Switch Theme:

Looking at FoW, but no idea if it's "for me"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Been Around the Block




I've played quite abit of FOW in the last 2 years and I have a bit of a love hate relationship with it.

It can be a lot of fun but there are a few things that really do frustrate me about it and I'd point them out to someone considering investing in it.


1. The tournament build structure of the game sucks the fun out of it for me.
It seems 80% of the game is won before the match starts..its about optimal list building, which units have the best cost/efficiency ratio, my best unit in the game is the su-122..its one of the soviets weakest AFV in real life.. but 8 of those for 340 points are probably the best infantry killers in the game.
I spent the first year playing FOW being abit more lax on builds..and I always lost to the more competitive players..i just wasn't in the ballpark cuz my lists were build around what figures I had, not based on which would win me the game. I eventually realized I was playing the game wrong..I looked at the strength of soviets national rules and focused on buying units that utilized them. I started thinking bout predictability of the other players..what their tendency was for list building..what was their fallback builds and built my lists accordingly.
after a while I was kicking ass and taking names..and I think we scared away the rest of the casual players while the game got a lot less friendly and fun while we all competed for league money prizes etc.

Now that doesn't have to happen..but FOW is a tournament game.the culture of players generally is to outplay your opponents with your lists.You can all agree to not do that..but if you want public games..thats what you should expect.

2. Purely my own option but I feel that due to their desire as a company to sell more models..they don't balance their lists in their books better to reflect any kind of historical limitations. It starts to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth.

3. The infantry 3+ save and then a firepower test if they are in cover is way way way to overpowered. Small arms are pretty useless in this game..which is a shame.

4. the 240 odd page of rules is a mess.its a convoluted takes forever to reference things.because they organized it around what they felt was the logical flow to learn the game..but that left many rules related to a single topic scattered around the book

all that aside its still a good game..but It does have issues.
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

I find small arms are my back bone. They pin (most important tool in the game) better than any big gun will do.

I will admit though I haven't been to a tournament yet. So I guess I i'll find out if my region suffers the same kind of issues yours does.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




bloodydrake wrote:
3. The infantry 3+ save and then a firepower test if they are in cover is way way way to overpowered. Small arms are pretty useless in this game..which is a shame.

4. the 240 odd page of rules is a mess.its a convoluted takes forever to reference things.because they organized it around what they felt was the logical flow to learn the game..but that left many rules related to a single topic scattered around the book


It's hard to say. On the one hand, I often do agree with the general sentiment regarding the infantry save and small arms fire. On the other hand, I'll also point out that whittling away an advancing Conscript Soviet Strelkovy battalion Horde of Doom(tm) still takes place at a decent rate even with the 3+ save.

So I'm not sure.


Also, the 3+ save used to mean that it was very difficult for vehicles to kill infantry, particularly in bullet-proof cover. The Heavy Breakthrough Gun rule changed this when it was added, and I've got mixed opinions about it. On the one hand, vehicles like the StuH(42) were virtually ignored prior to the rule. The latter, for instance, cost the same as a StuG IIIG, and traded one point of armor penetration for a point of firepower. It was generally seen as not being a good trade-off. The Heavy Breakthrough Gun means that it now excels at its intended role - i.e. digging out dug in soft targets. Vehicles like the StuH and the M4(105) now have a purpose in the game. But the rule might be *too* good for those vehicles.



As for the rulebook...

Yeah, it's not very well organized. You live or die by the index in the back when you're trying to look up a rule.

   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




 Swastakowey wrote:
I find small arms are my back bone. They pin (most important tool in the game) better than any big gun will do.

I will admit though I haven't been to a tournament yet. So I guess I i'll find out if my region suffers the same kind of issues yours does.


tourneys and leagues can be fun..but they do stir up the competitive fires more then I'd like..I tend to enjoy a more casual play style in retrospect. I'm thoroughly enjoying set lists in a historical campaigns atm since we're being forced to use forces we normally wouldn't consider


I don't find pinning matters all that much in FOW except when setting up a potential assault.
I do play alot of Canadian forces with their rerolls..they hardly ever stayed pinned on their own turn so maybe thats why.

