"Dealing with Haters?" Topic

ubercommando,

This Thread is ON THE AUSTRALIAN WARGAMING BOARD…So look at what you said about people coming to "this board"..Crossposting negates what you demand about people not coming to the FOW board who dont play it.

By that standard, you shouldnt be on it either since you are not in australia!

Not sure what the issue is about the Australian board…I raised this issue on the FOW board, then thought I may as well x post to the Aussie board since;

1. I live and game in Australia;

2. The convention I alluded to is in Australia.

Hope that clarifies matters…

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.

This may add to Pictors Studio's explanation.

First let us examine what it is we mean when we say "opportunity fire." For the most part we have to say that's when a unit is "set" in a good position before an enemy unit enters that friendly unit's engagement area. We expect is that when this occurs that the "set" friendly unit should have some sort of tactical advantage over the enemy unit entering its engagement area and that the game's outcomes should somehow model that advantage. Fair enough expectation based on historical evidence.

Next we have to take into account that FoW, like many other games, uses the "I-Go, U-Go" turn sequence. In this case each player's "turn" is not necessarily different period of time. The actions played out in both player's(side's) individual turns actually are for events that happened roughly simultaneously but mechanically are resolved in sequence. So when playing most "I-Go,U-Go" type games you have to look at the overall outcome of a period represented as the sum of results from both players' (side's) individual turns.

So what does this mean? You might assume that because you resolved your turn first and moved a unit to certain position and I then move against your unit in my following turn that you should have some sort of "opportunity fire" as you were there "first." My counter to that opinion would be is that we don't really know who got their "first" and it was really more of a running gun battle where luck (i.e. the dice) really tells us who got the upper hand in that engagement.

So how do you get "Opportunity Fire" effects in FoW? It's not what you do in your opponent's current turn that gets your unit "set" for opportunity fire, it is what you do in your previous turn that matters. How you do this is in FoW, is by getting your unit into an advantageous position on a previous turn (i.e. concealment) and then you go "Gone-to-Ground." This is what get's you "set" and what earns you the "opportunity fire" effects you are looking for.

Let's go over an example. Take a platoon of PaK-40s and let's put them on the edge of a woods and overlooking an open field (engagement area) where they are looking destroy the enemy at. They are Veteran (4+ D6 base to hit), concealed (+1 to hit) and Gone to ground (+1 to hit & a 3+ save). They also cannot be hit over 16" away while still gone to ground and concealed. So basically they are hit only on 6's with a D6 roll and only under 16". Now let's have a platoon of four Veteran US Shermans roll into range and try to take those PaK-40s out. Those tanks get four main gun shots that could hit. So maybe one expected main gun hit on the PaKs. The Shermans also have eight MG shots. So maybe two of those will hit. OK, three PaKs get "hit" but that is less than the 5 hits needed to pin. We also expect all but one of those hits to save (flat out 3+ while Gone to Ground for guns). So we expect one failed save, but then we have to do the Fire Power check which is only a 6+ if one of the MGs and 3+ if it was a gun hit that failed. The bottom line is the tanks roll and maybe "KO" one PaK-40, but then the PaK-40's open up on the Shermans with at least 6, if not 8 shots, and hit 3 or 4 Shermans, likely with two dead and one bailed as an end results with a following required morale check.

Should the PaKs come off better than the Shermans in the above engagement scenario? Yes they should!! And they generally will in FoW but without a "guarantee" that it will always be that way.

If someone playing FoW laments that FoW does not have "Opportunity Fire," ask them "was the unit that they felt should have had "Opportunity Fire" Gone-to-ground and Concealed? If not, then why do they feel that unit should have opportunity fire type effects?"

Is that a perfect answer for "Opportunity Fire" in FoW? No. It breaks down in some instances like when a enemy unit "jumps" across a fire lane (but note then it also does not get to shoot at your "opportunity fire unit") or a Germans "Stormtrooper" or British "Tip & Run" move lets the enemy unit get out of LOS after its own shooting phase. It also does not work as well in the one team on one team situations. But with most unit-on-unit situations it averages out pretty well where one force is trying to advance against another that's properly "set" by being concealed and gone-to-ground. This approach allows for a fairly easy broad brush approach that allows for rapid unit level combat resolution and really gives you a chance to set up "Opportunity Fire" type effects if you think them out and set the conditions for them ahead of time. I like to think that FoW makes you earn "Opportunity Fire" rather than just giving it away on demand.

Cheers, VB

I don't see how getting peppered with shot first = opportunity fire = realistic tactics.

The increase in difficulty to hit helps statistically but I've had plenty of cases where lucky 6s (or 5s when it comes to Trained troops cause not everyone is Veteran) have made difficult odds appear easy.

Hence opportunity fire is completely dependent on vagaries of dice.

But FOW also makes vehicle MG's too potent as well – things like hull MGs weren't that great (limited arc, difficult to aim) and were largely discontinued (modern tanks usually have a co-ax and pintle mounted only – hull MG's were withdrawn in favour of better shaped armour).

It also doesn't take into account that the myriad of MGs often had to be crewed by crew members who had other primary duties (drivers, gunners).

E.g. look at the IS-2 which did not have a hull MG.

The Shermans also have eight MG shots

Also make them German Panzer IVs and Allied ATGs and the Germans might Stormtrooper out of Line of Sight before the ATG's get a chance to fire.

In real life the tanks should never have been able to open fire first.

And if you have Trained troops you get hit a lot more often.

FoW makes you earn "Opportunity Fire"

You think you already had earned it by selecting a good position and by maintaining fire discipline. :P

I've found that often the best tactic with ATGs is dug in in the open with screening infantry at the front (you still get concealed for small – medium guns) and use them to dominate the short range.

Things like reverse slope give the attacker too much free movement and as stated don't stop the enemy from getting the first shot.

As stated it doesn't bother me the tactics are unrealistic. It's about creating a simple system that's easy and fun to play.

Also as a 40K convert it's easy enough to follow as the overall mechanics are similar. Given it's origin is a proposed Warhammer Panzer Battles that makes sense.

Yes thanks VB, you have taken the trouble to explain in great detail another way in which FOW constantly surprises and delights with an inherent ability to produce a realistic game, despite very simple and fast mechanics. Truly elegant game design.

That is

EXACTLY
what you are doing when you go to ground in concealment.

No it's not. I can dig a Pak 40 in open ground and still get Gone To Ground for not shooting. In fact open ground is often better as you can be blasting Shermans as soon as they get into range rather than skulking in terrain hoping you've done a good enough job funnelling the enemy into the kill zone.

As well it should be. Ask any OPFOR commander/soldier from the US Army's National Training Center how BLUEFOR units in great defensive positions with days to prepare still get rolled by the attacking OPFOR.

Sure they do.

However we're talking about a situation where a tank platoon moves into a position without any reconnaissance and they blast enemy ATGs to bits without the pre-sighted, hidden ATGs not having a chance to fire first.

It's a problem with Gods Eye View and it's prevalent in most games. Hence Opportunity Fire in games such as Battlegroup Kursk/Infinity/Force on Force etc.

But if you start to think of the actions and outcomes from players' turns "overlapping" each other as more simultaneous events you'll get a much better understanding and start to realize that this mechanism does keeps things more streamlined and easy to play while yeilding outcomes that are reasonably accurate.

My ATGs in hidden defensive positions getting rolled by tanks with no recon without having an opportunity to fire firstis not in any stretch realistic. At least FOW now give ATGs GTG save of 3+ – before when it was 5+, they were truly vulnerable.

No matter how you justify it, the tanks fire first everytime and the ATGs don't get to respond until their own turn.

Overwatch fire does it a lot better but FOW doesn't really have it and in reality does well without it.

But as stated why do people need pseudo historical/realism justification for playing this game?

I've even started enjoying 40K now that I don't bother with justification – just push the toys around and roll dice.

But don't claim it's realistic when it's not.

Brother Sparker,

Yes thanks VB, you have taken the trouble to explain in great detail another way in which FOW constantly surprises and delights with an inherent ability to produce a realistic game, despite very simple and fast mechanics. Truly elegant game design.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as all that…but yes FoW deserves much more credit than it generally gets. I do truly understand folks' negative perceptions of the game. I myself refused to play FoW, even though it was the hottest thing since sliced cheese, during all of Version 1. I was put off by it specifically because I perceived there was a lack of defensive/opportunity fire. I thought this way because there was not a discreet defensive/opportunity fire phase/step. So I continued on with other WW2 games for years.

Then I went to Afghanistan for my last active duty deployment. When I deployed home I found most all of my mates had picked up with FoW while I was away. One of my mates had a lovely British Rifle "Boxed Army" still new in the box that he said he'd sell me cheap. So despite the fact that I would not touch FoW with a 10' pole for years, I figured "What the Hell", I'll get that British force, paint it up (which I was looking very forward to working on), and occasionally play this game just to be "sociable." I figured my other 10mm WW2 stuff was set for NW Europe, so these MW British Rifles fighting in Tunisia and Italy would be something different for me. I'd play my old rules for LW NW Europe and I'd play FoW for some MW Mediterranean action!

Well the more and more I played I kept finding that not only was I having great fun with my mates, but I was also finding that the game's overall outcomes seemed to be pretty much on target. So then I started thinking deeper about the mechanisms trying to figure out how they were "working" when I did not think that they would. The more I looked, the more I began to appreciate some of the game design decisions, even those I still don't fully agree with. I started to think that FoW, taken as a whole, was really not that bad! And I've played a lot of WW2 games/systems as well as trained with "official" Army games and systems…and have had a bit of combat experience. In the end I only found that by avoiding FoW for years I had only cut myself out of a ton of great wargaming experiences.

So some five years later, FoW has not just become one of my WW2 games, it's taken the lead for most of the wargaming I do. There are aspects in it that I'm still not overly fond of, but all I know is I have a very strong pool of local players who are all too willing to jump in on historical scenarios and campaigns. The fun just has not stopped even when BF was trying to make some "corporate" decisions I was/am adamantly against.

I did not serve as long as your 25 years there Sparker, just 21 to hit retirement, and like you, I've followed my military service with a comfortable and enjoyable job that has allowed me to stay in this area where I'm blessed with many other retired military wargamers, most of us are overall happy with FoW when it comes to our WW2 wargaming. Life is good brother, life is good.

Cheers, VB

That is

EXACTLY
what you are doing when you go to ground in concealment.

No it's not. I can dig a Pak 40 in open ground and still get Gone To Ground for not shooting. In fact open ground is often better as you can be blasting Shermans as soon as they get into range rather than skulking in terrain hoping you've done a good enough job funnelling the enemy into the kill zone.

