File: image.jpg (147 KB, 504x484) Image search: [Google]

147 KB, 504x484

The original brexit.

>>47978821

Will we now see crowds of Europeans on the Beaches of Brighton waiting to be evacuated to the continent?

In case it'd be missed:
>>47977276
>And saying only the political elite is going to benifit is grossly dishonest. Go as your local cottage industry farmers how they feel about not being allowed to export without conforming to painfully expensive and unnessecary EU regs designed for much larger companies, but used to tar everyone.
Farmers were one of the biggest beneficaries of EU grants and migrant workers. I've spoken to my local farmers; one of them told me hoped they didn't leave or they weren't going to have anyone to do picking.

"Some people would say you could get local folk to do it"
"Then they're idiots, nobody's interested."

>>47979108
Don't drag that shit to the new thread, retard. Keep it to places where it's relevant.

>>47979172
>Brexit Wars Edition
>both previous posts
Por que?

Almost makes you miss the whining about soviets.

>>47979256
I find it phenomenal that regardless of the thread someone will pick a fight over soviets.

"Hey, people aren't talking about my tankwank!"

>muh hen&chick
>talking about farmers

wartime pottery

on fowtg front - anyone got Leopad book? What are the points value for Leopard 1 and 2?

>>47979397
we aren't that badassed....yet.

>>47979397
It's still a week or two out, at least according to the guys at my FLGS.

As for points, one of the previews showed 11 points per Leo 2.

>>47979256
Although in my Experience here, the only thing worse than "Soviets are totally Underpowered" Slavaboos screeching is the "Americans are not totally Overpowered" Freedomaboos screeching.

>>47979804
Soviets aren't underpowered; soviets need a couple of gear tweaks to represent gear better, and more importantly need more list varieties to have the kind of faction flexibility that the others get. It's not "soviets are the horde faction", it's "Soviets are only the horde faction", when everyone else gets loads of weird and wonderful lists.

>>47979903
Off the top of my head:

SU-100 needs RoF 2 and wide tracks. At the very least it needs to have overloaded removed.

On the same note, T-34/85 should have wide tracks.

Likewise, the BS (towed gun version) needs RoF 2, possibly 3 or a "more loaders for RoF 3" deal. OTOH, towed guns having weirdly low RoF is a common issue across the board, so maybe fair for the game.

IS-2 1943s could maybe do with a point more front armour; IS-2 1944 should be FA 13, 12 at least.

I don't think any lists let you take uparmoured T-34s, but I may be wrong on that, and this kind of overlaps with the "soviets don't get cool lists" thing.

on a similar note I don't think there's lists for the SVT either.

Katyushas are a bit shit but I'm not sure how to solve this under FoW's rules; artillery is generally not as effective as it was historically, and it can't be because it's far easier to use, and equally guns really shouldn't be on the table or at least there should be an allowance to leave them off table. Katys aren't great in game but the reasons for that is due to the slightly gameified use of artillery.

How comissars work is also nonsense.

Other than that their issues are mostly based around their lists offering a very narrow slice of the soviet pie, and cramming things that aren't into the pie if need be.

>>47979903
Yeah soviets really need some "thematics" and more specific lists. And some shit like a special character t34 veteran tank platoon.

>>47980615
I want the lists for whichever unit was still requesting their T-26s get repaired in 1944.

>>47979903
Let me clarify, back before Red Bear, Desperate Measures, and Berlin when the Soviets used to be a touch under powered, there used to be a very vocal subset that used to complain constantly.

>>47980766
>before Red Bear,
Christ, is that where all the "whiny soviets" complaints come from? Five years is a hell of a long time to hold a grudge. I wasn't even playing back then.

>>47980609
IS2 need a rule to let them move and fire or some shit like that, something to make them like a "super panther"

>I don't think any lists let you take uparmoured T-34s

I don't know, i am pretty sure that all the up armored T-34 were the 76 one, they could be useful in MW, maybe a little too good, but not in LW. Although it could be good for more variety.

>>47980931
Desperate Measures and Berlin didn't really stop the complaints.

It just changed them around a bit.

>"We want a tank list without Hen & Chicks!"
>"Ok, here's the Heroes of the Soviet Union."
>"This list sucks! I'd rather deal with Hen & Chicks than play Hero Tankovy!"

>>47982098
To be fair to the complainers, Hero Tankovy is a legitimately terrible list.

It's like taking away moldy bread and giving you maggott-ridden bread instead.

>>47979108
Nobody's interested because it's easier to laze around on welfare, you filthy communist fuck.

They employ the migrants because they don't ask for grossly overinflated pay and can easily be worked like slaves.

File: 03000352.jpg (64 KB, 664x800) Image search: [Google]

64 KB, 664x800

>>47982098
Player
>give us Veteran Soviets that dont have hen and chicks!

Battlefront
>sure we hear you, here ya go!
*hands player desperate measures*

playerS
>U 'avin a giggle m8?!?!

Battlefront's face >

LAS MALVINAS SON CHILENAS


JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

>>47983198
que?

>>47983283
Soccer, I presume. Argentina choked at the penalty shootout vs Chile.

It seems the bantz is leaking over from /sp/.

>>47980615
And inexpensive (moneywise) SU-76s because those lists look like they have potential.

Heroes do need a special rule besides the absence of negative special rules - but I can't think of a good thematic one. It still has to fit the "WWII: The Movie" feel of FoW.

>>47985045
Steal the Guards rule (re-roll platoon or company morale tests) from the british?

>>47985045
Just make them somewhat cheaper than other nations tanks even without Hen and chicks to account for the fact that they have no access to smoke.

Hungarian Tigers get a discount for not having Tiger Ace skills, I think its reasonable to lower the costs of "hero" tanks to account for that crucial weakness.

It's that, or give them some way to use their smoke pots in game to say give them concealment even in the open, or you know, pop smoke on themselves. I realize this is supposedly counted into the veterancy rules (i.e. vets use the smoke better) but they need an actual rule. Perhaps a tank can roll a skill test to give smoke to his platoon at the expense of being unable to shoot to allow them to close with the enemy or something?

Or, here's a crazy thought, give them fucking veteran. German units received just as gruesome losses and still get veterancy, I don't see why the Soviets get screwed here. And I primarily play Germans, all the excuses battlefront uses for forbidding Slavs from having vets count just as much for the germans in the late war. At the bare minimum, there is no excuse for Loza's battalion to be hero, those guys should count as vets if even a third of his stories were true.

>>47985428
>Just make them somewhat cheaper than other nations tanks even without Hen and chicks to account for the fact that they have no access to smoke.
>Hungarian Tigers get a discount for not having Tiger Ace skills, I think its reasonable to lower the costs of "hero" tanks to account for that crucial weakness.
That should be reflected in the cost of the smoking units, not in the cost of the units that don't have smoke. Otherwise you penalize someone from another faction that doesn't take smoke.

Agree that honestly they should get some fucking vet tanks, though I bet if they're priced appropriately we're STILL going to get slavaboos bitching.

>>47985428
They should have a couple of veteran lists. I agree with BF on keeping it very rare, though.

Smoke pots would, at best, be a special rule that affects deployment. Hmm, maybe deployment can by their "thing" for various reasons. Still be easily killed, but get into combat quicker.

>>47985611
>I agree with BF on keeping it very rare, though.
Except that everyone but the soviets gets it like candy.

>>47980951
Yea, they were. But it's a thing T-34s had that isn't in game yet, so far as I know.

>>47982573
Because of course, lowering migration will immediately reorganise wealth to make employment plausible, people love being on welfare, and people loving being on welfare isn't paradoxical with the idea of people having their jobs stolen from them.

This is something I love about modern right-wingers: They're convinced both nobody wants to work and that migrants are stealing all those people's jobs.

You've also failed to address the influence of supermarkets scalping farms into oblivion which has done far more to kill off farming than the EU ever did.

>>47986338
>Except that everyone but the soviets gets it like candy.
This, yeah. We have veterans who never saw combat, for god's sake. We have freshly raised troops who're veterans. And you're telling me Hero lists, the lists made up of the guys who survived the 1/5 chance of dying a soviet soldier on the eastern front had long enough to get to Berlin, aren't Vet across the board?

>>47987642
They are, in Eastern Front (mixed Tankovy can take them, as can most stuff that have medium tankovy companies as support). Gives armour 7/6/1 instead of 6/5/1, for +15 points per tank, all or nothing for the company. Available for both Guards and Red army, costs the same.

FFS, BF even have a model for it (SU061)

>>47987668
Wrong way round.

Because modern young people would rather spend their time living off welfare or getting Gender studies degrees, they won't take the jobs in the first place, migrants or no. As such, farmers need to employ migrants because there's no other choice. They're a necessary evil.

Therefore, the only way to recoup the expulsion of migrants is to remove welfare from the young people who are content living in indolence on everyone else's dime, a state of affairs facilitated by the EU's ivory tower pronouncements that are big on ideology and utterly lack any sort of practical value.

The EU's commandments favour corporate oligarchy over all, so obviously the supermarkets they benefit have pushed out other players in the market. Remove the EU's destructive subsidies, and it's the first step in redressing the imbalance.

I mean, the EU's already showing early signs of collapsing in on itself; but why wait?

>>47987689
Hell, thinking about it, "Sharper, luckier, smarter" basically describes the traits we assume of Vets anyway.

>>47987783
>Because modern young people would rather spend their time living off welfare or getting Gender studies degrees,
Oh, right. I see. You've just got no idea what you're on about and are blaming it on Kids These Days.

You realise The Darn Kids, even ones with degrees, can't get jobs because of experience requirements? You realise that most of these jobs are still filled by people who didn't want to leave because of the financial crash and the glut of people leaving with degrees who couldn't be employed elsewhere? How much do you think jobseeker's allowance gets you, exactly? How much free time do you think people on JSA get?

I would recommend reading mainlymacro for a broad overview of the economics affecting these things, but I can guarantee things are nowhere near what you assume.

>>47987807
I'd take away the Sharper and Smarter rules and replace them with something to the effect of, Heroes are hit as if they were Veteran, but do everything else as if they were Trained.

>>47987848
In case he's not going to tell you it's 58 pounds a week. Also yeah, hey, 2:1 maths graduate, no job. If there's a way to live in indolence on benefits I'd really love to hear it.

