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.

So, in a recent trip to one of the LGSs, I started looking more at the various tanks and other assorted gribblies, and terrain, etc. for Flames of War and it got me thinking that I'd like to check it out.

Now, all of my past TT experience is in DnD, 40k, WHFB, Malifaux and Helldorado...


So, how easy is the game to pick up? is it one which my wife (an almost strictly D&D gamer) might like? How much is a "realistic" investment? How "easy" is it to do OTT themed forces, like Desert Rats, Patton's tank corps, Rommels Afrika Corps, etc. or are you limited in any way (ie, if there are "special characters, like Rommel or Montgomery, does that eliminate some units, or limit options?)

FoW has been described as the game about the movie about the war. If you want realistic, this isn't for you.

It is very similar in 40K to play feel, well, at least it was when I started but I haven't been keeping with 40K.

A strictly DnD gamer is probably not going to like this. It isn't an RPG, you aren't Patton, though you have play his model in your army.

Themed lists aren't OTT in this game. In fact, most themes are fairly limited. Each player's army has an HQ element and typically two core required choices. If you are playing a tank corp, then these will typically be tank units. Infantry...foot troops. Mechanised? Infantry with some kind of transport. After that, you usually have more choices of your corp and then weapons teams and divisional support options. These might be of an allied nation's army, depending on the list you are building from. For example, the 501st list that everyone is familiar with in Band of Brothers. When you select thier list as it was based during Market Garden, you have options of using British tanks as a supporting unit.

Battlefront has broken the war in to early/mid/late. The exact dates are a bit fuzzy, but early is roughly 38-40, mid is 40-42 and late is 42 onward. Late is probably the most popular, but I would say mid is probably the most fun and maybe the most balanced.

Within each period, you will have different lists to build from. There are basic "generic" type lists like a german grenadier list and specific ones like the 506 Schwerepanzer, or Kamp. Bake. You will find the generic ones typically have more choices while the specifics have more special rules or specialized options. You only really get access to the special characters if you play a list associated with that real life character. For example, you can't have Patton in a D-Day assault list as Patton wasn't in the invasion. You can have him though if you play a 4th armored based in the Bulge theater.

Historicals are a different beast then 40K. We aren't all rivet counters or the camo police, but I do have friends that won't play certain lists because thier tanks are painted with the wrong patern/color for that time period. Conversely, you will get looked at funny if you show up with purple Comets and yellow Churchills. There is a definate respect for the human history associated with historicals. Different people go to different lengths to pay honor to it, but 99.9% of the players recognize it is there.

There's an introduction to the rules (something I *really* wish more game companies would do) on the official website. Click the "Bootcamp" button at the top of the page. The videos should help introduce you to the game.

Battlefront has broken the war in to early/mid/late. The exact dates are a bit fuzzy, but early is roughly 38-40, mid is 40-42 and late is 42 onward. Late is probably the most popular, but I would say mid is probably the most fun and maybe the most balanced.

Er... no. The dates are very solid, and not as described.

Early War is through the end of 1941. Mid War is 1942-43. Late War is 1944-45.

Shotgun wrote:
Battlefront has broken the war in to early/mid/late. The exact dates are a bit fuzzy, but early is roughly 38-40, mid is 40-42 and late is 42 onward.

Actually it would be 1939-1941 for Early War, 1942 and 1943 for Mid War and 1944 and 1945 for Late War.

Don't buy anything yet, just go along to a local show and take part in game. Yours always welcome to take part in games and you get to try it out for free before you spend your hard earned wonga

Failing that use the Bovington scale to decide. If you have been to Bovington tank museum more than 5 times the games for you

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

So, how easy is the game to pick up? is it one which my wife (an almost strictly D&D gamer) might like? How much is a "realistic" investment? How "easy" is it to do OTT themed forces, like Desert Rats, Patton's tank corps, Rommels Afrika Corps, etc. or are you limited in any way (ie, if there are "special characters, like Rommel or Montgomery, does that eliminate some units, or limit options?)

