Jump to content

boersma8

Members
  • Content Count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by boersma8

  1. Grand Stone said: Cipheron said: heyho, according to a picture from 1agames` website (link: http://1agamesworld.com/1a-games-at-gama-2013-report-from-day-1/), the new Stalingrad expansion for TOI will be a new campaign expansion. now this are really great news! i believe this will something like the 6th german army campaign or something like that. i alway hoped for a new campaign focusing on german forces. we will see…greetz from germany! Can be good indeed yes And from http://1agamesworld.com/tide-of-iron/ we get the Panzer III, STUG III, T70 and T34/76 The panzer III versus the T34/76, doesn't sound fair ->fun. I can guess the stats for the stug III. But what about the T70? Well, assuming the combined fire rules haven't been amended or so, two or perhaps three panzer IIIs against 1 T34 certainly can be "fun". Even more panzer IIs and the balance will certainly shift the other way and the Russian tank won't stand a chance anymore. Of course i don't know anything about the available infantry forces to both sides, set up etc. For the Stug III I'm assuming it'll be a Stug III d. I'm guessing the stats will be something like: move 6, AI: 6-8 and AV: 6-6. Armor 3 (or perhaps 4 thanks to its relatively low profile).No fire and move allowed. T70? Perhaps move 7, AI 5-6 and AV: 6-6?
  2. Latro said: The Thing In The Attic said: Kingtiger said: Oh and one more thing: At the breaking point should not have been the introductory scenario to the game! If a highly experienced German player, plays a novice US player, perhaps then it could be fun, but not for two beginners. This scenario was indeed my first game of this game and I got creamed. I loved the plight of the German dilema but it didn't put me off; in fact it did the opposite. I was attracted to the unbalanced sides and increased difficulty It taught me two things. 1) War games don't need to be balanced, when presented in a Historical context, to be fun. 2) Not to take this game for an easy ride; It's gonna make you sweat and pay for every victory you win. Then again, you might end up (as an experienced player) playing the "easy" side and basicly wasting an afternoon doing nothing even remotely interesting … If this imbalance is intentional (which in some cases I highly doubt), it should be mentioned in the scenario itself. Yes, I entirely agree with you. In many cases the imbalance certainly wans't intended as we both know for a fact from one of the designers himself.
  3. Oh and one more thing: At the breaking point should not have been the introductory scenario to the game! If a highly experienced German player, plays a novice US player, perhaps then it could be fun, but not for two beginners.
  4. 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. There are many variables to the game that you have control over other than moving and shooting on the board and they affect the outcome of the scenario. they include how you make up your squads; what unit confiurations do you use? Then there is placement of units once the Americans have placed their units, so until the units have been placed you have to have an open mind about tactics. Once those choices have been made there is the luck of the strategy card draw. Will the Americans draw mainly Reinforcements or Ground Support, will you as the Germans draw Moral or Command? I actually played it tonight again against a new player and he did things with the Americans that no other player i've played had done before. This time I got enough of my squads onto the objective hex's to win but the squads but got wiped out before the end of the round. For me this means that I can never get complacent or bored with the scenarios- Its like playing Call of Duty on Legendary setting. The other thing about Imbalance and this game over other war games is that the designers want you to create your own scenarios so that kind of implies that you can also tweak and modify existing scenarios. finding Breaking point too tough as the Germans then put in the German reinforcement deck, or add in the Lay Smoke operational card. remove the Tanks movement restriction or add another Tank. make notes about the outcome, switch sides with your opponent and have another game. If every one agrees the changes made the game more balanced then modify the scenario accordingly Though you make some good points, this particular scenario is the text book example of imbalance. Sure, you can get closer and closer by changing your tactics, but I yet have to meet the first person who's ever won playing the Germans. So you beat a novice as he did things you'd never seen anybody doing before as the Americans. OK, but most people will just buy more and more reinforcements and as long as you do that, you WILL win as the Americans. I like your suggestion about the additional tank, though. That should indeed really help the Germans. then again, I personally want scenarios to be balanced. War wasn't balanced you say? Obviously, but the game should be. Even if one side has a definite advantage in manpower or whatever, just make the victory conditions so that they need to win within a limited time-frame, cannot lose more than X units, need to destroy at least X enemy units, need to exit an X number of units off the board etc. Usually not too hard to do. In at the breaking point, the designers also might have opted to grant 1 command point to the Germans for each reinforcement card the Americans purchase for example. Not sure how this would play out, but at the very least there'd also be a downside to buying reinforcement cards. It could be argued that German units elsewhere are experiencing less resistance as the US reinforcements have been redirected.
