"FoW Haters" Topic

I must admit having seen how hysterically vitriolic past threads on this topic have gone; this one has been a pleasure.
Fair play to you Lads!

Star Wars Heroclix figures, and various free rules, if you don't like the ones that come with the figures.

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

Specforc12:
Yes, that's part of the reason this started out. If I can't satisfy myself how can I hope to satisfy anyone else?

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Well, thanks for the morale support.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Well, there is a wide readership on this side of the pond of that British magazine – it must be because everytime I want to pickup a copy at my local gaming store, be it in California or here in the Chicago area where I just moved back 6 months ago, it's always sold out. The collaboration of the Battlefront and WI is significant. Aside from the internet there's not much out there in publications for the hobby. On the other hand you take Osprey who has joined forces with Warlord Games is far more significant because they have contracts with bookstores all over the US and elsewhere, hence they can promote and get on the shelves, their games, Force on Force, Bolt Action, Blackpowder, etc. With Osprey being well established well back in the day when I was a kid gives anything they publish and support a pedigree and worldwide readership. That's something that no other company in the hobby can do, except Battlerfront who have forged their own mark on the hobby globally by their brilliant marketing campaign.
So, yeah, the bulk is, as you say, in the distribution, like in the case of FoW, the collaboration with WI is only icing on the cake, and I'm pretty sure they don't need to pay for their advertising in the mag, or perhaps they do, but that's a spit in the bucket and sort of redundant anyway for them.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
That's what I'm saying only FoW and WI can influence the gaming market with their mutually supporting relationship for the gaming hobby. And, Osprey and the Warlord Games crowd also have even more weight to throw around! So, it's no wonder that they top the market in their respective genres! The 3rd place and below are fighting over the scraps, games like Battlegroup, CoC, Nuts!, Rapid Fire, etc.

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

Specforc12:
So, where do you hail from? I came from San Francisco Bay Area, only back in October and there's a pretty vibrant gaming interest out there and plenty of good conventions to attend.

VB:
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!

Specforc12:
I begin to wonder is there anyone that likes a more involved game? Kinda sad that it's not more evident. Certainly, not at conventions. Though I've seen some fairly complex games played but they've often adjusted them for convention play to grease the wheels a bit.

VB:
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!

Specforc12:
Well, your still way ahead of me. My living conditions for the last few years have precluded me from even having that and being able to paint the stuff I need just to demonstrate my game with my own equipment. So far, I've used my gaming buddy's superlative scenics and models to playtest and demonstrate at the convention. If you've ever heard of the company "Scenic Effects" that was owned by Rick Schuldt up until he had to sell the business for personal reasons about 10 years ago. He made beautiful cast resin buildings of WW2 Normandy, Napoleonic and Civil War battlefield accurate buildings. His modelling skills are legendary. The amount of gaming stuff and armies he's modelled and painted would blow your mind, and I'm NOT BEING DRAMATIC!!! I never seen nor could I have imagined anything on that scale. He's the same age as me and all I could say to myself, is, how the hell does anyone find the time to do that much stuff and still be a semi-pro skier, a prolific west coast yachtsman/racer, and also participate in WW2 reenactments! Well, there's so much to say about him . . .

VB:
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! ;)

Specforc12:
For my game a 4'x8'' table would be a minimum requirement and something like the size of your pool table even better, even that little extra bit would be good.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Well, I can't speak for how official or unofficial the collaboration was with this game TACFORCE exactly, but, I can assure you that collaboration did exist of taking that game which was specifically designed to take advantage of GHQ Micro-armor. I spoke with Frank Chadwick about this a couple of years ago, who I met about 3 years ago through Rick Schuldt and have gamed with him numerous times, and helped him along, with Rick introduce his new game "Men Under Fire" at Celesticon in Fremont, CA (East Bay). I've had many a long discussion and drinks with him and another prolific historian and game developer, Dana Lombardy. Perhaps you recognize his name? He conducts the so-called "War College" lectures at many of the major Game Cons, including Historicon and numerous Cons in California. (So much for my name-dropping! LOL)

Well, back to the subject, GHQ did collaborate with the US Army or maybe as you said may have only benn with the Marines to develop all the re-tooled, and plethora of new modern US and Soviet armor in 1980. That was when GHQ came out with tons of new stuff with incredible detail to include all modern AFV's, this was specifically done to provide these models for US Military wargaming. Obviously, if this went under your radar then this must have not made much of a splash in the armor community?!? Perhaps this did not involve the US Army at all, though with Ft. Hood (I was there for BCTP in 2000 or was it 2001?!?) or Ft. Knox (was there for MOS trng as a 37F, Psyop Specialist) apparently never caught wind of it?!? Anyway, that's the backstory on TACFORCE. BTW, I have a copy of TACOPS and love it . . . cool game. But, I paid for mine online then got a free upgrade during my 2003 deployment!!!

VB:
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!

Specforc12:
Yes, Frank is still with us, though now he's writing Steam Punk novels of late, and 2 years ago debuted his Steam Punk game that we, again, facilitated for him in the Bay Area since he couldn't shlepp all his terrain boards etc. only his new figures. It was interesting to play, but if I never played it again I don't think I'd feel I was missing anything. However, to me he's still the game author god. He has written something on the order of 40 to 50 games in his time, really quite remarkable and many I've heard of were rather well-known. Of course he's also the author of the well-known, Command Decision, which his Combined Arms is the modern era extrapolation of the CD game system. I'll tell you picking the brains of Frank and Dana was fascinating. They're rather funny too! Frank lives in downstate Illinois in Rantoul. I'm hoping to game with him in the near future now that we live much closer together and when presentable get his input on my game. The codename for my game is currently "Schwerepunkt" but has a much cooler slicker name when it's revealed to the public that's catchy I think.

VB:
So I think I can be more charitable to the "Italian Guy." His business is designing games, much like Chadwick I think.

Specforc12:
Well, he's an expert in designing games with his experience with Warlord, clearly, but I won't cut him any slack on his WW2 game adaptation – in the end it doesn't matter. You're a lot more politically correct, and I'm not – I'll call it the way I see it and if it ruffles a few feathers of some "tough-talking" combat vets so be it – it's trivial. Especially when I never stated that "I" personally "hated" any game and my only real beef is that they're just not historical so shouldn't pretend they are. They just need to be honest on what you're putting out there. So for my money, Alessi is still a hack, as far as that game goes, and, of course he's laughing all the way to the bank. I don't fault him for that, Osprey/Warlord and him clearly set out a goal and achieved it quite successfully and good for them. Afterall, it IS a business to make money, and they did in the most expiditious way possible. A successful Sci-Fi game designer, part of an already successful game company, Warlord, hooking up with the most dominant hobby publisher, Osprey. That's a win-win, can't lose arrangement. Who wouldn't jump on that bandwagon. That's a game designers dream, let's face it! Doesn't mean they came out with the most worthy product they could have. It's unfortunate, that's all.

VB:
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!

Specforc12:
But, that's it. The von Clauswitz quote is apropos, and designing a game to mimic warfare action which on the surface is rudimentary but is still difficult to execute and translating that into a game that gives you that warm fuzzy feeling that has your conception of what it should feel like is very difficult to achieve for any author. Regardless, whether the game is fast and loose, or detail-oriented getting that balance which presents the interaction of warfare's drama, surprise, and authenticity is really elusive.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Sorry, I can't even begin to think where I read that – it was quite some months ago, now. Drats!

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
That's bizarre. Hmmmmm?!? What years was this?

VB:
These "full up wargames" shelf life in the Army was really over long before computers would have done them in anyway!

Specforc12:
Why do you say that? Why would they have been "done-in" had they been made available where computers were not? Besides, some of the first computer tank stuff, I saw in the early '90's was pretty lame compared to what was concurrently available on the commercial market. It's like this video game of urban middle-eastern combat that was available during my deployment was eclipsed by my Rainbow Six game or that other vid, Navy Seal game, can't remember the name, or even Ghost Recon. Anyway . . .

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Well, that's sad, but doesn't surprise me either. It's like my fellow, youthful, Psyop'ers who are so "not connected" to current events that it's appalling even scary. I just shake my head . . .

VB:
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!

Specforc12:
Is that a good one? Perhaps I can hunt it down during my next Reserve Battle Assembly!!!

VB:
The reality is that the military is pretty much just a slice of the community it comes from.

Specforc12:
Very true.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Yes, I admit I am, in fact, as you labeled a "wargame geek". What is VBS, CCTT, and SMINET – never heard of that?!? What about SMERSH? (just kidding)

VB:
You've clearly brought up some of the negative aspects, but not shown how you considered the counter argument.

Specforc12:
Well, maybe I'm just not as good a debater as you. To make my point would require me to go into greater detail of how a certain aspect of my game was generated vs. the other. My perceived negativity pronounces aspects of the games we're discussing that fail on their own merits. To discuss other things that work well or are typical are not worth discussing since we already agree – where to go from there – the merits are already known to me. Certainly to just agree that this or that is just fine, is not interesting because we're on the same sheet of music. But, what I want to know why an aspect of a game which I would consider germane is represented so obtusely, falsely, or perhaps erroneously is intersting to me because I want to know what the thought process went into making such a significant decision – what reasoning fomented that. It might be worth knowing the merits of that. Wolfhag, above, stated one of the fundemantal and crucial flaws I see in FoW, for example, was how was it that rolling 2D6's, encompasses the vast variety of potential hits for all the tanks that could be possibly be involved. It's weak, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that. In a backhanded way Wolfhag says it's essentially bogus. But, in a bogus environment it's all relative(?!) and therefore it doesnt matter? It's a self-contained system only beholden to itself. This suddenly becomes a discussion of esoterics, in my view. Does it matter to you, the player, if the values established by rules have merit or not? If it doesn't the debate stops there. It matters to me, however. It's kinda nice to be an "armchair general" to see how you'd fair given a set of circumstances that Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams faced in the Lorraine and how you succeed or fail in those same circumstances? You need a reliably authentic system to try to imitate that. How good of a tactician would I have been, what decisions would I make rightly or wrongly presented with the same battlefield dilemma?
All that data gathering that's shoehorned into aspects of my game is not necessarily apparent to the player nor does it have to be. He doesn't have to know or to some degree concern himself that I arrived at a roll of 13 on a 1D20 (65% chance) on his first consectutive shot from 500 meters. All he has to care about if he can make that roll. but that he will be confident that all that research and compilation, and variances has been scrutinized to the best of my ability and that it will represent as close as possible to the probabilities it represents in actuality. Inotherwords, the homework has been done. That doesn't mean the players has to do the homework I did or he'd never even get a shot off.
The cheat sheets are just to consolidate the actions and decision making process to achieve what is required in that phase of the turn.

VB:
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.
More detail does not always result in more realism. It can actually be counter productive.

Specforc12:
Yes, and of course I'm well aware of that, it can be counter-productive and one has to guard against that at every turn. But in referencing Mies Van deRohe quote, well known in my profession of architecture, he stated, "Less is More", well having seen much of his work it can also be said that, "Less is Boring" too. How many square steel framed and glass boxes can you stand after a while. How many mediocre samo-samo simplistic games can the hobby endure. It is also said by the great architect Louis Sullivan, "God is in the details". There is something to be said about that. That's not to say that complexity and hunting for answers while your playing is anyone's cup of tea. But, with the proper constructs and logic path a few reference sheets is not the end of the world either. And, may even educate why what is happening actually happens the way it does. It gives a better understanding of what's involved and why it results in the way it does – hence some appreciation for the process and history behind it.

VB:
If you got to have more detail, you've got to have more detail.

Specforc12:
Not necessarily, if I understand your comment correctly -'cause I'm not sure. But, the extra detail is largely hidden in the facts backing the mechanics. If on one hand you're saying that if you detail out a function in a game in great detail that begs that you give other aspects of the game equal treatment then I would have to agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not a man of extremes I like to seek a balance only at a more sophisticated level, I guess. So, without going overboard with anything the complexity level rises or should rise sufficiently to give parity across the board in a game. Some of the things I noticed in FoW is that certain things, fundemantal things are very simple, but then a great proportion of the game gets into minutae of detail, not the least of which is the dizzying amount of ever changing "special rules". This as some in this thread have posted is the march of codex creep starts to get excessive and frankly it's somewhat oppurtunistic on the part of the company, especially given the tournament environment they've created and locked many gamers into.
But, that starts to get off topic, and is an interesting subject all by itself.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
I totally agree with the telling the story, evoking emotion bit. That's the whole point of my game. It's not just a number-crunching extravaganza, I'm trying to put the players into the game at a viceral level with action happening in a sort-of real time. You move from stage to stage making real decisions that the tank commander would make. As the tank gunner of the crew you will quickly grasp the sense of proximity that will either get you killed or that you'll be able to rip off a shot that has a good chance of hitting, and most of all, penetrating. And, a hit doesn't automatically get you off the hook, just as it would in real. You'll have to take measures that you achieved a complete kill, because you may only have made minor damage yet the enemy's tank gun may still be viable. You'll clearly feel the fruits of yours decisions – did I move too rapidly to protective cover, and sacrificing any chance of accuracy with my first shot? Or should I have boldly have stood my ground and steady my shot to insure a hit.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
That's good advice, where that tipping point for me is obviously going to be different than it would be for you, that we've established. Admittedly, that still is my most desirable goal of my or any game I would choose to play, and one which I must keep in the forefront of my mind while developing my rules.

VB:
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.

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.

