"FoW Haters: Setting the Record Straight" Topic

Something like this but with a FoW logo

link

Yes please Mr Elmo
I blame the years of fanboyz saying "oh well give em a break , they are as small company trying hard…blah blah blah"
So what to BF do now they are a multi-million dollar company?
They treat their customers with contempt. "We can get away with anything and they will lap it up ."
We should have made out opinions clearer and stronger 4 or 5 years ago and we would not be in this sad place now.

WWPDDirty Jon
Captain

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:57 am
Posts: 1276
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Opinions on Plastic Soldier Company?
I like PSC and own plenty of it – Panthers, Panzer IIIs, Shermans, Half tracks, etc. Here are a few (not all) reasons to buy PSC:

1) You want to stretch your budget.
2) You like modeling.
3) You want to "stick it to the man".

Some of their stuff is more true 15mm and is not as exaggerated as Battlefront -- which is good or bad depending on taste. I would advise getting a box and trying them out. The investment is pretty small and the product is top-notch. I especially recommend the Panthers, as they are very good and even I could assemble them well.

I have no experience with their Infantry.

This is a post from WWPD- by one of the founders
Why would you want to "Stick it to the man"?
Presumably the man is BF?
I mean why is this a coonsideration?
Do we not have the right to choose to purchase from whomever without being accused of sticking it to the man?

"I bailed because the game sucks. Their prices are high to be sure, but the models are pretty sweet.

"I *definitely* am not defending them. But I've heard people say they're done for years and they keep making money hand over fist, and continue to be the largest game company by a factor of 10.

That being said, their rules are awful, their prices are insane, and their policies sort of creep me out."

..is another quote from a different WWPD founder….but thats okay since its games workshop getting slaughtered….

And Mr Editor, I know that you have a difficult job, but there does come a time when you should intervene over the difficult issue of consistent but not severe criticism. It is easy to discipline someone for libellous statements or racial insults, but it requires greater judgement to know when a few individuals are setting a tone that harms your publication and need, not draconian sanctions, but a word in the ear.

First – how doesn't the Stifle function solve this problem?

Second – I have spoken to individuals, and one person even lost their TMP membership over FoW bashing (some time ago). However, as of late, I'm finding that people are making general complaints, and when I ask them for an example, they can't come up with one. That makes it rather hard for a moderator to do anything about!

"But I've heard people say they're done for years and they keep making money hand over fist, and continue to be the largest game company by a factor of 10."

Wait a minute… this almost sounds like a game company that has been around for decades… *GASP* Could this be…
be…

GW?!

(Cue in the band music)

I really do not think BF realise what a PR disaster they have made over the last 2 or 3 years – no company would continue to carry on in this way if they thought it would lead to their economic downfall – so I can only assume they just do not see it

Maybe their sales numbers reflect no significant backlash, that the "PR disaster" is only "barking at the moon" and not translating into lost sales.

The problem is esteemed editor, that you cannot just abdicate all action and responsibility for the tone on a list to the stifle function. I just think there comes a point where negativity about a company gets to a level where it destroys the positive function of the list. If you want a site that attracts readers then you have I have balance. As I said the Ww2discusion list here has that balance. If you are going to have an FoW list then you have to intervene actively to moderate it.

There is nothing wrong with having Battlefront criticised fairly here, there is nothing wrong with PSC openly pushing their product as a substitute. What is wrong is the carping tone and constant negativity of some posts.

well Lewisgunner has obviously stiffled me…or he wouldn't be ignoring such obvious hypocrisy..on his preferred site

ER no. I generally don't go around stifling people as I said earlier. Nor am I aware what my 'preferred site' might be.

There is nothing wrong with having Battlefront criticised fairly here

So what is unfair criticism?

I know that all the criticism I make is about things that I genuinely believe to be an issue or about things that annoy the heck out of me.

Since the seemingly now rescinded edict on limitations of what models can be used at 'official' Battlefront events I have severely limited my posting on the BF forums. I have had private conversations with various BF staff and let them know how I feel and what I think is wrong. Most if not all of them seem to consider it otherwise.

I am sure that senior BF staff would consider saying that the PSC model of a Tiger is a 'better' representation the real thing and easier to build than the BF one is perhaps unfair. I don't.

But you are not a Hater Hammy! I don't quite know why you should see yourself as one. Are you having an 'I am Spartacus' moment.?

"There is nothing wrong with having Battlefront criticised fairly here"

As hammy says, define fair..since the perception implied is that somehow, TMP is unfair. I would suggest that the supposed "better, fairer" forum consistantly suggested as better seems to be a bit selective in their definition.

"there is nothing wrong with PSC openly pushing their product as a substitute."

How generous of you, allowing them to advertise where they pay for advertising.

"What is wrong is the carping tone and constant negativity of some posts."

…in your opinion, but obviously not the posters.

explain again why your opinion is more important then their's, and why the editor is abdicating responsibility allowing them to discuss their opinions, just as he does for you?.

I find It truly amazing that some people think that discussion should be limited to what they think is appropriate detante on a specific sub board of a general forum.

Its like walking into a pub and saying to the barman, you don't like the language being used by the patrons that are in and what is he going to do about it?

Kevan,
tmp is not a pub, it is a commercial publication. For its success it relies upon punters visiting it. That's what the advertisers presumably pay for. That's what the paid up members pay to support. I see that you don't pay and that's no problem, but if you were in your pub and using bad language and not buying a drink then I suggest it is you who would be ejected.

PSC who pay to advertise here do not pay to advertise on the FoW list, they pay for banners etc that the list owner provides. My point is that there is a difference between someone mentioning PSC product here and someone running a campaign against Battlefront by constantly promoting cheaper products, not because that is a way of attacking them. It is the difference in motive that I dislike and that is harmful to tmp.
I don't think that discussion should be limited, but neither should it be constantly hijacked by a small group of people who are determined to slag off the publisher of the rules and manufacturer of the products. It should not be .
Others complained about this, not me I merely chimed in to say that if bill thinks that there is no case to answer then he is not seeing what others see in the postings.
My point about abdicating responsibility is that relying on stifles to deal with the problem of tone here is not the best method of dealing with a problem of tone and constant criticism. There are people that do come across as being obsessively against Battlefront who have opinions on technical topics that I do want to hear, so stifling all their posts would be too draconian.

A bit of criticism of a manufacturer is fine, but it becomes unhealthy when it is too dominant and strident.
John Thomas8's post is apposite, the poster that he quotes really sounds as though he wants Battlefront to fail, but the likelihood is that their detractors are just crying in the wilderness.
And I still think they are Nuts to do Vietnam and that they should be publishing Barbarossa and getting into the Pacific theatre!

Lwisgunnner said "John Thomas8's post is apposite, the poster that he quotes really sounds as though he wants Battlefront to fail…"

In fact its the opposite I want them to succeed by making better products cheaper. by fixing their quality control, by not appearing to churn books and supplements, by improviong their editing of books and supplements to eleminate repeat errors, by improvong their supply and distribution network so the products are available in a timely manner, and on a personal note to make my life easier for when I run comps by making the rules clearer and more consistant!
If thats unfair criticism lewisgunner then go right ahead and stifle

Second part of lewisgunner post
"….likelihood is that their detractors are just crying in the wilderness."

This maybe true, but let me give you an example of why some of us are still posting

When PSC first hit the market there was a lot od speculation on the BF forum about this was the way to go etc etc. There were about 20 or 30 pro plastics and a slightly smaller number that preferrred resin/metal.

BF's response
1.) To belittle the PSC product and makers intially saying they were inferior 'toys'
2.) Next line was we cannot make our models in plastic – its too expensive – depite the contrary evidence from competitiors
3.)Then " We choose not to make them in plastic as resin is inmportant to our 'look' and make a gaming piece more robust" (sic)
4.) Now they are makeing all plastic models

Was there any gracious 'We have listened to our customers' post?
No, there was just a series of unilateral statements that taken together come across as arrogant IMHO

Then talk directly to them TT . None of your points are wrong, it is just that many of us do not want to hear the same points again and again.

Whilst I too have a shelf of outdated FoW books I do have some sympathy for their business model. There are many sets of rules out there that are no longer in print, the groups that play them and have built and based armies for them have been left high and dry. Yet when a publisher updates the rules and thus outdates the older editions they are accused of churn. We can all argue about the frequency with which BF do this, but I recall that they were reasonably generous about providing a substitute copy when moving from V2 to V3. Yes they have occasional production problems, but we have all found that with various manufacturers. BF a re not the only ones to produce the occasional miscast or missing part..
As others have said, they are a business , not a charity. The duty of a business is to maximise its profits by satisfying its customers. If BF do not satisfy ther customers the n their business model will fail. Either you are right or the managers of BF are!

One point on PSC and others. A lot of the product that they and others sell will be for playing FoW . What Battlefront have done is to vastly increase the amount of WW2 played. Five mates of mine are playing WW2 because of them. You could probably add to that list. That is selling product for all the other companies and vastly increasing the choice that wargamers have.
Sometimes the good they have done and continue to do should balance the carping criticism.
And of course I won't stifle you often you say good stuff when talking about WW2

I kknow this is off topic, but others went there too….

I am getting particularly tired of this being used as an excuse….

"For the love of all that's holy, two tanks literally hubcap to hubcap in Flames are better than 12m apart according to the SMG-range groundscale"

OK… do you guys know how absolute BS this sounds? Being that EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING on the table top is scaled in 15mm… this arguements falls apart faster than a paper bag in a rainstorm. It is BS, I call BS and you all know it. It is nothing more than a game tactic. Call it what it is, but please stop hiding behind the "range scale" as an excuse…. I don't give a rats ass what you call it, but if everything else in the game is scalled at 15mm…. then it is the range that is poorly done, NOT some scale "issue".

