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

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

Maybe then they are a good force for a beginner to start with…a "handicap" like in golf perhaps?

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?"

Really? What brainiac decided to use units which have been described as having the most complex and controversial rules in the game during a "demo?"

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)

Sounds like somebody is not very adept at running demos.

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

Great game…just got the Millennium Falcon myself!

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.

Or maybe BF needs to do a better job at getting out the message on what's actually at play with TD rules so more experienced players can break it down for other players without having to resort to science fiction references?

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!

It's the organic recon assets at the platoon level. US SP TDs have them. Your Marders do not.

Cheers, VB

I think the respawn simile is very apt

It is like the original necromancer rule it will take a lot of customers laughing before BF finallty realise they made a mistake

Von Burge, you talk about controlling dead space etc.

You are not taking into account scenario requirements etc.

E.g. defender starts with only 50% of their force on table.

E.g. defender has a set deployment zone with a specified No-Mans land that they're not allowed to place units in.

E.g. most people will randomly roll up a scenario after terrain set up.

E.g. TD's get to move before the game starts.

Furthermore other than some vague references, you do not mention any tactics to countering Tank Destroyer rules.

The tactic discussed by most senior players is usage of recce troops. Problem is limited German recce (most modern lists have none) and very often that recce unit will be blasted by whatever other assets the other guy is fielding – there's 1 VP down the toilet. Also the tactic isn't full proof – people thought the Puma company would be a counter but that hasn't eventuated.

As for dumbing down the game – simplifaction is not dumbing it down. You can have very complicated interactions with very simple rules.

TD rules are complicated. They break too many core rules and have too many unexpected synergies.

But then it appears you do not play the scenarios out of the book so whatever home brew stuff you've got works for you. Good for you, sucks for the rest of us.

But then it appears you do not play the scenarios out of the book so whatever home brew stuff you've got works for you.

You'd be quite incorrect if that's what you think. I play the stock "missions" at least as much as your 1-2 casual games a month. Though they are not my preference, they do end up being a significant portion of the FoW games I play.

Good for you, sucks for the rest of us.

I do recognize the utility of the set-point "pick-up game" and the fun that folks can have at tournaments. That "portability" brought about by a common standard rules set and "currency" (i.e. points) no doubt has helped FoW make the huge headway it has among a fine field of WW2 wargames. I'm really not in favor of anything that unnecessarily jeopardizes that.

TD rules are complicated. They break too many core rules and have too many unexpected synergies.

I did not say they were easy or balanced myself did I?

As for dumbing down the game – simplifaction is not dumbing it down. You can have very complicated interactions with very simple rules.

Really? Most folks who seem to have issues with FoW seem to think otherwise. But I agree with you, and I'd be happy to see a simplification and reduced "coolness" for TDs. I'm just not a big fan of total elimination of them like has been advocated here. Especially not removal because of them supposedly being "completely ahistorical," which I do not believe is supported by facts.

The tactic discussed by most senior players is usage of recce troops. Problem is limited German recce (most modern lists have none) and very often that recce unit will be blasted by whatever other assets the other guy is fielding – there's 1 VP down the toilet.

I'm still not sure what the focus on German "recon" is. What is it supposed to be doing for you against the TDs?

Also the tactic isn't full proof – people thought the Puma company would be a counter but that hasn't eventuated.

I'm not so sure a "list" is a "tactic." That might be the first problem with this approach.

Furthermore other than some vague references, you do not mention any tactics to countering Tank Destroyer rules.

Aaahhh…you want the "Tactica Von Burge!" Well I'm sure there are many, many that could give you much better advice than me, but if you really want me to it I'll pull on my Stahlhelm and try to give you an idea what I might do as a German player facing US TDs given your below scenario requirements.

E.g. defender starts with only 50% of their force on table.

OK, I'm defending. Probably would be anyway as I pretty much always play infantry. I'm thinking my initial on board force might be a couple of infantry platoons, PaKs (I normally use PaK-40s, but PaK-38s would be good call), and a not too terribly expensive mobile AT unit like Marders).

E.g. defender has a set deployment zone with a specified No-Mans land that they're not allowed to place units in.

Yep. And in all but two missions the US TDs will have to start at least 16" and unable to lift Gone-to-ground on turn 1.

So I will deploy infantry as far forward in my deployment zone as I can and trying to keep them outside of 16" of where the enemy can deploy. This is often a problem in Breakthrough and Counter-Attack as the enemy can start a lot closer, but then again with these missions I'll have a lot more to start with that the 50% allotted above because I rarely take anything but a single "tank" platoon anyway so Mobile Reserves will not effect me much if at all in those two missions.

I reckon I'll be Gone-to-ground with infantry teams no more than 4" apart and probably dug-in. I think that's how it Generally goes.

