"Of FOW's sliding scale ranges and such..." Topic

Allan wrote

"Do it right? PBI…"

I apologize for ever having thought you didn't have a sense of humor, Derek."

Pray tell us allen what the humourous side of the scales used in PBI?

"In the 1970s, NATO did a study of the terrain of West and Central Europe. They determined that of the terrain surveyed, no more than something like 25% of that surveyed gave a line of sight of more than 500 meters.

Hardly sparse terrain."

Read what I wrote. I said relatively sparse compared with built up areas or bocage, both of which most people would regard as very close terrain.

"There has to be some way to accomodate 15mm infantry and armored vehicles in a consistent way on a standard table top."

Try Megablitz:
link

The designer used 20mm models but of course it will work fine with 15mm. And at 4cm = 1km, you can play some BIG battles!

"How can CD IV and BF WW2 have essentially the same ground scale but CD IV puts a platoon on the same frontage as a BF WW2 squad? "

CD uses, and has always used, very silly small bases. I believe orginally it was so you could fit an infantry platoon in the back of a 20mm truck.

For 15mm 1:1 infantry heavy games I find 12" = 100 yards works fine (ie 1/300th scale), in the denser parts of the world anyway. In more open places then maybe 12" = 200 yards or something.

CD uses, and has always used, very silly small bases. I believe orginally it was so you could fit an infantry platoon in the back of a 20mm truck.

I haven't played CD in years (though I have bought the latest edition)and when we did we used 1 1/4" bases, but I seem to remember that it was a big mistake to line them infantry base to base if your opponent had any mortars or artillery.

Can't speak for CD, but BFWW2 uses 1 model to represent 2 or 3 actual vehicles or guns (not a platoon as stated earlier). If you accept the stated 500m frontage for an infantry battalion attack then you can (just) squeeze a British Infantry Battalion in a reasonably "historical" 2 up formation into that.

Ranges of ATGs vary , but most are effective in the BF 10-20 inch range band, so would pass DHs test.

Having said that, they do have problems when you get to street fighting because you can't squeeze enough bases into the historical footprints of some buildings, which makes historical scenarios in well defined buildings difficult, so nothing is perfect.

I think suggesting PBI are a veild attempt to sell PPig infantry figures is a bit of a laugh. Most WW2 units ARE infantry, and some front line soldiers fought the whole war without seeing a tank, so this is hardly unrealistic.

I play CD with pltns on 1" 1/4 bases, doesn't really make any difference and it means I can use them for other stuff..If you play CD with your platoons shoulder to shoulder you only do it once anyway..They get plastered by every artillery battery and mortar going

Derek H wrote:

So what if I can only fit a platoon in between mutually supporting German strongpoints on DDay instead of the battalion that historically could have fit there. The tactical problem presented is the same.

I'd suggest you think about that a bit more.

What you're saying is that an Allied force of battalion plus assaulting two German platoons in strongpoints is the same tactical problem as an Allied company assaulting two German platoons in strongpoints.

I've been thinking about it a bit more. :) Two observations:

1. It's not as bad as only being able to fit a single platoon. Accepting that the 'historical challenge' involved fitting two battalions within the space of two interlocking MG positions, using Derek's calcs, I see that the two battalions require a frontage of 32 inches using FoW basing, yet HMG range is only 24 inches. While two full battalions won't fit, certainly more than one will. Certainly the basic tactical situation could be modeled by providing more than two mutually-supporting HMG positions? (I'm not aware of any regulations that limited the Atlantic Wall to only pairs of positions.)

2. Why on earth are we using a scenario requiring two full battalions as the basis for evaluating a rule set in which the player commands a reinforced company? Would it make sense to evaluate a rule set using a 1 base = 1 company in a house-to-house combat setting?

3. As PilGrim points out, most rule sets suffer from compressed ground scale distortion compared to unit basing. Either buildings at figure scale are monstrous at ground scale, or single squads won't fit within a building at ground scale.

Three. There are THREE observations. NOBODY expects the wargames inquisition!

FoW fared better using 'unit frontage' as a basis for comparison than I expected. The biggest shortcoming using this basis seems to be the HMG range band of 24 inches. While I'll agree that FoW perhaps isn't well suited to representing historical actions involving multiple battalions (that would be a big, likely slow game), I think that the basic tactical challenges (e.g. assaulting interlocking defensive positions) can be approximated using FoW to the level of gaining an appreciation of the historical challenges. (I hesitate to use the word 'simulated' with any games played by non-professionals.)

Back to the OP's question, it does seem to me some house rules could be used to overcome some of the most glaring objections to FoW's sliding ground scale by either upping the HMG range band of 24 inches to 32 inches, and presumably upping the rest by 16 inches; using a more linear ground scale; or a combination of the two. Doing so won't overcome the basic shortcomings of ground scale not equal to figure scale (basing frontage) shared by most (all?) higher-level rules. Doing so won't make FoW any more suited to representing higher-level actions in a typical gaming afternoon. And of course, the results won't be FoW anymore, which might be an issue for players that plan on playing outside of the immediate group using such house rules.