Mind you, I love the game… but I don't pretend that "hub to hub' tanks is ok because of the scale… you want to spread that fertilizer, sell it to a newbie… SO, what you guys are telling me is that the WHOLE game is in the wrong scale based upon the range set up… then why is everything else scalled equally at 15mm? No, putting 12 tanks behind a building hub to hub… oh, so that 15mm scale building actually represents a villiage? No, it does NOT… the game is played 1:1 at 15mm scale… the ranges are "cut short" for game play as you would need much larger tables to get in the maneuvering, etc…. it is one abstraction I can deal with… artillery on the table, oops, not going there…

Seriously folks… the arguement has more holes in it than Baby Lorraine… the game is a 1:1 game… vehicles and ground scale (terraine)… stop acting like you are hub to hub because of the "shooting scale"… it is a tactic and it works… call it what it is. If you are serious about the scale thing, then you woudl be playing with 6mm building then, etc… .24" wide roads, not 1-2 wide roads…

If you don't like how short the ranges are, then lengthen them… I often do. I tell you, it makes a world of difference… when Tiger can shoot at anything it sees on the board, etc… you have soem great games.

But please, stop saying you are "hub to hub" because of the shooting scaling vs the ground scale/vehicle scale, etc… it just isn't true. If you really believed that, you would use appropriatly scaled models and scenery… I know I hate playing games that are that much out of whack… I just increase the ranges when playing with folks who allow for it.

Rant off….

Lewisgunner,

"tmp is not a pub, it is a commercial publication. For its success it relies upon punters visiting it."
No kidding? It doesnt seem to have a problem with visitors.

"but if you were in your pub and using bad language and not buying a drink"

Who said anything about bad language????, It is tone and subject matter that the complaint is about, is it not?

Anybody here is a customer of course..The punters drink the forum posts and the manufacturers supply the drink, with Bill being the publican. I am not sure that you can go into a pub and demand that the subject being discussed by others be changed or that no one can call your favourite drink rubbish.

These policies you ask for battlefront, Can you see where exactly on TMP or any other public forums anywhere they exist uniformly for all manufacturers?

Its all just a game of toy soldiers to me playing with different rules and different sized toys.

Collectivly its all the same hobby ( playing with toy soldiers).

My only criticsm of FOW is when certain excecutives call it the "FOW Hobby" . It isn't its just a game of toy soldiers .

You can dress it up all you like but its still just a game of toy soldiers :)

Kevan, I'd expect exactly the same courtesy to be extended to any manufacturer or publisher. They are entitled to be fairly criticised, they are entitled that the criticism should not be shrill or obsessive. I can sympathise with the editor's point that he does not find any one particular post offensive, because it is not one particular post that is a problem….it is the constant carping of a few that puts others off.

Poniatowski, you are dead right. I remember ow horrified I was the Ist time I played an army with 30 Russian tanks track to track which rolled across the board and picked on any target with a once nitration of fire that just ood out platoon after platoon. It is totally unrealistic and looks horrible.
Mind you I can't get over how tanks in combat with infantry cannot shoot when counter attacked when one of the main actions of tanks in such assaults is to hose own the tank in front with our MG to keep infantry off the decking.
I do have some sympathy with the claim that track to track happens in other rules and have a proposal to deal with the pernicious practice. It is this: when a tank is killed throw a die , on a 3+ it explodes and that kills any vehicle within three inches. That would introduce the real risk that keeps tanks apart which is that they will provide a rich target for the enemy. Unfortunately in FoW the artillery and air component is rarely effective enough to do this. I know this, my Stukas tried and tried with hose Rusians nd either got no planes or bailed a couple who got straight back in.

Wow… just notticed my stifle count went up a bunch… compared to what it was.

People just can't handle the truth… and that is coming from a fanboi…. YES, ZI do consider myself a fanboi, hey, I love the game and will continue buying all of their stuff, but it isn't the Holy Grail of games AND…

I am not attacking anyone here, but a lot of people throw out some very, VERY weak arguments to try and defend their cheesy play…. and frankly, I am sick of it. I don't care if it is "legal" or not.. it just shows how much these people care about winning. No big deal…. but call it what it is… legal cheese. I guess at the end of the day, I don't live or die by how many games I win… it is, after all… as so many have pointed out…. (usually)… adult men playing with toys… it is fun.

"Kevan, I'd expect exactly the same courtesy to be extended to any manufacturer or publisher."

That is Bill's current situation. They are all exposed to critical posts from their customers…even Bill himself gets it

SO, do you think that any other company gets more protection from Bill than Battlefront?

If the answer is yes, then please name them.
If the answer is no…

I don't understand why someone would hate something that " deserves epic kudos for almost single handedly rescuing historical wargaming ". I read that on another Discussion site.Robert

KevanG…
"Protection"????

Poniatowski, what you call "legal cheesy play" is rather difficult for me to understand. How can it be "cheesy" if it is legal?
It sounds like if you think that tight ends should only block in football, that it is somehow "cheesy" to have them catch passes.
"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

So, you do not like the LOOKS of "hub to hub" tanks, I get it. But the scale is whacky! Am I supposed to play poorly so as to not upset some aesthetic that I do not share?
In any event, enemy tanks can breeze right through my "line" and shoot me in the ass, because tanks exert no Zone of Control, while guns and infantry do!

