GHQ Models Forums

Hey All.

I recently played my first game of Flames of War and have a couple of observations.

WARNING! All opinions are of the scribe and may be offensive to some readers...

- The minis look great - a bit crowded - but good visual appeal at arms length.
- There is a major flaw in gameplay. A player moves then fires all his units without any part on the Defender. This leads to some very weird results. As a defender, you set-up a reasonable defense and the attacker drives up and shoots you in the flank while your troops sit and read the newspaper...there is no opportunity fire...none...
- The rules on saves are a bit strange...I’ve hit you, and your herringbone twill gives you a 50% chance of shrugging off the 7.62mm round.
- The rules on troop experience affecting their status as targets are slick. Good idea!

Anyone else have any feedback?

Troy

- There is a major flaw in gameplay. A player moves then fires all his units without any part on the Defender. This leads to some very weird results. As a defender, you set-up a reasonable defense and the attacker drives up and shoots you in the flank while your troops sit and read the newspaper...there is no opportunity...none...

I don't know. Isn't that what Maginot was all about?

Paul

Go on the Miniatures Page and post that or look up the most recent thread just like that. You'll get 100 replies. Here eh...

Though you are not allowed to criticize FOW if any 1 to 3 are true:

1. You've never played the rules. me.
2. You've played the rules but never designed a set of rules yourself.
3. You've played the rules and have your own set of rules.

Mobius wrote:Go on the Miniatures Page and post that or look up the most recent thread just like that. You'll get 100 replies. Here eh...

Though you are not allowed to criticize FOW if any 1 to 3 are true:

1. You've never played the rules. me.
2. You've played the rules but never designed a set of rules yourself.
3. You've played the rules and have your own set of rules.

2 and 3 apply to me, but I do know when I don't like a system, and I don't like FOW. Primarily for the armor save system and the I-go-you-go gameplay flow.

But, Like you said Mobius, we've all had this discussion before.

="Pitfall"

1. You've never played the rules. me.
2. You've played the rules but never designed a set of rules yourself.
3. You've played the rules and have your own set of rules
2 and 3 apply to me, but I do know when I don't like a system, and I don't like FOW. Primarily for the armor save system and the I-go-you-go gameplay flow.

But, Like you said Mobius, we've all had this discussion before.

Pitfall, 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.
Meant to be part joke and part truth.
Together cases 1, 2 and 3 cover everyone on earth.

Well Flames of War is a strange one for sure. I have played it many times and have slowly started "amending" some of the rules. If I'm playing people who play the game extensively I have no problem with just playing along with rules as written and just thinking of it as just a game to have fun with.

I still play other more advanced rulesets a lot but for me its not so much about what is being played but more about with whom I am playing. I just basically enjoy the camraderie of playing games and if the most popular set right now is based on a fantasy game then I guess thats the way it is.
Many of the people who have converted from Warhammer or 40K or whatever are suddenly interested in WWII and history in general. I've seen these people literally convert overnight to WWII stuff and they are suddenly researching their topic and learning all kinds of stuff. It is only natural that this will lead many of them to other more detailed or realistic rulesets.

I will play a skirmish level game like Battleground and love the added detail of moving individual units, but there are some times when a mindless game of fantasy WWII is fun too even if it does present some very unrealistic results.

For one thing, I have been FOW for over 2.5 years now and it is a fun game. I came over to FOW from the warhammer scene because of the childish players that I was playing against, which I have yet to encounter with Flames of War. It is very similar in many ways to the rolls and saves, the I move, I shoot and then you move you shoot rules, which is still part of the warhammer theme. So for those of you whom haven't played the warhammer stuff, don't go knocking one game system because of how the rules are.

I agree with what some of you are thinking, its not 100% historically accurate, but it was designed to be either historically correct (by doing some research on the net and books) and it was designed to be a fun game. Its not as 'In Depth' as other WW2 game systems that I have played, but I do find it enjoyable for the most part. Painting the miniatures are fun as well and decent detail for the size which is 15mm or 1/100th scale...or so its supposed to be anyways...scale might be bigger though. Ranges for shooting are what bug me. Heavy Machine Guns with a range of 24" is the same range as the 50mm (and other calibre sizes) for the Panzer III series tanks doesn't quite jive with me. The Tiger tank with its 88mm has a range of 40", which dominates the board, same with the 88 Flak 36. If one were to actually figure out the scale for this range, you would probably need a fairly decent sized room compared to the standard 6'x4' board.

