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.

Hello All

This weekend I picked the new Flames of War Tour of Duty Book. So I thought I'd do a little review on my Blog.

Thanks for looking, and I hope you enjoy the post.

Ben

Nice review, thank you.

I used to play a fair bit of Vietnam skirmish and had a full infantry platoon, some tanks and Hueys, etc, all in 1/72 / 20mm scale, but I sold it all.

Now I want to get back in!

Things is...


Aussie Centurions never engaged any enemy armour in the war.

Indeed American armour only fought one tank-to-tank engagement.

Seems alot of focus on tanks for a war that was, essentially, an infantrymans war.

But Im biased... I wrote a set of Vietnam rules.

Love the miniatures and I enjoy FOW for WW2 but I'm concerned about them turning this into a tank fest.

As big P says the Nam was an infantry war and Armour was relegated to a supporting role. Tank on Tank action just isn't what Vietnam was about.

Still the models look nice, but I'd probably use another rule-set if I bought them. I keep hearing good things about Charlie Don't Surf.

I don't think it will be a tank fest as the tanks are a lot of points or with the integral AT will keep most tank honest.

BF is pretty open that the Allied and PAVN tanks never faced each other, the option is there for a "what if" mission and for tournament play (but again they are pretty clear they don't think this should be tournament based). Also if you don't want to play with the tanks then don't. I;m not planning on using them and none I normally play against is interested in the tanks for nam. I will be buying some Centurion's as they are lovely models.

In speaking with one of the guys from BF, he mentioned that this book is also a way for them to open up a "Warzaw pact vs.NATO" type situation.

He also mentioned that there might be an article in WI later on with lists for Israel/Egypt conflicts, where a lot of the same gear + WW2 updated gear was used.

If so, that might be fun also...

The Arab-Israel conflicts are quite a growing niche amongst allot of historical gamers. However 67 was such a short and one sided affair it's hard to imagine how it might capture the imaginations of a significant enough number of gamers to make it worth BF’s time. 73 might, I know the Golan heights gets gamed quite frequently. Not to mention that the conflict is (unlike WW2 or the cold war) still a hot and politically charged issue.

But it does give the opportunity to use some WW2 kit in a modern(ish) setting.