I just got TOI and set up the initial "At the Breaking Point" scenario to learn the game (hmmmm I admire the use of bases as a design mechanic, but it's very fiddly to set up) without paying a lot of attention to the rules.

Then I start to play .... first minute "hey roads are 1 MP just like clear, so why the hell do I bother moving the tank on the road".

Second minute " ... and all the tank trap does is stop movement????? Why no attack against the tank????"

Look I can live with the idea that the tank trap isn't hidden, but that it has no real effect? You gotta be kidding me.

And the fact that I've no incentive to go near it at all and can just travel across clear terrain at the same cost avoiding it alltogether? Man that is lame. It negates the whole scenario. Why don't you just have open slather across the board without regard to terrain (you could even have wormholes to support teleportation - hey there's a theme!)

Mainly with tank traps in the game, like in history, they are an obstacle rather than a weapon. they aren't there to damage the tank, but to slow them down when they have to go around. the tank trap isn't too much trouble in the first scenario, but it still takes extra movement to get around it than if the hex it's in was clear.

It's much worse in a scenario where the tank trap forces the player to go around into terrain other than open terrain, so it costs even more movement.

As for roads, they don't matter for most troop types and tanks, but they are pretty good for moving trucks down. Trucks only spend 1/3 of a point rather than 1, when moving continuously on a road, so you could move 12 instead of 4 if it's all on the road. That's a lot if you're transporting a squad.

I think your understanding of what a tank trap is might be a little off, perhaps you're thinking of a minefield? As the other poster said, it's an obsticle generally there to make you overcome it in one way or another. In all cases obsticles are used to slow you down as opposed to stop you. In that particular scenario the obstical prevents you from getting into the trees for free which also allows the defender the chance to make you pay for trying.

Remember that the impact of the tank trap is that your tank can move up to it and stop, move into it and stop, and then move beyond it. so it takes two turns for a tank to overcome that obstical which is a lot of time. Alternately you could bypass the trap and stay in the open (invitation for some Anti-Tank crew to mess with you from the cover of the trees) or move into the trees (cost of 3 MP) which will consume most of your movement since in that scenario the PzIV only has a move of 4.

While roads were certainly handy, tracked vehicles didn't really do that much better on them than off them, in fact as speed a paved road would be more of a hazard than a help. In either case, try to keep in mind that as war games go this is an entry point game so many of the hard core/realistic aspects of war gaming are abstracted, ignored, or altered to provide balance to the game.

rjmq said:

1) enough said.

2) why, indeed. No one else does! As Doc Brown said, "We don't need roads"

3) A purpose for everything.

For those who don't know what a tank trap is: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-tank-traps.htm

In my opinion, TOI does reflect well the effects of real tank traps: slowing down tank movement.

Look I'm sorry but I think this lack of road movement is bollocks. And second point, it negates the entire scenario setup (I'll get to that in a minute)

**** near every other game in existence provides for road movement for tanks. C'mon if ASL does it, you have to admit that it is a reasonable model (however minor or major the actual effect is), if your only support is that something like Axis and Allies doesn't then you're on pretty thin ground.

Oh wait. Axis and Allies *does* have road movement. I think your argument just run out of road.

Then there's the reality based argument - tanks do move faster in real life on roads, if only because the breakdown risk is lower - so there is a need to model this effect.

Lastly, if road movement doesn't exist there is _absolutely_ no need for the road overlays in this scenario or the tank trap at all. It was the presence of these elements (together with road movement being part of every other game I've ever played) that led me astray. If there is no road movement, there is *no* incentive to advance down the eastern side of the board. None. The distance is too far and you're far better off going straight up the middle to the woods in the center.

Given that there is no reason to ask a newbie to place road overlays (and the scenario is far from explicit about laying them, so anyone who has never encountered overlays could easily miss it).

So WTF are they doing there? In fact, why do road overlays exist at all? They just add unnecessary complexity for no return.

Now about trucks. The TOI rules on this suck. The terrain effects chart makes no mention of road allowance for trucks, and it was only after someone in this thread mentioned it that I went searching and eventually found it - p39 - amongst a description of the unit types. WTF is it doing there?

Further this little gem of a rule contains "Fragile: If a truck becomes heavily damaged, it is immediately destroyed". ie. a combat resolution rule inserted into the unit type description, not combat resolution. And what does "heavily damaged" mean? It is defined nowhere.

