Jump to content

BazookaJoe2

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About BazookaJoe2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    VBch, Virginia, United States
  1. longagoigo said: flatlander37 said: Can my fatigued half-track contribute its firepower to the assault? p.33: Up to two friendly squads.....may support the attack. Sorry, it says squads, not units. Not to argue the rules, as that is how I read them as well, however, it makes absolutely no sense that the half-track gunner cannot support the squad that just jumped from that very same vehicle to assault an adjacent hex. The assault rules are flawed in this instance, as the TOI rules do not support a basic tenant of mechanized tactical doctrine.
  2. The assault rules for TOI are silly and flawed. I look forward to the day when FFG publishes 2nd Edition TOI rules. was hoping to see something like that with FotB, but unfortunately not. Thankfully, other publishers are advancing the art of playable, realistic WW2 squad level gaming. TOI could be so much more if only FFG would take it seriously.
  3. rhall60918 said: I'm finding it somewhat problematic, and I'm wondering if others do, as to the way that damge to light vehicles is resolved and treated the same way as for tanks (heavy vehicles). Specifically, this is about the rather unrealstic effect that a halftrack (light vehilce) must take 1 or 2 hits to become lightly damaged/fatigyed and then needs another 3 hits to go directly from lightly damaged to destroyed. Yes, I already realize that a light vehicle like a halftrack will ALSO become fatigued while a tank won't, yet a half track's ability in the game to absorb the same amount of damage as a tank is outright problematic. As a possilbe solution, I was thinking about applying a houserule where every single hit on a halftrack (or other light vehicle) will result in a level of damage to it: 1 hit = light damage and fatigued; 2 hits = heavy damage; and 3 hits = destroyed. Does anyone else have any views one way or the other as to whether or not the way the game treats or represents the sustainable amount of damage that light vehicles are capable of absorbing is problematical at all? or not? And what about other optional houserules, including the one above, that would conceivably correct this prevailing problem in the game design? I've always found it unrealistic that heavy vehicles could be damaged by MGs or in this game. Your suggested solution is excellent. I would modify it to reflect light vehicle vulnerability to smaller caliber weapons. 1. Every hit by a heavy vehicle, anti-tank weapon or artillery on a light vehicle causes one level of damage. 2. Hits by other weapons are treated normally. WRT trucks, the original Panzerblitz had the same problem. It was resolved in Panzer Leader whereby trucks/wagons could not spot, could not control hexes and did not count in any way towards victory determination either for units destroyed or occupying objective hexes. Sounds entirely reasonable to me.
  4. kaufschtick said: I mean, I realize a title is a title too. But I've got family that fought in WWII in both theaters. I've got family that fought in Korea and Vietnam, and I'm not about to call Nazis or Communists "Heros"; but hey, that's just me. Then Uwe and the CoH team changed them back. Then Uwe and the CoH team decided to change how the group move rules use CAPs. Then they changed the group move rules altogether. Then they decided to change how the non phasing player reacts to what the phasing player is doing. Then they decided to change how the combat values are presented to the players on the counters. Right after the close combat rule flip flopping, there was a four part "rule update" that was made. Uwe and the CoH team used to use the excuse all the time, that they were trying to "make the game better". And if they came across a good idea that "made the game better", they were going to make that change. Fair enough, but... they kept on finding more and more ways to "make the game better". I mean that too, I literally got tired of having to check to see what the latest and greatest ideas were, and what the latest version of the rules were going to be. It's beginning to sound like you have a personal beef with the COH designer. Maybe its time to relax and let it go, man.
  5. Bill, Thanks for moving this great idea forward. Smoke was an inherent part of infantry assault doctrine. Since these are direct fire weapons I would not use the drift option and since they are usually smaller caliber guns I would stick to just the target hex without wind effects. I believe there is a definite need for smoke fired from AFV and artillery/mortors but for TOI would keep it simple. For that reason I would let it stand for one complete round from laying it on. Also, since AFVs did not carry large quantities I would give each side a specific number of smoke chits based on AVF numbers and mortor squads. Expend one chit for each use of smoke. Cheers!
