I'm curious about WW2 wargaming. I play 40k and LOtR, and i think i could probably drag my club into WW2 gaming. What exactly is it called? Are there a lot of players in the U.S.? Is the game system balanced? How would we get started?

Thanks!

The most visible WW2 tabletop game is Flames of War, though there are free rulesets out
there that I'm not familiar with. Flames of War support varies by state, but they have a
great forum and a fantastic series of articles.

Also, Flames of War was originally based off the 40k ruleset. While it's heavily modified in some places, I think if you play 40k, the concepts and turn sequence, etc. will be pretty easy to pick up.

Flames of War has varying popularity. It is a very good game system.

If you play 40k you will really enjoy this...
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WWW2alternaterules/

Based off 4th edition (with 5th on the way) 40k. And its free.

Any links for FoW? That looks like the best option.

www.flamesofwar.com Note that you have to sign up to the forums (community/forums) to actually see them.

There are some free army lists, called briefings if FoW (Hobby/Briefings) on the website.

Armies are built a little like 40k ones with HQ, Combat Platoons, Weapon Platoons and Support Platoons. For most battles you must take an HQ and Two Combat Platoons. The rest of your points can be spent as you like from the remaining options.

FoW is just about to get a starter set containing three Sherman Tanks, two StuGs and a mini (40k style) rulebook for £23 (Can't remember the US price, about $40-50 IIRC) at the end of this month. So you've picked a good time to start.

If you and your friends start at the same time you could swap models from the starter sets to increase the size of your forces.

Thanks, that looks good.

I tried to play FOW... bought enough stuff for a large Eastern Front German Recon army...

Played it for 6 months then sold it.

If you dig around, you will find better games.

That's the beauty of 15mm WWII, there will always be a ruleset that you can use.

Why did you quit?

I found much better rules then the FOW ruleset. Havent tried FOW since the new edition came out, what... a year or two ago. It might be better, but try as I might I just didnt like the game mechanics. Plus I love 28mm scale over 15mm.

The minis are nice I will give you that. And lots of people do seem to enjoy FOW, but I felt the game had kind of a steep learning curve, and I hated painting so many small guys. Played it for 6ish months until my army was winning 3 out of 4 games and decided to drop it and move on.

These days Im playing a few other rulesets, like NUTZ! or Disposable Heros, or the WW2 40k that I linked above. ( Im currently on the side converting it over to 5th Edition rules)

All of these rules in my opinion are better the FOW because they are far less complex, and are more geared for a "Beer and Pretzels" style of gameplay.

I personally love FoW and didn't think it was too complex but everyone has their own preferences. I did find it kind of funny though jp400 that you would say it's to complex when most of the hard core historical wargaming sites tend to pan FoW for it's "Beer and Pretzels" play, calling it "wargamming light". Just shows that there's no such thing as the perfect game and everyone wants something different.

Nox,
I couldnt agree more. No game is perfect and someone will always not like it. I did have fun with it, but it grew old quick.

To me it felt like I was playing some kind of Epic 40k. (which I never really loved in the first place)

Plus everyone around here only want to play Larger battles, so it would eat up most the day just playing one game. This at times isnt a bad thing, but tends to get very old by hour 5+ lol.

Personally, I think Flames of War is an excellent historical ruleset. The units are all well-balanced for the most part, in terms of points, and you can always play scenario games if points-based battles aren't your thing.

The game is pretty straightforward, and as others have said, if you know how to play 40k, you should adjust to Flames of War pretty easily. That said, FoW is a different game, with a lot of different strategies.

Battles tend to play sort of "cinematically," but usually give good historical results. Basically that means the game is not as dry as a lot of the more serious historical simulations, but the game is just as likely to end up in a similar historical fashion (i.e. infantry moving in the open is going to get cut apart by machine guns, but they are extremely hard to move from cover or dug-in positions; tanks can move aggressively across open terrain, but are going to have trouble in difficult terrain and urban environments, especially if enemy infantry is around).

The cool thing about Flames of War is that because nearly all of the armies and units are well-balanced, there is no real "über army," and nearly all the units are useful. In fact, well-balanced armies are more likely to do well than armies that load up on just a couple things and thus can't cover as many bases.

Tanks are very useful, but so is infantry. Artillery is also very useful, but none of these things are the "ultimate unit" that will grant you an easy win. The fact that it's in 15mm is great too, because if you decide to try another WW2 ruleset, there are many that your FoW minis will be able to be used in.

Also, don't be intimidated by the smaller 15mm scale. As someone who's painted in both 25-28mm and 15mm, 15mm is not more difficult to paint in, per se, you will just need to use some different techniques than you are used to using if you've only been painting in 25-28mm. In some ways, I actually think 15mm is easier to get good results in than 28mm, once you get used to it.



If you've got any more specific questions, I'd be glad to help.

jp400 wrote:Plus everyone around here only want to play Larger battles, so it would eat up most the day just playing one game. This at times isnt a bad thing, but tends to get very old by hour 5+ lol.

You've got a point about game length. You can play FoW with small points/scenarios but I too have found that everyone wants to ramp up the number of points/size of scenario and some of the big battles can take all day. Still all-in-all I like the system, it's a nice compromise between totally unrealistic games like 40K and hard core historical games which take a PhD to play.

Hordini: Interesting assessment. I agree that FoW gets alot of the big stuff right (encourages cover, etc.) but is still a very "gamey" game. Particularly special abilities. The abstraction of ranges also leads to some odd results. It also gives an unrealistically high degree of control (which, admittedly, many game players like). All in all, it is a fun light game, but I think it actually reflects 40K better than WW2 (and 40K).

jp400 wrote:
Plus everyone around here only want to play Larger battles, so it would eat up most the day just playing one game. This at times isnt a bad thing, but tends to get very old by hour 5+ lol.

Isn't that what Apoc did for 40k?

Who says I play Apoc at all? I dont.

Its all down to your personal preference. To me FoW is an excellent WW2 rule set and is only slightly more complex than 40K. Put it this way if you can handle WFB than FoW will be a doddle!

I admit it’s a game not a simulation, quite frankly I don’t want a simulation. It is however fun, balanced and fast paced. My preference is for 1500 points (a company + support elements) on a 6 x 4 table. It gives plenty of room for manuver. Make sure you use plenty of terrain, far more so than you would in a 40K game. This makes the game far more interesting. It also makes very good use of scenarios.

It also means allot of research, go to your local 2nd hand bookstore or clearing book store and pick up some cheap books on WW2 battles. To me this is one of the most satisfying parts of the Wargaming hobby.

Of course there other scales if you prefer, 20mm is always good and is cheap to as you can take advantage of multitude of 1/72 scale figures and kits to be found at you local hobby store or sold in bulk for stupidly cheap prices on eBay, Ive literally seen hundreds of figures going for a few pounds. Or 28 mm is great if you love to paint, but is a pricy option especially if you plan on involving vehicles.

Rapid Fire is a very good rule set for 20mm. I've also heard good things about Command Decision and rules of Engagement.

I like the FoW ruleset too, It's not much more complicated that 40k at all and is very logical in almost all situations (unlike 40k IMO)

FOW is a game that uses WW2 style miniatures. It has no real historical accuracy. But if you want a quick and easy game... Then it may be for you.

Personally, I would play BKC. Much better ruleset, based on Warmaster and all the army lists in the one rulebook.

I tend to play either Rapid Fire or Force-On-Force, both in 20mm... Which is the 'only' scale to do WW2 in! ;-)

One of the things that I like about FoW is that it avoided getting bogged down in historical accuracy and went more for game play. It is not the most historically accurate, but I liked a lot of their concepts.

Units have a rating for Skill and Morale. So you can have veterans with low morale and conscripts with high morale. They may be effective but run away quckly, or totally inexperienced but afraid of the kommissar.

Big P wrote:FOW is a game that uses WW2 style miniatures. It has no real historical accuracy. But if you want a quick and easy game... Then it may be for you.

Personally, I would play BKC. Much better ruleset, based on Warmaster and all the army lists in the one rulebook.

