Looking at british infantry for normandie and the low countries,which would /fowg/ recommend? Plastic Soldier or Battlefront plastics?

>>47774027
BF Plastics are slightly better IMO.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1992455033/psc-ww2-british-25-pounder-artillery-and-tractor-k

if they get high enough with pledges, we get a sexton as well...

>>47774027
PSC figures are pretty good, IMO, and there's a similar amount of poses. People say their backpacks are blocky but for FoW you won't notice, maybe for an individually-based 15mm game.

File: Brit Inf - BF vs PSC.png (11 KB, 432x243) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 432x243

I did a bit of digging and counting, and found pic attached as composition for the different boxes. Interresting to see that BF has almost no extra riflemen, and relatively few Bren gunners, they have an overabundance of officers, and enough SMG armed troopers to allow for an SMG on each team in one of the platoons (such as if one wants to have a canadian SMG-armed platoon), and also extra light mortars and piats... is there any briitsh (leg) infantry company that allows for additional piats?

>>47774304
Any particular reason why?

>>47775313
They seem a bit low on SMG-armed troopers (generally used as NCOs)... or anything not a rifleman, really.

>>47775582
> Any particular reason why?

Better details.

>>47775582
>Interresting to see that BF has almost no extra riflemen, and relatively few Bren gunners, they have an overabundance of officers
because battlefront's infantry has only 1 sprue but PSC has two at a 3:9 ratio

>>47775582
BF plastics generally seem to have deeper and more pronounced detail than PSC, imo it makes washing and highlighting them much easier and more satisfying.
That said, PSC are catching up.

>>47775825
This. I don't know how much quality has improved, but 2-3 years ago I was not impressed with PSC infantry.

The tanks however are great.

>>47776165
Depending on how old they were you may have had the shitty early sculpts; their brits and two more recent germans are newer and are IMO comparable to BF.

File: Challenger Uparmored.jpg (118 KB, 593x498) Image search: [Google]

118 KB, 593x498

Fun fact: Half of the 200 A30 Challengers produced had additional 1" thick plates of armor added to the turret and front hull at the factory. This increased the armor protection from 63mm to 89mm. There's also evidence (such as this photograph of an early-series A30) that up-armoring had been done in the field. Additionally, all but the first 40 produced had thick cast mantlets that were 40mm thicker (~100mm vs ~60mm).

>>47776759

12" move

+2 FA

???profit???

File: Challenger Uparmored_2.jpg (114 KB, 518x467) Image search: [Google]

114 KB, 518x467

>>47778174
Oddly, the testing of the uparmored version showed it having slightly greater speed than the base Challenger, according to the references I found. Need to get my hands on "A30 Challenger Tank A Technical History" to make sure, though. Currently, I'd say just make it +1 armor (the plates only covered portions, there was no sloping worth notice, and the 75mm on the cromwell is front 6) and no movement change.

>>47779175
maybe extra weight helped it "dig in" for better traction?

>>47779671
Might have, might also be a product of comparing it to the early versions that had some bad drive components. Again, need to get my hands on that book to be sure.

What's the current book for midwar Africa? Like operation Torch and Desert Rats and whatnot.

>>47780449
Appropriately, North Africa. Which also covers Italy. Confusingly.

>>47780479
Thanks anon

What's a good Axis army for someone new to the game?

I want to play something without a ton of Infantry but it doesn't have to be an armor company. Open to any era or non-Eastern front, but preferably mid or late War.

>>47780598
If you don't want tons of infantry, then armoured is probably the best way to go. Trying out one of the CV Panzerkompanie lists in Atlantik Wall might be a good place to start.

File: SU-152 vs. ISU-152.jpg (50 KB, 720x480) Image search: [Google]

50 KB, 720x480

Just bought some painted ISU-152 (ISU-122s) from my FLGS. How horrible of a sin would it be to proxy these as SU-152s for midwar? I know it's a completely different chassis, but honestly they don't look horribly different for 15mm.

Anybody play Vichy French here?

>>47781441
Honestly dude, I play against paper card proxies if someone has something arriving in mail or wants to try something out. Its no big deal, people can deal. Unless of course they can't, in which case you are playing against arseholes. Just say at the start that you are proxying them and all should be fine.

>>47781441

My three ground rules for proxying are - in decreasing importance - transparency, consistency, and finally similarity.

Transparency: tell your opponents what is what. Labels may help in some cases, but shouldn't be necessary in this case.

Consistency: units of the same type represent the same thing. So you avoid "these Panzer IVs are StuGs, but these other Panzer IVs are Panthers". Conversely, I'd probably be okay with "I didn't have enough, so all Pz IVs and StuGs are StuGs today".

Finally, similarity: while it also helps from a point of view of remembering what's where, more importantly it's useful for game purposes to use a broadly similar-sized model. So your armoured car cannot be a Super Pershing, for example; but a Lee for a Priest would be a sensible swap.

>>47782963
Yeah, these three guidelines make a lot of sense when it comes to proxies.

>>47782963
Those seem like good guidelines. Seems like a close proxy in this case. I may buy a couple of SU-152s in the future, but money is a little tight and I'm saving some hobby money for the new team yankee releases.

>>47782963
I only have one addendum to add: NEVER, EVER use something as a proxy that you also have "true" in your army (such ans proxying some Panzer IVs as StuGs, and then also having Panzer IVs in your army). No, not even if they have a different paint scheme.

>>47785965
>No, not even if they have a different paint scheme.
If it's radically different enough (Africa vs NW Europe, painted vs unpainted, winterized vs normal), I think it's fine. If it's pretty close in color or style, no.

>>47782963
>Finally, similarity: while it also helps from a point of view of remembering what's where, more importantly it's useful for game purposes to use a broadly similar-sized model. So your armoured car cannot be a Super Pershing, for example; but a Lee for a Priest would be a sensible swap.

Most people don't know the exact stats of other people's models anyway, so I definitely agree with this.

A while ago someone listed all the soviet tanks that saw action in small numbers, but that weren't given stats. Would you mind listing those again?

>>47788586
Those must have seen extremely limited action.

Almost everything in common usage has stats.

>>47788586
Exactly.

The SU-100Y had a single prototype that probably fired shots in the direction of the enemy. There was the T-50, which was probably fed into the Leningrad Front Home For Bad Tank Designs. There was probably a few crappy 1930s experimental designs, and there might be one or two armoured car short runs amongst the throng that don't have rules yet.
>>47789173
Basically has the right of it. Anything we don't have rules for was almost literally irrelevant. Stuff for MWM or LWL than actual books.

