The tank clumping makes my head want to explode whenever i see it. I understand they do it to keep the required space down but i think it looks real dumb.
Every single time I see this game being played, it looks like two parking lots dueling across a crowded map. Pretty models, but where is the artillery to break up such clumps?
@@TonyLS9A it just depends on the playstyle, and since tanks are more effective more people use them. However I field a paratrooper army and they can counter tanks very well so I use more infantry.
There has always been something about the way FoW games looked (to me) that felt "off", but I couldn't put my finger on it....I think this is the problem I have....the tank "clumping".
It's been said that the great thing about Flames of War version 3 was that it had a rule for everything, but the bad thing was that it had a rule for everything. Version 4 is so much more streamlined, fun and playable, and the Hit The Beach starter set is by far the best value starter set for any game, bar none. Excellent review of a great game, thanks!
Great reaction and review. They became a historical miniatures company modeled after GW. Originally they were more historically oriented in version 1 rules. They fired tons of local people. Saying the new factory in south east asia would lower prices, they instead raised prices. They got rid of the forum because the fans called them on every broken promise. I worked for them as a freelance proofreader on the 2nd Edition and on some of the 2nd Ed. scenario and theater books. My name is in the credits on the books I worked on. Hard back and Soft Cover. Phil writes some very elegant and simple rules systems. He was always fun to work with. Management above Phil on the other hand was a different story. Flames of War is the beer and pretzels of WW2 miniatures designed to play on a kitchen table. Phil once told me its the Hollywood Movie version of a battle. None of the dry tedium, all of the action. There is no scale in this game for a reason. The measurements for movement and shooting and the area effects are based on movement and initiative. Meaning attempting to get historical results when opposing weapon systems meet and maneuver against each other. How would a Sherman do vs an 88 in the open. How many turns does the Sherman have to face German Fire until it can fire back. How does infantry do vs a tank. How do they assault it. Etc. The movements and ranges were such that you should get a mostly historical and predictable result. But the game has dice so its a crap shoot. :) Thanks for sharing the review. I doubt I will buy 4th edition since I am now disabled and just cannot play anymore. But we played many, many large historical battles. Some with as many as 20 tables. DDay, Anzio, Palermo, Encirclement of Kiev, Breakout from Stalingrad. So many more. It was a very fun time. The person that drove the historical games was a man named Terry Leaf. Amazing historian and vet. We found that the way to build a gaming group was to be at the store every weekend and have games going and just be willing to share information about the game. Do painting workshops, do terrain workshops. Show how to play the game. The simple things. Show how to get a cheap force. Don't be paint snobs, bare metal works until they get them painted. Anything to play the hobby forward. We had older players, younger players, both sexes and lots and lots of different backgrounds and cultures. We played all eras of the war. I personally appreciate early and mid war better. But most players we found want the Tigers and Panthers and Stalins, oh my. Chris
One of our club members was a big fan of these rules and I played a couple of games with either first and/or second edition. I found the lack of over watch fire and the Romulan Cloaking system of U. S. tank destroyer units hurt the game play. Another friend was able to drive a platoon of Stuarts around a bend in the road, straight down the road at a platoon of STGs coming in the other direction, go off road, pass the bog test, drive along the side of the STGs, then fire on them and destroy them. It was also necessary to play offensively as playing defensive tactics didn't work. I have seen the "parking lot" syndrome with other rule sets when players use too many units for the game area. Normally a platoon would operate on a minimum frontage of 100m in a concentrated attack and a much larger frontage when defending or less concentrated attack The scaling effect of tank vs infantry fire ranges in FOW adds to the clumping affect. Our club member has moved on to a different set of rules and other than some tournaments I have not seen any games at the local conventions. It was fun to play, but at the time and even now there are other rules that are more historical, play better, and the overall cost was and is less.
I played FoW once but found it that the game was very unrealistic because it is set up for tournaments. I found so many unrealistic unit builds that players created to win a game. Not for historical gamers
I love flames of war and the direction they are heading. I had a great group in upstate new York but since moving to jacksonville Florida its been hard to find regular games.
@@LittleWarsTV Have heard about all the rules you have reviewed except one and find it handy to get an opinion on whether to purchase etc if interested in the period. Think everyone knows Flames of war and Bolt action so already have an opinion... No one at my club likes Bolt Action. Keep up the Great work really enjoy your videos ... while I paint!
Welcome to the hobby! Wargaming is, indeed, extremely fun and you picked an excellent introductory game to get into the hobby. Many players, including a few here at our club, first started historical wargaming with Flames of War.
@@CJ_esc.artist Mixed 3-2-1basing is a pretty good compromise for systems that includes individual casualty removal. You can play the maths on KIAs whilst not having to move every single figure individually.
I agree about Battlegroup. I played two games of V4 prepping for a tournament and thought, I have to find a new ruleset. I used what I won at the tournament to buy the Battlegroup ruleset and have been hooked ever since. It has become my favorite rule set, period.
Chain of Command is my chosen poison for a very similar reason. Battlegroup's rulebook was really confusing to me, personally, and they don't really have any plans to do anything earlier than Kursk, so that kind blew for me
@@rileyosteen6470 Battlegroup do Poland and fall of France- how much earlier do you want to go with WW2? (and Barbarossa and Torch and Tobruk and post Kursk too)
I have played all of the versions as it is a staple at my club, while it is not my preferred WWII game, I am glad it exists as I love both the miniatures and that it has been an entry point for many new historical gamers.
I will echo that most of the veteran historical gamers in my area see FoW as a mass-tank entry game that doesn't scratch our historical itch. Yes, the tanks and minis are good and we happily use them for other rule sets. The company is also laudable as it does a good job with support to for newbies who probably started in GW and want to try something more historical. I'll be more interested when you critique Bolt Action later this season.
Recently purchased the Desert Rats and Afrika Corps sets. Spent much time searching online for point lists, model variant notes, etc, before finally purchasing. Really hard to find details to set up an even game. The starter sets are not equal in points, and only after you buy them can you determine what you really need (Call it high start up threshold). Once I built all the models (16 tanks and 4 guns), was able to play, rather one-sided, and after playing 4 games in an afternoon trying to figure out the rules (kept thinking the rules should be more complicated), we decided it is a good game with simple-to-learn, simple-to-play rules. Looking forward to adding more to the game. BTW, thanks for reviewing FOW, hope you keep reviewing other well known games. Looking forward to the Warhammer 40K review.
Good to have you guys review this game, and enough time has passed since V4 was released 2 years ago to have a clear idea of how this version has played out. There was a lot of controversy at the time. The streamlining of the rules put a lot of established players off. Battlefront do make some great products, and your review did touch on some of the continuing issues like lack of overwatch, Ugo/Igo turn sequence, morale and so on. My area has moved away from Flames to concentrate on Team Yankee. I would enjoy seeing your take on that game, particularly as the new V2 rules bring it in to line with Flames of War V4.
Dave ran a big Team Yankee Iran-Iraq game at the last convention with the Oil Wars supplement. We've played in the club and it's on our radar for further attention on the channel.
Started playing Flames with second edition. I still like to play with my son and nephew, as we all played together for 8 years since v2. However, I am now playing mostly Battlegroup with a bunch of guys locally and I can still use my Flames units. I agree, Flames is a great point of entry but for better historical accuracy Battlegroup is better. Cheers!
I am more taken with a variety of ancient and medieval rulesets, but after watching your great video on Battlegroup and PSC, I discovered their nice set of miniatures at what seems to me better pricing comparably. Glad you are still liking it. Plus PSC is carrying a line of plastic 15mm ancients and the latest rules for Mortem et Gloriam! Thanks for the videos! Slowly getting into Bolt Action and Konflikt 47 for now, but smaller scale seems the way to go for larger battles. Ordering the Battlegroup basic ruleset this week in fact.
I’m gonna be getting this game soon when the SS Waffen units and book drops. I already own the Team Yankee WW3 book, which I hope you glance over at some point
I'm not sure anyone has touched on the hobby aspect of this game. I grew up building 1/72 scale WWII aircraft kits, and it was a fun hobby for me. Flames of War allows me to combine model building as a hobby, with board gaming, with my huge interest in history. As a hobby game, FoW is great, in my opinion.
Well said. Rules aside, Battlefront has done an incredible job with the hobby aspect of FOW, including all the beautifully sculpted miniatures. We use their miniatures for many, many other WW2 games in addition to FOW.
Notice how you don't see FOW or BA at our historical convention except to host their tournaments. Historicon 2019 I didn't see a BA/FOW game out of the 300+ games on the gaming floors.
It seems interesting enough, but I think it would work better with 6mm-scale instead of 15mm. There's a FoW group near me, but they gather only on the days that I have to work.
