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.

Historicals guys are definitly "hobbyists," not simply "gamers."

I think you'd get less flack if you painted an army as an alternate history force that still was grounded in reality. Nobody is going to paint tanks in bright, heraldric colors. But if you painted shermans in urban camo as a hypothetical city assault formation, less people are going to be offended.

Nah... I'd still be outraged.

Well wow, I had no idea this would erupt into the quasi-flame war it has! I think after reading this you've helped me decide which side of the flames of war fence I'll be on. And that's as far from the FoW side as I can get.

Good luck with your hobby and more power to you all, but I can see its not the hobby for me.

Cave_Dweller wrote:Well wow, I had no idea this would erupt into the quasi-flame war it has! I think after reading this you've helped me decide which side of the flames of war fence I'll be on. And that's as far from the FoW side as I can get.

Good luck with your hobby and more power to you all, but I can see its not the hobby for me.

I think that's wise.

If you consider expecting a historical army to painted at least somewhat realistically too much historical snobbery, you'd be better served by another game.

Isnt FoW a wargame set in a historic setting? Meaning its going to push fun and balance over realism?

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Isnt FoW a wargame set in a historic setting? Meaning its going to push fun and balance over realism?

The true grognards could debate this with ferocity, but I'll attempt to answer this.

The game mechanics, meaning the rules for moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. all favor playability and balance in lieu of realism.

The rules for army composition, however, are pretty firmly rooted in history.

Most touranments favor historical match-ups (axis vs. allies).

From what I've seen, actualy historical companies can be built easily and simply from the lists.

So, while the actual details of how, say, a bazooka would perform against a Flak 88 on a turntable might be hazy in favor of ease of play, the game is pretty firmly rooted in it's historical setting.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

It really comes down to how the people in your area are. I am part of a wargaming club with a focus on FoW and other historicals, (note: not a Historical Wargaming club, people in the club just mainly play historical wargames) and can say that no one in the club is as, I guess "historically conscious", as Big P and Aldramelech, we play more of the point based pick up type games than historically accurate scenarios.

I have played historically accurate scenarios run by the club, which were fun, but I also enjoy the impromptu pick up game between points based forces. Most of the people in the club are actually in their 40s or 50s (most not the former GW types), and some even are pretty anal about historical accuracy with their own armies, but they are still willing to play a quick game with whoever is around, (even blue on blue, my Italians have likely faced Germans more times than Allies!) while also playing prepared scenarios when arranged.

Overall look into the community in your area, they could vary anywhere from former GW players with IG Russians, or historical nuts who will not play you over the color shade of your tanks stowage! or ideally, somewhere in between.

I go to a club with a fair mix of historical gamers and fantasy/sci-fi gamers and I've never encountered anyone there or anywhere else that got up tight about what is, not history but little more than period colouring in.

I'd say keep it in the feel of the game.

Since this is historical, try to have your paint schemes look like what an army of the time would use, but you don't have to adhere to strict paint schemes. Lighter, darker shades of green, camouflage patterns that are ahistorical but still look appropriate, etc. All would be fine to me so long as it fits.

It's not that I'd have a problem with the act of painting a Tiger pink, blue, or whatever. It's rather I have to wonder about why you're playing this historical game and ignoring the history aspect.

Part of the reason we play games overall is the miniature diorama aspect, and having miniatures that fit in together on the table is part of that. It can be very satisfying to look at a well made table and the two armies laid out on it.

I won't stop anyone from painting how they want, nor would that stop me from playing with them, but I will question their judgement. I mean, wargaming is a social game, and the majority of people or groups that would get into FoW have at least some base in history. They may not be history buffs or grognards, but those people enjoy some part of the historical aspect. Thus, to respect the group you play with, try and be a little close to history.

George Spiggott wrote:I go to a club with a fair mix of historical gamers and fantasy/sci-fi gamers and I've never encountered anyone there or anywhere else that got up tight about what is, not history but little more than period colouring in.

Not been many places in the historical side of the hobby then?

Even my colouring in with my 4 year old is historically accurate, much to her annoyance. So there.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Holy cow, some of you guys are making me reconsider getting into FoW. If the general FoW crowd is as uptight as some of you, like Aldramelech, I may just forget about FoW. I want NO part in a game in which the players won't play a game with you unless you models are painted right and are from the correct time period. That just sounds like hell.

