"FoW Haters" Topic

There has been so much time spent on this thread trying to justify thread-crapping in the Flames of War forum. That's what is sad.

I'm just becoming interested in FoW,myself. Picked up the revised ed. rules(2011)while at Origins,and a pack of German pioneers at CincyCon. Bud of mine plays it,and Ive kibitzed at a couple tournaments.

Unlike Polecat, I find this whole thread very interesting. and not a hint of threadcrapping. Its been a discussion which would have been a lot better had if it been done a half dozen years ago.
People who dislike fow have said what the reasons behind disliking it actually are, but a few fow fans still cannot help themselves making up stuff about their 'strange behaviour' and their intentions and the whole thread question assumes this to be a valid point. It is the only nonsense in this thread from any side, because what they actually are is customers.

It is ironic that the main guy of fow badness, Derek Hodge, (I was only a minion!) who posted here years ago was most fascinated that FOW players would defend Fow against any criticism to the extent that he thought that the indoctrination of the marketing actually transcended people's perceptions of true quality. He even used it as an example to his graduate students what marketing could achieve for any product and that the customer's belief of product value was a more important concept than actual value, even to the point of denial of physical evidence.

His attitude was that marketing can sell the odd pig's ear as a silk purse in a range of purses, but what I think was his surprise was that a active and lively customer base could feed on itself to convince others it must actually be the best silk purse because of who produced it without actually presenting anything tangible.

One only has to go back to the release of the truly awful looking fow Brit paras, commandos and Us para to see people claim they were 'the best 15mm ever'. Now with hindsight, not many people will say that they were even fair looking figures, even for the time. In fact nowadays, people look back and consider it a low point in BF infantry products.Its no surprise that fow's first plastics range were US para.

He believed that Fow with its overly protective 'fanboys could even transcend a 'ratners' revelation if the noisiest core customers were militant enough in their demands for censorship.

The truth is that the fanboy for anything nowadays gets a raised eyebrow about any bloated over hyped claim and that is a good thing. Acceptance leads to mediocrity, criticism leads to a strive for improvement. It may not come off every time, but its worth trying.

OR

you can rant that its all about jealousy and personality disorders and is just thread crapping.

So how does this explain why "Haters" seek out Flames of War forums to preach how bad it is?

I remember DerekH (though I wasnt thinking of him when referring to "haters"). Its sad when someone becomes so obsessed with something like that.

It actually is strange behavior to hang out on a forum for a game you dislike, just so you can point out how awful it is to people who like it. (And be surprised when they explain to you that they find value in it !?!?!?)

You say criticism leads to improvement, so I guess those people who play Flames of War, and post in the forum, owe a debt of gratitude to those TMP members who are so gracious as to sacrifice their time to visit the forum and disparage the game at every opportunity.

Part of it is the desire to be the "Straight shooter" who "says things everyone needs to hear".

You find that on any "fan" forum for something, there's always one or two people who hate the thing and decide to spend a lot of time telling everyone that they aren't actually having fun.

I'm not familiar with the specifics Derek Hodge being banned from TMP, but it did not surprise me that his conduct on TMP ultimately lead to that. From my perspective he was first and foremost just an @$$h@t who seemed to do what did what he did for his own amusement more so than any academic interest.

Quite often it's not what one says that really earns one infamy here, it's at least as much, if not more, about how they say it. A little tact and common courtesy would go a long way to helping folks state their opposing opinions without being labeled a "hater" or "fanboy." Derek seems to have been unable to come to grips with that. It does not appear that it was "Fanboys" who censored Derek on TMP, it looks more like he earned that from The Editor all on his own.

'You find that on any "fan" forum for something, there's always one or two people who hate the thing and decide to spend a lot of time telling everyone that they aren't actually having fun.'

except this is tmp, It isn't a fow site, and the Fow board didn't exist when all this started. It was the 15mm ww2 board and then like now, loads of posts ere crossposted to Hell and back.

VB, I'm sure Derek remembers you with affection and respect.

You are right, Kevin, there was no FoW forum originally, it was all mixed in.

Please reread my final paragraph, VonBurge.

Polecat,

I wouldn't get too upset about any of this. Afterall, the Editor's posed questions can be interpreted both ways. I say that because, when he says, "when I think of a FoW hater…" doesn't necessarily infer that he's even ever witnessed such an act, but in his mind's eye perceives this represented in the recurring debate about games like FoW as being controversial, and probably threw that out there just to stir the bee's nest a bit, with what I would call, predictable results. This has, clearly, elicited a very interesting and for the most part a very civil debate. Let's face it, the fact there are about 150 posts on this one thread alone says a lot. Obviously, he's hit a nerve across the board knowing full well that this spirited thread would result.

I don't think you, or anyone, should be surprised that the so-called "FoW Haters" come out of the woodwork regarding a post like this, because, it's almost directed more towards the "dislikers" than the "fanboys", just by the nature of the question. It's going to naturally happen. Who better to ask than those who have issue with the game. Because, you're not going to learn much new from a "mutual appreciation society".

Criticism, not vociferous attacks, are valid and good because that's how things improve. It's helped me understand your viewpoint and VB's all the better, and even is affecting my game design. Like any photographer or painter, they expect a critique when they create their latest "masterpiece" to see where the discussion goes. Having done much of that in my schooling years, was essential to improving my art in future works. So, critiques are not necessarily a bad thing if credible arguments or criticisms are leveled. You're a military man, you know that's what AAR (after-action reports) are all about. Maybe you should care more about critiques, and be more open-minded, rather than just discount them out of hand. You say you don't care about my opinions or anyone else's so what are you even doing engaging in this discussion in the first place? You, obviously, must care to some degree, because otherwise you wouldn't be reacting quite so aggressively.

As for those who really have nothing but cruel, unsubstantiated, ugly things to say, in any public forum, or in person, are just simply jerks and there's not much to be said about them other than that what you said, they are "anti-social", and simply should be ignored since they bring nothing constructive to the table. And, I'm totally with you on that point. But, in reality I think those types people are few and far between, anyway, and I don't really see them here.

- SF12

I suppose the real question is are there people who are haters of other popular games?

Flames of War is popular and successful some people seem to not be happy for Battlefront and those that like the game to the extent that they have to point out their perceived short comings of the game.

Is the same the case for other popular and successful games? Bolt Action for example is pretty popular and from what I have heard makes Flames of War look like a super simulation as far as "realism" is concerned. Because I don't go anywhere near the Bolt Action forums anywhere on the net I cannot say if this is the case or not.

Saga, its a good fun game and it has some basis in history but again does it get haters?

If the haters only appear in Flames of War threads then there clearly is something odd going on.

Personally I am a player of Flames of War who many other players think is a bit of a hater because there are aspects of the game I loathe but the core of the game is for me so good that I cannot find an alternative that I prefer. That and the fact I like tournament play as an excuse to play loads of games in a short period means that at the moment Flames is still the best in town for me by far.

Specforc12,

I'm not upset about anything at all. I am just pointing out some ridiculous behavior that has occurred. I have only played Flames of War ONCE in the past 3 years or so !!!! I play other games! I guess I am still considered a Fanboy !?!?! (BTW the first sign of a hater is when they use the term "Fanboyz" to refer to someone who doesn't agree with their opinion of a game. So stupid.)

The Editor has, I am positive, witnessed what we are talking about… I'm pretty sure he has banned people for it. You can think that its all in "Fanboyz" imagination, but there was a time when every FoW thread was more or less attacked and taken off topic by these people. Now, granted, as KevinG said, in the beginning the posts were in the general 15mm area. But the behavior was so ridiculous and rude. If you posted about the game you are designing, I wouldnt jump into every thread and repeatedly berate it for every percieved issue I have with it ("true" or not). I'm not sure but this may have led to the creation of a seperate FoW forum.

Jameshammyhamilton:

There are people who are obsessed with other games as well. For example, on TMP, there is an obsessive person who hasnt played Warhammer 40k for several editions, and has no desire to play, but posts negative posts in nearly every 40k thread in the 40k forum. Why waste his time? In my opinion, a person who takes the time out of their day to disrupt so many threads about a game they don't play and dont like must be suffering from a mental disorder of some kind. Its sad really, like a scary crazy person on the bus who just wont stop talking to you.

