If anyone is yet to play this scenario then be prepared........ for abject disappointment and frustration. And I was the winner!?!

Anyone perusing this mission could probably tell at a glance that the Germans don't really stand much of a chance, but given the fact that this expansion took so long to arrive, one could be forgiven for assuming that it had probably undergone rigorous play testing and would deliver on all counts once the battle was underway. Not so. Really, not so.

The mission brief states that historically the Germans took a proper kicking. Good job too. After all those Germans were Very naughty and righteously deserved it.

But THIS IS MEANT TO BE A GAME. If I want history I'll watch a documentary.

TOI offers the best experience when gameplay allows for knife edge decision making, crucial prioritizing of actions and extemporaneous do or die situations. For me this evokes a narrative thread which is the connective tissue of a great game.

This scenario however allows for the Russians to do literally anything and still walk it. It really is fun for no one. I even tried going easy on my opponent - The redoubtable Woo Woo - but there is no way this even approaches a 'gaming' experience.

Its great that scenario designers are keen for feedback, but surely this is something that should happen way before they go to print ( It's not like FFG didn't have the time!), and certainly WAY before I spend 65 chuffing quid on the thing.

I know FFG spout something about 'supplying the tools' for a fan based community of gamers, but I don't want to write the rules, I just want to play the game and for 65 chuffing quid (did I mention that already?) I expect some one else to do the hard work.

Anyway, if anyone does insist on playing this debacle I would suggest :-

(i) Give the Germans the Tank Buster deck instead of the supremely useless Ground Support Deck

(ii) Make the Russians pay for using the Op cards from the very beginning and let the Germans use theirs for free.

(iii) Give the Germans at least 1 tree where Division 1 deploy to give the AT gun a miniscule chance of returning fire at least once.

(iv) German reinforcements on round 4: 1 Panther, 1 squad with officer and AT specialization.

And finally, If you are going to waste a few hours playing this by the book (we quit on round 6. A T34 was already sat on the bridge. The Soviet reinforcements were completely superfluous ) and you are playing the Russians, you better supply the beers to give the German player something other to do than pull plastic soldiers from ill fitting plastic bases.

65 Chuffing quid! Jesus.

well i'm sorry you didn't like this scenario. every time we tested it once we fixed the mix it went to the last round of the game. Thanks for the feedback.

BJaffe01

The Hungarian said:

I feel your frustration. I have yet to find a scenario in FotB that is playable. Although, we're just about to start Tank Fight at Prokhorvka. It appears that FFG spent all of the extra time on the release of FotB on...well...I'm not sure WHAT they spent the extra time on?

What we have with Fury of the Bear so far is...

> Panthers with extra plastic sprues on their bases (they didn't get trimmed)

> Typos in the scenarios, citing the use of cards/decks that don't exist among others

> A majority of the scenarios that don't work (read: completely unbalanced)

> Cards that are so overpowered as to create a purely unenjoyable playing environment

I don't mind a minor tweak here and there, but I'd like an expansion to be able to be played out of the box. FotB is NOT that case. It appears that every scenario requires major tweaking and changing. That many of the cards require major tweaks (i.e. Elite Formations).

We will create our own scenarios eventually. But I'm starting to doubt whether or not it was worth $55 to get what I got. And I know that if FFG decides to bring out another expansion, I will NOT shell out more $$$$. FotB has soured me on FFG for the time being. Purely based on quality.

I cannot agree with all the negativity.

With a little thought, the one card that seems quite powerful (Elite Formations), changes tactics but does not upset the game balance.

The misnomers for the deck or card are certainly strange, but also no game-breaker. It was easy to figure out what was actually meant.

I have only played Tank Fight at Prokhorovka so far, start the Orel scenario now. Prokhorovka seemed fairly balanced to me, a very narrow German win in the last round.

What I like about the Furry Bear:

• Balkas
• Trenches (long overdue), additional markers for trenches in the desert would have been nice
• Frozen river rules
• Instant mines (the Op card for laying minefields should be modified to create instant mines, laying real minefields takes much longer than the time gieven in ToI scenarios), although more instant mine markers would have been nice
• Expert specialization (haven't tried anything with saboteurs yet)
• Russian tank stats
• Ammo specializations (although they take some getting used to, and the HE needs clarifying)

Neutral:

• Snow boards (nice to have, but I would have been satisfied with green boards and winter rules)
• Shares Air Support deck (at least you can remove the German cards and use the rest as Soviet Air Support deck)
• Saboteur deck (not tried yet, probably only good for certain scenarios)

What I do not like:

• Ambiguous or incomplete rule wording, but that is a problem that I have with FFG rule-writing in general; somehow they are still verbally careless when writing rules
• Strange history mistakes in the opening text
• The Snow trait is not used enough, winter rules could have been better
• Missing winter weather deck
• Missing campaign specializations

KlausFritsch said:

I agree with most of this, although I AM very happy with the snow boards. It just looks SOOOO much better!

