Flames of War

[Falconander]

Hey,

For all of you waiting for different modules to come out, I thought this might hold you over. I came across this miniature game while hunting for some Warhammer items. It is called Flames of War and it is a miniature modeling game basd on WWII.

Here is one site for supplies:

[snip]

I watched them play some battles over the weekend and it looks pretty good. The miniatures are smaller than I'd like to paint but given the large scale of battles it makes sense.

Check it out and tell me what you think...

I figure for the modders in WWII it might help visualize some battles as well.

Cool stuff.....

[Sergei]

Do they come with options?

(Ah, couldn't resist... )

[TempV]

FoW is one of most successeful tabletop wargames, I'd say it's just after both of Warhammers and LOTR (all are GW products). One of reasons is a rather friendly game mechanic which is very similar to WH40K, but it is also due to Battlefront Miniatures (yeah, a fun coincidence ) smart marketing politics and good customer support. I think Flames of War is more popular even than DBA nowadays, thought I base my assumption on Western forums. Here in Russia it's almost unknown to wargamer public, people play mostly Warhammer stuff. Probably I'm one of few Russian FoW players. (Actually I doesn't play, just collect my Late War Soviet Tankovy Battalion).

Concerning the miniatures I can say they have superb quality and details for 15 mm scale. For those of you who know Forge World products I'd say FoW resin minies surpass them in quality terms, imho.

[Noltyboy]

WOW coincidence ive recently started playing this as well!!!

[Falconander]

Noltyboy,

What army do you play and how do you like it?

TempV,

Yes, isn't it uncanny that they are both made by a different Battlefront?

[Noltyboy]

Noltyboy,

What army do you play and how do you like it?

TempV,

Yes, isn't it uncanny that they are both made by a different Battlefront?

I play a late war british infantry company.

The rules seem well thought out and you can use your brain alot more than with WH40k to work with tactics. It also allows you to play at a much larger company level than the 40k platoon level.

The models are very detailed for there size but wont put to much hardship on a "noob" painter. Also not as expensive as 40k to start with.

My only problem is painting 125 british infantrymen is driving me crazy!!!

[Falconander]

My only problem is painting 125 british infantrymen is driving me crazy!!!

You aren't lying! That was the first thing I was thinking was undercoating and painting all of those little men. But the tanks, jeeps, planes and guns make it all worth while.

Plus one of the guys I watched had some snipers that looked awesome.

Not as costly as Warhammer, I've dropped over $1,000 playing that, but still will cost about $2-300 for the army I want. I am going to start with a small platoon that I should be able to field for about $20-40.

Amazing what people will spend money on, so those who complain about Combat Mission, you don't know the start of things.

Even such, miniatures are something that you can pass down to your kids and grandkids so it is well worth it.

.... I've been thinking about it and it is the first thing I am doing after work on Friday is to stop by the store and pickup some Airborne Infantry...

[Noltyboy]

Airborne Infantry...

Brit para's i hope!

[Falconander]

Brit para's i hope!

No such luck, can't play the Brits until I get the British modul for Combat Mission. It would be like opening up Christmas presents a day early.

I was with the Moat 'n Gators 1/508th in Panama, it was a sister battalion to the 82nd Airborne. So I am going with some US Paratroopers. I'll start with these guys and add a company with some snipers and mortars.

I see you are from Scotland. My family has history going back to the Campbells out of Argyll. Went to a Scottish festival awhile back and Clan Campbell was not well received. It was pretty cool, each clan came out of the woods carrying torches and gathered around a huge bonfire that they lit and sat around and drank and ate. My kids really loved that night.

As far as 40K goes, I played fantasy. I liekd the larger battle aspect so I imagine that is one thing that I will like about Flames of War.

You know playing FOM and Combat Mission at the same time will make me an authority on WWII battles in no time....

[Ellros]

The CM1x series are the closest computer games to Flames of War you will ever find. The Close Combat series is not the same, but CM is. You can literally make your tabletop force in a CM scenario. And CM is a good map-making reference for the tabletop.

Rob - old-time CM player and Flames of War playtester.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I've been interested in playing FoW for a few months now, but I'm going to have to wait until my six-month sojourn in Germany is over before actually being able to pick up any minis. Going to start with a Mid-war Brit Rifle Company.

[Ketil]

I've played WWII miniatures for many years.

FOW has done well due to a brilliant marketing campaign (credit where it is due) but there are many other sets of rules out there which in my opinion do a much better job at putting WWII on your tabletop.

Try:

Crossfire (best "feel" for tactical combat I've played, aimed mostly at infantry at the company or battalion level)

I Ain't Been Shot Mum! (good system from UK, lots of "friction", leaders matter)

Blitzkrieg Commander (1 stand=1 platoon, based on GW's Warmaster rules but it works)

Nuts! (excellent skirmish rules)

Poor Bloody Infantry (grid based tactical level, lots of fun)

Stargrunt II (sci fi but easy to translate to WWII and a damn fine game)

Fast and Dirty (another good low level game)

Next up for me is Force on Force by the guys that wrote Ambush Alley.

More info than you can shake a stick at over at www.theminiaturespage.com

[Ellros]

I've played WWII miniatures for many years.

FOW has done well due to a brilliant marketing campaign (credit where it is due) but there are many other sets of rules out there which in my opinion do a much better job at putting WWII on your tabletop.

