"FOW Website Comments..." Topic

How good is that site? I was really impressed. Tons of pics, modeling advice and painting info and so on. Real easy to navigate. One professional operation in my view. I don't play FOW but have not closed to doors to the idea. I do use their intelligence handbooks for lots of info though. I paint their troops and love to see their pretty pics. Well done! Can we get a few more companies to follow their format? Please….

If I had their money mine would be as shiny too.
Tis nice though.

Michael.
angelbarracks.co.uk

The basic site sets a good bar. Obviously, it's a company operation, so there's a lot of hype for their products. But I am pleased with the amount of free support they provide. I appreciate any miniatures producer that puts actual pictures (and lots of 'em) on their pages.

I'm not crazy about the forum mechanisms, since they lack some basic features for tracking threads over time, catching up with posts since last visit and so on. When I was active there, they were "good enough". No worse than TMP in any case. :) When I was learning the game, the forums were invaluable. You just have to learn which threads and posters to ignore.

I am not one of those who subscribe to the view that "no web support" implies they got it all right the first time.

- Bob

It had a very rough start; when released for a number of months most of it was not working, but now they have managed to put everything in line and it is a very nice website indeed. I have the suspect it has actually costed them a substantial amount of money, though quality websites need not cost an arm and a leg: being my trade, I know what I'm talking about. There are many variables getting into it, sometimes you have similarly looking sites one costing ten times the other.

If it weren't dead today…

Whilst the content of the site cannot be questioned i rarely go to it these days as i find it takes an age to do anything, its painfully slow for me.

I gave up on the forums after they changed too for the same reason. As for the shop we i am not a fan of category chasing in the menu system either it seems to have a mind of its own!

Shiney is nice but functional is a word that should not be ignored.

Wish it wasn't so slow. I'm the same as Craig Grady – hate the menus and stopped reading the forums. Whilst I'm at it, I can't browse the list of stockists easily either.

The background info and modelling stuff is great, though, as well as the pics of their products.

If I had their money…

Ditto

Whilst the content of the site cannot be questioned

How accurate is it?

functional is a word that should not be ignored

Absolutely

If you go back and look at previous versions on the Wayback Machine, they were functional *and* informative. It hasn't necessarily gotten better with each iteration.

The Web store has just recently undergone some improvements, but all the work isn't done yet. Upgrading the forum in the past 24 hours seems to have become a challenge.

Allen

The content is good. The usability is definitely lacking. Navigation is annoying, and the search function still doesn't seem to work, at least for me!

I only vaguely recall the previous web site, but I definitely preferred the "New posts since last visit" functionality of the forums. They seem to be reinventing things that have been done better by others, but that's their prerogative.

All of this is offset by the value of what's there once you find it.

GeoffQRF wrote:

[…] How accurate is it?

The "good stuff" (research) seems to go through a pretty thorough vetting process, and I know they aren't likely to just accept anything contributed. The audience there is just as critical and demanding as here at TMP. That doesn't guarantee accuracy, of course, but it helps!

- Bob

"The audience there is just as critical and demanding as here at TMP."

There is a large and very vocal component that is derisive of any attempts to include any elements of historical accuracy in the system.

…which doesn't necessarily differentiate it significantly from TMP.

"There is a large and very vocal component that is derisive of any attempts to include any elements of historical accuracy in the system."

If that seems bad to you, you should see the forum of Italian FOW players….

Re Bob's earlier comments:

While continuing web support and updates for a set of rules is nice, it's not always absolutely necessary. A good set of rules doesn't suddenly become a bad set of rules because there is no website for it. We had plenty of good sets of rules in the 1980s and with the exception of Warhammer, they didn't re-invent themselves on a regular basis in order to get more cash from the same loyal customer base…

Meh. The FoW site is slow and awkward. I only go there if I have too. Or want to drool over pretty pictures.

Our lust for "ooh shiney" pictures and graphics does give the advantage to the big players in the industry. They can afford to hire graphics people and get their stuff professionally painted and photographed.

They generate so much excitement they often get free content provided by the fanboys.

I try and get folks to even post on my Yahoo group and nary a peep. I doubt they'll provide me with pics of their nicely painted armies to use on a website or rulebook.

I'm not bitter, I'm just realistic. It's why the big name rules are graphics heavy and maybe not so good content wise, but the smaller, less shiney rules which may be far better often get overlooked.

