"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

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.

CI is no longer a moderator. Just as well really.

Bobstro wrote:

I think either option fails the "inch by inch battlefield recreation" test.

But FoW fails it worse than any other set of rules known to modern man.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see the problems caused by the gross distortions of the flexible groundscale.

Acceptance of the flexible groundscale requires that you cope with the idea that two platoons of whatever lined up side by side take up about four or five times the frontage of the same two platoons lined up one behind the other.

It requires that you can cope with the fact that weapons which historically could cover the frontage of a whole battalion, can't cover the frontage of a company.

It's a warped reality where 2x1=4, 3x1=8 and 10x1=100.

Quite how you think you can represent historical actions with this sort of thing going on is quite beyond me.

I'll just give up at this point.

Derek – the scenario you gave i.e. attacking two objectives 1km apart is surely simply outside the scope of a game based around a single infantry company?

I've had no problems fighting historical scenarios. But you do need them to be company sized rather than battalion sized, since it's a company level set of rules…..

I'm not saying the flexi-ground scale isn't a problem, but you can work round it.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

But FoW fails it worse than any other set of rules known to modern man.

Ah, so it is degrees of failure then? Not so much one being "righter"?

I really don't understand how you can fail to see the problems caused by the gross distortions of the flexible groundscale.

I understand fully the problems it creates, while also understanding the benefit it provides. It all comes down to a subjective evaluation of what's desired in a game. Having given up the pretense of "scale accuracy" due to the practical limitations of space, it is then just a question of the degree of abstraction. I'm willing to enter some weird universe where figure scale is unlinked to ground scale in the interests of pretty models and fitting things on the table, so I don't find it a far leap to do a bit more of the same to represent (abstractly) more factors (range, units) on the table. I do prefer that option to entering an equally distorted universe where one figure on the table is really a squad compressed into a single body to fit on that table. I don't find it any more strange than a universe where 18 foot giants lumber around hop-scotching across 60m squares.

Acceptance of the flexible groundscale requires that you cope with the idea that two platoons of whatever lined up side by side take up about four or five times the frontage of the same two platoons lined up one behind the other.

At the benefit of allowing distinction between different weapon types, while still allowing figures to have weapon ranges that extend past their boot-tips, yes.

It requires that you can cope with the fact that weapons which historically could cover the frontage of a whole battalion, can't cover the frontage of a company.

I recall from the previous "frontage" discussion that using the 2 forward, 1 back formation you suggested, things came out pretty close for FoW.

It's a warped reality where 2x1=4, 3x1=8 and 10x1=100.

Also known as a non-linear (note: not random) scale. I contend with them daily, so don't find it a particularly challenging concept to deal with. Such scales provide a means of displaying a large amount of data in a small space, much like trying to represent a larger event in a smaller amount of time and physical space.

That's not to say that I want it for every game. But for a game where I want to represent the interaction of different weapon types, it's a compromise in the interests of practicality. I agree it looks a lot less jarring using 6mm or smaller figures.

Quite how you think you can represent historical actions with this sort of thing going on is quite beyond me.

I've tried to be consistent in this thread and others in explaining that I am after a reasonable representation of the tactical challenges of a situation, and not a faithful scale recreation of a specific battlefield. I can watch a movie or read a book if I want a simple rehash of history. I suspect the reason the actions of history are studied is not because we're planning on storming the beaches at Normandy anytime soon, but because there are similarities in tactical situations that might arise elsewhere that we wish to be prepared for. The same basic tactical situation, whether on the same, larger or smaller scale, is of interest. Being able to play around with these situations with a set of rules that is enjoyable to play appeals to me.

You inserted the historical battlefield recreation, and I readily concede that FoW won't handle that particularly well. I also notice that other rules don't necessarily have greater claims to "accuracy" unless using a 1:1 figure to ground scale. Certainly fuzzing everything to a grid is no more "accurate".

I am also aware that, if we accept that inability to model this sector of Normandy beach that you've described as a benchmark for success of a rule set, most (perhaps all) of the alternate rule sets you've suggested have their own failings, at least based on my own limited understanding:

1. Crossfire gives every weapon the same reach. The whole concept of interlocking positions becomes either unimportant, or at a scale too large for the game, depending on your position. Am I incorrect in understanding that SMGs could provide mutual support between those positions?