It certainly IS frustrating when you spend a few hours on a scenario only to find out that one side never had a chance to win to begin with. On the other hand, a scenario or other fixes and errata and such problems can be easily solved. If you take "Axis and allies miniatures" on the other hand, the fan-made scenarios tend to be a lot better balanced than the official FFG ones, but the maps are crappy, new ones are not being released, the statcards are looking shabbier and shabbier, planes are now being released separately in a different scale in a different game, the rules are incoherent and spread out all over the Net and in various rule-books, there's no support whatsoever from the publisher etc. etc. The only real thing THEY have going for them is that the miniatures look nice® .

So in short, I'm happy about most anything as far as TOI is concerned. Scenarios can be easily fixed and/or updated even (issue some more vehicles and add them to existing scenarios, e.g. "Tankfight at Prohorovka" could do with some Elefants, SU76s, Stugs, panzer III Ls etc). If and when those vehicles are released the scenario can be revised and updated (apparently this one IS fairly well-balanced, but the same holds true for the other scenarios in FoTB!). Memoir 44 did something similar when they updated and revised their scenarios from (especially) the basegame in their "Airpack expansion".

KlausFritsch said:

Wait, you LIKE the Balkas and the fact that you can stick a tank in them and they're invisible to the enemy but can't be seen? They have LOS but you can't trace LOS to them so long as they're in the Balkas?? That's yet another new rule that is completely screwed up in the Furry Bear.

There are far too many "house rules" needed in this expansion. For cards, scenarios and terrain. The entire expansion appears to have been rushed to market without having been looked at, playtested or proofread.

Scammer said:

I like the balkas, provided the LOS thing goes both ways, i.e. units inside can only attack adjacent units (or along contiguous balka hexes) or can only be attacked by adjacent units (or along contiguous balka hexes).

I agree that invisble shooters from balkas are nonsense.

Scammer said:

If that is true then we're to blame ourselves; it's not like we weren't constantly giving them a hard time about all the delays...

KlausFritsch said:

AND the question is whether it is actually intended to work that way. As is more often the case the wording is rather ambiguous. Anyway, I'm sure we'll houserule it, if it is indeed meant to work in this silly way.

We've houseruled the brushcutters card as well and I guess the next beach invasion we play ,we'll use the "massive confusion" op-card (no combined fire). Finally we play the non-turreted vehicles and "no fire and move" allowed. That could also (partly) solve the issue some people have with the SU122 and its very long range against infantry.

But the problem is that the game was finished over a year ago. Bill says its been over a year since he looked at the scenarios. My guess is that the other scenarios where finished at the same time. And the scenario reviewed by Scammer at boardgamesgeek for example is not simply about balance, and small tweaks. Even without playing the scneario, and even owning FoB yet, I can say. with 100% accruazy, that it is horrile unballanced, to the point thats it stupid. Its not about playtesting either, its simply that the scenario designers dont know what they are doing. You cannot give a nation better infanteri, more infanteri AND superior armored forces, more starting command, defensive position +++ and espect a balanced scenario out of the bat. It reminds me of the two first scenarios in TOI which is completly unbalanced and no fun whatsoever. The scenario refering to here, either there is a huge missprint (as for example the russians are supposed to have the elite formation card) or somebody has done a crapy job.

You also got to threat game rule as a scientific paper, whit the same level accurate wording. I know its irritating as hell to write accurate (i hate it myself) but sadly its important in such a game. In this respect, TOI is fairly good. I've seen a lot worse.

I enjoy ToI alot because of its simple rules, the units have nice stats, I love the marchine-gun and the mortars and if you find good scenarios its a lot of fun. But if you think you can pick a scenario at random and espect a nice time, forget it. Pick your fights carefully.

From what I understand, the delays were due to molding issues in China. If this was indeed the case, FFG could have spent that time playtesting and proofreading. Doing all of the things that didn't have to do with the plastic pieces (which were still of poorer quality than in DotF and Normandy if you count the fact that the machine guns (Soviet) that I have require finesse to fit into the bases and the extra sprues hanging from the German Panthers).

It is only my opinion, but I think that FFG dropped the ball with FotB and produced a poor product when it comes to the complete package. When a professional game company like FFG, who put out a ton of quality products every year, churns out 2nd rate &*#$ like this and expects gamers to pay top dollar, I don't like it.

It should be noted that proof-reading is exceptionally difficult. I have myself published a scientific paper, and the time it took from the research was done till the paper was finished written, took us a year. And still we found errors afterwords...

The hopelessly balanced scenarios are worse. I cannot judge this one spesificly, but meat grinder seemed horrible. But if there are a couple nice scenarios I would be happy.