And yet… I suspect that all of this could be done, made to work, and yet would still be rejected by many of the same players because Battlefront uses too many color pictures and strives to make a profit.

Interesting data for comparison nonetheless!

- Bob

1. It's not as bad as only being able to fit a single platoon. Accepting that the 'historical challenge' involved fitting two battalions within the space of two interlocking MG positions, using Derek's calcs, I see that the two battalions require a frontage of 32 inches using FoW basing, yet HMG range is only 24 inches. While two full battalions won't fit, certainly more than one will. Certainly the basic tactical situation could be modeled by providing more than two mutually-supporting HMG positions? (I'm not aware of any regulations that limited the Atlantic Wall to only pairs of positions.)

You have neglected to factor in the fact that the strongpoints themselves have width, they need to be at least 10-12" wide to accomodate a platoon of troops and a gun or two. Battlefront actually made them about 24" wide in the D-Day book. See map at picture

Set 12" wide strongpoints up with proper mutual support between their weapons (about 24" apart centre to centre) and the gap between them is 12" (as in the map linked to above). That's enough room to deploy a platoon and a half of closely packed infantry with two sections up.

Where are you going to put the rest of the battalion that should fit in that space? Not to mention the squadron of tanks and the engineers etc?

2. Why on earth are we using a scenario requiring two full battalions as the basis for evaluating a rule set in which the player commands a reinforced company? Would it make sense to evaluate a rule set using a 1 base = 1 company in a house-to-house combat setting?

I'm using it as a demonstration of how far out of kilter with unit frontages the weapons ranges are.

That a player commands a reinforced company is one of the great myths of FoW gaming.

FoW players command a hotch-potch of units from all sorts of command levels, Company, Battalion, Divisional and even on occasion Corps assets in the shape of heavy artillery.

The player is not a company commander but some sort of wierd hybrid, one minute deploying his infantry squads and the next heavy artillery from an AGRA.

3. As PilGrim points out, most rule sets suffer from compressed ground scale distortion compared to unit basing. Either buildings at figure scale are monstrous at ground scale, or single squads won't fit within a building at ground scale.

Always a major problem. Only really fixable by saying model buildings represent built up areas rather than individual buildings.

Another problem comes when you try and represent dense bocage country where the average size of fields in some areas can be as low as ten or twenty – yards in any direction.

Again I'd suggest that this sort of terrain is best represnted by templates.

I think that the basic tactical challenges (e.g. assaulting interlocking defensive positions) can be approximated using FoW to the level of gaining an appreciation of the historical challenges. (I hesitate to use the word 'simulated' with any games played by non-professionals.)

Go on then, draw us a map of the scenario set up. It should be fun ripping it to shreds.

PilGrim wrote:

Can't speak for CD, but BFWW2 uses 1 model to represent 2 or 3 actual vehicles or guns (not a platoon as stated earlier).

If you accept the stated 500m frontage for an infantry battalion attack then you can (just) squeeze a British Infantry Battalion in a reasonably "historical" 2 up formation into that.

Each infantry base represents a squad from what I read on their web page. Is that correct?

[…] I think suggesting PBI are a veild attempt to sell PPig infantry figures is a bit of a laugh.

Well, that WAS a joke. I even used an uncool-at-TMP smiley!

Most WW2 units ARE infantry, and some front line soldiers fought the whole war without seeing a tank, so this is hardly unrealistic.

Absolutely agreed. But if you want to play a game with armor, air or artillery, it makes sense for the rules to portray them. If you also happen to sell figures that represent those assets, it only makes sense from a business perspective.

- Bob

"If you play CD with your platoons shoulder to shoulder you only do it once anyway.."

I think the difficulty is that while you do get punished by area fire weapons for bunching, you don't get the same thing from MGs or rifle platoons. Being able to jam a whole company onto a 180m front is just daft, in fact you can jam a whole battalion into an area 180x180, with no direct fire penalties at all.

You _could_ do this in Squad Leader or PBI but a couple of MGs would tear the whole formation to pieces.

"How can CD IV and BF WW2 have essentially the same ground scale but CD IV puts a platoon on the same frontage as a BF WW2 squad? "

CD uses, and has always used, very silly small bases. I believe orginally it was so you could fit an infantry platoon in the back of a 20mm truck.

No, I checked last night. CD recommends 3/4" square bases for their stand representing a platoon.

BF WW2 recommends 1 1/8" bases for their stand representing a squad.

CD has a ground scale of 1" = 50 yards. BF WW2 has a scale of 1" = 40 yards.

So which one's correct?

Can't speak for CD, but BFWW2 uses 1 model to represent 2 or 3 actual vehicles or guns (not a platoon as stated earlier). If you accept the stated 500m frontage for an infantry battalion attack then you can (just) squeeze a British Infantry Battalion in a reasonably "historical" 2 up formation into that.

2-3 actual vehicles is a platoon of vehicles. Maybe not paper strength, but field strength.

