"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

The whole game is completely changed by using the 'interwoven move' instead of u-go-I-go move. Added to this the fact that units can move then shoot or shoot then move, the unpredictability is complete. there are so many things that can happen in a single turn in the MS method. Because you dont know when you will be able to move a unit you cant micro plan a move.

If all this is also woven into the firing results and mission resolve (thinking mans morale)then you have a game system that allows you room to do acurate attacks and defence. And all of if is governed by troop quality, so that veterans really are good and not just because an arbitary extra dice or +1 is given to them, that is very surfacy. The quality of troops manifests itself in movement and mission resolve as well as their ability to fire more effectively. As an example, better quality troops dont suffer the effects of being shot at quite so much and also have longer ranges when engaging the enemy.

So u-go-I-go compared to interwoved moves is like draughts to chess. And most importantly it doesnt require lots of special rules that are tacked on all over the place.

Just as a little extra detail on how all the fascets of the rules are interwoven.

The mission resolve (morale) isnt based on pure casualties like so many. Because a turn involves units moving partly at the players choice and partly by random card draw each segment of a move (one unit moving firing) is itself a complete action in the turn. So that it is normal for a single unit to have several enemy units fire at it at various points in the game turn. Every time some form of hit is scored it tests mission resolve (and this is very simple) units surrender when a set number of mission resolve test are failed.

So, and this is one of the big differences to any other rules, it is worse to have 3 different enemy units score go-to-grounds (like a pin) than it is to have one enemy hit and kill a single stand.

This is what I call 'immediate local perceived threat level' which means that the officers/troops decision to quit the fight is about the quality and quantity of the level of threat it is under at that time. So its quite possible for poor quality troops to surrender having sustained no 'Killed stands' but having come under fire from all directions. The beauty is that its all so very simple to play.

Strum grenadier wrote….

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.

And I reply

Some games actually dont allow you the option of stopping at a whim outside the range of enemy you cannot see. They incorporate command control. Spearhead is an example of that type of game

then strumgrenadier wrote.

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.

And I reply….Go find out, try some, you'll come across some real turkeys, but you will come across really interesting stuff too. THEN you will know what it is that people dislike about the style of FOW

regarding games of FOW, Played one where I didnt laugh and had a bit of shock, after that, it was mostly hilarious, with recon running about at the rear of attacks to avoid pop up flak 88,s and Marder 3's acting like jap snipers in spider holes.

the most ridiculed moment came when a 25pdr and 88mm flak had to engage each other. the 25pdr had to use self spotted indirect fire and the 88 could fire direct. the 25pdr was outside direct fire range….but the 88mm was in direct fire range…..think about this and think of the sliding scale, then think about line of sight. If one can see the other to fire direct, then they can see back!

"the most ridiculed moment came when a 25pdr and 88mm flak had to engage each other. the 25pdr had to use self spotted indirect fire and the 88 could fire direct. the 25pdr was outside direct fire range….but the 88mm was in direct fire range…..think about this and think of the sliding scale, then think about line of sight. If one can see the other to fire direct, then they can see back!"

Seeing is not the same as hitting. The example makes sense to me because the 88 has a flat trajectory; the 25pdr does not. The 25pdr has to fire self-spotted, because the rounds will arc before impact. The 88mm can fire over open sights, because the velocity of the projectile means there is much less elevation for the 88mm projectiles.

Seeing is, however, the same as seeing….. and if one gun can fire direct, so can the other, even if the arc is sharper. Since 25pdrs did fire out to visible range in direct fire mode in the desert, it isnt a hypothetical situation. It is fairly well known that 25pdrs were not outranged in direct fire by 88's in the desert. And in fact this was universally true for even the short barrelled italian 75's through to the large 155's. and since direct fire is likely to get closer to the target, you desired more mobility when on the receiving end in direct fire range hence, portee's of all sorts of guns including howiters, feild guns and anti tank guns.
Optical sighting worked for both guns. The method of fire is exactly the same in the range band expressed by the 88's direct fire range limit. What has happened here is that , for the 25pdr, the sliding scale effect has resulted in the horizon being considered closer to it than it is for the 88.

As someone said at the time, these rules dont even keep the curvature of the earth consistant. the more flippant comments revolved around questioning whether the game was actually set on Planet Earth.

