GHQ miniatures played with FoW rules

[Steelwhip]

Ok...did the survey at my LGS as I promised I would

Ill give a little break down on the number of people and the age ranges

Under 20-1
21-29-6
30-40-4
40+-2

of the 13, 9 are military or former military men.
about 1/2 are married
1 is unemployeed
5 have been gaming for over 10 years

Intrest in prchasing GHQ minis if they are packaged for FoW in 1/285:
Not on your life-2
Depends on how a set of micro FoW rules work and if there was an intrest in the rest of the LGS in playing at that scale-8
no because I can break out all my micro armor I already have and use them -1
sure, always interested in new systems-2

so a big chunk of the people are in the maybe catagory, 1 person already has a huge chunk of Microarmor(the entire GrossDeutchland Division circa 1940).

The biggest hesitation is buying a compleatly new army-and that kinda was smothed over that an entire battalion would run about $30. The other heisitation was painting minis at that scale.

take that as you will. Hope it helps some.

[Sierra 19]

I really fail to see why so many people view FoW as some wildly contagious disease that needs to stamped out with the greatest urgency. FoW actually got me BACK INTO WW2 gaming, after a looonnng dry spell. I used to play Squad Leader, and a few other ancient WW2 games, but a lack of opponents and rules complexity eventually got me out of it. My LGS has started to carry FoW, and we have a growing player base. Some of the guys at my LGS never even heard of GHQ (although I plan to fix that). All of the resistant knuckleheads around here should EMBRACE FoW, and I'll tell you why. FoW is a GATEWAY WW2 gaming system. By playing FoW, you establish gaming relationships with people in the store/gaming group. Then you casually mention other gaming systems out there, that are more complex and more "historically accurate/realistic", such as, oh GHQ, and, "You know, I just happen to have the rulebook and a couple of armies out in my car, if you're interested in a quick introduction to the ruleset." You play a game or two, answer some questions, and if you're lucky, you get a couple of instant converts. Then you're off to the races, and soon you'll have people playing FoW with microarmor, and then playing Microarmor itself, then you'll have LOTS of opponents, GHQ will have sales, and everyone comes out ahead. Yuo can't make people "see the light" by bashing them over the head with it, it only comes through understanding/enlightenment to what's out there.

[Mickel]

Couldn't have put it better myself. It's actually a gateway to historical gaming, not just WWII. I'd sooner see more people playing FoW than 40k - at that is exactly what I'm seeing, unlike 5 years ago. Then when some of them wander over to see what's on about with the 'proper' gaming they have some idea what they're talking about. Some don't, although there is no helping some people! I do when people ask about what special abilities my troops have... "Well see that? It's special ability is Mr 88mm/L71. And that? It's special ability is the users ability to spit out 20,000 per year."

[jb]

...I believe that the 15mm crowd will for the most part always be 15. Some will convert over to micro or even 1/72,but for the most part I think the FOW players will be just that...
Taken from a previous page.

[VonTed]

FoW was pretty much my first miniature gaming experience...... and if I had the $$ and time to paint, I would love to play many more historical periods. They all have something to offer and look interesting.

[kgpanzer]

As i was glancing over these post I wanted to throw my view points on FOW...I enjoy the game but it is almost identical to warhammer40k and warhammer fantasy...but WW2

Down sides of the game....cost..a panther tank cost about 12-15 dollars a piece. most tanks are in that range maybe even a little less. If you look at ebay it is outragous on what FOW minis go for....any gamer on this forum who plays WH40k knows a pack of minis goes for about 30-50...and that is only for 5 and they are plastic LOL

I like the game and enjoy using rules which are very easy....

My rating is a 7 out of 10

But if you want realism this game does not have it...it is more abstract so to speak.

Ar

[Its me]

A very interesting thread, I have posted against another thread this morning so won't repeat that heere and unfortunately I don't have time to read all eight pages of comments, my two censt worth though.

