Like I said before, the combined fire rule as written contradicts the principle concept of TOI with regard to a limit of actions per player. It completely destroys the balance and makes the game frustrating to play. That is why I limit the no. of units that can be in combined fire attack to that number of actions allowed per turn by the scenario. Just doing that, still allows a player to fire as many as 9 units with 3 actions, before the opposing player can fire. So often, I will use a rule that all units that participate in a combined attack expend one action per unit. Then the Combined fire tactic will be more realistic, and used only when it is neccessary to give a better probability of taking out a difficult target like a Tiger or King Tiger. It would allow the defending player a chance to move the unit away, if it survives the attack, because it will be his turn right after the attack, since the attacking player had to expend all his actions at once.

Limiting combined fire rule allows the defending units in a hex surrounded by enemy units a better chance to hold on, and allows for more scenarios where defender is outnumbered, but by using tactics can delay and hold out long enough to get reinforcements or win the scenario. This could work even better if spotting rules (in addition to camoflage)were added, so that units in woods, bldgs and hedgerows are not auto spotted just by having a line of sight unobstructed to the hex. It compensates somewhat for the inevitable "perfect" intelligence aspect of TOi, and would allow both players to set up units at the start ,in line of sight of one another, since they would not be spotted in woods/bldgs they are in, until they moved or fired. or there was an enemy unit that moved next to them.

VanCamper said:

I see what you mean and I partly agree, though I've also played scenarios in which it's absolutely a BAD idea to use too many units at once in a combined fire attack. Though you don't pay separate activations, you DO fatigue all those units.

I do like your ideas to be applied to certain scenarios. It might even indeed work better than the existing one for general gameplay. Then again, as long as it's taken into account sufficiently when designing a scenario even the current rule should be any problem. The problem is that so far it's often NOT been taken into account sufficiently...

VanCamper said:

Seems like a reasonable way to restrict it without having to introduce new concepts. However, as pointed out, by combining fire, your side will be fatigued faster allowing the opponent to conduct fire and movement likely more freely...so it does tend to be a trade off.

Brummbar said:

If and when it is taken account when designing the scenario. If it's NOT a trade off, that's when you get (potentially) broken scenarios.

True.

I would like to comment on design briefly. I've been designing scenarios for a number of years now. Initially M'44 and then ToI (yes, I have a number of them that haven't come to light...yet. Soon though I hope). I have to say, designing a well balanced yet historically reflective scenario for ToI is far more difficult than any M'44 scenario I have ever done. There are so many more variables to take into account. Just getting a scenario to work is challenging as any one thing can throw it off. While I am happy with my efforts to date, I am more able to now appreciate some of the obstacles designers of this great game face.

Brummbar said:

Oh yes, it's absolutely a hard job to develop a balanced scenario. I've done quite a number of "Axis and Allies Miniatures" scenarios myself.

However, not taking a fundamental game principle into acoount sufficiently, which combined fire is in TOI, after all, does not fall into the category of "something that could easily be overlooked". It is something that would be one of the very first items I would consider if I were to design a TOI scenario myself along with the maps/terrain, victory conditions, balance of forces and strategy and operations cards to be used. (Somewhat) historical settings and conditions CAN be reflected accurately, even in TOI, as long as you put some kind of pressure on the other side (and keep it fun and challenging for BOTH sides). For example, in a "Berlin scenario" the Soviets will and should EVENTUALLY overrun the German defenders. The trick would be to allow them to lose relatively few forces and/or do it more quickly than they did historically. The same would be true for a Barbarossa scenario, but then in the German's favour. See what I mean?

Kingtiger you'd be amazed what you sometimes overlook when on a deadline. Combined Fire tends to be my bug because i rarely like fatuiging that many units to quickly as it limits my options but one needs to be willing to learn from those kinds of mistakes.

BJaffe01

BJaffe01 said:

Bill, i don't hold anything against you. As I said before scenarios can relatively easily be fixed unlike a flawed game system or faulty components. I think it's very courageous of you to come out here and admit you've made a mistake. Many others wouldn't dare to show their faces or would simply deny it. In short, I'm glad you're willing to learn!

oh trust me my normal reaction would be deny deny deny. but i want folks to keep playing TOI. so i'm gonna have take some flack from time to time.

