Jump to content

Klaus Fritsch

Members
  • Content Count

    734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Klaus Fritsch

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    playbear2000
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cologne, NRW, Germany
  1. The Thing In The Attic said: Imbalanced or tough, that is the question. War was not balanced. I think this game more than any other war game teaches you to replay scenarios untill you learn the tactics. I've played Breaking point 4 times now and lost everytime as the Germans but each time I change my tactics I get a little closer to victory. Thank you. That needed to be said.
  2. Himmelweiss said: Yeah, have to agree there, not sure if for example "facing rules" are needed. I mean i wouldn't want to turn this into an ASL like game Well you need to add a LOT more details than vehicle facing to get even close to ASL… :-) And more recent games have shown that you can get nicely flowing and realistic representations of tatctical combat without the smothering size of ASL.
  3. Kingtiger said: As for the small scale of TOI; yes, it's described like that in the rule book, but if you take a closer look at the scenarios, you'll see that scales and engagements vary greatly in size and scope. Personally I have no problem with that whatsoever. Sometimes a tank can represent just that, at other times a platoon and yet again at other times perhaps even a larger sized unit. And that is one aspect of the scenarios they will never sell me on. I would like the authors of thoses scenarios to show me the infantry company or battallion which can fire effectively at several miles or even more.
  4. Kingtiger said: Yes, I agree that all vehicles should have a road bonus (+1MP when moving contiguously along a road, starting and ending on a road), though perhaps not to the extent that trucks do. 1 or 2 bonus MPs for staying on a road (paved or dirt) would be enough. No road bonus as for trucks, I agree.
  5. Kingtiger said: Moreover, a vehicle is usually somewhat more hindered when they want to make a fire and move attack as they need to have at least two MP's left. Concerning relative movement speeds, armoured vehicles in combat do not move their full speed. AVs operating in support of infantry move a good deal slower than they could. Not to forget that open ground in ToI is not the same as a flat, hard surface on which the AVs could move at full speed. What I am missing is a small bonus for tracked vehicles moving along a road. I find that the relative speeds in ToI are OK for a small tactical situation. Outside of combat, motorized units are faster than leg units. But given the small scale of ToI, all units on board are always in the combat area.
  6. You are correct, more miniatures and components are required than provided in the base game and one copy of the Furry Bear. I tend to forget the component limitations because I play with painted metal miniatures and alternative bases.
  7. VolksCamper said: The CF rule should be changed to "Coordinated Attack" and should be not an "action" but a "type" of attack, which still requires one concentrated attack "action" be spent PER each unit which is participating in the Coordinated Fire attack on the same enemy target. I think that this is not a bad idea. I will use it when I play again.
  8. Nice work! Thanks for sharing. Some of those ideas, especially the DIY approach in the meeting engagaments, should be noticed by FFG.
  9. Looks like a good scenario. I might give it a try when I return from hospital.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. :-)
  12. 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.
  13. Karl-Thomas said: will there be more expansions for Tide of iron? Good question. More expansions would be nice, but right now it is very quite around the game.
  14. Brummbar said: I would refine the format were it a commercial product That is OK, but please keep the layout as clean as possible. FFG's layouts seem to be getting worse. I find the Gears of War rulebook very hard to read, for example.
×
×
  • Create New...