"FoW and Tactics" Topic

Hi all,

I've been slowly working my way through the All About Miniatures podcast and have just finished up the one with the review of Flames of War. My limited contact with the game, I've always thought of it as being just that. A game with some WWII elements.

The guys on the podcast, OTOH, find that using actual WWII tactics (pin and flank and so forth) actually work well in the game.

So, for those that are playing FoG currently, what are your experiences with this? Do you find you are using more game related tactics or can you apply WWII tactics to the game and be successful?

John

PS. The review was of the 2nd edition set of rules.

They are in the rules and can be done.

Can't say I have ever seen them used over much in the FOW games I have seen/played.

mjc

Most people will have seen tounament games which have a very peculiar shape so tactics get, well, "cheesy." But in my games players who do well use sound WW2 tactics.

I play a LOT of FoW. My opinion is that it is a game with some WWII elements, a very fun game. I think there are times if you step back you can look at it and say, "yes, that rewarded historical tactics" but just as often you can laugh at the ability of units to dash from cover to cover in the face of the enemy and then flank them. This and other things that pop up are symptoms of IGOUGO with no overwatch.

That being said you can always go back and "fit" the story of the game into what happened if your creative and feel the need. All that being said it is a very functional game out of the box with good balance and a large community of gamers and suprisingly friendly tournament gamers.

Ed G.

Pinning and flanking are highly rewarding tactics in FoW, but I know you could argue that this is one of the "WWII elements" that they've factored into the game.

I've played FoW for a very, very long time and there's far more "WW2 elements" in the game than grognards would like to admit. No, it's not a WW2 simulation but then what really is bar being there?

Specifically to flanking I've seen many players do a quick read of the rules and not understand exactly how it works. A stand of infantry that is being assaulted may rotate on the spot to conduct defensive fire. The stands cannot move, and a lot of players will have their units deployed such that only one or two stands can actually rotate – the others will end up overlapping and therefore should not rotate at all. The problem is that many players don't remember that you cannot overlap, and they just move stands to accomodate as many of their teams as possible in defensive fire.

McWong73, I was just making a general example. I am VERY experienced at FoW. My flanking reference was really in regards to vehicles and their ability to dash from cover and potentially come in for flank shots on other Tank Teams without ever receiving fire. A good example of this is the Cromwell rush tactic. I am not interested in arguing for or against the merits of the game. It is probably my favorite miniatures game, but I was addressing acarhj's question and in my opinion it is a very gamey game. Though many of the conventions are there for playability and balance I think they do a great job overall.

Ed G.

Ed G.

Wasn't actually criticising anyone here, sorry if you thought I was mate and we're on the same page vis a vis being happy players of FoW.

What's the Cromwell rush look like? Asking as I've got a Guards Cromwell horde on the workbench at the moment. Is this just "move up turn 1, then rush up turn 2 and fire in the flanks"?

That really doen't mean much pinning and flanking will work in pretty much any tactical game regardless of it's ability to reflect the period it's aimed at.

Well other than using World War 2 miniatures, which is the only thing that ties it to World War 2.

It might be an okay game but World War it is not.

Hatahs!

Like I said, short of being there what is an accurate simulation of WW2? I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

Jeez, can't you guys let a FoW discussion happen without threadjacking it into "FoW sucks"?

Mithmee certainly can't!

I was put off FOW by some of the comments at TMP in the past but in the end decided to give it a go and was surprised how good it was for a simple game.

The best games I have played have all been uneven scenarios.

pinning and flanking

Yes, but mostly with my wife.

Looks like someone is going out of their way to get the last word in on FoW posts! :)

The guys who play with sound tactics do far better than anybody just counting on a power list to win. Also important to remember the scenario objective -- the scoring does not only reward destroying things.

- Bob

McWong73 wrote

Like I said, short of being there what is an accurate simulation of WW2? I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

Actually most of the forces used in FoW players are not at all representative of normal OOBs. Companies with but two platoons and huge amounts of support from Divisional or higher level assets.

Jeez, can't you guys let a FoW discussion happen without threadjacking it into "FoW sucks"?

I've been trying to avoid joining in FoW threads for a while, but I just can't let you off with that nonsense above.

I've been trying to avoid joining in FoW threads for a while, but I just can't let you off with that nonsense above.

