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.

I am veteran 40k player thinking about getting into flames of war. I want to play yanks. I hear from some people that americans have a harder time at tournaments and that germans and british are the ones to play.

Am I about to buy a Tau/Necron army that has a disadvantage on the field of battle?

I haven't played FoW for all that long, but the most apparent thing to me is that it is a far more balanced game system versus Warhammer. My best advice as far as choosing an army is to just pick one that you like, and then ask for help building an army. I can't help in that department as I only play Germans

apocalypse022 wrote:I am veteran 40k player thinking about getting into flames of war. I want to play yanks. I hear from some people that americans have a harder time at tournaments and that germans and british are the ones to play.

Am I about to buy a Tau/Necron army that has a disadvantage on the field of battle?

Flames of War is a game where EVERYTHING is essentially balanced, as long as you're playing in the same era. A German player can use an army that consists of 6 Tigers if he wants to - but he'll have a tough time winning. Something you'll learn in FoW is that while the game does favor a combined arms approach - a good list will contain a combination of mobile units, infantry, and artillery - infantry are the king of the battlefield. Tanks may look scary, but they'll quickly succumb to assaulting infantry, especially if they're pioneers or have some sort of anti-tank capability.

As for the Americans - I only know of them in Late War (and I'm a German/Brit player myself). The most feared lists, I believe, are the mechanized infantry lists - they're fast and can bring an unbelievable amount of Bazookas to the table. American tank companies may not be the flashiest army out there, but the Sherman is a realiable and relatively cheap tank, and has the option to take a 76mm gun (instead of a 75mm) which increases its anti-tank capabilities.

So lets say a year or to from now I could walk into the North American grand tournament with my americans and have just as much of a chance as the german players of winning? Germans arent even a little unbalanced?

I read BOLS and they had a nationals ranking up one day and americans didnt look so hot.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/07/flames-of-war-nationals-2010-where.html

Why is this?

This is one comment in particular does it have any merit? I am sorry but I have spent enough on war games that I don't want to be disappointed.

For instance, it is hard to win as a US player w/out losing some little platoon. So the best players in the world will naturally gravitate away from them for serious tourney play. Good players take strong lists and know how to use them. The balance of FoW is remarkable, but the scoring model is not as balanced as on board game performance. This is my opinion, of course.

Germans aren't unbalanced IMO. They are one of the more popular tournament armies at the moment is all. Its exactly like the IG in 40k. Are the competitive? Yes. Are they unbeatable? No. The American Armored rifle company is scary good IMO. Its all a question of tactics.

For example, one key thing that the article mentioned was the overall prevalence of infantry companies, especially in the German lists, something that I find rather surprising considering the awesome German ranged support. All it goes to show is that the vast majority of lists in the game are viable in tournaments. It just depends on how well the list is built, and how good your tactics are

apocalypse022 wrote:So lets say a year or to from now I could walk into the North American grand tournament with my americans and have just as much of a chance as the german players of winning? Germans arent even a little unbalanced?

The imbalance that exist in 40k is no where near the level you will find in Flames of War.

My opinion is the perceived power lists dont exist. Now, there are some lists that have a better odds then others, but even they have their weaknesses. Flames of War comes down to more knowledge of your army and your opponents army then the point and shoot dice rolling of 40k.

Not trying to dissuade you from playing FoW but you really cant just pick an army that appears to be "awesome" in tournament play and expect to get the same results as you could say with a 40k list.

Go with what you like. As was suggested, Mechanized lists are fun, mobile, and fast. However, they to have their draw backs. The Armies are balanced and further balanced by the type of boards you will no doubt be playing on. If you want to play Americans, your best bet is to not worry about a specific list initially.

Get Shermans, Rifleman, Artillery...look at lists that appeal to you, find common thread units and buy them.

I myself moved from a German Festung Company, to a Panzer Company and finally settled on multiple Fallschirmjager Builds. (6th & 1st Division.)

Just my advice in it.

though, I do hear British Cromwell Tank Companies are silly slowed!

Also, get an idea of which era you want to play in: Early, Mid, or Late war. Usually your local stores and club preferences will help in that choice as you want to buy an army that will fight against others nearby. Thankfully some armies are usable across two different eras, and some will let you proxy.

Americans are only in Mid or Late war. The stuff you heard about Americans being weak in the tournament scene is a bit misleading. What I heard more is that their lists were a bit uninteresting so less people played them. Now though, with the lists in the newest books, they get much more interesting.

Also, unlike 40k, there are many different army smaller army lists within a larger nation.

Not trying to dissuade you from playing FoW but you really cant just pick an army that appears to be "awesome" in tournament play and expect to get the same results as you could say with a 40k list.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. I should explain myself. I tire of the codex creep, the extremely unbalanced rules and of GW always jerking me around. I will continue with 40k because the fluff is gold. I am looking at flames of war because I see a possibility of a balanced war game where the primary goal is not to build the ultimate cheese list and then run it across the board and let it the boyz mix it up. When I saw this article I thought "Oh no is this just GW all over again?". It seems that you all think it is more balanced but I still wonder why when I google American armies people say that they don't win.

What are some things that you dislike about flames of war? Just so you know I have pretty much decided to start up an american mechanized infantry list with lots of bazookas any tips just for smart buying? Like what are some good things to buy? I am probably going to buy about a 1000-1500 army right away as I have saved a little.

One thing I would suggest getting is some decent artillery. I always run my Panzerkompanie with some, and it helps a great deal. Beyond that I really don't know anything about Americans

As far as dislikes go, my biggest issue is the supposed lack of players around where I live. Me and my dad both play, but we really don't know a lot of people outside of the gaming store scene that do. Other than that I find it a fun, and easy to learn game coming from a 40k background

From my outsider-looking-in point of view, I get the idea the FoW community polices themselves somewhat. There's some controversy over the "BAR" as an unbalancing early-war list, so events move back to mid-war or late-war until it is resolved. I guess it would be like if GW events swapped from WHFB to WH40k based on which was better balanced, but it seems to work for FoW. The FoW 'tournament' community also seems to like events with interesting restrictions to encourage different styles of play, like focusing on Infantry.

Also from a balance point of view it's a bit easier as there's no need for such a huge range of units. All the infantry is human with a few basic but meaningful skill levels. I've noticed GW's more balanced games tended to be those with a simpler base. Necromunda, for example, is pretty balanced until the Outlander rules add in some gangs that have very interesting special rules.

This is how I see it.........

I am a 95% historical gamer, its what I do and have been doing for a very long time. FOW is know in historical circles as "WW2 40K" and there are good reasons for this, but its not completely true or fair (I wouldn't play it if it was).

The problem is tournaments and points lists. These in IMO do not sit well with WW2 gaming as playing WW2 is not about "balanced gaming", its about playing forces that were there or could have been there for the what if factor, this was rarely "balanced". I dont like BF's lists very much, I think they take huge liberties in order to make armies more sellable and in order to "balance" the tournament scene.

Im not a tournament player (can you tell )

So here's the plus side. FOW is not a bad wargame if it is played "properly" (IMO). At my club we use the rules but only tend to use the lists as very rough guidlines, instead putting together "historical" forces that are not point focussed but force focussed, this works pretty well for us.

WW2 Gaming got along just fine without points values since the 1960's and I dont really see the need for them now.

Aldramelech wrote:This is how I see it.........

I am a 95% historical gamer, its what I do and have been doing for a very long time. FOW is know in historical circles as "WW2 40K" and there are good reasons for this, but its not completely true or fair (I wouldn't play it if it was).

The problem is tournaments and points lists. These in IMO do not sit well with WW2 gaming as playing WW2 is not about "balanced gaming", its about playing forces that were there or could have been there for the what if factor, this was rarely "balanced". I dont like BF's lists very much, I think they take huge liberties in order to make armies more sellable and in order to "balance" the tournament scene.

