Posted this in another thread too, but I kinda figured it deserved its own thread as well (-:

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the next expansion should be "Stalingrad". Why?

1.) We only have half a Russian army as opposed to the other nations. The Brits also saw their ranks filled out in the Normandy expansion after being introduced in DoTF ( I actually own two copies of FoTB because I didn't want to wait that long for the rest of my Russian army, haha. The extra snow maps are a nice addition to my collection too.

2.) We have an Eastern front expansion, but when you say "Eastern front WW2", I guess the first name that comes to mind with the majority of people will and should be Stalingrad. In other words, what's an Eastern front expansion without any Stalingrad scenarios?

3.) It would offer a great opportunity to add terrain such as: factories, (heavy)ruins, (wide) rivers, river banks, rubble, sewers etc.

4.) Op-cards and strategy decks could be added to depict urban warfare ("rattenkrieg" tactics deck, for example)

I agree.

That would fill some of the gaps in the game.

One thing we realy have to solve first is the power of the tank versus infanteri in urban seting. As per the rules today, a tank within a city would be too powerfull. It would not feel correct I think. Partly because of the difficulty of introducing better concealment rules, and partly in my mind a slightly to powerfull concussive firepower effect.

Some other features which comes to mind

The mobility of tanks can be severly limited by introducing terrain features. (rubble)

Snipers spesilization would be fun

Fortified buildings with AT guns inside

taller buildings which can store more than 3 infanteri. A few buildings which could hold up to 6 infanteri in one hex for example could be fun.

An urban expansion would be a great idea. It's applications could go beyond Stalingrad (ie. Arnhem). It would be a great way to introduce some new elements as well....though, I agree with Grand Stone, the Concussive fire issue would need to be resolved to move forward there.

Brummbar said:

Not that many buildings were left standing so concussive firepower could be eliminated altogether from Stalingrad scenarios (op-card or scenario specific rule).

IMO I think the concussive fire power should be left as is, as firing into a building would be devasating for infantry (as this was used to try and eliminate infantry from buildings, ruins should be another issue). But what needs to be done is the benefits of infantry fighting tanks in an urban envoiroment need to be highlighted. Also if the boards and scenarios are done right (and players think about where they deploy their units) tanks would need to almost be next to or close to their target before they fire thus getting rid of their range adavantage and then it would be easy for infantry to jump all over the tanks (if you were foolish enough to leave them unsupported by infantry) So i would like to see it where tanks are still very dangerous (as they were) but infantry are just as dangerous in close quarters against armour.

Kingtiger said:

Maybe in January 43 there weren't to many buildings left standing but the fighting started in late Aug early sep 1942. So I think heavy ruins should be introduced as a new terrain type on the map boards and overlays and these could have a rule where concussive fire dose not apply. Then higher concentrations of ruins terrain could appear in later scenarios

Kingtiger said:

I would use something like this:

Building Ruins – All buildings in the scenario are destroyed. They have a defense value of 3 and are not vulnerable to Concussive Firepower. Infantry can enter destroyed buildings for 2 Movement Points. Heavy Vehicles can enter Building Ruins for 4 Movement Points. Building Ruin hexes block LOS. Building Ruin hexes on winter boards have the Snow trait. Entrenchments may be placed on Building Ruin hexes, but trenches, pillboxes or bunkers may not. Units with the Equipment trait (such as AT guns) may be set up in Building Ruin hexes or an entrenchment in Building Ruin hexes and cannot be moved. Units with the Equipment trait still cannot enter Building Ruin hexes during the game. Mortars may fire from a Building Ruin hex.

Aussie_Digger said:

To the best of my knowledge the luftwaffe started flattening the city from the onset of the battle. I suppose a combination of "normal"buildings and heavy ruins should work best on most maps. Rubble (rectangular or circular overlays) could be used to slow down tanks or even impede their movement. I agree that conc. firepower should not work against heavy ruins (I'd use hex size overlays to differentiate them from the destroyed buildings from the Normandy expansion).

