"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

Oh, and as to selling off my kit, I have no regrets. I saw no reason to keep minis for games/periods/scales I'm no longer interested in playing. I'm relatively sure I'll never want to play another Napoleonic or ACW game, and if I do, I'll use someone else's figures. ;)

I have visions of my sons showing up with grandkids someday, so I'm hanging on. At least for now.

Does a 7 page thread count as having an impact?

- Bob

"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."

No Tactics in FOW?
Absolute rubbish.

If the group you played with never got past the line tanks up stage that I've seen many groups go through (usually because tanks are easy to paint & get on the table), maybe, but Tactics in FOW is critical once you actually play all the missions with different lists such as Infantry companies.

Easiest way to prove that is actually tournament games, and their results. When the good players can take just about any list from any book (new or old) and do well with it, then it's not the list, but what the player does with it, which I call tactics.

When the good players can take just about any list from any book (new or old) and do well with it, then it's not the list, but what the player does with it, which I call tactics.

And of course the tactics used in these FoW competitions are all based on what actually happened in WWII.

Or perhaps not.

Uber Grognard – ahistorical tactics are hardly unique to FoW are they?

Uber Grognard – ahistorical tactics are hardly unique to FoW are they?

I'll give you that.

And it's Uber Grogranard. The difference is important.

Exactly what are these rule sets that somehow make all players use historical tactics? I'm particularly interested in those that manage to make players with little or no knowledge of history do so. Now THAT would be an impact! Please do share.

I've read of abuses with several rule sets besides FoW, some of which are rather amusing.

- Bob

Derek the Ueber GrogRAnard wrote:

[…] And it's Uber Grogranard. The difference is important.

I missed that. :)

- Bob

What exactly does ol' Grover think they're making you buy?

Oh come on, it's a pretty obvious marketing ploy. You get players to create an American army representing 1st armoured and then see neat things they can do with 2nd armoured so they buy more American stuff. I don't know anything about BF, but judging the differences stated here that the rules have for these formations, it's pretty apparent why.

While I think FOW is a good thing, I think this example, differences between 1st armoured and 2nd armoured, other than in equipment, is just plain silly beyond belief at the level I think is represented by FOW (at most, company level decision making?) and it certainly sounds cheesy.

Again, I think FOW is a good thing – I really like sharp cheddar myself, but don't like the lingering smell…
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] Oh come on, it's a pretty obvious marketing ploy. You get players to create an American army representing 1st armoured and then see neat things they can do with 2nd armoured so they buy more American stuff.

Yes, Battlefront have made a wide variety of options available. But again, how does that compel players to "upgrade" in the manner that he has repeatedly implied? Sure, it's fun to field new things, and BF is certainly happy to take our money. It is a marketing ploy. But a player never has to field more than one list, and one set of options unless they simply feel like playing with more toys. I'm still playing with the Soviet infantry I started the game with in 2005. They all still work, and have not been superceded by super troops of any sort. And the 15mm Old Glory figures are still mixed in and not causing any problems.

Somebody please explain to me how having relatively complete figure lines and a breadth of units represented is a bad thing for the gamer? This is a far cry from the "your army has been superceded" peril of certain other game systems.

This almost sounds like a "Freedom From Choice" argument, where only having one option is described as a benefit. I know guys who got into WW2 gaming only because a relative's unit could be modeled. Why wouldn't you want both 1st and 2nd Armored to be represented? Were they not, I expect we'd hear complaints of historical inaccuracies.

Hey, I'm as jaded as the next guy when it comes to suspect marketing. There's a lot of stuff that's being cranked out and hyped from Battlefront that is of no interest to me. But again, until they start obsoleting historical units and forcing me to pay for upgraded books and miniatures, I'm not going to accuse them of using the same tactics as "that other company".

- Bob

There are no games that I'm aware of that "force" you to use historical tactics, but there are some that will see your arse get spanked hard if you don't and your opponent does.

As to FoW and historical tactics, the only "tactics" used in FoW are the same as used in WH40K:

1. Kill the big stuff;
2. Mop up the infantry;
3. Roll high.

Calling those historical tactics is the absolute rubbish here. Same goes for FoW tournament play – it's army-list based, min/maxing, and just as lacking in any semblance of real-world tactics. I've seen the T34/Sherman Dance Line Review employed in just about every FoW game I've seen or played, tournaments included.

You want FoW to play more like a historical game? Dump the points and composition rules, field a formation instead of a wet dream list of toys, and then play the game. It's marginally interesting in its present, tourney-oriented, format, but it completely falls down like the cheap house of cards that it is when both sides field historically accurate formations.

No real-world tactics, ahistorical outcomes, silly "army special rules" – explain to me again how "kids are getting into historical gaming via FoW" when FoW is a fantasy wargame that uses WWII models?

KJdidit wrote:

There are no games that I'm aware of that "force" you to use historical tactics, but there are some that will see your arse get spanked hard if you don't and your opponent does.

OK, what specifics are you referring to? I see amateurish mistakes punished all the time.

As to FoW and historical tactics, the only "tactics" used in FoW are the same as used in WH40K:

1. Kill the big stuff;
2. Mop up the infantry;
3. Roll high.

Are you seeing more than the head-on "Free For All" scenario played on an open table? True, a lot of new players tend to go for those tactics, but they don't work very well either in most of the scenarios, or against players that simply won't play that game. Line 'em up and shoot makes for very boring games, that is true.

Calling those historical tactics is the absolute rubbish here.

Of course. And any player using them is definitely not interested in history. I've seen players do similar things in other historical games.

Same goes for FoW tournament play – it's army-list based, min/maxing, and just as lacking in any semblance of real-world tactics. I've seen the T34/Sherman Dance Line Review employed in just about every FoW game I've seen or played, tournaments included.

Yup, tourneys are bad for that. Anytime you end up with a random mix of forces playing each other in a competitive environment, that seems to happen.

You want FoW to play more like a historical game? Dump the points and composition rules, field a formation instead of a wet dream list of toys, and then play the game.

Yes, that's definitely how I prefer playing the game. That is actually one of the THREE modes of play described in the rule book.

