"what is wrong with the rules?" Topic

May seem a strange question, but switching from a very good ruleset, which doesn't allow me to play a big game in an evening ie 20 plus vehicles, V3 is free and we dont care about competitions we have enough troops to fight 200 points plus in most theatres so would seem ideal, but all we hear is people moaning, but no specifics.
So would just like to know in advance what is broken about FOW.

V3 are good rules. V4 are good rules. Both are not broken.
But if you played V3 you notice some interesting stuff that is gone, like differences in repeated bombardements between mortars and regimental/divisional artillery. And if you played V3 for longer, you knew the rules. Simpler rules were not required in that amount, maybe some clarifications and some streamlining. Different matter for new players, as V3 was kind of big.
V4 are like a fast-play version. If you like fast play, they are fine. It is a matter of taste. But I gained little from the change, lost a lot and have to pay again for knowledge of point costs.
For example, in V3 you tried to kill 50% of a platoon, hoping it will fail its moral check. If a unit loses that much in reality, it is already considered battle unfit. In V4 you have platoons under 60% and don´t have to test. It seems odd.
Regards and Merry Christmas

Re the losses, Dogtail: in most games – and I don't play FOW – I assume that stands removed represent permanent degradation of effectiveness rather than (necessarily) casualties.

For me:

Telescoping ground scale that results in tank parks. I simply do not like the aesthetics of that, or the problems it creates. It is an immediate turn off.

In general, I find on-board artillery to be silly, especially with bigger tubes.

I think the rules allow players to do unrealistic things.

Local players were shocked at the idea of playing historical scenarios because "the points wouldn't be even."

Company commanders readily have high level assets at their disposal. In general, I also find that the army lists can be problematic.

I think the rules would make more sense if a platoon was a company (or higher).

The rules have a large following, and I readily admit that they jump started WWII gaming in a big way, but I do not find them enjoyable, so they are not for me.

What I always liked about FoW is the 1 miniature represents 1 tank/soldier approach, you are actually told where to place the BAR holding soldiers. But from the beginning you also have to deal with abstractions, one tank miniature represents the space a much smaller tank would roam around, not that an actual tank can shoot 15times its own length only.
And you know that actual fighting is different, but good tactics do prevail, in reality and in game situations. The rules are the tool to represent the results of decision making.
In Fow V2 it was difficult to dislodge infantry with direct shooting, you had indirect fire, but that takes time etc etc. Time on target gets better result and with repeated bombardements you could weaken infantry before you assault . Now you can use mortars, cause in the second shooting turn after ranging in the infantry has to reroll their saves. That is totally different.
And then you realise there are no staff teams available anymore, which was a requirement for repeated bombardements.
So you ask yourself: was there something wrong in the old version, or wants Battlefront make the game faster and more accessible, or do they want to reduce costs for production.

I thought Fow wanted to be a historically accurate game(that was written in V2, I looked it up).
Now my mate wants to try V4 because he likes world of tanks.
I guess he will like V4. I still want accuracy.
Battlefront should have left the old point structure and continue with a development of V3.
Plus a fast play version. Now we have a fast play version (V4) and a glory past.

@79thPA
Fow works with even points, but (unfortunately) not with a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio in favor of the attacker. Nowadays I find that inacurate, but when I started gaming I spend hours buildings lists. And in more than one game I surely blamed the missing 20 point for bazooka which would have saved my troops on the objective, giving me a win.

I think they are a fun set but aesthetically much better looking in terms of range, bunching and overall look in 1/285 or /1300.

Thankyou for your answers guys. Artillery is something I agree looks a bit strange on table, so my thoughts for that is we wont put them on the table, but still leave vulnerable to aircraft attack. The other bug bear is vehicles in line touching like close order troops, well neither of us like the look of that, so it just wont happen, and still reading through the rules and cant find what the advantage is, and lastly will be playing on a 8x6 so allowing room to maneuver. Sure more things will crop up, but will work through them and good to know I can ask advice without getting shouted at.

While I am asking, V3 or V4

In general, I find on-board artillery to be silly, especially with bigger tubes.

Across the Volga got dropped after FOW V2* , as it doesn't sell models . A 4 gun metal/resin box set was about £40.00 GBP when V3 finished , a plastic box set is now £28.00 GBP .

* It got brought back for the Eastern Front street fighting missions , not used anywhere else in V4 afasik .

If you want to use your models for a more realistic set of rules, Battlefront:WW2 by the Fire & Fury people is very good. Artillery particularly is well handled. And no points, just historical scenarios.

Hub to hub allows platoons to hide in various places which is why some players do it. Others do it for convenience- it's easier to move whole platoons at once.

I think V4 works fine for most actions. Limit armor to a platoon or so, and keep away from the big guns (say no onboard assets beyond battalion/regiment support units) and you're fine. I usually field infantry companies with maybe a platoon or so of armor support- so around 50-80 points. The game still plays fine and the aesthetics are great.

I observed a game once. It seemed horrible. Player A pointed at his stand of identical troops all holding SMGs and said "My SMGs fire at your Machineguns and pointed to his opponent's lines and lines of light machinegun miniatures.

It was ludicrous imo.

What do you see as "gnashing of teeth" here?

Play what you like, and keep your hatred to yourself.

Most people do , the hatred is mainly coming from fanbois and paid advertisments , who don't like the fact people don't want to play with the latest shinnies from BF .