KlausFritsch said:

KlausFritsch said:

I'd use new separate tiles. there are already destroyed building markers in Normandy. This way it'd be easy to make a clear didderence between them. Also, the destroyed building hexes being treated as rough terrain (only 1 or 2 cover and +1 movement seems a bit on the "light side" to me. Heavy ruins should provide more cover and hamper movement more, if you ask me.

Kingtiger said:

No offense to the designer, but the destroyed building rules in Normandy are no good. They in no way represent the effects of building ruins. Cover 1 is not enough, and allowing vehicles (especially trucks) to move through such ruins unhindered is nonsense.

I like my house rule better.

KlausFritsch said:

agreed, it seems like these ruins represent a wooden shed that has been destoyed

Railroad tracks could be a suitable newly added terrain type as well for a Stalingrad expansion. They have them in memoir '44 as well.

And terrain could also be used to balance the infanteri versus tanks power. First, hampering movement. If for example 'ruble' cost 4 movement points for vehicles and 2 for infanteri, that would make infanteri far more mobile compared to the vehicles if you add enough ruble, heavy ruins and buildings. And if in addition the line of sight is low, tanks would have a far harder time, and the increddible powerfull attack (concusive firepower) would be far harder to use.

If you in addition add some AT guns in fortified positions for the russians, and spesilizations designed to destroy tanks at point blank range, tanks would not be that usefull.

Actually, I'm kind of looking forward to such a scenario where the germans has lots of tanks attacking stallingrad and the russians defending it with whatever they have.

One thing I realy miss though in general for the russians front in is millitia.

Grand Stone said:

Good ideas. I would indeed have rubble cost 3 or 4 for vehicles (probably 3) and 2 for squads. Some concealed markers for Russian infantery and AT guns (scenario special rule) might help a lot too.

The more i think about it, the more i feel stalingard deserves an expansion all of its own!

Kingtiger said:

Heavy rubble should be impassible for trucks, maybe even for all wheeled-only vehicles, maybe even for all vehicles with the Light Vehicle trait, to keep things simple.

KlausFritsch said:

Good addition. I guess trucks only would work.

For heavy vehicles, if hit while in rubble, and lightly damaged, they are immobilized on die roll of 4,5,6 ? simulates more likely track damage in rubble., makes it risky to move vehicle into closer combat with infantry., and make vehicle a target for artillery fire.

VanCamper said:

Though I love the rule, I'd suggest to keep the basic terrain as simple as possible 9while still realistic) and adding such rules to op-cards and/or scenario specific rules. then again, vehicles can already get immobilized when enetering a balka hex (I'm assuming only when moving from a non-balka hex, but that'd need further clarification in a FAQ).

How about

Rubble:

Light Vehicles can not enter

Heavy vehicles roll 1 die upon entering or exiting. If result is 5,6 it becomes lightly damaged

Heavy vehicles that are already lighty damaged roll 1 die upon entering or exiting. If result is 4,5 or 6 it becomes heavily damaged

Aussie_Digger said:

Light vehicles cannot enter, that is OK for me.

Heavy vehicles should not become damged but stuck. meaning, if the roll fails, they have to stop moving for that round. If they are in rubble, they must also roll to be able to leave.

Aussie_Digger:

I think that is to harsh.

I envisage a scenario where most titles are either buildings, heavy ruins or rubble. Maybe a few clear roads here and there. I would rather that the tanks have very low movement and that they were destoryed by enemy infanteri & AT guns than get destroyed simply by moving around the map. The light vehicles cannot enter may be fair enough For heavy vehicles you could double or triple the movement penelties of being lightly damaged?

When it comes to movement, I have allways wanted an ofroad movement and an onroad movement for vehicles anyways. Just to highligh the strategic elements of a road. And espesialy if towing AT guns.

But becoming stuck is a wonderful concept. Just dont make the probability to high. Being stuck on a 5 or 6 on a d6 is more than enough.

I just came up with this as a was trying to keep it inline with the TOI rules and trying not to add to much to it , maybe an immobilized token could be made if this ever comes out with immobilized rules.

I used heavily damaged because this dose make the vehicle immobile (its track has been broken) but i do agree that it should still have its full fire power.

I made it a higher chance of being damaged when lightly damages as the tank would not be able to take as much stress as if it wasnt.

So a new immobilized rule would be welcome here