"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

What exactly does ol' Grover think they're making you buy? Existing lists remain valid, just more become available, many of which you can use with your existing miniatures. If the lists are freebies, you don't even incur the cost of a new book. I'm getting a lot of extra mileage out of stuff I bought 3-4 years ago. Sure, I'm buying additional stuff, but only at a trickle when something strikes my fancy.

- Bob

Good to see some more perplexing examples of incomprehensible gibberish!

Allen

"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."

Confident Trained Tanks in the Desert, With Confident Veteran Infantry & Artillery. Not unreasonable given that the British Armour did persist in trying to put flawed theory into practice, and kept losing tanks & crews in the process.

By Normandy, they had taken the time to realise what they had done wrong in the desert, but felt that they had 'done their bit' already, and no need to lose more of their friends when you could pull back and let the RAF or AGRA deal with them. Worked well in the long term, but not so good at a company/battalion level game.

The amazing thing is that FOW overall is pretty well balanced between all the releases.
Supergrover appears to think that only the latest & greatest lists will do well (as that is usually the GDub style), yet most people stick with the basic book for LW (Fortress Europe) and do well with it.
Mate of mine gave the breakdown of a recent tournament, and iirc, 75% of the players were using an FE based list.

As for having to throw out your old army to buy a new one for a new book, not likely!
US Tanks are generally all Olive Drab and the Infantry uniform is the same as well. Shermans didn't change much, so the same vehicle can do Tunisia, Sicily, Italy or Normandy with eqaul ease.
I painted my US Rifles out of the V1 rulebook, and I can still use them for a Cobra Force, should I so desire. My only 'new' purchase for them is an AOP.
My German Infantry were painted for 'Stalingrad' back in V1, and still work just fine for 'Stalin's Onslaught' because I painted them in post '43 style. If I ignore the odd MG42 in the teams and some Dunkelgelb helmets, they're fine for 1939 to mid '43 as well.

I know these fan boys insist the company can do no wrong. Regardless. The is no difference in personality between one Armored or infantry division and another. All Americans will use the same doctrine. Any innovations would be shared. The special rules differing them are not historical. If you can get away without buying new stuff its certainly not because of the efforts of the company. The theater of war isn't the issue. Its the idea the 2nd Armored US is somehow a different army then the 1st or Third or Fourth.

Grover – I'm now genuinely perplexed.

I don't know a lot about the US Army, but if the 1st and 22nd did have differing TOEs then surely that alone justifies different lists?

Because otherwise you end up with generic lsits such as are found in Ostfront which can give ahistorical armies.

Morale is an issue since it affects the points values, for those for whom such things ar eimportant. Though in the British lsits, two separate values are given on the same lsits when dealing with two otherwise identical units that varie donly in morale.

As for specialist tactics – anyone with any knowledge of military history (and I'm no longer convinced you fit into that category) will know that ideas can take a very long time to disseminate – especially between theatres of war.

And why troops i nItaly would benefit from knowledge of bocage fighting I've absolutely no idea.

Still – a quesiton for you Grover.

Do you think getting youngsters into the hobby is a good thing?

If so, given you obviously hate the one thing that has worked so far – what's your cunning plan for ensuring the hobby doesn't die out?

BTW – it's already been pointe dout to you that the 1st Armoured was different to the 2nd.

3rd of 4th? Not so much if they were in Normandy, but have they produced lsits for them? I think there's simply a generic lsit in COBRA proving you don't play the game, neve rhave and are simply speaking from a position of unthinking prejudice.

And if you think units have the same personality, then you obviously don't think units work out their own ways around the special problems they face unique to their are aof operations, nor do you think personalities of officers has any effect – which they certainly did with 7th Armoured.

Nor actually the time a division was formed – training standards chaned.

In short your dieas seem much, much more ahistorical than FOWs.

Just had a quick look at the web-site.

Seems Grover really hasn't a clue. Where units are identical – as he states, their covered by the same list.