What is BKC? I love the Warmaster system, so WW2 based on that seems all kinds of awesome. Also does it have a list for British Rifle Companies?

BKC = Blitzkreig Commander

has lists for ALL armies... All of them!



I would like to know why historical accuracy makes a game bog down? How does getting the history right and having the right vehicles make a game slower. Sorry but I think thats just an excuse for the shoddy treatment of history that FOW gives out. As they are touting a 'historical' subject that could have some respect and get the history right.

But if you dont care about accuracy and want gameplay, then it doesnt matter what you play... Its the game you want not an interest in history.

Rapid Fire is a fast play set, much quicker than FOW, but it plays historically. Force-On-Force plays historically requiring real world tactics, again it plays very fast. Being historically accurate does not mean a game bogs down.

Im biased thoug... Im very serious about WW2 history, im a military historian by trade, so I take it a bit more seriously than most...

By historical accuracy, I mean more from a 'stats' perspective than anything in game play.

Commandoes, Rangers, and Paratroopers are all elite troops. How much can you differeniate between them without going to multiple special rules or using lots of dice? I'm content with a game system that says they are all Elite and puts them in the same general category.

It's like trying to differentiate between a .50-cal (12.7mm) and a 15mm machine gun. Yes, they're different, with differing calibers, muzzle velocities, firing rates, and reload rates. But, I'm content calling them both a heavy machine gun and using the same rules if it speeds up the game (instead of trying to account for differing amor penetration, rates of fire, reload times, etc).

Alright. No offense to anyone intended, but after reading some of these posts I'm starting to develop a sneaking suspicion that some of you guys don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to FOW. I don't mean this as an insult, I am just interested in seeing a bit of support for these claims of how FOW is not historical.

There seems to be a lot of ill-will and what can only be called rumors about how the game works that has been disseminated on sites like TMP (a site which is usually a great resource, I will say). However, when confronted, most of these naysayers don't really have any idea how the game actually works.

Several of you have made claims that FOW "has no real historical accuracy" and gives a "shoddy treatment of history," or otherwise doesn't play historically.

As of yet, none of you have actually given any evidence to support this. Like I said, I've heard similar comments made before, but I've heard no real evidence that FOW gives any less historical results than any other more "serious" historical ruleset. It does tend to play more cinematically, but that does not mean it is inherently less historical. It also uses some abstraction to attain its results, but I don't think this really has anything to do with whether or not the ruleset is historically accurate or not, as every miniatures gaming ruleset uses abstraction.

So please, do tell me what you all mean when you say FOW has no historical accuracy or gives a shoddy treatment of history. I will say, rather, that the opposite is true and that while FOW is not necessarily the most historically accurate game ever it does have a rather solid historical basis, and can give a good treatment of history.

I will gladly provide some more specific reasons if you guys can produce some evidence as to why it's not historical.

Perhaps you should tell us how FOW is more accurate than other games by the same token?

Big P wrote:I would like to know why historical accuracy makes a game bog down? How does getting the history right and having the right vehicles make a game slower. Sorry but I think thats just an excuse for the shoddy treatment of history that FOW gives out. As they are touting a 'historical' subject that could have some respect and get the history right.

While I kind of agree about FoW, I'm a much bigger fan of relatively 'rules-lite' games, and I find that most games that go for historical accuracy tend to cram in rules for representing every little detail, which while it can be fun if I'm in the right mood, I generally prefer a slightly faster playing abstraction of rules.

I like the sound of this BKC and may see if that has the right balance for me and lets me play the Brits in North Africa

Big P wrote:

Perhaps you should tell us how FOW is more accurate than other games by the same token?

Like I said, I gladly will, but it's a little bit easier if I have more to go on that just "FOW is unhistorical, lol!" What is it you find so unhistorical about it? The sliding time and range scale? The fact that there is a points system that you can use if you want to? Or something else?

One side note that I found interesting recently is that FoW is becoming popular enough that the place I usually buy it online ( http://www.empiregamestore.co.uk/ ) is ditching their PP and GW ranges to go exclusively FoW. Glad it wasnt the other way around!

That is interesting, it may be a business direction decision made by the owner, maybe he just wants to sell historicals. My only gripe with the FoW rules are the Flamethrower (too good) and Heavy machinegun (too weak) rules. The core of the game mechanics are sound IMO.

Rules system like BKC are no threat to FoW they are just the next step for people who want that extra detail etc. A 15mm army is an investment for life.

Are weapon effectiveness/ranges scaled appropriately, do you think?

Before arguing about historical accuracy in rules you should agree what historical accuracy is.

Kilkrazy wrote:Before arguing about historical accuracy in rules you should agree what historical accuracy is.

I agree. So what is historical accuracy in rules? If FOW is not a historically accurate ruleset, than what is, and why?

malfred wrote:Are weapon effectiveness/ranges scaled appropriately, do you think?

I've not come across a weapon with a disproportionally long or short range from a game mechanics angle. FoW's simplified penetration rules mean that some weapons don’t increase in efficiency as much as they could vs. certain targets. We could be here all day discussing how far and how well weapon xyz should fire.

Brummbars should fire further

Hordini wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Before arguing about historical accuracy in rules you should agree what historical accuracy is.

I agree. So what is historical accuracy in rules? If FOW is not a historically accurate ruleset, than what is, and why?

I would argue that historical accuracy consists of producing ‘realistic’ results by mechanisms that make the players face the kind of problems the original commanders had to deal with.

This inevitably means that command and control are very important. There are many ways of dealing with it, which I will not discuss here.

It also means that the physical capabilities of weapons are in most cases secondary to their morale effect. Wargamer rules are very prone to designing mechanisms based on historical data (march rates, rates of fire and so on) which bear little relation to what actually happened in real life.

Not having played FoW I cannot give any opinion as to whether it is realistic or not. It should be noted, however, that wargame rules lie on a spectrum between simulation and pure game, and it can be very difficult to make the game fun as well as keeping the simulation good.

I don't know if anyone is familiar with the Avalon Hill card game Up Front? It is completely different to a normal map based game or a table top game, yet it is a very good simulation of squad level infantry combat .

While FoW may not have a chart for every single caliber of weapon describing it’s effectiveness at every single range against every single target I find that it doesn’t seem to matter. Sure some of the rules are kind of abstract, like sliding scale ranges and grouped calibers, but I find that well researched scenarios often play out on par with history.

Anyway, I don’t want to play a simulator - if you want that level of detail then use a computer. Those types of games are too mechanical to be fun; I want some cinema in my battle, that’s why I’m playing.

I don't think anybody was saying FoW isn't a fun game, but it has some oddities:
Telescoping distance: Artillery will be on table, meaning it is in the midst of battle. Very unrealistic as artillery barrages usually supported from very long ranges. Also, it makes the range of something like a HMG and tank cannon seem very odd by comparison and (combined with the facing system) leads to some strange tank behavior (Napoleonic tanks).

IGUGO turn structure doesn't allow opportunity fire, interruption of action, etc. without special rules.

Size on teams does not effect resilience (IE a 2 man team is just as easy to kill as a 5 man team).

I personally don't care for IGOUGO in general (it was a fine way to handle things in 1970) as it limits player involvement and interaction during turns. Also, their units can get sketchy at times (RSO tows for PAK 43s? Tiger Is in late war western battles IE Normandy?)

Approached as one game among many, it's fine and I'm glad it gets people into 15s and WW2. But it should not be viewed as any kind of end all be all of WW2 gaming. It is what it is- a fun, simple, quick playing WW2 game designed to sell minis. The books are very nice!

To those commenting they don't want to play a simulator, come off it. Of course the game should be fun and not needlessly bogged down in minutiae. But the whole point of choosing an era is to deal with the issues and problems inherent in that era. Otherwise you might as well play checkers with army men. If the same tactics work in your ancients, fantasy, WW2, and future combat games, that is not a good thing. The whole point is to try something different. A battle between Gauls and Marian Romans should play very differently than mid war clashes between German and Soviet armor.

As someone who resisted the pull of fellow gamers for over two years, and has just now moved to FOW,.... I have to say that finally getting into the game, I like it quite a bit.

