"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

So I start page 8 of this thread, eh? Wow, such an accomplishment.

The Valhallan Imperial Guard would be the closest tot eh Strelkovy Batalon. I am dating myself by the previous statement…

one for you Allen ;o)

picture

Allen, what's wrong with using GW colour names as a base reference?

My club is university based. Most of its members are students, with accomodation and finances to match. They can't afford flashy Vallejo paints which are tricky to get hold of in the UK – mail order can be a pain if in multi-occupancy housing.

We have a small hobby shop that sells GW – ideal. Good cheapish paints which can be got on a Saturday morning when you've run out of black.

The students discovered FoW on their own, and I'll start playing soon. Would they have picked up PBI? Probably not. Or indeed any rules only really avaialble via mail order? No. But a flashy set of rules, complete with articles on painting and modelling terrain will get them interested.

Are there better rules out there? Undoubtedly. But they're not pulling in young blood. I'll play FoW to cement these kids into the hobby and if necessary get them playing IABSM or some such.

From the outpourings of bile it would appear some people are against having 'fun' with toy soldiers and definitely don't want newbies in the hobby.

As for 'fantasy' names for units, ironically FoW is more historical in this regard than any other rules set, using foreign titles like strelkovy or indeed panassarikomppanie. I bet your rules use ahistorical titles like 'Soviet Infantry' or 'Finnish Armour'…

For shame!

Bangorstu

The vallejo are similar to model master…the ones that FOW sell, hardly difficult to get. I switched to them because they are such good value. Any show I go to has about 6 stalls flogging them and they never seem to dry up, unlike the gw stuff in pots.

They cant afford flashy paints, but can buy flashy rules. (your discription)

Doesn't this just suggest they have been ripped off?

I also doubt your student chums just decided to do FOW off threir own bat, someone somewhere will have said have a go, just like you could with BKC or some other set that you play. It is some sort of urban myth that people will not play other rules. I've never known anyone to say they wouldnt play something because it wasn't by their fantasy game supplier or the like. Most people are willing to give any game a shot to see if it is ok.

Rmember, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. you will actually know tht FOW isnt the only ww2 rules. how many of your students know that?

"My club is university based. Most of its members are students, with accomodation and finances to match. They can't afford flashy Vallejo paints…"

I'll bet you a beer that not many of them lack a cell phone and an iPod! Poor students…

"…which are tricky to get hold of in the UK – mail order can be a pain if in multi-occupancy housing."

As Kevan said, they don't seem to be in short supply at British shows.

"We have a small hobby shop that sells GW – ideal."

Oh, the irony. Because as we all know, GW's toys are so very affordable! And Kevan is quite right: with the mistakes that GW have made with their paint ranges over the years, they can't really be called economical. Has anyone suggested to your shop owner that he carry a better range of paints? Certainly, if he can get FoW products for them he can get the Vallejo FoW sets.

And my point had to do with the GW background of these new players. I really can't speak to your poverty-stricken young seekers of wisdom (tell me I'm wrong about the iPods?), but these people on the FoW forum are coming from a GW background--yours aren't, being pristine, virginal gamers; I understand--and treat FoW the same way: as an exercise in min-maxing and a pursuit of the newest and kewlest.

The use of furrin names doth not an historical game make. Battlefront's use of terminology often falls down due to an apparent lack of actual knowledge of the languages, even their presumed native one. Vide the Battlefront staff claiming Welsh descent not knowing the difference between "Lloyd" and "Loyd".

And the punters are usually so confused by the foreign words presented (they certainly can't spell them to save their souls, but they can't spell common English words, so that's expected) that they have to shorten and jargonize them to manage. Ask some of your pursuers of higher education, and see how well Russian or Romanian or Hungarian military nomenclatures roll off their tongues. Have they learned anything from having funny words set before them?

My complaint is really not with Battlefront, though, because they do try. But the punters aptly show that as in all human endeavour, things will be rapidly brought down to the lowest common denominator. And in this day and age, that can be depressingly low.

If you're really concerned for saving a few pence for the pockets of your local lads, then perhaps it would be virtuous to turn them on (and turn on your hobby shop) to affordable, single-volume WWII games such as BKC or PBI II (although the latter unfortunately pretty much sets the lowest common denominator when it comes to the use of language). They can still buy Battlefront toys--probably not even needing so many--but can save a good bit on rules. And as head-in-the-clouds gown types, they won't have to mingle with the degenerate former GW types who bring down the level of discourse to comedic loutishness.

Allen

"The Valhallan Imperial Guard would be the closest tot eh Strelkovy Batalon. I am dating myself by the previous statement…"

*You're* dating yourself? I refused to buy Valhallans, or Tallarn, or any of them, because they didn't look like proper IG. If they didn't come in a big box of plastic bits, by golly, who needed them?

Allen

Obviously students never go short of life's essentials, such as alcohol…

In this case, the initiator saw a copy of the rules at a show and picked them up and got hooked. The flashy cover did it.

Yes, I'm aware that Vallejo paints have a good reputation, but you say pick them up at shows…

Here in North wales, there aren't that many to go to. And, given say a spend of £20.00 GBP per show (students…) probably they'll pick up the tanks rather than the paints. Even if they did stock up, they'd run out which is why they'd make do with GW in extremis.

I say again, what's wrong with giving out GW-orientated info? Or are only those of us fortunate enough to be able to find Vallejo allowed to game WW2?

You say the rules are expensive. Maybe so, but not to someone who plays Warhammer. Nor do I call £30.00 GBP expensive for something that'll last – I spend £6.00 GBP going to the cinema.

As for foreign words – one of our players is Swiss. Oddly enough the Germans isn;t a problem. I'm the only nutter taking on the Finns. The Russian player does use correct temrinology, though he's a linguist.

I will try out other rules sets with them once I've given FoW a go. But the trick is to get them to play in the first place, and I see FoW doing a better job in that regard than PBI.

How did he afford them with his 20 quid limit?

and 30 quid is the current combined price for PBI2 and Battlegroup panzergrenadier rulesets, both of which are Hardcovers.

I think battlefront give a paint schedule for alternatives which include the games workshop varient paint colours. i don't think anyone has any problem with anybody using any GW paint, I really like their yellow and red shades for napoleonics and their flesh stain is good. BUT the vallejo are actually cheaper than the GW ones and actually seem to last forever and are specific colours for ww2 stuff.

I am sure the vallejo are actually wonka's everlasting gobstopper paints.

I would agree that FOW does a better job than PBI in terms of marketing (getting kids playing a ww2 based game), but I doubt martin is greatly concerned about that.

Wow, go away for a Tournament and it goes on for 2 more pages!

My only comment back to Kevan about my experience with rules is that I'm not the one going into topics and commenting on rules system that I have no/minimal knowledge about. I keep my comments to those systems I know instead.

As for paints, BF understand that a large % of their market either already has GDub paints, or only has GDub paints easily available locally. It's also part of why they sell prepackaged Vallejo paints in the 'correct' colours.

PS: as a level of success for FOW, there were 64 players for a 3 day event last weekend, only other WW2 game I saw played (at the largest gaming convention in Australia) was a demo game of Rapid Fire in 20mm. DBm had about 40 or 50, Confrontation had maybe 30, along with 50 odd each for KiddyK & WHFB.

Earlier than I forcaste but its started….;o)

auction

Those are the old books Roy. Someone is off loading them to fund the purchase of the new ones – well partially fund! :-) Although he hasn't got ant bids yet.

Four old books and one very new one. D-1 has not been out long at all.

I think Roy's reading a bit much into it though.

Kevan – his parents bought him the rules last christmas I think. I agree the Vallejo paints are probably a better wya to go, but that doesn't help you when you run out of a colour mid-week and mail order takes a while.

I was just commenting on osmeone's horror that BF had the temerity to use a colour chart that used the most common hobby paint range available.

Bottom line – I went to the club yesterday and found to my astonishment (haven't been in a while due to work) that from a base of zero I've now got seven WW2 players eager for a game. I call that progress.

The ebay thing was a leg pull…. like the Tetrach pic I made that up ;o)

I use all kinds of paint from all kinds of manufacturers and have never needed a WW2 painting guide in my life and the stuff aint bad.

With this 'its all done for youwargaming' Soon they will be supplying a little clockwork arm and hand to paint the stuff too.

