Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lebatron

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Iron Mountain, Michigan, United States
  1. True. I'm all for 12 board maps too. I just think 9 gives you the best combo of strategy and length of play time.
  2. My theory is that the original map board artist was not available to do the Normandy expansion so when someone else was tasked to do it their own style was used. It's to bad that artist does not know how to do rivers/streams. There is no character to them, they look a lot like roads. Everything else is fine with the new style except that.
  3. Kingtiger you forgot to tell Klaus what scenario size you like best.
  4. I own 1 of each of everything made so far. I think the sweet spot for map size is 9 boards.
  5. Yes the optional extra boards match the Normandy kind. I have bought both and could use the newer boards for the base game but I do not. I'm one of the few that prefers the look of the original boards. Opps forgot to add that I don't think a new purchase of the base game will include the newer boards. My copy was purchased in February and still contained the old style. And like I said I'm glad it did because they look better.
  6. I would think the real fear would be from the MG. Unless of coarse you are the target of the big gun because maybe you are manning an AT gun or in an MG nest. Otherwise the rest of the field would have little fear of the tank as nothing would be targeting them ie. the MG.
  7. Good and balanced beginner ones Blood on the Mountain Breaking the Line Chain of Command Tiger Hunt Crossroads (I fix this one by simple removing 2 US Shermans) DOTF-Hellfire Pass Liberation (Give the Germans 2 extra infantry squads) DOTF-Rescue Mission Road to Ruin Silence the Guns There really are many more that to me look pretty good without having played them yet. If I find a likable scenario out of balance I just tweak it. Don't be afraid to do the same. FFG will not be sending men in black suits to your home if you do
  8. I would be "trilled" too. Oh btw is this a feeling you get when a killer Trivid gets you?
  9. Since I have not played anything out of my Normandy expansion yet I'm not sure what you mean about it. Other than the thread about Bloody Omaha I participated in, and my suggestion to make running down Hegdrows take 3 movement points. What else is wrong with it other the the heg problems and flamethrowers getting to shoot vertically up cliffs?
  10. I'm a Firefox user too and did want ClickOnce to work on it too but it only did so in previous versions. Someone needs to update the clickonce addon to work with 3.6 and up. So for just Zuntzu alone I fired up IE to do the install of Zuntzu. After this is done however IE does not really have to be used anymore. You just click on the Zuntzu shortcut or directly on the Zuntzu module being used. In my modules case load time for any scenario will take about a minute instead of seconds like some other game modules because I'm using much higher resolution in my module. This makes my tank counters look great even close up. Anyway once the scenario is loaded it should not have a problem with speed after that because everything is then loaded into memory. My PC module is about 70MB in size. Compare this to the average one at 10-20MB in size. These ones are smaller because the res is poor. Zoom in and things begin to look ugly. Not on mine. In my book, I would rather wait a little longer for the scenario to load than to suffer ugly graphics for the next few hours of play.
  11. "Nothing in detail" Why what do you mean? Was not my explanation of the "super simple facing rules" clear? Try out both. There are two versions. One with the limitation that the Stug III and Jagdpanzer can't do a fire and move action and one in which they can. If you do not know already, Bill Jaffe has recently posted here that he limits his Stug and Jadgpanzer in this way to make them have a different flavor than the tanks. In a way it's kind of semi official. However when using facing rules I believe my version that allows fire and move for these TD's is the better choice to play with. At least that's how I'm leaning today:)
  12. Bazookajoe, perhaps I should give you an analogy to help you see why I don't think side vs rear armor should be modeled in TOI. Have you ever played D&D? In this system and many others there is a roll to hit, then if you hit you follow with a roll for damage. Say we used such a system in TOI. Tanks would then be harder to hit in the rear than the side because the profile exposed would be smaller. So side is easier to hit back is harder. Then if either of these areas are hit you roll for damage. The rear, in general, has the least armor on it, so a hit here would do more damage. So in summary one face is easier to hit and one face is more fragile. Modeling front side rear armor under such a combat system would make sense because you separate the hit roll from the damage roll. Now in TOI however only one big roll is made. Damage and hits are actually one in the same. So if one side of the tank is sturdier but easier to hit, and the rear is fragile yet harder to hit the two kind of counter each other out which is why I suggested a -2 armor penalty for both the side and rear. In other words side and rear have both their pros and cons and therefore I just put them into one group and call it the flank. Now you can try and split hairs, but how much could you really? Say you wanted the rear to suffer a -3 armor penalty instead of -2 because you say the rear has less armor. True, but then I can come right back at ya and say the rear has a smaller profile than the side and thus is harder to hit so give it a bonus of 1. Then are we not right back at -2 for either the side or the rear. And if we are at -2 for both then just combine the two into the flank. So IMO under TOI's combat system it only makes sense to have a front and flank nothing more. BTW due to the simplicity of Conflict of Heroes combat system the same is assumed. If you really want to model the fragility of the rear of a tank you will have to create a new combat system for TOI that separates the to hit and damage rolls into separate entities so that the additional difficulty of hitting the rear vs the side can be taken into account before damage is determined.
