"Rapid Fire or FOW what do you prefer? (constructive please)" Topic

I play Rapid Fire and I want to gauge which rule set is preferred and why. I bought FOW but never got into it, because I had already invested in 20mm and didn't want to buy a 15mm army. All the available opponents had 15mm armies.

Please outline (as you see it, in a constructive fashion) both the positives and the negatives of both sets of rules.

cheers Ty

I like Rapid Fire. Fewer books to buy. Nice simple system. Not tourney focused. Can use individually mounted figs too.

Thanks,

John

I like RF. It works if you move units as units (companies, etc). I like to make it fairly structured with written operations orders that tie your battalions to specific tasks and routs of advance. I don't like rules systems that allow you to send units willy-nilly anywhere you want to. Too much flexibility is unrealistic. (It's what I don't like about BKC). The mechanics are straight forward. If you try and think like a brigade/KG commander and use realistic approaches, it works well.

There is another rules set, very similar, but with a more rigid framework, Piercing the Reich, that may be better than RF. I've read them but haven't played them.

FOW is a generic game system with lots of WWII "chrome" added on. I have played it several times and it is fun, but I have a strong interest that the mechanics at least "feel right" to me (blame my War College education). FOW just doesn't give me that feel

I don't see why you can't play FOW in 20mm, lots of people do, but you'd need to provide both/all sides if your other players mainly have 15mm stuff.

That apart, they are aimed at different levels of game, FOW is reinforced company, RF is Grand Tactical with briagdes etc. Personally I am more uncomfortable with the abstrations in RF, it is essentially a skirmish game pretending that each rifle section is a company and each tank is a platoon. It can be made to work more realistically as aecdr has done, but it takes some work.

FOW just works as is, although the logarithmic ground scale causes a few problems when trying to do historical scenarios and som epeople don't like the lack of opportunity fire. Still, if oportunity fire is the sole determinant of a good set of WW2 rules, then poor old Don Featherstone and Charles Grant might as well pack up and go home.

The good thing about WW2 is that you can use the same stuff for lots of different rules.

"I don't like rules systems that allow you to send units willy-nilly anywhere you want to."

You might try Spearhead.

I agree with what Martin says about Rapidfire. I never could get into the game. In contrast FOW with well-thought out scenarios, rather than points driven games, works well.

Not tried FOW. We always used Rapid Fire, especially when we did large show games, as they made for a fast moving game where something looked like it was happening when the punters came past us next time around.
Current vogue in the club for WW2 games is Crossfire, although I'm not that keen on them myself.

Played RF with our regional group many years ago but don't remember that much about it. Seems it could give a pretty good game.

Not a big fan of FOW. I tried it, and built a 1500 pt U.S. army before they changed the point system and that pretty much made me think we were going into a GW type spiral of changing things to sell more books.

I didn't like the tournament aspect of it and the desire for "killer armies". One of the guys built a Russian army using just the dregs of the system supported by a God of War artillery battery and a single Guards infantry company. He managed to field 4 or 5 units of more than 17 stands (an important concept as that many stands in a unit gets treated differently for morale purposes. We played one game on an 8 foot table with 1500 points of Germans vs Russians. The Russians were stand to stand the length of the table while the Germans barely covered three feet of the table and that with gaps between units. Needless to say you couldn't kill Russians fast enough to win the game.

My current preferred rules set is Disposable Heroes/Coffin for Seven Brothers.

I like Battleground (by the Fire & Fury folks), never could really get into Spearhead. Haven't tried Rapidfire.

FOW is only good if you have a very good group who plays sceanrios, know something about real tactics, and realize it's a game not a simulation. Don't really care for the tournaments.

I play WW2 with different sets and scales.
Rapid Fire is ideal for fast scenarios maybe with more players. We used RF in the past at the club. Then we adopted more complex rules (mainly Battlefront) and now we are returning to RF as it is the ideal choice for fast and funny games.
I think it is ideal also for running a demo game in a convention.

I'm building a FOW army as this gives me the possibility to play "evening games". I have just to work out my list (and how many points) and bring the army for a night game.

I haven't played either in quite awhile, but I would prefer to play RF (actually, I won't play FOW anymore at all). IIRC, I would do away with the RF grenade rule, which is a skirmish rule in what is not a skirmish game. My biggest problem with RF is not so much with the rules, but the gamers. WWII gamers seem to have an preprogrammed inability to see a casting as representing more than 1 or 2 men, so a ten man company is gamed with as if it was a squad and a battalion is treated like a company.

I'm a huge Rapid Fire! fan. It produces a simple, fun game. FOW is good, but not my cup of tea. It of course is more tournament oriented…. nothing wrong with that.

For a convention game… or a club game with multiple players, I would go with Rapid Fire. To be part of the tourney scene (and that can be great fun… I'm a huge DBA tourney player) I would do FOW.

