How does this game compare to the boardgame MBT?

[erichswafford]

Just curious if any wargamers here have tried both AB and the classic boardgame MBT, and how they compare?

Never could get into MBT simply because of complexity and time constraints, but the subject matter is fascinating.

Anyone know how they compare in terms of realism, modeling of C&C, etc?

[nikolas93TS]

I can ask on Wargames subreddit if you want, as I never played MBT.

[thewood1]

Well, they are the same scale. But MBT has a lot of abstractions, table look ups, and record keeping. You can play much larger battles by yourself with AB. I'm not sure why anyone would want to compare a boardgame and a PC game with completely different mechanisms.

[erichswafford]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, they are the same scale. But MBT has a lot of abstractions, table look ups, and record keeping. You can play much larger battles by yourself with AB. I'm not sure why anyone would want to compare a boardgame and a PC game with completely different mechanisms.

They have identical subject matter. Approximately at the same scale. MBT has been around a long time and is highly-regarded.

So, of course I'm going to be comparing them. No two boardgames are going to have identical mechanisms either. The mechanisms aren't what I care about. As someone who always wanted to play MBT, I'm wondering how AB compares in terms of realism.

I'll probably have better luck posting over at CSW, but I thought I'd ask here as well. Not many people are "into" this subject matter, and we all tend to know/play the same core games dealing with it. Was hoping a grognard who's played MBT could give me their review of AB (which I've been playing since it was freeware).

[Policefreak55]

ORIGINAL: erichswafford

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Well, they are the same scale. But MBT has a lot of abstractions, table look ups, and record keeping. You can play much larger battles by yourself with AB. I'm not sure why anyone would want to compare a boardgame and a PC game with completely different mechanisms.

They have identical subject matter. Approximately at the same scale. MBT has been around a long time and is highly-regarded.

So, of course I'm going to be comparing them. No two boardgames are going to have identical mechanisms either. The mechanisms aren't what I care about. As someone who always wanted to play MBT, I'm wondering how AB compares in terms of realism.

I'll probably have better luck posting over at CSW, but I thought I'd ask here as well. Not many people are "into" this subject matter, and we all tend to know/play the same core games dealing with it. Was hoping a grognard who's played MBT could give me their review of AB (which I've been playing since it was freeware).

Armored Brigade isn't a board game, it's a real time tactics wargame, that's why it's difficult to compare the two. Aside from era, that's where the similarities seemingly end from what I've seen of MBT.

[erichswafford]

Ok, let me re-phrase. Because, by that logic, you can't compare Combat Mission to ASL? Or Harpoon (miniatures) to CMANO? Or a movie to a book?

So: Do the outcomes match? Forget about how they get the job done. They're both wargames covering identical subject matter. MBT (if you're not aware) is sort of the Gold Standard on this wargaming subject (grand tactical 80's combat).

AB isn't exactly "real-time" either, since you can pause, slow and accelerate time (unlike an RTS, for instance).

Anyway, if you haven't actually played MBT (I haven't either), there's probably not a lot you can add. I think that's why no one has chimed in - not because these two treatments of modern grand tactical are totally beyond comparing to one another.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, however. I'm really enjoying AB, regardless of anything else!

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: erichswafford
MBT (if you're not aware) is sort of the Gold Standard on this wargaming subject (grand tactical 80's combat).

I would give that prize to Frank Chadwick’s “Assault”

[blackcloud6]

I've tried to get into MBT/Panzer but the rules as presented give me trouble. I think it is the smorgasbord presentation of the rules where you pick the ones you want to add into the game. I'm like "which ones do I choose?"

BT is a mod heavy game, it that each shot is modified by many conditions. This allows for a high level of detail on each shot and on each individual vehicle. That detail is not apparent to the player in AB becasue the computer is handling it and the player just see the results. In MBT you are getting the grit of each shot (the older version of MBT was even more detailed). Thus, AB is more of a command game for commanders and MBT is one for tank geeks. Each game has its value to the player depending on what he wants.

