Flames of War

[barr7430]

RETRACTION!

Today I spent a very enjoyable five hours playing a Flames of War game with Pat Connor and David Imrie.

I thoroughly enjoyed it much to my own surprise! The rules are deceptively simple and when you play with someone who knows them reasonably well the logical `thread' is pretty strong. I therefore retract all previous negative statements and promise to persevere for another few games in the hope that any residual doubts evaporate!

Glad I got that off my chest!

Barry

[quindia]

I'm glad to hear that. I just ordered a copy of the game last night. I was looking for a simple set of rules and they seemed to fit what I wanted. BTW, They have a great website!

[Mark]

I have to disagree with you on FoW. I watched one game at Wargames World and the 'Ilkleylads' have tried out one game. It just did not work for us.

As an alternative (although I have not played then yet) is IABSM by the toofatrlardies. Of course you could also use Piquet POA.

Mark

[Anonymous]

Barry,

It's a VERY simple GAME based on WW2. Though it is fun in that simplicity. I play it. As a matter of fact, I have a rather sizeable Russian force (would you have thought anything else!? ).

Though, I still think many of your former remarks hold true!

[barr7430]

Now if there is one thing I never thought I'd be it's a standard bearer for FoW(so lets clear that up for a start.. I'm not!) but Mark, it IS a game. I was discouraged by such things as 'British Bulldog' and 'Stormtrooper' moves(more the names than the actual principles)but when Pat very helpfully talked David and I through it, many of the mechanisms where astonishingly sensible..far more so than say Rapid Fire. Are your comments about Picquet entirely without bias,I thought you had something to do with writing it but I may have that wrong so please excuse the potentially ill informed!

B

[quindia]

Piquet is a game I wouldn't have liked after only one or two sessions! After four or five games I got the hang of it and appreciate how it works. I think you have to dedicate more time to a set before judging it fairly.

That being said, I haven't played FOW at all yet, but I was looking for a simple, fun set of rules that capture the feel of the period and after reading through it I like the general concepts - even if it is very GW-ish. The army lists are helpful for a beginner as well and although I've noticed some inaccuracies, they too capture the feel of the period.

If nothing else, Battlefront should get high marks for their presentation - the Desert Fox book has seventeen color pages of well painted models and professional terrain. That has hooked me maybe even more than the rules, but that's what hooked me on this site too...

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi all

Just new to this forum (oh lord not another one ! where will I find the time ? ) but thought I would start off by 'sticking my oar into' my fav subject WWII rulesets
I have FOW and despite several tries I just cant take to them as despite excellent presentation they just dont 'rock my boat'.
A couple of newish rulesets I have tried which I really like and offer for your consideration are
1. Blitzkrieg Commander (Pete Jones) which I use for fastplay 6mm games (my rules of choice for 6mm being Spearhead)
2. Battlegroup PanzerGrenadier (Dave Brown) which I am currently using for my 15mm games (previous rules of choice are legion !) at Coy level (ie 1 stand = 1 platoon/troop).
Both of these sets are well written and presented and are both of the fast-play variety with streamlined combat systems (ie not too many charts/factors) and interesting Command & Control systems.
I reccomend both as alternatives to FOW/Rapid Fire and if nothing else both are good reads

Cheers

[Mark]

Hi Barry

All my games are games it is just that FoW as a game did not suit the lads fron Ilkley. The marketing and packaging of FoW is however excellent and I know that Chris Abbey of Wargames World has used FoW to woe fantasy gamers to historical gaming which can only be good for the hobby.

You are correct that I do have have a interest in Piquet in that I have written one supplement for them and I have helped develop 2 or 3 others. I am currently doing the second version of Cartouche the 18th Century supplement. So yes I am biased. Piquet is a bit like FoW. You either love it or hate it.

I am currently painting up some 28mm ww2 figures and I am going to base them the same ways as your Barry. The only difference is that I am going to use steel washers rather than cutting them by hand which is what I think you do.

[barr7430]

Sgt Steiner,

have a look at GHQ Microarmor rules(I'm always thumping on about them but they are really good even for bigger scales). I'd be intersted in detailed thoughts on Dave Brown's rules as I have played General de Brigade and found them just too detailed causing white light headaches!!

Mark,

Washers would be good. I do cut my stuff by hand but precuts are available from Litko Aerospace. Many of my chums buy this guy's stuff and he'll cut any shape in any size.
Maybe someone who is in the forum will post the address.

Peter N are you out there???


B

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi

I have the GHQ Micro Rules (read thru once but not yet played) and I like the concepts therein ref Cohesion. The FOO being on an Inf base is little different if understandable.
Its just that my recent 6mm games have been with Blitzkrieg Commander (as its just so much fun !) never thought of using GHQ rules for other scales.

