A friend of mine came up with the novel idea of reversing the movment and shooting steps. If you look at the mechanics of this - it is a smooth and easy change that dramatically increases realism. You would now shoot first (suppressing the enemy) and then move (into assault range hopefully). This stops the dreaded, " I sit while you move closer and rip me a new one" phase.
A defender would still be shot at first but at longer range. He would then have his way with the enemy unit that has now come closer as is realistic. This would prevent Infantry moving up to MGs and shooting, killing them without a shot in anger. Granted as the rules are now, the MG would have a pre-assault defensive fire but this normally comes after the assaulting Infantry have their shooting step.
No other special rules needed - simple and slick!!
Troy
Flames of War First Look
Moderators: GHQ, dnichols, Mk 1
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
-
Mobius
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
In effect WRG rules.="Ritter" A friend of mine came up with the novel idea of reversing the movment and shooting steps. If you look at the mechanics of this - it is a smooth and easy change that dramatically increases realism. You would now shoot first (suppressing the enemy) and then move (into assault range hopefully). This stops the dreaded, " I sit while you move closer and rip me a new one" phase.
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
-
dougeagle
- E5
- Posts: 726
- Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:07 am
- Location: Northern Alberta
Sorry Timothy, but I'm going to clarify certain things here that you had stated. Just so some others can understand it a bit. Again, I apologize...I will be nice though... 
It does sound dirty, but there are other rules that I don't care about for the Allied forces as well. It seems to me that the American forces have MORE special rules than any other force within Flames of War...such Mike on Target, Truscott Trot etc. But the one that I dislike is the British Special Rule called 'Semi Indirect Fire'. Basically, at long range, did not move, a tanker would get to re-roll his fail 'To Hit' rolls. So a platoon of 3 Sherman tanks, each with a ROF 2 would get 6 + reroll failed hit rolls, still resulting in a possible 6 successful 'To Hit' rolls. But you know what...I love it as well as I have a Late War Canadian Armoured squadron with Shermans...
The same works for the Light Tank rule as well. The 32" move is 'At the Double' and being shot at is the same as infantry as I have stated above.
The books are a pain, but I don't own all of them either. I only own the books that I need for my forces. But when Battlefront reworked the rules, they some changes and thus created the 'Afrika' Book, which covers the Germans, Italian, British (and Commonwealth forces like Austrailia, India, etc) and the US in North Africa to Tunisia and Sicily as well as the first stages of Italy. 'Ostfront' which covers the Eastern Front and German, Russina, Finland, Hungary, Romania and Italian forces. These 2 books are mid war ('42-43). I also own Festung Europe, the first Late War ('44-45) book for Italy. I don't car for it all that much and hope the later books are better.
The miniatures are decent for their size and buying a blister of an infantry platoon gives you the full platoon of 30 or so infantry. There are company boxes where you can get at least 2 German Grenadier platoons + the Coy HQ, for Soviets you can get a full Company with the HQ as well. There are army boxes too, worth the $$$. You get the full 1500pts in the set, which is the standard points amount of a good game. In 1500pts, Germans may get about 6-8 platoons (unless recon then more) British and US forces a platoon or 2 more than the Germans, Soviets about the same or smaller but with LOTS of stands of infantry or of armour
and so forth.
This is a rather interesting topic and look forward to reading some more
This true, but mortars don't get any sort of Rate Of Fire as they are classed as 'Indirect Fire'. Even the smaller light mortar has a range of 16" is only Indirect fire. In one such game with one such weapon, I was able to pin down an infantry platoon then next turn I was able to destroy one stand because of making my 6+ Firepower roll to destroy the team.- Against infantry in the open a group of light mortars (50mm - 60mm) is far more effective at killing infantry that the same sized group of 75mm, 105mm, or even 150mm guns...yes mortars can have a higher ROF but that doesn't mean they can maintain that ROF for an entire battle given their typical combat load of ammo.
True again. But I think of this as being scared out of your wits from numerous shots or artillery falling about the area. Being able to get make into action requires a motiviation check...if you fail the roll, your tank does not move or shoot.tank crews repreatedly bail-out and jump back into their tanks - over, and over, and over
Yep... this is the German special rule called 'Stormtrooper'. I do this with my infantry, panzers and so forth. Works great when using light armoured vehicles such as Marders.- a massive German tank such as a Jagdtiger can pop-up over a hill, fire, and then pop-back down before being shot at
It does sound dirty, but there are other rules that I don't care about for the Allied forces as well. It seems to me that the American forces have MORE special rules than any other force within Flames of War...such Mike on Target, Truscott Trot etc. But the one that I dislike is the British Special Rule called 'Semi Indirect Fire'. Basically, at long range, did not move, a tanker would get to re-roll his fail 'To Hit' rolls. So a platoon of 3 Sherman tanks, each with a ROF 2 would get 6 + reroll failed hit rolls, still resulting in a possible 6 successful 'To Hit' rolls. But you know what...I love it as well as I have a Late War Canadian Armoured squadron with Shermans...
I don't know about the British gunnery...sorry. The infantry, if moving fast enough can get past enemy MGs without being shot at. If they moved 'At the Double' basically 2x your standard move, so instead of 6", it now becomes 12"...the MG's would get double the shots. So 2 MG guns with a ROF of 6 each= 12 x2 (at the double) WOW...24 shots...nasty...but I like itBritish guns become MORE effective at LONGER ranges
- infantry can cross in front of enemy MGs without being shot at
- a light tank can whip 32" across the board, right in front of enemy tanks, ATGs, etc., without suffering a shot
The same works for the Light Tank rule as well. The 32" move is 'At the Double' and being shot at is the same as infantry as I have stated above.
The advantage to the turret is you don't lose your ROF. A Stug III would need to turn its whole hull in order to shoot a target past its 45 degree forward firing arc, thus its ROF goes from 2 to 1, where as a Panther tank would not. Granted that the front hull of the StuG is now facing the target its shooting at, but not the Panther. There are certain rules for AFV with turrets about 'Flank' Shots and so forth. Example is if the Panthers front hull is facing forward, its Turret turned a full 90, a T-34 on the front would get a Flank shot because of the side facing turret. I would shoot at a side facing turret any day rather than the front hull of a Panther tank...wouldn't you?- AFVs with hull-mounted guns are more flexible than AFVs with turret mounted guns...the AFVs with the hull mounted gun can rotate to face an enemy while the turreted AFV may not turn to face (although it can rotate the turret)
The books are a pain, but I don't own all of them either. I only own the books that I need for my forces. But when Battlefront reworked the rules, they some changes and thus created the 'Afrika' Book, which covers the Germans, Italian, British (and Commonwealth forces like Austrailia, India, etc) and the US in North Africa to Tunisia and Sicily as well as the first stages of Italy. 'Ostfront' which covers the Eastern Front and German, Russina, Finland, Hungary, Romania and Italian forces. These 2 books are mid war ('42-43). I also own Festung Europe, the first Late War ('44-45) book for Italy. I don't car for it all that much and hope the later books are better.
The miniatures are decent for their size and buying a blister of an infantry platoon gives you the full platoon of 30 or so infantry. There are company boxes where you can get at least 2 German Grenadier platoons + the Coy HQ, for Soviets you can get a full Company with the HQ as well. There are army boxes too, worth the $$$. You get the full 1500pts in the set, which is the standard points amount of a good game. In 1500pts, Germans may get about 6-8 platoons (unless recon then more) British and US forces a platoon or 2 more than the Germans, Soviets about the same or smaller but with LOTS of stands of infantry or of armour
and so forth. This is a rather interesting topic and look forward to reading some more
Doug
A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.
Bruce Lee
A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.
Bruce Lee
-
Mobius
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
Yeah, 30 years ago they had that type of system.="Ritter"WRG = Wargames Research Group?
Troy
Fire and/or move. First miniature system I played.
It you fire and then move you add something like +2 on a D6 to hit so you sacrifice something. So you have to think beforehand.
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
I think you are missing his point...Infantry can (and do) move in the open 6 or 12 inches (at the double) while in plain sight of a MG Platoon. They do not get shot at all while moving. In fact they can disappear behind cover and not be shot at in the following enemy turn. When would these MGs get the 24 shots if they cannot see the Infantry in their own shooting step? Instead of moving to cover, the Infantry could move out of cover, closer to the MGs and then get the first shot. (although they do so at a reduced rate of fire, the typical platoon will get a fair chance of a hit if it has enough teams participating)I don't know about the British gunnery...sorry. The infantry, if moving fast enough can get past enemy MGs without being shot at. If they moved 'At the Double' basically 2x your standard move, so instead of 6", it now becomes 12"...the MG's would get double the shots. So 2 MG guns with a ROF of 6 each= 12 x2 (at the double) WOW...24 shots...nasty...but I like it
I realize that FOW system is geared toward simplicity but the reversal of the shooting/movement steps would make the game appeal to more historical gamers.
Troy
-
Mobius
- E5
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Glendale CA
- Contact:
I would submit this as a test of a fair game. If the results don't change if movement and fire order are swapped.="Ritter"
I realize that FOW system is geared toward simplicity but the reversal of the shooting/movement steps would make the game appeal to more historical gamers.
Troy
All your tanks are belong to us.