  5. bladerunner_35 said: Grand Stone said: I guess that the imbalance of scenarios is an obvius one that they allready do know how we feel about. Maybe, hopefully…. Still won't hurt to let them know through their site: http://1agamesworld.com/whats-going-to-happen-to-tide-of-iron-help-us-create-the-next-wave/ I wrote them a letter through their Contact Us form and told them that the missed the mark completely with their questions and that they should update all scenarios. I encourage anyone that feels the same to also do this. I agree that the 9lack of) quality of many scenarios is one of the major, if not the main issue with TOI at the moment. Hoever, i do know that Bill Jaffe is aware of this. There has been talk of revising/balancing many of the scenarios in question, but perhaps Bill is too busy for that at the moment. However, it's remarkably simple to adjust a great deal of those scenarios just using little tweaks and/or adding a scenario specific rule or two. On this very forum I recall reading many good suggestions in this regard concerning the imbalanced scenarios from FoTB. Hoepfully some of those will become official. I'm also hoping a future scenario book will include a couple of those redone scenarios at a time.
  6. It goes without saying that any future scenarios will need to be a whole lot more balanced on the whole than has been the case so far. Past imbalanced scenarios indeed also deserve to be updated/corrected. I know this was on Bill's agenda once, but I could imagine he might be too busy for that at the moment. Would like facing rules (for instance) but indeed as (optional) advanced rules. Then players can choose which of the two rule sets they can use to play. It shouldn't become a pick and choose, IMHO, because then no one would be using an official rule set anymore.
  7. VolksCamper said: The 88 Flak gun is not very well represented in TOI. In a matchup vs 5 Shermans, which enter the board from 20 hexes away, which is the longest range allowed for the 88 Flak gun on a 2 level hilltop hex, the 88 Flak will be lucky if it can destroy 1 Sherman before the other 4 Shermans advance across the board, and are able to destroy the 88 Flak gun. And this in the desert, without any additional terrain advantages the Sherman could take advantage of. So to reflect the deadly accuracy and long range capability of the most famous and feared AT gun in WW2 , the to hit die roll for 88 Flak gun at normal range, should be 4,5, or 6, and the long range to hit roll should be a 5,6. Similarly, Tiger II and Panther should likewise have their normal/long range to hit die roll changed to 4,5,6 and 5,6, respectively, reflecting these tanks excellent range finding optics and 75mm gun on Panther having nearly the same accuracy and flat trajectory out to 1200 meters as did the 88 mm gun. Perfect for a scenario specific rule or OP card I'd say. Having normal, long and short range values differ for individual units as a blanket rule would be very confusing. You could also allow it to use concentrated fire twice or op fire twice to make it more lethal. Also a nice idea for an op card.
  8. KlausFritsch said: 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. Well, perhaps they are not meant to represent battalions in those scenarios, but perhaps regiments or even divisions (as they are listed in the set-up, haha!). Then they could have divisional artillery support, attached aircraft support etc. which would allow them to hit targets located further away in an abstract sense. As i said, i don't take the values and scale too literally. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
  9. KlausFritsch said: 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. 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. 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. Then indeed the movement values, firepower etc. would be off, but so what? It's not ASLand what's more; many people think they're off as the game stands. One can also tinker a little with these movement values, firepower etc. using some special scenario rules.
