Hi

Since the time scale of the game would allow a tank to turn its less vulnerable side towards incoming fire after the first shot, how about a penalty to armor or a bonus to shooting for combined fire coming in through at least two non-adjacent hex sides? It is quite hard to protect your soft backside from fire coming in from more than one direction.

Some tanks should be immune to this because they have good armor all around, and some should be even more vulnarable because they are virtually open at the back (some SP guns, tank hunters and semoventes come to mind).

This would simplify the matter greatly, emphasize maneuver and remove the headache "what-facing-to-choose-at-the-end-of-a-move". The only thing not covered by this little rule is ambush by AT guns or tank destroyers as opportunity fire during your opponents move.

KlausFritsch said:

Because in such instances, the ambusher would wait until the target presented its vulnerable side before firing.

This is an interesting compromise that tries to restore some of the WW2 flavor lost by the HIGHLY simplified model used by the original designers. TOI will never have a true WW2 flavor until it addresses and incorporates facing rules. ALL WW2 AFV had areas of armor vulnerability which were exploited at the tactical level (TOI). Since TOI was a game designed to apparently simulate tactical level play, disregarding facing issues for playability dumbed the game down needlessly and made AFVs just a blob-of-metal on the board...no personality. That's my problem with the whole TOI model...glitzy but too fiddley and lacking in personality (ASL complainers need not comment as I am not advocating for that).

I appreciate your attempt to rectify the designers' oversimplification but feel that facing is critical to the understanding and feel of a WW2 tactical level game. True facing can be incorporated without over simplifying or compromising playability.

That said, a crossfire rule for infantry is right-on and increases suppression effects.

Bazookajoe said:

I was thinking the same, I just did not want to mix infantry and armor issues. Of course you feel a lot more encouraged to keep your head down when fire comes in from near-opposite directions. I'm just not sure whether this should affect suppression only or also (maybe to a lesser extent) normal fire.

This is one thing I do not like quite so much about the base rules, the separation of normal and suppressive fire. In my opinion, an attack should always roll both sets of dice and apply the different modifiers to the results, so that you get a casualty result and a suppression result from one attack.

KlausFritsch said:

The more I think about that, the more I like it. All weapons would have two fire values, a kill value and a suppression value. MGs would have a higher suppression value than rifles, for example. That would also help to bring out differences in the variuos nationalities. So you roll three sets of dice when firing at targets that can be suppressed, kill dice, suppression dice and defensive dice.

If all fire were both suppresive and To-Kill the game mechanics would break down rapidly, with infantry units stalled all over the board.

Hefsgaard said:

That is possible if no adjustments are made to the number of dice rolled.

Klaus...I absolutely agree with your thoughts and idea. I've always felt the TOI suppression rule was too gamey. Using suppression fire to destroy units is wasteful and inefficient by any doctrinal standard.

Your suggestion to use three different dice in one throw is workable and might even speed up play. As an example, I was thinking of using one (d8) with a base suppression roll of 7-8. Modifiers would be: troop type, cover and hits sustained by the normal fire dice rolled at the same time.

Example: Elite troops +1, cover +1, +1/hit from normal fire.

Bazookajoe said:

Cool, I like that!

Indeed, those are the three most important additions to the game from my point of view:

1. AFV facing

2. Killing / Suppression fire gameyness

3. Crossfire / flanking for infantry

Glad to see some similar thoughts and I hope FFG comes up with an "advanced rules" extra page for ToI. It wouldn't cost them much, and they could sell it with an expansion or simply release it for free.

Sami K said:

Hello FFG (tap!, tap! is this thing turned on?)

Any FFGers care to comment?

1. AFV facing. It is a lot of rules for a very minor effect.

2. Kill and suppress fire would require redoing most if not all scenarios. (Not that that is not needed anyway....)

3. Lot of rules to very minor gain in realism. Why not play ASL if we want realism?

ToI is a very nice Game.

I am not feeding the troll, I am not feeding the troll, I am.....garr.

"I am not feeding the troll, I am not feeding the troll, I am.....garr." My thoughts exactly.

Check out the facing rules associated with BoN. Combined with the basic LOS rules, this would be perfect for TOI. Simple enough for the KISS crowd while flavorful enough for more advanced gamers. Of course it will require a bit more tactical thought, but that's what wargaming is all about, right.

If there's an area that needs simplifying it's the admin chrome.

For FFG...expand the market base by giving some old groniards some meat.

Hefsgaard said:

ASL gives us (much) more detail, but I am not so sure about realism.

ToI is not only a nice game, at this (the tactical WW2) level, it is my favorite.

However, I do dislike the gameyness of "Scare them, but without actually killing any of them" and "Kill as many of them as you can, but do not scare them in the process". Seeing your buddies get shot by an MG42 is scary, much scarier than just hearing the bullets whistling by overhead. It is easily possible to include a suppression element into normal fire and remove the suppressive fire rules.

At the tactical level, it is also important to include a rule model for outflanking enemy positions and vehicles. It can be as simple as allowing full (instead of half) firepower for one additional unit supporting a combined fire attack where the fire comes in across non-adjacent hex-sides.

After seeing that FFG is bringing out a revised rulebook for Tannhäuser, I would just love to see the same for ToI. It would also be possible to publish two or three pages of optional rules for people who would like a little more depth to the game.

And just to avoid misunderstandings, I am not talking about the major headaches I get from trying to play ASL.

Klaus

Suppressive fire should be something you use when an enemy is too well entrenched to effectively shoot to kill.

It should therefore not care about cover / emplacements but would perhaps not be able to totally rout a unit. Perhaps the "rout" results could simply be kill / casualty results like with killing fire instead?

