From: Baron Samedi Subject: East Front Tank Commander versus The Last Crusade: Some Observations. After a few significant hints, along with the blatant posting of Boulder Game's 1-800 number on the refrigerator, my beloved bought me six decks of Moments in History's new collectible card game, TANK COMMANDER: EAST FRONT EDITION for my birthday, which we celebrated while we were away on vacation recently. Along with Columbia's WESTFRONT and the complete DIXIE: GETTYSBURG boxed set, so as you all can well imagine, I was a happy chappy indeed, cooped up in a beach house for two solid weeks, with nothing to do but read rule sets and solo game. Well, we ate a lot of good seafood and drank Weeping Radish microbrews, too, but that's incidental to this message... You'd think a card game about the Normandy Battles would be a tad different from one about East Front Tank Battles, wouldn't you? TANK COMMANDER: EAST FRONT EDITION (TF:EF) looks to be a streamlined variant of the THE LAST CRUSADE (TLC), but only at extreme first glance-- there are significant differences between the two games, despite the similar mechanic and almost identical unit scale (single tanks, vehicles, guns and squads). As in TLC, the TF:EF game plays on a virtual battlefield that consists of a grid of spaces between the two players. *Unlike* TLC, the terrain is not seperated from the deck and is not pre-determined before play unless specifically called for by a scenario. In TLC, the terrain cards are handled distinctly different from the unit cards and specials. Players create a deck of potential terrain cards and draw from them randomly, then "pay" for them with supply points. Not so in TC:EF. If you draw a terrain card randomly from your reinforcement deck, you put it into play. If you don't, those spaces forming the virtual battlefield remain "Clear." The most glaring difference between TLC and TC:EF is apparent early on. TLC has a subtle, but significant game mechanic that effects the course of play: supply points. The American has worse units but better supply, the German has better units but a deteriorating supply position. This generally causes a shift in power about mid-game from the German to the American. In TC:EF, there just *isn't* a supply mechanic, nor is there a marked "doctrinal difference" between the two sides, which is a *very* important factor regarding play of TLC. You have to play the Germans differently than the Americans. TC:EF is more of a numbers game-- the cards rate a piece of armor just so, and the opponents' defense is just so, and voila, the results are going to be just so in combat. Don't get the impression that TC:EF is simple, though. TC:EF is much more of a "wargamer's cardgame," in my limited experience, than TLC. I base that on the mechanics, which compare factors that should be familiar to any wargamer-- armour penatration factor (short and long), armour thickness, etc. TC:EF also borrowed some concepts familiar to other card gamers-- the random number generation scheme from UP FRONT (which I think is great, BTW), as well as the idea of special cards being "interrupts," "instants," which should be familiar to a MAGIC:THE GATHERING geek. TC:EF also has a few things that TLC doesn't, but *should* have, namely, scenarios. The rules provide OOBs for historical and non-historical scenarios for enhanced play. TLC should have had this feature. Collecting TC:EF should be a tad easier than collecting TLC. I haven't compared card lists yet, but it does seem that there are fewer cards overall in the TC:EF system than in the TLC system. There are much fewer special cards and a significant amount of repetition within the same starter deck. I don't know if boosters are planned or not. Overall, I'd give TLC an A- and TC:EF a B+... but this is only my current opinion. Granted, I've played TLC a hell of a lot more than TC:EF, which I've only played versus myself at the current time. It does seem to me that the mechanics of TLC are more original and better thought out than TC:EF, but the weapons stats seemed more sensible in the latter game. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the TLC designers fudged a bit on a few of their cards to get a better game out of it. I do think TC:EF is an up and comer, though, and will certainly enjoy much of the same well deserved reputation that TLC has. Walt From: John Desch Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander versus The Last Crusade: Some Observations. Walt writes: >The most glaring difference between TLC and TC:EF is apparent early on. >TLC has a subtle, but significant game mechanic that effects the course >of play: supply points. The American has worse units but better supply, >the German has better units but a deteriorating supply position. This >generally causes a shift in power about mid-game from the German to the >American. In TC:EF, there just *isn't* a supply mechanic, nor is there a >marked "doctrinal difference" between the two sides, which is a *very* >important factor regarding play of TLC. You have to play the Germans >differently than the Americans. Thanks for the excellent review and kind words, Walt. We decided against an overt supply rule for two reasons: 1) units at the tactical level are assumed to have the basic supplies they need to fight the battle or they would not be combat ready and therefore unable to participate and 2) we didn't want to waste cards on supply points. Sixty cards per deck is not a lot to work with so we wanted to maximize value. Your point about doctrinal issues is a good one, and we should make allowances for such things German use of machineguns, infiltration, etc., in our advanced rules. Several more editions of TC will be printed, beginning with the North Africa campaign which I'm told should be out next spring and be followed by the Western Fronts '40 and '44-45 sometime thereafter. I did notice two glaring pictorial errors on the East Front cards : the T-34/85 card is shown as a T-34 with a 76mm gun and the King Tiger is depicted as a Tiger I. These should have been caught during the final review. Ulrich assures me that these will be fixed with the next printing and new cards will be replaced at no cost to owners. The folks at MiH send along their profound apologies. As