Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Flames of War: The World War II Miniatures Game» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Effectiveness of shooting rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Cassill
Australia
Canberra
Australian Capital Territory
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey All,

I played an introductory game of FOW the other week and I have been thinking about some of the mechanics.

I played late war (British Para vs German Grenadier). I would fire by whole artillery barrage into the enemy for 3 whole turns (against 1 stand) and I couldn’t kill it. Firstly it was difficult for me to hit (i.e. needed a high dice roll) then saves were very easy to make (i.e. needed a low dice roll). Then even when these saves were failed a firepower test needed to be made, which was another high roll required. Keeping in mind this was a battery of 4 guns firing on one team...I would assume (logically) that, once ranged in, my fire would be more effective as it was all against one team not spread throughout the platoon (making my guns hitting heavier on that one team). This repeated itself throughout the game with this one platoon soaking up fire from other infantry and 2 artillery battery's.

A second point about shooting is you need at least 5 hits to pin the opposition down and even when you pin them down it doesn’t affect their combat ability as much as I thought it would for the type of game it is. I have played a few games of Bolt Action and like the way the pinning system works in that (not comparing the games at all, just giving you an idea if you know that system).

It made me think, is shooting a viable option in FOW? I killed one team in the shooting phrase in the whole game. Is there too many hoops to jump through (i.e. too many saves)? Is this realistic? - I am more a simulation than an arcade person, but this certainly wasn’t fun for me. I am concerned that only tanks seem to kills things easily and that because of this the game will just have a heavy armour focus (which I am not too keen on).

I would love your opinions as I really like Bolt Action and FOW and don’t want to be turned off forever by one bad experience or odd scenario. If you need any more information just let me know.

Thanks,

David
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
clive holland
Thailand
wang nam khieo
nakhon ratchasima
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As you put it, ''Too many hoops to jump through'' is why I ditched FOW a few years ago.

I play Bolt Action for skirmish games, Blitzkrieg Commander ll for larger sized games and am eagerly awaiting Chain Of Command from www.toofatlardies.co.uk for another skirmish rule set.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G G
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flames is not a simulation. Flames wants a plausible result, achieved without tables upon tables, featuring beautiful models. It really is the 40k of WW2 wargaming.

Scale is off, and 6mm really would be better than 15mm for model:ground scale on most gameboards. But Flames looks good and it's popular. So there are opponents for Flames, vs a technically superior 6mm game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
f s
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Flames wants a plausible result, achieved without tables upon tables, featuring beautiful models. It really is the 40k of WW2 wargaming.


I do not think that these two sentences go well with each other.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G G
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The plausible refers to the result of various tactical efforts.

The 40k refers to the prettier, oversized miniatures that are 3x to 10x ground scale.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
United States
Ennis
Montana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dutchy124 wrote:
As you put it, ''Too many hoops to jump through'' is why I ditched FOW a few years ago.

I play Bolt Action for skirmish games, Blitzkrieg Commander ll for larger sized games and am eagerly awaiting Chain Of Command from www.toofatlardies.co.uk for another skirmish rule set.



Hi Clive,

How is Blitzkrieg Commander? I've been trying to read up on it but haven't found a ton of ingo.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg
United States
Lowell
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sergeants Miniatures Game is great fun for squad based action, and no dice
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jorge sancho
Spain
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mb
I am a WH40K veteran player and current FOW gamer and there arent really that many similarities between both game systems apart from the fact both use a good amount of D6.

Shooting is quite a viable way of killing things but dug in infantry is particularly tough (seems reasonable and historical) and you need to do it in a tactically efficient manner (using a template weapon against a single enemy team is not smart move), pinning usually has an important effect on troops that need to advance or if you are going to assault an enemy position (even doe you cannot "pin" to death an enemy position).

As too scale well FOW is very flexible... if you dont like the look of a "standard" 1500 points army in a 120cm x 180cm table simply pick smaller forces (FOW plays perfectly well at 1000 points for instance) or use a bigger table (the system supports bigger surfaces perfectly well).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Suns Anvil
Canada
Fredericton
New Brunswick
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Hope you don't mind my reviving an old thread...

I'm just getting acquainted with FoW myself (in the middle of painting the Open Fire set), and yea, it seems like an awful lot of D6'ing, almost excessive versus the level of combat detail (ie, not much).

Its also somewhat jarring (as an ASLSK player) to be told that 32 soldiers have to stick together and are treated as a single target.

I watched the Open Fire game vid from battlefont, and it honestly seemed like a lot of "I shoot at you....now you shoot at me....now I shoot at you...", with each of those shots being "yes, I hit you!" followed by "no you didnt" saves.

I really want to like this game (a proper play through will have to wait until I'm done painting), but I'm not very hopeful at this point and am already looking for alternative rules I might use these minis with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
sunsanvil wrote:

I really want to like this game (a proper play through will have to wait until I'm done painting), but I'm not very hopeful at this point and am already looking for alternative rules I might use these minis with.


It doesn't sound like you really want to like the game. FoW has strengths and weaknesses, both as a game and a simulation. The strengths are more obvious in friendly play:

1. It plays fast.
2. It is entirely scenario based (just ignore the first free for all scenario) which means at least one side has to be moving.
3. Tactical errors are punished hard (a bad defence is easily over-run, a poorly thought out assault easily repulsed).
4. Broadly historical tactics work in broadly historical match-ups.

On the downside:

1. Like all points-based games it tends to match up a lot more armour and elite troops than reality.
2. The rules are clear but their effect is not obvious so follow them as written - do not cut corners or odd things happen (or odder).
3. The inverse of 4 is that unhistorical match-ups do not produce historical results. If you stick two elite companies of 1750 points that were only vaguely associated by date on the same table you are not going to see historical tactics.
4. Scale is a bit off, unit density tends to be too high, and artillery is too often deployed on the front lines, but these are relatively minor niggles that are all sort-of related.

Overall it is a good wargame and it is an okay company-level representation of WWII.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.