"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

I suspect that supergrovers definition of a "real" wargame is an authentic wargame trying to model ww2 combat and what he sees is a non-authentic marketing wargame designed to sell product."

Yep close enough anyway. FoW to me is Changing Space marine to Royal Marine.

As far as BF success it most definitely does no translate to being a savior for historical wargaming industry. Quite the opposite. I agree if it didnt model GW scheme it would not be as successful, as it is geared towards a decidedly non wargaming crowd regardless of those that claim they are wargamer and play FoW. If other outside your marketing target buy your product it doesn't change what that target was.

The debate of what and where and how much PDF are free are meaningless to me. The fact that BF has differed its responsibilities back to its customers no matter to what magnitude is as exploitative as anything else and on the shady side nothing BF has done I find very admirable. I think its cultish for people to cheer on these companys. I don't think such business practices should be rewarded nor commended. Its like commending GM for finding a way to differ its warranty guarantees to customers at customers expense. Fat cat profiteers may slap each others backs and chuckle at cutting costs but its just plain dirty. The fact the guy did it willingly matters nil.

The stringency on models depends on who's running the. That in itself is a marketing.

There is nothing historical about this system. The Caricature-"zation" of Different divisions is direct from 40K its profit motive purely. The last thing this system has is historical reality. Little fluff diddys or not.

I also dont buy these games go any faster. Ive never seen that at all. The gripes about detail causing slow playtime in wargmaing in genernal are vastly overblown and easily solvable without going to the extremes of cartoonish games.

We saw the degradation of grammar and spelling last time as well.

It seems to me being the stifler works against you. Makes you seem like a blithering idiot oblivious to the world. It is amusing to watch though.

Sphincter says "Fanboy"?

Bob, I think Superranter would appear that way stifle function or not! Sheesh, what a piece of work!

Supergrove:

In what way is encouraging more people to play wargames a bad thing?

Habe you played FoW and WJ40K? In what way is one simply a transliteration of the other? Because I don't see it.

What have they done which is shady?

Name another company that produces as much support material for free.

You sir seem just jealous that someone is making a living out of the hobby.

FoW IS historical. I fail to see how anyone can doubt that. Now you may quibble with it's representation of history, but at least it included Brits in the initial release.

Not something I note all American rules do.

I also know the boom in FoW has been an absolute boon for WW2 manufacturers other than Battlefront. Certainly QRF has done well out of me, as I bought an entire Finnish armoured company off them.

And I;ve bought a few IABSM scenario PDFs as well – and I'm not the only one.

Sorry – this is obviously a result 'evil marketing'….

Gentlemen- in summary I suggest Supergrove hates FoW because it's successful and brings new blood into the hobby. He'd rather play a set of ultra-complex rules deluding himself that these give him an insight into modern combat rather than actually have some fun.

I also strongly suspect he's a solo gamer…..

Sorry – been away for popcorn.

Hang on , I think I've seen this film before – just check , oh yes, Stu and his old "at least the Brits are in the original set" line, Derek et al, yup , seen it before

Look at it this way – some people like FoW, some don't, but even most of the "don'ts" or "not bothereds" have some of the models.

No harm there

PilGrim – very true.

As I said, can't blame people for not liking the rules. I don't like bits of them myself.

But the point of view that FoW is detrimental to historical wargaming is one I can't actually get a handle on.

As for my gripe… well if people are going to complain about FoWs supplements, I think pointing out one rules set initially ignored the British is reasonable…. At least with Ostfront you get the full set of combatants.

Bangorstu wrote:

But the point of view that FoW is detrimental to historical wargaming is one I can't actually get a handle on.

The idea that it's actually detrimental to historical wargaming is just silly. If nothing else the increased range of models available is good, even if some of them are strangely proportioned.

The fact that they've managed to get them into shops is good too. It's just a shame that my local Hobbycraft only stocks a tiny selection.

But I think many FoW fans overstate the benefit it brings to historical wargaming.

That lots of newcomers to the hobby play FoW does not show that FoW brought them into the hobby. Correlation is not causation.

Newcomers have to play something and it will be interesting to see what they're all playing in a few years – or even if they're all still around.

Supergrover6868 said "There is nothing historical about this system. The Caricature-"zation" of Different divisions is direct from 40K its profit motive purely. The last thing this system has is historical reality. Little fluff diddys or not."

So you're saying that every German/US/British Division was identically equipped, supported and effective in battle?

Absolute rubbish.

Even a glance at history shows that different units had different equipment and used them to different degrees of effectiveness.

So why shouldn't a WW2 wargame be able to highlight different divisional organisations?

The best example I can give off the top of my head is the 78th Sturm-Division. It was organised on a completely different format to a 'standard' Grenadier Division, with (for a German Infantry Division at the time) massive supplies of 7.5cm PaK down to the company level, as well as easily twice as many armoured support units (Marder II and StuG) as the norm.
Yet this Division had hardly any information about it in general circulation until BF decided that it and its battle to defend Orsha against Operation Bagration would be a good basis for a Flames of War supplement.

So why shouldn't a WW2 wargame be able to highlight different divisional organisations?

It is a bit strange that a company level game should highlight divisional organisations.

Derk – yes and no. If a Division has plenty of armour floating around, then some of it will get attached at a company level.

FWIW my observation is that whether FOW brings people into wargaming as a whole is debateable.

That role is usually in my area provided by GW products. Children like 'em and start playing.

Having got the bug, FoW provides a good way into the historical side of things. After all, one doesn't start primary school kids off reading by giving them Henry V.

My group are actually main undergraduates, and heavily into all things GW. But give them, say,a bit of Calais to defend with nothing but a searchlight unit and some Boyes ATRs (thanks Lardies!) and they'll have a ball.

Running that one I even got an audience – occasionally chorusing BOING!!! every time an ATR failed to do any damage…

Perhaps not everyone's cup of tea, but the audience are now playing FOW.

And know WW2 is more than just Late War….

Derk – yes and no. If a Division has plenty of armour floating around, then some of it will get attached at a company level.

Do you really need an army list for a company with even more divisional level assets (not to mention the occasional Corps or even Army Group level ones) than most FoW forces already have access to?

If a Division has a lot of armour, they may not be held at Divisional level.

And in any case, when used – someone has to have them.

Divisional Artillery is, after all, always supporting one company or another, isn't it?

BTW – I will agree if you use the lists, a lot of the more 'fun' chorme tends to appear.

But then I tend to play scenarios – for which FoW is perfectly OK.

As for a multiplicity of lists… one thing FoW does bring out nicely is the difference between a German infantry company of garrison troops (possibly including Russians) defending Normandy and a more motivated 'regular' infantry battalion doing the same job.

The lists are IIRC very different…

Bob wrote…
" Kevan, I need to point out here that I consider the entire assertion of any degree of "modeling combat authentically" absurd."

The military doesn't think so, they do it all the time to an intense degree. perhaps you should write to the pentagon to tell them they are wasting your tax dollars trying to gain any edge in saving US servicemen's lives.

"In my opinion, every rule set provides a set of abstractions to provide entertainment that gives the outward appearance of warfare, but that it it. Some model particular things particularly well, but here again, I fall back to my "perspective" question."

There are always limitations in an abstraction, but the better abstractions are based on real effects. Scaletrix gives a good model of lap speed, but not for hitting the inside line of a corner. You can do that better and simpler with cardboard counters, and simpler is sometines best.

"Was Montgomery's view of the war any more or less valid than that of an infantryman hitting the beaches on Iwo Jima? They're different. Both are valid."

But only one is useful depending on the abstraction. Validity is based on the abstraction and you really shouldn't have abstractions that contradict each other…Fow is unique in that manner

Your relative rear gunners veiw on infantry company tactics isnt too useful, but his veiw is fairly valid on modelling a game based around air gunner combat firing.

that is the difference in the abstractions of some of the other rule sets and FOW.

As I've stated before, FOW is 3 tweaks away from a reasonable model of ww2 combat.

