"I want to like FoW, but..." Topic

When the first edition of FoW hit the shops, I got very excited. Actually, it was before the book was available in the shops. I think I read some commentary from somebody in TMP and I ordered the book from New Zealand directly!

Anyway, I collected a German (Middle War) company and a British company. Painted them, and convinced my friends to play the game. They got immediately hooked by the game! It was instantly popular… except for me. I don't know why after all the effort I put in learning to play, painting and promoting the system between my friends, I felt "let down" by it.

A couple of years later, I sold both companies and never bothered for the game again. However, now a friend of mine has been insisting and insisting I must give the game another try. He has me half-convinced. What the hell! He HAS convinced me enough to buy and paint one platoon of German panzergrenadiers and some tanks! And I am waiting for Forged in Battle to deliver at my home the HMGs and Mortars!

But then… But then I see the games, and as much as I try they don't fit with my image of what WWII should look. They look to me… I don't know how to explain it… Crowded, perhaps… And the guns are too mobile… Damm it! I really want to like the game and have the same fun as the rest of my friends have!! But it's being difficult…

What am I missing?

Thanks in advance!

try some smaller systems,Force on Force maybe from ambush alley (It is scale independent with little paperwork you can even leave your infantry on multibases) or operation squad from Boltgun miniatures.
As said kyotebluer i like it you dont easy as breakfast.

What am I missing?

It's not Crossfire, 'nuff said.

@kyotebluer than blue

Some people can tolerate improperly (i.e. not turned into ketchup, bbq, or marinara sauce) prepared tomatoes, while others require that the poison be rendered out.

If it bothers you then just treat it as a fantasy WWII system and have fun with it knowing that you personally would need to use some other rules set to deliver a more authentic experience.

BTW, never sell off completed forces/armies for periods you like – you never know when the bug for that period will bite again and you'll find another rules set that inspires. If you've got the troops in a box somewhere you can drag 'em out and get going straight away instead of having to slog through the "building new armies" phase.

Personally I think you did your bit before, and maybe you should just let someone else paint up the figures for FoW this time, and play with their toys and accept it as "just a game".

And maybe find a rule set that better represents your view of WWII combat, paint up forces for that and offer to run this every other game.

My impressions…
It seems you want to play more of a skirmish game.. 1:1 on everything. Under Fire is a great little system people keep forgetting about.

Also, I think it is, in your minds eye… a scale thing. FoW doesn't really lock you into a scale. In fact, it has been hypothesized that if you keep everything the same and go to 10mm figs and vehicles, you will see the game does indeed spread out much more quickly. I love it for what it is, but I understand that the base the half squad is on (4-5guys) is actually an area about 10 yards wide-ish and that the tanks and vehicles represent something that is smaller.

In the end, from the way you are writing, it seems that in the back of your mind the scale isn't setting well with you. I had that issue at first concerning ranges and "clumping" of vehicles, but I play my way… I'll spread out or do whatever… the rules allow for quite a bit of distance between individual stands… people just don't always play that way.

Hope this helps! It really is a great game.

I know what you mean I personally play "Poor Bloody Infantry" by peter Pig, but that just our preference

If you don't like them, you don't like them. I've tried them a few times with different gamers and they jsut aren't for me. I don't feel bad about it, nor do I begrudge others from having a good time. Since you are already put together another force, give it another try and see if you like it this time around, but don't continue to force yourself to play if you are not having fun.

Troops based for FoW can easily be used for several other games.

I'd suggest finding a player or players who play WW2 using FoW rather than those who play FoW. It's a subtle distinction but my experience suggests that you will get a better WW2 experience from the former.

If you don't like them, you don't like them.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
I do like it. But you are not me.

ya know, i've also gotten the first rules and wanted to like it, but did'nt. i'm kinda vocal about it, too. the way the tanks line up, massed infantry, etc. and i've been put in my place by some members.but, i've had a change of opinion, of a sort.
i'm gonna get the new book when it comes out. start an army, and join in. its the game played, and as i won't go back to 40k, at least i'll find someone to play against.

basileus66 I can emphasize with your predicament. I played none of Version 1 and stayed clear for the first year or so of V2 until I started play to FoW primarily to accommodate my friends. I hope my perspectives may be of use to you.

But then I see the games, and as much as I try they don't fit with my image of what WWII should look. They look to me… I don't know how to explain it… Crowded, perhaps… And the guns are too mobile… Damm it!

My assumption is there may be more than just these two issues that are precluding you from happily gaming with your mates but I'll try to address these two as best as I can.

The Look.

You are quite right that the "look" of FoW is not always spot on. Even the basic team stand has the figures too close on it. It's the same case for many wargame systems. 24 infantry figures does not look like a full battalion to me as many Napoleonic games want to represent them, but it often plays like a battalion well enough. So my suggestion here is to not focus so much on the look of toy soldiers on the table but rather focus on the effects and outcomes for your actions and opponents reactions. You probably would not to give much thought to the look of counters in a board game and I expect that can similar approach could be made here.

Then of course there is the opportunity when you play to actually spread out more than to give your game a more doctrinal look for force dispersion. As you know what right looks like, it might just be possible that you could have a positive influence on your friends gaming with FoW and get them to spread out forces more properly.

FoW is a game system that definitely pushes the abstract envelope more than other wargame systems may be willing to go. This aspect is especially manifested in its look. So maybe think of it terms of art. A photograph is certainly a more detailed representation of a given subject than a painting, especially an abstract painting. Yet often a painting can evoke a more powerful feel and perception than the ordinary, but 100% accurately detailed, photograph.

Gun mobility.

Some guns are immobile and properly so, and some move but 2". However, you are likely concerned about a 4" move in the case of lighter guns which may be too generous. But is that really significant in the course of your games? In the big scheme of things it may not be. For me it's a minor adjustment. So far I've not been able to manhandle my guns from one side of the board to the other to dominate any game. If gun moves really do hang you up that much, then I'm sure your mates might be willing to consider a house rule where you all reduce gun movement rates. I'd be willing to do that if it brought to my table for a game of FoW!

I hope I've been helpful. I do hope that if you do decide throw down with FoW and your buddies that you do indeed have fun, and hopefully get a better appreciation for its nuances and can ultimately come to point where you truly enjoy the game. But if not… no big deal, you can get a lot of mileage out of your FoW miniatures for other game systems and after you played a game or two with your mates, maybe they will reciprocate an play a game system that's more to your liking on occasion as well.

Good Luck,

VB

It's a game….not a recreation of WWII.

Generally speaking, I haven't seen guns move very much. In fact, I don't remember the last time I moved a gun bigger than a 60mm mortar or HMG.

One solution to the 'appearance' problem is to limit your games to 1500 points on a 4x6 table (or something proportional to that).

From where I sit there are two major compromises made in the Flames of War system. The first major compromise is a compressed ground scale. While the miniatures are 15mm (1/100th scale), the "ground scale" in terms of movement rate, ranges, etc. is vastly compressed so that you can play the game on a 4X6 or 4X8 surface. For example – in real terms the M1 Garand is accurate out to at least 300 yards with an even remotely competent operator, and even in the hands of a novice can hit a man-sized target at 100 yards. Divide those by 100 and you get 108" and 36" respectively – yet the range of a rifle team in FoW is 16". The consequence of this compromise is that FoW armies are going to look "bunched up" because the ground they're sitting on (or based on) isn't in scale with the miniatures. I heartily accept and endorse this compromise because I really don't have a 20X40 (or larger) surface to play on.

The other major compromise made with the Flames of War system is the d6 mechanics. A modified d6 roll doesn't give you a lot of degrees of freedom with any one die roll, so to get granularity you frequently will have one or more rolls to provide more degrees of freedom. This is a compromise made for the sake of simplicity and playability so you aren't referring to 17 tables to resolve one shot. Again, this is a compromise I heartily accept and endorse because you can generally play a game in a couple of hours depending on the force levels.

