"tempted with flames of war" Topic

After looking at various mags and the web site I am tempted to purchase the flames of war rule book. However I am not sure what else I would need supplement wise to play late war games. Do the rules have no vehicle data? Please help!!!!!!!

The current (2d ed.) rulebook does not include vehicle data and the army lists. You would probably also want to acquite either the "Festung Europa" (FE1) or "Fortress Europe" (FE2) supplement for the late war period, at least to start. FE2 superseded FE1, but some players still prefer the FE1 lists; a number dropped out when FE2 was released.

Or, if you're not going to be playing in tournaments or against people who insist on absolute currency right away, go ahead and find a copy of the v.1 rules on eBay. They included basic army lists for the major powers. That would likely be an inexpensive way to get started, and the lists will carry over without significant problems.

Allen

Allen's suggestion for FE is valid from January-August 1944.
Yeah, I know. What a racket.
It would be NICE if BF would rethink their "3 supplements per campaign" Late War policy and publish them all in one hardcover volume, like they did with North Africa.
Combining all Normandy books into one would have been nice.

What SPECIFIC Late War campaigns do you have in mind? Or, do you just want to go generic?

"Allen's suggestion for FE is valid from January-August 1944."

That's why I said "…at least to start"!

That's also why the 1st Ed. "generic" lists aren't a bad thing.

Allen

Although the FE books list the dates as January-August 1944, the organizations contained in that book can easily be used for most of the rest of the war as well. The major combatants made few additional changes to the basic organizations covered in that book during the remainder of the war.

The other books to consider as starters are the North Africa book (covering the North Africa, Tunisia, and Sicily campaigns in 1942-43) and Ostfront (covering the eastern front in 1942-1943).

As is often repeated here, it's good advice to first find out what other players are doing and start there.

Are you smitten with the rules and general approach of the game? Or just the look? If the latter, you might want to investigate the core mechanics a bit more before dropping big coin to see if they are for you. Maybe get in on a game at a store or club? Or read some battle reports?

Buy their figures but get another set of rules to play with.

This will allow you to play a game that feels like World War 2, which FOW does not do.

Also will allow you more money to buy more miniatures than having to buy new sets of rules and books every year or so.

I would go with the Second Edition of the rules, then pick a period (North Africa – Tunisia – Sicily – Italy, Mid War East Front, or late War) then buy the appropriate book. Basically you need the rules, the Army book, a truckload of D6s and minis.

Ed G.

It only took 3 and a half hours for some person with nothing better to do than not answer the question that was asked to chime in.

Really, this knee-jerk hatred of FoW is comical. You only make yourself look like an ass when you do that. Save your comments for the "Why I hate Flames of War" threads, instead of the "Please Help Me with Flames of War" threads.

I'd go with Allen's second suggestion – because, as mentioned above, Allen's suggestions are good ones ;-).

You can get v1 books for cheap (I just threw a set into a massive trade I worked out), and it'll let you test the waters. Basing of minis and such didn't change between versions, so you lose only the cost of the 1E books, which should be minimal.

Alternatively, Ed's suggestion is a good one – 2E+Afrika gives you all you need to play in North Africa.

Don.

I'd see if you can find one of the mini-rulebooks that were printed up when the Second edition came out and then whichever theater-book catches your fancy (Ostfront, North Africa, or FE). The mini-books aren't quite the same as the big hardcovers, but they *are* all you need to play the game.

There were some significant changes between first and second editions in the treatment of 'gun teams' (HMGs are much more effective in 2e, but more vulnerable)

You can get the mini rulebook in the openfire box set. Which, by the way, is a good place to start. The mini rulebook doesn't have some rules. IE. Fortifications and some demolition and street fighting. But, you get 2 Stugs and 3 Shermans and some themed dice to get you started. Also you can always download a pdf for your list from the website. Certain units came out as a pdf. So you can test the water without buying a large amount of stuff.

Hi Slinky;
Hopefully you have a group near you that gets together for FoW. This will allow you to field a force that meshes with what they are playing.
At our local game store, we have new players team up with veteran players all the time.
We usually loan out our army books to other players so they can plan out what they want to field.
Like the others recommended, pick up the rules (Starter box is a great idea) and then the Fortress Europe book.
Good gaming;
Joe

If you don't have a local group I would probably look at Open Fire and then download some of the free PDF briefings from the flames of war website.