Such as… 1st, 9th and 10th SS Panzer, or 1st and 29th US Infantry.

Mate – if you just said you hated the rules, that would be fair enough. But you're making up… now go to the other thread an answer the quesiton on what actually a wargame is otherwise we'll start to think you're just a clueless troll.

Bangorstue

Do you think getting youngsters into the hobby is a good thing?

Only if they stay on in the hobby when they're adults. Otherwise all you get is an infestation of irritating powergaming kiddies who I don't really want to play games with.

I had enough of them when I worked for GW twenty years ago.

If so, given you obviously hate the one thing that has worked so far – what's your cunning plan for ensuring the hobby doesn't die out?

No need for any plan, cunning or not. The hobby is not and never has been in danger of dying out.

Though people have been worrying about it since at least the late 1960s.

FoW seems to take differences that undoubtedly existed and then magnify them to the point of caricature.

But then the whole game portrays a cartoon version of WWII anyway.

Uber Grognard = they won't stay in the hobby if they're never in it to start with.

I assume we were all annoying teenagers at one point or other?

The 'fluff' surrounding the rules are undoubtedly cartoonish and annoying. But the rules themselves are rarely cartoonish IMHO. Any particular examples really bother you?

As for the hobby… maybe. But for the hobby to continue it has to recruit somehow. And for me I'd like the hobby to grow so I can find more opponents.

I just get the impression FoW is hated in some quarters because people hate teenagers.

Yes we were all annoying teenagers at one time. But that doesn't mean we have to play games with them now we're adults. Though I do play with my own offsprog and his friends.

To my mind the people that FoW is bringing to the hobby seem to be mostly people I really don't want to play games with.

Mote that's most, not all, and judged from a very limited sample. I've met few in real life though the fanboys on the FoW forum are enough to make me run screaming from the gameall by themselves.

FoW is specifically designed to attract people who like things that I dislike intensely. Balanced point armies fighting standardised scenarios in pick-up or competition games.

Yes I know you don't have to do it, but it's what FoW is designed to do. And it attracts people who like to do it.

The bit I dislike most about the game, the sliding ground scale, makes playing historical scenarios, my favourite type of game, just about impossible.

UG – the trick is to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Of the undergrads who frequent the club, there's perhaps two I'd consider playing with.

But without FoW I wouldn't have had that opportunity as all of them would still be playing Warhammer.

I'll also admit I'm perhaps nearer their age than some – and haven't yet had kids so I don't have a house full of screaming teens… this may increase my tolerance somewhat!

FoW is designed to be played as a tourny game, true. But no more than FoG. There is, however, absolutely nothing to stop you playing it any other way you please.

The different types of generic scenario at the back at least get people doing something other than the typical 1500pt-line-them-up-and-let-them-go bash seen too often at clubs.

I have found that if you do give the FOW folks something different to do, like defend L'Attaque in 1940 with unequal forces, they like it.

FoW certainly has its faults. But it is a useful tool. As I said, once you've got them playing, you can try to educate them a bit – but you have to get 'em playing.

It's not the best rule-set in the world. But it's easy to learn. It may be an alco-pop to your malt whisky, but it provides the raw mass of people required for the hobby to flourish in my area.

And for that I'm grateful to it.

BTW – I agree a sliding ground scale can be wierd at first. But in effect unless you're playing with 6mm, all games use scale compression of some sort, and use different ground scales when delaing with figure size and weapons ranges, surely?

That said, YMMV and I hate having field artillery on the table as well. Which is why in my scenario games I keep it off table…

FoW is specifically designed to attract people who like things that I dislike intensely. Balanced point armies fighting standardised scenarios in pick-up or competition games.

Which is clearly why one of the major releases in the recent Bagration series was a rather neat boxed campaign system that is designed to allow for uneven fights where winning a losing matters in the overall picture….

Not everyone likes equal points games. FoW does not force you to play them. Points systems are handy for tournaments and personally I like tournaments as it both gives me an excuse to have a day or weekend away and get to play against people who I would most likely not normally have the chance to play against.