>>47787378
i get it

Predictions for the Pacific War? Is it gonna become another obscure expansion era like Vietnam or will exclusive Pacific War games build a community?

>>47790934
If they keep adding in points values to blend it with LW, it'll do fine.

>>47789459
Waffentrager, dicker max, the billion subvarieties of armoured cars and improvised captured vehicles, Ho-Ro and Ho-Ni, 76mm jumbos, /super pershing/...

>>47790934
It looks a bit stillborn, honestly. PW points don't really work for marines very neatly, and neither japan nor marines really fit in LW except as gimmick lists.

>>47789459
There was something like 20 T-50s. Enough saw action for the Finnish to actually capture two of them and put them in a museum. And while they were little more than a BT-7 with thicker armor, it would (easily) qualify for "Light Tank", even if the devs marked it "Standard".

The SU-100Y prototype did see combat in (iirc) the Moscow fighting. Like any hull-mount Tank Destroyer, shooting in the direction of the enemy is exactly what it did. For what it's worth the thing survived, and is in the famous russian tank museum. In one piece, even. MW could use the BT-7, preferably either stupid cheap, or Light Tank. If for no other reason than to completely outshine the T-70, and allow you to have a not-LL light tank worth using.

The ISU-122s could be added, but that'd mostly be cosmetic.

>>47792325
BTs are, for some reason, not Light Tanks. Yes, this means that an M4A3 sherman is apparently faster.

>>47781441
So long as your opponent knows, and the gun is (mostly) the right size, it shouldn't matter. The SU-152 and ISU-152 are very similar in appearance, with the major difference being visible on the back engine deck. A lot of their similarity comes from the fact the IS chassis was based around the KV-1s chassis, and so in a sense the ISU-152 is just the SU-152 on a newer chassis.

>>47792363
Well aware of that. It's one of my biggest gripes with EW. BTs should have been Light. Hopefully v4 gives Fast Tank the +2" movement that Detroit's Finest has.

Whats the deal with shooting at bailed out/bogged down vehicles? It doesnt say anything about it in the rule book.

>>47792793
Same as shooting any vehicle. But hits to the platoon have to be allocated to not-bogged/not-bailed vehicles first, UNLESS the bogged/bailed vehicle is the lower armor value. If you move and fire a Bunker Buster, then hits cannot be allocated to not-bogged/not-bailed vehicles. So in a weird way, you can move and fire a Bunker Buster and snipe out a bailed/bogged tank.

File: 3d229da1294902feee194a45cc860996_original.jpg (47 KB, 680x481) Image search: [Google]

47 KB, 680x481

PSC's 25pdrs have hit 6k, so at the very least it looks like 18/25pdrs are likely. Might throw in now, get one battery for EW and one for MW/LW.

>>47793872
Is there any point at all to normal 18pdrs in EW, beyond historical accuracy/model limitations? For 5 points you get an extra point of bombardment AT with the 18/25s, which seems like a total nobrainer.
Especially given the premium you pay for the full 25pdrs.

>>47794035
>For 5 points you get an extra point of bombardment AT
And an extra point of bombardment FP.


Realistically, if you're just taking 4 or 12 of either it is a total nobrainer in favour of the 18/25s, yeah.
The 18s are worth it if you're taking 8-gun batteries, though, because the 18s give you access to 4.5" howitzers, which are *excellent*, and Britain's sole source of BTG in EW. At which point you can then safely use your 18s as heavy ATGs and your howtizers for delicious 3+FP bombardments.

Doesn't quite work as efficiently with the 12 guns since you're at diminishing returns, unfortunately.

>>47787378

>Galileo x2

>>47790934
it needs:

Brits
Aussies
Kiwi
Chindits (like Brit Sperverband)
Chinese
French
Philipines (1 list is fine)
Indian forces for both sides

>>47795421
Yup, I feel like a robust book or two for the Burma or New Guinea campaigns might be a good way to give it some depth and some more interesting lists.

>>47795536
>>47795421
You have to wonder how the hell they'd balance a Kokoda list.

Australian Militia beating the shit out of Japanese veterans.

>>47797245
FC (maybe FT later in the campaign) Fortified list? Not sure what else they could do/if anything more is needed.

File: B Squadron 15th-19th King's Royal Hussars.jpg (483 KB, 1426x803) Image search: [Google]

483 KB, 1426x803

Hello /fowg/. Thanks to a friend's upcoming wedding, I have 4 weeks to finish up my British Armored Recce company (11th Armored, 15th/19th Hussars, B squadron). That means I have only 28 days to finish stowage, converting, basing, priming, and then painting all of these fuckers. And I've still got a few more (2 SP Bofors, another Challenger, 3 Wasps) that are either not in this picture or are on order. I have never been so intimidated by a pile of resin, plastic, and metal.

Help

>>47797381
Honestly, I'd be inclined to rate them FT at a minimum. Even Australian home militia, like at Kokoda, had excellent fieldcraft skills.

Then again, FC with Mission Tactics is a hilarious mental image.

>>47797560
And a number of free booby traps, to represent the wildlife.

>>47797458
You running the Nachtjager (means Night Hunter) list?

>>47797560
Maybe, but most of the memoirs/history books I've read about Kokoda (and I've read more than a couple) don't really make any bones about the fact the militia units weren't professional soldiers. Maybe they could get shot like Trained but test like Conscripts or vice versa?

>>47797596
Nah, the Wildlife in PNG is slightly less hilariously deadly than in mainland Australia.

Now, Native ambushes, on the other hand, *those* are killers.

>>47797628
Other way round, perhaps. Actual professional soldiering they were lacking, but practical skills like survival, teamwork, initiative and so on were in abundance. A *lot* of them came from farming or mining backgrounds, and austraila was hilariously rural at the time.
Test like trained, shot like conscripts.

>>47797658
I wonder if they could get away with fuzzy-wuzzy support as a special rule and what it would actually do.

>>47797746
Reroll to reserves, with the golliwogs leading them through jungle trails?

Some stretcher bearer-esque rule similar to that one soviet medic chick in the shtraf list?

>>47797628
I've got them set up so I can either run them using the Nachtjager (Translator's note: Nachtjager means Night Hunter) list, or the Market Garden list. That's why I've got both Cromwell (MG) and Sherman (NJ) ARVs, 4 Cromwell CS tanks (Luttrell's Platoon, MG), and have a platoon of Wasps (NJ) on order.

The trained MG list lets me shove more tanks in, and has the advantage of hiding the Challengers inside the Cromwell platoons. The veteran NJ list lets me get flamethrowers and lets my challengers fuck up a target before the cromwells smoke it (assuming it lives).

