Tide of Iron is quicky becoming my favorite WWII game. here are my problems that keep it from scoring a 100%.

1) the hidden unit rules are awful- you put a question mark down on the unit and the other player can't see you ?!?#$%^&*()
2) hills do not give cover dice - ok I under stand but there should be some disadvantage to shooting up a hill vs. down a hill
3) the set up is a bear - nothing can be done about this. It may get easier as I put and pull men from their unit stands
4) No directional armor on tanks

5) I am still not sure why ony moving provokes op fire. It seems as if You shoot at me then I should be able to return fire

Anyone have any thoughts?

I would love an advanced set of TOI rules that addressed these questions

bolen said:

They can't shoot at you either. TOI is a game that does not delve into minute detail, rather it relies on abstract rules to represent the many variables involved with WWII combat. The concealed rules are actually really good, IMHO. Short and sweet for a not so simple concept. The rules keep the game moving along, and don't bog it down with uneccessary complexity.

bolen said:

There is an advantage to being on a hill, a slight increase in range. Seems fine to me.

bolen said:

Some of the bases from the earlier print runs had the holes on the bases too small to fit the pegs on the soldier figures properly, they can be drilled out with some care.

bolen said:

Again, the armor rules are elegant, to the point, and abstracted. I've played CoH, and the facing rules can add to the game time as each player contemplates unit facing with each and every move. It's a trade off of game time vs gameplay. In the long run, I prefer the TOI armor rules for the type of game it is. Facing is fun to an extent, but really isn't that crucial to a game like TOI. In fact, facing rules can rub thin rather quickly, and after a while, they can get old. TOI is a game that encompasses so many aspects of WWII ground combat, that it needs to be abstract in how it handles all the various elements, or else it will bog down in rules. One of the key points to remember about TOI is that it is a fun game to play, not a tedious game wrapped up in rules.

If you 've just got to have facing rules, I think there are sets of rules for TOI right here in these forums that add that aspect. At first, I was the same way, wanting facing rules, but after playing the game for some time, I now prefer the rules the way they are now. The game moves along much quicker, and you loose none of the games flavor. Just my .02.

bolen said:

You can return fire, in your own action phase. I think the game designers of TOI missed the proper name for this in the game design. TOI is, and should be a game that prides itself on it's points of difference from other wargames. "OP Fire" is a term born in the "old republic", in the days of the original Squad Leader. It has endurred all this time, and has now sorta become a generic wargame term.

TOI should have coined this as "Hasty Ambush", instead of "OP Fire". Op Fire is so boring and non descript a term. "Hasty Ambush" is so much more visual and descriptive of what the soldiers in question are trying to do with this rule. They are setting up a hasty firing position and waiting for an unsuspecting enemy to wonder into their field of fire. If you look at it that way, it makes much more sense, I think. "Hasty Ambush" just sounds more in keeping with everything else TOI represents, a game that is fast and fun.

bolen said:

TOI has sooo much that it brings to the table, you won't want too much more, or you'll loose the game to too many rules. Believe me, TOI has a lot to offer for the complexity level, give the game a chance, it really is a well balanced and thought out game. There are some more rules to be added in with the expansions, and I think you'll find there is enough with the whole package to keep most people busy.

I would agree with most of the responses above.

Being fairly new to ToI myself the one thing that I really like is the abstract simplicity of the rules. Specifically I like that fact that it leaves alot of wiggle room for scenario designers to add or take away from the base rules by adding an armor value or changing a units ability for a specific scenarios. For example if you had a battle in mind where hills played a crucial defensive role there is nothing stopping a scenarios designer from declaring x, y, and z hills form providing cover for that scenario. IMO, the scenarios special rules/instructions are what realy makes ToI a great game because it can be customized to accomplish the intended purpose.

I find the concealed unit rules extremely convenient and easy to deal with. Having played a mess of games with similiar features, one thing I enjoy about TOI rule is you never loose track of the unit. You don't forget to use it, its not a such a shocker to the opponent either. He knows he will have to deal with it and when it is resolved, its not as jarring.

This is one part of the Solitare game that doesn't fade or lose interest. You know those units are hidden, you can see them, on the board, but you can't shoot and either can they. Not a bad idea for rules in my estimation. I like it and use it alot to get troops closer to the objective without coming under suppresive fire.

If you don'tlike the rules, as written, just change them.

Its your game. Play it how you like. If you want to do away with hidden units, go ahead, If you want to make tanks have a facing issue, then put it in.

Myself, i like the rules as they are and use them that way, but there is nothing stopping you from changing the rules to suit you and your other wargamers.

SgtWaka said:

Yep! ...Check it out with the friends you play with... me and the guys i play with created our own rule for the hidden units.

Siegfried

The hidden units thing is a little simple. I am considering in my next game setting the units off to the side with numbers to indicate which unit is which and therefore creating a situation of a hidden unit but you may not know which one is hidden if multiple hidden units. I have used the hidden units to some great effect in the games I have played so I am not completely disappointed with them.

Dembones2 said:

The material (numbered markers and markers with question marks) lends itself beautifully to a variant where the troops in a hex are truly concealed or the movement your troops saw turns out not to be enemy troops but cows or civilians (dummy marker with question mark).

Dembones2 said:

That's how we play the hidden unit rules. and we also use the markers for the trucks...so you place the units somewhere unseen with the correct marker, but on the map you place two...which you move both when you like to move your hidden unit. So the other player don't know where the unit is at.

Siegfried

Siegfried Westphal said:

Siegfried, I like your method and applicated in next game session!

I'd like to go much more and hidden the troops carried in trucks and halftrucks. But it makes FFG in rules indeed as so when we hane 2 halfthrucks and place a squards aboard ON numbered marker we hide a number on this way, for example.

Serge

I like that truly a great bluff. This would help the Americans greatly in this scenario. I am going to try it in my next game, it will help balance the positions significantly.

I like the hidden unit system. Although not very original (been used by solo gamers for decades) it's elegant and functional.

Unfortunately, the oversimplification-for-playability design simply created a spaces marines game without the space marines. Too generic. Also, it's too administrative. We spend way too much time setting up and shuffling bits and pieces around. That's not elegant.

Finally, I agree with the original poster regarding facing and again for the same reason...makes a WW2 tactical game too vanilla.

I like the hidden rules system as well but not knowing WHAT they were would be even cooler. A simple off board token can handle that much like the Transports