"The Worst Thing About Flames of War is..." Topic

Posts like:

"In late war, anti-tank grnade and other various personal AT weapon is equiment common in any country join the war, and the infantry anti-tank tactics also matured and become basic training for most army in war.
but in FOW infantry too pity when they face assualted by even light armoured car.
and low infantry AT/TA make tank battle more popular than infantry battle. because a infantry team can't hurt a lonely tiger a little even in 10M….but in histroy, a common infantry team also can get a tiger easily if no infantry with it.
in now fow, if i have no professional team for AT, even i have 50 infantry teams still can't do anything but be killed. no AT no hope…..
So i think should up the TA for all infantry team, just let common infantry have a hope for heavy tank!"

…or:

"hi guys)where can i find the pdf for the suuport divisionals of SS-SCHWERE?"

or:

"I am putting camo netting on my m10, and dont want to obstructed the divers view. Is the diver located on the top???"

Is that y enough?

It's not Battleground?

Allen, I think you go to the Battlefront fora just to reinforce your despair.

I agree with Nazrat. I have always assumed that "Bailed Out" actually means that the tank has a momentary morale failure, and the crew are panicking and useless, inside the tank. That's not the official BF line, but if you ignore the 23-skidooing figures, it does make a bit of sense.

Actually, I believe it is indeed the "official" line. I believe that the "bail out" result is explained exactly that way in the description of the rule.

The lack of opportunity/defensive fire during the other side's move. This was the deal breaker for me.

Another half-truth.

There is indeed defensive fire in the assault phase. So an enemy unit cannot close to assault you without being fired upon by the target and any other units within 4" of the target.

It's true that there is no ability to stop your opponent in the middle of his move and fire on one of his units that's perhaps about to move from the open to cover, or move out of LOS.

What I don't understand is why this is deemed a necessary ingredient of a WWII game when it is not commonly used in any other games. How about that unit of French Hussars running across the front of that Grand Battery in a Napoleonic game-- no one complains that the rules are crap because they don't allow the battery to fire into their flank as they move by.

"Allen, I think you go to the Battlefront fora just to reinforce your despair."

Nope, there are always outstanding contributions by folks like R. Mark Davies, and Dom, and "greenjacket", and "leadgend", and others.

The problem with a game becoming "popular" is that it attracts inexperienced persons. Nowt wrong with that, but it used to be that a "n00b"--as I believe the kids say nowadays--would go down to the hobby shop, ask a few questions, and get handed an Osprey. Now these plaintive cries for illumination are broadcast for all to see.

And frequently, inexperience seems to go hand in hand with "public education has failed me completely, and by God I'm out to prove it to you".

It is striking how many criticisms of the game here are based on ignorance of the rules and their background, or misinterpretations, willful or otherwise.

Allen

To me the worst part of the rules is all the young players telling me about how Battlefront invented WW2 gaming and how everything else is a pale imitation. These are the younger siblings of the kids who used to tell me that GW invented wargaming and therefore my playing anything else was ungrateful and heretical.

Bear in mind that I've been playing WW2 since I was 10, which was 40 years ago. Before FOW. Before Battlefront. Before these players were born. Before the BF guys were born. Before the domestication of cattle. I know they're just ignorant, but I hate seeing anyone buying into corporate hype.

"Before the BF guys were born."

Careful. A couple of them are older fellers.

Allen

1) Packaging problems
2) Proprietary approach to history and corporate hype
3) Some really ugly minis
4) Vanilla rules

1) The "flexible groundscale", which is just stupid. Non linear for weapon ranges but linear for unit frontages and movement.

2) The fluff, which is truly awful.

3) The infantry models with grotesque proportions – though not all their infantry models are like this.

4) The fanboys.

over priced minis.

The peole who complain about FOW at every possibility.

"It's not Battleground?"

And thank bloody hell for that! What a horrid mess of a rules system THAT was! Of course comparing a skirmish game with a company level one is fairly useless anyway. Apples and oranges to the max.

some of the infantry sculptures leave a bit to be desired; the ever-changing books; mid-war monsters

0) Power Gamers.
1) Company morale checks.

I can deal with flex. ground scales … I do love Crossfire after all.

RE: The Bail Out Rule

Some people are trying to say the rule means a temporary break down of morale but the crew doesn't actually leave the tank. That is not the BF perspective though. From the FOW catalog game example:

"At this point the crew of the Konigstiger might have bailed out as a result of your shooting. If they did, the German player rolls a single die to see if the crew are feeling brave enough to get back in their tank and fight on."

Sounds like those fellas got out of their tank to me.

Buzzkill, I know exactly what the rules say. I was merely saying that the exact same rules mechanism could be used to say that the crew had failed a morale test, and so were doing nothing. It would make much more sense that way, without the huffing and puffing from the nay-sayers.
Same die roll, same results, less silliness.

