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.

Inspired by a thread in the WFB section, as per the title: If you could change one rule In FoW, which one would it be?

I would change the way that flame throwers and other dedicated assault weapons are allocated.

What would happen is that if you are the attacker in a mission you would automatically have the option to swap out your standard equipment for flame throwers and such, the same would happen with flame thrower tanks. If you are the defender you would not have access to these weapons.

Man-packed gun teams having a 4+ save instead of 5+.

Other than that, incredibly solid.

~Vryce

I might consider nerfing the Stormtrooper move. It's a bit too much of an advantage in my humble opinion. Dismounting and Mounting in this step is a bit OTT.

strangely i'd disagree with all the above

especially the 4+ for man packed guns, i think the 3+ infantry saves some time is too good lol!

My big change would be allowing you to drop artillery on terrain features, but possible reduce the risk of actual hits on enemy units if you do!

My change would be a large target rule. Tanks are -1 to hit within 9".

Give me a reason to get close with my t34s. I think this would work better than removing hen and chicks. It just needs a close range offset. No reason I should be hitting you on 5s or god forbid SU-100s hitting on 6s...

VEHICLE AND TANK DAMAGE,i would like to see if i dare say this... A 40k or Bolt action style damage chart.trracks blown off,weapon destroyed etc.

Not so much a rule but I reduce the amount of artillery most armies can take. I think more than 2 platoons is way way too much for a company based game.

Ben

Change Hen's and Chicks from +1 to hit to +1 to Firepower test
Using single 6sided die +1 to hit is just too punitive in this game..

bloodydrake wrote:
Change Hen's and Chicks from +1 to hit to +1 to Firepower test
Using single 6sided die +1 to hit is just too punitive in this game..

This. I would also make it easier (not 'normal' difficulty like it is now) if the shooting unit is very close.

I don't care if you are in a forest, if I am right there my SU-100 shouldn't need a 5 to hit., nor should that Panther need a 4 to turn a turret and shoot my tank that is right next to it.

I would also take a look at Mounted Assault for Germans. It's a good rule, but at times it just seem too good. Instead of being a decent fast transport, it adds this huge buffer between the guys inside and your guns, with very little cons for them. Historically accurate, probably, but mechanically there's some things that could be changed.

Bunker buster, way too over powered.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
VEHICLE AND TANK DAMAGE,i would like to see if i dare say this... A 40k or Bolt action style damage chart.trracks blown off,weapon destroyed etc.

Far too complex for a 15mm game. Just imagine the book keeping with something like a Leight Panzer Kompanie or a Mixed Tankovy Batalon.

Most of the rules are fine, some niggles but my choice would be to add a rule, Infantry Terror. Any tank that wishes to assault infantry in difficult terrain must make a morale check. As it is tanks are free to assault infantry teams, even those in buildings, with impunity which is highly unrealistic and it would really push combined arms armies.

 Reaver83 wrote:
strangely i'd disagree with all the above

especially the 4+ for man packed guns, i think the 3+ infantry saves some time is too good lol!

My big change would be allowing you to drop artillery on terrain features, but possible reduce the risk of actual hits on enemy units if you do!

I could go for pre-plotting/other targeting of terrain features.

A tank that remounts or unbogs must fire as if it moved that turn.

re-introduce the 'ronson' special rule - certainly for early/mid-war

 Pacific wrote:
re-introduce the 'ronson' special rule - certainly for early/mid-war

I've seen statistics that suggest that the Sherman's propensity to brew up compared to similar tanks may be overstated.

Some good ideas out there, I particularly like the 'infantry terror' for tanks assaulting infantry in difficult terrain.

You could expand upon this by changing it to testing when assaulting gone to ground infantry in concealing terrain. This would allow for supporting recon units to remove GTG and negate the check

Anything that creates more situation that require combined arms is good by my book..

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
re-introduce the 'ronson' special rule - certainly for early/mid-war

I've seen statistics that suggest that the Sherman's propensity to brew up compared to similar tanks may be overstated.

it's funny isn't it how historians often move backwards and forwards over subjects, with a new outlook, then changing back to the previous. From my experience, usually there is no smoke without fire (quite literally in this case!) - and there is no denying that German tanks had design elements to prevent the tanks catching fire, the Allies didn't at first but then introduced elements later on in the war. Although, whether this warranted is a special rule is another matter.

