I wouldn't mind seeing light recon units either, if only to simulate meeting engagements between recon forces.

As for including different shell types, I think the rules handle them pretty well as is. Tank's antipersonnel attack incorperates the machineguns and HE (especially with concussive firepower), whereas the anti-tank attack deals with AP rounds. Personally I think it would be acceptable to use the antipersonnel attack as a "light vehicle" attack as well, so that HE only units (like assault guns) could still take out halftracks and trucks and the like. Thus you'd be treating the two attacks as a "soft target" and "hard target" attacks instead of vs. personnel and vs. vehicle. This would allow you to add howitzers that are effective against infantry and lightly armoured vehicles, but only effective against lighter tanks, which is pretty realistc. I'd only add that for the vehicles though, not the infantry.

As far as some of the other things that were mentioned, I think that goes beyond the level of detail for Tide of Iron. Do you seriously want to get into modelling the difference between a .30, .50, and MG42? Go play Flames of War or ASL in that case. The reason I like Tide of Iron is because I can actually convince other people who aren't wargamers to play it with me. Don't get me wrong, I love complex games (SFB remains one of my favorites) but I think that level of detail goes beyond the target audience for ToI. But hey, there's nothign wrong with adding some house rules for things like that (I've already designed a very simple system for tank arcs that works amazingly well).

For new units, more than anything I want to see an Operation Barbarossa expansion. Units, in particular I'd like to see: T34/76, T34/85, KV-1, as well as some early war German units like the Panzer II and Panzer 38(t).

Units I'd like to see in general for all nations include primarily howitzers and recon units. I also wouldn't mind seeing rules a couple of Sherman varients like the 105mm howitzer version and the British Firefly, and maybe a Cromwell (which in game terms would probably be the same as the Sherman, just included for variety). Though one unit I'd love to see is a Churchill tank. Armour nearly as strong as the Tiger, but slower with a weaker gun. This one could be included in the Soviet expansion as a lend-lease unit.

Anyways, that's my $0.02.

kalnaren said:

That's it.

Don't complicate the rules.

Give us russian tanks - snow covered game boards and cities.

By the way... what kind of amoured carriers did the russians use?

As far as I know - only what they were given through the Lend -Lease.

Komsomolets were similar to Bren carriers, but weren't built after 1941. They used some aerosans as well (like the NKL-26). It would be fun to see those in the game, although they'd really have no real purpose in the scope of ToI. Otherwise they used a lot of trucks, rail, and made use of lend-lease vehicles like the M3. I don't know if the Russians used any Ram Kangaroos or if those were used only by Canadian and commonwealth armies.

Ghengisgarber said:

Nothing is wrong with improving ToI.....except that I do not think that your points are improvements to the game. They would only blow up the rules and instead of quickly moving your squads and attacking with your vehicles you would have to have the rulebook in your hands at all time.

ToI is game that keeps things easy and it does a very good job here. I do not see any necessity to integrate things like SMG's, .50 cal, etc.

I gotta chip in and say that a lot of really good ideas are flowing here that could be used as house rules in our games. Thank you for the input folks

Jed

ram kangaroos never made the trip to russia. the russian's used mostly lend lease for transport so thier factories could produce tanks and more tanks. the .50 cal is a slow firing mg comparede to the rest but boy it ripped apart the ranks.smg and bar's are built into the squads in my opinion. The German 128mm was the bigest at gun mounted. 155mm was the bigest mounted howitzer.

bill jaffe

Cyscott, here is a bridge and river I made myself.

And here's the Americans crossing the river in boats, there are card boats but you can't see them very well.

How about adding a light tank unit to each nation?

How about somesimple rules for forest fires?

Cymrusaint I thought about doing something like that. You beat me to it. Well done. I was thinking a 1 hex wide by 3 hex long bridge. I want to do a Remagen bridge scenario. Americans lose 1 turn to take a leak in the Rhine.

I believe there exist some basic rules that can be added to the game, which provide depth without violating the spirit of abstraction. Abstraction is great, as I have trouble luring my friends and family (non-board gamers) to play TOI. However, as a gamer and ex-army officer, I also wish to impart a level of immersion in my games.

I'm currently working on a "Conflict of Heroes" - like tank facing rule which would prevent players from lauching armor assault willy-nilly into the middle of town without a care (except the "take-down-the-beast" card). It would allow for increased penetration if a tanks rear is facing, say, a panzerschreck squad in a house while engaging a tank. I think additions such as this could be made abstarct enough, i.e. extra dice role, simple yet abstract enough not to bog down or burden the flow of the game. Further, it effects both sides, so that no side has a particular advantage.

For those intrested, I've also seperated my playing spaces, so that each "platoon leader" is fighting a diifrent portion of the map in diffrent rooms. I invented company command positions (1 German/Amerian) whose job it is to plan the operations before hand, provide orders, and chooses how to spend command points based on which one of their platoon leaders has priority. The company commander is represented by a truck (in this case a "jeep") and can move from one side of the battle or the other follwoing the in-game movement rules. But he can only see one side of the battle at a time. This forces a degree of "fog of war." Additionally, those Platoon Leaders who are not with their commanders must report in to the company commader via a handheld radio I provide both teams during the status phase.

I provide maps with grid lines (digital image of the completed map board with powerpoint gird lines insterted on it) for all leadership and provide 1 hour prior to game-time for operations orders completion and breifing. I even draw up enemy sit-temp slides and a brief intel report for both sides.

The only rule which I had a poblem with, concealment, I fixed by having players who start in concealed positions right down the map grid where there unit is. This forces players to reconnoiter rather then charge headlong.

There are lots you can do to make the game immersive, and add levels of realism, without changing the rules or adding additional ones that are overly complicated.

If anyone uses advanced rules at home, I'd love to get my hands on them. I'm looking to add some additional ones to my games.

I'll post my facing rule if anyone is intrested when I've play tested it apropriatly.

Havoc 6 said:

I can't believe you have trouble getting players. I mean who doesn't want to play a game with radios!!!

Oh...wait...an hour before you even start to play the game???...Proper luring would require you to at least provide a brunch during this preparation period.

BRUNCH IS INCLUDED!!!!

Havoc 6 said:

Where do you live?

Agreed. TOI game mechanice are an abstraction of the incredible diversity and mixed arms and armour of the WW2 setting. But its works very well within its own codex of play. For example it is assumed that each squad has a LMG componant for instance. But a HMG suggests deployment of additional company assets. If I want more fine detail at the squad level then I would crack out my wargames figs and scenary etc.

I just played Break Point scenario with painted figs. It was a cracking game experience. It captured the essence of a WW2 battlefiled but was not, and nor does TOI attempt to be a detialed simulation of one.