Recommend
42 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Fighting Formations: Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry Division» Forums » Reviews

Subject: FF:GD - My Initial Thoughts rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Eoin Corrigan
Ireland
Wexford
Wexford
flag msg tools
designer
ASL Fanatic
badge
Royal Dublin Fusiliers "Spectamur Agendo"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FF:GD is a tactical hex and counter wargame set on the Ostfront during WWII. The focus is on Grossdeutschland division in 1942-1943, an elite Wehrmacht formation equipped and organised as such. This is an interesting choice – the Grossdeutschland, in its various manifestations, has received much attention in the wargaming field, not least because examining this unit encapsulates the differences between two very different armies. In a sense, playing this game should help answer the question of “How, man for man and vehicle for vehicle, did the Wehrmacht consistently outfight the Red Army, often despite inferior equipment?”

Here are my thoughts on the game, based on a detailed reading of the rules, observation of games occurring on VASL and one playing of the introductory scenario with a friend. Although I’ve placed this in the Review forum, this is not intended as a comprehensive review, which would be unfair after just one playing. Rather this is a personal reaction to the game, based on initial explorations, chiefly focussed on the issues of rules simplicity and the operation of the order matrix.

In many respects FF:GD is quite ordinary. Counters in the main represent squads / vehicles and platoons, which have values relating to movement, defence and various types of firepower. The map is overlaid with a hex matrix. Common terminology, familiar I imagine to many tactical wargamers, is used, such as rate of fire, unconfirmed kill, hindrance etc.

The rules are contained in a 20-odd page rulebook, with additional rules contained in a playbook which also contains 10 scenarios. This is a tight rules set, very well written, edited and proofed. The attention to detail is very evident; these rules have been crafted. I very much appreciate this level of care and attention. Indeed, the production values of all of the game’s components are superb.

The complexity level of the rules set is, I think it’s fair to say, low to medium for a wargame. This, I think, is neither an absolute flaw nor an absolute feature. The decision not to include rules for ammunition tracking, weapon malfunctions, or surrendering and the taking of prisoners certainly means that this is an easier rules set to understand than otherwise would have been. On the other hand, the decision to exclude such possibilities does mean that entertaining and unexpected in-game events are absent, as are the attendant decision points for players. However, we already have tactical WWII games which include such features, and do so admirably. The purpose of FF:GD is surely not to ape other games, but to express a fresh
approach to games design and bring a new experience to our gaming tables.

There are, in my view, drawbacks to the mechanical simplicity of the game. An example is the fire attack mechanic. Games will be won and lost by fire attacks, notwithstanding the importance of manoeuvre. When a unit fires on another undamaged unit, it is not possible, in one attack, to destroy the target. Therefore, if a platoon of T-34s moves into the LOS of a platoon of Stugs, the best the Stugs can do in one attack is to damage the T-34 platoon, by applying a hit marker, such as ‘immobilised’ or ‘unconfirmed kill’. Outright destruction of an undamaged target is not a possible outcome. Simple mechanics necessarily result in a limited range of outcomes.

A further drawback of simplicity is a sacrifice of uncertainty; players have perfect knowledge of the outcomes of certain mechanics. For example, an out-of-command radioless AFV platoon costs four initiative points to activate. Pay the points and the platoon is activated. There is no chance of that activation failing. I would have liked a greater degree of uncertainty in respect of certain on-board activities, especially command and control functions which could have had the benefit of introducing a gambling element to the game.

You are probably aware that the chief innovation of GD:FF is the order matrix, an initiative system which provides, in my experience, a unique and refreshingly uneven tempo to the cycle of phases in a turn. I don’t intend to dwell on how the order matrix works, as several other reviews have described its operation. I do wish to record my applause; this is an excellent device, which seems to have a number of functions:

- Differentiation of the two sides, as for the ‘move’ and ‘fire’ orders the Germans and Soviets pay different initiative point costs;
- The introduction of an economy in which the players vie for initiative; and,
- The replacement of a rigid sequence of play with a negotiated order of events, defined by player choice.