_Tim?

If you want to label me as "uptight" thats up to you but would you turn up to play golf with a cricket bat? Would you play tennis with a badminton racket?

I'm pretty sure I've explained the wargames club concept here before, but just for you "shop" types...................

There are members of our club who do not own a single figure, not a one. One on one games are unusual, most games played are large games with 2-4 players a side and are arranged in advance, there are no "pick up games". At some point during our Wednesday night meeting we discuss what will happen next week and ensure that enough games are organised to accommodate everyone with at least one game that has spare capacity to fit in anybody that might turn up or the open game as we call it.

Any figures used have to be painted, there is no rule on standard and our members collections range from very good to not that good at all. it is not unusual for members to undertake a "Project" and a good example of this is my own SAGA project. I have got the rules, dice sets and 4 armies, and I will put on SAGA games for others to play whilst I umpire, I haven't actually played the damn game yet, despite spending £500 on it, Ive been to busy providing a game for others to play.

This means that some weeks I don't have to take anything to the club because I'm playing somone else's game. This system works well, people get to try before they buy, new players get to experience a whole range of different games (and we play everything), there is no situation where you don't play because you haven't painted anything because you can always play with some else's stuff.

Now a problem that can occur is that a small minority can end up doing all the work and put on the majority of games, this is why people are encouraged to paint armies and put on games. But as I have said we do have one or two members who never do and probably never will but that's life and they contribute in other ways.

Now in our club and you will find in most others, we are very like minded indivduals, we share similar interests and are all passionate about history, this is HISTORICAL gaming, its all about history, the clues in the title.

If you want to hang around in a shop all day on the off chance you might get a game at some time with someone approximating a human being only to find out he's painted all his tanks bright red, I applaud your spirit of adventure, I'll stick to my way thanks and if that makes me uptight with a stick up my arse, well I'm happy with that too.

Aldramelech,

I didnt know you was in my club!

Agree wit it all... An unpainted figure has never tounch any of our tables and never will.

It is heresy.

Your lot should come over for a game.

We can play 40k with all unpainted figures for the craic!

My body rebels at the thought of all the Guiness.............

Popping over for a game of KGN is already on the bucket list

Big P wrote:Same goes for red Shermans... Though Im more likely to steal them and return them repainted in the correct colours the following week out of frustration!

Lies, i've seen pic's of your painting pile and 'to do' stuff. You have enough on your plate without painting other peoples models (unless it was commission money is always good)

We haven't got enough players/money to ensure that every match-up is historically accurate. If we waited, then nobody would ever get to play. (OR thinking about it, only two people would ever get a game, because they both have LW Russian Front Armies.

Also, we spend far more time discussing HOW we achieved X or Y painted effect than we ever do discussing whether the Das Reich Armoured Artillery had dunkelgelb and green stripes, or dunkelgelb and green patches. A historical anomaly tends to spark a friendly historical debate (which is good) rather than a priggish refusal to play (which is pointless.)

The lack of milk for tea however... grrrr

Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

Aldramelech wrote:Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

At last!

@Aldramelech, if history is so important, how do you deviate from it in a game? Honestly I get the impression your club gets together and refights a battle, and playing exactally as the battle went. Or is it you just use the forces at the battle and play "what if" to see if the battle could have gone different.

History is important as its the setting.

If you divorce the setting from the game it ceases to be historical.

We play plenty of games based on historical actions, some as refights using the units original starting positions, others where we start with our own deployments.

We recently refought Brawners Farm, using the actual starting positions for the units, and my Confederates, though taking heavy losses, did better than in reality and forced the Union troops from the field.

Interestingly in a refight of Arnhem a few years back, it went almost the same as reality, until an unfortunate mortar strike took out several key British commanders and the push into Arnhem was halted before it had managed to reach the bridge. A few years later we refought Arnhem and I changed the drop plan, but only in a feasible way that was possible at the time (though with hindsight) to drop twice on the first day of the battle. This made such a huge difference that virtually the entire 1st Airborne moved en-masse on the evening of the first day and secured positions around the bridge in such numbers that the German players were unable to dislodge them before XXX Corps arrived.

Historical based scenario play allows you to refight actions as they were, containing the troops there on the day and in the positions they had, but with your own tactical decisions.

