Orphaned articles from February All orphaned articles. After an eight-hour game of Combined Arms that only resolved four turns and ended in a draw when the players all had to go home, Ty decided to design his own game. Plus advice and guidance for do-it-yourself scenario designers. Place artillery barrages and reinforcements.

Author:Medal Yotaur
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):11 January 2005
PDF File Size:15.20 Mb
ePub File Size:15.40 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

FFT will cover near future combat; Railgun: will cover far future combat. First up is JR Miniatures. They make a large range of miniature wargames terrain for modern, historical and sci-fi. Many are unpainted, so you can get a good idea of how various manufacturers stack up.

The opening page also has a stirring rendition of the Soviet Union national anthem. I particularly like the comparison photos. They have, far and away, the most comprehensive range of modern micro armor of anyone out there. Some pieces, such as their UK Saxons, are very good. Other, such as some of their French engineering vehicles, are a bit rough. Additionally, Scotia models seem to run small. It does not appear that any new models have been added in the last two years, although they are still in production and their customer service is excellent.

They also sell a good line of neutral equipment, such as generic towed mm mortars and 20mm Oerlikon AA guns. Pricing: Typically about 60 cents a model, with large ones a bit more. Shipping from Scotland is surprisingly reasonable. I love it. Hat tip to Bob Mackenzie. A good model from Scotia which shows the reactive armour very well. Unfortunately the casting around the road wheels is a bit rough. These rules will be extensively revised and will incorporate many new changes.

Here are some of the major ones: 1. A new artillery system. This system is faster than the current system and yields far more reasonable results.

Artillery can now harrass and interdict enemy units, for instance. A revised infantry combat system. Infantry stands now have different anti-infantry ratings depending on their weaponry. In addition, infantry stands have two anti-infantry ratings -- one for close combat, one for ranged fire. In general, close combat is far more deadly than previously, which speeds the game up particularly in infantry heavy games.

Movement allowances have been tweaked and raised a bit. On average, most vehicles will move 2 inches faster. This makes slower tanks much more useful. Revised armor and weapons penetration scales. This requires that we re-rate every vehicle. However, the new scale will allow us to model the differences between lighter armored vehicles with more fidelity than the current system.

In addition, we can accomodate more advanced armor without forcing players to deal with absurdly high numbers. This data was just coming out when FFT2 was released and we made a decision not to wait on it. Paul, who is an engineer by training, has devoted an incredible amount of time and energy to this topic.

So there will be a lot of changes in how modern tanks compare to one another. Vehicles will have discrete flank armor values, rather than generic values.

There will be at least one and possibly two new troop quality classes. Category 1 Soviets, for instance, would be Trained maybe Average. Most third world armies would be Green. The new system will allow us to better model the differences between armies. The game now explicitely covers armored warfare from and will contain the complete rules for this period.

Engineering, amphibious assaults and paradrops, for instance. An unofficial goal will be to include more vehicles and unit lists than appear in many dedicated WWII sets. WWII data will be released in a single, inexpensive data annex later on. FFT3 will not pursue the "Games Workshop" model and require players to buy numerous expensive add-ons to play typical battles.

There are many minor modifications and enhancements, but these are the major ones. We have not changed the vehicle combat system. Indeed, most mechanics work exactly like they do in FFT2 failed quality checks eliminate the stand, etc. The target was configured to resemble the Iranian Shihab-3 intermediate range missile. This has gotta make the lunatic mullahs of Iran nervous Is there something fundamentally wrong with the way they work?

Just out of interest can anyone shed any more light on the subject or suggest a site I could visit to find out more? The autoloaders on Soviet tanks were necessary to reduce the crew size to 3 and keep the turret as small as possible.

Soviet tank design is an intriguing example of what happens when non-military considerations drive a military design. The Soviet Union had a "command economy", which means that a tiny oligarchy controlled all economic output. They simply did this by fiat -- "make 1, toasters" and the orders were hopefully carried out. Soviet money was merely a form of voucher issued to the workers by the government.