Absolutely agreed. But if you want to play a game with armor, air or artillery, it makes sense for the rules to portray them.

If you want to play a wargame with armour, air and artillery models all on the table then it makes no sense at all to have a figure scale of 1:1.

That decision is at the root of many of the problems with FoW.

For me if I play WWII at any scale other than 1:1 I feel that I might as well play a boardgame.

I love WWII boardgames and have played a lot of them. The only thing that got me back into WWII minatures was FoW which works fine for me at 1:1.

For me the peculiar ground scale is the key to allow me to do what I want to. If I want to play with one counter per platoon then there are plenty of cracking games like Highway to the Reich for example that do a much better job than you will ever do with miniatures.

Before FoW grabbed me I had been looking on and off at playing 1:1 WWII with 1/300th models and a 1/500th or 1/600th ground scale. The trouble was I couldn't find a set of rules I liked, never mind one that anyone at my club played.

Squad leader and PBI do model fire effects on bunching, but base to base contact in Fow doesnt actually model bunching. the flexable ground scale changes it to represent troops actually more spaced out against those other infantry weapons.

the only way I have been able to rationalise the sliding scale is to consider that one man and his piat are "skirmish" firing at a single tank at very close range, but simultaniously this same arrangement on the table represents any tank v tank as actually having a model tank representing "platoons" firing at some determinate medium range….(justifies removing some aspects of opp fire to some extent) and when mgs fire at bunched up infantry, they are actually deployed quite sparcely and have scale slid away, but under artillary fire they are packed together. All of this effect is an abstract of the command function being performed by the various levels of command and this also justifies the player having all the differing levels of command.
for infantry and aircraft, but still picking targets for individual piats

there are only 2 flaws with this.

1. I'm trying to fit a rationale onto a system that has much simpler discriptions, some of which are in print form in the designer notes

2. I dont beleive the designers showed themselves as that sophisticated as the designer notes state so much to the contrary.

1:1 scale condemns you to only ever playing skirmishes.
I'd rather play a battle.
You play other periods, such as ancients, not at 1:1 scale. What is special about WW2?

I find a set of rules which allows a battalion or so per side, with supports, is about the most tactically interesting to me.
So Crossfire, and Battlefront WW2 fit the bill.

If you want a 1:1 set which allows this sort of size of action, I Ain't Been Shot Mum! fits the bill, but I find it a bit slow when playing games of this size.

Derek H wrote:

You have neglected to factor in the fact that the strongpoints themselves have width, they need to be at least 10-12" wide to accomodate a platoon of troops and a gun or two. Battlefront actually made them about 24" wide in the D-Day book. See map at picture

I'm sorry, but I only see a single strongpoint along the beach in that picture, so I'm not sure it's meant to represent at all what you've described. Its a bit difficult to see though. Are you focusing on that scenario now, or the "battalion plus attacking two mutually-supporting platoons" that you described previously?

Set 12" wide strongpoints up with proper mutual support between their weapons (about 24" apart centre to centre) and the gap between them is 12" (as in the map linked to above). That's enough room to deploy a platoon and a half of closely packed infantry with two sections up.

Given that the BF/FoW map doesn't show such an arrangement, I don't think that "24 inches" is really meaningful. Using your previous description of "a battalion plus attacking two platoons", an HMG platoon consists of 3 HMG bases (6 inches width). Range is 24 inches. I see the requirement as allowing each HMG in one platoon to cover the three in the other, not in stuffing the attackers between them. I would assume the attacker and defender frontages would overlap. So I see a frontage for the attackers of 24 inches and the outer teams of the defenders within 24 inches.

Where are you going to put the rest of the battalion that should fit in that space? Not to mention the squadron of tanks and the engineers etc?

Personally? I wouldn't be gaming a full BATTALION plus at all using FoW. But if one insists on packing shoulder-to-shoulder, the "battalion plus" you described will fit in that 24 inch space. I'm doubting that such a linear formation would be a good idea using any rule set mind you, but I'm trying to stick to the parameters (2 forward, 1 back formation) you described previously.

2. Why on earth are we using a scenario requiring two full battalions as the basis for evaluating a rule set in which the player commands a reinforced company? […]

I'm using it as a demonstration of how far out of kilter with unit frontages the weapons ranges are.

Ah, OK then… Using our (your) 'battalion frontage of 500m', it looks like FoW gives HMGs a 360m range using the 2 inch infantry base as a basis. BKC gives them 750m using a 4cm infantry base. It will be interesting to do this calculation on some of the other rule sets, but no time for it right now! I'm sure FoW is the "wrongerer" of the bunch in this regard. So in terms of accurately providing weapons ranges in relation to unit frontage, FoW is off. I don't have a disagreement.

But, more importantly I think, that doesn't mean that the challenge of approximating a scenario of 'a larger force assaulting two smaller defending forces' can't be done in FoW. The two defending platoons can be positioned as described (each base within 24 inches of the others providing mutual support). Attacking them is a real challenge. True, it doesn't model a multi-battalion assault, any more than modeling that multi-battalion assault models all of Normandy. We need to determine if we're out to model a specific tactical challenge (assaulting mutually supporting positions) or recreate all of WWII!