But it can also be used to test counter-factual theories regarding differing deployments and events to see how things can be changed.

But I also have as much fun playing points games using KGN (never have and never will play FOW) so I dont mind... as long as your tanks are the right shade of green.

Clearly the 2nd option, this is Wargaming, If it was the first it wouldn't be a game would it?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:We haven't got enough players/money to ensure that every match-up is historically accurate. If we waited, then nobody would ever get to play. (OR thinking about it, only two people would ever get a game, because they both have LW Russian Front Armies.

Also, we spend far more time discussing HOW we achieved X or Y painted effect than we ever do discussing whether the Das Reich Armoured Artillery had dunkelgelb and green stripes, or dunkelgelb and green patches. A historical anomaly tends to spark a friendly historical debate (which is good) rather than a priggish refusal to play (which is pointless.)

The lack of milk for tea however... grrrr

This.

Right now, in my club, we are a "dwindling GW, increasing "others"" pattern. My preference to play red vs blue FoW is satisfied because I'm the only German player to date. Zany, I know. It's like finding a unicorn. We do have one other Axis player, but he has Italians and no one, other than myself, has enough of anything to stretch into mid war. So some of the guys play him with thier LW against MW. I finally had to point out that Carro Vs. IS-2 isn't exactly "fair".

I've also managed to point out to the Italian player that with a few targeted purchases he has enough Americans to play Nisei.

So, if red Shermans driven by orks showed up, we would most likely play him. We would also belittle him merclessly for his color blindness.

Aldramelech wrote:Just as well then because I'd rather not rub shoulders with people who don't take the hobby seriously. A large part of historical wargaming for the vast majority of historical gamers is, wait for it................ HISTORY.

If history is not your thing, if your not interested in researching your chosen period and getting your miniatures right then I would suggest 40k, Warmachine, Secrets of the Third Reich and the host of many fine games out there that allow your imagination run riot.

I spend alot of money and time on my hobby and so do the people I game with and we expect certain standards at our club.

I don't play against people with unpainted figures either, so now you can call me a painting snob as well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And this months NO-prize goes to you.
I guess you would never play in our league of basement dwellers.When we play at one of our houses,it is also a social event.We grill food,drink beer and all of that good stuff.We are in it to play first and devlop new tactics.Sorry if we buy to much stuff and do not have time to paint it or mess with the little fidgity bits.some just do not have the time to paint every day.But that attitude is ok because with what you just said we probably would not play ant games with you.As for not being serious,Every one of are players is a former Servicemen.3 rd cav.,1 st infantry,101st airborne, and 173rd/82 Airborne. on the historcal lists,blame Battle front.
But we are all seriuos gamers.It is that we are not a group of grown men who hang out in hobby shops or ones that do the tourny scene.
trust me we are some pretty good players,some of us have beaten top players in the tourny scene in our area,but mostly Blood bowl.

"Being historical" seems to be a moving target.

OK, you've got a specific segment of D-Day planned out. Great. 300 infantry and a few dozen tanks and scenery built up and painted. However, you're OK with the commanders making different tactical decisions from the historical record, though, so you're not truly completely historical...

The above is something of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I admit... But wargames are by definition "What If?" scenarios to some point. I can see wanting to keep to a certain level of plausibility. In FoW, sticking within the eras makes sense, for example. I can also see sticking to things that at least could have happened, but that is (of course) a very subjective term. I wouldn't personally want to see a FoW done int he full over-the-top pseudo-religious style that works great for Imperial 40k, but I'd be OK with a lot of things. Then again, I don't actually play FoW.

I think I saw a reference somewhere to fresh-from-the-factory tanks from various nations coming in a sort of primer read lead paint color being used in battles a few times.

Aldramelech wrote:Theres a BIG difference between interpretation of German camo and a bright red Sherman!

Indeed there is. But you weren't complaining about Bright red Shermans, you were bemoaning pick-up games that happen to face off forces that might be friendlies, or from differing theaters during the same time period.. As I said, without some degree of flexibility, we would never get any games at all.

(In case nobody noticed, i already gave a solution for how to field red tanks without upsetting anyone... )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote:"Being historical" seems to be a moving target.