The small scale "real" market transactions were carried out with real money -- US dollars. So there was no Soviet military "budget" pe se. The Soviet oligarchs simply decided what was needed and ordered it built. The problem, of course, is that military spending is an economic "hole".

Production output spent building a tank is sunk into that tank and cannot be recovered, leveraged or used to make more output. As part of his effort to keep Soviet military production from destroying the civilian economy, Khruschev ordered that Soviet tanks be limited to a certain mass.

Soviet designers, then, were faced with a rigid limit on the size of their tanks that had nothing to do with military effectiveness. To produce the most effective tanks within that limit, they focused on making the tanks and particularly the turret as small as possible, thereby maximizing armor protection. It also allowed them to maximize armor protection a smaller frontal area meant more armor thickness for the same weight.

The Soviet designers were doubtlessly aware of the problems and limitations of autoloaders, but because it was the best solution available, they went with it.

The result were tanks that were very inexpensive compared to Western MBTs, yet had superior capabilities, on paper. Unfortunately, the hysterical cries from Western defense analysts and contractors drowned out the facts that most of these superior capabilities were illusory. For instance, the Western mm was at least as good as and probably better than the Soviet mm gun.

And far more accurate at long range, due to superior Western fire control systems. And the cheap barrel meant that Soviets tanks would wear their barrels out after rounds vs. Due to small size and by skimping on flank protection and areas unlikely to be hit, Soviet tanks had impressive armor protection in the front.

No one noticed that the lousy ammo and fuel storage meant that Soviet tanks were likely to brew up spectaculary when hit. And so on. The net result is that Soviet tanks were utterly outclassed by Western tanks in the real fights.

Of course, the Soviet tanks were crewed by some of the worst soldiers in history, Arabs. And they were "monkey models" -- stripped of some of their fancier gear. But it is telling I think to note that when the Israelis finally built their own tank, they produced a tank that was squarely in the Western design model. They apparently were not so impressed with Soviet tank design philosophy. And in the 25 years since the Merkava, no Western nation has built a Soviet style tank. Only the French have deployed an autoloader on their MBTs, and the LeClerc seems much like its Soviet tank cousins - impressive on paper, far less so in actual use.

One of the things that excites me about A Fistful of TOWs 3 is that its revised armor and penetration scales accomodate everything from World War I to the far future. And as my Railgun rules showed, the FFT system is flexible enough to model science fiction as well as modern and historical wars.

Railgun, by the way, will also get a facelift and be built off the FFT3 engine. The battlefield will be substantially different than it was in or , and the game will reflect that. The sequence of play will be changed -- "I move while you shoot", then vice versa.

This will reflect the ubiquity of advanved stabilization in More primitive vehicles will be marked with a "No Fire" marker if they move too far. To keep the game moving, the nonmoving player can fire before the enemy moves or after the enemy moves at no to hit modifier. Interestingly, this results in a much cleaner sequence of play and relieves some of the intricacy in the current system. It might be interesting to play with two "low tech" armies and see if it plays better than FFT3.

Modern in armies will mostly be able to ignore spotting due to the plethora of sensors. Low tech armies of course will have to obey spotting rules. Non-line-of-sight NLOS weapons will be common on this battlefield, but their effectiveness will be constrained by battlefield point defense systems. The current intent is to assume that most vehicles have PD and have special rules for unusually good or bad PD system. No separate PD roll is contemplated.


A Fistful Of TOWs 2

First all I want to explain why this post is a bit late. There were two factors. The first was that we live in a stick built Victorian house. We have been living in it for over ten years. There was one room that had the same wall treatment as when we moved in and that was in the main bedroom.



Do you enjoy fighting mechanized battles in miniature? If so, FFT3 is designed for you. The rules are comprehensive, yet playable. And fast. Real fast. A typical game turn should average no more than 15 minutes. I actually designed it so that I could play with the zillions of 6mm tanks that I had accumulated.

Related Articles