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.

What is next on the agenda for Flames of War?

I have heard a few things, including a swing back to EW and MW?

Also, I heard that a Bridge Too Far book or compendium may be up next....

Does anyone know?

Thanks - Mez

Market Garden compilation is out at Christmas/January so that's next.

I expect a rather large Mid war update/errata can't be far off.

I have heard for the Spring,
eARLY wAR UPDATES AND Soviet lists.

Nothing for Lw for awhile.That i know of.
But early war ,maybe fun with the new Zvezda models being released.

Better not do anything with North Africa for a while. Just bought the book...

Rumor has it the next big thing is Operation Barbarossa.

I am hoping that the rumor will be true on the market garden books containg the updated lists for the Germans for the bulge.I got around 35 SS with assult rifles that are itching to be used.Also i would like a updated list for the 12th and 2nd SS PAnzer division.Falshimjagers horrible drop,And Belgeit tanker comapny also.

Do not forget the new Normandy Battles book.Finally some updated air assult rules,New total war rules..And do not forget the errata v3 rules updates.

Vietnam will also be getting a full book.

Also, I'm very glad to see the Normandy book. I think, at least at home, I'll be stepping away from points-based games, and my friend and I'll will try some scenarios that we can think up.

Personally I think it is the non points based games where flames of war shines.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
I have heard for the Spring,
eARLY wAR UPDATES AND Soviet lists.

Nothing for Lw for awhile.That i know of.
But early war ,maybe fun with the new Zvezda models being released.

The Early War book will be the first of two Eastern Front books. iirc, the split is pre- vs post- invasion of the USSR. Unfortunately, I can't remember which book it is.

With Late War, I would imagine that Battlefront is going to start angling in on the long-awaited Fall of Berlin. Look for a Soviet focus again, with a bone or two thrown to the Western Allies so that they can get some of their End of War goodies.

The biggest and most blatant shortcoming must be the lack of Japanese and far east lists. Anyone got any info on that?

Agreed. I feel like they want to close up Europe though, most likely closing up on the Fall of Berlin and that late-late war stuff. Then they will likely open up Early-War (China and Japan?) and Mid-War (Beginnings of the Pacific War for the US? Marine Corps lists?) for the Pacific.

Vanders wrote:
The biggest and most blatant shortcoming must be the lack of Japanese and far east lists. Anyone got any info on that?

The problem with the Pacific campaign is it does not really fit well with the Flames of War rules set. The US island hopping campaign would be almost impossible to correctly represent in a points based game. The Japanese forces were always far outnumbered, and were usually fighting battles simply to kill as many US troops as possible. The Japanese were also almost always heavily entrenched on the island, not represented well in any of the mobile battle or non-defensive missions. A game of FoW would have the Japanese fighting on equal terms with the other army, and also rushing around the board to take objectives.

The Japanese army will also not work well with FoWs focus on armor. Japan's armored forces would be greatly inferior when compared to any other nations, with many tanks having paper thin armor in what would be the MW and LW periods (some could be pierced by small arms fire).

Really, the Japanese would not be playable against any forces in Europe, where almost any army could crush them with their tanks. The only way I could see a Pacific War version of FoW working is as a separate game, like Vietnam.

I had heard that Battlefront was going to try their hand at mid-war monsters again by releasing an operation sea lion book detailing a what-if invasion of the UK, etc. containing full lists for hypothetical forces of the invasion.

 General Seric wrote:


The problem with the Pacific campaign is it does not really fit well with the Flames of War rules set. The US island hopping campaign would be almost impossible to correctly represent in a points based game. The Japanese forces were always far outnumbered, and were usually fighting battles simply to kill as many US troops as possible. The Japanese were also almost always heavily entrenched on the island, not represented well in any of the mobile battle or non-defensive missions. A game of FoW would have the Japanese fighting on equal terms with the other army, and also rushing around the board to take objectives.

The Japanese army will also not work well with FoWs focus on armor. Japan's armored forces would be greatly inferior when compared to any other nations, with many tanks having paper thin armor in what would be the MW and LW periods (some could be pierced by small arms fire).

Really, the Japanese would not be playable against any forces in Europe, where almost any army could crush them with their tanks. The only way I could see a Pacific War version of FoW working is as a separate game, like Vietnam.

At the scale at which FOW is fought I think it would be perfectly possible to do the US island hopping campaign, or at least parts of it. Besides, not all the fighting in the pacific campaign was static. Early stages of Guadacanal weren't.