2. PBI is written to a scale representing approx. 1/2 km square on the table, making the 1 km between positions difficult to represent on a typical table. Perhaps 8 x 8 foot tables are commonplace some places though? Interestingly, weapon effectiveness dropping off at 60m increments isn't cited as a weakness, high-velocity weapons included.

3. BKC is written to a higher level of game, with much more abstraction of units. It is perhaps better suited to larger-scale actions such as the Normandy scenario you describe. From my games and reading the BKC forums, it seems that there is a commonly-held opinion that non-German forces need a break in order to be be guaranteed the ability to move with regularity. Perhaps this models the need for more colonels down at platoon level?

I'll just give up at this point.

Well, no need for that. But throughout all these discussions, I have been waiting for that grand scales-falling-from-mine-eyes moment where the greater truth is revealed and all the glaring deficiencies of FoW made obvious when compared to the righteous rule sets. And frankly, I'm not seeing it yet. I see other rule sets that are wonderful each in their own ways, but each of which suffer a perhaps different set of limitations. I see one set of abstractions traded for another. I see scenarios presented that none of the suggested rule sets at a similar scale really seem to handle much better. So while I'm all too willing to be preached to, I would prefer that the divine truths be both revealed AND proven to actually be more worthy in some meaningful, objective and consistent manner. The purest of the bunch seem to be skirmish-level rules, and they just aren't going to handle Normandy well. For now, consider me the skeptic of the wargaming world. None of 'em are perfect in my eyes, so I'll play what I enjoy that I can find a game for.

- Bob

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

Nope. Bad sequel, which recycles much of the same footage.

So tell us great sage

Hey! Do you mind!

There's an awful lot of foamy-mouthed carpet-chewing going on here. Just like the heyday of the Napoleonics boards :)

We won't even mention the paranoia

…doh!

Also known as a non-linear (note: not random) scale. I contend with them daily, so don't find it a particularly challenging concept to deal with. Such scales provide a means of displaying a large amount of data in a small space, much like trying to represent a larger event in a smaller amount of time and physical space.

I'm quite happy with non-linear scales in context. It's when you mix up non-linear scales for weapon ranges with a linear-scale for troop frontages that big problems arise.

That's not to say that I want it for every game. But for a game where I want to represent the interaction of different weapon types, it's a compromise in the interests of practicality.

I'd suggest that the flexible scale completely wrecks any attempt to model the interaction of different weapon types in WWII. A large part of how different weapons interact is dependent on their relative ranges. When an AT gun has range the times that of a PIAT or Panzerfaust you're in trouble there.

Re the different sets of rules you discuss

Crossfire: wouldn't work, not at all, ever. It's not designed for actions this size and only works well when there's a lot more cover than exists on a Normandy beach.

PBI: could be made to work just fine and 12 x 4 tables are no problem at my club. You could only really play out the action at the first line of defenses and would probably want to have off-table fire from positions to the rear.

BKC would be my rules of choice here. I'd abstract out casualties from firing, mines etc before the troops hit the beach and take it from there.

bangorstu wrote:

Derek – the scenario you gave i.e. attacking two objectives 1km apart is surely simply outside the scope of a game based around a single infantry company?

OK, a village and a wood are 500 meters apart on the ground. How far apart are you going to put them on your FoW table?

OK, a village and a wood are 500 meters apart on the ground. How far apart are you going to put them on your FoW table?

I would for an FoW game put them about 16" apart or rifle range.

I would for an FoW game put them about 16" apart or rifle range.

So your 6' x 4' FoW table now has a company with a few supports spread out over a frontage of just over 2.5 Km.

That's the sort of frontage that, historically, would hold a brigade or two plus supports in any sort of major attack or a battalion in defense.

"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"

Pray tell, where are these "more and more threads"? We need the netertainment. Oh, they're just in your head, are they? Bummer, dude…

aecurtis wrote

Nope. Bad sequel, which recycles much of the same footage.

You'd think I'd learn, but I don't. Must stop.

And at least Supergrover is providing alternative entertainment.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

I'm quite happy with non-linear scales in context. It's when you mix up non-linear scales for weapon ranges with a linear-scale for troop frontages that big problems arise.

Other than recreating a specific battlefield, where does this problem typically arise? I understand what you're saying about the unit frontages not matching up at different ranges, but what exactly does this break, other than offending the sensibilities of someone who prefers linear scales?

I'd suggest that the flexible scale completely wrecks any attempt to model the interaction of different weapon types in WWII. A large part of how different weapons interact is dependent on their relative ranges. When an AT gun has range the times that of a PIAT or Panzerfaust you're in trouble there.

It's the ranges of weapons relative to each other that's important. If that PIAT is out of range, but my AT gun can still reach, does it matter by how much? Sure, you have to abstract it as "has a reasonable chance to hit", but most rule sets do that. (May have misinterpreted what you wrote here.)

Re the different sets of rules you discuss

Crossfire: wouldn't work, not at all, ever. It's not designed for actions this size and only works well when there's a lot more cover than exists on a Normandy beach.

Agreed. An interesting set of rules, nonetheless with a lot of interesting ideas.

PBI: could be made to work just fine and 12 x 4 tables are no problem at my club. You could only really play out the action at the first line of defenses and would probably want to have off-table fire from positions to the rear.

It does look like a table at least 8 1/2 feed wide would be required, which can be an issue for many gamers. So short of a large table, players should simply not bother then? That's not an outrageously large table at least.

BKC would be my rules of choice here. I'd abstract out casualties from firing, mines etc before the troops hit the beach and take it from there.

Yes, a set of rules played at an altogether different level of game does seem to be preferable for this sort of scenario. So given that, the battlefield specifics as a requirement seem to be softening a bit…

[in another message…] So your 6' x 4' FoW table now has a company with a few supports spread out over a frontage of just over 2.5 Km.

Your company is advancing towards to mutually-supporting positions. Surely that happened? Why the insistence on forcing FoW into larger scale scenarios?

That's the sort of frontage that, historically, would hold a brigade or two plus supports in any sort of major attack or a battalion in defense.

If you insist on applying a true 1:1 figure to ground scale, then yes. If you're using something else, then the same fundamental "that size ain't right" problem applies, no matter what you do. Again, if you're trying to recreate a map, it doesn't work. If you're trying to recreate a tactical situation (assaulting mutually-supporting positions), it does.

- Bob

You didn't respond to my cold joke, kyote. No response for you!

- Bob

"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"

I know I have stifled him but I found this hilarious. Paranoid AND suffering from a persecution complex too LOL. Nobody has made any threads about him.

Q. OK, a village and a wood are 500 meters apart on the ground. How far apart are you going to put them on your FoW table?

A> I would for an FoW game put them about 16" apart or rifle range.

thats cool….You can shut off a 500 yard gap from tanks with piats in either wood……
no wait they are too close together arent they if you can do that,

but if they are further apart they are outside rifle range…….HELP HELP WHAT DO I DO?????????
I need them further apart and closer together AT THE SAME TIME…..Any fow experts out there able to tell me the answer?

Don't stifle him. It's a lot more fun watching him respond out of sync.

- Bob

LOL Thats true Bob.

And at least Supergrover is providing alternative entertainment.

Everything I said you have agreed with you pompous , somehow its legit coming form you? LMFAO Bob and iron mike should be after you. You do more then even the Fan boys at legitimizing every post I make prooving beyond doubt that is a bunch of punks flaming for kicks.

I need them further apart and closer together AT THE SAME TIME…..Any fow experts out there able to tell me the answer?

You think you've got problems. I was going to form up my British infantry battalion with two up and one back in the space between the village and the wood.

In real life that would have been plenty of space, but I can't even find room to deploy a single company with the 16" allowed to me.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo!!! Not Dawghoused!

Where is the entertainment value in that?!?!?

Jeebus, Bill: when directly calling someone an idiot isn't "bad enough" (your words) to DH someone, how on earth is calling someone "weak minded" more insulting?

You've ruined the joy and amusement source that this thread had become.

Allen

kevanG wrote:

[…] thats cool….You can shut off a 500 yard gap from tanks with piats in either wood……
no wait they are too close together arent they if you can do that,

but if they are further apart they are outside rifle range…….HELP HELP WHAT DO I DO?????????

At 500 yards, they're outside rifle range in PBI, and both would be off the map using the 8x8 square table described in the rules. OK, you can always play on a bigger table. No problem. That range is just over 8 squares (LMG range), but within HMG range (Unlimited. Fun on that 12 foot table, eh?) -- Please correct me if I'm reading PBI incorrectly. You round range squares up, correct?)

Everything is in range in Crossfire,so that gap is equally covered by the PIAT, is it not? (I am not that familiar with Crossfire, so it's an honest question.)

So to answer your question, I'd suggest to JHH that the 24 inch HMG range band is more appropriate. I'd also use a common set of success criteria and describe how to accomplish it with each, or at least one other set of rules rather than just cherry picking a situation that doesn't work particularly well in one or the other. More like "here's something we've actually played" in other words. (Maybe you do, but the answers to the Normandy scenario only mentioned "could be" played on a 12 foot table at your club.) Let's at least have some goalposts, even if you do move them around a bit.

Depending on the scenario, I might also fuss at whoever's setting up billiard tables with 500m expanses with no intervening terrain that could be used for cover or concealment.

Again, I look at it from a tactical perspective rather than a map maker's. I suspect most field tacticians don't go looking for terrain exactly 500m meters apart. I assume they'll look for terrain that allows for mutually-supporting positions. Similarly, on the attack, they might seek to avoid exactly those same terrain features, or at least reconnoiter them carefully. This probably underscores the importance of having some sort of ambush mechanism so the attacker doesn't know precisely what is in each of those positions.

Perfect? Certainly no more so than any other rules. Sufficient to model a tactical situation? Certainly. (It's the same one.) Am I game for trying out other options? Absolutely. I'm awaiting v2 of Battlegroup Panzergrenadier for exactly that reason. Have I seen any alternative company-level rules that completely blow me away with how much more thoroughly they handle this specific situation? No, not yet.

- Bob

aecurtis wrote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo!!! Not Dawghoused! […]

And not even for this thread! I, for one, feel disenfranchised.

Derek, I just want you to know that I never thought that you agreed with everything Herr Grover wrote. It seems FoW isn't the only set of rules that attracts "certain types." :)

Things will be quiet around here until the weekend I expect. So, nice weather we're having, eh?

- Bob

Well, heck, then: go on over to the FoW forum! Where, by the way, I just pointed out Steve Miller's recent game as one of good troop density on the tbale:

link

Tht's a darned good-looking game. I'd enjoy playing that. (Now somebody will have to say something about the 88s…)

Allen

Supergrover: Everything I said you have agreed with you pompous @%"$*, somehow its legit coming form you? LMFAO Bob and iron mike should be after you. You do more then even the Fan boys at legitimizing every post I make prooving beyond doubt that is a bunch of punks flaming for kicks.

The amount of times you've laughed it off, your ass must be several miles away from the rest of you by now. Tell us again about how FoW has no relation to wargaming. I love that bit.

bobstro wrote:

Derek, I just want you to know that I never thought that you agreed with everything Herr Grover wrote.

I don't and I didn't think you thought I did.

If that makes sense.

In an almost, but not completely totally unabstract way, yes. :)

Supergrover: "Everything I said you have agreed with you pompous @%"$*, somehow its legit coming form you? LMFAO Bob and iron mike should be after you. You do more then even the Fan boys at legitimizing every post I make prooving beyond doubt that is a bunch of punks flaming for kicks."

I for one do not "flame" for "kicks". And I want to make it clear that I was truly offended by his behavior and posts, his name calling and insults. I have been here for quite a while and thoroughly enjoy most discussions here LOL.And Im glad to see that others here feel the same LOL. Now as to the subject of this thread. I tend to agree with most here. Though not a player of FoW I do think it has had an impact on the hobby.

