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.

And what good is a game if he has no one to play with? You didn't once give a reason for him not to play FoW other than for some undisclosed reason you have a grudge against them. Perhaps you should actually give a logical explanation of why he shouldn't play Flames of War instead of randomly flaming them in various unrelated threads. If you can't do that, then all you are doing is trolling, and I'm sure that the mods would agree.

Yeah, based on my local shops, I'd be more inclined to check out FoW over another WW2 era game, simply because of stock and the playing groups there.


As far as game mechanics go, is it a 40k "dump a bucket of dice and take away low numbers" or more of an Infinity "roll this one die a few times for a single resolution" ?? Or is there some fair mix of the two? (accounting for the fact that there's vehicles as well as units)

If someone doesn't like Flames of War and would prefer to recommend a different game perhaps they might more helpfully to give a substantive reason and recommendation instead of just "disliking" Flames of War.

Otherwise it kind of looks like trolling and spam.

I am also interested in Flames of War but the many acronyms and terms kind of confused me.

My question is this: if the players in my area plays late war and had Germans and also other countries, does that mean if I start early war Germans, I wouldn't be able to get a game in?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Yeah, based on my local shops, I'd be more inclined to check out FoW over another WW2 era game, simply because of stock and the playing groups there.

As far as game mechanics go, is it a 40k "dump a bucket of dice and take away low numbers" or more of an Infinity "roll this one die a few times for a single resolution" ?? Or is there some fair mix of the two? (accounting for the fact that there's vehicles as well as units)

Its more the former than than the latter but single rolls are also important (artillery and morale checks in particular).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:

My question is this: if the players in my area plays late war and had Germans and also other countries, does that mean if I start early war Germans, I wouldn't be able to get a game in?

The different era's aren't compatible. The price structure is different (although infantry tend to cost about the same in all periods) and most early war tanks and anti tank guns literally can't kill late war tanks under most circumstances. If you want to play early war you will need to convince someone else to make an early war force.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If someone doesn't like Flames of War and would prefer to recommend a different game perhaps they might more helpfully to give a substantive reason and recommendation instead of just "disliking" Flames of War.

 sing your life wrote:
I think Big P may have mentioned this before but I would always take Battlegroup over FOW. The rules are more historically accurate than FOW, they're also a bit more balanced and more fun to play. Also, they've got a couple of supplements out and the option to play in 1/72 scale, meaning the game is just as varied or even more varied than FOW. Still, the best bit is that it's made by Plastic Soldier Company. unlike Battle£ront, they actually how to be competitive in the 15mm ww2 market, by offering great plastic models at even better prices rather than banning non-FOW models from tournaments even though some of the best choices don't have a Battle£ront model yet

Seriously, with that and Peter Pig's range, there's no reason to play Flame$ of war.

This is my post that recommends Battlegroup over Flame$ of war. A look at my post would find the following reasons:

*Games are more historically accurate than FOW.
*The rules are more balanced than FOW, where I hear that early-war armies can only win against late-war with a lot of luck and skill.
* They have a couple of supplements that make the game as varied as FOW.
* The game can also be played in 20mm scale [with all the benefits], meanwhile FOW is exclusively 15mm.
* Battlegroup is published by the Plastic Soldier Company. They're a fantastic company full of great people who want to support the hobby with their products, instead of being mainly working to make money.
*The miniatures are far cheaper than FOW. Compare the PSC Sherman and Firefly set [£15 for 5 models] to the equivalent by Battle£ront [£35 for the same amount of tanks] and tell me what you would rather spend money on.
* Battle£ront banned non-FOW miniatures from its tournaments, even though at the time of the ban most of the Aeroplanes in the rules didn't have a model by the company. PSC has done nothing even comparable to this.

as you should see, I've given 7 separate reasons for why I recommend Battlegroup over Flame$ of war. This is far from your declaration of 0 reasons.

Was the above good enough for you kiddies?

Dont want to be nit picky, but reason one and 2 contradict each other. Plus each period wasnt made to be mixed i dont think. So keeping within periods its pretty balanced.

Also they require a 50% FoW model count at their events.

Also good luck finding a game of Battlegroup. I doubt its very popular in comparison. Im not against it (id be playing it if I could) but I think most people have more chance of playing FoW than battlegroup.

