"Opportunity fire for Flames of War" Topic

I like FoW but would like to bolt on an opportunity fire rule. I've tried two. The first just allows a unit to withhold fire dice and take opportunity fire during enemy movement. Okay but you have to track fire dice for each unit/stand. Cumbersome. The other creates a "beaten zone" and the firer applies his normal fire dice to all enemies that cross the zone. WAY too powerful

Is there a rule set out there that has such a rule appropriate for FoW? Or do you have a house rule that covers this?

There have been many attempts. If you look at the mechanics, the system of defensive fire and stationary units firing at full rate while moving units have reduced dice it approximates an opportunity fire rule pretty well as it is. The only thing it doesn't cover is a unit dashing across an open space from one cover to another, but that's not really a critical issue IMHO.

Battlefield Evolution uses a "Reaction", which is a partial activation (for movement OR firing) available to your opponent's unit when you do something within a certain range of that unit. It is in addition to the actions available to units on their own turn.

Defensive fire before an asault covers opportunity fire pretty well.

Frankly, I think opporunity fire in other rules really exaggerate the true effect.

I'm pretty much in agreement with ScottWashburn and the OFM. It seems that the opportunity fire really is taken care of in other way. True, it is possible to dash between two pieces of cover, but it is difficult for an entire unit to do so depending on the size of the unit.

"If you look at the mechanics, the system of defensive fire and stationary units firing at full rate while moving units have reduced dice it approximates an opportunity fire rule pretty well as it is"

Personally I find that hard to believe. You can move a tank right to left across the front of my ATGs and then position yourself so that you never have to worry about getting hit in the flank and there is nothing I can do about it. Whereas if there was Op fire I would have a chance to try prevent that from happening. I feel that that is a big flaw in the system.

But does it really matter that much that the tanks can do that? With a limited game board it's not like the tank can make a big sweeping flanking movement now that it's made it across the front of your gun line. Yes, it might be a little irritating, but does it really effect the outcome of the game very often? And it's not necessarily that unrealistic. Our unnaturally flat game tables don't have the small hills and gullies of real life that might allow a tank to scoot across your front and never be in sight at all.

I'm not a FoW fan boy. I think that there ARE some serious defects in the rules that could be fixed quite easily (and I've been advocating those changes on the FoW website for years), but the lack of Opportunity Fire isn't high on my list of changes. Just my 2-cents.

My belief is that much of the "Opportunity Fire" espoused by other rules was really ambush fire – fire against a movingf unit by an unknown enemy. If the enemy was known, then the moving unit could use terrain, smoke discharges, a full speed dash, etc to move through between cover with a minimum chance of being hit by a snap opportunity shot. As such, the ambush rules in FOW work great to cover this contingency. Some people don't like the game mechanism used for this (namely being able to place the unit anywhere on table), but the effect is great and works better than any other simple mechanism I've seen (let's face it, using maps, completely hidden deployment is a pain, even with a referee). Having a potential ambush out there really serves to put the attacker on edge, make him cautious, encourage the use of recon and probing – all things rare enough in the face of the 1000' general.

If the enemy was known, then the moving unit could use terrain, smoke discharges, a full speed dash, etc to move through between cover with a minimum chance of being hit by a snap opportunity shot.

Not a FOW player, but goodness, this is not true at all. There's no such thing as a "snap opportunity shot" in real life – when you are halted, you fire at targets that are moving or stationary. If you play paintball (I don't play that either) there's huge difference in moving from cover to cover when the distance between covered positions becomes longer. Movement in armoured and 20th centrury warfare is extremely dangerous and that's why tactics of fire and movement have developed the way they have.

Smoke dischargers were usually good for only one go and were meant for when you were caught in the open with your pants down. You halt and pop smoke then back the hell away! Certainly not for use a means to move from cover to cover!

Real ambush fire is one thing, but just because you've detected the enemy doesn't mean he's not going to fire at you when you're adjusting your position and are careless and/or unfortunate enough to pick or be forced to use a route that does not provide compelte cover.

This is why tanks to this very day do not move without support from other tanks (or possibly infantry ATGMs/ATGs at the start line) covering the ground ahead.

I've not played it, but actually, I rather like the concept of the FOW ambush that I've read about here on TMP numerous times. However it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "opportunity fire" Crispy is describing, or rather the more appropriately name for the concept, in my opinion of course, of "firing at moving targets".

I don't know the movement rates in FOW. But I would think that a successful scenario design would be such that the "panzer bush" tactic of dashing from cover to cover would be not possible most of the time, ie, terrain features spaced widely enough apart. In my opinion, with any rule set, there is usually more to carefully considered terrain set up than most folks realize. So my advice to crispy is to spread your terrain out.

