Currently Status: Staring at my German Paint set and Leopard book for Team Yankee.
Who has preordered The Kampfgruppe Müller box set?
What West German Force are you looking to build?
/fowtg/
Flames of War SCANS database:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108
Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/
Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts
WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8a13ampzzs88/World_War_Two
and, for Vietnam.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8i8t83bysdwz/Vietnam_War
--Guybrarian Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw/edit?usp=sharing
http://www.400gb.com/u/1883935
Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/
[Vimeo] The Fallen of World War II
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/CariusNarva.pdf
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1949 the Azul Division: no longer linkable off the main page
Which army do you play the most?
http://strawpoll.me/4631475
what actual country are you from?
http://strawpoll.me/4896764
The Müller battle reports in the Leopard book discuss the Luchs armored car as much as they discuss the Leopard 2s. I think I am going to take as many as I can to pad numbers because they are only 1 point a pair. At least they can spot for arty and threaten lighter skinned vehicles.
Was a bit eager on last thread...
I'm gathering nobody's written an operation downfall, so...
My first question is whether or not japanese militias should have seishin, or indeed banzai charge; the willingness of civilians to commit suicide in name of staving off defeat seems considerably more variable in reports than the army.
>>48217159
Also overeager, and responded to your post in the previous thread:
>>48217251
>Let them have Banzai, but only pass it on a 5+ (assuming they're default confident, if base reluctant leave it as is).
>For Seishen/No Surrender, have it so that the platoon needs to take a second morale test when drawing on their Seishin: If they pass, they Seishin as normal. If they fail, they break and run like everyone else. Warrior teams automatically pass this second check.
>>48217159
could give them 'enjoy the war', aka every stand does its own morale.
This would reflect how some would fight to the end while others may decide discretion is the better part of valor
>>48216650
>Who has preordered The Kampfgruppe Müller box set?
Waiting for it to arrive to my FLGS. Because of shipping issues to the US.
Another successful launch day from Battlefront Miniatures!
>What West German Force are you looking to build?
At first, probably a mixed Leopard 2 and Marder force.
Later? Maybe Leopard 1s. Part of me is highly tempted by low point cost AT 19.
The Leo 2 is nice, but they're 11 points each.
The Leo 1? 9 points for 3 Leo 1s.
Reminder again:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NiDdgaqJOSrTlVyik5IVJCaK2wUCdLSIvcPCoNY-IYw/viewform
Ask questions to be answered on Panzerfunk.
>>48217857
Same situation at my FLGS. We got the book at paint set in. Will be out of town next week, so I really hope it arrives this week.
Right. I am planning to have some Leopard 1's and Luchs in my army as a low cost screening force that can still be dangerous to apcs and support units.
Anything that distracts fire away from your Leopard 2s is going to be a good thing.
Can someone explain all this leopard 2 hype to me? I thought the modern day equivalent to flames wasn't that popular...
>>48219108
>I thought the modern day equivalent to flames wasn't that popular...
Except that's wrong. It's been hugely popular, all over except in my local area apparently. They've been selling out repeatedly, forced to do extra runs of production, and people have been salivating for 125mm armed MBTs.
>>48219108
I've dreamt about leopard IIs and BO-105s since I was a kid.
I'm actually biying it without any friends that are willing to TY with me.
Yes, I'm even prepared to play with random neckbeards I don't know.
>>48219108
The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli versions of the game were flops.
But 1985 Cold War Goes Hot has been selling like hotcakes.
>>48217103
Wow. That's like somebody took the Puma, said "it's not broken", and basically duplicated it.
>>48219979
>The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli versions of the game were flops.
Are those fun? Getting someone to go against won't be hard but I want to know if those are worth getting. Same with the WWI game.
>>48219979
I understand historical players like these settings (because they actually happened) but who seriously wants to play as arabs and vietnamese?
>>48221631
There's always a player for every faction no matter how doomed or ineffective they are.
>>48221589
I think Vietnam was too infantry-based for a lot of people (at least on one side), and needed too much terrain.
The Arab-Israeli game was too much a game of a horde vs. a small elite force. It reflected reality, but that reality was pretty lousy. It also meant that making an Arab horde would cost a lot of money.
The Soviets in Team Yankee are not nearly as extreme.
>>48220836
Yeah. Funny how the Cold War had the Western Allies telling Germany, "Uh, yeah, go back to building tanks and stuff named after cats. But for our side, this time."
>>48221631
I'd be way more up for vietnamese if getting them ready wasn't so goddamn expensive.
>>48221875
I think Vietnam has a larger (& more committed) player base than 1967, even though it is much smaller than the WW2 player base. FOW Vietnam it is a good adaption but you need to have an appreciation of the Vietnam War outside of Hollywood cliches, and also like playing asymmetrical forces. It is a decent adaption of FOW, just hard to find like-minded player who's world is not just "muh tonks muh tonks muh tonks".
TY will (obviously) sell a lot better than either: the fact that BF took years to grasp this is....interesting, to say the lest.
>>48222558
Yeah, I think the relative inaccessibility of Vietnam is a shame because it's a very well-done game.
>>48220836
They even replicated the secondary rear facing driver seat that the Puma had.
>>48223154
I never knew the Puma had a rear-facing driver seat.
>>48224208
Pretty much all the non-4 wheel German armoured cars had that setup, yeah.
>>48221875
>Funny how the Cold War had the Western Allies telling Germany, "Uh, yeah, go back to building tanks and stuff named after cats. But for our side, this time."
>We could be alive to see a German tank in service with the name of Tiger or Panther when they run out of cat names.
>>48224810
Nah, they got loads left.
Ocelot, Lion, Cougar, Cheetah... Jaguar? Lynx?
>>48224882
Lynx = luchs
Cheetah = Gepard
Etc
>>48224901
Come to think of it, why HAVEN'T germany ever made a Tank called a Lion. Do they just not like them?
>>48224920
No tank has yet lived up to their magnificent mane
>>48224920
Might be the strong association of Lions with the United Kingdom. There was the Lowe(Lion) project in WW2 but it never really got off the ground.
>>48224954
>Might be the strong association of Lions with the United Kingdom
I'd ask why the United Kingdom doesn't have anything called the Lion then, but then I remember that I know the answer to that one.
Namely
1: There WAS a plan drawn up for a class of Battleship called Lion in WW2, but the design never left the drawing board.
2: All British Tanks start with the letter C: Cromwell, Covenenter, Churchill, Cheiftain, Challenger, Centurion etc etc.
Well, apart from the Tetrarch I guess.
>>48225061
Or the Matilda, the Valentine and really anything other than the Cruisers and Post-war tanks. The C rule is more of a rough guideline at least before the end of WW2, and was originally just for the Cruisers anyway.
>>48225061
>Well, apart from the Tetrarch I guess.
Matilda, Valentine (and various "Mk whatever" ones.
>>48224882
Cheetah is the Gepard in German, which is an anti-aircraft vehicle.
Jaguar 1 and Jaguar 2 are their ATGM vehicles. I think one is armed with TOW missiles, and the other is armed with HOT missiles.
Lynx is Luchs in German, which is the recon vehicle pictured in >>48217103.
Likely we'll see the Leopard 3 as the next German MBT if the ever decide to do a new design instead of just a new upgrade for the Leopard 2.
So for late war Germans each section of NW41 launchers sort of look like this. Does this mean I have to run a minimum of 12 NW41's? Also does the lead tank of every platoon have to have a tank commander? Are tank commanders necessary?
>>48225061
C tanks are cruisers, more modern tanks are post-cruiser developments and thus have the C too.
>>48225380
Oh, good god no. The wording is kind of bad, but "X sections" summarises everything. The diagram to the right is the complete arrangement of a full platoon. You can have 1 understrength section of 2, 1 full strength section of 3, 2 understrength sections of 4, or two full-strength sections of 6. Optionally they may be semi-mechanised and have cars.
That make sense?
Also tank commanders aren't necessary but make it easier to tell who the command tank is.
>>48225380
You'll have one commander for the battery and one observer team for each section. You may bring one or two sections. Yours sections can contain 2 or 3 launchers each. So you may bring one section with 2 or 3 launchers or 2 sections with 4 or 6 launchers total.
Anything in grey is optional, so you do not need to bring kubelwagons or halftracks, but if you choose to just add 5 points and you can bring a kub and a halftrack for each launcher.
>>48222558
>TY will (obviously) sell a lot better than either: the fact that BF took years to grasp this is....interesting, to say the lest.
I think nervousness about going into fake history is strong among historical gamers.
They still had to find a book to use as source material, even if it was fictional. Old habits die hard.
>>48224920
The Iraqi homemade version of the T-72 was called the Lion of Babylon
>>48225819
Not quite German though, is it?
>>48225420
Thanks a BUNCH I was debating wether or not I had to buy more than one NW41 box. Might buy 2 boxes to have 1 full strength platoon
>>48221875
Arab Israeli did have Jordanians as a nice in-between, especially with the book where BF redacted their shitty "lacking initiative" opinion and switched the natin's design to the more accurate defensive maneuvers. But Jordanians are basically just a trained version of a a slimmer allotment of what the Israelis have. Granted that's historic, but the extremes of horde of unskilled UAR, or hyper elite Israel, are the focal points of the setting.
Soviets in TY aren't that extreme, but BF is still pushing their "Soviet veterans don't exist". I lost interest the minute they released their Afgany expansion, because the hardened vets from one of the biggest shit-hole tarpits in the world weren't any different than the derp-hordes they already had.
>>48225879
Yeah no shit, but it's the only tank in the world called Lion
>>48225977
>"Soviet veterans don't exist".
Which is funny because soviet vets now do exist so long as BF doesn't have to do any work.
>>48226087
The post you answered:
>>48224920
>why HAVEN'T germany ever made a Tank called a Lion.
>germany
>>48225318
Jaguar 1 had HOT missles and a hull mg. While the Jaguar 2 had TOW1 missles
>>48225977
Imo the Afghan War is much, much different than fighting a conventional war. Also in a Cold War gone hot setting there shouldn't be any veterans besides the lucky injured. NATO even made a table with the expected survival rate of the average frontline soldier and equipment. Most of the times for Warsaw pack units were less than a day and for NATO less than couple of days. WW3 was and will be an extremely destructive war
>>48226288
>shouldn't be any veterans
Which is all well and good, but the americans and germans both are.
>>48226288
Nobody should really be of "veteran" status. Afgan is a different beast, but it's still ridiculous to think that the troops coming from there didn't learn anything from fighting a guerrilla war. Except how to spam choppers and drop troops, apparently.
>>48226121
Engineer Sappers and Cavalry are the exceptions.
>>48226731
Technically they just have differing hit rates. They're not necessarily veteran statuses in TY.
Anon who asked about british Armoured a while ago here. Decided to go with 7th Armoured (and I will later expand to have EW and MW armoured companies of them as well).
However, I'm having some trouble deciding between different versions of the company. Not two, or even three versions, but four. What does /fowtg/ think, which one should I get first?
First option, a breaching group
>>48227954
Second option, a platoon of RV infantry
>>48227968
Third option, an extra platoon of recce cars.
>>48227990
Fourth option, two HQ Cromwell VI CS.
I will most likely collect and build all four by the end, but which one should I get first?
>>48227426
And different motivation, and different skill checks... No matter how technical you want to get, it basically boils down to "Fearless Trained".
>>48228008
Well, that last one is out.
Only 5 platoons. That'll screw you over when it comes to reserves and company motivation checks.
As for the other 3? They all seem decent.
Perhaps the infantry. They can cover your objective while your tanks go out and try to capture objectives.
>>48228530
6 platoons in that one as well, 2 HQ CS Cromwells form a platoon with the 2iC.
>>48227954
>>48227968
>>48227990
>>48228008
I'd go with the infantry. The breaching group is a close second, but what you mostly need in the list is a way to dig up infantry (particularly those with lots of panzerfausts), and 4" range guns on teams that can't fight in assault don't do that well enough. Two recce units is pretty redundant unless your local meta is 'Murican TD spam, and the CS cromwells just aren't that useful.
>>48226731
The better stats can be attributed to better technology and training. Also due to balance
>>48229470
>Also due to balance
Thing is, the moment you bring "balance" in as an excuse of that, you're basically saying "we're not bothering to base this on historical (or quasi-historical) facts any more". If there is a need for a change in balance, solve it by points, not by arbitrary limitations of competence.
Any kind anon can share digital exclusive forterss italy 16 ss div briefings please
Is there a digital version of flames of war?
>>48230060
Like, lists? Top of the thread, under scans.
Do you mean a PC game of it? There isn't, but there's plenty of WW2 strategy games.
>>48230624
Yeah I was meaning more like a PC game so I didn't need a big table orfriends
>>48230681
I like Company of heroes 2, it's actually what got me into Flames of war
>>48227968
Where can I make lists like these?
>>48230842
forces.flamesofwar.com costs $1 per list, or an entire nation from a single book (or ALL lists from that book) for 25% discount
There is also fowlists . blogspot . com , but those look like shit imho and are not always reliable, though free
>>48230778
CoH2 was shit, though. It's like the abridged historically-incorrect Hollywood version of the Eastern Front. It should have been called "Company of Pansies Hiding in a Basement, Fighting Only for a Photo."
>>48231138
? The campaign is trash
Multiplayer though
Me and friends have like 600 something hours with the best of us being in the 1500 range
>>48231286
CoH1 multiplayer was better.
Still is, really.
>>48229502
What are you talking about? Balance, which is basically what makes a game fun, is what keeps things fun. Plus this is a tabletop game in which you take turns firing and moving. If you are playing a tabletop game such as Team Yankee you are not playing for 100% realism but more for fun.
Also the infantry for at least the Americans and Soviets have just about the same stats as each other all within 1 number of each other.
>>48230778
>>48230624
>>48231391
Top Recommendations for PC WW2/Cold War strategy games:
-Company of Heroes 1
-Wargame: Red Dragon and Airland
-Codename Panzers 1&2
-Men of War: Assault Squad 2 (Probably the most realistic of this list with RobZ mod. Also Global Escalation adds 1960's Cold War and is based on RobZ.)
Honorable Mentions:
-Red Orchestra 2 (Great infantry and combined arms game based in Stalingrad. Heroes of the West mod adds Americans and British.)
-World of Tanks/Heroes and Generals/Warthunder (Good if you like tanks and vehicles. Although I do not recommend these games.)
-Il-2 Strumovik: Battle of Stalingrad/Wings of Prey (Hardcore airplane sims)
-Ruse (Similar to Wargame but set in WW2 with base building. Not my favorite)
So. Tournament in October. I've been authorised to go Weapons Free, Bootheel to back-of-head, noob-stomping mode.
Now what list do I use? I've heard good things about massed KTs.
>>48232155
Points? Some lists are really nasty at 1750 but are crap at 1420.