So for those that have just played it, such a Ritter and others, try it again. You may find it to be a fun game. As I have said earlier, its not as in depth as other systems, but its for fun for those whom aren't interested in getting into too much detail.

I currently own 1 full army, Afrika Korps Panzergrenadiers, am working on Late War ('44-45) Canadian Armoured Squadron and haven't decided for Early War ('39-41). Mid War covers '42- 43 which my DAK fall into.

If you have any more questions about it...just ask me and I shall answer as best as I can. Hope this helps out a bit guys,

Have played FOW since it was first available in the US. It used to be fast and fun until it was over loaded with lots of exceptions to rules, special rules, and exceptions to special rules, and horrible codex-creep. If you're looking for something that's even remotely related to WWII gaming, look elsewhere. Here are just some of the more bizzare aspects:

- Against infantry in the open a group of light mortars (50mm - 60mm) is far more effective at killing infantry that the same sized group of 75mm, 105mm, or even 150mm guns...yes mortars can have a higher ROF but that doesn't mean they can maintain that ROF for an entire battle given their typical combat load of ammo.

- tank crews repreatedly bail-out and jump back into their tanks - over, and over, and over

- a massive German tank such as a Jagdtiger can pop-up over a hill, fire, and then pop-back down before being shot at

- British guns become MORE effective at LONGER ranges

- infantry can cross in front of enemy MGs without being shot at

- a light tank can whip 32" across the board, right in front of enemy tanks, ATGs, etc., without suffering a shot

- for platoons such as ATGs from a morale perspective you're better off putting the platoon CO waaay back behind your lines instead of with the guns

- AFVs with hull-mounted guns are more flexible than AFVs with turret mounted guns...the AFVs with the hull mounted gun can rotate to face an enemy while the turreted AFV may not turn to face (although it can rotate the turret)

- you can fit an entire platoon of infantry in/on a single motorcycle, jeep, etc...yes, that's right...40+ soldiers in a single jeep...the FOWers call it "The Clown Car" rule and it's inspired many fun photos on the FOW forum

- basing, scale, and organization often result in table-tops that look like ancients/DBM games rather than a WWII game

etc., etc.

When it comes to FOW's historical accuracy, you'll often hear fanboys say, "Well it's historical in result." One such fellow that I met was in training at the infantry school at Fort Benning GA. I asked him what his CO would do to him if he used FOW tactics while in training (or on the battlefield in Iraq). He laughed and said, "I see your point, I guess it's not accurate after all". On the FOW forum a ROTC instructor claimed to use FOW as a training tool. Someone concerned about young men being trained with FOW tactics for potential deployment to places such as Iraq contacted his superiors and he very quickly issued a retraction. Given the game's structure it's not only "less than accurate", it actually is the opposite of accurate in that it inverts many key aspects of modern war.

I used to enjoy the army books for TO&E info, but the relase of their "late war" books changed my opinion there. They were very misleading as to the period it covered and there are significant errors.

Finally, as Mobius indicated, if you dare critique FOW, be prepared to be flamed by gamers who treat the rules not as a game, but something like a cult.

For example, in September I helped run a FOW tourney and provided 5 tables of my own terrain. When I noted on the FOW forum that their late war army lists didn't cover what the marketing claimed one of the guys who played on my tables at the tourney accused me of "hating" FOW! Yes, I "hate" it so much a spent an hour on the road and was up until 1 AM setting up terrain and then spent my Sunday afternoon picking up my terrain and that of another gamer who also provided terrain. So much for helping out!

And yes, even though I've helped run several FOW tournies over the last year and caused yet another retail shop to start carrying the products this year, you can bet that because I've noted just how whacky the game is from an historical perspective I will get flamed.

So you see everyone agrees...but here are some things in FoWs defense:

1) It is fun
2) It is easy to teach
3) It is easy to modify

I play it straight up and with modifications. For my house rules I have hidden movement, opportunity fire and use an alternating platoon activation system (instead of IGOUGO). I'm currently finishing my infantry for a possible game in January. It will be half-size (all base half size, all measurements converted to 1/2 inches). So even with a large (3000pt) army on a 4x6 table, the flanks of both sides will be quite open.

Let the maneuvering begin!

Besides, there ain't no such thing as reaslistic til somebody gets shot.

Extra Crispy wrote:
Besides, there ain't no such thing as reaslistic til somebody gets shot.

There are degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy. On that scale FOW is waaayy at the inaccurate end, and on purpose according to Phil Yates, FOW's designer.