The bit I dislike most about the game, the sliding ground scale, makes playing historical scenarios, my favourite type of game, just about impossible.

Actually I think that the sliding ground scale is one of the best aspects of the 'game'. OK it isn't particularly high on the simulation scale but for a game it is fine.

I played a lot of WWII in my youth with a fixed ground scale and found it deeply dissatisfying. The main problem was that with the 1/72nd scale vehicles which were about all that was available at the time and a ground scale of 1:1000 which was really needed if you wanted anything larger than a tiny skirmish it meant that an infantry team took more than it's entire move to get from one end of a half track to the other!

In the end we discovered the early 1/300th models and used them with a 1:1000 ground scale and that was just acceptable but still didn't give me what I wanted.

I stopped playing WWII miniatures for nearly 30 years at that point. I looked at various rules, none of which ever got me to buy back in to the period. Flames of War has for me resolved the issues I had with WWII gaming and as a result I now have getting on for 300 15mm tanks and 1000 infantry, all in 18 months collecting.

Nobody is forcing anyone to play FoW. FoW is attracting new players and not all pubescent teenagers. The BF models are nice enough, freely available and I suspect the game has led to increased sales for other manufacturers of WWII miniatures. What is there not to like?

Can confirm the boost to other manufacturers – personally at least.

QRF are going to do well out of me as soon as the Late War Finnish list comes out…

"Its the idea the 2nd Armored US is somehow a different army then the 1st or Third or Fourth."

Well a different commander at Battalion, Regiment or even Divisional level makes a difference.

Different battles they have fought, or the amount of battles they have fought make a difference.

Overall the 1st, 2nd & 3rd US Division lists are remarkably similar.
Same equipment for the most part, apart from the historical differences like M10s in some TD battalions and M18s in others, or Cobra lists get access to the Cullins Hedge cutter that no-one else had any need for, as they didn't fight in Bocage. The Italian Front veterans didn't get the newer equipment until much later, so they don't get access to it.

The different level of combat experience the different divisions had change the training level.

So, yes, the 3 different Divisions were different enough to deserve different lists, although you could use pretty much the same models for all 3 lists. You don't get that in GDub lists very often…

"I had enough of them when I worked for GW twenty years ago."

Ah, so perhaps you dislike GDub for personal reasons, and FOW is too close to their systems for you to look at the game impartially…

Ah, so perhaps you dislike GDub for personal reasons, and FOW is too close to their systems for you to look at the game impartially…

I don't dislike GW. Though I am very reluctant to pay their prices.

My tolerance for silly rules is much greater when it comes to SF or fantasy than it is for WWII.

BTW – I agree a sliding ground scale can be wierd at first. But in effect unless you're playing with 6mm, all games use scale compression of some sort, and use different ground scales when delaing with figure size and weapons ranges, surely?

Most games use scale compresion, only FoW uses a different compression for different weapon ranges, unit frontages and movement rates.

Which is clearly why one of the major releases in the recent Bagration series was a rather neat boxed campaign system that is designed to allow for uneven fights where winning a losing matters in the overall picture….

Not everyone likes equal points games. FoW does not force you to play them. Points systems are handy for tournaments and personally I like tournaments as it both gives me an excuse to have a day or weekend away and get to play against people who I would most likely not normally have the chance to play against.

All that may be true, but it doesn't alter a thing I said.

Derek the Ueber Grognard wrote:

[…] Most games use scale compresion, only FoW uses a different compression for different weapon ranges, unit frontages and movement rates.

This is one of the fundamental game mechanics in FoW, and one that it seems players are either OK with, or it bothers them to no end. FoW uses a variable ground scale to represent weapon range bands. In the absence of this, there are limited choices:

1. Play in parking lots where a 1:1 figure to ground scale can be used, and different weapon ranges can still impact the game. You may need a golf cart to measure weapons ranges, but you can at least claim "accuracy".

