it's literally one day until TY releases, gents!
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
>>44110843 #
>continuing the conversation with Long Island Anon from the last thread
Are you looking to play, or just to meet up?
I could do any of those days, but it would have to be after work. Say, 6pm or later.
They seem to get a small croud for miniatures on Monday nights. Usually Infinity or Warmachine, but the owner and I have been trying to get Flames of War or Team Yankee up and running there as well.
To be honest, Team Yankee is probably the thing that will get the most traction there. I have one other player signed up already, and there might be a few of the Monday Night Miniatures people looking to start Team Yankee as well.
my dreams of winning with Hero Tankovy are coming closer!
well, or at least, making the attempt
>>44111171
Got six T-72s sprayed up already. Pretty hype for the weekend release!
>>44111607
are those BF T-72's from the Vaunted Demo kits or are they 3rd Party?like my A-10s?
Where is Open Fire! supposed to be set? I wanna build a table for it but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to build. I'd assume it's western germany because of the missile installation but I'm not sure.
>>44112022
Open Fire is set during Operation Market-Garden, which took place in the Netherlands.
>>44112022
Presumably Operation Market Garden assuming that it's still British Tanks alongside US Airborne.
>FLGS owner photoshopped himself into the card terrain he built for Armageddon Day
>>44112817
I should really build some of those Beasts of War buildings for our FLGS as well.
They look quite nice.
Does anybody know if any East German lists will ever come out? I think I heard about it before but I'm not sure.
>>44113662
As far as I know, they plan to release stuff specific for them in the future, probably after the second wave of Soviet gear.
In the meantime, the better-equipped East German units actually used most of the stuff that's in the first wave of releases. So simply painting them as East German units might actually work, possibly excepting the infantry.
>>44113714
There are also plenty of 15mm East German out there.
>went on MM
>Team Yankee: Bannon's Boys (NewArrival)
>Availability: In stock
its habbening!
>>44111795
Shamefully third party.
>>44115682
No shame. The Zvezda T-72s are actually quite nice.
Their M1s, not so much.
Is there a list of the exact differences between the Quickstart guide and the full game?
How do I decide who'se attacking and defending, and how do I know when which special rules apply?
>>44115917
You roll off for it or flip for it and roll off if you picked the same. Probably the one step back; knowing you usually attacked or defended was good, IMO.
Also I am curious about what'll fill the void for national rules, at least soviet side; NATO has huge variety in gear between nations, but the warpac were big on standardised kit and tactics...
>>44115917
Literally read the rulebook? It's quite explicitly explained how it works in both FoW and Team Yankee.
>>44115917
>How do I decide who'se attacking and defending,
Typically Infantry companies defend, while Tank companies attack. And a Mechanized Infantry company will attack a normal Infantry company and defend against a Tank company.
If both players are fielding the same kind of company you roll for it.
Also certain companies have rules like "Always Attacks" or "Always Defends".
>and how do I know when which special rules apply?
Which specific special rules?
Certain ones like Semi-indirect Fire for the British need you to not have moved, AND be over 16 inches away to benefit from that rule.
>>44115917
Oh, if you went vanilla, it's always attacks>tank>mech>inf>fortified/always defend (actually, not sure who goes last if fortified and always defend run into each other...)
Also, some special rules are army-wide (doctrines) and some are features of vehicles or units, like semi-indirect fire, which isn't on every brit tank.
Question: Open fire plastic grenadier infantry is the same as the companie/panzegrenadier platoon box?
Does it comes with enough mg for every stand?
So Bartosz apparently already has team Yankee...
>>44116903
Already started painting mine. Nice kits.
>>44117070
hover tanks?
>>44116816
no, you only get enough for what the box says
>>44111170
I would love to play, or meet up and learn because I have no idea how to.
I'm free everyday at this point so it doesn't matter to me, would Monday be best based on it being a miniature night?
Also what era is Team Yankee supposed to be in? Because I would really prefer not to play something too modern. But if it's the only thing that is gonna happen I'm not gonna say no to it.
>>44117070
I pain the tracks separately and glue them on after. Makes the whole business of painting them without accidentally messing with the rest of the model much more easier.
>>44117291
TY puts WW3 in 1985
>>44117291
>I would love to play, or meet up and learn because I have no idea how to.
Ok. I can bring small forces for Germans and Americans and run you through the basics of the game.
>I'm free everyday at this point so it doesn't matter to me, would Monday be best based on it being a miniature night?
Probably. It honestly depends on how much space the Infinity or Warmachine people are using. I'll talk to the owner and try to save us some space for Monday night.
>Also what era is Team Yankee supposed to be in? Because I would really prefer not to play something too modern.
It's 1985 Cold War turns hot in Europe. So you'll see some near-modern equipment like M1 Abrams and A-10 Warthogs, but it's not an ultra-modern game.
>But if it's the only thing that is gonna happen I'm not gonna say no to it.
That's the thing, the FoW player-base there is relatively small, but I'm trying to grow it. Most of the people I've talked to seem to be more interested in the Cold War version than the WWII version.
But I personally will be playing both.
>>44117790
Oh jesus that image is massive, trying again
Had a chat with Matthews, which is always fun. We talked about the special rule bloat in most wargames, and the sense that V3 was starting on that road. Whenever V4 comes out, it will be like Team Yankee, with fewer gimmicks. There will still be special rules, and you can expect a handful in the future of Yankee. We both played Fantasy before, and talked about how the GW model was terrible. There was another thing he spoke of for fow, but I have no idea if it was just a joke so I don't feel like relaying it. Holy shit this place is loud.
>>44117856
>There was another thing he spoke of for fow, but I have no idea if it was just a joke so I don't feel like relaying it.
You tease.
>>44117825
Alright cool, Cold War sounds fun. If Monday night doesn't end up working out that's fine, like I said I can do any day. Would you want to exchange emails so we can keep in touch about meeting up?
>>44118815
Sure, email me at the Panzerfunk Podcast email address.
[email protected]
I'll give you my personal email from there. I really would rather not post my personal email on 4chan. For obvious reasons.
>>44118881
Sent ya an email
>>44118913
Reply sent.
>>44117856
It's fucking 4chins, tell us you tease!
So my newbie ass continues to learn from weekly FoW games. Lessons from this wednesday:
Artillery is murder on infantry that are not dug in. Doubly so if you've got Mike Target.
Cromwells with Lorried Rifles make amazing objective grabbers.
Spread out if the opponent has artillery.
Pinning is very important when dealing with infantry.
If you get a chance to shoot at enemy unarmored transports with MGs, do so.
On a related note, never give the opponent a chance to shoot your unarmored transports with MGs.
Fuck special characters.
Dingos are adorable.
Plan your spotter movement several turns in advance, or they may do nothing for half the game.
3v3 games are a chaotic mess that take way too long.
And our group really needs to read up on the pinning rules, mixed platoons, and entering buildings. We thought pinned platoons could not capture/contest objectives (they can), forgot that you can designate a unit type when shooting at a mixed gun team/infantry platoon, and thought that you had to check to clear a building every turn (when really if you start the turn at an opening the building is auto-checked).
>>44119911
>If you get a chance to shoot at enemy unarmored transports with MGs, do so.
>On a related note, never give the opponent a chance to shoot your unarmored transports with MGs.
These two took me a while so I wouldn't feel bad, but it must be emphasised.
Why take armoured transports? Any gun with an AT rating goes straight through and onto firepower. That's bad, right?