>>48232155
>I've been authorised to go Weapons Free
You mean like, bare fists?
>>48232155
>>48232205
Should have specified, 1625 Late War.
>>48232276
When in doubt, brass knuckles to sort out rules disputes.
>>48216650
What do we make of the 1000pts list lads? Having a Normandy landings themed 4v4 game this weekend and I got the 29th as my division to represent.
>>48231402
The stats basically boil down to the same damned stats Soviet (Guards) players have been playing all of LW. It is pretty much you playing as Fearless Trained, against Confident Veterans (Fearless Veterans now that Germans are here). The only difference is you no longer suffer penalties to hit while moving with your ROF 1, but neither do Americans when they use their stabilizers.
>>48231523
Shit, I hadn't heard of the cold war mod for MoW. Will have to look into it. Also missed heroes of the west. Does it also have western tanks?
WT is the best online tank/plane game, imo, but you do need to stick to sim mode.
What is the field of fire for PIATs on universal carriers?
Is it a normal turret?
>>48232963
Hull mount, iirc. Like an assault gun.
>>48233051
That is some cucked up shit famalam.
O well.
>>48233118
What
So, is there any information about why the release date for the reprint of the Team Yankee novel keeps getting pushed back?
I've had it on pre-order with Barnes & Noble since May, and a week before each supposed release date, they push the release back another month.
Supposedly it's now due out the end of August, instead of next week.
Who wants to bet that in August it gets pushed back again into September?
>>48233206
Not him, but it's like the "hull mounted" machine guns that were easily removed and aimed everywhere by the crew, except in this case it was never fixed to the hull at any point.
Flaw of the game not having a rule for "360 mount vehicle weapon that isn't in a turret and isn't an AA MG"
>>48232880
Add me on steam if you wanna play the mow Global Escalation mod since not a lot of people play it. Just pop a message on my steam page saying that you are from /tg/.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/tacticalbacon12/
But for HotW has the troop transports for the Germans and British and a Panzer 4 G reskin for Outskirts of Caen. Right now HotW is pretty popular and you have to download it through the steam store
So here's what I'm thinking.
Schwere Panzerkompanie HQ CinC Konigstiger (Henschel), 2iC Konigstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
Compulsory Schwere Panzer Platoon - Command Konigstiger (Henschel), Konigstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
Schwere Panzer Platoon - Command Konigstiger (Henschel), Konigstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
Volkssturm Platoon - Command Panzerfaust Rifle, 8x Panzerfaust Rifle (105 pts)
- Replace one Panzerfaust Rifle with MG08/15 LMG (-5 pts)
Volkssturm Platoon - Command Panzerfaust Rifle, 8x Panzerfaust Rifle (105 pts)
- Replace one Panzerfaust Rifle with MG08/15 LMG (-5 pts)
Volks Rocket Launcher Battery - Command SMG, Observer Rifle, 3x 15cm NW41 rocket launcher (70 pts)
Light Anti-aircraft Gun Battery - Command SMG, 4x 2cm FlaK38 gun (65 pts)
1625 Points, 6 Platoons
>>48233598
Where's the list from? What's its rating?
>>48233717
I guess it's from B@R and is RV
>>48233717
>>48233825
And it's Auto Defend and No Kampfgruppe.
>>48233945
Other than being Reluctant, I see no obvious flaws with the list.
The real question is if you even own 6 King Tigers. Although I suspect I should already know the answer to that.
>>48234020
Well I don't, but I know a guy who owns about, thirty.
>>48234094
Ok. I have to ask.
Why does this man own THIRTY King Tigers?
>>48233598
>Always Defends, starts with 6 KTs and both Volkssturm platoons even when reserves are in play
Jesus that's cruel. Why did they think B@R and BG&G were good books to print, again?
At least >>48233825 is wrong about it being RV, based on the points. The tanks/guns are RT and the Volkssturm are RC. Still fucking evil.
>>48234160
From what I remember, he basically bought out all of the German stock from one of our local shops when they were ditching Flames of War.
So basically imagine a grey plastic sliding pan stuffed with tanks or infantry or guns.
Then imagine Seventy odd of them.
>>48234261
Or a bit less than Seventy, there's still a lot of the damn things.
>>48233598
As someone fairly new to flames: How do you beat this list?
>>48234421
artillery
>>48234421
Play better, really. Everything's reluctant, so pinning or bailing is going to have a big impact. Flankshots on the Tigers negate most of their defensive ability, while smoke or arty can mitigate their offensive power. The entire list is quite weak if not totally porous if you can get to close combat, and those platoons are small enough that their defensive fire is a bit anemic. Whittle them down, and go for the throat when they're exposed. Assuming their special rule puts the Volksturm down every game, they'll also be light on support platoons as well, so a fast attack could hit them before they have their strength in play, which they need.
>>48234421
Booby Traps. Everythings mostly RT.
>>48234421
The key here is that they're all Reluctant.
Do enough damage to force a Morale Check and things should start running away. Unless they have the Enjoy the War special rule, in which case they might be a bit harder to get to flee.
The Kitty Cats will require some High Anti-Tank values to defeat, flanking shots at their weaker side armor, or perhaps some aircraft to knock them out from the sky.
The infantry will need to be taken out with breakthrough guns, flamethrowers, or pinning and smoke screen followed by an assault.
It's doable, but it requires a bit more care in the planning and execution of your game.
>>48234421
Ignore the king tigers, eliminate the other platoons instead. Might not always be possible, of course, but the other platoons are a lot easier to kill.
>>48234421
unless the volksturm dont count for company morale, killing them is fairly easy, especially with arty. Get them wiped out and another platoon and you could route them easily.
>think I finally have enough StuGs
>realize I could fit one more StuG in the list
It never ends
>>48231523
>>48230681
The games that got me into FoW is the Close Combat series. A bit old, but still my favourite strategy sim. Generally pretty accurate for combat as well.
>>48232346
How does the attached strike you? 6 platoons, but because of the Volkssturm, you'll start with 4 on the table. Mostly of potato quality, but with a yard of steel plate, so doesn't care about getting hit easily.
>>48233598
>>48237081
Shit, I am an actual moron. I hadn't read the thread, and you had posted the literal same list.
I shall now go and commit sudoku.
>>48231523
Serious absence of SP:MBT and SP:WW2 there
>>48237081
You know what they say, Great Minds think alike.
So how good is FoW for large scale fights? Like if I wanted to throw force organization out the window and just throw everything on the table, or even just high-point games.
A consideration. If I drop the 2IC Königstiger I can afford to bring a Ersatz SS-Panzer Platoon of Four Panzer IIIMs.
(RT) Schwere Panzerkompanie HQ CinC Königstiger (Henschel) (215 pts)
(RT) Schwere Panzer Platoon Command Königstiger (Henschel), Königstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
(RT) Schwere Panzer Platoon Command Königstiger (Henschel), Königstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
(FT) Ersatz SS-Panzer Platoon Command Panzer III L or M, 3x Panzer III L or M
(RC) Volkssturm Platoon Command Panzerfaust Rifle, 8x Panzerfaust Rifle with MG08/15 LMG
(RC) Volkssturm Platoon Command Panzerfaust Rifle, 8x Panzerfaust Rifle with MG08/15 LMG
(RT) Volks Rocket Launcher Battery 3x 15cm NW41 rocket launchers
(RT) Light Anti-aircraft Gun Battery Command SMG, 4x 2cm Flakvierling 38 gun
1620 Points, 7 Platoons, Auto Defend and No Kampfgruppe
The issue being of course that now we're on uneven platoons for the purposes of defending and having platoons on the table.
>>48237630
Assuming you have a table big enough to actually alow some maneuver and enough time to run things, it should work fine.
In fact, I believe BF have actually released a scenario to cover these kinds of battles previously.
Don't remember what it was called, though.
>>48237659
I wouldn't go for it.
Remember, Panzer student/lehrer means that you'll need the CiC and 2iC to stormtrooper, so you want to be able to attach and german spess magic as many KT platoons as possible.
>>48238476
This is from Bridge at Remagen. So they're RT with Stormtrooper/Mission Tactics.
>>48238536
Oh, whoops.
>>48233566
So UCs and hanomags and the Pz IV G? Is it still under development, at least? If they get a sherman in there that'd be pretty stellar.
>>48237630
Table space is key. If you don't manage it, you'll end up with huge lines and blobs of tanks and infantry that won't be able to maneuver, especially if someone is bringing soviets.
I am setting up a Prokhorovka megabattle for my group and I am going to use reserves for both sides to manage troop numbers. Mostly for the soviets, as we'll have over 30 total T-34-76s plus artillery, assault guns, and Strelkovy at the beginning.
It helps that my FLGS has some extra large tables for larger events.
Comparing my experience of my brits and my soviets, I feel like the biggest disadvantage the soviets have is centralised control, not hen and chicks.
You have fewer platoons, so your opponent basically always has the option of deploying in response to you, and you have far fewer units which you can try and flank with or split attention. Likewise, infantry are paradoxically far easier to pin since they come in far fewer groups; it's not too hard just with a couple of MGs, and if they have mortars or more than one artillery option pinning via bombardment is trivial (in this area, Japanese morale rules are actually better than QoQ).
Comparatively, brits have enough tanks and dudes to have someone go front and someone else go side, and if one of your infantry stands takes a mortar barrage that hasn't crippled half your advance since you have 3-4 other guys who're still good to go.
>>48232561
Not good I guess?
So after some Agonising, I'm thinking of running with the Six King Tiger List because the Sixth King Tiger is vastly more durable than the four Panzer IIIs.
>>48238912
Drop the Rangers and the Airsupport, you have Naval Funfire and Boat Weasels, you're set for destructive templates and good infantry, then replace them with three Shermans with a Bulldozer and Improvised armour. The Shermans won't do much good against nasty bastards like dirty tigers done cheap, but they'll be a godsend against other infantry.
>>48226087
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VII_Löwe
They had one in WW2, just didn't get finished.
>>48238912
Just fine enough that it's not really attracting comment.
>>48234421
pioneers, landmines, artillery, focus on the not KT parts, force morale.
>>48231523
What >>48235913 and >>48237220 said.
The most importantly the lack of World in Conflict hurt me a lot since we are with Team Yankee now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtDKCGdimcQ
>>48239025
no one plays pioneer lists near you?
or German panzerfaust infantry?
also, whats this bullshit i hear about the Modern FoW games being unpopular? Leopard is love, Leopard is life....
>>48240087
Team Yankee is extroadinarily popular.
It's Vietnam and Arab-israeli that are distinctly unpopular; they're too much of a niche to really gain ground, and stretch the V3 rules almost to the breaking point in terms of technology creep. So they're not anywhere near as interesting mechanically or thematically.
>>48240087
I can only guess at the NZ meta. I'm going with what I know a local boy won big with slash what I think is going to work good. Plus with this list, they have to attack me or I win automatically, and I have enough infantry and AA guns to make that really hurt them.
>>48240145
Vietnam and Arab-Israeli share the same problem of "No one wants to be the Opfor" and "Being the Opfor is really bloody expensive." The USSR at least has some fuckin' sick equipment like Hinds, T-72s, etc.
>>48240087
I don't know how to feel about that photo
>IS-3 Platoon
>2 of those little boxes with 2 tanks sprues.
>28mm Fallschirmjager HMG
>Leopard book
>Tamiya spray
>Some fine asian snaks.
Then you have those okada gundam boxes. No Magella attacks or Type 61 to play your own version of Tanks! in Gundam universe 0/10.
>>48237630
one FLGS, the one C3k frequents, used to have 3-4k mega battles all the time. Keep in mind though this FLGS has lengths of table over 20 feet long by 5 wide, so they have plenty of space for it. They also usually run big cats, heavy assault guns, veteran infantry, and other units that dont usually get to see a company sized match.
This is of course the FLGS with the "wall of flames" I posted a couple of years ago that was a good 30 feet long or so
>>48238602
Yeah, it is still in development with the newest update being couple of days old. The problem with Red Orchestra 2's tanks is their complexity. It took three months of the entire Tripwire team to make one tank. So yeah it will be awhile until a sherman comes around but they did say they would like to add one. Also there's a somewhat working model of the Stuart in Rising Storm's files
Discord for finding fellow autistic operators, laughing at rpg players and relaying orders to tabletop generals:
https://discord.gg/AgeYs
>>48241931
I always wondered where the pacific tanks were, since some of the maps are listed as tank maps.
If they could finish the stuart and get an M4A1 sherman that'd give both brits and yanks a tank.
>>48240211
T-72s only look sick.
>>48243756
They're better than you'd think at first.
Especially because they have mobility.
Hordes of BMPs with missiles might sound scary, but they need to be stationary to fire those missiles.
>>48244898
They're shit. Which is to be expected from "tank that needs to be spammed to be effective". Hordes of BMPs aren't what you should engage enemy armor with, unless you have the opportunity to.
>>48245262
Ok, so if "they're shit", then what do you recommend using as a Soviet force in Team Yankee? Especially as your primary anti-tank unit?
>>48245465
Mostly other tanks; this is pretty much the status of tanks in TY, only other tanks can really destroy them. You could also use helis/jets, I guess.
>>48246115
Up until the germans come out you could do pretty well with airpower+BMPs+AA, since that covers most of your niches and is pretty damn aggressive at clearing the skies. Germans don't have the US's shit AA though, and have several BMP-killers.
>>48246115
But that's my point.
The guy was saying "Don't use T-72s, they're crap", but at the same time, your best anti-tank unit really don't s tanks of your own.
All of the ATGM units, need to be stationary to fire, so you're left with either strike aircraft, or your own tanks for mobile tank hunting units.
Unless the guy was going full "Don't play Soviets, Soviets always suck."
But assuming he was honestly saying that there is a better option for Soviet AT duties in TY, I was genuinely curious what he would recommend instead of the T-72s.
>>48242662
Yeah, hopefully they get to the Sherman at some point though.
>>48245465
Any other army, for starters. But if you must go with the "spam -X- to have a chance army", stick with air and use your non-tank ground shit to knock out their AA. You're tanks just fucking suck, and 10 of them aren't worth the 47 fucking points they cost. If knocking out their AA doesn't work first against Wehrmacht 2.0, then you're pretty fucked regardless.
>>48246273
>really don't s tanks of your own.
Really *is* tanks of your own.
Not quite sure what happened there...
>>48246273
Aircraft. Helis and frogfoots.
Use your ground to take out their AA. That's you're real strength as Soviets.
>>48246273
Sounds like the Soviets are the Orks of this game.
>>48246310
Ok, so you are just a "Soviets Always Suck" troll.
Good to know.
I'll promptly return to ignoring your opinion.
>>48246333
Pretty much. Thankfully the game's a tad bit more balanced.
>>48246336
>hurr stopped reading when...
Fucking air, you autistic shit bag. I recommend against Soviets because you'll be spending a fuck ton of money, and more than likely will be buying shit that's a waste of points.
