"Open challenge to the editor..." Topic

anyone?

5 Shermans/Panthers/T34s hub-to-hub covers about 8" of table. 8" is Assault Rifle range, not more than 200 yards. Works out to 40 yards between tanks, give or take. But what can you do when your models are 1/100 and your groundscale is more like 1/3600?

VB sure does like lots of text.

GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
GREY GREY GREY GREY I CAN SEE YOU! GREY GREY GREY
GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY

Perhaps the small child analogy was spot on!

Wartopia, TT. and everyone else.

Keep up thinking for yourself.

Lion is correct…if The tanks are paper thin! :-)

A 15mm tank is about 1.4" wide. 6 tanks will fit on an 8" frontage jammed together. Per Lion's suggestion, assuming that's assault rifle range of 200m and a real world T-34 is 3m wide that leaves about 180m or only 30m bewteen the tanks.

30m between tanks in the ground scale. That's just enough room to put them in a parking lot and pull maintainance on them.

In toy soldier 1:1 scale they're still touching.

A friend of mine runs a Command Decision mod his games suffer from the same problem too and I cringe when we have tanks jammed hub to hub.

I don't care what the nominal ground scale is or what the game system is, toy soldier vehicles jammed together hub to hub look bad.

30m is a fair distance.

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.

another solution is to play FoW with a platoon per side on a 4x4 or 4x6 table.

The first time I played FoW it was a demo game run by Phil Yates at an HMGS East convention. It was in the theater at the Lancaster Host Resort in the 90s. I remember it well. We all giggled when Phil's colleague used a New Zealander term for his cigarette! :-D

Phil ran the demo with a reinforced platoon per side and it was perfect. He used squads and individual teams/vehicles as the basic manuever elements. This also allowed more players to enter a given session.

The table was fairly small but with fewer troops things looked right, like WWII, and not some Mechanized Ancient Battlefield.

I've frequently said the smaller point value games, in particular the "Infantry Aces" format gives a better game in FoW.

As with many aspects with FoW, you can make the game work pretty well and get a lot out of if you are not trapped in some sort of tunnel vision perspective. Really it just comes down to the player and what he wants to get out of the game, just as with any game for that matter.

Isn't Wrestlemania next week?
This thread is TMP's version of WWE.
Steel Cage match!

Having avoided commenting so far.

"I don't care what the nominal ground scale is or what the game system is, toy soldier vehicles jammed together hub to hub look bad"

I love this.. Cause in WW2 tanks were never that close?

Yet there are so many photo's out in the public domain where the distance between tanks in WW2 was no more than 30 meters. Yes sometimes they were spread out, it looks like it depended on what was happening at the time, the same can be said about WW2 games, some times tanks need to hide, some times they spread, the max distance provides the game with a mechanic for Command and Control.

It matters not if you think it looks bad, all you are doing is sounding like a Hater who thinks they know better than everybody else.

At the end of the day all WW2 people want is to play the game, FoW achieves the ability to play a game in 2 – 3 hours, because it is a game based on WW2 not a WW2 Simulation.

I think that we leave it be and let the thread die off like it should have 101 posts ago.

Aww – but its just getting good!

…toy soldier vehicles jammed together hub to hub look bad…

I think that someone who would say this is only exposing his own ignorance.

First of all, model scale and ground scale are seldom the same in our games. This means that even if the models are "hub to hub" on the tabletop, in terms of ground scale, they could be 100s of yards apart!

Secondly, there are many examples of tanks actually being that close in combat – usually when massed for an attack, or converging on a point.

And lastly, even if having your tanks so close is a tactical mistake, shouldn't players be free to make those sorts of mistakes?

Why does no one get upset when an AWI regiment or a Napoleonic battalion are not quite as wide as a model house in the same scale?
This is the EXACT SAME PHENOMENON that results from model scale, figure scale and ground scale being out of whack.

so, we flip out when tanks seem to be hub to hub, and think nothing of The 3rd Foot being able to hide behind a barn, while fully deployed in line.

so, we flip out when tanks seem to be hub to hub, and think nothing of The 3rd Foot being able to hide behind a barn, while fully deployed in line.

Steady John…..don't bring napoleonics into it…..

"This is the EXACT SAME PHENOMENON that results from model scale, figure scale and ground scale being out of whack."

