"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

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.

Possibly valid for early war, but as I said, by 1944, if not sooner, all western countries at least, and certainly late war Soviets knew the basics of armoured combat which is fire a few rounds, then change position as quickly as possible.

Certainly no worse than giving the Germans extra command points, extra "commanders" and the like.

I'm not a FOW player, but also not a basher of FOW, but, yes, the post to which I originally responded to sounded like – and it's very possible I am interpreting it incorrectly – sounds as if it very much is worse than giving a side extra command points or what have you.
--
Tim

I'd suggest that the flexible scale completely wrecks any attempt to model the interaction of different weapon types in WWII.

Like Bobstro, I am at a loss for any justification of this statement. There are other rule sets out there with variable range scales as an attempt to deal with disparity in ground scale versus miniature scale and limitations of playing on a table.

Yes, the argument about accurately representing a historical battlefield is legitimate, but on the other hand, in 15mm or bigger and even with microscale, the miniature/ground scale disparity guffs everything up anyway.

However, if one is able to adjust to a "representative" battlefield in the same way we adjust to the usually ridiculously bigger miniature scale compared to ground scale, then one can get a decent game.

To me the argument about the range scale issues are the lamest of the anti-FOW rants.
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

Oops, sorry Bobstro, but baloney.

You don't appear to know anything about CF or have never played.

Mea Culpa if I have it wrong. I have stated repeatedly that I have read the rules but not mastered them, and I have gone to pains to ask for clarification if I do have it wrong. For the record, I am a CF, IABSM and PBI noob! Smack me where appropriate.

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.

I am glad to hear it. Again, I have likely greatly misunderstood a great deal. I am only citing and asking about it because I have it handy for comparison. My nose has primarily been in PBI, I admit. The issue at hand was ability to represent (or not) the difference between short-range (PIATs, SMGs) and longer-range (rifle, LMG and HMG) weapons. So SMGs can not, in fact, provide support in this manner?

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

I did ask to be corrected if wrong! The situation described involved movement through areas covered by some weapons while out of range of others.

I truly would like a comparison of how the various systems work. I have not had the opportunity to play anything other than CD4, BKC, IABSM at this game level. I mean this sincerely: Please elaborate on how such a scenario might be played out! I'm really not interested in a "winner" between any of the game systems. However, I do bring up the other rules to illustrate that there are often-similar abstractions and/or compromises in most rules to represent similar issues or abstractions.

- Bob

To all reading, this isn't meant as some weaselly attempt to make a point. I am genuinely interested in how the various rule systems handle the various sticky game situations that always seem to pop up, and just as importantly, why experienced players prefer one over the other. Please take all that I write in that vein!

We're also well off the topic of FoW impact, but I fear starting a fresh thread on "Comparing FoW to <Whatever>" would only start another heated exchange, and we seem to be past the worst of that here.

Ditto Bird wrote:

Possibly valid for early war, but as I said, by 1944, if not sooner, all western countries at least, and certainly late war Soviets knew the basics of armoured combat which is fire a few rounds, then change position as quickly as possible.

I have had rather lengthy exchanges on the FoW forums on this very topic, trust me. :) I mentioned earlier in this thread that allowing guns to move double their normal movement in a special move is silly. I am not wild about how Stormtrooper moves are implemented in FoW, believe me! As a house rule, I'd favor having each unit roll for that capability, as the Italian units roll to determine skill levels. Then again, I'd like for my Russians to gain the ability, so I'd be accused of bias there. (I can also see why one might question why BF implemented "Stormtrooper" this way, and the M10 Tank Hunter rules differently -- so I'm pointing out another possible FoW concern.)

But to the topic of comparing FoW to others: I note that many rules (I'll try to avoid misrepresenting any specifics at this point) give the Germans extra command bonuses that give them potential to take extra actions with some number of units each turn. In FoW, the German player can roll 1d6 and on a 3+, get an extra partial (4 inch) move at the end of each of that player's turns. A 67% chance of making that extra move for every unengaged move is probably higher than other rules (is it?), but I suspect players in those other rules tend to expend those points/impulses or whatever on the same units. Additionally, it's only a partial move (compared to a 8 or 12 inch normal move for armor) and does not allow for firing or other aggressive actions. I see a lot of commonality in approach, although implemented quite differently.

I'm not a FOW player, but also not a basher of FOW, but, yes, the post to which I originally responded to sounded like – and it's very possible I am interpreting it incorrectly – sounds as if it very much is worse than giving a side extra command points or what have you.

May I ask how? At a fundamental level (concerns about "Magic Movement"), I think they both are similar. Germans get to move more frequently in the end. Are there other wrinkles that you see?

[I did note the rule about SMGs firing with reduced effectiveness at range in Crossfire. I'm still not certain of the PIAT's effectiveness at rifle ranges though. Still reading.]

Good stuff, and thanks for setting me straight, Tim. Did I understand that you're an ex-tanker? If so, I may ask you some of those many questions I neglected to ask those vets when I sat next to them all those years ago, if you don't mind.

- Bob

There's been a very gratifying improvement in the signal to noise ratio in this thread over the past couple of days while I've been away. Thanks for the interesting & civil discussions Bob, Derek et al.

To me the argument about the range scale issues are the lamest of the anti-FOW rants.

Perhaps the major problem with the FoW flexible groundscale is that it means that many weapons just cannot do things that they were used for historically. Examples:

Historically an ATG with an effective range of 1km could potentially protect the frontage of an infantry battalion. A FoW ATG with a range of 24" can't even cover the frontage of a company.