Well, yeah... But the important bit is /guns with AT ratings worth shit/. If you're in even something like a hanomag, firing MGs or even rifles is a pointless exercise; at absolute best you're threatening a bail on a 6 in exchange for losing gone to ground. Sweet deal.
Conversely, a truck or something has a 5+ flat save. This means you can shoot /literally anything/ at it and maybe kill a ton of guys. So you should totally do this, especially to lorried rifles who're crammed into the back like sardines 5 to a truck.
TL;DR armour is as much about reducing incoming fire as it is about bouncing shots and you should always count how many guns you' ve just made pointless in addition to how good armour is at bouncing specific AT guns when assessing it.
>>44120058
Illustrated example:
4-man Vickers squad vs hanomags (CV):
24 shots, half of which hit, down to 12.
1/6 hits threaten bails, two bail threats.
Need a 6 to bail, probably not happening.
4x MG42s vs trucks (CT):
24 shots again, half hits again.
Save on a 5+. Oh shit, 10 kills, and even if they weren't, that's ten 5+ infantry saves.
What I'm saying is that 1 front armour is insanely valuable.
>>44120205
>tfw sherman kangaroos have FA 6
>>44120058
>So you should totally do this, especially to lorried rifles who're crammed into the back like sardines 5 to a truck.
Yeah, this is why I made sure that my lorried rifles rode on my Cromwells (where they get a 3+ save instead of the normal 5+ because of "Platoon, Debus!"). In the lorries, they die horribly if the enemy gets any shots on them at all. I think the enemy can still fire at the cromwells with MGs to try and kill the infantry while not hurting the tanks (at least, I can't find any rule against shooting guns that can't hurt a tank at the tank), but since they instantly disembark after the first round of shots and I can generally get the croms out of LoS for a turn (not to mention the ranges involved) it's not near as bad as with lorries.
>>44120205
>that's ten 5+ infantry saves.
Technically 12, if the enemy is lucky and has one team per truck. They still take the saves even if the vehicle is fine, and if it's 4 teams per truck and 3 trucks it's:
>each truck takes 4 hits
>each team inside the truck takes one save per hit the truck takes
>4 teams per truck, 4 hits per truck, 3 trucks = *48* 5+ saves for the infantry, each team needing to pass 4 of those to survive.
Result: One cloud of pink mist and some ruined trucks.
>>44116903
>>44117070
yes, i did. just got back home after m'game of X-wing.
there are 2 1:144 Dragon A-10's not shown in the pic'
>don't get Dragon, get some other brand!
>>44117298
you are a wise man.
Anything new coming for EW or MW?
>>44121586
What nations are in TY? Is just USA and USSR?
Hey guys. Looking to play FoW, but I really only give a crap about tanks. Whats the funnest all-tank list in FoW?
>>44121681
>Anything new coming for EW or MW?
Mid War is supposed to get updated and reworked when they release Version 4 of Flames of War. But I think they've been working on a few tweaks to make it more compatible with the current Version 3.
>>44121750
>What nations are in TY? Is just USA and USSR?
For now, yes.
Although there is talk of adding additional nations in the future.
Britain, East Germany, West Germany, and maybe Poland seem likely.
But not for a while yet.
Although I have seen some decent fan-made rules for West Germans.
>>44121996
>Britain
Would this be Chieftain era or Challenger era Britain?
Also, are the Armor/AT values on the same scale as with regular FoW? I mean at this point you're probably running into vehicles in the 30's to 50's right (also do they have special rules for ERA or is it just higher armor)?
>>44122246
I think the AT still scales with standard FoW.
The M1 Abrams for example is:
F 18, S 8, T 2 with the Chobham Armor special rule making it's Side Armor count as 16 against HEAT weapons.
It has 40 inch Range, RoF 2(moving & stationary), AT 20, FP 2+ for it's main gun. With the Advanced Stabilizer and Laser Rangefinder special rules.
>>44121897
What kind of tanks were you wanting to play, and what era?
lend lease tanks?
Swarms of shitty outdated FV T26's in late war?
Big cats?
So my local hobby shop CAN get vallejo paints. What paints should I get for my late-war british armored company? Specifically the 15th/19th KRH, if it matters.
Hey, so, complete noob here. Did assault change from 2nd to 3rd edition? Because I'm noticing a distinct difference in the special rules and stuff from early to revised editions
>>44123547
Not really. Basically, assaults are started by the platoon, but the teams that are involved are determined by an 8 inch bubble, rather than platoon. So the assault tends to be more localised. That's ALL the teams that are in. No more assaulting your way across an entire board in a single phase.
2 bailed or destroyed defensive fire results force back tanks as well. Anyone can counterattack without a leader now. Carry on Sergeant lets you launch an assault without a leader, though.
>>44124124
>
Gracias bro! Did number needed to it or anything change?
>>44124243
To hit? Nah, that's still a skill check. Some figures have rules that affect the number, but that tends to be indicate in the unit entry itself.
Smoke's now concealed and gone to ground. Except you can never be GTG in the assault phase, so it's pretty similar to how it was. Smoke + arty to pin is still the basis of getting shit done if you don't have Quality of Quantity.
>>44113714
>>44113782
Yeah, I was planning on using some T-72s to make an East German armored company or something. I'd officially have to wait to start forming it until after the lists come out, but I can always get a head start.
Does anyone know if they're going to release T-55s and T-62s in the future?
>>44122717
As a rule I don't care about historical gaming but literally everyone I know is playing so I figure I'd give it a go. All I know is I don't want to paint infantry. I tend to like more elite armies on 40k. It boils down to me being a lazy gamer and wanting to push less models across the board.
>>44122717
>>44125853
Oops specifically late war is the only thing I'm sure of. No one plays mid or early here.
>>44125733
There's no way that they wouldn't. They probably even have the old moulds avaliable.
>>44125867
Basically every army has elites. Or small armies, one way or another. Be careful about going heavy/elite tanks though, often they're not very effective due to being outnumbered 10 to 1. Not many lists are totally without infantry, though. Soviets probably come the closest, although Yanks tend to be able to get away without much infantry in a pinch.
>>44125882
I really really really don't want to run any infantry. Just tanks doing tank stuff.
>>44125911
Probably the wrong war for you then. But like I said. You can basically get away without any sort of infantry (other than like, tank crew sticking out, guys in jeeps for your recon, etc) with Yanks and Russians. Both have plenty of expensive armoured motherfuckers as well.
>>44125929
Yeah my friend said Americans and Russians too. I like the idea of running a few king Tigers but my friend said I'd probably never win with an all tiger list (in addition never winning anyway cause I want to run all tanks).
>>44125956
All tanks is pretty doable. Maybe not with Germans, they tend to like their combined arms. But all tanks is doable. For Germans, a single or pair of tigers/kts tends to be pretty effective. They ARE legitimately great tanks, it's just that they still only have a typical tanks RoF. And there's more of the enemy than you can sling rounds, particularly if you move around a bit. Plus infantry will eat you alive. 1 tank's breakfast for most LW infantry blobs. And you usually have to attack the fuckers.
>>44125911
You may be interested in TY if that takes off, since that's looking like a game where it'll be viable to take fully armour groups (not wholly tanks, but wholly vehicle at least).
>>44125867
A shame nobody plays early; T-34 tankovy in early war is semi-viable just because of how good the T-34 is in early war.