As to it capturing the "feel" of World War II – overall I think it does a pretty good job. I've written a couple of PDF's for the game (so far one is published), and I know the level of research that goes into those to get the force composition correct. The other thing to consider is that FoW is a points based game – the goal of which is to balance the forces to the point where skill and die rolls should determine the winner – not what nationality and time-period you chose to show up with. I enjoy playing my Italian Bersaglieri – but I'd enjoy it a lot less if I'd lavished hours on my army only to lose every game.

It's a game….not a recreation of WWII.

Thank goodness. I think the world had enough of that the first time around.

It's a game….not a recreation of WWII

Maybe the game should come with a disclaimer:

Any similarity between this product and an actual war game is purely coincidental.

Any similarity between this product and an actual war game is purely coincidental.

Not sure what you mean by that – Flames of War is a very solid war game given its goals and mechanics. I personally like to be able to play a game in a couple of hours rather than having to consult a plethora of tables to resolve a simple shot. Plus there are enough players out there to actually make it worth my time painting up miniatures. I tried to get into various simulation games, but player base was too small (if there was a base at all!) and the rules were always unwieldy.

I personally like to be able to play a game in a couple of hours rather than having to consult a plethora of tables to resolve a simple shot.

So does most everyone else.

A few alternatives have been suggested, most of which are as quick as FoW, and none of which require your "plethora of tables". No one suggested ASL.

"It's a game….not a recreation of WWII."

That's just a copout and just a excuse for bad design.

I disagree. FoW is designed very well, no copout needed.

Inglorious Bastards is an entertaining movie, but it is not a Historical account of WWII- doesn't mean it was written poorly.

Good comparison they both have the same relation to WWII

Hey and if that's not cool with you- no sweat then! Enjoy the games you enjoy.

A few alternatives have been suggested, most of which are as quick as FoW, and none of which require your "plethora of tables". No one suggested ASL.

So what's the player base like? FoW has the benefits of good design, strong miniature support, and a large player base.

I too have a problem with "the look". My compromise has been to go with 3mm (6mm also works well)and go with 1/2"=1" in FOW scale. The problem for me is that most players use 15mm. But at 3 mm I can buy many fig for few $$$, so I will deal with having to field my own forces.

Some good advice here. Thanks! Mind that I am not afraid of complex game systems (I am a long standing ASL player, after all!). I have tried other WWII systems with my 20mm armies (again British and German!) and I have especially liked IABSM and Kampfgruppe Normandy, though they are very different games. I have the intention of trying again FoW, though. I probably wait to commit fully when the 3rd edition hit the streets. What I do not want to do is like happened when I started gaming 40K, that I bought 3rd edition of the rules, and six months later the book and most of the codexes were already obsolete!

I fully intent to use my FoW collection for other games too. As someone said above: never get rid of your army, because you don't know when the bug will bite you again. However, what I also intent to do is to stay clear of FoW tournament circuits. I have learned my lesson from 40K: tournament takes the joy out of gaming!

Thanks!

PS: By the way, that can be part of the problem I have with FoW; that is, that much of the experience I have with the game comes from observing the game played in tournaments or by tournament-minded players. In such competitive environment, with the armies probably maxed out to have maximum advantages points wise, the resultant games are not representative of the what the game really are.

And while you may hate or love Battlefront, you have to admit they are a class act…just like with the switch from V1 to V2, to get a copy of the V3 rules for free, all you have to do is bring in your V2 rulebook and get it stamped by your FLGS owner…..

Now that's class, baby. Pure class.

Also, as has been noted, when BF changes rules editions, your LW armored company is still a LW armored company….Shermans are Shermans, after all.

fingolfen wrote:

I personally like to be able to play a game in a couple of hours rather than having to consult a plethora of tables to resolve a simple shot. Plus there are enough players out there to actually make it worth my time painting up miniatures. I tried to get into various simulation games, but player base was too small (if there was a base at all!) and the rules were always unwieldy.

That's a rather large straw man you've just erected.

I play it in 6mm with "half-scale" rulers marked off in half-inches. Put 2000 points a side on a 4x6 table. No "bunching" up here – just loads of maneuver and good tactics. (Or bad, depends on the player).

