Yes, we can't post Zvezda on the BattleFront internet guys. been that way since 2010....
Flames of War SCANS database ...Now updated with Great War and Team Yankee!:
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/
https://vimeo.com/128373915
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
QRF BMP's don't look too bad....
http://texaswargamer.com/techniques/15mm-qrf-bmp-2-speed-painting
>>43900017
on the BMP-2 issue:
imperial armor's BS site specifically states Skytrex has no BMP-2's.
sadness.
did everyone get lost this sunday?
now that we have 2 threads, no one is posting. just pick one guys. one will win out.
>The Sherman M4 is a shit tank....
>>43900232
If that's 14 years ago then they can't have gotten worse.
Honestly I'm just struggling to get why Battlefront made the best unit in the book release separately, a month after it's infantry compliment.
>>43900451
So... no Open Fire type starter? This is going to be a lot more difficult to get into
>>43900507
Yeah; the starter boxes are apparently only a £5 saving on just buying everything separate and a lot of that's templates, and soviet mech-inf is going to take obscene amounts of BMPs to do, plus really bizarre release scheduling.
It's a shame because it does look good.
>>43900507
This would have been my preference too. It's generally easier to convince people to try a new game when you're got both ends of the field already.
>>43900507
>So... no Open Fire type starter?
I don't think they could have done an Open Fire two sides starter set for Team Yankee while still keeping it cheap and including enough stuff to make it fun to play.
I think these box sets they're doing was the best they could do to keep it relatively cheap to get into and give you enough to play with right out of the box.
Besides, several other games have starter sets specific to only one faction. It seems to be the trend now. Much more than two-player starter boxes.
>>43900451
>>43900507
true.
the BMP's should have at least had been released on the same run...not like we can run plain infantry or something....
at this stage, Team yankee is "an awesome game with a queued load time for our first games in late january/early february"
sigh.i'll be playing 50 pt battles with 5 abrams and A-10s for the hell of it, within 2 weeks of today
>>43902148
team yankee is just US vs USSR to start. what's not to choose?
>>43903166
>team yankee is just US vs USSR to start. what's not to choose?
That's kinda my point.
It's just Yankees and Commies at the moment. You buy the starter set you want.
It's not like you have 12+ armies in the game like with 40K, where having a Marines vs Orks 2 player set is actually useful so that new players don't get overwhelmed.
It's just Americans and Soviets, so even if there was a American vs Soviet set, it's not like you have 4 other factions to chose from yet. You just have the USA vs the USSR.
>"an awesome game with a queued load time for our first games in late january/early february"
Eh, even with my fastest assembly times, I'd still be looking at my first games taking place no earlier than January even if I start putting stuff together Dec 12th.
Especially because between mid Dec and early Jan I have recording and editing the next Panzerfunk, several holiday parties, Christmas, Star Wars Ep VII, my birthday, and New Years Eve all getting in the way.
>>43904339
>second item, first sentence
the bar'plan is to buy them, snip, clean, and assemble in the store, go to the FLGS's primer room after, make them all a uniform color, and then dip the fuckers.
one hair dryer later, they join my already painted A-10 brace for a 50 pt game vs. whoever bought their shit from Zvezda/Peter Pig/Skytrex this month.
i usually take my time too, but i've been wargaming since dawn of time, i know i can rush-assemble 1 box of Abrams for once in my life...
>>43904633
I'm just being realistic about it being the back half of December.
I know I have too much shit going on to realistically expect to get things assembled and find time to play a game much before the beginning of January.
So I just played my first game of FoW using an army I made (instead of a list I borrowed), playing over an incomplete Vassal module. Was using an 11th Armored Recce list against a friend with a Tankovy list. Here are the lessons I've learned:
1) Do not deploy at the front of your deployment zone if your opponent has 40" range guns, particularly if they have less platoons than you and thus likely go before you can smoke them.
1b) SU-100s hurt a lot.
2) 2-gun artillery is pretty much useless against armor if shooting normally.
4) Having maneuver elements of 2 Cromwell/Challenger platoons works very well, with one standing and shooting while the other moves into position.
4b) There is no such thing as "too many challengers"
5) Smoke Bombardments are god.
6) Trained is very vulnerable, and concealment is very useful.
>>43904864
>Do not deploy at the front of your deployment zone if your opponent has 40" range guns, particularly if they have less platoons than you and thus likely go before you can smoke them.
You likely need to use more terrain. Guns with 40" range should not be able to shoot clear across the table.
>SU-100s hurt a lot.
They can, yes.
>2-gun artillery is pretty much useless against armor if shooting normally.
Yeah, if you're using artillery as direct-fire anti-tank guns, chances are things went sideways for you pretty badly.
>Having maneuver elements of 2 Cromwell/Challenger platoons works very well, with one standing and shooting while the other moves into position.
That's a pretty good tactic with almost any platoon. But it works especially well for tanks.
>Smoke Bombardments are god.
As is direct-fire smoke rounds.
>Trained is very vulnerable, and concealment is very useful.
Indeed.
It seems like you're already learning some fairly valuable lessons about the game.
>>43905081
>You likely need to use more terrain. Guns with 40" range should not be able to shoot clear across the table.
Noted
>Yeah, if you're using artillery as direct-fire anti-tank guns, chances are things went sideways for you pretty badly.
Meant shooting normal artillery bombardments. Re-rolling successful hits hurts.
>>43904864
>1) Do not deploy at the front of your deployment zone if your opponent has 40" range guns, particularly if they have less platoons than you and thus likely go before you can smoke them.
Generally speaking, you don't want to ever deploy across the front of your deployment zone, especially in LOS. Most of the time...
>1b) SU-100s hurt a lot.
They *can*. They're low ROF and inability to reposition and maintain a mediocre fire-rate makes them suck for any task other than being a stationary bunker with FA 9.
>2) 2-gun artillery is pretty much useless against armor if shooting normally.
Unless you're EW Japanese, yes. 3 to 5 guns minimum. 6+ for bonuses.
>4) Having maneuver elements of 2 Cromwell/Challenger platoons works very well, with one standing and shooting while the other moves into position.
Challengers should generally be your stand-off-ish fire support. Same with Fireflies. Generally at long-ranges. Pro-Tip: Challengers and/or Fireflies in concealment will curb-stomp the fuck out of SU-100s. Particularly when Veteran.
>4b) There is no such thing as "too many challengers"
Yes there are. Challengers are expensive. Expensive tanks take away from the numerical value of your list, overall. Having challengers is good. Having too many means you're relying upon them to pick up ALL THE SLACK that more, cheaper, tanks could do better. See case in point, why an army of King Tigers < Pz IVs + Panthers with a King Tiger.
>5) Smoke Bombardments are god.
They fuck over ROF 1 Soviet big-guns quite well. And are a great way to force big cats to cut their firepower in half, or make them move into a less advantageous position. Smoke is indeed a great utility.
>6) Trained is very vulnerable, and concealment is very useful.
Yes, and Yes.
>>43904864
>1)
How does he deploy his SU-100s such that they can wreck you whilst also having fewer platoons than you? Surely you could just deploy your infantry and recce first, then later your tanks once his SUs are out?
Quick question: which book now has the lists and history of the Warsaw uprising in it? I'll be in Warsaw tomorrow for a day, currently in Gdansk, and I wanted to reread that bit. Also any suggestions for places to visit in town?
Pic is from the Krakow Air Museum.
>>43906119
Red Bear Revised has the latest Polish Home Army list in it. Could be surprisingly powerful I reckon.
>>43906183
It out Strelkovies the Strelkovy. And nothing says awesome like your mortars having a chance to explode.
