Jump to content



Photo

Stalingrad


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:32 PM

Posted this in another thread too, but I kinda figured it deserved its own thread as well (-:

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the next expansion should be "Stalingrad". Why?

 

1.) We only have half a Russian army as opposed to the other nations. The Brits also saw their ranks filled out in the Normandy expansion after being introduced in DoTF ( I actually own two copies of FoTB because I didn't want to wait that long for the rest of my Russian army, haha. The extra snow maps are a nice addition to my collection too.

2.) We have an Eastern front expansion, but when you say "Eastern front WW2", I guess the first name that comes to mind with the majority of people will and should be Stalingrad. In other words, what's an Eastern front expansion without any Stalingrad scenarios?

3.) It would offer a great opportunity to add terrain such as: factories, (heavy)ruins, (wide) rivers, river banks, rubble, sewers etc.

4.) Op-cards and strategy decks could be added to depict urban warfare ("rattenkrieg" tactics deck, for example)

 



#2 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 12:02 AM

I agree.

That would fill some of the gaps in the game.



#3 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:27 AM

One thing we realy have to solve first is the power of the tank versus infanteri in urban seting. As per the rules today, a tank within a city would be too powerfull. It would not feel correct I think. Partly because of the difficulty of introducing better concealment rules, and partly in my mind a slightly to powerfull concussive firepower effect.

 

Some other features which comes to mind

 

The mobility of tanks can be severly limited by introducing terrain features. (rubble)

Snipers spesilization would be fun

Fortified buildings with AT guns inside

taller buildings which can store more than 3 infanteri. A few buildings which could hold up to 6 infanteri in one hex for example could be fun.

 



#4 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:57 AM

 An urban expansion would be a great idea.  It's applications could go beyond Stalingrad (ie. Arnhem).  It would be a great way to introduce some new elements as well....though, I agree with Grand Stone, the Concussive fire issue would need to be resolved to move forward there.



#5 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 07:07 AM

Brummbar said:

 An urban expansion would be a great idea.  It's applications could go beyond Stalingrad (ie. Arnhem).  It would be a great way to introduce some new elements as well....though, I agree with Grand Stone, the Concussive fire issue would need to be resolved to move forward there.

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).



#6 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:37 PM

IMO I think the concussive fire power should be left as is, as firing into a building would be devasating for infantry (as this was used to try and eliminate infantry from buildings, ruins should be another issue). But what needs to be done is the benefits of infantry fighting tanks in an urban envoiroment need to be highlighted. Also if the boards and scenarios are done right (and players think about where they deploy their units)  tanks would need to almost be next to or close to their target before they fire thus getting rid of their range adavantage and then it would be easy for infantry to jump all over the tanks (if you were foolish enough to leave them unsupported by infantry) So i would like to see it where tanks are still very dangerous (as they were) but infantry are just as dangerous in close quarters against armour.



#7 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:44 PM

Kingtiger said:

.

 

 

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).

Maybe in January 43 there weren't to many buildings left standing but the fighting started in late Aug early sep 1942. So I think heavy ruins should be introduced as a new terrain type on the map boards and overlays and these could have a rule where concussive fire dose not apply. Then higher concentrations of ruins terrain could appear in later scenarios



#8 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:22 PM

Kingtiger said:

Brummbar said:

 

 

 

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).

I would use something like this:

Building Ruins – All buildings in the scenario are destroyed. They have a defense value of 3 and are not vulnerable to Concussive Firepower. Infantry can enter destroyed buildings for 2 Movement Points. Heavy Vehicles can enter Building Ruins for 4 Movement Points. Building Ruin hexes block LOS. Building Ruin hexes on winter boards have the Snow trait. Entrenchments may be placed on Building Ruin hexes, but trenches, pillboxes or bunkers may not. Units with the Equipment trait (such as AT guns) may be set up in Building Ruin hexes or an entrenchment in Building Ruin hexes and cannot be moved. Units with the Equipment trait still cannot enter Building Ruin hexes during the game. Mortars may fire from a Building Ruin hex.



#9 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:58 PM

Aussie_Digger said:

Kingtiger said:

.

 

 

 

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).

 

 

Maybe in January 43 there weren't to many buildings left standing but the fighting started in late Aug early sep 1942. So I think heavy ruins should be introduced as a new terrain type on the map boards and overlays and these could have a rule where concussive fire dose not apply. Then higher concentrations of ruins terrain could appear in later scenarios

To the best of my knowledge the luftwaffe started flattening the city from the onset of the battle. I suppose a combination of "normal"buildings and heavy ruins should work best on most maps. Rubble (rectangular or circular overlays) could be used to slow down tanks or even impede their movement. I agree that conc. firepower should not work against heavy ruins (I'd use hex size overlays to differentiate them from the destroyed buildings from the Normandy expansion). 



#10 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:57 PM

KlausFritsch said:

Kingtiger said:

 

Brummbar said:

 

 

 

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).

