Banzai and Gung Ho have been added to the scans database.
Flames of War SCANS database:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108
Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/
Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts
WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8a13ampzzs88/World_War_Two
and, for Vietnam.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8i8t83bysdwz/Vietnam_War
--Guybrarian Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw/edit?usp=sharing
http://www.400gb.com/u/1883935
Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/
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
Reposting from last thread:
>>46702690
>>46701345
>>46700697
>>46696129
>>46695127
So we have:
>Churchill Crocodile
Already covered by rules. 135 per tank at CT and 170 per tank at CV.
>Sherman Crab
Already has rules. Cheaper than standard shermans (estimated at 40 per tank at CT, 50 at CV)
>Sherman DD
Already has rules. 60 per tank at CT, ~80 per tank at CV
>Armored Bulldozer
Already has rules. 10 points for CT, 15 for CV.
>AVRE
Already mostly covered, with rules for Fascine and Assault Bridge. 20 per tank at CT and 25 per tank at CV. Bobbin (can make a 8" section after skill test over mud, snow, sand, fields, scrub, and other low-lying terrain, changes Slow to normal and difficult to slow), Double Onion (one or two use, blow up bunker on a successful skill test with physical contact?), and Bullshorn (count as mine flail) equipped versions do not have rules.
>Armored Ramp Carrier
No existing rules. Bridges gaps and provides ramp for small rises. Counts as assault bridge that can ramp up a 2" bank and that can be retrieved after use.
>BARV
No rules, but it's just an amphibious sherman ARV. Call it a 5 pt upgrade and done.
>Centaur Bulldozer
No rules that I know of. Treat as a faster and more heavily armored armored bulldozer (6/4/1, standard tank). Points are probably double armored bulldozer or so.
>Canal defense light
Has no rules. Should dazzle enemy and reveal units during night ops, still have M3 hull gun during the day.
>Engineering Group
CT is 90 points, CV is 115 points. You get two of the following sections (each team in a section operates as an independent team):
Four Armored Bulldozers, BARVs, or Armored Ramp Carriers (mix and match as you wish). One Centaur Bulldozer counts as two Armored Bulldozers for this selection.
Two AVREs (your choice of attachments).
One Canal Defense Light.
A bit more expensive than the individual bits should be, but you get to tailor it to the terrain and opponent.
>>46716115
I'm not sure if what the Brits need is more funnies.
Maybe some kind of other armour buff, or just have SIF work at all ranges.
Still, I like the more methodical style of play you normally need to use in Commonwealth forces.
Maybe all that's really needed is for the most bullshit US lists (in particular Patton) get a nerf.
Which might actually happen in the Bulge compilations.
>>46716788
What were the other British strengths, historically?
Would something about improving air support make sense, given the RAF's significant contribution to the war? I was thinking either "air support dice succeed on a 4+", or "reduce wave-off distance to 12". Both might need to be combined with re-costing air for Brits though.
>>46716788
>I'm not sure if what the Brits need is more funnies.
Yeah, it's more "I really like the idea of adding an attachment of funnies to my force" than anything else.
>>46716788
Yeah, Patton needs to either be less powerful, or cost more points.
But even with a points increase he'd probably still be a bit over-powered.
>>46717158
One of the things the British (well, whole Western allies, but let's be generous) did well was intel. Whether it's Ultra or the Jedburgh teams. So what about something like either Skorzeny-esque resistance/commandos, or the ability to shift an objective by 4" after placement?
>>46716788
Something that makes brit motorized suck less would be nice. Because brit motor companies are fucking horrible.
>>46716059
The new general banner is especially funny to me because I'm doing exactly that. America is just too deliciously OP to not play these days.
>>46720131
What nation are you switching away from? Surely they have something fun, interesting, and semi-competitive to offer.
the panzer 3 is such an aesthetic tank
what's a list where I can run like 50 of them
>>46720131
LW germans. I haven't stopped but the American rules and toys have been making me jelly for a long time now.
>>46720387
I'd say a Mid-War German tank company is probably your best bet.
Or maybe a Late War German tank company from one of the Italian Campaign books.
>>46716788
Lord Viruscide's White Paper of British Balance for our time:
>Semi-Indirect Bombardment:
Option One: Same as is, Platoon cannot move and the target must be at long range. However, instead of making a standard shooting roll, the shooting teams make skill checks instead owing to the copious amounts of ammunition expended.
Option Two: Same as standard, excepting that the target can be at any range, and the +1 to hit for long range is not suffered owing to British Gunnery doctrine.
>Air Interdiction
The RAF despised ground attack missions finding them insanely dangerous, most of the air attacks they carried out where interdiction missions instead.
A British player with Air support may use their Air support as interdiction dice, for every five or six rolled, the opposing player cancels one successful reserves roll. They still always get one as per the rules as current.
>Dragoons
Fixing the Motor Company requires either larger or smaller games. Neither of which are particularly helpful. So here's a thought.
When a British Motor Infantry unit dismounts from it's transports, it is not treated as moving for the purposes of shooting. During the Assault Step, instead of declaring an assault, they may move up to 4' to remount their transports.
>British Armour.
This is thorny, yes the firefly is an amazing killer, but it's still front armour six and has guntank working against it.
First off: Reintroduce the Poor HE rule for all 17pdr guns, against Unarmoured targets, they're FP4+ rather than 3+
Second and options:
One: Slash the price a British Armoured Platoon pays for its fireflies.
Two: Gun Camo rule, while in command distance of another Sherman, a Firefly cannot be Gun-tanked. The British learned quickly that their fireflies were the first to be shot at, so they camouflaged the gun in various fashions.
Third: Over all reduction in price for British 75mm Shermans, they come basically naked, no Stabilisers, Tank Telephones or access to Hedgerow Cutters.
>>46722207
>Artillery
British Medium artillery suffers in that there's no way to shortcut some to the field, the Soviets can get small batteries of 122mm guns generally, The Germans and Americans have never had a problem with the accessibility of their medium guns. The 25pdr gun is a good ATG, but suffers heavily from only being an 85mm gun priced like a 105mm gun.
Price reductions for both 25pdr and 5.5", minor for 25pdr batteries and significant for 5.5" batteries taking into account the 25pdr tax to get them.
>British Pioneer platoons
They're tiny, fragile, kind of expensive and generally never taken because they're all of those things. They should have a similar rule to the engineering sections that they can be swapped out for an infantry platoon before the game to make taking them less suffering when there aren't fortifications. Amend Royal Engineer platoon rule to "May not launch assaults, but may counter attack as normal." Or give their unamended rule to American Engineer sections as well. Or just scrap the rule altogether, can you imagine losing a position just because your Engineers wouldn't hold their position?
>British Airsupport additional:
Give Typhoons the options to take bombs or rockets. Cut price on them because their cannons aren't stellar and who uses the cannons anyway?
>British Machine Guns
Remove the Machine Gun Bombardment rule and have it like it is in Great War with one line of text.
>British Infantry
With generally only a single PIAT per platoon British Infantry suffer heavily in Late war compared to virtually every other nation with their ample access to hand held AT weapons. Small price cut.
>British Toys.
Add in immediately the following to varying army lists: Panther Cuckoo, Sherman Tulips, (Should have similar rule to Sturmtiger for targeting buildings.) Dismounted Armoured Company (No Fear of Tanks rule for platoons), Tank Escorts some lists. Canal Defence Lights. Crusader AAs with Bofors Guns, Crusader III OP.
>>46722207
I like the interdiction, dragoons, and option Two for the fireflies. Maybe just add a brit universal special rule that makes gun tank succeed on a 6 instead of a 5 or 6 against any of their stuff, making stuff like mixed Chuchill platoons less vulnerable to sniping. Prevents the brits from always keeping the fireflies safe till the end, but makes picking them out tricky. The SIF rules you propose seem to go too far in the other direction, as current SIF is honestly pretty powerful. Re-rolls basically negates the long range mod at worst, and against trained troops you're actually more accurate at long range than at short with the current rules. I'd say just let them use SIF at short range, but they still suffer the long-range to-hit mod (the target does not get the armor increase, though). This makes them more reliable in usage, so you don't start getting worse once trained or conscript enemies get close to you.
I'd also give the 95mm and 25pdr a FoW version of Brutal from TY when used in direct fire, forcing gun, transport, and infantry teams to re-roll successful saves.
>>46722658
>British Heroes
This is more complex than I'd be willing to put the effort into. I know of a couple that need fixing
JOE Vandeleur: Change "Press on Regardless" to works on a 4+ and it straight up affects all Combat, Weapon and Brigade support choices rather than only an 8" bubble. Change Guns Left to "Gives all Shermans Tally Ho!" Unearthly Crescendo "Reduces safety dice, and lets you roll two dice for how many airplanes you get.
Major General Roy Urquhart: Where the fuck is his PIAT you wasters? That's what he won the fucking VC for Battlefront. Immediately give him a PIAT that he does not reduce rate of fire of while moving.
