"FoW Haters" Topic

I don't think I'm a hater. It is more of like the dating of a pretty girl you can't stand to talk to. I keep asking why, yet I'm there. I'm in the process of assembling a large 15mm army. They generally have what I need and are very accessible at a neighborhood store. Plenty of flashy background source books and online tutorials as well. However, there is where the annoyances begin. The source books are pretty, but are written at a 3rd grade level, yet how much do they cost? Then, the tournament centric nature of the rules drive me nuts. I'm a historical player, so I really don't care about army lists for 500 points, but what they were actually fielding in a given month and why certain historical or possible historical battles were fought as they were.

I do wish it was easier to transform the game in to historical battles…

I hate FoW because despite its popularity with the nearest (90 miles away) gaming club, they refuse to play the Great War version which is the period I am most interested in. They do dabble in AIW, we'll see about Cold War.

I have no real interest in WW2, so no gaming joy for me yet. But at least I know there may be in future.

So that is why I hate FoW. It isn't played in the periods I am interested in near me.

I do wish it was easier to transform the game in to historical battles…

Why do you find that difficult?

These guys did it: link

My club does it, but seldom was well done as the above.

@Dave Crowell -

Seems like the issue is really not FoW, but rather the lack of playing partners in your area for Great War. That really isn't the game system's fault, is it? Am I missing something?

Thanks for that link, VonBurge. Very impressive game; I wish I had access to a table that large.

It is about as rational as some of the other reasons I have seen for hating FoW. I was being tongue in cheek.

On the topic of historical battles, there are several historical scenarios that have been published in Wargames Illustrated (capture of the Ludendorf Bridge, Siege of Kuestrin, among others) and while these are a bit simplified they can serve as a good starting point for something grander.

My hunch on why some gamers will hate on "Game X" is they think that if other gamers weren't playing that game, then there would be more people playing another game preferred by the hater.

Although in reality, that math is faulty. I play games that I enjoy. Back in the beforetimes when the only commercially available WW2 rules were Tractics, Angriff, and WRG — I just didn't play WW2 miniatures games!

I watched this thread from our ED and wondered if I should…..I shouldn't BUT….
Here goes….in for a penny, in for a pound

As someone who has been tagged a hater on many occasions, I can safely say that my entire dislike of Fow is based on one central thread of the game.

Fow's game design has no internal rationality and it starts at very basic levels that then ripples and cascades right throught it, with the consequences of poor design choices throwing up anomolies all throughout the game.

Of course these are expressed in various ways, but it is quite interesting to see the more avid fanboys ..(am I allowed to use this term as an opposite of FOW hater?…maybe my first doghouse here!!!)…hysterical defence's and denial's of these anomolies being relevant or even existing. Once I was willing to discuss this and fight the fight…..not now. I have much bigger committments that take up my time.

Fow of course is not unique since other games have poor design as well, Bolt action and Black powder spring to mind but none can surpass the almighty design mish-mash known as ECW warhammer. Even in a haters world, there are 7 levels of rules hell and fow ain't past the third.

So sorry to disappoint, but It isn't anything to do with it's popularity/ how much played/if it's fun/fast or if I'm friends with a designer or nobody plays the rules I like.. ….because other ww2 games I can play match it for all those aspects and a lot more besides. Nor am I unwilling to 'try it and you'll like it' because I did and I didn't.

….nor is it because battlefront is some corporate monster. Most of what they do is very good, not always the best, but good enough by the most part and excellent in a lot and their support is good.

it just comes down to the own private investigation of the game mechanics which concludes that , actually Fow is just a very poor game. Full stop. end of… I suspect that other people who say they dislike 'it' intuitively recognise something is wrong without knowing what 'it' is.

If you are looking for personality traits in a hater, well What I can say is other people consider me to be a bit fussy about what I play. I do a lot of extensive research and I don't do mediocre rules, so crap is way out
I am LUCKY to be able to be so fussy. I recognise others are not so lucky.

In terms of confidence and belief in my own abilities? ….I'm bulletproof actually. There's that personality flaw!

So a hater is fussy with an over exuberance of self confidence..probably explains why I am writing this!

so I suppose that the opposite end of the spectrum means the extreme Fanboy is an easily satisfied low confidence gamer who doesn't care too much past the quick fix gaming experience and seems to invest a lot more emotionally about the merits of a game than should be considered healthy for their mental wellbeing…even for a wargamer.

I am sure we all recognize slight hints of traits like this in people we know.

P.s.

Before anyone hits the exclamation mark of doom and set of the claxon of alarm, read this again, then again and recognize this isn't an attack on anything or anyone, not even fow. Its my personal observed stance and has no relevance beyond the inside of my own skull. Everyone can carry on believing anything they like….and it answers our editors original question, hopefully warts and all.

I also play games that are pretty awful. I am known to play a modified black powder on occasion because I respect the efforts put in by the game arranger. Fow haters have a fluffy side too….They aren't all dick dastardly caricatures

kevanG

All that is fine but…

"When I think of a FoW hater, I think of the guy who can't help himself from going into a group of Flames of War gamers and telling them how much he dislikes the game and they are wrong to play it."

So what draws you to go into the FoW section of a forum and post negatively on the threads there? That seems to be what puts someone over the edge of "do not like FoW, would never play it" into the abyss of "Hater, crapping on FoW threads for no apparent reason"

Just wondering what makes these people tick….

Contrary to the above point of view, a "hater" is not simply a benign soul who just happens to think FoW is a poor game and is trapped by their self-perceived superior intellect, high standards, and indomitable confidence. That's a total crock.

Certainly having the opinion that FoW is a poor game is understandable. The game certainly has its flaws, some major ones even, just as it has its strengths, some of those also major. Any individual is free to make up his own mind how much weight and focus they want to give each of these to determine how the scales tip out for them overall with the game. Regardless of how the scales tip for an individual, all should be welcomed to the civil discussion and debate about how to get maximum return of investment from our gaming experiences.

So then to address the OP's question

"What causes people to become haters of Flames of War? Is it something in the rules, or something in their personality?"

The answer cannot be "it's something in the rules," liking/agreeing with only few or even none of the rules is not an issue. Agreeing with or disagreeing with rules is up to the individual, and people should happily engage in the discussion of them to their hearts content no matter which side they come down with respect to rules.

So that leaves the "Personality" as the best answer from Editor's choices as to what truly makes a "hater. " These are the folks whoese personality precludes them, despite the brilliant examples in this thread, this message board, forums, podcast, blogs, etc. from gamers from all over the world, from being able to accept fact that other folks can actually get a some quality historical WW2 gaming playing FoW. For some reason they just don't seem to be able to abide folks getting good historical use out of set of rules which in their mind has insurmountable flaws which preclude it from having any possible historical gaming value. They simply can't accept that and adopt and live and let play attitude towards the game. Rather they feel driven to go on the attack with insult, and occasionaly mockery, in order to try to make their case.

kevanG's post might be a good example for that. Note how he can't just say "I just think it's a poor game" and leave it at that. Instead he needs to defend his position as trying to characterize himself as suffering from "noble" faults…i.e. he's too intelligent, too well researched, too confident, etc. Not really faults at all are they? But then at the same time look at how he caricatures what his sees as his counter at the opposite end of the spectrum. He just dismisses those who disagree with him as low confidence, unthinking in the quest for a quick fix, unbalanced, even unhealthy. This is far from a balanced perspective and it is far from right.

I'm certainly not had any psychological expertise beyond Psych 101 in my university days, but kevanG's post certainly comes off as an attempt to make himself look good by talking down on others. Very reminiscent of the way that diametrically opposed political parties (conservatives vs. liberals etc.) look at and treat each other. Both sides are equally ignorant in their polar absolutism be they "fanboy" or "hater" and equally accountable for the way they conduct themselves in forums such of this.

VB

Good observation, VonBerge. In his post, Kevan mentioned he plays a superior rule set that he feels is more realistic. What rules set is that? Did he omit it because there are other experts on this board who would criticize his chosen rules with as much vigor? There are several Board members who quickly jump onto a thread to trash something as being "unrealistic" and I'm never sure what to make of it.

I'm a combat vet, so I know what happens in the field. I (vaguely) remember what the field manuals say and I am certain you can't predict the response of a group of men when they come under fire. As far as doctrine is concerned: sitting in a foxhole while an air strike or artillery clears out a position makes for a boring game.

I play WWII because it's far enough behind us in our history that you can attach a fantastic hint of chivalry to it to make it a fun game. Unless you are specifically a WWII vet, you have no claim to having a better understanding of "realism" than some one else. The best we can do is say,"Yeah, that's plausible. I can see how that would work." That plausibility is based on our own experiences & knowledge, but that's the extent of it. Arguing over "realism" is really just a matter of arguing over plausibility.

My second point (or is it third?) is that all good rule systems strike balance between realism & playability. I've played "realistic" games where you needed a calculator to work out muzzle velocity over range in order to modify the to hit die roll!! IMHO Flames of War strikes an excellent balance between our agreed upon perception of combat & playability. The rules you don't like you can modify with a House rule that makes something more plausible (like air strike ranges or opportunity fire).

Well stated gentlemen

You guys love to fill in the blanks….even the ones that aren't there.

I didn't hate the rules. Indeed, hate is too strong a word.

I thought they offered an overpriced, sub-par range of figures. When I stated this for bad castings, I got jumped on by the "True Believer Fanboys."

That didn't sit well with me. So I played a few games and came up against the phalanx of tanks (tm) that seems to be a feature of the game. Again, commenting on this brought down the wrath of the fanboys. Over half of my stifles came these people.

My reaction is now one of indifference. I don't care for the rules and will not go near the WWII land boards or the FoW subsections because I have better things to do with my time than argue with people I do not know.

If you want to play this system, fine.It's just not for me.

I agree with 138, its not an issue of haters its a zealot issue. Some FoW players seem to yell "Hater!" at any implied or real criticism of what is just one game among many.
You dont get that reaction from criticising any other game I can think of except maybe GW – if I dont like IABSM or Crossfire or Picquet or Empire or WRG or anything… nobody cares. And thats the way it should be.

Well said latto. Well said.

If I go onto an IABSM forum and post on almost every thread to criticize the game and state how much I dislike the rules, and the IABSM fans call me a hater, is that a zealot problem for IABSM ? Because this is what has happened in the past with FoW, and still happens with 40k on this website.

When has anyone ever done what you claim polecat?

For a start, forums are moderated. and all you have to do is look at the reaction above to my post to see people adding their own overpumped up impressions of intent onto what was written, then having a lovefest about how right they all are.

eg "In his post, Kevan mentioned he plays a superior rule set that he feels is more realistic."

ERRR NO!….where exactly did I say anything like that?

Its like all the other myths about 'haters '….just made up like 'its because of fow popularity' 'its because its fast and fun' 'they dont like non-historical, but you can do historical games' 'They dont like army lists' 'its unfair because other games have tank parks too but they don't see that'

but immediately following is even better…..
"What rules set is that? Did he omit it because there are other experts on this board who would criticize his chosen rules with as much vigor?"

There are so many times I have posted what rules I like and play and recommend that it wouldn't take long to find any of them….My ww2 rules recommendations tend to be on the ww2 discussion and ww2 rules forums…not very surprisingly really.

I regularly play a lot of different rulesets over dozens of periods. At least 4 ww2 land rules regularly and all of them get criticized. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't even consider it worth defending since other people's perceptions tell me more about them as gamers than ranting on about mine. I am quite happy that people do what they want. Obviously, Haters only say that because it cant be true. (Fow Hating 101:…refer to standard traits above)

When it comes to dishing out the hate, some pretty harsh 'Hate' comes from some vocal fow 'protectors' towards 40K which is apparently some fantasy game I have never played….such irony! Must be because it's popular and no one plays there little game,etc,etc.

I am not looking to defend my opinions or add to a discussion with no agreeable end but this is one man's opinion. I have played warhammer and now playing fow. This is what I see. The rules themselves are pretty good rules. I am happy with them. I don't play tournaments nor do I use their theatre books. I just use the core rules for historical battles. What happens is people get involved looking for a fun game, which in itself is , but then they decide to go to a tournament. Now they are introduced to rule twisters and non realistic armies because like all tournaments you are there to win. Just like the pit bull in a dog fight ( just using this as an example I do not condone dog fighting) you are then trained to come up with and breed a better dog. And when you are bred to argue and fight because winning means more then the game that's what you get. So eventually it becomes part of you. Next thing you know you are arguing about everything. That's what turns everyone one off. But I do my own thing at my house with my level headed friends who are looking to watch history unfold and strategically try to win as realistically battles as you can get with what was used. To different things. Until they see that they may never enjoy a good rules system. No matter what they play. Peace to all

Totally agree; Ive not played FoW. Ive seen examples of special rules etc in magazines that I didnt fancy and I dont usually like "list/points" rulesets but none of that would stop me playing it if the chance came up. And youre right its about the people youre playing with more than anything else.

Cos its rubbish.

KevanG, of course it has happened… if you post any thread on the 40k section of this site, there will be one particular person who will reply with how much they dislike the game, prices, etc. In the past it has happened with Flames of War, with a person I will refer to as "Tim", who jumped into every thread with ridiculous hyperbole about "hover tanks" and "necromancers". Since these two people do/did not play the current version of the game and feel the need to post negative and inflammatory remarks on every thread about the game, I consider them "Haters". If they did it less often, or played the game occasionally, then I wouldnt consider them haters. But they appear to have some sort of antisocial personality defect that leads them to attempt to derail every thread about a game that others enjoy, just because they dont like it.

well, some fow players think that 40K attacks are good sport too.
I've never played it, so I have never commented about it.

I will look at the 40k forum, albeit for the first time I think

It used to happen with Bolt Action a lot too.

Reading Kevan's earlier post, the longer one, I was looking for specific objections to the game, and why it isn't as good as other games he prefers. Alas, there were no specifics nor other games mentioned by name as a comparison. The only clue was that it was somehow a problem with internal rationality, but without explanation that sounds like a hollow complaint.

Over the years, the complaints I've heard have basically fallen into three categories:

1. The game is like 40K. Well, that's a problem if you don't like anything about the 40K rules. In reality, FoW shares some design concepts with 40K but then again, so do a lot of other historical games (anything designed by Rick Priestley and his colleagues, for example).

2. The game is too geared towards tournament play. Again, only a problem if you don't like tournament gaming. What's happened with FoW is that, finally, WW2 wargaming has caught up with Ancients in that department and it got there in big numbers. But you could, and still can, play WRG 6th or 7th, or DBA, or DBM or FoW or any other set of rules that are suitable for tournament play casually or even historically. So the complaints about FoW for tournaments seem more directed at a game "lowering" itself to that format rather than at the game itself.

3. It's not historical. There's wall to wall tanks. There's no opportunity fire or fog of war….etc. These complaints are usually levelled by people who have not played but only observed the game from a distance. I admit, it's game-ey and a number of things are abstracted for ease of play. But, guess what, opportunity fire and fog of war are game-ey concepts as well but what happened there is that they've gained currency over the years so that a lot of gamers take them for granted. Not long ago, I tried the new Panzergrenadier rules and found their opportunity fire system to be very gamey. The beloved Crossfire rules are gamey but in a different way. Von Burge has put things far more eloquently than myself some time ago when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that if you look at how FoW plays and the results of actions, rather than the process of the actions, you'll see that what you end up with is remarkably similar to what you end up with in a game that is supposedly more historically accurate.

The one critic of FoW on TMP who I had to doff a cap to is Piers Brand because he had clearly played a lot of FoW before becoming disillusioned with it…and he has gone on to explain why he didn't like it anymore and why he thinks Battlegroup is better. I think he's wrong, but at least his criticisms haven't been vague or based on supposition.

Good post ubercommando.

I dont actually care why they don't like Flames of War, that's irrelevant to me. I'm sure that many people have perfectly legitimate reasons to dislike the rules, the marketing, and/or the tournament community. Nobody needs to justify their dislike of a game to me.

What I do care about, and what makes a FoW "Hater", is someone who doesn't like the game yet jumps in thread after thread disrupting/hijacking the conversation by inanely pointing out for the 400th time that they don't like X rule or whatever, and how inferior the game is. These are the mentally disturbed people that this thread is about.

Erm… are ye sure you mean me Ubercommando?

Cos I aint ever played a game of FoW in my life (im a 20mm chap and no one I know plays 15mm WW2) and im not sure I have ever spoken of it much on TMP, as frankly I have never played it so would not feel happy to discourse on its merits or faults as, well, I wouldnt know what they are…

Battlegroup came about from Kampfgruppe Normandy, which in turn was a bit of a reaction to just not having a 20mm WW2 wargame that played how we wanted it to play… nothing to do with FoW im afraid.

So no… never played it so cant comment on it. Im rather dissapointed not to have now as your comment Ubercommando was rather gracious.

Would I play it? Sure, I would play any game that someone makes the effort to arrange. I may make them play Battlegroup in return though…

Just saw this ,
I've only played a few games of FOW and liked it.
I'd suggest you have to see where it is pitched , and for what it is intended to be, …ie; It's not meant to be an accurate historical reinactment algorithm …it is however intended to be a fun game, and I'd suggest an excellent entry level game to tabletop wargaming, and/or WW2 …and perhaps Vietnam and ? WW1 (altho' haven't personally seen/played the WW1 game version).
There were years long gone by where wargaming (especially club wargaming) was dominated by the science fiction and fantasy genres of GW, and for a wannabe "historical" gamer these were dark, bleak, cold, hungry years. Tabletop gaming however,… became more popular than ever because players were having fun.
Back before this there was a plethora of rulesets right back to the WRG crusties that were intended to be as accurate as thought possible. Problem was , .. these rulesets were often hard to play and harder to learn. In my own experience, (I played WW2 with plastic Airfix figures)… if you didn't play 25mm Napoleonics you were open for public scorn and mockery.
Tabletop wargaming wasn't very popular back then.
So even the much-fashionably-hated GW has helped this hobby to evolve. (I'd also add that GW lifted the basic level of wargaming modelling and presentation … ie; painting, flocking and basing… more than anyone else , which was pretty basic before this time.)
So , when you go to a big, packed tournament full of delicious eye-candy , or a big, packed games-store full of goodies of many scales and genres ..that is only a relatively recent phenomena. Thanks GW and FOW .
Surely, on balance, … FOW has done way more good than harm to this hobby.
So , even though I don't play their rules … I'd like to thank FOW/BF et al. for making "historical" wargaming popular again. ..and not just popular , but really, really popular.
And … there will always be people who will criticise what you might prefer different to them , if it's not the 25mm Napoleonics crowd ..it will be someone else . ? Care factor = minimal.

Uber commando wrote

"Reading Kevan's earlier post, the longer one, I was looking for specific objections to the game, and why it isn't as good as other games he prefers. Alas, there were no specifics nor other games mentioned by name as a comparison. The only clue was that it was somehow a problem with internal rationality, but without explanation that sounds like a hollow complaint."

Well you should have read the later post then…..

I can confirm that my complaint is that I find Fow more than a bit hollow lacking substance due to its poor design.

Can I ask what you find so gamey about the opp fire in battlegroup panzergrenadier and how you consider it compares in gameyness with the Fow ambush rule?

I would love to read your comparison critique

…. sigh !

Jimmi,

Lots of people labelled as haters have exactly the same outlook on Fow as you.

In fact I could have wrote this part…

"I'd suggest you have to see where it is pitched , and for what it is intended to be, …ie; It's not meant to be an accurate historical reinactment algorithm …it is however intended to be a fun game."

But I havent played a game based on history that the author's didn't intend the players to have fun or had some historical basis.

and all you have to do is go a bit further up on this thread and see the comments about .. fow can do historical games and does this as good as any etc etc, to see that some people invest more blind faith in there playing of a game than fits in with that interpretation of what was intended by the author. They overhype it

I will take it that Ubercommando's whataboutary on finding BGPG having gamey opp fire is in fact a completely vacuous hollow and transparent complaint in light of his lack of response.