   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

bloodydrake wrote:
 Swastakowey wrote:
I find small arms are my back bone. They pin (most important tool in the game) better than any big gun will do.

I will admit though I haven't been to a tournament yet. So I guess I i'll find out if my region suffers the same kind of issues yours does.


tourneys and leagues can be fun..but they do stir up the competitive fires more then I'd like..I tend to enjoy a more casual play style in retrospect. I'm thoroughly enjoying set lists in a historical campaigns atm since we're being forced to use forces we normally wouldn't consider


I don't find pinning matters all that much in FOW except when setting up a potential assault.
I do play alot of Canadian forces with their rerolls..they hardly ever stayed pinned on their own turn so maybe thats why.



Im casual too. So this is gonna be a new experience all round. But the guys going seem great so from what i have met of them.

As a Japanese player if i dont pin the enemy I die. If the enemy are not pinned thats 2 rounds of defensive fire I have to take (usually). So maybe it depends on lists.
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




Eumerin wrote:
bloodydrake wrote:
3. The infantry 3+ save and then a firepower test if they are in cover is way way way to overpowered. Small arms are pretty useless in this game..which is a shame.

4. the 240 odd page of rules is a mess.its a convoluted takes forever to reference things.because they organized it around what they felt was the logical flow to learn the game..but that left many rules related to a single topic scattered around the book


It's hard to say. On the one hand, I often do agree with the general sentiment regarding the infantry save and small arms fire. On the other hand, I'll also point out that whittling away an advancing Conscript Soviet Strelkovy battalion Horde of Doom(tm) still takes place at a decent rate even with the 3+ save.

So I'm not sure.


Also, the 3+ save used to mean that it was very difficult for vehicles to kill infantry, particularly in bullet-proof cover. The Heavy Breakthrough Gun rule changed this when it was added, and I've got mixed opinions about it. On the one hand, vehicles like the StuH(42) were virtually ignored prior to the rule. The latter, for instance, cost the same as a StuG IIIG, and traded one point of armor penetration for a point of firepower. It was generally seen as not being a good trade-off. The Heavy Breakthrough Gun means that it now excels at its intended role - i.e. digging out dug in soft targets. Vehicles like the StuH and the M4(105) now have a purpose in the game. But the rule might be *too* good for those vehicles.



i still think its to hard to kill them..conscripts are almost impossible to miss tho..I never play them since it takes longer to put your guys on the table and take them off then playing does heh.
I'd like to see a 4+ standard infantry save and 4+ 50cal firepower and 5+ firepower on machine guns in version 4. Balance points as needed but Its to much as is.

Breakthru guns are a staple in my builds now..and volley fire.. combined they are the great equalizer for soviets..figuring out how to use them well changed the game for us. There was talk of they are broken ,firepower 1+ shouldn't exist, the dug in vet infantry players didn't like they couldn't turtle and win by attrition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Swastakowey wrote:

As a Japanese player if i dont pin the enemy I die. If the enemy are not pinned thats 2 rounds of defensive fire I have to take (usually). So maybe it depends on lists.


ohh! to be fair I've never played early war FOW just mid and late.. Rising sun might play different

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/24 03:31:48


 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

I have only played early war so yea there may very well be differences.
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

bloodydrake wrote:

I'd like to see a 4+ standard infantry save and 4+ 50cal firepower and 5+ firepower on machine guns in version 4. Balance points as needed but Its to much as is.


Try it and see just how weak infantry then become. FoW is already far (far) too tank heavy, weakening infantry would just make this worse.

Infantry are very survivable when dug in an gone to ground, as they should be, but they are far from invulnerable.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




 Palindrome wrote:
bloodydrake wrote:

I'd like to see a 4+ standard infantry save and 4+ 50cal firepower and 5+ firepower on machine guns in version 4. Balance points as needed but Its to much as is.


Try it and see just how weak infantry then become. FoW is already far (far) too tank heavy, weakening infantry would just make this worse.