In real life a British 3" mortar platoon (range about 1.5km) could be set up somewhere central in a battalion's defensive position from where it could potentially provide fire support anywhere it was needed.. A FoW 3" mortar with it 32" range can't even provide support for the normal FoW company spread over a 6ft table.

I just can't understand why anyone thinks this sort of stuff models the interaction between the weapon systems in anything resembling a reasonable fashion.

It makes some weapons much less effective than they were historically.

Tim,
"To me the argument about the range scale issues are the lamest of the anti-FOW rants."

Fow sliding scale is to rules what "heroic" is to 28mm miniatures.

The one that struck me about disparity of scale was the tactical use of 25pdrs in the desert.

They were attached down to Battlegroups to provide immediate and instant direct fire support based on engaging the enemy directly over open sights. They could fire out to the visible horizon in an effective manner and were an anti-88 weapon.

Yet the sliding scale mechanism means that these weapons have different range bands where one can engage the other but it cannot reciprocate without switching to indirect fire….yet they are effectively firing at maximum visability and somehow it's different by weapon.

one also has to ask the question why bazookas have the same range as assault rifles? I hope bob got that bit wrong, but does this not mean that supporting infantry with assault rifles coming up behind tanks would not be able to engage bazookas to the tanks front before the tanks can be engaged by the bazookas? this sort of interaction of weapons distorts how you set out your troops and doesnt represent what ww2 was about. To avoid bazooka armed infantry, assault rifles need to proceed the tanks?

When you start arranging troops in different ways from historical tactical deployments because of rule mechanisms, it is way beyond the start of a slippery slope, its arrived at a crumpled heap at the bottom.

You have weapons exposed when they should be immune and weapons immune when they should be exposed and troops providing support from in front rather than behind.

Back to Front and A**e for Elbow

The old Alice link brings it all back….

Crossfire. I'm still not certain of the PIAT's effectiveness at rifle ranges though. Still reading.

That and Panzerfaust ranges. There are a few problems in CF, but most of these can boil down to terrain set up which is vital, since terrain layout takes the place of rulers. If the terrain is dense enough in a scenario, the PIAT and panzerfaust ranges don't seem that bad. As much as I'd love to, I shouldn't hijack the topic though. This is about FOW and its impact, which I think is very good.

We have a very small community here, with my friends and I who have been playing games with each other since grade school. But over the past few years a couple of stores have been doing gaming – one mostly Battletech and GW, another Axis and Alies and collectable card games. A couple of my gaming friends participate in both of these stores, but I can't countenance some of the people I've heard about handling my miniatures, plus none of my stuff (1:72 WWII) is sold at either store. Anyway, one Battletech fellow came up to me during a recent small gaming show a number of us put on (I was running a Crossfire game, link ) and told me he had a FOW army he was working on. I was rather pleased with that, myself. He had recently graduated with an undergrad degree from our university.
--
Tim

At a fundamental level (concerns about "Magic Movement"), I think they both are similar. Germans get to move more frequently in the end. Are there other wrinkles that you see?

Now, again, I emphasize I haven't played the game, and am interpreting the stormtrooper (silly, silly name, embarrasingly so to me, but that's just me) feature based on descriptions here. It seems to me that it's not just extra moves, but extra immunity from fire. Sure, Germans may be given extra moves or move ability (as they are in Crossfire with respect to command and control limitations) but this does make them any more immune to fire.

Again I am interpreting from what I am reading here, but the Stormtrooper move seems to represent skillful use of ground, which is an essential skill of any armoured vehicle commander. I emphasize again that jockeying from fire position to fire position was a skill that was used by al the major combatants in WWII and it seems silly to me to just allow the Germans to do this. It may not be a dumb mechanism (I have other mechanisms to represent fire from hull down positions and moves away from them), but it sounds to me like one that should be potentially available to more than just Germans.

If it's a skill roll that indicates if this is done successfully, then perhaps other nations should have it too and the roll required should be based on level of training and experience. In other words, perhaps scenario based. Late war (late 44 and 45) German tank commanders did not appear to be as skilful as their predecessors because of reduced training and I've read of a couple of allied accounts where the tanks were commanded in a very dumb fashion.
--
Tim

KevanG wrote:

[…] The one that struck me about disparity of scale was the tactical use of 25pdrs in the desert. […] Yet the sliding scale mechanism means that these weapons have different range bands where one can engage the other but it cannot reciprocate without switching to indirect fire….yet they are effectively firing at maximum visability and somehow it's different by weapon.

one also has to ask the question why bazookas have the same range as assault rifles? I hope bob got that bit wrong […]

I'm nearly certain (but now nervous) that I've got it right. :)

Are these really issues with the variable scale? It seems to me that any set of rules that gives these pairs of weapons the same range will be subject to the same complaints, regardless of ground scale. I recall that bazooka, PIAT and HMG ranges have been heatedly debated on the FoW forums.

A house rule to bump back the bazooka and PIAT ranges certainly sounds like something that could be lobbied for. Making them more like the Panzerfaust in terms of ability to move and fire is another possibility, as they'd be in range before being able to fire. A similar argument can probably be made for the range of 25 pounders. These are simple changes that don't radically alter the game otherwise. BF have made weapon adjustments official after publication when sufficient (in their eyes) evidence has been presented.

But first, I'm going to kick whoever set up the table to allow lanes of fire that make the gun direct fire ranges a factor if we're not playing a desert or open steppe game… and maybe even then! :)

You have, however, underscored a point that I have been trying to make: FoW does let factors such as varying ranges between weapons be represented. An assault rifle should (it may be argued) outrange a bazooka. A 25 pounder should (it may again be argued) be able to take on an 88 in direct fire (and on the table, no less). These were factors that are related in accounts of battles.

BF may have some the individual ranges wrong (I've not researched it enough to comment either way), but those factors come into play as they did in history, just as you've described. That's an excellent example of "things that should be on the table".

When you start arranging troops in different ways from historical tactical deployments because of rule mechanisms, it is way beyond the start of a slippery slope, its arrived at a crumpled heap at the bottom.

Thankfully, these are factors that can easily be tweaked if you find they're influencing your actual games to any degree. (Are they, or are these hypothetical "issues"?) Meanwhile, the battlefield factors can still be represented in our games rather than just leaving them out as "too large a scale" or "not at this organizational level".

- Bob

Fow sliding scale is to rules what "heroic" is to 28mm miniatures.

My solution in my previous home brew rules to wanting longer ranged combat and to not have an SMG shooting across a city street to be long range was to introduce something where I used 1" = 10 yards up to 20". At 20", it became 1" = 20 yards, ie, 20" was 200/400 yards.

I use the same variable range scale when we use ranges in Crossfire – my house rules, which I call "Officer Commanding" treat AFVs like infantry with respect to command and control and movement. In the unlikely event (based on terrain layout) a tank moves 20 or more inches in a single action, I allow multiple reactive fire attempts, representing shots at different ranges.

Such a range representation does indeed make it difficult to judge what's best if I want a table layout to reflect a specific real map and I usually use the 1"= 20 yards to do it. But any layout of an actual historical battlefield is difficult, especially if there is close terrain, because of the disparity in miniature scale versus ground scale, anyway. All one has to do is look at city streets. So there's always some compromise in tale layouts, which is why I think the issue of sliding scale (and I'm assuming the FOW sliding scale is similar to what I desribe for my own solution, above) is not that important.

On the other hand, what Kevan describes:

Yet the sliding scale mechanism means that these weapons have different range bands where one can engage the other but it cannot reciprocate without switching to indirect fire….yet they are effectively firing at maximum visability and somehow it's different by weapon.

sounds silly and makes it sounds as if the sliding scale is by weapon, whereas my "sliding scale" is absolute, ie, every weapon and miniature is affected by it. If FOW scale is relative by weapon then that is indeed rather silly.

The 2.36" bazookas, BTW, as far as I know, had a combat range that was pretty much equal to the effective small arms range of about 200 or so yards. 200 yards would be a very, very long shot (and impossible for a panzerfaust of any type, even the late 150 model), but not impossible. I allow bazookas and panzerschrecks to fire this far, albeit with a much reduced chance of hitting the target compared to closer ranges.
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] Now, again, I emphasize I haven't played the game, and am interpreting the stormtrooper (silly, silly name, embarrasingly so to me, but that's just me)

Agreed. The FoW fluff is the worst part of defending the game. :)

[…] It seems to me that it's not just extra moves, but extra immunity from fire. Sure, Germans may be given extra moves or move ability (as they are in Crossfire with respect to command and control limitations) but this does make them any more immune to fire.

The Stormtrooper roll does simply allow an extra 4 inches of movement if successful, but doing so after the German side fires. So the end effect, if successful, is to provide some immunity. Doing so successfully certainly requires some skill (don't move too far from cover/concealment to start with, and be prepared for the consequences of failure, make sure every vehicle can move back to cover/concealment), so it's far from a magic shield of any sort. In actual game terms, I find it has the most impact early in the game when the Germans are at range. It still is a factor later in the game, but there tend to be fewer hiding spots that I can't target.

I'm hoping this isn't as bad as you first thought, but I'm interested in your impressions as a non-player of the rules.

[…] If it's a skill roll that indicates if this is done successfully, then perhaps other nations should have it too and the roll required should be based on level of training and experience.

I have argued for (and been rightfully ignored) making it a variable skill roll for the Germans, or one only available to certain units. I have heard rumblings that it will be addressed one way or another as the scenarios move into the late 1944-45 period.

Good stuff! Thanks.

- Bob

I'm hoping this isn't as bad as you first thought,

No, it's worse Just joking

This is what happens when one comments on rules one doesn't know about – I was thinking it applied to hull down type positions only. So I now understand your assessment that it's similar to rules that might give Germans a bit of extra whatever.

I think I'm going to write on the local Battletech list (where the fellow I mentioned above is a member – I wonder if supergrumpy counts a university grad as one of the young people who are ruining "the hobby"?) and ask this fellow if he wants to put on a FOW game for my friends and I using his stuff or, if he doesn't have enough, he can use mine.

My figures are based two to a stand, with a separate platoon commander as per Crossfire. s this usable for FOW, do you think?
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote;

To me the argument about the range scale issues are the lamest of the anti-FOW rants

I do not understand how you can say this but still get your knickers in a twist over the comparatively minor distortions in 28mm figures.

The distortions in the FoW groundscale is several orders of magnitude greater than those you dislike so intensely.

Keep up the good work :-)

"My figures are based two to a stand, with a separate platoon commander as per Crossfire. s this usable for FOW, do you think?"

Place two Crossfire stands together, and call it a FoW team. Use the platoon commander stand as is, as a FoW command team. Go for it.

Allen

I do not understand how you can say this but still get your knickers in a twist over the comparatively minor distortions in 28mm figures.

And some of the FOW figures too!