I think the chief benefit of the order matrix is that it opens up an additional realm of meaningful choice, a second front to the contest, if you like. A new set of decision points are created, as are the accompanying dilemmas: do I pay 2 initiative points to reaction fire, or do I keep my powder dry and take the next order to rally my troops? Decision, decisions. I suspect that greater levels of skill than I currently have with this game will, if anything, enhance some of those dilemmas, and this is an area of the game I am very much looking forward to exploring. I also suspect that it will be the case in time that the finest FF:GD players are those who develop the keenest understanding of the exploitation of the order matrix.

I look forward to a lot of further play of FF:GD, although I doubt whether my fundamental evaluation will change - this is an elegant, subtle and thought-provoking game which is a valuable addition to the canon. I look forward to future developments.
32 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Sheely
United States
Hayward
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice write up. This is one of my favorite games.

Quote:
For example, an out-of-command radioless AFV platoon costs four initiative points to activate. Pay the points and the platoon is activated. There is no chance of that activation failing.


There' no guarantee that the shot will hit, and if the unit if activated to move, what would be stopping them? I feel that the initiative cost represents time and effort, if you pay 4 to activate one unit to do one thing, you are basically letting the opponent a certain amount of extra actions.

Quote:
the best the Stugs can do in one attack is to damage the T-34 platoon, by applying a hit marker, such as ‘immobilised’ or ‘unconfirmed kill’. Outright destruction of an undamaged target is not a possible outcome. Simple mechanics necessarily result in a limited range of outcomes.


It can't account for everything. Whatever the time scale of a partial turn is, the designer must have felt that destroying a full platoon in one fell swoop was too much. You can deploy the Stug's to get 3 shots, have another platoon of Stug's to deliver another shot...

Quote:
do I pay 2 initiative points to reaction fire, or do I keep my powder dry and take the next order to rally my troops? Decision, decisions.


The matrix is something I like very much about the game. One thing that seems 'gamey' to me is a player using 5 or 6 or whatever initiative points to grab all the cheap actions - but passing with them. Say it's a new turn and you have 6 points. You could take 3 asset actions and a fire action, and something else. Merely to deny them to the opponent. I know, my opponent did this and passed with everything except the fire orders (as a dug in defender) and made it that much more difficult for me to advance and take over the machine gun nests. He won.

Still, it's my favorite wargame and I love the matrix.

Quote:
I look forward to a lot of further play of FF:GD, although I doubt whether my fundamental evaluation will change - this is an elegant, subtle and thought-provoking game which is a valuable addition to the canon. I look forward to future developments


Me too!

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Man or Astroman wrote:
Nice write up. This is one of my favorite games.

Quote:
For example, an out-of-command radioless AFV platoon costs four initiative points to activate. Pay the points and the platoon is activated. There is no chance of that activation failing.


There' no guarantee that the shot will hit, and if the unit if activated to move, what would be stopping them? I feel that the initiative cost represents time and effort, if you pay 4 to activate one unit to do one thing, you are basically letting the opponent a certain amount of extra actions.


Also, don't forget that you are, in most cases, giving your opponent the opportunity to shoot at you when you engage in a Fire, Move, or Assault action (or a Sniper action that results in one of the previously mentioned actions). Plus the fact that you can "set up" your opponent to give the initiative back to you if the marker is right on the edge of the bubble!

Quote:
Quote:
the best the Stugs can do in one attack is to damage the T-34 platoon, by applying a hit marker, such as ‘immobilised’ or ‘unconfirmed kill’. Outright destruction of an undamaged target is not a possible outcome. Simple mechanics necessarily result in a limited range of outcomes.


It can't account for everything. Whatever the time scale of a partial turn is, the designer must have felt that destroying a full platoon in one fell swoop was too much. You can deploy the Stug's to get 3 shots, have another platoon of Stug's to deliver another shot...


