(English is not my first language, please forgive my sometime strange wording.)

I’ve read thoroughly through the rules now. Although I really love the game, its components and I find the scenarios challenging, a few historical glitch annoyed me during my reading. I must say that WWII is my favourite wargaming period, particularly the Eastern Front. I’ve read and played so much books and games about it; I’m sure people around me are surprised I know so much about Eastern Europe geography! (I’m Canadian. Why should I know about Rostov-na-donu or Kalach?) I wanted to share those glitches I found and see what you think.

The first thing that annoyed me is the appearance of Panthers in the “Meat Grinder” scenario. The year is 1942. AFAIK, Panthers first appeared in mid-1943, at Kursk. Does it really matter? Well, it depends on why you play the game, I guess. I know if I design scenarios, I’ll make sure the units I use were historically available, just because there’s no use playing a historical game where technological evolution was part of the winning factors if you can insert any technology at any time.

Second, this stunning passage from the introductory text, talking about the 1942 offensives:

“Meanwhile, the Soviets launched two offensives, one to the city of Kalach and one to Smolensk. The Kalach offensive successfully trapped 300,000 Axis troops behind the Soviets. And in Smolensk, the Soviet army was successful in preventing the arrival of fresh troops and supplies to relieve the exhausted German armies in Stalingrad , which had been surrounded by German forces in September of 1941 in one of the longest and bloodiest sieges in history.”

(My underscore)

Ok. Maybe those are typos. But that’s a lot of typos in only one sentence! It does not affect game playing, but… It annoyed me, because historical accuracy is somehow important for me.

Third, I startled when I read that High Explosive (HE) had become, in the game, an anti-vehicle round. A rapid search on the web tells anybody that:

“The most common shell type is high explosive, commonly referred to simply as HE. They have a strong steel case, a bursting charge, and a fuze. The fuse detonates the bursting charge which shatters the case and scatters hot, sharp case pieces (fragments, splinters) at high velocity. Most of the damage to soft targets such as unprotected personnel is caused by shell pieces rather than by the blast.” (Wikipedia)

HE is anti-personnel ammo, not anti-vehicle!

Fourth, a word about the subversion and sabotage rules. Well, I’m not sure my complaint is about historical accuracy; it’s just that those rules, the way they are stated, sound really gamey for me. I don’t think subversion and sabotage were important parts of a tactical engagement during WWII (at the strategic and maybe operational levels, yes, but not tactical unless a scenario is about a sabotage mission, though). I understand that lots of unexpected events can occur during an engagement. This is why I first liked the strategic cards dimension of the game. But now, this card playing becomes a game into the game. Some will like it, I don’t. There are other ways to better simulate uncontrolled events occuring in an engagement.

When finished reading, I had this feeling that I just read a High school student’s assignment on WWII, with many of the right important concepts (Smolensk, 1941, 1942, Stalingrad, Panthers, HE ammo) but not always at the right place!

Of course, I will play this game with great interest (and buy without hesitation any army pack FFG might release! – hint, FFG, hint!) . But I had to speak out against those fantasies in my history.

MB

I do not own this game yet i am still waiting for its arrival. But i have looked through the rules online. I agree i find the panthers appearing in a 1942 scenario a bit odd, would have thought Panzer III or IV's. The HE thing is probably the thing that annoys me the most I hope its a typo and was ment to be against sqauds, and will be fixed in the FAQ (otherwise I will house rule it that way). I cant really comment on the write up of the scenarios as I have not been able to read them yet. The Sabotage rules i find interesting, I think you need to look at it as disrupting operationd between you and your HQ (as it effects the cards in you HQ)for eg if you sabotage the reiforcement deck this could represent the enemy swaping signs around behind the lines, or on a air support, the enemy could have caused damage to an airstrip. I see the sabotage rules as representing this in an abstract way (im looking forward to seeing how it works) (Also im unaware of what the sabotage cards do as of yet as i havent got the game yet)

Any way some thoughts (before playing anyway)

Meat grinder scenario. I suggest the German player uses panzer IVs with the Panzer IV E Op. card or the panzer IIIs provided with the DoF expansion instead of the Panthers. Because the German player will definitely feel in a grinder with those changes, I think the German player’s Elite formations card should be played as stated: attacking squads gain +1 firepower per figure in the squad’s base. (German player should get some fun too!)

Aussie_Digger said:

I agree with you. I will play HE ammo that way too.

