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.

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!