Joe Collins

I have played RF (in 25mm) and FOW (in 15mm). I like both, though I now prefer FOW. Both are relatively easy games to play, with few mind numbing charts to refer to over the course of a game. I think FOW lends itself better to competition play vs. recreation of a particular scenario. You should get a clear victor in a standard FOW game. You do not need to spend too much time researching a particular event for FOW. RF is a "brigade" level game and FOW is a "company" level one, though if you look at the ratio of figures to vehicles, the games are similar. Both are fun. I think FOW is better supported than RF right now, and provide lots of stuff on the Battlefront web site to assist the new gamer.

Cost wise, if you use the wide variety of plastic figures for infantry, there isn't much difference. You can do FOW pretty inexpensively using Old Glory figures/tanks, so 15mm shouldn't be too much of a drawback, at least to dabble in and see if you like it. Either way, they are both fun games.

I am a preponent of RF!, although in saying that I must admit that the FoW crowd are truly inspirational.

The FoW books (i.e. D-Day Battle & Campaign) are filled with 'eye candy' and some useful information that has inspired and assisted me when preparing my D-Day UK/GE Jig Green (Gold) Beach Game in 2007 and my US/GE Dog Green(Omaha) Beach game this year.

I initially played FoW when I was away on business in NZ. During a couple of days off in Auckland I casually strolled into a hobby shop in which a game was being played by the proprietor and some of his clients. Being Kiwis they asked if I was interested in playing and having some time off I accepted. I had a great time (which should always be paramount when wargaming) but I was struck by the fact that there were 2-3 Rifle Platoons on each side of the table that were directly supported by a plethora of Tks & Arty which is fairly unrealistic in my mind… yes… I am aware it is a game not a simulation. I am also not into points driven forces, a well balanced scenario (forces/terrain) will allow for a fair game, and tournament play is of no interest to me. All the above being mentioned I think they are doing a great job attracting younger people into the hobby and as mentioned before are truly inspirational. Furthermore, if one adopts these rules they will have no trouble finding like minded opponents.

I adopted RF! rules in 2006, which replaced my Battlefront WW2 (Fire & Fury) rules which I found to be well researched and presented yet relatively complex. I have made some 'House Rule' modifications to RF! that suit my sense of playability and realism. I have set the scale at 1:4 for all troops/vehicles/guns/aircraft (i.e. a UK Inf Pl x9 figs, a UK Rifle Coy x34 figs, UK Inf Bn x192 figs). This scale suits me as I generally play Coy/Bn sized games and annually I will play a big game that is generally a Bde size action. Morale is tested at Coy level. Grenades have been deleted (it is assumed that they will be used during close assault) as the main manouver element is the Rifle Coy not the Rifle Sect/Sqd. Some other minor tweeks (i.e. AT fire) have been made but essentially the rules remain the same allowing for playable and realistic actions. The only negative I can think of is that if you play RF! (and reside outside the UK) you may not be able to find a local opponent.

What for me swings it to Rapid Fire is the scale. An "army" is a fair cross section of all arms with the opportunity to model many different vehicles. With FOW (and other company level sets) you are more sruck with lots of the same type of model- if following historically accurate OOB anyway.

RF for me by a country mile.

In either case play scenarios.

Here's a question about RF. I read the free basic rules. While it talks about figures being organized into units, there didn't seem to be anything about having to keep them together or having them fire at the same target, etc.

Is that something covered in the full rules? Or does it just not figure in? Thanks.

Oh, and a comment about FOW.

They don't force you to play in a tournament. I've played a lot of it and never played in a tournament.

Rapid Fire is a great set of rules. I've played them for years and so long as they are played in the right spirit(the clue is in the title) they remain the best on the market. The concept of RF can be knocked by rivet counters because of some necessary generalisations on armour, but as with all sets of rules they are there to be changed if you disagree with minor aspects.

'Here's a question about RF. I read the free basic rules. While it talks about figures being organized into units, there didn't seem to be anything about having to keep them together or having them fire at the same target, etc.

Is that something covered in the full rules? Or does it just not figure in? Thanks.'

The figures should remain within 1" of each other within a company. Other than that common sense should prevail.

I only play Rapid Fire! (for 20th Century games) The reason being that I started with them and enjoy them so much that I have never felt the need to change.

What I will say is RF! really comes in to it's own in BIG games. Using full brigades in 20mm with multiple commanders per side and using all the advanced 'bells and whistles' rules is the most fun I have had wargaming in any period.

I don't like points based equal sided gaming, I enjoy scenario based games and I don't like 15mm figures, which means that FOW could be the best games system ever invented, but I'll never try it as it would be too much effort to find a local like-minded opponent.

