I have started using the terrian rules from the conflict of heroes game to deal with hills, blind hexes, plateau and balkas. These rules are some much clearer and logical. they are not really any differnt from ToI but, how ToI should have explained their rules IMO.

These rules in CoH deal with alot of the issues we have brought up regarding LOS from a Lv 1 hill past another Lv 1 (ToI rules page 26 example, unit D would not be in LOS as that hill would make a plateau if using CoH rules) The only thing i havent brought across is other terrian types in Coh like buildings and forests are concidered LV 1 terrain like the Lv 1 hills so they would also create a plateau. But in ToI other terrain types are not listed if they are Lv1 they are just concidered blocking terrain (i assume they are lower than lv 1 hills) , so i still use the ToI rule of blind hexes for this purpose. I just find the CoH rules deal with other hills and blind hexes much better.

The rules regarding balkas in CoH clear up all the discussion on how they are used in the ToI rules aswell.

I find ToI and CoH to be around the same level of complexity game play wise. But learning and uderstanding the rules is so much easier in CoH as the rules are set out and explained alot clearer ( with more logic and some notes from the designer to help you understand why he made the rules like he did)

I really like playing both games, its just it seems that CoH is accually liked by the company that puts it out.

I really like how CoH has facing and arcs of fire for units too. I wish ToI have facing and arcs of fire for vehicles (im fine with how squads are as they are a group of men where the vehicles are just one vehicle)

Another thing I have been trying out is combine fire / fire groups (I know the mechinics for battle are a bit differnt between ToI and CoH) In CoH for every unit that combines fire +1 is added to the firepower, so with ToI i have started just adding 1 dice for every vehicle/ equipment that combines fire. I still use ToI rules when combining fire with squads or against squads.

Hi!

Can you tell what the rule is for the balka in this other game? Can a balka provide cover one way or another?

i havent played COH, but i read about the rules before in BGG.

I have facing and turning rules in TOI, amongst a few others. It works very well.

Got my answer: I read CoH rules!

So, no cover for units in large balkas. Small balkas, which are hexsides, provide some cover if fire crosses the balka hexside.

The Balka rules in COH clear up the LOS between units and make it more logical, as balka hexes are concidered -1 level terrain so only units on the edge of the balka can have LOS and same with the unit inside the balka. Otherwise the plateau effect comes into play if you are 2 hexes from the edge of a balka.

Grove12345 said:

I think turning during movement is a bit too much detail at this level of "simulation", but facing would be a real bonus.

If they do not want to make facing mandatory, why not release a set of optional rules providing more detail? Other things could be covered there as well.

I think facing needs to be introduced for vehicles, I don't think squads need facing as it is a group of around 10 -12 men. I feel that the vehcile rules in ToI were not finished properly, i feel they are a little to simple compared to the rest of the game,

Also if you have facing, you will need rules for turning so that you can change your facing. Not that hard just allow being able to change facing (turning) during movement (once movemnt is complete you can finish up facing any hex side). and allow a combine fire & turn (-2 firepower for turret heavy vehciles) (half fire power for non turreted heavy vehciles)

Who says that a vehicle figure represents one vehicle? If you assume it represents several then they could be facing in different directions.

I would rather remove the combined fire. Only then can the tiger/panthers shine as they are supposed to.

Right! Now, if 6 Shermans fire on one Tiger I, it is 6 separate rolls of 8 dice each, which still gives a good probablity of causing some damage, but not a sure kill like 28 dice rolled together does. It would be interesting, then to add the facing rules, so the extra shermans could manuever, and one or more would be able to roll an 8 dice attack against the side armor of Tiger which would probably be 4, so a better chance for just 3 Shermans if one could get that side shot.

Otherwise, maybe Aussie Diggers +1/extra unit is about right, but not sure how that works when one of units participating in combine fire shoots to side, while other 2 are shooting front? How does it add up?

at the moment i was just thinking if the activated unit is firing at the flank value and the oth 2 tanks are combining fire at frontle armour this would still be +2 and since the activated unit is fireing at the flank it would be the lower armour value (i think 4 is a bit low (unless you are talking about leaving it with its thick armour ability) as the shermans front armour was around 50mm on the front hull and 70mm on the front turret, where the tiger averaged 80mm sides and rear)

To keep it simple I think the defence value used should be the one the activated units line of fire runs into. This still makes it important for the tiger to make sure he is not surrounded. I think taking fire from all directions would confuse and help towords some panic on the crew inside, which i dont think makes the +1 for each unit to powerful

I really like the +1/unit for combined fire, and it keeps the rule intact, but eliminates the surekill problem. And since it increases the odds slightly over rolling each unit separately, it makes it easier to resolve the attack with a single die roll. And it keeps in play, the decision how many units the attacker is willing to use on just one target, at the expense of not engaging other targets, or moving to an objective. And the M10 becomes an important unit to have as the lead unit.