But seriously, they are two completely different issues – ground scale and abominations of the human form.
--
Tim

Just different types of abomination as far as I'm concerned.

One anatomical and the other geographical.

Ditto Bird wrote:

No, it's worse evil grin Just joking grin

I'm sure it is. Just not sure for who yet. :)

This is what happens when one comments on rules one doesn't know about

Guilty of that here too!

I was thinking it applied to hull down type positions only. So I now understand your assessment that it's similar to rules that might give Germans a bit of extra whatever.

It's in a different turn phase, sort of an "extra move", so I can understand why someone might perceive it as overly powerful. But in game terms, it's not something that can be carelessly used with great effect.

My figures are based two to a stand, with a separate platoon commander as per Crossfire. s this usable for FOW, do you think?

You really only need to be able to distinguish between rifle/rifle+LMG, SMG, HMG and light mortar teams that apply in the typical infantry unit. The exact figures or numbers on each base really aren't overly important, so long as you can visually distinguish between them… at least so long as you're not adverse to the odd proxy for demo purposes. That should work fine.

The base sizes aren't overly important, so long as you have some consistency between sides. I know of players using unmodified rules with 6mm miniatures, and I'm basing up my 3mm stuff on 20x15mm bases instead of 2x1.25 inch bases. (I may tweak the PIAT/Bazooka ranges at that scale.) Another guy is just printing labels with the appropriate map symbols and sticking them to FoW bases. If you're not doing the tourney thing, you can pretty much do whatever you want.

Give it a go and let us know what you think!

- Bob

Derek the very silly grognard wrote:

One anatomical and the other geographical.

I totally agree that the FOW method and mine (whether or not they are the same) distorts things and make it more difficult to set up historical maps.

But at the same time, the use of miniature models, including buildings and tanks of, say 1:72 to HO scale, on any table layout, on, let's say a table of your choosing with a specific and constant ground scale is still going to be distorted.

Let's first look at ground scale matching model scale, for my favourite, 1:72. Assuming effective small arms engagement ranges are between 200 and 400 yards, that's a minimum of 100" or 8' 4" or up to possibly 200" or 16' 8".

200 yds x 36 inches/yd = 7200 inches

7200 inches/72 = 100"

Now, short battle range (the minimum range mark on the sight graticule) for the 76mm gun I used to fire was 500 meters which is 457.2 yards. So you're looking at up to more than 16 feet for short range engagements for armour.

If you agree with me that the above is more practical on a football field than on a table, then you are absolutely forced to use a smaller ground scale for your games. Then the issue becomes how does the model mesh with the ground scale?

Let's look at 1:72 again and a fairly generous ground scale of 1" = 10 yards. A Sherman tank is about 19 feet long give or take a few inches. At 1" = 10 yards, the Sherman tank model should be just under 2" long whereas our Italeri 1:72 model Sherman is about 3 and a quarter or a bit smaller inches.

That's a fair bit of distortion and no worse or better than any ground scale distortion caused by varying ground scales. Again, I say, think about a road. You wouldn't be able to get your fingers between buildings to pick up figures with a 1" to 10 yards ground scale. And it gets much worse with the higher ground scales typically used in many wargames rules.

Indeed, while I can't think of any, I know there are some popular rule sets that do the same as what I described I do, because in previous discussions, I was surprised to see I was not the only one to address the "75 yard shot from one building to another by an SMG" by using the two different scales.

Once you start playing with model miniatures, your scales go out the door and how ground scale is addressed doesn't really matter because it is already distorted.

--
Tim

Stormtrooper moves can be more of a problem for the German player, not their opponent.
I've seen many German Players push just that little bit too hard, relying on a Stormtrooper move to keep them safe or even to keep the game going, then losing a platoon, or the game when the dice came up 1 or 2.

"Oh, I'll push forward just this little bit more to get a shot a X. I might not be able to duck back and contest that Objective if I do so, but I'll just stormtrooper back afterwards…"

As FOW is not about just killing enemy platoons, but achieving certain objectives, the ability to move 4" and avoid return fire isn't always going to win the game for you, especially if you manage to bog your tanks in the woods as you try to duck & hide.

For Tim.

The difference between what you are calling a sliding scale and the thing FOW uses is that the "slide" varies by weapon type in FOW while yours varies by distance and is consistant over all weapons. With yours, you can attempt to bathtub a plan consistantly and you will acheive the same tactical problems in a game.

200 yards is the same for an assault rifle and a Piat to your sliding scale Tim. Thats because the weapon ranges on the table are subsequently matched to that sliding scale

For Fow, 200 yards is 2/3rds of an effective assault rifle range or almost twice effective bazooka range.

The sliding scale for fow is that Bazookas are slid up to 8 inches ( to suit tank gun ranges and their movement rates and assault rifles are slid down (to suit rifle and hmg fire ranges)

This same effect occurs across field gun/AT/ tank gun and Howitzer indirect ranges.

there is an IGOUGO design rule in fantasy games which links ranges to movement distances. IIRC, It has a general philosophy that you should not have to move more than twice to get from outside enemy fire range of the biggest weapon that can hit you to being within range to hit back.

kevanG wrote:

[…] The difference between what you are calling a sliding scale and the thing FOW uses is that the "slide" varies by weapon type in FOW while yours varies by distance and is consistant over all weapons.

