"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

I see this as a matter of taste in what you want for a game. However, no one can argue about the influx of NoObS into the hobby that were not there before.

RoXxOrS, RoMmEl is da best playa eva!
KinG TiGers ROOL!
ShErMaNs should be banned! rotflol

I can do that derek

Whining is what you do when someone mocks something you like and you don't like them doing it…So whining appears to be saying someone else is whining when they are actually using mockery……and it is you who is whining about someone elses mockery (which you call whining!)

Everyone got that?

Of course, this is just a bit of mockery again….or is that whining?

Derek's attempts at Mockery are interpreted by most of us as mere whining.

Do I get a dollar for using both appropriately in a sentence?

Which games people choose to play are merely one of many choices people make everyday.

Beta tapes were better than VHS, yet VHS was adopted. Mac computers are more stable, yet they are not the standard. Choice is a good thing.

Offer choice and eventually people will make the right choice. Or at least give something new a chance. Currently, FoW is the WWII game of choice. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps, other companies and rules writers should try to figure out why, instead of attacking and whining about the fact that their favorite system isn't popular.

Insulting the consumer that is spending their hard earned money for entertainment is a funny way to make them want to spend that money on your product.

Last time I checked Pepsi wasn't paying for commercials that said people that drink Coke are immature and stupid and that Pepsi is merely marketing their product in such a way that you want to drink it. Or that selling soda in 6 packs and 12 packs and cases forces you to buy more than you want.

So continued insults to anyone that plays FoW are funny. More than likely you will cause more people to just ignore you and your opinions because they are so blatantly intellectually dishonest.

BF is a company that sells rules and miniatures. They have planned their marketing and release schedule to optimize the sales of their products. Hmmm, that sounds like a fine business plan.

People who purchase BF rules do not have to follow them by rote and with a little bit of guidance would be able to play and field forces that are fun and do not necessarily contain extraneous transport pieces or arty pieces that need to be on the board.

This is how I introduce the rules to new players. I try to run new player demos of the game every 1-2 months. I let them know arty can be played off-board. I tell them the advantages to offboard arty and the advantages to onboard. I also tell them the disadvantages. In other words I give them choices. I am not a paid employee of BF and do not get a commission for pushing their rules or their models.

But I do play the game and the more people I bring to it, the bigger pool of players and community I create. I know, I am very selfish for doing all this work to make FoW grow. I wonder why I do it.

I let new players know that for tournaments there can and will be different rules that are even more limiting depending on the person running the tournament.

In the end, I want new players to play the game. I will help them make easy and affordable choices so they can get to the tabletop sooner. I loan the rules, the army list books and even miniatures to some people. I show them how to paint and base their miniatures cheap and fast and so they come out looking nice.

I do not see this kind of help coming from many other miniature communities.

Interesting discussion.

Chris

Derek's attempts at Mockery are interpreted by most of us as mere whining.

Do I get a dollar for using both appropriately in a sentence?

No. You get mocked for not knowing the difference.

You know I did post #450, but it's vanished into page 9 1/2 it appears!

And now Chris has posted a rather good post, covering most of the things I was saying, but better.

I'll only comment to say that while FOW has it's share of players that meet the leet speaking kid stereotype, who have no idea about WW2 apart from FOW books, it also has players that spend 12-18 months researching a chosen unit, create a list based purely off that research, and paint it appropriately.

And once the historical list has beaten the 'uber' list of Panthers and PzIII or 3 Tigers 6 games out of 8, those kidz can and do move to more commonly historical lists.

It's part of why I like FOW.

Infantry aren't automatically the track grease for armoured units, and even the supertanks often don't win the various missions.

I know I can take my well researched Kursk Grenadiers just about anywhere in Australia or NZ, find an opponent, play them in any of the missions, and should have a good chance of a win, while having fun.

No. You get mocked for not knowing the difference.

Wow, way to ignore the actual content (and topic), and focus on a personal level…

So continued insults to anyone that plays FoW are funny. More than likely you will cause more people to just ignore you and your opinions because they are so blatantly intellectually dishonest.

You keep using the phrase "intellectually dishonest", what exactly do you mean by that? Please explain.

Currently, FoW is the WWII game of choice.

For whom? Around my part of the world nobody plays it.

Another vote for Humbrol Scarlet 60 Acrylic.

Sturmgrenadier wrote:

Wow, way to ignore the actual content (and topic), and focus on a personal level…

I suggest you look back through this thread and have a look for who is most guilty of making personal attacks.

Infantry aren't automatically the track grease for armoured units, and even the supertanks often don't win the various missions.

That's not unique to FoW. Any decent rules you get the same effects.

