Jump to content

apu2

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About apu2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cologne, NRW, Germany
  1. I do not see it that way. We have an equal share of American and German victories in our plays. I do not feel sbeing set back as the German player or being highly favoured by the game when I play the Americans. Maybe you had a bad choice of scenarios or simply bad luck so far? Btw: I am German
  2. what is left out completely here is the range. The effectiveness of combined fire of MGs is seriously reduced due to the short range against vehicles. Thus the occassions where combined MGs do real damage against tanks are very rare; at least in all ToI-scenarios I played so far. Usually the tanks take out the MGs at long range. So, maybe it not that realistic, but it does not do the game any harm. I do not see any need to change the rules here (or anywhere else, for that matter. The basic ToI-rules are simple, fast and fun to play)
  3. my experience is: The smaller the game (4 to 6 map tiles, 6 to 8 units, few command points) the more challeging and exciting it is. This way each squad is special and must bs used the right way. In my eyes ToI is a small unit game which is not preformint to well on larger scale. This is especially true for tanks. The rules of the game work great for small battles between a few aquads mixed up with one or two tanks. Anything beyond this proved to be not much fun. Of course this depends on your definition of fun
  4. I am not sure whether this was discussed before, but i was just to lazy to search for it: In one of our last games the Americans attacked a German stronghold with tanks. The Germans had two mortar teams on one squad base. My friend simply peppered my beloved Shermans with mortar rounds quickly reducing them to trash (with a lot of lucky dice rolls though). We agredd that this could not be in the game's intention and thus we went through the rules. But we found nothing that prevents a mortar to attack a vehicle in normal fire mode. Did we miss anything? Thx for your help
  5. We are currently developing our first self-made scenario and we are desperatly trying to simulate a fighting retreat by French troops in face of the advancing German units during 1940. Basic setting goes like this: Frenchs hold a river for several turns, Germans advance under enemy defense fire from several mg's. Germans take quite a punch, but finally make it over the river to advance towards their objectives. Meanwhile the French troops, soften up by German mortar and tank fire, have to slowly retreat towards their mission objectives (which are with one excepetion the same as for the Germans). Problem: After several restarts we came to the point that ToI is not really capable of simulating this. The main reason we identified is the mg with its multiple OpFire-Rule (honestly, i think it is the best and easiest to use rule about mg's ever invented for war games).We had to give the defenders the MG's to hold up German advance, ont he other hand and makes the defenders remain stationary for too long. We tried to offset this by placing command tokens in the hinterland but his did really work as an incentive. The fight for the river was quite intense, so it was all in all still a good scenario but we did not achieve what we originally intended. Did anyone out there experienced the same problem and has a solution for it?
  6. although I am not sure WHERE I read it, i am very sure THAT i read the following about tank tactics - late war if i remember right: When tanks without infantry support where engaged by enemy infantry in close assault (mines, bazookas, etc.) they turned their guns on each other and sprayed the formation with a hail of bullets thus preventing the enemy to get nearby. If this was true, mg's could not have be such a big threat to tanks as stated above - at least not during the late war period when tanks were obviously more heavily armoured. Did anyone else read about this or did it all appear to me in a dream??
  7. Ghengisgarber said: If I wanted to play ASL, I would dig it out of my game collections. What is wrong with trying to improve the game??? Also , who died and made you the boss of Me??? Nothing is wrong with improving ToI.....except that I do not think that your points are improvements to the game. They would only blow up the rules and instead of quickly moving your squads and attacking with your vehicles you would have to have the rulebook in your hands at all time. ToI is game that keeps things easy and it does a very good job here. I do not see any necessity to integrate things like SMG's, .50 cal, etc.