Absolutely, yes. A smaller miniature scale helps get rid of the "tank parking lot" syndrome. I've seen a number of players running FOW at conventions in 6mm scale and visually it looks much better!
I believe Flames V4 is getting Pacific Theater rules in the summer of 2022? Battlefront had a timeline they posted somewhere that informed as much, but their online presence is confusing and their website has been crummy since December.
The tank clumping can happen but you can split up each unit into groups of 3-4 tanks and use them more in a more versatile way. There are also rules about splitting command and how 1/2 of each unit can split apart. But ultimately the game is great for adding your own rules and twists so if you wanted to remove the chain of command rule you can! I would very much recommend this game for beginners or anyone wanting to do simple large scale battles and it is brilliant for multiplayer and campaigns.
a rule system that I gladly don't play, so FoW 4.0 yet another company ripping of the gamer, as the two gent's have said, re boxing new / old model's, book's for book's for book's, it's so unrealistic having five tank's, H / track's so near each other.
I love FoW. It's the ONE wargame I always return to, after trying other stuff. I was a hopeful sceptic of V4 at first, but it won me over in no time. Fun and fast paced game!
When I first started it was described to me as a game about a movie about WWII. That being said, I love it and can’t get enough. This and Team Yankee brought me back into the hobby I left in high school and college. Now Dave you have to review Team Yankee V2!
In terms of actual WW2 combat, I definitely prefer Bolt Action for the very easy morale system and random order of action system (I still need to buy and read chain of command, the patrol phase, jump-off points, and battle flavor look like so much fun. Check out Tabletop CP for really good battle reports of that). In terms of large scale battle though, I can't think of a better simple system for a player joining the hobby. That being said, me and my friend are looking at adjusting bolt action so that we can have larger actions in 6mm scale probably.
It is a bit of nostalgic to find years later Phil Yates and Wayne Smith are making a living from when I first joined a war game club as a teen where I got to know them, time flies and how we drift.
And all I forgot to add the one reason we liked Bella group so well is there TO &Es are very accurate and very historical you’re not gonna have 15 tiger ones fender to fender and moving around like formed infantry
As far as clumping goes, don't think of it as a chain tethering your units together. They can move as far away from each other as they want, they just suffer minor penalties (such as +1 to hit) due to not being as easily controllable by the platoon leader. One could think of being IN COMMAND as being a benefit, rather than the opposite. Tank commanders that can't see where their units are can't really offer much in the way of sound tactical advice or up-to-date orders, even if they do happen to have a radio, which, as we all know, not all tanks did. If the tank platoon is within command range, it can coordinate more effectively. They will maneuver more tightly, coordinate fire, the tankers can rely on the platoon leader for more of the thinking and concentrate on serving targets, rather than watching their every flank and maneuvering more desperately, just as an in-universe example. So, you can choose to have your units operate wide apart with a slight penalty due to lack of C and C and open flanks/more risky solo maneuvering, or your units can operate in a tightly-grouped strike formation with the drawback of being clumped for easier targeting by artillery, etc but with a better chance to hit their target with massed/coordinated fire. The real-life-human commanders all choosing the latter is hardly the fault of the FoW rules, in my opinion. Besides, you don't even get a drawback if you don't move the unit while it's out of command. I often leave mortar and MG teams behind on the field in key spots and advance the infantry platoons away without them. The units hit normally as long as they don't move that turn. No big deal.
i love the idea of this game, but the parking lot effect kills the immersion for me. All the games i watch are like a mob of tanks rolling around the battlefield in massive blobs that just seem to mash head on. It has a big disconnect between the theme, terrain, and tactics. Always kept me away from the game.
This is the one issue more than any to why I don't play this game. I haven't played it but seen many UA-cam matches and that's exactly what you see, a mob of Panther tanks versus a mob of other tanks or AT SPGs. Just unappealing to me.
Warhammer WWII. I painted two armies before playing the rules and was bitterly disappointed. The game system was obviously designed to sell as many figures as possible while having 0% to do with anything associated with WWII. It is a joke if you think this is a WWII wargame. Use the minis to play ANY other set of rules for a more realistic experience.
V4 intel has so many problems that I’ve gone to strictly using V3. Fortress Europe is a complete waist of money. The cards just clutter up the table. Totally a beer and pretzels game any more. Review Battlegroup that’s where I’m heading.
That moronic "Last Man Standing" rule utterly neutering expensive elite units compared to cheap mass units was the deal breaker for me. How that stupidity got past the drawing table stage is beyond me. v3 all the way and back! Or Battlegroup, that is even better.
"Be professional," advice of the year. I agree with you guys, FoW is great! It's my 'primary' WW2 set, with Blitzkrieg Commander in 3mm there to handle larger scale battles (as well as stuff like Khalkin Gol and the Spanish Civil War).
I think the "growing the hobby" props should go to FOW and BF miles more than it should go to star wars legion. I'm surprised that was featured first instead.
A good review and can concur. That said v4 has become too reductive in my opinion and alas too tournament heavy with too much emphasis on tanks. There were many who didn’t tourney with it and this is an important fact which is overlooked. Moreover, one must be very careful when tinkering with history that you don’t create distortion in the minds of new budding historians per se. Hence again not very historical in so many aspects but if it gets kids playing that’s a great. A game first and foremost as you state and not a wargame per se, but have to say it was very inspirational to us based on the earlier versions and like many historical players v4 didn’t go down well because it was seen as a cash grab and this caused a huge number to leave Fow and ironically these were the big spenders when many of the kids have a more limited budget. I think a compromise should have been considered and perhaps they should have made v4 a pure tournament system and also provided a more historical system to complement all their player base but hey ho understand their commercial position. We didn’t abandon the earlier concepts but decided to be inspired by some rubrics and that lead us to develop a highly more historical wargame system to fight ww2 on youtube. I have always said Bf need to be given more credit for their earlier work but I have to say a tad saddened it has become a warhammer like cash cow now but as you said your points are entirely well made. Ultimately it’s horses for courses but I do think after a few games interest appears to be waning as you say , head to head play doesn’t tax wargamers or players so to speak and isn’t historical really and perhaps this is why there has been a fall off. Ultimately everyone has an opinion and people should always do what they enjoy and we love what we have developed from playing the older systems and still support the earlier old school players in historical wargaming using Fow. In the past it was for wargamer and gamer alike alas not so now but as we say rules are guidelines really and it’s what you do with what you create that counts ua-cam.com/video/aBRrltJCh-o/v-deo.html
The most affordable way to get a rulebook is to ask ANYONE who plays FoW, who's bound to have several of them. I got into FoW a week ago and already have three. :D
Although I'm definitely not a fan of the rules (tank parking lots, no command system, the morale rules, on table heavy artillery, no opportunity fire/overwatch) I must admit they do a wonderful job of being highly accessible to new players, both in the rules and in the figure packaging. Then as players build their FoW collections, they discover that their armies can be used for other rules! One of the joys of historical gaming - can't copyright historical figures. One thing struck me as odd in the review. It was mentioned that they are somewhat bland as they attempt to cover all of WW2. I'm having trouble thinking of any competing rules that DON'T cover all of WW2. What stand alone rules focus exclusively on North Africa or the Eastern Front? And I'm not counting rules that offer supplements or theatre books that go in more detail for that specific period, because FoW and a lot of other rules obviously do that. I just can't think a miniature set of rules that goes that specific.
When compared to Squad Leader which also does company level actions the 2 games seem to be representing completely different things. The former is tactically rewarding while the latter has mega blobs charging each other as there isn't enough room on the table to do anything else. Also, rolling dozens of dice at once (over 40 in some cases) is a sign of pretty poor game design. If they had innovated instead of cloning GW rulesets it could have been much better. What needs fixing? Plenty, but for starters get rid of aircraft and most artillery on table. Allow defensive fire as units move, a better way of treating 30 stand platoons than exists currently and much more.
I think FOW is a fantastic set of rules...its certainly the best set of WW2 rules I've ever played. It IS rather "gamey" - particularly this latest V4 iteration, but as you reviewed, it is designed to be accessible for new players, and it most definitely is that. I agree that you always get a good game from FOW. Always. Even if the scores are not particularly even, they almost never reflect on how close a game was. I do think the points system has lost definition. In order to make certain elements playable and fit into the points systems, very optimistic interpretations of the capabilities of some equipment has been made, especially at the lower end.
Great review guys (as always!). I agree that FoW4 is a bit bland, but as you pointed out, it does exactly what it set out to do and it's "let's roll fistfuls of dice" mechanic is a great vehicle for attracting players who are otherwise only familiar with GW products to historical gaming.
Some good mechanics in FoW and very accessible but troops tend to be deployed in Napoleonics ‘blocks’ which doesn’t look or feel right to me tbh. 40k meets ww2 imho. Saying that, a lot of people seem to like the game.
Bought the first version rules. Didn't do anything for me. I quickly realized how it was designed to continually try to milk me for $ with the continuing changing supplements and versions. Didn't like the lack of Opp Fire. Also didn't like the "chrome" - LOADS of different special rules for every nationality (which as noted in the video, you have to memorize - yours and your opponents - to be effective). I thought it really jumped the shark with the teleporting U.S. TDs. Best quote I read about FOW: It is a game using WWII miniatures, it is not a WWII game.
Thanks for that review, I like FoW a lot, but there is nearly no support for Early War. Due to the streamlining much of the units flavour is gone and with the new point system is more unbalanced. Nevertheless a good game and cool ruleset, but it had been better with only minor changes to V3.
What always irkes me about Flames of war: it seems so tank/vehicle heavy. WW2 was mostly a infantry war, and I see soo many tanks in FoW. Thats what I like more in Bolt Action.
So back in the day of first edition, I was told Flames of War is the Warhammer40k of WW2. With the streamlining over time, do you think complexity has lowered compared to 40k?
No. FOW has always been on the simple side compared to other wargames set in WW2 ( more play, less reading the rules, which some gamers love). I have played 40k on and off for years and the complexity is lower, but different.
What bob said and what the guys said. Once you understand the basic ruleset, the quick guide sheets maximize time in game. On top of that, you have the unit cards, so when you forget what you’re hitting a unit on, or are being hit on, they’re there at hand. It’s all pretty streamlined now in v.4 and it’s quite easy to pick up and play.
I always considered Bolt Action the light historical entry game, with Flames of War being another degree more difficult. Do you think their fairly similar with complexity?
I played quite a lot of FoW v4 games and must disagree. At least in Late War the Infantry got a big boost in getting good anti tank weapons and are now almost unshiftable from an objective by an all out armored enemy. For Mid War you are right though (in my oppinion at least)
It’s not so much the actual rules but the way they just sit there in a big block. I have been told there are a couple of systems out there where infantry are more than just counters.
I played version 2 and 3 only using German infantry companies. For several years, they remained competitive in all three phases of the war. In LW, as the last campaign books were released, they became impossible to use against US infantry that had every option available or first strike US armor lists that were both ideal dreams for min/max power gamers to use. Version 4 defenders will point to German Panzerfaust usage as the great equalizer against Allied armor but it simply is not the case. In scenarios that require mobility, German infantry just get mown down by quick strike armor.
@@markcole5108 I field an allied paratrooper army so my guys are better equipped against tanks but, the best way for infantry to fend off tanks is by giving them anti tank artillery, that is vital. Also counterassaults are the only way to fight tanks straight up as infantry.
@@granapriego that is true but it is the nature of the game since it is more large scale you are supposed to kind of imagine that your infantry are in foxhole, and behind trees and stuff like that.
Social media cannot replace the forums. All you get is a scrolling mess of one liner answers with very little thought involved in the answer. I miss the forums tremendously.
Agreed 100%! Searching for information was always so much easier with the old forum system. Now everything just gets buried by new posts. It happens on Twitter, Facebook, UA-cam, or any platform.
Thank you very much for doing this review I was a big version one player but fell out of interest with it when it just got too complicated and we didn’t really get a good feel of what was going on the battlefield we did get into battle group series very heavily and that is our go to game of choice now besides Bolt action can you do a review on the battle group series it is a very good game I had a great Sadie mechanism into the mix and overall very very fun thanks guys love your channel
My friends and I play V4 but have nostalgia for v3 Not necessarily for complexity but for logistical units, and some more immersive play We're going through v3 and making a house rule set that will adjust for that Using old V3 armies and special rules, Bogged down vehicles and recovery vehicles Using smoke and wind factor Ect. I see the value in simplified targeting, allocation, the cards are great for quick reference And we tend to play on a couple 6x8 -10 tables so using old unarmored trucks and jeeps are necessary Especially since I saw your brandywine game, we gave using the "off table movent" to create flanking and reserve immersive reinforcements What we need to figure out is the balance of using cards vs old rules and it's easy enough to find a similar card or make a judgement call
@@granttar1981 we mainly use the V3 main rule book My friend and I use the V3 army books or campaign books but allow anyone new to use the v4 cards for ease of play House rules we tend to use are Unit coherency listed is for squad coherency And then it's doubled for the actual FOW unit Platoon or company depending on the army This by itself changes a lot And infantry armies feel more tactical Vehicles have to have A gap or 1/2 an inch or so between each other Lastly, a ton of research goes into each game And when I set up a game I come up with maps and references and we play on a very large board as is Each commander can use strategic flanking manuevers off board but depending on actual events will determine the outcome or time it takes Example, he was playing as the 12th ss and assaulting my British forces He decided to flank around the left side of the board but what he didn't know was commandos were actually in that AO And he had to roll off with me to see if they delayed his arrival The presence of roads or swamps ect. Gives the player a rough time frame on how many turns it takes to flank but stuff like paratroopers Bridges being taken out Flooded fields can surprise and delay further The host is the game usually does all the prep work We usually play much more then 6 turns, sometimes 10-12 Many turns being just movement, making all the trucks and towing vehicles from V3 very useful
@@granttar1981 forgot to say in my example we were fighting near Caen And actual british commandos were in that AO on DDay taking bridges on the Orne River
@@antonioaguilera616 okay thank you I would definitely look into the off board movements for sure, along with scenario rules. I just play with my father and we have some house rules going already. We also try to run historical armies using v3 if needed. We have not added things such as trucks and towing vehicles yet. We just got our first draft of added rules in which focused more on adding than revising. We started in V3 and often fall into those rules because we like them better.
I grew up on Panzer Leader, Squad Leader, Axis & Allies, and Starfleet Battles. Times have changed and so has the market demographics. FOW fills that niche perfectly for young gamers who don't have the attention span anymore for an overly complicated gaming experience. The D6 systems appeal to the younger generations as well as the ease of play. And when we're comparing the competition between video games and tabletop ones, that's saying a lot.
I enjoyed the Rules Review you guys put together. I like the categories as well. I think after watching all of your reviews, the key item missing is the ability to adapt to multi-player game play. Example for this game is designed for two players with a point system...not a fan of point systems BTW...to BA-ish. But what really grabs me for interests in a rule system is how does it handle multi-player. Most of us play games beyond with another person; but what about 3, 4, 7 players on club night? Again, thank you for the rules review.
Thanks, redmist. You make an excellent point about multi-player suitability. This is something we could do a better job discussing in the reviews and we'll try to remember to do so! Our club often has games with a minimum of 4 players, often even more.
I bought the starter box a few years ago. I was excited to play the game and I love the miniatures. I also bought several of the campaign/army books. What I truly dislike is that within only a few years they changed the rules twice. That seems to me to be a very GW thing to do. For the occasional player that is annoying.
I saw the models as an affordable way to get new players into WWII minis games. Then just use another system to run it. I liked that it was focused on the company level action. Trouble is the 15mm scale, while okay for a starter system, the 6mm volume of other manufacturers of vehicles, buildings and other supporting materials, not to mention the table surface better representing the 'actual' battlefield (not so much 'clumping' except for wrecks), makes this a non-starter for me.
I think this was going to be a tough rules to review because of the popularity and history there will dissenters and fanboys. If you have fun with this game then by all means play it, but I disagree with the historical flavor and the rules mechanics. 4th ed just got to water-down and un-flaverful that I don’t feel like I played a WW2 game afterwards, but more of a checkers version.
We had an active FOW group in my area before version 4 hit. All of the changes threw most of the long term players off. Afterwards, the group that played regularly splintered into 4 different rules sets, which usually no more than 2 people followed. Now our historical group has almost no steady WW2 activity. Numerous game options with a plethora of rules isn’t conducive for keeping an active player base.
the versions weren't much of a problem but individual books that totally tilted the balance. some armies simply couldnt be defeated no matter the level of your experience with the game. thats what really killed it in my community and nobody plays it anymore i dont know how v4 is but i dont think it will revive the interest. i hope it does but i dont believe it will...
I have played Bolt Action at GenCon. The battles reminded me of chess: two parallel lines facing each other. There was no maneuvering. Each piece was committed to fighting the opposing piece. Does this happen in FoW? WWII was a war of maneuver and breakthroughs. Games should be, too.
To be honest, vague basing has always been a turn-off for me with different rulesets. As a bit of a wargaming novice (and having remained so for years now, lol), I like specificity to help convince me to jump into things when I'm not sure about what I need and what I'm doing/getting into.
