"The "new" FoW Forum" Topic

So…I'm looking at the "new" FoW fourm…and I have to admit I don't really like it. The layout seems to be more focused on advertising new products, whilst silencing any criticism towards it.

It just doesn't feel right…

What do you all think?

I thought it was just me that couldn't find the whinging page….sorry I meant General Discussion page!!

In all fairness it's their website, they can do as they wish with it.

Even I don't have a problem with them banning "Buy Old Glory or PSC Shermans, because they are cheaper" from a site that they are paying for.

Maybe the blandness will get more folks over on the WWPD forums.

I suppose even they got bored of the constant bitching n moaning

It's a company website, it's not meant to be impartial.

Shame really, as the General Discussion forum was the most interesting by some way.

I regret the loss of a general discussion area, but otherwise I have no problem with it.

I am always taken aback with those who so willingly ruin things for others with their lack of civility.

Is it really that hard to make your point without engaging in personal attack and ceaseless whining?

In my opinion Battlefront had no choice but to reduce the drama quotient.

It was the general discussion area that kept my interest in the game going, to be honest. Finding it hard to keep up momentum in a forum that has been sanitized so.

Looking more and more at 28mm and Bolt Action…

I'd be more concerned about the damage to the terrain and modeling sections, if I wandered around the FoW fora…

Why Bolt Action? It's an Okay game… but gets rather bland after a while, esp if you have played 40k any length of time.

On the other hand, CoC is looking REALLY sweet.

To be honest the FOW forum was always a marketing tool
It just previously operated on the basis of mutual benefit with their customers.

We supplied ionformation, feedback and assistance to newbies
In return we got a forum to express ourselves, find other players worldwide and information on products etc.

Now BF have decided that they no longer need as much feedback/interaction from their customers and they believe that their customer base will continue to grow and buy under the new policies – 100% BF , Rangers, new Forum etc
Only time will tell.

Meanwhile I am enjoying other rulesets again after 7 years of playing anf promoting BF – I am not alone in this shift.

FWIW I do not believe BF's market resaerch is sophisitcated enough to tell if it loses or gains from these changes so it will come down to Managements opinions – and eventually the accountants.

What is missing from the equation is here would BF have been in 5 years time if iit HADN'T deliberatly alientated a chunk of its most enthustic customers?

Self inflicted wounds in such companies generally result in long painful deaths.

Many of the folks who ran the GWUSA office now run the BFUSA office. Failure all too often begets more failure!

I think TT hits the nail squarely on the head.

Many of the folks who ran the GWUSA office now run the BFUSA office. Failure all too often begets more failure!

It's amazing that BF so eagerly employed GW USA staff, given that even in the good times, GW USA was a poorly performing division.

FoW has pretty much died away here locally. People still "like" it, but no on plays it, few buy it and fewer stores get new product it. THe sun has set on the FoW Empire, at least for now.

I just need to find a good place for terrain ideas and how to's… I loved that section the best.

Well Von Ted there is always TMP?

Also I have been told there is nothing but Vietanm for the last 2 months? Wow is it going to be Vietnam for May too?
Be handy for when I start on Arab Israli Ways in FoF 15mm – afterall who wants to play VC or Arabs in a FOW tank enviroment?

Nevermaind I am looking to EW when playing FOW – but am enjoying HC and FoF. Saga and Bolt Action to try and really looking forward to Tomohawks and Muskets

TT, What sort of FOF action have you been playing?

Played one game Paras Vs Taliban

Did it go well? Was it in 15mm or 20mm?

I'm planning a big splurge on FOF later this year.

I've had a couple of games of Battlegroup Kursk – good fun.

Was in 25mm – luverly figures but I am going with 15mm as I have the terrain

Having recently got into WW2 after an age in the late renaissance and Marlburian period, and having looked at lots of rules (and bought the FoW ruleset and Eastern Front book), I think you can probably see FoW now as an 'entry level' pitched at a mass market, but from which many will move on if they become hardcore and are interested in wargaming the period as the 2FATs say. Its not a bad thing as it brings lots of people into the game, and caters for a lack of broader knowledge of the history etc. and its success has helped fund a very comprehensive if expensive range of miniatures… But in UK speak its Tesco's (read Walmart) rather than your prime local deli, I'm looking elsewhere for rules, but not decrying FoW as a fun game. I'm on IABSM for now – we'll see in future.

