"Dealing with Haters?" Topic

Personally, I have never got why people get so hot and bothered about what other people do with THEIR hobby.

Seems odd to me.

In the great scheme of things its your personal hobby, so do it as pleases you. I have long since stopped caring what others think… As long as me and my chums have a great time, I couldnt care less!

You know: some people just like to dislike. Don't give a damm about them, and you will be fine.

"I find it slightly disingenuous that any criticism of FoW is seen as "hating"."

I've never looked at general criticism of the rules as Hating. The guys who are most definitely Haters are the ones that continually come to the FoW Board here on TMP and go on and on about how bad the game is even though they don't play it and in many cases never have. It's the same guys thread after thread. Go look at all the uproar about Tour of Duty and you'll see the same ones on every thread. It's like ants to honey-- they just can't stay away. One miscreant even got banned from TMP because he couldn't stop attacking the system and the miniatures every chance he got. THAT'S a Hater.

You know, I really dislike DBA, but I have never sought out threads about the game in order to insult the rules and it's players. There are a lot of great gamers out there that love it and I say more power to them!

Jerry

PiersBrand, I totally agree with you.

Just because I don't want to play a certain game/ period / ruleset, doesn't doesn't make that game/period/ruleset wrong.
It just means I don't want to play it.
Encouraging any sort of wargaming , I think, is a good thing

I don't get the point. So long as you enjoy the rules as and have plenty of opponents why would you care about other's opinions? People show much the same attitude towards Empire and I could'nt care less. I had plenty of opponents and we enjoyed our games. That was enough.
I like Tractics alot, but the comments against it don't really bother me all that much.
I am not the author of any rules so I have no personal stake.
Now, if you're having difficulties finding opponents. Or if you're not enjoying the games you're playing that would be another thing. But you seem to be finding plenty of support here.
I do find the over casual use of the term 'Hater' annoying.
I do not care for FOW. That does not make me a hater. I do hate some things. I hate Nazis for example. I'm not calling any particular individual out. I'm just sighting an example.
Using the term as many do is intellectually dishonest. To use the tired excuse that others do it makes me think of the old lemming arguement.
So I say enjoy you're gaming and don't expect others not to snipe. You should've tryed being an American GI during the vietnam war era and going home on leave.

To me, any topic with the word 'hater' in the title, and over 50 comments = must read. On a different note, I've heard that GW is awesome, and their products are reasonably priced, and well-supported. Anyone care to disagree?

Hetzers gonna hetz.

Ask yourself three questions:

1. Is FOW a hyper-realistic simulation of World War II?

2. Does it lend itself to allowing people to munchkin somewhat?

3. Do you enjoy playing the game?

The only answer that means anything is #3. Otherwise, it's " off, I'm having fun here."

Just keep telling them … "It's only a game … It's only a game …"

Nazrat, I can agree that deliberatly trolling the FoW board is poor form indeed, but unfortunatly it now seems to be the case that any criticism of FoW is immediately labelled as hating or whinging, or, somewhat stragely to my mind, as being as a result of insecurity. Not quite sure why not favouring a particular rule set makes you insecure, or what you are supposed to be insecure of?

I agree with goober.

I had built FoW armies for US, British, German, and Russian Late War. Bought all of the first edition supplements. Recruited others to player and convinced shops to carry it.

And because I thought that it's silly for a captain to have direct control over on-table heavy arty in a company level action or that the lack of overwatch was the opposite of WWII tactics, none of that mattered. I was labeled a hater for accepting and noting the game's obvious oddities. Not being a fan-bois and being able to think for myself I finally gave up on tbe system.

I know the title of the thread is meant to apply to gamers who think that having generals leading companies is weird or that army mascots are odd. But it can apply equally to the puritanical in the FoW hobby who hate anyone willing to state that the emperor has no clothes.

I really dislike DBA, but I have never sought out threads about the game in order to insult the rules and it's players

If you did, I think you would find that the DBA players would also not defend any criticisms with the same zeal that the FoW Fanboyz seem to have.

Remember: You must not criticise the precious

Ask yourself three questions:

1. Is FOW a hyper-realistic simulation of World War II?

2. Does it lend itself to allowing people to munchkin somewhat?

3. Do you enjoy playing the game?

1. Obviously not. "Simulation" and "FoW" really don't belong in the same dicussion. It's a game with WWII models.

2. Yes. Just listen to WWPD plan their tournament armies

3. Yes

Yes, I have no 'hate' for any set of rules… but the folks who play them often drive me away before I ever sit down at the table. Some folks just need to be zealous about something, sometimes everything.

unfortunatly it now seems to be the case that any criticism of FoW is immediately labelled as hating or whinging, or, somewhat stragely to my mind, as being as a result of insecurity.

Not necessarily so. Forums are a good place to bring up and debate issues and FoW is far from devoid of issues… just as any game. There certainly are as many positives and negatives with FoW we could take a good hard look at and discussing them both in a civil manner has value and should be welcomed. That being said, there are a few who seem to relish engaging on this forum in a very negative way specifically for what often seems like perverse pleasure. Fortunately they come down to a very small few individuals and most "non-fans" are simply sharing their honest views/perceptions….and that has value.