It has been interesting Bob,

It does show you may never have really grasped what the issue about how fow works was and why it provokes such a reaction as supergrover's. I have enjoyed the few games of Fow I played, but not for the normal reasons. I can understand why some people would not notice or even if they did, why they wouldn't bother. i have friends who play it and I defend their right to do it. I don't like IABSM or Crossfire (actually due to the abstractions!) but I would defend them and their designers as authentic games.

you havent really been applying the same criteria to other rule sets as you think.

And in any case, when used – someone has to have them.

But every FoW force seems to have them.

And there you have a valid point if you play tournament games, or equal points games.

But then FoW isn't alone in that. How many late-war German players take lots of Pz Ivs rather than Panthers and Tigers?

How many russian players made do with lend-lease Matilda IIs rather than T34s?

Or for that matter how many Carthaginian armies have Hannibals' Veterans in them? (guilty!).

FoW does at least, unlike many rules, give some air-time to 'those who also served' like the Luftwaffe Field Divisions, Garrison troops and Hungarians, as well as SS Totenkopf etc.

Muppets will always play like muppets, no matter what rules you give them. I don't see how FOW is any different in that respect.

For me, when people take the highly expensive chrome, usually I can teach them that putting all your points in one basket is a bad idea…. :)

KevanG wrote:

[…] The military doesn't think so, they do it all the time to an intense degree. perhaps you should write to the pentagon to tell them they are wasting your tax dollars trying to gain any edge in saving US servicemen's lives.

Safe to assume they're doing it to teach and test tactics, and not to give the men a taste of "real combat". They do still run the guys through the combat drills and give 'em a taste of CS, don't they?

There are always limitations in an abstraction, but the better abstractions are based on real effects. […]

Ah, now this is where I think it gets interesting. Real effects or real results. I know a lot of people don't like the mechanics used in FoW (and of course, other games). And yet, when other "better" mechanics are discussed, the actual end results are often quite similar, whether the alternative rule set or mechanic is more or less complicated. Some people think more variables are necessary for realism (armor slope, penetration values, even weather), while others abhor them (saving throws).

Is this the old "process" versus "outcome" discussion? Is a Kriegspiel approach less valid than one that models every variable?

But only one is useful depending on the abstraction. Validity is based on the abstraction and you really shouldn't have abstractions that contradict each other…Fow is unique in that manner

Hey, we finally seem to be getting into specifics. What specific abstractions do you not like in FoW? (I know it has many, as does every rule set I've encountered. Just curious which you're referring to.) I know the inability to accurately recreate a battlefield in 3 dimensions is one that bothers some people, though I would think that would be a real problem only if one wanted to recreate a specific piece of terrain at scale though. I know that IGOUGO games drive a lot of people nuts, and I agree to a point. There are definite compromises that have to be made for game play, and that's one BF chose. I have found teleporting ambushes in numerous other rules, so that's not unique to FoW. What are the other objections?

Your relative rear gunners veiw on infantry company tactics isnt too useful, but his veiw is fairly valid on modelling a game based around air gunner combat firing.

I wasn't referring to his view of infantry combat, only warfare in general. His view was certainly "valid". It was also interesting discussing with him how different his view of the war was from his pilot's.

In that discussion, it turned out that the other guy was really after a skirmish-level game representing the actions of individual soldiers. I often see complaints about "realism" turn out to be the desired level of game detail. Before we get into any discussions about "realism", I think it's important to agree about what particular slice of reality we're attempting to model.

Obviously, for someone out for skirmish or divisional-level games, FoW won't be very satisfying. FoW provides a specific level of game, and notably a level that lets you bring a lot of toys to the table. Clearly, a lot of wargamers like their toys. If, however, you think weather should be important, whether from the perspective of an infantryman slogging through mud, or from the impact of rain on logistical transport, well no, FoW won't give you that "realism". (I guess their new board game hits some of the higher-level buttons.)

As I've stated before, FOW is 3 tweaks away from a reasonable model of ww2 combat.

I may have missed threads where you've spelled those out. Could you provide a link? I truly enjoy tweaking games, and working out game mechanics, and would be very interested in these! FWIW, BF has made tweaks in the past. Who knows, FoW v3 might incorporate some of them.

