Banned from FoW website

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.

**mwnciboo**

Reaver83 wrote:
why are people replying to an obvious troll?

Because we are quite a mature board (by Dakka Standards) and we don't often get trolled.

I think this might be a first for the FOW Board.

**Deathklaat**

some of the staff over at BF can be very hostile on the forums. they make many claims and promises and then fail to deliver and become very confrontational when you question them on it or even ask "hey what ever happened to X?"

i became interested in FoW because i liked the period and the models and it was a much cheaper alternative to GW but their practices the last year have turned me off completely from any of their product. The housing subscription mess, the church and it's delays and price increases. the complete lack of stock across many of their ranges existing and new. the web store is really confusing and there is zero help in determining what you have to purchase to actually make the gak that's in the books.

**George Spiggott**

I think the points raised are worthy of discussion though not really suitable for an 'AAR'* thread. BF's forums, which have never been great, are a pretty poor place to converse since they were revised.

* By the way, why has everyone suddenly stopped calling these battle reports?

**Skriker**

Big P wrote:
Golly, was only asking.

Why such aggressive tendencies?

No aggressive tendencies here at all, just seemed that you were put out that I had made a supposition about two gaming companies and I was confused as to why it seemed to bother you is all...

Skriker

**chaos45**

I wouldnt say FoW is a great game anymore. The balance has been pretty well destroyed in the last year of releases.

Late War is so unbalanced its not even funny anymore. Early war also has some glaring issues.

Midwar is the closest to balanced of all the periods anymore and people feel its unfairly balanced towards the Germans. IDK I personally feel MW is pretty fair but the other periods are junk as far as balance goes between factions.

**mwnciboo**

If we are talking openly about the balance, I think LW is well overdone. There have been nice little side projects like the Japs and Arab Israeli (Both welcome) but I think a focus on EW and MW is more than over due. MW Tournaments seem to be on the rise where I am.

**d-usa**

If I was company A and you were on my forum (paid for by company A and maintained by Company A) promoting Company B I would kick you off too.

Some of your other stuff is just bonus.

**col. krazy kenny**

George Spiggott wrote:
I think the points raised are worthy of discussion though not really suitable for an 'AAR'* thread. BF's forums, which have never been great, are a pretty poor place to converse since they were revised.

* By the way, why has everyone suddenly stopped calling these battle reports?

Battle report(Definition or other) is probably owned by the Gw IP Police.haha bad joke

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:
If we are talking openly about the balance, I think LW is well overdone. There have been nice little side projects like the Japs and Arab Israeli (Both welcome) but I think a focus on EW and MW is more than over due. MW Tournaments seem to be on the rise where I am.

Balance i think for LW is a funky subject,especially if you look at it from a technology and wepons stand point.I think that they can only wait until lw is totaly done and then overhaul it for another edition before being totally balanced this includes fall of Berlin and the Pacfic.I think this is easier for them to keep mid and Ew more balanced out.because of the Tech and Timeline.Heck we finally got some Ardennes books and they are not complete.All they really did was made some forces alot more powerful.Im not bitching BTw because one of the Forces I play is the 327th Glider Infantry.Nuts hooked us finally up.Also from a historical point from the German point is that the later it got the crappier the overall quality of the troops went down.Especially after the Ardennes offensive.but the german tech got a little better.It wasnt for Hitlers Generals who wasted all of their quality troops it was Hitler.also for the Americans this is where alot of new armor and
wepons were first introduced.
I know for me and my SS i find that the D day lists are a better choice.If you are playing Western front overall Wiking is The Best SS list so far.v but compared to other lists like 4 Ad or 2nd ID the nw ones diffently seem unbalanced vs. Some of the other lists or compare them to the d aday ones no brainer their which is better.just look at the The evolution of the FAllschrimjagers and some of the U.K forces that strech out for the entire time span for a ww2 game.I just to see another LW canadian list,Them Poor Bloody BAstards Battle for Hochwald Gap.Our group has diffently debated this several times considering all we play is LW.diffently not blanced overall but what we have done is just try to use a overall timeline.

**d-usa**

col. krazy kenny wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:
I think the points raised are worthy of discussion though not really suitable for an 'AAR'* thread. BF's forums, which have never been great, are a pretty poor place to converse since they were revised.

* By the way, why has everyone suddenly stopped calling these battle reports?

Battle report(Definition or other) is probably owned by the Gw IP Police.

AAR is more of a military term, so that is probably the reason.

**jamestheyank**

Why do people think the game should be more balanced? If it's too balanced it won't be fun, surely?

**Alfndrate**

jamestheyank wrote:
Why do people think the game should be more balanced? If it's too balanced it won't be fun, surely?