That a player commands a reinforced company is one of the great myths of FoW gaming.

FoW players command a hotch-potch of units from all sorts of command levels, Company, Battalion, Divisional and even on occasion Corps assets in the shape of heavy artillery.

Re-word that to "players can command…" and I don't disagree. I've seen players do all sorts of wacky stuff using different rule sets. But FoW doesn't force you to. I make a point of fielding a Soviet infantry battalion in FoW consisting of *gasp* mostly infantry.

The player is not a company commander but some sort of wierd hybrid, one minute deploying his infantry squads and the next heavy artillery from an AGRA.

In any game, the player sits back with god-like intel, calling on resources that are nothing like those available to an actual battlefield commander. Anybody wishing to do so can compose a list using historical TOE as a basis in FoW. Many (if not most) choose not to adhere to this strictly, but it certainly can be done! Personally, I find it an interesting challenge doing so.

FoW is company level game in that, acting at the level of a company commander, he directs units two levels below (squads). But yes, he also gets god-like control over other assets if he so chooses.

3. As PilGrim points out, most rule sets suffer from compressed ground scale distortion compared to unit basing. Either buildings at figure scale are monstrous at ground scale, or single squads won't fit within a building at ground scale.

Always a major problem. Only really fixable by saying model buildings represent built up areas rather than individual buildings. […]
Again I'd suggest that this sort of terrain is best represnted by templates.

We already do that with woods in FoW, and I think you're right that the same approach makes more sense for dense terrain. I think this is as much an education and exposure issue. It certainly makes woods much easier to deal with rather than worrying about each tree trunk!

I think that the basic tactical challenges (e.g. assaulting interlocking defensive positions) can be approximated using FoW …

Go on then, draw us a map of the scenario set up. It should be fun ripping it to shreds.

Hey, I'm a consultant. Tearing up other peoples' work is what I do for a living. You draw a map! :)

So…

A Situation approximating challenge of larger infantry force attacking smaller defending force deployed in two defensive positions with overlapping fields of fire:

|<---  d  --->|
D1           D2
       a
     A1A2A3

Where D1 and D2 are defending positions manned by HMG and larger weapons platoons deployed such that both are fully within distance 'd' (HMG range – 24 inches for FoW) with clear line-of-sight between positions, and good coverage from each into area 'a'. Both are prepared positions.

Attacking units A1-A3 must defeat and bypass these positions. Vary attacking units A1-A3 in size and type. Vary the intervening terrain in area 'a'. Bonus points for attacker accomplishing the mission without additional support. Bonus points for defender for every turn attacker delayed, and for attacker units destroyed.

As with any game, we've got those artificial table edges, but those can be explained away as "cliff walls" for now.

A literal interpretation of a specific position on a specific date? No. But then I don't think they teach historic battles in military academies with the thought that the lessons would only ever apply if fighting on that same ground under identical circumstances with identical forces and weapons.

So again, to the original issue of sliding ground scale: with some forethought, interesting historical tactical situations (not inch-by-inch battlefield recreations) of approximately company-sized engagements can be approximated quite satisfactorily using FoW as-is.

If you are after inch-by-inch battlefield recreations, or engagements using forces significantly larger or smaller than company sized, FoW doesn't work out of scale any better than any other rule set. Doing so requires compromises, just as with any other rule set.

- Bob

I'm sorry, but I only see a single strongpoint along the beach in that picture, so I'm not sure it's meant to represent at all what you've described.

One of them's inland.

|<--- d --->|
D1 D2

a

A1A2A3

Where D1 and D2 are defending positions manned by HMG and larger weapons platoons deployed such that both are fully within distance 'd' (HMG range – 24 inches for FoW) with clear line-of-sight between positions, and good coverage from each into area 'a'. Both are prepared positions.

Once again you've forgotten that the fortifications have width, you've got them in as points. They need to be at least 12" wide to fit a Platoon in. The 1km and mutual support should be from centre to centre rather than edge to edge.

What you've set up may be an interesting scenario, but it bears only a passing resemblance to the D-Day landings.

Derek H wrote:

Once again you've forgotten that the fortifications have width, you've got them in as points.

No, actually I clearly stated that both must fit within the distance 'd' (effective HMG range of 24 inches for FoW). However, you seem to relax that requirement (more below).

They need to be at least 12" wide to fit a Platoon in. The 1km and mutual support should be from centre to centre rather than edge to edge.

An German HMG platoon of 3 weapons is only 3 bases (6 inches) wide in FoW. They need not be deployed in linear or perpendicular to the line of attack, of course, so the actual width required is something less than 6 inches. While 1km may have been the historical distance, that distance was selected based on weapon ranges. Had weapon ranges been shorter, that distance would have been shorter. I've reflected that. We can discuss what "24 inches" is in game terms, but I think we agree (?) that using the 2 inch base for comparison, it's about 360m.

