World of Tanks: Basics

 This is a follow on article of this one - WoT, Getting Started.

Hopefully you have an idea of what to expect.  You've chosen a "line" of tanks - preferably one with few frustrating lemons in the tier 4-7 bracket you'll spend the most time in.  By sticking with only one or two nations (Russia or USA, recommended) you can unlock tanks and gear faster. A recap:

Heavy. Lots of damage. Slow moving, tough. Can take enemies head on.  Forgiving for newbies. 
Recommended: Russia, USA

Tank Destroyer. Be a sneaky ninja - with a giant cannon.  But you're usually as well armoured as a Coke can.   
Recommended: USA, Germany, Russia


Medium. Jack of all trades.  Decent gun, some armour, speed good for flanking. 
Recommended: Britain, Russia

Light.  Flimsy, fast. Spends a lot of time birdwatching from bushes.  Very unforgiving.  Good for hunting arty.
Recommended: USA

SPG (Artillery). Sit, stare at map, lob shells.  Not really a tank.
Recommended: None. Get one (any nation) so you understand how they work/how to avoid them.

However, not every tank follow the rules.  An ELC light plays more like a superfast TD. A Matilda is a medium that is really a slow, well-armoured heavy. An AMX is a light - but has good armour and is slow - it's more like a heavy. The AT2 tank destroyer has a tiny gun but is almost invulnerable in a head on assault.  

How do you do well? Hurt enemy tanks!

Basically, do damage to the enemies.  If you do more damage to the enemy than the HP you have on your vehicle, you are doing well.  Whilst staying alive for longer helps you do damage (good), hiding in a corner and doing 0 damage hurts your team.  Don't yolo out across the middle of the map, but if you're not getting much damage you need to be more aggressive. Damage earns you XP. Damage makes you win.

Useful tip: Download XVM

It's a useful mod that gives useful info.  It shows who are good/bad players (which means you can spectate the good ones after you die and learn). It also shows you your view range on the minimap, and the last known location of enemy tanks. Very useful.  Simply download it and drop it in the WoT folder in your C Drive.

Options

Turn off grass and extra effects in sniper mode to make it easier to see.  Reduce shadow, water and flora sliders until you have 30+fps.  Your CPU not your videocard tends to limit performance.

I turn my overall sound settings right down, so if friends on Teamspeak or Vent don't get drowned out by tank noises. Whilst there is in-game VOIP for platoon-mates, it isn't good quality.

You can play round with reticules and markers. I tend to turn on all enemy icons (tier, model, player, health bar) so I can make more informed decisions.

Tank Weapons & Equipment

I'm not going to talk about guns, and armour etc as it is pretty self explanatory.  The lower the dispersion and aim time scores, the more accurate the gun.  Basically, you want to avoid using the stock weapons and engines in most cases. In early levels you unlock stuff fast. But in later levels you use free XP to avoid having to "grind" using weak weapons and gear. Save your free XP for weapons/engines etc at Tier 4-5+ - do not spend free XP to unlock tanks!

Consumables

Default loadout is: small first aid kit, a first aid kit, and a small fire extinguisher. These will be hotkeyed from buttons 4-6. Learn them, and keep them the same for each tank, so you can quickly repair your tracks or put out a fire in battle.

Modules

There are very useful modules - a Gun Rammer adds 10% dps (almost mandatory on Tier 5+ tanks); Binocs and Camo nets are great for Light Tanks and TDs, and Repair Kits are useful to Heavies. these three are great as you can freely shift them between tanks.  Only buy them on a special.  Vents are a great all-round addition. Right now modules are hideously expensive.  We'll revisit them later. 

Ammo

AP is normal ammo.  Most of your ammo is AP.
HEAT/APCR ("gold ammo") is very expensive but penetrates more armour. Carry 5 or so rounds for emergencies.
HE rounds rarely penetrate, but damage modules and crew and do massive damage to lightly armoured vehicles. I usually carry a couple for re-setting cap.
Buttons 1-3 swaps ammo types in game.

Crew Skills
 If you right click on crew, you can set crew skills and perks.
 The best commander skill is "Sixth Sense"* - it tells  you when you are spotted by enemies.
For TDs and Lights, "Camo" is a good skill.  Most of my crew train this as their first skill.
For Heavies, I like "Repairs" as a good skill for your crew.
Mediums can vary. Snap shot (gunner) and driver skills (smooth ride etc) are as useful as camo.
*Useful tip: It's actually better to train a skill like camo and reset it to 6th Sense when it gets to 100%

Useful Buttons

ENTER to chat. Once you type, press TAB to cycle between channels.  Highlight an enemy tank and press T to request fire on it.   Change the size of your minimap with the = and - keys.  Print Screen takes screenshots. With machineguns, C reloads your clip.
Protip: Hold down Right Mouse to freely look around without swivelling your turret or your tank around like a Nigel.

