"Force on Force" Topic

Ok I admit It I drank the koolaid, Now I have played a number of games and I don't like it. #1 It isn't really based on tactical movement. #2 Every scenario the insurgents are basically targets and hurting or damaging a British or American unit is almost impossible. # 3 I don't like the interrupts. I want Balance in my games so that both sides can enjoy the game. No one wants to set through a game and just get beat up on. So is there a different rule set out there. That emphasizes correct fire team organization and movement not just mob movement. There is a reason units march on both sides of the road , get on- line in a firefight . use echelon right and left. Help me out here, I am fresh out of ideas . I am about to go back to colonial games where the zulus have a better chance of winning.

I want Balance in my games so that both sides can enjoy the game.

What do you mean by "balance"?

I really enjoy the game. I'm a 20 year Marine and I don't find it that realistic not in the sense of real life but it does a good job. I never realy worried about the insurgents in Iraq unless there was A LOT OF THEM! And they fought from prepared positions.

link

New players will find it difficult to win if they try a head to head fight they need to group together and pick apart Marine or Army units or whom ever you are using. They have to use Mortars and IEDS not just small arms. I was at Cold Wars several years ago and bought painted 28mm Middle eastern women figures I used those for the insurgent players so he could strap them with bomb vests which is what happened to us in Iraq.

Here is another fight my Battalion was involved in that was all that one sided.

link

So really it boils down to having a plan for both sides and knowing your limits. The insurgents do well when there is A LOT of them 10 or 12 firing on one fire team can and will create KIA's and WIA's which now presents a problem for the US forces, in the end dude it's just a game and it's help me deal with some of my issues from the war.

You might want to try Chain of Command with the Force on Force mods listed here on TMP. Not sure that would be your cup of tea either though.

Try Infinity. It is a sci-fi game but it really emphasizes moving using cover, having fields of fire and so forth. Both sides have a chance, even if you have crappy troops on one side a really elite force still has to move tactically, outflanking them and using concentration to overcome enemy concentrations.

Plus it is free, or at least the basic version is.

Listen to Irish Marine and read this article: link to undestand what Force on Force is attempting to model.

Honestly though, if you're looking for a 'balanced' game then this period may not be for you. I don't thibnk it's the rules, though, the nature of the conflict is inherently asymmetical.

Looks like you want to try chess its balanced it requires very little in terrain, tactics are very much part of the game and then for a realistic game based on your experiences play your self. You will be surprised as to how many times you will win/lose. Irish Marine has got it right on these rule and they are a set designed with scenarios in minds and its the scenario outcome that is important not the kill rate. IMHO war is unfair by nature and these rules to a limited scale portray this ( who wants to be on the receiving end of a mortar barrage without any way to counter the horror of it) most untrained antagonists are braver through stupidity in combat and this reflects in their death rate compared to trained personal that's why the sneaky use of IEDs ambush and indiscriminate bombardments. You want to try a more balanced FoF game try A Brit Para group against some USMC tanks (heresy) but you maybe will get a more balanced game or not.

I understand Asymmetrical warfare . I was both a Marine for 8 years and a Police officer in a medium sized city for another 4 before I walked away. Thankyou Irish for sharing your thoughts. It may be that I am too detail focused. When I was overseas I came to respect the abilities of someone in their own back yard even if I detested everything about them. The purpose behind my games is to generate discussion and create awareness to honor those who have served before and since . Having said that I am looking for a game that doesn't leave one player feeling like a powerless punching bag. Playing insurgents I was able to win ( according to the victory conditions) but the game wasn't very enjoyable.

Everyone seems to want to beat up the OP for not liking FoF. He explained what he wants in a game. Is it unreasonable to answer his question?

Not trying to flame on The Flames of War folks, but it may well be in how the opponents play the game. You can line everyone up and charge shoulder to shoulder, or you can emply the tactics appropriate to the setting. That, good Sir, is for you and the other players to decide!

Try Force on Force in a non- asymmetrical setting………pitch two militias against each other or two regular forces…..the tools to fix it are in the books…..but each to his own…….Or maybe try it with a ref or gm and work co- operatively …..give a player the armour and one the infantry and see how they work together or not……giving seperate orders and victory conditions..

Once in a while I return to Arc of Fire just for a break from FoF……..tad more detailed but straight forward to pick up and conventional…..