The truth is that he was just annoyed that some of his board game/ 40K player chums didn't want to play Fow because they thought it was / looked / had heard from others it was pretty rubbish. …and he had no defence to that knockback, and blamed bad press..ergo haters. If you consider the title of this thread, They're gonna hate because of huge charactor flaws inbuilt that dislike people being successful and it annoys them that others have "fun"…It isnt because they don't care what anyone else plays and just think Fow is a poor ww2 game, 3 generations in and still isn't any better than the playtest version.

Its a pity because I would have loved to hear his thoughts on the gameyness of opp fire in IABSM as well.

Haven't played FoW yet,but am becoming interested. I have a bud who plays it,and while watching a tournament,Germans v. Soviets,I started whistling "Katyusha",which the Russian player rather appreciated(helping player morale). Just bought a copy of the revised edition rules. Looking into starting a set now.

Capt Jimmi is a long way off from earning the exalted status of "hater." He's got to be consistently negative for years and years and not be so darn civil to get to that point!

Above he expresses his views politely. Throwing in a positive complement as well does not hurt. No vitriol, no talking down to those who have a different point of view than him. No evidence of being a "hater" here.

As stated above, it's not the rules or one's opinion of the rules that makes one a "hater." It's the years, in some cases as much as 8 years, of harping on the negatives of the FoW rules without also looking at the positives, while at the same demeaning those that disagree with him. Capt Jimmie, is very, very, far away from being "that guy."

and all you have to do is go a bit further up on this thread and see the comments about .. fow can do historical games and does this as good as any etc etc, to see that some people invest more blind faith in there playing of a game than fits in with that interpretation of what was intended by the author. They overhype it

Or perhaps you just under appreciate it. It's really not overhype at all to say that you can get a degree of quality historical WW2 gaming with FoW. It's is clearly "under-hype" to say that FoW has zero value as a historical ww2 game, which for the last 8 years on this forum seems to have been your position.

I'm not really sure where you get folks saying that FoW is better than any other WW2 game out there, more so than some might be saying that it's good enough. The bottom line is that you can use historical OOBs with FoW to get historical outcomes if you want to play historical WW2 scenarios and have fun doing it! There's not really much of more a requirement than that to be a historical game. Blind faith is not needed, just set up the historical scenarios and play them. You may find that you get more historical accuracy than you ever expected.

I'd also not want to read into ubercommando's "lack of response" as meaning anything. Some folks have real lives too.

Cheers, VB

First let's not all get hung up on what is essentially "semantics"; hate, dislike, it sucks, whatever. The point is what is at the core of peoples strong opinions on the merits of FoW, and to a worse degree I'd throw in Bolt Action?

My problem with these poorly designed games, and they are is for a couple of reasons. I don't care what people play, whatever the game is, but, don't call a game "historical" when it clearly is not honest to history – just call it a game with pretty tanks and figures. But, neither Fow or Bolt Action, are remotely honest or authentic in representing fighting operationally or technically. The design of the mechanics are to blame. The annoying looking proportions on the game table, as some have described as "hubcap to hubcap" is retarded looking just at face value. You spend all this money on this expensive game pieces, terrain, buildings, to make things look as "realistic" as possible then saddle it with these ridiculous proximities on the game table. But, that's not the worst of it. It sends a wrong message to all these crossover gamers or newbies, the young blood entering the hobby and misrepresent history rather grossly. Of course, no "wargame" can replicate "reality" but you can certainly craft a game with realatively more exacting specifications, accurate data, mechanics of operational movement and execution, in ways that are fairly authentic in planning, execution, and results. It requires dutiful study and research on the part of the game designer. These games, FoW and especially, Bolt Action, are games of the tail wagging the dog. The decision process and tactics should be fully in the hands of the players decision making process and be intuitive. The plethora of "special rules" is excessive, and things like "saving throws" are simply useless acts and waste of time.

When you get shot at, do you get a saving throw to save yourself on the battlefield? Of course not, it's stupid. The mechanics of fire speak for themselves based on probabilities. Either you get hit or you don't. These artificial abstractions are not only farcical but deflect the education to the newbies to what would really most likely happen. It's no longer historical, or remotely realistic, if I dare use that word in the context of gaming, and relegates a historical depiction as nothing more than a game of Parcheezi or Candyland. The actual tanks and infantry barely reflect anything authentic other than their appearance on the game table.

Play these idiotic games if you will, but don't try to suggest that they are in anyway historic. Let me put it this way, if I were to present these level of games to some REAL SOLDIERS as an instructive tool for actual battle, I would be sending them to their fate. Wargames have been and always will be used as a tool to teach real tactics, logistics, time management, troop and unit coordination. With dumb games like these you could never do it.

Having said that, play these games, if you find them fun, that's cool, but they are not historic – they are not honest to history or how things work, even remotely on a real battlefield. Games like this are not really pitting ones wits as in a chess game against a wily adversary, it's simply a vehicle for big boys to play with their toys. And, that's okay, as long as you admit it, and don't claim this crap to be historically accurate, and god forbid a "simulation".

That's what I'm saying. There are some very good games out there without the marketing powerhouses of Osprey, Warlord, and Battlefront miniatures behind them that can mass market the hell out of these sub-standard games, which lowers the bar for the whole hobby, unfortunately.

On the other hand, I love the FoW Technical Manuals, their resin models, and those models produced by Bolt Action. That's all nice stuff, but you can play much more challenging, and above all INTELLIGENT games than these. . .

T. Ipavic
12th PSYOP Bn
USACAPOC

Oh yeah, another thing, these tournament and points sytems – what marketing genius, though so completely unnecessary! That's a ploy to force everyone to build and BUY large armies. The tournaments generate even more of this. And, that's one great way to sell lots of your product, more than you would otherwise. They've (FoW) hit on a formula that is copied by Bolt Action and taken to the limit.

But, you don't need a points system to play these games. And, also, battles are hardly ever "even" per side. Instead, just craft the scenario and it's objectives accordingly with "unbalanced" forces, often creating much more interesting games.

People get so hung up on these Point systems – you don't need this stuff. Sure, you can use it from time to time, but like I said you can devise very interesting and historical scenarios that have objectives other than mutual annihilation, and get awsy from slugfests, which become quickly boring anyway. Much more interesting are battles of envelopment and cunning.

My problem with these poorly designed games, and they are is for a couple of reasons. I don't care what people play, whatever the game is, but, don't call a game "historical" when it clearly is not honest to history – just call it a game with pretty tanks and figures.

It's all about the level of detail vs. abstractness you want to work with. A photo is a 100% accurate representation of something in reality. But sometimes abstract painting evokes much more about the same scene. More detail does not necessarily equal more detail.

But, neither Fow or Bolt Action, are remotely honest or authentic in representing fighting operationally or technically. The design of the mechanics are to blame. The annoying looking proportions on the game table, as some have described as "hubcap to hubcap" is retarded looking just at face value. You spend all this money on this expensive game pieces, terrain, buildings, to make things look as "realistic" as possible then saddle it with these ridiculous proximities on the game table.

Yes. I see that. But I also see people playing reinforced company sized formations on 4' x 6' table. Visually off at times, of course, but it does give one more capabilities to represent a larger battlefield on a readily available gaming surface.

But, that's not the worst of it. It sends a wrong message to all these crossover gamers or newbies, the young blood entering the hobby and misrepresent history rather grossly. Of course, no "wargame" can replicate "reality" but you can certainly craft a game with realatively more exacting specifications, accurate data, mechanics of operational movement and execution, in ways that are fairly authentic in planning, execution, and results.

I seem to be getting most of that when I play FoW.

It requires dutiful study and research on the part of the game designer.

Seems to me the Phil Yates is a very well-studied on WW2 and thoughtful guy. His post on history issues/discussion seem to indicate that he has access to a very extensive library which he makes good use of.

These games, FoW and especially, Bolt Action, are games of the tail wagging the dog. The decision process and tactics should be fully in the hands of the players decision making process and be intuitive.

I can't speak to Bolt Action, but for FoW I'd say that sometimes I feel like I have too much directly in my hands if I'm trying to replicate decisions at company level.

The plethora of "special rules" is excessive, and things like "saving throws" are simply useless acts and waste of time.

Addressed "saving throws" below. Special rules, I don't need to fuss too much about those when playing historical scenarios. I just use the ones that make sense if they are needed and then develop scenario specific ones as needed.

When you get shot at, do you get a saving throw to save yourself on the battlefield? Of course not, it's stupid. The mechanics of fire speak for themselves based on probabilities. Either you get hit or you don't.

All that the saving throw is doing is giving the "receiver" a part of that probability of hit determination. I only see it has splitting the "to hit" roll between both players. Don't see it "you hit, no wait you missed me." I think it help keep the D6 viable as the only die. I think it also helps add some randomness to how hits are dispersed across your formation.

These artificial abstractions are not only farcical but deflect the education to the newbies to what would really most likely happen.

Of course you'd also have to ask if the "newbies" would even be there if not for FoW?

It's no longer historical, or remotely realistic, if I dare use that word in the context of gaming, and relegates a historical depiction as nothing more than a game of Parcheezi or Candyland. The actual tanks and infantry barely reflect anything authentic other than their appearance on the game table.

Oh, you easily get a lot more than that! Take two tanks, Tiger and Sherman, and see how many ways they differ from each other. I'd say you're a long, long, way from the "Candyland" level in FoW.

Play these idiotic games if you will, but don't try to suggest that they are in anyway historic.

I'm not sure the "idiotic" is warranted/needed.

Let me put it this way, if I were to present these level of games to some REAL SOLDIERS as an instructive tool for actual battle, I would be sending them to their fate. Wargames have been and always will be used as a tool to teach real tactics, logistics, time management, troop and unit coordination. With dumb games like these you could never do it.

What manual wargames were used for military training that you know of? Before the widespread use of computer simulations across the US Army, you might be surprised at the abstract "rules" used at the Simulations Center at Ft Hood Texas, before it got digitized.

Having said that, play these games, if you find them fun, that's cool, but they are not historic – they are not honest to history or how things work, even remotely on a real battlefield. Games like this are not really pitting ones wits as in a chess game against a wily adversary, it's simply a vehicle for big boys to play with their toys. And, that's okay, as long as you admit it, and don't claim this crap to be historically accurate, and god forbid a "simulation".