>>43900232
They do look really nice actually, especially compared to some of their other stuff. Dunno if they're in TY yet but their BTRs don't look half bad either, maybe they'll catch on to the coldwar hype and do a multibuy deal like they did with Shermans and T-34s.
So, as I mentioned in the previous thread I've moved house in the last few months. I now live in a 1-bed house with my other half where storage is at a premium.
Any suggestions for decent sized folding tables big enough to host a proper battle on? And conveniently stored terrain?
>>43907320
It'll take a fair bit of work and you may need an airbrush, but you could make one of these, should be pretty light and roll up pretty nicely, or you could make it in modular strips or sections and lay them together for a table.
http://www.elladan.de/002%20fur%20mat%20WiP/002.htm
You'd just need to shave the main areas a bit shorter (or buy shorter fur) for 15mm.
I'm gonna buy a sample of fluff and give it a go at some point
R8 my list m8s
>>43907758
You've got a shitload of panthers. Why the StuGs? Some StuH's would be better. Beyond that, looks solid. You're going to bounce right off infantry, though. This list isn't auto-defend or anything, is it?
Weird question, but I'm aware of people like Mariya Oktyabrskaya who died repairing their tanks under fire.
Are tanks the kind of things that can be repaired under fire? I'd have figured you were looking at at least a couple of hours or something to fix reasonably minor, accessible issues like track or engine problems. Am I wildly overegging this and you can fix simpler stuff in a couple of seconds between getting shot at?
>>43908221
Really depends on the kind of damage.
There are indeed things that could be fixed in a couple of seconds or a couple of minutes, while others might indeed require hours of work and a proper workplace.
>>43908244
So stuff like fixing tracks is the kind of thing a crewman could literally have jumped out to do while the fight was still going?
>>43908261
Yes, and it happened a great deal
>>43908261
Yup.
Very risky, of course, but sometimes you've just gotta try.
Anyone gotten the QRF Swingfire? The picture of the model on the Swingfire's page is a Striker, for some reason, so I'm assuming that's a mistake since they also sell a Striker which has no picture.
>>43908221
Even replacing a track can take upwards of 30m/an hour. At best. And that's with a full crew.
She might have been desperate. In a fight, you stay in your tank unless it's on fire.
>>43908221
>>43908261
>>43908274
Depends on the engagement. I've read stories of people doing it under fire, I've read about people abandoning their vehicles when under direct fire, hiding for a while and then repairing and returning to the fight after the battle has moved on a little.
In a tank/tank engagement I assume it'd be more common. If there's infantry around you're just asking to be picked off.
>>43907599
Looks awesome but I feel it isn't very flexible. I'd effectively be fighting over the same fields with the same road pattern and firing lanes. Unless I had several different layouts and use buildings/hillocks to vary the terrain
>>43908014
StuHs are not an option in this list, infantry could give me some problems but i hope an assault of volks and stugs can make at least some damage
>>43908475
A static tank is a fire magnet - if you can't move you get out sharpish.
If it isn't on fire then it very soon will be.
>>43908549
>I'd effectively be fighting over the same fields with
Just make a bunch of 2x2' "tiles" or 1x4' strips, you can make as many different variations as you want and just place whichever 6 you fancy using together.
Could have 6 plain tiles, then some with roads, some with cornfields or burnt grass or whatever. It'll just be like a modular table but cloth instead of a million tonnes of flocked mdf.
>>43908599
Still safer than braving the MGs and rifles and mortars. You're a lot safer inside the tank, fire magnet or no.
Will TY have warriors?
>>43908658
Nope, no named characters.
>>43908629
>be in a massive rush leaving for a game
>pick up 6 tiles at random
>roads that become rivers, cornfields with dead-straight borders to bogs
Majestic.
Sounds like a workable idea though. I wonder if there's any resin/polyfilla type product that would be flexible enough to be rolled without cracking.
>>43908631
Which would you rather do, risk taking a bullet as you run to cover or sit in a metal box that catches fire if you sneeze on it? A static tank is a very dead tank, and a man is a small moving target.
>>43906119
>armed with a 50 lb bomb at most
that thing is so cute! then again, what would i do with a 4+ AT3 fp5+ airstrike ?
>>43908853
>risk taking a bullet
In a battlefield, particularly one with tanks about, that's far more likely that having an ATG hit your tank.
Unless the thing that paralysed your tank still has you in it's sights, you're safer in the tank. There are far, far more things on a battlefield that'll kill a man, than a tank. And if you're just immobilised, you can still fight back against those.
There's a reason tankers weren't supposed to leave their tanks unless they were on fire, and there's a reason why the survival figures for tankers were way better than infantrymen.
>>43908876
More than that. The finnish and assorted other EW Biplanes carried similar loads, and they've got the usual 4+/5/2+ bombs.
Are IS-2s hopelessly outclassed in Flames of War? My FLGS just got in some plastic boxes of T-34s and IS-2s. I have money to buy two boxes.
I currently have 7 T-34s (can convert between 76 and 85). Would a list of 10 IS-2s with a T-34 support be a workable list? Am I better off only buying one box of IS-2s as a support option to a T-34 batalon?
>>43909669
IS-2s have the same weakness as most heavy tanks; they're a lot of points concentrated in a pretty small package.
They can do a lot of damage if used well, but are still vulnerable to a fair number of things.
Mistakes with heavy tanks are generally punished more heavily than with mediums.
I'd go for more T-34s.
Not just because they're easier to use, but also because 17 T-34s is a proper amount for a Soviet armoured list. 12 would still leave you with fairly small core units.
>>43909000
I'll be honest and say my stuff is more on NW Europe, but in the bocage especially, with the prevalence of infantry-borne anti tank weapons (Panzerfaust/knacker/schrek) it was safer to get out of a knocked out tank as there was so much cover and such a high chance of copping a HEAT round to the flank.
I could see buckling down in a Panther/Tiger/Pershing/Churchill as they were much safer. But if I found myself unable to move in a Sherman you wouldn't see me for dust.
>>43909669
The tanks are great, but the lists have to work uphill against a high average tank cost. Typical heavy tank problems, really.
>>43909865
Yeah, that's probably one of the worst environments for tanks in the war, but if they can carry a Pfaust, they can certainly carry an MP40 or Thompson, or other MG. Plus there's always stray bullets and fragments. There's rarely stray Panzerfaust or Bazooka shots. If they've just jumped out and wrecked your tank, then chances are there's plenty of soldiers about ready to shoot the infantry as they bail out anyway. If you're in a tank, hitting them with a shell is one thing. And then breathing a sigh of relief as the silly buggers bail out, and your platoon gives the tank a quick squirt with MG fire. They got a lot of Tigers that way. Fired smoke rounds, the crew thought they were on fire, and GTFO. They weren't on fire, and the guns they were up against had little chance of hurting them, but the MG's certainly worked.
>>43909865
But yeah, that's an environment where people strap crap to tanks and pour concrete on them in a desperate attempt to survive for an second after the ambush happens.
>>43908853
>wonder if there's any resin/polyfilla
I have seen people who've covered canvas-y cloth in caulk and then rolled sand and shit into it, the result is pretty damn nice for a desert-type table, and apparently it doesn't crack or shed when rolled due to caulks rubbery nature, although the mixture makes the cloth pretty heavy.
Might take a bit of adapting to make a temperate-ish table, but I'm sure it could be done.
http://1000footgeneral.bl0gsp0t.co.uk/2012/11/desert-wasteland-wargame-terrain-cloth.html?m=1
You'll have to fix the link, I can't post it
>>43910603
That looks stupendous. I especially like the fact you can put stuff underneath it to make hills that look 'right' with the terrain.
