Hostility towards micro armor

[Extra Crispy]

One last thing. The "hub to hub" tank syndrome is NOT a fault of the FoW rules. That is just good marketing getting people to buy as many tanks as will fit. Any gamer can choose to put less stuff on the table. Most of my games are regarded as unusual only because unit density tends to be very, very low compared to most wargames...

[CA-68]

HEY GUYS

Carl here from the Cleveland Ohio camp. We have many gamers here who play 1/72 with easy eights battleground rules. However, I have been able to revive some of the micro armour clan over here because I am a GHQ fanatic, Anyhow, I was able to put on a few games featuring micro armor with combined arms actions featuring some scenarios focused around the Stalingrad battles. Also did some Italian and British in the desert as well-those british crusaders and matilda's tank were like tigers up against Italian armor-no wonder why thay got spanked in 40 and 41. We used GHQ rules as well as some home brew rules for our own testing and flavor.

If your ever in the Cleveland area. Look up the Warzone -Matrix right by the Cleveland Hopkins airport. We can usually get a game going up in minutes because we have enough terrain maker, tanks and infantry to outman the entire armed forces of the world.

Yes I heard the same arguments as all of you have --but if you play it and build the terrain -- thay will come over to the dark side.

Carl

Im in Ashtabula, not too far from Cleveland...can you PM me more info, like what might be a good evening to drop by and say hi? Im pretty new to mini wargaming, i wouldnt mind at all eavesdropping on a "real" game or two.

Tim

[voltigeur]

I saw a movie last night about an invasion from Mars.

Maybe if we all go to our local gaming shop and play 1950's Yodelling music their heads will pop! Of course it will be kinda messy unless they are wearing fish bowles on their heads. Maybe we can suggest that.

Before I get crucified, just kidding.

[kgpanzer]

my turn to step up...

I been enjoying micro armor and GHQ since 1979 / 1980, right when I started high school. There was a gaming shop in florida called modellers mart where I started getting my stuff, I start using GHQ and some of the other guys stuff at the same time. Over all I think GHQ makes the best quality figs out there for this scale granted sometimes going to the other guy to get items that GHQ does not make.

as for this FOW topic I play FOW quite often and knows the in and out to what is going on with FOW but one thing I learned and respect is other gamers. I do not care what other people play or do and yes some out there like GW and FOW folks will get nasty and yes they are total dumb ** CENSORED **'s in my book almost like a racist attitude they have and this is sad to see and hear.

I just recently held my first micro armor tournament <last> here in my town at our local con and it went not to bad, GHQ was very helpful to supporting this game.

like the post a few weeks ago on this forum <i> and that is what I am a gamer and i do use and enjoy many different games, from computer to table top board/war games to miniatures to RPG's

Life is very versatile and you should be when it comes to gaming...just enjoy it and not slam others for what they like. Roll the dice and have fun

Cheers
Anthony

[hauptgrate]

Great thread, and something which has come up in many other recent discussions -- the rivalry between FOW and micro. I have seen this rivalry -- as well as all the jokes and snobbery illustrated by Tim above. I am not sure if the question is one of scale or one of playability, or one of accuracy, or all of the above, but -- I have noticed that GW has built a massive following with Warhammer, 40K, and now FOW by providing a complete product of rules, models, and terrain, and provided a FUN game. From my observations, GW fans play games almost soley for fun.

Microarmor gamers, on the other hand, seem to approach games from a historical perspective. I got into gaming because I loved WWII history -- I learned early that the 80mm on the front plate of a Panther was worth twice that thickness due to its slope even though the early set of rules I played by rated it exactly as that on a late MkIV. When faced with a difference between the "rules" and my knowledge, I changed the rules -- and have been tweaking and designing rules ever since.

On the other hand, I have a friend who for many years was an old D&D player who went in 40k back in the early 90's, and now plays FOW religiously. He has never cared, and will never care, about the actual vehicles and tactics because to him his new WWII armies are just as fictional as his 40k armies. Every time I try to convince him to actually read a book about tanks he laughs and says that he games to have fun playing, not reading.

I have tried a couple of FOW battles. I admit the rules are simple to learn and quick to play and that tanks and figures do look good IF they are well painted, viewed from a distance, and not crammed together. However, given my propensity to want to tweak rules, I immediately ran afoul of the cult of GW -- how dare I question the rules!!!!!! Also, not to toot my own horn, but I have studied armored warfare a long time and am a good tactician, and rarely lose a game, and yet both times I have played FOW I have lost. The problem with the rules is that the tactics of the real world do not work in FOW -- in other words Rommel would get his clock cleaned.

