"1780 Late War tourney Report - Tank Destroyers!" Topic

Hey guys, I took some US Tank Destroyers to a local Tournament to take them out for test spin.

While fully aware of the controversy surrounding them I wanted to see how there performed and be able to provide "real world" data for the community.

AAR at link

is that what hub-cap to hub-cap looks like?

Perhaps if a tank gets brewed all tanks/teasm within 2" takes a damage test?

Depends on the ground scale…

is that what hub-cap to hub-cap looks like?

Nice. Someone takes the time to share some of his gaming experiences with us and we respond with a wise-ass question to drive the discussion into terrain that has been gone over again and again on this forum. Yep, let's just try to turn this into the typical threads we get for FoW on TMP shall we? Apparently some may incapable of anything else.

Nothing positive. No "thanks for sharing" etc…just negative. Really, is there any another game system that gets this nearly instantaneous, continuous level of droning negative feedback when someone tries to do something positive?

Perhaps if a tank gets brewed all tanks/teams within 2" takes a damage test?

Would we make the same recommendation if the game was played with 6mm models on the same board and same sized areas of terrain to work with? Is model size driving us to want to implement game mechanics just to make us feel better when if we simply used smaller models we'd not even think such changes would be necessary? So what are we doing for "looks" and what are we doing for needed game mechanics?

Well Buckaroo…

Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed your three AARs and appreciate your efforts to add to the Tank Destroyer discussion. Three 6-1's is a failry impressive end result for a day of FoW gaming and does not help to show the TD's as particularly balanced, though I'm sure player skill was a factor to some degree at least. Your first opponent's unpainted kit I took as a possible indication of a newer player and adding to that the failed reserve rolls makes me not want to weigh that end result too heavily. But I think the other two looked like more challenging games where you still prevailed with maximum effectiveness. BTW, were you using the newest proposed changes to the TD rules or just what's in the book?

Cheers, VB

Buckaroo,

I really enjoyed your AAR. I like your pictures with markups in particular. I never find it easy remembering to take enough photos then writing AARs. Your conclusion was a good honest inclusive of pointing out your own mistakes which I admire. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to post this AAR!

Favorite line from your AAR:
"To Add insult in injury a Greyhound kills a StuG as well."

@VB thanks for your comments. While the event specifically didn't use the new proposed TD Changes I played it that way. I'm typically pretty conservative with my TD Deployment.

player skill does play a factor though my first two opponent are no slouches and have also won tournaments they brought a rock to a paper fight :-). You are correct on my last opponent as well. he is new but did well his first few games.

@Hawkwood Never understood the hub to hub complaint. FOW, with sliding ground scale is similar to many games. Consider an SMG with a range of 4" is slightly farther then the length of a Panther. Obviously the game isn't scale exact and that these tanks are probably occupying only part of their footprint?

Thanks everyone for the comments so far. The TD issue is a contentious one and I don't see an easy fix.

Buckaroo,

@Hawkwood Never understood the hub to hub complaint. FOW, with sliding ground scale is similar to many games.

It's easy to understand. The tanks do "look" too bunched up! That's a fair observation if you are just looking at it with a casual glance and not placing any deeper thought or analysis to what you are observing.

Let's take your above image where you have the five M18's "hub to hub" in the woodline. Are these models "hub to hub?" Yes! Do they "look" to bunched up? Yes! So sure, at a glance you can't say much positive about the image (other than nice models!). But then let's apply some thought and analysis to the image. How big is that woodline? Maybe 8" across? How much terrain in meters do we think that piece may be approximating? Maybe 100m to 150m? So, though the M18s that "look" like they are "hub-to-hub" in terms of model density they might actually be "representing" AFVs that are at least 20m to 30m apart.

I guess you either see it solely on the surface "bunched" up level, or you have the ability to visualize what's actually being represented despite what the models look like. If you're the former type, you might need to routinely play on very large boards with very small models to ever be totally satisfied. If you're the later, then maybe you can play with 15mm on a 4x6 and still have a good time.

Let's take this a step further. Suppose we played FoW with smaller models as some have advocated as a means to address the "hub-to-hub" issue. Not a bad idea. But what if we did? How often then would that 8" wood line have even more (smaller) models pushed into it? Might we not get 16 or so 6mm models in the same space? That seems much closer to really being "hub-to-hub" both visually and in terms of game representation. So maybe, just maybe, sometimes we ought to realize that though modesl bunching-up does give an image that many find displeasing on the surface, it might serve us well to keep in mind that the 15mm model size in FoW is actually forcing more appropriate dispersion of vehicles by limiting the amount of fighting systems you can squeeze into the same space.

Back to your OP TD discussion…

The TD issue is a contentious one and I don't see an easy fix.

Maybe there is. Simply giving them something akin to "Tip & Run" or maybe "Always Ambush" might help. I think most of us would be happy if the Security Section was a unit on its own which had risks associated with its loss. So there's a lot possibly to consider. I do think the issue for BF is them not wating to scrub the concept 100% and starting completely over. They are trying to "fix" it without going back to a blank drawing board and that's really where they need to go.

Cheers, VB

Von Burge my comment was tounge in cheek as I am a tired as you are of the hub to hub comments
I do not see the point of them

As for the TD issue my views were published several times ages ago – ambush and / or tip and dun
SS conts – all could be sone n two paras
Worst thing is watching TD's pop up overthe other side or VDG or impassable terrain

I haven't met many fan boyz ,or mind readers at that, so another tick in the box of life experiences.
They look hubcap to hubcap to me, whatetever fiddling with the spirit, or parralax error, that the rules induldge in ,or ,
Personally speaking the lurid green table cover is of for more concern to me..
and I post a many many of pictures here, there and everywhere.
I understand the perils involved in this activiuty and , well I wish I had a big chum to wade in my behalf every time somebody made a sideong glance , cleared their throat meaningfully, or even passed a perfectly valid comment about my very average stuff.
Further I didn't realise I had wandered into the FoW sandpit and I shall make every effort to never come here again.You lot are touchier than the the Napoleonic boards' persons, if not quite as erudite.
I only intially came here as I thought the "1780" referred to some 18th century battle.I still don't know what it means in this thread's context.Anybody wish to illuminate me?, or not?

