Talk:Flames of War

message: merging it is a good idea, how do you do it?
:merged Travelbird 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: If I recall correctly they use 15mm figures but 1:100 scale models? (15mm and 1:100 are slightly different...) Mathmo
:Not necessarily. 15mm is not a scale, it's a category. Figures advertised as 15mm generally range from 1:100 to 1:120. Examples of the former include Battlefront, AB and Old Glory; the latter include Peter Pig, Quality Castings and Minifigs (stated explicitly on packaging). If you compare a Battlefront tank with the similar QC casting, the difference is obvious. Because of this, some (but not all) manufacturers now advertise their goods as 18mm - indicating that their figures are presumably larger, or maybe similar, or possibly even slightly smaller than other figures advertised as 15mm. Confusing? You bet. Geira 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scale

message: "stands reperesenting half-squads", not so. Fraction of a squad perhaps, but always exactly half?? Nope, not at all. Mathmo 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: squads

message: * Flames of war → Flames of War … Rationale: Correct capitialisation —Pak21 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support: simple, non-controversial and correct --Pak21 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Insert non-formatted text here
linking to http://flames-of-war.blogspot
This was only added due to most of the other links being old an not regularly updated.  The above blog is primarily about FOW, from a relatively new war gamer and gives people unique insight into the hobby process.  It is updated regularly.  I don't really care if it doesn't get put back, but maybe you should update the entire list of links to 'fan sites' instead of just deleting the last link placed there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.239.87 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support: simple, non-controversial and correct --Pak21 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Insert non-formatted text here
linking to http://flames-of-war.blogspot
This was only added due to most of the other links being old an not regularly updated.  The above blog is primarily about FOW, from a relatively new war gamer and gives people unique insight into the hobby process.  It is updated regularly.  I don't really care if it doesn't get put back, but maybe you should update the entire list of links to 'fan sites' instead of just deleting the last link placed there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.239.87 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Ia gree with the rational. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result:moved

message: "The Cost of building an army is very reasonable compared to most wargames on the market. (A typical 1500 pts army comes in at less than $250 - which is quite cheap compared to other Wargames, like Warhammer 40K)"
On the other hand, you can buy a whole DBx army at the price of one or two boxes of 22mm (1/72) figures, which can cost as little as 3.50 pounds (that's about $6.00), so, no, FoW is not 'very reasonable'! You 're comparing it to Warhammer and perhaps other games of the same expense level.
Still, a decent Warhammer/40K force can be had for about 150 pounds (which is about $250-80) if you start with one of the army deals and add a few models, and that's including the modelling material costs.
In fact, if you actually play WHFB or 40K, one reason it's hard to get into FoW is exactly because the costs of the two games are both high! 
I 'll think about an edit to this and submit it at some point.
:I'd say the cost is not insanely unreasonable, however FoW is far from cheap. Sure you can do Warhammer Cheaper than what was stated above, however it would be a rare person indeed who would argue with the statement that in general FoW is a little cheaper than Warhammer. Both games can be a made a little cheaper by going for certain types of troop selections, but what you should be looking at is what the average gamer for each of them would spend. A FoW gamer would spend less, however I'd doubt the difference is really that much and as such there would be frequent overlap of some FoW spending more than some cheap Warhammer players would spend etc... Mathmo 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I remain confused why this is here, as it appears to be no more than an advert for one particular set of wargames rules which happens to be popular at the moment. If Wikipedia is going to go this way, then I would expect to see no objections to similar pages for the vast variety of other rules sets on the market, and for the extremely extensive ranges of wargames figures available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggs62 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is every article that describes something that can be purchased an advert?  You apparently would think so.  This article is about a game system that enjoys a large world-wide player base.  It is a notable game system for that reason.  That is why it has a page. I too would expect to see pages for other game systems that also enjoy large world-wide player bases.  Eastshire (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability