Thursday, 19 June 2014

Battlefront, WW1

I note with interest that Battlefront have - I think the best phrase is snuck in, with as let little fanfare, an announcement for August for, wait for it...

... Flames of War "Great War".

Yes, really.

Reading between the lines, it does appear to suffer a little from Battlefront's desire to turn everything into a tank battle, but (as someone who probably owns more BF figures and vehicles - at a rough guess about 8-900 and 100 respectively, even if over half are unpainted - than most FoW gamers), I'm interested to see what the figures come out like.

The rules are coming out in the August Wargames Illustrated, and I'll certainly give them a once over, but if I do succumb to the figures, I'd be going for "Through The Mud And Blood" or Warhammer Historical's "Great War" rules.

And yes, this is post #750...


  1. I agree with you Tank battle comment. Also I think they are foolish not to start with the most interesting (and colorful) period of the war the fall and winter of 1914 while the armies were still mobile, the small nations were fully in the fight and the German Army retained its regional flavor.

  2. Considering how few A7s were committed to action and how quickly they were withdrawn, BF has managed to make them look common.

  3. Oh yes! I'm really looking forward to this!

  4. I would guess they will backfill to 1914 if this proves successful. As FoW is primarily known for its tanks, from a business perspective it is more likely to woo existing players by beginning with the 'tank years', than if it went for 1914.

    In the same tone, if they had gone for 'Early War' when they began WW2, I expect we'd all be saying "Battlewho?".

  5. I doubt they will backfill.

    This looks more a mini project like Nam.

  6. I would be interested to see if they do Late War Austrians or pre-collapse Russians.

  7. Good post Mike! I'm going to be slightly controversial here!

    I quite like this initiative from Battlefront! I think they deserve three cheers, to be honest.

    I think the 1918 focus makes perfect sense for the company. They have a large audience of gamers who love their products, and are comfortable with lots of tanks on the table. I think it makes good sense to "dial it back" from 1939 to 1918. I completely agree with the numbers of A7Vs looking high, but (from what I've read) when the A7Vs were used by the Germans, they were used in large kampfabteilung of 4 to 6 tanks together (assuming they didn't break down on the way into action). I hope they take a look at the French tanks, as I think they're at least as much fun on the table as the British ones. Another interesting variant would be taking the action into alt-history, with "Boney" Fuller's Plan 1919 (and a lot more tanks!).

    In the end, any support for World War One gaming is good news in my book. See, told you it'd be controversial :)

  8. 1918 makes so much sense for BF.

    Once the fight moved out from the static war of 1915-1917 and a running fight.

    The other gaming option is as previously suggested 1914.

    To me the rest of the western front is really not possible to wargame.

    Other fronts are more interesting, perhaps BF would be interested in the Dardanelles.

    Or even better move British tanks out on to the Steppes of White Russian.

  9. Interesting, and I can understand why they've opted for 1918. I doubt they will expand to other aspects of the Great War, since I think they're just flying a kite here and cashing in on the Centenary.

  10. nothing wrong with some new models and terrain getting released and it'll be nice to see some WWI minis in my local game shop


Views and opinions expressed here are those of the commenter, not mine. I reserve the right to delete comments if I consider them unacceptable.

If you don't have a Google account, but do have a Yahoo! or LiveJournal account, read this post, which will explain how you can comment using that ID.

Comments on posts older than 7 days will go into a moderation queue.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...