"The failure of FOW on Eastern Front" Topic

I have no problem with Soviets behaving like 40K Orks (OK, it may not be totally historical but if that is what BF want then fine). What I find difficult to live with is that the way the points for LW are currently set (after the increase to cater for the vast 'improvement' resulting from the new H&C rule) means that normal Soviet tanks are simply not worth fielding in a normal (points based) game.

OK, you could play with the Soviets having 20% more points if they are playing Germans or simply just throw toys on the table and have fun but most FoW games do use the points system and that is the fundamental issue.

Essentially Soviets need to be either better or cheaper which was the contention of the OP IIRC.

James,

this will always be the problem making up fantasy forces with points and special attributes etc. One solution might be to drop the points of the Sov kit or give them 2 for one. Some armies in history won, not because they were superb troops but because of sheer numbers often very difficult to replicate with points systems aimed at giving a balanced game.

Tally Ho!

And so the truth comes out in my mind…..

Most of you are approaching this arguement solely from a tournament standard…. meaning that in point to point, the Soviets will always fall short of the the Germans…

The reallity is more like this…. in the real world… the Germans did NOT always have the uber tricked out 1750 point army list…. face it folks…. you are beating a dead horse… I am not trying to be snarky… most of the time the Germans had weapon and morale superiority.

The game is fairly accurate there….

In FoW games… the Soviets can put together some very nice lists…. but the Germans can always put something better together for the era….

I see a LOT of non historic lists out there…. Let me express, FoW is points game… people will break that….

All one needs to do is take a simple look at the Early War British Tank army…. Holy Crap…. if they were that awesome, how did Hitler ever beat them?

Well…. lets beat that dead horse again…. That Brit list might have existed, but NOT everywhere on all fronts…. and where it did really exist, it did well… beating back the Germans…. The thing is this…. in the points game… once a good list is made, none of the others hardly ever get played (If you want to be competitive).

So, you are left with… OMG! ZOLF!!! The Brits are broken… when in reality, that list isn't… it was just extremely rare in real life….

Just like the German Puma lists that dominated for a while… that "list" really ony existed in one spot, for a short period of time on a small sector of the front…. yet it turned up in every tournament…. the list is NOT broken, but rather it is just a supreme list that in reality existed….

When am I going with this?

I think that is obvious…. all of these people complain about this or that…. and then someone mentions that their Germans got creamed by the Soviets and someone else chimes in… "then you weren't playing the Germans right"…

Well, that sums it up in a nut shell… min/max….

It is insane to go to a tournament with a real normal list…. you won't win…. so peopel play the best list they can to win… such is their right….

I play a lot of historic battles…. and guess what? The Soviets win where they won in real life and get creamed where they got creamed in real life…

The Germans wre not always the superior forces on the field… but, throughout the course of the war, they could always field a dominant force….

And that is what makes winning with the Soviets hard in tournaments… when you min/max an army pointwise… the Germans can always find that one list that is just a bit better than anything the Soviets could field… and it is historically so….

People confuse game tactics with real world tactics… the Germans did not always "keep the Soviets at arm length and smoked"…

In the end… game tactics win out as do the uber lists… and the BF point system does reflect availability of the really good Soviet stuff, making it practically impossible to field an equally matched army point for point against the Germans… It is a design flaw… but only because of the tournament setting.

It is like that dirty little secret….
The game is a bit more historically designed than many give it credit for…. it is just that players, well… play to win… so they will always gravitate toward the winning builds.

Me, I play predominantly GPG Germans… mostly halftracks.. they get creamed by Soviet tank armies… I play a purely historic force I like… I do not smoke 'em and keep 'em at arms length… I am all about close assaults, etc… why else take armored grens? I smoke 'em and engage.

Its a tournament list no one in their right mind would ever play….

meh… I play FoW for a different reason and if peopel wudl actually step back form the tournament setting for a moment, they would see a well designed game that is pretty reflective of the real world… It is what the PLAYERS do when they make their lists that makes FoW so zonky.

Soviets behaving like 40K Orks

OK,

Soviets = Orks
Germans = Space Marines
Americans = Imperial Guard
British = Tau

Something like that I'm thinking

The problem is that when you compare Soviets to Germans the game in neither balanced points wise nor accurate to the history.

According to FoW a King Tiger is totally ivulnerable to every single Allied AT gun at all ranges from the front. So those photos of KTs with holes in their front armour must be fictional.

T-34s were badly outclassed by Tigers but the 76mm T-34 could in the right situation actually destroy a Tiger, something it can't do in FoW.

If the EF was either accurate or balanced by the points system then this thread would not exist.

jhh… agreed… the way it is pointed out means you will never get a fair match up quality wise between the Soviets and Germans.

I have to look at the KT… I don't use them, so I haven't crunched numbers… assuming you are correct.. FoW is definitely incorrect here.

It is very rare that a T-34 would kill a Tiger… on the game scale, if we can call it that way, you would need far too many T-34s to make the Kill ratio correct… so say 1:X? using the points system in FoW… you couldn't field enough T-34's to meet said ratio, so it seems BF just opted to make it neigh impossible….

These are small scale games here, relatively speaking that is.

[QUOTE]To repeat. Battlefron DOES NOT WANT THE KATYUSHAS TO SURVIVE LONG. They are there to:
1) [/Sell a lot of models (mine are old Glory!)
2) Give you an initial Big Bang
3) Let the Germans, if they can spare the assets, have the opportunity to cream them.[/QUOTE]

I think they'd sell more Katyushas if they were more worthwhile "in game."

That said, I'm a sucker and I bought 8 of the old models…

I have to look at the KT… I don't use them, so I haven't crunched numbers… assuming you are correct.. FoW is definitely incorrect here.

The front armour of a King Tiger is 16, the best AT on any Western allied gun is 13 and the best for the Soviets is 16. Either way there is a flat zero chance of doing anything to the front of a KT :(

It is very rare that a T-34 would kill a Tiger… on the game scale, if we can call it that way, you would need far too many T-34s to make the Kill ratio correct… so say 1:X? using the points system in FoW… you couldn't field enough T-34's to meet said ratio, so it seems BF just opted to make it neigh impossible….

I think that the problem is that Soviet 76mm guns are rated too low in terms of AT. They have an AT of 9 through the whole war and there is no provision for improved ammunition which is probably the flaw. For a T-34/76 to only have a 1/9 chance of temporarily disabling a Tiger with a flank shot at point blank range is more than a little off the mark.

JamesHammyHamilton hits the nail on the head.

The game fails the Soviets both in terms of ahistorical nature of lists AS WELL AS game balance. In to that I'll also throw in "iconic vibe" which is something BF apparently tries to do.

Battlefront really needs to look at their approach to Soviets. However they have a tendency to shut down any discussion on this matter (or at least delete posts about it).

It seems it's off to the Western allied side of things where it make more sense.

Maybe you could have a look at Command Decision or Test of Battle as its called now, always had some great games with it and some great campaigns.

"in the real world… the Germans did NOT always have the uber tricked out 1750 point army list…."

True. And that explains the treatment of the Italians, too. Nobody's going to play a "historical" Italian army; they'll want the best-case Italians with a bunch of special play-balancing gimmicks.

But FoW is not a historical-scenario game. So it doesn't matter that a "proper" historical scenario would involve the late-war Soviets having a 4:1 numerical advantage.

All that matters is that the 1750-point Soviet list has a fighting chance, and I think we all agree that it usually doesn't.

"But FoW is not a historical-scenario game. So it doesn't matter that a "proper" historical scenario would involve the late-war Soviets having a 4:1 numerical advantage."

I agree with this. It means that BF then should make Soviets balanced versus the Germans.

However through ignorance or neglect BF has consistently downrated Soviets so they are not balanced

Biggest mistake I did!

All that matters is that the 1750-point Soviet list has a fighting chance, and I think we all agree that it usually doesn't.

I beg to differ. I had Finns, and could neverv beat the Russians, except in rarevexceptional circumstances.
But, I am not a skilled player, hardened in the fires of tournaments.

If your goal is 1750 point tournament armies, I admit the Soviets in LW are lacking.
Playing non-balanced points-wise historical scenarios… That's a horse of a different color.
So, stop thinking of tournament armies.

Getting other plays interested in playing scenarios is very difficult (as is getting them to switch to another system).

My own attempts at running scenarios have been unsuccessful.

FOW is a tournament game and that's the general mentality of players playing it.

I have ran several scenario FOW games at different west coast conventions. 3k to 5k point per side level games with up to 18 players once. The secret is making sure all are having fun….not if the game is balanced to the "T". The younger gamers don't care if the game is balanced….. they roll dice instead.

