Hello everyone,

some of you already know my Skirmish Mode, which can be found here in the files section:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/56690/skirmish-mode
It has undergone some extensive playtesting now and received a couple of improvements and additions, so I wanted to point out that there is the new version first.

For all those who don't know the Skirmish Mode yet, here's the principle: a thing that I disliked about Tide of Iron is that most scenarios are grossly imbalanced to resemlbe historic situations, and that one player most of the time has to defend, which makes oftentime for an one-sided and assymetrical game experience. Liking the computer game "Company of Heroes", I decided to implement the principal mode of this game into Tide of Iron.
Players now start with the same small forces, attempting to gain control over vital points on the game board and to purchase new units as the game goes on with the CP provided by these vital points. Armies grow bigger that way over time, instead of leaving a player with a pre-assembled army to play some historic event. The game is very dynamic and allows for situations that are not very common in the experience of a normal Tide of Iron game, like the need to bring supplies and reinforcements to the front.
Additionally, the mode features some new rules that make the experience even more unique. The two most notable beside the purchasing system are the engineers, who can construct every obstacle there is, and the doctrines. Doctrines are two thematically assembled strategy decks which are chosen at the start of the game and define the playstyle of the player who chose them. While one player may want to have artillery support, the other may rely on paratroopers that try to mess with the enemy supply.

Make sure to check out the mode and to report any problems you encounter. I have as yet not uploaded any new maps in the file section since I'm currently creating a small scenario book (there was no good editor available for quite some time), but I uploaded the .jpg map versions in Photobucket so you access them directly:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/SaintMreE...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/RiverVire...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/Mortaine....
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/Leningrad...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/CaenCount...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/Kingofthe...
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o282/Helme55555/Best.jpg

Have fun with the mode and be sure to share your experiences!

Br
Stefan

This sounds good. It will not replace scenarios as there are some elements of scenarios where these rules cannot model, ie asymetrical fights. But these rules might ofer a nice addition. And one can play the game without being dependent on good scenarios.

But I have a few comments:

• Map? maybe I overlooked it, but are there rules of how to set up the map?
• cost of some tanks seems wrong.

A T34 costing 7 and a panther 8? A panther is considerably more powerfull than the T34 and no doubtly on par with tiger. The KV-1 is slow as hell and is not 50% better than the sherman. I would rate KV-1, and M10 at 5pt, the T34 at 5 or 6 and the SU-122 at 7pt (or even 8pt) The SU-122 is a beast of a unit which can kill entire infanteri stands from 10 hexes away. It should definitvely cost far more than the T34. Likewise, the panzer IV is realy not that much better than the sherman. A cost of 5 would be good. The tiger and panther could both be rated as 9.

Also, the sherman is a far better tank than the matilda.

Hi Grandstone,

thanks for the reply so far!

First of all, maps. I created seven maps in total so far which are all linked in my initial post and will be published in a "scenario book" at some later point together with the rules. All is still beta, although there has now been a number of well above 10 games played, perhaps as much as 20.

Second, cost for tanks. My main problem assigning the cost is that I want to differentiate, but I can only do it in one-point-margins. Additionally, I have to admit that I don't have that much experience with tanks (infantry is way easier for me). So, I take it under advice to lower the cost. Problem remains that I have to differentiate the cost - since no one ever buys a Crusader if you get it for the same price as a Sherman - and that most German tanks are better than their allied counterparts, so that I have to balance it in a way that allows the Allied to stop German tanks. If I make the German tanks cheaper, like the Panzer IV for 5 or even 4CP, the Germans will steamroll the Allies. I could perhaps do the following:

Crusader - 2CP, on par with the AT

Mathilda - 3CP, on par with Panzer III

Panzer IV, KVI - 5 CP, on par with M10

T-34 - either 6CP, or I introduce the Operation Card that strengthens it, so the Allies gain some powerful tank as well.

Panther - 9CP, par to the Tiger. Due to speed?

The problem I have with the SU122 is that it needs LOS, and in so many cases you don't have it. If I buy two squads with six elite infantry, I gain a combined firepower of 11 vs infantry and am more versatile, at a cost of only 4CP. I don't know if the armor and range equal double cost for a SU-122.

Third, the rules are exactly modelled not to allow for assymetrical fights, which are the element I hate most about scenarios, so, no, they can't replace them in that respect, and neither should they.

Br

Stefan

Sounds a lot better and thanks for listening

I do understand your problem, however if for example the sherman is to cheap, it is the tank you will buy, and no other. A cost of 2 for the crussader is to cheap. It is far better than an AT tank as 1) it can easier be moved 2) dont need an infatneri to operate, 3) is better at an anti infanteri role. I actually dont think having the crussader and the matilda at cost 3 would be a major problem. Ok, the matilda is slightly better, but its not an entire point better, and speed 5 instead of 7 is a setback. Enough that you might want to switch.

Yes, the T-34 with firepower 11 and range 7 is a nice unit. Then a cost of 6 would be justified.

There are several other reasons why a SU-122 should be expensive compared to infanteri. First its protection. As an vehicle with 5 in armor it har much better protection. It do has superior range, if it has line of sight. Its faster. And it actually has a preaty decent AT capabilities. Yes, elites have good firepower, but if facing an SU-122, well, it will kill an entire squad in just ONE shot.

Cost of 7 would be good?

I do understand you frustration about the scenarios, so I do welcome project like this. However, I must add, that if balanced, an asymetrical fight can be a lot of fun, so I do want regular scenarios in adition. See for example 'night hunt' If you spot the typo, its an excelent scenario.

You can pretty easily move AT in this mode since they can be attached to trucks, but you still got a point. And of course I listen to advice I will implement the Operation Card for the T-34 so the Allies have a major tank too.

Do you think the Sherman should be 5CP too?

And what about the KVI? Use the improved version too?

I think the sherman is a point less in value than the panzer IV, so its fine at 4 points, I think. And maybe its fine that the sherman is slightly (but only slightly) better at effect per cost. You do want the sherman to be basic tank? But that may beed playtesting

The KV-I could be fun both with and without the increased firepower. But this one is more difficult as speed of 4 is crawling, especially if considering a move+fire action. So the KV-1 is difficult, since it may be very good in defense but horrible in ofensive. But with the op-card it should definitvely cost 5pt, and can be a nice counter to the panzer III, which the german may want to use some of since its the cheapest tank.

On most maps, the distance is very far for a 4-movement-tank, that's right. I think I will push the KVI as well, and leave it at 6CP so he is a pure defense monster.