Apologies for my non-FOW thoughts…
--
Tim

@EC

Your first idea, holding back dice, is similar to a few other rules that have a dice pool for a unit where the player can designate when they are used, or held back for later use. I don't think it would be that hard to track once all the players were used to it.

As for the moving between cover without being shot at, I don't agree with the arguments in it's favour. Any known or suspected enemy unit or location would not just be ignored, ie, the friendly unit do nothing or shoot at some lesser target.

YMMV.

How about:
If a unit was stationary in its last turn it can make a skill test to be able to fire at half dice at anything that comes into its line of sight.

A unit would have to be stationary and better troops would be more likely to do it … just a thought as I never found it a problem once they put the rule in that you couldn't run from house to house in one move. Before that we just mainly kept scenery just over 6" apart :-)

Like FOW on the whole, just never play it BUT we now are dragging out the stands to play bigger games of World at War with as Agis has rules for playing with stands in his Gear Krieg supplement – these rules have a 'reaction' built in and in 15mm the distances look fine (in 28mm they are a bit dodgy).

Rich J

"But does it really matter that much that the tanks can do that? With a limited game board it's not like the tank can make a big sweeping flanking movement now that it's made it across the front of your gun line. Yes, it might be a little irritating, but does it really effect the outcome of the game very often?"

First game I played of FoW I was able to move my Armor from my right center of the table to my left flank. Right past my opponents StuG IIIs that were on a hill at the center of his side of the table in order to re-enforce my attack there and it won me the game. so yes I would say it can happen. Put me right off the game.

It sounds to me like the defensive fire system in FOW actually deals with major issue in IGOUGO – the defending units don't get a chance to defend themsleves!

If the Panzerbush thing bothers you then two possible solutions:

i) AHGCs solution to Panzerbush, the appalling cumbersome opp fire rules used in Panzer Leader. You can opp fire against moving units if the expend 1/4 of their movement allowance within LOS of the firing unit. This stops lengthy dashes, but allows short ones. It also makes the suppled PL 'Goodwood' scenario unwinnable for the Allies…

Good luck with calculating those 1/4 moves for each and every unit.

ii) Borrow the Spearhead 'disappearing fire' rule. Stationary units can engage enemy units currently out of sight but which were visible at the start of the turn at the point at which they disappeared from view. This doesn't stop people rushing from behind one wood to behind another, but it does stop them teleporting out of sight. This rule is actually quite manageable and works well in curtailing unrealistic dashing about. The moves in SH are rather longer than in FOW, as some units can do close to 2km in a single turn….

You could also invent some new rules – designate a covered arc for the stationary unit (max of 45 deg) and it can just shoot any anything which moves into it. It is really hard to hit targets crossing your line of fire rapidly, particularly if they are doing short rushes, and well nigh impossible with a snap shot. At least if all the guys are covering one direction there is more chance they will engage the right things.

The other suggestion of just leaving sensible gaps in the terrain is a good one, although it is possible cover small gaps with a rush, just not big ones.

I guess I've never seen the problem with a lack of Opportunity fire in the FoW rules because my group doesn't put enough terrain on the table for 'Panzerbush' to be a problem.

We usually play on a 4x6 or 4x8 table (1500 points), and typically have 8-12 roughly 6" square terrain features on the table. I like more terrain than that, but a lot of the guys are migrating from 40k or Warmachine, so they're used to a lot less terrain.

This is coming from a guy who also plays Infinity, where there's OpFire *everywhere*, and the name of the game might as well be 'Panzerbush' (not to mention "2 hours to set up and 15 minutes to play").

It sounds to me like the defensive fire system in FOW actually deals with major issue in IGOUGO – the defending units don't get a chance to defend themsleves!

But, they do. Assaulted units get defensive fire, which can often pin an assault. They also get to counter attack, and in my experience, can wipe out my attack. What more do you want? Skeet shooting? PULL! BLAM!

Have you actually PLAYED the game, or do you just want to pin all the "sins" of IGOUGO on it?

You see, John, it's more realistic to assume that actual terrain is as flat as our gaming tables.

There's nothing wrong with tinkering rules as the OP is doing, but I don't buy into the argument that absence of opportunity fire is a glaring deficiency in the game. Defensive Fire, movement penalties to RoF and Ambush rules have provided a means of providing most of the outcomes associated with opportunity fire while maintaining the speed of play of an IGOUGO activation system. If someone can find a willing opponent to experiment with variations, hey, go for it. But personally, I don't find it as big a limitation as it gets made out to be when you start to factor in all of the the limitations and associated bookkeeping that should be applied to any realistic sort of opportunity fire rules.

- Bob

But, they do. Assaulted units get defensive fire, which can often pin an assault. They also get to counter attack, and in my experience, can wipe out my attack. What more do you want? Skeet shooting? PULL! BLAM!

