While “better late then never” is an oft used cliché, it is equally most often simply a lame excuse for procrastination. I really have no excuse for why it has taken me so long to get these results posted, except perhaps that real life just got in the way. Let me start off then by not making further excuses and just say to those who participated in last February’s OwlCon Flames of War (FoW) events, and those that supported them with prizes, that I am extremely grateful for your involvement and assistance in making it an enjoyable and successful event and I am profusely sorry it has taken me this long to post the final results. I’m sure all involved in this past event have moved on now and probably long forgotten what happened that weekend in early February; however I do believe that the effort put in by those of you involved in the two tournaments is worth this summary of what transpired, if to serve no other purpose then to wrap things up once and for all.
SUPPORT
Between the generosities of Lone Star Historical Miniatures (who donated two boxed platoons of tanks), Battlefront (who donated a large passel of merchandise including Festung Europa, several platoon boxes, and other assorted minis and accessories), and Little Wars (who filled in with additional accessories) we were able to send everyone away with something - which is always our goal, if possible. To you all my sincerest thanks. We all enjoy our FoW hobby and routinely play it for no more reward then having a good time, but it is always nice to take away a treat when you commit the time and energy to play in an organized all-day event like a tournament.
A special thank you is also in order for the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. They were kind enough to assemble a number of shrink wrapped sets consisting of one Museum monogrammed leather bound notebook, writing implement, and dog tags. They provided sufficient numbers of these that each WWII themed event at OwlCon received one as a prize. One was thus handed out as a prize to each of the two FOW tournament groups.
FORMAT
The tournaments were both 1500 point three round affairs, with 2.5 hours allotted for each round. We had ten players in mid-war and nine players in late-war, so “byes” were used on Sunday. Some of the guys played in both tournaments. We awarded prizes for Best General, Best Army (by popular vote), Best Sportsman (popular vote), and Best Table Terrain (again popular vote). A “Dunkirk” award, in the form of Battlefront’s fire and smoke accessory, was awarded to the last-place player in each tournament, to commemorate the “smoking” they received at the hands of their opponents.
This year I tried something new, allowing each player to submit three variations on the same core company list. They essentially had three “slots” they could fill. They could use a single 1500 point list to fill all three “slots”, use a single list in each of two “slots” and provide a variation to that list for the third “slot”, or provide three different lists, one for each “slot”. Much like the Axis of Attack campaign rules in FoW, players had to pick a single nationality and company type for their army, then each alternative list for that army could have different support platoon choices (including aircraft) or differing numbers of sections/equipment in their HQ, combat and/or weapon platoons. If they wished to add, remove, or substitute combat and/or weapon platoons to differentiate one list from another then they had to pay a VP penalty, which was deducted from their tournament total. Once a player knew what table they were playing on, who their opponent was - more importantly what type of army their opponent had - and whether they would be the attacker or defender then they would have to decide which “slot” to use for that game. Once committed to a round that “slot” could not be used again.
I wanted players to have the flexibility to field the right list for the task at hand, particularly as each type of opponent, scenario, and role in that scenario is best addressed by different tactics and different list choices. An infantry company faced with an opposing infantry company requires a different mix of weapons then that same infantry company up against an armored company. From past personal experience, trying to design and field a general jack-of-all-trades company with only 1500 points, to use competitively in a tournament, can lead to frustration from the outset if the luck of the draw always has you at a slight to moderate disadvantage. I felt my approach added a bit more “strategizing” to players’ decision making regarding what they brought to the tournament and how they utilized what they had. “Should I use an ant-tank heavy force in one slot in case I come up against a lot of tanks, or should I use it in two slots because the trend seems to be that more players are playing tank armies then before?” “Should one of my armies have AA in it in case my opponent fields air support?” I felt that FoW has been out long enough for most folks to have built up sizeable armies, but for those who might not have all the bells and whistles to choose from they could just field a single list in all three “slots” and still do well. I’d be interested in hearing from the participants in these tournaments whether or not they felt their success and enjoyment of the games they played was heightened by using this system of list variation. Of course the other way to deal with this is to field larger armies, 1750 points or more, but the concern I have there is that with 2.5 hour rounds and larger numbers of platoons you run a greater risk that not all platoons will get onto the table, or will arrive too late in the game to have any real effect (assuming reserve rules are in use).