Can't think of much more now.
>>46722740
Oh yes, Brutal for 95mm CS guns and 25pdrs known for their deadly shrapnel shells.
You can't get rid of the armour increase though, not until you get proper heat shells like in Team Yankee.
>>46722658
Agree on the arty and air support, nobody uses the cannons on typhoons. Pioneers I just can't see an easy way to fix, since even if you swapped them you'd get an equally small platoon of standard rifle/MG teams at best. Not familiar with what they do in Great War. Agree on the infantry, but remember that British Bulldog is pretty powerful so it shouldn't be that big of a price cut.
What's everyone's favorite little quirk of the rules/unintended result? Like the thing >>46722740 mentioned about Semi-indirect making you hit trained and conscript tanks better at long range than at short.
Bump.
Never played FoW before - I bought a bunch of British in Italy stuff at a convention yesterday and my friend bought a load of Italian stuff - where's best for us to start?
I've found this as reference for assembling my guys: http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1449
I can't spot any observer teams in my Company HQ pack though?
I've played 15mm sci-fi games before and 40k if that gives you an idea of my background.
>>46726996
The HQ pack won't have the observers, the Mortar Pack will. Observers come from their platoon not from the HQ.
Acquire copies of North Africa or Road to Rome/Fortress Italy respectively. Digital or physical.
>>46727065
I thought that might be the case with the observers.
Awesome, I'll get hold of those!
>>46716115
Holy shit my Hobarts Funnies idea got picked up?
Sweet as, chaps. Sweet as.
>>46726996
Got a few more questions - I've got five LMGs in the rifle platoon pack - how do I distribute these? Does it matter? In the Road to Rome book each team is listed as a 'Rifle/MG' team so I'm not sure if every team is supposed to have an LMG
>>46727925
Historically speaking there should be one Mg per every other squad in the section, there used to be a thing about it in V2 Rule book where it explained that the Rifle/MG system was introduced for British and German style troops due to the complexity of having a separate MG and Rifle Stand per Section (Not that it stopped them from introducing Panzersturm Platoons which have MGs and Assault rifles in a mix.) Honestly do what you feel with basing the stands provided that you put the Light mortar, PIAT and Command team on the correct bases.
>>46727925
Flames of War abstracts it out. You have 3-5 guys on a base (the medium rectangular bases are 4/5, small ones are usually PIATs, platoon HQ, etc). They'll be either 'rifle' , 'rifle/mg', or 'mg' teams depending on the ratio of rifles to MGs. Pioneers are rifle teams even though they do have a few MGs, because there's so few of them that the game gives them as an aggregate ROF1. Higher levels of MGs, like Panzergrenadiers and Motor Rifles, had upwards of an LMG for each section, so every base would probably have an LMG on it. So stick them wherever you want. Technically speaking British platoons tended to have the corporal with an SMG, a 3 man rifle section, and a 5 man gun section, so that might be a guide for you when basing, but game wise it'll all get abstracted out. Just make sure the officer and at least one SMG guy is on the small base for each platoon, and that the PIAT and the small two man mortars are on the small bases.
In the books, you can see in the platoon diagrams silhouettes of the teams in question, so they might help you out.
>>46727925
Brit infantry platoon organization:
>Headquarters
1 x .38 cal Pistol
>Platoon Headquarters Section
1 x 2" light mortar
2 x .303 cal Rifle (Assistant MTR Gunner)
1 x PIAT
2 x .303 cal Rifle (Assistant PIAT Gunner)
>3 Rifle Squads
1 x 9mm SMG (41-45)
1 x 7.7mm LMG
2 x .303 cal Rifle (Assistant LMG Gunners)
6 x .303 cal Rifle
Your LMG gunners are different from the SMG gunners, they have a larger Bren Gun with a top-loading mag vs the Sten Gun SMG teams with a side-loading mag. You should have 6 or so of the two of them (combined). What I did was put a Bren gun on 3 of the large bases, and then an SMG on the other 3 large bases. The Piat and Mortar teams I put the two crew they give you on their own small bases (one has the weapon, another has the ammo). The commander with his pistol also went on his own small base. I then added 4 riflemen to each of the large bases (total of 5 figures per base) and 2 to the command stand. Looked like this when done.
>>46729201
>>46729519
I don't think my guys have SMGs - at least I don't have any in the pack. These are the sets I've got: http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1449
I've gone with 4 rifles and 1 LMG on one stand, and 5 rifles on the other then separated the officers and special weapons on the small stands.
>>46729589
They do, but they are Thompson SMGs wich were used in the Mediterranean well before Sten SMGs.
>>46729589
The second fellow in the third photo. That's the SMG guy. As anon says, in this case it's apparently a thompson.
>i've gone with
That sounds solid.
>>46730122
Yeah, I used the SMG guy on one of the command stands.
Thanks for your help guys, much appreciated.
>>46726948
>with our trench coats and giant death cannons... are we the bad guys?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
>>46732397
I always love that sketch.
The one about the new Furher is good as well.
Stupid question for you guys.
Is it just me, or does it seem like US infantry for Team Yankee is impossible to get?
My FLGS didn't get any in, and the online stores I've looked at are out of stock on them.
>>46735752
For what it's worth, my FLGS got in one single blister and I snapped it up instantly.
I'm still looking for one more so that I could run a mech company or a tank company for the US.
>>46732397
love that sketch
Question: What happens to bailed out tanks when their side loses combat? Do they get abandoned?
>>46739727
Either their crew blows them up, or the enemy does, or the crew break and run.
Tanks in assault that are bailed out or bogged down are captured by the enemy if there's no active tanks near them when the assault ends.
>>46739873
Ok so if there are active tanks do the bailed out tanks get dragged along with them when they retreat from combat?
>>46740317
No.
>>46735752
>>46736873
Mine got 3 blisters in and of course I bought two as soon as I saw them.
They have been trying to order more but no such luck.
>>46722207
Lowering brit costs for armour definitely seems like a good idea; they're very underwhelming.
>>46722658
Totally agreed on the PIATs.
I think one of the issues is that most Late War armies have moved to a kind of latelate war tier of balance. There's some really crazy American and German lists, and the soviets have a few toys from Desperate Measures/Berlin. Britain doesn't have things like that; Nachtjaeger was much less full of sweet lists.
>>46740317
>>46740874
Yes, they do. The destroyed tanks and the bailed-out ones retreat along with the platoon. It's explained further here.
https://youtu.be/uYROB1Gvy9A?t=1m5s
>>46739873
>Tanks in assault that are bailed out or bogged down are captured by the enemy if there's no active tanks near them when the assault ends.
This is not written very well at all.
>>46739727
If you are a tank team that is bailed or bogged, go through this flowchart:
>A) Did you lose the assault?
If no, you're fine (well, still bogged or bailed, but not auto-dead).
If yes, go to B.
>B) are there any enemy non-tank assaulting teams within 4"
If yes, then you are captured/run down.
If no, go to C.
>C) after the opponent's 4" consolidation, are you within 2" of any enemy non-tank assaulting teams?
If yes, then you are captured/run down.
If no, you're fine (well, still bogged or bailed, but not auto-dead).
Very likely you will lose the tanks, but there are some situations where the bogged/bailed tank will be far enough away to survive despite losing the assault. Complex multi-round combats or after an assault where a tank got bogged/bailed on the way in are the most likely situations.
Anyone know a UK supplier for the Zvezda SU-152s?
>>46741931
>and the soviets have a few toys from Desperate Measures/Berlin.
Yeah... shurtzen and 1 to there panzerfausts per infantry platoon (number available depends upon type of infantry platoon). And that's all that is worth mentioning aside from the 2 Berlin digital lists (cavalry and engineer sapper).
>>46743529
The Plastic Soldier Company carries a lot of Zvezda stuff, and they're in England.
>>46742321
Hey thanks for the chart! I'm really really rusty and so was my opponent. We both were flipping through the book but couldnt find the answer. Also, the combat was simply a Sherman platoon fighting a German infantry platoon, very basic.
>>46743695
You're welcome. Specifically, the relevant rules are on pages 165 (Captured if too slow), 166 (Tanks can't capture tanks), and 167 (Defending teams retreat & Tanks can't capture tanks)
>>46746114
The only weapon in WW2 that comes with it's own comedy "sproing!" sound effect.
>>46746114
Nah, I prefer bazookas.
>>46743563
Any thoughts on the list?
>>46743563
Alright, so maybe the soviets get screwed too. The yanks and germans definitely have had some power creep, though.
>>46741931
>most Late War armies have moved to a kind of latelate war tier of balance
Yeah. The US, Germans, and Soviets are all at an End of War/1945 tech level for most of their recent LW lists, and the British are still more or less at a 1944 tech level.
They also didn't go PIAT crazy the same way that the US went Bazooka crazy.