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"?

"Seeing is, however, the same as seeing….. and if one gun can fire direct, so can the other, even if the arc is sharper. […] It is fairly well known that 25pdrs were not outranged in direct fire by 88's in the desert. And in fact this was universally true for even the short barrelled italian 75's through to the large 155's"

Large 155's? Equal to 88's? I'm not defending the FoW rules (I'm not familiar with them, and only going by the examples given here), but criticism based on 155's not being equal to 88's in direct fire doesn't seem reasonable.

in their ability to see the target and their mode and method for direct fire, yes. In terms of shell effect, and indirect fire obviously not,

Agree with kev. Pretty much any field artillery could lob a shell for 4 kilometers. Go outside now, even if you live in the country. Can you see 4 kilometers? Nahh. If you can see 4 kilometers, can you make out that a target is enemy?

Yes, and yes. I'd elaborate, but I'm not sure whether we're seeking information or argument on this thread.

Allen

One thing that I like in a debate is consistency. FoW advocates us the term 'it's a fun game' to explain rickety rule mechanics, but then try to use realism/historical cherry picked anecdotes to explain other wobbly bits. This isn't consistent; it's either a game-game or an attempted simulation. There must be quite a few that play FoW that have played other rules, but there must be many more that have not. The gamers that don't like FoW appear to be those that have a good bit of experience in gaming WW2 using many sets of rules other the years. This tells a very clear tale….

Actualy, KevanG, seeing is not quite seeing, when it is through a direct fire sight.

In WWII arty direct fire only went out to about 900m to maybe 1600m, depending on weapon and sight system used. After that they went into something called direct aiming. This is a sort of indirect, but each gun adjusts itself. It is not as fast as direct fire, but faster than true indierect. Somewhere around 2500m, even this was no longer possible due to the relatively poorer optics, and they shifted over to self adjusted indirect fire.

Now a crusty old Sgt, that had lots of practice could get pretty good at direct aiming. And I will certainly grant that if anybodsy had the chance to get that experience, it was 8th army 25lb gunners. But it was not as good as true direct fire.

Kevan, there are a number of technical reasons why this is so. If yoiu like, I can go into a number of them, but most people start getting glassy eyed when I get off into external balistics.

So, BF is sort of right, the 88 could do true direct fire farther than the 25lber. But they are sort of wrong as well, in that there was something else they could do.

Kevan, there are a number of technical reasons why this is so. If yoiu like, I can go into a number of them, but most people start getting glassy eyed when I get off into external balistics.

I'm interested. What are the differences between direct fire, direct aiming and self-adjusted indirect fire

Derek, in direct fire, you just compenste for drop, the arc the projectile makes as it goes through the air. Aim on line, adjust for range and bang.

In direct aiming, you basicly do a similar routine, but you know that you will be short and wide, as you are over the end of the scale for weapon. Once you spot the round land, you make a guess at the adjustment. You can see the round land, as it is always done with HE, as AP does not have enough velocity left to penetrate much.

The things that direct aiming does not correct for include drift, which is caused by the spinning of the round as it flys down range, and is more pronounced at the end of a trajectory. Weather effects that include wind speed and direction, as well as preasure and temp.

Most of these things are known to gamers. Some of the less well known ones include wear of the tube, which cause the muzzle velocity to be lower than it should. The curveture of the earth also effects where a round lands, as well as the fact that the earth actualy rotates out from underneath something that has been throw into the air.

Now some of these things dont effect the round that much, but they can add up to a large difference. And the longer the range, the more they effect it. In DF, they make little difference in accuracy, but they can effect velocity which does effect penetration.

In Direct aiming, they effect the round, but not enough to calculate individualy. You just get the first one out there, and then hope to adjust from there. By the time you get way out there, you need to make the initial corrections, or you may never get on target. Thats when you go to indirect.

One of the reasons self adjusted indirect is good is called angle-T. This is the angle formed by the observer-target line intersecting the gun-target line. When this angle gets large, you have a harder time adjusting. When you are self adjusting, it is zero.

I hope this made some sense. It is like giveing directions to your own house, you know it so well, you leave things out. If anything sounds odd, let me know and I will try to do better.

If you want real wierdness, try out tube memory

i always thought tube memory was an obvious side effect, of inbuilt differences in the cooling time and thermal gradients when forming barrels. the russians used it to determine what weapons would be sniper rifles. Its just a pattern of repeatable imperfections in the barrel length which have then caused non uniform wear which "settles" down to a constant inaccuracy.

Its natural, like river channel erosion, it finds its own path

Kevan, we are discussing different things here.

A projo will tend to have a velocity in the direction of the last round fired. Meaning that if I fire a charge 5, then follow with a charge 6, that first 6 I fire will be slightly slower than it should be. If instead, I go from 5 to 4, the charge 4 will be slightly faster.

It only lasts for 1 round, and not for very long. Thats a bit vague, but then it is a very poorly understood occurance.

It is not voodoo, there is a reason for it, just none of the bright boys have figured it out yet. It is also only a few meters/second, so its not huge.

But it is annoying, because we dont know why. Thiis is after all the 21 century, and we dont like unexplained things like that.

Hammer Wargames,

I have played more sets of WWII rules at all scales than I can remember.

The one thing that sets FoW apart is its simplicity and speed of play and the ability to find an opponent on a regular basis.

Every other wwii rule set I have ever played had to be played at either conventions or quarterly club events. Usually with a large amount of relearning the rules at each event and having to proxy models and scales to make it work.

I am 42 years old. I attended my first gaming convention in 1978 when I was 14. It was the Pacific Convention of the Wargamers Society (Pacificon) at the Dunffey Hotel in San Mateo, CA, USA.

Not until FoW have I ever seen any rule system played as much. Not since FoW have I seen any rule system play so well. I personally have problems with abstraction and sliding ground and time scale. But that is because I play more simulations than games on a regular basis. That does not discount the fact that FoW is able to provide realistic results with historical forces.

That is the true test. How the mechanics work do not matter. The fact that they produce realistic results is all that matters. The fact that you can play a company sized or even battalion sized game of FoW in less than weekend and not requiring the use of the local Gymnasium or parking lot is enough to sell me.

The arguments that you and Derek use to deride and insult and demean FoW and people that play it are merely Elitist and nothing more than your opinion. Just like my opinion on how and why I like FoW is merely just 'My Opinion'.

So Roy, you own a competing product and should not be throwing stones. I looked into your rules and liked what I saw. I unfortunately cannot find an opponent anywhere near me.

Derek, I do not know why you even care enough to talk about FoW since you do not actually play the game. Therefore your attacks are now suspect as well.

Me, I liked FoW so much after a year of reading about it, playing it and complaining about it, that I volunteered to help make it better and periodically work as a volunteer proofreader on some of the BF books. So my opinion is also suspect.

Yet it was I that lead the revolt against BF's original proposed Qualifier scheme and tournament focused only marketing plan. BF and FoW are not perfect, never will be. But we as customers have the ability to buy a product and make it our own. BF has not right or ability to tell us how to play our game once we own it.

So if you have a problem with FoW and any of its rules, the real problem is you have to little an imagination to make it better. So instead of having fun, you would rather come here and complain.

Quite sad in reality. Some people like Chess, some like Checkers, some like poker, some like pinochle. It is all about opinions and personal taste. None are better than any other, just different.

FoW has found a way to appeal to a broader segment of the population. I am happy they have done that, it is bringing in more young players, something that would never have happened without them.

Young players that play FoW learn about history. They can't help themselves. We as older players have a chance to welcome them into a great hobby and slowly show them there are other flavors out there besides vanilla.

To me, ice cream is ice cream. Vanilla, Choc, Mint, Strawberry, etc. It is a sweet desert.

FoW is merely a game, just like any other. Plain and simple.

Chris

Yep, nothing like sweeping generalisations not backed up by any empirical evidence or other reserach when people want to incessantly criticise something which, for some reason or other, becomes what seems like a crusade. Question is, does the relentless flow of criticism ever add much to the debate – no. Does it continually clutter threads which often make it clear they are not seeking the negative pile-in that so often occurs – yes. Does it get MINDNUMINGLY boring – YES!!!!

The one thing that sets FoW apart is its simplicity and speed of play and the ability to find an opponent on a regular basis.

Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise….

Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency….

Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope….

Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise….

I'll come in again.

