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

I'll agree with Kevan here.

FoW shows all the signs of having been designed with marketing considerations very much to the fore of the designers mind.

It's the only way you can explain some of the rather bizarre design decisions that have been made.

Ditto Bird wrote

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

Hmm – not sure here. The concept of the fire team is mainly a post war development (although there are plenty of records of "proto fireteams" developed locally as a result of circumstances or experience). Only the the USMC officially was using what we would recognise as a fireteam in it's organisation in the last year of WW2. There are however plenty of examples of "half sections" such as the division of a British WW2 squad into gun group and rifle group. Both these operate under the control of the NCO, in a different manner and with different weapons, so I think you could, and at the right level of game, easily justify them being represented as a base. FoW of course does not do this, but in theory you could.

Ken

I would have to agree with Ken here, I do not think there is anything wrong with the way that representation of a section of infantry is done in FOW.

If you are still using multi bases to represent a section and wish to represent ww2 section tactics, I would have a section based as a single seperate NCO figure , the lmg crew based with 2 figures and a couple of infantry stands based with 3 figures to represent a full strength section.

"I used to play 1/35 outdoors."

I used to play 1/1 outdoors.

No one, not even FOW lovers, are going to argue that having the artillery on the table is "realistic." But if that's the only problem with the game, then I don't think it's a big one.

And of course, there are no FOW police who will swoop down and throw you in irons if you just leave the guns off the table and play them as off board artillery like every other set of WW2 rules.

Although I must say I do like the models, I've painted up an 8 gun battery of 25 pdrs., an 8 gun battery of Soviet artillery (4 76mm and 4 122mm), a 4 gun battery of German 10.5 cm, and a 4 gun battery of U.S. 105mm.

I also like the look of the larger guns, but even I can't bring myself to stick them on the table!

Bede19025 wrote:

[…] And of course, there are no FOW police who will swoop down and throw you in irons if you just leave the guns off the table and play them as off board artillery like every other set of WW2 rules.

Also often overlooked is the ability to use artillery, air and similar higher-level assets as exactly that in multi-player games. It's common to have games where the "Company Commanders" are limited to combat and weapons platoons (native support at company level), and all divisional support pooled and controlled by a higher-level "General" who must allocate them among the various units throughout the game. I've played in games with 3 players to each side where each side has one shared air dice pool.

So while I agree that a lot of players are apparently oblivious to many aspects of history when they cram the big guns into company-level games, I think that the game as a whole benefits from having such options available, rather than having to 'bolt on' support options.

I find that the game scales well, from smaller engagements with a couple of platoons of infantry, to larger games with several companies operating under direction of an overall commander.

I hadn't really considered the aspect of a 3rd reference/2nd dimension compounding the sliding ground scale, but that is something that can be considered and mitigated in scenario design. It limits the ability to play inch-by-inch battlefield recreations, but certainly basic tactical challenges can be created quite satisfactorily.

So now that the discussion is back to simple disdain for Battlefront, I guess we've gone full circle … or some of us are chasing our tails. :)

- Bob

There are however plenty of examples of "half sections" such as the division of a British WW2 squad into gun group and rifle group. Both these operate under the control of the NCO, in a different manner and with different weapons,

And these, just like modern fire teams, were groupings within an actual unit, largely for pepperpotting type advances, and not actual units.

I think I put it too strongly and unfairly when I said such basing schemes tick me off. What I do worry about, though, are wargames induced misinformation (of which there is a a fari bit in my opinion); in this case, the perception that fire teams, modern or WWII, are actual real subunits.
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] I think I put it too strongly and unfairly when I said such basing schemes tick me off. What I do worry about, though, are wargames induced misinformation (of which there is a a fari bit in my opinion); in this case, the perception that fire teams, modern or WWII, are actual real subunits.

In game-terms, there is no distinction between either of the two bases comprising a squad. However, depending on the unit, there may be modeling differences. For example, mid-war Soviet infantry can be rifle or rifle/MG teams. For the latter, every 2nd base (one 'team' from each squad) is shown as modeled with the LMG figure. In actual game terms, there is not difference between them, and both must move as part of the larger parent unit -- with the platoon leader team, or in the case of the Soviets, the company leader team.

