1976 - Tanktics

Wargames predate video games by at least a good century or so, so it’s not surprising that they’d show up here pretty early. One of the fun things about this project has been getting a look at genres before they’re really fully formed as video games, where there’s not really a template for how to make this work on a computer yet. How do you make a wargame work when the computer can run the calculations, but can’t really show you much visually? Well, you could make a board game where you can play against the computer. I couldn’t pass up the chance to try a weird hybrid like this.

For Tanktics (originally titled Wargy I in its self-published 1976 incarnation) I knew that I wasn’t going to be able to just download the game. The physical components are a core part of the experience, and while I could try to re-create the pieces myself, there was an easier solution that fortunately wasn’t too expensive: Just buy the game. A trip to eBay later and I had a copy of my own, the 1981 Apple II release published by Avalon Hill. I emulated the computer-facing half of the game, though. Despite having the floppy, I don’t have an Apple II to run it on. I ran it on AppleWin, using the settings for an Apple IIe Enhanced.

As an aside, the manual contains instructions for loading the tape cassette version of the game. Apparently versions of the game for several common home computers were distributed on the same tape, since the manual tells you where in the tape and on which side each version is located, and instructs you on how to listen for the particular version you need. I did not know each would sound different enough to be told apart by ear. Apparently, on Side A of the tape, the Apple II version can be differentiated from the Atari 400/800 version by its “cleaner” sound, compared to the “characteristic high-pitched Atari 400/800 buzz.” On side B, the Commodore PET program “sounds louder, yet has a lower pitch” than the TRS-80 program. It’s a shame I didn’t have the tape, because I’d have loved to give it a listen and see if I could hear the differences myself.

A picture of my setup for playing, with the board game setup laid out next to a laptop running AppleWin.

My setup for playing, pictured at the start of a max-size Hedgehog Defense game. My four tanks and four AT guns are in their initial position surrounding their objective, with 16 enemy tanks somewhere else on the map for the computer to throw at me.

The game itself is a simple one-on-one tactics board game. You control a group of tanks and sometimes anti-tank guns on a hex grid, choosing to take one action with each of them per turn. Tanks can move or shoot, while stationary guns can only shoot.

But here’s the exciting part: Instead of having to play against another human being, you play against the incredible thinking power of the computer. You input your actions, and the computer tells you where your units can move, what each unit can see, whether their shots hit, and also controls the enemy units. How exactly spotting and accuracy works is intentionally obfuscated. While the manual provides some general advice on terrain effects and unit stats, the computer keeps all the numbers to itself. Terrain, shooter type, target type, target facing, and range all matter, and units can only shoot at what they can see (and they can’t spot for each other, so no parking a powerful gun in the backline and using lighter units to spot for it). If one tank closes to knife-fight range on another by moving into the same hex, one of them is destroyed at random. This tends to favor the computer, as they get more tanks than you, but it’s never a sure thing. Winning them is definitely closer to “getting away with it” than “playing well,” though.

A screenshot from the middle of a large game.

A screenshot taken mid-combat from the above game. Though the enemy's turn is pushing the stats off the top of the screen, you can still see most of it. My units are listed with their unit type (listed by number), location, and facing; while the enemy's, if I can see them, are listed with location, facing, and what units of mine can see and fire on them. I'm winning the fight, but my score is still pretty low from enemy advancement and the passage of time. It'll go up by a lot as I destroy the second half of the enemy.

I found it a lot of fun, even if it is fairly simple. Moving the pieces around on the board according to the computer’s readout adds a lot of tactile charm. Entering my moves on the computer, waiting for it to process the results (at real Apple II speeds!), and updating the board according to the results added a certain feel that would have been missing from either a pure board game or pure computer game. It might be a little more Cold War than WWII, but it’s a vibe. I don’t think it’s entirely novelty, either. I’ve played games that use a companion app before, but something about the pace and the process of updating the map in this particular game just hit right for me. A shame you can only play as the Germans, though. Would’ve been nice to play as the good guys, too.

The computer’s tactical prowess leaves a lot to be desired, though. While the manual claims it plays a “careful, conservative game with tactics very reminiscent of Russian tactics,” whatever the hell that means, I found it a fairly incautious opponent when it was on offense, often preferring roads and open terrain to cover, leaving its tanks horribly exposed when caught. It played more cautiously on defense, though sometimes to its own detriment, unable to bring all of its units to bear at once. Not to brag too hard about outwitting an AI first written in the mid-70s, but it’s not exactly Georgy Zhukov.