BJaffe

BJaffe01 said:

Speaking for myself it's the scenarios that are taking the flack not you as the designer. Just post some errata or fixes in due time- here on these boards if need be- and I'm pretty sure people will keep on playing TOI and more specifically the scenarios designed by you (if you DON'T fix them people will either ignore them if they are aware they are unbalanced or join the fold of the discontented after playing them in their current shape and form).

Myself and a friend of mine have been playing ToI for a few months now and it does seem that their is some room to improve (fix?) combined fire. We've just completed 2 rounds of Armored Maelstrom and it's already looking like a route for the Soviets. As the Gemrans, I opened up with combined fire of 3-4 tanks in the opening 2 rounds 5 times total. The 1st 2 attacks were at long range and the sheer number of dice (24 in one instance!) was sufficient to invlict Heavy damage on one tank with 2 combined fire attacks, then with initiative (perhaps a blunder by Soviets letting me have it for round 2) and normal range, heavily damage 2 more and destroy another. Sure, I fatiged most all of my tanks to do that, but it was worth it to sunder the soviet tank force mightily. The combination of greater range, initiative, and combine fire seems too much. We're going to try it again, but this time, the soviets will have to COMPLETELY leave their tanks in cover/out of sight for the 1st few rounds, hopefully stalling the germans long enough for the soviet reinforcemnts.

In the 'Piercing the Siegfried Line' scenario, the use of combined fire it almost natural, given the numerical superiority of the american forces. With an initial advantage of 2:1 over the germans, using 2 units in every combined fire (with 3-4 the realistic usage), the germans get recuded too quickly, even further increasing the numerical advantage, letting even more units combine fire, etc.

At least in my experience, combined fire seems to cause losses too quickly on the side w/o initiative, reducing the disadvantage of fatiging more units. If you don't have initiative and have less units, it seems that about all you can do is fire and move (retreat) to get out of LOS to keep the unit from getting whacked at the start of the next turn.

My 2 cents anyway.

Delget said:

Those Soviet tank losses were mainly caused by tactical blunders if I read it correctly. It doesn't matter what game and what rules you play, if he uses his tanks like that he will get butchered every time.

Thats how i read it too, The Germans have to set up first in this one so there is no reason for the soviets to be subjected to mass combined fire in the first round. They can see where the germans have placed themselves then setup. Also if you look at the stats the germans have greater range, so the soviets should be looking at drawing the germans in close before engaging them for desivie results. This way you will waste the amount of rounds the germans can use their full firepower (or combine fire) because they are spending rounds to get into possition via advance, and fire & advance actions. The soviets also have 3 AT guns to setup, and there are some good spots with to set these up to wait for an ambush. I have never found Combine Fire to be a problem in this game (apart from the set up of some scenarios) As you have to think about where your going to move and what the consequences of that move are. For example if you see that your enemy is setting up an all out attack on one of your tanks for a future round ( using move, move and fire actions on a number of tanks) instead of just firing maybe a fire and movement action would be a better choice (just one example anyway) I think some people are quick to complain about rules rather than their own tactical mistakes, there are more than one or two stratagies that can be used in most scenarios, So i think all strategies need to be exhughsted before scenarios or rules can be considered broken.

I think it would be a good idea to try again with a differnt stratagy as you stated , as seting up in positions where combine fire is possible in the first round is just asking for your tanks to be destroyed. (i mean if i were a tank comander i wouldnt put my tank in the field of fire of multiple enemy tanks)

But combined fire makes it impossible to create a well defended defensive position, and it is also impossible to create a tank which is difficult to destroy. Which in itself is a problem, as we often want to describe a situation where a unit is difficult to destroy. Remove or limit combined fire and the tiger I gets the power it deserves. In addition, due to that combined fire might be underestimated by scenario designers, the result is that in many scenarios the massive amount of shermans versus the fewer Tiger/Panzers leads to an uneven fight. Aka booring.

Also, in my opinion the concussive firepower is far slightly to powerfull. +2 in firepower and no range bonus would have been better.

When this is said, Armored Maelstrom is one of the scenarios which looks very interesting, and indeed the russians need to hide their tanks from the germans view. However, I have great concern about the balance of this scenario.

