Flames of War SCANS database:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108
Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/
Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts
WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8a13ampzzs88/World_War_Two
and, for Vietnam.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8i8t83bysdwz/Vietnam_War
--Guybrarian Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw/edit?usp=sharing
http://www.400gb.com/u/1883935
Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/
[Vimeo] The Fallen of World War II
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/CariusNarva.pdf
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1949 the Azul Division: no longer linkable off the main page
Which army do you play the most?
http://strawpoll.me/4631475
what actual country are you from?
http://strawpoll.me/4896764
As the guy who titled last thread, I approve.
What is everyone painting?
Me, I'm painting up british guns for the desert in preparation for a Alamein battle this summer. Both 25 pdrs and 6 pdrs (designed so that it's possible to take the guns of the portee trucks and mount them on medium bases. Thank god for magnets)
>>47662358
Happy to be of service
>>47662589
Not painting anything at the moment, but I'm trying to find time to assemble some more Team Yankee stuff.
I've got way too many M113 hulls to put together, plus the infantry to go with them. Plus some A-10s.
New thread, new version.
Changes:
>Reworked the CDL rules to more closely match the "Uhu" spotlight from nachtjager.
Now spearheads with the infantry in a Night Attack, needs to roll well enough for LoS at night, but no skill test. Blinding effect removed, but will probably return once I figure out a good wording.
>Added "Eight Tradesmen" and "Combined Assault" rules for pioneers
Cautious movement and Combat Attachment, basically.
>Some minor wording changes on "Lane of Advance"
Can't assault or use it if you're busy doing AA fire now.
>Added Monty's Moonlight
Pretty simple, just allows you to choose to use the Full Moon rules in Nachtjager when making a night attack.
>Replaced the "Guns Left" change with a "Press on" change.
Might have been a bit over cautious on the success chance (3+ or platoon skill probably would have been fine with the 8" range), but I wanted to stay on the safe side. Might increase range or success chance.
Any feedback is welcomed, though I'm particularly interested in people's thoughts on the various rules for the funnies, the pioneer rules, and Lane of Advance.
>>47662737
>Blinding effect removed, but will probably return once I figure out a good wording.
I'd put this high on the list, "blinding" was the design brief, actually being a spotlight was just a handy bonus.
>>47662351
I wonder how well treads worked as standoff armour.
They had to have been better than sandbags right?
>>47662816
Yeah. I've got two problems with implementation:
>getting it to not work in the day.
Not so much a rule problem as a concise wording problem. The rule is already pretty bulky.
>deciding on the penalty.
I've considered +1 to hit, half RoF, pinning, skill test to shoot at all, and reduction in night LOS distance (roll two take lowest or just halve normal result). Not really much precedent yo work off of rules-wise, and could get complicated tracking affected teams if their platoon moves.
>>47662589
I'm tackling German artillery this week: 4x 10.5cm, 4x 15cm, 3x 15cm Nebelwerfers. Crews for the first two batteries next week.
>>47662827
I kinda think both are more of a psychological thing than actual protection.
>>47662737
>Lane of Advance
Seems inoffensive enough, if somewhat niche.
>Combat attachable Pioneers
Sweet jesus, that's a very good buff. Very good. Pioneers are cheap platoons, and adding more organic AT to British platoons addresses one of their key weaknesses/character traits.
>Guns Left
Thing is, compare it to other characters like Rommel, or that AAR guy, or the various characters that do similar things, and what he's packing isn't really that remarkable.
>>47663775
Yeah; none of the improvised armour things were all that effective (the applique plates were, but they added 15-20mm of actual armour to the hull), but they dramatically improved morale since crews believed they worked.
>>47663865
>Sweet jesus, that's a very good buff. Very good.
And it's 100% pulled from the british infantry manuals of the time. It's one of those things that ends up working really well in game as well.
Still ends up pretty balanced, since the pioneers are still only TA 3, generally rifle-armed, and with the small platoon sizes losing the commander when attaching them out is a notable loss. Plus the "no more than half (ignoring command team) to another platoon" thing makes it difficult to give two extra teams to a rifle platoon. ~30 extra points to even the team count and add some auxiliary TA (plus some extra against fortified companies, all 2 times you run into them) is still pretty useful, though.
So, will Pacific lists be entered into EW tournaments, you think?
Tell me about Christie suspension, /fowg/.
>>47665551
what did you want to know. Its the "gotta go fast sanic" suspension of tanks
Does anyone sell plastic Japanese?
>>47665756
Plastics are relatively rare in historical gaming miniatures.
Most of the plastics we have are BF or PSC, and I don't think either of those have plastic Japanese.
Per JP on the FOW Forum:
"...our first armoured car frame will the second new one out with Bulge."
...next plastics, maybe Pumas?
>>47666481
>will the second new one out with Bulge
I think he forgot a word or two.
>>47666481
HolyfuckingshitIhopeit'sPumas!
>>47666549
He probably means "Our first armoured car frame will be the second new *release* out with the bulge"
>>47666565
In a move surprising everyone, including the manufacturing staff, it's daimler dingos.
>>47666786
Wha... Bu... I mean... ...dafuck?!...
Can you imagine how many dingos you could get on a single sprue? A box would last you approximately two armies.
And now I realise that Universal Carriers would make sense in plastic, but I highly doubt we'll get those anytime soon, especially since they recently redid the tooling for those in resin.
>>47662351
Why did they add treads to their tanks as armor? What were they fighting that kept punching through it?
>>47666786
You know, I wouldn't actually have a problem with that. They ARE the most adorable armored car in the war.
>>47667013
>Why did they add treads to their tanks as armor?
Hoping that a bit of extra armour would provide them with that much extra chance of survival.
>What were they fighting that kept punching through it?
Germans. Seriously, most everything german had a tendency to punch through anything lighter than a Churchill (just look at the FoW stats, even Panzer IVs are very dangerous to Shermans). More specifically, panzerfausts.
>>47666565
It would be nice...but I have 18 Forged in Battle ones already and they're very nice. Hopefully, there will be options for the 7.5cm 234/3 and the Pak40 234/4.
I was hoping for something heavier and mass produced: a Panzer IV L/70 (V), plastic King Tiger or a Hetzer would have been my first choices.
Knowing BF though, it won't even bee Pumas...It'll be a US kit, M8 Greyhound and M20 utility options in a box :P
>>47664954
Tournament organisers will probably slap them down.
>>47662737
How about for the blinding, CDLs can force a Artillery Template's worth of infantry to take a skill check or become pinned down. Rather hard to advance or shoot when someone's fried your retinas.
I like the Eight Tradesmen and the Combined Assault Rules.
>>47668332
>I like the Eight Tradesmen and the Combined Assault Rules.
Yeah, I really dig the combat attachment. Kills two birds with one stone.
Anyone know if there's any 15mm shermans with deep wading gear, or am I making that myself? Looking at it it seems there were several kinds of wading gear employed; was it the case that it was produced where it was needed, or is it just that there were a few types of it?
>>47662827
>>47667013
>treads
>>47666000
those deuce trips!!!
of satan!
>>47667013
toward the end of the war, every german and his 6 year old son were literally packing panzerfausts. These weapons use shaped charges and were very nasty. Soldiers believed their tracks, being composed of metal and rubber, might give them a slightly increased chance of bouncing a shot.
Thats nowhere near the extreme of how tanks were modified though. Check out pacific sherman crew mods. Theyd add concrete, sandbags, wooden boards, and even weld nails and chicken wire to the hatches to thwart japanese anti tank tactics.
>>47670822
The sad thing is that apparently due to the nature of early shaped charge weapons, most improvised armour just made them more effective by giving them the stand-off distance to form the charge effectively.
>>47670937
i always hear this but have never seen a source, do you know where this theory that improvised armor improved the effectiveness comes from?
Ive always wanted to read up on these weapons a bit more, since theyre arguably one of the most influential weapons to come to use in WWII.
At the very least, the armor improved morale, so in the long run it probably helped more than it hurt.
Hopefully.
>>47672117
>do you know where this theory that improvised armor improved the effectiveness comes from?
Not that anon, but if I had to guess it's from tank crews doing the layman's math that more material between them and an AT round = more betterer. I can't imagine they thought that adding a bunch of treads and whatnot that had lots of grooves and other things that would make it easier for a round to get a "grip" as it were would be an effective way to increase deflection, but rather that they just figured it was more material between them and a german AT gun or panzerfaust. Like the other anon said though, all it probably ends up doing is make it more likely that a shell or round or what have you will not be deflected. Smooth flat angled surfaces are what you want, tanker crews!
>>47672117
Post War HEAT Rounds typically have a addition to the nose to increase the stand-off distance. Unlike Wartime HEAT rounds which usually just had the charge further forwards. It's very precise art to get the copper charge in just the right place to form the penetrator.
