GHQ miniatures played with FoW rules

[8ball]

Have you played a game like this? Seen one? How did you like it? What do you think are the advantages/disadvantages? Do you have any other thoughts or observations?

Perhaps the greatest advantage of FOW is it's high level of quality and comprehensiveness. The rules are top notch, well organized, and well written. They are just a pleasure to read, to the point where I often find myself leafing through them for the enjoyment of it. They also provide a really thorough source of historical data that facilitates the entry of new players into the hobby, and simplifies the creation of scenarios. The FOW rules are also geared more towards gameplay than in the physics of war and as such easier to learn and play. Hence the trmendous support they receive from mainstream and casual gamers.

We can see the appeal of this type of game- a gaming table doesn't look like a parking lot, the quick learning curve for the rules, low cost for outfitting an army. etc.

Another thing that FOW does that is very smart is their packaging of complete units. So, if I want to fight an American Infantry company against a German infantry company, I can go to my local hobby store and buy them complete, and (after half a lifetime of painting) I'm ready to play.

Have any of you started out with the FoW rules as an easy entry to get into historicals, and then moved on to more comprehensive rules? We just want to get a read on what appeals to our customers.

I think the use of the term "comprehensive" is incorrect here. The fact is that the FOW system is comprehensive. They offer everything you need in a nice cohesive package. Everything ties together. It doesn't just cover tank warfare, but also integrates, artillery, infantry, and airpower seamlessly.

I think what GHQ means in the above statement is "complex," or perhaps "sophisticated." I don't think these systems are necessarily more comprehensive, and by nature they are almost certainly more difficult to learn and take longer to play with. As a result, they are going to appeal to the grognards, but not necessarily the mainstream, who are looking for a set of rules that they can get started with right away.

That's the key really. FOW is a system that anyone can like, and many can love, and BF has wrapped it up into a complete, slick package, which they support with their website, and with frequent upgrades, updates, and releases. In short they had/have a superior marketing plan that has allowed them to tap into mainstream gamers, and more importantly, to attract new gamers, in other words grow the market.

In summary, I'm using micro-armor with FOW, more for practical purposes as I already have a sizeable micro-armour collection and do not want to start investing in another scale, especially one in which the vehicles are not even as nice as GHQ. But I have to believe that GHQ could tap into the FOW craze. It seems a natural to me. I think some repackaging is needed, actual units as opposed to the generic and often wasteful five vehicles, and 60 figures. And I think that greater emphaisis on infantry and infantry weapons would be required in order to attract existing FOW players away from their 15s.

[Cav Dog]

I don't play FoW, but they do have compelling packaging and a system that makes it easy to jump in and start gaming. Lot's of FoW at the local game store and Little Wars, so it is pretty popular. I don't see myself using their system because I like to play 1:1 games, but I can see how using GHQ would make it cheaper and make the fighting appear more realistic with the smaller scale, plus you can fight much larger actions on the same table. The biggest drawback from the games I witnessed is that it seems to be pretty much line up and attack without much tactical manuever or strategy. The guy with the best dice wins.

IMHO, the best thing about FoW is their website. I seem to recall that it has scenarios, TO&Es color charts, everything but the actual rules. I especially like the modelling and painting forum. I have picked up a lot of tips and techniques there that in most cases translate very well to 1/285 minis. I would love to see something like that here that was permanent, (hint, hint).

[1ComOpsCtr]

Gentlemen,

The facts are pretty basic here... Flames of War is a very slick production that attracts people to the game, both visually and intellectually, but primarily visually.

While GHQ's rules and packaging are great for those of us who are attracted to traditional rule systems and historical unit building, FoW has taken advantage of the lack of historical grounding in most gamers, especially those that use the Games Workshop system and motivations, which after all is all FoW rules are with very few modifications...

Through their packaging and marketing they have taken the "need to research" out of WW2 gaming. There are sites with tons of research on the TO&E of this unit, and that division, or a particular brigade, etc., etc... but the FoW rules and suppliments make visiting those sites unnecessary. The rules and suppliments give organizational details in an easy to follow visual style. You don't even have to be able to read to organize your troops (which is kind of scary in itself).

FoW has "taken the march" on WW2 gaming. GHQ can take advantage of FoW's giant step forward by changing their marketing to capture those who can't afford FoW equipment requirement costs by making the smaller scale compatable and lower priced.
Makes sense to me... how about you?

