Latro said:

Yep, at about the middle of the 2nd turn, he noticed that he needed to put his tanks into cover better during setup, but, I was shooting accross the entire length of the board with my massive volley (4 tanks, tonnes of dice!), and as we are discussing, perhaps not quite a 'blunder', except that I was taking advantage of the combined fire 'one-shot-kill' attack. The first tank victim was at long range 75% of the way accross the board. I got slightly lucky with something like 5-6's (should have averaged 4 on 24 dice) and he rolled average on armor (2 defence). So overall, not a complete luck roll. The 2nd tank heavily damaged was about the same situation, ecept that he'd advanced it forward about 3/4 of a board width. Though he shouldn't have moved it up as he did (perhaps), combined fire makes the soviets attempting to close w/ their tanks to get into range a turkey shoot w/ combined fire and Initiative, IMHO

KlausFritsch said:

Amendment to #2: Tanks only get their heavy armor bonus once during a single attack, not once per attacker.

you could still use it w/ light cover situations or with tanks and come out with better odds, just not overwhelming ones. E.g. Using #2 above, 4 Shermans/T34's, using combined fire at a Panther 1, would get 8+4+4+4 (20) dice and defender 6+3+3+3 (15 dice), making avg of 6.67 hits against 6 def (5 + 1 for heavy armor). That's better than 1vs1, which is 2.26 hits against (2 + 1 heavy) = 3 def. 5 shermans/T34's, takes that to avg 7 hits agains same 6 def. Given that it did take overwhelming odds to take out the high end german Tanks, it feels 'better' than the current system of only one attacking tankg getting to use armor, in essence: (6.67 hits avg against only 3(2+1) avg defence). Add one more sherman, and it's an auto-kill (statistically anyway ) So on average, is it ok for 4 shermans/T34's to heavily damage a Tiger I with current combined fire rules of only applying defenders cover/armor once?

Flipping it around, 3 Panthers attacking a T24 would be 12+6+6 (24) att vs 5+3+3 (11) def, averaging 8 hits vs 4 def (net 4 hits). Current Combined rules using 2 Panthers is 12 + 6 (18) att vs 5 def = 6hits vs 1.67def: net 4.33 hits.

Bunkers too would benefit, but would it be too much additional defence? Dug in defensive structures should be hard to take, or just bypassed.

The MG example proves the absurdity of the" combined fire" logic. More shells which bounce off armor the same way as a single shell does, because the armor plate is too thick, will only at best cause some very incremental damage, unless some critical element like main gun is damaged. MG fire should at best only have a slight chance of causing track damage. Likewise, 5 sherman rounds hitting the tanks armor plate have approx. the same probability for each round to penetrate or be deflected according to the targets armor thickness, and slope of armor also. Only if each round hit the exact spot the preceding round hit, would there be some potential "chipping away" of the armor, thus reducing its thickness.

The more likely effect of multiple rounds hitting would be a higher probability of causing track damage, or getting a lucky hit on the main gun. within the same time segment that just one round was fired. But the main problem with the Combined fire rule as written , is that "time" is being artificially accelerated for the attacker, allowing all these "extra" shots in the same action. Thats why its more logical to require that each unit which participates with the "lead" unit, should have to expend an action also. I think just this change in the rule would greatly improve the game, still allow Combined fire to be used at a difficult target, but not be a "sure kill" tactic.

If there is a possible way to damage a tank with a weapon, then the odds of doing that increases with the amount of bullets. Perhaps the commander was foolish enough to look out just at the wrong moment.

Or more likely, it is not realy the MG that damages the tank, but that Panzerfaust / Light-mortar that the squad also carried.

VanCamper said:

VanCamper said:

I agree about the MG teams, prehaps they should have been given an extra rule governing them such as . "Limited armour penitration" Mg teams have a normal attack value of 0 against heavy vehicles. Or "Limited armour penitration" When conducting a normal attack against a heavy vehicle all sucesses must be re rolled. (I have stipulated normal attack so that the MG teams are able to still supress the M10 crew, as it has an open top)

I see your point on the sherman example you give but i do beleive that 5 rounds fired in an attack have a better chance at damaging or destorying than one round. (alot lot more variables)

But I think the idea you propose about making all units spend an action is a good one. 1. this limits the amount of units combining fire (due to the allowed action per turn) and 2. makes you think a little more about using all your actions in one turn.

another thing is to have some operations cards limiting the use of combine fire for squads and vehicles. I listed some ideas for these cards in another post cant remember what that topic was. (may have been the one talking about piercing the siegfried line

Hefsgaard said:

But if the squad firing is an mG team its not a mortar or anti tank weapon in the squad as these weapons are represented in the game but a mortar figure and anti tank token. In memoir 44 i would understand this logic as that game is alot more abstract but Toi has units that can be put into squads that represent them.