There’s five scenarios to play, though the only difference between each is unit placement and whether the enemy gets some anti-tank guns. The first, “Meeting Engagement,” puts your and your enemy’s tanks on the map along with an objective hex and challenges you to destroy the enemy’s tanks and occupy the objective. “Hedgehog Defense” and “Armored Assault” has an attacker trying to reach an objective defended on all sides by the defender, with the scenarios placing you on defense and offense, respectively. “Line Defense” and “Line Assault” are similar attack/defend scenarios, but with the defender’s units arranged in a north-south line, rather than surrounding the objective. However, these scenarios only affect unit placement and AI behavior. Scoring stays the same, and the game only ever ends when one side runs out of units.

A close-up of the board at the end of a large-scale engagement.

The same game as above, at the end of the fight. I've replaced destroyed tanks with the game's included "wreck" pieces and placed the destroyed tanks off to the side of the board. This fight is an absolute slaughter, with most of the AI's units spotted and killed on the road for the cost of only a couple of my tanks overrun. A single Soviet tank remains, but it'll be destroyed immediately next turn. In the AI's defense, this was one of the first games I played, where I stacked the deck in my favor via unit stats.

Whatever scenario you choose, you pick your desired number of tanks and which model each tank should be, then the enemy gets twice as many tanks of a single model of your choice. There are five German tanks and three German AT guns, plus six Soviet tank types and one Soviet AT gun. Each tank has its own movement speed, gun power, and armor thickness, while AT guns only differ in gun type, being unable to move and all using a unique “dug-in” defense modifier. These choices are not balanced, and they’re not supposed to be. While heavier tanks tend to be slower than lighter ones, some choices are just plain inferior to others. The manual suggests giving yourself worse tanks and the enemy stronger tanks if you find the game too easy, though speaking from experience, giving yourself “Weak” guns and the enemy “Thick” or “Very Thick” armor is a recipe for frustration as it suddenly becomes a lot harder to secure a kill. Putting us on even footing or giving the computer a slight advantage was enough to keep the game interesting for me, as the AI’s shortcomings are partly covered for by the fact that it gets twice as many tanks as you, though maybe if I played it longer I’d have felt the need to step it up more.

Scoring remains the same across all scenarios. You gain points for destroying enemy tanks, being closest to the objective (which really works out to a flat +50 bonus at the end for the winner), and moving towards the objective. You lose points for moving away from the objective, having your tanks destroyed, and lose 3 points each turn. If you have a positive score at the end you win. In theory, you could destroy all enemy tanks but take such severe losses and so much time that you lose from the penalties, but it never happened to me. If you wanted, you could compare scores with someone else to see who did better, but the most important factor is going to end up being turn count.

My favorite scenario was actually the first, which is basically a no-frills skirmish, followed by the ones where you’re on the offense. Being able to set the pace of the engagement and use more of the maps was more fun than waiting for the enemy to come to you (remember, going out to hunt them gives you a score penalty for moving away from the objective). On defense, the enemy tends to funnel into whatever the fastest path to the objective is, only deviating from it when they spot you, at which point they either stop and fire or charge the nearest tank. A couple will end up on an alternate path, but most will be packed into the same area. Plus, offense felt a little less likely to end with a hunt for one last lousy tank, though it was always a possibility.

A gray cat sniffing at the game's open box.

Someone wanted to see what I was up to.

The greatest limitation of the game for me isn’t the AI or the simplicity of the underlying systems, but the fact that there’s only one map. The game comes packaged with one and only one map, and presumably the movement, spotting, and combat logic is hardcoded to only work with one map, since the computer clearly knows what terrain everything is on based on its tile. This one’s purely me being spoiled by every newer strategy game including a whole bunch of maps to play on, though.

I had a lot of fun with Tanktics. It’s not incredibly deep, but it’s a solid way to kill a couple hours, and the physical components add a lot of charm. Part of the joy of this project for me has been seeing the origins of now-codified genres, and as a lover of many games where you spend a lot of time moving guys around on a map, Tanktics was fascinating. With the computer capable of running the AI and keeping track of the game state, but not yet capable of graphically displaying the game state to the player, it simply keeps the map in the physical world. It’s definitely a go-to next time I feel like looking at something other than a screen for the evening or my internet goes out.