Terrain Projects

I finally got around to diagnosing and fixing the problem with the fluorescent lights in my garage (a bad ballast). Normally, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with gaming, but the light in question is the one that illuminates the part of the garage that doesn't actually contain automobiles. Instead, it currently contains a bunch of stuff that still hasn't been fully unpacked from our move, a bunch of scrap and junk that was there from before we moved, and a couple of tables that I hope will become my gaming space.

That last bit is the important part for my current project: terrain. I need more of it to have some decent games. I've got a couple of green flocked mats for most games, plus a blue felt one for air and sea battles. I also have a decent, but not overwhelming, supply of terrain for 15mm games (mainly Flames of War), but I lack much in the way of terrain for larger scales (mainly 40K).

I've been slowly trying to fix that problem by buying the occasional piece of GW terrain. So far, I've got a hill, a woods, an arcane ruins, the moonscape craters, and the new temple of skulls, but some have needed assembly, and they all need to be painted. Since my normal painting area is a Citadel Paint Station, and some of my terrain is as big as the paint station, I haven't been able to get to it before now. Now that I've got a couple of big tables with decent lighting, I've started to fix that.

My first project has been the simplest one: painting the Citadel Gaming Hill. A while back, in preparation for this, I purchased a Citadel Scenery Painting Pack. I'm sure it would have been significantly cheaper to just buy some brown and ochre craft paints at a hobby store, but I basically decided to pay for the convenience of getting everything in one package. In theory, there's enough paint, flock, and glue here to cover a 4'x6' Citadel Realm of Battle Gameboard, so I figured it would suffice to do several pieces of terrain.

There are some good and bad points to the pack. You do get a good size jar of brown paint, and a lot of scorched grass flock. The problem with both of them is how they come packaged. The pack comes with a 2" wide paint brush. The bottle of paint comes with a mouth that's smaller than 2". That means you're going to need a palette. The flock comes in a tightly sealed bag that is not re-sealable. You're going to spill some, and you're going to have to find another container to store what's left over. This would have been OK, if I were getting some sort of bulk deal on all of this, but I'm actually paying a premium over what I'd pay at the craft store, so it's a bit disappointing.

Still, the results aren't bad. The colors work well together. The included brush is going to get worn out fast when using it for drybrushing, but 2" brushes are cheap to buy at the hardware store. I haven't actually used the included flock, but it's the same as the flock you get in the Citadel tubs, which is what I'm using now (I'm just going to refill the tubs from the bags when they run out). Leaving out the time it took for the various stages to dry, it probably took less than an hour to finish.

Next up, I'm going to do the moonscape craters using the same method. I'm also going to head to the craft store to get some different colors for doing the arcane ruins and the temple of skulls.

Longer term, I want to do some complete tables. Flocked mats are OK, but I've been wanting to do a full table for Flames of War for a while now. In preparation for that, I ordered a hot knife for cutting foam. After it gets here, I'll be heading to one of the DiY stores to get some foam board. I don't know that I'll start by doing a complete table, I may just do some smaller pieces first, but I want to eventually do three 2'x4' sections that will form a 6'x4' table representing the area around Kharkov in the summer of 1942. Mostly rolling hills with some wooded areas. I'll probably just model the rolling hills into the table, and maybe a road or two, while leaving room for the Battlefield in a Box river to be placed, or for some movable trees to be put down.

If that works out well, then I'll probably work on some other terrain tables as well, but that would be much further down the road.

Panzer Tracks Updated

I've made a few posts on Panzer Tracks this month, including one today covering some of my research into a unit I'm considering building for Flames of War. Probably not too entertaining for most, but those of you interested in the nuts and bolts of WWII history and how it relates to gaming might find it interesting.

Yet Another Rant on Battlefront

As you've probably already figured out if you read this blog, I'm thinking about getting back into Flames of War. There are a few customers at the FLGS that have shown some interest, and I'm thinking about either finishing some of the half-done projects I packed up when my wife-to-be first moved in with me, or working on some late war armies.