While Flames of War is a good game it has to be reiterated it is a very poor simulation of WW2, it is foremost a competitive "game". If you want better simulation of WW2 battles in platoon or company size there are far better ways to get that. It certainly is a good gateway game and really good for competitive play. I would never use Flames of War for scenario driven simulations. I also find Flames of War has a problem with scale, if you go company size the models should really be 6mm. Terrain look like platoon level skirmishes while the scale is suppose to be company level... it simply can put some players off from historical flavour.
Ive always loved history and had an interest in wargaming, but never really gotten proper into it and started with wargaming. until Team Yankee WW3 came along, then I found a game system that combined my two interests. it managed to hit that golden balance, where I got a feel of something based in history but without it been to weighted down by simulation. a Rule system that did not have a steep learning curve, simple and approachable mechanics. that got me actually to start wargaming, which later actually lead me to find this channel. so without Battlefront, Flames of War and the misfit child Team Yankee I would not have been watching. does it have its issues, yes, but that's where you have to remember its a game. if I wanted a full on simulation I would just do what I already do on daily basis, as someone who studies history, and dive into books, accounts and archives. lets just say, its not really what Im looking for in my spare time. besides the mathematical complexities, that start to appear in a playable simulation, is handled way better by a computer, than can be done on the table top.
I only recently got into FOW since the historical group I found after years of searching play it. Personally while it's not bad It feels too much like a Warhammer-esque wargame with a WW2 skin than a WW2 wargame. Too much emphasis on listbuilding and "competitive" play at the cost of historical accuracy. The day I saw somebody waxing about how they were going to take 30 Pumas because it was the most cost-efficient competitive list for some event made me throw up in my mouth a little; I must have been absent from history class the day we learned how the Germans overran the Eastern Front by using hundreds of Armored Cars. On top of that Battlefront has started to behave like GW; they don't put rules for models they don't produce even though those models are available elsewhere. It's just a very odd historical game that, like Bolt Action, seems to be designed squarely to the disgruntled Warhammer players rather than historical gamers.
Ex-Games Workshop does World War II. It's just Space Marines with Tiger Is. FoW is all shiny no historical substance or authenticity. There are far better rules out there
Thank you for your review. I've been playing FoW since v1 and have enjoyed the various versions for what they offer. In your review (and from other comments here) you mention that its drawback is that historical accuracy isn't the game's strong suit. Would you consider doing a few reviews of various games at a time by genre? What would you consider (or the favorites of the viewers) to be WW2 era games that have the playability of FoW, but have a higher degree of historical accuracy?
This is the easiest rulebook I've ever used to flip through quickly. I keep a paperback copy nearby when playing. With the tight writing, usable index, and category labeling at the edge of the pages, I can always find the rule I'm looking to verify within five seconds. It's made me feel pretty grumpy about other rulebooks that are far more ponderous to use and seem more interested in justifying a sixty dollar price tag with bloatware and art than actually conveying rules.
My biggest problem with it is that it just puts too much stuff on the table for a 15mm game. It feels so bunched up and cluttered. Plus that it’s really a tank game. Games with pure infantry are awful slogfests. And artillery really should be off board for the most part, like they did in ’Nam.
While your reviews are good, i feel they are lacking in an obvious subject - how the game is supported digitally. For instance the FOW app is quite abysmal with books being more expensive than a physical copy, and they are not even built with a search engine or even a working shortcuts between sections. I rate your reviews a 7/10 because of this lack of digital application.
Ouch a 7/10? Harsh! We don't have a separate category just for digital support, but that is typically discussed under "Support" more broadly. Though it sounds like you're specifically talking about the navigation tools for PDF rules. When we look at "digital support" we're usually looking at web presence, online accessibility for reports, free downloads, etc.
Never been impressed when I tried reading through their rules. I guess it plays better than it reads as it seems popular. Basing for me is a major hindrance as it locks you into their product lines. I have 1/72 and 1/300 and its a big ask to make me dump them for a proprietary set.
Hi little wars, what's your opinion on the difference between flames of war and bolt action. If you prefer a more authentic WW2, which would you recommend?
Reasonable review. Based on the tactical idiosyncracies mentioned, this ruleset is definitely not for me. My search for a decent company to battalion WW2 ruleset continues.
Did play this and TY for quite a few years but it fell out of flavour with our group. Too many silly rules for the sake of having a rule. Constant rereleases of books (very GW). Prices went crazy even after moving production to SE Asia. Support and feedback became childish particularly if your view/experience didn't align with theirs, possibly why they closed the forum. Each to their own.
I disagree about the support. The move off of the forums was a critical mistake. I see more toxicity not less. The community became fractured as other websites that were started with flames of was in mind are now promoting other games. The website has never been updated and it is difficult to impossible to find things on there.
Simplistic - no oppurtunity-overwatch fire ? saving throws ? loads of d6 throwing ?what exactly is the saving throw simulating ? the firer no doubt has modifications to his die rolls to account for the targets situation e.g heavy or soft cover , entrenched etc but what does the saving throw simulate, you either get shot or you don't, a veteran can die just as easily as a replacement fresh out of the depot. if you get hit is dependent on the skill of the firer and other factors , the armour piercing shot once a hit is achieved either penetrates the armour or it does not, the crew in the tank don't participate in that process . You borrow into the ground to make yourself less likely to get hit which a replacement can do as well as a veteran , veterans don't acquire a miraculous ability to dodge speeding bullets, just because they have been in battle lots of times. Battle experience gives you the skills to do unto others before they do unto you. Perhaps also give you the courage to stick at it when comrades have been killed and wounded, but it doesn't give the ability to dodge bullet running across an open fire field under under machine gun fire. D6 usage is problematical as it gives flat probabilities, with only 6 potential outcomes, 2d6 gives you 11 outcomes with a bell shaped probability curve so outcomes can be more nuanced, throwing 18 odd d6 just seems, at least for me clumsy and overly random. This game is quite far , in my opinion, along the scale with a battle simulator at one end and Flames of war close to Warhammer at the other.
The tank clumping makes my head want to explode whenever i see it. I understand they do it to keep the required space down but i think it looks real dumb.
It's a great sin--perhaps one the greatest sins--of FOW. But I guess it helps to sell more tank models!
Every single time I see this game being played, it looks like two parking lots dueling across a crowded map. Pretty models, but where is the artillery to break up such clumps?
@@TonyLS9A it just depends on the playstyle, and since tanks are more effective more people use them. However I field a paratrooper army and they can counter tanks very well so I use more infantry.
There has always been something about the way FoW games looked (to me) that felt "off", but I couldn't put my finger on it....I think this is the problem I have....the tank "clumping".
@@JimHopper what type of army do you usually use
It's been said that the great thing about Flames of War version 3 was that it had a rule for everything, but the bad thing was that it had a rule for everything. Version 4 is so much more streamlined, fun and playable, and the Hit The Beach starter set is by far the best value starter set for any game, bar none. Excellent review of a great game, thanks!
Great reaction and review. They became a historical miniatures company modeled after GW. Originally they were more historically oriented in version 1 rules. They fired tons of local people. Saying the new factory in south east asia would lower prices, they instead raised prices. They got rid of the forum because the fans called them on every broken promise. I worked for them as a freelance proofreader on the 2nd Edition and on some of the 2nd Ed. scenario and theater books. My name is in the credits on the books I worked on. Hard back and Soft Cover. Phil writes some very elegant and simple rules systems. He was always fun to work with. Management above Phil on the other hand was a different story.
Flames of War is the beer and pretzels of WW2 miniatures designed to play on a kitchen table. Phil once told me its the Hollywood Movie version of a battle. None of the dry tedium, all of the action. There is no scale in this game for a reason. The measurements for movement and shooting and the area effects are based on movement and initiative. Meaning attempting to get historical results when opposing weapon systems meet and maneuver against each other. How would a Sherman do vs an 88 in the open. How many turns does the Sherman have to face German Fire until it can fire back. How does infantry do vs a tank. How do they assault it. Etc. The movements and ranges were such that you should get a mostly historical and predictable result. But the game has dice so its a crap shoot. :)
Thanks for sharing the review. I doubt I will buy 4th edition since I am now disabled and just cannot play anymore. But we played many, many large historical battles. Some with as many as 20 tables. DDay, Anzio, Palermo, Encirclement of Kiev, Breakout from Stalingrad. So many more. It was a very fun time. The person that drove the historical games was a man named Terry Leaf. Amazing historian and vet. We found that the way to build a gaming group was to be at the store every weekend and have games going and just be willing to share information about the game. Do painting workshops, do terrain workshops. Show how to play the game. The simple things. Show how to get a cheap force. Don't be paint snobs, bare metal works until they get them painted. Anything to play the hobby forward.
We had older players, younger players, both sexes and lots and lots of different backgrounds and cultures. We played all eras of the war. I personally appreciate early and mid war better. But most players we found want the Tigers and Panthers and Stalins, oh my.
Chris
One of our club members was a big fan of these rules and I played a couple of games with either first and/or second edition. I found the lack of over watch fire and the Romulan Cloaking system of U. S. tank destroyer units hurt the game play. Another friend was able to drive a platoon of Stuarts around a bend in the road, straight down the road at a platoon of STGs coming in the other direction, go off road, pass the bog test, drive along the side of the STGs, then fire on them and destroy them. It was also necessary to play offensively as playing defensive tactics didn't work. I have seen the "parking lot" syndrome with other rule sets when players use too many units for the game area. Normally a platoon would operate on a minimum frontage of 100m in a concentrated attack and a much larger frontage when defending or less concentrated attack The scaling effect of tank vs infantry fire ranges in FOW adds to the clumping affect. Our club member has moved on to a different set of rules and other than some tournaments I have not seen any games at the local conventions. It was fun to play, but at the time and even now there are other rules that are more historical, play better, and the overall cost was and is less.
I played FoW once but found it that the game was very unrealistic because it is set up for tournaments. I found so many unrealistic unit builds that players created to win a game. Not for historical gamers
It's more 40k with a WWII skin than a WWII wargame, for sure.
It is never designed for realistic simulation.
Would love to see LittleWarsTV do a game of Crossfire
Yes, they should invite Lindybeige!
That would be absolutely awesome, agreed!
Seeing his interview is how I learned about this channel. Having another collaboration episode where you all played a game would be great.
Agreed - definitely would love me some Crossfire!!!
Far better rules than this junk
I was a massive v1 player then dropped out for v2 & 3. But back now after dusting off the old armies and really loving v4.
I love flames of war and the direction they are heading. I had a great group in upstate new York but since moving to jacksonville Florida its been hard to find regular games.
My hometown!!
OMG! LWTV is reviewing a set of rules that most wargamers have heard of!! Lions must be laying down with lambs!!!
Your head is really going to explode when we also review Bolt Action!
@@LittleWarsTV
Huzzah!!! 👍👍
@@LittleWarsTV Have heard about all the rules you have reviewed except one and find it handy to get an opinion on whether to purchase etc if interested in the period. Think everyone knows Flames of war and Bolt action so already have an opinion... No one at my club likes Bolt Action.
Keep up the Great work really enjoy your videos ... while I paint!
I found this channel back in the summer, and thought war gaming looked fun. I got the a FoW starter set and different units for Christmas.
Welcome to the hobby! Wargaming is, indeed, extremely fun and you picked an excellent introductory game to get into the hobby. Many players, including a few here at our club, first started historical wargaming with Flames of War.
As a cheaper version, I'm trying to go 6mm and find this scale eliminates some (not all) of the complaints of detractors.
@Chris Taylor I was planning on doing this too once the FOW project is done haha.
Yes, try it in 6mm. All you got to do is keep everything else the same. Plus, you can have bigger battles also if you want.
You should try 3mm. It works super well, I base the full platoon on a single base and keep track of the losses with micro dice.
@Chris Taylor Do you single-base your 15mm FoW minis for Bolt Action or keep them grouped? I was thinking about single basing mine on pennies.
@@CJ_esc.artist Mixed 3-2-1basing is a pretty good compromise for systems that includes individual casualty removal.
You can play the maths on KIAs whilst not having to move every single figure individually.
If you're looking at 15mm scale, I'd strongly suggest looking at the Battlegroup rules - much better in terms of historical flavor.
We've heard a lot about Battlegroup but haven't yet tried it in the club.
I agree about Battlegroup. I played two games of V4 prepping for a tournament and thought, I have to find a new ruleset. I used what I won at the tournament to buy the Battlegroup ruleset and have been hooked ever since. It has become my favorite rule set, period.
Chain of Command is my chosen poison for a very similar reason. Battlegroup's rulebook was really confusing to me, personally, and they don't really have any plans to do anything earlier than Kursk, so that kind blew for me
@@rileyosteen6470 Battlegroup do Poland and fall of France- how much earlier do you want to go with WW2?
(and Barbarossa and Torch and Tobruk and post Kursk too)
@@Cloudman572 I stand corrected- I'd only seen the Kursk book, the base book in 1944, and the endsieg book. My mistake.
I have played all of the versions as it is a staple at my club, while it is not my preferred WWII game, I am glad it exists as I love both the miniatures and that it has been an entry point for many new historical gamers.
I will echo that most of the veteran historical gamers in my area see FoW as a mass-tank entry game that doesn't scratch our historical itch. Yes, the tanks and minis are good and we happily use them for other rule sets. The company is also laudable as it does a good job with support to for newbies who probably started in GW and want to try something more historical. I'll be more interested when you critique Bolt Action later this season.
Recently purchased the Desert Rats and Afrika Corps sets. Spent much time searching online for point lists, model variant notes, etc, before finally purchasing. Really hard to find details to set up an even game. The starter sets are not equal in points, and only after you buy them can you determine what you really need (Call it high start up threshold). Once I built all the models (16 tanks and 4 guns), was able to play, rather one-sided, and after playing 4 games in an afternoon trying to figure out the rules (kept thinking the rules should be more complicated), we decided it is a good game with simple-to-learn, simple-to-play rules. Looking forward to adding more to the game.
BTW, thanks for reviewing FOW, hope you keep reviewing other well known games. Looking forward to the Warhammer 40K review.
Good to have you guys review this game, and enough time has passed since V4 was released 2 years ago to have a clear idea of how this version has played out. There was a lot of controversy at the time. The streamlining of the rules put a lot of established players off. Battlefront do make some great products, and your review did touch on some of the continuing issues like lack of overwatch, Ugo/Igo turn sequence, morale and so on. My area has moved away from Flames to concentrate on Team Yankee. I would enjoy seeing your take on that game, particularly as the new V2 rules bring it in to line with Flames of War V4.
Dave ran a big Team Yankee Iran-Iraq game at the last convention with the Oil Wars supplement. We've played in the club and it's on our radar for further attention on the channel.
I have been playing FoW since the 1st edition. Not the first historical rules I've played but has been my favorite so far
Started playing Flames with second edition. I still like to play with my son and nephew, as we all played together for 8 years since v2. However, I am now playing mostly Battlegroup with a bunch of guys locally and I can still use my Flames units. I agree, Flames is a great point of entry but for better historical accuracy Battlegroup is better. Cheers!
I am more taken with a variety of ancient and medieval rulesets, but after watching your great video on Battlegroup and PSC, I discovered their nice set of miniatures at what seems to me better pricing comparably. Glad you are still liking it. Plus PSC is carrying a line of plastic 15mm ancients and the latest rules for Mortem et Gloriam! Thanks for the videos! Slowly getting into Bolt Action and Konflikt 47 for now, but smaller scale seems the way to go for larger battles. Ordering the Battlegroup basic ruleset this week in fact.
@@krisdray673 Thank you sir! Cheers!
Haha, Flames of War got me into wargaming. I really enjoyed it. Thank you for doing this review!
I’m gonna be getting this game soon when the SS Waffen units and book drops.
I already own the Team Yankee WW3 book, which I hope you glance over at some point
Kommando293 Team Yankee in 6mm only way to go.
We have done more than glanced at it--we've played!
I'm not sure anyone has touched on the hobby aspect of this game. I grew up building 1/72 scale WWII aircraft kits, and it was a fun hobby for me. Flames of War allows me to combine model building as a hobby, with board gaming, with my huge interest in history. As a hobby game, FoW is great, in my opinion.
Well said. Rules aside, Battlefront has done an incredible job with the hobby aspect of FOW, including all the beautifully sculpted miniatures. We use their miniatures for many, many other WW2 games in addition to FOW.
Same exact transition here. Why paint show pieces, when I can play a game with my art instead?!
Notice how you don't see FOW or BA at our historical convention except to host their tournaments. Historicon 2019 I didn't see a BA/FOW game out of the 300+ games on the gaming floors.
Awesome Historical-Entry Game and very good Review! Thanks and hopefully we'll see some games of FoW on the chanel
It seems interesting enough, but I think it would work better with 6mm-scale instead of 15mm.
There's a FoW group near me, but they gather only on the days that I have to work.
Absolutely, yes. A smaller miniature scale helps get rid of the "tank parking lot" syndrome. I've seen a number of players running FOW at conventions in 6mm scale and visually it looks much better!