Bolt Action… ??? Nice miniatures, fun game, psuedo-historical maybe ??? I like it.

And "an excuse to play loads of games in a short period " that is the exact reason I attend tournaments as well.

"I suppose the real question is are there people who are haters of other popular games?"

Is that the real question because that must be a given?

I thought the real question is are there people who want only a sanitized pro Fow content on any threads about fow crossposted to anywhere in the tmp universe? …and it appears that that question is well answered.

What is funny is that I think the fow forum has been pretty much all fluffy bunnies for a long long time, albeit I am not on it very often

Specfor12 writes:
It's helped me understand your viewpoint and VB's all the better, and even is affecting my game design.

That's the only reason I bother to engage on this forum. I'm under no delusion or have any expectations that folks will ever agree with me, I just want them to understand the game a bit more from a different perspective. Those who only zero in on the negatives of the rules all the time certainly seem to be coming at it from limited perspective. I accept the validity of negatives they bring forward about specific rules issues, but then try to provide the positives about those rules issues that they seem to miss or just deliberately leave out. Everything has a positive and a negative aspect for which I hope foster a more holistic consensus here.

Polecat writes:
There are people who are obsessed with other games as well. For example, on TMP, there is an obsessive person who hasnt played Warhammer 40k for several editions, and has no desire to play, but posts negative posts in nearly every 40k thread in the 40k forum. Why waste his time?

I think KevanG suggested earlier in this thread that some just do it for "the sport" of it. It does seem as if through some get amusement from it. As for impact on FoW and the FoW community, it does all seem to be a big waste of time. FoW has continued to grow over the last decade. It has expanded into new periods and I'm certain has helped other gaming companies to grow as well.

It seems a bit ironic to me that perhaps that the only thing that has caused a significant reduction in FoW has not been a move to other "more realistic" rules as advocated by detractors of FoW, but to another WW2 rules system that appears to possibly garnish even more criticism from many of these detractors.

Polecat writes:
Bolt Action… ??? Nice miniatures, fun game, psuedo-historical maybe ??? I like it.

Yep…that's the game system that I think has been the only significant negative impact on FoW. Seems to me that there's a pretty close correlation to reduction in FoW popularity and the increase in Bolt Action popularity. I definitely see it in my local gaming scene, but I also see it happening across the US. Seems to me that FoW event attendance is down, while Bolt Action events are growing. The most direct example of that I can give is that this year the FoW Tournament at NASCON had to be cancelled. This tournament had been run successfully for many years with a good number of players (24 +/-). This year it had to be cancelled due to lack of people signed up for it. Maybe not so coincidently it's worth noting NASCON this year included its first Bolt Action tournament.

Yep, Bolt Action has replaced Flames of War here for the WWII game of choice.

'I think KevanG suggested earlier in this thread that some just do it for "the sport" of it.'

I don't think I did that here nor, in fact, anywhere.

I have suggested that people love to place their perceptions of other's motives on pedestals to be reviled or revered depending on their prejudices.

"Bolt Action has replaced Flames of War here for the WWII game of choice."

A game (BA) targeted for 40K players takes customers from older game (FOW) originally designed with 40K style mechanisms so it attracts 40K players?

Are you really surprised and think that this is unusual that player bases change en masse? ….and This is a 'failure of haters ' to convert them to 'better' games?

I suppose the hater would refer to it as a seasonal migration of sheep.

Both viewpoints are equally and categorically wrong.

It is a marketing victory for a wargames chewing gum flavour

Most of the Bolt Action players are not Flames of War players. We do have a few who have played both, myself included. The one game of FoW I've played in the past 3 years was a demo game for one of the Bolt Action players, and it went really well. There is room for both games (scales), its just a matter of having enough time to play multiple games. Most of the Bolt Action players came from the Warmachine and 40k community. I think this is a good thing. I am partial to SkirmishCampaigns and Arc of Fire for WWII skirmish and it gives me more potential players.

'I think KevanG suggested earlier in this thread that some just do it for "the sport" of it.'

I don't think I did that here nor, in fact, anywhere.

Page 2 on this thread you stated:

well, some fow players think that 40K attacks are good sport too.

A game (BA) targeted for 40K players takes customers from older game (FOW) originally designed with 40K style mechanisms so it attracts 40K players?

Are you really surprised and think that this is unusual that player bases change en masse? ….and This is a 'failure of haters ' to convert them to 'better' games?

I just find it interesting that Bolt Actions seems to have had some success in moving players away from FoW in a way that detractors of FoW here & elsewhere have not. Perhaps it highlights the lack of tangable impact that "haters" actually have and maybe it reinforces Polecat's suggestion that they are largely wasting their time.

Most of the Bolt Action players are not Flames of War players. We do have a few who have played both, myself included.

In our area, I'd say about half the Bolt Action players were FoW players previously. I'm not saying all of those have totally abandoned FoW, just that Bolt Action has certainly replaced FoW for their WW2 gaming focus. I'd also say that these guys were the more casual FoW players in our area and seemed to play only in tournaments and pick-up games. They were not the guys who normally participated in our FoW historical scenarios and campaigns. There's also a bit of LGS dynamic involved in our local scene. We have two LGS and one has become the "Bolt Action" store/club and the other is still more FoW focused when it comes to historical gaming. Both stores are of course overall way more focused on card games, fantasy, and sci-fi, as well they should be as that is what actually earns them money!

Ah, …the wwpd reference… mea culpe. That was commenting that some fow people who went on about Fow being victimized (and hounded Bill in packs to ban Derek Hodge) saw the comments about 40K as 'just good sport' and justified amongst their fow friends, unlike those evil unjustified attacks from unbalanced cyberfreaks like all the fow haters, although no one who wasn't partisan could actually identify who they were beyond about three people who were maybe the one guy.

"I just find it interesting that Bolt Actions seems to have had some success in moving players away from FoW in a way that detractors of FoW here & elsewhere have not"

….and your evidence appears to be that locally Fow players are leaving the game to play another one….

Do you really believe that some people are hell bent on convincing people to give up Fow? ….Can you REALLY be sure they were not all using subliminal messages about playing bolt action instead?

perhaps pley…BA…pley…BA was repeated in white text on every blank line?

Are there other people hell bent on making people stop playing Bolt action now?

Are there counter agent people hell bent on encouraging people to play BA because THEY want to play it and not fow anymore…and Which is worse??????
Is 'helping' people understand a game (BA) is good now bad because the game (BA) isnt Fow?

could it be these so called haters and fanbois are just people who think these games are so poor or so good, they want to challange the understanding and knowledge of the game of the people they see 'spouting (non)-sense' on the other side about how good/bad, accurate/inaccurate, (non) historical fow/ bolt action is and that every other game is full of complicated armor penetration charts including Bolt action/ Fow if you really look and they all take six years and a degree to complete a game involving two tanks exchanging 3 shots between them so are all a bad idea except fow/Bolt action?

maybe that is what is difficult. People do not like their beliefs challenged and will naturally turn to demonise the non believers until they find a new favourite by accident or design.

"In our area, I'd say about half the Bolt Action players were FoW players previously. I'm not saying all of those have totally abandoned FoW, just that Bolt Action has certainly replaced FoW for their WW2 gaming focus."

SO is this a good thing, a bad thing or a completely neutral thing?

That's a lot of questions there KevanG. I'll try my best to answer them all for you.

Ah, …the wwpd reference… mea culpe. That was commenting that some fow people who went on about Fow being victimized (and hounded Bill in packs to ban Derek Hodge) saw the comments about 40K as 'just good sport' and justified amongst their fow friends, unlike those evil unjustified attacks from unbalanced cyberfreaks like all the fow haters, although no one who wasn't partisan could actually identify who they were beyond about three people who were maybe the one guy.

I'll place my faith in The Editor on this one as it looks to me like Hodge provided more than enough justification here himself for The Editor to make his banning call.