Please stay on topic. This is not another "I hate FoW" thread. I am curious how the game plays with WWII tactics and others experiences with that.

Please stay on topic.

So, how long have you been in the cat herding buisness?

So, how long have you been in the cat herding buisness?

I'll tell you later. Right now I've got to stop a stampede!

Good tactics are rewarded in FoW….. you need to employ fire and maneuver, and coordinate your indirect fire (to include displacing your batteries).

For what its worth, I am a moderately experienced FoW player. I've played in three different tournaments now, and have played in three large scale battle games where each player had roughly a company of troops. So, take what you can out of this:

In my experience, playing FoW with historical tactics usually gives you an advantage over an opponent who tries "gamey" tactics. In this regard, if you deploy your forces "in depth" and you properly support them with a variety of assets, you tend to do better than those who bulk up their forces with "cheese." As an example in tournament, I've done the "Cromwell Rush" tactic – which is essentially moving your tanks at the double to get to the objective and then hold it on your next two turns, thus winning the game by Turn 3. I've done this successfully. It may appear to be a "gamey" tactic, but you have to have some luck in pulling it off and your opponent has to fall for it. Remember to contest an objective all you need do is have a unit – any unit – within 4 inches. In my game, my opponent left an objective relatively undefended. He had infantry in cover dug in all around the other objective, but left one objective with a mere two stands of infantry close to it – and they were more than 4 inches from it. So, in my turn I rushed toward the objective on turn 1 moving all of my units at the double. He then remained put on his turn and conducted some fire upon my forces with little effect as I had moved my units behind cover so he did not have line of sight to them. On my turn 2, I moved my units onto the objective (or within 2 inches) and on his turn he sprung his "ambush" forces (a platoon of Panthers) which managed to shoot up one of my platoons, but not enough of them to destroy them and they passed their platoon morale check. On my turn 3, I held the objective, eliminated his ambushers by flanking them and destroying them. So, game ended on turn 3 with a 6-1 victory. I then, since we had time, showed my opponent how to defeat the "bum's rush" tactic with his smaller and more expensive forces by redeploying his infantry to cover both objectives, and then showed him how to deploy his ambushing Panther platoon so that it could wreak havoc on my forces while remaining relatively safe from being "over-run" by my fast moving tanks. Historically, the Soviets did use the "bum's rush" or the "Cromwell Rush" tactic against the Germans – and it worked – especially against Tigers and other heavy tanks. It does not work well in FoW because the standard T-34 cannot hurt a Tiger with it's 76.2mm gun under the rules – at best it can bail out a Tiger on the flank and only if the German player rolls poorly on his save die. So, depending on what you are facing – the tactics do work.

In another game I played, I had a Grenadierkompanie with four platoons of infantry supported by assault guns, air power, some mortars, and an an Elefant for anti-tank. This force performed extremely well for what it was intended to do, which was defend objectives and hold ground. The infantry did not have all of the bells and whistles with panzerfausts, panzerknacker teams, or anti-tank guns either, they were merely Rifle/MG teams supported by assault guns, artillery, aircraft (Stukas), and the Elefant. When I was confronted by mechanized infantry (Americans) and armored recon (again – American), I used them as they would have been used historically. I dug in the infantry, used the assault guns as ambushers, used the Elefant to deal with enemy tanks at long range, and the aircraft and mortars to pin down the enemy troops.

I've found that pinning an enemy unit is not as big an advantage as it may seem to be in other rules because you get to test to unpin your unit at the start of the turn and act as if you weren't pinned in your own turn. It has it's affect during the enemy turn as you can pin down an enemy unit and then assault them, which they cannot prevent if you plan it correctly because they cannot get enough hits on you to pin your assault.

So, in my opinion, yes, historical tactics do provide better results than gaming the rules with cheese. Cheese works to some degree, but it can be dealt with by a skilled general who uses historical tactics.

Derek H wrote:

[…] Actually most of the forces used in FoW players are not at all representative of normal OOBs. Companies with but two platoons and huge amounts of support from Divisional or higher level assets.

That's a player choice, of course, McWong's statements that FoW "allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day" is not incorrect.

But then, you know that already. :)

- Bob

Dear Bobstro, McWong's original statement, which you have chosen to quote only partially, was

I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

Note "the only one" bit. That's complete and utter nonsense.