>>47987894
>maths graduate, no job.

You dug your own grave with that one.

>You realise The Darn Kids, even ones with degrees, can't get jobs because of experience requirements?
Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start. You think yo can cut ahead because you have a bit of paper?

The real criminals here though are the sad sacks who think flipping burgers is a career and don't move on to let new blood come in and gain experience.

>>47987848
>mainlymacro
>Mouthpiece for an oxford communist

No thanks.

>>47987914
>You dug your own grave with that one.
This is the first time someone's alleged maths is an easy degree people go on to find themselves. Is it full of SJWs, too?

>Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start.
Why? Because you had to back in the 80s, 70s or 60s, when the economy was nothing like it is now? That's literally just sour grapes.

Also do you actually think that's what people want when they say "experience"? They want you to have worked in their industry before. Half the graduate population or something's worked part time to fund uni, so if it was a lack of burger flipping experience that wouldn't be a problem. Most people end up having to take unpaid internships for the relevant experience clause, and if you can't afford to do that you're fucked.
>You think yo can cut ahead because you have a bit of paper?
I mean, my entire life everyone was telling me to get a degree, and get a good "proper" degree, so I would have a decent job. So yes? I don't want to "cut ahead", I want a decent job that actually pays. If the answer is "nobody should get a decent job that pays", then your worldview is fucked.

>>47987914
Anyway, you didn't tell me how I'm meant to live in luxury on 3k a year.

>>47987959
Not easy, just worthless. They have chinese and indian people to do maths for them cheaper than you'll ever be.

And you shouldn't have listened to them about the degree. That shit's basically meaningless compared to getting in the workforce, outside of that short bubble back in the '80s and '90s where anyone with a degree was hot shit and shaped the worldview for the current period.

>>47987914
>Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start.

As one of the "kids"...this in large part. Too many think their lives after school would look like some stupid sitcom on the telly, all fun and no real work necessary. We were sold a lie and in ignorance we bought it: that's on us, "unfair" is irrelevant. But then, I study history, and even with the little I have I live in comparative luxury compared to what I would have had in 1716, 1816 or even 1916, etc.

We're soft and spoilt and have been for decades. But the The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return, as reality always does.

>In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
>By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
>But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could >buy,
>And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

>>47987986
That's your problem. You're not *meant* to live in luxury. You're meant to work and save and suffer and put some bloody hard yards in. That's exactly your problem, you think because you have a fancy piece of paper you're somehow entitled to a life of luxury.

Here's a hint: You're not.

>>47988006
Oh shit, yeah, you're right, it was so easy spending three years studying like thirty hours a week and working twenty!

Pull the other one.

You realise you've just admitted it's not actually possible to live in indolence like you claimed, right?

And frankly fuck any idea that the basic way of living should be suffering. If you think suffering is desireable I don't know what to tell you. You're just wrong. This should be a basic thing you understand as a functional human.

>>47987992
Nah, you need both. You need a degree and 2-3 years experience in whatever the field is, for basically any job. But again, I'm curious, what's the degree I should've taken?

>>47988042
Didn't you hear what he said? You're not supposed to be educated, you're supposed to be a groveling slave worker who barely knows how his machine works.

>>47988052
Reading Comprehension Fail: the post

>>47988006
Did you miss the part where he wants a job and is on 3k a year? How the fuck are you meant to have savings on 3k a year?

Savings are actually a burden when you go on benefits, my uncle had a stash from when he was in a factory and because he had means enough to live on he didn't get any JSA.

>>47988061
My team's shitty economic policy isn't working, quick find a scapegoat: the thread.

Can we kill this thread and start a new one that doesn't have politics bait in the title? I don't care about any of you, I want to talk about tanks.

>>47980609
The BS-3 does get crew upgrades in Red Bear Revised.

T-34/85 are up-armored compared to T-34/76's

>>47988101
>He thinks the only alternative to tory austerity is communism

>>47988103
this desu, not everyone wants to hear about this, and some people are sick of it

>>47988106
>The BS-3 does get crew upgrades in Red Bear Revised.
What? No it don't.

>>47988106
The /85 gets an armour upgrade from what seems to be the "turret rule". Tanks where the turret is noticeably better or worse than the hull armour seem to go up or down one armour point. Tiger II is the other example I can think of. T-34/85's turret is something like 90mm.

>>47985547
they have some FV tanks in the FV cossack list. Granted, it's one unit of Hero T-34/85's and your default platoons cost loads for being FV cavalry with panzerfausts, but you do get them.

>>47988111
I hadn't realised we had so many libertarians and fascists, personally. It seems to be the consequence of breaking the unspoken no-politics rule.

>>47979256

Can we go for one thread without some chucklefuck trolling?
>>47980609
>>47979903
And you two morons feeding him.

>>47980609
>Likewise, the BS (towed gun version) needs RoF 2, possibly 3 or a "more loaders for RoF 3" deal. OTOH, towed guns having weirdly low RoF is a common issue across the board, so maybe fair for the game.
It's not a Soviet thing. 17 pounders compared to Challengers, anyone?

>>47988148
What page is the cossak list on? Horse- mounted tank hunters sounds awesome.

>>47988154
>Can we go for one thread without some chucklefuck trolling?
It wasn't (supposed to be) trolling, it was pointing out how fucking annoying the brexit "discusssion" is.

>>47988032
It's not desirable, it's the way of the world whether we like it or not - you have to do it to get ahead. Whether you like or enjoy it or not doesn't enter into it.

The indolence I rail against is that of either those children who've gone and discarded any attempt at education or advancement whatsoever in favour of rorting the system; chavs and the like, or those who feel that utterly ridiculous degrees like Gender studies or tantric yoga somehow make them worth anything to society.

You at the very least, have attempted to better yourself, even if your choice of path was misguided.

Something more directed would have been better for you; if you're mathematically minded, Engineering would have been of greater benefit. Paying apprenticeships, if that's valuable to you, are also much easier to obtain in that area.

Besides, don't bother trying to say 50 hours a week of work is somehow amazing. I work 60 if I want to keep my position, and that's when I have the occasional luxury of not working weekends. You're not going to win a "who works their butt off more" contest here.

>>47988076
Wanting benefits *is* the problem, but that's more of an ideological quibble. Besides, if you're only on 3k a year I'd hope you're actively trying to find a job. And by actively, I mean sending out applications not just to every single job advert, but to places that haven't, either. Get a phonebook, look up every company even vaguely related to your training (or even those that aren't if you want the extra effort - it often works), and send all of them emails asking for a job. It tends to work; more often than not some HR manager is going to appreciate the initiative.

>>47988052
No, not at all. Education is good; but you need to recognise it's not a free ticket to a cushy job. Once you get that education, you need to put in the hard yards applying the shit out of it, often in menial, underappreciated positions, until one day you too can get to a comfortable position.

>>47988111
>>47988149
>Implying it's not just the same two people.

>>47988160
DLC

>>47980609
>How comissars work is also nonsense.

Don't look at it so literally. FoW was never based around accuracy of specific mechanics, more about the effect it has on turns.

Soviets take slightly more casualties, but they keep on going where everyone else would fail. Often taking less casualties in the long run because of the momentary pain in the short term. Commissar's are an easy way of representing the Soviet morale/determination situation. Morale is not the reason why the Company attack was shut down. Particularly considering the company/platoon situation.

System working perfectly.

>>47988176

You knew exactly what you were setting off, asshole. When has it ever not resulted in massive slap fights?

>>47988193
Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be eplained by stupidity.

And i STILL prefer it to brexit.

>>47988159
Yeah, that's what I meant. Realistically, towed guns should have high rates of fire; I think the 6pdr's RoF 3 should be basically universal. Most towed guns, even fairly large caliber ones, had RoF of 10-12 RPM, since having sufficient crew allowed people to whack shells into the breech as fast as they could fit them in. There's no overworked guy lugging massive shells around in a cramped area. OTOH, RoF 3 on every gun might make them too good. RoF 3 88s are already amazing.

>>47988202

True enough, my apologies.

>>47988182
Fuck battlefront.

>>47988183
Ooookay. Explain how this leads to the bit where if the comissar fails to field-execute someone the troops rebel and kill them?

>>47988176
I don't think anyone's mentioned brexit for a while, it's just some old faggot shouting at poor people because his job sucks.

>>47988154
I think we've done pretty good honestly, we've identified a couple of problems with the soviet list vis a vis historical accuracy, and agreed the real issue is bad list diversity. I said it before but I want a list with the guys who were still using T-26s.

>>47988206

Probably for the same reasons artillery is so anaemic. The game is decently balanced as it presently stands, and the difference between ROF3 and ROF 2 isn't as dramatically different as the difference between ROF1 and ROF2, or ROF3 and ROF4. The wiggle room they have isn't much.

File: Anti-tank action.webm (3 MB, 1280x720) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 1280x720

Has anyone had unlikely victories?
Webm related.
>Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy
>skirmis against A.I
>carefully pick a well-rounded, heer company with pair of PaK40 guns hidden in bushes, offmap heavy mortar support and couple of mixed minefields
>map is typical Normandy rural area
>position one PaK in a good ridge to lob shells down westermost road
>two squads in hedges
>one MG on the same ridge with the PaK
>mixed mines to plug any inconvenient gaps in the map that I can't afford troops to overwatch
>match begins
>expected the A.I to pick about 6 tanks and lots of mechanized infantry
>the A.I picked lots and lots of tanks
>the entire force is coming up the westmost road
>PaK managed to get out five shells and knock out two tanks before it and the ridge around it disintegrated
>all that's holding the onslaught is three squads of grenadiers with two panzerfausts each and one single panzershreck team
>tanks rolling up towards them
>every single panzerfaust hits and knocks out tanks
>one fucker knocked out a Stuart with a rifle grenade
>the rest were disabled or knocked around with grenades so much that the crew panic and abandon tank
>win with only losses being PaK, MG team and grenadier squad
webm related

>>47988222

Similar principle to failing a company morale check, I imagine. Soviet morale is strong, but it can break. And after the Commissar is dead, the unit is still not as strong. Once beaten, twice shy, on a company level. At least for that specific engagement. The story of the battle still fits easily enough, and you have a way of keeping the Soviets charging/fighting/enduring the enemy bravely, as they did.