Panzer War rule system
Panzer War rule system
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
Hello Doug!
My comment on mortar ROF was not based on the FOW ROF value but the real-world issue of small caliber mortars having a higher ROF than, say, a 105mm howitzer. Should have been more clear in that distinction! In FOW the ROF value only effects direct fire combat resolution. Some have tried to rationalize the greater effectiveness of 50mm mortars vs 150mm guns by claiming that the higher real-world ROF means more steel on target. But that assumes the 50mm mortar has access to enough ammo to make a difference. Such saturation fire was simply not possible by man-packed mortars given typical ammo loads. And it would take a lot of 50mm mortar rounds to equal 150mm shells, more than could be carried.
You may be playing indirect fire incorrectly if you're making firepower rolls vs infantry in the open. You only make FP rolls vs infantry in bullet-proof cover. In FOW the reason mortars are more effective vs infantry in the open is that mortars get a re-roll for ranging in. Beyond that in FOW there's no difference between 4x 150mm howitzers and 4x 50mm pop-guns firing at infantry in the open. Just plain weird!
re: bailed out tanks, Phil once told me that he regretted using the term "bail out" and building the combat model accordingly. Probably would have been happier with some sort of pinning-like rule. Crews did bail out historically but didn't jump in AND out with the frequency seen in FOW games.
re: Stormtrooper moves, sorry for the confusion! I didn't mean to imply that my concern was that the German players had some sort of unfair advantage (I built several German companies when playing FOW). And AFV weight has no impact on the Stormtrooper rule: a ponderous AFV such as a Jagdtiger is just as agile as a Puma or even infanty when using this rule. The problem is that in the absence of any sort of op-fire mechanic a massive/slow AFV can pop-up, fire, and retreat without taking return fire (assuming it passes its skill roll). The idea was to simulate German C&C capability but it ended up giving Jagdtigers the agility of an Apache helicopter. As we've learned in Iraq, even Apaches take enemy fire when moving across the battlefield.
But your comment also highlights one of the system's growing problems: a massive number of special rules, many of which are counter-intuitive (eg British tank gun fire becomes more effective at longer ranges). While the core system was very simple the game is creaking under the weight of codex creep. As you note you don't own all of the books and therefore, as a player, don't know certain rules such as the British Space-Warping Tank Gun rule.
re: turret vs hull mounted guns, the problem is that FOW prevents turreted vehicles from turning to face their frontal armor towards a flanking threat while AFVs with hull mounted guns can turn. Yes, there is the ROF issue, but historically even AFVs with turrets routinely used their tracks to quickly rotate and face an enemy while aiming in with the turret (for finer adjustments). This was especially true of vehicles with slower turrets since it was often faster to rotate the vehicle than the turret! Not only is the rule counter to history but it's also counter-intuitive. A simple fix would allow turreted AFVs to rotate their turret or their entire hull. This would better reflect the greater flexibility of turreted AFVs, be historically accurate, and more intuitive.
Your comment on the books is very interesting too. The FE book was marketed and sold as covering Normandy yet you characterized it accurately as only covering Italy. It also contains plenty of errors and ommissions even within that limited scope. Until FE and the mid-war compliations I bought every book sight unseen. As the mods and even BF staff have pointed out on the official forum, you really need to see the product in hand prior to making a buying decision now.
We certainly agree on the quality of their miniatures, but I am aghast at their new pumpkin-headed Brit paras. They look a lot like Dixon's figures. All of my 15mm WWII stuff is BF but I don't think that will be true in the future. I love the Charlie Brown Christmas Special but I don't want my WWII figures all looking like characters from Peanuts!
My comment on mortar ROF was not based on the FOW ROF value but the real-world issue of small caliber mortars having a higher ROF than, say, a 105mm howitzer. Should have been more clear in that distinction! In FOW the ROF value only effects direct fire combat resolution. Some have tried to rationalize the greater effectiveness of 50mm mortars vs 150mm guns by claiming that the higher real-world ROF means more steel on target. But that assumes the 50mm mortar has access to enough ammo to make a difference. Such saturation fire was simply not possible by man-packed mortars given typical ammo loads. And it would take a lot of 50mm mortar rounds to equal 150mm shells, more than could be carried.