Interest in Team Yankee seemed pretty lukewarm today. Guy tried to interest me but if rather see how much interest there is before jumping in with a £70 spend on Russians. I'd really like East Germans though but there will be a wait on those.
The Hind is properly huge though, all the tanks have quite a presence. It's easy to forget how big modern tanks are when all you build is WW2.
>>44125911
Going pure tanks/vehicles would be tricky, but perhaps not entirely impossible.
You'd need vehicles that are good at anti-tank work, typically tanks of your own or dedicated tank hunters.
You'd also need vehicles that are good at digging out dug-in enemy infantry, vehicles with either Breakthrough Guns or Flamethrowers would be good for that job.
Then you'd be looking for self-propelled artillery and some self-propelled anti-aircraft. Perhaps even some aircraft of your own.
It's doable, but you really need to plan around the fact that you have no infantry, and infantry tend to be better multi-taskers than vehicles.
>>44126672
Went to get my preorder; soviets are apparently a week behind now. Don't suppose we'll be getting another tank either.
>>44127718
Apparently they caught up with the delay from the production snafu in time, but just missed their shipping window and had to wait for the next option which was 4 days later than their planned shipping date.
It happens.
>>44127718
>Don't suppose we'll be getting another tank either.
Talk about being an entitled prick...
The extra tank is something nice they decided to do because they fucked up and were forced to delay the release.
And you want EVEN MORE free stuff because they fucked up further.
It's only an extra week after their late shipping date. It's not like you're waiting another month or two.
Technically the didn't even have to give you the extra tank in the first place.
I don't think it's ridiculous that, having established that they're giving away free stuff to compensate delays, you would assume further delays would mean more free stuff. Americans have 1 delay - 1 tank, so it makes sense that the soviets have 2 delays - 2 tanks.
That said, I'm not sure this one's as long as the previous one. Maybe a bit less than a tank. One tank and a track, maybe.
>>44127901
>>44127966
Eh, ignore me, I'm just salty all the America players are good to go already. I think I'd be less annoyed if TY was just later in general.
>>44125911
hey, this can be done!
you can bring a german list w AA tanks and armored Nebelwerfers
AA tanks can chop up infantry too
So I'm new to this game. How do the British WW2 forces play? Are their tanks as single-minded and inflexible (read: terrible) as they were IRL? I'd be interested in collecting a few for reasons of nationalism, just curious as to how bad they'd be in-game.
>>44128026
Given that adding anything more would automatically result in EVEN MORE delays, and people are already salty about a one-week delay? Yeah, not happening.
>>44128870
Brit tanks are great, they just play by different doctrines.
Churchills and Cromwells are solid in LateWar, as are A30's
in EW you get Matildas and Crusaders
mid war is a mix, but Churchies are best there
>>44128870
Kiiinda? Generally speaking every list is at least a bit viable. Churchill tank companies are a bit weird, but are workable; Cromwells are just shermans but more, and armoured companies with the firefly are shermans that can blow the fuck out of heavy tanks that aren't KTs.
Early and midwar you get more gimmicky weird tanks, but they have the advantage that they're in early war (or mid) and thus everyone else's tanks tend to suck too.
>>44128951
*shermans but more mobile, even.
>>44128933
My suggestion that, to compensate for the week delay, the proportional addition of one track should be made, was of course completely serious, and I am well put in my place by your scolding, good sir.
>>44112817
Thats brilliant, time to hide my friends all over the board
>>44128870
My lessons from playing so far are that Cromwells are great little flexible cruisers, but that they lack staying power/armor.
Moving faster than average (16" to the normal 12") is great, and getting re-rolls at long range if you stay still is also great. Smoke ammo is good for screening an advance, and tow hooks let you pull heavy AT guns around.
But they're not as good at dealing with infantry as American shermans (.50s make a huge difference), and because of what lists GET cromwells you don't really have access to anything with heaiver armor. Their AT of 10 is a bit below average, though this is a problem the basic sherman has as well. You can get some Challengers or Fireflies (depending on list) which give you some dedicated tank killer options but are either slower (Fireflies) or less capable of entering terrain (Challengers).
No personal experience with Churchills, so I can't say anything about them save that they look slow but very tough (front armor 8 or 9 for most, and some have front armor 13)
>>44129125
>>44128951
>>44128934
Okay, thanks. So is the list building quite restricted along historical timelines? Like for example, there isn't just a list of all units from throughout the war that could be mixed and matched from?
>>44129276
You have early, mid, and late war, roughly 1939-1941, 1942-1943, and 1944-1945, respectively. Lists are balanced by period; the T-34/76 is my gold standard tank for this, since in Barbarossa (EW) it's an unstoppable juggernaut that can kill anything and is near-impervious itself, while by late war it's undergunned and average/low-armour.
In Britain's case, their early war tanks are shitboxes fighting other shitboxes (except the matilda which has crazy armour for EW and a point cost to match), while by late war it's mostly shermans and churchills, with cromwells and a few other tanks here and there.
>>44129276
Also you have lists that're a specific kind of company, though most (but not all) companies can take "support options" from other companies that're attached to theirs. Lists might be better or worse depending on if they get support; the statement about cromwells being worse than shermans (which statistically, they more or less are) is because their lists tends to have less comprehensive support than british armoured companies.
That said, lists are sets of options, not straight jackets; you can think of it a lot like 40k in that sense, in that a list obligates a HQ and 1-3 core platoons, and the rest of it is free to choose, within the limits of whatever options or support it gets.
>>44129582
>the statement about cromwells being worse than shermans (which statistically, they more or less are)
Nobody here said croms are worse shermans, and at least compared to british shermans they're strictly better. They have all the same stuff plus having protected ammo and being a light tank and thus moving 1/3rd more.
>Sherman V
Standard tank, 6/4/1 armor, co-ax MG, hull MG, Tow Hook
32" 2/10/3+ gun, Semi-indirect, smoke
>Cromwell IV
Light tank, 6/4/1 armor, co-ax MG, hull MG, Protected Ammo, Tow Hook
32" 2/10/3+ gun, Semi-indirect, smoke
Something I missed a few days ago in BMP-chat: Guided missiles aren't a totally static defence.
Using the Blitz Move rules, you count as firing from halt on a successful check... So you /can/ move and fire.
That said, Blitz rules leave me a little confused; do you lose the ability to dash and have the out-of-command penalty on a failed roll, or if you elect to take a move after succeeding on a blitz?
>>44129951
Sorry, that was "Cromwells are statistically more or less the same as a sherman, but are worse due to support options", not "Cromwells are, in terms of their core stats, worse than a sherman". You're right that they're a little bit better than brit shermans 1-1.
>>44123017
Anyone able to help with this? I've got infantry and dingos that I'd like to paint before I glue them together, but I can't do that if I don't know what to paint them in.
>>44130041
I recommend clothes you don't care about or an apron; acrylic paint can be hard to get out :^)
More seriously go check the ospreys; they're pretty shit for historical value, since at best they're average and at worst they're fanfic, but in terms of having unit colours right they're gold.
>>44130572
Osprey a shit?
sauce, please?
If infantry always counts as concealed, do they always get that +1 to defence or are infantry always counted as concealed as per gone to ground rules?
When infantry goes to ground in the open, does the enemy add a +2 to their to hit roll or just a +1?
And how do bog checks work? Do they take crew skill into account or is it always +2 for hedges and such?