>>48246365
Have you actually played any games of Team Yankee?
The Soviets are actually much more powerful than you'd initially think.
You talk about using the full 10-tank units, but field T-72s in mid-sized units and you'll find that they're quite tactically flexible.
Soviet tanks seem to do fine against American tanks. Yeah, loads die, but you pop like three american tanks and have a coin flip on winning through morale.
That and the insane AA are what make me rather concerned about WG.
>>48246607
He is right that air power is capable of doing horrible horrible things to american tanks though, and they have very few countermeasures.
>>48246503
>The Soviets are actually much more powerful than you'd initially think.
Never said they weren't. They are however going to cost you a massive chunk of cash to get an at built. Much like the Arabs, or Soviets in WW2.
Even mid-sized 6 to 8, you're looking ar point ranges of 27pts for 6, 32pts for 7, or 37pts for 8. For 15 pts you get 6 Hinds, not counting the bucket of infantry they'll carry. And I'll take those any day over T-72s.
>>48246876
It's the same thing with Razvedki in LW. T-34-85s seem great until you realize that for the cost of 8 confident trained T-34-85s you can get 10 Fearless M3A1s loaded up with 18 Fearless infantry, with enough machine guns to actually kill shit in bullet proof cover, and you still have room for whatever support options you want. The main difference here is you're swapping out scout cars with death-choppers, and loading the infantry up for bear. If you've got the cash flow to do Soviets in Team Yankee, go Hinds and then pick everything for support. You don't need tanks to make Soviets good in TY, you just need money.
>>48247179
Wait, what? How are you meant to be taking out tanks with the razvedki core platoons? T-34-85s will kill tanks, too, you realise? The scouts cost less but also do less.
>>48247179
They're a slightly larger force, yes, but to be fair, the WarPact forces did vastly outnumber the NATO forces, so it's not exactly an unrealistic repression of the Soviets.
>>48246876
Hinds are good, but AA is everywhere.
Ok, yes the VADS are a single small platoon, but everything else has self-defense AA, and aircraft saves aren't all that great.
Thoughts on my greenstuff work here? I'm debating decorating a second tank with the Hessian strip camo, because it's such a bitch to do. Parts of the net camo will have tea leaves glued onto them to simulate all the branches and leaves they stuck into the netting.
>>48247658
They can actually do far more on virtue of amount of MG dice, self defense AA, and by being infantry (digging in onto an objective, assaulting into ruins, etc). And they're considerably faster than T-34s. The only thing they can't do, is engage in a shooting match with tanks, or threaten heavy tanks beyond winning combat and pushing it back (although it is plausable you can surround it).
The other advantage is not only do you have some versatile mechanized infantry driving around with buckets of MG dice, but you can still afford all the support and recce you could want, including SU-85Ms (or SU-100s if you want something static as hell). By comparison, a Tankovy force has to pay twice as much just to get it's combat companies filled in. And while a Forward Detachment has more options, it lacks the recce support, second Razvedki, and requires you to take a dummy company of 7 Motostrelk to fill in compulsory.
Razvedki is one of the most deceptively potent lists the Soviets have in LW.
>>48247690
Never said it wasn't. I'm merely stating the fact that you will generally need twice as much. T-72s and Abrahms both come 3 to a box, unless you go third party. And you'll want bare minimum 2 boxes per company, preferably about 5 for two companies. If you're dropping that kind of cash on BF T-72s, then there's no reason for you to baulk at an air cavalry list. Other than >muh soviet tanks...
>>48248451
Yeah, literally everything you attack with your Hinds is going to be taking AA fire, likely from 50 cals. Example: An Afghansty force using full Hind support was able to take out my VADS and cause my M1s to flee, but my M113 blob was still able to crush their flank and mop up the remaining Hinds. German AA is going to be even worse for Hind heavy lists.
>>48248856
5. 5 to a box. For a decent price as well.
And most alternative manufacturers for moderns charge more than BF per tank.
The only real exception is Zvezda, and even there you're maybe saving a few pennies per dollar.
>>48248675
I assume you used some kind of stencil or similar for the netting?
>>48249415
Actually, I took the blade out of my xacto knife and rolled the patterned grip over the flattened sheet of green stuff. Then I carefully removed it, and laid the sheet on the tank.
>>48248675
You were supposed to prime these yesterday it's only getting more humid man
>>48246876
I think your overstating how good Hinds are and ignoring how good T-72's are.
Hinds are good flexible units but they are very fragile, being routinely shot down by the otherwise useless .50cals every American vehicle mounts and VAD's will chew up a whole company if given half a chance.
T-72's are far more durable.
Generally the soviet players I've seen or heard accounts of will try to kill the VAD platoon before they put any Air power on the table unless they see an opportunity to out-range the AA. I've taken to running my M113's around to chase hinds and to maybe get at the Soviet AA regardless of losses as games that don't end 4-3 ether way are rare.
Now there are several soviet players in my group running the BMP swarm list and they generally opt for SU-25's for their not-a-bmp tank killer option.
>>48250113
I prefer hinds for their reliability, Su25s tend to not coming when I need them. Hinds, while fragile, can be available at any time I want.
>>48248856
Like >>48249345 said, the only expensive box with 3 tanks is the Leopard 1 zug just because muh resin kit. And the starter army sets are pretty good deal, 9 T72 and 2 hinds for $120 is ok though the lack of that tenth T72 hurt a lot.
>>48250838
Battlefront is a guilty as hot dog / hot dog bun manufacturers.
Need 4 Leopard 1s for a CO and a full strength Zug
>Sold in boxes of 3
It would be nice to be able to order an extra tank to fill in the gaps. At this rate the bet option is to find 2 other people to split the third box.
>>48250991
>as guilty as
>best option
Can't even blame autocorrect.
>>48250113
The problem is, people still don't understand that the game is pretty new, and we only have just 1 "expansion".
And even though in Flames of War the soviets seems to be the least favorite army of BF if they don't want the game to die they will make them pretty good since they are the big bad guys ala germany in FoW unless they make one of the minor nations or eastern germans better than russians.
We only need to wait the Wasaw pact book to give a better judgement about the soviets armys. And those T64/T80 that should have better skills and courage than the T72 and maybe better night fighting equipment.
And maybe some new ERA and ATGM fired from the smoothbore update for the Russians tanks.
>>48251564
>t64/t80
ok so why is the t64 better than the T72? Shouldnt it be worse as its an older tank?
Soviet tank designations confuse me
>>48250991
Use the extras to make objective markers.
Or trade them to other players like you suggested.
>>48251688
It's not like T54/55→T62→T64→T72→T80→T90.
There are 2 bloodline of russian MBTs starting from T54/55. One is T62→T72→T90, the other is T64→T80.
T64 used advanced technology than T62, too advanced for that time that makes it unreliable. So the army decided to make T72 from reliable T62, upgrading its gun to 125mm,
>>48251688
Well soviet desings from the cold war had 2 lines of tanks desings:
T-62->T-72 Cheap tanks with good armor and powerful gun
T-64->T-80 Expensive elite tanks made for breakthrough with more advanced/experimentals systems.
At the beginning the T-64 was supposed to be the best soviet tank fighting alongside the T-62, after some development and the upgrade of the T-64 with the 125mm, the T-72 was made as the replacement of the T-62 with a the same gun as the new T-64A and more reliable engine being a more cheaper model.
T-80 was further-development of T-64 with a turbine engine. Replacing the T-64 as the advanced russian tank.
The thing is laters T-72 models (the one of Team Yankee) were as good as T-64 and T-80 in armor and firepower, being more reliable and cheaper. But still the units with T-80 and T-64 were supposed to be old elite Guards heavy tanks division. So i expect better rating at least.
The most funny thing about these tanks is nobody had a lot of info of them in the cold war. I didn't read Team Yankee novel but i am pretty sure nobody there say a thing about T-80 or T-64.
>>48252351
Team Yankee the Novel is from an American perspective. Would the average American tanker of the time be able to spot the difference between a T-64 and a T-72?
>>48252514
Thanks, just like i thought. BTW is the novel good? a friend told me it is super MURICA FTW, personally i don't mind it if it isn't something like: "we destroyed 25 paper made T-72 with just 1 HE shoot from our Abrams"
>>48252628
I think it's personally very, very dry, so I haven't finished it yet. It's pretty balanced, the Yeam takes casualties, and there's a very definite sense by the first four chapters that the entire US Army is staggering.
>>48252628
The "fluff" bits in the rule book are excerpts from the novel, so that should give you some idea of how the novel reads.
How do you think about this?
[marder panzergrenadier kompanie]
# panzergrenadier HQ (1 pts)
#1 : 3x marder, 3x MG3, 2x Milan (7 pts)
#2 : 3x marder, 3x MG3, 2x Milan (7 pts)
#3 : 3x leopard 2 (33 pts)
#4 : 3x Jaguar 2 (5 pts)
#5 : 4x Gepard (10 pts)
(attached) 4x Redeye (4 pts)
[panzeraufklelungs kompanie]
# HQ : 1x Lepard 1 (3 pts)
#6 : 2x Luchs (1 pt)
#7 : 2x Luchs (1 pt)
#8 : 2x Leopard 1 (6 pts)
#9 : 2x Leopard 2 (22 pts)
total 100 points, $369 worth.
>>48252707
>>48252776
Good, thanks. Too bad that it would be pretty impossible to buy here. So PDF for me then.
>>48252628
Nothing like that. The dialogue isn't particularly good, but the combat scenes are good.
It's not particularly Americanesque. Mostly it's a question of the Americans getting the advantage through ambush, suprise, thermal optics, and a bit of luck. Every encounter loses them more of their force, and they don't spare scenes involving the wounded or exhausted, so the sense of threat is maintained.
>>48252351
The T-72 we have is the first one, so it shouldn't be as good as T-64/T-80. We probably have T-72s because they're what the author of the book was familiar with, as you say.
>>48252514
Tankers, maybe, but even today you'll notice they all look virtually identical. They're "pick apart the shermans" levels of similar; the real differences are in the electronics and composite armour construction.
>>48253872
>The T-72 we have is the first one, so it shouldn't be as good as T-64/T-80. We probably have T-72s because they're what the author of the book was familiar with, as you say.
Correction: First upgrade. The armour's still only about 4-500mm effective, compared to estimations of 650-900 for the T-80. I don't know what the T-64 had admittedly.
A bit sensationalist, but here's an article on the T-80's sucktitude.
https://warisboring.com/the-t-80-is-russia-s-most-overrated-tank-798b5ba54ff9#.b2gd3xc2b
>>48254039
>https://warisboring.com/the-t-80-is-russia-s-most-overrated-tank-798b5ba54ff9#.b2gd3xc2b
That article smacks of Armchair general bullshit to me. His primary argument that the T-80 is rubbish comes from the fact that they lost a few in a Guerilla war, and that the tanks and crews were rushed into battle. So what, the M48 Patton III is a bad tank just because units were destroyed by Vietcong Ambushes? The M1A1's shit because an IED can kill it?
>>48254114
Pretty much. It's an excellent argument for why high-powered MBTs are a bad choice for counterinsurgency and why they're even worse with inadequate infantry support, but it says nothing about how good the T-80's design is. It says even less about it's performance in a prospective WW3, i.e. the situation for which it was designed, in 1976 or 1985, i.e. the years it was first serving and the game is actually about, respectively.
>>48252514
if my dad is anything to go by, yes, they could, although he commanded a Bradley.
He gave me a ton of stuff from the late 80's and early 90's showing tank silhouettes, rough armor profiles, and gun caliber. I'll try and find them. I specifically remember them saying the model and make of the vehicles, like BMP or T72, although at the time I didnt care about cold war stuff and just mothballed them till I had a space to hang them.
he even had a couple tank models made from resin blocks in solid black, I'm guessing to aid in recognizing tank profiles from multiple angles. One looked to be a leopard or M1 and I'm guessing the other was a T72 or something. He was in one of the units guarding the Fulda Gap if I remember right which would explain all the emphasis on knowing his tanks.
Its been a long time since Ive seen them, I used to keep them in my closet till my parents moved everything to the attic. I'll look tomorrow and see what I can find as I just happen to be visiting before I head off to college.
>>48254657
Well Allied Troops during WW2 presumably had silhouettes and what not. The Americans still confused Panzer IVs and Panthers for Tigers and King Tigers.
>>48254114
Well the way I read it he mostly complains that it is to expensive (both in cash and fuel) compared to the T-72 line of Soviet/Russian vehicles.
That's what he goes on and on about. He even excuses the Chechen War losses with bad tactics and missing/sold off reactive armour parts.
Still I don´t know if he is correct but I fear you missed the point.
>>48252797
I think it would play well, but I would consider making some points for tornados or artillery to dissuade the enemy from bunching up and using cover to close in on you.
>>48249495
Neato
Last night a friend bought me the Open Fire set. My excitement became frustration as I realized that the set lacked both instructions on how to assemble the tanks and models, but also the magnets for the tanks. Almost two weeks ago, I bought the rules and had the book fall apart in the shop and I'm still waiting for a replacement.
I want to like this game but it isn't making it easy for me. Has anyone else experienced shit like this? What do I do about the magnets?
>>48256430
Here's a link to the open fire assembly pdf. Generally BF is pretty good with assembly guides if you put the product number into their website.
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/OpenFire/Open-Fire-Assembly-Guides.pdf
You want to dry fit everything before applying glue. Especially if you have the older box. Pay careful attention to the shermans.
As far as the mini rulebook, it sucks... I'd take it to an office supply store and get it spiral bound. It seems like they used rubber cement to bind the pages.
Hope that helps! In general there are some fiddly bits on the plastic kit, but 15 mm scale is very forgiving. Let us know if you have any more questions.
>>48256430
>Magnets
The modern Sherman kits come with pegs that are the default way of making sure the turrets don't fall off.
There's still room to mount magnets where the peg would go, but they decided to make that optional as a way of making things cheaper.
>>48256430
>>48256673
Yeah, but the pegs suck. You can get rare earth magnets on ebay for not very much. 5mm x 1mm or thereabouts.
>>48257105
Pegs are great though. Less hassle than magnets.
>>48252321
T-72 was built in tandem with the T-64, it was not a further development of the T-62 - which pretty much was just a modified T-55 to rush in a 115mm gun and stabilizer into service.
>>48240629
those Gundam boxes have 'tanks' in them for Tanks! in IBO Gundam...
Magellas a shit.
>>48246310
this is bullshit.
T-72's have more survivability than abrams, and the same if not more killpower.
do you even play?
>>48246333
>>48246365
wow, more bullshit.
Soviets are fast moving blocks of metal. so what if they get ROF 1, they have no penalty for this, ther eis ZERO hen and Chicks, and unlike Abrams, which loose 2 diece with every tank that goes down (on a 4+ armor save) the T-72 goes down 1 die per unit per tank lost, on the same armor save.
only the coming Leopard has more power....
dude, you obviously are an armchair player.
pics or get the fuck out.
>>48257510
Haha i knew it. I friend wanted to do the same
>Magellas a shit.
And i thought /fowg/ was full of nice and fine gentlements like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnKxySyO4w4
Wait me outside the FLGS motherfucker.
>>48256582
>>48256673
I had that two page pdf printed at the store. While the set comes with the pegs, the instructions show magnets.
I might just spiral bind the replacement book for extra measure.
>>48257945
I emailed battlefront once upon a time for magnets that weren't in my T-34 boxes. I eventually just went with pegs. For the most part they work perfectly fine. The peg bottom should be sized to fit where the magnet goes. Just make sure there is a hole for the peg in the chassis. I honestly can't remember if there is.
>>48257532
Only through sheer virtue of model count, due to each T-72 being 5/8ths the cost of an M1. Front armor's worse (understandable), and they're easier to hit. That doesn't make them more survivable, it just makes them more likely to take casualties and weather casualties, but only when fielded in bulk.
>>48257550
>Soviets are fast moving blocks of metal.
They're slower than the Abrahams and Leopard 2. Leopard being the fastest MBT.
>so what if they get ROF 1, they have no penalty for this, ther eis ZERO hen and Chicks,
No shit, genius. So long as you're going 10" or less, you're penalty-free (barring exceptions like night). You can Tactical up to 14", but then you're sucking the typical +1 penalty to hit against what is effectively veteran to-hit stats.
>and unlike Abrams, which loose 2 diece with every tank that goes down (on a 4+ armor save) the T-72 goes down 1 die per unit per tank lost, on the same armor save.
Same armor save on a straight up slug-fight. T-72 is two points lower on front, which matters against other units. And the Leopard2 has the same AT as the T-72, making it very good at murdering them.
The two dice lost versus one is not that cut and dry as you'd make it seem. First, T-72s are the easiest MBT to hit, with a 3+. Second, you do not get twice as many T-72s (against M1s), with the ratio being 7 to 4. These factors do actually need to be considered as well as the loss of firepower per casualty. In a straight up 32pt slug-match, 7 T-72s vs 4 M1 Abrahams, assuming no penalties and neither getting first shot. T-72s average 3.5 hits, M1 Abrahams average 5.3 (7 shots at 4+ versus 8 at 3+). The armor save and firepower ratios are the same with a 4+ save against each other, and 5/6 chance of passing firepower. It roughly equates to two T-72s lost for every M1.
Ad-hominem fallacies will be ignored.
>>48259275
The big thing is that the T-72s are much better in morale terms; put them in bad spirits and the abrams is liable to wander off. Likewise, you want to look at the broader picture; the T-72s being so much more affordable means you'll have more support and better force morale overall. US morale is really their achilles heel.
Conversely the Germans seem to have no weaknesses whatsoever so seeing them on the field will be... interesting.
Hey guys found the posters.
They mainly cover desert storm Iraqi gear, chinese MBT's, and soviet APCs and oddly enough, airborne assault howitzers.
I'm gonna drop a few pics, let me know if you want me to take pictures of the rest. These things are pretty big and I cant figure out a way to scan them
>>48257550
Continued from - >>48259275
This means that in a straight up slug match, T-72s will effectively lose 5pts per tank lost, compared to 8pts per M1 Abrahams lost. At a ratio of 2:1, meaning 10pts for every 8 in tradeoff.
The counter to this, is that the higher unit count and 3+ Morale of the T-72s allows them to stick around a bit better when suffering casualties. So it ultimately comes down to T-72s needing a larger formation of about 7+ tanks, capitalizing on higher unit counr and morale, to not be at a (slight) defecit in a straight up slug-match against M1s. But this still does not solve the last two issues the T-72 has...
First off is Skill and Assault. 5+ sucks balls. Big, hairy, Perrun the slavic thunder-god, balls. Even with numbers, a 5+ in assault means you need 3 tanks to kill 1 stand of anything. Skill of 5+ is a bit less of an issue until it comes into play and then you find yourself with a tank or two stuck on a log forever. The M1's 4+ is only 1/6th better, but it does make a difference in the M1's favor.
The second issue is night battles. Both IR and Thermal Imaging give you the 2d6 pick highest for Bight Visibility, but the Thermal Imaging has the clear advantage (and rightfully so). Not suffering penalties to hit due to Night, against easier to hit foes, means you're not reducing the lethality of your shots when you get them. IR however is suffering that penalty, against harder 4+ to hit opponents. And that's when the 5pts per tank against 8pts of better tank swings into the clear favor of M1s. And Leopard2's have it as well... Sure it's a conditional advantage, and sure you could protest playing any games at night. But it is still a hefty problem the T-72 (and all Soviets) have in Team Yankee.
And finally, choppers are fucking awesome! I just wish they weren't a pack of 2 for $40 ($36 on MM).
>>48259583
>>48259595
>>48259610
and this is the last one for now. I've got 10 or so laying around. All are a bit rough, but still legible. One day I'd love to frame them and hang them up somewhere, but thats a long way off.
Let me know if you want more and I'll post them later
>>48259515
You are correct. I mentioned that here: >>48259586
And yeah, I think there's some serious german love going on...
>>48259623
and forgot the pic
>>48259586
>Skill of 5+ is a bit less of an issue until it comes into play and then you find yourself with a tank or two stuck on a log forever.
Minor correction: TY tanks automatically unbog. The big number is their cross check.
And yeah, night is some bullshit, there's really nothing that compensates for the crippling disadvantage it gives to the soviet player.
>>48257148
I prefer the rotated slot system, or whatever it's called - what The PSC and most non-wargaming scale model tanks use. As long as the turret isn't at 90 degrees to the hull, you can use it to pick up the whole tank.
>>48259586
The T-72s gun has the brutal special rule, which means it can blast dug in infantry to bits before having to make an assault. I imagine the 5+ assault is likely due to the lack of a 5th crewmember.
>>48260126
Or 4th crew member...
I find Brutal to be kind of meh... Maybe it's because I feel that Breakthrough Gun helps balance the single-shots vs hiding veteran infantry better... Or maybe it's because I love rolling up ISUs and instilling the fear of 152mm into whatever unlucky bastards are hiding in the building. But Brutal just feels like a knee-jerk "we need to dial this down so players don't just field T-72s and murder all the infantry."
>>48260327
That and the "how to roll a 7 on a D6" rule both seem to be fixes for killing, but not over-killing infantry.
Anyone has done special rules for fallschirmjager? to add them some extra flavor
>>48259643
>>48259610
>>48259595
>>48259583
Really pretty interesting stuff. Thanks. Some stupid but curious question coming from a foreign, it is legal to scan those things?
>>48261557
Doubt it.
>>48261557
There appears to be no copyright text on the bottom so probably it is. Plus the military probably cares less about people scanning stuff like this unless it has information that isn't classified.
>>48261791
is*
>>48261486
Why you need them? Well if i remember well the kompanie from fortress italy has a rule that make them pass moral check with a 2+.
>>48261791
Theyre from the late 80's so I think I'll be ok. If thats still classified after all this time I doubt they would've allowed my dad to keep them
I want to pick up some T-54/55s, but I have absolutely no use for them.
>tfw nobody makes a 50s/60s CWGH.
>>48262683
I'm in a similar boat. I like the T-54/55, and IS-3. But I don't want to buy a gorillion of them to play Vietnam or 6-Day War, and therefore I have no use for them either. I kind of want to see IS-3s show up in an official LWL book, but I'm afraid of the space magic BF would bestow the Americans and Germans.
