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.

Hi there,
I've been considering historical gaming for a while now and from what I've seen the two major ones are Flames of War and Bolt Action. (If there are others, please tell me about them).

Which is better? Which is more fun? Which has more players?
Anything else I should know?

Thanks

I just got into them as well, and all I really know is FOW has a bigger group in general, but it depends on the area. I choose BA, as it has a group near me and I prefer 28mm anyways.

I tend to see more Flames of War locally than Bolt Action. I think scale is a deciding factor there, as with FoW you can have the same size battles as BA, but on a smaller table, or larger battles on the same sized table.

FoW also has the advantage of being the masthead game for different eras - WWI, WWII, Arab/Israeli War, Vietnam, Team Yankee (What If Cold War Gone Hot) - and levels of play - full flavor war gaming of FoW; FoW Lite of Open Fire; or quick and easy skirmish of Tanks (all three of which use the same model line).

Pick neither, and go with Battlegroup. It's a lot of fun and well supported by the authors, one of whom actually posts here (Big P, he will likely chime in for this thread as well). Battlegroup feels very authentic when you play, with rules to spot your target before you get to shoot at it and an absolutely ace suppression mechanic. The books are wonderfully detailed and truly a labour of love, and online versions of Battlegroup Kursk and Battlegroup Overlord are available for purchase and download through the Plastic Soldier Company website. Overlord is personally my favourite supplement, but there are books out now for 1945, the invasions of France and Poland, Battle of the Bulge, and even Barbarossa.

Look into the game, it's wonderful. Not as popular as Flames of War or Bolt Action, but a very good choice nevertheless.

I like Bolt Action a lot, the rules are easy to pick up quickly.

I don't play BA or FoW... none of my group do either.



But then its not really that much of a surprise for us... Given I co-author Battlegroup with Warwick Kinrade...

Best thing about WW2 and historical games in general, is you can use your figures for any rules, so you don't have to limit yourself to just one game.

Bolt Action for me, quick n easy "beer and pretzels" gaming.

Bolt Action: quick, easy, funny, dynamic and besides well cared by Warlord Games. Lastly, quite cheap as you don't need tons of models and play at a skirmish scale.

Both for me. I like both ranges of minis, plus fow keeps adding more eras. Like the skirmish of bolt action but love the look of my mass of fow Sherman's I'm working on again after not touching them for some time.

Plus the 20 mm stuff I'm building for battle group.

They're both fairly different games in terms of scale--not just miniature scale.

Flames of War tends to be Company/Battalion level play, with multiple units of varying sizes. You can get elite forces of US Paratroopers, or the waves of Soviet infantry and tanks, and anywhere in between.

BA is smaller, skirmish scale, and you often don't field multiple entire platoons at once. I also believe it uses an activation system, whereas FoW does not.

There's actually not as much as you might think that's comparable between BA and FoW; it's very much a 'ask someone to give you an intro game of each, and see which you prefer' thing.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
I also believe it uses an activation system, whereas FoW does not.

It does: you put a die per unit in a bag and blindly take them one by one. According to the color, player A or B plays. And so on until there's no more die left.

They are totally different games really, its not one or the other.

I prefer playing Flames, and have a few issues with some of the bolt action rules - however if I wanted a small scale platoon action I'd use Bolt Action for it.

Both are perfectly playable, so its down to the usual, what do people in your area play? also what sort of game are you after?

If you fancy 'Apoc' scale games, go for Flames, ditto if you want tank battles, if you're after commando raids go for Bolt Action.

Look at the sort of models you want to paint, 15mm can be easier to do, and faster, or can be insane if you go mad, 28mm forces can be a lot more detailed if thats what you want.

Best thing, there are a wide range of rules for both 15m and 28mm, and indeed 6mm for ww2, once you have models you can play any game you want with them.

Indeed Bolt Action in 15mm is seriously cheap to play, a flames platoon blister gets you the starter force easily, a few other blisters and away you go - especially if playing a group its easy to split say a mortar platoon blister four or six ways, very cheap way to find out if you like the rules cheaply.

As the others have said, it's a question of scale and intent.

Personally, I've played both and they both have their merits but are different experiences.

In 15 to 28mm I particularly enjoy the Chain of Command rules by Toofatlardies. I feel it rewards a historical approach without the heavy investment of some more simulation-like rulesets.

That said, I enjoy platoon+ sized actions. When I'm in the mood for a larger match or a tank match I enjoy FoW.

It's all up to what you want out of the game. Another great point already made is thst your figs will work for any of these rules as WW2 gaming is thankfully unlicensed. So pick up whatever range of miniatures you like the look of, and give some rulesets a test or two.