You lot are touchier than the the Napoleonic boards' persons, if not quite as erudite.

Considering the crap hurled at topics for this game system unlike any other the responses are not surprising. Honestly people should be more respectful when posting as intent is not always clear over the internet but I understand this is TMP. Simple questions/comments have regularly been used as the lead in to a on this board.

1780 refers to the number of points per side the players agreed to for that game.

Von Burge my comment was tounge in cheek as I am a tired as you are of the hub to hub comments
I do not see the point of them

I'm tracking with you TT.

As for the TD issue my views were published several times ages ago –

I know them well, and mostly concur with them as you can see from my similar comments above.

Worst thing is watching TD's pop up overthe other side or VDG or impassable terrain

True that. So I don't let rules become an excuse for pulling stuff like that. Can't always control what my opponent does…but I'm a big believer in leadership by example.

Cheers, VB

Do the math.
Two tanks "hub to hub" are in reality 50 meters (yards) apart.
It's a function of the vehicle versus ground scale.

I would be very interested to see the "actual" separation when you game with 25/28mm tanks using other rules.
I would also be very interested to hear of any set of rules where that never happens. Truly. You must be so proud of yourselves.

Really, you guys obsessed with this do not come across as enlightened, or even intelligent. You come across as boring and beating a dead horse.

I am NOT telling you to "shut up", since that is against TMP rules. I am just saying you are tiresome.

Further I didn't realise I had wandered into the FoW sandpit and I shall make every effort to never come here again.

Can I have that in writing? Oh, wait. I think I just did.

Back to the point of the OP, I always feel silly when my Romulan tank destroyers de-cloak, and the security section vanishes. That smacks of … fantasy.
Well, we have trucks "being sent to the rear", which means they vanish too, so I can put up with yet another silly rule.
I play FoW quite regularly, every other week, and I love the GAME. If it were a >GAG< "simulation", I couldn't be bothered.
I put up with "simulations" back in the 80s, and I am grown up now. I have no need to pretend that playing with toy soldiers has anything to do with reality.

At least it's not as bad as dropzone commander. These guys are actually touching:

from link

I wonder why they don't get the same reaction…

Back to the point of the OP, I always feel silly when my Romulan tank destroyers de-cloak, and the security section vanishes. That smacks of … fantasy.

My big problem about TD's is that the whole game degenerates into "limit the TDs or you lose a platoon for nothing."

Tigers, IS-2s, artillery etc is all avoidable. TD's are not – they have all these whizzbang rules that allows them to be where they need to be without repurcussions.

The amount of effort required to negating them is absurd and requires extreme #$^%ing about in terms of unit micromanagement.

They make playing against LW Americans unfun especially when coupled with all other daft special rules piled onto the Americans (e.g. Detroits Finest, Smooth Ride, Winter Training etc etc).

And the rules for TDs are completely ahistorical.

Oh and that game of Dropzone Commander looks lovely. Great little game that one.

At least in FoW, you can claim that those "taks" are in reality 100 meters apart.
Yopu can't do that with streets.
Ph, wait… In a FoW city fight….

Oh, can't we just roll dice and kill lead, instead of bitching about what the other guys play?

Funny, I have a friend who showed me multiple combos of 2ID the other day that I never even though possible.

I get that it's a world war 2 game, but in some missions you fight against 2ID and if they bring along 2 TD platoons you have the potential to be hit by 3 ambushes. Top that with large bazooka loaded platoons and unmatched artillery special rules…

I'd love to see someone (short of a full recon company) manage to avoid that.

My friend also told me "Flames of War armies are best chosen when you look at how many negatives an army brings along (being slow, low rate of fire, negative special rules) and taking it based on that factor."

In short, LW Americans as far as I'm aware suffer the fewest (if any) shortcomings in the whole game.

Totally agree with the 'best line' comment. You know you're having a bad day when a [expletives deleted] Armored Car with a 37mm popgun gets a tank kill!

LW Americans are pretty nasty, but that's also the German's POV. "One Panther would kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans always had an eleventh."

I still see the biggest problem with the Tank Destroyers is that opposing players don't take enough recon!

All I can say is that I would love to face a force like the TD one in this AAR with my Matilda Horde 'o' Doom TM ;)

Granted using an ahistorical force to counter a force that does not work historically is not really two wrongs making a right but it would be fun, well briefly until the realisiation of doom appeared on the TDC players face 3:)

You must not know much about German lists.

You can only take one platoon of recon at most.

It used to be where you could buy multiple "patrols" and spread them out as they deployed as one platoon but each patrol became it's own platoon and thus was able to fan out. This would have cut down on the TD super ambush loads.

Yet the V3 blanket fix to prevent the BAR from doing it's 15 tank ambush, also screwed the German recon patrols. Now each patrol is it's own platoon for deployment.

So I either put down something that can fight tanks, or put down an extra platoon of recon that will do marginally well if I'm lucky (pumas).

LW Americans are the nation with the fewest negatives and most bonuses. It's not a German POV anyone will tell you the same thing. Their armies are stupid cheap and flexible.

In my group, we've learned not to lose track of where the security section is because where they go, the platoon may deploy. It's not really decloaking at all as long as you note where the security is.

Also German infantry armies seldom field any more recon than a single regimental scout platoon – given 6 inch movement (plus stormtrooper) these guys won't be stopping the TD's.

Most Fallschirmjager don't even get their regimental scout platoon as an option.

The other problem with TD's is uber multirole – I've seen towed TD's churn out the firepower of an infantry platoon when their bazooka teams mount 0.50 cals on their halftracks.

As the whole platoon is recon the TD's are also great at digging out enemy infantry – in fact better than an equivalent platoon of Shermans.

To make it extra hilarious, in real life the towed TDs were very vulnerable to enemy attack yet in FOW they're actually more resilient than most infantry platoons and churn out more antiinfantry firepower than most infantry platoons. A towed TD throws out 20 odd shots including the bazooka teams in halftracks or 16 shots when pinned. The pinned ROF is better than a unit of Panzergrenadiers each equipped with a bipod mounted MG34 or MG42.

