"FOW or BGK" Topic

I'm new to wargaming and I'm thinking of buying either Flames of War or Battlegroup Kursk . I've read many reviews and both systems seem to have their good and bad points. I'm looking for something quick and easy in 15mm, to be able to play in 2-3 hours on a 6 x 4 table.

It also needs to be relatively straightforward, so I can try and persuade someone else to get involved.

What do people think are the positive and negative aspects of both systems and what would they go for ?

Cheers

I wont comment, as I only play BG (and Im working with Warwick on the rules) and have never played FOW, but you may also want to ask here;

guildwargamers.com

There is a room dedicated to Battlegroup Kursk and some of the players also play FOW.

BGK will certainly fit that table size and time frame however.

FoW will fit in those frames too.
Lots of support for FoW. I have never heard of BK.

Richar you will it is an astoundingly good game . A relation to Kamph group Normandy rules but from what Ive seen Battle group Kursk is even better and more refined easier to play and even dare I say it more fun to play.
I am not a fan of FOW nuff said…..Mikey

Well there are a LOT of fans of FoW out there, so if you're looking for opponents, FoW is the obvious choice. It's probably the most popular historical miniatures game out there. The rules are very clear and fairly straightforward, and the time and table constraints you listed match just fine.

I haven't played BGK, but there are some real fans of Kampfgruppe Normandy at my local club, so the system has some traction.

You're right that both games have good and bad points. Every game does. Asking on TMP you're likely to hear a lot of negative comments about FoW, because, for whatever reason, the dislike a few people here have for FoW borders on irrational. If you play a few games, you'll find it's a decent game, like most, with abstractions that work for some people and don't work for others.

I've played FoW for years and it is a good game. Having said that, in my own opinion, the Soviets always seem rather cluncky and tend to end up as large scale frontal attacks. I know, that is kind of how it happened but as a player it doesn't feel right.

BGK is more fluid. You will probably need a lot less models.

I'd go for Fireball Forward or I Ain't Been Shot Mum.

Depends on what you and your friend are after though. If points based games where you "buy" your armies is your thing then FOW is good, and very well supported. More scenario based games based on actual events then the two titles I mention are good since both have tons of scenario books.

FOW I've only ever read through the base rules and they are pretty straightforward, the only thing I remember being kind of flaky is the platoon fire rules – FAR too fiddly for the detail level of the game. In my opinion some of the special unit rules that are mentioned here on TMP from time to time are flaky as well. Personally I'd much rather have a core set of rules that handle all the cases elegantly then special case rules for each type of force.

IABSM – Requires you and your friend to agree on things and a knowledge of WWII is kinda required. The fire table for example is 9 bands grouped by short/medium/and long and within each of those is Great/OK/Poor shots. There are some guidelines but you and your players have to agree on what constitutes great/ok/poor. (even in my competitive group we never had a problem with it though)

Fireball Forward – Really good for two players to start with, the rules use a programmed instruction approach. Read the first few pages and you can play the first scenario, a few more pages for the next, etc… Being an old ASL boardgame player it has enough crunch to make me happy, being a reformed ASL player it does not have too much crunch to give me flashbacks either. There are online videos showing the basics of the game and they have a lite version of the rules online you can try (basically the lite version is the rules you need to play the first scenario in their programmed instructions rules).

Never saw the other game you listed so I can't comment on that one.

Flames of War is expensive to get into with the rules and supplements.
you CAN get by with just the rules and easyarmy.com for the lists.

I love FoW, but freely admit that is the Hollywood version of WW2.

I find Battlegroup Kursk to be far superior to FoW. It has a much better historical "feel" for me, and the Morale system is really great and (in my gaming world) exceptionally innovative. It has a points system, but it's there to maintain proper orders of Battle, not to manipulate into winning combinations (and yes, I realize this is a lot more to do with the players than the rules…)

But as is said above-- there are far more FoW players than BGK, especially in the States, and it isn't a bad game at all.

I'd definitely recommend Battlegroup Kursk with the Normandy and beyond supplement due out in April. We've played FOW for years and have gleefully abandoned it in favour of BGK. We find BGK to play much better and give a more historical games with more historical ORBATs.

The activation and morale system give a nice bit of fog of war and build some real tension/excitement in the game.