I'm certainly not going to advocate FoW as a highly detailed "simulation." It is clearly just a game, but it does have value as a historical game and to reduce it to the "crap" level certainly seems to be undervaluing it.

That's what I'm saying. There are some very good games out there without the marketing powerhouses of Osprey, Warlord, and Battlefront miniatures behind them that can mass market the hell out of these sub-standard games, which lowers the bar for the whole hobby, unfortunately.

I'm not convinced that FoW actually lowering the bar. I was opposed to playing FoW for years., but when I started to play it I found that it actually gave me a lot more than I thought it would in terms of good historical WW2 gaming.

Cheers, VB

Oh yeah, another thing, these tournament and points sytems – what marketing genius, though so completely unnecessary! That's a ploy to force everyone to build and BUY large armies. The tournaments generate even more of this. And, that's one great way to sell lots of your product, more than you would otherwise. They've (FoW) hit on a formula that is copied by Bolt Action and taken to the limit.

But, you don't need a points system to play these games. And, also, battles are hardly ever "even" per side. Instead, just craft the scenario and it's objectives accordingly with "unbalanced" forces, often creating much more interesting games.

People get so hung up on these Point systems – you don't need this stuff. Sure, you can use it from time to time, but like I said you can devise very interesting and historical scenarios that have objectives other than mutual annihilation, and get awsy from slugfests, which become quickly boring anyway. Much more interesting are battles of envelopment and cunning.

Agreed. You can completely play FoW without using "points." My group does it all the time and we find that we have much more fun than the tournament/points based approach, which like you I find less enjoyable.

Although, "points" can also be useful as a measure of relative combat power when designing scenarios, so not totally useless perhaps.

Cheers, VB

Von Burge,

I respect your responses as even handed. I agree with aspects of your debate as well . . .

I like your initial analogy, and I get it – a photo versus a painting. And, of course, a wargame can't, nor would we ever want it to be, as realistic as a photo, for a lot of reasons. On the other hand, I really feel that FoW is much farther over resembling a Picasso, vs., say a impressionist painting like a Renoir to extrapolate the analogy.

Playing 15mm FoW on a 4x6 foot table at company level is a bit ridiculous by any measure. Also, the standoff distances . . . all of it too compressed for the scale. It does really require big adjustment to bring it together at a better scale proportion if you're going to use 15mm AFV's. So, the hubcap to hubcap thing spoils the whole feel of playing the game. I have played FoW and Bolt Action a number of times, and admittedly, I'll play anything that someone has taken the effort to stage. But, these days I refuse to play Bolt Action, for example, just because it truly sets a low standard of absurdity, that's it's actually laughable. Even, FoW isn't that bad in my opinion. Alessi Calvatore, or whatever his name is, the author of BA openly stated he knew nothing of WW2 when he designed the game, and it shows! And, I believe, despite the nay-sayers that it's noting more than a revamped "Warhammer 1944". They can deny that all day long, but compared to more normal games the parallel is unmistakable. 'Nuf said about that!

As far as Phil Yates goes, I don't know who that is, but if he's a key designer of FoW then all those resources failed him. I know the FoW guys have impeccable data at their fingertips, just look at their historic data that's in their "Intelligence" books. I should know I own them all – great source of OOB's, AFV camo schemes and markings, historic snippets, etc. and point systems which I agree with you have value. In fact, when I come out with my ruleset, hopefully this year still (behind schedule) I will be wholeheartedly recommending those very same books to my customers for designing their armies and organizations correctly. Why reinvent the wheel. There models are fabulous I have hundreds of them, as are Skytrex, and Old Glory/Quality Castings models. But, the game missed the boat on all this avalanche of data and how it was utilized in the mechanics of the game.

As far as Candyland, I was just being dramatic to make my point that they are pretty far off on the real mechanics of tank fire and tactics and logistics.

Insofar, as wargames as tools for planning actual war? There's lots of historic trivia about how miniatures have been used since at least Frederick the Great, through prominent military theorists in the 20th century. But, to answer your question more directly as to using "wargames", published wargames to train the US Army, the Canadian Army, and the British Army, not only exist but have been used well-before digitized battlefields.

Let me name some for you. Canadian Army: Contact!, US Army: Dunn-Kempf" & Tacforce (excellent game), and there is one the British Army used written in the early 1950's that was just released due to their freedom of information act, that recently has been made available on LuLu that was based on their experiences of WW2 and Korea. There are some others but can't recall them now.

My point was that my presenting a well designed game (and, I'm not saying those just mentioned are, some are surprisingly too simplistic for me – don't know about the British game, though, except Tacforce which is excellent) can have a "litmus test" of sorts . . . would you be able to convey methods to be actually used in the field by real troops via a "wargame"? The answer is yes, you could, and they have! With these dumbed down games you'd be screwed – they're simply not applicable because of their inherent falsehoods, arbitrary unjustifiable abstractions deemed as "fog of war" or "battle friction". Most of these designers and certainly gamers don't really even understand the magnitude of these terms and what they represent.

The worst thing is the initiative nonsense . . . all it does, and I've seen this in action numerous times, sidelines a player who is not allowed to react what is going on right in front of his troops because he cannot engage because of this stupid movement/action initiative sequence. It's vexing to say the least? How realistic is that – it's not!

Then there's the saving rolls, a trending genre affectation to keep people "engaged" with their short attention spans. Saving rolls are completely redundant acts of play that can be incorporated into the initial hit calculations – there's absolutely no need for it, it simply wastes time. The misses can be calculated right in.

No offense, but, I'll stick to my guns that FoW does nips at the "crap" level, it really does. What in fact, has enhanced your experience by playing this game over, say, other games which wouldn't have achieved the same, if not better experience, other than just lots more people playing it – or, more than the less-published games out currently out there, past or present?!? The current genre of games seem to be obsessed more with the "eye candy" aspect than the substance of the subject they're designed to represent.

There are so many better games, available – all with their quirks, but truly better, like "Arc of Fire", "Combat Commander", earlier versions of "Command Decision", "Tank Wars", "Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier", "Panzer Marsch", "Kampfgruppe Commander – Clash of Armor II", "Panzer", "Soldat II", and probably the best balanced game that's fast playing, "WWII Battlefront", and "Tacforce" and "Tank Charts"!

I will whole-heartedly say that Battlefront Miniatures (FoW) has grown the WW2 and modern era historic hobby and should be lauded for that. I want them to hang around and keep making there stuff, because they've singularly produced the best, most extensive range of gaming models that armor fans lacked 30+ years ago and could only dream of the completeness of it all. I want them not to go away for all those reasons. I just think their rules are nowhere near the quality of gaming that their physical products are. You have to remember the came out with the game after they came out with their models which were not taking off as they have after the provided a ruleset to help sell the miniatures. It's a shame given their exposure and sales numbers. We could all be playing a much better game.

This is one of the reasons I'm coming out with my game that's been in the works for about 5 years now. I want to get away from all this superfluous gamey play! I want a game that represents things as they are, attrition rates, casualty rates, accuracy and probability of tank fire hits, etc. But, make it as transparent to the player as the guy sitting in the tank commander's hatch! I want an honest game that represents the call and fall of artillery as close to reality as possible – no game has done this yet to my satisfaction – and, it ain't that hard. The data and research is all there for the taking.

It won't really compete with the FoW, Bolt Action, Chain of Command, Kampfgruppe Overlord crowd, except for those who DO WANT a more authentically correct game that is challenging the wits and not forcing doctrine or artificial controls on the game. You choose how to employ tactics and doctrine, as stipulating that in rules is also artificial, since such things were often already obsolete when disseminated to the field units, and, furthermore, were morphed by the commanders employing them to suit changing warfare conditions, equipment, and environment. Most of the great battlefield generals of WW2 broke the rules almost right away, so, I don't impose those artificialities in my game. The game doesn't drive the game the players do. The is my biggest beef with the current genre of the popular games I just mentioned. Of the batch, I think Battlegroup Overlord is the most legitimate of the group.

Sincerely,
T. Ipavic

I respect your responses as even handed. I agree with aspects of your debate as well . . .

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I like your initial analogy, and I get it – a photo versus a painting. And, of course, a wargame can't, nor would we ever want it to be, as realistic as a photo, for a lot of reasons. On the other hand, I really feel that FoW is much farther over resembling a Picasso, vs., say a impressionist painting like a Renoir to extrapolate the analogy.

That works for me. It's art more than science in the end and you go with what appeals to you. Who's to say what is more valuable? It depends very much on the viewer and you are more than welcome to pefer one over the other.

Playing 15mm FoW on a 4x6 foot table at company level is a bit ridiculous by any measure. Also, the standoff distances . . . all of it too compressed for the scale.

An absolutely valid point…but then 15mm is what I like, company level is what I like to focus on and a 4 x 6 tabel is what I mostly have access too. By all rights we should be using mirco-armor or even pico armor if we want better model to ground scale representation. I get that, and I get that playing FoW sometimes results in less appealing images with respect to overcrowding. So its just comes down to what I want. I'm sorry but the right answer, micro armor does not appeal to me. My table ain't getting any bigger and I love the detail of my 15mm models and really enjoy painting them. Funny I suppose that I'm big on model detail, but am more tolerant of rules detail.
So there you have it, I know the table is too small for 1/100th models. I know the logarithmic distance scale is a real put off for some. But I also know its lets me vary comparative ranges for various weapon systems on the same 4' x 6' board, not every large caliber gun can range anywhere on the board and I get to have a Tiger tank that out ranges a Sherman.

It does really require big adjustment to bring it together at a better scale proportion if you're going to use 15mm AFV's.

I disagree. It's clear to me that you have to increase the table size, an opion for me in some cases, or I reduce the scale of the miniatures, something I choose not to do. My thought is that if I'm going to go smaller in scale I might as well go back to playing board games like ASL and we can debate how realistic stacks of counters all bunched up look.

So, the hubcap to hubcap thing spoils the whole feel of playing the game.