The other reason I wanted players to bring alternate lists was that I planned a further wrinkle. Each tournament told a story. The first round of the mid-war tournament postulated that the Axis side was again on the attack, so the first scenario was Breakthrough, with the Axis players attacking on all tables. We had equal numbers of Axis and Allied players in the mid-war tournament, and were only off by one in the late-war, so I totaled the Axis VP and Allied VP after each round, kept a running total between rounds, and used that running total to decide the “course” of the “war”. This meant that for some of the rounds the Axis or Allied sides were considered the attackers, on every table, regardless of the Fair Fight special rule. It was my hope that with three list variations available to them that players would recognize that occasionally their infantry company might be asked to attack an armored company. I compensated players for the “hardship” this situation would put them in by awarding a bonus of two VP to players who would otherwise be expected to defend under the Fair Fight special rule but in fact were asked to attack by circumstance. I think this radical approach added interest and a touch more realism to the match-ups, simulating those situations where higher level commanders have ordered a unit to perform tasks that they might not be equipped to handle. In hindsight I should have publicized this wrinkle before the tournaments began so the potential for a “disadvantaged” match-up could have been partially compensated for by judicious use of the aforementioned list variation approach.
MID-WAR
We had six tables for mid-war, decorated with terrain by volunteers. We used five at a time, relying on Battlefront’s Tournament database to decide for us which five. You can see photos of each table in the photo collection linked at the end of this article. Congratulations to Chris Kitchen for winning the nicest table award with his Mediterranean theme. His use of Scott Washburn’s PaperTerrain and the relief he added with foam under his cloth made for a really attractive table. Congratulations also to Brook Burg, whose Tunisian Desert table was runner-up. The tables were…
- Table 1 - Mediterranean - Chris Kitchen
- Table 2 - Tunisian Desert - Brook Burg
- Table 3 - Eastern Front - Trujillo Francisco
- Table 4 - Kursk Steppes - Bill Green
- Table 5 - Rural France - Mark Long
- Table 6 - Bombed out City - Dave Whitford
The following round descriptions have been paraphrased from the handout I provided all players.
Round 1 - The Axis war machine was still wallowing in the early successes of the war. In a bold, but not entirely unexpected, move Hitler ordered renewed offensives on all fronts, intent on capturing the next set of crucial political and military objectives, wherever his forces were in action.
Scenario: Breakthrough - Axis players HAD to be the attackers. Fighting was fierce but the final VP tally saw the Axis jump out to an early lead with 21 VP to the Allies 13, with John and Dave scoring six each for the Axis and Will delivering the single six for the Allies.
Round 2 - Axis won round one. The initial attacks met with great success, whether that success could be followed up had to be determined. The Allies needed to regain lost ground, to buy time for their reinforcements to arrive.
Scenario: The Cauldron - Allied players HAD to be the attackers. This time, the Axis players absolutely trounced the Allies, 27 to 8, with Dave and Chris raking in sixes and the Allies settling with just ones and twos. This brought the cumulative totals to 48 and 21.
Round 3 - Axis were winning. As with so many other battles, the initial Axis blitzkrieg had its effect. The allies were clearly on the defensive again and needed to pull back, gracefully, to form new defensive lines.
Scenario: Fighting Withdrawal - Axis players HAD to be the attackers. In this final round the Allies bounced back handily, grabbing an impressive 27 VP to beat the Axis’ 16. Of note were sixes awarded to Allies Will, Mark, Willis and Walter. Dave scored the lone six for the Axis.
This brought the grand totals to Axis: 64 and Allies: 48, a clear win for the Axis side. Final scores looked like this…
| Dave Whitford (Ostfront Panzerkompanie) |
18 |
| Chris Kitchen (Italian Afrika Compagnia Bersaglieri) |
14 |
| Will Burns (Soviet Tankovy Batalon) |
13 |
| John Daigle (Romanian Companie Cari de Lupta) |
12 |
| Mark Long (Soviet Tankovy Batalon) |
12 |
| Bill Green (German Ostfront Panzergrenadierkompanie) |
11 |
| Brook Burg (German Ostfront Grenadierkompanie) |
9 |
| Walter McGovern (US Afrika Armored Infantry Company) |
9 |
| Willis Marti (US Afrika Armored Infantry Company) |
9 |
| Trujillo Francisco (Soviet Guard Strelkovy Batalon) |
5 |
Congratulations to Best General Dave Whitford, whose sterling command successes would continue the following day. Best Army was a tie in the popular vote, between Chris Kitchen and John Daigle. They rolled dice off in true gamesmanship fashion and John won and got his choice of prize. Chris also won for his beautiful terrain and got a copy of the Art of War for his generalship as well. Mark Long received top billing in terms of Best Sportsman. Last but not least, Jil Francisco walked away from the day with the coveted “Dunkirk” award, with a gentle reminder to use plenty of smoke so the enemy won’t get a clear shot in the future.
LATE-WAR
We had five tables for this tournament, but only nine players, so again one table went unused each round. You can see photos of each table in the photo collection linked at the end of this article. Congratulations to Brook Burg for his exceptional Tunisian Desert table. Again, his use of PaperTerrain buildings and a LARGE collection of palm trees made the whole table look marvelous. Honorable Mention went to Eric Warren. He had constructed six terrain squares and arranged them to represent a gully and some nearby low hills. The tables were…
- Table 1 - Eastern Front - Andy Blozinski
- Table 2 - Tunisian Desert - Brook Burg
- Table 3 - Rural Normandy - Eric Warren
- Table 4 - Rural Europe - Scott Wilson
- Table 5 - Bombed out City - Dave Whitford
The following round descriptions have been paraphrased from the handout I provided all players.
Round 1 - The tide had turned and now the Allies were resurgent. Successes in North Africa, Italy and at Kursk had set the stage for a Germany now very much on the defensive. With the Allies ashore in Normandy, and the Germans trying to protect Rome, Joe Stalin set in motion his next big push as well.
Scenario: Breakthrough - Allied players HAD to be the attackers. The Allied players managed to eke out a victory, narrowly eclipsing the Axis total of 16 with 18 of their own VP. Besides the six that Mark received for a ‘bye”, Brook earned six and, despite having one fewer player then the Axis side, the remainder of the Allies combined VP totals still managed to beat the Axis. Andy’s five was the best the Axis could do in this opening round.
Round 2 - The Allies had won round one. The Allied attack had made good ground and Axis forces were in a serious predicament. To preserve the situation the local Axis commanders decided to ignore their “stand fast” orders and withdrew to better defensive positions.
Scenario: Fighting Withdrawal - Allied players HAD to be the attackers. Not content to sit and take it, the Axis players bounced right back and in a flurry of battles won back the advantage to the tune of 17 to 13, bringing their total to 33 against the Allies 31. David again won six VP for the Axis and Scott countered with six for the Allies to keep the round totals tight. Carl’s “bye” six was discounted this round to keep the sides even in terms of players.
Round 3 - The Axis were winning. The situation had stabilized and for the moment the Allied offensive had been all but stopped. As forces from both sides settled into their new front line positions, occasional clashes between opposing elements continued to occur, and a few of these encounters escalated quickly.
Scenario: Encounter - The scenario rules were used to determine attacker and defender. Amazingly this round ended with a dramatic tie, with the Allies and Axis both capturing 14 VP. Dave completed his hat trick and won another six, handily becoming our General of the tournament. On the Allied side both Scott and Eric came away with sixes. Jil’s “bye” six was discounted, again to balance the teams.
This brought the grand total to Axis: 47 and Allies: 45, a very near fought day indeed. Final scores looked like this…
| Dave Whitford (German FE Panzerkompanie) |
16 |
| Scott Wilson (7th Armored Division Armored Squadron) |
15 |
| Andy Blozinski (German FE SS Panzergrenadierkompanie) |
14 |
| Carl Bellatti (German FE Panzerkompanie) |
13 |
| Brook Burg (US Airborne Company) |
11 |
| Eric Warren (7th Armored Division Armored Squadron) |
11 |
| Trujillo Francisco (German FE SS Panzergrenadierkompanie) |
8 |
| Mark Long (Soviet Tankovy Batalon) |
8 |
| Phil Brod (German FE Panzerkompanie) |
8 |
Congratulations to Dave Whitford for receiving the Best General award, he managed to take top generalship honors in both tournaments. Carl Bellatti won Best Army for his terrific looking winter panzer company. Carl also took a prize home in the con’s miniature painting competition, although his entry was not a historical mini one. Many congratulations to you Carl. Brook Burg won the Best Sportsman award, as well as the aforementioned table design prize. Finally, Phil Brod was the proud recipient of the “Dunkirk” award, the cloud of smoke and fire.
PHOTOS
I’ve compiled collections of photos for both tournaments that include the players, their armies, the laid-out tables, and a few pictures from each round’s action on each table. Rather then cross posting them to each of the Yahoo groups I have instead placed them on Fileden. Please feel free to download them and have a look. I have additional photos from the events not included here so if you are interested in seeing those please contact me offline.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/29/1125327/OwlCon%202008%20FoW/Mid-War.zip
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/29/1125327/OwlCon%202008%20FoW/Late-War.zip
CONCLUSION
Thanks again to all those involved and a special thanks to Andy Solberg, Gaming Coordinator for OwlCon, who trusted in me enough to give me the much coveted tables for TWO tournaments and worked with me throughout to ensure you all had a good experience.
I had a great time organizing and running these events and thought it was terrific to see some new faces and meet some of you guys for the first time.
I look forward to next year and hope to see us get ten to twelve early commitments to the pre-reg process so we will know who is in the events next year. I shall also endeavor to send out the rules earlier next year. I believe the experiments attempted this year were worthwhile and from what guys have told me they were well received. Expect more of the same next year and, as a precursor to OwlCon 2009, please do not forget to attend Heat of Battle II in New Orleans the weekend of August 22, 23, and 24 2008, when I plan to run a very similar 10-12 player late-war tournament on Saturday night the 23rd and Sunday the 24th.
Thanks again for reading my long post and I look forward to meeting and playing you all in the future. J\
–Andy Bouffard (abouffard@esri.com)