Here is the kicker….. I play in 20mm (1/72nd) scale using the standard FOW rules…..so no tourneys for this rabbit.

WR

Recent example: Battle of San Fratello Sicily 1943 link and link

Cheers, carrot and all

WR

However through ignorance or neglect BF has consistently downrated Soviets so they are not balanced

5 of the 22 forces/lists used at last year's US Masters were Soviets with Cossacks and Rifles coming in 3rd and 4th; and ALLSoviets finishing in the top half among a crowd of great players. See for yourself:

link

This really makes we wonder when I see all the talk here about how bad FoW has always treated the Soviets.

Of course that was before V3 and the Hen and Chicks "improvement" and cost adjustments that came with it which I have to agree "hurt" Soviet lists. So maybe then V4 will be the Soviet resurgence, but for a while there were some good players all too willing to roll Red in FoW and they did very well with them, even against other great players.

Von Burge, that seems to be a V2 event (2011 Masters). V3 changed the game considerably.

It also doesn't explain why Zis-3/T-34/IS-2 are downrated or Soviet rockets (one of the iconic Soviet weapons) aren't nowhere near as good as their German counterparts.

Latest MOAB results had Russians come in at 1st and 3rd, didn't it?

Some Soviet forces work OK or even very well. The problem is that the iconic Soviet kit does not work well.

The SU-122 is a super weapon in FoW, in reality it was considered a failure and replaced. Sadly the SU-76 which was produced in huge numbers and used throughout the war is poo in comparison.

ISU-122 and 152s are pretty good as are sapper infantry (although they are rather expensive).

It it T-34s, 76mm artillery and katyushas that really suck.

jhh… agreed!

I found the same situation with the Zis2 vs the Zis 3…. the 2 to me is clearly the better gun, but the Soviets, in their wisdom of mass production and such went over to the Zis3…

And yes… the "iconic" Soviet lists stink… well, in real life they did too. (NOT the people or their pride).. their technology and resources at that time just couldn't keep ahead. There were times where they were well ahead of the Germans… like when the T-34 rulled over lesser panzers… but the balance always shifted quickly back to the German's favor.

The problem is…. the way the game is divided into early, mid and late…. The iconic German lists also have available the equipment that was developed to counter the T-34 (or other Soviet advances)… Soooooo… logically… the Germans would be taking that technology in a tournament… instead of the "early" mid-war panzer lists…..

The thing is… the way the dates fall… the Germans always have something better technologically compared to the Soviets…

And, now… shifting gears. The rest of you are correct. Stepping away from FoW as a historic game for a moment, and looking at it as a points game…. NO, the Soviets cannot field a force equivalent to the Germans for the same points.

It truely is a catch 22. That is why I shy away from tournaments… I would be at most a speed bump for my oponent. I just don't have that min/max mentallity. I am not saying there is nothing wrong with that… I am just saying I would suck at tournaments.

I have played many Eastern front games based on actual orders of battle and find them to be fun and close to historical outcomes if dealing with experienced players. None of the folks I play with would have anything to do with tournaments. I feel FOW was designed to play points based and scenario based games. My feeling is that the Soviets play like they fought.

ThomasHobbes

Von Burge, that seems to be a V2 event (2011 Masters). V3 changed the game considerably.

Uh..yes. I thought I made that explicitly clear when I stated "Of course that was before V3 and the Hen and Chicks "improvement" and cost adjustments that came with it which I have to agree "hurt" Soviet lists. " Did you read the whole post?

My point though was addressing this line of thought that BF has always been deliberately going out of its way to make the Soviets uncompetitive. You can't tell me that a good player could not do great things with the Soviets in V2 in competitive play.

So when you make a statement like this:

However through ignorance or neglect BF has consistently downrated Soviets so they are not balanced

Then I have to counter with some facts that suggest that this just might not have been the case during V2.

It also doesn't explain why Zis-3/T-34/IS-2 are downrated or Soviet rockets (one of the iconic Soviet weapons) aren't nowhere near as good as their German counterparts.

I'm not sure they are supposed to be but I know that two of those three you have above have not changed much between V2 and V3.

kyotebluer than blue

OK so never buy Russian Tanks…………???

The Cossack Player had IS-2s. The Rifles player is, and always has been, a "no armor" guy when it comes to his Soviets.

VB

Actually the ZiS guns are worse in V3 because they cannot ambush inside 16" despite some of them being used as ATGs in a very similar role to the PaK 40 which is a similar sized weapon.