Based on your description here, 3 inches of those 6 for each defensive position should be within HMG range of the center of the other position (24 inches -- 2 guns overlap each way).

What you've set up may be an interesting scenario, but it bears only a passing resemblance to the D-Day landings.

Nor was it described as doing so. Trying to recreate the entirety of the D-Day landings using a company-level set of rules in a single sitting is likely to be a bit frustrating. One can approximate a subset of the action, but that's about it. You described a situation involving a larger force attacking two smaller positions with interlocking cover, as occurred at D-Day, which is what I represented. Any game is obviously a slice of the action… though I suppose you could play additional games (or tables) representing the action on either flank.

I'm not sure why inability to represent the entirety of the D-Day landings is a shortcoming you find peculiar to FoW. That gets more into the 'inch-by-inch battlefield recreation' than a tactical situation, does it not? Again, I don't think ancient battles are studied today because there's a chance we'll find ourselves facing a phalanx of hoplites somewhere in Greece on a summer day.

If you're going to use inch-by-inch recreation as any sort of basis, I think we'd better make room on that beach for logistical and medical support, and mirror sea and air coordination, as well as weather and myriad of other factors… which leads us to a much larger scale of game.

- Bob

Bob

With the greatest respect, and you are obviously having a lot of fun poking Derek (and I appreciate that it is mandatory in certain States)you are not really addressing the problem, and to me appear to be rather introducing yet more straw men that you can then take shots at.

My problem with the ground scale, which is what Derek is also stating in a roundabout way, is that it is impossible to represent three points on a map using Fows scale, because the scale is variable.

I think the best solution is just to accept that some of us don't agree with you, and move on.

Bob, you seem to be being deliberatley obtuse, so I'll simplify things for you.

I've reflected that. We can discuss what "24 inches" is in game terms, but I think we agree (?) that using the 2 inch base for comparison, it's about 360m.

Using PIAT range fot comparison, it's about 150-200m, light AT guns give us just over 1,000 metres and 88mm AT gun range gives us just under 2,000 metres.

And all these weapons were regularly found in colose vicinity during the D-Day landings.

How can all these scales exist simultaneously? The scale may slide but the terrain represented on a wargames table stays still.

If we look at the artillery ranges our 24" is a couple of miles. But you can avoid that extreme problem by leaving it "Over the Volga".

PilGrim wrote:

With the greatest respect, and you are obviously having a lot of fun poking Derek (and I appreciate that it is mandatory in certain States) you are not really addressing the problem, and to me appear to be rather introducing yet more straw men that you can then take shots at.

And no slight intended here, I assure you. I have been trying to wiggle out exactly what the 'problem' is specifically relating to the sliding ground scale, and how it relates to Derek's concern regarding unit frontage. I honestly find this interesting, having become something of a rules junkie in recent years. I am only poking fun to the extent that it seems that disdain for the company often enters discussions regarding the rules.

My problem with the ground scale, which is what Derek is also stating in a roundabout way, is that it is impossible to represent three points on a map using Fows scale, because the scale is variable.

Ah, and there, very cleanly, you have stated the problem. I can see how a 3rd point makes it far more of a problem. With two, we can compensate by adjusting distances. Thanks for putting it so succinctly!

But I have to ask, and again, sincerely as someone interested in wargaming and differing approaches to common problems, what sort of tactical situation would this reflect. Or putting it another way, I do not agree that tactical situations cannot be approximated in FoW. However, I am interested in identifying those which specifically cannot. I like to find the boundaries of each set of rules. (I've already accepted that FoW is not going to be suited for modeling a large, multi-battalion action.)

I think the best solution is just to accept that some of us don't agree with you, and move on.

Mmmm… well, no. Won't be doing that! I'm really not out to convince anybody of anything. But when a limitation is pointed out, often as if it were a widely accepted fact, I want to fully understand it. You've pointed out that a 3rd reference point displays a real shortcoming of the sliding ground scale. I agree. Yet I do wonder (aloud):

1. In how many 'typical' scenarios (not inch-by-inch battlefield recreations) that is a real liability.

2. How much worse it is with other rules representing roughly company-level actions FoW is than any others.

I find it interesting to determine what FoW with a fixed ground scale would look like. (I've also thought about FoW with a Warmaster/BKC C&C overlay too, so I'm not saying it's a good idea.)

- Bob

Derek H wrote:

Bob, you seem to be being deliberatley obtuse, so I'll simplify things for you.

No, but apologies if it seems that way. I've been trying to nail down the specific limitation (which PilGrim seems to have done now) relating to the sliding ground scale in isolation from other 'dislikes'.

[…] Using PIAT range fot comparison, it's about 150-200m, light AT guns give us just over 1,000 metres and 88mm AT gun range gives us just under 2,000 metres.

So just to be clear: You are not stating that ground scale should be derived from the unit (base) frontage? I had understood that to be your fundamental concern in all this!

