Here it is:

This is all I can think off, so it isn't that bad but these three thing really annoy me.

igfa_277 said:

Well, this one is easy to solve. Just think of an action turn as being longer than you presently think it is. For an engineer to dig a proper entrenchment, it would take them as long as it would take, which is what an action turn is. They are variable.

igfa_277 said:

You "hate" the artstyle.

Dig entrechment ability, it's just a game.

Last time I checked the Army and Marine Corps we were all a part of the same team .

longagoigo said:

So I should think of an action turn as an hour long? So in an hour a tank can fire once and move something like 180 meters? It is a game but somethings still needed to be somewhat rooted in reality. I think that the game could have worked just fine without engineers as they completely break the temporal standard set by every other unit.

kaufschtick said:

You have apparently never been in the service or you would know inter-service rivalry when you see it.

igfa_277 said:

Think of time as variable. They say that time flies when you're having fun, but drags when you're digging a ditch. Also, you'll never get rich, by digging a ditch!

I highly doubt bangalore torpedoes, some wire cutters and adrenaline could take out a large enough breach in some barbed wire. You forget the engineers (pioneers) had their own tools and techniques, especially by the time they were on the Siegfried Line.

Although I wasn't in the army, I still had a child hood with fireworks and have seen some chain link fences go the way of the third reich...

7times7is49 said:

The question isn't if the wire can be breached, it is how long will it take. The my experience with bangalore torpedoes (yes I have used one, not in combat tho’) is that it takes multiple minutes to assemble, place and fire. That is while we weren’t under fire (military doctrine states that obstacle w/o observation and fire are useless). I can’t imagine how slow it would be if we were. Finally after blowing the torpedo we only cut a lane through the wire, enough to move down but if you weren’t going down that lane in that specific axis you would still be impeded by the wire. The wire though degraded was still an obstacle. A quick move by the defender to gain grazing fire down that lane and the wire has turned into a lethal funneling feature, essential a death trap.

If Board games were made to be realistic they would be less functional, unbalanced, and no fun...we probably wouldn't even have any board games at all.

rules are made to fit game play, not becuase the designer is trying to figure out how long it takes someone to dig a trench.

its all just a representation. Can't we just have fun?

I see you play Desecent and and TI3, do you hate those games too because its not realistic to have dragons, spaceships, and Demons?

igfa_277 said:

KAGE13 said:

That's not a fair criticism. It's one thing to purchase a WWII boardgame and expect some degree of realism (even though I disagree with the original poster's comments), it's another to have suspension of disbelief . That's called fantasy. Besides, if you want to address his attitudes towards realism in Descent and Twilight Imperium 3, one would suggest he would more take issue with how combat is addressed than the existence of spaceships and dragons.

Wilfred Owen said:

I know, I just though it would be funny.

Wilfred Owen said:

ToI certainly has some degree of realism. He was expecting all of the realism that he had experienced in other games. For someone to get exactly what they want from something, they had better produce it themselves. If not, they should find out what something is before getting involved, or appreciate something for what it is, that is, someone else's baby. Besides, having a WWII theme doesn't make something any less a fantasy than a monster or space theme. Everybody's baby is a fantasy, i.e. they all can't be the most beautiful baby in the world. That's not to say that people can't offer variants to rules to tweak it in other directions. Instead of saying ToI doesn't have this, they could be saying ToI has this and we could also do these other things with it, too. ToI is a sandbox. You can play it by their rules or you can play it with other rules or you can play it with Godzilla and spacemen.

igfa_277 said:

Guess again there, Cheif ...

Like I said before, we're all part of the same team.

Inter service rivalry...gimme a break. What, are we all 10 years old now.

Ever heard of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act? Here, I'll save you a little time. You can look the rest up yourself.

"The Goldwater-Nichols Act was an attempt to fix problems caused by inter-service rivalry , which had emerged during the Vietnam War , contributed to the catastrophic failure of the Iranian hostage rescue mission in 1980, and which were still evident in the invasion of Grenada in 1983 ."

As far as TOI goes, it's an entry level game into wargaming. It's not intended to be Advanced Squad Leader, or a sim. I think the designers state in the Designer Series Scenario book that what they were trying to create was what they describe as a "Gateway" game. There are plenty of other games that strive to create a "simulation" of WWII squad level combat. TOI is designed to be fun, easy to learn, and enjoyable. The scale of the game is actually not really defined, and may change from scenario to scenario, depending on the designer. The squad bases can represent squads, platoons or even larger sized formations depending on the scenario.

