"Hub-to-hub in FoW" Topic

I know many of you try to play FoW in a realistic manner using real-world tactics as well as you can. Some of you claim that you have never seen a game of FoW in which armor was lined up hub-to-hub and just blasts it out across the table with enemy units lined up hub-to-hub. I've seen it several times, even at conventions. For those of you who claim that it just doesn't happen in a game, look closely at the photo at the top of TMP of the LSoM FoW game in progress. You can clearly see whole units of armor lined up facing enemy units lined up, just shooting at each other. Now believe us when we say, it happens.

Yep it does. Until you let the artillery go <grin>…

A nice air strike will do it too.

What you are really saying, Sundance, is that SOME people play with stupid tactics in Flames of War. And Tod and I are saying that there is a cure for stupid tactics, which happens to be what happened in REAL LIFE. Why the beligerent tone, Sundance? you sound like a preacher who proclaims "See! There is SIN going on at the brothel!"

There is not a game out there that does not have gamers using stupid tactics. If it is a good game, there is a cure to "reward" stupid tactics.

All it takes is one good airstrike, or one good artillery barrage to cure a FoW player of bunching up.

I've also seen hub-to-hub armor in SPearhead, Command Decision, and most other sets of WWII rules. It's a gamer problem that is largely rules-independent- the urge to pack more and more stuff onto the table. I am guilty of it at times myself. "Standard FOW" (i.e. tournement and points based pick up games at the LGS) has a couple of features that increase the effect, namely focusing on small tables (4' x 6') and a certain amount of sponsored size creep (shift from 1500 to 1750 points as tournament standard)

Brian

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the game. If anything, the game painfully punishes you if you try something like this.

The only time I've even seen that sort of thing is in tank on tank only games, played on flat open tables, with way too many points for the square footage. Um, which is exactly what they are playing in the picture you point to. Don't confuse some tank themed special event or con game for an actual game of FoW.

Crowded models is also more likely when the model scale and the ground scale are significantly different – that is, the model takes up more space on the table than the real vehicle would on the real battlefield.

One not so subtle feature, though, encourages some clumping. If you have conscript tanks, like Russians, your command radius mandates that you keep a certain maximum distance. You can certainly fit more conscript tanks under an artullery or air strike template, but a smart player minimizes that by maximizing the spread. It's a way of penalizing overwhelming numbers of untrained Soviets. As Russians improve in quality, they can spread out more.

Cue the sneers: "OMG, the OFM is gaming the system!" Of course. Any good game will reward what it considers good tactics by gaming the system.

As always, our beloved editor makes a telling point. In addition, gamers do love to lay down the tanks. Rather than a (realistic) handful of Stugs or T-34's, we love full complement regiments, with no break downs or other faults.

If it is a good game, there is a cure to "reward" stupid tactics. All it takes is one good airstrike, or one good artillery barrage to cure a FoW player of bunching up.

Well that is encouraging news to hear with respect to the rules. I'm glad to hear that there is a "cure" to this. I would love to be at one of these games when all of the geeks clump up their tanks and one player blasts the crap out of the whole group. Oh to see the look on their faces when it happens.

Ummm… thanks a "Tanksgiving" event. That's what it's *intended* to look like.

"See! There is SIN going on at the brothel!"

Exactly.

You know about the three men and the brothel, right? One is headed *towards* the brothel. What nationality is he?

Allen

I knocked out 5 PzIIIs the first time I ever used air. I have not had such a target rich clump since.

This is to me as much a non-issue as would be a Napoleonics game at regimental level, in which players would deploy skirmishers in front ot hussars. There is a cure for that too.

Wait, tanks didn't use linear warfare tactics in WWII?

YouTube link

That's what they say, kb; that's what they say (NSFW):

YouTube link

Allen

Welcome to Jose Marti airport. Please stop by in the duty free store for fine cigars and rum.
Security will accept your handguns and grenades. Please safe them, and have a nice day.

Nope, didn't mean to be belligerent. Just pointing it out to those who have said in the past, "It's never done." There it is in technicolor! See for yourself!