In everything I've read about FoW, each weapon is assigned a maximum range based on 'bands' of effective fire distance. For the most part, these are fairly generic among weapons of the same type, so all rifles fire 16 inches for example. I have not read, nor do I see anything that varies the distance of that 16 inches or any other band by weapon type. Each weapon is equally effective out to its maximum range. The only variation on this is for the bigger stuff than can shoot beyond rifle range, where a +1 modifier is required. That is consistent among all such weapons. How do you see this as a variable "slide" depending on weapon type?

[…] 200 yards is the same for an assault rifle and a Piat to your sliding scale Tim. Thats because the weapon ranges on the table are subsequently matched to that sliding scale

The dispute seems to be whether the effective range of both should be the same. The actual distance represented for that range doesn't change in any way. Each weapon is equally effective out to that range. If you house rule that a bazooka fires only to a shorter range, this "issue" disappears, does it not?

For Fow, 200 yards is 2/3rds of an effective assault rifle range or almost twice effective bazooka range.

Each range band equates to roughly a range. The weapons fire with equal effectiveness out to their maximum effective range (their range band). There is no relationship between them. A rifle firing out to "only" assault rifle range (8 inches) is equally effective as that same rifle firing out to maximum effective range (16 inches). There is no mathematical variation within those bands. Bands ONLY represent the maximum effective range of each type of weapon. You seem to be trying to put some significance of the relationship of these different range bands. 4 inches is SMG range, 8 inches assault rifles and 16 rifles. That's it. One is not twice, 2/3 or any sort of multiple of the other. The ranges represent the differences between them, which allows those differences to be represented on the table.

The sliding scale for fow is that Bazookas are slid up to 8 inches ( to suit tank gun ranges and their movement rates and assault rifles are slid down (to suit rifle and hmg fire ranges)

Perhaps you've read some designer notes that I haven't. I have never seen anything written about "sliding up" of ranges in this manner, or relating them to AFV movement rates. Everything seems to be about maximum effective ranges for weapons, rates of fire and other data related to a specific weapon or type of weapon. Where have you found this information? I have seen adjustments made to move a weapon to a different max. effective range band on occasion if a sufficient case can be made for it.

[…] there is an IGOUGO design rule in fantasy games which links ranges to movement distances. IIRC, It has a general philosophy that you should not have to move more than twice to get from outside enemy fire range of the biggest weapon that can hit you to being within range to hit back.

I'm not quite sure how you mean this to be relevant. Would you mind expanding?

- Bob

"Would you mind expanding?"

lets not..

"Each range band equates to roughly a range."

??? Would you mind expanding?

What is a 'range' in the above statement and what does it represent?

The sliding scale for fow is that Bazookas are slid up to 8 inches ( to suit tank gun ranges and their movement rates and assault rifles are slid down (to suit rifle and hmg fire ranges)

Thanks, I was pretty sure my method of doing things is OK, and yes, the same range criteria is applied to all weapons in our games, ie, 10" is always 100 yards, 20" is 200/400 yards, 40" is 800 yards, 60" is 1200 yards and so on.

I think I understand better now; I believe what you are saying is that weapons ranges are adjusted up and down and that there are (at least) two sets of range scales, one for small arms and the other for tanks. Which does sound kind of silly.

Is this multiple ground scale described in the rules and/or is it apparent? I would imagine that if a bazooka range looked relatively large compared to tank gun ranges, that might raise alarm bells with me. Perhaps not so much for bazooka as it would say for a Panzerfaust 30 (the large head with a 30 meter range). These pretty much have a 3 inch range in our rules.

Anyway, I'd still very much like to try these rules and have put a post on the local Battletech group, though haven't heard back. The group is actually strangely silent as they usually have a really active campaign of some sort.
--
Tim

Ditto Bird wrote:

[…] I think I understand better now; I believe what you are saying is that weapons ranges are adjusted up and down and that there are (at least) two sets of range scales, one for small arms and the other for tanks. Which does sound kind of silly.

I think that is what Kevan was getting at, but it's not correct for FoW. There is ONE set of range scales, which applies to all weapons. Weapons are grouped according to the maximum ranges that I described previously.

He may be referring to the PIAT/Bazooka range being put in the same class as Assault Rifles. Unless he elaborates on the "adjusting up and down", I'm not certain, though.

s this multiple ground scale described in the rules and/or is it apparent?

The Design Notes in the main rule book on page 256 include:

[…] You'll notice that nowhere in the rules do we designate a ground scale; this was a conscious decision on our part. Many games attempt to rigidly impose a ground scale in order to accurately simulate weapon ranges. In Flames of War all we were concerned with was ensuring that the ranges of all weapons on the table be accurate relative to one another, i.e. a certain gun could shoot proportionately further than some other gun.

The actual ground scale became less relevant and, in order to fit everything on the table, non-linear. Roughly then, 4"/10cm represents submachine-gun range (say 25m), 16"/40cm represents rifle range (say 400m), 32"/80cm represents tank combat range (say 1600m), and 64"/160cm represents light artillery range (say 6400m). […]

I would imagine that if a bazooka range looked relatively large compared to tank gun ranges, that might raise alarm bells with me. Perhaps not so much for bazooka as it would say for a Panzerfaust 30 (the large head with a 30 meter range). These pretty much have a 3 inch range in our rules.

Bazookas have 8 inch range, Panzerfausts 4 inch. Most main tank guns are 32 inch range.

Anyway, I'd still very much like to try these rules and have put a post on the local Battletech group, though haven't heard back. The group is actually strangely silent as they usually have a really active campaign of some sort.

It's worth trying, if nothing else to see what all the fuss is about. Even if you don't like them, I think you'll find that they don't herald the end of wargaming as we know it. :)

- Bob

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

HAHAHAHHAHAHH Thats HILARIOUS Are you people that sensitive???!?! These guys start two threads of pure harrasment and stupidity and I'm the rabid Dog?!!??!!? LMAO….