I know I can take my well researched Kursk Grenadiers just about anywhere in Australia or NZ, find an opponent, play them in any of the missions, and should have a good chance of a win, while having fun.

Well then it makes sense for you to play it. Here in the south of England I couldn't take a FoW army anywhere I know and get a game.

Well then it makes sense for you to play it. Here in the south of England I couldn't take a FoW army anywhere I know and get a game.

Same here in Scotland.

I'm a member of a wargames club with about 85 members. There's a lot of WWII activity. In the past few years I've played in or seen games of Rapidfire, Spearhead, PBI 2, Crossfire, Command Decision, Blitzkreig Commander and Battlegroup Panzergrenadier. Next Week I'm going to be trying out Metal Storm.

There's a couple of groups playing WWII in 28mm – I don't know what rules they're using but there's one group is using somebody's home brewed set.

As far as I'm aware there's not been a single game of FoW ever played at the club.

FoW is certainly not the "WWII game of choice" everywhere.

Here in the middle on England, Warwickshire I dont think its got any following and in Worcestershire I believe its occasionaly played at one GW style club……

for the Brits….
This is a local club for local people…. there is nothing here for you…. ;o)

mock•er•y

|ˈmäk(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -er•ies)
derision; ridicule : stung by her mockery, Frankie hung his head.
• [in sing. ] an absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something : after a mockery of a trial in London, he was executed.
• archaic ludicrously futile action : in her bitterness she felt that all rejoicing was mockery.

PHRASES
make a mockery of make (something) seem foolish or absurd : the terrorists are making a mockery of security policy.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French moquerie, from mocquer ‘to deride.'

Derek, without getting personal, you're starting to sound like my kids fighting.
"He started it!"
"No, she did"
Who cares, it's no excuse to lower yourself.

You're still completely ignoring the topic at hand, and only commenting on a personal level. If you had continued, and made even an attempt at answering any of the other 13 paragraphs, then you would at least have been on topic, and advanced the thread, rather than purely dragging it lower.

Most of the anti-FOW comments in this thread have either been sweeping generalisations, or made in virtual ignornace of the actual rules and the company. If I, with a similar level of knowledge about other systems, came into every topic about them and slammed them, then I'm sure you'd respond with at least the same amount of vigour as the supporters of FOW do here.

As for the Club issue, obviously the UK is a bastion of non FOW gaming. Not surprising given that it's a geographically close nation, and a large number of the games are published in the UK. This would translate into people having easy access to the various rules, as well as opponents who also have those rules.

Just about everyhere else in the world, this isn't the case. It's why a single, easily played & available system has expanded the WW2 players outside it's normal strongholds.

Also, when considering the cost of the FOW rules, have you thought about the fact that you may end up with 3-4 different rules sets to play WW2 if you travel away from your regular gaming group? Off on vacation, know there is a gaming group in Scotland, an army is usually easy enough to drag along, but what rules do you take along? IABSM, Metal Storm, Rapid Fire or PBI2?
Suddenly you need to buy & learn an armful of systems so you can play out of your normal area. Added expense you aren't considering when saying FOW is expensive. Even if you don't travel, how many different rules systems for WW2 do you have on your shelves? Especially ones that can re-use the same armies? How often do you change preferred systems in your club? Can you turn up with one system and be sure of getting a game of that system, without prearraging a game?

I spend A$200 on rulesbooks and Intel Handbooks, and I'm set for most of WW2, get some intro history (which many younger players usually need, since history isn't exactly taught much these days), as well as colour guides.

No need to go buy another A$200 on Ospreys for the history and painting guides, then figure out what colour that shade actually is through trial & error.

Now, I'm a qualified social studies teacher (specialized in law), but as a FOW gamer, once I started buying Ospreys my eyes were opened to a lot of historical references. This is a good thing! As an educator, trial and error are good things as well. Hell, learning of any sort is a good thing.

FOW history write ups are snipets not to be taken for complete histories, more like history comercials for today's fast food mentality. They should lead gamers to more references, this would be a good thing.

As far as sweeping generalizations go Sturmgrenadier

Just about everyhere else in the world, this isn't the case.

What's the flames of war scene like South Western Ukraine?

Sturmgrenadier, If you actually check the thread as derek suggested, you would find he has never insulted anyone anywhere. If one of your children behaved like him, you would have a very mature child. and he has never said anything personel regarding any individual

Its good you see that in Britian we have a large choice, have easy access for rules and can easily find an opponent which makes any rules here, the rules of choice. For you, it seems you actually have rules of limited choice and limited breadth of opponent. I truly feel sympathy for your situation.

I can also confirm that derek has at least five sets I know of, and has played them all at his local gaming group. they are uaed for different types of games. FOW is only nn alternative to one, maybe 2 of those sets

Dugal, while I have as much experience about SW Ukraine as most other people here will have, unless they have a thriving gaming market in Ukranian, with a dozen different rules designers, miniature manufacturers all over the place and a highly concentrated population, I severely doubt it'll be anything like the UK scene.

As for the history, I did say it was an intro history, enough to get most people up to the level I learned at high school 20 years ago, or maybe a little better. Ospreys are certainly an aide, but at least you don't need to go buy a couple just to get started. I've been able to save my $ to spend on more unusual resources, such as German language books on my current division.

Kevan, when did I say he insulted or attacked everyone?
I said he focused solely on the Off topic part of the thread, and made a comment about the person, rather than the topic at hand. I call that bringing things to a personal level. When I pointed this out, his reply could be interpreted as "Hey, I didn't start it".

As for limited rules and limited opposition, there is certainly no lack of opposition down under. We had 64 people playing FOW last weekend in Canberra, people that flew from as far afield as Perth and Auckland, Melbourne to Townsville. That's just the serious tournament players, not the players that never leave their own city, or never go to a tournament. The only comparable games with similar levels of players are the GDub main games, Warmachine and DBM.

Oh, and Derek, I suspect that the comment about "intellectually dishonest" is based on the lack of actual experience with FOW, especially V2. Hard to have a proper level of knowledge to criticise a game, when you haven't even played a game of FOW v1, let alone the current version.

By your own admission, you've never seen a single game of FOW in your club. How can you properly criticise a game without actually playing it?

Oh, and Derek, I suspect that the comment about "intellectually dishonest" is based on the lack of actual experience with FOW, especially V2. Hard to have a proper level of knowledge to criticise a game, when you haven't even played a game of FOW v1, let alone the current version.

By your own admission, you've never seen a single game of FOW in your club. How can you properly criticise a game without actually playing it?

I can easily criticise bits of it without playing it. I downloaded the free rules when they were available (how long ago was that?) with the intention of giving it a shot. I read the rules and was put of by the inherent silliness of the flexible groundscale. My favourite type of games are those based on historical actions and with that groundscale nonsense going on it just can't be done sensibly.

I've also spent a lot of time over the years reading the FoW forums (joined autumn 2003), usually on the historical and modelling boards but occasionally wandering over into the game related ones. So I know quite a lot about the game.

I've watched the mental contortions of people trying to recreate historical actions and the way in which the flexible groundscale makes it impossible to model real life terrain, and I've followed many of the discussions and bitter fights that go on on the forums.

I've had some jolly good laughs at things like the bagpiper rule (what's even slightly realistic about that) and FoW fans' attempts to defend things like the the Ambush rule or some of the weird things that can happen due the lack of opportunity fire.

And the answer to any question about the realism of FoW basically boils down to "don't think about it, it works as a game". I don't want to play a game which only works if you don't think about bits of it.

I've laughed like a drain at people spending great amounts of time fighting about the historical background of forces, then happily going out and fighting stupid battles between Afrika Korps and East front Pazergrenadiers.

It's obvious that FoW works as a game with a WWII flavour, but then so does Memoire '44 and it's about as realistic.

Most of the anti-FOW comments in this thread have either been sweeping generalisations, or made in virtual ignornace of the actual rules and the company.

Delicious irony. A sweeping generalisation accusing people of making sweeping generalisations. Could you point out some specific examples?

Also, when considering the cost of the FOW rules, have you thought about the fact that you may end up with 3-4 different rules sets to play WW2 if you travel away from your regular gaming group? Off on vacation, know there is a gaming group in Scotland, an army is usually easy enough to drag along, but what rules do you take along? IABSM, Metal Storm, Rapid Fire or PBI2?

If I were going to another club I'd arrange something in in advance. The usual thing to do would be to take nothing and just join in with what's being payed at the place you're visiting. Extra cost to me, nothing. But I hardly ever play away from home.

Suddenly you need to buy & learn an armful of systems so you can play out of your normal area. Added expense you aren't considering when saying FOW is expensive. Even if you don't travel, how many different rules systems for WW2 do you have on your shelves? Especially ones that can re-use the same armies? How often do you change preferred systems in your club? Can you turn up with one system and be sure of getting a game of that system, without prearraging a game?

For WWII I want at least three sets of rules, company level, battalion level and brigade level. One day I'll get round to Megablitz or similar I like buying and reading rules and will try out new ones if they look to be worth the effort of setting up a game, a test FoW failed by miles. Playing more than one set is good.

There's no single preferred system at the club. Currently there's about three systems in fairly regular use. People tend to play something fairly intensively for a period from a few months to a few years then wander off to something else. Occasionally we'll go back and revisit a rules system we played intensively ten years ago.

It's normal to arrange games in advance, not difficult in the age of the mobile phone, though if I turned up with both sides, a scenario and rules for just about anything I'd be fairly sure of finding an opponent.

The group I usually play with uses mostly 15mm figures and we have all standardised on PBI 2 basing, which we use across multiple systems. Everybody has troops for both sides.

Using figures based like that I have played Crossfire, PBI 2, Battlefront WWII, Command Decision, Spearhead and Battlegroup Panzergrenadier. I own and could play I Aint Been Shot Mum, but I haven't got round to it yet. Next week I'll be giving Metal Storm WWII a go.

I spend A$200 on rulesbooks and Intel Handbooks, and I'm set for most of WW2, get some intro history (which many younger players usually need, since history isn't exactly taught much these days), as well as colour guides.

No need to go buy another A$200 on Ospreys for the history and painting guides, then figure out what colour that shade actually is through trial & error.

I, on the other hand, wouldn't save a penny on books moving to FoW, the history within them is nothing but a basic introduction.

There's very little in the way of substantial content in any of the FoW codexes, they're mostly pretty pictures, paint by numbers guides and fluff. And silly special rules.

Your argument that sticking to FoW as a single system would be cheaper than my current approach to collecting and playing WWII I find massively unconvincing.

I can see the attraction of FoW for people looking for a simple game with a WWII flavour and who find Battefront's one stop shop approach attractive. It's the McDonalds of the Wargames world.

Just don't think about it, buy, buy, buy!

Just about everyhere else in the world, this isn't the case. It's why a single, easily played & available system has expanded the WW2 players outside it's normal strongholds.

It is true that the US has always gone a different way when it comes to rules than the UK, for example, both Command Decision and Battleground WW2 had substantial followings in the US, but very limited use in the UK. However looking around the US cons I see no real evidence of FoW dominating. It may be popular for tournaments, but Mein Panzer, Disposable Heroes, BAPS, Face of Battle, Battlefront, CD, BGWW2, Look Sarge No Charts and Arc of Fire all feature in the games.

Sturmgrenadier,

I can play 5 people regularly with a choice of 5 rule sets with any of them. 5 times the choice of your 64 FOW gamers.

i did not say you said derek had insulted people. But you did personally attack him by suggested he argued about who had started insults like one of your children, when he addressed that he had not insulted anyone.

One other thing you wrote

"Many of you are saying BF & FOW is a flash in the pan, because your gaming group is happy with their pet rules. However your suffering from the usual human problem of what you see must be the reality everywhere, when the truth is a different story. Australia & NZ may not be a huge market, but the US certainly is, and BF are going pretty well over there. "

Considering the actual popularity that has been revealed in these posts, particularly in the UK and in the US from Fred's comment. I beleive you when you say "the truth is a different story" I just dont think it is your story

Sturmgrenadier said:

Ospreys are certainly an aide, but at least you don't need to go buy a couple just to get started. I've been able to save my $

Just curios what the cost of books are to get started with FOW is compared to "a couple" of Osprey?

Absolute minimum to get started.

V2 rulebook and one of the Midwar army list compilations.

$50 USD (US), £30.00 GBP for the rules.
$40 USD (US) £20.00 GBP for the lists.

If you've bought Ostfront or Afrika you're now all set up to play one front during one third of the War.

By your own admission, you've never seen a single game of FOW in your club. How can you properly criticise a game without actually playing it?

So how would you answer this guys criticism? Or is his point of view invalid as well? :-)

Mr Harkonnen
After 6 games of FoW I am done. I don't like the unrealistic rules or powergaming aspects of it.

The last 470 odd posts are quite fascinating, even though I can't work out what on earth most of you are arguing about.

May I just ask one very simple question.

Would someone just list briefly the key aspects of FOW that are considered by SOME to be poor or Silly or unhistoric or just not very good.

I have bought the rules and I think they look very good. Yes they are expensive and I am a little uneasy by the apparent attempt by the company to copyright WW2, but that is not really the point.

The point is are the rules good?

Lots of people are anti FOW but most of these people are being fairly generalistic. Can I just ask one or more of you to write a simple list of the key areas a rational person may not like.

I am not trying to take sides at all, I am just trying to determine whether to build a 15mm WW2 army for FOW.

Ta

Andy

Hi Andy,
People who are not enamoured of FoW generally site the following:-
The flexible ground scale which distorts the relative ranges of weapons – so a panzerfaust may have a range in the game of 10" (real life 150m) vs a field gun range of 72" (real life 12,000m). This is to enable guns to be on table and so sell more models, most rules have these as of table assets.
Lack of an oppurtunity fire rule which makes fire and movement tactics dificult to represent on table, which is a problem for an I go, You go game. FoW claim that it slows down the play, but I've seen op fire implememnted in may sets without slowing play appreciably.
To compensate the defender has an ambush rule which many think is far too flexible.
As for the silliness – things like tank crews that fail morale bail out of the tank and then if they pass next turn get back in, then fail again and bail again and so on! Then there is the special characters with special abilities (again designed to sell more models). If you are familiar with GW rules you will know the sort of thing. Some say it adds flavour I tend to feel it turns the game into top trumps, you know the sort of thing my heroic panzerknacker team trumps your special heavy tank etc.
Proponents of the system will tell you it is fun. That's a subjective thing of course. One mans fun is anothers torture.
That it works if you don't think to hard about it. An odd claim I feel as every wargame I've played worked on a certain level. It depends if it works for you.
Finally they point out that lots of people play it, which is true, depending on where in the world you live. A good bet if you are in Aus or NZ I think.
I hope that helps. My comments are based on having played a handfull of games over a the last couple of years. It is not my thing, but if you think it might be yours then I would suggest you try and find someone who plays and have a go.

Bravo Mr. Cartwright!

Someone has finally expressed all the issues that some people have been having with FOW.

CptKremmen: You may want borrow an army or make a proxy army and try out the rules yourself. Another option is to go to a store that has FOW demos/ game days and go from there.

Hope this helps.

I have found a few guys who play FOW and they have offered to give me a game in a few weeks, I will borrow one of their armies.

Thanks very much for the concise list of sillies.

Reading the rules I totally agree with the "Warrior" thing I immediately ignored that, I hope most people don't use those, they seem very silly.

Variable ranges I personally rather like that approach, yes it fiddles things a bit but I like the sound of it.

On board artillery, anything bigger than mortars seems to add no value but selling models I agree, but on the other hand as long as you put your artillery at the far edge of the board out of the way it doesn't really do any harm does it?

I do wonder about the lack of a reaction fire phase. It seems strange to leave it out, but on the positive side I presume it makes movement and assaults easier? Which I am ok with. A set of rules that encouraged you to sit back at long range and just blow chunks out of each other would be very dull and does not sound very historical either, so you have to make it possible for an attacker to advance somehow.

The tank bail out rule did confuse me at first, I guess that as long as you don't take the term "Bail out" too literally it is fine. Crew could just be stunned or otherwise temporarilly ineffective. After all as far as I know you aren't allowed to shoot the crew with small arms when they bail out are you?

Thanks once again for the response Fred it is really appreciated and much more concise than trying to read almost 500 threads!!!

Andy

I'd agree with Fred's synopsis. I play FOW because lots of people play it locally AND I do quite like the odd weekend at a campaign (preferably) or tournament. FOW has the following which allows that more readily for me and more often. I also very much like their publications, their site and, most of the time, their forums. From what I own I'm generally pleased with most of their minis too. For me overall I'd say that it's a game using WWII figures rather than a WWII game (of which many CLAIM more historical accuracy in varying degrees) but a game that nonetheless I have found enjoyable when I play (and, I have to say, a LOT more enjoyable than many of the 'WWII games'!!!).

I like to play IABSM and am giving BF WWII a try (which seems quite good) and I have also played Blitzkrieg Commander, CDII, WRG etc. Even the popular first three have nowhere near the following FOW has though in this region.

Only thing I forgot to add – I do tend to only use forces in FOW with SP arty support. Quite happy to buy those and use them in my other games. I'm not that keen on the 'on table' aspects of other arty though and tend to avoid forces using them as none of my other rule sets do.

Andy,

"Variable ranges I personally rather like that approach, yes it fiddles things a bit but I like the sound of it."

Why? What does it add to the game? How is it in ANY WAY better than a fixed ground scale?

"On board artillery, anything bigger than mortars seems to add no value but selling models I agree, but on the other hand as long as you put your artillery at the far edge of the board out of the way it doesn't really do any harm does it?"

Except it allows for your opponent to eliminate divisional level artillery assets which should really be (most of the time) well behind the lines and out of harm's way. Imagine historical battles such as Mortain (to name one) where crushing weight of artillery was brought to bear on the Germans, who had no answer to it. They could not bring the guns under direct fire from their own weapons – but forcing the models to be on the board allows the Germans to deal with it. It also completely messes with the ground scale, but I will not rehash that point again.

"I do wonder about the lack of a reaction fire phase. It seems strange to leave it out, but on the positive side I presume it makes movement and assaults easier? Which I am ok with."

In my personal opinion, the lack of opportunity fire in FOW is a direct result of there being none in GW games. In the first and second editions of 40K, there was overwatch fire, which was roughly the same thing, and then GW made the decision to market the game to a younger audience – while making the game about getting "stuck in" as they would say. To this end, they made the game completely about close assault, to the end where most infantry have the ability to charge as far as they can shoot their pistols. But I digress. It is about making it "easy" rather than "realistic". Yes you are right – moving around and assaulting is easier without opportunity fire is easier than with it. It allows an attacker with roughly parity of numbers to be able to overcome a dug in defender. This is essential when people are trying to play games where each side has an even number of points.

"A set of rules that encouraged you to sit back at long range and just blow chunks out of each other would be very dull and does not sound very historical either, so you have to make it possible for an attacker to advance somehow."

Opportunity fire does not encourage you to sit back at long range – not enough terrain on the board encourages that. A weapon may have an effective range of 1000 yds, but it doesn't mean that it should have 1000 yds of unobstructed line of sight. In real life, that machine gun nest does not politely wait for you to take your turn, and then when you are done moving, it fires. In real life, it requires fire and maneuver to overcome enemy positions. In the cases where that is not used, and bull headed frontal assaults are performed, it is a bloody, bloody, affair. If you want to a assault a position, use terrain to approach it under cover (or ideally unseen), then suppress it with artillery or direct fire HE, flank it if you can, or if you can't, then make sure that the actual approach to the target is as short as possible.

"The tank bail out rule did confuse me at first, I guess that as long as you don't take the term "Bail out" too literally it is fine. Crew could just be stunned or otherwise temporarilly ineffective. After all as far as I know you aren't allowed to shoot the crew with small arms when they bail out are you?"

As far as the criticisms of FOW is concerned, this one personally bothers me the least, as you are perfectly correct, although they chose a silly name for it, they could have just as easily said stunned or suppressed rather than bailed out"

CptKremmen

On board artillery, anything bigger than mortars seems to add no value but selling models I agree, but on the other hand as long as you put your artillery at the far edge of the board out of the way it doesn't really do any harm does it?

It gives your opponent a great big target that should be about three thousand yards away.

The artillery ranges demonstrate the worse excesses of the flexible scale. But you can invoke the "Across the Volga" rule", named after the situation that finally made the FoW designers admit that there rules were badly broken and that they couldn't model a specific historical battle, and just keep the artillery off table where it usually belongs. But there's other big problems lurking in the wings.

Most tank guns have a range just four times that of a PIAT or Bazooka and twice that of infantry stands.

And if you start comparing weapons ranges to unit frontages there's an awful lot of strange goings on.

Not mentioned by Fred, but still very silly to my mind, is the widespread acceptance among the FoW community of ahistorical matchups, nobody seems to mind fighting Afrika Korps vs East Front Panzegrenadiers.

Of course you don't have to do it.

This forgoten photo has turned up in Germany it shows a secret weapon the Germans were designing. Ideal for BF when they find out….

picture

Derek, are those 15 stifles a result of your opinions on FOW?

I do thank the FOW people for giving enough examples of play on their website so I knew I would not be interested in the rules.

I do enjoy these heated topics, keep it up guys!

Ron

Well nudging toward the 500 posts mark! :-)

RABeery wrote:

Derek, are those 15 stifles a result of your opinions on FOW?

One definitely is. The rest? I haven't a clue.

Roy: The WWII giant robots have already been done.

Gear Krieg it's called link

Or link for pictures of the toys.

Derek … you know everything… are you sure you're not a closet GWer ;o) cant wait to see your army at Brixworth this year. Mines having a taste of BF theory in it, cant be left out eh ;-o

Roy: The WWII giant robots have already been done.

Never seen the appeal of this. It is not like the Germans didn't have enough weird kit on the drawing board or in prototype form!

Derek … you know everything… are you sure you're not a closet GWer ;o)

Play both Warhammer and 40K with my son. Not even in the closet.

Not mentioned by Fred, but still very silly to my mind, is the widespread acceptance among the FoW community of ahistorical matchups, nobody seems to mind fighting Afrika Korps vs East Front Panzegrenadiers.

True, although not unique to FoW.

FoW already has a rule that allows arty to be set up off board.

Our group does this on a regular basis. The commander decides where to deploy his forces.

Lack of imagination is the only thing that stops a player from fighting historical battles on maps that resemble the area.

Unless you are doing a true scale table top, (need a football pitch or cricket stadium) all maps for games are not accurate or historical.

It is truly farcical to think any game or simulation is accurate or historical. Arguing minutiae is merely arguing what flavor of ice cream you like, what color is best, which musical group or style is best. In the end, neither person is right.

FoW is a game that works. It provides historical results using historical units. I ignore the hero rules, just like I did with all of GW's hero rules. Once you own a game, you play it any way you want.

Our group just finished an historical battle depicting the Soviet Breakthru towards the Dneiper during the winter of 42/43.

We used a 6'x12' table depicting a town, lots of wood, RR tracks and embankment a road and the bridge over the Dnieper.

Neither side had good intel, deployment was hidden, neither side knew the others objectives. Random events occured. Random weather, variable sight ranges, hidden minefields and fortifications (hasty bunkers with broken down tanks as pill boxes) and so much more.

The point is, FoW does not have rules for the above game. We used FoW as the base mechanics and then played how we wanted so we could simulate an Historical Battle with two German Companies vs. Two Soviet Tank Battalions with hidden and unknown reserves available to each side depending on the situation.

FoW was our starting point. If any one asked us what we were playing it would be described as FoW. Yet, we setup the game in an hour, played it thru to the end in under 4 hours and cleaned up in the last hour. True time on the clock was 5 hours and 20 minutes for a Battalion sized historical scenario on a realistic map. The only thing that changed was the outcome.

The German commander lost confidence when a mist rolled in off the Dneiper and he lost visual sight of the Soviets. He pulled back on one of his flanks. The Soviet commander under cover of the fog, switched his entire attack to that flank. Using the speed of his T34's and Stewarts on the other flank to quickly change the focus of the attack and capitalize on the shaky morale of the german commander.

No roll was made except the one that had the mist roll in off the Dnieper, cutting German line of sight and ranges in half. The troops didn't fail morale, the person playing them did.

In the end, FoW is a game. Since I own it, I can play it anyway I want. I have organized official FoW tournaments using the rules by rote. I don't generally play that way.

So for all you FoW bashers that havn't really played the game. The only thing lacking is your imagination. I am not a person that likes or has the time to look at three different charts, roll four different types of dice and then go back to four more charts to see what happened.

I wrote up a quick cheat sheet for my FoW force, it filled half of a standard letter size piece of paper. I only cracked the books open a single time during the entire game. To double check how crossing a minefield works. As my heavy KV's blundered into a minefield and then a second one. Hidden minefields, wait FoW doesn't have rules for hidden minefields. Yet with imagination anything is possible.

Wish us luck as we are setting up for a 41 breakthru scenario in Russia. Germans vs. Soviets. Wait, FoW doesn't have any current EW rules or models. Yet, we will be playing FoW.

Chris

We used a 6'x12' table depicting a town, lots of wood, RR tracks and embankment a road and the bridge over the Dnieper.

So what area of real life ground were you representing on that 6' x 12' table? How big was the town? and how wide was the Dneiper? (inches on the table and in real life).

I am not a person that likes or has the time to look at three different charts, roll four different types of dice and then go back to four more charts to see what happened.

You do have a great liking for straw men.

I think most of the FoW refugees are just voicing disappointment from failed expectations of what FoW was going to be for them. I have played flames since early 2005 so I'm well versed in the game and the pros and cons of the rules.

If you take it for what it is, a tournament game designed for power players or people who don't want to play something as heavy as ASL but a little more advanced than Axis and Allies minis then FoW isn't bad. You can play a game in about an hour with little to no prep time and the missions are simple. I'm sure there are people who have had good results with homebrew rules used with FoW. We have tried some in our local club but they never last because people have gotten so used to the basic flames rules (and there is little interest amongst the crew for new rules sets).

Bottom line: try it before you dive in and know what you're looking for in a game, it can save you a lot of frustration as well as money.

If you take it for what it is, a tournament game designed for power players or people who don't want to play something as heavy as ASL but a little more advanced than Axis and Allies minis then FoW isn't bad.

It would be all right if that was all people claimed for it.

'straw men',

I was actually referring to current rules systems used and supported by people frequenting this column and posting negative comments about FoW.

We modeled just the close bridgehead of the Dnieper. So a single span of bridge at the edge of the table. Why model the width of the Dnieper? How would that come into play during a table top battle using land forces? Once again your questions have no point.

The small town covered an area of 32" with many buildings both large and small. The Soviets never captured the town but rather cleared the Germans from the outskirts and then encircled them and cut off the bridge.

Yep, engaged the main force, maneuvre and then bring maximum force to a single point, punch thru and encircle. Force the enemy to surrender or attempt to sneak back to their own lines.

Hmm, sounds like real battle theory and tactics being used on a table top. Real oob's were used, including taking into account losses before the table top battle started. As the action was portraying the spear heads after they punched thru the initial lines. Very little divisional support was available.

Yet, we played FoW. We didn't use the tournament style mission system or Heroes. We used our imagination and the basic mechanics. Something that is needed when playing a game. Without imagination why do you bother playing toy soldiers in the first place?

I regularly talk to people from the UK that are playing FoW. That play with a large group and that go to competitions and tournaments. Must be more than a handful of players in the UK playing the game.

How many people were at the Metal Storm National Tournament in the US this year? How many copies of Metal Storm were sold in the US this year?

'Intellectually Dishonest' to me is a person coming to a gaming community and asking a question about a certain game. But, he does not want an answer, he merely posed the question as an attempt to attack the game and its mechanics. That same person later comes back and states that people that play FoW must be intellectually inferior and or have little experience with other rules systems.

I also take 'Intellectually Dishonest' to mean a person that represents a competing product in the market place that goes to public forums and disparages his competitors and their product and any person that buys that product.

I work as a volunteer for BF as a proofreader. I do not get a paycheck from them. I volunteered because I was offered a chance to help make the end product better. I also try to do my best to help new players see the game for more than what it is. Enjoy the history, the hobby and play the game. But don't limit yourself to just what comes between the covers.

One of the players in our big game last weekend was a teenager. He has painted and bought a very historical German Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Force (based from early 42 to late 43 with four different variations). He is in the process of doing the same with Soviet Infantry and Armor. Hardly your typical L33T teen straight over from GW. This kid has only been playing FoW for 7 months.

Yet, he did the typical new player thing. Bought Tigers and Ferdinands, then realized that without balance you get hammered. He has since moved to more historical forces and better balanced forces. He even plays ACW and Nappys now. Oh how we have corrupted him. Similar to the way I was corrupted so very long ago.

Yet, the older players in our group gladly accept and help all these new players into FoW. We go out of our way to make them feel welcome and to help them to not only learn the game, but to be smart about it. We care about winning, but we care more about doing it right and having fun at the same time.

This topic and the ground scale topic have turned into attack pieces by certain individuals. It has been interesting to say the least how they have framed their arguments. Skipping the meat of a post and making inflammatory comments.

I knew the internet was a haven for bashing of all kinds by disgruntled angry lonely people. I am sorry I had to witness it first hand in a hobby I love and hope to help grow.

Chris

Yeah, but you have to do your own research. If you want historical accuracy, but everyone on the company's message board is fired up because they're releasing the Italians then that should send up a red flag.

If you're watching a game played and you think heavy artillery being onboard but not having the range to reach everywhere on the board, you should suspect something.

If you're reading the rules and find that tanks which had smoke tubes cannot launch smoke, or that you cannot fire smoke to screen yourself (fow requires smoke to be fired at a target within range, rather than in a location) then suspect something.

I could keep going on about silliness in FoW, but you get the point. Know what you're looking for and do your own research.

wwiiogre wrote:

I was actually referring to current rules systems used and supported by people frequenting this column and posting negative comments about FoW.

I know fine well what you were referring to. But your comment re "I am not a person that likes or has the time to look at three different charts, roll four different types of dice and then go back to four more charts to see what happened." is a straw man.

That same person later comes back and states that people that play FoW must be intellectually inferior and or have little experience with other rules systems.

You've got three options here.

1) State publicly that's not me your talking about there re the "intellectually inferior" bit (you have accused me of being "intellectually dishonest" in the past).

2) Find a quote where I have said anything about people who play FoW being "intellectually inferior". I don't recall saying anything about FoW fans having little experience with other rules systems, but I can live with that.

3) Get reported to the management for a personal attack and spend some time in the Dawghouse.

wwiiogre wrote re straw men:

I was actually referring to current rules systems used and supported by people frequenting this column and posting negative comments about FoW.

I know fine well what you were referring to. But your comment re "I am not a person that likes or has the time to look at three different charts, roll four different types of dice and then go back to four more charts to see what happened." is a straw man argument. Or can you name a set of rules that involves such an arcane procedure?

Intellectually Dishonest' to me is a person coming to a gaming community and asking a question about a certain game. But, he does not want an answer, he merely posed the question as an attempt to attack the game and its mechanics.
That same person later comes back and states that people that play FoW must be intellectually inferior and or have little experience with other rules systems.

I feel like I'm being subject to a personal attack.

You've got three options here.

1) State publicly that's not me your talking about there re the "intellectually inferior" bit (you have accused me of being "intellectually dishonest" in the past).

2) Find a quote where I have said anything about people who play FoW being "intellectually inferior". (I don't recall saying anything about FoW fans having little experience with other (better?) rules systems, but I can live with that.)

3) Get reported to the management for a personal attack and spend some time in the Dawghouse.

Hmm, sounds like real battle theory and tactics being used on a table top. Real oob's were used, including taking into account losses before the table top battle started. As the action was portraying the spear heads after they punched thru the initial lines. Very little divisional support was available.

What area of ground was modeled on your 12'x6' table?