"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

Gotta say, that one lowered the tone for me.

Ya know…400+ posts.

Thats why they call it FLAMES of war.

:)

I have read without comment until now. What is the arguement? Some will never be convinced that FOW is more than simplistic drivel, other see value in the rules. Round and round we go over someone else's pocketbooks. If you do not care for thier rules don't play them. I did not care for 40k hence I do not comment. Some of you guys remind me of that rude child at a restaraunt that say ewwwwwwwwe to seafood you wish to enjoy.

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

Cpt J miller… no way… its mockless…
They stole a march on us old uns. While writing the WW2 rules it never occurred to me to have a high ranking general on the table leading my troops at company/battalion level… what a coup….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 anyone put it their rules it will look like rank plagiarism. Blast………. Hmm Stalin assaulting the Red October in his very own Stalingrad…. where's me pen…

Well, I was saying that with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek.

Of course Rommel, never actually visited the front. Nor had his staff officers killed and wounded while doing so. So seeing Rommel at or near the front would be heresy.

I personally don't like the Warriors/Heroes rules for FoW and find them out of place in every battle in WWII unless you are specifically creating a known piece of history.

Yet, there is a place for it. Heroes did exist and did influence the outcome of many battles. Those who want to use the rules can, we generally do not use them.

I would prefer a random way for a hero to appear during any battle. With random charts to show what you actually got. So each hero is different every single battle.

Heroes are merely the poor slobs who survived while doing the job someone told them to do. Most of the heroes didn't survive.

But, once again, a small tiny section of FoW is under attack and ridicule. Which actually had historical precedent. Hmmmmmm, maybe every game that doesn't allow Rommel to go to the front should be poked fun of.

Oh well, more whining and crying and broad generalizations and very inaccurate examples given that do not apply. Bradly, Monty and Stalin. Roy, you should be ashamed for being so whole heartedly intellectually dishonest. Either that or your attempt at humor was lost on me.

Roy, how about you write rules for Frost parachuting into Arnhem? Or Teddy Roosevelt Jr. landing during D-Day. They had no effect on the outcome of those battles I am sure.

Chris

I'm not sure its whining and crying…more laughing and laughing. there are definately tears! One comic reference to south park and a bit of humourous banter and then a bit of personal attack…..brillint comedy, and it's interactive!

WwiiOgre, it was a micky take, I didnt put the hero rule into FoW, but its comical and there are loads of bits in the books like that, the daft Dads army none moveable blunderbus etc etc… You cant expect to have things like that in a rule book and have it taken seriously. Its like having a rule that Churchill or Hitler can give a rousing radio speach before a game so it adds an extra +1 to all morale tests (im guessing that sort of rule isnt in there) its no dafter.

Do lighten up though, that particular rule hasnt got much defensability or rationale available to it, now has it?

My posts tend to be either light hearted, micky takes or factual observations but never accusative or include personl attacks….

Hero rules and such like are just so…. warhammerish and to lose a games like detailed… are just, well, silly to be honest. No offence intended and I appologise unreservedly for having that opinion.

I would prefer a random way for a hero to appear during any battle.

Is that not what happens in any set of rules where a single stand does something really spectacular after rolling a succession of sixes?

But, once again, a small tiny section of FoW is under attack and ridicule.

And the fun bit is that we can do it with just about every section of the rules. "And now over to Kevan for his shtick on the Ambush rule."

Oh well, more whining and crying and broad generalizations and very inaccurate examples given that do not apply.

Aw, the pet.

wwiiogre

Yet, there is a place for it. Heroes did exist and did influence the outcome of many battles.

Your absolutely right, Audy Murphy – Red badge of courage. Ive given it some thought and my rule would be that is you have 'An' Audy you can get across the table in one move on a road because the 2.5 injection is wickedly quick ;oP

Derek wrote……"And the fun bit is that we can do it with just about every section of the rules. "And now over to Kevan for his shtick on the Ambush rule.""

This must be my cue…..8-)

BatREP no 1.

in the mind of the historical FOW gamer, his stratagy forms.