Great post, Meta Baston. I am seconding your demand for historical accuracy. The only reason I bought this game and all of its expansions is to command the units in the very historical battles that ocurred seventy years ago and to enjoy the inimitable challenge of faring better than the real commanders. Therefore, historical accuracy is paramount and all that it may be sacrificed for is playability. Not founding the historical battles upon historical facts, which is a remark that takes in all your complaints, is dilettantism on the part of FFG.

I concur about the great post here. I am a stickler for history and prefer scenarios to reflect it as accurately as possible. Thanks for posting on this.

I have the same perceptions about TOI. It is good overall game that includes minatures that are realistic and not so toy like in appearance. The Infantry units are nicely detailed, and the boards also. The rules and the units stats and movement rates are what I have had to modify to replicate the tactical nature of mobile vs non mobile units.

For example, infantry can move 4 clear terrain hexes per turn. This is way to far, and does not differentiate the importance of mechanized and mobile infantry vs foot infantry. This is especially relevant on the Eastern Front, where Russian infantry, lacking trucks and halftracks, was at quite a disadvantage to German mechanized infantry up until at least early 43. So I reduce the movement of squads to 2 clear/road hexes/ turn, or one hex/turn in non clear.

Additionally, the number of hexes on the TOI board is not enough to reflect the distance to movement ratio that gives longer range units such as the 88 flak and the Tiger /Panther an advantage. So, maybe something like 15 hex range for 88, and 12 hex for Tiger and Panther. I have not gotten FOTB yet, but I would make sure the T34 and KV have no greater range than 6, because Russians did not have quality range finding optics like the Germans did.

Also, reducing movement of tanks to around 4 clear hexes/turn, and trucks only get 1/2pt along road, gives enough time/distance to give a defending side that is outnumber greatly , a much better change to inflict some damage on advancing units.

I've got to chime in here on this one. The fact that there were Panthers included in a scenario with a date prior to that AFVs actual arrival on the front line is a great example of how terrific this game is.

How so?

The solution: Just change it.

ToI has the right parts if you want to do that. I'm sure the person who put that scenario together will feel a little embarassed, but it has no reflection, at all, on the game as a whole.

What'd we get, 8 scenarios for the Eastern Front. That doesn't even begin to scratch the tip, of the tip of the iceberg, as far as the eastern front is concerned.

So we have an embarassed scenario designer. That doesn't even register on my radar as even the smallest blip at this point.

What we have now laid before us in the form of ToI, DotF, Normandy & FotB, is one of the most spectacular WWII wargames to ever be released. It has components that are gorgeous and will last and last. Rules that will allow new comers to enjoy the game, and now with FotB, it has great scope as well.

The scenarios are good to go for play by 2-4 players that you can add or subtract as the game goes along. Two of you playing the game and a buddy shows up? Here, you take one of my divisions. Playing with 4 and someone has to leave? No sweat, one guy plays the whole side now.

I'm not sure if it is up to date and running, but what they need to do now is make sure the scenario editor is good to go. Who cares about one scenario, when there are literally thousands to be done now.

There's a reason why PanzerBlitz started in the Eastern Front. This game took it's sweet ole' time getting there, but it made it.

LET'S GET THAT SCENARIO EDITOR UP TO DATE, AND RUNNING!

(If it isn't already, that is)

That HE deal bothers me though...ah well, I'll just change it. It's all good!

It sounds like me that replacing the panthers with panzer III in that senario is great for balancing purposes also.

I fully agree with the original poster. If I had wanted a Fantasy game there are dozens of others I could have chosen from the FFG inventory alone. It just so happens that I'm more into (WWII) wargaming. Does everything have to be 100% historical? No, most people will agree that a game does have to be playable and that for the sake of playability certain sacrifices will have to be made. However, I don't think putting units into a certain scenario that weren't even available at the time yet is one of those concessions; it's actually a major oversight. The same goes for the HE issue. Lastly, I feel FFG is going a bit overboard with all the extra decks being made available. Personally I could have done without the sabotage and subversion rules. I also believe these are aspects that come into play (pun intended) on a grander-read: operational- scale. Nevertheless, this thing I don't have too much of a problem with as I'm sure many other players will heartily enjoy it. That's one of the things I like about TOI: Commanders (Normandy) and ammunition (FoTB) are OPTIONAL rules. They represent what many adore and others abhor. Therefore it's great that they're OPTIONAL. Players can decide for themselves! However, that doesn't mean that HE should all of a sudden be ant-vehicle ammo, which by the way it only stipulates in the rulebook itself. At the back of the booklet there's no restriction and it all of a sudden seems to work against any target. Which of the two is it? Anyway, here's what I'll do:

1.) Hope that these issues will be solved by errata.