Specforc12:
Perhaps, but the Battlefield Vehicle Recovery and the Logistics are optional rules. They're ideas I gleened from Gene McCoy's "Wargamers Digest", you may remember that magazine?!? Both of these aspects are what I would label as kinda "gamey", unlike the rest of the game which is pretty literal in it's presentation. But, I like 'em. It adds a different dimension than the same 'ol same 'ol. Both are more apropos for larger scale games, or games extending over a couple of convention days, such as the Battle of the Bulge FoW games I played at KublaCon a couple of years ago, and, most appropriately, as you mentioned for a campaign game series would almost a required consideration.

VB:
Trying to be helpful here…but I don't consider streamlining 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 streamlining in general. The "hands fee" approach with rules is my standard now.

Specforc12:
Well, that's great, but there is no way, I'm gonna get away with hands-free play. Just impossible. The gist of it will go something like this: You determine the chance to hit the enemy tank looking at essentially 7 key factors of modifiers of which you may only use 3 or 4 or more or possibly all. You start with a base number selected – if it's the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd consectutive shot at the same target, it's range gives you a number between 1 and 20 (based on using a 1D20 percentile die). So, a PzKwpf IV-H with it's 75/L48 gun firing at a range between 30"-38" puts it in the Short Range – Band #4. So that 1st shot would base# starts at "14". Priority Fire = none +0, Consectutive (1st) Shot Status: target moving -2, Chambered round = APCBC +0, Target = Med. Tank +1, target concealment = less than half (he was occluded by trees for part of his movement) -2, target moving greater than 8" = -4 (firer is stationary), Target Movement Special – this has to do with turret slew rates at a range of 32" for this German is a -1, He has no special targeting devices on his tank – so, disregard Targeting Special = 0, Total to hit chance is: 6 on a 1D20 so only a 30% chance to hit the Sherman on his 1st shot at 32" (range translates to 750m range or 1 sec time of flight)!
Assume he scored a successful hit. Then you determine where it hit the tank. Rolling a 1D20 where 1 thru 7 hits the turret, and 8 thru 20 hits the hull, somewhere, depending on that part of the tanks anatomy orientation to the firer (naturally, the turret could have a different orientation than the body of the tank). Pretty simple, you roll a second 1D20 for any automatic damage, say a periscope or hull machine gun could be potentially be struck and disabled effecing it's fire or observation abilities. But in this case it doesn't – so you've made a clean hit.
Now we move on to what the damage was. The roll determined that the compartment struck (turret or hull) suffered "Permanent Local Damage – Compartment Out". Only three things need to be considered at this point. Orientation and slope of the surface struck dictating the armor thickness there, and the penetration ability of the round at that range, which we already know that when we looked up the range to target. You compare the penetration to the "apparent" armor thickness.
Assume the round penetrates. Now just roll a 1D6 to see what level of damage the tank sustains. Roll a second 1D6 to determine the casualties, that may vary. Done. Very straighforward – no ambiguity, procedurally and statistically and all correct, but you don't have to even worry about the fact and figures that went into determining those parameters – the result will be authentic and transparent. More involved? Yes, a little bit, but not too much and very manageable. And, we've created a more viceral feel of what just took place.
Perhaps we took 50% casualties in that exchange – the crew freaks, and automatically bails out. Pretty typical of what would happen under those conditions. Let's say the hull compartment was the one put out of action. The crew abandoned a tank that still is viable and still has the capability to engage and fire. The tank stands abandoned and becomes a possible point of contention in the battle. Who ever captures that tank can use it or recover it if it's a campaign game. A lot more interesting, dramatic, and historically also all very probable if not likely.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
I wanted to avoid this aspect of hidden moves, but it's so essential to a game that I'm trying to create that generates a more dynamic battlefield experience and compels players to find a way to outflank the opponent and not just do a frontal assaults which are costly, unimaginative, and frankly rather boring. It still can be played quite effectively without this feature but enhances other aspects of the game such as ambushes and rewards aggressive reconnaissance tactics! Again, more interesting. Battles are actually much more than just blowing things up. Any real warrior will tell you that logistics in battle are much more of the story than people realize – in the words of some generals it's all about the logistics – who can get there fastest with the mostest! Napoleonic principles of combined arms at it's best.

VB:
That can work. Worked OK in the Chadwick games I referenced above.
Cool. Interested in more details.

Specforc12:
It's more hassle but with proper preparation prior to "game night" can really make the game more exciting and full of surprises – that ups the interest quotient. And, again, requires the players to be more astute regarding their tactics and make judicious use of their recon elements, which I give enhanced abilities enabling them to be more useful and focused on what recon units actually do. There are excellent sections in two books which inspire my adaptaion of these recon elements, one is Panzer Tactics by Wolfgang Schneider and Tank Tactics by Roman Jarymowycz. Both give excellent detail on the many different roles and methods of employment that Recon units use on both the German side and the Allied sides. There is also a book from Osprey that addresses this specificity – Elite #156 WW2 Combat Reconnaissance Tactics by Gordon L. Rottman. My rules make accomodations to enable the recon units to excel in detecting the enemy in hiding and to determine battlefield environmental conditions that are not given to the players at the beginning of the game another interesting variable one doesn't see in other games but could easily be given in any game by the scenario designer. I describe this in my rules under "Recon Missions" and describe how these variables can be instuted into any game.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
Well, I defer to your extensive gaming experience which far exceeds mine, undoubtedly. And, I acknowledge the import that has and your putting me on the spot, which is good. I need that. You playing devil's advocate is very good – though I realize you are way on the other end of the spectrum than where I'm coming from. And, we both have already acknowledged that. If at some point in this process of creating this game I could make you sit up and take notice, even a little bit I will feel I'm homing in on a far better creation, that may even get some to try it and perhaps even like it?!?
I'm sort of taking Wolfhag's approach that he's doing with his game "Treadheads". He's my chief (and only) techinical consultant. He's going the Nth degree with his game to cover all the contingencies and variations, etc. and working backwards from there to simplify his game that WILL BE marketable, hopefully, and, by the way, will probably be more so than mine, at this stage. That approach is obviously harder, but more a sound approach as it insures that you cover all bases and don't miss something potentially essential. I'm basically going about it in the same way, only that I'm starting much further towards the middle than him. Though, I doubt I will go as far over in simplifying as he might, otherwise I risk gutting the best part at the core of my system. The two games are as wide apart in concept and execution as anything could be. My approach if far more conventional and a bit more "old school" to be sure. However, his game is arguably the most innovative and compelling compared to anything yet designed I've ever seen on the market, then and now. He has a truly is unique and fresh approach that no one to date has considered, and is further along in actual playtesting than my game and shows promise.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
I think I read what your saying, it's really a kind of looking at it psychologically and one big turn. My game sort of takes this together in a similar way, but alternates the IGO-UGO every other turn. And, after both sides have done their movement then I introduce the combat. Whereas, in the IGO-UGO system after each side moves it fights. I blend the two so it dramatically minimizes the advantage the side conducting the combat has. Also, in my alternating movement every other turn there is a sub-component to the movement that depending who has the opening gambit move every other turn also has his turn interupted by his opponent, who gets to move everything at once. And, since I have simultaneous fire I needed to allow priority of fires in a "Mexican Standoff" situation which more often happens than not. Hence, I call it the Mexican Standoff rule and solves the problem fairly easily without getting into the details of how it works.