It has been interesting Bob,

Actual discussion of the rules is always interesting. At least to me. :)

It does show you may never have really grasped what the issue about how fow works was and why it provokes such a reaction as supergrover's.

Yes, well pray tell, what is this secret? Is there truly one underlying objection? Is there some unspeakable truth that only the enlightened are allowed to know?

If I could bottle something that provokes his sort of reaction, I think it could substitute for the Rage Virus nicely.

Just about every part of FoW works the same way as bits of other rule sets have in the past. Even the much-maligned telescoping ground scale has origins back in the 1960s or before. If you won't share the dark truth with us, would you at least let us know whether it is the presence of something, or lack of something that offends?

I have enjoyed the few games of Fow I played, but not for the normal reasons. I can understand why some people would not notice or even if they did, why they wouldn't bother.

Now that does sound a bit smug. What are players of FoW uniquely unable to fathom?

i have friends who play it and I defend their right to do it. I don't like IABSM or Crossfire (actually due to the abstractions!) but I would defend them and their designers as authentic games.

Aye, I have no objections to any games that are played. If someone enjoys it, great.

you havent really been applying the same criteria to other rule sets as you think.

I can only apply those which are stated. What have I missed? I've been making a real effort to be as erratic in applying criteria to other rules as the FoW critics have used. Using some of that same logic, Too Fat Lardies are the next Evil Empire! :)

Just one last point I'd like to make: I am not about to try to take the position that FoW, or any other game as played by most players looks anything like WW2. I am certainly not the most skilled tactician. And I see players of all rule sets make amateurish tactical mistakes.

Yet I have seen skilled players use their forces in manners that are close enough to my readings on WW2 combat and discussions with vets as to be recognizable. I think these games -- all of them -- give us mere mortals an opportunity to recreate the actions of greater men of history with a modest level of historically-plausible outcome. Some abstract to a greater or lesser degree. Some are more or less enjoyable to every individual. The trick is to find a set of rules that lets a group of players get together and have an evening of fun.

- Bob

Derek H wrote:

But every FoW force seems to have them.

As Bangorstu states, that's a player decision, not the rules.

I played some BKC games recently. Sure enough, about the same ratio of infantry to armor was fielded. I was surprised that my T-34s were supertanks in that game, so I guess I was as guilty as anybody of being a powergamer. I did take a full load of infantry though!

Whenever someone rolls out a bunch of super tanks, there's nothing I enjoy more than taking an infantry list with not a single engine in sight. The FoW scenarios are worked out so that I usually have a good chance of achieving victory, even if I don't destroy every tank in sight.

- Bob

PilGrim wrote:

[…] Hang on , I think I've seen this film before – just check , oh yes, Stu and his old "at least the Brits are in the original set" line, Derek et al, yup , seen it before

I always hope we can get down to specifics on the rules, and leave out all the objections to the fluff, the company or the players.

I have to say, SuperG was an unexpected addition.

- Bob

As Bangorstu states, that's a player decision, not the rules.

The player decides whether or not to follow the official lists.

Battlefront encourage a particular type of play by the way they produce the lists.

FoW provides a specific level of game, and notably a level that lets you bring a lot of toys to the table.

It actually provides a very strange multiple level game. One minute you're making decisions appropriate for a company commander (most of them) the next you'er making desisions appropriate for a Corps commander (where exactly should I deploy that heavy artillery?).

Maybe, but the lists are accurate. It's up to you if you want to take the chrome – plenty of other more mundane options available.

And as I said, the chrome did appear on occasion.

I don't feel FoWs lists are any worse than those of any other company that produces a similar product. Most German players will use Tigers in preference to Pz IVs etc.

I don't feel FoWs lists are any worse than those of any other company

Perhaps you could point out another game where the lists give detailed control of Corps (or even Army Group) level assets to a supposed company commader.

That's what happens when you have onboard heavy artillery in FoW games.

Derek H wrote:

[…] Perhaps you could point out another game where the lists give detailed control of Corps (or even Army Group) level assets to a supposed company commader.

