"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

Mort, sometimes I wonder if you are the same poster, here are a few quotes i found

Mort the Everliving said

or is it just that you and Crazy Ivan broke up and your mad at him that must be it.

i am so sorry that i offended you i am really torn up

iT IS THERE SITE AND THEY HAVE ASKED US NOT TO TALK ABOUT OTHER COMPANYS PRODUCTS

you bunch of Washer woman

Suddenly, being called childish by you looses some of it's sting.

Where is your Store Mort? and what sort of ranges do you sell. There are suprisingly few wargames shops in the UK alot is now internet based.

Roy

Dugal i am the first to admit that i let my temper get the better of me with those posts they were childish and i am sorry i even posted them, but i can say i was being a nob and not trying to pass it off as "protesting & agitating":-)

Hammer i am in the U.S. state of Wisconsin we have several game stores here in town. they stock your basic D&D,GW stuff
but have F.o.W. and can get any other Stuff in about 2 days. i have noticed a trend to get stuff from the internet here as well but the store that are here all have large after hours gaming rooms. the ones that don't have a good chance of folding. :-) T

Good idea to had a room if there is space. Iv been in GW stores to get paint and the staff have been most helpful its a shame they dont sell decent wargames stuff ;o) Our traditional model shops do have a tentency to have proprietors that wouldnt be out of place in the Munsters ;o)

i go into the GW store around here and it is like walking into a commercial just to much sell. :-) my friend owns the shop we play at he kinda looks like a evil father christmas.

Hey Mort, How can a long standing customer have sour grapes???? battlefront's past success is a benefit to me, but not their recent trends

The UK retail industry has a history of companies who do stupid things with their customers that in the long term cause those companies to go down the tubes or go very close to it by changing their product demograph….Ratners, Marks & Spencers. The Brits will know what I mean by those companies. I m sure the US and NZ has the same

battlefront hinge everything from packaging of their products and now even the way they present their transport vehicles based on "FOW customer requirements", which in my personel opinion is alienating to a lot of their non-FOW customers, and as much as you would like to disbeleive, the non-FOW players are likely to be in the majority. When the FOW converts fly the coop for the next GW game based on mutant space teddy bears fighting rats with elvis quiffs (TM pending kev's INC), then FOW packaging will become more of an issue to core ww2 gamers and their sales will plummet.

In the words of the Manic Street Preachers…….

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

When the bubble bursts, it may well hurt more than just BF. Many around here buy from a number of minis lines.

When it all comes apart, it may be a major drop across 15mm WWII. I do not see this as a good thing. I am not looking forward to that day, even though I realize it is comeing someday. I, as I imagine minis markers, hope it is later rather than sooner.

But, if FOW had never came along at all, then those extra sales never would have happened. I of course cant speak for other, but if not for FOW I would have spent several hundred dollars a year on some other game stuff, and it would not have been WWII. And thats the non BF items I am talking about.

Kevin, when it goes away we need to make sure that we can keep the ones who are intrested around.but if all some young gamers see on Tmp historical posts are trolls going around complaing i don't think that helps all that much either, now does it. F.O.W. have brought people into our group who have never played any wargame before and for that i am glad there around and should be supported. do i like everything they do, heck no but i still shop at wal-mart to so i guess am just some bonehead that can't grasp this gigantic F.O.W. consperacy that is going on more stupid me i guess. so you and Derek and the rest of your group can just sit back and watch the hobby grow older and know you have succeded in your quest.

p.s. i highly doubt the creators of F.O.W. are shaking in there boots over these squabbles. :-) T

When the bubble bursts, it may well hurt more than just BF. Many around here buy from a number of minis lines.

When it all comes apart, it may be a major drop across 15mm WWII. I do not see this as a good thing. I am not looking forward to that day, even though I realize it is comeing someday. I, as I imagine minis markers, hope it is later rather than sooner.

Chill. 15mm WW2 was going long before BF came on the scene and it will keep going after the FoW bubble bursts. WW2 is a core wargaming period. People will always play it. For anyone except BF I doubt it will make much difference. QRF, Peter Pig, Old Glory etc. all have broad lines and will be able to move onto the next big thing. BF with all their eggs in one basket may well struggle. We shall see.

I think there is a misconception about just how big FoW is, the number of FoW players must be totally dwarfed by the number of WW2 players that use other rules. GF are a small business self limited to one corner of the hobby.

As Fred said, WW2 has always been a big and popular period, FoW is like yoyos and hoolahoops in the scheme of wargaming things.

Historicals will always be around as will companys that supply them.the good thing that can be said about flames is that it has brought some new blood in. arguing gaming is like arguing politics a no win.
now i am off to smell some flowers and listen to children laugh and stop arguing. :-) T

I have been playing WWII sinnce the early 70s, so am aware of the periods staying power. And 15mms are another staple. But, in my area, I never saw more than a very few packs of 15mm WWII before FOW.

I moved around a lot in the Army, and have seen gameing groups across the US and Europe. And never saw much if any 15mm WWII. 1/285 oh yes, everywhere I went. 1/72 in many places. 25mm in many places.

I also realize that most minis makers have more than one period they cover. And for some reason BF only covers the one. But I have seen way to many good game companys go under and dont like the thought that more will go. As far as total FOWers, they are most likely a minority. But, they seem to be a spendy minority what with new codexes comeing out regularly.

The down hill will be when the rule books and codex supplements start to appear on ebay with a start bid of £2.99 GBP ;o)

I also realize that most minis makers have more than one period they cover. And for some reason BF only covers the one. But I have seen way to many good game companys go under and dont like the thought that more will go.

Well as far as the main players in 15mm WW2 are concerned, Peter Pig, QRF, Skytrex/Old Glory have all been around for quite a while. I expect they will still be about for sometime yet.

moved around a lot in the Army, and have seen gameing groups across the US and Europe. And never saw much if any 15mm WWII. 1/285 oh yes, everywhere I went. 1/72 in many places. 25mm in many places.

Can't say that I've seen much 1/285 except on bring and buys (flea markets for our US readers!) for years. 15mm has been a main player in the UK for the last 10 years at least. 20mm and 25/28mm are also doing well. Don't see much 10/12mm though. I think the big factor in favour of 15mm for WW2 is the popularity in other periods. That means people can use scenery that they have for other periods with the WW2 stuff.

Skitterkeep wrote…

Kevin, when it goes away we need to make sure that we can keep the ones who are intrested around.but if all some young gamers see on Tmp historical posts are trolls going around complaing i don't think that helps all that much either, now does it. F.O.W. have brought people into our group who have never played any wargame before and for that i am glad there around and should be supported. do i like everything they do, heck no but i still shop at wal-mart to so i guess am just some bonehead that can't grasp this gigantic F.O.W. consperacy that is going on more stupid me i guess. so you and Derek and the rest of your group can just sit back and watch the hobby grow older and know you have succeded in your quest.

p.s. i highly doubt the creators of F.O.W. are shaking in there boots over these squabbles. :-) T"

Interesting definition of trolling

Troll says….. We think you are making a mistake doing your models with big heads and resin block trucks as they look weird. Why are you doing this/ Please do not do This(delete as applicable) ?

Fanboy Tony the tiger lover says……Kool, these are great models….so anatomically correct, I checked against my other Orcs. Hey Someone not in agreement with the party line it must be a troll!

Isn't trolling when you say something to start a flame war? like suggesting someone said you were an idiot for shopping at a particular place when they have said no such thing? And in fact they themselves shop there, would like to continue and their complaint is directly because the referenced changes to products mean they feel they cannot shop at that same store because the quality is going down hill?

The free speech may be removed from the FOW forums, but you cannot complain about it here and suggest that the people who read the threads cannot understand what is said and need protection from "trolls". If the kids are into ww2 on a fad, by definition , they are not for staying. If they are not on the latest Bandwagon, they will search to play their own games their way, just like the rest of us. As far as I know, kiddnapping and forced gaming is illegal so no one can force them to stay. Hopefully, people will give them balnced veiws on the range of games available rather than telling them about the latest chewing gum flavour.

I am sure some of them will continue to do FOW as a core game long after the 2.99 starting bids have 6 week bidding times to get to 3.50. Thats their right

Just as its battlefronts right to start doing their models any way they please no matter what detrimental hit they take in sales volume from it for doing them weird and our right to vote with our wallets.

Worrying about their future and suggesting that threads or comments like these could damage them is nonsense. They have shifted their products target demograph and they will live with it's consequences. If its a conspiracy and I seriously doubt it is, it will rank up there in the top 10 stupid ones

These topics always make me laugh! There are games ive played and didnt like, or games ive looked just the rules over and wasnt impressed with. Now would I post on topics on those games and comment, hell no. Why would I? I dont play them and arent interesting in playing them.

So why do people that dont like FOW, dont play it anymore, or never played it but looked the rules over, have this overpowering need to slag FOW topics where ever they appear???

No, saying someone asked about a rule set and you're giving your views doesnt work. Ive yet to see anyone give any rule set a perfect score and post that. People always give the good and the bad. So fear that you are saving someone from grave danger of playing goes out the window.

You arent going to change BF or how they make and market their game, so why bother??

Fear, hate?? Or is it that some really think they are so much smarter than the rest and need to constantly repeat themselfs in order to be heard?

If you dont like FOW, let it go and find something you do enjoy on this forum to post about.

Im no fanboy, ive ed more than my share of people off on the FOW forum, but for a 3 hour game its just what I want for now. Its just tiring to see grown "men" constantly bash a game, when im sure you could find something better to do.

Cheer Neil
2nd BB

So why do people that dont like FOW, dont play it anymore, or never played it but looked the rules over, have this overpowering need to slag FOW topics where ever they appear???

A question I have been asking myself recently. Just why do I do it?

I think I've got an answer, having been inspired by some ideas I came across whilst prooofreading a colleagues academic text earlier this week. A serious answer, not something flippant like "because it's fun".

Blog post in preparation.

Its just tiring to see grown "men" constantly bash a game, when im sure you could find something better to do.

But you keep on reading a thread which has featured the bashing you seemingly despise for almost three hundred postings. And then you obviously feel the need to comment.

I'm sure you too could find something better to do. So why do you bother?

Why does this thread roll on… rather like kewl hub to hub SS Panzers..
Run of the mill 'what colour was a tiger commanders vest' questions hold the attention for little more than 5 seconds, a rippingly good debate where peeps have strong views on 'both sides' is worth reading and commenting on. there has been some witty, amusing, clever, grumpy and enlightening postings, its…. 'reet good compulsive viewing'.

I think it has gotten to the point that we post because others do.

I think I post because Derek and Keven do. And Hammer is right, some of us would obviosly rather argue about something than handle simple questions. And here I am still in the thread, so I must be one of those huh?

Derek
I posted for a simple reason, when I play FOW I enjoy it. The guys I game with enjoy it. So stands to reason id have an interest in talking about the game with others that are either interested or enjoy it too.

Sadly EVERY FOW topic just about turns ugly, thats my point. Maybe we new a topic so that when people feel the need, that can simple complain in that FOW topic and leave the ones about the game, from people with real questions free to be what they should be. Helpful replies from players that enjoy their gaming with FOW.

Cheers Neil
2nd BB

Helpful replies from players that enjoy their gaming with FOW.

You'd think you'd be able to get that on the FoW forums.

Where opinions that are very mild compared to what's gets expressed here get deleted PDQ and can even get you banned outright.

I'm surprised that people thing FOW is a flash in the pan kind of thing, and BF will implode any time soon.

Down under, WW2 was the era of a handful of small groups that didn't have much contact with anyone else, based on whatever their prefered system was. Those groups for the most part are still going their own way, not much has changed for them. Before FOW, WW2 was mainly a 20mm/ 1/72 scale game down under, due to the easy availability of the figures compared to any other scale.

Here, most FOW players have come across from GDub games, generally due to the rising costs, a new edition (which completely invalidates the old lists) every few years, new units being better than the old and units vanishing completely. They're not in a hurry to go back to GDub, I can assure you. It's moved the attention of the younger gamers away from 40K and WHFB, at least that % that doesn't give up gaming for Playstations, Mobiles & Girls.

FOW is the game that has gotten WW2 into the minds of a whole generation of gamers, for better or for worse. It's the WW2 game that has moved it's players past the occasional demo game at a con, and into filling the hall with 60+ people. Sure, tournament play isn't for everyone, but FOW filled a niche that hadn't been filled before.