VB:
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.
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.

Specforc12:
Well your "tongue-in-cheek" comment is apropos, in a way. But, it really came down to the need to know the nuances of the rules and that many of them are not immediately obvious or what I would call, intuitive. And, yes, I was handling a lot for my two person team. The other half of the same battle was going on concurrently with it's four players (two per side) right next to ours, then the continuation of the battle the next day furthered the experience. We didn't have any cheat sheets because the GM's were informing and driving the process anyway. Are reference material was pretty superficial.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
I can respect that, if you don't want to be bothered with the extra detail – that's legit. Your at a point where you've been there, done that and have settled comfortably into something that gives joy in whatever form it may be in.

VB:
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.

Specforc12:
I need to round out my game more before I can present it on a website or even to play testers. I have to make the whole infantry aspect work smoothly with my armor combat and artillery combat aspects. That's my biggest challenge right now. I already have the website name reserved. I'd say I'm about 75% done with the game rules not including polishing the cheat sheets into an easy to use and follow form. I've done a vingette of that at my first convention playtest with very good results. I handed it to a seasoned gamer but of course like everyone attending my game had never seen any of it before. Well, after short explanation within a couple of turns he was handling that side of the board by himself with the others and I didn't have to do anything except answer a rare question or two. He gave me the best input that day. And, actually stated, that in his knowledgeable opinion that the mechanics produced a very honest representation of WW2 armored combat. I was very happy to hear that. He required no supervision almost right away so I knew this wasn't as daunting as some of my friends intimated.

VB:
You know where to find me!

Specforc12:
Yes, I do and hope to get more important objective input from you and others, because I do want to know what makes some gamers tick to give my game better appeal, with well-reasoned players.

Sorry for the dissertation. I'll shut up now – I'm sure Polecat will be glad to hear that!

- T.I.

What is VBS, CCTT, and SMINET – never heard of that?!?

VBS = Virtual Battle System – It's run on laptops with up to 12 networked so you can do squad level simulations. Checkout VBS2 Lite which you can download

CCTT = Close Combat Tactical Trainer – You can put a full battalion of combat vehicle crews in individual vehicle simulators/mock-ups (M1s, Bradleys, etc) and run full Battalion size missions in a networked system.

SIMNET = Simulations Net (I think that's what it means) it was the predecessor to CCTT.

Drive on with your rules. I do fear a heavy detail focus will bog you down, but hope you prove me wrong.

I'd just offer that you need to think hard about the level of command you are attempting to replicate. If you're going after a level where the player is a company commander, there's a limit to how far down the chain of command the details should really be reflected in the game. Getting into the weeds too deeply will take you away from what a company commander should be focused on. Really even FoW goes too far into detail on a lot of things for me.

Cheers, VB

VB wrote…

"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."

You sort of assume He was their first choice!

I'll try keep to the post title about one of the things I "hate" (really just disagree) about FOW or most games.

I want to clarify Specfor12 as to me stating the game "bogus" using a 2xD6. We've discussed it many times. I feel any die roll to determine a hit location randomly with a 2x D6 is inaccurate (bogus if you like) in the vast majority of cases. In reality a round lands somewhat randomly around the aim point. There is a difference. The more accurate it is the closer to the aim point. Less accurate rounds land further away and if the target is small enough it misses. Many factors influence it. I know that's a no brainer but I think most games miss that mark. I agree that at longer ranges it can actually hit randomly because the accuracy is so poor it drifts far enough from the aim point that it covers the entire target or even miss it.

Here is the long explanation: Rather than ranting about what I hate about a set of rules here is my solution regarding gunnery and hit locations. It's my opinion that a system using a basic to hit # with modifiers leaves a lot to be desired and needs an additional step to determine hit location and armor thickness if you want to go that far. The more modifiers you enter into it the more it gets skewed. A +1 modifier to a basic hit # of 5 (20%) is much different than a +1 with a basic hit #of 2 (50%). However, it is playable and players are already pre-disposed to play that type mechanic. It seems to be ingrained into our minds. Mine too. It does work in games. However, the trajectory of a shell does not interact with a target with that method.

My solution is rather than a basic to hit # I assign accuracy a basic dispersion value based on test firings (as a starting value, other factors in the error budget modify this). Modifiers are in a mil value (quantifiable and not arbitrary) so scales accurately to all ranges better than a die roll modifier. I use an error budget as modifiers and don't use just the ideal range condition test results by themselves. That would be way too accurate.

For example a base accuracy of 1.0 mil could be modified by an aiming error of 0.3 mil. An accuracy of 1.3 mil would be an average dispersion from the aim point of .65 meters at 500m, 1.3 meters at 1000 meters, 2.6 meters at 2000 meters, etc. The game mechanics are the same, basic mil dispersion with mil value modifiers is basically the same mechanic as a base to hit # with die roll modifiers. It takes the same amount of time and brain power. It's no more difficult and for me works better than existing game systems. There are a variety of ways to designate target size like using the real height rather than an accuracy modifier. A center mass aim point on a 2 meter high target will be hit with a dispersion (MPI) of <= 1.0 meters. No modifiers for size needed. If the target is hull down only 1.0 meters may be hit. Using the targets real height or area to determine if a hit occurs is more accurate than a die roll modifier. I hope you get the idea.

To simulate bracketing a target: If a round misses have a single modifier to reduce the dispersion for the next shot rather than going through the whole basic hit + modifiers routine. For example a 1.3 mil that missed might be a 1.0 mil dispersion on the next shot. It's actually quicker than some current to hit + die roll modifier systems.

If aiming at a scaled image of a target randomizing distance and direction of the shot allows aiming points to target weaknesses and if close enough a fair chance to hit what you are aiming at. It's a little more work but no hit location die rolls needed. There are less things to worry about like size and aspect modifiers or hull down. For example the total area of a tanks turret ring may be 1-3% having a vertical area of only a few inches. However if the average dispersion is .3 mil (14 inches) at 200 meters you'd have a pretty good chance of hitting it (about 20-30%) if you aim at it, a lot higher than 1-3%. At 1000 meters your chance would be 20% of the chance at 200 meters because of greater round dispersion of 1.5 meters. You could make this very simple or very complicated as with most systems. I hope I've explained this adequately and did my math right this time. Bird & Livingstons book does have a way to do the same thing using a percentage to hit method.

So the bottom line is I think using real trajectory and dispersion performance values of a round is more accurate and just as playable as current methods. I'm not saying current systems are completely bogus as they can deliver real life results in many cases and are easy for a player to use. The mil value method does have its limitations too depending on the size of the game. One size does not fit all.

