Ok, I've finally(!) got a FWC under my belt.
1'000p 6mm Iron Cow, CDSU vs SAC.

No, it's not for 6mm. To fiddly with individual hits and suppression.
As a competitor to Alien Squad Leader 2 it's splendid thou.
And the photo's are just brilliant!

No, for 6mm I want brigades battling it out company wise. Not fire teams taking hits and diving in cover to not get annihilated.
But the photo's are brilliant!

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

That's odd. Cold war commander works just fine with 6mm troops with entire regiments(at scale of one stand=one platoon/squadron) at play.

Albeit I don't play FWC or plan but that's because I already have epic armageddon for 6mm scifi wars. For modern warfare it's CWC for me and as far as I know they have very similar rules.

_________________
www.tneva.net

You aim individually (several times in a turn), you take hits individually (several times in a turn) and you take suppression individually (tested several times in a turn).
Each and every stand/unit potentially having a suppression counter and a wound counter scattered all over the battlefield... No thanks. As few markers as possible.

Apart from that I really liked the flow. And the photo's!

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

You can always opt for an in-house rule of fixed formations
It's quite common on the Specialist Military Publishing forums and the result is that you give suppression to a formation rather that individual units. Four suppression (usually on a d10) then four units in that formation can't fire. It speeds the game quite a bit.
It does also mean you'd best have done your bean counting before the game, though. Small formations suffer, hard, while big formations can be built with lots of low cost grunts to take the markers and the big boys get to carry on like nothing happened. The other problem is it restricts movement considerably.

I guess the fundamental problem is then - what do you want? Do you want a WARgame or do you want a warGAME?
Because they're two very different things.

FWC is a WARgame. You're often not going to like the results you get. Commands are going to eff you over. Suppression is going to halt whole formations while some models within could just go on doing their thing. But they don't. Their buddies are getting shot to bits, and to THEM it's a big deal.
To you it's not. But to them, it's a REALLY big deal.
If you don't use cover, whole formations will be shot to all hell and back before your can do much about it but a -1 Opp fire phase.
It's messy, brutal, fast, mostly unfair. Actually FWC can be very frustrating a game to play. It's really, really mean.
It's also the truest reflection of real combat I've experienced and gives the best "upper echelon" command and control view I've tried. I love this game for all the reasons I hate it.

If I wanted a "fair" system for an evening or a tournament I'd play E:A, another game I like as much asI hate.

When I want a WARgame, I play FWC. When I want a warGAME, I play E:A.

A further option I've used of my own device is to have a rule similar to E:A where casualties are always taken off the front and suppression off the back of a formation, relative to the firing angle of a formation firing. That way you'll have an even more realistic result.

Problem is, after a couple of beers and with several formations firing at one it gets fiddly as well
LOL!