Tango01 | 10 Aug 2014 10:24 p.m. PST |
|
mashrewba | 11 Aug 2014 11:56 a.m. PST |
Good grief what a mess -looks like everything has just been thrown on the table!!! |
LeonAdler | 11 Aug 2014 1:31 p.m. PST |
Well theres an example of ……….cant say it really but Ive heard that the FOW game is a bit like WW2 meets WH40K and those pics certainly give that impression. L |
21eRegt | 11 Aug 2014 3:03 p.m. PST |
I now defend FoW and thoroughly enjoy the majority of the games. But I agree that this isn't what I'd call eye candy or use as an inducement to get people to try it. And as kyotebluer than blue says, you don't need tanks to have a fun game. We've had many good games sans fully tracked vehicles. |
Deadone | 11 Aug 2014 6:40 p.m. PST |
That game looks like crap. looks like everything has just been thrown on the table!!! Most of the big games are. Mind you with constant points decreases it means even small games are cluttered – e.g. at 1,500 points in LW I can have 16-odd tanks plus a few very large platoons of infantry each with 10-11 stands (CT Soviet strelkovy). Similar sized Allied and Russian tank forces usually have 20-25+ tanks. Even my average German infantry force has 6-8 tanks, 4 150mm guns, 3-4 Pak-40s to support two small infantry platoons. The constant points decreases are to blame really. but Ive heard that the FOW game is a bit like WW2 meets WH40K Fair assessment and it's headed towards a more 40K design paradigm – ever larger armies with everything present on board including ever heavier artillery, emphasis on special rules for each unit, tournament focus etc etc. |
Poniatowski | 14 Aug 2014 6:57 a.m. PST |
That game almost looks like…. dar I say it…. a Napoleonic game!!! Wow there is a lot of stuff on that board. As is expressed elsewhere… I play FoW mor elike a skirmish game.. the fewer pieces on the table the better… but to each their own… I often am kicking myself for going to FoW over my 20mm WW2 skirmish game.. I used to play Under Fire with a lot of home brew rules thrown in to "complete" the ruleset. I am a tactical infantry person…. a couple of tanks is fine… I have to say though… that board sure does look like they were really into it…. mixing it up.. looks fun. |
Patrick Sexton | 14 Aug 2014 1:32 p.m. PST |
It does look like a fun game. |
rhacelt | 15 Aug 2014 5:32 a.m. PST |
I find people keep adding forces but not increasing the size of the space they use. As the size of the armies go up you most increase the size of the board for it to be fun, in my opinion. I really like the game but it does play better with big armies on big game tables. |
Lion in the Stars | 15 Aug 2014 2:11 p.m. PST |
Early and Mid War forces work very nicely at 1500 points on a 4x6 table. I would not exceed 1750 points on a 4x6, honestly. 2000 points wants a 4x8 table. Sadly, my Soviet Engineer-sapper battalion needs to run at about 2500 points to have enough support to be competitive, and that's calling for a 6x8 table! |
fingolfen | 20 Aug 2014 3:53 p.m. PST |
One of the visual issues with FoW is the very compressed relative ground scale. If you want to play anything beyond a skirmish level with 15mm (1/100th) vehicles, you have to compress the ground scale. The effective range of a battle rifle is about 300 yards – in FoW that's 16", in pure scale that's 3 yards, or 108". So yes, things can look crowded… if that's your beef fine, but don't slag others for it. As to the "40K codex creep" assertion. I don't see it as "codex creep" so much as I see it as the limitation of a d6 system and trying to do justice to the various forces. I see no evidence that Battlefront is trying to create "uberlists" and any time one slips through playtesting, it is nerfed in short order. |
Bob Runnicles | 21 Aug 2014 12:09 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't say codex creep per the usual 40K example was a problem, but the constant reissuing and revision of expensive army books puts me off I have to say (and I was a big FoW fan back in the 1st and 2nd Ed days). Plus while I love the models for my Red God of War artillery battalion, I think having to find the space for them to deploy 'on table' is beyond ridiculous – artillery should really be 'off board' except in desperate situations. |
Lewisgunner | 21 Aug 2014 12:51 p.m. PST |
fingolfen, you appear to underestimate how much the look of the game matters to many people. FoW is an OK ruleset and it is not to blame for what players do with it. However, the ruleset does have its nobsenses. Soviet tank armies are hugely dominant because you ca fiekd 30 armoured vehicles in a standard game,nrush up to an opponent and let him have it with 20 to 60 shots from 76 mm guns.or a combined 80 shots from machine guns. As the player can choose their target without restriction except for range and LoS all these shots can ge used on one target, a level of fire control and comms no Soviet commander could have nanaged. That aside the fact that the game that is displayed looks like someone has just emptied boxes of tanks on the table does rather spoil the look of the game. VHhowever, if the players had a great time then that is justification enough! |
fingolfen | 23 Aug 2014 9:25 a.m. PST |
Lewisgunner – you're bringing up two issues as if they're tied together, and they truly aren't First is aesthetics – In order to play a company level game on a 4x6 table at 15mm it is going to get jumbled. If that tweaks your sensibilities so bad that it is a distraction – that's completely legit. It isn't the system for you, but don't bash other systems based on your personal taste. As to army dominance – clearly you haven't played the game – at least not recently. I've never had any trouble beating a Soviet Horde – even with a list based on the Elefant tank destroyer… In fact, at the 1250 point late war tournament at Gen Con – out of 25 players there was only one Soviet tank player, and he was 15th. British infantry won – followed by Romanian tank. In the early war tournament (1550 points – where you can bring literally a BOATLOAD of tanks) – no Soviet tank players entered. Ditto for the 1485 point Mid war tournament. So while your aesthetic criticism is valid based on your personal taste, your criticism of the system is way off base in my experience… and I have playtested for Battlefront in the past. Bob – I can understand why many individuals want artillery off the table, again from an aesthetic standpoint. While there are some missions that keep the arty off the table, Battlefront had several good reasons for leaving it on the table. One was a design decision. The ground scale in FoW is not only compressed, but it is technically sliding as well. Arty is on the table to allow the possibility of forces overrunning the artillery park. However, perhaps an even stronger reason is game balance. FoW is designed so equal point-value forces should have a reasonable chance at winning. Without artillery, and in some cases direct-fire artillery, there are certain armies (Italians, several minor nations) that would never have a chance of winning a game. So it is also a question of game balance.
|