GHQ miniatures played with FoW rules
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
jb
- E5
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:13 am
- Location: Antananarivo
...er...thanks Mike. Thats putting it nicely,thanks. I had a real bad day at work and if it weren't for your KIND reply,I think mine wouldn't have been...Mickel wrote: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.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
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. 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
This forum is all about opinions not candy coating,candy coating is for the boss at work
John
-
Marc-Andre
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:14 pm
- Location: Germany
Hi all,
I won't comment if FOW is of any value as a wargame or not. I don't like the tone in which some voice their opinion on the TMP forums. But there is one thing that stands in the way of repackaging GHQ minis into FOW army packs. It's a thing where GHQ fails completely for years now.
The missing item in WWII GHQ minis are 'dismounted HQ elements'.
These should possibly include groups of officers, portable radios, messengers, tents and card tables; maybe an unmounted motorcycle or a horse with holder. These would also be interesting for other rules too! They should be generic enough to give us customers the ability to depict platoon/company/battalion/division HQs, whatever rulesets they play.
Greetings,
Marc-Andre
I won't comment if FOW is of any value as a wargame or not. I don't like the tone in which some voice their opinion on the TMP forums. But there is one thing that stands in the way of repackaging GHQ minis into FOW army packs. It's a thing where GHQ fails completely for years now.
The missing item in WWII GHQ minis are 'dismounted HQ elements'.
These should possibly include groups of officers, portable radios, messengers, tents and card tables; maybe an unmounted motorcycle or a horse with holder. These would also be interesting for other rules too! They should be generic enough to give us customers the ability to depict platoon/company/battalion/division HQs, whatever rulesets they play.
Greetings,
Marc-Andre
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
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...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
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...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
-
GHQ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:50 am
- Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
-
MaxVertigo
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:51 am
I played a game of Flames of war a few weeks ago using Micro Armor and it worked out very well. I didn't change anything for the ranges and I think it actually worked out much better then the 15mm scale stuff. The 6mm scale seems to get rid of some of the over-crowding that seems to plague FOW games. Plus its much cheaper to buy and a lot easier to transport.
I personally collect both 6mm and 15mm and have grown a decent sized collection of each. I think that each has its purpose in different games, groups, space, etc... You can't really do a skirmish level game with 6mm but you also can't do a divisional level game in 15mm. Everything in between is up to personal preference and amount of space to play on.
I typically like to use my 15's whenever possible since I just like the heft of moving around something with some bulk.
I personally collect both 6mm and 15mm and have grown a decent sized collection of each. I think that each has its purpose in different games, groups, space, etc... You can't really do a skirmish level game with 6mm but you also can't do a divisional level game in 15mm. Everything in between is up to personal preference and amount of space to play on.
I typically like to use my 15's whenever possible since I just like the heft of moving around something with some bulk.
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
I just returned to microarmor after several years with 15mm and fully agree with MaxVertigo. I've been using Litko's FOW bases for my moderns project and the GHQ figures look great on these at a 1:1 figure ratio (which is the same ratio used in FOW...combat in FOW is resolved at the stand level but the figure ratio is effectively 1:1).
In fact, I was tinkering with my 15mm troops last night and GHQ's figures have ruined me! My 15mm stands now look very crowded compared to the GHQ stands.
And oddly enough it's somewhat easier to tell what a stand is with the GHQ figures. I base 3-5 infantry figures on each 1-1/4" wide x 1" deep base (standard small FOW base with rounded corners). With more space around each figure you can see better what the figure represents and the greater dispersion looks more realistic. Crowded stands, regardless of figure size, makes it more difficult to distinguish stand type.
If you're planning to play FOW in 1/285 I highly recommend using Litko's 3mm-thick "small" FOW bases (1-1/4" x 1") since it makes seeing and handling such small troops easier and they still look great! The rounded corners also look very nice.
From a cost perspective you're much better off with GHQ's figures. An entire platoon of GHQ tanks (the platoon is the basic unit in FOW) can be had for the cost of just one typical 15mm tank.
Finally, FOW's ranges look better with microarmor, especially since the game uses artillery on the table (there is a scenario/theatre specific provision for off-table arty but the standard lists and rules have all arty on table.)
Tim
In fact, I was tinkering with my 15mm troops last night and GHQ's figures have ruined me! My 15mm stands now look very crowded compared to the GHQ stands.
And oddly enough it's somewhat easier to tell what a stand is with the GHQ figures. I base 3-5 infantry figures on each 1-1/4" wide x 1" deep base (standard small FOW base with rounded corners). With more space around each figure you can see better what the figure represents and the greater dispersion looks more realistic. Crowded stands, regardless of figure size, makes it more difficult to distinguish stand type.
If you're planning to play FOW in 1/285 I highly recommend using Litko's 3mm-thick "small" FOW bases (1-1/4" x 1") since it makes seeing and handling such small troops easier and they still look great! The rounded corners also look very nice.
From a cost perspective you're much better off with GHQ's figures. An entire platoon of GHQ tanks (the platoon is the basic unit in FOW) can be had for the cost of just one typical 15mm tank.
Finally, FOW's ranges look better with microarmor, especially since the game uses artillery on the table (there is a scenario/theatre specific provision for off-table arty but the standard lists and rules have all arty on table.)
Tim