The forums on the website are a great place to get information as well.

Looking at the rule sets available it looks like a toss up between FOW and rapid fire for me with rapid fire edging it at the moment due to not needing any supplements at first

I think its a good idea to explore in order to see what suits your personal taste in what a WW2 game should be like. Flames of War has a huge popular base and obviously pleases those players. Others prefer a different approach.

I think the suggestion made to try it out with someone else first is probably a wise move. No use spending lots of money then deciding to move to something else.

OH! Wait…wait…..errrr…..actuallllllly…..I think that is what most wargamers seem to do anyway.

There are a few examples stat lines in the rulebook but they are just that – isolated examples. Enough to stick a few items down on the table and use the ruleset.

There are a chunk of PDFs on the Battlefront website that are army lists – the older ones often expect/require you to have one of the army list books to get everything out of them but the newer ones and the ones for forces with no units in any of the published books are complete. While the PDFs cover subjects that are often specialist or minor forces, they will get you looking at forces, stats and number of units in a given battle size fairly quickly and cheaply. So you don't actually need to buy a handbook straight off if you are playing the right force (Late War, Lapin Sota Finns for example is a complete PDF download).

WHat I think is more important is to find out what FoW is going on in the local area or with your likely opponents. That may affect what you choose to buy and play – and so your PDF/Handbook etc selection. Also with that sort of step you can decide whether or not the game is for you or not. If not you haven't spent money, if it is then you can jump straight in with the hardback rulebook and a relevant supplement or two.

Yes I am not a FOW's Fanboy.

They have good World War 2 Mini's but their rules do not give a realistic feel for World War 2 combat.

I have seen many games of it played and not once did I think that a World War 2 battle was being gamed.

No what was happening was who could roll d6's better.

There are far better World War 2 rules out there.

Yes I would agree that it has done well and there are many others out there who are fanboys of it. But most of them are Power/WAAC's which only drives other players to do the same.

Not once did I see anyone field green troops and were all about the tank rush.

Which is the reason why they will put off the Pacific Theatre as long as possible since they can't build tank heavy lists.

Hmmm….too bad. Sounds like you have chosen to play with an interesting group of people.

The folks I've played have been interested in historical play. We've all fielded green troops at one time or another, and I've never seen hub-to-hub tanks. And, BTW, the vast majority of the group I play with are retired or serving military, and have a fair to excellent knowledge of military history. But, in the end, ALL rules sets are games and can only represent a limited interpretation of reality.

Maybe you need a better class of opponent….? After all, any set of rules can be "gamey" depending on the individual, and whether or not you play in competition games.

I played an all-conscript Soviet infantry list at our last big event, and fielded nothing bigger than an ATR and some HMGs to support 4 full companies of infantry.

And try as I might, even with good rolls, I can't get my 45mm guns and ATR to kill the big tanks.

What am I missing? How come that stuff only works when the FoW haters are around?

- Bob

bobstro,

I also field regularly infantry only lists and sometimes not a single crew served weapon system for my poor Soviets.

But then again, I prefer historical to tournament style.

Yet FoW does both well.

What FoW cannot do is guarantee how your opponent is going to play.

It does however give you very realistic results. Hub to hub tanks is almost always a result of to small a table and not enough terrain. Forcing the player to rely on hub to hub to get all of his forces into a small space to give a specific result. Like trying to get everyone out of line of sight, or into a terrain feature, etc.

Its a game, suspend belief, have fun.

The mini rulebook, then a free pdf for a force list. Or better yet, find someone locally watch a game or two. Join in, use a borrowed force and game list. Then after a bit buy only what you need. Find opponents that play the style of game you want.

Good luck and have fun

Chris

@ bobstro: The 45mm is going to have a hard time against the Cats (you *might* bail a tiger from the side, but you can't hurt them head-on), and is pretty marginal against PzIVs *from the front*.

Smaller AT guns need a surprising amount of finesse to be effective. PAK40s and the Russian 76mm artillery guns will kick a big cat's front armor in, but the small guns need to be set up to get flank shots.

-----

I don't recommend putting more than 1500 points on a 4x8 table. Some lists can get away with 1500 points on a 4x6 (my Desert Rats list, for example, with 11x Crusader 2s, 3x Grants, a rifle platoon, 3x Bofors 40mm and 8x 25pdr), but those are the *exception* not the rule.