Wolfhag

VB wrote…

"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."

You sort of assume He was their first choice!

Does Rick Priestly not fit the above description?

Holy crap Specforce12, miss the point much? What is all that Off Topic stuff you posted?

"Does Rick Priestly not fit the above description?"

Nope….

Really? I'd have thought he was more of a general game designer than a WW2 expert.

Seems to me that Warlord prioritized game design capability over WW2 expertise when seeking out a rules designer for Bolt Action, regardless if if ended up being done by Priestly or Cavorti, who I thought was Priestly's recommendation to take lead since he was too busy.

You are assuming Rick Priestly was first choice

Then who was and why did they not follow through with the offer?

And what is Priestly's WW2 expertise level, since you don't seem to think that he's like Cavorti when it comes to being more of a game designer than a WW2 subject matter expert?

There you go again VB jumping to conclusions about what people say.

My comment about Rick Preistly was that he wasn't first choice ….which is what you think defines the actions of warlord. i.e. a non ww2 expert as a designer

"But they went a deliberate route with a proven designer rather than an expert and I guess it has paid off for them"

Knowing who was first choice, I would say that warlord did not have your assumed deliberate route since their earlier choice was both an expert in ww2 and a proven games designer. I understand He declined it because he was busy and wanted to continue designing his own games.

The results for both parties seem to have been successful.

Cool. I'd be interested to know more about who preceded Priiestly as the first choice.

Thanks for enlightening us.

VB

well, VB

You should join the yahoo groups of the rules you own and do searches in their archives

Thanks. I assume you mean the Chain of Command yahoo group? I mentioned more than a few sets I own in this thread, but CoC seems closest to BA.

It's not so much about who the first choice or last choice was for the rules, it's about the fact that it wasn't the best choice. That's all. And, it's a pity that they didn't pursue some other celebrity or known historian/game designer out there and contract with them to design a more legitimate game. I'm sure someone better qualified would have picked up the torch for such a high profile entry into the market.

Polecat –

that last long post was really addressing VB's comments, and, only in a backhanded way was illustrating what goes into a game of this type in making it less gamey and more substantiated than the games like FoW or BA, for example. It wasn't directed so much to anyone else at that point. I just wanted to make some final comments.

So, I'm sorry if you're put out that it was "off topic" of sorts. But, then, there are a lot of things that in this thread were off topic. It all goes back to the question of why certain people are not enamored by FoW. If you are the military man you say you are, I'm just a little bit surprised the inaccuracies of a game like FoW or BA doesn't bother you more – I just find it a bit odd. Nothing more nothing else.

specforc12,
You are assuming real military men are all strategic and analytical experts who also understand the nuances of game design. It ain't so.

From my experience, Its fairly obvious that a lot of game designer's don't understand the nuances of game design…but their more devout defenders do. They must do as they are able to build elaborate defenses of weird convoluted mechanisms and do "whataboutery" attacks on games that they insist must have loads and loads of charts…even when the game in question has a single A4 game chart just like fow or bolt action.

I have always found it amusing when I see statements that other games are no better than Fow because other games you don't play have more charts than Fow and that automatically means they aren't any better than Fow?

Kevin G -

KG:
"specforc12, You are assuming real military men are all strategic and analytical experts who also understand the nuances of game design. It ain't so."

Specforc12:
Well, stupid me. Of course, I should know better – "hope springs eternal", as the saying goes!

KG:
"From my experience, Its fairly obvious that a lot of game designer's don't understand the nuances of game design…but their more devout defenders do. They must do as they are able to build elaborate defenses of weird convoluted mechanisms and do "whataboutery" attacks on games that they insist must have loads and loads of charts…even when the game in question has a single A4 game chart just like fow or bolt action."

Specforc12:
I couldn't agree more. You pretty much nailed it earlier, too, in this thread on your earlier comments in the first large post on page 2.

KG:
"I have always found it amusing when I see statements that other games are no better than Fow because other games you don't play have more charts than Fow and that automatically means they aren't any better than Fow?"

Specforc12:
Is that what the mean by "circular reasoning" or something like that.

By and large, I think many of the defenders using such reasoning has something to do with that a lot of the gamers have latched on, for the first time, to a game of this genre, such as FoW or BA, and base their comments without a more substantial historical acumen to support it and, frankly, don't know any better.

As WOLFHAG said in his post. When PanzerBlitz from AH came out he thought it was the "bomb" until he got deeper into the subject and soon discovered how lame it really was.

Now, people such as VonBurge who has been there and done that, and who I respect, knows what's valid or not, but chooses to play the game for reasons that he stated and that's fine. So, those knowledgeable are discriminating from a basis that suits them and don't defend predicated on emotion rather than facts.

Hence, the novices are satisfied because "ignorance is bliss" and almost can't be blamed for their viewpoint. They, also tend to defend via hyperbole with all sorts of convoluted explanations, as you said, why this or that is in the rules.

And, to get back on topic, this is why people slam games like FoW or BA because the mechanics pervert the game historically – afterall, these games purport to be "historical", not "unhistorical" games, and that's annoying to anyone in the know – especially when one of it's proponents exclaim "look how realistic it is"! Yes, maybe it looks realistic but the interaction isn't. I've heard these very sorts of comments made at conventions – it's maddening.

Specforc12

my post was a lot longer originally and I blitzed it! ..so it comes across harsher than intended.

The cyclic reasoning is actually just slightly absurd and comical and those using it completely miss the point, making up excuses and fabricating character flaws to calm their beating breast.
Their over-investment amuses me. Some, I believe amuse themselves too. John the OFM's comments on OPP fire 'is over rated' are always worth a laugh.

What I find particularly unfortunate about this genre of wargaming design isn't novices not knowing history better nor is it even experienced gamers denying or defending poor rulesets.

What is not defensible is the very rulewriters including spurious history bending 'statements of fact' in their 'rules bumph' to justify what is essentially their dumbed-down mechanisms built around simple marketing to attract a certain type of gamer. It comes across as intending to deceive the gullible reader and you can tell that they are fully aware of what they are doing. This kind of stuff reached its peak with black powder when not only did you play a poorly thought out dumbed-down game, It actively suggested that you were a type of learned gentleman gamer playing something slightly snobbish and superior which suited a game with port. While it was all an amusing read, it was essentially a smoke screen of a dismal level. Like having gout wasn't necesarily a disadvantage to your social esteem, if you had an extra chair to put your gammy foot up on and owned a nice rather natty smoking jacket.

The summery of these is generally, nicely written bumph BUT a poor ruleset

Flames of war… Mmmmm the rules I dislike a lot. However I LOVE that Flames of war has gotten me into WW2 15mm gaming. If it was not for FoW I don't think there would be all those fantastic toys out their in 15mm to play with. So although I do not like the rule I thank you FoW for bring so many lovely products out for me to play with. So I may both a FoW RULES hater but I am a BIG FoW lover when it comes to the rest.