OK… do you guys know how absolute BS this sounds? Being that EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING on the table top is scaled in 15mm… this arguements falls apart faster than a paper bag in a rainstorm. It is BS, I call BS and you all know it. It is nothing more than a game tactic. Call it what it is, but please stop hiding behind the "range scale" as an excuse…. I don't give a rats ass what you call it, but if everything else in the game is scalled at 15mm…. then it is the range that is poorly done, NOT some scale "issue".

Sorry to rain on your parade but the ground scale isn't 1/100. It isn't even linear, given BF's logarithmic approach to distances. Just exactly what the relationship is, is known only to Phil Yates & a few others, although there are plenty of guesses around the web.

Most rule sets use a ground scale that is significantly smaller than the scale of the figures. FOW is no exception to that.

Seriously folks… the arguement has more holes in it than Baby Lorraine… the game is a 1:1 game… vehicles and ground scale (terraine)… stop acting like you are hub to hub because of the "shooting scale"… it is a tactic and it works… call it what it is. If you are serious about the scale thing, then you woudl be playing with 6mm building then, etc… .24" wide roads, not 1-2 wide roads…

And some people do just that, using 10mm buildings with 15mm figures is a fairly common ploy….

My favourite is the Croc
An SMG team at one end cannot hit an infantry team coming round the other end of the croc
and then there is the train where my 50mm gun cannot fire the length of a train………..
Suspend your disbeleif and play on is the motto
Anyway these are not reasons to 'hate' FOW or BF they are just problems people may have with the game.
The CEO's behaviour does not directly inpact on the game of FOW but on the players perceived enjoyment of the hobby and therefore BF's bottom line.
Separate issues.
BF's public atatement that they are largely responsible for the hobby of WWII gaming was the opening shots at Fort Sumter, it was followed by the 100% BF debacle, but like the ACW the grounds for the dissatisfaction were laid over the proceeding months and in some cases years.

Suspend your disbeleif and play on is the motto

Not necessarily so perhaps.

My favourite is the Croc
An SMG team at one end cannot hit an infantry team coming round the other end of the croc
and then there is the train where my 50mm gun cannot fire the length of a train………..

Valid points. Those are anomalies that emerge from the range conventions in the game, but in addition to the severity of the infraction one also has to take into account the frequency/likelihood of occurrence. If it's not very likely, it may not ultimately be such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. For myself, I've not encountered either of these two issues in my 6 year of playing this game.

Then we have to look at the flip side. What benifiets do we get from the range conventions in FoW and what if we "fixed" the ranges in FoW so you'd feel better about Crocs/SMGs and Trains? Would we end up with every gun bigger than 40mm being able to range across the entire board? By accounting for your SMG/Croc and Train issue you might take away one of the main aspects that delineates the range capabilities between weapons systems like between an '88 and a 75mm, a 75mm and a 6 Pdr(57mm), etc? Do you want all these guns effectively having an unlimited range rating on a 4' x 6' board? Works for FoF I know, but then that's a different level of fight perhaps. Personally I like having the '88 having something "extra" in the range department over other ATGs. So I'll try to remember that when I encounter the SMG/Croc issue or play against (I'm sure not bringing one!) a train.

Anyway these are not reasons to 'hate' FOW or BF they are just problems people may have with the game.

I certainly have to agree with you there and I suppose there is cathartic value in blowing off steam. But I do think some would be better served in making a more holistic analysis every now and then.

The CEO's behaviour does not directly inpact on the game of FOW but on the players perceived enjoyment of the hobby and therefore BF's bottom line.
Separate issues.

It did for me. Some of the bonehead self-inflicted gunshot wounds pulled by BF "staff" did far more to impact my enjoyment and participation in FoW gaming than any of the negative rants and overblown bashing that has occurred here (not that your post is either of those TT).

BF's public statement that they are largely responsible for the hobby of WWII gaming was the opening shots at Fort Sumter, it was followed by the 100% BF debacle, but like the ACW the grounds for the dissatisfaction were laid over the proceeding months and in some cases years

100% was a deal-breaker for me in terms of doing anything official with/for FoW. But in the end for me it was more about good gaming with my mates and if BF closed shop today, I reckon I'd still have a lot of good FoW gaming ahead of me with my mates and the great WW2 mini collections I have already accumulated.

Cheers, VB

100% was a deal-breaker for me in terms of doing anything official with/for FoW. But in the end for me it was more about good gaming with my mates and if BF closed shop today, I reckon I'd still have a lot of good FoW gaming ahead of me with my mates and the great WW2 mini collections I have already accumulated.

Agree totally

The 100% rule was lunacy but it is interesting to note that it seems to have quietly gone the way of the dodo.

@OFM
I'll explain, sure… FoW was intended to be a WW2 game.. and I always thought that when you played such a game, just like, say… Wooden ships naval… you try to recreate and fight battles that actually happened and even some hypothetical ones…. and all th ewhile you try to do it they way "they" did it back in the day. SUre, you tweak this or that but you try to stick to the doctrine and play it the way history tells us they fought….so… to explain again… cheesy is when someone takes soemthing that is legal and breaks it by abusing it and using it not in the spirit of the game, but to exploit it… like someone who doesn't understand the "tactics" of the day about how wooden ships saild in a line etc… not all willy nilly like demolition derby cars. I think that is a fine example for "how it was intended" vs "what a chucklehead does".
We can agree to disagree, I have learned some things from you so I know your comments are well intended.