To me gaming is about using my imagination and a personal observation I have about FOW (and also games such as Warhammer 40K) is that there isn't enough individuallity. Every British player has a "Sergeant Tom Stanley", every German has a troop of Tigers, because in a points based game they're the cutting edge.

I guess it's like Lego, as a kid I liked to play with Lego and design my own stuff, now kids buy ready made kits of Lego parts that only make into that one kit. Not wrong in any way, just not my cup of tea.

Hope that made sense. :-)

"To me gaming is about using my imagination and a personal observation I have about FOW (and also games such as Warhammer 40K) is that there isn't enough individuallity. Every British player has a "Sergeant Tom Stanley", every German has a troop of Tigers, because in a points based game they're the cutting edge."

I never will understand this thinking. Points systems do not necessarily equal ultra competitive games with unrealistic forces. (By the way, doesn't RF have a points system too?). The system can be used as a way of coming up with a balanced game on the fly, without the need to research and plan a game in advance.

Yes, playing a historical scenario is great(and the FOW campaign books and FOW website provide many of them) but for a pick up game among strangers or a loose group the point system serves a useful purpose.

I can also say that I do have a German army for FOW, haven't ever fielded any Tiger tanks and don't even own yesterday.

The game I played yesterday the Geman force had 3 Grenadier platoons, 2 Pak 40's, a mortar platoon and a heavy platoon with HMG's dispersed among the combat platoon and 2 StugG's.

What's "unrealistic" about that force?

'Here's a question about RF. I read the free basic rules. "While it talks about figures being organized into units, there didn't seem to be anything about having to keep them together or having them fire at the same target, etc.

Is that something covered in the full rules? Or does it just not figure in? Thanks.'

The figures should remain within 1" of each other within a company. Other than that common sense should prevail."

Actually there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from splitting up your battalion, or companies, into as wide an area you want. The key is in their simple, yet elegant solution. You may have only a maximum of 5 fire groups in your infantry battalion (exclusive of attached heavy weapons). To be considered a firing group figures must be within 1 inch of another figure in the same group. So, if a player wished, they could spread their stands all over the place. Of course even splitting each of three companies into 2 groups you will find at least one wont be able to fire. In practice, with only 5 fire groups to the Battalion, players tend to task organize their units.

It is the simple, yet elegant solutions to the problems without over reliance on "iron maiden" type rules which sells Rapid Fire for me.

"The system can be used as a way of coming up with a balanced game on the fly,"

Anyone who thinks that a points system will generate a balanced game because each side has the same number of points is sadly mistaken.

A points system based on mathematics and game design techniques will generate a balanced game potential. scenario slewing of those relative totals can be done due to circumstances such that you can chance force composition while keeping the integrity of the scenario intact.

this allows you to play a scenario with a vehicle bogging test which could be afrika corp attacking a isolated and dug in motor brigade in the desert one week then russians attacking dug in rumanians across snow the following week and directly compare the results.

Points are a broad brush tool you can use, not a definative absolute.

I like Rapid Fire; it provides a fast simple game that gives a good feel for the period and really that's all I'm looking for.

D~

Is there anyone who can comment on Command Decision compared to the other games?

I have found I really like the RF rules especially for large games, but also for an afternoon game.

This scenario is a lot of fun.
link
I ran out of petrol in 2 rounds!

For years I collected and played with 20mm "Series 78" units from 'Wargames Digest' magazine using various rules – Angriff, CD, Battlefront several, several others. Then I ran into Rapid Fire. I have been enjoying them ever since.

Played a couple of games of FOW but it just didn't "click" with me altho I have bought most of the books for reference.

Here's a vote for RF!!!!

Try them both and either way – Have FUN!!!!

"Is there anyone who can comment on Command Decision compared to the other games?"

Try thinking of CD as a 20 year old BMW 7 series, with lots of extras, in very good condition, and FoW as a brand new underpowered Vauxhall with a lot of gimmicks, while RF is more like an old camper van.

If you like the CD level of platoon/battalion and order chips to allow for some actual planning, but are a bit put off by the complexity you might try:

Combat Command

Combat-Command.com

TomT (shamless plug)

This domain is missing from the Web server configuration

The domain name is correctly pointing at a valid Web server. This Web server does not recognize this domain name as a valid Web site.

If you are the Webmaster please contact Technical Support.

I play storming the reich, bit like RF but more detail…

I'll play whatever I can find a game for. Around here, that's FoW, and I quite enjoy it. I do collect other rule sets though, and the rules are a fraction of the expense of the hobby, so I don't define myself on that particular choice.

The only concern I have is whether rebasing will be required to shift between games.

One plus for FoW is that I can travel around the country (US) and find a game that is played the same as back home. That's not always the case with other rules, so it's a big plus for me.

- Bob