Jump to content

Delget

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Delget

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lawrence, Kansas, United States
  1. Aussie-Digger, what other game is it you play in the absence of TOI?
  2. 2 of each, including expansions, one map pack, and the scenario book. Sigh, if FFG would just act like they cared …
  3. FFG, Please show 'some' respect for those that keep you employed, by supporting your company, thru the purchase of your products. Signed, Hopeful customer ... (tho, I'm not holding my breath)
  4. I'd like the next expantion to be an electronic scenerio editor. Create a mechanism to share them online too, like they had before. Not sure why they removed the upload/download site from support. I'd say 'very odd', but I've not come to expect much in the way of communication from FFG. If FFG provided one they could see a resurgence in their game interest. I'd imagine they could do it for a lot of their games too, not just TOI.
  5. Nicely done and cool idea.
  6. Mee too (shouts from cheap seats are heard)
  7. KlausFritsch said: Delget said: 1. Add the targets cover/armor for EACH unit firing in combined fire (shounds like too much, perhaps) 2. Add 1/2 the targets cover/armor for EACH additional unit firing in combined fire action, just like they get 1/2 firepower when attacking. That would go a long way to mitigating the combined fire problem, yet still allow for a large volley to 'get through' to the target. The first option would worsen the odds for the attacker, since attackers add only half their firepower to combined fire. The second option would negate the effect of combined fire as it is now, as the ratio attack/defense would remian the same. All that combined fire would do now is to allow multiple attacks to occur at the same time at the cost of only one action. Might work. Amendment to #2: Tanks only get their heavy armor bonus once during a single attack, not once per attacker. you could still use it w/ light cover situations or with tanks and come out with better odds, just not overwhelming ones. E.g. Using #2 above, 4 Shermans/T34's, using combined fire at a Panther 1, would get 8+4+4+4 (20) dice and defender 6+3+3+3 (15 dice), making avg of 6.67 hits against 6 def (5 + 1 for heavy armor). That's better than 1vs1, which is 2.26 hits against (2 + 1 heavy) = 3 def. 5 shermans/T34's, takes that to avg 7 hits agains same 6 def. Given that it did take overwhelming odds to take out the high end german Tanks, it feels 'better' than the current system of only one attacking tankg getting to use armor, in essence: (6.67 hits avg against only 3(2+1) avg defence). Add one more sherman, and it's an auto-kill (statistically anyway ) So on average, is it ok for 4 shermans/T34's to heavily damage a Tiger I with current combined fire rules of only applying defenders cover/armor once? Flipping it around, 3 Panthers attacking a T24 would be 12+6+6 (24) att vs 5+3+3 (11) def, averaging 8 hits vs 4 def (net 4 hits). Current Combined rules using 2 Panthers is 12 + 6 (18) att vs 5 def = 6hits vs 1.67def: net 4.33 hits. Bunkers too would benefit, but would it be too much additional defence? Dug in defensive structures should be hard to take, or just bypassed.
  8. Latro said: Delget said: Myself and a friend of mine have been playing ToI for a few months now and it does seem that their is some room to improve (fix?) combined fire. We've just completed 2 rounds of Armored Maelstrom and it's already looking like a route for the Soviets. As the Gemrans, I opened up with combined fire of 3-4 tanks in the opening 2 rounds 5 times total. The 1st 2 attacks were at long range and the sheer number of dice (24 in one instance!) was sufficient to invlict Heavy damage on one tank with 2 combined fire attacks, then with initiative (perhaps a blunder by Soviets letting me have it for round 2) and normal range, heavily damage 2 more and destroy another. Sure, I fatiged most all of my tanks to do that, but it was worth it to sunder the soviet tank force mightily. The combination of greater range, initiative, and combine fire seems too much. We're going to try it again, but this time, the soviets will have to COMPLETELY leave their tanks in cover/out of sight for the 1st few rounds, hopefully stalling the germans long enough for the soviet reinforcemnts. Those Soviet tank losses were mainly caused by tactical blunders if I read it correctly. It doesn't matter what game and what rules you play, if he uses his tanks like that he will get butchered every time. Yep, at about the middle of the 2nd turn, he noticed that he needed to put his tanks into cover better during setup, but, I was shooting accross the entire length of the board with my massive volley (4 tanks, tonnes of dice!), and as we are discussing, perhaps not quite a 'blunder', except that I was taking advantage of the combined fire 'one-shot-kill' attack. The first tank victim was at long range 75% of the way accross the board. I got slightly lucky with something like 5-6's (should have averaged 4 on 24 dice) and he rolled average on armor (2 defence). So overall, not a complete luck roll. The 2nd tank heavily damaged was about the same situation, ecept that he'd advanced it forward about 3/4 of a board width. Though he shouldn't have moved it up as he did (perhaps), combined fire makes the soviets attempting to close w/ their tanks to get into range a turkey shoot w/ combined fire and Initiative, IMHO
