Advanced Tobruk System

[bob48]

A couple of years ago, when I retired, a friend gave me a copy of the base game and 1a Basic Game. Although I had a quick look through it I did not see anything in the rules or components that really grabbed my attention, so its sat languishing on a shelf.

A few days ago, I decided to try it out - at least the basic game - and have now played a few games. The basic rules are quite simple, although there are layers of 'chrome' that can be added on, and so far, I have not played with heavier stuff such as tanks and arty.

I found that the rules seem to rather long-winded and could do with some clearing up, and are not laid out in a very logical or user friendly way, but most questions I have been able to answer eventually.

Its not a bad game, at least for simple infantry actions, although for a squad level game, BoB or CoH would be my first choices. There are also a lot of expansions for it, which is quite attractive, since something that both BoB and CoH lack are a variety of expansions.

I wondered if any of you chaps play / have played the game and if so, what your thoughts are.

[ArizonaTank]

I haven't played it extensively, but I liked it's approach to armored combat better than ASL.  I agree with your comment on the rules. 

[bob48]

I've been persevering with this, and there are some good idea's in there. As mentioned before, the layout of the rules and charts could do a good sort out to make learning a bit easier.

The version I have is quite old and is the base game plus the '1a' starter kit, and the main rule book is version 3.08.

Its a strange mixture of units in the package, many of which do not have scenario's to use them in, such as late war British para's. There are 4 scenario's supplied with 1a starter kit '101st Screaming Eagles' 3 of which cannot be played as there are no vehicle cards and/or no actual counters provided. 1 small generic 'Normandy' map is included.

The main part of the package, as you would expect, covers the early war in North Africa, and thus the counter mix provides for Commonwealth / German / Italian forces. The 2 maps provided are just generic 'desert' terrain, and there are a pile of map overlays which you have to cut out and place in accordance with the instructions detailed on each of the 24 scenario cards.

Its a nice idea in theory, but messy and unsatisfying in practice - from my point of view, anyway.

There are a lot of modules / expansions / add-ons for the system, and I gather that the graphics have been much improved over earlier versions, plus there have been a few rules updates. What is a little confusing is that some of the new stuff is called 'ATS TT' and uses maps with smaller hex's and counters reduced from 5/8" to 1/2", which are too small for me these days.

It also seems that some of the modules require counter sheets from other games in order the play, and maybe not all of these are currently available. The 'Critical Hit' website is not the most helpful place to get information either.

All this chopping and changing of the basic system spoils what could be a very nice range of tactical games that I for one would certainly have invested in under other circumstances.

[ArizonaTank]

There are a lot of modules / expansions / add-ons for the system, and I gather that the graphics have been much improved over earlier versions, plus there have been a few rules updates. What is a little confusing is that some of the new stuff is called 'ATS TT' and uses maps with smaller hex's and counters reduced from 5/8" to 1/2", which are too small for me these days.

Is ATS TT the same as "Tobruk Deprogrammed BRL 1192"?  Looks like the groggy version of ATS if that is possible. Anyway, apparently they sold out of the first printing very quickly, amazing for a product with an $89 price tag.

Here is the link: http://www.criticalhit.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=criticalhit&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BRL1192DEPRO

[bob48]

I'm really not sure, its all very confusing. As I understand it, TT stands for 'Table Top' and uses the same rules, but maps with reduced hex sizes and smaller counters. The idea being, apparently, so that bigger games can fit onto smaller tables.

[BlackJaguar]

I used to have ATS Basic 1a game (Normandy?) as well as Stalingrad and some other Eastern Front Module as Well as Omaha Beach. I did play a bit with the basic  game. One day last year though I realized I simply don't have anymore room for other tactical wargames besides ASL and Panzer 2nd edition, so I gave it away. The armour rules were a bit more detailed than in ASL but the rest of the game just didn't do it for me, I think it's an interesting system but I personally prefer ASL.

[Richie61]

Panzer 2nd edition

This series is AWESOME!  :D I have all the modules so far and I play it with my boys  :)

[qqaa1234]

Thank you sir

[awdougherty]

New to the forums, so I'm just now going through to see what threads are out there.

I'm no ATS expert, but I have played it a bit and it currently is my WW2 tactical system of choice.  I've messed a bit with Band of Brothers, Combat Commander, Squad Leader, the ASL starter kits, read some full ASL rules (but never got it to the table), played a bit of Panzer 2nd ed, and Conflict of Heroes as well.  None of those games quite did it for me in my limited time with them the way ATS has.

I gravitated to ATS because I felt like it had enough in common with the classic Squad Leader/ASL model that I was after without deviating too far or diving too deep.  Felt like the Goldilocks porridge that was just right to me.  I genuinely appreciate the innovation that Combat Commander, Band of Brothers, and Conflict of Heroes bring to the table, I just wanted something a little more classic.

As mentioned, ATS does a really solid job with armored combat, probably only Panzer bests it.  But therein lies why I went back to ATS.  I can't speak to the full potential of all the optional rules, but Panzer very much felt like a tank game first and foremost, as its name would imply.  ATS felt like a bit more of a classic balance.  Having said that, I am very much looking forward to taking MBT out for a spin when it gets reprinted.