In fact if it really catches on, the 'all in a box, supper fast, dont have to read anything else system'. You could just pay a monthly subscription and some other blokes play the game and let you know the result by email while you go shopping with er-in-doors and everyones happy.. ;o)

Two years ago I started into FoW. At that time, the local game store did not have any Vallejo Paints. So I bought the equivalent GW paints in the pots. I still have those paints and still use them. I also have purchased the Vallejo and Reaper Master paints since then.

I still use Graveyard Earth as my Soviet Uniform color and Cayman Green for Soviet Armor. That is what I started with wayback and there is no sense in changing colors mid Division.

If any of my pots of GW paints start thickening up, I add a few drops of water and shake well. Keeps them going and going. The other trick is to keep the inside of the pot lids clean, if any dry paint builds up there it will form a bump and the lid will not seal right. Thus allowing air into the bottle and causing it to dry out.

I still have and use my original set of inks GW issued as well as my original set of 40K paints. Ten plus years and they have not dried out and are still usable. I use Space Wolf Grey as a light highlight color to drybrush over Stormy Grey(Panzer Grey from the Reaper Master Series, my favorite color for early German armor after trying them all).

So paint drying out is not a company issue, but merely an issue with how you maintain the paint itself.

I have painted 300 infantry stands, 75 guns, 150+ vehicles and cossacks with my paints I got 2 years ago. I am just finishing the Soviet Horde this month. I have used an entire bottle of Graveyard Earth(Soviet Base Uniform Color and I use this color as part of my 4 color earth and mud tones for bases chaos black/scorched brown/graveyard/german camo beige) and finally had to buy a second pot a month ago.

Paints are paints are paints. In the end it is an artistic choice by the artist. I have found shades I like better by one company or another, but none of them are of superior quality over the others that I can tell.

Chris

As already stated, i have no problems regarding anyone using any old paint and it doesnt bother me if someone recommends weathering speedboats with old elf sick green. All I commented on was that paints called "flashy" were as cheap as chips, and last forever. When it comes to primary colours , I use whats local, Im sure everyone does that.

I wouldn't give a hoot if someone used their wife's make up mixed with varnish if they want to.

BTW, i love how it bleeped William Wonka in my previuous post!

Ok Sturmgrenadier. Since I do not understand the rules and make such uninformed comment

Tell me how to model this.

I have 2 hamlets a kilometre apart each roughly a kilometre square occupied by german infantry including tank hunter teams with some integral panzerfausts. A German armour Force is to cover the gap between the villages and/ or any flanking moves either side of these villages. they are held back in wooded cover to the rear of the villages because of the potential effect of indirect artillary fire

the russians have 2 companies of infantry and some platoons of assault guns together with towed artillary which engaged both villages directly from a hill overlooking the gap between the Hamlets and they also covered the gap in between the Hamlets to a distance past the Hamlets of at least half a kilometre.

How far apart on the table are the Hamlets, remembering the artillary must be able to engage both villages directly and fire at least half a kilometre past them. How do you actually lay out the table ?

In the action, the russian infantry and the assault guns should be able to have moved between the villages and assaulted one of the villages from the rear while the other assaulted from the front. in the game, no assault guns could move between the villages because they got whacked by panzerfausts in the flank. What was supposed to be a kilometre was like driving down a street because the villages were less than 16 inches apart. they had to be so close or the artillary could not engage both in direct fire. I could not square this circle. Either the artillary hill ended up being placed between the villages or the villages were so close, the panzerfaust range overlapped. Since I don't understand it according to you, perhaps you would enlighten me as to how you would do it?

I would love to know where I went wrong

And remember, unlike me, you cannot say "Use other rules!"

Hmmm,

Soviet zis3 has a 32" direct fire range the God of War battery has 12 weapons in it with a command distance of 2" and base width of 2" plus commander and staff team (kommisar as well if you want to add 3" to your spread) for 14 bases at 27" + gaps between stands at 26". So the Arty itself can cover a spread of 53", has a range to the front of 32" and bombardment range of 80". Villages are 32" apart, meaning at least 3-6 guns will be within direct firing range of the each village. All of the guns will be within bombardment range of the village.