Compared to 40K,.... as most everyone who reads this will likely have experience with that ruleset,..... FOW has become much more enjoyable. In my experience there is far less of the over-the-top types of special rules. There are a core group of rules for each nationality, and they seem pretty balanced, but if you ignore the advantages of your nationality and try to play a force that does not use them, you will be in for a frustrating time.

In 40K, you are always running up against the next power list. There are many ways to do this in 40k,... and not so many in FOW. While there are a few WAAC gamers in FOW; it is a bit harder to exploit uber units in FOW. The developers have done a pretty good job of limiting certain units to only one platoon, or just making their points cost so high that it is difficult to win a game with too many of them.

The hardest thing to get my head around originally was the skill/morale system, and how few steps there are to each. I think that they could have done better had used a 2D6 mentality similar to 40K,..... but then there are now 2D6 rolls in FOW that I am aware of. That is the biggest difficulty in the game,...... the HUGE difference between Reluctant, Confident, and Fearless; and similarly the difference between Conscript, Trained, and Veteran.

Lastly, your opponent's skill being the determining factor on your to-hit roll is tough to swallow. The argument is that if you are shooting at Veteran troops, they are better at hiding, moving, etc. My thought is; if your opponent runs his tank right out into the open, then your skill should determine how difficult it will be to hit the tank.

All that said. The other mechanics are fine. AT ratings on wepons are tied directly to energy delivered by the weapon, and fire power rolls (which you make to see if a hit that was not saved by the armor is successful) are directly linked to caliber. That extra step vs 40K logic (roll to hit, roll to save) provides the game with two things. It handles "cover saves" in a much better way than in 40K (giving different weapons different abilities to defeat the cover), and makes everything a bit more survivable. Your toys stay on the table longer, and you have more fun. (nothing is worse than a whole unit in 40K being taken out by one round of shooting).

I like the game (a lot), if they found a way to even out the skill/motivation rules a bit, I think that it would be just about perfect. It is a game, and the minute that you accept that, and look at the numbers vs making arguments that your tank should be able to do this or that,..... you'll start having more fun

Why has no one mentioned Battlefield evo:world at war?

To me it is very similar to 40k, in that it is a 1:1, points based skirmish with a very elegant ruleset.

Oh, and it's cheaper than spit to play!

Kilkrazy wrote:
I would argue that historical accuracy consists of producing ‘realistic’ results by mechanisms that make the players face the kind of problems the original commanders had to deal with.

This inevitably means that command and control are very important. There are many ways of dealing with it, which I will not discuss here.

It also means that the physical capabilities of weapons are in most cases secondary to their morale effect. Wargamer rules are very prone to designing mechanisms based on historical data (march rates, rates of fire and so on) which bear little relation to what actually happened in real life.

One of the things I liked about FOW is the way command works. If your platoon leader dies (hits are distributed and then saves are rolled), in most cases the platoon sits there waiting for someone to come and take over. They can shoot or move away but they can't move any closer to the enemy. Your Commander has to come over and either lead himself or appoint someone else to do the job. Once you start taking heavy casualties you have to start taking morale tests every turn to see if your army decides it's time to leave. There is also command distance but you can leave teams behind (leave the HMG team behind to cover the road, etc) if you want. They have to move back into command when they do move but you can leave them as long as you like. How far apart the members of a platoon can be depends on how well your army is trained. Veterans can spread out further then trained troops, etc.

The psychological effect of some weapons is present in the game as well. If an artillery bombardment causes even a single hit, the platoon is pinned (basically ducking for cover, trying not to get blown to hell). They can't move except to fall back and fire at a reduced rate (popping out of cover to fire rather then aiming and pouring it on). Flamethrowers automatically pin a unit as well. To assault a tank your troops have to pass a motivation test to see if they can muster the courage to charge. Also, if a tank takes basically what is a "penetrating hit" but doesn't get knocked out, the crew bail out of the tank and you have to pass a motivation test for them to get back in.

These are just a few examples of how FOW helps get that "real" feel to it. Of course it's not perfect but no game really is.

So do I gather that in Flames of War that there is no way to react on your opponents turn? IE there is no Oppurtunity/Defensive/Reaction fire? Thats almost a deal breaker for me. I don't really care for the turn structure in 40K (IGOUGO) but I can live with iot because I think the game is silly anyway and is definitely "beer and pretzels" for me. It wouldprobably annoy me if FoW didn't have any oppurtunity fire since even much lighter boardgame rulesets do.

If the OP is interested in boardgames then there are literally hundreds of WW2 wargames out there, though the vast majority will feature a paper or cardstock map and most likely use cardboard counters (functionality FTW, sorry no minis!)

It's pretty much IGOUGO. There is defensive fire when assaulted, but only by the unit actually assaulted. So, if you infantry is assaulted, the nearby HMG will just sit there stupidly instead of laying down a killzone.

Despite its flaws, I recommend at least giving it a try- it is usually very easy to find players and lets you get some use out of those 15s!

Defensive fire when assaulted can be pretty brutal. It's been a few years since I played, but I seem to remember assaulting a unit that was pinned down was a bad idea, and that during an assault, someone is almost always wiped out to the man.

Jmurph, you can also only assault from 4" away which is supposed to represent a pretty short distance. I always took it as only the nearby troops would have the time to react.

Also, you take defensive fire after the enemy moves into BtB or as close as they can and any squads (not just from the platoon being assaulted) that are within 4" can take defensive fire.

assaulting a pinned down unit is the only way (unless you're Russians and can take 10 hits before being pinned yourself) unless the target is very small or isolated. Assaults can be bloody but you can break off after the first round so they are not to the death.

Lots of people do not like FoW's lack of defensive fire, but it is still a solid game.

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

Assaulting almost any enemy in open ground without support is an excellent way to get your models killed in FoW.

How much would you say it costs to build a decent sized army? Say the equivalent of a 1500 point 40K army.

I'm probably going to pick up that new Starter set anyway.

I really like the FoW models, and the fact that it has a lot of support is a plus. And I have dozens of other WW2 games anyway if I want something more "realistic."

jmurph wrote:It's pretty much IGOUGO. There is defensive fire when assaulted, but only by the unit actually assaulted. So, if you infantry is assaulted, the nearby HMG will just sit there stupidly instead of laying down a killzone.

This is incorrect. Any teams within a certain range (Sorry, I don't have my books with me, so I'm not sure the exact number of inches) participate in defensive fire, even if they're not from the platoon that is actually being assaulted.

ChaplainSeverus wrote:Lots of people do not like FoW's lack of defensive fire, but it is still a solid game.

FoW does have defensive fire, both for assaults and anti-aircraft, and it can be brutal if you have things set up right. The ambush rules also work as a sort of ersatz opportunity fire. Just because FoW doesn't handle defensive or opportunity fire the same way as other games doesn't mean it is not there.

Hordini wrote:FoW does have defensive fire, both for assaults and anti-aircraft, and it can be brutal if you have things set up right. The ambush rules also work as a sort of ersatz opportunity fire. Just because FoW doesn't handle defensive or opportunity fire the same way as other games doesn't mean it is not there.

Hordini,
Defensive/opportunity is there and it can be effective,but it exists in a much more limited scope.

Some WWII gamers don't like the fact that you can move your tanks from one side of an open field to the other and get them back into cover and they can never be shot at while they cross the open expanse.

people coming over from 40K don't notice it, but some people who have played other WWII rules use the lack of defensive/opportunity fire as an argument to condemn the game.


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

ChaplainSeverus wrote:

Hordini wrote:FoW does have defensive fire, both for assaults and anti-aircraft, and it can be brutal if you have things set up right. The ambush rules also work as a sort of ersatz opportunity fire. Just because FoW doesn't handle defensive or opportunity fire the same way as other games doesn't mean it is not there.

Hordini,
Defensive/opportunity is there and it can be effective,but it exists in a much more limited scope.

Some WWII gamers don't like the fact that you can move your tanks from one side of an open field to the other and get them back into cover and they can never be shot at while they cross the open expanse.

people coming over from 40K don't notice it, but some people who have played other WWII rules use the lack of defensive/opportunity fire as an argument to condemn the game.