E.g. most people will randomly roll up a scenario after terrain set up.

I reckon we covered that above when you put me on defence with only 50% on the board.

E.g. TD's get to move before the game starts.

Well here's the first step in the mitigation plan. Because recon deployment can't get closer than 16" to the enemy, that big o'le recon move you're worried about will generally be only a few inches if I deploy well. They can get within 8" of course if they are completely out of line of sight and that will happen sometimes, but not such a big deal as they, by definition, are "out of line of sight" and still can't lift Gone-to-ground on me on turn one.

They can't shoot fme very well on turn one as I'd be German Vets and ground to ground. They can try to assault me, but being open topped the TD's still get pinned on 5 hits. Even if they did close in the assault, I'd be spread out enough and in depth so that at most three teams would be lost and I likely would just fall back after that rather than counter attacking to leave the TDs exposed to later PaK/Marder fire.

Behind that infantry screen I'd have my PaKs and Marders. Maybe one in ambush depending on exact mission. But in any case they'd also be in concealment and Gone-to-Ground.

That's hopefully going to get me through the TD's turn one. I might get the full volley of 76mm guns right off the bat, but I'll likely be Gone-To-Ground. I don't expect losses to be serious.

So I think I can keep TDs out to my front and my losses acceptably low for turn one. What happens after that depends heavily on if we are using the original V3 TD rules or the proposed changes. I'm not really interested in spending time on the original as most folks in our area have been rolling with the proposed TD changes as they are posted. But you can see my "tactic" is max gun to ground, forward infantry screen reduce forward enemy recon movement, AT fire from my secondary line, and live turn by turn until my reserves start to filter in.

I guess in general, I'm not as freaked out by the TDs because I have usually played infantry forces, rarely have any more than one tank platoon, and am quite use to folks rolling up at will and blasting me. But I usually figure out good engagement areas, had have a decent delaying plan. The only thing that really gets me is the security section being able to be deployed so nonchalantly. It really needs to be more at risk in some way for sticking its neck too far out. Right now the total loss of the security section is without any real consequence and that does bother me.

Hope that helps Thomas. I'm sure you'll come back with a dozen ways why it won't but I did what I could with the time I could afford to it tonight.

Cheers, VB

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that adding a single sentence to the current US TD rules would fix a lot of the complaining: "If the security section is destroyed without the TDs on the table, the entire platoon is destroyed, TDs included."

I'm still not sure what the focus on German "recon" is. What is it supposed to be doing for you against the TDs?

You get to use pre-game recon movment. This can be used to stop TD's getting into position as Defender recce often has first move.

Recce also pushes out Ambush zone from 4 inches to 8 inches. TD's use ambush rules.

Yep. And in all but two missions the US TDs will have to start at least 16" and unable to lift Gone-to-ground on turn 1.

In most missions TD's can use pre-game recce move to move within 16 inches of opponent (provided cover is there).

Which means lifting GTG on turn 1 as I will show in my next point.

They can get within 8" of course if they are completely out of line of sight and that will happen sometimes, but not such a big deal as they, by definition, are "out of line of sight" and still can't lift Gone-to-ground on me on turn one.

Here's a little trick I've seen done on several occassions that allows TD's to do their magic.

1. Pre-game Recce move: Drive Security Section behind LOS blocking terrain such as forest or building 8.01-16 inches in front of enemy.

For extra BS, combine with Spearhead move to move rest of your force forward.

2. Turn 1: Decloack TDs. TD's have to be within command distance of Security Section (6 – 8 inches depending on Skill rating). Decloack movement is forward into bit of cover your SS was cowering behind.

In essence in turn 1 you've slingshotted to within 16 inches of enemy. Plus you're in cover.

Remove GTG and proceed to pummel.

I've seen this done numerous times.

Also as recce platoons TD's disrupt enemy ambushes.

On the attack, the TD's are nasty as they often allow multiple ambushes.

Sure you might know where the Security Section is but the TD's decloack within 8 inches of them.

Fighting Withdrawal is especially horrific against an opponent defending with 1-2 platoons of TDs as well as 1 normal unit in ambush.

Surrounded is also uber nasty.

And VB – I use the same kind of set ups. I have the Pak 40s 7.99 inches from the front of the infantry so as to enable defensive fire in assault.

However as stated it won't stop TDs. It'll just give them a juicy ATG or at worst infantry unit to chew up.

And it gets worse if there are units of 105mm Shermans lurking about as well as US TOT artillery.

There's other crummy things about new Americans – infantry that move 16 inches through terrain (speed of a Stuart tank in cross country), allowing 155mm artillery without prerequisite points spent on 105mm or availability of new Sherman models – the M4A3E8 is particularly frustrating because smoke does little or nothing against them and they're pelting 2 unmodified ROF2 shots a turn, cheap swap out of rifle teams for bazookas (cost of a move or shoot 4 inch range faust).

