"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

bobstro wrote:

Agreed that the fluff is silly.

Any new people people coming into historical wargaming through FoW are getting many of their ideas about WWII history from reading this crap!

And the Truscott Trot, the Haka, the Bagpipe rules etc. etc. etc.

It's all rather sad.

"Which bit? I couldn't find it."

Ah. Much like special rules. But at least those will all be in one place. Soon. I'm surprised no-one has addressed the FoW concept of "soon". I think it is another of those variable scale things…

Anyway:

link

"19 May 2009 12:10 PM"

What are "grogranards", by the way? ("18 May 2009 10:21 AM")

I suspect they are some sort of ribbon enthusiasts, which does not describe TMPers awfully well.

Allen

Soon. I'm surprised no-one has addressed the FoW concept of "soon". I think it is another of those variable scale things…

Also variable in FoW land are concepts such as "later this year", "next year" and "2007".

So Derek H when are your WWII rules coming out? Or what rules do you fancy?

Derek likes really lame rules. Heck, I bet nothing he likes has what this guy wants to be able to play:

link

Soldat wrote:

So Derek H when are your WWII rules coming out? Or what rules do you fancy?

Haven't written any WWII rules since the 70s (and they weren't any good).

Like: Command Decision, Crossfire, IABSM, Battlegroup Panzergrenadier. Crossfire, Battlefront WWII, Blitzkreig Commander. Not necessarily in that order.

You're not one of those silly people who believes you can't criticise rules unless you've had a set published are you?

Derek, I am silly but no I don't fall into that catagory.

You just seem to dislike them so much I figure you must want a specific set of rules, so why not make your own?

I plan on getting battlefront myself.

Dude!!! It was only four days! Me and the bruthas came to an understanding, and eveything was fine.

Derek H wrote:

[…] Any new people people coming into historical wargaming through FoW are getting many of their ideas about WWII history from reading this crap!

Neither learning history through games, nor learning about sex through TV are a good idea. :) Point the kiddies elsewhere for learnin'. Again, not a fundamental part of the game.

And the Truscott Trot, the Haka, the Bagpipe rules etc. etc. etc.

Again, the fluff is silly, I agree. But the same concepts appear in other games and the actual in-game effects don't seem to be too far different.

It's all rather sad.

Sad is someone sitting around not playing a game that they'd like to. Begrudging someone else a good time because they enjoy something that's not your taste? Now that is pathetic.

- Bob

Allen, that was hardly one to get excited about. I haven't frequented the FoW forums for nearly two years, but they're almost as good at the rant-fests as the TMP gang. :)

- Bob

Dudes!!!!
All this discussion was quite interesting. Maybe I'll pick up FoW. If only because it's not WH40K and yet people play it!

Who knows, maybe in a couple of years people will be complaining about how Ambush Alley is following the GW mechanic, if you shoot at a large group you should get more casualties not the other way around, chucking buckets of polyhedral dice is stupid, etc etc. If it gets me shooting insurgents (or Americans or British or Chinese or whatever) then I'm all for it!

Derek: "Any new people people coming into historical wargaming through FoW are getting many of their ideas about WWII history from reading this crap!

And the Truscott Trot, the Haka, the Bagpipe rules etc. etc. etc.

It's all rather sad."

It does all get a bit silly sometimes, but then again I got my first ideas about WWII from Commando comics & British WWII propaganda books which were full of the same sort of thing! At least they're being exposed to some historical background, even if we could argue all day about the accuracy of the detail.

Apparently we're all "uber grogranards".

Wear the badge with pride!

At least they're being exposed to some historical background, even if we could argue all day about the accuracy of the detail.

Five minutes more like.

I like it so much I've changed my name.

The fluff in foW is silly, but it gets younger people playing, which for me makes it a good introductory game.

As for the history… at least by picking up a basic FoW rulebook they'll learn the British were actually in WW2…(sorry.. :) )

And indeed they'll learn about the Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks etc who rarely feature in other rules.

FoW has been marvellous for the hobby. But there's nothing to stop you asking FoW players to try out other, perhaps better sets of rules.

But getting people to try, say, IABSM is easier if they've been bitten by the wargaming bug already.

KevanG said "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"

However the 'teleporter ambush' as you so lovingly said it, does mean that the attacker has to use Recon units and be careful as they can't bank on the opponent guessing wrong when they place their pre-marked ambush.
Without that, you have an excellent chance to avoid an ambush simply by not driving into the most likely spot on the table, with no need for the historical recon units.