Im not a tournament player (can you tell )

So here's the plus side. FOW is not a bad wargame if it is played "properly" (IMO). At my club we use the rules but only tend to use the lists as very rough guidlines, instead putting together "historical" forces that are not point focussed but force focussed, this works pretty well for us.

WW2 Gaming got along just fine without points values since the 1960's and I dont really see the need for them now.

I agree with this - I'm moving over from 28mm sci-fi gaming (still going to collect battletech, howevera) to 20mm-6mm historicals. My book collection now includes Field of Glory (and the Legions Triumphant book) and Black Powder, and I'm also considering Force on Force for their 'Cold War Gone Hot' supplement.

Flames of War is certainly far more game than simulation... but this makes it the perfect gateway games for 40k players like me. I've already got two 1000 pt armies - Brit Rifles and a Panzerkompanie, both late war - and I'm saving up over the school year to pick up a French Escadron de Combat for next summer. I've also been eying up Baccus 6mm for their ACW and Napoleonic armies

Flames of War is sort of like warm bath water for 40k players - it just feels 'right' when you step into it. You still get your lists, you still get your points values. It opens your eyes, however, to other historical games - ones that would make the normal 40k and fantasy player gawk, like Blackpowder or any of the Polemos rulesets.

I dont think I can put it any better then Aldramelech just did.

I will add this to it though!

There isnt one particular faction that is hands down the best or has the best list. Each Faction has its strength's and weakness. Your best bet is looking at each of the factions or armies and seeing what they offer and if that is what your play style is like go for it.

Another thing to consider is who are you going to be playing with? You will want to compliment them as much as they need to compliment you. Historical Wargaming imho is more about the enjoyment of the game and what happens then who beat who and how badly.

There are no Auto-Win lists. Do not short change yourself looking for one.

You pointed out that you dont like the "codex dance" GW does, well always look at this way. Battlefront makes FoW for 15mm scale WWII. There are plenty of other rulesets out there that can be used for 15mm wargaming. At the end of the day, a Panzer is still a Panzer and a Sherman is still a Sherman. You are in this hobby for your enjoyment, so make something you will enjoy or you think you will enjoy. Worry about Tournament play later.

I think some of our newer converts really do miss out on something when they start FOW but just treat it like another 40K. War is not balanced in any way shape or form and a whole lot of fun can be had playing that way too. A good game is usually followed by a good discussion on who won!

Let me explain. Forces dont have to balance up to have a great game, you need to think about what each players objectives are (and I dont mean a poxy base with a knocked out tank in the middle off the board either)

In most historical games if your playing attack vs defense the attacker should usually have more forces to do the job and on the face of it the defender shouldn't be able to win very easilly, he is after all outnumberd. Where you make a game of it is in the attackers objectives. He wins if he gets through your lines and his forces can carry on his advance but in order to do so he must leave your board edge with a certain amount intact. The defender wins if he can make the attack too costly. There is no need to put actual percentages or values on it, its a subjective thing. The attacker may leave the board with all of his Tanks but he has lost all of his infantry, can he continue his advance? or would he fall back to await more infantry? Does the defender have the force left to stop an infantry reinforcement reaching the armour (theres your next game maybe! )

This to me is all part of the fun of historical gaming, not claiming victory because 5 models from my army held onto a piece of rock in the middle of the board whilst the other 45 models died wiping out the opposing army.

Americans benefit from bazookas and cheap artillery. Also -due to cost - the ability to take a combined arms approach is quite doable.

My recommendation would be either mech infantry for the high firepower or infantry with a strong artillery backup. I believe the americans can field 3 field artillery batteries plus probably still field a fairly complete infantry company and or fit in 5 shermans or tank destroyers with a strong infantry force backed up by a boat load of artillery. I would suggest a mid-war theme as the americans do not have the heavy firepower to directly deal with the heavies that are out there. Bazookas, ATG and shermans can deal with Mk IVs but tigers can be a real pain. Late war the germans will have reduced costs and suddenly the lone or pair of tigers could grow.