In any case it hardly matters. There was more to the Japanese war effort than the US marines storming Iwo Jima. What about the New Guinea campaign? Or Malysia/Burma? Imphal and Kohima are pretty much unknown now but they were amongst the major battles of WW2. The Japanese fought the Russians in the far east too.

Sure the Japs would not be playable against any force in Europe, but then they wouldnt have to. Like all FOW, the Japanese would do very well in the environment in which they were placed. The biggest problem with recreating them is representing the occluded terrain they usually fought over. Most wargamers have crud terrain (at least in comparison to their beautiful models ) but a Japanese army would need it. The fact that Japanese tanks are very poor by european theatre standards doesnt matter. After all Seric you do ok with an Italian army and their tanks are not a lot better!

A Japanese army would consist of large numbers of very high quality light infantry, probably counting as mountaineers with improvised tank assault of 3, with qutie a lot of light artillery support and probably many recconaissance platoons. There would have to be special rules for banzai charges and kamikaze suicide attacks and bycicles. Air support was effective when available, which it was in some of the earlier battles. I dont see any reason why that could not be simulated.

Vanders wrote:

 General Seric wrote:


The problem with the Pacific campaign is it does not really fit well with the Flames of War rules set. The US island hopping campaign would be almost impossible to correctly represent in a points based game. The Japanese forces were always far outnumbered, and were usually fighting battles simply to kill as many US troops as possible. The Japanese were also almost always heavily entrenched on the island, not represented well in any of the mobile battle or non-defensive missions. A game of FoW would have the Japanese fighting on equal terms with the other army, and also rushing around the board to take objectives.

The Japanese army will also not work well with FoWs focus on armor. Japan's armored forces would be greatly inferior when compared to any other nations, with many tanks having paper thin armor in what would be the MW and LW periods (some could be pierced by small arms fire).

Really, the Japanese would not be playable against any forces in Europe, where almost any army could crush them with their tanks. The only way I could see a Pacific War version of FoW working is as a separate game, like Vietnam.

At the scale at which FOW is fought I think it would be perfectly possible to do the US island hopping campaign, or at least parts of it. Besides, not all the fighting in the pacific campaign was static. Early stages of Guadacanal weren't.

In any case it hardly matters. There was more to the Japanese war effort than the US marines storming Iwo Jima. What about the New Guinea campaign? Or Malysia/Burma? Imphal and Kohima are pretty much unknown now but they were amongst the major battles of WW2. The Japanese fought the Russians in the far east too.

Sure the Japs would not be playable against any force in Europe, but then they wouldnt have to. Like all FOW, the Japanese would do very well in the environment in which they were placed. The biggest problem with recreating them is representing the occluded terrain they usually fought over. Most wargamers have crud terrain (at least in comparison to their beautiful models ) but a Japanese army would need it. The fact that Japanese tanks are very poor by european theatre standards doesnt matter. After all Seric you do ok with an Italian army and their tanks are not a lot better!

A Japanese army would consist of large numbers of very high quality light infantry, probably counting as mountaineers with improvised tank assault of 3, with qutie a lot of light artillery support and probably many recconaissance platoons. There would have to be special rules for banzai charges and kamikaze suicide attacks and bycicles. Air support was effective when available, which it was in some of the earlier battles. I dont see any reason why that could not be simulated.

Though I was a bit too general with my first paragraph, my main point is that the Japanese army will not work in the current game, and a "Flames of War: Pacific" game needs to be made to make them viable. The problem is that, in the normal FoW game, the LW Japanese armies would be open to be played against any other army in that period.

About the Japanese in Malaysia/Burma and fighting Russia: I was focusing on the US island hopping campaign because it is most likely to be done (at least at first) by BF. The island hopping campaign is the most known part of the Pacific War (similar to how people think that WW1 was all trench warfare, though much of it wasn't), so BF would certainly do it first to appeal to the largest group of gamers.

A funny thing about the Italian tanks is that the Italian M14/41 tank, considered relatively inadequate by the middle of the desert war, outclasses most of the Japanese tanks in armor that were being used near the end of the war. This would not be a big factor in a game were the Japanese were in a dug in defensive positions, but a normal game of FoW would likely see them at serious disadvantage.