FoW has pretty much died away here locally.

I must ask, how do/did you play it?
If it is a weekly tournament format "I bring 1780 points of Late War" and play a pickup game with a random player, I can see how that can get old.
We play, every other week, scenarios. Our esteemed scenario maester splits it up between Early, Middle and Late, and we always have to have different stuff to play with every game.
In my not so humble opinion, that is much better than "Tigers and FJ in a cigar box", unvarying organization.
Yes, the divisional QM is still your fairy godmother, but I think it's far far better.
Played this way, FoW is surprisingly "realistic". The results do not insult your intelligence, for one thing, like American Tank Destroyer Company versus British Irish Guards would.

Most of our grouup (nnot me) still go out and play ion topurnaments, but the bulk of their gaming is the scenarios, chez moi.

It all depends on club/gaming group size and the reasons people play.

You need a critical mass of like minded people to have successful scenario play.

the new forum layout just cuts to the chase without the mire that was GD.
For those who think they lost a voice (for thier "concerns") if you visit WWPD, you'll see Scarey Biscuits saying the other avenues of communication (that have always been there) are still there and can be used.
the new layout just reduces the tendancy for agenda pushing personas with axes to grind from gathering a lynchmob.

As to the using Bf staff, well I have never played any other wargaming rules, and really have no idea about GW, but surely there's some merit to hiring GW or other employees. Even the original GM (Matt Stevens if you have the original V1 rule book) for BF was an ex GW employee.

So yeah, new forums focus on products, rules etc, as it is after all designed to promote/enhance a product.
Plenty of other avenues like here and WWPD to assess consumer opinion without making it a home there.

Interestinmg so consumer opinion has no place being viewed by the producers of the product they are selling to said consumers?
It is resin not crack but you might be forgiven for thinking otherwise I guess

@Interestinmg so consumer opinion has no place being viewed by the producers of the product they are selling to said consumers?

hey, you can contact them a number of ways- apparently.
so you can give feedback.
now i guess the theory is that the forums wont be derailed by people rehashing the "broken" threads, and the like.
or thinking it's their right to arrogantly post what they like because of free speech etc.

i dunno, does toyota, telecom or any other company have forums that allow open public forums that constantly bemoan thier company? probably not. thats what customer support lines are for :)

Well, based on a converstation on WWPD, where I was assured that feedback and further dialoge was still encouraged, I took a go at participating on a thread that was somewhat critical of the removal of the Discussion forum.

Woke up the next day and it was deleted. So much for welcoming feedback.

Now I have been a Flames player and a forum goer for a very, very long time, and I can tell you that this is a sea change. Heck, I used to be quite proud of the fact that Flames was so much more open and friendly than other large figure manufacturers (well, at least one big one). Differing points of veiw were tolerated, and fiesty debate was common.

One thing that TMP'ers may not realize is just how much impact that the forum "whinging" has produced over the years in terms of tangible game improvements. The list is quite fantastically long and covers everything from better armor/infantry interactions, more realistic .50cal results, more historical OOB's, multiple army lists, points issues addressed, and honestly more than I care to bore you with.

Had it gone toxic? Yes. But imo that was BF's fault. A combination of repeated mistakes forcing players to literally lobby the game designer to make alterations in the game in order to preserve any semblance of balance (BAR, PSV, V3 TD rules) and BF's new, less friendly policy (100% BF figures, multiple unwise forum postings) is really what has generated the toxic environment in the first place. In the past people argued about how to improve the game. Currently they argue how to fix it. Big difference, and the stakes are higher.

And yes, better moderation would have helped keep it cleaner, but the underlying reasons for the arguments in the first place--were all introduced by BF itself.

Sadly, I don't see a going back to basics movement from BF so much as a "this is our game and we dont' want to hear complaints about it" movement. But without the player interaction that was such a hallmark of the Flames experience, I"m really curious how they avoid making major errors, such as making EW a collossal tank-fest.

So far their record does not generate confidence, but I for one, will not be giving them any more free analysis.