I like the idea of making units participating in combined fire also having to expend an action. This way it is still an upgrade to your offensive power, but hardly ever could more than two units participate in a combined fire action (excluding the "fire leader"). At the very least it might be included as a scenario special rule for future scenarios.

5 Shermans firing at a Tiger would of course still not penetrate its frontal armor but would stand a better chance of scoring a lucky hit at e.g. the point where the hull meets the turret or right into the opening of the main gun. I agree that that logic is being taken a bit too far when it comes to MGs. Then again. How many MGs would you actually have to combine to stand a reasonable chance to take out a Tiger? Also, this will often mean-unless it's an op-fire attack-that those MGs won't be firing at much more vulnerable units, namely enemy infantry.

I've got an much simpler solution, remove combined fire. There is actually no need for it. A sherman firing at a tiger can damage it. If you sneak up to point-blank range, you even got a fairly good probability of lighty damaging it. The combined fire rule as it is now makes it impossible to create a balanced scenario with 3 to 1 in # of units. Remove combined fire, and the tick-armor trait realy shines and a much greater force ratio is possible. It will be a lot more fun also. As a side note I guess scenarios as for example armored maelstrom will be easier to balance. This because a slightly to large number of russian tanks will fast overunn the german panthers. Thus, you can add more russian tanks without completly unbalancing it the other way around.

Combined fire may have some kind logic at point blank ranges. Ie if one person starts firing MGs at a tank from one side it might be easier for the bazooka to get a shot from the other. But from long distance...

Regarding the movements: i agree that movement might be sligthly to high. But to fix that needs a complete redoing of just about everything.

However, one thing: Snow terrain? Why do snow terrain cast 1 movement points? yes it does depend on the spesific conditions, but a movement cost of 2, 3 or even 4 would be completly probable depending on the conditions. If you have the proper equipment, sure you can move preaty fast on snow. Heck, with skiies, movement can be imporved for troops. But if not, well, a preaty nasty penelty would be appropriate...

But squads do not show what equipment they have. They only show a few Special ones. Heavy/Medium MG. All german squads would have a few LMG, panser faust or light mortars, even AT-rifles.

The Combined fire rule works because it give players an Option. Options are good, they make games entertaining. Victory conditions will of course have to reflect the rules. If one side can wipe out all defence in turn one and coast to victory, the scenario obviously need tweeking, perhaps with a Big hammer.

Grand Stone said:

Why wouldn't it be possible to create a scenario with a 3 to 1 forces ratio with the current rules? Go ahead, just see what happens when 3 Shermans try to rush a Tiger:

- 1 Shermans gets nailed with op-fire while moving in range, heavy damage on average

- if they win initiative next round, the remaining 2 Shermans cause light damage on average, the Tiger returns the favour with another heavy damage on a Sherman (if the Shermans lose initiative they only scratch the paint on average)

- following round the Shermans are all heavy damaged, Tiger only lightly (or heavy if he was a bit unlucky)

Mix in command points / strategy decks / operation cards / scenario rules / victory objectives favouring the defenders and you can basicly go just about any ratio you want (within reason).

My point? I haven't seen any situation or scenario yet where combined fire was the problem. I have seen combined fire being used to win a scenario though, I also have seen combined fire resulting in the loss of the user because he left himself wide open for a counter-attack or unable to reasch the objectives in time. Combined fire is just fine as it is (no, not claiming it is totally realistic ... but neither is ToI, nor does it claim to be), some scenario's are not.

(any particular reason why the forum only wants to add smileys to the top of my post nowadays?)

8)

Grand Stone said:

Grand Stone said:

The movement values could just be reprinted in some new reference sheet that also has terrain chart added in with it and perhaps a few of the other quick reference items that you sometimes have to look up in the rule book. They probably are going to have to write a new ammended rule book in the future anyway, as there have already been quite a number of good ideas I have read on this forum.

Maybe trying all units movements are halved (rounded up) when on snow boards, and if using trucks=1/2 pt on road, they instead would now be 1pt/road. And all infantry units may always move to an adjacent hex, regardless of extra pts, unless a pond, or other non entry hex. The same could go for vehicle units also, so that slow vehicles like the Tiger II, can still move at least one hex in a weird situation like going up hill into a woods hex on a snow board which would cost more pts than the Tiger II has, if its movement pts are halved.

Special units like ski troops would have normal movement value on snow boards, rather than halved.