Few questions about moral checks
1) If you have 5 platoons in your force and you lose 2 platoons then do you take a company moral? Or do you continue until you lose a third platoon?
2) Do you continue to make moral checks? In which checks do I continue to take checks until the whole team is destroyed or the player win?
>>46750617
Assuming you're talking about company morale here.
>1
If you've lost more platoons than are still fighting at the start of any of your turns, you need to take a company morale check.
Platoons that aren't on the table (like in reserve/ambush) don't count for either.
Specifically, that means that if you had 5 platoons and they've all been on the table, you need to have lost 3 (remember, 2 isn't more than half of 5) to cause a company morale check.
>2
You need to make a company morale check at the start of any turn where the previously described situation is going on.
It can happen that you need to make a check on one turn but not on the next, for example if you received a fresh platoon from reserves.
Does this make things clear?
>>46750617
Company morale is rolled at the start of every one of your turns that you have MORE platoons destroyed than still alive. So if you have 5 platoons, you start checking once you're down to 2 platoons. Doesn't matter how big the platoons are as long as they're still on the field.
>>46750617
>>46750668
>>46750701
This is also why you see people recommending even platoon counts. If you have an odd number, it's generally better to either compress down to a smaller but individually better platoons (so that each platoon hopefully dies slower), or downside a current platoon to add on another platoon to and the benefits of increased size.
6 platoons
>4 dead to force company morale
>3 deployed in reserves missions
7 platoons
>still 4 dead to force company morale
>still 3 deployed in reserves missions
8 platoons
>5 dead to force company morale
>4 deployed in reserves missions
Is 2 full platoons of British paras enough?
>>46751094
Depends on the rest of the list.
>>46751094
You're going to want at least 2 full platoons for your compulsory combat platoons, yeah.
>>46722658
>British Medium artillery suffers in that there's no way to shortcut some to the field, the Soviets can get small batteries of 122mm guns generally, The Germans and Americans have never had a problem with the accessibility of their medium guns. The 25pdr gun is a good ATG, but suffers heavily from only being an 85mm gun priced like a 105mm gun.
>Price reductions for both 25pdr and 5.5", minor for 25pdr batteries and significant for 5.5" batteries taking into account the 25pdr tax to get them.
An alternative would be to make the "Medium Artillery Support" thing from the MG paras available for normal 25pdrs. It makes their "all guns repeat" bombardments hit with AT 5 and FP 2+.
>>46749514
Drop the SU-100s, they're fucking awful for Heroes. You end up paying out the nose all so that they can move and fire with a +1 penalty instead of +2. Instead, upgrade the 152s to 122s, and take three of those. Spend the rest of the points on something useful... Like T-34s with bedsprings and escorts.
>>46749524
It's mostly the US. Germans have a fuck-ton of options, solid lists, Motivation and Skill ratings, and fun toys to play with. But their big problem in LW is unut cost, availability of core platoons you usually need (such as recce), and hyper-expensive units loaded for bear (entire infantry playoons all equipped with MG and Panzerfausts).
All in all, Germany is rather stagnant in LW, having mostly just been given MORE options and not as much power creep. US on the other hand has become a swiss-army knife of special snowflake rules, cheap artillery options, and ahistoric list options. For example, many of the options available in the list with the Pershing simply should not be an option at all.
>>46726996
What's the best way to expand from what I've got here?
I love Churchill's so I'm thinking of buying some and running the British tank squadron list from Road to Rome. Means I'll have to ditch the mortars and Company Command though.
How do I tankovy in FOW? I was never a good player and the crowd died out for months. Now someone is running a 1420 LW tournament. I was going to run a turbo fluffy 9th tank corps (aka Illuminati did 5/8) but the huge ass unit history for them has been delayed until months after this event, because of sanctions or something. Now I have no real reference for tankovy but I still have a bunch of models and want to play.
I tried a little Hero stuff but the list seems really lackluster. Does anyone have guidance? Hard mode: something that lets me paint fewer than 15 tanks. Deviance from history is ok because I won't know said history for a while.
>>46722207
>>46722658
>>46722740
>>46722812
>>46722825
>>46751546
Here's a go at combining all this, trying to stay on the side of modest improvements rather than sweeping changes, with the idea that it's better to get some minor changes through than make sweeping upgrades that players may reject from a fan-made fix.
Except for Dragoons (which makes brit motor actually good at something besides dying), none of this is adding a huge amount of power on an individual rule basis. Semi-indirect is made a bit more flexible, the redundant guns on british air support is compensated by the improved interception rolls, Fireflies and such are made less horribly vulnerable while still allowing them to be picked off, and British artillery finally becomes not-shit at direct fire against soft targets (unlike other countries breakthrough gun direct-fire artillery). For the most part, I figured any buffs from these changes would offset any over-pointing that currently exists.
Platoons with less than 2 PIATs get a very slight price reduction because of how bad lack of AT in infantry is in LW, and 5.5in guns become available as a special rule upgrade in addition to their normal way. This allows you to make 25pdr batteries into budget big-guns that are poor at generic bombardments, but utterly devastating when ranged in.
>>46753734
Churchills are tricky, because their armour is good but not so good it's actually stopping many guns from taking shots (VII+ excepted), and they're slow vehicles with adequate and unexceptional guns. They aren't bad, but they're definitely not the best british armoured option.
>>46752302
Even so, most of those lists come as CT and RV now, so there's options to mitigate cost, too. Having so many options is a form of power in itself.
Soviets and Brits definitely feel like the less well liked forces of the two, though Soviets got all the good plastics lately (plastic artillery for everyone else when?)
>>46753740
Running a T-34 company with at least one unit having T-34/85s with some recon (probably Spetsnaz) and mortar support could work.
Some people go for the big blobs where you might lose a solid chunk of them, but others like running smaller (but still quite cheap thanks to H&C) units with a proper combined-arms setup.
I have no experience with the latter, but the former can work decently if you pick your engagements right.
It's much more difficult to change your battle plan with blob-Tankovy lists because of your unwieldy unit sizes and lack of mobile firepower, so you'd better have a good one going into battle.
>>46754099
What are my other options really? Shermans?
My friend (who is likely to be the only person I'm playing against) has picked up Italians.
>>46754207
British armour in general isn't killer, but my favourite is probably armoured recce, though shermans are reasonable because they're cheap (though probably not as cheap as they need to be).
That said, italians on the reg are going to be way less of a problem. What era are you playing, mid or late?
>>46754295
I've been looking at both mid and late lists but most likely mid based on what my friend has for his Italians.
>>46754512
Aha. Mid war is much less of a problem for the churchill; FA 8 is very respectable in that period, though some of the guns the germans can bring will be alarmingly effective still. The german guns and italian heavy AA guns are competing for space, though both are good anti-churchill weapons, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue, and most of the few guns that aren't super-heavy are only effective very close-up. Churchills are still rather points heavy for your main weapon, but just for the reasons that heavy tank lists tend to be (few vehicles to cover a lot of ground).
>>46754512
>>46754657
Another nice thing with using Churchills in MW is that there's way less integrated anti-tank (bazookas/panzerfausts/etc) around.
That makes the Churchill pretty nasty in assaults, since normal infantry can't even damage it.
>>46754099
>Soviets and Brits definitely feel like the less well liked forces of the two, though Soviets got all the good plastics lately (plastic artillery for everyone else when?)
The plastic artillery was a waste for every player except those who hadn't started Soviets yet. And it's not like Soviet artillery is anything worth writing home about. You take heavy mortars instead.
They did get a bunch of plastic tanks, but again... quite a bit of that was wasted design effort. Of the recent plastic (WW2) Soviet kits worth actually buying are the T-34s if you don't have a billion already, the ISUs, the SUs, and that's it. Wake me up when we get plastic KVs, SU-76s, T-26s, and Matildas.
>>46753740
You tankovy by taking the right support choices. The tanks themselves are straightforward and simple. Aim at enemy, and hope the numbers carry you through. Learn to know when you should move, when you should stay stationary to fire, and how to plan a turn or three ahead.
Now you can either spam tanks like an imbecile in order to cover your tacticool ineptitude, or grab the right mix of support to cover all the problems you'll face. Heavy Mortars, Recon, some infantry, maybe armored cars, 57mm AT guns (if you can), ISUs or SUs depending upon list, infantry, maybe some heavy or light tanks, etc. Generally speaking, in that order of importance.
Hero lists are indeed gimped. Don't bother with them unless you're feeling masochistic, or running an infantry hero list. Also, try Razvedki, Forward Detachment, or any number of "not yet another tankovy" list. All the tankovy lists are the same basic setup with a few gimmicks separating them. The lists that strike out far from those, such as Razvedki or Forward Det., are considered to be some of the best for a reason.
>>46722207
>while in command distance of another Sherman, a Firefly cannot be Gun-tanked
Bit sensitive, aren't you? It's only a 1 in 3 chance of the hit getting transfered, which already implies that most of the time the enemy can't effectively attack them save for saturation attacks.
Fireflies aren't meant to be hidden powerfists, dude.
British Shermans pay for what they get. They're wholly unremarkable in that respect, and compare to other tanks quite evenly.
>>46755094
Best usage I've ever seen for Fireflies was to hide them back as an overwatching finger of death while the rest of the platoon advanced. The targets then become "try to kill the vet death-tank in concealment on a 6 when it doesn't have gone to ground", or "shoot the advancing shermans".
>>46755170
Wouldn't you just open fire as normal and force them to allocate to the firefly? Most LW guns are going to have the range, if you have the LOF. Beyond that, a platoon with all of it's regular tanks dead is either way understrength, or useless at dealing with most of your army meaningfully.
>>46755283
Firefly's at Long Range, the shermans were well ahead of that, nowhere near company command, and at short range.
>>46755347
>Fireflies were at long
Yeah, which would mean that you'd have to allocate to them second, but if you hit the platoon 4 times, every tank'll take a hit. Long range doesn't make them invunerable, and the tanks advancing ahead of them effectively nullify the harder TN anyway. So you'll have to hit the platoon a few times, but assuming you do that (not hard against short range in the open tanks), those fireflies are going to take some hits. Either that or lose their meatshields.
>>46722207
The firefly should be the opposite of that: When out of command, can't be guntanked. The typical firefly plan was to hide the firefly hull down or in a forest or something and have it snipe.
>>46755094
See above: Historically, they really should be quite hard to target. They're quite vulnerable as they are now, and there's no sense playing them in an accurate fashion.
>>46755170
As >>46755522 said this doesn't work RAW. You can even still guntank the shot.
>>46755170
>>46755347
Isolated Group is a "may" rule. They can still shoot all the shermans up close and then get a hit allocated to the firefly that's, say, 18" from the nearest sherman, provided the firefly is still in LoS and range. Which is a damn shame, because otherwise this tactic is what happened historically.
>>46755648
They ARE hard to target. You have to use gun tank to force hits on them, and that's low odds unless you hit the crap out of the platoon.
If you're unhappy that lots of hits still hit the Fireflies hiding at the back, then that's an issue with FoW's shooting system, which on the whole works very well at avoiding gamey tactics, even if that tactic was used IRL.
They're vulnerable because they're medium tanks. That was true in real life. Fireflies didn't have any better odds of making it home than the rest of their company, and what's being proposed here is ridiculous in it's inconsistency with existing rules, and an exaggeration of their practices in the war. To say nothing of not being needed. If people are really so insane that they think Fireflies need a boost, do it with a points method, not an irregular snowflake rule. Which is particularly relevant given that the majority of the time, it'll be irrelevant one way or another. We all know how tanks get used in FoW. Having one hiding somewhere and the rest of the platoon moving isn't likely for a whole bunch of reasons.
As it presently stands, you need to hit the platoon 3 times to reliably affect a Firefly. And given the basic hit allocation rules, you don't need gun tank to hit the firefly in that case. Other than that, it's a case of praying to RNGesus and that's perfectly historical one way or another.
FoW works because the rules and representation methods are elegant as fuck. What I'm hearing here for fireflies isn't.
>>46755522
Long range and concealment are what drop the firefly in priority for shoting at the platoon. The thing you're forgetting however is that Brit tanks, and especially in this case, are Veteran. So you need 8 shots on averages to get off about 4 hits. That gets worse when those shermans aren't in the open and instead are smartly using concealment... Which this player did. 12 shots becomes quite difficult for a single platoon to amass at one time. Oh but wait, there's more! Brit Shermans have smoke ammo, and Brit artillery has smoke bombardments. So in this case whatever *could* shoot at them, now has to maneuver and fire in order to do so without needing stupid-to-hit. So the firefly sits nicely in the back flinging rounds with near-impunity while the bigger threat is smoking your ass and trying to move into a flanking poisition for next turn.
This same player eventually went with the Brit list(s) that split the Fireflies off into their own platoon. The result is now you have a concealed, almost impossible to hit platoon of tank destroyers that don't give a shit about shermans up the road. I had them effortlessly out-gun my SU-100s once.
>>46755845
>FoW works because the rules and representation methods are elegant as fuck. What I'm hearing here for fireflies isn't.
It has more to do with the "leaving half the platoon behind" rules. Which isn't just for fireflies, but rather everyone. It's in the global rules of the game. So what actually needs to be done, and what we'll likely see done, is a rewording that specifies that a portion of a platoon that is out of command is counted as a different target for shooting purpposes. Just more elegantly written, and in a clearer fashion.
>>46756026
I'd say that using the hit allocation rules from Team Yankee (hits can be allocated to a main target and anything within a certain distance that's also in the same platoon) would work well here.
>>46755845
You're actually wrong, fireflies exhibited better survival rates than other british shermans, and this is attributed entirely to tactics used IRL that can't be replicated in-game. "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign", J Buckley.
And hitting a firefly 3 times isn't needed to hit the firefly; you just need to hit it at least once and pass the 5+ roll, which can happen with any number of shots, and is actually more likely than not with just two.
>>46756422
That is most likely the wording it will be, in the next iteration of the rulebook.
>>46756658
I think you meant that it was possible with any number of HITS, and more likely with just two. You still have to hit the platoon, and then roll for gun-tanking afterwards.
>>46756834
Hit the platoon at least once, and the odds of guntanking successfully are better than even with two hits on the platoon, yes.
>>46757130
To a given roll of 5+. Gun-Tanking is all well and good, but really it means the Firefly is no more vulnerable to gun-tanking than an E8 in a platoon with a Jumbo.
>>46757636
One hit is a 33% chance. Two hits is 56%. Three is 70%. It's not in the least unlikely a platoon of enemy tanks will be able to snipe a shot through your shermans to hit the firefly 10" behind them in a wood or something.
Also the american shermans are likely FA 7 (or even 8). And have a bunch of other nice crap with it like 14" move and tank telephones. And wet jumbos also exist. And they can take more than one 76 so the tank's AT potential isn't totally neutered on one successful 5+ roll.
There's a lot of reasons the E8 gets off way better, and that isn't even mentioning that the firefly did have a tactical niche that tended to keep it protected, whereas E8s weren't used in the same way.
>>46758008
Icing on that cake?American shermans are cheaper base than British ones
>>46758046
Plus it's my opinion that Semi-Indirect Bombardment is a sack of wet shit. Rooting you to the ground for a turn, Veterans still aren't able to be shot at half the time, and generally speaking Germans will just Stormtrooper out of sight.
Are Matilda 2s any good for early war games?
>>46758106
SIF vs Stabilisers is straight-up no contest, but in addition, the american tanks can get a 5 point upgrade to give them 2" more movement and tank telephone, and for 15 more can go to front armour 7 and protected ammo. And of course, these are per-tank choices, so you can make extremely points-efficient lists by filling in the few straggler points with meaningful upgrades like uparmouring or jumbos, instead of trying to squeeze in a free VP SPAA platoon or going with useless upgrades you won't use 90% of the time like a tow or roof AA gun.
Oh, yeah, America also doesn't need to worry about AA ever because it's always got roof MGs on everything.
>>46758153
Less good than what they used to be with Barbarossa bringing in things like T-34s, 57mm guns, Long Barrelled Panzer IVs, Dicker Maxs, etc, but otherwise still really good. Their front armour makes them immune to the standard anti-tank guns of the period and the 2pdr is still pretty killy. Fear the Finns and the Japanese though, those guys do not give a fuck about your one Machine Gun and generally have enough Infantry-AT to bring you straight down.
>>46758251
Awesome, I just bought 5.
>>46758153
Yes, though remember the usual heavy tank advice of staying careful so you can cover all your objectives. You can have plenty of fun with them; they're almost impervious to antitank guns of the era from the front and even the sides, but watch out for direct-firing artillery; 88s and tube artillery can still punch through to the front. They're top 2, though, and nothing of that era has integral unit antitank to speak of, so feel free to ram them into blobs of infantry and get stuck in, though they only have the coax for anti-infantry work otherwise so you're reliant on the assault. Just don't go overboard on the tanks and enjoy playing a list where your opponent will have maybe four effective shots per turn tops.
>>46758276
Oh, that's rather too many. I found that you could squeeze about, four into a colonial infantry company at 1500 points, roughly, but you're skimping on Artillery, Machine Guns, and Infantry at that point.
>>46758251
>>46758106
Thoughts on >>46753973?
>>46758417
Majority agree with your points (Considering that I came up with a lot of them), I think your version of Semi-Indirect Fire is still too weak, but then again I still think that clamping down for a turn is a major price to pay and should have major rewards especially with Stormtrooping tanks around, or American good ones.
I'm pretty sure there aren't actually any Conscript British artillery batteries in the game, and I'd increase the British Infantry price cut to ten or fifteen points.