Yes, agreed…
I was actually talking about the model numbers not Version numbers… I think you got that though.

I still love my Soviets though…

Actually the ZiS guns are worse in V3 because they cannot ambush inside 16" despite some of them being used as ATGs in a very similar role to the PaK 40 which is a similar sized weapon.

They also lost Volley Fire from ambush…BUT my Zis-3's hardly ever rate getting to use the limited ambush slots I might have anyway. By the way German 88's, British 17pdrs, etc, are also more limited in ambush in V3 FoW.

Before judging how horrible a change might be, it's probably important to factor in the likelihood of it actually becoming a table top issue.

Poniatowski

I still love my Soviets though…

Good on you!!! Though I'm not as likely to play them these days I'm not rushing to sell off my extensive Soviet collection. I had some really good runs with the Udarny Bn and had fun toying with an ISU-122 Regiment (just seemed cool saying that I was running a Regiment!)

VB

"The Soviet Slavs die in droves. All hail the German Ubermensch!"

Pretty much sums up the treatment the Ruskies get in FoW.

I've come to terms with FoW, there are a lot of things about the rules that I don't like and a lot that I do like. Without giving an exhaustive list, I really like their streamlined mechanics and the fact that they play fast and allow a company plus sized game to be played in a good amount of time. I, like others, don't like a lot of special rules, codex creep and lack of battlefield friction.

I tried some other rulesets (didn't like how BKC handles infantry, IABSM takes too long with more than a few platoons), but instead of going through a merry go round of rulesets I've come back to FoW. I've decided to house rule out the portions that I don't like and keep the ones that I do like. I've taken the battlefield friction elements of IABSM, the activation system of Bolt Action and married them with the core mechanics of FoW. In doing so I ignore the majority of the special rules and just design scenarios around lists that I think are historically accurate.

I think FoW has some good elements and if you are playing in a non-competitive setting then you can house-rule anything you like, if you think the ZiS is underpowered, give it an extra point of AT and add a few points. That's what I like about this hobby, it is open-ended, unlike video games where you are stuck to path that the programmers set out for you.

If I want to play in tournaments or in a competitive setting, and I do this every once in a while for kicks, then I just suck it up and play the rules as written.

I also agree that some of the problems that are sited with the rules are how players seek to exploit its quirks rather than playing in the spirit of a historical based game. I think if you took any ruleset, dissected and filtered it through the lens of competitive play you would find similar problems.

Look you want to treat Soviets as this clumsy useless horde of crap that is fine by me, but price it accordingly!
I am paying extra for the privilege of getting boned with crappy AT and to top it off getting violated with H&C.
Combine that with the fact that the only decent Soviet AT has ROF of 1 it is pretty much a guarantee that you will always be firing with a -2 penalty to hit.

"The Soviet Slavs die in droves. All hail the German Ubermensch!"

Pretty much sums up the treatment the Ruskies get in FoW.

Is the supposition here that a company, like BF, that makes money selling miniatures, is deliberately nerfing the kind of forces that require the most sales to fill out units for? It does not make a lot of sense to drive people away from a big force (i.e. Soviets), that will mean more sales, and into to favoring the forces that have a much lower model count (i.e. German Ubermensch) resulting in lower scales.

Oh well, I suppose in a conspiracy theory sense this could be considered "payback" for all those who bought PSC T-34 boxed sets…but then that really does not help BF sales either if that steered folks away from the BF Soviet offerings as well. That and you really can't drive people away from PSC anyway as they're covering more and more of WWII every month.