So while the method is not historical, the end result (the attacker has to really worry about being ambushed) is historical.

As people have said, all games make compromises on the level of detail and abstraction to get a game not a tactical scenario needing a computer network or a swarm of Umpires to finish inside a week.

Overall your 'tweaks' aren't tweaks, but are a major re-write (you've changed weapons ranges, movement and added actual spotting distances) and contrary to the design principles that FOW was designed under.

Overall, those changes would make FOW a game that meets _your_ expectations much better, but I doubt that it would make it a better game overall.
You get to roll some more dice, take some extra time but overall the end result will be much the same.

Personally I'm happy to be able to finish a game in a few hours, play a historical scenario one day and enter a tournament with an equal footing the next with the same list, and not have to refer to a pile of charts while playing. FOW does that for my friends and I, as well as a fairly large number of players here in Sydney Australia.

However the 'teleporter ambush' as you so lovingly said it, does mean that the attacker has to use Recon units and be careful as they can't bank on the opponent guessing wrong when they place their pre-marked ambush.

But this comes at the expense of totally relieving the defender of any need to plan or even think in advance.

So while the method is not historical, the end result (the attacker has to really worry about being ambushed) is historical.

It may be historical for the attacker, but it's not at all historical for the defender.

Derek

I am on the road without my books, so apologies in advance if I've mis-remembered some of the rules…

Derek (the Ueber Grognard) wrote:

[…] But this comes at the expense of totally relieving the defender of any need to plan or even think in advance.

A player certainly can use ambush as a lazy-man's deferred deployment, sure. That's not the most, nor an overly, effective means of using it though. Taking it purely as a deferred deployment for the moment:

1. Is it so different than any other "defender deploys a unit last" mechanism? The defender is allowed placement of a unit based on full knowledge of the attacker's disposition. FoW just allows it to occur as the attacker moves in, with the (arguable) added improvement of doing so in a manner that rewards the attacker for effective use of reconnaissance, rather than just avoiding the scary thing deployed last by the defender.

2. Are other ambush mechanics (e.g. PBI's defender picks which unit takes pre-game hits) so much more realistic when similar results occur? Yes, FoW uses in-game magic. Others use pre-game magic.

[…] It may be historical for the attacker, but it's not at all historical for the defender.

Yes and no. I'm not arguing that it's not a bit strange, but in practice (which is what is all comes down to for me) I find that:

1. The decision of whether to allocate one or more units to ambush is an agonizing one. Ambush is only used (IIRC) in scenarios where the defender already has to hold at least half of his units in reserve. The ambushing unit(s) must come from what little is left.

2. Designing a list so that an effective unit can be used for ambush takes some forethought, mostly as related to the reserves rule which goes hand-in-hand.

3. There are limits on where the ambushing unit can be placed. I've usually got 1, maybe 2 or 3 spots in mind before the game starts, each of which a savvy opponent can figure out and mitigate through the use of reconnaissance. Is this so different from a mechanic allowing hidden movement in terms of actual end result, other than simplifying off-table book keeping? Another rules set -- and apologies for not being able to say which, I don't have my books with me on this trip -- allows the defender to place 3 blinds, then pick which to use in-game. Is this somehow better? If so, how?

To describe the FoW Ambush rule as simple teleporting is over-simplifying the prerequisites for, and circumstances under which ambush can be used.

In the absence of FoW's Ambush, I've seen mechanics such as:

1. Units held off-table and marked on a map. Adds a book-keeping element, and now we need reasonably accurate maps be drawn up pre-game. Have arguments erupted over this method? I suspect so. I often see it described for games with a 3rd party referee.

2. Hidden movement. All of the aforementioned book-keeping, pre-game map-making and referee requirements.

3. Pre-game magic attrition, often with defender influence over who get hit. It works. Seems to me it lets the attacker "recover" quickly, which may or may not be appropriate to the intended timing of the ambush.

4. Overwatch, and its associated baggage. A simple enough concept, but there's no shortage of "overwatch is over-rated" discussion going on I notice. It certainly can slow down movement! Ah, so overwatch with a slew of additional restrictions. Not exactly "simple" anymore.