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

It's a matter of preference. I'm sure some people condemn FoW for a lack of a more traditional oppurtunity fire. I wouldn't condemn it because I understand what type of gamer the target audience is for FoW and it's vastly different from your typical WW2 gamer.

How do Anti-Tank guns work in FoW? They aren't really a weapon you wheel around and move from point to point trying to attack a target. They tend to be static and shoot the first enemy who is dumb enough to come in to their line of sight.

I mean I guess you could set them up in defensive positions, but if a tank can just race from cover to cover without you getting an attempt to put a shot on them, well that really kind of sucks.

It's really just more a problem with IGOUGO.

Again, game mechanics are largely a matter of preference but I like a game where I get the feeling that things are happening simultaneously - whether we're dealing with impulse/alternating movements, or where all fire is resolved simultaneously. Even Axis and Allies minis had alternating movement phases followed by assault/shooting phases where hits were resolved simultanesouly at the end of the turn.

Again, it's all preference but I feel the IGOUGO system and a lack of defensive fire are valid criticisms against the FoW system. Again, gamers who don't like that should look elswhere. I'd suggest looking at board wargames.

I'm still buying that FoW starter though.

My bad on the 4 inch thing- I forgot that. Still, the HMG 4.1 inches away and dancing tanks problems still apply.

IGOUGO, in all fairness, is an outdated mechanic from 70s gaming. There are much better designs that allow more responsive play. There are also plenty of miniature based wargames that employ such systems and allow for much more dynamic games, usually skirmish or platoon, maybe company, scale (C&C issues often prevent more rapid reactions in higher eschelons. I would gripe if a game at brigade level let me instantly change individual trooper orders!). Look around. I wouldn't use that as a reason to not try FoW, though.

FoW shouldn't be that expensive. I would avoid Battlefront if you are seeking cheaper minis and look towards Battle Honors and Command Decision miniatures. Very reasonable. Peter Pig also does some cheap 15s.

jmurph wrote:My bad on the 4 inch thing- I forgot that. Still, the HMG 4.1 inches away and dancing tanks problems still apply.

Yes if you leave your troops badly positioned you will be punished for it. Remember you can pre-measure everything in FoW. What is the dancing tanks problem exactly?

jmurph wrote:FoW shouldn't be that expensive. I would avoid Battlefront if you are seeking cheaper minis and look towards Battle Honors and Command Decision miniatures. Very reasonable. Peter Pig also does some cheap 15s.

Very true, I use Peter Pig infantry more and more although I prefer the FoW vehicles.

As far as AT guns go, they are excellent to use for ambushes, which is another way FoW utilizes a sort of non-traditional opportunity fire. A well placed ambush with AT guns can be devastating. They are also very useful for area denial, something that can be crucial in FoW.

Hordini wrote:As far as AT guns go, they are excellent to use for ambushes, which is another way FoW utilizes a sort of non-traditional opportunity fire. A well placed ambush with AT guns can be devastating. They are also very useful for area denial, something that can be crucial in FoW.

Could you explain a little how the ambush in FoW works?

If the scenario (or platoon special rule) allows ambush then the unit is kept off table and placed in your deployment zone at the beginning of one of your turns subject to certain LOS requirements. It then functions as a normal unit.

Squad Leader uses IGOUGO but during the enemy's turn the non-phasing player can take opportunity fire at moving units as they move.

You know, when you get right down to it, I'm awfully happy just playing DoW M'44. Borg did a great job with that game and tremendous fun.

Sure, it's even more simplified than FoW, but the game plays well, and that's the important thing.

If you like wargaming, you really should look at Memoir '44, by Days of Wonder.

The thing that got me into flames of war was actually two things. You get to measure before you shoot. A unit can shoot at different units which means all your figures will get their best firing chance.

Heh, gary, that isn't uncommon outside of GW games. The ban on "premeasuring" and prohibiting split fire in a game which models individual troopers is an oddity of their games system.

JohnHwangDD: M44 has been well received. It's a bit more boardgamish than most miniature games and doesn't use detailed minis, though, which may not appeal to some. I think the more games people try, the better!

I have a tendency to rant when it comes to this game so I will make it brief. 40K, even with all the ork 5th ed balance issues, is a much better game than FoW.

I have played FoW twice and observed many battles at my local store while painting. The rules for FoW are utter nonsense. The game has WWII tanks shooting while on the move (they couldn't hit anything on the move at that time period) and the Germans have an array of totally ahistorical rules to give them advantages they didn't have.

Might I add that this game has onboard artillery as well. 40K has whirlwinds onboard, but at least this is a fictional game. I can go look up the ranges for artillery in WWII and tell you that it is not going to be deployed on the board with 100% certainty. If you are going to be a historical game, at least get things like that right.

/flame off

Then you should you a different ruleset.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of a turn in FoW. The tank moving and shooting perhaps represents the tank moving then stopping to fire, thus the reduced rate of fire compared to a tank that did not move. There were tanks that could fire on the move in this period.

Artillery is on table as a game balance (and to sell models). Off table artillery is not well suited to a company based game if you want both sides to have fun.

I would disagree FoW is a better game than 40k. FoW is not a brilliant WWII simulation.

40K is the first game I've ever played which banned pre-measuring. A fair number of rules specify that you can measure whatever you need to.

George Spiggott wrote:Then you should you a different ruleset.

I will use a different rule set. I'm not demanding anyone to quit playing it. I'm just giving my opinion on the ruleset. I think FoW is a total nonsense game. If it were a fictional game, that would be one thing. But it is not. I am just saying I would spend my hard-earned money on this game.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of a turn in FoW. The tank moving and shooting perhaps represents the tank moving then stopping to fire, thus the reduced rate of fire compared to a tank that did not move. There were tanks that could fire on the move in this period.

No one except Americans that I am aware of had gyro-stabilized turrets and even then shooting on the move was really poor. Abysmally poor. As in worse than a "6" on a D6 poor. So no, shooting on the move should not be allowed in FoW.

Artillery is on table as a game balance (and to sell models). Off table artillery is not well suited to a company based game if you want both sides to have fun.

Again, find another way to balance your game. Artillery happens. The whole point is that the enemy infantry and tanks CAN'T get to your artillery. Sorry Germans, you get to be pounded by a lot of long toms. I'm sorry if its not fun. 1944 was not fun for the Germans, therefore the game should reflect this, or else it is not a WWII game.

I would disagree FoW is a better game than 40k. FoW is not a brilliant WWII simulation.

Both games have no overwatch, but no army in 40K can abuse the lack of overwatch rules like the Germans can in FoW. Stormtrooper is the dumbest rule I've seen in a miniatures game since 2nd edtion 40K. There is no way a Tiger can come out from behind a building, shoot at M-18s and NOT get shot back at. Sorry. The whole German army being veteran? Seriously. I could go on. Again, 40K has a lot more give in it just because it IS fictional. FoW is also fiction, with pretense of history. Sadly, the unit abilities in 40K make MORE sense.

/flame off

Kilkrazy wrote:40K is the first game I've ever played which banned pre-measuring. A fair number of rules specify that you can measure whatever you need to.

I actually like no pre-measuring. Puts some risk into the game. Although you'd think the techno-armies would have range finders.......... oh well.

A very good ww2 game which can use all scales is Battlefield Evolution: World At War by Mongoose Publishing.

Simple and effective, and good support website at evocommand.com

Mongoose is still in business?

Overall, I think Flames makes a lot more sense than 40k, and Germans being "Veteran" reflects their discipline and command structure in addition to time in theatre. And it helps show how the Germans are different from the non-Germans.

I think that you're like a lot people who take stuff too literally. If the "Veteran" were changed to "Disciplined" or "stereotypically Prussian", perhaps that would be better?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Mongoose is still in business?

