"The failure of FOW on Eastern Front" Topic

Went to Wiki for the ease of it – at work with no access to my own collection.

My point was more about Soviet combat operations in 1943-45. Remember by the time Bagration rolls by Soviet casualties are much less than early on.

FOW does not take into account changes to Soviet tactics from this period on (other than a mere rating change for Red Army). Quality of Quantity really shouldn't be used for troops in this period.

It also has amazingly ridiculous rules for things such as Kommissars (no company kommissars after 1942 or 43 (can't remember) and Kommissars generally did not have a positive impact on combat operations. I've never liked the Kommissar rule.

It also doesn't resolve issues with stats assigned to guns.

This is a very interesting thread – I'm just moving from the 17th century Easrern Europe to FoW Eastern Front and have enjoed rading through this debate … much food for thought here.. How much does playability come into this? – what you might call the "Chess" factor – i.e. that every piece needs to have its own interesting move… Is the Komissar rule etc. more about some good story telling than good simulation? .. I guess FoW is a quick play game – a DBM – rather than an accurate simulation… But you are right to mark out limits – one always wants to feel one is in command of something approaching its historical counterpart..

Kommissars are phased out by late war, and never served the purpose they really do in FoW, but then again neither did the stabilizer in American tanks. Its a game flavor element, and FoW is a game of concepts and strategies. It has never touted itself is historically accurate.

For example the .88's in early war, they were very limited numbers and I have seen too many early war lists having them. This is a game of having the best equipment and using tactics as they were written.

Now with the Soviets, the losses that they experienced were consistent. In 1944 it is estimated that for every 10 Soviet tanks destroyed One German tank was out of action (not destroyed but out of action).

Quality of Quantity did change, but the Soviets still pushed forward with more equipment. In FoW this is given by the number of bases needed in a company, and the size of the company. In late war the companies have shrank,

In midwar a guards infantry is 405 pts for 28 rifle bases being FT, while in late war a FT 22 base rifle/mg is 420. Improved equipment and in both cases the kommisar is an add on. In MW the kommisar is 5 pts while in late war 15 pts.

While the differences may not be dramatic they are there. You want the komissar rules in late war its going to cost you more. Your infantry is better in late war, but they are less of them.

With an incredible loss of machinary and man power to me FoW does a good job of making it work in game terms.

As I keep stating, I have no problems with H&C and agree that Soviet armour needs to be vulnerable to casualties.

However if a Zis-3 could penetrate armour of a Tiger at close quarters, then the game should allow that. Or IS2 V King Tiger. Etc etc…

And the infantry and associated rules should represent tactics and performance of 1943-45 Soviet infantry ant shoe horn same tactics/performance as for 1941-42.

I mean there's no Veteran infantry Soviet formations in 1944-45 in this game.

Guards are rated as Fearless Trained which the same as 1940 SS.

In FoW the terms conscript, trained and vet do not just reflect a unit's wartime experience. Instead it takes into account tactics, replacements, overall strategy(ies), experience, and training.

This is an issue I have had throughout FoW as I feel that early war does a terrible way to reflect this with too many veteran troops running around using outdated tactics. Alas I have already argued myself out about the French being undeserving of veteran status in early war.

Also the Zis 3 could only hit the Tiger and Panther really on the sides. With the Tiger there was a slight chance of penetration which reflects a bail in the game.

Soviet artillery crews did not fire these things and expect to penetrate a tiger or panther front armor, or even a tiger side armor.

I know that I have read accounts about this gun and I think they were in Armageddon by Max Hastings. I believe if memory serves me correct that the Zis 3 looked for rear shots on the Tiger and anything but front shots on a Panther.

It's currently impossible to knock out a Tiger with a side shot from a Zis-3 (bail is not knocked out especially when the German gets back into his tank on a re-rollable 3+ or 4+ depending on whether they're Heer or SS).

Also why is the IS-2 incapable of knocking out a King Tiger frontally?

There is the slight issue that FOW does not take into account mobility and other kills too and that make it all about brute penetration.

The rarity of a Zis-3 destroying a Tiger is just that rare. In game terms you can destroy a Tiger by doing a double bail on it and forcing a morale check.

As for the IS-2 vs King Tiger debate, the IS-2 your looking for is the 44 variant while in FoW the 43 variant is used which couldn't penetrate the front armor. Now before too much longer the IS-2 obr 44 is going to have to be released.

