Jump to content

latro2

Members
  • Content Count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by latro2

  1. latro2

    Game Balance

    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.
  2. I'll second that! It was a very fun scenario to play with lots of fast paced action all around the map. 1. I do recommend playing with the optional rule giving the extra squads. It adds extra tactical options and doesn't slow the game down. 2. The current scenario rules/set-up have the major flaw of giving a guaranteed very easy win to the UK player if he occupies the german reinforcement hexes. For any self-respecting player this should be no problem though, simply don't do it … problem solved. 3. Because the whole scenario is all about a UK column trying to escape a trap, it would be logical that all UK units are allowed to exit the map and not just the trucks. I would certainly recommend this extra rule. 4. I agree with Kingtiger that the Pz IV's would be better off being a more historically correct version (buffed up by a few Operation Cards). Balance-wise they are fine, just for flavour.
  3. Grand Stone said: I haven't played it jet, but its definitively on my to do list. Play test this one with an aggressive US the three first turns. Ofcourse, you count the normal effect of fog in addition. But you gain it for both sides right? 13 dices at LONG range versus 5 in armor. In average 2.16 hits versus 1.67 saves. But you might be lucky and no damage. Unlucky and get a lightly damage. But heavily damage is very unlikely at long range. Don't forget that the 88 has a range of 9 against vehicles, so any US vehicle that moves into range to take a shot will always be at normal range for the german op-fire (or normal return fire). Due to it's massive range, basicly the entire area around the objectives will also be in normal range when deployed in the rough terrain near the bridge.
  4. Kingtiger said: 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. … my frontline units never left the entrenchments. The reason that they didn't do anything with op-fire is because they were supressed (and eventually routed) all the time by the germans. Again, the -2 cover against suppresive fire and no additional cover at all against AoE attacks made a big difference. So regardless of how your previous opponent may have played/rolled it, realistically the frontline US units can only sit and die for a few turns while the rearguard US units and reinforcements position themselves and wait for a few more turns untill the Germans are ready to make their final push. It played kinda balanced (bit of a guestimate after just one game), but very boring.
  5. Grand Stone said: 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. Unless the german player makes very big mistakes or the dice are very much US-biased, I don't see the 88 going down anytime soon: - The US-player has almost no option to form agressive squads (all green) or deploy agressively (the green bordered hexes must be filled). The german-player has plenty elites and freedom of deployment. - The US units will be advancing in the open, the german units will be firing from cover. - The special fog-rules will give the germans 2-3 extra cover, while the cover for the US units can be negated by supressive and/or area attacks. - The german MG can profit from op-fire, the US can't. … did I mention the 88 will have something like 6-8 armour/cover?
  6. Yemzpoopoo said: Hello your local idiot again. So, do if you have the clear tank traps card and you have an fresh engineer unit, can you move your engineers into a hex with the tank obstacle and remove the obstacle provided you still have two movement points left? No, because removing obstacles counts as an action and not just a few movement points. So moving in and removing the obstacles would be two actions ... though with a little help from certain cards it can be done in the same turn of course.
  7. latro2

    Concealed squads

    San said: Latro said: Small detail: A concealed squad within LOS but in cover-providing terrain, remains concealed ... and can't be fired upon. Just think of the nasty things you can do with that ... Not really a lot: spotting mortar crews and off-board artillery. What have I missed? ... a concealed squad can choose to become active and show itself by attacking anytime you want it to. Combine that with the fact that a lot of scenario's are decided by controling locations on the map within a certain time-limit and concealed squads can become a very dominating force if played correctly.
  8. latro2