I do not see where your layout has a single problem. I would even say that it is quite simple. I would play this on a 6'x12' table having the villages a minimum of 24" apart and probably I would set them at about 30". Since travelling between them would expose you to some small arms and possibly even HMG's. But it would be devastating if the Germans have pak's.

Problem solved, no issue, works for FoW. Anymore problems you have setting up scenarios or historical battles with FoW? Let me know and I will help. I play primarily historical battles based on maps and have been dealing with this issue for two years rather successfully.

Good Luck and I hope that battle goes well for you. I would love to play that with either my Soviets or Germans. In fact I may set that up and give it a go. What are the OOB's for both sides. I may want to run this as a GM for other players.

Chris

oob or points will work, as I am willing to use true historical oob's or play with points for the fun what if battles they generate.

Chris

I dont think he really wanted you to answer Orge, wheres the fun if you can do it??

And I suspect if the tournement crowd saw the question, they would have a very different answer.

badger22 wrote:

I dont think he really wanted you to answer Orge, wheres the fun if you can do it??

The fun is that whatever answer you come up with it generates something really nonsensical somewhere else.

The much vaunted flexible groundscale only works if you only consider one distance at a time.

Hmmm… FoW is hardly the only rules set that has different 'ground' and 'model' scales, is it?

So Chris,

Let me get this straight:

The villages are 1km apart – according to you, they should be placed 32 inches apart. So we will accept a nominal ground scale of 32 inches = 1 km.

This of course means that your artillery battery – which is 12 individual guns, covers a frontage of almost 2 kilometers – does that not seem a bit odd to you?

Next, with the nominal ground scale of 32 inches = 1 km, your batteries are only able to bombard about 2 1/2 km – does this not seem strange to you?

You seem to have scaled things correctly for small arms (i.e. effective small arms range of 500m), but then it skews things uncontrollably for the artillery. If you were to scale it for the artillery, it would make it skewed the opposite for the infantry.

Bangorstu wrote:

Hmmm… FoW is hardly the only rules set that has different 'ground' and 'model' scales, is it?

It's the only rules set I know of I know of where the groundscale can be eight inches to somewhere under 100 yds (PIAT range) or eight inches to just over a thousand yards (one tenth the maximum indirect fire range of a 25pdr)

All rules have their idiosyncracies. In DBM light troops were over powered, in Firefly the entire system felt like a maths exam.

So, it has flaws. Whoop-dee-doop. Fine, it might not be the most 'realistic' game around. But since none of us are WW2 vets, who knows what 'realism' is? It's all hypothetical.

What I can't understand is the all-consuming hatred for these rules some people have. If you don't like 'em, don't play 'em.

People seem to think the rules encourage ahistorical play – such as US vs UK. Well I've played similar with Firefly (many years ago), you sometimes just have to play with what you've got. Not all of us have access to half a dozen superbly painted armies.

I suspect some people are jealous someone is making a good living out of the hobby.

So, it has flaws. Whoop-dee-doop. Fine, it might not be the most 'realistic' game around. But since none of us are WW2 vets, who knows what 'realism' is? It's all hypothetical.

Just because all games are unrealistic to an extent it doesn't mean that all games are equally unrealistic.

And discussion of the realism of wargames rules is not all hypothetical, there's a wealth of data on WWII out there against which you can evaluate rules systems. Everything from hard scientific data on weapons ranges to the qualitative data provided by interviews with veterans or their published memoirs.

And FoW is sadly lacking when it comes to the weapons ranges, that's for sure.

Derek is right about ranges. And if he wanted to, he could stretch himself, and comment on relative vehicle speeds.

The two combined make for some very non-historical happenings. I play mainly N Africa. One of the hallmarks of that theatre is the brits launching cav charges with tanks over flat grounds, and the german AT particularly 88s shooting them into wreckage. Happened a number of times.

But in FoW, the turbo-charged brit tanks can surge through the 88s range advantage in a single turn. So a pair of 88s cant turn a brit squadron into swiss cheese.So if you try and hide german tanks behind an at gun screen, the brits just run right through it.

Imagine my surprise the first time that happened.

The groundscale doesnt work if you dont want it to. But it does if you dont think about it to much. Lately, I have wanted to play a few games. I can either flame on for a while, or natter on about why the game everybody else sucks. I certainly know which is more fun for me. Just not for everyone it seems.

