Why is nobody playing this? - Cheap minis, good quality - Approachable

>>49826437
Tabletop industries are about making money. expensive minis help that, same with minis only compatible with your system.
Confusing and overly complex rules is always inexcusable, Simple is best.

Personally for my WW2 gaming I use cheap 1/72 and 1/76 minis and a simple combined arms system we wrote from the ground up and playtested ourselves over a 5 or 6 year period.

Have you played tanks, OP? what are the rules like? what scale is it aimed at? does it give realistic outcomes? Could a T-70 destroy a Tiger from close range and to the side?

>>49826437
Because it's literally just X-Wing but tanks, nearly identical ruleset.

>>49826437
You're paying a lot of money for tokens and cards. X-wing style games are basically expandable card games with plastic playing pieces.

>>49826550
Yes in fact I do play tanks and have an Allies plattoon and are working on a German one. The rules took me about an hour to know inside out and the rulebook was designed very well to allow quick reference mid-game, starter set included everything you needed to play and even expand after that, including even terrain that could be upgraded to 3D terrain after. Game is pretty realistic from what I know about tanks. The Sherman 76mm is a little OP with it's firepower but then again, this game is barely even 6 months old so im sure the second edition will iron all of this out. The largest issue is the fact that nobody is playing the fucking thing.

If I am going to play a "tank" game, I really want one that includes infantry, support vehicles, etc. As far as I can tell, Tanks lacks those sorts of things.

>>49826691
While it's possible that you don't, that does read a lot like your checking off a list of shit the PR department wants to have said.

>>49826703
Play disposable heroes / Coffin for Seven Brothers, by Iron Ivan games. Amazing ruleset, blows Flames of 40k out of the water.

>>49826751
Oh it totally does sound like a list of things a PR department wants said, the thing is they ended up actually delivering with it too.

>>49826437
I tried it and it's too fucking bland for a tank wargame. I don't even need infantry and stuff, but there is so little going on it already gets old 5 turns into the first game.The X-Wing/Wings of Glory rules shouldn't be applied to everything.

>>49826703
I agree. WW2 is all about combined arms. Gotta have all the elements working together - infantry, tanks, air support, artillery, light vehicles.

>>49826703
Why? They're boring, tanks is what's cool in ground warfare.

I play, and I enjoy it. It's been a great way to introduce my friends to tabletop wargames.

The real problem is availability - my LFGS didn't get many kits and it sounds like that's been the case around the world. It could've taken off with a bigger release, but low numbers mean it will remain a niche game.

>>49829970
combined arms is what's cool in ground warfare, especially WW2. having light vehicles doing recon, tanks and infantry working together, calling in artillery and air strikes on tougher targets. tanks vs field guns, field guns vs infantry, tanks vs infantry, infantry vs tanks, infantry vs infantry, infantry clearing mines for tanks to get through, mine-flaying tanks clearing mines for infantry to get through. WW2 is all about different forces working together. Also the poster you quoted specified if he was going to play a tank game he would want to play one that included infantry, support vehicles, etc. There was no one element you could single out as "boring". 2 or more elements is more interesting than 1 element.

>>49830804
The problem is, to have all that you need to have well, way higher than company level that FoW etc. provide. Probably brigade and higher, so boardgame territory.

I do play it, we've got a fair number of people interested at my FLGS, especially now stock is in reliable supply again.

Nice and quick game, 30-45 mins for a full-sized match.

Not what I'm picking as a main game, but excellent filler when you don't have time for a full-scale battle in another ruleset.

>>49830935
Not really. The tabletop game I play has all of that. Mines and mine-flaying tanks dont really come into play until you have a map campaign, but everything else is there all the time. FoW has all those elements too. Company to Battalion level is about right for a good feeling WW2 combined arms game.

>>49831540
Recce is fucking useless in company level- instead of being realistic, it's just artificial as fuck, with some made-up special rules to give it any meaning. If you're 200m apart, your lead platoons are your recce.

>>49831540
>The tabletop game I play has all of that.
>implying this isn't Ostfront anon desperately shilling in yet another ww2 thread

>>49831602
>your lead platoons are your recce.
Didn't the soviets actually use tank platoons as recce towards the end there?

I dunno, as a game recce should have a purpose. In the end its still a game, and you should represent all the elements of the period to give a good feel. Recce was incredibly important, if anything most WW2 games dont include enough of it. Fog of war has always been difficult to represent on the tabletop, but having some kind of bonus for sending your light vehicles out first to survey the area should be inherent in all WW2 game imo.

Playing Men of War LANs was an excellent eye-opener as to how important line of sight and recon is, if you cant see a target, you cant shoot it, and you can't defend against it or know where its going to attack from. Having an officer with some binocs can save your ass in that game, although you're right, once your close enough, the officers in the infantry units and tanks become the recon.