As a player/advocate of FoW, I welcome negative comments and on occasion like to present a different view/perspective on the issue(s) at hand. Often I find people's negative perceptions are based more on hype than an in-depth holistic analysis of the game and its mechanisms.

For instance take some of the above mentioned comments.

And because I thought that it's silly for a captain to have direct control over on-table heavy arty in a company level action or that the lack of overwatch was the opposite of WWII tactics, none of that mattered.

Absolutely correct on the reality of onboard heavy artillery under direct control of a mere company commander. So don't do it. Play historical scenarios and use more accurate OOB rather than "lists." It's a player issue far more than a rules issue as it seems most other WW2 rules I've played let me put big guns on the table as well IF I wanted to. FoW is more about what you want to make out of it for your gaming use. Incorrect use by others is not really your problem and if it bugs you that much you should engage and show them a better way to play more "accurately" using a game system they obviously enjoy and get a lot out of.

No overwatch/opportunity? I'd suggest that FoW actually includes a fair amount of overwatch/opportunity effects it if you really bother to drill down into the turn sequence of the IGO/UGO format and what's really happening when you evaluate the simultaneous battlefield effects that are resolved sequentially through game mechanisms. That's a longer discussion that I've had here multiple times.

I know the title of the thread is meant to apply to gamers who think that having generals leading companies is weird or that army mascots are odd.

Yes, Bears and Generals on the company battlefield would be quite odd! No one could argue otherwise. But what might be worth considering is that a bear/general is just a game piece with effects. Though I know full well a General and a Bear in reality would not be part of a company level fight so I don't let it get to me as I don't look at a "General Patton" model on the table as THE George S. Patton, I look at that model as an appropriate level leader, maybe Captain George S. Patterson who just happens to have "Pattonesque" leadership qualities. Same for the Bear. Is that really a Bear helping to make a Polish Artillery unit shoot faster? Maybe the Bear "Marker" is just a token to symbolize a unit that has an enhanced resupply method or additional personnel assigned to help move ammo better? In the end the General/mascot is just a token (though neatly modeled as an interesting character piece), that has some sort of tactical value and effects. So if you're only letting yourself take a micro-level narrow perspective and very literal interpretation on these, you might be missing out on the more macro-level effects that just get wrapped up with the rest of the outcomes of the game.

2. Does it lend itself to allowing people to munchkin somewhat?

2. Yes. Just listen to WWPD plan their tournament armies

Sure, any game that has a "competitive" component is going to have some degree of that element. So what? It's not the only way the game can be played and you certainly don't have to engage in "muchkin" antics if you don't want to while still enjoying the game "your way" otherwise.

Bring up any aspect that you dislike or don't understand about FoW and I'll be more than happy to discuss them with you. If nothing else, some who are perceived as "haters" should be thanked for continuing to help propagate the popularity of FoW as anything they post here continues to justify this game having its own separate sub-forum and the high reply count draws in interested parties who may take a closer look at the game themselves and find they might have some interest it. More often than not, those few who seem to truly deserve the title "hater" lose much credibility by the way they come across here and I'm not sure in the end their perceived efforts "to attack" do anything to really hurt the game and its players. Quite possibly they are helping to keep FoW front and center in the WW2 wargaming world.

Cheers, VB

So around the time this board was born, I posted some observations about a FoW tourney in North Carolina. To be clear, I don't play the game, I am not interested in the game and tournaments are not my thing.

The observations were that there were tank parking lots on some tables. There were Tiger Tank Platoons and in one game something like 8 Nebelwerfer Half Tracks. These things put my off because I actually like the aesthetics. I also complemented the lovely terrain and then fact that virtually all of the models were painted to a high standard. All of these things, good and bad, are part of FoW. That's just the way it is. I meant no harm either. however, no matter how much I tried to explain that I meant no harm, even by prefacing in some way to say such, some of the FoW elite took it as a personal offense. Haters may hate, but they are definitely in both camps.

Some FoW players can be their own worst enemy. We even, for a time, had a gent who took pleasure in jerking a few FoW player chains simply because he could.

If you did, I think you would find that the DBA players would also not defend any criticisms with the same zeal that the FoW Fanboyz seem to have.

Remember: You must not criticise the precious

Kind of my experience…

YMMV,

John

Sure…"tank parks" happen in FoW. My local group is considering a very large Prokhorovka game and even on a 6' by 12' table I'm concerned about how this will work out with nearly 200 tank models (4:1 real:game ratio) and even more infantry bases on the table at the same time!

So sure it happens, and sure it's understandable how that become visually displeasing to some/many. I get it. I also note that your observation came from a tournament which possibly might not always be the best lens to view FoW overal through. In the end it's about getting those very lovely painted 15mm models on the table as you note above, and there's a trade off there. We want those nice looking models, 15mm being about as small as we may be able to get with away with that high level of detail/esthetics, and then we want to play on certain size table. So there is some trade off that will occur. Spacing/bunching is one that often does.