And when you're facing 20+ Shermans, whittling them down to manageable chunks is critical.

As well it should be. Ask any OPFOR commander/soldier from the US Army's National Training Center how BLUEFOR units in great defensive positions with days to prepare still get rolled by the attacking OPFOR.

Sure they do.

However we're talking about a situation where a tank platoon moves into a position without any reconnaissance and they blast enemy ATGs to bits without the pre-sighted, hidden ATGs having an opportunity to fire first.

It's a problem with Gods Eye View and it's prevalent in most games. Hence Opportunity Fire in games such as Battlegroup Kursk/Infinity/Force on Force etc.

But if you start to think of the actions and outcomes from players' turns "overlapping" each other as more simultaneous events you'll get a much better understanding and start to realize that this mechanism does keeps things more streamlined and easy to play while yeilding outcomes that are reasonably accurate.

My ATGs in hidden defensive positions getting rolled by tanks with no recon without having an opportunity to fire first is not in any stretch realistic. At least FOW now give ATGs GTG save of 3+ – before when it was 5+, they were truly vulnerable.

No matter how you justify it, the tanks fire first everytime and the ATGs don't get to respond until their own turn.

Overwatch fire does it a lot better but FOW doesn't really have it and in reality does well without it.

But as stated why do people need pseudo historical/realism justification for playing this game?

I've even started enjoying 40K now that I don't bother with justification – just push the toys around and roll dice.

But don't claim it's realistic when it's not.

However we're talking about a situation where a tank platoon moves into a position without any reconnaissance and they blast enemy ATGs to bits without the pre-sighted, hidden ATGs not having a chance to fire first.

It's not important who "rolls dice first." What's important is how the engagement ends.

But don't claim it's realistic when it's not.

You're welcome to that point of view brother. But I'm not dismayed one bit and will continue to explain how "it works" each and every time someone who can't see or understand how it does work brings the issue up. It's plenty enough realistic!

Cheers, VB

It's not important who "rolls dice first." What's important is how the engagement ends.

That's all about dice. Those 4 Shermans might fluff their attack or they might gut the entire Pak-40 platoon. The Pak-40s might all survive only to be unable anything over a 3 for shooting despite the Shermans sitting in the open.

….will continue to explain how "it works"

You do realise that FOW has an official "Opportunity Fire" rule whereby it allows a unit or two depending on scenario to be held in Ambush? Why no opportunity for the attacker to fire first there?

This ambush is scenario specific.

Also American TD's have their own variant of Ambush rule which also gives them Opportunity Fire for their first volley. This ambush is unit specific and can be used in any scenario.

TD's are a good example of how FOW is a game and not a simulation. A Pak 40 or 6 pounder cannot always be placed in ambush yet an M5 can. It's an element of faction variation and it shows the main concern is not replicating historical tactics.

I think you're looking to much into it and not looking at what is written in the rule books themselves.

It's not important who "rolls dice first." What's important is how the engagement ends.

That's all about dice. Those 4 Shermans might fluff their attack or they might gut the entire Pak-40 platoon. The Pak-40s might all survive only to be unable anything over a 3 for shooting despite the Shermans sitting in the open.

Yep, just as real life it could go either way. But the "odds are", even when driven by the dice, that the gone-to-ground concealed defender will generally come off better in that engagement…and that's all that matters when approximating the effects you are looking for in opportunity fire.

You do realise that FOW has an official "Opportunity Fire" rule whereby it allows a unit or two depending on scenario to be held in Ambush? Why no opportunity for the attacker to fire first there?
This ambush is scenario specific.

Sure. As I noted above I've been playing this game for good half decade now so I reckon I'm familiar with it.
It's just a higher level of preparation not normally available in the course of a battle. The enemy just has a better clue on the rest the force through pervious recon, intel estimates, etc. This "ambush" element just has not been templated yet by the higher/Battalion staff.

Also American TD's have their own variant of Ambush rule which also gives them Opportunity Fire for their first volley. This ambush is unit specific and can be used in any scenario.

Like you said, "unit specific." Special rules are not central to the discussion of "if there is or is not" an element of opportunity fire encompassed in the general mechanisms of FoW.

I think you're looking to much into it and not looking at what is written in the rule books themselves

And perhaps you're not looking deep enough. But I'm very glad you enjoy the game of FoW nonetheless.

Cheers, VB

However we're talking about a situation where a tank platoon moves into a position without any reconnaissance and they blast enemy ATGs to bits without the pre-sighted, hidden ATGs not having a chance to fire first.

It's not important who "rolls dice first." What's important is how the engagement ends.

But don't claim it's realistic when it's not.

You're welcome to that point of view brother. But I'm not dismayed one bit and will continue to explain how "it works" each and every time someone who can't see or understand how it does work brings the issue up. It's plenty enough realistic!

Cheers, VB

Reason I'm not looking "deep into it" is cause I have a book that tells me what the rules are and a description of what "real life activity" those rules represent.

The rules themselves are an attempt to make the game balanced.

E.g. In V3 ATG's only had a 5+ save which meant they were highly vulnerable to situation described above. That gave the advantage to the tank player and made ATG's difficult to use.

In order to improve their survivability from situation described above, they were given a 3+ save if GtG.

I think I read somewhere that balanced game play comes before background (but it might have been about another wargame).

Hey…more power to you! Choose to be limited by the text if you wish.