I find the modelling tips to be quite good and now that we are playing it down the club more often I like to have a peek now and then.

The pictures are what make it for me though – there are some pretty talented people who post there.

aecurtis wrote:

[…] There is a large and very vocal component that is derisive of any attempts to include any elements of historical accuracy in the system.

Oh absolutely. But BF themselves, as well as a lot of the regulars seem to have pretty high standards for what makes it in. I followed some of the multi-page exchanges when I first started with the game, and there was as much citing of data and debate about veracity of claims as I see here. I know getting unit lists (intel briefings) sanctioned and approved as "official" is not trivial, or at least I assume it's still not.

R Mark Davies wrote:

[…] While continuing web support and updates for a set of rules is nice, it's not always absolutely necessary. A good set of rules doesn't suddenly become a bad set of rules because there is no website for it.

Agreed. But by the same token, full-color content or an active support community is not the mark of poor rules. More than once, I've read something to the effect of "my rules are good because we got it all right the first time, so don't need to offer support". One of the best support communities I've seen is handled by a simple Yahoo group mailing list (THW). The glossy pics are tucked away in a gallery folder. You do not have to be a big-name publisher to be responsive to those who are the most likely to promote your product!

Jamesonsafari wrote:

[…] I try and get folks to even post on my Yahoo group and nary a peep. I doubt they'll provide me with pics of their nicely painted armies to use on a website or rulebook

What rules are yours? What Yahoo group?

Love 'em or hate 'em, BF offers a lot of support. Of course, lots of other outfits do too.

- Bob

I should have said the content can not be questioned in terms of quantity and presentation, dam you all for not reading my mind! ;)

Good active community, but the forum search is TERRIBLE.

Getting a website like theirs up and running isn't especially expensive, the older versions are even cheaper and easier (and as many have noted argualby better) to set up. The big cost is the time it takes, and the fact that just building it isn't enough, you've got to have staff to run it as well.

I've worked in online marketing and product development for ten years, and they've got the best website in the industry – note I didn't say hobby, that's very different – and are a text book example of how to leverage a website to be your primary communications and up sell marketing channel.

But don't get me started on the forums. There's many reasons why I loiter here and not there.

It's to slow…

Hmm. Their frontpage says they're upgrading their forums, so to expect disruptions over the next 24 hours. And it looks like they've added a "not read" button since I last visited the forums. I may have to give 'em another chance.

- Bob

I only visit when it comes up under searches, to be honest the "info" is always stock and rarely earth shattering.

The pics are nice, the modelling/painting tips quite useful.

No, Flames of War doesn't exactly get high praise from the SOTCW, does it, Richard?

link

Allen

Geez, what a bunch of gaming snobs!

I`m neither hot or cold on FoW, I don`t game in 15mm and don`t do much WW2 anyway.

If you read the whole thread, you will notice I was the one asking the questions, I`m interested and would quite happily publish stuff for the system if it was submitted, All we`ve ever had is reviews……

"Geez, what a bunch of gaming snobs!"

Lots of them inhabit this forum and some of them are quite positive on FOW.

Parhaps one could say….

"What a bunch of guys who played world war 2 and other modern games because the history interests them and the wargaming recreation is a supplement to that….then say….. Any of them that much like fantasy gaming or GW systems are pretty thin on the ground and they binned those concepts as poor in the sixties long before fow came along with it rehashed and rebranded….(but very professional rehash)

besides that, I could write an article on "how to play FOW, not hate it and not let on to your crusty old grognard mates that thats actually what they're playing…."

KevanG

Feel free to email me that article when written, I`ll publish it without hesitation :-)

I wish supagroover wasn't doghoused, he'd show you all whats what, vis a vis FOW!

John

"If you read the whole thread…"

I did; quite a few times. Incredulously. And just so you know: that thread, and the opinions expressed by Society members on it, are the primary reason I did not renew my membership for this year.

Allen

Fair enough Allen, your choice of course.

I still feel I was asking relevent questions and not attacking FoW in that thread.

I also posted a letter in defence of the rules too.

Anyone got any info on when they new awful forum over there will work?? Its the one place most of the guys I game with post, no matter what the game, FOW or something else.