>>47662351
Anyone in Newcastle Australia playing FoW? Need an opponent badly, new to the area. I miss tabletop gaming.
>>47668332
>>47663472
>>47662816
How about:
"Teams under the template count as having moved when determining their rate of fire and to-hit number in their next shooting step, and count as Pinned when determining their rate of fire for defensive fire in the next assault step. These effects are ignored during daylight"
The defensive fire thing is the same turn, so it's easy to remember what teams are what (since they won't have moved). By the opponent's turn it might be a bit harder, but it's still easy to remember what teams didn't move, and for those that did move the actual moving makes keeping track of specific teams irrelevant. And thankfully H&C will only give the teams under the template the extra +1, not accidentally fucking the entire platoon because one guy got a mega strobe light in his eyes.
>>47670822
I wonder why the light tanks didn't have similar deals? I guess they had a lot more mobility to lose.
>>47674748
Because they knew that their armour was too thin for it to help?
>>47674814
For sandbags to stop AT rounds? Yeah, sure. Things like covering hatches in wire to avoid Japanese tank hunters climbing on and opening you up to throw something inside, or wood on the side to keep magnetic mines off would still "function" even on thinly armoured vehicles.
http://www.zvezda.org.ru/catalog/aot-bronetehnika-1-100/sovetskij-tank-t-34-85
Zvezda T-34/85 variant is on the site...
>>47676947
Oooh, flat-sided turrets.
>>47676947
Looks pretty good.
I'd probably still go with Battlefront or Plastic Soldier Company, but those loll like a decent option as well.
>>47673395
>>47679480
Would they even be cost efficient in the numbers that you would need for a full Tankovy force?
>>47676947
While I like how these things can go for $4 a piece from some sites, they aren't as nice as something that PSC would make.
How's pacific gone over in your area?
>>47682475
Yeah, they're £3, so a 10-man platoon is £30, compared to £40 for a PSC one or £50-60 for a BF one.
>>47682576
That is, of course, if you're OK with:
Lesser detail (it's okay enough for most people, but trickier to paint than BF or PSC stuff).
No commanders.
No stowage options.
No multiple turrets (both BF and PSC kits come with both T-34/76 and T-34/85 options where you can interchange them.
They might be good as a unit filler, although I'd be tempted to just but one of the Battlefront Open Fire two-packs instead.
>>47682657
They're also snap fit and made of really tough plastic, so. I'd say they're definitely a really good deal: a box of PSC tanks (bonus stowage and commander tanks) and 15 zvezda ones should be a nice way of getting 20 T-34-85s for a desperate measures company.
I don't know what open fire has to do with it; AFAIK there's no T-34s in that.
>>47682565
ton of shit came into LGS
have yet to pick it up.
some of it has trickled off, but it's no team yankee.
i have yet to ask the clubs....
>>47683384
Battlefront has cheap two-tank boxes (plastic, the same sprues as in the regular boxes) for all of the major nations.
They're part of their starter range, very nice as a cheap buy or to expand a platoon without buying a full box of 5 tanks.
Good day, /tg/entlemen,
May I ask a question? If you have answers, I will gladly take them.
Answers with a cited source is far better, but in any case:
*Who are the Battlefront staff who've worked at Games Workshop?
*What was the former position at Games Workshop of all said members of Battlefront?
No other questions.
I ask this because this information seems to be only available on the Internet as hearsay.
Cheers!
Does anyone own the Battlefront Italian paratroopers? I'm trying to make an RSI Italian paratrooper army, but the Battlefront models seem like they might be out of place in as RSI Italians. Right now I have a platoon I bought from Eureka that I'm working on and I'm really happy with the sculpts, but ordering them piecemeal is kind of a pain.
>>47683669
I'm pretty sure none of the Battlefront staff worked with or for Games Workshop. However Flames of War did start as a Fan-Expansion for Warhammer Historical. In like, the 90's. Then they rebuilt the ruleset into their own thing and First Edition was born.
>>47683923
Like. I'm no expert. But I'm pretty sure there's a pretty large gap between Nottingham, where Games Workshop HQ is, and Auckland, where Battlefront's is.
>>47683669
John Matthews was regional vice president at GW for 11 years. Thanks linkedin. I know there were others but they never talked about what they did.
>>47683979
>But I'm pretty sure there's a pretty large gap between Nottingham, where Games Workshop HQ is, and Auckland, where Battlefront's is.
Specifically, a gap of over 18,200km / 11,300mi, using the shortest line between them (which passes over the arctic)
>>47683923
> Start as a fan expansion
Is there a good history of Flames of War, as well as it's development?
>>47684344
I'mma go with "Not Really", this is stuff I've pieced together from talking to old timers, and looking through the Wayback machine at Battlefront's site.
Maybe ask battlefront themselves.
>>47684051
which region? oceana?
Anyone have Peter Pig figures? I was curious as to how many of them came in a pack, because the pictures usually only show three figures, and I'm not really down for spending $5 for three models.
>>47685983
Standard is 8 a pack.
>>47683839
While working on my Canadians, I painted some of my Eureka Italian paras and I'm pretty happy with them. The SMGs are rather low detail, but I guess there's only so much you can do at 15mm.
>>47685983
>>47686378
Speaking of Peter Pig, what's the thread's thoughts on which of these packs would work best for an bren gunner on a wasp?
Does the new Gf9 Tanks! game belong in here? It uses FoW models
Shit's cool yo
>>47687244
forgot my pic
>>47687244
That's a pretty good question, I was meaning to ask it on Panzerfunk, does Team Yankee and Tanks fall under our purview? Obviously Team Yankee kind of does.
>>47687326
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be discussed here.
>>47687147
>>47687147
I personally think the top right guy on the left shooting from the hip would look really cool.
>>47687608
How are things, Screaming? Still not good on the homefront?
i wonder why i have 1 of these on my desk.....?
>>47687798
Things have reached a point of no return. There is no way my mother will recover.
She is on full life support and almost completely brain-dead.
My uncle flew in from California so that he can say his goodbyes tomorrow.
Once that's happened, we'll be removing her from life support and letting nature take its course.
I didn't want to discuss this here. FoWtg is not my blog. And I shouldn't be dumping my real life crap on all of you.
But I'm glad you guys have been offering me support and encouragement the past few days.
It's bizarre how here on 4chan of all places has been so supportive.
Thank you. All of you. For your words of support and encouragement.
>>47688469
Shitfuck, that sucks. Sorry you have to deal with that, and remember that you can take as long as you need to with panzerfunk. I realize this may sound a bit dumb to say at this point, but good luck.
>>47688469
We chose you, Eagles.
we'll always support our chosen leader.
May you find Fortitude and Grace.as for blogging, we have the email for non public. feel free to rest, and call on one of us...
>>47688588
Oddly enough working on Panzerfunk, when I can get away from my family long enough to do so, has helped me get my mind off of things. It's probably 75% ready. I'll upload when I can.
But yeah, I've got a lot of real world responsibilities right now that will keep me busy the next few days.
>>47688607
Thank you.
>>47688469
Hang in there man, wish I could help you out somehow. Ive been down here visiting family for a funeral but that was an ornery great grandma that we were all expecting to go, I cant imagine what youve been going through.
Keep your chin up and theres always the email chain to talk realtalk if you need it.
...
In other, probably not appropriate in the same post news, curious if there are any players in the Murray Kentucky area. Im looking at going to college at MSU and while they have a great X-Wing community and a couple DZC players, there are no historicals to speak of, not even Bolt Action. Murray is in the far west dangly bit of Kentucky for those of you not familiar with it. Im only two hours from Nashville for example.
All I can think of would be attending tourneys in Nashville, St. Louis, and maybe Paducah (if they even have a store besides dragons hoarde) and I'd like to be able to play a casual game every so often. I even have a full board of city terrain and a nice table matt, all I need is another player or two. Hell Ill even provide the beer.
>>47688018
I may or may not have an idea
>>47688469
Really sorry to hear that, man. I lost my grandpa last year, and that was terrible; I can only imagine how much worse an even closer relative must be.
All I can say is that everyone handles it differently, but it's okay not to be okay. And if there's anything you need, you know where to find us.
>>47688018
must be contagious or one of the great mysteries of today...I have one sitting on my painting table *strings an accord on a Kantele*
>>47689033
Oh god. Oh god. Stop stop.
>>47689839
*strings a chord on a Kantele*
~stupid autocorrect~
>>47688686
Just look after yourself bruz. Its a rough one to be going through, but it happens and we that are left have to keep going missing a part of our lives. I hope you are all good, as many anons have said, feel free to come here and talk about real life, we aren't just emotionless anons without real lives of our own, we can relate and we are more then happy to offer any assistance we can, be it support or simply just someone to talk to.