You may be playing indirect fire incorrectly if you're making firepower rolls vs infantry in the open. You only make FP rolls vs infantry in bullet-proof cover. In FOW the reason mortars are more effective vs infantry in the open is that mortars get a re-roll for ranging in. Beyond that in FOW there's no difference between 4x 150mm howitzers and 4x 50mm pop-guns firing at infantry in the open. Just plain weird!
re: bailed out tanks, Phil once told me that he regretted using the term "bail out" and building the combat model accordingly. Probably would have been happier with some sort of pinning-like rule. Crews did bail out historically but didn't jump in AND out with the frequency seen in FOW games.
re: Stormtrooper moves, sorry for the confusion! I didn't mean to imply that my concern was that the German players had some sort of unfair advantage (I built several German companies when playing FOW). And AFV weight has no impact on the Stormtrooper rule: a ponderous AFV such as a Jagdtiger is just as agile as a Puma or even infanty when using this rule. The problem is that in the absence of any sort of op-fire mechanic a massive/slow AFV can pop-up, fire, and retreat without taking return fire (assuming it passes its skill roll). The idea was to simulate German C&C capability but it ended up giving Jagdtigers the agility of an Apache helicopter. As we've learned in Iraq, even Apaches take enemy fire when moving across the battlefield.
But your comment also highlights one of the system's growing problems: a massive number of special rules, many of which are counter-intuitive (eg British tank gun fire becomes more effective at longer ranges). While the core system was very simple the game is creaking under the weight of codex creep. As you note you don't own all of the books and therefore, as a player, don't know certain rules such as the British Space-Warping Tank Gun rule.
re: turret vs hull mounted guns, the problem is that FOW prevents turreted vehicles from turning to face their frontal armor towards a flanking threat while AFVs with hull mounted guns can turn. Yes, there is the ROF issue, but historically even AFVs with turrets routinely used their tracks to quickly rotate and face an enemy while aiming in with the turret (for finer adjustments). This was especially true of vehicles with slower turrets since it was often faster to rotate the vehicle than the turret! Not only is the rule counter to history but it's also counter-intuitive. A simple fix would allow turreted AFVs to rotate their turret or their entire hull. This would better reflect the greater flexibility of turreted AFVs, be historically accurate, and more intuitive.
Your comment on the books is very interesting too. The FE book was marketed and sold as covering Normandy yet you characterized it accurately as only covering Italy. It also contains plenty of errors and ommissions even within that limited scope. Until FE and the mid-war compliations I bought every book sight unseen. As the mods and even BF staff have pointed out on the official forum, you really need to see the product in hand prior to making a buying decision now.
We certainly agree on the quality of their miniatures, but I am aghast at their new pumpkin-headed Brit paras. They look a lot like Dixon's figures. All of my 15mm WWII stuff is BF but I don't think that will be true in the future. I love the Charlie Brown Christmas Special but I don't want my WWII figures all looking like characters from Peanuts!
-
8ball
- E5
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:52 am
- Contact:
-
Extra Crispy
- E5
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Edgewater, NJ
- Contact:
You know, there's no law that says you have to use every rule in every book they put out. Myself, I'm planning on keeping it to strictly the basics with my house rules thrown in. Then I may add one "special" rule per side, depending on the scenario. Plus, that way as GM even I don;t have to remember them all!
I ditched ASL when a Q&A in the General had a question about driving tanks off cliffs. Surely, said the player, a PzIV would do more damage to a squad at the bottom than a T60?
I ditched ASL when a Q&A in the General had a question about driving tanks off cliffs. Surely, said the player, a PzIV would do more damage to a squad at the bottom than a T60?
Mark Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
Author DeepFriedHappyMice.com
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
Author DeepFriedHappyMice.com
-
armypainter
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:19 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
-
Ritter
- E5
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:59 am
- Location: BC, Canada
- Contact:
Hey!Armypainter jumped up and down - while screaming: I sure the guys on the fow forum could list this many problems with the GHQ rule set.
It is not a perfect rule ( no rule set is perfect ) set but it is fun, fast, and easy to lean and teach.
I wish you would stop nitpicking and talk about something else.
This is a FORUM.
Its what its used for - nitpicking and discussion.
Probably seems as if we are ganging up on FOW but that may have something to do with the percentage of Grumpy old men on this forum -
And the % of 'Historical' as opposed to 'fantasy' gamers here.Cama - good points!
BTW, are you serious re. the last part of the post?
Troy
-
Extra Crispy
- E5
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: Edgewater, NJ
- Contact:
-
armypainter
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:19 am
- Location: Pennsylvania
-
Timothy OConnor
- E5
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:16 am
I've exchanged messages with Mark in the past and I can assure everyone that he's not grumpy at all! Maybe he's a curmudgeon, but that's not the same thing as being grumpy, and I should know since I'm a curmudgeon too!
I for one am NOT grumpy. And all you young snots who say so can all go jump in the lake!
(at least that's what my wife says!) I also agree with Troy. It makes no sense to demand that an internet discussion thread end if you don't like the content since you always have the option of....not reading it.
Tim
Curmudgeon who enjoys histrocial
and fantasy/sci-fi gaming
and who accepts the difference