Unconfirmed Kill results are almost as good as a one shot kill, at least for squads. They are nearly impossible to recover from unless you are in cover and have a Command token in the same hex. It is harder to kill a platoon in it's fully mustered form, not so hard to do when they've been deployed in the same hex (note to self - remember to scatter squads when you deploy).

Quote:
Quote:
do I pay 2 initiative points to reaction fire, or do I keep my powder dry and take the next order to rally my troops? Decision, decisions.


The matrix is something I like very much about the game. One thing that seems 'gamey' to me is a player using 5 or 6 or whatever initiative points to grab all the cheap actions - but passing with them. Say it's a new turn and you have 6 points. You could take 3 asset actions and a fire action, and something else. Merely to deny them to the opponent. I know, my opponent did this and passed with everything except the fire orders (as a dug in defender) and made it that much more difficult for me to advance and take over the machine gun nests. He won.

Still, it's my favorite wargame and I love the matrix.


Every point of initiative is precious, even when you burn through a bunch of single 1 points orders to prevent your opponent from using their asset cards. In your example, while your opponent is burning those orders, at the same time he's given you six points of initiative that he's used for nothing. Similarly, you at some point gave him those six points to use rather than trying to keep it small and focused. Obviously, I don't know what the exact situation in your game was - I use the above to illustrate that it isn't just that you can burn off orders but that there is both a cost to doing that as well as a reason your opponent had those points to work with. As we all become more familiar with the game, we'll start to get a better sense of how valuable a point of initiative is in a given situation. After five games, I'm nowhere near that level of expertise with the game, but I can see that it's there.

In my mind, part of the challenge of a good tactical mid-20th Century wargame design is figuring out how best to create a level of interaction that evokes actions at that level. ASL does it through a detailed sequence of play that gives the other side ample opportunities to respond, but still retains the basic Igo-Ugo format. Combat Commander does it by using cards to emulate getting the necessary orders to the necessary people. Conflict of Heroes does it through their action point/command point system. Fields of Fire does it by modeling volume of fire over a period of time. While these are all different systems, I find that FF tends to give quite a bit of flexibility between the Order/Initiative/Command complex meshed with defensive Rate of Fire. While every wargame is going to have some downside associated with these interactions, at the same time FF's downsides are so minor for me as to be negligible.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Sheely
United States
Hayward
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
In your example, while your opponent is burning those orders, at the same time he's given you six points of initiative that he's used for nothing.


I was playing a play-tester and when his turn would come up, he (as a defender) would immediately take the cheap actions... especially if there were multiple asset actions. Then my fire actions would cost much more, say, 6 or 7 points. He would grab the cheap actions, saving the expensive ones for me. Thanks buddy.

Every turn is different (with regards to the order cubes) but I always seemed to be paying 6 or 7 or 8 to fire. That makes taking those cheap actions, relatively cheaper. I spent the next 4 games trying to inflict that situation on my other opponents... to no avail.

Hopefully, this is clear. I'm in an airport and have had many Guinnesses.

I guess our point may be that there is a lot to discuss, which is a trait of a great game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Man or Astroman wrote:
Quote:
In your example, while your opponent is burning those orders, at the same time he's given you six points of initiative that he's used for nothing.


I was playing a play-tester and when his turn would come up, he (as a defender) would immediately take the cheap actions... especially if there were multiple asset actions. Then my fire actions would cost much more, say, 6 or 7 points. He would grab the cheap actions, saving the expensive ones for me. Thanks buddy.

Every turn is different (with regards to the order cubes) but I always seemed to be paying 6 or 7 or 8 to fire. That makes taking those cheap actions, relatively cheaper. I spent the next 4 games trying to inflict that situation on my other opponents... to no avail.

Hopefully, this is clear. I'm in an airport and have had many Guinnesses.


Guinness has a way of making things *very* clear. Then very *not* clear.

My point, of course, is that there are times when taking those asset points away from your opponent makes very good sense, and other times when it doesn't. Maybe it's better to get in two fire actions...

