Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by artemis8

  1. Thanks, lads, for your reviews/opinions. As it seems to me now, I will keep alternating in playing my favorite duo games TOI (as to a tactical fight) and SC (as to a strategic fight). I will leave politics, trades and other such things to those who can handle/taste them better than me .
  2. I would like to ask those of you, lads, who played/play both these games for making some brief comparison. I know what I can expect from Starcraft , but because I only briefly looked to TE rules, I do not know what to really expect of it: It seems to me now that: a) Both games are scifi-themed. Both has more races and in both you build galaxy and conquer it later. b) 3 races in SC are significantly different, but what about differences among races in TE - there are cca 10 races. Is it not a too big number? c) In TE have all races same technology tree and have same units (as I read from rules). That may be a little boring, but as for reasons of balance it is a simple solution. d) In TE is probably more emphasized even non-combat mechanisms (politics, trade, ...) e) How it is with a multiplayer in TE, what is minimal "reasonable" number of players? Thanks for your feedback.
  3. Thanks Stefan and EMELT for your clarifications: a) I thought that "emptiness" of an area is measured by a presence/un-presence of units (not by presence/un-presence of a base). b) Good pointing out at timining between a withdrawal and a retreat - I did not notice it till now .
  4. Recently I encountered following problems: a) In one area of the 2- area planet a skirmish occurred between 1 Archon and 2 zerglings. In the other area (of that planet) there was a Protoss base (but with no units). Unfortunately protoss could not use Observers (for detector), because he did not save 1 gas for it. Zerglings logically could not destroy the Archon, but played Burrow. Archon played its (own) card with ground splash damage, but due to burrowing I guessed, that: 1) FLU zergling used cloaking to survive and withdraw to area with the Protoss base (i think he could, because it was empty). 2) Supporting zergling was killed due to Archon splash damage (though the FLU zergling was not destroyed thanks to cloaking, but he could be) 3) Archon prevailed but the base was lost, because there was (on that planet) not any remaining mobilise order. Was I right? b) on the technology card Lockdown is written: "Following units (...list) lose in a skirmish their air and ground attack abilities. " Among those units is also mentioned Science vessel. But it does not have any attack abilities. Does it mean using its reinforcement cards (EMP shockwave, Irradiation,...)? c) Is the only difference between withdrawing (due to cloaking) and retreating (due to overstacking or a defeat) only the fact, that if withdrawing you may do it only to an (empty or friendly) area on the active planet?
  5. I played this scenario only once, so I can not provide a general succesful strategy for American victory, but as it was said above: the Americans have to SLOW the German tanks (halftracks), because the Germans will gain most of their VPs for tanks/halftracks that will manage to leave a map. Similarly you (as the American player) will gain most of points for trucks that did manage to leave a map or if you manage to keep them for possible the longest time within 2 (given) map tiles. It may be complicated to decide whether to leave with trucks early or try to keep them on a map (those 2 map tiles) longer and hope that they will manage to escape. How can you slow/stop a tank (in this scenario): a) use combined fire of AT squads, you have 4 of them (do not forget 2 Take down the beast cards). Single unit attack hardly penetrates German tank armor. b) use laying smoke, thus bloking enemy LOS (usually after you have fired on him) and providing a cover for your transports (retreating or hiding) c) dig trenches on hexes through which tanks will probably pass and put there squads in OP-fire (they will shoot at short range, they may not be overrun, though enemy must spend more MPs for passing such a hex) d) you may replace lost AT/engineer squad by a card from Supply deck, which grants you specialized token of your choice e) try to detroy the German tank ace (+3 VPs) Other source of VPs like holding victory hexes or preventing the Germans from capturing a fuel depot, does not need an explanation. My result was that the Germans won, but the ratio between their VPs and Americans VPs was not much significant (5 or 6 points difference). I do not remeber it exactly, but I think that the Americans left with 3 or 4 trucks (the rest was destroyed). They managed to keep the victory hexes quite long. The Germans: 1 or 2 of their tanks were heavily damaged (maybe 1 of them detroyed) , 2 others remained on a map (by the end of scenario). Cca 1/2 or 2/3 of German halftracks also managed to escape. Germans managed to capture a fuel depot and late in a game also held some victory hexes.