This sounds like a decent winter project that I need to plan further. Maybe have a standard board with a certain layout then 'filler' pieces that changes the appearance, or flexible caulk-and-fabric roads... Such fun!
>>43910913
>flexible caulk-and-fabric roads
Oh shit I never thought of that, I might have to have a go after/while I make the fluffmat
>>43908475
It should also be noted that the type of tank, and it's track design, matters a lot for how quickly tracks and running wherls could be replaced/repaired. The T-34's track design was simplistic enough to make a one-person repair attempt feasible. While losing a middle or inner roadwheel on a Tiger/Panther meant you were stuck there for over an hour, while most of the crew were out fixing it.
>>43911003
Whereabouts are you based, British? If you're within an hour and a half of London it could be feasible to make stuff to the same patterns...
>>43909822
Yeah... Even as far as heavy tanks go, they're outclassed by all other heavy tanks. Including the Panther. The problems with the IS-2 is prohibitive point cost, slow speed, meh armor (it's decent, nothing exceptional), and it's painfully low fire rate without perks to hit.
This means that from a Soviet-kit internal perspective, many other options will do any job the IS-2 can do, but better and cheaper. SU-122s are more effective against softer targets. ISUs are better at shooting and are cheaper. IS-85s and KV-85s have similar armor and can maneuver and fire more effectively. T-34s are more numerous and quicker.
From a broad game-wide perspective, they don't put up a good fight against Panthers, or better. They have issues with quick, mobile, and often veteran tank killers like M-10s, Challengers, Fireflies, and Easy-8s. And any heavy-hitter like a Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Super Pershing, or King Tiger, is pretty much an auto-lose situation.
FoW has tried to balance them by making them "assault specialists", but they're prohibitively expensive for that role. Using them to assault means loading them up with Escorts and Bedsprings, and rarely using that expensive gun you're paying for. It comes out to 150-170-ish points per tank, when T-34-76s can be just as good with the same load-out, and have Wide Tracks and standard speed.
In short, IS-2s try to do too much at once, and come out inferior and overcosted because of it.
>>43911131
Northern-monkey m8, moving to Manchester in the next couple of months, londons kinda far away.
>>43911260
>Manchester
>northern
>>43911333
I swer 2 god ur gona get bashed in a minit u cheeky jock git
>>43911451
Mankchester isn't even in the North of England never mind anywhere near us Jocks.
>>43911260
Well, when they eventually release HS1/2 it won't be so bad. See you in a decade or two eh
How stupid is this list:
Compulsory Tank Squadron HQ (p.125) - CinC Churchill V CS, 2iC Churchill V CS (100 pts)
- 2x Add applique armour to Churchill V CS increasing front armour to 9 (20 pts)
- Churchill ARV (5 pts)
Compulsory Tank Platoon (p.125) - Command Churchill VI, Churchill VI, Churchill III or IV (240 pts)
- 3x add applique armour increasing front armour to 9 (30 pts)
Compulsory Tank Platoon (p.125) - Command Churchill VI, Churchill VI, Churchill III or IV (240 pts)
- 3x add applique armour increasing front armour to 9 (30 pts)
Tank Platoon (p.125) - Command Churchill VI, Churchill VI, Churchill III or IV (240 pts)
- 3x add applique armour increasing front armour to 9 (30 pts)
Corps Anti-tank Platoon (SP), Royal Artillery (p.158) - Command M10C 17pdr SP, M10C 17pdr SP (130 pts)
Crocodile Tank Platoon (p.157) - Command Churchill Crocodile, 2x Churchill Crocodile (395 pts)
Air Observation Post (p.161) - Auster AOP (25 pts)
1485 Points, 5 Platoons
>>43911850
It's further north than Liverpool, and according to based Barry the Baptist scousers are fahkkin norvern mankees.i also live an hour further north, I just work in manchester
>>43912913
Tactics would basically be to use smoke to screen the crocs as they advance and then burn out the infantry on an objective, then hold it while the enemy struggles to dislodge the 13 armor bricks. If the enemy is tanks, just advance and pour shots onto them, trusting in the front armor 9 and smoke to limit the damage until close enough for the AT 10 to start hurting. Add in extensive use of cover, because wide tracks and slow means there's little downside to going through a forest instead of a field.
>>43913075
An ex of mine lives in Chorley, is that near your neck of the woods?
>>43913136
Very close yeah
>>43912913
What's the AOP for?
>>43913099
Only churchill VII+ is front 13, which he hasn't got.
>>43914840
Churchill Crocs are, as well.
>>43914676
kamikaze
>>43914676
The HQ platoon is CS Churchills, so I wanted a way for them to be able to easily smoke stuff that could punch through the armor. I could take it out and make the basic Churchill platoons and the HQ Guards. Probably better to be Guards if the enemy has any AA at all.
>>43914840
Crocs, man, Crocs. 13/7/1, and they don't have the same problem most flame tanks have of the enemy re-rolling failed FP tests.
>>43915089
Since when do AOPs work for batteries that don't have Staff Teams?
Also, no recce sucks and the pair of M10Cs seems kinda pointless with how small the platoon is?
>>43915192
...Fuck, I entirely missed that you need a Staff Team to use an AOP. That makes the CS tanks much less useful than I thought, since they need LoS in addition to standing still within a relatively short range.
Is there any way to get an observer worth a damn for them? Relying on LoS or company command hurts.
>>43915346
Nope, they're garbage. Should just run the RtR ones that get proper Churchills for command.
>>43915490
Are the Cromwell CS versions similarly garbage, or does their much faster base movement and being different from the company command let them provide arty/smoke cover effectively? Particularly thinking of Luttrell's CS Platoon here.
>>43914893
>>43915089
Holy shit. Nobody has corrected me on this for ages.
Lotta talk about the BMP, any love for the BMD?
>>43917744
No, but I have some love for the BuMP.
>>43917744
I'm not familiar with the BMD.
Also, the BMP actually has some quite good stats in Team Yankee, and seems to be perhaps a little too much of an obvious must-take unit for Soviet commanders.
>>43919489
Can someone spell it out for me? Because I must be missing something.
Why are BMPs being promoted as the must-spam Soviet unit in TY?
The only thing I could imagine is that it's a numbers game. Just plain outnumber the M1s and it won't matter how much better their stats might be.
Littlejohn adaptor, yes or no?
>>43921406
Is your opposition tougher than an armored car?
>yes
Yes Littlejohn.
>no
No Littlejohn.
>>43921406
I personally wouldn't recommend using that list to begin with, but that's just me.
It lacks in serious anti-tank capabilities, even with the Little Johns.
>>43922209
Was thinking of using one support platoon of Inns of Court Armoured Cars to get some recce into my force, and they can take a single Littlejohn on one of the Diamler Is. Decision would be between:
CV Scout Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.120) - 2x Command Universal Carrier, 4x Universal Carrier (175 pts)
- 2x Add hull mounted MG to Universal Carrier (10 pts)
- 2x Upgrade additional Hull Mounted MG to .50cal MG (only one per patrol) (10 pts)
CV Armoured Car Platoon (Inns of Court) (p.133) - Command Daimler I, Daimler I, Sawn Off Daimler, Command Daimler Dingo, Daimler Dingo (175 pts)
- Add Littlejohn adaptor to Daimler I (0 pts)
- add PIAT to Sawn Off Daimler (5 pts)
First would be able to cover more ground and murder infantry better, while the second is faster and more useful if my opponent is using a lot of vehicles.
>>43922487
For some reason I thought you were talking about one of the D-Day lists, air landing British tanks (Tetrarchs?) with Little John adaptors.
That list is severely lacking in anti-tank capability.
The Little John is only what? AT 7?
It'll help against light tanks or halftracks, but will struggle against medium tanks.
