"Should FOW have its own board under WWII Ground?" Topic

"Perhaps I chould have been more specific and added "that arent cross posted to another board or 2 or 4, mostly the other boards under that title"

LOL. Maybe I should have been specific too :). Even without the cross-posted threads the WWII Aviation Discussion Message Board still has 13 new threads this month :P :). Robert

Why under ground? Has FoW been outlawed?

FOW hasn't been outlawed.

I accept that it is (just) a valid wargame. Unfortunately FOW gamers have a different perspective to that of historical wargamers:

The majority of FOW gamers don't do historical research. They accept whatever Battlefront publish as fact.

TMP boards are constantly inundated with demands from FOW gamers for manufacturers to produce models/terrain etc in 15mm. It's not going to happen, guys. If you want models to cover every variant used in WW2, choose another scale to game in ie: 1:300 or 1:72.

As for Bill switching this topic to the Poll Suggestions board, please Bill don't do this. As a Brit I never use the Poll thing, I assume Polls are mainly a US custom. Please bear in mind that a significant proportion of your community are non-US.

In my opinion, significant changes to TMP should only be made after reasoned argument and public debate. Not by uninformed computer nerds simply clicking a yes/no option on a Poll.

There should be a variable FoW board system.

Sometimes it should have a board all of its own, sometimes it should be made to share a single board with all other WWII rules and sometimes it should have five separate boards covering different aspects of the game.

TMP boards are constantly inundated with demands from FOW gamers for manufacturers to produce models/terrain etc in 15mm. It's not going to happen, guys. If you want models to cover every variant used in WW2, choose another scale to game in ie: 1:300 or 1:72.

Battlefront will cover every model or figure that it lists in its books. That is the business they are in. Why send someone out to buy Peter Pig or Command Desision? Other manufacturers will of course be perfectly valid in Flames of War game of course. To make them illegal would be bad PR, and they are no dummies.

The majority of FOW gamers don't do historical research.

Bull . Prove it.

I never realised there was a poll thing on TMP, but I would vote no to giving the game system its own board

Another satisfied HMGS-East convention attendee who's PO because it was moved from their own back yard I guess?
VR
James Mattes

Sorry, James, but no. I do live just under an hour away from the Lancaster Host and just over an hour away from the Eisenhower in Gettysburg. However, I get a hotel and stay at the cons for the duration. Travel is not an issue. I did conventions as a vendor in the music industry for over 25 years. It is all a matter of cost and convienence. I like Baltimore and Inner Harbor in particular even though it is beginning to show wear and tear since I first started visiting. I've done shows in the BCC several years ago and it was OK. The additional costs and inconviences of an urban setting detract from the viability and enjoyment of the main reason for the trip, the con itself.

Anyone who has said yes, here you go:

link

You're very welcome.

Ah come on what happened to one stop shopping?
VR
James Mattes

zoneofcontrol 23 Aug 2009 5:52 p.m. PST wrote:

The additional costs and inconviences of an urban setting detract from the viability and enjoyment of the main reason for the trip, the con itself.

P L E A S E! drive down 95/83 exit two lights turn left or right and you are at the conventions center. Enjoyment of the conventions?

Once again:

Showcase the hobby.
Energize the base.
Provide opportunities for networking of affiliated clubs and groups.

Next question?

VR
James Mattes

No the pumpkin head fans shouldn't get special treatment

"Unfortunately FOW gamers have a different perspective to that of historical wargamers"

This is the crux of it, I suspect.

But where does it end? Once "they" have been ghetto-ized into their own topic, the "serious" WWII gamers will then want the ghetto moved to Fantasy, since "it obviously isn't WWII".

NO separate topic.

"Oh you are a josher…"

I probably am.

The return of the 'new boards' debates will at least help me get both my post and character count up. Nearly up to 4 million characters now, which sounds like quite a lot, although not in the stratospheric league of John the OFM.

I agree with John. No system deserves its own board. They can and do have their own website to support the system without one on TMP.

It is also unfair publicity (I have no dog in this race) against other WW2 combat rules system. TMP would look like it is favoring a specific system.

It doesnt matter, because even if you did put them on their own board, they would have to come back here. They would still need to find people who read books, in order to ask questions about the things FoW dont have pictures or cartoons for.

It doesn't matter what color you paint FOW players, as long as you use broad strokes.

Maybe there should be a seperate board for all the people who have never played or read FOW but insist they know its rubbish and unrealistic and how everyone who plays it is a rabid fanboy etc… etc… yawn.Then at least we won't have to put up with thier crap everytime someone mentions the rules.Please give it a bloody rest. (and no I don't play FOW as i'm happy with Rapid Fire.

I assume Polls are mainly a US custom.

I guess all those Telegraph and other web sites and the BBC news stations here that talk about polls in the UK and elsewhere must be making it all up. And I've never seen a non-American comment on a TMP poll.
--
Tim

Maybe there should be a seperate board for all the people who have never played or read FOW but insist they know its rubbish and unrealistic and how everyone who plays it is a rabid fanboy etc

But…ummm….wouldn't that mean Bill would have to provide another board for all those who do know?