Shan

They offered people something that some of you thought was influence. In the end, though that is a huge ovehead as a company grows.
Many years ago, before many of you were a twinkle in the eye Airfix were asked by war gamers why they cluttered up the boxes of 1?72 plastics with all those useless dead and wounded. Airfix replied that they maybe sold to 1000 wargamers buying 10 packs and to a million small boys who bought one pack each ….no contest.

BFs market is not Trotter or Hobbes or the rest of you. They want to sell to the million small boys who are not price sensitive and would not know where to find alternative product. (though I grant you the dichotomy is not as clear as it was for Airfix. Offering a forum is what companies have to do these days. If a load of self appointed experts visit it to complain about 50 cals and the amount of Besa ammo in a Crusader humour them. If they turn nasty (hell having no fury like a self appointed expert spurned) then cut off their ability to publicly state their heretical views because they scare the children.
It doesn't make them evil, it just makes them a company trying to grow into a bigger market than greying hobbyists.
If you want a company that is of a size to listen try QRF

I wonder how long a Tasty-Cake forum would last if people kept coming on to tell everybody that Krumpets sucked, and Twinkies were better.

Shanhoplite,

Well, based on a converstation on WWPD, where I was assured that feedback and further dialoge was still encouraged, I took a go at participating on a thread that was somewhat critical of the removal of the Discussion forum.
Woke up the next day and it was deleted. So much for welcoming feedback.

Is this the thread you are referring to? link

If so it's still up. There is a post from a "Shan" on page 2 of the thread which I am guessing may be your post.

If it was a different thread on the same subject and there was a deletion, perhaps the staff figured one thread on it was enough? Regardless, looks like plenty (including some WWPD staff) have been able to chime in with their negative views of the restructuring of the BF forums. And yes some BF staff had been there explaining "their side" of the story.

Cheers, VB

If you want a company that is of a size to listen try QRF

I read that twice to decide if it was a compliment :-)

TT,

believe that their customer base will continue to grow and buy under the new policies – 100% BF , Rangers, new Forum etc

Has a 100% been reinstated? I seem to recall BF dialed it back to 51% (For the events BF hosts) based on negative feedback from the customer base. Just want to make sure I did not miss a recent development! BTW, I'm no happier with 51% than I was with 100%. I explained why before and will save reengaging that target here unless any want more insight on my thoughts there.

Rangers? What as this done to affect your gaming experiences? Is there any reason a game company should not try to leverage enthusiastic supporters, like you used to be, to promote their game system?

To be honest the FOW forum was always a marketing tool

Totally agree, but is that strange, unusual, or even wrong? Or is it pretty much SOP?

Now BF have decided that they no longer need as much feedback/interaction from their customers and they

Are you sure they don't follow this site, WWPD (we know some BF staff ARE on there!), or even STCC? In short, if they get this input from elsewhere, do they need to have it reiterated on their site?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering if a more holistic examination may shed more light on the issue.

Cheers, VB

Goeff – I just bought some of your WW1 German limbers to use for my eastern front force… And, on cue, you are on TMP too. No contest for us ancients! A compliment I believe -:)

Of course we all need to go to the supermarket sometime too, but not necessarily for everything, or for our cookbooks… ok this foodie analogy is done for!

Archeopteryx,

I think you can probably see FoW now as an 'entry level' pitched at a mass market, but from which many will move on if they become hardcore and are interested in wargaming the period.

I'm not so sure that case in universal. Like you I have no doubt that for many FoW might be their first experience in historical wargaming, and like you agree that for that we, historical wargamers, should generally be thankful. Still, I'd estimate that for a significant portion (maybe 25% or so) FoW is not the WW2 rules set they graduate from but the WW2 rules set graduate to . In our local group that percentage is much higher, well over 50%, and in my case FoW is the 5th WW2 tactical rules set I've bought and dabbled with over about 30years of WW2 wargaming.

I think it's appropriate to say we see a lot of historically inaccurate things going on with FoW that possibly stems from its use by less knowledgeable, and even less historically dedicated, players. But by no means do they have to graduate from FoW to get better WW2 historical gaming. FoW can be just as historically accurate as you want it to be, just as any other WW2 game you might suggest from a list of fine contenders can be played as historically inaccurate as you want it to be.