"I just find it interesting that Bolt Actions seems to have had some success in moving players away from FoW in a way that detractors of FoW here & elsewhere have not"
….and your evidence appears to be that locally Fow players are leaving the game to play another one….

That was only a part of it. I'm pretty well connected with gaming fiends all around the US and have been noting a drop in FoW in their areas and at many marquee events, for example the US FoW "Nationals" held in Texas was down to just 20 players or so this summer, which I think is less than half its normal draw. So maybe it is just me reading the tea leaves. You can believe me, Polecat, or nobody about what seems to be going on in the US. Just sharing my perceptions with you. Feel free to dismiss them if you want, but I think it's a pretty solid bet that this is actually occurring. Note I'm not saying that Bolt Action at this point is overall more popular than FoW, just that it seems to me, and many others, that the former is on the rise at the expense of the later, in the US anyway.

Do you really believe that some people are hell bent on convincing people to give up Fow? ….

I'm not sure "hell bent" is appropriate but you don't even have to look outside of this thread to see examples made by some suggesting other games people should be playing rather than FoW. Seems to be a recurring theme. Do you think that never happens here?

Can you REALLY be sure they were not all using subliminal messages about playing bolt action instead? perhaps pley…BA…pley…BA was repeated in white text on every blank line?

Don't think that's the case at all. Seems a rather silly thing to contemplate.

Are there other people hell bent on making people stop playing Bolt action now?

You tell me. I have not really spent a lot of time looking at what is or is not happening with respect to Bolt Action on TMP or elsewhere on the interwebs. Do you think such places are devoid of any aspect of that?

Are there counter agent people hell bent on encouraging people to play BA because THEY want to play it and not fow anymore…and Which is worse??????

I think whatever promotes the most tolerance for people playing whatever games they choose for whatever reasons is the better course of action.

Is 'helping' people understand a game (BA) is good now bad because the game (BA) isnt Fow?

I think looking objectively at the strengths and weakness of any game in a civil setting is totally fine. If that helps folks move to some degree of understanding (understanding not necessarily agreement), like with specfor12 and I here, then I'd have to think that's a good thing.

could it be these so called haters and fanbois are just people who think these games are so poor or so good, they want to challange the understanding and knowledge of the game of the people they see 'spouting (non)-sense' on the other side about how good/bad, accurate/inaccurate, (non) historical fow/ bolt action is and that every other game is full of complicated armor penetration charts including Bolt action/ Fow if you really look and they all take six years and a degree to complete a game involving two tanks exchanging 3 shots between them so are all a bad idea except fow/Bolt action?

If they are 100% positive or all 100% negative all the time then I'd agree with you that there is a potential problem and the motives there may be suspect.

maybe that is what is difficult. People do not like their beliefs challenged and will naturally turn to demonise the non believers until they find a new favourite by accident or design.

That could be the case with folks who are 100% polar opposites on any issue. I've said before this hater and fanboy stuff seems rather like diametrically opposed political parties, liberals and conservatives if you will. Nasty to each other and unwilling to consider anything that does not fit their vision. So I'm with you on that one and I'm pretty sure the wargaming world would be a better place if more people were overall more moderate.

"In our area, I'd say about half the Bolt Action players were FoW players previously. I'm not saying all of those have totally abandoned FoW, just that Bolt Action has certainly replaced FoW for their WW2 gaming focus."
SO is this a good thing, a bad thing or a completely neutral thing?

It's an absolutely a good thing! If people are having historical wargaming fun with Bolt Action then I fully endorse it! I'll even likely join in myself for the occasional Bolt Action game or two and already have. I have absolutely no ill will towards Bolt Action players, local or abroad, and certainly will not bombard any forums where the game is discussed trying to tell Bolt Action players that they are wrong or unintelligent for playing it, or make suggestions that they are merely mindless victims of advertising, etc. Even if it's not necessarily my cup of tea, I'd recognize the historical gaming value and positive aspects Bolt Action has for them and encourage them to enjoy it!

I also think it's a good thing for our LGSs. Frankly our FoW core here really does not support our local game stores with nearly the volume of sales as we use to. After a decade or so most of us are pretty "complete" on our 15mm WW2 collections. Even with BF coming around to other periods now, many of us already have had substantial collections in those periods in various scales before BF even produced one item for them. This will be especially true with "Cold War" as I cannot begin to tell you the vast collections of modern micro-armor that my mates and I already have. Bolt Action, if you're willing to consider my humble local perspective, seems to be doing a better job recently at generating sales that support my LGSs, one more so than the other. I'm more than OK with that! I totally encourage it!

Cheers, VB

VB. that is interesting what you say.

since….

It defines derek hodge as not being a fow hater since even he didn't say everything was poor in FOW. Our editer banned Derek because he couldn't resist having a last dig at people he considered oversensitive idiots after loads of complaints regarding Fow people having their feelings hurt because they didn't know bocage wasn't just piles of white stones with weeds on top.

I am getting close to believing that the fow hater and the fanboi are in fact myths.

I would disagree that people moving from FOW to any game or vice versa is a positive or a negative thing. It is a natural human thing to try something different once you get to a point where its been done to death with all the annoying niggles exposed…and is an absolute neutral effect. Sticking in one thing indefinitely where choice exists just illustrates a complete lack of Vision.

Marketing for a shop is a different kettle of fish..selling bolt action figures or dystopian war fleets online is marketing and is geared at stimulation of that vision.

however, if you claim it is a positive or a negative thing, it JUSTIFIES the actions of the people you criticize for being a hater (or fanboi) trying to make people play other games, even though I am not sure they exist anymore.

Free expression and freedom to interpret that expression from others is what it should be all about. Misleading them is not what it is about.

My attitude is anyone can play anything they like whenever and with whoever they like with whatever they like…sometimes if asked, I will join in.

when I choose to play a more sophisticated and more detailed game with a lot of effort and time spent on figures and terrain, with selected like- minded guys and girls, it's again my choice.

If anyone playing Bolt action or Fow believes they are playing the top game, better than all the rest and are in the same league as the effort I have put in because their game is popular/ is in a store/ can be used historically/is fun, then I have a right to inform them that not only are they barking up the wrong tree, the forest isn't even in the same state.

That, right there , isn't spouting nonsense.

When I watch people playing a game of fow or bolt action or black powder or, in fact, any sci Fi / fantasy game and its worst ever derivitive, ECW warhammer, what I see are two people playing a game.(except ECW warhammer…they need help!) When I watch people playing the type of games I play and are using the myriad of the rules I like, I see a group of people (its almost never just two!) fighting a representation of a battle. that just happens to be done as a game.

I know you understand what this means and I know you know it isn't nonsense.

But back to the misleading part.

Fow does an awful lot of that. It is a game design driven system. It defends its mechanisms by 'spouting nonsense' about history to justify itself. …Who can ever forget the derision of the bailed out crews and their in/out okey cokey?
No opp fire, no command and control, no spotting and no variable movement (even though it has variable time scale and variable ground scale…good luck justifying that squaring of the circle)

It gets itself in a mess over these things and this is where it gets a whole load of criticisms. Most would be easily solved. I have even given suggestions in the past how to introduce opp fire simply in the current system, and rudimentary command and control…even taking on Bolt action's die draw system would be an improvement, but to some (not all) that is unwelcome to their "turn up and play" ethos and even those simple changes would radically alter game play.

If you really want to know what it is that makes people dislike fow as a system, then I am sure it must be pretty clear.

They dislike fow because they have 2 things, a better game for their taste and opponents.

Having said that, Everyone should play Fow and Bolt action and all the other games I listed at least once…but not ECW warhammer, ….for pity's sake and your overall sanity, please just take my word on that one.

In my area there are a couple of hobby shops that are pushing Bolt Action because it sets up on a smaller table and is easier for new players to get into. Also to sell miniatures. For them it's all about getting people into the store, playing a game, liking it and then buying stuff for themselves. Having a historical game is secondary and normally only Osprey publications are available for historical reading. The way Bolt Action is displayed on their wall and shelves looks pretty good too. I don't see the same level of support and marketing for FOW as I do for Bolt Action in my area. One store used to carry a lot of FOW stuff but does not carry the line anymore.

wolfhag

VB. that is interesting what you say.
since….
It defines derek hodge as not being a fow hater since even he didn't say everything was poor in FOW.