Ok for some reason I am not coming across in what I am looking for. In a modern setting. Chess is a good analogy in that both players start off with approximate even abilities. I am looking for a rule set that has emphasis on tactical movement. The use of fire team rushes. for example or "cutting the pie" when rounding a corner or when clearing a room. Terrain , is a part of that and also adds visual emphasis to the game. For me : Force on Force doesn't work. If it works for you Great. I am looking for alternatives. I am not interested in points systems and Tractics (in my opinion ) is too much. So far I have Arc of fire and Infinity. Are their any other suggestions?

Hi Charles you can try our Jihad modern rules for free. Download the PDF rules move and fire cards and counters here
link
There are also 3 senarios to download.
These rules were written with convention play in mind so they may be to simple for you, but they have been well received at the conventions for their fast play.

WOW Charles you are asking for a lot of detail and I don't know if there are any games with that level of detail you are looking for. I know I played the rule set "Dogs of War" years ago written by the same man JC who made the Devil Dog Design figures, in his rules it went by how many points the units had to spend and I think they were action points so if your units had X number of point they could do Y amount of things you might want to look for those rules. Or you might need to just fight regular troops against other regular troops for FOF that might be a little better and seem more balanced.

StarGrunt II. It's "sci-fi" mostly in window dressing. It's a good tactical game with emphasis on fire & movement and C2.

I also think the PDF is free now.

The ground scale may be too large for you, but you might look at Barker's "Sharp End" rules at phil-barker.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk. The rules allow for formations, and the victory requirements are asymmetrical. Vehicles are kind of abstract. It does have a nice die roll mechanic for combat, and most morale is subsumed in the combat results for faster play.

Dogs of war is the only set that springs to mnd with that level of play……have a cast around on Freewargamesrules.co.uk for a freebie…..

link

May be the CharlieFoxtrot set……..

"non- asymmetrical"

Would that be anything like "symmetrical?"

Sorry…I couldn't help myself. ;-)

Charles, I am with you. I just did not like FoF. All it did for me was to make me want to pack the game up..

It's funny how people get so protective over a game that they like, they forget it may not be to everyones taste…

Hi Charles:

I am not aware of any rules set that goes into the kind of detail you talk about. Clearing a room, for example, is not broken down any more than "enter." So when a figure or squad enters there may be shooting or close combat if the enemy occupies it, but how you enter is not relevant (whether you cut the pie" or just do a bum's rush).

That said, I would suggest you look at the Two Hour Wargames rules. Designed for a few squads per side, they focus less on the hardware and more on the peopleware. So all bolt action rifles shoot the same. But better troops react and stay under control. They have lots of books all built around the same basic mechanics. You can read a summary of the Vietnam rules here:

link

You could use those, and just write up the stats for the new weapons.

I really like them, and play FNG and Nuts! (the WW2 rules) quite a lot.

Seriously though, you might want to look at Two Hour Wargames generic "Chain Reaction 3" rules (free on the THW web site).

The rules use a non-traditional (not IGOUGO) sequence that lends itself to 1:1 gaming. It would be up to the players to play the period and tactics, but the rules certainly wouldn't prohibit or prevent the use of such.

I have a copy of "Skirmish Sangin" which may be worth looking at, I haven't played it yet but have read through the rules which are an easy read with some very good photographs.

It is very different to FOF in that it is much more of a traditional skirmish with individual figures actions being considered and each figure having it's own capabilities.

Rather than being at a Platoon level it is principally at the section level.

There's a free try before you buy example here

PDF link

Their main website is here radiodishdash.com

HTH

The old Avalon Hill boardgame "Firepower" may be what you are looking for. It is from the late eighties rather then strictly modern but it did get down to the level you seem to be looking for.

"Dogs of War" as suggested by Irish Marine. It is what I started out using, but found to be too much for a mini's game. Heard Star Grunt is good as well, but I also am an Ambush Alley/ FOF GM/player and found they work well for what you want them to do. You could also use some fo the board game rules (for those that know them, please point them out) as I know some of them have the complexity you seek. Good luck!

I second the suggestion of using 'Firepower' from Avalon Hill.

I can't think of a miniatures ruleset that comes close to the detail and fidelity Mr Besly wants.

Mr Bindon and badger
I acknowledge and accept the fact that the guy as well as others do not like FonF. I take issue with your comments that anyone is getting beat up over it. Are you reading the same thread? some folks have made suggestions and many more have suggested other games.If you want to see people get beat up try saying you don't like FOW. I am a combat vet of 3 wars I like FonF I use the same tactics and get the same results as I did on a real battlefield and like Irish Marine it helps me deal with any issues I have,Mr Beasley if you don't like FonF by God you find yourself some rules you can enjoy. I respect your choice and your honesty in explaining your reasons why. Everyone in the AA community desire nothing more than for you and anyone else to have FUN and enjoy the gaming you do God Bless and take care…..Mikey

I also tried Force on Force and, although I like the style of the rules, they did not work for me either, so a couple of colleagues and I wrote our own, based on our understanding and perception of war at the fire team and section level. I then tried Skirmish Sangin and found them better than FoF, but still not quite what I wanted, so went back to the home produced rules. I have used them for Afghanistan (which is partly where they were written), both in the present day and during the Soviet war, and now for the war between Rhodesia the ZANLA/ZAPU rebels.

