Hey there everyone,

Im in the process of planing a custom scenario on the eastern front

Im looking at modifiying the combine fire rule when firing on a unit with an armour value (armour 0 still counts)

It will be the active units full F/P plus 1 die for each unit combining fire (eg active unit T34 plus 2 T34's combine fire so 8 + 1 + 1 so fire power of 10) I think this helps represent the armour values of tanks much better.

Also i want to introduce facing for vehcles in the scenario to add more options tacticlly in the game, so will need to come up with flank armour values (this will take into account flank and rear armour)

The two tanks that will feature in the scenario are the T34 and Panther

For the Panther I was thinking of making it Flank armour 4 as the front of the panther was the part that was heavily armoured

For the T34 im unsure i was thinking of leaving it the same as its normal value at 5 but its armour was not as slopped as the front but around the same thickness on average.

Love to hear your thoughts

I think for the T-34 you are correct.

For the Panther, you would actually have to increase the front armor and decrease side/rear armor.

Something like front 6 with Thick Armor and side/rear 4.

hmm yea i think you might be right with the panther as i guess the tank armour values have been worked out taking into account all the front, side and rear into one value so I guess alot of the tanks front armour will increase if there are going to be 2 values

Combined fire is tricky. +1 die per contributing unit would make combined fire useless, as it would be far better to attack twice instead of using combined fire. But, if you introduce facing, you dont need the combined fire rule.  Cuz then, if you have x3 T34 versus 1 panther, it would be difficult for the panther to face all 3 tanks simultainiusly.

And, what abour fire&movement actions. Should a tank be able to change facing during the enemies turn or not?  The question is how difficult should it be to optain a shot from the flank/rear

Just a note: heavy armor trait is worth atleast 3 dices. So a 6 armor+panthers heavy armor trait is atleast equal to 9 in armor, while the rear is only at 4 (or something)  So, the effect of front/rear would be dramatical. Which I guess might fit nicely.

Grand Stone said:

Combine fire wouldn't be useless it will slightly increase the odds as you can increase the number of dice slightly against one defence roll.

(1 t34 plus 2 in combine fire would be 10FP against 5 + HA (panther) , other wise it would be 8FP and and 5 +HA would be rolled everytime)

(not taking into account thick armour ability, 3 T34's with the modified combine fire would be 10FP / 5armour = 2:1 odds in attacking. If all 3 fired on their own it would in effect become 24 / 15 slightly less odds 1.6:1

This way of dealing with combine fire/ firegroups is how most war games deal with it. It also adds another decision making aspect to the game (do i use those tanks to help increase my odds in an attack or do i need them to make their own action) also i find this way attacks on heavy vehicles will become alot more realistic

also in the last example you give, only the active units line of fire will determine if it is a front or flank shot (combining tanks will still add their +1 dice)

Grand Stone said:

Well this is what i will be working out this post was only to see what peoples thoughts on the armour values should be.

I don't think changing facing on an enemies turn is the way to go as op fire can be a good defence in stoping your enemy out flanking you

Grand Stone said:

Thast how i want things to be flanking and taking flank shots on tanks was a major tactic used throughout the war so it should be a tactic that can be used in the game

KlausFritsch said:

Good points.

I really, really, really hope we'll get an advanced ruleset one day with front and rear armour values for all tanks! (perhaps even top and side armour as well). There's a game due for release in March 2012 or so called "Red Storm: pocket armies. It'll boast all of the above while at the same time still looking to be very playable. The only problem with introducing top armor in TOI ( which in RS seems to be "1" consistently and understandably) would be that the airpower cards would be extremely powerful. Well, I guess an op-card could solve that problem: When attacking a vehicle's top armor, roll for drift as you would for an artillery card. The drift number is always 4 unless otherwise specified (E.g. dive-bombers could have a drift number of three). I believe that in RS 4 and 5 are soft hits (suppressed etc.) while 6's are needed for "kills". 4's and 5's would then be "near" misses (or a nearby tank just got destroyed...) and 1-3 were complete misses. A 6 would be spot on. 

Aussie_Digger:

Your probability calculation are incorrect.   The thing is, if you roll three sets of 5dices, the probability that one of them would roll "less" than average is very high.  You dont roll 15 dices. You roll 5 dices three times. Not to speak of the fact that if the first one does some damage, armor is reduced by one and next hit will make the tank heavy damaged. Calculate the probability (correctly, including heavy armor trait)

1) lightly damaged

2) heavily damaged

and I will bet that you will see that with +1 dice only, combined fire will be rather useless.  Maybe not for infanteri attacking another infanteri in pillbox/bunker, or infanteri attacking a tank. I'm not sure about that one. But, I personaly hate combine fire rule anyway, and would love to remove it completly from the game. I realy dont see any reason why to keep it. It would both improve and simplifiy the rules. Shermans can still destroy tigers, it just would not be as easy as it used to be. And with facing rules, you realy dont need a combined fire rules, as a swarm of tanks would easier outflank the enemy anyway.

