"Open challenge to the editor..." Topic

I don't think I've ever been to that thread. I guess I'll mozy on over and see what all the excitement's about. Thanks for the headsup.

DM

Dude, it's a game.

To be fair on many other boards a post begining An open Challenge to……" would be considered trolling.
I aplaud the editor on his open/even handed and mature approach to modertaing as as one who has spent time in the dawghause for breaching the rules I can say that.

Im pretty neutral, Ive never played it but it seems an enjoyable pickup game from what I read round here. In my head I can compare it to warmaster for ancients; broadly historical, kind of, but fun. I dont like some of the special, special rules. But overall Id like to think Im fairly open minded on the game.

I do enjoy the pavlovian hysteria on this board when someone mentions hub to hub though…

"not good enough, but it's the inadequate response I expected.
"
Just because the ones you assume are "haters" are the ones deemed by you such are the ones you think should be "purged" by Bill? Aint gonna happen just cuz you say and want it to be.As others have said thats what the Stifle button is for. Seems like a group attack don't it? Robert

Anyone do doesnt want to sell their house, family and kidneys to buy a full platoon of BF King Tigers is a HATER and should be hung hub to hub!

There, someone had to say it!

I like pie.

You do realise that most of the "haters" play FOW?

.

Yes, and with fans like that, who needs real haters
anyway?

So if you can't stand the heat, put a blindfold over your eyes to find your way out of the kitchen?

I a so tired of this type of topic. I have been called "hater" numerous times at conventions and at the club because I personally dislike FoW. I will never tell someone what they can and can't play, or say your game sucks, or mine is better, but if asked, I will say I don't care for FoW. To many FoW players, simply stating you don't particularly care for their chosen rules makes you a hater. If you don't want to hear other people's opinions go to another board. If you can't take a little trolling, get off the internet. I come to the FoW board because I can't seem to find a 15m WW2 section (am I missing it?)

Yes, and with fans like that, who needs real haters
anyway?

Problem is fan implies "fanatical" and thus "without question/criticism."

I love the band Megadeth but I can't stand their P.O.S. "Risk" album and think some of their other albums (they have 13) leave a bit to desire.

Does that make me a hater?

Same applies to FOW, though right now they're performing like Metallica circa 1996 – 2008 i.e. poor quality rules.

Hopefully we'll see a "Death Magentic" like comeback. Or even better, something akin to Onslaught's superb "Killing Peace" album or Gorefest's brutally delicious "La Muerte" album.

I'm hoping they're not going to continue like Morbid Angel – "Now that we have old line up back we will release a complete P.O.S. called "Illud Divinum Insanus".

Even their drummer didn't like it and I guess he was happy to not have played on that crapfest thanks to back surgery.

Never played it. There are things in the rules I don't like and don't find it worth my while to spend that much money for something that I really don't care for since it doesn't meet my needs as a WWII gamer. Occasionally I look at the rule book thinking I might change my mind. Nope – never happens. However, I have bought the occasional vehicle pack from them. Why? Because they're the only one's who make it. Guess I'm a hater – Bill better dawghaus me before I upset grandviewroad.

To be fair on many other boards a post begining An open Challenge to……" would be considered trolling.

Yeah, tell me about it.
I had a hissy fit once, and started a similarly titled thread.
While I felt I was in the right, it was … in-artfully expressed.
Suffice it to say that I had my nose pressed up against the window for about 6 weeks watching the toffs inside dining on champagne and lobster.

At least one thing in Battlefront's favour though is that Michael Wittman's Tiger doesn't cost six times the price (in $) of a regular Tiger because he has special rules.

And you can have fun with the models. I once made up a platoon of bases covered in flock and vegetation. No models. When asked I said they had 'gone to ground'. Cheapest platoon I ever made.

I play the game, I have a great time. I really enjoy it.
I traded my labor for all the books I have an interest in, and to pick them all up at once would give me a hernia if I were not careful.

HOWEVER, there are some things about the game that are just plain loony.
I am quite selective about which stupid things I defend, and which I mock.

Apparently, to be only 98% supporting is to be guilty of heresy and thus deserving of burning.

And you can have fun with the models.

I made an objective with nothing but furniture and a piano out on the street, to honor Spielberg movies.
And I took the Petrer Pig pack with the British having a cuppa tea, and made another objective.