  6. Thanks for your feedback. But still I have some unclarity: As 7times7is49 wrote, the bonuses granted via medals may be used only during an assault (of a "medalled" squad). May they not be used, while that squad is fired upon? If not, then they are not of much use. Probably I would take a little different conception in Ardennes campaign: i) because there were lot of engaged divisions (american and german ones), it would be quite problematic to design at least 4 scenarios where would figure one and the same division. As I think of it, now I could use 4 scenarios: 2 would contain batlles of 2nd and 99th IDs contra german paratroopers and Scorzeny commandos (Operation Greif and Stosser) . Other 2 scenarios would contain batlles at Schnee Eiffel and St. Vith - there would figure 106th ID. ii) Because there already exist scenarios relating to other famous events in Ardennes offensive like Stavelot express (TOI base game scenario), Siege of Bastogne (fan scenario by S. Meehan, I guess), I think there is no reason to create them anew. So it leaves me an area for 1 or 2 additional scenarios, which could describe events of "erasing the bulge" i.e. Allied counterattack and capturing back the former positions. But again other divisions (than those mentioned above) were engaged in it, so it would mean that: 1) "Campaign" would mean in this my campaign a thematic (time period) meaning. It would cover some battles, which were fought between Germans and Americans. It would not track a progress of one particular division/regiment (whether American or German one) but rather would track down victories (major and minor) or loses scored by both those nations armies. 2) Because of this alternating in commanding divisions, granting medals would not give much sense (although if their benefits may be availed only during an assault, it should not matter so much), there would be possibilities to: a) put an equal sign between victory points and campaign points and after each scenario campaign points could be spent on either rewards (as stated below) or (in some limited number (max. 3-4) ) as starting command points for the next scenario. b) in some way reward lesser casualties or to reengage units (from the same divison) in the other scenario. In that reengaging could be used a Normandy campaign rule, that states a squad may promote if at least 2 figures in the squad survive a scenario. But what about a reward? Because such promotions would occur usually only once (rarely twice), such a squad could choose to gain (either permanent +1 cover vs suppr. attack or permanent +1 cover vs. normal attacks or permanent +1 fire attack vs. inf, or permanent +1 movement point). If a squad would promote twice, it would have to choose a different reward next time. Probably there would be a table stating relation between campaign points and costs of these rewards, which might be granted only to promoted squads. Such rewards can be used "permanenty", but maybe they would require using some practical way of marking (for example transport tokens, but they could collide if you wanted to use them in a proper way). What do you think?
  7. Sorry for such a stupidly sounding question, but due to a fact that I do not own Normandy, I would appreciate some informations about campaign creation. 7times7is49 has encouraged me with his plan to make Italy campaign. I think of revising my Ardennes scenarios and transforming them into a campaign. But for now I lack knowledge of campaign know how. My questions are: a) Is there a lower limit of campaign scenarios? At least 4 scenarios to use up all 3 types of medals. b) Is a campaign designed to a progress of only one nation team (divison, army,...) or may it simmulate battles of two different nation teams (let us say an american one and a german one) in the same time? Though in a longer time period it is quite unsual for those 2 teams to meet on a battlefield. c) Do promote (and if so then how) squads with specializations (resp. do promote all specializations also those from Normandy and DOTF)? In Normandythere are cca 66 campaign spec. tokens - but how many of what special.? d) How does work distributing of forces? Suppose that our imagined divison has 40 squads, 5 trucks and 5 tracks. In the first scenario it uses 10 squads. Let us say 4 incomplete squads will survive. Are their casualties in following scenarions substituted with any remaining reserves (by the setup of following scenario)? What if you need 2 antitank squads and they both perished in previous scenario/s? e) Are Reinforcements decks used in campaign scenarios? Will not they make things easier for a division "gaining experience" and they would reduce their casualties? Thanks for any advices.
  8. sloejack said: MightyAtom13 said: Squads like that tend to draw kill shots instead of suppression... while they can't be stopped with suppressive fire a couple of hits decimates the effectiveness of the extra elites so your milage will vary. If you've got lots of cover and blocking terrain to work with to cover your advance you can make use of them but recognize that something that devestating will be a priority target for your opponent.. I would disagree with you, Sloejack. Squads composed of 4 elites or 3 elites and an officer (having engineer, bravo or alfa spec but even the ones without any) are not wasting resources. I use such a squad quite often (usually with eng., bravo or alfa spec.) Suppose a situation of a mined pass or a mined bridge, through which you have to pass. With normal engineer squad (4 regul inf.),enemy needs to make 1 suppresive hit and your eng. squad freezes. In case of above mentioned elites you would have at least +4 cover againt suppresive attack (not taking into account a terrain). Surely you will argue, that an enemy will use normal attacks, but he has to make at least 4 hits to eliminate the squad in contrary to 1 hit (if a squad is formed by regulars). Because almost all units have values for normal and suppresive attacks same (except mortars), then there comes to work a simple probability - what is easier: score 1 hit or 4 hits? The same it is with alfa or bravo (extra normal cover) squads. If you add to it Mercilless assault OP card, then such a squad will anihilate almost an infantry squad/s. As with any other tactics, in using such a squad you have to take great care to silence enemy units in OP-fire in advance and probably postpone the move of this squad in later turns with max. using of available terrain cover.
  9. artemis8


    KlausFritsch said: Maedhros said: It says that a squad with a medal(bronze, silver or Honor) gain +1 cover and ther cover cannot be reduced below 1. My question is: Does it mean that during an assault (the attacker never as cover) the Medal squad will get 1 die of cover? Thanks for the help. I sent the same question to FFG and got the answer below. Question: Normandy: The rules for the campaign specialization tokens state that the +1 cover gained by such units cannot be reduced below 1. Does this also apply if such a unit is the attacker in an assault? I would say it makes sense that it does. Answer: You are correct as this reflects the experience (tactical and otherwise) of the soldiers. So, yes, the attacker will have one die of cover. I would enter in your debate with 2 relevant questions: Does above mentioned answer cover also these situations: a) if Bravo unit with (let us say) one star is assaulting -> i.e. it has 1 implicit cover. b) if Bravo unit is attacked (either at a close range or by an assault) by a flamethrower squad. Does Bravo unit retain its one star cover bonus, while terrain cover bonus is ignored due to flamethrower specialization? Their cover bonus due to stars is gained by experience and not provided by terrain.
  10. 7times7is49 said: Chris Montgomery made a geeklist at BoardGameGeek.com of the Normandy scenarios. I'd post the link but my pc is having trouble today... Thanks for info, 7times7is49, in Chris' article about Normandy was also a link to another article (by him) relating to DV1 scenarios. Just the kind of information I was looking for .
  11. Could someone of you who already owns Normandy and booklet Designer series vol. 1 be so kind and write down a list of scenarios contained in those 2 products. Beacuse I do not own them (and it will take some time before they are available in my country) I am curious what historical events/battles has already been "transformed" to TOI scenarios, so that there is no need to design them again as fan-scenarios. It would suffice to state a title, a date, a place and a short description. Thanks in advance.
  12. Silverwings said: I'm new to TOI. Where do I find this custom-scenario page? Try this link: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/tideofiron_scenarios.html But choose carefully, though there is a lot of scenarios, not all are suitable for begginers But somewhere in this phorum you can find a thread dedicated to with which scenarios published there a begiginer should start.
  13. Sloejack, I will also try to look more deeply into the idea of evaluating units - but as we can see the problem becomes the more difficult, the more things we want to take into account (operation cards, terrain, specialization, decks). It is an eternal problem - simplicity vs. complexity. Maybe the only solution would be 2 systems - one simple and the other complex. Another problem may be to design such a system when we do not know what FFG has in store with future TOI expansions, so design a robust system from a scratch (without a future need to rescale it too much) would be nothing less than a "meister-stick" (master-piece).
  14. Aba said: Because on the faction sheet all units had something called a attack capability (ground or flying) and all assists units dont have such capability (small icon on the sheet). Thanks, aba, your answer explains it exactly the way I wanted to hear .
  15. Stefan said: Hello my friend, your problems can and will be solved: Assist units always use the minor values. And remember that they can't kill the enemy FLU since they have no attack capabilities, even if they would have sufficient strength. Yes, you may play a reinforcement card, of course. The Ghost would be a poor guy if that wasn't possible.
