"Reasons NOT to get into "FoW"..." Topic

He dropped a colored smoke round when he saw friendly aircraft in the area. That's control. Also, by this time in the war, there was some fire control for aircraft on the allied side.

"Why do you feel that FOW should be the focus of your Italian (and I presume OpFor) project?"

I would imagine that since Murph was recently commenting about the locals not wanting to play AK47 and only being interested in GW, FoW, and PP he's decided to join them rather than beat them. 8)=

The tournament argument only holds if you like tournaments. My friends and I have never played FOW tournaments and it's worked out just fine.

Second, ALL games have unrealistic aspects to them. Every designer trades off some things to achieve HIS interpretation of what that war/battle/action was like.

One thing that FOW does that other "realistic" games don't do is it makes you think about displacing your artillery and mortars, unless you're playing on a small table. We play our games on a 4x8 or larger and we've played lenth-wise. It makes you think about when you displace your indirect fire weapons, or not. Most WWII games, and all that I'm familiar with, leave the arty off the table from where they remain omnipotent and safe -- not in the real world.

Had a small FOW Germany army, never used it, played a few games with other players, decided to get out of it, gave my figs and vehicles away

Why?

- not many gamers in the group have embraced it, mostly 28 mm Disposable Heroes gamers

- already have a huge 6 mm GHQ/Heroics & Ross collection, Germans, French, Brits and Russians

- the realization that time spent painting 15mm FOW figs was time not spent painting 28 mm SYW (this was, to be honest, a major factor)

Raylev 3

Since when was a company commander in control of the placement of Divisional artillery?

This is actually one of the aspects of WWII tactics that FoW handles really badly – so badly they had to intoduce "Across the Volga".

According to sources quoted in a discussion here a few months back standard doctrine was to deploy artillery about 2/3rds of its maximum range behind the troops it was supporting in defense – that would be about three and a half to four miles for British 25pdrs.

In the offense the artillery would be deployed about 1/3rd of its max range back – one and a half to two miles from the front line for British 25pdrs.

Between the front line companies and the artillery you'd normally have a reserve company from your batallion and a brigade/division reserve.

FoW has you deploying your medium artilery a couple of hundred yards up the road with nothing but space between them and the company in the front line.

Hmmm….at least for the late war US, the company commander was capable of calling in/controlling any and all of the above. If you don't believe me, then Audie Murphy must have been a folk hero! he directed artillery and aircraft onto their targets and he had 2 tank destroyers at his disposal.

I presume this is sarcasm, no?

Two quick notes:

1. The FoW "Across the Volga" was not a fix. It remains an optional rule. Air was made more like artillery in v2.
Whether the existing rules are broken or not is another issue altogether.

2. In FoW, mortars, HMGs, ATRs and gun crews are, for the most part, designated as 'gun teams', and should not be close assaulting. They may defend in place only. A lot of players miss this.

3. Wheel-to-wheel placement is very common at game start, where one side is moving onto the board. I see pictures of this frequently cited. However, things do get crowded. I seen this happen in other games where figure scale is not the same as ground scale. Is basing several figures bunched together on a base that is 10 feet across at figure scale any more accurate? Even in extreme cases in FoW, bases and models should not be stacking … although I did someone doing this recently with knocked out vehicles for some reason.

FoW games CAN look stupid. Games played with other rules CAN look stupid. Games played by powergamers and rules lawyers CAN be annoying. Those factors aren't the fault of the rules, however.

Has anybody seen the South Park LoTR episode, where Cartman laughs at the little kids for playing Harry Potter while he and his friends play the Fellowship? Let's face it: To normal adults, we're just guys playing with kids toys. If we start worrying about what our games look like, we'll never play. Embrace the inner geek, and get on with playing!

- Bob

Three! Three quick notes…

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Now where's that silly edit button so I can leave ya hanging there.

- Bob

I'll suggest something that doesn't appear to have been mentioned here (unless I'm blind to the relevant post).

Find some FOW gamers. There appear to be quite a few.

Get in on a game.

Play it.

Decide whether or not you like it/want to get into it/buy all the FOW players drinks/ jump on all their toys at that point.

Now maybe I'm feckin' thick, people, but it does seem to me that somebody might have suggested that Murph actually PLAY the game by now.

Unless, of course, asking some FOW players if you can get in on a game that you haven't yet "bought into" in terms of figures in order to try it out is some kind of cultural no-no or something.

I don't play FOW. I know pretty much damn-all about it apart from what I read online, or see on the rack at the FLGS. According to some, it's great. Others think it's crap.

One of these days, if I take a notion that I'd like to try it out, I'll see if I can get in on a game. I'll decide whether I like it or not from that point forward.

if any game system is fun to you, do it!

Try a game if your local club/store has a group already into it. If that gets ya grinnin…plunk your cash down :)

-Mike

Murphy – HANG On – you play AK47. One good reason not to FOW – the basing is totally different.

Surely you will want to use your Italians in Bobgolesia? The Fascist Bersaglieri that Time Forgot?

Buy a WWII 15MM Game in which base-sizes are the same as AK47 (PBI and I think Command Decision?) or not set by the designer at all (BKC), then your Italians can battle your Bongolesians.

Pat

The basing may be different, but in all the Peter Pig rules it also doesn't matter what the basing is. Even if one force is based for AK47 and one for FoW they could still be run against one another with absolutely no effect on game play. It wouldn't LOOK as good, but it would still play fine.

"He dropped a colored smoke round when he saw friendly aircraft in the area. That's control. Also, by this time in the war, there was some fire control for aircraft on the allied side."

And he just happened to have somne kicking around?…..was he directed by an air controller to mark something with smoke?….then He wasnt controlling the air, he was controlled by the air controller.

Thats the point, it was controlled by raf officers in 21st army group and the USAAF officer corp in the US army, not company commanders .

Strangely no-on ever seemed to get very het up about company commanders calling in airstrikes in Close Combat, Combat Mission, Crossfire, WRG 1925-50, Squad Leader, Tobruk, IABSM, Steel Panthers, maybe even PBI (never got as far as aircraft with that).

It is just a stick beat a horse you don't like, who cares, they are only games. FOW is quite realistic in some ways, less so in others. Any modern game which doesn't use hidden movement or a multi-layered command structure is arguably complete tosh, but it doesn't stop us playing them.

More likely dropped the smoke so he wouldn't get strafed. That's not forward air control in my book. That's keeping friendly fire down so you can stay alive.

There are definitely things I do and do not like about the FoW rules. The most annoying thing for me isn't the collapsing scale, but rather their treatment of infantry. I like infantry manoeuvring to be an important aspect of the game, but in FoW either the entire platoon is suppressed, or no one in the platoon is suppressed. I dunno, but that really kills it for me.

Derek H

I agree with the second post pic, it is silly, hence the "game stuff happens" comment. I was gonna post that same pic in ref to that quote, but didn't get it right, so left it out.

Strangely no-on ever seemed to get very het up about company commanders calling in airstrikes in …

Sorry, but this is wrong. I care considerably about controlling air strikes in any set of rules -- unless you have a dedicated air spotter.

I have written aircraft out of my home version of RCW rules for this very reason. They didn't attack anywhere near the front lines due to the impossibility of distinguishing one side from the other.

too many stuff all over the place (rules, amendments, army lists, new army lists).

I like having all in one place at first when I buy a game.

Derek H….I agree with what you said, but I didn't bring up C2 or OB. I merely brought up the point that the FOW gamer has to think about displacing his indirect fire weapons, something that he rarely if ever has to do in other WWII games.

You can field two (or more) companies and take a battlion commander and not lose the game because one company broke.

It is in the rules, man.

I have fun with it. You might too, Murph. Give it a go.

Imagine the voices like you heard in the Bruce Campbell trilogy, which for the life of me, I cannot remember the titles except for: Army of Darkness.

"Join us Murph. Join us. Play FOW. Fun is the factor here Murph. Join us."

The Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 – Dead by Dawn, and Evil Dead 3 – Army of Darkness.

Charon,

Thanks.

Come on Murph, ALL the COOL mini players are doing it.

At the end of the day, there are no reasons why anyone shouldn't try any rule set. If found that it does not meet his overall needs, there are many many other options available.
Go for it, you are not closing any doors behind you.

I've never played FOW, but I have seen it played at local shops and at conventions. It always looks like a tank-park to me, and I just cannnot get past the look and become interested.

In fairness, the guys playing FOW look like they're having great fun. A fellow I work with is a great fan of FOW tournaments. Clearly, the rules have a lot of people playing WWII. God Bless 'em.

Just play the game.

Jim

Dude, that shot is at the start of the game, with all of the forces at their start point.

Then it's an extremely poorly designed scenario.
--
Tim

Boys,

I think that Murph here is not willing to have a go at it.

I'm saddened by this…

really I am … that Murph is just not… stepping up here.

Has Murphy even LOOKED at this thread in recent days?