Seriously though. The only thing in your list that sets FoW apart from any number of other WWII rules systems is the ease of finding players. And where I live that's not true either.

Out of the club that derek goes to, 85 members strong, I know of one person who has played Flames of war…..and he didnt play it at that club.

WWiiogre
But we as customers have the ability to buy a product and make it our own. BF has not right or ability to tell us how to play our game once we own it. So if you have a problem with FoW and any of its rules, the real problem is you have to little an imagination to make it better. So instead of having fun, you would rather come here and complain.

If you have read my posts properly you will see that my comments are solely aimed at the core mechanics that have been used, ones which were originally designed, not for any modern period, but for fantasy/sword & spear and then codged up for sci-fi. I tried, within the debate, to be constructive and offered alternatives and examples to emphasise my points, which edges my view more towards the constructive.

So in one sense you are absolutely right in your assumption that I haven't the imagination to make it better, just as its difficult fathoming a way to lay bricks on custard. In your neck of the woods it may be the only game that is played, but I wouldn't eat tough steak because everyone else in the restaurant was happy to do so. I bought the rule book when it came out so became a customer, so I am entitled to an opinion on the product.

I dont hate the game in any way, i'm amused buy it more than anything. I read the rules analised them, played games and formed an opinion, much as you have done; but it suits your interest and expectations not mine, but we are both customers.

"There must be quite a few that play FoW that have played other rules, but there must be many more that have not. The gamers that don't like FoW appear to be those that have a good bit of experience in gaming WW2 using many sets of rules other the years. This tells a very clear tale…."

There by implying that those who like FoW have no experience with other games. I have been playing WWII since 1970. I leteraly cannot remember all of the rule sets I have played, from some of the most detailed to some of the most simplistic. Yet because I like FOW, I must be inexperienced, according to your above statement.

FOW is not GRRREEEEAAATTTTT. They are an OK set, with many flaws. But it is fast, and it is popular.There are some moderately terrible games out there. And I dont see you guys ranting about them. Why?? Probably because about 6 people total play themSo wheres the fun in busting on them?

So it must be its popularity that angers you the most. If it is just poor rules, there have been a ton of them over the years. But it is FOW that draws the fire.

Well it went over 300 posts! :-)

Badger22,

I think you hit the nail on the head with the popularity issue.

If we assume that Game X sucks, but only 3 or 4 people play it, then its no big deal that these people are obviously mentally impaired in some way, and that they have not seen the light and played the better systems out there. However, as there are only a couple, no one wastes too much time trying to convert them, it isn't worth the effort.

Since Flames of War sucks, and hundreds of people play it, this is obviously some form of dementia that is striking our population, and we cannot have that many people debasing themselves with such an inferior product, and they must be shown the light. :)

On a serious note, I think that is what the big fuss is. I personally don't like FOW, I think that it is a terrible simulation for WWII, and I like Command Decision, and want more people to play it, and so, yes, I will try and convince others to stop playing FOW and play Command Decision.

Others out there will try to convince them to play Spearhead or Blitzkrieg Commander, or their home rules, or whatever they feel is a better game.

I think that a large number of people playing something other than your own chosen set is almost an attack on your rules set – the idea that if YOUR rules set was any good, then why aren't more people playing it.

IMHO, that is why FOW draws so many detractors – a combination of sheer annoyance that others don't see how brilliant the other rules sets are, and a defensiveness about those other rules sets.

Mr badger,

You could be right about the popularity thing. As you say, It has many flaws. But it is fast and it is popular….Rapid Fire falls into the same catagory..you just dont get people coming up recomending FOW that way.

Its always the best set of rules ever produced and is the best set for anyone starting up ww2 and everyone should do FOW because we will get to do Late war soon and then Early war after that. Other sets are critiscised for production levels or support or being slow, when they actually have as good production, as much support as you need and are as fast or faster. Most people will say why they like a set of rules, but because its popular and fast isnt really a strong arguement for taking up a new hobby/period. A Lot of things in life can be described as popular and fast, but unlike cheerleaders, maybe this doesn't need to mean shallow as well.

I said….

There must be quite a few that play FoW that have played other rules, but there must be many more that have not.

Badger22 said in reply….

There by implying that those who like FoW have no experience with other games, Yet because I like FOW, I must be inexperienced, according to your above statement.