Hey if that's a "deal breaker" for you I have to accept that. It is what it is visually and one can look beyond it or not. Your call on that opinion. For me it's not much more off setting than a stack of counters in a hex was. So I can look beyond it. "Visually" your perspective is more proper of course, I just put a higher premium on outcomes and effects, so less a big deal for me.

I have played FoW and Bolt Action a number of times, and admittedly, I'll play anything that someone has taken the effort to stage.

Good on you! I'm about the same. I've played sevens different WW2 rules sets since I've started with FoW. The other six don't quite "do it for me" as much as FoW does, but that does not mean I cannot appreciate the different direction these games want to go and I'm certainly happy to accommodate my friends who also accommodate games I like, not just FoW.

But, these days I refuse to play Bolt Action, for example, just because it truly sets a low standard of absurdity, that's it's actually laughable. Even, FoW isn't that bad in my opinion. Alessi Calvatore, or whatever his name is, the author of BA openly stated he knew nothing of WW2 when he designed the game, and it shows! And, I believe, despite the nay-sayers that it's noting more than a revamped "Warhammer 1944". They can deny that all day long, but compared to more normal games the parallel is unmistakable. 'Nuf said about that!

I'd caution against that. Actually in my area Bolt Action seems to have eclipsed FoW for the points driven/tournament players. I'm not really that big of a fan of BA myself. There are some mechanics that I like, but I'm not too thrilled with the force compositions in it. Howver I'd did have a really good time playing the Pegasus Bridge scenario with it, so I know it has potential. So I'll be guarded about trying to look down on the local Bolt Action players and their rules. Ultimately some of those guys will be participating in scenarios I set up in Chain of Command or even Flames of War.

As far as Phil Yates goes, I don't know who that is, but if he's a key designer of FoW then all those resources failed him.

That's pretty big assumption. I don't know him personally and have never communicated with him directly, but I've got to say the guy is obviously very well read on WW2 from his post I've seen on the BF forums and the podcast interviews where I've heard him speak.. Yeah, he made some game design decisions that are rather bold, maybe too bold, and as much as I respect him he has also made some calls that I flat out disagree with. I think he fully understands the nuances of WW2 combat.

I will be wholeheartedly recommending those very same books to my customers for designing their armies and organizations correctly. Why reinvent the wheel.

I wish you much success with that. It's a hard road to go. I've helped out on play testing on a few rules sets and it's much harder than it seems. I've even taken a crack at a Napoleonic set, but alas that ended up as a glorius failure. I truly hope you can realize the ultimate dream of any war gamer and get a good set out there! If I have the time I'd even be willing to help you out!

There models are fabulous I have hundreds of them, as are Skytrex, and Old Glory/Quality Castings models.

They have there "ups" and "downs." The first batch of plastics seemed to be a "learning experience" and the Early War French were in my opinion unusable. But I've got to tell you that the WW1 stuff I picked up is very impressive.

But, the game missed the boat on all this avalanche of data and how it was utilized in the mechanics of the game.

Good luck to you in boiling that "avalanche of data" into usable game information. As I get older the "less is more" approach has more and more value to me in every new game I play.

As far as Candyland, I was just being dramatic to make my point that they are pretty far off on the real mechanics of tank fire and tactics and logistics.

I'm sure we could debate those individual aspects. It would not be the first time for me here. I'd caution over using drastic extremes to try to make you case. It seems to devalue your objectivity.

Insofar, as wargames as tools for planning actual war? There's lots of historic trivia about how miniatures have been used since at least Frederick the Great, through prominent military theorists in the 20th century. But, to answer your question more directly as to using "wargames", published wargames to train the US Army, the Canadian Army, and the British Army, not only exist but have been used well-before digitized battlefields.
Let me name some for you. Canadian Army: Contact!, US Army: Dunn-Kempf" & Tacforce (excellent game), and there is one the British Army used written in the early 1950's that was just released due to their freedom of information act, that recently has been made available on LuLu that was based on their experiences of WW2 and Korea. There are some others but can't recall them now.

I'm familiar with Dunn-Kempf and Tacforce I think (if it was the USMC set from the 80's). Definitely more on the simulation side I'd say, which was the biggest draw back that I saw with them. They really only appealed to "wargame geeks" and did not really translate well for junior leader level training where it was perhaps needed most. It's interesting to me that these "professional" games fell out of use really long before computers would have driven them out of use anyway. Likewise there's a reason "modern" commercial rules sets like "Challenger" were not adopted for use broadly in the US Army. The rules that I did see that worked best were even simpler than FoW. If they had more than a page or two, Solders just would not use them.

My point was that my presenting a well designed game (and, I'm not saying those just mentioned are, some are surprisingly too simplistic for me – don't know about the British game, though, except Tacforce which is excellent) can have a "litmus test" of sorts . . . would you be able to convey methods to be actually used in the field by real troops via a "wargame"?

Good luck if you intend to follow the path of these games in your own rules set design. There's a reason thse games did not really see wide application and much use past the initial novelty stage and why they have not been "reinvented" into a successful commercial wargame sets.

The answer is yes, you could, and they have! With these dumbed down games you'd be screwed – they're simply not applicable because of their inherent falsehoods, arbitrary unjustifiable abstractions deemed as "fog of war" or "battle friction".

I'm not so sure at the company level that the level of granular detail you are after is that important to me in respect to achieving a reasonable outcomes in a reasonable period of time. More detail seldom provides me a better gaming experience, normally this just take more time and difficulty to resolve.

Most of these designers and certainly gamers don't really even understand the magnitude of these terms and what they represent.

I'm also not sure most gamers look beyond a good time, but I'd hesitate to throw that accusation at game designers at large. There are a lot of games that come and go. Rommel or Patton did not write holy of holy wargame rules for us, so we are left with commercial authors' interpretations of those "maginatude of terms" and the areas/aspect of combat which they choose to emphasize. If there was that "one perfect" set it woud have been developed long ago and we'd not be discussing the degree to which one set or the other works best for us.

The worst thing is the initiative nonsense . . . all it does, and I've seen this in action numerous times, sidelines a player who is not allowed to react what is going on right in front of his troops because he cannot engage because of this stupid movement/action initiative sequence. It's vexing to say the least? How realistic is that – it's not!

Sure. It has its moments where it fails in FoW, But in a I-Go-U-Go game the simple mechanic of opportunity fire is abstractly represent in the reduced fire of moving forces. It seems to work in the majority of head to head situations well enough streaming the whole process, but the anomalies do unfortunately occur where a target evades what would have been a fair shot. So I have to look at the sum whole of the good vs. the sum whole of the bad and make my decision just like the rules author did on how well that works for me. If it balances differently for you, no issue. There are other games that get at this more deliberately.

Then there's the saving rolls, a trending genre affectation to keep people "engaged" with their short attention spans. Saving rolls are completely redundant acts of play that can be incorporated into the initial hit calculations – there's absolutely no need for it, it simply wastes time. The misses can be calculated right in.

There plenty of games that have rolls to hit followed by rolls to destroy etc. FoW "saves" and maybe the other games you mention are pretty much doing just about the same. It's just a question of who makes the roll to "destroy" after a hit. What you get from this approach is variations of hit effects. You can suppress a unit with volume of hits and cause little real damage or you can cause some real damage that has less of an impact on the target force. It really does not bother me having multiple rolls and multiple levels of effects from hits.

No offense, but, I'll stick to my guns that FoW does nips at the "crap" level, it really does.

Well then no offense then, you leave me in a position where I must question your ability to give a balanced holistic evaluation of a game system. You seem entirely focused on negatives of specific rules aspects and have not demonstrated how you have weighed them against the positives that come from that rules decision to go in a different direction than from where you'd have gone.

What in fact, has enhanced your experience by playing this game over, say, other games which wouldn't have achieved the same, if not better experience,

If you can't tell already, for me it focuses where I want to focus with streamlined play for sound conclusions in reasonable amounts of time like no other game I've played. I'm not about to say that makes FoW better than any other game. It's not! It's just the best for me for getting after what I want in a historical game. And conversely, I'm not about to call any other WW2 game out there "crap." I like that there are other options and other approaches to scratch other people's itches for WW2 historical gaming. I can appreciate those different approaches, weigh the pros and cons for me and make my choice.

than just lots more people playing it – or, more than the less-published games out currently out there, past or present?!?

Not at all the case for me. It does not hurt that there is a large player base for it, but there was a large player base when I did not like it also! In the future, BF could fold shop tomorrow and the FoW scene drop to zero and I reckon I could still be playing it happily for decades to come.

The current genre of games seem to be obsessed more with the "eye candy" aspect than the substance of the subject they're designed to represent.
There are so many better games, available – all with their quirks, but truly better, like "Arc of Fire", "Combat Commander", earlier versions of "Command Decision", "Tank Wars", "Battlegroup Panzer Grenadier", "Panzer Marsch", "Kampfgruppe Commander – Clash of Armor II", "Panzer", "Soldat II", and probably the best balanced game that's fast playing, "WWII Battlefront", and "Tacforce" and "Tank Charts"!

Well that's where you get to make your opinion. All sets make their design choices, then we deicide how well they appeal or work for us. It really does not make any set better or worse to me. It just means they take a focus or direction that works for me or does not. Flames of War is not the "one true" rules set by far and neither are any of the above. That's why there are so many of them.

I will whole-heartedly say that Battlefront Miniatures (FoW) has grown the WW2 and modern era historic hobby and should be lauded for that. I want them to hang around and keep making there stuff, because they've singularly produced the best, most extensive range of gaming models that armor fans lacked 30+ years ago and could only dream of the completeness of it all. I want them not to go away for all those reasons. I just think their rules are nowhere near the quality of gaming that their physical products are. You have to remember the came out with the game after they came out with their models which were not taking off as they have after the provided a ruleset to help sell the miniatures. It's a shame given their exposure and sales numbers. We could all be playing a much better game.

You already are playing a better game for you as I'm playing a better one for me. I don't see that as a shame. Options are better than a monolithic interpretations we all must follow. Wargamers never would follow just one anyway…if we did we'd not be having lively debates like this!!! ;)

This is one of the reasons I'm coming out with my game that's been in the works for about 5 years now. I want to get away from all this superfluous gamey play!