Since I've been painting LotR miniatures lately, I decide that instead of breaking out the Model Colors and going straight to work, that I'll start by going through some of the Flames of War books I've bought over the past few months, including the Firestorm: Bagration campaign system. The Firestorm system was advertised as having several things in one: It's a campaign framework, a set of special scenarios, a set of skirmish rules, and a stand-alone "General's Game" that uses the board and unit markers on their own without needing to play games of FoW to determine the battle results.

It's this last bit that I decide to take a look at first. I skim the rules, set up the board, and start my first turn. I immediately run into a question, and I can't find the answer to it by skimming back over the sections I think might help.

So, I clench my teeth and head over to the official forums, log in, and do a search. Nothing. Not nothing as in no answer to my question, but nothing as in no search returns at all. The search engine is completely broken. I start doing a bit of browsing in the rules questions forum, and one of the first posts I stumble across is saying something like "hey, it's a miracle, I got the search engine to return something." So, apparently I'm not just running into a rare problem with the search engine. That same thread is about an issue that was a hot topic two years ago, when I was last playing the game: whether or not tanks with a turret can choose to rotate their hulls when they fire. Without going into a lot of detail, basically the rules as written made having a hull mounted gun better than having a turret mounted gun 9 times out of 10 (something that's the complete opposite of historical reality). It's classic Battlefront that this rather basic issue has yet to be resolved so many years after the release of the rules... or has it?

A couple pages into the thread Phil (the designer of the game) says that the 2nd printing resolved the issue and states that tanks can indeed choose to turn their entire hull instead of just their turret if they want to, it's entirely up to what the player thinks is best in the current situation. Cool. Issue resolved... or is it?

Someone immediately digs up the list of changes between the 1st and 2nd printing and this ruling isn't among them. Someone else goes through a copy of the 2nd printing rules they have access to, and they can't find it there either!

Apparently, the only place this ruling was ever made was in Phil's head! Of course, it's also possible that it's been made in the forums before. Remember those forums that don't have a functional search feature? Yeah, those forums.

I give the above as a case study of why I love Flames of War, but hate Battlefront.

I'm seriously starting to wonder whether or not it would be worth it for someone to just do a fork of the Flames of War rules. It's not like there's any IP in the game that's proprietary. All the fluff is historical, and the mechanics aren't copyrightable. Heck, they're all just evolutions from other game systems anyway (remember, it started as a mod for 40K). Even the army lists are based on actual historical TO&Es. The only possible area of infringible territory is with the point costs. That would be the trickiest area to work with anyway since BF has never released their system for determining point costs, so it would probably be easier to just do them from scratch.

The problem is that I'm not the man for the job. I'd want to change too many things that make Flames of War what it is, like nationality traits. Of course, now that I think about it, those are the one part of the system that might need tweaking due to possible IP issues. Of course a name change would probably suffice, and could even lead to more accurate descriptions. For example, we could change the name of "Hen & Chicks" to "Stupid tank rules that should only apply during a limited portion of the Early War period." See why I'd be the wrong man for the job?

Gamus Interruptus II

I almost forgot about game night tonight, and since I was running late I went ahead and called first before heading over, just to make sure that my opponent was going to be there. He was there, but family issues meant that he was leaving. Again, something completely out of his control, so I'm not complaining, just explaining why I wasn't able to get in a game of LotR. There's a good chance he won't be able to make it next week either, in which case I may try to get in a game of D&D if there's still room in the Dungeon Delving group. There's been a lot of interest in it, so it may be full by now.

I have to say that the upcoming price increase for GW miniatures may kill my budding interest in War of the Ring. A current box of most plastic cavalry is six for $25. A pre-order box of six Galadhrim Knights is $33. That's a pretty significant increase, especially if the infantry boxes go up by a similar amount. It pretty much removes the argument that WotR is affordable compared to the other GW games. While I could still afford to play, it will probably keep anyone else in this area from considering it, thus eliminating any possible opponents.

I'll still play LotR, but it probably means that my plans for expanding at least one of those forces into a WotR army will never come to pass.