I'd prefer to see tanks more spread out myself, I just don't let it get to me as mucch. When it does happen, I give it little more thought than I would a "stack" of counters when I play ASL. It's a dynamic between model size and ground scale (even a exponential ground scale) that comes into play. So fair observation. You can either look at it as a literal representation of wall to wall tanks or you can look beyond the toys and see what it's representing in game sense…a closely packed formation which did/do of course happen in the real world for a variety of reasons.

Guess you can let it hang you up or not. In either case it's not really a validation or invalidation of the game overall. It's just what people are seeing model wise and what they do or don't do with that visual stimulus in their own minds. But in any case you should be welcome to state your view on the subject, and likewise should welcome counter opinions. It's too bad there John that you feel like you got dumped on for what seems to be, at least on the surface, a perfectly normal and fair observation.

Cheers, VB

I guess it boils down to whether or not FOW attracts markedly more criticism that other historical games/rulesets, and if that criticism can be markedly more, lets say 'passionate'…

Impossible to be objective here, certainly about the latter question, but I certainly sense that it does attract more criticism, than, say 'Crossfire', and that that criticism can often be less of a technical kind; 'The rules don't make it clear what command level the player is operating at'; and more of a 'passionate' nature 'OMG now FOW are going to completely stuff up Vietnam'; as examples.

If I am right in these 2 assumptions, then the question is why?

Is it because FOW is inherently worse than competing rulesets that it attracts a corresponding amount of 'passion', or are there baser forces at work…

In Australia, they have a great saying – 'Tall Poppy Syndrome', where as soon as anyone or any project emerges head and shoulders above its rivals, all efforts then kick in to dragging it down again….

I simply wonder if FOW is similarly a victim of its own success in the same way.

Sparker,

I simply wonder if FOW is similarly a victim of its own success in the same way

Perhaps so.

I recently had a chance to talk with John Matthews, global sales dude for BF. He stated that based off their sales, they estimate that less than 10% of their customers where "tournament" players. There's no way I can defend what often occurs in a competitive FoW settings. Sure there are those who will do vastly unhistorical things to increase their on-table win ratio. It's a given and an aspect of the game's use that I'm not overly fond of. So it's not as surprising to me that many take that very singular view of FoW, from what may represent a only a very small fraction of the FoW gaming world overall , and as a result they may get an unnecessarily overall negative view towards the game and its players in general.

Unfortunately I think what they see in those settings becomes the definitive assessment they allow themselves to judge the game overall and that perhaps is compounded if a preferred rules set they might have is not getting the same attention. So sour grapes? Perhaps there's a degree of that? The one thing we know for certain is we'd not even be having this discussion if FoW was played only as much as the next most popular WW2 game. It simply would not matter to most if it was not such a 500 pound Gorilla in the Chimpanzee pen. If it was just another "Chimp" then "eh…no big deal" but yes, I think you are right to suggest that FoW draw much of the angst it does simply due to its success.

Cheers, VB

I think maybe it's because it's been a gateway for many into historical and has been rather successful, so has many players. I've no idea of figures of FoW players vs. other systems, but my completely unscientific assumption is that there seems to be more fire and smoke about FoW because there are more FoW players, or at least more gamers who have tried FoW and formed an opinion. I. for example, have never tried ASL, DBA or Crossfire, some of the other games mentioned in the posts above, but have tried FoW (I had a very large US army, tank, rifle and armoured rifle).

Me, I have an Indian Rifle Company.

I've played many a game of AK47 Republic (First edition) in which my two or three T55s have manoeuvred in close order, and in which tanks approach sufficiently close to each other to engage under the Marquis of Queensbury rules – and yet, aside from the occasional jibe from my fellow tank fencers, the game remains as popular as ever.

"1. Obviously not. "Simulation" and "FoW" really don't belong in the same dicussion. It's a game with WWII models."

And in that it is no different from any other WWII game out there. FoW is about as realistic a WWII simulation as any other WWII game I've ever played.

That might be part of the reaction to the criticism, people are saying this isn't a "realistic" ruleset or it does this thing or that thing that this thing and that thing don't do.

Every wargame does that.

How many tanks potter along for x distance then stop and wait a bit and then potter along for x distance again.

How many commanders know where the enemy forces are? How many commanders in WWII even know where their own forces are?

That last, in my mind, is key. You will never have a realistic game because you know these things. After that the small differences in tactics are rather minor.

You can certainly criticize them, there is plenty of room for that but to say that one game is more of a "simulation" than another is bull crap.

You are right, Pictors, that it's no more "realistic" than any other war or board game about ww2, or any other period, I'd wager.

However, it's the ability suspend disbelief that adds to the enjoyment of many people, and it's harder to do that with the tank parks than it is with a less crowded game board.

So play on a bigger table.

The last time I played FoW we played on an 18x6' table. It seems like any game is going to be crowded on a 6x4' table.

