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.
My rambling point is, that if historically use was limited, should that not be reflected in the rules, enforced almost, so as to maintain a degree of historical reality?
No. Because this is a game not a historical simulation. Battlefront has always emphasized that they put the game first and foremost. Tank engagements happened, so it's realistic and historical to have them, setting them up in such a way that they're balanced however is a sacrifice that must be made to ensure balance and good game play.
Sorry, why does a game suddenly become a 'historical simulation' just cos it reflects its historical period? Whatever you mean by that term...
You dont need to make scarifices to balance a game.
Loads of other rules are playable and have period feel...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/10 16:40:08
I don't think Battlefront has sacrificed period feel or historical fact for the most part, but they do put the game first. Other wise Flames would play like one of those AWI games where you have to roll on eight tables just to determine what your cannon crew had for breakfast and if their stomachs are feeling okay. Historical games get a rough rep for a reason.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Hordini wrote: I hope they eventually do a Austro-Hungarian list and some minis for it though, because that would be something I would be interested in playing.
I think Austro-Hungarians will be a while off as my guess is that the Western Front will be the main emphasis for a while. I'll be really surprised if Turks and ANZACs aren't the main feature of next years releases though.
Hordini wrote: I hope they eventually do a Austro-Hungarian list and some minis for it though, because that would be something I would be interested in playing.
I think Austro-Hungarians will be a while off as my guess is that the Western Front will be the main emphasis for a while. I'll be really surprised if Turks and ANZACs aren't the main feature of next years releases though.
Assuming that there is a release next year.
Keep in mind that neither Vietnam, nor Arab-Israeli Wars, appear to have anything slated for release later this year.
I've never played flames of war but I am very keen on starting and now world war 1! So much yes.
I'm not going to get involved in historical versus interpretative as me and my gaming circle were going to run a fictional British civil war circa 1939 with communists versus fascists. EDIT: ...should of said played flamed: with British early war WW2 ontop of world war one
I want to put a pre-order in already!!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/11 05:44:44
'an open mind is like a fortress with its gate unbarred.'
Swastakowey wrote: I think the game has more than enough tanks... im hoping that this set puts the focus on infantry and infantry support weapons rather than bland tank walls I see on the internet.
Thats just me though.
That's not just you friend, those are my sentiments exactly.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Sorry, why does a game suddenly become a 'historical simulation' just cos it reflects its historical period? Whatever you mean by that term...
You dont need to make scarifices to balance a game.
Loads of other rules are playable and have period feel...
Including FOW.
I agree with you though, you don't need to make sacrifices to balance a game. As with most other good historical games, if you take a historical force and pit it against another historical force in FOW, you're generally going to get pretty historical results.
About as well as 'Nam and Arab Israeli. Phil and the guys are damn good at putting out good rules, so even if I don't jump into this boots first, rules quality is not something I'm worried about.
My only issue is I can't decide on which army I want. I do Germans and Brits in WW2 already. So I think I might hold out for a future AEF force.
My only problem is that even if they get a good historical representation it won't be a good game. WW1 was, to put it bluntly, a very boring war as far as actual combat.
Suicidal massed infantry charges into the teeth of machine guns, artillery bombardments lasting for weeks, and just because that's insanely boring you'll have troops suffering from trench foot, snipers causing big morale problems but no decisive damage, and maybe a gas attack to spice things up.
You'll win the game if you manage to dig a new trenchline 10 feet(to scale) further forward
So its pretty much going to be a game about the tanks with the infantry dying uselessly around it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/15 03:24:51
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I have read about city sieges in the middle east (I think), city fights, Mountain fighting (Italy?), armies being surrounded and destroyed in large not very trenchy battles (russian front?), heck my nation even did a beach landing at Samoa! Also the tunnel wars could be a cool area to look into rules wise. The list goes on.
I think the Trench thing is just the first thought that comes to mind for many people. But for some reason I feel like the lack of tanks is the only reason people will be bored of this era if its ever expanded.
With a little research and effort this could be a really cool opportunity to take it well beyond the trenches that many are accustomed to hearing about.
Actually, while WWI did have a lot of drawn out trench warfare, there were a lot of pretty fluid battles too, and there were some pretty interesting tactical advances during the war, especially at the small unit level.
There's no reason a WWI game can't be historical and fun.
Swastakowey wrote: I have read about city sieges in the middle east (I think), city fights, Mountain fighting (Italy?), armies being surrounded and destroyed in large not very trenchy battles (russian front?), heck my nation even did a beach landing at Samoa! Also the tunnel wars could be a cool area to look into rules wise. The list goes on.
With a little research and effort this could be a really cool opportunity to take it well beyond the trenches that many are accustomed to hearing about.
Yes, Lawrence and his various Arab tribal leader friends operated in a reasonably fluid manner in many of the same areas of Palestine where Israel and her enemies later waged mechanized war.
There was also the last big cavalry charge at Meggido in 1918 by the British as part of Allenby's larger campaign, which included the Arabs. Tanks were used in a few places there as well IIRC when Ottoman trench systems were encountered.
TE Lawrence also made good use of a number of Ford and etc "lorries," which provided a basis of knowledge later used in WW2 by the LRDG during their operations in Libya.
Italy waged most of her battles against the Austro-Hungarian Empire across the Alps bordering the NE of their nation. This is the theater where Erwin Rommel got his start as an infantry commander, Georg von Trapp served as a submarine commander (Adriatic), and is the warzone that provided Hemingway the experiences to write A Farewell to Arms.
There were also a number of mountain campaigns amongst the Dalmatian & Macedonian states involving Austrian allies or enemies such as Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, and Romania. These battles usually did not involve a lot of trench warfare, if any.
It was called a world war, but in many ways it was the last conflict of the imperial "colonizing" powers and their member states that involved alliances and hatreds forged during the Napoleonic-era only a bare hundred years earlier. Not to mention a largely unknown ethnic "cleansing" undercurrent every bit as savage as what occurred during the following war.
Hordini wrote: Actually, while WWI did have a lot of drawn out trench warfare, there were a lot of pretty fluid battles too, and there were some pretty interesting tactical advances during the war, especially at the small unit level.
Generals really do train to fight the previous war, but a surprising amount of the infantry and artillery tactics used in late WW1 got carried over into WW2. In particular the German idea of how stormtroopers would infiltrate forward enemy positions pretty much became an army-wide thing, as well as the Wehrmacht's solid belief in immediate counterattacks if a position was lost.
There isn't any reason either that WW1 infantry or vehicle models couldn't be used for interwar conflicts across Northern Africa or etc, as like with any war the recently surplus equipment found it's way all over the globe.
_ _
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/07/15 05:08:12
"These reports were remarkably free of self-serving rhetoric. Most commanders admitted mistakes, scrutinized plans and doctrine, and suggested practical improvements." - Col. Joseph H. Alexander, USMC (Ret), from 'Utmost Savagery, The Three Days of Tarawa''
"I tell you there is something splendid in a man who will not always obey. Why, if we had done as the kings had told us five hundred years ago, we should have all been slaves. If we had done as the priests told us, we should have all been idiots. If we had done as the doctors told us, we should have all been dead.
We have been saved by disobedience." - Robert G. Ingersoll
"At this point, I'll be the first to admit it, I so do not give them the benefit of the doubt that, if they saved all the children and puppies from a burning orphanage, I would probably suspect them of having started the fire. " - mrondeau, on DP9
"No factual statement should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true." - Small Wars Journal
Part One: Overview
Part Two: The National Rules and Army Lists
Part Three: Detailed Tank Rules
Part Four: Detailed Mission Rules
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
You can also just buy rounded molding from a hardware/lumber store. Cut into 2, 4, and 8 inch sections. Then apply sand/gravel, or pumice paste, then prime and paint it as dirt. Instant trenches for very little cost and will look fine to fill a table.
I built trench sections using plasticard, matchsticks, filler and sand, cheap as hell thought they where smaller lengths for WW2 games to indicate single platoons digging in as opposed to the massive fortifications of the western front. The principle is no different though.
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
LuciusAR wrote: I built trench sections using plasticard, matchsticks, filler and sand, cheap as hell thought they where smaller lengths for WW2 games to indicate single platoons digging in as opposed to the massive fortifications of the western front. The principle is no different though.
Yep they are not that hard to do. They are just time consuming. That is my biggest issue. I don't have the free time to dedicate to spending a week building the terrain and another week painting and finishing a table's worth of trenches. That is why I built the half dozen or so different pieces and then cast them in resin. I can then batch up as many as I want in a much shorter time frame. Plus it is not that much more. At around $8.00 a stick for the molding a table worth of trenches uses close to 3 sticks if you build more than just straight sections. That is not including the compound to build up the slopes or the sand/fine gravel to build up the texture. Not to mention I put a high value on my free time as it is very limited and I would rather spend it gaming over building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/17 04:36:06
Grey Templar wrote: My only problem is that even if they get a good historical representation it won't be a good game. WW1 was, to put it bluntly, a very boring war as far as actual combat.
Suicidal massed infantry charges into the teeth of machine guns, artillery bombardments lasting for weeks, and just because that's insanely boring you'll have troops suffering from trench foot, snipers causing big morale problems but no decisive damage, and maybe a gas attack to spice things up.
You'll win the game if you manage to dig a new trenchline 10 feet(to scale) further forward
I've got the issue of WI. Your objection to the era is one of the things addressed in a separate article in the magazine that does some mythbusting with a number of beliefs about World War I.
Now having said that, I'm not too keen on the era myself. But since Battlefront has mysteriously not recognized the goldmine represented by a set of 1985-era lists for a Fulda Gap hypothetical, it's what we ended up with instead.
On a more serious note, if anyone has any questions about the lists, feel free to ask.
5000 