It is nice to have a purpose for light vehicles in a WW2 game though. armored cars, bren carriers and jeeps are cool as fuck, and its hilarious to see them screaming around the battlefield reconnoitering shit, getting blown to shreds and gunning down the occasional infantry unit

File: 1460907024118.jpg (4MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4160x3120px

>>49831744
you know me too well anon :^)

>It is nice to have a purpose for light vehicles in a WW2 game though. armored cars, bren carriers and jeeps are cool as fuck, and its hilarious to see them screaming around the battlefield reconnoitering shit, getting blown to shreds and gunning down the occasional infantry unit

Ah, so you want "Kelly's Heroes the wargame", not WW2 wargame?

>>49832230
Light vehicles should only be one facet of a nicely balanced WW2 game. mostly there for recon, harrying infantry, and for engaging other light vehicles.
Mobile air defense is also important too. AA guns on the back of a truck or half track. Transporting infantry too.
I'm not familiar with Kelly's Heroes, I just think WW2 land games should be about the interactions between light vehicles, tanks, infantry, artillery and air support/defense. Maybe even Cavalry if you're the Chinese. Combined arms is where WW2 shines.

>>49826437
do you have the rulebook pdf?

i have a ton of 15mm tanks, can you use more than just panthers and shermans?

>>49833020
>want to play a combined arms game of ww2
>pick up flames of war
>run into giant tank companies filled with panthers or jumbo shermans

>play rounded infantry force
>infantry tries to charge tanks
>tank company parks his tanks just out of charge range thanks to premeausring
>tank guns easily dispatch anti tank guns

ge what a fun game this turned out to be

>>49833020
>I'm not familiar with Kelly's Heroes

Its a movie

GO FUCKING WATCH IT RIGHT NOW.
Go watch it, then come back.
Go on.
We'll wait.
We'll probably be watching it while you're gone.

>>49833831

This is pretty much what artillery, smoke, and air power is for

>>49833831
Perhaps try not playing FoW?

Also if you know you're going to be up against lots of armor, why not take lots of air power and artillery to support your infantry? I dont know a lot about the balance of FoW - is it even balanced, or is "my list will beat your list no matter what kind of tactical decisions you make" a big problem?

>>49833937
what im saying is someone can take a skew list and a balanced list has 0 chance at winning.

atleast it did when i quit playing FoW, maybe the new edition fixed it. but i had absolutely no fun playing a german infantry list into a US tank horde, which is all my friend would play

>>49833914
>GO FUCKING WATCH IT RIGHT NOW
But anon, I'm busy reading a book about soviet aero sleds. I know its a film, probably an action flick. I will watch it eventually. I watched Raid on Rommel the other day, and Bridge over the River Kwai, both were fun. The latter was extremely well done - dat suspenseful last scene

File: Gamagori intesifies.gif (4MB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x272px

>>49833984
NOW!!!!

>>49833980

Play a night fighting scenario and laugh maniacally

>>49833937
>my list will beat your list no matter what kind of tactical decisions you make" a big problem?

This is a very big problem with FoW. You can always beat a list if you know what it is ahead of time. But in pickup play or whenever there's blind list-making where you can't tailor your list to the opposition, getting into a paper-rock-scissors matchup is depressingly common. Facing paper? Bring scissors or lose.

I would have preferred the game if they just created a shit-ton of actual premade lists that you have to choose from (at various point levels). So an American Rifle Company at 500 points will always look the same. As will the 750-point, 1000-point, 1500-point,and 2000-point lists. Then do the same for an Armored Rifle Company, Armored Company, Combat Command, USMC assault landing force, and so on. That at least makes balancing the lists against one another at least THEORETICALLY possible, because just "spend X points" produces skew lists every goddamned time.

Oh, and of course, the lists actually played in FoW are almost universally ahistorical, except for outlying people who are OK with losing, and except for the fact that you're using historical equipment.

>>49833980
What about 88s? surely they would out range the US tank horde? What about having some StuGs for infantry support? do you still have your minis?

I've seen a US infantry-only army do well against a German armored list in ostfront, but they were extremely well supported by artillery, and the game was objective based - central objective. The marines advanced clearing minefields, while their howitzers annihilated the German 88s and medium tanks. A few Tigers remained, but in the end the Germans weren't really able to mount an assault (the Tigers being immobilized) and the US got to the central objective with their infantry and held it.

>>49834064
>lists actually played in FoW are almost universally ahistorical
That makes me sad. Ideally a game should be set up to favor historical lists. make the game mechanics and points values so that forces that do well are also somewhat historical.
There will always be a bit of rock-paper-scissors, but ideally good tactics should still be able to win you the game - turn your paper into scissors (paper cuts) or your rock into paper (chiseled stone tablet?).

I am playing it, it's a fun little 15 minute game.
The problem i think is that is currently lacks to competitive play of x-wing (the first op was BADLY organised, and i say this as someone who works in the only store in the city that ran it.) Or any real campaign/narrative system.

Personally i've just been using the rule set to play a game of sci fi tank nomads and i'm in the process of writing up a campaign/progression system.

It does sell bloody well i'll give it that, and it seems to be a game alot of people are picking up to open up a game night with since you can get through 3 or 4 games while you wait for your D&D group to show.

>>49833800
available on the website.

>>49834077
88's were too expensive and easy to kill with way more firepower than you needed to kill a sherman. think it was the 40s that were the best value

>>49834287
hmm sounds about right. unfortunately the PaK-40s would have a similair range to the shermans, but without the ability to move and fire.

88s should be damn cheap considering how widespread they were. In ostfront an 88 is 13 points and a regular sherman is 9 points. A stand of infantry is 5 points. Not sure how that compares to FoW points costs

>>49826591
>X-wing

Which is just a rip off wings of war.

>>49835781

But nobody cared about or played that game, so it does't really matter. the only time ripping off something else matters is when you rip off something successful.

Kind of like how Warhammer Online ripped off World of Warcraft. WOW was successful first, so Warhammer online was in the wrong.

>>49833831
>implying ever played FoW
>straight tank lists suck ass
>parking and shooting at entrenched infantry does not contest objectives
>shooting at immobile targets, waaah
>what is artillery, air support, and willy pete
(you)

File: 1469183391047.jpg (15KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x231px

>>49826437
>/fowtg/
>/hwg/
>/awg/

>>49838235
this guy gets it.

combined arms or die....

It looks fun, in a simple shoot 'em up kind of way, but part of me is waiting for them to release more. If I'm going to be forced to play a big 4 power then I at least want British tanks that are unique to the Brits.

They really just need to release a faction deck sort of thing with stat cards for all the other tanks out there.

That and minor powers. Italian tank bum-rush ftw.

>>49826691
>this game is barely even 6 months old so im sure the second edition will iron all of this out. The largest issue is the fact that nobody is playing the fucking thing

thats because its new and few people have heard of it yet.
give it time befor you declare a game dead.

>>49826691
>The Sherman 76mm is a little OP with it's firepower

Wasn't that the case IRL too?

>>49838540
>They really just need to release a faction deck sort of thing with stat cards for all the other tanks out there.


That makes no sense- you don't release rules for products you don't sell, it's not 1990 with Uncle Steve's Sad Wargaming productions in his shed.

>>49826795

I play it and love it (it has some small issues but it's great). Pity Iron Ivan got out of business.

It could have been a proper BA alternative with more support, as it strikes that balance between easy to explain and historical depth.

>>49839300
Sherman 76's were pretty decent. The gun is roughly equivalent to a Soviet 85mm on a T-34/85. both could easily punch through 100mm at 100m, but drops off at longer ranges,

Not quite as OP as a regular german 88 (like on a Tiger) or long barrel 75mm (panther) And nowhere near as OP as a Long barrel 88, or a 17pdr, or a 90mm like a pershing

>>49826437
Historical games are boring. The people who play them are too often rivet counting, History Channel fapping dushes.

>>49842782
>or a 17pdr

On the other hand, you can fit it into the Sherman and still have room in there for the crew to actually do something.

>>49843456
Sherman firefly!
Only the Brits really used them though. US were all about their M-10s and Hellcats

>>49843368
Rivet counting is the opposite of history channel though. History channel is like the hollywood blockbuster of history. real rivet counters would read memoirs of actual combatants, and military history books.

As for historical wargames, they are as varied and interesting as you like. There are very simple games, and very complex games, and all the shades in betweeen. Military history is fascinating, 3000+ years of combat, ever-changing, with almost infinite different units and tactics.

Fantasy settings just dont compare. You can make stuff up, but you can never create the immense detail that you get with things that actually happened, especially when they are well documented by many different sources.

Sound like you watched some history channel, decided history was boring, then proceeded to judge something you know nothing about. I'm sure you'd enjoy playing historical wargames, provided you could find a period that interests you.

>>49843637
didn't the US have really shoddy tactics for the tank destroyers?

>>49843723
probably. US amoured tactics weren't great, being late comers and underestimating German armor. They had a doctrine of tank destroyer units, which weren't suitable for taking out infantry and being fast and mobile, they tended to go on the attack and get rekt by camouflaged tanks or field guns. Compared to German vehicles which usually combined infantry support and anti armor capabilities. Regular 75mm Shermans were woefully undergunned for dealing with Panthers and Tigers, but could support infantry ok.