I certainly wish you all the luck in the world with that endeavor. It does not sound like you are on a path that will result in a product that will appeal to me but hey who knows!

Cheers, VB

VB you make me chuckle, and I mean that in a good way. I already know my game is targeted more towards the "wargaming geek" and certainly will not appeal to the current discussion crowds we've been debating. I'm not unrealistic in saying that this is a project, as I'm sure many like have tried, will not be hugely successful, so I'll be happy if it sells a hundred copies – it's really a labor of love. So, no, you'll probably hate it. Ooops! there's that word again! Don't take that expletive too seriously . . . LOL. Anyway, my game will never achieve the mass appeal of the games in question. And, I wouldn't attribute that completely to dwindling wargaming grognards either, but that companies like FoW and Osprey have huge marketing budgets that can eclipse all the games of the last 30 years in one fell swoop. Let's face it you have Wargames Illustrated who have an arrangement with Battlefront Miniatures so the promotional aspects are ginormous. It proves that even the most mediocre of games like Bolt Action are the new FoW that everyone's clamoring over can saturate the marketplace in record time.

You didn't happen to play that Pegasus Bridge scenario in California in the past year did you? Possible coincidence, here, my buddy ran a spectacular one with Bolt Action at either KublaCon or was it PacifiCon. Just sayin'!

I also hear this all the time, people as they get older want faster, easier, type games. And, that's fine I get that. Who knows I might get sick of my own game before it even reaches maturation.

And, I'm sorry your playsurface is so restrictive. I agree that the micro-armor just doesn't quite cut it, or satisfy my desire for eye-candy and my investment. And, not to overlook the fact when you get down 1/285th scale, the whole infantry thing goes out the window – yeah at that point you might as well play a boardgame which defeats the whole reason we like mini's!!! I'm with you brother, 15mm is the way to go. It strikes a perfect balance between satisfying detail, plethora of wonderful scenics, and an infantry scale that can still be pleasant to experience. And, frankly you can get a lot more realistic action if you can get a large enough table.

Presumably FoW opted for their compression scale with the anticipation of small game tables lending themselves to a more manageable tournament environment, packed with players, as I have seen.

I don't think the US Military really took much advantage of games like TACFORCE when they had them, or promoted their use as a training aid. Though I have seen, even recently, in some Army publication a large tactical game being played out on the floor of a gymnasium which is how you really need to play these kinds of games . . . I also, discovered, that most of these armor units weren't even aware of these games existing for their use, otherwise there might have been more widespread use of them. The Army is rife with resources that never see the light of day . . .

My game does require a large gaming area and is essential to capturing the feel of armored combat, of terrain and maneuver that is required with much more standoff distances required. You have to have room to outflank regardless of whatever game you play or you've lost half of what is great and possible. I quickly get bored with all these games, not just armor where they devolve into nothing more than frontal assault slugfests of attrition, basically. 15mm achieves all this better than 1/72 scale by a surprising order of magnitude. The craziest thing about Bolt Action is that at 1/56 scale you just can't have armor behave in anything but sheer point blank range results – it's absurd. I watched some extensive play of that game on uTube with Allesi Cavatore and his compatriot and couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was ridiculous beyond belief, it ceased to be a wargame in any sense of the word at that point. Even with the most liberal lattitude of excuses, it was foolish looking and totally implausible. I wish I could show you what I saw. You would have to agree!

As far as Phil Yates goes. He may be a great historian, hell this TMP is full of incredibly knowledgeable people who know their facts but that doesn't mean that all knowledge translated credibly into their game. I've picked apart aspects of FoW that simply puzzles me as to how they derived at some of their mechanics.

In my game I have all the data points, factors, ballistics, inherent round dispersion, laws of probability, bench tests, military manuals chockfull of research studies, research based on actual field data of firefights regarding everything from percentage odds of "suppression" under actual battlefield conditions, mounds of empirical data, etc., etc., from the US, British, and Soviet militaries have found there way into my calculations to derive at the values that give my game its attributes. But, looking at some of the basic functions of FoW and BA I just don't see that reflected in their fundamental hit tabulations. This bothers me. Very unrealistic, despite all the information they must have, and they probably have "research teams" working on this all this stuff to focus on specifics like that, if they chose.

Other games like Combat Commander have very credible data infused into their game, for example from everything from penetration results to multi levels of suppression that is substantiated and well reasoned.

Well I digress, yes, my game begins at a much more advanced level, will never be a convention crowd pleaser, but will fundamentally be unique in a number of ways and refined in others. I offer things that actually have merit, like recon units that actually can do something other than be cannon fodder, I have optional logistics rules, I have battlefield vehicle recovery options, tanks are not necessarily written off and can be repaired and reenter battle as they actually did. I'm trying to streamline the complexity via many methods but relying a lot on "cheat sheets" that are succinct with the vital reference data on them. The game does require hidden moves which is the only way to really achieve some level of deception essential to create a authentic battlefield environment. It's a pain to some degree, but the effect is worth it.

Most importantly, and this is where the game really shines is a simultaneous movement system that's asymmetrical and alternates each turn w/ simultaneous fire of two opponents firing at each other that assigns priority fire dependent on conditions or priority choices made prior to the actual engagement by one or the other player. These priority fire inclusions really work quite well and I'm very happy with their resultant effects. And, of course this does away with the lopsided IGO-UGO approach which spawned all these initiative move based games. Though the initiative based approach often is worse than even the IGO-UGO convention it was designed to "improve" on. In most cases it simply doesn't. Battlegroup Overlord has a unique system that bears paying attention to of an "order-giving" system that activates a unit, then the opponent can produce a reaction order, at any time – then or later – check it out! It's intriguing, not having played it I'm not sure how well it works, but having watched the author, Warwicke Kinraid demonstrate it on uTube I found it far more fluid and plausible than BA or even FoW.

FoW has some very good and unique rules that I have even adopted in some form or another, and I have to say, the rules are somewhat overwhelming. I own them have read a lot of it, and have played a number of times at the conventions with experts who knew the rules backwards and forwards. How they could digest and spit out all that knowledge was beyond me. I literally left the game, two days in a row with a friggin' headache. I have never played a game that left me so stressed out in my life! My head was spinning trying to keep up with the gamemasters all the while moving Pieper's Panthers up the restrictive snow laden roadways and trying to effect a river crossing with opposition on the other side. I had a traffic jam behind in column and all these American's jumping me from the flanks and the barrage of rules being employed was dizzying!!!

Having experienced this several times with this game convinced me that though my game may be complex in its entirety, once learned, the basics of the game are fundementally intuitive and natural and learning that isn't hard at all, the challenge really comes into play with your honing your tactical skills – mastering the game is where it becomes fun and challenging. I prescribe to the 80/20 rule which is, 80% of what you do is really only using about 20% of the rules, the rest are mostly addressing contingencies, anomolies, or special conditions, like jungle warefare, or amphibious landings or airborne operations, that sort of thing. There really isn't much to learn than to employ good tactics and taking advantages of your army's strengths vs. you opponents weaknesses, and most decisions in combat challenge you with a "risk-reward" dilemma, be it moving to cover, or setting up a kill shot, or getting the drop on your opponents tank, in a simultaneous environment. It's pretty cool really. All the data mumbo-jumbo is buried the the procedures with minimal calculations. Mostly just applying the appropriate modifiers to the To Hit Procedures and resultant hit location and damage results, makes for some rather epic action . . .

And, yes, when I get it to suitable completion I would gladly offer you a free copy to playtest and see where it goes . . . ?!? Who knows?

- Tibor

….jealousy,

…..Charactor flaws,

….lack of knowledge

or None of the above!

The picasso reference is very apt.

An absolutely valid point…but then 15mm is what I like, company level is what I like to focus on and a 4 x 6 tabel is what I mostly have access too. By all rights we should be using mirco-armor or even pico armor if we want better model to ground scale representation. I get that, and I get that playing FoW sometimes results in less appealing images with respect to overcrowding. So its just comes down to what I want. I'm sorry but the right answer, micro armor does not appeal to me. My table ain't getting any bigger and I love the detail of my 15mm models and really enjoy painting them. Funny I suppose that I'm big on model detail, but am more tolerant of rules detail.
So there you have it, I know the table is too small for 1/100th models. I know the logarithmic distance scale is a real put off for some. But I also know its lets me vary comparative ranges for various weapon systems on the same 4' x 6' board, not every large caliber gun can range anywhere on the board and I get to have a Tiger tank that out ranges a Sherman.

This for me hits the nail on the head.

When I was a teenager I played WWII with the old Airfix 1/72 scale models, I loved the period and played several different rule sets. Gradually it dawned on me that a unit of infantry not being able to walk the lenght of a halftrack in one turn was a bit of an issue.

There is a fundamental problem with playing WWII in that while typical engagement ranges were perhaps no more than 500m many direct fire weapons could reach a lot further and as a result you need a table that represents a decent chunk of real estate. If like many wargamers your available real estate is a 6' by 4' table then the only way to get the model to ground scale right is to use very small models (3mm or 1/600th would still mean a 6' by 4' table is only about 1000m by 750).

Then there is the fact that the real world is full of little bits and pieces of stuff that troops can hide behind or in. Very very few wargames tables have anything like enough stuff to hide in and when you think about it more experienced troops are probably better at taking advantage of the stuff to remain concealed.

Flames of War addresses the first issue with the logarithmic ground scale which at first I hated but I have now become fully used to and think is actually a brilliant solution to a nearly insoluble problem. The second is covered by it being harder to hit better quality troops. In my head those better troops are making good use of the little bits and pieces of stuff we don't represent on table.

Is FoW perfect? Hell no. Is it for me the best option on the table at the moment? Well, it is the best of the many I have tried.

There are lots of issues, things like on table artillery and hub to hub vehicles (if your opponent does not have any template weapons) but I can and do live with them as do the many people who play the game.

If there are better games out there that I have not tried I would be very glad to look at them. At the moment I am about to try out Battlegroup. Bolt Action does not really do it for me at all. Fireball Forward was OK but again did not grab me, same for PBI. Rapid Fire uses a totally different set of principles and is something that I simply detest. The idea of a "company" being made up of 21 figures is for me far worse than telescoping ground scales.