And how do I count terrain movement? Is it 30cm for a sherman UNTILL it enters a forest(and doesn't bog) or is it 20cm because I'm going to be going into a forest during my movement?
The quickstart guide is a bit shit to be honest, but there's so much information in the regular booklet that it's a bit dainting to try and remember it all in one go.
>>44121897
>>44125867
>>44125911
>>44125956
Sorry I'm a little late getting back to you, but I have an idea for a German list if you're interested in them.
Desperate Measures has a bunch of great tank lists that can work well without any dedicated infantry units. You will still need to paint some (mainly tank riders and a few artillery crewmen) but it will be one of the most flexible options you'll have without taking infantry platoons.
Also, most of the models are available from plastic kits. Don't worry about the StuG IV's, their stats are identical to StuG III's and you would need a guy to literally count the road wheels on your tanks to figure that out.
On top of that, it has AAA, smoke and a reliable arty option, air support (arguably some of the most reliable in the game) recce, and a couple of heavy AT guns for dealing with anything that ain't a king tiger, which will be invaluable if you run into jumbos.
>>44131265
>If infantry always counts as concealed, do they always get that +1 to defence or are infantry always counted as concealed as per gone to ground rules?
Infantry aren't always concealed. They either need to find concealment, be dug in, or not move.
> When infantry goes to ground in the open, does the enemy add a +2 to their to hit roll or just a +1?
Going to ground in the open gives a full +2 to the difficulty to hit (+1 concealed, +1 gtg).
> And how do bog checks work? Do they take crew skill into account or is it always +2 for hedges and such?
Bogging in difficult terrain is on a 1, very difficult is a failed skill check. Wide tracks can also modify this.
> And how do I count terrain movement? Is it 30cm for a sherman UNTILL it enters a forest(and doesn't bog) or is it 20cm because I'm going to be going into a forest during my movement?
If you'd be about to enter a terrain where you'd have "run out" of movement you stop at the edge. Can't remember if you'd take bogging but sensibly you'd opt to stop a micron away anyway so as not to risk it, so it doesn't matter.
> The quickstart guide is a bit shit to be honest, but there's so much information in the regular booklet that it's a bit dainting to try and remember it all in one go.
You get used to it, don't worry. And TY is super sped-up.
>>44131843
Oh, I read the manual wrong, crew skill only comes into it in very difficult terrain.
Who decides how hits are distributed? In the manual there's 2 US rifle teams and a mortar and it says to distribute hits evenly. Does the attacker decide who takes hits first or the defender?
Anyways, thanks a bunch for your help.
>>44131265
>>And how do I count terrain movement? Is it 30cm for a sherman UNTILL it enters a forest(and doesn't bog) or is it 20cm because I'm going to be going into a forest during my movement?
You may move up to 30cm IFF you stay in clear terrain for the entirety of it. If you move through slow or difficult going at all your speed is reduced to 20cm.
>>44132073
The person who got hit allocates, subject to about four pages of restrictions so it's quite limited. In short: Targets in range+LOS who're part of the unit, spread as evenly as possible, highest armour first, gone to ground last, and bogged/bailed last too. If there's multiple vehicles you can make a gun tank check to reallocate a hit your opponent put on something you'd rather not shoot first. Those are the biggest ones.
Target priority is one of the fiddliest bits and you may as well keep a cheat sheet for sanity's sake.
>>44132181
*Lowest armour first; I play against Jumbos too much, apologies.
>>44132073
>Who decides how hits are distributed?
The owner of the platoon being shot at, however he must follow a set of rules such as hitting infantry in the open before those in bulletproof cover. There are also rules that allow the attacker some control such as choosing which type of Team (tank, transport, infantry or gun) to hit first or the Gun Tank rule for shooting at mixed tank platoons.
>>44132201
But Jumbos do have the lowest armour, that's the point.
>>44132239
Yeah, I know, just their exception had me doing it wrong in my head.
For those following at home "Jumbos go first" makes you treat them as if they had the lowest rating in the platoon, rather than the highest, which they do.
>>44132181
I see, last questions I swear.
If a rof2 unit shoots at an enemy platoon and hits twice, can it destroy multiple units?
And does the panzershreck team have to stick with the command unit? Getting my command unit stuck in seems like an awefully large risk just to get that extra AT shot.
>>44132278
Be careful with your language there; it can't destroy multiple "units" if it shot at one platoon. It can, however, totally kill two separate /teams/.
And you mean like a command SMG panzerschreck? That's all on one stand and all the same team, I'm afraid.
If you mean sections attached to the HQ, those are independant teams, much like how the HQ and 2IC can wander off on opposite ends of the battlefield or snipers just pop up wherever they feel like.
>>44132278
The Panzerschreck team cannot stick with the HQ, and must be allocated to one of your infantry platoons before the game.
>>44132393
Ah, they're combat attachments?
I don't play germans much. Or infantry period, really.
>>44132328
Ah, yeah I meant the seperate team.
I lied about that being the last question though.
The manual mentions that troops can choose not to move and fire at full ROF instead ( the manual shows the mortar unit, as it cant charge)
But step 2 says "teams that do not move do not take part in the assault"
Does this mean that the units that do not charge fire, then there's defensive fire, and then the charging units fight?
>>44132594
I think you've mixed up the steps, there.
In the shooting phase, a unit that hasn't otherwise moved in the move phase can do two things: It can fire from the halt, in which case it can't assault, or it can fire as if it'd moved, in which case it can.
Then, when assault comes, assaulting teams move in, defensive fire happens (defensive fire is /always/ from the halt), then the chargers attack, then maybe get counterattacked, and if they're still there they can counterattack the counterattack, etc etc.
Also note the guy who said the tank hunter has to be attached to an infantry platoon's right; checking, it's a combat attachment.
>>44132829
Yeah, but during the assault phrase, the manual says troops can hang back and fire at full ROF
So can mortarboy fire during the shooting phrase, and then fire again during the assault phrase before the regular riflemen can get stuck in?
>>44132421
No, they're HQ support infantry teams. Don't have the rulebook handy but it's in the final chapter regarding missions.
>>44132911
No, you may fire with full ROF in the shooting step and then not fight in assault or you may shoot at moving ROF and then fight in the assault. The bit about hanging back and firing is in reference to shooting in the Shooting step instead of assaulting in the Assault step.
>>44132911
What page is this? There's no "offensive fire" step in assault; you move to contact, defensive fire happens, and if you're alive and not pinned you get to bayonet each other.
>>44132989
Page 20
>>44132989
>and if you're alive and not pinned
Minor nitpick but it's not being pinned that prevents the assault, it's taking five or more hits in defensive fire.
>>44133024
Yeah, that's just saying "in the shooting step if you shot from the halt, no assault". Only the people you're charging get to shoot in the assault phase.
>>44133053
I figured that was just representing the fact that you can't assault if you're pinned, and if you take 5 hits you're pinned. I mean, when you're driven off by defensive fire, you end pinned anyway.
Right, another one.
My paratroopers charge 2 STUGs, destroy one and bail the other out. Does the bailed out tank retreat?
>>44133200
If the only teams within 4" of assaulting teams are bailed out tanks then the assault platoon has Won the assault and said bailed out teams are captured.
>>44133200
Not only does it not retreat but it's dead, yeah. If you won, and a team can't retreat when you consolidate, they're dead.
>>44131307
I like it man. My friend also plays Germans so this would be great for me. Also the more plastic in the list the better. I've been wargaming forever and over the years I've developed a particular hatred of metal models (which seem to find their way from the table to the floor entirely too often).