It's not the "only one" at all and historical OOBs are not even the norm in FoW.

When it comes to "player choice" most FoW players choose to use an understrength company and a shedload of higher level assets.

The game system encourages and rewards the use of atypical OOBs, not at all the "OOB of the day".

But then, you know that already. :)

Derek, get your hand off it mate!

What a player decides to do is their choice – and I'll be the first to agree that a lot come up with some truly strange choices. But the fact remains that you can buy the rules and Fortress Europe and assemble an accurate WW2 company. If the player decides to do otherwise, that's their choice. You yourself have acknowledged that it's the player who determines if they want to be accurate or gamey. That has nothing to do with the rules enabling you to take a historical force, that's an individuals choice. All popular WW2 miniatures rules at the same scale FoW is set at that allow these sort of gamey outcomes. It's up to the players. Why FoW is better is how they lay out the unit selection for your force – sorry but it's far and away better than any other game set at the same scale.

Now let's move on and keep on topic and respect the OP's wishes, it's good manners.

You still want to claim FoW is the

certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

You've already admitted that "out of the box" is two seperate books.

Can you name set of WWII rules set at the appropriate level that doesn't allow the player to choose a realistic order of battle for a company?

As I said before – your claim, quoted above, is complete and utter nonsense.

And are you still trying to get into the cat herding businesss?

Derek H wrote:

Dear Bobstro, McWong's original statement, which you have chosen to quote only partially, was

I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

Note "the only one" bit. That's complete and utter nonsense.

I think you're choosing to ignore the fact that he mentioned he'd played a lot of WW2 games at the start of that sentence. I'm sure, of those that he has played, it's entirely possible that FoW has been the only one to enforce some semblance of historical organizations. One of my frustrations in trying to get into WW2 gaming years ago was, in fact, finding TOE at lower levels. While I certainly could find that information knowing what I do now (particularly with the advent of this "Internets" thing), it is nice to have that information readily available.

I myself have quite a few rule books that claim to have "everything you need" in one book, only to give players a menu of equipment with barely a hint of historical organizations. While it seems to be popular to criticize FoW for allowing players to field under-strength units, similar criticisms don't seem to be leveled so often at other rules that provide even less guidance.

So yes, PLAYERS can do strange things. Just like they can do with any other set of rules. Fortunately, people don't seem quite so compelled to jump into discussions about tactics using those rules with repetitive droning about how PLAYERS chose to play the game. Imagine how much that would suck. So why the compulsion to do that with FoW? Especially when the OP has specifically asked that this not be done?

- Bob

Thank Jovian. Very useful answer.

bobstro wrote:

I think you're choosing to ignore the fact that he mentioned he'd played a lot of WW2 games at the start of that sentence. I'm sure, of those that he has played, it's entirely possible that FoW has been the only one to enforce some semblance of historical organizations

But that's not what he said. He said FoW was the only game he'd played that "allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day". Which is total tosh.

As you yourself point out sbove it's all down to player choice. And that's true for any set of rules out there.

And I note that in the world according to bobstro it's quite allright for someone to jump into a thread with an off-topic comment puffing up FoW and, by implication, criticising other rules, but not allright for someone else to pull him up for it.

And since when does the OP get to dictate what goes on in a thread?

Derek H wrote:

[…] But that's not what he said. He said FoW was the only game he'd played that "allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day". Which is total tosh.

How do you know what games he's played? I've got dozens of sets of WW2 rules, and quite a few of them give little or no guidance on the composition of historical units, or at best, a handful of examples. McWong has already clarified his statement in response to your "correction".

As you yourself point out sbove it's all down to player choice. And that's true for any set of rules out there.

So you're not arguing that the rules themselves prevent the use of historical unit organization any longer? At least we agree that players can and do make silly choices, no matter what efforts the rules writers make… I think. :)

And I note that in the world according to bobstro it's quite allright for someone to jump into a thread with an off-topic comment puffing up FoW and, by implication, criticising other rules, but not allright for someone else to pull him up for it.

You'll notice he was responding to Mithmee, who, in the tradition of 'Grover, has been going back and appending his little take on things to a number of long-idle FoW-related threads. Prior to his little unhelpful comments, the entire thread had been about tactics.

You're certainly working with your own world-view when you state that "by implication", praise of one thing is criticism of another. I like blue. No need for those who prefer red to get worked up, much less feel obliged to "pull one up" on it.