Ptrd Anti tank rifle 16 inch range

20mm autocannon 16 inch range…that comparison will raise a few eyebrows

20mm Flak guns 24 inch range

this one you will absolutely love…..

15cm Sig33 16 inch range

hoow range bands work….

Infantry is 16 inch and so are all infantry weapons except hmg's, smg's, bazookas,etc
37mm guns, 50mm short barrel's and hmgs and some smaller AT guns are a 1.5 modifier to 24

then most tank guns are a 2 modifier (twice rifle range)

And big guns get a 2.5 modifier for being big.

So the flak 88 can fire 2.5 times a rifle stand and a 25pder can fire direct twice as far as a rifle.

The "2 turns and fire" design rule
Tanks…..
40 inch maximum tank gun range

Poorest gun rnage is 16 inches
Tank speed 12 inches
2turns x 12 + 16 range = 40!
Infantry
16 inch rifle range

Poorest infantry range is smg at 4 inches
Infantry speed is 6 inches
2 turns x 6 + 4 = 16

Looking at Hmg's as a target with a range of 24
Infantry rifle range is 16
Infantry speed is 6 inches
1 x 6 + 16 = 22 < 24 so they need that second turn
2 x 6 + 16 = 28. so now they can fire.

Yet you cannot actually define what the 16 inch rifle range band actually is….. Rifle effective combat range is about 300-400 yards and lmg range is 600-750 yards, yet with or without an lmg, the range in FOW is 16 inches. bazooka which has half this arbitary range "band" has an effective combat range of 120 yards on a good day so is generous compared to rifles but positively long range artillary compared to lmg's. Hmg's with an actual effective combat range 3 times that of a rifle has a 1.5 modifier and appears massively short ranged compared to rifles but is massively overranged compared to the 6pdr AT and the SIG 33 I showed above.

In FOW, A 150mm SIg 33 must fire self spotting indirect while receiving direct fire from Hmg's…..

The conslusion is that the whole point of the scale slip sliding about is to make some units actually useable when they generally were not very effective. And this would tie into the fact the game was built around mid war in the desert. It was to make infantry useable in the game in some manner that wasnt 'dug in behind minefields and barbed wire' and the selective scale distortion is how it did it.

KevanG wrote:

Ptrd Anti tank rifle 16 inch range

20mm autocannon 16 inch range…that comparison will raise a few eyebrows

20mm Flak guns 24 inch range

Actually, the 20mm FlaK38 are also 16 inches in v2.

this one you will absolutely love…..

15cm Sig33 16 inch range

Beyond which it can use indirect fire out to 56 inches.

[…] Infantry is 16 inch and so are all infantry weapons except hmg's, smg's, bazookas,etc
37mm guns, 50mm short barrel's and hmgs and some smaller AT guns are a 1.5 modifier to 24

You are the only person I've seen refer to it as a "modifier". It is a value. It happens to be 6 X 4, 3 X 8, or 1.5 x 16, which might be of interest to anybody that likes to play with numbers. But remember, using the formula fn(x), a value of 4 for x is 25, a value of 64 for x is 6,400. You have to really like playing with numbers. :)

then most tank guns are a 2 modifier (twice rifle range)

No, they're actually 8 times SMG range. Hey, if you're going to make up relationships, go all the way! Math is FUN. Meanwhile, per the design notes, the "actual ground scale is irrelevant". 32 inches represents typical tank range, not any sort of multiple of other weapons.

And big guns get a 2.5 modifier for being big.

Nope. They are assigned a range that is greater than smaller guns. That's it. The differences between weapons can be reflected on the table, which is the entire point of the exercise.

So the flak 88 can fire 2.5 times a rifle stand and a 25pder can fire direct twice as far as a rifle.

The distance represented for a FlaK 88 is a lot more than 1,000 meters, that of a 25 pdr far more than 800. You are insisting on placing fixed relationships between ranges when there are none. They are not simple multiples of each other. Using your logic, you could argue that rifle range is actually meant to represent 800m (and be equally and spectacularly wrong), no?

The "2 turns and fire" design rule
Tanks…..
40 inch maximum tank gun range
Poorest gun rnage is 16 inches
Tank speed 12 inches
2turns x 12 + 16 range = 40![…]

Is that what you were getting at? Jeez, it's a lot easier when you clarify a bit so we can figure out your meaning! Kevan, I do not consider you one of the mad ramblers, so I do spend time actually trying to make sure I understand your intent.

Back to the exercise, not all AFVs move at the same speed, not all AFV weapons shoot the same range. But yes, given a range of values, I suppose it's not surprising to fine a case that fits an outcome. I don't see anything in that equation that relates to RoF or terrain -- the realities of the table.

Infantry
16 inch rifle range

Poorest infantry range is smg at 4 inches
Infantry speed is 6 inches
2 turns x 6 + 4 = 16

So if you ignore the fact the "biggest things" that can hurt infantry (the basic premise of your Fantasy formula) shoot 24 or more inches, then for this case, it fits, sure.

Looking at Hmg's as a target with a range of 24
Infantry rifle range is 16
Infantry speed is 6 inches
1 x 6 + 16 = 22 < 24 so they need that second turn
2 x 6 + 16 = 28. so now they can fire.

Uhm… yes. Of course, you're now ignoring that the shortest range infantry weapon is 4 inches.

