Western Front Tank Leader (1987)

[Whiterook]

…my game

Last Fall of 2023, I picked up Eastern Front Tank Leader from my good friend Roger, of which both the Western and Eastern Front Tank Leader games had been on my radar for decades. Both coming out right around a couple years after I’d first gotten into wargaming (‘86 for the former, and ‘87 for the latter), I mean hey, they got TANKS!!! …my go to obsession! After picking up the Eastern Front version, I hunted down the Western Front version off of Noble Knight Games and scored a super copy…better shape than the east front version, in fact.

Western Front Tank Leader is the second game in West End Game's Tank Leader series. A tactical (platoon/company level) game where formations are activated by playing command cards. The emphasis is on command, control and communications with the use of Command cards that represent formations which are used to determine order of movement/combat, rallying and group cohesion. The game is similar to the Panzer blitz type of game with command cards supplementing unit quality, command and morale.

The terrain on the two maps is variable for woods, contours, and cities which are defined in each scenario.

…my game

When I quick read the east front game rules, I noted a lot of similarities to what would later become standard in card dependent mechanics seen in such awesome fare such as Lock ‘N Load Publishing’s, Nations at War. It appeals to me, so I was excite to see this in the Tank Leader series. as for the games themselves, yes, the artwork is much older looking and manufacture technology is well, ‘80s, but still represents an amazingly viable game system and I am assuming, playing experience.

You get a lot in this game…


…even came with a counter tray!!! (My game)




(BGG)

One of the things I hadn’t realized was the association of John Hill as the designer?


(BBG)


…oddly isn’t mentioned on BoardGameGeek.

I think the only pan I would be able to muster, if I had to is the map art…not the best out there, but when I look at some games such as Tiny Battle Publishing’s, Sticks and Stones (…which by the way is 2015!), I can cut it some slack; I mean, it’s not super old map artwork we see in such giants as Panzer Blitz and Panzer Leader!


(BGG)

I’m going to dig this one out today and have a lookie.

[mikeh]

Tanks! How can you lose?!! I think it a fine looking game for the period.

[Whiterook]

Apr 30, 2024 12:17:38 GMT -5 mikeh said:

Tanks! How can you lose?!! I think it a fine looking game for the period.

Yes, it certainly shows it’s age in all of the components, but yet not as aged as earlier games (like Avalon Hill’s, Panzer Leader, which is also high on the list of games to play this Summer).

The map is maybe the worst of it, with some questionably cartoony-style artwork, but it’s very much doable in play. The map in the upcoming version from Compass Games looks quite a bit better…

[mikeh]

I have the old, old S&T game Panzer Battles, I have taken it out and set it up from time to time but have never gotten very far. Checking 3 or 4 charts just to see if one tank has hit another drives me a little buggy. I understand the system was later used in Mech War although I have never played that one.

Does WFTL require a lot of chart checking?

[Whiterook]

May 4, 2024 11:55:35 GMT -5 mikeh said:

I have the old, old S&T game Panzer Battles, I have taken it out and set it up from time to time but have never gotten very far. Checking 3 or 4 charts just to see if one tank has hit another drives me a little buggy. I understand the system was later used in Mech War although I have never played that one.

Does WFTL require a lot of chart checking?

It has one, a very small Player Aid (two provided for a 2-Player game). I did a crop of one of the earlier pics top give you close up view…



…of Player Aids/Charts, this is a very reasonable one, in my estimation. The CRT (Combat Results Table) is pretty reasonable and easier than many I’ve been using lately; the Modifiers are laid out nicely and saves me from having to make my own cheat sheet as I’ve also had to do lately with other games.

I’ll be playing the game for the first time, at some point over the next few days/weekend, so I should have a better idea how easy or hard combat is 

[Whiterook]

I’ve been getting the game straightened out over the last few days, getting ready to play it leading up to and/or into the weekend. I started with the Formation Cards, which are used to activate units. The military organizations used in the game, such as Divisions are divided into smaller organizations, called “Formations”; and these formations each have their own card. It’s a tad similar to what you see in games like Lock ‘N Load Publishing’s, Nations at War and World at War… but in this game, rather than blind draw from a tabled deck, players have a hand of cards of all their formations that they play, lowest C3 rating to highest





On a player’s turn, they play a formation card, which will activate his/her chosen units…unless the opponent “interrupts” the sequence by playing a higher C3 rated card, at which that card will activate those units first… unless the original player interrupts and so on. Once the final card is placed in the “activation deck”, you then follow each card in turn for formation (units) activation. Pretty clever!

The cards are provided on with the game come in sheets, cards perforated. The problem is, with this older tech at the time of printing, the cards have pilled edges that can catch with card on card shuffling and draw. My solution was to place them in sleeves. I used Monster Sleeves, which were about a quarter inch taller than the cards, but the closest that could be had…and I just happen to have a pack left from another game project



Here you see a good example of how the cards come…



Below, you can see a good before and after example as I went along…





It was time consuming but worth it.