>>46758008
>It's not in the least unlikely a platoon of enemy tanks will be able to snipe a shot through your shermans to hit the firefly 10" behind them in a wood or something.
Yes I am well aware of the percentages. It's not unlikely. But it is impossible for a shot to get gun-tanked onto a target 10" -behind- woods (a.k.a. out of sight). You have to be able to actually shoot at the target for a shot to be allocated to it (or allocated through gun tanking).
Regardless of that, the E8 gets off easier because it isn't the only one in the platoon. But that's about it unless there's a 76mm Jumbo around, which is pretty fucking pricey. The FA 7 is a minor point unless your taking fire from a pile of StuGs or T-34-85s. Long range for FA 6 puts it on par with short range FA 7.
Realistically speaking 4th ed FoW rulebook will likely borrow Team Cheeseburger's rule on allocating hits. In the meantime, Brits aren't all doom and gloom; I've seen them wreck face plenty of times. They are just in a similar boat as everything that's not Americans right now (German less so, but still out there).
>>46758106
Use Recon. It's what Soviets have to do with their version of SiF (Catkiller) and Volley Fire. The difference is Brit tank crews don't suck ass, and can actually maneuver and fire. Admittedly that comes without being allowed to field a gorillion tanks... Crewed by the mentally handicapped.
>>46758558
And a target that's out of sight can't shoot back either. What's your point?
>>46758628
And, let's be real: The target behind a wood is going to be a german tank platoon that stormtroopered off before you could shoot it.
>>46758628
My point was his initial idea that a tank can be hit through gun-tanking when 10" behind woods, was incorrect.
Of course something behind woods won't be able to fire at something it can't see.
>>46758558
Other people covered already, so:
>Regardless of that, the E8 gets off easier because it isn't the only one in the platoon. But that's about it unless there's a 76mm Jumbo around, which is pretty fucking pricey. The FA 7 is a minor point unless your taking fire from a pile of StuGs or T-34-85s. Long range for FA 6 puts it on par with short range FA 7.
FA 7 is a pretty nice bump from 6, and at long range it's FA 8, so I really don't see why that's notable. And yes, it gives you a roll against the high end of common antitank; of course that's really useful. The American sherman's also cheaper, has HE, stabilisers, protected ammo, and might have detroit's finest and tank telephones too. Tank telephones make your entire list de-facto cheaper, since you're less reliant on recce between those and the AOP you're obviously bringing.
>Realistically speaking 4th ed FoW rulebook will likely borrow Team Cheeseburger's rule on allocating hits. In the meantime, Brits aren't all doom and gloom; I've seen them wreck face plenty of times. They are just in a similar boat as everything that's not Americans right now (German less so, but still out there).
"I've seen this list win, so it's fine" is a terrible argument. I've seen people win with IS-2 lists; the IS-2 is still busted as hell. Luck or skill disparities can easily outweigh the balance of things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>46758008
>10" behind them /in/ a wood or something.
>>46758730
>when 10" /behind/ woods
>incorrect
m8...
>>46758558
>Realistically speaking 4th ed FoW rulebook will likely borrow Team Cheeseburger's rule on allocating hits.
To go off topic, god I hope not, unless everyone's getting mission tactics too all of a sudden. Your command team in TY is just there to measure cohesion, whereas being able to whack a hit on the team leader every shooting phase in WW2 is going to get annoying as hell.
>>46758857
Allocating hits to the leader wasn't what I was talking about.
>>46758795
>FA 7 is a pretty nice bump from 6, and at long range it's FA 8, so I really don't see why that's notable.
Yah don't say.. But for the purposes of being hit at long range with FA 6, or short range at FA 7, the armor save roll is the same.
>"I've seen this list win, so it's fine" is a terrible argument.
Which is why it's not the argument being made. Brits have issues, yes. And so do many nations in LW. Germans less so. But they're still actually playable, nowhere near as bad as your strawman IS-2 comparison, and the problem still lies directly with Battlefront having such a hard-on for Americans in LW.
>>46759298
I didn't say it was?
what do you fear, /fowtg/?
what do you really not want to see on the other end of the table. list both lists if needed.
me:
--playing my heavy Russians, IS-85's all over...and then....all of a sudden....
1:
> hordes of normal shermans, but instead of the Jumbo/E8 bullshit, just 2 normal 76's...maybe they all have detroit's finest....
>worse, they have an AOP and a little bit of Smoke Artie.....
>and of course i didn't bring my 37mm AA....
2:
>look up
>player is literally a retard.
>top keks, right?
>list is barebones CT T-34/85 spam from Red Bear.
>literally 31 shoddy assembled and sprayed green tanks
>"you're sure about this?"
> "Hurrrrrr!"
>aww fuck....and subtlety is guaranteed out the window here....
so, yeah....shit like that....
>>46758825
My mistake. I was thrown off by the sentence phrasing.
>>46759430
Nothing. Nothing "scares" me in this game. But if there is one thing I got tired of seeing on the other side of the table, it was yet another Veteran army.
>>46759418
You implied it pretty hard. My original post had to do with allocating hits between a platoon that has split up and has two or more groups outside of command range of each other.
>>46759407
>Yah don't say.. But for the purposes of being hit at long range with FA 6, or short range at FA 7, the armor save roll is the same.
Is there a rule I've missed where tanks with FA 7 can't be shot at long range?
>Which is why it's not the argument being made. Brits have issues, yes. And so do many nations in LW. Germans less so. But they're still actually playable, nowhere near as bad as your strawman IS-2 comparison, and the problem still lies directly with Battlefront having such a hard-on for Americans in LW.
>In the meantime, Brits aren't all doom and gloom; I've seen them wreck face plenty of times.
>>46759523
And I was making the seperate but related point that TY's hit allocation system seems to hit a fairly fundamental flaw with how command teams in the WW2 game work (and presumably will work given the era).
>>46759479
>But if there is one thing I got tired of seeing on the other side of the table, it was yet another Veteran army.
Fucking.
This.
So tired of everyone and their mom using a veteran army.
>>46759864
Veterans mean you can't be hit at long range. It's that simple.
It might change with TY style "hitting on 7+" rules, but without them there's just a light-year of difference between "hard to hit" and "can't be". Especially for infantry, who can just stop drop and lol if they feel things are too hairy.
>>46759951
Yeah, making yourself invisible by being a concealed, gone to ground veteran at long range is a bit too strong at the moment, honestly. Veteran is pretty fairly costed when it's 5v6, 4v5, or 3v4, but when it's 6vNo (which it commonly is) it's too good. And very, very annoying.
Vet is primarily an issue in infantry companies, I find, due to how powerful the ability to stop moving and go invisible at any time is. You're never exposed that way.
>>46761263
>>46759951
I'd say "thank god for artillery", but if they're dug in then you're looking at 6s to range in and then you need to have them fail their 3+ save before you can finally attempt to kill them with your meh firepower. Air support would be nice... Except that most of the time they're already in terrain, making the air support still have to range in on poor odds.
>>46764673
...ymean moar liek
>>46762641
Vets in general are crazy survivable, yeah. It's a huge jump up from trained. I played Soviets for ages, and I have to say, going to Germans feels like having godmode on. I can even smoke stuff and be concealed+GTG on demand!
>>46766738
Honestly though FV or CV are almost too survivable
post yfw fearless units dont rally/fail morale checks
>>46767209
>>46759864
It's because everyone wants to play inflated points totals, so even with Vets you can cover most bases. @ 1420 for example suddenly Vets are struggling, this is why the change is good. I too am tired of seeing 9 platoon Vet Inf armies or huge Trained tank spam. The game started at 1500pts and I still think that is the best level to make all armies make hard choices when list building.
>>46768076
This desu
Our next next big 2 day tournament will be at 1500 points and everybody loves building lists for it.
Here is my go for it:FT Marine company from Nachtjäger (means Nighthunter)
HQ 70
Marine Stumplatoon 240
Marine Schützen 145
2 HeerTiger 310
3 Heer Pak40 120
Marine HMG 115
3er Russianarty 130
two 88 Flak 95
two Railwayflak 170
full Volkssturm 100
=====================
1495 points, 9 platoons, of which 6 are always on the table
>>46752175
Thanks, since I'm going for 1650 pts, this is what I made... probably not the best, thought...
>>46768076
1750 was the most commonly played points value for LW when I began playing, and it still feels right to me.
1900 was far too high. You could fit almost anything you wanted into your list, even with Veterans.
1420 seems like a drastic drop from 1900 or 1750. It's so small that it forces even Trained lists to really consider what they want to include.
Honestly, 1750 seems just right for being neither too big or too small.
>>46768076
A lot of armies straight-up don't work at 1500, and especially 1420, though. Most german lists are vet-only, and heavy anything doesn't work at 1500.
>>46769611
Challange accepted!
German Schwere Panzer (510. Schwere Panzer Abteilung)
Tank Company, from Bridge at Remagen, page 60
Compulsory Schwere Panzerkompanie HQ (p.61) - CinC Konigstiger (Henschel), 2iC Konigstiger (Henschel) (430 pts)
Compulsory Schwere Panzer Platoon (p.61) - Command Konigstiger (Henschel) (215 pts)
Schwere Panzer Platoon (p.61) - Command Konigstiger (Henschel) (215 pts)
Ersatz SS-Panzer Platoon (p.69) - Command Panzer III L or M, 2x Panzer III L or M (150 pts)
- Replace Panzer III L or M with Panzer III N (0 pts)
Ersatz SS-Aufklarungs Platoon (p.67) - Command Panzerfaust Rifle/MG, 6x Panzerfaust Rifle/MG (200 pts)
- Replace Command Panzerfaust Rifle/MG with Command Panzerfaust SMG (0 pts)
Volkssturm Platoon (p.74) - Command Panzerfaust Rifle, 6x Panzerfaust Rifle (85 pts)
- Replace one Panzerfaust Rifle with MG08/15 LMG (-5 pts)
Veteran Volks Light Artillery Battery (p.75) - Command SMG, Staff, Observer Rifle, 3x 10.5cm leFH18/40 howitzer (135 pts)
Light Anti-aircraft Gun Battery (p.77) - Command SMG, 3x 3.7cm FlaK43 gun (65 pts)
1490 Points, 7 Platoons
>>46767209
>>46769675
I... I am impressed... very impressed anon.
Anyone know if there's any plans to cover the india-china theatre now that Pacific's getting done, or are Banzai and Gung-ho the lot?
>>46770045
yes ...digital only
>>46767209
>mfw I pass motivation on a 2+ in Berlin
>>46770064
You're joking, right? Please tell me this isn't serious.
>>46770427
Sorry anon.
Here is the digital only lists:
British:
1941 to 1942 British Rifle Company,
Burma 1943 British Rifle Company
Burma and India 1944 to 1945 British Rifle Company
British Special Force/Chindits:
1943 Chindits' Special Force Column
1944 Chindits' Special Force Column
1944 Chindits' Special Force Jungle Fortress fortified company
Indians
the Indians in Malaya and Burma 1941 to 1942 (Indian Rifle Company)
Burma 1943 Indian Rifle Company
Burma and India 1944 to 1945 Indian Rifle Company.
Australians
1941 to 1943 Australian Rifle Company (Militia and regular force in New Guinea)
Australian Jungle Rifle Company (1943 to 1945)
1941 to 1945 Australian Commando Squadron
New Zealanders
New Zealand Rifle Company (Green Islands campaign)
Japanese
Kaigun Tokubetsu Rikusentai Chutai (Special Naval Landing Force Company, landing and attacking formations)
Yõsai Kaigun Tokubetsu Rikusentai Chutai (Special Naval Landing Force Fortified Company, defensive force)
Americans: Marines (US Marine during the fighting on Guadalcanal in 1942)
Marine Rifle Company
Marine Raider Company
Marine Parachute Rifle Company
Americans: US Army
Philippine Scouts/Philippine Division (Philippine Army in 1941 and 1942, Rifle Company)
US Army divisions in New Guinea, Guadalcanal, and New Georgia from 1942 to 1943 (Rifle Company)
Philippines and the Central Pacific 1944-45 (Rifle Company)
>>46770459
Jesus. There's more lists online than in the book.
>>46770459
>no Chinese
Y
I'm interested in WW2 miniatures game. I've mainly come across this and bolt action.
I'm torn between which one to dedicate my time to
>>46770459
...sauce?
i mean....
SAUCE!!!!
>>46770676
What are you looking for in a game?
Bolt Action tends to be about smaller close-in fighting between a few squads of infantry, with maybe a tank or two in support.
Flames of War is about fighting between two company-sized units with multiple platoons of tanks and infantry fighting.
>>46770887
>>46770676
for some reason Bolt action is really fucking expensive, like 40k tier expensive, at least it is in all of my LGS
>>46770887
They both seem enjoyable.
I would like to ease into this as my miniatures experience mainly deals with FFG and the old LOTR minis game. Those titles are small scale and accessible.
>>46770959
I found a few websites that do not seem too pricey.
But I am a newcomer. What do you consider to be a "good" price for these games?
If I smoke something with arty, can I use my AOP (that did not spot for the smoke) to later spot for a normal bombardment on the same unit?
>>46770995
anything cheaper than 40k
I play and love 40k but it's expensive as fuck, Bolt action turned me away because it's just as expensive and the models are mainly metal or resin which is always a bitch to work with. (I bought a panzer 4 from them to build for the heck of it and it was a massive pain in the ass to build, the cannon refused to stay on)
For instance Flames of war, while expensive, is still way cheaper than 40k or WHFB. Alot of these games are cheaper than 40k, but they are still expensive as all hell, so welcome to the hobby, hope you are not attached to your money.
>>46771405
You can find alternative miniatures for both. A Sherman is still a Sherman even if another company made it.
As for price, it honestly depends on what you're looking to include in your army.
10 plastic Shermans will be cheaper than 20 plastic T-34s, and both will be cheaper than resin Tigers or King Tigers.
>>46770564
Seriously.
>>46771634
this is true, but the point still stands.
>>46770459
> Could have had one massive Pacific Book
> We get this instead
What is this nightmare
Anyone played a Firestorm campaign?
How did it go?
>>46771405
>>46771405
I have a limited knowledge of Warhammer but my LGS does stock it.
http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/boacrusoarse.html
This site has a 1000 point army for under $200. Which does not seem bad to me. I've seen a single Warhammer Vehicle go for half of that.
Am I off base here?
>>46773201
That sounds about right, depending on the army.
As for 40K prices, GW charges an arm and a leg for most of their stuff.
And maybe your firstborn child as well for some of their really nice stuff.
>>46769611
This really isn't true and, counter-intuitively, many difficult armies (e.g. Tigers and heavy armour types) are actually better with lower points as your opponent has fewer options to deal with your armour.
Tigers, for instance: at 1500 from Fortress Italy I can get 2x HQ Tigers Ie, 2x Tiger Ie, 2x Tiger Ie, 2x 8-Rads, and Nebelwerfers w/transport. I could get AA in place of the Nebs.
In half-on missions, I still deploy six Tigers. I have Recce and Smoke/a template (or Recce and AA), and can get a 4-tank assault with SA8 and TA2.
Now, for 1750...I get one more Tiger, or some more support: but the basic core is not really getting any stronger. Conversely, an infantry force can use those 250 Pts to get another two (or more) platoons. An opposing tank force is *sure* to add more AT capability. Thus, I'd much prefer to run a Tiger company at 1500 Pts than I would at 1750 pts. And I'm not saying the Tiger force is suddenly amazing, but it is better at the lower points value than the higher one.
At Corrivalry 2016 a CT Tiger force from Desperate Measures took third place (out of 84 players), with 10 x CT Tigers (Training School version) in two platoons. Yes, no Mission Tactics, yes no Stromtrooper unless the CinC or 2iC attached (no problem with only two platoons!). Enjoy the War made them pretty resilient, and many armies built to face all-comers were a bit unprepared to face an extreme 10x Tigers at 1420, even if CT. The best army evar? No, but again, if yours can't beat it...
Similarly, if I ran something like IS-2s, I'd prefer to do it at 1420 or 1500 than 1750 as the opponent is unlikely to have hard counters: IS-2, 3x IS-3, 3x IS-2, 5x Recce dudes and BA-64, 6x T-34 (2 upgrade to 85mm). Or take Flame tanks and add escorts to the IS-2s, etc, etc. Short of a KT or JT, this will give most infantry forces a severe headache at 1420, and most tank forces too.
>>46769611
>>46773633
Also, Germans are no longer "Vet only" or even close: Tigers are FV, CV or CT. King Tigers FV, CV, or FT. Panzer formations can be RT, CT, FT, CV or FV: infantry likewise. So there are really are a lot of options, it's just that most people would prefer not to have to think and instead just complain because it's easier than thinking.
>>46772597
I'm sure they will expand Pacific if Banzai and Gung Ho do really well.
Just look at Team Yankee, they've already announced plans to expand that with more nations.
Are self propelled AA worth it if your local meta has few aircraft?
Which company makes the best roads, or is there an easy way to make them?
>>46776052
Google "caulk roads" for caulk + felt roads: very easy and robust once made.
>>46775738
They can be used to shoot-up infantry, but generally lack the armour to take on serious opposition. ATGs will usually wipe them, while even infantry charging forward with a few bazooka shots can be dangerous. If you stay > 10" from infantry you can light them up safely.
>>46776204
>They can be used to shoot-up infantry, but generally lack the armour to take on serious opposition. ATGs will usually wipe them, while even infantry charging forward with a few bazooka shots can be dangerous. If you stay > 10" from infantry you can light them up safely.
If they're unarmored ones like the Brit SP Bofors, enough plain old infantry shots will still wreck them. At least that kind tends to be cheap and have gun shields.
>>46775738
Depends on the type as well.
Stuff like Bofors is really squishy, but will absolutely rape lightly armoured vehicles (like most armoured cars and transports) if they happen to wander into their sights.
The German armoured versions are decently resilient and will do similar things to light vehicles and enemy infantry.
>>46776433
> Brit SP Bofors
I've yet to meet anyone who will pay real money for these...
>>46776204
>>46776433
>>46776904
Was specifically looking at the British Bofors 40mm SP. The awkward layout and lack of armor make me a bit nervous about getting a pair when not engaging aircraft, even if it's only 85 points for the CV pair.
Of course, if someone does use aircraft, 8 shots hitting on 3s and killing on 4s makes a pretty effective AA screen.
>>46777427
>>46777432
I got myself the SP Bofors (which also has a few standing extra crew members), scratchbuilt a mounting cross for the non-SP version and magnetized the thing so I can use it for either.
>>46770858
>>46772597
Sorry have been afk
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5152
>>46777509
Oh, nice. Got any pics of it?
>>46777617
Not right now, but I could try digging them from several layers of trays and take pics tomorrow.
>>46777862
Thanks, mainly asking because I was looking at buying the pair my local shop has and being able to use them both as the immobile and the SP versions would be very useful. How effective have they been for you? Any tips on their use?
>>46759430
I have a friend who runs a veteran Tank destroyer company with either 3 platoons of M10s with top armor and all the trimmings (top armor+ improivsed sandbags). It is so incredibly disgusting to face. Now most people think that tank destroyers are great against tanks but suck against infantry (it says so in the name for christs sake) but... he runs them as teleporting Panzer IVs with AT13. Hunting them down with Recce doesn't work either because the HQ and the security sections can throw a million 0.5 cal dice their way.
>>46777957
I haven't run the mobile versions much (mostly because it's hard to find room in a CV Canadian Armoured list) but they'd performed decently at scaring off enemy air when I fielded them.
When I used the static versions, they generally kicked ass as long as I didn't leave them exposed to tons of light fire or heavy guns.
>>46777983
Fucking americans
Who puts kill rings on their tanks? What do you put them on for?
>>46782342
I started with that on my command panther in a Tank Aces league, but stopped after the first week since it would look ridiculous with more than a half-dozen there.
>>46782470
Could always do one ring/star/whatever for every 5 kills or so. Or just add them for the hell of it.
>>46782470
>since it would look ridiculous with more than a half-dozen there.
Pleb
>>46782342
Did anyone but the germans actually do kill rings? I haven't seen any pictures of american, soviet, or british tanks with kill markings on them.
>>46782933
Generally speaking the British and Americans cycled back tank aces to train the next generation of tankers. The Germans had the Panzer Lehr for that, but then they threw them into the fire in Normandy, and that's one of the real deathblows of the Wehrmacht, the loss of their effective training units. Soviets I don't have any real data on, but I assume most of the time that they'd be switching between tanks too quickly to keep up with kill markings as tanks break down or destroyed.
>>46782342
I put one on a 25pdr for killing a Tiger I dead, but only really put them on my Germans when I'm trying to make them look worn out and lived in.
>>46782933
Not even two seconds in google
>>46782719
Try painting that many in 15mm scale without it looking absolutely ridiculous.
Hel, even at 28mm scale it might look a bit crowded.
>>46777541
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5152
fuck my ass.
i mean, all that cool shit...and it's digital? i'm thinking SNLF, Chindits, Philipine army, and Marine Raiders would have made my dick hard enough to spend 50 bucks on a book in the first place....
then you go and add Aussie Commando to that...'Straya, fuck yeah!
A friend of mine asked me to scan the German part of the new "Colours of War". So I threw it on my works scanstation et voila, feel free to add it to the database, it includes the conversion sheet for Vallejo colors
Note: Useable although not hig-res
Great, 4chan ate my post... so again...
A friend of mine asked my about the german part of "Colours of War" so I hijacked my works scanstation and got him this pdf. Its not high-res but quite workable. File also includes the Color conversion chart for Vallejo.
Feel free to add to the Database
>>46782342
I have done it on request for someone else before (pic related)...even with my best efforts the results were considerably overscale and I was not too happy. I think you need decals to do it properly, and then weather the kill rings so they don't stand out so much: I'm not a fan of the "tank with circus pole barrel" look.
>>46787884
>>46788507
Thanks m8, is it possible to get scan of British and/or Soviet part too?
Well, since sharing means caring and I'm in generous mood after all my leeching from the database here the (usefull) rest for all you mates, boys and comrades
Part 1/3
Part 2/3
Part 3/3
>>46789945
>>46789955
>>46789968
Tally Ho, Comrade... Two Thumbs Up!
Are Canadians the best british army? Mission tactics and de-facto protected ammo and a reroll for infantry seems pretty sweet for 5-10 points, and all you lose is British Bulldog, which while occasionally nice doesn't seem nearly as nice as free wet racks alone.
>>46790057
They are generally better, yes: the points have never reflected this. Because BF. However, there are quite a few things Camadians don't get: Churchills, Cromwells, Comets, etc.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. I am going to use this as a decal so much.
And then I'm going to get thrown out of the game store, punched in the gut, and have my mini box thrown in the canal for being a fag, I suspect, but damn, it'll be worth it.
The problem is, does he belong on a Tiger, or something... well, actually, Italian?
>>46790631
that is actually funny and should just blend in unless you have a rivet counter who inspects your 15mm decals before every game to be sure they are on level....
>>46791075
D-do such people really exist?
My LGS group is pretty comradely, but influenced by 4chan. As such, subjects like UT are met with friendly but endless jeering.
I guess Papyrus would work better on a Hetzer, for the sole cause of... well, hetzing. Sans would likely work on a lazy Königstiger.
>>46788507
>>46789945
>>46789955
>>46789968
Awesome! I'll add those to the scan database after I get home from work.
Had money to burn, so I just bought this.
Good deal or no?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/262396529697?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
>>46791238
Yes, very good deal.
So a small number of Cromwells with welded hulls and additional frontal armor were produced and delivered before the war was over. The applique armor raised the front to 101mm thick, compared to the normal cromwell's 76mm, though they had the same turret. Would it be fair to let one platoon of cromwells (but not any challengers in the platoon) per company be upgraded to the VwE models with front armor 7 at +10-15 points per tank?
>>46792114
How many is "a few"?
Either way, I'd run it past your opponent before trying out any experimental rules.
>>46793765
126 welded cromwells total, 123 production ones. In comparison, there were 200 challengers and 2368 riveted cromwells produced. Their rarity is why I limited it to only one platoon (though you could instead make it a CiC/2iC only upgrade).
I would have also mentioned the culin hedgerow cutters, but by the time the ~500 of them that were made got to the front everyone was past the hedgerows and there's no evidence they were ever used outside of testing.
And yeah, any fan-made rules require opponent's permission before use. Wouldn't be fair if you could plop down any set of fan rules and go with that, or you'd very quickly run into katana copypasta Tigers.
Finished me a bunch of 95 Ha-Go's. Next up is a Rapid-fire Gun Platoon of 2 Type 94 guns.
Also, painting metal fucking sucks, I have used both GW and Vallejo (currently on Vallejo) metallics, and painting both sucks ass. Are metallic paints available that don't suck? Or should I use them in some special way?
I was looking at the Finnish Late War lists and noticed you could, if you really wanted to, take T-26s and T-28s
Having never actually played the game would there even be a point to this aside from shits and giggles?
>>46794879
NMM
>>46795093
I'm not going to start painting a million different shades of grey on 1/100 scale rifles and tank tracks. I've done it for some of my Warhammer figures, but on miniatures of that scale there is a bit more space to do funky stuff like non-metal metallics.
>>46795082
Absolutely. In LW, they're very cheap. They make a decent substitute for infantry HMGs. They're only well enough armoured to be basically bulletproof, but that's enough. And it assault, it means the enemy can only really hurt them with actual AT weapons, which often means a quick in and out with them can be quite effective.
Plus T-28s have a lot of features that work really well together. They have a gun that's bad enough against tanks to be really cheap, but great at killing halftracks and SPGs, and it's still good at digging up guns. You get lots of MG shots, top armour 2 helps against artillery and assault, and you even get a turret rear MG to half the enemy's chance to hit in CC. So in platoons of for that cost sweet fuck all, they're actually pretty excellent assault tanks.
You just need to treat them with kid gloves. When Bazooka can penetrate you effortlessly from the front, you can't let them be exposed. But a platoon of them parked behind a dug in infantry platoon basically makes them immune to infantry and mechanised assaults. And that mobility means they can always sally forth to do something obnoxious.
>>46795249
That's pretty neato then.
I like all the little turrets on the T-28s and it's nice to know they aren't useless.