It's not important who "rolls dice first." What's important is how the engagement ends.

That's all about dice. Those 4 Shermans might fluff their attack or they might gut the entire Pak-40 platoon. The Pak-40s might all survive only to be unable anything over a 3 for shooting despite the Shermans sitting in the open.

Yep, just as real life it could go either way. But the "odds are", even when driven by the dice, that the gone-to-ground concealed defender will generally come off better in that engagement…and that's all that matters when approximating the effects you are looking for in opportunity fire.

Cheers, VB

didn't take long for this bushfire to take off..I think people may mean "proselytizer" rather than "jihadist".

actually about AT guns..even dug in the open, no covered , the commonwealth found ir really difficult to spot AT guns, even or especially the 88, in the desert.. let along in the comparatively cluttered terrain of NW europe..as for the way FOW deals with it..of that matter I have no clue..Iknow how RF-@ deals with it.. and I think it is still too easy to spot concealed AT guns and then deal with them..towed guns that is.. Marders, I have had a lot more fun with them.. reserve fire..then shoot and scoot or scoot and shoot..

This thread could definitely do with more pictures.All these words are just a little bit repetitive and remarkably dull.

more marder fun

Von Burge has made some very good points here.
FoW rewards aggressive play in order to get a fun game. In some ways its as simple as that.
I occasionally play WW2 against a guy who regularly digs in, sits there and opens up only when the opponent comes in range. His reason, it was realistic. Yes, if you play scenarios where the attacker has a large force superiority that works as a game. With balanced forces it sucks…..as a game. if forced to attack he would sit and bombard and if he did not score enough casualties to make an advance fairly certain of success then he would stay sat there because the game time was used up. His reason, it is realistic.
And yes, if you are the guy with 88s and pan 50s in the desert then you are going to want to have opportunity fire and shoot the British before they can get within range. But what happens? The Brit commander brings lots of artillery and pastes the German A/T until it is safe to probe forward.
Neither of those is a great game because they are like the old fashioned rules with pages of tables and charts! Fow incentivises attack (sort of mostly) and thus gives attackers a chance. However, t'other day, when my three panzer IVs pop over the hill and have one shot each at five Somuas and then fail their stormtrooper (rolled a 2) and so face ten shots next go it is not so hilarious!

Oh and nice pics Cardinal, shouldn't you be in Rome

Again, I'm with Von Burge and Lewisgunner on this one.

"FoW makes you earn "Opportunity Fire"

A great example there and it shows what I've thought about the game whenever I've played it: You have to think. In that example, do the Americans advance the Shermans and try to knock out the anti-tank guns even though they're at a disadvantage or do they bypass them instead? If the German is being smart, then they'll have the AT guns protecting the objective making a bypass all that more tricky. As for realistic tactics, FoW rewards laying down a base of fire from one unit whilst another one advances towards the target: That's 20th century warfare 101. In VB's scenario, would the Shermans advance with infantry support or laying down artillery or mortar fire in support of the Shermans? Again, that's pretty realistic and the game will reward such tactics.

I've never played a WW2 wargame which didn't reek of the designer's prejudices and was all that realistic. For years, the standard WW2 wargame rules went along the lines of "if you see it, you hit it"…especially if you were playing German armour. Opportunity fire resulted in no one wanting to move anything or else gifted one side with a free hit.

For me, each set of WW2 rules is a perspective which gets viewed through the prism of the designers. FoW, being a combined arms game, is about co-ordination and timing of attacks. It's what it does best, in my opinion. Other rules put emphasis on different aspects of wargaming as the designers consider what they think is realistic for WW2 (eg, Crossfire is big on opportunity fire, IABSM is big on fog of war). You name the rules system and I could point out what isn't realistic about them or how you couldn't use certain realistic tactics to win.

PS, I have no idea what is cross-posted and what isn't. I don't check every single board on TMP. This was on the FoW board and it's about FoW so apologies if I've missed that it's cross-posted. But my original comment still stands…it's better to praise a game that you like rather than bash a game that you don't like and that it's probably better to avoid threads dealing with games you don't like in the first place rather than stirring things up for the games' supporters.

"You name the rules system and I could point out what isn't realistic about them or how you couldn't use certain realistic tactics to win."

Battlegroup panzergrenadier

Clue's in the title…

Actually, I said before I don't want to put down games but there's definite fudging and compromises in BGPG and "gamey" concepts in there, like in all rules (My local club hate it and won't play it, I don't have strong feelings for or against it). It's whether you can live with those fudges, compromises and designer's predjudices that influences your enjoyment. That might sound like a cop out answer but this thread is about FoW and I don't want to derail it from that.

Hi VB,

Life is good brother, life is good.

Absolutely mate, so all the more important to place these things into context and take any ignorant criticism in ones stride…So thanks for your and all the other supportive comments, which I will pass on to my mates and we will enjoy our small convention – hopefully some pics and batreps to follow…

Incidentally mate, my path has been very similar to yours – when FOW first came out, I was doing 95% of my wargaming with my good mate Steve (JABO 44) and we were using RF and getting really frustrated with it…

Steve suggested FOW but I pooh poohed it for exactly the reasons you gave, much to my regret, and despite a lot of our Army buddies saying it was actually quite realistic in the long run of a game….Anyway long story short he emigrated to Canada and I to Aus and I had to do as the locals do, which at the time was very much either RF or FOW.

