"Learning History from Flames of War" Topic

Have you learned any WWII history from playing Flames of War?

No.

Picked up a fair bit because of one-time interest in FoW, but not much from FoW directly.

I learned about Wotjek the bear……

Operational games like NQM and Megablitz have made me think (and thinking leads to learning) …

By their very nature it is harder to learn from tactical games (that said, you do learn a lot about the nuts and bolts, the units involved etc. and I bet FoW players know more now about personalities like Michael Wittmann than they did when they were playing ancients …)

Phil
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com

Don't think I've ever learned history from a game. I have been inspired to do historical research about an event or time period though……

Most definitely. I had a cursory understanding of WWII before I started playing. The game provided information itself and spurred me to do some learning on my own. Glad that it came along when it did.

I've learned some history while AT games of Flames of War, because I game with historians who know a bit more than I do about WWII, having taught it for 30+ years, or who work for the USAF as a historian. So, I would have to say technically YES, but not through the game itself. It is a game, and if it inspires research into the period or you get to know more talking with people who know the history, I call it a win.

Define "history", as it applies to wargames.

When you have done that, then ask the same question about DBA.

Don't think I've ever learned history from a game. I have been inspired to do historical research about an event or time period though……

Exactly correct.

I think people who were already immersed in WWII had little to learn from the actual game. But for people without that background there is plenty to be learned, people, places, specific armaments, and battles.
I specifically remember having played for a couple of months and then thinking back to having watched "Saving Private Ryan" and how things started to fall into different categories. They ceased to be just tanks and guns and strange names and started having more depth and place in the historical scheme of things.

I think about my students who know what a PPSH is due to playing games like call of duty or how as a kid I started to understand geography from playing Risk so much.

Games can teach us things.

YES to the above by PZGeneral. When you play with toy soldiers, you are doing that. It's the background that (hopefully) gets you there, where you learn about history.

Eric

A few interesting factoids.

I think the danger is always in assuming that there is no other research to do…

Yes, zeroed-in, overwatch defenses/ambushes don't work in real life, which is why they were excluded from their rules.

;-)

No…

No

DM

I love how this topic seems targeted to being inciteful.

Have you ever learned history from playing DBA? What about Squad Leader?

Silly question to let people complain about what they don't like in the rules. And I'm sure it's never been said here before! WAIT- FoW has no overwatch? FOR SHAME!

Not really. But as others mentioned before, it sparked interest in some other battles that I did not know much about.

I learned that Americans fought the British in WW2. I saw it in a FOW tournament one day.

The topic sentence is inciteful? Huh? "Letting" people complain? Huh?

Ha..ha,ha… ha,ha,ha…. ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,…..

Some may hate, but FoW did teach me a bit, mostly because it really boosted my interesting in learning about the conflict. Frankly though, having lost interest I've now forgotten more about WWII than I remember, thus making me really terrible for trying to argue anything other than Germany's mistakes from about 1936 onward. Memory overload.

"WAIT- FoW has no overwatch? FOR SHAME!"

My thoughts exactly. Overwatch should be mandatory in a tactical game.

I've read several books about Stalingrad and am reading about Kursk.

Sorry, just my knee jerk reaction. I am in auto-rabid dog defense mode since I love TMP until the weekly FoW dog-pile.

My thoughts exactly. Overwatch should be mandatory in a tactical game.

No, it shouldn't.

Besides, it is already there, but subtly.
When the GErmans fail their Stormtrooper or the Italians fail their Avanti moves and are left out in the open, that's overwatch.
When the British fail the Tip and Run rule, that's overwatch.
When reconnaissance or Tank Destroyers fail their runaway rolls, that's overwatch.
Defensive fire in assaults is overwatch.
There is more.

I am not convinced that more is needed. Which is why it will probably be in FoW 3.0!

gone to ground + reduced ROF on the move work out a pretty good approximation of overwatch as well in my opinion.

The drawback being of course that you can zip from cover to cover on some boards. New defensive fire rules in V3 are a bit more realistic as well, and certainly combine to the same effect.

Agreed it isn't needed. Every game I've played with overwatch punished bold aggressive behavior.

In response to the original question… Yes, I have. The books are chock full of historical info on the various campaigns and protaganists.

By playing? Oh heavens no. However the resource books often have a nice accumulation of useful information either by campaign review or unit history.

Not from the game.

I havent "learned about history" because i played any wargame.

I have an interest in military history, so whatever period im "into" at the time, ill go and spend a small fortune on books or sit for hours reading stuff on the net.

That being said, there is quite a bit of historical info in the campaign books, which then leads to further reading.

Steve.

"No, it shouldn't."

I disagree, only because it's you and I've only once agreed with anything you've ever said. :)
To hell with proper point making and discussion! AHAHAHAHA!

I do actually agree on the Defensive fire, but I wouldn't rate those other examples as actual overwatch.

Overwatch is by definition to "Watch Over."(That's Major Obvious to you, before anyone says anything. Got a promotion y'know.)

Overwatch also covers….well. Covering another unit. Such as a platoon setting up equipment or waiting for orders or whatever with one squad or fireteam or even just a couple guys being sent to a particular spot or spots to cover the platoon as a whole for security. So, it actually may not work so well in FoW due to the multibase system as say….in 40K or in Battlefield Evolution or a more detailed rule set like Tomorrow's War, systems which rely on the individual rather than the team.

"Learning History" LOL!

That was funny!

That being said, there is quite a bit of historical info in the campaign books, which then leads to further reading.

Steve.

Totally agree with you Steve. The history sections in the various FoW books are pretty good summaries. I was pretty knowledgeable in WWII history overall and very well versed in some specific campaigns before, but since playing FoW the breadth and depth of my WWII history knowledge has greatly improved. In many cases what was provided in the FoW book history sections ignited a desire to do much deeper research on a specific campaign.

A good example is the Saharan campaign of LeClerc's Free French Force coming up from Chad to attack the Italian outpost in southern Libya. When I saw this short history in "Burning Empires" I was amazed that I'd never come across it before. I thought this whole campaign was looked really cool and I was inspired to do more research on it.

So to answer "The Editor's" question, YES I've learned a lot of WWII History from my involvement in FoW. Even if player never reads or studies anything beyond the history components in the FoW books, FoW web and WI articles, and FoW history Forum discussions, I suspect that player is still getting much deeper understanding into WWII history than he likely got in his public schooling. FoW is making significant contributions to the greater good of keeping the memories of these past campaigns and soldier's stories alive.

VB

No but I've had a few chortles watching it.

Splitting hairs?
Any content in the rules, whether history tidbits, etc… is learning information FROM the game…. if you didn't know it before you read it… it is learning.

The books all have some very nice history tidbits in them, some I knew, but most I didn't…. so reading them in the rule or campaign book and learnng something IS actually learning something from the game… playing the game as a walk up without actually reading the rules, etc…is completely a different story. You are only learning about the game then.

Double edged sword there…. by that premise, you don't learn anything from any game, except how to play it as they are all interpretations, not the actual thing.

FoW books all have soem historical stuff in them to learn, but this is common with a lot of games too, especially ones based on real life scenarios.

I have learn't a great deal from many rule books either directly from the books or through having to carry out research.

Tally Ho!

Playing wargames to include FoW has led to personal research on units, battle history and cammo schemes etc….

SFC Retired

Flames of What?
I learned that they think games should be more or less evenly matched, which is exceptionally stupid. You always try to catch the other guy when he is eating, or asleep, or in the john. Never fight an even battle.

There is nothing that precludes anybody from setting up and fighting out an unequal battle using FoW. If that's what one wants to do…have at it!!!

FOW is set up to balance the armies using points, but there is a lot of fun re-playing uneven historical battles (getting back to the original thread) and a lot to be learned in the process.

These engagements are often unbalanced(as one side was exploiting an advantage) and a victory for one side is often just holding a position or making an objective have cost too much to have taken. Victory agsint the odds is always more satisfying.

I've not done much FOW yet, but all other ww2 games I've done encouraged me to read futher on the theatre or time we were playing. I think the short summaries FOW includes about WW2 are very good, especially for young gamers coming in to the hobby who have been taught Hollywood History.

I haven't learnt anything about history from playing Flames of War.

In fairness, that might change if I were ever to play a game of Flames of War.

All the best,

John.

A little bit from reading the rules. (Hadn't really heard about the LRDG before I bought the Sting of the Scorpion box way back when)

I've mostly been prompted to do research by something mentioned.

Yes.

- In WWII troops massed in essentially Napoleonic or American Civil War formations.

- Tanks maneuvered in chariot-like formations.

- WWII was fought by gentlemen who, when faced with a juicy target wandering into view, would allow the enemy wandering into view to shoot first. Sort of a resurrection of the sentiment, "Gentlemen of France, fire first!"

- Every captain had a personal battery of 155mm arty attached to his company and which he personally maneuvered around the battlefield.

- General officers faced one another in single combat while personally leading rifle platoons. Sometimes they faced army mascots…

- The US army possessed alien technology which allowed it to teleport some of its troops in and out of battle. Perhaps Area 51 predates the Cold War????

- Tank crews routinely hopped in and out of their tanks while remaining immune to enemy fire.

"Learning History from Flames of War"
YouTube link

- In WWII troops massed in essentially Napoleonic or American Civil War formations.

Really? Must not be playing against folks that don't take bombardment weapons or air support that much. You might also be playing on too small of a table with too many troops.

- Tanks maneuvered in chariot-like formations.

See above. Also with V3 changes in air support massing tanks too closely will be an even more stupid course of action to take then it already is.

- WWII was fought by gentlemen who, when faced with a juicy target wandering into view, would allow the enemy wandering into view to shoot first. Sort of a resurrection of the sentiment, "Gentlemen of France, fire first!"

It's an I-Go, U-Go game. Players' turns are resolved in sequence but represent simultaneous actions. Seems some folks have a great deal of trouble coming to grips with this concept which leads to uniformed comments like the above.

- Every captain had a personal battery of 155mm arty attached to his company and which he personally maneuvered around the battlefield.

Really? When was the last time you played against US 155's in a FoW game? I've been playing for years and have faced them once myself. Not statistically something to get one's panties all bunched up over.

- General officers faced one another in single combat while personally leading rifle platoons. Sometimes they faced army mascots…

I never have seen that in years of FoW gaming. Seldom see "heroes" of any rank used for that matter.

- The US army possessed alien technology which allowed it to teleport some of its troops in and out of battle. Perhaps Area 51 predates the Cold War????

Talking about US Tank destroyer doctrine rules here? You might want to go back and read what those rules represent. As per the OP…you might learn a little history in the process.

- Tank crews routinely hopped in and out of their tanks while remaining immune to enemy fire.

That's of course is not what's happening. The crews are more like "buttoned up." It's just a negative morale result that's somewhat poorly named. You yourself have claimed to have this exact discussion with Phil over his regrets with that specific naming convention. Yet here you are trying to make it out into something that it's not.

Some folks just want to cling to unfounded perceptions of FoW. Some, like the above stretching and warping aspects of the game in an effort to discredit FoW entirely. It ain't that bad folks. You don't have to take my word for it. Check WWPD's AARs. There are well over a hundred excellent AARs of FoW games there. Don't think many if any of those FoW games are so grossly misrepresenting WWII history as is suggested above in the overhyped comments.

"- Every captain had a personal battery of 155mm arty attached to his company and which he personally maneuvered around the battlefield."

Only the ones willing to make them the centerpiece of the company. Most of those large batteries will take up a huge chunk of points. Usually 400-460ish. Not good for a 1500 point game.

yes, I learned that tank crews jump in and out of their vehicles several times during a fight.

LOL….. haters gotta hate right?
I knew this topic would go down that ugly road sooner or later… I think the OP did too. It was far too tempting to let sleeping dogs lay.

I always thought that those tanks were receiving money from the government and they couldn't move because they were cashing an enormous check. Jumping out of the tanks makes a lot more sense then the way I have been playing it.

Next you guys are going to be telling me that infantry taking a lot of hits are not using needles to attach themselves to the ground.