Russian vehicles

4 SU-122, 4KV-1, 14 T34 and 3 AT-guns

Versus the german

8 panther

2 tiger

4 panzer

1 AT gun.

---

According to a preview the KV-1 was supposed to have similar armor as the tiger. Well, it does not. Its far insuperior to both the tiger and the panther. The tick armor trait is a huge boost. I would rate the tick armor trait as better than +3 in armor. So the KV-1 has 6 in armor while the tiger can easily be compared to a vehicle with armor 10. Thus, the german tanks are far superior the russians, and thus in pure tanks, the russians need atleast 8 more tanks compared to the germans (but historicly the russian advantage in number may have been even greater?). Anyway, in #tanks it might be a fair fight. however, the germans has far superior infanteri force. Cuz the russans and the german has equal amount of infanteri, but the german has the elite formation, which gives them a huge firepower boost, especially versus tanks. So a german infanteri can do a fire and movement action and have a large probability of damaging a russian tank. On top of this, all german infanteri has a transport, which allows them to quickly move into position without much fair of enemy marcine guns. And halftracks are quit decent fighting machines themselfs. The russians do have a few SU-122, defensive position and MG troops to compensate somewhat, so I might be mistaken, but I have a strong fear that this scenario is also broken.

That is sad, cuz it looks kind of great. Atleast if playing the german.

Grand Stone said:

I agree about your comment about scenario designers underestimating combine fire but not about it being impossible to create a well defended defensive position, there are plenty of scenarios where the defender is in a good spot (the fall of tobruk, hellfire pass, assult on kidney ridge just to name a few) It comes down to how the setup of the scenario is designed. Having the attacker move into position to make an attack on a defensive position rather than having the attacker setup right in front of the defenders is a much better setup for the ToI system.

As for the Tanks, don't put them in a postion where they will be subject to combine fire (I have never had this issue with the combine fire rule, the only time its has been used on me is when i have made a tactical error) If I were in a tank no matter if it were a tiger or not i would not be feeling to good if there were 5 shermans firing on me, the chances of them getting me are greatly increaced.

Grand Stone said:

The KV1 had an armour thickness of up to around 75mm in the earlier models (around the same as the british matilda (rating of 5 in ToI), although slightly thicker in some areas) so 6 seems fair to me. later in the war it did receive up to 110mm in some areas in the hull but the tiger and panther had a higher % of thicker armour over the tanks, with still a higher hull thickness (panther was also slopped)

Grand Stone said:

Before using the B word play the scenario out and remember if one strategy dosnt work, that dosnt mean the scenario is broken it means the strategy used was. Too many people blame rules and scenarios of being broken but only play the scenario once

There are no excuses for the Combined fire rule being written allowing an unlimited no. of other units to join in the attack, all simulaneously. using just one action. ITS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC. You are introducing in effect a "time warp" for one side, while the other side must abide by the "normal" time sequence. SORRY, BAD RULE. Its as bad as the PanzerBlitz spotting rule that allowed units to fire right in front of enemy units but remain unspotted because no enemy unit was in an adjacent hex.

At the very least, add to the rule that the maximum no. of units may be no greater than the no. of actions per phase allowed. And that each unit which participates with the lead unit, expends one action point/unit. This still gives the active player a chance to combine extra dice in one roll, thus improving chances against more difficult targets, but forces him to expend all his actions in one shot, which in effect is really what is happening when units fire together rather than separately. It works MUCH better, especially in the DOTF, where multiple tanks and AT guns are firing at each other, in more open terrain. AND it does not matter then whether the attacker sets up to start with an initial fire, because he will only be able to fire a max of 2-4 units (depending on no. of actions allowed by scenario). It will then be the defenders turn, as the attacker will have expended all his actions after just the one combined fire effort.

There could be some flexibility in adding one or two additional units above the maximum no. allowed for the Combined attack, by adding some more command cards that require expenditure of command points , and perhaps, with the new rules in FOTB can be nullified as well., maybe even reducing the opponents no. of units involved in the combined attack., if the defending player wishes to expend some points to do so.

.

Dont get me wrong. I like the stats of the german vehicles. Its just that balance wise, a russian vehicle is much closer to the sherman than the tiger/panther.

Broken may be a to strong word. I fear that it is unbalanced. But if it is balanced, it looks realy fun playing the germans. If its not balanced, well, then that is sad.