TD rules are a sad joke.

Tank Destroyers are a clear indication that the people designing this game have no idea how to play it.

Uber: Where the security section goes matters little, as they move 16 inches and at best you move 12. Lest we forget they have an additional 8 inches move to decloak and they can jump over terrain and impassable objects (like buildings and mountains).

Multiply that by x 3 and throw in Patton.

Thomas: The towed TD's are just retarded. A towed heavy anti-tank gun being able to deploy in no-man's land or my own deployment area and I wont know about it…please.

Not to mention the towed TD's are an instant strong point you can't bypass because by the time you get to it, you've already committed down a flank.

The thing people don't get is that once the TD's knock out the armor/anti-tank their poor frontal armor counts for nothing. They will just line up like Napoleonics and mass fire until you're dust.

Also most well built TDC's will run an armored rifle platoon, that is insult to injury…17 stands of well armed infantry.

@ThomasHobbes Kind of a apples to oranges comparison there, don't you think? CV PanzerGrenadier platoon costs 180. A CV Towed Tank Destroyer Platoon with added Bazooka teams and Tracks is 355. Adding the Zooks and Tracks alone cost 100 points to the cost of the platoon.

Also check out the proposed rule changes from Phil that will probably be put into effect shortly that removes Eyes and Ears from the TTD teams.

The point is these guys do infantry better than most infantry.

As for Phil's proposed changes, nothing's official.

To be honest they should just get rid of TD rules al together and give the TDs a secondary artillery rule to represent actual usage.

You know there is a reason why the TD doctrine didn't survive the second world war.

It doesn't work if you're advancing.

The point is these guys do infantry better than most infantry.

No, actually your misleading point is that a unit that costs almost twice as much as PanzerGrens has more firepower then them.

An equivalent pointed Towed Tank Destroyer Platoon would have
2 x 3" guns
1 x Bazooka Team
4 x M3 Halfttracks

175 points

Now you can make a legit comparison.

As for Phil's proposed changes, nothing's official.

True, but they are listening and proposing changes. That's a step in the right direction, right?

Personally I like the Tank Destroyer rules. they've existed in the game for a long time now. I just want to make sure they are properly pointed.

You know there is a reason why the TD doctrine didn't survive the second world war.

Sure it did. It's just that we call them 'attack helicopters' now!

I will admit, I haven't played flames since v3 came out, so I'm a bit behind on the rules changes.

You know there is a reason why the TD doctrine didn't survive the second world war.

Sure it did. It's just that we call them 'attack helicopters' now!

We also had 5th Company in US Mech Inf Bns through much of the cold war that had M901 Improved TOW Vehicles (ITVs), in the light infantry Battalions had HUMMV mounted TOWs Anti-Tank Companies.

And though you cannot say there was any continuation of the overarching broad doctrinal concept of "Seek, Strike, and Destroy" the spirit of that lived on informally at lower echelons in the formation of "Hunter-Killer" teams where recon assets were directly paired with AT assets do about the same thing as the FoW rules for TDs attempt to get at. Even today the Armored Guns Systems (AGS) in Stryker Brigades are often teamed with the Bn scouts to achieve much the same. "Seek, Strike, and Destroy" lives on, informally perhaps, but the concept is not difficult and it's not dead.

I will admit, I haven't played flames since v3 came out, so I'm a bit behind on the rules changes.

Dude!!! Get on it!

Cheers, VB

Mounting a TOW on an Humvee or M113 does not make it Seek and Strike Doctrine.

Seek and Strike doctrine involved usage of indepedent batallion size formations to hunt enemy tanks especially tank formations that have broken through.

That never happened.

Tank Destroyers were generally not used independently – they were used in conjunction with other forces – just like a Marder I-III or Su-85. In Italy and Normandy they were often used as artillery or assault guns. Only in a couple of instances were they closely used as prescribed.

Towed Tank Destroyers were completely incapable of Seek and Strike due to fact they were not self propelled – hence Seek and Strike doctrine was modified with an emphasis on controlling through fire only and not maneouvre.

Towed tank destroyers were used in the line just like 57mm M1s, Pak 36/38/40s, Zis-3s, 6 pounders

So why have a special rule for something that didn't really happen and that for the towed versions was impossible?

Phil's answer was that it was doctrine. Just like I guess it was doctrine in Vietnam for massed armoured breakthroughs against American and Australian forces.

Phil of course completely ignored the towed tank destroyer components of tank destroyer doctrine which pretty much set them up as a standard ATG unit as in any other country.

And why make that unit one of the most powerful in the game?

Not first time BF completely screwed up – look at BAR where the historically average at best 1st Armoured Division got represented as the best armoured formation in the entire game and became essentially unbeatable.

Whatever the case, the new Tank Destroyer rules + other American perks have significantly reduced the level of fun I have with this game. The TD rules have made the game frustrating for me.

A problem as the only players left seem to mainly play Americans!

I'm having some luck with Battlegroup Kursk.

Mounting a TOW on an Humvee or M113 does not make it Seek and Strike Doctrine.

Nor did I say it did. In fact I specified that you cannot say there was any continuation of the overarching broad doctrinal concept of "Seek, Strike, and Destroy" . I included those systems as examples of modern dedicated "thin skin" tank destroyers, just to make it clear that the US did not completely abandon such equipment.

Seek and Strike doctrine involved usage of indepedent batallion size formations to hunt enemy tanks especially tank formations that have broken through. That never happened.

Maybe so, but that battalion size level is not what we are talking about when it comes to FoW TD rules is it? There we are talking about the platoon level in FoW where the TD specific rules come into play. There are no Bn or higher level rules for TDs in FoW that I'm missing are there?

So why have a special rule for something that didn't really happen and that for the towed versions was impossible?

Maybe because on the platoon level it did? Maybe some "Hunter-Killer" team pairing at the platoon level is what's happening with the FoW TD rule. So maybe on the macro level (BDE, BN, CO), the whole "Seek, Strike, Destroy" doctrine was a wash, but on the mirco (PLT) level there's something to it and maybe that's why the Hunter-Killer team concept survived in the US Army well beyond WW2?

