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.

Apparently next year we will possibly see WW1 Flames of War forces. Any one heard much about this?

This is the first I've heard of it. Though if they were going to do it I guess the centenary is as good a time as any.

I can’t see them being able to do this with single book like the did with Nam or the ‘67 war however. There would have to be different supplements to cope with the sheer variety of types of fighting across the periods and theaters of the Great War. I suppose they could start with 1914 Western Front (which I personally think would be the most interesting part of the war to game) and then release future supplements for the stalemate and the eventual breakthrough.

When you start factoring in the other theaters you could potentially do almost as many supplements for WW1 as WW2.

I’d heard whispers that they were going to do a Korean War supplement. Anyone heard any news on that?

My friend emailed me about it earlier but its late here so tomorrow ill look into it for more information. So ill share everything I know tomorrow hopefully.

I know there is a fan made version for this. Where you play two games and swap being attacker/defender due to the technology at the time

 Reaver83 wrote:
I know there is a fan made version for this. Where you play two games and swap being attacker/defender due to the technology at the time

I can certainly see that being the case in the mid period of the war where it all ground to a stalemate. But the Early and Late parts of the war had plenty of maneuver.

I'm not sure about this, the FoW system has limited scope for variation between rifle armed infantry units. Ture i'm over simplifying it a bit but it seems limited from a sellers PoV.

I would suggest they will have plenty on their plate expanding the Pacific theatre.

Korea would make allot more sense.

 notprop wrote:


I would suggest they will have plenty on their plate expanding the Pacific theatre.

Korea would make allot more sense.

Korea would make sense as an expansion as most of the vehicles for that period already exist as part of the WW2 ranges. I’m sure Pershings and Centurions will be out soon for FOW anyway.

Late WW2 infantry would feasibly work fine for UN troops, though some new Anti Tank teams would be necessary. There would have to be complete Korean and Chinese infantry ranges though.

To quote from the tail end of Battlefront's 2013 in Review, "Because 2014 bears some significance, we will be working on another new period..."
http://youtu.be/A6bKSNNm3UA

This rumour has bee floating around for a while. My guess is that they''l do late war WWI first as the maneuver inherent to the battles of 1914 will be difficult to reproduce in FoW.

Maybe my perception of the era is completely in a wash, but I can't see FoW working for WWI.

Who is going to be excited about playing two trench lines? I arty bomb my opponent to have him pick up pieces for two turns followed by my Company level force piling out of the trench....and is immediately mowed down by machine guns.

And the scope of the battles just seems at odds for the system. You are either looking at massive theatre level events like Verdun or Ypres or something more squad based.

I would have thought that seeing as it's the centenary of the start of the war that 1914 would be the logical place to start, but 1918 would also require the least change from the core FOW mechanics.

Shotgun wrote:
Maybe my perception of the era is completely in a wash, but I can't see FoW working for WWI.

There is allot more to the First World war than the popular conceptions of trench warfare that dominated the middle of the war. The first and last parts of the war where very much wars of maneuver. The breakthroughs of 1918 actually are not that dissimilar to the battles of 1939/40. Albeit with less mechanization.

Im really looking forward to the setting. It also wasnt all trench warfare too. Anpu-Adom has all the info that i had been told too.

Personally i want to see the first year of war when they tried fighting it like it as they had in previous wars with huge consequences. Also the scenery will be fresh and just nice to look at in general.

I will be buying myself a french army if it turns out to be true thats for sure.

They may do what they did for the japanese and just pick 2 fronts and leave it at that for a while.

I've been going through the list of 20th century battles on Wikipedia
Here are some possibilities:
The pixilated image seemed to show a vehicle of some kind, so I'm self-limiting it to tank-era battles that are multiples of 10 and 5 year anniversaries.

Beyond the start of WWI, these are the ones that stand out.
50-years from the First Indochina war... basically the French vs. the North Vietnamese.
55-years from the Arab-Israeli War (1948)... note that it is different than the 6-Days war of 1967 even though it would be the same combatants... and largely use the same tanks as WWII... with some modifications.
60-years from the tail-end of Guadalcanal (1943)... a possible entry into the Pacific theater (with all the issues that might bring).
65-years from the end of the Spanish Civil War (1938)... there has been some fan-based work in this area and it would work well with some of the early war lines. Similar in scope and in a similar vein as "Rising Sun" perhaps.
And of course, November 9th is the 80th anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, which saw Adolph Hitler injured and arrested for treason (during his imprisonment, he wrote much of "Mein Kampf").

Well, that's as far back as I'm willing to go. They are all interesting possibilities.

I kinda hope they do something with the middle eastern theatre. For the first WW but true the vehicle shakes it up a bit.

Shotgun wrote:
Maybe my perception of the era is completely in a wash, but I can't see FoW working for WWI.

It works for Spanish Civil War it should work work well for 100 days campaign. Though thinking about it and given BF''s country of origin I believe that the first release (probably a freeby in WI magazine) will be the Dardanelles campaign.

 notprop wrote:
I'm not sure about this, the FoW system has limited scope for variation between rifle armed infantry units. Ture i'm over simplifying it a bit but it seems limited from a sellers PoV.

I would suggest they will have plenty on their plate expanding the Pacific theatre.

Korea would make allot more sense.

I have my doubts as well. There have been rumours for a while (the Galipoli MG team that Battlefront apparently made a couple of years ago) but there just isn't enough real varity within and between armies for FoW to work well at this period; I don't think that any WW1 company level game could be interesting.