I do agree that 'fall of tuburk' is a nice, fun, preaty balanced scenario. However I do not agree that it is a particulary well defended position. The attacker has only slighty larger force than the defender. Creating scenarios where the attacker outnumber the defender 2:1, but still is balanced is far more difficult.

to clearify, I like the stats of the russian tanks also... (i wish I had an edit button)

and with unbalanced, I was talking about 'armor maelstrom'

I do not think it is more unrealistic than being able to spot all units. or to order which unit will target which unit for that matter. ToI is a nice proximation to reality as a Batalion, Regimental level. Combined fire is generaly nicely balanced with the need to move. Scarceness of units and commandpoints are the lynchpins of ToI. Combine and you with cuss yourself when you roll many more hits than needed, or worse, not enough. But you will feel the lack of momentum anyway.

Combined fire also lets units breach defenses that would otherwise be impossible to overcome, thus forcing the defender to move out of a potential deathtrap, or fire and face the music.

That being said, when we/I first started playing we kind of assumed that combined fire was only between units in the same hex. It actualy worked fine anyway.

Edit - There is an edit 'button' in the top of your post. There is at mine anyway. Used it to add this.

Hefsgaard said:

Quoted for truth!

The only time combined fire becomes a problem is when a scenario let's you use it without paying that penalty ... and that's a scenario-problem, not a rule-problem. I don't use combined fire very often anyway, because if I take everything into account, seperate shots are simply more effective (except for a few rare occasions).

PS: I finally found out that the edit function is only there after you publish the post ... change screens and it's gone forever!

In the real world, 5 Shermans combined together, firing simulaneously at a Tiger I , have no better probability of destroying the Tiger any more than 5 Shermans firing separately. Not so in the Combined Fire rule of TOI, which artificially increases the capability of the gun by adding dice in a single roll. After all, it IS the NO. of dice rolled TOGETHER that is the attack factor of a tank. Added with the alteration of time to allow an unlimited no. of units to add in extra dice, you see how much FANTASY there is. Now you have a "virtual" gun that destroys anything, because its firepower is 24 or more dice rolled in one shot. NO ONE survives 24 dice rolled together unless the rolling player is the UNLUCKIEST player in the world. If it were this easy the Russians would not have lost 60 to 1 tanks against the Tiger I on the Eastern Front.

Why did the Allies have to use Airpower to destroy Tiger tanks? Why were the Russians forced to close with the Germans in close assault? Why did it take US rangers to finally destroy bunkers at Omaha beach. If the logic of Combined Fire with unlimited no. of units in time warp is the logic of reality, then US combined naval bombardment should have been able to completely destroy every bunker on Omaha, before any infantry even hit the beaches. DID NOT HAPPEN. Just like 50 Sherman tanks shooting at those bunkers did not destroy them either.

Combined fire concept ruins any potential to design a good scenario, because the player with quantity of forces, just has to keep moving up units adjacent to or within range of enemy unit desired to be destroyed, and it will be., or it will have to retreat. So for example, if 12 Shermans vs 3 Tiger I, just move 3 shermans up, the German player then has only 3 shots, then his 3 tiger tanks are fatigued. The Allied player then just moves the remaining 9 tigers into hexes adjacent to the Tiger tanks. Game over. Why?, because even if the German player begins the next turn with initiative, the Allied player will only potentially lose 3 more Shermans at worst, then 4 shermans destroy one Tiger, while 2 damage of destroy one other Tiger. One Tiger is then left to take on the remaining 6 Shermans.

So every game becomes either the German Tiger tanks get destroyed, or the Tiger tanks must move back, in fire and move, and the objectives are taken., with little damage caused to attacking player.

But without Combined fire, the 9 sherman tanks must roll dice separately. So the attack against Tiger 1 in woods hex are 8 dice to 9 defensive dice, which is repeated 4 times. rather than 20 dice vs 9 dice which is quite a big difference in probability. The results usually that 8 shermans get knocked out and 4 get heavy damage, while 1 Tiger gets destroyed, and 2 get heavy damage. Thus the German player still has chance.