  16. Hi sloejack, it is an interesting idea - designing such a point table for units and decks in TOI: But I guess that because of almost complete identity (as to the stats) of infantry and transport units (tracks, trucks) between all 3 nations (Americans, British and Germans) there is no need to evaluate them by point. It is a little bit different in case of tanks and ATs, which have quite wide scale of stats (armour, movement, attack value...) This point-idea is by my guess used for example in Warhammer 40k miniature game, but (though I do not own it nor play it) I think that armies (factions) there are much more diferrentiated (for example like races in Starcraft) from each other than national armies in TOI (if we omit tank and AT units). Moreover, if I understand it right, both opponents build their armies (squads) simultaneously without looking at the units in an enemy army. Because if one could build army after his opponent has built his own, it would be easier for him to build good "counter-army". Your idea itself does not seem to me wrong, but maybe I would focus it in a little different way. Now some my opinions: a) As to the evaluation of specialization tokens: A suitability of a specialized squad always depends on an objective and a structure of an opponent army. In some battle you can easily do without a flamethrower squad (if you face a quartet or oktet of tanks), other time you can hardly (without them and engineers) accomplish the objective when you try to capture a pillbox with MG crew surrounded by razor wire with minefields. So it seems to me that 2-point Engineer token vs. 14-point flamethrower token is a little unbalanced. Maybe it should secure that a player does not choose much flamethrower squads. But if you give to an engineer squad via operations cards abilities like clear mines, lay smoke,... its meaning and value grows considerably. So I would not evaluate specialization with points, but would rather give them a limit: For example: Supposing a map consisted of 3x3 map tiles, a player may use up to 3 spec. tokens while up to 2 of them may be from a base TOI, and the third may be taken from DOTF or Normandy expansion. b) as to an infatry: As meant above because of adequate ability of all type of infantry figures to all 3 nations with the same stats (except German MGs) I would rather limit their number in a way mentioned below. 3) as to transports - there is no need to limit them, all sides have their equivalents and they are rarely used in "abundance" 4) tanks and ATs - here is a real reason for making a comparison table, but it can be (easily or more complicately) done by one of system meant below 5) as to operational cards and decks, maybe an easier way how to manage their righteous distributing is alternating choosing of players. For example player A chooses a deck by his choice, then player B chooses another deck by his choice... Probably there would be a limit of 2 decks. In case of operational cards it would work the same way, with maybe a higher limit - let us say up to 3 cards per player. And now to some kind of evaluation itself. We can use either a rough measure or a fine measure. Some exaple to both systems: a) a hard measure - We establish an etalon (a basic, simple unit) to which we will relate the cost(value) of all other similar units. I.e. Etalon is 1 regular infantry. We may assume that 2 regular infantry = 1 elite infantry, 3 regular infantry = 1 MG crew or 1 mortar crew or 1 officer. This way you can reduce all infantry types on certain number of regular-infatry-units. Similarly you will take some etalon in tanks - for exaple Panzer III and by comparing it against all other tanks you will make a similar table for tanks. In case of transports such a comparison is not needy because they are almost identical. Then if you want to build an army, you would not be given a point value of X points but rather several limits: (for example up to 30 reg. inf. "units" (used either as 7,5 squads of reg. inf. or 3 squads of elite inf. and 2 mortar crews), up to 5 Panzer III "units" (which we could transform to 2 Panthers or 2 Panzer IV and 1 Panzer III), up to 2 transport units, up to 3 operational cards, up to 2 decks and up to 3 spec. tokens) This way is quite easy to made or get consensed, quite easy to comprehend and you can easily build (count) your new army. b) a fine messure - in this way we will take a different point of view. We will not establish an etalon unit, but will make a list of evaluable features of a unit type. Then we will evaluate each unit according to this list of features: The problem is complicated by fact that the with the same system we will have to evaluate regular infantry, Bren carrier and King Tiger. But what has these 3 different units in common? Little. First we would like to build a list of evaluable features: for example: 1) ability to attack infantry (attack strength, range, better assault abilieties, bonuses to alfa, flamethrower, elite inf.) 2) ability to attack vehicles (ATs, AT special., tanks range) 3) ability to resist normal attacks (bonuses to medics, bravo, recon, thick armor) 4) ability to resist suppresive attacks (bonuses to officer, bravo, recon, vehicles :-)) 5) moveability (officer, recon, halftracks, some tanks) 6) providing bonuses for other units (in a same hex)... . . For each such a feature there would be a scale let us say from 1 to 10 points and each unit could get 0-10 points from each category to make a final sum which would be its cost. The scale should be wide to adequaely (precisely) cover each feature. You could make in each feature establish the unit having this feature in best and in worst. For example in ability to attack vehicles a King Tiger (or AT 88) would receive 10 points, while transporting trucks would receive 0 points and reg. infantry (1 figure) would receive 10/13 = 0.769 points. Specialization abilities would be included in the synergy table with the same features: For example: AT token would give 2,1 points to a squad or 0.525 points to a figure via "ability to attack vehicles", considering lower range and lower attack than tanks. You could also get from this table a value of an 1 reg. infantry belonging to alfa unit squad and could compare it with a value of 1 elite infantry. But how to incorporate there the specialization tokens and probably a possibility of non/complete squads? Making such a table requires much more time and precisity. It is then rather better used for comparingalancing a given scenario forces than building an army from a scratch, because many facts are already included in it. Sloejack, you probably have made some kind of "fine measure" evaluating, but I do not quite understand how for example you could evaluate Tiger and Panther with the same cost (they differ in armor and movement), the same case it is with Crusader and Matilda (they also differ in the same features). These lines are not meant as a criticism, but rather as another point of view. Let us invite others to the discussion.