I have never come across a set of rules at the level that is being requested here and I am not sure how such a rules system would or could actually work. The only thing that I have found that delivers what is being looked for is airsoft, which I have recently discovered and find a reasonable and fun replacement for the real thing.

Jurgen

Star Grunt is free from Ground Zero Games: link

Infinity is a step SMALLER than Force on Force, you will rarely have 20 figures per side, more often 10. The only part of the game rules that is not free is the campaign&experience rules out of the Campaign: Paradiso book.

However, there is almost no background material in the free downloads. The various units have some backgound online, but the hardcopy books have more. You need to buy the books for the overall background.

I strongly recommend getting the fan rules re-edit, where everything is in one place (in a bookmarked, indexed pdf!). Here is the re-edit: PDF link

Infinity does have a small number of scenarios available, most are fan-created or are in the tournament packs (free to download from the official website). I strongly recommend wargamingtrader.com/downloads and link for more missions.

But honestly, it sounds to me like you are looking for RPG levels of detail in your minis wargaming rules, and there are very few rulesets with that level of detail. Stargrunt doesn't really have it, and even Infinity doesn't have THAT much detail (Arcs of vision are much wider in Infinity, among other things).

There are plenty of alternatives out there. We all don't like the same things fortunately otherwise the world would be a boring place!

Star Grunt is free from Ground Zero Games

SG II has effectively been replaced by Tomorrow's War.
.
.
.
Oh wait, TW was derived from Ambush Alley …

Mikey,

My figures are all 20mm, so I think the FoW fans probably think I am a heretic already!

I merely said that people seem to get very protective over their favourite rulesets. I guess I stand by that.

As for real life tactics, I am surprised, but I take your word for it and I hope you continue to enjoy your gaming, luckily for me it is just a game and not additionally a tool for dealing with anything more.

Tim

I'd say THW more or less covers what you're looking for. You can easily add small mods to make I more detailed… The rules as is support pieing corners vs rushing in (do you move a little bit an take the in sight against the one guy who can see you from this angle or charge in with 4 guys and hope your in sight tests, at least one, gets the drop on the enemy?) and fire team formations/general tactical movement is pretty well supported if you really take LOS into effect (your own men shouldn't block your fire).

Most people don't play it to this level of detail but the rules allow it, and as I said, you can always mod for more (like making moving in a column faster in rough terrain or making certain formations make activation easier).

I am not sure that the Two Hour Wargames rules offer what you are looking for. In fact the Reaction system may appeal to you even less than Force on Force does. They are rules that I enjoy for black powder era and for solo gaming, but I do not find them to play like what you describe looking for.

Tim
I def respect that I just did not think anyone was getting beat up. I have most def seen folks get really beat up and being told "its not the rules its you" I don't think anyone in The AA gaming community would ever feel the need to be defensive the games a good product but no game will ever be for everyone. All of the alternate games are really good games and I would encourage everyone to try any or all of the games mentioned…..Mikey

I third the board game "Firepower". Just play it with minis. It has the detail you want. Craig Taylor even wrote up a campaign for it in a magazine once.

Joe

Dave Crowell--

What's your logic? He asks for:
" both players start off with approximate even abilities. I am looking for a rule set that has emphasis on tactical movement. The use of fire team rushes. for example or "cutting the pie" when rounding a corner or when clearing a room. Terrain , is a part of that and also adds visual emphasis to the game."

The balance thing is more scenario design than system-based, but troop quality is much less of a determinant than position and tactics in THW, perhaps even too much so. Tactical movement and his specific example of room clearing techniques are relatively well represented in THW due to the smaller scale of the game, reaction system, etc. Terrain is emphasized in THW as well.

I think people see "I don't like FoF" and read it as "I want to play a game without asymmetric warfare" or "I don't like reaction games"… He's pretty clear that he doesn't like FoF abstractions, so suggesting a somewhat similar rules set with less abstraction, especially one that can be tried for free, seems like a good idea.

I am looking for a rule set that has emphasis on tactical movement. The use of fire team rushes. for example or "cutting the pie" when rounding a corner or when clearing a room.