We tried IABSM but found them too slow for a club night game and with a bit too much fog of war/unpredicatability for our liking.

BGK also has historical scenarios and can use scenarios for Rapid Fire, IABSM etc without any real adjustment.

The BG rules may not be wide spread yet but I think they will be very widespread once the Normandy book is out.

Yes… Mini paperback rulebook due out with the Normandy book too.

I have never played BGK, and only perused the rules, as well as reading as much as I can about its previous form Kampfgruppe Normandy. I have played FoW several times. My money is absolutely on BGK. I don't have the time or cash to invest into it (or many/any other games) at present due to family and work, but I would be more than willing to drop in on BGK.

FoW I never liked. Love the models, but I just can't put my finger on exactly why I didn't like it, the rules just seemed to irritate me. I am GW born and raised so it should have been a natural transition (as the Battlefront company is staffed and run by ex-GW staff) but I just didn't like it. BGK from what I have read and the 5 min demo game(mixed with my extensive knowledge of WWII) hit nearly all the buttons I look for in a game, although obviously I have no proper game experience to back up that point of view.

This is a bias 'out-of-ignorance' point of view of course, so I hope you manage to decide which to go with, all the best!

Ark

That said, you can base your figures for either system if you're careful, as BGK allows for multiple figures on a stand using dice or counters to show casualties.

Having played FoW back in v1, then playtesting v2, I was left feeling unsatisfied with some of the rules decisions and direction the game was taking. Too much abstraction, too much reliance on smoke em and charge em, tanks running around without fear of infantry, recce units were odd, nonlinear ground scale, and the tank destroyer rules were utterly bizarre. Overall it felt more like an action movie than what the real combat was like.

I have not played my first game of BGK yet, but have read the book front to back several times over, and the rules seem well written and worth a shot. I plan on playing it in 20mm scale as soon as I get enough stuff painted.

I have played FOW many times and BGK two times now.

While I definitely prefer BGK, to be completely fair, the original poster said he's new to wargaming and so that's a consideration.

It's not that I think BGK is more difficult to play than FOW or more complex. It's that the FOW communmity is huge and thus assistance and resources as well as opponents are easier to come by ( although with the internet that's not nearly as big an obstacle as it used to be).

In addition, FOW is "pre-packaged" -- you can buy the models for the units you want on one package with all the figures, vehicles and even bases. So no looking around for the model of the Russian Radio truck in 1/72 (although to me that's part of the fun).

That being said, my opinion is that BGK is a better, more entertaining game.

So, to answer the original poster, if you don't mind putting in some extra effort, try BGK. If you want the path of least resistance, then FOW may be for you.

I'd go for Fireball Forward or I Ain't Been Shot Mum.

I think that IABSM's laissez-faire approach to certain mechanics--particularly the firing system --and sometimes frustrating turn sequence (where not every unimt may get to act) make it a poor choice for a new wargamer.

Again, this is from the standpoint of a new wargamer. I think IABSM are great rules for more experienced players. (I've played them as well as FOW and BGK and so have "in game" experience).

iPaint is right on, base and play FOW, the units can also be used for BGK. Really, getting the most out of your units for both games. And as the OFM stated, use Easy Army to get your FOW lists, save you a ton of money on books.

I have played both. In BGK no more concrete infantry which is impossible to dislodge. Core rules are far more simple, but not simplistic. Aircraft and artillery is complex in both games but in BGK it's more historicaly accurate.
Not as much tables as in FOW.

As a now reformed FOW player of many years I would very highly recommend BGK as the best rules to meet your needs! They should provide you and your friends with a good, fun, and enjoyable game in two to three hours.

With BGK you won't have to worry with constant revision of various rules, and books every couple of years! So if you want to play a game, and not have to adapt to a lifestyle you can't go wrong with BGK!!

If you like DBA, Chess etc then FOW (It does have good points especially with finding opponents.

Otherwise BGK is a superb game. Read the thread from yesterday on "Why I like BGK"

Tally Ho!

Well BGK it is then! It depends if you want/are bothered by playing a fun system that is taking historical elements and working them into their game (FoW), or a game that is taking historical persepective and elements and making a fun system (BGK). Both are not bad, its just a matter of what you want or like.