2. Ignore weapon ranges altogether, and let everything shoot across the entire table. Realistic? There are some excellent rules that use this approach, but it does diminish some of the distinctions between weapons. Definitely a game compromise.

3. Use a different figure to ground scale. As JH notes above, when playing a fixed ground scale, having a game that allows weapons of varying ranges to be 'accurately' represented while still allowing models to be visible and moved about without tweezers requires a considerable mis-match between figure and ground scales. So weapon ranges are measured in sometimes-absurdly short distances compared to the vehicles, and infantry weapons seem to extend to the ends of their toes. Accurate? Spare me the "unit frontage" debate, please. It's just another compromise.

4. Use a variable scale, as FoW does. This is a mechanic that goes back to the 1960s, at least. Proponents argue that as long as the bands are different, it allows the different ranges of weapons to be represented within the dimensions of a gaming table. Detractors decry the inability to accurately re-create battlefields with accuracy, and the weird mis-match between movement and weapon ranges. Again, a compromise.

So it really just comes down to what compromises one is willing to put up with. Only the guys playing in the parking lots can really claim any sort of "purity". The rest of us are making one concession to obtain something we want, be it representation of different weapon ranges or a fixed ground scale. There is no right or wrong. Either approach is arguably broken on one or more significant levels. As Kevan suggested, there are some tweaks that can be made to FoW, and certainly to other rule sets as well. Playing FoW as-is, but with different figure scales (6mm or my recent 3mm experiment) is another compromise that works. I think, though, that you end up merely adjusting your compromises.

Personally, I've given up any claim to "realism" in games. A reasonably plausible historical outcome is, I think, about as "realistic" as can be claimed on the gaming table. This leaves me with deciding whether to play a game based on:

1. Whether I enjoy the rules or not. Chess isn't realistic, but I enjoy the odd game.

2. Whether I enjoy the company. Tic tac toe isn't much of a challenge, but I've enjoyed games with the kids in the past. (Until they started beating me.)

If I'm lucky, I can find both in one place. That's where FoW fits. And fortunately, from there, I've found other rules that provide some variation.

My universal -- though usually unspoken -- response to objections to any game is "so what?" Player assumes multiple levels of command. So what? Weapon and movement ranges don't match. So what? Figure to ground scale doesn't match. So what? If I enjoy the rules and (optionally) the company, does it really matter how mm accurate rules are? If the game offers that historically-plausible outcome, I am satisfied I'm playing something representing history. On the other hand, I'm just as happy to play an enjoyable set of SciFi or Fantasy rules on occasion in the interests of entertainment. These oh-so serious games are just that: entertainment. Cheap entertainment.

I'll never understand the venom of the likes of Grover. Resenting someone else's enjoyment is probably something a mental health professional should lecture on. I don't feel left out when I walk by a table with group of people laughing and having a good time, and I certainly don't try to spin the facts to make it seem like they're doing anything wrong.

- Bob

Personally, I've given up any claim to "realism" in games.

Then FoW should fit you just fine.

But if you don't want some sort of realism in a game then there's much better games than FoW.

My personal favourite in that department (fun but unrealistic games you can paly with WWI toys) is Memoire '44. At least as realistic as FoW easier and easier to play.

I'll never understand the venom of the likes of Grover

Neither do I. His dislike of the game seems to overcome anything resembling rational thought.

2. Whether I enjoy the company. Tic tac toe isn't much of a challenge, but I've enjoyed games with the kids in the past. (Until they started beating me.)

Surely you don't mean that.

Tic Tac Toe can only end in a draw between two players who know what they're doing.

FoW uses a variable ground scale to represent weapon range bands. In the absence of this, there are limited choices:

1. Play in parking lots <snip>

2. Ignore weapon ranges altogether <snip>

3. Use a different figure to ground scale. <snip>

4. Use a variable scale, as FoW does. <snip>

FoW actually uses both 3 & 4.

4 to a ridiculous extent. 1" on the gound can represent anything between 10 yards (PIATS) and 200 yards (heavy artillery).