Accepting that would give them one less thing to bitch endlessly about, John! I don't see it happening…

No Pacific

Three books for Normandy, three books for Bagration and now three books for Market Garden. Probably be three books for the Bulge too.

I'm a gamer not a Barbie Doll collector.

The way its written…it assumes all readers are 14 year olds.

Yesterday I was asked if Vietnam was the same war! No. Quite different young fellow!
Then in later conversation I mentioned The Battle of the Atlantic only to be told he was only interested in the important bits he needed for FOW.

It makes me wonder…do this younger group ever read books?

"What I don't understand is why this is deemed a necessary ingredient of a WWII game when it is not commonly used in any other games. How about that unit of French Hussars running across the front of that Grand Battery in a Napoleonic game-- no one complains that the rules are crap because they don't allow the battery to fire into their flank as they move by."

plenty of people do complain about that type of effect in Napoleonic games….So where did you get that idea nobody comments?

The worst part of FOW is the selectively skewed propoganda used to justify rules mechanisms which fly in the face of military doctrine and common sense….And if the people who wrote FOW are as old as Allen implies, Well they should know better…..and we all suspect they do! Its their compromise to their game to broaden their target market to make a 'GAMER' into a 'historical GAMER'. It isnt going to appeal to a 'HISTORICAL gamer'.

However, Like all double edged swords, its also the best part because it provides so much comedy. You know they dont beleive a single justifying word they wrote! They know it doesnt stand up to any form of scrutiny, but who cares when the people who buy it and like it will defend it to the hilt for you?

I wonder who they laugh at the most!

Yet dispite all the above, I'm more a tad vexed that They are now going a tad overpriced for a resin injection with plastic tracks being more expensive than a competitor's lead casting by waaaaay above 20%. There cannot be any justification for it bar a "milk the suckers!" attitude.

…and I cannot stop buying their stuff either!

Probably are a few things that I could think of as more bad than others. Just don't see the need to come down on FOW any more than any of the other rule sets that have things in them I dislike.

Mal – Channel 4 have just done a 4 part documentary series on the Battle of the Atlantic. Hopefully it'll get shwon worldwide, look out for it.

Pretty good, and mentions the Canadians which isn't always the case…

We've got someone in Bangor convinced Polish cavalry in 1939 wore armour and wings.

Pillocks occur everywhere… though Bangor is perhaps unique in having someone who demands to be treated like a Jedi in Tescos! :)

People don't like it.
-Kle.

"…though Bangor is perhaps unique in having someone who demands to be treated like a Jedi in Tescos!"

Are you serious, BangorStu? Is that person on the checkout?

I can just imagine it – "A packet of prophylactics, you have. A price check on aisle seven, we must do. Hmmm?"

Nah, he was the head of the worldwide Jedi "church" and he was thrown out for not taking his hood down. He screamed religious persecution and has now gone on to be laughed at and ridiculed by sane people everywhere… link

Worst thing – Mid War Monsters. A vanity project which should not have seen the light of day.

The parking lot look of some games.

Pffft, I see plenty of battle reports of other games where tanks are fender to fender. It's because a gamer wants to maximize his firepower in as little an area as possible. You can't rely on people "playing in the spirit of the time" to avoid this. A really simple house rule for any rule set eliminates this sort of behaviour and fast.
--
Tim

The continued criticism of the "bail out" mechanism reflects so many people's lack of understanding of the rules.

I don't have the rules and haven't read them, but I did buy a WI issue the other day which did a battle report on Mid War monsters. The text of the article did indeed specifically describe crews evacuating and then getting back into their vehicles.

I agree that this could be construed as "suppressing" a tank temporarily due to a hit, damage, etc. But if the WI article was any indication, the game system does not describe it as suppression but as an actual bail out and later feeling better and climbing back inside (which, in the article, sure happened one hell of a lot more often than my reading suggests it ever could).

That is as stupid, in my opinion, as an imaginary set of rules saying a tank has an ESP check to see if the commander's psychic abilities detect any infantry coming in on the blind spot. Sure, someone who is an experienced wargamer would roll his eyes and say, well, to me, this makes sense if you consider it a vision check to see if the commander has a chance to check his blind spots. But that doesn't change that the imaginary rules describe it as ESP.
--
Tim

Thanks Nazrat – I did wonder…

Re what the designers of Flames of War mean by "bailed out" I offer the following quotes from page 76 of the latest edition of the rules.

A tank is a thick metal shell filled with flammable fuel and explosive ammunition and their crews like being burnt alive about as much as the next guy. So when they hear a round penetrate their tank they usually jump out as fast as possible. After their sure that the tank isn't going to burn they'll get back in and carry on.