  13. Seems your right. According to that line long range attacks with a flamethrower was already out of the question. Well good job FFG guys for getting that right but shame on you for not considering the elevation problem. Well nobody is perfect;)
  14. I do see your point regarding the new semi official rule about restricting turretless TD's (TTD's for short) fire and move action and its application under facing rules. I've been on the fence here. While the rule seems like a good one to add flavor and make them feel distinct under the normal rules is it a good rule to continue to apply once facing rules are added in? When I originally posted my "super simple facing rules" I debated whether to this semi official new rule from Bill Jaffe or work it in. I decided on the latter. I will now post what my alternate would have been. Super simple facing rules. (without Bill Jaffe's new take on TD's) A unit is surrounded by 6 hexes. The front 3 hexes are frontal, and the back 3 hexes are flank. At all times a vehicle must face a hex side. No corners. In the arc of the front 3 hexes a vehicle may fire without penalty. To fire outside of this arc a vehicle must either turn or rotate its turret. If the vehicle rotates its turret to fire it suffers a -1 die penalty to its concentrated fire attack roll to simulate lost time in trying to acquire new target. If the vehicle must turn to fire it suffers a -2 die penalty to its concentrated fire attack roll. When performing a fire and move action the vehicle will not suffer any additional penalties because it is assumed the various effects of aiming and reacquiring are already simulated in halving the firepower. When supporting a lead unit in a combined fire attack the above penalties of -1 or -2 are taken into effect if the supporting vehicle has to fire outside of its frontal arc. Subtract the penalties first, then halve to determine attack strength, as per normal rules. Note: a turreted vehicle may choose to turn in all cases, instead of rotating its turret with the intent to change its facing for future attacks. Attacks originating from outside the frontal 3 hex arc are considered hits to the flank of a vehicle. When hit in its flank the vehicle suffers a -2 armor penalty. Your take on fire and move and move and fire can be used as a separate house rule. Also why limit it to TTD's? I can see a tank doing the same thing under your example. Fire first for full firepower, then move half the allowed MP. So apply this alternate take on the fire and move action to both your tanks and TTD's if you like. But overall I dissagree with your idea here, and here is why. A normal concentrated attack in TOI does not represent one carefully aimed shot, nor does the fire and move action represent one not so carefully aimed shot because you moved. Rather a normal tank attack means say 3 or 4 shots in that time period. Hence, full attack dice. A move and fire action does not allow the crew to get off as many shots because some of that time is spent traveling. It does not matter at what point in time that traveling takes place. Hence, half firepower because less shots are being made. Your proposed rule allows a moving tank to be just as effective as one spending it whole turn just focused on shooting. See the problem here? Moving takes time, time away from firing. You can't have your cake and eat it too as the old saying goes. Essentially FFG got the fire and move action right and I see no need to change it. The only question is to allow this action or not for some units. And as Bill Jaffe pointed out fire and move should not be allowed for the TTD's. Regarding your second point. Yes for TTD's the prepared ambush trait would be a smart addition. Yet I do not agree that the M10 should get this. It is more like a tank and was not used like the Stug or Jagdpanzer. Same goes for the M18. As I said, Patton did not see it as a TD and more or less in most cases it was used like a tank, but without Overrun of coarse because of its extra vulnerability to infantry in close combat. The M10 is best treated as it is right now. A tank with weak armor, but good gun. Point 3. More detailed armor characteristics. I would say your going a little overboard on detail here. For one thing the direct rear shot would be extremely rare. And a direct head on shot does not need to be modeled so closely either. The 120 degree arc IMO is well enough to define the front. Reducing that to 40 degrees is once again going way below the resolution of TOI. That is even going below the resolution of Conflict of Heroes, because in that system the 120 degree arc is considered the front too. I think if you played with the 120 degree arc as front and everything else as flank, as one does in Conflict of heroes, you will still find plenty of tactical thought is involved. I haven't played tide in about a month and that last game was via my Zuntzu PC module. If you're willing to playtest to explore these ideas with me I would be very open to playing some games with you using facing rules.
  15. Ah so true. There should be no long range shot capability to flamethrowers. Shooting 2 hexes is impossible no matter the combat penalty. Heck even shooting 1 hex is streching it. You would have to assume the flamethrower squad is near the edge of the hex shooting at another squad also located near the edge of the hex. If both squads where standing exactly in the middle of each hex I believe the flame could not reach the other squad. So with this new obsevation you pointed out I will add this to my house rule on Flamethrowers. Which is basically thus: Flamethrowers can not target units 2 elevation levels above them, nor can they fire beyond 1 hex range. ie no long range fire possible.
  • Create New...