I think FoW being based in my country doesnt help their prices. NZ stuff bar dairy products tend to be expensive around the world. But they make up for it with free PDFs and supporting easy army where you can get army books for like 2 dollars.

They also are very customer friendly. After their announcement that no PSC models will be used people complained so they changed it to 50%.

As for model availability I dont think I could get a Japanese force at PSC either.

 sing your life wrote:

Was the above good enough for you kiddies?

No, for the simply reason that most of them are factually inaccurate or personal perception.

Its entirely possible that Battlegroup is a better game than FoW, its almost certainly more historically accurate, but you could at least attempt to get your facts right.

*Games are more historically accurate than FOW.

Games are whatever you set. This has no relevance to the rules.

*The rules are more balanced than FOW, where I hear that early-war armies can only win against late-war with a lot of luck and skill.

Seriously? Your first point is that BGK is more "historically realistic". Your second in that Early versus Late War matchups in FoW are unbalanced?

* They have a couple of supplements that make the game as varied as FOW.

No, looking at their catalog they have nothing even close to the variety of threatres and period Late War ('44=45 Western and Eastern front and Barbarossa). In fact (back to your second point) they don't even have any support for early war yet.

* The game can also be played in 20mm scale [with all the benefits], meanwhile FOW is exclusively 15mm.

Nope. Play it however you want.

* Battlegroup is published by the Plastic Soldier Company. They're a fantastic company full of great people who want to support the hobby with their products, instead of being mainly working to make money.

No PSC don't publish Battlegroup, they only distribute it. They are also a very small company, basically a one man act (Will Townsend), therefore not "full of great people" but at best "full of great person". I assume you actually therefore know absolutely nothing about them. As for any suggestion that Battlfront are "...mainly working to make money" that is complete and utter rubbish as anyone who had followed the company for any period would know.

*The miniatures are far cheaper than FOW. Compare the PSC Sherman and Firefly set [£15 for 5 models] to the equivalent by Battle£ront [£35 for the same amount of tanks] and tell me what you would rather spend money on.

PSC miniatures are no more tied to BGK than to Flames of War and there's nothing to stop you from using them the latter except that the range is fairly sparse. The actual price for Shermans btw is £19.50 - plus provide your own decals.

PSC so far, have exclusively produced the big "main line" tanks and infantry, Shermans, Stugs plus all the standard big army infantry sets, and all for the popular late war period. Producing the plastics moulds for these is expensive and they need large volumes to cover the costs. Battlfront on the other hand have thousands of resin and metal models in their catalog. Some I suspect have annual single figure sales. In order to manage this on a common pricelist the high volume sellers will of course be supplementing the low volume sellers and the breadth of their product line is always going to make them slow to adapt to new technologies. So no surprise that small companies like PSC can undercut them in the volume corner of the market. But on the other hand BF are similar or cheaper than most other metal/resin companies including Old Glory, Peter Pig and Skytrex so there's ceratinly no traction in any suggestion of overpricing in the market.

* Battle£ront banned non-FOW miniatures from its tournaments, even though at the time of the ban most of the Aeroplanes in the rules didn't have a model by the company. PSC has done nothing even comparable to this.

False.

as you should see, I've given 7 separate reasons for why I recommend Battlegroup over Flame$ of war. This is far from your declaration of 0 reasons.

Was the above good enough for you kiddies?

No you pulled a few fabrications out of your nethermost that did nothing but demonstrate your ignorance not just of Battlefront and FoW but also PSC and Battlegroup. I'm reminded that you had in a previous argued that Peter Pig miniatures were cheaper and had that error pointed out to you at the time so repeating it here could only be willful deceptiveness. You repeatedly refer to Battlefront as "Battle£ront" and Flames of War as "Flame$ of War" suggesting some real petty childish grudge or malice towards the company or community.

In short. Troll.

Wow... he is not the only one a little skewed on facts Berserker to be fair.

PSC is not only one man, unless you wish to ignore the other five staff, including me.

Battlegroup is published by Ironfist publishing. Its written mainly by Warwick Kinrade with co-author Piers Brand.


Seriously no need for a flame war, like what rules you like, and allow others to state what they like.


Battlegroup has picked up a few refugees from FoW, and generally they seem to be those looking for a more historical approach to a WW2 set of rules.

