Jump to content



Photo

New scenario at Brummbar44.com - Stalingrad Factory Fortress


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 04:07 AM

I'm happy to announce a new scenario but this time, from another author other than myself.  Boersma8 has created an epic Fury of the Bear scenario called Stalingrad Factory Fortress.  You can find it at www.burmmbar44.com.

I haven't even had a chance to play any of the Fury expansion, but this one looks like it will be on my must play list.



#2 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:27 PM

Brummbar said:

I haven't even had a chance to play any of the Fury expansion, but this one looks like it will be on my must play list.

 

 

Don't worry about the scenarios that came with FotB, If you are enjoying the fan created (and your own) ones you will be disapointed by the ones you had to buy. I found with most that after playing we were left with a feeling that there were gaps in the scenarios (many with errors that can be seen without even playing). The most frustrating thing is playing the scenarios and discovering the errors that are not noticable at first glance, its just a waste spending an evening of gaming trying to get through an unplaytested scenario.

I really want to get back into ToI so that I can get back to finishing the scenarios I was working on, But 3 things have made this avery slow process. 1. I have lost motivation with ToI, other games I play have so much more support and the designers are always involved with them (even years after the release). 2. I really only have 1 other person who I can playtest with face to face. 3. My wife recently gave birth to twins, so when I do get the time I would rather enjoy playing agame not playtesting.



#3 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:18 AM

Aussie_Digger said:

Don't worry about the scenarios that came with FotB, If you are enjoying the fan created (and your own) ones you will be disapointed by the ones you had to buy. I found with most that after playing we were left with a feeling that there were gaps in the scenarios (many with errors that can be seen without even playing). The most frustrating thing is playing the scenarios and discovering the errors that are not noticable at first glance, its just a waste spending an evening of gaming trying to get through an unplaytested scenario.

I really want to get back into ToI so that I can get back to finishing the scenarios I was working on, But 3 things have made this avery slow process. 1. I have lost motivation with ToI, other games I play have so much more support and the designers are always involved with them (even years after the release). 2. I really only have 1 other person who I can playtest with face to face. 3. My wife recently gave birth to twins, so when I do get the time I would rather enjoy playing agame not playtesting.

 

I have to admit, I haven't gotten into FotB because of the feedback it received from the community.  While I don't mind playtesting, you are all quite correct in saying that you shouldn't feel you are playtesting a purchased product.  I know ToI scenarios can be difficult to design (unlike M'44, which is easy peasy) but that is no excuse.

I'm still working toward getting something off the ground.  I think FFG has a great opportunity here to make use of a great product with solid fan support with little effort required by the company.  Fingers crossed we can move forward.

Congrats on the twins…you are likely lost to us for a few years now…but two more will eventually spring up to add to your support!  LOL!



#4 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 09:23 PM

Brummbar said:

I'm happy to announce a new scenario but this time, from another author other than myself.  Boersma8 has created an epic Fury of the Bear scenario called Stalingrad Factory Fortress.  You can find it at www.burmmbar44.com.

This one looks great, thanks. Would you be interested in hosting one or two of my creations?

Contact me under klaus.fritsch at netcologne.de.



#5 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:50 AM

KlausFritsch said:

Brummbar said:

 

I'm happy to announce a new scenario but this time, from another author other than myself.  Boersma8 has created an epic Fury of the Bear scenario called Stalingrad Factory Fortress.  You can find it at www.burmmbar44.com.

 

 

This one looks great, thanks. Would you be interested in hosting one or two of my creations?

Contact me under klaus.fritsch at netcologne.de.

You even helped me playtest it, if I recall correctly (-;



#6 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:58 PM

Kingtiger said:

You even helped me playtest it, if I recall correctly (-;

Yes, I did, I just did not know that you are Kingtiger on here. :-)



#7 Brummbar

Brummbar

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:18 AM

 Gladly Klaus!

email sent…looking forward to hearing from you.



#8 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:09 AM

KlausFritsch said:

Kingtiger said:

 

You even helped me playtest it, if I recall correctly (-;

 

 

Yes, I did, I just did not know that you are Kingtiger on here. :-)

Yes, I am.

I could send you another Stalingrad scenario I'm currently playtesting if you're interested. It's similar to this one, but still sufficiently different to be a lot of fun, in my opinion.

Perhaps you could briefly post your experience with Factory Fortresses? Though it requires a certain investment in time and money (expansions necessary to play it) you seemd to agree with me that it's a lot of fun and balanced.



#9 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:15 PM

Kingtiger said:

Perhaps you could briefly post your experience with Factory Fortresses? Though it requires a certain investment in time and money (expansions necessary to play it) you seemd to agree with me that it's a lot of fun and balanced.