Be well eagles
>>47687147
I agree with >>47687662, that or the one on the fair left middle, looks like hes searching the horizon.
>>47688469
I'm just so sorry to hear all of that. I expect it's going to be hard, but look after yourself, okay?
>>47688018
What are you casting now?
>>47689002
Check and see if they have wargames club at the school.
If not, perhaps there will be a store or two in town.
Or you might just have to drum up interest on your own.
- - - - - -
Again, thank you all.
>>47691824
You're a cool dude Eagles. Keep the chin up.
Anyway.
Tournament that I'd like to assist with the organisational aspects of is this year running 1380 Points and Midwar.
Since I was tentatively agreeing to adjudicate rules and do Draws, I need a special army, one that I referred to as "Fast and Dumb." Fast as in, it can't be a slow grinding Infantry company that I have to spend half of the time allotted setting up and tearing down, and Dumb as in, I can't spend too much time thinking about how it works because inevitably I'll be called away to help someone else.
If this was Early War, I'd be laughing as I'd do Fallschirmjager Luftlandensturm and just hotdrop two glider platoons and win or lose on the first round of the game. However. Mid War.
So what meets the criteria of "Fast" and "Dumb", inital thoughts were to KV tanks, while not 'Fast' they are plenty 'Dumb', a brick of KV-1 and KV-2s that I throw through the enemy's window. Maybe backed up by the obscene message of as many Ba-10s as possible.
>>47691971
Crusader armoured company. Or a predominant Stuart US Tank Company. A ton of light tanks, basically.
>>47692006
Definitely go with Crusaders, way more style.
>>47689033
i need to get all that painted. so far i'm at 35%
>>47689873
casting pOumas is genius. castign BT-42's is WTF...for what i have on my desk:
>>47689839
>>47689880
....has it about right.
>>47691824
Dude, you are an inspiring guy. Keep on keeping on man.
Alright /fowg/ give me the rundown on Flames of War vs. Team Yankee. After reading reviews and watching youtube videos I'm leaning more towards Team Yankee since I want an easy game to get into. Plus I love Cold War stuff. However it seems like Team Yankee is rather new so not a lot of players are playing it. However if I go with Flames of War I would go for a German or American. Plus Flames of War seems to be a tad more realistic. So give me some pros and cons of each.
>>47693438
First point: TY is more expensive.
Second point: Be prepared to grow the community yourself because at the moment, TY doesn't have a fraction of the players of WW2 FoW.
They're both about as realistic as each other.
TY has a slightly slicker ruleset, but it doesn't have a fraction of the choice or variety of FoW.
>>47693438
FoW is only more realistic in the sense WW2 actually happened. The games aren't more or less bad than each other when it comes to slightly weird displays (though the WW2 game continues to trigger me by including full artillery batteries within cannon range of tanks).
TY is definitely new and will have less players, but I'm hearing it's been really successful. Certainly only having two factions is hurting it right now; I've heard a lot of "I'm waiting for Germany", "I'm waiting for Poland", "I'm waiting for BAOR", etc.
TY's rules are unquestionably better. There are areas where they're a bit weird (aircraft LOS is one thing, it'd be a shame to lose variable tank speeds, and hit allocations would be hard to implement in WW2) but frankly, if it's indicative of what's coming for V4, it can't come fast enough.
>>47693791
>>47694467
Thanks for giving me the rundown. From what I heard West Germany will be slowly rolling out in the next two months. Hopefully East Germany will roll out afterwards
>>47694467
>it'd be a shame to lose variable tank speeds
If they ditch that with V4 I will just keep playing V3. Seriously, 16" move cromwells was the entire reason I started playing brits.
>>47693791
>First point: TY is more expensive.
I wouldn't agree with that. Possibly for Soviets, but even in regular FoW Soviets can get expensive.
>Second point: Be prepared to grow the community yourself because at the moment, TY doesn't have a fraction of the players of WW2 FoW.
It's been selling out in several places. It's certainly popular and growing.
The question is if it's popular in your area. I've had to do the leg work in my area to build up a small community of players.
>>47693438
From a rules stand point Team Yankee has a much more concise and easy to understand rule book.
The game also plays much faster than WWII era Flames of War.
Plus you stated that you enjoy the Cold War era.
At least in my area TY is being played a lot more than normal FoW.
>>47695085
Possibly for Soviets, but even in regular FoW Soviets can get expensive.
"Can get?" More like "are". Your only options are the expensive normal Soviet lists, or the "oh god, what the fuck are you doing!? Go play Americans or Germans if you want less than 6 trained tanks in a platoon!!!"
>>47695277
Hey, Heroes of the Soviet Union are an option. They're not a great option, but they are an option. And they're cheaper than normal Soviets.
Normal Soviets are expensive, but there are ways to cut down on some of the costs.
>>47694467
>though the wwii game continues to trigger me by including full batteries within cannon range of tanks
this has always driven me crazy about FOW.
Does anybody know of an instance where you could take artillery as off table? Id love to have a formula to just remove artillery batteries from the table entirely and have them work similar to NGFS with just the spotters being on table.
Heck, maybe even leave the option to have them on table for when a position is overrun thematically, but I want to be able to buy say a "ZiS 3 battery support" option where they fire from off the table.
Everyone seems to be excited for next months West German release in TY. I had originally held out for West Germans, with the thought that everyone would be spent out on Russians and Americans.
Man was I wrong. There are at least 7 people preordering the German box set at my FLGS. Because I want to be a special snowflake, I have decided to modify a German list for the Dutch.
Besides using the YPR-765 as an APC, what other considerations should I make in adapting the German lists over for Dutch?
Sidenote >>47689002
I grew up in Western KY, Hungariboo. If I am ever back home visiting and have some time to kill for a game I'll shoot you an email. My email is [email protected]
I didn't get into wargaming until I moved to Lexington, so I don't really have too much advice at where to look. I didn't even know about the Dragon's Horde. The only thing remotely close to a gaming store I knew of was Crash Comics. I would try starting a historical wargaming club at MSU. They have a nice history department and you'd probably be able to get a few people interested.
>>47695446
For some reason, the image posted wasn't what I had saved. Here is the YPR-765.
>>47695429
The original Stalingrad book had the Across the Volga rules for artillery you could use in certain scenarios.
>>47695085
There's a lot more mech in TY, and the average price per tank isn't impressive, and is less open to high quality alternatives like PSC.
>it's been selling out
Yeah, same down here. Can't keep it on the shelf. Doesn't mean people play it much.
>>47695446
>grew up in Murray
>now lives in Lexington
...
Are you me but a few years in the past, because thats me a few years ago. I lived in Western KY till I was 10 or so then moved to Lexington. A couple years ago I got the wanderlust and just started traveling.
Is the Battleforge still playing Flames of war up there? Im going to be up in Lexington in about a week to visit my parents and would be down for some flames up there.
Ill shoot you an email too so itll be easier to keep in touch and I dont drag the thread off topic.
>>47695429
V2 had "Across the Volga" as a scenario option, which some of us have kept now in V3.
But yeah, an official way to have artillery off-board would be very nice, even if they then would need some way to not make it insanely powerful.
>>47695429
I too hate the artillery on table, but for standard games that's the way it is. For scenarios I put on, often for several players, I modify things as I see fit.
I've used Across the Volga (the V2 Rule), but some players understandably take issue with it, especially if you have 3x US Batteries protected off-table rolling ToT barrages every turn and the opposition cannot touch them...this does not work well in standard games at all, as AtV is not factored into artillery cost.
Otherwise, in scenarios I've also used another method which I tend to use more often than AtV: I assign each side an artillery battery (or multiples). Players can deploy the observers, the actual arty is off-table. If the observers die...tough, don't waste them or deploy them stupidly. They suddenly become very valuable teams whereas in standard FOW they often aren't.
Before attempting to bombard each player must roll a die, roll 2+ for availability: on a 1 the battery is busy firing elsewhere, short on ammo, under counter-bombardment, in the process of re-locating, etc, etc.....it doesn't really matter, it just isn't available this turn. On a successful 2+ roll you can roll to range-in as normal, or repeat a bombardment as normal, etc. I've also made it a 3+ roll on occasion if support was more sporadic.
>>47696271
you could allow players to counter by allowing counterbattery fire, or using air support to disrupt it similar to how you can intercept enemy air support now. Basically air/artillery/ngfs can attempt to disrupt enemy artillery at the start of the turn on say a +5 or something. However that will tie your artillery up as well as theirs.
>>47694944
Yeah; tactical movement in TY is determined by stabilisation, though, which is just completely not a factor in WW2, so it seems implausible to dump it. Otherwise, movement change seems to be base around dash speeds.
