TFB Observations - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: TFB Observations (/showthread.php?tid=40398)

TFB Observations - bk6583 - 05-07-2007 After getting a bit burned out with the PzC game engine, I purchased TFB. Part of me wants to like this game. However, I find it very hard to accept the main aspects of the combat engine. Are you really trying to tell me that with two day game turns only ONE infantry division can attack at a time?? Yes, I know that two panzer divisions can attack at once (hence I assume that this is the crux of the combat engine, i.e., the panzer divisions were the true fist) but jeez I'm frustrated. Don't tell me that a stack of French units anchored on a French infantry division (not on the Maginot Line - it was in a forest) rated "D" can withstand three attacks by three German infantry divisions (rated "A"). These German infantry divisions were also stacked with multitudes of support units - yet all three stacks were all attacking at a "Disadvantage" (actually happened - total German losses something like 160 while that French division suffered a loss of 12). Lastly, what was the intent of air units vis-a-vis ground support? By that I mean they don't seem to inflict a level of damage that would be necessary for a suuccessful German attack - see above. I thought historically that the Luftwaffe was a huge trump card in this campaign. Wouldn't know it from playing the France scenario. At any rate, although I look forward to more TFB games, I believe some work needs to be done to the basic combat engine. RE: TFB Observations - Krak - 05-08-2007 While I can symphathise with you I still like this system. If you think for a moment that if we take the armoured units out of the battle we should basically be left with a WWI type situation, that is high losses for very little gain as inf and art slug it out. Its the armour that changes the dynamic, plus air support as well, but primariy its the tank that allows for breakthru and rapid territorial gain. I think the system also adequately models the fact that in a frontline situation how can your 3 divisions that attack from different hexes be able to contribute their entire strength when they themselves are opposing enemy units? Are we to suppose the enemy units not being attacked would sit by idle and watch their comrades get pummeled? This has always been a bugbear of mine in the old board game classics, that is that multiple stacks can attack a single stack without penalty. Some rules enforce that if a stack attacks then ALL adjacent hexes must be attacked, this is a good rule, ala the old soak off attacks. I think the WWIE system is just reflecting this in another way. To attack a hex without armour you need to blast it with heaps of art and air, then attack with 1 and 2/3 divisions. This may or may not result in a 'victory' but either way your losses will be high, as they should be. HPS has improved the system with the isolations rules. Having said all that I still think that the defender should be penalised when defending against diametrically opposed attacks in the same turn even when they are not isolated. Just my thoughts, I too am looking forward to the next release and any improvement to an already quite sound and playable system. RE: TFB Observations - Adam Parker - 05-08-2007 BK, I found the best way to grasp the logic of the system was to watch the AI play itself in the Poland scenario for a short while. Whilst not the best attacker vs a Human defender, it definitely is a master of the "blitzkreig" structure that this series mimicks. Watch carefully and you'll see it employ land, arty, armor and air beautifully.