Plus you'd want to have SOME sort of fragging rule with commissars. God knows it's rare enough, and it's a fun addition.

The Soviets needed some sort of significant morale boosting rule. You wouldn't have the Soviet character otherwise. Commissars was an elegant way of doing it.

>>47988269
>Similar principle to failing a company morale check, I imagine
This is a nice headcanon but the rulebook explicitly calls it a fragging rule. And an execution rule, come to that.

>>47988255
I'm thinking it could serve to change up the dynamic of towed guns being worse tanks for infantry, at least.

>>47980609
>On the same note, T-34/85 should have wide tracks.
Only Panzer 4's get them as well. The T-34/85 had a lot more weight on the same tracks. There's nuances and arbitrariness with a lot of the ground pressure stats, but the T-34/85 was certainly far heavier for it's tracks than the earlier T-34s.
>IS-2. The turret didn't change, though. Only the hull was adjusted slightly. They're slightly more protected, but 13 is hugely excessive, and 12 is pushing it.
>SU-100
A very low, very long gun. You're not going fast over cross country if you want to keep your gun un-impaled into a bump.
>T-34s
Were they really that much more protected though? Compared to /85s?
>SVT
Not nearly common enough to change the Rifle/MG designation.
>Katys
That's an unarmored team problem. Or specifically, the on board artillery problem.
>cramming things into the Pie
That's the Soviets advantage. They've always had the entire kitchen sink crammed into most lists. They cover basically everything, particularly these days.

>>47988331
I take my earlier comment back, soviets-can't-have-nice-things is back.

>>47988307
It's a tabletop game. The description and the effect on the story and the de facto practise and heavy abstraction at every level have always been part of the vision of the medium.

>>47988340

You got what you were after, don't get greedy.

>>47988331
> the T-34/85 was certainly far heavier for it's tracks than the earlier T-34s.
0.87 for the T-34. Panther's is 0.88, and it is wide tracked. Though, you are right, this would include the Pz IV. It should also exclude the churchill, though. Wide Tracks seem to just be a mess generally.
>>IS-2. The turret didn't change, though. Only the hull was adjusted slightly. They're slightly more protected, but 13 is hugely excessive, and 12 is pushing it.
The hull was not "slightly" adjusted, it's massively thicker, on par with the Churchill VII and sloped. It might go down to 12 from the turret rule but 11 is nonsense.
>>SU-100
>A very low, very long gun. You're not going fast over cross country if you want to keep your gun un-impaled into a bump.
This is basically just WW2 fanon. Other tanks had similar issues and don't get Overloaded.

>Were they really that much more protected though? Compared to /85s?
No; they were pretty much the same. Also it turns out they exist so nevermind on that one.
>>SVT
>Not nearly common enough to change the Rifle/MG designation.
"You can replace one squad with automatic rifles for X points" is too much to ask?
>>Katys
>That's an unarmored team problem. Or specifically, the on board artillery problem.
Yes, very much so.
>>cramming things into the Pie
>That's the Soviets advantage. They've always had the entire kitchen sink crammed into most lists. They cover basically everything, particularly these days.
It also stops them getting the cool unique lists every other faction gets.

I guess at least we can agree RoF 2 SU-100s are reasonable.

>>47988398

I have no idea why the Panther has it, except to differentiate it from the earlier Panzer marks. It shouldn't be the standard, in any case. I think it's more of a relative thing within a faction. Obviously the churchill needs to have wide tracks compared to the other british tanks, though. It had much better cross terrain mobility.
I guess it's a weakness of not having a 'narrow tracks' ability. Like the old Ronson rule for Panthers.
>slightly adjusted
Depends on what part of the glacis you're referring to. And the thicker plate had less of an angle as well. It needed an improved armour rating compared to the IS-2 because the hull was better, but the turret wasn't, and that's where most of your hits happen.
>other tanks had similar issues
Like? Most of the really long guns were on turrets, high up, not low to the ground, on casemates. And the SU-100 had a very long barrel.
>automatic rifles
They were issued to NCOs though, weren't they? Like, one guy per fire team? In some formations? And considering the prevalence of MGs, it's still an irrelevant addition. Americans only get it because they were so under equipped with LMGs on the squad level.
>cool unique lists
Depends on your perspective. Most of the Eastern Front books tended to add in lists that were basically the same as the Feasting Europa lists, but with a few additions. Soviets and Germans. Mostly the same old stuff, but with a few tweaks.

It's the Western Front that really throws things off, and that's kinda inevitable because a lot of the weirdness over there. Market Garden can't be done without snowflake lists, for instance.
>ROF2 SU-100s
There's a good case to be made for it having a shitty ROF. It has about a third of the ROF of a PaK40, for instance. And a low rate of fire by any estimation. The issue is more in comparison to other tanks, and that's a fairly thankless task, as the earlier discussion about towed guns shows.

>>47988331
>A very low, very long gun.
So how come the Porsche Tiger, Hetzer, Jagdpanther and SU-85, aren't similarly effected?
For that matter, I've got a source kicking around here that states that the Panther had serious trouble traversing it's turret on anything but level ground similar to the KV-2 due to the weakness of the motor. Where's the Panther's slow traverse?
General point is that you should decide if you're going to say "This is like this for Historical accuracy reasons" Then you need to be consistent.

Most Soviet players in my experience from here aren't mad that they don't have twenty million Snowflake lists, they're mad that there's only El Generico lists on offer. Even for the Formations like the Black Death Naval Infantry. It'd be like if there wasn't a separate Screaming Eagles or All American list, if it was just a copy paste of the infantry company.

What I'd like to see in terms of El Generico Late War Soviets, is more options, I think personally Battlefront need to have at least three lists for Soviet Tanks, CT, FT, and RV all with Hen and Chicks representing Fresh units coming from Russia, Guards units, and Units that have been in combat for a very long time. Heroes should run between being FT+ with additional Morale rules representing units that were reinforced from Prison Camps, or FV for the companies that have fought their way to Berlin.
Then jam in a few extra lists for the sake of Variety. Black Death Infantry lists as FV Companies supported by Naval Gunfire, Dmitriy Loza's Sherman Brigade as CV with something extra to represent how well they fought in Vienna, they lost no tanks, and knocked out two Panthers.
Actually something I would like to see for the Soviets is their Smoke represented. My General idea is that to represent Strategic use of Smoke, the Soviet player draws a line across the table before the first turn, and that line begins smoked. For each artillery battery you have you could smoke an additional target.

>>47988571

>Tiger
High up.
>Hetzer
Little gun
>Jagdpanther
Gun mounted higher up.
>SU-85
Shorter gun, slightly taller tank.
>slow traverse
Probably a question of degrees and the likelihood of it happening. The KV-2 didn't just have a slow rotation, it had major balance problems.

>they're mad that there's only El Generico lists on offer
That's because their El Generico list has the entire kitchen sink. They got the Supreme Pizza and are mad that the other guy has a cheese pizza. Except that other guy has the extra option of having salami or olives, and they don't have those options. Soviets are still ass deep in options.
>seperate screaming eagles
Considering most of the 'snowflake' lists are 99% copy paste jobs, that's more or less irrelevant.
>RV Soviets
>R Soviets
No chance.
>Heroes from Prison Camps
The existing options represent the permutations fine.
>Naval Gunfire
Almost never happened.
>Dmitriy
You have all sorts of lists for good tankers, you have Sherman LLs, and you have the guy himself.
>how well they fought
Quote unquote.
>Smoke
They have smoke pots, and strategic stuff is way too murky to get into on a game that's fundamentally company level. Preliminary bombardments aren't represented explicitly, I doubt strategic smoke stands a chance.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-717-0017-12,_Frankreich,_Jagdpanther.2.jpg (85 KB, 698x361) Image search: [Google]

85 KB, 698x361

>>47988674
This Jagdpanther with the gun nearly 3/4s of the tank's length? You can ground that shit all the time in Warthunder if you go over the wrong slope.

>>47988784

Yeah, that gun similarly lengthy to the jousting lance that was the D-10, but mounted -far higher up-. The game isn't that granular. Although there's a case to be made for casemate guns having a meaningful difference compared to turreted tanks.

>>47988571
The Tiger P should just be overloaded anyway, seeing as it was a fat fuck even by Heavy Tank standards.

>>47988863
You're delusional if you think the SU-100 had some unique ditching issue other casemate designs didn't. This also isn't what overloaded means.

Why don't guns that the ditching issue was actually a regular complaint on have it? The T-34/85 did, as did panthers and tigers in italy.

>>47989135
>You're delusional if you think the SU-100 had some unique ditching issue other casemate designs didn't.
I don't. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and the SU-100 had it worse. Worse enough for a special rule.
>overloaded
Apparently it does. It's a rule, with an effect. They need the effect so that the game of WW2 tells the right story, so they use it.

>Regular complaint
Because those tanks are really common, and we're much more likely to hear about it. That, and people don't care about some support fire Russian gun box. Tanks are sexy. Particularly media queens like the big cats.

File: IMG_20160406_220641866_HDR v2.jpg (741 KB, 1426x803) Image search: [Google]

741 KB, 1426x803

>>47988262
>Has anyone had unlikely victories?
Oh yeah. This was a team game, me with my cromwells and my ally with his SS Panzer IV horde, against a bunch of Panthers and Panzer IV/70s. My teammate decided to run straight at the enemy's gunline, and was down to a single Tiger and his platoon command at the start of game turn 3, after bailing a total of 3 Panthers. He then promptly fled, leaving me to fight 6 IV/70s (I had managed to kill one with a Challenger early on) and 10 Panthers.

My turn 3 went very well, and I managed to take out 4 of the IV/70s (three from shooting, one from a failed platoon morale) and two Panthers from artillery double-bail. All my opponent had to do was pull back, reorganize, and shoot me to death...

File: IMG_20160406_223501295_HDR.jpg (632 KB, 1426x803) Image search: [Google]

632 KB, 1426x803

>>47989542
But for reasons that remain unknown, he charged in instead. That cost him the last of his IV/70s and 3 more Panthers, before he realized he needed to fall back instead of charge. We called it on turn 6 when he was down to 4 working Panthers and one that would not bail back in, and I had only lost one Cromwell.