FOW works and works well, it provides a basis of a game with all the dynamics of WWII action without the retentive look at this tabel, loook at this chart, look at this that bogs other rules down for me and thousands of others thats a winner....oh and as a point to note having been a very experienced tournament gamer and normally umpire FOW rewards correct balance and tactics it does not reward gamesmanship or cheese.

Also scenarios are more fun than points but points is a way to promote the hobby and get people involved which naturally is BF's focus because for them its aboutt he hobby and mucking a buck...naturally they like GHQ are a business and their investors want to see a return on their buck.

As for me still going through a debate with myself of games one to one as per the rules or one base to a platoon like Spearhead but either way FOW are the rules I use as a base (even if I disagree with some of the components of V2, mainly because I perceive its shafted my Soviet Militia but hell we have beaten everyone with them before and we can do it again...) and II am adding in a few different things that i like from other sets (including GHQ's rules) that I like. B

Bottom line though FOW works, it works well for both small and large games, has reenergised WWII across the world and works regardless of the scale of models used

Catch ya regards Rex

[paloalto]

great thread. I have been playing flames for about 1.5 years. While I like it because there is a lot of people playing it, I find myself wishing for a bit more teeth in the rules. Because I am not really getting what I want out of FoW I began looking at Microarmor, Jagdpanzer, SLIM (squad leader in miniatures) and Blitzkrieg Commander. One thing idea I came across was using GHQ minis for FOW.

I think that is pure genius, for monetary purposes alone. I have begun proselytizing the regulars at my LGS with this prospect. My plan is to try pure conversion of the FoW rules first, and see how that goes. My next steps will be incorporating maybe some home rules such as opportunity fire. I will defo post the results here once I get them going.

I really don't want to knock Flames because I do enjoy it and the crew at my LGS makes it fun. I am just ready for something a little more historical and a little more complex. I think GHQ would be pretty well served if they were to come up with a good set of rules similar to FOW for 1:1-ish gaming for their models. With a blister of tanks being $9 you can afford to have different camo schemes such as winter and spring tanks (for the various Manstein fantasies).

Anyways, thanks for the information here. That will be great if GHQ can do something with the feedback generated.

[paloalto]

Also, all units don't move the same in flames of war. Stuarts move 16" and tigers move 8". FoW isn't a bad game, but rather it can most certainly be enhanced. Besides, Battlefront isn't doing anything new; GHQ could come up with their own 1:1-ish (how they base infantry would be the question) set of rules. Every game on the tabletop is broken down to phases, so no reason they can't come up with their own set.

The one thing I really like with the FOW rules and GHQ models is ranges will look much more realistic. One drawback will be painting infantry smaller than a grain of rice.

[Extra Crispy]

Agreed - FoW makes a nice "starter" game. In my club I'm painting up both sodes. We use alternating platoon activation and have written a simple opportunity fire rule (basically, a unit may go on "hold fire" in it s turn and then fire at any ppint during the enemy's turn, normal ROF and spotting rules apply).

[Its me]

Sligthly off topic but if you are looking for an enhancement for FOW away from the I go you go concept try a deck of cards for initiative. Each core unit platoon (or Company if Soviet) gets a card dealt to it in the command phase of the turn, alternating between players, with Aces and hearts high each player moves, fires and assaults completely in the sequence dictated by the card, if you like it reflects the local platoon commanders reaction to events around him and his ability to react faster or slower as the battle develops .....it also saves a quizillion dice rolls in the game for initiative....


try it its different, fun and exasperating much like cohesion rolls in GHQ rules........

Have fun and good gaming everyone, regards Rex

[voltigeur]

I really fail to see why so many people view FoW as some wildly contagious disease that needs to stamped out with the greatest urgency.

I think this feeling comes in part from it's Warhammer/40K fantasy roots. I am leary of any set of rules that emply "saving throws", "Re-rolling failure", "Special Characters". It still smacks of fantasy.

The only time, a saving throw makes sense is, when the defender atually takes some action to save himself. (Example: Hand to hand combat in a skirmish game.) If you get an 88mm dent in your tank, the results are definite and final. But I think the re-rolling misses is the most annoying part. If the percentage of success is correct there should never be a need for this.

Far from singing it's praises it has made it much harder to find players for a serious simulation game. I have noticed FOW players rely on rules alone to win. I never see a holding of reserves, mutual supporting positions, echeloning attacks, recon or any other basic fundamentals.

I do like the mini's tho, but not going to spend $200.00 on rules with pretty pictures. That is another Soviet Regiment! or Nato Battalion.

Now that I have stirred the pot,
ONE ROUND HE FIRE FOR EFFECT!!!!!

[jb]

I really fail to see why so many people view FoW as some wildly contagious disease that needs to stamped out with the greatest urgency.

I think this feeling comes in part from it's Warhammer/40K fantasy roots. I am leary of any set of rules that emply "saving throws", "Re-rolling failure", "Special Characters". It still smacks of fantasy.

The only time, a saving throw makes sense is, when the defender atually takes some action to save himself. (Example: Hand to hand combat in a skirmish game.) If you get an 88mm dent in your tank, the results are definite and final. But I think the re-rolling misses is the most annoying part. If the percentage of success is correct there should never be a need for this.

Far from singing it's praises it has made it much harder to find players for a serious simulation game. I have noticed FOW players rely on rules alone to win. I never see a holding of reserves, mutual supporting positions, echeloning attacks, recon or any other basic fundamentals.

I do like the mini's tho, but not going to spend $200.00 on rules with pretty pictures. That is another Soviet Regiment! or Nato Battalion.

Now that I have stirred the pot,
ONE ROUND HE FIRE FOR EFFECT!!!!!

Totaly agree. The saving throw should be trashcanned. Also in the authors notes is a thing that sticks in my mind. Something about taking the skill of the target to miss getting waxed. It reminds of this DumbA$$ we once had at the MG range. He said "I can dodge those as long as its night and you use tracers"

[Its me]

Hi guys,

Look at it this way FOW is targeted to get youngsters into historicals and that has worked, it has also brought a lot of us older gamers bac to the fold to, that has worked as a bonus.

Is it based on the GW genre yes because if you want to succeed in business why not model yourself on the most successful people/organisation so to that end it has worked and now the are the dominant WWII 15mm producer in the world and their publications fly out the door, the bonus is unlike GW they donot dictate which scale or range you must use a distinct advantage.

Rule design well 60% of their current full time staff are ex GW employees then a large quantity of the volunteer playtesters are also GW players, so perhaps you can see where a large part of the influence comes from.

As for this thread as with all threads we have the option to choose to contribute or not, just as we also have the same choice as to what, when and how we play wargames, okay to that end a couple of you are positively anti FOW thats fine your choice and you have expressed your opinion, thats also fine, but could I ask you to refrain continuing with it because what value does your continual bagging add to the thread, in my opinion (and thats all it is an opinion ) none, so can we get back to talking about FOW for those of us who have an interest in that area.

Thanks kind regards Rex

now chaps batten down the hatches........

[Mickel]

but could I ask you to refrain continuing with it because what value does your continual bagging add to the thread, in my opinion (and thats all it is an opinion ) none

This is probably the most social (for want of a better word) forum on a subject like this that I have been on. I don't think there is a person here that has spat the dummy and quit over some discussion that got out of hand. I think that's because everyone here respects the fact that everyone else is allowed to have an opinion and has no less right than anyone else to add it to a thread. Asking people to stop putting their opinions is getting dangerously close to crossing that line.

I can understand that some are more passionate about it than others, since some have an input into FOW. I suspect there would be a similar reaction from Mobius or Mr Mills if Panzer War or Threat was the subject [late addition to clarify - by similar reaction I mean to go into bat for their rules, not tell other people they can't have an opinion]. But as far as FOW baggers go, these guys are keeping it pretty tame. Go to TMP and put FOW in the subject line - then you'll get a bite.

Just an opinion.

Mike