Flames of War First Look

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:51 am

"Timothy OConnor" opined:
I've exchanged messages with Mark in the past and I can assure everyone that he's not grumpy at all!

[Gary Coleman voice] What'chu talkin' bout, Timothy? [/Gary Coleman voice]

Don't you EVER suggest I'm not grumpy!

And don't accuse me of being malnourished, either. 'Cause I definintely ain't that, either.

Glad we had the chance to clear that bit up.

Carry on.

Extra Crispy · Post by **Extra Crispy** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:02 am

Maybe he meant me?

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:01 pm

Extra Crispy cried:
Maybe he meant me?

Oh, yeah, sure, like YOU ain't grumpy!

Duh.

(sratches head, wondering about that part on exchanging messages, and what that could possibly have referred to...)

Timothy OConnor · Post by **Timothy OConnor** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:53 pm

Reference was to the Crispy Mark!

(see quote)

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:05 pm

Hi Timothy,

Oops, should have stated that it was for infantry that are in bulletproof cover (trenches, trees etc).

I agree with how effective mortars are when infantry are in the open, but when they are Dug In, mortars just plain suck on that part, which is where artillery comes into to play. Everything else on what you had stated I can agree with. As too why I mentioned that I think FE is more geared towards Italy is just the amount of references it makes about the Italian Campaign. Granted there is some Eastern front talk in the book, but not alot about Normandy, which is why BF is coming out with a Normandy campaign book.

My problem with Festung Europa is how badly the British & Commonwealth forces are denied certain equipment compared to the 'Afrika' book. I gaming buddy of mine and I played 2 games using force compositions from FE and at the end of the 2nd game, we looked over the forces for my Canadian Armoured Squadron and what it was that I can add to it (only own 10 Sherman V & infantry)...the answer was not much. In fact, it was useless. Another problem as well is you can create the 'Italy Veterans' forces, so the units that landed in Sicily then too Italy before being sent to the Normandy Landings, but at a decuction of points. For 1500pts, using the Italy Veterans, you only get 1165pts. But they are Confident Veterans, but also have to go by the 'can't have this or that' rule. I think the I.V. is prettly lame as you can create a Waffen SS unit for 1250pts (still a 1500pt game) and they are now Fearless Veterans instead of Confident Veterans.

Now that doesn't make sense now does it?

Needless too say, I don't use FE anymore up until a better book comes out that will allow me to create a proper Canadian Armoured Squadron.

There are goods and bads about this game, but so far, I enjoy. There are around 30 or people whom have signed onto a local yahoo site for FOW, but have only been playing with 5 others. Not alot really. Kinda a sad.

Timothy OConnor · Post by **Timothy OConnor** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:45 am

Don't despair Doug, those numbers sound right. They follow the 80/20 rule. In any group you're probably going to get about 20% participation/contributions on a rotating basis.

Our local FOW Yahoo group is dead, dead, dead; but there's still a group that plays weekly with about 2-4 players every Thursday night and is driven by a local gaming club/message board. One of them organizes the local FOW tournies (which I've supported by providing terrain).

You might try an escalation league which starts with small forces (eg 600 points) and works up from there to the standard 1500 points. This lowers the barrier to entry and makes building a force much more enjoyable since you get to play with your toys sooner.

Using GHQ's figures would also be wise since a FOW force is much more affordable using these figures. A platoon of five 15mm tank costs about $45US while you can buy five GHQ tanks for just $9US. So a three-platoon company would cost about $135US in 15mm but only about $27US with GHQ. Heck, you could build two opposing forces with GHQ to recruit new players and still pay less than half of what you would in 15mm.

I strongly recommend basing your GHQ tanks along the lines of the GHQ WWII rules (sometimes on slightly deeper bases...looks better IMO.) I played a microarmor game today and the fellow running it leaves his tanks unbased. This makes it much more difficult to distinguish units and even see the tanks. I've based my GHQ vehicles and infantry and really like the results (still can't figure out how to post pictures here). Bases also limit the shock of the tiny 1/285 vehicles when recruiting new players, especially those coming from 15mm and 20mm gaming.

Tim

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:34 am

You might try an escalation league which starts with small forces (eg 600 points) and works up from there to the standard 1500 points. This lowers the barrier to entry and makes building a force much more enjoyable since you get to play with your toys sooner.

I've started on doing this slowly. I just recently moved 8 hours NW of my home town for a better job and the gaming is pretty low...more along the lines of GW, which I don't play any more. Thus I've started on 600pt armies. Seeing as how I've already got DAK, I might do 600pts of British troops.

Using GHQ's figures would also be wise since a FOW force is much more affordable using these figures. A platoon of five 15mm tank costs about $45US while you can buy five GHQ tanks for just $9US. So a three-platoon company would cost about $135US in 15mm but only about $27US with GHQ. Heck, you could build two opposing forces with GHQ to recruit new players and still pay less than half of what you would in 15mm.