5. Blinds used as nutshells hiding the peanut. One is the real one and the attacker must reveal which. Blinds are kinda ugly, and adding them to the game for no other reason is going to raise some eyebrows. It certainly works. Just how differently in the end can be debated.

6. Blinds used as teleport pads. Essentially the same thing as FoW, but the defender must pre-designate landing spots and pick one mid-game. Very much the same end result, just now with ugly blinds and/or rule additions.

Am I missing any?

Again, for any given alternative ambush mechanism, just how different are the actual in-game effects? Does it add considerably more complexity? Does it require a 3rd party referee or explicit trust in your opponent to work well on a consistent basis?

Here again, I must concede that FoW's biggest problem is not having someone put some serious effort into writing their fluff to explain what a rule is abstracting. I don't find the actual game effects all that different than other mechanics however.

Might as well get it said now: Defensive fire is FoW's overwatch solution. Defending units can fire out-of-sequence at very close (assault) range. This combines the net effect of a slew of rules on when overwatch fire can occur, and greatly streamlines the movement phase. Again, process versus outcome.

If BF were truly market-savvy, they'd sell an advanced rule book that has the fluff removed, or at least re-written for adults. It would be absent all pictures, and at least let the reader have the appearance of reading something suitably grown-up on the bus. But then we'd complain at how money-grubbing they are! :)

Kudos to BF for putting some pretty good historical reference material (at least on par with Wikipedia) up for the kiddies, and the kid in us to (belatedly) start learning a wee bit about WW2 history. They employ the evil practice of allowing community members to contribute, of course, apparently making them akin to a sweatshop. From what I've observed, any material that winds up on the 'official' web pages is put through a pretty thorough vetting process. It may not meet Glantz's standard, but it doesn't look like just anything can make it up there. This offsets, at least partially, the sins of the Sgt. Rock style fluff sometimes used in their rules.

- Bob

(Man, that DELETED thing looks so dramatic! Content moved. )

bobstro wrote:

1. Is it so different than any other "defender deploys a unit last" mechanism?

Yes. And the bit where the ambushing unit can deploy in a place that has already been cleared by attacking troops is particularly strange. It can mean that the best place for your recce troops is behind an attack.

Derek

Derek the Ueber Grognard wrote:

[…] Yes. And the bit where the ambushing unit can deploy in a place that has already been cleared by attacking troops is particularly strange. It can mean that the best place for your recce troops is behind an attack.

Looking at it from a game mechanic perspective, an attack from an unprotected flank or rear is certainly possible using hidden movement. And if you're leaving enough room on your flanks or rear to allow that sort of movement, should you be immune to an attack from terrain you previously moved over? Is that particularly realistic?

Also, the depth of the area ambushes can be deployed in varies by scenario. In practical terms, the attacker really has to cooperate to allow that sort of thing in many of the scenarios.

Looking at it from a historical perspective, I seem to recall reading about the Soviets using anti-tank guns in exactly such a manner during the Kursk period, hiding and firing on the rear of passing tanks they couldn't otherwise hurt. (Will need to find that reference.)

Is it historical to not worry about attacks from the rear when penetrating into enemy territory? Should the act of having moved over a piece of ground render it safe? Isn't that an artificial consequence of the player having knowledge that a commander in the field would not?

Allowing any type of unit to ambush is probably not correct, but certainly anti-tank guns and small units should have such capability.

- Bob

Should the act of having moved over a piece of ground render it safe?

Not in all circumstances, no. Unsupported tanks moviing through a village for example.

But in most circumstances, probably yes.

- Derek.

Sturm

"KevanG said "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" …."

I posted this on the gamer's high horse thread, It was just for Bob to see the 3 points nothing more, nothing less.

But the idea that the attacker has to 'really' worry about being ambushed is a bit mute…..He should ALWAYS be in danger of being ambushed, even from right in front of him

KevanG – OK, I missed that thread as I'm only a sporadic visitor here.

bobstro has pretty much covered everything else that needed to be said, apart from that launching an Ambush in FOW is probably more restrictive than some historical examples such as the Soviet AT guns Bobstro mentioned.

Given that you have to place your ambush before you roll any dice in your turn, you don't know if you have reserves or Air support arriving,if your troops will unpin or unbog, making the decision to deploy your ambush isn't always a no-brainer for the defender, nor is exactly what platoon/s to place into Ambush.