This is the problem with current LW American lists – they're too awesome at everything.

There are massive synergies generated by all these abilities interacting together.

But the TD's are the icing on the cake.

I guess you're right then! There must be absolutely nothing a poor German player can do but whimper, roll over, and take what's coming from the TDs. It's always going to be an automatic win for the TDs and likely all 6-1's just like in the OP's AAR.

So then I guess we'll see all the top spots at the US Nationals and all the big LW open tournaments filled with nothing but TDs laden force as the only loses they will have will be against other TD forces in Blue on Blue match-ups. And if things are as completely unbalanced thus ultimately unplayable against US forces as you have laid out here, then we can expect a fix. When the BAR was validated as being so horribly broken following how they completely filled all the top standings…a "nerf" promptly followed from BF. According to many, that "nerf" was an overcorrection. So maybe you should have some faith and hope that if things play out as badly as you fret about, that the TDs might not just be brought down a notch, but ultimately may be made cost ineffective in the world of casual pick-up games and tournaments.

I'll tell you what! I'll go to the US LW Nationals and I'll take a US force with at least 2 TD platoons. Plenty of time to get a force together for July. So I'll do my best to show that the US TD forces are just totally broken to help prove your point. That's what happened with the BAR right? Folks figured out how bad it was and a bunch of good players from the I-95 club primarily all kitted out with it and I think the end result was that all 8 or 9 BAR forces present all ended up filling up the most just about all of the Top 10 standings of the EW US Nationals.

Just as I said earlier in this thread, play balance in FoW gets sorted out sooner or later. Nothing as broken as you are making out the LW US to be last very long. So sit back and relax. Play some more Kampgroupe-X, or some MW, or EW, or maybe just other LW theaters/campaigns in FoW that don't have the LW US in it to scare you away from FoW games. BF has shown they'll make adjustments when it looks like adjustments are needed. It happened with the BAR, looks like it's happening with the TDs now, so have some faith and some patience. BF has demonstrated that they listen and take action when required.

Cheers, VB

There's other crummy things about new Americans – infantry that move 16 inches through terrain (speed of a Stuart tank in cross country),

Agreed, this is a little over the top. the US 2nd Infantry Div list out of Devil's charge is one of the most adaptable lists in the game and doesn't really have any weaknesses. That said they are still not an auto win by any means.

allowing 155mm artillery without prerequisite points spent on 105mm

Haven't the Germans been able to do this from the get go. This is a non issue.

or availability of new Sherman models – the M4A3E8 is particularly frustrating because smoke does little or nothing against them and they're pelting 2 unmodified ROF2 shots a turn,

Have you priced Easy 8s in that list? a Vet Easy 8 is 150 points! That's for a front armor 7 vehicle, mind you. They have awesome special rules but die just as fast as any other Sherman to AT1 13 and AT 14 fire.

cheap swap out of rifle teams for bazookas (cost of a move or shoot 4 inch range faust).

you pay for the upgrade, why not? it's fairly pointed to all other books, or have you always had a problem with them?

There are massive synergies generated by all these abilities interacting together.

But the TD's are the icing on the cake.

How many points are you playing at that all these are interacting together? 155mm Arty ,Infantry platoons, Easy 8 and Tank Destroyers?

our group has explored options for countering Tank Destroyers. 16 Vet PZ IVs, US Light Tank Companies and German Pios have all had success against the TD.

That said I think that Phil's proposed changes, when the go final, will go a long way towards addressing a lot of the most worst issues. Not sure if Patton needs to go or not though.

Gotta admit, I wonder WTH Patton is doing annoying company or battalion commanders. Doesn't he have an entire army to command?

At least Harmon on the beaches was historical and was basically just a reroll to motivation tests.

LITS,

Gotta admit, I wonder WTH Patton is doing annoying company or battalion commanders.

Maybe it's not Patton? Maybe it's just the Battalion Commander showing up in a M20 and he kind of has a similar leadership "style" as Gen Patton?

Buckaroo,

That said they are still not an auto win by any means.

Vet PZ IVs, US Light Tank Companies and German Pios have all had success against the TD.

Noooo!!!!! I'm all psyched to do this TD thing now and you're telling me that I may have to actually earn some VPs, maybe even some wins?

Cheers, VB

Nah It's most definitely George Patton:

link

For a company level game, there's an awful lot of generals zooming around.

Nah It's most definitely George Patton:

Really? It does not necessarily need to be so, unless one is limited by his own inability to see it otherwise. FoW is an abstract game played with toys. You'd think we could employ a little wider perspective here and there rather than solely rely on literal interpretations.

For a company level game, there are an awful lot of generals zooming around.