USA! USA! USA! In other news, I just noticed you can mode only one of the cobras with shark teets since the decals provided only have one set. The second cobra has to be different. Bad move battlefront.
>>44134907
>shark teets
Jesus christ what happened to my post?
>>44134692
Yeah, the only infantry you have will be some guys on the StuG's (all ten of them have tank riders) and maybe 20 infantry total in the panzerwerfer battery (command stand, spotter stand, and 5 crewmen per the 3 rocketlaunchers)
As for which models are plastic, all the StuGs and the jagdpanthers are plastic. The rest are resin and metal unfortunately, but that's just how it is right now.
Keep in mind for tank riders you will want the begleit assault rifle blister. Should give you enough guys for 3-4 tanks and you even get some stands to use as normal infantry should you ever change your mind (they're also used in conjunction with some of the tank rider special rules, which allow you to assault into ruins without having to risk bogging your tanks.)
>>44135611
>(they're also used in conjunction with some of the tank rider special rules, which allow you to assault into ruins without having to risk bogging your tanks.)
Tank Riders is a special rule that gives you a 3+ save whilst riding a tank and IIRC the Germans don't get any.
Tank Escorts are a tank upgrade and have nothing to do with actual stands of infantry.
>>44134907
Nicely done m8 i r8 8/8
>>44135686
Yes, tank escorts do have rules that involve infantry stands. Check out the rules for assaulting into terrain.
Tank escorts can "dismount" in the assault phase to assault into terrain that could bog the tank, like buildings. In this case, they are treated as infantry stands and the tanks they ride on wait outside. Stands that are destroyed in the assault essentially immediately respawn on their tanks, as riders from the other tanks spread out to cover each tank equally.
It's a rule you'll maybe use once every few games, but its a pretty damn nice ability since it takes a lot of the risk out of assaulting buildings.I will admit I got the name wrong though
>>44135929
>Tank escorts can "dismount" in the assault phase to assault into terrain that could bog the tank, like buildings. In this case, they are treated as infantry stands and the tanks they ride on wait outside.
This is a load of shite and not mentioned anywhere in the rules.
Having Tank Escorts means that you don't need to charge into contact when assaulting teams in terrain, and if you don't you only make the extra attack from the Tank Escort. There's nothing about being treated like infantry stands or dismounting or using stands of infantry or anything.
>>44135929
>>44136311
You guys are describing the same thing, just one guy's imagining a stand of infantry doing the hits and another guy's imagining infantry in a close range firefight. "A stand of infantry that's only there for the assault and respawns on the tank immediately if destroyed" is just describing a tank assault that didn't close to contact but was conducted with tank escort.
>>44136311
Check the diagram in the book, it actually shows infantry stands being used in the building. But like >>44136476 said we're both describing the same thing.
Having stands just helps for measuring and seeing how many get 'destroyed' during the assault.
Absolute noob here, do you need a different type of paint to color the metal miniatures?
>>44136934
No.
Thought you might need to primer them more since I find the silvery bits can blend through on a half-assed primer job on metal, whereas plastic's already grey.
>>44134907
Very noice.
What style of modulation did you use?
>>44136701
What do you mean, "helps for measuring"? You still measure from the tank team, right?
How do you "destroy" a tank escort team in an assault?
Who does good FoW batreps? Any TY ones come in yet?
>>44137336
I think it isn't out of place to shamelessly shill for a guestpost I did on this blog. I just started this shit and there is just one tournament report sofar in two parts. Was thinking of doing more if people are interested. It is only going to be WW2 focused though.
https://scattereddice.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/the-lucky-seventh-in-battle-flames-of-war-part-1/
>>44137336
Ouchies! Batreps are pretty good too. He even posts on here sometimes. He hasn't play FOW in a while but he also plays battletech and heavy gear
>>44111011
Remember PaintPocalypse from last year??? TIME TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN AND BRING IT BACK.
PAINTPOCALYPSE CHRISTMAS EDITION
>duration: sunday 13 December to next sunday 20 December
>wat: paint to finish a group (or single piece) of vehicles/arty/sloggers/models of your choice
>how: declare what you are painting, post pictures of present state of the models, paint, progress reports during week would be cool
>goal: post pics and declare percentage of success. Hopefully you have been bullied into completing some models!
>bonus point this round: Your model(s) are cold war related
Winners get praise and fame on the internet (what else could you possibly ask for?). What say you?
>>44137850
>having time to paint at christmas
Do you not have, like, kids to buy presents for and friends to go out with and stuff?
Question, when a tank assaults some infantry, can they trow their grenades? And do those grenades hit the top armour or the side?
>>44138085
Infantry hit tanks against top armour in assault. The default is AT2 but various weapons and so on can increase this.
There's no specific rules of throwing grenades; the game's far to abstracted to cover anything in that detail.
>>44138085
Infantry get defensive fire which is probably not going to do anything; they may have a PIAT or bazooka or some other AT weapon, though, in which case it gets to defensive fire into the side armour of a vehicle.
If the troops who're assaulted rally and counterattack, then they're attacking top armour (usually with AT2); that's an abstraction of grenades, but also shooting through slits and stuff.
Units who counterattack with something like a panzerfaust have a rule called Tank Assault, meaning they're higher AT; maybe something like 4-6. Needless to say, this is nasty.
>>44132181
>who're
thank God for apostrophes
>>44138516
I mean, you can whore your units if you want, but I don't recommend it.
>>44137850
If it wouldn't take me a week to get in the paints I need to actually start on my models, I would totally do this.
>>44134692
>I've developed a particular hatred of metal models
Like me, are you looking forward to the new PSC stuff coming out? Plastic pak40s, trucks and arty for all!
>>44137959
>Do you not have, like, kids to buy presents for and friends to go out with and stuff?
>planned to make friends through FoW
>can't play FoW because the models are unpainted
I just hope I get them all painted before I leave for university again
>>44134952
>Jesus christ what happened to my post?
You suffered from the same kind of typo snafu that i normally do?
Either that or your a furry. Or whatever the sea life equivalent is. Shark teets... Seriously... :-P
>>44139353
>your
>>44139573
Hey, you can't blame him that his a furry stepped on his keyboard.
Where can I get plastic flight stands, lads? I've got some SU-25s that need hover effects.
>>44139573
>>your
Grammar Nazi.
>>44137850
i'll bite...
i'll submit my brand-new shit-quality A-10 warthogs!
>parody of a meme to show unprimed ick...
>>44140742
Dear God, what shit-tier level company made those A-10s?Also, give me a few minutes to get back on to Team Speak.
>>44137850
I'll bite. I have some T-34s that need assembling and a quick bit if paint before a MW match I have on the 28th.
>>44137850
>Can't prime anything because I'm at a goddamn ski resort at 10 fucking thousand feet up
>literally 8 inches of snow today
>REST OF THE GODDAMN WEEK IS SNOW
>Aint gonna get to choose any of my nazi spess magic models to paint because they got delivered to fucking denver
....
God fucking dammit.
Guess I'll finish my assault sappers and paint some KV 1s's and KV 8's.
>>44140819
Dragon.
i tried....
i tried to get everything on straight!
i put everything in the right slot at the right angle and i still got the above..gaps that needed green putty....
oversized parts....parts that had no second option...
>glad it's only a warfig and not for modeling project
Guys, I need to know
Will the Bradley ever make it into Team Yankee?