For events, organizers tend to go with the competitive play using points, which I guess makes sense for logistical reasons on their end. But most friendly games I play are far less bizarre. We do go for historical match-ups, and my preferred list has nothing bigger than a T-70 in it. "No engines" is one of my favorite ways to play my infantry.

If you've only witnessed or played in tourneys or competitive events, then I can understand why you might think that's all there is to the game and player community, but there certainly is "life outside of tourneys".

It's marginally interesting in its present, tourney-oriented, format, but it completely falls down like the cheap house of cards that it is when both sides field historically accurate formations.

If you're not seeing anybody field historical formations, then that's no doubt true. I am lucky enough to face off against opponents that do for the most part, and the games seem to get things about right.

No real-world tactics, ahistorical outcomes, silly "army special rules"

And yet armor attacking without infantry support fares poorly, units bunched up get shelled, and careful use of terrain and combined maneuver can allow little tanks to deal with big tanks. What exactly are the historical outcomes that you're expecting to see? Can you define what's specifically wrong?

I agree some of it is silly, or done poor service by the accompanying fluff. That doesn't mean that the game itself hasn't had an impact.

– explain to me again how "kids are getting into historical gaming via FoW" when FoW is a fantasy wargame that uses WWII models?

Have you actually read this thread? Several of us have related first-hand accounts of how we, other adults and kids are finding an entry into historical games via FoW. How much more clearly would you like for it to be explained? Whether you like it or not, FoW is providing an entry, and often a re-entry into historical gaming, and specifically WW2 historical gaming for a lot of people. That doesn't mean that we categorically find FoW to be the ultimate rule set. It has a lot of flaws. But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that, for many of us, it is the one rule set that we can find played and supported locally. Because of that, we're able to link up with other players who may also share a similar interest in other periods and/or rule sets.

- Bob

How refreshing. I thought this pointless ranting only happened on the Napoleonics boards. I may need to review my long term antipathy towards post 1900 games.

In the interests of research I go to the FoW Forums and go to Forums >Gaming >Tactics.

I open the first post
Recce, Recconnaissance Tactics

which turns out to be a list of links to previous postings about tactics for recce forces. I follow the first link to NZ Staghound Recce Company where I find

Dig in the 25ers at one o b j e c tive and keep the sherms near the other.

So the first example of discussion of FoW tactics I come across advocates that a Staghound company should use attached 25pdrs to hold gound, presumably using direct fire.

WWII tactics at their best.

FoW fans seem to think that force selection is more important than tactics as most of the discussion on that forum seems to be about choosing forces from the army lists.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

And most of the discussion on that forum seems to be about selecting your force from the army list rather than anything to do with tactics.

FoW fans seem to think that force selection is more important than tactics.

First of all, thanks for citing specifics. Without specifics, it's hard to know where to begin.

I long ago gave up on the FoW forums. But more specifically, KJdidit referred to ahistorical tactics for which an opponent is not punished by a knowledgeable player. What might those be?

We can, I'm sure, all recall players of different rule systems that go the gamesmanship route. I've gotten caught up in it myself on occasion. But again, that's a player issue, not the rules.

Back when I first got into historical gaming via FoW, there were some very knowledgeable guys on those forums that were a tremendous aid in helping me fill in gaps in my knowledge. I believe one active participant worked at the Aberdeen tank museum, and another was particularly knowledgeable about the Soviets in WW2. There's certainly a lot of crap on those forums (and most forums, for that matter) but there are some treasures. I know of two museums in this region that are hosting game groups in recognition of the fact that anything that draws the public to history is generally a good thing.

So annoying forum posters aside, what are the worst tactics that can be used in FoW that cannot be countered by sound tactics, and how do other rule systems avoid those same issues?

- Bob

Bob, I expressed my opinion about and my experience with FoW, including the supposed introduction of new players into historical gaming. I've never seen any of the local FoW players of any age get into playing another historical game due to their involvement in FoW, even after specifically asking some of them to do so and running demo games of other systems – and some of these people I've known and gamed with for may years.

Maybe they've changed the rules since I played (though I did play a couple of games with the 2ed rules), but explain how these are actual, regular, battlefield occurrences:

1. A German tank platoon moves crests a ridge, fires at an enemy tank platoon, then disappears back over the ridge (using their "Stormtrooper move"), without taking any return fire, and forcing the enemy to move to get the German tanks back in LOS?

2. An enemy tank platoon moves from cover to cover, its flanks fully exposed to the enemy during the entire move, and the opposition doesn't get an opportunity to punish the enemy for his stupidity? Schroedinger's Tank Platoon Rule?

3. A German Flak 88 (strange that so many Luftwaffe units show up in front-line Heers formations, isn't it?) takes a hit from long-range fire, and the HQ unit – which is within command range of the 88 fired upon and in cover, but not within range of the firing unit – is removed as a casualty?

4. I've seen single Panthers roll up multiple platoons of entrenched enemy infantry because the infantry didn't have a high enough AT value to harm the Panther, and enough Dancing Tank Lines stop short of the enemy infantry and just gun them down with their MGs. Explain to me again how unsupported tanks don't do so well against infantry?

5. Why is my regimental artillery park on the front line?

6. Why are infantry units that make frontal assaults over open ground against unpinned enemy infantry positions more successful than not?

7. Why does my ambush pop up in the place that benefits me the most, instead of where it (should have been) deployed?

8. Why do most of my high-velocity guns lose their effectiveness at the same distance as every other gun, low-velocity howitzers included?

9. My tank crews bail out, then re-mount, then bail out and re-mount again? Tell me, if you know, what were tank crews trained to do after bailing out of their vehicle?

10. A multiple ROF gun takes out two tanks and forces a third to bail out. How is it that the tank forced to bail out is never the same as one of those that was destroyed?

I realize some of these aren't directly related to tactical decision-making, but do influence how those tactics are employed in the game – each of them making for an arguably ahistoric occurrence or outcome.

Feel free to take the last word, Bob. IMO, FoW is a fantasy game, has little to do with WWII aside from the models, and, from my experience, hasn't introduced anyone into historical gaming past playing a fantasy game with WWII models.

Tourneys bring out the worst in people, and it's perhaps unfair to judge a rules set on tourney place. Having played tourneys using Firefly and DBM, I doubt FoW is worse…

The FoW Forum can be so cheesey you need a gas mask and bottled air to read it.

On the other hand there can be gems.

In the discussion list on Late War Finns the guys writing it stated that yes, the Finns had a lot of heavy artillery but suffered from ammo shortages.

They were then informed by Finns who had done National Service that the Finns had so much 155mm+ ammo they were still trying to use it all up in the 1960s in live-fire exercises and eventually blew up the remainder.

So there are useful snippets there. Just a few…

Uber Grogranard – apologies for getting the name wrong. My only excuse is that I'm currently *ahem* experiencing intestinal discomfort and occasionally have to abbreviate… :)

bobstro wrote:

I long ago gave up on the FoW forums. But more specifically, KJdidit referred to ahistorical tactics for which an opponent is not punished by a knowledgeable player. What might those be?

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the optimum FoW tactic for tanks facing AT guns, at least in some circumstances, is to charge straight towards them as fast as possible.

Nope, that'll end in disaster.

You can't fire if moving at the double, which has obvious disadvantages…Moving more slowly reduces your ROF to 1.

Depending on the ATG, their ROF can be up to 3…..

So charging straight for them, and ending up within effective range will usually result in a one sided battle.

But again, that's a player issue, not the rules.

The rules are quite deliberately written in a way that will attract a certain type of player.

You cannot completely dissociate the two however much you may want to.

Same with the stupid fluff.

KJdidit wrote:

Bob, I expressed my opinion about and my experience with FoW, including the supposed introduction of new players into historical gaming. I've never seen any of the local FoW players of any age get into playing another historical game due to their involvement in FoW, even after specifically asking some of them to do so and running demo games of other systems – and some of these people I've known and gamed with for may years.

Hey, if that's been your experience, then I can't dispute it. But when you asked to have explained exactly how it has brought new players in, I felt that deserved a response. Several of us seem to have seen it do exactly that.

Maybe they've changed the rules since I played (though I did play a couple of games with the 2ed rules), but explain how these are actual, regular, battlefield occurrences:

Thanks for providing specifics!

1. A German tank platoon moves crests a ridge, fires at an enemy tank platoon, then disappears back over the ridge (using their "Stormtrooper move"), without taking any return fire, and forcing the enemy to move to get the German tanks back in LOS?

Is that so fundamentally different than a rule set that simply gives the Germans more "command points" or other mechanisms to reflect their "superior command and control"? FoW does it by providing a roll for each unit that will usually (though certainly not always) allow a unit extra movement. Another set lets me allocate command points to guarantee they can do essentially the same thing. Now, I am the first to agree that allowing artillery do dance off further than they can move in a normal turn is idiotic. I've made that argument on the FoW forums in the past!

In defense of the mechanic, it is not a risk-free proposition. Back to the issue of players paying the price for ignoring sound tactics -- I've often seen players assume that they'll pull off the move to provide an invisibility cloak, only to fail the roll and realize that exposing a valuable asset to the full brunt of the enemy's return fire was a bad idea. The skilled players I've seen use the move (superior mobility) together with skillful use of terrain and isolating enemy targets.

2. An enemy tank platoon moves from cover to cover, its flanks fully exposed to the enemy during the entire move, and the opposition doesn't get an opportunity to punish the enemy for his stupidity? Schroedinger's Tank Platoon Rule?

Point taken. IGOUGO has limitations. However:

1. If cross-table shots are the norm, then players are probably using ahistorically flat and open terrain. In most situations, there should be some cover that a player can use.

2. FoW does provide for defensive fire in close-assaults, which does break the "stand by as they move up" sequence, at least in those circumstances.

3. I'm reading a lot of criticism of overwatch rules for being overly powerful these days. I'm actively trying out other rule sets, but I'm not ready to say that the alternatives are any better in the end just yet.

3. A German Flak 88 (strange that so many Luftwaffe units show up in front-line Heers formations, isn't it?) takes a hit from long-range fire, and the HQ unit – which is within command range of the 88 fired upon and in cover, but not within range of the firing unit – is removed as a casualty?

That doesn't sound right. To be removed, a base has to be a valid target. At least that's how we've always played. As to the defender picking the casualty versus the attacker:

1. For direct fire, the attacker can designate a target type (guns, vehicles, infantry).

2. For indirect fire, the potential target stands should be rolled for individually. There should be no picking after hits are determined, by either side.

4. I've seen single Panthers roll up multiple platoons of entrenched enemy infantry because the infantry didn't have a high enough AT value to harm the Panther

Infantry should be more than capable (AT2) of taking out a Panther (top armor 1). They do have to stick around long enough (morale checks) to do so, but I relish those big, bad tanks trying to roll over my itty-bitty infantrymen, and have held off multiple successive attempts by larger armored units. That said, the infantry player should also be providing those dug-in infantry positions with some supporting fire if at all possible. Exactly why didn't that infantry have AT?

and enough Dancing Tank Lines stop short of the enemy infantry and just gun them down with their MGs. Explain to me again how unsupported tanks don't do so well against infantry?

Hmm. Was this infantry in the open? That is a bad position. If they're dug in, it should take quite a bit of such shooting. Depending on the scenario, the attacker frequently doesn't have the luxury of such time.

5. Why is my regimental artillery park on the front line?

I can't say that I've seen that, other than perhaps for the Soviets.

6. Why are infantry units that make frontal assaults over open ground against unpinned enemy infantry positions more successful than not?

Again, this doesn't sound right. It doesn't take much (5 hits) to stop such an assault, particularly if the defender is unpinned. At least in my experience, I can say that assaulting unpinned enemy rarely goes well.

7. Why does my ambush pop up in the place that benefits me the most, instead of where it (should have been) deployed?

Agreed that this looks strange at first glance, but we covered this at length earlier in this thread.

8. Why do most of my high-velocity guns lose their effectiveness at the same distance as every other gun, low-velocity howitzers included?

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean here. Do you mean the 16 inch "long range" band? They still retain their anti-tank value out to maximum range. The target AT goes up by 1 at long range (16 inches) which is arbitrary, but a hi-vel gun is still quite effective. Have I misunderstood.?