It was originally a 40k mod (a very long time ago) and while the rules are quite different now they have retained the same turn and phase structure. The rules themselves are pretty simple although they aren't always explained very well. A solid 1750 army will cost you about £150 or so but a lot depends on exactly what you are fielding. Its very easy to make historical armies, most famous units, and more than a few obsure units, will have the FoW equivalent of a codex, and they don't require special characters to field. special characters are bolt ons to specific lists, they usually provide platoon benefits, more rarely provide army wide special rules/deployment options and I don't think any change the list's structure.

Have a look here to see what you may field in a typical army. The V3 rulebook lists are free as are the .pdf lists (which can also be found on the Battlefront website) but everything else you need to buy ($2 per book and books will have about a dozen or more lists for different nations).

As far as I know it certainly wasn't a 40k mod although it does bear some structural similarities.

Neither is it true to say it's not "realistic". At an emulative level (in other words aiming for end results) it tries very hard to be realistic and there's an awful lot of intelligent design gone into making the mechanics so. But it is extremely abstracted (on a KISS principal) so it's not (nor does it attempt to be) a low level simulation. It plays more like a tactical level board game in many ways. Movement, for example is more like repositioning than manoeuvring.

In terms of accessibility it also takes a lead from GW games in terms of point balancing lists and boilerplate missions so that it's accessible to club and tournament play. Nothing to stop you using it for historical reenactments but most of the scene and the game's peripheral support materials are based around more casual game arrangement.

I think its realistic on a general level.

It is abstract in some ways (such as the tank bailing rules) but generally its pretty realistic. Some things are kind of iffy (im still wondering about how tanks fight in combat with little disadvantage). But overall realistic, just not when you get to ground level. (if that makes sense).

Once you play a few games and have an army in mind, they sell company boxes which have the bare minimum you need to field an army. That box with some minor support options will get you playing in no time. Support options such a HMG's or mortars are pretty cheap to by and have the ability to impact the game hugely for both sides. Im not sure of exact costs though.

The game seems limiting at first. Having to choose a period, then a book, then a list type makes it sound like you have a lack of options. But this is the most important part of the game and this is where you find that list that fits the theme you want perfectly. With so many lists and variations its hard not to find the list you are looking for. So yes I think themes are pretty easy to get as long as you know what you are after.

But my only advice is to play it a few times first. Make sure there are players and work with them so you dont end up with (for example) an early war list while they all have late war.

Any WW2 game that allows all tank armies loses a little on the realism stakes...

Great as a gamey mechanic, but not realistic.

Big P wrote:


Any WW2 game that allows all tank armies loses a little on the realism stakes...

Great as a gamey mechanic, but not realistic.

I guess it depends how you play. I have never seen a full tank army ever. So I guess I should have worded it, can be realistic.

Infact I have never seen more than 6 tanks on a battlefield. And those 6 tanks are my light tanks.

I've got a 1,750 point Herman Göring Panzerkompanie I plan on doing that will have fourteen tanks (six Panzer IV H, six Panzer III M and two Panzer III N). That being said, I'll still have three Flakpanzer 38(t), two Sd Kfz 231 8-rads, 3 Nebs and a full strength Panzergrenadier platoon.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Any WW2 game that allows all tank armies loses a little on the realism stakes...

Great as a gamey mechanic, but not realistic.

I guess it depends how you play. I have never seen a full tank army ever. So I guess I should have worded it, can be realistic.

Infact I have never seen more than 6 tanks on a battlefield. And those 6 tanks are my light tanks.

I've seen them. Ran one, in fact. It was my French DLM list. And contrary to the post above, that aspect of it was accurate.

I've been informed elsewhere that the mixing of S35s and H35s within the same company was not, however.

If you want realistic avoid artillery except mortars and assault guns. This is due to range disparancies.

If you want non-cheesy avoid special characters.

Other than that its a fairly good sim and an excellent ruleset.

Flames of War can suffer badly from codex creep, make sure you are your opponent are working from contemporary publications because seemingly identical lists from the same army may have widely fluctuating points values. For example I can fit more tanks of the same quality in an Overlord list at 1750pts than I can with the Basic V3 rules in 2000pts.

 Orlanth wrote:
Flames of War can suffer badly from codex creep, make sure you are your opponent are working from contemporary publications because seemingly identical lists from the same army may have widely fluctuating points values. For example I can fit more tanks of the same quality in an Overlord list at 1750pts than I can with the Basic V3 rules in 2000pts.

Agreed. I see the paperback books as sort of an 'open beta test' where they work out the points values and update them as needed in the hardback compilations.

I would like to suggest the Battlegroup rules. IMO, they are a healthy mix of simple and inclusive. I think Battlefront is a great company, run by great people. I use most of their stuff to game in 15mm. I just dont care for their rules.

Look up Battlegroup. Can't say it will lead to a lot of pick up games at the moment but I assure you it is worth a look.

Bezerker Saberhagen wrote:
As far as I know it certainly wasn't a 40k mod although it does bear some structural similarities.

It was a long time ago, written by Phil Yates when he still worked for GW. The rules can be found here although the individual links appear to be broken.

Eumerin wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Any WW2 game that allows all tank armies loses a little on the realism stakes...

Great as a gamey mechanic, but not realistic.

I guess it depends how you play. I have never seen a full tank army ever. So I guess I should have worded it, can be realistic.

Infact I have never seen more than 6 tanks on a battlefield. And those 6 tanks are my light tanks.

I've seen them. Ran one, in fact. It was my French DLM list. And contrary to the post above, that aspect of it was accurate.

I've been informed elsewhere that the mixing of S35s and H35s within the same company was not, however.

This would be the French DLM that had its own organic motorised infantry, and mechanised infantry too, especially in order to keep up with, and support the tanks.

So its not a tank only formation. Its Regiment de Dragons Portes provided its mechanised infantry contingent.

Both 2 DLM and 3 DLM had three infantry battalions plus a motorcycle battalion.

 Palindrome wrote:

Bezerker Saberhagen wrote:
As far as I know it certainly wasn't a 40k mod although it does bear some structural similarities.

It was a long time ago, written by Phil Yates when he still worked for GW. The rules can be found here although the individual links appear to be broken.

I think you're taking the wrong things from that, I don't think Phil was actually an employee of GW. Panzer Battles was a fan mod he wrote and on the strength of that Battlefront employed him to write their own in-house system to support their own miniature line.

Bezerker Saberhagen wrote:

I think you're taking the wrong things from that, I don't think Phil was actually an employee of GW. Panzer Battles was a fan mod he wrote and on the strength of that Battlefront employed him to write their own in-house system to support their own miniature line.

I have read on the old Battlefront forums that he worked for GW and that he wrote Warhammer: Panzer battles with the intent of getting it published via Warhammer Historicals. True, false or somewhere in between it doesn't really matter as there is a definite hint of GW in the FoW rules and publications.

I'm running from a recollection of a video interview some time ago. It might have been part of WWPD's series.

Edit: This was the interview: http://www.wwpd.net/2013/02/battlefront-video-early-days.html

FoW certainly shares similarities with GW games in the turn structure and, aside from the core rules, the aforementioned game arranging elements (point balancing and boilerplate missions) are similarly aimed at casual club hook-ups. Obviously the business model (being primarily geared towards supporting the core models business) is similar too. Just a bit less evil.

The core mechanics however are far different from GW fare in intention and strongly geared towards realistic representations of outcomes. There's a strong feeling that the designers have committed a lot of effort into representing all the important stuff and balancing it. A lot of people don't seem to look beyond superficial structural elements but underneath the hood it's certainly a good deal more complex than 40k despite the designers intentions to keep it streamlined.

Being a old ex gw gamer,i had heard for years that they wanted to do a ww2 game.But i thought that it ended up KGN ,but as for FOW being maybe a test run i can see ir.especially the way they game has similar mechanics and basing like Epic.Since 40k was orginally a 15mm game.
i know that their was a few BF guys that were GW down under and they got the shaft like GW studio Canada did.

Check the link,Nice lists even has PAcfic in it.
On list in the link,It kinad looks like the BA Guys borrowed somethings,After seeing this it make me want to Publish my Gi joe Action figure 40k mod.Wellwhat is a guy to do with his and and his younger brothers collection over 500 figs?

Big P wrote:
This would be the French DLM that had its own organic motorised infantry, and mechanised infantry too, especially in order to keep up with, and support the tanks.

So its not a tank only formation. Its Regiment de Dragons Portes provided its mechanised infantry contingent.

Both 2 DLM and 3 DLM had three infantry battalions plus a motorcycle battalion.

Yes, they did have their own organic infantry. But for whatever reason, the various companies within the units tended not to intermix their platoons as later practices would dictate. Ergo, the earlier comment about mixing the S35s and H35s not being historically accurate.



Edit - And as another example...

The counterattacks by the Allied troops to break out of the pocket in Belgium were supposed to be coordinated activities by the British tanks and French infantry. But the French infantry were late to the jump off point, which meant that the British tanks left without them.

But are these examples of doctrinal use, or ad-hoc reactions made out of need?

A better example would be Crehen in 1940, where 4th Panzer Div. II Panzer Regiment had to attack the town of Crehen with no infantry. Even before the attack, Jugenfeld, bemoaned the lack of infantry and the losses attacking a defended town would inflict on them. A bitter fight caused heavy losses on both sides.

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...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strombones wrote:
I would like to suggest the Battlegroup rules. IMO, they are a healthy mix of simple and inclusive. I think Battlefront is a great company, run by great people. I use most of their stuff to game in 15mm. I just dont care for their rules.

Look up Battlegroup. Can't say it will lead to a lot of pick up games at the moment but I assure you it is worth a look.

Yes.... its not a bad game Battlegroup.

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.

Another vote for battlegroup. I was converted from Flames of War last year and have never looked back, it's just better in every way.

One of my favorite aspects of FOW is the pdf support. There is just about any army that you want to run available for free in a pdf version on their website. There are some very unique offerings as well.

FOW would be an easy game to go wild with... I mean.
First you get Open Fire and decide to play Germans.
You need some mortars and HMG's to go with those grenadiers.
Oh, and of course you need some Nebs.
What is a german list without Panzers? Three boxes of 5 should do...
Oh, shiny... Panthers... I'll take 10!
Oh, I don't have any air support. Moblewagons or Wirbelwinds????... BOTH!
Recce is damn useful... That's 8 8-rads and 6 Pumas.
Hmm... I seem to need some cheaper anti-tank... Marder's it is.
Oh... I forgot that I need some pioneers. There dang useful.
Hmm... transports... that's 11 trucks, 11 halftracks, and some kubelwagons.
No airplanes... Gotta fix that.
Early War? Well, that's an entirely new army!
No heavy artillery... well, some lists can take 2 sections of 6 guns each. Better make that 12.
I am the German army... I need to build the Atlantik Wall!
And that is how you end up with over 25,000 points of Germans.

Hmm... what can I do with the british tanks and US paras that I still have from Open Fire?!?

I would say to go for the game that you can actually have someone to game with.

 Ghaz wrote:
I would say to go for the game that you can actually have someone to game with.

If gamers picked the Wargames they played based on their quality, then you would be able to get a lot of games of Battlegroup. But they don't and so Battle£ront has half right to call their game "The world war 2 miniatures games" [as in not just a 15mm wargame set in ww2, but the definite ww2 tabletop game of any scale], even though Just checked and not found any company that gives lower quality at higher prices in this niche than Battle£ront.

Do you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

He asked if FOW was a game for him, and I explained how he shouldn't play the game because Battlegroup Somewhere was a similar but better game, though less popular.

Consequently I don't think the blatant flame of yours was anyway needed.