Platoons

Play with friends. You can Ctrl+Right Click on a players name in-game to add them as a friend (or block or report them, for that matter). You can create platoons on the fly in-game, or from your contacts/friends list on the Garage screen.

Warning about Tiers: Playing with friends over comms is great and improves your chance of victory. HOWEVER if you pair up the wrong tanks, it can lead to frustration.  Most players know not to mix tanks of different Tiers - i.e. a Tier 2 tank in a Tier 5 game is suicide.  
However it is not evident to new players: Not all tank classes of a "Tier" are equal.
Lights and Artillery are not "ranked" the same as Mediums, TDs or Heavies, and often face much tougher opponents.  A Tier 5 Chaffee and a Tier 5 Sherman are NOT equals.  The Chaffee will drag the Sherman into Tier 8 games and almost guarantee both will be bottom tier (i.e. worst tanks in the game).  A better match for the Sherman would be the Tier 4 M5 Stuart which sees similar opponents.
Here is a precise list.

Rule of thumb:  Count artillery or lights as 1-2 Tiers higher than they say on the box. In any case, as scouts and arty are kinda solo roles, it's best to platoon with heavies, mediums or TDs. 

No Auto Aim.

Right click is auto aim. DO NOT USE IT*
(-) It is far less accurate
(-) You cannot aim at weak points
(-) It does not "lead" tanks and thus misses deflection shots on moving vehicles
(*) There IS a time to use it.  Usually, it's when you are in a fast tank with a rapid fire gun, engaging a slow/stationary target.  Right click to lock the target, then you can concentrate on driving behind it/around it as it tries desperately to track you with its turret.

HUD/MiniMap

It's pretty self explanatory.  However pressing Ctrl will allow you to mouse over the minimap and click to "flash" a square of the map - to draw your team mates attention to a sneak attack, for example. If you accidentally lose your HUD, V gets it back.

Camouflage or: I'm getting sniped by invisible tanks! Hacks!

The view range of a tank depends on its own view range and the camo of the enemy tank.
There are very useful modules (Binocs, Camo Net, Coated Optics) which improve this a lot, but at low tiers you rarely see them.   It's pretty commonsense:
Smaller tanks (lights, TDs) have better camo. Big tanks (heavies) are easily spotted.   Lights (scouts) have the best spotting range.

Firing your gun massively reduces your camo for several seconds.  Sitting still improves it (especially if you have Binocs and Camo Net) - crashing around knocking over trees doesn't help.   If your crew have the Camo skill, it helps a lot.

Here's an old but useful video. Watch it. 

If you prefer words and pictures, voila.

Armour or: Why Can't I damage the Enemy?!! This is BS!!

Your crosshair shows how likely your shell will penetrate (green = yes, yellow = maybe, red = no)but it's more complicated than that.

Sloping armour is much more powerful. So if you point the corner of your tank's hull at the enemy tank, you effectively have about double the armour* than if you face them head on (*because maths.)
This is called angling. 

Most times (but not always) tanks have better turret armour.  So sitting on a reverse slope (exposing only your tougher turret to shoot) is good. This is called hulldown. American tanks in particular shine at this tactic.

A more advanced skill is called sidescraping.  This is when you reverse away from cover, showing your (weaker) side armour at such an extreme angle it almost automatically bounces.  Many players never learn this.

Most players quickly learn to "peek-a-boom" - rolling out of cover, taking a shot, then rolling back.  However, there are two things to consider (a) do you have a bigger gun/more HP (so you can win if you "trade" shots and (b) if you are side on, and they are angled head on, you may bounce your shot.Russian heavies are usually good at this.

Another video guide. This time on armour.

Here's the word-and-pics version.

Moving On: When do I move up the tiers?

Many people say "only when you have totally mastered every component, and played hundreds of games in a tank etc, etc."  Screw them. You move on when you want.
However:
Tier 1, pretty much all guns penetrate, so you don't learn much about armour.  After about 20 games, you lose your "preferential matchmaking" and get tossed into harder games.  Maps are boring.
Tier 2 is where the beginner tanks branch out.  You get your first artillery (SPG) and tank destroyers.  It's a good transition tier to hang out in, and try out different tank styles.
Tier 3 is pretty awful. You can feel helpless when you face Tier 5s which you may only penetrate from the side or behind.  I'd zip through this tier as fast as possible.
Tier 4 is where you first notice the grind. The Matilda, T28, tank destroyers and lights are OK, but the rest are pretty bad for the Tier 5 games you'll inevitably find yourself in.
Tier 5+ hooray, you've arrived!  A decent range of good tanks and lots of maps.  

Free XP

Do not use this to unlock tanks.  Just don't.   You use free XP to unlock weapons and modules so you aren't stuck with a stock tank.

It annoys me to see a stock tank in a game (yes, there is a symbol that shows you are stock - we will know).  It shows the player is an impatient me-me kid who wanted a new tank right now but was too stupid to realize he has now doomed himself (and his luckless team mates) to dozens of games with a sub-optimal "crippled" tank - with the weakest weapons and a sluggish engine.