Is it harder to suspend disbelief for that than it is to see Viking armies going after Macedonian armies and for them to have roughly the same number of figures in them?

So play on a bigger table.

The last time I played FoW we played on an 18x6' table. It seems like any game is going to be crowded on a 6x4' table.

Not everyone has the room for a 18X6 table. Some folks don't have room for an 8X5 table.

There is of course always the option playing with smaller foces (i.e. less models) on a "standard" 6' x 4' table. As with about any game, the urge to put everything you can on the table may not lead to the best results.

Some of the best games of FoW I've played have been small infantry focused engagements. Always seemed to have plenty of room there even though we sometimes dropped the board size to 4' x 4' for these smaller fights.

"1. Obviously not. "Simulation" and "FoW" really don't belong in the same dicussion. It's a game with WWII models."

And in that it is no different from any other WWII game out there. FoW is about as realistic a WWII simulation as any other WWII game I've ever played.

Ahhhh…the old simulation vs. game discussion. Joy!

I tend to agree with you there Pictors Studio. I have played a good half dozen other WW2 games over the decades and I am trying a new one even now. In the end there's not a whole lot I've seen to convince me that more detail (Simulation) generates more realism, and it just might be that going the more abstract (Game) route may not only quicker and easier to work with, but in the end may even be more realistic.

I guess some WW2 rules are pushing hard to get towards a 100% accurate photo, where every detail is captured with perfect "validity." Others may be going more for the impressionist painting type image where details just get blurred, but yet a powerful and provocative image is generated that often evokes more a "feeling" than a "seeing" experience. I think FoW gets much of its strength by pushing more towards the abstract.

Cheers, VB

"Not everyone has the room for a 18X6 table. Some folks don't have room for an 8X5 table."

You could play with smaller forces then as in smaller scale forces. Do it with 6mm figures instead of 15mm ones.

And in that it is no different from any other WWII game out there. FoW is about as realistic a WWII simulation as any other WWII game I've ever played.

I'm sort of coming around to this position but not entirely.

When it comes to units density and variety I mostly agree with Pictors.

As I noted in another thread recently you can look at a table of FoW, Battlefront, Command Decision, and Rapid Fire and you'd be hard pressed to figure out the games' scales based on the presentation.

The odd-man out here is RF which uses individually based figures and so might be mistaken for a skirmish game. But it's actually close to CD in scale and scope.

Meanwhile FoW has as much unit variety as CD and RF but it's supposed to represent company level actions. When it comes to assets it's much closer to bathtub battalion+ operations.

All suffer from excessive unit density to some degree. In another thread I posted an image of RF and FoW and both suffer from "Crazy Stan's Used Tank Lot" syndrome.

I think that Battlefront and Crossfire are probably best off when it comes to unit density…not nearly as excessive as other games.

But as far as tactics go I'd strongly disagree with Pictors. Flames of War is designed to provide competitive tournament play between equal forces and thus favors aggressive play far more than would be prudent in the real world. It's the OPPOSITE of WWII tactics and rewards actions that get people killed on real battlefields.

For example, in FoW you can advance into LOS of defending troops while in the open and hose them first before taking ANY fire. In Iraq and Afghanistan, and on WWII battlfields, it works the opposite way and the guy wondering into a kill zone covered by a concealed enemy is the first to take fire.

That relationship between concealed defender and mobile attacker in the open is central to modern tactics and FoW inverts it to enable attackers to succeed even when fighting at a 1:1 ratio. To do otherwise could result in "Sitz-krieg", a situation which saves lives in the real world but would make for boring tournament and points-based pick-up games.

And I do think it's comments like Pictors that frankly annoys some folks and sort of insults Phil Yates and his team.

Phil's not stupid. He knows the difference between real world tactics and game tactics needed to create a competitive game which drives miniatures sales. Flames of War is FUN, it's designed to sell figures, but it's the opposite of real world tactics.

What's amusing is that even children who play Battlefield 3 and similar shooters understand these differences. In on-line shooters some people despise those who are known as "campers". Campers set up in well concealed positions waiting for an enemy to move into the KZ and then kill that enemy. If the position is really secure they can do this with near impunity for a long time. Otherwise they can displace and repeat their attack from another location.

To apply Flames of War tactics to Battlefield 3 would require the defending "Camper" to artificially wait for the attacker to shoot first and return fire only after the attacker had a chance to kill or suppress him first (BF3 includes a suppression mechanic).

"For example, in FoW you can advance into LOS of defending troops while in the open and hose them first before taking ANY fire"

This is just straight up not true. Yes you can shoot first but there is no way you can "hose" them. There are penalties in FoW for moving and shooting.

If you have defending infantry there is no way you are going to "hose" them unless you bring large numbers to bear.

Do the math.

Let's say you have 10 stands of mid war soviets moving through a bombed out Stalingrad table. They come around a corner to within 16 inches of 5 stands of Germans defending a pile of obstacles in the road or a building or some such thing.