Try reading his sentence again. Martin is saying the major problem with IGOUGO system is that defending units don't get a chance to fire and that FOW defensive fire deals with that problem. So how about hoping off the high horse?! :-)

Hmmmm…
My bad. I was wrong. Too much Stegmaier Oktoberfest?

There ain't no horse that is too high for me, sir!

"Have you actually PLAYED the game, or do you just want to pin all the "sins" of IGOUGO on it?"

Well, yes I have. I think you might have misread my post.

There are lots of things in the design of FOW which actually make the mechanics produce realistic results, yet its detractors seem to overlook them as they aren't immediately obvious.

FOW doesn't need special opportunity fire rules, as the real situations in which it is a significant factor (assaults being the obvious one) are already covered.

When you go through the process of figuring out what units really should be eligible for opportunity fire, what factors should come into play?

- Should just any unit be able to use it if they didn't fire the previous turn?
- Should opportunity fire be restricted to units that did not fire or move the previous turn?
- Should it be limited to specific units (e.g. anti-tank guns)?
- At what range should it be allowed? Do we go with the literal line-of-sight offered by our perfectly flat playing surface, or consider the actual terrain it is meant to represent, which may well offer concealment over a certain distance?
- What penalties should apply to opportunity fire? Must the unit fired upon actually be moving, or should a player be able to save those dice and shoot any enemy target in their turn.

When you consider a realistic use of opportunity fire and start to narrow down when and how it should be used, you wind up with a short list of specific circumstances. FoW covers the bulk (perhaps all) of those without having to introduce complex ambush rules, bookkeeping or complications to the movement process that require constant interruption.

If you want to introduce something potentially game-changing, then the resulting change should at least be *more* reasonably "realistic" than what it's meant to replace. If you add opportunity fire, should Defensive Fire and Ambush go away? In the end, do you wind up with more "realistic" situations covered than already were?

For a couple of players just tinkering, all this really doesn't matter. I enjoy rules tinkering myself. But if the topic shifts to a perceived limitation of the game, then I think these factors need to be considered. I love the reaction-driven system of THW games, but I can't see introducing it into a FoW game with satisfactory results.

- Bob

- Should just any unit be able to use it if they didn't fire the previous turn?
Yes

- Should opportunity fire be restricted to units that did not fire or move the previous turn?
No

- Should it be limited to specific units (e.g. anti-tank guns)?
No

- At what range should it be allowed?
Short range

- What penalties should apply to opportunity fire?
Firing player picks when it occurs

Must the unit fired upon actually be moving
Yes
, or should a player be able to save those dice and shoot any enemy target in their turn.
No

If you add opportunity fire, should Defensive Fire
Yes
and Ambush go away?
No

See, that was easy :-)

FOW Defensive fire is a reasonable representation of "final protective fire" but there are many other circumstances where troops would come under fire but are immune in FOW, for instance:
- When moving through fixed firelanes of sustained fire MGs.
- When moving over long distances in the open from cover to cover, especially down roads directly towards/away from enemy troops.
- When artillery is firing interdiction missions to attempt to prevent enemy movement through an area.

However real life troops with enemy in their immediate vicinity tend not to worry about long range targets.

I suggest the following:
- Platoons with teams within 4" of enemy teams may not use any of the following rules.
- Artillery batteries with staff teams firing a bombardment may continue their fire into the enemy turn as sustained fire. If they do so they may not move next turn. Treat the area covered by the template as a minefield (except it cannot be cleared), re-rolling successful skill tests to avoid being hit if there are 6+ guns firing, re-rolling unsuccessfuls tests if 2- guns firing. Hit teams resolve the hits using the bombardment's AT and FP ratings.
- HMG teams (and vehicles firing as HMG teams using the "HMG carrier" rule) that did not fire in their shooting phase may fire continuously into the enemy turn. If they do so they may not move next turn, lose any gone-to-ground status and a "fire lane" 16" long and 2" wide directly in from of the firing team is treated as a minefield (except it cannot be cleared). Armoured Vehicles use their side armour if they end their turn further away from the firing team than they started, otherwise use the front armour.
- Vehicles moving at least half their movement continuously in the open within 16" of and in firing arc of an enemy team and that end their turn out of LOS of that enemy team may be fired on by that team in the movement phase. The team fires at ROF 1 (+1 to hit if normal ROF = 1). Armoured Vehicles use their side armour if they end their turn further away from the firing team than they started, otherwise use the front armour. The firing team may not move or fire again in the enemy turn or in their next turn.
- Teams that move at least half their movement continuously in the open and that end their turn out of LOS of a spotting team may be targetted by a bombardment controlled by that spotting team counting as concealed. Before resolving hits the targetted player may change the aiming point to any other team in the targetted platoon in range of at least as many bombarding teams as the spotting player's choice.

If one were to court the idea of opportunity fire in FOW it would be like this:

1. No moving or shootting in your turn that you are electing to hold fire (for Opprtunity fire later)Must not be pinned either.

