Question to all players. Do you always use combined firepower? the reason i ask is i don't actually use combined firepower that much and it might be why some of scenarios are not working the right way.

BJaffe01

I use it all the time against "hard" targets such as tanks, pillboxes, and bunkers. Another good use is to shut down the enemy's most powerful weapon(s), if one or two stand out. I also often use it against squads with cover, but only if I can afford the loss of momentum.

BJaffe01 said:

Not very often and certainly not always. The extra firepower offered by combined firepower comes at a steep price: you're units will fatigue faster. If your units are fatigues before the enemy, you're wide open for a devastating counter-attack ... and it also slows down the attack which is not a good thing when there's a tight deadline.Another thing that's sometimes overlooked by "combined fire fans", is that seperate shots can often be much more effective than one BIG combined shot:

- you don't waste half the firepower of the supporting shooters

- you're not screwed by one bad attack (or good defensive) roll

- seperate shots are not hindered by the "2nd hit that does nothing" effect of suppresive and anti-vehicle fire

So one way to limit the effect of combined fire would be to make sure one side doesn't run out of fresh units much sooner than the other, and give the attacker a tight deadline.

BJaffe01 said:

That sure explains a lot! Yes, we do use it. The game rules allow for it. What's more it's what sets TOI apart from other wargames and it's an extremely powerful attack if not THE most powerful one.. Certainly some of them also have rules for combined fire, but usually they are a lot more restrictive. In Conflict of heroes, for instance units need to be adjacent and each adjacent unit just allows a +1 modifier. In TOI you can theoretically add as many units as you want. The trick is to make the attacker choose: do I use combined fire to more or less guarantee a kill or do I need to move one of my units forward to reach my objective in time? Or: Do I use combined fire or don't I because if I do this a couple of times, my opponent will still have actions left and I won't, which will give him a free hand. See what I mean? And then there's still the "Massive confusion card"disallowing combined fire if the scenario writer should want that. A special scenario rule and variant of such can always be implemented as well.

In "Counter-attack at Orel" it doesn't take a rocket scientistto see that this is the way for the Soviets to eliminate the German defenses...

The real benefit of combined fire is realy only benefitial against realy though opponents. Ie, shermans attcking a tiger/panther, regular infanteri firing at a pillbox etc. The power of combined fire will also start improving if one unit has a better firepower than the other, and also if the combinings units has odd firepower. For example if you have one half-elite squad and two squads with 3 men and firing at someone with 4 in cover, the combine fire version will be significantly better. But three healthy regular squads firing at an target with 4 in cover, then separete firing is just as good as combined fire. With 6 in cover, combined fire is more powerfull. I'm just talking about #kills here.

So, the difference between seperate firing and combined fire is not at all always significant, but sometimes there is a difference.

When fireing at vehicles, useually its much better to fire first, get it lightly damaged, and fire at it a second time and get it heavily damaged. The only exception is when firing at tiger/panthers. And what about op-fire mode? If a panther enters view, should all 3 shermans be able to take the shoot or only one? The later would make things a lot more fun for the ones driving the panthers. Then you can rely on the protection the armor ofers and take that one hit.

So, in my view, combined fire is just problematic in a few cases. Its not a game breaker. Main issue is that killing tigers at long distances is to easy, and taking out though infanteri in though targets can at times be to easy. Still, as I have stated many times earlier, I'm all in favor of a simple rule 'combined fire only allowed if all units are within 2 hexes of target.' Because its an incredible simple solution and you can still kill tigers and take out infanteri in fortified position. You just have to move your units first

Another thing which could be analised is, what if halfs was rounded down instead of up?

I use it all the time and I think it works just fine.

good info so far guys. i'm trying to find out why some scenarios i design seem to be chewed up by combined fire and others not so much. so thanks for the help.

BJaffe01

Grand Stone said:

That's about my take on it, although those few problematic cases seem to rear their ugly heads a little too often. I would certainly be in favor of some limiting rule regarding combined fire, such as proximity of the units involved.

I made a reply to a post in regards to combine fire a little while ago, Below is what i had posted:

I think instead of changing the rules new operations cards should be put into the game, we already have the massive confussion card where no combine fire is allowed. But im thinking more about restrcting it for example: (just making them up as i write them)

Limited communications (I think it was rare for all squads to carry a radio set to communicate) Squads can only combine fire if in the same or adjusent hex as the activated squad

unfitted radios (not all tanks and vehicles were fitted with radios) Tanks and vehcles can only combine fire if they have LOS to the activated unit and LOS to the target.

Anyway just a thought.

I use combined fire for heavily armored targets, targets in good cover and targets that need to be taken out right now, not soemtime during the round.

It is also normally quite easy to calculate the approximate number of rounds your troops need to get to any objectives, and therefore the time they have to sit around blasting away. No problem in my opinion, since most assaults were preceded by a softening-up of the defenders.

Aussie_Digger said:

Good ideas, well worth a try, especially the first, although I would give squads with officers a larger radius to include other squads in combined fire.