>>43922621
The OQF 2pdr is 24" 2/7/4+, it becomes 24" 2/9/5+ No HE with the LJ. Basically trades a point of firepower and the ability to engage infantry for two points of AT.
>>43922487
Go with the universal carriers.
Recon units shouldn't be doing much shooting, they should be using their recon abilities to reveal concealed enemies while other platoons rain fire down upon the unit that your recon revealed.
Resist the temptation to use your recent units like light tanks.
Even Pumas aren't light tanks, even if you want to pretend they are.
>>43922828
Eyes and Ears only removes Gone to Ground, not Concealed, so it's less useful if your opponent is an armorfag. Absolutely vital to get as many E&E checks as possible against infantry and gun teams, though.
>>43922487
Generally, the UCs are going to be more useful. If you know you're going against someone with a fetish for masses of T-34s, grab the armored cars so that you at least have the option to engage them.
>>43922963
My mistake. I confused the two rules there.
But my point about not trying to use recce as light tanks still stands.
If you're shooting with them at armored targets, then you're not making good use of their recce special rules.
>>43920643
A BMP-2 can front-pen an Abrams from 48" away (abrams can only return fire at 40") and people are fitting 30-40 of them in lists without too much trouble, while an Abrams is 32 points (of 100) for four.
>>43922487
An IOC platoon with a Daimler Command, a Daimler with Littlejohn, and SOD is is three different vehicles/variants, i.e. a platoon just waiting to have its command team gun-tanked...
I don't recommend LJs (ever), get some proper AT in the list and let the Recce do Recce stuff.
>>43922963
IOC in Market-Garden do get Sang Froid (re-roll failed attempts to disengage), so are a bit more survivable than UCs.
>>43915687
Lutrell is a nice addition if you want to field a lot of cromwells to swarm the enemy with, if you want an artillery support you are better taking 8 25pdr since with lutrell you don't have mike target
>>43923076
Surely a dead platoon of halftracks, or some dead guns, is worth not using EnE?
>>43924505
40 inches might as well be 500. Few if any boards have that sort of range, the BMPs have low ROF and really bad mobile firing, whereas the Abrams have a high ROF even on the move. And the missiles chances against Abrams are poor, against the Abrams sure bet. 30-40 BMPs aren't going to be able to attack all at once. If the Abrams are used sensibly, they should be blowing huge chunks out of the BMPs no problem.
>>43925981
Well sure, but if you kill 4 BMP-2s for each Abrams the Soviet player is coming out ahead so you need to be really blowing chunks out of them. If both sides are just sitting there blasting away then the BMPs win IIRC, but it remains to be seen how well they compare in actual games. If I had reasonable infantry to proxy I'd try the silly matchup out in 6mm (12 Abrams vs 50 BMP-2, maybe?)
>>43926030
>is coming out ahead
Depending a lot on the circumstances.
>blasting away the BMPs win
The BMP's are never going to be able to just line up and blast. That's never been the case in FoW.
>silly matchup
Possibly. Can we see some actual lists? This is all seeming a bit nebulous ATM.
>>43926058
>Depending a lot on the circumstances
I'm talking pure numbers here. 4 BMP-2 is worth slightly fewer points than an Abrams since they come with infantry
>That's never been the case in FoW.
That's why it's a hypothetical with the disclaimer "it remains to be seen how they compare in actual games".
>Possibly. Can we see some actual lists? This is all seeming a bit nebulous ATM.
Maximum sized BMP-2 platoon is 24pts for 12 BMPs with infantry. Two of those plus a battalion command is a 50pt battalion of 12+12+1 BMP-2. Two battalions like that gets you to 100pts. On the other hand, you've got Abrams that are 8pts each. Not sure precisely how one would choose to organise 12 Abrams, or if there's a better size to match the two up more closely in points. Three platoons of BMPS plus battalion command at 74pts vs 9 Abrams (1 command + two platoons of 4?) at 72pts, maybe.
>>43926137
>"it remains to be seen how they compare in actual games".
Particularly considering a full Abrams company is about as likely as a full king tiger company.
Large numbers are one thing on paper, but seeing as it's more likely to be a case of 5 Shermans against 1 KT, in practise I'd be inclined to dismiss the sensationalism we sometimes see and wait, particularly considering the composition situation. If half of the Soviet army is slower stuff, as mech armies in FoW WW2 tend to be, I'd say the Abrams are in a very strong position in de facto confronations, and we hardly have cause to declare the BMP's a must take in numbers, even on paper.
This is tanks vs mech. Even with missiles, the mech's going to get wrecked if the tankers manuver remotely competantly. BMP's are better supporting, or threatening.
>>43926137
>Maximum sized BMP-2 platoon is 24pts for 12 BMPs with infantry.
13 for 26pts with one MANPAD plus infantry, actually. And you've got recon-BMPs as well.
>>43926137
Probably 6 abrams; maybe 3x platoon, 2x platoon, and CIC?
>>43926484
Abrams platoon sizes are gonna be tricky, since a single bail is enough to cause a unit morale check on two-vehicle units.
In my opinion, the BMP horde is going to be a nightmare on the defense, especially if they have enough terrain to hide most of their vehicles effectively.
It's gonna be one of those situations you'll have to carefully dismantle piece by piece, like a dug in infantry force with plenty of powerful AT guns in a game of regular FoW.
Depending on the situation and exact force composition, artillery and airstrikes are going to be quite effective as well.
>>43926606
>since a single bail is enough to cause a unit morale check on two-vehicle units.
Woa, seriously? So it's AT half strength, bailed count as destroyed, now?
>on the defense
Hiding works both ways. The attacker just needs to pick a flank. And the Abrams have better offensive capability. You can pop into concealing terrain from out of LOS and maintain full ROF when you shoot.
>>43926755
>So it's AT half strength, bailed count as destroyed, now?
Nope, unit morale has been reworked entirely.
You never need to make a unit morale check as long as that unit is in good spirits.
A unit is in good spirits if it has:
-Two or more operational vehicles
OR
-Three or more infantry teams
If a unit had a team destroyed or bailed in a phase and is not in good spirits at the end of that phase, they need to roll for unit morale.
No more need to remember initial unit sizes, even/odd team counts etc.
This does indeed make small units, both in the front line and in support, quite vulnerable to morale checks.
>>43926799
Huuuuh. That's a very interesting change. Do larger units get increasingly expensive to compensate? That's a major mark against smaller platoons, particularly expensive ones like Abrams.
>>43926840
The only one that scales with size like that IIRC is the T-72 which gets a flat discount of 3pts off of the unit. So, 12pts for a unit of 3 vs 47pts for a unit of 10.
Hey guys, just wondering if anybody had a pdf of the actual Team Yankee novel? I want to read it, but I don't want to spend the $50 for a paperback version
>>43927019
It's like £3 on Kindle.
Question about Atlantik Wall
How'd you get trenches and other light fortifications into an otherwise typical infantry list.
Is it a matter of just picking the right list, or can you "buy" trenches?
I don't want to do massive concrete fortifications, just things you might have expected to see around the St-Lo heights etc
>>43927234
Mostly a question of the right list, but some books like Grey Wolf have in most of the lists an option for 'feild fortifications' that basically give you another org chart filled with various emplacements. There's a lot of that in Fortress Italy as well.
There's also Pioneers. In defensive battles, you can trade in Pioneer Supply Vehicles for a minefield, or 3 barbed wire bases.
>massive concrete
That fits in with a lot of fortified lists. Most of the time you have the option of not using the big stuff, or taking something minor in it's place.
>>43927125
whelp, looks like I'm investing in a kindle
>>43927438
There's an app for android and I'm 90% sure there are kindle readers for desktop. Like, if you can read a PDF you can probably read your kindle books?
