GHQ miniatures played with FoW rules

[Steelwhip]

My apologies JB, I missed people saying the movements was a mistake....

~chuckle~ yes..I will agree...GHQ Cossaks ARE much easier to paint than FoW cossack..I have a platoon of those suckers for my OstFront Germans.

I will agree that there are similarities between Warhammer and FoW. But of course you could say there are similarities between chess and checkers.

FoW is a simple game that has managed to open up a huge chunk of the gaming world to the younger crowd. They do sacrafice some(ok..maybe alot) if realism for quick playability. And Im ok with that because the whole package works for me. Right now in my life Im not looking for exact hardcore detail in my games. Did that when I played ASL and got tired of feeling like I was giveing birth to a CPA everytime I played

Personally I think this is a good thing. I guess the perceived notion, that people playing a simpler game than other systems, are less gamers somehow, is a huge pet peeve of mine. Guess it comes from bad experiences back in my Napoleonic days. Here I am…a young kid…a teenager, and being looked down upon by stuffy old fat bastards who would refuse to play with me because I didn’t have the right number of buttons painted on my Prussians, or the cufflink colors were off. It didn’t get any better with my ASL experiences. Ill admit I played Warhammer, primarily because it was aimed at the younger crowd. Here was a game that I could play with people my age, and in the beginning it was just about having fun…..course that all went down hill in the mid to late 90’s and I rapidly gave up on GW all together.

I remember back in the late 80's and early 90s when pretty much the only thing going in wargaming AT ALL was GW, ASL and a very few scattered enclaves of microarmor, or DBA, or Napoleonic's and BattleTech. Avalon Hill was dying. SPI had been gone for some time. We were starved for anything that was fun, playable and supported by the company that put it out. During this time pretty much the only gaming I got in was a set of modern micro armor rules-Command Decision I think was the name of the system (still have a GHQ Soviet Mechanized Battalion around somewhere). In the last few years we have seen an influx of new games systems hit the market. Granted they may not be what a lot of people consider real wargaming, or maybe far to ‘simple’ (the clix systems is a good example) and people look down their nose at them. But they are Gamers playing these games. And that can ONLY be a good thing for the Hobby. I can go into my LGS on any given day and see 5-20 people playing something, be it Heroclix, or the new MechWarrior, or Warmaster, or Warhammer, or FoW, or Call to Arms…..and it warms my heart that the hobby I love so much has made a resurgence. And it just bothers me when I see or perceive that gamers are rude or looking down on other gamers.

One of my only 2 peeves I have in the gaming community…and believe me…ya don’t want to set me off on what my other peeve is

But as I said, no offense was intended with my rant.

[Von Omar]

I get what you're saying steelwhip and I agree with much of it. I tend to lean towards the more sophisticated games myself out of personnal preference. However, I have been relunctantly forced to accept FoW as the system of choice these days. The reason is wider appeal. No matter what anyone around here wants to say/think, the simplistic d6 syle games have taken over. They are easy and quick. It is a sign of the times we live in where everybody wants easy to learn, quick to use and brainless to figure out for instant gratification. Thats sadly the way it is and since I still want to play games and play with new people, you either have to embrace the good in it or quit and complain about the parts you dont like.

In marketing, "its not the product you're selling, it's the presentation". The product might be horrible, but spin it right and its golden. FoW has that in abundance. So does GW. If GHQ was at their level it'd be GHQ that they'd be talking about imitating.

It's not a matter of whats better or not anymore. Its the matter of how to make GHQ get a taste of that new emerging market while it's still wide open.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Gentlemen,

We conducted an interesting trial this week...

We used different sized dice (d8, d10 or d12) to signify better grade units within the same army, to make specific units slightly better than others. Everything else was exactly the same, but it brings to mind some other possibilities...

In other words, all the success numbers remain the same. BUT, the larger dice give the better units a greater chance to succeed...

Perhaps this would work as a way to make a greater difference between the Italians and the Germans, or the Russians against the Germans, etc... OH, by the way, we fought a battle with one tank regiment; plus infantry, artillery, and air support in 1/285th scale per side, with these modifications (about 5000 points). Game took about three hours to reach a decision, with about an hour set up and take down time...

Will
ComOpsCtr

[jb]

However, I have been relunctantly forced to accept FoW as the system of choice these days. The reason is wider appeal. No matter what anyone around here wants to say/think, the simplistic d6 syle games have taken over...

...It's not a matter of whats better or not anymore. Its the matter of how to make GHQ get a taste of that new emerging market while it's still wide open.

...so sorry for you
As for D6s taking over ,not around here! I agree with you on the D6 and Brainless thing coinciding...anyways you don't need D6 to have quick,and unsophisticated gaming. Maybe its just the people you play with,all it takes is ONE of those G@Da)(n ruleslawers to screw up the works for everybody. Like Steelwhip mentioned,it sounds like he was in the midst of a lot of them. I'm sure that FOW has its share also. Those rules BTW are not really smooth going either. Like I mentioned earlier there are a lot of pages to thumb over while you are playing,AND if you copied the pertinent charts you have a mess on the table.
Anyways,some rules really suck too. The one that always comes right to mind is "EMPIRE". Man,pack 3 days rations if you want to make a move. Realism,if you consider sitting on your A$$ for hours and doing ,what was that term Steelwhip used,oh yeah, passing a CPA. Yeah there are some games out there that are also close.
But there are also others that use more than the D6 and are Smoooth.
As for the FOW,not me fella, its just Warhammer in a differant uniform,or should I say armour.
Its like it was mentioned earlier,Oh and you too,its their (BF) Marketing. So give your money to Phil,grab your Brat (Bratwurst for you Non Wisconsiners),a brew,and roll your D6s.

[Steelwhip]

It's not a matter of whats better or not anymore. Its the matter of how to make GHQ get a taste of that new emerging market while it's still wide open.

Im going to take a little informal survey at my LGS tommorow with my FoW crew. Id like to come up with a set of questions ofr them concering the possibility -if it was offered- of using GHQ Minis to play FoW-or possibley even using GHQ Minis to play another mini system if we can find one that we are happy with and one that works for us...

anyone have a good idea on a set of questions to ask them...and to go a step further-if GHQ reads this before I head out...what questions would you like me to ask to help in their determination if packaging specifically for FoW would be a good business venture.

[8ball]

Get a load of this all you rookies to FOW!

BF just released a new edition of the FOW base rules. Does that mean we have to chuck out our old set, and go out and drop another $40 on the new set? Nope. If you take your old rule book to your local retailer, they put a little gold sticky on the cover and GIVE you a brand new digest sized supplement book. That's right "GIVE." As in FREE, no charge, no dead presidents. you get to keep your original book too. And the supplement is every bit as slick and well put together as the daddy sized books.

They are a very classy and clever act.

[jb]

It's not a matter of whats better or not anymore. Its the matter of how to make GHQ get a taste of that new emerging market while it's still wide open.

Im going to take a little informal survey at my LGS tommorow with my FoW crew. Id like to come up with a set of questions ofr them concering the possibility -if it was offered- of using GHQ Minis to play FoW-or possibley even using GHQ Minis to play another mini system if we can find one that we are happy with and one that works for us...

anyone have a good idea on a set of questions to ask them...and to go a step further-if GHQ reads this before I head out...what questions would you like me to ask to help in their determination if packaging specifically for FoW would be a good business venture.

sure ask them if they would like the idea of putting a battalion of armour where their FOW company team would be. Also mention that the Parking lot effect would not be present,they might have more maneuver room (i'm sorry but I didn't measure yet,but it seems that it would),and then the cost difference of high quality minis.
GHQ battalion for 50 vehicles is $89.50 US,and BF would be$447.50 this of course doesn't include sales tax,shipping ,and other stuf like all the paint,etc.BTW 1 bottle of valejo would do a few battalions.
Other things like buildings and other acrutements are widely available for this scale.
As for GHQ's packaging,that has been something that has needed redoing for a couple of decades. Especially in the Infantry read my other response in the thinking mans thread.
I'm sure that I can think of other things as I go along.
Thanks for the effort Steelwhip,keep rolling 'dem bones comraden

[jb]

Get a load of this all you rookies to FOW!

BF just released a new edition of the FOW base rules. Does that mean we have to chuck out our old set, and go out and drop another $40 on the new set? Nope. If you take your old rule book to your local retailer, they put a little gold sticky on the cover and GIVE you a brand new digest sized supplement book. That's right "GIVE." As in FREE, no charge, no dead presidents. you get to keep your original book too. And the supplement is every bit as slick and well put together as the daddy sized books.

They are a very classy and clever act.

..thats about the only difference from warhammer...
Yeah I got the supplement last month at the Last Square.And yes that is a Class Act for sure,for sure...

[Von Omar]

*sigh*

We aren't all as lucky as you I guess. I live in a predominantly 15mm area I have a bunch of it myself but I always find myself drawn to 28's for skirmish and micro armor for anything larger then platoon level.