And since when does the OP get to dictate what goes on in a thread?

Since when is it helpful to pull an otherwise productive thread off the tracks by going off-topic?

- Bob

Yeah, the cat herding thing isn't fun but someone's got to do it Derek. It beats splitting hairs – that ruins your eyesight.

"Can you name set of WWII rules set at the appropriate level that doesn't allow the player to choose a realistic order of battle for a company?"

Can you name a rules set that provides a new player with as much information on company organisation as FoW. In fact here's a challenge – show me another rules set that shows the OOB for a US Rifle company for the mid war period in as easy to access and understand (for a newbie) manner as FoW does. I'm talking about accessibility, ease of use and clear presentation.

IABSM – nope (still a great game though).
Rapid Fire – nope (still a great game though).
PBI – nope (still a great game though).

I can open my copies of any of the above and knock up a super accurate, or a super gamey, list in no time. But my brother in law wouldn't have a hope in hell, and nor would anyone else new to WW2 gaming.

"Out of the box" – do I really need to clarify to you what I meand by that term? Seriously mate, you require that? I even used quotation marks, and you don't get it?

BTW, it's good manners to keep on topic to what the OP posted. Like historical OOB's however, you can always chose to ignore that! (as I've been known to do, to my shame)

Fasinating…..

Mcwong, Can you explain why FE counts as "out of the box"

while the likes of IABSM and Rapid fire supplements are not?

Can I also ask what exactly is in all these other games which stops people from having a historically accurate company?

I would say it is perhaps a rash statement to claim that any orbats in any game are in any way historical
They are all built for a game and model it's representation.

There is only one rule for Orbats,
If you want accuracy, dont use wargames rules as a source, but if you absolutely have to, use a 1 to 1 skirmnish set because they will not have used a blunt instrument to bash em to fit.

I for one look forward to seeing how much compromise will be made on the French 1940 Lists for early war Fow.

kevanG wrote:

[…] Mcwong, Can you explain why FE counts as "out of the box"

Reading the entirety of his statement, I take it as in contrast to "don't include squat" on the topic. He's posted twice since then, so perhaps if you read those replies, it will be clearer? You guys have certainly parsed that sentence to death.

Can I also ask what exactly is in all these other games which stops people from having a historically accurate company?

Classic. Nothing in ANY rule set keeps players from using historical organizations. Note that "ANY" includes FoW! The only difference seems to be the compulsion to jump into threads with this criticism. Over and over and over again.

To their credit (note: which doesn't automatically mean a slight towards other companies, Derek. Blue, red and all that.) BF have included some restrictions on what support options can be taken. Perhaps not enough, but at least there is some semblance of structure and relationships of units. Many rules (not all) lack this. Others -- including at least one that you mentioned -- provide enough information for somebody already familiar with unit organizations to put together a reasonably accurate representation of a historical unit, but that's about it. 1-2 pages of actual TO&E per nationality, for example.

I would say it is perhaps a rash statement to claim that any orbats in any game are in any way historical
They are all built for a game and model it's representation.

Which is good to hear, since I read in the IABSM Gotterdamerung supplement that a typical American Infantry Company has a battery of 6 105mm howitzers and 3 batteries of four 155mm available to it as support. :)

Games aren't a great way to learn history, but they're a great way to foster interest in it. Providing enough structure for players to at least get close if they want to is a good thing. I only wish the same level of detail had been provided in the rules I first tried 30 years ago. I might have kept playing.

There is only one rule for Orbats,
If you want accuracy, dont use wargames rules as a source, but if you absolutely have to, use a 1 to 1 skirmnish set because they will not have used a blunt instrument to bash em to fit.

So we can dismiss this as a FoW-specific complaint then? It sounds like anybody wanting to pick apart any set of rules at the level of FoW can find faults.

I for one look forward to seeing how much compromise will be made on the French 1940 Lists for early war Fow.

Probably not enough to cause problems for anybody already familiar enough with them to play most other sets of rules covering the period. Certainly enough to allow someone to get started without having to do a lot of outside research. Which is the idea.

So let's see. The contribution you guys have added to this thread on FoW tactics is that:

1. Players of FoW (and other games) can (and do) bring ahistorical forces to the table.
2. The organizations provided in FoW (and other games) may not be completely accurate.
3. It is possible to build historical forces using FoW (and other rules).