Badger22….I think the above example might be the problem, I dont think you really read others posts and think about what they have actually said. It is in the many threads on here that I have read, that many new gamers are said to be moving into WW2 because of FoW, in fact it is waved as one of the best points of the game. So based on what FoW players have heralded as being a positive, I thought my comment was relatively accurate.

Roy,

Why are you surprised that intelligent people would take your above comment as an insult. Literally there is no other way to take that whole paragraph.

Roy wrote:

"There must be quite a few that play FoW that have played other rules, but there must be many more that have not. The gamers that don't like FoW appear to be those that have a good bit of experience in gaming WW2 using many sets of rules other the years. This tells a very clear tale…."

I play with and against many FoW players. Not a single one of them was a new gamer when they started FoW. Most of them had years and years of gaming experience. A good majority of them had decades of gaming experience.

Your assertion that people with experience are the majority that don't like FoW is funny. Because I find that the majority of players that play and like FoW have experience and years of it playing other games and systems.

Some people criticize FoW for the amount of dice rolled. Statistically speaking, the more dice you roll the closer you will get to the true average with less chance for extreme results to play a part in the procedure.

Meaning, the more dice you roll the more realistic the results. I think FoW needs to add some different ranges so certain weapons systems will be more unique. I think FoW needs lots of things. But I like the mechanics, I like the d6 over any other dice.

After playing just a few games I can remember the mechanics and the adjustments instead of needing to look up every single unit each time I move or shoot with it or if it takes a hit.

So FoW is not to your taste Roy or Derek. Great, make a topic about the games you love. Tell us about how great they are, tell us where we can find opponents.

FoW got its start by giving away the rules or at least the basic form of the rules with a free download. They gave away the rules when they changed to Version 2. That is a customer friendly business.

Can I get your rules free Roy? See if I like them? Can I get a copy of CD or PBI free? Can I even find anyone who plays those games near me?

oh well, I just wasted some disk space on the server I am sure.

Chris

Ogre, I normally agree with alot that you post, but this one got me thinking.

Statistically speaking, the more dice you roll the closer you will get to the true average with less chance for extreme results to play a part in the procedure.

This is true.

Meaning, the more dice you roll the more realistic the results.

This logic would be based on an assumption that the system is set up to give realistic results. I agree with the first paragraph of this quote, but the second part is up for discussion.

ww2 ogre wrote….Can I get your rules free Roy? See if I like them? Can I get a copy of CD or PBI free? Can I even find anyone who plays those games near me?

YES!>>>>

You can download PBI quick start from the peter pig website.

And roy offered me his rules free for me to comment on…but I just bought them. I would say that FOW has given some good effects. It has encouraged some other rule sets to up market themselves (PBI) and rule writers like Roy to go do their own innovative thing.

As for finding someone to play? Try asking one of your regular opponents! you may get a surprise! They can't be entrenched from trying something new or they would never have started FOW in the first place would they?

I think that a large number of people playing something other than your own chosen set is almost an attack on your rules set – the idea that if YOUR rules set was any good, then why aren't more people playing it.

Not as far as I'm concerned.

The large number of people playing FoW is no more an attack on my favourite rules than the large number of people eating at McDonalds is an attack on my favourite restaurant.

And the large number of people watching I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here is not an attack on my favourite television show either.

You get the idea.

Fred wrote

Well it went over 300 posts! :-)

Lets go for the 400.

Derek,

I was only giving possible explanations for the vehemence that people who dislike FOW seem to have for it. It doesn't apply to everyone (myself included)

However, to indulge in the metaphor for a moment longer:

"And the large number of people watching I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here is not an attack on my favourite television show either"

Unless the crappy show in question is up against your show in the ratings. If large numbers of people watch the crappy show, they are de facto NOT watching your show, which will lead to bad ratings, withdrawal of sponsors, perhaps cancellation.

Ah, I'm just blathering at this point. I agree with your posts Derek, I personally think that FOW might be a great game, but its a crap simulation – and since that is what I'm looking for, FOW does not suit my needs.

I just get upset when people on both sides try and blast each others games or support their own games for something their not.

Is FOW fast? Yes
Is it fun? Yes
Is it popular? Yes
Does it have pretty pictures? Yes
Is it modelled after history? Yes

It is silly for detractors of FOW to try to attack FOW for these points.