Save your XP to unlock modules. Playing a stock tank is painful, you will earn less XP, and you will lose more. And so will your team mates.

Crew & Retraining

You very nicely get 100% crew for your starter tanks, but any new crew are either 50% or pay 20,000 silver and buy trained crew (75%).  Good crew are important - although "50%" crew don't really halve your speed, rate of fire etc - they do reduce it significantly (A 50% crew actually has about 80% of the ability of a fully-trained crew)

If you retrain crew from another tank, you lose a big chunk of that skill.  A retained crew is 80%, 90% or 100% as good as he was on the last tank, depending on what you are willing to pay.

Crew training is exponential (diminishing returns) - it's easy to train from 50% to 75% = but takes ages to train from 90% to 100%.  85% is about half-way to 100%.  90% skill is only about 2/3rds the way to 100%.

Personally, I wouldn't retrain a 100% crew for another tank until you have Tier 5 or higher tanks.  The crew from Tiers 1-4 simply aren't in the vehicle long enough to make it worthwhile.

I'd just stick your Tier 1 crews into your Tier 2s without retraining them (they're still 75% - better than the 50% freebies you'd get ).

Where possible, I'd tend to save money and use free 50% "Rapid Courses" crews.   The only time I'd buy a 75% Regimental Training crew for 20k is for the Commander - he adds a percentage of his skill to all crew members.  I'd also consider buying a 75% trained gunner for some tanks - as doing more damage gains you XP faster.

Spending Real Money

No "free to play" game is truly free.  You need it for Garage Slots beyond the 6 or so tanks slots you start with.  The smallest amount of gold you buy ($8) buys about 4 garage slots - or 8 if you were patient and got them on special.

I want to learn more! I want to get guid!

This is a great place to start.  It explains the mechanics (especially camo and armour) in more detail.

 For advanced gameplay, I recommend Quickbaby. I also enjoy The Mighty Jingles.

I used Lert's Guide to learn a lot about a range of topics covered in this post. His list of "Donts" for beginners is very useful and should be mandatory reading. Lert's Guide => Recommended Reading.

I also like stats. WoT has lots of stats. Some useful, some not. Some make your electronic penis bigger.  A few useful sites are WoTLabs, Noobmeter, Want to know what the best tank is?  vbAddict has the answers.  There is the official wiki but like all wikis I'm not 100% sure how accurate everything is.

Game Design #46: Skirmish - Basing, Group Move vs Individual Move

Just some random musings.  I was looking at Chain-of-Command and Bolt Action, and thinking how it would be so much cheaper in 15mm.  It then lead me to compare the individual basing used in those games compared to the "group bases" used in 15mm Flames of War.

Individual Basing
- more fiddly/slower to move them all in a game
+ simple way to record casualties (just remove/tip over minis)
+ can easily fit them in and around terrain pieces
/ usually "true line of sight" rules

Group Basing
+ allows for cool dioramas
- not as flexible - i.e. once based you may not be able to use them for other games
+ easier to tell if squad is in/out of cover
+ less dice chugging
/ tends to have simpler/faster resolution (i.e. unit suppressed/destroyed)
- tends to use counters (clutter)
- can't record individual casualties
/ usually uses "area terrain" rules

I think "what's best" depends on your rules - do you ever allow units to detach individual minis or do you always move/fire them as a group?  If your base unit is a squad, in a platoon-company game, then group bases seem to offer faster gameplay. But if you're looking at smaller fire-teams or sub-divide the squad, then individual basing is better.  (I personally maintain my minis as individually based for anything 15mm+, as I prefer not to commit to a particular base size and can use the minis for any game - given I try so many different games - but I do like the simplicity, speed and diorama potential of multibase games like FoW)

Question: So when is a group basing best - and when is it better to individually base your models?

The Group Move vs Individual Move Conundrum

This bring me to my second thought - how most skirmish-platoon rules struggle to allow units to move both individually and as a group.  Generally there is two methods:

(a) heroes/leaders are individually based, and the "units" - everyone else - is in groups of 4-10 or so which must move, shoot etc in unison with the other group members.  (Warhammer 40K)

(b) all minis move and shoot completely independently of each other (Necromunda)

It's like you must choose either one or the other - either units or every man for himself - whereas in reality soldiers might act as individuals, pairs, fire teams, and squads, and even in unison with other squads of a platoon.  However, I notice some rules are starting to address this.

Infinity, while orientated around "every man for himself" individual movement, allows for "link teams" - fire teams of 3-5 to act in unison.  This has a benefit in that enemies can only react to the fire team's action, instead of repeatedly to each individual soldier, thus minimizing the reactive fire. 

Chain of Command allows for weapons teams to be detached from the squad, under the direction of the squad leader.

However I think it's important to maintain a balance - i.e. it's BENEFICIAL to move as a squad/fire team, without being absolutely MANDATORY to do so.  I think breaking off individuals/pairs should be easy to do, and a plausible option to squad/fire team leaders.