Infantry are very survivable when dug in an gone to ground, as they should be, but they are far from invulnerable.


I really disagree infantry are too survivable and small arms are too weak due to this.and I've done one better I've tried playing with a much harsher save system.

i'm currently enjoying Battlegroups default save system for infantry significantly more..in the open is 6+ and it scales down depending on the type of cover you have down to 2+ save in hardened bunkers.. +3 up save in fox holes if you buy them in your list is fine but the firepower is incorporated into the roll not separate so they are still more vulnerable to kills .

After playing a bunch of games..and seeing both sides of the coin its very obvious that infantry in FOW are far to survivable and small arms are just to ineffective.
Due to this I just use breakthru guns against dug in vet infantry with recce teams lifting gone to ground or a 20+ stand infantry blob that infiltrates into assault range on turn one and overwhelms them on the assault , both things pretty much negate any save rolls.

   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

Fow is already dominated by tanks, what do you think would happen if infantry were made worse?

Aside from that I actually like the FoW save sytem as I find that it strikes a good balance between realism and abstraction.

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 Palindrome wrote:
Fow is already dominated by tanks, what do you think would happen if infantry were made worse?


I don't think it's ever *not* going to be dominated by tanks, though. Keep in mind that Bolt Action, which is an infantry-focused game in which tanks are hugely abstracted, is going to release a supplement for vehicle platoon lists, as opposed to the reinforced infantry platoon lists that the base game requires. Players just like vehicles too much. And unless you cripple them beyond all realistic expectations, I don't think that's going to change.
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

Eumerin wrote:

I don't think that's going to change.


Unfortunately neither do I but crippling infantry is going to ensure that virtually every army you face is filled with tanks. At the moment infantry work fairly well in terms of the balance between effectiveness and realism so I don't think that their rules need changed. Tanks on the other hand...

RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in gb
Brigadier General





The new Sick Man of Europe

Back when I was think of starting FOW [before I realised there were far better WW2 games available], I wanted only tanks in my army, because I thought all the features on the infantry are really tiny in this scale.

DC:90+S+G++MB++I--Pww211+D++A++/fWD390R++T(F)DM+
 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

Tanks are cool. If you want to have any sort of historical representation of infantry, you need to require it rather than have it be optional, because people will pick tanks. They're awesome.

Chain of Command just gives you a historical platoon of infantry as your core and then you get to add a bit of support. Flames of War could take the same approach. You're Panzer Grenadiers in this year? Here's your platoons, here's your companies, now add support. Even then though, I think you'd see a greater proportion of people choose the tank platoons and companies and add infantry as support, as those are also historical formations.

Tanks are awesome.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Battlefront allows the players to decide how historically accurate they want to be. I hardly see placing that decision in the hands of the players a failing of the game. If the game actually prevented the players from making a historically accurate force, then that would be a failing of the game, IMHO.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




 Palindrome wrote:
Fow is already dominated by tanks, what do you think would happen if infantry were made worse?

Aside from that I actually like the FoW save sytem as I find that it strikes a good balance between realism and abstraction.


tank domination is purely due to the way battlefront allows valid lists to be built Its there own fault for not having better checks and balances in their force building... the infantry save is a mess..but within version 3 you can't fix it in a vacuum and not adjust alot of other things as well.
its entrenched in the games balancing atm .but its a fundamental problem with the game that needs to be addressed in version 4


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 frozenwastes wrote:
Tanks are cool. If you want to have any sort of historical representation of infantry, you need to require it rather than have it be optional, because people will pick tanks. They're awesome.

Chain of Command just gives you a historical platoon of infantry as your core and then you get to add a bit of support. Flames of War could take the same approach. You're Panzer Grenadiers in this year? Here's your platoons, here's your companies, now add support. Even then though, I think you'd see a greater proportion of people choose the tank platoons and companies and add infantry as support, as those are also historical formations.

Tanks are awesome.


the more i hear about Chain of Command the more it sounds like I'd like it (Battlegroup has required infantry platoon amounts depending on size of game as well.. combined arms is a requirement.)..is it compatible with bolt action figures @ 28mm? Bolt action is becoming more popular but I've resisted the scale change..but if I could buy 1 army for both games it would be an easier choice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ghaz wrote:
Battlefront allows the players to decide how historically accurate they want to be. I hardly see placing that decision in the hands of the players a failing of the game. If the game actually prevented the players from making a historically accurate force, then that would be a failing of the game, IMHO.


Its a failing of good game design to allow the lowest common denominator to dictate the balance of your game..Rules are there to fundamentally structure the game in an expected way..If you just want to play in a sandbox with cool figures but make your own rules thats cool(hell look at minecraft its perfectly valid form of entertainment)..but that doesn't make a balanced fair and fun game for everyone else.

Structure is a requirement. Too much freedom can be a flaw, and when you want your game to reflect some semblance of reality (which any game that takes a historical approach to WWII should) its can be a problem

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/24 22:02:38


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

I disagree with you. Flames of War does have a structure and 'semblance of reality', by determining what units are available to the specific unit that the player wishes to field.

Allowing players to determine how historically accurate they wish to make their game is not a flaw of a good game design. Its anything but that. Being locked into a specific army because it is 'historically accurate' would quickly lose replayability. Why stop at dictating what units the player can take? Why not go all the way and dictate the player's actions for historical accuracy as well? Why is it okay to throw historical accuracy out the window with regards to tactics, but heaven forbid you don't field exactly what was fielded at the actual battle in question?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/24 22:43:07


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




 Ghaz wrote:
I disagree with you. Flames of War does have a structure and 'semblance of reality', by determining what units are available to the specific unit that the player wishes to field.

Allowing players to determine how historically accurate they wish to make their game is not a flaw of a good game design. Its anything but that. Being locked into a specific army because it is 'historically accurate' would quickly lose replayability. Why stop at dictating what units the player can take? Why not go all the way and dictate the player's actions for historical accuracy as well? Why is it okay to throw historical accuracy out the window with regards to tactics, but heaven forbid you don't field exactly what was fielded at the actual battle in question?


Total Strawman argument..you present ludicrous extremes as the bases of your objection that no one mentions but yourself..grats..

   
Made in au
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





oz

I've never agreed that any wargame or a set of rules using essentialy scale toys could possibly historically re-create the madness and horror that is warfare.

Dont worry too much OP, ive never worried about accuracy as ive never really played a game which correctly demonstrates how people die

but that's just my 2 cents

   
Made in cz
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

 frozenwastes wrote:
Chain of Command just gives you a historical platoon of infantry as your core and then you get to add a bit of support. Flames of War could take the same approach. You're Panzer Grenadiers in this year? Here's your platoons, here's your companies, now add support.
That's exactly how FoW does work. There are no Panzergrenadier lists that do not force you to take at least a single platoon of Panzergrenadiers, most require two as a minimum.

Spain in Flames: Flames of War (Spanish Civil War 1936-39) Flames of War: Czechs and Slovaks (WWI & WWII) Sheffield & Rotherham Wargames Club

"I'm cancelling you, I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf." - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

bloodydrake wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
I disagree with you. Flames of War does have a structure and 'semblance of reality', by determining what units are available to the specific unit that the player wishes to field.

Allowing players to determine how historically accurate they wish to make their game is not a flaw of a good game design. Its anything but that. Being locked into a specific army because it is 'historically accurate' would quickly lose replayability. Why stop at dictating what units the player can take? Why not go all the way and dictate the player's actions for historical accuracy as well? Why is it okay to throw historical accuracy out the window with regards to tactics, but heaven forbid you don't field exactly what was fielded at the actual battle in question?


Total Strawman argument..you present ludicrous extremes as the bases of your objection that no one mentions but yourself..grats..

Seems like you're doing nothing but avoiding the argument. Why is changing the forces in a historical battle such a heresy but the tactics not? If you can't be bothered to answer this then your argument looks like it is nothing but personal bias and not based on anything even remotely approaching facts.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Brigadier General





The new Sick Man of Europe

 George Spiggott wrote:
There are no Panzergrenadier lists that do not force you to take at least a single platoon of Panzergrenadiers




That pretty obvious...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 14:41:01


DC:90+S+G++MB++I--Pww211+D++A++/fWD390R++T(F)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 frozenwastes wrote:
Tanks are cool. If you want to have any sort of historical representation of infantry, you need to require it rather than have it be optional, because people will pick tanks.


Except that plenty of people go for the infantry. I've got an SS infantry list. A guy who used to play at my local game store ran a US infantry turtle list. A couple of friends of mine run Soviet Infantry Hordes. All of these lists have been very successful.

The difficulty arises in two specific issues, neither of which are rules-related -

1.) Tanks are more glamourous than infantry
2.) Building and painting the figures for an infantry list is much more time-consuming. With tanks, you glue on the tracks and possibly the gun, prime the vehicle in the army's base color, and then put some dark paint on the tracks. At that point you've got a decent looking tank. Camo is nice if accurate, but ultimately optional. Same with the insignia. Your tanks will pass muster on the table. Decent looking infantry, on the other hand, require putting all of the infantry on the base (and some assembly may be required if your infantry have crew-served weapons), painting the uniform, putting flesh-colored dabs on the hands and faces, painting the weapons, painting the helmets if they're a different shade than the uniform, and finally adding at least minimal texture to the base. Now multiply that by the number of infantry and gun team stands you have, and you're looking at a lot of additional work.

So, people gravitate toward the tanks.
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

bloodydrake wrote:the more i hear about Chain of Command the more it sounds like I'd like it (Battlegroup has required infantry platoon amounts depending on size of game as well.. combined arms is a requirement.)..is it compatible with bolt action figures @ 28mm? Bolt action is becoming more popular but I've resisted the scale change..but if I could buy 1 army for both games it would be an easier choice.


It's pretty much made for 28mm. Almost all the battle reports I see for it are in either 28mm or 20mm (with a smattering of 15mm). The ground scale of the game is right around 1:100, so at 15mm you're actually playing at true ranges relative to you figures, but even at 28mm, the ability to shoot across the entire table with a rifle will be refreshing to many.

George Spiggott wrote:That's exactly how FoW does work. There are no Panzergrenadier lists that do not force you to take at least a single platoon of Panzergrenadiers, most require two as a minimum.


So you have to take 300-600 points of them in an army that might be 1500+ points? And then you can take the vast majority of your points in all sorts of other stuff? If I take a 1750 Panzergrenadier list that requires a single platoon of them and then spend 1450 points on non-Panzergrenadier stuff, can I really say I'm playing panzergrenadiers?

I get that the typical 40k-derivative ww2 player would chafe under the restrictions of historical organization and what the commander of that organization could negotiate with his superiors, but when I mentioned Chain of Command being a platoon and then support choices, it's a game where the platoon represents the majority of your forces. And you also don't make your support choices until after you know the scenario and who your opponent is. I also think that if someone finds the idea of the majority of their army being the same all the time to be boring, I think that's a short coming in the game rules and scenario design rather than any same-ness in list building.

An example:

Germans. 1941. Operation Barbarossa.
Force Rate +3

Leutnant (senior leader w/ pistol)
Fedlwebel, (senior leader w/ SMG)
5 cm mortar team with 3 crew 

Obergefreiter (junior leader w/ MP40)
MG34 w/ 3 crew
6 infantry with rifles

Obergefreiter (junior leader w/ MP40)
MG34 w/ 3 crew
6 infantry with rifles

Obergefreiter (junior leader w/ MP40)
MG34 w/ 3 crew
6 infantry with rifles
 
Obergefreiter (junior leader w/ MP40)
MG34 w/ 3 crew
6 infantry with rifles

--

That's your core platoon. Then after you know the scenario, set up the table, you find out your opponent has a force with a rating of +4. So you'll get an extra level of support (the difference between the two force ratings). The scenario then says has you make a roll and you get 7 levels of support. So with the +1, that's 8. There's a list of possible elements a higher level of command might give to your platoon for the scenario. In the case of the German Barbarossa list, there are around 50 possible items spread over six levels. So you end up picking a Panzer III E-G at level 4 and two more 5 cm mortars at level 2 each. The scenario also states that your opponent will get half the support points you do, so he has 4 levels. He chooses an extra 10 man rifle squad at level three and a barbed wire emplacement at level 1.