Thank you so much for the replies and the help. It seems to me that there may be small balance issues but nothing near as crazy as 40k. I have decided to pick up about a 1000 point american mechanized infantry list from a third party vendor like old glory and me and my brother and my friends are just going to have fun with the game. I dont plan on going to tournament unless they are at my local store with my mates. I usually have the most fun with 40k when there is nothing on the line but fun factor. So I will keep that in mind with flames of war and not worry about the tournament scene wich I have never really enjoyed 10 hours of stinky and very cocky warhammer players arguing and getting off on beating some random guys eldar list with there new grey knight winsauce. Thanks again for all of the help.

Few questions though.

1.What are the consequences of buying third party if any?
2.How many points is good? 1000?
3.I was thinking of AFRIKA era-book or whatever you call it im not sure. Is that a good choice? Seems like a fun era.
4. I am so far picking up 10 half tracks with the troops needed to fill them, about 5 M4s and I want some artillery and a plane. What would be some good choices? Am I forgetting anything?

I can only speak to the first 3 questions, as I don't happen to play mid-war myself, but I do know a bit about it:

1. None at all. As an ex-40k player, I know about the whole 'GW models only' mindset. Flames of War, however, is a WWII game - and no one can copyright a Sherman. Therefor, it's perfectly acceptable to use third-party models - in fact, I'd recommend either Old Glory's Command Decision models, or those from Peter Pig.

2. 1000 is a fine starting point - I believe most Mid-war games are played at 1500 points.

3. North Afrika is a Mid-war book, detailing the fighting that took place in, well, Northern Africa, as well as in the Mediterranean. Mid-war, if I remember correctly, is thought to be the most balanced era in FoW.

2. 1000pts is a good start though you may find that what you are interest in will exceed that 1000 points.

3. North Afrika will also give you lists for not just mid-war but also late war fighting in Sicily and Italy. (though, they have recently released several Italy specific books)

4. Best way to start is of course, look at the list you want to play, make sure you get the mandatory components and then add support & weapon platoons to that.

Infantry is always in good standing
Artillery/Mortars are also a good idea
make sure you can deal with armor if you think you will be facing it (dont know what your friends plan on playing.)

Hi....New to FoW myself. There was a time I played 40k but that died years ago because GW got stupid. For years I've played Epic and BFG since GW background is awesome even if they don't know how to make a good Core game. But lately friends have been building and playing FoW. I've always like History especially WWII Naval (Navy Family Great Granddad is Pearl Harbor Survivor) So it was easy to get me on board since I had looked into before but lacked players, since my friends got into without me knowing I got excited.

I got lucky and got a good deal on an American Para Troop Company Box on Ebay for 20% retail, but it was really awesome because it was the OLD box. The new one only comes with 2 Platoons while the old one came with 3 plus snipers and extras. I need some AT support but that box (38USD) gave me about 1300 pts.

Also about other makers.....My friend found some awesome Sherman on clearance at Target (1-2USD). They were plastic and perfect painted. Place a FoW one painted next to the Target one, I could barely tell the difference till I pick it up. So we easily have about 30 extra tanks to fill out armiies now, lol.

I'd go with Turning Tide Book. Find a list you like and buy it. I plan on using Command Deiscion on my German force if I start one. At this rate it might be awhile since my Americans are int he box still, but I bought Green Primer from Army Painter finally. My Eldar, Imperial Guard, Crons, Sisters and AM armies for Epic are filling my painting queue! LOL!

Good Luck!

Sounds like good deals all around! hahaha

Balance wrote:From my outsider-looking-in point of view, I get the idea the FoW community polices themselves somewhat. There's some controversy over the "BAR" as an unbalancing early-war list, so events move back to mid-war or late-war until it is resolved. I guess it would be like if GW events swapped from WHFB to WH40k based on which was better balanced, but it seems to work for FoW. The FoW 'tournament' community also seems to like events with interesting restrictions to encourage different styles of play, like focusing on Infantry.