Have you checked /hwg/?
>>43927019
Battlefront is supposed to be reprinting the novel.
Not sure when, but it is supposed to be happening.
>>43911211
>>43910054
>>43909822
Thanks for the input. I have picked up 2 boxes of T-34s and some bedspring armor. Now time to assemble and paint...
Also working on winter strelkovy...
And a 6 pt Norman warband for Saga
Ok, why was I refunded some of the out of stock stuff but not all? Will I have to reorder the stuff I was refunded for?
>>43927989
I'll keep an eye out for it, thanks!
>>43927955
Just checked, thanks for the suggestion sir
>>43924605
So use use plain Daimler Is so the commander doesn't get gun-tanked out, and just use the guns to engage half-tracks and Wolverines if engaging at all? Makes sense.
Technically, Sangfroid is the 2nd Household, and it lets you disengage after shooting. IOC has Devil's Own, which allows re-rolls to disengage as you say (which is very nice with veterans).
>>43924645
Is there a reason to swarm the enemy with cromwells? They seem to be pretty expensive for what they do.
>>43928249
Yes, sorry: Devil's Own. Plain Daimlers are best IMO.
I doubt bmp horde will be very effective once you factor in the low odds even in the ideal match up for a bmp to kill a abrams. Then considering how likely that ideal situation will occur.... I think that a soviet mech force would be better off with beefy hind and t72 platoons
>>43928907
Exactly. And when you also consider AA, arty, maybe some recon, etc, there's not going to be that ridiculous a number of BMPs.
>>43927438
A Kindle would be good for the comic, too!
>>43929796
There's a comic?
Related: I just finished "Sword Point" also by H Coyle; much better than Team Yankee IMO. More interesting character development on both the US and Soviet side, and some nice gaming ideas are to be had from the book.
>>43928907
A BMP-2 shooting an Abrams in the open (no cover or smoke) at distance has a 7.4% chance of killing the Abrams.
Abrams is hit at 5+ (due to range) (1/3 chance)
Abrams has FA 18 +1 (due to range) so it saves on a 4+ and survives (bails but doesn't die) on a 3+ (1/3 to have a chance at destroying the abrams)
If it comes to it the BMP 2 needs to roll a 3+ to make the firepower check. (2/3 chance)
So if probability rules (and I know the dice have their own opinion on the matter) 30 BMPs firing at Abrams in the open would only average 2 kills. I think BMPs will be useful not as a horde, how some others have mentioned: a cheap way to hold objectives and a flanking threat against an Abrams push.
>>43930425
Derp, I forgot the guided missile rule which seems to improve the odds significantly. Does the guided missile rule factor into the armor save and the chance to hit or just the chance to hit?
>>43930425
>>43930482
>Abrams is hit at 5+ (due to range) (1/3 chance)
Guided weapons, like the AT-5, don't suffer the to-hit penalty for range.
So this is actually a bit higher.
>Abrams has FA 18 +1 (due to range)
Also wrong. HEAT weapons ignore the armour bonus for range.
So, the odds aren't quite as bad as you're claiming.
>>43930490
So the odds are more than doubled taking these into account. A BMP has a 1/6 chance of destroying an Abrams. I guess it goes without saying but smoke and cover are going to be very important.
>>43930588
Yeah.
Also note that smoke has changed a fair bit in TY.
Especially smoke bombardments, which are available to all four ground-based artillery platforms but can only be fired once per game per unit.
>>43930588
Keep in mind that the bmp has to be stationary to shoot. A 16% chance in ideal conditions if you don't move.
That's pretty shit IMHO.
With little to no support bmps will get savaged by any half way competent NATO player.
Hey guys, I've got a pdf of Team Yankee, yes the actual novel. Through hours of google-fu, I managed to find a ereader version and now it's a pdf for your viewing pleasure. Also I'm the same anon who originally asked
I see the BMP-2 as a 'thickener' to your anti-tank defense, but not credible as your only defense. It's very unlikely that your opponent will give you the first shot, since they'd have to stop their M1's within a 40" - 48" margin of them. More likely they'll stop within 40", open fire first, and greatly thin out your BMP-2's before you have a chance to return fire. Best you can hope for is that enough BMP-2s survive to take out an M1 or two, but that's it.
Instead the BMP-2's missile is really just meant to prevent enemy IFVs from sticking their neck out.
The M901 ITV is similarly crippled by not being able to move and fire, so it's another anti-IFV weapon, not a tank killer.
>>43931397
Gj anon!
>>43931397
Sweet. Thanks anon!
>>43931439
All those atgms dropping in from ambush would give me pause. But yeah relying on them to be your main tank killer is a bad idea.
I think mech lists are going to be more of a max attack helicopters + max air support thing than an atgm spam thing
>>43931397
Cheers brer. Hope you didn't find the kindle suggestion too unhelpful - I was genuinely suggesting it as an alternative to the super expensive paperback.
>>43934499
I was aout to buy it until I had found this haha. Had the kindle app downloaded on my phone and everything
A 16% chance in ideal conditions with a lot of shots behind it; in the 50 point matchup someone proposed, the BMP horde can nuke over half the abrams off the table in one turn.
>>43934632
I mean, I'm a "You're going to have a group of BMP-2s to scare people off" guy, I'm not seriously suggesting people take BMPs and nothing else, but I think people are being overly dismissive of how big a threat they are.
>>43934664
I'm going to try 50 BMP-2s at 100pts, but only because I own them in 6mm already.
>>43931439
I doubt they're for IFVs; the main gone does that better with 2-3 times the shot rate.
>>43934632
But you won't have that ideal match up.
It will be 2-3 Abrams vs 2-4 bmps with the Abrams shooting first and the bmps possibly not being able to return fire due to the Abrams scooting behind cover about half the time.
That is unless you play on a pool table but that's dumb
>>43934971
I don't think you take BMPs as tank destroyers, but I do think that the ATGM is still relevant for giving that option. A little like LW Panzerfausts and Bazookas, perhaps? You're not going out of your way to hunt down tanks with them, necessarily, but it's enough of a sting that they need to keep that shit in mind and can punish them for over extending? You'll be thankful of them if you have to push your infantry up a flank or have them defending without perfect support or whatever. I could also see them being useful in a dug in defensive situation where you perhaps have them in cover behind your infantry threatening return fire should the enemy try and engage the infantry ; or using an ambush or a blitz move to surprise enemies in the open.
>>43935062
OTOH, if they're engaging with that much overwhelming force in one area that presumably means they're horribly outnumbered elsewhere? You're definitely right in that BMPs and Abrams fighting each other will be heavily terrain dependent. If the Abrams can maneuver such that they take advantage of their points density and greatly increased mobility then they're far better off than if the terrain forces them to expose themselves to multiple enemies or whatever.
>>43907758
>>43908014
I agree with anon, you're going to need some StuH 42s so you can have some anti-infantry power. Besides that, I have nothing to disagree with.
So I think I'm at the point of buying stuff. I'm planning on getting 2 PSC Cromwell boxes and 3 Challengers to make a 1000pt "core" for my 15th/19th Hussars Armored Recce force. Expansion plans are for infantry, some proper Recce platoons, a few more Cromwells, and some light arty.
Thoughts on this as the armored core of a 1500-1900 point list?
>Tank Company, from Market Garden, page 112
Compulsory Armoured Recce Squadron HQ (11th Armoured Division) (p.113) - CinC Cromwell IV, 2iC Cromwell IV (145 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (335 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (260 pts)
Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (260 pts)
1000 Points, 3 Platoons
>>43908274
That photo isn't off only the tank crew. That's some infantry also assisting, and some of the crew is still inside the tank. The Bundesarchiv has backgrounds to some of their images, and that's one of em.