I keep using the word classic, and it doesn't get much more classic than Squad Leader and ASL.  They might be a touch too classic in the end.  I really like classic Squad Leader, but the historical maps and the impulse turn system drew me to the ATS camp.  Same with ASL, but add to it the large rulebook (which I know you don't need 90% of most of the time) to go with the turn sequence I didn't love and the geomorphic maps, and I realized ATS hit enough sweet spots I was after.  I also feel that the length of the rulebook means that it's possible to genuinely internalize the bulk of the rules even though it sacrifices detail to do so.

Critical Hit has gone through some growing pains of a sort the last few years.  I never loved the idea of the TT series, and that was made even more annoying to abandon it a few years later.  Shame on me for being convinced that would be the new permanent normal, I guess.  But to Critical Hit's credit, there is a tremendous amount of game out there available to purchase even those the current system is a little confusing and not really friendly to someone new to the system.

Anyway, I don't expect ATS to ever really hang with ASL, but was glad to see it get some mention here.

[bob48]

Welcome, and thanks for your comments. It is an interesting system and I do find myself going back to it now-and again, although BoB is my preferred go-to tac system.

I'm also having fun with Compass Games 'War Storm' series at the moment, although it is platoon based rather than squad based.

[bayonetbrant]

Welcome!

[awdougherty]

Thanks for the warm welcome.  Also just got caught up on the podcast backlog as well, enjoy it quite a bit.

BoB seems like it would be a great go-to system (although based on the podcast, I imagine Lock and Load might have some backers).  What little I sampled BoB, it seemed like a really clean system that did a great job distilling the process down - a credit to all of Jim Krohn's designs it seems.  I imagine, given the rules density, you could internalize it pretty quickly and just focus on the board in a short period of time.

I actually really liked Conflict of Heroes the times I played it once the second edition rules came out.  I don't necessarily love how the damage rolls are handled (I actually like the process, but I don't like how past hits determine the odds for future hits to a degree).  Otherwise I had fun with that game.  Scratched some of the Squad Leader itches I had at the time and the components are pretty stunning.

The War Storm series looks like it has real potential.  I played the first scenario in the France game (a common theme is that I've dipped my toe into a lot of pools without ever having the time to go much deeper).  Thought it worked well and was pretty smooth overall from my limited exposure. I've played some Panzer Grenadier, which I actually liked even though it doesn't get a lot of love in most circles, and could see War Storm sort of filling that space in my collection.  Looking forward to the eastern front module on pre-order.  Would be curious to hear more of your thoughts on War Storm - unless that's in another thread that I haven't come across yet.

[bayonetbrant]

talk to us about ATS -

can you give us an example of how ATS / ASL handle the same situation differently?
I'm honestly curious, since I don't play either (I'm one of those LNLT guys you mentioned).

Thanks!

[awdougherty]

There's a really great BGG forum post that really goes into detail about the differences between ASL and ATS:

Comparing ASL to ATS - A Very Detailed & Technical Analysis

I'm not at all qualified to do my own detailed comparison, but because this is the internet, I will anyway.  I have only played the ASL starter kits and original Squad Leader.  I never went all in with ASL proper.

For me, the biggest difference was the turn sequence.  The ASL family has a turn sequence that more specifically delineates what you can do when and struck me personally as a design relic of a bygone age.  The end result may very well more closely model the ebb and flow of a firefight, but I found I was getting jammed up trying to figure out what I wanted to do and how the phases wanted me to do it.  ATS has alternating impulses, which some players don't care for, but I feel it keeps both players involved moment to moment with less overhead.  Maybe a player never feels like he or she gets to carry out a plan with impulses, but that never bothered me.  There's a lot of overlap with ATS and ASL in some ways.  You move in basically the same way.  You can double time, leaders sort of act the same way, etc.  Well rate of fire is different I think.  In ASL, it's a number you roll and if you do, you keep firing.  In ATS, the rate of fire is how many shots you get that activation, I think.  ATS also has a deadlier CRT but each unit has more steps I think.  So, there's more nuance to a unit's reduction over time I guess.  Armored combat feels a little like Panzer light.  Check hex range, look at the gun's PEN, stuff like that.  I don't know how ASL's armored stuff works.

In the end, ATS has enough of the classic tropes to overlap ASL and capture the right feel for me, but it moves more cleanly in my head. 

[MengJiao]

I haven't played it extensively, but I liked it's approach to armored combat better than ASL.  I agree with your comment on the rules.

  I've always liked the ATS games.  I have quite a stack of them.  On the other hand, they are kind of hard to play seriously (at least solitaire).  even a very scrambled version of Flying Colors or Battles of the Age of Reason seems to work well (but I guess I know those rules better).  With ATS, I'm never quite sure about things...which is fun, but more comic than say the Grand Tactical System (which is as wonderful as Flying Colors or Hoplite or Battles of the Age of Reason).  Anyway, my ATS enthusiasm is probably over and the next board game I set up will probably be something else.   Though ATS is in the running for the big game thing coming up this weekend.