All of these are choices that the rule writers have under their control when they write their games and sometimes can be tweaked by the player

"so, we flip out when tanks seem to be hub to hub, and think nothing of The 3rd Foot being able to hide behind a barn, while fully deployed in line."

The 15mm AWI stuff I play with has six stands at 40 x 40 so in line is 240mm and even in a column is 80mm. My museum miniatures Barn is 70mm on its longest side, so I can't even hide a column behind it.

I should state that the bases are normally only 30 x 30, but then I would only be able to hide a column and only just.

Those base sizes are exactly the same size as the bases my friends play with in their games of der kreigskuntz and black powder in 28mm. A barn can be more than 200mm long and they only use 5 stands per battalion a lot of the time..so they can hide a battalion behind the barn.

Figure scale, designer representation choice and rule's scales all affect the visuals of any game.

If Wartopia having the abiliy to see that is "exposing his own ignorance", I would have to say I share such ignorance.

those stands represent how many men, with how many models?

"Recognition of ignorance is the first step in towards path of enlightenment."

I'll tell you what really frosts my buns, though.
I have the 10-tank line of T-34s hub to hub, and the Hun can still scoot right through them, turn around and shoot me in the ass.
NO Zone of Control! Infantry get it, but not tanks.
Again, this is "justified" by the 100 meter separation I keep bringing up ad nauseum, but it does annoy me. It's almost a "standard" tactic for Stuarts taking on Panthers.

Oops…
Does that make me a "hater"?

"I'll tell you what really frosts my buns, though.
I have the 10-tank line of T-34s hub to hub, and the Hun can still scoot right through them, turn around and shoot me in the ass."

Maybe you could ask Von Burge for his take on it, He will be able to explain it all to you

"those stands represent how many men, with how many models?
"
close order , it is 64 men ..figures vary

Does that make me a "hater"?

No John. I don't think it does.

For starters you make it clear that you understand the dynamics at play with the situation. That's very much different than chiming in with something like "Every FoW game I see is hub-to-hub tanks, that's totally unrealistic because real tanks did not fight hub-to-hub, therefore FoW must be an unrealistic game!!! etc, etc, etc. That would just be a superficial perspective which as, The Editor points out above, may do more to reveal your own ignorance than it does to be a damnation of a pretty good WW2 game.

But that's not the case in your situation. Instead you looked at the problem from surface level, as most do, but then took the next step beyond and looked at what it represents. That part you get! But even then you still don't like the way it plays out sometimes. Completely understandable. I'd be none too happy about zippy flank shots from cheap Stuarts against my expensive Panthers either. Annoyance and frustration will naturally bubble up.

So that's our starting point. The next part in the discussion is to talk about possible ways to mitigate that annoyance/frustration. The first question I would have to ask you is how frequently are you getting into situations where you are getting snookered like this? If it's occurring on a somewhat significant frequency, then we'd have to look at what are you doing to help enable it to be a recurring problem? Then we'd want to explore options. Are there better tactics? Like maybe supporting your Panthers with an infantry screen that could help, or could you possibly make better deployments or better use of terrain? Many possibilities perhaps.

That is when we start to add value to the discussion and make it something other than just a belly-aching session or general FoW gripe. That's when our engagement here helps both of us and others get more out of FoW, or where someone who does not play FoW can get a better understanding of it.

Cheers, VB

There's your answer John,

It all boils down to Bad tactics….Poor deployment and Bad use of terrain.

And what are YOU doing to cause it? enabling the problem?

Here's a idea for a solution…..

Have a 4 inch zone of control out of the front (only) of all tanks such that it forms a semicircle.

..and Let Russians using Hen and chicks ignore it.

Whole problem sorted for your fow gaming.

Wartopia. I don't know where your little outburst came from but I can assure you I am not hysterical. As for my courage, please don't test me. I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you.

…,meanwhile, back on topic. I like VB's approach to analysing the supposed problems with a game system: Break it down into what's going on and see if it's the system or the tactics being used.

What I can tell, the Stuart is a get round the flanks kind of tank and that's what someone has done to the Panthers. Personally I find that FoW is always throwing up tactical challenges that requires thought and it usually favours bold manoevers which is what I want in a wargame.

I have learned to cope with my "problem".
it just annoys me that I have to, to cope artificially with an artificial problem.

Or keep the bases sizes the same, and use 2mm scale models.