Question: What is the best way to allow units to move both as squads and as individuals? 
Does it have to be one or the other?

Fire+Move

Another thought that spun out of the above paragraph.  Reading Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers I was struck by the emphasis of fire-and-move; pinning enemies with fire while other troops advance/flank. And whilst most modern rules incorporate this to some decree, I don't remember many rules that allow this as a specific order for their units.

Most units in most games, when activated, can move and then fire; or fire and then move.

But why can't some individuals within the unit are move, simultaneous with others in the same unit firing/suppressing?

For example, in Infinity, we can have individual soldiers form link teams to act together - but they are all doing the same thing i.e. all troops firing, or all moving etc.  In Tomorrow's War, other fire teams can give overwatch to fire teams who are moving, but not members within the fireteam (also, I find the "reacting to a reaction" in Tomorrow's War a bit confusing and messy).  But once again, all members of the fire team (of 4 or so) are doing the same thing.

As the fire-and-move concept works with only a pair of soldiers - one firing, one moving - you should be able to break it down to the individual level as well as by squads/fire teams. 

So I'd like a rule that works at every level - individuals with a fire team, by fire team, by squad/s within a platoon.   Presuming some sort of reaction/overwatch system is in place (as most current modern rulesets do) it would act like this:

One portion of a fire team/squad/platoon may fire, at the same time the other portion moves. 

I.e. in a 4-man fire team, three guys could sprint forward, covered by the SAW gunner.  On the next turn, the SAW gunner could sprint to catch up, covered by the other three guys who are already in the position.  

In game terms, a Fire+Move action by a squad/pair might look something like this:

Any group/unit of minis (of any size) can be given a split Fire+Move order.  You divide them into:
*Moving minis - move full speed/sprint (do not fire)
*Covering minis - rolls suppressive fire dice which cancels out hits by enemy reactions but causes little/no casualties

Anyway, the essence of this is in most games, units can only do the same thing as each other.  But they aren't some sort of hivemind drone (unless they actually are, of course!) Why not allow units to do two things at the same time?

This isn't a new or original thought, but I'm surprised more modern rules don't include something of this sort. Given that it is a very, very basic tactic that even rookie troops straight from the US could use in combat.  Rookies always clustered up too much, making them vulnerable to AoE/machine guns (a "forced cluster together" from suppression might be an interesting addition to the morale rules) and they have poorer awareness of cover/concealment when moving through terrain; but even the greenest troops could execute a basic fire-and-move manuever. 

Yes, I probably could have used better/other rules examples but I'm sitting at a kitchen table at my parents place, far away from my man cave and rules collection.

Game Design #45: "Original" Sci Fi Wargames

I pointed out the tendency of every game designer and his dog to remake Vietnam in Space - i.e. pretty much every "gritty"  "hard sci fi" space wargame is as clone of modern warfare in tactics and equipment. It's dressed up with names like "railgun" and "mech" but it's functionally identical, with all tactics and gameplay the same and weapons simply renamed.  Likewise, every spaceship game is WW2 naval warfare disguised with a fake moustache. In fact, I'm confident I could play WW2 naval battles with most spaceship rules, with minimal tweaking. Even the "imaginative" space fantasy of the Warhammer 40K ilk is pretty much just traditional sword-and-sandals fantasy with space-y terms thrown in.  

What would make a sci fi game interesting?  Well, I suggested using some interesting and original settings, for a start.   But I think I kinda missed the big picture, which is this:

Sci Fi should allow you to use tactics and methods you haven't used before.

Sci fi offers a designer a blank slate to create a unique game.  But they simply remake historical games. Why?  Part of this is the audience's fault. We ask for Alien and Starship Troopers and Star Wars.  So they make what the audience wants.  That's safe.  However, it's not the spirit of sci fi.  I'd like to play a game that is awesome in itself, not simply because it's another set of mechanics I can play "xy" setting with.  The first sci fi writers didn't even know they'd have an audience. Jules Verne didn't go "ah, submarine stories are popular, I'll write one about that." 

I don't mean we need to run around inventing new weapons, powers and technologies.  There's plenty of inspiration there already. We just don't emphasize it enough.  The sci fi bits are simply window dressing tacked on to a WW2 or modern theme. 

Most sci fi wargames treat hacking as a kind second-rate magic spell.  By why not make the virtual world central to the game?

You could pick a recognizable sci fi technology and base your game around it. One of my old buddies is making a spaceship videogame which uses warp technology to "teleport" around the combat area. Ships wink in and out of existence all around the map. This gives a completely different feel to existing space games.  I'd like to see a sci fi skirmish game where there is a heavy use of Portal-style powers - units can pass (and fire) through portals allowing dramatic (dare I say Chess-style) redeployments all over the battlefield. 