Meanwhile, killing fire could indeed include a suppressive element and be obviously superior when shooting at units in the open.

Suppressive fire is somthing you use when you just want the enemy to keep his head down. "Keep me covered boys!"
In ToI it is mostly used to stop Overwatch and stall advances. Sometimes though it can be a very effetive 'killer' - 3 pins and you are out. (rule that I dislike)

The beauty of it is not how realistic it is, it is not. The beauty is the Choice it forces on the players. Choice is the butter of games. Without choices games would degenerate into dice-throwing contests.

Combining the two shooting options will remove a critical choice. This will not only make the Game a lot simpler. It will also make the game more predictable. An alternative to the combination attack, could be to let the player choose, how many dice to use for either part. (something that will need a lot of testing first though.)

Neither ASL or ToI is realistic in any way that matters. They are games, and as such gaminess is part of the parcel. What matters is how playable it is. If some lessons from infantry officer school can be used, all the better! But sacrificing critical choices on the alter of realism/gaminess would be a crying shame for a fine game.

Klaus Said: "However, I do dislike the gameyness of "Scare them, but without actually killing any of them" and "Kill as many of them as you can, but do not scare them in the process". Seeing your buddies get shot by an MG42 is scary, much scarier than just hearing the bullets whistling by overhead. It is easily possible to include a suppression element into normal fire and remove the suppressive fire rules.

At the tactical level, it is also important to include a rule model for outflanking enemy positions and vehicles. It can be as simple as allowing full (instead of half) firepower for one additional unit supporting a combined fire attack where the fire comes in across non-adjacent hex-sides.

After seeing that FFG is bringing out a revised rulebook for Tannhäuser, I would just love to see the same for ToI. It would also be possible to publish two or three pages of optional rules for people who would like a little more depth to the game."

I think you speak for many of us. TOI is a great game for players at many levels. For those who resist an advanced set of rules...we are not trying to take away the original. Many of us are historical gamers who regularly attend conventions. An official advanced set of rules would provide a sanctioned standard (useful for tournament play). Think of it as an additional choice for the greater TOI community.

KlausFritsch said:

I think you speak for many of us. TOI is a great game for players at many levels. For those who resist an advanced set of rules...we are not trying to take away the original. Many of us are historical gamers who regularly attend conventions. An official advanced set of rules would provide a sanctioned standard (useful for tournament play). Think of it as an additional choice for the greater TOI community.

Hefsgaard said:

I agree, I also dislike the relative ease of the non-lethal kill via three pin results.

Regarding the second point, it is a choice which is not there in real combat. You always try to hit your enemy. Sometimes this is more difficult because of cover, entrenchments and the like. That is modelled in ToI with the cover and armor dice. ToI has a multitude of choices in each action turn, I would not really miss this choice, which feels far to artificial to me.

I do not think it would make the game more predictable. You could still have attacks killing half a squad, but they keep coming anyway, attacks that kill noone, but scare the enemy into hitting the dirt hard and results with a mix of both. If anything, that would be less predictable, since one fire action would now produce two results in varying degrees of severity.

Hefsgaard said:

Well said.

Gaming is all about making hard choices. I like that TOI makes me decide between two hard choices. Do I whittle the squad down or do I pin it and hope to beat the clock.

Hefsgaard said:

Indeed, and that is when the enemy is in good cover and you want them to be suppressed so that your other units can maneuver - or pound them with heavier weapons, as the case may be.

The beauty of it is not how realistic it is, it is not. The beauty is the Choice it forces on the players. Choice is the butter of games. Without choices games would degenerate into dice-throwing contests.

Butter? Ie. something to be avoided?

Seriously though, I agree, and that's why I propose to keep them, but modify them so that direct fire has a chance at pinning, and suppressing fire has a chance at suppressing.

Something like this: every second hit from a single direct fire command is a pin result.

Suppressive fire: -1 cover, but the third pin causes a casualty, not a complete rout.

Or simply: as long as you're rolling more than one die, roll one different-coloured die as a suppression / killing die. Suppressive fire should still be better against cover, and not be able to rout units outright.

Neither ASL or ToI is realistic in any way that matters.

Unless by realism you mean "you're not there in the trenches experiencing the horror of killing and dying", I thought ASL was pretty **** close to simulational realism. But ASL is neither here or there, it has nothing to do with ToI and telling people to go and play ASL means the sayer is either ignorant of what kind of a monster ASL really is - or a troll. Not meaning you, of course.

So let's just forget about it. Now, if you tell me to go play Conflict of Heroes instead, I can accept that.

Realism: Most wargames suffer from the God syndrome. The player enjoys access to infomation that any commander would give both his arms for. Location of not only our own forces, but the opponents too. Their numbers. State of morale. Armament. Objective. Not only that but our soldiers do what they are told, never misunderstands orders, and always perform them right on schedule. That they are only cardboard and plastic, also lets us use them in ways no commander ever could justify, or live with.

Sami K said:

I rather like these ideas, they are even simpler than mine. I especially like causing a casualty with the third pin result. That represents some soldiers getting hit and some running away, slowly detroying the squad.

With Normal Fire, you have to account for officers and elite soldiers in the squad when applying pin results, though.

With suppressive fire, you have to account for medics in the hex when applying kill results, though.

Hefsgaard said:

I am obviously not contending this, but I think we're splitting hairs when we start arguing that the definition of realism in games should include reality and all its uncountable unknowables. Realism is simply the most descriptive word recognized by everyone (or do you really think we should start talking about simulationism?). We can say that something is more or less realistic, without someone saying "but it's not realistic at all" with the arguments you put out.

It would be foolishness to assume that anyone expects those things from the game. The main word here is CONTEXT. Realism in games and realism in real life are two completely different things and they should not be mixed up.