Like this one?

Apparently, to be only 98% supporting is to be guilty of heresy and thus deserving of burning.

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
TMPer #1: We have found a witch, might we burn him?
CROWD: Burn him! Burn!
EDITOR: How do you know he is a witch?
TMPer #2: he sounds like one.
EDITOR: Bring him forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
EDITOR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't… no.
WITCH: And this isn't my opinion on FOW, it's a false one.
EDITOR: Well?
TMPer #1: Well, we did do the opinion.
EDITOR: The hater?
TMPer #1: And the hater -- but he is a witch!
CROWD: Burn him! Witch! Witch! Burn him!
EDITOR: Did you dress him up like this?
CROWD: No, no… no … yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
TMPer #1: He has got a wart.
EDITOR: What makes you think he is a witch?
TMPer #3: Well, he turned me into a fanboy.
EDITOR: A fanboy?
TMPer #3: I got better.
TMPer#2: Burn him anyway!

While I don't play the rules, I still like reading the articles in WI. Again we continue to see this all or nothing argument where the complainant wants "something done" by somebody else to make their life happy.

DM

Quick "hater" test: Do you go onto a board dedicated to one game in order to criticise it or tell everyone that you don't like it? If "yes", you may be a hater.

But doesn't being a hater of haters make you a hater of sorts?

Can't we all just get along? (to coin a phrase)

"Quick "hater" test: Do you go onto a board dedicated to one game in order to criticise it or tell everyone that you don't like it? If "yes", you may be a hater."

john the OFM

see what I mean about comedy value?

Here's a clue to the oblivious point missed in the land of fluffy bunnies and dancing pixies.

He posted and he was so cross, he crossposted?..No! that isnt what it really means!

Some people still act like every post is only on one board…

SO burn the crossposters…bannem ALL, Bill!
those Evil spreaders are NIMBY worriers

Ok… going down that road… what makes a hater a hater is that they continually come back… again and again to spew vitriol about the game….

If I don't like a game, I do NOT go to a message board and sound off about it… I simply find a new one and sell the models I have if they cannot be used for another game.

I have never bought into a game and then decided I hate it so much that I have to go to a message board and rant and rave because I spent so much money and feel I need some retributution of something… vindication? What is it exactly that these people want? us to buy all of their stuff back?

There is a lot of little things I do not like about FoW, but I still very much enjoy the game. i guess I just don't get it????

And.. IF the haters are the ones playing the game, then you have to ask why…. why not just walk away? Sell your stuff and move on… why keep coming here to vent… It is almost liek they feel the game or the community owes them somehting…

There is a HUGE difference between someone who continually sounds off about how bad the game is and someone who is angry with a change and wishes to discuss it civilly… From my experience… most fo the haters are those who just continually get on and rant and rave every tiem someone else picks up a torch about something they don't like… a hater will jump in and grab a pitchfork…

That is a hater….

TT, I had some broken brick walls, wood beams and rubbish.
So, I had them sneaking a quick cuppa at Arnhem.

And you are right. There is a high comedy value here.

"If I don't like a game, I do NOT go to a message board and sound off about it"

The guys who have obviously do like Fow. It as has been obvious from every comment they have ever made.

All their comments seem to be versions of

"don't break a good game"

which gets the response "hater" which actually introduces the vitriol from most until Von Burge gives his comic Teflon defence where everything can be brushed off and nothing sticks.

If you love to hate something, that should make you a Lover, instead.

Comedy is definitely where it is at…… Wouldn't miss it for the world…

@kG, And that is my point… there is a fine line between sounding off about EVERYTHING and then having a civil discussion about how BF just messed the game up… I say this because not every change has been for the worst.

Let me offer another perspective.

While there's nothing wrong with having a negative opinion about something, is it rude, bad form, what have you, to go to the place where you know people who like that something meet so that you can share your negative opinions with them?

Surely there's a bit of antagonism occurring when someone does that.

Maybe we need a FOW Lovers board and a FOW Haters board to make both camps happy.

It's time to do something about the flames of war haters. They need some dog house time. Every single thread has the same set of rants, and conscientious people who should know better than to bother reply to them.

I'm sick of it.

Also, you do realize that there is an alternative, right? BF has its own FOW message boards and as others have pointed out WWPD also has them.

I think also that you get certain words and phrases bandied around which go from being constructive criticism to being a pointed attack. Compare these two sentences:

"What I don't like about FoW is the way they change the points from book to book"

"What I don't like about FoW is the codex creep"

Both are about the same thing, but the latter uses a GW phrase applied to FoW implying that the latter is akin to the former. It's not a constructive criticism any more, it's more like an attempt to discredit the game in front of its fans by making the comparison to a particularly disliked gaming company.

Then you get the hub to hub tanks criticism. It's been shown, over and over, that the problem affects many WW2 games and is probably the fault of players rather than the game but it gets trotted out so often it's reached the point that the truth has been lost amid the repeated complaints.

Taking official action is too much, in my opinion. I would suggest those who don't like FoW to air their grievances on other topic threads and leave the FoW board to those who like and play the game because that's just a courtesy. Let's turn it around a bit: What would you say of someone who goes to the Command Decision, Empire or any other section dedicated to a set of rules in order to complain about them, and do it repeatedly?

All their comments seem to be versions of
"don't break a good game"
which gets the response "hater" which actually introduces the vitriol from most until Von Burge gives his comic Teflon defence where everything can be brushed off and nothing sticks.

Thanks for the compliment kevanG! I do try to make sure I'm on firm ground before I share my observations and perspectives and I'm glad to see them hold up.

My intent is this: We have great guys like ThomasHobbes, Truscott Trotter, and Gottmituns205 who like …right…that's what we and they are all saying "they generally like the game of FoW," but are having trouble with certain aspects which end up having a negative impact on their enjoyment of the game overall. Ok Fair enough. So then I take a closer look at the issues presented and sometimes I find perceptions seem to be based on what appears to be just a surface level look at the issue or seems focused on overhyped aspects which really may not be of a significant factor in the big scheme of things. So I offer different ways of looking at the same issue for them, and others, to consider and often suggest a work-around if that different perspective is not helpful enough. There's really nothing more I want to do than help people get the maximum enjoyment of whatever game they are playing. There really is no point for me being on the TMP forums otherwise.

Cheers, VB

i want to play FOW but i guess i'm a HATER because i hate seeing tanks in those packed formations.
thats me. i have no one to game with…

Close Von Burge
I have played FOW for 7 years now and still like the game – in general
There are several aspects of the V3 rules I find hard to rationalise – we all know what they are so will not go into detail.
That is a separate issue from the behaviour of BF as a company. And as someone earlier correctly pointed out BF do not have to take any notice of any of its customers let alone individual ones – it is a private company run to make – presumably a profit.

My problem stems from the fact I loved the FOW community and watched it grow internationally and it was good. BF decisions that I felt impacted negatively on this made me respond to BF on subects not strictly to do with the rules. Their response was to say if you do not like our decsions (ironically latter reveresed) you can take your business elsewhere. A customer (dis)service response designed to get me fired up and it has! Combined with personal comments made by BF management blaming my 'rants' as being a cause of delays in errata – hysterically funny but also a sad inditement of BF management style has resulted in my being far less tolerant of BF decisions than I would have been in the past.

You may also notice VB I spent 1.0000's of posts helping people with question on the old BF site as I still occasionally do here, I was not alone there were dozens of us – we have in the most part now stopped and I suspect with the new forum that a few of the last diehards will leave too. This will not mean the end of the BF forums but will make them less useful. BF's response has been to make their staff spend more time on the forums (good as long as they get the answers right!) and call for Forum Champions whatever they may be.

Grandviewrod needs to put the current posts re BF in perspective – the current state of customer relations took a few years to acheive it was not the one decsion, although was a bit of a catalyst, as far as the BF forums goes – apparently – as I left those forums before all hell broke loose and have not posted since July 2012

Good enough for me TT. Thanks for taking the time. As you know we share many of same negative perspectives on BF policy/management issues…and some game/rule issues as well even if we differ on others.

I do appreciate your helpful Posts over the years. I've not been involved with FoW for as long as you have and I benefited from many of posts you made back in the "good old days" when I was starting out in this game.

I suspect with the new forum that a few of the last diehards will leave too.

Most that I respect moved away long ago, and me with them.

Cheers, VB

Thanks for the compliment kevanG! I do try to make sure I'm on firm ground before I share my observations and perspectives and I'm glad to see them hold up.