 

 

I would use something like this:

Building Ruins – All buildings in the scenario are destroyed.



#11 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 06 September 2011 - 09:59 PM

KlausFritsch said:

Building Ruins – All buildings in the scenario are destroyed.

I'd use new separate tiles. there are already destroyed building markers in Normandy. This way it'd be easy to make a clear didderence between them. Also, the destroyed building hexes being treated as rough terrain (only 1 or 2 cover and +1 movement seems a bit on the "light side" to me. Heavy ruins should provide more cover and hamper movement more, if you ask me.



#12 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 12:27 AM

Kingtiger said:

 

there are already destroyed building markers in Normandy

 

 

No offense to the designer, but the destroyed building rules in Normandy are no good. They in no way represent the effects of building ruins. Cover 1 is not enough, and allowing vehicles (especially trucks) to move through such ruins unhindered is nonsense.

 

I like my house rule better.



#13 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:19 AM

KlausFritsch said:

 

No offense to the designer, but the destroyed building rules in Normandy are no good. They in no way represent the effects of building ruins. Cover 1 is not enough, and allowing vehicles (especially trucks) to move through such ruins unhindered is nonsense.

 

agreed, it seems like these ruins represent a wooden shed that has been destoyed

 



#14 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:08 PM

Railroad tracks could be a suitable newly added terrain type as well for a Stalingrad expansion. They have them in memoir '44 as well.

 



#15 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 10:03 PM

And terrain could also be used to balance the infanteri versus tanks power. First, hampering movement. If for example 'ruble' cost 4 movement points for vehicles and 2 for infanteri, that would make infanteri far more mobile compared to the vehicles if you add enough ruble, heavy ruins and buildings. And if in addition the line of sight is low, tanks would have a far harder time, and the increddible powerfull attack (concusive firepower) would be far harder to use.

If you in addition add some AT guns in fortified positions for the russians, and spesilizations designed to destroy tanks at point blank range, tanks would not be that usefull.

 

Actually, I'm kind of looking forward to such a scenario where the germans has lots of tanks  attacking stallingrad and the russians defending it with whatever they have.

 

One thing I realy miss though in general for the russians front in is millitia.



#16 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 09:59 PM

Grand Stone said:

And terrain could also be used to balance the infanteri versus tanks power. First, hampering movement. If for example 'ruble' cost 4 movement points for vehicles and 2 for infanteri, that would make infanteri far more mobile compared to the vehicles if you add enough ruble, heavy ruins and buildings. And if in addition the line of sight is low, tanks would have a far harder time, and the increddible powerfull attack (concusive firepower) would be far harder to use.

If you in addition add some AT guns in fortified positions for the russians, and spesilizations designed to destroy tanks at point blank range, tanks would not be that usefull.

 

Actually, I'm kind of looking forward to such a scenario where the germans has lots of tanks  attacking stallingrad and the russians defending it with whatever they have.

 

One thing I realy miss though in general for the russians front in is millitia.

 

Good ideas. I would indeed have rubble cost 3 or 4 for vehicles (probably 3) and 2 for squads. Some concealed markers for Russian infantery and AT guns (scenario special rule) might help a lot too.

The more i think about it, the more i feel stalingard deserves an expansion all of its own! 



#17 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 10:20 PM

Kingtiger said:

 

I would indeed have rubble cost 3 or 4 for vehicles (probably 3) and 2 for squads.

 

 

Heavy rubble should be impassible for trucks, maybe even for all wheeled-only vehicles, maybe even for all vehicles with the Light Vehicle trait, to keep things simple.



#18 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 12:47 AM

KlausFritsch said:

Kingtiger said:

 

I would indeed have rubble cost 3 or 4 for vehicles (probably 3) and 2 for squads.

 

 

Heavy rubble should be impassible for trucks, maybe even for all wheeled-only vehicles, maybe even for all vehicles with the Light Vehicle trait, to keep things simple.

Good addition. I guess trucks only would work.



#19 VanCamper

VanCamper

    Member

  • Members
  • 113 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 09:48 AM

For heavy vehicles, if hit while in rubble, and lightly damaged, they are immobilized on die roll of 4,5,6 ? simulates more likely track damage in rubble., makes it risky to move vehicle into closer combat with infantry., and make vehicle a target for artillery fire.



#20 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 16 September 2011 - 01:40 AM

VanCamper said:

For heavy vehicles, if hit while in rubble, and lightly damaged, they are immobilized on die roll of 4,5,6 ? simulates more likely track damage in rubble., makes it risky to move vehicle into closer combat with infantry., and make vehicle a target for artillery fire.

 

Though I love the rule, I'd suggest to keep the basic terrain as simple as possible 9while still realistic) and adding such rules to op-cards and/or scenario specific rules. then again, vehicles can already get immobilized when enetering a balka hex (I'm assuming only when moving from a non-balka hex, but that'd need further clarification in a FAQ).






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS