This is a very good tactical WW I game; scenarios include a number of different early tanks, but are not limited to tank actions; infantry, cavalry and artillery are well-represented.

This game had many great features if you were a tank lover (and who isn't). It can be like a hyper-detailed miniatures game.

The original was much beloved by the armor thickness-vs.- kinetic energy-penetration crowd. You could hit a tank half a dozen times and not score a critical hit (for examples of this, read Maj. Robert Crisp's excellent "Brazen Chariots"). Main complaint I recall for the original was the complete lack of morale rules.

Not familiar with the new incarnation, but it seems to be well-liked.

Really? The morale rules are pretty sophisticated considering when the game was published.

Each infantry squad has a morale level, and the level is in turn influenced by the nearby units, friend and foe, and can be further buttressed if the unit is in very good cover (like foxholes/trenches, or "hedgehogs" in the game's terminology).

Each infantry squad has an entry on a roster sheet. As casualties are taken, the manpower boxes are checked off, and the squad's morale goes down. Miss a morale check, and the unit is removed from play.

Tanks sort of have a morale rule as well. Some hits won't kill the tank, but will cause a crew casualty or two, and the owning player has to roll to see if the remaining crew abandon the tank.


I think the main complaints about the original are the plain board and the wristage.

The board: well, look at the images. It's orange, no terrain features.

Wristage: Guns have a rate of fire, and you roll to hit, then if you hit, you roll against a chart to see the effect of the projectile.

The Bofors AA gun in the game has a max rate of fire of 40/turn, so you can imagine what some of the larger scenarios are like!

This game, and others in the ATS series, handle tanks very well. Several tank only scenarios are included in the 24 that come in the game, and there are more in the six expansions that are available.

Of the other games in the series, the Combat! Kursk ATS upgrade and Panther Line both have good armored battles in them.

Yeah, and because it determined stacking by a maximum of combat factors, not units, it was better know as Sitzkreig the WWI game, when it came out. Everyone would rush toward the center, then form defensive lines like WWI. The game would then devolve arround an air/sea/invasion across the central sea, since attacking at less than 3-1 odds was all to frequently suicidal.

I fully agree with Phillip. Played it once many years ago, a friend had gotten a copy. He and I discussed it after a single play and both agreed ---
Lightining War? Not!! It more reminded us of WWI
I've never played it again - This list reminds me to go update my collection and down rate this sucker.

Also known as Panzer Bush, since the most viable tactic was to scurry from bush to bush, to avoid being shot at.

Due to a lack of an "opportunity fire" rule.

Wasn't this fixed in PL or AIW?

Don't forget PB's and PL's younger cousin.

Actually, though scale and system were very similar, the unit values had been adjusted for PL and so mixing units from Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader didn't work very well. This was not really a problem unless gamers wanted to try a Patton Takes On the Soviets scenario.

But the best rule was the ricochets. You haven't lived 'til you've seen a round take five caroms before going up the firing tank's rear--
P.S. Think I might know something about this game?

Best. Tank. Game. Ever.

Also, its siblings.

The system was interesting, but it could be vexing moving from one scenario to another because the terrain symbology on the map could assume an entirely new meaning in a new scenario.

"You get no defensive benefit there."

"Well, it was a copse of trees last time!"

"Sorry, this scenario says "brush."

"Aaugh!"

This game was designed in answer to a challenge from SPI to designers: Come up with a good wargame with just one page of rules.

It's a big page. On both sides. But at least it's just one piece of paper.

May I take this opportunity, please, to lobby one more time for a "Desert Rats" module: Tommies, 25 pdrs and CRUSADER II TANKS!!! Please!

"JABO to JABO One. You may brreeewww up!" (See reference to Bob Crisp's "Brazen Chariots" above.)

Loved loved LOVED this one as a kid. Might have to eBay it to get a copy...

Probably easier to find copies of "Mission Command Land" which is a republishing of "Tank Battle" done in 2003.

Same Stratego mechanics.

For the Tigers, yes.

All you had to do was get behind the Tiger.

Famous comment from a captured German tanker: "One of our tanks is worth ten of yours, but you've always got eleven!"

Allied commanders were known to sacrifice 4 shermans to take out 1 Tiger or Panther.

The Tiger II's were a match for the Sherman though. As long as the sherman could stay out of its sights it just had to wait for the King Tiger to break down.

Patton thought that tank-on-tank battles were an admission of failure in battle-planning. If his tanks are meeting yours, your threat has already been countered and you'll pay dear for any gains.

Tanks were meant to go after the soft targets in the rear. Infantry probes the line for weak spots. Air power is to counter enemy air first and then pin the enemy's mobile forces second. Artillery and infantry open a breach in the line and the tanks pour through to exploit gains, run amok in the rear, and move the battle line deeper into enemy territory. The armor and guns were to meant to protect the tanks as they passed through the lines and to inflict maximum damage when they started chewing up the soft targets.

Ah...

My very first tank game, and probably my very first "war" game.

To think that this game set me on the path that led inexorably to Advanced Squad Leader!

Updated reincarnation of "Tank Battle." Nice bits, added attack helos. But oh, my, if only they'd made one side T-72s instead of two colors of M1. Sigh.

Bought a pile of these when they were clearanced. Good bits source.

For a mass-market-targeted game, they didn't do too badly representing tank capabilities. It's especially interesting to start playing historical sides with early tanks and gradually adding more advanced armored types.

Incredible how both armament and protection increased in such a short span of time.

One drawback: "rear" armor protection is sometimes inflated. The KV-1 was NOT as well-protected against attacks from the rear as it was from the front; few tanks are.

Watching for this one with great interest. Hope the rumors are true.

Wouldn't mind some structures, either.

This is a fantasy flight game, it will have _masses_ of plastic tanks, men, terrain and miscellanious stuff.

Also, its younger sibling.

Very detailed, rather complex. Generally four to six tanks per side. Reminds me of a modern "Tobruk."