>>47989586
Fear Naught, m8.

Seriously though, well played for keeping your head after your ally routed, a lot of players would've thrown in the towel or panicked and made a silly mistake after that.

>>47989234
Jagdpanzer was shorter. If the complaint is the SU-100 is a long gun too low down, the Jagdpanzer's is worse, with a panther gun on a 1.85m tall chassis (SU-100 is 2.25).

File: oh you.jpg (20 KB, 253x235) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 253x235

>>47989586
>all those ded pz IV and tigers
>oh god I just noticed the tigers were your allies

>when you got a 40" range but only 9 front armor but you decide to full throttle towards the panthers anyway

>Has anyone had unlikely victories?

Playing 15th/19th Hussar Cromwells (incl. 3 Challengers and four M10C w/17-pounder) against CT Panzer from Desperate Measures.

Turn 1 advance, kill Panther left exposed. Opponent then kills all 17-pdr tanks, passes all Gun Tank Rolls, all Fp tests, etc. I'm left with 10 Cromwells facing 4x Panthers and 4x StuGs with a CV All-Panzerfaust Pazergrenadier platoon occupying the centre of the table, terrain won't allow flanking. Panzer IV Platoon on the way from Reserve.

Can't hurt the other tank easily so I shoot up the infantry, by the end of the turn they're down 4/7 teams...a couple of desperate assaults by Universal Carriers dodging Panzerfausts took out a couple too :P

Infantry have Enjoy the War...fail 2/3 tests, Sole Survivor flees...Cromwells suffer a lot of bails, but re-mounts are good and they smoke everything in sight, then motor forwards....two turns later Panther Platoon, StuG Platoon and arriving Panzer IV platoons all broken, game over. For one more Cromwell lost.

Universal Carrier w/PIAT even managed to KO'd the 2iC Panther with a flank shot :D

>>47988468

>Most of the really long guns were on turrets, high up, not low to the ground, on casemates. And the SU-100 had a very long barrel.

I'm fairly certain that any successful SU-100 crew knew how to elevate the gun barrel while driving over uneven ground. Most certainly the Guards formations, who received the bulk of SU-100s. The T-34-85 shouldn't have lost Wide Tracks. Giving the SU-100 Overloaded I can justify. Slow? Go fuck yourself. It sould be Standard movement, no question about it. And the SU-85m should NOT be Overloaded or Slow.

>>cool unique lists
>Depends on your perspective. Most of the Eastern Front books tended to add in lists that were the same old stuff, but with a few tweaks.
>It's the Western Front...

There are plenty of snowflake lists for Eastern Front Germans, as well. Even Hungarian, and EW Japanese. Move the goalpost all you want, the end result is Soviets have the least amount of snowflake lists out of "the big 4", in all time periods. Even EW Japanese, in Rising Sun have more snowflake lists than the entirety of Soviets in all time periods. No matter how skewed your perspective is, the result is that the devs have put no effort into researching the Soviets -AT ALL-.

>>ROF2 SU-100s
>There's a good case to be made for it having a shitty ROF. It has about a third of the ROF of a PaK40, for instance. And a low rate of fire by any estimation. The issue is more in comparison to other tanks...

The SU-100 also had twice the rate of fire of the Jagdtiger, and a comparable rate of fire to vehicles like the StuH-42, and Zriniy (4 to 6 rounds per minute, 6 being with a good crew). So no, that case is shit, and based on little more than pure bias. An even bigger eyesore is the BS-3, which was 8 to 10 rounds per minute, twice the loaders of the Jagdtiger, upwards of 8 crew per gun, and all the fucking crew space in the world... Yet it's ROF 1, with no reason presented by Phil (they've been quiet on that since it came out).

>>47989926
The SU-100's gun is not the reason the dev team used for Overloaded. They just pulled that out of their ass to make it even cheaper. Otherwise the SU-85M wouldn't be Overloaded as well, since it's gun placement was literally the same as the SU-85.

>>47987878
This desu.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for the pound to recover as predicted by (last) Saturday.

>>47990915
No. Viruscide's suggesting a blanket change. Hero Infantry works alright, because infantry is (potentially) more survivable. And infantry, as well as artillery, makes greater use of those skill checks.

It is the Hero tanks that need fixing. Leave the infantry/artillery heroes as is.

>>47990980
Hero infantry are still shit. Digging in on 3+ isn't worth losing quality of quantity, which was the only factor that compensated for no smoke and massive platoons.

>>47988468
>I have no idea why the Panther has it, except to differentiate it from the earlier Panzer marks
Panther deserve it, it had a really good suspension same with Tigers and variants, then the rest of german tanks no. Now i really don't know why T-34/85 su-85 and su-100 don't have it maybe because the weight?

>>47988571
Panther D have slow traverse.

>>47991341
You also do stuff like hitting on 3+ in assault and gain effectively greater density of Panzerfausts etc.

As long as you set up your assault properly, you don't need QoQ to get stuck in without smoke.

>>47989135
>>47989234
>>47989926
I don't understand, guys you are talking about the overloaded or why the low rof in the su100?

Because if it is about overload, Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV 70 and SU-100 all have it because their gun is just to heavy for the chassis, now SU-85m overload is bullshit.

>>47991515
Your front will still be massive so it'll still be easy to get shots on you. But, hey, you're right; you can make it work. It's just much harder. So, what do they get, in return for making it really hard to assault? 3+ dig in and in assault? These things are stuff other people's veteran infantry just get. Hero lists are just worse than basically any alternative outside of a couple of niche builds.

>>47991614
>Your front will still be massive so it'll still be easy to get shots on you.

Only if you play Hero infantry as if it's a Conscript traditional Soviet horde.
You need to actually think to get stuck in (proper angle of approach, knock out high-RoF guns with breakthrough guns etc), but at that point you swing pretty fucking hard for your cost.

>>47991603
The SU-100 at least is a T-34 chassis. It weighs the same as the /85.

Hetzer and JpIV are both built of chasses that weren't rated for the weight though.

>>47991425
It had a good suspension system which meant it could move at all, but it's ground pressure was still ass.

>>47991670
Okay, so if you "have to think" to get heroes into assault, and you don't for most other factions, heroes are worse than those factions, yeah?

More to the point, I'm not sure how avoidable you expect open shots to be; 13 infantry stands is always going to be a pretty big target.

>>47991868
No, mobility has to do with ground pressure, suspension (more and evenly distributed wheels and how much "ground" it touch), better distribution of weight and power to weight ratio.

Still panther ground pressure wasn't a shit

This is from Jentz's Panzer Truppen:
Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf H-J - 0.89
Panther Ausf D-A - 0.73
Panther Ausf G - 0.75
Tiger I - 0.74
Tiger II - 0.78

And well these are from internet so i am not pretty sure about it:

T-34-76 - 0.64
T-34-85 - 0.87
M4 Sherman - 1.1
M4A3 HVSS (aka easy 8) - 0.77

>>47988571
>So how come the Porsche Tiger, Hetzer, Jagdpanther and SU-85, aren't similarly effected?
You're ignoring the "low" part of the post you were quoting. And the Hetzer does get the Overloaded rule.

Agreed that smoke pots should have some effect on either deployment or turn 1.

>>47990862
>There are plenty of snowflake lists for Eastern Front Germans, as well. Even Hungarian, and EW Japanese. Move the goalpost all you want, the end result is Soviets have the least amount of snowflake lists out of "the big 4"
What do you have in mind? The Soviet lists are often broader than those for other nations - it's perfectly easy to make snowflake lists out of them.

>>47992546
SU-85's gun is in the exact same place.

>>47992546
>>47992603
Overloaded is mostly for vehicles with more weight than their drivetrain was designed for.

The basic SU-85 had way less armour than the SU-100 (and SU-85M, which is a SU-100 with the 85mm gun) but the exact same drivetrain.

File: Panthers drawn.jpg (114 KB, 800x640) Image search: [Google]

114 KB, 800x640

>>47991803
>The SU-100 at least is a T-34 chassis. It weighs the same as the /85.
>Hetzer and JpIV are both built of chasses that weren't rated for the weight though.

The problem with all these tank destroyers was weight distribution. The SU-85/100 and Jagdpanzer weighed about the same as the tanks they were based on, but they were nose-heavy - the "Guderian's Duck" nickname was in part because of how badly the Jagdpanzer IV handled.

It means you can't divide the vehicle's weight by its track area to figure out ground pressure; that only works with a centralized center of mass. If the average is .8 kg/cm^2, it's more like 1.0 kg/cm^2 up front and 0.65 kg/cm^2 in the back (those are made-up numbers).

Tanks were affected too, even if it wasn't as extreme. The later Panzer IV had steel road wheels up front because the added front armor unbalanced it. I don't know the details for every tank, but it could explain the allegedly-inconsistent application of the Wide Tracks rule between tanks. My guess is that BF isn't going by the numbers because they're hard to find, but off of crew reports of how tanks handled. The Panther supposedly handled great as long as you were gentle with the final drive - good weight distribution, good suspension, good power/weight ratio. The early T-34s handled well too. The T-34/85 was 20% heavier, and a lot of that extra weight was towards the front.

File: Air_2.jpg (192 KB, 1041x822) Image search: [Google]

192 KB, 1041x822

>>47990713
>>47989542
>>47989586
Cromwell confirmed for OP.

>>47992779
Drop the US paras or the third rifle platoon, and pick up some artillery or ATGs. 3 Infantry Platoons are enough.

It's basically workable as it stands, though. Recon, decent holding platoons, some anti tank, some mobility, and a reliable source of smoke/pinning. Is it possible for you to upgrade to 2 fireflies per tank platoon?

>>47992805
>The early T-34s handled well too
Other than the gearbox.

>>47992577
Like you just said, the Soviet lists are clearly done differently. They are broad and generic. They also allow vastly more abuse than focused lists, like the guy in my area who brought nothing but Matildas and SU-100s to a tournament recently.

This odd treatment puts the onus of making a list that feels at all historical on the player instead of the designer. Then they insert special rules and muh flavor that makes a lot of attempts I tried a complete joke.