One thing that I really like with BGK is the Battle Group Morale system that is effectively a count down system for the morale of the whole force. The chits you pull are numbered 1-4 or 5, and others have a random event instead (air attack, mines etc) that can be played against an opponent. This means the side that is getting hammered is more likely to break (as it pulls more chits, but they may have the outside chance of pulling low chits and their opponenet high. You pull chits for units destroyed, being pinned/suppressed etc. I have adopted this in my home grown WWII Platoon rules (a more basic system) and it is really fun, one of the more defining aspects of the game.

Hope that helps, good luck deciding

Ark

Can anyone comment on what is the ideal amount of troops on the table for a BGK game that finishes in about 3 hours? I know the game plays at multiple levels of command but I am wondering which one it's ideal for, ie: a platoon, a company or a battalion.

I'm building forces of about 400 points for BGK in 20mm (fairly new to 20mm). The basis is a platoon of Germans/Soviets plus additional bits. You can then play a squad sized game (minimum one infantry squad in effect) on a 6 x 4 table. The army lists give plenty of variety so you can mix and match quite easily or modify scenarios – i.e. some of the larger Skirmish Campaigns scenarios are easy to modify to BGK. A squad sized game will take about 1-2 hours depending on game events to a large extent whereas platoon will be probably 2-3 hours.

One thing I will say about FOW is that their army books give you some very good starting points for painting appropriate camo/uniforms. A really good starting point for anyone interested in WW2. They are also responsible for bringing many more players into this period.

It really comes to down whether you want to play with others and if so what they play. If solo I'd go BGK over FOW.

I like to get a reinforced company and sometimes multiple companies on the table, it sounds like this might be too big for BGK to handle?

JJ, not at all, if you have a big enough table,

Tally Ho!

Great thing is, you can use your figures for both. Why not play test both? You're not hanging too far out for the price of a book.

Never really liked FOW. My vote is for BGK.

JJ,

BGK runs at various levels… And as with most games, the only limit on the numbers on the table is the size of your table and how long you have to play!

We have run various sized games (see the AARs on The Guild for examples) but some average timings below;

300-500 points (reinforced platoon) on a 6 x 4 will play in a couple of hours

600 – 1000 ('Company' level) on an 8 x 6 will play for the whole evening

We have played some very big games, over 2500 points aside and they play fine but you want to allow all day for a game that size really. See our Kursk big game for such an example.

BGK is far better, no more chess on board, only fighting :)

In a nutshell, BGK is a WW2 game using WW2 models, FoW just uses WW2 models ;-)

Actually BGN (don't have Kursk) used many DBA style features which is one among many reasons I like it better than FOW.

On another thread I posed a question about how much has changed between Normandy and Kursk but no one answered.

Anyone have a list of changes?

Hesitate to buy anohter massive tome – the thing I like least about the BG serias.

TomT

I've been told (not having ever owned the BGN book, but still on the lookout for it) that the Battlegroup series will be an evolution of the Kampfgruppe rules set, adding the necessary rules for the campaign each book is designed around, and modifying some of the core rules as well. Bocage fighting, for instance, won't make an appearance in the Kursk book, just as (conjecture on my part) winter rules won't make any appearance in any books set during the summer months of the war, and so on.

The differences between the two are noticeable, but they play in the same spirit, I guess is the best way of describing it. If you plan on playing anything Eastern Front '43, get Kursk. If not, wait for your preferred theater of war book to come out. Normandy will be next, then Fall of the Reich for late '44 and '45. I also hear rumor of a condensed rules book at some point, but again, that's only talk, and Piers or Warwick would be the keepers of that knowledge.

Thomas Thomas, there's going to be a mini rulebook version out soonish. I don't know the date, maybe it's due for Salute in April like the Normandy book is?

I got my copy of BGK yesterday and it's big but it's beautiful :)

Both games have their good points and both have a few negative ones. However please bear in mind that this the the first version of BGK and FOW is on its 3rd version I believe.

Some of the negative points ( and the guys do listen) I dare say will be ironed out in BGK in the future , probably becoming a thoroughbred in time to come .

The major drawback with BGK IMO which will be sorted out in time is that at the moment is restricted to one campaign on the Eastern Front. I know at our club the Eastern Front is not the most popular ,simply because the Brits wern't involved!

The Normandy book however should rectify this problem when it is released, I think April 2013.

So for a quck fix then FOW

If you want a safe investment for the future then go with BGK.