Scammer said:

Seconded. I am done with FFG as well. What I don´t understand is the level of understanding certain players express on account of the FFG. It should be understood that the company deserves nothing else but utter disgrace for its attempt to drain money from you in exchange for its thoroughly amateur work. Further, it is a common company whose goal is to make profit and the profit is all that it cares about. The interest in players, the care, they are only motivated by your money. We must not give it to them if we don´t get adequate countervalue, guys. Many Tide of Iron players that are writing on this forum are even able to excuse FFG and are openly expressing their desire to get any new ToI product, whatever it is. That is kind, natural and human. But it is not a way to deal with a corporation and it is not a way to receive a quality product from such a corporation.

Up to this time, the FFG knew that ToI players were a grateful lot that were willing to pay a lot for a little. We must change this, mates, we must show them that if they won´t care, they won´t get our money. That is to way to deal with a company.

Grand Stone said:

I agree completely. Accuracy, consistence, precision, and then all of that again.

von Stichen said:

Sadly, that is also an impression I got, starting with Days of the Fox. The base game seemed to have been conceived with much more advanced rules in mind (remnants of which can be seen in the errata'ed Op cards, the use of hidden unit counters with dummy counters seems to have been part of the original concept), but was then downscaled in complexity. I have no problem with that, except that the announced advanced version of the rules never materialized.

Starting with DotF, over-simplification set in (equipment rules, AT guns, Alpha and Bravo specializations, hedgerows in hexes instead of on hexsides, no rules for turretless vehicles, no rules for towing guns with vehicles etc.). I got the impression that the main rules of the expansions were not written by or strongly influenced by experienced wargamers. Most of the scenarios are still good, though. I had expected more from Days of the Fox, but after that expansion I down-sized my expectations somewhat.

The exception is the Designer Series scenario book. It has its errors and was printed before it had been properly proof-read, but up to now, all scenarios I have played from it were interesting. They also contain many SSRs and vehicle stats that should find their way into the main rules.

Another exception is the work done by Bill Jaffe and Dana Lombardy who both know the period and wargaming very well.

A thouroughly revised rules compilation with extensive unit stat cards (even for units which have no models yet) accompanied by small plastic & scenario expansions (e.g. as for Tannhäuser) would be a good way to continue the game, in my opinion.

Cards for all units, features (fortifications, obstacles, specializations etc.) and terrain are a must, in my opinion. On the backs of these cards, background infos, optional rules and rule explanations could find their place. I have not made my own cards yet because I have been busy making my ToI 3D maps and painting models for the Furry Bear and scenarios from the Designer Series (mortar halftracks, KV-85s etc.).

KlausFritsch said:

While that may be true, and let it be duly noted that I have a very high esteem of Bill, since he actually takes the trouble to visit these boards, act as an intermediary and to kindly ask for feedback, unfortunately also a number of scenarios designed by them have proven to be or are accused of being highly unbalanced as well (Counter-attack at Orel, Piercing the Siegfried line just to mention two that come to mind).

KlausFritsch said:

I second that.

I had a detailed look at this scenario myself and studied it for about half an hour. Though I haven't actually played it yet, everything seems to indicate that the scenario is indeed highly unbalanced:

* The soviets start with 8 (!) heavy vehicles and later get more as reinforcements while the Germans have NONE. All they get is two PAK 40s which are either going to sit idle/ retreat constantly or get blown away on the Soviets'first turn (only obvious place to set one up would be on the hill hex with the entrenchment. Trenches are not an option since squads in them cannot operate equipment. This means that the AT gun on the hill will get a maximum cover/ armor of 3 (two for its armor and one additionel cover die for the entrenchment in the same hex). You could add an offcier and an elite in the squad manning it for some extra cover against suppressive attacks. Now, have two Soviet SU122s start in the hex exactly facing the one described above. Soviets start with initiative and roll as many as twenty dice against the AT gun or the squad manning it. That's basically a guaranteed kill! You don't even really need to combine fire, but heck just to make sure, why not do it. It's not like they have anything better to do on turn 1...

* While the German defensive line looks impressive, there's a way around the minefields. Yes, there are two barbed wire placements in that one position, but heavy vehicles can just ignore these. Again, the Soviets have so many tanks that two could for instance move through the barbed wire to attack any theats for the advancing infantry, while a third one could then remove the wire and open up a passage way for the Russian infantry. Oh, wait then you still have five vehicles left...now, what to do with those? Kind of reminds me of "Axis and Allies pacific 1940" where the japanese start with so many aircraft that one is left with no idea what to do with them on Japan's first turn, but I digress. Furthermore, the Germans have a lot of trenches at their disposal. Doesn't look bad at first sight! +4 cover; that's twice as much as in a building and you don't have to be afraid of "concussive firepower". But wait, the Soviets start with initiative AND still have a number of vehicles left. Answer: combine fire on turn 1 and you'll be able to eliminate the German positions in at most two turns. Conclusion: DON'T SET UP IN THE TRENCHES! Looks eerliy similar to "Piercing the Siegfried line"...

* The Soviets get free use of the heavy mortar and Katyusha op-cards on turn 1. Like they need it...

* The Soviets get reinforcements. Like they need them...

* I could go on for a while.

Possible relatively easy to implement improvements:

1.) Have the Soviets move onto the board rather than start on it. This way they won't be able to combine fire as you cannot do that when you make a fire and move action.

2.) Don't allow non-turreted vehicles to fire and move. This way the SU122s won't be able to fire on turn 1 (Even a 5 die attack isn't too shabby!) and the Pak 40(s) might actually get some shots in before they get blown away and do some damage.

3.) Don't allow the Soviets to use the afore-mentioned cards for free or even remove them from play.

4.) Add an extra minefield to create an uninterrupted row of them (I know all the ones supplied with the base game are already being used, but hey just put a coin there and say it's a minefield in the special rules or use minefield tokens from e.g. memoir '44 or Conflict of heroes. Those games come with more of them and it will certainly look better than a coin.

Coming to think of it, the only way I can envisage that the fighting may indeed have continued to the last turn as Bill Jaffe posted above, is that if the balkas work as feared: AT guns and squads CAN set up in them, fire at will, do damage and not BE seen. Even then I find it hard to imagine the fight may last until the very last turn, but it would certainly force the Soviets to be a bit more cautious.

going from my memory and some old notes, when i was working on counterattack at Orel at guns where allowed to set up in trenches and use them for cover which seems to have changed. i will reiterate that when we played this one it usally went the distance. but i'm finding you guys seem to play either more agressively or very differently that we do.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

That would certainly help. Adding two more guns, one in the trenches and one farther back, would also be fun.

BJaffe01 said:

The bottom line is: both sides should always have to make difficult decisions. Do I use concentrated fire which means this unit won't be going forward this turn or do i dash forward? Do I use combined fire for a guaranteed kill or do i save my activations? I don't think we play more aggressively. A good playtest will involve different tactics and strategies to be played. If one tactic consistently leads to victory for one side the scenario is skewed or even broken. I can't help but believe that what I described above will invariably lead to a Soviet victory.

I get the feeling that you designer guys just fail to make the victory objectives for the stronger side difficult enough for the scenario to be balanced. That you just place a weaker force to stand against the stronger one and let the players deal with it, while shielding yourself by historical accuracy.

Let me stress that designing a scenario where historically one side was severely outnumbered and outgunned is not a mistake at all. On the other hand, it may be the greatest challenge for both players, but you must place the objectives correctly. EG if one side is a tank division atttacking a few infantery regiments, it is clear that it must not have all the time it needs to blast every enemy soldier out at its will. It must have little time, forces taken out from the scenario, face strong enemy reinforcements, have successive objectives to occupy, or whatever good idea comes to mind.

I think that altering the victory objectives may be the easiest and best tweak invented - you just hire us player guys and let us play future scenarios several times. The average round that the attacker is about to reach its victory objectives should be the number of rounds for the scenario. Piece of cake and you may portrait any of your favourite battles at your pleasure.

BJaffe01 said:

BJaffe01 said:

I would be very interested to read a detailed battle report from BJ to see exactly how he does play his games. It seems most people on this forum play an aggressive war as opposed to the non- aggressive (What?!) type.

There is simply no tactical option with this scenario. How can you make it last 8 rounds (whoever plays the German is almost comatose through boredom at 4)?

Exactly what are your credentials?

This whole expansion needs recalling like a car with rubbish brakes. FFG should get that Kory Kozinsk.. blah whatever his name to revamp EVERYTHING. This fellar designed one of the best scenarios in the designer series: innovative, inventive and well balanced. Clearly this guy's is more concerned with game dynamics and player satisfaction, not with what colour socks the Russians wore.

by aggresively i mean using combined fire all the time in every case. maybe i'm wrong about this that's why i started a topic about combined fire.i don't use combined fire that much, i'm far more methodical in my play but maybe that's the problem.

BJaffe01

von Stichen said:

Amen to this. Apart from what's suggested above there are other ways to scenarios as well, but this one certainly helps. A great example of it is "Assault on Kidney Ridge"(The final scenario from "Days of the Fox").The British will eventually overwelm the Germans defenders, the question is: Will they do it quickly enough. If they don't they lose. Each time you have to contemplate whether you're goingb to move a tank or fire with it. That's what a good scenario should be like: difficult decisions all the time, no no-bariners or whatever you do, you'll win.