  10. VolksCamper said: Infantry on foot, could not move faster than 5 meters/sec, and on average, probably move no more than 3m/sec. So presuming that 6 hexes per turn is representing the typical avg. speed of a WW2 Halftrack at 60 kph, then the scale of a hex must be approximately in the range of 100 meters, and the Halftrack is traveling 1/3rd Kilometer in 20 seconds of elapsed time. So an action phase represents about 20 seconds of elapsed time. How far, then could an infantry squad travel in 20 seconds? Certainly not 400 meters, or 4 clear hexes. In actuality then, in 20 seconds, at max speed of 5 meters/sec,an infantry squad could only move about 100 meters in a 20 second action phase. If we say the scale of the game hex is only 50 meters, and an infantry moves 4 hexes, or 200 meters, then the action phase must represent 40 seconds of elapsed time. If adopting this as the formula, however, then normal range values for the guns and tanks is far off the mark, as the maximum range (double normal range) value for an 88 Flak gun being 18 hexes only equals 900 meters, and this is FAR short of its actual real value of 1600 meter effective range. So 100 meters has to the be the only logical scale for the game given the range values and the vehicle movement values, that the designers decided upon. The only seriously unrealistic and exaggerated movement value in TOI, then, is an infantry squad moving 4 hexes, or 400 meters in a 20 second period. Therefore, the realistic movement rate of an infantry squad, if a hex = 100 meters, is 1 hex/action phase. This, however, would slow down the game too much, so a compromise, is to make the rate 2 mps and use the Memoir 44 method, where upon entering a non clear terrain hex, the squad ends its movment. Road hexes in non clear terrain, allow the infantry squad to move through the non clear terrain as if it were clear. Personally I don't take the values so literally. Unlike ASL TOI does not claim to be a fully realistic game. Allowing infantry to move up to 4 or 5 hexes simply opens up lots of options, which wouldn't be there if they could only move one or two. 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. Might be nice though to see a scenario special rule in which infantry would indeed only be able to move one hex at a time.
  11. Grand Stone said: I'll reread this one again and figure I'll definitively try this one out with an agreesive US. Taking the bridge turn one, with one green troop. And setup to MGs in two entrenchments, and having one or two troops in reach of the bridge hex in reserve. Leaving the two halftracks unmoved, gambling that the german AT gun dont do much damage at longe range AND with fog. Forcing some though decision upon the germans. Do they use their mortar on the MG, or on the bridge? The aggressive approach might work. Interested in hearing how it went! However, wouldn't count too much on the 88 not doing too much damage. It throws a whopping 13 dice! Cover would at most be 1 (fog, if not fatigued!)+3 (because of range)+1 (armor)=5.
  12. Played this scenario today with a friend. We found it to be a very balanced and fun scenario, although there are a few points which we felt needed further clarification and one big ommision in the special rules. the final score was 11-9 for the Germans. It's a very fast playing scenario which can be played using the standard rules which means that only vehicles are used in this case. As an optional rule 2 British squads composed entirely of regulars come into play as reinforcements as well as 1 German squad.Victory points are scored by destroying or heavily damaging enemy vehicles (2 points for tanks; 1 point for half-tracks). The British also score 1 point for each truck they exit off the board. So far so good.(Although in such scenarios it can always become a problem that the side that's in the lead withdraws simply to consolidate the lead; e.g. the Kursk scenario in the FoTB expansion, even when it's obvious that the scenario is not intended to be played in that way. We did have some important unresolved issues with the scenario: 1.) The British starting forces combined with the round 1 reinforcements can completely block (=occupy) the German round 2 reinforcements entry hexes. Another example of something which is obviously not the designer's attention,but which is not prohibited by the (scenario special) rules: British units may not be inside on or more of the German reinforcement hexes by the time of the latter's arrival. Why is this a problem? Well, because reinforcements may not be placed when there's no site available and are lost. 2.) The British score points for exiting trucks. But is it an option for them to also exit other vehicles? Not for scoring points but so as to prevent the Germans from detroying / heavily damaging them and scoring points. This seemed a legitimate and viable option to us and it also seemed to match the scenario description, but it wasn't clear whether this was a legal thing to do. 3.) The panzer IV is a panzer IV G or H (the one from the base game). the problem is that version wasn't available yet at the time of the scenario. A historically better option would have been to use the panzer E operations card in combination with the tanks ace card and or the elite tank crew one. Balance wise it seems to work, though, using the base game panzer IV. So all in all, a very good and balanced scenario. If both players are willing to make it a nice scenario and have a good playing experience, then this is the case. If the British player just wants to win no matter what, he;ll block the German reinforcement hexes: he has enough units to do so. It would and should be an option to confront the Germans from one further hex away. It could also be potentially game-winning if they roll well, but it also opens up great possibilities for the Germans, if the British fail to roll well.