My intent is this: We have great guys like ThomasHobbes, Truscott Trotter, and Gottmituns205 who like …right…that's what we and they are all saying "they generally like the game of FoW," but are having trouble with certain aspects which end up having a negative impact on their enjoyment of the game overall. Ok Fair enough. So then I take a closer look at the issues presented and sometimes I find perceptions seem to be based on what appears to be just a surface level look at the issue or seems focused on overhyped aspects which really may not be of a significant factor in the big scheme of things. So I offer different ways of looking at the same issue for them, and others, to consider and often suggest a work-around if that different perspective is not helpful enough. There's really nothing more I want to do than help people get the maximum enjoyment of whatever game they are playing. There really is no point for me being on the TMP forums otherwise.

That's not what I've observed.

For example, another TMP'er pointed the absurdity of having Patton commanding a platoon in close assault.

BF calls the figure "Patton". The rules refer to "Patton". The figure is designed to look like "Patton". It has Patton's dog.

And then VB chimes in, "It's not Patton, it's some other general officer leading a platoon in close assault. Or some other equally capable officer."

There's nothing reasonable or rational or even respectful about that. It has nothing to do with an intelligent discussion of the game system. It's like going to a forum devoted to war movies and saying, "Well, I know they showed Patton slapping a soldier in the film, but maybe that WASN'T Patton. Maybe that was another general officer. Or maybe some other junior officer who had the same bad temper."

There's no way to have an intelligent, informed discussion about something if the other person just makes stuff up when the facts are inconvenient.

Same goes for FoW unit density. Show an image of tank models hub-to-hub and he'll chime in with some absurd comment about them not being really hub-to-hub due to the telescoping ground scale. By that logic tank riders aren't really riding on the tanks, they're floating dozens of yards above the tanks! More importantly, THE TANK MODELS ARE HUB TO HUB.

We've challenged the editor to do…something…to people who don't believe that FoW is 100% perfect.

Here's a challenge to the FoW fan boys: list three significant problems with the game system.

list three significant problems with the game system

1) US TD rules
2) Soviet H&C rules
3) Recce lists
That will do for a start.
LES

Wartopia – there are may issues that people will have with all sorts of rules at the end of th day you buys the rules and takes your chances
Compare though the current BF attitude to customer feedback and this from Ambush Alley games:
The game has come a long way since we brain-stormed
its original mechanics while drinking soda on the front
porch on a succession of hot Oklahoma evenings. Force
on Force has been influenced and shaped by new ideas
brought in by players from, literally, the four corners of
the world and refined through lively discussion on our
community forum. What you hold in your hands now is
not the culmination of a half-decade's evolution, however.
It is simply its latest phase – Force on Force is a living game
that will continue to grow and adapt to its players' needs
and desires.

Bill, since you make a penny or two off TMP, isn't it really your JOB to be on top of these things? Just peruse the top five posts in the FoW forum, and you'll find they nearly all degenerate into spitting rants led by posters like ThomasHobbes, et al.

I just read the Top Five on FoW. Only one of them had anything close to a "spitting rant." I have given one member a warning. One member has been DHd for breaking a forum rule. Other members appear to be within the forum rules (including ThomasHobbes).

And then VB chimes in, "It's not Patton, it's some other general officer leading a platoon in close assault. Or some other equally capable officer."

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said. Particularly inexcusable given the ease in which you can find the original text on TMP and then copy and paste it.

Took just a few minutes to pull this up:

