"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

i have heard a lot of people say they love these rules and a lot of people say they hate them. are they worth getting?

If you like that kind of thing, yes. If you don't, no. They do seem to lead to rather strongly polarised opinions.

On the spectrum of game to simulation (if you agree such a spectrum exists) they're well up near the game end.

And the rules are not cheap so I'd suggest you try and play a game somewhere before investing your hard earned money on something you might not like.

Check 'em out if you can, and play a few demo games and see if you like it. If you know someone with the rules, or who plays – it's probably better to test the waters before dropping cash.

I, personally, like them. They aren't my favorite – they aren't really all this historical – but it is still a fun game. (I'm hard pressed to find a game I hate, though)

Other people don't care much for them, and they have perfectly valid reasons for not liking them. I think it really depends on personal preference.

I like the game … It's easy to understand but it does have a few quirks with it that don't make sense. The figures are work getting. At least I like them and you can always use them with a different rules set.

That should be "worth" getting not work …ugghh it's early yet here.

As you probably already know, the rules are very similar to GW systems like Warhammer 40K. I personally am not into that system and thus don't like FOW. But, it probably is the most popular historically "themed" game going right now so if you are one of the majority, its probably for you.

Try a few games as others have suggested, then decide for yourself.

The author of FOW also wrote Warhammer Panzer Battles, so there is a certain resemblance in both in mechanics and in the layout of the various rulebooks, although the rules have progressed pretty far beyond their original 40K roots. The most obvious similarities are the IGOUGO turn sequence and the D6-based combat system. FOW is not a 40K spinoff, however; it's a much better game IMNSHO. It's easy to learn and right now it's so popular you can be sure of finding a opponent.

That said, if you are a WWII technophile, you will probably not enjoy FOW. The D6 system doesn't allow for the wide range of difference in armor strength and shell penetration so beloved of hard-core tankies and infantry weapons are pretty generic. You will also find a lot to disagree with in the army lists, although since I don't play in tournaments I alter the lists as necessary.

Bottom line: Whether you enjoy FOW or not depends on what you're looking for. It isn't a particularly good WWII simulation but it's a fun game if you don't take it too seriously.

LT

For the most part I like the rules. They are quick to play. They give reasonable results. They are fairly historical in mechanics and organization.

It's not a particularly detailed game (if you like that) and that's why it moves quickly. They abstract quite a bit similar to the way Grande Armee abstracts a lot of Napoleonic "mechanics".

Battlefront has done a real good job of sticking with history rather than tailoring the game to the hordes of tournament/competition gamers. I've never played one of their "missions" even in a non-competition setting so you can definitely do historical scenarios with no problem.

The rules, etc. are fairly expensive as far as wargames rules go, but you have to realize what you are really buying is a full color/fully graphic book that happens to have game rules in it… :) When you look at it like that, the cost is more inline with the cost of other books.

The best part of the "game system" is the miniatures. They are a bit more expensive than others out there, but they are really nice models. Also, you buy them in "units" so you aren't buying a bunch that you might never use. In some cases this can reduce the actual cost.

Just to give you a little more background on my experience… I don't like Battlefront because of the spotting rules (although they are better than others) and the way the defenders get to fire twice given the way the turn sequence works. I also don't like Command Decision although I haven't played it since version 2. I've never tried Panzer Marsch, but from what I've read there is a little too much detail for me.

I don't like Warhammer 40K. Played it, sold my army.

I like Flames of War. It is quirky, the way the rules are split up can be annoying sometimes but it gives a fair game that seems to work out about right in terms of results (*)

The figs are pricey, but I've been looking around and they aren't that much pricier than Old Glory or Peter Pig

Where it is "Warhammer-esque" is that nations and units can have special rules that modify what happens. E.g. the Royal Horse Artillery have a special rule for bringing their guns to bear faster. Crusader Tanks can break down if they are pushed in terms of speed or terrain, though they are fast, and Tiger Tanks are crewed by Superheroes so they all have special abiltities.

They have smoothed out the differences between small arms and tank armour, but to be honest it doesn't seem to matter. My Boyes anti-tank rifle will still bounce off any decent tank and infantry only make tanks vulnerable with decent AT weapons or a near suicidal close assault.