And seven points is not always poorly spent. I've found Sniper actions to drive behavior at a level that sometimes seems out of proportion to the statistical chances of rolling the necessary number (especially in smaller scenarios). Of course, you hit it once, or worse, have it hit you, and then you take a different view...

Over time, I think we'll see a very similar progression of best practices with the order/initiative/command complex as we did with effective use of ops vs events in the more involved CDGs like Paths of Glory. One of the reasons why this game system is destined for Classic status in my book.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
When a unit fires on another undamaged unit, it is not possible, in one attack, to destroy the target. Therefore, if a platoon of T-34s moves into the LOS of a platoon of Stugs, the best the Stugs can do in one attack is to damage the T-34 platoon, by applying a hit marker, such as ‘immobilised’ or ‘unconfirmed kill’. Outright destruction of an undamaged target is not a possible outcome.

Tanks exploding or otherwise utterly destroyed whenever they're hit is Hollywood, not historywood. A tank being knocked out of action, abandoned by surviving crew, and then recovered by the winning side after the battle for repair and reuse is far more likely.

In that light, an Immobilization or Unconfirmed Kill result (which comprise a full 50% of the hit markers, by the way) *is* effectively a 1-shot kill.

What are the base odds of a vehicle rallying after acquiring one of these markers? 6% and 15%, respectively. Hardly worth making the effort. Especially with an Unc.Kill, the vehicle is effectively dead on the battlefield -- it can't do *anything* involving movement or firing. So it looks like the tank is out of action -- KIA -- but is it really? My tank commander that inflicted the hit to your tank is thinking: "do I need to pump another round into the turret to make sure? or do I ignore the now-unresponsive hulk and move on to the next viable threat?"
18 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Aasted
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Yes, I spend Geek Gold on useless things like this.
badge
Gloria: [to Robot] I'm just scared I'll come home one day and find you screwing a toaster.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
My tank commander that inflicted the hit to your tank is thinking: "do I need to pump another round into the turret to make sure? or do I ignore the now-unresponsive hulk and move on to the next viable threat?"


Or your tank commander might be thinking: "If this were Combat Commander I wouldn't have to worry about enemy tanks!" whistle
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MarkEA wrote:
Or your tank commander might be thinking: "If this were Combat Commander I wouldn't have to worry about enemy tanks!" whistle

Or a more philosophical tank commander might be thinking: "If this were Combat Commander I wouldn't exist!"
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ROB VERRY
United States
South Cairo
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
I very much enjoyed your informative review, and purchased the game today. The only thing that really befuddles me, is why does GMT persist to use 1970's style graphics?!?!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tyrone_Slothrop wrote:
why does GMT persist to use 1970's style graphics?!?!

Because they are clean and clear and functional and don't distract with too much representational detail, and plenty of people like them?


Disco notwithstanding, not everything from the 1970's sucks.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Disco notwithstanding, not everything from the 1970's sucks.


Nixon.

Oh, sorry. He's getting a makeover.sauron

And be nice to disco. At least it didn't make heavy use of autotune for vocals like *every* hip-hop and pop record does nowadays. That sh*t is like nails on a chalkboard to a trained singer like me. No, like a nail *gun* on a chalkboard.robot

Seriously, GMT's graphics are what I'd call "safe" for the most part. They are clear, they are effective, they are readable for my 48 year old eyes. Certainly there were no rules that looked like FF's in the 70's. How much more detail do you want in a 1/16th inch high line drawing of a soldier? Or all the shadows that were on the original ASL painted maps? They aren't going to win awards for pretty, like the IGS series does (IMHO, a little *too* much), but you can read it and know what it does and it doesn't look like it was created in the Caterpillar Room. I'll take clarity over pretty every day.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eoin Corrigan
Ireland
Wexford
Wexford
flag msg tools
designer
ASL Fanatic
badge
Royal Dublin Fusiliers "Spectamur Agendo"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:

Tanks exploding or otherwise utterly destroyed whenever they're hit is Hollywood, not historywood. A tank being knocked out of action, abandoned by surviving crew, and then recovered by the winning side after the battle for repair and reuse is far more likely.