While not necessarily a company commander level game, BKC certainly allows players to gather a rather impressive collection of toys to play at battalion level. Again, that's not a fault of the rules. The rules just provide the mechanisms, the equipment lists provide the toys and points (for games that use points). The players put them all together in all sorts of nefarious ways.

That's what happens when you have onboard heavy artillery in FoW games.

There was certainly no shortage of artillery in the BKC games I played! Nor air, for that matter.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck on the road this week, so don't have all my rule sets handy, but are there truly any that provide player-proof force compositions while still allowing games to be played with the full array of unit types that appeared in WW2? Are those truly player-proof? Are there truly rules that can't be gamed?

What was that set of rules that allowed positioning of anti-tank rockets facing the rear because the back blast was more dangerous than the projectile?

- Bob

Derek H wrote:

[…] It actually provides a very strange multiple level game. One minute you're making decisions appropriate for a company commander (most of them) the next you'er making desisions appropriate for a Corps commander (where exactly should I deploy that heavy artillery?).

Yes, that is all true. But … so what?

Did artillery air and higher-level assets impact battles and company-level engagements? Sure, FoW lets the player -- ostensibly playing the role of company commander -- pull in a lot of outside factors. Other games have big things happen on random events. Some games give the player complete control. Others give the player damned little control. (I am a big fan of Nuts skirmish for this reason.) It's all abstraction for game play.

I can understand your not enjoying that sort of game, certainly. And discussion of alternatives is certainly interesting. But the implication that somehow, that particular perspective is not a "real wargame" is a bit of a stretch.

There isn't a wargame out there that doesn't give the player access to a wealth of information that real-world commanders would never have. Some attempt to offset this through various abstractions. Others simply try to balance the relative advantages offered to each side. Some don't even try. None are 'real', and all have relative strengths and weaknesses.

- Bob

The rules just provide the mechanisms, the equipment lists provide the toys and points (for games that use points). The players put them all together in all sorts of nefarious ways.

The army lists and rules combined specifically give players control over the deployment of artillery assets that were controlled at Divisional level. Sometimes Corps level or higher.

In a game where a player is commanding a company plus supporting troops this is plain silly.

Other games where players command a company (at least those I know of) model the effects of heavy artillery, but usually have some sort of random mechanism to see if it's available or and I don't know of any that give control of their deployment.

Other games suffer from this problem too, but FoW is the most extreme. One person makes decisions that in real life would be made at Platoon level (where to put platoon support weapons) and at the other extreme makes decisions that in real life would be made at the Army Group level (where will I deploy that heavy artillery).

Yes you do get to choose whether or not to have the Heavy Artillery.

On the other hand, as I mentioned, the big guns will always be supporting some company somewhere – since that is their raison d'etre.

The abstraction I guess being for this scenario your company is the lucky one to get that support for now.

I'm no expert, but I don't think the lists give you more artillery than a company could expect if it were given a 'sharp-end' job to do.

I have used a 'random' element in calling in artillery (and had it off-table) in FoW games, seems to work well – in scenario games at least.

Certainly FoW isn't so perfect it can't be tweaked :)

It's not the availability of heavy artillery that's that's the problem – it's the amount of control the player has over it.

Company or even Battalion commanders did not get to micromanage heavy artillery in real life.

They are required to do so in FoW played straight.

Ah – got you.

There you may well have a point – though in most instances the heavy artillery will be using it's own observers which is accurate enough.

But, it will always land where the Company Commander wants it which is indeed a flaw with the rules IMHO.

That said, all rules have their quirks. I don't think FoW is sufficiently broken to not be a valid WW2 wargame, despite the claims of Supergrover.

Derek H wrote:

It's not the availability of heavy artillery that's that's the problem – it's the amount of control the player has over it.

Company or even Battalion commanders did not get to micromanage heavy artillery in real life.