I will try again to get into MBT once again some day. But with AB, it is so easy to sit down and set up a scenario and play it much quicker than you could do in MBT.

[thewood1]

I see you agree finally...

"Ok, let me re-phrase. Because, by that logic, you can't compare Combat Mission to ASL? Or Harpoon (miniatures) to CMANO? Or a movie to a book?"

[Blond_Knight]

ORIGINAL: erichswafford

Just curious if any wargamers here have tried both AB and the classic boardgame MBT, and how they compare?

I rarely find myself throwing AB back into the box in frustration.

[edb1815]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: erichswafford
MBT (if you're not aware) is sort of the Gold Standard on this wargaming subject (grand tactical 80's combat).

I would give that prize to Frank Chadwick’s “Assault”

+1 I played Assault while stationed in Germany in the 80s.

[CSO_Talorgan]

I cut my teeth on Yacquinto's Panzer, which was a precursor to MBT; and I know a lot more about Close Combat than Armored Brigade, so I'm not really answering your question.

The computer has a built in opponent, who is interested in the genre and always ready to play; and you don't have to worry about the cat wandering across your table. The boardgame is more easily modded, and you can bend the rules without a PhD in computer science.

[mmacguinness]

As always in questions like this, lots of opinions flying around,few facts.

I would suggest the best way to answer the question is by experiment.

1. Create a AB map based on the MBT mapboards.
2. Create AB scenarios based on a few MBT scenarios
3. Directly compare the experience of playing the AB/MBT scenarios to playing the MBT boardgame.

I have done this a few time for different games, Squad Leader in Steel Panthers, WAW85 to Tac Ops, and a few others. It is a fun exercise though I don't know how meaningful it is.
I did the WAW85/TacOps scenatios abou 5 years ago and didn't take notes, so this is from memnory; World at War 85 is a platoon level armored warfare game, MBT counters are for single vehicles. Like AB, Tacops units are single vehicles or squads, though unlike AB, multiple units can be combined to be represented by a single icon.

1. The first obvious difference, the faster pace at which the game proceeds is well known, but has to be seen to be believed! A WAW85 scenario that might take 45 minutes to an hour to play will last just a few minutes in Tacops
2. The map area in the boardgame is smaller. If the maps are imported/implemented in a computer game, EVERYTHING on the map is within range, line of sight becomes critically important, and this feeds bavck into ther import/implementation of the mapboards.
3. Turn timescale: BG turn timescales/durations are usually quite vague, with IGOUGO turn sequence. Tac Ops and AB are both more or less continuous
4. BG sceanios are TINY compared to computer games scenarios. This is essential to make them playable.
5. BG map sizes are TINY compared to computer games scenarios. Tac Ops can go to 30km x30 km, AB is 15km x 15km, BG's maybe 3 km x 3 km
5. Weapon effects appear to be far more lethal in computer games. I suspect that in determining weapon effects at a given hex range, BG designers use a fuzzier range calc than simply no. of hexes x nominal hex size for reduced hit percentages at longer range.

It was a fun exercise. I imagine the results of an MBT scenario implemented in AB would be very similar.

[nikolas93TS]

Just my guess, but maybe boardgames tent do be less lethal because they usually have less units per battle?

I recall that we did some NTC tests few years ago and amount of kills on different ranges was in line with estimated values.

Also, that modern lethality in AB goes down further back you go with years.

[mmacguinness]

Yes, I saw your NTC tests on the old AB forum. You should dig them out and post them here, I am sure a lot of the new players would be interested.

I think boardgames may be less lethal simply to make sure the game lasts more than a couple of turns once the action starts. Now, this is just an impression, and I may be wildly wrong, I haven't does any analysis at all.

MBT mapboard is 3km x 4.5 km. An AB game with armor on a map this small would be extremely lethal, short engagement ranges, high hit prob.,who sees first, kills first.