"FOW Like?" Topic

I recently traded some war-game items for the FOW US Airborne Company. I have an 8X4 table. I am not sold on any rule set as of yet. I do know I don't like hub to hub games you see with FOW. I do however, like the basing for FOW. Before I get too deep, what is the rule of thumb (unit size) using FOW on this size table that doesn't look like a parking lot? I am also not a tournament player. Is there another rule set that uses basing similar to FOW or can FOW be used without loading a table making it look unrealistic? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Blitzkrieg Commander. I compared BKC and FOW closely before settling in with BKC. Also has a great forum: link

I do know I don't like hub to hub games you see with FOW.

I submit that there are precious few games where you will NOT see hub to hub tanks.
A past thread here calculated that a company of T-34s hub to hub on the tabletop were "in reality" over 100 yards apart.
This is inevitable, given ground scale to model scale, with any rules set.
Template weapons (artillery and air) teach you not to crowd your tanks too much.
Speaking of hub to hub…
link

I play FoW scenarios on a 9x5 table. We do not play "missions". It really opens up the game.
Sometimes you must take a chance depending on terrain and circumstances and bunch up, but you get punished if you do and your opponent is competent.

Thats one way to improve your side armor John. Just put an entire tank on each side!

I just really think FoW missed an opportunity with forcing the player to field their artillery on the table. Especially if both sides have artillery on table you can't even pretend it's a breakthrough scenario! I wish they at least gave you the option for Off Table Artillery; I know they make great models but it's very frustrating when to field my Red God of War artillery battalion I can barely get anything else on the table (especially not the two or more Strelkovy companies I like to field), and it's also so easy to disrupt it's effectiveness by the enemy targeting a gun or two in the middle of the formation.

I was SO happy when I cracked open Battlegroup Kursk and the book fell open to the Indirect Artillery Fire section…

I Ain't Been Shot Mum by Toofatlardies would fit the bill nicely and many people (myself included) use the IABSM rules with FoW basing.

Sections are two fire teams essentially with individual ATG, MG. mortar teams from the blisters used in the same way. A couple of individual figures for specific leaders or figure types can be helpful and could easily be picked up here in trade or for cheap money.

David

I've found that by taking away the baggage that comes with tournament play, Flames of War will meet all your expectations and give you a great game. It all comes down to the folks you play with, and the approach you take with the game. It's still my go to set of rules for WW2 after all this time.

Did they take the 'Across the Volga' Rule out of Flames v3?

Personally, I generally don't take any indirect fire weapons but Mortars and maybe a Regimental Cannon Platoon. All rather short-ranged stuff.

If you generally restrict yourself to Battalion and Regimental support options, Flames becomes much more reasonable in terms of army composition. Another thing I like to do is to play multiple infantry companies with battalion support weapons and MAYBE some higher-level support.

If you don't like the company+ per side scale of Flames, my next suggestion is Battlegroup. While Piers' eye-candy is all 1/72, you certainly can play in 15mm with team basing without too much trouble. I have ended up with an extra infantry platoon for each force that is individually based on 1/8x3/4" fender washers to 'make change' from the multibases.

Fireball Forward will work. Lots of downloads and demos on their site.

fireballforward.com

Hub to hub is solved by template weapons. Get splashed a few times with solid artillery hits esp. from a veteran battery and you'll start taking advantage of spreading your tanks out 6-8 inches from one another.

Across the Volga (where arty is left off table but still available to shoot) is apparently scenario specific. I think it's a great idea as an option for pretty much every scenario. BF could still require the models be present in order to enjoy the ability to fire if they wanted to write that in the rules. It's not like aircraft spend a ton of time on the table and people buy those.

They're already allowing naval gunfire. A sideboard could be set up to represent arty deployment including a shoot and scoot if you've got the tractors/prime movers. A simple aircraft interception style mechanic had been mentioned on some forums as a counter-battery attempt.

Last, I think the points values of most games are too high.
A game of 700-1000 pts gives you a nice-sized battle for many armies. It prevents kitchen sink lists and gives maneuver room on the table. YMMV.

I like to bash Battlefront as much as the next guy; I also give them credit where credit is due. That said, I think FOW will work just fine if you want to play historical (or historically based) scenarios with realistic TO&Es.

I also agree with Mcwong and Lion in the stars,

Never really liked the minis though I painted a few. I can't comment on the game.

Another vote for BKC and IABSM. The basing doesn't matter as long as both sides are the same.

"I submit that there are precious few games where you will NOT see hub to hub tanks."

You don't see hub-to-hub tanks in Command Decision.

What bothers me more than hub-to-hub friendly tanks in wargames is muzzle-to-muzzle tanks with the enemy. So much for realistic tank combat, suddenly it's hand to hand tank combat.

All my tanks have bayonet lugs.
A vote for Blitzkrieg Commander from me.

What bothers me more than hub-to-hub friendly tanks in wargames is muzzle-to-muzzle tanks with the enemy. So much for realistic tank combat, suddenly it's hand to hand tank combat.

You mean like this? :-)

[URL=http://s526.photobucket.com/user/ouzedh/media/crassus_closer.jpg.html]

[/URL]

I never play FoW on anything less than a 6x12 board. It becomes a very different game when there is room.

Any game will play more freely with fewer forces on the table

1. I strongly think that people play FOW with too many troops for the table. You can fix this by having a larger table, OR by using a lower point total. Try FOW with 1250 points for a game that has troops more spread out and more manoeuvre.

2. Play FOW with 6mm figs on standard 15mm bases. Then there is a realistic gap between figures.

3. Back to the original question, I play Bolt Action with FOW figures and bases. I have a few singly based figures to make change as required. I think it works VERY well.

Thanks for all the comments guys. I think I will stick with a company per side and some support assets for starters and try some various rules mentioned above. Fall In is coming up too so I can possibly get in a game or two with different rule sets then and base my stuff for FOW and it sounds like it should be flexible enough for a couple different sets. Again thanks for the input.

Play FOW with 6mm figs on standard 15mm bases. Then there is a realistic gap between figures.

This.

I play almost all "15mm" rulesets using 6mm figures – and typically on much smaller bases, an inch square. These are still over scale, in fact, but the visual effect is far more realistic. I normally use 15mm only for true skirmish games – I just can't get over the ridiculous image of two tanks (or two squads) blazing away at each other from what looks like about 10 yards apart.

I do know I don't like hub to hub games you see with FOW.

You can always increase the distances (movement, range, etc.).

Totally agree re: hub to hub on the tabletop. Nothing looks sillier.

Same thing about IGOUGO rule sets where you can drive your tank around an enemy one in order to get a better shot on its rear armour. I doubt they would be so accommodating in real life.

Nothing wrong with wargames that play like chess – but I look for something that has a little closer relationship to reality.

Excuse me whilst I bang my head on the desk at all this.

Once again…it is not inherent in the rules to have hub to hub tanks. Nowhere in the rules will you find this. It is merely the result of how some people play the game especially those who don't come from a historical wargaming background and who've gotten into FoW and those who favour direct armoured assault tactics with no subtlety. Use artillery and air support to teach them not to bunch up. Hub to hub tanks can be found in ANY WW2 rules set that allows more than the use of 1 tank. I've seen it in Battlegroup, in Panzergrenadier, I've seen it in WRG 1925-1950 and I've even seen it in a game of Rapid Fire. Accusing FoW is a stick used to beat the game with and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

On board artillery does not cause wall to wall tanks. You put your artillery on the base line behind your forces. Across the Volga is not in the V3 rulebook but the official word on the forums is that it can be used with the consent of both players.

So can we PLEASE put this old cliché to bed!