"Your FOW - House Rules" Topic

>If you want a better, more detailed explanation, Email >Phil at Battlefront, since he's the one that explained it >to me, some time ago now.

Sorry guys, but I gave up with Phil when he tried to convince me (and some others) that a 1918 BEF infantry platoon was equal in firepower to a WW2 platoon with all teams 'MG/rifles'…

AFAIC, a platoon able to spread (and stay in control) two times his medium fire range doesn't work, period.

>As for hand signals, it certainly works over 20-30 meters, >and thats between individual soldiers.

Sure, it can even works at long as you can tell legs from arms on a human figure.
BTW, aren't 'a few dozens yards' similar to 50-100m ?
If I remember well, a yard is 0.90 meter, isn't it ?
I can't see your point there, guys.

>50-100m was the standard width of an US 8 man patrol, and >they used hand signals

Yep (see above), and where is the patrol leader supposed to be then ?
At one end of his patrol, on a 100 meter spread line ?

BTW, standard for what type of operation ?
Attacking a hedgerow corner or a barn with 8 men on a 100 meter width against an automatic weapon equiped foe ?
Wish them good luck !

>World war 2 is all about vision. If the commander (at what >ever level) can see everyone he commands and they can all >see each other, CC seems to be easier. Hence why i think >fixed radius do not really work nor an unbroken chain

Well said KevanG, current FOW gives a (sort of) fixed radius, that is the larger the platoon, the farther it can spread on the battlefield, team by team chain allowing control, no matter where the platoon HQ is situated.

To avoid the 'impenetrable wall to vision' issue and allow 'sliding' CC distance, I proposed a dice scale malus with +1 or +2 (etc) to rally with regards to where the platoon HQ really is and how distant are its teams.
If having a team by team CC chain umpervious to actual HQ position is OK, why representing a platoon HQ team on the table then ?

>>> To avoid the 'impenetrable wall to vision' issue and allow 'sliding' CC distance, I proposed a dice scale malus with +1 or +2 (etc) to rally with regards to where the platoon HQ really is and how distant are its teams.
If having a team by team CC chain umpervious to actual HQ position is OK, why representing a platoon HQ team on the table then ?

"Impenetrable" takes on yet another new meaning.

Allen

Hey, if you like doubling the number of dice rolls in a game just to be able to move teams in command, that's cool.

Unfortunately I like finishing a company level game in a couple of hours, which adding a random nature to C&C would not allow.

Obviously I'm willing to take a higher level of abstraction in order to get a game that can be played quickly and easily.

Also, isn't a 1918 BEF platoon something like 60 guys with SMLE rifles and a couple of Lewis guns?
Compared to 30 guys with the same rifles and 3 Bren guns?

>50-100m was the standard width of an US 8 man patrol, and >they used hand signals

Yep (see above), and where is the patrol leader supposed to be then ?
At one end of his patrol, on a 100 meter spread line ?

standard patrol was 8 men in a widened diamond shape, men operated in pairs at the points of the diamond and the leader was at the front point position. His second in command was at the tail position. There is no line. The men are in pairs. the patrol leader was not normally more than 50 metres from everyone else.

FOW actually gives a flexable command radius based on positioning. As I said before That isnt a bad model. The modifier based on position of hq stand should only apply if the chain goes through a pinned stand. If it is out, then the normal rules would apply

My issue with FoW C3 is the instant change ability. A unit should have a mission and failing that mission request a change (reenforcement or diversion or withdrawl). Units shouldn't be able to turn on a dime based upon the player's 1000' perspective.

for example, last weekend a British player ran his tanks around like soccer players striking here and there. Fine, except in the real world in the heat of battle how would they know to pull off, run the length of the map and attack at a totally unrelated and critical spot--much less where that spot actually would be.

A good house rule would be to penalize any movement away from the original objective for a unit.

J

Spearhead uses a command arrow concept on a map that works quite well in acheiving this order change of direction. Its a simple abstract system based around the command radio net. And a map can allow hidden deployment too…….

Yes, Shako did likewise. I really enjoy Artie work, though I just read how in 1995 someone challenged him to write a rules set like Crossfire. Eh, I think that was me in 1993 actually :) In fact, the two of use discussed it at considerable length one evening.

I like the axis of advance concept

Sturmgrenadier,

>Also, isn't a 1918 BEF platoon something like 60 guys with >SMLE rifles and a couple of Lewis guns?
>Compared to 30 guys with the same rifles and 3 Bren guns?