In that light, an Immobilization or Unconfirmed Kill result (which comprise a full 50% of the hit markers, by the way) *is* effectively a 1-shot kill.


Chad, thanks for the response, although I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied

I don't accept that definitive kills on the battlefield, early in an engagement, are solely a feature of Hollywood depictions. The historical record contains many accounts of definitive kills being achieved very early in an engagement.One shot is taken at a target - smoke billows from hatches, or the crew bails out, or the turret leaps 15 metres into the air due to an internal explosion. Indeed, some of the accounts quoted in the FF:GD playbook are of this nature.

This can't happen in FF:GD if only one fire action is taken. Consider this situation. A single T-60 tank moves adjacent and into the LOS of a Stug platoon. The Stugs fire and hit. The best possible result is a unconfirmed kill, which may be removed if the Soviet player takes a rally order next (which is not inconceivable if a Mission Command marker is deployed). The definitive destruction of the T-60 is simply not possible in one hit in FF:GD.

In effect, every unit has 2 steps, and it is not possible to remove both of those steps in one fire attack, regardles of whether the attack is against heavy armour, a lightly armoured reconnaissance tank, a halftrack, or indeed against an infantry squad.I think this is a small flaw, but a flaw nonetheless, in an otherwise superb game.

Still, I don't wish to dwell on what is in my opinion a small mechanical consequence of a very elegant and fun set of mechanics - I'm very glad my short opinion piece encouraged at least one person to invest in what is a great game. I agree with Doug - this game is destined for classic status.

4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pardoe
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
The best possible result is a unconfirmed kill, which may be removed if the Soviet player takes a rally order next (which is not inconceivable if a Mission Command marker is deployed).

They may be removed, but the odds are against the Soviet. Both Unconfirmed Kill and Immobilized have red rally numbers, so if the Soviet player fails to roll higher than the number, the unit is eliminated.

Failing the rally roll is a high probability result when rolling 2D10 (needing to roll greater than 16 or 18). Even with a command marker stacked with the unit and rolling 2D12 - the failure is still a greater than 50% chance result.

So I agree it is not inconceivable - the odds just aren't in your favour.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Haag
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Thanks for the review.

I similarly have not played many games of FFG, 3 to be honest. I do like very much this games system, but I have a question about the very thing that many people claim to be the heart of the system. The order matrix.

My wargaming experience begins with Squad Leader. I have played PB and family, ASL in the past... and Up Front my favorite.

I am curious what this game would be like in a more straight PB style.

When I have looked at the matrix, two movies come to mind. The Matrix and 2001. When making a choice I find myself looking at those monolithic cubes. I cannot stop myself from looking at those cubes and wondering what they mean. I feel like the 2001 caveman reaching for the ultimate monolithic cube to make make the right game decision.

I know about fog of war, loss of command control etc. I know this is a game, etc.

Let may compare by example with CoH. The command action points of Coh are also abstract. But, I can easily imagine that they represent a commander being involved to get the job done. Think of Cpt Winters sending in Spears after Lt Dyke fails to move into Foy in The Band of Brothers. I think CoH would benefit from some cards with pictures of leaders/commanders to keep track of the CAPs rather than a point track. Playing the card represents commiting the leader...

There are many who love FFG, I do too. But I would like to hear what others have to say about what the cubes actually represent more than a Euro-style game mechanic.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Cooley
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Me rocking out with my band, which you can hear at www.raindriver.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Suulthanaur wrote:
I would like to hear what others have to say about what the cubes actually represent more than a Euro-style game mechanic.


In a wargame, everything involved represents something at some level. The trick is that some things have more direct representation than others.

Here's my very short answer, but this is an excellent question.