Again I ask, so what? Surely a commander would have wanted that sort of support had it been allocated. Surely it would have shown up now and again if allocated (which is abstracted through points allocations.) And while a player/commander can certainly request support, it is never (never, ever) certain to come. The better the command and control chain, as abstracted in game terms, the more certain it is. In other games, this is abstracted differently as a modifier to the random artillery roll. Different, sure. Any more or less broken? That's debatable. Does support show up more or less often in those other games? Interesting analysis. I haven't run that yet.

As to the fundamental question of whether it is "right" for a player to have multiple or blurred levels of control, that's a game design decision. Clearly a lot of players enjoy the multiple levels. I don't see clearly defined, widely accepted and endorsed criteria anywhere for classifying games based solely on level of command the player has. So again, so what if he has multiple or blurred levels of control? Would a simple change to the description of FoW to read "the player will simultaneously play multiple roles, from platoon commander to battalion or higher as the game proceeds" make it more palatable or less objectionable?

In every game, the player is hovering over the board with a god-like view that far exceeds anything remotely like that even levels above the battlefield commander might have. Although some rules randomize and abstract the degree of control, we always know things and exert influence over things that men in the field wouldn't. These are games, and they all require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to enjoy, just like movies or RPGs. I believe the role players have a specific distinction between "player knowledge" and "character knowledge". Kudos to them for at least recognizing that this exists and realizing it's up to the player to proceed accordingly to yield the most satisfying results.

They are required to do so in FoW played straight.

If they choose to exercise those options, yes. If I play a multi-level game, I control multiple levels. I can easily choose to play strictly a company-level game if desired. Again, it is up to the players to decide how to play to provide the most satisfying experience. In a good group, it's all about the quality of the game and what the group hopes to achieve. In a competitive environment, it's win at all costs and history be damned. FoW is in a small group of games, I suppose, that can be played by both audiences.

- Bob

I don't think FoW is sufficiently broken to not be a valid WW2 wargame,

And neither do I. I just think it's not a very good one.

Fair enough. But do you think the advent of FoW has been a good thing?

Incidentally, I've never played Rapid Fire but doens't it have similar abstractions, caused by one vehcile model equalling 5? That must make for some very coarse grained casualty removal?

Not a dig at RF – people enjoy it so fair enough. Just pointing out (perhaps using a bad example)that all games use abstractions which can bug the hell out of people.

I am genuinely interested in discussions about the best points of each rule set. I've been going through gathering my own notes on those that I own.

I'd also like to review KevanG's 3 tweaks for FoW sometime.

My own opinion of the best is subject to change, and I find my dislikes subject to change as well. A lot has to do with circumstances. I'm willing to slog through some things in a competitive setting that I don't like in a friendly game.

- Bob

Amending my revised description of FoW: "… The player will simultaneously play multiple roles, from platoon leader to artillery and air forward observer or battery commander, all the way up to battalion or higher level commanders allocating support as the game proceeds."

I often try to explain FoW to potential new players, including some with prior wargame experience, and I'd like to get the description of the level of control right.

- Bob

Company or even Battalion commanders did not get to micromanage heavy artillery in real life.

Maybe not. But did Company or Battalion Commanders micromanage when bailed out tank crews got to re-enter their vehicles? No. But every game has a mechanism for that too. What's the problem?

I just think it's not a very good one.

We know. Every time FOW is mentioned on one of these boards, you never lose an opportunity to tell us so. ;^)

Ralph

crhkrebs wrote:

Maybe not. But did Company or Battalion Commanders micromanage when bailed out tank crews got to re-enter their vehicles? No. But every game has a mechanism for that too. What's the problem?

Every game? FoW is the only game I know which is stupid enough to state that when armoured vehicles go out of action temporarily it represents the crew bailing out and then getting back in.

Something that hardly ever happened in real life. Usually when a tank crew bailed out they stayed out.

And commanders don't micromanage that in FoW anyway, they just roll a dice to see if it happens.

Fair enough. But do you think the advent of FoW has been a good thing?

A mixed blessing. I'll expand sometime when I've got more time.

Incidentally, I've never played Rapid Fire but doens't it have similar abstractions, caused by one vehcile model equalling 5? That must make for some very coarse grained casualty removal?