So while I agree that artificial organizations for game terms are a 'bad thing', I don't think that applies in this example (basing a squad on two bases.) If they hadn't done this, people would be ticked off that the LMGs weren't appropriately reflected! :)

- Bob

"While the bocage is close terrain, that around Holland is just as problematic due to the limited road network, Bleeped texts, 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."

You clearly do not understand my use of the word "relatively".

Anyone have any hard data on actual unit frontages?

Anyone have any hard data on actual unit frontages?

link

A quick follow-up: While asking in another thread about a logarithmic scale referenced in my old WRG Armour & Infantry (June 1977), Mike Snorbens and Gildas Facit referenced rules by Bish Iwaszko. I was able to locate a good description online at:
link
(see pages 94-96 of A Guide to Wargaming by George Gush, Andrew Finch).

The authors provide a nice run-down of the limitations of various approaches to ground, figure and time scales. The "Iwaszko Log Scale" is shown in detail. Nice tidbits in there about the shortcomings of other-than-1:1 figure representation as related to basing, and related topics. Reading through it reinforces the point that any choice is a compromise.

- Bob

link

Them's doctrinal frontages.

As on another thread, I ask, "How long is a piece of string?"

Allen

Or, as we used to point out in the OPFOR business: as the artillery rounds are falling around you and the enemy tanks are overrunning your position, it may not occur to you that you are actually in a secondary sector, and the subject of a supporting attack.

Soviet frontages, especially in main strike sectors, may have little if any resemblance to tactical doctrine. You can find similar examples, say, in Operation Goodwood, or other Allied breakthroughs.

Or consider Burma, where a divisional frontage may be the equivalent of the width of a single-track road.

Doctrine is a guide to help assess the situation. But it's the situation that primarily drives the solution.

But don't let me interrupt the primary thrust of the argument…

Allen

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

I think you can still have loads of scenarios with artillery positions in them, even with other rule sets. Does FOW allow for off board artillery? Perhaps, given the use of the rules in tournaments, the need to represent artillery takes into account what artillery you can have as part of your forces?
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

I think you can still have loads of scenarios with artillery positions in them, even with other rule sets.

Definitely in Blitzkrieg Commander, both on- and off-board. Looking through Command Decision IV, it appears that artillery is also on-board, though I've little experience with those rules, so may be mistaken.

Although it won't satisfy the purists, I noticed that Battlefield Evolution: World at War provides for air… in a 1:1 skirmish-level game! :)

Does FOW allow for off board artillery?

There is an "Over the Volga" rule which is provided as optional for off-table artillery. Some have mistakenly referred to this as a correction or fix by Battlefront, which it is not. It originally appeared in a scenario that provided a short deployment zone for the Russian defenders, so no room for placement on-table, IIRC. I've seen it used in many scenarios.

Perhaps, given the use of the rules in tournaments, the need to represent artillery takes into account what artillery you can have as part of your forces?

As a 1:1 figure game, there's a big emphasis on WYSIWYG in FoW. In the official tournament guidelines, there is scoring for historical background and painting, so a very definite emphasis on visual aspects. With that in mind, it makes sense that things in the game should be represented by things on the table, I suppose.

Between variable ground scales, compressed time scales and varying model-to-vehicle ratios, there's something to bug someone in about every rule set. If you want to represent differences between weapon ranges, you have to make some sort of compromise, be it a weird variable ground scale, or awkward-appearing short weapon ranges relative to figures. And if every weapon shoots across the entire table, much of the differences between weapons and tactics isn't reflected. So pick your poison.

- Bob

Thanks for the explanation, Bob.

With that in mind, it makes sense that things in the game should be represented by things on the table, I suppose.

I very vaguely seem to recall someone, possibly Martin, had an interesting suggestion on using actual artillery models for off board artillery which were not actually on the table. If Martin is still reading this, I wonder if he (or anyone else) can remember what I'm babbling about?
--
Tim

Bob,

martin and others have commented on using the model as a marker on your baseline to indicate ammo supply or available stonks. ….also Arcraft can be done in the same manner.