  13. Grand Stone said: Yes, the germans have better troops and with the extra cover granted by fog the quality of the troops is amplified. And maybe you are correct that an aggressive US player would cost to much. But, if they could sacrifice one half-track to remove that AT gun, that might be worth it. However if you sacrifice two or more, its probably not. But it would atleast be a far more fun scenario if the US could play aggressive the two first rounds… I don't entirely agree with latro (He was my opponent). I played the scenario partially before with another friend and he was more successful as the US player. He played more aggressively; that is, he didn't flee, he stayed put in the entrenchments and op fired every advancing German unit. Boldly charging forward, I agree with latro, is something the US should NOT do.
  14. TheKaiser33 said: I started an official petition on Change.org to try and get FFG's attention. If everyone that signed this "petition" can go out there and sign and get others to sign, maybe we can finally get some traction on some support for Tide of Iron instead of this silent treatment from FFG. https://www.change.org/petitions/fantasy-flight-games-continue-to-support-their-tide-of-iron-game-series If not them, perhaps someone else.
  15. Grand Stone said: Yes this is somewhat typical. The defender can have a nice time planing the defence, seting up. But after he has set up, there might not be much to do other than to wait, sitt still and fire. This also leads to the setup for the defender being extremly important. I've actually won a game where I had NO units left on the board. I heavily damaged the last vehicle by a blind artellery. That was slighlty fun. But, yes playing defender can be slightly frustrating at times, cuz there is nothing you can do. However scenarios where the defender needs to be agressive themselfs are often far more entertaining. But back to the scenario, I read it that the AT gun is kept alive during the entire game? And yes, if its alive and kicking when the germans gets their tanks, it would most definitively be a major factor. And most importantly, scare the US from making bold moves. With a bit of luck and somewhat aggressive US player it may be able to take out the AT gun in round two or three without to heavy cassulties. It greatly depends on what you sacrifice, but would it be worth it playing the US aggressive the three first turns? It would atleast make the game completly different if the AT gun is removed in round 2 or three. Well, if the US do go after the 88, I suppose they could take it out, but since it's treated as a vehicle, the only units capable of taking it out should be the Shermans or the halftracks. A halftrack will almost certainly get killed trying and a Sherman should expect to at l;east get heavily damaged. Note that the 88 was placed in rough terrain and with an accompanying entrenchment giving it two additional cover. We played without the weird special rule allowing all units to use their longest range, btw. It would certainly be interesting to see a truly aggressive US on the first couple of rounds!
  16. We gave this scenario another go last Saturday. We got as far as mid round 7. By this time the germans had exited two tanks off the board, but still needed to take the objective. Whether they would have pulled this off cannot be said with certainty. If the Americans had cramped the objective and surrounding hexes this might have become problematic. Then again, the Germans would have had the initiative on round 8, had we had time to continue (the local FLAGS was in the process of closing)and might have taken the objective forcing the Americans to retake it and thereby undoubtedly sustaining losses from German units I would have put on op fire at the start if the round. I still had the vcard allowing fatigued units to switch to op-fire which I would have done with one unit that would most probably have taken the objective in close cooperation with two other squads. Overall we found it to be a fairly well balanced scenario, even though it seemed a bit boring to play on the American side (mostly putting units in Op-fire, being very restricted in their vehicle movements due to the 88 which will in all likelihood be placed on op-fire most of the time) and the fact that certainly by the later stages of the game, all the fighting occurs on a few hexes surrounding the exit point and/or objective. then again, this seems to be fairly historically accurate. If I had to grade the scenario on a scale of 1 to 10 (one being lousy and ten being excellent) I'd give it a 7; 8 for balance, 6 for fun, which makes an average of 7. I do recommend it, though as it is certainly one of the better balanced official TOI scenarios available, at least out of the ones that I have played, which I estimate to be around 40 percent or so (some other clearly unbalanced ones I haven't bothered to set up, as either my experience as a TOI player or reading some player comments online told me I'd better invest my time in a more balanced scenario).
