"Thoughts on FOW" Topic

Let me preface this by saying that I play FOW and have forces for five different FOW armies (German, mid-war British, late-war British, American, late-war Soviet).

I think Battlefront does a pretty nice job of presenting a lot of historical information on their website and as part of the game. I've learned a good deal more about the history of individual campaigns and individual units by reading their books and the numerous articles on their website.

So why do you think that the FOW forums are full of discussions about which mark of panzer is a better points buy then the other? About whether a partiuclar build is a "winner" as opposed to another.

I don't think it's for lack of Battlefront making historcally based scenarios and information available.

It's very depressing. :(

To some extent, it's because of the points system. Points systems encourage players to think they've got balanced armies when that is almost certainly *not* the case. In other words, the tournament mentality.

Another point: For those of us without massive WW2 libraries, battlefront doesn't include years of service for their vehicles. I built an entire Desert Rats army up using a mix of Crusader 2 and 3s with a *Grant* platoon. It wasn't until a couple months ago that I found out that Crusader 3s and Grants are pretty much mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure that if Battlefront included restrictions on unit types it might make the forums a little quieter.

I agree that Battlefront needs to put an "if/then" kind of table in so that one can at least try to field a loosely accurate force (if so inclined).

However, the problem described isn't an FoW problem, its a gamer problem. Its a case of Min-Maxing like that found in D&D 3.5, WH and any other game with some points system. Heck, you even find it in Magic the Gathering. Everyone wants to build the "unstoppable force/character/army."

You use (and abuse) the rules to field the optimal combination of units so that their sheer existence will be enough to stop your opponent – regardless of how good a general you are.

Some blame the "tournament system" or undue emphasis on tourney games. That's easily subverted in friendly games, however, the forums just magnify the effect – real or perceived.

Wyatt

A game designed from the start as a points based tournament game attracts competition players. Who behave like competition players always do!

Who'd have thunk it!.

"A game designed from the start as a points based tournament game attracts competition players. Who behave like competition players always do!"

True; which then encourages those players to buy BF products. Less tourney inspired players, like me, will still purchase as well. BF thereby makes money from both of us.

I agree, I think it's the tourney culture. But I also think it's a consequence of having a high-profile game that has become attractive from the fantasy/SF crowd as well. When you have people migrating over from that genre (where there is no history, and the game designers can make units/figures however they want, and the players can take them however they want within the guidelines of the list). While min-maxing is a problem in any game, historical games at least have brakes based in what is historically plausible.

Damon.

I agree with Garand.

There are all kinds of FOW players that know little or nothing about the history of WWII and frankly couldn't care less. To them FOW is a game and not particularly different than Warhammer 40K.

mjc

Figuring out the best army list is just an other type of fun. Just because it does not match your version of how to play the game, does not make it depressing.

I've had all sorts of games broken by min-maxing. It's why I haven't played SF for a long time.

But I've bumped into it with historicals too. Confederation of the Rhine and bog standard dragoons vs. veteran KGL, highlanders, Foot Guards and rifles anyone?

When I get the money and do the 15mm SF thing i'm plotting I'm going to build ALL the forces and no, I won't allow my friends to build their own. that would just mess up the scenario balance.

I have to say here that I hold BF in a very low regard. Certainly their special rules are one major problem, other is an absolute ahistorical combinations allowed in lists. Tournaments that I have witnessed have disintegrated into contests worthy of Space Marines vs Orks…
So what do you expect from the BF boards? GW reloaded…

However, the problem described isn't an FoW problem, its a gamer problem. Its a case of Min-Maxing like that found in D&D 3.5, WH and any other game with some points system. Heck, you even find it in Magic the Gathering. Everyone wants to build the "unstoppable force/character/army."

But 40K, WH don't have any basis in real events/people/equipment. There's no history to discuss or try to recreate.

So what do you expect from the BF boards? GW reloaded…

This criticism of BF is unfair.

BF does provide historical resources that would allow players to take historical forces and play out historically based scenarios.

And of course there's nothing preventing players from choosing what is/was plausible as opposed to what "works" in the game and the game doesn't force you to play ahistorical forces.

The depressing part to me is how little attention the boards seem to pay to the history that's served up to them.

Building lists is fun, no doubt about that. But since FoW is billed as an historical game, perhaps there should be a bit of history in there. Cherry-picking the list to make the most "killingist!" army with no concern for history is the depressing part…

Damon.

But 40K, WH don't have any basis in real events/people/equipment. There's no history to discuss or try to recreate.

Well, there is loads of "fluff" and whether you like it or not the background is very well fleshed out. One of the biggest points of angst among 40K players is the current Chaos Codex, since it doesn't allow you to build a "proper" Chaos Legion list. While there are plenty who don't give a fig about the background, and happily attempt to make the most broken list they can, there are plenty of others that try to make "fluffy" armies too (like me).

Damon.

I wish there was an edit feature on this board for more than a few minutes. Feeling a little foolish at my poor use of grammar…

Damon, proof-reading can be effective.

[It's very depressing. :( ]

Why is it depressing? They're discussing the game. What would you prefer that they discuss on a wargame forum?

At least they're not arguing and beating each other senseless over which special edition of the StuGIIIg had the noodle-ejection device, which should therefore give it a +1 on the toothbrushing table…

I've played and enjoyed FOW for years, and I think I've been to the Forum all of twice. Once to get the assembly instructions for a model, and I can't remember the other time.

I've watched players of hardcore "historical" games (EMPIRE anyone?) argue endlessly (and loudly) and behave just as badly as the worst tournament players of FoW (or 40k, for that matter). Clipping units for a flanking bonus, arguing over a millimeter to make sure a unit is/isn't in range, debating the "real" bonus the Middle Guard at Waterloo should have…

I'm pretty sure they weren't so much concerned for history (in all its abstract glory) as for winning the game. So very noble and different than those pesky FoW whippersnappers.

Basically you get morons in all eras of wargaming…..but ultiately wargaming is about GAMING.

And in any game you will have people with small middle legs who make up for it by being large a-holes! ;)

>>> But since FoW is billed as an historical game, perhaps there should be a bit of history in there.

Come on now, Damon: there *is* a good hefty dose of history in the game system and in the army lists.

>>> Cherry-picking the list to make the most "killingist!" army with no concern for history is the depressing part…

Well, first of all, the extent of that whoch is done is up to the individual player. But more importantly, you *can't* do that with *no* concern for history, beause historical choices and limits are already built into the lists.

Most of the best FoW tournament players build their forces after specific historical examples. Now they may have to search quite a bit to find the historical examples that give them the desired combinations! But generally, they're well researched and documented, some extremely so.

Besides, what does it matter? Don't be "depressed" about what some people are doing: they're apparently having fun. And they're doing no different than a whole lot of other historical players who play tournaments with other systems and other periods. Are you "depressed" because "Fields of Glory" players optimize their battle group choices for tournament play?

Between folks like R. Mark Davies, Mike Starmer, Evan Allen, "Greenjacket" and an awful lot of others, the FoW Forum is loaded with good, accurate, well-researched historical information--about organizations, tactics, camouflage and color schemes, kit… Anyone who's interested in obtaining that sort of information gets prompt and accurate responses, if the answer is known.

If building ultra-competitive rosters doesn't appeal to you, then don't do it. But why gripe about those who enjoy it? I'm sure never going to play someone like that; maybe you aren't, either. So what does it matter? Don't be so darn worried about what other people are having fun doing.

And some of you really need to actually *look* at the army lists, because what you're either asking for, or saying isn't there, most certainly is.

Allen

It's really a local cultural thing. I'm on several Yahoo groups for various WW2 historical rules system, and just the last couple of weeks have seen similar discussions even with non-tourney rule sets.

Locally, most of our players go with pretty run-of-the-mill lists with nothing unusual. There's the odd guy who fields and many Tigers an Panthers, but it tends to work against him.

I think you see an exaggeration of the worst of it on the FoW forums. A lot of the regular posters there are kids. They're (hopefully) interested in history, but are also out to have fun. Just lead by example. I witnessed my two sons develop quite an interest in the period and the actual history of the units they ultimately chose to play.

The other thing they'll figure out is that there is no ultimate winning combination. Unless you play on an empty table using only the Free For All scenario, no one unit can take the objectives every time.

- Bob

To be fair Allen, I have lots of FoW books, and still maintain the BF Shermans are the best on the market. That being said, any list can be abused. The amount of abuse depends on how involved the player is with the history behind it.

Damon.

"The amount of abuse depends on how involved the player is with the history behind it."

Exactly right. Even carefully-written ancients lists can be "broken" by those with a mind to do so. I found it's a good idea to have your own list-breakers involved in the list development process.

"A lot of the regular posters there are kids."

Yep. Or at least I pray to the Almighty those aren't adults, with their apparent lack of writing skills!

Allen

Hmmm.

Yes. Pick which you prefer

a) Player turning up with a points-tuned ahistorical competition army, or

b) Player makes a move "because I know they could have done it historically", despite it being pointed out that the rules forbid it. Then refuses to take the move back because "the rules are stupid"….

Takes all kinds eh?

G^is,
JohnG

My American force is built around the 28th Infantry division, the PA National Guard. You can't get more "average and typical" than a National Guard division.
The fact that they fought damn well helps too.

I also bought enough Lee tanks to do an American armored company in North Africa. Yes, you are allowed to buy Lees in FoW.

The nice thing about FoW is that you can play it historically, and get good results, or you can play it as a tournament player and get a fun game. Who is wrong? Neither.

Add one AECurtis to the list of helpful & knowledgeable posters Allen!

Thank you, Huw, but I make no such claim!

Allen

FOW is a wargame. Different people get different things from wargames, some like to buld historical forces, some like to set up and play historical scenarios, some like to turn up on game night and pick forces from a list, some like to spend days min maxing points based armies.

Takes all sorts, but it isn't depressing, it is just wargaming.

If you provide a set of rules with army lists and points, some people will devote their lives to gaining maximum advantage from them. If you regard this as a problem, then don't play with these people and/or use your own lists or scenario generation system.

When you're playing against a highly optimized tournament force, just think of it as a "what if" scenario.
-Kle.

Alen wrote:

Between folks like R. Mark Davies, Mike Starmer, Evan Allen, "Greenjacket" and an awful lot of others, the FoW Forum is loaded with good, accurate, well-researched historical information--about organizations, tactics, camouflage and color schemes, kit… Anyone who's interested in obtaining that sort of information gets prompt and accurate responses, if the answer is known.

The Flames of War forum is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in WWII wargaming, just as long as they look in the right places.

The useful historical stuff that Allen talks about above is mostly very well segregated indeed from the discussions that so annoy the original poster.

And another vote for adding Mr Curtis to that list.

The Battle Barn plays alot of FoW…we stick with the published points but try to also make our armies historical?

In the games I run at the HMGS and local cons I again try to keep with the published points and remain historical? Some times I have to fudge a little to make the sceanrio playable (see my Pegasus Br AAR on the FoW forum)

With our one yearly BB FoW Tournament, we run these as theme events…for example this Jan will be "Fall Gelb May-Jun 1940. Only AFVs and troops that fought in France and the Low Countires will be allowed (no Italaians)

When I play my Historical pt armies vs Torunament pros I lose 99% of the time…not sure if it is my army or my tactics? Proably my tatctics?

SFC Retired