Also, check out this Panzer IV Ausf. J with hella tracks on
>>43935317
It sounds like you expect that the bmps are going to run around and attack the Abrams.
>>43936931
>tracks ON TOP OF THE TURRET
Goddamn they really went all out. At that point they're just pointlessly weighing down the tank and taxing the suspension/transmission compared to how much good it'll do themaka not much
>>43938677
It's probably a psychological thing.
They feel like it's a ton(perhaps literally) of extra protection, when it's really not going to do all that much against enemy anti-tank weapons.
http://www.beastsofwar.com/liveblogentry/team-yankee-interview-john-paul-brisigotti/
it's an interview with the BF boss...
burnout
Is there any place to get the online-exclusive parts of Nachtjager? I found the scans in the OP, but not the online part.
>>43941956
The Scanner here managed to do a pdf of Barbarossa digital, but none of the others yet. From what it sounded like that one was a shitload of work, though, so i dunno if the other digitals are happening or what.
>>43937072
That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying.
>>43941265
Her ankles are really messing with my head.
>>43939939
Yeah, improvised armour did a lot for morale, iirc.
>>43936894
Germans in Desperate Measure do not get StuHs...the StuGs are still a decent assault platoon, they have shurzen.
>>43936924
At 1750 I run:
HQ
3x full AR Platoons
CV Carriers + MGs
CV IOC Armoured Cars
4x CV M10c Achilles
IMO bulk up you Cromwell platoons wherever possible, you'll need it.
BAOR soon
>>43944294
God, yes please.
Source?
>>43944378
There's no source that I know of.
Just wish-listing combined with a confirmation from John-Paul that more Cold War armies are in development.
TY is 1985, right? Wasn't challenger I replacing BAOR vehicles as of 1984?
>>43944880
As far as i can find, they were in the transitional period between both in 1985.
From what they've said, BF will be providing the "lower-tech" MBTs for the various countries (Basic M1, T-72A, Chieftain) at first, with the more powerful upgrades (M1A1, T-80, Challenger) available in a second wave.
It's a plan that also makes sense from a marketing perspective; newer, more advanced units are easier to market than cheaper, less powerful alternatives.
This does mean that the Brits will be the only ones with a 120mm-armed MBT on the block for a while, although that vehicle will have another weakness with the lack of composite armour. That should make the Chieftain very different in use to the Abrams.
The interesting thing will be how they'll handle the West Germans. Will they give us Leo 2 (truly the German MBT of choice by that point), Leo 1 (still in use in support units) or both?
>>43944957
>although that vehicle will have another weakness with the lack of composite armour.
I'll say - my respect for Chieftains massively dropped when I learned how easily a T-62 can knock them out. Though to be fair the T-62 was more of case of making a shitty tank to carry a great gun.
>>43945283
>>43944957
If Chieftains get shoot and scoot and can get a hull down position... The rifled 120mm will be a nightmare for Russian tankers. Russian players are really going to have to fight by their doctrine if they want to survive. The biggest mistake I have seen from people I wargame with, is trying to win shootout with western tanks using T-62, T-64s, etc in defensive positions.
This may be an interesting read if you haven't seen it. At the very least it gave me some good insight on how to and how not to use warsaw pact armor.
https://20thcenturywargaming.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/why-cold-war-warsaw-pact-tactics-work-in-wargaming/
I think with the West Germans we will get the Leo 2 or both. The Leo 1 would be hopelessly outclassed vs a T-72.
new guy here, how viable is a list focused on king tigers? and what battlegroup makes best use of them?
>>43946103
Somewhat, but you're playing uphill. A KT in support is great, a company based around them, not so much. Although a JTiger company can be pretty nasty.
>>43946103
Depends greatly on the list. A list of straight up CV or FV King Tigers is gonna have it rough, they just cost way too much to have viable support. A CV King Tiger for example is 375pts.
Where you start to see a more workable base list is when you take reluctant trained or vet tanks that give you a discount. I think bridge at ramagen has the best for that if I remember right.
Your other option is to take an infantry company with one or two of the beasts as support. A single king tiger makes awesome support in late war for an infantry platoon. The infantry protect the tigers sides and handle weaker units, and the king tiger reaches out and bitch slaps something that can hurt the jnfantry.
The important thing is support. Relying overly on a single unit type is asking for trouble. For example, king tigers will bounce right off a fearless trained assault engineer sapper batallion or other infantry lists, so you need support designed to defeat those units if you want to win.
Also, the absolute max king tigers you should ever have is 6, and I would argue more realistically for 4 in most situations. They're so expensive that otherwise they'll end up the majority of your list.
>>43946103
KIng Tigers are kind of an "Expert Mode" list.
Sure, they have thick armor and a powerful gun, but they're large, slow, have a low rate of fire, and are easily out-numbered and out-maneuvered.
It takes skill and very purposeful playing to use them well if you're basing your entire list around King Tigers.
That being said, one or two KTs can make a powerful addition to other German lists.
>>43946032
This does seem to be a little higher-scale advice than FoW really deals with; the board isn't big enough with the scales used to permit massive flank manuevers or "breakthroughs".
>>43946103
I would recommand you the Remagenlists. because you have a nice mix of troops and a RT KöTi list.
Imagine that ...cheap KöTis!!
>>43946103
I've had great success with a list from the Remagen book - the 510. Heavy Tank Company. 6 King Tigers, 2 platoons of Volkssturm, artillery, and flak. Sure, the Volksturm are terrible, but they work as bubble wrap to stop your tanks getting assaulted.
>>43946224
>>43946561
>>43946242
>>43947402
>>43947823
>Not running abteilung 500 from desperate measures
>not running glorious piece of shit Porsche Kitties
>filthycasuals.Linux.rotoscope.gif
>>43947402
I don't have the book, but I will have 8 KTs soon, how many a points is this at Remagen prices?
>>43948194
>bought 8 kkng tigers
Goddammit now I gotta buy 3 more in order to show up the british
>>43948007
Okay... That could work.
But I still think the cheaper Allied AT will pose a problem, assuming they can get flank shots.
>>43948194
2 HQ KöTis
2 Platoons of 2 KöTis
============
1290 P. for 6 (max) KöTis
OR
You take the RV guys
that would be:
2 HQ KöTis
2 Platoons of 3 KöTis
===========
2105 P. for 8 KöTis
>>43948247
>not buying boxes and boxes of stupid shit during the sale
Cum on step it up!
Maybe Bf will make us a plastic KT/JT box at some point.
They aren't generally needed in massive numbers game-wise, but I'd have thought and I'm hoping the Tiger 1+2 variants would be popular enough to warrant a plastic kit.
PSC tiger looks nice, but I can't handle turret connections like that, the noise the plastic-on-plastic makes as you turn them pierces my soul.
>>43948916
I don't think plastic King Tigers will come from BF whilst there's no competitor offering them. The costs in producing the kit and in lost revenue per model (presuming that the plastic KT would be cheaper than the resin/metal) would surely outweigh the increased sales.
>>43946032
Leo 2 is certain since you can clearly see the silouette in TY's first pages, leo 1 will probably make an appearence too since the french get the AMX30 wich is similar (as the leo 2 you can see it on the first pages og the rulebook)
Bumping with Soviets and the Threadsong from the /pol/ Syriangeneralthread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodrZ2we_hQ
>>43950763
>leo 2
Oh boy swedish cold war army here I come!
>viggen and draken air support
Finland can come too!
Hey guys was there ever a full scan of Berlin?
I mean, I don't really need it, I bought the book during the sale, just curious
>>43953950
The Berlin scan we have is just the rules, none of the historical info or misc pictures of the models.
