"What does FoW get right?" Topic

So much time and bandwidth gets used knocking it, I am interested in what others think is right with the game. If you are a hater of the game, there are lots of other threads to flame on. I would like a positive FoW thread for a change.

I think several things are done well. In no particular order

Rate of fire. To many games dont cover this well for vehicles and artillery. I am not sure FoW has the exact rates right for every weapon, but they at least all seem plausible.

Firepower. Every penetration of a vehicle is not a kill. Again something even a number of otherwise very good games get wrong.

Abandoning vehicles. I have seen realworld crews bail out not only when they where not under fire, but when they where in training with no war going on. If they are spam cans, guess what the crew can turn into.

Reboarding vehicles. If it doesnt burn pretty quick, then it is probably OK. And back in a semi working vehickle beats hell out of roaming about with 1 smg and a couple of pistols. Besides most crew are turtles. We dont like geting out on the ground. I knew tankers in germany that would not touch ground for a week or two.

Probably a few more I will get to later, but that should be enough to get it rolling.

How about: the fun?

Their Ambush Rules are about the best hidden-units-without-the-hassle rules I've encountered.

I think FoW does a better job with infantry than a lot of games.

As for the rest of your comments. I do disagree for many many reasons.

FoW is more of a game than a Simulation. Enjoy it for what its worth.

mjc

I feel that in many cases they have chosen a very nice level of abstraction that allows the player to step into their designated role (company commander) and worry about the sorts of things a company commander should worry about. For instance, in those formtations with a single LMG per squad, the game does not try to model this with one LMG team (with high rate of fire) and one rifle team (with low rate of fire), but instead abstracts that organization and provides two "averaged" teams with intermediate rate of fire. This keeps the player from making platoon commander decisions (in this case, where to place the LMG) and allows them to focus on company commander level decisions (where to send the platoon, etc.). These abstractions basically assume the platoon CO is doing his job and allow the game pace to remain high and for the players to process a lot of turns. That means the players get to make a lot of decisions appropriate for the game's command level – where to deploy/attack, when to pull back, where to provide artillery support, when to commit the reserve, etc.

I also like many aspects of the reconnaissance stuff as it gives the recon guys something to do other than "recon by burning jeep". Similarly, I think that the ambush rule in their scenarios works very well. Many people consider this rule in isolation and hate it (since the ambushing troops get to plop down anywhere within certain restrictions), however, when taken in the context of the whole game it works extremely well. Short of a map based game with an umpire (which is not always a luxury that even those of us playing scenario based FOW games have), that rule works better than any other that I've seeon to put the dread of the unknown into an attacker and to force him to deploy recons and screens and to view every hedge, woods, and ridge as a potential deathtrap. That is a feature that appears time and again in accounts of combat troops and is nice to see captured in a game.

Finally, although I don't do tournaments and largely play historical scenario-based games using FOW, I will say that the points system and even the canned scenarios in the basic rules are a great help when our group wants to throw together a quick game and no one has had the time to make a full fledged scenario. That same basic framework easily becomes a perfectly plausible historical encounter as long as the players exhibit a little self-control in putting their units together (stick to the period at hand, use more line troops and fewer exotic supporting arms, etc) and set up the table and objectives with an eye toward a more historical encounter.

There were definately Germans on one side, and US, UK, USSR on the other.

It acknowledges that there were more than just the UK, USA, Germany and Russia fighting…..

Three posts to the inevitable "more of a game" comment (making it identical to every other wargame) and five posts to an oblique crack at it getting the sides basically right.

The OP forgot that ALL FoW threads on TMP *must* become hate threads. :)

Yeah- the ambush and recon rules are really superb. They fit perfectly flush into the existing systems, require no book-keeping and no tedious "Spotting" rules or sub-system. (Which has always just killed the joy of any WW2 game for me, over the years.)

