"THAT Comment About Flames of War" Topic

You know, it does get very old:

"The thing I dislike most of all about Flames of War is the stupid bloody closeness of each afv to each other on the table. Why do players play this way it's not realistic at all?"

Except when you do…

Yeah, I've seen that too. I don't think it's necessarily FoW, but just gamers themselves.

As its up again lets do a few basic sums. Tanks don't want to be closer than 40yds appart. This is still true, it means the enemy can get the change in range accurate such that a shot at a second tank after hitting the first is close on 100% at 40m or less So 5 Shermans will take up a minimum of 160yds and to be sensible more like 200 yds. That's 2/3 rifle range about 300m being optermistic, or about 1/7 of HMG range (1500m). So are 5 tanks deployed closer than this? If so then the rules have a serious problem, not the players, regardless of how daft it may look.

We cheat on our rules and improve accuracy if the tanks are spaced less than 40m side to side (not turret center to turret center as its easier to measure). That's 4 inch for 1/72 scale models and 40mm for 1/144. So minimum spacing could be argued at about 60m as the tanks are too wide for the ground scale.

I have never understood the ground scale for FOW so can't do the sums for that game, but somebody who does should be able to check easily.

Oh and the picture that's fine nice and close as long as the rules ensure they are hit more accurately, inexperienced crews die fast.

Ground scale v model scale.

When you do see a game, or even just the laying out of a tactical formation, where they are equal it is quite jarring and a revelation.

I have never been able to see WHY people use the 'points' systems when building a game/scenario. Very few combats are equal… and surely the 'fun' is when trying to make the most of what you've got? Just putting stuff on a table to be Targets… well? OK… Russians seem to! :(

In the first picture the armor appears to be traveling, while the Shermans in the second pic are clearly not in combat.

Yes, there is always the model scale vs. ground scale. Does FoW have a ground scale?

To be fair and accurate, at least those in the photo above ARE at least one vehicle width and length apart, as opposed to actually, physically touching, so…………………..

The military teaches the troops to keep proper intervals, disperse, spread out, etc. So as I and other Vets have heard many times in past, "one grenade will kill all of you !" …

But as some pointed out here and yes, we see this with miniature gaming. You have ground scale vs. model scale as some posted here. We just have to take that some things with mini gaming will be off a bit. Even with 6mm there are some situations where ranges will have to be "truncated". Unless you are playing on a basketball court. But if you are playing in your "war room" at home and you have FA on the gaming table, it probably should be in the far corner of the next room. Unless e.g. you are playing the fall of Berlin, etc.

I have never been able to see WHY people use the 'points' systems when building a game/scenario. Very few combats are equal

We use a random scenario generator system.

You choose how many points you want to game. E.g. 1000 points a small game and 6000 points a Big game.

You roll 1D6 to see who wants to choose to be on the Offense or Defense. There is a sheet for each side that give you a list of missions/scenarios. The Offensive player gets one of these sheets with offensive missions as does the Defender for Defensive missions.

Each side Secretly draws a numbered chit from a cup. Don't show your number to your opponent. DOH !

Each player looks at his[or her] mission/scenario sheet respectively. Match the number on the chit.

Your mission may increase your basic points level or decrease it. May have some specific conditions e.g. only 2/3d of your force starts on the board. Then on e.g. turn 3 you get the rest of your force, etc. Maybe even on a specific side of the board.

Again, neither player knows the other's mission or victory conditions. All you know who is defending or attacking.

Then let the games begin. Whoever satisfies his victory conditions first, shows his opponent his chit and mission sheet.

Your mission maybe you have to get 1/2 of your force off your opponent's side of the board.

Or get a convoy off your opponent's side of the board.

Or do a raid – destroy some number of points of your opponent's force, then fall back.

Maybe be you are just defending or just attacking. But your basic points level may go up or down. You have a limited force deployment, etc.

Etc., etc., etc.

Check if the victory conditions are satisfied. If so, you are the winner.

You know where I found that system ? In the old 1st GW Adeptus Titanicus rules from '89. With some modifications from the 1st Space Marine game that came out shortly afterwards, the Black rule book.

You have the fog of war. You don't know your opponent's mission nor he knows yours. And it's not always on body count[points]. You may have to accomplish your mission as I posted. Whatever your scenario sheet says.

+1 Headless and Militia Mike. Can't stand the whole points thing.

My group likes Team Yankee, which has the same scale problem in 15mm.
However, we play it in 1/285 scale and the weirdness disappears! Then, once, we tried halving the ranges and boom! Everyone started cramping together. I think it's the ranges. If I have a range of 30 inches and you have a range of 28 inches, I want to crowd every gun I can to shoot without getting shot at. For at least one turn anyways.
Try playing the game in 6mm, using the same ranges and measurements. I did shrink the bombardment template and the infantry bases by 66 percent.

cheers

Tbh, I thought nk the crowding is mainly a problem with 1:1 type tactical games and it goes back as long as I've been doing it. I saw plenty of Sherman/Tiger (and even Ferdinand) 'phalanxes' when playing WRG back in the 70s. It is because there is generally no penalty for bunching up and every benefit to concentrating as many guns on the narrowest front possible.

Introduce beaten zones and significant penalties for target density, and the problem goes away.

It is much less of a problem for grand tactical stuff as the platoon/company/battalion bases can occupy a sensible footprint relative to ground scale.

There are a number of issues that compound the Phalanx of tanks issue, not just the failure to penalise the density of the tank formation. Certainly in Northern Europe the very large ground scale becomes somewhat of a mockery of the real world. Take any Google map in Europe at the ground scale and there is vastly more real terrain than the large battlefields portray as a game, they are more platoon sized terrain pretending to be square miles of terrain.

We play 1/144 at 1mm represents 1mm so the tanks are liniearly 5 times too big. With field boundaries between 300m to 400m appart its not too bad. In villages obviously the houses are way too big but you can typically represent the road layout and ignore the house gardens and get a rough idea of the terrain. These issues, roads, field Boundaries and water courses, in many places there are lots of big ditches/streams and small rises mitigates massivly the tendancy to over concentrate seen in many unrealistic terrain gimes of the "classic toy soldier" type. At the big ground scales not all the tanks would see each other, the terrain on the battlefield is totaly unrepsenative and a more credible abstraction is required if play is to be sensible.

To be fair these critisisms are from folk like me who are interested in real warfare. Guys who like to paint just want a pretty Toy fest to show off there models and the game accuracy is of secondary or even less importance. To them its agame so who cares. Everybody has the right to their own opinions.

Team Yankee seems worse for "tank parks"

link

I could not play in that game. Too silly visually.

Still looks better than 40K (and I like 40K).

Col Piron … Wow now that is a crowded gaming table !

Tacticus +1 The ranges are just completely off. Then some want to bring Titans on the board ! 🤩

We play Epic/Sci-fi but with significant rule modifications, etc. As I said, for many games in the 20th century, 21st century, and in the future 6mm is the best scale.

Points are used with tournaments.
They aren't needed for scenarios.

As I outlined in my post before. How would know how many models to pick ? For the scenario that is randomly chosen. Or just mutually agreed upon. Your force make up is based on your mission and terrain on the table. Again as I mentioned in my post above.

Unless you are playing Historical Scenarios, like you would see in the old AH Panzerblitz-Panzer Leader, etc., etc. E.g. in this WWII battle the Germans had 10 Mk.IVF1s and the Russians had 15 T-34/76s, etc.

Just an example of a Fun WW2 fight. 4 Elephants (yes, SHOULD have been 'Ferdinands'…just LIKE Elephants!) sent in against Russian inf and 2 ATGs. One breaks down off table with dice roll. 3 go on table and advance… but nervous of ATG's. 1 bogs (dice roll!) and swarmed by inf. Dice roll… NINE T34s show up! 2 KO'd but another Elephant taken out by flanking fire… survivor tries to extricate… slowly! T34s in persuit! Dice roll… broken Elephant repaired, appears on table edge and long range gun gets 2 T34s… rest go to 'dead ground'. Germans exit. No 'win' and no 'points'… just Fun! And, think, rather 'real'.

Big difference between road march columns and battle lines.

Tanks don't line up hub to hub in battle lines.

That armor stacked up looks like some driveways in our subdivision!

The entire issue is incredibly simple…
1) FoW rules as-is, 15mm figs, double all distances and use a 12x8 table.
2) Micro armor [not as much fun visually…I love my WWII 15s with camo and such] on the standard table, no rules changes.
3) Alternate balance… 10mm is rapidly expanding, and will reduce the hub to hub a bit.
4) Always give both sides heavy artillery or air power for armor concentrations – the player will learn.
5) Take it out of player's hands, and just say that tanks must keep 1/2/3" from another tank, or give attack bonuses if tanks / teams are within 1" of each other.

Personally, I think the micro-armor is the easiest solution if you are just getting started, and 5) is easiest if you are playing friendly games with like-minded people.

Col Piron, That is a game I could not play, looks more like a medieval shield wall than a modern battle, no amount of painting or quality terrain could ever persuade me personally that that was a game worth playing, unrealistic would be an understatement.

The jumping in and out of the tanks is, for me, the silliest bit of all.

When something nasty penetrated your tank you got the out pretty damn quick, because you knew damn well there was another something nasty on the way. Why they honestly thought just because the tank didn't blow up the crew would get back in there is beyond me….

🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️

Even some crews will abandon an AFV, if just it is hit but no real damage. The crew gets the out of them. In a game that may require a morale roll. Based on unit training & morale, etc.

Legion 4: I consider using simmillar system to Your chips but I want to put all info everything on cards (printed, inserted into foil with normal playing cards as anonimizer – it is no sense to print special cards during playtest).

Would You be so kind and share Your system? Cause it is always better to use someting which is already working.