Wow. We're all informed now, thanks! Good to see the duo together again.

- Bob

So let's see. The contribution you guys have added to this thread on FoW tactics is that:

1. Players of FoW (and other games) can (and do) bring ahistorical forces to the table.
2. The organizations provided in FoW (and other games) may not be completely accurate.
3. It is possible to build historical forces using FoW (and other rules).

All of which totally contradicts McWong's original nonsensical statement.

I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

"Out of the box" – do I really need to clarify to you what I meand by that term? Seriously mate, you require that? I even used quotation marks, and you don't get it?

Out of the box seems to mean buying the rule book and a hundred pounds worth of supplements.

"Can you name set of WWII rules set at the appropriate level that doesn't allow the player to choose a realistic order of battle for a company?"

Can you name a rules set that provides a new player with as much information on company organisation as FoW. In fact here's a challenge – show me another rules set that shows the OOB for a US Rifle company for the mid war period in as easy to access and understand (for a newbie) manner as FoW does. I'm talking about accessibility, ease of use and clear presentation.

Not fair. You answer my question first.

In the case of FoW "accessibility, ease of use and clear presentation" comes at a high price when information that could be quite clearly presented on a few pages of A4 is expanded with glossy graphics and pretty pictures until it can be sold as a £13.00 GBP supplement.

They seem to be trying to make it accessible to five year olds.

So Derek H (and all those who can't wait to leap on any mention of FOW) when does your set of ultra completely realistic, only exact copies of real units and tactics can be used and no supplements needed WW2 rules come out?Of course they must have no pictures or glossy graphics and must fill no more than one page of A4 paper but they had better be perfect.Oh they are'nt coming out?Sorry forgot you were too busy spouting garbage from your ivory tower.
And no i'm not a fan-boy.Don't even own a copy of FOW (I'm a Rapid Fire player) but I get tired of "experts" telling us what we should be playing and how bad our choice of rules are.To all FOW bashers,if you don't like them don't play them,but give the harping on a bloody rest.

Derek H – or buying the rules and getting free army lists off the net….

FoW are at least more comprehensive than many rules, including the millions of Finns, Hungarians and Rumanians who fought.

Comapre to one set of rules which neglected to include Brits in the basic rules…..

Derek H wrote:

All of which totally contradicts McWong's original nonsensical statement.

I've played a lot of WW2 games and FoW is certainly the only one that "out of the box" allows new players to assemble a company level force that matches the OOB of the day.

There's absolutely no contradiction. You can parse his grammar (and ignore all those other inconvenient little points) all you want (good god, you're on the EIGHTH iteration now?), but it seems to me he is stating that FoW is the only one of those that he's played that allows a new player to easily match an OOB.

Unless you have some insight into what games he has actually played, you really have no way of contradicting that statement. You seem to be running out of other points to make.

Out of the box seems to mean buying the rule book and a hundred pounds worth of supplements.

Out of the box means not having to do independent research using 3rd party resources in this case, IMO. Again, your 'points' seem to be limited to selective parsing of that same damned sentence over and over and over. Your own statement is certainly hyperbole, unless you truly believe that one must spend $150+ on supplements in addition to the cost of the rules to play a game of FoW. Do you? You seem to be demanding a level of exactitude from others that you don't feel bound to yourself otherwise. Shall we now do a round of parsing that statement? Over and over and over again?

In the case of FoW "accessibility, ease of use and clear presentation" comes at a high price when information that could be quite clearly presented on a few pages of A4 is expanded with glossy graphics and pretty pictures until it can be sold as a £13.00 GBP GBP supplement.

Brilliantly simple, but not often done. That's the point. You're catching on.

I've paid more than $40 USD for more than one set of rules recently, only to find that they contain little or no information on TO&E. One equally glossy set provides all of 4 cooked scenarios with a mish-mash of forces to cover all of WW2. Another, mentioned above, hardly provides 'complete' information in their supplements, much less enough information for a new player to use it as a sole starting point. In fact, they spend the more page space on a rather dismissive assessment of American participation in the war as on actual TO&E. Nonetheless, I've played and enjoyed their game.