Sorry ww2 ogre, your solution doesnt work. The guns cannot occupy a frontage more than about 500 yards since that is the length of the crest line of the hill they occupy.

All guns have to be able to engage both hamlets over their full area, not a few guns firing at one hamlet and some at the other. They deployed on a 500 yard front They must be able to engage tanks at least half a kilometre beyond the back of the villages.i.e. at least half the distance between the villages themselves. (it was a blocking tree lined hedgerow that the german armour hid behind) The guns were placed on a hill overnight to do an early dawn direct bombardment of both towns and engage any support vehicles in the open. The russian infantry had taken the hill that the guns occupy the day before. the hill crest is only 500 yards long and the base of the hill is about 700 yards from the edges (corners in fact) of the hamlets. The forward slope itself is 400 yards long. The russian infantry are dug in (in the old german support weapon positions)at the base of the hill on the line of ditch and this is their jump off point. The Artillary regiment has only 8 guns not 12.

The guns can pivot freely to engage and have a clear line of fire over the hamlets due to their elevation and the single storey structures of the hamlets.

And the entire action was on a front of 5 kilometres.

In total the guns were firing direct to a range of approximately 2500-3000 yards, approximately 2.5 to 3 times the distance between the villages, but I would accept that the villages themselves could be the limit of direct fire. As the artillary deployed on the slope of the ridge, I would allow the artillary to be in 2 rows and base to base.

have another go!

post a link to a picture and I will have your answer. Still guns with 32" fire direct could be roughly the point of an equidistant triangle of about 24". Thus covering the village and the spread of the troops.

Your limitations are nice, but can be coped with. The point to this exercise is you can make the feel right and get the right results. You just have to be flexible like the ground scale system.

Anytime someone states x=y distance; they are wrong. The system does not work that way. Was not designed to work that way.

Just like the tabletop terrain and the miniatures are not to scale to each other. Otherwise I would expect to see bushes, curbs, flowers, pies on windowsills, etc. 1/100; 15mm scale does not work that way.

Your arguments are being falsely presented and then being judged by simulation scale.

So please rent a parking lot or indoor stadium complex and setup your battle.

Me I would be happy to make it work, it can't work if you don't want it to work in the first place.

You have to flip the light switch before the light will go on. Cause and effect. If you don't do the first, then of course you won't get results.

Direct fire range on the zis 3 was not 2500-3000 yards. Your information is in correct. They would be doing direct fire bombardments and spotting for themselves at that range. The sights and doctrine of Soviet Arty did not allow them to even attempt a direct shot at ranges you are quoting. Plus some of those guns may have been 122mm howitzers which have a much shorter direct fire range.

So your premise is incorrect. So the actual arty pieces merely need to be within range to fire a bombardment over open sights. There are very few cannons that fire direct over open sights at those ranges. Soviet arty are not on the list.

88's, 85 aa/at, 90's; they could fire directly at ranges over 2km; not much else did that. I think you are confused with Soviet Arty Doctrine where they fired Direct over open sights, but in fact were merely spotting for themselves and were firing true bombardments at ranges greater than 1-1.5km.

I hope I helped you understand the description of the battle better. That should allow you to set it up just fine.

Chris

First and foremost,

Movement speeds cannot be graded or flawed in a system where there is no time constraint on how long a movement turn is.

So if the turn was 2 hours how far could a motorcycle move? If it was ten seconds. Since the amount of time is not known. Then how can you assume it is broken?

The system to me operates very similar to how my Dad described his combat experiences. 99% mind numbing boredom followed by 1% sheer terror.

A battle represents the crucial moments of an entire battle, not the entire mindnumbing logistical buildup, the multiple days of bombardments and air strikes, the days and days of maneuver, countermaneuver, etc.

The turns of the battle represent the crucial moments in the battle where things could turn or change. Thus the need for an abstract time frame. Every battle did not follow a specific timesheet, with x happening within y amount of time.

So step back, watch a battle of FoW like reading chapters in a book or seeing scenes in a movie. The battle could have taken days or even weeks to fight or merely hours. But each turn and counterturn is another story. A chance for each players side to make a crucial move or countermove. For heroes to step up, for cowards to flee.

Like any other game, FoW is what you make it.