Cheers 2nd BB

Hmm. I may sign up over at SOTCW. :)

That thread was pretty mild by TMP standards, or so I thought.

It looks like Supergrover's Dawghousing is still in effect, although the period would be long over, I thought. Or are the penalties imposed consecutively?

- Bob

"I also posted a letter in defence of the rules too."

Yes, that was received well, wasn't it? I wasn't bothered by your questions, Richard, but by the attitudes of (apparently) Society members.

Allen

Oh God what have they done now…?

They've 'improved' the forum; making a VERY slow forum even slower (taking approx 1-5 minutes for a thread to open) and when a thread does open it comes up with 'ERROR'…

It's still not working for me…..

Sometimes you need to just leave things alone, new isnt always better. Read, post, reply, how hard is that haha

Cheers 2nd BB

"Oh God what have they done now…?"

I think it's related to the Midwar Monsters somehow.

They do have the following on the main site page:

Forum
You may have noticed the forum has been up and down over the last few days, we apologise for this. Our web development team at Forth Media are installing a new version of the Forum, but as with anything like this there are a few bugs to iron out. Once it is up and running properly we'll be able to automatically prune the forum and in the future add a Personal Message function.

Sounds like they're aware of the issues and are working on it.

FWIW, it's quite snappy for me tonight, and it looks more friendly than the previous versions.

- Bob

I was just there, running fast now although many names of users seem wrong or old names, mine included. But least it has speed!

Cheers 2nd BB

Oh and doesnt Afrika sound like a good book now or what??

It may be a good thing to have divided up lists into theater and period--specific variants. I think I'll like that.

Allen

Yes, but I'm sure others won't. There's no winning.

They have certainly added a lot of features since my last visit. There's email and rss feed tracking of individual forums/topics, which is a very nice touch, along with a "view posts since last visit" function. Assuming they work, those address my primary technical complaints.

Still a timeout/error result on searches, but it does seem to actually be doing something now. I'll give 'em a few more days and try again.

- Bob

It may be a good thing to have divided up lists into theater and period--specific variants

You mean like having… multiple boards?

No, not really.

It's functional enough but could use some improvement.

As for the SOTCW post. Sorry, have to agree. These guys are unbearably snooty. Comments tossed hither and yon would leave me with the impression that anyone who plays GW games or are American have questionable tastes in gaming. Nice broad, bigoted brush there. And somehow we are not to believe that SOTCW are snobs??? bunch of hogwash that.

And Richard, you say you have no dog in the fight and are just asking questions yet you accuse Andrew of posting a "long, rambling" reply. Andrew's reply had a LOT of things to reply to. The length of his reply seemed warranted. Also, The poster named "V" specifically states that he does hate the game and a later poster thinks its "sad" that andrew would think they hated the game as if it had never been raised as an issue.

I truly don't understand all the bashing. FoW isn't the greatest miniature game out there, but there are certainly a lot more that are worse. When it comes to WW2 at that scale I don't think there is a match at this time that is as fun to play and has a community that encourages quality painting and modelling. I'd love to hear about other company level games where the standard maneuver element is a team stand because I can't seem to find any others.

How disappointing to finally read that SOTCW thread and be completely unable to find the 'snobbery' and 'hate' that some here are describing…

Some MILDLY critical comments and some supportive – not exactly controversial stuff.

There's only one thing worse than being talked about…

'Awbiddies oot o' step but oor jock'

The level of perceived snobbery is directly proportional to the level of importance you put on Fow.

If you beleive it to be a breath of fresh air cutting through all the tedious charts of armour stats in all other ww2 games, then these statements are paramount to elitist fascism not recognising the iomportance of such a radical system rejuvenating historical wargaming in its entirety to the saviour of all.

Alternatively,
you may measure the importance of fow as squarely as a proof that marketing, printing production and a relatively drip feed official release driven and expensive product range can override quality as a factor in game system choice and hides a relatively clunky, old fashioned game system bereft of any redeeming feature bar familiarity to the target audiance.

For these polarised views, One man's snobbery is another man's appeasement.

