Jump to content

Gentil Baba

Members
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Gentil Baba

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  1. We played Maida! A fun and interesting scenario! I played the English side. I decided my right flank would try to destroy French units as much as it could, knowing the French would proficiently combine his cavalry and infantry against my left. Well, nothing happened as expected! My right flank got almost destroyed and the sole unit on the left flank, with some help of the gun, resisted the French assault and even succeeded into routing one of the infantry unit (that was worth 4 points, yes sir!). I did lost my gun from a lucky French gun shot (4 points, sorry, sir!) though, and the game finished with a French victory, 20 pts to 16. It was close, violent... fun! Tonight, we start this scenario again. I'll be commanding the French side. PS: Oh boy, "remove the coating": too bad you had to start over, Olivier! Courage!
  2. We just started playing the game this spring. We played three scenarios already. As we play each scenario back and forth, the game will surely keep us busy until next spring. So? So because we really love this game and want to keep playing it, I ordered and started to paint Austrian figs. The "Austrian infantry 1798-1805" figs from Italeri have pegs under the base that fits the game's stands and I will adapt fig from other company to the game stands. I'm also working on the creation of a bunch of scenarios setting the French against the Autrians: they will be selected moments from the battles of Fleurus, Rivoli, Marengo and Austerlitz. I'll share my work here and on BGG. Be patient if interested: this is something to be developed in the next 8 months.
  3. Hello Olivier! Curious to see how it goes on your side. We play with all optional rules. Our next scenario: Aida. Did you play it? How's you painting of the figs going? Cheers, MB
  4. We replayed scenario 4 and finished it yesterday. Because we thought that the scenario was too much in favour of the British side, we decided to play the British without its Unit Group 3 (Blue). Now, the British still won at the very very end, last throw of die. But the scenario was far more challenging for the Brits and a more aggressive French player could have made the difference.
  5. Nice cards, Brummbar! I'm interested into buying these, no matter if they're in sets or as a whole or whatever. What I'm also looking for though is cards for vehicles that are not in any game set right now: Russian T-70 and T-26, BA-10; German armored cars; Pz II, 38t... (I bought Perrin figures and intend to play earlier russian front situations, you see...) Also, specific cards for the Pz IV D or E and for the Russian T-85 would be welcome. On the back of the cards, a short historical overview is fine. Optional rules are a good idea. There could also be room (space left blank) for notes, extra rules, advanced rules that could be written down with non permament marker, as needed (if the card finish allows it). Another suggestion: can't you set up a preorder page on your website, à la GMT? Maybe you could finance this project this way. And see how people are really interested as well before investing you money in it. Anyway: hurry up! We're waiting for those cards!
  6. Kingtiger said: Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes. A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1). Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend. What do you guys think? Did you play your game? Which rule adjustment did you finally use? For myself, I agree with your overall reasoning. It's also been discussed elsewhere. And I agree with your point about movement cost. Where I don't agree, it is about cover value for area attacks. A balka seems too wide to provide cover against fire from above. Another point: I think squads could use balka as a trench, firing from the edge of it. Conceal markers could be used to show that the squad is hiding at the bottom of it. If concealed, normal LOS rule for balka would apply. If not, squad could fire or be fired at, per normal ruling, with a cover of one (1) against direct fire. Placing or removing a conceal marker would cost 1 mv point. What do you think?
  7. I know! You guys have been playing FoB for months, now, hunting down Panthers and destroying SUs, KVs and Ts all around. Well this fall, it's going to be my turn! As the Red Army is all set and ready to free Mother Russia from the Western Barbarians... Overall view... And some zoom ins
  8. DocSavage said: Advance after a fire combat Infantry units in open order may shoot at enemy units in different hexes. How may this unit advance after a combat if different hexes become vacant? It is not stated in the rules. I would suggest that after a unit in open order has fired and the target hex get empty, player decides if the unit advances (if with attack order) and then becomes disordered or if the unit fires at a second target. If it fires at a second target and the target hex get empty, the player decides if the unit advances (again, if aloud), then becoming disordered. DocSavage said: Advance after melee combat If attacked hex becomes vacant, a unit must advance. But infantry in open order is not disordered after this advance (as after the advance in a fire combat). Is that correct? It is disordered. See page 36, paragraph "After mêlée, if an infantry advances into a hex that is not open terrain..." DocSavage said: Movement Infantry units in line may not move. Why are they allowed to do so during an advance after combat and a retreat? Is that prohibited only for normal movement? I don't know why, but there is some kind of an answer from the designer somewhere in this forum (in a topic from KlausFritsch, if I remember***). Anyway, rules state that infantry in line cannot move during move action, but they can (must, after mêlée and with attack order) advance after freeing an hex, becoming disordered when they do so. DocSavage said: Retreat What about a unit in square? Same as with unit in line? May it retreat normally (not allowed to move) or does it lose a figure instead and do not retreat? It is not in the rules, but, as Sergio said: no retreat, but loss of a figure. (I think that was clarified by the designers in some forum.) DocSavage said: Artillery reacting to a cavalry charge If an artillery unit becomes charged by more than one cavalry unit frontally, in the same phase and from the same cavalry unit group at the same time, may it fire against all the cavalry units once and if so, does it have to do a morale test every time or only once? If an artillery is charged by multiple cavalry units, only one cavalry unit is the attacking unit, the other(s) supporting the charge, giving a +2 modifier each (per "Charging with multiple cavalry units", page 38). Although it is not stated clearly, I would say that the artillery reaction fire is only against that attacking cavalry. *** Yep! Right here!
  9. Signed! Some follow up on this game, FFG, please. MB
  10. Hi Olivier, I didn't see anything anywhere. Fortunately, as we just started playing, the scenarios provided will keep us busy for the months to come. Of course, sooner or later, we'll need to go hunting for new scenario. Let's keep in touch about this! Cheers, MB
  11. Interested too. I voted for the 15$ document, as I know that there will be a lot of work behind this project. I expect it to be of good quality but no need for hard cover though! Thank you for the effort!
  12. Je suis Québécois. On pratique l'anglais par submersion, ici!
  13. Thanks for reporting! That's one of the things I like with this game: both scenarios played were very tense, with outcome not being known until the very end. (Besides, Dites-moi: où avez-vous appris l'anglais? Ils sont tout de même rares les Français qui l'écrivent ou le parlent!)
  14. Well, we started the scenario last Monday and should finish it tomorrow. On turn 6, the Brits already control all objectives, but I (as the French player) expect to bring the game to a draw by taking the objective on my right. For the moment, I just don't see how the French can win this scenario, unless the Brits play really bad. The French are overwhelmed on their left and I don't see how they can resist the attack from the two red groups. On the other hand, winning for the Brits is also tough because the French can take care of the objective on their right. That makes it a good scenario, I must say!
  15. Got my answer: I read CoH rules! So, no cover for units in large balkas. Small balkas, which are hexsides, provide some cover if fire crosses the balka hexside.
×
×
  • Create New...