I want Balance in my games so that both sides can enjoy the game.

I am not interested in points systems and Tractics

Oddly enough, based on your criteria, I'm going to recommend that you check out The Battlefield.

Even though it's designed to pay homage to the modern tactical shooter, the emphasis is definitely on tactics. Suppression fire, proper use of cover, bound maneuvers, economy of movement, and proper management of your resources are the keys to winning the game. Your also rewarded for equipping your units with the proper tools for for a job and putting them in the right position at the right time.

'Proper' fireteam organization is not enforced but is encouraged/designed to happen organically by tailoring each of the profiles in the game to excel at a particular role. Teams will want to have a variety of loadouts and roles to deal with a variety of threats.

There's no point system [or Tractics!], and you can adjust the balance of the game on the fly. Not only that, but it supports up to 8 players and encourages communication and teamwork.

I'm around if you have any questions. ;)

You might look at Battlefield: Evolution. Its definitely more on the game side, but it does strive to provide a better sense of balance.

link

I've played Force on Force and TW a number of times and the insurgents do win on occasion. But they need to play smart and have a little luck. Ore better yet…the regular player needs to do something stupid or have some really bad luck with Fog or War cards or horrid die rolls.

I don't want to start a monster flamewar, but why are you playing Regulars v Insurgents, then?

Friend of mine was a platoon leader and then company XO in Afghanistan, and he said that when they could get the local troublemakers to stick around after sniping or blowing an IED, the Army pretty well slaughtered the troublemakers.

But he was there late in the party, well after the initial invasion and open fighting with what you could call the Taliban regular soldiers.

If you want to have both sides competent in battle, that kinda requires both sides being regulars!

Thankyou everyone for sharing their thoughts and opinions. I now have a number of rules sets and Ideas to go investigate. I suppose I have High expectations from a game. The challenge I suppose is turn that into something others can enjoy. Sooner or later I hope to meet you across the game table… Semper Fi.

Charles Besly, here I was being a bit verbose and snide about your needs regarding the. FoF rules and my defensive nature to them. You have been honest, fair and indeed good natured to the flak put up . I apologize and do hope you find a great rule set that fit your needs and great opponents to play against. Cheers and good gaming.

Stan, what would it take to get you to run some of your Jihad stuff at Recon this year? I plan to be at the Adventure Game Stores booth again this year and I'd love to see a good 28mm modern skirmish, (and god willing PLAY in one)

While I'm a FoF fanboy, You may want to look at the old DDD rules of Dogs of War (you can still find the free version out there) or The Battlefield. Both are good in my book too, but NOTHING like each other or FoF.

My experience with THW has been that it models tactical movement etc in way different to what the OP may be looking for.

Not so much logic as my impression of game styles.

I very much enjoy both the THW games and Force on Force, but recognize that they may not be for all players.

Would be interesting to hear what you thougt of Chain of Command, Charles.

I did the CoC-Fof Scenario hybrid mentioned in this thread here (last post):
TMP link

I really like FonF's scenario nature and the good scenarios, reaction play and the focus on troop quality with differing dice, but I always miss some form of C2, and don't really like the firing system where big mobs are exponentially better than smaller ones in attacking (3 teams of 4 insurgents firing from surrounding positions at a fireteam of 4 Marines do a lot more poorly than a mob of 8 insurgents firing together), and in many cases, defending (a firepower 8 artillery strike is not that dangerous to a mob of 8 insurgents, but overpoweringly deadly to a team of 4). As a civvie I can't wrap my head around that at least, but maybe servicemen would know better.

Fair enough, Dave, I just think it's best to let him try out free rules sets that are in the same ball park as what he wants, because there is no harm done if he doesn't like it.

Nother vote for Chain of Command – and yes I have played FoF

No such thing as balance in war !!!

If you mean balance I want to put rubbish troops up against great troop and give them a chance, well that's an imbalance on the game anyway.

Rules of Engagement, converted to moderns. Works a treat! Proper infantry tactics required.

I've played (and still do) FoF and TW and I can understand the feelings. It's never really clicked with me and my enjoyment of the games has come mainly from the social interaction and my love of my little men.
Chain of Command is worth a look as it's more flexible and feels better IMHO.
Firepower is a good call too and well worth it if you can get a copy (check out boardgamegeek for 2nd hand copies).
I'd also say Phoenix command if you can get it. It's initially intimidating and hideously crunchy but does work and has numerous supplements, best played with a GM though to allow hidden stuff and speed it up generally.
Good luck in the eternal quest for a satisfactory ruleset (Chain of Command is the nearest I've got so far).