Fistful of TOWs Rule Review

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 11 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ •

  • @RealTyBeard
    @RealTyBeard 6 років тому +76

    Gents, I appreciate your thoughtful review. I don’t have any real objections to any of the criticismsm though I watched it at the end of a long day. I reserve the right to comment further :).
    However, I’d like to explain why FFT3 doesn’t compare so well on “fluff”. We’re not a professional game company, so we chose to include EVERYTHING in one volume. A professional game company could extract a dozen or more $30+ books out of the material in FFT3. But they'd invest a substantial amount of time and money doing so.
    Paul and I consciously chose to expend our limited time on the rules, not "fluff". I don't deride fluff at all - believe me, I'd LOVE to see FFT3 done up like Team Yankee. I don’t play Team Yankee, but I bought the book because it’s gorgeous. I even recommended it on the FFT Yahoo Group for that reason. And as an aside, huge kudos to Battlefront. They almost single-handedly saved historical gaming. While Flames of War isn’t the game I want to play,* I can’t say enough good things about Battlefront.
    Also, once we decided to put everything in a single volume, we knew that volume would be huge. Adding fluff would have added a significant number of pages or made us go to a smaller font size, which we categorically refuse to do.
    *Paul and I designed FFT to be the game we want to play, so of course we prefer it. I’m delighted that others enjoy it too.
    Paul and I also enthusiastically engage with players on the Yahoo group and on the Facebook page. Maybe designers do that a lot more these days, but in the early oughts, that was quite unusual. And several significant refinements started out as critiques by players. We are happy to explain why we made the decisions we did, suggest alternatives, discuss options we considered, etc.
    Anyhow, I'm really glad you enjoy the game.

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  6 років тому +21

      We are big fans here at the club! Been playing it for years and always loved it. Historical fluff and chrome is fun, but not as a substitute for speed of play, innovative design, and ease of learning for new players. FFT3 really nails those elements.

    • @EricAlainDufresne
      @EricAlainDufresne 4 роки тому +2

      Is it me, or is WW1 armor missing, other than the French Renaults?

    • @keithflint7243
      @keithflint7243 3 роки тому +1

      Ty, your comments about fluff are spot on. And obviously adding it to a book the size of FFT would be daft, so the criticism doesn't stand up. As for Battlefront 'single-handedly saving historical gaming', allow me to respectfully say that that makes no sense at all. I've been wargaming historically in a variety of periods for over 40 years and no one has ever said that to me - mainly because it isn't true! BF are just another company making a buck, and are irrelevant to whether historical gaming survives or not. This is a grass roots hobby that will save itself if such a thing is ever required.

    • @johnkeith2767
      @johnkeith2767 2 роки тому

      Is this rule set still being published? I would like to purchase it.

    • @doncygan3067
      @doncygan3067 2 роки тому +2

      Ty -- never fear! Just to prove that fluff and shine are not as important to many of us over a good set of playable rules, I am purchasing this ruleset right away after watching this review. In addition, our club loves your rules and swears by them. Can't beat those endorsements! Thanks for doing what you do.

  • @adrianbenson2521
    @adrianbenson2521 5 років тому +24

    I bought FFT3 based on my sudden, burning desire to play large scale WWII games in 6mm, so this review was timely for me and I purchased the hardbound edition based largely on your review. So, well done. I'm very happy with the decision.
    I would add a few points. First while $65 ($57 for the spiral bound) is a horrifying price for a rule book, you have to consider what you get. Which is almost everything. The tables of organization and equipment data lists are very nearly comprehensive for the period from WWII through 2015. Nearly any other publisher would give you the rules and maybe some starter lists, after which you would need to purchase supplements for the additional forces you might be interested in. Looking at it that way and assuming you are interested in the entire period covered, you're actually saving some money with FFT3 since you only need to make one purchase.
    The only negative thing I would mention, and I feel a bit like a troll doing so given the extensive OOB's available, is that to my mind there are 2 glaring omissions. First, while the authors include data for the USMC for the WWII period, there is no data for Japan. So, who are your Marines fighting? Second, there is no data for WWII Italians. If you want to do North Africa in WWII, you need Italians. I've done some cursory Googling to see if supplemental lists were available anywhere but they don't seem to be. You could argue that FFT3 is a game geared toward large scale armored combat which the war in the Pacific was definitely not and explain the absence of the Japanese that way, but not the Italians.
    That said, the authors included copious design notes, including a section specifically geared toward modifying existing and creating new units to fit into the game. So with that information and a good bit of research you can add anything that's missing on your own. Depending on your temperament, that kind of exercise can be fun or not. I sort of enjoy it, so I'm okay but I'm sure others won't be.
    I appreciate the excellent review and look forward to more of the same.

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  5 років тому +9

      Glad to hear you took the plunge, Adrian. It's a large, expensive book but you're absolute right about "getting everything." When you buy FFT3 you won't need to worry about buying more supplements or getting nickel and dimed for additional content. It's all-inclusive. We don't do a lot of Pacific gaming at the division level, so I never even noticed your point about Japanese data.

  • @deathguarddavegoogley2022
    @deathguarddavegoogley2022 6 років тому +26

    I suppose you need to take into account the fact that some gaming rules are supported by big publishing houses or wargaming companies and other game rules are just produced by a couple of normal joes using a home computer. Good review!

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  6 років тому +13

      Very true. The rule-writing community is heavily populated by sole proprietors and guys who just do this as a hobby. Obviously the level of support they're going to be able to offer won't compare to a Warlord, a Battlefront, or another big shop. That's partly why we only consider this as 10% of the overall score...it's a tough one to compare apples-to-apples.

  • @jeffhess4650
    @jeffhess4650 5 років тому +12

    This is the first set of rules I watched here where I'm excited to make a purchase. Cheers!

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  5 років тому +2

      This is a great one. FFT3 has long been a favorite around here for its speed of play.

  • @B.Huntley_Sharpe
    @B.Huntley_Sharpe 5 років тому +30

    Nuclear warfare rules:
    1. Soak table in gasoline.
    2. Toss on lit match.

    • @ronin47-ThorstenFrank
      @ronin47-ThorstenFrank 5 років тому +5

      There´s the legend that exactly this was in the rules for the game NATO. I think SJG´s Murphy´s Rules mentioned it.

    • @Derpy-qg9hn
      @Derpy-qg9hn 3 роки тому

      The thing about FFT3, though, is.. it specifically criticizes this mentality. Militaries did not seriously expect another all-out war to go nukeless or chemical-less, and it has legitimate, if simple and short, rules for the employment of these weapons.

  • @scottmacphee35
    @scottmacphee35 6 років тому +4

    That's another great review, fellas. And it's another rules set you have convinced me to try.

  • @DE-rd1zl
    @DE-rd1zl 6 років тому +20

    Not a bad review that's for sure. When compared to GHQ WWII and Spearhead, FFT3 is faster. There is no need for actual Command stands to be on the board...as the authors state, YOU are the commander. Artillery is a little confusing at the start, but it's very easy as well. Same with combat for taking towns...can be a little confusing at first. Overall, I've been play FFT since it was FFT2 back in about 2001...now FFT3. It's a good set. Just don't get overwhelmed by the size of the book. It's got ALOT of info in it. Doug

  • @keithflint7243
    @keithflint7243 3 роки тому +3

    Just goes to show how wargamer's preferences can vary. Well done to the FFT authors in making a free download of a simplified set of these rules available. I looked through them and didn't really like the rules at all - the firing, for example, seemed a bit over-complex to me, so the full rules definitely wouldn't suit me. And the thought of a rulebook over 400 pages long just scares me off. A divisional-level game in 2 hours? All I can do is take my hat off to you guys. You must have bigger brains than me! Thanks for making this review available.

  • @fullmetall2008
    @fullmetall2008 6 років тому +2

    I would like if you guys would or like to review or use Jagpanzer 2. At this time I like that set for 6mm, but my group likes detail, but its fast play also. I like your reviews thanks again.

  • @levsharus5899
    @levsharus5899 5 років тому +2

    Rules of Engagement, will you, guy, are planning to review those too? Would be very exciting to see.

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  5 років тому +3

      I believe it's published by Great Escape Games, but we have not played it in the club yet. Would be happy to hear from others, like yourself, who have played it and have opinions on its strengths and weaknesses.

    • @levsharus5899
      @levsharus5899 5 років тому

      @@LittleWarsTV unfortunately I haven't played it myself. But I saw some reviews and battle reps. I want to see your review before I do because I like the way you do it and I trust your oppinion as a wargamer. I hear from internet reviews that the rules are good but the suppport leaves much to be desired. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36920/rules-engagement

  • @westernkeep99
    @westernkeep99 Рік тому +1

    Your review has inspired me to try FFT3 for Second World War. I would be curious to see your reviews of rules like: Spearhead, Command Decision IV and GHQ Micro Armor the Game? I have played those 3 sets and found things I like and don't like with all of them (although to be fair I played CDIII have not tried CDIV yet). I have bought the hard copy and don't think the criticism about the 400+ pages is fair, most of the material is equipment and TOE information. As a caparison just think how long the Flames of War rules would be if you included all the supplements they sell with weapons data and TOEs, probably over a 1,000 pages easily.