9. My tank crews bail out, then re-mount, then bail out and re-mount again? Tell me, if you know, what were tank crews trained to do after bailing out of their vehicle?

Another thing we covered in detail earlier in the thread. The fluff is idiotic, but BF have clarified that it represents any number of things happening after a hit. Again, not an uncommon mechanic in WW2 rules, though often not given any fluff, or at least less idiotic.

10. A multiple ROF gun takes out two tanks and forces a third to bail out. How is it that the tank forced to bail out is never the same as one of those that was destroyed?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. The result should not be calculated until the hits are resolved. The shooter should only know that he hit 3 targets initially. Whether they are destroyed or merely bailed out (that stupid term) isn't determined until afterwards.

I realize some of these aren't directly related to tactical decision-making, but do influence how those tactics are employed in the game – each of them making for an arguably ahistoric occurrence or outcome.

I do appreciate you going into specifics. I don't disagree on all of your points, although I do question some of the specifics. I may have misunderstood though.

I also do not argue that a lot of players -- perhaps even the majority -- play a game that doesn't resemble history. But some of us do get an at least "close enough" feel for it, and do manage to gently persuade others to do the same. Most of us were influenced by comics and war movies that perhaps were not perfect, but sparked an interest. As we matured, our tastes moved towards more historical things. Well, some of us did!

Again, I am not trying to make the point that FoW is, by any stretch of the imagination, perfect. It is, however, a game that brought me into WW2 gaming (or back into it, if you count my lack of success finding games in 1979) along with my sons. It is no longer my preferred set of WW2 now that I've discovered skirmish sets… which I blithely play with my 15mm FoW-configured stuff.

Feel free to take the last word, Bob.

Hey, I'm not just looking for group-think. I've learned a lot from these TMP discussions, and I'm always interested in anything that "does it better".

IMO, FoW is a fantasy game, has little to do with WWII aside from the models, and, from my experience, hasn't introduced anyone into historical gaming past playing a fantasy game with WWII models.

Fair enough.

FWIW: Derek and Kevan, I'm asking about the need to purchase the Battlegroup Panzergrenadier scenario books in the WW2 rules threads. I'm ready to order, but not sure which, if either, of those is needed. Another set of rules that FoW has gotten me into!

- Bob

What's the silly rule for British tanks in the desert?

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

The rules are quite deliberately written in a way that will attract a certain type of player.

You cannot completely dissociate the two however much you may want to.

Same with the stupid fluff.

In much the same way most war movies are presented in a way to appeal to a certain audience, yes. Exactly. But you also cannot disassociate the rules from the wealth of supporting material that the same company has provided, however much you want to. It works both ways. If you're going to take them to task for stupid content in the forums, you really should give them credit for some of the excellent material and clarifications they have also provided in that same venue.

What's the silly rule for British tanks in the desert?

The Tally Ho!/Broadside (Cruiser Tank) rule? That was done, per Battlefront material I read some years ago, to encourage the Brit players to move aggressively with the Crusader II tanks with the 2 pdr. gun. It only applies to those specific tanks, at least in the Afrika (mid-war) book.

I don't have much interest in the desert campaigns, so I may be remembering some of this incorrectly, but I recall that those tanks had a shoulder-aimed gun, and a rate of fire, when manned by a skilled crew, equal to or superior to stabilized and/or auto-loaded guns. The rule removes the penalty for firing on the move (gives full RoF) and offsets the risk of exposing side armor by requiring constant movement.

Again, I don't play the period, so really can't comment with any authority, but from the bit I have read, they seem to have it about right. How do you feel Cruiser tanks should be modeled?

- Bob

How do you feel Cruiser tanks should be modeled?

Without special rules.

"In the interests of research I go to the FoW Forums and go to Forums >Gaming >Tactics."

In the interests of sanity, I have only read the "Worst advice eva!!!" thread on the Tactics board, wherein such thoughts are expressed as:

"Worst advice I ever got is to go to the FOW forum for tactics advice."

"The Tactics section is the most useless section in this forum. It's full of horrible advice and bad opinions, I would go so far as to say that its rare when I do actually see good advice."

"There are some bad tactics posted sometimes, but i think the army list section is the most useless part of the forum."

"The tactics forum is a breath of fresh air and good sense in comparison to the Army Lists nonsense."

FoW philosophy is not monolithic. Neither is there a single style of play, as some seem to have concluded.

I understand that you don't have to play FoW the fixed points/army lists/set scenarios way, though that is obviously what it is primarily designed for.

I just can't understand why anyone wanting to play differently doesn't just play something else.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

I understand that you don't have to play FoW the fixed points/army lists/set scenarios way, though that is obviously what it is primarily designed for.

That much is clear. But that approach also translates well to allowing groups of complete strangers able to meet up and play a game with few disputes, which is one of the strengths of the game. In reading around a bit, not all rule sets fare so well in terms of lack of ambiguity.

I just can't understand why anyone wanting to play differently doesn't just play something else.

Enjoying playing other rules doesn't have to preclude playing FoW. As was already noted in this thread, it is not a zero sum game. Playing FoW now and again doesn't prevent me from enjoying other games as much, if not more. It's not an exclusive relationship kind of thing. FoW does not rot the brain. At least not completely.

I've read and certainly understand most of the issues raised, but I haven't read anything that convinces me that FoW is broken in ways more severe than other rules. So far as I have seen, many of the 'issues' end up being a misinterpretation of the rules or an unwillingness to concede that most are just a variation on abstractions common to most other rule sets, while others seem to be overblown if not taken out of context. The majority of the complaints are about the company, the players or the fluff, none of which really comes up in any groups I've played with. And I'll never understand the whole "taint" thing, as if playing any set of rules has a permanent effect on people.

While I'm personally interested in any number of variations in addition to FoW, reality brings me back to the fact that FoW is played and enjoyed locally, while others are only found if I drive an hour away, and then only sporadically.

The simple fact is that I enjoy the level of game FoW provides. "Correct" or not, FoW provides enough variety at a low enough level of abstraction to keep my interests. I have no doubt that I will someday find another rule set that hits all these buttons while fixing some of FoW's shortcomings, but until then, FoW works for me and a good number of other players locally.

I just can't understand why anyone wanting to play something else feels that FoW is going to stop that somehow.

- Bob

bobstro wrote:

But that approach also translates well to allowing groups of complete strangers able to meet up and play a game with few disputes, which is one of the strengths of the game.

Agreed. But not something I particularly want to do that often.

Enjoying playing other rules doesn't have to preclude playing FoW. As was already noted in this thread, it is not a zero sum game.

It is for me and I imagine for you as well. I have limited time for wargaming and time spent playing one game is time not spent playing another.

So far as I have seen, many of the 'issues' end up being a misinterpretation of the rules or an unwillingness to concede that most are just a variation on abstractions common to most other rule sets, while others seem to be overblown if not taken out of context.

The flexible groundscale is a complete killer if you want to do historical scenarios.

Try setting this up.

A section of French beach has two strongpoints on it. They each hold a platoon of infantry , a couple of light AT guns and some MGs. They are about 1km apart and each of them is 200 meters wide. That's a reasonably historical setting for a D-Day scenario.

How big are you going to make these strongpoints on your FoW table?

And how far apart are you going to place them (centre to centre)?

There's no answer that works.

Well I think the Armored Division things has been properly addressed. AS to my opinions being fact versus Sturm's that was meant to be humors though I can see why many would miss that considering my previous posts. Recent posts show I am not the only one with these opinions threads on FoW from the past show there are plenty. The resp0nces by these fanatics have been so childish and obnoxious I can do anything bu laugh at any post talking of my "Venom" LMFAO, beyond absurd. This mudslinging campaign by gobs of Fow Fanatics most likely all called over from FOw forums would should be plenty to show the mentality of the average player of the game is beyond tolerable for most adults and would make any game no matter how much I enjoyed the rules not worth the money and the furthest thing from a positive influence on the industry regardless of how many play. These obnoxious attitudes were my first impressions of GW players and my first of Fow on both accounts, further exchange with players on the games over the years have yielded the same attitudes. It clearly is prevalent enough to warrant any "they all aren't like that" retorts moot. Its similar to going to some chain retail outlet and getting bad service sure you might get better another chain store. But after several encounters I wont bother.

This kind of absurd conduct certainly wont change any adult minds towards the system.

"This mudslinging campaign by gobs of Fow Fanatics most likely all called over from FOw forums…"

Professional help is available for conditions such as this.

I have to have a go at some tongue in cheek mudslung answers to these….just for fun

1. A German tank platoon moves crests a ridge, fires at an enemy tank platoon, then disappears back over the ridge (using their "Stormtrooper move"), without taking any return fire, and forcing the enemy to move to get the German tanks back in LOS?

ANswer. This is based on the famous US air cavlry helicopter pop up attacks….no seriously!

2. An enemy tank platoon moves from cover to cover, its flanks fully exposed to the enemy during the entire move, and the opposition doesn't get an opportunity to punish the enemy for his stupidity? Schroedinger's Tank Platoon Rule?

Answer: everyone not having there turn iis too polite to fire…its a warfare in the age of reason"after you monseur" moment. Also it's difficult to write rules coherently that allow interuptions to a move and the extra text mean you lose some pretty marketing pictures.

Serious Answer (there had to be one) It was a flaw recognised in a boardgame from the 70's that got the nickname Panzer bush since tanks mnoved from bush to bush on the board doing exactly this trick. the writers must have been aware of it and knew this was always going to be exploitable. It says something that they felt they could just ignore it and that gameplay would not suffer from it…or alternatively, it could have been that they said
" if it works for fantasy players, then fine"

3. A German Flak 88 (strange that so many Luftwaffe units show up in front-line Heers formations, isn't it?) takes a hit from long-range fire, and the HQ unit – which is within command range of the 88 fired upon and in cover, but not within range of the firing unit – is removed as a casualty?

answer Its collateral damage.

4. I've seen single Panthers roll up multiple platoons of entrenched enemy infantry because the infantry didn't have a high enough AT value to harm the Panther, and enough Dancing Tank Lines stop short of the enemy infantry and just gun them down with their MGs. Explain to me again how unsupported tanks don't do so well against infantry?

ANswer. Its well known that game tactic is to assault out of cover using the special tank killer rule is what you do since the defenssive assault fire of single panthers is so poor…and they dont have a reverse gear.

5. Why is my regimental artillery park on the front line?

Answer So you can buy it

6. Why are infantry units that make frontal assaults over open ground against unpinned enemy infantry positions more successful than not?

ANswer. because the system means that is how you have to attack with infantry and making the results historical means the defender will automatically win

7. Why does my ambush pop up in the place that benefits me the most, instead of where it (should have been) deployed?

Answer. Avoids you having to write on a peice of paper. Its the avoid the "Lost my pen" delay which is so important in tournament play

8. Why do most of my high-velocity guns lose their effectiveness at the same distance as every other gun, low-velocity howitzers included?

ANswer. So you dont need to thing about different effects for different guns and its all rationalised in the sliding scale which you can say the range band is so big for those guns they are all crap

9. My tank crews bail out, then re-mount, then bail out and re-mount again? Tell me, if you know, what were tank crews trained to do after bailing out of their vehicle?

Answer: It wasnt diconnect the bungee!

10. A multiple ROF gun takes out two tanks and forces a third to bail out. How is it that the tank forced to bail out is never the same as one of those that was destroyed?

ANswer : they are based on the Aliens movie mini guns and the sensers didnt detect movement so they clicked on the next one "wall 2 wall"

Derek the Ueber Grognaranord wrote:

[…] The flexible groundscale is a complete killer if you want to do historical scenarios.

If you want to do a battlefield recreation at scale, yes.

Try setting this up.

A section of French beach has two strongpoints on it. They each hold a platoon of infantry , a couple of light AT guns and some MGs. They are about 1km apart and each of them is 200 meters wide. That's a reasonably historical setting for a D-Day scenario.

We actually went through this some months back. If you're trying to do a diorama-accurate recreation of that scene, it won't work. That's the point about inch-by-inch battlefield recreation using 3 points of reference I mentioned previously. (And by the way, that was something I'd not previously considered, so I do actually appreciate you bringing it up.)

But if we get into why those distances were selected, things are more promising. In our last discussion, you mentioned that the distances were selected so that positions could provide mutual support, which would be roughly HMG/Light AT gun range per your previous criteria. So that's 24 inches using FoW scale.

How big are you going to make these strongpoints on your FoW table?

Big enough to hold the platoon and weapons.

And how far apart are you going to place them (centre to centre)?

Close enough for the weapons to support the other position, as described above.

There's no answer that works.

Sure it does. You can readily represent the tactical challenges of assaulting mutually supporting defensive positions within the confines of a typical game table.

To use a 1:1 ground to figure scale at 1:100, you would require 10m of table just to represent two such positions center-to-center, correct? And your HMG and ATG ranges would also be 10m of course. If you're not using 1:1, which scale are you using to represent those measurements? The ground scale? The figure scale? If the weapon ranges fit either of those, you end up with much the same abstraction do you not? Do weapon ranges match cleanly? How exactly are you representing such situations in your games? Exactly how large are those men and vehicles in ground scale? Are you content with only two such positions (not exactly a reproduction of the battlefield), or are you modeling several? How big is that table?

I'm honestly not seeing that much of a difference, other than FoW lets something like this be represented in a typical game table sized game. It's not perfect, but again, the basic tactical challenges are present.

- Bob

kevanG wrote:

I have to have a go at some tongue in cheek mudslung answers to these….just for fun […]

That's OK, Kevan. You need to resort to making up answers for the other side when you've got SuperG making your side's case. :)

Those answers are underscoring some of my earlier points about misinterpretation of the rules though.

- Bob

Been to a wedding, long Bank Holiday, takes seat in expectation, popcorn ready

Same film

bobstro wrote:

We actually went through this some months back. If you're trying to do a diorama-accurate recreation of that scene, it won't work.

The point is that you can't provide an answer (using FoW) that allows the correct number of troops to be deployed in the area and for the weapons in the strongpoints to support each other properly.

As per usual introduce the red herring of figure scale being different from groundscale (which of course also happens in FoW – whichever of the many groundscales you choose to use).

Many other sets of rules (though not all) manage to have unit frontages and weapons ranges that are consistent with each other. You do sometimes get things looking crowded (wait a minute that happens in FoW as well).

Sure it does. You can readily represent the tactical challenges of assaulting mutually supporting defensive positions within the confines of a typical game table.

You are basically saying that a tabletop representation of a company assaulting two mutually supporting defensive positions is a good representation of a real life battalion plus supports assaulting the same two mutually supporting positions.

Well it isn't. The tactical challenges aren't the same. In real life a single company in such a position would have been pinned down on the beach or thrown back into the sea.

I think I got it right earlier. FoW can be used for historical scenarios – but only if you set low standards and are easily satisfied.

bobstro wrote:

If you're going to take them to task for stupid content in the forums, you really should give them credit for some of the excellent material and clarifications they have also provided in that same venue.

I will happily give them credit where it is due and I have done so publicly in the past.

The modelling and painting forums are both useful and inspirational while the History forums are a fantastic resource. R. Mark Davies is a superstar.

Unfortunately the forums are a mixed bag, and most of them are good for nothing but a cheap laugh at fanboy behaviour. They have a nasty culture which accepts and sometimes encourages the bullying of anyone who disagrees with the dominant fanboy view. The moderators are not good at controlling this and indeed, in the past, some of them were among the worse offenders.

If only their game was a tenth as good as the best resources on that website.

they have a nasty culture which accepts and sometimes encourages the bullying of anyone who disagrees with the dominant fanboy view

Ah la three threads here filled with that very thing. All of which encouraged by proponents and opponents of the game alike. TMP seems to suffer from the same.

Supergrover first let me state lest I be accused of being a fanboy that I have never played FOW and most likely never will (I'm happy with Rapid Fire and BKC).However my own view is that any game which highlights wargaming as a hobby can only be a good thing (especially one supported by a figure range,website and supplements).The game may well have some percieved flaws but can you point to one which hasn't?I think all gamers add house rules and fiddle with any ruleset,even those they love,to make them fit what they want from a game.What I find incredible is the way you attack anyone who disagrees with you with unfounded and childish statements.You also constantly fail to answer any questions put to you.I read one another board (Games Desisn) that you use your own rules.Maybe you would care to share them with us?There are countless sets of WW2 rules and what suits one group may well be the last thing another group wants.
If you find yourself becoming so incensed about a set of wargaming rules that you have to personally attack those who enjoy playing them I think it says rather a lot about your own state of mind.

I guess you will now either be rude to me and/or stifle me which seems to be your normal reaction to those who disagree with you.

It's a HOBBY and a GAME you don't have to play or buy the stuff but some choose to do so and thats up to them.It's strange that the people with the most reasoned posts here and the most interesting are those that do play FOW.

For the god knows how many time I don't care who plays it. I know I dont have to buy it and thats not relvent to this in the least.

Its a separate hobby and ti pull s away from historical wargaming. Its not a gateway it does NOT in anyway bring people to the Historical wargames hobby. The onyl rude here has been The idiots starting this thread. The fact you insist in denying that OBVIOUS fact only shows you have no objectivity in this regardless of whether you played the game or not. None of these posts have been reasoned by these guys. Thats just plain BS

Just to help me to understand better the full debate here.

Derek the Uber.. can you tell us what is the best WWII rules to represent such historical scenarios?

"Its a separate hobby and ti pull s away from historical wargaming. Its not a gateway it does NOT in anyway bring people to the Historical wargames hobby."

This is just not true. It may be from your experience in your area but this not true from a general perspective.

2 years ago the only gaming shop in our area has started to sell FOW miniature. As the shop was doing demonstration a growing number of new player (between 25-40 years old) joined and started to play regulary FoW. Now, 2 years later, a lot of these players are also playing different historical wargames like Check your 6!, BKC, Blitzkrieg (french WWII rule), Great War, ancient, etc. All the players are at least playing another wargame, and this has bring a whole new dynamics. Before FoW there was no historical gaming group in the area. Thanks to this game we have now a very active group of player ready to play everything new that you throw at them.