TMP link

For the record what I said was:
If all that still does not "do it" for you, with Patton, you always have the option of just taking a standard M20/Command Team models, paying your 100pts, and calling the model the "Battalion Commander" etc who just happens to have some of the same leadership style/characteristics of the "Big Guy." No big deal and not hard to comprehend if you're not so constrained in your perspectives.
Take Audie Murphy. He's listed in the "Devils Charge Book" as a hero option for rifle companies of the 2nd and 99th Infantry Divisions. Of course many will correctly point out that Audie Murphy never served with those two divisions. You'd have to expect that Phil and crew are fully aware that Audie Murphy served with the 3rd Infantry Division in Italy and later into Southern France, Southern Germany and finally Austria. So what's going on here if we use the Audie Murphy in a 2ID or 99ID list or some other "ID" list that we used the "template" list from "Devils Charge" to build? It might be obvious to some that it's not necessarily "THE" Audie Murphy in our 2ID force. He served with 3ID for goodness sake! So then maybe it's just some other similar, perhaps unsung, hero doing his best for God and Country in a rather Audie Murphy like way. Likewise maybe your "General" model is just some more realistic Battalion level commander showing up and influencing the battle? It's really up to you is it not?
So for me, I'm not a big fan of "Generals" in the company game as is rightly pointed out as generally wrong in a historic sense. So "step 1" for me is I don't do it. "Step 2" if somebody else chooses to use a "General," then I don't let myself get bent out of shape about it. I look at it for what it really is; a simple game token that has game effects and has some point cost more or less associated with the benefits the piece gives in the game. If it's that lovely Patton model from your link above, I think "great nice model, I'm glad you had a chance to bring that lovely piece to today's game." But I'd never think of it as the real "Patton." It's just a little model with game effects and nothing more to me. In terms of game effect it's easy for me visualize it as some next higher up commander, but not necessarily all the way up to the 3rd Army level, showing up and acting like Patton. Just as specific lists can be used as "templates" to field other forces not specifically addressed within any FoW books, I see named heroes as "templates" that can be used to represent other unnamed heroes that had an impact but for which there were just not enough pages in the history books to capture all of their exploits, sacrifices, and contributions to their Nation's War effort. Seems like a fairly simple concept. I'm surprised more astute gamers and long time FoW players are not able to look at it that way.

Same goes for FoW unit density. Show an image of tank models hub-to-hub and he'll chime in with some absurd comment about them not being really hub-to-hub due to the telescoping ground scale. By that logic tank riders aren't really riding on the tanks, they're floating dozens of yards above the tanks! More importantly, THE TANK MODELS ARE HUB TO HUB.

And here was what I actually said:
TMP link

It's easy to understand. The tanks do "look" too bunched up! That's a fair observation if you are just looking at it with a casual glance and not placing any deeper thought or analysis to what you are observing.
Let's take your above image where you have the five M18's "hub to hub" in the woodline. Are these models "hub to hub?" Yes! Do they "look" to bunched up? Yes! So sure, at a glance you can't say much positive about the image (other than nice models!). But then let's apply some thought and analysis to the image. How big is that woodline? Maybe 8" across? How much terrain in meters do we think that piece may be approximating? Maybe 100m to 150m? So, though the M18s that "look" like they are "hub-to-hub" in terms of model density they might actually be "representing" AFVs that are at least 20m to 30m apart.
I guess you either see it solely on the surface "bunched" up level, or you have the ability to visualize what's actually being represented despite what the models look like. If you're the former type, you might need to routinely play on very large boards with very small models to ever be totally satisfied. If you're the later, then maybe you can play with 15mm on a 4x6 and still have a good time.
Let's take this a step further. Suppose we played FoW with smaller models as some have advocated as a means to address the "hub-to-hub" issue. Not a bad idea. But what if we did? How often then would that 8" wood line have even more (smaller) models pushed into it? Might we not get 16 or so 6mm models in the same space? That seems much closer to really being "hub-to-hub" both visually and in terms of game representation. So maybe, just maybe, sometimes we ought to realize that though modesl bunching-up does give an image that many find displeasing on the surface, it might serve us well to keep in mind that the 15mm model size in FoW is actually forcing more appropriate dispersion of vehicles by limiting the amount of fighting systems you can squeeze into the same space.

And to answer your last:

Here's a challenge to the FoW fan boys: list three significant problems with the game system.

.

Technically I'm not a Fanboy, especially given ThomasHobbe's definition of Fan above. But I'll step up.

Pioneer Supply Vehicle Ambush
Smoke Bombardment Placement
Being able to enter and leave LOS in the same turn leaving the enemy no chance to fire.

Ok…back over to you: list three significant strengths of the game system in terms of it being a good historical WW2 game system.

Cheers, VB

Never let taking something completely out of context stop you from pushing an agenda.

"There's no way to have an intelligent, informed discussion about something if the other person just makes stuff up when the facts are inconvenient.!"

…but he does it with such style, seeing compliments and everything.

Wartopia, I admire your realism

(first official compliment of this thread)

…but he does it with such style, seeing compliments and everything.