I was going back and rereading this thread to catch up… one thing that woudl help this game out a lot would also be "close" range modifiers. Don't change the ranges up, keep then as FOW players have learned, but add in a better modifier for point blank on the kil roll… that would help with this issue of "historical vs a-historical"…

I think you will find that, like in real life… the german player would just stay away from getting too close/point blank from the Soviet guns… unless they were in ambush… and thinsg really start to fell into place.

In 1941 the German tanks want to get to point blank against the KV-1
they then shoot the tracks off and wait for the artillery to come up and finish them off over open sights

Poiatorwski,

Soviet ATGs generally can't ambush at short range in FOW(other than 45mm guns) as they're classed as a Heavy Gun.

In FOW it's easier to ambush with 10 T-34s or 4 King Tigers than a pair of ATGs.

That heavy gun ambush beoynd 16" really needs to be ditched save maybe for "bombardment capable" guns.

Totally agree. It's a daft rule.

Also Su-152/ISU-152 needs to be able to ambush within 16 inches as well. ISU-122 can do it as can much higher silhouetted King Tigers and IS-2s.

I wonder if I should mention the bear.

*ponders*

Nope, better not.

:)

@TH…. that is my point…. the gripe is legitamate. It can't happen in the game, rarely happened in real life, but, none the less did work and did actually happen.

Now… I akin this to having StuG's in North Africa… Apparantly a very small handfull made it there and the army lists in the book reflect it like it was a natural, everyday occurance.

The biggest hurdle for Americans to get over is the "spirit of the game" one… Americans do NOT like being called cheese players and their contention is that if it is a real list, it is legitimate… therefore not cheese… BF was really thourough in making their lists… to reflect real historic situations…. the only problem is… in a points based game you are not going to see 1 in 100 Germans with a Tiger army…. you are going to see all of them with the best possible points combo… all historic formations/OOBs too! And, we will always see that pretty much most other "off the shelf armies" cannto touch the best pointed German force… There was NO real balance to the armies in WW2… and it is VERY hard to force the balance in FoW unless they do a complete overhaul of points…. if 1 tiger = 10 T-34s… then points wise, it should equate too….

This will mean, all German armies will be very small for the most part and eveyr other nation will have huge forces on the table to truely be "balanced". It is possible, but I feel not practical…. I would love to see it though!

Minesp,

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.

Instead of 'basically' I should have said 'practically' since there is a 1 point difference between the two. Fact is, it is statistically difficult to get a different result from one firing on the other to the situation reversed.

Cheers,

The Bandit

You lost me at, "In real life…"

2 separate threads discussing issues with EF on FOW forum.

link

link

Some very good points and suggestions.

Yeah, but they went nowhere. I think you have to expect that this late in the product's life cycle, despite being a "living" rules set that you must periodically re-purchase, that the Eastern Front is what it is. :-(

Shan

It seems Phil is completely not open to any changes on this issue.

I'm amazed he has problems with ATGs ambushing but not ambushing entire companies of tanks or platoons of super heavy tanks.

And no reason why Katyusha's don't get a redeploy move.

And apparently DP LMGs were used in the same way as a BAR and this is why you don't get any long range shots with motostrelkovy troops!

All that remains to say is that I've got Battlegroup Kursk in the mail.

Ack frustrating to see Phil shoot people down even when they post references to works by such respected authors such as Zaloga.

Oh and he relies to heavily on photographic evidence which is not really that reliable when dealing with a conflict spanning 4 years, thousands of kilometres of frontlines and millions of men (and women).

Then there's his completely contradictory approach to game:

1. Tank Destroyer Doctrine – theory applied to FOW rules despite it not generally being applied in the real world.

2. DP ammo carried in containers of 3 disk mags each – not applied to FOW rules cause Phil hasn't seen photos. EDIT photos since provided.

Bring on Battlegroup Kursk.

I've already tried it out--its great.

Shan

Ho does BGK work with FoW based figures and 15mm? Is it pretty much compatible?

Completely compatible JR, but with caveats. The number of men on the base matter, as they are killed individually. We've been using the Litko "Obviously Dead" tokens for years so this wasn't an issue for us.

The other thing is that you have a detailed break down of riflemen and MG teams within the unit. (Grenadiers have something like 1 Command stand, 4 Rifle stands, and 3 MG on biped stands), and you have to be able to tell them apart. I am either going to mark, or snip off corners of my Flames bases to make for easier ID.

The rules were criticized for taking too much time for (admittedly gorgeous) pictures and not enough time explaining the rules. This is true. I had to resort to online forums to understand everything and even then I am still learning. But then again, for a first run of rules it is quite impressive.

Shan

Flames of War bothers me. I bother and startle me. Panzerfaust Armored Fist.