>>47797245
Don't forget the Reluctant Conscript US troops who turned up with only a couple months of training.

>>47797808
Nice, that's a good way of setting things up, I've been wrestling with which one to go for as my next list so I might nab your idea.

>>47797778
Not familiar with that second one, what's it do?

>>47797831
Yeah. That the infantry, AA, and artillery remain CV in both lists is great, since those benefit more from veteran than the tanks do. The one thing I don't like is that I can only get 2 platoons of 4 cromwells and only the normal 2 CS tanks in the NJ list, leaving me with 2 normals and CSs without a home. Then again, I guess my Wasps will be homeless when using the MG list, so that's not a huge problem.

File: SP004-British-Tank-spray-small.jpg (240 KB, 471x1181) Image search: [Google]

240 KB, 471x1181

>>47797458
That force is so easy to paint to a basic level.

>>47797962
Once per turn, Rita may attempt to save a team that is
in Pyl'cyns Shtraf Company. If an Infantry or Gun team
within 6"/1 5cm of Pyl'cyn fails a Save, roll a die:
-If the result ii 5+, Rita manages to save the team and it continues to fight on unharmed.
-Otherwise, the soldiers are too badly wounded to fight on the team is Destroyed as normal.

>>47797995
And I guess you can use them with the Overlord list, but then you don't get Challengers. Glorious RoF 3, cat-chewing Challengers. Do get Cautious Movement and Disengage, though, so it might be fun to try once or twice.

Oh, and if you don't mind the division symbols being off, it's easy enough to use them as the MG Guards Recce as well. Only big change between the 11th and Guards versions availability-wise is the Dingoes will have to be replaced with scout carriers.

>>47798011
Huh, that'd work pretty well for fuzzy-wuzzy rules, probably working off of the CiC base.

I'm pretty new to FoW, my friend plays a t34 swarm out of Red Bear. What would be a decent German army to play against his force. Or is FoW balanced enough that any army can reasonably handle an army of comparable points value? I sort of want to do a Panzerspah company from Grey Wolf of mostly Pumas, but I won't bother if it's going to just get BTFO by his army. Thanks for any advice!

>>47798556
FoW is well balanced. And realistically speaking, your force should be able to take a few different sorts of armies. Infantry and tank based.
>Panzerspah
...and you blew it.

If you like Pumas, take a platoon of them. But AC companies are something of a novelty. You can take plenty of them in most regular lists, though. But they're at their core, recon assets. GOOD recon assets, but they were never really meant to form the core of a force.

>>47798647

That's perhaps a little unfair. Mechanised companies - and armoured car companies in particular - can work, but require a lot of finesse, and aren't massively newb-friendly.

>>47798556

Safe options are a company based around Panzer IVs or StuGs, or an infantry list with lots of Pak40s. (Consider the Sturmkompanie out of Grey Wolf for max Pak40 shenanigans.)

What you will want are things that are survivable against mid-AT shots (dependent on your opponent's mix of 76s and 85s), and high AT shots that he can't easily save. AT11 is okay; AT12 is better. However, you hit diminishing returns on points quickly - I wouldn't recommend going all the way to a King Tiger or Elefant, as you just don't get enough shots to deal with a horde.

Pumas, for my money, aren't quite shooty enough or (anywhere near) tough enough to mix it up against a tank mob.

>>47798556
Pumas are better trained and can recce away to avoid a lot of the return fire from the T-34s. Their fire in return isn't going to gut as many T-34s though. You'd want some Tank Hunters or AT guns. Which you can probably afford.

>>47798647
>>47798724


Thanks for the advice, I'm also leaning towards a pzgren company. So I'll just add some Pumas to that.

>>47792325
69 T-50s were actually made. Some were used in 1941 on the Leningrad front and 27 tanks were used by 488 Separate Tank Battalion on the Transcaucasus front in 1942. The Finns captured 1 which was used as a command tank.

>>47789518
I don't, pls explain

>>47799215
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ

Can an infantry platoon mount on a tank platoon during deployment?

>>47797560
>>47797628
Battlefront have said before veterancy actually has nothing to do with experience and is a reflection of how much they died. So if tons of Kokoda died like chumps they're going to be conscript. If they punched well above their weight, they might even be vet.

>>47793872
And we're up to 18/25pdrs. I'm a bit nonplussed they put the Normandy figures way up at 11k; without those they'd be a completely useless buy for me and my club. The promise of sextons is tempting, though.

>>47800171
I now saw that they've rearranged the stretch goals. They now offer 17/25pdr Pheasants at 7k... suddenly this got much more interresting.

>>47800189
WAIT WHAT

THIS IS VERY NICE

File: 1431299855244.jpg (274 KB, 860x568) Image search: [Google]

274 KB, 860x568

>>47797458
>>47797996

THIS:

1: spray coat th ewhole thing.
2: ink coat, let dry for 24 hrs
3: pick out tracks and do any highlights with both a detail brush (for really small bits) or with a smaller tighter-in dry-brush (for tracks, fender mud, ect....) as opposed to a huge honking dry-brush.

>>47799380
I've never seen anyone do it, so I'd assume not. But I'm honestly not entirely sure.

>>47799380
>>47801358
I would assume it falls under the rules for Transport Platoons, namely "Platoons Deployed after the Transport Platoon may be deployed mounted in the transport Platoon's Vehicles if there is space for them". If not, there's not technically anything saying they can start mounted, but it makes sense for them to do so.

Not like it matters much, since the platoon can just jump onto the tanks and then the tanks can move normally.

>>47801573
Potentially a massive russian platoon would be physically incapable of all deploying close enough to the tanks to embark on turn 1, but you'd have to be a real dick not to let them start that way.

>>47801664
A real dick, and someone that doesn't want free hits and pinning on the infantry from shooting the tanks.

>>47801704
Tank riders and quality of quantity. I can see it being helpful to the enemy, but you need 10 hits with main guns (unless they're polite enough to be loaded up within 16") to pin the infantry and they keep a 3+ save.

>>47802343
Toss some artillery in their direction, then. Even a mortar has potential to cause a fair amount of chaos in such a situation.

>>47802343
Ah, didn't know the soviet tank riders got to stay on the tanks instead of being forced to dismount. That's actually pretty good.

>>47800189
Even better, he just chucked in the LW europe crew for everyone because his team won the football.

>>47802855
Right, 8 25pdrs ordered. And it seems that you're just a few wheels from being able to make 2 guns from each kit (25pdr on mk II carriage, and 18/25pdr on mk I carriage, or 25pdr on mk I carriage and 17/25pdr on mk II)... I wonder if it will be possible to scrounge some wheels from the trucks...

