Anyone know if there are p,ans to release more types of Units, Specifically Armor?

Not looking for anything like AAM, but maybe a happy medium with a bit more variety of vehicles without requiring a seperate stat card for every type of infantry.

Even a Vehicle Expansion Pack would be neat that simply included several types of Armor for each side with updated Player reference sheets and some scenarios would be neat. With WWII there are so many options available. Leave all the terrain boards out and I still would gladly pay $30 for a nice variety of new units.

I also would not mind seeing ToI venture into some more early war stuff that included new German, French, British and Italian units. I have read that an Eastern front Expansion may be in the works, what about France 1940 and the Pacific?

Aaron, I'm as new to this game as you ,but my impression is that they are working on the mechanics of the game and the cards and map boards and not so much concerned with the Infantry and vehicle pieces. It would be nice to see some more DEFINED arty and eventually aircraft and so on but, i doubt that will come to pass. Just a hunch.

If they are working with the basic mechanics, that would be the best news I have heared.

Because tide of iron is a great game, but tweaking the basic mechanics slightly would improve a lot. In my view a 'double MG' is gamy. Likewise I think that there is way to big difference between a single mortar and a double mortar. It may be argued that artellery is to weak compared to a double mortar. I would realy enjoy if different facing for vehicles could be added. A 'no turret' negative ability would be fitting to distinguish stugs from panzers. It can be argied that the +3 firepower that vehicles get versus infanteri in buildings is to powerfull compared to the +3 cover infanteri gets: ie infanteri are better stationed in the open than in buildings. In a streat in stalingrad senario this rule could make tanks more powerfull compared to what they should be in a city envirment. Personally I dont like the way combined fire works. I think combined fire should be limited to max 3 units or something. Other suggests that trucks get more and better use: maybe trucks could be moved ofboard to gain reinforcements, supplies or command points. All these things are minor tweaks to the core system which I think is more important than adding units. If the core system is updated slightly, it fast becomes very easy to add unique units which mechanicly behave different than the excisting units.

When this is said, I realy am looking forward to some kind of millitia infanteri. Could that be added by a negative specialisation?

What we don't need is tide of iron to become ASL. I think the game is fine without vehicle facing. The system is fine it doesn't need more complications

Adding a penalty for the non turreted vehicles would be very simple, only penalize them in move and fire action or something like that. I agree you shouldnt try to turn this into asl but a few rule tweaks and a little added realism would be progress IMHO.

A&A is big on the vehicle facing and such and too many people use it on turreted vehicles?????WTF. I don't know squat about ASL, but as far as vehicle facing i think it can easily be house ruled in or out, players choice. If you want it..Use it.

If they'FFG, errata or alter the mechanics in to use it, i will simply leave it out. My house my rules, However if i played with someone that DEMANDED to use it, thats no biggie either. Its easy enough to remember. Myself i like the BASIC rules and mechanics of the game. If i play a scenario over and over and find that its lopsided i simply modify it with the power of the pen. "NO reinforcements" or changing an engineer unit to a flammer. The base rules are essential but the developers are not grafted with a "Einstein" complex because they put them to print. They just put them to print before someone else.

SgtWaka said:

I wish there was an edit function on these posts. Anyway, i wasn't bashing the developers for this game. I love it, and after spending a year and a half trying to understand all of the CRAP of A&A and all of the Rules changes, i got smart and purchased TOI. Much better game in my opinion. Thanks to those "EINSTIEN" people.

Hey..Guess what??? I just found the "EDIT" button. Don't think i'll ever be convicted of grafting the "EINSTIEN" complex.

I enjoy tide of iron because of its simplicity. So I definitivly dont want to complicate the rules. But what I was saying is that MINOR tweaks of the rules would be great. And most of the things I mentioned could be fixed without chaning much at all. It is completly possible to improve the basic rules without adding any complications whatsoever.

For example, change concussive fire power to +2 range and firepower and cover from buildings to 4. Add a SIMPLE 'no turret' rule as a penelty to fire and movement. None of these things complicate the game in any way. Personaly I would like to add facing because I think it will be simple and will add a lot of diversity in tanks, but I agree it is discussable. The main point was that simple small tweaks are more important than adding new units. New units are easy to add if their abilities easily can be described by the rules of the game.