In the meantime, I've been painting 15mm miniatures for Flames of War. I've painted about 30 more Soviet troops, adding to the around 50 or so that I had already painted, although I'm waiting to base them all until I get another platoon of SMG troops painted so I can do them all at once. For now, I'm taking a break from the troops and am working on a new objective marker. I'll post some photos of that either here or on Panzer Tracks eventually. I've also assembled a T-34/85 and am debating whether to paint it up or assemble the other four that I have first.

Panzer Tracks Reborn

Back when I was going a different direction with postGeek, instead of just using it as my general gaming blog, I created Panzer Tracks. Panzer Tracks is a WWII blog that is largely centered around my Flames of War gaming, but also has several book reviews, and even a description of my visit to Corregidor. With the way I use postGeek now, it would make sense to integrate my future posts concerning Flames of War into postGeek, especially as I've already done three rants about Battlefront here, with a fourth one in the works that I may or may not eventually post.

The thing is, while it would make sense to use postGeek for my Flames of War posts, I like the idea of having a separate blog for all things WWII. When I get interested in Flames of War my interest tends to spill over into a study of the general history of the period, and those kinds of posts don't quite fit the postGeek format (whatever that is). So, with my interest in doing something with Flames of War on the rise, I've decided to dust off Panzer Tracks, update it to the latest Blogspot format, tweak the interface a bit, and start using it again.

For now, my plan is to post Flames of War gaming posts and WWII related posts over in Panzer Tracks, while simply posting links here when I think it's appropriate. I'll also try to keep the Battlefront rants here, but that may change.

So, if you're interested, head over to Panzer Tracks to check out my current brainstorming ideas for a couple of late war armies.

Flames of War Fail

I'm thinking about trying to get in some Flames of War soon, if only in the form of a demo game for my local store. So, I've started re-reading the rules. A few pages in I decided I better check on the latest errata. Yes, I'd managed to forget Battlefront's strange attitude towards errata.

If at all possible they want to avoid ever admitting that they make mistakes. They waited until the second printing of the core rulebook to do it for the actual rules, and even then they never issued a pdf, instead having it only as an html post on their website. As far as I know, they still have never issued official errata for the mid-war compilations, or at least I couldn't find any. They have issued pdf errata for their two late war compilations, but you'd never know it by browsing their website. I ended up having to use google to find them!

It's really depressing to see that Battlefront still has this weird attitude towards errata. I had hoped that they had maybe grown into a healthier attitude over the year and a half that I've been away from the game. I suppose the fact that they at least issued errata pdfs for Festung Europa and Fortress Europe can be seen as baby steps towards a more adult attitude to owning up to mistakes, but I'd really hoped they'd come along farther than they have.

A nice contrast is Spartan Games and the way they've been handling Uncharted Seas. Unafraid to issue errata months after releasing the rules, and easily accessible in their official forums. Maybe I'll see if I can interest the store owner in a demo of Uncharted Seas instead of Flames of War...

Flames of Fail

Battlefront, the makers of Flames of War, have some real issues.

Fail #1: They published the Festung Europa late war compilation book in 2006. Immediately upon release there were some obvious errors found in the book, but the company refused to issue official errata. Now, two years later, on the eve of releasing a new late war compilation book, they are finally issuing an errata for Festung Europa.

The errata begins with this line: "With Fortress Europe on the way, it's time to gather all of the corrections that have come up for the old Festung Europa." Wrong! It was time to do that as soon as the errors were found, not two years later! These guys act as if the creation of a pdf file is a major undertaking and not the process of a few minutes.

Fail #2: With the upcoming release of Fortress Europe, gamers have little reason to purchase any of the army books that have been released over the past two years. All the game statistics from those books will be part of Fortress Europe (presumably in correct form, since no errata were ever issued for those books either).

As a result, Battlefront and any retail outlet with remaining stock will be stuck with it. To alleviate this problem they've undertaken a promotion that they claim is to reward those who bought Festung Europa. Those who did are supposed to get a free army book when they buy Fortress Europe.