…except you need to be able to turn the turrets, which is a pain in 6mm even if you didn’t glue them down…
Great minis. Perfect for the Two Fat Lardie's Chain Of Command rule set. 🤣
Great video, as usual :) small correction: v4 was published in *2017*
Thanks! We will update our website accordingly.
I'd love to see some battles with the IJA.....BANZAI!
I believe Flames V4 is getting Pacific Theater rules in the summer of 2022? Battlefront had a timeline they posted somewhere that informed as much, but their online presence is confusing and their website has been crummy since December.
The tank clumping can happen but you can split up each unit into groups of 3-4 tanks and use them more in a more versatile way. There are also rules about splitting command and how 1/2 of each unit can split apart. But ultimately the game is great for adding your own rules and twists so if you wanted to remove the chain of command rule you can!
I would very much recommend this game for beginners or anyone wanting to do simple large scale battles and it is brilliant for multiplayer and campaigns.
a rule system that I gladly don't play, so FoW 4.0 yet another company ripping of the gamer, as the two gent's have said, re boxing new / old model's, book's for book's for book's, it's so unrealistic having five tank's, H / track's so near each other.
The command rules are a big flaw in this rule set.
I would love to see y'all play flames of War
Same
I love FoW. It's the ONE wargame I always return to, after trying other stuff. I was a hopeful sceptic of V4 at first, but it won me over in no time. Fun and fast paced game!
When I first started it was described to me as a game about a movie about WWII. That being said, I love it and can’t get enough. This and Team Yankee brought me back into the hobby I left in high school and college.
Now Dave you have to review Team Yankee V2!
In terms of actual WW2 combat, I definitely prefer Bolt Action for the very easy morale system and random order of action system (I still need to buy and read chain of command, the patrol phase, jump-off points, and battle flavor look like so much fun. Check out Tabletop CP for really good battle reports of that). In terms of large scale battle though, I can't think of a better simple system for a player joining the hobby. That being said, me and my friend are looking at adjusting bolt action so that we can have larger actions in 6mm scale probably.
It is a bit of nostalgic to find years later Phil Yates and Wayne Smith are making a living from when I first joined a war game club as a teen where I got to know them, time flies and how we drift.
And all I forgot to add the one reason we liked Bella group so well is there TO &Es are very accurate and very historical you’re not gonna have 15 tiger ones fender to fender and moving around like formed infantry
As far as clumping goes, don't think of it as a chain tethering your units together. They can move as far away from each other as they want, they just suffer minor penalties (such as +1 to hit) due to not being as easily controllable by the platoon leader. One could think of being IN COMMAND as being a benefit, rather than the opposite. Tank commanders that can't see where their units are can't really offer much in the way of sound tactical advice or up-to-date orders, even if they do happen to have a radio, which, as we all know, not all tanks did. If the tank platoon is within command range, it can coordinate more effectively. They will maneuver more tightly, coordinate fire, the tankers can rely on the platoon leader for more of the thinking and concentrate on serving targets, rather than watching their every flank and maneuvering more desperately, just as an in-universe example. So, you can choose to have your units operate wide apart with a slight penalty due to lack of C and C and open flanks/more risky solo maneuvering, or your units can operate in a tightly-grouped strike formation with the drawback of being clumped for easier targeting by artillery, etc but with a better chance to hit their target with massed/coordinated fire. The real-life-human commanders all choosing the latter is hardly the fault of the FoW rules, in my opinion. Besides, you don't even get a drawback if you don't move the unit while it's out of command. I often leave mortar and MG teams behind on the field in key spots and advance the infantry platoons away without them. The units hit normally as long as they don't move that turn. No big deal.
i love the idea of this game, but the parking lot effect kills the immersion for me. All the games i watch are like a mob of tanks rolling around the battlefield in massive blobs that just seem to mash head on. It has a big disconnect between the theme, terrain, and tactics. Always kept me away from the game.
Sadly I think that’s any meta design for table tops. 40K suffers from the same thing
This is the one issue more than any to why I don't play this game. I haven't played it but seen many UA-cam matches and that's exactly what you see, a mob of Panther tanks versus a mob of other tanks or AT SPGs. Just unappealing to me.
Warhammer WWII. I painted two armies before playing the rules and was bitterly disappointed. The game system was obviously designed to sell as many figures as possible while having 0% to do with anything associated with WWII. It is a joke if you think this is a WWII wargame. Use the minis to play ANY other set of rules for a more realistic experience.
V4 intel has so many problems that I’ve gone to strictly using V3. Fortress Europe is a complete waist of money. The cards just clutter up the table. Totally a beer and pretzels game any more. Review Battlegroup that’s where I’m heading.
RockinL7BuckingBulls 100 percent
That moronic "Last Man Standing" rule utterly neutering expensive elite units compared to cheap mass units was the deal breaker for me. How that stupidity got past the drawing table stage is beyond me. v3 all the way and back! Or Battlegroup, that is even better.
"Be professional," advice of the year.
I agree with you guys, FoW is great! It's my 'primary' WW2 set, with Blitzkrieg Commander in 3mm there to handle larger scale battles (as well as stuff like Khalkin Gol and the Spanish Civil War).
I think the "growing the hobby" props should go to FOW and BF miles more than it should go to star wars legion. I'm surprised that was featured first instead.
A good review and can concur. That said v4 has become too reductive in my opinion and alas too tournament heavy with too much emphasis on tanks. There were many who didn’t tourney with it and this is an important fact which is overlooked. Moreover, one must be very careful when tinkering with history that you don’t create distortion in the minds of new budding historians per se. Hence again not very historical in so many aspects but if it gets kids playing that’s a great.
A game first and foremost as you state and not a wargame per se, but have to say it was very inspirational to us based on the earlier versions and like many historical players v4 didn’t go down well because it was seen as a cash grab and this caused a huge number to leave Fow and ironically these were the big spenders when many of the kids have a more limited budget.
I think a compromise should have been considered and perhaps they should have made v4 a pure tournament system and also provided a more historical system to complement all their player base but hey ho understand their commercial position.
We didn’t abandon the earlier concepts but decided to be inspired by some rubrics and that lead us to develop a highly more historical wargame system to fight ww2 on youtube. I have always said Bf need to be given more credit for their earlier work but I have to say a tad saddened it has become a warhammer like cash cow now but as you said your points are entirely well made.
Ultimately it’s horses for courses but I do think after a few games interest appears to be waning as you say , head to head play doesn’t tax wargamers or players so to speak and isn’t historical really and perhaps this is why there has been a fall off.
Ultimately everyone has an opinion and people should always do what they enjoy and we love what we have developed from playing the older systems and still support the earlier old school players in historical wargaming using Fow. In the past it was for wargamer and gamer alike alas not so now but as we say rules are guidelines really and it’s what you do with what you create that counts ua-cam.com/video/aBRrltJCh-o/v-deo.html
The most affordable way to get a rulebook is to ask ANYONE who plays FoW, who's bound to have several of them. I got into FoW a week ago and already have three. :D
I hate to see the tanks easily moving from its side.
Although I'm definitely not a fan of the rules (tank parking lots, no command system, the morale rules, on table heavy artillery, no opportunity fire/overwatch) I must admit they do a wonderful job of being highly accessible to new players, both in the rules and in the figure packaging. Then as players build their FoW collections, they discover that their armies can be used for other rules! One of the joys of historical gaming - can't copyright historical figures.
One thing struck me as odd in the review. It was mentioned that they are somewhat bland as they attempt to cover all of WW2. I'm having trouble thinking of any competing rules that DON'T cover all of WW2. What stand alone rules focus exclusively on North Africa or the Eastern Front? And I'm not counting rules that offer supplements or theatre books that go in more detail for that specific period, because FoW and a lot of other rules obviously do that. I just can't think a miniature set of rules that goes that specific.
I've never gotten into FoW because every time I see it it's just mass tanks and very little, if any, infantry. Not for me.
Flames of War is great and what it's done for historical gaming is amazing. Plus Phil is a great chap.
I would love to see you guys review Battlegroup. It's my favorite WWII Wargame!
Yes - would love to see a review for Battlegroup!
When compared to Squad Leader which also does company level actions the 2 games seem to be representing completely different things. The former is tactically rewarding while the latter has mega blobs charging each other as there isn't enough room on the table to do anything else. Also, rolling dozens of dice at once (over 40 in some cases) is a sign of pretty poor game design. If they had innovated instead of cloning GW rulesets it could have been much better. What needs fixing? Plenty, but for starters get rid of aircraft and most artillery on table. Allow defensive fire as units move, a better way of treating 30 stand platoons than exists currently and much more.