If someone comes up with a better WW2 game, which is as fun & easy to play, then maybe people will move across to that system. But it has to be well presented enough to look professional, be well distributed enough to get a wide audience, and well supported enough not to be a flash in the pan.

As for the inevitable slide of these dicussions into such a mire, I think it's got to do with the fact that this place is where all the people that dislike FOW accumulate on the internet. And they can't help but throw in their dislike of FOW into any threads about it, regardless of if it's informed information or otherwise.

The BF Forums, being paid for by BF, have their own rules. If you chose to ignore them, you're of course going to suffer the consequences. They have made no bones about these rules.
If you wish to make constructive criticism, without drawing attention to their competition (either rules wise or mini wise), and agree to disagree when BF or the forum in general doesn't agree with you, it's pretty easy to stay in the BF forums.

However everyone seems to think they can say whatever they like, and wonder why they get moderated or banned.
It's like speeding laws. You don't have to like them, or agree with them, but those are the conditions you drive on the road. If you break those conditions, you get fined or banned from driving. The BF forum is not public domain, it's private property.

Part of the problem is that there seems to be no balanced view on FOW available here, or anywhere.
You can't have a thread here on FOW without the usual suspects from dragging out their generally uninformed views (or those people suggesting FOW as an option from being attacked), and you can't compare FOW on the FOW forums due to the forum rules (designed to prevent threads like this about other systems).
TMP is supposed to be that balanced place to get a fair opinion, but opinions appear to be too divided for that to happen.

Sturmgrendier

Perhaps the fact that main stream rules aren't avialable in the same numbers in Austrilia/New Zealand has a big impact on their popularity there. the whole of Austrailia and new zealand has a population less than half of the uk without all the transport issues. this same vastness has an impact on American wargamers too

Maybe it's the southern hemisphere that is uninformed, since the competition and quality in the uk is much higher

Has BF actually got any clue what percentge of their sales actully go into FOW gmes? and did they do tht info search in europe?

Maybe the New Zealnd Jets can play in the Hyundi A league , but they will struggle in the english premiership and you can't clim they re better than barcelona and manchester united when you havent even played them

All I can say is….

'Your Mommas to thin and your Daddys too fat, get over it….'

G

Wow.. I bet Cmdr G of TFP has been mulling over the wording of that wargaming gem for days :o/

Having never ever strayed into the BF FoW forums or been tempted too, it would appear from the outside that its a captive ticket only audience so I can see it might irk wargamers who visit it not wearing the rose coloured glasses to make comment.

As far as Sturmgrnadiers comment that TMP 'has to do with the fact that this place is where all the people that dislike FOW accumulate on the internet'

From all the other thousands of posts I would say that TMP has about the widest spread of views you could get. So rather than being an unjust place with its views on FoW, it must be a fairly acurate straw poll and an average consensus for and against. One very rarely sees any animosity towards manufacturers in the wargames hobby, GW has that distinction and perhaps BF is gaining that slowly? Its strange how one is a close clone of the other.

I think Derek and Kevan both have pretty well summed up my feelings about Battlefront miniatures in the past: that they have made some very good stuff, and any criticism is a result of disappointment in new things that are not as I would wish to see them.

As for Flames of War as a game, my view is that it's just a game. I can't quite figure out why Derek feels the need to poke at what he sees as its shortfalls, but that's his business. I don't feel the need to respond by clutching the family jewels in fear, and whimpering about what a bad man he is to say such awful things.

TMP is hardly the secret meeting place of FoW-haters. As Roy indicates, I find that if there are several people saying good things about any product on TMP, then there's likely to be goodness found in it. If several people are critical or find silliness in a product, there's usually good reason for that, too.

In my view, FoW and Battlefront get a fair shake here: praise and recommendations when something is good, the reverse when something is amiss.

277 posts make for a hell of a lot of keystrokes, so a certain degree of passion both pro and con must be inferred. That ain't a bad thing. Get into an argument with a trout fisherman about dry flies sometime if you want to see real passion in a hobby.

Allen

Allen, it's hardly a secret place of FOWhaters, I agree. Threads like this prove that. People seem to insist on making their views know, at great length. I just find it hard to get a word in edgewise that isn't against FOW. If someone suggests that FOW might be a good system for someone, the usual suspects come out of the woodwork.
FOW has elements I dislike as well, and I've done my best to let BF know about that. However about all you ever seem to read about FOW here is how bad it is, all it's problems with this & that. How many topics about FOW here don't get to this stage?

Any Internet forum is hardly a fair place to get a straw poll of peoples opinions, since you'd be lucky to get 10% of players of any game in a forum, and only 10% of them post much. Internet forums are the proverbial squeeky wheel.

KevanG, If you compare the success levels of BF, they've gone from playing in the NZ league, and have worked their way up to playing at the world class level. They now have distribution offices in the USA and Europe, so they must be doing pretty well in the old world, you'd have to ask them just how well.

I think that the part of the problem people seem to have with BF & FOW is that they're successful, and do appear to be using some tactics that GDub use, such as well presented books, generally self contained, perfect for the beginner. They offer a complete package, rules, history, painting guides, figures, the lot, unlike most other systems I've seen.
This again makes them more accessible, not only for players, but for gaming stores. No need to deal with 3 different suppliers for rules and figures.
That's the secret of BFs success I think. The modern world likes it's one-stop shoppping. Supermarkets, not corner stores and markets.

However people seem to think BF is using the exact model GDub use, ignoring the fact that if something changes or is new, BF usually offer it as a free download rather than making you buy the new sourcebook.
BF don't insist that you only use their product in any of their tournaments.
BF don't raise their prices every 6-12 months.
BF don't suddenly drop a whole unit from the game, and introduce a new uber unit, with super rules.
BF has shown that they do listen to the squeeky wheel as well, and have changed rules and units to represent new information people have presented, when it's been supported with historical data.

Add this to the fact that FOW doesn't use most of the tried & true methods of WW2 gaming like opportunity fire, map based ambushes & off table arty. Right there the Gronyards will be against it, since it's not what they expect in a WW2 game. Never mind that overall it works at the level it's aiming at.

Another possible reason FOW seems to have a bad name might be along the lines of the Ashes, in it's original sense. The Colonials have beaten us at our own game, it's the end of the world as we know it!

Why would anyone want to compare success levels? I have one interest in respect to BF and that is quality of product. I am a consumer, not a shareholder, shopkeeper nor an employee.

they do good products, they do bad products.
Increasingly and recently, they are doing more bad than good.

I have been disappointed in the resin 15cwts and all the recent para releases, which gives me low expectations for the future But, Their panthers and their US 105's look exceptionally good. (The us gunners don't appear to have as much of the big head syndrome, so hope springs eternal)

In terms of rules, you are being unfair on FOW as to not using tried and tested rules because everything in them has been used before, not necessarily in ww2 games. It's just that most of it is old hat and is very dated. Just my opinion, but if rules developed from earlier games subsequently incorporated all the things that were missing from the earlier game styles and which FOW mimics, then either FOW is wrong or all the other game styles are wrong.

If you want an evenhanded approach to FOW, It could be this.

If you are a wargamer who wants to do a game like ww2 try FOW.
If you are a wargamer who wants to wargame ww2 try something else.

And I'm a scotsman,. i dont give a dingoe's kidneys about cricket. And if its a cricket analogy you want, they need a draw in the third test to win the ashes, but looks like they will lose the last 3 tests by picking the big headed players.

And a little final say on FOW.

If flames of war was a cricket game, You would roll a dice to see if the batsman hit the ball for runs, before you would roll to see if the bowler bowled the ball onto the wicket. you know thats the wrong way round, but you justify it by designers notes

Only Prussian hussars were battle line cavalry (closed order). All other hussars were trained only in the open order (skirmish) fighting style.

Bugged, by Prussian Hussars.

Talking about this rise in world stature of a produce, one stop shopping, flash advertising…. It doesnt improve the offal McDonalds shuvel into a box under the pretence of it being edible.

Give me a nice home cooked roast any day,

I'm wondering if this is going to make it to 300 posts! Getting close. :-)

I'm wondering if Patrice Vittesse ever gave the game a go?

I'm wondering if Patrice Vittesse ever gave the game a go?

I know Derek has had a bit of a bashing for his views, but his reply to Patrice was actually quite balanced I thought. His suggestion to try the rules before parting with hard earned cash was a very fair comment IMHO and applies to any set of rules of course.

KevanG wrote

Why would anyone want to compare success levels? I have one interest in respect to BF and that is quality of product. I am a consumer, not a shareholder, shopkeeper nor an employee.

Because you're one of the people that think BF are about to implode. Oh, and BF don't have shareholders, they're not a publically listed company like GDub.

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.

If flames of war was a cricket game, You would roll a dice to see if the batsman hit the ball for runs, before you would roll to see if the bowler bowled the ball onto the wicket. you know thats the wrong way round, but you justify it by designers notes

Actually you've got it around the wrong way. The shooter is the bowler, and the target is the batter. After all, the bowler is trying to remove the batter. Roll to see if you're on target, batter rolls to see if he can hit it away, if he misses either he's out, or rolls to see if he can get him out LBW (firepower test)
Sounds like quite a reasonable similie, if you're looking at it the right way.
Again, it's not being done the 'proper' way, so slag it off, regardless of the fact that it works.

Hammerwargames wrote

Talking about this rise in world stature of a produce, one stop shopping, flash advertising…. It doesnt improve the offal McDonalds shuvel into a box under the pretence of it being edible.

Give me a nice home cooked roast any day,

I prefer to thing of GDub as McDonalds, and BF as Subway or Oporto's. Fast food, but still good quality food. Sure it's not gourmet, but it's quick, easy and tasty.

Oh, and a good roast takes all day to cook and eat. So you like your games to go all day as well?

Fred, yes, Dereks original reply was reasonably balanced, although I'm not sure I agree that as a rules set it's as expensive as he made out, unless you're used to the old cheaply produced softcover rulebooks, rather than glossy hardcover books, which is kind of an apples & oranges comparison, regardless of if you like apples and not oranges.

I've always said that FOW is WW2 the movie, and is based more on the stereotypes that people have of WW2.
Organisation wise they present what can be quite a difficult task (without a large historical library), creating historically accurate lists, in a relatively easy format to read. With the move to LW they've begun to tighten down even more on unhistorical combos.

If you look at FOW within it's designed limits, and what it was designed for, it does quite a good job at it.
If you feel you need the microdetails that FOW glosses over, then obviously it's not for you, and there are many systems that suit your preferences.

SturmGrenadies… I dont engage in one off games, I got bord with that years ago. I only play campaigns where battles/games take on an importance lost in one off games. Some of our battles not only last a day but several within the campaign, our currently running ACW is like that. Also the WW2 Stalingrad campaign (using Metal Storm obviously ;o)
is rolling on, it took 4 battles to take a single factory complex and im counter attacking next week!!! my poor Russians…..

Having been quite a big Ancient competition gamer years ago I can understand how FoW has caught on in that sphere as it has an abstractness to it suitable for that sort of thing.
But depth of play doesnt have too mean difficult, long winded or complicated, good rules have to be inovative and blended which is an accusation that cant be leveled at Fow.

KevanG wrote "If flames of war was a cricket game, You would roll a dice to see if the batsman hit the ball for runs, before you would roll to see if the bowler bowled the ball onto the wicket. you know thats the wrong way round"

Actually thats exactly how a cricket game in my possession works! I've got my fathers (1950's) version called 'Howzat' & a more recent one which uses the same mechanism.

Makes sense, too, since in the linear model by which we perceive time, the first event would be the batter's cotact (or non-contact) with the ball, followed by the ball striking (or missing) the wicket.

The gaming analogy would be that, following the same linear model, the gamer first plays Flames of War and *then* criticizes (or praises) it.

Allen

Come on guys, ever heard of a no ball? that is obviously the first potential event, before the batsman even lets go of the ball.

And how can you get a batsman hitting and scoring runs before the bowler has a chance of hitting the wicket or putting in a wide. But your game can justify not having any wides or no balls.

The sequence has to be the action and then the reaction

In cricket, the result of the bowl determines the stroke the player will attempt to play, whether he lets a wide go by or defends the crease. playing it out of sequence and not interacted is not right….in fact, its not cricket either ;-)

Sturmgrendier 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.

Funny thing bout truth. You are telling me I have it wrong, because I am basing my incorrect perceptions on my local group. You, of course, are right because your local group's experience shows you its right…..OKAY….I'll bow down to that logic.

Then you wrote…..

Actually you've got it around the wrong way. The shooter is the bowler, and the target is the batter. After all, the bowler is trying to remove the batter. Roll to see if you're on target, batter rolls to see if he can hit it away, if he misses either he's out, or rolls to see if he can get him out LBW (firepower test)
Sounds like quite a reasonable similie, if you're looking at it the right way.
Again, it's not being done the 'proper' way, so slag it off, regardless of the fact that it works.

From what I can tell from this , You think the guy who shoots first should roll the dice first. I agree, Its called opportunity fire in most rules.

Am I looking at this the right way yet?

The gaming analogy would be that, following the same linear model, the gamer first plays Flames of War and *then* criticizes (or praises) it.

Don't be so sensible.

KevanG, my direct gaming experience is based on gaming in 3 states of Australia, covering about 2500km, and 4 major cities in that area.
That doesn't include gamers I know from other states or internationally. It directly covers 1 club here in Sydney, another in Wodonga, about 4 in Brisbane and 2 in Townsville. Indirectly add another 2 here in Sydney, and another in Canberra.
Out of all those you'd get 1 club in Sydney & Brisbane that regularly play WW2 in any scale or rules apart from FOW.
You can find other rules systems available in small numbers (maybe one copy) at the various LGS in state capitals, in the largest stores. it also doesn't cover the stores that hold games.
Most of the major population centres on the east coast isn't exactly a small % of the sample available in Australia.

As for opportunity fire, once again, it doesn't have what you 'require' in the game, so you don't like it. That's fine, no-one is forcing you to play FOW. I think Opportunity fire can slow the game down, and makes for a rather boring game if no-one is willing to move, lest they get shot to death. So I like FOW. It tends to reward the aggresive player, and the player that considers the terrain and their deployment the best.

Back to the cricket, you keep stretching the analogy. We can discuss the 'proper' order of dice rolls forver and a day, but it's not going to get anywhere. My original comment had nothing to do with the game itself, but the headlines that gave the Ashes it's name.

"In Affectionate Remembrance of ENGLISH CRICKET, which died at the Oval on 29th AUGUST, 1882, Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances R.I.P.
N.B. — The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia."

The colonials are beating us at our own game, it's the end of the world!

BTW, just how many games of FOW have you played? I don't comment on systems I know nothing about because I've heard or read they have rules I don't like.

SG, lack of opurtunity fire is one of the things that keeps FOW a game and not a sim.

It doesnt have to be op fire, but something that can interupt an attackers movement is essencial to accurately model WWII combat.

But as you say, it makes for a slower paced game. As it is, FOW is fast paced, but rewards poor tactics for the period played. Thats OK, it is still fun.

BTW, are you scambleing about looking for more facts to thump rob123 on the head with?? I dont think it is available, as most tankers did not scramble out and measure to see what it was that did not kill them.

But, I am still looking as I do think they will unlock that one in a day or two.

Ah yes, Rob and his magical 122's that can kill anything. I'm leaving that one to the people in that thread who actually calculate such things for a living, or at least used to. Although if I was still in the same town I could get more sense into him face to face than I ever could on a forum :) It's impossible to prove his argument either way.

I think that FOW has certainly moved more towards historical tactics being the secret of success as it's gone along, despite the actual details being somewhat strange at times. In V2 it certainly pays to tie in a good defence with AT, infantry and HMGs.
In some cases you have to use historical tactics, regardless of if you like it or not (Hens & Chicks).
I'm curious about just which tactics you believe are flawed though.
I've certainly played other systems that had such things, and historical tactics were often a guarentee of failure… (Challenger2/2000)

I go, you go is intrinsically a flawed system to get anything resembling historical reality, and I personally don't think opportunity fire makes it any more realistic (or less realistic).
It's just that the only way to get close to reality is either do it out there in person, or in a computer simulation, where everything is
Apart from that it's all a matter of semantics about what's better or worse, which is an intrinsically personal decision.

In one way Defensive fire, combined with the movement rules that block movement near the enemy does give an opportunity to stop their opponents movement with fire.

SturmGrenadier said….I think Opportunity fire can slow the game down, and makes for a rather boring game if no-one is willing to move, lest they get shot to death.

That is just not the case. Just because FoW has completely inappropriate basic mechanics it is wrong to assume that any other way of achieving anything must be unplayable, difficult and/or long winded.

If a game system is used that was originally designed for another period and another game then the foundations will be rickety. What they have done in essence is bolt a Ferrari body shell onto a Ford Mondeo, its not going to perform like it looks.

Opportunity fire or 'over-watch' as I call it can fit seamlessly into the game. But the game has to have been designed from the ground up for the specific use in modern war. The FoW system is a shoot, damage, save game and because of it inherent limitations it has to have a cart load of special rules to cover everything.

+++++++++
An example
Opportunity Fire (Over-Watch) in Metal Storm; Modern; WW2; Sci-Fi; Micro

It is not an I-go-you-go game. Each player's force is divided into units (platoons)
Cards are drawn one at a time to determine which player gets to move one unit of his choice

Units have to stay together, except that support weapons can be dropped off at any time and re-designated as ‘independent' they cannot move from that spot, they automatically assume to be in ‘over-watch'. At any point in between the players moving their individual units an overwatch stand can fire.

At the very start of a turn a whole unit can be marked as being in ‘over-watch'. However it may only fire once as a group during the turn and does not have a regular move.

Armoured vehicles can go' hull down', which is exactly the same as over-watch but has to be in specific terrain to do it.

+++++++++
That is it, its simple, but works very nicely. It is not long winded and most certainly does not slow the game down. The above is one very small example of how the system and mechanics were all designed and mapped out specifically for modern war, the rest of the rules are the same.

Roy

hammerwargames.co.uk

It may not slow the game down with it's rules, but if people are afraid to risk that Opportunity fire, then both players can go into overwatch, and just sit there, waiting for the first person to move so they can shoot them.
It's not the rules slowing things down, it's the players themselves.

I'll admit I haven't got much experience with games that aren't I go You go (Classic Battletech is about it), so I don't know how the different order of units moving would change the dynamics.

It changes the dynamics completely, changes your thinking and makes historical behaviour and tactics work. It isn't slow and isn't complicated and involves interaction between players. It makes players use terrain and covered approaches and makes defenses historical.

you no longer get 10 tanks rushing round a corner into veiw of an anti tank gun they arent actually able to see(and remaining out of veiw of the rest of its platoon) to get 20 difficult shots hoping to wipe it out with numbers before it gets a shot off. the reading between the lines is that their shots are more difficult because they are really responding to the shot the AT gun hasn't actually fired yet. If they actually hit and kill it, it makes a mockery of that design concept

As far as FOW is concerned, I've played one game where I didn't laugh, and all the rest where I have. None of them have had any intensity in them at all. its fun rating is extremely high, especially when the other people are expecting a " movie game" like 'War and Peace' or 'saving private ryan' , but they get Carry on up the kyber.

Such tactics as recce units running around the rear of attacks to stop 'pop up pirate' 88's, and tiger 2's appearing like pacific snipers from spider holes to fire flank shots at shermans.

the hilarity of 25pdrs having to fire indirect self spotting while the guns they fired at could fire direct…..I mean, really think about that one!

All of thsse really provide a lot of fun and I can understand the appeal if you do not take it any way serious

That is just not the case. Just because FoW has completely inappropriate basic mechanics it is wrong to assume that any other way of achieving anything must be unplayable, difficult and/or long winded.

I'm with you on that one Roy (surprise, surprise), but it seems to be a commonly held view among the FoW crowd.

Another personal favourite is the "by their very nature all games must fall short of reality, therefore all games are equally unrealistic" argument that surfaces every time the historicity of FoW is questioned.

It's that common as a logical fallacy that I think it needs a special name. How about "The Flames of War Fallacy"?

Actualy, sitting there afraid to go pretty well sums up RW infantry. Its not a metal peice, its your own assets you have to move. And the defender always gets that first shot off, unless you smoke him.

So inorder to manuever on the enemy, you first have to establish fire superiority. If FoW just did shoot, move assault, it would work much more realistic. But as you say, much slower.

And yes I am getting tired of showing RW examples that he basicly ignores. He seems to think that the explosive in a 122 is somehow more powerful than any other charge in any weapon.