Fail #2, Problem #1: The people who are Battlefront's best customers and have bought all the books already get nothing from this deal. If this was really a promotion to reward those who bought Festung Europa, then it would be a discount for Fortress Europe.

Fail #2, Problem #2: It's not really a bonus for those who bought Festung Europa, it's a bonus for those who pre-order Fortress Europe. See, Battlefront isn't crediting stores for stock they already have, instead they are sending a free army book of the store's choice along with every copy of Fortress Europe they order. So, unless you get with your store when they make their pre-order, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to get the army book that you want. In the meantime, the program doesn't help the stores at all, since they don't get any credit for the books they already have.

I still hold out hope that one of these days Battlefront will return to the open, honest, and customer friendly policies they held when I was first attracted to the game, but in the meantime they continue to fail.

Correction: Now that Fortress Europe is out and I've been able to read a copy, I want to correct a mistaken assumption I made. It does not compile the lists from the other late-war army books, so those books aren't instantly obsolete as I had expected them to become. It also doesn't have all the same lists that were in Festung Europa, being only a subset of those lists due to the increased space that the new format takes up. My other points are still valid.

The Problem with Flames of War

I like Flames of War. I like it a lot. I have it listed as my #1 Top Game on Boardgamegeek. I have another blog that's all but dedicated to it. The problem is with the way that Battlefront, the company that makes it, chooses to deal with their customers.

This problem originates in the nature of the game itself. FoW is about WWII combat, but it's not very historically accurate. It was meant to be a fun, easy to learn, fast playing game that gave the feel of WWII combat. The result is more of a game of WWII as presented in movies than it is an accurate representation of tactical combat of the period.

This, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that they refuse to admit it.

Leaving out the issues with the US National Tournament (and their customer service that took a turn for the worse a couple of years ago and has never fully recovered), almost all the controversy over FoW stems from arguments over the historical accuracy of either weapons, unit stats, or nationality rules. The fact is that very little in FoW is historically accurate in terms of detail, even those parts that they actually try to get right. For example, BF takes great pains to build in accurate TO&Es to their army lists. Yet, in reality, few forces ever went into battle with a by-the-book TO&E.

I'm not sure whether they have made a conscious decision to never discuss this, or whether they actually believe that FoW is historically accurate, but I suspect the former. There are obviously huge abstractions made in many areas of the game, and I have to assume that they haven't blinded themselves to that fact given that they created the game in the first place.

So, why is this a problem? Because the constant bickering and flame wars that develop over the inaccuracies hurts the community of gamers that has developed around the game. If they'd just state that "hey, we know there are a few things that aren't fully accurate, but we felt it was worth it to keep things simple and balanced and fun" they'd nip most of those arguments in the bud, and avoid dividing their customers.

These divisions are magnified by the refusal of the company to put out errata. There are known issues with the books that have been printed. This has been acknowledged in the company forums by company employees. This happens to all game companies. Yet, they refuse to put out official errata in between printings of the books! This leads to conflict between players when it comes to those issues, with some arguing that only the official rules count, and others wanting to play using what the rules as they should be rather than as they are.

This is doubly amazing given their focus on tournament play. What does a tournament organizer do when there is no official errata? Do they use the rules as printed, knowing that there are errors, or do they go with unofficial fan-compiled lists?

It's mind-boggling that they won't go to the simple effort of releasing a .pdf online that lists the mistakes and corrects them, and their excuse of "we want to make sure it's right" is just plain stupid. Maybe twenty years ago that would have been reasonable, but in today's age of instant internet access, if there's an error in the errata, then all they have to do is fix it in the .pdf and post a new version.

Why should they care though? As long as people still play their game, then they make their money, regardless of the problems. The thing is, people aren't playing. At least the people I used to play with aren't. Before I made the move to Arkansas I had played FoW maybe once over a four month period compared to playing at least once a month for the year or so before that. That's largely because the people I played with had become disenchanted with the game, not because of the game itself, but because of the actions of Battlefront.