Yeah? So?
You seem pleased to find that some players play stupidly.
In what game do they not? Do you want to see pictures of some really dumb moves I have made in chess?

Scroll down 3 topics on the TMP main front page, and go to:
TMP link

Then follow the link
link
and scroll down a few pictures. Man, would I LOVE to drop a Flames of War artillery/air strike template on top of that Command Decision clump of tanks!

Fortunately for the squeamish, I do not take photos of my chess games.

Bt John, that is "Command Decision". The vehicles are not individual vehicles; rather, each represents a platoon's worth of vehicles, which would be doctrinally dispersed across the scale terrain.

Just like those stands of infantry sitting photogenically atop the halftracks are not actually meant to be individual men on pedestals…

Allen

Children, play nice.

I'd like to see the posts that actually claim that hub-to-hub never happens in FoW. I doubt there are any. The main contention I have seen (and put forth on occasion-- see the LSoM news item discussion) is that other games do it, too. I dislike the practice every bit as much as the OP. I just don't try to ascribe it to any particular system.

"In addition, gamers do love to lay down the tanks. Rather than a (realistic) handful of Stugs or T-34's, we love full complement regiments, with no break downs or other faults."

Not me! I rarely field more than a few tanks in any game unless there were a lot more historically and many of the scenario books I use include breakdowns in the individual games (where appropriate). Infantry generally wins games in almost all the rules sets I play.

John, you're missing the point. Reread what I've said in this post – this isn't bashing the game or the people who play it, it's is aimed at the people who say, "Lining up vehicles hub-to-hub is never done in FoW." There's a perfect example of it being done. That's all!

As Nazrat said, show me where anyone ever said that it is never done.

I've also seen hub-to-hub armor in SPearhead, Command Decision, and most other sets of WWII rules.

Spearhead and CD are games where one model tank represents three or four actual tanks. The model covers the area within which the real life tanks are deployed.

Lining them up side by side can actually make sense in that context. You can also play using large bases with a number of 6mm models on it.

Looks good.

Man, would I LOVE to drop a Flames of War artillery/air strike template on top of that Command Decision clump of tanks!

As a German commander on that game, I can assure you that, as per the CD rules, all stands begin the game concealed and not spotted. Therefore, no threat from artillery. Furthermore, they were deployed in dead ground, screened from soviet artillery spotters. Once the game began, we moved from the staging areas and began the assault using dead ground and cover as much as possible. :)

<Rolls eyes> Oh, brother! Is it really that important to you? Why are you all so sensitive about it?

Erm… who, and is WHAT that important to them?

And why is this so important to YOU that you started a new thread about it? And when it leads to a discussion it bothers you?

Checks box-- "Does not play well with others."

You're obviously one who cares so very much! I mean, if what I said doesn't matter, why have you bothered to make 3 posts?

Those of us who enjoy Flames of War are frankly tired of non-issues that get thrown in our face. The hub-to-hub "issue" is one of them.
I have never seen/heard anyone say that "no one does it". I will say that those who do it are risking a major smackdown. Go ahead and line up your tanks hub to hub. Then get ready to put "burning hulk" cotton balls on top of them. That's all I'm sayin'.

"why have you bothered to make 3 posts?"

Got to keep the post count up.

Got to keep the post count up.

Do you REALLY think that motivates anybody, including me? Get a grip.

"Reasons NOT to get into "FoW"", 17 Dec 2008. Most people admit it happens in games for one reason or another. At least one says – doesn't happen. That's just one thread. And both of the people who said they've never heard of anyone making that claim posted to the discussion. 'Nuff said.

Good for you. You must be very proud of yourself.

"You're obviously one who cares so very much! I mean, if what I said doesn't matter, why have you bothered to make 3 posts?"

Don't really care a fig. You made an assertion, I commented that I AGREED with you about hub-to-hub looking bad but that it happens with a lot more games than just FoW. I disagreed that people say that it never happens. You apparently found one guy on a thread almost a year ago that DID say it so I will readily admit that I was wrong. It HAS been said. I'm still not convinced it is a valid reason to start a whole thread instead of just writing Andrew Paul directly to rub HIS face in it, but whatever floats yer boat!