I've been following this thread with interest for several days and had to jump in. First put aside the fact that I wrote my own rules. Instead consider that I have played FoW for years, and have quite a good track record playing British, Americans, Germans, and more recently Russians. I don't have any problem putting together good lists that can fight late war Germans toe to toe. And in Mid-War, I have been challenged to find any other list than can compete well with the Russian Horde Infantry Lists.
.
FoW is not a simulation, it is a game. Not criticism, simple fact. Think of it as playing Chess with WWII playing pieces. It is also more Tournament focused than Scenario driven. With a business model that focuses on balanced tournament play, many rules in FoW exist not because they are historically accurate but because they balance tournament play. For example if Katyushka Rockets were not easily destroyed, they would be overwhelming and therefore negatively impact balanced tournament play.
.
For the record, I am a FoW fan, which is why I play so many different armies. BF has done more to grow the WWII gaming market than many (perhaps any) other company. I believe their success has paved the way for other companies, such as Osprey, to get into the WWII miniature gaming market more heavily. So as an avid WWII gamer, I (and others) owe BF a measure of gratitude for promoting WWII gaming.
.
Having said that, there are other rules which are more scenario focused and treat Russian forces differently. I wrote my rules because friends asked me to make more realistic rules they could use their FoW minis with. But even in being more realistic, the Russians do not become supermen. Their armies and AFVs have limitations which are not always properly presented by looking at simple armor and penetration data. The Russians fielded a very unique army in WWII, one that's hard to model in any set of miniature rules. I concede that I likely made errors in my representation of the Russians as well.
,
As to the original thread, I do believe that certain Lists in FoW do have an advantage, through no fault of BF, but due to the simple fact that no system, however well intentioned the intent, can ever be perfectly balanced or completely accurate historically. I believe that the Germans (in general) and the US Armored Infantry Lists are very hard to beat. I offer as evidence the mix of armies that players bring to the FoW National Tournaments. At one point Germans, specifically German Panzer and PanzerGrenadiers were almost 70% of the entries. US Armored Infantry also had a large share, and placed high in the standings. Does this mean that the British and Russian Lists are "bad"? There are winning Lists for them as well.
,
My conclusion – FoW has produced some very good product, promoted the hobby, and enjoyed considerable success, so don't expect them to change their model to match other people's thinking, rather people who disagree with the way Russians are handled may want to test other rule systems.
.
Cheers! Lee

Look you want to treat Soviets as this clumsy useless horde of crap that is fine by me, but price it accordingly!
I am paying extra for the privilege of getting boned with crappy AT and to top it off getting violated with H&C.

You're not paying extra though, quite the opposite. H&C reduces the points costs of vehicles that have it. The more you buy, the bigger your discount.

"For example if Katyushka Rockets were not easily destroyed, they would be overwhelming and therefore negatively impact balanced tournament play."

Why would they be overwhelming?

you can get the same number of Panzerwerfers who can avoid counterbattery/smoke (unlike Katyushas) and who are better than the Soviets due to being Veteran (Soviets are only Trained).

And as they're veteran they're harder to hit (4+ as opposed to Katyusha 4+) and are more effective at hitting (3+ basic as opposed to 4+ for Katyusha) and have slightly better AT ability (AT3 v AT2 for Katyusha). They're also relatively cheap.

So again why do Germans get a unit with better abilities than a Soviet unit that was meant to operate in the same manner?

I can understand the difference in AT (calibre of rocket) but lack of "Stormtrooper/Counter Battery Avoidance" for Russians is illogical especially as the Germans get it for a similar unit.

"Is the supposition here that a company, like BF, that makes money selling miniatures, is deliberately nerfing the kind of forces that require the most sales to fill out units for? It does not make a lot of sense to drive people away from a big force (i.e. Soviets), that will mean more sales, and into to favoring the forces that have a much lower model count (i.e. German Ubermensch) resulting in lower scales.

Oh well, I suppose in a conspiracy theory sense this could be considered "payback" for all those who bought PSC T-34 boxed sets…but then that really does not help BF sales either if that steered folks away from the BF Soviet offerings as well. That and you really can't drive people away from PSC anyway as they're covering more and more of WWII every month."

The nazis pay their bills man, only explanation on why we have 5 different models of Panther (steel road wheels is the 5th when it surfaces).

Face facts, more people play Krauts than any other army. Hell even with the buff the yanks got, I'm still struggling to wanna paint my yanks..when I just wanna do more Germans.

With respect, it's irrelevant whether you can get good results by playing scenarios or houseruling – FoW has a points system, and it ought to be balanced on those grounds, within reason.

If you only play scenarios or houserule frequently it is irrelevant whether the points work out, so why not leave those of us who want a points system be?

I've never played a tournament (though I think the hate for them here is misplaced) for any of the games I play, and with some friends I do play scenarios that we come up with. But the OVERWHELMING majority of games I play are against people down at the local – a selection which is limited but rarely fixed. For us, relatively balanced pickup games are the way to go.

In that sense I've always found the Soviets weird. Back in the day they were often binary – as defender, your dice either broke their morale and you won or your did not and you lost.

Now however I have similar concerns as some of the posters here. The best Soviet kit is the oddball stuff, and for everything else things are pointed too highly. Katies, zis-3s, even Engineer-Sappers.