  6. I think it's a sad day for TOI when the game's support forum degenerates into the bashing of another designer's game. Can we get back to TOI? For the historical record, remember Panzerblitz? Took the gaming world by storm and remained on top for years. That was Russian v. German...in an American market. Panzer Leader came later.
  7. I will not lobby against anyone's Christmas wish list. I hope for the Pacific fans' sake that ToI eventually publishes such an expansion. That said, it's already being done by others and apparently with some success. Why not go for something more interesting and imaginative like early WW2 (France 1940). Another idea is an urban warfare expansion...TOI house to house "Sniper!" style incorporating multi-room, multi-story, street level, area style map boards. Six map boards that simulate urban warfare anywhere in Europe (Stalingrad, St. Lo, Caen, Bastogne, Berlin, etc.). Think out of the box!!!
  8. That's an interesting point but seems to conflict with the LOS rules. Smoke acts as cover and an FP modifier if a unit is in the same hex, but acts as blocking terrain otherwise. If you need to screen your units from say OP fire, then smoke would be used as blocking terrain. If you want to assault a unit or reduce it FP then smoke on target makes sense. I think.
  9. Good luck getting more Brit tanks from FFG. FFG was the US distributor for World Tank Museum models but gave that up... Try: Strange Cargo or, Pithead-miniatures (British). Pithead-miniatures has a HUGE line of 1/144 WW2 (they accept payment via PAYPAL).
  10. AAAaamen! Been saying that for years. Didn't sound like a rant to me...music to the spheres.
  11. BJaffe01 said: i can't swear but that sounds like the card to represent the American .50 cal heavy machine gun. op fire should be okay, but no rapid fire is accurate as the .50 cal had a slow rate of fire. in the case of the outfitted bunkers,not offical mind you, the intent was to represent mg 42's emplaced for heavy action also op fire should be okay just not rapid op fire. i could be wrong here but back when i was working on the game we where looking for ways to represnt the heavy and slow firing machine guns. also the Germans did use their 20mm aa cannon like a machine gun at times very devastating firepower BJaffe01 1. The type of weaponry needs to be specified for the bunker...it's either a heavy MG or equipment (20 mm quad) or both (with separate actions). 2. Neither a light or heavy MG should be able to damage a heavy vehicle. Only light vehicles, in which case a FP of 4 for the .50 is reasonable.
  12. These are the funniest AT rules. Any squad can step up and operate the equipment. Artillery and AT teams required gun-specific training, especially when it came to ranging, fuses, etc. In TOI, the highly trained gun team gets killed and then any regular infantry squad without prior training can step up and just start firing away. Even funnier is that inexperienced squad "A" of country "A" can step up and start firing away with enemy equipment. A British infantry squad just off the boat mans an "88". Very funny. Within the time frame of a TOI battle I would say this ability stretches credulity even in a stylized system. Why not give each gun its own crew from the start, marked by a special token. If that crew is killed, the equipment is ooc for the remainder of the game unless manned by a squad with at least 50% elite troops or by another gun team. Moreover, manning enemy equipment should not be allowed except by special highly trained troops.
  13. I think there are some interesting "Pacific" scenarios that would be worth exploring, but not many of them are USA v. Japan. USA v. IJI (Imperial Japanese Infantry/Marines) up to and including Guadalcanal might be fun...Burma road maybe. Otherwise you simply have stubborn attacker rooting out stubborn defender in concealment. If refering to pre-1941, then yes...there might be some areas to investigate. I'm thinking of China.
  14. BJaffe01 said: Fanatic Infantry isn't that hard and balancing isn't that hard but many battles in the Pacific don't lend to interesting scenarios. this expansion would take much longer to design right BJaffe01 Well sir, what are you waiting for. Let's get cracking. Christmas is only 4 months away.
×
×
  • Create New...