"I deployed my main platoons and managed to keep my guns in Ambush…..a great strength of the rules IMHO……"

"My opponnent of many games was using his rommel-led DAK….but I was using my big red one IINO force with my fully maximised Lee's and M10's…my 105s were my ambush platoon….it looked great"

"He, like rommel, did masterly sweeping movements co -ordinating his Tiger 1's and dianas in a sweeping armoured movement, but he was about to become unstuck. I was about to unleash my masterstroke , based on my favourite historcial commander"

But, and here was my dilemma, I thought I knew him so well….. where EXACTLY would Captian Kirk Beam his 105's down from a low orbit??????

Just joshing…….. 8-)

I have got to say that I like the FOW rules with all of their faults, but this thread has kept me laughing these last few pages. Why is it that FOW detractors have such a better sense of humor? Their arguments are so much more amusing.

They make lots of jokes. Eventualy they will luck out and have a funny one.

I though it was us old crusties who were sitting in the corner scowling about and not having fun?

Wargaming is about fun and not taking anything too seriously, even critiscism.

you can get just about anything nowadays so Someome has to do a rommel figure in an orange Parka.

I have got to say that I like the FOW rules with all of their faults, but this thread has kept me laughing these last few pages. Why is it that FOW detractors have such a better sense of humor? Their arguments are so much more amusing.

Maybe a sense of humour failure from the supporters? I must admit I just keep watching to see how many posts it will reach.
And remember watching people make prats of themselves – priceless, for everything else there is Mastercard! :-)

And the fun bit is that we can do it with just about every section of the rules. "And now over to Kevan for his shtick on the Ambush rule."

Yes that's true, although my favourite is the bailing rule! Played in a game where one of my opponents tank crews bailed and got back in 3 times before finally blowing up! You can just imagine it:-
"We've been hit, bail out!"
"But sarge we've only just got back in!"
"You do as your told, or I'll have you on a charge!"

Every time I hear about repeat bailing out in FoW I get a vision of tank crews doing the Hokey Cokey (last verse).

Words are here link
Or there's a video on YouTube herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omcpDN6ncXM
for anyone who does't know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that there will be someone along in a minute to tell us that the FoW bailing out rule doesn't really represent the crew actually getting out of the tank, and that it's more something like what other rules would call suppression.

Still whoever wrote wrote the rules chose call it "bailing out" then chose to represent it with a dismounted crew model placed beside the tank. So they will just have to live with the consequent mickey taking.

Knees bend, arms stretch, rah rah rah!

Dugel come on now you got awful sensative when i said you and crazy broke up. were was your sense of a little joke.:-0

Can't add much to above. Only a reference to 1644 Earl of Essex army being dressed in grey at some point, probably Loatwithiel campaign. Can't remember where I read it but the line goes something like 'Country grey is becoming Parliament grey. After the 1644 Portsmouth refit is is possible the surviors were all in red with different linings.

Those troops raised in Essex usually had red coats lined in blue. Be awre that a regiment in say blue in 1642 might be in grey by 1643 etc.

I have a complete mix in my armies. About half in red, then blue, grey, white, green and a few yellow. Odd regiments are in uniform coats to suggest refit others are a muddle of colours. Some Royalist are in matching red or blue suits ie coat and trousers otherwise its grey or brown trousers. I often have grey at one end of my palette and brown at the other and freely mix them to get random dark tones.

Armies are a mix of caps (about half), hats and monteros but since I'm using older figures I have to convert these and monteros take the longest.

At the end of the day you can't go too far wrong if you follow what others have written here but as a general rule I'd say underplay the lively colours tone everything down and if in doubt paint it grey or brown!

Ahhh.. Mort, you will notice the lack of childish rants and abundance of witty arguments just before I posted how amusing things were.

I also believe that if you look back over our exchange, I held myself to discussion of points instead of childish personal attacks.

Wow, my first instance of bug bite, I suddenly feel like one of the boys.

My favourite FoW rule is the one allowing pipers to give highland troops superpowers, including the ability to shoot lightning bolts out of their arse.

See picture

So your still a little sensative then huh? :-)

Chris,

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

I'm glad you see the point – the fact that it does not work that way and was not designed to work that way is the problem with it. It creates all sorts of problems, and the only reason to make it like that is to be able to sell more miniatures. It does not require someone to "rent a gymnasium" to be able to play a game if the ground scale is fixed – MOST rules sets use fixed ground scale quite successfully, without the gynamsium floor. The difference is that FOW sells howitzer and artillery models, so it is in their best interest to write a game that forces you to have them on the table. C'mon Chris – can you honestly tell me that wasn't the reason for designing such a messed up ground scale?