I still love Blitzkrieg Commander though

(*) Apart from getting reserves on which I never do seem able to do.

I like pie. Pie can be good--or bad. Sometimes no pie is better than bad pie.

Allen

NealSmith wrote: "Battlefront has done a real good job of sticking with history rather than tailoring the game to the hordes of tournament/competition gamers."

Are you kidding? If ever a historical game was set up specifically to cater for the "hordes tournament/competition gamers" FoW is it. But you don't have to indulge if you don't want to.

"The best part of the "game system" is the miniatures. They are a bit more expensive than others out there, but they are really nice models."

Again this is a matter of taste and their infantry seem to have been changing shape recently. If you like heroic style 28s then you'll like Battlefront 15s. If you've got a taste for more realistic looking figures you'll probably want to look elsewhere.

Patrice Vitesse: "i have heard a lot of people say they love these rules and a lot of people say they hate them. are they worth getting?"

That would probably depend on whether you belong to the group of people who love them, or the group of people who hate them.

It is probably difficult for people to predict which group you would fall into, without knowing more about your general gaming tastes.

Griefbringer

As they are expensive, I'd try before buying if at all possible.

If you hunt around a bit, you can find plenty of free resources including playsheets, army lists etc which will let you try it out without parting with a penny.

Actually finding the free playsheet was a bit of a pig…

FOW is a WWII flavoured game.

It's a decent, very playable game, no problem there.

When it comes to the history/WWII aspect it's got holes you could drive the 7th Panzer through.

I like FOW but it has got holes – still we used it for quick no brainer games but moved down to 10mm keeping all the rules and ranges the same for a better 'look'. Recently tried Metal Storm WWII and found it gave a more historic feel but still with speed, ease of play and having interactive moves (ie you roll a saving throw) and things disappear off the table rather than just hanging round being useless (like in some attirition based rules) and you can use the same bases etc – so give them a look

I don't like fudge of wargame

Pro's :

Easy to learn. You've played warhammer…?You'll pick up FOW and know what to do.

Lovely presentation. If you keep, as i do, a collection of rulebooks and novels in the bog for toilet-time tranquility reading. FOW is fluff packed and pretty pictures, some fun storylines and it's weighty!

Easy to find a opponent. Lotsa peeps play it.

Cons:

Theres not a lot of tactics. Its roll a bucket of dice take out the misses, reroll and take out the saves, reroll and keep the kills. It's a game of who rolls higher.

Theres some silly rules.
Shermans are heavy tanks. When a shell hits a AFV the crew can bale out , jump back in, bale out again, jump back in..its a happy happy yo-yo of excited tank crew.

To keep things "balanced" and "fun" for everyone..The Italians have incredibly brave troops and a T34 cant smack a M10 in a straight fight.

The official models are ruddy expensive. Lovely to look at though.
If your a E-bayer a army might set you back 2-300 quid.

I think they are crap

kendotheorgulus 21 Nov 2006 1:40 a.m. PST
I think they are crap

would you like to qualify that statement? why? what could be better? an intelligent answer is what the topic poster wants….

Most folks, before they decide on a car, take it for a test drive.

See if there are any local groups in your area playing the rules. If not, see if there are any conventions in your area.

FOW is very popular right now and there are bound to be games at even small size conventions. At the very least watch a game and, if the game encourages beginners, take a small command and see how you do.

Several games should help you decide if you want to jump in. But remember, like buying that car, you may want to test drive a few other games.

…a T34 cant smack a M10 in a straight fight

Would it want to? Wouldn't it be more interested in finding a Panzer? Or did I miss something?

I concur with what Marc says.
Try a few games. 4 or 5 would be ideal in my view.

They are stuff that appealed to me, but in the end I have dropped the rules for most of the reasons mentioned above, mainly the holes to recreate WWII/history aspects, an armor game engine that I found flawed, and proliferation of special rules I couldn't follow.

This being said there are a few mechanisms that I appreciate and that I am importing to other games to make things faster ("to hit" according to target's experience, ambush rules).

A second point you should take into account is that the FoW set of rules is obviously (also or mainly) geared at making you buy a lot of miniatures and models, preferably FoW products. Be it in "fine" tuning your force by adding/changing what you have or following the official army lists.

