Taking the field or desert as it were

              Over the last month I’ve been fortunate to play 3 games of FOW with my loyal opponent!  I thoroughly enjoyed the games, the company, and the chance to share an adult beverage with friends.  This has been part of our commitment to playing more regularly and dedicating ourselves to a single game system for a season or two.

              I find myself looking back at the last year with some new insights.  WMTG’s 3d printing addiction has let us try terrain, models, and scenarios that would otherwise have been foregone due to cost, convenience, and availability.  We’ve played more often with a larger variety of components than in the past which has let us move beyond the stage of “how does that work again?”  WMTG has also kindly typed out a summary of the 3^rd edition FOW rules in google docs which means we now have an accessible organized rules document.  This has made learning and playing the game far more rewarding than previous go-rounds.  I have lots of thoughts but first, let’s look at the games.

Game I (1250 mechanized Germans against British infantry.)

              This game featured a desperate defense by an outnumbered force waiting for reinforcements against a numerically superior attacker.  As WMTG had a mechanized company and I had my 4^th Indian infantry, I was the defender.  I had 4 full infantry platoons backed up by antiaircraft guns, antitank trucks, a light machinegun platoon, and light aircraft interception.  WMTG had 2 full infantry platoons carried by 8 lightly armored transports each of which carried 2 machineguns.  He also had a platoon of P3s and some serious air assets—a significant problem considering my lack of durable antiarmor.

              This game played out on a 4x4 table.  The board consisted of a beautiful village in the lower left quadrant facing a diagonal line of area terrain running from the upper left to the lower right quarter.  I placed my objective as deeply into the village as I could manage.  WMTG put his right in the middle of nowhere.  If he started any of his turns within 4 inches of either objective without any of my contesting models nearby, he won.  I had to last long enough for my reinforcements to come in and bolster my lines.

              I had to put at least half my army in reserve so I kept an infantry platoon, my machine gunners, and my AA guns on the board—hoping I could stand off his army with my volume of fire.  The MGs took their places in the village where they would be nearly impossible to dig out.  The AA went in front of the village where they could cover the most probable approaches.  The infantry mobbed up around the exposed objective.  I started in prepared positions so life seemed pretty good.

              In the first 2 turns WMTG rammed his tanks down my left flank, straight at my infantry platoon.  I held off his air support while 8 heavily loaded transports rushed my lines partially protected by area terrain.  I quickly found that by hunkering my MGs down in the village I had rendered them unable to draw line of sight to the approaching swarm.  I lost some of my AA guns but managed to knock half of the troops out of their transports.

              Turn three, was…bad.  The tanks hit my infantry and drove them off the objective.  My AA guns were completely eliminated.  I failed my motivation test to rally and move back to contest—leaving WMTG in control of one scoring zone and no way to move they’re without abandoning my village defense.

              The game ended on the top of turn four with none of my reserves having arrived, most of my forces dead or combat ineffective, and the Germans largely untouched save one transport.

Games II and III (1750 Fortified Italians against British infantry.)

              Game two was identical to game one except the direction that reserves entered the table and my approach toward the far short board edge.  I had three full infantry platoons, a platoon of nine carriers thanks to the wonders of 3d printing, a platoon of antitank trucks, one platoon of three Valentine tanks, my usual antiaircraft guns, and 3 dice of anemic AA interception.  WMTG had 2 fully fortified infantry platoons with mine fields and barbed wire plus the usual gun pits, two AA trucks, two platoons of tanks, two artillery platoons, and his usual Falco aircraft.

              Games II and III were played on a 6x4 table to accommodate the larger points spread.  While building the board, WMTG’s son, Pidge, asked me what I was doing.  I told him I was setting up a balanced board.  He asked what that meant.  I said making a board that neither of us would enjoy—it’s possible my 40k tournament experience influences my opinion of what a “good” board should be.  The major elements of this setup were the same village as before but placed in the middle of the far-short board edge.  The middle section was broken up by several ruff terrain segments and oasis.  The far-left corner featured a rocky outcrop.

              WMTG dropped his objective as far back on my right as he could manage.  I placed mine as far forward and left as I could manage—hoping to use a central oasis to partially shield me on the approach.  I only had to worry about the left most platoon and fortifications as there was no point pushing for the farther objective.  This let me deploy in a left running refuse flank maneuver.  My AA guns, darned immobility, were effectively out of the game but considering how the scenario played I don’t have room to complain.

              This game played very quickly.  As Brits, I exercised my option for night fight which screwed the Italian aircraft and artillery.  I lost most of my carriers and infantry on the approach but rammed my tanks into WMTG’s fortifications.  I lost 2 Valentines piece meal to the mines but my remaining Valentine broke the Italian defense winning me the game at the top of turn three.  Infantry hitching a ride on tanks are particularly easy to kill since they go from a 3-up save to a 5-up save but I still like the universal carriers as transports.

Game II, Free for All!