Ref BgPzGr I cant say how they compare to DBs Gen De Brig rules as I dont have them or indeed play Nappy games (WSS/SYW is as close as I get and I use Piquet) but the rules are definately on the 'simpler' fastplay style so in fashion in recent years.
Inf Platoons are the basic units (usually 2 Ref bases plus an Lmg base plus Cmdr) of manouevre/action or equivalent tank squadron (3-4 Afvs)
Rules are designed for 15-20mm scales (but easily useable for 10mm or 28mm).
C&C is done in hybrid DBM style with your Hq rolling a d6 (some modifiers for nationality etc) for number of orders per turn (Inf Coy generates an additional single order and for larger games seperate Bttn/Regt Hqs get bonus d6) These orders (Pips) are used to activate units at varying costs (per Combat group type size etc) An activated group can then Fire/Move/Assault or combo of same or undertake other tasks eg Calling Off-Board Arty.
Movement is interesting in that no real set distances as it down to dice rolls (eg Inf move 2d6 Med Afvs 2d6 + 4") which covers delays in order transmission and ground cover and suchlike.
Fire combat is pretty straighforward 2d6 system with Inf bases firing singly or in groups of up to 3 (additional 2 bases count as +1 modifiers only) AT Fire is 2d6 (max AT range is 42" depending on gun type) requiring 5 plus to hit with several modifiers (though not many) ref gun type/range/target condition etc pretty standard stuff. Once hit an AT factor is added to throw and compared to targets DF to give a differntial that yields a result on a table generating either a Pinned test a Damage Test or test for Destruction (believe me its harder to explain than to play !). The rules cover just about everything one would expect with Artillery on and off-board aircraft engineering Defensive fire rules etc etc
I reccomend you go to DBs rules website (www.battlegrouppzg.com/bgpg/)
and download the Pdf playsheets thereon as they are fairly self-explanatory and give a very good idea as to the game system without (obviously) the specific rule system explanations.
The rules are of course not without their 'problems' and abstractions but I find they give a game not too much more complex than say Rapid Fire but with much more 'meat on the bones' without being crushed by unweildly systems or mass of data/tables.
I would put them between Rapid Fire and Panzer Marsch in terms of complexity
Not sure how they would fare for games of the size and magnitude you lot play but then which rules would !?

If I can be of further help please ask.
Note I an not exclusively wedded to these rules (far too varied a taste for that !) but for the scale of game they set out to tackle one can do a lot worse. I have the associated Western Front scn booklet (Eastern front version on order) and the scns presented therein are all fairly manageable on a 6x4 table (mine is 7x5) with 15mm.

Must try out those GHQ rules

[barr7430]

Thanks for that, I might actually pick up a copy. I am not fond of Rapid Fire but felt I had to be reasonably diplomatic about that when I wrote an article comparing it to GHQ MicroArmor for WI. I was pretty curious about the origins of Rapid Fire as there seem to be more - in it that a swiss cheese so I did a little asking around to try and establish the origins.

Sources tell me that the principles were noted down on two sides of A4 by the late Peter Gilder in order to run some games that he'd planned but never had rules for. I don't know if the story is 100% true but the source was pretty close to `the source'.

Anyway, I like GHQ and now I think I like FoW(big difference of course is in the scale of the action former roughly 1:10 latter 1:1).

Cheers

B

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Barry

I dont think you would be disappointed with BgPzGr as several nice ideas if nothing else

Ref Rapid Fire they are a set I have played a few times mainly because they are very easy to explain to others (ie my 11yr old son) but they soon lose any appeal once the game gets going for me (has not stopped me ordering the new version though !).
The supplements/scn booklets I have found quite useful.
Flames Of War was a set I followed thru testing phase and bought upon release but again despite high production values and mainly straightforward systems I find them too much 'game' and not enough 'war'.
Both sets have virtue of having given WWII gaming a boost and FOW seems to be drawing in more youthful gamers which can only be a good thing (nice to see the photos on Wargames World forum with 'yuts' playing an Eastern Front FOW game)

This balance between the game and the simulation (to use a board wargame term) is a toughie for rule authors.

A WWII set I really love is Overlord (and later Grey Storm Red Steel) by Barrie Lovell which covered the Normandy period (but of course tweakable), I felt it was great balance of playability (with smallish forces) and had great 'feeling' of accuracy.
However my regular opponnent often bemoaned how his inexperienced Yank Inf simply went to ground (ie Hestitated in rules) virtually every time they came under fire, and generally refused to budge much thereafter, and he felt that therefore there was not much of a 'game' using the GIs (and in fact painted up a batch of US Paras who were much tougher chaps) and such is the quandry for the gamer/rule author to some degree perhaps ?
I look forward to reading your Malburian rules with this in mind
Mind you the same bloke didnt protest too much with the Eastern Front set when scn generator yielded 3-4 times as many points of Ivans as Huns !