The Soviets do get to shoot first. They get, if they are lucky, 10 shots. They need a 4+ to hit, but the germans are in cover so 5+, then the Germans get a 3+ save, then the soviets, if it is hard cover, need to roll a 6+ to dig them out of the cover.

So 10 shots, 4 hits, 3 saves. So one hit which then needs a 6+ to kill one stand.

The Germans now get to shoot back. Lets say the Soviets got lucky and killed the one stand or even the Germans were defending soft cover with no bullet proof test.

The Germans now get 4 stands to shoot back with probably 2 shots per stand hitting on a 2+. So 8 shots, 7 hits, the soviets get 3+ cover save but still lose 2-3 stands.

If the Soviets choose to advance further they will get another round of shooting but only 7-8 shots this time while the Germans will probably not get unlucky the 2nd time and will have all four stands shooting back.

Reverse it and the Germans will get 5 shots coming around the corner because they moved, but will need 3+ to hit so 3 hits, 2 saves and then the Soviets still lose one stand.

See how your advancing tactics work with anti-tank guns sometime.

I really dislike DBA, but I have never sought out threads about the game in order to insult the rules and it's players

Nazrat that just means you're not hating properly!

it does attract more criticism, than, say 'Crossfire'

Perhaps that is because people react and criticize what they see. To criticize Crossfire, you would actually need to see a game being played.

FoW gets more criticism because more games of FoW are being played.

in FoW you can advance into LOS of defending troops while in the open and hose them first before taking ANY fire

Pictors Studio has rebutted this point very convincingly for those who are prepared to think, but I think this criticism can stand as a good example of the problem that FOW faces.

Yes if you really really wanted to, you could advance into LOS of defenders, and put a little fire down on them before taking fire (PS has exploded the 'hose them down' myth I hope…)

But heres the thing:

You COULD do that with any other WW2 rule if you really wanted to!

The key thing here is that because of its shiny attractiveness to youngsters and those with no previous interest or experience of historical gaming, FOW attracts more than its fair share of newbies who are more likely to do that, DESPITE the tactics suggestions in the rules books advising them against this sort of thing….

So FOW gets labelled a dumb, inauthentic set of rules out of hand by the hard of thinking, instead of being lauded as attracting fresh blood into the hobby…

FoW gets more criticism because more games of FoW are being played.

Fair point Sir! Indeed 'tis true, FOW gets hammered by those with a critical eye who are keen to display their historical knowledge by picking holes, simply because more games are played, and, I think, more are played by the non traditional WW2 'no charts =no history' brigade…

By restricting yourself on what kind of game you want to run in order to deflect negative comments you're letting your convention experience go from having fun to avoiding criticism and that's not what it's about.

I think there's a clear distinction between haters and dislikers of FoW. The haters seem to go that little bit further to trash the game than the dislikers, who tend to keep their opinions brief and along the lines of "tried it but it's not for me". Haters tend to overexaggerate the game's flaws, invent some new ones and also put the problems of wargaming in general and make out that it only applies to FoW; hence the "wall to wall" tanks criticism which actually affects a whole range of WW2 wargames rules, not just FoW. But it's an exaggeration which, if repeated often enough, suddenly becomes a stick to beat FoW with.

I am a Rapid Fire disliker, not a hater, so I don't moan to Rapid Fire fans why I don't like it. It's just not my kind of game. I wish more people who dislike FoW would tone down their comments and stop filling up this forum thread with their moans. Seriously, look at the FoW forum thread index and every 3rd topic seems to be a rant against the game. It's not like a hoarde of gamers are protesting; it's usually a handful of critics and a majority sticking up for the game. As for the man slagging off FoW to his son, that's just rude in my book. People put in an effort to run a game at a show and that guy was out of order to make that remark so it could be heard by the organisers and stopped his son from enquiring or looking more at the game.

Which is better? Slagging off a game to its fans or praising a game you like instead?

I play and enjoy FOW with friends at least once every 6 weeks and it works fine for us. I don't feel the need to defend it as it works for us and that's all that matters.

There are other rules systems in other periods that I play that I do not care for but I either simply don't play or, if it is enjoyed by my friends, I play the game and no real harm comes of it other than maybe me enjoying the game a bit less that day than normal.

I expect any rules set will have fans and critics. What I do not understand is a need to share a negative opinion about any rules set on an unsolicited basis to someone that clearly likes them. As many others have pointed out, it is a small niche hobby with very limited participants. Why go out of your way to hack off another person for no measureable purpose?

Hit the nail on the head McKinstry…..well done.

Sparker makes an interesting observation about FOW drawing more than its fair share of criticism and he is probably correct.

FOW is a good introductory game for folks who are new to historicals or at least new to WWII. So you are seeing a higher proportion of players that are new to the genre.

In my area there are plenty of FOW players and for the most part they don't have much knowledge about WWII beyond fluff found in the books. I'd guess that the more serious WWII enthusiast/gamer are just put off by the lack of study and knowledge of the period and the "Tigerz r Badazz" attitude from some of the youngsters coming over from 40K.