The key here is the player not the rules. So maybe, just maybe, we'd see better overall representations of WW2 historical wargaming within the masses of FoW gamers, IF more seasoned and knowledgeable players like us could show them "what right looks" like within the game set they are clearly enjoying and getting great use from, rather than us abandoning them and then criticizing them and their game when we have not set a better example ourselves?

Just another perspective to consider perhaps.

Cheers, VB

Geoff , where are my FCM 36s.
;-)

Lewisgunner,

BFs market is not Trotter or Hobbes or the rest of you. They want to sell to the million small boys who are not price sensitive and would not know where to find alternative product.

Really? Is that what you're seeing? I'd actually be very surprised if we had sales reports from BF that indicated that even a significant portion of its sales are to "kids" directly, or to parents indirectly for their kids.

My perspective, after nearly six years playing this game far and wide between Kansas and the East Coast is that I rarely see a juvenile player of FoW. And when I do see them I notice one consistent similarity, they are universally sons of fathers who also play FoW. Of course your experience may vary, but I've not seen FoW be the game were parents drop of their kids for a day of "baby sitting" at the LGS in the way that we both have likely seen for GW, Warmachine, and any number of card games based on Japanese animations.

I'm not discounting your perceptions, I just wonder what you are observing. Of course depending on one's age "kid" may be a very relative term but I'm guessing the average age of FoW players is well into the 30's. That being based of some very unscientific analysis accumulated in my travels.

Cheers, VB

I've been playing FOW since 2005, and I've only ever seen three players in Northern California under the age of 18. And that's playing at half a dozen different FLGS and dozens of tournaments.

That said, I started FOW when I was 18, so I might be one of those "small boys" you're whining about…

where are my FCM 36s

Shh, we are getting through the very deep order list…

So…I'm looking at the "new" FoW fourm…and I have to admit I don't really like it. The layout seems to be more focused on advertising new products, whilst silencing any criticism towards it.
It just doesn't feel right…
What do you all think?

Thanks for asking.

First, I'd have to agree with many here that it's BF's site and they can do as they please.

Second, I'd also agree that this does appear to be "GW'ish" maneuver driven by a desire for "damage control" or "preemptive protection" of their product on their forum.

So maybe it's justified, maybe it's proper….but is it more damaging in the long run? I think it just might be.

Cheers, VB

Has a 100% been reinstated? I seem to recall BF dialed it back to 51% (For the events BF hosts) based on negative feedback from the customer base. Just want to make sure I did not miss a recent development! BTW, I'm no happier with 51% than I was with 100%. I explained why before and will save reengaging that target here unless any want more insight on my thoughts there.

I had a conversation about the 'majority' BF rule with JM when I was at the UK masters (which had no limitations on miniatures) and I mentioned that the rules pack for the ill fated BF EW European GT made no mention of any limitation on miniatures for players at all. JM told me that he had been instrumental in the writing of the rules pack and the lack of any ruling on miniatures was deliberate.

Now there was a rule that if you wanted to enter the best painted army comp that you had to have a Battlefront force (from memory I think it was 100% BF for the painting comp) but to play there was no rule, just an expectation on BF's part that you would play nice at their tournament and sho willing by using mostly BF models.

Thanks for the update. An open policy is the best policy and I'm glad to see BF move more back in the "right" direction in regards to the use other other manufacture's miniatures at the events they host.

I am not sure it is an official change of policy, more a quiet shelving of a rule a lot of people really did not like.

JM is still of the opinion that using non BF miniatures at a BF event is somewhere between rude and apparently in some cases plain cheating……..

VB,

Good point, I guess I want it to more broadly interpreted as you suggest – as a flexible system rather than the 10 (or 100) commandments – But FoW is extremely playable that's for sure, and that's a surefire sign of a great set of rules.

I'm not sure I'd say "evil," misguided perhaps, but certainly not realizing efforts that stear them away from a general policy of "openness" (mini %, forum control, etc) may ultimately be counterproductive with a more seasoned customer base?

Von Burge--the WWPD part is still up--that is the thread where I was encouraged to continue posting on the main BF forums. It is the Flames forum post that I participated in that is deleted. Almost on cue!