OK, you've got a specific segment of D-Day planned out. Great. 300 infantry and a few dozen tanks and scenery built up and painted. However, you're OK with the commanders making different tactical decisions from the historical record, though, so you're not truly completely historical...

The above is something of a reductio ad absurdum argument, I admit... But wargames are by definition "What If?" scenarios to some point. I can see wanting to keep to a certain level of plausibility. In FoW, sticking within the eras makes sense, for example. I can also see sticking to things that at least could have happened, but that is (of course) a very subjective term. I wouldn't personally want to see a FoW done int he full over-the-top pseudo-religious style that works great for Imperial 40k, but I'd be OK with a lot of things. Then again, I don't actually play FoW.

I think I saw a reference somewhere to fresh-from-the-factory tanks from various nations coming in a sort of primer read lead paint color being used in battles a few times.

That would be the "Red Panthers" and the like, based on the German use of protective red primer on every surface. Sometimes they sprayed a bit of camo over the top, sometimes they didn't.

Well here is one for everybody,strict historical vs. friendly games. Here is one of my examples,My Vanilla Germans from Fortress Europe vs. Hells highway USA Airborne.

Italian campaign Germans vs;. Late war Netherlands campaign USA paras.
next is going to be series of what if games.example Pattons 3rd Army vs. the Soviets.

The other is going to be a series of island hopping in the north sea and Scandanavian isles.

As someone who's done extensive research on three FOW armies at this point (EW French, E/MW Panzers, & M/LW Finns), put in hours of modeling, and even longer periods of painting; I'd like to say that I'd NEVER, EVER get on someone else's case for having the "wrong" army in FOW, let alone color scheme.

To those new players reading this - do not take comments such as Aldramelech's as gospel, there are few FOW players who feel the game MUST always adher to history 100% (in fact, I'd question someone's grasp of historical accuracy who truly believes the FOW rules, especially army lists, accurately reflect reality). I've played both casually and in tournaments and have never encountered an attitude such as his, especially since he comes off as such a smarmy pr*ck.

It's a game - which means unless both players make the exact same choices as historical commanders, unless all units perform the exact same actions, and unless no dice rolls are made to reflect successes, losses, and casualties - it's not 100% historically accurate. Wargames have always had a certain "What If?" quality to them and FOW is the apeothesis of this genre.

As far as camouflage/color schemes go, even if you read some of the most respected historians on WW2, you will find that there is never 100% agreement on what the "true" schemes were. The biggest problem is that there are few, if any, true color photos from this time period, especially in the EW period, so the schemes we have now are really just a matter of informed guesswork, pieced together from color pics, surviving examples, and survivor accounts. Add to this the fact that many camo schemes were applied by units in the field and there are huge amounts of variations, even within the widely accepted schemes.

Having played many other, more comprehensive historical wargames, anyone who's approaching FOW as an entirely historically accurate ruleset needs to put their toy soldiers away and go back to reading Stephen Ambrose.

Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

One thing that annoys me, more than anything else is the daft ascertion that if you are serious about history you are a 'smarmy prick'.

I love history. I taught War Studies at uni for several years. I want to do my hobby my way, so feck off and leave me to it. How I play doesnt effect anyone else, and my gaming friends play the same way so we are all happy... If odd coloured tanks give you the jollies, go for it, but I dont see why I should be expected to change my standerds.

This thread is starting to annoy me! Apologies.



Read Stephen Ambrose?

Oh please at least pick an author that doesnt let the truth get in the way of a good story... He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is.Try Zetterling's statistical analysis in 'Normandy 1944' or M. Doublers book on US Army ETO Combat Effectiveness 'Closing with the Enemy' or Zamulin's 'Demolishing the Myth' for real historical work.

Ambrose is like saying 'Saving Private Ryan' is factual... It may look and sound pretty good, but they both have their faults.

I wouldn't have any problem playing a casual pickup game with someone who decided to use fire engine red shermans, though anybody who does deserves a little razzing as I'd see their paint job primarily as an attempt to troll FoW gamers . I'm not a stickler for super accurate or superb paint jobs (e.g. no way am I painting German gaiters separate colors from boots) so I could care less if someone took a little license with historical camo, you want to use your 1943 Shermans in a 1944 game? Use a slightly different green then OD for U.S. tanks? Is your dunklegelb a bit on the yellow side?None of those situations would bother me in the slightest.