@ETranger… you still blatantly ignore my point… I don't give a rats ass what scale the ground scale is… the point is, everything in the game is scaled out at 15mm except the ranges, which were cut short because it is a table top game. And people keep falling back on that as th esole reason for the way they play, which is very unhistorical and ugly… we can agree to disagree… there is soooo much more to gaming than winning for me. You defend hub to hub with "aestetics" and pretend it is a scale thing…. it is neither… it is playing to win… I am ok with that.

The next time I play me some naval I am going to ram ships and leave the line of battle and play to win… screw history, right? we are only playing with toys…. don't kid yourself… you are playing to win, not recreating anything remotely historical… again, I am ok with that, but don't call yourselves "historic" gamers.

And for those who think I am a hater… I am a huge fan of the game, but I am honest enough with myself to call it as it is, not to make excuses for how I play. Can I make a hugely cheesy army… you bet ya… but why? I don't play tournaments, I don't need ot win at all costs and I sure as heck won't ever let my aestetics be compromised to win… I like the way a good wargame feels and LOOKS…

AND, to be clear, it is Ok that we disagree on features of the game… but seriously, consider telling it like it is… concentrated firepower wins the game and Panthers rock!!! Oh, and the US got steroid shots for the end game. Not "I bunch my tanks because of the ground scale and miniature scale is waaaay off".

I tell you guys, if you really want to try something out neat… just adjust the ranges to reflect real world scaling for "effective" ranges… WOW is it a game changer… pretty much everything on the table can shoot anything it can see… great games, good times indeed. And if this by chance gives you any trouble…add more scenery!!! Oh, and if the conversion is giving you trouble, try looking at the Squad Leader ranges and convert from there. Each hex is SL is ~40m = 131' turn that into 15mm and you have your scale. Take the SL ranges in hexes and just convert to feet and then inches… it works great.

I am just a stickler for a pretty and realistic game. I mean, I understand the "spirit" of FoW just fine… ranges were scaled back to fit games on th etable top, but in essence, you shoudl be playing it like it was a true 15mm game as everything on the table is set up that way… except the range scale.

"KevanG…
"Protection"????"

well, so far, nobody, not even battlefront, gets any or am I wrong?

and why would they?, they are big enough and bad enough to stomp anything.

"Then we have to look at the flip side."
…Brilliant reverse pass. The acrobat is back!

One looks forward to a two page dissection of poniatowski's last post to constantly agree with all his points but reverse every conclusion he has made about the game, and thus showing him his misguided ways and improve his enjoyment, something I think he (and others) have found out how to do without 'help'

and a perfect example here of a von Burge 'flip'

"Works for FoF I know, but then that's a different level of fight perhaps."

….Who thinks they are both 1 to 1?

One think about the 'sliding' scale,

Fow actually uses ranges for infantry and anti tank guns that are pretty close ratio wise to an awful lot of other games for late war weapons. I can think of at least three. 'Sliding' only creeps in for small calibre, artillary and very long range weapons.

"So, you do not like the LOOKS of "hub to hub" tanks, I get it. But the scale is whacky! Am I supposed to play poorly so as to not upset some aesthetic that I do not share?
In any event, enemy tanks can breeze right through my "line" and shoot me in the ass, because tanks exert no Zone of Control, while guns and infantry do!"

I do love that people have an Aesthetic in FoW, because they romanticism on how WW2 was. I am currently reading a book by a Russian Tank Commander (not Loza) and he is always saying how the tanks in his platoon are very close, so are the Germans in relation to each other. Infact the ATG's when he is describing assaulting them are very close.
I think the romantic view some have of WW2 is just that.

I think the fundamental issue here is that there are it seems people who want FoW to be something it can't be.

Having read Poniatowski's comments above I do understand them but if you want to use the SL scale for FoW then you would have 40cm hexes so the table would be 5 hexes by 3. That would make for a great game (not).

Sadly if you want to play on a reasonable sized table (and 6' by 4' seems the norm) then you have to have some sort of scale involved. If you are not willing to accept a disjoint between the miniatures scale and the ground scale then don't play anything other than a skirmish game and don't come in to an FoW thread and rant about an abstraction that is not going to change and is accepted by those that play the game.

If you want to look at a naval game then even with 1/3000 models you cannot play most WWII engagements with an accurate ground scale on a sensible sized table. Ranges of 20,000 yards plus were relatively common, you want a table larger than the normal range of the guns so actually even with 1/3000 models you are talking playing on a ballroom floor. OK, Napoleonic naval at 1/600th scale might work but Trafalgar saw the British in coulmns over 3km long attacking into a combined fleet line that was close to 10km. My calculations make that you would need a pretty big table to fit that at 1/600 scale.