Derek the Ueber Grognard wrote:

[…] Not in all circumstances, no. Unsupported tanks moviing through a village for example.

But in most circumstances, probably yes.

Well, we've moved from an absolute at any rate. I've really only seen ambushed positioned in previously-cleared ground a couple of times in actual games. Again, it can only be used in defensive scenarios, requires allocation of a scarce unit, and has specific restrictions on placement that can be exploited by the attacker through effective use of reconnaissance. It's far from the "teleport at will" magic trick that it's so often described as by FoW detractors.

kevanG wrote:

[…] But the idea that the attacker has to 'really' worry about being ambushed is a bit mute…..He should ALWAYS be in danger of being ambushed, even from right in front of him

True, although the challenge is always how to represent that in game mechanics. The Ambush mechanic as used in FoW does add an element to the game that is otherwise missing. In the scenarios where it is available -- those where there is clearly an attacker moving into well defended territory with defenders in prepared positions -- it fits. After reading through Glantz's accounts in Kursk, wherein he describes the dangers faced by the panzers when stripped of the infantry to cover their flanks and rears, the mechanic seems quite appropriate, including taking fire from previously bypassed positions.

Personally, I find it a lot more contrived for an attacker to know he can move forward into enemy territory with zero threat of his armor being hit by unseen anti-tank guns, or somehow knowing that the defender can only position guns in pre-designated spots. Using a mechanic of randomly determining which attacking units take losses are certainly no less contrived than requiring the defender to actually put some thought into where and when to ambush.

Rules providing hidden movement, off-table units marked on maps or blinds can claim some degree of superiority in this area, but those can raise issues of their own.

So yes, the FoW Ambush mechanic does away with the need to actually move a unit inch-by-inch into position, but does yield a result that is at least reflective of history.

- Bob

Kevan, thanks for re-summarizing the "3 things". I won't re-hash the Gamer's High Horse thread here. I just want to respond to these "big picture" issues, as they are truly at the heart of many discussions.

kevanG wrote:

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

The first is the turn sequencing which has the IGOUGO system. […]
The second is the interaction of range and movement. […]
the 3rd is the command control…It tends to be helicopter veiw linked with telepathy and it is always complete. […]

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.

I can completely understand these objections. These are game design-level factors, and the sort of thing that players either love or hate. Your adjustments sound interesting, but even with those, I suspect a lot of people still won't find FoW satisfying. That's just the nature of games and gamers.

Design compromises have definitely been made in the interests of game play, and I don't think Phil & Co. at Battlefront deny this. However, I do think that a lot of the subtleties of their game get glossed over or dismissed. Personally, it scratches my WW2 gaming itch in a pleasing way, and I have come to appreciate some of these subtleties and how well the rules keep things flowing even when playing against someone I've never met before.

Having made WW2 gaming appealing to a wider audience, a wider audience has been attracted, so there are a lot of players at the tables that wouldn't have shown up for a more traditional "historicals crowd" game in previous years. Too often, disdain for these "invaders" gets wrapped into discussion of the rules. Now, I can understand the dismay of having "invaders" move into one's comfy surroundings, but I like to meet new faces now and then. Most of those objections do tend to take on an "us versus them" view, with "them" being anybody outside of an immediate circle of acquaintances. This "problem" has a number of societal and psychological factors that really have nothing to do with the game itself.

Similarly, having developed a set of rules accessible to a wider audience, BF wrote the fluff to cater to that audience. Now, I can tune that stuff out, but I do agree it's grating. A lot of their online reference material is better written. I just gloss over the fluff when familiarizing myself with the rules, and generally like to keep only the quick reference sheet around during games. But I can see where those who like to convince themselves that they're up to something more grand and noble than playing with toy soldiers might be put off by the action movie narrative. I know some TMP posters have been put off by the fluff in the Too Fat Lardies rules. It annoys me a bit, but I won't pass up a good game because of it! Again, those sorts of objections don't relate to the game itself.

Hey, I'm not out to convert anybody. If you don't like the game, you don't like it. But I am going to respond to some of the derision and off-base criticism as I see it. I think some of your suggested tweaks would be interesting to game as well.

- Bob

The biggest impact is the amount of whinning and crying that posters on here seem to do on both sides of the debate over a game with little toy soldiers.

Erm, "whinning"?

Toser!

I won't get DHed because arseclown is allowed here as it is considered a haddockism.