a general note, please feel free to e-mail me directly (or post it to the list if appropriate) about your TC:FE observations and questions. Thanks very much. John John T. Desch jtd4@cornell.edu (607)255-5014 From: OHara Walter Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander versus The Last Crusade: SomeObservations. John Desch writes: >We decided against an overt supply rule for two reasons: 1) units at the tactical level >are assumed to have the basic supplies they need to fight the battle or they would not >be combat ready and therefore unable to participate and 2) we didn't want to waste >cards on supply points. Sixty cards per deck is not a lot to work with so we wanted >to maximize value. I don't regard the lack of an overt supply rule as inately crippling to your game, merely the one big thing (in my mind) that sets it apart from the Last Crusade. In TLC, the difference between the American and German supply positions (plus effectively timed play of special cards) is truly the key to victory for either side. As the German, you have the choice of either building or acting-- and in the late game, it's usually either building or defending! As the American, the player is initially hobbled by low supply but his position steadily improves while the German's remains static at best. A very clever distinction between two very different opponents. The fact that Tank Commander doesn't take that tack doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game. There's a greater sense of freedom of action in Tank Commander-- the supply rules can hobble action as well as aid it in TLC. There are a lot of odd rules concerning movement along straight lines in TLC that bug me, too. >we should make allowances for such things German use of machineguns, infiltration, >etc., in our advanced rules. There are two great doctrinal strengths of the opponents-- the German capability for rapid, flexible counterattacks and infiltration versus the tenacious Russian capacity for improvising defense (was it the Russians who were the subject of that quote about "if you can't dislodge them in the first 24 hours, don't bother attacking again"?). These should be addressed at least on the card level (if not in the rules). I know you are building a system, not a specific battle game here, so I can understand that you would be loth to tinker too much with the rules by adding a specific national trait, but I think these should be addressed. The minor issues (higher levels of automatic fire for German squads, superior Russian manpower) can be addressed on the card-by-card level. >I did notice two glaring pictorial errors on the East Front cards : the T-34/85 card >is shown as a T-34 with a 76mm gun and the King Tiger is depicted as a Tiger I. These >should have been caught during the final review. Ulrich assures me that these will be >fixed with the next printing and new cards will be replaced at no cost to owners. A generous gesture, since the incredible repetition of the 6 decks I received for my birthday rendered a bushel load of Tigers and T-34s. MIH shouldn't worry too much about the occassional mistake-- you should see some of the howlers made by the Chameleon Eclectic gang with The Last Crusade. >As a general note, please feel free to e-mail me directly (or post it to >the list if appropriate). Hopefully we can get a ftf going at Cold Wars this year! W. From: John Desch Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander versus The Last Crusade: SomeObservations. From Walt: >I don't regard the lack of an overt supply rule as inately crippling to your >game, merely the one big thing (in my mind) that sets it apart from the Last >Crusade. I didn't mean to suggest you did, and I apologize if my tone conveyed that message. I just meant to explain our theories behind the game. :-) >There are two great doctrinal strengths of the opponents-- the German >capability for rapid, flexible counterattacks and infiltration versus the >tenacious Russian capacity for improvising defense (was it the Russians who >were the subject of that quote about "if you can't dislodge them in the first >24 hours, don't bother attacking again"?). These should be addressed at least >on the card level (if not in the rules). I agree in that the German doctrine for immediate counterattacks (formulated back in 1917) could be extremely effective when the German Army was a finely-tuned instrument. Later in the war, however, they were about as likely to be the cause of heavy and unnecessary casualties as they were to be of benefit. Nevertheless, it was an important aspect of their tactical operations and should be reflected accordingly. A few different versions of a Counterattack Card -- a few beneficial, a few not -- would be a nice addition to the game. >Hopefully we can get a ftf going at Cold Wars this year! Love to! I got a killer deck though. ;-) John T. Desch jtd4@cornell.edu (607)255-5014 From: OHara Walter Subject: Re: East Front Tank Commander versus The Last Crusade:SomeObservations. >Johann Von Desch writes: --------------------------------------------- >I agree in that the German doctrine for immediate counterattacks >(formulated back in 1917) could be extremely effective when the German Army >was a finely-tuned instrument. Later in the war, however, they were about >as likely to be the cause of heavy and unnecessary casualties as they were >to be of benefit. Nevertheless, it was an important aspect of their >tactical operations and should be reflected accordingly. A few different >versions of a Counterattack Card -- a few beneficial, a few not -- would be >a nice addition to the game. ---------------------------------------------- That would be a good idea, though addressing counterattacks as a card vice a game mechanic smells of deus ex machina. I do like the idea of counterattacks as being sometimes beneficial, sometimes not. ---------------------------------------------- >>Hopefully we can get a ftf going at Cold Wars this year! >Love to! I got a killer deck though. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- That's fine by me. I consider getting my clock cleaned a few times to be an integral part of the learning curve. Who knows? By Cold Wars, I may have a few tricks up my sleave, as well. Walt >