I would not even change the movement scale, or anything for 1/285-1/300 scale gaming using FoW since the table will look more realistic in my view.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Von Omar]

I myself prefer more "sophisticated" rule sets then FoW offers. However, finding others that do as well (in my area at least) is often a challenge if not an impossibility. Especially younger gamers who are relatively new to the hobby (including myself).
FoW brings in that GW crowd and gives them a more "mature" subject matter, I suppose.
For that its incredible for the longevity of the hobby.

I think GHQ will be poorly represented in the long term if it doesnt adopt a similar marketing approach to the industry. In today's day and age games tend to need to be shorter and more compact, more streamlined. I personally have no problems spending days upon days to finish one scenario, but sadly that isnt an option for most other gamers and thus, shorter games that can be completed in 1.5 - 2 hours is a must. Sadly such quickness in gameplay comes at the expense of sophistication.

[Pitfall]

I found that If I wanted to play FoW, I could just play a GDW game. everyone that I know who has played it called FoW "Warhammer '44."

I play historical minis for accuracy and realism. FoW does not provide that. An AP round of a certain size and velocity WILL or WILL NOT penetrate a certain thickness of armor at a given range. I don't like to "roll for penetration."

[Azure]

Well. IMO anything that attracts people to military wargaming is good for all of us. If i had seen FOW before i found the GHQ website here, i may well be on their forum right now, asking questions about Russian green paint. But i think aiming products from GHQ at FOW players is a good idea. If their rules are easy and streamlined, soon the players will figure out, on their own, hey....weve been playing with platoons of tanks so far...how about trying divisional combat?
As far as an "abstract" rules system is concerned. i agree that an AP round should or should not penetrate at a certain distance....however, one must remember Murphy's Law. Its always possible for a round to strike an engine grille, the machine gun mount, or any other weak spot in the tank, even a "bad" piece of steel in the armor.
I am currently working on a rules system for modern combat, and i have to constantly "simplify" things to speed combat to the point where batallion-level scenarios will be able to be completed in a reasonable amount of time (i cant seem to find a modern system that i like) A certain weapon (lets say 120mm APFSDS) has a given effectiveness at a given range. This number is added to a die roll, and measured against the armor value of the target, with mods for distance, angle of attack, etc. Thats as complicated as it needs to be IMO, at least in larger battles.
Rolling for penetration, or any other number of abstractions, are what makes wargaming fun. If i KNEW that my T-72s would lose to M1A1s EVERY time, what would be the point in playing? Kudos to FoW for bringing new players in....and who knows? Maybe they will make a modern system that I like?
By the way, any FoW players attracted to this forum by the thousands of instances of "FoW" in this thread...welcome!

[jb]

...after sitting ,and ,er checking out the 'oW rules at a glance I remmebered why I didn't look at them in a while..

[Von Omar]

As this thread got me into re-reading my FoW rules (and also the free upgrade I'll be getting soon) I see that when 2 of the same countries 'armies' fight each other, its called a "training" scenario.
Nice way to spin that one I guess

[Zeppelin]

I can't help but chuckle a little bit at some of the posts here, because I've noticed that most of the posts against FOW happen to be from people who have NOT played the game. Indeed, some of the criticisms are related more to rumors and speculation rather than having a good argument against the rules.

FOW actually IS a 1:1 ratio game, for example. Light tanks DO differ in speed from Heavy tanks. BTW, Many Tiger Tanks crews DID have better skills than your average tank crew. FOW tries to factor in some of the specialized nature of WW2 combat with specialized rules, trying to capture the "flavor" of the period. Some of the combat is definitely abstracted for game playability, but to some degree, so is every other game I have ever played. As for FOW being just another WH40K, this is definitely not so. There may have been some inspriation and influence, but the game is very different. In fact, one WH player recently told me he WISHES WH40K had been written as well and thoroughly as FOW, which he now considers a totally superior game.

I'm not trying to make anybody mad here, please understand! I do recommend, however, that if you get the chance, read the designers' notes and learn how they developed the rules and why. It makes a whole lot better sense after that.

Best regards,
Zeppelin

[1ComOpsCtr]

It really doesn't matter at all if Flames of War rules, in my opinion, are more like Warhammer than any other rules set... they work, but within the same very limited basic mechanical scope: that of the d6.

Rules that only obtain results on the roll of a d6 are considerably more limited in their variables than those based on d8, d10, d12, etc., or a pair of d6s from which a more realistic "chance" may occur, rather than a one in six, through a "given" six out of six.

That fact is the basis for my comments regarding the comparison between Warhammer and Flames of War... with the only major difference being the lack of the second primary qualifying roll before a player has the chance of obtaining the chance of a kill.