FOW isn't my game but having fun is having fun and I hope Sparker and his mates a good day of gaming!

There are some folks who are pretty knowledgeable and very serious about their WW2 history that greatly enjoy FoW too. Stereotyping FoW as just for new players to WW2 gaming is certainly going to be common if those who are more knowledgeable about WW2 just take a condescending (even when benign) view of the game and its players rather than getting involved with those new players and showing them how to get more historically accurate gaming from FoW.

No need for historical accuracy to get in the way of fun and or vise versa. Both can occur in FoW, as many other great games.

I generally ignore the haters, just like I ignore those people who complain when I show up to a WW2 event with SS miniatures.

I will say this though, I've never seen a FoW hater that is more attractive than I am.

It strikes me that the hater/dislikers dichotomy is a good one.

Dislikers tend to be those who love those complex charts and want to reflect the different performance of ammo types against differing slopes of armour at different distances.
that complexity put me of WW2 games for years.
Dislikers don't like the fact that the mover shoots first in FoW. In fact the whole lack of concealment and "reaction fire' pains them.That drives the scale of their game down to say Crossfire which only works with a platoon or so and one tank and two A/T guns on the table.
Crossfire BTW is a great game for post 44 infantry platoon action, but even it does not get fire and movement right.
Dislikers tend to be unhappy with anything commercially successful. They like their gaming as cottage industry or a Mom and Pop business.
Haters tend to have been burned by FoW. I get the sense that they were bigwigs on the Battlefront Forum and contributed plenty on their view of historical WW2 and then felt ignored. They have a personal axe to grind . They belong to a type of wargamer who feel that their advice on figure ranges (make 30 types Mr manufacturer) or war-games rules (ah, but at the battle of XYZ handgunners did shoot down armored cavalry) should be followed by those who have had the balls and brains to produce their own games and rules.
I am sad for these guys because they are often early adopters, contribute a lot of information and advice and then feel hurt because the designers and manufacturers take commercial decisions.

<red alert, hater coming>

I think this post explain a lot of problems:

'Dislikers tend to be those who love those complex charts and want to reflect the different performance of ammo types against differing slopes of armour at different distances.
that complexity put me of WW2 games for years.
Dislikers don't like the fact that the mover shoots first in FoW. In fact the whole lack of concealment and "reaction fire' pains them.That drives the scale of their game down to say Crossfire which only works with a platoon or so and one tank and two A/T guns on the table.
Crossfire BTW is a great game for post 44 infantry platoon action, but even it does not get fire and movement right.
Dislikers tend to be unhappy with anything commercially successful. They like their gaming as cottage industry or a Mom and Pop business.
Haters tend to have been burned by FoW. I get the sense that they were bigwigs on the Battlefront Forum and contributed plenty on their view of historical WW2 and then felt ignored. They have a personal axe to grind . They belong to a type of wargamer who feel that their advice on figure ranges (make 30 types Mr manufacturer) or war-games rules (ah, but at the battle of XYZ handgunners did shoot down armored cavalry) should be followed by those who have had the balls and brains to produce their own games and rules.
I am sad for these guys because they are often early adopters, contribute a lot of information and advice and then feel hurt because the designers and manufacturers take commercial decisions.'

In a wrong way. It implies that some negative connotations are linked to every person who do not appreciate FOW (complex rules lovers, burned people, former big-whig… etc…). Acording to these rules of thumb I am an hater, but I have no problem with FOW except the fact I do not like it and do not like to play it. I do not think that it is the 'most popular' because we really do not know what is happening outside our local club the tournament areas, internet and the L(f or U)GS. FoW has a marketing machine behind it and thus tends to be on the spotlight. Also in the recent times players have become more and more defensive and in some case downright insulting at anything the perceive as criticism. Often they end up in the silly crow of 'you cannot have a simulation' that is franlky boring to death.

FoW is a WW2 wargame. It has some qualities and some problems. It is not the definitive word in WW2 simulation. Probably was not even intended this way. Fow is also ready made for tournaments. Tournaments could be a problem. The manufacturer behind FoW sometime has gone out of the way in pricing or defense of its product. Its marketing has done a disservice to WW2 with cheap history. Sometimes quality control has been poor. A certain amount of people like to play FoW.

The majority of these people play FoW because they think it is fun, GREAT! a small number plays it because they think it is cool or because they want to tell everyone how good they are at tournament BAD!. There is a small number of people that go out of their way to criticize FoW, BAD! there is a small number of people who think that everyone that criticize FoW has some sort of problem.

I think that the last paragraph is applicable to every wargame and to a lot of games.