I am not ripping on the man's character here. ;P

kyoteblue:

When I deal with a bunch of tanks, I try to line them up evenly, but not perfectly. A few degrees off turret askew etc help deal with that parking lot appearance. I do not care for the parking lot appearance as well.

I'll add my two cents to the dollars of change laying around this thread.

Reason's not to get into FoW (all personal opinions)

It's more game than tactical sim (if that's what you want, go for it)

Sliding scale is used to help balance the game in my opinion – not very realistic though, visually I hate it though as games don't look right (the parking lot of tanks effect)

No interupting fire (overwatch) type actions

Those are probably my two biggest dislikes – oeverall, I have fun if I keep in mind I'm playing a game – recently, I've come to the conclusion I want more tactical simulation than game, so the above issues have become stronger detractors for me personally.

So far as the visual aspect: A lot of the pics on the FoW web site are staged. They've as much as said as much a few times. They're representing what happened in games, but making things look pretty for the camera. I've never played games that look as nuts as the pics in their latest books.

The worst of the tank park look happens at game start, when all those tanks are lined up fender-to-fender as they are moved onto the board for the first turn. As the move progresses, they usually spread out. Can it still happen? Sure. But it's generally a really, really bad idea to do so if your opponent has air or artillery about.

Fair enough about the sliding ground scale, but in any game where figure scale is not equal to ground scale, you're going to have some sort of distortion.

FoW is fun, and I enjoy playing, but I have no problem using the same miniatures for any number of other rule sets. I'm always puzzled why it's presented as if the selection of rules excludes any others. Buy some minis in your preferred scale, start with whatever rule set catches your fancy at the moment. Later on, start obsessively collecting, comparing and hoarding rule sets. Finally, start posting on TMP about rule sets you've only read and never actually played (if that).

- Bob
(doing his part to keep old threads alive after they fall off the front page)

Its not any fun. The rules are poor the models expensive and it is based on the empty your wallet Games Workshop model. It is loaded with rude fanboys like all GW type games that will insist its the only way to game. BOOO

Oh supergrover….

adding some comment to bring a hint towards balance…..

They provide a simple system based game with good supporting product.

They combine this with the best local distribution across the world short of the GW franchise making their game the easiest accessable historical game.

They provide excellent web based support and while you can come across the odd bit of rabid over enthusiasm, it is certainly not the Norm amongst Fow gamers, actually to the point that I have only read about their existance which places them firmly in the catagory of 'Hearsay'.

What is much more evident is that people playing Fow enjoy themselves….even the rabid over-enthused ones.

Speaking on unhistorical iss the AAMG on a T34/85 a post war thing?

Balance is no fun. Balance is for chess. Its a horrid system. A expensive dice fest and awful GW marketing system which is anything but accessible for people. Its a money pit. Huge starter set cost, book after book, cost after cost that could easily be consolidated into one if the rules were done properly. I don't want codex for "historical"

Yes many good reasons not to get into it. I think many the original poster listed are as good as any.

yeah, but why even buy Codex like rules bit by bit when other and better systems have one book for the whole spectrum.

Its a set of wargames rules…try it,

I tried to get into it but in the end, do you know what put me off? Simply the way its written.
The "Wow!I bet you didn't know about this, but there was this groovy thing called the S-e-c-o-n-d W-o-r-l-d W-a-r and this book tells you ALL YOU EVER NEED TO KNOW about how to play it! Isn't it GREAT!??"

Its possibly the most banal, patronising piece of thinly disguised marketing garbage I've ever read.
The rules themselves? They are wargame rules, not necessarily better or worse than any other set- but I just hate being assumed to be total idiot by the moron who wrote FoW.

(got that off my chest!)

"Its a set of wargames rules…try it,

I tried to get into it but in the end, do you know what put me off? Simply the way its written.
The "Wow!I bet you didn't know about this, but there was this groovy thing called the S-e-c-o-n-d W-o-r-l-d W-a-r and this book tells you ALL YOU EVER NEED TO KNOW about how to play it! Isn't it GREAT!??"

Its possibly the most banal, patronising piece of thinly disguised marketing garbage I've ever read.
The rules themselves? They are wargame rules, not necessarily better or worse than any other set- but I just hate being assumed to be total idiot by the moron who wrote FoW.

(got that off my chest!)"

I did try them, they were horrible. I agree with the marketing and writing remarks. funny too.

I'll take the 100th post, thank you very much.

As for the rules themselves they are not going to appeal to everybody. Different strokes for different folks.