Spearhead, BKC and command decision all have onboard & offboard artillary, but are not anywhere near 1 to 1 games.

I cannot think of any other WYSIWYG gamne at 1:1 scale that has onboard artillary firing indirect.

Crossfire, IABSM , PBI

KevanG wrote:

martin and others have commented on using the model as a marker on your baseline to indicate ammo supply or available stonks. ….also Arcraft can be done in the same manner.

Oh sure, that could be done. Don't tell me that it would address the accusations that BF is trying to push artillery models though! :) I do like how BKC adds for the possibility of counter-battery or other things happening to the off-table artillery. If the Over the Volga rule is used for FoW, I'd like to see either some way of countering it via off-board means (counter-battery fire), or have the price go up. Otherwise, you take something you can counter, and turn it into an un-touchable force. I suppose you could kill off the observers, but that would lead to cries of gaminess, surely.

Spearhead, BKC and command decision all have onboard & offboard artillary, but are not anywhere near 1 to 1 games.

Oh, understood. But it does show that on-table artillery is not something only BF has come up with.

In looking through my little pile of 1970's era rules, I do see several mentions of on-table artillery, with several cautions that it generally should not be on-table for reasons of scale. The Iwaszko Log Scale apparently goes back to the 1960's, and as I understand it, was an attempt to do address exactly this issue: How do you represent the difference between weapons of wildly varying ranges on a table? FoW uses a means of addressing the scale issue, and the logic behind not using on-table representation for range/distance reasons. A means with limitations, but one nonetheless. Unless you want even more visually truncated weapons distances, what else works as well, particularly with regards to figure-vs-ground scale? Rifle ranges of a couple of inches will look fairly silly.

I cannot think of any other WYSIWYG gamne at 1:1 scale that has onboard artillary firing indirect.

True perhaps (BEWAW being a notable exception with air, albeit a silly one) but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Not everyone's cup of tea, and the whole "3 dimensions of battlefield representation" point is valid… although I posit that the difference between figure and ground scale is at least as much of a 'problem'.

It's been commented hundreds of times on TMP and elsewhere that may supposedly higher-level games using a one-to-many figure representation are often played as if they are one-to-one. Players often move those "platoon" and "company" around bases around like individuals. If representing the difference between gun ranges at that scale of game is a good thing, why not try to find a way to do it at an honest one-to-one level? FoW does that. Not perfectly, but it does allow a T-34 to feel different than a Sherman. I find that higher-level games (BKC mostly, in my limited experience) lose a lot of differentiation between vehicles and unit types. A medium tank from one nation plays much like a totally different medium from another.

I am learning a lot of interesting things from all this. For one thing, there is no one set of "Essential Requirements" that matches every WWII wargamer. It might be interesting to come up with a few sets of common criteria (e.g. 1:1 figure scale, accurate representation of terrain) and see where various rule sets stack up. It would be a useful buyer's guide.

- Bob

"It's been commented hundreds of times on TMP and elsewhere that may supposedly higher-level games using a one-to-many figure representation are often played as if they are one-to-one."

they are a base, you have to move them indiuvidually. consistant ranges help your mind establish the level of game together with the mechanics. Off board artillary is normally "rangeless" because it is so big in comparison to the table size.

This is true even at the scales used for BKC, etc. trying to be in or out of indirect fire range of the enemys deployed artillary should not be something the wargamer should be contending with in a 1 to 1 game.

I am glad that it is important that a t34 is different from a sherman. All the rules I play have them different too.

Perhaps someone who plays BKC can comment if they appear to act identical.

Further to the "One set" and essential requirements, there are no sets that can match different levels of ww2, just like no single set covers napolionics.
It could be possible to derive a set that sort of does Ancients, but ewven that would be pushing the boundaries at extreme ends of scale.

the plain truth is that the essential requirements can be mutually exclusive for each and every wargamer. e.g. Each infantryman must be represented at 1 to 1 scale, the smallest base must be a battalion. What is and isnt included is up to the designer. One thing that should always be allowed for is internal consistancy