Prev: Re: [GZG] Troop potential Next: Re: [GZG] Troop potential

[GZG] Changing topics again (FoW) Was: Re: FT Light: 5 is the new 6?

From: Indy <indy.kochte@g...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:55:19 -0400
Subject: [GZG] Changing topics again (FoW) Was: Re: FT Light: 5 is the new 6?

Gzg-l mailing list
Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Bill Brush <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Indy <> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > And then there's the "we didn't think of it, so we don't like being
> exposed
> > to it" attitude some groups tend to get. <shrug>
> I would say most groups have a certain amount of stagnation and they
> dislike being disturbed.

Yes, this is true, even amongst those with more open minds to things.
the ones with more open minds are willing to look at the change, not
it off wholesale without giving it any consideration.

> >>
> >> After that I went into historical gaming because no one calls the
> >> Germans "cheesy" because they have more heavily armored tanks, plus
> >> played American so the equipment is mediocre at best.  Now I'm
> >> retired from mini gaming, so things are much easier since the
> >> never complains that I'm not playing fair.
> >>
> > Hah! Have you played Flames of War?
> No, I have not heard good things about FoW.  From what little I've
> seen it's more like a historical-ish game which subscribes to the
> GW/40K business model of frequent updates, lots of books, and special
> rules.  In internet parlance it gets a TLDR from me.

Well, granted, the guys who do FoW came from the GW pastures, but I
they've done a good job at creating a historical game that plays well
getting mired down in the complexities that many other historical games
embrace. There are many books, but not as many as you might think. Yes,
have a "codex" of sorts, but you need an army book for the army(ies) you
want to field. You need to know what goes into them. They broke the war
into three phases and balanced things accordingly (insomuch as you can
point-balance to begin with). In this current edition (2nd; there has
been this one update to the rules, and it really makes them play better)
there are only two "codexes" for the mid-war (1942-1943) period - one to
cover all the armies in North Africa and Italy, and the other to cover
forces that battled on the East Front. When they introduced Late War,
made ONE "codex" with everyone's army force in it from Jan 1944 through
1944, except for the specialized Allied paras. They got their own book.
all books after this have been *theme* focused, not so "codex"-y. I.e.,
are not at all required to purchase every theme book that comes out. You
don't play paras? Don't buy the para book! Very simple. :-)

If you total up all the books, yes, there are a fair few, but I think
you do
the game an injustice and a disservice to do a direct compare to GW/40K.
Yes, there are aspects of GW/40K in the game, but it is *not* GW/40K
style. And yes, there are still some problems with the rules (no
or reaction fire, HMG teams for some reason can't move and shoot at a
reduced rate of fire, unlike everyone else), but I think the strengths
play, reasonable results) outweigh the drawbacks for a WWII game.

Oh, and yes, there are special rules for each army. Yeah, that's
BUT, I think it gives each army its own flavor, allows it to "do"
things that other armies may not or did not do. But, YMMV on this. But
games do have "special rules" for their various forces/armies, even if
don't *say* so specifically. For example, look at the NAC and FSE - the
don't use salvo missiles, for example, and the FSE don't use p-torps -
is kinda a special rule in FT. Yes, it's not a restrictive special rule,
more of an unspoken one amongst the players of FT. And yes, there will
exceptions, but for the *most* part, players won't put p-torps on FSE
and salvo missiles on NAC.

Anyway, I'd not write it off so quickly. You liked FT. It's a good,
fast-playing starship combat game that doesn't get bogged down in a tome
rules and ruleslawyering that, say, SFB does. I liked SFB quite a bit
I found FT. I would still like to play the occasional SFB game, but the
ruleslawyers daunt me and I just can't pick it back up again. :-/  So I
stick to FT, and use my SFB ships in that system. :-)

> >I have heard many people cry
> > "cheese!!!!" whenever a German player takes things like Hummels,
> Nashorns,
> > or heaven forbid, Ferdinands and Tigers (or King Tigers now). I've
> the
> > "cheese" cry in the groups I play with, but not very often. I hear
> more
> > in groups I don't play with.
> This is the kind of thing I have heard, and these are the kinds of
> incidents that would prevent me from ever playing it.    I prefer
> games based on historical forces and from what I understand with FoW
> those are a rarity.  Honestly though I have little patience with
> anyone who is going to complain about the person across the table from
> them.  Life is too short.

I've found FoW to be a refreshing game system for historicals on a
number of
levels. First, it plays fast and well. It gives you the opportunity to
reasonable forces that faced each other (you can do the one-off with
non-historical forces if you'd like, but I prefer not to and restrict
90% of
my FoW games to historical match-ups). You can do specific scenarios
happened in history with historical forces. Hey, I don't see the problem
with FoW here! :-)

As far as the people who cry 'cheese', I've seen it in FT, as well, as
you. If you can put filters on, ignore them, or heck don't even play
them, but find the good people to play with, you can play any game that
"cheese!" is cried in. With few exceptions to game systems, ofttimes I
the cheese-criers do so out of ignorance of how to deal with a
thing or situation, not out of any genuine "cheese" exploited in the

So, I'd personally say *try* FoW at some point before writing it off
wholesale. You *might* be surprised. Or you may decide you were right,
depending on the attitude you take to the game. <shrug> Again, YMMV, but
should at leave give a game system a fair shake before chucking it away.


Prev: Re: [GZG] Troop potential Next: Re: [GZG] Troop potential