Yeah Starship troopers and Babylon 5 were only two of thier games, they still exist everyone

Martel732 wrote:Both games have no overwatch, but no army in 40K can abuse the lack of overwatch rules like the Germans can in FoW. Stormtrooper is the dumbest rule I've seen in a miniatures game since 2nd edtion 40K. There is no way a Tiger can come out from behind a building, shoot at M-18s and NOT get shot back at. Sorry. The whole German army being veteran? Seriously. I could go on. Again, 40K has a lot more give in it just because it IS fictional. FoW is also fiction, with pretense of history. Sadly, the unit abilities in 40K make MORE sense.

/flame off

Except not all the Germasn lists are Veteran. Flames of War makes a lot of simplifications ‘stormtrooper’ being just one of them. We could gripe about holes in the Flames of War rules all day but I don't feel the need to as overall I enjoy the game. I think you need to find another rule set for your 15mm miniatures if Flames of War doesn't float your boat.#

Mongoose are in business AFAIK just not in the business of making miniatures.

Yeah, not all German lists are veterans, and almost every other nation has lists with veteran-rated troops. British infantry, for example, is confident veteran (the same as many German lists) in Mid-war.

Also, what's so bad about Stormtrooper movement, really? It's not a guarantee. It's nice, but I've seen many players (including myself) rely on their stormtrooper movement for a crucial move and then get toasted when they fail their skill test.

And with a Tiger's long range, it doesn't necessarily need to be stormtrooper shuffling to take out M-18s anyway.

garythewargamer wrote:The thing that got me into flames of war was actually two things. You get to measure before you shoot. A unit can shoot at different units which means all your figures will get their best firing chance.

Err...well...i'd reccomend GMT's Command and Color: Ancients, over Memoir 44. They're the same game, essentially. But CC:A is soooo much better.

The use of the left/center/right system and the nature of the card play make M44 so completely divorced from how WW2 combat actually works. I feel the system works better for Ancients battles than for WW2.

M44 is a fun game, no doubt, but it's a helluva step down from even something as simple as Flames of War.

If you like the cardplay in M44 then i'd suggest taking a look at Combat Commander: Europe by GMT.

It's hex and counter, but all your actions are dictated by the cards you draw. You can play multiple cards in a turn (unlike M44/CC:A) and you also have the ability to discard cards.

It has alternating actions, defensive fire (and other ways to interrupt the the other plays actions), and a whole lot of other chrome.

It's a fairly simple game too with one of the best rulebooks ever written. It's only about 20 pages or so.

Alternatively another Squad Level (where the playing pieces represent a squad, the battles are usually around Company Level forces) is Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear. It has an absolutely brilliant alternating action/unit activation system. I truly love this game. It's by Academy games. It's hex and counter, but it has mounted mapboard and really thick counters.

Kilkrazy wrote:40K is the first game I've ever played which banned pre-measuring. A fair number of rules specify that you can measure whatever you need to.

I like this rule, otherwise players would measure over and over and over again on there turn making it endlessly slower to play. You mentioned Squad Leader earlier. I know for a fact that Advanced Squad Leader doesn't allow for pre-measuring of Line of Sight when determing a fire attack, I assume SL is the same, since ASL is built off SL. And while both A/SL are IGOUGO i think that's more of a product of when they were created (late 70s/early 80s.) I actually don't mind the turn order in ASL.

C&CA is the one with the blocks? No thanks. Having wound counter minis is integral to the game. If I wanted to play with chits, I'd play something else.

The L/C/R thing works fine even in M'44, especially when playing things like Omaha Beach...

Battlelore, of course, is loads of fun. I think I prefer it to WFB...

JohnHwangDD wrote:C&CA is the one with the blocks? No thanks. Having wound counter minis is integral to the game. If I wanted to play with chits, I'd play something else.

The L/C/R thing works fine even in M'44, especially when playing things like Omaha Beach...

Battlelore, of course, is loads of fun. I think I prefer it to WFB...

If you wont play a game simply because of the pieces it uses to represent the troops then that is your preference. I think it's absurd as I'm more interested in playing a fun game then playing a game with "neat and pretty" pieces.

Part of the fun of C&C system is the models for wound counters, and the visual impact of the game. Blocks just don't convey that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Part of the fun of C&C system is the models for wound counters, and the visual impact of the game. Blocks just don't convey that.

As I stated above, I disagree. Ultimately it's a matter of preference and I don't hold "visual impact" too high on what i'm looking for in any game. If the pieces are functional then i'm fine with it. Nice looking bits for me is just the icing on the cake.

Right. And I think it's similarly absurd to go through the trouble of raising production values to stop with wooden blocks.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Right. And I think it's similarly absurd to go through the trouble of raising production values to stop with wooden blocks.

Yes, you've stated as much twice. I disagree (as stated above, twice.)

As far as pre-measuring goes, I've never had a problem with it bogging down the game during FoW. Most people don't actually pre-measure that much I find, and you can always measure a bit during your opponent's turn, which speeds up things as well. Personally, I think being able to measure any time is a good thing, and as long as both players can do it, it's not really an advantage or a disadvantage.

I've heard Command Decision is good, if you are into a more "simulation" type WW2 wargame, and I think FoW minis would work nicely in Command Decision. I will probably give it a try myself at some point.

And fun games are....well, fun, but I think a lot of people here are looking for fun miniatures games as well, so of course the miniatures are an important part of that. Personally I'm looking forward to trying out Panzer Blitz or Panzer Leader when I get back to the States though, and that's just a hex game.

Hordini wrote:And fun games are....well, fun, but I think a lot of people here are looking for fun miniatures games as well, so of course the miniatures are an important part of that. Personally I'm looking forward to trying out Panzer Blitz or Panzer Leader when I get back to the States though, and that's just a hex game.

Yes, nice components are always a plus. But if i'm not playing a tabletop miniatures game such as WFB, FoW, 40K, etc then i'm not as concerned. With board games (of which M'44 and C&C:A are) a good, solid set of rules with fun gameplay is the most important aspect for me. If a game isn't fun, then it doesn't matter how good it looks because in my opinion it would just be a waste of my time. When you add miniatures to boardgame the price increases substantially and at that point the extra cost isn't worth it.

Now tabletop miniatures are expensive, but with tabletop miniatures I can also get a lot of fun out of building and painting the models. If 40K was a prepainted miniatures game I simply wouldn't play it as I really don't feel for a squad level game (where units typically represent squads of men) that 40k is that good. As mentioned above I feel the IGO-UGO turn structure is completely dated for this style of tactical game. Pure IGOUGO works fine at larger levels (operational and strategic) but at the tactical level (in modern combat) it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. While games like Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader use an IGOUGO system, your opponent at least gets to do stuff on your turn in several different phases (and both those games are products of the 1970s.) I wish 40K had something like that. I'd love if FoW did too.

http://www.multimanpublishing.com/preorder/viewGame.php?id=38

A new edition of Panzerblitz is on pre-order from Multi-Man Publishing. Not sure when it's expeced to finally go to print.

What other 15mm World War 2 rulesets are out there? I'd like to play something that isn't IGOUGO and has some sort of defensive/oppurtunity/reaction/overwatch fire.

Lagduf wrote:What other 15mm World War 2 rulesets are out there? I'd like to play something that isn't IGOUGO and has some sort of defensive/oppurtunity/reaction/overwatch fire.

Command Decision is supposed to be good, but I'm not really sure how it works, having never played it. As I said though, it's more of a simulation, so it probably has something like that. You could play Nuts! in 15mm if you really want to, but you'll probably want single-based models.

Yeah, Nutz! is a great game, but really a different scale since it focuses on individual troop actions.

You might take a look at Crossfire as you can use FOW bases just fine. It's a pretty neat system that has some innovative concepts in it. Disposable Heroes also gets mentioned alot.

I think the greatest WWII game I have ever played is DoDIII/World in Flames. The game does such a great job of modeling 1936-1946. The players can change history, but only sort of. The basic sides can never change, and you can't build units that there were not at least plans for.

Of course, this is a hex strategy game, but I am so disappointed by FoW sheer historical inaccuracies. The models are so nice, but the game is such crap.