Which is why FoW is marketed as a GAME, not a SIMULATION.

It gets historical results, even though the method and mechanics of getting those results is not as realistic as a simulation. FoW was never meant to be a simulation, and it doesn't try to be.

FoW was also designed as a tournament-capable game system able of being played in 2-3 hours for a typical game.

And most people know... FoW + TMP = disaster. The grogs on TMP hate FoW with a passion, because they are pure simulation players and cannot get their heads around the idea that FoW is a GAME.

[Dave H]

The CM1x series are the closest computer games to Flames of War you will ever find. The Close Combat series is not the same, but CM is. You can literally make your tabletop force in a CM scenario. And CM is a good map-making reference for the tabletop.

Rob - old-time CM player and Flames of War playtester.

CM and FoW are similar only as far as the units go. Once the game starts similarities end. Successful tactics in CM don't work in FoW because historical accuracy is irrelevant. Tactics that work in FoW because of super powers like the Truscott Trot and Tiger Ace are impossible in CM.

FoW and CM are both set in WW2. There are no other similarities. I tried it once and got a good laugh at the rules and the national modifiers.

[JonS]

I tried it once and got a good laugh at the rules and the national modifiers.

I've not played FoW, but the research behind it has impressed me. There are some pretty good articles and , er, what do they call them? Intelligence Summaries? on various units and aspects avalable on the FoW website. It seems like they added some interesting chrome (Truscott Trot, etc) which might be seen as cute and historically questionable, but does make the game interesting.

IIRC, the biggest, most fundamental issue with FoW as a sim is that the phasing player moves then attacks, which means that the attacker in a scen can quickly close with and fire from close range at the defenders. This completely overturns 'normal' games, were the defender is the first to fire at close range (i.e., after the attacker has moved). On the other hand, that single change apparently makes for far more fun gaming, since moving and attacking is viable. Thrust, counter thrust, mobility, etc.

As I said, though, I don't play it. But I do like the models I'm in the - long winded - process of putting together a complete 25-pr battery (8 guns, 12 quads and limbers, several carriers, half a dozen jeeps, some motorbikes, and *scads* of 3-ton and 15cwt trucks). The painting is a bit daunting though

[Ketil]

Heh, I like a lot of their models as well. I have nearly a thousand infantry from Battlefront NZ, two companies each of US, Brits and Germans for NWE 44-45 and a company each of Brit and US Airborne and a company of Brits for Africa. And a bunch of vehicles.

I just play other rules with them.

[JoMac]

I have also played WWII Miniature Table-Top Wargames for many years.

Picked up FoW a few years ago, but found it odd as each vehicle didnt rep either 1:1 or a Platoon, but some inbetween scale like 2 or 3 vehicles equals a Platoon. The Rules are bascially designed as a game only for the newer generation of Miniature Wargamers. I still prefer miniature rules that came out in the 70s and into the 90s.

Basically there are 2 scales I like to play, WWII Micro-Armor, and 15 mm. I like Micro-Armor for large engagements where each vehicle reps a Platoon, and 15 mm for that 1:1 Skirmish level to play platoon to Company engagements.

[Clavicula_Nox]

How do you figure vehicles are off-scale? They are fine from the books I've been reading.

[JoMac]

Basically, one vehicle reps 2 or 3 actual vehicles ( which means you need 2 or 3 vehicles to rep a Platoon ) - one field piece reps 2 actual guns, However, I believe each stand of Inf still reps a Squad which is good.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Picked up FoW a few years ago, but found it odd as each vehicle didnt rep either 1:1 or a Platoon, but some inbetween scale like 2 or 3 vehicles equals a Platoon.

Don't think this is true, mate. Just took a look in my Afrika rulebook, and each platoon has between 3-5 tanks, depending on what army you're taking about. Seems right to me . . .

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Basically, one vehicle reps 2 or 3 actual vehicles - one field piece reps 2 actual guns, However, I believe each stand of Inf still reps a Squad which is good.

Again, don't think this is quite correct. One field piece as far as I can tell represents one field piece. Looking in my Afrika rulebook (again! ) I see that a British Royal Artillery battery has up to 8 25-pdr. guns, represented on a 1-1 ratio with models. Again, this seems right.

And I've got to nitpick a little here, but each stand of infantry represents a fireteam in most cases, so you usually have 2-3 fireteams per squad (i.e. 2-3 stands per squad, depending on what type of infantry it is).

[JoMac]

Field,

Ok, its been a long time since I looked at Fow.

You may be right about the field pieces reps 1:1, but they dont do that with vehicles. Wow, and the Inf are in fire-teams rather then squads, no wonder I thought FoW was odd.

If they just kept the traditional idea of 1:1 Veh/Field piece, and 1 Inf base reps a squad I might have liked it better.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

You may be right about the field pieces reps 1:1, but they dont do that with vehicles.

Umm, I'm looking at the rule book right now, and that's not true.

Page 20:

One miniature represents one soldier or vehicle.

So each vehicle model represents a vehicle, and each soldier model on the infantry stand represents an individual soldier. You usually end up with 4-5 soldiers per stand, making each infantry stand a fireteam, roughly. Not going to get much more 1:1 than that!

[Rob Ross]

Wishful thinking but:

is this a flame war over flames of war?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Wishful thinking but:

is this a flame war over flames of war?

Fortunately, not yet.