And again: "... if a GMC CCKW 353 truck ...." What is a GMC CCKW 353 truck that makes it the only highly differentiated equipment type in the entire game (this designation also turns up on reinforcement cards)? Even ASL isn't this geeky.

You know what this game looks like to me?

A highly detailed club game that has been hurriedly dumbed down leaving a few residual bits of chrome and then released with a lot of injection molded plastic and pretty maps, but not near enough playtesting.

I bought this to have some fun with my young kid, but I can't see how that will work if he needs a few years of hard core gaming before he has enough knowledge of common conventions and mechanics to make sensible interpretations of the rules.

Sorry. Fail. Great presentation, absolutely beautiful. Sensible reduction of the now common SL based mechanics, but the rules are seriously underbaked.

I will make what I feel is a fairly safe assumption, based on your comments, and suggest that your issues stem from your lack of experience with this particular game, and most likely your much stronger experience with other games. Personally, I think you're stumbling over some pretty basic stuff by trying to apply your experience with other games to this one and that's going to probably cause you some grief until you overcome it or give up. Hopefully, you are able to overcome.

Now, on to your comments/issues:

Roads do not provide a direct benefit to any units other than the trucks in terms of the cost to move on them.

They do however provide an indirect benefit to all other unit types when it comes to transitioning into various terrain types. i.e. moving from a clear hex with a road into a wooded hex with a road costs a halftrack 1 MP instead of 3 MP. However, moving from a clear hex with no road onto a wooded hex with a road still costs 3 MP (base terrain cost).

While I won't debate your comment regarding the where and how various parts of the rules are introduced, I will say that the enjoyment of this game does seem to go up a bit with a thorough read of the rules before attempting to play it. I've played many a game where you jump in and pick up the rules as you go along but this game doesn't lend itself to that type of first play experience without an experienced player to guide and answer questions in real time. My first experience with the game was at a FFG demo during GenCon so I was able to play without reading the rules thanks to helpful demo staff.

As far as where you can find the information regarding damage to vehicles and the what/how of lightly damaged v. heavily damaged you can find that information on the reference sheets that came with your game as well as the rulebook on p28 in the Combat section that talks about attacks against vehicles.

Apples are not oranges, let alone carrots or Robert Frost poems. One needs some flexibility to accept a thing for what it is. Let's move on!

I appreciate what you're saying about "indirect benefits" but I still think this is a cut down set of rules that have been mutilated in the process.

And this scenario demonstrates it. If tanks have road movement of 1/3 like trucks then the German has three avenues for the tank - left flank on the road, up the center, and (less favourable) right flank. Each will get the tank to the American wire at the end of the second turn (sorry round). ie. a real choice.

Without road movement there is only the center option. The road route is too long, the right flank a little dodgy, but possible.

So question: why the hell did the American leader place the tank trap? And since he lacks motivation for that, why should he commit any forces to his right flank since the Germans are clearly not going to go the long way (and if they do, he can redeploy).

This lets him commit almost entirely to the center, and combined with his reinforcements allows him to beat the Germans. I've played this through a couple of times and IMHO the scenario is more balanced with a road movement rule for tanks.

Further, I've been playing games for years (decades actually) and I object to your other patronizing comments regarding understanding rules.

rjmq said:

Page 39 is within the section called The Tools of War. They preface this by saying " From reading the previous sections, you will now have the fundamental understanding of how TOI is played. This section will discuss the remaining elements of the game, such as special abilities of each game figure....." Trucks, of course, are talked about in the "The Tide of Iron Figures" section, which is prefaced with, "Below, each of these figure types and their respective abilities are outlined and explained." I guess that answers your question.

I guess page 28 under Vehicle Damage within the section called Resolving Attacks, could, by some people who haven't read the rules, be considered nowhere. However, for the rest of us, it is where "heavily damaged" is defined.

Nonetheless. The rules are disorganized and incoherent. In addition, there is a problem if rules abstract away something simple and fundamental like road movement (particularly to the point of destroying the balance in scenarios) but then gratiously include ultra-detailed chrome like "GMC CCKW 353" trucks.

My observation. It's close, it's a newbie magnet with all the plastic, but it needs to get a hell of lot better on the learning curve because currently it relies on an experienced audience.