I'm personally fascinated by the idea of demons/telepaths "possessing" miniatures.  Rather like Magic the Gathering, you have a "pool" of power tokens which you can place on one mini (giving it super powers) . As "possessed" units are killed/lost/exorcised, you permanently lose the tokens.  So you can concentrate your power tokens to create a few super-powered units (all eggs in one basket) or scatter your influence amongst many minions.    Psychic powers would enable you to manipulate how your opponent moved/reacted, or simply resist intrusion by others.  Again, by emphasizing one aspect of the game strongly, it could totally change up a traditional WW2/modern style game.

After trying the fascinating time travel PC game Archon (which, mindbendingly, allows you to go back in time to counter your opponents moves in the present). I'd like to see if/how it could be incorporated in a tabletop game.

Most sci fi games include robots, but they are usually just heavily armed humans with different/no morale rules, or walking tanks.  Why not base a game around robots?  For example, the movie Surrogates had everyone living alone and interacting through robots.  Completely robot-centric warfare could be interesting - remote-controlled, AI-controlled - with prominence given to EMP weapons (and shielding).  Heck you could even fight every game to the last man if you wanted and ignore those pesky morale rules...

The movie Surrogates had a robots as a central theme. The Surrogates world could make for an interesting sci fi wargame.

Many sci fi games include hacking but usually it's just a mild buff/debuff to a unit or perhaps freezes a vehicle temporarily in place. Why not make hacking the central theme?  Make it much more important than shooting and melee, rather than a poor magic subsitute.  You could even have miniatures battle in a virtual world - it's not like we don't have plenty of inspiration.

You could have "spawn points" where practically limitless reinforcements could be teleported in - (unlimited respawn) giving the game where killing opponents is always secondary to capturing these invaluable objectives. 

Stealth might become important, and a cat-and-mouse battle between small special forces ensure.  Yes, it might mimic a submarine-war style game but on land "stealth" encompasses a totally new range of challenges and environments. 

Ok, enough examples. I admit I got a bit carried away....

I guess the point I'm making is that none of these ideas are new, and they already exist in many if not most sci fi games.  But the technology or "big idea" needs to be the main focus of the game, not a tacked-on special rule to make a WW2 rules set "sci fi." 

With the proviso - it needs to make the game different than any existing setting - i.e. a Dune-eque game with a focus on personal shields might make the game simply melee-centric medieval-with-sci fi-jumpsuits.  A Revolution-style future where all electric circuits don't work might simply mimic late WW2.  That doesn't allow players to try new tactics.

TL:DR

My previous response to "same-y" games was "make cool new settings."  This might be simply disguising the underlaying issue, which is:

A. Does it promote tactics and gameplay I haven't experienced before in historical/existing games?

B. Easy fix = Pick a "big idea" or futuristic tech and base the game around it.  Don't just tack it on to a WW2-style game to add "gloss."  Make it (teleportation, stealth, hacking, etc) the focus of the game. Make it absolutely central to tactics and gameplay.

C.  Make sure the "big idea" (point B) actually promotes different tactics (point A).  Or you haven't gained anything. 

Game Design #44: Random Roundup - Simplicity, Randomness and Other Stuff

The hype surrounding GW's WFB reboot Age of Sigmar has provoked a few thoughts, which perhaps could be expanded into their own topics....

Simple Mechanics, Deep Gameplay

The Age of Sigmar core rules are apparently 4 pages. Players are deriding it for its lack of "crunch" and over simplicity.  Whilst I bet there ends up being plenty of rules clutter (given GW's track record, and the Warmachine vibe I'm getting via the special-rules-in-the-unit-box approach)

I've also been thinking about simplicity in games, due to my recent playing of the PC game World of Tanks. For a videogame it has ultra-simple controls (basically WASD, left click, shift) but it has a very high skill ceiling.  Good players, as part of a 12-man team, can sustain 75% win ratios.  Over 1000s of games.  That's a massive swing, considering the "purple" player is just one of 12 team mates (whose skill may vary wildly from game to game).   The entry level is easy, but it is hard to master.

The "Chess" analogy is a tired one and not so applicable to wargames - but it is the epitome of 'easy to learn, hard to master.'  In a wargame, we have dice which can make the unexpected happen, but there is no "hidden knowledge" or special rules players can "game."  In videogames we call this "metagaming" - gaming an aspect of the rules.  For example, this could be as simple as choosing long-range weapons when you know 90% of maps are open (Mechwarrior) or it could be using a special build or loadout of weapons/armour special attacks (most RPGs). Games like Warmachine and Malifaux rely a bit too much on intimate knowledge of a rather complex game system, and knowing all the "exceptions" to the rule.  Warhammer 40K is heavily dependent on "building" a good army.  In contrast, games Ambush Alley have no unexpected rules, and is more common sense. Interestingly, Infinity bridges both camps - I feel it is severely over-complicated with gear and special rules, but its overarching rule (stay in cover/move from cover to cover) overrules the rest so strongly you still need common sense use of tactics.

The simplicity vs complexity debate is perhaps a bit tired, but  a related question is "when does the metagame become bigger than the game itself" - and when is it desirable? (Warmachine trades on its CCG-style, and Games Workshop naturally encourages army building)

2D6

I've been interested in 2D6 mechanics lately, and the "bell curve" they create.  A lot of game designers seem to be favouring the "buckets of dice" approach lately.  I.e. roll a handful of dice, with 4s,5s and 6s (or often 5s and 6s) scoring hits.  "Modifiers" are created by adding or removing dice to the pool.  This is done I think to primarily avoid modifiers that go "off the dice" i.e. if a 6 is needed to hit, but it has a -1 modifier...   It also allows smaller increments than the 33% jumps of a single d6.  Personally, I like the "neatness" of a d10, but it can have some wild swings.  I've been experimenting with a way to simplify Battletech damage - instead of ticking of 100s of armour and structure boxes you roll 2d6 and it is either stripped of armour, deflects the hit or is blown off.  The 2d6 allows a good balance of predicatability (over the more random d10) whilst still having a 10-point "range" (from 2 to 12).  Math for unit building etc is a royal pain, though.

Possibly worth investigating is a 'bigger' question - when does "luck" become too random, and when is it too predictable? I.e. if I roll a d6 and need a '6' to hit/defend/accomplish anything, the game is rather too random.  You cannot make plans with any certainty - it all comes down to the roll of a dice.  If I attack with the total of 12 d6s and the defender rolls a total of 3d6s, the result is a foregone conclusion.  That's not random enough.

Defensive Ability/Unit Skill

This came from online rumour of the Age of Sigmar rules, and spending time reading through Fistful of ToWs.  Fistful of Tows uses the system now made famous by Flames of War; unit skill not only determines how accurately a unit attacks, but also how hard it is to hit them.  I.e. the better the unit, the better the defensive "saving throw" - any hits against an elite unit are saved on a 3+, but rookies only save on a 6+.  This shows that veterans are better at avoiding damage and taking cover.

Age of Sigmar (apparently) has a "to hit" roll based purely on unit skill. They've done away with the old WS which measured unit skill relative to each other.  So you might have two elite units rolling to hit on a 2+ and absolutely knocking the stuffing out of each other, and two rookie militia units flailing around uselessly trying to get 6s to score a hit.  In reality, the elite units would not necessarily take casualties at a higher rate, as their skill relative to each other is similar and they would have superior defensive skills to compensate.

Perhaps the bigger question is "when should rolls be relative, and when should they be absolute?" and when/where is the time/place to use opposed rolls.

The Trap of Too Many Minis

This comes of looking at my homebrew spaceship rules and deciding how many spaceships would make a decently fast flowing game.  Due to the vector counters, there is a distinct and visible point where the game "bogs" down with too many ships and clutter.    However we all do this.  We get a simple game, lauded for its fast play.  "Play three games in an evening" and all that.  Finally we have a game which we can finish in a gaming session!  But since it plays so  fast, gamers add more and more models.  For example, LOTR:SBG works really well as a skirmish game in the 20-40 mini category.  But I see most games have 50-100 minis - well beyond the "skirmish" level the game was originally aimed at.  The game gets "gluggy" and slows to a crawl - and you're back where you started.   Naturally, gaming companies encourage this (bigger armies = sells more minis*) but I think people naturally do this anyway.  (*Age of Sigmar apparently has no "unit cap" - you can have units of theoretically unlimited size)

Maybe the bigger question here is "how do we curb the tendency of gamers to want to oversize their games beyond which the mechanics are equipped to handle?" or "do we have mechanics in place to adapt to these bigger games?"

Game Ramblings - DLC and (speak not its name aloud) Warhammer Fantasy

DLC is Here
In one of my regular videogame-to-tabletop comparisons, I commented on the inevitability of the "DLC" approach.  Well, it seems someone IS taking that approach - the TAC series of WW2 air rules available on Wargame Vault is selling the rules for each plane at $2ea. (And selling a lot of them, too!)  It is billed as "only buy the ones you want" which is a bit disingenuous as most pdf rules are ~$10 for the whole game, with ALL the units/aircraft/troop lists etc.  Heck, I paid that for a copy of "Scramble" which has 100+ aircraft listed.  That'd be $200+ under the "TAC" DLC model.  For a bunch of PDFs.     
Note: I've got a lot more interesting points to say on this topic but the rest of my comments are only available as a DLC.  

Age of Sigmar
You'd have to be living under a rock to avoid the Age of Sigmar hype.  Apparently the dying Warhammer Fantasy is being rebooted, with Games Workshop turning it into more of a skirmish game - borrowing ideas from successful rivals like Privateer Press.  No more codexes and $150 rulebooks - just a 4-page basic rulebook, supplemented by "unit profiles" with all the unit information and special rules available in the unit boxes.     Each player deploys one hero/unit at a time until one side says stop. He gets to choose who moves first.  The other player can keep deploying units - there are no "points" or unit size limits - if a player is outnumbered 3:1 he can win by "Sudden Death" - i.e. assasinating a major enemy hero/wizard/monster (Warmachine style) or keeping a designated model alive for 6 turns.  I think this is a really clever idea - no points cap, but allowing victory conditions to limit model count.  However I suspect the community of GW players (who tend to win by min-maxing armies) are going to scent blood in the water.   For what I can tell, the rules don't deviate much from the usual GW formula, though generals make units within 12" immune to morale effects. As morale is apparently quite decisive, I suspect this will emphasize the importance of generals, and lead to a "Warmachine" feel.   I'm not going to jump on board the GW train, but I may just buy my first White Dwarf since... 2002?