Oh sure maybe he threw out a token "I really like BF's Universal HMG Carriers" every now and then, but what the OP asks is "is there something about the rules that makes someone a "hater." What positive comments did he ever make about the rules themselves? What parts of the FoW rules does he think FoW got right? I'll extend the same challenge to you Kevan. Out of the 250+ pages of rules or so what did FoW get right (or even maybe just OK)? And perhaps more importantly, what did you or Derek ever say about FoW players that was a ever honest compliment?

We all know BF makes some great models and some bad ones. We all know BF makes some good cooperate decisions and some bad ones. But I'm pretty sure when it comes to the FoW rules and the players of those rules that you two both have expressed a 100% negative view of both about all the time. I hope I'm wrong and hope you can show me I'm wrong, but in terms of longevity, intensity, and negativity of your comments here about the FoW rules and its players, you've managed to establish a pretty bad track record from what I can see. I am trying to be open minded here, but you've pretty much have had the same "stick" for years and years (8 or more?) here.

Our editer banned Derek because he couldn't resist having a last dig at people he considered oversensitive idiots after loads of complaints regarding Fow people having their feelings hurt because they didn't know bocage wasn't just piles of white stones with weeds on top.

I'm not so sure you can truly blame Derek's ban on a couple of guys from a blog that essentially is in competition for advertising dollars with TMP. Honestly, Derek seemed to be in the TMP "Dog House" more often than not and had the highest stifle to post ration I ever saw on TMP. I'd have to expect The Editor gave Derek fair warning of an impending ban, but as you say "he couldn't resist." I'm guessing he might have been a big pain for The Editor for quite some time and his lack of contol that you note and lack of tact eventually got him in too deep.

It's admirable to see you come to the defense of your friend. But at some point Derek has to acknowledge that the number one reason for his ban is starring him back in the mirror every day. It's a shame too as I quite appreciate his blog site and his efforts to organize annual Lard games days in your area. I'm rather envious of the great wargaming your club does and would be truly honored to be able to joining your game table if circumstances ever allowed.

To me, Derek seems quite capable of generating tremendous positive effort in his gaming community which leaves me at a quandary why he always came off some so negatively here in the way he says things. I really like to think the internet just over amplifies people's comments/tone and makes them look to be much less amaibale as they are in real life. I know I've been much less generous to him, and you, in the past, but I'm more than willing to apoligize for me giving a less than favorable view of myself to you guys and others.

I am getting close to believing that the fow hater and the fanboi are in fact myths.

I'd like to think you're right. I really hope you are! If anything positive comes out of anybody trudging through these 175+ posts, that might be it and it's certainly in line with my desire of seeing all parties being more moderate in both their positions and their tones no matter what's being discussed.

Coincidently I saw that Mike Haught on another blog I follow posted this today: link

I think it's pretty sagely advice and I think the wargaming community as a whole would be better off the more they applied his suggestions, regardless of what side of an issue they are on. I know I have not always lived up to the ideas in the post, but I will seriously try to do so going forward and won't mind if you remind me if I do stray from its principles in the future. I'd of course recommend all to do the same.

I've also seen some great comments by Richard Clarke on Bolt Action, which I found amazing for a author commenting at a game system that competes with one of his many excellent game designs that I thought were alnog the same line of thought.

I would disagree that people moving from FOW to any game or vice versa is a positive or a negative thing. It is a natural human thing to try something different once you get to a point where its been done to death with all the annoying niggles exposed…and is an absolute neutral effect. Sticking in one thing indefinitely where choice exists just illustrates a complete lack of Vision.

You're certainly welcome to have a different assessment. The number one thing for me on this aspect is what actually gets people playing historical wargames rather than sitting around and debating them. You clearly rate that criteria lower than I and thus come up with a different assessment. No big deal I think. We just prioritize different aspects like we do with our historical wargaming itself.

Marketing for a shop is a different kettle of fish..selling bolt action figures or dystopian war fleets online is marketing and is geared at stimulation of that vision.

This has much more importance in the US I think. The LGS is "THE" nexus of gaming activity for many of us. I understand in the UK, game clubs are more the nexus and supporting local vendors in not as crucial there perhaps. So I really think that it is the "same kettle" for the US, but I can understand why you look at it as a different issue.

however, if you claim it is a positive or a negative thing, it JUSTIFIES the actions of the people you criticize for being a hater (or fanboi) trying to make people play other games, even though I am not sure they exist anymore.

You are likely right. I'm clearly positive on expansion of any historical wargaming / wargaming systems. I'd love to see them all do well. The follow on to that is that I'd not be so supportive of folks that recommend any game just explictly so the players abandon their current games whatever those might be. In general folks should sample as much as they can and make their own call rather than being unduly over influenced one way or the other by the unpleasent and heated arguments normally seen in thread like this.

Free expression and freedom to interpret that expression from others is what it should be all about.

Can agree with that. But "free" does not mean that folks being less than civil should be tolerated/welcome.

Misleading them is not what it is about.

But who is missleading who? You of course are refering to me. But I'm not out to misslead anybody about anyting. I will full well acknowlge FoW many shortcomings, but I feel I must also tell the rest of the story that others almost always leave out when talking those shortcomings. If they talk the all of the cons and all of the pros of an issue, but still came down on the opposite side of an issue from me, I would happliy live with that. That's rarely what I see though, espeically here.

My attitude is anyone can play anything they like whenever and with whoever they like with whatever they like…sometimes if asked, I will join in.

An admirable philosophy. It's mine also.

when I choose to play a more sophisticated and more detailed game with a lot of effort and time spent on figures and terrain, with selected like- minded guys and girls, it's again my choice.

Indeed. You and your mates clearly should use whatever game systems work best for you. From Derek's blog I know that you play many of the same games I do/have and have a similar feel for many of them (at least in Derek's case since he's the one posting there, I just assume that your thoughts are similar since you seem to be very close to him).

If anyone playing Bolt action or Fow believes they are playing the top game, better than all the rest and are in the same league as the effort I have put in because their game is popular/ is in a store/ can be used historically/is fun, then I have a right to inform them that not only are they barking up the wrong tree, the forest isn't even in the same state.

I'm not sure anybody here is saying either Bolt Action or Flames of War is "the top game." Each is just an option from many choices, which we both agree that choice is good for many ways of fighting a representation of a battle that just happens to be done as a game. Cleary FoW or Bolt Action are not the best for many folks even if they may be very popular overall. I can tell you Bolt Action is not the best game for me. That's not any inditment of the game, just me stating that when I play a WW2 game at the Platoon and below, I prefere other options like CoC. But at the same time, I'm not going to bother folks over on the Bolt Action sub-fourm with my personal thoughts and viewpoints. I'm happy to live and let game.

Clearly… simply being popular does not automatically make rules even good. Conversely, I'm pretty sure the fact that they are popular is often what spurs much of the antagonism towards them. And surely being popular does not automatically make them bad.

When I watch people playing a game of fow or bolt action or black powder or, in fact, any sci Fi / fantasy game and its worst ever derivitive, ECW warhammer, what I see are two people playing a game.(except ECW warhammer…they need help!)

To be fair I have to agree with you that both Bolt Action and FoW are clearly geared for "head to head" gaming. I get that that's not many folks gaming preference. That's all fine. But I also think that type of gaming is quite OK if it's the type of gaming most have the opportunity to do. But like you, I much more enjoy multiplayer historical scenarios, and so that's what I push more for with our local FoW games. Our biggest was a 12 player FoW game, and even this past weekend I got in a three player game.

When I watch people playing the type of games I play and are using the myriad of the rules I like, I see a group of people (its almost never just two!) fighting a representation of a battle. that just happens to be done as a game.
I know you understand what this means and I know you know it isn't nonsense.