2. Opportunity fire may take place at any time in the enemies move turn. To conduct opportunity fire the player shooting must pass a skill test to fire. They do so at full rate of fire and will do so as if shooting the front armour of the target, unless there is no other possible way – only then will they shoot at the flank or rear of the enemy.

3. Units that perform opportunity fire are too focused on the target theya re shooting to conduct defensive fire in the close combat phase.

This would be the only fair way to play the OP Fire rule without significantly changing the fabric of the game.

rhnelson wrote:

[…] See, that was easy :-)

Well yes, you just defined Defensive Fire as it exists, perhaps with a re-definition of "short range" from 2 inches (equating to being assaulted) to something less defined. "Firing player picks when it occurs" could be when the enemy penetrate that zone.

I don't think we started out agreeing, but you actually got me working through a variation (see below). :)

- Bob

Leadgend wrote:

[…] there are many other circumstances where troops would come under fire but are immune in FOW, for instance:
- When moving through fixed firelanes of sustained fire MGs.
- When moving over long distances in the open from cover to cover, especially down roads directly towards/away from enemy troops.
- When artillery is firing interdiction missions to attempt to prevent enemy movement through an area.

One of the attractions of FoW is that games move quickly, with little bookkeeping between turns. A lot of the proposed opportunity fire solutions introduce an interruption to the normal "ugo" move flow. The exception in FoW today is defensive fire. What you're describing could be implemented as a variation on defensive fire. Defending units suitably prepared (in position, haven't moved, etc. equal to could go Gone to Ground?) could declare a line of fire/plotted firing position that acts like the 2 inch tripwire for assaults. It would be ugly, but a string of yarn of the appropriate range could be laid out indicating that path, at least for testing purposes. 8 inches for rifle/lmg, 16 for HMG, etc.

If the opponent moves over that line, then at the end of their movement phase, that unit is subject to a round of fire. This works better for direct fire weapons than indirect, but I think it would keep from adding interruptions to the game flow.

I'm not opposed to the idea of introducing such things so much as disrupting the flow of the game that keeps it moving along.

- Bob

bavoisSYW wrote:

[…] 1. No moving or shootting in your turn that you are electing to hold fire (for Opprtunity fire later)Must not be pinned either.

That would equate to "must be Gone to Ground and not pinned" to use existing game terminology, wouldn't it?

2. Opportunity fire may take place at any time in the enemies move turn.

Is it important that it take place as they move through the overwatching unit's view, or just that they take a round of fire? If you simply "flag" that they moved through a lane of fire, then defer the actual test until the end of the current movement step, you create a sort of "pre-shooting" OpFire step that doesn't introduce huge delays. The moving player might complain that he winds up in a position only to then take hits that might change his mind, but that's the penalty for hasty decisions. Your ordered your troops to do something at high risk of casualties, and they have to try to carry out those orders as best they can.

To conduct opportunity fire the player shooting must pass a skill test to fire. They do so at full rate of fire and will do so as if shooting the front armour of the target, unless there is no other possible way – only then will they shoot at the flank or rear of the enemy.

Leadgend's ideas on facing were interesting. To re-use existing (tested) mechanics, why not must make it side shots regardless? The entire objection to the existing rule is that unit hauling butt can avoid being fired on. This reflects their emphasis on speed rather than caution. Moving through lanes of fire is a bad thing! Keeps it simple, too.

3. Units that perform opportunity fire are too focused on the target theya re shooting to conduct defensive fire in the close combat phase.

Good point. Perhaps just count them as having already fired for their following turn (not GtG, can't fire again) as they've been focusing down those fire lanes.

This would be the only fair way to play the OP Fire rule without significantly changing the fabric of the game.

Yes, that is a key point. FoW is popular because many things work and the rules allow a brisk pace. Anything introduced should keep to that philosophy. I think this generally includes "doing things all at once in a step". You move, shoot and assault in discrete steps, completing that step for all of your units. I like the idea … well, I'm open to it anyhow … of addressing opfire as simply another step.

For any of these solutions, though, the idea of bookkeeping bothers me. I need to mark a lane and range somehow. I guess we already have Ranged In markers, so it's not a completely new concept.

- Bob

Hi Bob,

1. Correct Gone to Ground and not Pinned.
2. I take your point it may be better to conduct shooting at the start of the shooting phase prior to any of the player who moved shooting. The downside is record keeping. Where were the fired upon, how far away was that. If it is done as they move then that is the best time. No record keeping, no fuss. (Naturally the moving player may choose not to move that way if it will trigger OP shooting. A player OP shooting cannot go you moved it there I am firing regardless. A bit of gentlemanly conduct and common sense must prevail. Further to this point OP shooting is also a means of preventing players moving into this field of fire)

I think making it flank shots regardless is way too powerful. OP shooting is an option of of flexibility and should never dominate the FOW mechanics and general game flow.