And frankly, I think they really understood that a WW2 game doesn't have to have opportunity fire. If you structure the turn sequence right, and get the fire ranges and movement rates to jibe right, then the defender can get in his shot, if he's close enough, and not if he isn't. And if you can sprint from behind one piece of cover to another, you can avoid getting shot… but if you can't, your ass is hanging out and will get shot in the next turn, when the other guy gets his moves. It works fine for me; it's clear, quick, and logical.

For all the howls of protest raised by the advocates of "more accurate" or "more historical" WW2 games, I've never seen anybody demonstrate that basic good tactics work in their game, but not in FOW.

I think the "fun" factor is there, as well as the accessibility of the rules. And I just LOVE what they did for their Raid scenarios for the SAS boxed set.

And full props for making the Italians a playable option ;)

Ambush/Recon rules.

Raid scenarios (getting yoinked for Pacific theater operations with Carlson's Raiders).

And full props for making the Italians a playable option ;)

Too bad it took them 3 printings of the Italian army lists to get them "right"!

It has got more people into gaming and backed itself up really well with products and resources.

Also helped tease out a bit of a 15mm gaming surge in other areas.

itz just reely kool

1. The game is fun, which so many wargames are not!

2. The battles are not 'line em up and move foward' which so many games are. Sure you can do that if you play free for all -- but the other missions are a challenge

It's as close to the real thing as any other wargame out there, including your personal amateur ruleset that includes your lovingly researched "75mm AT round Cold Weather Drag Coeffifcient" table and "Number of Spare Cigarettes in Pocket" chart.

It got ME painting and playing WW2 games. That was quite a task.

I agree with what Weekly Witness Protection Plan Change of Alias said about opportunity fire.
As one example, I have seen Germans fail their Stormtrooper move, which they had counted on to hide. Oops. Ditto the Avanti move, the "tip and run" move…
THAT is when opportunity fire should come in. That and the Defensive Fire in assaults.

I also like the scenarios, despite the fact that I can't get EVERYTHING on the table when I want it.

It plays fast, and it's fun. It does not shatter the illusion of "playing" World War 2. I have suffered through far too many "realistic" WW2 games that did not in the end give any more of a "historical" result that FoW does.

I'm a fan of the special rules. I know they get bashed for some of them, but the British Artillery was great, there's a bit of adaptability with special rules and commanders, but they don't go as far as say 2HW or 1-48 where each figure is a character…

But I play BECAUSE it is a game. Don't want too much simulation with my army men.

Don.

I got turned off too quick to find out what was right. It was the rules per se, but the people playing the game. For example, lets say I've got three Stuart tanks facing you in the open and you've got three PZ whatevers and we are within pretty close range. You are the Germans and on your movement phase you drive right through my tanks so you can get a shot at my rear armor. is that? That might be one reason FOW players keep their tanks hub to hub--to prevent other player from driving straight through their armor formations so they can get a shot at the rear armor. A few like and similiar instances just turned me off. I wouldn't mind giving them a try again with people who didn't do silly things because no one knows enough to say, "no, you can't do that." I do give them props for revitalizing WWII and getting new blood into historical gaming.

…except that your tank has a movement rate of – at most – 12", and my guns have a range of something like 24" or 32", depending.

So how did I let you get so close to me that you could have used a 12" move to drive right through my formation?

I don't understand the need for opportunity fire, when I should have been shooting at you for 2-3 turns, before you ever got that close in the first place!

(And don't say: "What if I advanced through cover…" because if that's the case then your movement rate is even slower: no more than 8". So again: if I allowed you to sneak up on my tanks so close that you burst right through my formation in one move… Then I deserve to get shot in the ass.)

…except that your tank has a movement rate of – at most – 12", and my guns have a range of something like 24" or 32", depending.

So how did I let you get so close to me that you could have used a 12" move to drive right through my formation?

I don't understand the need for opportunity fire, when I should have been shooting at you for 2-3 turns, before you ever got that close in the first place!

How dare you suggest it's the player, not the rules! That's inaccurate and ahistorical!

FoW is more of a game than a Simulation

Fair statement and since simulations suck the life out of fun, I'd consider that a heck of an FOW endorsement.

Dont forget that british rule that lets British crusaders move 24", which runs right through the range of a Pak 38. So they ruch right up and waste you before you get to shot back. Lots of fun for the british that do it. Not so much fun when It happens and you can do nothing but pick up your models.

Edit. Cant find that in second edition, so it either was a first editiuon thing, or a misinturpertation of a 1st ed rule.

What does FoW get right?

Marketing – they're very good at it.

Nothing wrong with good marketing. I can think of a number of basicly good games that where little more than memiographed stapled and a cardstock cover with a poor picture added on. And most of those companys only lasted a small time because they just could not get the word out that this is a good game. FoW has been around for a while now, and seems to be doing just fine.Perhaps other games should take a look and see what is working. Nothing wrong to shop the compitition.

Nothing wrong with good marketing.

I agree 100%

badger22:

The only way the British Crusaders can move 24" is to "double" which: A) will cause 1-in-6 of the tanks to break down and be removed from the game since Crusaders are "Unreliable", B) prevent the British from firing at all since if you "double" you can't shoot or assault, and C) ensure a pile of dead Crusaders during the German turn since any fire against units that "double" get twice the normal RoF dice. And it's been that way in every version of the rules. I think you were playing it wrong :)

I agree with the others that the turn sequence obviates the need for any opportunity fire rules.

No doubt we where playing it wrong. It was one of my first games, before I even owned the rules.

However, the current Tally ho rule does mean that a British tank platoon can charge in to under 16" and get full ROF. Good chance to take out the AT there.

Now, the British did really do this. Notably at Battleax but it happened in other battles as well. And the result was dozens of broken tanks in exchange for little to no damage to the defenders. Tally ho, with a lack of opfire makes what was historicaly a suicide tactic, into a possible game winner. But that is a function of short weapons ranges and fast movement as much as a lack of opfire. And if there where spotting rules in there, it would also make it harder to do. Mor3e risk, less likely to be done.

Scott I remeber you as one of the voices of reson on the Battlefront boards. So what do you think are the strengths of FoW?

And if I havent said it elsewhere, i absolutely love your buildings.

No ones mentioned the excellent online support yet, something which IMHO they do have right.

BTW first item on their current update is an obit for Edward Woodward….

Yes the online support is outstanding, as is customer service. Like all miniatures manifacturers, I have gotten a few bad blisters over the years. In every last case they fixed the problem within a few days. Absolutely first class.

I also want to mention the sheer atractiveness of the books. The covers catch your eye. the photos are proffesionaly done. And there is a lot of good stuff inside. So much so that I want to go from my Afrika book to the newer North Afrika, even though they have much of the same materiel. And eventhough I cant afford it being laid off and all.

I like the basic idea of having 2 dimensional morale stats. Being 'fearless conscripts' or 'reluctant veterans' seems to capture the behaviour of midwar Russians or late war British pretty well. I'm not sure how it plays, but it does seem like it could work well and I've copied the concept shamelessly in my homemade rules.

Also – the pdf briefings are a good basic idea. Putting all their research in one document and distributing it (often for free) is a good idea. Of course, they make mistakes and some of the writing is truly woeful but it's still a good basic idea. Some people swallow it whole without doing any other research, but that is something that happens with all published research – be it wikipedia or an Osprey book.

One thing which did impress me is their attempt to provide everything under one company. They don't get it all right but so many ranges leave gaping holes that it's refreshing they are committed to covering everyhting…OK – so some are still waiting for early war but IMO it would be a marketing disaster. There is just so much stuff to produce and it won't be anything like as popular as mid and late war…

It's really hard to get early war to play right and if you do it's not much fun for the poor French/Polish et al. Ditto with PTO. I think they won't go there, despite constant claims it's in development. Take a look at ASL and how complex PTO can be. All that work and a game that is just not much fun…some like it but it's much less popular than the ETO. Pacific will not sell many resin kits – at least for the Japanese! 90% of their troops will be off table in ambush!