[Whiterook]

Today, I did a full inventory of the counters and am happy top report I have all 320! (I don’t think I lucked out with Eastern Front Tank Leader, which I inventoried last weekend, but I’ll recount those later). After separating all the counters (armor, vehicles, infantry, artillery, admin counters and so on), I put them in the tray West End Games had provided with the game… I did take out the units for the formations used in the first scenario, while I was at it). The separated counters…



Units with their formation cards…





And all the others placed in the counter tray, by type…



It just happened to work out with a great distribution, which will make finding counters a lot easier.

[Whiterook]

I’ve made it through a second read of the rules… it generally takes me a couple read throughs before I feel comfortable enough with the rules to start playing. I think I’ve stumbled into this methodology because frustration in massive mistakes made after just a first read are annoying and distracting enough to me that it threatens to taint my hitherto excitement at playing the new system. Sad, but a recognized possible truth.

So one of the things that became completely apparent is, this is a much tweaked version of Eastern Front Tank Leader (EFTL)! …not a necessarily bad thing, but it has me wondering if I’ll need to make considerations when backtracking to the Eastern Front rules and how apparent those adjustments might be… I have no idea. I did read EFTL long before getting Western Front Tank Leader (WFTL), but have long forgotten enough of what those EFTL rules contain (or lack in comparison) to make an informed judgement. It’ll be doable, I am sure. also makes me wonder if Desert Steel further tweaked the system!

So what am I gathering for tweaks?

The new designer that helmed this admitted he added more chrome…not necessarily a bad thing. But majority, the Western Front mandated the rules for fortifications, mines, off-map artillery, smoke, and air power. The previous game was much more simpler in those regards, being a totally different style front. Though being important in the war in the east, they epitomized war in the west. Of those new consideration, air power and off-map artillery were perhaps the most significant change in my estimation… what I am happy with is, instead of heavy plotting and chart use, the designer opted for the use of Strike Cards instead, which even though some plotting g may be necessary, the card play appears to keep the game moving quicker and smoother. 

Fortifications, minefields, and smoke are reminiscent of modern day wargames, but may have been kinda cutting edge back in the mid-80s. I think they are handled much the way games produced decades later use them, and I see major influences back to this game!

I believe the new designer tried to incorporate the geomorphic map concept by providing two smaller maps that can combine for different variations; this opposed to the single big map of EFTL. Honestly, I really wish this game (and West End Games in general) had stuck around for more production! A lot more maps and scenarios, as well as fronts could have made this game series a juggernaut! Alas, we only got the three modules. 

I’d have to refer back to EFTL on other items, but I suspect the Morale mechanic had some additions; the concept of Road Net (dirt to paved) really adds to maneuver; a more robust take on Formation Cards, especially concerning Parent and Command cards; and Spotting rules may have been tweaked or added entirely. 

I’m thinking you get a whole lot more game with WFTL. I’ll be curious to see what it’s like when I go backwards to EFTL and forwards into Desert Steel (which I’ve learned had an original concept title of North African Front Tank Leader).

[Whiterook]

PHEW!!! …well, this game keeps going sideways on me, mainly because of frustration with the mechanic of Tactical Doctrine vs Formations…We’ve covered formations somewhat within this thread, but it’s still bloody confusing; and Tactical Doctrine is directly tied to Formations and distance between formations.

Part of the issue with Formations is, Divisions are subdivided into different entities:

• A Command Formation can either be a Combat Command (armored) or Regiment, for instance.
• …which can drill down to a grouping of Battalions for Combat Commands, or skipping straight to Squadrons with no Battalion element.
• …which can further drill down to Companies for Battalions.

…and that’s not even taking into account British and Germans (and their Kampfgruppen). The example given for this is…



…that’s just two Commands within the game. So I kinda get it in theory, and I am confident it will gel in actual play, but… then you throw Tactical Doctrine into the mix, and what this is, is:

• How far away Companies and Squadrons can be away from each other; and…
• The exclusions of not taking account the exclusions from Tactical Doctrine of German Battalions, HQ Combat Formations, and Kampfgruppen; and for the Americans, Combat Commands and HQ Combat Formations!

Confusing as hell! So if we piecemeal all this together into the example given in the rulebook…




…So let’s break this down for the American 55th Tank Battalion, into the supposed tactical Doctrine distance parameters:

1. Per Battalion Tactical Doctrine, Company B (three units) and C (two units) of the American 55th Tank Battalion are all within 10 hexes of hex 2113 Central Hex, designated by the American player; all units are thereby in command. This is because these two Companies are part of the 55th Tank Battalion (…two of four Companies in the battalion, per the Parent Card). If one or both of the other Companies were in this scenario, the would need to be 10 hexes away from that player-designated Central Hex.
2. Per Company Tactical Doctrine however, each Company unit would need to operate within a designated Central Hex and any two adjacent hexes away from that Central Hex. This is where the game goes off the rails for me!!! All five units are 10 and 11 hexes away from hex 2113, so the map example given in the rulebook showing 2113 as “Central Hex for 55th” cannot be that hex distance, otherwise the two B Company units in hexes 1420 and 1520 would be Separated (out of command); and since that 2113 Central Hex was used for Battalion Tactical Doctrine, why would we be using it again? No, the designer must mean (by simple deduction and interpretation) hex(s) around each Companies’ (B/55 and C/55, individually) units. The map shows a leader from “Area of Operations for C/55” and “…B/55” as hexes 2505 for C Company and maybe 1620 …it has a crappy leader ending point, so it’s supposition, but in again in theory, it would comply with all units needing to be two hexes away from that particular hex; yet, the B/55 unit in 1721 is shown as Separated and out of control? I’m going to have to assume that was a error in the rulebook…