I hear you John. Sometimes it's just a soup sandwich. If it becomes a "knife" fight, the "little zippy guys" have a chance and sometimes all the tactics and planning in the world can't keep it from becoming a "knife fight." It happens I know but since I usually run infantry heavy forces, protecting the flanks of the few tanks I have does not often become a problem in my games, but I have my days too!

Cheers, VB

The figure scale to ground scale is genius actually when you think about it. If you're selling models you want to maximize the number people need to play a game. However, how many people have the space for a large enough table that would accomodate 15mm models with ground scale that "looked right"? Thus you shrink the ground scale to maximize the number of models on the average gaming area.

Someone made the point that many WWII rules suffer from the "hub to hub" effect. I've seen that tactic get severely punished in some rule sets by template artillery barrages and air power. Is this the case in FOW?

DM

"Is this the case in FOW?"

Yes. A well rolled artillery strike, or air strike, will punish any hub-to-hub formation.

been having a grand time at What Would Patton Do – a superior site for FoW, better moderation, no haters at all thus far. Their #1 rule is "don't be a ", something a substantial portion of s in this board should consider.

Highly recommended!

"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."

I think this dude has it right. You want to whine about FoW? Do it on the discussion board. You have a constructive criticism that other fans might benefit from hearing – FoW board.

As for me, while I am glad that the editor claims to have given one warning and one doghouse, overall I'm unimpressed with the board trolls regarding this game. I don't know a single board elsewhere on TMP where I've seen this aggressiveness regarding any game – they may exist, but I check out 4-5 historical periods, and this is the only board with this much baiting trolling and misbehavior.

Perhaps some of the WWII advertisers here at TMP would find it interesting that WWPD is definitely a superior forum for those of us who aren't arriving to whine and just want to play the game and have fun…? After all, their product sales are probably half FoW players anyway.

"Is this the case in FOW?"
Yes. A well rolled artillery strike, or air strike, will punish any hub-to-hub formation.

True, but it becomes cyclic. To really get any good effect out of artillery or air in FoW your opponent has to oblige you by bunching up. So you take artillery or air and they start spreading out more, as they properly should. Artillery/Air then becomes less effective, so you stop employing it. Then your opponent's start bunching up again.

Cheers, VB

"I'll tell you what really frosts my buns, though.
I have the 10-tank line of T-34s hub to hub, and the Hun can still scoot right through them, turn around and shoot me in the ass.
NO Zone of Control! Infantry get it, but not tanks.
Again, this is "justified" by the 100 meter separation I keep bringing up ad nauseum, but it does annoy me. It's almost a "standard" tactic for Stuarts taking on Panthers. grin

Oops…
Does that make me a "hater"?"

John, no, apparently you have a past here and have reformed. Bravo!

As for the historicity…read accounts of the 4th AD in action with their stuarts for the first time at the start of Crusader – raced right through them and created so much chaos that they not only survived but thought they had one the match b/c the Germans broke off.

So actually FoW is presenting both an historical tactic (at least when over-eager amateurs like the Brits are around) or a distinct possibility.

Certainly you aren't going to argue that WWII units had a Star Trek-like force-field that surrounded them and caused men and vehicles to suddenly halt when within a scale distance?

since the complaint button didn't work, I did a lot of stifling. As one fine fellow already observed, some of the prize a-----e trolls have 50, 100, 200, and the prize goes to the biggest a-----e of them all, with 300+ stifles.

At that point, shouldn't the system just kill your membership?

Ah well, back to WWPD – reading a string of great batreps on a desert raider force.

Grandviewroad:

I am sorry that you had a negative experience here on TMP. I wish you the best over at WWPD. FOW does get worked over in this forum and while it is not perfect, it does deliver quite a bit for what it is. In the end, we are kidding ourselves if we believe we can be military professionals or we have an accurate idea of what World War II is like. We are a bunch of folks who play with little metal or plastic men.

I just KNEW hub to hub to hub would come into this.

Seems that WWPD could also stand for "where wet panties dry" in grandviewroad's case. Talk about overreaction..but at least it was ON april fools day..so maybe he was having a jest.

QFT:

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.

Why does no one get upset when an AWI regiment or a Napoleonic battalion are not quite as wide as a model house in the same scale?
This is the EXACT SAME PHENOMENON that results from model scale, figure scale and ground scale being out of whack.

so, we flip out when tanks seem to be hub to hub, and think nothing of The 3rd Foot being able to hide behind a barn, while fully deployed in line.