Absolutely Stealth1000

Loads of italian stuff unavailable anywhere else
….Semovente 90/L53's being my favourite

and Cp15A trucks., cut down daimlers and CMP's.

Battlefront deserve a lot of credit for their effort

I think some of the "Haters" hate when someone claims FoW is realistic or historical. If you think about it almost whenever anyone states a particular rule set is realistic or historical there are "haters" that will come out.

Games like FoW and Bolt Action are produced by "for profit" corporations. I'd bet the marketing department drove the game development and rules. Not some WWII expert. I know Specforc12 personally and I can say that if he or I did the FoW or Bolt Action game development without the marketing department input we'd have been fired.

These games are produced for a particular segment of wargamers that their marketing department probably identified and the best segment to target for sales. If they developed war games for people like myself and Specforc12 they would probably go broke. We don't represent a large enough group to make it profitable as the level of detail would turn off more people than it would turn on. I don't fault them for what they did or the way they do it. No one is making you purchase the add-ons and rules rewrites and I'm sure they know it does turn off some people. At least they put out a first class publication and people can't complain about that value.

Bolt Action and FoW allow a playable and easy way for people that have invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars in miniatures and terrain to game and enjoy with a minimum of rules hassle. Considering the state of WWII miniatures war gaming before their release they have done a big favor to the industry as have the people that have bought into them. Overall we should be thankful. I'm just not one of those that will play them again.

Wolfhag

Bolt Action and FoW allow a playable and easy way for people that have invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars in miniatures and terrain to game and enjoy with a minimum of rules hassle.

A very accurate observation and perhaps a reason for the sentiment being explored by the OP of this thread.

We've seen numerous game systems designed primarily to drive figure sales. The rules might be relatively simple but figure ratios, force composition, and game incentives are built to ensure players need and want large collections. Many times force compositions and game incentives are tweaked over time to encourage the purchase of new or different troops.

This frustration is the primary reason we started designing our own games and then later decided to launch Visceral Impact Studios. Our games (which started out as home grown rules played at numerous conventions and game shops) focus on fun, speed, convenience, low cost, and flexibility. We have no interest in forcing players to buy $300 USD worth of troops to field just one army on a massively crowded tabletop because we didn't want to do that as gamers!

We enjoy focusing on extracting the most entertainment value from the smallest time/money investment and as rule publishers only we have the luxury of doing that (I enjoy painting figures but don't have lots of time to do so and with two kids need to watch those dollars…I feel bad for designers who have to change their design decisions to ensure figure sales instead of focusing on interesting tactics, fun, and history). This is also why we try to keep playing areas reasonable, troop density low to ensure fun maneuver decisions instead of mere frontal assaults, measurement system "universal" so players can use what they're comfortable with, and commonly available dice: make life easy for the players and the game experience focused on fun, not figure sales.

However, I do believe that the market also enjoys having a way to buy an army book and then simply buy the box of troops needed to build an army for that book. It's convenient and saves time (which is also why our army lists are designed for maximum flexibility…you can buy a box a troops from anyone and use it in the context of our games "as is".)

But as a gamer I find it disappointing that so many games today require huge, expensive, time consuming armies to participate "fully" in the community. Compare that to something like DBA which allows one to play an enjoyable game with a tiny investment in money, painting time, and playing area!

There are figure companies who write rules who do not "require huge, expensive time consuming armies to participate fully in the community"

….but I'm sure they appreciate the sales for the games that you do.

Good point Kevan!

OTOH, even DBA with its small armies certainly drives figure sales.

I guess the difference is that with the DBA approach you have more flexibility. You can play the full DBA experience with a modest investment of 12 stands, you can play Big Battle DBA or DBM and field large armies, or you stick to pure DBA but try out different armies. The downside (from the player's perspective) of a game that demands large forces is that you're looking at hundreds of dollars and many, many hours of painting just for the main/core experience using only one army.

Looked at another way, if a game's basic combat and maneuver element is the platoon for example, the only difference between representing that platoon with three squad-sized stands (eg Crossfire) and six team-sized stands (eg FoW) is about 2x the cost and 2x the painting time and 2x the playing area and 2x the time needed to move the troops.

I apoligize for getting us a little OT there but I th8nk those issues are germane to Bill's original question. There are aspects of ALL rules that simply aren't matters of opinion. Our rules, like FoW, use relativistic move and weapon ranges and some gamers see value in that (greater contrast between weapon performance on the tabletop) and others dislike it (they see it as terribly unrealistic).

I believe that what some call "hate" might just be frustration with the unwillingness of fans to accept irrefutable facts about their favorite game. Our current products make no pretense of weapon ranges based on a hard ground scale and I would never take issue with someone who decried that aspect as "unrealistic" and wouldn't declare him a hater for pointing that out.

A game's critic can be irrationally hateful but so too can fans be irrationally hateful of critics merely pointing out obvious facts.

the last WW1 game I played was fantastic fun, artillary , planes, assets….no tanks, mind you. but Great fun. on a 5 x 3 table with 150 figures a side. that was Peter pigs new square bashing. One before that was just as good, Turks v british in the middle east with armoured cars and naval support….great stuff. It was 'If the lord spares us'

both sets have compatable basing, but very different games

It's great having a choice.

But as a gamer I find it disappointing that so many games today require huge, expensive, time consuming armies to participate "fully" in the community.

If by "community" you mean the tournament scene, then I'd have to point out that there are plenty of FoW gamers who do not attend these events and that is by far not the only way FoW can be utilized or enjoyed.

When I choose to play historical scenarios with FoW, I only need to buy what I need to buy to make that scenario work. I'm not required to buy anything by the company. Rather I am only compelled to represent the OOBs of the forces involved. Thus for historical play FoW does not try to force me to buy anything (with one exception perhaps) that I would not also have bought using another company level game where single tank models represent a real single tank and actual infantry teams were single elements in the game.

The exception to that would be on-board artillery. I do agree that almost all artillery should be off board, while the FoW rules do specify on-board models for them (coincidently one of the more expensive units in FoW in $'s). However, my group has no problem ignoring that and utilizing predominantly off-board artillery in our historical scenarios and campaign games we play with FoW. Not hard to figure that out and to date I have still yet to buy any heavy artillery units specifically for this game.

I'd also note that despite FoW WW1 being out for almost a year, FoW Arab-Israeli War having been out for over a year, and FoW Vietnam (ToD) being out for something like three years now, I've not seen any tournaments being held for these periods. There may be some that I'm not aware of but they clearly would be a tiny percentage of tournaments if they exist at all. I'm not thinking that BF's WW1, AIW, and ToD sales are being driven at all by the "tournament" scene and I'd note that ToD also brings a healthy dose of off board artillery options as it should be and WW1 FoW only has the 18pdr/7.7m Krupp and smaller direct support guns as all that "heavy" bombardment is pre-battle stuff in those rules.