And why make that unit one of the most powerful in the game?
Not first time BF completely screwed up – look at BAR where the historically average at best 1st Armoured Division got represented as the best armoured formation in the entire game and became essentially unbeatable.

Seriously, not so sure it's completely "screwed up" and if play balance is your biggest concern, sit tight brother! The pendulum always swings back the other way sooner or later. I reckon TD laden forces will not dominate the FoW "tournament circuit" forever.

Tank Destroyers were generally not used independently – they were used in conjunction with other forces – just like a Marder I-III or Su-85. In Italy and Normandy they were often used as artillery or assault guns. Only in a couple of instances were they closely used as prescribed.

I'd say in Italy and Normandy they were primarily used as artillery and assault guns. Nonetheless, I think you need to show that TD platoon units completely lost their organic scouts that possibly gave them the Hunter-Killer capability I'm referring to before freaking out so much about the TD's platoon level rules on a historical basis. There might be a case for that, but I'll leave it up to your to prove it. So far your Bn level thoughts don't bear on the platoon level question we are looking at for the TD rules.

That organic pairing of TDs with scouts at the platoon is what might be significantly different than your Marder's and SUs above. Sure those SUs and Marders "were used in conjunction with other forces." So what? All forces are normally used in conjunction with other forces." It's called combined arms and it's not especially rare. What you need to show for your Marders and SUs before I feel sorry that they don't have something akin to the US TD rules is them having their own organic scouts or even habitually pairing of those units with recon assets in hunter-killer teams like I've been taking about here.

I think your best case might be the ISU Regiments with their Organic Assault Gun Reconnaissance platoons. So you've got your homework and a good place to start. Now make me proud!

Phil's answer was that it was doctrine. Just like I guess it was doctrine in Vietnam for massed armoured breakthroughs against American and Australian forces.

Man!!!! You seem bound and determined to get a good o'le "hate-on" going. That really detracts from your ability to zoom in on the issue at hand giving it the full deliberation it deserves.

Whatever the case, the new Tank Destroyer rules + other American perks have significantly reduced the level of fun I have with this game. The TD rules have made the game frustrating for me.

They way you rant on about most things FoW in this forum, it seems like game became more frustrating for you to bear long before any TDs issues. Maybe that's just my perception, but I don't see you changing your attitude toward FoW overall even if Phil himself gave you full license to rewrite the TDs just as you like. Am I wrong? Would your perfect "fix" to the TDs really make you a happy camper in FoW?

I'm having some luck with Battlegroup Kursk.

I'm truly happy for you! Game on brother!

Cheers, VB

You still don't address the towed tank destroyers.

And Phil's answer for the rules was "it's doctrine." You can justify it any which way you want in your head, but it doesn't hide the fact that BF stated their rationale for the rule (I can't fin the article any more – it was the initial one about tank hunters).

Problem with FOW is the special rule overload.

I foresaw this long before BAR or US uber forces. There hasb een a gradual increase in FOW special rules. When I started playing it was national rules and that was fine.

Then started a whole spate of special rules – some of which were extremely wierd (e.g. SA troops are better in close combat, Italian Panzergrenadier units are better at jumping out of a truck than anyone else etc).

Whilst initially it was benign albeit occassionally idiotic, I saw a trend that would ruin the enjoyment of the game in the long run just like they did with 40K where every unit has multiple special rules and where balance becomes difficult to attain.

And low and behold, along come uber Americans and we hit that threshold (actually BAR came along first but I don't play EW).

I still enjoy playing the game but not against the modern American lists which in my mind have more in common with 40K or Warmachine than WWII.

I'd rather play a completely ahistorical German v German game or Brits v Russians than play against current Americans.

And given only Allied forces fielded seem to be Americans, it kinda makes getting a game difficult.

By the way experienced world class tournament players have been saying the same thing about American lists – unbalanced with bad rules.

It's sad to see a good game turn bad.

Slow down the special rule glut and things improve drastically. It's why Mid War is still fun – not as many badly written and conceived special rules (though TDs are still a pain).

The article by Phil:

link

Before I wrap up, I'd like to address an interesting assertion that has been made that the tank destroyers didn't use their doctrine anyway, leading to the question: why do they have it in the game? While it's true that tank destroyer doctrine didn't work in the way it was originally expected, with battalions and even brigades of tank destroyers rushing to cut off and destroy German armoured breakthroughs, there are plenty of accounts of tank destroyer tactics being used on a smaller scale. Unfortunately for the tank destroyers, neither the Normandy battles, nor the Battle of the Bulge were fought in terrain that suited mobile tactics, forcing the tank destroyers into head-on battles with enemy tanks. In between however, in the race across France and Belgium, the tank destroyers had a field day, with the recon elements locating enemy counterattacks, and the tank destroyers manoeuvring to engage them from the flanks.

So whilst you could justify the rules for mobile TDs (M10/18) for post-breakout operations (basically Blood,Guts and Glory book), there is no justification for it in Italy, Tunisia, Normandy or Bulge.

The towed versions were too slow for any sort of fire and maneouvre and this was reflected in a modified doctrine for them to emphasise fire from prepared positions only. They should be a standard ATG only.

Meanwhile they can't even get the rules for Soviet ATGs correct.

Oh and the only people who probably ever use Tank Destroyer doctrine to its fullest effect were the Chadians with MILAN/TOW equipped Landcruisers against incompetent Libyan T-55 columns in what became known as the Toyota War.

You still don't address the towed tank destroyers.

Haven't I? Did they not have organic scouts like the M10 & M18s and unlike their peer PaK-40, 6pdrs, etc AT units? Show me those peer units had organic recon and I'll be happy to clamor for them to have the same towed TD abilities/rules. Show me the US towed TDs did not, and I'll be happy to champion the removal of those rules for them. But to be terribly honest, I'd be happy with TDs having something less than the full TD rules yet something more than peer towed ATG units to reflect the greater difficulty they obviously would have getting into good positions. But since rules overload is an issue for you, adding a separate set of special rules for towed TD's is likely less than ideal.

And Phil's answer for the rules was "it's doctrine." You can justify it any which way you want in your head, but it doesn't hide the fact that BF stated their rationale for the rule (I can't fin the article any more – it was the initial one about tank hunters).