I'm not sure about your local play area, but here are the armies I see on a regular basis:
Germans

alright, we're done here... I've only ever fought against Germans when I've played FoW with the exception of a game where I was decimated by the end of turn 3, and my opponent copied my list and we duked that out for 5 turns or so. I'm not saying it's an unbalanced game, but there might be room for improvement if there is an overwhelming number of players playing a single specific army.

**jamestheyank**

Alfndrate wrote:
jamestheyank wrote:
Why do people think the game should be more balanced? If it's too balanced it won't be fun, surely?

I'm not sure about your local play area, but here are the armies I see on a regular basis:
Germans

alright, we're done here... I've only ever fought against Germans when I've played FoW with the exception of a game where I was decimated by the end of turn 3, and my opponent copied my list and we duked that out for 5 turns or so. I'm not saying it's an unbalanced game, but there might be room for improvement if there is an overwhelming number of players playing a single specific army.

I must be lucky then... My club has a wide variety of players. I've faced Germans (of course), Soviets, Finns, British and Italians. There are a few of us who are interested in collecting the more minor nations like Hungary and Netherlands, so thankfully there is a good amount of variety. I do agree, however, that Germans are popular. I think people are attracted by their apparently superior equipment such as KT's etc.

**Talizvar**

No evidence of actual communication to FOW.

Banned from site.

Throwing out fairly loose accusations of their practices that appear based on opinion than fact.

Asking Dakka to unite and rebel against them.

They sell us "toys" and a game system, most appropriate response is to go buy elsewhere by OP if unhappy.

His problem is not my problem at this moment so no, I will continue to buy from them.

Rather high level of anger displayed, sure it is not misplaced somehow?

**Pacific**

jamestheyank wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
jamestheyank wrote:
Why do people think the game should be more balanced? If it's too balanced it won't be fun, surely?

I'm not sure about your local play area, but here are the armies I see on a regular basis:
Germans

alright, we're done here... I've only ever fought against Germans when I've played FoW with the exception of a game where I was decimated by the end of turn 3, and my opponent copied my list and we duked that out for 5 turns or so. I'm not saying it's an unbalanced game, but there might be room for improvement if there is an overwhelming number of players playing a single specific army.

I must be lucky then... My club has a wide variety of players. I've faced Germans (of course), Soviets, Finns, British and Italians. There are a few of us who are interested in collecting the more minor nations like Hungary and Netherlands, so thankfully there is a good amount of variety. I do agree, however, that Germans are popular. I think people are attracted by their apparently superior equipment such as KT's etc.

Yes, I think with Germans its the tanks, which hold a lot of appeal for students of history, more than anything else. I originally collected US (on the basis that no-one else collected them, guaranteeing me games!) and have now started on Germans as well..

From my experience they aren't particularly overpowered, if anything the opposite is true - the smaller number of tanks and infantry they field (in cases where they are confident veterans) means that you have to use them more effectively.

**Skriker**

Alfndrate wrote:

I'm not sure about your local play area, but here are the armies I see on a regular basis:
Germans

alright, we're done here... I've only ever fought against Germans when I've played FoW with the exception of a game where I was decimated by the end of turn 3, and my opponent copied my list and we duked that out for 5 turns or so. I'm not saying it's an unbalanced game, but there might be room for improvement if there is an overwhelming number of players playing a single specific army.

People play the germans because they have the cool toys, not because they are unbalanced. Luckily my usual group in EW has germans, brits, poles, french, italians and even russians represented. In mid war we have brits, germans, russians and italians. For late war we have brits, americans, russians and germans. Only thing we don't have in our group are the smaller factions like the finnish, romanians, hungarians and the like. I *only* play british in all 3 periods because I wanted to play one of the factions represented throughout the whole war that wasn't the same germans that everyone and their brother thought were cool to play.

Skriker

**Aftermath.**

They sound like a bunch of corporate scum bags.

I am glad I never spent a nickel on that game.

**Surtur**

Pacific wrote:
jamestheyank wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
jamestheyank wrote:
Why do people think the game should be more balanced? If it's too balanced it won't be fun, surely?

I'm not sure about your local play area, but here are the armies I see on a regular basis:
Germans

alright, we're done here... I've only ever fought against Germans when I've played FoW with the exception of a game where I was decimated by the end of turn 3, and my opponent copied my list and we duked that out for 5 turns or so. I'm not saying it's an unbalanced game, but there might be room for improvement if there is an overwhelming number of players playing a single specific army.

I must be lucky then... My club has a wide variety of players. I've faced Germans (of course), Soviets, Finns, British and Italians. There are a few of us who are interested in collecting the more minor nations like Hungary and Netherlands, so thankfully there is a good amount of variety. I do agree, however, that Germans are popular. I think people are attracted by their apparently superior equipment such as KT's etc.