I'm not so sure statement "require huge, expensive, time consuming armies" necessarily holds true for the tournament "community" either. These guys really do what the tournament community wants to do. It's volunteers who run the vast majority of these events and they can scale or size these as they see fit. I've seen very low point tournaments, 1000pts or so, and I've seen them up to double that size. I'll add that from my experience the game just gets better at the smaller points level with a stronger infantry focus. I'd also note that there are forces in FoW WW2 that I'd not consider "huge" even at high point levels, SS Heavy Panzers anybody? And then we could also talk plastics for lower cost options.

Compare that to something like DBA which allows one to play an enjoyable game with a tiny investment in money, painting time, and playing area!

That's great that some games are specifically designed for minimal entry and play cost. I guess Infinity would be the current Sci-Fi example of this. Just a dozen models or so, free downloadable basic rules, etc, etc. But then there are guys who want to push a battalion of 31 Soviet tanks with a bit of support on a 1:1 scale. So I really don't think it's really the rules "forcing" anybody to do anything. I looks to me like the players selecting the rules to do what they want to do with them.

Really the only thing in FoW that I can think of that would get even close to "forcing" anybody to buy something that I don't think they should have to buy, is onboard artillery. But you know what? That's a choice even in the "tournament community." Players do not have to take artillery at all if they don't want to. Some forces in FoW have Naval Gunfire Support that only need on a single spotter model for and I think just about all have access to air support. That can get you the area fire effects you might want from artillery in tournaments at the cost of a single model.

the last WW1 game I played was fantastic fun, artillery , planes, assets….no tanks, mind you. but Great fun. on a 5 x 3 table with 150 figures a side.

150 figures a side. Cool. Sounds to be about the same size of my FoW WW1 British Rifle Company (beautiful BF figures BTW). It does not look like FoW "forced" me to buy anymore figures than these other two WW1 rules sets you mentioned. BTW, I'm very glad that you had great fun with the games!

VB

I wouldn't say that..VB..
The desert game was about 90 a side including the artillary.

and my games were divisional scale.

How many figures do you need to do a division?

That depends on the rules used. FoW being a company sized game, I'd be opting for a different set of rules for recreating a division sized battle. I might be able to do it with Blitzkrieg Commander or Over the Top, but even those would struggle I think to place a full division on the table with just 90 models used. Might just have to go with a board game here, which is what a lot of games feel like to me anyway when single game elements are used to represent larger and larger formations.

What the heck is DBA?

They really need an acronym legend on this website . . . I can't keep up with all these alphabet soup references everyone keeps throwing around.

Editor? Are you listening? Wouldn't that be a good idea? Just sayin'!

De Bellus Antiquitas…or something like that. All armies are just 12 elements, board is just 2'x2'. Small fast games for the ancients, medieval, and early rennaissance.

thank you!

Got tired of it because of constant rules churn, new books to replace new books, too many special rules, constantly spiraling upward price and cheaper materials. But I still play occasionally with the stuff I have. I dont think I have bought anything new in a couple of years now.

I agree with VB. I buy the models I need to play the scenarios. I start (mostly) with Spearhead or Squad Leader scenarios, but since I'm playing FOW I use their org charts to closest match what the scenario calls for. This typically results in a company with minimum sized REQUIRED units & the attachments.

In some cases I cut the attached platoons down to "illegal" sizes that makes the FOW purists squeamish, but I just tell them it's due to battlefield casualties. I almost always play the artillery off-board, but have been putting defending batteries on the board more, lately, as my collection gets bigger & we've discovered how effective those guns are firing direct. That said, since I'm emulating scenarios from other rules sets, I rarely have more than 4 guns in a battery.

A lot of gamers don't recognize my games as FOW because they don't have the tell-tale parking lot full of tanks. Typically my games have about a dozen per side.

I don't mind the collecting & painting aspect. I was a model builder as a kid & modeling the units (I believe) scratches that itch while giving me a wider variety of models to play with. To me, playing the game is half of it. Having a nice finished product is the other half.

Tell-tale parking lot of tanks? This is still a thing? You can see this in any game. LOL.

BTW I have also used Squad Leader scenarios for FoW, works out pretty good….

"Tell-tale parking lot of tanks? This is still a thing? You can see this in any game. LOL."

..Picasso!!

Exactly! Picasso-talk . . . it is so not true of many games, I've seen and played.

"Warfare in the Age of Madness", I'm ordering a copy from LuLu right now! I'm very interested to see how this game plays out . . . and it's only $14.95 USD!!! You can't beat that value with a stick!!! That's like the price of one large FoW resin vehicle!!! LOL

Ha, I have seen the tank parking lot in many historical games at conventions, its mostly on the player. Is there a hard rule in every historical game that prevents tanks from being beside each other? If not, I guess you guys had better house rule that.

Even when there are incentives not to bunch up you see it happening. And if you are bunching your tanks up in FoW you are probably an awful player, or the other player didn't take any arty or air support.

I used to play a Pantherkompie sometimes, and I always kept mine at MAX coherency, as the terrain allowed. If I didn't I would be punished for it and I couldn't afford to lose tanks more than necessary, with my low numbers. (Silly points system)

BTW I play "historical" games too, I just get tired of people posting stuff about FoW as if it doesn't happen in other games. I know I am not a legitimate "historical" player on TMP because I have admitted to enjoying FoW, but I have had a little experience in tactics and wargaming.

This is what leads you into FoW "Hater" territory… complaining about FoW when the same thing applies to literally every other game, then insulting me when I say something to the contrary.

Oh please…..

At least the people who like Picasso don't claim its like other art and captures the likeness of the subject just as well.

they recognise its extremities of it's abstraction and embrace it, they don't deny it exists and them claim people who see the abstraction are attacking them.

Definition of 'fow Hater' indeed now seems to be anyone with eyes.

This parking lot effect, People can 'see it' just like I said in one of my earlier posts. It is easily explainable why it happens.

Where did I say that FoW (Picasso?) is like every other game and simulates WWII just as well?

Does Command Decision has a rule to prevent "Parking Lots"? I havent seen the newest version. I have seen the parking lot of tanks in that and many other WWII games at conventions.

I also loved it how people in a Harpoon game I played in at a convention were using helicopters to make kamikazi attacks on the enemy ships. These were the experienced gamers and the GM. I was new to Harpoon and don't know much about modern naval warfare, maybe thats in US doctrine.

I'm just saying… you can't blame the game for players doing silly things.

The major difference is I don't go into a Command Decision forum and post about how CD has "parking lots of tanks".

Keep in mind the point of the thread… there is a huge amount of random off-topic stuff above. This is not about FoW being a valid WWII simulation. I am referencing what the Editor asked… What makes someone a FoW Hater???

"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.

It is like a compulsion."

Most likely there is no "FoW fanboy" that cares if you like the rules or not. But when you come into a FoW group and spout nonsence like "parking lot of tanks" is part of the FoW rules, then that will get a response.