I'm going to state one fact here that shows why the stormtrooper rule is unjustified hogwash. Fact: The average operational speed of the German army in WWII was no better than the Union army of the American Civil War. Also, the majority of the equipment was transported via horse. Think about that for a second.

Blitzkrieg is a total fabrication. Conquer France in 30 days? I can bike across it in 5. IF the Germans were really as good as FoW shows them, they would have been in Kamchatka by '42.

Bottom line is, the Germans were not that great. Look at their boneheadedness in the Soviet Union. But People love to play Germans. People love Germans to be way overpowered so they can feel cool. For this reason, they love German models. That's what sells.

For some reason, people want the Germans to be more than they were: outnumbered, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied.

Martel732 wrote: Of course, this is a hex strategy game

Thats the second time a statement like this has been made in this thread. Do you mean to state hex and counter games are inferior in some way or am I misreading?

If only I could find a tactical WW2 miniatures game that was also as popular as FoW.

Anyone got any links to some other affordable 15mm WW2 tanks?

No, no. I was just pointing out that WiF is not a model game, and therefore not an alternative to FoW. I PREFER hex and counter games. They are usually far more accurate than model games of WWII. However, I realize people like models and those games have their place.

FoW is king of the hill for right now. Personally, I find this appalling, but whatever. The give and take of WiF is fantastic. 1936-1942 the Axis gets to be the badasses. Usually come about 1943 though, they get better get ready for some beatdowns. In 1943, the US typically has more units on the production wheel than the whole Axis put together

Martel732 wrote:Blitzkrieg is a total fabrication. Conquer France in 30 days? I can bike across it in 5... ...For some reason, people want the Germans to be more than they were: outnumbered, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied.

Yet somehow they made the task they took six weeks to perform in 1940 take six months for the allies to perform in 1944 whilst being, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied and while the bulk of their forces were fighting on another front.

Martel732 wrote:
Blitzkrieg is a total fabrication. Conquer France in 30 days? I can bike across it in 5. IF the Germans were really as good as FoW shows them, they would have been in Kamchatka by '42.

Bottom line is, the Germans were not that great. Look at their boneheadedness in the Soviet Union. But People love to play Germans. People love Germans to be way overpowered so they can feel cool. For this reason, they love German models. That's what sells.

For some reason, people want the Germans to be more than they were: outnumbered, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied.

Agree with the last part but not the first. German's rapid push through Europe surprised everyone. Their rapid advance pushed the Allied forces back with such rapidity and ferocity that I think Blitzkrieg and its reputation were appropriate (even if the Ardennes invasion owed a great deal to a lucky misdirected set of plans). See also the African campaign and Rommel's rapid advances. However, the Germans had serious logistics limitations that often made these advances a double edged sword as they frequently had problems keeping supply lines and support up with the military spearhead. Again, Rommel's African advance is a good illustration- he pushed hard and fast and left his supply lines behind and almost got himself killed. The German high command also had extremely bad combined arms cooperation (largely driven by ego conflicts rather that legitimate strategic disagreement) between the branches and a total lack of an overall plan as demonstrated by blunders like Dunkirk (where the German navy, though small, should have been capable of cutting off a sea retreat) and other (numerous) conflicts between the army command, SAS, Luftwaffe, etc. The fact that their central authority was a megalomaniac lacking in understanding of extended military strategy and logistics didn't help. And, yes, the Soviet campaign was a disaster.

People like to play the Germans, I think, because they seemed to be a powerhouse that collapsed under a series of ridiculously bad decisions. Wargamers, especially, see the potential of German armor, infantry, air support, etc. and think they could do better. Of course, wargames rarely address the reasons that the Axis was doomed even with competent military strategy (US production alone pretty much guaranteed eventual Allied victory, especially when teamed with a Soviet threat on Germany's eastern border). But moving panthers around and MG42 supported infantry is pretty fun, so meh. Personally, I think a German conquest of western and central Europe was probably feasible. It would have probably required more buildup and a resolution prior to US entry. I don't know that Britain could have ever been invaded successfully; certainly not without crushing the fleeing Dunkirk forces. And the Soviet invasion was probably a bad idea, but may have been tenable if the Germans had made a strong push to take Moscow instead of diverting all over Russia (especially Stalingrad). My guess is that Moscow would have been a fight comparable to Stalingrad, but taking the capital would have had a profound effect on the SU and would have probably undermined Stalin. Or spurred the Soviets into a fanatical mode. Regardless, I think Hitler's persecution of the Jews was not only reprehensible, but foolish in that it basically drove central/East Europe towards the Soviets to avoid annihilation of their large Jewish populations.

And hindsight is always 20/20. If the Germans could be successful with such backwards looking, the Americans are downright unstoppable! I mean what if the Americans had used supply escorts and air reconnaissance sooner and less sporadically? German UBoat sinking rates like those in '43 occurring in '41-42 would be amazing in terms of supply. It also means a massive invasion sooner. Or what if the French had not panicked? Their forces could have probably held back the German invasion, especially with British support (French armor was a match to German and British air support was easily a match for German pilots). Indeed, most games reflecting early war must institute an artificial mechanic to force French players to behave like their historical counterparts, or the Germans have serious problems!

Great here we go. Another Germanophile. I guess one advantage they did have was that they were not a coalition force. I'm sure the Western front would been accelerated had the Allies never listened to Montgomery about... well anything.

Although the Germans were impressive in many areas, they were not nearly as good as FoW makes them out to be.

Actually WiF does force France into being a patsy. There is not much the French player can do about it, so usually the American player runs France.

While there is no doubt that Germany's early victories caught people offguard, I think that people were getting ready for WWI all over again. Me trotting down the road without breaking a sweat is a blitzkrieg compared to WWI, where the front barely moved. WWI's slowness does not make blitzkrieg a reality, only a media catchphrase.

@Martel: Are the Germans all-conquering in FoW?

Or do they just beat *you* down?

Seriously, you got a lot of hate for them, and it doesn't seem entirely rational.

It's just a game.

Where can I get affordable 15mm WW2 infantry and vehicles that would be compatible across a number of WW2 tabletop minis systems? Are there any cheaper/better than the FoW stuff?

@Lagduf: I bought a few Old Glory Miniatures 15mm "Command Decision" tanks.

They're much less expensive than Battlefront, but the model quality isn't as good - heat sink / warp / mold lines are present on all parts and would require a lot of cleanup to reach GW / Battlefront standards.

Quite frankly, you get what you pay for, but 15mm is 15mm, so any models will do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Martel: Are the Germans all-conquering in FoW?

Or do they just beat *you* down?

Seriously, you got a lot of hate for them, and it doesn't seem entirely rational.

It's just a game.

What I hate is how many WWII games completely overestimate the strength of Germany, from the divisional level all the way down to the individual trooper. It's just a case of FoW catching 20 years of gaming frustration. If FoW were, say, the 5th game slanted toward Germany I've observed or played, I wouldn't care. But it's about the 50th game I've seen that makes the Germans demi-gods on the battlefield. (And by the way, sells the Soviets short) Move-fire-move? With a tiger? Really?

I don't play FoW, but I watch it being played a lot while I paint. I've looked at their stat tables and their point values as well. I think their idea of making a "fair point system" equals to "all things being even, Germans steamroll." Just look at their demo; its a rare king tiger tank popping Shermans that are being fed single file into its front arc. Seriously? Who wants to be the Americans in this setup?

All in all, though, they laugh all the way to the bank as they sell their German models. All I can do is ineffectively protest their pro-German bias in the game.

Huh?

The FOW starter is 3 Shermans against 2 StuGs - how is that not fair or reasonable?

Those are the most common produced tank and SPG made.

Martel732 wrote:
What I hate is how many WWII games completely overestimate the strength of Germany, from the divisional level all the way down to the individual trooper. It's just a case of FoW catching 20 years of gaming frustration.

Maybe you should realize you're just frustrated and rethink your unreasonable stance on things. Being frustrated doesn't help make logical arguments.

Martel732 wrote:If FoW were, say, the 5th game slanted toward Germany I've observed or played, I wouldn't care. But it's about the 50th game I've seen that makes the Germans demi-gods on the battlefield.