------ end quote ------
I agree completely!!!!
But… because I am weird about "visual effects".. since ALL of the scenery in FoW is 15mm too… I treat the whole game like it is in actual 15mm scale… but with very terrible ranges for playability… so never, ever any hub to hub for me…. The truth is, you see it in the game because people want to win and they take advantage of what they can… this is akin to people playing wooden ships and not keeping them in a line….but rather driving them around like cars on the sea….

Capt John Miller,

Great points.

I am sorry that you had a negative experience here on TMP. I wish you the best over at WWPD. FOW does get worked over in this forum and while it is not perfect, it does deliver quite a bit for what it is.

And really that "getting worked over" over should be welcomed. It can be quite beneficial to talk about the lows as well as the highs, and offer different perspectives on them so that players might have a more holistic view of the game and perhaps so that those who don't play the game get some perspective. I'd think that would be entirely healthy and should be encouraged…and from what I can tell a fair bit of that goes on over at WWPD as well. The big difference between the two is at the former folks are mostly involved to improve their's and/or other's FoW gaming experiences. Here it's not so much always that case. Here you occasionally get a very negative element whose intent is not to help, not to have honest discussion, but simply to heap on unadulterated ridicule for the sake what I can only suppose might be to in some perverse way try to help them feel better about themselves. That element does tend to get weeded out at WWPD. It's by no means a big "kool-aid party" at WWPD, but we do have to acknowledge it's a site by fans for fans so there is an expect level of bias. But even with that bias, there's a lot of great value to be had there if you are out to improve your gaming experiences with FoW, as well as other games. At least there you don't have to questions somebody's intent for their involement.

In the end, we are kidding ourselves if we believe we can be military professionals or we have an accurate idea of what World War II is like.

Except some of us might very well be (or were) military professionals, but I get your point. Very little of what occurs on anybody's table top ever really comes off as accurate idea of what the challenges of real combat are even remotely like. Making and resolving "tactical decisions" in the comfort of your living room with your mates and a bear at hand will never quite hit the real mark of a true simulation.

We are a bunch of folks who play with little metal or plastic men.

All too true! All to true! We are world class "geeks," one and all, and few outside of our circle of similar geek buddies and our geek forums would view us as anything else.

Cheers, VB

+1 to the summary of VB.

No comment on the military professionals, I just play with toy soldiers.

I don't consider myself a 'fan', like the system, recognise some faults, prefer to have fun than what I consider undue and unnecessary FOW bashing. That said, I did get on my high horse on a BF issue a few month back. So I think I can claim 'considered reason'.

WWPD and BF seem to be a heavier on the ban hammer, BF is a manufacturer site, WWPD appear to just be less tolerant towards what they consider trouble makers and add little value. Their call.

Just because it fits my personal appetite I will probably join Grandviewroad there.

Regards

As one fine fellow already observed, some of the prize a-----e trolls have 50, 100, 200, and the prize goes to the biggest a-----e of them all, with 300+ stifles.

At that point, shouldn't the system just kill your membership?

Well, you could propose that on the TMP Poll Suggestions board, and we'll put it to a vote.

Still don't understand the fixation with "hub to hub" tanks.

I had hub-to-hub tanks in BGK and that was with a grand total of 6 tanks on the board.

There are times when hub-to-hub is tactically appropriate (e.g. utilising LOS blocking cover).

How many hills or woods in 'real life' are only 6 tank widths wide?
Hence the whole debate about groud scale Vs figure
BF made thier choices this means Hub to Hub – so be it
If you do not like it play some other set where it is not allowed – I have yet to hear of such a set but am interested to hear of such a beast.
There are far more pressing issues than hub to hub – aircraft that can shoot at you but you cannot shoot back at anyone?

I think hub-to-hub is something used by non-FOW players as something to pick on the game – yet it's something done by us players and not by BF!

And I totally agree there are far more pressing issues in the game. In fact hub-to-hub is a complete non-issue.

That said, other than a couple of exceptions I've been on a FOW holiday for the last 3 months and am ready to get back into the FOW swing of things.

Only problem is a a baby that needs to be placed into routine again (sleep for @#$% sake) and I got committed to a 40k campaign.

How did I miss this thread ? Pure Gold.