I personally don't care for games that are only based on the use of a d6 for all their combat results... which is why the system Command Operations Center uses is based on several types (sizes) of dice from d4 through d20.

In addition I do not care for a move/counter move system, or one where only the player whose turn it is gets to fire, but again that's just my preference.

What makes FoW great is their retail product line organization, with all the detailed supporting reference books, and their on line support system with additional information regarding units, painting, converting, etc...

GHQ gets praise, in my book, for their product and their web site, but I think they could take some lessons from FoW in what it takes to create a successful game system.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Von Omar]

I agree with every point that 1ComOpsCtr has made. However, it does not change the reality of the situation. Finding new blood for the hobby is difficult in the age of video games and WH. FoW at the worst is gateway game to more detailed games. At the best its a fun and quick system.
FoW truly does capture the "flavor" of WWII combat. Thats what its all about. any 1v1 encounter within the game is secondary to the overall feel of it the entire battle.
In the last 3 games I've played of FoW, after reviewing the turn by turn photos, acted very much like a realistic simulation, and played out in 1-2 hours. It leaves you with a sense of action because its done quickly.
In other games I've played, by the time you finish a game 3-4 hours later, very little has actually transpired and you've already forgotten much of the earlier events. Not so in FoW.
Now, I'm definitely not trying to endorse FoW beyond what it really is. The lesser of 2 evils. Those being, Nobody plays WWII based games anymore, or People play WWII games there are simplified to a great degree.
Which is worse?

But back on topic. GHQ provides the ultimate gateway into FoW IMO. I've gone so far as to box up or sell all of my 15mm range. Painting up 300-400 GHQ tanks takes a while though

I just hope people look at this as what it is. A good start and an easy way to bring in new blood. With FoW's "prettyness" its much closer to GW and therefore a big draw. People like to feel like the game they play is alive and growing.
I truly hope GHQ follows the lead here and caters to some of the FoW audience. I just hope they dont step on any toes over at BF.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Gentlemen,

The primary thing I forgot to mention in my previous posts is that I have a fairly large Russian Army based on the Flames of War rule set, and that I've played a few games under the system and scale.

I absolutely agree that it is an excellent system to draw Games Workshop players into historical gaming, which is good, as well as ween them away from the almost "demon worship" like atmosphere GW has pushed their product toward these past few years. Quite frankly that was part of the reason I, and many of my friends, left the ranks of 40K followers to return to more historically based gaming. Another cycle in the never ending cycle of war gaming...

But that brings us back to the basis of the original question. Should GHQ support FoW orders of battle, perhaps package FoW based units, or better still package FoW based basic point valued armies that could be purchased as easily as the way FoW packages their units? To that question my answer would be YES!

In my view GHQ could offer two versions in support of FoW. The first would be a conversion chart to scale down the game to keep the same representation between miniature, basing, and range/movement, or in my view the better choice (but a choice for the consumer no less) would be to offer units exactly like the FoW units prepackaged using the FoW existing range/movement scale while reducing the element base size appropriately.

I think that would sell. I also believe it would spawn a whole new level of competition at conventions for the individuals who can't spend the sums necessary to support FoW miniature armies, as well as those who like the feeling of space 1/285th scale battles in 1 for 1 representation provide... but those are just my thoughts on the subject.

Will
ComOpsCtr

PS... how about a modern version...

[8ball]

I'm not sure that either GHQ of BF would be willing to see GHQ wrap their marketing strategy around the FOW system. But I think that FOW is a good example on which to model a marketing plan.

I'd love to see it, but to attempt something comparable to FOW or GW will take a pretty serious commitment of labor and funds, as well as a completely revamped packaging scheme. We're talking about a company that has been doing what they have for 35 years. There would be a lot of paradigms to shed. In some sense GHQ would need to deemphasize the miniatures development and marketing aspect of the business and make it subordinate to the literature in order to create a complete, and balanced package.

All that aside, it seems a natural to me that GHQ would provide a comprehensive and professional, literary component including historical information and rules to go hand-in-hand with their incomparable line of minis.

[Azure]

I dont know if GW would appreciate (or even want) minis specifically aimed at the players of "their" game. But if GHQ happens to package minis in sets that would be convenient for players of FoW, and hobby shops stocked them, i think FoW players would figure it out on their own. And maybe some more "sets" for players of other systems? The combat commands are a nice start, but what about more Russian/Pact sets please? Or even Sets for players of naval games...maybe an ** CENSORED ** class carrier, a south dakota battleship, a couple baltimore class cruisers, and some DDs? Just my ramblings....Azure