It’s crappy writing at it’s most glaring, really… I mean, I see why the designer used the term “Area of Operations”, so as not to be confused with the “Central Hex” used for Battalion Tactical Doctrine, but it just confused me, as it obviously means central hex; and the lack of the big graphic dots for those two areas of operations is inconsistent and confusing.

I’ll go with my interpretation and see how I the game plays. I can tell you right now… I don’t like this Tactical Doctrine mechanic. It’s a bit convoluted and a lot of hassle to calculate two different distance parameters for unit control…

What I might end up doing is, after a play or two as is, I may home rule these Tank Leader games more in line with Lock ‘N Load Publishing’s, Nations at War mechanics of using an HQ unit counter(s) as the “Central Hex” placeholder hex; units need to be within a Command Range of HQ(s). Yeah, it would alter units combat maneuvers in a significant way, as the system as is allows HQs to operate independently and with no restrictions to Tactical Doctrine defined distances…but let’s be honest…how often did HQs take off and hunt the enemy alone, far away from it’s units of command?

[mikeh]

I don't know now, this sounded and looked like a game I would like. However after reading though all the fun 😜 you are having with the rules I think I will pass.

[Whiterook]

Jun 2, 2024 13:14:46 GMT -5 mikeh said:

I don't know now, this sounded and looked like a game I would like. However after reading though all the fun 😜 you are having with the rules I think I will pass.

…my honest guess is, a lot of wargamers will initially buy the new Compass Games reissue, but be turned off and away from it quickly, unless they fix Tactical Doctrine, or at least clarify better how it’s used.

[penters]

@pentershi (apologies if this post appears twice, I had it all written but left it for a bite to eat and when I came back to send it, it had disappeared.- Take 2!)

I noticed that you are having some problems with Tactical Doctrine.
Basically each Company (or Squadron) formation card has an Area of Operations (AOO) within which it functions normally. Step outside this area and its platoons are separated, with consequent penalties for firing and morale.
In addition some nationalities such as the US or Soviets also have a Battalion AOO to consider. That means all the Battalions subordinate formation Companies/Squadrons have to be within its AOO or they are considered separated. So you could have the platoons of a company in Company AOO, but they are separated because the company as a whole is out of Battalion range.
HQ formations are exempt from all this.

I’ve made some notes on the rules example you posted to show you what I mean.


A couple of points 
All of B Company are in Battalion AOO range of 10 hexes, but 1xB Company Platoon is out of Company AOO and marked separated.
All of A Company are also in Battalion AOO, and similarly a Platoon is out of its Company AOO and also marked separated.
Finally all C Company are separated because they are outside their Battalion AOO.

I’ve also shown possible arrangements for US platoons that would work for their Tactical Doctrine. (A central hex plus two adjacent hexes)
I hope this helps.

I seem to be having a problem posting an image, I’ll keep trying.

[mikeh]

Hello Penters and welcome. To post pictures you need to use an image hosting site.

[Whiterook]

Hi Penters… welcome aboard!!! Unlike the old forum we used to have, this free-forum site doesn't have a dedicated storage space for images so we rely on off-site image hosting of your choosing. The recommended (and to me, the easiest) one is Postimages… take a look at this thread, which will show you how it works.

….and thanks for the help on the conditions for Separation in the game! For me, there are just so many levels of operational levels among the varied nations that it gets confusing. I am sure I’ll *get it* eventually 

[Whiterook]

I have to admit, there aren’t many games that slowed me to a snails pace, and frustration ti stick with… in fact, I can’t think of one that had me abandon the game after initial, repeated tries, beyond Magic Realm; this one joined that Walk of Shame   I’ve shelved this one for another go much later down the line… of course, I shelved Magic Realm in around 1987 and haven’t opened the box since 

…I will be giving this more love, though… I’m super annoyed with the Tactical Doctrine rules with keeping certain units in command range and how that is identified, but as written in the rules, it’s just waaaaaaaay too cumbersome and limiting for my tastes. I mean, yeah, I get what the designer was trying to achieve here, in terms of unions needing to stay cohesive within established operational areas, but this is a GAME! …something along the lines of Lock ‘N Load Publishing's, “Nations at War” achieves much the same operations in an easier mechanic(s); I may try and adaptation of making up Command HQ units in that vein and utilizing a marker with or without the HQ units provided in the game.