You could say FoW's scaling is an improvement. Back in the 1980s the convention was 1mm = 1m for 20mm games. Some infantry couldn't shoot down the length of large houses.

You could say FoW's scaling is an improvement. Back in the 1980s the convention was 1mm = 1m for 20mm games. Some infantry couldn't shoot down the length of large houses.

For me the FoW ground scale is one of the best bits of the game. Yes it leads to wheel to wheel tanks but if there are enemy artillery or air about that is not a clever thing to do.

The alternative is to use 1/600th scale models and still live with distortion but not too much if you use a 1/1000 ground scale.

I would be very happy playing FoW with the standard ranges and but using 1/300th models. The problem is I like the social aspect of tournament play and that means I have to use 15mm. Hey ho.

"The problem is I like the social aspect of tournament play and that means I have to use 15mm"

That is also the best part of Tournaments for me as well, it is not really the playing, it is the catching up with people you only see every so often.

This thread has turned into all the others about FOW….and is no longer anything to do with the original post!

How unusual.

I think we all have to realise that we are in a minority hobby unlike Golf, Photography etc.

There are really no room for divisions amongst us and whilst we all may like different aspects of our hobby we should accept the wishes of others. If others want to play game X then why shouldn't they ? Each is to their own .

My view is and whilst I don't play FOW , they have brought new people into Historical Gaming Hobby which I see only as a positive.

I'll just go and put my tin hat on now :)

@KevanG… please go on…Ii am feeling umm, a little perplexed (translate as stupid) as I do not waffle on my stance at all. So please point out my misguided ways… And I don't mean that sarcastically either.

I think FoW plays great, my biggest and mainly only complaints are as follow (in no particular order):

1. Artillery on the board (I tend to use "across the Volga rule")
2. Ranges are not in scale with the game pieces
3. Some OOBs are not as accurate as I would like
4. points system compliance has led to book creep

Now to explain briefly.

Yes there were battles where artillery was on the "board"… this all goes back to the range thing.

I have a hard time with the short ranges and to be clear, not all ranges are bad, just the ones that should be really long have been really reduced for playability sake. I get it, I really do. This does affect the game realism, but not the playability… you just need to rethink how you use the affected pieces. And by "use SL ranges" You turn my words against me… I mean simply that they work… I don't care how big a hex is.. the point I was making is that the ranges help you translate to 15mm ranges if you don't have the money or time to research all of the real ranges and calculate from there… don't try to twist my words, I thought my reasoning was very obvious… I never said put hexes on the table and only let "X" units in that area… I said use the ranges to extrapolate the 15mm ranges, that is all, nothing else. And you are sad if you think using "real" values for ranges will make the game not fun and less historic… when in fact it is the complete opposite… cover is your friend. And I like realism in a game.

I have some issue with some of the OOBs.. personal arguement, nothing more.

The point ssystem is a big one, I don't need to keep rehashing… In an effort to confine points to a standard… 600, 1500, 1750, etc… BF has had to rig the points quite a bit and this has caused all kinds of balance problems. The special rules too to try and "force" historic outcomes get abused a lot also, but that has been beaten to death else where.

So, Kevin… not trying to be a , but you handed me mine here… I think.. what do you mean by this:

"One looks forward to a two page dissection of poniatowski's last post to constantly agree with all his points but reverse every conclusion he has made about the game, and thus showing him his misguided ways and improve his enjoyment, something I think he (and others) have found out how to do without 'help'"

I really like FoW, never cried about buying 40 books… buy pretty much BF models for everything… except the T-34/85's… both turrets in a box… who could resist?

So, back to your point… shame on me, but I am totally lost by your comment… I don't really think I could possibly love playing the game any more than I already do. Are you referring to others changing my points and showing me the light? Or me changing my own as a thread develops. I'll go to bat for BF any day… iI might not like what they do all of the time, but it is a business and if I decide to not like them anymore, I can play something else.

So, please do enlighten me. I am no master at FoW, but I do like it and when in my house, make what changes I desire to make the game more enjoyable for me. And when playing elsewhere.. well.. I follow the correct rules… It is just sometimes so hard to keep up on them as they evolve since I don't always buy every book… just most of them!

Its the telescoping ground scale in FOW that causes all the problems discussed. If you don't like telescoping ground scales (and I don't) try some other games. Most solve the range and maneuver problem without resorting to the weird multi-scale system.

But many in the FOW world seem to like it and its unlikely to change. It allows you to play on 6X4 tables though other systems allow this too without this odd system). You could also push two 6X4 together and get a nice 6X8 table.

If it bothers you (and it does me) just play some other games (the Battlegroup serias springs to mind also Command Decision). No use battering on the unyielding FOW fortress. People endlessly complain but than don't support other games/scales so why should FOW do anything?

A big tournament run in a different game and scale would get their attention. They can just ignore internet complaints (or prohibit on their on site.)