Really? What percentage overall are you observing? You of course have the ability to directly affect half the forces in the games you play (i.e. your forces).If "Generals" is an issue for you in an abstract game played with toys/figurines that you can't possibly see another way, then simply don't use them perhaps? Of course if you tend to play mostly historical scenarios it never hardly comes up as the leader's use would be tied in to his actual intervention in the real events your scenario is modeled off of. Then there's always the "what ifs," implausible as they might sometime seem to be.

If all that still does not "do it" for you, with Patton, you always have the option of just taking a standard M20/Command Team models, paying your 100pts, and calling the model the "Battalion Commander" etc who just happens to have some of the same leadership style/characteristics of the "Big Guy." No big deal and not hard to comprehend if you're not so constrained in your perspectives.

Take Audie Murphy. He's listed in the "Devils Charge Book" as a hero option for rifle companies of the 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions. Of course many will correctly point out that Audie Murphy never served with those two divisions. You'd have to expect that Phil and crew are fully aware that Audie Murphy served with the 3rd Infantry Division in Italy and later into Southern France, Southern Germany and finally Austria. So what's going on here if we use the Audie Murphy in a 2ID or 99ID list or some other "ID" list that we used the "template" list from "Devils Charge" to build? It might be obvious to some that it's not necessarily "THE" Audie Murphy in our 2ID force. He served with 3ID for goodness sake! So then maybe it's just some other similar, perhaps unsung, hero doing his best for God and Country in a rather Audie Murphy like way. Likewise maybe your "General" model is just some more realistic Battalion level commander showing up and influencing the battle? It's really up to you is it not?

So for me, I'm not a big fan of "Generals" in the company game as is rightly pointed out as generally wrong in a historic sense. So "step 1" for me is I don't do it. "Step 2" if somebody else chooses to use a "General," then I don't let myself get bent out of shape about it. I look at it for what it really is; a simple game token that has game effects and has some point cost more or less associated with the benefits the piece gives in the game. If it's that lovely Patton model from your link above, I think "great nice model, I'm glad you had a chance to bring that lovely piece to today's game." But I'd never think of it as the real "Patton." It's just a little model with game effects and nothing more to me. In terms of game effect it's easy for me visualize it as some next higher up commander, but not necessarily all the way up to the 3rd Army level, showing up and acting like Patton. Just as specific lists can be used as "templates" to field other forces not specifically addressed within any FoW books, I see named heroes as "templates" that can be used to represent other unnamed heroes that had an impact but for which there were just not enough pages in the history books to capture all of their exploits, sacrifices, and contributions to their Nation's War effort. Seems like a fairly simple concept. I'm surprised more astute gamers and long time FoW players are not able to look at it that way.

Cheers, VB

I like it how you can justify it as anything in your mind.

The unit entry is for General Patton. The miniature is General Patton.

The rules refer to Patton (from above link):

Each turn Patton may re-roll one die rolled to receive Reserves for his company.

If Patton is Destroyed during the game American morale at the front and back home suffers a huge loss, despite any other gains. If this happens, the American player loses one Victory Point and their opponent gains one Victory Point at the end of the battle.

any turn in which Patton did not move At the Double, all American platoons with their Platoon Command team in Line Of Sight of Patton pass Motivation Tests on a result of 3+.

BF clearly aim for it to be a portrayal of General Patton – same thing Von Saucken, Rommel etc.

Remember that these books are meant to reflect specific units in specific battles e.g. Wittman at Villers Bocage, Loza in Hungary etc etc.

So it's clear that BF aim for it to be a General Patton leading his Army in the Lorraine Campaign.

As for Audie Murphy, I've not seen the unit entry. It could be Phil and co just ignored history.

After all apparently Nuts covers both Nordwind and Bastogne but there are no Allied lists to represent Nordwind and in fact it kind of gives the impression of Sturmtiger/Jagdtiger v US 101st.

So Murphie in Bulge might have been the intention.

Apologies Thomas,

I missed your reply here with all the other excitement going on.

Look. If you cannot see it in anything other than the "BF way," I'm just going to have to be sorry for you. In the end it's your toys, it's your game, you decided what it is or is not in whatever way works for best you. If you can't do that and you can't otherwise deal with a "General" in the game then you are just out of luck and will have to be miserable when you play in a game with a "General" or you'll just have to miss out on those games altogether. Either is fine as you so choose, I'm just trying to give you an option to consider in the first case so that it might possibly help you enjoy more of your FoW games.

So Murphie in Bulge might have been the intention.

Perhaps…but then Wacht am Rhine and Nordwind are two separate operations and the list in the "Nuts" book do specifically cite 2nd ID and 99th ID I think and the book does seem specially "Bastogne" focus, but I'm happy that you can at east visualize their use elsewhere.

Cheers, VB

Cheers, VB