There's a lot I don't like – but there are a few things that they have right…and it does seem that if they start a project they carry it through, so you at least have a model or rule to cover everything, even if you don't like it.

They are also fast…see how long ASL players have to wait for official stuff – even reprints of core products.

I don't play the game, but since this is supposed to be a positive thread I'll say the game generated 15mm models of vehicles that other manufacturers didn't produce. They gave us a chance to fill in some holes in the collection.

I agree with the others that the turn sequence obviates the need for any opportunity fire rules.

What is it about the turn sequence that obviates the need for opportunity fire. The FOW IGO/UGO sequence is about as vanilla as they come.

Is it the defensive fire you get against Assaulting enemies?

OK – so some are still waiting for early war but IMO it would be a marketing disaster. There is just so much stuff to produce and it won't be anything like as popular as mid and late war…

They've announced they are releasing early war books/vehicles/infantry in June 2010 so you'll have a chance to see if your prediction comes true.

Like most of the examples, some of the features/quirks seem weird when taken out of context of the overall game, but work together to provide a good gaming experience. I am a fan of the much-maligned "telescoping ground scale" simply because it lets players put things on the table that show up in most accounts of battle. Air, artillery, big guns outranging little guns and so forth. The alternative is to use a fixed ground scale and give riflemen the range to shoot to the length of their weapon (thanks to the difference between ground and figure scales required to make the miniatures actually visible) or simply give up and allow everything to shoot of the edges of the table.

Yeah, it ain't perfect. But it does provide that capability. So yes, I may be controlling things that typical company-level commander might only dream of. So what? Where is it written that gamers must strictly role play only one level? Wouldn't a commander gladly accept and use any resource provided to him?

The result is a game that does some things well, and other miserably. I play for for the things I enjoy, and other rules for the parts it doesn't do well. These are games, not life-long commitments demanding exclusivity.

- Bob

It will be interested indeed in what happens. I stand by my prediction but will be happy to be proved wrong….

79thPA wrote:

[…] For example, lets say I've got three Stuart tanks facing you in the open and you've got three PZ whatevers and we are within pretty close range. You are the Germans and on your movement phase you drive right through my tanks so you can get a shot at my rear armor. ?? is that?

For that to work, your armor would not have any infantry support. Reading accounts of Kursk, that does sound much like what the Soviet tankers strove to do.

But… why would a PzAnything bother with flanking the little Stuarts? Most would probably have benefited more from staying put and gaining increased RoF at close range. You were certainly gutsy rolling your Stewies out in front of them at such close range in the first place! (Not so sure about tactically sound, however.)

- Bob

No ones mentioned the excellent online support yet, something which IMHO they do have right.

Part of their marketing.

"However, the current Tally ho rule does mean that a British tank platoon can charge in to under 16" and get full ROF. Good chance to take out the AT there.

Now, the British did really do this. Notably at Battleax but it happened in other battles as well. And the result was dozens of broken tanks in exchange for little to no damage to the defenders. Tally ho, with a lack of opfire makes what was historicaly a suicide tactic, into a possible game winner. But that is a function of short weapons ranges and fast movement as much as a lack of opfire. And if there where spotting rules in there, it would also make it harder to do. Mor3e risk, less likely to be done."

If Crusaders had HE ammunition it might actually be a decent tactic. As they don't they are limited to using their MGs which to be honest aren't really very likely to kill a PAK.
What the Tally Ho rule does do is let Crusader I and IIs close to short range with panzers in the hope that they might be able to hurt them.

Which sounds a lot like the historical reason for and outcome of many of those 'cavalry charges'!

I don't own the rules and don't play them, but

1) It seems like they have created a fun game of WW2 combat.

2) They have made it easily accessible. Joe Sixpack (or his wife) can walk into a store a purchase a complete unit in one attractive and information filled box. Need paint…this box has everything you need for your (insert nationality here) unit.

3) They have an excellent website which I visit often to see the beautifully painted minis, scenarios and other historical material. I hear of great online support too.