I'd rather game than complain…

TomT

Poniatowski, I thought your post was very enlightened and refreshingly honest….something others wouldn't be able to leave alone from using their vast experience of a couple of games a month since version 2 to explain where you went 'wrong', but so far no appearance…No reception on that channel I'm afraid

I have a hard time with the short ranges and to be clear, not all ranges are bad, just the ones that should be really long have been really reduced for playability sake. I get it, I really do. This does affect the game realism, but not the playability… you just need to rethink how you use the affected pieces. And by "use SL ranges" You turn my words against me… I mean simply that they work… I don't care how big a hex is.. the point I was making is that the ranges help you translate to 15mm ranges if you don't have the money or time to research all of the real ranges and calculate from there… don't try to twist my words, I thought my reasoning was very obvious… I never said put hexes on the table and only let "X" units in that area… I said use the ranges to extrapolate the 15mm ranges, that is all, nothing else. And you are sad if you think using "real" values for ranges will make the game not fun and less historic… when in fact it is the complete opposite… cover is your friend. And I like realism in a game.

The problem is that SL has a linear ground scale. FoW doesn't. If you don't like a logarithmic ground scale then you probably don't want to be playing FoW.

OK, you could convert the ranges in FoW to be straight linear ones. If you assume that the 4"range of an SMG is reasonable and represents 50m. You then have a rifle range of perhaps 500m which translates to 40". Light guns that in FoW have a range of 24" should really have a range of say 1000m which in the new linear scale would translate as 80". Heavy tank guns like the 75mms with a range of 32" in FoW should perhaps have 2000m range or 160". Now sadly a range of 160" it totally impractical for a tabletop game. So you have to cut the range of the 2000m guns to get it to fit. If we cut that range to even 72" then you have to scale down all the other ranges so you end up with a 2" range for SMGs.

Changing all the ranges then means you need to change the movement rates. If an HMG has a range of 80" (the translated 24" FoW range) then if your infantry move 6" they would be potentially subject to more than 12 turns of shooting covering that distance rather than the 4 turns you get in FoW. So you then have to change the movement rate of infantry or the effectivness of MGs or something else.

The non linear ground scale is fundamental to the way that FoW works. Changing to a non linear scale would involve changing many other parts of the game and the end result will not be Flames of War.

When I first encountered FoW I had major problems with the variable ground scale eventually something clicked and now I am more than happy with the abstraction.

@kg thanks for clearing that up… I wa sunsure if that was supposed to be offensive or that I am just too sinsitive.

@jhh… exactly. You are correct… I tried to explain that to a few people I play with and they were happy to just leave the movent rate alone and change the ranges up quite a bit. I agree with you, when you do this, the opposite phenomenon happens… you cannot possible ever reach your target because the enemy gets too many shots on you based upon your shorter movement rate.

I think everything is fine in the game and in my "mind" I look at the reduced ranges as "effective" ranges… I know, silly yes, but that is my suspension of disbelief.

Now, to tune in with my fanboi nature… I guess what I like so much about FoW is that it does remind me so much of squad leader because of how the inf figures and such are based. And since that was one of my favorite all time games, well.. it was only natural to love FoW. There is a lot of good in there. The books really pull you in wiht the art, GW started that. And, most of all, you get out of the game what you are willing to put into it… you can get historic results and play historic battles it really does work. Where I have the most trouble is playing straight up points matches… I usually get creamed because tourney play requires a completely different mind set… throw historical tactics and "expect" maneuvering that is best exemplified by the rules not history.

Oh, and if the conversion is giving you trouble, try looking at the Squad Leader ranges and convert from there. Each hex is SL is ~40m = 131' turn that into 15mm and you have your scale. Take the SL ranges in hexes and just convert to feet and then inches… it works great.

I am just a stickler for a pretty and realistic game.

Man, it's funny how tings change.

I remember when Squad Leader came out how much people would attack it for using huge abstractions for ranges. "Streets in European villages aren't 40 yard wide boulevards!" was a common complaint.

And now it is being held up as the very standard of accuracy…

kevanG,

"Then we have to look at the flip side."

…Brilliant reverse pass. The acrobat is back!

It's just looking at both sides of an issue KevanG, you should try it sometime. There are negative aspects of FoW's sliding range scale as laid out Truscott Trotter in his post and for which I completely concurred with. And then there are some positive aspects of it to consider as well as describe by myself, ubercommando and jameshammyhamilton later in the thread. You seem to only be capable of focusing on the negative, and incapable seeing anything good in any of these aspects of FoW that we are discussing, or the much of the rest of the game for that matter.

One looks forward to a two page dissection of poniatowski's last post to constantly agree with all his points but reverse every conclusion he has made about the game, and thus showing him his misguided ways and improve his enjoyment, something I think he (and others) have found out how to do without 'help' and a perfect example here of a von Burge 'flip'

Poniatowski does just fine on his own. More later.

"Works for FoF I know, but then that's a different level of fight perhaps."

….Who thinks they are both 1 to 1?

It's level of command I'm focused on here. They both are 1:1 games, as I see it anyway, but one is focused more on the close-in platoon level, while the other focuses more on the more extended company level. That's my take away from playing both games.