Yes, I might agree with you that allowing you to set the facing of the unit when moving it only might be a good ide. Then fast tanks would have an advantage as they can more easily move to the flank and fire. A slow KV-1 would have a very hard time outflanking a Tiger, but the T34 might have easier time.

I was just showing what the dice look like when all added, i wasnt taking other factors into account. I have tried using no combine fire and then have added my version of combine fire to the game. i have found that my version adds more tactical decisions to the game while not making an attack overpowing (alla 24 dice). As it can be a though descision weather to use the tanks to add a small bonus to an attack (which has paid off in some attacks i have made) this also allows more options to be utilised on your turn by using your 3 tanks to attack, you then still have 2 more actions for your turn ( if 3 actions per turn). There will be times when using your tanks for their own actions will be better, but there are times where the extra dice would be. This is what makes it good its desicion making giving the player options. By completly removing combine fire you take away a level of tactical decision making which in my opion is a negative for this game

I think by having combine fire rules this way it is important to have facing rules. As the combine fire rule makes the armour more realistic. this then encourges the player to get tanks behind then enemy and pepper it from all directions and those extra dice can help.

In the end this is a rule that can be used it dose not have to be used, thats the good thing its up to the player, giving options. Trust me I have be using the +1 dice rule and there are times when its good to use (1 example is when firing at a tank in cover providing terrain) and there are times when its not.

Just a side note it is also highly likely that the attack dice will roll less than average

By all means, I hate combined fire. So yes, I do enjoy your methode much better. But, simply removing it can also be a valid option.

Combined fire represents platoon level coordinated fire (IMO), so should be limited to 3 armor vehicles with a potential of up to 6 vehicles(max) which represents the range of vehicles that would make up a platoon (3 for Russians, 4 for Brits, 5 for Americans, 4 for regular German Wehrmacht, 5 for SS , and 6 for the special Tiger I platoon., or an assault gun platoon. (I get this from TO&E from PZleader game)

Particularly for the Russians, it was standard tactic for each platoon of 3 vehicles to engage one target simultaneously., as their optics and rangefinders(if they even were equiped with one) were inferior, so the theory was that 3 tanks increased the first round hit probability up to at least 50% which is what was the average for a single German tank with better trained crew, better optics, flatter trajectory(and more accurate) main gun, and excellent rangefinding devices.

+1 per/unit is okay for unlimited no. of units allowed, as per normal CF rule.

If limiting no. of units to the no. of actions allowed  per action phase by scenario, and also each unit expends an action, so that after the CF attack, the active players action phase is over, and it is now opposing players action phase, then +2 Sherman,+3 for M10, Panther, Tiger I, and +4 for KingTiger may balance out for having a limit. The max single die roll would be 16 for American (3 M10s) and 21 for German (3 KingTigers)

Not sure how to work out CF with Facing rules. CF abstractly represents mulitple attacks form different angles, so maybe should not be allowed if Facing is used.

The unit making the attack will draw its los to see if its a front or flank shot the other units combining fire will still add their +1 no matter where they are. As this will be confusing for the enemy anyway as it is taking hits from all sides.

Ok i have been think about this for a bit and I have decided to take a simpler approach as it will be alot of work re doing armour values and facing rules which may only suit this scenario. If I look at doing it I want to beable to fit any scenario so alot of testing will need to be done. Atm im working on this one scenario so I have come up with a new type of operations card.

I will make a new thred for it (Lack of tank radios - russian command tanks)

 To simplify things, i would just say that attacks where at least 1 shot comes from the flank/ rear gets the m10's penetration rule, Even in a combined fire where others shoot from the front direction. After all, a knocked out result isn't only due to armor penetration, but it could be that the crew gets spooked and abandons the tank.

would be interesting if  non turreted SPG, or  AT gun had an arc of fire limited to within a certain area of hexes relative to the units front facing, and would have to change facing to fire at a unit outside that arc. And if having to change facing, maybe -1 attack value per hexside it has to rotate  to align with target hex.

Turreted tanks would not have this penalty unless player wanted to rotate tank to have front armor facing target hex.

AT guns like 57mm, german pak 75 mm would have limited arc, while 88 flak has no limited arc, being able to rotate on its base 360.

 i agree. My idea is that they maybe given a fire and move order in order to pivot on the spot and fire within their arc (the 3 hexsides to their front) at targets who were initially outside this said arc. To further align with the basic game rules, they get the same penalties as any other unit who can Fire and move (ie. half FP and no long range fire).

I would do this also for the 88. it is already powerful as it is, and it would be good to reward the unit who managed to outflank the damn gun…

freddieyu said:

I wouldn't. The thing is mounted on a turntable.