After going to extremes beating the COI tank combat results for their lack of credibility, there is one feature of the game mechanics that can bring things back in line. Suppose one is charging an antitank gun (ATG) emplacement with some tanks, and, due to their speed and terrain considerations, they end their movement in the enemy guns' line of sight. In COI, the ATGs would get two shots at a reduced accuracy due to the moving target and perhaps a penalty for reduced target visibility during the turn. As a result of the lower accuracy and the chancy kill probabilities if you do get a hit, more often than not no great damage will have been done. After the advance fire (which has a negligible accuracy out past six hexes) the ATGs get a second round of fire at stationary targets that are acquired during their prep fire. The implications of this are much greater than even the fact that the guns get enough shots at the enemy to overcome the relatively low kill probability. By some miracle, a tank that was zipping along at top speed (perhaps 30mph down a road, and who says you can't overrun using the road movement rate) right at the enemy positions has now suddenly been kind enough to stop and sit nicely by while your 75mm PAK 40 guns fire two shells at them. Even considering the fact that surviving tanks will get defensive fire from a stationary status before they resume their high speed rush, coming out into the open is a very risky business in COI that may overcome the low kill percentages.

For one who is used to the usual miniature wargame fare, where one always gets to shoot at the enemy after they've moved, it is really unnerving when one realizes that in COI not only do you shoot at moving targets while they're moving or at the very end of their move (defensive fire), but then you can, if conditions are favorable, fire at the moving target as if it were stationary with a better accuracy and as an acquired target (and if the enemy's advance fire was a low probability affair, you can get off one or two moderately accurate shots during your defensive fire and then fellow up with 1-2 good prep fire shots before they get a decent shot) during your prep fire.

The results are frightening, in spite of the low fire rates on the counters. A desert rush by tanks against ATG Positions and other tanks can be cut to pieces since it is possible for every ATG to get two tanks every turn due primarily to the case of "suspended animation" that strikes the tankers just as they finish their movement and advance fire. How many German players in Squad Leader, to cite another example, held their panzerfausts back during the defensive fire phase because they knew they had a much better stationary target if they waited until their prep fire?

From a gamer's standpoint, while Squad Leader and Cross of Iron do catch most of the "flavor" and feel of WWII infantry and armored combat, I'm not so sure that the method they use is all that reasonable and whether the game mechanics are realistic for armored combat.

From a "flow" standpoint, there must be cases where a force would be interested in overrunning a position or reaching an important spot regardless of losses, and would want to maintain their speed (and decrease the probability of a hit) rather than engaging in a stationary trade of shots midway through the charge. But since COI/SL divides up the prep fire and defensive fire phases with return fire by your opponent (most miniatures rules treat prep fire and defensive fire as one phase, with the targets being whatever was visible during the enemy's movement that just ended), one is left with the phenomenon of "stationary" moving vehicles.

While the SL system is innovative, in that as you move the units they are instantaneous defensive fire targets without having to wait until the end of the turn, the violent swings of momentum in the game that result from the rush of movement followed by everybody standing around making better targets of themselves is a bit unpalatable to some gamers with miniatures backgrounds.

Since the system appears reasonable for the infantry, where after being on the move for two minutes or so they would settle down and reorganize, engage in a firefight or two and then continue on, perhaps some optional rules on vehicle movement can be instituted whereby tanks can forego their defensive fire during a turn in exchange for a "moving" status during the opposing players prep fire/movement phase.

Although it may be a minor problem to boardgamers whose background of Panzer Blitz and Afrika Korps makes Squad Leader seem like the ultimate in realism (which it does come fairly close to attaining), the rule system with respect to movement and fire may prevent the game from catching on to any great degree in miniature circles.

While designing some alternate rules for an Afrika Korps version of COI, a large number of peculiarities regarding the armor ratings for a number of German tanks came up which leads to very odd results. The early German Mark III and IV tanks had 30mm of frontal armor, or roughly over an inch and a fifth of plating (which was bolted on the Mark IV). The Russian, BT7-2 and German PzKw 38t AFVs, in comparison, had about 22-25mm of frontal armor, just a bit less than the Mark III & IV tanks.

Through some sleight-of-hand tricks, however, the German Mark III/IV tanks get DRMs (armor dice roll modifiers to the To Kill numbers like in Squad Leader) of -1, while the BT7 and Pz 38t are stuck with -3 and - 2. While the difference looks small, the results are significant.

Against the two-pounder gun, which the panzers faced in France and later in the North African campaign, 41% of the hits against the Pz 38t will stew the crew, while the Mark IIId with only 5mm more armor (0.20 inches) will be stopped only 28% of the time, a difference of over 30% with regard to survival chances. While I have seen data that indicates that the turrets of the Mark III/IV tanks from the "blitzkrieg years" were 50mm thick, which might make them harder to knock out than had they had 30mm thick turret plates, there is also some information that lists their turret armor at 30mm.

One of the most interesting features of COI, and one that is hardly treated in most rules (except for WRG, and only in very general terms) is the effect on tank mobility of having AFVs without radios. Whereas in the usual gaming, vehicles without radios can do astounding feats of coordination and control on the game board, in COI the vehicles without radios become tied to the apron strings of either the command tank (with the rare radio) or one of the infantry leaders.

