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.

When (or if) they finish the European theater of ww2 (and the pacific theater if they ever do do it). Then what? I was thinking that they would either do a sort of "weird weapons of ww2". With all of the experimental weaponry, or do you think they would do a game based around the cold war going hot? With there being specific eras (i.e. 50s-60s, 70s-80s, etc), or even do near future combat.

I don't see why they couldn't just keep milking WW2. They can just revamp the old books and iron out flaws in the rules. I only know one or two players who ventured into FoW Vietnam, so maybe its not worth branching out. They have a winning formula with what they have, why spoil it.

Would love to see Pacific though.

Cwen wrote:I don't see why they couldn't just keep milking WW2. They can just revamp the old books and iron out flaws in the rules. I only know one or two players who ventured into FoW Vietnam, so maybe its not worth branching out. They have a winning formula with what they have, why spoil it.

Would love to see Pacific though.

While it could be done, I honestly don't see how they could do the Pacific, it would require a whole new rule set. Because of terrain and style of combat. Not to mention the profound lack of armor (for the most part) in the pacific theater, and FOW relieves heavily on armored warfare.

I hope to never see BF do a sci-fi based game. Unless it was Star Wars, lol. AT-AT platoons for the win!

They've an excellent formula for WWII, so putting forth a Pacific theatre rules set would be something they would do right. You don't need armour to make a game work. it would be limited, but I could see increases in aircraft, naval suppport and terrain based play making it work.

Mat

As an interesting comparison, her'es a 1/144 AT-AT with 1/144 Heavy Gear minis:



(Taken from here ont he DP9 forums.)

Heavy Gear and the AT-AT model are both 1/144 scale, so a bit different from BF's standard which is something like 1/100. So a platoon of AT-ATs would be huge.

Could be a fun game in something more like EPIC scale, with rules for fighters and snow speeders on the same table as AT-ATs and such.

If they did anything, Cold War gone Hot seems to be the most likely candidate for expansion(after pacific of course)

Pacific wouldn't need changes to the main rules, it would just be Infantry and artillery focused with LOTS of cover on the table and more Amphibious Assault rules. all of which could be easily contained in a supplement.


Edit: and a Star Wars TTWG would be freaking awsome. It could give BF a nice edge in the TTWG market. To my knowledge there isn't a SW TTWG currently out there, at least at the scale GW and FoW have games. There are plenty of SW games but they really seem to be more Role Playing games then actual Wargames.

They could narrow their scope down and do specific battles/operations on a front or do more campaign books like Tiger Aces.

They could pick a specific battle, and make a series of linked games, results of each game affecting something in the next game in order to see who won the big battle.

They could do more Tiger Ace style books. You keep track of units' kills and gain experience to "purchase" skills.

They could try to do a WWII naval or air game, if they want to try a different 'feel' of game.

Grey Templar wrote:
Pacific wouldn't need changes to the main rules, it would just be Infantry and artillery focused with LOTS of cover on the table and more Amphibious Assault rules. all of which could be easily contained in a supplement.

This. I'll never understand players who act like the PTO was so completely different that it might as well have taken place on Mars...with lasers...versus dinosaurs.

It was simply a different style of warfare.

Balance wrote:They could try to do a WWII naval or air game, if they want to try a different 'feel' of game.

Hmm FoW Naval would sound interesting.

I know my players would like to see some type of more in depth Air warfare.They even want me to homebrew some rules for small Bombers.the only thing i could come up with were some bad 40k rip off rules for them like the ones found for the Imperial Guard.

Battlefront have already said that they are planning on doing the Pacific theater, but that they'll do it when they're basically done with Europe and that it will probably function as a separate period (sort of like FOW Vietnam) if not a separate ruleset.

After the Pacific, I could see them moving forward and doing the Korean War, or possibly moving backwards and doing World War I.

IDK, WWI probably wouldn't work in the 1:100 scale they have now.

Not to mention be incredibly boring as games would consist of "Artillery Bombardment, Artillery Bombardment, Posion Gas attack, Charge!, o'look everyone died. hey look, Tanks!!!"

Hordini wrote:Battlefront have already said that they are planning on doing the Pacific theater, but that they'll do it when they're basically done with Europe and that it will probably function as a separate period (sort of like FOW Vietnam) if not a separate ruleset.

After the Pacific, I could see them moving forward and doing the Korean War, or possibly moving backwards and doing World War I.

Where did you hear that?

I'd like to see them do the Isreali-Arab War. 'Early' war would be WWII-esque technology, then we'd progress into 'mid' and 'late' war as helicopters, AFVs, and the like get added in.

Grey Templar wrote:IDK, WWI probably wouldn't work in the 1:100 scale they have now.

Not to mention be incredibly boring as games would consist of "Artillery Bombardment, Artillery Bombardment, Posion Gas attack, Charge!, o'look everyone died. hey look, Tanks!!!"