While what rules you like is subjective, finding a game also comes down to personal circumstance. Some groups will have that one individual willing to step away from the crowd and try something different in order to satisfy there gaming needs. Sometimes more follow. In my group, you'd never get a game of FoW for instance... for others the GW marketing styles and tourny gameplay is important and in a major gaming shop here you'd only get a game of FoW (though they did sell out of Battlegroup).

But let both sides at least be nice, and play nice.

And I say that as one of the co-authors of Battlegroup. So be nice.

So if I were to start Battlegroup, would I have the same limitations as FoW? The point about early war units being unable to have a game with late war opponents? That's the main minus point I am encountering as I would prefer more freedom in my choice of what to start or buy.

The rules are fairly simple and fun, theres alot of different lists you can use, from generic to themed

I'd say it's probably the most common game out there in the more gamey/tournament style historical, but depending on where you live and gaming places and such, so who knows

investment money wise depends really, if you want a tank force, or a small paratrooper force, to a soviet horde can vary, also theres alot of different companies out there that make stuff so look around for what you like

but i'd suggest pick up open fire its a great set to see what it's all about

Wow... he is not the only one a little skewed on facts Berserker to be fair.

PSC is not only one man, unless you wish to ignore the other five staff, including me.

Which I believe is a fairly recent expansion from the one-man-band that it has been most of its existence.

But apart from that I stand by what I say... sing your life's duplicitous, poisoness and petty little rant (aimed at Battlefront/FoW) does nothing to make the Battlegroup "scene" look attractive and you shouldn't be coming through as being an apologist for it..

In the modern club scene people move all the time from system to system on a regular basis. Command decision and Rapid fire have all been played in my locale interchangeably with FoW in the last few years. Bolt Action is currently the biggest thing in WWII gaming plus of course all of the usual SciFi/Fanatasy games. So there's no issue at l with people switching systems it's happening constantly. Battlegroup's problem is not weaning people off FoW it's attracting people who are choosing new systems from whatever direction.

Battlegroup seems to have set itself up (or been set up by its advocates) specifically as a rival to FoW and often on wholly the grounds of wholly spurious argument ("... I heard that in Fow you could cherry pick the best untis/play pure tank armies..." etc), Slagging off FoW from a position of "I've heard that" ignorance isn't going to sell it to the players base (people are smarter than you give them credit). The absence of any kind of penetration might suggest that it's not working and may in fact be overshadowing BG's positive attributes. It certainly seems to have some negative vibes amongst long term club players.

So maybe a little more open mindedness and a little less sniping and you won't attract trolls such as "sing you life" who in truth do you more harm than good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:
So if I were to start Battlegroup, would I have the same limitations as FoW? The point about early war units being unable to have a game with late war opponents? That's the main minus point I am encountering as I would prefer more freedom in my choice of what to start or buy.

Battlegroup I don't believe, has support for early war support yet anyway (Big P will know if there are lists). FoW balances points within a period but not across periods because with the dramatic performance differential an early war armoured squadron would need to be impractically large to match a late war (with evenly pointing infantry providing the common standard).

From the question however I assume that you are thinking of stepping outside of the concept of "historical" encounters so I don't know if Battlegroup is intending to allow this either within its focus of historicity.

Bolt action (28mm) does allow this. It's a bit more gamey and a bit less historical than either of the other games mentioned and pitched at a lower (platoon) level. It's also got a big scene growing at the moment as well.

To the OP I say buy some sweet 15mm plastic crack. Get a mini FOW book. Get a mini BGK book. Play both.

Ermmm... Berserker, mate, have you seen a Battlegroup book? Battlegroup was designed as a 20mm system for fast playing, but flavoursome games. Hence why the images are 99% 20mm... odd start for a system set up to prey on FoW. Not really gonna draw a 15mm gamer in on an initial glance. Hence why I think its those looking for a more historical, scenario driven experience. Certainly although you could, I wouldnt see BG as a suitable Tournament system like FoW is supposed to be. I think they are two very different sets from what I can tell. I dont think there is any need for parajoia just yet!


It came from Kampfgruppe Normandy. Warwicks previous set written for GW Historical.

Im not going to indulge in a rant of who is better, as frankly, I couldn't tell you. I have never played FoW to comment on it.

But its a bit of a stretch to try and portray Battlegroup having been set up soley to counter FoW when the authors use a different scale of figure, game level setting and have never played FOW. Indeed, we couldn't have done a worse job if we tried!

But if you want to believe that, go for it. For me, I just hope people play what they like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and the early war book, covering Poland and Fall of France, is out this November... im just writing it.

Oh and our lists are kinda set to play list versus list in the same book, though the mid to lates can crossover to do different theatres... for instance I use the Kursk German list and the Overlord British list for some Italian campaign scenarios.

odd start for a system set up to prey on FoW

Actually I implied rather explicitly that it was being presented by its advocates as a rival to FoW.

I nearly got into playing Warhammer Panzer Battles back when it first appeared. I got a mate to download it and print it out from that newfangled internet.

I planned to play it in 20mm but it never really took off with my gaming group.

Fair enough Berserker mate... fair enough.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Dont want to be nit picky, but reason one and 2 contradict each other. Plus each period wasnt made to be mixed i dont think. So keeping within periods its pretty balanced.

Nein, Battlegroup might allow forces from different times in the war, but FOW also does this, meanwhile the list building mechanic means that a BGK force is more likely to have the stuff in it that matches real life than FOW. So BGK is more balanced than FOW yet also more historically accurate [IMO]

I would like to able to reply to other posts but it seems that people are adamant in their love for Flame$ of War and dismissing anything saying they shouldn't love it , so I don't see any reason to keep replying to this thread. Goodbye.

 sing your life wrote:
Flame$ of War...

Really? Thanks to Zvesda, PSC, FiB (and several others) that tag hardly applies to FoW any more.

Sing, perhaps it's the annoying manner in which you add currency symbols to their name. If you want to come off as a balanced source you may want to cut that out?

Just a thought.

I've tried both games (pick-up) and while I liked BG's rules more, FoW was fun, and in the end far more available and accessible.

One day I'll probably build a US FoW list, but I have way too much other expensive hobbies.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Flame$ of War...

Really? Thanks to Zvesda, PSC, FiB (and several others) that tag hardly applies to FoW any more.

You're joking, right? Zvezda, Plastic Soldier Company and Forged in Battle price their products according to its quality and actual worth. They are not greedy or obsessed with making money, unlike Battl£ront.

 sing your life wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Dont want to be nit picky, but reason one and 2 contradict each other. Plus each period wasnt made to be mixed i dont think. So keeping within periods its pretty balanced.

Nein, Battlegroup might allow forces from different times in the war, but FOW also does this, meanwhile the list building mechanic means that a BGK force is more likely to have the stuff in it that matches real life than FOW. So BGK is more balanced than FOW yet also more historically accurate [IMO]

I would like to able to reply to other posts but it seems that people are adamant in their love for Flame$ of War and dismissing anything saying they shouldn't love it , so I don't see any reason to keep replying to this thread. Goodbye.

No you are just being like the infinity players that lurk in the 40k area. Promoting your game in an undesirable way.

And just because they can mix together doesn't mean you are meant to play them willy nilly. They can mix to create some scenarios but I dont see why the periods would be balanced when pitted against each other at all. Its a pretty dumb argument to make.

Why shouldnt anyone like it anyways. We are all aware its not made to be a simulation. We are all aware it bends some reality for game plays sake. Yet we are still here. So instead of doing what you are doing, look at the people you are trying to convince, see what may appeal to them and then try inform them in a nicer way.

@ sing your life: But you didn't write Battlefront, you wrote Flames of War. Significant difference.

sing your life wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Dont want to be nit picky, but reason one and 2 contradict each other. Plus each period wasnt made to be mixed i dont think. So keeping within periods its pretty balanced.

Nein, Battlegroup might allow forces from different times in the war, but FOW also does this, meanwhile the list building mechanic means that a BGK force is more likely to have the stuff in it that matches real life than FOW. So BGK is more balanced than FOW yet also more historically accurate [IMO]

I would like to able to reply to other posts but it seems that people are adamant in their love for Flame$ of War and dismissing anything saying they shouldn't love it , so I don't see any reason to keep replying to this thread. Goodbye.

Heaven forbid a game actually leave it up to the players to decide the level of historical accuracy they want in their games. Putting that in the hands of the gamers must automatically make it a bad game.

sing your life wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Flame$ of War...

Really? Thanks to Zvesda, PSC, FiB (and several others) that tag hardly applies to FoW any more.

You're joking, right? Zvezda, Plastic Soldier Company and Forged in Battle price their products according to its quality and actual worth. They are not greedy or obsessed with making money, unlike Battl£ront.

And you've actually looked at the books of these three companies so you can make an informed decision? You know the profit margins, production costs, etc. so you can make an unbiased statement of fact? Or is it just more baseless flaming trying to push your biased opinions off on others? With your continued use of snide remarks like 'Battl£ront' and 'Flame$ of War' all you've done is undermine your own position and have done nothing to prove that you're anything more than a troll. Good riddance.

Alright, actual rules question:

Is it true Flames of War uses mostly segmented turns where I have to ask my opponent to wait and roll the occasional dice while I do everything with my army? In what ways does the opponent actually get to make decisions during my turn? Move models?

It's basically the same as the warhammer turn sequence when one players does the moves/firing for all his units then the other player reciprocates for all his units.

The firing sequence typically involves a 3 roll hit/save/firepower sequence with the save being made by the opponent.

Hit allocation is one key area that the passive player needs to make decisions in.

The save where the penetration versus armour is resolved. Most people's expectation expectation is that penetration would be challenging armour but this is backwards in FoW with armour "saving" against penetration. Infantry saves occur at this point as well.

My suspicion is that this is specifically to involve opposing player in the action, otherwise (with relatively long turns) it would be too common for the passive player to miss die rolling and end up being upset when the active player announces he has just rolled to destroy all his tigers. Getting the other guy actively involved in the firing resolution (even if there are no active decisions to be made) at least engages them.

An opponent does get to make reactive counter attack moves in the post firing assault step where the action resolution is finer. Plus there are a few reactive opportunities with aircraft.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Alright, actual rules question:

Is it true Flames of War uses mostly segmented turns where I have to ask my opponent to wait and roll the occasional dice while I do everything with my army? In what ways does the opponent actually get to make decisions during my turn? Move models?

Aside from the usual armour saves there are a couple of reactive things you can do in your opponents turn. Defensive fire and counter attacking in your opponents assault phase and anti aircraft fire. Aside from that its a time for rumination and model removal.

Big P wrote:
I suppose for me, an army list should generally reflect the doctrinal method chosen rather than the exceptions to the rule, but things like Crehen do make for fun games...

It's a company level game. Real life isn't textbook examples, and the game's lists allow you to simulate things that actually happened regardless of what the strategy guides suggested. And company level is the edge of where you could expect those sorts of force organizations to happen. 17 tanks is a pretty small force in the grand scheme of things.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In any event, when all is said and done, Battlefront gives you a decent run down on how the Flames of War rules work via videos on their website. Check it out and decide whether the rules seem like something you'd enjoy. You can figure out how best to proceed from there.


I'm not aware of anything similar for Battlegroup, though it's been a while since I last looked.

Thanks for the answers guys. I've been watching through the boot camp videos and listening to the wwpd podcasts. I think FOW is probably not for me. I dislike segmented turns. Like a lot. Here's what I'm currently considering and their turn structure:

Bolt Action: Seems to work fine with multi based infantry, although I'm thinking I'll individually mount mine. Turn structure is drawing dice out of a cup, so it's alternating activation with a potential for activation chains. Plus reaction fire.

Battlegroup: Segmented turns, but your number of commands means you don't generally do your whole army in one go. So it's like alternating activation but you don't know how many things you'll get to use until the dice are rolled.

Chain of Command: Roll dice, but the dice determine not only the amount of actions you do, but the type of actions. It's a Too Fat Lardies game, so there's going to be some interesting turn structure related elements to make decisions on and usually very little wait time for the opponent.

Company Commander: "Go until you fail" like bloodbowl. If you fail to pin an enemy, get pinned by reaction fire, fail to rally a friendly pinned unit and probably something I'm forgetting, you lose the initiative and the opponent goes. These are a free set available at a yahoo group.

Alpha Strike: The new fast play Battletech Rules. I've statted up some WW2 stuff in 6mm for it and it worked. Integrated turns where everyone alternates movement and all shooting is considered simultaneous. Each base represents an entire platoon rather than a team, so it's not the same level as either FOW, Bolt Action or other games.

Flames of War. I might make some sabot bases that my individually based guys go on if someone local really wants to play. I've watched enough of the boot camp videos that I think I can play if someone else makes the army list and knows the rules. I'm not going to actually buy the game or go through the FOW army building process.