In effect, what the rule does is to simulate the use of flags, shouts and visual signals that was an antique from the early days of armor tactics but was needed in Russia and France to make up for a lack of radios for the tankers. In order to retain some cohesiveness in a tank attack, the Soviet leader is forced to either bunch the tanks together or match them closely with the few infantry leaders in order to make sure that the tanks an adequately led (AFVs that lose visual contact with a leader or another tank that is in command control become "paralyzed," and won't move until they are fired upon or regain leader contact).

Not only is the early Soviet/French commander now burdened with a rabble of tanks that will turn into a useless bunch of stragglers unless they're carefully controlled, and which will be easy prey for the more flexible and mobile panzers (who have radios for everyone), but trucks an other transport without radios will require just as much careful control in terms of tank escorts and infantry leaders (while the rule on vehicle radios doesn't mention transport by name, I don't see why they should be excluded, and it makes things really interesting.

The COI revisions to Squad Leader's treatment of tank/SP smoke utilization also follow the general treatment of weapons in the first SL gamette, namely a rather bleak and unusually harsh outlook on ammo supplies, gun malfunctions and destructive damage from penetrating anti-tank shells.

Whereas, in SL, every tank, SP and whatever carried an almost unlimited supply of smoke (restricted only by the gun breakdown number), in COI only Russian assault guns carry smoke, although the German tanks all get the smoke to some degree. But the "breakdown" number for smoke is an 8, which means that the cloudy stuff will disappear on 43% of the attempts where the crew will reach for a smoke shell and find the shelf empty.

The almost 50/50 chance that smoke will not be available makes it less valuable as a tactical tool in COI than in other miniature games where smoke is not only always there, but the clouds prevent any and all fire across the screen against units on the other side (remember that in COI fire through smoke hexes is allowed but suffers a random decrease in accuracy).

While the weekly armored assault guns and self-propelled mounts in COI lose most of their usefulness after their smoke ammo is depleted, and attacks through the mist are not as secure against vicious counterfire as one may have preferred, smoke had a tendency of becoming a monster in most other micro-armor gaming where a platoon of Mark IVe or Crusader Close Support tanks could lay down enough smoke to render advancing tank columns totally immune to counterattacks.

What makes smoke even less valuable when it does work in COI is that a force advancing behind the screen is not only vulnerable to enemy defensive fire, but is open to the opposition's next prep fire when the "screened" forces are both stationary and acquired targets (remember the earlier dissertation on the "stationary" moving targets).

With regard to trivial characteristics of armored targets, which some gamers have a real love for, COI has overlooked some interesting "concepts."

During the war, the English Cruiser Crusader and a horde of Russian tanks carried fuel tanks on the hull due to the less than certain status of their logistical backup during wide sweeps and breakthroughs. Since a fuel tank riding atop a tank ran be a very inviting and rewarding target for small arms fire and large guns, perhaps Avalon Hill might like to work up some rules to cover tank flameouts.

In the same vein, it's very interesting that hardly anyone ever considers the effects of small arms fire on the tires of trucks, jeeps, kubelwagens and halfracks. Although it doesn't happen too often, every once in a while a Puma or other motorized midget will whisk by entire infantry platoons without fear of retribution or a blown tire. To set things right, there should be some sort of intentional immobilization against wheeled vehicles that a guy with a rifle or SMG (don't forget MGs) could take to try to stop the enemy eight wheeler.

As a final comment on the COI armor system, the level of detail that the boardgame now provides, which is the equal of any set of miniature rules currently available, appears to have reached the saturation point for a game played with cardboard counters.

While the artwork on the counters is really superb (except for the wrecks which don't show smoking, messed-up AFV's anymore, just a lifeless vehicle) and is a major attraction of the game, when playing the game hardly any of the tank drawing is now visible. Due to the need to place infantry, turret marker,, crew exposed indicators, armor leaders and sundry other counters on top of the AFVs, one is now in a position where a whole game can be played without ever viewing the sketch of the vehicle.

You may know what tank is under the pile of marks and what the neat drawing looks like (if you can keep track of where the T34/76As, Bs and Cs are without going through each little pile every turn to check), but the need to "bury" the AFV counters is a serious detraction from the visual enjoyment of the system and game (as am the Mark IV and JS I turret markers used for every tank and armored car).

COI has nicely overcome the lack of movable turrets on cardboard counters that previously marred games like Tobruk, Squad Leader and other efforts to model individual tank combat, but in attempting to match the realism attained by miniature wargaming with movable turret models, they have run into the limitations that cardboard counters are subject to, and have traded visual appeal for realism.

The designer and developer of Cross of Iron have accomplished some major innovations in miniature armor wargaming, not to mention the new concepts on cavalry, snipers, ground attacks by aircraft and artillery spotting (particularly field telephones), that have vastly expanded the available techniques open to miniature fans for use in their gaming and for game design purposes. While there are some problem areas with regard to the turn sequence and the credibility of the hit/kill data for tank combat in addition to a number of other minor points, Cross of Iron currently represents the "pinnacle" of war game design and ranks with Panzer Blitz as one of the major foundations from which future war games will evolve and mature.

Brazen Chariots: A Review of the CROSS OF IRON Armor Rules, Part 1
Tank Gun Effectiveness in CROSS OF IRON