In the end it is up to each individual to pay their money and make their choice. There is I suspect on one game that can possibly scratch the itch for everyone.

people will pick their reasons for their actions and prefer to brush aside what doesn't fit. Everyone does it.

It does seem like some reasons are actually that using X rules does not let me play a game like fow with a fow army.

I know of no other WW2 game that plays like Fow at all. So if that is your criteria, then I wouldnt suggest looking at any other games at all, as they will all disappoint.

I have the Flames of War and Bolt Action rule book and have played it twice. I see Bolt Action (and FoW to an extent) as a design variation of a successful dice and game mechanic using abstracted values for WWII vehicles, guns and infantry. The game needs to fit into these mechanics. That's why the Italian guy that developed the game did not need to know very much about WWII. They have done an admirable job at using the game mechanics and a D6's as a way to arbitrarily differentiate between historical vehicles and guns and an anti-armor mechanics based on differences of artificial values assigned to them. The highest value you can have rolling two D6 is a 12 so that is assigned to the best unit in the game and everything else is extrapolated on that. While completely arbitrary it does give the illusion of strengths and weaknesses between vehicle and gun systems that is easily communicated to players without further education about the historical systems themselves. No charts and very little modifications make it playable. The order dice break up movement and give some fog of war to the game. The fact that a completely arbitrary system based on a completely non-historical game system developed by an Italian who readily admits minimal knowledge of WWII can deliver an "experience" that captivates players makes it even more unique. Add to that the entire system makes a profit allowing more players access and retail stores to carry it makes it a commercial success. I think that is pretty amazing for a "non-historical" historical WWII game. Throw in additional special rules to simulate strengths and weakness of units complicates the game but gives it a level of "realism" and a tactic to employ.

In 1971 I was 17 and playing Panzer Blitz, the only war game I ever saw at that point. Just the fact it had the different vehicle silhouettes and hard data was really cool as I'd never really saw it before. The arbitrarily assigned defense, attack and movement factors did differentiate between vehicles that communicated the differences, weaknesses and strengths in a way that a person like me could understand without knowing about the real info. I thoroughly enjoyed it! However, over the years more information became available and while reading and doing research my knowledge improved and my desire to play Panzer Blitz ceased. The more I learned the less I enjoyed and played games. I now play war games mainly for the social interaction and do not criticize the game while playing it. From spending time in the real infantry and reading dozens of books I've found very little that reflects reality in commercial war games. Video games don't do it either. Have fun, make friends and educate people if they are willing. That will grow the hobby.

Reality is the individual's perceived awareness and others cannot define it for them, especially so called "haters". Zealots will defend their games and systems to the death. From my observations at conventions watching players play the popular commercially available miniature rule sets it seems the players are more constrained by and playing the "mechanics" of the rules rather than making the same actions, decisions and tactics that were historically used. I'm not saying there are no tactics involved in these games as there is. It's just that they seem to be thinking within the confines of the rules that dictate their actions of when, if and what they can do. You don't do that while engaged in a real battle.

At Kublacon I saw people playing Fire Ball Forward, Bolt Action, Treadheads, FOW and Chain of Command. Most of the players were new to the systems. They all seemed to be having fun and not any whining. However, only one of those games allowed the player to immediately respond to enemy action by moving or acquiring a target without having to wait or additional rules for command dice or points, interruption, over watch or opportunity fire rules or turn interrupt.

Wolfhag

VB you make me chuckle, and I mean that in a good way. I already know my game is targeted more towards the "wargaming geek" and certainly will not appeal to the current discussion crowds we've been debating. I'm not unrealistic in saying that this is a project, as I'm sure many like have tried, will not be hugely successful, so I'll be happy if it sells a hundred copies – it's really a labor of love.

The guy you need to satisfy most is you! I hope you achieve your desired end state with it.

So, no, you'll probably hate it. Ooops! there's that word again! Don't take that expletive too seriously . . . LOL. Anyway,

I doubt that. I'd respect and admire you for completing the project as it's something that I always wanted to do and never did. I would happily give them a go, and even if it did not make a dent on my game preference queue for WW2 I'm sure I would not actually hate them.

my game will never achieve the mass appeal of the games in question. And, I wouldn't attribute that completely to dwindling wargaming grognards either, but that companies like FoW and Osprey have huge marketing budgets that can eclipse all the games of the last 30 years in one fell swoop. Let's face it you have Wargames Illustrated who have an arrangement with Battlefront Miniatures so the promotional aspects are ginormous. It proves that even the most mediocre of games like Bolt Action are the new FoW that everyone's clamoring over can saturate the marketplace in record time.

I'm not sure I give credit to the success of games to a printed magazine. Very few in my area even get WI, WSS, etc. With the internet what it is, if there was that "one best game" then we'd all know about it one way or another and we'd be done kibitzing here about which of the other games were best/worst.

I think the code that BF and WI have broken is all in distribution. I'm certainly no expert at the subject but they seem get their products on the shelves in my LGSs. Others just don't seem to be able to break that code. I had to find out and order Chain of Command on-line.

You didn't happen to play that Pegasus Bridge scenario in California in the past year did you? Possible coincidence, here, my buddy ran a spectacular one with Bolt Action at either KublaCon or was it PacifiCon. Just sayin'!

Nope. Would love to get out there sometime though. I've heard good things about KublaCon especially.

I also hear this all the time, people as they get older want faster, easier, type games. And, that's fine I get that. Who knows I might get sick of my own game before it even reaches maturation.

Well I hope you make it to the finish line with your game. But yes, as you get older your going to find out at many things will change, your wargaming outlook will be the least of them!

And, I'm sorry your playsurface is so restrictive.

No need for that. I am quite comfortable with my gaming area. I have my own game room with a permanent 4x8 table I built. So I have a bit more table space but I do like keeping that area open for rules, kit, off-board forces etc. With some effort I can use my pool table and put on the 5' x 9' cover on it and game on that for large multiplayer games. If you want to feel sorry for me, feel sorry about the cubby hole for a painting area I have to cram my self and my working projects into!

Presumably FoW opted for their compression scale with the anticipation of small game tables lending themselves to a more manageable tournament environment, packed with players, as I have seen.

Possibly, but more important I think is that a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood sitting on top of some table/support is the most likely gaming surface option for the vast population. I think gearing your game to the assets that most folks have is probably a good idea. The 4' x 8' also seems to be the LGS "standard." So I think its fair to say that games that don't work well on that size table, preferably leaving some room for game kit, thus driving the gaming area down to 4'x6' are going to have a hard time being seen played out in the LGSs, where some game companies seem to be able to position their product. Getting the game out there being played in flesh at the LGS, and in the conventions, and in the tournaments is what I think drives the expansion that game like FoW has had and what seems to be taken lead on by Bolt Action now. So I guess I'll just have to come over to your place to game on you big table when we play your developing game! ;)

I don't think the US Military really took much advantage of games like TACFORCE when they had them, or promoted their use as a training aid.

I honestly did not know anything about TACFORCE. Dunn-Kempf and the USMC's TACWAR which I was very familiar with. When I looked it up I found the GDW game called TACFORCE designed by Frank Chadwick. I don't know this game but I really respect Chadwick and own and played a lot of his other games to include Command Decision (all editions), Combined Arms, Over the Top, Volley & Bayonet, Traveler Tactical, But I'm not sure TACFORCE was ever officially adopted by the Army. It "looks" like it because the game's books were cleverly done up to look like US Army FMs. But I find it hard to believe that this game was adopted by the Army and used in the 80's without me being aware of it. I imagine that's possible, but its going to surprise me if that's true. I hope you can enlighten me more about TACFORCE and its official Army use.

BTW, so long as I'm talking rules authors. I note a bit of basing about the Bolt Action author above. Now I respect Chadwick immensely. He is (hope he's still with us) a prolific game designer. He did everything from a Sci-Fi, ancients to moderns, board games, miniature rules, and even RPGs. I own many of his rules sets and enjoyed them all, but I can't think of him possibly being "the definitive expert" in ALL of those periods and genres. I do know though that they guy had his stuff wired tight as a game designer and God bless him for it! So I think I can be more charitable to the "Italian Guy." His business is designing games, much like Chadwick I think. Warlord could have brought in any number of WW2 "experts" I suppose to author their flagship rules. But they went a deliberate route with a proven designer rather than an expert and I guess it has paid off for them. So I'll cut the guy some slack, and from my experience combat is not really not rocket science in the end anyway. To me combat is rather fundamental and it does not take much to get a decent grasp on it. The rub is what Clauswitz said "Everything in War is simple, but in war the simple is difficult." I probably got that wrong, but you likely know the actual quote!

Though I have seen, even recently, in some Army publication a large tactical game being played out on the floor of a gymnasium which is how you really need to play these kinds of games . . .

That would be really cool to check out. If you can recall the publication and the date, I know I can get a hold of it. I do like to try to keep up on "official" wargaming in the Army as it happens.

I also, discovered, that most of these armor units weren't even aware of these games existing for their use, otherwise there might have been more widespread use of them. The Army is rife with resources that never see the light of day . . .

But then you had guys like me that did know they existed and where to find them but also realized "Joe" was not going to be into them or get much out of them like you or I would. These manual wargames just collected dust after they their initial splash for a reason. Organizations like the Battle Simulations Center at Ft Hood that did wargaming full time went to very simplistic and basic rules, like they'd fit on a 3"x5" card simple and used a pair of different colored dice in a baby food jar as the random number generator.

These "full up wargames" shelf live in te Army was really over long before computers would have done them in anyway! Really the only consistent gaming I saw was the Action-Reaction-Counteraction drills in MDMP and a very free form terrain board drill used for training of junior leaders in the Armor School. No dice, narrative driven simulations if you will. I wish there was more use what we know as wargaming in the US Army. I'd have been all over it. Hell, the 16th Cavalry at Ft Knox had a license to give away the full version of TACOPs to Soldiers. But tsacks of disk got thown in the trash about as fast as they were handed out. Even today US Army Cadet Command has a limited license for free downloads of "Gettysburg Scourge of War." Want to guess how many of the 2000 authorized downloads have actually been used? Seems you can't even give away good wargames to the military!

