Jump to content

Koa Kahiko

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Koa Kahiko

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bisbee, Arizona, United States
  1. If an AFV breaks down in the middle of a combat action the crew is likely to bail out or stay put. They are not likely to dismount and try to complete repairs. bad for the health. Even getting a thrown track back on the wheels is a tricky proposition and requires someone outside the vehicle observing as the driver tries to ease the track back on the wheel. Not a good thing to be doing while people are shooting at you.
  2. I am a big fan of TOI. I purchased two copies of The Fury of the Bear. Despite the flaws in the scenarios and a couple of rules, this game is too good to shun. Let's give them feedback on its good and bad points. The eastern front deserves good scenarios and FF screwed the pooch on some of them. Needless to say there is a bully game game system here, as those of us who have played it since its inception are aware.
  3. This is basically a Panzerblitz expansion. If someone can do the 1941-era vehicles it would open the door on expansions for Franco 1940 and the Spanish Civil War as well as Stalingrad. And then there's the late war, which would open the door to Korea...
  4. I copied the url into my browser and it worked. What I can't do is print the bugger out, but at least I was able to make corrections on the current cards.
  5. My copy arrived two days ago - the boards and other parts seem fine. When I tried to download the revised images of the misprinted cards the download stopped halfway. There seems to be something wrong with the link. On the other hand, I received a near-instantaneous response from Thadd, indicating that free replacement cards would be sent to all who are in need. This equals the service I received when I requested a replacement for one of my TOI American infantry figures. FFG has been really good in responding to my inquiries. For the momemnt, I would be content to be able to see the images of the corrected cards so I could make corrections on the originals.
  6. And how hard would it be to do a set of ...Americans... who could be pitted against the Brits in a War of 1812 expansion??
  7. Koa Kahiko


    Brumbar: That was a very well-composed and researched posting. I agree that TDs did a very fine job with the equipment and training they received. You are, according to what I have read about tank destroyers, their doctrine and use, correct in what you have said. TD doctrine did change, and in a big way. The original intent of using tank destroyers as a mobile fire brigade did not pan out. There was, if I recall, only one instance during the war when a TD Bn. (let alone a larger force as was originally envisioned) was deployed according to doctrine against an enemy tank force - El Guettar. During the rest of the war, field commanders and TD Bn. commanders struggled to find the optimal use for TDs and came up with some very innovative answers. Usually, TDs were divided up and used to support Regs./Command commands/Bns. or even down to the infantry bn. rifle co. level As a former soldier (Infantry and Field Artillery), I am aware that doctrine doesn't come near to providing all the answers. Verly early on the TD Bns. were used in ways that no one stateside had envisaged. And, as a former Bataan Death March survivor who lives a few blocks away from us is fond of saying, "they did their jobs." As all the young men and women who serve in our armed forces today do. But the topic here was overruns - in game mechanics, that would involve an individual vehicle passing through enemy positions and shooting them up, scaring the hell out of them and leaving them easy prey for the oncoming infantry to mop up. I am aware that TDs were generally used later in the war to destroy enemy fortifications by fire and to support infantry attacks on German defensive positions. What I have read is that TDs were used to support attacks from 800-1000 yards away, but did not accompany infantry onto the objective in combined arms asaults. Nor have I found any accounts in which tank destroyers charged by themselves through infantry positions and then continued on their mission. These were not weapons designed nor intended to close with the enemy and fight them at very close ranges, as overrun implies. Perhaps there were situations in which TDs had to shoot their way out of a difficult spot, but it is difficult for me to see how such a weapon would be willingly used in the role of overrunning enemy positions. Perhaps you could provide some examples?
  8. Koa Kahiko