Modify combined fire so that each unit which participates must spend one action point /unit

Since the average rate of fire for Tanks and AT guns of WW2 was at least 2 rounds/minute and often higher, the movements of vehicles should be changed to get a better ratio of no. of shots fired per distance the unit traveled. Proposed changes:

Crusader tank= 5 pts

Panther/ T-34s/M10s = 5 pts

Shermans / Tiger 1/ PZ-IVs/ Pz IIIs = 4 pts.

German assault guns = 4 pts

Tiger II = 3 pts

Matildas = 3pts

Change the speed of infantry squads = 2 pts, and all non clear terrain costs 2 pts, while clear terrain, and road hexes cost 1 pt.

Change the normal gun ranges of units to their actual effective ranges:

88 flak gun= 1600 meters or 16 hexes

Panther, Tiger I &II, = 12 hexes

T-34/76 s had inferior range finding optics = 6 hexes

T-34/85 slightly better gun = 8 hexes

Hefsgaard said:

Well they sort of do, mortars are represented by a mortar figure, and the anti tank wapon specilization token represents the squad having anti tank weapons such as the ones you describe.

Latro: Try the same with 12 shermans versus 3 tigers. In this case, 12 shermans will come out far better. And this is part of the problem. An upscaled version needs different ratios to be balanced.

Just how do you know how large a Hex is?

Or how long a Turn is? If a turn is even always the same length....

I would not say so. Mortars were generaly not deployed in ones or twoes, So even a Morter Figure proberly represents a number of tubes. On the other hand virtually all squads had Machineguns. So the MG miniature must represent at specual formation with more substantial machineguns. AT-squads might be representative of attached Bazooka teams or similar. Though even ordenary squads have som AT capasity.

Point is that ToI is a game of Abstracts. Proberly couldn't be otherwise and still have a simple combatsystem, just look where ASL or similar har gone.

which ought to be selfevident. but it does depend on other factors as well. Terrain, can all 12 shermans actualy range on the same target? Time, is there time to spend two or three turns standing and shooting? Other units, Having used 12 units one one action, how many uncountered moves does that leave the german? Will the rest of the american force be stalled in getting to grips with other objectives the tanks would be usefull in defeating?

A simple math exercise will not show what ballance a scenerio might have.

However I would have little problem with a rule that Combined fire uses up all activations during a single activation sequence.

Grand Stone said:

Well, the discussion was about 3 to 1 odds. But if you apply the same principles on a scenario with 4 to 1 odds and you will see that the outcome will still be largely determined by factors such as initiative, command points, strategy decks, terrain and special scenario rules:

- 4 Shermans move into range, 1 Tiger op-fire shot deals heavy damage

- Tiger wins initiative (to make my point), deals heavy damage to another Sherman

- 2 remaining Shermans combine fire and deal light damage to the Tiger

- Tiger wins initiative, deals heavy damage to another Sherman

- the single undamaged Sherman will find it very hard to deal more damage to the Tiger

Again, even with 4 to 1 odds, the outcome will largely be determined by the other scenario-factors ... even in large scenario's:

- 12 Shermans move into range, 3 Tigers in op-fire deal heavy damage to 3 Shermans

- Tigers have the initiative and deal heavy damage to three more Shermans

- since 3 Shermans can't reliably deal heavy damage to a Tiger with extra cover, all 6 go for one combined "sure kill" ("sure" meaning very good odds)

- 2 remaining Tigers go first and deal heavy damage to 2 more Shermans

- 4 remaining Shermans combine fire and deal heavy damage to 1 Tiger

- the undamaged Tiger deals heavy damage to a Sherman, the damaged Tiger deals light damage to another Sherman

- 3 remaining Shermans combine fire and deal light damage to the undamaged Tiger

- the undamaged Tiger deals heavy damage to a Sherman, the damaged Tiger deals heavy damage to the damaged Sherman

- the last undamaged Sherman does the math and races back for cover

This does not take into account all the attacks the heavy damaged Shermans are making, but the odds of actually dealing damage with that on a Tiger are not very good. In a well-written scenario, the "tipping-point" seems to be somewhere around 4 or 5 to 1 odds ... and that's more than enough to write an Eastern Front style scenario if you ask me.

8)

1.) When you have 12 Shermans, you could theoretically also move with 6 against one Tiger, for example.

2.) In your example one heavily damaged Sherman could act as the fire leader and have two unscathed ones combine with him. Those would then be better odds than just two Shermans against a Tiger.