Another terrible set of rules IMHO. The mechanisms used only really make sense at a 1:1 scale, while they state that they're 1:5 for vehicles and infantry are about 1:10.

Other sets of rules handle higher scales much better.

I've always thought the 'bailed out' mechanism in FoW doesn't necessarily represent troops doing their damage assessment from a ditch per se, but also includes troops knocked out, vision slits obscured etc.

i.e. all those things which may tmeproarily disabled a vehicle.

Like the 'N' result in Firefly (for those with long memories!).

In which case it's not so stupid, and gives me an excuse to paint tank crew, which makes a pleasent change. It's just a figure base to represent a troop state, and plenty of rules have those.

I've always thought the 'bailed out' mechanism in FoW doesn't necessarily represent troops doing their damage assessment from a ditch per se, but also includes troops knocked out, vision slits obscured etc.

As would anyone with half a brain.

However the rules specifically state that "Mostly, bailed out means that the crew have abandoned the vehicle and are waiting to see if it is going to explode or whether it's safe to get back in."

See page 76 of the version 2 rulebook.

Another gem from the same page is

"….. their crews like being burnt alive as much as the next guy so when they hear a round penetrate their tank they usually jump out as fast as possible. After they're sure the tank isn't going to burn they'll get back in and carry on."

I love the idea that a tank crew find out that their tank has been penetrated when they "hear" a noise (as if the bits of metal flying around the place wasn't enough) and while I've come across a few references to tank crews bailing out and getting back in I've never seen any reference to it happening when armour has been penetrated.

And it's all written in that annoying FoW house style that looks like it's aimed at people with a reading age of ten.

For me what I want in a set of WWI rules is a game where one model tank represents one tank and one infantry figure represents one man. I don't mind teams of 4 or 5 men on one stand but I loath a company of 25 figures like you get in Rapid Fire and such.

There are some really good WWII miniatures games where 1 model represents a platoon but if I am going to play at that scale I will play a boardgame instead.

For years I toyed with the idea of 1/300th or 1/200th models with a ground scale of perhaps 1/1000 or 1/500 but never found rules I liked. When I first saw FoW I was very dismisive, eventually I tried it and in a lot of ways it delivers the goods or at least the goods that I want from a WWII miniatures game. Ideally I would play with the normal FoW ground scale and 1/300 miniatures but I would be in a very small group of players if I did that.

What Flames of War delivers for me is a fun game with the opportunity to play in tournaments where I get to meet loads of new players and play a game we all enjoy.

Not everyone likes the FoW compromises. Not everyone likes tournaments. Personally I do.

Now Mid War Monsters, that is another thing entirely ;)

Derek H wrote:

Every game? FoW is the only game I know which is stupid enough to state that when armoured vehicles go out of action temporarily it represents the crew bailing out and then getting back in.

Agreed that the fluff is silly. But elsewhere it has been expanded and explained that it represents a range of reactions, from crew being stunned and disorganized to actually jumping out.

As I recall, the clarification under the assault rules do a good job of clarifying this when describing the need to test to assault a bailed-out vehicle, for example.

The same effect is called by a variety of names, but exists in many (most?) other WW2 rule sets.

Something that hardly ever happened in real life. Usually when a tank crew bailed out they stayed out.

But the mechanism itself abstracts nicely the range of things that happen when a vehicle is hit. I agree the fluff is poorly written.

And commanders don't micromanage that in FoW anyway, they just roll a dice to see if it happens.

Or forget to, as the case may be. :)

Again, the end result of all of all the rules, fluff, players and presentation is a game. And if the game delivers an enjoyable experience with a reasonable, or at least acceptable, degree of historical plausibility, I'm happy. I'm not going to pan BF's game overall for silly fluff any more than I'm going to fault Too Fat Lardies IABSM for their excesses in English humour, fruit-basket hats and all. The games play well.

- Bob

jameshammyhamilton wrote:

[…] Ideally I would play with the normal FoW ground scale and 1/300 miniatures but I would be in a very small group of players if I did that.

I've read of a good number of players doing exactly that. As long as you've got others around, or don't mind providing equipment for both sides, it should work very nicely.