  8. FrankMcG said: Don 't feel bad. ALL of the base game scenarios are ridiculously skewed towards the Americans. The one exception being The Stavelot Express. When I first asked about scenarios on this board someone told me it was comically unwinnable for the americans, and boy were they right. It's so insanely unwinnable it almost makes up for every other scenario being impossible for the germans. The Americans get 4 bazooka teams against 6 tigers, 4 PzIVs, and a bunch of halftracks...yeah. You name it!!! Played this one as Americans, too. My friend's tanks just rolled over my squads and I could do absolutely nothing against it. I felt like haveing to stop an express train with my bare hands. We decided to end this scenario after two rounds or so, because it is just too unbalanced....like At the Breaking Point which I "experienced" as the German player twice, introducing friends to ToI. I think the only reason for choosing this scenario and the German side twice was, because I introduced ToI to friends and I wanted them to love the game as much as I do. So I gave them a spectacular win for the first time. But seriously: This scenario is crap
  9. Summed up: From a historically point of view, both weapons were only of very limited use against vehicles. I agree that the MG's in ToI are light-class models (MG34/42 and.30 cal), deadly to infantry, nothing to worry for AFV's. I have no hard facts about flamethrowers but I think the limited range and the limited tank capacity prevented them form being real tank busters. BUT: What would happen in game of ToI, if you deny these weapons to damage enemy AFV's? The infantry's entire anti-armour capacity would rest on the shoulders of one or two bazooka-teams (max.). Suppressing these and the enemy armour acts unhindered on the battlefield. Bearing this in mind, I think it is okay for the game balance that these weapons pose a limited threat to enemy armour.
  10. Do you all really expect THAT much new stuff from an estern front expansion? IMHO the basic box of Tide of Iron is already a superbly designed and balanced game, able to simulate all kind of terrain, weapon categories, squad types, etc. ToI is a game which gains much of its fun from the generic statistics of the infantry and the tanks. A German soldier is much the same like his American or British counterpart....yeah, yeah I know the MG is somewhat better . The power of the tanks is obviously very different (compare a Tiger to a Sherman), but nevertheless their outfits are summed up by only very few numbers (armour, firepower and movement). What I like best about ToI is, that the units have very, very few special rules, e.g. no stupid "All German tanks have the Blitzkrieg-Ability"-stuff. The game works fine with very few, easy-to-calculate and easy-to-understand numbers. This combined with the intuitive d6-machanism makes playing easy and fun. I think the Dotf (can't say anything about Normandy, didn't played it yet) already did not add any extra value to the game...except some nice-looking British models. But what about the new terrain, the new AT-guns the new specilizations, I hear you saying? Hmm, to cut things short: 1.) Terrain did not offer anything new (FFG just replaced hills with dunes and painted the boards yellow); 2.) I think the AT-gun rules do not work properly and 3.) I don't want more tokens and more cards and more of everything, just makes the game more complex which leads to less strategy and more luck. Of course, all these points are just my opinion and about most of them you can open a new thread itself I guess. So what is it I want to say? With all the things above i mind i do not think the the eastern front expansion will offer anything completely new except for the russian infantry and vehicle models of course. But why would I want a seperate Stalingrad-expansion??? Look at the fan-created scenario Pavlov's House takin playe in Stalingrad. It is done withe the basic box only using American soldiers for rhe Russians...and i works great. You just take the urban overlays and use a lot of regular infantry to resemble the city of Stalingrad and the training status of the Russian infantry - done. Please, don't get me wrong. I am not completely against expansions, but I will only buy them if they add a whole new aspect to the game. I this is in my eyes not done by providing new plastic models and more strategy cards decks, etc. So, now everything is said and done; you can crucify me now
  11. About the centurions: It is correct that you do not have to worry too much about one of these, but two quickly become a problem. It happened twice now, that the Armory location became damaged right before Galactica has been boarded by two centurions. If one of the revealed cylons then turns out to be Chief Tyroll the humans quickly run out of engineering skill cards. Destruction came very quickly.
  12. On last night's game a question among my group came up: If a FTL jump is forced due to activating the FTL controll location, does the current player still draw a crisis card? We played it this way but weren't to sure about it, because it happened twice that we forced a jump and the next crisis card turned out to be a setup card. Thus after having closely escaped the enemy fleet the fragging Cylons were right upon us again. We had no porblem with it and it added much to the tension, but we were not sure, whether this is truley the game's intention? Found nothing about this point in the rules.
  13. I also suggest that the interpretation of the secrecy rule is up to eaqch group. We agreed on not quoting a card's text until all cylons were revealed and to keep quotations very vague after the revelation. This worked very well and turned out to produce role-playing like conversations ("Me as the president of the twelve colonies suggest making a spairitula speech to boost morale. What is your opinion, Commander Adama?" )
  14. We are about to have our first BSG-game next weekend. Any newbie hints for me?
  15. Everybody fully satisfied? Nothing to citizise? Come on, the rules for AT-Guns are funny but by no means done very well.
×
×
  • Create New...