Pussy footing is for 'plurel of pet names for felines formerly known as cats'

Sometimes, it is better to call a spade a damn big shovel and have bare knuckle debates, not indulge in cricket style "stopping for tea" chats saying its not cricket or my cup of tea

In fact , One could say the most obvious point of snobbery one has seen in terms of ww2 gaming in recent months is the whole "mid war monsters….. play with units of experimental tanks" TM debacle. I( find it most encouraging that there is a large and vocal minority of the fow community who find the concept of these to be detrimental to their game….even though I disagree with tha specific attitude myself

Its a fascinating study….Will it go Late war Mechs and walkers or will it go Mid war turtledove Lizards?

Perhaps a few examples are in order. If you don't think these show how arrogant these guys are then perhaps I am overly sensative.

Arrogant Assertion #1:
"Why would FOW players need the Journal? They get all they need in their 'Codexs'… ;-)" I get most of my information on WW2 from authors ranging from Rommel to Bevor. Osprey sometimes works(though they aren't perfect). The other FoW players I know also don't limit themselves to the army books. Oh wait, the poster was making a joke at my expense.

Arrogant Assertion #2:
"If thats a serious answer Piers – good luck to them……..
Personally even after over 30yrs of reading about WW2, I find new things in every issue of The Journal." – You wonder if his assertion (#1 above) is serious??? Why don't you ask the battlefront guys. They actively read their forums. They would give you a much better informed opinion than Piers. He obviously doesn't have anything good to say. Why does Piers feel so threatened by this game?

Arrogant Assertion #3:
"Richard, I think Piers and I were kind of making the same point, if you already know ANYTHING about WW2 then you won't be attracted to FOW and if you're into FOW then you don't think that there is anything else to know about WW2 outside of what you are fed by FOW." I see. So…because I play FoW (and am attracted to it) suddenly my 30 years of knowledge gleaned from many different resources is suspect. I have become a FoW zombie only believing what the Battlefront folks put in front of me. Pure arrogant drivel.

Arrogant Assertion #4:
"So what are we saying – FoW push their own history?" – Good question. Short answer – No they don't, but like most game systems they have areas where they aren't 100% perfect (RSO transports for PAK's seems to be the primary example that comes up all the time). Show me a perfect game system and I can tear it to pieces in minutes with facts and figures that show they didn't get it right. ASL is one of my favorites here. These are games folks. I expect accuracy from my history books and even then the best books have errors too.

Arrogant Assertion #5:
"The fact that the figures bear a passing resembalance of stuff from history is irrelevant." – passing resemblence? I don't know about you, but around here the Battlefront minis are some of the best sculpts you can get in 15mm.

and the kicker…
Arrogant Assertion #6:
"I hate FOW and all it stands for" – Ok, fine. But what you make it stand for might not be what anyone else makes it stand for. I'm sorry you feel so emotional about this game that you have come to this sorry state.

This is just scratching the surface. The posters bring up some valid points. I'm not huge on Battlefront's marketing system either. I absolutely despise GW's marketing strategy and while I see Battlefront using some of it there are some substantial differences. Yes, there are folks out there who prefer to play Hollywood armies loaded with Tigers and SS, but this isn't everyone. Just because you ran into some kid in a store who wanted to crow about his bitchin SS or wanted to explain how Wittmann drove Tigers on Sword Beach doesn't mean the game system is broken. Face it, you dislike the punk kid that's on your lawn and here you are in SOTCW yelling at them to get off.

FWIW I find Flames of War a fun GAME. It has never tried to push the idea that it's a better simulation than ASL. Battlefront makes great, though expensive minis. Their battlebooks are good reading, but I know where to get more accurate info. I stand by my own bigoted generalization that the particular SOTCW forum that is linked here seems exceptionally laced with arrogant, narrow minded conclusions that don't stand the light of reality.

"Its the reason I hate FOW and all it stands for…"

Thank you. That's what grabbed my attention the most, as well.

Perhaps someone could explain to me what FOW "stands for", so I could understand this peculiar point of view better. Here I thought it was a commercial set of wargame rules, not a manifesto.

Allen

One persons opinion is not that of the entire society, the same as one bigoted opinion on TMP does not reflect the opinions of the rest of us.

I`m certainly not supporting Piers comments, but I`m not going to stop him speaking his mind, he has that right.

I just spent a very pleasent weekend playing wargames, there were FoW games there and they looked great, there was also a superb 28mm game, a large 6mm and our own 20mm one. As far as I`m concerned its all wargaming and we`re all the same – we play with toys for fun………