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

Or perhaps not."

Actually, using historical tactics like mutual supporting positions, reverse slope positions, et al actually do work in FOW, and usually very well.

The fact that not everyone uses those tactics sometimes makes it easier for those that do…

"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 know, one day (had you kept playing FOW), you might have figured out that while those things can work, they tend to fall flat against a 'real' integrated defensive line. When the tanks can't shoot the infantry then assault them without losing a platoon or two for no result.

Kind of hard to "Kill the big stuff" when your opponent hasn't actually taken any big stuff for you to kill, to "Mop up the Infantry" when there isn't any, or while you've been trying to do the above, your opponent has snuck a Recon platoon onto the Objective you've left unguarded. No matter how high you roll, or how poorly your opponent rolls, you can still lose a game of FOW if you forget the actual goal of the mission is to take or protect a piece of ground.

The US habit of just playing 3 games and calling it a tournament also doesn't help, as Tank armies usually do better at some missions, so when you have 2 out of 3 missions that favour tanks, often on unhistorical terrain, you see unhistorical tactics work at times.

""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."

The problem with the tactics forum is that it's a text based medium trying to describe a tabletop usually with dozens of pieces of terrain, against an opponent list that is often variable with a mission that changes.

Of course it's going to be pretty average advice!
Far too many variables to cover without a accurate map and interaction with the other player.
The best advice is usually very generic and there are no definite ways to guarantee a win.

"" 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.""

"CI is no longer a moderator. Just as well really."

Actually he also got banned from the FOW forums for some months and has only just returned from the exile.

Bob wrote

"At 500 yards, they're outside rifle range in PBI, and both would be off the map using the 8x8 square table described in the rules. OK, you can always play on a bigger table. No problem. That range is just over 8 squares (LMG range), but within HMG range (Unlimited. Fun on that 12 foot table, eh?) -- Please correct me if I'm reading PBI incorrectly. You round range squares up, correct?)"

Why do PBI or crossfire ranges have anything to do with how far apart 2 woods should go on the FOW game table?? In PBI it is determined by squares.

500 yards is 8 or 9 squares depending on whether you equate it to 480 or 540. the weapon ranges are equated to the squares.

Lets ask how far apart two woods in FOW at 300 yards should be?

In PBI that is 5 squares and you can drive tanks between them outside bazooka range from both sides and rifles, lmgs, hmgs can all fire across the gap.

How does FOW deal do that? The answer is that the sliding scale means it can't and the "sliding" is actual just multiple values of the same 8 inches, a size linked into movement too.

movement per turn and ranges are arbitarily linked in FOW for some unknown reason

kevanG wrote:

[…] Why do PBI or crossfire ranges have anything to do with how far apart 2 woods should go on the FOW game table??

They are relevant because:

1. If you're describing something that is difficult or impossible to achieve with most rule sets at the same level as FoW, then it's meaningful to compare how (or if) the same thing can be represented better without compromise. To describe something as "broken" implies something else has it as "not broken"… unless one is just grousing!

2. Those are the rule sets that I have handy for a basis of comparison.

3. For the same reason you guys keep explaining why you're trying to shove battalion-sized forces into a company-level game. :)

[…] Lets ask how far apart two woods in FOW at 300 yards should be?

Let's not. Again, that's the map-maker's view. I'm not saying it's wrong, but to understand what I'm saying, you have to look at it in terms of tactical challenges, not yardstick measurements. So how are those terrain features located in terms of implications. Can riflemen support each other? HMG? ATG? If you want to represent something specific, such as the Normandy beach with interlocking positions, start with that description. Again, I don't think that the scary part of facing such a position is that the two woods are located 300 yards apart. It's that units concealed within can provide each other mutual cover. Or putting it another way: The defender should be selecting positions based on tactical advantages and not geographic distances. I'm sure the tactical guidance is to select positions from which mutual support can be offered, which requires consideration of not only distance, but intervening terrain and other conditions. It would be a real disappointment for a commander to select the "ideal" locations for his units using a map to locate positions exactly 300 yards apart, only to find that there's a sizable wood running between them in reality. Or?