>>46795275
It's worth mentioning that they're actually pretty outstanding as tanks in EW, and they're good value in MW. Anything that they can't fight tends to be expensive. And there's still a lot of lighter tanks about, and larger tanks that can be shot in the side. But EW, their only real weakness is that they're 150 a pop, and they come in platoons of 2. I use them all the time, they're brutal in EW. Very efficient combination of powers, particularly when the Finns tend to be so poor at ranged AT guns.
>>46795275
i got absolutely wrecked by a EW-tank based LW light tank spam brigade as soviets, because i literally didn't have enough gun and assaults were horrible for my inf. Great, i shoot 5 per turn, but theres over 40 of them, that doesn't help!
>>46777541
> I have been working with a group of contributors to produce a selection of Pacific Intelligence Briefings to further expand Flames Of War Pacific. Following is a quick break down of what we have in store:
So, wait, are digital briefings volunteer contributed? If they are do people get paid for it? Because BF sure as hell make money off these now.
>>46795124
Personal experiene, you get surprisingly good results with just a dark grey and a light grey edge highlight.
>>46795124
>>46796051
Can confirm.
Maybe add some weathering on top if you want something more fancy.
Alternatively, I painted the tracks on my T-72s by priming them black, giving them a heavy drybrush of Vallejo Flat Earth and finally a lighter drybrush of Vallejo Iraqi Sand.
That gives things a dusty, worn look at very low effort.
>>46788507
>>46789945
>>46789955
>>46789968
Great, Anon, thanks a lot? Is there anything in the general section (tools, tracks, bases etc.) in the beginning part of the book? Just skimped through it recently so can't remember is there anything valuable?
>>46798226
This is the speech that Eisenhower would have given had the D-Day landings failed. For those of you less good at reading scribbly handwriting, it reads:
"Our landings in the Cherbourg - Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available, and the troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempts it is mine alone."
>>46798226
>>46798292
>having trouble reading cursive
time to kill myself
>>46801535
The honeycomb pattern is interesting.
I've never seen it before.
>20th Army Gebirgsjagers on FOW digital suddenly
>look at preview
>coastal artillery
>beutepanzers
>"light panzer company"
>all kinds of crazy shit
>can't get it because my credit card info was stolen
I just want to play the fun gibblegarbles
>>46795082
>>46795249
this list wants to fight a japanese late war tank list....
it does...
>>46803068
This is fucking absurd.
>Late War
>no panzerfausts
>"anti tank gun platoon" of anti-tank rifles
>mortar platoon has an HMG
>confident trained panzer I platoon
>Luftwaffe universal carriers
What the FUCK did I just pay for?
>>46805913
Also how do I convert these to a pdf? I need help taking this to a tournament. How do I model dog sleds?
>>46805913
After another game tonight, I must say: Cromwells are overpowered against idiot Jerry players. Being able to run 32" to one side of the board after a fake-out deployment (or run up that side and into some really nice cover), then move 16" every turn after that makes it remarkably easy to force encounters in the cromwell's favor, and similarly easy to just leave their tigers on the wrong side of the board. This alone is not so bad, but when the german is an idiot and both lets himself get strung out on the terrain (this is the second time in the last two battles this has happened, with different players) and forgets that, yes, cromwells can move 16" and get at your delicious side armor of 3 while the challenger stays back and shoots you in the face three times.
and now, we are in high abstract mode here at /fowtg/
enjoy your stay!
>>46807545
Changed thoughts mid-sentence on that last one.
Revised ending:
When the german is an idiot and both lets himself get strung out on the terrain (this is the second time in the last two battles this has happened, with different players) and forgets that cromwells can in fact move 16", then the speed advantage becomes huge. The cromwells can easily get at the german's delicious side armor of 3 while the challenger stays back and shoots you in the face three times, and by only sending a fraction of your force to stop me at a time I'm able to force local numerical superiority or fade away with my 16" of nonsense. This isn't anywhere near as bad against someone that thinks, but against the all-to-common "I can big cat my way to victory, right?" germans that play around here, it's frankly overpowered.
>>46796453
Colours scanfag here... the first chapter is basically just about painting theory like shadows and highlights plus how to assemble plastic, metal and resin models. nothing really fancy desu.
the actual countries with the color charts is what this book is all about, imho
>>46794879
Finished said Rapid-fire Gun Platoon. Now I just gotta wait for some of the new japanese stuff to be released next month :(
>>46807193
I figured out how to take screenshots. Here is a sample.
New player here, I currently have the units to make this list which comes to 1370pts from Hellfire and Back:
Infantry Tank Company HQ
2x Matilda II
Matilda Tank Platoon
3x Matilda II
Rifle Platoon - 185
3 Rifle Squads
I'll be playing against my friend who runs EW Italians. I have no idea how effective this list is, so any advice would be massively appreciated. Obviously I'm going to need some platoons to round it out, but I'm not sure what to get.
>>46811507
Could you make it pdf pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase
>>46811724
Use the infantry to hold the objective, and then slowly grind down the Italians on the other flank. He shouldn't have anything that can reasonably destroy the Matildas, except by surrounding you with infantry and praying that you fail a save. So, yeah. Assault on the keypoint.
>>46811754
Thanks, that sounds good.
Any advice for expanding this army to higher points values/possibly taking on other armies?
>>46811833
Well I've always found that the actual Matilda company is rather expensive and rather lacking in good support options. So, I'd become an Infantry Company personally, now I know that sounds insane, but it does have it's advantages.
A: Night Attack, which being British in Africa, you can do. Which makes you Auto Attack in non-meeting engagements, and shuts down heavy AT at longer ranges and gives you concealment Plus you're not bothered by the Night Rules, you were only going eight inches per turn anyway.
B: Mortars and Vickers HMGs..
Commonwealth Rifle Company HQ (New Zealand) (No I'm totally not biased why do you ask?)
Sticky Bombs
Commonwealth Rifle Platoon (New Zealand)
Sticky Bombs
Commonwealth Rifle Platoon (New Zealand)(155 pts)
Sticky Bombs
Commonwealth Mortar Platoon (New Zealand) 4x ML 3” mortar (95 pts)
Commonwealth Machine-gun Platoon (New Zealand) Command Rifle, 4x Vickers HMG (110 pts)
Matilda Tank Platoon 3x Matilda II (475 pts)
Matilda Tank Platoon 2x Matilda II (475 pts)
1750 Points, Six platoons means that you can clamp down objectives more effectively, five tanks on one, Vickers HMGs on the other. Mortars give you smoke which is vital in some cases and having been playing forces without access to smoke for a while now, you do start to keenly feel it's absence. Sticky Bombs are a good resort if you come up against bastards like KVs or T-34s, not that you realistically should try Sticky Bombs against KVs, that Turret Rear MG will ruin you.
>>46811969
I've got a a Company HQ and a Mortar Platoon already so I'll just need the second rifle platoon and the machine gun platoon for this list.
Sounds good though - any reason for the New Zealanders or just personal bias?
>>46811969
>not that you realistically should try Sticky Bombs against KVs, that Turret Rear MG will ruin you.
Not really: you cannot destroy yourself on the re-roll, only on the initial roll. Besides, they're about the only option you have.
>>46812035
>any reason for the New Zealanders or just personal bias?
Virus is one of those New Zealandish people :P
I rate the Confident Veteran 8th Army better: five Matildas is a bit overkill though IMO. You probably want some Carriers for Recon in there too.
>>46790631
>>46791144
Can someone make one of these with le_ghetto_laughing_face emoticon in the center?
>>46812660
Well, I've got 5 Matilda's on their way to me now, haha.
How do they perform in midwar? Not very well, I assume?
>>46812980
Very early Mid War they're OK if you stick to the desert: in open games they suffer (British ones anyway: Soviets are pretty good when spammed).
>>46811507
>polish tankettes and brens
>mfw
>>46811507
>>46813309
no, that is not yet crazy.
crazy is taking that briefing in a game where it's all total war support platoons
taking max combat platoons for 220 pts. (per spt.companies, you HQ is one of those tanks.)
and bringing 5 companies in a 1250pt game, and still having some other platoon types in there....
>>46811507
I've finally found the German Army I'm going to play.
Finally got to play a game on a nicer battlefield last night. This seem like enough terrain? The fields are the newest addition to our terrain set.
>>46814553
Side view
>>46814553
Looks pretty good to me.
>>46814553
>>46814568
It looks much better IMO.
You can use the same coir matting/wheat field material to make hedges: cut into strips about 20-25mm wide, paint green. You can do masses for very cheap.
Link related: http://testofbattle.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=32928&sid=11c45c3bc4dbc1c7438e4e7801627be3
Some tree lines would be a nice additions, as well as some actual trees on your wood templates: yes, I know it takes time and money, I'm just saying. I didn't build my terrain overnight either: It's a marathon, not a sprint, but you have a great start: better than most of the guys I know who sadly do sweet fuck all.
