MBT Post game 1 plays comments

[@benmoeller2590]

My M60A1 had a "stabilized" gun but I would only shoot on the move if we were going dead slow if I wanted to hit the target.

[@mikkoveijalainen7430]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the game. Just recently I bought the game and I've played it a couple of times now.

[@war_gamer]

Thanks for watching.

[@ItalianDC]

Where'd you get the wreck fire/smoke counters? That's cool!

[@war_gamer]

Litko . IT was a gift from a viewer.

[@horrido666]

Fire on the move is always less accurate than stopping and shooting, and usually substantially so. It's seldom used unless there's a specific reason (eg closing with overwhelming numerical superiority). The gyros are leaps and bounds above the ww2 stuff, but engagements ranges are also much greater. There's a hysteresis in any mechanical system. It takes time for the computer to make adjustments, for the actuators to overcome momentum, ect. If you hit a bump at the wrong time, you will miss. Sure the suspensions are fantastic, but they aren't perfect. When you fire at a target 2 miles away, you need perfect. In the media you see lots of tanks firing while moving, but only because it looks so cool. I don't think people generally realise that these gun systems, at their base level, are still a guy with a crosshair pulling a trigger. It's really not a whole lot different than firing a rifle with a scope, other than there's a mechanical system that gets in the way. Take the smoothest car made onto a new paved road, drive 45 mph, and see how accurate you are with that scope shooting at something 1/2 mile away. That analogy is not far removed from you as a tanker shooting a bad guy 1.5 miles away. It only takes a couple seconds to slam on the breaks to take your shot. Most tankers will take that time, because your accuracy goes from crap to almost perfect. Of course, there's exceptions.

[@war_gamer]

I agree in principle. That said the cut and paste from Panzer to hear is faulty. Even rates of fire could be argued on some of these platforms.

[@war_gamer]

There a lot of opinions about how the system reflects things. Some of those opinions are from former tankers too.

[@MrDragonkin]

Vehicles with stabilization rating 1 (the best one) have movement allowance of 3/4 for Short Halt command instead of normal 1/2. I interpret it as an ability to slow down a bit and shoot, not stop and shoot.

[@douglaspearson1647]

I love this game but I have the Avalon Hill MBT & IDF versions. The maps are mounted and green & sand respectfully. What I am curious about is the differences in rules compared between the new and original are. The new map sheets look like ASL maps.

[@war_gamer]

I don't own original MBT. my understanding is they are cleaned up, revised and expanded. forums on BGG have more info.

[@douglaspearson1647]

Big Board Gaming Thank you. I will check out BGG.

[@usapatriot4163]

Hey great to see the video review. From the looks of it GMT did drop the ball from a graphic standpoint on the artwork for the map. I have a question I didn't notice if the infantry has a top-down view or a sideview like in Panzer. Panzer infantry really let me down for artwork perspective. However I think you may and I say may just have convinced me to pick up the new main battle tank and it's proposed expansions.

[@war_gamer]

side profile for infantry

[@horrido666]

The too large counters do look less than ideal, but I like the map. Once you realise that all that clear terrain is actually farm fields, it is pretty representative of Germany (in a generic way). Fulda has much more woods and hills, but there are areas of Germany where it's mostly farmland (in fact, that's the majority of Germany). You want to see a map where they dropped the ball? Check out Conflict of heroes Guadalcanal. I want to return that game, but it would cost me $16 postage.

[@CounterAttack]

Nice review. Thanks!

[@crasher303]

I know what mean about the maps. If you did a blind test taking a close ups of the GMT's tactical games, fighting formations, combat com. & panzer terrain, then asked where it came from ? I'd be hard pressed to know. Still like them all no matter. Yes the hexes could be bigger.

[@war_gamer]

Thanks for watching!

[@war_gamer]

you know that would be a fun concept to test out.

[@juancho420]

The AH MBT had shoot and move rules. If you look at the unit cards they had Stabilization ratings, NATO units were slightly superior in this regard. Hull down was also possible with advanced rules. Rate of Fire should also be indicated in the unit card, next the the weapon. Most tanks had ROF: 1. The Bradleys had ROF: 3 or 5, don't remember. Is none of this included in this version of MBT?

[@war_gamer]

yes. this does too. however I think it undersell the capabilities of advanced tanks, and is a cut and paste from Panzer + SB rating versus a fully developed capability expressed as a rule.

[@FreeFragUK]

Greatly appreciate the overview and thoughts, the game definitely appeals so I'll be sure to keep an eye out for a copy. I agree that the maps could be better but I think this is a minor niggle, at least for me. I am curious to see how the map scale would compare to those found in the recent World at War 85 game from LnL Publishing. Out of curiosity what size counter clipper(s) did you use with the counters?

[@war_gamer]

2mm fyi

[@madddog6790]

Kev...have you played any scenarios with infantry yet? I would imagine that with all of the anti tank stuff available to infantry, they become much more of a threat to armor than in the WW 2 days. I haven't ordered this yet, but I take care of that today probably...this will go OOP quickly I'm guessing.

[@war_gamer]

im hoping to get the infantry on the map soon! You are right. maybe a separate vid on AT weapons is needed?

[@awargaminglife5898]

Quality review, thank you. Due to the nature of having to check each sides tank stats throughout do you think it is a bit of a strain for solitaire or would you advocate it?

[@war_gamer]

its pretty awesome.

[@icebergzero]

I have ordered this game and I really appreciate your point of view and the effort you put into these videos. I totally agree with you about the maps. Could it work to play this game on the Conflict of Heroes maps? Or would that mess up the scenarios? Those maps are state of the art.

[@war_gamer]

yes

[@war_gamer]

ALSO I was thinking about Fighting Formations maps? Cheap to acquire maps might work.

[@war_gamer]

oh.. and of course Lock n Load X Maps would be good. Scale is off a bit but you can 'ignore that'

[@bemljj]

hi great vid, any chance to get back to the washington's war session?

[@war_gamer]

Washingtons War? You got the wrong guy

[@bemljj]

yup. sry for the mistake :)

[@Stiglr]

The only real bone I can pick with this series is the **horrible** map graphics work, for both Panzer and MBT. It looks like they took the worst of three artists' map symbology and splashed them all over these maps. There is NO feel whatsoever of the German countryside here. The old PanzerBlitz maps are miles better than these, and they're over 40 years old. They really screwed the pooch with the maps. I wonder if some cottage industry might not show up to improve on these turkeys....

[@war_gamer]

agreed

[@Jezza_One]

Nailed it, these maps are hideous