"IABSM or FOW???" Topic

I've built up 2 small forces for Eastern front in 10mm (Magister Militum, really impressed by their stuff). Clearly I know Flames of War is the most popular set, but does anyone have anything to recommend about I Ain't Been Shot Mum? ( I am not interested in just playing what the locals play, so please don't recommend that. I have both sides' forces.) This is my first WW2 gaming project. I'll probably also play some solo and am not going to be playing at tournaments. For what it's worth I have dabbled a little bit with Crossfire and like a lot about it. I appreciate your advice in advance.
Thanks!
Dale

IABSM – very historical, bags of excitment and fog of war, tons of historical scenarios (at a low cost), not fixed move IGO-UGO – absolutely top notch set of rules.

Lots of help (including from the author Rich)on:

link

link

Can't recommend highly enough and if your preference is toward Crossfire type games – you'll love it!

IABSM manages to capture the feel of whatever theater of the war you play, thanks to the card deck and the way it can be tailored. Always an exciting game, and the stories that come out of it sound very historically correct. I can't recommend it enough.
BWW

What Nick and Brian said. Absolutely brilliant.

My club moved away from IABSM because they wanted something more predictable (some really hate the tea break). We play a lot of tournament FOW which is much easier due to the army lists etc.

I personally liked IABSM but it depends what you want. If the best laid plans going awry and reacting is something you are after then IABSM is for you. If you want a points system and something more deterministic use FOW.

Dale first of all I think its helpful to say off the bat that you'll eventually have a favourite. Although they are representing the same kind of engagement they play very differently.

I'd completely discount any suggestion that one system is intrinsically better than another etc etc..it will be based on your own taste in games.

FoW IMO is an excellent game if someone really prefers a controlled gaming environment. In other words each side has its turn to make phased actions. This phase I move, this phase I check morale, this phase is for assaults etc, etc…

During your own turn which is broken up into phases there is a minimum level of interference from your opponent. The main exception to this is when at certain times you decide to engage the enemy in close quarters combat. Your opponent is allowed to fire on the assault in most cases.

During your entire Turn (broken up into phases of play) your entire force is activated through each phase of play until each unit has acted as allowed and as directed.

Fire and most combat and morale tests are done with the use of modified d6's requiring a target result for success. Different types of troops with various morale and training are essentially given easier targets for success. I found in general play and basic infantry combat there was very little need for charts. Unit casualties are represented by the loss of small unit stands and not individual men.

IABSM on the other hand has a force's individual units operating separately.

Which of course means IABSM has a very different activation system. Individual units are randomly activated with the rules employing the random dealing of unit cards from a deck made up of both forces. So unlike FoW where an entire force is activated and does its thing, in IABSM both sides have various units activating separately. For some this lack of cohesion could be frustrating in a game. For others this lack of full control offers a dimension of uncertainty and realism.

For obvious reasons this randomness can also make for more interesting and uncertain solo games. Even movement ranges are decided by dice rolls so theres further uncertainty. Leaders in IABSM have a far greater role. They can be used in various ways such as activating units under their command and influencing their morale and combat abilities.

IABSM also can reserve actions so instead of activating that unit when its card is dealt it can hold back and respond to the enemy's movement later

Casualties in IABSM are individual so if your force is multi based then a system of counters or mini die can be used to signify losses. There is also a more detailed morale system in IABSM that reduces the effectiveness of individual units. Leaders can help with rallying these units back into greater combat effectiveness.

Firing in IABSM is d6 based also but this time a chart is consulted to evaluate the results effectiveness. I'm personally not a huge fan of this in comparison to FoW but it works well.

I personally love IABSM and it's given me brilliant solo games that felt like it was an actual real historical engagement unfolding that had a life of its own and I wasn't always in complete control of…

Hope this helps a little to give you an impression of each system

I play IABSM as well, my forces are also based for FoW and work fine for IABSM.
I find it is more infantry focused as things such as artillery are off table and not always available. Tanks are present but not overpowering.
The forces used tend to be more selected as platoons and little if any tweaking of points that FoW has.
The random activation and variable movement (dice rolling) helps with solo play.

All good advice – I would just add that I found the card system made IABSM very solo friendly. After making overall plans for each side in the usual way, the choice of each individual unit to move was made by the cards, and it is usually pretty clear what the best move will be.

I don't know about FOW having never played it but you will be able to play IABSM solo and still have an enjoyable game.

I think War Panda breaks down IABSM well, and I'm in the camp with most of the others above, the friction element in it really floats my boat.

Obviously gaming is miles away from real battle, but IABSM gives you those moments where you the company commander is shouting (in your head or for real) at your little men "What the hell is that platoon doing? Lieutenant, go sort out them out!"

IABSM is a great system. I haven't come across a more enjoyable WWII set in that scale in decades of playing. The folks who have trouble getting their head around it seem to need the predictability aspect of phases, set movement, and other unworldly aspects of tactical combat.
And there are plenty of aids and scenarios available-most free or cheap.
Mark

Never played either. But, I've played CrossFire since it came out. So…. I'm gonna have to go with IABSM! I have always stated CF is my favorite set of rules for ANY period. Period.
Peter
board2deathterrain.com

IABSM requires more work.

One of the things I don't like is that it is very loose with respect to how you determine whether a firing unit hits and harms the target.

It provides categories – i.e. there are "good shots", "fair shots" and "poor shots".

A "good shot" might be when you're firing at a target moving in the open. A "poor shot" might be when you're firing at stationary infantry in woods. It's up to the player though to classify things.

Some people love this. It does give a lot of flexibility. I find it a chore.

Everything else about it is very good.

I prefer FOW myself. I found the rules for IABSM to be very loose and full of holes. It's okay on game play, but not very well written and it drives me nuts to try and figure out what they meant. I like the fact I can find games of FOW easily, there is a good tournament system and scene, and the game plays quickly enough for me.

Try them both if you can, one man's pleasure is another man's poison.

We play FOW. IASBM is a bit more involved.

One thing that hasn't been said is that playing IASBM will probably be a lot cheaper and will give you good games as well.

Very different games. For me IABSM isn't worth the effort. Way too many markers, cards, bookkeeping, etc. I also find that units can often become completely ineffective long before they're removed, causing all the clutter of extra models and all their markers to stay on the table for mostly no reason.

I dont knock fans who like it (same with FoW that I don't play much anymore) but it's not fun for me.

(Not that you asked, but I'd rather play Crossfire or Fivecore Company Command or Hail Of Fire)

(Not that you asked, but I'd rather play Crossfire or Fivecore Company Command or Hail Of Fire)

Which is another good point. There are so many WW2 rules at or about the same scale (platoon/company) that there should be something for everyone. Don't limit yourself to only IABSM and FOW if you're trying to find something you like.

IABSM

Not that you asked, but I'd rather play Crossfire

I agree. I think Crossfire is greatly superior to either IABSM or FOW.

I would never buy any product from people who call themselves Too Fat Lardies however good it might be.

"I would never buy any product from people who call themselves Two Fat Lardies however good it might be."

Why would that be?

Really wildly different rules. First thing I would check out – I personally cannot remember – is whether IABSM supports FOW basing without any fudging, modifying, or extra bases. To me, that is the most important thing, as you and your gaming buddies will not know what you like until you try it.

Even after all of these years, I think FOW is hugely more popular than IABSM, but you would never know it by polling here at TMP. Just sayin'. If there are basing issues, you will get more buy-in with FOW. If you move around the country you are more likely to find FOW players. Hang on … okay, I see you are from the Netherlands, so that last one may not be true. I'll stop here.

"I would never buy any product from people who call themselves Two Fat Lardies however good it might be."

Why would that be?

Maybe because of a lack of a sense of humor?

in the NL but moving back to the US this year! I am kind of a fanatic about refusing to be bound by basing. I never play a game that "demands" I base a certain way.
I've looked at 5Core but it has WAY too much low level detail about what individuals are doing, hence my interest in company level games. 5Core Company level rules were also looked at but a bit fiddly for my taste. Chain of Command has too many "big men" running around and it splits things up below squad level. I want a base to be a squad and I want the squad leader integrated/assumed to be with it. I like the resources for IABSM on the lardies website (agree about the name, it's terrible and I wince every time I speak it. The British love their humor though -I don't think they realize how poorly it comes across outside the UK). Two Hour Wargames has some good aspects too and Troops Weapons and Tactics has great detailed information.
I've gotten all the above mentioned rules now and am reading through them. It's a fascinating genre to explore that seems to have the most energy put into the skirmish level. I want to be just above that level though, like I said.
Thanks for all the input so far guys!

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but does Crossfire work for solo play?

The titles that TFL are using are indeed off-putting.

The mix of bros' "humor" and wargame/historical seriousness do not mix well IMHO. Just a comment from a non British lambda player, no personal attack meant.

Greetings

For 10mm I would use FOW type basing for IABSM and use markers to indicate casualties – so for Ostfront you'd usually have two stands to a squad. You could use these for virtually any other rule set.

The Big Men in IABSM are platoon leaders so you don't have masses of them.

I am a long time IABSM player so am biased but I think it usually gives an interesting and often challenging experience. I've played games set in Western Europe, Russia, Malaya and North Africa with success.

It is very easy to customise for scenarios but in my view does less well for 'pick up games' – it repays work on the scenario. That said it is as ever possible to foul up the design of a scenario.

It's also a style of play that is not for everyone.

Regards

Edward

I'll break the flow and say that both are fine games.

FOW is a bit more "set up and play" since you get ready to use stats for everything and some people enjoy the points system.

IABSM is in my opinion actually a little easier to learn and it has more of a free form flow that is very fun.

You can largely use the same forces in both.

Gone -> Crossfire is OK for solo play (on a scale from "Not suited" to "OK" to "Well suited").

You have to basically play both sides, but since most scenarios are attack/defend, the defenders don't tend to move an awful lot.

Thank you, Weasel!

(agree about the name, it's terrible and I wince every time I speak it. The British love their humor though -I don't think they realize how poorly it comes across outside the UK)

I don't get this hang-up with names. When I first heard of them years ago the name didn't bother me at all ,on the contrary it made me feel that here was a group who were cleaver with a sense of humor and probably didn't take themselves overly seriously. After buying the rules and joining their yahoo group I found that I was right and am very happy I wasn't so uptight to be put off by the name.

Daler – Sorry 5core didn't fit what you needed, but I'd second the recommendations above to check out Crossfire as well.

I have to say that I can't see much humour in names like Chain of Command, Dux Britanniarum, Sharp Practice or Kriegsspiel.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but does Crossfire work for solo play?

Yes.

I have to say that I can't see much humour in names like Chain of Command

Just look at the initials …

You have some problem with call of Cthulhu?

The name is fundamental to how the rules operate in that leaders activate troops through the command chain.

Chain of Command is a recognised military term and can hardly be described as offensive in a military themed game.

TFL uses a lot of what I'd call Benny Hill humor. It seems to resonate with British people. I don't "get it". But as long as the rules aren't called something like "Nazi heroes Glorious defeat of the Jews" I wouldn't forego playing them if they otherwise appealed.

I'm British, have never seen It ain't half hot Mum and am not a fan of The Benny Hill show, which was actually much more popular abroad than here. Neither show is representative of modern British humour, or social values for that matter.

I ain't been shot Mum is a brilliant name for a rule set, I may well consider buying these rules as I like the emphasis on fog of war inertia and the possibilities of solo play.

Kiltboy,

what you say is true, however I think the previous version of Chain of Command proves TFL's intent is otherwise.

In case you are not familiar with that game title – it is "Troops, Weapons and Tactics".

HostileContact

Big Rich once said that part of the reason behind the names of the rules was to stop people from using the initials for referring to them.

Another was to make fun of the use of German terms that was/is quite common. Kampfgruppe this and Panzer that…

With those two items in mind I find slightly "naughty" acronyms to be a non-issue.

IIRC of course.

FYI, Troops, Weapons & Tactics is the previous version of Chan of Command but a completely different approach to platoon level combat.

(I will interject that while Chain of Command is damn fine, I actually kind of like the game play of Troops Weapons and Tactics a tiny bit better)

I use FoW models for IABSM and TW&T!

I'm a big fan of Battlegroup, which is similar in scale (unit composition, etc) to FoW. BG has a nice morale system and has a variable unit activation system based on command. While BG was designed around 15 and 20mm models, your 10mm collection should do nicely.

Never tried IASBM. I tried FOW and hated it.
Personally i prefer Battlegroup for company level games and Chain of Command for platoon level games.
Give Battlegroup a try!

Classic. We are asked to compare a with b, so people end up comparing c with d!

For what it's worth, my main gaming partner and I have moved across from FoW to 'I Ain't been shot Mum'. It's really refreshing – AND I think that all these 'Kampfgruppe Glory Hero' rule-sets NEED to be mocked.

Play whatever suits you and your group best and what gives you the most fun.

I don't play either as neither appeal but I've always liked TFL's mindset.

As for mocking other rules… Well if it keeps you off the streets and makes you feel more manly, go for it.

So, ironically, I've ended up with Five Core Company Command as my rule set of preference right now. (I know, after initially saying they were too fiddly for me!) I have to say the whole exercise has been educational. I have learned a TON about the period and my gaming likes and dislikes because of the availability and affordability of PDF rules. Please, future rules writers, seriously, consider publishing to PDF.
Very appreciative salutations to Ivan aka Nordic Weasel, Ed the 2 Hour Wargames Guy, the TFLs and FoW for making fabulous publications.
Cheers!
Dale

ps 10mm is inarguably the best scale for WW2 at this level

TooFatLardies have – in my opinion – the best approach to wargaming there is, and their rules are innovative and fun. I really cannot understand anyone 'disapproving' of their humour.