Finally, who the heck ever stated that what you said doesn't matter? It's a discussion page, so we're discussing, for chrissakes! If I thought it didn't matter I would not post at all.

"why have you bothered to make 3 posts?"

Got to keep the post count up."

You should talk! 8)=

Last night I won a game of BKC. That's nice innit. but on the BKC table next to me it was hub-to-hub armour. Until the airstrike came in.

Pat

Wow. I am amazed at how fast people respond to an obvious attempt to get a rise out of them. 11 posts (now 12) on a misdirection post.

I not sure what you mean. Care to be more specific?

I think that most hub to hub scenarios are a lack of player on how to use modern weapons of war. I know in scenarios palyed against my army mates there are few if any hub to hubs (unless the scenario was poorly designed in the first place).

Hi everyone, here are four points from Timmy:

1) The fellows pointing to Command Decision and Spearhead don't seem to understand the difference between scales of representation between FOW and these games.

2) The editor's point on ground/modle scale is a good one, I think.

3) FOW is not the only 1:1 representation of tanks where this sort of thing occurs – the foreground table in the picture Sundance references looks to me to be far too small for the number of armoured vehicles I can see.

Finally and most important:

4) Artillery and air strikes are only a reletively very minor reason why tanks do not bunch up. When we were lectured on the importance of spacing at the Armour School, they didn't even mention artillery or air strikes as the reason why.

Respectfully, I think those who "rely" on arty and air to prevent fender to fender deployment are missing a very important aspect of what armoured warfare is about. And that applies to any 1:1 game, not just FOW.

I have frequently posted in the past about an extremely simple house rule that would, I believe, fit with any existing set of armour rules where one has to roll to hit a target. I've been using it for years and while it took quite a while and a lot of destroyed tanks, my friends know jolly well to spread their armour out right from the get-go.
--
Tim

>>> The fellows pointing to Command Decision and Spearhead don't seem to understand the difference between scales of representation between FOW and these games.

Oh, yes, some of us do. And that what makes them look even stupider.

Allen

Too right!

Oh, yes, some of us do. And that what makes them look even stupider.

Higher vehicle representation scale + larger ground scale (usually) = models more crowded together. While it may look just as silly from an appearance point of view, fender to fender sydrome in those games is a little more understandable, IMO – note I don't ever play any game where 1 vehicle model represents more than one actual vehicle.

Anyway, my main point was that tanks don't bunch just because of artillery or air strike threat. There's another more "direct" (fire) reason.

--
Tim

Spearhead and Command decision vehicles are spread out when the models are actually base to base. In spearhead, the artillary template is the base!

As Allen states, it looks stupider when the model scale is large, but thats true with all rules.

Using single 6mm or multiple 1/600 tanks on the bases and it doesnt look fender to fender at all and Not surprisingly, that is true with Fow as well if you base your tanks

If you played it at 6mm I don't think you would see this. Its what happens when you play microarmour with 15mm figs. It could also be a hangover from people transitioning from 40K. I saw people play Apocolypse using titans on a 4x4 table.

Maybe a bigger table would help? Or smaller armies?

Never said it didn't happen….stupid people do stupid things in any wargame. I've seen hub-to-hub in Blitzkrieg Commander, Angriff, Spearhead, and Command Decision.

Your comment has nothing to do with the rules, it has everything to do with the player…get over it. Trolling by any other name is still….trolling.

I don't understand the Command Decision comments. A 105mm template is only 1.5" square. If a player places his bases about an inch apart, you're only going to catch one base under a template.

If you're facing 120mm mortars or 150mm artillery, you've got to spread out (a little bit) more.

If you're facing rocket artillery, dispersion doesn't matter. You're going to take a beating (unless the opponent drops it on tanks instead of infantry).

True, I've played some command decision games in 15mm or 20mm which tanks get lined up hub to hub. I've even caught a player bunching up his battalion and gleefully hammered it with 105's.

I much rather play in 6mm scale, and where ground scale 1" = 50 meters. You can get a much better look that way. But you can still get some funny things with ground scale (like the 50 yard wide road).

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to throw fuel on the fire – just trying to understand.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