Lion,

who needs 45mm at guns, when I can just swarm the tank with infantry and kill it.

That poor Tiger just doesn't have enough ammo to kill all my infantry stands.

chris

wwiiogre wrote:

[…] Hub to hub tanks is almost always a result of to small a table and not enough terrain. Forcing the player to rely on hub to hub to get all of his forces into a small space to give a specific result. Like trying to get everyone out of line of sight, or into a terrain feature, etc.

Outside of the staged pictures on the BF web sites, most of the hub-to-hub tanks I see in pictures are at deployment, where the tanks are actually placed that way prior to movement onto the table. It certainly can and does happen. I've seen it in other games as well.

I've run large tank battalions on occasion (30 T-34s) when I want a fast-moving game, and my opponents gleefully tear them up when I hit a bottleneck. Hub-to-hub tanks is not a winning strategy!

- Bob

I've played a fair number of goofy ahistorical match-ups on days where we have a limited selection of opponents and just want a quick game. Personally, I don't find a US-Soviet match-up all that far-fetched, but some guys go nuts when they see it.

My favorite games are historical match-ups though. My regular opponent has a preferred Italian MW infantry list that I have faced with my Soviet MW infantry list, and we always have a good time. In fact, we played an introductory game at a store where I fielded nothing bigger than a T-70, he those little Italian light tanks. The game caught on quite well after that.

When a mid-war monsters event was held, I brought my 1942 Strelkovy list with nothing but the foot sloggers. I think there were only a couple of guys that used any of the actual MWM models. I figure four full companies of infantry is the REAL mid-war monster! :)

Slinky, play whatever you can. There's not need to be exclusive with a set of rules. This ain't marriage! The same figures can be used with any number of rule sets. I'd recommend giving FoW a try though, if only for comparison.

- Bob

Battlefronts desire to sell as many heavy tanks as possible obviously explains why they've just posted a PDF for the Polish Home Army…..

As the others said, suck it and see. It's at the 'game' rather than 'simulation' end of the market, though unless Mithmee is a veteran I can't see how he'd say it didn't feel like WW2.

I'll also put in a word for I Ain't Been Shot Mum…

Russian 76mm artillery guns will kick a big cat's front armor in,

Ouch… So much for the "realism".
--
Tim

It only takes one good air strike to cure you of the hub-to-hub tank habit.

Ditto Bird wrote:

Russian 76mm artillery guns will kick a big cat's front armor in,

Ouch… So much for the "realism".

I can only assume that was a typo. The 76mm guns can't do much against the front armor of the big tanks.

- Bob

Can't speak for the rules as I have not played them, but I prefer the Old Glory minis to Battlefront's guys. You can't beat the price and I like the scuplts better. OG's vehicles are alos a LOT less than BF and it might be worth a look before you take the plunge.

Some of the OG vehicles are great. Others, especially the T-34s, trucks and halftracks, look a bit squashed. As long as you don't mix them within a unit, they look fine on the table next to BF vehicles. The OG bags of 50 infantry are ideal if you're just starting out. However, it is an expensive way to build a single platoon, as you wind up with 50 HQ figures, 50 LMG, 50 light mortars as well as 50 riflemen. IMO, they blend in just fine with the BF figures, so there's no reason not to mix and match to find the most economical combination.

If you really want to economize and aren't worried about playing outside your immediate circle, 6mm is an even cheaper way to do, and the games look great with more space on the table.

- Bob

Yes I am a veteran but World War 2 was my dad's war.

I have also been wargaming since the early to mid 1970's and over that time period I have played and watched many World War 2 games using several different set of rules.

Some were better than others but when the game was over the game did feel like a World War 2 battle.

I have seen FOW played and I will never play it myself because none of those games came close to feeling like a World War 2 battle was fought.

No way in World War 2 would a company of 10 Cromwell tanks move into a major build up area without infantry support since they knew that the chances of coming out in one piece was slim if the enemy was there.

In FOW players would not even think twice and would charge right on in.

Yes FOW is Miniature Wargaming but World War wargaming it not.

I would agree with you that there are some FOW players who try to go the historical route with their forces.

