Hello

Me and my gaming crew have decided that TOIs number of actions on scenarios is too low.
Allmoust every scenario has multiple units but only 3 or max 4 actions per side.
I wonder why it is so?
Dos this has some kind of thought in it or are we just too fast players?

Because we have been playing this game with +1 action per side on every scenario and it worked fine. More units to use per round.

Hi, i think 3 or 4 actions per round are not bad…

Sometimes there are scenarios with 2 actions…… it's exagrate; but i think sometimes there are few rounds.

katekeeper said:

Hello. I am just wondering if I am understanding your post correctly, but it is possible you may have made the very common mistake of misinterpreting the way actions work.

Many people have fallen into this trap and have not realised that the allocation of actions (usually 3) is how many units you can activate in a row whereby your opponent then does three of their own, then it is back to you for three more, which you both repeat until "all" units have performed some action during the course of "one" single round.

If I can illustrate by a brief hypothetical example:

A particular scenario has '5' rounds for each side to achieve winning objectives.

US has 5 units, Germans have 8

1. Round 1 begins with US going first

2. US player activates 3 units and resolves them.

3. German player then activates three units.

4. US has two remaining units not yet activated (i.e. still fresh) and activates them.

5. German activates another 3 fresh units.

6. US has no fresh remaining units and has to pass.

7. German player activates his remaining 4 fresh units (after activating three of these units, the US player technically still has no fresh units and has to pass again allowing the German player to activate the fourth and last fresh unit).

8. All units on the board have performed actions. After the command and status phases are complete round 1 is over.

Commence round 2 and repeat…

DAMM!
Your post made me read the rulebook more specific and there it is. I see it now.
We have fallen in to the trap.
This chages a lot about the game. Thank you!!

DOUH!

I'm Italian and the Italian manual has been wrote "by usinge the feet" in the english one it's more clear.

TANK YOU!!!

katekeeper said:

Nice. Hopefully the game should literally open up for you guys from here on. Enjoy

Next, however, once you discover that it is possible to obliterate 3 enemy units with sure kill die rolls, using Combine Fire in 3 actions, and as many units as have LOS, then you will probably not want to play the game any more.

So my suggestion, is to limit Combined Fire overkill, by requiring EACH unit which participates, to ALSO spend a concentrated fire action, thus in most situations, no more that 3 units will be able to fire on a single enemy unit in the active players action phase, after which, that players phase is over, and the opposing player becomes the active player, and can respond.

VolksCamper said:

I actually wrote a scenario limiting combined fire in this way. However, I do think the rule in itself isn't necessarily a problem as long as the scenario was written with the possibility of combined fire in mind, which unfortunately often doesn't seem to have been the case. In my factory fortresses scenario (See a few posts down) I gave the option to fortify positions providing lots of additional cover. In that way you'd have to use up so many units that you'd have very few left giving a lot of opportunities to your opponent!

VolksCamper said:

Combined fire overkill?

All supporting units will be fatigued in that action though. Supporting units also at 1/2 firepower. Plus you will have to move all of those units within range. These are all significant tactical trade-offs in most games. Infantry against a fortified bunker (cover:+8) requires massive firepower.

Concentrating troop numbers for combined fire usually gets some sort of suppressive artillery pin in response if you are not really careful. Also, to achieve the combined fire obliteration of three squads you mention will no doubt allow your opponent to tactically move elsewhere in the game.

This may result in a devastating mobile counter-attack or gain an initiative marker somewhere else. I prefer to suppress, disrupt and eliminate, or suppress & assault for the kills. Tide for me is about saving it for the last turn and then going first in the next round. It is also about putting guys in op-fire later trying to keep your opponent guessing.

The turn/round dynamic is very different to other games. Although it does simulate cover-fire & assault situations well it can be abused. As powerful as combined fire can be, in a balanced fight your opponent will usually then have the final say.

Bloopertrooper said:

This is how it should be, but if you've played enough official scenarios, you must have found out this is often not the case. Often on turn 1 a side can obliterate the enemy's defenses using combined fire before they can react and there's no need to get into position as they already start on the board. The Siegfried line scenario in the Normandy expansion is like that, one of the scenarios from FoTB, one from the base game in which there are twelve shermans or so that can take out all the German Tigers and panzer IVs on turn 1 and that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head…

Bloopertrooper said:

Bloopertrooper said:

This is how it should be, but if you've played enough official scenarios, you must have found out this is often not the case. Often on turn 1 a side can obliterate the enemy's defenses using combined fire before they can react and there's no need to get into position as they already start on the board. The Siegfried line scenario in the Normandy expansion is like that, one of the scenarios from FoTB, one from the base game in which there are twelve shermans or so that can take out all the German Tigers and panzer IVs on turn 1 and that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head…

Yes you are right. But wouldn't you agree those scenarios are just not play-tested! The Goodwood scenario with 14 Sherms and 2 M10s in the end having to contend with a few tigers is a classic.

I don't have a problem with the rules as they stand, but that is in the context of moving the game forward, developing a point buy system and tournament play.

As for Goodwood all the Germans had to fight the first time we played it. It was evident 1 or two rounds in. Germans have to line up tigers to get the first Sherm kills at max range. They must kill to sherms in op fire mode straight off to avoid all that combined fire. Then wait and either shoot the most advanced tank. Trouble is the German has to put his tanks down first, Brit player then moves out with all advantages.