I'd say it doesn't get much more balanced than this. The many variables mean that wildly different outcomes are possible, but I like it and find it satisfying to play. With 12 Rounds and a fairly complex map, this needs a little more time to play than other scenarios. Players should be advised to study the map carefully and really look at the special rules for terrain. Once committed to a flank, vehicles cannot quickly switch objectives. In my game, even the infantry reached the bank of the Volga only in the last Round.

Regarding the number of expansions needed, in my opinion, ToI needs all the components to be really useful, anyway. The rules still need cleaning up, though. AT guns are not vehicle targets. AFVs did not shoot at AT guns with AP rounds, they fired at the gun crews with HE rounds and MGs.

I am now in the process of familiarizing myself with "I Ain't Been Shot Mum!", which is the same time and space scale as ToI, but better designed with more command and control and hidden deployment / movement. It is easily adaptable to hexes.

Therefore, my time for playtesting is limited, but you can send me the scenario and I will certainly read it.
 



#10 TheKaiser33

TheKaiser33

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:18 AM

 If the anti-tank gun is placed inside of the building, would a tank shooting at the AT gun be allowed to add the concussive firepower modifier?



#11 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:11 PM

In this scenario tanks may never use their concussive firepower bonus against ruins, but they MAY against buildings.So in your example the tank would indeed add its concussive firepower bonus against the AT gun inside a building.



#12 TheKaiser33

TheKaiser33

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:59 AM

 Ok, cool.  That's what I had thought for the concussive, but wasn't sure since the main game rules only specified concussive firepower against squads.  But the standard rules do not typically allow AT guns to be inside of buildings so my friend and I were playing that the concussive wasn't firepower was not in effect.  I'll be very happy to blow his AT gun up next round.

More questions:

1) My friend connected 2 of the factory complexes by placing 2 adjacent trenches that go from a ruins hex to a sandbagged building hex.  So that it is: Building-Trench-Trench-Ruins.  The trench markers are located on clear terrain hexes.  So the question is this, can a squad enter the trench immediately when it enters the hex? Allowing it to essentially cross between the factories using the +4 cover of the trench system?  Or would the squad have to enter the clear hex, then enter the trench?

Option one::

  1. Russian Infantry squad leaves the ruins hex and enters a hex containing a trench and enters the trench immediately (1 mp to enter the clear hex and +1 mp to enter the trench).
  2. Movement into the hex triggers German MG OpFire.
  3. Russian squad receives +1 cover for the clear hex being treated as rubble and +4 cover for being in the trench.

 

Option two::

  1. Russian Infantry squad leaves the ruins hex and enters a hex containing a trench and (1 mp to enter the clear hex).
  2. Movement into the hex triggers German MG OpFire.
  3. Russian squad receives +1 cover for the clear hex being treated as rubble.  They do not receive +4 cover because they have not entered the trench yet.

We felt that Option One was the correct way to play it, however, based on the Fury of the Bear rulebook and the section that describes trenches, we were not sure on when a squad is considered as leaving / entering the trench. So even for the two options listed above, when the Russian squad then moves from the trench into the building, do they first leave the trench and enter the clear hex, and then move from the clear hex into the building?  Or does a squad in the trench have the option to move directly from the trench into the building without having to step out of the trench into the clear hex first?



#13 TheKaiser33

TheKaiser33

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:13 AM

 Clear hexes with Roads on Them

- My friend and I had a question on how to handle clear hexes that have a road on them.  In the special rules for this particular scenario, a vehicle moving across a clear hex costs it 2 movement points since the clear hex is treated as "rubble".

- According to standard TOI rules you can move from one road to hex to another for the cost of only 1 MP regardless of the surrounding terrain.  Does that hold true for the "rubble" hexes?  So if a vehicle moves from a clear hex to a road clear hex it would cost 2 MP.  But then would the next movement to an adjacent road hex only cost 1 MP because the vehicle is moving from "road" to "road"?  Or would it still cost 2 MP to move from "rubble" to "rubble"?



#14 dutchy124

dutchy124

    Member

  • Members
  • 31 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:31 PM

 From road hex to road hex it costs 1 MP regardless of whatever terrain is in the hex. I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the exception is  going up hill, where it costs 1 for the road plus 1 for the incline.



#15 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:53 PM

If you look at a similar  thread in BoardGamesGeek I think this one is already answered, and that it should cost 2mp, regardless of road or not in this special scenario.



#16 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:01 AM

Grand Stone said:

 

If you look at a similar  thread in BoardGamesGeek I think this one is already answered, and that it should cost 2mp, regardless of road or not in this special scenario.

 

 

That is correct. It's an exception to the  standard game rules (It's difficult to drive at full speed when the roads are strewn with ruins). (-;



#17 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:08 AM

TheKaiser33 said:

 Ok, cool.  That's what I had thought for the concussive, but wasn't sure since the main game rules only specified concussive firepower against squads.  But the standard rules do not typically allow AT guns to be inside of buildings so my friend and I were playing that the concussive wasn't firepower was not in effect.  I'll be very happy to blow his AT gun up next round.