Warhammer: Total War
And neatly tying these two topics together - the videogame dev behind the Total War series is making a Warhammer Fantasy version.  It's a match made in heaven.  Creative Assembly are increasingly coming under criticism for their DLC-centric approach.  For example, they sold $100-120 worth of DLC each for their last 3 games.  Some DLC was even released on the same day the game was.  I mean, that's pretty cynical.  Other DLC merely unlocked units already in the game. The latest $3 DLC added more blood spatter and death animations, and sick soldiers now vomit. No, I'm not making this up.  I'm wondering if in Warhammer: Total War you'll only get a "core unit" for one faction and need to buy and download all the units at actual GW store prices....

World of Tanks: Getting Started

I've been playing this a lot lately. I've reviewed this game before - a mix of tanks from WW2 nations duke it out until one side is all dead.  It's a great "Dad" game - slow paced enough to favour cunning over twitchy reactions - and with 10-minute rounds allowing you to be interrupted by offspring and wife if needed.  I know a lot of dads/sons/cousins/uncles that play this together as it is very simple and family friendly but has a high skill ceiling.  It's also free.

Since I've already reviewed this elsewhere, I'm going to focus on how to do well and enjoy yourself.  First of all, you need a decent tank.....

This game is an easy sell to your mates if you want to play co-operatively. Tanks are cool. 

Tiers.  

Tanks come in "tiers" - they only battle similar tier (rank) tanks to prevent mismatches. You must play "x" amount of games in a tank to unlock a tank of the next tier up - e.g. the M3 Lee (Tier 4) leads to the Sherman (Tier 5) and hence to the Sherman Jumbo (Tier 6).  The best Tiers for the average player are 5-7, and Tiers 3-4 are quite painful.   Remember: a tank that is powerful in real life might be only average for its tier - i.e. many players covet a famous Tiger but are disappointed, as they are pitted against late-war Soviet IS heavies and Pershings rather than the T-34s and Shermans they historically dominated. 

Here's a few fun (read: effective) tanks for their tier. I'm going to focus on Tier 4-6 as lower tiers are easy to play with almost any tank, and playing higher tiers 7+ suggest you already have spent a lot of time in the game anyway and won't need any advice from me. 

Tier 1-3: 
Generally you progress through these tiers quickly.  I'd advise you to move on. Most guns will easily outmatch armour so you won't learn how to use your armour properly - and players are so dodgy you can't tell if it was you or your team mates that got you killed, so it's harder to learn at this level.   I enjoyed using the MS-1, T18, Cruiser III/IV, Pz.II and Cunningham. The Pz.1c is a little speed machine.

Tier 4:
You usually get dragged into Tier 5 games so this is a tier to skip through fast.  The tank destroyers are usually good - the SU85B is great, the T40 is capable and the Hetzer is fun for "derping" (one-shotting opponents with a howitzer). The Stuart light tank is good for scouting and the Luchs with it 30mm autocannon is lethal and fun.  The T-28 is underrated with a deadly rapid fire 57mm. 

Tier 5: 
This is the first decent "normal" tier. The Russian heavies (KV-1, KV-1s) dominate, although both the Churchill and T1 Heavy are capable.  For mediums, the Sherman is more versatile than the Pz. IVH, but I think T-34 modified with the 57mm ZiS is most effective. The Crusader is similar to the T-34 and has great camouflage. The tank destroyers are all fun - I favour the Stug with its reliable 75mm but the fast American prototype T-67 is generally acknowledged to be the best.  The Su-85 has a powerful cannon.  The British AT2 TD is painfully slow but is entertainingly invulnerable against average-to-poor players. Out of the scout tanks, the Chaffee is a great all-rounder but the AMX-ELC is the most fun - a 90mm cannon on a fast, agile, low-profile scout? Yes please.

Tier 6:
My favourite tier as it has good medium tanks - which in my opinion are the most flexible and give you the most freedom in the game.  The Cromwell is fast, deadly and a great flanker - the German VK.3001D prototype trades speed for a better gun.  The T-34/85 is a great all-rounder. The heavies of choice are the Russian T-150, KV-85 and American M6.  The ponderous KV-2 has an enormous cannon than can amusingly 1-shot many tanks. Of the tank destroyers, the Jackson is perhaps more reliable than the faster, more famous Hellcat, but I prefer the SU-100's more powerful cannon over either.  The T37 is a good light with a reliable gun.   I haven't mentioned artillery as they have a similar bland playstyle, however the very mobile FV304 is an exception. 