I strongly recommend basing your GHQ tanks along the lines of the GHQ WWII rules (sometimes on slightly deeper bases...looks better IMO.) I played a microarmor game today and the fellow running it leaves his tanks unbased. This makes it much more difficult to distinguish units and even see the tanks. I've based my GHQ vehicles and infantry and really like the results (still can't figure out how to post pictures here). Bases also limit the shock of the tiny 1/285 vehicles when recruiting new players, especially those coming from 15mm and 20mm gaming.

I have started on doing this as well. The idea of playing 2 companies or even a battalion sized game would be fun. But in the 15mm scale, you would a large board, maybe 12'x5' or even 6ft. But for micro armour size, 8x4 would be big enough. I agree with the amount that you get with GHQ products for FOW and the basing is also agreed upon. I already own the GHQ WW2 and Modern rules and all of my infantry and guns are based. I have't decided if I want too base my armour yet.

Cheers,

hauptgrate · Post by **hauptgrate** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:44 am

Actually, there is one very important effect of the current popularity of FOW -- it is getting many former "fantasy only" gamers interested in historicals. This is especially true of the younger generation of gamers who all of a sudden are discovering the mass amount of "real" information available on equipment, battles, personalities, etc. And most of them thought history boring while in school -- now they can't seem to get enough. I have played by many rules sets over the years, starting with Angriff back in the late 70s, and all have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the other threads going currently in on how to grow our hobby, and this thread ties directly into that. Encourage all historical gamers! Let FOW be what it is: a simple, introductory rules set. Those who want more will find it with the more realistic sets later on down the road...

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:04 pm

="hauptgrate" Actually, there is one very important effect of the current popularity of FOW -- it is getting many former "fantasy only" gamers interested in historicals. .

It will only help if they all are playing with the same scale minis. If they use FOW rules and want to play with others playing FOW rules they will use the common scaled models which I guess are 15mm. How is that going to help micro-armor?
Only a few niche players will be using micro-armor scale models. Thus you are back with a small group of people.
And now they are playing fantasy style rules.

hauptgrate · Post by **hauptgrate** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:17 pm

Little bit narrow view there, Mobious. Personally, I am less interested in whether people are playing micro armor than if they are playing historical minis. Pardon the heresy, but GHQ is not the only producer or scale of gaming equipment. Let people buy what they buy and play what they play -- let the quality of GHQ minis draw the customers. I for one am not going to limit "our" hobby to GHQ only -- and if that is the purpose of this forum, then it is just a shameful form of advertising...

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:35 pm

"hauptgrate" Little bit narrow view there, Mobious. Personally, I am less interested in whether people are playing micro armor than if they are playing historical minis.

Call me selfish.
I don't gain potential fellow micro-players if they are playing 15mm FOW. And don't say because some may eventually play micro-armor because its just as likely micro-players may sell their micro-armor and play 15mm FOW. If I just was going to promote â€œWWII history awarenessâ€ I would promote my historical WWII computer game or a WWII book club.

I don't see why one should be promoting people play historical minis as opposed to fantasy minis. Thatâ€™s their prerogative.

voltigeur · Post by **voltigeur** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:24 pm

I don't see FOW in terms of a debate about scale. I don't like the 15mm scale becasue it creates parking lots and is a fantasy game with WW2 miniatures. I admire the fact that players can get through a game and not crack a book or look at a chart.

The saving roles and reroll misses if your so and so is absurd.

My biggest issue is what I've seen on the table. I don't see anyone interlacing fields of fire, I don't see the holding of reserves, I don't see manuvers being coordinated with fire power. Just arguments about point values and tactics being adopted becasue that is the way the rules are written.

It is only an overpriced fantasy game that uses WW2 miniatures. If that is yoru bag go for it! But to try and call FOW a legitimate simmulation game is rubbish. Before we consider the potential fantasy converts how many good smart gamers have been sucked into this nonsense just to have opponets.

Sorry just had to stir this pot.

thenorthman · Post by **thenorthman** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:02 am

HMMMMMMMMMM.....

Well from personal experience the FOW "Has" gotten people interested in Micro Amour!

They have been playing FOW for about three years now and I introduced a set of micro armour rules and bam we have been playing that now as well. In fact they went out and purchased the said rules to have there own copy of them.

Granted I do not like alot of the "special" rules the FOW system has nor do I like the no oppurtunity fire or even no hull down for the tanks.

Not alot of manuvering with it either (yes you do move the tanks "around" on the board, but that isn't manuvering that is just moving)

.

Yet it is a god game to play in two to three hours that is for me sorta fun. I have a Hungarian Army and will probably keep it to keep playing when others play it.

I will not be like some and get 10,000 points worth of tanks and infantry for it. I'll save the excessive number of tanks for micro armour.