Time is also somewhat abstract in this game as well, accordingly.

I mean, criticizing TOI for not being realistic enough is like complaining that chess isn't realistic enough.

That plus, to second someones elses comments, I'll bet you'd be flabergasted as to how fast one can dig when one is being fired upon...

I also agree with the above comments from Longagoigo, as well. TOI is pretty abstract to me when I look at entrechments. I mean, if two out of your three issues with the game are artwork related, and the third concerns the placement of entrechments...then I'd have to say that you can't be in too bad of shape, there. I'd think that tanks not having a facing would be more worthy of bringing up here than artwork and the placement of entrenchments.

kaufschtick said:

igfa_277 said:

My 2 cents regarding this dicussion (hey, I just noticed that since the introduction of the Euro, we CAN actually give our 2 cents... )...

I (naturally) cannot contribute to your inter-service-rivalry topic, during my time in the Bundeswehr (quite a few years back), we didn't have inter-service rivalry, we had inter-company and even inter-function rivalry... also not a very efficient or productive state of things...

In my opinion, FFG is often not very lucky concerning the choice of terms for ToI is. For example, there is a Forced March card, which gives advancing squads 2 extra movement points for one turn (not even the whole round). Now, for me, forced march means marching several hours at a quickened pace, and probably longer than most soldiers would like to march. The effect of the card on the game is OK, the name of the card is not quite so OK. Entrenchment means to me at the very least a large fighting- or fox-hole, if not a trench system. Most soldiers in WW2 had digging tools for digging such holes, and I can imagine (from personal experience, though not under fire) that this takes a lot longer. However, the rules (and the Fill Sandbags card) seem to suggest something more improvised, an improved fighting position which can be prepared fairly quickly and for which the engineers have the tools (or sandbags).

There are other less-than-perfect terms in ToI, e.g. Division for the sub-division of units for the four-player game (the urge to use a military term here must have been to strong).

Tank-facing rules (at least as an optional rule) would be very nice, since they would allow to model the difference in armor front and back (thus making speed more valuable for tanks) and the difference between vehicles with and without turrets. Then the Panzer VI H and the StuG III G would be different, now they are not.

To be honest, I never noticed the point you raise with the artwork before. I just read the rules and played the game.

You are correct, they did not have to age the old pics, no idea why they did. However, I have no problem with that design choice.

Have fun

Klaus

igfa_277 said:

There is a reason that during the Korean war Marines were told to remove their gators. The Chinese were only attacking army positions b/c they could tell the difference between the two b/c the Marines wore gators.

Tell that to the Marines at Chosin Reservoir.

igfa_277 said:

In Somalia Marines were called “white sleeves” and avoided by the rebels there. “White sleeves” is in reference to how the two branches roll their sleeves differently.

It's not how you roll your sleeves, it's what you do when you roll your sleeves up, that counts

kaufschtick said:

I was referring to the 38th parallel when the war broke down to a bloody stalemate.

But if you want to know more about the Chosin reservoir, know that there were also army units encircled by the Chinese. Want to know why they didn’t become part of American Urban Legend? B/c they were all destroyed. You can read all about it in this book:

Marine! The Life of Chesty Puller by Burke Davis

Granted it is a little biased but Chesty Pullers disgust with the US Army and its colossal failures during the entire span of the Korean War is palpable.

This is one of my favorite bits is Burke Davis’s description of how: as the Marines were withdrawing from Chosin they were scooping up all the gear that the army abandoned when they retreated. When the Marines finally arrived in the port of Hungnam with all this army equipment the army wanted it back and Chesty’s response was essentially: GFYS, if you wanted it you should have taken it with you. The Marines fighting against the Chinese were able to achieve greater than a 10:1 kill ration, destroying three Chinese divisions. This was all while they were completely surrounded.

This is one of my favorite bits is Burke Davis's describtion how when the Marines were withdrawing from Chosin they were scooping up all the gear that the army abandoned when they retreated. When the Marines finally arrived in port of Hungnam with all this army equipment the army wanted it back and Chesty’s response was essentially: GFYS, if you wanted it you should have taken it with you. The Marines fighting against the Chinese were able to achieve greater than a 10:1 kill ration, destroying three Chinese divisions. This was all while they were completely surrounded.