I'm assembling a collection of 3mm stuff to use for FoW (and other) experimentation while traveling. I'll probably just use a 1 cm = 1 inch conversion for simplicity.

- Bob

For Bob.

A previous post on a thread you posted on
search the archives for gamers high horse

"There are basically only 3 things wrong with FOW and one omission.

The first is the turn sequencing which has the IGOUGO system. It creates inconsistancies with who should fire first. It is done to speed up game play and appeal to fantasy gamers since it is a system they recognise. No other ww2 game system I am aware of uses this turn sequence without some form of opportunity fire. This makes Fow very very unique, and very open to critisism since ww2 was all about fire from cover, especially for defending. This makes actual game behaviour slant from ww2 tactics in an extremely marked way. It is the main reason people think FOW isnt like ww2.

The second is the interaction of range and movement. none of this stacks up, there are just too many inconsistancies and it isnt just 25pdrs v 88's. You cannot lay out tables with things correctly in and out of the various ranges of different weapons. Either you get Piats that can fire across complete towns or you find that the 6 pdrs cannot cover the full width of the representative 600 yards between them. Again, this slants actual deployments and interactions such that you cannot behave like the actual commanders.

the 3rd is the command control…It tends to be helicopter veiw linked with telepathy and it is always complete. It does have some restrictions after combat gets involved, but generally it can be complete. So it is also the ommission.

the special rules are designed to "cover" some of the omissions and quirks created within the system, for example, the ambush "star trek transporter" rule. The freedom allowed utilising this rule means that game behaviour and stratagy does not reflect any sort of ww2 behaviour. This is the other reason why people say it is not like ww2

When people say they do not find that fow is for them, it is because they do not like the effects that the mixture of these systems create."

the 2 abstractions that contradict each other.

range distances (and therefore distances) are a sliding scale.

time is a sliding scale. i.e. turns are not fixed in length

Movement is a fixed value exactly the same distance each turn and is also in exact multiples of the range bands……

But this should be the product of two things declared as variable, even if every unit on the table moved constantly at the same speed, let alone moved at various speeds.

Making the move distances multiples of the range bands is just a bad scaling issue for movement/range interaction.

Thank you, gentlemen. This thread has made for extremely entertaining reading. And I wouldn't have even known that it had continued beyond the first page, were it not for a scathing comment on the Flames of War forum.

Allen

OOh i must wander over for a read……

Ah, so we've hit the big time now? :)

kevan, thanks for reminding me of the "high horse" thread. I had misunderstood, and thought you meant there were three minor tweaks that would fix it in your mind. Those read more like fundamental objections, and there's probably not a lot that would result in a game much like FoW that can be done about them. They either work for you or they don't.

- Bob

bobstro wrote:

Amending my revised description of FoW: "… The player will simultaneously play multiple roles, from platoon leader to artillery and air forward observer or battery commander, all the way up to battalion or higher level commanders allocating support as the game proceeds."

FoW is is a mess.

One minute you're a Platoon commander (where will I deploy that PIAT?) The next minute you're a battery commander in charge of an Army Group asset (where will I deploy those howitzers?).

One minute one inch on the table represents five to ten yards(PIAT range) the next minute one inch on the table represents two to three hundred yards (heavy artillery range).

The whole thing is incoherent!

And I wouldn't have even known that it had continued beyond the first page, were it not for a scathing comment on the Flames of War forum.

Which bit? I couldn't find it.

Actually, they can be created with minor tweaks…

Double all tank gun ranges and have all artillary off table a la volga

multiply infantry weapons ranges by 2/3rds.

Make movement variable by making it a 2d6 roll + an amount based on the transport method for vehicles and 1d6 plus 3 inches for infantry. matching the average scores on the dice to the current movement rates

introduce spotting distances determined by troop type, cover type and if they are firing and give bonuses to recce units.

Mark hidden defender units on a map until they are spotted.

Allow units to reserve fire dice to use for opportunity fire.

Have a command roll to move units from a defence position to engage something else.

how big any tweaks become is really up to you.