Or like some of our members they like the best of both worlds and go with both systems. Don't forget that you can use FOW basing for BGK and therefore if you basae for FOW you can use both systems.

I think I read somewhere that bgk doesn't allow pre measurement? I really hate rules that do this and it is a game killer for me. I want test command and tactics, not the best range estimator.

RE: Pre-measurement, Isn't that just a convention agreed by the players? But I admit, the reality is that the players usually insist on going by what the designer decided for them in the matter, when it usually doesn't make a difference rules wise whether they allow it or not – it's usually just a preference either way or another.

I really don't understand why no ruleset tells you just to decide based on YOUR preference, not the designer's.

As for BGK, a nice set to be sure, a pet peeve of mine is splitting between suppressive and aimed fire for infantry squad small arms. Do machinegunners or bolt action riflemen really get a choice in the matter? Anyone with experience or authority in the matter here?

This time round, though, at least suppressive fire can organically kill, and I understand aimed fire can pin (through casualties), so the mechanic sounds a lot better than it was in KGN.

Hi Zelekendal, my understanding is that a squad/section would, under order from their NCO or their officer, perform suppressive fire. If I remember the text I read correctly a while ago, a British section's riflemen would be ordered to fire "50 rounds, rapid fire" therefore ordering the riflemen to fire 50 rounds as quickly as they could manage and typically to support suppressive fire of the squad's integral LMG. the US equivalent is when you hear in films 'suppressive fire' and they open up fire at full volume. Typically i unedrstand this to happen when the firing units do this to cover another's advance/assault/flanking manoeuvre.

This would be different to members of a unit firing 'at will' and aiming to actually hit the enemy infantry properly which would be the equivalent of 'aimed fire' in the rules. I think the rules therefore seem reasonably representative of infantry units. To cmarify I haven't played either properly yet (just a demo and read of the rules) Hope that helps, cheers,

Ark

That is good to know Ark, thanks! I wonder if the mechanic they use for BGK can be applied to KGN? Oh well, they'll have the Normandy book out soon, but I don't want KGN to go to "waste" rules wise at least (I didn't like the mechanic there).

I used to play fow and I play now KGN and Battlegroup Kursk Which is an updated version of KGN.
To give you the High Level, FOW is more like checkers and BGO is more like chess.
Fow is much more simple but was sometime simplified to the extreme with some rules that are not historical at all. I feel that fow became warhammer with ww2 uniforms. It gets old after a while.
BGK is much more accurate but still easy to learn. It is also much cheaper
Fow became a gigantic cash machine with tons of modules/codex. Nevertheless their miniatures used to be awesome. Not as much after they transferred manufacturing to Malaysia.

Good luck on your search.

As regards Pre measurment, I wouldn't be too bothered about it. I can't be that bothered anyway as my board is made up of 2 foot square sections so it wouldn't take a mathematition to work out distances without measuring.

I think it is something you can as a group of players decide amongst yourselves .

So what IS the basing in BFK? are the inf. mounted individualy? or on some multi-figure base size different from FOW? I ask because I would like to give BFK a go. Just wondering about this. (knowing you can use FOW basing in BFK).

BattleGroup Kursk I am talking here… no idea where I got the BFK from, LOL

Monger basing in BGK is not strict. Units can be individually based or multi. Individual basing is commonly used as there are individual casualties but I use FoW basing so I use casualty markers (small dice can be used for this) I've also mounted some individual figures.

If you have minis based already for FoW then your good to go really. After a couple of games you can see if you want to add individuals as well.

Hope that helps

I see. I may just do that. I'm thinking BGK will be a good diversion from my FOW games. SO it looks like I will give it a go,

Thanks again :)

Probably not qualified to comment having only played each game once, but I have played practically every set of WW2 wargames on the market since the early seventies.

All I will say is that played FOW once and found it very dull and unrealistic for lots of reasons but primarily because it was quite gimmicky with lots of bolted on special rules. I wouldn't play it again.

BGK? Played it once and found lots of the mechanisms interesting (and challenging) but there was also something missing/something irritating about the game which I have not been able to put my finger on…

I won both my first games of both sets, so its not down to being whooped in a first outing that shades my opinion.

If I had to choose between the two it would be BGK – ultimately it was a more enjoyable experience and one that might grow on me over time.

FOW is a very good game