Dashing itself, however, is a wonderful idea and dash could be ported into WW2 wholesale with absolutely no problems.
>>47696732
>>47694467
>>47695085
What ARE the big rules differences between the two?
>>47695561
>There's a lot more mech in TY, and the average price per tank isn't impressive, and is less open to high quality alternatives like PSC.
You pay about £5.50 to £6 per tank for TY, unavoidably, even if you go off-brand. It's definitely a lot pricier, given you have about the same amount of vehicles.
>>47696271
You could also allow teams at the enemy table edge to "break through to the rear" and make an attack/autodestroy (too harsh?) off-table assets.
The thing is naval gunfire doesn't seem amazingly more expensive, because BF seems to think the direct fire statline of guns is really valuable.
>>47696342
I have done something similar, but I found it slows the game down unnecessarily. A single roll is faster: the artillery support is either available, or it isn't. The exact reasons why are not needed.
>>47696763
Aircraft are more consistent on-board assets, Helicopters, an absence of all National Special Rules replaced by equipment special rules and Orders-Basically everyone can shoot and scoot now. It's much more streamlined than V3 Flames.
>>47696808
"More expensive"? Check Gung-ho; Light Cruiser is basically a 4-man 155mm battery. The battery is 305 points LW, the cruiser is 250.
>>47696342
>>47696808
The whole idea, as I saw it, was to keep thing simple and streamlined: if you're leading a company of infantry, tanks or whatever, you find your artillery support is either available or lacking. The reasons don't really matter to you, you just know you're not getting any fire support this turn.
I agree you could build in more layers, counter-battery fire, aircraft bombing artillery positions, etc. but that would also detract from the on-table game and I deal with enough indecision from players as-is. I tend to use this in large, multi-player games with 2-4 Companies a side. I don't need them spending 5-10 mins each turn faffing: (Team A) Player 1 wants artillery support in his sector, Player 2 wants it rather in his sector, Player 3 wants it directed to counter-battery fire, etc, etc....it can fast become a headache.
>>47696887
The cruiser hits as trained, which might be part of why it's that lower price.
Using Overlord, a 4 gun 5.5" battery at CT is 240 points for the brits, and that gets all their special rules with Staff teams (mainly Mike Target).
Americans get a battery of CT 155s for 210 points with a staff team and all special rules. And theirs also gets smoke bombardments, because FoW rules.
The Light Cruiser (post-errata) has the same bombardment statline, training, number of guns, no direct fire, and no staff team (and associated special rules). But it does come with a free AOP (that only spots for it), if you want to use the AOP spotter.
>>47696763
So, in order by memory:
1. Command is traced within a 6" bubble from the commander, instead of daisy-chaining. Everyone is basically mission tactics: The commander is only really for cohesion.
2. Everyone now has "tactical" and "dash" speed. Tactical lets you shoot and isn't impeded by terrain (but may bog, see below), dashing is faster, but doesn't let you shoot, and depends on what terrain you went through. Helicopters and planes just go anywhere.
3. You automatically unbog at the start of turn.
4. Everyone also has movement orders, including blitz move (before you move, move 4", not counting as moving for RoF purposes) and shoot-and-scoot (after firing, move 4" anywhere, but you can't have moved in the movement phase), both on a skill check.
5. Valid targets for hits are within 6" of the aim point, and attacker allocates, though you can elect to "swap hits" on a 5+.
6. Teams no longer count a kill meter with additional math for bails; a tank that's dead or bailed doesn't count and you test to break on 1 running tank or two remaining stands.
7. Aerial gunfire is now just normal gunfire. Planes move on board every turn on a 4+, and at the end of your turn pass back over.
8. Artillery is now ranged in with the attacker's skill and hits with the defender's veterancy. Smoke bombardment is 1/game.
9. Assault is largely the same but instead of having a swing radius stands now "rank up", with the second rank getting a swing too. There's no tank assault, infantry either use a gun like an RPG on side armour or they hit with AT 2 on top armour.
10. Company morale is now "At least one team in good spirits", i.e. one team of 2+ tanks or 3+ infantry, from your /core/ platoons. If you have support platoons, like helicopters, then they don't count.
I'm sure I'm missing some things, but those are hte most major.
>>47695446
From what I remember, the Dutch uniform in the mid-eighties was very similar to that used by the Israelis in the Six-Day War and the default infantry weapons (FAL battle rifle, Uzi SMG) were the same as well.
In that case, you should be able to use the AIW Israeli infantry blisters to build up Dutch mech platoons, while using Leopards from the German range as your MBTs.
Being armed with battle rifles plus LMGs, you might need some different shooting stats compared to the guns used by other countires as well.
I'm also not sure what was in use as mobile AT and AA, though I believe we also used the US-built SP howitzers.
All in all, you could probably get some reliable info with some decent Google searching; this is just what I remember off the top of my head and I might have misremembered some things.
>>47697075
I thought it was the case artillery doesn't affect points? At the very least, it doesn't seem to be a huge adjustment, given similar guns are more or less the same price despite wildly varying special rule quality.
The staff team is probably considered a loss, still, but the free AOP certainly makes that negligible. In either case, battlefront seems to consider "no direct fire" about equal to "totally impervious to attack or disruption", despite the fact towed tube artillery will basically never use it's direct fire statline.
>>47697337
>I thought it was the case artillery doesn't affect points?
Special rules. Special rules don't affect points. Haven't had my tea today.
>>47697176
>1. Command
>2. Tactical and Dash Speeds
>7. Air stuff
These makes sense for more modern games, but wouldn't work that well for WWII.
>3. unbog
I like this one, given how getting bogged somehow prevents you from shooting. At the very least, they should make it so you can choose between shooting or trying to unbog.
>4. Everyone has movement orders
Eh, would depend on how they implement it, since movement orders are big things for certain armies.
>5. Valid targets
>9. Assault
Unsure how these play out, so I don't have an opinion.
>6. break on 1 tank or two stands.
Fuck. No. Small platoons are fucked bad enough with the current rules, this would just make it worse. Fuck this rule with a rake.
>8. Artillery
Like the veterancy swap, dislike smoke being 1/game. Maybe 2/game if you could smoke ground instead of being forced to smoke an enemy team.
>10. Company morale is now "At least one team in good spirits", i.e. one team of 2+ tanks or 3+ infantry, from your /core/ platoons. If you have support platoons, like helicopters, then they don't count.
I kinda like this, unlike the platoon-level one, since it makes the difference between support and other platoons count.
>>47697622
>>1. Command
Command's tricky, since it's really just a unit coherency marker in TY. It'd go badly with hit allocation in WW2 as well.
>>2. Tactical and Dash Speeds
>>7. Air stuff
These two, frankly, I love. Air power is semi-reliable, now, with a straight-up attack instead of all of it's range-in nonsense. The tactical/dash thing would need reworking, but the fact dash is basically an at the double that doesn't mean you inevitably get shot to fuck for using it makes it so much better. If ATD was just "You move faster but can't shoot" in WW2 I would be overjoyed.
>>3. unbog
Yeah, same. You miss a turn of shooting, but after that you're gold.
>>4. Everyone has movement orders
Yeah, it's not essential. I could see national movement orders: Soviets getting "Follow me!" and "Cross here!", Germans getting blitz move and shoot-and-scoot, etc.
>>5. Valid targets
>>9. Assault
Assault is basically just FoW assault but fuckloads simpler. Valid targets are a mixed bag; it's much quicker, but in a game where you can snipe platoon leaders or fireflys at will, it would be much more of a problem. TY units are homogenous, and leaders don't matter, so there it's fine.
>>6. break on 1 tank or two stands.
What? You /test/ break when you're /down/ to 1 tank or 2 stands. For small tank units, this is no worse than present, when you test break on 1 tank anyway (2 killed for 50%), and it's a buff for most small infantry units(6 stands would break with 3 kills, now 4). The real group it helps is large squads.
>>8. Artillery
Smoke being rarer is less important with more mechanised warfare, I think. Smoke's been more ad-hoc cover than prep for an essential assault, at least in my experience so far.
>>10. Company morale is now "At least one team in good spirits",
Same, like it.
>>47697258
Thanks for the help! I'll have to do some research to figure out how to best model the FAL. Though I, imagine that I can just copy paste the fire rules for the G3 armed Germans.
>>47698195
>If ATD was just "You move faster but can't shoot" in WW2 I would be overjoyed.
Fair, ATD is pretty shit in FoW at the moment, which makes things like Fast Tank and Unreliable irrelevant for most games. Making it suck less would be good. Even if it's something like "Enemy hits as if you're one vetrancy lower", that's STILL better than the insanity of "Enemy gets double ROF".