Best of luck and have fun!

Flames of War here.

Bolt Action had a couple of spurts of popularity locally (once at launch, and again several months later), but died. And there's been no real interest in reviving it, despite the fact that it had quite a few players during both of the times that it was popular.

Personally, though, even if BA were being played, I'd still go with Flames because that's the scale of things that I prefer. I want a 1:1 figure company-level game for my WW2 games. And Flames of War provides exactly that.

 Otto Weston wrote:
Hi there,
Which is better? Which is more fun? Which has more players?

They are fairly different games, so I don't think you can really say one is better or more fun than the other.

Do you like detail painting 28mm figures? Go BA

Do you like lots of tanks and other fighting vehicles? Go FOW

Do you like skirmish scale games where every soldier is important? Go BA

Do you like company or larger scale battles? Go FOW

Personally, I tend to like FOW better but several people in my group play BA so I'm thinking of putting together at least one army for that game. It does not mean I"ll be giving up FOW, I'll just play both!

Hello, I'm not sure if you have already decided, since this is a few weeks late, but as someone who has played all three systems in discussion here, I thought I might be able to help.

Flames of War: I played this for several years, and stopped when they were finishing off the Battle of the Bulge book releases, so I think that was early 3rd edition. Not sure if it's changed much since then, but FoW is a good system if you like tanks. In my group's experience, the game is fought and won by armies that are 90% tanks and assault guns, or by infantry armies that hunker down and try to weather the storm. So if large scale tank combat is what you like, definitely go for this one. My group was more fond of infantry battles, and that's why we stopped.
As a side note, if both players agree to field armies that are essentially all infantry, you can still have great experiences with it as an infantry game.

Battlegroup: This was the WW2 system my group went to after FoW due to the promise of combined arms games. We definitely got that, but we stopped playing after a few months because we found the rules system to massively favor the defender. The last game I ever played we gave the attackers a 2-to-1 advantage in jumbers, and the defenders decisively crushed them. A pivotal moment was a flank attack by 6 Panzer IV Hs and 1 Jagdpanzer IV against three Sherman 76mm tanks. The three Shermans destroyed all attacking tanks at no loss. There was a rolling factor, but this was not an off the wall rare experience for us, so we stopped playing.
We also had some concerns with balance, particularly in the Kursk book. Overlord seemed mostly fine points wise though.

Bolt Action: This is the World War 2 rule set that we now use. The scale of action is much smaller, and the game is heavily weighted towards infantry. This can be to a fault, as it is, thus far, never worth taking a Panther tank over a Panzer IV because the added points cost is just too much. All heavy weapons have also been massively simplified, which may cause people concern as well. Hearing a Panzer III H is statistically identical to a T-34 on regards to front armor and gun is jarring to say the least. Some balance issues exist, particularly with dedicated assault units being too good. Tanks are also not very important, so it is definitely the worst of the three when it comes to playing with your favorite vehicles

Hope this helps!

Glory to the Asur wrote:


Battlegroup: This was the WW2 system my group went to after FoW due to the promise of combined arms games. We definitely got that, but we stopped playing after a few months because we found the rules system to massively favor the defender. The last game I ever played we gave the attackers a 2-to-1 advantage in jumbers, and the defenders decisively crushed them. A pivotal moment was a flank attack by 6 Panzer IV Hs and 1 Jagdpanzer IV against three Sherman 76mm tanks. The three Shermans destroyed all attacking tanks at no loss. There was a rolling factor, but this was not an off the wall rare experience for us, so we stopped playing.
We also had some concerns with balance, particularly in the Kursk book. Overlord seemed mostly fine points wise though.

Hope this helps!

Battlegroup absolutely has balance issues with all of its Eastern Front supplements, the Russians just get way too much bang for their buck in virtually all of their unit choices. We have also found that Overlord is spot on in game balance and is the supplement we use most often. Despite this, my group still has a lot of fun with the game. Your experience in defender battles is really surprising to say the least, I very rarely have one sided battles in that game and most matches swing back and forth very dramatically which is why we like it so much. It can be really exciting to be on the verge of defeat and make those pivotal ambush attacks and get an air support chit at just the right time to turn the tide.

Glory to the Asur wrote:
Flames of War: I played this for several years, and stopped when they were finishing off the Battle of the Bulge book releases, so I think that was early 3rd edition. Not sure if it's changed much since then, but FoW is a good system if you like tanks. In my group's experience, the game is fought and won by armies that are 90% tanks and assault guns, or by infantry armies that hunker down and try to weather the storm. So if large scale tank combat is what you like, definitely go for this one. My group was more fond of infantry battles, and that's why we stopped.
As a side note, if both players agree to field armies that are essentially all infantry, you can still have great experiences with it as an infantry game.

My experience has been quite different. Tank lists are easier to build (largely because the tanks eat up the points, and bring their own AT, so there's less hemming and hawing over how best to spend your list's points), but a well-built infantry list is just as competitive.

Eumerin wrote:
but a well-built infantry list is just as competitive.

Pure infantry lists on the other hand aren't, or at least weren't but then I don't know how FoW plays anymore.

I played FoW for years but the game became very stale for me, as mentioned above the game is all about tanks. It has some good game mechanics and overall its a reasonable game but meh.

I have started playing BA and there are some definite issues with the rules they are relatively minor, although the updated rules are due out soon, and it seems a decent game and at least it has an inbuilt infantry focus.

Battlegroup is interesting to me but I don't know anyone who plays it nor anyone with 20mm models.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
but a well-built infantry list is just as competitive.

Pure infantry lists on the other hand aren't, or at least weren't but then I don't know how FoW plays anymore.

If you're talking about a list that is purely three platoons of infantry, with nothing heavier than machine guns and light mortars in support, then sure, that's not particularly balanced. But that list also checks in at about the cost of a single tank platoon points-wise.

There's a reason for that.


But speaking as someone who started playing mid-way through 2nd Edition, and has played intermittently right on up to the current day, a fully-supported infantry list with no vehicles heavier than a truck or gun tractor is quite capable of holding its own against armored lists. I've seen it happen on many an occasion, both as a participant, and an observer.


Are tanks powerful in Flames of War? Of course they are. That's because tanks are powerful in real life. But there are plenty of ways to beat them.

Eumerin wrote:

If you're talking about a list that is purely three platoons of infantry, with nothing heavier than machine guns and light mortars in support, then sure, that's not particularly balanced. But that list also checks in at about the cost of a single tank platoon points-wise.

Nope, I played Finns so generally I had 3 large infantry platoons (including pioneers) as well as AT guns/man packed AT, MGs, mortars and arty. Good in defense but hopeless in attack if there was so much as a troop of carriers in the opposing army.

Buy the starter sets for each. They are both pretty good deals. Then play both.

Then play Battlegroup.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:


Battlegroup absolutely has balance issues with all of its Eastern Front supplements, the Russians just get way too much bang for their buck in virtually all of their unit choices. We have also found that Overlord is spot on in game balance and is the supplement we use most often. Despite this, my group still has a lot of fun with the game. Your experience in defender battles is really surprising to say the least, I very rarely have one sided battles in that game and most matches swing back and forth very dramatically which is why we like it so much. It can be really exciting to be on the verge of defeat and make those pivotal ambush attacks and get an air support chit at just the right time to turn the tide.

Oddly, My Germans have never lost to Russians in Battlegroup Kursk...

Then again, I aint lost to Germans with my Russians in Fall of the Reich...

Battlegroup is balanced... to a point. There are deliberate themes in each book, that reflect the period, that can and are designed, to unbalance things. The chit morale system inherently unbalances things, the generic scenario design can also have a massive impact.

But that's kinda the point... Its aim is to impact on your ability to control and command and to deal with these difficulties. Sometimes though, you will suffer... My Volkssturm got pounded and broke after one turn... and yet I still enjoyed it and it felt right in a narrative sense. We also reset the game and they won the second attempt... Like real war, sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don't...

Overlord is likely the most balanced of them all to be honest...

But Battlegroup isn't a tournament set of rules. It plays to the feel of the period. For that reason, its not to everyones taste, but some people really like that sense of tense excitement and narrative feel of the period, combined with the lack of control and need to deal with rising panic that the game can induce!

Its also a system that rewards historical tactics and historically themed forces, and tries to point you in that direction with its list design. Again, not to everyones taste to be fair.


But as Creeping-Deth says, Ive rarely had, or seen, such massacres in Battlegroup, though it has been known, generally when the enemy cant roll higher than a '2' and draws lots of chits... and as I say, its happened to my own Volkssturm army... But then you expect it with them!

I can certainly understand that Big P, I think it's just frustrating because my group very much is made up of tournament-minded players, myself included. I think Battlegroup could transition to a tournament-style system very easily without losing any of the narrative focus or historical emphasis that currently exists within it, and my group has been playing it as such for years now without too much hassle. We've applied house rules where we see fit, though we've kept these at an absolute bare minimum to prevent ripping out the soul of the game. Sometimes I just want to go through the whole thing and create a cohesive master document for tourney style play.

Anyway I'm rambling. Battlegroup is awesome, everyone should give it a shot.

Nope, I played Finns so generally I had 3 large infantry platoons (including pioneers) as well as AT guns/man packed AT, MGs, mortars and arty. Good in defense but hopeless in attack if there was so much as a troop of carriers in the opposing army. 

That's the experience I had as second edition turned into third. Infantry could win if you dug in in your deployment zone and let the enemy come to you, but on the attack you would be easily defeated.

Your experience in defender battles is really surprising to say the least, I very rarely have one sided battles in that game and most matches swing back and forth very dramatically which is why we like it so much. It can be really exciting to be on the verge of defeat and make those pivotal ambush attacks and get an air support chit at just the right time to turn the tide. 

The issue we had was the doubling of penalties. In FoW moving caused reduced rate of fire, but no penalty to hit. In BA you have a to hit penalty, but the same number of shots. In Battlegroup you have both a to hit penalty and half the shots. We just found that that meant whenever someone was defending, either through scenario or through happenstance it gave them a massive advantage. An example is a game where both sides had to move onto the board, and the Germans took an early lead, capturing 75% of the table. This meant they had to attack the Americans boxed into the last quarter though, and they lost badly doing so, because every time they moved forward the Americans had twice as many shots and every shot was more accurate.

Don't get me wrong, Battlegroup has some great stuff. The order mechanism is really fun, particularly when you have to decide to bring more forces onto the table or to do stuff with the ones you have. The chit system I actually find can balance the game, there were a few games where bad dice rolls were causing one side to lose, but then mines showed up and destroyed key enemy units. The writers are also excellent in responding to questions. We just lost interest because the attackers consistently lost.

Well it ain't to everyone's tastes... Not been an issue for us as attackers seem to do well if they have the right force composition for the job at hand... till I roll double one for orders...

But I've been hammered as attacker and as defender equally.

Though always play what you enjoy. I write Battlegroup so I'm a little biased but my advice is always to play whatever games you enjoy and have fun with. No one game is perfect for everyone.

Glory to the Asur wrote:

Nope, I played Finns so generally I had 3 large infantry platoons (including pioneers) as well as AT guns/man packed AT, MGs, mortars and arty. Good in defense but hopeless in attack if there was so much as a troop of carriers in the opposing army. 

That's the experience I had as second edition turned into third. Infantry could win if you dug in in your deployment zone and let the enemy come to you, but on the attack you would be easily defeated.

Since armored companies attack infantry companies instead of the other way around in FoW, I'm not really seeing what the issue is here.


As for the "single platoon of carriers" problem described above? Again, doesn't match my experience. Smoke barrages (to heavily restrict the defensive fire) and well-placed assaulting teams generally deal with any issues. Alternately (for something like a carrier or half-track), light anti-tank weapons like bazookas or anti-tank rifles.

Eumerin wrote:

As for the "single platoon of carriers" problem described above? Again, doesn't match my experience. Smoke barrages (to heavily restrict the defensive fire) and well-placed assaulting teams generally deal with any issues. Alternately (for something like a carrier or half-track), light anti-tank weapons like bazookas or anti-tank rifles.

Armour, and virtually everyone takes some kind of tank team, can simply stay out of range of man packed AT or out of LOS of AT guns while merrily MGing infantry to death when they come anywhere near an objective. Infantry can defend (but if they leave their fox holes they are basically dead) but they can't attack in the face of mobile machine guns. The carrier example happened to me, 100 points basically beat 1500, all I had that was able to actually attack them was my arty.

I tired to play pure infantry for a long time but it is either fairly static and boring or its futile.

I played FoW and it just didn't fi it for me. Then I got into BA and loved it! Played as much as I could. In may ay Huzzah! Con I played Chain of command. Now BA seems bland and dull.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

As for the "single platoon of carriers" problem described above? Again, doesn't match my experience. Smoke barrages (to heavily restrict the defensive fire) and well-placed assaulting teams generally deal with any issues. Alternately (for something like a carrier or half-track), light anti-tank weapons like bazookas or anti-tank rifles.

Armour, and virtually everyone takes some kind of tank team, can simply stay out of range of man packed AT or out of LOS of AT guns while merrily MGing infantry to death when they come anywhere near an objective. Infantry can defend (but if they leave their fox holes they are basically dead) but they can't attack in the face of mobile machine guns. The carrier example happened to me, 100 points basically beat 1500, all I had that was able to actually attack them was my arty.

I tired to play pure infantry for a long time but it is either fairly static and boring or its futile.

Again, I'm sorry. But I have *always* found a possible solution. It may vary based on the situation. And it might involve some finessing. But I've *never* seen a situation in which the infantry were completely helpless.