That was my "canary in the coal mine" thread. I posted more or less what I put up in my last post here, so while critical of BF, it wasn't rude. Now its toast.

And yes, I am Shan on pretty much all forums. This one apparently required a longer forum name, and I had just finished painting up a large Athenian Hoplite force for Terry Gore's AW rules--which should date me quite a bit.

Back on topic, I was a frequent poster on both forums, who posted a lot of content in each post as well. While I doubt many will miss me on a personal level, the point is more that a distinct chilling effect has hit BF land. Kind of an "evil empire" feeling. Almost as if an electronic curtain has descended around the game.

In the end though, what happens on the forum is fairly trivial compared to what they do with their rules set--and that's being mucked up right royally.
Shan

[q]I am saddened that BF has become evil….I really like the game.[/q]

Well me too really. However I'll still play it, so long as friends continue to prefer it. However I won't spend days working up big, huge strategy articles like I did in the past, nor do I plan to continue running tournaments or other events for it.

Almost everyone here has already stopped buying the books as they change so quickly anyway. I was a dinosaur in that regard.

Shan

Shan,

Von Burge--the WWPD part is still up--that is the thread where I was encouraged to continue posting on the main BF forums. It is the Flames forum post that I participated in that is deleted. Almost on cue!

OK. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the thread on WWPD with the same subject/theme was "shut down." That does not seem to happen much there from my experience.

But yeah! I'm not surprised by your BF forum experience. It was happening to me long before the "great reorganization" in BF forum land. So my visits there had become very minimal long ago. And my "contributions" there essentially ceased. Which is to their loss as I had quite a lot positive to say about FoW etc, but I guess the few times when I did not agree with something about the company or the game and shared my thoughts overshadowed my many positive contributions. It did not make a big stink about it, I just faded out and moved to more open venues.

In the end though, what happens on the forum is fairly trivial compared to what they do with their rules set--and that's being mucked up right royally.

That's certainly another topic and very open to debate.

Cheers, VB

Vb just going by what Phil Yates said when asked about the 51% rule.
His understanding is that it is only for things that are scratch built or do not produce otherwise he expects an army to be mostly or totally BF. Obviously if they guys running the BF tournies do not enforce the rule so be it. I suspoect it will rear its ugly head again
Anyway I was referring to the attitude that was behind the ORIGINAL decision. Just becasue they decide to temporarily not enforce it does not mean BF have changed their mind on how they view their customers, nor on ho much the value consitancy in jusgements – remember the years of official "we will never ban other manufacturers" comments?
The decision to monitor and delete posts strictly has come from the very top the owner Peter S – I blame Brian Smaller for the whole thing :)

Quickly retracting unpopular policies is not a sign of either good customer relations or good management.

It's in fact indicative of the opposite.

For some people think it's good to be kicked in the nuts and then be apologised to.

Good management and good customer relations would result in nut kicking not happening in first place.

Vb just going by what Phil Yates said when asked about the 51% rule.

Ok, now I'm confused. First it was 0%, then it was 100%, then it was scaled back to 51%, except you say that "Phil says" that 51% does not really mean 51% and Hammy says even that's been dropped "subtlety" to "whatever."

Sounds like from Hammy's post I'd be quite welcome showing up at a BF Run Nationals with a nice full PSC force, but cannot expect to win the Best Painted or Army Award (not like my painting skills would have got me there anyway!). If that's the case I'm happier.

Anyway I was referring to the attitude that was behind the ORIGINAL decision.

I must completely concur with your assessment here. That can be viewed as little else than an epic PR disaster. I guess the question now, based of Hammy's intel, is have they learned from that and are they now being a little more open minded?

remember the years of official "we will never ban other manufacturers" comments?

Indeed I do and as you may recall when BF tried to tighten the screws I was quite opposed to that course of action and shared my opposition to them moving away from that policy here, even though I can field a full force of all BF miniatures for any FoW period I choose, including Vietnam. It did not matter to "me" and my collection, but it mattered to me on principal and I could not and cannot support it.

The decision to monitor and delete posts strictly has come from the very top the owner Peter S – I blame Brian Smaller for the whole thing :)

My assessment is that it was coming anyway. Brian's episode was possibly just the spark to touch off powder that had been being packed for quite awhile.

Cheers, VB