I don't agree the Japanese infantry being "very high quality", as I don't see many reasons that the infantry was all that exceptional in training. They would defiantly be Fearless, but I think Trained would better represent their training. In most places that they fought more standard battles against the allies, their casualties were much greater than those of the allies, for example, in the Battle of Leyte, casualties were: 3,504 killed and 12,080 wounded for the US, and 49,000 killed for Japan. They only really came close in casualties in their highly defensive battles, like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

I also don't think that banzai charges should get any good special rules, as they pretty much all ended in the charging Japanese infantry being slaughtered. Maybe the Japanese could be unbreakable on the charge, but take more damage in some way? (to not make the rule too overpowered or unrealistic)

When you say “kamikaze suicide attacks” I assume you are not actually talking about the kamikaze plane attacks, as I don’t see them having a place in a non-naval game. I expect you are talking about the Japanese troops that would surrender to US troops then detonate grenades or play dead and blow themselves up as US troops past by or run at American troops with grenades? I don’t know if this would play too major a part in the game, but maybe it could work as a type of ambush, where there can be a onetime die roll attack (maybe 5 or 6?) on US troops moving through an area in which they killed some of a Japanese platoon?

Though I was a bit too general with my first paragraph, my main point is that the Japanese army will not work in the current game, and a "Flames of War: Pacific" game needs to be made to make them viable. The problem is that, in the normal FoW game, the LW Japanese armies would be open to be played against any other army in that period.

About the Japanese in Malaysia/Burma and fighting Russia: I was focusing on the US island hopping campaign because it is most likely to be done (at least at first) by BF. The island hopping campaign is the most known part of the Pacific War (similar to how people think that WW1 was all trench warfare, though much of it wasn't), so BF would certainly do it first to appeal to the largest group of gamers.

A funny thing about the Italian tanks is that the Italian M14/41 tank, considered relatively inadequate by the middle of the desert war, outclasses most of the Japanese tanks in armor that were being used near the end of the war. This would not be a big factor in a game were the Japanese were in a dug in defensive positions, but a normal game of FoW would likely see them at serious disadvantage.

I don't agree the Japanese infantry being "very high quality", as I don't see many reasons that the infantry was all that exceptional in training. They would defiantly be Fearless, but I think Trained would better represent their training. In most places that they fought more standard battles against the allies, their casualties were much greater than those of the allies, for example, in the Battle of Leyte, casualties were: 3,504 killed and 12,080 wounded for the US, and 49,000 killed for Japan. They only really came close in casualties in their highly defensive battles, like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

I also don't think that banzai charges should get any good special rules, as they pretty much all ended in the charging Japanese infantry being slaughtered. Maybe the Japanese could be unbreakable on the charge, but take more damage in some way? (to not make the rule too overpowered or unrealistic)

When you say “kamikaze suicide attacks” I assume you are not actually talking about the kamikaze plane attacks, as I don’t see them having a place in a non-naval game. I expect you are talking about the Japanese troops that would surrender to US troops then detonate grenades or play dead and blow themselves up as US troops past by or run at American troops with grenades? I don’t know if this would play too major a part in the game, but maybe it could work as a type of ambush, where there can be a onetime die roll attack (maybe 5 or 6?) on US troops moving through an area in which they killed some of a Japanese platoon?

Vanders wrote:

I don't agree the Japanese infantry being "very high quality", as I don't see many reasons that the infantry was all that exceptional in training. They would defiantly be Fearless, but I think Trained would better represent their training. In most places that they fought more standard battles against the allies, their casualties were much greater than those of the allies, for example, in the Battle of Leyte, casualties were: 3,504 killed and 12,080 wounded for the US, and 49,000 killed for Japan. They only really came close in casualties in their highly defensive battles, like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

I also don't think that banzai charges should get any good special rules, as they pretty much all ended in the charging Japanese infantry being slaughtered. Maybe the Japanese could be unbreakable on the charge, but take more damage in some way? (to not make the rule too overpowered or unrealistic)

Part of me thinks that the fact they just loved to charge straight as our Marines and soldiers probably has something to do with the large amount of casualties. Hahaha, but I agree. They could be included but it would need a lot of balance work to make it not completely useless....

The rumour mongers are saying a PAcific Theatre will be done and probably be availible in two to three years.
Also they have already done some experimenting with the Vietnam rules.mainly the Pavn list.To see if they would work for the Japaneese. But if you are wanting to play a Late war version be prepared to waiting around five yearsEarly war will be first..
Also i think the rules for that theatre are not that complicated consicering they already have some existing. Also remember we are talking about a ground war .Not Naval or Air warfare.So that way some of the rules will be easy to port over like d day landings for example ,just make them MArines.
For the people who can not wait on a offical rules system their are already some out their.They are suppposedly half decent. They even use them at Adeptcon.
But for the people that may disagree feel free to do so. Me i am perfectly happy playing LW western front

For personal reasons, I'd love to see SeaBee's in the Pacific. My grandfather was part of the operation that retook Bougainville in Nov. of 1943.