"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."

This is completely ridiculous – because what you are simulating with terrain is consistent (or at least, in other systems it is consistent) even though the actual figure or model you use is not. Thus, if a "stand" in a given game system is a 1.5" by 1.5" base that represents the deployment area of 5 men, then it doesn't matter if you have 5 figures on it or 1 figure or 10. Similarly, if you have an urban area that is a 4x4 square, which is linked to a regular ground scale at lets say, 1 inch = 50 feet, then you have an urban area of 40,000 square feet = and the 4x4 square is important, not whether or not you have 1 house or 2 or pie shops or bakeries or little prostitute models hanging out on the street corners.

The problem with a sliding scale is in FOW, what does that 4x4 represent? If you make it fit in with the small arms fire, it is 1/4 of their range – so about 125 meters – but if you make fit in with their artillery (having a bombardment range of 80 inches while in real life having a bombardment range of 10,000 meters) it is 1/20 of their range which translates into 500 meters = so which is it?

And the as bad as you may feel the same old criticisms of FOW are, the same old "Well, no wargame is 100% realistic, so all of them are equally as unrealistic as FOW" and "Don't think about it – it works just fine" or "Well, lots of people play it so it must be good" are just as frustrating.

Is there a bag piper rule? please tell :o.

In fact for those that do have all the rule supplement books and such like are there anymore 'beauties' it would lighten up the debate enormously…

Badger22

They make lots of jokes. Eventualy they will luck out and have a funny one.

bet you're a bit of a wag

There is a bagpiper rule

Yes Roy, there is a bagpiper rule. Apparently he plays on magic pipes that give the Company 2iC a saving throw if he's killed by weapons fire.

I prefer the lightning bolt idea myself.

Garet, I want to know where I can get those 15MM prostitute models. I have a need for such things in a differnet game. FoW does not have a rule for them yet.

Hammer, as humer sometinmes loses more in translation than just about anything else, evemn in a supposedly dommon language, I try to restrain myself anymore. But some times….

In fact for those that do have all the rule supplement books and such like are there anymore 'beauties' it would lighten up the debate enormously…

Charles "Stickit" Upham VC and Bar. His superpowers include:

"It's All Just Bloody Tactics: Upham never took a risk he didn't think was worthwhile. As a result, he survived everything the enemy threw at him. Even when they did hit him, he insisted on fighting on anyway.

"If Upham is Destroyed by enemy fire or in an assault, roll a die. On a roll of 4+ he shrugs off the shot and carries on unharmed."

The full story is here link

Pip Roberts. You may know that he was a Brigadier in North Africa and assumed he carried out his duties in the appropriate way for someone of that rank, directing the battle from a position of relative safety.

But no, exclusive research carried out by Battlefront has revealed that he to was a superhero who regularly led individual squadrons fighting in the front line.

See link for details of his superpowers. We await the details of how these powers developed when he became a Divisional Commander in North West Europe.

There are more.

Badger,

I will be out with the next supplement – F'emme Fatale squads – they may be be purchased by Free French forces when fighting in urban terrain, and on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays they cause all German troops to make a saving throw or be "delayed".

One F'emme Fatale may be nominated as squad leader with the "Implant" ability which doubles her firepower.

Note – to properly model the squad leader's ability, please glue 1 British paratrooper head to each of the model's chest and fashion a bra out of green stuff.

Cheers Derek, ive never seen the like, I hadnt realised it contained such things, well, I really dont know what to say. I honestly didnt know it contained such obviously GW cloned fantasies. I played it half a dozen times from the first rule book and took it to be an attempt at WW2 wargaming, I just thought it was just poorly constructed and lumpy. If I had know it was heading towards that sort of game I would never have commented on it; like I wouldnt comment on any GW type stuff or go into the fantasy boards. So in that sense Ive been wrong, I will stick to normal wargame threads and leave this sort of thing to its fans.