 Reaver83 wrote:
strangely i'd disagree with all the above

especially the 4+ for man packed guns, i think the 3+ infantry saves some time is too good lol!

I know 3+ infantry save can be very frustrating sometimes, but on the whole I dont think its too bad. Far worse for me is the 3+ save for mounted cavalry. That is too much for sure.

Vanders wrote:

I know 3+ infantry save can be very frustrating sometimes, but on the whole I dont think its too bad. Far worse for me is the 3+ save for mounted cavalry. That is too much for sure.

Cavalry are already quite ropey, reducing their save would make them even worse. Its not particullary accurate but then neither is FoW.

Infantry need their 3+ save, they really, really do. A 4+ save would make it even more difficult to advance out of cover with infantry and would make FoW an even more amrour heavy game than it already is.

 Palindrome wrote:

Vanders wrote:

I know 3+ infantry save can be very frustrating sometimes, but on the whole I dont think its too bad. Far worse for me is the 3+ save for mounted cavalry. That is too much for sure.

Cavalry are already quite ropey, reducing their save would make them even worse. Its not particullary accurate but then neither is FoW.

Infantry need their 3+ save, they really, really do. A 4+ save would make it even more difficult to advance out of cover with infantry and would make FoW an even more amrour heavy game than it already is.

You exist in a very different world compared to where I play which is a FJ/Brit para/2ID heavy meta

 Reaver83 wrote:

You exist in a very different world compared to where I play which is a FJ/Brit para/2ID heavy meta

The last campaign I played in had 7 armour players of various stripes and 1 infantry player, me. I have never played with an infantry heavy group.

Some of the fire power checks and ratings. roll 50 dice and still no one dead.

I am a bit torn firstly I would remove the +1 modifier from hen and chicks. It is incredibly penalizing now and it is not very fun to play with.

Secondly, I would like to redo the AA fire rules. Right now planes can "hide" behind buildings and trees and it really feels weird. I would say that the AA automatically sees all planes unless the AA is 5 cm within woods, buildings or something like that. My AOP has never been shot down by AA fire.

I do think that the AA fire rules change would benefit more players than just soviet players so I would go with that one.

Wasn't the previous Hen & Chicks rule even more penalising? (I can't remember exactly.. could the chicks not fire at all if they had moved?) I believe they obviously upped the cost of Russian Armour when this rule was changed.

 Pacific wrote:
Wasn't the previous Hen & Chicks rule even more penalising? (I can't remember exactly.. could the chicks not fire at all if they had moved?) I believe they obviously upped the cost of Russian Armour when this rule was changed.

In V2 the rule was, if you moved over 6", THEN it was a +1 to hit. This made it easier to dress ranks to get all of your guns within LOS to fire without penalty.
Only when you really had to move over 6" to 12" would the penalty apply.

This may be just a pet peeve, but I cannot stand how firing arcs for vehicle facings work in Flames of war. I believe that it should be changed to the 45 degree angle arcs rather than the sillyness that is their rules. Having to pass the front of the tank just to shoot at it's side is pure sillyness, even in situations where it is clear that 90% of your view is the side of the tank you re firing at.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
This may be just a pet peeve, but I cannot stand how firing arcs for vehicle facings work in Flames of war. I believe that it should be changed to the 45 degree angle arcs rather than the sillyness that is their rules. Having to pass the front of the tank just to shoot at it's side is pure sillyness, even in situations where it is clear that 90% of your view is the side of the tank you re firing at.

thats a really great point..side armor value would actually have real significance

 Pacific wrote:
re-introduce the 'ronson' special rule - certainly for early/mid-war

British battlefield analysis showed that PzIVs were more likely to burn then early Shermans.

Interesting, considering the term was British slang for the tank! It wasn't like it was something made up by the Germans as a propaganda piece to denigrate the performance of the tank (although no doubt they also had terms for it).

I would change mounted assault
I would have them rated as fully armored tank teams when they launch an assault. As of now 5 hits brake them off..silly so silly.

 Pacific wrote:
(although no doubt they also had terms for it).

Tommy cooker is one that I remember, although that may have been the invention of Commando comics