3. There has to be a down side to OP shooting or else it is too powerful and will change the flow of games. By making the OP shooting unit unable to conduct defensive fire, you force the OP player to make choices in keeping with real life and also keeping game balance as well. Do you shoot now or later sort of thing!

FOW already has rules dealing with shooting in your opponents turn (AA fire) and at targets that end their movement out of LOS (shooting at recon that evades).

My suggestions result in similar ROF and restrictions to future activities for the op firing units while also addressing the impossibility of representing certain widely used historical tactics in the exisitng FOW rules.

For the marking out of "beaten zones" you could use a marker at the end of the zone with "ranging poles" on it. Historically accurate and takes up little space on the table.

I dont have a problem with the infantry, its the tanks that pop out and shoot, with the defender just taking it.

AT guns are tough to see, and even harder from a moving tank. Yet I have seen in game a number of tiomes when guns that have seen the tanks move behind cover get zapped when the come out the next turn. It seems like the gun crews decide to make coffee as the tanks have left.

A very simple solution is to change the turn sequence. Shoot first, then move.

badger22 -- Someone on the FoW forums a couple of years back said they'd had problems when I suggested that approach. Apparently, it threw a few other game factors off that weren't obvious at first glance.

The one thing I would say that mitigates that 'popping out' tank is the fact that they only shoot with reduced RoF when doing so. Unless you're a German player who makes those Stormtrooper rules and are careful with movement, there's a good chance that your tanks will face a round of full RoF from the surviving guns, many of which get RoF 3. It's not a risk-free move.

I do see the objection though. I think there will be similar shortcomings with any purely igo-ugo system.

- Bob

Bob, one fine afternon, I had 3 Marders interdicting the open left of the board, hoping to chew up an americans that steped out. A full battery of Preists came out, got 2 kills on thier six shots, and of course I failed my check.

I jst dont see a real battery commander trying that. And to me that is the test of the game. Do RW WWII tactics work or not. In FoW mostly not, due to the offender getting in first shot.

So why keep playing it? Because it is mostly good. And it has brought in a lot of new blood, which is great. I just want to see an official optional rule fixing this.

Badger22, I can feel your pain. I'm not trying to argue that it's perfect, by any means. But FoW does keep games moving along, and those situations yielding those results aren't that common. Those RoF 1 Priests should have been shooting at +1 to hit due to moving, and your Marders should have been +1 for GtG, assuming they were stationary the turn before. If within 16 inches, he'd have needed 6s to hit. If over 16, or your Marders were concealed, then he'd need 7s.

I don't think any rules can keep a player from doing wacky stuff, and he lucked out that it did work, or your Marders would've made short work of the Priests on your turn.

I do question the assertion that any unit on overwatch should be able to fire opportunity fire at will with no penalties, just as if firing in their turn. While our gaming table are perfectly flat, in real life, those tanks zipping between trees would have also been making use of undulations and other cover between those two points. The objection seems to be based on the tabletop rather than what it represents. Just because I can lay a laser pointer down on the table and pick out a point at the other end of the table doesn't mean that the real world is that cooperative. If any such mechanisms are used, I would like for them to be consistent. If I'm moving into position to shoot, I can do so to give myself shots. That doesn't mean that I'm going to do so for anybody waiting to pick me off as I move. At least count anything targeted for opportunity fire as GtG to reflect the use of available partial cover, unless doubling.

There are some clever ideas for adding such a mechanic, and I think my own are interesting. I doubt they'll find their way into the official rules, but we can certainly tweak our own games if we like, and grouse to BF for consideration. As you say, a lot of things do work well in the game otherwise.

As far as tactics go… were your Marders in concealment? I don't think they were particularly fond of slugging it out on open ground with those things!

- Bob

Marders where a victim of table terain, or lack of it. And yes I fully agree that the RW is far different from the table. I spent many years playing Army in Germany, and know just how much cover is available.

Personal story. I was in the Field artillery, in Fore Control. One day I was down o a guns talking to one of my friends. This was an M109A3, a huge peice of equipment. We where sitting on toplooking around while we talked. Across a corn feild, we saw 3 M113s break cover and head right for us, at less than 500 yards. They dodged behind the corn and we lost sight of them. But we could see the antennas sticking up, and they where stioll headed our way. I dropped onto the AG sight and Becker grabbed the gunners sight. The 113s came around the end of the feild, and we nailed them. While the umpires worked out the results we got togather with the commanders of two of the 113s. Even though we where right out in the open, they never saw us at all. Had it been real, the 155mm shells would have hit those tin cans right in the flank at just under 50 meters. Most likely no survivers.

You cant really model that in FoW. Nor, in most other games either.