What about the russian Girl tank driver rule and the 8 million bayonets rule for the italians…all justified to make the whole experience hsve added flavour, but like peanut butter spaghetti, it is a strange and acquired taste.

Garet wrote…
"Note – to properly model the squad leader's ability, please glue 1 British paratrooper head to each of the model's chest and fashion a bra out of green stuff."

…..First time the image of lolo ferrari has ever entered my head on a wargames forum

Some memorable Mort the Thingy quotes

you bunch of Washer woman got to have somthing to whine and cry about or you don't feel complete.

Mort, ( tired of hearing the knucklehead brigade shoot of there 105 mm mouths)

if you think you are some sort of Rebel free thinker because of that your a bigger Idiot then i took you for " old boy"

You guys can p&m all you want about there forums and tell each other what figs come from other companys till your blue in the face

maybe it the fact that you guys have gone on some quest to clean up the Battlefront forums for the greater good of all, 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.

Hammer i don't give a rats ass if you know either of my screen names. one for home one for work i don't need to be sneaky you don't like what i say cowboy stifle me.

I couldn't find where you were exercising a sense of humor or wit in any of your posts. Granted, the "cowboy stifle" thing was pretty amusing. But the rest seem ranty and feisty to me. Maybe our sense of humors differ.

I also tried to find the parts where i was too sensitive to your posts, if you find an instance, please use the < q > and < / q > functions to educate me.

heh, heh, cowboy stifle…

"Of course Rommel, never actually visited the front. Nor had his staff officers killed and wounded while doing so. So seeing Rommel at or near the front would be heresy."

You should actually take the time to read The Rommel Papers. Rommel prefered the front where he could get a sense of the situation and motivate his officers. He came under fire often. He made a captured British vehicle his command car and at one point his convoy got lost and joined up with a Tommy convoy.

I think he was being sarcastic when making those statements Caesar.

Caesar,

I was being sarcastic with those comments. Rommel had the reputation of getting his staff officers killed. Read Von Mellenthin's accounts of the campaigns in Afrika.

Garet, the abstract and the way it is used in FoW work perfectly. FoW contains a rule known as 'Across the Volga' means you don't put your artillery on the table. This rule can be used anytime you want. It is designed for certain scenarios or missions, but when we fell like it, we use it. The nice thing about owning a game, is being able to play it any way you want.

I buy arty, I play with it on the table and off. I like the modeling aspect of the game and I am on my way to buying and owning every possible model I can to field an entire Soviet Regiment of Infantry, Motorized Infantry, Cossacks and Tanks. Note those are one or more of each type I want.

In FoW you do not need to field the transports that some units have. I own them, I rarely ever field them. I own them because I like playing on larger boards that allow maneuver to be a part of the battle. So transports can mean the difference between a win or a loss. So I own transports just like I own extra arty including pieces that FoW do not allow. 152mm Soviet Howitzers, 155mm French Howitzers, US Howitzers, etc.

I also own some Japanese models and some Marine models. Wait, FoW doesn't even have rules for that theater. You guys whine and fling comments about FoW being written for the sole intent to sell miniatures. Yet, Early War has been neglected and the models pulled. Exactly how does that sell models.

In the version 2 army lists there are many new variations that got rid of commanders and vehicles and tightened up the lists, requiring less models.

If FoW was overreaching and selling EW/MW/LW all simultaneously alongside a Pacific theater of operations as well. You might have me convinced that it is all about model sales.

Instead FoW has limited their output to a single era and theater at a time. They say it is to maintain a higher quality of product and to maintain a focus and bring the customers more campaign source material as well as more books. I am not happy with this decision as I would prefer to play Early War and the Pacific over Late War.

So, I play Early War and the Pacific and Mid War. I make or use modifications to the existing rules to play the game the way I want. If BF does not offer the models I am looking for, I purchase them elsewhere.

The continued bashing of BF because you don't like the rules or the way they work is hilarious. I don't like fast food, yet I don't spend my precious time and energy to go to websites and rave about the horrible nutritious value of deep fried foods.

Because a game is like a food choice. It is all about flavors. My palette is different than yours. Not better, not worse, just different. I also like the games and rules systems you mention. I just like some fast food once in awhile because it is readily available, cheap and sometimes doesn't even taste that bad(Asian Fast Food is my Favorite, although Greek isn't bad either)

Chris

"Of course Rommel, never actually visited the front. Nor had his staff officers killed and wounded while doing so. So seeing Rommel at or near the front would be heresy."

The front is a variable concept. For a company commander it's up close and personal, for an army commander it's anywhere withing enemy artillery range or where you can actually see the enemy through your binoculars.

In FoW Rommel can essentially step in and start issuing orders to individual platoons within a company. It's a long time since I've read much about Rommel, but I can't remember ever reading anything about him getting involved in the fighting at that sort of level (though I do imagine he might well have issued orders to platoons directly attached to his headqurters on occasion)

Anone got any examples to the contrary?

(Asian Fast Food is my Favorite, although Greek isn't bad either)

What's New Zealand fast food like? I expect it involves mutton.

I also own some Japanese models and some Marine models. Wait, FoW doesn't even have rules for that theater. You guys whine and fling comments about FoW being written for the sole intent to sell miniatures. Yet, Early War has been neglected and the models pulled. Exactly how does that sell models.

It sells models in 2010 or whenever they choose to rerelease early war amid a blaze of hype and excitement. Then in 2014 it's off to the Pacific for more of the same.

By withdrawing early war they lose some sales now, but get many more sales later on. They seem to have been remarkably succesful at building brand loyalty and many (most?) of the people who would prefer to play early war or Pacific theatre will buy into the current craze rather than go elsewhere for early war rules and miniatures.

Then in 2016 it's probably version 3 of the rules and a
rerelease of "new improved" mid-war army lists and miniatures. I don't know how they'll improve the vehicles but the infantry will need replacing with new style ones with proper Olmec heads.

They try and manage demand over the various periods of the war with publicity, creating a period specific buzz on their internet forums and by emphasising the current period de jour in their tournament system.

I imagine the reason that transports are optional in many lists is that they've detected customer resistance to buying them. If people don't like transports, and let's face it they're boring things that don't do much to kill the enemy, they'll avoid armies where large numbers of transports are needed. Artillery on the other hand is Kewl, so you can get off with making people put it on the table rather than off-board where it should be in all but special circumstances.

This is all quite basic marketing but it's very well done. It's the one thing I really admire about BF. They are borrowing heavily from the GW marketing model but, at least so far, seem to have avoided the worse excesses of the Evil Empire.

Their giving away a cut down version of the v2 rules has been hailed a gesture of amazing generosity to their loyal customers, but I would say it was a very wise business decision that will probably do them a lot of good in the long-term.

Will we see "codex creep" as BF progress through their late war releases? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

So, I play Early War and the Pacific and Mid War. I make or use modifications to the existing rules to play the game the way I want. If BF does not offer the models I am looking for, I purchase them elsewhere.

I don't think that you're a typical FoW player.

And, please, look up the word whine in a dictionary. Then start using it properly.

Battlefront are switching over to full resin transports because of customer resistance to buying transports at the costs of an armoured vehicle. They will get better sales….pure and simple. They reckon that their FOW customers will pay 25 quid for 8 transports but won't pay 45 quid for the same transports. the fact that these now need to be distorted to make the resin casting process work, is something that they expect their customers to live with.

And any arguement about….you can still buy the full resin and metal versions doesn't hold water…..they just didnt destroy the moulds and no new ones will be done this way and when the moulds are gone, they are gone

Ogre,

I had a problem with this statement:

I also own some Japanese models and some Marine models. Wait, FoW doesn't even have rules for that theater. You guys whine and fling comments about FoW being written for the sole intent to sell miniatures. Yet, Early War has been neglected and the models pulled. Exactly how does that sell models.

This sells BF models because BF can't get the models for all periods and fronts out quickly enough with their one (as far as I know) sculptor. So they pull the info needed for these periods and put out rules at a pace where they can keep up with the models.

If the rules were out for other periods and places, but not the models, then people would be forced to buy elsewhere. Hence, only one period supported at a time.

I second Patrick Smyrls definitions; both of them.
The dividing line is WWI, but the Divide is more than just a Date on a calendar.

they have shown in the trucks situation that they could have continued to supply what the game doesnt currently support, but withdrew the french range anyway because it suited them to eliminate the supply of non FOW support product…..giving an anticipation of a new codex realease for their early war (TM) range, the single french vehicle kept was for Italian use. All their products currently supplied is packaged, lunch boxed and stamped for FOW. They cannot stop people using it for other than FOW, but they are not supplying anything which you have to use some non FOW product to play with

BF could hire more sculptors, they could take masters and recreate the EW molds. Any person with any experience in mold making knows you keep some of the very first clean pieces as replacement masters for when the mold eventually wears out.

I am pretty sure BF has done this. So the statement we need to pull the line because of mold wear, does not work for me. The we want to concentrate on a single era makes more sense financially and because of their low employee levels. BF is a very small company. One of the amazing things about them is they have produced so much from so few people.

Dugal, I love EW, if I can't get models from BF, then I must buy them somewhere else. When BF gets back around to doing EW again, I will already have most of my EW armies completed. I will not be purchasing new armies from BF, since they will probably not match up due to scale creep.

So BF has already lost potential sales and actual sales by choosing their current Marketing plan of LW for 3-4 years. I have not purchased a single LW model from them. Nor will I. I do however purchase models from them that crossover different periods. My favorite being models that are good from EW to LW. But when given a choice, I will buy the EW/MW model over a MW/LW model.

So this year alone, BF has lost over a $1,000 USD in sales just to me. Because I spent that money on eras and theaters that BF currently don't produce. Yet, with a little xtra work and possibly hiring more sculptors, they could probably cover it with at least models, if not books.

All that being said. I still like my FoW rules better than any other rule system I am using for WWII company level to Battalion Level games. As long as BF does not mandate the use of only their models for their tournaments. Then I think they are making good decisions that not only help them as a business, but allow their customers choices.

This is why they get such loyal support. I don't always agree with their decisions. But every time I have seen them make a mistake, they have rapidly done everything possible to make it right.

I have a long list of things I would do different with the FoW rules. Some we home rule, some we just ignore. But, I own the rules and the game. BF cannot make me play the game the way they want. I play it the way I want.

chris

whine

|(h)wīn|
noun
a long, high-pitched complaining cry : the dog gave a small whine.
• a long, high-pitched unpleasant sound : the whine of the engine.
• a complaining tone of voice.
• a feeble or petulant complaint : a constant whine about the quality of public services.

verb [ intrans. ]
give or make a long, high-pitched complaining cry or sound : the dog whined and scratched at the back door.
• [ reporting verb ] complain in a feeble or petulant way : [ intrans. ] the waitress whined about the increased work | [with direct speech ] "What about him?" he whined.

DERIVATIVES
whiner noun
whiningly adverb
whiny adjective

ORIGIN Old English hwīnan [whistle through the air,] related to WHINGE. The noun dates from the mid 17th cent.

"Caesar,

I was being sarcastic with those comments. Rommel had the reputation of getting his staff officers killed. Read Von Mellenthin's accounts of the campaigns in Afrika."

Whoops!

Well done gregoryk, you've learned how to use a dictionary.

Can you now explain the difference between whining and mockery?

ww2ogre,

the bit about Mould wear and the trucks, that you don't buy

Battlefront confirmed this on their forum. that is why you do not get special order for their Italian Trucks. The moulds fell apart. and they are not making new moulds

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

<qhay 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…..

Wow, let's assume that all the fow gamers are script kiddies, who automatically migrate to the big toys, or is getting kids to actually think about WW2 past Saving Private Ryan a bad thing?

Or is it that since no kids play your prefered WW2 game, they're automatically a waste of time.

Sure, there is a % of the players that are like that, especially those that play in small groups of mates.

However one of the good things about FOW, is that such armies don't automatically win games. At CanCon last weekend (64 players of FOW), we had 5 armies exactly like that. Only one did any good, and that was run by one of the better players, of any army.
Even the soviet version, 2 infantry platoons providing life support for 10 OT34 and 3 KV85s was defeated by my completely historical Kursk Grenadiers.

Just as there are FOW players that only look for the Combo armies, there are just as many, if not more, that spend a year researching their unit, painting it up correctly, then starting to play games with it.

I don't see you commenting on the FOW players that have researched about the lesser axis armies like Hungarians & Rumanians, and then posted that info on the internet.