Given this battle was proceeded by a massive aerial bombardment, we played this scenario again with the operation card "mass-confusion"limiting Brit combined fire for first 4 rounds. We also added a concealed 88mm. This game was long and entertaining, we didn't finish it though but it seemed to be more in favor of Germans, well until you try to move the King Tigers.

Interestingly the Anthony Beaver account of that battle in Goodwood, the one where two Tigers appear and manage to hold up an entire column until the Achilles SPGs arrived, describes the scenario well. However, the scenario needs the confusion, smoke and fog at the beginning. Goodwood didn't make the breakthroughs of Cobra in the end. Concealed 88mms took out the British Armor. Most of the Tank crews climbed out and survived but the next day a group of tank crews were killed by an extremely rare Luftwaffe raid while they were waiting for their new tanks to arrive.

Bloopertrooper said:

That's exactly what I'm saying. Scenarios not or poorly playtested, combined fire on turn 1 not taken into account and the blessing as well as the curse is that these balance issues are so obvious in some scenarios that it's unbelievable they weren't spotted but at the same time they would be very easy to fix, as you suggest (although I've never played the particular scenario you mention).

Sorry I haven't checked this forum lately, didn't realise you responded. Hey just tweak your games a bit I still love Tide.

Have you seen András's Experimental tank rules? These are a positive move for the game and seem to simulate tank actions with a minimum of fixes.

Combined fire is an essential part of WWII tactics, i.e. a commander with line of sight initiating a fire-group, platoon or even company combined action. The problem with combined fire is when you have 10 Shermans versus one tiger at long range.

The András additions include:

1. Tank Facing and firing arcs,

2. Frontal, flank and rear armor additions, via attacker re-rolls,

3. Defilé and hull down cover rules,

4. Extra-frontal armor and more realistic armor values for front glacis of Tigers, Panthers etc, could be tweaked some more needs to update all existing tanks in the rule system,

5. Higher Vehicle Attack Values for German Tanks, ensuring effective kills at long range,

6. Tanks providing cover

Some other ideas (not mine),

• No combined between tanks unless it has a radio!

• No combined fire between divisions

• Combined fire limited to Tank platoons (i.e. 3-5 Tanks)

Globally, there is less product coming out in all games and hobbies. We are in a worldwide economic down time which probably means fantasy flight will not create anything new for us. When I started out in gaming with Squad Leader I found faults too. It took a long time to appreciate how much play testing was actually put into that game (almost a decade I read somewhere).

Tide seems to me to be a stripped down version of that original squad leader game. One with a novel approach to the turn sequence (which I love), plus a twist on firing (kill or suppress). Squadie is plenty more detailed and may solve a lot of these problems and provide rule inspiration governing other issues in the game such as vehicle wrecks, concealed AFVs, ambush deployment etc, upstairs/downstairs, block-busting etc.

I have started to design some city rubble & street boards using dundjinni software too. Compatible with the 1:44 model buildings from Combat Group Dynamix. At this stage I am planning to use a scrolling board on a large horizontal flatscreen (plus building models) for a Caen scenario.

My objection to combined fire rule, is not that it is possible for one target to be attacked by several units, in the same action phase, but that the basic mechanx of activating a unit, which requires an action/unit to be spent, is suspended and altered by this CF rule. So you get an extremely artificial accelleration of time, that allows for an unlimited number of units to fire, using only one action, when in reality, EACH of those units would have to be activated by a concentrated attack action, to engage an enemy unit, with each one rolling a separate die roll attack to resolve what that particular weapons effect was.

The CF rule should be changed to "Coordinated Attack" and should be not an "action" but a "type" of attack, which still requires one concentrated attack "action" be spent PER each unit which is participating in the Coordinated Fire attack on the same enemy target.

The calculation method for the single die roll attack, of the original CF rule, is simple enough, so IMO that can be kept as is.Requiring each unit to have to expend a concentrated attack action, will result in most cases, to only 3 or 4 units being able to fire together, in one action phase, after which, that active players phase is over, having spent all his actions for that phase.

I think this would go a long way to correct for imbalanced scenarios, as the side with greater numbers of vehicles will not be able to destroy an outnumbered enemy force, in just one action phase, and before the enemy has a chance to react to such an attack.

3 M10 Tank Destroyers, using a Coordinated Attack, would roll a single die roll of 10+5+5=20 dice, and would expend 3 concentrated attack actions to do so.

20 dice is a potent attack die roll, and just enough to consider using up all the actions the active player has, in his action phase, to try to destroy a dangerous enemy target, like the King Tiger. There is, however, still a reasonable chance, that the enemy target might survive the atttack, and thus, in the enemy action phase, could use a fire and move attack, shoot and then move back one hex, out of Line of Sight. This makes the mechanix of combat resolution, more dynamic, and less absolute, and offers more opportunity for the outnumbered defending player, to use fire and move tactic, or delay tactic, without getting obliterated by CF attack in just one action phase.

This suggested modification also works with another suggestion for damage modification for heavy damage, which is allow heavily damaged vehicles to be able to move to any adjacent hex, (except for hexes restricted for vehicles to enter), using an advance action. Thus, a heavy damaged vehicle is not immobilzed, and a sitting duck, but has at least a slight probability of moving again, to capture an objective, or move back, out of line of sight, and survive another turn.

VolksCamper said:

I think that this is not a bad idea. I will use it when I play again.