[…] If we look at the artillery ranges our 24" is a couple of miles. But you can avoid that extreme problem by leaving it "Over the Volga".

And it seems that the differences in direct fire weapons can be mitigated by either:

1. Limiting LoS > 24 inches through terrain placement (not suitable for all scenarios, but "still FoW".)

2. Allowing all weapons larger than small arms to fire across the table. (definitely "not FoW" anymore.)

(I did ask about these before!)

I've played a few different rule sets (BKC, IABSM, Nuts, CDIV, DHC7B) on a limited basis, and have collected and read others (Battleground, Crossfire, WRG A&I, Angriff, Tractics and an irrational number of free rule sets) and I readily see the limitations of FoW. Yet it provides a 'feel' for the different unit types that I've not yet found in the others. While I'll happily play anybody, I have a preference for a more "historically plausible" game. If there are ways to mitigate some of the shortcomings, I am most interested in them.

So given that FoW is a game that I enjoy playing, and the only one I'm likely to play against human opponents anytime soon, what can be done to mitigate some of the concerns. Preferably while still retaining the core game.

A few things I'm taking from this thread are:

1. Generous use of LoS-blocking terrain. (Knew this one.)

2. Avoidance of situations depicting 3 reference points (Admittedly, I'm not sure of anything outside an actual battle map recreation.)

3. Either leave artillery (and probably air) out of the picture, or use artillery off-table. (LoS-blocking terrain reduces effectiveness, so has an indirect impact on this. Except for the stupid spotting planes now available.)

4. Restrict or eliminate divisional-level assets.

5. Forcing historical opponents.

[Edit: More disruptive alternatives not likely to happen.]
6. Eliminate range restrictions for larger-than-small arms.

7. Use smaller scale miniatures and basing.

1-5 could be accomplished through scenario-creation and list restrictions.

Other suggestions?

- Bob

*sigh* look out for the Grognards, kyoteblue.

I think that Flames of War actually plays BEST as a multi-company game, with battalion assets in support. Is that a big game? not really, it's only about 3000 points (unless someone is running mechanized infantry).

I pulled out my Bloody Omaha book for flames, and took a look at the Easy Green scenario. There's only ONE strongpoint w/ MGs on the table (the other strongpoint has 28cm rockets); and there's 6 boat sections plus a tank platoon, an engineer platoon, an Artillery battery, and Naval Gunfire Support on the Allied side.

I do have some issues with the telescoping ranges, but I can live with that to have a game to play!

So just to be clear: You are not stating that ground scale should be derived from the unit (base) frontage? I had understood that to be your fundamental concern in all this!

The problem is that there are about ten incompatable ground scales all operating at once.

The unit frontages have a different scale to most weapon range scales. And the weapon range scales are all different.

You try and nail things down with unit frontages and all the weapons ranges are out, some of them are totally nonsensical.

You try and nail it down with a weapon range scale and the unit frontages and most other weapon range scale are out. Again some of these scales are nonsensical.

You might as well try and nail down a jelly (Jello).

Sorry for jumping in so late after my question was answered, but then it's true that I used a sliding scale for ranges in my home brew and also (though my house rules don't state it) for Crossfire (yes, blanch in horror, I've been using range bands in Crossfire for years in order to get some good old long range tank fighting).

I used up to 20" I think (it's what I use now to represent 200 to 400 yards) to represent 200 yards. After that, there was a magical jump from 200 yards to 400 yards. So just two scales. It worked great for the dilemma of city fighting as some have mentioned for my home brew rules.

I never worried (and still don't) about unit frontage fudging. I assume roughly 1"= 10 yards, even though my "sliding scale" insists that beyond 20", 1" = 20 yards. In my old home brew rules, unit frontage wasn't a big problem as my rules were 1:1 with infantry. Now, with CF (house rules are on my web site and were finally updated before Christmas), I just worry about unit frontages at the lower scale. Of course, I don't even mention the sliding scale I use in my CF house rules or vehicle stats, I don't think.

The only time it is of some concern is when I'm playing large Crossfire games (the biggest has been a full strength Soviet infantry battalion, with 4 squad platoons + a couple (0r three) of full companies of AFVs -see the Nikopol accounts on my web site). Then one does worry about shooting across a couple of companies worth frontage at enemy targets. On the other hand, my terrain is usually dense enough that this is not likely to happen, but, on the other foot (I've run out of hands) when I was involved in platoon, company and higher operations on exercise, we were given a map trace and arcs of responsibility…
--
Tim

The trouble with unit frontages is that they were not fixed. They would change according to circumstances, mission, etc.

I guess this has been addressed as a problem with the sliding scale. That is movement per turn is not constant at a sliding scale.
If a tank moves 8" at a distance of 30" it is subject to one shot. If it moves 8" at a distance of 12" it is also subject to one shot. But if the 8" @ 12" is equal to 250m but the 8" at 30" equals 1000m then the tank is either moving a 4 times the speed at 30" or the firer is taking 4 x the time to fire his one shot as at 12".