I do not think that they are the "most realistic" rules out there on the market. People have mentioned issues with command radius, overwatch, stormtrooper movements and unit frontages. Oh yeah, do not forget the issues of telescoping groundscales, having artillery batteries on the battlefield so close to the front line, company units that have more support than a real life company commander would dream about as well as the special characters which may or may not influence the game.

OK, my question is this: Can a ruleset be written taking ALL those aforementioned factors into account to create a company level game that is playable in 2-3 hours (depending on the size of the game itself)? My answer would be …probably not. Detail vs abstraction, how to handle it? Ford vs Chevy vs Toyota vs BMW vs Mercedes Benz vs Hyundai vs Nissan… each car maker believes that THEY have the holy grail of automobiles…. yet different people buy different cars for different reasons. It is the same idea in this instance.

Is FOW a fairly easy system to play? Well, if I compare FOW to ASL, CD3, BGWW2, GNG, AoF then I would say yes, it is definitely easier to grasp the rules.

Availability of players? I guess that depends on location, socioeconomics/ education etc?
Some places, like the Eastern US there are more historical players than out in the Western US.

Am I an FOW fanboy? No. I see limitations with the rules, but I do not think that they are the worst ones written ever.

Try FOW, if you like it, cool. If you don't… well there is a plethora of rules out there to try. There is no need to defenestrate oneself because they like FOW or despise it.

You can absolutely make a playable game with those factors. I think this simplicity and playability stuff has made the hobby decline. The newer sets are so watered down unnecessarily to appeal to this non stop talk about how things aren't playable. I never found that much of that playability stuff couldn't be ironed out and have games that can be realistic and not be overly complex. With a good computer assist that's even easier. And computers being mobile and even hand held devices that would ge able to have assist programs, all that I don't want a big computer on my table problem is solved as well. Even without a computer they you can have much more realistic rules. I think the constant talk about how things are complicated deters new potential gamers and has led to poor miniatures games being the norm and the most commercial successful. Like the horrid CMG's out there.

"One of the biggest flaws of FOW is that when people feel they have to validate themselves on a message board, they pull out the "any game that tries to feel more realistic than FOW must be totally complex and totally boring" line."

I agree I see that often along with they, "Well you wont find players unless"….line.

I let that last line sucker me into GW Warhammer 40K that was a huuuge and costly mistake. FoW is Warhammer goes ww2.

Supergrover6868
"It is loaded with rude fanboys like all GW type games that will insist its the only way to game. BOOO"
Personally I have met just as many rude gamers playing "realistic" games in my 30+ years gaming

"I let that last line sucker me into GW Warhammer 40K that was a huuuge and costly mistake."
The mind control devices of the the evil empire are indeed strong forcing you to spend money

Supergrover6868
" think the constant talk about how things are complicated deters new potential gamers and has led to poor miniatures games being the norm and the most commercial successful"
The last line is classic – we (apart from those who are enlightened)are all too thick to realise we are being conned.

I never really understood why that gets that kind of reaction. Its Just another opinion.

Supergroover
Of course we all have our opinions – its just that "loaded with rude fanboys like all GW type games" is a bit of a sweeping generalisation – also re being 'suckered' into GW 40K – I'd love to try that with 'er indoors but I don't think it would wash

Of course we all have our opinions – its just that "loaded with rude fanboys like all GW type games" is a bit of a sweeping generalisation

The pedant in me asks how something can be a bit of a sweeping generalisation. The rest of me agrees with the original statement.

Most games systems don't have fanboys. Fanboys are almost always rude to people who don't agree with them 100%, or who criticise the game sytem they adore even mildly.

Battlefront is the only company I've ever come across who use fanboys as moderators on their forums.

Though they seem to have told them to behave recently and the worse offender seems to have stopped being a moderator.

I think FoW as with all GW type games have a high ratio of fan boy types. Higher then most other games in my experience. And for ME PERSONALLY, to high to be enjoyed even If I did want to play.

I PERSONALLY. Felt suckered by the sales pitch I got on 40K.

I went all caps cause I dont know how to make bold or italics, or underline sorry.

Hopefully that's more specific for folks.

Probably all this comes down to the group of people you play the games with – fanboys (to use the expression)etc seem to exist on the net and probably in tournament gaming and some clubs – as I have never played in tournament and always gamed with people I consider friends rather than in a club(playing for the last few years WAB,40K and FOW), arguments no matter how loud or alcohol fuelled don't change that.

yeah the silly alcohol remark certainly does nothing change my experience with the typical player of those games as you have so wonderfully represented. You made my point quite clear for me. I explained the caps clearly. Either way iy was addendum to a post that was really nothing to get so flustered about in the first place.