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.

killykavekommando wrote:Looks neat, I feel pretty interested in the Russian troops. I like the idea of having T-34s and insane conscripts at my command. What kind of tactics do they use?
Being a veteran 40k player, is this game at all similar to warhammer? The rules seem a bit more complex, and I'm willing to learn them. The bootcamp page was helpful, but I need to hear more about this game from a person.

Seeing as both games are designed to simulate a war type situation they are similar. However they vary greatly. Primarily Flames of War makes sense and the rules are well written compared to the stuff that GW passes off as "complete" rules. Don't get me wrong I still play 40k regularly along with FoW, but just find that there are next to no rules arguements coming up when playing FoW regularly that seem to almost always be there in GW games because their rules are worded just right to enable multiple interpretations of the same rule by different people.

You really need to find someone local to you and sit down and try a small game with them. That is really the only way to truly understand some of the differences and get a feel for the game. It is hard to spell these things out online. One aspect that is really not emphasized enough is that infantry is really strong in FoW. Infantry that are dug in to foxholes and gone to ground are *very* hard to remove from their positions.

As for the Russians, their tactics are simple: Large numbers of armored vehicles and barely trained, but dedicated infantry that just flood over the enemy in waves. On those rare occasions where the dice always go your way in a game the russians will stomp the opposition. Usually, though, the less than stellar abilities of your forces will hamper you somewhat. At times it makes me think of orcs and gobbos with animosity in WHFB where you own army can sometimes limit your abilities on a given turn. The key, though, is that with the massive numbers you will have you have the resources to lose but still have enough to get the job done in the end.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NO_SUCH_LUCK wrote:Is it commonplace to see 1/72 minis used in FOW? I'm asking because I have a metric ton of 1/72's on the shelf.

Not really...FoW is 15mm which is 1/100 so the 1/72 things are too big. With your friends I see no problems with it, but if you play in a league or at an event or something you'll want to use 15mm things.

For those looking at alternates, sometimes it is just easier to buy battlefront stuff from The Warstore at a discount, because the battlefront stuff is packaged with what you specifically need for the unit purchased. For example if you buy a Rifle platoon blister you will get the minis you need for your command, platoons and the options you can take with the rifle platoon (with some exceptions to the rule). You buy a tank/vehicle you get the vehicle, plus its options *and* the crew/passenger figures as necessary. With companies like Old Glory to make that Rifle platoon you'll need a bag of rifle men and then separate command and special weapon figs, options and so on. With vehicles all you get in the blister is the vehicle. You then have to buy separate crew/passenger figures. Buying all of those extra separate bits makes you waste money with extra parts you don't need and also can do a number on the supposed cost savings you are hoping to get by not buying battlefront figs.

YMMV, but these days I am just lazy and will just buy a single blister/box with everything I need in it. Hahahaha

Whatever path you take FoW is a great game and definitely worth trying out!

Skriker

I think 40k-> FoW is going to 'make sense' for many gamers quickly as the rules are similar in philosophy if not in details.

Both have some similar concepts (There's something similar to armor saves in both, a lot of dice mechanics translate pretty closely, etc. It's not a huge jump like (as an example) 40k to Warmachine where turn mechanics are very different, etc.

That said, I think the FoW rules are better written, even if I find them a bit frustrating to read at times. My main concern is that there's a lot of "monolithic" traits (I.E. all vehicles classed as a Jeep gets a bunch of movement rules, a bunch of terrain rules, and maybe a couple rule references when dealing with armor, recon, or reserves. This is fine, and appropriate for the light all-purpose vehicles it was designed for, but it breaks down when the designers have something that is almost a Jeep, but not quite.

(The above example is pulled from my oft-fuzzy memory and may be wrong. Either way, it's annoying.)

This game just seems to get better and better. Now to just find another player. If not, then I'll just recruit my friend, pinoypower whom you may know from my other threads.

It's definitely a worthy game, especially if you're in to WWII history and want something that's intended to be both quick playing and pretty tightly assembled.

There's countless complaints available online from people who don't like FoW because it's not historical... I find these annoying as a game by definition has to break from history at some point. The historical scenarios break by saying "This is how the battle was set up, let's see if your luck/strategy works better than in real life" while FoW is a bit less focused on that, and more of "These are somewhat plausible detachments from that era. Let's watch them fight."

Both are based on history, but break from it (albeit at a different point). FoW has a pretty sturdy points system and guidelines to prevent some abuses that would make the game less fun for both players and focuses on relatively balanced matches as opposed to the historical scenarios that are often unbalanced (as in real warfare, no one really cares about only opposing the enemy with an 'equal' force).

Balance wrote:
There's countless complaints available online from people who don't like FoW because it's not historical... I find these annoying as a game by definition has to break from history at some point. The historical scenarios break by saying "This is how the battle was set up, let's see if your luck/strategy works better than in real life" while FoW is a bit less focused on that, and more of "These are somewhat plausible detachments from that era. Let's watch them fight."