For your implication that FoW uses some derivative of a Fantasy formula to hold true, doesn't it have to hold against all, or at least a majority of cases? How are you going to figure Panzerfausts and tanks into this equation? A tank main gun is just as deadly to infantry as an HMG, and the Panzerfaust just as deadly to the tank. I think you've found a case where, in specific circumstances, the Fantasy equation happens to match. You have found cases where (2 x movement) + weapon range = a longer range weapon. But that formula certainly breaks down when shorter movement ranges or other "real world" game factors such as terrain or reduced firing effectiveness are included.

Yet you cannot actually define what the 16 inch rifle range band actually is….. Rifle effective combat range is about 300-400 yards and lmg range is 600-750 yards, yet with or without an lmg, the range in FOW is 16 inches.

Yes, the firepower is an aggregate of the weapons on the base. You'll also note that each of the two bases that comprise a squad count as the same type (Rifle/LMG in this case) and both get the same aggregate RoF (2 in this case). It simplifies tracking which base has which little 15mm LMG figure on it, and both types would typically be engaging the same targets.

bazooka which has half this arbitary range "band" has an effective combat range of 120 yards on a good day so is generous compared to rifles but positively long range artillary compared to lmg's.

No, this is not correct. You're insisting on using a direct proportion between those bands that does not exist. If bother to calculate the actual formula used, 8 inches is 100m and 24 is 900. But again, the actual values are not so important as the representation of the difference between them.

Hmg's with an actual effective combat range 3 times that of a rifle has a 1.5 modifier and appears massively short ranged compared to rifles but is massively overranged compared to the 6pdr AT and the SIG 33 I showed above.

Well, let's just throw away your claim of proportional relationships between the bands, and stick with the information provided by the game designer. Using those values, the HMG range (24) is a bit more than double the Rifle/LMG range (16). You can certainly argue that it should be 3X, but again, per the designer, the important thing is that it is greater than shorter range weapons and shorter than longer range weapons. There is, of course, no reason you can't house-rule using 26, 30 or whatever feels "more right" to you. As long as the HMG shoots further than rifles, and shorter than tanks with enough of a difference, it should work fine. To me, this is a strength of the system rather than a weakness. Abstract? Definitely. But again, on a common game table size, players are representing tank guns and SMGs -- factors that did come into play in battles.

In FOW, A 150mm SIg 33 must fire self spotting indirect while receiving direct fire from Hmg's…..

It must put itself in HMG range to direct fire (16 v 24 range), but can certainly shell those HMGs at its leisure out to 56 inches, self-spotting as you describe.

The conslusion is that the whole point of the scale slip sliding about is to make some units actually useable when they generally were not very effective.

I certainly don't think you've made much of a case for that being true!

The most egregious example of what you're describing that I can think of was probably the nerfing of AA weaponry done in the v2 transition, which was done to simplify the air rules, when, for example, some weapons were reduced to 16 inches from 24.

And this would tie into the fact the game was built around mid war in the desert. It was to make infantry useable in the game in some manner that wasnt 'dug in behind minefields and barbed wire' and the selective scale distortion is how it did it.

An interesting speculation, but again, I've not seen anything to indicate that this was the case. You can cherry pick special instances that would seem to support this case, but I wouldn't exactly call those scientific. Again, if you're aware of authoritative material that says otherwise, please point me that way and I'll gladly check into it!

- Bob

Derek (and All): I just wanted to be clear on something. I have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge that there is a disconnect between movement rates and gun ranges with FoW, in that where one typically would expect movement to take an amount of time proportional to the gun ranges. It doesn't.

However, those ranges approach 1:1 as the distances between units close, so there is a "zooming in" effect as they get closer. The end effect, at least in my experience, is that as infantry, for example, close with a target, the maneuver and positioning become more important. In effect, this "fast forwards" a lot of moves with the infantry moving out of LoS of the target until closing in.

On a table with reasonable terrain, this shouldn't be so jarring. If the scenario is trying to account for flat, unbroken ground of 1,600 yards, I suppose it could be a problem. I do prefer this trade-off to games where units at one end of the table can't get near the other end after a couple hours' play. Having units fight in a vacuum isolated from the world is just a different trade-off.

- Bob

shrug….

I think it's your turn, kyoteblue :)

Wouldn't you rather be playing, or painting, or something?

not on sunday…and I was and the 'something' is preparation of terrain for further modelling…

I got to demo Nuts after our FoW game at the local shoppe the other day. Not much of an audience, but I should do a better job of it next time.

- Bob

I do not think there were any badgers present. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

- Bob

Badgers?

Badgers?

We don need no stiinking bagders!

After all this it ends not with a bang, but a whimper…

Oh well.

…Geoff goes back to making a model of a badger…

Ram?

I'm just glad it has ended

I must say that this thread has been impressive, but alas, the GW Hatred thread is still the top winner in my book. Where do I begin? There are so many facets to this thread…

We have both sides of the FOW maelstrom well represented here. Fine veterans of a number of brutal threads either praising or decrying the legitimacy of FOW once again debate with sincerity. So to recap my understanding of this thread, here is a list of issues I have noticed.

1] How much abstraction can one handle in a game of FOW? This falls into the realm of artillery on the table, flexible ground scales, Overwatch, ambush , how could a bazooka outrange an 88 (Hyperbole! alert), unit frontages, etc etc.

2] Is FOW a "Wargame" according to supergrover's standards?

3] Does FOW impact the hobby in such a way as to bring more people to play with historicals in numbers that we have not seen before?