To cut to the chase, I think there is a fundamental difference between gamers who play for GAME, and those who play for the EXPERIENCE. At the current time, those two trends are represented by FOW and ghq (whatever rules they might be using). It would be nice if there were acceptance from both sides.

By the way, I have always kind of thought that 72/76/20 mil, and even 15mm scale was too large, but also that 1/285or1/300 was a little too small. I have always wished for an intermiediate scale -- maybe Z (1/220) or N (1/160) or something like that....

[Panzerleader71]

I recently bought the FOW rule book and the FE sourcebook, mainly because a friend of mine has gotten into it rather large. Played one game so far, and find it an alright game very simple as has been stated. Though it does have holes big enough to park a Tiger tank in.

My main problem with games these days is they either have more paper work involved in them the an actual war would produce, or they are dirt (too) simple. I really do not like either end of the spectrum. I like a little realism, but without have to rifle through a raff of charts.

Another thing that has caused me some pause is the the pictures of battles in the FOW books, with tanks almost muzzle-to-muzzle. Also, the lack of opp fire rules made me say "eh?"

Fortunately, I have a couple of options of games to use my future GHQ armies with.

[Mickel]

This post will waffle around the topic, but someone brighter than me might find the point to it.

I have found a (mostly) friendly rivalry between 'those' guys and the micro guys at conventions here. It's probably made easier by the fact that the micro guys stick to post WW-II games, so the BF boys (90 minutes up the road from me) don't see us as a 'threat'. I put on a WW-II game of micro using bkc and found a few of the fow people hanging around out of curiosity. They left when one of 'our' lot made some snide remark about their lot. I wasn't overly impressed with him...

I've watched a number of games of that set of rules and even played one or two. Something that struck me which I couldn't quite put my finger on. I saw the same thing happen with GW games. Then someone else pointed it out - a lot of the time the result is going to be obvious before the first move because the victor is decided by what force they have, not how they use it.

On the subject of 1:5 or 1:1, I play both. The reason I play 1:5 is so that if I want a Jagdpanther platoon I can have one. But because I've got a whole regiment on the table, it doesn't dominate like a Jagdpanther platoon would if I only had a dozen vehicles in a 1:1 game.

But the subject boils down to people. If people can't pull their heads...well..... you know... and see there is more to the hobby than what they do then there is no helping them. I find it helps to just laugh at them. There usually isn't a come back to that.

Mike

[Mickel]

oops... twice.

[Carl67]

In reference to Micro armor being totally all armor on the field. Yes this only happened on a few occassions with most battles being combined arms actions.

Last year I put on a Stalingrad Scenario which came right out of the GHQ rule book which pitted Russian Infantry and anti-tanks guns against a Panzer and Panzer grenadier/engineer outfit. The Scenario was loaded with minefields and barbed wire and artilery played a big role.

At that game I had a veteran gamer state to me that this is the first time he has seen a micro armor game that didn't have armor vs armor. And the Infantry played a big role-which was true of WW2

Indeed the game was not fast moving due to the cohesion roles my assault engineers could not get to the minefield so my (Panzy-grenadiers) got slaughtered because the decison was made to get to that bridge. The game bogged down in a real fire-fight slugfest which in the end I feel portrayed a real element of battle.

Therefore, I feel we achieve and element of realism and playbability. With the New Infantry packs that have been available over the last 10 years or so, You can put on some exciting games with varied possiblilities. It just comes down to getting people together, building an army and terrain and finding time when all can meet on a somewhat regular basis. A task which is hard to do I understand.

Carl 67

[Timothy OConnor]

On the subject of 1:5 or 1:1, I play both. The reason I play 1:5 is so that if I want a Jagdpanther platoon I can have one. But because I've got a whole regiment on the table, it doesn't dominate like a Jagdpanther platoon would if I only had a dozen vehicles in a 1:1 game.

mike...that's sort of why I made the switch from 1:1 to 5:1 for my home grown rules and convention/club games that I run. Two of my friends are die hards at opposite ends of that spectrum. After listening to both of them very carefully and playing in their games I came to the conclusion that both were playing essentially the same game, the primary difference being the ratio of support weapons to "line" or regular troops.

Whether playing 1:1 or 5:1 a tank model/stand will move a given distance, have a given chance to eliminate another tank model from play under a given circumstance, etc. In a 1:1 game a group of 2-5 of these models will maneuver together and be called a platoon while in a 5:1 game about 3 of the models will be called a company. And whether maneuvering a group of 3 tank models nominally a platoon or that same group of 3 tank models nominally a company that group will move and fire with very similar tabletop game mechanics: move x", fire x", chance to hit, chance to kill, etc.