Play Flames of War with your friends and play another game of your choice as well. FoW will not taint you and make you incapable of playing other games. Be careful though because you might actually have fun, and that would be wrong according to TMP.

"Any similarity between this product and an actual war game is purely coincidental"

Heaven forbid people should want to play a game that doesnt involve rolling dice made up of angles last seen in a maths textbook, then using it to cross reference against multiple tables, usually on badly designed, poorly printed and blotchy type, often overwritten with miniscule hand text written amendments, prior to spending 4 hours to complete 3 'moves'.

I understand FOW may seem a little simple to some hard core gamers. If you dont like it, then fine, dont like it. But why hang around on a FOW forum and post about it? Seems a bit of a waste of your leisure time, but each to their own.

Ultimately, whatever system we play is only a representation. Speaking as a military person, I know FOW is not necessarily uber realistic, but until you can come up with a system which will arbitrarily cause a player to disintegrate into thousands of pieces and die a painful death, then you cant simulate the sheer terror of war.

FOW is a great game that may have issues which some players seek to exploit. Fine, show me any game system that gamers havent chosen to exploit at some time. Gamers like to tweak the rules to the point of breaking them because its something inside of their personality – FOW is not unique on that.

Personally I love the game because its quick, its fun, it lets me put models I like the look of on the table and use them, and I can get a broad game in over a couple of hours. Most importantly I know that wherever I go, I am usually able to get a game of FOW in regardless of where I am – its a wonderful system that has designers that treat their customers with respect. I struggle to see the reason for the intense hatred it garners in some quarters. Are we not allowed to have fun as wargamers, or is it banned?

Jimlad48 wrote:

Heaven forbid people should want to play a game that doesnt involve rolling dice made up of angles last seen in a maths textbook, then using it to cross reference against multiple tables, usually on badly designed, poorly printed and blotchy type, often overwritten with miniscule hand text written amendments, prior to spending 4 hours to complete 3 'moves'.

Have Battlefront got a discount on straw men this week or something?

basileus66, the original poster, is a in sheep's clothing. This is the same old crap. I don't like Flames of War but I'm going to spend time on the Flames of War Message Board and ask its players to tell me why I should like it so I can continue to not like it…

And then the usual gang of idiots (no, not Mad magazine staff) chime in with their snarky little comments.

Play it. Don't play it. Who cares. If you don't like it, don't play it. Play something else. Play anything else. Post anywhere else. Just not here. Again, FoW players don't care if you like it or not.

Walk away tall.

Go on.

Walk away.

Tall.

Can't say that I agree with that comradetexas.

He did reply appropriately. Thanked us for our thoughts. Noted that his view of FoW has been primarily skewed by what he saw in tournaments and acknowledges that that is not necessarily representative of what one can get out of FoW.

Seemed honest and reasonable enough to me.

He did also say:

I have the intention of trying again FoW

That might be taken as an indication that the promoters here had more of an influence on him than detractors.

Cheers.

VB

I like moving good-looking little tanks and men around a relatively realistic-looking game table. I have to separate reality from games all the time – shockingly, physics and human nature aren't always well-handled in war games!

I like colorful books with nice diagrams, photos, and other graphics. Sure, I'll play games with plain black-and-white rule books as well, because so many of them are still that way, but it's nice that Battlefront could develop and sell such a professional-looking product line.

I like playing games that other people I know play. I already had 1:285th scale and 20mm, so another scale was not something I needed or wanted, but since a number of people I know decided to play it, I play it too now.

Fanboy of FOW? No, but I think I have some valid reasons for playing it.

(Edit) I would also like to add that I've played in several FOW Tournaments held at the HMGS conventions over the past few years, and I have had nothing but a good time each time, win or lose. Many of the people I played against each time were NOT regular/constant FOW tournament players, in fact, but first-timers, or off-and-on FOW players who mostly played regular games near where they live.

That's a rather large straw man you've just erected.

Personal experience – YMMV. I've been wargaming in one form or another for over 30 years. I've still got a crapton of old Avalon Hill games lying around collecting dust because – once again – no one to actually play the game with. I've also got at least 2 or 3 sets of WW2 miniature rules that I picked up and never found a player base for.