I have a great deal of respect for Phil Yates as a game desiner, a historian, and as a buissness owner. The last may be most important, I am so tired of great games disappearing because the owners could not run a buisness.

Anyway, I dont have a solution. I believe Phil knows the game does not reflect reality, but chose that course because if he didnt, it would be one more WWII game where nobody moves until you can mask or suppress the enemy. Thats what you really do, but it can make for a boring game. FoW is very dynamic. It is fun, and you can finish a game. Those are all important points.

And it has opened up WWII gameing to the younger kids like nothing else. SOmething that I think angers many of its critics the most, because they didnt do it.

So while I complain about some form of Op fire, and the short weapons ranges vs the high speeds of some vehicles, that doesnt mean I want to see it go away. Just that I want some really bright peson figure out how to fix them, but keep the game lively.

Oh, and to answer the question you actualy asked, yes they where under 16". Table was only 4" wide and we started less than 24" apart. I dont remember the reason, soomething to do with the town in the middle of the table.

I did not complain at the time. The guy who got me had played very little historicas, more of a GW player that was getting into historicals. I am old enough to lose if it helps keep a new guy in. And later in the game when he pushed forward his halftrack mounted infantry, he discovered my halftrack mounte quad 20mms where a lot more dangerous than they looked.

badger22, reading your account, I was reminded of another mechanic that's missing from FoW: Spotting, also known as Target Acquisition. In order to fire at a target, a unit must pass a roll, taking into account that target's present circumstance as they relate to the shooter. Did they move? Did the shooter move? What are the visibility conditions? Is the target unit fully in cover?

Using your previous example of the Priests popping out to fire on your Marders, one of the problems with many games, including FoW is that "we" (the player) see things that "we" (our figures on the table) wouldn't automatically see. The old "Helicopter General" problem. If a spotting roll were required, just moving out into a position wouldn't guarantee a round of shooting. They'd have to make a spotting roll that would have taken into account their movement, your being immobile and so forth. On your turn, you wouldn't be subject to most of those same penalties, so would have a better chance of firing on them. Mind you, they could still make that roll and get exactly the same results, despite an additional mechanic. It is, however, something that could be added that does not break up the flow of the game or disrupt the rules otherwise.

Using your real-world example: Your M109A3s were represented by your Marders. The opposing M113s were represented by the Priests. As they broke cover, you were caught unaware and they could have spotted you, but failed to do so. As a result, "in your turn", you were able to fire on them, having made your spotting roll.

Good on you for not fussing too much at a new player. He was probably stoked by having pulled that off, and will learn a painful lesson soon enough when his dice don't work so well in his favor next time. Priests aren't tank destroyers, and they wouldn't work that well in most game situations!

- Bob

True, there is no spotting roll in FoW, with the exception of the 'Range In' roll for indirect fire.

I'm still not sure that the game system needs such a mechanic added to it. Opportunity fire was taken out of 40k when the 3rd edition was released, because it made the game boring and uninteresting.

And that is pretty much the heart of it all. Opertunity fire and spotting do slow it down. But, that was the nature of WWII combat. If the game was more accurate, then many would find it boring and not play.

There are those that get enraged when you point out that as it is, FoW is not the most accurate game around. They want it to be fun and accurate. Or rather what they consider fun. There are those that consider more simulation type games fun.

I like playing. It could be more gamey, like FoW, or more simulation, like Panzer. Either is fine, as long as there are people to play.

Are you folk seriously talking about mechanisms for FoW with an eye to realism??!!

;)

fun rules….but let's not get silly!! lol

Yes, yes. Not to be confused with all those serious rules that the big boys play with their little toys now.

- Bob

Oh the horror. Cant have any bit of reallity in FoW.

As we are right next to a large Army post, many of the FoW players around here are Vetrens. We do know the difference between the two. Just want to get that out before somebody chips in with the required "its not reallity because you cant get shot at".

You want OpFire in an IGO-UGO game? Fine. Each platoon gives one order in your pool. each time a platoon executes an order in LOS of any opposing platoons, each opposing platoon may conduct an Automatic Reaction Order. If firing, they shoot as if moving. If moving, half distance. You cannot shoot indirectly.

straight port of the Infinity ARO system to platoon-scale battles.

It isnt just the lack of Op fire. There is also the high rate of movement vs weapons ranges. It is possible for an attack to speed right down to close range with no response from the defender.

And as was mentioned above, a lack of spotting makes AT guns much less useful than they really where.

These problems are not limited to FoW by any means. It is just that it is so widespread that it is much more visible than most other systems.

I dont beleive it will ever be fixed. After all, it is not like Phil never played a real wargame before, so I am sure he was well aware of the problem when he first published FoW. But, he made a decision about those things that it would be a funner game by not including them.

He was certainly right that the game moves a lot faster this way. But tactics have little resemblence to actual WWII tactics.