Because my dad commanded one for a while when he served in Germany from the late 80's to early 90's in the Fulda Gap and I'd really like to paint one up for him as a present someday.
>>44138863
Just get your wife to introduce you to people.
>>44137086
Not much modulation really. Some pre shading to make the panels visible. They are really streamlined designs so making them pop out.
>>44144619
From what we know, it'll likely be in the second wave of US releases, which will probably happen sometime after the Brits and West Germans are released.
>>44148217
Are they seriously doing other nations before something as basic as the Bradley is done?
>>44148941
Will they seriously release the full US arsenal before given other nations even some basic forces?
Because that's the other side of the equation.
It's a matter of priorities. From what BF have said, most countries will be starting off with the mid-to-lower quality gear in their arsenals at first; basic M1 and M113 for the US, T-72 for the Soviets, probably the Chieftain and FV432 for the Brits.
More advanced (or less advanced) vehicles will then be added in later waves.
In the mid-80s, the US Army was still in the process of swapping from the M113 to the Bradley and they probably didn't have the resources to put both of them in the first wave of releases.
With M113 plastic sprues already made for the Vietnam range, it makes sense to then go with those for now and provide the Bradley later.
>>44137850
Since I started that shit last time I guess I have to participate...
>witness me!
My Berlin defence force is coming together. I have Waffentragers and lots of infantry (including Volksturm and fallschirmjäger) to go with these. Hopefully no one will mind me proxying an E-100 as a King Tiger, it's an awesome centrepiece.
>>44149819
Does it not trigger you that Joachims hull mg is smaller and slightly lower than those on the new the new plastics?
>>44150035
Worse, the main gun is shorter too, but I didn't have a spare plastic one as I used all those in the plastic box.
>>44137850
Time to pick up the brush in furious anger. I will do:
>Fix a base of strelkovy and a broken 76mm gun from todays gaming.
>Build and paint 2 Marder IIIM
>Finish painting and basing the skytrex shitpoor 45mm gun platoon with command and commissar
>BONUS LEVEL: 4 old Open Fire StuGs built and atleast basecoated
>>44149503
TO VALHALLA. What's your pledge?
>>44140742
>>44141175
>>44143244
Good luck gentlemen. Don't forget some pictures.
I'll probably try and get my Zvezda T-72s painted, my Bears ones assembled and ideally painted if they actually arrive before christmas, and my brits based and detailed. Anything on top of that is gravy.
Here's a little challenge for you all chaps.
You are in charge of re-equipping the British Army after the losses of the Battle of France. You have been tasked with designing a tank that can fill the gaping holes left in the Armoured Corps. Ideally it would be a versatile chassis that could be easily upgraded and used as the common basis for the majority of the British Army's needs to cut down on further development costs.
It has to use materials, technology and equipment that are already available or in prototype stage by September 1940. Basic components are:
- Engine
- Construction method
- Armament
- Crew
- Layout
- Suspension
- Other equipment
Let's see what we have, folks...
>>44151676
I would use the Sherman, because USA is gonna have to build it for our worthless asses no matter what we pick and we may as well have some cross compatibility.
Also we all know the Brits couldn't design a tank that could fight its way out of a wet paper bag until at least 1945, so may as well give the design process to someone who knows what they're doing.
>>44151876
>1940
Fuck.
OK, I use the Lee until I can get the Sherman then>>44151876
>Have three day weekend
>Decide to get some hobby work done
>Figure I can knock out the last of my Italians before buying more to get a bigger list
>Time to bust out the flat flesh!
>Sudden, violent, sneeze
>Pic related
>File name related
Seriously, this shit went everywhere. My desk, my headphones, my chair, the wall, my bookcase(although I got both of those cleaned so my wife won't murder the fuck out of me), me and the 88 I had sitting on the desk because I had glued the gun back together. Now I need to touch that up too.
>>44151899
Ahaha! Not so simple!
Basically I'm asking what would you do instead of the design idiocy of the weird and wonderful array of Cruiser tanks in the immediate period after the fall of France.
Honestly, Cromwell wasn't awful by the standards of WW2 tanks, so that's probably not dire.
>>44151676
Are fixed-hull casemate vehicles okay? Easier to produce, cheaper and good as something to defend the UK...
>>44151962
That's the thing though. The Brits loved the Lee as an interim vehicle, and while yeah, I can definitely build something better than the coffin for 7 brothers, the USA is sitting there chugging these things out like a McDonald's chucking big macs out at a Rascal convention.
You could make some other good tank (and honestly my ideal vehicle design wise would be what the Germans originally anned as their copy of the t34, aka a T34 with a sensible crew layout and decent engineering) but when the USA is standing by to build tanks already, its going to be cheaper, more convenient, and easier down the road to just adopt what they're using.
But yeah, if I absolutely had to build a new tank, it'd basically be a t34 knockoff with lessons on tank layout and design taken from the Germans, ideally some unholy love child between a t34 and a panzer III J-M given the time period.
>>44151676
I have a gander at what the soviets are doing and steal their T-34 design, give it a better engine, fit it with the long 75mm from the Lee for ammo compatibility and then rename it B-34 (Bongland-34)
>>44151902
Oh damn son, rev up that nail-polish remover
>>44151676
Phone up the Australians and get them to send over the plans for their AC1/3/4 Sentinels.
The 2pdr verion is objectively superior to all the cruisers that mounted it, the AC3 with the 25pdr is better than all the CS variants they were using, and the AC4 with it's 17pdr (in 1941!) can quite capably fulfil heavy AT duties until the end of the war.
Bosches test stand, any suggestion?
>>44151676
>>44152096
Yeah. Copy the T-34, make sure it's easy to build for the Americans and then they can build it when they finally enter the bloody war. Make sure the turret is designed with growth so that you can stick in a bigger gun later.
And we need a SU-152/SU-122/KV-2 equivalent so that Late War isn't such suffering.
>>44152096
Like I said; I got it cleaned on the important places.
>>44151676
>brits copying the T-34
like they would!
instead, tell them about power-to-weight ratios, ground pressure, and sloped armor
>Make the "Cromwell" (alt hist)
>the tracks are 0.8 meters wide
>fuckwide turret ring, lotsa traverse power
>SLOPED ARMOR EVERYWHERE, likely 45 at front, 60 at sides.
>shaped mantlet
>stronger transmission and drive wheels so the Rolls-Royce waifu engine doesn't get a fucking governor
>somewhat longer, slightly wider hull.
you get a tank that is both the centaur, the cromwell, the challenger/firefly, and when the comet comes along, it's ace improvements
likely FoW Stats:
Light Tank-----------7---5---1---------Co Ax MG, Hull MG, Prot Ammo, Tow Hook, Wide Tracks
QF 75mm---32"----2--10--3+-------SIF, Smoke,
QF 17pdr----32"----2--15--3+-------SIF, No HE
>>44152490
fuck, 1940...
was the rolls' engine around?
also, swap 75mm for 2/6 pdrs.
best way to get great EW tanks? tell britan to stop fucking around with half-assed concepts and make a goddamn real tank like the soviets/germans did a few years ago.
>>44152600
Yeah it was. The Meteor is the Merlin adapted for ground usage, using lower octane fuel, detuned and no supercharger.
>>44152490
Every time I see that photo I wonder what happened when it landed. I can't see how the suspension could take it. Also the crew must have lost teeth.
Looks great but it's probably like when they drove that tank off a cliff for King George and three guys get out and shake his hand leaving the rest out cold inside.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h_0i_g2PpEU
>>44152195
Artillery? Or General Officers?
>>44154171
Its the company comand team
>>44153950
>Brits
>being expected to tell the truth about anything ever
Hell they even lie to their king straightfaced, that takes guts
Hey lads; making tokens for internet games of FoW; what tanks would be best based on large, medium, and small bases respectively? I've gathered Pz IV/T-34/Sherman all work fine on medium and the big cats are large bases. What else do I need to get in order?
>>44156930
Even 'small' tanks like Pz IIs, Pz 38(t)s, etc are probably best on medium bases; small will be tiny stuff like Kubelwagens, Universal Carriers, Jeeps, etc.
Assuming you're basing your vehicles. Granted this is for internet gaming, but for real-world, let's just say that the question tends to be divisive.
>>44157043
I basically cannot be assed to measure pixels to mm for internet tanks, so, for my sanity everything's getting a base.
>>44157236
Put it this way, if I'm going to spend half an hour on a tank it better be real.
>>44157236
You just convert IRL metres to centimetres though, right? If you can work out what size to make a 5cm medium base then surely it's just as easy to work out a 5.5cm Matilda, you know?
Anyone have Osprey's NVG 104 and able to tell me if it's worth getting?
>>44151876
>Also we all know the Brits couldn't design a tank that could fight its way out of a wet paper bag until at least 1945
Bullshit. The Cromwell and the various Churchhill's were pretty good, and everything they did was produced under really bad conditions, unlike the Americans.
>>44151962
>array
Nothing can be done about that because all that shit was being produced at the same time the US thought the M2 was an adequate design. The cruisers were there because they were there anyway. Post 1940, they used what they had.
>>44152082
>coffin for 7 brothers
Different circumstances. It was better than msot German tanks when it was used. Soviets bad luck that they used it to fight Tigers and long 75mm guns.
>>44152490
The Brits WERE going to copy the T-34. And the KV-2 as a CS tank. T-34 would have a 17 pounder, and the KV-2 I think would have a 5.5 inch gun.
>>44159100
I don't think it was the KV-2. I read somewhere that they were very interested in the KV-1 after hearing the Soviets had some success in mounting a 122mm howitzer in its standard turret (believe it was the same as the SU-122's howitzer, or a variant of it), but that interest didn't lead to anything in the end.
>>44159100
sauce?
>>44160878
I can't for the life of me remember. Chieftan's Hatch, maybe? It wasn't long after France, IIRC. They were casting around for new tank models, and appropriating and adjusting the Soviet tanks was on the table. With radios, cupolas, better venting.
Wait, here's SOMETHING.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html
I'm not sure if this was the original document I was thinking of, but it makes mention of the idea.
Well I have 7/9 tanks assembled. I may assemble more beyond that, but I only need 9 for a motorstrelkovy MW list I am running after Christmas. I'll post pics once I start throwing paint on. Bonus mode: I get decals on all tanks and apply dullcote.
>>44161045
>http://tankarchives.bl-og-spot.com.au/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html
how the fuck did you get that to post without being called spam?
>>44163404
I guess the anti spam bot is a bit more nuanced than some think.
>>44161045
>trying to fit a gun bigger than the T-34/85s in a smaller turret
The absolute madmen
>>44167562
Surely they would have had to enlarge the turret? I mean they wanted to stuff loads more gear in there than the Russians had like radios and such.
My guess is that it would have been a clone with some very British modifications.
Can you imagine T34s in the Western Desert? And Italy? Weird.
>>44131192
Noticed this is a bit of a /his/ meme now, shitting on Ospreys proves what a superior class of historian you are, apparently
Help me here plis >>>/po/534313
>>44169633
I thought Osprey was supposed to be good. Is that not the case?
>>44170423
I would also be interested in paper terrain if anybody has some.
>>44172311
Osprey is good as a primer and summary, and a springboard for further reading.
>>44169633
>>44172311
>>44173062
you know a person is trying to just get bigger feathers to ruffle when they shit on basic info....
>>44173062
It does mildly annoy me they write about the soviets as if the east front was europe vs the horde of mystical, innumerable icemen, but that's not uncommon everywhere.
>>44170423
>>44172311
I remembered GHQ had some but checking it's 6mm.
What vallejo air colour is closest to their feldgrau (RAL7009)?
>>44175772
fuck i don't know....which shade of Feldgrau?
>>44176688
I'm going to guess the one that's RAL7009 :^)Googling gives the green-grey one
>>44176761
their air colors match labels with the non-air colors?
i never checked
>>44178220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAL_colour_standard
>>44178246
nice...
now, does vallejo / anyone else follow that? aka, have that ref number built into their paints?
>>44178513
Vallejo bottles do, yeah. I assume other companies do too, but I don't buy their stuff.
Just getting home from running some demo games of Team Yankee against the local Anon.
Great time, great rule set, great opponent.
>>44181962
sweet!
>how did you run soviets?
>who won?
>what was his impression?
>>44182643
>who won?
me both times (soviets)
>what was his impression?
Loved it, and cannot wait to play again. Gonna get the starter pack hopefully soon. Really appreciate Screaming Eagles for taking the time and showing me the ropes of FoW.
>>44182643
>how did you run soviets?
I proxied 5 German Panther tanks as T-72s. And I ran 3 M1s against them. It was 22pts of Soviets vs 24 points of Americans.
>who won?
He did. Both times. The Americans tend to knock out a few Soviet tanks pretty early, but concentrated return fire tends to kill or bail the Abrams in subsequent turns.
>>what was his impression?
As >>44182692 said, he loved it. And I loved it as well. Although I did have to double check a few times that I wasn't confusing the standard FoW rules with the Team Yankee rules.
Photos and a mini-battle report will be posted at some point tomorrow. It's midnight here in NY, and I need to be getting some sleep.
Do you guys prime your minis? And if so, what color do you use, and what method of priming?
>>44184153
Yes, either white, or a midtone of the most common colour in the intented paint scheme. Spraypaint usually.
Airbrushing gets a beautiful finish, but I don't have an airbrush.
>>44184153
primer is needed for ANY metal/resin mini:
(some plastics can just go spray paint)
White is the canvas color
Black is for speed-paint and pressed wargamers.
Grey is...meh. needs an ink afterwards, IMHO
Red Oxide is a relic of Nazi Germany, goes great w FoW
specialty colored primers actually make stuff really simple
I prefer Krylon is a basic, or Zinsser's white also.
The Army painter primers are boss, but you pay for them...
>>44184153
best primer method is to spray in sweeps past at 12-10 inches or so.
create a fog that wraps the piece, and use it like a massive ethereal brush
>>44184319
>>44185034
>>44185056
Thanks. Also, when dealing with infantry bases, do you guys glue them to the base and then paint them, or prime and paint them before gluing?
>>44185678
I'm lazy. Glue then paint and base. Might be easier if I put them on toothpicks or something and painted them first, though. Wouldn't really be that hard, considering.
Would this work at all?
>>44186507
>no AOP
As Tanks the AOP is probably worth it for column security alone, not to mention that it can spot for your Priests.
I think I'd drop the mortars and find points somewhere for another platoon of Priests. You may also be better mixing your 75 and 76 armed Shermans? 7AD out of BG&G can get virtually the same but with M4A3s instead that are almost certainly worth the extra points. Also E8s and Jumbos, but I understand why one might want to avoid those.
I threw together something based on your list, CT unless otherwise noted:
CiC M4A3(76)
2iC M4A3(L)
2 platoons of 2 M4A3(L), 2 M4A3(76)
6 M4A3(105)
CV Cavalry Recon
2 platoons of 3 M7 Priest with M4A3 observer and transport
AOP
I don't think that dedicated AAA is necessary in a list where literally every model has a 50cal aside from 4 infantry teams. Plus, with an AOP any enemy air support will roll air superiority the first few times. There's also two fewer tanks in the main combat platoons which makes things a little more fragile but you've got enough smoke that hopefully the extra point of front armour makes up for that. I don't like the "random guys in jeeps and half tracks" recon platoons and think that Cav recon are much better. I've found that paying the little extra to get Veteran recon can be worthwhile on such a cheap platoon that can rely so heavily on skill checks.
Current status. Unprimed T-34s need a lot of craft knife/file cleaning up. Then I will prime and paint!
An image for the above post. >>44188009
>>44186887
Thanks. That all seems pretty rational. Didn't have BGG in Easy Army, so went with Overlord, which I had unlocked.
>AoP
I figured with only a single 3 gun platoon using it, it was't worth it.
>mortars
I figured the mortars could either hose down infantry, add extra guns to deal with enemy guns, or smoke themselves while the guns actually shot the single exposed target.
>AAA
Yeah, mostly there to make numbers. Doesn't it have utility against halftracks and infantry? I guess with priests and 10.5s I shouldn't have any real issues digging people up.
>recon
Good idea. Aren't the guys in jeeps basically the same, though? 3+ saves or wotnot. The vet thing makes sense though.
Thanks anon, guess I have some PSC boxes to bulk buy.
>>44186887
Although looking at BGG, smooth ride seems like a pretty good rule considering how cheap it is. Wouldn't it be worth it to take E8s rather than the regular 76mms? Or does that simply come down to cost?
>>44188104
It tends to be a matter of points cost, but if people can find the points for it, a lot of players do choose to take Easy Eights over normal Sherman 76s.
>>44115900
Are they the correct scale?
>>44188104
Easy Eights are almost certainly worth it compares to regular 76s, it's just that the "Easy Eights and Jumbos" is a famously powerful US list that some players avoid.
>>44188086
>AOP
I'd seriously consider an AOP even in a US Tank list without artillery just because of column security which can straight up win games. It also frees up your OP Shermans to fight rather than spot and 40pts for that OP Sherman isn't awful even before you take into account how useful the AOP's spouting ability is.
>AAA making up numbers
One issue here is that company morale and Reserves both go off of half rounded down so adding a weak seventh platoon can make no difference or actively hinder you - any mission you have reserves you're never bringing the AAA on except as the last platoon, and it actually makes your company easier to break as you still only need to lose four platoons.
>>44188413
Can't have an AOP without a staff team.
>>44189076
You can have one, you just can't use it for spotting without a staff team. Which makes them pointless for brits without staff teams, but US AOPs are actually still useful. Unless there's some listbuilding restriction for that list that I've missed.
>>44188357
Yes. 1/100.
The Battlefront ones might be larger by maybe a millimeter or two in either direction, but they're almost exactly the same size.
For my money, the BF ones are more detailed and roughly the same price, so I'd say go with BF.
Unless you've found a really good deal on Zvezda...
Anyone much play early war? How're EW germans, czechpanzers specifically?
>>44193363
The Czechnology list is one of the strongest German lists. Be warned though, since the release of Blitzkrieg, you'll want something that can face T-34s - candidates include Pioneers, 88s, or Stukas.
My list is:
HQ: 2x Pz 38(t) plus recovery vehicle
4x Pz 38(t)
4x Pz 38(t)
5x Pz II
Rommel in 38(t)
Full Pioneers
2x 8-rads
Priority Stukas with Schwerpunkt
Yes, that's 5 platoons. But depending on the mission you can generally make a decent Kampfgruppe to make up to 6.
>>44194476
I generally find planes are a bit shit in FoW but everything else looks good. I wanted to get some of the 2cm flaktanks; how viable are they on the tabletop?
>>44195604
Flak Half Tracks are pretty good. Use them to shoot at infantry, use them to shoot at Airplanes. Or just keep them around as a cheap buffer for reserves.
>>44195604
>planes are a bit shit in FoW
They're nasty in EW because there's a much lower concentration of effective medium AA. Also the only way to kill heavy tanks for many lists.
>>44195604
If your usual opponents bring airpower a lot, then 3.7cm AA is recommended for the additional range.
Otherwise quad-barrel 2cm is fine.
Single-barrel 2cm is a bit too weak in my opinion, as you lack the ROF to reliably pin infantry and lack the firepower and AT to damage light vehicles, so it's ineffective in a ground support role.
In all cases you should spend the extra points for armoured half-tracks at the least, to avoid losing your AA to small arms fire. The flakpanzers aren't necessary, but do look cool.
What is the best assault shrubbery list /fowg/? Getting 10 of the little plastic ones and plan on magnetizing the barrels so I can run any combo of Stug/StuH.
I'm in a close decision between the Grey Wolf one that has the tank escorts and the Desperate Measures panzerkompanie list
>>44198023
I would say the Grey Wolf one, since you not only get tank escorts, but also Breakthrough Guns, for when you do not want to assault the bazooka/faust spam
>>44195712
The bigger issue for me is you're rolling to see if they come in, then rolling to see if they get penalties, then rolling to range, then rolling to hit and then there's probably a save too. They're just so temperamental, with several steps where you just don't get a plane and that's that.
>>44195712
Problem is, there are too many rolls involved for a plane to be worth it. Having a template is quite good, especially to prevent opposing tanks from closing ranks and concentrating their power. But having enough Stukas come in, hit something and yadda yadda is too much of a hustle.
Also, there is nothing stopping the other guy from just plowing his heavy tanks straight into your army. In a situation where your opponent is defending, it kind of sucks.
Also your lists seem quite high on points, isn't that around the 1750 point mark? If the ETC is anything to go by it seems most playing is done at around 1500-1550 points. I would expect the Red Banner Strelkovy to be a total nightmare at 1750.
>a KV on each objective
>covered by dual 45mm AT gun platoons because why the fuck not.
>>44199511
Go back to your tank swarm lists Ivan.
As promised, a mini-battle report from last night.
Team Yankee demo game. Screaming Eagles vs adVentura.
The Americans, played by myself:
- 1 unit of 3 Abrams. 24 Points
The Soviets, played by adVentura:
- 1 unit of 5 T-72s. 22 Points
>The role Soviet of T-72s will be played by German Panthers
The initial set-up.
My Abrams set up to hopefully be hidden or at least concealed by the woods and the hills.
His T-72s mostly out of line of sight, except for the one on my far left.
>>44201100
Turn 1
We both advance towards the middle of the table.
One T-72(out of frame) bogs down trying to go through the woods.
The T-72s and Abrams fire at each other, destroying one T-72, and doing no damage to the Abrams.
>>44201165
Turn 2
The T-72s shift position and fire at the Abrams.
The score some hits, but the Abrams armor holds and no damage is done.
>>44201221
Turn 2 Continued
The Abrams shift position and fire at the T-72s, destroying a second one, and causing a Bail Out on a third.
>>44143244
Where do you live, Utah?