Of course, I can appreciate that! And I can tell you that's what my group angles toward regardless of rules. The head-to-head stuff is just "fillers" for us until we get to our campaign games and multi-player scenario wargaming in.
Look I can't speak to what you are seeing in your area for the games that you dislike above, but what I can tell you is that when it comes to the FoW games we play here you'll see that they look quite a bit like some the games on Derek's blogs. I'd not encourage you to play any FoW head to head in a "competitve" format but if you joined us for one of our multi-player games I'd hope you'd at least have a pleasurable experience like Richard Carke did with his Bolt Action game and that you see something of redeeming value for historical wargaming in it. If all you ever see is competitive head-to-head, blue-on-blue, points matches for FoW gaming in your area, then I cannot really hold your negative views of how the game is played in your area against you. I'm just here to tell you FoW is no way limited to that approach as my group has leveraged some serious wargaming horsepower from FoW.

But back to the misleading part.
Fow does an awful lot of that. It is a game design driven system. It defends its mechanisms by 'spouting nonsense' about history to justify itself.

If you're taking about the specifics below I'll address each in turn.

…Who can ever forget the derision of the bailed out crews and their in/out okey cokey?

The other side of the coin on that is that it's just a temporary negative effect on an AFV. Feel free to replace with "buttoned up" or maybe "even suppressed." I believe the FoW author at one point confessed that "Bailed Out" was really not the proper name to give that effect.

No opp fire,

No separate OP Fire rules to be true, but then you have to get into the discussion of the I-GO-U-Go and the reduced rate of fire for moving troops with the Gone-to-Ground mechanic takes care of much of this. These aspects handle most, not all, of OP Fire effects that you'd be looking for in a historical wargame. Certainly not fully, certainly would be seen as not sufficient by some, but it actually may be more misleading to say there is absolutely NO OP Fire in FoW by not understanding or ignoring how the game actually address such.

no command and control,

There are elements of command and control in FoW that a statement like that fails to take into account. Frist off there is command and control distance for units based on training. Teams can only operate so far apart based on command and control. Then there are some Command and Control specific rules, like Stormtrooper, Avanti, and Hen & Chicks (negative one there) that add effects loosely based variance in command and control.

Look you can say you feel that you must have a dice roll or a card pull or something that possibly limits what you can do with troops in a turn through some random chance withs a few modifiers perhaps. I get that! As a former tank company commander I can tell you "Murphy" is alive and well and the simplest things sometimes just don't happen. "Human nature and all that." But I can also tell you that if things "mostly" go right before contact with the enemy, then I'm not so sure I feel I need to bother with that. I can write unique conditions into the scenario as I feel they may need to be applied. All "I" really need in my gaming for C2 is to think about placement of my command elements to mitigate the chaos and negative effects applied to my formations by enemy actions. I get more than enough C2 modeling in FoW just from trying to make sure my C2 elements are positioned properly to support my main effort and by deciding where I can accept risk by having formations that are too distant from my C2 elements. So by saying there is zero C2 incorporated in the game again somewhat misleading. Can't tell you the number of times I've heard players gripe about units that just would not get moving again in FoW once the enemy has messed up their day a bit.

no spotting

Guess you could add more of that that if you wanted to, put let's not forget that there are spotting rules for limited visibility in FoW and there is a lifting gone-to-ground mechanic for Recce in the game as well. Take those the unit training and concealment status and you'll see there actually are elements of spotting in FoW. Just ask the Soviet Tank Bn player what he thinks about spotting when he rolls up with his T-34's that will have zero chance at hitting concealed, gone-to-ground veteran German units. So it's a bit misleading to say that FoW incorporates zero spotting.

and no variable movement (even though it has variable time scale and variable ground scale…good luck justifying that squaring of the circle)

Maybe not so hard to do. Borrow Derek's Blucher rule book and turn to page 158 where Sam Mustafa talks about the benifiets of "elasticty" in wargaming.

It gets itself in a mess over these things and this is where it gets a whole load of criticisms.

I can support criticism in ALL of those areas! In many cases these items could be done better or is not done enough or is done in a way that not all players will be comfortable with. I get that. But it is a bit of a disservice to say that the game is completely absent of any aspect of them. So when I see these zero whatever comments in a forum like this, I'm forced to wonder if the poster has really fully considered the issue and is actually being honest and objective when all I see them make are these blanket statements. Unitil I see postive comments along with negative comments from the same person about the same issue, I'm just left wondering about their intellignece, their obejctivity, or how close they really have looked at the issue. Im very happy for them to see these issues totally differently in the end than I do, but it's the objevctivity in the process that adds value to their comments to me.

I'm sure you'll disagee with me on much, if not all, of the above. You always do seem to disagree with me even on minor issues just as a point of order or something. I'm not at all saying you are all wrong, there are some valid issues/concrens with the way FoW gets at some of the above that you've noted, but am also saying you're not all right either. There are some things on the other side of the story on each issue many just seem to leave out.

Most would be easily solved. I have even given suggestions in the past how to introduce opp fire simply in the current system, and rudimentary command and control…even taking on Bolt action's die draw system would be an improvement, but to some (not all) that is unwelcome to their "turn up and play" ethos and even those simple changes would radically alter game play.

Hey…let's hear them! There's always a chance for version 4 of FoW. And not that I consider myself a steady Bolt Action player, but I've recently been made aware of a player rules modification packet being use by Bolt Action players to address some of the issues with certain rules and ratings etc. Apparently this is in its second version. I'm definitely OK with players taking more ownership of their gaming rules!

If you really want to know what it is that makes people dislike fow as a system, then I am sure it must be pretty clear.
They dislike fow because they have 2 things, a better game for their taste and opponents.

I can't agree anymore myself! If other games are working better at getting after what they are after in a WW2 game then good on them! By all means game on! I am by no means trying to make everybody "like" FoW, it would be a pointless endeavor, and like you, I like the variety of options in gaming. What I'm about is simply pointing out that some folks could be a bit more balanced in their assessment of the game. Sure there's a bit going on with it that's wrong, and there's a bit going on with it that's right. So maybe let's not be so quick to dismiss it entirely out of hand and ignore the quality gaming it is producing when it does.

Variety is good.

Yep. Some folks need more detail driven games and more discrete mechanisms in their "simulations." Nothing wrong with that at all. Some folks are OK using a more abstract approach and minimizing or dismissing some details and mechanisms for a more streamlined game and for me in FoW a way that I find great fun.

Having said that, Everyone should play Fow and Bolt action and all the other games I listed at least once…but not ECW warhammer, ….for pity's sake and your overall sanity, please just take my word on that one.

Now you did it! Now I HAVE to go out and try ECW Warhammer! ;) Thanks brother….thanks….

Cheers, VB

Have to admire the time and effort you put in VB, explaining and supporting your position. Don't get me wrong, I don't its worth it, not for a minute, but its impressive none-the-less!

Oh, and it gives me something to read during my three year gaming hiatus from FoW.

VB

You honestly do not need to worry about my intelligence nor especially objectivity..I have them in spades and I am paid to write objectively every day.

All my suggestions have been in many a post. but I really do not want to trawl through 10 years of threads looking for my own posts of suggestions. The one I remember best was the opp fire idea which basically allowed reserved dice to fire later in a turn. You basically deducted the moving fire rate from the stationary fire rate and they could shoot those amount of dice at any target coming into view. I recall discussions about limiting it for specific forces, veterans didn't deduct the stationary fire and conscripts lost twice the stationary fire rate.

Command and Control involved opposed initiative die rolls to either force the opponent to move or allow your individual platoon to move first, again amended by force rating. This was similar to how 'Impetus' does it.

Good luck with the warhammer ECW…I await your AAR on WWPD!

That suggestion for OP Fire is perfectly fine. It falls in line the idea that OP Fire is not something just given away in an I-Go-U-Go type game. It has to be paid for or earned somehow.