More questions:

1) My friend connected 2 of the factory complexes by placing 2 adjacent trenches that go from a ruins hex to a sandbagged building hex.  So that it is: Building-Trench-Trench-Ruins.  The trench markers are located on clear terrain hexes.  So the question is this, can a squad enter the trench immediately when it enters the hex? Allowing it to essentially cross between the factories using the +4 cover of the trench system?  Or would the squad have to enter the clear hex, then enter the trench?

Option one::

  1. Russian Infantry squad leaves the ruins hex and enters a hex containing a trench and enters the trench immediately (1 mp to enter the clear hex and +1 mp to enter the trench).
  2. Movement into the hex triggers German MG OpFire.
  3. Russian squad receives +1 cover for the clear hex being treated as rubble and +4 cover for being in the trench.

 

Option two::

  1. Russian Infantry squad leaves the ruins hex and enters a hex containing a trench and (1 mp to enter the clear hex).
  2. Movement into the hex triggers German MG OpFire.
  3. Russian squad receives +1 cover for the clear hex being treated as rubble.  They do not receive +4 cover because they have not entered the trench yet.

We felt that Option One was the correct way to play it, however, based on the Fury of the Bear rulebook and the section that describes trenches, we were not sure on when a squad is considered as leaving / entering the trench. So even for the two options listed above, when the Russian squad then moves from the trench into the building, do they first leave the trench and enter the clear hex, and then move from the clear hex into the building?  Or does a squad in the trench have the option to move directly from the trench into the building without having to step out of the trench into the clear hex first?

The Squad spends 1 MP to leave the trench. This may already trigger op fire. It then spends another 1 MP to enter the adjacent hex and yet another MP to enter the trench in that hex for a total of 3 MP. So I guess it's option 3 (-;. A unit in a clear/ rubble hex inside a trench would indeed get a total of 4+1 = 5 cover dice. Note that as long as it's not (yet) inside the trench it only has 1 cover.

Please let me know the result of your game and what you thought of the scenario!

Thanks for playing it!



#18 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:35 AM

TheKaiser33 said:

 If the anti-tank gun is placed inside of the building, would a tank shooting at the AT gun be allowed to add the concussive firepower modifier?

Just to expand on this a little: The AT gun is treated as a vehicle as per standard game rules and normally speaking vehicles (including equipment-which should be a unit type of its own if you ask me-) are not allowed to enter building terrain. In this scenario they are. Also, normally speaking concussive fire can only be used against squads inside buildings and pillboxes. However, as we've seen, these units normally can't enter buildings. I feel that a building that comes crumbling down might certainly damage such a gun and especially its crew, though in TOI that would be a squad also inside the building. Therefore I feel it's justifiable to use the concussive firepower bonus against an AT gun inside a building hex.

'While developing the scenario I wanted tanks to both useful and vulnerable in this urban setting. The way I've mostly tried to accomplish this was by allowing them to retain their concussive firepower against units inside buildings, but disallowing it against ruins. At the same time I've greatly reduced their mobility by the rubble special rule (clear and clear road terrain are 2 MPs for vehicles) and while ruins are THE best place for a defensive position for a vehicle to be in (at least 4 cover + any extra cover granted by added entrenchments, i.e. fortified ruins apart from the vehicle's armor), there's a chance it will be immobilized for a round which might allow enemy units to catch it in the open (rubble doesn't give extra cover to vehicles). I feel this way the tanks are both useful and vulnerable at the same time and that was the idea.



#19 TheKaiser33

TheKaiser33

    Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 05:51 AM

 We are hoping to get together sometime this weekend to finish the scenario.  We're on about Round 7 of 12 I believe.  I was misunderstanding how Trenches worked, thank you for the clarification. So basically, it sounds like "Trenches" are more glorified "Entrenchments".  In that they are not trench systems spanning multiple hexes, but rather, an isolated single trench contained within a single hex.  They offer better cover than an entrenchment, but otherwise they sound like they have the same characteristics as far as entering / leaving, etc.



#20 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:53 AM

TheKaiser33 said:

 We are hoping to get together sometime this weekend to finish the scenario.  We're on about Round 7 of 12 I believe.  I was misunderstanding how Trenches worked, thank you for the clarification. So basically, it sounds like "Trenches" are more glorified "Entrenchments".  In that they are not trench systems spanning multiple hexes, but rather, an isolated single trench contained within a single hex.  They offer better cover than an entrenchment, but otherwise they sound like they have the same characteristics as far as entering / leaving, etc.

Yes, that's also how I see it. Of course it could be a scenario specific rule sometime that they are to be considered connected.






© 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