If comparing to A&A miniatures, Tide of iron is far supperior. Some of the units in A&A miniatures was complitly unbalanced, and the 'advanced rules' was basicly a desperate attempt to *fix* the game. But since a few units was just plain old stupid powerfull, and updating the units stats was impossible, because that ment that all players had to buy all the miniatures once again. Stupid move. In tide of iron updating the rules is much simpler, because players can buy an book without having to buy new miniatures.

Well said.

I am definately hooked on ToI

I can see some opportunities for inprovement. Facing would be so easy...-1 armor to units that are fired on from rear, Fixed turret is so easy as well, just fire at units to its, front....or if heavily damaged can only fore at units to it.s front.

I guess the intention of the OP was looking for some more variety of units to include a couple of key nations without necessarily publishing a full expansion like DotF or Normandy. Just the units, reference sheets and some new scenarios(online would be fine) using the existing map board. Having North Africa without Italy seems a shame.

I am definately no looking for ToY to go the route of AAM.....A Tiger should be a Tiger and I would not change the infantry at all. In fact I like some of the mechanics in DotF with infatry upgrades....we definately do not need heros and such in ToI.

More so looking for things like:

M8 Greyhound

Hellcat

Servante

Carro Armato

Grant

......and so on.

afilter said:

Good points.I like the Greyhound as well, but i wonder if its armor would be any higher than the M-3. It WAS faster than the M-3, but would have to be included in the game to be of much value as its not a troop carrier like the M-3. Take the good from TOI, A&A and FOW and combine them and one could make an awesome game. I could think of scenarios that might stretch a week....or longer.

I just finished my first game of "Breaking the line. I thought that a 4 section map would suck, but i liked it. The poor jerries got completely wiped out at the end of round 5. I will play it several more times before making adjustments, but am thinking i will change the 2 engineer specialties to medics or a flammer and a medic. Every game, though, i am liking this more.

To be 47 and still learning is great! My brains not dead yet.

Oh yeah, lots of room for units like the M8 Greyhound. I would give it one more speed than the M3 and the road ability as one example. I look forward to see what the designers come up with.

This is a fun "Christmas list" topic. Here's my wish list:

Dear Santa,

I would definitely like to see armored cars, such as the M8 Greyhound, included in future ToI supplements. They would add an interesting element to infantry-based scenarios - especially those that are truck and half-track heavy where the use of tanks might be overpowering. Plus they just look neat.

I'm in favor of No Turret/Fire Arc rules as they would be a simple add-on, and give such vehicles some tactical uniqueness. As it stands now, a Stug III and a Panzer Mk IV are identical stat-wise. What's the point in that?

I also think there is plenty of room within the rule set to add several new vehicle types from the existing nations (such as the M7 Priest or Panzer Mk. II for example), as well as Operation Cards for tank variants (e.g. Sherman Firefly).

More light tanks are a must.

My vote goes to adding new nations to the European theater - the French and Italians are first on my list - via "Battle Boxes" of models, stats and some scenarios. I mean, come on Santa, how can you have North Africa and not have the Italians? Likewise, ToI has all the tools it needs for the Battle of France except, well, the French. Those would be easy and flavorful additions to the game.

As for infantry upgrades, I actually think there's a place for a few more units (as opposed to specialization tokens). Many of the scenarios are focused on infantry so it would be nice to have a bit more variety.

In particular, I would like to see a LMG and SMG added to the list of options (and this becomes even more important when factoring in a possible Eastern Front or Pacific Theater expansion). I'm not sure on the rules, but for the LMG you could do 1 stand (as opposed to 2 for the HMG), 3 firepower vs infantry and 1 vs vehicles (without Rapid Op Fire), and range 3. Or you could give it 2 firepower, similar to Elite Infantry, but have it subtract X cover bonuses vs suppressive fire (basically the opposite of Elites and Officers). As for the SMG, perhaps it would have 2-3 firepower vs infantry but anything beyond 1 hex would be considered long range, making it suitable primarily for Assault actions?

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,

Yipe