It's not limited to Soviets/hordes either. Italian foot battalions are not that great, and Romanian foot bns are only passable because they're a horde that can provide smoke for T-34s AND pick a large unit that can get a morale re-roll to attack with.

On the Elite side the Finns are a bit wonky. Their armour is pricey for what it does (and the Hungarian armour imho is too), and they were recently joined by Bulge Americans in having special rules that only exist against certain lists, which shatters the usual atemporal/ageographical 'narrative' of FoW lists.

What sucks I guess is that in real life…. some countries just couldn't put out a real life "list" of any significance compared to what they went up against…

How do you solve this in a points based game?

Lets look at the late war Polish lists… you have the paras and the homeforce (Polish uprising)…

Are those list you coudl win a tournament with? Based upon the other lists available at that time…. I think not…

This is just one more "point" in favor of the fact that FoW may be a point based game, but it is NOT always about creating a balanced fore list that is tournament worthy.

So, going back to the Soviets…. the points are what they are, based upon real life factors, availabilities etc… I really don't hink BF set out to "screw" the Soviets, but rather in the end, just had some balancing issues. Soem real life lists are just not competitive on the tournament setting and making them so woudl be totally wrong… tottaly wrong. It sucks to hear, but seriously… If you take the best organized Polish or italian or Hungarian, etc…. they just cannot compare to what the big 4 can put on the table, historically or otherwise.

Is the supposition here that a company, like BF, that makes money selling miniatures, is deliberately nerfing the kind of forces that require the most sales to fill out units for? It does not make a lot of sense to drive people away from a big force (i.e. Soviets), that will mean more sales, and into to favoring the forces that have a much lower model count (i.e. German Ubermensch) resulting in lower scales.

Oh well, I suppose in a conspiracy theory sense this could be considered "payback" for all those who bought PSC T-34 boxed sets…but then that really does not help BF sales either if that steered folks away from the BF Soviet offerings as well. That and you really can't drive people away from PSC anyway as they're covering more and more of WWII every month."

The nazis pay their bills man, only explanation on why we have 5 different models of Panther (steel road wheels is the 5th when it surfaces).
Face facts, more people play Krauts than any other army. Hell even with the buff the yanks got, I'm still struggling to wanna paint my yanks..when I just wanna do more Germans.

Are you confirming here that it is your belief that BF deliberately "downgrades" the Soviets specifically to drive more players in to buying into German forces?

If that is your belief how long do think this policy has been in effect for? Only since Version 3, or even earlier despite some of the facts shared here about the presence and overall great performance of Soviet lists last year at the US Masters (under V2)?

Are you yourself a victim of this supposed master pan, driven by BF to play (and buy lots of) Germans because you think they are just so much better in FoW that you simply must play them or did you, like many WWII fans, just have an innate interest in German forces anyway?

Yes, I am trying to look at the facts. Is it a fact that more people play Germans in FoW? Perhaps, but is that a fact because BF wanted it to be that way and tries to do all that it can to make it that way, or is it perhaps just the innate Wehrrmacht "cool factor" that many WWII hobbyist seem to think they see?

I don't know but if there is a natural gravitation to German stuff in WWII gaming and those sales are going to happen anyway, then it seems like a company like BF would not want to try to precluded other players from wanting to start a different type of force, especially one with higher model count requirements, or those German players starting a second force with something different. I think ideally, they'd like to see players have more than a single nation/force collection for FoW gaming.

What sucks I guess is that in real life…. some countries just couldn't put out a real life "list" of any significance compared to what they went up against…

How do you solve this in a points based game?

You assign lower point values to their units.

Von Burge, I think you're right in saying that Germans are just more attractive to people.

I think that applies to BF developers as well. I think the developers pursue their own interests – hence German variety, hence current crazy Yank stuff and hence wierd effectiveness of cavalry charges.

I don't think BF are too interested in Soviet forces as a whole though.

Ceasar, well said! I think Poniatowski is misunderstanding the nature of FOW – A points based system based on best player winning without any historical preferences.

>only explanation on why we have 5 different models of Panther
Have you ever counted the versions of T34 or Shermans?

>Is it a fact that more people play Germans in FoW?
Well, there is the aspect that the Germans battled almost any other force during the war, while most others only battled the Germans (and their allies). If you want variety, Germans are a good starter – so many will choose Germans as first and most as a second force, while the amount of people collecting two Allied forces and no Germans will be lower (though probably not as low as those who collect Germans and Italians but no Allies).
I think THIS is the main reason why there are so many German forces out there, not so much fanboyism.