What I like about Flames of War is not only is it approachable, but there's a large player base. I *ALSO* like the fact that they let the players contribute to the game. The designers also are solid blokes as well.

See: link

@Jimlad….
Seems to me you just described my favorite Napoleonic game… Chef de' Batallion!!!!

"Have Battlefront got a discount on straw men this week or something?"

Nope, I'm just a long time gamer who has a stack of said rulebooks on my shelf which have been found to be nearly unplayable within my gaming parameters.

I have limited time for a game, and dont have the ability to play on a regular basis with a fixed group of people. Having to deal with a system which is slow, clunky and which takes upwards of 30 minutes to play a turn is not what I am looking for in a gaming experience.

I want a fast system which simulates things like tank warfare, tough infantry, artillery and so on, but which is playable in a shorter timescale and which can be played by a wide playerbase.

If people want to play a different system because its more realistic, then thats brilliant. There are some very good and very detailed systems out there, and if you have a steady players base which enables you to learn to the point where you can get multiple turns out in the time you have then thats great.

From my perspective, either complex rulessets or FOW will always simulate at the end result the fact that 88mms are powerful, that dug in infantry are tough nuts to crack, that Sherman tanks deserved the moniker 'ronsons' and that airpower can be decisive in some circumstances. How you reach that result and the level of detail in the simulation is irrelevant – its whether you have fun or not that matters to me.

Suggesting that I'm a BF strawman for saying so on a FOW forum is frankly unnecesarily offensive, but seems that that is par for the course with some people when it comes to criticising people who like FOW.

VonBurge, you make a good point.

firstvarty1979, you make excellent points.

fingolfen, you also make excellent points. I love the interactivity of this game. Whether it's a pipe dream or not, player feedback really seems to influence not only the game and products, but also how they do biz. I think the trump card for anyone who bad mouths the game/company is the free rule book. It's really THAT revolutionary. And they've done it twice now.

Cheers!

Jimlad

Your postings are classic examples of the strawman arguments regularly put forward by FoW fans. You write about what you see as the wonderfully simple, well produced and fun FoW rules and imply that any and all alternatives are complicated, boring, involve multiple charts and tables, are slow to play, are badly produced etc etc etc.

It's just not like that. There are some WWII games with some of the negative characteristics you describe, but plenty of others that are just as simple, fun and easy to play as FoW.

I would admit that none of them are quite so fancily produced as FoW, and certainly none of them have so much eye candy, but plenty of them are well produced and professional looking.

Your "complex rulessets or FOW" is a false dichotomy.

Too true Derek. There are a lot of good alternatives out there with all kinds of approach, scope, scale variations, and difficulty levels. FoW is just one WW2 wargame that is working very well for a great many players out of an ever increasing inventory of viable WW2 wargames.

Derek – I'm sure there's plenty of good rulesets out there, and if you have a local gaming population that can support it – more power to you. However can you name another World War II miniatures wargame that has all of the following characteristics:

Approachable Ruleset
Reasonable Game Duration
Very large player base
Very responsive customer service
Allows outsiders to create OFFICIAL additions to the game

You may get 4/5 – but I don't think you're going to find another WW2 ruleset that has the player base of FoW.

I honestly don't have a lot of spare time in my week. I can't be tied to a system where I can't find a game when I actually have the time. So I limit myself to FoW as a ruleset. Doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of other good systems out there – though I've got a couple from the 80's and 90's with more tables than my reference books collecting dust on my shelf.

You keep using the word "strawman" – but from where I sit, it's my actual real life experience. I'm not creating some imaginary target to criticize. I've gamed for over 3 decades (and worked in gaming and hobby stores in graduate school) and have seen several rulesets come and often go. Your experience may be different. Some games catch on in a local area and don't go national or international. That's fine, but don't presume to dismiss different experiences as "strawman" arguments.