Poniatowski, I thought your post was very enlightened and refreshingly honest….something others wouldn't be able to leave alone from using their vast experience of a couple of games a month since version 2 to explain where you went 'wrong', but so far no appearance…No reception on that channel I'm afraid

You really don't pay very close attention to what I post. If you did you'd not be expecting a response countering Poniatowski thoughts, which are pretty much in line with what I've been saying for years here on TMP. Let's break them down.

As stated by Poniatowski:

I think FoW plays great, my biggest and mainly only complaints are as follow (in no particular order):
1. Artillery on the board (I tend to use "across the Volga rule")

Check! I've been saying for years that's an easy thing to do if this is an issue that gets you hung up. We frequently do in the scenario and campaign games me and my mates play.

2. Ranges are not in scale with the game pieces

Yep. I've stated here more than a few times that if you really want the model scale and game scale to be closer in your games, then you'd really need to play on very big tables or use very small miniatures, regardless of game system. This was a contributing factor to why I did not play FoW through V1 at all. Among other issues, I did not think 15mm was a viable scale for WW2 company level wargaming. But when I started playing FoW to be sociable with my mates, I found that I really liked painting 15mm WW2 models and I liked getting them out on a 4" x 6" table. I've enjoyed what I've been able to do with 15mm mini painting that I could not do the smaller scales (GHQ/10mm) and then using them in a great historical WW2 game.

3. Some OOBs are not as accurate as I would like

I've continually advocated FoW as a better game when it's focused more on historical scenarios and less on "points matches." I've also said repeatedly that when you do play "points matches" that I think lower levels work generally better in part by helping to force more realistic force composition.

4. points system compliance has led to book creep

That's one I've not addressed much, maybe not at all. Look, I understand many folks have a big issue with this. I think it's a fair observation. But I also have to note that unless you intend on staying involved with "competitive" FoW gaming, there's no need to be bothered by it. If you principally play historical scenarios as Poniatowski, John the QFM, and I stated that we prefer, then really the basic rules along with "Know Your Enemy" pdf's is about all you need for much happy gaming. You can leave the "codex creep" behind if you really want to.

So yeah, Poniatowski seems to have a pretty good grip on things and is in little need of help from me to keep on keeping on with some great FoW gaming! From his follow-on discussions, he seems to understand that the player and his decisions have the biggest impact on how much enjoyment one can get out of FoW. I could not possibly agree with him more in that respect.

Cheers, VB

@ScottS… LOL,I am not saying that SL is "the" standard at all. Remember, the board scale is stated as "x", but the pitcures on the board are "enlarged" so as to make for a pretty gaming board. The ranges are what I am talkng about here and no, they are not perfect, but it gets a few of the stickler monkeys off my back. I guess I should just state my intentions this way… if you want to add "that" part of realism into your FoW games, then buy a bunch of books, bust out soem manufacturer specs and calculate the tyrue ranges form field testing and then apply it to FoW and scale it down to 15mm scale. There, that should be the best sumation I can come up with. Sorry to sound misleading. It is just that originally, SL and ASL is all I had to go with back in the day. I didn't and still don't have a fully comprehensive library on all of th egear from WW2.

Now, back on topic, I was talking to a guy yesterday who went to the local GS and was interested in playing FoW after I hd introduced him to a few small 600point games… he was hooked… then he went to the game store with the intent to buy some stuff… where there was the "regular" group… when we talked yesterday he told me that the games he played at the hobby store were NOT the same as what we played… he was all confused on how the games we played went off really cool (read as small historic type battle based off of the Ardens breakthrough)… well, he couldn't believe that the two games were the same.

That, in a nutshell, answers a lot about the game… you get out what you put in and the people you play with make all of the difference. Mind you that some of these people he played with at the GS were my friends… and I have NOTHING AGAINST points play… my point here is simply that the game works both ways… and it works well a sa historic game and as a tourney game. You just have to be playing wiht your kind of people. Chris was going to NOT buy anything after his exposure at the store and wants to play a few more games with me now before he commits to any purchases.

Call my style of play nieve if you will, but I don't know the "best" lists to take for points and when I play it is usually some semblance of a historic oob, so no min maxing if you will. Chris got destroyed at the hobby store… the players there were so centered on winning the games against him that even after him telling them he is new and wanted to learn more and get into the game… they proceeded to crap stomp him and exploit his mistakes because he had only ever played a few times instead of helping him with mechanics, etc… he was playing one of their armies too, so I knwo it was a good one, but put any army into the hands of a noob, very unfamiliar with the game and it can go terrible… He almost decided against getting into the game because of this behavior.

VB,

I take it I,m not stiffled anymore?…For goodness sake, make up your mind, Mr flip.

"Among other issues, I did not think 15mm was a viable scale for WW2 company level wargaming."

The Pure comedy channel is back!

"You really don't pay very close attention to what I post."

Its difficult to concentrate when laughing!

Now lets address my supposed lack of concentration bit

You posted…

"Works for FoF I know, but then that's a different level of fight perhaps."

Then in response to "they are both 1 to 1"

said….

"It's level of command I'm focused on here"

SO…who else thinks that level of fight means level of command?

Yep, concentration is definately required for these mental acrobatics….I'll heed your advice.