wizbangs | 18 May 2015 6:02 a.m. PST |
Several of our members mentioned in the "FOW Haters" thread how difficult it is to convert the game to historical games. I've been doing it for over a year now with very little trouble. What difficulty is everyone having? Perhaps we can pool some ideas to help some folks out. I got into FOW a little over a year ago with the specific intention of "reenacting World War II." 20 battles later we're done with Poland and are making a detour back to Khalkin Gol before continuing on to Finland. We're thoroughly enjoying it and I'm wishing I'd dropped my tournament-driven bias against the game earlier on. |
Winston Smith | 18 May 2015 6:10 a.m. PST |
It's very difficult. But here are my suggestions. 1) make up a scenario. 2) play the game. There. Easy. I have been doing this for years. Bad tactics fail and good tactics win. And it all seems very historical. Btw I have never played in a FoW tournament. |
Winston Smith | 18 May 2015 6:11 a.m. PST |
Haters gotta hate. They will deny that that ball of fire in the sky is the sun. |
Jamesonsafari | 18 May 2015 6:15 a.m. PST |
Yes. I have no problem with the mechanics, you just ignore the Army Lists and play scenarios with historical OBs. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 18 May 2015 6:16 a.m. PST |
I wonder what percentage of FoW players do actually approach it with a tournement mindset. Not that many I'd wager. |
wizbangs | 18 May 2015 6:22 a.m. PST |
My brother played tournaments for at least 7 years. He has a lot of trouble with a game that "isn't fair" as in the 2 sides don't have the same points values and he also struggles when the forces deviate from the FOW Org Charts. But, he's trying… |
HistoryPhD | 18 May 2015 6:32 a.m. PST |
Wizbangs, I understand your brother's feelings. As we all know, warfare in reality has always been kept totally fair with both sides forces completely evenly matched. |
Pictors Studio | 18 May 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
We played it tournament style, ie picking up armies to given points values, until we learned the rules pretty well. Then we mostly did scenario games from various scenario books. Much more fun. |
Dave Crowell | 18 May 2015 7:34 a.m. PST |
Plenty of severly unbalanced historical battles that would make for lousy games no matter what rules you are using. How to run an historical game: research the units present at the battle, ditto the terrain, put the toys on the table, play the game. If you want it to be fair and balanced adjust the forces by whatever army lists, points values, scenario templates etc you favor. But remember good generals do their best never to fight an evenly matched battle. No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars are won by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country. Even a silly game like DBA which abstracts armies down to exactly twelve units on a side can be used to fight historical battles. Just figure out who fought, what ground they fought over and how that translates into game terms. Just don't expect it to be fair… One good way to increase the "fairness" is to play the battle twice, switching sides. See who does better. |
79thPA | 18 May 2015 7:37 a.m. PST |
@wizbangs: Unfortunately, that seems to be a real concern for those who grew up playing codex/points style games. I remember speaking with some FOW gamers and I suggested that they not worry about points and simply design historically based scenarios. They looked at me like I had two heads, then one of them said, "But the points won't be even that way." |
VonBurge | 18 May 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
There are plenty of FoW players who play historical scenarios, even uneven fights. Here's a recent example I read about: link These guys even modified the rules, with things like off-board artillery, to better reflect the scenario conditions. My own group uses FoW very frequently for historical based scenarios. When these are uneven, you simply need to adjust the victory conditions so they take into account the lack of parity in forces. I prefer campaign games myself, then the victory conditions in the table top tactical battles basically write themselves. The best way to help tournament focused players get out of that singular points based approach to FoW (or gaming in general) is to show them how to do it. Set up and run some historical scenarios for your local FoW players using a rules system they are already proficient at. Let them experience how much fun they can have with more historically based gaming. I'm not surprised at the reaction that 79thPA got above. You can tell folks stuff all day and they won't get it, so set up an experience for them if you really are interested in improving their gaming experiences. |
Skeptic | 18 May 2015 8:21 a.m. PST |
Look here, for a recent example on TMP: TMP link And, even in imbalanced games, a player can "win" by doing better than his (or her) historical counterparts. |
Keelhauled | 18 May 2015 8:34 a.m. PST |
On a related note, as this question came up at a recent gaming secession. How do or how can you better emulate the 'Fog of War' in their Viet-Nam (Tour of Duty) game? Any suggestions? |
TMPWargamerabbit | 18 May 2015 8:44 a.m. PST |
Try using the written BF scenario first then branch out to writing your own scenarios. Been playing scenario FOW (Ver 1.0) since 2004 using my 20mm scale miniatures. Link to blog with half dozen (or so) FOW scenario AAR's: link |
wizbangs | 18 May 2015 10:22 a.m. PST |
Keelhauled: you'll probably get a dozen answers if you post it on a new thread. I find Fog of War is best emulated by troops not moving when they are expected to & not having the make up or strength you expected them to have & not being where you expected them to be. This is best emulated by adding a die roll to randomly determine if a unit can be moved on any given turn, rolling after units are deployed to see if any models are removed (unexpected casualties) and similar variants. Bear in mind the more Fog you add, the less control players have & the less impact a General may feel he had on the game. In other words, too much fog does not make a fun game. So you need to find a balance. There are a lot of rule sets that limit command control to a number of units or drawing cards, but all of those allow the player to choose which unit moves or is affected. The key to fog is defying "expectations." Therefore units affected should be random. |
Skeptic | 18 May 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
Oops! That was your own thread that I pointed out to you. |
wizbangs | 18 May 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
It was. Thank you for the recognition! ;-) |
McWong73 | 18 May 2015 1:57 p.m. PST |
Anyone who thinks you can't play "historical" scenarios with FoW is doing minis gaming wrong. What a crock of can't type here. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 18 May 2015 2:02 p.m. PST |
Indeed. But their jealousy and spleen is really not worth all the angst… |
Skeptic | 18 May 2015 2:04 p.m. PST |
Actually, you may want to leave much of the heavier artillery off of the board, using the "Across the Volga" rule, if it still exists. Another adjustment might be to ignore the rule about the distance that air support must keep from friendly troops. 'Friendly' fire by aircraft did happen, and it seems odd that there should be a rule which prevents it altogether. |
Mako11 | 18 May 2015 2:53 p.m. PST |
FOW miniatures can be used with any rules set you like, no conversions needed. |
It is good to be King | 18 May 2015 2:57 p.m. PST |
Obviously not a thread for someone who thinks FOW is more Fantasy than Historical. |
cosmicbank | 18 May 2015 4:48 p.m. PST |
Been doing it for years New Zealand secret police have not come to my house once. |
McWong73 | 18 May 2015 5:39 p.m. PST |
To say the rules are fantasy is a complete crock, what most people mean by that statement is most players. If fantasy rules sets can't work for historical gaming then why the success of WAB or Warmaster Ancients? |
Dave Crowell | 18 May 2015 5:58 p.m. PST |
Every wargame is a fantasy. It is our fantasy of what war might be like. How can pushing toy soldiers around on a tabletop and pretending they are doing battle be anything but a fantasy? Some games are more fantastic than others is all. Many players mistake abstraction for lack of realism. At its most abstract a WW2 game could be resolved with a coin flip and produce 100% realistic and accurate results. Heads = Allied victory. Tails = Axis defeat. |
Lion in the Stars | 18 May 2015 7:35 p.m. PST |
Another adjustment might be to ignore the rule about the distance that air support must keep from friendly troops. 'Friendly' fire by aircraft did happen, and it seems odd that there should be a rule which prevents it altogether. I'd actually bring back the Air Support rules from v1 where it was possible to have your CAS shoot up your own troops. |
McWong73 | 18 May 2015 8:16 p.m. PST |
The v1 air rules were the best. |
wizbangs | 19 May 2015 4:58 a.m. PST |
I don't have V1 or Across the Volga rules, so we play House rules instead. The Air Strike is a variation of a Squad Leader rule: if you fail to range in then the air strike will attack the easiest random target (friend or foe) within d6x3" of the intended target. If you fail to range in on that target, nothing happens. This eliminates the "no air strikes inside the 16" line) rule. To make this rule work, you roll to range in even if the target is not concealed with a natural 1 being a failure. |
XcaliburNick | 25 Jun 2015 11:16 p.m. PST |
I feel it's necessary to 'point' out that not everyone enjoys games where you are destined to "lose" the battle. Victory conditions of doing better than history are great – but it's hard sometimes to truly enjoy a victory in defeat. I understand some gamers love it, and I do most of the time. There are occasions, though, where I'd much rather know that thing were relatively even values and I won or lost due to dice and tactics, not because history Says so. I don't think that makes me 'less' than someone who only pays history, though. What I really love is scenarios where it's weighted towards history but you still keep track of points so it's not completely lopsided, and you use the points as a guide to crafting the scenario. I play lots of FoW and we've done historical battles, but many times we will think about the points just not be rigid. |
Centurio Prime | 26 Jun 2015 6:18 a.m. PST |
I have fun playing games with miniatures. Historical. Tournament. I am well versed in real life tactics, have studied military history, and I enjoy FoW as well as more historical systems. I have played historical scenarios with FoW, and made up "fantasy" scenarios for so-called "realistic" historical wargames. I have played in tournaments and ran well researched historical scenarios. Browbeat away, browbeaters. |
dice gunner | 27 Jun 2015 4:52 a.m. PST |
@McWong73. Could you possibly share the v1 air rules if you still have them or remember? |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Jun 2015 6:50 p.m. PST |
IIRC, if you failed to range in your Air Support on the attack, your opponent got to attempt to range them in on your troops. Though that should probably also apply to artillery attacks in Vietnam. Far too many stories of aerial rocket arty hitting friendlies. |
wizbangs | 29 Jun 2015 5:09 a.m. PST |
Here's what we use: You have to range in on any target (concealed or not) that is within 18" of friendly units. If you fail there is a chance of friendly fire. A "1" to range in always fails. If you fail, roll a d6. All targets (friend or foe) within d6x3" range are eligible targets. Randomly determine who the air strike hits. If there's a mix of troop types we will take targets in the open over targets concealed. We take vehicles over infantry & gun teams (since they're easier to spot). You don't have to roll to range in on the new target; just roll to hit. |
JTreble | 30 Jun 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
My two cents… If you want a game that is always evenly matched play checkers or chess. Historical is a fun way to play because after all the battles fought were filled with uncertainty (location, size and objectives of your opposition). One army was alway attacking/surprising the other and neither would agree to a predetermined location to have an evenly matched fight with stated objectives. |
BlackKnight | 01 Jul 2015 7:06 a.m. PST |
|