Cubes represent both the potential for the execution of actions on the battlefield as well as determining how efficiently those actions are executed. This is done by converting the cube (which really represents the cost in initiative) to Initiative, which in turn converts activations which is paid in Initiative to the other player. The cubes, in their finite use during a turn, also represent the potential for specific types of actions.

The value of Initiative varys widely depending upon the board and cube situation, so by their very position the cubes also dictate the value of the different *spaces* on the Initiative track. For example, you might want to play an order of a given value to prevent your opponent from taking a Sniper action late in the turn, or you might activate fewer units to require your opponent to spend his Initiative on Op/Return Fire rather than on issuing an Order.

As such, the cubes represent several things:

Time;
Order Potential;
Efficiency of Operations;
Initiative Space Value.

The *use* of the cubes represents how well your command structure works. Spending a 10 cube to make a Fire order is inefficient because it gives Initiative to your opponent (sort of like when one player auctions a thing in a Euro and takes the proceeds) that the Order didn't require.

Because both players are working from the same pool of cubes, you have to believe that the cubes represent those battlefield elements are actually those things that are beyond the control of the command structure of both sides, but their *use* represents how well the command structures take advantage of the environment.

How's that? cool

Doug
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Grossman
United States
Grand Junction
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
A single T-60 tank moves adjacent and into the LOS of a Stug platoon.


But we aren't talking about single tanks, are we?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eoin Corrigan
Ireland
Wexford
Wexford
flag msg tools
designer
ASL Fanatic
badge
Royal Dublin Fusiliers "Spectamur Agendo"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
geebob wrote:
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
A single T-60 tank moves adjacent and into the LOS of a Stug platoon.


But we aren't talking about single tanks, are we?


In fact, we are

Platoons break down into single vehicles, either voluntarily or as a result of taking hits. For example an immobilised Stug platoon hit a second time will be reduced to an immobilised Stug and a "fresh" Stug. Infantry platoons also deploy into squads.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Suulthanaur wrote:
But I would like to hear what others have to say about what the cubes actually represent more than a Euro-style game mechanic.

I think that the order cubes in FF represent the command cycle. I can't find a simple online reference for this but in a nutshell, the command cycle is the ongoing process whereby lower echelons feed sitreps up the command and communications chain while higher echelons are feeding orders back down. An observation I've seen more than once is that one strength of the German army in WW2 was their ability to 'get inside' their opponents' command cycles, hence their ability operationally to outmanoeuvre their enemies in the field.

With that in mind I hope it's easy to see how the turn clock of FF's order cubes gives an abstract model of interacting command cycles. I believe that this effect will be enhanced by the initiative-driven contest over the cubes on a given turn, which could be seen to represent efforts to 'get inside' your opponent's command cycle. The random seeding of the cubes also contributes to this model, representing as it might the vagaries of communications chains, with their dependency on runners, despatch riders, radios and telephones, all of which were subject to delay and to outright failure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
geebob wrote:
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
A single T-60 tank moves adjacent and into the LOS of a Stug platoon.


But we aren't talking about single tanks, are we?


In fact, we are :)

Platoons break down into single vehicles ...


Is a tank squad counter an individual tank or a squad of 2-4?

I seem to recall seeing Soviet training pictures which show T-43 platoons composed of 3-4 squads of 3 tanks each...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McLintock
Scotland
Glasgow
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
badge
"Roll dice and kick ass!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
adorablerocket wrote:
Is a tank squad counter an individual tank or a squad of 2-4?

I seem to recall seeing Soviet training pictures which show T-43 platoons composed of 3-4 squads of 3 tanks each...

A single tank:
Quote:
3.3 Unit Sizes
SCALE: A squad-sized unit in the game represents: a squad of 8-12 men; a gun with its inherent crew; or an individual vehicle. Each platoon-sized unit represents three such units fighting as a coherent formation. Historically, platoons sometimes contained four or more units especially armored formations but this game uses three as a nominal figure for both consistency and simplicity

DESIGN NOTE: The terms "squad" and "platoon" aren’t 100% accurate, of course, and are used here solely as a matter of convenience. For example, a grouping of guns would often be called a "battery" but are termed a platoon in FF to maintain consistency throughout the rules.
.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JMcL63 wrote:

A single tank:
3.3 Unit Sizes
Historically, platoons sometimes contained four or more units especially armored formations but this game uses three as a nominal figure for both consistency and simplicity



Thanks, looks like I got my self confused by that!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ROB VERRY
United States
South Cairo
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Yeah, the 70's weren't all bad - you should see my GI JOE Adventure Team collection!