  9. KlausFritsch said: VanCamper said: In the real world, 5 Shermans combined together, firing simulaneously at a Tiger I , have no better probability of destroying the Tiger any more than 5 Shermans firing separately. I agree. Neither do 5 MGs, for that matter. It is a game, though. Hm. Not sure what my position on this is right now. Interesting point about combined fire. 1-on-1, tanks get to use their armor, Tiger 1 wins vs. Sherman. Combined fire, 1st Sherman has to over come armor, the rest do NOT have to over come armor. This can also be extended to cover. Cover is only applied once, and the other units basically ignore. I'm just thinking that each unit using combined fire should have to over come SOME amount of cover/armor too. Thus, the defensive dice would increase also. It would remove the too easy 'one shot kill' situation when it might not be appropriate, and still give combined fire some usefullness. Bunkers, Tiger 1's, esp. King Tigers would regain their battlefield intent. AKA: high priority target, but don't fire at it to the exclution of the other units on the board. You could: 1. Add the targets cover/armor for EACH unit firing in combined fire (shounds like too much, perhaps) 2. Add 1/2 the targets cover/armor for EACH additional unit firing in combined fire action, just like they get 1/2 firepower when attacking. That would go a long way to mitigating the combined fire problem, yet still allow for a large volley to 'get through' to the target. I think I'm going to test #2 w/ to see what happens.
  10. Myself and a friend of mine have been playing ToI for a few months now and it does seem that their is some room to improve (fix?) combined fire. We've just completed 2 rounds of Armored Maelstrom and it's already looking like a route for the Soviets. As the Gemrans, I opened up with combined fire of 3-4 tanks in the opening 2 rounds 5 times total. The 1st 2 attacks were at long range and the sheer number of dice (24 in one instance!) was sufficient to invlict Heavy damage on one tank with 2 combined fire attacks, then with initiative (perhaps a blunder by Soviets letting me have it for round 2) and normal range, heavily damage 2 more and destroy another. Sure, I fatiged most all of my tanks to do that, but it was worth it to sunder the soviet tank force mightily. The combination of greater range, initiative, and combine fire seems too much. We're going to try it again, but this time, the soviets will have to COMPLETELY leave their tanks in cover/out of sight for the 1st few rounds, hopefully stalling the germans long enough for the soviet reinforcemnts. In the 'Piercing the Siegfried Line' scenario, the use of combined fire it almost natural, given the numerical superiority of the american forces. With an initial advantage of 2:1 over the germans, using 2 units in every combined fire (with 3-4 the realistic usage), the germans get recuded too quickly, even further increasing the numerical advantage, letting even more units combine fire, etc. At least in my experience, combined fire seems to cause losses too quickly on the side w/o initiative, reducing the disadvantage of fatiging more units. If you don't have initiative and have less units, it seems that about all you can do is fire and move (retreat) to get out of LOS to keep the unit from getting whacked at the start of the next turn. My 2 cents anyway.
  11. KlausFritsch said: Kingtiger said: bunkers, if they've been stupid enough to set up in them in the first place.., using the current rules Bunkers are immune to concussive firepower. Hmmm. The rules I can find state that pill boxes and Buildings can be targets of concusive firepower. That 'implies' that bunkers are imune, since they are not specifically mentions. I could have missed that tho. Anyone know the 'official' rule?
  12. KlausFritsch said: 7times7is49 said: I would love official rules on RECON specialization die-rolling to uncover concealed units. Good idea, something like that would be fun. Jeep unit could have that ability as an action perhaps. jeep could give 'better' spotting/drift numbers too. maybe even cary 1, non-heavy, infantry unit.
  13. Kingtiger said: Hefsgaard said: That is the normal situation yes. However squads placed on a hill can somtimes engage tanks at normal range. ~Indeed. In such a case close range would be in an adjacent hex, normal range 2 or 3 hexes away and long range 4 hexes away. I think you're off just a touch here. Page 22 of rules 'Elevation and Range' states: "If an attacking unit is on a hex of a higher elevation than its target, the attacking unit receives +1 to its range value.". So, an infantry would have a base range of 1 against vehicles, and doubling that for long range makes a long range value a 2. If the unit were higher, the range would be 2 (base 1 + bonus 1) for normal range and long range out to 4 (doubling the 2). That makes the the adjacent hex short range (base rule), 2 normal range due to the bunus, and 3-4 hexes, long range.
  14. That is correct. Normal infantry, without an anti-tank specialty, attack at a range of 1. That then also makes it short range and long range only, technically.
  15. Delget said: What other units would you like to see in a unit pack? Mobile Artillery Heavy Machine Gun Paratroopers
×
×
  • Create New...