At least where I am, its my own mission to get everyone to convert to GHQ. Its a rough go as the concensus here (in my informal probing) is that GHQ was something everyone did back in the day but the "hip" thing is 15mm Battlefront or much earlier periods liks 15mm ACW or 7YW or Nap or earlier.
I'm trying to get this area to modernize and there are elements that are willing (outside the crusty old elite) but they're raised on WH
I personally cannot stand WH in any context (since I was a kid at least) but for some reason I can JUST BARELY stomach FoW. It has just enough of the WWII flavor that I can tolerate it, essentially because I get players for it.

This is what I'm trying to say. Since I am essentially championing the idea of Micro Armor for all periods (mainly WWII to start) in my area, its me that has to do all the work. Along this reasoning....if GHQ offered a FoW compatable box set for maybe 1500-3000 point armies it would make my job so dramatically less difficult and couldn't hurt GHQ at the same time.
Best I see in Micro Armor played in my area is with planes using Mustangs rules with an established, stagnant collection. That's just not good enough for me. I'm doing my best to change the situation since I live in a fairly big city, but any help would be greatly appreciated, hence a GHQ "limited support" for FoWing.
I envy those of you that live in more Micro Armor established and thriving areas. Sadly, to actually grow the hobby, this is not enough and I dare say it takes a more pioneering spirit of comprimise to which I am willing to commit to, to grow the hobby into less established markets.

[jb]

...don't feel alone von Omar. This area is also highly infected with the FOW. I don't get a lot of new people,unless I bring my game to a con. I haven't done that for a year now. BTW my games that I brought to cons were 15s,but it wasn't FOW. It was my own set of rules-Panzertruppen-. These rules are mainly everything I liked about from just about every game I ever played,a genuine "Frankenstein" whoa ha ha ha . The ultimate biggest goal of this effort is to get rid of rules lawyers. My Idea of a game rules is to have the entire game (rules section if you will)put on a sheet that folds up. Something like what "Panzerblitz" had. My rules use a D10 system that gives us just enough detail and probability for different situations. I have cut some "fat" off of things that I consider are "there" but are actually combined with a procedure.
For instance last month I was contemplating adding a modifier to a target that is moving. Simple,right? Wrong! Questions come to mind ,and others ,"How fast is he moving? What angle? Is he moving away or right at you?" You may add a real modifier to each of these. Then we have the CPA coming out the rear again. Sure its "simple" math but it simply doesn't need to be there. I approached this idea with this decision. My game has "skill" levels for each piece on the board,some may be individually marked as a certain skill,or a whole unit from platoon on up may be designated a skill level. Each of these skill levels determines how you accomplish tasks. So I decided that a modifier is not needed for a firer to hit a moving target,at least in this type of game. I know that in reality a moving target is more diffcult to hit but then we get back to the questions stated above. I believe some things need to be trimmed to have a playable but realistic "smell".
BTW in my rule system if you are the target you do have the choice of single moving and firing or double moving and not firing. So you see you may need to maneuver instead of shoot.
Anyways the games I like to play are "campaign" type using maps. The maps may be fictictiuos or real (topograghic). The last few years I like to use maps of the area I live in. With the advent of the computer I am able to download topo maps of any where in the US. (yeah 8ball I know where you live,and have downloaded that area). Whats nice about my own turf is that I can drive over before during and after the battle. In this fashion we can actually see the areas in question.
The system we use for setting up terrain is with different colored felt.
Green (Lt) is for light type vegetation i.e. woods,fields,elephant grass ,etc that limit visibility,and simply slow you down if a vehicle type.
Dk green or brown is heavy vegetation that may be heavy woods,forrest,or jungle. This keeps vehicles from diving through.
Dark brown or earthtone " thin strips" are folds in the terrain or hulldown positions. If you are on one side of it and your opponent is on the other no sighting is taking place. If you park right on the line,you may claim hulldown. This is a "vital" tank tactic. These positions are always sought after by the wisest of "tankers". Besides if you didn't the platoon Sgt would be after you with all kinds of "Painful death threats" as fast as stink on ,well you know what I mean.
Blue is any type of area that has or might have water,running or still. Depending on the scenario,you might or not be able to drive through. If I want no traffic or high banks then I will use the thin strips to run along the sides to give it "banks".
Swampy areas can be made with combinations of Blue with bits of green and/or brown.
The hills are either a series of the felt strips (low) or styrofoam hills that are different levels but basically 1 or 2 level at most. I just havent the need yet for the mountains.
All of this is played on "tiles". These are 1" thick styrofoam 31"X48" flocked green on one side and Desert colored on the other. 4 of these will fit on 2 of the standard "con" tables.Using this method does give us the capability to setup and teardown in a timely fashion.
Anyways back to the response,We are lucky in this area yes. Some of us need to drive a few hours , but we love the gaming. Fullmetaljacket has semed to have gotten a ball rolling here in the midwest. He has gotten some of from Wisconsin(Go Badgers!!),Indiana,Michigan,and I'm not sure maybe Ohio,to game toghether.
So von Omar don't give into a rule system you don't like...make your own

[jb]

...
We used different sized dice (d8, d10 or d12) to signify better grade units within the same army, to make specific units slightly better than others. Everything else was exactly the same, but it brings to mind some other possibilities...
Will

...Will, I like your previously mentioned concept of taking your PT test score and somehow "adding" to gaming stats. That little idea has planted a seed in my head about keeping in shape

[1ComOpsCtr]

Gentlemen,

If you want to add in the "skill level" of your players try this...

1. For conventions I use a two axis table that moves a ball among holes to test the dexterity of players...
2. Try either an air rifle (airsoft) or a bean bag toss... for weapons accuracy.
3. Have players take a 10 question test about the period of your game... WW2, or armor/aircraft identification pictures, or military history, etc...

The highest score in each category gets a d12, the next few get d10s, and on
down through d6s. You have to grade on a curve obviously... but there needs
to be a mix of d6 to d12, with only one or two d12s per category if there are a
lot of players... You don't want too many "top scores" unless everyone does
that well. (In reality we have trouble when we do SOF operators because they
all score so high in all their tests so there has to be some judgement exercised). Sometimes we have only a 2 or 3 score difference between the top and the bottom
to distribute d6s and d12s between.

Those three categories give you three of the four dice you need to provide the
breakdown of a players skills into representive dice. The fourth die should be
what type troop they are on the board. You must use the majority troop each
player represents. If most of their force is infantry they get a d6. If they are
primarily tanks they get a d10. When aircraft are on the board they can be a
d12 or d20 depending on their technology...

From there the rules are simple... but I can not provide further detail because they are not yet available for public consumption.

Always remember the main difference between player types...
1. Those who try to control everything their troops do(as a micromanager they would not make good commanders on a real battlefield).
2. Those who control what they can, and leave to others what they can't(as long as this commander is a good trainer he can rely on those under him).
3. Those who make a plan and trust to chance(this commander doesn't know what he is doing, and will always blame bad luck for failures, but will take all the credit when things go right, which isn't often).

Will
ComOpsCtr

[mlcolbert]

Will, I've got to agree that is what I also do (with some slight mods) with students, depending upon their learning/studies/memory etc they will have access to either different die or equipment if they can demonstrate that their country is capable of purchasing/training/using effectively an itemn of equipment etc. For them, the emphasis is on the preparation.


michael

[1ComOpsCtr]

Michael,

I guess it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish during the game...

If, as some on this forum push, you are trying to duplicate most aspects of combat during WW2 or the modern era, you will not find it necessary to measure a players abilities outside the narrow view of the statistical evaluation of shot counter shot.

If on the other hand, you are trying to measure a players abilities to make decisions where the exact historical aspects of a simulation aren't as important as the ability to make those decisions, then you need a way to measure the players abilities in a way that makes sense to them, and is easy to fit into a system that they can see work.

Helping a player see where they fit into a system is, in my view, one of the most important features in a rules system, and can make or break convention games no mater the period.

In the end each gamer must decide for him or herself what they want... to duplicate combat in most every aspect, or to have an enjoyable game that is easy to understand so that more people will be drawn into playing... and not be driven away by a complex rules system that takes as much time as the old Empire Napoleonic rules used to take...

There appear to be quite a few of the former commenting on this forum.

In my view gamers paint tanks to push them on the gaming table... and most who push tanks want to push lots of them, so making rules simple, and fast, just makes sense, unless like some games I've played, you play for hours for 2 minutes of real time...

No Thanks, that's not for me anymore... I don't have the time.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[mlcolbert]

Will, sounds eminently reasonable as an old compatriot used to say.

I suppose for me, I have a foot in both camps, the shorter rules for students, rules like Challenger 2000 for problem solving on the board I have in the study to reflect on. The 'game' then goes on for a while....months at a time etc depending on how busy with other stuff I am.

I think the interesting thing for all of us is that on the forum we get to know a little of both sides of the coin.

regards,

michael