While I know full well where to find the necessary information not provided by those publishers -- in the box, or anywhere else for that matter -- I do wish they'd quit chiming in on how complete their systems are. Anybody wanting to try out using historical tactics needs to be playing with something resembling historical forces, after all. Having that information readily (not freely, note) available is certainly a good starting point.

- Bob

Bobstro wrote:

I've paid more than $40.00 USD USD for more than one set of rules recently, only to find that they contain little or no information on TO&E.

More fool you.

Anybody wanting to try out using historical tactics needs to be playing with something resembling historical forces, after all. Having that information readily (not freely, note) available is certainly a good starting point.

Decent information for people wanting to draw up company level OOBs for WWII is both freely and readily available to anyone with half a brain and access to the internet.

And there are much better sources than any FoW supplement.

Derek H wrote:

More fool you.

The latest was one that I believe you actually recommended! Perhaps so.

Decent information for people wanting to draw up company level OOBs for WWII is both freely and readily available to anyone with half a brain and access to the internet.

Which is exactly what I've said repeatedly. All that's left, then, is to match up armor thickness, weapons stats and unit data in game terms. Less trivial, unless you happen to hang out with the esteemed Herr Salt. Then there's the endless twiddling about to determine appropriate point values, should a player wish to use those. Sure, you can do all that yourself. You can also go out into the woods and whittle miniatures from pine bark.*

With a bit of knowledge of where to start, such research is fairly straightforward. Hopefully, bayonetstrength will find a new home. But of course, that's not the point of McWong's post, and particularly that sentence that you have parsed to ridiculous extremes. I certainly wouldn't call a set of rules, regardless of price or page format, "complete" without such information. Whether you consider that "out of the box" is a personal choice, if not a matter of local idiom and one's insistence on literalness… in others at least.

So to sum up: FoW provides reasonable approximations of historical TO&E for those not wishing to do outside research on their own. It does so in a consistent format that can be applied to any force described in terms of the game rather than raw abstract data.

I can say from personal experience that reviewing some of the units in the FoW books has inspired me to go do a bit more research on units that I wasn't otherwise familiar with. I know a fair amount of WW2 history, but I'm not (yet) arrogant enough to claim that I can cite a undisputed source of authoritative company level data for every force covered in the game, much less one that consistently covers ALL of them (being those in the game -- Just so you don't get confused, that is not a claim that the books cover every conceivable force.)

So we can triumphantly add to your combined list of insights:

4. Information found in FoW books can be found elsewhere.

Very helpful. Thanks for that. I'm sure many of us were under the impression that Battlefront actually had rights to the history of WW2. We eagerly await your next stunning revelation.

- Bob

* Hi Allen. Mind if I use that?

Derek H wrote in regards to FoW published material:
"They seem to be trying to make it accessible to five year olds."

So Derek, mate…putting aside the issue of what exactly is meant by "out of the box", doesn't the above agree with what I've been saying?

Also in regards to you refusing to answer my question, you spend a lot of time avoiding a real answer, so be a man and come up with one to mine please.

I didn't come into this trying to make/win an argument or prove that my WW2-Fu is stronger that your WW2-Fu, but it's clear that no matter what some won't be satisfied. That's cool, wargaming is a big tent that can fit us all – but if you really want to pee all over everyone in the tent don't be surprised if we call you out on that.

Bob, let it go – I've got a sneaking suspicion that nothing will be accomplished by this and we both have to wash that gawd awful pee smell out of our clothes.

As the sign above the urinal says: "We aim to please. You aim too, please." Now that I think about, that's probably in response to a few guys letting go. :)

- Bob

So Derek, mate…putting aside the issue of what exactly is meant by "out of the box", doesn't the above agree with what I've been saying?

It's hard to determine what it actually is that your saying. It changes so often.

FoW is the only game that allows you to build historical OOBs mutates into FoW provides more information about OOBs than any other system.

Which is exactly what I've said repeatedly. All that's left, then, is to match up armor thickness, weapons stats and unit data in game terms. Less trivial, unless you happen to hang out with the esteemed Herr Salt. Then there's the endless twiddling about to determine appropriate point values, should a player wish to use those.

As per usual you're screaming off at a tangent. None of the above has anything to do with creating an historical OOB.

4. Information found in FoW books can be found elsewhere.

5. Considerably cheaper.

Derek H wrote:

As per usual you're screaming off at a tangent.