I'm a slow thinker so it took me time to realise that for playing company size games I didn't need all the stuff that you are generally "supposed" to field with FoW. I am having a blast playing with a couple of tanks, a gun and a couple of infantery platoons (now, I couldn't care less for the full teams and I keep things to the squad level).

FoW is appealing and has had a big following, however it really depends on what you are looking for. I can only advise you to try half a dozen games with a borrowed army to understand what it is really all about, and then make an opinion for yourself.

to be perfectly honest one of the main appeals to me was that most ww2 competition gamers use FOW so i was intrigued to see what a straw poll revealed.

I really like the system and flexibility (some might say non-historicalness) of the game. However, i have left the system due to the price gouging that i think their coverage of the late-war era represents.

Every game company is out to make money, i simply don't like the way that they do it now. In this game on battery is represented by 4 guns, 4 transports, a command team, a staff team, and an observer. This battery has a 6x6in template. In BKC a batter is represented by a single model (if you want to) and has a larger effect. These kinds of things didn't bother me for a long time, now i consider them more. There seems a fundamental flaw in rules that are written to sell models. I do like the models though, but I'm going to 10mm for BKC.

Their forums are becoming increasingly more hostile to anyone with a dissenting view. (i know this isn't related to the rules, but i feel it's worth mentioning.)

Hmmm – This seems to have been one of the most balanced and sensible forum threads on the recurring topic of "Is FoW Good or bad" I have ever seen.

Is this because its on the British Wargames forum :-)

Or are people getting bored of rehashing this argument …?

Personally, its not for me, As a set of rules it doesn't seem too bad, some good ideas, a few dodgy ones, no worse a set of rules than a number of others. My big problem with it is one of attitude, particularly in the way its written, which might be fine if you are 16 years old with zero knowledge of WWII, but as a 40 something wargamer with substantial knowledge and a large research library I find the entire approach of FOW/battlefront extremely irritating and patronising. The approach is that essentially you can read FOW and play the game without ever reading another book about WWII at all. As far as FOW are concerned WWII existed in a historical limbo in exactly the same fashion that the 40k universe does for its followers via their rule writers. Whats wrong with this, I hear you cry? Nothing, until you actually do a bit of research and discover FOW is a pretty poor simulation.
The much trotted out more that "I play FOW because everyone else does" is pathetic. If you like the rules- great, go ahead, enjoy, but if thats the only reason for playing the game its a very poor one. How about getting others to play a (better) game YOU like?
As for the "T34 can't smack an M10", frankly, I rest my case (sigh)

cheers chris

"…a T34 cant smack a M10 in a straight fight

Would it want to? Wouldn't it be more interested in finding a Panzer? Or did I miss something?"

Target of opportunity? The M10 is a tank destroyer after all. Even tanks will shoot up softskin or lightly armoured vehicles (e.g. Tigers at Villers-Bocage) when pressed.

Is your tongue in your cheek, Phrodron?
God, I hope so!

cheers chris

:-D

Obviously the result of one of those large Soviet-US tank battles…

(Yes Chris, mine is)

Geoff

phew!
;o)

Sorry… I forgot FoW can play allies against allies (and missed the subsequent dig)… I was thinking more of captured stuff or ahistorical:

achtungpanzer.com/ctpic2.htm

Oh tommi, not the old "Heavy Tanks" issue again ? *sighs*

That is merely the name of the rule, like the "Hen & Chicks" rule for soviets, or "British Bulldog" for Brits – it doesnt mean they ARE heavy tanks. And you know that too !

Also, GeoffQRF, Tommi refers to a game we played at Darklords a few weeks back, 1600 points Russians vs a combined Brit/US force (2 x 800 points).

…yep, one of those Soviet-US battles, like I said :-D

I don't play competition, so perhaps after the OP's clarification my answer is not relevant.

I like FoW overall. There are some screwy bits to it, but that's true of most wargames, and since I'm not a competition gamer I happily houseruled them (my Rangers are Veterans, no matter what some NZ company thinks, for example).

But the people I game with have outright rejected it.

This brought us to an impasse. We like to have a core system for a genre and then use other games to fill holes, play one-offs, etc.

We settled on PBI for our regular bi-weekly games, with FoW for anything that we want scenario recreation for (PBI is in many ways more abstract than FoW). We're still shopping for the set we want to move to for good – having ditched Overlord pretty much completely. We use Micro-Armour for 6mm but nothing else… So we're hanging.

Right now we play about 80% PBI (I agreed because it actually has defensive fire, unlike FoW) and 20% FoW with the occasional game of some other system. I was hoping CD:TOB would be an answer, but a 6x6 table? That's big, and those rules are expensive too… So we haven't even picked it up yet.

In a nutshell, the rules are definitely unique, and it's possible you'll like or dislike their uniqueness – like everyone else has said, find a game and give it a try.

The minis are okay, but don't go for the "best on the market" line. Somewhat they are according to taste, but somewhat they're just the wrong scale. If you purchase them and army at a time and never change your army that's okay, but I like having a choice when I buy figures, and more and more you can't mix-n-match with FoW minis.

As soon as our Reaper Warlord review is done, the staff at Wargames @ Nordalia is going to try and define a common set of evaluation criteria for reviews of rule sets. Our goal will be to explain, not judge. Then maybe we'll have some more info for you.

Don.

What they said.
OK, so not many people play 1946 but it shows up that FOW is balanced for a "Fun" game. It's as other peeps have said , a Game with a WW2 theme. It's warhammer with Panzers and squiffy stats.

Junky, it's a silly name for a woolly rule, I know you think i hate FOW, but i dont. If im in the mood for a warhammer type game these days , I play FOW in preference to WH, cos i like the historical look. I just have to be in the mindset of taking my WW2 commanders hat off and replacing it with a sheep. Cos i know that WW2 tactics doctrine and armies wont play anything like they did in history.

I dont mind rules with cards that say "Rapid Fire! Your unit can shoot twice this turn..discard after use"

I think that calling a Sherman a heavy just to allow it to use "British defensive firepower benifits", (which really wasnt a issue with tanks anyway)is silly.

I know i'm right! Why do I know I'm right? Cos your saying the opposite!

[quote]I was hoping CD:TOB would be an answer, but a 6x6 table? That's big, and those rules are expensive too… So we haven't even picked it up yet.[/quote]

Cheaper than FoW really. And the table size isn't fixed. Just suggested for decent maneuver room.

I play FOW because it is easy to find opponents and because I enjoy tournaments. I also find I am building more historically themed forces (don't like the term "army" for a company sized force) and spending more time painting them. My son also find them easy to understand and play.

That said I am finding myself more at odds with the outright gouging that I believe is starting to manifest itself. Festung Europa was IMHO a waste of money and LW is going to be delivered in around 20 books.

Personally I'm leaning towards Metalstorm for my WW2 rules at company level. For more detailed stuff Panzer from Lost Battalion Games is very impressive though the cost of the expansions is a source of concern – then I think of how much I've spent of FOW books. Bring on Panzer! I've yet to get a copy of CD:TOB but hope that this will fit the battalion level niche. I've tried "Look Sarge no charts" but to be honest the bases are ugly and I'd prefer the charts.

JOhn

@malekithau,

CD:TOB fits the battalion niche very nicely – ideal force composition is 1-2 battalions per player, although an experienced player can handle 3-4. IMHO it simulates real WWII tactics better than any other same-scale game I've played (and I've played FOW, Rapid Fire, Spearhead, and Battlefront) – and the latest version is streamlined down from the previous versions so that an average player who has never played the game before can play on his own after 2-3 turns in a game. That being said, similar to chess, it is easy to learn, difficult to master – it punishes those who use ahistorical tactics, and rewards those who successfully use combined arms.

@The GM

I think that I answered this question over at the TOB forums already (if you have the same handle over there) but it bears repeating – 6x6 is simply suggested size for maneuver room. IMHO it was put there to accomodate those of us who are lucky enough to have access to truly large tables (6x12, 6x16, etc) but with an easy conversion to those who have 4x6 or 4x8 such as a gaming store or someone who is more limited in gaming space. It is by no means a "if you can't get a 6x6 table, don't bother buying these rules" type of issue.

Jake

Jake, yes that's me over there, I haven't been back in a day or so. I try to keep the same name across all boards, it makes it easy for people who would rather hit "ignore" where I'm concerned ;-).

I hear you, but then why didn't they do it reverse – set up as 4x6 and say "here's a good way to do 6x6"? Good to know though, that might relieve the issue where I'm concerned.

Don.

What is "CD:TOB" short for? I suspect the CD part is Command Decision, but the TOB? I played Command Decision years ago and found it cumbersome. Is this a new and simpler version?

It's a newer, simplified version, but how simplified seems up for debate ;-). I won't comment beyond that as I don't own it and thus would be speaking third party.

The TOB is for Test of Battle. The Forums are here: link

Don.

FoW is a fun, fast paced WW2 game. Very much a game, not simulation. But it does capture the feel of a ww2 fight in a lot of ways and it plays nicely.

There are mostly 3 types of issues with FoW:
1) Historical rules. This is all based upon your opinion of things like the quality of british infantry in '44, the assaultiness of germans vs soviets, etc etc. See, the problem is that some research supports some ideas, other research doesn't. It tends to be all opinion based stuff and BF has been forced to pick a point of view when making thier rules. Many people agree with a lot of it but few agree with all of it. You can imagine that it's an impossible task.

2) Unrealistic rules. For example, there is no opportunity fire in FoW (with the exception of defensive fire when a unit is assaulted). This is countered by extremely effective ambush rules that recreate opportunity fire to some extent. This is a result of the approach to game design taken by BF – the game is supposed to be a fast playing company level game and so many things are abstracted. In this example, BF feels that opportunity fire is only really needed in a game to represent the fire of troops against enemies moving against them in the open and also to represent the fire of hidden guns against moving targets. Those are covered by defensive fire and ambush. The end result is a fun fast game that does a decent job when you combine the rules with the scenario specific rules (like 'ambush').
BTW, a T-34 could easily kill an M10 in FoW…and vice versa, depending on who hits first.

3) Cost. The rules are pricey compared to other WW2 games but they are very nicely produced. Late war (44-45)is going to be packed with many many division specific books and so could be very pricey if you feel the need to buy them all. Midwar (42-43) is covered by 3 books (the rulebook, an eastern front 'codex' and an africa/italy 'codex') and so it is significantly cheaper to get everything.
Then again, BF gave a free mini rulebook (virtually the whole v2 rulebook printed at a smaller scale) to anyone who had the v1 rulebook.
It's basically your choice whether to play midwar and buy 2 or 3 books, latewar and buy 2 or 3 books or latewar and buy 20 books.

Kolja

Kolja summary does reflect what I hear at most Southern conventions as concerns over FoW. Some cite or of the three, others two or all three. A few old time historical who understand the need for scenario books still get turned off by the constant requirement to buy supplements.

Though I am not sure that #3 is the main issue among those who want realistic rules. They seem to be willing to pay the high price IF they felt that the rules were 'worth it in completeness and realism'.

I should point out that I am a big fan of FoW. I play it often and always have fun with it. Plus I think it does a fine job in requiring some real tactics (using support such as artillery, etc to help provide overwhelming force applied to an attack, expecially againt dug-in infantry, etc).

I find it fun, it is a popular set so opponents are fairly easy to find, it is very nicely presented and actually encourages "all arms" usage – ie in "Firefly" (TTG), as Russians artillery was so damn hard to call in we never used it. It has a few "oddities" (what rule set doesnt), and Im sure in 10 years time we will all be playing something else, but at he moment for a company level game playable in 2-3 hours its great.

With a well-designed scenario, FoW should play well and fairly realistically.

Good scenario design is the biggest problem with most games (and gamers).

Kolja wrote:
BTW, a T-34 could easily kill an M10 in FoW…and vice versa, depending on who hits first.
------------------
Why would a T34 be firing at an M10 in the first placce?
They are on the same side!

Oh, wait, this is FOW we are talking about. Sorry.

? Why is there this attitude that FoW is the only game with ahistorical match-ups ? Some ancients games are so far apart time wise they border on Fantasy (Romans vs Vikings anyone?)