I'd suggest you take a look at some 1918 British ACTUAL platoon TO&E before further discussing.
If you find ONE BEF infantry platoon in 1918 with 60 men, I will offer you a new car and a new house, OK ?

BTW, if the Lewis gun was equal to a Bren gun, why spending money to change the first for Bren guns ?
To ease light weapons manufacturing unemployment rates in the late 20's/early 30s ?

To help your understanding, the figures are :

- 1918 BEF infantry platoon : – 2 LMG teams
– 4 rifle teams

- 1940 BEF infantry platoon : – 3 LMG teams
– 3 rifle teams

(I've excluded command teams in both case)
See the difference in terms of 'Rifle/MG' teams ratio ?
No ?
No problem, Phil 'will explain' <VBG>

Sorry if I was mistaken with the size, WW1 isn't my strong point, especially at the platoon level details.

FOW is a platoon level game, not skirmish where a Lewis gun is different to a Bren is different to an MG42.
They're all MG's, they all put down a similar amount of fire over a prolonged period (hours), since regardless of weapon, a platoon can only carry so many rounds for their MG.

Given the normal comparison of MGs to Rifles in FOW, I'd expect the 1918 platoon to be all rifle teams, rather than R/MG teams.
German Pioneers have a similar ratio of MG's to Rifles and they count as Rifle teams.

How long ago was this discussion with Phil anyway?

>Sorry if I was mistaken with the size

Please dont, and accept my apologies for
being unduly ironic

>Given the normal comparison of MGs to Rifles
>in FOW, I'd expect the 1918 platoon to be
>all rifle teams, rather than R/MG teams.

Good point, moreover, it was my opinion too <VBG>
FWIW, I guess there could be an alternative option :
Have the 1918 BEF platoon with most teams as 'normal' 'rifle team', and two teams as 'MG' for the 'Lewis gun' guys.
Same goes with Germans and MG08/15

Phil's last comment regarding this was that it was too hard for some gamers to make out rifles teams from MG teams at some distance (the reason behind FOWv2 having MG/rifle teams according to him) beside ease of gaming with standardized teams within a platoon
While I understood this coped well with most WW2 platoon tactics, I thought it didn't with even late WW1 platoons.

Understand your point about Lewis = Bren as far as FOW mechanics goe (yet it implies that MG08/15 = MG34 too)

I guessed it was also interesting to simulate WW1 'poorer' LMG settings by designing an 'obsolete' LMG category.
Lewis and MG08/15 would enjoy the same ROF as their WW2 conterpart, yet with a +1 to hit if moving because of their poorer mobility and subsequent different tactics

Perhaps I was wrong, but given the lack of tanks and heavy weapons variety in a possible FOW WW1, I advocated that infantry platoons should be allowed to show less uniformity than WW2 platoons.

Curiously, Phil accepted, though with great reluctance <g> that French platoons might have two 'Rifle grenade' independant teams per platoon

Otherwise, he also regarded Chauchat and BAR as similar, which is rather kind for the Chauchat IMHO <g>
Furthermore, he stated that 1918 French and AEF rifle teams could be considered as 'marching fire' rifle teams.

Probably a good idea if simplicity is at premium, but giving the same settings to a 1918 French platoon mostly armed Lebel or Berthier rifles, and a Garand issued WW2 US platoon is a bit odd IMHO.

Phil also denied the value of having specialists 'grenadiers' teams, while they were an essential part of most 1916-1918 West front infantry platoons
BTW, in my view, those 'grenadiers' teams could fight in assault only since they had their rifle in their back while approaching.

FWIW, I guess there is a balance to find between easy game and flavor.
I for one, found that Phil's design killed most of what many WW1 tactical gamers find fascinating : 'prehistoric' or 'transitional' modern infantry combat units.

>How long ago was this discussion with Phil anyway?

Not long ago enough for my wounds to heal ;-)

KevanG

>The modifier based on position of hq stand
>should only apply if the chain goes
>through a pinned stand. If it is out,
>then the normal rules would apply

Well, I am….almost convinced ;-)
Should we had this HQ range limit for assaulting platoons too ?

>A good house rule would be to penalize
>any movement away from the original
>objective for a unit.

Good point flamingmonkeys
So far, my understanding of a 'good house rule' is not to simplify a rule which is yet pretty simple (proof : I understood it <g>) but to add a few nits to pick for us, nitpickers :-)
To make it clear, I found FOW to be a fascinating ruleset for uncomplicated guys like me <g>, except I'd like to see it being a little more complicated <VBG>