Perhaps TOI isn't the game your looking for then. Although the minis are great, it's the gameplay that keeps me coming back - it's not ASL, but personally I was looking for a fairly light wargame of this scale, with some tactical depth - TOI fits my bill perfectly. I guess every wargamer has to balance up levels of complexity and realism with ease of play - everybody is going to be different, but this game is on the mark for me. Several of my gaming buddies were sceptical about it when we first played because they thought it would be too simplistic, but I think all have now been converted to this great game

I think you're seriously missing the point here. I agree that it is a major simplification and great presentation of WW2 tactics (which I love).

But. If I'm the German commander looking at this situation, I'd say to my tank commander "I want you to do a left hook on them, go across and then down the road. Stuff the tank trap, make them devote resources against you. They have no anti-tank capability and you'll either draw fire, or maybe even break through"

I do not want him to respond "But my tank doesn't travel faster on roads, roads (despite several thousand years of history) have no strategic or even tactical value and I'll be 2 turns late when you launch your frontal assault"

Get it?

This game says roads don't matter. Which is absolute rot.

rjmq said:

I agree with you that the road in the first scenario does not matter to the Panzer IV (which seems to be having engine problems anyway since it can only move at speed 4 instead of 6). The infantry can use it to sneeak a couple of squads in cover close to the American lines, but that's it.

Something is strange with this scenario anyway. We have played it quite often, and none of the games was won by the Germans...

However, if more terrain like hills, streams and woods are added to the game board, then roads start to matter a bit more.

In the Stavelot Express scenario, the Germans have easily enough armor and high-quality infantry to destroy the American forces twice. What they do not have is time, and this is exacerbated by the fact that destroying the Americans is not enough, but that a sufficient number of vehicles must exit the map on the far side. Without efficient use of the road network, the Germans cannot win.

In the Fall of Tobruk scenario from Days of the Fox, control of the road and its bridge are also vital for the German attack.

I think what the game is trying to model is less that tanks and other tracked vehicles were not much faster on roads than on solid open ground, but more that trucks were much slower on such ground than they were on roads.

rjmq said:

Neither you or I has any real information to suggest that the rules are anything less than exactly what was intended. You've made it very clear you object to them, either change them to suit your needs or get over it.

rjmq said:

Better IMO to bring the tank down the American left flank and neutralize the machine guns so that the german can advance with their own infantry. On the flip side, something needs to be done with the wooded roads on the right as the Americans can park a machine gun on op-fire with good sight lines down that first break in the trees to really mess up the german advance.

rjmq said:

I object to the fact that you're attacking a game and the rules with less than a demonstrated basic understanding of them or any indication that you've actually really read them, so we're even I guess. It wasn't my intention to be patronizing, if I was trying to be anything less than helpful I would have just ignored you.

rjmq said:

I found the rules to be quite organized and pretty coherent, but then I didn't suffer from prior expectation. I also accepted the rules as written and read to understand how they all fit together. Perhaps the learning curve is actually faster for a newbie, as not being part of an 'experienced audience' we are more accepting. Of course, experienced or not, one still has to read the rules, more than once with the purpose of seeing the designer's game within the rules, not one's expectations of one's ideal.

KlausFritsch said:

I think this is the best observation made in this discussion. Also, the open ground here is pretty good open ground. It is the baseline value for optimal movement. When the open ground is not as good as a road, then it slows everything down.

Understanding the designers intent?

Couldn't agree more. But when I'm faced with rules that create an alternate reality not present either in the real world or any other similar game, *and* a scenario that is seriously mismatched to those rules to the point where many people are of the opinion that it is seriously unbalanced ....

I question how well that game has been playtested.

rjmq said:

In the real world, the rule is never get into a fight that is balanced, always have superiority!

Thinking that every scenario needs to be balanced seems to be leading you astray. If not for that, you'd be praising TOI for breaking new ground and 'creating an alterante reality not present in the real world and not found in any similar game'.

I believe FFG fully supports people tweaking the scenarios and tweaking the rules to accomodate one's own preferences. Fan based scenarios often offer fully customized rules for a specific scenario.

"Breaking new ground"?

The mechanics are taken from a game that is well over 30 years old and figurines have been around since HG Wells. The use of squad bases to model step reduction is nice but step reduction goes back to PGG (at least) in 1977.

C'mon. No road movement? It's a broken rule. And it breaks a (pretty good) scenario that was obviously playtested under a different set of rules.

If you have road movement it's an interesting and challenging scenario that gives both sides a chance as well as some choices. Without it, it's a slug fest where the yanks can't lose.

This smiley represents the time I wasted reading the same complaint over and over even though people offered suggestions to fix it but those were ignored to waves of WTF's and Waahbulances.

On a more serious note, the fact that you ask why tank traps dont have any attacks against tanks kinda throws your whole argument as being valid. As someone else pointed out, you may have alot of experience wargaming but it appears the the actual tools and mechanics of war your abit shaky on. Which is fine (we all cant know everything, I know I dont) but it truely does throw a monkey wrench in the argument.

rjmq said:

I think you've missed the point that you can actually make changes to how the game plays. Go to the scenario editor, imput the exact same scenario that you're complaining about and write under the special rules section that the tanks can go faster on the roads than over open ground, then submit it to 'fan-based scenarios'. You will then have saved the world from playing a scenario the way someone else wanted it to be played. As for the basic rule itself, that is the rule they wanted to have in their game so it will be played their way, except in those situations where someone modifies it for specific purposes, as they have indicated was their intention for any aspect of their game if someone wants to play if differently..

rjmq said:

This is an interesting question that I think you have answered yourself. The tank trap blocks easy access to the road that leads through the cover giving forest. That of course, as you point out, makes it clear that the Germans aren't going to go the long way. That seems like good motivation for placing it, not lack of motivation.

Some thoughts from others from the previous site about At the Breaking Point:

I also won the Breaking point as German, though it was a really tough game. The trick is that you must not make a fault and you must exploit your strategy cards to the bottom. One turn - the right one - you must organize a perfect assault, supported by the strategy cards and focus ONLY on the objective, which is to hold three American hexes ONE turn. You do not want to defeat the American, you only want to break through one section of his defenses for ONE turn. You must organize your squads perfectly, you should fool the American as to where the assault will lead and then you must assault succesfully. The reinforcement deck only makes all of this harder, but not impossible. You must plan several turns ahead.

Actually, it is possible to win At the Breaking Point from the German point of view. It is very hard, but you have to be prepared to sacrifice nearly everyone to move to a position where they can stand in the trees and do normal range supported fire against the machine guns.

The best strategy that I've concieved for the scenario is to hide two units in the woods with a good LOS to the heavy weapons units using the 'Go to Ground' card and then use them to call in mortar fire in conjunction with tank fire to pin/disrupt/rout those heavier units. Then I move my units down the extreme eastern side of the board and pray the Americans get bad rolls.

Even then, though, the Reinforcements Deck combined with the whopping 6 CP that the Americans can have after Turn 1, the ton of medics and the huge area of open ground the Jerry Engineers have to cross to just get to the concertina wire make this scenario practically impossible, even against a new player. Mind you, it is a great scenario for hooking in a new player , IMO. After all, they'll probably have good fun giving you a pasting and they'll definately want more . then you can kick their rears in scenario two...

As noted by the person in the 3rd comments, not every scenario is meant to be balanced for each side, as unbalanced players play best in an unbalance scenario, but make a balance scenario unbalanced due to their familiarity and skill are unbalanced.

If you really hate that FFG left out rules for road travel so much, why not just give the supply trucks' road movement rule to tanks and half-tracks as well? Sounds like a simple solution to me.

Hey RJMQ,

I think - if you give the system a little time - it'll really grow on you, "warts" and all. The first scenario is well-known as a poorly designed one, along with many of the scenarios from the base game. They've gotten much better, and the beginner scenarios from the website (and now the Designer's book) are MUCH improved.

The game really starts to shine with the two boxed expansions, and it has become one of my favorite WWII tactical games. Days of the Fox is superb - just outstanding - and Normandy continues to show the game is shaping up to be a classic.

I've been gaming (mostly wargaming) for more than 30 years, and I've NEVER been able to talk a single friend into playing ASL, but I've gotten quite a few to play TOI. My friends and I always wanted a Milton Bradley-esque ASL, with cool figures and ASL Deluxe-sized boards, and now it's here.

I hope you stick with it - IMHO it really is worth it.