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.

Not sure if this was brought up, but a recent hobby article on the FoW site brings Mid War Monsters back to the spotlight with some briefings

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=3757

It also looks like they're jumping into 'Nam with both feet forward!

I'm just glad I can pick up my Italian "StuGs" for my Gebirgsjaeger list

For me is all about the Late war monsters,that FIB make. Heck i even found a homemade rulebook for them. ALso this is the year Ratte!

I have absolutely no interest in this. Its emblematic of the main problem with FoW, it caters to Hollywood history rather than real history.

Well, I have heard the game described as the Game based on the movie based on the war.

Palindrome wrote:
I have absolutely no interest in this. Its emblematic of the main problem with FoW, it caters to Hollywood history rather than real history.

Isnt that a bit of the point of games like FoW and Bolt Action?

Palindrome wrote:
I have absolutely no interest in this. Its emblematic of the main problem with FoW, it caters to Hollywood history rather than real history.

It's worth noting that most of the German kit actually made combat so is just as legitimate as many of the 'regular' unit entries.

A couple of vehicles in combat testing which will see far, far wider use than they ever did in reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Isnt that a bit of the point of games like FoW and Bolt Action?

No.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
I have absolutely no interest in this. Its emblematic of the main problem with FoW, it caters to Hollywood history rather than real history.

It's worth noting that most of the German kit actually made combat so is just as legitimate as many of the 'regular' unit entries.

As did the soviet T-43, at least one company was formed from them (not sure in which front they were used - propably central) but when the program was canceled and as the battle losses occured these were transferred into other units as separate platoons, as (if my memory doesnt let me down) it shared 75% of main components with T-34/76, along with the gun, so the spares werent running out.

The IS-85 should not be labeled as "experimental" vehicle at all, more like a second phase stop-gap solution, follower of KV-85, as in some occasions IS-85 is known as IS-1. Though Im not sure does the battlefronts info "not until 1944" hold its place, as far as I know first production vehicles rolled from the factory during late autumn 1943. Well, anyway, quite a batch of these were created. No ide about excat numbers, my personal guess is less than a hundred, but should be noted that the late production ones were fitted with earlier 122mm gun.

But yeah, KV-5 is pure fiction, and the KV-3, well, there was only one of them and that wasnt so succesfull that mass production would be started.

Im kinda amazed that they even included KV-5 and KV-3, after all they are both more like a early war monsters, along with stuff like SMK and SU-100Y.
IMO advanced light tanks like T-50 would been more interesting choice, as those were produced in acctuall numbers (~60) during 40-41.

Palindrome wrote:
A couple of vehicles in combat testing which will see far, far wider use than they ever did in reality.

There must be half a dozen vehicle in the main lists that meet one or both of these criteria. The difference is that MWM is supposed to contain such vehicles.

@ MaahisKuningas: IS-85 is in the standard lists in Red Bear (ditto for the Bunkerflak in Blitzkreig IIRC).

Palindrome wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Isnt that a bit of the point of games like FoW and Bolt Action?

No.

So games like FoW ARE suppose to be super accurate war simulators? Wonder why does tmp complain so much then....

 kenshin620 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Isnt that a bit of the point of games like FoW and Bolt Action?

No.

So games like FoW ARE suppose to be super accurate war simulators? Wonder why does tmp complain so much then....

Most of the grognards on TMP and elsewhere who complain about FoW have never actually played the game and don't know how the rules work. Many of them freely admit that they've never actually played.

FOW isn't a simulation like something like Command Decision, but most historicals aren't really simulations, just games. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's more of a game than a simulation doesn't make it "Hollywood" history though. Sure, you can re-play the battles from Saving Private Ryan with FoW if you want to, but you can just as easily do an actual historical scenario and use historical OOBs if you want as well.

 Hordini wrote:
Just because it's more of a game than a simulation doesn't make it "Hollywood" history though.

No but BF goes out of its way to encourage its games to become Hollywood history. Its impossible for a game to be a real simulation and FoW has the potential to be a reasonable approximation, at least it would be if it wasn't for the over effectiveness of tanks and the over abundance of Tigers et al.

It would actually be quite an easy thing to change as well, Make tanks require an 'infantry terror' test to assault infantry in rought terrain and suddenly all those tank armies are forced to start using proper support options. It would even make good financial sense from BF given the popularity of PSC tanks.

Here's the bottomline...

"Flames of War is a Wargame in a Historical Context" it is not "A Historical Game simulating conflict"

I genuinely despair of people who talk about "Realism and Accuracy", when in hell did Commanders get together and Say "I'm bringing this, this and this, but lets make it so many points and then we can have a fair fight". War is brutal and a decent Commander looks for every Advantage to make the other Fella die for his country and for your guys to survive, fairness goes out the window. So we all just need to acknowledge that Wargaming is abstraction, based on reality (in the form of FOW) but it is ultimately a game of no real meaning except for escapism.

IMO Hating on FOW, citing realism smacks of snobbery.

 mwnciboo wrote:

IMO Hating on FOW, citing realism smacks of snobbery.

You do realise that no one has actually done that in this thread right?

 kenshin620 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Isnt that a bit of the point of games like FoW and Bolt Action?

No.

So games like FoW ARE suppose to be super accurate war simulators? Wonder why does tmp complain so much then....

So what point are you making/ arguing when you say "No"? That FOW must be super accurate because that cannot happen or the Russians would always have 4000pts more than the Germans, I personally agree with Kenshin this is just a game.

Palindrome wrote:
Its impossible for a game to be a real simulation and FoW has the potential to be a reasonable approximation

This is my point. True Historical accuracy is a nonsense in wargames, especially in points based wargames. They should at least be an reasonable approximation though and this is something where FoW freqently falls down on.

Wargames should emulate history, not Hollywood history.

Palindrome wrote:

Wargames should emulate history, not Hollywood history.

Why shouldnt it though?

BF owns the game so they can do whatever they want with it. If that means tweaking the stats that doesnt really reflect reality, then good for them. They're a game company 1st imo, historical 2nd.

Seeing the popularity of fow I'd say there is a market for hollywood games, much like bolt action. If you dont like that, then theres literally dozens of other games to choose from that better emulate history. Thats the beauty of capitalism

Next thing you'll know people will complain that SAGA is too much like a storybook game than a viking simulator or that WAB feels like a slightly copy pasted warhammer game


Now I am suddenly reminded of this clip...

 kenshin620 wrote:

Why shouldnt it though?

They may as well chuck in some zombies and vampires as well.

Bolt Action seems to be much more grounded in reality when compared to FoW

This is extra motivation to get those last 2 boarhound boxes im missing for my boarhound company, as well as the dicker max box to compliment my sturer emils.

Palindrome wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Just because it's more of a game than a simulation doesn't make it "Hollywood" history though.

No but BF goes out of its way to encourage its games to become Hollywood history. Its impossible for a game to be a real simulation and FoW has the potential to be a reasonable approximation, at least it would be if it wasn't for the over effectiveness of tanks and the over abundance of Tigers et al.

It would actually be quite an easy thing to change as well, Make tanks require an 'infantry terror' test to assault infantry in rought terrain and suddenly all those tank armies are forced to start using proper support options. It would even make good financial sense from BF given the popularity of PSC tanks.

I don't think that Battlefront, in general, goes out of its way to encourage Hollywood history. There are a few exceptions that are not insignificant, like the MW Monsters (which I do not personally care for) but I would say this evens out with the large amount of historical articles that BF posts on its website and the lists they post generally coincide with historical OOBs at the time, and the ones that don't usually have more to do with an oversight rather than a specific attempt to encourage Hollywood history. Many of BFs books, and their web articles include historical scenarios. BF has at times made corrections to lists that had some kind of historical mistake in the past. There is no requirement to play a historical list, but it is certainly very easy to do so in most cases, and players who don't use a lot of rare equipment could easily end up playing what would end up being a historical list purely by chance.

The over abundance of Tigers and other big cats I think tends to be more of a LW phenomenon, and I agree it can get somewhat goofy at times. If you play MW a bit, you'll probably see less of this. I say this as a player who started when MW was the period of choice for most FOW players. I still prefer MW, but I'm not opposed to playing LW.

mwnciboo wrote:Here's the bottomline...

"Flames of War is a Wargame in a Historical Context" it is not "A Historical Game simulating conflict"

I genuinely despair of people who talk about "Realism and Accuracy", when in hell did Commanders get together and Say "I'm bringing this, this and this, but lets make it so many points and then we can have a fair fight". War is brutal and a decent Commander looks for every Advantage to make the other Fella die for his country and for your guys to survive, fairness goes out the window. So we all just need to acknowledge that Wargaming is abstraction, based on reality (in the form of FOW) but it is ultimately a game of no real meaning except for escapism.

IMO Hating on FOW, citing realism smacks of snobbery.

First off, let me say that I mean no disrespect whatsoever and I hope that this doesn't come off as snarky, but I have never understood why you always describe FOW as a wargame in a historical context and not a historical game. What is a historical wargame if not a wargame in a historical context?

I have never heard anyone describe it that way other than here on Dakka, and I really think that it's a meaningless distinction. I have heard many people describe FOW as a historical wargame, not a historical simulation, and I think that is a good way of categorizing it, but saying it is a wargame in a historical context, not a historical wargame doesn't really make sense. A historical wargame is, by definition, a wargame in a historical context!

Also, I realize that no tabletop game is a true simulation of war - that's usually not what historical gamers mean when they talk about a simulation in this context. When people talk about "simulations" in a wargaming context, they're usually talking about rules intensive, rivet-counting type games that aren't nearly as popular as a game like FOW. Usually what gets trotted out as an example of a "historical simulation" is something like Command Decision. And I'm not trying to hate on FOW, it's one of my favorite historical wargames!

Sorry, that's just been bugging me for awhile and I felt I should mention it. At the end of the day, even games that are considered "simulations" are still just a few guys pushing little painted dollies around on a table. And there's nothing wrong with that!

Palindrome wrote:


They may as well chuck in some zombies and vampires as well.

Yes, because we actually had prototypes of vampires and zombies......



Still waiting for a Late War Leviathans btw, even if Pacific FoW comes first!

Palindrome wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Why shouldnt it though?

They may as well chuck in some zombies and vampires as well.

Bolt Action seems to be much more grounded in reality when compared to FoW

Bolt action already has Vamps and Werewolves for a supplement.

For me i like playing it "HollyWood Style".Make up my own Heros using Infantry or Tank Aces.Also if was meant to be a truly historical game you would never ever see the game that alot people play and yes this includes the Tourney diehards.You would never see Americans or Brits vs. Soviets or a Turning tide list vs. A Devils charge list. Wow, just sometimes i think people take it way to serious.I think that is what makes it fun. If you want a better Historical game go play something else.Here is a good example of my Scandanavian LW campaign i am building.One player is using the PAra list from Nuts while another one is using the Glider Infantry list from Turning Tide.Remember it all about fun not being Historical Accurate with a fine tooth comb.That is about as lame as not letting another player use his Panther or PAnzer because they are not the correct model.Big deal the exhaust are different or you use a PAnzer H to represent a J..... Big fn deal...if you do not like it then go pay for my models....Also what happened to the discussion on the Mid war Monsters... I just want some for LW.

 kenshin620 wrote:

Yes, because we actually had prototypes of vampires and zombies......

Well they saw as much action as half the tanks in the book certainly.

Palindrome wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

Yes, because we actually had prototypes of vampires and zombies......

Well they saw as much action as half the tanks in the book certainly.

As others have said if the historical context in the game would be more important you wouldnt be able to choose a force at all. You would just play historical scenarios with exactly the equipment the forces had. Although that can be a lot of fun it seems impractical for the average gamer and makes playing a game a lot more difficult.

So where to draw the line between FoW being a game and the historical context it provides? I think its a good thing they spice up everything with the ability to play one or another prototype. You are always welcome to dont play people that include them in their force (as pointed out in the rules for the supplement) if you feel uncomfortable about it.

I for myself am somewhat curious about how those prototypes could have performed given the picture of warfare FoW provides.

Can't wait to get a platoon of M6's!

What is a historical wargame if not a wargame in a historical context?

The key to this is accuracy, a Wargame in a historical Context is exactly; that a "Context" it is not a slavish representation of the real world or real events, The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

The reason for this distinction comes (unsurprisingly) from the Historical Gamers who want an Accurate Simulation of WWII (for example). This makes for a poor wargame because inherently it isn't balanced, now some gamers enjoy playing games that aren't Balanced so will play realistic scenario's for fun.

In FOW the game is Balanced, so therefore alot of changes are made for the sake of Balance (Platoon size, numbers of units available etc). In reality the Wehrmacht had remarkably few tanks, but in FOW we don't worry about this, because we are after an enjoyable "Wargaming experience".

Therefore the emphasis is on a Fair, Competitive, Balanced Wargame rather than an a Hyper Accurate simulation, hence the WWII is a "context" or shall we say a "Theme / Window Dressing". Hence a "Wargame in a Historical Context" rather a than "Historical Wargame". There are literally thousands of examples people cite for inaccuracies in FOW Forces, I just ignore them. But the distinction is important, as many people take alot of what BATTLEFRONT has written in it's books is Historically Accurate, it is often broadly true or has a grain of truth but they leave out key information or caveats.

"Broadly True" is not the same as "True".

Hey,what other ww2 game can you have Soviets fight 101st.

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
Hey,what other ww2 game can you have Soviets fight 101st.

Bolt Action.