>For small tank units, this is no worse than present, when you test break on 1 tank anyway (2 killed for 50%), and it's a buff for most small infantry units(6 stands would break with 3 kills, now 4).
FoW is more dead than alive, not equal. For guns/infantry, 5-6 stands there's no change (need to drop to 2), 4 or less stands (need to drop to 1) the rule hurts you.
And bails are the same as kills under the TY system (at least as you describe it). Bail two tanks in a 3-tank platoon, you've got a morale check. In FoW, you need to actually destroy those tanks, which means 3 and 4 tank platoons (as well as the obviously worse 2 tank platoons) are weaker under the TY system.
>Smoke being rarer is less important with more mechanised warfare, I think.
Fair, but FoW has enough non-mech armies that restricting smoke that much wouldn't work well.
>>47694467
>>47694944
>loose variable tank speed
what the fuck?
no, seriously.
TEAM YANKEE HAS --CUSTOM-- TANK MOVEMENT.
see here, ye nigghors:
M1: 14/18/28/32
T72: 10/16/24/28
Shilka: 10/14/20/24
BMP: 10/16/28/32
M113: 10/16/24/32
uhm, so, a lot of them have tactical speed 10...i get it.
but for fuck sake those all have different number mixes with various functions. and to be perfectly factual, see how no two mixes are identical. or do you simpletons just read the first number, and use that for everything?
we will probably see 9s, 11s, and 12s in the future, where they are justified.
prove me wrong. i got those numbers from the book, blackskins.
>>47688469
I have nothing to offer you solace other than my prayers; I pray that you and your family find happiness in your memories of her. I pray that you are able to grieve and move on in a natural and healthy manner. I pray for peace for you and your mother and all the loved ones who will miss her presence.
Shalom.
>>47699532
"Tactical move", equivalent to "standard" move, is now 10" unstabilised, 14" if stabilised. This is very often the move you will want, and it is highly non-variant. The other numbers are all "dash" speeds, and you can correlate them to things like "Fast tank", which the abrams almost certainly has, and the fact that both the APCs likely get a boost for road movement for similar reasons to the "Half-track" vehicles like the carro veloce and UC in WW2. I've been told the 10/14 mix continues in Leopards.
Chill, dude.
>>47700134
Well, the M1 and the Leopard were designed around the same time with a lot of the same ideas in mind.
Having similar armor stats and similar movement rates makes some sense.
>>47701016
Oh, the two are reportedly very similar... With the Leopard II being arguably better, with the 120mm gun. It's apparently 11 points per tank.
>>47701184
We discussed as much in the upcoming episode of Panzerfunk.
I'm not entirely sure when I'll have it uploaded, but I plan to work on it at some point to help me get my mind off of everything.
Anyone have advice for playing an Infantry company? I'm about to play my second game of Flames of War with my Canadian Rifle Company from Overlord and it's the first turn of our Firestorm: Overlord campaign. Here's my list if that helps at all. Thanks!
>>47696808
>>47696342
>>47696271
If anyone's interested, attached are the rules I used for my D-Day event just gone. Allied Naval Gunfire and German shore batteries could be drawn as additional "commander power-ups", and could be directly employed in battle, or used to suppress each other. Additionally, some of the German batteries had the "under attack" rule (e.g. the Pointe du Hoc battery) which meant that, unless reserves were specifically (and permanently) assigned to reinforce that battery, they would cease being available after a set number of turns.
>>47698198
Concerning AA-Models. The Dutch used the German Gepard (they named them cheetar). BF will release them later so you can use them. Just change the small radar dish on the back of the Turret to a radar bar (like on a boat)
>>47704418
I would give advice, but you're playing an Overlord scenario, so you'll probably be attacking things that aren't infantry companies a lot more than usual.
Fortifications are probably the most important thing. You can smoke them to get past, and they can't move, but outside of a pioneer assault or bunker buster they're hard to destroy.
>>47701184
Which will make the M1A1, if we ever see it, probably at least 12 or 13 points per tank. If not more. Because of the 120mm gun and better armor than the M1.
im starting to think that always attacking at night is not a good idea as US.
I played no retreat the other night and got wreaked by soviet air power shooting at stuff that shot the previous turn. They didn't have to roll for LOS but my AA did.
>>47708201
Their AA has the same disadvantage, but you have a permanent +1 to hit as well. It's still a good proposition for you.
Is "Detroit's Finest" backed up by any real-life changes in the later shermans, or is it 100% game fabrication?
>>47708996
The M4A3 did have a different and slightly more powerful engine (that's the main difference between sherman versions, their engine)... but I don't think it was that much more powerful, so something like 75% game fabrication.
>>47709071
Controls/acceleration/driveshaft/transmission changes? Maybe it was just easier to drive faster without complications. The Sherman had pretty excellent ergonomics.
>>47708996
marry the better GAA engine with the HVSS suspension, now you are talking.
i'd say it has ground, but it's mostly a game fabrication.
like the Shinhoto Chi-Ha for the Japanese. they got the gun right, but it has 5mm increase with sloped side-plate armor on the turret. armor 3 was not a bad idea to rep' that, we stayed armor 2 due to 75mm not giving a shit....
>>47708996
It certainly would've been slightly faster and easier to handle, but it's fairly fanciful when various other tanks are stuck at "standard". Slow, Standard and Light are meant to be broad churches; singling the M4A3 out is a little weird, especially given it's already got the perk of being better armoured than the A1.
>>47709071
>that's the main difference between sherman versions, their engine
And armour composition/layout. Cast->Weld->Thicker weld. M4A3s also had things like tank telephones and protected stowage as standard, even on non-76mms.
>>47710300
That's not quite right.
M4A1 was different in that it was cast instead of welded, but all other Sherman versions had essentially the same hull (with some allowances to the different engines). When one version was updates (such as with improved frontal armor), ALL the versions still in production were updated. However, by the time they came to that decision, it had pretty much been streamlined into only M4A3, but you can find M4A2s with the "newer" front as well. Same thing when they brought up the 76mm. All version still in production (including the last batch of the M4A1) got 76mm guns.
Try finding an "earlier" M4A3, and you will see that it looks almost exactly like an M4 (at least from the front).
>>47709519
Considering the cutoff for unreliability, perhaps they're being a bit more abstract about the quality of LW American engines?
I found this on one of the Facebook pages. It's the front box cover for Kampfgruppe Müller.
It looks like we're getting 5 Leopard IIs and 2 PAH helicopters.
I would assume we're also getting the artillery template like the other two starter boxes.
And I'd hope that there would also be an objective marker like the US starter box.
No word yet on price.
>>47711543
Looks like the same composition of Bannon's boys
>>47695387
Heroes (tank) fall into that second category of "OH GOD, WTF are you doing!? Play something else if you want less than 6 tanks in a platoon!"
The only good Hero lists, are the infantry ones. Which still come out expensive.
>>47662351
I was looking in to getting started with FoW, how does army building work? I've played some 40k, and I know it uses a core rulebook + codex approach, is it the same for FoW as well?
Are there different books for different divisions and time periods? Is the US 36th Infantry Division in any of them?
>>47712016
Flames of war uses a points based system like 40k, and it is divided up into periods. Specifically, Early War, Mid War, and Late War. Or 39-41, 42-43, and 44-45. Or thereabouts.
It doesn't have an army book system as such, so much as it has a battle/campaign book system. So there's a book for the Eastern Front, there's a North Africa book, there's a Invasion of France and Poland book, there's a Market Garden book for each side, etc.
In terms of specifics, you pick a list to run. This list then has a sort of page where there's a bunch of options listed, a bit like a 40k formation. Typically it'll involve a pair of core combat platoons made up of whatever the primary thing is for that company type, and a small HQ section. You'll then have a variety of other assets to choose from. Sometimes it'll be a fairly generic box, like armour, in which you can pick from a few different types of tank platoon. Other times it'll be condition less. Most infantry companies get the option of taking a platoon of HMGs, for instance. An anti tank choice might give you the option of taking a SPG platoon, a regular anti tank gun platoon, or a platoon of big fuckers like 88s, etc.
Every company is either a Fortified Company, an Infantry Company, a Mechanised Company, or a Tank Company. Typically they defend/attack in the same order. Some of the scenarios are defensive battles, others are more fluid, and there's a few brawl style scenarios as well.
US 36th can be played in the Road to Rome book, if you're after their 44-45 exploits. Earlier, like Saleno, you'll be after North Africa, although those units are generic US infantry rather than 36th specifically.
>>47712016
There's a core rulebook, which you need for all eras and armies.
Then the war is split into three eras: Early (1939-1941ish), Mid (1942-43), and Late (1944-45). A list from one era is not playable in another (as each era has its own points balance), though some of the units may be usable in multiple eras (T-34s, Stuarts, etc...) Late is generally the most popular era, because it has all the cool toys from the end of the war.
Each Handbook (generally focused on a given operation or theater) has a number of Briefings that cover various forces involved there. Those Briefings are basically a combination of Force Org chart and Codex, listing what you can take and what those things do.
This link breaks down the various handbooks and what they cover:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/
>>47712132
Thanks for the quick summery anon, that'll help a lot. I've just started to read the rulebook to try and get an idea on how to begin, so a bit of the basics goes a long way to understand things as a whole.
>>47712132
>>47712225
>>47712235
This is an example of what a given list might look like. Using it as an example, I'd have to take one of each platoon with a Black background, and then I can take any number of grey background platoons as long as I never take more than one option per box. So I could add an Armored Car Platoon OR an SAS Troop to support my riflemen, but not both. Some options will show up in multiple boxes (I can get a Challenger Platoon from either or both of two boxes). The classification as Combat, Weapons, Brigade, or Support is GENERALLY irrelevant, but for some lists and special rules it matters.
>>47711884
The infantry lists are pretty bad. You need quality of quantity to be able to assault anything without smoke, otherwise hitting on trained, even if you get pins, you're going to get driven off. The only ones that work, surprise surprise, are the ones where soviets are allowed to have veterans. But they really need smoke as well, ideally.
>>47712918
Pinning will be enough if you also attack from a proper angle or thinned out the enemy position with some breakthrough gun fire first.
>>47712918
The infantry lists are OK, but you need to build focused on shooting rather than assaulting: you assault to mop-up after a lot of shooting.
Volley Fire is your friend, as is Recce.
Hero list can also take more effective template options since they bombard as veterans (pass Skill checks on a 3+), which makes their Artillery and Heavy Mortars more effective. 6x 120mm mortars bombarding as Vets is nasty; 6-8x 160mm mortars doing the same is disgustingly good for the points.
>>47714050
>>47713090
Yeah, you can force Hero Strelk to work, but they're bad lists you're building around the big flaws of, rather than strong, or even really reasonable lists, that they'd be if BF just gave them veterans already. The only Hero list I'd really be wild about about playing is going to be cossacks or sappers.
>>47713090
>>47714050
It's actually kind of funny, since I felt like the hero lists were an attempt to give soviets a newbie-friendly list by downscaling the amount of crap they needed to be fieldable to be more in line with other nations, when they're actually some of the worst lists in the game with numerous trap choices.
>>47712918
Hero Strelk at least get help from true Veteran Storm platoons. As well as having the numbers that Udarny does. If you've played with Udarny, you can switch to Hero Strelk without any problems. The differences lie mostly in support choices, and finally having fausts in your infantry squads (to make up for how awful the armor support is).
Hero Engineer Sapper however, is two crack platoons of pure Veterans. It's not easy, but at least you assault like a goddamned veteran army (finally). I only wish the Red Bear Engineer Sappers just used the Hero Engineer Sapper platoons. It not only makes more sense thematically and historically, it would also make them more useful in general.
>>47714385
Hero Strelk is just Udarny with shittier support, but fausts and veteran Storm platoons.
>>47714472
The problem is they had their head up their ass with some shitty idea of "veterans that die like trained". The Hero lists are a stark example of Phil having his finger so far from the pulse of the game, that it was pushed squarely up it's ass.
Trained lists in Late War (especially armor) need 3 things:
-Numbers
-Dirty Tricks or special rules that help survivability.
-Smoke.
Soviet trained armies work because of numbers, first and foremost. And when that's not the case, they have the platoon count to saturate the board (e.g. SU-76 hell). German and British trained armies work (in LW), because of Smoke. And where that fails, it relies on high armor values, and/or speed and lethality (if it works). American trained lists rely on Smoke, massive artillery wank, and rules like Jumbos Lead the Way.
The key problem with Soviet Hero lists (particularly armor), is it sacrifices numbers, and still finds itself lacking in smoke and survivability special rules.
>>47714728
I've never heard anyone go wild over Udarny, either. It's always been a weak list.
>>47714819
>The key problem with Soviet Hero lists (particularly armor), is it sacrifices numbers, and still finds itself lacking in smoke and survivability special rules.
But you can get a 6+ save in assault and Smoke pots!!!!11!!1!
Obviously, in reality the smoke pots aren't reliable enough to count on and sap your already low numbers for screening, and the 6+ save in assault is pretty much irrelevant. And both of those do nothing for the majority of the army.
Personally I think the overall problem is that they hand out veteran status like candy on Halloween, and veteran is underpriced in general compared to trained.
>>47711543
Is it just me or do those helicopters look like News helicopters with rockets added to the side?
I'm half tempted to buy a box and paint them up as something like Channel 12 News Hamburg.
So the FOW facebook group seems to be kill. Odds BF is responsible or involved?
>>47716137
Unlike the Cobra or Hind, the PAH-1's sole use will be against armored vehicles. I guess you could start popping HOT's into buildings if that does it for you.
>>47716137
>>47716137
>>47716137
"Channel 12 News Hamburg coming to you live with an Explosive scoop!"
Also got my hands on TANKS today. and I am delighted with the quality, presentation, and support in the box.
What I particularly liked was that there's cards to support the Soviets and British outta the big box. Unlike Fantasy Flight Gaming who really locked you into the Rebels and Imperials and certain builds thereof. The Cards themselves are really nice, much better than the usual standard.
>>47717113
Oh yeah. They killed it.
Fucking corporate suits...
>>47717167
Damn. And I had only just joined that group.
>>47717159
I doubt "News 12" is an actual news channel anywhere in Germany, but it's a fun idea. I might have to run with that myself.
I've been dragging my feet since finishing the first one, but I finally got around to finishing my second Bofors. I'm not sure if I hate carving the slopes on the bases or getting all the damn stabilizer parts in position more, but at least they're mostly done. Now I just need to make a bunch of ammo boxes to scatter around the bases, and then get to painting.
And a question for the thread: On the truck mounts, the gun shield line is determined from where the Bofors is actually rotated, but can I turn the Bofors without shooting it? Or am I going to have to keep the truck rotated just right (possibly illogically so) in order to keep the shield presented?
>>47716137
they do....
guys, check up the old Easy Army if you still have a use for it. the date on the latest message is off, but the adds are gone and i think he means it this time...
Bump we go
>>47715459
I think this is what 1420 is trying to address. Force you to consider costs a bit more than 1750 "bring anything" Armies.
So I'm looking for suggestions for the Panther and two Sherman 76s from the TANKS boxset. Semi Serious ones though. I'd like to be able to take these out for demo games. So, as much as I know it's coming, no Pink Panther.
Operation Totalize 1944: The Allied Drive South from Caen (Osprey Campaign 294)
In Operation Totalize, Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds' II Canadian Corps launched an attack from its positions along the Bourguébus Ridge south of Caen, striking south-southeast astride the main Caen-Falaise road toward the high ground that dominated the town of Falaise and the key west-east lateral road that ran through this town. Using sophisticated operational art the initial break-in achieved rapid success; indeed, more tactical success than any previous Allied break-in attack in Normandy. However, despite this rapid initial success, Totalize did not subsequently secure a decisive operational-level victory. Indeed, Simonds' forces subsequently struggled swiftly to complete the second break-in battle, and to transit into rapid exploitation operations. Had Simond's force been successful the German army may not have been able to extract themselves from the Falaise pocket and would have been surrounded and defeated - possibly bringing about the early end of the war in Europe.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/2c9cc1189r2cvwz/Osprey+-+CAM+294+-+Operation+Totalize+1944.pdf
>>47722334
What kind of suggestions? Painting suggestions, or unit and upgrade card suggestions?
>>47722334
Cuckoo.
2 dudes from Oddball's platoon.
>>47688469
Hang in there, Eagles. It's always rough losing a loved one. Best wishes and I hope you make it through OK.
>>47716137
Pretty much exactly what it is.
I was looking over PSC's "upcoming" page, and noticed they're planning 15mm 88s. Anyone here /kampfgruppe swoboda/?
>>47725503
PSC has been "planning" a lot... for a very long time. There's no knowing if the 88s will be released next month or in five years time.
>>47724363
at least they picked a hi-performance model....
>>47725503
No, but I'm /SS Hitlerjugend Ausbildungs/.
Because 16x 8.8cm FlaK37s with extra crew, 2x 8.8cm KwK36s, and 2x 8.8cm PaK43s. And some infantry, I guess.
>>47716137
Lol that would be funny actually.
Somehow the war just keeps going on and on so they just start taking news helicopters and strapping missile pods to them late war german style.
>>47726989
thats a good point.
If WWIII is breaking out, I doubt the Germans would be too concerned about whether a chopper is news or military type. Probably woudnt be too different all things considered.
Given theyre the ones taking the brunt of the fighting, they'd probably be the first country to resort to something like that too.
Breakthrough assault have previewed the Leopard book:
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/2016/06/leopard-preview-infantry-and-artillery-unit-cards.html
>>47728346
That was tanks, this is infantry/artillery:
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/2016/06/mark-done-bar-look-featured-image-leopard-preview-infantry-artillery-unit-cards.html
>>47728346
That Leopard 1 looks so lightly armed and armored...
>>47728749
The description of the Leo1 as a "Super Panther" really strikes a chord for me.
>>47728452
>want to play Marders
>remember I still have 30 bmps left to paint
I really fucking hope no Abrams ever drives close enough for me to autocannon them to death, that shit doesn't make sense but sooner or later I will need to do it to win.
I found a 1/144 Ho229, today. I'm sorely tempted to get it and start a germany 1946 army... Maybe even add some spear-of-destiny sort of nonsense to it.
So are there any manufacturers that provide all plastic or resin minis? I'm used to painting and handling plastic and I really don't feel like going through the haste of learning how to handle metal
>>47729800
Plastic Soldier Company is the go-to for plastic models: both infantry and vehicles. Battlefront does have a limited amount of pure resin and plastic kits as well, but some say that Battlefront and PSC infantry don't mix very well. Some of the more esoteric units are only available in metal however.
>>47723592
Painting Suggestions yes. For the demo games it's probably going to be Barkmann's corner.
>>47723782
Actually I already have a Panther Cuckoo.
>>47729850
>Battlefront and PSC infantry don't mix very well
Depends entirely on what generation; the normandy grenadiers and early war germans, and all british infantry, fit perfectly.
>>47730660
I just ordered a box of the Late War German Grenadiers so I hope they look alright, but I intend on making that army at least 90% PSC figures. I did read that most figures will mix alright as on you keep them to their own bases (Battlefront figures only on a base, PSC only on a base, etc.). Speaking of which, anyone own any of the Essex Germans? I bought some assault rifle guys to make up a scout platoon for my Grenadier list and I hope they mix well with PSC LW Germans.
>>47730235
>>47723782
>Cuckoo
I had heard of this, but never actually looked it up. And it was apparently captured and used by the 6th guards, who I've been considering building once I finish up my current army. Sadly, there don't seem to be any rules for it, but that shouldn't be that hard to mock up...
Tank Squadron (6th Guards) from Overlord and Guards Tank Squadron from Nachtjager only. It is a single-tank support platoon. Costs 135 points for the Overlord list (CT), and 180 points for the Nachtjager list (CV). Stats are same as for a normal Panther G with the addition of Unreliable, due to problems finding spare parts. Has default British special rules (bulldog, the irrelevant "carry on"), but not semi-indirect fire.
Points costs are 10 less than a CT or CV Panther G as listed in german lists, which should be about right. British Bulldog is worth less than Stormtrooper, and Panther Ds (which have Unreliable) are 10 pts less per tank than Panther Gs. Giving it SIDF to represent the accurate shelling it did against Geijsteren castle might be reasonable, in which case bump the cost back up by 10 points. Maybe have that as a 10 point upgrade (captured sufficient ammo to do SIDF doctrine).
>>47731158
Is... is that a deep fried assault rifle?
>>47731801
National special rules don't factor into points.
>>47732191
Really? Because a Hungarian Panther A costs 185 at CV, but a German Panther A costs 190 at CV. And the only thing different is the national special rules.
Pacific War, would you rather have a Sherman or 2 M5s? Approximately the same points, if you take the AA MG and additional armour on the Sherman, but very different buys...
>>47732177
Rust, friend.
>>47732385
Oh thank god, I was really confused for a minute.
Russian player here. I'm sort of new to Flames of War, and I've always wondered: What is the use for Recce? Especially Russian Recce?
>>47732927
it's probably the only hope you'll have of successfully killing most entrenched infantry you come across, among many other things.
Recce is one of the most useful unit types in the game.
>>47732927
>Russia
>Recce
>Not drive forward until you're shot at so the commander can see where the enemy is aiming his guns
>>47728749
The Leopard was designed with the philosophy that modern HEAT rounds would make armor negligible, thus it was lightly armored and built for manueverability. In an age of composite armor it is a bit of a glass cannon, but I am curious to see the points value. Played correctly I could see them being a great value, though they may suffer against autocannon fire from the air.
When we play cold war rulesets microarmor at my FLGS, some of the best value has come from the Chieftain tank, which has less armor, but retains a lethal rifled 105 mm gun. From a hull down position, the older generation of tanks can still be effective.
>>47733328
>Chieftain tank, which has less armor, but retains a lethal rifled 105 mm gun.
What.
The whole point of the Chieftain was that it was an absurdly-heavily armoured slow sonofabitch with a big fat 120mm cannon.
Sure you're not thinking of something else?
>>47732177
I think it was scavenged from a battlefield somewhere in Europe. Check out this panzerknacker.
I just got an Open Fire box set recently and I had a couple questions:
First, two of my German rifleman (same pose on both sprues) lost the front half of their rifles out of the box. Any suggestions on a quick fix, or will anyone really care? The actual ends are lost to my carpet, unfortunately.
Any reason it'd be a terrible idea to go for an 82nd or 101st Airborne company from Market Garden for my first full army? From the looks of things I could use all the allied stuff from Open Fire and prolly only have to buy something like an extra platoon, HQ, recce, and arty to have a 1500-1750 list. Would the two British armored platoons and the para's gammon bombs and bazookas be enough to deal with a tank list?
>>47734515
You could always e-mail Battlefront about the models if they came that way. They're pretty good about replacing defective product.
The Shermans Vs/Fireflies you get should be able to handle most enemy armor. The Fireflies will be your main tank killers (especially heavy tanks like Tigers) since they have the 17 pdr guns.
I play Market Garden Canadians, so don't take my word as gospel for American paras. Here's a 1500 list I threw together though that I feel is a pretty decent combined arms list for Airborne.
US 82nd Parachute Rifle (Support from Guards Armoured Division)
Infantry Company, from Market Garden, page 66
Compulsory Parachute Rifle Company HQ (82nd Airborne) (p.68) - 1x CinC Carbine, 1x 2iC Carbine (30 pts)
- 1x Bazooka (20 pts)
Compulsory Parachute Rifle Platoon (p.68) - 1x Command Rifle/MG, 9x Rifle/MG, 1x M2 60mm mortar, 1x Bazooka (355 pts)
Compulsory Parachute Rifle Platoon (p.68) - 1x Command Rifle/MG, 9x Rifle/MG, 1x M2 60mm mortar, 1x Bazooka (355 pts)
Parachute Mortar Platoon (p.69) - 1x Command Carbine, 4x M1 81mm mortar (125 pts)
British Armoured Platoon (Guards Armoured Division) (p.103) - 1x Command Sherman V, 2x Sherman V, 1x Firefly VC (385 pts)
82nd Airborne Divisional Recon Platoon (p.72) - 1x Command Armored .50cal Recon Jeep, 3x Armored .50cal Recon Jeep (160 pts)
Airborne Anti-tank Platoon (p.71) - 1x Command Carbine, 2x M1 57mm gun (70 pts)
1500 Points, 6 Platoons
>>47734873
Thank you kindly, sounds like exactly the kind of list I was thinking about. I was originally thinking two armoured platoons since I've been getting the impression people like tank heavy lists, is that a legitimate worry?
Also, how anal are people in the FoW community/tournament scene (if I ever bother with tournaments) about WYSWYG for your minis? Like having the wrong CinC weapons modeled for your list, or having an AA MG on tanks or not, etc?
Side note that they keep British vs American spelling consistent for units in the lists makes the perfectionist in me smile.
>>47736013
A proper tournament might have a go at you for not having the correct models. Casual games vary a lot more but generally speaking they'll be a lot less inclined to be unreasonable. Also with the average Infantry team, it's usually pretty difficult to discern at a glance what they're armed with. So infantry teams usually get a pass by most people, if you're worried about giving your command team the wrong guns.
>>47736013
Ive rarely seen people worry about aamg's due to the incredibly annoying tendency they have to snap off, but I dont play tourneys much. I would suspect a TO would want them on the model, even if you just have to set the broken off gun on the engine deck.
Other things boil down to how obvious the difference is. For example, almost nobody will notice the difference between a Panzer IV J and a Panzer IV H, but you will see people notice the difference between an M4A1 and an M4A3 (late) model.
Really obvious stuff, like say a 75mm sherman being used as a 76mm model, will not fly at a tourney, and probably not in casual play either.
However if youre a new guy and say "Im just getting into the game and don't have this model yet." they might let it slide. Just dont expect that to fly for long.
>>47736013
My local community is really cool and is even sharing a few of their models with me for the Firestorm: Overlord campaign we're doing.
I wouldn't worry too much about obsessing over WYSWYG in regards to minor stuff (wrong CinC weapons, AA MGs on tanks, etc.) but try to use the correct models as much as possible. Most people understand that it's just not practical to have every option modeled 100% correctly. Then again, it just depends on your local community is like.
>>47736013
Some people do tank heavy lists, but you have to remember that tanks cost a lot of points. If you invested 385 more points into a second Armoured Platoon, then you'd have to give up something in return.
In my experience, combined arms is usually the best option. I wrote your list using a similar method that I used writing my own Canadian infantry list.
I have two platoons of Infantry for taking and holding objectives. Infantry aren't fast or great on the offensive, but once they're Dug In on an objective, they're hard to remove. Dug In platoons are Concealed (Enemy adds +1 to hit you) and in Bulletproof Cover (Enemy must roll a Firepower Test to kill you even if they pass the test to shoot you). If they choose not to shoot, move or assault, they may choose to do Gone to Ground (Another +1 for the enemy to hit you) which gives them more defensive bonuses. Your Fearless Veteran airborne troops will be very good at holding objectives because they might potentially make the enemy have to roll a 6 to hit them AND then pass a Firepower test even if they do hit
The main purpose of your mortars (or any artillery in an infantry list) is to provide smoke cover for your infantry. Smoke Markers that block all lines of sight automatically make you Concealed and Gone to Ground which allows your infantry to get into position on top of an objective. Smoke is 100% necessary, especially for infantry lists.
Your anti-tank guns should support your dug in infantry, your recon should set up to prevent enemy ambushes and/or remove Gone to Ground status on enemy platoons, and your Armoured Platoon's mobility lets you move them to wherever you need them to be to support your infantry. Hope that helped!
>>47733328
>though they may suffer against autocannon fire from the air.
And the rear. And the side. And the front.
The small arms protection it had in the 1960s isn't the protection it's got now, or even in 1985 when TY is set. I'd expect to see BMPs penning it from the front and potentially shilkas getting in side hits. The hull side is only 45mm, 35 between the suspension.
>>47733529
Tactically the chieftain was slow but it's cross country speed was actually pretty high.
>>47736315
My local community at least is cool, a courtesy "This is standing in for a panther" or whatever is usually fine so long as people know what's standing in for what. But then, we encourage people to try new lists before they buy them.
>>47738186
>Tactically the chieftain was slow but it's cross country speed was actually pretty high.
Sure, when it's engine didn't decide to break down or overheat and flip out for whatever minor reason.
Don't get me wrong, I fucking love the Chieftain, but no matter what it's strategic range may have been on paper, particularly mobile it was not.
>>47738280
At what period, and to what degree? Later Chieftains were rarely rendered non-operational by engine problems, and readiness can drop or jump depending on how badly you need a tank to be ready. Your car might have a brake light out, but if the warsaw pact was rumbling through the city you'd drive it anyway. The Chieftain's eternal reliability issue is probably because of the completely disasterous early engines it had where something like 90% of them were completely failed at any given time.
>>47733529
Derp, you are right. The chieftain does have the rifled 120 mm. Which probably explains it's effectiveness on the table top.
I guess the point I wanted to make about the Leopard I is that if you stay in cover, you should be able to get some value out of it. Even though they are a medium tank, they suffer due to lack of an advanced stabilizer.
>>47738372
Indeed, but as the *baseline* reliability of the engine improved over the years, the tank also increased in weight with armour addons and other upgrades; and the two increases weren't necessarily proportional. Sure, the Mk.10/11 was a more reliable vehicle than, say, a Mk.2, but it still wasn't as reliable as the other AFVs on the field, either.
I'm having a devil of a time with USMC arty in PW points; all the guns that have decent bombardment profiles are also ones with reasonable AT, and consequently a shitload of points at FV.
>>47740515
So sorry your Yankee feet have to tread the same filthy earth as the rest of us.
>>47740701
Chill, dude.
Hey /FOWG/ I'm interested in running an IS-85 list. They seem like they're be great against medium tanks. I think I'd like to run them with flame tanks to fight infantry. I also think I need recce, so that means I need a way to deal with enemy heavy tanks (possibly also air). Would a sturmovik be a good fit for this list?
>>47740895
Sturmovik's a little pricey and, IIRC, only comes at sporadic or limited. Aircraft are usually priority or bust.
>>47740914
How should I deal with enemy heavies? AT 12 probably isn't good enough for front shots and slow tanks, I think, will struggle for side shots. People in my area love their heavies, but also lots of medium lists around.
>>47740965
Tank Destruction Company or heavy assault guns.
>>47740965
The Soviets are ass deep in powerful anti tank options. Artillery isn't a bad idea either, although for the most part your SPGs should scare them off. IS-85s are already nasty enough.
I'd be more worried about dug in 17 pounders than I would be able the occasional brace of Panthers.
>>47740895
>>47740914
You can bring priority Sturmovik's in late war, but I don't think you want to spend points on something that may or may not help you out, when you can put them toward a more reliable choice like 100 mm AT guns or an SU-122.
>>47740914
>Aircraft are usually priority or bust.
Really? I've generally heard the opposite, since ranges tend to close too much for priority to matter, and sporadic is cheap enough that even killing one or two decent tanks generally gets your points back.
>>47742026
>more reliable choice like 100 mm AT guns
>BS-3s
>Reliable
top fucking kek.
>>47728346
jesus fuck, that skill!
>>47728452
G3...literally just a rifle....
>>47740515
then play latewar.
USMC is top-end bad-ass swack. you are not gonna come cheap....
>>47740895
it is glorious. and you are right....
>>47742489
>G3...literally just a rifle....
To be fair, every company HQ team has only their country's main firearm (M16 and AK74 for USA and USSR).
The regular Panzergrenadiers combine their G3s with the MG3, grandkid to the classic MG42.
>>47742489
>then play latewar.
What's the point of making a pacific war era if you can't use pacific points to play a reasonable game?
The newest episode of Panzerfunk is online!
Panzerfunk Episode14: D-Day Gaming & Leopard Spotted
In this episode the Funkmeisters discuss:
- Recent Hobby Activities.
- Questions from our listening audience.
- D-Day Gaming.
- Leopard - The new West German expansion for Team Yankee!
With Special Guest Guybrarian, the long-lost founder of the Flames of War threads on /tg/.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode14-d-day-gaming-leopard-spotted/
>>47743450
Eagles, you are a good person. I'm really sorry to hear about all the shit you're going through, and I'm really grateful that you still put in so much effort for us.
>>47687244
Hope so, I just picked it up.
Really good value for £18 IMO.
>>47744674
It was a useful distraction form what's been going on.
And as cheesy as this might sound, the FoWtg community has been here for me while I've been dealing with everything.
I was surprised by the outpouring of support and encouragement from you guys.
Getting this episode out, only a week late, even with all that's happened to me recently has been helping me to refocus on something normal. Something not related to endless planning, crazy relatives, and constant phone calls and visits from various friends of the family.
>>47745095
I might have to pick up TANKS eventually.
Although most of my hobby money will likely go to Leopard once that comes out.
Plus I'm a bit tapped out monetarily just from purchasing a new suit alone. That's without mentioning the other expenses.
>>47743144
i know....they tried to be reasonable about it, and now we have to play 2000-3000 pt. Pacific war games....
>>47745808
Well, Japan can get a list in at 1420-1500 points, especially with CT squads, but FV marines with late-war gear and a dozen special rules in EW points is prohibitively expensive.
>>47742489
>then play latewar.
Late-war has it's own issue, in that the marine arsenal is very pacific-specific (shocker). They lack integrated AT even more than the soviets, and don't even get wet shermans. Their best AT period is 13, on immobile guns. A marine army would be very hard to play against an actual LW list, I expect.
> my internet is shit so i can't listen to PanzerFunk
please tell me it's just me.
>>47748367
I'm listening on the website itself over my home wifi with no issues.
So it probably is just you.
>>47746970
Yeah, probably.
Which I think is half the reason they attempted to make Pacific its own era.
How successful you think they were with that is another question...
so, who has /has not received TANS yet in stores?
....
i, for one, show no signs, and this is a store that carries SO in stock.
>>47750798
TANKS, for fuck sake.
>>47750798
I went into my LGS and found a copy. So either no one else is interested, or I'm very lucky.
>>47743450
Had a lot of fun recording this. Hope you all enjoy it.
>>47750798
>>47750798
>Being a disgusting tan lover
>not embracing green master race
Wouldnotbesarge'shero/10