I love the idea that the crew discover that their tank has been penetrated by a round when they hear it. You'd have thought the red hot bits of metal flying all around the place would have given them a clue.

The rules do describe some other situations which could be covered by the bailed out status, but then go on to say

Mostly, bailed out means that the crew have abandoned the vehicle and are waiting to see if it is going to explode or whether it's safe to get back in.

These clear statement of the designers intent are so obviously daft that many FoW players choose to completely reject them and rationalise the bailing out mechanic as something else.

It's a war game loosely based on history, so as far as I'm concerned this is a good thing. My only complaint is that the models are over priced.

Oh and something I forgot to mention. Having relegated the Battle of the Atlantic, to not very important, the same young fellow then asked had I been to see 'Ingorious basterds'….which he declared to be fantastic and even better than 'The 300'.

When I proclaimed them Historical nonsense…he looked at me with disappointment and asked…."Are you sure? It looked pretty real to me."

Hopefully the nightmares may subside before I bump into that young man again!

I agree completely that BF's justification and descripton of "bailed out" is totally daft and surreal.

I also think that if the exact same mechanism and die roll was used to "suppress" a tank, no one would object. I would go even further, and make a "suppressed" tank a Conscript target.

Heck, if the crew are REALLY "bailed out", I should be able to shoot the dazed and confused, bewitched bothered and bewildered crew! Make them Conscript, out in the iopen with no cover, and a priority to take casualties.

John the OFM wrote:

I also think that if the exact same mechanism and die roll was used to "suppress" a tank, no one would object.

You're 100% right there. And what's even stranger is that they could have changed the daft rationale between first and second edition but chose not to do so.

If someone has already ranged in on my tank AND penetrated it or hit it well enough for me to bail, I seriously doubt I will climb back in for another go at it. . . . but, then again, I'm not a game designer.

None of you have really caught on to WHY the rules require tank crews to bail out!!!!!

For bailed out crew, you have to have the miniatures. They SELL tank crews.

Rule explained!

Sorry, I've not read the whole thread, but here's my two pennies:

- Quick play = simplificatios
- Bucket-o-dice
- Unrealistic weapons ranges
- Popular
- Expensive
- Continuous new books and rules changes
- Country-specific special rules unbalance the game
- Misses out important parts of the period

"For bailed out crew, you have to have the miniatures. They SELL tank crews."

No, no they don't!! They were included in the tank blisters until a few years ago. Now they don't make them anymore at all, unless it's hidden somewhere on their site.

Nazrat is quite right. And he knows why I know that he knows that I know he's right.

Allen

Mal, They used to be free when they were competitively priced,

Yep, sure do. Thanks again, Allen!

My pleasure!

Ermintrude – so you don't like rules because they're popular….

And you simultaneously complain FoW doesn't cover all the war, AND that they keep bringing out supplements to icnrease their coverage.

<sigh>

My comment on Ermintrudes list

"Sorry, I've not read the whole thread, but here's my two pennies:

"- Quick play = simplifications"

Not a bad thing if done correctly.

"- Bucket-o-dice"

More dice is less prone to wild swings, so not a bad thing and is actually an aid to quick play. you count successes rather than work throught lists to see what happens

"- Unrealistic weapons ranges"

Does create issues…no matter how 'inaccurate' your accusations are.

"- Popular"

but not as uniformly popular as some would lead you to beleive. It is popular amongst it's Target market…possibly. If you only know 6 wargamers and 4 of them play FOW, Its the market leader in 'your' world.

"- Expensive"

Excepting the rules themselves, you pay for what you get. They are not necessarily overpriced for supplements in book form.

"- Continuous new books and rules changes."

That will be an issue to some, but those who use house rules or are used to game design wouldnt have an issue with this. Competition gamers may have a codex issue.

"- Country-specific special rules unbalance the game."

These are supposed to re-balance the game from historical reality. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although making things happen for every game when they should be scenario specific does overplay it.

"- Misses out important parts of the period"

Only if you haven't got the gumption to work it out yourself.

Anyone who says "can't wait for Early war/Pacific/Indo china/ space munchkins on Acid (delete as appropriate)" AND THEN DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT deserves to be run over by a char B, preferably their own, when the handbrake slips off or, even better, driven by the aforesaid evil space munchkin.

The worst part is that it's not in 28mm scale. If it was, I could totally be pilfering the releases for figs to use in AE-WWII.

Having on board artillery in a game of this scale.

"- Popular"

but not as uniformly popular as some would lead you to beleive. It is popular amongst it's Target market…possibly. If you only know 6 wargamers and 4 of them play FOW, Its the market leader in 'your' world.

One of the smartest comments I've seen on TMP.