Tide of Iron is Fantasy Flight Games' World War II tactical wargame.
It's a stunning production, of excellent overall quality and a good play as well. It's a little more abstract than most tactical combat games, but for the most part I'm comfortable with the level of abstraction.
There is, however, one aspect of the game that feels a little off to me and that is the whole "concentrated" fire vs. "suppressive" fire thing. I'm not sure what the designer is attempting to model here, given the way it's executed.
Suppression effects are, of course, quite common in 20th century combat games. Nearly universal, in fact, as getting the other guys to "put their heads down." is a key tactic under modern conditions.
But generally the suppressive effect is a byproduct of the destructive effect or, if it's an explicit goal of the firer, the firer gets usually gets some added benefit to represent the increased volume of fire. Meanwhile the destructive effect is normally diluted somewhat because the firing units are working to increase the number of bullets headed downrange and not their accuracy.
But in Tide of Iron the difference between destructive, casualty-producing fire and suppressive, morale-reducing fire is based on the intent of the firer, not on any difference at the target end. The same number of successes that would kill a figure will pin a squad instead. The same number that would rout a squad under suppressive would also eliminate it if fired at under concentrated rules. It would seem to me that suffering casualties would tend to pin a squad down, but in Tide of Iron it's an either/or situation. That just doesn't seem accurate to me.
I'm not sure why the designer felt the need to make the distinction this way. It would seem to me more valid to have the morale effects in addition to the casualty effects and if he wanted to model keep-their-head-down effects then units engaged in THAT kind of suppressive fire should get some benefit for giving up their casualty-producing effects.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who thinks this system makes more sense than the typical approach seen in designs as diverse as ASL and Axis & Allies: Miniatures that integrates both effects.
"But in Tide of Iron the difference between destructive, casualty-producing fire and suppressive, morale-reducing fire is based on the intent of the firer, not on any difference at the target end. The same number of successes that would kill a figure will pin a squad instead. The same number that would rout a squad under suppressive would also eliminate it if fired at under concentrated rules. It would seem to me that suffering casualties would tend to pin a squad down, but in Tide of Iron it's an either/or situation. That just doesn't seem accurate to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why the designer felt the need to make the distinction this way. It would seem to me more valid to have the morale effects in addition to the casualty effects and if he wanted to model keep-their-head-down effects then units engaged in THAT kind of suppressive fire should get some benefit for giving up their casualty-producing effects."
It is often the intent of an attack to initially supress the target. This allows part of the attack to continue to advance. I think the author of the game has it right. Fire and movement is the essential aspect of modern warfare. Supression is not just a byproduct of firing, it is often it's main intention. Defeating an enemy strongpoint is done by assault, it is the supressive fire that allows that assault to occur.
I agree with all that. It's common in neaarly all tactical wargames. You do it in ASL. I understand the suppression/overwatch and maneuver interaction.
ReplyDeleteWhat's strange about TOI is that it's the INTENT of the firer not the EFFECTS on the target that determine whether it's suppressive or not. What is this modeling?
I'm not sure of your question perhaps?
ReplyDeleteWhen a squad lays down suppresive fire, that is it's intent, to supress.
Yes, but the guys being SHOT AT don't know that. All they know is that there bullets whistling by their heds.
ReplyDeleteIf there are enough bullets or the bullets are having sufficient effect then the target may be "suppressed." If anything, fire that caused actual casualties would generally be MORE effective at pinning the target down than the same amount of fire that didn't.
The odd thing about TOI is that the suppression effect is not based on the target effects but on the firer's INTENT. That is the point that seems odd because I can't imagine what that is supposed to represent.
I'm not arguing against suppressive fires at all. Nor even that the firer shouldn't have some way of increasing the chances of suppression by shooting more bullets and not worrying about accuracy so much. This is common in wargames.
What is uncommon is the shooter-centric viewpoint used in TOI rather than the target-based one.
I absolutely agree with Seth here. The intent of the fire may be to supress, but usually that simply means that the target is too well protected to be eliminated unless they expose themselves to fire back, which the supressing fire is intended to prevent. The concept of fire and movement means you are eventually going to put yourself in a position to eliminate the enemy or force them to withrdaw, so supression is an important part of that but you would never supress when you could simply eliminate b direct fire. Good supression fire on a large scale could easily cause some casualties.
ReplyDeleteI think the distinction made in Tide of Iron is silly and pointless, you are either firing at the enemy or not. The intent of your fire doesn't change the effect, which should be more based on the protection of the target and its willingness to stand up against that fire without breaking morale. I think Squad leader (and numerous other games) have it right by sticking with one unified system.
While it is true that the actions taken at the target can largely determine what results the fire actually produce.
ReplyDeleteYou do acknowledge that laying down supressive fire isn't far fetched and is actually part of battle drills. So I don't think it is too out of hand in that sense...it can be an intent which is what the argument here is.
I think it would be better to say that the result should technically depend on both factors. The intent of the firing unit (suppressive fire is often conducted at a specific rate without the intention of accuracy) and the reaction at the target (for example, more experienced troops might not be suppressed as easily as green troops).
While the ideal would be taking both factors into account this game simplifies the process with firing intent and defensive dice.
I don't think it is 'silly and pointless' though it may not be as simulating as one would like. I certainly don't think it ruins the game and handles it much better than A&A minis...imo.
Thanks for the interesting topic Seth.