>>47993425

Well, always keep in mind that a lot of the scenarios will have the reserves rules, meaning that half (rounding up) of your platoons start off the board. So keep in mind that you might need to defend 2 objectives with half of your platoons. Against tanks, or infantry hordes. So keep that in mind. Right now you have 9 platoons, which is good. Infantry on each, and a tank platoon on each. That's stable. Tanks'll keep infantry away, and serve decently to kill other tanks. You can move one to the other objective if they focus their attacks. You have some recon to reveal gone to ground if you have to dig up enemy infantry, and the tanks'll do a similar job. You have 4 platoons with armour that can move pretty quick if they have to, without getting chewed up by light arty or machine-guns, so you can project power or really fuck with an enemy infantry player if you have to. You're really light on anti-big tank stuff, but they're pretty rare, and fireflies are pretty good. But lose those fireflies, and a Panther might well kill the rest of your tanks without incident. Artillery or towed guns would be more resilient to that sort of thing, although the Shermans are better in general. Heavy tanks don't have the numbers to go digging up infantry, so you're not too bad off in that respect.

Your stand off power is acceptably good as well. Tanks cure many ills, even if you almost have no artillery or air support. And you have the Universal Carriers if they try something sneaky with non-armoured troops. Giving them 50 cals or Piats would help with this as well.

>>47992779
>out of the late war forces book that comes with the brb.
I would highly advice you to look at a less generic list, from which ever book hits your fancy (Road to Rome for Italian theatre lists, Overlord for Normandy, Market Garden for, you guessed it, Operation Market Garden, but also for the fighting in the Netherlands by canadians and lowland scots, and finally Nachtjäger for -45).

As for advice, scrap one of the infantry platoons (the Paras is my suggestion, since they will later restrict you to Market Garden if you wish to keep using them) and, by all that is holy, the 3" mortars. I would advice you to replace them with 25pdr artillery (REAL artillery) and 6pdr anti-tank guns.

File: black-panthers.jpg (237 KB, 640x599) Image search: [Google]

237 KB, 640x599

Any company make decals for the 761st Tank Battalion?

Any rumors on which tanks BF will do next in plastic? I'm more interested for the Tanks game. Man, they really should've picked a less generic name.

>>47993676
That won't give them special rules or unique formations, though.

>>47992721
And the SU-85 was built off the T-34. All the SU-85M/SU-100 hull did, was add 30mm of armor to the front glacis (somewhat substantial, reduced speed by 3mph), and a cupola (negligible weight difference there).

This shifted the center of gravity a tad bit further to the front of the tank. But the key thing a lot of people fail to realize, is that the engine and drivetrain were all rear-mounted on that chassis. Meaning they counter-weighted the gun and armor on the SUs based off the T-34 chassis. Even so, Overloaded I can see for the SU-100... Even if it exists solely to drop cost of the vehicle down to spammable levels, as BF wanted. Slow Tank is ridiculous, and only makes sense from the viewpoint of "more armor = slower, hurr". The SU-100 lost 3mph due to weight, compared to the T-34-85. It was however still faster than the Pz IV, or StuG, and especially the ISU and IS-2. It should be a Standard speed tank, and BF is letting their personal bias show by making it Slow.

>>47994697
>The SU-100 lost 3mph
To what, some arbitrary white room speed figure? That doesn't translate particularly well in the face of everything else.
>personal bias
Grow up.

Does anyone here play Team Yankee? Is it any good?

>>47994928

Yes, and it's great.

>>47994697
Authors David Higgins (Jagdpanther vs SU-100: Eastern Front 1945) and Evgenij Boldyrev (some book in Russian) both call the SU-100 "front heavy". My Russian-reading friend says the latter book goes into detail about a successor to the SU-100 based on the T-44 before it was shelved. It was tasked with fixing the SU-100's problems with weight distribution and the cumbersome barrel (4-5 feet longer than the SU-85's!), and was going to have crew compartment behind the engine like a slightly squashed Elefant.

>>47995066
Couldn't they chop the barrel shorter? I mean, I know it's a factor, but surely theres a foot or two you can lob off without it affecting the projectile too much. A slightly shittier gun that makes it to the front is better than a superior unreliable gun.

>>47992577
>What do you have in mind? The Soviet lists are often broader than those for other nations - it's perfectly easy to make snowflake lists out of them.

That is entirely the problem. Those broad-stroke lists do several detrimental things.

1) You end up with easily abused, grossly ahistorical lists. And they don't even have the decency to tell players which vehicles were never fielded together. Case in point: LW Tankovy from Red Bear, where you can spam Matildas -or- M3 Lees, with SU-100s. Or how small number of Lend Lease M10s ended up with a T-34-76 brigade. While most nations have such generic lists that allow for some ahistorical lists, like StuGs and Pz IVs together, or the one Super Pershing fielded with shit it never saw combat with, this problem is far more rampant with the Soviets because all they have are generic lists.

2) It causes an artificial limitation on what historic formations you can accurately represent. This is because it leads to every formation in MW being Fearless, with absolutely no variation. And every list in LW being Trained, no matter how well they performed. Meanwhile you have excessively generous ratings for the completely shattered LW Hungarians, and all 3 of the other "big 4" nations having more motivation/trainings combinations available than just 2. 3, if you count the never used Confident/Conscript militia list(s).

And 3), you get the "bullet catcher army" syndrome. The force that exists in the game to be nothing more than a tidal wave of faceless redshirts. This a sick disregard to the men (and women...) who fought and died for that nation. This is compounded by the lack of real warrior heroes available to Soviet players, and the insistence that their fictitious ones are somehow real. For example, there never was a Commissar Dedov. And the tank ace they even quote in Desperate Measures doesn't even show up as an option, despite being their defacto resource for Hero Tankovy.

File: 030003be.jpg (35 KB, 139x800) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 139x800

>keep trying to paint
>everytime I start someone calls me away to do something

Goddammit I'm actually in the mood to paint why the hell is everyone wanting to talk to me now?!?!

>>47994928
It's lots of fun. Very fast playing.

>>47995101
Drivers already had trouble grounding the SU-85's gun, so making the SU-100 3' worse instead of 4' worse might not be worth having to retool the factories producing the gun. The SUs were supposed to have infantry support anyway (no machine guns) and I think they'd also double as guides.

Weight distribution was probably a bigger deal - crash hard into a ditch and you'd have to worry about smashing the front road wheels or suspension.

>>47995066
Yes, well aware of that book. Again, Overloaded I can see, even though BF has ignored "front heavy" for other vehicles. Slow it most definitely is not.

>>47994800
Ignoring your ad-hominem attack, letms say you have four tanks, and their top speeds are:
-37kmh/23mph,
-38kmh/24mph,
-42kmh/26mph,
-48kmh/30mph,
Which one is not a Slow Tank in FoW? First one is the ISU, second is the Tiger 2, third is the Pz IV, and 4th is the SU-100).

>>47995409

We all know that Battlefront have massive anti-soviet bias, ever since that guy interviewed their chief designer and he said that at their very best (Berlin 1945) Soviet troops were only as good as the Americans in Tunisia.

>>47995289
Not entirely true. The SU-122, SU-152, ISUs, and SU-76 were all *supposed* to have infantry support. The SU-85 and SU-100 were only supposed to along the same lines that a T-34 or lend lease M4 battalion was supposed to have infantry support... That being SMG infantry attached to the tank companies. The SU-85 and SU-100 were designated as Tank Killers, and were not assigned any normally. This position in the brigades was often switched out for other vehicles, however. It was not uncommon to find ISU or heavy tanks (KVs in MW, IS in LW timeline) filling that position.

>>47995444
Clearly we don't or else we wouldn't keep having jackasses defending the BS-3's shitty ROF, or wondering why Soviet players are "buttmad about having tank lists without H&C".

>>47995409
>Overloaded I can see, even though BF has ignored "front heavy" for other vehicles. Slow it most definitely is not.
The Panzer IV/70 has Overloaded, as it should. I agree that Slow is just wrong.

>>47995444
When I heard him say that, I went on a reading binge to try to prove him wrong, and I dunno, I guess I'd say I got mixed results. There are enough stories to suggest that there should be a few Veteran special snowflakes (mostly Guards), but the bulk of the Red Army still seemed remarkably willing to take casualties even as they closed in on Berlin. The closer they were (in distance) to the next level in the chain of command, the worse they were used. Their tactics never matched the sophistication of their strategy.

File: image.png (2 MB, 750x1334) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 750x1334

Thinking about making this my first list cause
1. Looks pretty inexpensive have a few of those things already and got more on back up
2. Looks fairly balanced to me and my knowledge of the game
3. Everyone in my LGS plays tanks and this looks a bit tank heavy
Any thoughts guys?

>>47995124
>this problem is far more rampant
You're way overblowing it. And LL only companies wouldn't be nearly as interested as mixed companies. BF did the right thing.

>And every list in LW being Trained
Except for the Veterans and Conscripts.
>Hungarians
They put up a good fight. Giving them V for their actions immediately after Kursk isn't a stretch, particularly when the Germans get V choices as well.

Plus BF loves Hungarians.
>Bullet Catcher Army
Except the casualties vary hugely depending on how you play. Bullet Catcher is a mentality, not a mandate. Soviet tactics go far beyond KEKEKE.
>Never was a Dedov
And there was never a Hans Schmitt. A tank based commissar was a good idea, I guess, like Hans, they ran out of time.
>doesn't show up
The game doesn't have that many characters compared to history. If every guy they quoted got one...

>>47995645
That's is the major contention I have with the Hero lists. All they looked at were Red Army, and one or two "Guards in name only", formations as their examples for Hero lists. Which is not surprising of itself. But the rest of their argument just doesn't hold water... They went with "Trained who skill check as Vets", because the core of the formation would be a a few battle-hardened survivors. And the newcomers would all be anhiliated or destroyed. Ok. But that doesn't explain why you -only- have this core of "hardened survivors" in the list, and they're all still dying like the new recruits.

>>47995409
Like I said, what the SU-100 could accomplish in a white room is another thing entirely to battlefield conditions.
>>47995444
Everyone's real attached to that apocryphal quote. Anything to continue the victim complex.

>>47995700

It needs smoke and recce, and might have some issues with infantry lists. Other than that, it should work. Maybe drop the heavy guns for it.

>>47995839

Battle Hardened or not, the formations still died like flies. It's an abstraction. Unless you wanted to have different platoon levels or something.

They died like new recruits because that's what happened.

>>47995922
Any personal choices for smoke and Recce?

>>47995871
>Everyone's real attached to that apocryphal quote. Anything to continue the victim complex.

It's a real quote. Somewhere deep in the archives should be a link to the audio file of that interview.

>>47995871
>Like I said, what the SU-100 could accomplish in a white room is another thing entirely to battlefield conditions.
Gotta love the old "Sure, records say X, but if you weren't there you can't prove it wasn't Y!" defence. Hell of a lot of veterans of kursk on this board.

>>47995946
This is part of the issue with making the soviet unit a company, in that it forces you to average out their skill.

And yeah, several soviet formations fought like troopers and their history is not at all represented. Yeah, people died; the eastern front was bloody. Never slowed down the germans from getting CV everything, though, did it?

>>47996281
>And yeah, several soviet formations fought like troopers and their history is not at all represented. Yeah, people died; the eastern front was bloody. Never slowed down the germans from getting CV everything, though, did it?
It's in part because the German command structure at lower levels was very flexible. They could react to changes much more quickly than the Soviets.

BF may have taken it too far, but on average they're right, even in that infamous statement. Soviet losses were ridiculous, not only in number but often in cause.

>>47995837
>You're way overblowing it. And LL only companies wouldn't be nearly as interested as mixed companies. BF did the right thing.

No I'm not. The majority of Soviet formations you see people playing, and the lists you see posted online or in tournaments, are ahistoric.

>>And every list in LW being Trained
>Except for the Veterans and Conscripts.

There are no Reluctant Soviets in any time period. The only Conscript army, is the Partizan militia list, and that only applies to the core and weapon companies. And the only Soviet Veteran lists in the entire game, are Berlin Cavalry, and Engineer Sapper battalions, both of which use Trained Hero support units.

>Plus BF loves Hungarians.
That one statement is the one that matters.

>>Bullet Catcher Army
>Except the casualties vary hugely depending on how you play.

Bullet Catcher is a design, because they are portrayed as faceless and generic, without nametags. Despite that, a lack of smoke, and lack of veterans (except for aformentioned 2 lists) means that you are expected to take casualties with your force. This is especially true with non-Hero lists, where you have the numbers to take casualties. But is also hilariously true with the Trained Hero tank lists, where you don't have the numbers, training, or smoke.

Yes there is more to playing Soviets than being a bullet-catcher army... That's how you can actually do well with them. But the fact remains you are expected to take hits and lose teams due to being easier to hit, and not having smoke.

>>Never was a Dedov
>And there was never a Hans Schmitt. A tank based commissar was a good idea,

A tank based commissar was not a good idea. Especially for LW, because it NEVER HAPPENED. This is pure weird-war-2 fantasy. There is only one incident of a tank commissar, and he died in MW. And despite using his picture, his name was not Dedov.

The reason why that's a deal, is because Dedov is the only T-34 Tank warrior hero in LW.

>>47995871
Quit moving goalposts and go look at cross country speeds, and highest-point ground psi values, then. The SU-100 still comes out as a comparatively Standard movement vehicle.

>>47996421
Weird War would be stuff like Giant Stompy Death Robots, Nazi Saucers, or Tesla Death Rays.

A Commissar in a Tank? Certainly ahistorical, but nowhere near Wierd War.

>>47996415
>BF may have taken it too far, but on average they're right, even in that infamous statement. Soviet losses were ridiculous, not only in number but often in cause.

As a total. That argument breaks down the minute you start researching individual brigades. There were Guards formations that fucking earned that honor, along with a red banner award, for having fought from Stalingrad to Berlin and portrayed exceptional skill worthy of Veteran. This includes awards for taking out numerically superior opponents in positions where the odds were against them.

And of course there are the meatgrinder brigades, most frequently Red Army, who didn't earn any awards and died en mass. These are also the lowest common denominator that BF has used, as evidenced by which brigades they reference in Desperate Measures for examples of their Hero lists.

>>47996563
>Certainly ahistorical, but nowhere near Wierd War.
There was only one known. And he died in MW, because being exceptionally zealous nutjob commandeering a tank tends to get you killed.

And his name was not Dedov.

>>47995960
Nebs/Panzerwerfers and 222s/8 rads, respectively.

>>47996213

It's pretty clear to anyone that a single figure for speed is pretty goddamn unhelpful. The BT had a high top speed, but look how much of a clunker it was in the field.
>>47996503
Assuming they didn't drive their gun into the ground or have the driver not be capable of keeping things steady at that speed, which isn't a problem if you're white rooming cross country speed.

>>47996421
>The majority of Soviet formations you see people playing
Rubbish
>The only Conscript army
Yeah, but there's conscript Straff.
>love Hungarians
Yeah, doesn't mean they hate Soviets. They're neutral on Soviets. What they do to Hungarians isn't relevant.
>faceless and generic
Bullshit. They had plenty of specific armies in the EF books, they just got chunked together in RB, which is doubly appropriate because it's easy to snowflake a given Kampfgruppe, a lot less so a bunch of divisions. Which is what you're representing, because a given convenient story unit for the EF is an order of magnitude bigger than the west.
>expected to take casualties
Initially, maybe. In the end though, in FoW the winning army often gets through quite efficiently. Or else gets blown to scraps the same as the Soviets. I run veteran Infantry, and I have platoon stumps all over the place at the end of the game.
>how to do well
That's not bullet catcher. That's not being a gigantic wuss when you encounter resistance. You don't stop arm wrestling just because you get a sore arm. You get an arm cramp, the other guy gets a broken arm.
>never happened
I'm sure there was tank based political officers. Or Commissars that appropriated a tank in a given battle. Or even an officer that acted like Dedov. He's a cool unit, and I'm glad it exists. Same with Hans Schmitt, even if his lack of realistic existence annoys my WW2 sperg-gland.

>only T-34
What's so special about T-34s?
And Loza and Vasili. And the rest of the non tankers. What's the issue? You get choices.

>>47996602
Like I said, ahistorical.

You're the one calling it Wierd War level fantasy.

Show me the jetpacks. Show me the zombies and werewolves. Show me the robots an flying saucers.

You can't.

So it's not "Weird War" no mater how hyperbolic you want to be about it.

>>47996740

Maybe he's one of the anoraks that was complaining about PSC Panzers having the wrong number of schurzen divisions. Standards...

>>47996637
The BT had a three speed gearbox. And despite that clunkiness, it really should be light tank. That "clunkiness" is represented in game by the Unreliable trait.

All things considered, you're assuming a lot. You're assuming the drivers were all incompetent, and that the gunners were all incapable of elevating the gun. You're also assuming that the vast majority of SU-100s were apparently crewed by the worst crews possible, in a mud-pit room where your standards of quality change from vehicle to vehicle.

Again, Overloaded is fucking fine. The raw statistics are there. We know what the machine was capable of, what the chassis it was built off of was, the weight, the distribution, the (comparatively good) ground PSI at the worst point, and the dimensions. But there is nothing but yours (and Phil's) own conjecture to suggest that the SU-100 is deserving of Slow tank.

>>47996213
Kursk had no SU-100s.

>>47996809
Nope.

>>47996740
Fine. It's not "weird war". It's Hollywood WW2. It's fictitious to have a commissar tank, unless he's in MW, rated Conscript, and not named Dedov.

>>47996503
yeah pretty much, but i still think SU-100 isn't like that in the game because they don't want russian jagdpanther.

>>47996841
I'm aware of that.

>>47996809
That was BF. They corrected it, along with the number of idler wheel spokes - that must've been expensive and I'm surprised they did both, since the idler isn't that easy to see.

The The_PSC PzIV tries to cover too many variants in a single kit so it isn't perfect, either. The Ausf. H should different drive sprockets and a longer gun barrel than the Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G. The F2 and G had the same gun but different muzzle breaks. The kit only comes with one gun barrel to cover those three along with a short one for the Ausf. F.

I'm not saying these things are a big deal that we should be angry about; you'd have to be crazy to care.
>I do

>>47996824
>You're assuming
I'm assuming that like every unit, it tends to use a broad brush. SU-100s were not something you generally fanged around in, at least if you wanted to keep it combat ready.
>BT
No, the fact that it had dog shit reliability is why it has unreliable. It has regular tank because there's no way in hell you'd go around on cross country conditions at it's max speed. It has fast tank to represent the occasional moments where you really could dragster that fucker across the battlefield. But it's not light, because the level of agility and tactical, practical speed wasn't there.

>>47996938
Except the jagdpanther was actually quite comparable in many ways... Horsepower to tonnage, psi, speed. Where it differentiantes is mostly in gun performance, and actual weight and horsepower of engine. The SU-100 didn't need a 700 hp gas guzzler, and instead ended up with nearly the same hp/ton ratio with the 500-ish hp engine the T-34-85 was using.

Not wanting a fairly comparable tank to not be identical is one thing, making it suck for the sole purpose of having it be a spammable bunker that never moves, is something else entirely.

Rate of Fire discrepency and national rules aside, the SU-100 should be armor 9/5/1, with Standard Movement, and Overloaded.

>>47997295

So, basically a Jpanther then?

>>47997146
>I'm assuming...
At least we cleared that up, finally.


>>BT
>No, the fact that it had dog shit reliability is why it has unreliable. It has regular tank because there's no way in hell you'd go around on cross country conditions at it's max speed. It has fast tank to represent the occasional moments where you really could dragster that fucker across the battlefield. But it's not light, because the level of agility and tactical, practical speed wasn't there.

You mean like the Stuart? Which neither had the speed, nor the cross country performance and agility?

>>47997295
Was it really that close to the jagdpanther despite being on a lighter tank's chassis?

>>47997324
Jagdpanther is not Overloaded, and has Front armor 10.

>>47997597
Actually yes. The Jagdpanther weighed in at 45.5 tons, and had 700 horsepower. This put it's hp/ton ratio at 15.4. It's ground PSI was 12.8 at it's worst.

The SU-100 weighed in at 31.6 tons, and had 500 horsepower. And it had a horsepower to ton ratio of 16. At it's worse spot, it had a ground PSI of 11.4.

>>47997753
Oh, are we only talking about speed? In that case, sure.

>>47997771
Yeah. Just speed. Like I've been saying, Overloaded... Sure. Slow tank, fuck no.