Tier 7+
By now you know what you enjoy in a tank anyway. It annoys me when people recommend Tier 10 tanks (which take 1000s of games to attain) to new players. Players will either like or dislike the game well before then. It's like recommending to someone to get a job at McDonalds over KFC as a casual checkout operator, because McDonalds national manager position has a better dental package. 

Tank "Lines"

You unlock tanks in a linear fashion. Sometimes you need to play a "lemon" (poor tank) for dozens of games to unlock a good tank. I'm going to focus on lines that are fun to play right from the start, with few "lemons" through to tier 7.  Again, I'm ignoring tier 8+ as they require 100s of games to unlock. 

American Tank Destroyers.  These are good all the way though tier 6 (Hellcat, Jackson).  Unlike other nations most of the TDs have a turret making them more flexible. There's no 'bad' tanks to grind through in this line, and you should enjoy them all.

Russian Tank Destroyers.  Another decent line with few weak tanks and a few very good ones.   

British Mediums. The cruiser tanks are fast and have good firepower.  Again, there are no bad tanks in this line - all are decent, some are excellent (Cromwell).

Russian Heavies.  It's obvious this game was made in Russia. Heavies are usually the best tanks, and the KV and IS series are the best heavies.  These are the most idiot-proof tanks in the game.

American Lights.  These give you a lot of options and are useful in most situations. I'd recommend the Chaffee-T37-Bulldog line.
 

Choose Your Nation

 Many tanks share engines and guns so if you unlock one gun, you unlock the others.  So sticking with a particular nation will unlock tanks faster.  Russian tanks are generally regarded as "easymode" with idiot-proof heavies, and solid mediums and tank destroyers.  American tanks, once you get past the troublesome M3 Lee, have solid mediums and heavies, and excellent lights and TDs.  These are the recommended nations.  Germans have some decent tanks, but are generally outclassed at their tier* (*It's almost like the developer was Russian...)  British tanks are too niche, and Chinese tanks are usually inferior Russian copies. Least recommended: French and Japanese tanks have too many awful lemons to grind past.  

Choose Your Role

I rate these in order of most to least recommended for a new player. 

Heavies are the easiest to use and gain XP in, and the most forgiving of mistakes. Once you master sidescraping, hulldown and angling your tank's armour, you will be hard to beat. The Russian KV-1 series are the best heavies overall.  American heavies are the hulldown masters. 

Tank Destroyers also have a simple gameplay style and allow you to "camp" and snipe from bushes behind the front line.  Once spotted though, they are easily destroyed, and they are more "static" and influence the game less than heavies.  You need to understand how camouflage works in the game to use a TD effectively.

Mediums are the best all-rounders.  Their mobility allows them to flank effectively and contribute all over the map. Using mediums will improve your map awareness and overall sense of "tactics."  My favourite class, but not as straightforward as the first two classes.

Lights are stealthy, flimsy and fast. Difficult to play well, they are best left to patient or experienced players.  You need to have the stealth and stalking skills of a TD, and the map awareness of a medium - but you have no margin for error.

Artillery don't play as a tank per se - they sit still and bombard enemies from a top-down view from across the map. It's worth having one so you understand how they work, but generally any other tank is far preferable for your team.

Phew, that's a fair sized wall of text.  Hopefully you have an idea of what nation, class or tank line might suit you/are easier to use, avoiding some frustration.  I may do another article on basic tactics....

Note: World of Tanks is also a rather decent smartphone game and is also available on (shudder) Mac.

Toys as Terrain

Was browsing K-Mart (Wal-Mart to Americans?) and came across this $15 bucket of cheap plastic dinos. Since my 2-year-old is fascinated with dinos, and I have some in mind for a Jurassic World style game, I grabbed them.... not realising how much terrain is inside.

I've used fishtank-style plastic plants before, but never have come across them so cheaply and in such quantity.

I quickly drybrushed some brown over them to make them a bit less "plasticky"

Obviously they would look better on a jungle themed board.  You could certainly tart the bases up a lot more if you felt inclined (which I don't). 

You see, the reason I must use a sand table is because my co-inhabitor of the "man cave" insists on being exactly like daddy...

Little Miss was deeply impressed with daddy's sand table and was delighted to have her own - "thank you thank you thank you" - it also keeps her quiet for hours (and less likely to "help" me) when I'm in the shed.

Disturbingly, she now refers the gaming room as "her" shed as opposed to "daddy's shed" (the garage)... I may be evicted from my own man cave! Yikes!

On the upside, she is now showing an interest in tanks "this one shoots at this one - guns pew pew!" which is highly encouraging. A ready-made opponent - albeit one who insists on bandaging up the wounded miniatures after a game....

Anyway, pardon the rather self-indulgent post, and be encouraged to go scrounging your local toy shops - you never know what ready-made terrain you might find...