Thanks again kevanG! Apparently what I have to say and how I say seem to be generally well received and I appreciate you highlighting what is demonstrated by our respective the post-to-stifle ratios. As of the time of this post they are:

Wartopia – 8.58 posts per stifle
KevanG – 62.82 posts per stifle
VonBurge – 152.87 posts per stifle

And most folks think the "stifle" function is useful only for stifling!

Cheers, VB

Von burge, why would anyone stiffle you? …you are such comic gold with your machinations. I can only liken it to watching a child play peek a boo when they think if they cover their eyes, no one can see them.

You are the internet's first anti-troll. I cannot beleive that 10 people have switched your entertainment channell off.

please continue…

Maybe we need a FOW Lovers board and a FOW Haters board to make both camps happy.

We tried that with Napoleonics, dividing it into "Discussion" and "History". One Board was set up for "serious" posting, while the other was for incoherent ranting. At least I THINK that was the intent. Problem was that no one could tell the difference and no one followed the rules.

It would make better sense to call them the "arena" board and a "training" board

John Lacour and Wartopia are perpetuating the myth that hub-to-hub tanks is purely a FoW problem because as has been pointed out again and again it affects many WW2 games. But hey, it's a myth that can be used to beat the game with.

You are the internet's first anti-troll.

I really appreciate you trying to give me yet another complement. But alas, that's not a title I can accept. To be an "anti-troll" I'd have to be engaged in a struggle with trolls. As made clear by this thread and elsewhere. I am, for the most part, simply in conversations with people who generally like FoW…no haters…no trolls. Right? But I do appreciate the implication that I am fighting the "good fight." That means a lot to me!

Von burge, why would anyone stiffle you? …you are such comic gold with your machinations. I can only liken it to watching a child play peek a boo when they think if they cover their eyes, no one can see them.

I might be bothered by that analogy if it was even remotely true. But instead it really seems to come off as little more than a weak personal attack that reflects much more negatively on your own position and questions the quality of your character.

The reason your analogy breaks down is this; Far from closing my eyes, I'm opening them to other possibilities and viewpoints, and simply encouraging others to do the same in respect to extent that having a broader perspective may help enhance their FoW gaming experiences or help them attain better appreciation and understanding of the games others might enjoy. If you can't see that, I simply have to feel sorry for you. Far from putting on the blinders, I try to open my eyes as wide as possible to look at an issue from every angle, the positive, and the negative just as in the examples I posted earlier in this thread.

I cannot believe that 10 people have switched your entertainment channell off.
please continue…

I certainly will, and I do appreciate your encouragement. But I have also decided that I will do one thing differently moving forward on TMP. It has become clear, given your continually negative focus and unsupported viewpoints, you simply are not worth the time or the effort to bother staying engaged with. So for the first time in my history here on TMP I am going to stifle somebody. It was not an easy decision; in part I have to admit because of the natural compulsion to want to follow up on your accusative and negative posts. But ultimately it's clear your posts do far more damage to yourself than they ever could to me. So I won't sweat what you do or do not post in the future, not one bit.

And so I encourage you to continue to track and respond to my presence on TMP and comment negatively just as you have been. If and when you do so, I will rest assured that others will see your responses for what they really are and I will be happy knowing that I'm not having to waste my time or energy responding. I suppose I should have done that a long time ago.

May your future wargaming bring you many happy experiences.

Cheers, VB

John Lacour and Wartopia are perpetuating the myth that hub-to-hub tanks is purely a FoW problem because as has been pointed out again and again it affects many WW2 games. But hey, it's a myth that can be used to beat the game with.

Uber,

Cut the hysterics. You're giving fans of FoW a bad name by jumping to very uninformed conclusions.

In another thread I recently posted several photos from a variety of rule sets that also showed hub to hub tanks. It's not just FoW but FoW does suffer from hub to hub tanks. It looks silly no matter the rules in question.

Hopefully you'll have the courage to apologize.

But I doubt it. Much more convenient to perpetuate the myth than we're all FoW haters. ;-)

Oddly enough, in FoW, if you have 10 T-34s "hubcap to hubcap", in "reality" with the ground scale, they have 100 meters separation between.
So, go ahead and knock it on aesthetic grounds, I do myself. But the truth is that it is simply a factor of having 15mm tanks on a table of a different scale.
I ignore the silliness, and just get on with it.