So it gets rid of lots and lots of book keeping, charts, cumbersome decks of cards and decides to go with a simple ugoigo.

I didn't like it at first, I didn't understand it. I hated the abstract time scale, I hated the abstract range scale. I complained long and loud about that on the BF forum. I argued with flawless logic and pointed out all of the foibles with the system. Nobody could prove me wrong. But I was arguing apples, and FoW is oranges.

Phil was kind enough to put up with me and then spent a few weeks trading emails and pms with me as we talked thru the why and why not of his rules system.

Needless to say, he convinced me. Why? Because the system he designed works. It produces realistic and historical results consistantly.

I have now been playing the game for two years. A short time compared to most other rules systems I have been playing. I still play Squad Leader and Steel Panthers. The hardest thing in the world to do is make something simple and still produce the desired results.

I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the nature of the abstract parts of this game. They are the part that allows me to have 88's and Tigers on the same table. Otherwise I would need a Gymnasium. They are the part that allows me to create either small skirmishes or regimental conflicts.

So good luck, you will figure it out if you want to. The light is still off, because you sit in the dark and complain, instead of just switching it on.

Good Luck,

If you need me to really help you set up a map for a battle. Just let me know. I will give you my email and we can swap pics and the like. I do my setup work on my 4'x6' dry erase board. Allowing me to quickly work thru problems for historical maps and scenarios.

There is no point to continue this since you are talking apples, using bananas and planting grapes, while I am working with pistachios, avocados and mangos.

Chris

Ogre,

Have you ever done Hill 621 using FOW? I can imagine the fun that scenario would be. ;)

Let's see…

You're playing a historical scenario, so you aren't going to slavishly follow the FoW TOEs or points costs. Why not simply adjust the artillery direct fire ranges as well?

If you accept that the range is shortened in order to allow players to use smaller tables, then it is easy enough to exapnd the ranges of longer ranged weaponss sytems as you move to a larger table.

Personally, I feel that FoW has quite a few warts – but I can still enjoy playing it.
I've looked at a few other systems, and am considering trying out one or two – when I have more time to devote to it. Maybe I will eventually write up and playtest some house rules to convert it to a D10 system (which would give room to fix many of the annoying aspects of the system). As it is right now, I play about once a month. Playing so infrequently, I will use an off the shelf product – one that most of the players in my area are also using.

I wasnt aware of some clause that says if you play FoW you cant play anything else. I dont know who made that rule, probably an aliance between the fanboys and the haters.

I still dont get the need to pop into threads ansd drag in negative stuf that isnt related to the thread at all, other than to show you hate FoW, and have nothing else to do.

I havn't done Hill 621 yet. I will have to look into it tho. I concentrate on my own armies with EW and MW German and Soviet troops.

My Germans are ready for Poland, low countries, Norway, Balkans and Russia. I can also use them as Normandy Defense Grenadiers for LW.

My Soviets are set for Poland, Winter War and 41-early 44. I guess my Strelk could go to Berlin if needed.

So I like to find obscure battle reports on the Russian Front and play those. Or even notorious battles.

Chris

I didn't like it at first, I didn't understand it. I hated the abstract time scale, I hated the abstract range scale. I complained long and loud about that on the BF forum. I argued with flawless logic and pointed out all of the foibles with the system. Nobody could prove me wrong. But I was arguing apples, and FoW is oranges.

You make it sound like some sort of strange religious cult.

Stop thinking about it, just believe and everything will be wonderful.

wwiiogre wrote:

Direct fire range on the zis 3 was not 2500-3000 yards. Your information is in correct. They would be doing direct fire bombardments and spotting for themselves at that range.

I don't recall FoW differentiating between direct fire and indirect fire over open sights. Has this changed in version 3? or is my memory faulty?

wwiiogre wrote:

So it gets rid of lots and lots of book keeping, charts, cumbersome decks of cards and decides to go with a simple ugoigo.

I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the nature of the abstract parts of this game. They are the part that allows me to have 88's and Tigers on the same table. Otherwise I would need a Gymnasium.

You do like your straw men.

noticed this link on another board, Its a terrific 'batRep' as they are now called. My favourite bit is the very last bit…. turn 7…. Excellent stuff.

link

"Oh, my God! They killed Rommel!"