Perhaps looking at the distance that OP fire would be taking place? In theory, wouldn't most OP fire take place at closer ranges rather than way out there? We did have that in our game, but you also had to spot your target. Given FOW's timescale as well as range scale perhaps OP fire is nonexistent due to the abstraction of movement and distance?
I do remember playing 40K 2nd edition with Overwatch. There are limitations to the idea. Two sides setup and once the game starts no one moves because the other will blast their army into oblivion because of Overwatch. My guess is that Phil did not want that aspect in FOW.

Now, let's say that OP fire/Overwatch/ Eagle Eye Death Ray rules are in effect in FOW. How much time will it add to playing the game?

How much closer is it to WW2 tactics that people are complaining about that does not presently exist in FOW?

What game or games accurately reflect WW2 tactics AND be playable within a couple of hours that is at the same scale as FOW?

Another comment on "realism" in miniature games: You cannot have realism unless you want to throw in the following:

Confusion
Chaos
People dying
People wounded in various degrees
People who soil themselves under fire or not under fire
Smells of the battlefield which I won't go into as it is numerous and can possibly offend someone and get me sent toe the DH.

In the end, we are NOT going to get realism on the tabletop. It is a game. All those rule sets are games that take you away from daily life for a few hours in a way that is supposed to be enjoyable. Life is short, enjoy it.

Perhaps looking at the distance that OP fire would be taking place? In theory, wouldn't most OP fire take place at closer ranges rather than way out there? We did have that in our game, but you also had to spot your target. Given FOW's timescale as well as range scale perhaps OP fire is nonexistent due to the abstraction of movement and distance?
I do remember playing 40K 2nd edition with Overwatch. There are limitations to the idea. Two sides setup and once the game starts no one moves because the other will blast their army into oblivion because of Overwatch. My guess is that Phil did not want that aspect in FOW.

Now, let's say that OP fire/Overwatch/ Eagle Eye Death Ray rules are in effect in FOW. How much time will it add to playing the game?

How much closer is it to WW2 tactics that people are complaining about that does not presently exist in FOW?

What game or games accurately reflect WW2 tactics AND be playable within a couple of hours that is at the same scale as FOW?

Another comment on "realism" in miniature games: You cannot have realism unless you want to throw in the following:

Supply issues (I think of Zulu Dawn!)
Confusion
Chaos
People dying
People wounded in various degrees
People who soil themselves under fire or not under fire
Smells of the battlefield which I won't go into as it is numerous and can possibly offend someone and get me sent toe the DH.

Therefore I do not claim to list all the stuff that goes with the battlefield.

In the end, we are NOT going to get realism on the tabletop. It is a game. All those rule sets are games that take you away from daily life for a few hours in a way that is supposed to be enjoyable. Life is short, enjoy it. Enjoy games for crying out loud.

Oh yeah, a shout out to koyoteblue:

Duddddeeeeeeeee!

Capt. John, I think that's the point badger22 was getting at in his earlier post regarding "realism". :)

There was a long discussion on the FoW forums a few years ago in which one poster suggested that opportunity fire be allowed only for anti-tank guns. It's an interesting idea, and one that would at least limit the situations that might slow down the game. Heck, just give ATG a 12 inch "defensive fire" zone against AFVs and keep everything else the same.

But considering that small ATG already benefit from the Small Gun rule, making them harder to hit before they fire, the Ambush rule in some scenarios and the aforementioned penalties for AFV shooting after moving and Defensive Fire, the overall change on outcome might not make much difference in the end. I have to wonder if Phil and company cranked all of this through hundreds of iterations and simply found that it didn't significantly impact most games, while slowing things down? I suspect the evolution of these other rules is the outcome of wanting something without disrupting the igo-ugo game flow. If you add opfire, now to be "realistic", you need to consider the situation of the firer, intervening terrain (abstracted) and so forth. It's more than just one change, and surely the road to hell, paved with good intentions and all!

These would all make for interesting house rules, and I'd happily give them a try. As you say, though, it's unlikely it'll be anything official for some time, and I do like the portability of the game between groups. My real preference is for lower-level skirmish games that provide all sorts of "meaty" stuff like opportunity fire, but I just don't find games locally for those.

- Bob

See I toold you it was maditory for someone to pop in with it is realistic anyway, so why try to much?

Nobody is going to die. There is likely to be lots of confusion. Probably no bleeding, but in any large group of gamers there will be some nasty smells.

I dont understand why take the time to get the uniforms the right shade, the vehicles get the proper camo patern, but completely blow off the tactics. If we are just playing toy soldiers with to realistic effects, why call it WWII at all? Why not just toy soldiers?

One of the things that often gets overlooked, is what we are actualy doing. In general, we are recreating the command decisions of a commander. But, we are actualy doing it for two or more. In FoW we are moving a reinforced company of some sort. But we are also making most of the decisions of all the platoon leaders. ANd really we are even makeing a few decisions for the individual tank and squad when we pick targets to shoot at.

