Yes I know that they are very different games looking at very different types of battle, but at the end of the day they are both turn based wargames, one v one played out in a couple of hours. Understanding makes one game good might be of use when thinking about what you want to see in rule changes to another.
So I got to thinking about what I so liked about the gameplay for Flames of war.
- Missions that are interesting, very well balanced and make any battle interesting
- Variable starting lineups.
- scenery rules that actually make the arrangement of scenery important
- Realistic models
I'm not trying to say that WFB is a bad game. Its not, in fact its a great game that has kept my interest for many years. The core rules don't need much tinkering to make them perfect. I just wish that there was a little more variety between games.
If you want to know what happened in the game. I didn't protect my guns enough and was overrun by the masses of Russian infantry. My anti-infantry tanks were taken out far too easily by a late arriving platoon of Russian tanks.