Paradrop at Kanev and balkas

By boersma8, in Tide of Iron

Posted at

Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes.

A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1).

Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend.

What do you guys think?

Posted at

Hve you ever played or seen the rules to conflict of heroes, I pretty much have adopted the balka rules from that game as they are very clear and are logical

Posted at

Aussie_Digger said:

Hve you ever played or seen the rules to conflict of heroes, I pretty much have adopted the balka rules from that game as they are very clear and are logical

Yes, I have. I own all the expansions of that game too. I agree that those are more logical. Although I don't know them by the letter, I think they're pretty similar to what I described above. Of course the above still takes some specific TOI game mechanics into account.

Posted at

Kingtiger said:

Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes.

A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1).

Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend.

What do you guys think?

Did you play your game? Which rule adjustment did you finally use?

For myself, I agree with your overall reasoning. It's also been discussed elsewhere. And I agree with your point about movement cost. Where I don't agree, it is about cover value for area attacks. A balka seems too wide to provide cover against fire from above.

Another point: I think squads could use balka as a trench, firing from the edge of it. Conceal markers could be used to show that the squad is hiding at the bottom of it. If concealed, normal LOS rule for balka would apply. If not, squad could fire or be fired at, per normal ruling, with a cover of one (1) against direct fire. Placing or removing a conceal marker would cost 1 mv point.

What do you think?

Posted at

Meta Baston said:

Kingtiger said:

Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes.

A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1).

Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend.

What do you guys think?

Did you play your game? Which rule adjustment did you finally use?

For myself, I agree with your overall reasoning. It's also been discussed elsewhere. And I agree with your point about movement cost. Where I don't agree, it is about cover value for area attacks. A balka seems too wide to provide cover against fire from above.

Another point: I think squads could use balka as a trench, firing from the edge of it. Conceal markers could be used to show that the squad is hiding at the bottom of it. If concealed, normal LOS rule for balka would apply. If not, squad could fire or be fired at, per normal ruling, with a cover of one (1) against direct fire. Placing or removing a conceal marker would cost 1 mv point.

What do you think?

I see what you mean about the balkas being potentially wide. then again artillery fire can even drift up to a few hexes away and if the troops are hunkered down against the "bank of the balka flat on their bellies, I suppose it could offer some cover. I think there's a cover value for balkas in Conflict of heroes too. But I agree, the movement cost of 1 seems very weird and counterintuitive.

We played the scenario today and we played that units entering or exiting a balka must immediately end their movement. Since no vehicles were used, those rules didn't come into play. NO LOS both ways unless adjacent or traceable through contiguous balka hexes.

In a related thread you can read my overall opinion of the scenario.

I think the concealed markers should be reserved for specific scenarios and not as a blanket rule.

Posted at

Meta Baston said:

Kingtiger said:

Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes.

A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1).

Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend.

What do you guys think?

Did you play your game? Which rule adjustment did you finally use?

For myself, I agree with your overall reasoning. It's also been discussed elsewhere. And I agree with your point about movement cost. Where I don't agree, it is about cover value for area attacks. A balka seems too wide to provide cover against fire from above.

Another point: I think squads could use balka as a trench, firing from the edge of it. Conceal markers could be used to show that the squad is hiding at the bottom of it. If concealed, normal LOS rule for balka would apply. If not, squad could fire or be fired at, per normal ruling, with a cover of one (1) against direct fire. Placing or removing a conceal marker would cost 1 mv point.

What do you think?

Meta Baston said:

Kingtiger said:

Tomorrow I'll be playing this scenario with a friend. I set it up already and it's going to be the first time I'm actually going to play a scenario in which balka terrain plays an important role. Because of this it led me to reread the balka rules as printed in the FoTB rules booklet and the more I read them the less sense they seem to make. First of all, I personally believe a unit in a blaka should be within LOS only to adjacent units, but that should also mean that only adjacent units could be fired upon. This is perhaps what's intended but the wording is very vague. Otherwise a concealed squad token might come in handy to represent something like this. I can also envision troops hunkering down against the edge of the balka without being seen until they actually fire (multiple times), but this would be a lot harder for vehicles. For simplicity's sake, I would therefore say that as far as firing is concerned: units need to be adjacent to one another unless in order for LOS to exist or the entire LOS must be traced through contiguous balka hexes.

A second point: why are there balka entrances if apparenly you can just enter a balka hex anywhere at a mere movement cost of 1 (even for vehicles, although this comes at a risk)? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a movement cost of say three (3) unless you move to or from an adjacent balka hex? 3 for infantry. 4 for vehicles would be even better, I think. The possible vehicle damage could stay as far as I'm concerned. An alternative might be to say that any unit immediately ends its movement when entering or leaving a balka hex (unless from an adjacent one in which case the movement cost is one (1).

Finally there's the issue of the cover value which is zero. I'd say this should be one (1) against area attacks (air support, artillery attacks, mortar attacks). After all there's still room around the balkas the way the hexes are depicted and the they could certainly provide some cover, not unlike trenches even I'd say, so perhaps the cover value should be even higher in this case and zero (0) against attacks from adjacent units or units which can trace its entire LOS through contiguous balka hexes). I'll suggest we play them this way to my friend.

What do you guys think?

Did you play your game? Which rule adjustment did you finally use?

For myself, I agree with your overall reasoning. It's also been discussed elsewhere. And I agree with your point about movement cost. Where I don't agree, it is about cover value for area attacks. A balka seems too wide to provide cover against fire from above.

Another point: I think squads could use balka as a trench, firing from the edge of it. Conceal markers could be used to show that the squad is hiding at the bottom of it. If concealed, normal LOS rule for balka would apply. If not, squad could fire or be fired at, per normal ruling, with a cover of one (1) against direct fire. Placing or removing a conceal marker would cost 1 mv point.

What do you think?

I see what you mean about the balkas being potentially wide. then again artillery fire can even drift up to a few hexes away and if the troops are hunkered down against the "bank of the balka flat on their bellies, I suppose it could offer some cover. I think there's a cover value for balkas in Conflict of heroes too. But I agree, the movement cost of 1 seems very weird and counterintuitive.

We played the scenario today and we played that units entering or exiting a balka must immediately end their movement. Since no vehicles were used, those rules didn't come into play. NO LOS both ways unless adjacent or traceable through contiguous balka hexes.

In a related thread you can read my overall opinion of the scenario.

I think the concealed markers should be reserved for specific scenarios and not as a blanket rule.