The 25pdr KS just hit 14k with 7 days to go, so sextons in any scale seems doubtful unless there's a *lot* of last minute holdouts.

On the upside, staff teams at least looks likely. But it's a big gap between that 16k and 25k for a ton of sex.

File: Totsugeki.jpg (117 KB, 869x508) Image search: [Google]

117 KB, 869x508

>>47980951
my rule i cooked up was "if IS-2's have moved, but their target did not, they ignore the +1 to Hit, but they shoot last in the shooting phase."

.....

so, i have TANKS now, and i have the GuP FoW to work on...and i've come across some really good insight.
does anyone care?

*watches board*

>>47997801
Huh.

Actually, while we're on that subject, what's the difference between the CMP and Morris tractors in the kit? Different time periods/theaters, or were they just concurrent designs, or what?

>>47997872

Isn't one a Canadian design?

>>47997870
Sure.

Will probs read it once I wake up tomorrow.

>>47997870
Yes, I'm very interested in TANKS: GuP edition.

How do you like the game itself, btw?

>>47997870
Yeah, how do you like TANKS? I saw an online review complain about movement being too free (in regards to turning/rotating your tank while traveling the length of the template), no rear shot bonus (same bonus as side), and it's common for attack and defence dice to cancel each other out and make the games very long.

>>47997892
I have no idea.

BF's books are of no help on the matter.

>>47998089
>>47998208
I've played a few games with it already. I think it's pretty fun, the movement is interesting, and it's really vital to decide if moving is worth it at all. I'd definitely like someone else in the club to have a better clue about it so that I can try a proper game. Even with the cancelling of Defence Dice versus Attack dice, the games are still pretty quick.

>>47998217
>>47997892
>>47997872
Teal Deer, CMP is for Canadian forces, Morrises are for everyone else.

>>47998396
Thanks. I was dismayed by that negative review but he did seem pretty picky for this kind of game.

https://meeples.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/review-tanks-panther-vs-sherman-starter-set/

File: rekijo raiden.gif (390 KB, 1224x740) Image search: [Google]

390 KB, 1224x740

>>47997933
>>47998089
>>47998208

ok,

first, Tanks needs expansion. over the coming years. just gonna say it.

all in all...the game is a game. it does not excite me greatly, but i am glad i bought the 1st run stater set w the cool soviet ammo card and extra tank cards. i enjoyed the demo game. my box is opened and sorted, but i've assembled nothing.

as for GuP and TANKS:

---GuP:TANKS games will be bigger than TANKS games. i'd say 300-600 pts will be more likely. points add up.
---GuP characters will likely have overlapping abilities as some expansion cards.
---Factions won't mean shit, and we'll have to swap out the national rules for school rules.
---"were' gonna need more tanks..." since Ankochimu only has 2 Tanks represented, we'll need to make more....
---and....i gotta say it....we have armor problems. big ones. with new tanks.

Shermans are Defence 1, Hull 6 or 4. (odd, right?)
--so, would a Crusader be Defense 1 Hull 4 or 3, or would it be defense zero, 6 or 4 hull?
--would the CzechPanzer be Defense 1 Hull 3 or 2, or would it be defense zero, 4 or 3 hull?
--how bout' the fucking Chi-Ro? would it be defense 0, hull 2?

and, to avoid going all Bolt Action with the tanks, we need a step ladder like this:

Sherman > Stuart > Czechpanzer > Chi-Ro that is smarter than negative defense or having way shit for hullpoints.

or, will wee see tanks with utter shit for Hull as the stats for old tanks?


more news at 6...

>>47997295
Yes i know it is pretty comparable, that is why i said maybe it is a shit in the game because BF don't want to give a jagdpanther to the russians. You know i am one of the people that think that BF is a little unfair with the russians

>>47997753
>The Jagdpanther... It's ground PSI was 12.8 at it's worst.

>The SU-100... At it's worse spot, it had a ground PSI of 11.4.
Can you give me a source please? those values are in PSI or kg/cm2? because i am pretty sure that both of them had closer ground pressure.

Before i said another thing: I AM WITH YOU i think that SU-100 deserve the normal tank speed.

But since i love to talk about tanks and i care most of russian and german tanks... like i said before >>47992287 mobility is affected by a lot of things, SU-100 is faster than Jagdpanther in the road, but Jagdpanther is something like 4km/h faster in crosscountry. So yeah they are pretty the same, the only difference is the armor and the rof.

>>47997870
Yeah since i fucking love Girls und Panzer for what it is, i am going to paint some tanks as ones from the schools.

>>47999289
Having read that interview, that guy just seems like he's nitpicking.

File: 20160627_214326.jpg (4 MB, 5312x2988) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 5312x2988

I did it lads

Wait there's 5 more halftracks in the mail

>>47999356
Yeah, it might not be a great game, but it's the closest I'll get to convincing my friends to play FoW.
It looks like ammo storage is what gives the wide swing in Sherman hull values.

100pts might cover some of the matches from early in the season, like 5v5. We don't always need to go up to movie scale!

I think defense 0 should be pretty rare - just the paper-thin tanks that couldn't stop machine guns, like the Type 89 (Chi-Ro) and Italian tankettes. But... I might not be understanding what "Defense" actually represents. You might argue that small, fast tanks should get a save for being nimble (though EW light tanks were often slow, BT's aside). And if you want to give tanks better stats than they'd have in real life due to how they were in the show, that's fine too (at least in defense - the show's fine with not making them attack very well).

>>47999356
I think that Stuart=Czechpanzer in terms of defense and hull could be a better option maybe , since the game seem to not care that much about real armor and gun penetration.

So use some generic values and then change them to make more variety plus school rules, something like:

Most of the medium tanks be Defense 1 and Hull 5, super mediums or up armored tanks Def 2 Hull 6, light tanks Def 0 and Hull 4 and Fast rule as a standard rule, etc Example:

Chi-Ro was a medium tank but it had shitty armor so Def 0 Hull 4
Chi-Nu Def 0/1 Hull 5
Jumbo Def 2 Hull 6/Def 1 Hull 7

File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 3264x2448

Today's Soviet shitstorm convinced me to put together some PSC AT rifles and heavy mortars. Just a couple things:

1) Is there a list in any of the late war books that will let me bring 8x 120 mm mortars?

2) I wouldn't recommend PSC for russian infantry, I really like their heavy weapons boxes and their AT guns. They are top notch and for the most part really easy to put together.

>>48000664
where on earth are you putting these together?

>>48000753
On an old magazine on the floor of my apartment.

>>48000664
>Is there a list in any of the late war books that will let me bring 8x 120 mm mortars?

Yes. Almost all of them. Well, more accurately 6 is the amount you'll usually see available. 8 is only available MW, iirc. And *maybe* one or two of the mechanized LW lists (certainly not the Razvedki one).

Generally speaking, 6 will get you by just fine. 8 is more of an ablative casualties thing, and to make up for conscript ratings.

>>47999988
Based on how they're doing the Shermans, hull points are subjective and include things like ammo protection, and defense is more of a tank class thing. 0 defense for the flimsier light tanks works for me. The SU-85 and British 75mm Sherman have the lowest hull points so far of 4, so I guess you'd use 3 for tanks like the Stuart and Pz. 38(t), 1 for tankettes, and 2 for BT sort of tanks?

Stat the tanks based on real life and make them ridiculously better through characters or school rules that cost a ton of points. I could see Ooarai crews doubling the cost of their tanks.

File: Turtle Team - Pz 38(t).jpg (316 KB, 800x430) Image search: [Google]

316 KB, 800x430

pg 10 bump!

File: Arab SU-100 Six Day War.jpg (132 KB, 800x517) Image search: [Google]

132 KB, 800x517

>>47999386
>those values are in PSI or kg/cm2?
12.8 psi = 0.90 kg/cm^2
11.4 psi = 0.80 kg/cm^2

File: British Comet.jpg (5 MB, 3648x2736) Image search: [Google]

5 MB, 3648x2736

What's with the cloth mantlet?

>>48004546
Keeps dirt, water and other shit out of the mantlet and from gumming it up.

>>48004615
They only realized they should use them at the very end of the war, and only on one tank model?

>>48004689
Presumably it's one of those minor quibbles on the todo list that just isn't that important to deal with right away, plus the Cromwell having an internal mantlet made it a moot point on the Comet's predecessor and it was used on most of the Centurions marks postwar as well.

>>47996938
What's wrong with a jagdpanther.

>>47997801
People tend to rush towards the end, but I think it's been hit by the fall in pound.

>>48005012
Excellent ammo rack on that one.

>>48005533
And the lady has a nice chest as well.

>>48005578
Rear armour's not bad either.

>>47988136
wait, they did in Red Bear, Revised changed the gun that gets extra crew. Now i'm sad.

>>48005621
What?

BS-3s have never had extra crew, that honour goes to 85mm AA guns (ob 1939?) and katyushas

>>47988222
the cossack list is basically take the berlin list, and add FV cossacks with options for pfausts as cores.

Point costs:

HQ:
Same as Red Bear, but 45 pts +10 for commisar on account of FV, and no pioneer option (nobody cared about losing the PTRD option)

Hero Cav:

2 platoons 145
3 platoons 205
4 platoons 265

platoons are 2 bases each

options: free SMGs for all if you want to (protip: you do, can't fire past 4" on a horse anyways)

pfaust SMG teams 10 pts each, 1/platoon ( so 4 total possibly)

tachanka machine gun carts for 40 pts each (because veterans)

you also have the dismounted variant which is less shit then usual since you can also give them fausts like the cav, but it's only 20 pts a unit more to give them horses.

You can check out the list without point costs and upgrade options on the forces of war site. It's basically make a Hero FV list out of the Red Bear cossack list, with more fausts.

>>48005503
I highly doubt that. Not every bit of poor fortune is attributable to to the Brexit; especially since the Pound hasn't actually gone into freefall like the doomsayers were claiming.

>>48001889
>Stat the tanks based on real life and make them ridiculously better through characters or school rules that cost a ton of points. I could see Ooarai crews doubling the cost of their tanks.
Very much this. I always got the impression from GuP that what matters is not primarily how good your tank is, but more how good your crew is (watch Miho with ace gunner Hana and hax driver Mako trump pretty much everyone else)

>>48005604
Though it does have some weak points that could lead to getting penetrated.