Does it give you an accurate feel for WWII tactics? No
Is it realistic in its ground scale? No
Is it easy? No, there are far too many special rules to remember to be considered "easy"

I think it is silly for fans of FOW to try and defend FOW on these points.

Game players – one side of the room, people who want a more accurate/realistic game (which does NOT automatically = not fun) to the other.

Why do I have to go to one or the other?? Thats my problem with Hammer. I cant like a good game one day, and a good simulation the next.

In fact, I am a total heritic, I play WWII, Napoleonics, Naval games, and (GASP) even RPGs from time to time.

But because I do like FoW, I am not to be considered an experienced or seriuos gamer.

No wonder some of the youner gamers are hesitant to deal with older gamers, they are getting way to grouchy and closed minded.

Some people criticize FoW for the amount of dice rolled. Statistically speaking, the more dice you roll the closer you will get to the true average with less chance for extreme results to play a part in the procedure.

Meaning, the more dice you roll the more realistic the results. I think FoW needs to add some different ranges so certain weapons systems will be more unique. I think FoW needs lots of things. But I like the mechanics, I like the d6 over any other dice.

It is true that the more dice you role the more the result tends towards the average (mean). But that's got nothing to do with realism. If the model you're using is unrealistic then you'll get silly results out of it however many dice you roll.

And, by the way, something is either unique, "Of which there is only one; one and no other; single, sole, solitary." (Oxford English Dictionary), or it is not unique.

There are no degrees of uniqueness. The phrase "more unique" is nonsense.

Is FOW fast? Yes
Is it fun? Yes
Is it popular? Yes
Does it have pretty pictures? Yes

I'm with you so far.

Is it modelled after history?

No.

Derek,

I say that FOW is modelled after history in that the combatants are the actual participants of WWII. FOW does not have a Martian army list or a Prussian army list, and although it does allow you to fight blue on blue battles, so does every other game system out there if you chose to play it that way. (mind you, I wouldn't, but that's me)

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.

Are FoW rule books hard cover now? The ones I have I would describe as card cover, firm, but not hard! :-) I don't have V 2 yet though.
Actually I would say FoW is expensive in contrast to other glossy rule books. PBI has card covers, glossy full colour pics and even company lists in the back all for £16.00 GBP Blitzkreig Commander similarly. The FoW books are very well produced with lots of eye candy, but to get a full set with all the list from early to late war (when they finally do them all) will cost a lot.

FOW does not have a Martian army list or a Prussian army list,

Would it make much difference?

The FoW books are very well produced with lots of eye candy, but to get a full set with all the list from early to late war (when they finally do them all) will cost a lot.

It will cost a blooming fortune.

At Caliver Books, who normally charge the going rate in the UK, the rules will cost you £30.00 GBP and the two middle war compilations come in at at £20.00 GBP each. The D-1 book costs £13.00 GBP

That's £83.00 GBP so far. ($155 for those of you ordering direct from Battlefront in the USA)

Then they are promising us another eight (IIRC) late war books, £104.00 GBP (or $200) if they're the same price as D-1.

After that they will probably follow up with about the same number of books for the early war.

And just how many books will they manage to get out of the Pacific war?

It's going to cost an awful lot of money for a set of wargames rules.

wiiogre… then youand your experienced must fall in the category of the first part of what I wrote… the…. 'There must be quite a few that play FoW that have played other rules'.
Its the FoW advocates that keeps saying that FoW is introducing many new players to the hobby… hence the comment 'there must be many more that have not' (that have not played lots of other rules)' again… a fair assumption on what people have said on here.
Again the observation that it's the more experienced players that don't care for FoW would also be an obvious assumption as new players wouldn't have anything to compare it too. The comments are hardly insulting are they?
I am beginning to think that you want to read unwarranted comment in my posts when it's simply not there, just logical observations.
As far as your comment

Can I get your rules free Roy? See if I like them? Can I get a copy of CD or PBI free?

No you cant get them free and at £12.00 GBP for a rule book that contains the whole and complete rule system for all theatres of WW2 (also all modern war if you choose the modern book) They cost the price of 2 medium pizzas or 3 issues of wargame Illustrated that ends up in the bin or two Skytrex 15mm tanks! Hardly a major financial commitment compared to other rule books/required supplements.
I originally wrote them for myself and a few friends. Then put them on sale on my web site, they are for pin money to buy stuff on eBay. I can honestly say I've been amazed at the take up from all over the world. But that aside it doesn't bar me from having an opinion in a debate does it?

So FoW is not to your taste Roy or Derek. Great, make a topic about the games you love. Tell us about how great they are

I did try bringing up a discussion on MS and was lambasted by some self appointed thread police on here for being over pushy… It was only a few out of thousands who visit and just read what's going on. The ones that attacked me actually boosted the sales of the rules to the highest they had been, which I thank them for. ;o)

For some people,(not me)the fun in gaming is getting a nice book full of pic's and flavor. The fact that the actual rules or army lists could fit on the centre pages is irrelevent.

Now i like to have a good book to read on the bog, and FOW fits the bill. Warhammer Codexes were the same, when your not gaming you can read about gaming! w00t!

When playing FOW I apparently have a face like a "sucked lemon" as i struggle to abstract whats happening on the table into a semblence of realism, but not all gamers are like me. For a sizable portion of wargamers, its about collecting, anticipating a release, debating points values, dreaming of new ways to "build" a army. this is as much, if not more fun for some people than playing a realistic game.

I wont ever produce rules that need supplements 'cos i beleive players should cough up the dosh once and be able to play the game without any maintanence outlay. Any additional stuff can be stuck on a website for free.

Battlefront however cater for the gamers who love to collect and read and tinker,and if they diddnt do it…who would?

Tommy you aree certainly right about part of that. I love to collect complete MTOE units, not just the cool shooty bits.

And the great part is, I can play any game with them. So when the next big craze sweeps through, I will have everything I need.

When the subject has been so far degraded that WWII camouflage schemes are identified in terms of fantasy paint names, it's clearly time to take the sidearm out of its holster and end it all. The battle is lost.

link

Sending off for Mike Starmer's books was obviously a waste of money, since I'm pretty sure he doesn'y identify colors as "snot green" or "ghoul grey".

Allen

My guess would be that BF is trying to make the crossover for the GW fanboys a less painful one?
Wow, we can keep this thread alive. It could be a contender.

Well, then the next step is to just go ahead and label a Soviet Guards unit as an 'Ardboyz Batal'yon, pioneers or engineers with flamethrowers as Fire Dragons (posters already refer to "flamers" on the board), and paras as Raptors. That should make the transition even more smooth.

Allen

What's wrong with using GW paint names? It must be nice living in an area where Vallejo paints are freely available, or to be able to afford to buy the more specialist ranges.

Out here in the boonies I've got either GW or mail order. So, given GW paints are of a good enough quality, I generally use them. It means I support my local hobby shop (mostly GW) and means the local students with whom I play can get an instant feel for what colours are needed. Mail order when living in a multi-occupancy house can be problematic.

FoW does have its faults, doubtless. I don't know, I haven't yet played. But it gets people involved – there's a half dozen ex-GW players at my club slavvering over Shermans, T34s etc.

Sometimes I wonder if some people want the hobby to survive at all.

Me? I'll play anything. If I don't like the rules, I'll try to introduce them to PBI, IABSM or something else. But first you have to get the players buying the models and FoW is going to do that better than anything else.

I've got a few books, and they are expensive. But looking at them from a newbies POV, they have some modelling info in them and they tell you how to paint your figures – in V1 using GW paints (amongst others) available nationwide here. The rules simply offer a more complete start into wargaming than any others I've known.

Finally, as I think I've mentioned before, I like the fact that the minor nations get a look in. Too many rules (still) seem to think only four of five nations took part in WW2, which is ahistorical also….

*sigh* a Strelkovy batalon is an Imperial Guard unit.

The quantity of the Russians and the desperation of berzerkers.

Allen, actually they tend to give the units their proper titles.

Where as other, lesser rules use ahistorical titles for there units, FoW does at least ask me to field a Panssarikomppania or indeed to use your example Strelkovy company.

So you'd have to look elsewhere for your unreasoning hatred other than GW-ificiation of unit names. They're more historically accurate on that score than any other rule set in print.

Allen,

The Valhallan IMperial Guard would have to be the Strelkovy boys. I am dating myself at this point.