On the other hand, I'd feel it'd be perfectly justified if they received a poor painting score in a tournament and/or making them use different models for a big game where it was asked of everyone to bring in painted models. I think in both of those settings a certain aesthetic is expected. One of the reasons I plan big battles with my friends so far in advance (this applies to 40k too) is so we can all have our models painted by the time the day arrives.

Conversely, to all the 40k players in the thread, though I know it's not a perfect analogy, how do you feel about marine players who jump around from flavor of the month chapter to flavor of the month chapter but always have the same paint scheme on their miniatures? For example, someone who runs a Vulkan list (painted as Ultramarines), then switches over to Dark Angels because they like the deathwing, then to Blood Angels because the new codex came out, then over to Grey Knights when that codex dropped, all using the same figures and the same paint scheme? How about if someone attempted to pass off unconverted chaos marines as normal marines in a tournament? Again, these aren't perfect analogies but I think any grumbling caused by either of these hypotheticals is rooted in the same aesthetic expectations that makes historical gamers not too keen on the idea of facing off against fire engine red shermans.

Big P wrote:Actually the only tanks to leave factories unpainted were those produced in Leningrad during the seige.

I have yet to see any evidence of any German vehicle leaving a factory solely in red primer.

For the late war period German patterns were factory applied to set patterns. You can actually use these patterns to tell which factory produced the tank... So actually, a great deal of historical research has gone into providing a comprehensive amount of detail on WW2 paint schemes.

One thing that annoys me, more than anything else is the daft ascertion that if you are serious about history you are a 'smarmy prick'.

Re-read my post instead of cherry-picking statements out of context.

As I said, even with historical research, there is no camo scheme that can be 100% verified. Even factory applied RAL specifications are not 100% accurate as the post-war RAL system is not 100% correct. Look at the Early War Panzer Grey & Brown scheme presented in the Blitzkrieg book as the prefect example of how hard camo schemes are to get 100% correct - until Jentz and Doyle's research it was widely believed that this scheme was gone by the time of the French campaign, yet they showed it was still widely used. History is a science and our understanding of it constantly changes when presented with new evidence.

Also, I never said being true to history means you're a smarmy pr*ck. I've put a lot of effort and research into my armies and I'm proud of it. That doesn't make me (or anyone else interested in doing so) a pr*ck.

Now, if I went around telling other gamers what they did was "wrong", hemming and hawing about how the color was wrong, or their OOB is incorrect, etc. and how I'd never play them - presenting myself as somehow "more true to history" or somehow smarter than them - that would make me a pr*ck.

Read Stephen Ambrose?

Oh please at least pick an author that doesnt let the truth get in the way of a good story... He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is.Try Zetterling's statistical analysis in 'Normandy 1944' or M. Doublers book on US Army ETO Combat Effectiveness 'Closing with the Enemy' or Zamulin's 'Demolishing the Myth' for real historical work.

Ambrose is like saying 'Saving Private Ryan' is factual... It may look and sound pretty good, but they both have their faults.

FOW and his work are on the same par when it comes to historical accuracy. As you said "He may have some decent primary testimony but Im on the fence when it comes to how accurate it all is."

Hence my earlier statement of "'I'd question someone's grasp of historical accuracy who truly believes the FOW rules, especially army lists, accurately reflect reality"

ancientsociety wrote:It's a game - which means unless both players make the exact same choices as historical commanders, unless all units perform the exact same actions, and unless no dice rolls are made to reflect successes, losses, and casualties - it's not 100% historically accurate. Wargames have always had a certain "What If?" quality to them and FOW is the apeothesis of this genre.

Thank you... A more succinct version of what I was trying to say.


I think all wargames have their 'overachievers' and for FoW, those that really heavily focus on researching and painting details would be in that group. It's to be appreciated, but I wouldn't let arguing over details get int he way of enjoying the game. If you're in that set, take pride that your force* is 100% correctly painted (until a new source comes along and shows that you got the buttons the wrong cover, or have one too many tanks than the 'real' force could have had...) but don't give up a fun game because another player does something you don't like.

*Maybe this is ym gaming pet peeve, but I dislike the term 'army' for the forces seen in most tabletop games that are usually a much smaller unit. I guess the default for FoW would be a Company?