>>47997870
Mind to tell me where i can find the GuP FoW?

>>48005680
in related news, i had to make my 1650 tourney list in a hurry, how bad did i fuck up?

Tourney is R v B, i know there's going to be a Panther list and an infantry with lost of platoons list (some kind of Luftwaffe shenanigans so he starts with 7/12 platoons on the table)

Forward Detachment

T34/85, 2ic, kommisar

9 T34/85

minimum tankos ( 7 bases)

3 SU-85M

3 ISU-122

8 Katyusha's with extra crew.

>>48006186
>how bad did i fuck up?
Very.

5 platoons, no recce. Silly amounts of katyushas.

>>48006186

Needs recon, those tanks aren't going to get much done, I'd probably want more tanks rather than as many big guns as you have. Those Katy's aren't going to get much done. I'd say take a smaller platoon. It's not hard to get to 4/6 guns.

You've got a lot of good tanks and firepower, and the SU-122s and huge T-34 platoon'll help against infantry, but I can see you getting attrited down real easy against well dug in infantry. Panthers'll be interesting. Your real threat is the T-34 platoon, so you'll need to be skilful with it. Numbers should count, though, provided he doesn't do anything sneaky or get off a good ambush. Reason for recon number 2, ambushes are.

>>48006246
don't actually have recce. I know, but it's the thing i have to live with until some spetz get here.

>>48006253
don't have any recon yet (sadly), so had to make do. I have some more assault guns (4 SU-76) but experience has shown that they're more squishy then barns. As for tanks i only have 3 T-70's (which can't be fielded) so i didn't have much choice on that front either.

I would've ran Strelk or Sturmovye but i really don't have much in the way of gun teams to make that count. Cossacks would be an option when i get them assembled.

>>48006186
>>48006554

Maybe you could list out what else you have, and we can see what you could squeeze in after you cut your Katy's in half. Smoke trails are going to screw them over after they fire.

You also probably want some AA. At least put the .50 cal mgs on your ISU-122s.

File: Original GUP FOW.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>48006170
here is 1st ed.

>>48007018
Many thanks!

>>48006962
yeah i ran out of points for that. I've got more strelk then you can shake a stick at, 4 maxims, 2 45mm guns, 3 PTRD teams, 2 faustnika teams, 2 companies of cossacks ( unassembled), aftermentioned SU-76's and T-70's, and 3 KV1's ( which you could use for KV8's or KV85's, i guess).

Missing recon, gun teams, mortars, and more tanks.

>>48005975
Yes, quite. In addition, I would certainly fuck that lady in the butt.

>>48006170
We're basically starting over now that the TANKS game is out. None of us have played it enough to know how to balance new ones, but we'll get there.

>>47999386
For the Jagdpanther, it's Tank Data from Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

For the SU-100, it's Armor in Profile #21 (SU-85 and SU-100). If you go by Tank Data 2 from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the PSI for the SU-100 drops to 10. I tend to prefer the worse values.

Weight and HP of engine is roughly the same across all sources I've ever seen, with some +/- variance. Generally speaking, 700hp is the standard quote for the Jagdpanther's engine, 500hp is the standard for the SU-100, and both these come from Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Tank Data, as well as the weight.

>>48006186
My recommendations:
First, cut the Katys in half (at least). 8 seems like a sooper cool thing to do, but it's expensive and makes them a stupid-huge target. Save the pizza-box bombardment for when you're playing big, all-day Saturday games of 3k+ points. The double wide does fine. Although I prefer the 6-strong 120mm Heavy Mortars instead.

Cut the T-34-85s down to about 8 strong in the company. Things get a bit unwieldy at 7 or more, and downright clusterfuck at 9 or 10. If you're running confident, keep them even numbers. If you're fearless, then it doesn't matter (just try to have platoons of at least 4 vehicles).

Give the ISUs their .50cal upgrade. Consider it one of the perks to having ISUs over SU-100s.

Minimum Tank Riders won't do a whole lot... But meh, you're filling mandatory slots. Bump them to tier 2 size (2 platoon) if you can, and use them to assault objectives and be your meat fodder or objective holders.

Lastly, get recon. Preferably spend 100pts to pick up 3 spetsnaz for both Eyes and Ears, and their Infiltrate ability. The Ambush push-back is reason 3 to have them. Failing spetsnaz, get BA-64 armored cars. But preferably get the spetsnaz, THEN add in the cars if you are running a list that allows both (Razvedki).

The thing about how Soviets play, is they tend to be a "whole is greater than sum of parts" army. Each unit will (usually) have a purpose in the game, and they all each do their one job and work together to cover their weaknesses. It works really fucking well, when you get the hang of it. Soviets do not tend to have very good jack-of-all-trades units, that can perform multiple roles effectively. An example is the maligned IS-2, which pays a premium for mediocre armor (panther tier), asault ability, upgrades for assaulting, and a high anti-tank ROF 1 gun. The end result, is it's expensive, slow, misses a lot, but can wreck shit if it manages to assault something.

>>48009034
Thanks.

>>48009291
And I know you said that Recon might not be a possibility. In that case I would just bring some of the SU-76Ms and push them directly toward where you think your opponents best ambush spot might be. This may be stupid, but I honestly believe you can at least disrupt the ambush or force him to fire on your cheap assault guns while your other armor moves up.

SU-76M's may not be able to pen much armor from the front, but they have wide tracks, so you can drive them right into concealment. They also get volley fire, which will help them a bit when you are trying to dig up infantry.

I guarantee your opponents won't be expecting SU-76Ms. I read somewhere that North Korea is still using them for infantry fire support.

>>48008673
In the vagina too.

>>48009660
SU-76s are one of my favorite units, simply because they're so expendable and cheap. Wide Tracks also helps considerably. 145pts buys 5 of the damned things, and they have won me a stupid amount of games. They're also one of the most cost efficient vehicles you can get, for the amount of damage they can produce to dug in / gtg infantry. SU-122s ignore saves and have 2+ Firepower checks, but they're the only things that can actually challenge the sheer efficiency of 5 SU-76s firing 10 shots with rerolls and 3+ Firepower. Plus those SU-76s have normal range, and can thrash any lighter vehicles. I've even had them kill heavier stuff, simply because nobody expects them to do anything until they've penned the side of a Panther 3 times.

Love the SU-76s. Love them so much, I bought a shit ton of them to run the LSPAR, and it's the most fun you'll have giving your opponent a headache.

File: 1389290958477s.jpg (3 KB, 125x125) Image search: [Google]

3 KB, 125x125

New to Flames of war and I just bought Grey Wolf because it looked cool and I like WW2.

What am I in for?

>>48009756
With Grey Wolf, you're in for German sparkle parties. And nothing but German sparkle parties. And the occasional Hungarian wank fodder.

File: Dlya Rodina!.jpg (119 KB, 775x313) Image search: [Google]

119 KB, 775x313

>>48009756
>Grey Wolf
fighting endless hordes of Russians

>>48009805
I'm ok with this, I really like the German forces

>>48009835
Then get your tight sparkle pants on, and grow out your Hitler stache, because a fascist you shall be!

>>48009751
I haven't tried them due to the money cost, but on paper they look great. I see that ThePSC still has them "in the pipeline," after two years or so. Bummer. I usually don't mind the price of BF resin vehicles, but it's a bit of an issue when it's something you want 20 of.

>>48010378
They need to kickstart for it. I bet they could get it funded in no time.

>>48009756
Hungarians, Finns, and Germans.

All focused on the Eastern front, with singular battles having more units than most of the campaigns in the west had.

Its usually considered the best Late War German book for starting players because you can make a list out of damn near anything in it.

>>48009756
One of the best late war book for the axis tons of lists for germans, hungarians and finnish forces.

File: Alcoy tiznao.jpg (107 KB, 800x494) Image search: [Google]

107 KB, 800x494

Are armored car lists any good? Like Pumas?

>>48009756
It covers most of the bases, but not some of the more unusual ad hoc German formations of the very late war (the "special snowflake" lists, as we like to call them). That means it's the right book to start out with.

Desperate Measures is good if you want a wild mix of tanks, often at cheaper points values (less experienced crews). Road to Italy is for fans of Fallschirmjager and their Panzer IIIs. Bridge at Remagen has Jagdtigers with ablative infantry. (Be careful, the big cats are hard to use because they're either Reluctant or very expensive.) Whichever book covers the Battle of the Bulge has interesting panzer companies too, and it's the way to go if you want to do ambush camo.

>>48011829
Armored car lists lack any real punch to them. Yes, even Pumas.

The thing about armored cars is that you want to be using them for their recon abilities like preventing ambushes and spotting troops that have gone to ground.

You don't really want to be fighting with them because then they can't use their special ability to run away when things start shooting at them.

And I understand the temptation of the Puma. Light armor, fast, decent gun.

But the Puma isn't a light tank, and shouldn't be fighting like one.

It's not a Stuart or a Chaffee. It doesn't have the staying power. Especially in platoons of 2 vehicles each.

>>48012492
>Road to Italy
Fortress Italy, you mean?

>>48012689
Er, yes. My bad.

>>48011829
>>48012670
Actually, I've seen some effectively used armoured car lists.

What these did was have a couple of fairly cheap armoured car platoons to provide recce stuff and hunt down small prey.
Next, you add 2 or 3 "hammer" platoons that can form the spearpoint of a drive on an objective, like big mech infantry platoons or some solid tanks capable at assaulting.
Finally, some sources for pinning/smoke. Maybe some extra AT if your "hammer" platoons don't bring enough.

In the end, you end up with something quite like an armoured/mech force, but more hybrid with a stronger recce presence.
While generally a bit lacking in the direct punch compared to an actual armoured force, it compensates with more board presence from the recce units to apply that punch.

It can work quite well, as long as you understand your limitations and manage to utilise your list's strengths to compensate for them.

>>48012670
>You don't really want to be fighting with them because then they can't use their special ability to run away when things start shooting at them.
Well, the British 2nd Household Cavalry have a special rule that lets them do so, but it's still not enough. Armored cars are just too fragile and lacking in firepower or armor to get the job done.

The best armored car list is one that takes the minimum core platoons, then fills up the rest with support options.