A few questions:

1. With the +1/unit method, is the original rule used where there is no limit to the number of units that can join with the lead unit in that same action phase? Or is there a limit like each unit which participates also expending an action?

.2. If staying with the unlimited no. of units, can more than one combined fire attack be conducted at the same unit in the same action phase of the attacking players phase?

Even as the rules stand the M10 is an improtant unit, but with the rules as they stand you are able to throw more dice at the tiger.

to answer your questions:

1) I would leave the rules as they are where the combine fire is one action but all units firing are spent.

2) I would not limit a unit to only one combine fire attack on it, in the scenario you list ,if the player with the tiger puts themself in a postion where they are subjected to this onslaught they deserve it

I can not recall a game I have played where I have put myself in a postion where one of my tanks has been in LOS to more than 3 tanks at one time. I choose my movements carefully and use tactics to deter my enemy from trying to move into postion.

As you say at the start of your post , are you going to be willing to spend nine units on one tank, which will leave them open and leaves the ball in your enemies court.

I just wanted to weaken the combine fire a little to allow the tanks armour to be more realalistic to the fire coming in.

About the terrain in TOI: why they chose to put the hedgerow in the hex instead of along side of the hex edge? Along the edge makes for a lot of interesting different configurations, while in the hex , makes it more like just another woods hex. It makes it look like the unit is on top of the hedge, instead of the hedge as a screening obstacle between units. It requires more hexes to create a series of hedgerow culdesacs, so its rather an inefficient way to make use of the number of hexes/board IMO.

So with COH, the size of the hexes is smaller, so a lot more hexes in the same area of board than TOI, means a lot more room to manuever. I like the TOI designer boards which I purchased a while back, and I painted most of my base set of figures and vehicles just enough to make them more realistic and remove the "plastic" look. But I still kind of have a problem with the movement values and the ranges of units, which I keep experimenting with to compensate for not having the greater number of hexes.

Lately, since the few people I can get to play the game at all is limited, when we play , we just use a deck of Memoir 44 cards and set up TOI boards to approximate a scenario from Memoir 44. I also use the simple air rules and have the plastic planes set from M44 also. So really, the advantage of TOI for me was a more compact way to play miniatures than the actual concept for the game . I tryed a few scenarios, but all the additional cards and extra rules really did not make for as playable a game as 44 was, so I have kind of a synthesis of the two, with the TOI variety and realistic looking units, terrain combinations, and unit damage and specs,combined with the simplicity of turns, air rules, and scenarios of M44.

VanCamper said:

That is a complete mystery to me as well. Maybe they thought that we, as players, would be unable to cope with the added complexities of hex-side terrain... not realizing that they already had hex-side terrain in the game, in the form of hexsides between hexes of different elevations.

1.Regarding the rough terrain in TOI., it seems to me that vehicles, expecially trucks would not be able to go through rough/rocky terrain as fast as clear terrain. Tracked vehicles, likewise, might throw a track more easily. So it seems to me that rough terrain should be 2 pts, for vehicles, or there should be some kind of roll for damage after entering the hex, at least for trucks.

2.In addition to hedges on hexsides instead of in the hex, there should be some more low walls and ruins of buildings along the edge of hexes as well.

3. What about hill elevations having some more effect, besides just increasing the range of the firing unit? Say a -1 off the attack value of a unit attacking an enemy unit at higher elevation.

4. The concussion effect of tanks firing on infantry in buildings/bunkers should be a separate roll, not an additive roll, and maybe suppression roll, rather than normal attack roll.

5. In Days of Fox, the sand dunes should be more of a potential for vehicles to get bogged down in. Like a die roll to exit maybe, so if deciding to move into one, the vehicular unit may not be able to exit immediately.

Grand Stone said:

Since TOI is a scenario based game, this is always an option for any scenario designer to include this as a scenario special rule, which by the way, is something I think would be a very nice addition to cetrain scenarios and would indeed give the tigers and panthers the staying power they had.