>>47802855
Well, fuck; let's go for it then.

Anyone ever played one of the late-war early-war-tank lists, like finns or romanians? How'd it go?

>>47802343
10 hits with any gun. Even spraying the tanks with MG fire will cause every stand on the tank to rake a hit for each MG shot that hits the tank. Depending upon how many stands are loaded up on each tank, this could be as low as 3 or 4 MG hits.

>>47802447
That's not the case. You need QoQ to bump up the hits and keep from being dismounted. But ultimately you're still vulnerable as fuck. I've used Tank Rider platoons, and the hardest lesson I learned was how much it sucks for the tanks to come under fire from jeeps and halftracks with machine guns.

>>47800162
Which is why they don't want to represent any note-worthy Soviet brigades. Representing the 46th Guards Tank Brigade would mean making them Veterans, and they fucking know it. So instead they give us "generic shit-tier Hero Lend Lease" and call it a day.

>>47798847
I stand corrected. They still saw plenty of combat, and should be added to the game.

>>47805136
"Unless they're polite enough to be loaded up within 16"", yes. That's suicide with almost every transport though. In the MG bubble you pretty much always want to be dismounted from anything you're riding, unless you're panzergrens.

>>47806530
Yeah, if you're not in an armored transport (be it half-tracks, kangaroos, or whatever), getting within 16" while mounted is pretty dumb. Ignoring situations where you will be out of LOS no matter what they do, obviously.

Well, played my first two games of the Tanks game after my FLGS got a pair of starters delivered.
Looks like the products are flying off the distributor shelves.

Both games we played had 2 Brit Sherman Vs vs 2 German StuG Gs since that's what we have painted at the store for demos.
In the second game, both of us were allowed to take up to 10 points of upgrades as well.

It was quite enjoyable and very fast-playing as well; each game took about a half-hour at a very relaxed pace.
There seems to be some real tactical depth, with standing still to aim and moving up to go for knife-fighting both having value.

I certainly plan to play it some more, probably as a nice "filler" game before/after games of FoW.

>>47806530
Try more like 32". Jeeps and halftracks are free to move before wiping your tank riders off the engine deck.

The only time it is ever worthwhile to have infantry of any kind mounted on a tank, is if the opponent cannot feasibly move to LoS, can't ambush any kind of team, or bring reserves on that could theoretically have LoS/Range.

As far as it being suicide to drive within 16" while transported, armored transports would beg to disagree. I have murdered a fair share of HMG teams at homosex ranges, with Razvedki riding around on M3A1s. FA 1, and Fearless, help quite a bit in that regard.

>>47808163
>Try more like 32". Jeeps and halftracks are free to move before wiping your tank riders off the engine deck.
And for everything that isn't a MMG jeep...

A load of tanks aren't going to politely drive out of cover and into H&C-acceptable ranges to MG your tank riders. If they do, awesome, you get to blow the shit out of a tank platoon for a couple of stands of SMG troops.

And even FA 1 transports aren't immune to MGs. Sure, sometimes it pays off, but 3/6 shots does a lot to make it a painful prospect, especially when you've got a couple of teams per transport and they -are- 5+ saves.

>>47808757
>you get to blow the shit out of a tank platoon for a couple of stands of SMG troops.

First off, that's a strawman fallacy. You're just setting up a hypothetical argument about an idiot player blundering some tanks in range just to MG the Tank Riders. A tank platoon, or assault gun platoon, will engage the tanks first before switching to just MGs. Although they'll have incentive to fire their MGs as well, if within range. Any tank that does not have te AT to engage the vehicles themselves, is going to be stupid cheap, expendable, and likely armored cars or expendable light tanks. And out of the range of possibility...

Secondly a decent MG volley will not kill just a couple stands. Let's assume it's a full QoQ Tabk Rider Platoon if 19 stands on the back of 10 T-34s (2 stands per tank), possibly with an attached 2iC (Forward Detachment). And let's say I have 6 BA-64s with nothing better to do. I drive up to within 16", fire 18 shots, and hit 12 T-34s with machine gun fire which harmlessly bounce off (average results). Assuming 2 hits go on the T-34 with a single stand, and the other 11 disperse evenly to the tanks with 2 stands each, we are looking at 23 infantry saves to make. Which should amount to *roughly* 7 to 8 failed saves, and about 6 to 7 stands dead, give or take deoending upon how hits were allocated, stands doubling up on being hit, etc.

And that's just fucking Soviets with some shitty armored cars. Americans are capable of wiping out over half the platoon, and causing the dismount. I'm well aware of this fact, because I had the exact scenario occur to me and quickly lost over 300pts of infantry on turn 2, when I was out of LoS and outside of 36" of his main force. Yay trying to kill jeeps in response...

>>47809574
Tank Riders do not need to dismount under fire.

>>47808757
>And even FA 1 transports aren't immune to MGs. Sure, sometimes it pays off, but 3/6 shots does a lot to make it a painful prospect, especially when you've got a couple of teams per transport and they -are- 5+ saves.
Seeing as you only take the saves if the transport is Destroyed, not bailed, and MGs have AT 2 FP 6+, you have a 1/36 chance per hit to get a bail. You might get lucky and force a dismount on a failed morale for having a bailed transport, but that's yet another reduction in odds. And you won't even have killed any of them.

If you're americunts with a billion .50s, yeah, not-shit odds because .50s are really fucking good. For the rest of us, not worth it.

>>47793872
>>47800189
>>47802855
And we're past the soft-top Morris and Pheasant. Just need about triple the current amount to get to the sextons...

>>47812566
TON OF SEX SOON, COMRADES

File: YourOwn_FUCKINGKRAUTS_ANDTHEIRGODDAMNSPACEMAGIC_2002013115640559_jpg.jpg (174 KB, 480x456) Image search: [Google]

174 KB, 480x456

>that awkward moment when trying to build your LW Germans as MW Germans, and all you have is basic infantry and a stupid amount of Pak 40's, StuG G's, and Tigers
>and he's a new player taking a tankovy list
>tfw everything the fucking krauts ever made murders tanks like no tomorrow
>every list I come up with looks like Im trying to curbstomp him
>that, or its 8 stugs that come out to 1400pts
>that also murder t34's to a horrifying degree

I need help, its like taking sturmdivision all over again except pak 40's are goddamn rail cannons in MW.

I'm using Eastern Front btw. I looked at taking hungarians instead but none of my tanks are valid so all I would have is mortars and infantry packed weapons. Germans are my only option.

>>47812786
Overspend on tigers, don't buy organic AT for your infantry.