4) The points based competitions are great. I don't do them, but I can understand the appeal and how that can attract players.

While the rules aren't my thing, It certainly seems like they have brought a lot of new gamers to historical gaming.

I like it. It is as much of a simulation as any WWII game I've ever played, it seems to give a pretty realistic-feeling to a game of WWII, it is very easy to learn and fits in with games I like to play.

I have to agree with Bob about all the units on the table. The sliding ground scale bugs me from time to time, but ability to us all the miniatures does not. So I live with the scale.

I have been gameing for almost 40 years. I was collecting units for a very long time before I ever heard of FoW. I still collect units based of off Niehorsters books rather than what ever the latest FoW book on the Afrika Korp happens to be.

I was in the Army for over 20 years, in artillery fire direction. When Battlefront did the staff teams I was so happy I went out and got a whole battery just to be able to put that model on the table.

I also agree that it is silly to not use things that where there. Yes the recon platoon was under a different commander, but he still sent reports to the infantry captain that was right there. Unless you have 4-5 players a side, you get odd groupings. But so what, they where all there each doing his job.

Same thing with tigers. I dont use them, just to expensive. But they should be available. I keep hearing Company commanders didnt use Tigers, Korp commanders used them. Yet I dont remeber a single account of a three star crawling into the hatch. That was done by some NCO or junior officer. And they wheere supported by what ever infantry company was in the area.

One great thing that FoW does is generate some fun debates on TMP. Who was that guy who used to go completely mental on here, screaming and shouting and calling everyone a 'fan boy' – and worse? Think how dull TMP would be if people didn't have FoW to get all cross about / defensive over.

I'm interested to look at FOW having read something about their Ambush/Recon in this thread. Good work lads!

unlike some companies, they don't insist on use of BF-made models at tournaments! I realize that with so many manufacturers of 15mm WW2 minis that it would be difficult to enforce, but is says a lot for a company that they don't even ask at "official" tourny's. I also like how there's rules for off-board artillery, which makes sense as in most scenarios most artty. ranges would be HUGE, even in the "sliding/variable" ground scale the game uses. My group uses the "Across the Volga" off-board artillery rules for anything with greater than 54" range…

Re. my Stuarts,

It has been quite awhile ago, but I do rememebr that the game was set up by someone else and the tanks didn't have infantry support. What I recall is that terrain blocked LOS do get any long range shots, the Pzs came from over a hill, (maybe did a double move)and drove straight through my tanks that were operating on the other side of the hill. I guess the things that bugged me was the fact that when I play I try not to react to things my troops can't see while my opponent was clearly not of that mindset, and that if a tank crested a hill and saw enemy tanks on the other side, I think that they would try to go hull down and open fire, not charge through the enemy tanks. In such a case I think that maybe some type of op fire roll would be appropriate. Was I able to get a round off while the enemy tanks were advancing or was I completely surprised? I'm not an FOW basher and I do think they do some things very well. I've only played a few games and none of them have been fun.

Depends on the true range to the opposing tanks and how fast you were moving, I'd think.

If I was moving quickly and found trouble when I popped over a hillcrest, I might try to get past them before they can react to my appearance. A friend of mine who was a tanker in Germany in the 1980s tells of doing things like that just to scare the local opfor (although he always turned around at the border).

Bulldog6969 – You're probably thinking of ol' SuperGrover6969, now permanently banished apparently. He'd take any thread well of the tracks, and particularly focused his energies on FoW, though he never played. He did the same thing on a FoW Yahoo group I'm on a few years back as well.

- Bob

Many parts (or non-parts) of the rules can be lifted and put up to scorn,
However, the game must be evaluated as a whole, and not as a scattering of its parts (or lack thereof).

My enigmatic statements above mean that you cannot take a hot topic like "It has no opportunity fire!" and not ask a few questions. Like…
Is that important?
Do other mechanisms in the IGOUGO system handle it?

I think that it as a deceptively simple system. The parts of the rules mesh together very well as a whole, and are well thought out.