Cymrusaint, Stailngrad needs it's own game in my opinion. The scenarios i remember doing covered Korsun,Kanev,Kursk and Orel all 1943 or later. now i don't know for sure if they are all included.

BJaffe01

I just have one concern about urban combat in the basic rules of Tide of Iron, and that is the concussive firepower. Wouldn't it be way to overpowered? I mean, I have allways read that Tanks are not suitable in urban warfare, but in tide of iron, wouldnt tanks actually rule? Tanks with 9 in firepower at close blank range kills entire squads.

I thought an debate over the concussive firepower and urban warfare deserved an seperate thread. Sadly the quates did not work

Grand Stone said:

If that tank gets to fire in real world combat, real world squads get blasted. The urban environment is such, that said squad needs to be in OP fire mode to blast that tank at point blank range before it gets to fire. That is possible because in most situations, LOS would not exist until both units are practically on top of each other. Tanks are very vulnerable in an environment where their range is negated, but they are not completely helpless.

Sure, the tank is not completly helpless and it does have some firepower. But still I feel that a tank in urban setting will be to powerfull in standar tide of iron rules. In game terms, an infanteri at point blank range can lightly damaging a panzer (probability about 0.6?), but heavily damaging it would be much harder (probability about 0.05). The tactical advantage of having just few tank would be very strong I think, because of the devestating firepower it has.

Another real life problem with tanks in an urban fight is that most tanks cannot fire at infanteri on the top floor of high buildings. This severly limits their use. This might ofcourse be included by special rules for buildings, which I geuss might be needed anyway.

I think the problem lies elsewhere, as does its solution.

1. Any infantry defending urban envirionment would have some AT-weapons. That is simulated by anti-tank specialization in the game. If not, it is Ethiopia aginst Italy and thats another topic.

2. In real urban combat, it is the unseen enemy infantry that presents the biggest threat for tanks. You know, infantry with a Panzerfaust or two, lurking in the shadows and waiting for a Panzer to get close enough.

It is the fact the Panzer commander does not know where the danger will come from. That is simulated by concealment in the game.

I seriously doubt that any ToI player would send a couple of his precious tanks in a street occupied by concealed enemy AT-squads. I.E. IMHO the game already has mechanisms to simulate good and to-some-extent realistic urban warfare.

I might agree with you. Concealment is nice and all, but still it is a problem that the enemy know where concealed squads are. But how can it be fixed? Its very hard to make a system that works for such things. You could ask one person to write down the exact hex(es) where all the concealed squads and keep track of them withou putting a marker on the table. However this methode is in practice cumbersome and borring. And I would very soon feel very frustated.

Does there excist any board game at all which has managed to solve this problem elegantly?

Actually, I think the biggest challenge to ToI urban combat is scale . Urban fighting would require re-scaling the game.

Belloq said:

I do not think so... the scale is roughly the same as ASL, 40 to 50 meters per hex. I think that is suitable for portraying urban fighting.

ToI makes no distinction between AP and HE ammunition for tanks. HE ist very suitable for urban fighting, while AP is not. Tanks loaded predominantly with AP rounds (British cruiser tanks suffered from that, for example) should have a harder time blasting infantry out of buildings and pillboxes.

Oh yes! Let´s enlarge this a bit.

In WW2, most tanks were given AP and HE ammo. Once a shell was in the gun, there was the only way to get it out: to shoot it.

So, what about this:

Once a player finishes an action with a tank, he will have to say which ammo the tank crew loads for the next action. If he doesn´t say, it is AP. The tank will be then marked with an HE or AP token (or this may be done in secret).

The next turn, this tank will have to fire the loaded shell.

Either:

AP round: Range and FP against vehicles causal. Range 4 and FP 5 against infantry - its MG values. No concussive firepower.

HE round: Range 3 and FP 2 against vehicles - the MG values. Range and FP against infantry casual. Concussive firepower.

von Stichen said:

The turns in ToI are longer than the time it takes for a tank to fire one round, though... Tanks carrying both types of ammo should be fine. But there were tanks that had no HE on board. These should have reduced capabilities versus infantry.

Your restriction for HE versus tank targets is a bit severe. If your tank gets hit by a 15cm HE shell fired from a Brummbär (heavy assault gun tank), the effect will definitely feel different than MG fire...

KlausFritsch said:

I think you and I might have two different ideas in mind for urban fighting.

One solution to making concealed squads feel more "concealed" is to represent them with (dummy) counters. This is the system that Conflict of Heroes uses for solitaire play (you have actual hidden units there in multi-player games in which players have to track movements of their squads on a piece of paper). It works roughly like this: you have double the number of counters in relation with the actual number of hidden units. Whenever a dummy counter performs an actionor is fired upon, it is checked whether it was just a decoy (remove it from the board) or whether it was an actual unit, in which case it is revealed. You then draw a counter from a bag containing all the hidden units to see which one it is. This might be an idea for TOI as well, as I agree with a previous poster that you're not actually concealed in TOI( a tank wouldn't go near certain units as it knows perfectly where they are even though they are supposed to be concealed, whereas in real life that's exactly where the danger lies: they wouldn't know where the enemy is and are therefore extra vulnerable!). Using the system explained previously you might venture it anyway, because:

A There might not be an enemy unit there after all (assume the tank's crew SUSPECT the enemy to be hidden in a certain position, whereas it turns out there actually isn't anyone there)

B Even if there does turn out to be an enemy presence, this might vary from an enemy 88 AT gun to a relatively harmless non-AT infantry squad

Yeah an advanced way to do hidden units in Stailngrad would be good. there are many different ways. back in the old days with squad leader you would get a number of ? counters equal to you total number of units. this is harder to do with plastic but you could have an off map display with numbers on it which allows you to hide the units in that hex better.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

The material is there, just use the off-board transport counters on board face down together with the hidden counters face down. Off-board, use scrap paper to note which numer on board is which. This way, you can "hide" at least eight units better.

Glad to see that people in generally agree that without improved concealment rules tanks would be too powerfull in urban warfare.

Anyway, I have to simple suggestions.

1) Conceal troops can use op fire mode without setting them on op-fire. This way concealed troops could be a bigger threat. Atleast the enemy doesn't know wether the troops are ready in op-fire or not.

2) Mines: Mines should come in pairs. One dummy mine and one regular. The dummy one would be harmless, and but the none-dummy one would not. But you dont know which one it is before you enter a hex. In this way you might actually see people step on mines Secondly I actually think mines would be far more usefull as you can place more of them without completly unbalencing the scenario. Third having a engineer come go out and look for mines 'dummy' mines would be a valid strategy.

Not sure enhanced concealment rules are needed in order to facilitate urban combat.

Having lots of ?-countes will force the tank-commander to scout ahead using squads, trucks or other light vehicles. This is very much in keeping with standard real world tactics.

But urban combat should already have lots of terrain and few roads. This breaks LOS and makes tanks vunerable to the shortrange anti-tank attacks of even regular squads and MG. If real AT-squads are mixed in, tanks only gets even more vunerable. This also forces the tank-commander to screen his tanks with infantry, so he can assault any AT-squads or pin a MG.

If more concealment is needed, it will be needed on both sides, otherwise the defenders tanks will have no penalty. Thus we may create a game where we move concealed-counters around a map full of terrain. Better not leave any holes in your defencive line, otherwise the attacker will advance right through it, without you getting a shot of. Once the battlelines have closed and everyone lose concealment, iniciative will be Hugely important. Which is not in itself a bad thing.