Reletively sparse?

Sorry, but you must have visited a different Western Europe to me.

While the bocage is close terrain, that around Holland is just as problematic due to the limited road network, s, fences, small dotted woodlands and a plethora of small villages and farms. Not too mention the undulation of the ground.

Its not reletively sparse. To call it so is utterly misleading.

Europe is a tiny wee place where we all live on top of each other.

Now… America… Thats sparse.

LOL…

It bleeps out D Y K Es… Guess waterways are a dirty word on TMP!

"If you want to play a wargame with armour, air and artillery models all on the table then it makes no sense at all to have a figure scale of 1:1."

Why not? The scale in FOW isn't 1:1 in any case, it is played with bases, which could have 1 or 6 figures on them.

An infantry company supported by a troop of tanks with a preparatory airstrike, just like those described time and time again in e.g. Tank Tracks, Mailed Fist, So Few Got Through, Troop Commander etc etc….

"If you want to play a wargame with armour, air and artillery models all on the table then it makes no sense at all to have a figure scale of 1:1."

Why not? The scale in FOW isn't 1:1 in any case, it is played with bases, which could have 1 or 6 figures on them.

I refer you to page 20 of the rulebook "one miniature represents one soldier or vehicle". Sounds like 1:1 to me.

An infantry company supported by a troop of tanks with a preparatory airstrike, just like those described time and time again in e.g. Tank Tracks, Mailed Fist, So Few Got Through, Troop Commander etc etc….

No problem with infantry and armour but what about the artillery? Especially the heavy stuff, what's that doing there on the front line instead of a few thousand yards back where it belongs (with very rare exceptions)?

Maybe everyone could get together and buy a field. Plenty of room for realistic ranges.

Imagine 1/35 outdoors. A whole field full. Mmmmmm……

Hmm

On table arty gives FoW games a different dynamic which is (in my view) nothing like WW2 and more resembles Napoleonics. Although I have a plenty of reservations about other parts of the rules, this one is probably the one I would most like to "fix". I'm using quotations here to try and emphasise that I'm not unhappy with the rules as is, or rather I accept them as being part of the package, so please don't set the FoWites on me.

Having the guns on table means that the opponent knows they are vulnerable, and the user knows he can rely on them to hold objectives. Neither of these is "usually" the case in Company level WW2 engagements, where friendly artillery support is treated like a magic hammer, and enemy artillery is treated like the weather – sometimes nasty but there is not a lot a Company Commander can do about it so why worry?

The game then seems to develop into a question of how to destroy or neutralise your opponents guns. This can be an interesting tactical problem in itself, but I have found from experience of playing and watching that the resulting solutions – rushes of light vehicles with lots of MGs, tank charges etc, etc are not actually WW2 style solutions to WW2 situations, they are game solutions to a situation that arises out of the game's mechanics and insistence that arty must be on table. The situation becomes worse when you start to get heavy guns on table – 150mm, 152mm, 155mm and 5.5s because they are also damned good tank killers in FoW, so you get the ludicrous situation of a Medium Field Battery of 5.5 inch guns firing over open sights in the anti tank role under command of a couple of platoons of infantry.

Shifting focus to "the game" of FoW now…

Derek H wrote:

[…] I refer you to page 20 of the rulebook "one miniature represents one soldier or vehicle". Sounds like 1:1 to me.

There is meant to be a 1:1 ratio of figures, and Battlefront does tout this, you are absolutely correct. But the lowest level of granularity is 'the base', which is 1/2 squad, and the unit of independent movement is the platoon (with exceptions for independent teams and some special cases). So, just to be clear, it's not 1:1 as in individual figures moving about.

Given that, what's inherently wrong with a 1:1 figure representation? Are you bothered by the fact that the commander is obviously at a level something higher than Company, yet is controlling lower-level units? Given the usual 'commanders direct two levels down' standard, it does seem a FoW player is operating more at a Battalion level. Or is it just the 'jam it all on the table' approach?

I've played in games where 1 base is supposed to represent a platoon of vehicles or men, yet frequently read here on TMP how those are often played as if they were, in fact, 1:1 based. I've also seen the tank park effect in these games with 6mm AFVs on a table with plenty of room. But these are player choices, not the rules.

- Bob

PilGrim wrote:

[…] On table arty gives FoW games a different dynamic which is (in my view) nothing like WW2 and more resembles Napoleonics. Although I have a plenty of reservations about other parts of the rules, this one is probably the one I would most like to "fix".

I do have to admit, I was surprised to see the 152/155mm and 5.5 guns make an appearance, especially since the Soviets had the 122 and 152mm long guns yanked away from them in v2. The advent of the big guns on table is pretty hokey. Fortunately, they are expensive, limited in availability and hopefully, only likely to appear in larger games. But again, players do foolish things.