  • @battlebrotherariel2555
    @battlebrotherariel2555 4 роки тому +3

    So I've recently been itching to get into 6mm Moderns and was wondering if this was the best system for that? It seems like you guys really liked the game which is good but as you mentioned ww2 allot I wasn't sure if there was another popular system for moderns.

    • @Derpy-qg9hn
      @Derpy-qg9hn 3 роки тому +2

      FFT3 is the threequel to FFT2000, a ruleset explicitly built for modern combat - at least, modern at its time, which was late 90's to 2000. It's where the name comes from, seeing as TOW missiles weren't exactly screaming across Tobruk's scrubs.
      The current unit list includes, among others:
      2016 USA, Britain, Bundeswehr, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Sweden.. if you can name a NATO member or NATO-friendly country, it's probably here.
      2016 Russia, and all Soviet equipment preceeding it. Same with the above, too.
      2010 Chinese IFVs, and up to 2001 (iirc) Chinese MBTs. Similar cutoff dates for North Korean MBTs.
      American, British, Soviet (divvied up into the three readiness levels that the USSR itself sorted them into!) and more infantry up to the modern day. Some nations are sorely lacking in infantry; if you wish to play, say, China, you'll have to agree with your foe what a "sensible equivalent" would be, and pick that as your basis.

  • @christopheranderson8046
    @christopheranderson8046 5 років тому +2

    Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't seem to figure out what miniatures are in use here and if there are a scale miniature that is universal to many of these rules systems. The link to the rulebook didn't lead me handily to the appropriate armies.

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  5 років тому +4

      The miniatures in this game are 6mm scale (microarmor), by Heroics & Ros. But you can play this game with 10mm or even 15mm miniatures.

  • @fedebogas6100
    @fedebogas6100 5 років тому +3

    Hi, thanks for the review. Couple of doubts: is it focused on mechanized warfare alone? I mean, can you play with infantry and no/few vehicles too? And does it allow for 1:1 games at the infantry level (1 miniature=1 man)? Regards

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  5 років тому +6

      Definitely NOT a rule system designed for 1 miniature = 1 man. There are plenty of games in that scale, but FFT3 isn't one of them. The game is geared toward the use of combined arms (vehicles, with infantry, plus support) but we've played a few infantry-centric games just to see how it works. And it worked very well in those games.

    • @fedebogas6100
      @fedebogas6100 5 років тому +1

      @@LittleWarsTV thanks for your quick reply! Are there any rule sets you would recommend for 6mm - 1 miniature = 1 man - ww2 games, that combine realism and playability, even for large numbers of infantry and vehicles?? I'm kind of lost, FFT3 seemed great in those regards... Thanks!

  • @robertschoolfield1869
    @robertschoolfield1869 11 місяців тому

    “Paradrop”. A wargamerism if ever there was one. Paratroopers jump.

  • @MrLigonater
    @MrLigonater 2 роки тому

    Woo! Go Jody Harmon with the Cover Art! I love that guy!

  • @dluff
    @dluff 6 років тому +4

    big fan of these rules since version 2 and fans of the rules have a very active Facebook so feel free to join us. Gaming the Cold War gone hot down here in Northern Virginia. Try the free version at fft3.com

  • @stevelille54
    @stevelille54 6 років тому +3

    Have you done any Batreps for these rules?

    • @stevehojnacki2836
      @stevehojnacki2836 6 років тому +1

      They did. Their reviews come after a game.

    • @stevelille54
      @stevelille54 6 років тому +1

      I cannot seem to find it 😕

    • @stevehojnacki2836
      @stevehojnacki2836 6 років тому +1

      @@stevelille54 ua-cam.com/video/GUpXo9i8K6U/v-deo.html

  • @militarywargaming7840
    @militarywargaming7840 6 років тому +2

    Good stuff lads

  • @redmist1122
    @redmist1122 6 років тому +5

    Wow...that's a pretty big rule booklet. Its those large books which tend to scare me off. Don't get me wrong, I like detailed rules and even the grand tactical sorts...but wow...this looks like an encyclopedia. But after your review and the time frame covered I can see why the book is large. Do you guys think these rules should be better broken down by conflict/period booklets of are you happy with a 100 year time span all in one book?

    • @DE-rd1zl
      @DE-rd1zl 6 років тому +3

      It does look like a large book, but if I remember correctly, you can either get the rules with WWII TO&E or the Modern TO&E, or both. If you like both eras, then the whole book is worth it.