I think FOW is a fantastic set of rules...its certainly the best set of WW2 rules I've ever played. It IS rather "gamey" - particularly this latest V4 iteration, but as you reviewed, it is designed to be accessible for new players, and it most definitely is that. I agree that you always get a good game from FOW. Always. Even if the scores are not particularly even, they almost never reflect on how close a game was. I do think the points system has lost definition. In order to make certain elements playable and fit into the points systems, very optimistic interpretations of the capabilities of some equipment has been made, especially at the lower end.
Great review guys (as always!). I agree that FoW4 is a bit bland, but as you pointed out, it does exactly what it set out to do and it's "let's roll fistfuls of dice" mechanic is a great vehicle for attracting players who are otherwise only familiar with GW products to historical gaming.
Some good mechanics in FoW and very accessible but troops tend to be deployed in Napoleonics ‘blocks’ which doesn’t look or feel right to me tbh. 40k meets ww2 imho. Saying that, a lot of people seem to like the game.
Bought the first version rules. Didn't do anything for me. I quickly realized how it was designed to continually try to milk me for $ with the continuing changing supplements and versions. Didn't like the lack of Opp Fire. Also didn't like the "chrome" - LOADS of different special rules for every nationality (which as noted in the video, you have to memorize - yours and your opponents - to be effective). I thought it really jumped the shark with the teleporting U.S. TDs. Best quote I read about FOW: It is a game using WWII miniatures, it is not a WWII game.
Do you agree or disagree that this version relagates infantry to a minor support player in a game decided now mainly by armor?
Would love to see you guys play it! Just do something other than a boring, old bocage country tussle.
Thanks for that review, I like FoW a lot, but there is nearly no support for Early War. Due to the streamlining much of the units flavour is gone and with the new point system is more unbalanced. Nevertheless a good game and cool ruleset, but it had been better with only minor changes to V3.
Agreed with your assessment gents. I especially like that you always seem to get a close game.
What always irkes me about Flames of war: it seems so tank/vehicle heavy. WW2 was mostly a infantry war, and I see soo many tanks in FoW. Thats what I like more in Bolt Action.
I loved Flames of War, first time I played it, I was a platoon of German Panzer IVs and a King Tiger. I loved it so much.
I can’t wait to see what books they have for version 5!!
Love the channel guys.
So back in the day of first edition, I was told Flames of War is the Warhammer40k of WW2. With the streamlining over time, do you think complexity has lowered compared to 40k?
No. FOW has always been on the simple side compared to other wargames set in WW2 ( more play, less reading the rules, which some gamers love). I have played 40k on and off for years and the complexity is lower, but different.
What bob said and what the guys said. Once you understand the basic ruleset, the quick guide sheets maximize time in game. On top of that, you have the unit cards, so when you forget what you’re hitting a unit on, or are being hit on, they’re there at hand. It’s all pretty streamlined now in v.4 and it’s quite easy to pick up and play.
I always considered Bolt Action the light historical entry game, with Flames of War being another degree more difficult. Do you think their fairly similar with complexity?
@@DeePsix501 I agree with you. When we played Bolt Action we found it is one of the simplest games we played in all genres.
I love the models but to me it is to armour heavy and orientated. The infantry rules are trash.
I played quite a lot of FoW v4 games and must disagree. At least in Late War the Infantry got a big boost in getting good anti tank weapons and are now almost unshiftable from an objective by an all out armored enemy. For Mid War you are right though (in my oppinion at least)
It’s not so much the actual rules but the way they just sit there in a big block. I have been told there are a couple of systems out there where infantry are more than just counters.
I played version 2 and 3 only using German infantry companies. For several years, they remained competitive in all three phases of the war. In LW, as the last campaign books were released, they became impossible to use against US infantry that had every option available or first strike US armor lists that were both ideal dreams for min/max power gamers to use. Version 4 defenders will point to German Panzerfaust usage as the great equalizer against Allied armor but it simply is not the case. In scenarios that require mobility, German infantry just get mown down by quick strike armor.
@@markcole5108 I field an allied paratrooper army so my guys are better equipped against tanks but, the best way for infantry to fend off tanks is by giving them anti tank artillery, that is vital. Also counterassaults are the only way to fight tanks straight up as infantry.
@@granapriego that is true but it is the nature of the game since it is more large scale you are supposed to kind of imagine that your infantry are in foxhole, and behind trees and stuff like that.
Social media cannot replace the forums. All you get is a scrolling mess of one liner answers with very little thought involved in the answer. I miss the forums tremendously.
Agreed 100%! Searching for information was always so much easier with the old forum system. Now everything just gets buried by new posts. It happens on Twitter, Facebook, UA-cam, or any platform.
Thank you very much for doing this review I was a big version one player but fell out of interest with it when it just got too complicated and we didn’t really get a good feel of what was going on the battlefield we did get into battle group series very heavily and that is our go to game of choice now besides Bolt action can you do a review on the battle group series it is a very good game I had a great Sadie mechanism into the mix and overall very very fun thanks guys love your channel
Thanks, Steve! We've heard good things about Battlegroup, as well.
Little Wars TV sorry
Sadie should have been something like unique battle rating system
Damn speech to text
The rulesset is made with extensive research and is well established in historical accuracy
Cheers!
My friends and I play V4 but have nostalgia for v3
Not necessarily for complexity but for logistical units, and some more immersive play
We're going through v3 and making a house rule set that will adjust for that
Using old V3 armies and special rules,
Bogged down vehicles and recovery vehicles
Using smoke and wind factor
Ect.
I see the value in simplified targeting, allocation, the cards are great for quick reference
And we tend to play on a couple 6x8 -10 tables so using old unarmored trucks and jeeps are necessary
Especially since I saw your brandywine game, we gave using the "off table movent" to create flanking and reserve immersive reinforcements
What we need to figure out is the balance of using cards vs old rules and it's easy enough to find a similar card or make a judgement call
Hello. I am also working on some house rules and would love to see yours
@@granttar1981 we mainly use the V3 main rule book
My friend and I use the V3 army books or campaign books but allow anyone new to use the v4 cards for ease of play
House rules we tend to use are
Unit coherency listed is for squad coherency
And then it's doubled for the actual FOW unit
Platoon or company depending on the army
This by itself changes a lot
And infantry armies feel more tactical
Vehicles have to have
A gap or 1/2 an inch or so between each other
Lastly, a ton of research goes into each game
And when I set up a game I come up with maps and references and we play on a very large board as is
Each commander can use strategic flanking manuevers off board but depending on actual events will determine the outcome or time it takes
Example, he was playing as the 12th ss and assaulting my British forces
He decided to flank around the left side of the board but what he didn't know was commandos were actually in that AO
And he had to roll off with me to see if they delayed his arrival
The presence of roads or swamps ect.
Gives the player a rough time frame on how many turns it takes to flank but stuff like paratroopers
Bridges being taken out
Flooded fields can surprise and delay further
The host is the game usually does all the prep work
We usually play much more then 6 turns, sometimes 10-12
Many turns being just movement, making all the trucks and towing vehicles from V3 very useful
@@granttar1981 forgot to say in my example we were fighting near Caen
And actual british commandos were in that AO on DDay taking bridges on the Orne River
@@antonioaguilera616 okay thank you I would definitely look into the off board movements for sure, along with scenario rules. I just play with my father and we have some house rules going already. We also try to run historical armies using v3 if needed.
We have not added things such as trucks and towing vehicles yet. We just got our first draft of added rules in which focused more on adding than revising. We started in V3 and often fall into those rules because we like them better.
I grew up on Panzer Leader, Squad Leader, Axis & Allies, and Starfleet Battles. Times have changed and so has the market demographics. FOW fills that niche perfectly for young gamers who don't have the attention span anymore for an overly complicated gaming experience. The D6 systems appeal to the younger generations as well as the ease of play. And when we're comparing the competition between video games and tabletop ones, that's saying a lot.
6:45 I know what he means, but I can't get the image of Josef Stalin tearing a Panther apart with his bare hands out of my head.
I enjoyed the Rules Review you guys put together. I like the categories as well. I think after watching all of your reviews, the key item missing is the ability to adapt to multi-player game play. Example for this game is designed for two players with a point system...not a fan of point systems BTW...to BA-ish. But what really grabs me for interests in a rule system is how does it handle multi-player. Most of us play games beyond with another person; but what about 3, 4, 7 players on club night? Again, thank you for the rules review.
Thanks, redmist. You make an excellent point about multi-player suitability. This is something we could do a better job discussing in the reviews and we'll try to remember to do so! Our club often has games with a minimum of 4 players, often even more.
@@LittleWarsTV Same here; we typically have more of odd number for players...which has its own challenges. Thank you for the response.
I bought the starter box a few years ago. I was excited to play the game and I love the miniatures. I also bought several of the campaign/army books. What I truly dislike is that within only a few years they changed the rules twice. That seems to me to be a very GW thing to do. For the occasional player that is annoying.