Ogre,

The Capture of Balta should do well for an FOW scenario. You wold need Rumanians though. Now that COI/ASL scenario is a good one to play!

Yes Derek and they can do it all again next week; thats the beauty of having the Theatre CinC up in the front line leading a battalion into close combat, all top stuff. The rest of the battle report has taught me a thing or too as well. WW2 can be coool fun…..

ONe gets the feeling that there is mocking in some form or other going on around here… (cue in music)
DUN DUN DUN

Derek,

FoW has always differentiated between direct fire and bombardment fire. The Terminology used by certain people when translating Soviet accounts of battles is sometimes skewed.

The Soviets did not use a lot of Radios or even trained observers in some battles. The set up their guns within open sight of their target and fired their bombardments by directly observing for themselves and adjusting fire accordingly.

This can cause some to wrongly assume that the Soviets were direct firing artillery at ranges that are truly impossible.

Straw Man arguments and generalizations have been the basis for most of the complaints about FoW. Especially, from people that don't really play the game.

I believe the definition of a Cult would have to do more with some of the esoteric rules and systems with less people playing them rather than the industry leader such as FoW. So your reference and troll like attack are once again quite out of context.

I am always willing to give new rule systems a shot. But, I prefer to research them, watch them played and then participate in a game or two before I invest my Fun Money and my precious time into it.

I spent six months researching FoW, watching games. Reading the forum as a guest. Playing in Demo's. Comparing BF models to other mfg's. In the end I chose BF and FoW for many reasons.

Periodically, I question those reasons. Yet, I continually find myself drawn back into the game. Phil did a good job with the mechanics. Keep it simple stupid (KISS) is very hard to pull off. He did it and continues to do it.

interesting discussion, just another topic here on TMP where trolls attack FoW. Some do it for personal reasons and some do it because they have something to gain by diminishing FoW.

As with any discussion I am a part of, I will attempt to remain intellectually honest rather than dishonest.

Chris

My gang is bigger than your gang……..

I read that batrep….(dracula street cred talk). It was highly enjoyable reading it and The guys look like they really enjoyed their game. you got to admit it looked fun.

It's good, but not half as good as "my first batl eva! by *~waffen ss commander~*

hay ya had my first battle today it was a very small one though i had three tiger one tanks my friend had 1 panther 3 and 2 tanks that i did not reconize…..

Cpt J miller… no way… they stole a march on me. While writing the WW2 rules it never occured to me to have a top general on the table leading my troops… As I use Yanks 'id plumb for Gen Bradley in a jeep with a hot 30cal and taking that darned farmhouse. Monty parachuting into Arnhem, now thats an idea… of course im ed now if I put it in MS it will look like rank plagerism. Blast… ney…double blast. Hmm Stalin assaulting the Red October in his very own Stalingrad…. wheres me pen…

And over time those kids will probablly learn the names of those tanks and maybe when he has found out the folly of taking 3 tiger tanks he may even change his army. It's good to see kids taking an interest in something other than 40Lame.

Cpt J miller… no way…
They stole a march on me. While writing the WW2 rules it never occurred to me to have a high ranking general on the table leading my troops… As I use Yanks 'id plumb for Gen Bradley in a jeep with a hot 30cal and taking that darned farmhouse. Monty parachuting into Arnhem, now that's an idea… of course im ed now if I put it in MS it will look like rank plagiarism. Blast… ney…double blast. Hmm Stalin assaulting the Red October in his very own Stalingrad…. where's me pen…

I agree. There is this disturbing trend that Flames of War is attracting new people to the hobby. Some of these new types are actually kids. We need to stop these "lowest denominator" types from destroying our hobby. next time you see a minor or a "newbie" at your game club or store event, do your duty of the true World War II gamer and kick that person out of the event, and toss his panzergrey tigers, probably painted in unhistorical games workshop paint, in the trash bin, after urinating on them. Hopfully
this will scare other degenerates away and back into games workshop games where we can laugh at them from a safe distance.

This may sound harsh, but after trying to use the internet to post mean things about them and their "historical games" they have not left and are even growing in numbers!

If something is not done soon we may have to play our own games while having the knowledge that over at the other table some of those people could be playing "Flames of War" and destroying World War II forever.

peoN