Yes, I think with Germans its the tanks, which hold a lot of appeal for students of history, more than anything else. I originally collected US (on the basis that no-one else collected them, guaranteeing me games!) and have now started on Germans as well..

From my experience they aren't particularly overpowered, if anything the opposite is true - the smaller number of tanks and infantry they field (in cases where they are confident veterans) means that you have to use them more effectively.

I agree with this whole heartedly. It startles me how expensive my stuff is compared to most others as Germans. It puts a lot of pressure on the few units you can bring to be in more places at once to defend the masses your opponent brings. That is critical in a objective heavy game such as this.

**General Seric**

I agree that the reason that Germans are so overrepresented is cost and the cool tanks, rather than them being overpowered. In my play area, they are overrepresented, but we also have Russian and British in good numbers, and only 1 player that exclusively has German armor.

The price point is certainly a strong reason to get them; my primary army, Italian Bersaglieri, cost me in total somewhere around $400-$500, while my German Heer Panzerkompanie cost me $100 (with PSC models).

In my experience against them, they are one of the easier opponents to beat with my Italians and when playing them I lose a lot more often, as one false step with German armor can spells disaster.

**washout77**

Aftermath. wrote:
They sound like a bunch of corporate scum bags.

I am glad I never spent a nickel on that game.

Well I mean if you came onto my forum bragging about not using my models and that my rules are terrible and you should use X instead, I would kick you off too...

There are places to complain, and publicly posting and to a point bragging about it isn't the place to do it.

**col. krazy kenny**

Aftermath. wrote:
They sound like a bunch of corporate scum bags.

I am glad I never spent a nickel on that game.

Must be a current 40k player.

**George Spiggott**

col. krazy kenny wrote:
Must be a current 40k player.

Most of his posts are in the 40k section. Clearly he doesn't remember the dark times of GW's in house forums.

That said I can't, hand on heart, say that BF's forums are a much superior place these days.

**jamestheyank**

Aftermath. wrote:
They sound like a bunch of corporate scum bags.

I am glad I never spent a nickel on that game.

I'm sure people are delighted to read your pointless remark.

**George Spiggott**

The OP's post seems to have been a straight breach of BF's (somewhat fascist) forum rules.

GENERAL FORUM ATTITUDES

We understand that wargaming is more than just a fun pastime. It’s a pervasive hobby that demands much attention. Passions can run high, and venting on a forum is an easy outlet. To that end, we must insist that criticism is constructive, and politeness rules the day. We all play with toy soldiers, and want to discuss our hobby with fellow wargamers, so let’s leave all the bad attitudes for the outside world.

With the social distance that comes with online communication, it’s very easy to ruffle people’s feathers – usually unintentionally. A bad attitude doesn’t have to mean outright rudeness, either. If your manner is condescending, if you keep repeating yourself after the conversation has moved on, or if you don’t make an effort to understand or consider opposing points of view, you often risk creating misunderstandings, escalating arguments and wasting everybody’s time.

To reiterate: bad attitudes should stay off this forum, and the admins will act to ensure this. They won’t be banning users willy-nilly, but they may start asking consistently fractious or disruptive users to take a break from the forums, cool down and reconsider their attitude.

Read your post carefully before hitting submit, and try to imagine how you would respond if you were someone else reading it. If it sounds “snarky” to you – or perhaps more importantly, if you think it might sound snarky to a reasonable person reading it – consider re-wording it.

Finally, if you see a forum post that irritates you, take a minute before you respond angrily. Try to concentrate on what the poster was trying to say. If you assume they were not deliberately being rude, condescending or confrontational, then usually – hopefully – you will be right.

FORUM RULES

Rule 1: This Is a Forum Run and Paid by Battlefront.
Battlefront runs and pays for this forum, with the intention of furthering the Flames of War community. It is our wish that competitor’s brands not be promoted on this site. Please respect our wishes. If you do want to discuss other companies please do it on another forum.

Rule 2: Be Respectful Of Others.
This may be obvious but please respect the views and opinions of others. We ask you to participate on these forums in a civil manner and remember that your remarks may hurt another’s feelings, so think before you type. As a general rule, you should read your post in its entirety before hitting “submit” and imagine how someone else may read your comments. It should go without saying that profanity; sexist remarks; racial remarks; extreme nationalism; derogatory terms; etc. are strictly forbidden. Please remember that the users of this forum come from all ages and of both sexes. To familiarize yourself more on internet etiquette go to The Netiquette Home Page (www.albion.com/netiquette/index.html). Trolling is not allowed, and sarcasm should be used sparingly.

Private or local disagreements should be kept off of the forum.