How much abstraction can one handle in FOW? That depends on the individual. When I was younger, I definitely had more time to play longer games. Today, IF I have the time , it needs to be something that can be concluded fairly quickly, give me a reasonable feel for a game and make it fun. I have dealt with ultra detailed rules (ASL), been involved in creating a set of skirmish rules (no sock puppetry here!) and now I have been solo playing FOW these days. New teaching job and 2 foster kids does take up the time you know. I admit that I do scratch my head over the Overwatch thing, the unit frontages thing and the arty on the table thing.

Overwatch has been explained by Phil and others. It is a design philosophy and thus, there it is, for better or for worse.

Unit frontages: There has to be some abstraction here due to operation procedures of various unit types and nationalities as well as necessity. I recall reading a story about how the Germans were so thin on the Russian front that they had one man with an LMG every so many meters apart. There had to be a standardization in order to make the game flow. Thus the fixed unit base sizes.

Arty on the table: Yeah, it does bug me, but do I let it take over me? No. I have my "God of War" supporting my Srelkovaya Boys. How can artillery be outranged in direct fire mode compared to an AT gun? Yeah, that one still causes me to scratch my head. Remember, BF is out there to sell minis (I'm shocked!). They will do it the way they see fit. The flexible ground scale is supposed to allow for that, but how flexible can it be?
I ask, how much does it bother you to deal with this? Answer: Different strokes for different folks.

Supergrover: He kept making claims about FOW not being a real wargame. OK, the man is entitled to his opinion. Then he works over ASL as not being a real wargame? Hunh? Are you kidding me? This is a joke, right? What about Panzerleader, Panzerblitz, Tactics and Tactics II? Are these not real wargames also? Did SPI make real wargames? Or is HG Wells' game the only real wargame? What about Chess? It is a classic and played all over the world… His claim about FOW being bad for the miniatures hobby, I do not understand, if kids are leaving GW games to go for historicals via Axis & Allies or FOW this is a bad thing? SO what if they do not move on to other historical and more "realistic" rules set? I have yet to find Supergrover's recommendations for "realistic" wargames rules. As far as I am concerned, Derek and Kevan backed up their comments with recommendations.

OK, now to the main question… Does FOW impact the hobby in such a way as to bring more people to play with historicals in numbers that we have not seen before?

As Mark Twain once said, "There are liars and there are statisticians." The evidence we have to go on is anecdotal at best. Even if the LGS were to gather data on this topic, there will be others who will decry it for whatever reason. This is a question that will not be answered in this lifetime. What about the anecdotal evidence? Is there validity to that? I believe so.

1] BF is obviously making money at selling minis and rules. The rules, despite gloss and presentation, are NOT the main sellers for BF. Those would be the minis. Some people buy the minis to game with and other it is for painting / enjoying / collecting. BF is thriving, not dying. It is succeeding in its goal: sell minis.

2] Anecdotes exist of former GW players bailing out of GW and playing FOW. Is that such a bad thing? Yes, there are gamers who are hygiene challenged and socially challenged who are found in every type of game that is played. GW & FOW are no exceptions.

3] BF does not tick off its customers the way GW (Trademark) has done in the past, present and wow, dare I say it…. the future. BF has a clue as to where is it going. Fans are supporting BF with scenarios, army lists etc. Not many game systems/ companies can make that claim of fan support to that extent. GW may be the only one I can think of.

Is FOW destroying the hobby as supergrover has proposed? I daresay not destroy, but definitely has altered it. FOW has incredible amount of support from fans in terms of scenarios, lists, hobby/modeling ideas. Can that be said of Command Decision, Rapid Fire, PBI, etc etc.. If FOW has lured GW players away from 40K and fantasy… well, I will not cry about that.

I am not trying to stir the pot, be a sock puppet, troll or flame anyone. I am throwing in my 2.5 cents into this discussion.

Regards,

Marc

Can't we all just play the rules we enjoy? You guys put more effort into rules lawyering than I did staying alive in Afghanistan! I am BKC/CWC guy by the way!

In the context of this debate, what does a 'sock puppet' mean?

BullDog69. You might like to check out this thread that Supergrover6868 made about "Sock Puppets" LOL. To him basically anyone who disagrees with him is one. Robert

TMP link

Kaoschallenged

Thanks… I am still intrigued as to the origin of the term – perhaps Mr Grover can advise?

I doubt he will comment. Seeing as there is zero support for him here LOL. I think he meant to mean this definition,

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet."

Though like I said he claims it because others do not agree with his views or actions. Robert

Fraserdw wrote:

Can't we all just play the rules we enjoy? You guys put more effort into rules lawyering than I did staying alive in Afghanistan! I am BKC/CWC guy by the way!

Well, it's time we acknowledge that dissecting rules is yet another aspect to the hobby, right along with social activity, painting and actual gaming. :)

I have to admit, this hobby got me looking at a whole slew of things I'd have never bothered with otherwise. JD Salt has got me reading up on Nomography… in my spare time!

- Bob

"Only 21 more posts to make 500……..

Really???? LOL :P

Well, let me add another to the list for FoW.

Frankly, I like the fact that as part of the Assault mechanic, the defender gets to shoot at the guys assaulting. Since pinning the target of the assault greatly reduces the effectiveness of the defensive fire, the game *encourages* you to suppress the unit you're going to assault.

How is encouraging combined-arms attacks a bad thing in a game showing the time in history where those very tactics were raised to an art form?

Shhh…
Don't bring logic & any hint of FOW being even vaguely historical up or he'll rant again!
;)