Looking for assistance in ranking WW2 tanks

Think along the lines of this, British Sherman, from "Echelons of Fury"

It has an attack strength of 6, a defense of 6, and costs 2 fuel and 1 ammunition/supply(these are similar to the Land types the Magic uses) to bring into play.

The problem that I see with Zedder's game might be the "A is good against B, but weak against C"(or in this case "A is good against B, but cannot attack C") type of balance - which is more suited for computer games, but will probably over complicate a CCG. Most, if not all, CCGs that I used to play balanced their game play by card cost and card rarity(Not ever player is going to have a Tiger is his deck, let alone 20. But, if said player does have 20 Tigers, it will be tough for him during the early and mid-game, because he would be unable to deploy said cards, because he did not have enough resources(Lands) available.

 

Thanks Takao. Very well said.

My original posts seemed so lengthy. Was concentrating on the info I was hoping to receive and not so much the guts of the game. But in retrospect I should have given a better indication of the gameplay. But yes, everything that Takao said. It's a card game that doesn't get into the detail that some are suggesting.

As for mechanics Takao, early testing says it works, but it's early. You may very well be right. And if so, changes will be made. Informed rankings and unit feedback is what's required at this stage. The game needs that solid foundation to work from. Mechanics will be tested and retested. Once we're happy with things I will likely offer the game as a free print and play to get a wider audience for feedback. At that point, I would be more than happy to discuss what works and what doesn't. I'm just not there yet.

Suggestions like +1 for good crew is an easy addition to the game that only enhances it. So, things of that nature may very well be included at launch or afterwards.

Keep the dialog going though... it's all helpful.

 

Makes more sense now. I was thinking it was to be some sort of computer game or possibly a board game. Didn't even consider a card game for some reason. There was naval war that I used to play some that sounds like it had the feel you want. It didn't restrict you to one side though so you could have a mix of axis and allied vessels as I recall. Mixing the various environments can be tricky though. Land based units except in unusual circumstances didn't have much impact on naval forces especially heavy ones for instance.

I'd still be tempted to rate all tanks on the same scale with light tanks running from say 1-5 and mediums from perhaps 3-7 and heavies from say 5-10. Numbers of course are just pulled from the air for this. Are you going to have seperate firepower and defence ratings? How many numbers do you want on the cards? In the case of tanks for instance you could just go with a single number or the two I suggested or you could go with seperate firepower numbers vs air, sea, and land or even break the land down to soft skinned and armored targets. For land forces posture could affect defence as well for instance the Panthers defence rating would drop significantly if it is attacking vs defending. A lot depends on how complex you want to make it and some such can be added later of course.

 

Yeah, the mechanics talk is for another day. You have good ideas though. Just trying to get feedback on the overall values. Not having much luck so far. Although I do appreciate all the general feedback.

 

Part of the problem is that the value of various tanks depended to some extent on who was using them. The Panther and Tiger would have been poor choices for the Soviets or the US for instance. Then there is the posture (defence vs offence) and the training level and skill of the crews. Just looking at the Sherman it had a single axis stabalizer for it's main gun. Since using it was somewhat complicated most Sherman tankers didn't. Abrams on the other hand was a big believer in it and his crews practiced with it and found it to be quite useful. Would it be enough to shift the rating a point or so on your scale? Perhaps the question is do you rate the tank based on a crew well trained in all aspects of the tank or the "average" crew? If you start looking at the details of the various tanks I wouldn't be surprised if you found similar things with all of them.

Given that it's a game and what's more a card game you will be forgiven some rateings that people disagree with if the play is fun. Having perfect ratings and a non playable game on the other hand would hardly qualify as a success. You may need to modify the ratings for playability or balance reasons in any case. Some of the more obscure systems may be useful in that regard as well.

 

Pretend they're remote controlled. Meeting in a neutral area. How would they rank?

 

Right, here's a basic list. As it's 4AM there might be some mistakes. Also note this is designed for a very basic game and therefore has no mention of mechanical efficiency, training, and many other basic considerations.

Rankings are only consistent inside their own classification. Panther and Churchill have been moved to Heavy tanks.
Sherman's have been split into 75mm and 76mm. Churchill's have been split between MK IV and MK VII.
The "Light Tanks" category has be reclassified to "Light/Early War Tanks"

ODS format
https://www.mediafire.com/?7rbyb5hgx894dh8

XLS format
https://www.mediafire.com/?7rbyb5hgx894dh8

 

How about a nuke card. We'd use a joker as nuke when playing RISK, in order to keep time down.
How long do you think your game on average would take to play?

 

Checking back in... I've been working on something else game'y and haven't looked at this for a few days. I'm gonna go through any info provided for each of the 3 posts and update my lists. I'll repost each and maybe that will fuel another round of discussion. I'll get this done tonight.


Poppy, what fun would war (a war game) be if you couldn't nuke people? As for time play... too early to say. We've test run the 4 player game and it's long. But mechanics are still being tweaked, so unsure.

There are 2 other shorter versions of the game, so you'll have options.



Pacifist. I haven't opened that up yet, but I will now. I'll thank you in advance as I assume you logged some time into it.

 

You sir, are awesome.

You've given me some homework. You've dropped some, included some, moved some. That's all very good. I'll see if I can shuffle it to make it fit. The inclusion of ratings for speed, attack and life is super gravy. I'll lean on that heavy when putting those details together.

Up to this point I've been able to keep unit categories to multiples of 5. You have heavy tanks at 8. I'll either have to use KV 1/2 and IS 2/3 as 4 separate units to hit the 10 mark, ignore your promotions of 3 mediums to heavy, or abandon the multiples of 5 strategy. Not sure the best way yet.

