"What does FoW get right?" Topic

"However, the game must be evaluated as a whole, and not as a scattering of its parts…"

I remember someone proposing that when bow-armed cavalry were discovered to be incapable of ranged fire in certain ancients rules.

Allen

wups -- 6868, not 6969!

bobstro

Yes – that's right, ole SuperGrover6868 – what a shame he has been banished. He certainly brightened up TMP.

Yeah, like a thick mold on otherwise shiny porcelain!

Although others see this as a negative, I personnally like the ideat that the artillery is on the table. In most WW2 games arillery is "off board" and omnipotent. Although there's the issue of range, in FoW you have to think about protecting your artillery from attack, counter battery fire is worthwile, and, on a large enough board, you even have to consider your timing for when you displace your artillery (including mortars). You have to think about WHEN you move your artillery in relation to your maneuver elements -- something a commander has to do in the real world.

I purposely didn't mention the online resource – I left the FoW website temporarily a couple of years back and then permanently a few months after returning.

The model (certainly not restricted to BattleFront) of allowing fanboys to become moderators seems great until one of them gets a wild hair and starts stomping all over people with good insights that aren't towing the line.

CrazyIvan was both a moderator and an idiot, and when he banned some people I trust because they wanted answers to legitimate complaints (and were civil about it), and BattleFront did nothing to solve the problem, I bailed.

Still play the game and use the models, want nothing to do with the site.

Their support now, that is a WAY different story. They had a few hiccups caused by growing pains, but overall, they have rocked in support. Write them with a problem and they fix the problem and then some. Speaking of which, I have some to contact them about… Still getting two left tracks on occasion :-( I thought they'd resolved that particular pain.

Don.

Ah,CrazyIvan. He was one of the reasons I left as well.

And has now been reined in, albeit rather late in the day…

For me the site is up and down. Yes cravyivan was one of several reasons I left a few years ago.

Things like the current KT vs IS-2 debate, which was going on when I left are another. But then there are alwaus those who have low standards of proff for thier viewpoint, and very high ones for the other side. And that is certainly not limited to FoW at all. Nor gamers either. I remeber pages and pages of pain spilt over that exact issue back when George Parada had a forum on Actun Panzer.

But on whole I like the website more than I dislike it.

Speaking for myself, I'll look at the website and see if there are any topics worth checking out. If I can contribute something, then I will do it. There are some pointless debates going on and there are the fanboys that, if BF said the sky was aqua teal mauve, then they too would believe that.

Then again, could the same thing be said about TMP? Some threads make you scratch your head and say "hunh?" There was the Crazy Ivan and the Supergrover dude who for some reason, seem to not act in a civil way. We can have healthy discussions and everyone has their own viewpoints. Inevitably, someone's toes do get stepped on (Metaphorically, of course) and well…

To the guys who left the BF forums for good, I would say that there are still resources there that are worthwhile to examine like AARs, modeling/painting. Even that beloved curmudgeon Allen makes posts over there. ;)

What did FOW get right?

1. Success in the business of marketing and selling product.

2. Slickly produced rulebook(s) with supplements.

3. Website that is expanding and catering to many folks out there.

4. Other 15mm manufacturers are benefiting as they are selling product.

5. Inspiring people to make some sweet looking terrain. I know I am inspired to do more with terrain, but I am still painting my troops these days.

6. Increase an interest in the World War II period. Imagine if they did something similar to Ancients or Napoleonics. Yes, I realize some people would bemoan that idea, but it is getting people into miniatures and learning SOMETHING about the period. Yes, some 40K players went over tot eh dark side. I can live with that. Is FOW a gateway minis game?

7. BF has also created some controversy in the miniatures hobby in that there is so much debate going on about the mechanics/miniatures/realism/Overwatch et al. issues. Face it, the more people TALK about FOW, the more it is bound to get other folks to look at FOW. Perhaps free advertisement in a way? It is too bad that the BF site denizens and TMP denizens do not always get along.

The model (certainly not restricted to BattleFront) of allowing fanboys to become moderators seems great until one of them gets a wild hair and starts stomping all over people with good insights that aren't towing the line.

You're describing exactly the reasons why I a bear a grudge against the company and am frequently motivated to have a go at them on occasion. Not that I'm one to bear a grudge :-)

A few years back I had a rather unpleasant experience after rasiing quite reasonable points on their forums then having fanboy moderators dishing out unreasonable personal abuse before running away to hide behind their ability to delete threads and rewrite history.

But the FoW forums have got better recently. The nutters have been reigned in quite a bit and a few of the individual forums are actually remarkably low on fanboy activity.

The modelling and painting forums are very good indeed and the history forums are well worth a visit – particularly the Armies and Unit Histories forum.

Just avoid the interminable Monty vs Patton bull that pops up with monotonous regularity, usually on the Battles forum. (This is also cerainly not restricted to the FoW forums either)

I too like the website more than I dislike it. And the bits I dislike provide excellent laughs on many occcasions. The time CI went gaga about some good looking woman who played FoW was truly excellent.

I absolutely wish there was a FoW type game for Napoleonics. Not a veriasion, as I dont think the rules would move over very well to Napoleonics. But something with easy to grasp rules that move quickly, have all the glossy picture filled books that make you just want to bail in, and all the hype to make people want to take a look.

Even if they dont get it right, just bringing in more folks to napoleonics would be great.

I'm off at school without my game books. What was the gist of the Flames of War ambush and recce rules again?

The recce rules let you retreat on contact. I use it with Desert Rat UC scouts a lot – though tanks still get some, usually some get away, and infantry rarely does damage. Don't recall the details of ambush, and it's late, so I'll let another answer that rather than go look it up.

Don.

I check out the FOW website every week. I check out the forum maybe once a month. There is so much more to that sight then just the forums. If you judge that sight by just the forums you are missing out on so much more. Roy.