The reality is that the military is pretty much just a slice of the community it comes from. So they have their handful of "wargame geeks" like us, but for the huge majority, including in the combat arms, manual wargames just get the big "meh" from the rank and file. VBS, CCTT, and the old SMINET will get their attention to a point, but that wears thin too pretty quickly from what I've seen. It's sad from our perspectives, but the military just does not seem to get into wargaming as much as perhaps we hope they would.

As far as Phil Yates goes. He may be a great historian, hell this TMP is full of incredibly knowledgeable people who know their facts but that doesn't mean that all knowledge translated credibly into their game. I've picked apart aspects of FoW that simply puzzles me as to how they derived at some of their mechanics.

You've clearly brought up some of the negative aspects, but not shown how you considered the counter argument. So I'm not sure that you've done the full analysis and really then am not so surprised at your stated puzzlement. Maybe you have, but I don't seem to get that vibe from what you've posted here.

In my game I have all the data points, factors, ballistics, inherent round dispersion, laws of probability, bench tests, military manuals chockfull of research studies, research based on actual field data of firefights regarding everything from percentage odds of "suppression" under actual battlefield conditions, mounds of empirical data, etc., etc., from the US, British, and Soviet militaries have found there way into my calculations to derive at the values that give my game its attributes. But, looking at some of the basic functions of FoW and BA I just don't see that reflected in their fundamental hit tabulations. This bothers me. Very unrealistic, despite all the information they must have, and they probably have "research teams" working on this all this stuff to focus on specifics like that, if they chose.

More detail does not always result in more realism. It can actually be counter productive. If you got to have more detail, you've got to have more detail. But let more go back to the photograph and painting analogy again. A photo is 100% accurate scene, yet sometimes the abstract painting is far more powerful at conveying the message, telling the story, evoking emotion, etc. So to me less is more and I strongly advocate using the most minimal detail actually needed to get to that end state you are after. But then you have to design the game you're after. The game I'm after exist for the most part. Though there are things that I'd change about it if I could, I get what they are after with it.

Well I digress, yes, my game begins at a much more advanced level, will never be a convention crowd pleaser, but will fundamentally be unique in a number of ways and refined in others. I offer things that actually have merit, like recon units that actually can do something other than be cannon fodder, I have optional logistics rules, I have battlefield vehicle recovery options, tanks are not necessarily written off and can be repaired and reenter battle as they actually did.

Man you are deep diving! I'm not so sure it's for the better. Things like tank recovery and repair to me is a campaign function between games. I don't see a lot of need to devote rules space to a function that should occur almost exclusively when the fight has subsided.

I'm trying to streamline the complexity via many methods but relying a lot on "cheat sheets" that are succinct with the vital reference data on them.

Trying to be helpful here…but I don't consider streaming being lots of cheat sheets. One thing I really admire about FoW is my group's ability to play it without any cheat sheets and very few rules look ups. You've got to make that call but getting striving for more detail seems generally at odds with the concept of streaming in general. The "hands fee" approach with rules is my standard now.

The game does require hidden moves which is the only way to really achieve some level of deception essential to create a authentic battlefield environment. It's a pain to some degree, but the effect is worth it.

Yep. We do it with FoW also. It does require us to use maps and referee but it is doable. I don't see any respectable wargamer as needing rules to tell them how to do this, but I'm interested to see what you come up with if its something newer and not just ref's with maps, double blinds, ect that can be applied to any wargame if you want.

Most importantly, and this is where the game really shines is a simultaneous movement system that's asymmetrical and alternates each turn w/ simultaneous fire of two opponents firing at each other that assigns priority fire dependent on conditions or priority choices made prior to the actual engagement by one or the other player.

That can work. Worked OK in the Chadwick games I referenced above.

These priority fire inclusions really work quite well and I'm very happy with their resultant effects.

Cool. Interested in more details.

And, of course this does away with the lopsided IGO-UGO approach which spawned all these initiative move based games. Though the initiative based approach often is worse than even the IGO-UGO convention it was designed to "improve" on. In most cases it simply doesn't. Battlegroup Overlord has a unique system that bears paying attention to of an "order-giving" system that activates a unit, then the opponent can produce a reaction order, at any time – then or later – check it out! It's intriguing, not having played it I'm not sure how well it works, but having watched the author, Warwicke Kinraid demonstrate it on uTube I found it far more fluid and plausible than BA or even FoW.

I've played I-G0-U-Go, I've played simultaneous phases, I've played random command and control, command points and I've played total control. I've been around the block a few times and still get out for the occasional stroll to try something new. I've settled comfortably back into the I-GO-U-GO, which clearly has its limitations, but also has its simplicity. The quantum shift for me was starting to look at a turns not as two separate sets of moves & resolution down in sequence, but as interpreting the outcome of a turn as the sum of both players moves. Hard to wrap your head around perhaps, but I see the players' sets of moves as simultaneous even though they get resolved sequentially by game mechanics. If you don't get the gist of what I'm talking about here I don't blame you. Took me decades to wrestle with it. If I hadn't gone on so long already here, I'd try to make it a bit more clear.

FoW has some very good and unique rules that I have even adopted in some form or another,

I think when you get down to it, all wargames have something positive to offer if they can get people playing them. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and I'm happy to see it that way with a huge selection of options. I do try to fully consider the positives and the negatives about all of them. I don't really like talking negatives about the games I don't play but I'm more than willing to discuss and debate the negatives about the games I do choose to play so long as the discussion is balanced by addressing the positives too. I'm quite OK if the cons out weigh the pros for a person, but normally I only see harping on the cons so I'm left wondering if full a holistic view has really been given.

and I have to say, the rules are somewhat overwhelming. I own them have read a lot of it, and have played a number of times at the conventions with experts who knew the rules backwards and forwards. How they could digest and spit out all that knowledge was beyond me. I literally left the game, two days in a row with a friggin' headache. I have never played a game that left me so stressed out in my life! My head was spinning trying to keep up with the gamemasters all the while moving Pieper's Panthers up the restrictive snow laden roadways and trying to effect a river crossing with opposition on the other side. I had a traffic jam behind in column and all these American's jumping me from the flanks and the barrage of rules being employed was dizzying!!!

I'm pretty sure it was a big headache for Pieper too. Maybe you got closer to history than you though? Tongue in cheek here in case that did not come through well. Really, I am sorry you had a negative experience. I do hope I do a better job when I show new FoW players the ropes.

Having experienced this several times with this game convinced me that though my game may be complex in its entirety, once learned, the basics of the game are fundementally intuitive and natural and learning that isn't hard at all, the challenge really comes into play with your honing your tactical skills – mastering the game is where it becomes fun and challenging. I prescribe to the 80/20 rule which is, 80% of what you do is really only using about 20% of the rules, the rest are mostly addressing contingencies, anomolies, or special conditions, like jungle warefare, or amphibious landings or airborne operations, that sort of thing. There really isn't much to learn than to employ good tactics and taking advantages of your army's strengths vs. you opponents weaknesses, and most decisions in combat challenge you with a "risk-reward" dilemma, be it moving to cover, or setting up a kill shot, or getting the drop on your opponents tank, in a simultaneous environment. It's pretty cool really. All the data mumbo-jumbo is buried the the procedures with minimal calculations. Mostly just applying the appropriate modifiers to the To Hit Procedures and resultant hit location and damage results, makes for some rather epic action . . .

A noble goal! I love your intent but am a bit concerned about the practicality. I've heard the same message before for many rules sets for many periods and have seen it come up short like about every time. Maybe you'll be the one that has the rules that can have its cake and eat it too with respect to detail and simplicity. To me these are forces that are at odds with each other and seldom work well together. And when I have to choose, I remember "Less is More" move on out with simplicity. At one point in my life I though much like you a detail focus. Now I see sometimes that too much of a focus on detail often takes me away from where I want to go with a game. I'm not saying I'm smarter or have the answer anymore than you at all. I just have better realization of my own limitations now, the shortness of life, and about getting after what I want to get after with the minimal fuss.

And, yes, when I get it to suitable completion I would gladly offer you a free copy to playtest and see where it goes . . . ?!? Who knows?

I recommend that you set up a web site or yahoo group or something and invite some folks who you think will add value to the process to get involved there. I might be more of a devil's advocate and the old fart counseling you away from where you intuitively want to go, but a counter viewpoint can sometimes be h more informative than a bunch folks that are too much on the same wavelength as you already.

You know where to find me!

VB

SpecForc12:

So, do you seek out Flames of War forums and hijack threads to post about how much the game sucks? Is this to promote your own ruleset (because at least that would be a logical reason).

Nobody (including pretty much any FoW player) gives a if you hate the rules, it is the obsession of some people with jumping into a FoW forum and disrupting every thread by saying how much the game stinks that we are talking about (see page 1 of the thread and the Editor's posts)

So unless you are doing that then your huge post above is for nothing, you are fighting a straw man.

BTW I was in the military, in a combat unit, and I have done wargaming in the military. I play all types of rules, including Flames of War and Bolt Action. This is because I play for fun. Simulation-oriented games can be fun, but most people don't want the boring and tedius reality of an actual simulation. I play for fun, and like the game to have style, but it doesnt need to be a replication of my old job for me to play it.

I'd give SpecForc12 more credit than that.

He's not really promoting anything. He's just giving his "vison" for a theoretical rules set that is a long off concept. He already accepts that it will not likely be popular or maybe even possible. He's just laying out what he wants in a rules set and I hope he can create it for himslef and those who have an aligned vision.

Through civil and professional discussion, he might get a better understanding of your point of view and mine. That does not mean he'll have to agree with those points of view, but just maybe he'll understand them better.

I'm also not sure he qualifies for having obession with jumping in this forum and dumping on FoW rules. To me, obession would mean a high frequency, sustained, negative and unbalanced effort. These don't seem to be there. I'm here a lot and I don't recall seeing much of him posting here in the past.

And love the Stetson icon there Polecat! ;)

Cheers, VB

I was being facetious… I just think he is mistaken about what we are defining as a Hater!