Germans aren't demi-gods on the battlefield. I've seen them win and lose, it's a pretty balanced game actually. Our club has played it pretty steadily for three solid years.

Martel732 wrote:(And by the way, sells the Soviets short) Move-fire-move? With a tiger? Really?

In our last club game Russian conscript armor decimated German panzers.

Martel732 wrote:I don't play FoW

Making you nothing more than a casual observer. If you played the game and understood the rules, perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to condemn it.

Martel732 wrote:but I watch it being played a lot while I paint. I've looked at their stat tables and their point values as well. I think their idea of making a "fair point system" equals to "all things being even, Germans steamroll."

Again your statement is a generalization. In three years of gaming and no one has found the Germans to be overpowering in any way. In fact I think the conscript armies like Italy and Russia do a lot better in our games.

Martel732 wrote:Just look at their demo; its a rare king tiger tank popping Shermans that are being fed single file into its front arc. Seriously? Who wants to be the Americans in this setup?

A demo? Does that sum up the game? Is it meant to be a scenario or a demonstration of how the game mechanics work?

Martel732 wrote:All in all, though, they laugh all the way to the bank as they sell their German models. All I can do is ineffectively protest their pro-German bias in the game.

Try a game yourself instead of watching it played. Get over the idea that Germans are "overpowered" you might end up liking it.

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

George Spiggott wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Blitzkrieg is a total fabrication. Conquer France in 30 days? I can bike across it in 5... ...For some reason, people want the Germans to be more than they were: outnumbered, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied.

Yet somehow they made the task they took six weeks to perform in 1940 take six months for the allies to perform in 1944 whilst being, outproduced, outstrategized, and outspied and while the bulk of their forces were fighting on another front.

Well said Mr. Spiggott. I wonder if we'll get an explanation on how blitzkrieg is a fabrication.

No one wants the Germans to be more than they were. They weren't supermen, but in most cases they were at the very least well trained and motivated soldiers. The blitzkrieg was, on the surface, hugely successful and if not for the amazing tenacity of the Russians in 1941-42 (at Stalingrad in particular) perhaps could have delivered a knock-out blow to the Soviet Union that could have changed the course of the war. Luckily for the world they were led by a lunatic who made sure their defeat was inevitable.

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

It's pretty obvious you haven't played FoW, Martel, even if you hadn't admitted it yourself. Your complaints about Stormtrooper movement are the only ones that are even somewhat valid, and it certainly isn't enough to sink a whole game system. Stormtrooper movement isn't a guaranteed thing, and it doesn't have anything to do with operational speed. It has to do with tactical speed in small units and the ability to redeploy quickly on the battlefield. Yes, it is possible to do a "Stormtrooper Shuffle" but if you rely on that the whole game, chances are you're going to get smoked. It's a nice ability, but if you rely on it, you almost always get wasted, and I know this from actually playing the game.

Germans are hardly overpowered in FoW, especially not compared to the Russians. I'm usually not one to flaunt my wargaming E-Peen on Dakka, but I think my experiences with FoW are relevant here.

Let me start by saying that I'm not the greatest FoW player. I'm probably about average in general, and above average on my good days. I play mostly Germans, and also Russians. In some of the tournaments I've played in, I've had my German Panzergrenadiers utterly annihilated by Soviet armor, and I've been thrashed while playing a German Tiger company. On the other hand, I've also won Best General at a tournament. Oh, but guess what army I was playing the time I won Best General? It was Soviet Infantry, and it was the best I've ever done in a tournament. Surprise!

Yeah, those Germans sure are overpowered though, aren't they?

Martel732 wrote:I don't play FoW...

I think we're done here. There's no point in arguing the influence and power of specific game mechanics with someone who doesn't play.

All things being equal British Commandos are the best troops in the game, Germans, even fallschirmjaegers and SS, are merely faster.

I'm glad they changed the demo to STuGs vs Shermans. The king tiger scenario was absolutely ludicrous and was definitely turning people off at the con I was at. At least, the poor suckers playing Americans.

From the games I have observed, it would be an interesting metagame matchup vs the players you describe. In the games I see, stormtrooper is an overpowering advantage. The Germans rely on it, because it prevents them from being shot back at effectively. I watched them destroy an entire American force and lose nothing. Not one stand. The Americans simply had no good shots throughout the game.

I can also conclusively say from the wins and losses board we have posted in the store that the Germans win approx 80% of the games. This includes games vs American, Soviets and British. I guess its possible that none of the allied players know how to play, but that just sounds unlikely.

I don't know the specific rules, but I know what I see happen when this game is played out. I see Soviet tanks that can't hit anything with troops that run very easily vs Germans that never run and almost never miss. Players dont' seem to be able to buy enough Soviet stuff to overcome these problems.

I don't think the Soviets have beaten Germans in the league at my store yet. I'd have to look again, but I'm pretty sure there were no German crosses in any of the Soviet players' victory tracks. I would be interesting to see some of the people who have had success with the Soviets play some of the players I talk to in the league at my store. Even they admit the Germans are broken. That's why they use them.

Overall, it seems that the British and American forces are pretty close to what they should be, but the Germans are way strong and the Soviets are pitifully weak. At least that's our metagame.

As for Blitzkrieg, both Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk and The Blitzkrieg Myth: How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II are both books that outline the Blitzkrieg fallacy quite well. Blitzkrieg never really existed, people were just acclamated to WWI type static battles; see Maginot Failure, erm Line. The Germans were no more dynamic than Grant's Union army. Both armies' primary transport vehicle was horse, after all.

Martel732 wrote:From the games I have observed, it would be an interesting metagame matchup vs the players you describe. In the games I see, stormtrooper is an overpowering advantage. The Germans rely on it, because it prevents them from being shot back at effectively. I watched them destroy an entire American force and lose nothing. Not one stand. The Americans simply had no good shots throughout the game.

The American force in FoW is also based upon manouver they move and shoot better than any other army in FoW which leads me to suspect...

Martel732 wrote:Germans win approx 80% of the games. This includes games vs American, Soviets and British. I guess its possible that none of the allied players know how to play, but that just sounds unlikely.

...that it is very likely the player.

Martel732 wrote:I don't know the specific rules, but I know what I see happen when this game is played out. I see Soviet tanks that can't hit anything with troops that run very easily vs Germans that never run and almost never miss. Players dont' seem to be able to buy enough Soviet stuff to overcome these problems.

There is no 'to hit' skill in FoW the German 'avoid hits' skill is (usually) only one point higher than the Soviet one. I still don't see why this can't be attributed to player skill, luck or even a little 'rubber rulering', perhaps they should swap armies.

Yes, the results you describe Martel seem very atypical. If anything, the Soviets are more than a match for the Germans (they can even field captured German armor). Heck, Soviet Armor forces can hit the field as fearless - the highest morale rating available in game- and trained! They can also hit the field with a ton of tank models!

I would agree that the "Stormtrooper" rule poorly reflects any actual historical movement tactics (move and shoot panzers? Yeah, right!) but it is a workable game mechanic. The Americans have a comparable mechanic for their armor and their vehicles are very fast. British infantry matches or surpasses German in mid-war, though not so much the armor. Italians are surprisingly strong, but fairly random thanks to "8 Million Bayonets".

As to Blitzkrieg being a fabrication, I would beg to differ. While it was certainly a retrospective term applied by the media, what it encompassed was very real. While others had worked on the concept of an armored spearhead (notably the British, French and Soviets), this was largely stifled by military conservatives and the tank was relegated to infantry support in all but the German army. In 1939, the Wehrmacht was the only army in the world to have fully developed the fully supported armored division.

The methodology relied on a focused attack utilizing local superiority (using combined arms) to gain an armor breakthrough. Subsequently, the armored group would press the assault without waiting to stabilize its flanks. Concentric encirclement served to maximize oppositional loss. The strategy worked well in Western Europe where the shock value and delayed Allied communication model played into German plans. Additionally, the relatively short distance meant that outpacing infantry and artillery support (often horse drawn) wasn't a major issue. Contrast this with the assault on the SU where the fast breakthroughs lead to problems as the lines stretched over vast distances.