>MFW I saw the costs of those engineer platoons
Holy fuck Battlefront doesn't mess around when they give slavs vet units, jesus christ you'd think these guys were made of solid gold.
Also, I got all the Exclusive online Berlin lists, if you have questions about what are in certain lists, or want to know if certain units are in a list, go ahead and ask and I'll answer your questions when I get back from dinner.
>>43954626
Also, Dmitriy Loza is finally available as a Fearless Veteran CiC for a lend lease batallion
>>43900017
page 10!
Anyone else notice battlefront extended its sale? Not that I have money for it, just found it interesting
>>43947209
>Divide all distances and ranges by 2
>play on same size board
>???
>Flank maneuvers relevant!
>>43947209
Very true but when we scale down the doctrine to FoW there are still some tips to take away.
Namely concentrating support and closing in with your armor to help even the odds for your T-72s. Even in defense, Soviet armor has to be aggressive.
Bypass strong NATO positions if possible. If one of your two lanes of attack are faltering push your support to the successful push.
>>43951225
Oh man, that's sexual.
The basing begins
>tfw you're trying to scrape up leftover snow basing and it looks like you're about to do a line of coke
>tfw the roommate walks in
>>43957699
Oh, yeah, that thing everyone does at tournaments, apparently?
>>43961013
>Actually playing in tournaments
>>43944294
What stats would you give at the Chief? Considering that it has more than double of turret and upper glacis armor than a Centurion, i would personally settle for a 16-8-2 with slow tank, skirts,wide tracks and the big gun being a at22 fp2 rof1, brutal with no penalty for firing on the move due to stabilisers.
>>43961103
For the Chally the gun is the same, maybe more rof, armor wise i would give it 18-8-2 with composite armor so 16 side armor vs heat and skirts, it would also be speedier than the Chief so about the same speed as a M1.
>>43961093
Man, if I could decent scenario play I would, everyone plays tournaments here and even "casual" games are done with tournament rules to practise for them.
Of interest for GuP FoW rules, full line-up and battle descriptions of all the first tournament round battles
>>>/a/134275648
>>>/a/134275694
>>>/a/134275741
>>>/a/134275791
>>>/a/134275826
>>>/a/134275876
>>43961154
Chally is slower than the M1 and has stronger composite, iirc; so maybe just 10" (or 12" if you wanted to make it faster than the T-72) and 19-9-2
>>43957699
As someone who plays 6mm with unchanged rules, that sounds awful.
Thanks, Battlefront.
>>43961938
>tfw
Got my tiny paper slip saying my tanks are out of stock today too. Feels bad.
>>43954626
Well, you ARE paying for 3 Fearless Veteran Pioneer teams. That won't be cheap for anyone. Perhaps try taking one of the companies at a smaller strength?
>>43954887
And the rest of the tanks are still only trained+. Had they been veterans, I would have gone nuts and started up an LL battalion...
Quick maths question team, because I can't figure out the numbers.
How big is a standard size game board in real terms? So like 1kmx0.5km? I just really can't work out the scale conversion.
>>43954626
Welcome to FV Engineers in huge numbers, with some very nasty special rules.
>>43962910
Scale in FoW is sliding. 4 inches is 50 meters. 16 inches is about 400 meters. 32 inches is several kilometers.
morning, peeps!
>>43942823
Didn't alot of Sherman's strap sandbags to the front armor as an attempt to give it better armor?
>>43964388
Yep. I think mainly as a defense against panzerfausts/panzershreks. Pic is from the WW2 History museum in New Orleans.
>>43900017
Italian/Hungarian/Australian anon here, haven't been here in a while. Hate to be that person, but can someone explain the context of the internet vs Battlefront joke? Have I missed something in the last month or so?
Will bump with Zvezda Stuka for extra salt.
>>43963026
Woah; kilometers? You sure?
>>43964388
Worth noting this tended not to do much; some reports suggested shaped charges worked /better/ against improvised armour. But this was always tempered by the fact the crews believed it helped, and morale improvements can be hard to come by.
>>43965005
Very much so. Think about the weapons that have a 32 inch range. 75mm guns that were quite capable of killing tanks or other targets that far away. What doesn't have a 32 inch range? HMGs that were quite capable of engaging targets beyond 400 meters, and lighter tank guns like the Pak36 that prefered to be within a kilometer of most targets. 16 inches is effective rifle range. It's not like a PaK36 or 2 pounder had an effective accuracy of only 200-400 meters, surely? Of course penetrating at that range is another matter, but that's for the +1 armour and to hit, and lower or higher AT values.
>>43965005
>Woah; kilometers? You sure?
Yeah, FoW's scale tends to "zoom in" when you get to shorter ranges.
"Assault distance" can be anything from close-range firefights over a street corner, to hand-to-hand combat.
Meanwhile tank combat range might be a few miles, and artillery range is typically even longer than that.
>>43965301
>>43967367
I guess I figured combat was rarely beyond a thousand yards on the western front, and so tanks had shortened weapon range to replicate close-fighting, and arty was on the board just because games tend to put artillery on the board despite it not making much sense.
>>43968901
I could be talking out of my ass just a little bit. I don't know exact ranges for things.
But I'll still say that ground-scale in FoW tends to Zomm-in or Zoom-out depending on the typical real world ranges of the weapons being fired.
Played a few more test games of TY using some proxies today.
The first one was called off after the first few turns because one of us had made a huge rules misinterpretation.
He had lost 3 of his 5 Abrams (at 50 points) in the first Soviet turn from a BMP_2 ambush.
His other Abrams unit ended his turn 3 on one of the objectives, but it could only be captured on turn 6 or later. T-72s were moving towards that unit from the rear, with a bunch of BMP-2s to their front.
The second game was 50 points again, this time in a simple free-for-all.
This turned into quite a killfest, with each of us trying to outflank the other while delaying with other forces.
He managed to win that one by capturing the objective on one flank; if he hadn't that turn, I would have won at the start of my next turn.
This game had a massive melee on one objective, with two units of 2 Abrams (one of them arrived after a turn of firing) and a unit of 6 T-72s dueling. The T-72s were initially supported by 5 BMPs (plus infantry), while the Abrams later got backup from a trio of Dragon-mounted M113s.
Finally, I played a simple intro game with the FLGS owner; 1 HQ Abrams and a 2-Abrams platoon vs two 3-tank T-72 units.
Some questionable tactical choices plus horrible dice meant that at the end of 2 turns, there were 3 intact Abrams and 6 smoking T-72 wrecks on the table.
Note to self: do not try getting in a long-range firefight against concealed Abrams with T-72s. It ends horribly unless you're -really- lucky.
>>43968901
>>43969838
I know it's a video game, but it's quite amazing what I found you can engage using the tank/gun optics on ww2 online. It's really a fascinating thing to read about the sights and to try gunnery yourself. If you can see the target, properly gauge the distance (using how big the target it), and account for wind, it's possible to land shots at great distance.
>>43961938
mfw have to deal with this shit.
>>43971087
Do you think you would have had a better shot trying to close in on the Abrams?
>>43971218
I could probably have done a bit better by trying to Dash from cover to cover.
A few tanks also failed some Cross checks, which kept them out of the fight for a turn.
If I'd just remained calm and had taken the time to set up a proper alpha strike, I could have had better odds.
Still, that had the risk of those Abrams outmaneuvering me and engaging my units one by one, where I'd be in massive trouble.
>>43961177
>>>>/a/134275791
rip those tanks
Reading through overlord, why does the Stewart V Jalopy cost more points than the plain Stewart V? Sure, your co-ax MG becomes a hull .50 and you get wide tracks, but you lose the main gun, a point of top armor, AND you can add a AA MG for the same cost as the change to the Jalopy. I'm just not seeing how the .50 and wide tracks are worth losing the 37mm, point of top armor, and the third MG.