'spout nonsense' ……Picasso

People can REALLY SEE it. You can pretend it isn't there if you like. But that doesn't stop other people seeing it, whether you like it or not.

So , As I said before, A hater is someone who can see Tankparks on the wargames table and says they don't like the look of it.

or then again, maybe not….Because these guys cannot be haters

link

The original question was "what causes people to become FoW "haters""? It's things like we've been talking about. I think you're taking the term "haters" as posed in the original question too literally. Rather than "haters" lets just call them "dislikers", after all how can you "hate" an inanimate entity, anyway!? I don't view it as a person who strolls along coming to people playing FoW and spouting that it's a terrible game. In fact, I've never seen anyone ever do this at any convention.

But, the question was not who are the "haters", it's what causes them to feel that way. And, many examples have been put forth, right or wrong. True or false. Hard to accept or not. But, there are very valid reasons why gamer's have leveled these gripes over the years. Whether one accepts the criticism or not is an individual choice, but the facts are the facts, if in fact they are "facts" and not just hyperbole opinions. That's the topic – "Why do people have issue with FoW".

But, in your defense, Polecat, of course I have seen plenty of "tank parks" in other games, but then almost as often I've also not seen it, and things were dispersed properly. In fact, I've been guilty of bunching tanks at times because of traffic jam situations – it's gonna happen – can't get away from it. But, I will say, that FoW makes the conditions ripe, and makes it too easy to end up doing that. And, there are several reasons the game is prone to that happening, most of which is due to the compressed play scale – especially if you're playing one to one scale on a restricted play table. Any game that compresses the scale to that degree, with that much hardware crammed on a small table, will undoubtedly find itself with similar phenomenon happening.

Having said that, it's interesting that I followed the link in the previous post and noticed a battle played out with FoW in 6mm (1/285th scale). Not surprisingly, one of the posters stated, "I love the look of the 6mm units. Looks like a proper battle now! That's one of the detractors of playing FoW in 15mm. With 6mm they have their proper spacing."!?! Sounds like that's the scale the game should be played in not 15mm. Kind of apropos.

In some posts on another thread some of this same discussion cropped-up with the same complaints. So, this is a pervasive issue. Having witnessed that discussion caused me to find a way, which I have, to thwart this phenomenon with a "proximity rule" when being fired upon for my game. It doesn't get rid of it happening, but it makes it an unattractive option in any case. And, then, sometimes there's an unavoidable necessity for crowding to occur for tactical maneuver reasons. Naturally, if you have sufficient artillery available it should be effectively used against such concentrations which in theory should thwart the continued practice of bunching. If the game, whatever game, has no mechanism to penalize bunching of troops, any troops, well then there is something fundamentally flawed in the game system. Inotherwords, some form of concentrated fire on troop concentrations should be at the firer's disposal.

That's why doctrine, in most any army, espouses the practice of dispersal, or minimal vehicle spacing on road marches, etc. Of course if the player ignores such practices he should suffer the consequences, provided the rules accommodate that.

Ironically, I'll be playing FoW tomorrow at Chicago's premier gaming store, in Mt. Prospect, with the author of "Jagdpanzer", but he'll being running the FoW game. Battle of the Bulge, no less! I'll be running a platoon of StuG's I'm told!?! Thought you'd get a kick out of that!!! ;-)

As an avowed non-WW2 gamer I'll just add a personal observation on the commercial context of this game that might help to explain one of the big issues that causes so many complaints:

Both GW and Battlefront produce and/or sell the complete package;, i.e. rules and figures/models, whereas the smaller, historically focused companies for the most part specialise in one or the other (there are exceptions of course, such as Peter Pig, but as a small operator its products lack the gloss and design/financial investment of those of GW and Bf). The success or failure of one is tied to that of the other.

The big difference though, is that the bulk of hobby businesses cover a diverse and ever-expanding range of periods/conflicts, whilst Bf has an inherent expansion restriction: it's a one-game, one-period operation (and GW isn't that much less self-limiting).

So, whereas Warlord, the Perrys, TFL, or Sam Mustafa will finish a range or rule set and move on to the next release in another period, and will be able to rely on it to generate a surge of fresh business, and can rest assured in the knowledge that there's a vast number of potential new subjects that can be drawn from the entire span of known history, Bf has only FoW and WW2 and its limited number of component campaigns – so the only way to offer fresh product is to continually rehash its published WW2 rule set and its support material. In fact, it's even more commercially constrained than GW: being derived from history its models and figures can't be rejigged and the old ones superseded.

Given its self-imposed uniludic marketing stategy, Bf could only get around this commercial dead-end by finding other adaptable 20th century campaigns into which to expand, but this too has its intrinsic limitations. The company could have produced new, discreet games to cover these conflicts, but then it would have faced the commercial risk of losing part of its target market with product range over-complication.

I'm pretty sure BF is also doing WW1, Vietnam, Arab-Israeli, and even Cold War tlater his year. FoW has not been limited to just WW2 for quite some time.

Specforc12,

You are right, sometimes terrain or necessity causes tank formations to be "bunched up". Flames of War also punishes players who bunch up tanks. But I think its because a significant number of people actually play Flames of War, and there are more new people playing it, you will see a lot of poor/new players bunching up thier tanks. And I will concede that conscript tanks are forced to bunch up somewhat. I didn't think of this because I usually use late war Soviets.

The first time I played FoW, it was a game using 6mm tanks. You are correct, it is visually more appealing.

The question is not "Why do people have an issue with Flames of War".

The original question was what causes people to become haters, but then the Editor qualified that (when asked) with

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.

It is like a compulsion.

You have to consider what he actually means by hater. You have decided to argue a different definition of what a hater is, for some reason. Your definition seems to be someone who doesn't like the Flames of War rules.

I dont actually care or consider people haters if spomeone thinks the FoW rules are crap. The Editor, and I , are talking about people who seem to have some antisocial personality disorder that forces them to go into a FoW forum and post how bad the game is, to people who enjoy the game. This has been a very common occurance on this forum in the past.

Nobody cares if someone actually does hate Flames of War but sticks to posting on the forum of the game they do like. You won't see people "strolling along" and doing this in conventions because these people generally wouldn't have the balls to act as rude in real life as they do on the Internet. Instead they will watch a game a little bit and post about a "parking lot of tanks" on the Flames of War forum.

I don't actually care if you are playing Flames of War, if you like it, if you hate it, etc… so it doesn't give me a kick to know that you are playing it. But I hope you have a fun game today.

Think you've hit the nail on the head with that one Polecat, so easy to sit behind the keyboard and sound off posting utter garbage and yet, despite all the events/shows I used to go to, never encountered one of these morons in the flesh. Had a few guys say how much they don't like it, but that's so different to spending hours of your life explaining in fine detail just how terrible it is on the part of a forum dedicated to a game that you don't play! Sad.