And, when we whip up the company in question, we are playing a brigade comander, or perhaps even the Division commander. Afer all, no company commander gets to pick what he gets to take on a mission. He goes with they let him have.

So, FoW gets the General part fairly good. You have these assets available, and this mission to accomplish, what do I need to assign to get it done? And you cant send everything, becasue there are other missions to handle. So it isnt exactly the same, but you have to make some of the same decisions.

Then comes the battle itself. This is where much of FoW fails as WWII combat. Decisions are made that have little to nothing to do with what a real commander would do. I cant imagine what would cause a real commander to throw a full battery of Preists straight at a Platoon of tank killers, completely unsupported, right at the start of the battle. Perhaps later on with much at stake and the fight in the balance, perhaps. But not in the opening minutes. And I dont understand how a knowledgeable person can defend it as a realistic decision.

All games are an abstraction of real events. No game can be playable, and cover everything. So they wind up with the level of abstraction the desiner can stand, and a dfocus on the parts he considers most important. Some games are designed from the ground up with a specific intent in mind.

FoW seems mostly driven to be fast, flow smooth when tournement players are not involved, and to be fun. I feel it largely meets those goals, and so should be considered a good game. But a poor simulation. IABSM is a game from toofatlardies that from the start consintrated on command and control issues.It is card driven instead of IGO/UGO. Turns can end at anypoint in the sequence. Units may move and fight every turn, or do almost nothing at all.

Is it a better game than FoW? No, I dont think so. Is it a better simulation of WWII company level command decisions? Yes it is. No big surprise, thats what it was designed to be.

So you play the one you like best, or like me, play as many as you can and enjoy the best of each.

But, I do wish to find a way to make FoW resemble real company commanders decisions. Have rules that punish bad tactics and reward good wons. Or rather than good and bad, historical and unhistorical ones. And I dont know how to do that easily, and preserve the good parts about FoW. Phil is a much better game desiner than me. I hope that he someday addresses these issues and finds a fix.

But, there may not be a fix. There may not be an eligant solution that fixes ranges, speeds, opfire and spotting. Perhaps if thse are added in it does slow down and become a game of no movenment. But when I look at some of the WWII games I played back in the seventies, and the games I play now, I am confident that something will be found that fixes at least some if not all of these problems. But it certainly wont happen if the issue isnt raised, and discussed and batted around.

You want to prevent people from using Priests as assault guns? All arty shoots 'across the Volga'. Not a single artillery gun on the table. I'll think about letting you have those battalion mortars on the table. I don't put *any* artillery on the board anymore, except for mortars, or the occasional Jock Column prowling the Desert.

While it really dilutes the uniqueness of the US Tank Destroyer corps, letting all AT guns have the US rules would *probably* help.

It is not so much prevent with rules, like you cant use this for that. But to make it painful to do so. I would not lead an assualt with my marders either. Yet, the way the rules are, that is a viable option.

And if there is not an eligent way of doing it, I see no reason to do it in a clunky way.

I dont believe there is a greatdeviding line called FUN/ACCURATE. I want to see a bridge over that one.

One of the problems I find is that there are a number of FoW gamers that have no idea how WWII combat went, and really dont care. They often pop off with, well it is as accurate as any other game. Or it gives good results. Good results? You mean somebody won and somebody lost? On that level yes it works, but so does flipping coins.

I just want to see it get better. I dont believe it is the pinnicle of game development. I think it can be improved. But I dont know how to go about doing that.

badger22, has that situation with the Priests being used as ersatz-assault guns been a recurring problem? That sounds very much like one of those things that worked once. I'd be interested to see if he was actually able to pull it off repeatedly. Not much would have had to go wrong for him to get an expensive unit pulverized for little gain. You did mention that the game was a bit odd overall. And certainly those Marders wouldn't have been moving in the open in an actual encounter, right? You BOTH were playing in a contrived situation with a lack of terrain. That's the not the rules! I don't agree with "fixing" rules because somebody pulled something silly off once or twice.

But yeah, sometimes somebody will simply roll a bunch of 6s when they need 'em. Other times, they won't get one to save their lives. And a run of bad luck can frustrate even the most methodical application of tactics. They didn't work 100% of the time, after all. What I see is that the players who use sound tactics typically fare better than the powergamers. Over the span of many games, they work. Yet I can see examples of odd things happening all the time.

You mentioned that tank commanders get to pick individual targets. They get to pick PLATOONS to fire at. They can't single out specific targets if more than one model is in view. The targeted player gets to allocate hits.

Of course, you can always use the IABSM card activation method with FoW and see how that works out. While I like the TFL rules, they're simply not played much around here, and other aspects of the rules put some players off. I just don't know how many actual opponents you'll find.

- Bob