>>43974132
That's because the main gun is shit.
Many veteran accounts from stuart and greyhound crews treated the .50 cal as their main weapon, and regarded the 37mm cannon as damn near useless. Many crews found that removing the gun and turret made the vehicles better for their intended purpose, reconnaissance, and the .50 cal handled their self defense needs perfectly fine.
>>43974225
Ok, that's real life. How does that explain point balance in game? How is 2 4+FP shots and 3 MGs with an extra point of top armor equal in value to a .50 MG and a normal MG?
>>43974821
Wide tracks on a manoeuvrable vehicle.
>>43964642
oh, some players were bitching when they were banned for posting Zvezda on BF's facebook.
I have an old Armored PanzerGren company that is a good five years out of date. Are there any interesting lists, either in new books or digital, that use them? And by interesting I mean not your bog standard GepPanzGren.
>>43964642
The short version is that Battlefront runes a Team Yankee Facebook group.
People were posting stuff about Zvezda and some other competitors to Battlefront.
Battlefront asked them to stop.
They did not.
Battlefront blocked them/deleted their posts/liked comments that told them to follow the rules, etc.
Those people then began bitching, moaning, and throwing temper tantrums like a toddler to anyone who would listen on a fan-run Team Yankee Facebook group.
I'm on the fan-run group. The anti-Battlefront rhetoric from the whiny crybabies was getting pretty unbearable.
Meanwhile people like myself, Marqod, and some of the Breakthrough Assault guys are posting there and contributing positively to the community.
>>43976122
>The short version is that Battlefront runes a Team Yankee Facebook group.
They carve ancient Norse pictograms into their fans's skin? No wonder there was some anti-BF backlash!
>>43976526
Runs. Or ruins. Both are equally valid.
:-p
Forgive me. It's been a loooong day...
>>43976526
Sounds like fun
>>43975933
The Panzergrenadier Kampfgruppe from Desperate Measures, in either Trained or veteran flavour, ware pretty different to what you're used to.
There are also halftrack-mounted lists of some interest in Nachtjäger, and Berlin Digital.
>>43977492
Panzer Lehr lists are pretty great. Now, clearly, I would say that, but hear me out.
In the Normandy flavour, your basic platoons are 10 stands, which includes 3 integral tank hunter teams (bazooka equivalent). You can take them either in half tracks or on foot, and have access to a wide range of support at Confident Veteran, plus FV SS Tigers. Both PaK40s and 15cm Nebelwerfers remain absolute gold-standard units for their role, and Pumas got an upgrade relative to the older Normandy books by now coming in pairs, rather than threes. So it's easy to make a list that's at least competitive.
But for real Lehr-power, you want the Panzers to the Meuse lists (also available on Forces of War as "Devil's Charge Digital Exclusive" lists). This list is the German counter to Patton and the 7th Armored. Always Attacks and Spearhead is a great combo, which in this case you can get for the low, low price of one platoon of Gepanzerte Aufklärungs. One platoon of infantry in SdKfz 250s means you can surge forward with all your Panzer IVs before the game has even started, taking the initiative by the scruff of the neck.
>>43974821
Well, you're a recce vehicle so your armaments are often going to be unused whereas Wide Tracks helps you with moving through terrain which can often be useful even when being recce.
Also, as long as you're moving a 50cal and an MG goes from slightly worse to slightly better than the main gun, two MGs and AAMG setup depending on target.
>>43975718
>>43964642
Nobody was bitching about being banned ; they were bitching about the "No products from any of our competitors" rule.
>>43979236
Honestly I don't see the problem. It's Battlefront's Facebook, of course they don't want none of their competitor's shit on there. If Games Workshop had any meaningful presence on Social Media, I imagine they'd have a similar rule.
Advice needed: In general, if your german (infantry/Panzergren) list is 10 points over the limit, which Faust is it best to remove? The Company Commander? 2iC? On one of the platoons (doubt it)?
Personally, I would think the 2iC, simply because you care the least if he dies (if the CC dies, it's a loss of morale rerolls, and the platoon commanders shouldn't die due to Mission Tactics).
>>43979725
For my money, I'd keep the 2ic and remove the Commander, for similar reasons to what you gave - the 2ic is more expendable and therefore more likely to be thrown into combat.
Also, remember that for both Commander and 2ic that you've got a 50% chance for them to survive using their Warrior save and re-form a command squad from a nearby team.
>>43979725
>>43979751
In my Grenadier lists I like to build a 1 Rifle/MG teams Kampfgruppe with my 2iC. Just to push over the 8/9/10 Platoon limits.
The 1iC gets the Faust and leads from the front (reroll moralchecks is good mhkay)
If I need to roll for motivation the game is most likely over anyway.
>>43979833
Yeah, that's perfectly valid too depending on the situation. I don't think there's necessarily a right or wrong answer here.
>>43979266
>If Games Workshop had any meaningful presence on Social Media, I imagine they'd have a similar rule.
And I think that's the core of the problem right there.
While asking people not to post about your competitors on your Facebook page is a completely reasonable request, it also does seem like a Games Workshop style rule at the same time.
And since the hatred for Games Workshop is pretty strong amongst a significantly large group of gamers, people get understandably scared and angry when Battlefront does anything that even remotely seems like something Games Workshop would do.
>>43976122
What a bunch of dumb babies.
>>43973119
Early style Chi-Has vs "Big Cat" series. What would you expect?
Slowpoke, but...
>>43976526
10/10
>>43977492
>>43979039
Appreciate it gents. In the interval between asking and waking to find your comments I had found both the Desperate Measures list AND the Panzers to the Meuse lists...both of which I rather like. I will have to consider both carefully to see which direction I want to take.
What is the point of the s10cm K18 guns? 4+ FP isn't amazing.
Seems like the 96" range is the only thing going for it.
Is it supposed to be a counter artillery weapon?
>>43974821
real answer:
Recce is pointed: were the previous Stuart's Recce or just labeled as that?
(check the italic text)
also, what are the ratings? your ratings may be off.
>>43953775
Cold War sweden is Centurions and STRV 103 with PBV 302
>>43982065
They're both Recce, and they're both C/T (last column)
>>43981619
They can also fire smoke rounds, can they not? From what I recall, 15cm guns can't.
>>43982509
No smoke for s10cm.
>>43982157
I'll take flattank, sure. It's 1985 so the armour probably won't be so good, but given it's about two decades old then, it's probably going to be a really tough bastard.
>>43983143
actually closer to 3 decades, but, what it lacks in armour it makes up for in gun, it has the same energy as a L7 has at the muzzle, but at 2000 meters, plus could fire a round every 2.7 seconds
one of the best tanks in the world when it came out in 1956
>>43983229
that said its probably F 14 S 7 T 7
since its top armour is basicly its front armour too but with less angling
shooting a ROF 3/1 AT 20 FP 2+ cannon
>>43983685
>TA 7
Top armour in FoW/TY is generally 0, 1 or 2. It's not in the same scale as front and side armour.
>>43983721
most likely 2 then, maybe a 3 if they want to be magnaminous
Dunno if anyone else saw this, it's Zvezda's new batch.
Two models we knew were coming and one that is really surprising...
>>43983859
I would be very surprised if it were the first TA3 vehicle.
Today I am playing with humbrol's dark brown enamel wash because WHS Smith had a sale.
Its ok, but requires a lot of fannying about watering it down with white spirit etc, im not sure I can be arsed doing this regularly.
If the weathering disappears when I varnish it I wont be impressed.
>>43983859
Isn't the top armor only 70 mm at most?