That said, I like my Russians just fine – though I do not play FOW on tournaments or even on a competetive level. I get cheap artillery, can usually outnumber my opponent and have some decent tools in the heavy tanks to get his attention. I am fine with this. The German Panzerwerfer certainly are more effective then a Katyusha battery, but fielding it usually cuts into his point allowance far deeper then my Katyushas do.

Caesar…
Yes, that would be very nice indeed!

Remember, as stated by Battlefront.
FoW is a 'game' based on WW2. It is not a WW2 simulation nor does it try to accurately portray historical events.

I think the original poster is likely correct in his complaints though I have not dug into any of them and the two groups I play off and on in all do western front games. There are a lot of trade-offs in FoW, the easiest to pick out is the classing of weapons to fit a 1D6 resolution. The game works for these two groups because:

1) We play Western Front.
2) We don't play tournaments
3) We "keep up with the Jones" regarding the ever cycling revisions of books
4) We self-balance regarding massive tank armies and no infantry

If we didn't fit into these then we'd likely play something else. What, I don't know.

Lately we've played some Bolt Action for smaller scope games in 25mm. Works pretty well and I like it myself, however, a week ago we played our first games with multiple tanks on the table and we discovered that a Tiger and a Sherman 76 are rated basically identically in their firing prowess. Our conclusion was: this is not a game for tank battles…

So to each their own.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Great example of how FOW fails on Eastern Front:

link

Still I'm having fun playing smaller battles with little or no tanks.

In fact with TD rules dominating our Western Front games, EF is still more enticing.

In Bolt Action the Sherman 76 gun is a heavy AT gun and the 88 gun of the Tiger is a Super Heavy AT gun. Is true that is no the best game for tank battles but the firing prowess of the Tiger and the Sherman 76 is no identical.

I have not ever been a serious FOW tournament player, but waaaaaay back when the V1 tournaments started on the east coast, I won a couple of them with Soviet mid-war tank lists. I ran a mixed tankovy batalon list with 11 T-34s, 7 T-70s, 3 Kv-1s, and 3 Su-85s and I think one platoon of infantry. It did pretty well.

I wonder if the history of Soviet treatment (nerfing) since up to V3 hasn't been a reaction to the very high effectiveness of the tankovy horde in v1?

You do realize that the Soviets lost between 9 to 10 million troops on that front, compared to the Germans loss of 5.5 million (4.5 million on the eastern front) on 3 different fronts (NA/Italy, Western Front and Eastern Front).

The Soviets also lost 83000+ tanks during WWII.

How does FoW fail to do this, does it make Soviets competitive, maybe not to the casual player since their equipment is brittle and losses are high. Then again this reflects what the Soviets faced during WWII.

Here is a video showing you some military doctrine concerning tanks, and I will let you draw conclusions from it.

YouTube link

I know the video is from Tigers vs Shermans but the doctrine was used by the Allies.

It is pretty well documented that for every one heavy tank death in the USSR, ten Soviet tanks were destroyed in the process.

Gerrin,

Is FOW trying to replicate Soviet casualties or Soviet military formations and tactics?

How many of those millions were lost in the initial Barbarossa campaign when the Soviets were caught with their pants down or in the campaigns following it when anything was thrown at the Germans in a haphazard way?

Answer is about 5 million in 1941 with a further near 2 million in first part of 1942.

4 million were irreversible.

However loss ratios decreased from 1943 on due to improved tactics as well as dwindling man power reserves.

Soviet rifle formations had very small numbers of infantry and were very heavily reliant on artillery and armoured support (basically they lacked infantry numbers for offensive operations and thus replaced infantry with weapons and weapon heavy tactics).

As for Soviet tanks – I have no qualms with current Hen and Chicks rule that limits their performance.

I do have a problem with understating stats such as armour penetration for 76.2mm or 122mm guns or deliberately depriving units of tactics they actually pioneered (e.g. Katyushas).

@ TH

Are you looking at casualties or dead. I am looking at death numbers, I know most Barbarossa figures contained captured, missing, wounded and dead. I also was using numbers associated with military deaths and not frostbite or sanitary conditions.

Also are you looking at Case Blue? or Operation Barbarossa?

Also are you using wikipedia for your information? If so I have a few decent books I could recommend you.