In the DOTF, tank battles become much more challenging as the attacking player cannot use this "virtual" gun overpowering principle to increase no. of dice rolled together. The attacker is forced to use manuever tactics and gradually immobilize the defenders tanks, and the back and forth attrition is more incremental, allowing for more uncertainty as to which sides tanks will prevail. There is no "sure kill" as there is when Combined fire rule is used. So a position near an objective will require a tactical combined attack with both direct fire, and close assault by infantry, to try to incrementally knock out the target with repetitive lower odds attacks, rather than having the magical "hammer of Thor" exponentially increased odds dice roll. If you want fantasy, play something else. This game is about WW2 small unit tactics, or at least should be.

VanCamper said:

I agree. Neither do 5 MGs, for that matter.

It is a game, though. Hm. Not sure what my position on this is right now.

KlausFritsch said:

If the Conbined Fire rule does not get either changed or terminated, then its going to be rather difficult to simulate any kind of typical action on the Eastern front, because the Russians typically outnumbered the Germans 3 to 1 and often more with infantry added. To simulate the capability of German firepower and range vs the more numerous Russian tanks,there must a proper rate of fire/ unit speed,, ie. hexes/turn, that units can move in an action. Given the large hexes of the gameboard, TOI allows units to travel too far/action, relative to the weapon ranges, and thus negates any benefits of longer range units. In DOTF, for example, Crusaders move 7 clear terrain hexes, while the range of the 88 flak gun is only 9 hexes, or else you have to be penalized for "long range".

Here is a more accurate representation of distance to fire ratio which helps make the game better IMO:

Presuming an action = 1 minute and the hex = 100 meters and a mile = 1600 meters

Crusader tank speed = 30 mph = 1/3 mile per minute = 5 hexes/action

Matilda tank speed = 12 mph = 1/5 mile per minute = 3 hexes/action

Normal range of 88 flak AT gun = 1600 meters, flat trajectory, good rangefinding optics = 16 hexes.

Given these stats, an 88 flak can fire 2 times at Crusaders, and 4 times at the Matildas before they get within range to fire at the 88flak. Which is like in the real war. And which is why the 25 pdr, became the counter weapon to deal with them.,being a light artillery piece which could be towed and set up just out of range of the 88. and which should be represented in DOTF as an actual artillery piece on the board rather than the cumbersome method of having to call in off board indirect fire with operations cards, and drift etc.

Infantry should also be reduced to 3 mph = 1/8 mile per minute,= 2 hexes/turn clear, or 1/hex per turn in nonclear terrain.

So get rid of, or reduce Combined fire , adjust ranges and movements of units to get the more realistic rate of fire / distance traveled ratio, and there should be no problems designing some asymetrical scenarios which were typical Eastern front engagements.

It may be a game, but the amount of time spent on the detail of boards and providing some decently detailed plastic units, deserves a system which represents WW2 tactical action more accurately. The TOI design is a good one over all, it just needs some adjustment to these rules to reflect the actual ratio of fire to movement that occurs on a battlefield and avoid losing the simultaneous and incremental attrition concept that the action phase simulates.

KlausFritsch said:

Interesting point about combined fire. 1-on-1, tanks get to use their armor, Tiger 1 wins vs. Sherman. Combined fire, 1st Sherman has to over come armor, the rest do NOT have to over come armor. This can also be extended to cover. Cover is only applied once, and the other units basically ignore. I'm just thinking that each unit using combined fire should have to over come SOME amount of cover/armor too. Thus, the defensive dice would increase also. It would remove the too easy 'one shot kill' situation when it might not be appropriate, and still give combined fire some usefullness. Bunkers, Tiger 1's, esp. King Tigers would regain their battlefield intent. AKA: high priority target, but don't fire at it to the exclution of the other units on the board.

You could:

1. Add the targets cover/armor for EACH unit firing in combined fire (shounds like too much, perhaps)

2. Add 1/2 the targets cover/armor for EACH additional unit firing in combined fire action, just like they get 1/2 firepower when attacking. That would go a long way to mitigating the combined fire problem, yet still allow for a large volley to 'get through' to the target.

I think I'm going to test #2 w/ to see what happens.

Delget said:

The first option would worsen the odds for the attacker, since attackers add only half their firepower to combined fire.

The second option would negate the effect of combined fire as it is now, as the ratio attack/defense would remian the same. All that combined fire would do now is to allow multiple attacks to occur at the same time at the cost of only one action. Might work.