The guns in the backfield do seem a bit like the baggage train in DBA. While the representation is a bit odd in appearance, I do think that it stresses that letting the enemy fast stuff break into your rear was a bad thing. I recall reading something recently that the goal of US Armor was commonly to do exactly that to disrupt communications and artillery. So while the guns themselves are a bit of a reach, the incentive to break through is not. I think some scenarios could be written to provide points for reaching the opponent's table edge, while leaving the actual guns off-table.

Leaving the guns off-table does introduce a new potential issue with players though. Being off-table, can they be fielded without buying the models? (I've seen this with BKC.) If I pay the points, I can free up table space and field a powerful gun unit that can't be hit, AND I don't have to paint the blasted things! Is that the lesser of two evils?

- Bob

Given that, what's inherently wrong with a 1:1 figure representation? Are you bothered by the fact that the commander is obviously at a level something higher than Company, yet is controlling lower-level units? Given the usual 'commanders direct two levels down' standard, it does seem a FoW player is operating more at a Battalion level. Or is it just the 'jam it all on the table' approach?

Nothing at all wrong with 1:1. I just don't think it's possible to use a scale of 1:1 for infantry or tanks in a game featuring on table artillery without getting some very silly results.

The lowest level unit used in FoW is the half section or half squad of infantry or a single tank. Two levels up from that is Company Commander for infantry or Squadron Commander for tanks.

Though as i've said before the game has players operating as some sort of weird hybrid who can assume the responsibilities of anyone from a Platoon Commander (what will I do with that half section of infantry?) to a Corps artillery commander (where should I deploy that heavy artillery battery).

I do think that it stresses that letting the enemy fast stuff break into your rear was a bad thing.

Breaking through to an opponents rear would normally involve considerably more than getting past the first company you come up against.

Leaving the guns off-table does introduce a new potential issue with players though. Being off-table, can they be fielded without buying the models? (I've seen this with BKC.) If I pay the points, I can free up table space and field a powerful gun unit that can't be hit, AND I don't have to paint the blasted things! Is that the lesser of two evils?

It's not a lesser evil, it's the only sensible way to represent artillery in a low level game

Except in special circumstances – such as the short period in the desert when the British were forced to use their 25pdrs as AT guns or when the Americans used heavy SP guns as bunker busters when assaulting fortifications.

Hitting out at your opponents artilley would be a fairly high level decision – again not appropriate for a low level game. Probably best factored into the scenario.

I agree that on-table artillery is a bit silly in a company level game, unless they are being used for direct fire. I've seen film of even 203mm guns being used for DF in street fighting.

Being a bit sad (and having paid for and painted the models!) I do like to have offtable artillery represented by actual gun models, makes it a bit easier to keep track of ammo expenditure, CB fire etc. Having said that, I don't do it when the numbers of guns are very large and use boring rosters and things instead. I ran one game (43rd Wessex crossing the Seine) where every time the German guns fired they got a big black puff of smoke them, they could lose a puff a turn by not firing or by packing up and moving completely. The number of puffs modified the chance of that little Auster spotting them and calling in a torrent of 4.5" CB gunfire.

For operational games I put the guns on, but when a 5.5" gun can only shoot 40cm, you need to really. Pity the poor old Nebelwerfer crews….

The lowest level unit used in FoW is the half section or half squad of infantry or a single tank. Two levels up from that is Company Commander for infantry or Squadron Commander for tanks.

Hi Derek,

Two levels down from company commander is a squad/section. There's no such military unit as a "half squad". There are fire teams, but these are not permanent military units, but rather groupings. The usual battle procedure taught before moving out on an advance to contact operation (which is when the fire team would be used) is to divide the squad according to the numbers you have at the time.

So rules that use "fire teams" or "half squads" as the basis of representation for a base tick me off.
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] So rules that use "fire teams" or "half squads" as the basis of representation for a base tick me off.

Well, you move individual bases (half-squads/teams) in FoW, but only as part of moving a platoon, with a few exceptions. Fire is directed by bases/vehicles, but always at platoons.

I'd worry about what to call this, except I've realized there's really very little standardization amongst wargamers -- at least going by some of the threads here. See the "Skirmish" thread for examples.

- Bob

>"Imagine 1/35 outdoors…"<

There was a group in northern California doing this back in the '70s.

There are those guys doing 1/6 scale games with Dragon figures too.

- Bob

I used to play 1/35 outdoors.

Martin Rapier wrote:

I used to play 1/35 outdoors.

The terrain would be out of scale with your unit frontages :-)

Wow, I did not expect this thread to last this long.

There seems to be issues with unit frontages and scales.
Different nationalities probably had different frontages as previously mentioned. I don't think that any game can take that into account. Now how to match frontages with groundscale?

This almost sounds like a game design question.

Oh yeah,

Murphy needs to be called out to play Italians in FOW. ;P

The long and short of it is that FoW has addopted an unusual solution to the problem of getting the various combat arms onto a WWII tabletop. Some people like this, some don't. It seems to me that no amount of debate will change the opinion of either side.

hmmm……..there was a problem?

Ah, yes……it was "how do we sell artillary?"

It wasn't a wargaming issue.