 LuciusAR wrote:
I would have thought that seeing as it's the centenary of the start of the war that 1914 would be the logical place to start, but 1918 would also require the least change from the core FOW mechanics.

Shotgun wrote:
Maybe my perception of the era is completely in a wash, but I can't see FoW working for WWI.

There is allot more to the First World war than the popular conceptions of trench warfare that dominated the middle of the war. The first and last parts of the war where very much wars of maneuver. The breakthroughs of 1918 actually are not that dissimilar to the battles of 1939/40. Albeit with less mechanization.

Also there was this whole area known as "The Eastern Front".

I'm hoping the rumors are true. WWI games interest me far more than WW2, and FoW just turned into 2 walls of armour lobbing shells across the table anyway.

MarsNZ wrote:
WWI games interest me far more than WW2, and FoW just turned into 2 walls of armour lobbing shells across the table anyway.

FOW turning into 2 walls of armor lobbing shells at each other probably has a lot more to do with the local meta-game than the system itself. But I am certainly interested in seeing how they would do WWI.

Really, Korea would make more sense since they have Vietnam so they may as well patch the hole (and allow some "What-If?" scenarios with direct USSR involvement?) in between the two. But WW1 also interests me since I like infantry games

 Hordini wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
WWI games interest me far more than WW2, and FoW just turned into 2 walls of armour lobbing shells across the table anyway.

FOW turning into 2 walls of armor lobbing shells at each other probably has a lot more to do with the local meta-game than the system itself. But I am certainly interested in seeing how they would do WWI.

I see this at my Meta too. I think it has to do with the coherency distances, and that there is no real penalty to keeping your tanks side to side but there is a downside to keeping them spaced out (since unlike the real world where keeping them in lines would make them easier to hit).

Some people have suggested that the blurry image in the video is an A7V.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Some people have suggested that the blurry image in the video is an A7V.

That was my first thought but then i had another... maybe its a humvee of sorts. We dont know what size it is and humvees are quite boxy. Maybe a more modern warfare thing is a possibility? But its nothing but my own speculation.

The blur looked more like the Frot-Laffly to me, but I highly doubt it was.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
The blur looked more like the Frot-Laffly to me, but I highly doubt it was.

It would explain why there is a white gap on each of the bottom corners. But i also doubt it

 washout77 wrote:

I see this at my Meta too. I think it has to do with the coherency distances, and that there is no real penalty to keeping your tanks side to side but there is a downside to keeping them spaced out (since unlike the real world where keeping them in lines would make them easier to hit).

There is definitely a downside to keeping your tanks close together: artillery. Most of the guys I played with would keep their tanks spaced out as far as they could to avoid more than one tank getting hit by artillery or being blocked by smoke. With a bit of heavy artillery or air, a bunch of tanks all lined up would be a golden opportunity.

I'm going to wait and see what how they do this before I make a decision on getting into it or not. Personally I didn't think they could make Nam work but they did so I can see them making WW1 work. I hope they focus on Late WW1 to start with as the 1915-16 years don't IMO make for a very interesting time period.

But my question is, will everyone has FOW WW1 is too infantry heavy like WW2?

But on a serious note, does anyone think they are trying to do too much at the moment? With Nam, 6 days war and now WW1 in a short period of time, also they haven't finished LW or EW yet, the rumoured redo of MW and still need to do the Far East, it seems like they are spreading themselves too thin.

Ben

When is this stuff supposed to be coming out? Because I want it.

Well, the video showed that they are planning on releasing more kits in plastic in 2014, including the Grenadiers from Open Fire! and even some American Rifles. They mentioned more plastic vehicles like M4A3's and Panzer IVH's. No dates were mentioned, other than the goal being in 2014.
If you were to watch the end of the video again, you could make some guesses based on what was pictures of actual sprue vs. 3d renders vs. 3d cut-ups.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as WWI, I think that the the German attack on Brussels combined with the early French doctrine of extreme mobility would make for interesting battles. Though, that happened in July and August of 1914. On the Western Front, trench warfare was the norm starting in Sept. of 1914 through 1918.

Other fronts in WWI would make for much more interesting battles... it's just that the forces we are used to looking at for FOW are locked down into the trenches for basically 3 and 1/2 years.

Anpu-adom wrote:


Other fronts in WWI would make for much more interesting battles... it's just that the forces we are used to looking at for FOW are locked down into the trenches for basically 3 and 1/2 years.

Maybe for the British or French player (and I suppose USA as well for the few months they were involved). Germany fought on 3 fronts for almost the entire war, Austria-Hungary had no 'Western Front' to speak of. The Ottoman Empire is nowhere near Western Europe.

If anything, popular WWI history is far too oriented towards Britain/US experiences.

I'd be interested in an Austro-Hungarian army. Hopefully if BF does do WWI they'll cover multiple fronts.

MarsNZ wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:


Other fronts in WWI would make for much more interesting battles... it's just that the forces we are used to looking at for FOW are locked down into the trenches for basically 3 and 1/2 years.

Maybe for the British or French player (and I suppose USA as well for the few months they were involved). Germany fought on 3 fronts for almost the entire war, Austria-Hungary had no 'Western Front' to speak of. The Ottoman Empire is nowhere near Western Europe.

If anything, popular WWI history is far too oriented towards Britain/US experiences.

Isn't that basically what I was saying?