Would not be the first time I thought Phil maybe got to the right answer for the wrong reasons. It's not like I agree with everything he says. I am critically opposed to quite a few things he's put out and quite a few FoW rules actually . I'm just pointing out there is a little something different with US TD unit organization. Regardless of what happened to "Seek, Strike, Destroy" on the battalion level above, there's a unique organic asset these units have that their peer units in other armies just don't seem to have. And I am suggesting that before we throw out the whole US TD special rules as completely wrong, it might be worth considering what benefit those additional organic recon assets might bring to bear for those TD platoons. I might look something like the FoW TD rules in the end?

Problem with FOW is the special rule overload.
I foresaw this long before BAR or US uber forces. There was an increase in FOW special rules.
Whilst initially it was benign, I saw a trend that would ruin the enjoyment of the game in the long run just like they did with 40K where every unit has multiple special rules and where balance becomes difficult to attain.

I thought we were talking about the TD rules specifically here. The "FoW" rule overload issue you can't seem to handle might need to be a separate discussion.

I still enjoy playing the game but not against the modern American lists which in my mind have more in common with 40K or Warmachine than WWII.

I'm not surprised given that you seem to only be addressing TDs from a doctrine perspective BN level and up rather than an asset availability and capability perspective from the Platoon level down where the unit rules for TD actually reside in FoW.

By the way experienced world class tournament players have been saying the same thing about American lists – unbalanced with bad rules.

Yeah, I know, but so what? I never said anything about the TD rules being remotely balanced. I even suggested much earlier in this thread some possible fixes. But that does not detract from the taking a hard look at how the organic scout assets in TD platoons, that are unique in the WW2 US Army as compared to other nations' AT platoons, just might possibly have some justification for some FoW platoon level TD rules.

You may have noticed that I'm not terribly anxious about "balance" and "tournament play." All that crap sorts itself out sooner or later. Maybe in a few years you'll like playing against LW US in FoW again? Until then you got Battlegroup-X to play..right?

Cheers, VB

Would not be the first time I thought Phil maybe got to the right answer for the wrong reasons. It's not like I agree with everything he says. I am critically opposed to quite a few things he's put out and quite a few FoW rules actually .

I seriously doubt this – you just defend everything.

The towed TD's do not operate properly at all.

Stanrdard procedure (according to FM21/1) for them was for positions to be determined during day and for guns to be deployed at night. Deployment followed similar considerations to any other ATGs – line of fire, negating dead space, concealment, mutual support etc.

On the offence they follow infantry and are used to deter against counterattacks.

TTDs as such as purely defensive.

In FOW, a towed TD unit's security section can zip through to enemy lines and then deploy in cover against infantry/gun formations and blast the snot out of them.

They can move behind enemy lines before the game even starts (normal TDs do this to).

They can pick optimum positions for attacking prepared enemy positions without taking any fire getting into that position.

Basically they're using towed ATGs as assault guns whilst M10/M18s are used as tanks.

Then there's balance issues – a large M3 can ambush within 16 inches whereas a much smaller and lighter Zis-3 or Zis-2 cannot.

So in FOW tank destroyers are master-of-all-trades, infiltrating stealth anti-infantry/anti-tank/anti-artillery units.

You have a unit equipped with large towed gun that is more stealthy than a small unit of commandos and more maneovurable than a tank unit and that is better at digging out infantry/guns than an equivalent unit of tanks (thanks to recce ability).

The TD player retains the initiative at all times, and you have to be willing to sacrifice reconaissance platoons (of which many German forces get none) to have a chance of limiting them.

You may have noticed that I'm not terribly anxious about "balance" and "tournament play."

So many people are concerned with this.

I don't play tournaments but I like balanced play.

After all where's the fun if I know my StuGs or Panzer IV's are instant toast unless I spend all my effort trying to shut down the TDs or if the other guy is simply going to move a big chunk of his force into my deployment zone without me having any chance of hurting them. Great way to kill maneouvre.

All that crap sorts itself out sooner or later.

If WH40K or WHFB or the ever increasing issues with FOW LW are anything to go by, balance issues do not sort them out.

Problem is special rules are designed to sell models. Why else give Shermans a million different special rules? Why make 2ID infantry better than any other infantry?

And once you embrace the special rule gravy train it becomes very hard to stop.

As stated MW is still good and LW works if you ignore current crop of books (basically stick with Normandy or Eastern Front).

The article by Phil:
link

Thanks for the link!

Kind of sounds like what I've been saying; though TD doctrine did not work at "big level" as intended, there still are those organic recon assets at the lower platoon levels and we have to ask ourselves what are they doing for those US TD units in WW2 and what benefits might that need to be translated to in game terms?

So whilst you could justify the rules for mobile TDs (M10/18) for post-breakout operations (basically Blood,Guts and Glory book), there is no justification for it in Italy, Tunisia, Normandy or Bulge.

Hey!!! You agree there is some justification for US TD rules in some areas now! That's a major step! And all in one thread! At least you're satisfied for two books of FoW rules now…at least for M10/18/36s anyway. Congratulations!

But I'm not sure how you ruled out Tunisia and Italy for possible proper utilization of the FoW TD rules? And for the Bulge and Normandy, it just may be that the rough terrain on the table top may be enough of an inhibitor to degrade TD employment and end up with something more like the "head on" clashes Phil referred to in those campaigns.

The towed versions were too slow for any sort of fire and maneouvre and this was reflected in a modified doctrine for them to emphasise fire from prepared positions only. They should be a standard ATG only.

I think in my previous post, written while you were writing your message I'm responding to now, I noted that I'd be happy to see "less" of set a TD rules for the towed units. I think that may be fair, but at the same time I think the additional organic recon assets they had beyond what "standard ATGs" had may mean reducing them to just "standard ATGs" may be going too far.

Meanwhile they can't even get the rules for Soviet ATGs correct.

Oooops…back to trashing the rules givers again and not focusing on US TD rules possible justifications. You are just bound and determined to get in every barb and jab you possibly can against o'le Phil and his team. Are you really sure you "like" this game even with US LW and TD issues aside?

Oh and the only people who probably ever use Tank Destroyer doctrine to its fullest effect were the Chadians with MILAN/TOW equipped Landcruisers against incompetent Libyan T-55 columns in what became known as the Toyota War.

See it can work! ;)

Cheers, VB

Kind of sounds like what I've been saying; though TD doctrine did not work at "big level" as intended, there still are those organic recon assets at the lower platoon levels and we have to ask ourselves what are they doing for those US TD units in WW2 and what benefits might that need to be translated to in game terms?

For towed guns? At best a redeployment move after enemy has deployed his force (immediate ambush). At worse none – towed security sections main job was protection with bazookas and MGs (already covered by rules).

Having organic recce security section doesn't make you any better at placement of troops – recce was performed by platoon/company commanders but then tank and infantry commanders did this as well but don't get any special rules.

But I'm not sure how you ruled out Tunisia and Italy for possible proper utilization of the FoW TD rules

Analyses performed on TDs during and after war. I loaded them up on FOW forum on which I'm no longer a member so you can go hunt them.

Oh and 1944 Italian lists don't allow TD rules for TD's so BF got it right here. They're still allowed for 1943 even though they were not used in that fashion.

TD's were committed head first against Panzers in Tunisia and not as hunting groups. The terrain was completely not helpful either.

And for the Bulge and Normandy, it just may be that the rough terrain on the table top may be enough of an inhibitor to degrade TD employment and end up with something more like the "head on" clashes Phil referred to in those campaigns.

Heavy terrain helps Tank Destroyers in FOW. Makes it easier to sneak forward or to decloak without enemy recce or other troops interferring.

Best table type for neutering TDs is planet bowling ball.

back to trashing the rules givers again

They're the ones writing inconsistent rules which are getting ever more inconsistent.

There's a thing called RESPONSIBILITY which most Westerners in the 21st century are not aware of.

I think they've done a great job with V3 but I think the Army books since Turning Tide have left a lot to be desired.

Stanrdard procedure (according to FM21/1) for them was for positions to be determined during day and for guns to be deployed at night. Deployment followed similar considerations to any other ATGs – line of fire, negating dead space, concealment, mutual support etc.

The big difference is that those "any other ATGs" don't have those additional organic recon assets that can maintain security on those fighting positions making sure the way was clear for the US TD to be deployed back in position at the last minute. That might just play out in the defense kind of like it does with the FoW TD rules.

On the offence they follow infantry and are used to deter against counterattacks.
TTDs as such as purely defensive.

Ok…maybe TDs should make their force "Always Defend." Would that make you feel better?

In FOW, a towed TD unit's security section can zip through to enemy lines and then deploy in cover against infantry formations and blast the snot out of them.

Seems like a dicey proposition there. You're talking just three jeeps that move only 4" in any sort of terrain other that open/road, not much to take out on the way in.

They can move behind enemy lines before the game even starts (normal TDs do this to).

Not really likely in other than really weird boards and in strange mission and force match ups I suspect.

They can pick optimum positions for attacking prepared enemy positions without taking any fire getting into that position.

And I hear Germans can get to the same positions, shoot and leave without taking any fire. But lets hope the German player facing those optimum TD positions have also had the forethought to get Gone-to-Ground in good positions them selves where they are only going to be hit on 6's and stand a good chance to deliverer some decent return fire against the "thin skin" TDs or the now deployed in the open TTDs.

Then there's balance issues – a large M3 can ambush within 16 inches whereas a much smaller and lighter Zis-3 or Zis-2 cannot.

So then should Zis-3 and 2's be more properly rated as "medium?" Something kind of an issue separate from what M3's have or don't have.

You have a unit equipped with large towed gun that is more stealthy than a small unit of commandos and more maneovurable than a tank unit and that is better at digging out infantry/guns than an equivalent unit of tanks (thanks to recce ability).

Not more stealthy if I kill those three recon jeeps and make the TTD deploy in the vicinity of their carcasses. Then those TTDs are on the ground and susceptible to more fire that turn, especially mortar bombardment.
Was not "recce ability" one of those things on the chopping block for TDs at the moment?

The TD player retains the initiative at all times, and you have to be willing to sacrifice reconaissance platoons (of which many German forces get none) to have a chance of limiting them.

I'm quite sure folks are figuring out other ways to limit them right now. We just have to wait until the big tournaments to see how it will be done if we cannot figure it out on our own.

You may have noticed that I'm not terribly anxious about "balance" and "tournament play."
So many people are concerned with this.
I don't play tournaments but I like balanced play.

So balance your scenarios, change the rules since you're outside the realm of tournaments, or just play more Kampfgroup-X and tell us how great that is.

After all where's the fun if I know my StuGs or Panzer IV's are instant toast unless I spend all my effort trying to shut down the TDs or if the other guy is simply going to move a big chunk of his force into my deployment zone without me having any chance of hurting them. Great way to kill maneouvre.

I reckon you have a challenge. That normally inspires me when it comes to wagaming.

All that crap sorts itself out sooner or later.

If WH40K or WHFB or the ever increasing issues with FOW LW are anything to go by, balance issues do not sort them out.

I reckon the BAR got "adjusted" pretty good. Maybe we'll see more of that if it proves necessary. So perhaps there's a reason to have a glimmer of hope if FoW is simply not all gloom and doom for you.

Problem is special rules are designed to sell models. Why else give Shermans a million different special rules? Why make 2ID infantry better than any other infantry?

And once you embrace the special rule gravy train it becomes very hard to stop.

Really? Back on the bash BF bandwagon…again. Oh well, maybe, just maybe, special rules are also intended to keep the game fresh and fun?

Cheers, VB

Having organic recce security section doesn't make you any better at placement of troops –

It actually quite does! I could spend days telling you how so.

recce was performed by platoon/company commanders but then tank and infantry commanders did this as well but don't get any special rules

There is a HELL of a lot of difference between a "leader's recon" and having dedicated recon assets to conduct continuous reconnaissance and surveillance for you. I've done both.

Oh and 1944 Italian lists don't allow TD rules for TD's so BF got it right here.

So then, BF is capable of getting it right. Hmmm. I wonder if they did that because TD units in Italy were stripped of those organic recon assets that I've been stressing are providing the capabilities inherent in the TD rules elsewhere? Oh look! Page 32 and 33 of "Dog's and Devils" shows both the mobile and towed US TD without having any security sections at all! Is there some organizational difference going on between the Italian theater TD units and the NWE ones? Is that why the TD rules apply in one theater and not the other? Certainly looks that way, and maybe just maybe the rules are not so wrong for each theater after all?

Well at least that leaves Italy still open for your LW FoW gaming fun against US forces.

And for the Bulge and Normandy, it just may be that the rough terrain on the table top may be enough of an inhibitor to degrade TD employment and end up with something more like the "head on" clashes Phil referred to in those campaigns.

Heavy terrain helps Tank Destroyers in FOW. Makes it easier to sneak forward or to decloak without enemy recce or other troops interferring.

That is if your "heavy" terrain is nothing more than "blob" terrain that can easily be maneuvered "around." Try making your table's more realistic by using more linear terrain, streams, gullies, difficult going fields, etc. Maybe your TD opponents won't dominate you so much if you do?

In respect to the Bulge campaign, I'd expect poor ground conditions (mud/snow etc) dropping the security section's movement down to 4" save maybe on roads would be a big help in knocking TDs down a notch. Even the M18's are going to be somewhat neutered with their speed cut in half.

Cheers, VB

Ok to summarise:

1. Hiding 3 jeeps behind terrain is easy, especially buildings.

2. Germans have 1/3 chance of failing Stormtrooper move and it's only 4 inch move, not a free pre game move of anywhere up to 24 inches (and usually 16).

3. All Tank Destroyers are recce troops and can remove Gone to Ground. This includes bazooka teams for Towed Tank Destroyers.

4. Zis-2/-3 should be medium – another issue as you stated.

5. "Wierd missions" – like the ones in the FOW rulebook that most players play? And "suspoect force match ups"? – This is game specifically designed with intercompatibility in mind.

In any case most German forces get next to no recce so they won't be stopping any TDs any time soon.

6. Jeeps move 16 inches in cross country terrain and 24 inches on roads.

7. Suggestions on how to deter Tank Destroyers are complex and difficult for non-veteran players to accomplish. This was discussed on WWPD where even Steven acknowledged that you needed to have an excellent grasp of rules and how they work to counter TDs.

I guess we 1-2 GAMES a month players don't count for ?

As for tournaments – results have been coming out of US for a while now. People that win or do well with TD's in tournnaments have claimed the rules are broken.

8. A challenge? No other unit in the game does what TD's do. They're so broken even Phil and co are investigating options on how to rectify them.

9. Change the rules – try convincing opponents of that. Takes two to tango.

10. My terrain is not blob terrain. TD rules favour terrain – you have a road and you have jeeps zooming up to 24 inches on it. You have any cross country and it's 16 inch movement.

As for weather – you can't just introduce this kind of deliberate shafting without opponent's consent.

I've encountered very limited interest in historical gaming in FOW locally.

We play casual non-historical games. When you look onb the interweb most players are the same.

A lot of it is "tournament practice" for those in that scene.

You turn up to club and play generic scenarios with whatever force picked your fancy that night. Most people aren't interested in historical scenarios (I found it impossible to generate interest in historical scenarios).

So the rules have to be robust enough to handle this sort of casual play which is probably the most common type of gaming in FOW.

I'm lost in the wall of text.

1. Nice AAR.
2. I liked the old TD rules -- I really dont see why they needed to be changed.

I like at least 2 mobile armoured units so it's a problem.

Ummmm, guys.

Is there ONE case in "history" where US tank destroyers operated like the special rules say?

Yes, I uee my Wolverines all the time, but I always feel as if I should apologize when I do.
And I always make Star Trek transporter noises when I remove the "security section".

It's just not right.

Course this never happens then John?
YouTube link

Tank destroyers will eventually kill this game to the new guy:

I had a demo game running next to me and three kids were watching 3 Jeeps die and 4 tanks magically appear in place.

One said "wait…you killed the jeeps why do they respawn?"

After an explanation of the rules, someone piped in and said it reminded them of blood angles. Kids dropped the open fire box because they didn't want to get sucked into another 40K (which they were trying to avoid)

They went home with a box of x-wing in stead.

Point is, if the game has over complicated ninja tanks that show up like romulan warbirds, and the rules remind people of magical 40k nonsense, you'll see fewer people jump in.

I mean I just don't get it…these guys get to ambush me multiple times yet my Marders and glass german tank destroyers who employed the same tactics get a dinky 4 inch move…yet their WHOLE GOAL WAS TO AMBUSH YOU!

Since we're on a startrek kick…this is how Phil's TD rules make me feel.

YouTube link

Would not be the first time I thought Phil maybe got to the right answer for the wrong reasons. It's not like I agree with everything he says. I am critically opposed to quite a few things he's put out and quite a few FoW rules actually .

I seriously doubt this – you just defend everything.

That is patently untrue. Even in this very thread I have agreed with you and others that the TD rules are not well balanced. I have also agreed here that Towed TDs should have something "less" in terms of special rules than the SP TDs. Not really "defending everything" is it?

When I chime in on a discussion it is often when people make a gross generalization like you did with this:

And the rules for TDs are completely ahistorical.

When I see something stated as being "completely ahistorical" , I think to myself "Hmmm, is that really fair?" So, I will generally do some research, come to my own conclusion, and if that does not support your claim, I will offer you a different perspective for you to consider. You state you can't see why TDs should have any special rules at all different than ATG units from other countries get. So I try to help you understand one possible reason by simply pointing out that it might the unique organization of US TD units that incorporated organic recon assets down at the platoon level that might be part of that equation.

Ok to summarise:
1. Hiding 3 jeeps behind terrain is easy, especially buildings.

You are having trouble controlling dead space apparently.

2. Germans have 1/3 chance of failing Stormtrooper move and it's only 4 inch move, not a free pre game move of anywhere up to 24 inches (and usually 16).

Not sure what that has to do with US TDs.

3. All Tank Destroyers are recce troops and can remove Gone to Ground. This includes bazooka teams for Towed Tank Destroyers.

An item that is on the chopping block for TD revision is it not?

4. Zis-2/-3 should be medium – another issue as you stated.

Yes. Happy to see these guns rated as medium. Note I'm not automatically defending Phil's interpretation of them as "Heavy."

5. "Wierd missions" – like the ones in the FOW rulebook that most players play? And "suspoect force match ups"? – This is game specifically designed with intercompatibility in mind.

The point that I was trying to make was in all but the most extreme cases, there is usually quite a lot you can do to mitigate the effectiveness of TD rules.

In any case most German forces get next to no recce so they won't be stopping any TDs any time soon.

I'm not so sure I see recon as a must for Germans have to "stop TDs." And you really need to clarify what you mean by "stop." Are you saying KO them without loss on your side? Or just have a reasonable chance of winning the battle?

6. Jeeps move 16 inches in cross country terrain and 24 inches on roads.

You're not denying your TD opponents the ability to make deep moves into your area by good use of infantry?

7. Suggestions on how to deter Tank Destroyers are complex and difficult for non-veteran players to accomplish. This was discussed on WWPD where even Steven acknowledged that you needed to have an excellent grasp of rules and how they work to counter TDs.
I guess we 1-2 GAMES a month players don't count for ?

Are you suggesting the game needs to be "dumbed down?"

As for tournaments – results have been coming out of US for a while now. People that win or do well with TD's in tournnaments have claimed the rules are broken.

And I never said they were not. I've suggested some way to mitigate the TD rules/ abilities for anybody who might be interested in doing something other than running around screaming "bloody murder," but I've never said they are balanced.

8. A challenge? No other unit in the game does what TD's do. They're so broken even Phil and co are investigating options on how to rectify them.

And that does not make you happy that they are looking to adjust them?

9. Change the rules – try convincing opponents of that. Takes two to tango.

True. I reckon if I have US TDs and you are refusing to play me because I have them as you stated above, that I'd be willing to "dial back" the rules a bit to make you happy and get in a game with you if you are a cool bloke that I actually want to game with. It's that or no game for me either right?

10. My terrain is not blob terrain. TD rules favour terrain – you have a road and you have jeeps zooming up to 24 inches on it. You have any cross country and it's 16 inch movement.

They'd be zooming right up into some infantry set to close down that avenue of approach against my force. I'm generally not leaving big hole open for my opponent to exploit.

As for weather – you can't just introduce this kind of deliberate shafting without opponent's consent.

We do it all the time. But historical campaigns and scenarios are more important to us perhaps.

I've encountered very limited interest in historical gaming in FOW locally.

I feel sorry for you. It's something my group's got going on pretty strong.

We play casual non-historical games. When you look onb the interweb most players are the same.

Nothing wrong with that. I do hope you at least try to go Red vs. Blue, but any gaming is good gaming I suppose!

A lot of it is "tournament practice" for those in that scene.

That happens with us as well. Specifically as a tournament approaches.

You turn up to club and play generic scenarios with whatever force picked your fancy that night. Most people aren't interested in historical scenarios (I found it impossible to generate interest in historical scenarios).

I have found it possible. Sorry that you cannot seem to do the same.

So here's my summary:

1) Yes the TD rules are not well balanced, but there are ways to mitigate their abilities. Sorry if that becomes the "divider" between good and less good players.

2) The TD rules are not necessarily "completely ahistorical", perhaps they go too far but there is something that these US TDs (SP and Towed) have that their ATG counterparts in other nations do not which might justify some of what has evolved into the TD rules.

Pretty simple eh?

Cheers, VB

Point is, if the game has over complicated ninja tanks that show up like romulan warbirds, and the rules remind people of magical 40k nonsense, you'll see fewer people jump in.

I mean I just don't get it…these guys get to ambush me multiple times yet my Marders and glass german tank destroyers who employed the same tactics get a dinky 4 inch move…yet their WHOLE GOAL WAS TO AMBUSH YOU!

Since we're on a startrek kick…this is how Phil's TD rules make me feel.

The Tanks Destroyer rules have been in the game from v1. The latest rules are merely a refinement of what's existed since the beginning.

the issue is not so much the Tank Destroyer rules themselves but the synergy of Multiple platoons of Tank Destroyers popping the ambush on the same turn.

Not sure on the complaints on the Marders. Aren't these the same guys that can drive to a hedge, shoot you and then magically back off the hedge before anyone can shoot?

@VB Good call on the terrain. I ran the Shifting Sands tournament this year as a Bulge inspired Firestorm campaign. Bad weather and snow impacted the effectiveness of the Tank Destroyers. Out of 16 Allied players not a SINGLE Tank Destroyer Company.

Ummmm, guys.
Is there ONE case in "history" where US tank destroyers operated like the special rules say?

Perhaps Lt Leiper's 3rd Platoon, Charlie Company, 704th TD Bn on 19 September 1944?

But they are hard to find. Not because it necessarily "never happened," but because accounts at the platoon level and below are very rare. Even more so with TDs because they are normally cross-attached units and the temporary headquarters they were assigned to did not often focus on their exploits in the higher unit AARs. I've some good AARs where TDs get to maneuver on the flanks of Panzers and devastate them, but most of those AARs omit exactly how those TDs got into those awesome positions of advantage.

Yes, I uee my Wolverines all the time, but I always feel as if I should apologize when I do.
And I always make Star Trek transporter noises when I remove the "security section".
It's just not right.

So don't use them that way. I'm sure your opponent will be happy let you run your TDs as normal simple thin-skinned "tanks."

I'd not want to use US TDs myself against a new or less experienced player, but I'd be happy to let them run then against me.

Cheers, VB

Good call on the terrain. I ran the Shifting Sands tournament this year as a Bulge inspired Firestorm campaign. Bad weather and snow impacted the effectiveness of the Tank Destroyers. Out of 16 Allied players not a SINGLE Tank Destroyer Company.

I so have to get to Shifting Sands one these days! I'm really impressed with the historical campaign aspects you all incorporate into your tournaments. Well done and keep it up!

Cheers, VB