As I want to have 10 from each nationality, and 5 each at each overall ranking (5 tens - 5 ones) I have to take that into consideration as well.

I'll post up the list that I come up with for feedback.

Thank you.

 

Ok... to make things fit...

Dropped T44 - Replaced with SU-100
Dropped M16 Halftrack - Replaced M15 Half Track
Dropped M3 Lee - Replaced with second Sherman variation
Dropped Achilles AA - Replaced with the Heavy Churchill
Dropped Type 1 Chi-He - Replaced with Type 92 Light Tank

Did not add Whirlbewind (could not fit)

That looks simple. And may not seem like the best trades but when maintaining a certain number of tanks per nation, trying to maintain good spreads in overall effectiveness, maintaining even numbers in each category, decisions need to be made. That's what I ended up with.

Regarding category even numbers, I have heavy tanks as 7 and medium tanks at 13. I may very well change that later to be 5 and 15 as that would sit better with me. Also, keep in mind that each category has it's own scale so you may see a light tank with an overall better score than a medium tank that would kick it's ass so don't look at it directly as one ranking but individual to it's category.

Here's the updated list....



List redone in following post.

 

Unless someone tells me different, I'm pretty happy with that. Feedback welcome...



Edit... turns out I wasn't happy with it. I hacked it up and redid it. I didn't like the uneven numbers and I didn't like all the "fill" in the light tank category. So I removed 5 light tanks. and filled up the heavy tank to an even 10 and the medium tank to an even 15. tank destroyers and AA weren't changed.

New / final list (for tanks and groups - not final rankings)

Light (early) Tanks
6. M24
6. MK III Valentine
5. M5 Stuart
5. MK II Matilda
4. T70
3. Type 95 Ha-Go
2. Panzer II
1. Type 98 KeNi
1. Type 97 TeKe (1)
1. Panzer I

Medium Tanks
9. T34/85
9. Panzer IV
8. Sherman 76
7. Mk VIII Cromwell
6. Sherman 75
6. T34/76
5. Panzer III
4. M3 Grant
4. M3 Lee
4. Mk VI Crusader
3. Type 1 Chi-He
2. Type 97 ChiHa
2. Mk V Covenanter
1. Type 89 I-Go
1. Type 3 Chi-Nu


Heavy Tanks
10. King Tiger
10. IS 2/3
10. KV 2
9. Tiger
9. KV 1
8. Mk VII Heavy Churchill
7. Panther
7. M26 Pershing
5. Mk IV Churchill
3. Type 95 Heavy Tank (I know, had to be done)



Tank Destroyers
10. Jagdpanther
9. SU-100
8. Stug III
8. Sherman Firefly
7. M36 Jackson
6. SU-85
5. M18 Hellcat
3. M10 Wolverine
3. SU-76
2. Type 1 Ho-Ni

Anti Aircraft
10. Flakpanzer IV
8. ZSU-37
7. M15 Half Track
4. MK VII Centaur AA
2. Type 98 Ko-Hi

 

Given the 75mm gun alone I'd be tempted to rate the M-24 above any of the other light tanks and due to it's late introduction there's a good chance it would have more efficient and better armor than the earlier tanks. I'm pretty sure the M-24 had a good reputation RAM wise as well.

Can't see rating the Sherman 76 lower than the T34/85 or especially the Pz IV armed with the high velocity 75. The lesser armed versions of the German tank should rate less than the 75mm armed Sherman or the T34/75.

Don't see the Pz III rateing better than the M3 Medium either.

I'm not completely sure what you are rating the vehicles on but I've seen a fair number of people who consider the Tiger to be a better tank than the "King Tiger"

 

Noted. I'll look at it.

Regarding tigers... noted but ignored. Even if that's a fact. For the casual gamer, that wouldn't make sense. I'll keep it as is.

Thanks IWD

 

Well it's a fact that it's there opinion. Usually comes down to RAM and cost of construction compared to utility. Strategic mobiity and logistics can be factors in the debate as well. How it comes out depends mostly on how one defines "better". If you have equal numbers of each sitting on or close to the battle field I'd put my money on the King Tigers coming out ahead. I should have been clearer but the point was and is that definitions of "better" vary quite a bit as do peoples opinions. On a game like this you shouldn't get too hung up on exact numbers, some controversy might even help sell it.

 

What little I did play I found to be very enjoyable. Fun, but not overly complicated. However, most of my gaming group was only interested in Magic: The Obsession...So, it was quite hard to get them to play other CCGs. I saw that they did come out with a Pacific edition, but I never saw this when I was playing/collecting.

Another enjoyable WW2 CCG, from back then was "The Last Crusade"
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2918/last-crusade
Overview of gameplay:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/21863/last-crusade-gaming-session

 

One vehicle you over rate substantially is the T 70. It was a mediocre light tank. The two man crew has virtually no vision buttoned up other than to the direct front of the vehicle. There is no intercom system, no radio, and little means of coordinating the tank's operation with others. The commander is the gunner and loader meaning the ROF is very low and he is likely to lose targets in between shots since he's loading the gun.

The vehicle has reliability issues too. It uses two GAZ truck motors coupled to a single transmission. If one of the engines fails it renders the tank immobile since you have no way to decouple it in use.

Basically, what you have is a decently armed and armored vehicle with crap reliability, a horrid crew layout, that is functionally blind on the battlefield. I'd say it's primary function would be to blunder forward, explode from a hit, and that would allow better Soviet tanks to know where the enemy was.