Also from a balance point of view it's a bit easier as there's no need for such a huge range of units. All the infantry is human with a few basic but meaningful skill levels. I've noticed GW's more balanced games tended to be those with a simpler base. Necromunda, for example, is pretty balanced until the Outlander rules add in some gangs that have very interesting special rules.

With the tally ho rule the British Armoured Regiment from EW can be devastating *if* the dice go your way. Against infantry that fancy tally ho rule ends up being meaningless because the 2pdr has no ability to hurt gun teams or infantry stands. Dug in infantry really mess up an EW BAR. Either way I have won some battles with my BAR and I have lost some battles with my BAR. They are capable, but in no way an instant win army. I think the reason they were so prevelant in the EW tournies this time around were because the British finally had a truly competitive armored force to play where they weren't completely outclassed in armor and AT capability. In later periods british infantry lists with major artillery support are more prevelant.

Battlefront is a bit more responsive to the player community than GW is. If people complain enough about something Battlefront will address it, unlike GW which has the attitude that the players are just doing it wrong, or that no one could really be complaining about their awesome games...

In my area the Russians and the Germans are the most prevelant. I play British in all periods just because I wanted to play a nation I could play in all 3 war periods and too many other people already played the germans. In our recent EW league there was one other British player in 15 players. In our previous MW league I was the only British player in 15 or so players.

Skriker

My take on this, is that American Rifle and Motor rifle units can be disconcertingly difficult to budge especially if dug in, with AT Guns, Artillery etc. My German army is good but small (relatively speaking, with few armour units which are precious because they are expensive and can be knocked out quickly by assaulting infantry).

The ultimate in here is Mortars, 81mm and the bigger 120mm literally own the Battlefield. They can knock out tanks, pin down infantry, knock out transports, hit artillery they are cheap, man packed and you can bring alot of them in an infantry force. The best part is used with HMG's and laying smoke your average American Infantry unit can storm in and even do reasonably well against SS troops. Don't even get me started on the 82nd and 101st, they literally eat nails and are tough as old boot leather.

I enjoy FOW because it is relatively balanced and the historical element is educational, as opposed to space based supermen or aliens.

You could always try the 2nd Carpathian Rifle Division (Polish/British Commonwealth) its not American, but the lists in there look quite fun to play (Fearless Trained I think )

I think what I like about Flames of War is that there are so many units and so many lists that you wont likely run into the same force very often (well, excepting German armor lists, which are the space marines of FoW).

I would not suggest going polish just because an American Rifle Division can go mid war or late war, and I am not sure but I think polish can not with most of their stuff?

Americans are also usually pretty affordable, so you can get a lot of options into your list.

Tabitha wrote:I would not suggest going polish just because an American Rifle Division can go mid war or late war, and I am not sure but I think polish can not with most of their stuff?

Poles can be used in Late War. There are PDF lists on Battlefront's website with LW Infantry lists for the Poles (fighting in Italy) and Armor (fighting in France). And the second Market Garden list book - A Bridge Too Far - contains a list for the Polish Airborne unit that was airdropped in during the operation. Further, because the Poles used British equipment and doctrine after the Fall of France (they used French equipment during the Battle of France), they can be used as Commonwealth troops from other lists if needed. The only way to tell MW and LW Poles apart from other similarly equipped Commonwealth troops is if they have national insignia painted on.

The only "Free _______" force that can't make the transition from Mid War to Late War is the Free French. The French forces followed the British model and used British supplies during the fighting in Africa. But they switched to American equipment and organization afterwards. The other Free _______ forces all stayed with the British model throughout the war.

To be clear, you can't use the early war polish miniatures in mid or late war, they switched over to British gear by then since they were a long way from their occupied home country.

But there are army lists that essentially allow you to use British forces as Polish troops armed and equipped by the British later in the war. It's a pretty reasonable list of confidant veterans, but in a rifle company configuration that normally sees confidant conscripts or reluctant veterans. So, be prepared for a higher points cost.