Actually, WWI had some pretty fluid battles early on on the western front, and trench warfare wasn't as dominant in some of the other theaters, like in German East Africa where there was a good deal of guerrilla warfare. Depending on how they approach the ruleset, I think it could be very interesting, and it's definitely doable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makarov wrote:

Hordini wrote:Battlefront have already said that they are planning on doing the Pacific theater, but that they'll do it when they're basically done with Europe and that it will probably function as a separate period (sort of like FOW Vietnam) if not a separate ruleset.

After the Pacific, I could see them moving forward and doing the Korean War, or possibly moving backwards and doing World War I.

Where did you hear that?

The developers have posted and commented about it several times on the Battlefront forums over the years. It's been a topic of discussion ever since 1st edition FOW.

I suspect that, if BF continues to grow and prosper, when they 'finish' WW2 they will go back and re-do everything - new rules, new models.

I wonder about the Pacific. If it was remotely accurate it would be infantry-heavy - there'd be no Japanese tank lists (and from 1942 onwards Japanese armour wouldn't have a chance against Allied armour anyway). It could end up being very one-sided unless the rules could reflect (in an interesting way) the tenacity of the Japanese in the face of superior technology and overwhelming firepower.

I've said before that the Arab-Israel wars seem like fertile ground for an expansion or different rules set. You have some epic armour engagements, a wide range of AFVs (including iconic tanks like the Super Sherman), and it would cover a couple of decades, during which the technology went from to WW2 surplus to guided missiles and attack helicopters.

I doubt it would be as one sided as has been suggested. For starters that Pacific theatre includes China and Burma, both areas were the Japanese were very potent until much later in the war, i.e they invaded India in 1944 and took quite a while to be driven back in Burma. And lets not forget the earlier periods were they over ran relatively quickly areas defended by forces with heavier firepower and often manpower i.e Singapore/Malay penninsula and the Phillipines. Armour would be scarce on both sides so Its probably not so much of a problem I wouldnt think.

The post war period shouldnt require that much of a change, at least up to the advent of decent missle technology in the 60's.

lampy wrote:I doubt it would be as one sided as has been suggested. For starters that Pacific theatre includes China and Burma, both areas were the Japanese were very potent until much later in the war, i.e they invaded India in 1944 and took quite a while to be driven back in Burma. And lets not forget the earlier periods were they over ran relatively quickly areas defended by forces with heavier firepower and often manpower i.e Singapore/Malay penninsula and the Phillipines. Armour would be scarce on both sides so Its probably not so much of a problem I wouldnt think.

Fair point. The early battles weren't so one-sided, I agree. However, I can't see many players being drawn to the slow grind that was China and Burma. FoW sells itself primarily on armoured combat. I know people play infantry heavy lists, but there's a big difference between the 'glamourous' mechanised armies of the European theatres, and the essentially footslogging armies of the so-called 'Far East'. The main draw of the Pacific theatre will be the island-hopping campaign conducted by the US, and that's what I think would require some creative rules-writing. It's no coincidence that WW2 wargaming has always focused on the European theatres.

I'd guess that BF would come out with fantasy Japanese armour lists, made up of the rarities and late war AFV's that barely saw combat. It's no different from the generous numbers of late Panzers that they permit German players to field.

Tailgunner wrote:I suspect that, if BF continues to grow and prosper, when they 'finish' WW2 they will go back and re-do everything - new rules, new models.

If I'm still playing FoW at that point (and I don't see any reason why I'd have to sell my WWII miniatures before anything else had to go), I'll probably jump ship here.

As soon as Battlefront starts to really make GW-like decisions, I'm out. There are plenty of other quality WWII rulesets that I could use without having to rebase anything. Heck, I could even just stick with what I'd have at that moment.

Tailgunner wrote:
Fair point. The early battles weren't so one-sided, I agree. However, I can't see many players being drawn to the slow grind that was China and Burma. FoW sells itself primarily on armoured combat. I know people play infantry heavy lists, but there's a big difference between the 'glamourous' mechanised armies of the European theatres, and the essentially footslogging armies of the so-called 'Far East'. The main draw of the Pacific theatre will be the island-hopping campaign conducted by the US, and that's what I think would require some creative rules-writing. It's no coincidence that WW2 wargaming has always focused on the European theatres.

I would be all over a 14th army book. There is also a lot of scope for armoured warfare from the Allied side, the advance into central Burma was spearheaded by heavily mechanised forces and armour played an important role even during the retreat of 1942.
Of course the Japanese were almost exclusively infantry (I think the most effective tank that they used in Burma was a captured Stuart) and infantry combat would be the focus of most Pacific games but to be honest a lot of people like infantry armies in FoW and I for one would welcome an environment light on armour. While it won't be as popular as LW with all its big cats it should still sell well. Extra rules wont be needed aside from army specific ones.