Well, despite my disdain for FOW, at least its very clear at what level you the player are commanding at, and I prefere 1:1 ratios for WW2, so I plunged right in, and, like yourself, increasingly have found it to be a very well crafted and elegantly simple set of rules which, on balance, delivers as realistic a result as any other set, but in half the time!

Hence the proselytising, I guess. Its fine if someone has given it a good try and walks away, but its a shame if someone who hasn't played it at least a few times is put off by the herd's ignorant parroting of cliched criticisms….As I was for too long!

Anyway a mate has had a quiet word in my ear about storms in teacups so I shall close down on this net – Sparker Out.

I have never played FOW, so I hope you'll all forgive an observation from a 'virgin', so to speak.

I have been thinking about the example given of the tanks coming over a hill and blundering into some AT guns. Those that 'hate' FOW claim that the AT guns should get to fire first – and there is little doubt that this is indeed what would happen historically in all but the rarest of cases.

(I once walked my section to within about 5 yards of an 'enemy' trench as the defenders were all too busy looking the other way – bizarre things happen in reality. Throw in a bit of smoke, nerves, darkness, an unexpected approach path, mis-identification etc etc and I don't think it is completely implausible that the tanks might get the jump on the guns now and again)

However, all wargames break time up into managable slices rather than things happening concurrently or in a linear fashion. In reality, Soldiers do not move, then fire, then wait for the other side to do likewise before rolling for 'morale' or whatever – so if we can accept that abstraction in our games, can't we also accept some others?

So to take the example given above, my understanding of it is that we need a set of wargames rules to do the following:

In a given 'slice of time', represent some tanks coming over the hill, getting in a fire fight with some AT guns and give a fairly plausible end result.
Who rolls the dice first is utterly irrelevent as long as the end result is reasonable.

I don't know what sort of odds FOW spews out for such an engagement, but lets say there's a 10-20% chance that the tanks come off better, then I wouldn't be upset. Everyone will have a different take on this, but I think you could reasonably expect the AT-guns to 'win' such an encounter 8 or 9 times out of 10 – so as long as that is what ends up happening, I can't really see an issue in the way FOW appears to handle it? One has to suspend belief a little and accept that 'in reality', the AT-guns are not 'firing second': everything is happening at once and there's a wild, frenzied firefight going on for a few minutes… what matters is who is left standing when the dust settles.

Of course, some will argue that the AT guns should 'win' such an encounter 99% of the time, or 73% of the time or whatever, but that is a completely different argument and could be resolved by tinkering with the various modifers to tip the balance in favour of the attacking side or the defending side. If such an encounter ends in the tanks 'winning' 9 times out of 10, then I think the 'Haters' have a valid point – but as long as that isn't the case, then I don't see a problem.

I agree with Lewis Gunner that the game rewards fast game play.

I've found the best FOW match up is tank v tank where the game flows nicely and quickly, compared to an infantry v infantry game where it can degenerate into somewhat boring stalemates.

Even tank v infantry can become somewhat tedious when you're facing platoons with Veteran infantry platoons with 4-7 faust/shrek/bazookas backed up by ATGs (and they often pack tons of MG34/42 or M1919s as well to deter infantry assault). As my brother said, this requires too much thinking especially when it's a Friday night and you want to relax and not think too much.

But tank v tank's a real sweet spot. You can still have supporting artillery, infantry, recce but it's the tanks that form the bulk of the force. You get lots of fast maneouvre and action packed game play.

don't know what sort of odds FOW spews out for such an engagement, but lets say there's a 10-20% chance that the tanks come off better, then I wouldn't be upset.

The odds are dependent on the skill level of the ATG (Conscript v Trained v Veteran), the number of tanks and the firepower of the tank guns.

5 Shermans v 4 Veteran Pak 40s will net 2.5 hits on average (0.83 main gun, 1.67 MGs). No casualties inflicted

5 Shermans v 4 Trained Pak 40s will net about 5 hits (including 1 main gun and 4 MG). Again not many casualties but this will pin the Pak 40s (they have to unpin next turn of fire at reduced rate of fire.

5 Shermans v 4 Conscript Pak40 (not that such a thing exists) will net 2.5 main gun hits and 5 machine gun hits.

This will might cause a main gun casualty but probably nothing for MGs. Again definitely pinned (5 hits = pin).

If it was 2nd edition, casualty rates go up due to Gone to Ground guns having only a 5+ save as opposed to a 3+ in V3.

It also assumes you haven't used recce to remove GtG in which case hit rates are increased.

The pinning can be nasty though – it reduces ROF to 1. So if the Pak-40s don't unpin they're firing 4 shots as opposed to 8.

But remember the Shermans have the maneouvre advantage and it'll probably be more than just 1 platoon firing.

Also the Shermans can fire smoke at the Pak-40s to increase their own likelihood of surviving the initial volley.

In any case initiative lies with the tank player.

Q:
"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?

There is a huge difference beteen stirring the pot and being sincere about how you handle your questions…. I have found that most "realistic" questions asked on the FoW board are answered, for real and honsetly, BUT…. it is also very easy to see through the thinly veiled attempts to start a FoW trash talking thread. I mean really…. why do peopel come to the FoW board to bash the game? Why even take the time to do so?

Seriously….

ThomasHobbes

But, as interesting as all that is, it doesn't really answer the point I am making.

What is the end result of all the things you say? If we played that specific action 10 times, how many times would the tanks 'win' and how many times would the AT-guns 'win'?

Win being a bit of a subjective word, but essentially what I mean is come off better.

If the figures show that the tanks win 75% of the time, then I will fully agree that something is wrong.

We also have to accept that most (all?) wargames are much, much bloodier than reality. In reality, those tanks might try to get out of there the moment they come under fire – whereas you can be damn sure any wargamer will have them charge forward and take on the guns.

I agree with Lewis Gunner that the game rewards fast game play.

I'd caveat that fast play is one of the things that makes the game of FoW rewarding.

I've found the best FOW match up is tank v tank where the game flows nicely and quickly, compared to an infantry v infantry game where it can degenerate into somewhat boring stalemates.

That suits many player's "styles" and that's fine. But as a primarily "infantry player " myself who does very well in historical scenarios as well as competitive formats seldom with more than a single tank platoon, I greatly enjoy planning out and executing a solid defense. So different strokes for different folks there…and fair enough.

Even tank v infantry can become somewhat tedious when you're facing platoons with Veteran infantry platoons with 4-7 faust/shrek/bazookas backed up by ATGs (and they often pack tons of MG34/42 or M1919s as well to deter infantry assault). As my brother said, this requires too much thinking especially when it's a Friday night and you want to relax and not think too much.

Ah….the odious task of having to think! Terrible that a game might make you do that, or does that make it more of a simulation then?

But tank v tank's a real sweet spot. You can still have supporting artillery, infantry, recce but it's the tanks that form the bulk of the force. You get lots of fast maneouvre and action packed game play.

Sure tanks on tanks is somewhat glamorous. "Hey," I was an Armor Officer for a reason! ; ) But as I've said before in this very thread some of the BEST games of FoW I've played have been the lower level (points) infantry scrum that are devoid of armor. I also recognize despite all the attention tracks get, WW2 is in effect an infantry war and there's no reason you can't have very enjoyable and historic infantry centric fights with FoW if that's what you're after. Might I suggest "Infantry Aces?" In the end it's up to you and your welcome and empowered to enjoy FoW as you see fit!

don't know what sort of odds FOW spews out for such an engagement, but lets say there's a 10-20% chance that the tanks come off better, then I wouldn't be upset.

The odds are dependent on the skill level of the ATG (Conscript v Trained v Veteran), the number of tanks and the firepower of the tank guns.

Well great…. Let's take a closer look and see if that 20% threshold for a Tank coming off better than a well prepared ATG platoon with respect to the opportunity fire question holds up?

Let's put 4 Tanks (Shermans) of 4 ATG's (PaK-40s). Going for equity in number for systems and equity in Morale and Skill. So let's use Confident as the base line for morale, and Trained for the base line of skill. Choosing those from the "middle" more easily lets us extrapolate results if we change either up one or down one.

So….I spent a good bit of time last night building an MS Excel spreadsheet programmed to "fight out" that initial advancing fire of four Shermans (Confident Trained) against four properly "set" (i.e. gone to ground and concealed) Pak-40s (Confident Trained). I left the PaK platoon leader "out of sight" in the engagement so we could concentrate all fire on the guns.

I used the stabilized ROF of 2 with a +1 to hit for the Shermans as against trained, gone-to-ground, concealed targets they will do better statistically than the single shot without the +1 to hit. I set the spreadsheet up to resolve 100 runs at a time. The below chart might need some explaining, but you see the dice rolls generally highlighted in "red" for a bad outcome and "green" for a good outcome in respect to the roll's effect on the PaKs.

Cardinal Hawkwood stated above he'd like to see more "pictures." I'm not as good as a painter as he is but I can add this image of what the output from a run looks like. So here it is:

Here's the summary of 1000 runs:

So what does this tell us?

- Not in 1000 runs did the tanks flat out KIA all four guns.
- In only 2% of the runs was the PaK platoon forced to make a morale check due to the loss of 3 guns.
- In just less than 1% of the time was the PaK platoon "destroyed" by a failed morale check when required.
- The PaKs were pinned less than 40% of the time and rallied ½ of those accordingly meaning that the PaK platoon is stayed pinned from the advancing fire of the tanks less than 20% of the time.
- We expect the PaKs to have an average of at least six shots back at those Trained Shermans, from which we expect four to hit with a likely end result of two KO'd, one bailed, and a required platoon morale check.

Well there you go! We've run the simulation a 1000 times and we find that indeed the Tanks will come off "better" less than 20% of the time when you look at the effects the advancing Shermans should have on the PaKs and the effect that the PaKs will have back on them. So you should be reasonably happy that FoW is properly taking into account the benefits that a "set" (i.e. properly prepared by being gone-to-ground/concealed) PaK-40 platoon should have vis-à-vis an advancing Sherman platoon. Statistically your PaK-40 "Opportunity Fire" is well accounted for even if you don't realize it yourself.

It also assumes you haven't used recce to remove GtG in which case hit rates are increased.
The pinning can be nasty though – it reduces ROF to 1. So if the Pak-40s don't unpin they're firing 4 shots as opposed to 8.
But remember the Shermans have the maneouvre advantage and it'll probably be more than just 1 platoon firing.
Also the Shermans can fire smoke at the Pak-40s to increase their own likelihood of surviving the initial volley.

Very good Thomas!!! You're using "Mass," "Maneuver," "Reconnaissance, " and "Obscuration" to help change those odds back to the attacking tanks! I dare say you are looking to use historical tactics very effectively in game which you seem to consider devoid of historic realism. Better be careful, I am becoming rather impressed by you and you might end up being the best spokesman yet for historical accuracy in FoW!

Though you're doing the right thing here…do keep in mind another aspect of realistic combat …Economy of Force. Your Tank platoon already has more "value" than (in terms of points)than the PaKs. Then you add in those points from the other supporting elements that you are using to tip the odds more toward your favor. Great! But now that you have all those assets (points) focused on a single isolated PaK platoon what are the equivalent assets (points) in your opponent's army otherwise doing against you elsewhere? Realistic dilemma? Quite possibly.

In any case initiative lies with the tank player.

Yes indeed. The more mobile opponent will naturally have more initiative and ability to decided where/when to commit his forces on the battlefield. As well it should be and totally historic. But, with the respect to the "opportunity fire" question, having that upper hand in initiative far from gives the tank player a "free pass" when advancing on properly prepared defenders. As we can see if that tank player does not in fact employ reasonable/historical tactics, as you not above, that things well generally not come of very well for him.

Thank you for continuing the discussion.

Cheers, VB

That suits many player's "styles" and that's fine. But as a primarily "infantry player " myself who does very well in historical scenarios as well as competitive formats seldom with more than a single tank platoon, I greatly enjoy planning out and executing a solid defense. So different strokes for different folks there…and fair enough.

I was a primary infantry player as well. Howwever the games tend to get bogged down with many hours of stagnant gameplay. There's also all scope for maneouvre cause you have so many figs on the board.

This is at 1,750 points which is preferred locally but does happen at 1,500 with some forces.

Ah….the odious task of having to think! Terrible that a game might make you do that,

Geez you can be a snide git.

People play for different reasons. V3 increased the think factor, especially in terms of preparing an assault due to enhanced Defensive Fire capability as well as dealing with more complicated special rules (e.g. Armoured Assault, Tank Destroyer).

Good for some, crap for others.

As for infantry aces, not played that but I've played low pointed games, high pointed games, campaigns, multiplayer games, urban games and sadly only few historical scenarios.

The infantry game is kinda drawn out on all of them. Especially urban warfare – a of my last few games I've played have been urban and have not been enjoyable for neither myself or my opponent. Maneouvre and more critically assault becomes impossible when you have platoons holed up in multi-story, multi-room buildings.

Hence I've come to the conclusion that tank v tank is much more fun.

I've decreased my infantry ratios considerably and replaced them with armour – even in my Strelkovy forces I have 2 small platoons of infantry backed up by 15-18 tanks and assault guns.

Game's a lot more fun!

And in your little scenario, make the ATGs Trained – not every force is Veteran rated Germans. It's like saying "King Tiger tanks prove that tanks save most hits from ATGs."

Also why is the Sherman player dumb enough to send in only 4 tanks?

In a real game, the Pak-40 unit is a priority target for the Sherman player and he's probably dedicating nearly every single asset to take it down after he's taken out whatever mobile AT the German player has – remember Pak-40 unit does not have LOS to Shermans.

In a real game, you're probably better off placing the Paks somewhere in the open where they can support your mobile AT platforms by concentrating fire or shutting down avenues of approach.

The only guns better placed out of LOS and in purely defensive positions are low AT weapons ala 45mm Obr 37/42 or Pak-36 because they usually can't score a kill frontally..

Hence as stated historical tactics such as reverse slope are usually a poorer tactic than simply digging in open ground and pounding away when the enemy tanks get into range – after all you have to stop 20-25 M4/M5 or 21 T-34s + assault gun support.

You still use LOS blocking terrain such as buildings but that's more to stop artillery.

But again, I find more enjoyment of throwing dice and destroying Shermans than waiting for them to come to me en masse.

You're using "Mass," "Maneuver," "Reconnaissance, " and "Obscuration" to help change those odds back to the attacking tanks! I dare say you are looking to use historical tactics very effectively in game which you seem to consider devoid of historic realism.

Dunno if you play other games but they all feature those elements. Belive it or not but even Warhammer 40,000 has it.

In fact you even have it in Blood Bowl which is a most superb game of Fantasy Football. Go Kraasberg Cows!

Ah….the odious task of having to think! Terrible that a game might make you do that, or does that make it more of a simulation then?

Geez you can be a snide git.

What? You did not think that was funny? I hope somebody did. Humor is just one of those things that do not translate well on the web. Sincere apologies if you were offended.

As for infantry aces, not played that but I've played low pointed games, high pointed games, campaigns, multiplayer games, urban games and sadly only few historical scenarios.

Too bad. I wish we had a chance to get you in some of our local games. We just finished a 6 month long campaign based on the 2nd Panzer Division's drive towards Bastogne. We are also gearing up for a one day "big battle" in July based on Prokhorovka(Kursk) as a 70th anniversary event. I think that would be right up your ally with some serious tank on tank clashes on a large scale.

The infantry game is kinda drawn out on all of them. Especially urban warfare – a of my last few games I've played have been urban and have not been enjoyable for neither myself or my opponent. Maneouvre and more critically assault becomes impossible when you have platoons holed up in multi-story, multi-room buildings.
Hence I've come to the conclusion that tank v tank is much more fun.

Well brother I'm more than happy for you to feel that the tank vs. tank game is more fun in FoW for you. Rock on with your bad "tread-head" self! Only you can decide what fits your style and what you want to get out of the game. I am in no way trying to convince you otherwise. But what is important to acknowledge is that though that may be the way you find the game most fun, others can quite happily play more traditional infantry-centric battles just fine and historically using FoW.

And in your little scenario, make the ATGs Trained – not every force is Veteran rated Germans. It's like saying "King Tiger tanks prove that tanks save most hits from ATGs."

I did make them trained. If I had made them veterans then the end results would have been even more decisively in the favor the PaK's. And as I thought I clearly stated it was important to have parity in Skill and Morale for a baseline of evaluation. "Middle of the road" seemed the best place to set that baseline at.

Also why is the Sherman player dumb enough to send in only 4 tanks?

I'd agree with completely with you. That is surely unadvisable. But you were the one who "set" this scenario up when you stated above in this thread: My ATGs in hidden defensive positions getting rolled by tanks with no recon without having an opportunity to fire is not in any stretch realistic.

The data does not at all support your position that Flames of War is devoid of any opportunity fire effects. Getting "rolled" is very low probability, it statically does not happen as shown above. If the defending ATG unit is gone-to-ground and concealed, thus factoring in the effects of opportunity fire, as I and others have been trying to explain to you, then defending ATGs will come off significantly better in the head-to-head challenge.

All that aside, it was important to examine the "opportunity" fire question in a one unit on one unit situation. You should rightly as the attacker strive to employ those things that you accurately noted above, and which FoW accounts, for to increase the odds in your tanks' favor…but…if we add more units and support to your attacking tanks, then we also have to add more support, say Stug-IIIs, and other assets to the Germans. Next thing you know we have full scale combined arms fight going on! As good of a thing as that is, the fact that ATG's do not get routinely "rolled" when they are properly positioned with the benefits of being gone to ground and concealed, thus deriving the opportunity fire effects we have been talking about, might get lost in the mix.

In a real game, you're probably better off placing the Paks somewhere in the open where they can support your mobile AT platforms by concentrating fire or shutting down avenues of approach.

That is very reminiscent of the actual tactic employed by the Afrika Korps with their ATGs which they used rather "offensively" keeping them right up with the Panzers. Great job of pointing out another historical tactic you can recreate through FoW.

The only guns better placed out of LOS and in purely defensive positions are low AT weapons ala 45mm Obr 37/42 or Pak-36 because they usually can't score a kill frontally..

Or a full up ambush when you are allotted one/two so you can maximize that high ROF against flank shots.

But do keep one thing in mind about FoW. Being "out in the open" is not really being totally exposed. The skill rating that determines how hard your units are to hit is achieved by them making use of those pieces of terrain that we otherwise don't see on our table top. The "empty space" really is not totally empty. It's those gentle rises and depression, small clusters of vegetation, sparse/solitary trees, etc that our units are using (to one degree or the other based on their skill rating) to help reduce the hits they take. It's not like they are harder to hit because they are break-dancing or moon-walking, though they may be an element of that with the Soviet Lt Rat. (a joke in case it did not translate well). Flames of War is the first game I've seen that takes into account that our table tops are limited in their ability to replicate real terrain and thus it assumes there are bits off terrain out there for our units to work with, even when they are not explictly modeled.

Hence as stated historical tactics such as reverse slope are usually a poorer tactic than simply digging in open ground and pounding away when the enemy tanks get into range – after all you have to stop 20-25 M4/M5 or 21 T-34s + assault gun support.

Totally situational dependent. Reverse slope can be just as viable as it ever was in FoW and any other WW2 game I can think of. If you're facing Germans with 40" range direct fire guns…I bet you'd be using reverse slope as much as you could. If you are Germans and you have those 21 T-34's crashing over the ridge all at once, they will be completely incapable of even hitting (using main guns) your ATG assets if they are GTG/Concealed, but then you've let them get in close and have to deal with them in more of a "knife fight."

But if you think it's better to deploy where you can use longer LOS's and start whittling the down the enemy early, yes you can do that too if you don't mind being more susceptible to LOS from enemy artillery observers right off the bat! I imagine some Germans in WW2 thought just the same on occasion realizing that dealing with the entire horde when it was right in your face may not be the best course of action. You choose the tactic that best suits the situation and you make that happen! No reason you can't make it happen in this game.

But again, I find more enjoyment of throwing dice and destroying Shermans than waiting for them to come to me en masse.

Can't blame you, it clearly fits your "style"…but then I have fun a lot of fun stopping those massed armor attacks…guess that fits my "style."

You're using "Mass," "Maneuver," "Reconnaissance, " and "Obscuration" to help change those odds back to the attacking tanks! I dare say you are looking to use historical tactics very effectively in game which you seem to consider devoid of historic realism.

Dunno if you play other games but they all feature those elements. Belive it or not but even Warhammer 40,000 has it.
In fact you even have it in Blood Bowl which is a most superb game of Fantasy Football. Go Kraasberg Cows!

I'll take your word for it. I hope that adds realism and fun for you in those games just as properly applying tactical aspects of "Mass," "Maneuver," "Reconnaissance, " and "Obscuration" adds realism and fun in FoW.

Cheers, VB

If you're facing Germans with 40" range direct fire guns

40" range doesn't bother me. Even against Trained guns they still need a 6 to hit.

What would worry my ATGs more is artillery which only needs a 5+ to range in as there's no range penalty.