HAVE to have tanks painted as historically close as possible for each nation right!

Sean

jb · Post by jb » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:10 am

voltigeur wrote:I don't like the 15mm scale becasue it creates parking lots and is a fantasy game with WW2 miniatures.

Sorry, I forgot what this thread was about,specificly. But reading the above ,I have to comment on about 15s. I do believe along with Volti that the FOW game is a parking lot thing on the table top. I know ,I have battalions of 15s,even a couple of modern day battalions,maybe more. I just haven't seen them for a long while. The reason being -you just don't have the room-on a table to replicate the "eye candy" part of it.
What I plan on doing with my 15s is this: rip out the back lawn,don't grow grass,use those Black &Decker laser range finders,if its the weekend everybody uses their cell phone for free! No parking lot (or FOW) here.
You're right I ain't married! So I can do it! And I won't give up my Micro armour either. The Russian front gets cold up here in Wisconsin.
BTW I will put up a fence too...

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:29 am

Mobius mentioned
Call me selfish.

You provide a set of rules that have more than a decade and a half of development behind them ... a set of rules with data tables for hundreds of tanks and vehicles, for Germans, French, British, Americans, Soviets, Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Japanese ... a set of rules with data tables for aircraft from all those guys too, and artillery, and infantry ... a set of rules that have more historical research in them than most books I can buy ... and a discussion forum on which you personally answer questions about the rules, and offer updates for equipment that doesn't happen to be in the data tables ... and all for FREE.

And now want to be called selfish?

Sorry, but you're gonna hafta change your ways (and get in a LOT of practice) if you want to get on my "selfish" list!

I don't gain potential fellow micro-players if they are playing 15mm FOW. And don't say because some may eventually play micro-armor because its just as likely micro-players may sell their micro-armor and play 15mm FOW. ...

I don't see 15mm FOW players as being in quite the same "set" as WW2 micro-armor players. BTW nor do I see 15mm Napoleonics, or ancients, or micro-naught players as being in the same "set".

But I see them as being in "adjecent" sets. And cross-overs occur quite often.

I am an occasional cross-over into StarFleet Battles type Sci-Fi games. And an occasional cross-over into age-of-sail naval wargaming. I've done Napoleonics once or twice, and would certainly be willing to try again, or to try ACW, or AWI. Not sure if I'd go for a wild west cowboy shoot-em-up game, but I know that Thunder has at some of the cons, and seemed to enjoy it.

Some adjacent sets are more inclined to overlaps than others. Many WW2 micro-armor guys are just as heavily into modern micro-armor. I am one. Fully overlapped on those two issues -- with many hundreds of vehicles in my collection for either case. Others would much rather play a WW2 air combat game. I am not one. My micro-scale aircraft have been acquired for micro-armor gaming. I don't object to air combat games, but I've never been very tempted to join in one. Nice eye candy, but the games themselves, as I've seen them so far, just don't fire me up.

PaloAlto (of this forum) was a 15mm FOW guy. He played in my Prokhorovka game at a con two years back (using Panzer War rules), and won a GHQ gift certificate. He is now a true-blooded micro-armor enthusiast, buying and painting up micros faster than I am to be sure. And playing more, too.

I've noticed that his games aren't quite as detailed, historically, as mine. But you know what? My games haven't always been so detailed. For me, the very process of participating in this hobby has been a process of exploring the history of armored warfare. But it isn't so for everyone. Some just want to have fun at a more superficial level.

Voltigeur volunteered:
My biggest issue is what I've seen on the table. I don't see anyone interlacing fields of fire, I don't see the holding of reserves, I don't see manuvers being coordinated with fire power. Just arguments about point values and tactics being adopted becasue that is the way the rules are written.

This statement is a great articulation of the my interests in micro-armor gaming. I am not particularly entertained by rushing two armies out onto a bowling green, arguing over arcane bits of the rules, and throwing a bag of dice to see who wins. Doesn't do anything for me. In a large part I judge rulesets by how well the gameplay encourages or drives me to consider my fields of fire, to gather information on enemy positions and strengths, to hold back reserves, to use combined arms, to maneuver, and to coordinate my forces and firepower in space and time.

Some guys will fit naturally into my "set". Some guys will adjust to my set for a game or two. Other guys will not. That's OK. I see the adjacent sets of gamers as the stream from which I can go fishing for new gaming buddies. More guys in adjacent sets means more potential catches. The closer the adjacent set, the easier it is to catch one. Is superficially historical WW2 miniatures with 15mm FOW tanks and infantry closer than deeply historical WW2 miniatures with 1/2400 micro-naught cruisers and destroyers? I don't really know. Kind of depends on the guy. Sometimes they take the bait, sometimes they don't, and sometimes you wind up throwing back one that you thought was a catch. 's all OK by me.

As my father used to say: "It doesn't take all kinds. There just are all kinds."