command game. As some of you know, Chain of Command is a WW2 ruleset published by Too Fat Lardies. Our findings from last time:

What was our impression of the rules?

• The pre-game deployment (patrol markers, drop-off points) was fun, but we kept wondering why we should go through all these motions simply to get our troops into action? Shouldn't a good scenario setup be able to do same?
• Combat resolution was rather convoluted to our taste. Over they years, we have come to favour "lean and mean" rules. Keep the number of procedures and mechanics as simple, but as elegant as possible, while focusing on the important decisions a player has to make. We felt that the resolution mechanics of Chain of Command were a bit too "fiddly": too many dice, too many statuses to keep track of, a bit too confusing.

Granted, it has been a while - our previous game was played in December 2018, 4 years ago. But is funny to say that during our post-briefing we came to exactly the same conclusions.

This led to a discussion about why some rules have an elegant design and some ruleset feel like a mish-mash of different mechanics cobbled together. For me, the essential guiding principle in a ruleset is that you have to pick 1 or 2 core mechanics, and all other procedures should derive from those core mechanics. E.g. a core mechanic could be unit activation; or could be in which manner combat is resolved. But many game designers (amateur or professional) then have the tendency to pile up new mechanics to resolve new situations, without thinking how such  situation could be resolved by using or adapting the core mechanic. And if that's not possible, then perhaps the core mechanic isn't that well designed to start with. 

But anyway, back to Chain of Command: one of the other aspects of the rules that ruffled our feathers was that some mechanics were designed at the level of 'sections' (e.g. activation of units), others at the level of 'teams' (e.g. distributing shock results) and still others at the level of individual soldiers/models (e.g. casualties). That doesn't feel like all these procedures are elegantly designed. When the plumpire (playe-umpire) announced that there were also rules for individuals to hang out of windows to shoot to whatever is below them, it was a bit too much ;-)

But anyway, that doesn't mean we had a good time and had a fun game. We are simply over-critical, that's all ;-)

And now some photographs. The game is is 20mm, pre-Arnhem.

Bart as plumpire explaining the scenario.

The wall with decorations, most notably the secret plans of Belgium's defence in May 1940.

Jockeying for jump-off points.

Deploying some of the German troops.

Overview of the table.

Another overview.

Germans crossing the fields, British were hiding n the building.

Some more action along the road.

3D-printed Hotel Hartenstein.

Another overview.

Eddy, Ruben as interested son, and Bart.

Eddy trying to micromanage his Brits.

A Jagdpanther arrives!

Eddy and Jean-Pierre, British commanders.

Plumpire Bart.

Bart, Ruben, Jean-Pierre, Eddy and myself in a selfie.

The infamous pigsty, a mainstay of Bart's wargaming table.

What A Tanker ... first game

Yesterday we tried the new tank combat rules What A Tanker, published by Too Fat Lardies.
We were underwhelmed.

Although it was a moderately fun game, we couldn't see why this game gets the praise in some of the reviews published in magazines or in the blogosphere. Sure, it is meant as a light-hearted game, but even light-hearted games should be designed well.

I won't give a proper review here (many of others have done that before), but I'll simply list our observations:

• The game is quite random. No matter how careful you manoeuvre your tanks around the table, a single hit can mean game over. In one of our games, both my tanks were eliminated on the first incoming shot ...
• There is a discrepancy in the detail of some of the procedures. Movement is explained carefully in the rules, stipulating how much a tank can wheel, how much your turret can rotate etc,. but then the other procedures such as acquisition of a target and aiming are quite coarse. That doesn't result in an elegant gaming engine.
• Firing is overly complicated, with a distinction between hits and critical hits, then a save roll, then having to count whether you scored more critical hits than others, which might result in temporary or permanent damage ... the whole procedure was not that quick and not that elegant either. On the one hand you have to keep track of accumulating damage, on the other hand a tank can be destroyed when you score 3 hits in a single shot. That doesn't match well as a gaming mechanic ... 
• There is a campaign system, getting more skills in subsequent games by scoring more kills. But why bother if the kill rate can be so random?
• The game felt as one of our Wild West games, in which every player has a shootist, and if you're unlucky, you get a headshot in the first round of the game. Great fun, but apparantly the concept doesn't translate that well to tank warfare. Other people have compared it to a game such as Wings of War.

Overall, I don't think the game would have gotten this much attention if it wasn't published by Too Fat Lardies.  It is obviously an attempt to bring a computer game such as World of Tanks (WoT? WaT?) to the gaming table. But the result is not too much to my liking.

Anyway, here are the pictures of our games. The games were a good opportunity to bring out our collection of WW2 Eastern Front vehicles (which belonged to various former members of our gaming group), which go back a long time. See The Battle for Gross-Untendorf, a game we played in 1997, one of our earliest battle reports published online!

Bart is studying the battlefield. 20mm Eastern Front. The Russian tank started in the far-left corner, the German tank in the opposite corner.

Another view of the battlefield.

Russian T34 hiding behind a hedge and a house.

Russian T34 and German armour - a PzKpfw IV (although we used a different model guess which one :-)) trying to outmanoeuvre each other in the village.

The Germans were able to sneak behind the Russians and hit them in the back. Game over.

Game 2. Same tanks, but we added a tank destroyer on both sides. Both tank destroyers faced each other along the main road. First shot by Ivan, and the Germans were destroyed.

Full hit!

More tactical tinkering ...

The remaining German tank is trying to use the woods as cover.

... but is hit by Ivan the terrible when he comes out of the woods. Game over. The Russians had to fire twice, and twice, the German vehicle was destroyed immediately.