I saw the models as an affordable way to get new players into WWII minis games. Then just use another system to run it.
I liked that it was focused on the company level action.
Trouble is the 15mm scale, while okay for a starter system, the 6mm volume of other manufacturers of vehicles, buildings and other supporting materials, not to mention the table surface better representing the 'actual' battlefield (not so much 'clumping' except for wrecks), makes this a non-starter for me.
I think this was going to be a tough rules to review because of the popularity and history there will dissenters and fanboys. If you have fun with this game then by all means play it, but I disagree with the historical flavor and the rules mechanics. 4th ed just got to water-down and un-flaverful that I don’t feel like I played a WW2 game afterwards, but more of a checkers version.
As a Pearson who’s getting into FOW of war due to 40k being “stream lined” the fact that this great game was gutted pisses me off to no end
We had an active FOW group in my area before version 4 hit. All of the changes threw most of the long term players off. Afterwards, the group that played regularly splintered into 4 different rules sets, which usually no more than 2 people followed. Now our historical group has almost no steady WW2 activity. Numerous game options with a plethora of rules isn’t conducive for keeping an active player base.
Would be great to see a historical scenario for Flames of War on the show :)
the versions weren't much of a problem but individual books that totally tilted the balance. some armies simply couldnt be defeated no matter the level of your experience with the game. thats what really killed it in my community and nobody plays it anymore i dont know how v4 is but i dont think it will revive the interest. i hope it does but i dont believe it will...
I have played Bolt Action at GenCon. The battles reminded me of chess: two parallel lines facing each other. There was no maneuvering. Each piece was committed to fighting the opposing piece. Does this happen in FoW? WWII was a war of maneuver and breakthroughs. Games should be, too.
To be honest, vague basing has always been a turn-off for me with different rulesets. As a bit of a wargaming novice (and having remained so for years now, lol), I like specificity to help convince me to jump into things when I'm not sure about what I need and what I'm doing/getting into.
Now please do Bolt Action WWII.
...and Battlegroup.
Your wish shall be granted quite soon....
Well, I like the rules. Simple to learn and play. The only thing I miss are historical scenarios books.
While Flames of War is a good game it has to be reiterated it is a very poor simulation of WW2, it is foremost a competitive "game". If you want better simulation of WW2 battles in platoon or company size there are far better ways to get that. It certainly is a good gateway game and really good for competitive play. I would never use Flames of War for scenario driven simulations.
I also find Flames of War has a problem with scale, if you go company size the models should really be 6mm. Terrain look like platoon level skirmishes while the scale is suppose to be company level... it simply can put some players off from historical flavour.
Ive always loved history and had an interest in wargaming, but never really gotten proper into it and started with wargaming. until Team Yankee WW3 came along, then I found a game system that combined my two interests. it managed to hit that golden balance, where I got a feel of something based in history but without it been to weighted down by simulation. a Rule system that did not have a steep learning curve, simple and approachable mechanics.
that got me actually to start wargaming, which later actually lead me to find this channel. so without Battlefront, Flames of War and the misfit child Team Yankee I would not have been watching.
does it have its issues, yes, but that's where you have to remember its a game. if I wanted a full on simulation I would just do what I already do on daily basis, as someone who studies history, and dive into books, accounts and archives. lets just say, its not really what Im looking for in my spare time. besides the mathematical complexities, that start to appear in a playable simulation, is handled way better by a computer, than can be done on the table top.
I only recently got into FOW since the historical group I found after years of searching play it. Personally while it's not bad It feels too much like a Warhammer-esque wargame with a WW2 skin than a WW2 wargame. Too much emphasis on listbuilding and "competitive" play at the cost of historical accuracy. The day I saw somebody waxing about how they were going to take 30 Pumas because it was the most cost-efficient competitive list for some event made me throw up in my mouth a little; I must have been absent from history class the day we learned how the Germans overran the Eastern Front by using hundreds of Armored Cars.
On top of that Battlefront has started to behave like GW; they don't put rules for models they don't produce even though those models are available elsewhere. It's just a very odd historical game that, like Bolt Action, seems to be designed squarely to the disgruntled Warhammer players rather than historical gamers.
Thanks for the review! Planning to get into this. Is the game possible to play solo though?
Ex-Games Workshop does World War II. It's just Space Marines with Tiger Is. FoW is all shiny no historical substance or authenticity. There are far better rules out there
Thank you for your review. I've been playing FoW since v1 and have enjoyed the various versions for what they offer. In your review (and from other comments here) you mention that its drawback is that historical accuracy isn't the game's strong suit. Would you consider doing a few reviews of various games at a time by genre? What would you consider (or the favorites of the viewers) to be WW2 era games that have the playability of FoW, but have a higher degree of historical accuracy?
Will there be a comparison with bolt action?
Excellent review!
This is the easiest rulebook I've ever used to flip through quickly. I keep a paperback copy nearby when playing. With the tight writing, usable index, and category labeling at the edge of the pages, I can always find the rule I'm looking to verify within five seconds. It's made me feel pretty grumpy about other rulebooks that are far more ponderous to use and seem more interested in justifying a sixty dollar price tag with bloatware and art than actually conveying rules.
My biggest problem with it is that it just puts too much stuff on the table for a 15mm game. It feels so bunched up and cluttered.
Plus that it’s really a tank game. Games with pure infantry are awful slogfests.
And artillery really should be off board for the most part, like they did in ’Nam.
While your reviews are good, i feel they are lacking in an obvious subject - how the game is supported digitally. For instance the FOW app is quite abysmal with books being more expensive than a physical copy, and they are not even built with a search engine or even a working shortcuts between sections. I rate your reviews a 7/10 because of this lack of digital application.
Ouch a 7/10? Harsh! We don't have a separate category just for digital support, but that is typically discussed under "Support" more broadly. Though it sounds like you're specifically talking about the navigation tools for PDF rules. When we look at "digital support" we're usually looking at web presence, online accessibility for reports, free downloads, etc.
Never been impressed when I tried reading through their rules. I guess it plays better than it reads as it seems popular. Basing for me is a major hindrance as it locks you into their product lines. I have 1/72 and 1/300 and its a big ask to make me dump them for a proprietary set.
Wow! this really makes me wanna play FOW. Shame I can't find somewhere to play in the Iowa/Missouri area...
Hi little wars, what's your opinion on the difference between flames of war and bolt action. If you prefer a more authentic WW2, which would you recommend?
Reasonable review. Based on the tactical idiosyncracies mentioned, this ruleset is definitely not for me.
My search for a decent company to battalion WW2 ruleset continues.
I find it very annoying how tank focused this game is, infantry is just so throw away that so many people run tank only armies
Did play this and TY for quite a few years but it fell out of flavour with our group. Too many silly rules for the sake of having a rule. Constant rereleases of books (very GW). Prices went crazy even after moving production to SE Asia. Support and feedback became childish particularly if your view/experience didn't align with theirs, possibly why they closed the forum. Each to their own.
I am glad that FoW is out there. I love Battlefront's toys, but use them to play Chain of Command. :-)
I disagree about the support. The move off of the forums was a critical mistake. I see more toxicity not less. The community became fractured as other websites that were started with flames of was in mind are now promoting other games. The website has never been updated and it is difficult to impossible to find things on there.
I have to agree that it is an extensive website with tons of content but very, very hard to navigate.
Simplistic - no oppurtunity-overwatch fire ? saving throws ? loads of d6 throwing ?what exactly is the saving throw simulating ? the firer no doubt has modifications to his die rolls to account for the targets situation e.g heavy or soft cover , entrenched etc but what does the saving throw simulate, you either get shot or you don't, a veteran can die just as easily as a replacement fresh out of the depot. if you get hit is dependent on the skill of the firer and other factors , the armour piercing shot once a hit is achieved either penetrates the armour or it does not, the crew in the tank don't participate in that process . You borrow into the ground to make yourself less likely to get hit which a replacement can do as well as a veteran , veterans don't acquire a miraculous ability to dodge speeding bullets, just because they have been in battle lots of times. Battle experience gives you the skills to do unto others before they do unto you. Perhaps also give you the courage to stick at it when comrades have been killed and wounded, but it doesn't give the ability to dodge bullet running across an open fire field under under machine gun fire.
D6 usage is problematical as it gives flat probabilities, with only 6 potential outcomes, 2d6 gives you 11 outcomes with a bell shaped probability curve so outcomes can be more nuanced, throwing 18 odd d6 just seems, at least for me clumsy and overly random. This game is quite far , in my opinion, along the scale with a battle simulator at one end and Flames of war close to Warhammer at the other.