Help support TMP


"New to FoW. V3 or V4" Topic


28 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Flames of War Message Board



1,290 hits since 28 Jul 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member28 Jul 2017 10:59 p.m. PST

I have built some fairly large armies over the years. I have never played the game, just enjoined building the models. Some time has been freed up in my life and I think I may start playing the game. I have read threads speaking highly of both V3 and V4. I am looking for opinions what would you recommend to a new player and why. Thank you.

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member28 Jul 2017 10:59 p.m. PST

I have built some fairly large armies over the years. I have never played the game, just enjoined building the models. Some time has been freed up in my life and I think I may start playing the game. I have read threads speaking highly of both V3 and V4. I am looking for opinions what would you recommend to a new player and why. Thank you.

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member28 Jul 2017 10:59 p.m. PST

I have built some fairly large armies over the years. I have never played the game, just enjoined building the models. Some time has been freed up in my life and I think I may start playing the game. I have read threads speaking highly of both V3 and V4. I am looking for opinions what would you recommend to a new player and why. Thank you.

Beowulf Supporting Member of TMP Fezian28 Jul 2017 11:15 p.m. PST

The most important factor is what version the people you will play with use. If you are new to the game, I would pick up the latest, more streamlined version.

McWong7329 Jul 2017 4:17 a.m. PST

Though I prefer the previous versions, Beowulf speaks wisely – go with what will get you games locally.

Onomarchos Supporting Member of TMP29 Jul 2017 6:57 a.m. PST

I have been playing since version one, and really think that version four is a step forward from the previous versions.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP29 Jul 2017 8:10 a.m. PST

I much prefer V3 as I think the "streamlining" took a lot out of the game.

My suggestions is buy both. You can pick up V3 very cheap on Ebay now, and you can get a V4 "mini" rule book cheap there as well.

The real expense is in all the army books, anyway…

Neal Smith29 Jul 2017 10:13 a.m. PST

I also wouldn't close myself off to other rules.

Ostroc29 Jul 2017 12:37 p.m. PST

V3 as unfortunately V4 is an incomplete beta version, it isn't an improvement and it's definitely different

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member29 Jul 2017 2:31 p.m. PST

I understand that you can use the V3 books with conversion guidance from FoW. I already have a library of books and downloads both V3 and V4. Has anyone run into difficulties use V3 books with V4? Does. Anything get lost in translation? Does it take away from the V4 games if I choose not to use mission and ability cards?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP29 Jul 2017 9:34 p.m. PST

V3 st least makes a pretense of being a game with historical background.
V4 is a tournament game through and through.

Our group plays scenarios and campaigns, guided by the very detailed "codices" or army list books. We use V3 and have flatly and unanimously rejected V4.
V4 is specifically designed as a game where strangers can play with their equal points armies at the store.

Munster29 Jul 2017 10:52 p.m. PST

V3 is the game of the movie, V4 is the game of the video game

Puster Supporting Member of TMP30 Jul 2017 8:35 a.m. PST

I much prefer V3, though its certainly harder to learn then V4. If you play competetive, go for V4 – if you want scenarios for fun, V3.

repaint30 Jul 2017 2:23 p.m. PST

Hi Spartan,

that's actually a good question. At the risk of repeating myself, here are a few lines I wrote a couple of months ago:


V4 is not the "monster" everyone seems to be making of. We played it several times already at the club and we thought it was somehow more fluid and overall slightly more enjoyable than the previous version.

We are actually planning to be playing it soon again.

As for the simplification and "historicity", it is a welcomed move as we never thought it was really historical [V1,V2,V3] in the first place but rather trying hard on a system that anyway lacks the granularity.

FOW goes back to what it is at the core, a game, without trying to pretend anymore to be a fix for "historical" gamers (that for the most pragmatic ones went quickly to other suitable set of rules).

V4 refocuses on the gaming aspect rather than the fringe hardcore FOW historical players. In short, FOW is not, neither has been, suited to be on the "realistic" side of wargaming. It is all about gaming with a WWII flavor and they eventually realise that it is where they will expand their market… how surprising 102 marketing: don't go for the customers who are trying to "push the enveloppe".

X-Wing is not complicated neither "realistic" but it has plenty of Star Wars flavor and it's fun hence very popular. BF took notice, it is not a big mystery.

rhacelt31 Jul 2017 11:47 a.m. PST

Repaint I have played all four versions of FOW. I strongly dis agree that FOW was not historical in nature. The group I played with rarely ever played points games but rather historical scenarios. We were often surprised how close the outcome of the games were to the historic outcome. The only thing I do agree with is version 4 is far more gamy then any other of the games in the series. Now if you want a game that has thrown all historics out the window go with V4 if you want a game based on WWII play V3. My group was so a fended by V4 we have all but stopped playing FOW. The new version is just a poor quality sy-fy game with WWII pieces set to points for the tournament player.

repaint31 Jul 2017 8:58 p.m. PST

Hi Rhacelt,

I get your point and totally respect you had fun playing historical scenarios.

As far as we are concerned, we have never thought that any of the FOW versions were strongly "historical". If we want more WWII flavor we play other rulesets, however, one of the advantaged of FOW is that it can come to completion reasonably fast and give us two games in a day.

This being said, for the same effect we have had so far, we think that V4 is more streamlined and truer to what FOW is meant to be at the core. We play with V3 army lists though and V4 does give us a game experience that is more fluid than V3, not that V3 is bad at all, we just prefer to use now V4.

rhacelt01 Aug 2017 7:52 a.m. PST

Different strokes for different folks. I am glad you like V4. My friends and I got into FOW for a fast play, fun (the real key)game with WWII feel. V3 has all that V4 does not so we will continue on with V3 when we play. Good luck with V4.

Thomas Thomas01 Aug 2017 10:22 a.m. PST

Would second the recommendation to look at other rule sets.

It is quite possible to have a game that is a good simulation of WWII tactics, easy to play, balanced and fun. You do not need to sacrifice simulation value for ease of play. It just takes careful design.

Have played lots of V3 and briefly V4. Did not seem to have much of change in simulation value, same sequence of play which causes most of the simulation problems and weird multi-level ground scale. Since V4 is easier to play seems like the obvious choice (I thought they actually tried to improve AT guns in V4.) But by all means try other rules.

TomT

HidaSeku01 Aug 2017 2:56 p.m. PST

I would recommend V3.

pigasuspig01 Aug 2017 7:59 p.m. PST

I like v4 better. It's great to go with what people already play, but we also have to think of how we can expand the hobby. v4 is obviously easier to teach, and neither of them have the "historical accuracy" of a detailed, difficult simulation. FoW is and has always been a game. As a game, v4 is an obvious improvement.

wizbangs02 Aug 2017 4:52 a.m. PST

+2 Rhacelt.

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member03 Aug 2017 5:35 p.m. PST

Thanks for all the imput. Everyone has given me alot to think about. Thank you.

Spartanwarlord303 Inactive Member11 Aug 2017 6:21 p.m. PST

Thank you for the imput everyone. You have given me a lot to consider.

fingolfen Inactive Member14 Aug 2017 9:32 a.m. PST

There are two key facets of FoW to consider when choosing a version and discussing the historical underpinnings of the game as well the mechanics and the lists. In all versions, Flames of War mechanically is an approachable game it isn't a hardcore simulation. For people looking for a hardcore simulation, it isn't the "thing." For people looking for a game that can be played in a couple of hours or in a tournament setting, it generally fit the bill.

Then there's the lists the army lists by and large had very solid historical underpinnings and the array of miniatures provided allowed one to pretty much recreate just about any historical force out there. Yes, because of the way some of the lists were written, one could come up with something gamey that never existed, but other lists were pretty much dead on.

So when people say the game isn't "historical," it isn't necessarily accurate. It was an approachable game with strong historical underpinnings in terms of force building…

… well until the V4 MW lists came about, and then that went out the window.

rhacelt29 Aug 2017 6:09 a.m. PST

I strongly agree with fingolfen. He hits it squar on the head.

Beaumap Inactive Member30 Aug 2017 11:21 a.m. PST

Find out what others play near you – or you won't get a game. I prefer 3 thankfully, and know nobody who has bothered with 4.

Beaumap Inactive Member30 Aug 2017 11:21 a.m. PST

Find out what others play near you – or you won't get a game. I prefer 3 thankfully, and know nobody who has bothered with 4.

PrussianMonty19 Sep 2017 12:49 p.m. PST

I've only just picked up on this post and it's of interest as I gave up on FOW a few years ago – haven't played the 3rd edition at all – mainly due to the highly competitive and unhistorical armies that dominated in my former club. However, I enjoyed the earlier games (before the competitive natures really emerged) and, as a couple of friends have expressed an interest in the game, I'm seriously considering giving it another go. My main concern is a number of comments about the latest edition being even more unhistorical. Being a small group of friends we play for enjoyment and would all prefer losing a good, close fought game to winning a boring one but although enjoying the game is paramount, we do like to at least give a nod to the historical aspects.

Can anyone please state whether it is the new rules that are more unhistorical or the army books or both? If it is the army books/ lists then that is within our control but if it is the basic rules then we need to look elsewhere.

Thanks.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.