  17. Cymrusaint said: I had a look for your scenario, but couldn't find it. I did not meet any problem in locating it today . If you get to the scenario page, have them sorted by a date, then scroll down to Custom section, it should be among the first rows there (due to a date). Good luck in fight !
  18. As a newbie to the SCBG I would like to ask about some unclarities relating to Assist units: From rules I understood that they can be assigned (in a skirmish) only as a supporting units, unless they are only units in the battle (of a given player) but: a) what if a player A attacks an area where there is only one enemy (player B) assist unit? That assist unit will be (therefore) chosen as a FLU. But what attack or defence values will it use? No combat cards have such parameters for assist units. Does it use minor numbers of any combat card like in a case of when you do not have a combat card that would suit your unit (i.e. has a picture of it)? b) may that assist unit use in this case its support card together with some regular combat card? Or may assist unit play only (its) support combat cards and is therefore almost always killed? For example Defiler vs. Vulture. Defiler would use Plague together with some normal combat card. Plague would give him possibility not to die in vain and some suitable combat card (minor value) could help him survive the attack. If he could not use any suitable normal combat card he would die always. c) how can be assist units, almost always acting as supporting units, killed? If we omit a case of a splash damage or a case of targeting that assist unit, when you are not able to target enemy FLU, that the assist unit is supporting (which would be a mistake by that player). Thanks for advice.
  19. During December I designed and tested one "echt" or "pure" DOTF fan scenario and today added it to Custom section. It uses DOTF maps and components. It is rather a bigger variation of Kidney ridge scenario (though the attackers and defenders are changed) than something new. The aim was to balance forces on both sides and get to both sides possibility for Air and Artillery suport. And then let them (or players) show off !
  20. I would appreciate the Pacific expansion - which would probably have to be "the first swallow" in this style. Fights in Solomons islands, Mariannes or Iwo Jima would be surely another kind than those in Stalingrad, Moscow or Kursk (the Eastern expansion), which I would choose as the second vote.
  21. Interceptor said: Thanks for the input. To clarify, about adding a title--I double left click where it says new mission, and I then type in the mission name I want? I have tried this, and it is not working. Maybe I need to download an updated version of the editor. Also, Maybe I need to add the new title, save the mission and then output the mission. I'll play around with it. Interceptor: Your little problem can be solved by simply pressing a key "Enter". I also in a past wondered why it did not work out, but if I after modification of any title pressed Enter, the change was saved (If only a solution of every problem could be so simple). Good luck with creating new scenarios.
  22. I would have also two questions about the scenario editor: 1) As I create new "objects" in it, I can choose between Mission (which is clear) and Text. Do I understand it right, that the option Text would add (to a sceanrio) some page(s) that would consist of only written text (without any section and formatting). However I am not able to achieve this behaviour. I often have problems with not enough place for text information (which would be nice formatted) . 2) Yet I have not figured out how to place in map hexes a background color (by my choice). To create a colored border around a hex, it is not difficult, but with a change of background color though I tried many clicking combinations of editor buttons, I did not succeed. Thanks for advice.
  23. An interesting debate :-) Rapid Op Fire: If a squad with one or more machine gun crews are in Op Fire mode, the squad may execute an Op Fire attack without becoming fatigued – as long as only the machine gun crew(s) participate in the Op Fire attack. This also applies to supporting another Op Fire attack with combined fire. I interpret the words (in bold) relating only to a squad, that a MG crew is a member, not to other possible squads participating in an OF. I see no disbalance if a squad with a MG in OF (when only MG fires) does not become fatigued, whether supporting or leading OF together with another squad (containing only infantry) in OF (that does become fatigued). Otherwise MG crews would behave differently (although not other members of their squad would fire during an OF) if making OF alone or making OF together with a non-MG squad(s).
  24. artemis8


    Yipe said: Artemis: To answer your question about equipment receiving a +1 cover bonus for being in the same hex as an entrenchment, it's from an official FAQ. http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/tide-of-iron/media/TOI_FAQ1-2.pdf Hope that helps, Sincerely, Yipe Thanks, Yipe, for explanation. I had some TOI_Faq document like that you mentioned, but do not know, whether I missed it there or had some older version :-).
  25. I think both your possibilities are correct. Whatever unit in OF can participate in OF with MG crews (if it is in range and have LOS), with the fact that it thereafter becomes fatigued (unless it is not another MG crew :-)). Only problem may be worse chance of hit (long range) (if combining OF with infantry) in case of trucks or tracks.
  • Create New...