Still there is a lot of people who has moved to defending their fun to implying that everyone who disagree with them has problem. I think the small numbers of Haters have arrived firts, but then the Jihadist have been crated and tey are feeding into the number of Haters. It has nothing to do with FoW faults (presumed or real) or popularity (presumed or real) but is more about polarized opinion. I started neutral about FoW, played it, found some plus and minuses moved to other pastures and returned neutral, but at the moment I am upset by both sides and really stay away from FoW. Both sides are to blame and if the people trolling the forums do disparage FoW are silly also the people who start thread against Haters quite often (Yes sparker, it is you… you did it twice and the title appeared on the front page :) <said while dressed in Cicero's toga and pointing > ) sound like they want to stir troubles. I guess Sparker probably was just reacting to the some other bashing, but the entire dynamic, as seen on this thread, is between a comedy and a tragedy.

I recently posted a thread that was supposed to sound evil and more a mockery of both sides than anything else (ok I was annoyed to the lack of the ventilator on the T-54 and the idiotic fluff on the website, or puppet forces and nationalists… and I know a girl living in NZ whose father is an ARVN officer…) and of course no one realized the mockery but the people divided in haters and jihadists.

Said that I also reckon that a lot of people writing in forums (me included) are also quite unpleasant, internet is not the best medium for polite communication it seems.

I think both the hater and jihadists are insecure to be honest…

Sorry, Arrigo, but you say that I imply a negative for all wargamers who dislike FoW. I assure you that I do not, I do, however get a bit fed up with those who visit a list dedicated to a particular rule set just to make negative comments about that use set. I would just never do that. If I don't like a set of rules I don't visit it's. list. If I played it and wanted to suggest my own improvements I would happily visit the list and make suggestions, but I would not be negative about the writers, publishers or players.
Criticism is either constructive or destructive. It is the destructive sort that people get annoyed by.
Jihadists is a totally inappropriate term. Playing any set of rules is not a matter of religious fanaticism.

'Jihadists is a totally inappropriate term. Playing any set of rules is not a matter of religious fanaticism.'

Evidently you have not see certain wargamers… I agree that there are some rabid FoW haters, but also some rabid FoW Jihadists. For some players I met in the past rules were even more serious than religion.

Lewis,

this is not a closed list with membership, this is a reliatvely open forum and the thing is going both way. I think that the FoW things has gone a bit too far. I do not think is a matter of FoW success but more a series of reactions by individuals. I also agree that some criticism of FoW is irrelevant (I can play Wall to Wall with everything in every game), but some is not. I joke on myself being an Hater because joking is fun. I do not hate FoW… I have books, I have models…

What I want to highlight is the point we have reached were polarization has gone too much. How many sentence in blogs you have read 'when WI was black and good…' like BF has for some reason destroyed WI. I find WI is still interesting, but like every general magazine sometime there are bad articles and sometimes articles I do not care about. Yes some of the more FoW related stuff is bad in tone. Still have to digest the idea the Feldernhalle was so great… but other articles are very good, I do not think FoW has killed WI… au contraire…

Same with FoW, any wargames is an abstraction of some sort, even professional ones simulation is indeed an abstraction. Played in a certain way FoW is broken, but you can break any set of rules (1:1 rules with two regiments per side anyone?). Tournaments tend to stress systems. Probably the best thing now is to ignore both the Haters and Jihadists. I do not think that FoW is bad or Haters have to see this will do any good. We have haters for every sinlge set of rules anyway…

or simply divide in to two camp, create a D<infinite> and roll it, who get the higher result win…

I've got to go with Lewisgunner here: Using the term "Jihadists" for people who like FoW too much is out of line: Why not say "FoW lovers" instead? It makes the same point without using over the top language.

I really think it's time the FoW forum was left for people who play the game to talk about the game and those who don't like the game and don't play it should leave this section of TMP alone.

"I really think it's time the FoW forum was left for people who play the game to talk about the game and those who don't like the game and don't play it should leave this section of TMP alone."

Does this apply to non australians on the australian board?

the people who start thread against Haters quite often (Yes sparker, it is you… you did it twice and the title appeared on the front page :) <said while dressed in Cicero's toga and pointing > ) sound like they want to stir troubles. I guess Sparker probably was just reacting to the some other bashing, but the entire dynamic, as seen on this thread, is between a comedy and a tragedy.

I think both the hater and jihadists are insecure to be honest…

Well I've never been called a Jihadist before! Good job I no longer have to undergo regular security checks I guess!

Insecure? No I don't think so. Actually, if anything, I'm 110 kilos of smug self satisfaction, having achieved all of my life goals by the age of 40 , and now in an interesting but undemanding civvi job which leaves me free to game at weekends and in the evening, effectively sitting back in semi-retirement, enjoying the fruits of peace and freedom, which I flatter myself I did a tiny amount to maintain in my 25 years in uniform…

And FOW isn't even my main squeeze!

No, I don't think those who attempt to counter the critics are insecure. To paraphrase Talleyrand, insecurity is a question of dates:

1. We play the games, and find them fun and a fair approximation of WW2 armoured BG warfare.

2. Someone comes along, often on the FOW board, and has a pop, generally about an issue which speaks to player ignorance or tournamentitis rather than the rules themselves. To such an extent that a label comes into general use 'FOW Haters'. An unpleasant label, perhaps

3. And we react by rebutting.

Who is insecure here?

ahem,

I think you missed the point, or maybe not… but if the latter we are in trouble.

The Jihadists are not people who simply play and like FoW but are the one that actively go out preaching how much FoW is great and how much other people are dumb not playing it. They are the same as heater more or less. I think there are two sides of the same medal,, yet we can be called haters and they cannot be called jihadists… (By the way even some of the haters are waging their own private jihad…). As I do not like FoW haters (except the funny ones) I do not like the other side. You do not like an open forum? Have a restricted forum. But please do not post provocative title thread and then complain if people reply. As I said earlier I fear the thing has become a teapot storm of huge proportions….

"The Jihadists are not people who simply play and like FoW but are the one that actively go out preaching how much FoW is great and how much other people are dumb not playing it.."

I dont think that is jihadist, I think they are known as "rangers" or talk a lot about complex charts

The Jihadists are not people who simply play and like FoW but are the one that actively go out preaching how much FoW is great and how much other people are dumb not playing it….

You do not like an open forum? Have a restricted forum. But please do not post provocative title thread and then complain if people reply. As I said earlier I fear the thing has become a teapot storm of huge proportions….

Would you mind pointing out where I have:

a) Said I don't like an open forum;

b) Complained that people have replied to my post;

c) Preached that those who don't play FOW are dumb.

Quotations of where I have said any of these things would be most helpful please…

Normally I would agree that we do have a tempest in a teapot, and I have calmed down a lot having seen that lots of fellow TMPers understand where I'm coming from.

But to return to my OP, it does seem a shame that my mate, a grown man who is utterly evenly balanced and the soul of common decency has been so dispirited by the level of criticism levelled against FOW that it would influence his approach to gaming.

Sparker,

nothing was specifically direct at you, (ok except the Catilina comment… but it was tongue in cheek). But we had another poster that said that only people who play FoW can post on the FoW board. I have also summarized some comments appeared in other threads. There has been a recent trend by certain people to call haters everyone that does not like FoW and you cannot deny that. Never appeared to me that you are a FoW-J… and I will respectfully note that after having labeled myself a FoW-H I have come out defending tour of duty.

Now, the case of your mate is sad, and probably showcase the worst part of the hobby. I have seen people in the same situation with other rules. It is not nice, but OTOH I usually do not give a lot of credit to people who are hobby extremists.

What I am saying here is that we have reached a silly situation where the atmosphere is indeed poisoned and there are several over-generalizations. In another thread on a 28mm new release (Warlord M26 Pershing) someone sniped saying that non one complain against warlord and the fact that they have released a very late war tank while if it was the case of BF… (Ok I am waiting BF re-release the M26… probably I will end up with OG one). There are problems on both sides of the fence. Even several posts in this thread have been less than nice. But it is late and I want to go bed and dream of nice things and new armies…

Pictors Studio has rebutted this point very convincingly for those who are prepared to think, but I think this criticism can stand as a good example of the problem that FOW faces

Not really.

Look at anti-tank guns. In real life they generally scored kills by shooting first from concealment i.e. ambush.

In FOW the tanks will usually shoot first. Some scenarios allow ambush but generally tanks have first turn shoot.

Similar rules are used in a whole heap of games so it's nothing new.

It's not a problem as FOW is a game and not a simulation

FOW is all about having some fun and fielding all your toy soldiers on the board.

From what I've seen "true haters" don't like it because of it's overall ahistorical approach:

E.g.

- Onboard artillery including medium artillery which is usually miles away from the front line (even sliding scale can't help here especially as the common use of medium artillery as AT guns – my 15cm SFH 18 guns back up my infantry in my usual German lists)

- Massed model numbers

- Unrealistic support options for a supposedly company level game – e.g. an infantry company of two platoons will often have several platoons of artillery, tanks and other specialised equipment that would normally be assigned to a batallion.

- Adoption of the game by the tournament crowd

- Adoption by casual non-historical gamers, many with a Warhammer 40,000 background (count me in)

- A general lack of concern for historical TO&Es or playing correct forces (e.g. blue v blue – my last game was German v German so I'm guilty of this too).

- The tank parks.

- Don't see this one so much nowadays – but the extensive utilisation of elite and rare units such as Tiger tanks (yes I had 2 Tigers in my last game, remember it was German v German so I am not criticising).

You can play the game historically but most players don't appear to want to do this. Not just speaking from personal experience but also looking at the variety of blogs on the net.

I wrote many historical scenarios (with proper Orbats, maps, historically based events such as arrival of specific reserves) a few years back, and other than my brother there was no interest in playing these at my local club so I gave up trying.

I now play for something to do and play with my pretty toys that I painted up. I just wish my Tigers stopped dying every time someone looks at them funny.

Well, I'm not from Australia and I don't look at the Australian wargaming board as there's no point for someone who lives on the other side of the world. I certainly wouldn't go to the Australian board to complain about wargaming in Australia when I don't live there! Similar situation to other boards: Why go to the forum dedicated to a particular game just to criticise it? I don't get why some would do that.