Is there any notable advantage to having a single tank in a platoon with slightly higher armor than the rest of the platoon? Such as one M4A3 (Late) with 3 normal M4A3s?

Anyone ever had issues with the older Battlefront kits? I put together an Italian M14/41 and one of the tracks seems noticeable shorter than the other side. Also the tank commander they gave me is impossible to put inside the hatch with the doors open unless I put him sideways.

>>47813594
If you decide the M4A3(late) as your PC, it works.
M4A3s and M4A3(late)s are not distinguishable via gun tank, so your PC likely to get hit till every other tanks are hit.

>Doing list research
>Trying to find a LW list because that's what most people play in my region.
>Spend several hours just reading Early War British material

I don't have a problem, shut up.

>>47812786
Pak38's, man....

File: 1383933692760.jpg (480 KB, 648x1931) Image search: [Google]

480 KB, 648x1931

>>47814352
I would but I dont have any. The game is saturday so its not like I have time to buy anything either.

>>47813622
yes, never ever ever EVER buy metal/resin panthers. Theyre hell in every step of assembly and constantly have parts fall off.

>>47813394
didnt think about that. Arent tigers actually really good in MW though? Priced like King Tigers they oughta be.

>>47814334
That's not how you write "German Buetepanzers" Guy.

File: Ura!.jpg (41 KB, 414x249) Image search: [Google]

41 KB, 414x249

>>47814461
I say you take whatever list you want to take. Screw that other guy.

>>47814461
Exact same problem as KTs in LW. Powerful, but few in number and hilariously expensive.

Actually weaker than LW KTs because pak40s and longbarrel pzIVs can front-pen.

>>47814505

I can only suffer so much self-torture.

But goddamn, I like Early/Mid War too much. My favorite tourney will still always being somehow ending up 4th in an EW tourney with a borrowed schutzenkompanie.

>>47812566
Did BF ever update the Mid-Wat 17/25pdrs in their V3 erratta, or are they still AT13?

>>47814505

...neither is that. "Beutepanzers".

>>47815303
Buttpanzers lol

File: main-qimg-f32bd5617fe47eddab3d68d9bef06f92[1].jpg (69 KB, 485x400) Image search: [Google]

69 KB, 485x400

So is it just me or is the M3 AT gun's canister shot in Gung-ho really goddamn superfluous? Even against infantry?

As near as I can tell it's only actual advantage is being able to shoot full RoF on the move... but even that's dampened a bit by the +1 to hit.

Am I missing something?

>>47816453
You stick the M3 AT guns near your infantry and use them as Giant Shotguns to deter the Banzai Charges. Because they're full rate of fire even if they're pinned down they're like having machine guns near your infantry that can't be effectively pinned down.

>>47816453
>Am I missing something?
You're missing Defensive Fire.
When you're NOT pinned, each gun will provide one additional shot. When you ARE pinned, they will still fire 4 shots, instead of a measly one.

Great. I think I've gone nuts again. I'm suddenly tempted to build a japanese Sensha Rentai with insane amounts of crappy tanks (12 Type 97, 5 Type 95 and 5 M3 Stuarts, to have something "heavy" for a minimum)...

>>47816497
It's kind of useless on the Stuart, though, which has a coax. +1 to hit is usually going to be worse than +1 RoF.

>>47816700
The stuart have RoF 2 on it's gun, Rof 4 with canister, and then the mgs. Assuming you decline to use the AAMG (because you might get assaulted next turn, or something), that's a choice between 4 shots at normal to-hit, or 6(1), where 4 of them are +1. Or, if it's defensive fire (where it is supposed to be used), it's either 4 shots, or 6, simple as that.

Aside from specific circumstances (when you're at 4+ to hit or better), canister is not something you trundle up and unload, it's soemthing you use when the japs come swarming from everywhere.

>>47814941
Man, I agree completely. There is something about EW/MW that is ridiculously fun that LW lacks. For some reason I always feel depressed by LW because I know that Germany loses the war anyway, whereas in EW/MW it was a lot more left to chance as to which side would win. But idk, maybe I'm just reading too much into it and just prefer burning tanks in the desert or Blitzkreigin' my way through Europe.

How viable are Churchill companies in MW? They seem pricey, and Germans have the long 75mm on their panzers by that stage of the desert, as well as Tigers. Italy would be fine, I suppose.

>>47817231
They're OK, not terrible but not the greatest. Its far better to run six Churchills in an Infantry Company, since then you use Night Attack which helps negate German/Soviet/US high-AT weapons.

>>47817641
We tend to play historical matchups, but that still leaves germany, yeah.

>>47817231

They have the long 75mm on SOME tanks. That is to say, probably very few tanks, because long gun Panzer 4s are very expensive, as are Tigers. PaK 40s are still expensive, and vulnerable, and not even that reliably against Churchhills.

Weird question: Anyone ever had any interest in a what-if war fanbook, Olympic or Unthinkable maybe?

Hell, anyone tried that scenario with proxied LW lists, even?

>>47817965
That's basically the express purpose of LWL, wasn't it?

>>47816983
MW is also a lot more fun as a Soviet player, even though I always run Guards and end up Fearless Trained regardless. I think for me it's because LW is fucking filled to the brim with special snowflake lists to represent US, German, and even British lists. While i MW, everyone is running bog-standard generic lists.

>>47819877
And the list creep, don't forget that. EW has that issue as well.

>>47820016
That too. The list creep in LW is more noticeable with US and British. Although in the British case, it makes them a bit more playable. And in the US case, itms obscene. As Soviets, I found their "creep" flat-lined and outright died on the steps of Berlin.

EW's biggest creep problem stems from the massive chunk of time that has passed between Blitzkrieg and Barbarossa. It also doesn't help that every vehicle the Soviets have is made stupidly cheap and spammable. Conscript is a given, and I didn't expect any less... But they could have refrained from making many of their shitty EW tanks suck so bad for the express purpose of dropping the cost even more. BTs come to mind. EW in general needs it's older book(s) to be given a facelift, and boosted up in viability.

>>47820155
Soviets aren't too bad keeping to Rising Sun lists, which aren't terrible against Blitzkrieg and Africa. High AT, but nothing outstandingly different. Having ready access to KVs and T-34s makes them a different kind of threat altogether, and yeah, I'm not sure they're a good fit for EW.

But then, that was the historic reality, I suppose; in 1941 the red army had some real world beaters in the inventory. Just a shame about the management.