But nothing starts the game deployed on the table and you don't get to know just how much anti armour he took. Will your tank be able to safely advance? What will you find when you reach his known positions?

--

My own plan is to build all the options for both Germans and Soviets in late 1943. So between the two armies I'm still going to be painting up roughly the same amount of figures as a single FOW army as well as terrain projects like barbed wire, trenches and minefields. It'll be a lot of variety though as I'm probably not going to need more than one KV-2, for example.

I don't need all the options prepared in advance, just a smattering and maybe some extra level 1 options to make sure I can make change for various support levels, but at 15mm, it seems very doable to have all the options including multiples of lower level support.

.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 19:07:23


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

 frozenwastes wrote:
it's a game where the platoon represents the majority of your forces.
.


And that's the issue. FoW is a (tank) company level game. I always take 3 infantry platoons, mortars and MGs or in other words a complete infantry company, when I run an infantry list in FoW but that almost invariably costs less than 1k points so I am forced to include a lot of support options.

I would imagine that this would be true with any game that allowed players to field a functional tank company will result in infantry lists with ahistorical levels of support.

In my experience 28mm games are easy to build historical lists for because they tend to be based around fielding an infantry platoon with a few support options.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 19:27:32


RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

I think it's more than just the scope of the game being company or platoon level. There's a fundamental difference here. Imagine if Flames of War assumed an infantry company. Everyone had to take it. With historical TO&Es and field manuals as the reference for what is included, and then some variance and modulation is allowed. Then you add support based on what was historically used to support an infantry company.

Very, very different approach to list building than the 40k menu style points build.

I'm sick of 40k style army building. And I'm sick of self contained IGOUGO turns. And rolling progressively shrinking buckets of dice to cull out misses and saves and firepower and whatever.

40k isn't for me. WW2 40k likely isn't either.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




 frozenwastes wrote:
I think it's more than just the scope of the game being company or platoon level. There's a fundamental difference here. Imagine if Flames of War assumed an infantry company. Everyone had to take it. With historical TO&Es and field manuals as the reference for what is included, and then some variance and modulation is allowed. Then you add support based on what was historically used to support an infantry company.


The "Aces" escalation campaigns for FoW work with this idea. You start with a small number of points, and minimal allowed support (if any). Then as the campaign goes on and your commanding officer gets promoted, you get access to more points, troops, and support.

Of course, there's no reason why the basic idea and framework for such a campaign can't be ported over into another game system.
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=2666

The Infantry Aces page for reference.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

That sounds pretty cool. I'm a sucker for campaign material as I find transferring it to other systems makes them long lived in their utility.

Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

 frozenwastes wrote:
So you have to take 300-600 points of them in an army that might be 1500+ points? And then you can take the vast majority of your points in all sorts of other stuff? If I take a 1750 Panzergrenadier list that requires a single platoon of them and then spend 1450 points on non-Panzergrenadier stuff, can I really say I'm playing panzergrenadiers?
Players going down the minimalist route would probably just take a Panzer list. There's no compulsion to take infantry. But to answer your question, if you're taking a Panzergrenadier list and you're forced to take 2/3 of the company's infantry and all your other choices are support from the Batallion and Division level then yes you're playing panzergrenadiers.

Spain in Flames: Flames of War (Spanish Civil War 1936-39) Flames of War: Czechs and Slovaks (WWI & WWII) Sheffield & Rotherham Wargames Club

"I'm cancelling you, I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf." - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
 
   
 
Forum Index » Historical Miniature Games: WW1 to Modern
Go to: