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
Seeing how as rampant national based complaining seems to work, how would people arrange all of the nations from "Needs more support" to "Fine as is"? Can for model support, rules support whatevs.
Soviets, British, Italians, French, Hungarians Germans, USA.
>>46996382
I don't even play Soviets, and I'd personally agree they need something a bit more.
>Needs more support
Soviets, most British lists
>Just don't actually know
French, Italians, other minors eg. Romanians
>Pretty much okay
Some German lists, some US lists, Hungarians, Finns, some Commonwealth lists
>Oh god why
Some overpowered German and US lists
In all of these cases, that's about rules and points costs; I'm not really aware of any core units that aren't produced. Yes, everyone would like all plastics all the time and a price break, but that's a way off.
Also, nice pic. I thought it looked like a familiar patch, but had to look it up just to confirm the trolling.
>>46996382
I had to check what unit that was. Now I regret doing so.
>>46996563
> I thought it looked like a familiar patch, but had to look it up just to confirm the trolling.
Lmao Dirlewanger
>>46996382
I'm going to have to mostly agree with >>46996563, assuming we're talking LW
>OP tier
A decent chunk of American lists and a small number of German lists.
>Balanced tier
Hungarians, most American and German lists, a small number of British and Soviet lists.
>Underpowered tier
Most British and Soviet lists, a small number of American and German lists
>SOS tier
British Motor/armored car and Soviet Hero lists
>Not enough experience to tell
Japanese, French, Italians, Finns, Romanians, anyone I forgot to mention
>>46997576
>Balanced tier
>a small number of British and Soviet lists.
Any recommendations on the balances lists for both sides... preferably LW
>>46997576
This seems fair though I can add some experience with Italians... That won't actually tell me anything, because Italian randomness makes it really hard to tell if they're shit or if I got unlucky rolling too much.
Battlefront seem to over-rate random powers, though. Tiger Aces is not as useful as it's costed as, for example: For every game you get "reroll misses", you get a game where you've got the largely useless "2+ unbog".
For a general SOS tier most mechanised lists that aren't mech or motor infantry fall under that at late war; armoured cars, light tanks, light SPGs, etc. They usually have subpar or average AT and subpar anti-infantry ability, making them only really good at killing other light mechanised lists.
>>46996608
>>46996849
A long time ago some anon statted up a rough outline for the Dirlewanger Brigade (because who can resist playing something with "Wanger" in the name). It incorporated special rules to reflect their drunken, suicidal violence and the fact they had to be forcibly held back from wandering off board to loot every turn.
Here's some grim reading if you have the stomach: http://www.warsawuprising.com/witness/schenk.htm
noob here how does this sounds for a Guards Armoured list from Market Garden?
Armoured Squadron HQ: 2 Sherman V
Armoured Platoon: 3 Sherman V and 1 Firefly VC
Armoured Platoon: 3 Sherman V and 1 Firefly VC
Lorried Pioneer Platoon: 2 Assault Squads, M5 half-track
Lorried Rifle Platoon: 3 Rifle Squads, Transport Squad.
Anti-tank Platoon (SP): 2 M10C 17 pdr SP
Guards Armoured Car Platoon: 2 Daimler 1 and 2 Dingos.
Field Battery, Royal Artillery: 4OQF 25pdrs.
Total: 1,750 points
Also is JOE worth it?
>>46998913
You have basically no reason to not take those as Canadians instead. Mission tactics and safe stowage for everything.
I'd say you're maybe a little heavy on the antitank, but it's not a terrible list.
>>46998966
thanks for the tips, I was a bit nervous about german heavy armour, hence all the AT.
>>46999098
The only thing the firefly makes much difference to is Panthers, and you're unlikely to see a ton of those. Tigers are front-penetrable by the 75mm, while KTs and jagdtigers are impervious to the front from almost any weapon in the game. If you do run into one of the RT Panther lists you're laughing, though.
We're planning a special FoW scenario-day at my FLGS so players can try out some non-standard scenarios and maybe even countries or eras they hadn't encountered before.
So far, we're looking at a beach assault scenario and a mission where an elite force (probably some kind of paras) will have to quickly capture a bridge and then hold it against a superior wave of reinforcements.
Do any of you have ideas for interesting scenarios?
>>46999404
>Tigers are front-penetrable by the 75mm
AT 10 vs FA 9? You might be able to bail them at short range, if they roll bad. Actually penetrating? No.
>>47000870
8. Front Armor 8.
It's only 9 at long range.
>>47000913
...No? Tigers are front 9. side 8.
>>47001067
I'll double check, but for some reason I thought they were 8 Front and Side. *shrug*
>>47001145
No, you're right. Never mind.
>>47000870
I had it in my head the 75mm was AT 11, huh.
>>47001325
I was going to say "The 75mm AP round could do the job", but thinking about it, it had a small margin of penetration at short range on a totally flat front, so "chance to bail on a 1" seems fair.
>>46997576
>>46996563
Since we seem to be talking about brits needing help, this is what I put together last time based off the thread's ideas. Perhaps something similarly limited (as opposed to just wishlisting) could be drummed up for the other countries in need of help?
>>47003485
A lot of the problem is that soviets don't get as much love in terms of fluff, list diversity, etc as other lists. This is really something only battlefront can fix.
Now, having said that, a few things:
1. IS-2s either need a big rework or a points break. As is, all the elements they have going for them have terribly synergy, meaning you pay a load of points for things you can't possibly get any use out of unless things are really going your way. FA 10 hurts a lot, too, but this has more to do with the fact almost every nation has relatively inexpensive high-AT guns on basic units now.
2. Controversially, I think there needs to be a break from the "soviet platoon is a company" thing. This does really hamstring the lists and stops them getting good veteran/elite options, because 10 CV tanks would be obscenely expensive even with H&C.
3. Smoke needs looking at. It's far too easy to pin soviets on the charge as it currently stands, even with suppression (especially now MG teams are 3 dice suppressed). I can buy there was a time when smoke+QoQ was too powerful, but it's far in the other direction now.
4. Costs for guns need looking at in line with the above. Soviets get far less use out of their artillery than other nations, but pay about the same. There's never any real reason you'd want proper guns rather than a mortar team for a quick pin as things are, except maybe being in love with the idea of a soviet artillery park.
5. As a personal point of pride, Katyushas need a big boost. One of the most feared and devastating weapons in the eastern front is a mortar that gets shot up if anything sneezes at it. At the very least they could have a time-on-target-like rule; the rationale for ToT is very similar to the factors that made Katyushas so lethal, namely that the time between "We're getting shelled" and the full salvo hitting was very short.
>>47004114
Oh, and 6. The SU-100 is statted terribly at the moment. It should be a RoF 2 standard tank SPG. It can maybe keep overloaded, if this is meant to represent the gun ditching.
>>46998817
Do you happen to have a link or something to help me to look for it in the archives (a phrase used in the post or something).
I'd really like to know how the anon statted them, I don't know how you could model a unit that by all accounts I've heard of wasn't capable of successfully carrying out any action beyond killing civilians .
>>47004114
>IS-2s either need a big rework or a points break.
Yeah, definitely. Their armor thickness doesn't seem to match up with their FA values (it should be higher), and they're really fucking expensive for a RoF 1 gun. Drop the points or up the armor (the later IS-2s should have the same FA value as the Churchill VII)
>Controversially, I think there needs to be a break from the "soviet platoon is a company" thing.
For a few of their elite units, yeah.
>especially now MG teams are 3 dice suppressed
Typo? They drop to 2 dice from 3 when pinned. And the problem you mention could be solved by just giving more units access to smoke pots. Giving soviets full smoke support, from what I've seen in combined arms games, is EXTREMELY gamechanging, and not for the better.
>Costs for guns need looking at in line with the above
Tube Arty is a bit overpriced for most non-americans, so this problem needs some fixing in general. They value the dual statline too highly, especially on immobile/heavy and RoF 1 guns.
>Katyushas need a big boost
With their ability to get extra crew and count as two launchers? You can get a 12x12 re-roll misses rocket template with FP 4+ for just over 200 points. I can see a small boost, but a big boost (like ToT) would make them just absurd against infantry armies.
>>47004130
As long as it loses Cat Killer, I don't think there's a problem with making it RoF 2.
>>47004791>>47004791
> (the later IS-2s should have the same FA value as the Churchill VII)
Arguably higher, since sloping armour is more beneficial than an effective thickness increase alone.
>Typo?
Typo, yeah. Smoke pots would be good. They're a very niche option at the moment, and there are several accounts of soldiers improvising smoke.
>Tube Arty is a bit overpriced for most non-americans
Brits don't get it too bad either with the reroll to hit and reroll saves.
>With their ability to get extra crew and count as two launchers?
They should be pretty absurd against infantry, though. Going up in points would be fine. And as it is, I can't imagine taking a full block of Katyushas with extra loaders: That's a hell of a lot of points to see vapourised in one burst of machinegun fire. They really suffer from being unarmoured trucks parked adjacent to the fighting.
>>>47004130 (You)
>As long as it loses Cat Killer, I don't think there's a problem with making it RoF 2.
Would it get volley fire back?
Honestly, I don't think Cat Killer is all that great a special rule anyway. The cat killers get worse at cat killing because they're always firing at long-range armour.
>>47004937
>Brits don't get it too bad either with the reroll to hit and reroll saves.
The 5+ FP on the 25pdrs means they need that reroll saves to reach parity with everyone else's 4+ FP arty. They're gobshit against anything that doesn't stay still. The larger 5.5s have the classic problem of "have to buy enough of the tiny guns to get the good ones".
>>47004791
>Yeah, definitely. Their armor thickness doesn't seem to match up with their FA values (it should be higher), and they're really fucking expensive for a RoF 1 gun. Drop the points or up the armor (the later IS-2s should have the same FA value as the Churchill VII)
There were a variety of IS-2s produced at different factories, annoyingly enough, and of course the partially-implemented modernisation program. The standard for the modernised IS-2 glacis plate was imperviousness to the long 88 at at any distance, though, which is obviously pretty thick armour, and though the lower front plate wasn't as thick it was proof against the long 75 and short 88 both at long range (900 and 400m respectively; chart says "2-300m" so were I in the vehicle I'd want to be a good bit out of that range...)
>>47005255
...In other words, FA 13? Like the Churchill?
>>47005119
Unless they're not dug-in, which is admittedly unlikely if they're sticking in place.
>>47005520
Potentially a little higher, really: FA 13 is hardly proof against the long 88.
>>47005520
The churchill is possibly a little over-armoured; it's immune to long-75s at range, but it's vulnerable to 88s up close...
>>47005255
>>47005695
>>47004791
>>47004937
>>47004114
Main complication is that there were three different IS-2s, with three different armor values. The Mk VII Churchill had 140mm to 150mm of armor on the front and turret, and was completely impervious to the short 88. Meanwhile the late version of the IS-2 has an appropriately sloped front that provides greater protection... But a less effective turret and lower front armor. And there was also the 1950 modernized IS-2M, which you have to be careful to not get mixed in with the late 44 improvements to the '44 version of the IS-2 (for once the obsessive version tracking of the brits would be useful).
On the whole, I'd leave the thinner '43 model at FA 10 (mostly 100mm or sloped 70mm), put the normal '44 at FA 12 or 13, and allow an upgrade to the late '44 with FA 13 or 14.
>>47005553
Armored vehicles are a thing, and there are plenty of times you'll hit a dug in unit and then they'll scatter just those teams that were under the template out of the way (keeping the rest dug in). I've been able to actually repeat a bombardment to any effect exactly once.
>>47006264
The thinner 43, even in that picture, has a 120mm upper glacis and 100mm@30* lower, so it's not as low as 100 in practise and certainly not 70mm.
In either case, though, while there are different marks of designed IS-2, it seems these were inconsistently manufactured: some models have been measured at 100mm or even 90mm plate, and whether the plate is cast or rolled is also inconsistent between factories. Granted, I doubt FoW cares about this; we certainly don't get weaker-armoured production-shortage Panthers with shoddy welds lowering the armour...
>>47006439
Doing some maths on a tablecloth, the IS-2 1943 and Panther would have very similar upper and lower hull LOS thickness values, with the values reversed between glacis and LFP, so 10 probably works fine despite the thicker armour on the IS.
>>47004130
As always, archive awareness has some info that helps explain the seeming disparity between the practical and hard numbers. Read "IS-3 reloads".
It wouldn't surprise me if the SU-100 had a lower listed RoF than parallel german or allied guns, since the testing standards were different. A soviet vehicle that wasn't emptying it's bins completely had no reason to be near the listed RoF.
>>47004114
>Katyushas need a big boost
A huge number of tubes at an extremely low cost? Get fucked. Particularly with the shoot and scoot rules removing the smoke trails. If the enemy's firing at the katys then they're a moron. There's almost certainly something better, and because the Soviet player isn't a halfwit, they'll only be covering a single katy with the template anyway.
>>47006264
>and there are plenty of times you'll hit a dug in unit and then they'll scatter just those teams that were under the template out of the way
You seriously expect us to believe that? Lose G2G and Concealed and bulletproof cover on a bunch of teams? Apparently the rest of the british army is just twiddling it's thumbs at that stage.
If you're going to lie, make it something convincing.
>>47007130
Do you have any citations that back that up? Either the rather strange and impractical sustained rate, or the measure of the instantaneous rate.
It's also worth mentioning that both figures were almost certainly parade ground perfection.
>>47008250
>Get fucked.
Nice to meet you too.
Katys are about as good as heavy mortars for a similar cost. Their bonus is the ability to make themselves into 24-strong divisions in the place of being proper artillery, but then you've got a a 24 mortar barrage which is also unlikely to do much.
And the priority isn't to return fire with indirect fire, the priority is to shoot them with regular guns. They're unarmoured vehicles, so any hits on them have a 2/3 chance of killing them outright, and they can't be dug in (and correspondingly concealed/GTG) like infantry guns. Taking a huge battery of mortars that won't do much is just offering your opponent 200+ points and a VP out of your list for anything that gets in machinegun range or has a decent range gun.
>>47008390
Check archive awareness, as I said. Soviets tested rate of fire with all ammunition including that from fully-stowed bins, rather than just ready racks or other easily available ammo. I'd link the site but 4chan complains when I try.
And indeed, testing on a range is different from in combat. But awkward conditions in the heat of battle were hardly unique to the soviets either.
>>47008370
>You seriously expect us to believe that? Lose G2G and Concealed and bulletproof cover on a bunch of teams? Apparently the rest of the british army is just twiddling it's thumbs at that stage.
>>47008407
>And the priority isn't to return fire with indirect fire, the priority is to shoot them with regular guns.
Do you guys play on a salt flat?
>>46998817
Jesus fucking christ I won't sleep well after reading that.
>>47008653
How're you putting your guns so they they're totally inaccessible by the rest of the map? You can put them behind a wood or something but they're going to be well within cannon range as soon as anything gets a line of fire on them.
>>47006264
Armor and penetration values are always pretty weird in fow (i am still pretty mad of late shermans 13 pen).
I think the main problem is that the is2 turret even thought it was rounded, it wasn't really efective against long 75 and 88 guns. What is2 really need is a lower cost point and be able to move and fire.
>>47009421
The Tiger II H has a shit turret too, though, but it keeps 14 armour (of 15).
![PSC_15mm-LWGermanGrenHW-400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Lk5boxv.jpg "PSC_15mm-LWGermanGrenHW-400[1].jpg")
I know that PSC has moved from their own proportions to make their models more like the plastic Battlefronts ones. But i am wondering how the new Normandy Heavy weapons set compares to the battlefront plastics, anybody got some opinions/pictures/scale comparisons?
Is the hero rota razvedki with motorcycles playable? It seems to have awfully few stands of infantry for something that will have to attack dug in infantry often enough.
The Tiger II H turret wasn't a shit, the one that really is a shit and really need a new value is the porsche one something like FA 12.
But still like i said FoW pen values are pretty weird since both 100mm and 122mm guns with normal ammo could pen Tiger II H but just in the turret. unless you want to count the bad quality of german armor in late war.
But since the FoW system was made for a "simple" representation of WW2 i think the fairest value for is2 is being a better panther (a tank with good AT and good anti infantry) at the same cost or even cheaper.
It is a shame how the best and most brutal tank battles in the game should be between german and russian lists. I want to be in a world where IS2 hero list fight CT KT list all the days with equal probability of winning.
>>47010548
Yeah, my bad, I mixed up the porsche and henschel turrets.
>>47010777
Did... someone just admit they made a mistake on the internet?
>>47008815
Yeah I can't imagine a single game of FoW that I've played where moving dug in infantry/guns just to avoid another bombardment would have been anything but a game losing move.
>>47010285
>is the hero...playable?
In most cases no, sorry.
>>47011502
Did you quote the wrong person?
>Type 2 Ka-Mi amphibious light tanks
The "Ka-Mi" in the Ka-Mi tank comes from the "kami" in the name of engineer Kaminishi Jinzou, who was involved with development at the Headquarters for Army Technology.
>>47013060
>an entire army of fucking Steamboat Willie tanks
Jesus fuck Japan.
>>47013060
>>47013726
The only LW tank army I can think of where you can fill your combat platoons to the max with FV tanks for 670 points.
>>47013726
Japs were crazy
Is there a group finder for flames of war? I'd like to find other players near me.
>>47016426
None that actually work.
>>47016426
It's called "You ask the thread and we call you a Homo."
Has anyone made custom rules for the IS-4? or at least a good quality model
>>47016426
You try checking out your local gaming stores? I've got two near me, and one of them is full of old guys playing Flames of War.
Speaking of which, are Fallschirmjagers a decent army for a new player? I want to play paratroopers and I figured playing Germans instead of American/British would give me more potential opponents to play against.
>>47017575
FSJ are excellent if you want Fearless Veteran elite infantry.
They get large platoons (good for both staying power and assault ability) and the various lists available to them have a wide range of excellent support troops.
As for minis, I'd recommend the PSC company box. Those minis are nice, although you'd need to buy bases separately since that kit doesn't come with any.
>>47017575
FJs - like any elite army - will always be small in number and so require careful play. But, especially the Italy list, they're pretty resilient and hard to shift, and make a strong defensive army.
How do you guys store your FoW models? The infantry bases get me, they cover a wide area but are very low profile, how you you store them so they don't get damaged but don't take up loads of space?
>>47017857
I use foam carrying trays.
Various companies have pre-cut layers perfectly sized for FoW bases and various tanks.
>>47004750
>Do you happen to have a link or something to help me to look for it in the archives (a phrase used in the post or something).
I've done a bit of hunting around but I think it must have been back around 2013 at least, because there's nothing in the archives. I do remember the conversation got started when the Project Warsaw team announced they weren't doing a list for them: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=53&art_id=1620
The main thing I remember was a special rule about having to check every turn that they wouldn't ignore orders to go off looting.
>>47017972
How do you pronounce that?
Der-leh-wan-ger?
Doesn't roll off the tongue.
>>47018002
You have it right: http://forvo.com/word/dirlewanger/
>>47018002
Deer - leh - vang -uh
>>47017972
Well thank you.
I guess I'll try some digging of my own to see if anything turns up.
Do you really not remember the name of the special rule or any other exact phrase that could help?
>>47017972
>>47018040
Oh, it was further back than the archives go.
Damn.
>>47018040
>>47018079
>Do you really not remember the name of the special rule or any other exact phrase that could help?
I think it was as simple as "roll 1d6 each turn, on a 1-2 they exit the table".
>Oh, it was further back than the archives go.
>Damn.
Yeah it was prior to the big archive purge; there wasn't even a regular FoW general then like now.
If you were serious about running these guys in FoW form, the hard part would be recreating their bizarre morale - they're either suicidally drunk and headless of casualties, or on the verge of panic with the officers shooting them in the back.
When I was an edgy wehraboo teen I had a bit of a fixation on this outfit; mainly thanks to reading those trashy Sven Hassel novels which often featured the Dirlewanger Brigade. There is a shortage of decent material on them, other than one good book ("Cruel Hunters" by French McLean) and the Militaria on them (which is in Polish with brief English translations).
>>47018092
Oh it's not that I think they're incredibly coo and want to model them.
My interest mostly comes from the fact that the little I've read about them paints them as a bunch of bumbling lunatics who had next to no training who had the tendency to charge ahead blindly while completely drunk(and apparently in some cases even unarmed!?) and die to a man in the process in any situation where they were engaged in actual combat, while in any other situation they simply killed any civilians around in the most brutal way imaginable.
I was interested in how someone else statted them because I just don't see them as an actual military unit of any value and so don't see how one could represent them in a wargame.
>>47018340
I think there were a core group of committed survivors who were competent enough; note the guy here >>47018023 has a close combat clasp and Iron Cross. The majority of them were doomed, suicidal thugs, but a small cadre of W-SS veterans sent to the unit for punishment were able to at least keep themselves alive. Late in 1944 Fritz Schmedes, erstwhile commander of the SS-Polizei division, was sent to it (as punishment for refusing a personal order from Himmler to launch a pointless counterattack). He became the de facto commander in the absence of any real leadership by Dirlewanger.
When reading about homosexuals in the Holocaust some years back, I was stunned to discover that they were given the option for release from a concentration camp - if they submitted to chemical castration and volunteered for the Dirlewanger Brigade. Now that's fucked up.
>>47017752
>>47017756
Thanks for the feedback! The reason I've decided to go with an elite infantry army is mostly due to the fact that I'm trying to save time and money.
So I threw a list together using Bridge by Bridge. Any advice? Keep in mind I have no idea what the fuck I'm doing so I'm open to any criticism.
Ersatz Fallschirmjagerkompanie
1500 pts
Fallschirmjager-kompanie HQ 130 pts
Company HQ 40 pts
2 Panzerschreck teams +50 pts
2 8cm GW42 +40 pts
Fallschirmjager Platoon 205 pts
3 Fallchirmjager Squads
Fallschirmjager Platoon 205 pts
3 Fallchirmjager Squads
Fallschirmjager Mortar Platoon 200 pts
2 Mortar Sections
Fallschirmjager Anti-tank Gun Platoon 65 pts
2 PaK36(r)
Fallschirmjager Assault Gun Platoon 545 pts
5 StuG G
Fallschirmjager Artillery Battery 150 pts
2 15cm sF18
>>47008474
Wait, the site that's notoriously heavy on it's pro-Russian and anti US and German bias?
>>47018470
It seems funny that the guy translating from soviet records is producing different results to german east front memoirs and cold-war speculation, isn't it.
>>47018399
I guess you're right in that there were some competent men mixed in with the useless maniacs. (maybe it could be modeled by a rule similar to Unknown Hero for the italians to represent the competent ones mixed with the rabble and perhaps something like the SS HitlerJugend rule which made them attack the nearest unit when morale fails if I recall correctly)
At the very least those who survived Warsaw had to have been at least somewhat competent, I think I read somewhere that the unit had some ridiculous casualty rate something like 300% partly because they were mostly ill trained rabble led by a madman who didn't acre about them at all but also because the building clearing was a brutal affair(I read somewhere about some German who was apparently engaged in 14 close combat actions during the fighting which is saying something considering how rarely actual melee combat occurred in the war)
>>47018558
Rare generally, yes. In city fighting? No. Visibility is so poor you can be on top of people before you realise they're there, even if neither side is attempting to ambush the other, and it's very difficult for vehicles and artillery to dig people out of an urban area. This means lots of building-to-building fighting, which is always brutal.
>>47019546
Well anyway I was really trying to say that i concede that some of them who survived Warsaw had to have been at least somewhat competent to survive city combat
>>47016426
Where are you from?
Maybe someone else on here is a local.
>>47019643
It's hard to say. The people who were involved in close order fighting and survived will be a minority, and from small samples it'd be hard to say if they were lucky or good.
>>46998817
>“I don't remember when we decided to kill this pig Fels. To survive because he constantly pushed us ahead. Seven or eight of us drew rifles at random. Two were loaded. When the occasion came up that Fels was in front of us we shot him in the back. He fell and we escaped. The new commander was much more humane.”
soldiers frag their officers if pushed too far
i'm actually glad for this.
>>47001361
to have a chance of fighting a tank in Flames of War, the AP value must beat the Armor by at least 3.
so for 7, 11 will do, 12 is better
(remember. long range is essentially +1 armor.)
>>47017752
There's not any free shipping deals for PSC are there? Something like a coupon code or spend X amount for free shipping?
>>47022652
Not sure, where in the world are ya?
There's probably someone around here who can recommend a good online store for your region.
>>47022745
Just in the US. Their prices are great, but the 22% shipping seems a bit high. That'd be great if someone knows a good one.
>>47022827
Not sure about US suppliers myself, since I'm in the EU.
I recall hearing good things about the WarStore, though.
>>47022881
Been googling around, finding some good stuff actually. I never thought about other retailers selling PSC stuff. Thanks for the suggestion, this helps a bunch!
I just saw the cards of TANKS! most of them seem pretty good, a little worried with panzer iv, stug and the english sherman, but maybe they are a little better with the upgrade cards.
What is the general thought about TANKS?
>>47018413
Ersatz FJ don't quite count as "elite", but you can build some nice lists with them. For 1500 and similar to what you've done, I'd go:
German Ersatz Fallschirmjager
Infantry Company, from Bridge by Bridge, page 25
Compulsory Fallschirmjager Company HQ (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.26) - CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (40 pts)
- Upgrade 2iC SMG to 2iC Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)
- 3x Panzerschrek (75 pts)
- 8cm GW42 (Stummelwerfer) mortar (20 pts)
Compulsory Fallschirmjager Platoon (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.26) - Command Panzerfaust SMG, 9x Rifle/MG (215 pts)
Compulsory Fallschirmjager Platoon (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.26) - Command Panzerfaust SMG, 9x Rifle/MG (215 pts)
Fallschirmjager Mortar Platoon (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.27) - Command SMG, Observer Rifle, 2x 8cm GW42 (Stummelwerfer) mortar (55 pts)
Fallschirmjager Anti-tank Platoon (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.29) - Command SMG, 4x 7.5cm PaK40 gun (180 pts)
Fallschirmjager Assault Gun Platoon (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.30) - Command StuG G, 4x StuG G (545 pts)
Fallschirmjager Artillery Battery (Ersatz Fallschirmjager) (p.31) - Command SMG, Staff, Observer Rifle, 3x 10.5cm leFH18 howitzer (140 pts)
1495 Points, 6 Platoons
You combat attach the single 8cm Mortar in the HQ to the 1-section Mortar platoon: you now how three weapons for bombarding or smoke, so no need to re-roll hits. The five FV StuGs are a great unit, but the three CT Panthers are also very good, and better as a dedicated tank-killing option.
>>47025682
Thanks for the feedback! I'm also checking out the Paracadutisi list from Fortress Italy since it looks rather fun.
>>47024415
>What is the general thought about TANKS?
Might be fun.
I'm certainly willing to at least pick up the starter set when that comes out.
Got some Russians done this bank holiday weekend. Should start the infantry next as I have the PSC box set with loads in. I'm not sure on lists or what's a sensible force to run, but I'm going for a late-war/Berlin force so more T-34, SU-85 or ISU-152?
>>47026265
Couldn't even attach the photo the first time.
>>47018092
>the hard part would be recreating their bizarre morale - they're either suicidally drunk and headless of casualties, or on the verge of panic with the officers shooting them in the back.
Well, if you're designing a list for them from scratch, you could use an Italian-style table to determine their morale and skill. If using an existing list it does present a problem, yeah.
Do you have to fight against an enemy nation or can you have Americans fighting Soviets? I'd really like to be able to do an Operation Unthinkable scenario.
>>47027106
>Do you have to fight against an enemy nation or can you have Americans fighting Soviets? I'd really like to be able to do an Operation Unthinkable scenario.
There's no restrictions on who can fight who. You could have a team of Italians and Brits fighting the Japanese and Soviets, if you wanted to. Or even have the same faction fight themselves.
>>47027172
Just as long as it's from the same time period. That's the only real restriction.
>>47026291
How do PSC infantry compare to standard FoW minis? Was going to grab a box but was worried they wouldn't blend in with my other FoW platoons.
>>47030889
This question is asked a lot. You shouldn't see any problems with combining some things. There are other things (soviet infantry usually) where you have to be specific what you buy.
As for tanks? I have no problem with mixing them with my Battlefront models. They all look alike.
>>47030889
The first ones (late grenadiers, russian and american boxes) looks like tiny 1/72 minis, they aren't "heroic" scale like battlefront ones. The new ones are pretty good.
>>47031267
Americans also have the wrong carry-kit (IIRC it's german or something)
>>47031551
Pretty certain they fixed that. And they kit was mostly alright, they just had the German Y-Backed rigging.
What are peoples opinions of 4ground terrain?
It looks nice, but it seems a bit on the pricey side to me.
Has anyone worked greenstuff to the thinness of the bits in this picture? Found it on a dead blog , and I want to replicate what they did for the maps and hessian strips but I don't have that much experience with GS.
>>47034888
It's doable, but awkward. Green Stuff gets pretty sticky, so I'd recommend rolling it out on some kind of non-stick surface, so it doesn't tear or deform too badly when you try to pick it up. I've used the plastic from a blister pack, slicked with a little bit of vaseline.
>>47030889
Sorry for poor photo quality, but as you can see they are more slightly built and the detail is generally less whereas the FoW stuff is a little chunkier and the sculpts exaggerated for detail definition. You can probably mix them ok though.
The vehicles are good though, these IS-2 when together fast and easy.
>>47037260
Worth noting those are the soviets. The PSC germans and brits are much more battlefront-like.
>>47038509
*Some* of the germans. The older ones are the same as the soviets. The newer ones, the EW and Normandy ones, are BF-scale.
>>47037260
which blister did those FoW infantry come from, i don't have those sculpts.
>>47040453
I think they might bee from the Open Fire box set. Also, they are plastic, which I don't think Battlefront even sells in blisters.
>>47040453
BF German plastics
>>47034878
The buildings are pretty good, with the limitations that MDF has, i.e. very square, and they require some construction.
You can improve them if you like or just build and use: the burn marks are a pain, no real way to avoid these except to re-paint which largely defeats the point. The corners where the pieces interlock however can be painted grey to look like dressing stones which works well.
>>47040586
Ok. But overall you'd say you get your money's worth with 4Ground?
>>47041972
That depends on your expectations I suppose. I knew what I was getting: pre-painted MDF kits that required construction but could do with improvements. They aren't as good as the best resin buildings and I knew they would not be, but I needed some buildings and did not have the time then to faff with painting buildings. The 2- and 3-house kits are also pretty decent to "bulk-up" settlements, and from that one can add more expensive/detailed houses as centre pieces.
My advice: maybe make a small order and see if you like them, or try too see them in-person if someone you know has any. There are plenty of reviews online; some people like them, others don't at all.
>>47042210
Ah. Ok.
I've been looking at picking up some of their Apartment Buildings for my Team Yankee terrain collection.
And I'm not finding much else in 15mm scale for Modern buildings.
I'm open to other suggestions if you have any.
>>47042412
> I'm open to other suggestions if you have any.
Depends where you are. First, see the Model Dads youtube channel, he has done quite a few reviews of 15mm building manufacturers.
I like:
Tiger Terrain: http://www.tigerterrain.com/
Najewit Modelbau: http://www.najewitz-modellbau.de/index.php/en/
...for 15mm, they are excellent, but pricey. There's also Kerr and King (UK - pretty decent), Mark IV Miniatures (US - I have not seen in-hand, they do look decent though).
There may be more I'm forgetting: I generally don't order from the US as shipping outside USA is expensive.
I rate 4Ground as good value for money: to get the best out of the really good resin buildings you do need to pain them well.
BF pre-paints are also good value for money, if difficult to find individually and all looking extremely very similar.
I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting...remember: most building sold as WWII will still work in modern times, especially for small villages and towns in Europe.
Is there any way to geht a decent number oft M3 Scout Cars at a reasonable price by now? I habe been wanting to field Razvedki in M3s for quite some time now but every time I searched in the last few years I never found anything that seemed afordable enough for "yeah I wanna try that sometime".
Also why is that M3 so much fucking better than all their other transport options?
>>47043618
No cheapo options that I know of...unfortunately.
>Also why is that M3 so much fucking better than all their other transport options?
BF lurvs 'merican kit.
>>47010931
Pride gives way to anonymity, that's why 4chan is good
Ok, so I'm actually thinking about ordering 3 boxes of Type 2 Ka-Mi's in order to field a Ka-Mi Sensha Chutai... Is there any chance a list like that could work? I'd probably throw 2 Hohei platoons and some artillery to the list also... Is this a stupid idea?
>>47018413
Always take a platoon of mg42. Combating out mgs, shreks and mortars mean that you have gratuitously large platoons that don't break and can deal with any situation. I also try fit any combination of werfers, 88s and pak 40s into my deck but at the end of the day support is really personal preference and play style
>>47042598
Good to know. I'll keep that in mind as I try to expand my terrain collection.
>>47003485
Might want to change the gun tank modifying rule to not apply when it' a hull difference, as opposed to a gun diffirence. A challenger (with its xboxhuge turret and extra length) is not going to be as hard to pick out from cromwells as a firefly is from shermans, after all.
>>47044516
>4chan is good
Probably a broad and daft question, but what is considered to be the most uber powerful and best lists for each nation out of the big four (russia/usa/uk/germany)
Do they have a list in a book that's considered really good bang for buck?
>>47048830
>Hey guys, how do I power-game?
>>47048830
There is no list as far as i know that wins all the time. any list can be fucked sideways by a reasonably competent player
>>47048830
Almost universally it's Patton and an American Armoured Rifle Company. However, people will call you a cunt for playing it.
>>47049246
What if I am normally called a cunt? Would it be ok then?
>>47049274
You would be a double cunt then
>>47049246
>>47049274
You'd still need to be competent at the game to properly win with it.
Said list simply provides fast and nasty threats in a way where you're punished heavily for any mistakes you made.
>>47049246
Virus, just because it's the list I keep harping about doesn't make it universally hated.
Besides, minus Patton I honestly don't think ARCs are all that bad.
Hell, I've been tempted to build one myself.
>>47049274
No, because then you're a turbocunt. Which means you will be literally incapable of not taking every dick in a 5 mile radius.
>>47048830
Related question for the thread: what are considered to be the most utterly shit and bad lists for each nation out of the big four (russia/usa/uk/germany)?
>>47049174
I'm playing 352nd Infantrie Division Fuselier Kompanie and very new to the game. I am enjoying the idea of playing an army with no heavy armour, or air support, so please, tell me your theory. I only ask because my friend who's also new to the game is playing Grimball's Beasts, but he's worried he's going to be playing a dick cheese force against me, and we're both trying to avoid any of that power gameyness
>>47049363
Honestly, he's got quite a big point-sink in those Pershings. Sherman 76s could do the job just as well for lower points.
It isn't a dick cheese list.
As far as how to beat it with no heavy armor or air support, I'd say you should be looking at PaK 40s, 88s, or maybe some StuGs or Panzer IV Hs.
Post up an army list for us to critique and we'll see if we can point you in the right direction.
>>47049489
352nd Fusiliekompanie (1350)
HQ - Company Command Panzerknacker SMG Team + 2IC Command Panzerknacker SMG Team (50 Points)
Fusilier Platoon
3 Squads of MG Bases + Panzerknacker SMG Command Team (185 Points)
Fusilier Platoon
3 Squads of MG Bases + Panzerknacker SMG Command Team (185 Points)
3 x StuG G (285 Points)
3 x StuG G (285 Points)
1 Platoon of 3 x PaK 40 (155 Points)
1 Platoon of 2 x 8cm Mortar Sections (125 Points)
1 Platoon of 2 MG42 HMG (70 Points)
vs his Grimball's Beasts box set, but we're looking at slightly expanding to 1,500 and I might add the 2 x sIG 33 guns
>>47049674
If you can find room for some kind of Long Eighty Eight, you can make him eat shit. King Tigers, Jagdpanthers, Nashorns, etc.
>>47049816
Flak 8.8 gun teams?
>>47049854
Could do, but they have front armour 10. So you're only really damaging them at short range.
>>47049335
Well imo for Germans it's their heavy tank companies. The tanks are just too damn expensive for the scale to work right.
Lets say I wanted to be the biggest cunt in the world. How would I achieve this goal using only the Polish Home Army? Street barricades with panzerfausts?
>>47048830
Americans out of blood guts glory and devil's charge are widely considered as the most powerful armies in Flames of War.
As for Germans and Soviets, they don't really reach that level. For British I would check out Road to Rome or Canadians out of market garden.
>>47051301
>For British I would check out Road to Rome or Canadians out of market garden.
What's so good about the brits in those?
>>47051617
Road to Rome has British summer wear for the fashionable types?
Just got me some afghantzy weapons dudes. Anyone else painted them up? After all the plastic kits spoiling me, I forgot how much prep a zillion metal dudes takes.
question for the rivet counters. Can I plausibly pass PZ IV Js as PZ IV H's?
>>47052775
Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the biggest difference between the H and the J is that the J didn't have a motorized turret.
>>47052775
>>47053433
mesh schurzen....
if you have naked H's you can make mesh schurzen out of micro-mesh.
>>47052775
>Despite addressing the mobility problems introduced by the previous model, the final production version of the Panzer IV—the Ausf. J—was considered a retrograde from the Ausf. H. Born of German necessity to replace heavy losses, it was greatly simplified to speed production.[39] The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed, so the turret had to be rotated manually. The space was later used for the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (53 US gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 km (200 mi),[40] The pistol and vision ports in the turret were removed, and the engine's radiator housing was simplified by changing the slanted sides to straight sides.[38] In addition, the cylindrical muffler was replaced by two flame-suppressing mufflers. By late 1944, Zimmerit was no longer being applied to German armored vehicles, and the Panzer IV's side-skirts had been replaced by wire mesh, while the number of return rollers was reduced from four to three to further speed-up production.[41]
Non-rivet counters won't notice even with mesh schurzen, but the rivet counters are going to notice something.
>>47051617
Market Garden they can get Canadians, who get mission tactics, protected ammo, and rerolls to unpin for +5 points per team. Road to Rome they can get Canadians as well as well as a bunch of yank stuff that ignores some allies rules, giving you thinks like tank destroyers and time-on-target 105mm artillery.
>>47055744
Worth noting that they're good but not as amazingly strong as some of the yank options. Amusingly most of the reason RTR stuff is good is directly stolen from the US lists...
>>47055744
>Canadians or British
>Top competitive tank lists
Pick one.
>>47057152
Nobody said tank lists, dude.
>>47026291
>Attaching the tracks
>not priming/painting/weathering them on the sprue
I always found it a whole lot easier in the long run
>>47034878
>What are peoples opinions of 4ground terrain?
I prefer http://crescent-root.com/ for quality mdf. Expensive but I have money to burn.
>>47034878
If I had a ton of cash to burn, I'd love to do something like (pic related) for my Team Yankee set up.
That being said, my own terrain budget is a bit small at the moment.
>>47048830
>>47051301
For Germans, the most similar list they get to the US Patton list is from Panzers to the Meuse - it' also gets the combo of Always Attacks and Spearhead, which together are a pretty strong combination.
Otherwise, they've got plenty of lists which are decent, a few which can be a nasty surprise if played well, and fairly few which aren't actually that good.
Generally with the Germans, you're looking at individual unit performance, rather than list special rules. Panzer IVs are always 'pretty good' - not the best tank of the war, but good enough. PaK40s might just be the best medium AT gun of the war, and are not too expensive. Nebelwerfers are cheap and effective in bombardment for pinning or smoking. StuHs are RoF2 Breakthrough Guns. Most lists get access to 2 cheap mortars for extra smoke.
>>47060726
>If I had a ton of cash to burn, I'd love to do something like (pic related) for my Team Yankee set up.
You and me both.
That's impressive.
>>47061504
>For Germans, the most similar list they get to the US Patton list is from Panzers to the Meuse
Isn't there also Kampfgruppe Peiper from Devil's Charge?
>>47063220
Yes, they get to spearhead Panzer IV platoons (& Gep Panzergrens) if you choose to attack, without needing the really expensive Gep. Aufklarungs platoon. Fearless Trained instead of CV, so win fast or retire to the bar.
Long shot here: does anyone have the eastern front Hermann Goring lists from Grey Wolf Digital?
BMP butt
So I was sad to learn today the 13 AT gun tank thingy for the Japanese in Banzai hasn't even released yet. I REALLY need that gun. Alls I have so far crappy *but cheapo* battalion and regimental guns.
>>47066377
Proxy it.
>>47066377
>13 AT gun tank thingy
The what?
>>47067590
Japanese Type 4 Ho-Ro, with a 150mm howitzer and Anti-tank 13 (RoF 1, FP 1+ and bunker buster)
>>47067631
If you are in dire need of tank denial, just spam hohei platoons with maximum amounts of nikuhakus until the ho-ro's are released (in june I believe). Otherwise just proxy one, the ho-ro and ho-ni guns are built on type 97 chi-ha chassis' so maybe you can just prop up those. Though, oldglory15s has both ho-ni's and ho-ro's but the sculpts are vastly inferior to those of battlefront, so I wouldn't field ones in my own army at least.
>>47067787
Yeah I bought nikuhaku for my infantry. I'm super psyched to swing some mines on sticks at tanks!
>>47052775
Pretty shitty image, but it is really the only difference that you can easily notice in this scale, unless you use a magnifying glass.
>>47070103
Well, and the return wheels/schurzen, which is the big and obvious difference.
>>47070199
Yeah, but the return wheels are more or less hidden by the schurzen.
A few threads ago someone mentioned making platforms for their 40mm Bofors SPs, so they could use them as both the SP and the immobile versions. If you're still around, do you think you could grab some pics of them?
Hey guys, I'm just getting into the game, and I've hit a snag. My first platoon is an early war finnish machine gun platoon, and I'm having trouble getting the loader to sit close enough to actually load the damn things. Am I supposed to clip off the base on the loader model and glue them off set from the indent on the squad base?
>>47073522
Do whatever method works for you anon. There are literally tons of ways to accomplish it. Really, you've stumbled upon the real beauty of modelling.
>>47060726
I looks amazing but is a pita to assemble.
Are there any sequential turn rules for WW2?
>>47076336
Fuck, I mean simultaneous
>>47076345
No.
>>47076348
Why?
>>47076354
Because to do so would basically necessitate rewriting the entire game.
All the game's mechanics are explicitly designed around the IGYG turn system.
>>47076361
Sorry, to clarify - not just FoW, WW2 period minifig wargaming in general.
>>47076372
In that case, I would suggest checking with /hwg/
>>47076385
Will do.
>>47076372
Bolt Action has sequential turns. For every unit you have, you put a token into the bag. A token is drawn. That player activates a unit. A token is drawn, that player activates a unit, etc, etc.
>>47076345
There are as many WWII minis games as there are WWII minis players.
Check with HWG, I'm sure they can find something that works for you.
>doing weekly "what new shit is added to Forces" search
>see multiple new British items
>neat must be the Burma stuff
>see warriors
>warriors that all died in North Africa
>go to Italy tab, yup they have stuff too
I guess the remaining EW books are next. I had no idea you could buy artillery with no bombardments in those books though.
>>47070103
Huh. I'd been wondering about that for awhile.
Seems like they were also phasing out the zimmerit by time the ambush camo started catching on, so now I'm really on the fence about using my unopened box of Panzer IV H's in a KG Peiper force. :/
>>47079003
I say go for it.
It's completely reasonable that Panzer IV Hs were still in use at the same time as IV Js.
Should I put 50 cals on my British Shermans? Is what you see is what you get big in the FoW community?
>>47080068
I used small magnets glued to the turret top of my Soviet Shermans, and to the. 50cals: that way I can choose to add AAMGs to as many or as few tanks as I need. It would work for Brits too.
>>47080124
Smart.
>>47080124
Those must have been some really tiny magnets.
>>47076396
Chain of Command is a much cooler BA, so that's worth a look too, though it's also not simultaneous.
When is the next wave of pacific kits hitting stores/available for ordering? Also, where would I be able to acquire them the cheapest with fastest shipping? I live in scandinavia, hobby stores in my country sell at msrp and get fow stuff pretty late.
>>47081398
2mm X 1mm...try ebay. It's a bit of a pain to do, but well worth the effort.
>>47081420
Chain of Command is indeed excellent.
>>47083360
Dunno man. I hope soon. I was the guy asking about the Ho-Ros earlier.
>>47084645
Ho-Ro's get released sometime in June, I'm waiting for the Type 2 Ka-Mi's. Going to build a boat company...
>>47081420
>>47083569
>forces you to play a set platoon
>random and badly balanced support options
>not even all the platoon charts are correct.
>soviet platoons are tiny
>italian platoons are unwashed hordes
>excellent
people's opinions. very little fact.
you will like CoC if 1:you have no problem painting up the entire platoon to in-book specs as a pre-game requirement (typically in 28mm), no version of a 600pt easy buy in, and 2: you have no problem with a super-ahistorical scenario where the soviets are always outnumbered and the USA is just the best army ever, 2A: trust me, to even run a battle in operation bagration, you would have to pit 3-4 soviet platoons against 1 german one, and then modify the points so you don't get uberfucked/do the uberfucking when it came to deciding your support pools
if your going to talk a game, at least play the game first.
CoC is WRONG on so many levels....
May the Fourth be with you!!!
(to those who remember that april fool's joke, and who wants 15mm star wars battles in FoW rules...)
>>47084853
A few of your points aren't wrong, but you seem to think they're flat out bad instead of being a different way to play. Yes, you roll for support options. No, this means you don't always play a point-for-point balanced game. However, the entire style of the game is an exercise in command and control: the point is you often won't have everything you want or need and will have to improvise anyway. Your opponent will be doing the same. It's also fair that it's not a beginner's game: the squads are assumed to be complete and the support is variable, so it's for the gamer with a collection.
But nevertheless, you seem to be outright wrong on the complaints of "outnumbered soviets" and "the game is wrong". Yes, a full platoon is the default of the game, and are arranged historically. Did you miss the force ratings? Where these are mismatched, you get guaranteed points to support options. The core soviet platoon is outnumbered by a basic german one, but they also have somewhere around +3 to /+14/ support points before they even roll. That's enough to buy a T-70 for every squad they have and bring change pre-rolling, or just buy three more squads if you want a horde of infantry, again, pre-rolls. With a decent roll you can bring a full platoon of T-34s to the field.
>>47085763
As a final point, playing CoC doesn't stop you playing any other 28mm games as well. It'll scratch a different itch from BA, though, and in my experience it's one that I prefer to get scratched.
>>47084952
In a heartbeat.
I'd certainly play a Rebel Echo Base Defense Company.
Or an Imperial AT-AT Heavy Walker Company.
Has Battlefront given up on going back and doing stuff like Pz IIIs in Plastic?
>>47087056
Plastic soldier does those.
So apparently I've been literally insane for several months. I KNEW jbx01 Hohei Chutai was a plastic kit. It was a known fact. Even when I bought them in metal I KNEW jbx01 was supposed to be a plastic kit and assumed the metals were an older version. Only today has it hit me the kit has always been metal. I feel like one of the pillars of my reality has been knocked down. Every memory I have of the kit has been a lie created in my own mind. I've had several conversations with people about jbx01 being plastic and NO ONE ever corrected me. So yeah, I'm crazy and jbx01 is metal.
>>47088590
I know, I have a box of Pz III Ms from PSC primed and ready when the urge to do tricolor camo strikes me. I was just wondering when BF was going to retool some of their older lines.
I really need someone to do Valentines in plastic for the LL horde.
>>47088761
...welcome to /tg/. you will fit in fine here...
>>47088761
We all make mistakes.
But at least you realized it and admitted to it.
So do people normally max out on
Nikuhaku teams? I know with my Germans I always take PFs on every team, the psychological effect on enemy armor alone usually pays dividends.
>>47092933
Depends. Nikuhaku teams are a before game choice. If you actually want to assault Infantry, you need to not have them because they can't assign their hits to Infantry teams. Plus they can't actually shoot.
>>47093012
They can still attack infantry as normal, their massive assault rules only kick in if there's a tank within 5cm. And you replace a friggin' Rifle team. I fail to see any situation where you wish you had more rifle teams for firing...
So, yeah, in almost all situations, go full Nikuhaku.
>>47092933
>>47093012
>>47094251
I'd say the only situation where you wouldn't want to replace them would be when the enemy literally has no armoured vehicles in their force.
And in that rarest of cases, you could just agree with your opponent that those guys with all the explosives are also Rifle teams, so there's probably no need to bring those replacement teams along.
When making a table for tank vs tank engagements in North Africa, what kinds of terrain features would you like to see?
Obviously rocky outcroppings and sand dunes, maybe some flowing ridges.
But what else would make for some interesting gameplay while looking nice?
>>47095546
Depressions (see Outpost Snipe) and Wadis (gullies) are useful additions. Also, templates modelled to represent areas of "soft" sand, very rocky ground and short scrub.
>>47095546
This looks like a decent North Africa table.
>>47097160
Looks like a War Thunder map.
>>47097176
I wouldn't know. Never played War Thunder.
>>47097160
It looks more like the clichéd "cliffs, palm trees, roads and the far-too-common settlement", i.e. a Hollywood desert, not the real thing.
>>47098134
Still looks like a very neat board to play FoW on.
>>47098134
Do you want wide open spaces where an 88 can fire from one corner of the board to the other with nothing in between?
>>47098269
In the desert: yes, to some extent, and more than on European battlefields.
>>47098269
Heard about something called dunes? Rolling hills of sand (so, painted yellow) ought to be perfect for desert tables, no real need for much else. Maybe a road, or at least long stretch of more packed sand/rocks. Oh, and rocks. The Sahara can apparently be quite rocky at places
>>47086017
>>47084952
how tall would a 15mm AT-AT be?
>>47099587
Well, a "real" AT-AT is apparently 22.5 m tall, so 22.5cm(bow to the superior measurement system)
>>47099648
while the metric system for sure is the better of the two for regular applications, I actually prefer imperial in tabletop games.
>>47099695
I utterly disagree (about the tabletop, metrics are superior there as well), but thankfully FoW provides for us both.
>>47099648
Seriously?
That seems unusually tall. I would have guessed maybe 5 or 6 inches (12 to 15 cm) tall.
>>47099947
Sci fi has never understood it's own scales very well.
I'm curious about infantry list-building.
Is it common to take a third infantry platoon?
Is it a good idea to take a more elite allied platoon to shore up certain kinds of lists? IE bringing in some Fallscrimjagers if I'm playing RT or CT grenadiers.
Should I spring for heavy types of artillery if I'm going for a strong defense?
>>47084853
When the war ended, the OFFICIAL strength of a full Soviet rifle company was 53 men. The entire company. It was normal to have a company that in reality hovered around 20 guys.
Also, random fact: by Berlin the 45mm gun was being issued sorta like bazookas, for close infantry AT support. 57mm guns were in the formerly 45mm units, and the AT rifle was hahahahaha. Did you know a 45mm can kill a Pershing under extreme circumstances? The Norks knew!
>>47101046
Everything I've read says 2 platoons, 3 is very rare.
>>47101046
> Is it common to take a third infantry platoon?
In competitions, sometimes: it depends on the list in my experience. I like having three Rifle platoons with my British, or if I'm playing Grenadiers I prefer 2x Grenadier Platoons and the 10-team Pioneer platoon as the third platoon. Playing Motorised Panzergrens I've sometimes used 2x foot Panzergrens and taken one support PzGren platoon in half-tracks, or taken the third platoon as Panzer Pioneers. Tanking a Pio platoon add some useful capability. It depends on points and what else you have in the army though.
>Is it a good idea to take a more elite allied platoon to shore up certain kinds of lists? IE bringing in some Fallscrimjagers if I'm playing RT or CT grenadiers.
Personally I avoid the FJ supporting Heer/German Army: mine would always get pinned and stay that way, even if fearless, so I prefer a Pioneer platoon. But that was with CV infantry: with Trained I can see the attraction and usefulness of having a Vet platoon
> Should I spring for heavy types of artillery if I'm going for a strong defense?
Again, depends on list: what role will the heavy arty play in the force? Primarily anti-tank? To kill infantry and guns lighter stuff is usually better: for Germans that means rockets. YMMV though.
Anyone have any good pictures of the tables they play on or perhaps tips on making your own? Im planning on making one but im on a tight budget.
>>47105295
Are you going to be playing in any period/area where crops are likely to be growing? If yes, get a coir/coconut hair doormat (like this one: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Beige-18-in-x-30-in-Coir-and-Vinyl-Door-Mat-20815-1/206188593 ) and cut it up into a bunch of little rectangles and squares to use for fields. See pic related for how it looks in play (pretty good).
I know there's some cheap ways to make hills, but I've never made a hill so I can't say from personal experience how easy that is.
Buildings tend to be one of the more expensive bits to make or buy. Walls can be made really cheap with small wooden strips scored regularly (brick) or irregularly (stone) on the sides, stacked, and then painted. I'm sure there has to be a cheap but good looking way to make roads, but I'm not aware of such if it exists.
>>46998758
Not the only company to do that either, as a retired Ork player, I always felt they way overpriced randomized abilities, on what they *might* do.
>>47005119
Overpriced, under-performing; rapid barrages from 25 pdrs should be a centerpiece (option) for a British list, and instead I leave them to collect dust because they're just not effective.
>>47013726
> Steamboat willi tanks
My sides, those fucking things really do look like fucking steamboats.
You should see the retarded bullshit World of Tanks gives Japan.
>>47015334
Don't LW Finns come close to being able to do the same depending on your tank choices?
>>47107385
>You should see the retarded bullshit World of Tanks gives Japan.
Well, the heavy line is all kinda of Maus/E-100-tier bullshit. The medium line were all built IRL, except the last three tiers are actually a post-war prototype, the first mass-produced post-war medium tank and an early protoype version of it's replacement.
>>47107594
Well... they at least built a maus or two, but yeah the Germans are almost as bad. There's a few Soviet tanks that are preposterous too, like the KV-5.
I don't actually mind any of them. I had a lot of fun with the O-I Experimental when it first came out, rolling downhill on Himmilsdorf I rammed an IS-2 for ~500 damage. You could just tap some tanks and destroy them.
>>47100972
>>47099947
given VISUAL scale, i'd say they'd be about 18cm tall, they are big, but not a foot high big...maybe 9-10 inches, i'd say...
keep in mind, the T-47's would be as big as a Chi-Ro tank, so, that is the size of an AT-AT foot....
Bump
>>47105295
I don't know about good pictures, but here are a few tables that I've played on. Many taken in patented blur-o-vision, because I take about as good pictures as Michael J Fox.
>>47111001
>>47111005