As an alternative suggestion, I've also thought that allowing a unit to "cash in" a Gone-to-Ground marker for a chance to shoot in the opponent's movement phase might work OK. Like your suggestion above, earning a "Gone-to-Ground" requires that you forgo shots in your turn, but it also requires that you forgo movement in your current turn. To me this would rather be like the commander setting up his engagement area, assigning sectors of fire, and getting all elements into proper positions (concealed with good views of fire). That's pretty much what a unit must do before it reports "Set" to their higher command when they are ready to bring fires on an engagement area. It's something that take a bit of time to get right on the real battlefield, so making a player gives up some actions in the game to "earn" opportunity fire seems proper to me. I rather like the idea in this "Gone-to-Ground" alternative of the player having to decide if they want to give up their "Gone-to-Ground" protective stance in order to take a shot at a moving unit, and thus making the OP fire unit more vulnerable to the enemy's following advancing shots.

In the end I honestly think FoW accounts for about 70% or more of what it needs out of OP Fire already. But I understand that 70% is not good enough for many, especially when that missing 30% seems to be the most egregious situations. Prime examples being German troops moving into line of sight/range and the "Stormtroppering" back out of line of sight/range AFTER shooting at you, units moving across your front presenting a flank without risk, or the enemy moving into and out of line of sight denying you shots. So long as the enemy are legitimately coming "at you," OP Fire as is in FoW is mostly OK, but these above situation needed some help to be sure!

I really think BF should consider such options more seriously. I would not see these as really taking more game time to do and my theory is that if rule enhancements like these were present, then they would rarely actually be employed as players would not be attempting some of the above "negative 30%" moves to begin with.

Command and Control involved opposed initiative die rolls to either force the opponent to move or allow your individual platoon to move first, again amended by force rating. This was similar to how 'Impetus' does it.

I could live with alternating unit activations between the players in FoW, but I'm not so sure they are critically needed. The Bolt Action dice draw that you suggested earlier, is a bit along those lines and it seems to work OK there. It's something I contemplated for FoW when I first tried Bolt Action. I also like the Blucher mechanic, which perhaps you've had a chance to experience with Derek. I also liked the Blitzkrieg Commander unit activation mechanic, which really is the Warmaster unit activation mechanic, which has survived somewhat into Hail Ceaser/Black Powder.

These could add value to the game, but I'm not sure random activations, even with some C2 type modifiers thrown in, might really be all that significant in the end. The reason I say that is that though I enjoy some of the games mentioned above and know full well how unit activations work in them, I can't say that I miss them that much not being in FoW. This is unlike a better OP Fire option which I think is sorely needed to cover the situations where the normal way FoW handles fires against advancing enemy units breaks down. I guess that's a perspective I get from playing a lot of games with FoW and being generally satisfied with the overall end results from them. But in theory, I understand why you would be more in favor of some inclusion of this random activation aspect, with some modifiers to give a bit more of a nod to C2.

I'll leave ECW Warhammer alone for now….got other things to think about…so you and WWPD will have to wait! ;)

VB

"Honestly, Derek seemed to be in the TMP "Dog House" more often than not"

I think he was doghoused in total once…One time…which wasn't enough for the people who frothed and who were certainly more than a couple. There definitely was a shortage of available pickforks for all those concerned. In fact, More than you have fingers. Some of said complainants were in fact in the doghouse with him for the abuse they applied on him.

"I am by no means trying to make everybody "like" FoW,"

you should present your suggestions a bit more objectively then, since it appears that you cannot let observation statements by anyone stand without your scrutiny of peoples motives and their objectiveness. It makes you appear to be some sort of self-appointed supervisor and assessor of comments.

"But who is misleading who? You of course are referring to me" (sic)

If the cap fits…you seem intent to wear it, even when nobody suggests it was yours. you must own a lot of hats…

the comment was relating to bumph text in rules, not something I have seen you do in any rules

thre is a clue in my this quote eg "But back to the misleading part. Fow does an awful lot of that."

"Borrow Derek's Blucher rule book and turn to page 158 where Sam Mustafa talks about the benefits of "elasticity" in wargaming." (sic)

I don't see Derek very often, only twice this year so far. I am not too keen on any of the napoleonic rules he plays. He considers me to be a harsh ccritic. I do like a couple of Sam's rules, but not generally his napoleonic or his 18th century stuff. I think They are back to front for a start…. That said, Sam's ACW rules are excellent and I have them and I did like lasalle. Only rules I have played where you could get bogged down fighting the wrong fight.

Blucher is too big a scale for me which spoils the napoleonics feel and dispite having very simple and similar mechanisms ,doesn't match up to something as good as "march attack".

"I'll leave ECW Warhammer alone for now….got other things to think about…so you and WWPD will have to wait! ;)"

a wise choice…..Humanity salutes you!

"These could add value to the game, but I'm not sure random activations, even with some C2 type modifiers thrown in, might really be all that significant in the end."

the importance is in the linkage with things like opp fire and movement. It can allow you to attempt to integrate tactical doctrines which become automatics if you exclude such things.

Opp fire omitted is a mistake, but so is incorporating opp fire as automatic. And so when you say that you think that Fow already does 70%, I see some opp fire omitted and some auto opp fire which should be able to be avoided…the worst of all worlds really. The lack of supporting fire from platoons not being attacked and the auto opp fire from 'ambush' units are both things which to me appear clumsy rule applications. Sometiimes ambushs should go wrong, sometimes support should fire, sometimes it shouldnt.

This similarly applies to movement. fixed movement means you know where you can get to and is a level of control you should not have.

All types of uncertainty and introductions of lack of control are ultimately what makes any rule system replicate a complex military system with a veneer of reality and makes the game a challange beyond being an application of a rule process.

The C2 mechanism is the best place to introduce the fubar because the decision has to be made before the fubar..then the next decision is made knowing about the fubar and it ain't guaranteed it will be your decision to make before your opponent exploits it with his.

You are using your command and control to counter the opp fire possibilities.

BKC activation

I never liked the 2D6 command roll in BKC and black powder etc, without even thinking I would immediately replace the 2D6 with a d10 or d12 and that system introduces a whole load of conditionals.

Games come.

Games go.

Some Games appear as a firestorm of popularity but burn out quickly.

Some Games start slowly then build to a white hot glow of popularity for a period of time.

Some games over time come to define a genre. An example of that would be TS&TF. As a "well established critic" of some of the TS&TF mechanics/play I can honestly say I will play it with my friends and enjoy the game without enjoying all elements of the game.

Some great (IMHO) or subtle genius designs of war games never catch on for whatever reasons.

Regional variations of popularity between different games of the same approximate level of play do exist and that is to be expected. The games I played on the Left Coast of the USA are not the games I found popular when I moved to Midwest.

Some companies (no names) and some games (again no names) grate on some war gamers to the point of mental pain.

Seems to me that you should play the games you enjoy, modify or replace the ones that you own that have "fatal flaws" in your gaming style, accept that people are going to love/hate/be indifferent to your favorite games, and that there are always going to be people who obsessively fixate on being the crusader for/against a particular game.

The biggest problem from my POV is paying a lot of money for a rules set – let's say 'XXX' rules set – I haven't tried playing before, discover how much it frustrates me, and then I really cringe when a friend says, "Let's play 'XXX' today."

Worse is when I buy a lot of figures, start painting/basing them, then discover how much I would rather mow the grass with a push mower in summer than play a particular rules set.

Why I would go to a game specific forum of a game I truly dislike just to "save" the people who enjoy the game from their "folly" I have to say I have never done and hence never encountered. Such seems a bit of self destructive OCD (or CDO – in correct alphabetical order – as my daughter the SPED teacher would say with a wink and a smile) behavior.

And on that note I will stop reading this thread. All that is worthy has been said before this post of mine and much that has been said seems to be less worthy.

It has been interesting but now, metaphorically, the dog seems to be chasing it's tail faster and faster. Time to read other threads…

I don't see Bolt Action and Flames of War being natural competitors. One is a platoon level game designed for 28mm and one is a company level game for 15mm. Leaving aside the mechanics of both games, they do different things with respect to the period.

BA has an appeal to those who think 28mm is the best scale and who want a simple, no-nonsense skirmish game. FoW is a combined arms company level game and the differences in playing those scales are significant. You can substitute those titles for Chain of Command and Battlegroup and still notice the differences in styles.