3.) You mentioned somewhere that you'd never played a scenario that was unbalanced because of combined fire. Does that include "piercing the Siegfried line?". I agree that there are many more things wronmg with that scenario than just CF, but it's certainly a major unbalancing factor on turn 1. The same holds true for "Counter-attack at Orel", that is when playing with the listed set-up.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that mostly combined fire can be overcome by winning initiative, playing a card, most importantly an op-card of some sort and I don't even think the rule as written needs to be changed. I do think designers need to be more aware of its potential devestating effect and that more op-cards need to be designed to limit its effect (We now only have one which completely forbids it-"Massive Confusion"-I think we also need some limiting it, but not quite forbidding it: Sth like: The number of units that may combine fire is limited to the number of actions per action turn or only adjacent units may combine fire or one command needs to be paid when wishing to combine fire (I actually like this one!; it's more or less an expansion on "Lack of tank radios" which only affects movement, but this way it'd also affect firing). More variants could be thought of and have already been suggested here. But I agree with Latro that it does not HAVE TO be a problem as long as there's a decision to be made: Do I go for the "sure" kill or do I need to keep on moving to make it to my objective in time? Do I use up X units in one activation or is it better to use three separate activations etc.

Latro, you are also discussing situations which is very faveroable for the germans, situations where more or less the US are doing tactical errors. If you sacrifice 3 shermans to get into position, you make sure that you win the initiative the round after that. To take out a tiger, you can sacrifice 1 sherman, move three other into point blank range, win the initiative and kill the tiger. Then you have maybe lost one sherman and he most likekly has lost 1 tiger.

The point being, this scenario is far easier to obtain, and thus far more likely outcome.

And just imagine trying to describe a situation where the germans are attacking. In this situation it is even harder to take advantage of the improved protection and firepower of the tiger versus the sherman.

And just another note, a tiger is by no means garanteed to heavy damage a sherman. 13dice gives average hits of 4+1/3, and armor of a sherman gives average of 1+1/3, total 3 hits on average=heavy damage. But if you roll only slightly less than average, or the sherman roll slightly better than average, its only going to get lightly damage. Likewise, if the sherman approaches through a forrest, the average actually drops to slighty below heavy damaged. In this case you have to roll better than average to do heavy damage.

So in your example, heavy damage 2x3=6 shermans would be highly unlikely. If 3 tigers gets to fire 2 times each, a score of 3 (or 4) heavy damaged shermans and 3 (or 2) lightly damaged would actually be far more likely outcome. And both strongly tweaking the balance towards the US.

From this point its easy to see that shermans will outgun 3 tigers very easily.

-Then you have 9 shermans (not 6) to take out 1 tiger. 2 tigers take out 2 shermans

-next round 7 shermans to take out 1 tiger. Last remaining tiger takes out 1 sherman...

Next round, 6 shermans to take out 1 tiger...

Grand Stone said:

Which seems fair since the player controling the Tiger seem to think it is a fortress, not a mobile tank. Fire and Movement is the way to go. Damage a Sherman, back out of range. back into cover. duck out of LOS. Overwatch is usualy NOT the way to go for outnumbered tanks.

Grand Stone said:

But that's just proving my point, isn't it? It's the scenario which determines who has the most command points to win initiative, it's the operation cards which decide whose tanks have less armour, it's the terrain that decides how easy the defenders can be rushed.

It was presented as a fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BALANCED SCENARIO'S WITH ON SIDE GREATLY OUTNUMBERING THE OTHER.

I think I have shown clearly that it's in fact not at all difficult to create scenario's with one side outnumbering something like 5 to 1. So far I haven't seen anything pointing to the opposite. Advantage in command points, strategy decks, operation cards, terrain and victory objectives can be used to overcome advantage in numbers.

8)

Grand Stone said:

Like I said, it's the other variables that have the most influence on the outcome ... not the numbers.

- add the operation card "Elite Tank Crew" for example

- use terrain to favour the defender with extra cover or an easy way to move out of sight (see Hefgaard's reply also)

8)

Kingtiger said:

1.) Only works if the defender decides to position all the Tigers somewhere on their own instead of mutually supporting eachother near the objective. No matter how you assign them, it will be the result of tactical decisions, terrain set-up and victory conditions ... not who has the most tanks.

2.) A heavily damaged Sherman fire leader with two supporting Shermans will shoot 4+4+4 dice ... just the two unscathed Shermans will do 8+4 dice combined as well and the heavily damaged Sherman can add a solo 4 dice Hail Mary shot for the heck of it.

3.) I agree that those scenario's were very unbalanced, but not as a result of combined fire IMHO. Terrain set-up, deployment and victory conditions created situations where combined fire became a real problem ... but even without combined fire, those scenario's would still be very unbalanced.

8)