As for the graphics thang, I agree functional is vital and yes, all art is subjective, but it just would have been nice to see a more well-rounded product with improved graphics (like Band of Heroes for example). I suppose being an artist myself and playing lots Flames of War recently has somewhat filtered my view of 'functional' wargame graphics. I just KNOW that this sysytem will be rockin' and raise the bar even higher. My soon to be 49 year old eyes seek color, depth and detail to spark the imagination. In any case, I will port the system over to the miniatures table and get my fill of eye-candy there.

And yes, I would take disco over hip-hop any day! yuk
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Vater
Germany
Cologne
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
First off, FF is a different approach on wargame design and obviously not ASL, ATS, CoH, CC, UF, BoH, PG etc etc pp. FF is an eclectic design, yes, it borrows from some of the most successful designs in tactical wargaming and yet - keeps it simple and in a comprehensive framework of rules. Simple mechanics they may be, i agree, but designed for effect almost in perfection. It all does rely on your ability to think abstractly, though.

I never thought of the absent 'silver bullet' as being a design flaw. If you do read some AAR of the time portrayed, most of which aren't translated, unfortunately, the fire & forget engagements seem to be almost non-existent. Catastrophic kills were far and between, actually. Putting Panthers and Tigers against Shermans in the summer of '44 may be another story, but we'll see how that goes when the next installment in the series rolls out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eoin Corrigan
Ireland
Wexford
Wexford
flag msg tools
designer
ASL Fanatic
badge
Royal Dublin Fusiliers "Spectamur Agendo"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Radetzkymarsch wrote:
If you do read some AAR of the time portrayed, most of which aren't translated, unfortunately, the fire & forget engagements seem to be almost non-existent. Catastrophic kills were far and between, actually. Putting Panthers and Tigers against Shermans in the summer of '44 may be another story, but we'll see how that goes when the next installment in the series rolls out.


To a degree, you are correct. One shot kills had a greater prevalence later in the war as gun penetration values began to win out over armour plating thicknesses. However, bear in mind that:

(i) A fire action in FF:GD does not necesessarily depict one shot.

(ii) One shot kills certainly did happen, particularly at close ranges. In FF:GD one shot kills simply cannot happen.

(iii) Tanks and SPGs (such as a Stug) may have had difficulty penetrating one another's frontal armour, however, an outright kill against a thinly armoured vehicle, such as a T-60, T-70 or halftrack, was commonplace. An 75mm, 76mm or 85mm AP round would cut through the frontal armour of those vehicles. In FF:GD very lightly armoured vehicles have two steps, as have tanks, and therefore cannot be eliminated in a single fire action, even when a single vehicle is fired on through its rear facing by a platoon of enemy AT guns or tanks / SPGs.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Gerardy
Canada
Manitoba
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eoin Corrigan wrote:
[q="Radetzkymarsch"]...
(ii) One shot kills certainly did happen, particularly at close ranges. In FF:GD one shot kills simply cannot happen.

(iii) Tanks and SPGs (such as a Stug) may have had difficulty penetrating one another's frontal armour, however, an outright kill against a thinly armoured vehicle, such as a T-60, T-70 or halftrack, was commonplace. An 75mm, 76mm or 85mm AP round would cut through the frontal armour of those vehicles. In FF:GD very lightly armoured vehicles have two steps, as have tanks, and therefore cannot be eliminated in a single fire action...


Although units can't be eliminated in one fire attack, I would consider a unconfirmed kill or immobilized hit as one shot kills.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.