    Concealed squads

    San said: What is the practical usage of concealed squads? To move closer to the enemy? But the concealed squad is revealed as soon as it moves into LOS. The opportunity of hiding in buildings and woods? Any other ideas? Small detail: A concealed squad within LOS but in cover-providing terrain, remains concealed ... and can't be fired upon. Just think of the nasty things you can do with that ...
  9. A few short answers: - 22 scenario's, 7 of which need the Days of the Fox expansion to be played (note: at least one of the "base set" scenario's needs two sets!) - the scenario's are not linked, they can be played in any order you want - opinions on the quality are mixed (as always) ... I think some are great, some need a few house-rules, but none are a waste of time
  10. Grand Stone said: You cannot place a specilization ability on a squad with a heavy infanteri weapon. Thus, an anti-tank MG gun is not allowed. ... which is a good thing. because the game does not need flamethrowing mortar-teams.
  11. Hefsgaard said: Engineers can dig foxholes as an action, så why could mechanics not fix a track or similar to make a vehicle combatative again? Because creating a protected firing position can be as easy as setting off an explosive charge and fixing something as "simple" as a broken track takes a heck of a lot longer.
  12. 4lterego said: Out of the various scenarios available it would be nice to get a more or less definitive list of the playable vs the broken ones. Play them and you will find out soon enough for yourself: - what some find broken, others find an interesting challenge - sometimes there's also an obvious and easy fix to find
  13. Memoir '44 has dice with cute little coloured symbols on it ... Tide of Iron has regular dice! (PS: No, I'm not a big Memoir fan.)
  14. VolksCamper said: If a squad begins the round already adjacent to an enemy MG squad which is in Op fire mode, if that squad is activated to do an Assault action, is that considered movement that allows the MG squad to Opt fire first, or is the Assault action combat resolved first? Op Fire is triggered by an enemy unit moving into a hex within sight and range of the unit in Op Fire mode. In the case of an assault, the movement does not happen until after the fighting has been done and the attacker (if victorious) can consolidate into the asssaulted hex ... but that movement does not trigger Op Fire according to the rules (page 34). If the MG squad is in the hex being assaulted it can shoot back of course, but if it is not in the actual hex it can no longer interfere once the close combat has started (to great a risk to hit friendly units I guess).
  15. beresford said: That wasn't difficult, was it? Yet the tone seems as if he was having his teeth pulled. I'm not sure how you can manage to make something negative out of a quite neutral four-word-answer ( + smiley! ), but if you mean that he regularly smiles when having his teeth pulled I guess you're right. Other than that, the clearification is welcome so the rules as written for Balkas were correct.
  16. JayT said: I have a question regarding a line of sight issue that occured while playing Tide of Iron. It was during the Hellfire Pass scenario. One of the British tanks has moved on the road between both flak guns. One of the players interpretation of the line of sight rules is that if there is a change in elevation of 2, the hex next to the first elevation hex is blocked. From what Ive read, the only terrain that blocks line of site are: woods, buildings, and terrain higher than BOTH. There isnt a case of a plateau situation, where there is an interviening hex of the same elevation as the flak gun. The elevation change between both units is 2, where the tank is at 0 and the flak gun is at 2 with a hex at elevation 1 between. Any help clarifying this rule would be appreciated. Thanks In short: page 24 "Also, when dealing with varying unit elevations, a hill the same level or lower than the unit on the higher elevation is also considered blocking terrain for the purpose of determining blind hexes"
  17. Some more reviews: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=7&efcid=1&efidt=484705 By the way, the first time I tried this scenario I rolled (and re-rolled) a single KV-1 for the first two reinforcements ... which really sucked because my only "losses" so far had been heavy damage to two KV-1's. It turned out to be a very hard day for the Soviets.
  18. Aussie_Digger said: Latro said: Scenario: Tank Fight at Prokhorovka Problem: The scenario uses a strategy deck called "Ground Attack Air Support I" (shared), which does not exist. Solution: Use the "Combined Air Support Deck I". Are you sure this is not Ground Support deck 1?? could be either deck as the words of both decks are in this Since there is no official answer on this, it's just my best (educated) guess: - Ground Support 1 is not a shared deck, Combined Air Support 1 is. - Ground Support 1 is kinda useless in this scenario, Combined Air Support 1 can be very effective. So my best hunch is that it's supposed to be the Combined Air Support 1 deck, but it's not official.
  19. DeltaSixOne said: 6) Size of game should be of mid sized, our time frame (not including setup) will be around 4 hours. Could you give an indication of what time players are allowed per turn/round? It's hard to make a good guess here because 2 v. 2 games are very rare and double-blind scenario's almost unheard of ... and the players themselves might be first-time players as well. It's generally not a good thing to make a 6 round scenario when you can only manage to play 3 rounds tops.
  20. Signed! ... and signed again or else my post is too short to be published.
  21. beresford said: The REAL reason that smoke isn't used much is the method of delivery. It requires getting Engineer squads out front into what is usually poor defensive territory. If they get there and a single figure survives the Op Fire unpinned then you can pop smoke. If you could fire smoke using artillery, instead of those useless suppressive barrages, then people would be using smoke all the time regardless of the one Action Phase duration. Smoke is also an attractive use for the Furry Bear optional ammo rules. If I buy a smoke round and fire it in front of your only anti-tank gun, do you really want that gun to be masked for two Action Phases (possibly a quarter of the game)? The REAL REAL reason smoke isn't used much, is because not a lot of designers include the option in their scenario's. It's a bit hard to use something if it's not allowed by the rules.
  22. latro2

    IS-2

    Aussie_Digger said: From the differnt sorces I have been looking at it seems that the armour thickness was a bit greater than the Tiger but not as thick as the kingtiger. (although it is probably a little closer to the tiger so as you say It might be best to use that tigers value as there really inst any room between) I am still a little reluctant to give firepower 12 as the IS-2 velocity was far less than that of the panther and the tables I have been looking at suggest the panther had greater penatrating power. The explosive charge fired by a IS-2 was powerful enough to take out a Tiger or King Tiger without penetrating their armour ... so the stats you're talking about are a little misleading. The downside of it was a low rate of fire and a low muzzle-velocity which made accurate longrange fire very hard. You might want to try giving it a very powerful attack versus vehicles but with a shorter range than is common for tanks. The anti-infantry attack should be something like the SU-122.
  23. Try giving the Soviets the "Lack of Tank Radios" operation card instead of "Soviet Command Constraints" ... that should make quite a difference.
  24. If you mean the Katyusha support then I agree ... but those other two are quite nasty: - Nebelwerfer gives you Area Attack (5) and Wide Blast Radius (5) ... that's a lot of killing power! (Just compare it to strategy cards for cost and effect!) - The Heavy Mortar does a Suppressive Area Attack (6) or Area Attack (3) ... and needs no line of sight!
×
×
  • Create New...