Out of curiosity, where did Captain Haddock ever use this term? It's certainly not in my memory of any Tintin book I remember, I read them all, many times.
--
Tim

2nd British Bulldog wrote:

The biggest impact is the amount of whinning and crying that posters on here seem to do on both sides of the debate over a game with little toy soldiers.

Erm… who's whining? It's been an interesting dialog, save some of the ranting early on. Or are we supposed to just scream at each other and not actually engage in a dialog?

- Bob

"Or are we supposed to just scream at each other and not actually engage in a dialog?

- Bob"

That is normally the TMP way…

I have to say, this thread has actually been quite civilised overall.

True it has been rather civil so far lol I wonder if this sort of debate ever leads to someone changing their mind?? Now that would be a first on TMP!

2nd British Bulldog wrote:

True it has been rather civil so far lol

Well, it did get off to a bit of a rocky start. :)

I wonder if this sort of debate ever leads to someone changing their mind?? Now that would be a first on TMP!

I don't think the intent is necessarily to make anybody change their mind so much as discuss the issues and make sure we understand each other. At least that's my motivation. Only talking with others with the same opinions gets boring, quick!

I never fully understood the objections to some of the game mechanics until we took them apart piecemeal in other threads. In doing this, I've both gained more of an appreciation for some of the things that FoW does well, and some things it can't do well. (Go search out the Gamer's High Horse thread and some of the other oldies for more of the gory details.)

I've also made a point of acquiring some of the rules that have been posited as better in one way or another, so I've learned about some interesting variations on a common theme. PBI, Crossfire, IABSM, BKC and CD4 are each good games in their own right, even though I'd never seen them on a shelf anywhere locally. Battlegroup Panzergrenadier is next on my list. Close and Destroy, not so much. :)

- Bob

True it has been rather civil so far lol I wonder if this sort of debate ever leads to someone changing their mind??

I've not changed my mind about FoW, but I think I've got a better undersanding of why it is the way it is and how it can work for some people who like to play certain styles of game.

Does that count?

People are different and have different aspects they enjoy from a game. It isnt surprising that something that is extremely popular in some areas is intensely disliked in others. none of them are wrong. All the games have strengths which is why , after all, we all play them

From Bob's list of rules above, the one with the most "wrong" with it and the one with the "least" wrong with it are the two which I consider the best of their type because best is measured by game potential, not by flaws. All of them would be tweaked for my own games for my preferred "scenario style" play.
The 2 points armies facing each other does get so artificial, it would make a priest swear

This is why I have encouraged Fow players to look at tweaks over changing rulesets, even posting suggested "fixes" on threads of that nature that there exists more potential in fow than is immediately apparent to people who criticise it. In fact, some of them are so simple for Fow, that I am more critical of Phil & co for not having something that simple in the rules from the first instance.

Lets put it this way… A certain Uber grogranard nemesis of Battlefront asks me why I am so critical of some ww2 rulesets. If I wasn't , he wouldnt be playing some of the crackingly good games we get to play week in and week out

we have options that are wide for one period, and options crossing different periods….all because we are willing to challange. Everybody should do that.

In terms of changing Mind, Do it almost daily!

There is no Difference between 1st armored US and 2nd Armored US. Fow turn these units into caricatures of them, and its plain catoonish. Its marketing construct and has absolutely nothing at all to do with History in any way shape or form, Period. The fact Britishh TOE can vary more so then Americans for exmaple doesn't translate into the ridiculous rules that are meant to sell new miniatures. There is no doctrinal difference between them historically. That is the rubbish.

So 1st and 2nd US armoured were identical in experience, equipment and morale?

Given most divisional PDFs are given away free on the web-site, it's a strange marketing ploy.

I'd say treating any given two units as being identical is ahistorical….

BTW – I know fact isn't something you're interested in Supergrover6868, but I don't think the US Special rules involve buying more miniatures. Could be wrong, don't play 'em.

this was about the impact of it. Nothing here even remotely convinces me of anything but it having a totally negative effect on the Historical Wargame hobby of which the GW marketing system is not a part of. I don't care if a Novel of anecdotes about game clubs is written. It doesn't change a thing.

Arseclown says: "Blah blah blah!"

And speaking of that…

"Out of curiosity, where did Captain Haddock ever use this term? It's certainly not in my memory of any Tintin book I remember, I read them all, many times.
--"

I don't think he ever did. But the whole "Haddockism" thing came up here on TMP and that particular word was used as an example of words that were acceptable to use here. Actual Haddockisms are handily listed here-- link

So basically tens of thousands of kids could start playing historical wargames, from Ancients to Moderns,s using FoW as a gateway and because Supergrove dislikes the rules he thinks it's a bad thing.

Leaving aside small facts like they don't share a marketing strategy with GW – because they give stuff away free, give free upgrades and their miniatures aren't hugely expensive…

Guess some people would rather the hobby got greyer.

Now I'd say such people are worse for the hobby than FoW.

BTW – are you entirely sure a US Armored Division fighting in Italy won't vary from one fighting in Normandy?

I'd have thought the one in Normandy would have got first call on new equipment for a start.

And have been forced into using different tactics, given the different nature of the terrain involved – hence the need for different special rules concerning bocage fighting – with consequent allocation of combat engineers, hedge clearing equipment etc.

But no, I'm sure you're right. Identical. In every detail.

Actually…… there is a difference between first and second US armoured…..

Second armoured was a heavy division and operated a different structure in having only 2 combat commands and had an alternate tank battalian structure too.

One suspects someone just picked out a bad example of "same". If you had said second and third US armoured, I would have agreed, but they were uniquely organised. The confidentt veteran/ reluctant conscript assignations etc etc used in FOW and assigned to different divisions is entirely justified. Even the same division could be reluctant conscript at blooding in the Normandy bocage to confident veteran by the post remagen battles.

I'm with bangor on this one

Well, I'm glad to see a certain amount of just screaming at each other and not listening has returned! Now we're all back in familiar territory! :)

Grover seems to think you have to throw away your miniatures to change the list you're playing. The fact that the same models can be used to play multiple lists seems to elude him. I suppose if you paint individual vehicle numbers and platoon identifiers, that might be a problem.

He also seems to be under the impression that a new Intel book or PDF does not require players to "upgrade" to it immediately.

For those of you willing to discuss your concerns, thanks. It's always an enlightening dialog.

Bonus points to anybody that can get him to write "fanboy" more than three times in a single post, whether spelled correctly or not.

- Bob

Kevan – now now, much more of this and we'll start to think Grover isn't as knowledgeable as he claims… :)

Regarding the same division getting different stats – in the Desert 7th Armoured (Desert Rats) is (IIRC) Confident Veteran.

By the time it gets to Normandy (different list, but then again major changes have occurred in kit), it's Reluctant Veteran.

This due to a mixture of combat fatigue and hard-won experience i.e. knowing when you can just go round someone…

…..And an accurate reflection of their performance those ratings should represent…

The US had Heavy and Light. Thats a To'E that doesnt translate to a difference in tactics or effectiveness between divisions at a company level or even higher. If one division found an better way to employ a tank that saved lives they would certainly not keep it a secret. If the Engineers found a faster way to through up a bridge the same applies. ETC ETC ToE difference is one thing. But in FoW the difference are more cartoonist. The intent is to sell more of the same by applying very unrealistic personalities to units. They took the idea of Marine Chapters from 40K and applied it to World War Two.

In game terms, Confident Veterans are good, well trained troops. Hard to hit, difficult to shift though they're not fanatical like Finns or Russkies.

Think good quality Germans.

Reluctant Veterans are equally hard to hit ( being good at finding cover – FoW assumes everyone can stick lead in the air, so the to hit roll is based on the targets ability to hide) but when they take a few casualties will regroup and have a think.

In the case of 7th Armoured, this could be having the experience to have a shrewd appreciation of the tactical situation coupled with a desire to let the RAF deal with it – possibly later in time than the scope of the game.

Basically an experienced unit which has seen a lot of combat and which has decided it would like as many of its troops to survive as possible, whilst still getting the job done… eventually.

Hope that makes sense! Seems reasonable to me. If you've got cab-rank air-support, there seems no point in charging around like a bull in a china shop if you meet stiff resistance. If waiting around takes all morning, who cares? Better than dying.

Morale rating is separate from Toe. That's different then the codex and special rule junk they attack to different "Divisions". The fact that a company belongs to a division that may or may not have a Toe that's different shouldn't mean a thing. They are making sub armies withing the Army that did not exist. Just like Space Marine Chapters have "sub Armys"