Rule 3: Stay On Topic.
Please try to stay on the topic that is listed on the thread. We understand that this hobby has many interesting facets and a discussion can take turns, but please try not to steer too far off the topic as other users may not appreciate it. Relating to staying on topic, if you have another question please do not hijack a post by asking another question in it, do that in a new post as the original topic may diverge once unrelated questions are raised.

Rule 4: No Spamming.
Spam is classed as invasive or unsolicited information. The Administrators will be quick to lock down threads that are seen as Spam. If you want to express a topic not directly related to FoW or Battlefront please do it in the appropriate section.

Rule 5: Politically Sensitive.
As these boards are viewed by a large cross section of today’s global community, please be aware that your views on the various political parties both from the period and contemporary may be seen as offensive to others. As this is a Wargaming Forum and we want to stick to just the military side of the period, please leave the political debates for another forum.

Rule 6: No Buying, Selling, Trading or Advertising.
Due to legal reasons, Battlefront cannot endorse, nor allow trading on these forums. Please use other avenues if you wish to actively trade your wares. An example would be eBay (www.ebay.com). Please do not use the free service we provide for you as an engine to promote your products (whatever they may be), if you are in business or offer a service please pay for your own advertising.

Rule 7: Acknowledge Copyrights.
Try and be respectful of media copyrights. Read more on this subject here: www.copyright.gov.

Rule 8: Battlefront Reserves The Right...
...to delete any thread that it deems is inappropriate or is in breach of any of the forum rules, no explanation may be given.

Rule 9: Thread Necromancy and dredging up of old debates.
Resurrecting old threads where the discussion has ended may result in the offending posts being deleted without warning. Once a debate has run its course it is time to move on to a new one.

Rule 10: Non-Battlefront Miniatures
This forum is hosted by Battlefront.

1. It is against the forum rules to post pictures of non-Battlefront miniatures. Please ensure that all your pics are BF miniatures otherwise they will be removed.

2. The odd "foreigner" in amongst BF miniatures (this includes Buildings, scenic items and Aircraft) is ok as long as it's only one or two amongst many.

If you think you are being unfairly treated feel free to contact Steven, Blake, or James, who are the Administrators of these forums.

Steven.MacLauchlan@battlefront.co.nz
Blake.Coster@battlefront.co.nz
James.Brown@battlefront.co.nz

SOME GUIDES TO GOOD POSTING
* Do not post in all capital letters, as this is a written medium and posts that are written in all capitals represent a person shouting.
* A yes or a no response is not always a sufficient response.
* Do not type in text terms or l33t terms as others will not understand what you're going on about.
* Create a concise subject title that adequately summarises your topic.
* Spell checker is your friend! A post is so much better if it has punctuation, grammar, division into paragraphs, and more or less correct spelling. Others (especially non-native English speakers) may simply not understand it.

Warning: This forum is based on the discussion of War and Warfare, and you may see Nazi icons and threads on total violence, if you are offended by these then this forum may be inappropriate for you.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=124&aft=558648&afv=topic

**col. krazy kenny**

I think that is why they hired Steve from WWpd to help out their forums.I think the new policeys are good. but i prefer here.Also i Run the Google plus community.So i do not visit them that much but every now and then to check out a few things.But ill probably be the next one banned.Need to stay away when i am drunk and bored.

This one i am a very bad offender of.
* Spell checker is your friend! A post is so much better if it has punctuation, grammar, division into paragraphs, and more or less correct spelling. Others (especially non-native English speakers) may simply not understand it.
My typing just sucks.....i guess that happens when you do not type for ten years you get rusty.

**Pacific**

George Spiggott wrote:
col. krazy kenny wrote:
Must be a current 40k player.

Most of his posts are in the 40k section. Clearly he doesn't remember the dark times of GW's in house forums.

That said I can't, hand on heart, say that BF's forums are a much superior place these days.

Do you mean compared to the old GW forums? Are you joking?

The old GW forums didn't suffer so much from over-moderation as the fact that they were actually just really crap! Appalling layout/design, and it felt like the average age of posters on there was about 12. In terms of useful content it didn't even come close, and I think got cancelled just because of the monumental overhaul they needed rather than anything else.

I think every forum has its rules, but obviously the official ones are necessarily going to be a bit tighter. Dakka, with the exception of some of the smaller forums, is hands down one of the most relaxed but I don't think it's really fair to compare. Even the Infinity forums which are probably the friendliest official forum I have ever known has a similar set of official rules - someone starts posting pics of another company's (especially competing) product? It gets removed.

At least BF seem to be trying to engage with their fanbase - in most cases they try and respond to criticism and be conscientious, and the forum is another example of that.

I do find someone labelling BF as a bunch of 'corporate scumbags' and then following GW rather hilarious however, and must assume he is trying to be sarcastic or something..