If anything, it helps to think of FoW as 'The Game of Action-Movie-WWII'. It's an exciting reenactment that does have its roots in what was historical - there's no doubt that the BF team takes time to research their material - but its a game first, simulation second.

infinite_array wrote:If anything, it helps to think of FoW as 'The Game of Action-Movie-WWII'. It's an exciting reenactment that does have its roots in what was historical - there's no doubt that the BF team takes time to research their material - but its a game first, simulation second.

I was thinking of using the term 'Hollywood reality.' FoW is not 100% historically accurate by any means, but it's also pretty firmly in the real world. Things are a bit exaggerated, though... Like a movie, where the big-name star generally seems to have a little plot armor (I.E. the Hero model gets some extra saves or other protection) but that armor can certainly run out. Realism is a goal but it shouldn't get in the way of a good story/game if need be.

It's a good combination. I'd be more into FoW if I had the time, and can't say much bad about other than my few minor complaints up-thread.

How is it easiest to paint the troops?

killykavekommando wrote:How is it easiest to paint the troops?

As in, what's the easiest way to paint the troops?

People have different methods. Me, I stick the guys on the base, slop drydex around their integrated bases, chip off what I can when it's dry, prime black, paint, wash, and flock. It works pretty well, since 15mm models don't need as much detail as 28mm models. Plus, you're going for a 'diorama' look to the fire-team bases - it's the scene, not the individual miniatures, that makes it look good. \

Other people will stick the minis on a ruler with a bit of sticky tack, and then prime/paint them that way. It's better if you want to have all angles of the models readily available to paint.

infinite_array wrote:
Heck, now I'm so deep in I'm debating on whether or not I want to do the French and Indian War or the Civil War for Sharp Practice, and the Civil War or Napoleonics for Black Powder. My current inclination is to do ACW for both, so I can tie the skirmish-level SP with the Division level BP.

Sorry for going a bit OT, but if youre looking into Napoleonics, I highly recommend Lasalle. Its basically taken over Nap stuff in my area.

http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/

Balance wrote:I think (I.E. all vehicles classed as a Jeep gets a bunch of movement rules, a bunch of terrain rules, and maybe a couple rule references when dealing with armor, recon, or reserves. This is fine, and appropriate for the light all-purpose vehicles it was designed for, but it breaks down when the designers have something that is almost a Jeep, but not quite.

It is stuff to remember, but makes better sense than army A having that rule for their *jeeps*, but army B has an almost identical vehicle, but it doesn't get those rules because it is an army A special rule. That is the kind of stuff that annoys *me* in 40k.

The two things I like best in FoW are targeting and supporting fire with heavier weapons. Your heavy weapons can stay in place and fire to support the advance of the rest of the platoon. Also your bazooka/AT team can fire at the tank supporting the enemy infantry that the rest of the platoon is shooting at. It is just so dumb in 40k that if any model in the unit moves, the whole unit has moved so no covering support fire from heavies, and that if the guy with the big gun wants to shoot at the tank the rest of the unit needs to waste its shots because they can't figure out how to deal with two different targets...

Skriker

So, how do tanks fair in the game? Do they usually survive, or are they just armored shields? How are they to be used alongside Russians?

I only just got my German Panzer Lehr company with no games played, so my comments won't be entirely accurate.

However, I have faced a lot of armor with my infantry, and often use armored support assets like Shermans. I also played in a mid-war tournament with a borrowed US Armored Company.

How and what armored is used really depends on the country and era. This is the area where there is the most variation between armies and lists. But for the most part they are all basically mobile machineguns, able to move usually 12" around the table and fire a machinegun, so that's murder on infantry that aren't dug in or concealed. When the MG doesn't cut it, they have their main guns, which are less effective when shooting on the move, but if you haven't moved and there are still targets in view, something will die.

A lot of times when tanks are hit and not outright destroyed, they might get bailed, and it might not be ready to do anything again on the next turn.

The best ways to fight them is use your own tanks, hopefully getting full rate of fire for a turn of shooting against them, trying to go for the side armor where its weaker. Or use AT guns as a deterrent, or assault them with infantry after bailing or killing a few to reduce the amount of defensive fire. Flamethrowers are the infantry's best offensive weapon against tanks. Defensively, most AT rifles or rocket launchers are mainly useful for when tanks assault infantry positions since they hit harder during tank assaults.

In early war (EW), you have a lot of light tanks that, in my opinion, are under costed in points, making light tank swarms pretty common, with the infantry that faces them having less AT to deal with them. However, what AT guns there is can tend to wipe platoons if they get a good volley off due to those tanks having lower armor values. Then there's stuff like WW1 equipment being used. Then again, it was that whole blitzkrieg doctrine, so tank swarms are still accurate.

There are some exceptions to this, the French actually have the behemoths of the battlefield in EW, with the B1 Bis and the Samua tanks being very hard to kill, the B1 being pretty much unkillable. However, both tanks can't fire their guns on the turn they move, and the B1 is slower than most tanks.

US and Soviets aren't around in early war.

I have no experience with British and Italian tanks in early war. But the German tank swarms are pretty nasty, but manageable.

Going up to mid-war (MW), you see most of those lighter tanks go away as medium and heavy tanks start to dominate. You also start seeing the nastier tanks most people know show up, but at high point costs (but often worth taking). Things like the KV-1, Panther, etc.

In MW, the Sherman comes to a fore in some allied armies, and the US enters the war. At this point, the Sherman is actually a pretty good tank, worth its points, although you still encounter nasties like the Tiger, there are options like tank destroyers to deal with those.

Soviet tanks in general are decent to good tanks, but marred by poor crews or other rules that limit their effectiveness. But due to this, taking them can be cheaper than usual. You'll see rules limiting how much they can move before firing. At most you'll have trained tanks, so they tend to get hit, at worst conscript tanks get hit all the time. But, they've got some really nasty guns on those tanks, and fun stuff like the 152mm assault guns in late war. So, you still get tank swarms in mid war, even late war, but don't expect to use them at full effectiveness, and expect to lose a lot of them.

I play Italians in both EW and MW (North Africa and sometimes MW Eastern Front) and the difference in their tanks is they can challenge most of the Brit stuff in EW North Africa but are at a disadvantage in MW as they're still considered light tanks.

The M13/40's and M14/41's still mount dual-hull mounted MG's, so that's alot of firepower when coupled with a co-ax mg. They're good at gunning infantry and soft-skinned vehicles but their main-gun is almost useless against heavier armor.

In EW, they can challenge the Brit Cruiser tanks (A9's through the A15 Crusader) but they cannot deal with the Matilda II's and Valentines as they're the behemoths in the desert.

In MW, they're basically used in conjunction with Semovente Assault Guns and Autoblinda Armored Cars to out-maneuver the enemy and go for close-in flank shots. The Semo's pack a 75mm gun, so they can challenge the Grants and Crusaders, but have to get close and on the flanks in the hopes of doing anything to the Shermans and Matildas.

The Italian tanks are pretty much obsolete at the start of the war as their medium tanks are considered light tanks in comparison to other nations. They're good against infantry and light vehicles, but they need support to deal with anything heavier.

Russian EW seems most interesting. Are snipers useful?

killykavekommando wrote:Russian EW seems most interesting. Are snipers useful?

Really depends on the points level. Snipers are not worth the points at low point levels and you would be better served buying more infantry or tanks instead with the points. At higher levels they can be an annoying thorn in the side of your opponent. I have yet to see snipers really do more than annoy an opponent though. Not like the snipers are going to regularly win you battles or anything like that.

Skriker

What do vehicle stat lines look like?

Mobility, Front, Side, Top, special rules/MG's
Range, RoF, AT, Firepower, gun special rules

Example:
M4A1 Sherman
Fully-Tracked, 6, 4, 1, co-ax MG, hull MG, .50 cal AA MG
32", 2, 10, 3+, smoke, stabilizer

At this point, if you're still asking simpler questions like this, you should probably go out and buy the rule book to have a look through, or sit down in your local store and read a bit of it.

Anti-Air capability (as listed in Illumini's example) is a neat feature of the FoW game. Air support is kind of almost like the 'Magic' phase of WHFB. You buy your level of support, which gives you dice you can spend to call for support (which the opponent can use their support to fight off). Assuming you get some support, it makes an attack run and there's some interesting rules as the attack run can't fire on anything too close to your own troops (to prevent friendly fire) and anything with AA weapons can shoot it down or drive it off.

Interesting... So are there minefields in this game?

Only if you take engineering platoons with a supply attachment. That gives you 3 barbed wire template, or 1 mine template for each supply attachment to put down when you deploy your troops.

There are also fortified companies/divisions, which are lists where most entries have defenses included. Not sure if that includes mine fields, but it does include barbed wire and bunkers.

Certain lists have minefields in them, like the EW North Africa Book, Hellfire and Back, where there are strong-point defensive lists that use entanglements (barbed wire), tank traps, minefields,Tobruk pits, and trench lines.

In Earth and Steel, the German lists have bunkers and flak nests in addition to the minefields, barbed wire, etc.

Interesting about how realistic this is. I'm afraid that I can't really invest much on a new board game, though because I just got an iMac that cost a lot.

So, could I have some links to cheaper alternatives to WW2 era 15mm minis that could be used as FoW?

Search the web for a company called Plastic Soldier Company in the UK.

Vertrucio wrote:Search the web for a company called Plastic Soldier Company in the UK.

Cool, thanks!

+1 PSC I have quite a bit of their stuff. It's very good, a bit light but if you add some Ballast to them internally it makes them more stable (e.g Sneezing won't move them).

Also with the Infantry on the plastic Base it can be very light, I recommend using Magnetic bases for weight but also because you can then stick them to Metal inserts in a case and it keeps them much safer than a KR multicase as they will not move.

High Quality and Cheap, a good combination. check this out for more info.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/376936.page