Ref GHQ rules I see some nice house rules in the War Chest and must ask do you use FOOs as per the rules (ie attached to another base) or do you have a house rule ?
I was thinking along the lines of allowing FOOs to transfer between adjacent bases (Cohesion roll allowing of course) as I dislike them being 'stuck' in a unit with an S or D marker !
Only played a few turns of GHQ set but they are quick to pick up and seem interesting.
The unit commitment to either firing or moving exclusively is bit odd given the game turn timescale but it certainly makes thing easy to work out.

Cheers

[barr7430]

Re GHQ:On the FOO subject I actually prefer to use a seperate base(platoon) usually in a vehicle and let it move around independently of other units. The FoW system for observation is also quite good whereby the obervers can be attached to other units or not. For support fire from say platoon support weapons like light mortars you only have to have an element of the platoon in LoS with the target to fire on them. Certainly it was good for firing smoke before I attaked Kampfgruppe Imrei with the Scots Guards! David's Grenadiers were choking in the stuff and it looked more like a Def Leppard concert than Normandy!


B

[theoldschool]

First a quick introduction. Name, Pat Connor, 30-odd years' gaming and responsible for 'converting' Barry to the more reasonable elements of FOW.

I never cease to be amazed at the level of emotion generated by discussions on the 'best' set of WW2 rules.

I have played several WW2 rule sets: Rapid Fire, a great game and a simple set of rules with a tried and tested pedigree that have done almost as much as FOW to introduce gamers to the period. Not least thanks to Colin's superb demos and RF2, which arrived today, looiks very promising.

Panzer Marsch from the same sire as Rapid Fire. A first-class set of small action rules.

IABSM, I only recently discovered these and they are brilliant. Wonderful concepts that bring chaos theory to the tabletop. Superb period feel.

Command Decision - argued by many to favour simulation over game. I disagree, enjoyable but they have just as many game mechanics as any other set.

FOW, like Barry I had serious doubts about these but tried them after a lot of persuasion from Brian Phillips. Very surprised at how well they play. FOW gets a lot of bad press becasue they are gamey, but take away some of the terminolgy that has been used to market the rules to a mass public and IMO you have just as sound a WW2 wargame as any others out there. FOW attracts a lot of criticism over their marketing - too gloosy, too expensive. That's like saying don't buy a Ferrari because it's shiny and costs more than a Skoda.

I don't understand the argument that one set of rules is too much like a game. Where one person sees game another sees subtlety and abstraction.

All of the above rules have strengths and waknesses, as I am sure do those I have not played, but I enjoy them all for different reasons.
By all means we should shout from the rooftops in support of our personal favourite, but surely there is room for all.

I'll just go now and look out my kevlar underwear
Pat

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi OldSchool

I never cease to be amazed at the level of emotion generated by discussions on the 'best' set of WW2 rules.
Ahh but we wargamers just love to talk a good fight

I have played several WW2 rule sets
I have upwards of 25 sets of WWII rules that I have dabbled with over the years starting with C.Grants Battle! through to my latest purchase Rapid Fire II (hopefully in post from Calavier as we speak) and whilst I have read them all and played at least one game with each there are of course maybe half a dozen sets that I use/used regularily.
I confess to being a rules junky as I enjoy reading new sets to see new ideas and concepts and of course am always on the lookout for the elusive 'perfect set'

I don't understand the argument that one set of rules is too much like a game. Where one person sees game another sees subtlety and abstraction.
Well of course they are all games but some more so than others IMHO.
For instance as I have said before I have tried FOW several times now but just cant see the woods (ie decent game system) for the trees (ie gamey/novelty aspects) such as 'Bail Outs' a big part of the armour game in FOW. The sight of crew literally leaping in and out of their tanks jars with my concepts of how things should be. I have tried reasoning that the bail-out rule is simply another form of pinning or suppression but it doesnt help much pour moi.
Of course all rulesets have various abstractions or gamey concepts its just thus far for me FOW has too many per se and diverts me from the systems strengths.
I am not knocking FOW as such just stating an opinion as its a topical set.

By all means we should shout from the rooftops in support of our personal favourite, but surely there is room for all.
To each their own I guess covers it and it would be a sad state of affairs if there was only one universal set of rules for WWII
Personally I use different rules for different scales of game and figures and indeed 'type' of game I am in the mood for (ie lots of detail but slow turns or faster playing but more abstract sets) and even then I seldom seem to play the same set twice in a row


Cheers