Even the military doesn't require wargame participants to be shot in order to learn from a wargame, whether table-top, computer, or field excercise. A game can represent real-world tactics (or not) and can do so simlpy (or not). Simplicity does not preclude accuracy nor does complexity equate accuracy. Look at FOW. Core mechanics are simple but there's tons of complexity in the sheer number of rules, special rules, and rules exceptions, and it still manages to be inaccurate.

BTW...check out:

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/tdgpdf.asp

for some good modern scenarios.

And no, you don't need to actually shoot yourself to use them or benefit from them!

Heck, many of the people on this forum have read lots of military histories without being shot while doing so, and they still managed to learn from them! I doubt that they would have learned as much from GI Joe comic books. By the fairly common reasoning expressed above, both accurate historical accounts and GI Joe comics are equally inaccurate since nobody gets shot while reading them.

I think the comment about being shot was made in jest, not pointed at the inaccuracies of FOW.
Sounds like Extra Crispy likes Flames of War and has made some interesting house rules. Actually I would like to hear what those house rules are. Can you post them here so we can try them out?

the thing that bugs me about the whole WH40K/FOW model is that it seems you have to get so many additional books besides the core to be able to play, and that just when you get the ones you want, they release new versions, etc.

that's money i'd rather spend on minis, personally.

I totally agree about the books. They get too damned expensive. At least they will usually make pdf's available to update older stuff. Plus it was cool when they gave out the version 2 edition of rules for free for anyone who had the version 1.
At least they have lots of nice eye candy. I use the pics a lot to get inspired to paint my figs up.

MaxVertigo wrote:I think the comment about being shot was made in jest, not pointed at the inaccuracies of FOW.
Sounds like Extra Crispy likes Flames of War and has made some interesting house rules. Actually I would like to hear what those house rules are. Can you post them here so we can try them out?

Sorry for any misunderstanding. My comment was not directed at Crispy as an individual, but at the general notion that since wargames don't involve actual blood and gore, all wargames are equally accurate/inaccurate (should have put the last comment in my post first!).

That mantra has become fairly common in the FOW hobby in an attempt to portray FOW as being equal to other rules in representing modern tactics, which is obviously not correct for the many reasons listed above.

Before FE I would have disgreed with you on the cost/value of the books since I too really liked the eye candy, modeling guides, and TO&Es. I bought all of the first edition codices and did so gladly.

But Festung Europa was so grossly misrepresented by BF and contained so many errors and ommisions that I won't bother with their future publications in the absence of very close inspection. (And the mid-war books were plauged by errors too!)

As BF's Wayne noted on the FOW forum, buyer beware when purchasing a BF publication. Don't rely upon the first level website info or the back cover. By their own admission and the comments of the FOW forum fan boys you must now read the disclaimers embedded deep in their website and forum in order to be certain of what you're purchasing.

No harm no foul. Sometimes my humor doesn't translate....

VERY ROUGH...House Rules

I have not actually played a game with this sytem yet...I am planning to run a game at my game club and another at my place on January 21st (if I can get all my infantry painted and mounted in time). If you're in/near Chicago and you're interested PM me.

1) Alternating platoon movement. Rather than IGOUGO I have each player pick a platoon and activate it. It then moves, shoots and assaults. The opposing player does the same with one of his units. If they have different numbers of platoons I have them sequence such that each side only "activates" 10 times. That way one side doesn't end up activating 6 units at the end. So if the Germans have twice as many platoons as the Russians, they activate 2 platoons each time to the Russians one.

2) Hidden Movement: I'm making hidden unit markers out of poker chips. Markers have either infantry, a tank, or a truck on them. A tank may be a platoon of 10 T-60s or a platoon of two SU-152s. Each side gets a number of dummies. Once a dummy is spotted it is removed from the table. Fire at dummies is area fire (half dice). Infantry markers represent infantry and guns. Trucks represent any platoon with non-AFV vehicles (like half tracks). I am still working out the engagement chart. Essentially, it's not enough to just "see" the enemy. So the chart is an "engagement" chart meaning you not only see but have an opportunity to engage the enemy platoon. Every platoon may make one ty per turn (some casea re auto, and some actions give you a free chance, such as getting fired on).

3) Opportunity Fire: A unit may activate and go on overwatch (I will mark them with a counter for now). As units move across their front, they may shoot at any point. But each ROF may only be used once. So a ROF 3 unit may fire 1,2 or 3 dice at the first moving unit.

I'm going to do a couple solo runs of these rules over the holidays and see how they pan out. I'm writing up the rules in amore complete format, and willpost them to the FoW Independent Yahoo group once they are done...