Now I'm in a new area where no one plays FoW. A year or two ago I would have been evangelizing the heck out of it trying to drum up new players and retailer support. Instead, when I mentioned the game to the local miniatures store owner and he said he had looked at it but decided not to carry it I said "I can't blame you."

Why Field of Glory is not the next Flames of War

I've been participating in a discussion on BoardGameGeek concerning Field of Glory. It started as a comment on the quality of the rule book itself, which is superb, but someone asked whether it was going to do for Ancient & Medieval miniatures gaming what Flames of War did for WWII gaming, and I've been arguing that no, it won't.

In order to understand why this is, you first have to understand just what Flames of War did for WWII miniatures gaming. It took a genre of gaming that had been restricted mainly to the same group of gamers for two to three decades, and opened it up to an influx of new gamers. Many coming from science fiction and fantasy miniatures games like Warhammer. It also led to a standardized set of rules with which it's possible to find pick-up games in many parts of the US, and even around the world, but that's a secondary achievement compared to bringing in new players.

There are several reasons why Field of Glory won't accomplish the same thing for Ancients & Medieval miniatures gaming, none of which have anything to do with the quality of the rules themselves. The first, and most important, is that the publishers aren't looking for the same sort of success that Flames of War achieved. Battlefront created Flames of War in order to sell their miniatures. Osprey/Slitherine created Field of Glory in order to sell Field of Glory books, and perhaps promote sales of other Osprey titles as well.

The fact that Osprey/Slitherine doesn't sell miniatures leads directly to the factors that will keep Field of Glory from achieving the success of Flames of War. The first was the decision to allow for variable scales of miniatures. This makes perfect sense when trying to appeal to the broadest section of existing gamers, but it makes it harder for new players to get into the game because they have to choose a scale to collect, and if they choose wrong they may have trouble finding opponents. This also makes it harder to find pick-up games because what might be the most common scale in one area won't necessarily be the most common in another.

The second factor is in regards to availability. While they've made a few stumbles, Battlefront's success with Flames of War has come in part because they provide a one-stop shop for their game. You don't have to search all over for the miniatures you need to play the game. You simply check Battlefront's catalog.

Since Osprey/Slitherine doesn't make miniatures you need to deal with at least two companies to play their game, and quite possibly more than two. In addition, many of the manufacturers of miniatures are located in the UK, which makes it an even bigger hassle for US customers (something I already touched on here).

For retailers this is a bigger deal. It's simply not worth it for most of them to try to stock a miniatures game when that game requires miniatures from multiple manufacturers and that are available in multiple scales.

The success of Flames of War came from a combination of good rules, easily available miniatures, and retailer support. Field of Glory has only one of those things, and that's why it won't achieve the same level of success.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Field of Glory will be a success. It will sell lots of books to existing Ancients & Medieval gamers, and bring some older players back that had gotten tired of the older rules sets. It will boost sales of other Osprey titles. It will even bring in a few new gamers to the genre. What it won't do is bring in anywhere near the number of new gamers that Flames of War did.

I do have a few ideas as to what could be done to change all of this, and turn Field of Glory into the next Flames of War, but they'll have to wait for a later post.

My first four player game of Flames of War

Ok, this one didn't turn out so well. It was 3000 points of Soviets vs. 3000 points of DAK Germans, and we played the recently posted Armoured Encounter Scenario.

We got slaughtered, but since we did manage to destroy two of our opponents' eleven platoons before getting taken out, it was technically just a 3-4 loss.

There were a lot of mistakes made in this one. We messed up the firepower rolls again, but in a different way this time. We also totally messed up the marching reserves rule used in the scenario we were playing, which since everything except recon starts in reserve was a pretty big deal. This second mistake was probably a bigger deal.

Anyways, it was still a fun game. Joedog brought his terrain, which looked good on the battlemat I brought. Once I get some of the terrain I'm working on done we should have a lot of really good options going.

Despite the loss, I'm still really inspired to keep painting more. I want to get a 2000 point Soviet force finished up before moving on to the German opposition force I'm planning.