Yes it is true, Its simply is not historical wargaming no matter how many of these dudes make more and more threads and names to attack me. It is its own hobby and is essentially 40K with panzers. There is no validity to assisting with any sales of any other manufacture and nothing other then primarily fan boy insist that its some savior to the hobby. They can insist all they want. Its not saving anything.

So tell us great sage and saviour of our hobby what is historical wargaming?
I do find it amusing that you say you are never rude and then call people idiots and my comment BS all in the same message.
I dont think anyone has claimed FOW is saving the hobby.
You have also just been told by greatpatton that gamers in his area who started out on FOW have begun playing other games and yet you tell him thats not true.Have you been to his group to make such a statement?Have you done a survey to discover no FOW players are moving into other systems or are you just talking rubbish asgain?

These anecdotes proove nothing.

As an aside which rules do you think are historical wargaming rules?Is it the fact that a company has appeared which activly promotes it's own product (which happens to be a wargaming product)which you cannot stand?

You consistantly fail again and again to answer any questions put to you other than hurling insults.

Although I dont have any interest in 15mm WW2 it's nice to have a company putting so much effort into a historical wargame.And of course they want to sell thier stuff,they would be daft not to.

I myself have a friend who was mad about GW products but when I showed him my historical stuff and we played a game or two he began collecting that aswell.On it's own FOW won't open doorways to other games but those who play it may be willing to try other systems/periods if introduced to them.Calling them childish names is not going to do much to make them open to other ideas.If they are happy with FOW thats fine too.They are still playing a miniature wargame wether you think so or not.And if you have never played it how do you Know its 40K with tanks?Or is that just another one of your unfounded facts.

Interestingly a game the sucks even more has been a gateway to FOW, Axis and Allies miniatures. Either way they both pull potential players away from historical minis. Add in the constant rants about complexity and the occasional PC killed wargaming article, its no small wonder everybody talks about wargames demise all the time. Regardless the Fow Fanatics will never force it as some industry standard. Clearly what many of them want to do. narcissism about your local gaming store doesn't proove its some industry savior or gateway. Plus the rabid frothing at the mouth Fanboys and there multi handles, make such anecdotes highly suspect.

err no offense Patton. There's exception to all rules.

I have to have a go at some tongue in cheek mudslung answers to these….just for fun

If they were all actually correct then I would have no problem. Alas several of your statements are plain wrong.

1. A German tank platoon moves crests a ridge, fires at an enemy tank platoon, then disappears back over the ridge (using their "Stormtrooper move"), without taking any return fire, and forcing the enemy to move to get the German tanks back in LOS?

ANswer. This is based on the famous US air cavlry helicopter pop up attacks….no seriously!

There are much as you may find it incredible reports of real German tanks appearing, taking a shot and then being invisible again by the time the enemy gets round to reacting. It is not common for German tanks in games I play to try to do this anyway, SPAT perhaps but tanks tend not to bother.

2. An enemy tank platoon moves from cover to cover, its flanks fully exposed to the enemy during the entire move, and the opposition doesn't get an opportunity to punish the enemy for his stupidity? Schroedinger's Tank Platoon Rule?

Serious Answer (there had to be one) It was a flaw recognised in a boardgame from the 70's that got the nickname Panzer bush since tanks mnoved from bush to bush on the board doing exactly this trick. the writers must have been aware of it and knew this was always going to be exploitable. It says something that they felt they could just ignore it and that gameplay would not suffer from it…or alternatively, it could have been that they said
" if it works for fantasy players, then fine"

Yes, there is no opportunity fire in FoW. If you really want opportunity fire play another game. Personally I have not found the lack of it to be as big an issue as I thought I might and it does significantly speed play.

3. A German Flak 88 (strange that so many Luftwaffe units show up in front-line Heers formations, isn't it?) takes a hit from long-range fire, and the HQ unit – which is within command range of the 88 fired upon and in cover, but not within range of the firing unit – is removed as a casualty?

This is plain wrong. You can't hit a team that is out of range. If you fire at a unit with a gun and an infantry team you can prioitise the gun team as your target.

4. I've seen single Panthers roll up multiple platoons of entrenched enemy infantry because the infantry didn't have a high enough AT value to harm the Panther, and enough Dancing Tank Lines stop short of the enemy infantry and just gun them down with their MGs. Explain to me again how unsupported tanks don't do so well against infantry?

ANswer. Its well known that game tactic is to assault out of cover using the special tank killer rule is what you do since the defenssive assault fire of single panthers is so poor…and they dont have a reverse gear.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I know that any infantry team is capable of defeating a Panther in close assault. OK it can't kill it but it can get a bail and if the lone Panther is bailed in assault it is destroyed. There is a rule to allow infantry in cover to assault tanks without the tanks getting defensive fire but for that to happen the tanks have to be within 4" of the infantry at the start of the infantry move. It normally happens in towns and tanks were well known for being effective against infantry in towns weren't they.

5. Why is my regimental artillery park on the front line?

Answer So you can buy it

Yup, you got me there but then I like the pretty artillery models.

6. Why are infantry units that make frontal assaults over open ground against unpinned enemy infantry positions more successful than not?

ANswer. because the system means that is how you have to attack with infantry and making the results historical means the defender will automatically win

Really? In my experience assaulting enemy infantry across open ground either needs there to be very few enemy or it will fail. All it takes is 5 hits of defensive fire and the attack stops dead.

7. Why does my ambush pop up in the place that benefits me the most, instead of where it (should have been) deployed?

Answer. Avoids you having to write on a peice of paper. Its the avoid the "Lost my pen" delay which is so important in tournament play

Actually I really like the uncertainty of the ambush rule. It partially compensates for the lack of opportunity fire and it forces attacking units to use recce.

8. Why do most of my high-velocity guns lose their effectiveness at the same distance as every other gun, low-velocity howitzers included?

ANswer. So you dont need to thing about different effects for different guns and its all rationalised in the sliding scale which you can say the range band is so big for those guns they are all crap

KISS

9. My tank crews bail out, then re-mount, then bail out and re-mount again? Tell me, if you know, what were tank crews trained to do after bailing out of their vehicle?

