or Flames of War Lite, as I understand it.
Not seen this mentioned anywhere else, but the Rulebook(s) are available for free (http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=533).
I'll be looking at these for a bit of fun, I think.
Played in 10mm of course . . .
Cheers, Martyn
Thanks Raider, will have a shufty at these ;)
the question you should ask is
am I happy playing 40K?
cos thats what these are, but in WW2 clothes
roll to hit, roll to damage, make a saving roll, IGOUGO typical rubbish. YMMV
The rules pre v1.0 were always free, then they went all corporate, then the Uber units/heroes started appearing in the game, does that remind you of any giant, global, money grubbing corporation that many on this forum love poking with pointy sticks? Hint Germs Werkship
despite having 4-5 armies for Flames of War, I'm not a huge huge fan of their rules - though they aren't terrible either. That said, I do like their miniatures....
FoW.
WWII rules that encourage 'axle-to-axle' tank deployments, with armour moving and fighting like Napoleonic heavy horse.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SavokNN_sxo/ULNlngrxmtI/AAAAAAAAGsU/IOEfHQZ26EE/s1600/SAM_4072.JPG)
(https://not2oldtowargame.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fow-aar-12.jpg)
(http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g183/Anatoli_2006/15mm%20battle%20reports/SAM_4086.jpg)
(http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g183/Anatoli_2006/15mm%20battle%20reports/SAM_4027.jpg)
;D ;D =O =O 8-} 8-} =O 8-} =O ;D ;D
If this were 'not-40k', fantasty/sci-fi type gaming, fair enough. WWII ruleset it ain't.
Well put Luddite, I think the 1st picture says it all.
Even as a newbie to WWII, it doesn't really work does it? :-\
To be fair, any rule could make your table looking like that : it's all about how many troops on a given table size.
I think I can't cope with the "company level" of play but with regimental assets : so I have a company of Foot + Tigers + Planes + On table Arty.
Barbarian is, of course, right. Wall to wall Panthers are not confined to FoW - rather to competition wargaming where winning is more important than authenticity.
Having said that, I seem to recall a film clip posted on the forum of Soviet T34s advancing track to track. Blowed if I can find it, though. :( :( :(
Quote from: Hertsblue on 20 April 2015, 10:27:26 AM
competition wargaming where winning is more important than authenticity.
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. >:(
Play for fun. :)
Not enough opposing aircraft and artillery if your tanks are lined up like that - 1 Tiger is a threat, five Tigers is a target :)
Quote from: getagrip on 20 April 2015, 10:46:39 AM
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. >:(
Play for fun. :)
You didn't write
1984 by any chance?
Luddite's first pic reminds me of our school wargames club back in the mid-late 70s, except our scenery was crap and we played on tabletennis tables.
Loads of Airfix tanks lined up on either side of the table, often the one -piece plastc versions rather than the kits whch meant almost as many HO/OO Tiger I on the table as were actually produced during the war. These faced off against Centurions ('cos Airfix made them ) and JS II - bloody powerful gun under the rules of the time hence verrrry popular with teenage boys. A few clumps of German infantry and British commandos in squares behind the tanks and we were udner starter's orders.
Then we simply advanced in line and let rip; And of course we all fired on the move, and lots of our tanks had flamethrowers fitted, and , and, and,
I don't think I have ever played anything that is realistic - and doubt I ever will!
though things have claimed to be realistic.
The best I can claim is that my toys and boardgames are representational :) and some have rulesets that these days are too much of a chore to enjoy.
Quote from: Norm on 21 April 2015, 01:45:51 PM
I don't think I have ever played anything that is realistic - and doubt I ever will!
This. So very much this.
Cheers, Martyn
Some are more "realistic" than others, for a given value of realistic.
Have to agree with the sentiment that some rule sets are more effort than enjoyment!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 21 April 2015, 02:50:49 PM
Some are more "realistic" than others, for a given value of realistic.
Realism. What do we mean by realism?
Example: If I'm playing Victory At Sea, obviously I'm not soaking wet, freezing cold & in danger of drowning in the North Atlantic, am I?
Martyn
If I'm playing Victory at Sea it's a fair bet I'm in my pyjamas, it's 4am, I'm freezing cold, I'm exhausted and I'm desperately trying to stop some wuzzock from sailing right into that spread of torpedoes!. Close enough!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 21 April 2015, 02:50:49 PM
.. for a given value of realistic.
;D ;D ;D ;D
I do not know about realism or what not. But walls of tanks are simply not fun. They do not look fun and they do not play fun. This is one reason why I have avoided WWII and after wargaming. Tank walls seem unavoidable. I think WWII+ are periods best enjoyed either as boardgames at the operational- strategic level, or down to the sqaud at most platoon level.
Any WW2-and-after rules that don't punish wheel to wheel armour by making them a prime target for artillery or air power aren't doing their jobs properly!
"Ach so, Heinz! The Englander pig-dogs are lined up like Volksvagens in a parking lot. Call in the Stukas!"
What do you think? Career writing Commando Comics a non-starter? :)
Absolutely! (To the rules. As far as the Commando Comics goes ... I'd maybe read a few more.)
Artillery and loads of it!
"Zuffel! Tommy's artillery is ... aarrgh!" - FSN
I remember seeing 'track guard to track guard' columns of 1/300th T62s rolling across bits of West Germany back in the 80s, I don't know what rules people used back then but this sort of thing is hardly new...although that's hardly an excuse for it now.
Quote from: Steeleye on 28 April 2015, 08:22:27 AM
I remember seeing 'track guard to track guard' columns of 1/300th T62s rolling across bits of West Germany back in the 80s, I don't know what rules people used back then but this sort of thing is hardly new...although that's hardly an excuse for it now.
If they were parked on the edge of the table probably WRG Moderns, if they had actually advanced almost certainly another rule set ;)
I admit we do sometimes play tank heavy games, but they are usually scenario based which at least gives both sides a fighting chance. We went away from the Battlefront published Flames of War rules as we found them to have too many strange rules which did not fit into what we consider the spirit of wargaming :). So for 15mm games we use the Rapid Fire rules as some of the scenario supplements give ideas for some cracking games that require a bit more thought than just lining up a wall of Tigers and shooting large holes in everything. ;D ;D ;D
I have to admit, I do play Flames of War every so often - despite its "realism" (or whichever definition of realism we give it). It uses a variable scale which makes adding a tank platoon "acceptable" to an infantry company while keeping to the "realism", but that said, I have huge huge huge doubts on whether their "Cold War gone hot" game is even going to work. For that matter, I've yet to see a miniature board game accurately represent armored warfare.
The whole IGOUGO is think has gotten really stale too, considering FoW does not have opportunity fire / overwatch
I've been playing WW2 games since the old WRG 1925-1950 rules in the 1970s. Play quite a lot of FoW. Dodged the 'track to track tank' look by playing infantry companies only by gentleman's agreement. We also chose to base our AFVs to make 'track to track' deployment impossible. I've had some truly corking games!
As with every rules set you can play to distort history or play historically. The rules seem sound and pretty 'bomb-proof' I've killed closely packed tanks with air power and artillery.
Criticising a set of rules for how people choose to play with them isn't really about the rules, it's about the players. And everyone is entitled to play how they choose imho.
Well said =D> =D>