>>48262683
I think the modernized versions are cooler. And GL-ATGM :d
>>48262683
I am pretty sure that some CWGH wargames have at least the stats for them.
And i think Cold Wars wargames in the 50s/60s are pretty rare because the huge difference between the tank forces until the appearance of third generations MBT (Leopard 2, Abrams and Challenger)
Though some fights between M103 and T-10 could be pretty fun.
>>48263094
It's a real shame; a lot of "interim" tank designs are very appealing; the Centurion, M48/M60, T-55, even Leopard, all excellent looking tanks, but cold-war-gone-hot seems very focused on the 3rd-gen+ era, with copy-paste MBTs and missiles everywhere.
>>48263128
>the modernized versions are cooler.
Fight me.
>>48263141
>And i think Cold Wars wargames in the 50s/60s are pretty rare because the huge difference between the tank forces until the appearance of third generations MBT (Leopard 2, Abrams and Challenger)
That's the point, though!
>>48262132
I just wanted to spice them a bit, except the green devils on fortress italy they are just FV rifle/mg platoons with nothing more than 9 teams at full strength instead of the 6 teams of a SS platoon and seeing others nations paras got special rules (yanks and brits) i want some for them too
>>48263235
I know, but a lot of people don't like being outnumbered and outclassed the most of the times.
True you have M103 and Chieftans to help but fighting a againts a tons of T-62, T-10 and even T-64 isn't funny.
>>48263370
That also goes the other way, too. Running a pure T-34 list is fun in MW until someone runs nothing but Tigers and face-rolls you with 4 tanks while you hope for bails.
Or to a different extent, how Arab/Israeli war used to be, where you couldn't hit the iShermans while you bled tanks, Jordanians were suffering. The Arab T-34-85 gimmick list capitalized on the audacity of having a truly spammable horde of garbage. So much so that they had to cap it at 3 companies.
>>48263141
>And i think Cold Wars wargames in the 50s/60s are pretty rare because the huge difference between the tank forces until the appearance of third generations MBT
Was it really that big? I don't know a whole lot about 50s/60s tanks, but I thought the Arabs' poor performance was not really because of the tanks themselves.
>>48264021
Depends which arab war; in some wars the arabs have been pitching T-62s or even T-55s against top-line MBTs with modern sabot, which is as one sided as it can get.
But, yeah, overall arabic wars have been marked by poor co-ordination, planning, logistics, training, readiness... The list goes on. This is even true of the israelis, at one stage; charging a fortified position with tanks with no infantry support was a real fuckup. Just they seem to be willing to learn from that while other nations in the area begin infighting or dictatorial purges.
>>48264097
Was the M60 that good?
>>48263802
Yes but still it is pretty different. Since it would be like a FT or FC Panthers list fighting against CV Tiger I list.
Soviet tanks of those years were a little better and had the numbers in their favour. While OTAN would have in term of gameplay better rating and rules.
Some interestings settings for tanks of the 60s would be the Iran–Iraq War or the South African Border War mostly T-55 and T-62 vs Pattons, Chieftans and Centurions with pretty comparable armies (shitty ones).
>>48264116
Nah. The M60/Centurion/Leo1/T-55/T-62 thing is probably, basically, a wash. In that kind of matchup, tons of things matter more than the specific tank that they're fighting or fighting with. None of them have any advantage that is going to override training quality, motivation, favorable terrain/good recon, and stuff like that. T-72 vs the M60s is looking sketchier, but a massive proportion of that will still be down to training and expertise.
>>48264328
Essentially for most tanks of the same generation you can do the "give the germans the garand and the americans the kar and nothing changes" thing.
>>48260086
Maybe they've changed it since bit my psc panthers just have a round peg
>>48264218
India vs. Pakistan maybe?
>>48264328
So you're saying a 50s/60s Cold War Gone Hot game should work fine...
>>48263288
Keep in mind that FJs didn't actually take part in any parachute jumps in the later parts of the war.
>>48264021
Well in the 50s the T-54/55 was the best medium tank with the Centurion being pretty close and early pattons were good but the 90mm gun was pretty lacking compared with the contemporary desings until the english made the L7. Then you have both sides with Heavy tanks desing ala Tiger 2 that were pretty much the same. But the problem here is the high quantity of the Russian tanks.
Then in the 60s you have pretty much the same but change the T-55 with the T62, and add the Leopard 1, Chieftans and M60 to the formula.
One of the objectives of the western tank desings of those year was to produce a super tank that could fight outnumbered with better armor and guns than the russian counterpart (quality vs quantity).
They achieved it with the Abrams and the others 3rd generation MBT.
Had an opportunity to playtest the Six King Tiger Smackhammer list today.
TL:DR I fucked up, 3-4.
I learned some important things in basically my worse case scenario match up against Commandos with Priority Typhoons and Naval Gunfire. I deployed the FlaK too far forwards, and they spent most of the game under a smoke template, but did neutralise his airsupport a bunch. If I place them further back I could have avoided being smoked and still gotten their effective coverage. The Volkssturm folded under a massed assault by Commandos, aided by the fact that I deployed their LMG badly, while I only lost a Scrub King Tiger and the 2IC to Naval Funfire and the Airsupport. If I'd deployed the KTs better, and moved them better, I'd have fared better, but I understand completely where I went wrong.
B@R question
Otto Carius rated as RV in the book, while there are no mention about it in the forces of war site, just mentioned as replacing company/platoon commander team. which is correct?
>>48267584
I'd assume the book
>>48256430
The first fow book I ever bought fell apart like it had never been bound together
>>48268361
yea, mines just pages stacked together at the moment.
I really ought to get it bound
>Reorganize everything
>Think it's real neat and works better than before
>About to start with friends
>Suddenly can't remember what's where
>Spend a good hour trying to figure shit out and return to the old organization
Boy did I feel like a massive jackass. Thinking I might write what's in what on the bottom of their bases.
>>48270251
whoops wrong file
>>48270268
A bit strange points total (most people go with 1750), but no glaring weaknesses
Why did they add that ugly as fuck slab of plastic on the bottom of my planefu?! You ruined it battlefront!
>>48271687
You mean this one?
How it looks in real life?
>>48272001
Yeah it looks like shit, worst ventral attachment option tbqh. I wanted a Tornado with loads of bombs, missiles and detachable tanks!
>>48264551
>So you're saying a 50s/60s Cold War Gone Hot game should work fine...
Perfectly fine. Looking at BF's own stats for them, they're all very similar tanks in terms of hard stats:
Centurion: FA 12/Side 6/Top 2, AT 17/18.
M48: FA 12/Side 8/Top 2, AT 16/18
T-54/55: FA 12/Side 6/Top 2, AT 16
It's probable that the T-54/55 could benefit from another point or two of AT from domestically produced HEAT/sabot in Soviet hands; tropic lightning rates the Centurion both with and without APDS ammo, for example, going from 16 to 17. But those vehicles are all in the realm of "Can destroy each other and be destroyed in turn", their big differences are things like speed and special rules.
T-62 would be an interesting upgun: the T-72's 125mm is AT 22, though at least some of that will be more modern ammo. The 1960s 105mm is AT 18, for example; what's the Leopard got in TY?
>>48264553
I was thinking giving them british bulldog and replacing two r/mg teams in the combat platoons with smg teams in ew/mw and assault rifle(stg44 and fg42) teams in lwe for +15 points per platoon