>>47820155
>and outright died on the steps of Berlin.
They finally got veterans, and their once critical weakness, weak organic AT, was executed. Their psychologically invulnerable platoons are now ass deep in panzerfaust. They don't have as many gimmicks, but they've never been more viable.
>time passed
I appreciate that you can only take 2 PaK38s, but Panzerknackers radically change EW assault dynamics.
>express purpose
Nothing's changed on that front. And in most cases, the statlines are the same you'd see in MW. Their tanks aren't special.
>BT
Sucked in the war, sucked in the game. They're as cheap and as bad as they ought to be. As a Finnish player, I love christies.
>boosted up in viability
It's a gear thing as much as anything else. There's just about zero reason to run Blitzkrieg British or Germans. Hell, give them some sort of tank assault option, or a better option for AT, and they'd be fine. Polish particularly have that issue, at least Brits and French have wiggle room.

>>47820636
Except you don't get anything in RS lists you can't get in Barbarossa, for the most part.
>Good fit
If Char Bs and Matildas have a place, T-34s do as well. KVs are nasty, true, but killable, and expensive. Not to mention functionally awkward in practise.

>>47820636
>They finally got veterans
In two digital lists most people aren't even aware of. The actual books most people will see are full of shitty hero lists.

>Sucked in the war, sucked in the game.
So jagdtigers are also going to be terrible? Are we going to see a nerfing of cruisers?

Nobody's contesting most of the stats for the BTs but they really should be light tank. Under armouring is entirely true, as is mechanical unreliability, but they're indisputably fast. At present the M4A3 sherman is faster, for some boneheaded reason.

>Except you don't get anything in RS lists you can't get in Barbarossa
Except for T-34s, KVs, and lend-lease tanks? As well as the fact their lists are "mixed tankovy" style forces instead of dedicated light, cavalry and heavy tank forces? Red banner infantry? Barbarossa is a good place to be Soviet.

>>47821314
Some funny quotes from me there.

>>47821314
>most people aren't even aware of
People seriously aren't aware of them? No way.
>Jagtigers
Except Jagtigers had massive armour and a massive gun. That's easy to fudge, and they WERE good at tank killing in the same way that Ferdinands were, and they got a similar treatment.
>light tank
Not if they turned like bricks and shook the skulls out of the driver, who couldn't change gears except with a hammer. Light tank implies a whole other scale of drivability and general agility. Fast tank is perfect for what BT's were. A tank that could hit the gas if it got a nice flat stretch or ground or road.
>Barbarossa
Exactly my point. RS doesn't have those. Barbarossa does. But what does RS have that Barbarossa doesn't? Not so much.

>>47821436
>People seriously aren't aware of them? No way.
Yes way; I only know one other person at my club who uses web tools, and only a couple more who're aware of them. Of those who know, most don't want to buy DLC for a wargame.

>Except Jagtigers had massive armour and a massive gun. That's easy to fudge, and they WERE good at tank killing in the same way that Ferdinands were, and they got a similar treatment.
Yes, but they were also a disaster in terms of actual impact, especially for cost, so by the logic of "If it didn't do well in real life, it should be bad in game" they should also be terrible. I'd favour a 5+ save at the start of the game to see if it's broken down and unavailable personally.

>Not if they turned like bricks and shook the skulls out of the driver, who couldn't change gears except with a hammer. Light tank implies a whole other scale of drivability and general agility. Fast tank is perfect for what BT's were. A tank that could hit the gas if it got a nice flat stretch or ground or road.

The BT was at the time of it's creation the fastest and most manueverable tank in the world. Granted, it's a good few years before Barbarossa, but it certainly wasn't clunky to drive and handled well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzpom1gZcag

>Exactly my point. RS doesn't have those. Barbarossa does. But what does RS have that Barbarossa doesn't? Not so much.
Okay, sure? RS is pretty in-keeping with the rest of the gear in EW. Armour tops out at about 3, AT at about 7. Barbarossa adds EW vehicles with AT 9, 6 FA, and standard speed to the repetoire.

>>47821746
>DLC
Your meta blows, then.
>disaster
Yeah, the same way that Ferdinands were.
>BT was at the time of it's creation
Yeah, pity the war started in 39.
>RS
It's adequate, and less pronounced than say, Blitzkrieg/Barbarossa Germans in terms of divides, but there's still next to no motivation to run RS Soviets. Barbarossa has more of everything. Like I said earlier, Barbarossa is codex creep, but it's not bad for the Soviets, but very noticeable for the Germans.

Anyone used the Brit Kangaroos with infantry companies? How'd they work out? Having 4-5 per transport seems risky but given they're FA 5-6 you need actual AT guns to pen them...

>>47821968
>Your meta blows, then.
Frankly I agree DLC has no place in wargaming. There's just scans here.

>Yeah, the same way that Ferdinands were.
Yeah, sure. They should all be rubbish. This is your argument, yeah?
>Yeah, pity the war started in 39.
You can see it handles fine in the video, dude. It's fast, it handles well. And don't forget that to be Light all we now need to do is prove it's quicker than an M4A3 sherman, which should be trivial.
>It's adequate, and less pronounced than say, Blitzkrieg/Barbarossa Germans in terms of divides, but there's still next to no motivation to run RS Soviets. Barbarossa has more of everything. Like I said earlier, Barbarossa is codex creep, but it's not bad for the Soviets, but very noticeable for the Germans.
Barbarossa majorly changed up EW meta, yes, and part of that is the soviet addition of vehicles that're essentially mid-war to EW.

>>47822018
>DLC
Concur. Your meta are still morons if they haven't heard of it.
>Handles fine
In a display video. The T-34 had smooth gear changes in the display video.
>Barbarossa
Exactly. I know it's an obvious inclusion, but its borked up EW more than was needed. It's a shame, really. T-34s and KV's aren't that impressive in MW, but to capture that Barbarossa feel they need to be horrifying juggernauts. That's EW territory, in terms of gun and armour.

>>47821976

I faced them. There was an unfortunate ambush involving flamethrowers.

Good concept, though.

>west germans announced for team yankee
>Leopard 1
wait, as in, the original leopard 1? Or is it actually the 1A3 or 1A5 and they didn't bother to give the full designation?

>>47823260
I'd assume whatever variant was the most common in 1984/85.

>>47822018
>BT handles fine
Uh huh, because every tank the soviets made wouldve handled just like that one initial tank to show things off. When Soviet tanks were infamous for being terribly and cheaply built, especially early in the war and before.

Light tank =/= fast

Light tank means maneuverable in combat conditions.

BT tanks had HORRENDOUS visibility and a horrifically overworked commander. The commander, by the way, were more in charge of seeing where the tank was going than the driver was.

Also, they were well know for throwing tracks at higher speeds, especially while maneuvering on rough ground. That matches up well with fast tank and unreliable

>>47823260
They look like L1A5's based on the lack of humps for optics that the older versions had. Not sure if the armor reflects this though.

>>47822018
>>47822357
>>47823360
As someone with no horse in this race: how about giving the BT something like Detroit's Finest, and then a super fast tank rule? Normal move of 14", zoom zoom of 40"?

>>47823570
Detroit's finest plus fast tank would be fine. Hell, just detroit's finest would be: Fast tank is largely an issue because ATD is borderline useless and everyone knows it. If it was just a Team Yankee dash speed of 36, everyone would love it.

>>47823360
I love how it always devolves into the "Sure, on paper it's fine, but everyone knows russians are too stupid/lazy/cheap to actually make anything that good".

>>47818829
Yeah, but putting together a scenario book for it would be a bit different. Anyway, did anyone ever finish the stats for those "built but never used" tanks that were being debated a couple of threads ago?

>>47824253
No idea but now I want to see someone take a crack at a late-war O-I. FA 10 land battleship anyone?

I was a hosting a game the other day and we came to an argument with the use of Tanks as concealment. The scenario was that one player put Jagdpanther 1 behind Jagdpanther 2 to conceal him from a panther. Jagdpanther 1 was completely blocked by Jagdpanther 2. My question is if the panther targeted the platoon, are you supposed to allocate a hit to the completely hidden Jagdpanther? Also, could the panther target jagdpanther 1 even though he is completely concealed?

>>47823873
considering that every account of another nation about Soviet tanks boils down to that, yeah its appropriate.

Read the USA's appraisal of the T34 and KV1 and see what the USA's opinion of them was. They inspected the tanks for the possibility of adapting t34 and kv1 to american use. Keep in mind these were tanks the soviets picked THEMSELVES to send to the Americans. Imagine how rough their regular tanks were.

>>47825976
The soviet commentary on the trial is available translated on archive awareness; the Americans got an older tank and at several stages the Americans just seem to have straight-up handled it wrong.

It's worth noting the British didn't share this opinion and considered both T-34 and KV-1 for purchase to build under licence. It's also worth noting the Aberdeen trial, while criticising a lot, also loved the engine, hull design, ergonomics of the gun, quality of the sights ("incomparable with anything else used in the world"), and KV-1 suspension.

The insistence that Soviet armour is just built by monkeys is nothing more than lingering asiatic hordes nonsense.

>>47825976
i didn't know that....

>>47825976
>>47826675
>>47826771
You've got to consider several things.

First up, Soviet production in 1941 through to maybe even 43-44 had a wee bit of disruption from the german army ploughing through every factory it could find, killing all the workers, and destroying most of their rolling stock (everyone forgets about railways, but they were still critical to WW2 era production; one of the most notable things the US did for the UK was give them trains suitable for transporting industrial goods en-masse). This meant that workers were commonly being trained as they went, in factories being set up as they worked, and also with factories that had to near-totally centralise production (to avoid stressing the rail network). There were almost certainly going to be production issues that wouldn't be representative of a peacetime production vehicle from that situation. You could just as easily look at late-war panzers and assume Germans are too stupid to think to paint their vehicles.

The other major thing is the environment of the Eastern Front. T-34s are commonly criticised for engine life, for example, but this is much less of a factor when you don't expect the vehicle to survive multiple attacks or suffer some other breakdown from the horrible ground and weather conditions anyway. For the americans, it's natural to consider logistical concerns as paramount, given the amount of tonnage that's needed to supply the armoured companies (and at risk to UBoats), but for the soviets, operating along a land border and well supplied with lend-lease and later domestic trucks and trains, this isn't as much of a concern. The vehicle needs to be able to travel far (see how much fuel they carried, for example), but not the hundreds of hours it's prudent to expect from a US tank. The soviets are also expecting their tankers to be rapidly trained conscripts instead of semi-professional tankers with a couple of months experience (though this is more of a cold war thing, also), so...

>>47827002
...it's an equally prudent decision to say that, instead of having a vehicle which is frequently serviced for a long resultant service life in-field by the crew and their organic maintenance, we'll have a vehicle that fails big and goes back to a factory for refit. This means that you can also centralise the skill to repair those vehicles.

There's reasons for all of the things people notice with soviet vehicles, but most of the time people just write them off as whether or not they are/aren't better at being an American tank, when they're not really meant to be.

>>47827002
>one of the most notable things the US did for the UK...
And russia.
>For example, the USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war, with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945. In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the Soviet Union was supplied under Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars...
Lend-Lease: Because economies win wars, and the USA was OP.

>>47827123
Yep! I did mention that later on, but the British situation always shocked me, since one of the issues cropping up included tunnels being too narrow or short to transport tanks. The kind of things that become relevant, I swear.

The soviet situation is especially interesting, because that's what lead to the centralisation of tank manufacture. America had and always did have a system where parts were supplied by various speciality manufacturers; I think only one or two factories produced the tank in it's near-entirety itself. Most got things like the engines shipped in. A Soviet factory would produce almost everything within the factory to reduce the shipping load on it's rolling stock.

>>47813594
Following on what >>47814297 says, the best number of tanks to upgrade is 2. Why? Because if you get hit by three AT 9 shots and one AT 12 shot, that higher AT shot HAS to be allocated to the highest armor (mixed anti-tank ratings rule, page 95). By having two upgraded, you get to choose between your platoon commander and the other guy for who gets hit with the AT 12, and it gives you a backup option should the platoon commander get destroyed.

And it should be obvious, but NEVER have the platoon command be able to be gun tanked from the rest of the platoon. Don't give the commander the only 76mm.

>>47827383
Though you will sometimes not get a choice such as when you're a Churchill company HQ with CS mortars that exist solely as a liability...

>>47827536
>with CS mortars that exist solely as a liability
Yeah, 95mms are utter shit. And for some reason the Vs (95mms) are always the CiC tanks in the overlord lists, when the CiC was a VI (75mm) in real life.

fuck, it's just me.

>>47830362
It's a Friday night. Most people are probably out and about.

As for me, I've been binge-watching Netflix and assembling some M113 chassis for Team Yankee.

Yes. More of them. Because every fucking US ground vehicle other than the fucking Abrams itself is based in the M113 chassis. Ok, not the Paladin either, but everything else is.

>>47830597
>based in

*On. Based on the M113 chassis.

Why the fuck does my autocorrect keep changing "on" to "in"?

It's a perfectly legitimate word based on the context...

Anyone know of a good guide for doing stowage and other accouterments for tanks? I don't know what half the stuff on the sprues actually are let alone where would make sense to put them on my tanks. I've also seen a lot of green stuff based kit people throw on their tanks like tow hooks and camo netting type stuff, but I don't know where to start.