  17. It certainly looks like an interesting scenario worth finishing, which I'm planning on doing next weekend if I can find a gaming buddy willing and able to play.
  18. Grand Stone said: So to play this scenario you only need one example of the base game, one example of fury of the bear, a few extra tokens for the expert and a few more elites for the germans? That's affirmative!
  19. Some much better balanced scenarios featuring the Russians can be found over at www.brummbar44.com (Red House and Factory Fortresses and more).
  20. Grand Stone said: FoTB gave us a beautiful russian army with nice fun stats for their tanks etc. However, I still havent played with them, cuz there scenarios are mostly broken. I do want to play the last one at some time, but its monsterly big so its not the first thing which happens. I would be suppriced if they dont make scenarios which requier all the expansions at some time. However, what I do want from a japanese expansion, is fanatic japanese infanteri, and real amphibius landings including some time in the water. Just imagine the bloody omaha scenario if the germans could I) Fire at the US landing ships BEFORE they reach the beach. If each landing transport includes two infanteri, sinking of any one of the would be costly. You could include an extra random-ness for attacks at sea. A lightly damaged whatever sinks at the roll of 5-6 on a die roll. Maybe some infanteri could survive by swiming ashore. (cost 4 movement per hex) II) all US infanteri in bloody omaha enters the beach by movement or fire & movement action. III) and just imagine the bloody omaha battle if not all infanteri apears at the same time. Would you then apply the same tactic for the US? This would lead to bloody battles, and a lot of carnage even before the US has been able to fire a single shot. Obviusly the bloody omaha scenario would need to be rebalanced. Another thing to include would obviusly be a US/Japanese combined air strategy deck. A third thing would be jungle map. With no or little visibility. But then, I'll rather take good scenarios over new stuff any time. Infantry should arrive with a move or move and fire anyway in Omaha beach. Now they just start with initiative and combine fire against a bunker or two and take them out. I agree. Some more sea hexes would be great!
  21. Grand Stone said: Why??? (this is just some random words to fill out the minimum length of a post) Because I have reason to believe so. However, I'm not in a position to say anything more about it at this time. Suffice it to say that it should be good news.
  22. The German MG also fires one extra die against infantry than the MG's of other nations do. This is intentional and I believe the Russian halftrack MV is too. In the official FAQ it does say that the armor value of the Stug and jagdpanzer are to be lowered by 1 point (from 5 to 4), although personally I believe 5 would be more accurate. This however is different from the sheets that come with the Normandy expansion. On BGG there is an overview of all terrain and units, though! (Fancreated, but accurate). There's also all the terrain from all expansions, which is great!
  23. sserre said: hi, there is a scenario in the designer series were the amercian player starts the game with incomplete squad bases. Now my question is. Can these squads be healed by a medic squad later during the game or not? Can we consider them as weakened squads??? can anyone claryfy this thx. Sure, I wouldn't know why not!
  24. CrazyJones said: I am waiting for the japanese expansion. And too for an expansion that include Poland and France invasion. We might see these at some point in time, I hope. My bet would be on seeing a Stalingrad expansion next: Days of the fox gave us half of a Bristish army (as compared with the sizes of the german and US armies in the base game) and Normandy provided us with the other half. Similarly, FoTB gave us half a Russian army leading me to think that a Stalingrad expansion would provide us with the other half so larger scenarios can be played.
  25. Actually I'm very hopeful we'll be hearing something official soon!
×
×
  • Create New...