They could expand into Korea or 'cold war gone hot' but I think that both of these would be quite small scale. I think that they should maintain FoW rather than keep reinventing it while branching out into a different period, perhaps Medieval?

A medieval game would be interesting. Maybe divided into time periods of Early(Just after Rome's fall, Invasion of England by Saxons, Hun invasion...), Middle(Crusades, height of chivelry, Reconquesta), and Late(early Renassiance, primative gnpowder weapons, Protestant Reformation...)

There would be little overlap between periods and certaintly none between Early and Late but the game mechanics could be the same.

15mm Historical would certaintly be an interesting game.

15mm historicals already exist, the most popular systems don't specify a specific scale though.

infinite_array wrote:
If I'm still playing FoW at that point (and I don't see any reason why I'd have to sell my WWII miniatures before anything else had to go), I'll probably jump ship here.

As soon as Battlefront starts to really make GW-like decisions, I'm out. There are plenty of other quality WWII rulesets that I could use without having to rebase anything. Heck, I could even just stick with what I'd have at that moment.

That damn Gandalf photo you use makes me read everything you write as if it's spoken by Sir Ian McKellen...

There is a fallacy that what GW does is either unique to them or somehow unethical. It's just the way things work - eventually a rule system needs an overhaul, the model line needs improving (perhaps because it's possible to do the models better), and you want to get people to upgrade. I'd be amazed if BF doesn't do it.

Grey Templar wrote:A medieval game would be interesting. Maybe divided into time periods of Early(Just after Rome's fall, Invasion of England by Saxons, Hun invasion...), Middle(Crusades, height of chivelry, Reconquesta), and Late(early Renassiance, primative gnpowder weapons, Protestant Reformation...)

Sounds like Hail Caesar (or any other ancient/medieval ruleset)....

Though I suppose the latter bunch is probably more in line with Pike and Shott and other renaissance/+16th century games. It covers the Italian Wars and beyond

Anyways though it would be a tad annoying if BF did make an ancient/medieval game in 15mm and it uses a funky base system that no one else uses.

Modern conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya any of them. A wwlll china and north Korea vs the world game would be cool.

nah, modern war would be too much like "American Marines call air support and wipe out their opponents"

Korean War could be good- lot's of different lists to use, lot's of nations involved, war was on quite a big scale. I definitely would be interested! It is true that the Communist side would be bit limited (only Chineese and N. Koreans available) but still interesting enough. More than Vietnam personally speaking, but then it's just me.

wardancer wrote:nah, modern war would be too much like "American Marines call air support and wipe out their opponents"

Korean War could be good- lot's of different lists to use, lot's of nations involved, war was on quite a big scale. I definitely would be interested! It is true that the Communist side would be bit limited (only Chineese and N. Koreans available) but still interesting enough. More than Vietnam personally speaking, but then it's just me.

Not if my Typhoons have anything to say to that!

Not that I hope that typhoons would be attacking F15's anyways in the near future.....


But yea I think korea would be a tad logical. Its a bit like WW2 2.0.

kenshin620 wrote:

wardancer wrote:nah, modern war would be too much like "American Marines call air support and wipe out their opponents"

Korean War could be good- lot's of different lists to use, lot's of nations involved, war was on quite a big scale. I definitely would be interested! It is true that the Communist side would be bit limited (only Chineese and N. Koreans available) but still interesting enough. More than Vietnam personally speaking, but then it's just me.

Not if my Typhoons have anything to say to that!

Not that I hope that typhoons would be attacking F15's anyways in the near future.....


But yea I think korea would be a tad logical. Its a bit like WW2 2.0.

Hypothetically you can do it know, just use as Russian list vs. a US list. I mean during the war that is what the Norks/PLA used.

kenshin620 wrote:

wardancer wrote:nah, modern war would be too much like "American Marines call air support and wipe out their opponents"

Korean War could be good- lot's of different lists to use, lot's of nations involved, war was on quite a big scale. I definitely would be interested! It is true that the Communist side would be bit limited (only Chineese and N. Koreans available) but still interesting enough. More than Vietnam personally speaking, but then it's just me.

Not if my Typhoons have anything to say to that!

Not that I hope that typhoons would be attacking F15's anyways in the near future.....


But yea I think korea would be a tad logical. Its a bit like WW2 2.0.

Please, Korea wouldn't last more then a few weeks against the US(assuming we didn't just glass em with ICBMs)

China wouldn't help them in the current situation. Choosing between their little puppet and their biggest trade market, China would follow the money.

The NK army, and populace, is starving. War would only make this worse. Not to mention the outdated equipment they use, and the shoddy stuff they made themselves(I mean really, how desperate are you if you have to make, bad, fake new ICBMs )