[…] In PBI that is 5 squares and you can drive tanks between them outside bazooka range from both sides and rifles, lmgs, hmgs can all fire across the gap.

Now who's doing it? :) This sounds more like a dispute of the range assigned to the weapon (the PIAT) more than anything to do with the variable scale. Were PBI to assign the PIAT 1/2 the range of the rifle, the same issue would be present, would it not? I know bazooka and PIAT ranges have been argued at length, but I didn't follow those threads closely. But I notice that there's little objection to house rules to overcome minor issues with other rule sets. Doesn't a simple house rule limiting the PIAT to Panzerfaust range (4 inches) take care of this "issue"?

How does FOW deal do that? The answer is that the sliding scale means it can't and the "sliding" is actual just multiple values of the same 8 inches, a size linked into movement too.

IIRC, the bands for direct fire are 2 inches (close assault), 4 inches (SMG), 8 (Bazooka, assault rifle), 16 (rifle), 24 (ATG), 32 (most tank guns) and 40 inches (long range guns), each of which can be correlated to a rough range band. Yes, it is linked to movement. Just like… PBI's squares! Presumably for the same reasons of gameplay. 8 inches is enough to fit a fair amount of stuff into, and it's certainly a lot simpler than having to measure and calculate with mm precision.

I think FoW can, in fact, handle the tactical situation you're describing, just not using exact ground measurements. In other words, if you want it to, it can succeed. I'm sure we can all come up with contrived situations that break any rule set in one way or another. There are some things some rule sets simply won't do well. That doesn't mean they are inherently broken, but rather they're just not the set to use to model what you're after. But with some adaptation, be it a bigger table, house rules to tweak ranges or whatever, players can model the tactical situation they want to with a bit of forethought. Again, the players make the game. If one comes into a game looking for the worst, they'll find it. If one comes into a game looking for the best, they'll find it.

movement per turn and ranges are arbitarily linked in FOW for some unknown reason

It seems to be a characteristic of many games at this level, true. PBI does it using squares. Crossfire makes both limitless. (Apologies if I've mis-characterized any.) FoW uses 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 for most regular movement. I'm not sure how that links to weapons range bands of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 40, other than both represent distance.

But unless we're really prepared to worry about the actual ground speed differences of vehicles, the condition of each patch of road and link to a fixed time scale for each bit of movement, that degree of granularity is probably "close enough" for gaming purposes. Things are either in range, or out.

3. For the same reason you guys keep explaining why you're trying to shove battalion-sized forces into a company-level game. :)

Actually I'm trying to point out that FoW shoves a company sized game on a table that's big enough for a battalion sized game.

And that's just if you use the lower end of the sliding scale.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

Actually I'm trying to point out that FoW shoves a company sized game on a table that's big enough for a battalion sized game. […]

Well wait. Didn't you write a couple of pages back:

In real life that would have been plenty of space, but I can't even find room to deploy a single company with the 16" allowed to me.

Do you mean it's too big or too small?

I'm not trying to catch you out here. I am honestly curious about the whole "frontage" issue in relation to a WW2 game. Do you mean this to refer to the physical space occupied by a base, or the zone of control that base exerts? I have no claim to any particular wargame or military expertise, but I can't say that I've encountered the term "frontage" much in modern rules wherein spreading out is generally a good thing. I'm not aware of too many WW2 rules that use a base size equal to the size of the area the unit would physically occupy, but perhaps I'm simply ignorant. If you mean something other than the physical space occupied by the base, would you please expand?

Assuming base-to-base contact, and fully expecting a well-deserved pounding, I can certainly deploy the 7 bases of a British rifle platoon in a space roughly 8 inches wide using a 2 squads forward (4 stands X 2 inch width), 1 back formation, varying on where I place the PIAT, light mortar and command teams. A company deployed in a 2 platoons forward, 1 back formation will fit within 16 inches. Again, I'm not sure exactly why I'd want to so, but I can see as a general measurement of coverage.

Good stuff, as always.

- Bob

Do you mean it's too big or too small?

Depends on which bit of the sliding scale you think about.