    • @stevelille54
      @stevelille54 6 років тому +1

      redmist1122 most of the book is army lists and an absolutely huge list of vehicles/planes/infantry etc. The authors do go into quite a lot of explanation about each rule section and give examples of play 👍🏼

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  6 років тому +8

      I would honestly say the core rules you need to run a WW2 game are probably about 20 pages worth of the 470. I personally love the fact that instead of forcing you to buy a dozen little supplements, FFT3 just gives you everything you need, including mountains of reference material, in a single product. As a gamer, that's exactly what I want, but it's probably not as profitable as the GW/Warlord/Battlefront business model of dividing the content up into a series of books. The only complaint I have about FFT3 is that by trying to cover almost 100 years of mechanized warfare in a single set of rules, you do lose some historical flavor. That's the trade off.

    • @DE-rd1zl
      @DE-rd1zl 6 років тому

      @@LittleWarsTV - very good point.

    • @RealTyBeard
      @RealTyBeard 6 років тому +4

      If by "historical flavor" you mean special rules for (say) SS infantry or Russian penal battalions, I would agree that FFT3 lacks that. However, this was a conscious design decision. We wanted FFT to be *intuitive*. Rulesets with lots of special rules often turn into ugly ambushes of new players. And frankly, "exception-driven rules sets" seem sloppy to me. Also, we didn't really find any genuine need for such rules. Veteran or Elite WW2 Germans perform in FFT pretty much as you'd expect SS or veteran Wehrmacht units to perform on the battlefield. Special rules just weren't necessary.
      Or did I misunderstand what you meant by historical flavor?

  • @metalhammerwargaming
    @metalhammerwargaming Рік тому

    What do you think about about a modern Ukraine battle with FFT3?

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  Рік тому +1

      The rules would work great for that. We don't own many minis with modern equipment post 1991 (yet) for a big game like this!

  • @AyebeeMk2
    @AyebeeMk2 4 роки тому +3

    A set of rules the size of a telephone directory, 500 pages!....
    thats 500 pages....
    how many pages....

    • @percyblok6014
      @percyblok6014 2 роки тому

      Yeah, but it's not 500 pages oof rules. People are getting the book mass confused with rules complexity. Seems the authors tried to deliver a full course meal to fast food junkies.

  • @elconfederado69
    @elconfederado69 5 років тому +2

    I picked up a copy of FFT3 and much to my chagrin there are no WW2 Italian OOBs. Can anyone tell me where to find some basic Italian OOBs or what you do for Italian units? I'm planning a Winter 1942-43 Don River Front campaign and Tunisia 1943 campaign for this summer. Thanks!

    • @jrd33
      @jrd33 5 років тому +1

      If you have Spearhead or Command Decision rules, both include Italian OOBs at the right scale (1:5). Or do your own research, www.niehorster.org/019_italy/__italy.htm is a place to start.

    • @elconfederado69
      @elconfederado69 5 років тому

      @@jrd33 Perfect, thanks! I appreciate it.

    • @andrewjohnson7403
      @andrewjohnson7403 4 роки тому +1

      Dr. Niehorster's website may be of use.
      Italy
      www.niehorster.org/019_italy/__italy.htm
      Index Page by Country (43 countries)
      www.niehorster.org/000_admin/000oob.htm

  • @alexnelson7744
    @alexnelson7744 2 роки тому

    What ruleset would you recommend for wargaming Stalingrad?

    • @LittleWarsTV
      @LittleWarsTV  2 роки тому +1

      Depends on the scale you want to play. Do you want to command a squad? A platoon? A company? More? Company level is a nice representation for a lot of iconic Stalingrad actions. For that, we really like Fireball Forward in the club. If you want to upscale from there, a new game called O-Group is a lot of fun.

    • @alexnelson7744
      @alexnelson7744 2 роки тому

      @@LittleWarsTV I'm really trying to find urban combat games (I always think of Stalingrad as the epitome of urban combat, in WW2 at least).
      (By "company level", you mean each unit represents one company, correct? Or does the term mean a player commands exactly one company?)
      I'll look into Fireball Forward, and O-Group, that's a good next step. Thanks :)

  • @keijikun22
    @keijikun22 6 років тому +1

    Good review, thank you. I am taking a second look at the rules

  • @freezia0
    @freezia0 5 років тому +1

    Ty Beard himself made me come here
    ua-cam.com/video/ptRVzTQ58W4/v-deo.htmlm53s

  • @nicholaswalsh4462
    @nicholaswalsh4462 2 роки тому +2

    So I looked this up after watching this video and I learned something. In 2020, RAND Corporation, which does studies for military forces, released a paper in which they called this a sufficiently granular game with which they could wargame autonomous vehicles. If anyone is interested, here is the PDF.
    www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA400/RRA423-1/RAND_RRA423-1.pdf