I am firmly of the opinion that the negativity directed at some games…FoW in particular but also BA, or Black Powder or Hail Caesar or Field of Glory, is that some games don't chime with the opinions and prejudices of a lot of part-time historian wargamers. WW2 is an era where lots of people fancy themselves as experts and I find you get more disagreement about rules in that era than you do in many others. You get those who are big on the history and the simulation aspects and they hate the mechanics getting in the way. At the other extreme are those who can write off a game because they've crunched the probabilities and system in their heads and can find fault with the mechanics. In both cases, they have (of course) a favourite rules system of their own which they're keen to promote. I remember an article in MW where the designer of a well known WW2 game spent almost the whole time complaining about the lack of accuracy or playability of every other rules set on the market.

I am now working on being fair with all the rules systems (including the one I dislike the most). Now that it's a pretty "dead" game, I can safely say that WRG 1925-1950 is equally good and awful, but nothing a heavy dose of home brewed changes can't fix. For the one I dislike most, I have to concede it must be doing something right because it continues to be popular after more than 20 years and I now force myself to shut up about its bad points on internet forums. For Flames of War, sure there are problems but if you're going to go online to moan about it, then make sure a) you've actually played it at least a couple of times and b) make sure you're straight with your facts and not recycling other people's criticisms and c) just because you don't like it, don't feel the need to evangelise others.

"I don't see Bolt Action and Flames of War being natural competitors."

On a wargames marketing level, target audience and 'side by side' shopfloor racking basis, they are directly in competition more than any other 2 wargames systems for ww2.

"WW2 is an era where lots of people fancy themselves as experts and I find you get more disagreement about rules in that era than you do in many others."

Ancients and napoleonics make ww2 look positively harmonised. and You don't need to be an expert to see mechanisms that are crudely applied and ill-thought out.

"I am firmly of the opinion that the negativity directed at some games…FoW in particular but also BA, or Black Powder or Hail Caesar or Field of Glory, is that some games don't chime with the opinions and prejudices of a lot of part-time historian wargamers."

I am firmly of the opinion that all the positivity about these types of rules is that generally wargamers introduced to anything new will accept any old game when they don't care anything about the historical content.

Simple, quick, and retaining a purpose of competition are more important to any historical content. and any Superficial background is good enough. history is an irrelevance to the gamer, especially from a fantasy background.

The writers do not need to have any expertise in the period (bolt action) or just draft up some mechanism justifying text to provide to the target audience (fow) or blurb out text in a victorian elitist style (black powder).

and in the end, the gamer part only needs to know how it works, the why is an irrelevance.

My attitude to wargaming is like politics …you study the candidates, cast your vote and you get the ruleset you deserve.

or you can be a sheep and join the local flock because that's what they play.

or you stick to boardgames..

Kevan, I don't think you and I ever going to agree….on anything.

I can out-geek most people about WW2 and have spent most of my life studying it. I still think FoW isn't as wildly inaccurate as some critics make out. I've tried the so-called by many "most accurate" rules an found them to have a few moments in them. I don't have a copy of BA, so I can't nit pick it but it doesn't offend my historical sensibilities.

And yes, a COMPANY level game plays differently, requires different tactics and thinking than a PLATOON level game. Which is why I maintain that BA and FoW aren't natural competitors. Company level games play differently from operational level games. Is Sharp Practice in competition from Black Powder or Blucher? Of course not; same era, different levels of game. Scratch the surface and you'll find most BA fans prefer 28mm games with fewer figures on the table.

Ah, the "sheep" jibe. I'll let that one pass. I enjoy gaming in general….I've played Firefly (and lived) and I've played Flames of War. I've enjoyed the EXPERIENCE.

I think uber hit the nail on the head. It's all about the experience and that is mostly visual in a miniatures game. The methods of how you move and shoot are secondary to the visual experience that can be recreated. That's just the way it is. The glossy pictures that populate the current rule sets paint the picture for that visual experience.

I've attended conventions for over a decade and there is no end to the types of games people will have fun with rolling dice. I know what tweaks some people on this forum is with such great production value that FoW and BA have surely they could have made a game that was more historically authentic. I'm sure they could have but chose the path they are on to hit a ready market of players with a dice game that they already have their head wrapped around. Providing the pretty pictures and miniatures completes the "experience". When they look at their bank statement I doubt if they are bothered by any haters out there.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote

"It's all about the experience and that is mostly visual in a miniatures game."

couldn't agree more….hence why people who see peculiarities in the visuals really don't get all the nonsense about "it's in other games…" because they do not see such distortion in them that gives such weird perspectives…and visuals in wargames are literally all about perspective, the point you actually view from as you stand at the side of the table. It is particularly telling when a person literally does not see your arguement.

John; "I see it in other games as well"

jack: " where?, I can't see what you are talking about in any pictures of that game"

john; " It's there, I've seen it on many occasions"

jack ; " okaaaayyyyyy!"

If anyone thinks that rulesets make visuals of figures and terrain better or worse, they are kidding themselves. They can make perspective look peculiar by poor choice of mechanisms.

"The methods of how you move and shoot are secondary to the visual experience that can be recreated."

hidden movement is obviously quite visual, but I am just again reminded of the art of Picasso. …the rules of perspective and proportion tend to make you put the eyes and the ears and nose in the right position on the face.

you can draw two ears on a face which is viewed from the side but it has a habit of looking a bit weird having something you shouldnt see in plain sight.

Uber,

I do recall your unhappiness that your board-gamer chums in London were not keen to be FOW sheep for you and how it was all the fault of rabid fow-hating interwebz weirdos….obviously, where these people exist, Their ultimate aim as fow haterz is to retain the London board-gaming scene above all challenges.

"I still think FoW isn't as wildly inaccurate as some critics make out"…compared to what?

You like to make statements about other rulesets but will not make any reference to your criticisms of them. Its all, "I enjoyed the experience." ….other games are gamey but I haven't got the rules to say what bit.

I will defend your right to make your choice of rules based on whatever your criteria is. It is, after all , what everyone does.

If that criteria is, must be a simple game, is fast , can play against anyone and gets lots of stuff on a table , then say that. Don't claim its the bee's knees, as good as anything else that does require effort because you want others to treat it better or play it as well whether that is Fow, BA, black powder or ANY GAME of anything.

It just sounds like someone arguing that a chess board is exactly like a checkers board and checkers is better because you can get more kings on the table.

I swore I wasn't going to jump back into this thread, but, I just couldn't keep biting my lip and not react to the comments being made. So, here it goes.

KevanG:
"It just sounds like someone arguing that a chess board is exactly like a checkers board and checkers is better because you can get more kings on the table"

specforc12:
Sorry, I can't help it, but that's an awesome statement . . . . LMAO

Uber/KevanG:
""I still think FoW isn't as wildly inaccurate as some critics make out"…compared to what?"

specforc12:
I know, I know . . . compared to BOLT ACTION!!!

Uber:
"And yes, a COMPANY level game plays differently, requires different tactics and thinking than a PLATOON level game. Which is why I maintain that BA and FoW aren't natural competitors."

specforc12:
They don't differ that much operationally because a FoW game breaks down to platoon actions anyway, especially if you have multiple players. That's not the reason they're not in competition. The main reason is because, since FoW has been around longer, people have invested time and money into the game and don't really want to jump into a somewhat redundant, or perceived redundant, set of gaming rules requiring to purchase more and more expensive hardware to play it. Those who have gravitated to Bolt Action, either just plain like the scale (they're easier to paint than 15mm) and like the "visual" appeal (see Wolfhag's comments above) even more than FoW. I don't see and haven't seen much migration from FoW to Bolt Action, it's the exception, if anything. The attraction comes from newbies to the genre or those who skipped the whole FoW thing because they were still dealing with 1/72 scale armies with old rules from years ago, and are looking for something new . . . and, possibly returning to WWII gaming having had a hiatus from it and having skipped FoW.