The Lack of Tank Radios op card form FotB is just a drain on your command points and not a real restriction. I like your version better.

Grand Stone said:

Absolutely no GAME breaker, but in certain cases it's absolutely a (potential) SCENARIO breaker.

It's very handy when you want to make sure you kill a very dangerous opponent (in the Orel example the German PAK 40 or the crew operating it since it's the only German unit that can harm your armor at range) before it can fire at you. That's THE most important reason I spend any command on initiative: I want to be the one to get those first couple of shots in rather than my opponent doing so.

The problem is that in some scenarios IF the side that has the starting initiative elects to use combined fire there's absolutely NOTHING the other side can do about it and it can be absolutely devastating and basically determine the outcome of the game. Again, the problem isn't necessarily combined fire as such, but I agree with another poster that at least certain scenarios should have some built in restrictions against it (op cards, special rules- one could be: Pay one command each time you wish to combine fire -.). In the "Orel" example the little tweaks I suggested above should work just fine too. I especially feel a lot more scenarios should have the attacking forces move onto the map rather than start on it. That already makes a big difference and should give the defenders some time to react to things and get some shots in first.

Something lese that might help is give the defenders much easier access to command point. I.e. have the attackers work to obtain those command points in certain cases. The defenders will then be able to use tactics cards more easily than the attackers and/or seize initiative to get those first shots in each round. Of course in certain scenarios this wouldn't be historical at all, but in others it would be.

Could anyone come up with a counter strategy for for the Germans against the Russian strategy I described above? If not, then the scenario as currently written is broken (not the combined fire rule as such).

Ive always limited the number of units that can fire in a combined fire attack to the max number of actions per turn allowed by the scenario. So if 3 for example, then you can only add 2 other units to the unit initiating the combined fire attack, for a total of 3. All three units once fired, count as having used 3 actions though, instead of one action, so it will be the opponents turn after you do a combined fire attack on one of his units.

This particular rule in TOI should have been playtested before it was written. It is pretty obvious that it really contradicts the design concept that limits each side to 3 or 4 units firing and or moving in their turn, and then allowing the opposing side to fire/move.

Kingtiger said:

Yes, that is very true. I dislike the fact that attacking units appear out of thin air within normal range of the defenders at the start of the scenario, too. Not having the first round to blast away to your heart's delight would go a long way towards easing the defender's problems.

That problem does not exist where the attacker sets up at long range or out of sight.

I also do not like the fact that reinforcements are beamed down onto the map instead of having to move up after being released. Not much the other side can do, covering likely approaches for enemy reinforcements with op fire does not make much sense. Reinforcements should always have to move onto the board. Even paratroopers that become available should be dropped as an action during the next round and be subject to op fire.

I agree that forcing the attacker to start with a move or move&fire is atleast more fun. If the scenario favors the attacker, it may also help rebalance the scenario.

KlausFritsch said:

Agreed on all counts.

VanCamper said:

At the very least that would be a nice scenario special rule. In general I'm ok with the rule as written, but I find it hard to phantom that any official scenario tester/ writer could simply overlook this rule and not do anything to limit its effect if it's fairly obvious that not doing so will in all likelihood severely disturb scenario balance.

I don't think the combined fire itself is a bad rule but it could definately break a scenario if the scenario is designed without this in mind. Having the attacker set up at the board edge within range of the defenders only defenses and have many units able to combine to eliminate them in one round is not really thinking ahead. The defender should have ample weapons to combat this strategy should the attacker wish to sit and soften up the defenses.

i don't overlook combined fir per se. i just don't use it as much as you guys do. but i should do a better job of taking combined fire into account. i agree that most scenarios the attacker should have to arrive on the board.

BJaffe01

You can fix combined fire, and I'm in favor of tweaking them in general. Ok, maybe some scenarios would have to be slightly rebalanced due to it (bloody omaha) but the benefits outweighs the penelties. And it would be far better to make the tweak in general instead of removing combined fire from every single scenario.

However I do realise that a new rulebook may not be of interest to FFG, and many players might not want to pay for only minor tweaks. But, as time goes and more stash is added (the japanese, the french, etc) a slightly adjustments for consistency would be nice.

Patate said:

My compliments! I couldn't have said it any better!

BJaffe01 said:

Glad we agree. By the way, I didn't mean to offend you. Hope none was taken. But indeed, not taking it into account sufficiently, can really break a scenario.

Hope you'll use the newly acquired insights when designing scenarios for the "Designers' series volume II" and the "Pacific expansion"!

I did not take offense at all. I need to find out what's going on with the players and how they play is an important thing to know. I hope folks keep posting in here the information i've gleaned so far is very important.

BJaffe01

well its good seeing someone who is involved with making scenarios for the game in here, getting feeback and ideas (the only way things move forward). I havent played any scenarios from FotB yet as i only got it yesterday (and missing mapboard 33) but all the scenarios I have played that Bill has been involved in I have always had fun with.

Just wish the guys who made the rules and the game visited these boards.