Hmm US Marines the greatest fighting force....

1. Charging Hospitalers.
2. Hoplites.
3. Swiss pike block.
4. Veteran legionaires.
5. Janisars.
6. British redcoats.
7. WWII german paratroopers.

Im sure the US marines were great in Korea. But that was a long time ago.

And it is called a foxhole because its supposed to be a place to hide before you get up and manuver again. You do not win battles by digging holes. Something the armies of Europe learned in heaps around 1915.

I don't have a problem with the artwork. It invokes that era and that is all I care about in regards to artowrk.

ToI is meant to be accessable to the occassional wargamer and therefore the rules are not meant to represent realism. If you read the designer journals, you'll notice they sacrificed a lot of realism for gameplay.

There are a lot of other wargames geared towards the hardcore wargamer who likes more realism/historical accuracy.

I am in agreement with complaints made about about the Engineer specialization rule - it doesn't make sense unless the intent is that an engineer squad is arranging materials already placed on the battlefield to enhance the defensive qualities of terrain features. As far as engineers and entrenchments (foxholes, fighting positions, whatever) are concerned, our USMC friend is spot on - one cannot dig a hole deep enough to conceal onself in within a few minutes of time, which appears to be the scale of TOI. (If you are skeptical, go buy a folding entrenching tool in the outdoor dept.of any large store, take it out to your back yard and dig a chest-high hole big enough for you and a friend to stand in. See how long it takes. Then, fill it up before your wife compalains or your kids fall in it.

That said, a house rule for engineers might be in order for those who seek additional realism.

What is it that engineers actually do?

1.) They blow up things, render certain things useless - i.e., blow bridges, emplace or clear minefields, lay smoke, topple trees, crater roads, blow holes through obstacles, assist the infantry in neutralizing enemy fortifications.

2.) They build things, restore them or neutralize obstacles - They build bridges, repair or improve roads, repair damage to installations (think Seabees and USMC engineers at Henderson Field on Guadalcana) dig trenches/tank traps, build fortifications, emplace obstacles modify topography.

On the battlefield, combat engineers generally demolish obstacles, perform quick and dirty construction and assist infantry and armor in carrying out their missions through the use of explosives, and special equipment. The potential for house rules is almost endless. That said, I like TOI for what it is - a fun, easy-to-play game with enough realism to cause one to have to apply real-life solutions to board game tactical problems.

Any ideas for house rule applications for the combat engineers specialization?

Why can't a round be 10 or more minutes?

Besides the digging of entrenchments is both rare and has very little effect on play, so why bother change it?

One of the two sides of the coin is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And TOI ain't broke. It's a great game the way it stands. So if you like it as it is, play by the rules and enjoy. On the other hand, a great game, like a great recipe, can always be tinkered with - and enhanced, possibly - to the pleasure of those who are handy at such things. As for digging holes, I remember the experience (without much fondness) from my infantry days. An hour or more gets you a serviceable foxhole, IF the ground is cooperative and no one is shooting at you. Like I said, try it - it's not the most romantic aspect of military life. Here in southeastern Arizona, it would be tough going, with caliche and other mineral impediments slowing you down. Just digging a tree well is a royal pain. That's why I agree about the engineering specialization being a bit out of kilter. On the other hand, I plays the game as it's printed with gusto. TOI is a good model for working out tactical problems, no doubt. So here you have it. The orthodox can follow the rules, and the rules work quite well. And the tinkers can tinker. Ain't life grand?

Hefsgaard said:

Absolutely right. Given that the scale of ToI is anything up to division-level, I would imagine a turn spans a lot more than 10 minutes in such scenarios.

It would appear that the basic mechanics of TOI are designed to accomodate tactical combat rather than on the higher level. The use of ranged fire implies smaller units projecting firepower over variable distances. As the size of the individiual units and map scale increase, the range of fire projection should correspondingly decrease. At a certain scale, the differences between ranges of the various untis become so small that they can't be measured using hexes on the map. TOI works extremely well on the smaller end of the scale reproducing the problems inherent in a combat situation. I'm not sure how well this would work on when the squads and vehicles represent larger formations - particularly companies and battalions. Any thoughts about that?