But when the power gamers start building a list they are only going for what will help them win.

Mithmee wrote:

[…] No way in World War 2 would a company of 10 Cromwell tanks move into a major build up area without infantry support since they knew that the chances of coming out in one piece was slim if the enemy was there.

Well, in a FoW game, if the enemy were there -- whether deployed prior to the Cromwells moving in, or after as an ambush -- their chances WOULD have been slim indeed. Unsupported armor is at a real disadvantage, especially if they get into an area that allows assaults without them being able to get off any defensive fire (within 4" of enemy in cover).

You do get a bit of the helicopter general effect in that a player can often know that an enemy isn't in such an area where real-life counterparts wouldn't know for certain.

[…] But when the power gamers start building a list they are only going for what will help them win.

Oh absolutely power gamers do! But they'll tend to fare poorly against anybody using sound tactics. Most of their lists tend to be a one-trick pony. It can be a drag facing those constantly, and finding like-minded players definitely improves the games. Other things like mixing up scenarios so only one type of force isn't at an advantage, and adding enough scenery on the table helps. There should be a LOT of cover out there for infantry to lurk about in.

If your only opportunity to play is in tourneys, that can really give a skewed perspective on the game. While I frequently play in tourneys, they're definitely not my preferred way to game!

- Bob

This is the kind of Flames of War that we like to play. We also do standard fare tournaments as well.

here is a link:

link

I am hosting and GMing this event. After this we will be setting up some campaign stuff and then planning our next big event. I want Kursk, 48' of 4' table filled with Soviet entrenched infantry, AT guns, then the most armor you have ever seen on a table. Minefields, tank traps, pak fronts.

or maybe we should do another historical. In our area the different clubs have hosted D-1 and then D'Day. We are now doing Stalingrad breakout/encirclement, we have done Early War encirclement of Kiev, we have done Sicily, Salerno and many more historical events. We also have a group that just wants to play min/max tournament style 4'x6' on 1500 point games.

The point is, we play, we have fun. Its a game

chris

Personally I applaud any set of rules that not only generates historical interest in the period, but also delivers an entertaining, fast paced game.

Absolute historical accuracy is a myth anyway; it's called war-gaming for a reason.

Or war-themed gaming. :)

I've made a point of collecting rules at about the level of FoW, and I find that they have more in common than different when you get down to examining mechanics. The differences come down to degree of abstraction for different factors, and player preference in dealing with those abstractions.

The good news, again, is that you don't have to pick only one.

- Bob

"No way in World War 2 would a company of 10 Cromwell tanks move into a major build up area without infantry support since they knew that the chances of coming out in one piece was slim if the enemy was there.

In FOW players would not even think twice and would charge right on in."

I rather think this is more of an issue with wargamers than any specific set of rules.

I have seen plenty of players conduct cavalry charges on tracks with unsupported tanks against dug in infantry, BUAs, prepared AT defences, whatever. You name it and they'll charge it. They will even do it with tanks which have supposedly been assigned for infantry support, but oh no, in some mysterious way the Shermans/Churchills/T34s/Matildas/Pz IVs/Tigers/Stugs end up 'outrunning' the infantry they are supporting. Some of them then get a bit miffed when their tanks all get blown up. One of my regulars specialises in losing entire brigades of tanks like this.

The tank charge has more to do with time constraints forced by tournament style play. So does tweaking lists and min/maxing lists.

If you have less than 2 hours to finish a game at a tournament, some players then crunch up their vehicles and charge straight ahead, hoping for a quick and nasty snatch and grab victory.

A good example of this is a British Infantry company with minimum infantry squads, full churchill support and two recon platoons using the Night attack rules so that they can snatch and grab a quick objective without taking fire.

This is great tournament style play, designed to win a game with minimum losses but has no place in historical gaming.

Yet, FoW can accomplish both. I don't prefer tournament style play, but I do play in tournaments, because the tournament players play in my historical games. So I take one for them, then they take one for me.

Fair is fair. A game of tabletop miniatures is only as good as the people playing it. The game is only as historical and fun as the people playing make it.

I chose FoW because the game plays clean and fast, but also delivers realistic results using real tactics and strategy. Does it cover everything, no, it is not a simulation. Simulations are great but bog down in the realism.

its a game, play and have fun. find people to play with that like the same style as you.

chris