The genre of games like FoW (and, I've been playing a lot of it lately – only reinforcing my convictions), BA, CoC, etc. is that they don't rely on substantiated, known military factual data and operational accuracy. A typical example, while acquainting myself with the specifics of the FoW game, I read and, I quote, "the tanks side and rear armor are the same(?). Most tanks have similar thicknesses of armor on the side and the rear" This is a patently false statement. Really? Since when? Hardly ever, almost never!

I realize this is, albeit, a small example, but characteristic, nevertheless, rife with these sort of inaccuracies and bogus information, contrary to the vast knowledge the game authors might otherwise possess! Almost every page or two that I turn to in Version 3.0 of FoW will cause the reaction of, "WTF"? "How do they justify that?" The simple answer is they can't and don't care either, otherwise it wouldn't end up that way. So, to break it down. Games like this and there are a lot of them lately, have mechanics that don't support historic authenticity, but rather are visually representing WWII "tank action" that is a dice game with WWII hardware. Stormtrooper moves, and things like that . . . . the list is endless.

I defend your choice to play the game for whatever "experience" you think it provides, but don't say it's historic. It just ain't, and if you are amongst those who claim it is

"WTF"? "How do they justify that?"

Specforc12,

mostly the reply goes along something like this….

"well, in ww2, its all about…..WAIT…LOOK>>>, was that a squirrel?????"

"….but you do know all those "Other games" have squirrels too!"

"…AND their squirrels aren't so pretty and need a lot of charts?"

"….and no one else does nachtjagaer squirrels with nacht infra red squirrel sights…They are really kewl."

It goes like this mostly…..

OKAY. Here is what ACTUALLY happens

….they completely blank it…..even when its the Fow players saying something ain't right.

Once the crescendo dies down they quietly revise it.

eg British early war armoured company & US tank destroyers.

KevanG wrote:

"I do recall your unhappiness that your board-gamer chums in London were not keen to be FOW sheep for you and how it was all the fault of rabid fow-hating interwebz weirdos….obviously, where these people exist, Their ultimate aim as fow haterz is to retain the London board-gaming scene above all challenges"

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I NEVER said anything like that! Find me the thread on TMP where I said anything remotely like that!

My old board gaming club in London are strictly Eurogame and Ameritrash gamers. I never ever, EVER suggested to them to play Flames of War there. They are not miniatures gamers. I did attempt a few games of 7TV there, because I felt there was enough of a crossover between it and the board and RP games they play but that's it.

Just from that swipe, I'm so angry right now I'm supressing a tirade for the sake of not offending others here.

If you had read my previous entry properly, you'll be aware that I refrain from trashing other rules. If you have also read my thoughts on gaming in general (you seem to recall…badly…my recollections of my previous club) then you'll know that I accentuate the positives about games rather than bemoan their failings. All games fall short in realism because they're…you know, games. I have consistently dispelled some myths about FoW and I don't apologise for that.

I've never advocated that simple games are the best; once again you seem to have taken a lot of what I've said over the years, jumbled it all up and spat it back out in a random order. I have said that FoW's biggest advantage is that it has DEMYSTIFIED the wargaming process for the beginner through it's holistic approach to rules, gaming, modelling, organisation and painting.

Do you want to know which set of WW2 rules I think is the bee's knees? I'll give you a clue, it's not Flames of War. Flames of War is a decent game, it's widely played and I enjoy playing it. But it's not my favourite. You seem to be an expert on what I've written, go search for my recommendations for WW2 rules and find out.

Right now I'm mulling over whether to make a complaint about you or not….your comments about what I've said in the past are so inaccurate they're almost slander.

This has become a nasty, toxic thread.

With the title of this thread it was inevitable UC, hence the reason I've not been able (or had the desire) to read any of kevanG's post for quite some time now. I wish they had this stifle thing on other forums, its most refreshing!

At the risk of saying something that isn't a flame, I'll second what was said upthread that I don't see many people moving from FOW to BA or vice versa.

Mechanically, they're sort of similar, so they seem like competition but in reality? I kinda doubt it.

Why am I even reading this? What a waste of time.

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.

I think I know that guy.

Actually I think he does not like GW very much.

Oh and yes I am not very fond of FoW either, but that is because it not a World War II game even if the models are.

"…but that is because it not a World War II game"

What an utterly ridiculous comment to make. Issues you may have with it's level of what you perceive as accuracy, but to make such a bland overarching statement is what leads to this kind of pointless thread in the first place. Well done, hope you feel clever.

I have seen it played several times.

Not once did it ever look like a real World War II battle.

Just because it uses World War II models does not make it a World War II game.

I have seen it played several times.

Not once did it ever look like a real World War II battle.

Just because it uses World War II models does not make it a World War II game.

So what should it look like?

I have played thousands of Ancients games with many different sets of rules. IMO none of them ever looked like a real battle either. Since when has a 'unit' of 24 men ever been a realistic representation of a real cohort.

I suspect that to the casual passer by a game of Flames of War looks far more like a "real" World War II battle than say for example a game of In the Grand Manner or DBanything.

The cry that it desn't look like WW2 is rased quite frequently about FoW and it us bot fair and unfair. Its fair gecause pkayers move groups of tanks around in
ine and all shot at the same target. If you have eight tanks together and get 16 shots then its devastating in a way that awW2 tanks are not because they are more distributed and the controlbsystems to get them all shooting at the same target are very weak. That.'s the Games Workshoppy bit that puts people off. So when ten Russian tanks can all shoot at the middle of three houses because tha has a a agerman sevtion in t we all know its mad.
However, the rest of the rules work pretty well and if you have a tank pkatoon ir two of three tanks and an arty battery of four guns and a couple of platoobs of infantry and some ahti tank then the game looks right and runs right for WW2. Its the ability to concentrate 40 nachine gun shots from a tank pkatoon on the same target that is offensive.

So what should it look like?

I have played thousands of Ancients games with many different sets of rules. IMO none of them ever looked like a real battle either. Since when has a 'unit' of 24 men ever been a realistic representation of a real cohort.

I suspect that to the casual passer by a game of Flames of War looks far more like a "real" World War II battle than say for example a game of In the Grand Manner or DBanything.

James,

I think that what he means by "not looking like WWII" isn't a problem unique to FoW and not entirely under the control of FoW's designer to be fair. I have to agree with Lewis on that point.

While at HCON this month I played moderns FoW game that featured 4 companies of T-54s deployed at the same time in the same area of the table. The 40 tank models were literally touching one another and formed up in multiple ranks in closer proximity than ancient chariots.

Over in the FoW tourney area I saw similar examples of high unit density. The idea that this represented a bad tactic due to arty and air simply didn't have an effect. There's not much a player can do about if using certain units or armies where x points puts y teams on the table, y being enough to look excessively dense.

I also fully understand and embrace that maybe the model doesn't really occupy the entire footprint. But the fact remains it's fairly common practice in FoW to have so many troops in an area that it loses the "empty battlefield" look that we see in period videos.

But as I noted in a other thread about HCON, it's unfair to single out FoW for this problem. Other games suffer from the same problem. In some cases it's caused by GMs putting too many troops on the table. In other cases it's caused by a points system set up to encourage miniatures purchases (e.g. Warhammer 8th edition).

As for ancients versus 20th century warfare and their represe tation on the tabletop. It's less about absolute troop numbers and more about troop density imo.

For ancients and medieval I expect troops to be deployed in units shoulder to shoulder and most often out in the open next to their comrades resulting in armies deployed in wide lines. That's where DBA fails imo. Once battle commences the forces look like a skirmish game, not massed battle!

For 20th century combat I don't expect to see troops massed in ranks and files, shoulder to shoulder, and deployed next to their comrades in wide lines. Unfortunately, FoW's force composition system frequently results in that look.

Which is no way even close to be what a actual World War II battle would look like.

Oh and as to the 24 figure unit Cohort in a Ancient Battle is like Napoleonics when you use either 20-1, 30-1 or 50-1.

So one figure is actually far more men than one.

I use 30-1 for my 15mm Napoleonics so a 24 figure Battalion is actually Battalion that is around 720 men.