I'm not the one insisting in 9 separate statements that McWong meant something that he repeatedly clarified was not what he meant. If not screaming, you're certainly droning on at this point. Note that you're the one interjecting himself into a discussion about tactics with your usual contrived complaints about the game. I have no doubt that you could contribute valuable information to this discussion. Why you chose to bait others instead is a mystery.

None of the above has anything to do with creating an historical OOB.

Other than actually relating it to the game being played (FoW), perhaps not. The challenge, you see, isn't to find a historical OOB so much as match one to the game. This would include rates of movement, anti-tank values (if appropriate), armor ratings (if appropriate) and crew ratings, among other things. Just locating an OOB is half the battle.

5. Considerably cheaper.

Only if your time is worth nothing.

- Bob

Only if your time is worth nothing.

Or you find historical research enjoyable and dislike points systems and being spoonfed with OOBs of variable quality.

bobstro wrote:

The latest was one that I believe you actually recommended! Perhaps so.

If that's Battlegroup Panzergrenadier then you're quite right. No OOBs at all. You should have asked.

I find the OOBs published for Battlefront WWII very useful when putting together scenarios for BGPG – the two games are played at the same figure scale and the OOBs transfer across very nicely, though you do have to do some work on command stands.

There's hordes of free Battlefront WWII OOBs online at link

OOBs for the British and Commonwealth troops that Bangorstu always moans about as being missing from the main rulebook are at PDF link

More OOBs than you can shake a stick at. All free of charge and all mercifully lacking in excess gloss, fluff and padding.

Though some of them do have a rather useful discussion on what constitutes a sensible starter force that enables you to make up typical OOBs.

Derek H wrote:

If that's Battlegroup Panzergrenadier then you're quite right. No OOBs at all. You should have asked.

Yup. I don't consider it a serious shortcoming, but it certainly qualifies as not allowing putting together a historical force "out of the box". A very nice set of rules otherwise, even with the pretty pictures that so many seem to find a failing. I keep looking for games locally.

[…] More OOBs than you can shake a stick at. All free of charge and all mercifully lacking in excess gloss, fluff and padding.

Ah, well then here's a shocker for you. They are equally usable for FoW! You may have noticed there are very active early war and Pacific theater FoW player bases, despite lack of that expensive, glossy material from Battlefront covering those periods.

You see, you do not have to spend $150+ on those extra books for FoW after all. You've certainly put the lie to your own argument there! That's what everyone's been telling you, of course, but I'm glad to see you've come to the realization that historical organizations can be used for any historical rule set. There are plenty of online resources feely available to all.

On the other hand, for those who, for whatever reason, can't manage to do that sort of research, it's nice to have an alternative that puts it all in one place, right at hand. In fact, I've occasionally used the structure from the FoW books to assemble OOBs for BKC and other games when in a hurry. Later on, I've cross-checked them, and they've matched up cleanly if I use some common sense. It works both ways. Data is data.

To imply, much less to honestly believe, that historical TO&E can't be applied to any game covering the period would be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

Though some of them do have a rather useful discussion on what constitutes a sensible starter force that enables you to make up typical OOBs.

Great, ain't it? Anybody so inclined can use that same material for FoW without spending a nickle on anything but the main rule book and some miniatures.

The fact that some people enjoy researching this sort of stuff, and have had the time and money to acquire a decent library and bookmark collection of reference material doesn't mean that historical gaming should be an exclusive club reserved for middle-aged WW2 history freaks. I'm sure those teens that do museum quality painting cringe when they see some of the stuff those old history guys with lesser skills put on the table too. The old boys club attitude really is a losing one when you're engaging in social activities. And Battlefront, as McWong states, does provide a one-stop-shop for all the information a new player needs to get started quickly. "Out of the box", as it were. One that, at least according to your own words, a five year old can understand. Considering that a lot of military training materials are targeted at the middle-school level, perhaps Battlefront should pursue a lucrative DoD contract here in the States!

Ain't life grand?

So now that the learned WW2 historian AND the neophyte can both field units resembling their historical counterparts, they can start working on WW2 tactics, right?

- Bob
(relieved that WW2 was WW2 all along.)

They are equally usable for FoW!

Not equally, but still useful I imagine.

Those OOBs are one level up from FoW and do not really contain any information about what's going on at a platoon level.