While Poland was called a Blitzkrieg assault, it was actually pretty standard Vernichtungsgedanke. Armor was supporting infantry, not used as an independent force and the Germans relied on pockets and encirclement, etc. in a traditional way. Fall Gelb/Rot was identifiable as a blitzkrieg operation. German armor quickly advanced after breakthrough, to the point of worrying high command! France fell in 2 months vs. the 4 years of fighting in WW1 despite superior Allied numbers and, often, equipment. One could argue that it was just the application of new technologies and techniques to Vernichtungsgedanke, but I would argue that that ignores the reality of what Blitzkrieg really was- an evolution. Vernichtungsgedanke 2.0 (or 3.0 or even 12.0!), if you will. It is also important to remember that Blitzkrieg largely applies to an armor dependent strategy (effective use of other firepower centered strategy was key to the success of both sides, IE Russian artillery, American and British airpower, etc.) and was not the sole reason for German success, indeed over reliance on its use in inappropriate places proved disastrous! Leningrad and Moscow leap to mind. And, of course, the Allies learned from the Blitzkrieg strategy and adapted, developing effective countermeasures.

I think its tough to model a game on the small scale where an army like the Germans started off so hot and then got rolled up like chumps. As I said, I would give them more slack, but I'm so tired of games that give the Germans extra-spiffy goodies.

I guess I'm also disappointed because I was considering getting some Americans, but automatic rifles and their artillery rules just seem lackluster compared to the German special rules.

Also, while American tanks are fast, they are not really fast enough to be in line with reality. There were cases were the hand-cranked Tigers literally could not traverse fast enough to hit a Sherman.

I will reexamine this if I get extra hours this summer at my job.

Martel732 wrote:I guess I'm also disappointed because I was considering getting some Americans, but automatic rifles and their artillery rules just seem lackluster compared to the German special rules.

LOL, what? Americans have some of the best artillery in the game. Time on Target is brutal, and the fact that basically every American command team can be an artillery observer means you should always be able to call down a strike. It's almost not even worth it to try to pick off U.S. observer teams, because platoon command teams can call in strikes too.

Also, while American tanks are fast, they are not really fast enough to be in line with reality. There were cases were the hand-cranked Tigers literally could not traverse fast enough to hit a Sherman.

Tigers have a rule to represent this, called "Slow Traverse." It makes it more difficult to hit targets that are behind their front arc.

If you read some serious historical analysis of fighting power in WW2 you will find that man for man the Germans were about twice the value of Americans.

This was nothing to do with their genes, weapons, rations or ideology. It was owing to factors such as command organisation, the training system, combat experience, the replacement system, and the treatment of leave and casualties.

Of course the US army had to be built up quickly from a small base, and did not enter the war until late 1942 and had less time to learn.

Similar comparisons can be made with the Soviets and British. The Soviets had a poor quality officer corps thanks to the pre-war purges, and a poor quality NCO corps. The British had a good quality officer and NCO corps but they had deficiencies in their tactical and operational thinking.

This isn't a glorification or denigration of any nationality involved in WW2.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you read some serious historical analysis of fighting power in WW2 you will find that man for man the Germans were about twice the value of Americans.

Actually, recent academic work has kinda put that in doubt. Recent work, particuarly on the differing replacement system has called into doubt the effectiveness of the German system and argued that the US system, on the whole, worked better.

Im still on the fence to be honest as to which was more effective.

The quality of German infantry also varied highly by time and location. German infantry had the advantage of veterans from the Mediterranean campaigns and early France/Belgium/Polish invasions. These early and mid-war infantry were very effective and would easily surpass the early untrained American infantry. However, as the war wore on, the Germans lost huge amounts of skilled infantry on the eastern front and increasingly relied on under trained and conscripted forces. Meanwhile, American infantry now benefited from combat experience and specialist units like the Rangers and airborne divisions had proven very successful. By comparison, the volks divisions defending Berlin or the Eastern European SS conscript divisions often compared poorly to even Soviet line infantry which was poorly trained and equipped.

So 1942, maybe German infantry is twice as effective as American infantry but by '44, no way. Hell. the 2nd, 99th, and 38th at the second Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) did a hell of a job keeping the Germans out despite lack of AT, broken supply lines, lack of winter gear, German surprise and frozen forest all around them. They fought and died like elite, but were just riflemen. Even the green 106th didn't stop fighting until completely encircled.

On a small scale, the Americans were better equipped with small arms (SA rifles v. bolt action), while the Germans had better incorporated support (MG and light mortars). On the wider scale, Kampfgruppe wasn't very different from battle groups and it really boiled down to individual leadership and support advantages (including intel, which the Allies consistently trumped the Axis on- even if they later ignored it...). As the Allies gained the seas and skies, they had an increasing advantage. Add in the problems with German supplies, and any incremental differences in infantry skill are largely meaningless. Even significant armor difference were a non issue when compared to available support (air, artillery, etc.) and production levels.

Threadcromancy.

My club started playing Late War Normandy as our jumping-off point into Flames of War, so I can only speak to Late War European front...but Germans are not overpowered in the Festung Europa (and therefore ostensibly Fortress Europe) books. They're always outnumbered, their gear doesn't seem to be THAT much better than the Allies', and they really have to play smart because they cannot absorb too many casualties.

I've never played any other WW II rulesets...I think some friends of mine play something called "Command Decision?" but I haven't looked into it.

What I like about FoW is that it delivers the sort of wargaming experience I would expect it to deliver. When I starting playing 40, I eventually got very frustrated in that it didn't seem conducive to the sort of "historical" military thinking I was doing. Armor didn't necessarily do what armor does, i.e. you didn't need to be that afraid of tanks. There wasn't much artillery or suppression fire in the game. It was more about special rules and uber units and wiping entire enemy armies off the table. I never did that well at 40K.

FoW plays like I would expect it to play. You need proper combined-arms tactics in order to win. You usually have no arbitrary turn limit in play so that you may take your time and be methodical. It's easier to pin your enemy. Armor is properly scary by and large.
Things just..work the way I would expect them to work...and I don't think I've lost a game yet, though had many satisfactory Draws.

I cannot speak to how hardcore historical the ruleset is, but we have quite a few WW II history enthusiasts in our group and no one's issued a single complaint about the rules yet...I am suspecting that you have to be a serious historian, maybe, to find the historical problems with the rules? If you're "just a gamer" with a moderate level of interest in WW II history then FoW fits the bill.

If you really wanted to get entirely "authentic" with a ruleset, can anyone who has played such a ruleset speak to the complexity of said ruleset? Can you be accurate without being really, really complicated? Intuitively I would think not, but then we're now also into all sorts of subjective questions around what "complicated" means.


All I know is that the FoW rulebooks are excellent. I've never had a problem with figuring out how to solve a rules question, and never had to go onto the FoW website to get an answer to a rules query. That latter point is huge for me.

I also think FoW is pretty cheap comparatively-speaking. I certainly didn't feel the sting in my wallet starting up FoW nearly as much as I felt 40K.

Painting FoW is also easy. The minis are so small that you almost don't have to be quite so precise to get good results.

I feel that the historical aspect of FoW comes through mostly in the painting. Picking the right camo schemes, little details like shoulder board piping colors, attempting to build armies which are historically accurate (I'm working on a 2. Panzer Division, Panzergrenadier-Regiment 304, Panzergrenadier-Bataillon I, 1st Kompanie army which is almost dead-on) all involve what are for me rather detailed amounts of historical research if I want to get it right.

The game can take a long time, but I prefer slower, more methodical games where you have plenty of time to shift to a flank, reinforce your positions, slowly whittle down an enemy and have to set up assaults very carefully. They ultimately wind up feeling more "strategic" for my tastes, which is what I am looking for in any tabletop wargame.


The final positive of FoW - a crapton of people seem to play it. I would have no problem picking up a game of Flames of War in any area where wargames have a large presence. I feel very confident in that, and this question of availability and variety of opponents weighs very heavily into my decisions to start up a tabletop wargame or not.