I have a good amount of spare time to devote to my hobby. I could routinely play any wargame I wanted to. I have played other WWII wargames in the past, I play other WWII wargames now, I am sure to be trying other WWII wargames in the future (already planning some). FoW is just the one that has worked best for me on many levels, not just the fast game play. We'll see what the future holds but I'm guessing with V3 just hitting the streets, I'm looking at another excellent half decade or so of some truly outstanding WWII wargaming with FoW. It's going to take one hell of a game to knock FoW off the block that it has earned with me.

Cheers,

VB

basileus66, the original poster, is a in sheep's clothing. This is the same old crap. I don't like Flames of War but I'm going to spend time on the Flames of War Message Board and ask its players to tell me why I should like it so I can continue to not like it…

I don't know how to answer to this. I've been participating in this forum (not FoW in particular, but TMP) since 2003, and it's the first time I've been accused of being a ! Well, perhaps I should feel ofended, though as most people in this thread has answered usefully and politely I won't start a ing contest with you, to see who of us can be more insulting.

I am not a . I have gamed FoW (first edition); collected all the books up to the 2nd edition, and painstakingly painted two infantry companies, one German and one British. At the moment I wasn't overjoyed with the game. As I said above probably because the tournament enviroment of most of the games I watched.

But I have not played 2nd edition. I don't know if those things that I didn't like of the 1st edition were fixed or not, or how the game "feel" when trying scenarios rather than tournament or pick up games. I don't need to collect FoW nor spend more money in WWII miniatures. I have two big collections in 20mm already. If I want I can even provide the forces for most games with my friends, which I do. But I see my friends enjoying FoW.

They have explained to me their reasons, and I have found them intriguing enough to have spent another 40 euros in starting a new infantry company in 15mm. If I asked in TMP it was because I wanted feedback from people with different levels of experience in the game, from people that have gamed in other countries, in other enviroments that I had. That is called "curiosity" in my country, not "ing".

I am really grateful of answers like those of Von Burge (thanks, by the way, for your kind words), fingolfin or Jimlad. They have provided me with insights about the game, that I find useful.

I refuse to be cowed or annoyed by you, Mr. Davis. And, please, don't take over yourself the mantle of being the Voice of other FoW players. You are not. You only speak for yourself, not for anyone else.

And now I will be back to my painting table. There are 40 little fellas awaiting for their cammo to be painted!

Best regards

basileus66 – I believe commradetexas might have acknowledged his error in his 9:59 post referencing back to my 8:23am post. He could have been more explicit though if that's what he meant.

Oh…and glad to be of service!

I'll be working on some FJ camo myself tonight!

VB

basileus66,

After reading VonBurge's comments and re-reading your original post, I can see how I was wrong in saying you were ing. My apologies. It's not my intent to insult or anger people I've never met. Sincerely, I apologize.

I tend to react to anyone complaining about FoW on the FoW board (not that you were) with contempt because the only reason they are here is to be a pain in the *rump*, like Derek. They contribute nothing.

I hope you give v.3 a try and you find some fun people to play with. I also hope you can get a fraction of the enjoyment and satisfaction from the FoW hobby that I do. Sometimes who you play with can be the difference between having fun and not. Good luck to you and I look forward to seeing some of your miniatures on this board.

Again, sorry my comments were so off-base and I wish you well.

Cheers!

Comradetexas

Apologies accepted, Comradetexas.

I didn't intent to sound so harsh in my reply, but as you know Internet is not a good place for nuanced communication!

Anyway, the best part is that I really like gaming very different things. Some of my friends believe that I am some short of heretic, that can play and enjoy equally Tomorrow's War and Warhammer 40K and then meet with my eldest son to have a game of ASL! Maybe it's a thing of growing older, but I have decided to stop putting artificial limitations to my enjoyment of my hobby. That's why I am so excited to give FoW another go.

Mind that I pretend to play mainly scenario-driven games or mini-campaigns, not the canonical competitive gaming. Not that I do not like competition in a game, but I believe that the other two options will fit better with what I look nowadays in a game.

Again, thanks to all of you for your input.

@fingolfen

IABSM fills that list. It doesn't have the following that FoW does but it is growing nicely

Your postings are classic examples of the strawman arguments regularly put forward by FoW fans.

As opposed to the air-tight logical arguments put forward by all the rest? Ya, sure.