Ground scale plays a role and here with modern weapons 5:1 usually has an advantage relative to table size. Unless warping distances like FOW does one is stuck moving onto the table and almost immediately being in engagement range with most 1:1 scale games.

The biggest difference comes with infantry. In a 1:1 game a platoon of company level or battalion mortars will usually have 3-4 models while in a 5:1 game that would be 1 stand. So, if running a company in a 1:1 game I would have a group of 3-4 models called a mortar platoon. In a battlaion 5:1 game I would still have 3-4 mortar models/stands but now there would be 1 in each model group/company (eg 60mm) and 1 more at battalion level (eg 81mm). I've personallly found the one-stand-per-mortar-platoon approach easier to deal with from a rules perspective. Same goes for other support weapons (the Heavy Platoon in a late war German Panzergrenadier company is a good test case for organizational differences wrt scale).

This also reduces the tabletop troops density when attempting combined-arms games: a 5:1 "platoon" of 1 ATG model and transport takes up less table space than 3 ATG models, 1 platoon command stand, and 4 transports. From a game experience perspective I get to command an ATG asset but the 5:1 approach means fewer (and therefore more precious!) troops. With those 1:1 mortars I essentially have 1 mortar blob/unit/maneuver element of 3-4 stands with 3-4 transports. At 5:1 I still have 3-4 stands and transports but now I also get 3-4 more flexible maneuver elements. Having 1 mortar ME is less interesting, IMO, than having 3-4 individual mortar MEs. same cost to buy, paint, and same individual stand table space but lower unit density at 5:1.

Transport is another issue more easily abstracted at 5:1. At 1:1 you can end up with even squads being split between vehicles which makes for confusing unit organization and command and control mechanics (at least in convention games). With 1 stand = 1 "platoon" of 20-40 men one can simply state that a transport stand represents enough vehicles to haul around its assigned stand (less of a need for capacity mechanics). It might be considered a copout but it's easier to deal with.

Now, back to the topic, I also listened to both friends very carefully on issues of figure scale (Mark/6mm vs Tom/20mm). I had fallen in between the two of them at 15mm and both were convinced the other was completely crazy. To a micro gamer 20mm looks silly since it's so big (barrels almost touching, etc.) while to a 20mm gamer 6mm is too small as they like the toy soldier visual effect and want to see individual figures. While 20mm-Tom convinced me to go with 5:1 over Mark/1:1 (where I had been), 6mm-Mark convinced me to go with 6mm and give up my larger 15mm approach.

So now, I've combined the best (IMO) of both of their positions: I now use Tom's "5:1" organizational approach since I get to have a greater variety of support troops at reasonable proportions (really 3:1 or 4:1 since I find 5:1 too inaccurate and unwieldy). And I've adopted 6mm figures per Mark since terrain and engagement ranges look better and GHQ's wonderful modern infantry allow one to see the composition of a given infantry stand fairly clearly (even my older friends can make out a 6mm RPG figure).

Again, to the point of the thread, by listening to other gamers and being open minded we can enhance our own wargaming experience. We won't always agree. For example, I've played complex games such as Air War but came to the conclusion that such detail and complexity isn't always realistic and it's almost never fun for me personally. So I'll happily play complex games run by my friends but I wouldn't run such rules myself. This is one reason I no longer play FOW. That community has become very close minded and doesn't tolerate "impure thoughts".

Life's too short and our hobby too small to dismiss fellow gamers from one's gaming opportunities. Here I'll be a little hypocritical and say that the one thing I can't tolerate myself is intolerance, thus I no longer play FOW. But by being open to new ideas I'm now having more fun with 20th century gaming with GHQ's microarmor, my new 3:1/4:1 scale, and my simple home grown rules. And I still play with 20mm-Tom (Mark's right, it looks silly to me now, but I still enjoy the friendship and company) and I still play 6mm-Mark's complex games (too complex for my personal taste but Mark has the best presentation I've seen and his friendship is way more important since he's one of the nicest people I know!)

I suppose this whole thread is driven by priorities and flexibility: does one wargame to have only a single, inflexible, exclusive game experience to the exlusion of all other experiences or does one game to have fun with others while enjoying, or at least tolerating, fellow gamer preferences?

Tim















[/code]

[Timothy OConnor]

twice...