After serving 20 years in the military and watching countless WW2 movies and being a devoted military board game player, there are some rules I just don't agree with. Needless to say, we have altered these rules and in some cases made up some of our own. Here are just a few of the rules that some of us don't agree with or tried to improve upon. Besides, TOI is just a game and if you don't like something than be creative.

MG and Flame Thrower: Our gaming group does not allow MGs and Flame Throwers to attack heavy armored vehicles such as tanks. Trucks and Half-Tracks are affected as they are light armored at best and any troops that may be with them.

Hedgehogs (Tank Traps): We do not allow any vehicles to pass through these hexes. They are there to prevent vehicles from passing and in some cases set up to cause a diversion into another well protected area. Sure engineers may atttempt to remove them, but we do not allow this either due to the shortage of time for the scenario. Imagine D - Day if the engineers attempted to remove the obstacles that prevented the landing crafts from getting closer to the shore. These obstacles are pretty big to say the least. We also allow cover 1 for direct fire against infantry if in a hedgehog hex.

Wire: We only allow vehicles that are tracked or fully tracked to enter a wire hex as well as any infantry. Engineers are able to use a special action to remove the wire and become fatigued in doing so. Tanks may move through a wire at the movement cost specified and the wire is removed upon exiting the hex (we assume it has been flattened or pushed out of the way). As mentioned earlier we do not permit trucks from entering a wire hex since they are wheeled. I suppose you could make up a rule of some kind dealing with bogging down and such but that is up to you. Infantry must stop on a wire hex for obvious reasons.

Woods: We negate the cover for indirect fire due to the damage caused by flying branches and such. Vehicles that enter a wood hex must stop. In our case we have a bogging down table we use for the vehicles when they enter certain terrain such as woods. Of course if a road goes through the woods then there is no problem.

Rough Terrain: We apply a cover of 1 for every rough terrain hex between the firer and the target if they are on the same level only. Since we don't know how rough the terrain is we simply allow fully tracked vehicles such as tanks the ability to enter but they must stop upon entering.

Entrenchments: We allow a cover of 2 but a cover of 4 against indirect fire.

Assaults: 2 squads (no heavy infantry weapons) may assualt a hex. We don't allow any support from other units as that would put your own troops at risk of friendly fire. Assaulting troops don't get any cover (we use an ambush rule to sometimes negate that). We even allow squads to assault tanks but if they are protected by infantry than the enemy infantry must be assaulted first by at least 1 squad. Trucks and Half-Tracks are part of the enemy infantry group and enemy tanks are seperate. When assaulting enemy squads and light vehicles the defender decides where to apply the damage. When assaulting tanks we use infantry against armor and the tank gets armor cover -2 ( we are assuming that the infantry is not stupid enough to try and assault the front part of the tank that is most heavily armored). Engineers get to roll an extra die when assaulting tanks since they are better equiped with explosives. Once the assault is made, the defenders attack back (assaulting units get no cover). Surviving assaulting units return to theri previous hex or remain in the assaulted hex if the enemy has been eliminated. With the ambush rules we use assaults are not always simultaneous. We find that with the ability to assault tanks the opponent is much more careful with how he uses his tanks and vehicles and tends to protect them with his infantry.

Yes, there is nothing that says that you can't use the ToI components to play a different game. As long as your group know which game you're playing, there isn't a problem. However, scenarios are designed with specific ToI rules in mind (or they are specifically changed for the scenario), so the intent of the scenario designers and the dynamics of the scenario are apt to be circumvented if you change the rules the scenarios are based on. As long as you're alright with that, it's all good.

Stonemason said:

Not sure if you are clear on the rules as written but they don't allow for cover for assaulting troops either.

I also note you say here 'Once the assault is made, the defender attack back'. Are the assaulting losses applied first in your rules?

Our group decided that unless the enemy that is being assaulted is ambushed they will have time to find cover. It's pretty difficult for a squad to sneak up close enough without being seen(especially in the open). For us, ambush can only take place in a hex that contains concealment terrain (woods for instance). Ambushes can also work both ways.

For the most part we consider an assault to be simultaneous. We have both sides shooting at each other as the assaulting squad(s) attempt to get close enough. Mind you, an assualt can be a costly venture especially against a tank that is protected by infantry. This does not happen in every game where you get to assault a Tank. The opponent is careful about not getting too close with his armored vehicles and does not move them on purpose into situations where he can be assaulted. I have only managed to assault a Tank once as a desperate measure and although I caused heavy damage to it, it did manage to wipe out my engineer unit in the end. Sometimes desperate times require desperate measures.

Like I mentioned earlier, its just a game and we tend to experiment with different rules. Sometimes we make up our own and sometimes we borrow from other games (ASL, Flames of War..). Some rules work and at times we find out that they don't. Also, we don't want to make the game too complicated since some of our players don't like anything more complicated than Risk.

I got the idea of assaulting tanks from a movie I once saw based on the battle of Kursk. You could see infantry units trying to get close enough to enemy tanks and plant explosives on their tracks in order to try and immobilize them.

I guess as long as your group is ok with the idea of experimenting with rules there is no problem. After all, it's just a game and sometimes rules are made to be broken or improved upon.

Stonemason said:

Reminds me of the sticky bombs card from the Morale II deck.

Sounds like, with the exception of the assistance of nearby units (which I do find a little much) your assaults are practically the same as in the game. The defender gets the benefit of cover, the attack and defence dice are rolled at the same time and the losses simultaneous. Not much of a difference (of course, you have an ambush aspect that isn't covered in the rules at all).

I'm a little torn on infantry assaulting tanks. I grew up on CAT's from PanzerBlitz and can understand the intention. However, I find that infantry that is close enough to attack tanks (must be adjacent anyway) has a far better survival chance of a straight attack...and it can certainly do damage. I guess the trick is always getting close enough no matter the method

The rest of your rules look correct in context, I'll give them a try. Thanks for posting!

You forgot the "Blind Hex" rule...lol

two things, no three.

I agree with all your post except:

flamethrowers were very effective against vehicles of all sorts as I understand it.

I think supporting units in an assault could be interpreteted as 'softening up' fire.