    Regarding tank destroyers in overrun: Doctrine mitigates against their use. TD Bns. were equipped, trained and organized to kill tanks- not infantry. Like it or not, that's what they did. Tyrying to use them as tanks is not something that would have happened by choice in western Europe in WW2. Also, the only MG on a TD, if I recall accurately, was a .50 cal. mounted on the turret. A TD commander is not going to stand up exposed, blazing away with his .50 cal. as his lightly-armored TD rumbles towards enemy positions. remember, the TD would sacrifice speed to make an assault on fixed positions. If the TD commander is hit, that vehicle will most likely bug out or at least no longer serve as an effective weapon. Imagine you are a loader or a gunner on a TD and your commander has just taken a round or piece of shrapnel to the head or torso and is bleeding all over your turret. What are the chances that you will abandon your position, push him out of the way and take over that .50 cal. (and his role as TD commander?) it's more likely that you and your driver will decide that discretion is the better part of valor, back up, find some concealment and try to patch up your TD commander. The seemingly-excessive armor rating for TD may well reflect the American TD's ability to shoot and scoot without having to invoke lengthy ASL-style facing rules. The game as it stands works very well as a playable representation of tactical combat. FFG managed to reach a balance of accuracy and playability that is rarely achieved in a tactical board game. This is a war game that is fun to play while retaining the flavor of WWII combat. If that doesn't work for you, by all means add house rules. As for me, there's plenty to do as a company or battalion commander as the game stands now. But I do anxiously await the Eastern Front addition.
  9. I'll be quite happy if the new addition to TOI is up to the high standards of its predecessors. Tank and infantry combat between the Soviets and Germans in a non-urban environment will be a great way to spend a weekend. It would be good to have an urban combat supplement as well. That could include Stalingrad, Breslau, Berlin...
  10. OK - it's a deal - but it'll be a a while. First on the agenda is completing the preparations for holding a vintage base ball tournament fund-raiser scheduled for April 10 & 11 at 100-year old Warren Ballpark in Bisbee, AZ. Then I'll do a scenario for the 100th/442nd. Bruyere comes to mind...
  11. So let us wait for good things to come. And in the meantime, is there anyone out there who cares to take on designing scenarios dealing with the 100th battalion and the 442 RCT? That would be quite a challenge, using elite infantry and a crdefully prepared selection of cards to make it work. But what a story...
  12. I am also hoping an expansion is released in the near future, but I would rather have it done well and released later than see a flawed product released prematurely. One of the selling points of TOI was that it was put on the market in a finished form. Think of all the games you've purchased that had so much promise, but when taken out of the box, were obviously released before all of the significant problems were ironed out. You, as a paying customer, became an unpaid play-tester, providing feedback to the designer and developer in the hopes that what was bought would eventually become a useable product. TOI has done an incredible job of portraying all of the subtleties and nuances of WWII combat in a form that can take in the differences in nationalities, troop quality, etc. No game system can perfectly replicate combat on this scale - too many details, too much chaos - but TOI does manage to put players in the role of a company or battalion commander, making the important decisions in a fluid and cahaotic environment. I'll still play this game if they don't release another expansion, but it sounds like something is indeed awaiting us down the road. FFG is a business, and if the demand is there and the product can be produced and sold at a profit, it is in their best interests to do it.
  13. FFG's lack of support may be due to economic hard times and because of demographics. So we have to convince them that it is economically worth their while to invest the resources into TOI. Let us all hold hands while we dance and chant our mantra and reaffirm YES WE WILL SPEND MONEY ON YOUR PRODUCTS!!! (Level 2 Jedi Knights of the New Earth Army)
  14. Koa Kahiko


    And that's a good way to look at this game...not as a number crunching exercise, but as a tactical exercise, involving all the aspects of a battlefield.
  15. Koa Kahiko


    I am a 11B40 (B/1/35 Inf.) with an Expert Infantryman's Badge, and eight years in-service. A well-trained rifleman with a decent shoulder weapon - such as an M-1 - could certainly put out effective fire as far as 400 meters. That is its maximum effective range. That's about a quarter of a mile away, not that far of a distance to fire at a target. That same person, with a clear line of sight to a target - and most targets will not of course be as easy to hit as on a firing range - can put out rounds that will still strike on or near a target 600-800 meters away. That's why extended range fire is not as effective. A BAR fired from a bipod would also be more effective out to several hundred meters away. High-powered semi-automatic rifles can hit a target or put a number of rounds on a target a long ways away - IF the shooter has a clear line of sight. Most targets on a battlefield will be moving from cover to cover, and the shooter will be facing all of the stresses a person who is trying to kill someone who is trying to kill him, would face. Good training will make a big difference - marksamnship, covering the assigned sector of fire, having noncoms and officers who can assess a situation and redirect fire as needed. Tripod or bipod mounted automatic weapons will put out a much larger volume of aimed fire, but a good shot with an M-1, with eight rounds in a clip, can most certainly put those rounds downrange hundreds of yards effectively to suppress or hit the target. Please remeber, most rounds do not hit their intended target. Nor do they have to. If the volume of fire stops those enemy soldiers in their tracks, or causes them to break and run (ah, suppression!) they have done their job. Most firing of small arms on a battlefield will occur at much shorter ranges due to an attacking force using covered avenues of approach (and smoke if available) to deny a clear shot to the defenders. Please also look at the ranges of machine guns and tank/antitank guns in TOI to get a feel for the scale. If the scale of TOI is 30 meters per hex, an 88 mm round is only effective at full strength out to 270-300 meters, and has an extended range of 550-600 meters. Ask any WWII veteran if he will buy that... Tripod-mounted MGs, if TOI has hexes that are 30 meters across, would have a maximum effective range of 150 meters, and a maximum range of 300 meters. If I recall correctly, the M-60 MG we carried in our weapons squads was good out to 1100 meters. The M-16 (a much less accurate shoulder-fired weapon than the M-1 Garand) was good out to 460 meters. TOI does a far better job than ASL of creating the uncertainty and confusion of a battlefield while retaining the essential elements of tactical level combat. Decisions are made on a battlefield in mere moments, without referring to thick manuals or extensive tables.
  • Create New...