Prize for the most useless posts ever seen on TMP goes to …. ?

kyotoblue.

Dude.

My universal -- though usually unspoken -- response to objections to any game is "so what?" Player assumes multiple levels of command. So what? Weapon and movement ranges don't match. So what? Figure to ground scale doesn't match. So what? If I enjoy

If you set low standards it's easy to be satisfied.

Let me respond to the original question. I live in a small city. The FLGS is a classic gaming store -- a shop with games, comics, role playing, cards, boardgames, partygames, posters etc. It has to have a variety of things just to stay in business. 5 years ago the store had a whole wall of GW, and 4 or 5 packs of 28mm ancients they had tried. The ancients looked like they had been there for 3 or 4 years and not moved. (And I think they are still there too!!)

When the store got in FOW the selection and space slowly grew. Right now about 1/4 of a wall is FOW. Then they got Vallejo paints due to the numerous requests. Just recently they cleared another 1/4 of the wall and put up shelves with 28mm plastics (Victrix and Warlord). Maybe these will take off, and maybe not. But the store is stocking them and trying them because of the success of FOW. I can now buy historicals locally. I couldnt 5 years ago.

Derek the Ueber Grognard wrote:

[…] But if you don't want some sort of realism in a game then there's much better games than FoW.

Sorry, I find the whole "realism" thing over-blown. I want a reasonable representation, but for all the reasons we've thrashed out, I personally don't buy into most of the "better" arguments.

[…] If you set low standards it's easy to be satisfied.

None of those factors is a low standard. What is the fundamental "wrong" of the player assuming multiple perspectives in any given game? The same factors are represented in plenty of other rules sets, just in the 3rd person. You can call in artillery if you have an observer. "You" don't call it, but "he" does. The artillery still shows up.

[…] FoW actually uses both 3 & 4.

4 to a ridiculous extent. 1" on the gound can represent anything between 10 yards (PIATS) and 200 yards (heavy artillery).

It's that telescoping ground scale that both lets infantry fire past the tips of their (scale) noses and yet allow weapons of vastly different ranges be represented on the table in a single, playable game. Again, so long as one can outrange the other, you can represent certain aspects of the WW2 battlefield. And no surprise, you give up other aspects. A 1:1 figure to ground scale is probably the most aesthetically pleasing, but historical differences between weapon ranges get blurred. Compromise. Some of the other figure to ground scales can look silly in their own right if you're compulsive about it. Another compromise.

As to tic-tac-toe -- I was happy to lose a game for the pleasure of playing with my kids at that age. The entire point being that enjoyment of a game alone can be enough of a reason to play. :) I've enjoyed far more sophisticated games with them in recent years. Presumably, they enjoyed playing with me too. Funny how that works.

- Bob

Yes we were all annoying teenagers at one time. But that doesn't mean we have to play games with them now we're adults. Though I do play with my own offsprog and his friends.

To my mind the people that FoW is bringing to the hobby seem to be mostly people I really don't want to play games with.

Mote that's most, not all, and judged from a very limited sample. I've met few in real life though the fanboys on the FoW forum are enough to make me run screaming from the gameall by themselves.

FoW is specifically designed to attract people who like things that I dislike intensely. Balanced point armies fighting standardised scenarios in pick-up or competition games.

Yes I know you don't have to do it, but it's what FoW is designed to do. And it attracts people who like to do it.

The bit I dislike most about the game, the sliding ground scale, makes playing historical scenarios, my favourite type of game, just about impossible.

If made statements that fully agree with this and other things youve posted. Yet its only rational thought from you? LMAO whatever.

FoW is attracting new players

Not to this hobby. To the FoW. All the whining and crying and obnoxious teenage angst wont change that.

So A retail store doesnt liquidate or trade 4 year old stock but then invests in the same scale cause of the sale of another scale wargame? That's a long way around the barn just to to give props to Fow.

The divisions do not deserve different lists at all. They were the same. I have never seen anything to indicate that. Certainly nothing coming from battlefront would change my mind. What Officer is in command means nothing. I make a plan to accomplish the mission. The plan doesn't alter with a new CO. Where I have been previously doesn't change that either. Surviving troops have more experience that's all.

The overly complicated rating system for Morale is no good. Assign morale indicative to the period of the battle. The morale is trying to lump to many things into one.

Suipergrove – as I said, the armoured divisions in Normandy don't get different lists.

They did however differ from any in Italy – they got first dibs on new kit for example.

As for officers – all I can say is a change of officers after Villers Bocage did 7th Armoured the world of good, so I humbly suggest you're wrong.

The quality of a units officers are surely vital?

Overly complicated morale syste,? You get a choice of three different states morale levels. Hardly complex.

And you've still to say why FoW isn't wargmaing and the equally simplistic rules by Featherstone are.

You sir, are I believe, talking out of your hat.

As for officers – all I can say is a change of officers after Villers Bocage did 7th Armoured the world of good, so I humbly suggest you're wrong.

There are other examples in Normandy. 51st Highland Division for example. It's performance was transformed when Rennie took over from Bullen-Smith at the end of July.

And I seem to recall that there were examples on the US flank as well.

Derek

"There are other examples in Normandy. 51st Highland Division for example. It's performance was transformed when Rennie took over from Bullen-Smith at the end of July."

Yes, part of it was due to the lack of a coherent common tactical doctrine in the Army, so individual commanding officers had a disproportionate influence on the performance of their units, for good or bad.

Is this the new English Generals thread? can anyone join in?

Jump on in, Martin. The water's fine. Just below boiling. :)

Actually, the "What constitutes a 'real' wargame" thread might be more appropriate since it's now on the General board.

- Bob

<Q>As for officers – all I can say is a change of officers after Villers Bocage did 7th Armoured the world of good, so I humbly suggest you're wrong</Q>

Your opinions are far from fact and have no bearing on the wargame. These are matters of game mechanisms not history.

They can try to justify there marketing with "history" all they want its still nothing but a sales technique. So as to your opininon. Yours are wrong and mine are right. LOL. You wont debate an opinion into fact. There are no historical "facts" to justify a bad game mechanism. That's the only fact here. You I'm sure don't see any of this as a wallet grab. I see everything at BF as that. We both have our opinion on that. Wont ever change.

I really don't care at all about the fanatics insistence on FOW "impact" its rubbish. Which is what this was all about.

And exactly why are your opinions 100% accurate?

Did every US Armoured Division use Cullins Hedgerow cutters?
Did they all have exactly the same equipment?
None had any unofficial equipment?

Supergrover – not my opinions… actual fact as written up in Britsh Army Offical History.

Odd that you apparently spend ages accurately simulating ballistics and don't think that officer quality has any effect.

Guess you must hate Crossfire then, which gives Germans a benefit for having efficient officers and NCOs.

I haven't read all of the thread that is been going on but it appears to have turned into these rules are "pants" versus they are "spot on" arguements. While no rules are perfect and I personally feel that FoW has more in common with WH40K than Tractics or some other hard corp gaming rules, it has gotten more youngsters into the historical front. I'd be curious as to how many gamers cut their historical teeth on FoW and then moved into other rules such as IABSM or whatever.

If it has gotten youngsters/and those who think like youngsters into historical gaming then great, so what's the verdict? Has it?

Answering the original question, there are a lot of ex-GW players into FoW hereabouts. Very few yung'uns, most are in the 30+ age range. They have anywhere between 4 and 10 people show up to play at the LGS every Saturday.

I built a 5k-point or so Russian force, played a half dozen games, and sold the lot. IMO, there are games for WWII on the market that are more interesting, and allow a player to succeed (or fail) based on using tactics – something Battlefront is intent on never implementing in FoW. Their choice, but I'd rather play a WWII game that has the look and feel of WWII than just playing 40K with WWII models.

If it has gotten youngsters/and those who think like youngsters into historical gaming then great, so what's the verdict? Has it?

Nobody knows. And there seems to be a massive lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causation when people discuss this. Just because some youngsters are playing FoW rather than SF or fantasy it doesn't mean that FoW has got them into historical gaming.

My personal opinion is that it's enthusiastic individuals who get youngsters into historical wargaming, not sets of rules.

Some of these enthusiastic individuals are playing FoW.

- Derek

But once the little blighters turn up at the club with an army of T34s or Shermans instead of Orks then it's easier to get them to try other things.

So far I've had great success using IABSM scenarios using FoW rules. I intend to see if I can get the kids to play FoG or IABSM but work keeps getting in the way.

Have seen the new ECW plastics being used in a game of Warhammer….

1369traveler wrote:

[…] If it has gotten youngsters/and those who think like youngsters into historical gaming then great, so what's the verdict? Has it?

Some of this was covered rather extensively early in this thread, so you might want to read through it sometime if genuinely interested. In my case, it certainly has. My two sons and I only moved into historical gaming because of FoW. While they're both busy with university now, we still get the odd game in, and are starting to experiment with other historical periods. As for the non-kid in the bunch (me), after trying unsuccessfully to find games and opponents back in 1979, I've found several local groups all through FoW, and thanks to that experience, am now playing other games. I won't speak for the rest of humanity, but speaking for myself and mine, yes. FoW has DEFINITELY provided that bridge. That's why I'm so bemused by Herr Grover's blanket assertion that it hasn't.

- Bob

Derek the Ueber Grognard wrote:

[…] My personal opinion is that it's enthusiastic individuals who get youngsters into historical wargaming, not sets of rules.

Some of these enthusiastic individuals are playing FoW.

Well said, sir! That's what it all comes down to for kids and adults. Having an enjoyable time playing what are, after all, games, no matter how seriously we like to take them.

- Bob

KJdidit wrote:

I built a 5k-point or so Russian force, played a half dozen games, and sold the lot. IMO, there are games for WWII on the market that are more interesting, and allow a player to succeed (or fail) based on using tactics – something Battlefront is intent on never implementing in FoW.

I am curious why you are both felt the need to acquire an entire new WW2 collection to play FoW, and sell it because you no longer played. One of the beauties of historical gaming is that you do not need publisher-approved miniatures. I'm happily using my 15mm stuff for FoW, IABSM, Nuts and just about any other WW2 system I can get my hands on. I would have thought a WW2 aficionado would have a collection on hand, and be happy for an excuse to add more to it. Was it scale issues, basing or something else?

- Bob

I'm impressed someone built up a 5000pt army for a game which uses 1500 for most games….

5,000 points is easy when you play Soviets. I'm well over 7,000 points of stuff and still haven't found anything I can win consistently with. That probably underscores the fact that it's the player and not the rules. :)

After all the time it's taken to acquire, base and paint all this stuff, I can't imagine selling it off. Even if I never play another game, I think I'll end up keeping this stuff forever.

- Bob

"Even if I never play another game, I think I'll end up keeping this stuff forever."

Yes, never sell anything. I did once and regretted it. I've got kit well over thirty years old which has only recently had its first outing on the table, so their time will come again, with some patience!

I sold it because I really don't care for 15mm scale these days (and I was never overly impressed with the quality of Battlefront minis). After having painted several thousand 15mm Napoleonics, ACW, Sengoku, Colonial, WWI, WWII, and modern minis in my 30+ years of gaming, I find I'd much rather focus on game-play than spend my free time painting. These days I use 6mm exclusively for WWII through modern (Panzer Miniatures/IDF/MBT)and scifi (house rules).

I also got tired of having several different scales of figs for WWII games with different player groups. When I had the FoW stuff, I also had 6mm, N-scale, 20mm, and 25mm WWII collections. Now I have a small collection of 25mm for the occasional skirmish game, and 6mm for company through battalion-sized games.