Answer: It wasnt diconnect the bungee!

If you ignore the fluff text then it makes more sense. A bailed tank is temporarily out of action, there could be any one of a number of things wrong with it. The odds are that in reality once a crew abandoned thier tank they would never go back till the battle was over.

10. A multiple ROF gun takes out two tanks and forces a third to bail out. How is it that the tank forced to bail out is never the same as one of those that was destroyed?

OK so if you get no more hits on an enemy platoon than there are teams to hit you will get all your hits on different targets. Where is the problem with that? If you get more hits than there are targets you could double kill one team and fail entirely against another.

The long and short is you don't like the game. Other people do. I don't knock the game you like (unless it is DBMM and I don't even knock that anymore). There are several poster on this thread who have stated that in their area FoW has brought players into 'historical' gaming even if you consider playing FoW to not be 'historical' gaming.

I honestly can't see what your problem is.

If you can suggest to me a game that is utterly perfect I will galdly have a look at it and then we can start a thread to discuss it here. If I really like it I will say so. If I find problems then I might just have to start knocking as it seems to be the done thing.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

[…] The point is that you can't provide an answer (using FoW) that allows the correct number of troops to be deployed in the area and for the weapons in the strongpoints to support each other properly.

What was the "correct" number of troops historically? Did that unit operate in isolation, of with a mass of support and preparation? Is it any more correct to not show that support in any other rule set?

I recall from our last go-round on the "frontage" issue that although FoW didn't fit precisely the "right" number of troops in that 24 inch frontage, it came pretty darned close.

As per usual introduce the red herring of figure scale being different from groundscale (which of course also happens in FoW – whichever of the many groundscales you choose to use).

The fact that FoW also uses a different figure-to-ground scale was exactly the point. Again, most of these 'problems' strike me as a degree of an issue rather than some unique problem. If I am to accept the argument of inch-by-inch replication of a battlefield as a problem, I also have to acknowledge that having 18 foot (or bigger) giants stomping around on that same ground is a problem. And have we considered vertical scale yet? Yes, FoW uses a different figure to ground scale, just like most other rules. It further uses a telescoping, or variable scale. I think either option fails the "inch by inch battlefield recreation" test.

Many other sets of rules (though not all) manage to have unit frontages and weapons ranges that are consistent with each other. You do sometimes get things looking crowded (wait a minute that happens in FoW as well).

That it happens in FoW as well is, again, the point! Degrees of abstraction and all that. And what about the oft-seen claim that "basing doesn't matter, so long as it's consistent for both sides" (usually in answer to "can I use my FoW-based stuff?"). Is frontage in relation to scenery important or not? What about depth?

[…] You are basically saying that a tabletop representation of a company assaulting two mutually supporting defensive positions is a good representation of a real life battalion plus supports assaulting the same two mutually supporting positions.

Well, given that the most common complaint about FoW is the fact that the player fields something more than a company's worth of support, that argument seems a bit odd. I never said a company was a good representation of a battalion, any more than you said that battalion is a good representation of anything remotely at the scale and complexity of the Normandy landings. What I did say is that the tactical challenges of assaulting mutually supporting positions can be represented.

Well it isn't. The tactical challenges aren't the same. In real life a single company in such a position would have been pinned down on the beach or thrown back into the sea.

So you're saying that individual battalions could make that same assault in isolation?

FWIW: Battlefront does actually produce rules for beach landings. They are considered outside the normal scope of the game. I'm not sure BF are unique in this.

I think I got it right earlier. FoW can be used for historical scenarios – but only if you set low standards and are easily satisfied.

I think where we disagree most is on how low most rule sets are on that scale. I've yet to play a set of rules yet that offer more than a taste of the complexities of a battlefield. I've yet to see one that doesn't break when pushed to extremes. Expecting a company-level game to represent what you yourself describe as a battalion plus support scenario seems just as unreasonable as expecting a skirmish rule set to represent a company-level action. While you can adapt and represent portions of it, there will of course be shortcomings if you stick to the core rule set.

I will happily give them credit where it is due and I have done so publicly in the past.

I realize that you have, and that's one of the reasons I enjoy two-way discussions with you. But again, if the ramblings of players online count as a negative for a set of game rules, then I'm certainly going to count the assets also provided online. I think BF do a pretty decent job on this count, particularly when compared to most other rule systems.

The modelling and painting forums are both useful and inspirational while the History forums are a fantastic resource. R. Mark Davies is a superstar.

Agreed 100%. There are some wonderful individuals participating there.

Unfortunately the forums are a mixed bag, and most of them are good for nothing but a cheap laugh at fanboy behaviour.

I find the anti-fanboy (grognardian?) behavior equally amusing. That's why I hang out on TMP. :)

They have a nasty culture which accepts and sometimes encourages the bullying of anyone who disagrees with the dominant fanboy view.

Agreed, there is definitely some of that. Then again, if I wear a Yankees cap in downtown Boston, I get some of the same vibe.

The moderators are not good at controlling this and indeed, in the past, some of them were among the worse offenders.

Crazy Ivan is one of the reasons I gave up on the FoW forums. I poke my head in now and again, but the egos do get hard to take.

I don't think it's any big secret that the FoW forums are largely populated by teenagers. I was ever mindful of the fact that whoever I was responding to was likely to have little historical knowledge, nor interest. Having watched my own sons interact with the forums, I figured that youngsters being interested in history was a good thing, so generally responded with that in mind. Finding the odd high-value post (and poster) was a real treat. Fortunately, there are a good number of them out there if one spends some time looking. Watching some of the adults strut around in that environment really made me wonder about their priorities though, especially when they started bragging about drinking and sex.

Battlefront has perhaps courted the younger audience more than many companies, but again, I don't see that as any different than what most companies wish they could do. Despite that, most of the players I actually encounter at games are well into their late 20's, with only my boys and 1 or 2 other teens showing up (and representin' well).

If only their game was a tenth as good as the best resources on that website.

:)

- Bob

Derek the Uber.. can you tell us what is the best WWII rules to represent such historical scenarios?

No. But I could tell you that I've done it with Battlegroup Panzergrenadier.