If you take the scale of unit frontages from artillery ranges then a 6ft table is about 10km wide – enough for a couple of Divisions, if not more in real life.

If you think about 1" = 5yds, probably about right for close combat (2", 10m), and SMGs (4", 20m), then the table would be 360m across, a reasonable frontage for a company attack.

But then your rifles would have a range of only 80m and ATGs on one flank of the company (which in real life probably had an effective range of about 1km) can't fire at enemy tanks on the other flank 300 meters away.

How can you not see the problem?

Do you mean it's too big or too small?

One of the troubles with the flexible scale is that things can be too big and too small at the same time.

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

[…] How can you not see the problem?

I see a trade-off of compromises. The variable ground scale lets me represent things like difference between long range and short range weapons on the table. The alternatives are to either not reflect these differences (leaves out important aspects of battle), do so on a massive table (none locally, and my back doesn't like long reaches), or play with a very large figure-to-ground scale (magnifying the effect of that difference to jarring levels of visual disconnect).

Rather than make the case in game terms, let me present this from the perspective of what I'm after in a WW2 game. My expectations came from my early working years in Berlin during the early-mid 1980's. During that time, I spent a fair amount of time trundling about in trucks and sedans driven by aging WW2 German veterans, and had the opportunity to talk to several about their experiences. Several comments about land warfare made a deep impression on me. Paraphrasing, they were:

1. We didn't worry about the American tanks. We could out-range and out-maneuver them. We only feared the American air. (PzKw IV driver with both eastern and western front combat experience. He was intrigued by the GHQ armor I showed him.)

2. We could out-fight the American tanks 10:1. The problem was, they always had that 11th tank.

My father also related to me a discussion with a fellow that had commanded a Tiger (I am remembering a Tiger II, but am not certain of it) near the end of the war. His unit was in disbelief that their side was losing, as they'd always been fully supplied. Apparently, they were somebody's pet unit. I also heard numerous recountings of surviving the Soviet artillery in the last days of Berlin, and my homes during those years bore the scars of those days.

I also have thousands of other impressions that are probably of not interest to anybody reading. The point being that none of these descriptions sounded like they were overly concerned about organizational levels or measurement issues. These veterans always seemed to focus on the something just above Company level (supply, range, artillery and air), while still emphasizing individual action and the importance of cover. Not to say that they felt that they controlled these factors of course. But these factors certainly all seemed to crop up in the accounts I heard. To not represent them, to me, leaves something out.

So when I look for a WW2 wargame, I want one that:

1. Allows the differences in weapon ranges and capabilities to be represented, particularly armor and AT weapons.

2. Allows for differences in fighting unit skills and training to be represented.

3. Allows for differences in quantity of matériel to be represented, including "big things" like air and artillery.

4. Represents the actions of individual units and crews, not just counters or tokens.

And of course, all the practical aspects of fitting onto an available table and having opponents. For me, personally, FoW hits those buttons. My games "feel" like what the old tankers described. I'm certainly not going to say this invalidates anybody else's vision of what a game should feel like, but it is decidedly my view.

Now I'm always willing to try new things out, and have specifically purchased PBI, Crossfire, IABSM, BKC, CD4 and other rule sets based on comments and recommendations here on TMP. While I do not dispute that these are excellent rule sets, each seems to me to diminish one aspect of the game I want or another. I still anticipate having a great time with each of them.

As I think I mentioned before, the next step down in game granularity that seems to "feel right" to me is skirmish-level games.

What I'm getting at here is that my preference for FoW isn't based on bull-headed obstinance, or a lack of understanding of the implications of game mechanics, but rather it is desire for a set of rules that provides a very specific sort of feel. (It's also not based on rabid, fan-boy loyalty to some company that wants my money, but I think we're past that.) When I look at a gaming table, I'm not thinking in terms of geographical placement, but rather what Papa Genshaw, Hans or any of those other veterans might have seen. Never mind the placement of the woods. What's in them and how do I deal with that?

I would be very much interested in hearing about rules that anybody feels do hit these buttons.

- Bob

Amusing TMP bug. When I made a quick edit to my last message, something about AWI beaver pelts appeared in it's place. Somehow, that didn't seem completely out of character for this thread. :)

- Bob

Sturmgrenadier wrote:

[…] Actually he also got banned from the FOW forums for some months and has only just returned from the exile.

Dare I ask, what could he have possibly done that was worse than his usual?

- Bob

As I recall, images of the fair sex were involved.

"One of the troubles with the flexible scale is that things can be too big and too small at the same time."

Yes, Alice.

Yes, Alice.

Thanks for reminding me of that Allen.

link

Talking about Crazy Ivan Allen wrote:

As I recall, images of the fair sex were involved.

Anyone else remember his public meltdown over that model who played FoW? Alicia or something.

Car crash forum watching that was.

When I look at a gaming table, I'm not thinking in terms of geographical placement, but rather what Papa Genshaw, Hans or any of those other veterans might have seen.

So how many WWII German infantrymen do you think ever got to see the battery of medium artillery which was breaking up their attack?

Or how many of the British tank crews whos tanks were knocked out in Operation Goodwood ever saw what did it?

[Edit: Never mind. The link came back.]

Ah, I remember her. She seemed nice enough, but watching those guys go on (and on and on) about her made me a bit embarrassed for them. When it got to mixing alcohol and Viagra is about when I tuned out.

- Bob

Derek the Ueber Grogranard wrote:

[…] So how many WWII German infantrymen do you think ever got to see the battery of medium artillery which was breaking up their attack?

To see it the actual battery? Probably very few. To have it directly influence the flow of their day? Most of 'em. It certainly wasn't described as a random event that occasionally dropped into a location nearby. It was something that was specifically out to hurt them and their buddies, and that often did.

Or how many of the British tank crews whos tanks were knocked out in Operation Goodwood ever saw what did it?

I can't, of course, talk to the dead guys. (Sadly, most of those I did talk to are probably dead by now.) I did actually work with a very nice fellow who worked in the Finance group who was a veteran of the British desert campaigns. Sadly, I don't remember most of the details. But they were keenly aware of what was shooting at them, although I suppose the usual "everything's a Tiger" fog of war applies.

But again, they didn't describe what was coming at them as "out of scale", "at a higher (or lower) level" or "random, off table factors". They were things that they were keenly aware of as "on the table" in terms of "their game". They didn't really seem to care who was shooting at them so much as what it was and in what volume.

I won't profess to having done thousands of hours of interviews. These were just random lunchtime discussions between a then-20 something and some nice old men that happened to have been out to kill his relatives a few decades prior.

I do wish I'd finally found out whether the mean old hag that lived down the hall was really one of Hitler's secretaries! She certainly enjoyed ratting out neighbors.

- Bob

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's called jockeying between hull down fire positions and every army in the west was practicing it by 1944, the Canadians used it in Italy and trained for it while based in the UK.

There are also plenty of reports, most notably from my reading of Soviet tanks popping up out of ravines and firing and then disappearing along the route to Stalingrad when the Germans were trying to push to open up the routes to it.
--
Tim

I seem to be missing Derek's last post. From what I can gather of Ditto Bird's response, I assume it was a reference to the FoW Storm Trooper mechanism. It does give a feel reminiscent of the German armor's ability to out-maneuver and out-range their opponents as it was described to me.

It's certainly not a certainty in the game, requiring a 3+ roll to execute most of the time, and effective use requires some tactical thinking. Certainly no worse than giving the Germans extra command points, extra "commanders" and the like.

- Bob

1. Crossfire gives every weapon the same reach. The whole concept of interlocking positions becomes either unimportant, or at a scale too large for the game, depending on your position. Am I incorrect in understanding that SMGs could provide mutual support between those positions?

Oops, sorry Bobstro, but baloney.

You don't appear to know anything about CF or have never played. Your comment about SMGs shows you have little understanding of what the organizational concepts in CF are. Interlocking fire positions and making sure of a positions fire arcs is a vitally important part of setting up any defence and for an advancing attacker. It's what the game is all about.

Please don't start making up pure drivel just because some one is behaving like an unreasonably rabid dog towards your favourite game.
--
Tim