2.) If this doesn't happen; houserule that HE ammo only works against "soft targets".

3.) Substitute the Panthers in the "meat grinder" scenario by Panzer IV E's and/or Panzer IIIs. Who knows, maybe this will even solve the imbalance of that particular scenario (haven't experienced that for myself yet, but the AARs given here seem rather compelling and convincing).

Kingtiger said:

Taking the wording, it works against infantry and vehicles.

Where would you draw the line between soft and hard targets? I think that vehicles with armor 1 (halftracks and armored cars) would still suffer greatly from HE, as would AT guns, which have armor 2 (which is probably more due to the size, low profile and gun shield than actual armor thickness).

Basically, one could use the traits already in the game, Light and Heavy vehicles, and put the AT guns in the Light category.

I would also limit the anti-vehicle effectiveness of the MG figures to Light vehicles. No more brewing up Shermans by firing a duoble MG squad plus one or two more MG figures at them.

kaufschtick said:

Yes, let's!

I fully agree with you about the countless engagements that can be done with this game. I intend to build a few myself, now that this second front is open.

MB

KlausFritsch said:

That's the problem: in the rulebook it reads: "...against vehicles..." at the back of the booklet this restriction is left out meaning it would work against both infantry and vehicles alike.

Yes, yes and yes. This game needs many good scenarios, and therefor I cant understand why FFG dont support fan-based scenarios.

Kingtiger said:

The wording inside the rulebook consists of two parts which seem to contradict each other

1 - "This is a short to medium range anti-vehicle round." This seems to indicate that HE is only effectives versus vehicles, however, it is only a descriptive sentence which does not contain game mechanics.

2 - "Normal range attacks made with this munition hit on a “4,” “5,” or “6.” This seems to indicate that all targets are affected.

The text on the back of the rulebook is: "Treat normal range attacks made with this munition as close range attacks (hits on a “4,” “5,” or “6”)."

Because the actual description of the in-game effect does not mention any target restriction in both cases, that is how I am going to play it.

I would still like to limit the effect of HE against heavy vehicles, though.

KlausFritsch said:

As it is written now, it is much more effective than AP-B and AP-C because it produces more successes than AP-B and does not require you to roll up to your target as AP-C does.

KlausFritsch said:

Personally, I will restate the rule this way: "Treat normal range attacks made with this munition against trucks and squads (not in pillbox) as close range attacks (hits on a “4,” “5,” or “6”)."

Edit: No, no, no, no! What is the regular ammo against squads, if not HE already? Thinking of it, I will not use this rule. I'll have to take a closer look at the other special ammo types and see if they're worth to be integrated into play or not.

MB

kaufschtick said:

Agreed and solid post all around, well said.

Hey guys i'm not sure i'm right but what if it was supposed to be HE-AT which makes tons of sense based on the range restriction. i know for a fact that many countries used this round for their artillery support tanks. i'm not saying i'm right but just another idea to consider

BJaffe01

I'm reading these as HE-AT and not HE rounds. HE would be High Explosive and I'm pretty sure that's what being fired in the regular attacks vs infantry. These HEAT rounds are not merely HE rounds. At least that's the way I'm reading it.

Either way, it's still a typo which needs a FAQ.

Personally I hope it will turn out to be an AP-type round ... because three slightly different AT rounds simply isn't that interesting.

Patate said:

If these are HEAT, they shouldn't have any effect against squads, then.

Latro said:

Exactly! All the other ones are AV. This one should be AP.

Meta Baston said:

I agree - tank firepower is already quite effective against infantry. Concussive is overpowered as it is unless they differentiate in the future between wood, stone and fortified buildings.

Was doing some reading the other day on soviet forces and then read the meat grinder scenario notes and saw that thiw scenario was ment to take place in the first quarter of 1942, so not only having the Panthers on the battle field being a fantasy but also having the SU-122 there is also fantasy as these were not being produced until December 1942

Aussie_Digger Kursk was the first time Panther's where ever used and for the SU-122 it was their first mass employment. Also the SU-76's first mass employment is Kursk.

BJaffe01