"Post war flames of war rules." Topic

I was wondering what sort of scale these rules are based on? If not stated then Rifle ranges, tank gun ranges moves etc.

It is jokingly referred to as a "logarithmic land scale".
You have pistol ranges that cannot go from front to rear of some tank models. A glider wingspan is definitely out of pistol range.

You have artillery ranges of several miles on the table.

You can worry about it or you can play the game.

Or you can not worry about it and play something else. Whatever floats your boat!

FoW does not use scale, time space or otherwise. It's more about the relationship between the various combat arms.

I was wondering what sort of scale these rules are based on? If not stated then Rifle ranges, tank gun ranges moves etc.

It's a very non-linear ground scale.

Pistols and SMGs shoot 4". Assault Rifles shoot 8", regular Rifles shoot 16", HMGs and light autocannons usually shoot 24". M16s shoot 12", but I think that's supposed to be a matter of doctrine more than effective range.

IIRC, standard tank movement is 6".

No-one makes anyone play any rule set but you shouldn't rubbish rule sets just because you don't like them.

Have a look at all the Napoleonic rule sets, infantry movement is out of scale to cavalry, artillery is out of scale to muskets. When we play our desired game or period we forget all these mistakes in our favourite rules set but rubbish others.

Thanks Lion. I was wondering if it was an old fashioned set that encouraged manoeuvre and it obviously is.

I'd rather have a set of rules that encourages maneuver than one that encourages the gunline.

It would be interesting to see how it covers a tank troop moving in bounds, backwards or forwards, green or red, with stationary vehicles in overwatch.

Tally Ho!

I plotted the scale out based on the known fixed points. It resolved to a fairly simple equation but a logarithmic one (so its not referred that way jokingly, its accurate).

It does put short range pistols and arty on the same table. I find the time plotting per turn far far harder to visualise than the ground scale.

The primary results of such a scale are that laying out historical maps for real battle scenarios become relative mapping rather than scale mapping and that can be very unsatisfying and that 15mm figures of certain types break certain things REALLY badly – long vehicles approaching or exceeding 4" which is basically the smallest standard unit of motion in the game – the Crocodile and trains being prime candidates. 6mm scale models work FAR better aesthetically and for preventing such issues.

It would be interesting to see how it covers a tank troop moving in bounds, backwards or forwards, green or red, with stationary vehicles in overwatch.

Movement is by platoon, not individual vehicle. You can detach a couple stands to stay put, but the only motion they can make afterwards is to join back up with their platoon. You basically can't do player-controlled bounds like that, you need to assume that the platoon does it automatically as you move the tanks from point A to point B.

So a 1:1 scale game that does not allow one to use individual vehicles acting as they should in order to carry out tactical movement? Rapid fire does similar but there is no pretence about 1 vehicle = 1 Vehicle.

Tally Ho!

Correct – its a 1:1 model scale but its not a skirmish set with individual movement – since the infantry manoeuvre unit is a base of 4-5 men with a model for each, but without free movement because they are on one base, so you do not get total control of tactical movement details for infantry. The tank represents one vehicle because that's the appropriate representation for that manoeuvre unit at company scale….be guided in this case by how the infantry are used rather than the tanks.

You can physically do a bound by bound movement with tanks – ie move some forwards, then have the rest catch up next turn and over take easily enough but you are putting a tactical level of detail in that is actually below the level of play of the game – it will slow an advance and you have to think about where the platoon commander is placed but I've done just this in the game on a number of occasions.

Its not the only ruleset I have seen over the years to work this way – but it does mean that if you want a skirmish set with the level of tactical detail where the individual soldier is the manoeuvre unit so its moves are individually detailed then you need a different ruleset.

So a 1:1 scale game that does not allow one to use individual vehicles acting as they should in order to carry out tactical movement?

Does a Company/Battalion commander typically order the tanks to bound like that, or does he tell the platoon leader, "go to that hill" and assume that the platoon leader will give movement orders to bound forward?

The level of command depends on the tactical situation and the operation, it could be a Regimental move or a troop in support of an Infantry Coy. However the tanks will not go forwards unless they have a foot on the ground, be it a whole troop in overwatch or one or two tanks. The bounds and tempo will vary but a good idea of how it works can be gleaned from the trg videos I posted last year. It is all down to dominating the ground at each stage be it going forwards or back.

Tally Ho!

However the tanks will not go forwards unless they have a foot on the ground, be it a whole troop in overwatch or one or two tanks.

Then yes, you can do bounding overwatch by platoons (UK term for ~4 tanks is troop?) in Flames, and it works pretty well for tanks that don't have fully stabilized guns that can shoot at full ROF on the move. So really, anything pre-Abrams.

I've used the bounding tactic with infantry stands as well as armor. You can always leave <50% of a platoon in place (full ROF overwatch) and they move to catch up in the next turn. It slows the platoon down, but this is how it would be in real life anyway. A bounding platoon doesn't move as fast as one that is simply "moving out."

BTW, as I recall, bounding is a standard NATO tactic. We were taught it in Basic Training & would use it (without being ordered) if we believed we were advancing on an occupied enemy position. Otherwise we used the 3-column skirmisher's line to advance (which would be ordered by the platoon leader along with who gets to walk point). My understanding of Soviet doctrine was that they did not bound, they simply advanced & fired on the move.

As FOW doesn't have explicit overwatch moving by bounds doesn't help you unless there are targets you are firing at as you go, and even then you are generally better off just sitting there with as many teams as possible shooting at full ROF, only moving those that are out of LOS/range.

Normal movement is assumed to include bounding type movement within the platoon which is why teams get to fire at all in most cases. If assaulted all teams fire as if stationary as they are assumed to halt to fire.

If everyone is continuously moving you use double time movement in which no-one gets to fire, even if assualted.

I have to agree with Leadgend.

Bounding overwatch in the real world assumes that the moving element might draw fire from a hidden enemy element and that the stationary overwatch element is prepared to identify and engage the newly revealed enemy element.

In FoW the maneuvering element would move, the enemy element would not have the chance to engage the maneuvering element and so its status as a target would not change (e.g. it hasn't given away its position by shooting), and then the covering element would be presented with the same type of target whether or not the maneuvering element existed.

And as Leadgend pointed out, the maneuvering element would be adding its fire to the shooting phase anyway unless it was double-timing.

Therefore, the decision in FoW is not about overwatch but whether or not one should move and therefore limit a unit's ability to shoot well/better or not move and shoot better. In either case, there's no chance for the enemy to effect the maneuvering friendly element through op-fire and there's no change in enemy target status based on his reaction since there can't be a reaction to friendly maneuvers. Overwatch is equally about the relationship between friendly maneuvering and stationary elements and the target status/type of defending elements.

The key issue is the relationship between various events: in real world overwatch tactics there's an interplay between friendly unit status (mobile advancing force vs stationary covering force) and enemy reaction and status (hidden and safe vs shooting at moving enemy and giving away position to enemy covering force).

Now, to be fair, over the course of multiple turns there can be interplay between advancing and defending units but still not in the context of real world overwatch tactics. In the example above. let's say the defending unit is veteran and gone to ground. It's going to be very pretty secure from enemy fire during the opponent's shooting phase. During its own turn it won't move so as to be in position to shoot the advancing enemy.

But then in the following enemy turn both the advancing unit and the so-called overwatching unit have the same chance to engage the newly "revealed" enemy unit and there's no difference between the two with respect to maneuver having an impact on their ability to shoot well.

Their status is completely "fresh" relative to the defending enemy's change in target status from hidden/safe to revealed/vulnerable.