              This was the most instructive and least interactive game we’ve played in some time.  WMTG deployed his defensive down the far long board edge.  I put my 2 objectives in the far-right trench blocking out as much of the fortification as I could.  WMTG put an objective on either side of my deployment forcing me to split my defenses.  I chose to bulrush his objectives while leaving a token force to defend my far-left zone.  WMTG’s artillery bracketed the far-right quarter with his tanks dead center—waiting to react to wherever I chose to push.

              Much like game II, I rushed my tanks at the right-most artillery battery and fortified platoon.  The carriers, thanks to a reconnaissance move, were in the Italians’ face turn one hosing the artillery down with MG fire.  By the end of turn two I had taken out half of his artillery and driven the infantry out of the trench with my
valentines.  My carriers died in glory while my infantry covered the back-board edge double contesting each objective.  We called the game when it was clear that my tanks were going to run the table before he could score on my backfield.

              This game was the first I can remember where we really “played” the game.  Even at deployment we were trying to bate each other into prematurely committing to a flank or leaving an objective open.  While the outcome was the same as the two previous games (tank takes objective in three) it was nice having to strategize in the moment rather than just throwing dice at my opponent.

              Considering these games, the easy call is to say that tanks are broken—especially my tanks—and we should try and play around armor for a while.  However, WMTG pointed out something incisive on the way home that night.  This is the first set of games where we’ve really tested the limits of our armies and force selection.  He claims he employed his forces badly seeking binary solutions to complex problems.  Infantry die to tanks on their own but infantry paired with armor pose a significant challenge to enemy tanks.  Both of us could have as easily used tanks as defensive assets which would have drastically changed the game tempo.  In our first game, I should have ambushed my AA guns.  I should have payed for sticky bombs for my HQ and troops.  Once all those infantry were out of their transports, my MG teams would have been invaluable. 

              I’ve done a lot of thinking about how FOW plays V.S. other wargames and I think WMTG is correct in that we need to think more big-picture about army construction and strategy.  For one thing, 1250 points doesn’t leave us many platoons or utility to answer strategic questions.  FOW, unlike GW and PP doesn’t have units that outright remove opposing resources.  Direct fire artillery and some anti-aircraft guns are probably the closest shooting analogs while tanks assaulting infantry are the closest CQB comparison.  Even then, it’s difficult for all but the most expensive units to bring the pain in such a way to render a single unit irrelevant.  While it does mean longer play times, 1500-2500point games will give us more ways to respond to varied missions and deployment.

              Another issue unique to FOW is how shooting interacts with given models.  My to-hit role is determined by the enemy skill not my own ability.  This makes my trained French more vulnerable to Veteran Germans and less effective in return.  That’s also why WMTG holds my horde of armored cars in such high regard while I remember how easily they died.  FOW is designed to mimic actual historic forces not to create a balanced engagement per say.  There are steps I could have taken to maximize my chances in game I but realistically I should have lost that game given our capabilities and correlation of forces.

              That dynamic is what makes historical gaming interesting.  The Germans, especially at the beginning of WWII, were fighting the next war.  The French were fighting the last war.  My Brits are better off than my French specifically because their forces were better positioned to fight Germany’s mechanized tactics.  The problem with this dynamic is that it is sometimes difficult to remember that FOW is only an approximation of historical conflict.  Sure, artillery is decent against tanks but Valentines armor is 1 less than the Italian general artillery which makes them functionally immune to direct fire save highly improbable dice luck.  Machine guns should mowed down infantry but the mechanics of bullet proof cover mean I through 36 shots at WMTG’s artillery in one round and didn’t remove a single model.  I think our expectation for some units is often incorrectly colored by how we think the unit should perform based on our understanding of history rather than a straight mechanical analysis.  That has driven me to some unfortunate strategic blunders—something I hope to remedy as we play more games with the same rule set.

              Finally, I’m beginning to dislike the way in which FOW balances quality and quantity of fire.  Tanks, mobile units, can’t fire their main guns more than once on the move.  Many of my primary guns don’t even have H.E. meaning I can’t easily pass my firepower check to bypass bulletproof cover.  Machineguns have the rate of fire required to do damage but again lack the FP to deliver on that promise.  This isn’t a condemnation of the system—just a general frustration that we’ve been playing such small games for so long that I’ve failed to notice how smaller games push the scenario in favor of heavy armor.  It creates a dynamic where the defender ends up killing off a ton of ancillary elements but still looses the game due to one unit that they couldn’t really deal with in the first place.  That is a somewhat overbroad generalization—I mean that it is less fun to spend a game watching most of your army die, only to have the invincible juggernaut win you the contest because your opponent couldn’t affect your key component.  It feels “bad” to groan as you loose model after model only to punk your opponent who never really had a chance to begin with.

It’s fun to roll dice and play with toy soldiers.  It’s equally fun to spend time with good friends over a shared experience.  I think knowing the rules more, putting the time in to better learn the game, and getting the reps in will make FOW even more fun in future.