Also, anyone know how often Shermans had turret bins? The Open Fire assembly instructions seem to imply it's a normal part of the Shermans in the box, but I've only found a couple examples of them on anything other than the Fireflies. Same with the bin for the rear of the chassis, is that just for the Fireflies or what?

File: StuG 40 Ausf.G.jpg (95 KB, 912x427) Image search: [Google]

95 KB, 912x427

>>47830362
nah Im here too. Kind of slapping together a halfway passable paintjob for my list tomorrow, which could be the most meat and potatoes German list ever. The only thing more generic would be regular nebs instead of panzerwerfers and some 88's. Hoping Ill be outnumbered enough to make the game fairly even, but then again its not fun for the other guy to hold punches on purpose so whatever. Plus Ill only have 3 platoons on at the start so thatll even it out too.

Also holy shit StuG G's are expensive. Theyre more expensive than Panthers in LW I think. Although I guess their stats are a lot more scary with CV to back them up in MW

Grenadierkompanie MW (eastern front) 1750

HQ x2 Panzerknacker SMG team -55

1st infantry platoon
x6 rifle/mg stands, panzerknacker/smg-160

2nd infantry platoon
x6 rifle/mg stands, panzerknacker/smg- 160

MG 42 heavy MG platoon x4 MG's -135

PaK 40 platoon x2 pak 40's , w/trucks - 155

X3 StuG G's w/ schurzen- 525

x1 Tiger I E - 385

x3 Panzerwerfer w/extra crew - 175

>>47797996
Is there a reason to go for the PSC sprays instead of the FoW branded ones? The FoW cans are $5 cheaper at my FLGS.

Having a think about running a Themed Tournament. And an idea has popped into my head. The Same day, over four different periods. Somewhere from the Fifth to the Tenth of June, there must be a day in which a Major WW1 Battle, a Major WW2 Battle, a Major Korean War Battle, a Major Vietnam Battle, and a Six Day War battle must have taken place. So you do all of those days on different tables across all of the major Flames of War rulesets.

>>47832763
So that could be the Sixth of June with:
>Attack on Hill 142, Battle of Belleau Wood 1918
>D-Day, 1944.
>Battle of Ammunition Hill, Six Day War, 1967
>Battle of Coral–Balmoral, Vietnam War, 1968

Not sure about Ammunition Hill, would rather have a Tank Battle.
But that's Americans Versus Germans, Allies Versus Axis, Israelis versus Jordanians and Australians versus Vietnamese,

>>47832763
There's the battle of Coral-Balmoral in 1968 for Vietnam between Australians and the North Vietnamese

>>47832763
There's the Battle of Messines in 1917 for WW1.

>>47830962
>MW
Panzers III are the shit in that period, the rof 3 is pretty handy and if you feel a need for more AT you can always use mixed platoons with Panzers IV f2,
>Also holy shit StuG G's are expensive...
That always made me mad, because with 25 more points you can use 2 CV Panther... well it is true you lose 2 shots but still nothing can pen them in the front.

>>47830889
Stowage bins were very common on British and Commonwealth Shermans, far less so on US.

File: Alamein Motor Company.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

Toying around with MW Motor companies: what does /fowtg/ think of attached? A bit low on actual infantry, but otherwise it seems to have most things you need (if you feel it's low on anti-heavy tanks, you can replace one Churchill with Limited Air Support). I also noted that it's actually an Infantry Company, meaning you can Night Attack (though you won't get the spearhead move)

Hey guys, I've been away for a while. I'm curious if the the Comet company is any good.

>>47833889
Generally, no, Comets are too expensive. THey work much better as support for a Lorried Rifle Company

>>47833907
Blast.

I suppose the question is academic anyway, since nobody in my local area even plays Flames.

>>47833907
>>47833976
Wait, hang on, there's no rules for a Lorried Rifle Company in Nachtjager for them to support. Are you pulling my leg?

>>47834013
DLC List. Which is on Forces of War. For a micropayment of one of your US dollars.

File: Nachtjager - UK Lorried rifle company.pdf (1 B, 486x500) Image search: [Google]

1 B, 486x500

>>47834013
He might be talking about this one from the Digital Nachtjager (means Night Hunter) lists. They split a bunch of them off as digital only which gutted the book if you ask me.

>>47834013
Digital list. Check the files in the OP.

>>47834036
>>47834040
>>47834041
They're making lists DLC now?

I miss when the lists you downloaded off the website were free bonuses. It's actually how I got into the 11th Armoured as my army of choice, back when they put up a list for them in Market Garden.

>>47834069
Yeah, it's pretty annoying. I understand WHY they do that, but they could at least include a key for all the digital lists with print copies of the books.

>>47834218
I've often thought that, but it'd be a hassle trying to protect that from thieves. If you put it in the book some bastard will just rifle through it in the store. If you give them to the storekeepers it ruins re-sale value. Difficult overall really.

>>47834260
Ruins re-sale value and makes it easy for a storekeeper to get corrupt, shit I'm absent tonight.

>>47834040
>He might be talking about this one from the Digital Nachtjager (means Night Hunter) lists. They split a bunch of them off as digital only which gutted the book if you ask me.
It's gutted every book they've released since they started it. We're not getting any Red Bears or Overlords anymore; Gung-ho contains /two lists/.

>>47834260
Part of the book in a pullout tab, or just shrink-wrap it, maybe.

>>47834278
Shrink-wrapping is one solution yes, but then that hurts the ability to just casually look through the book. I've found myself steered away from games because I can't just flick through it, see if I like the look of the thing before I buy it.

Has anyone compiled a list of all the free lists that are compatible with Infantry Aces & Mechanised Aces?

Sine they're both also available for free from the website.

>>47834291
That's true, but this is FoW; you know the game, the question is do you like the area/era?

Of course you might like to check if there's only 2 lists in the book, like in gung-ho, I guess.

>Right, got to do something for the Rugby - if any of the northern hemisphere teams win today I will auto unlock a surprise stretch goal on the 25 pdr Kickstarter!
>Poor Wales are being trampled by the imperious All Blacks at the moment but come on England and Ireland!!

This guy

>>47835304
>Bet against the All Blacks.
Mate that's like Invading Russia in the winter. You can possibly do it, but the odds against you are so monumental as to be laughable.

File: Maori+Battalion+haka+in+Egypt,+1941+(1)[1].jpg (289 KB, 1400x1381) Image search: [Google]

289 KB, 1400x1381

>>47835304
>>47835329

HAKA

File: Maori+Battalion+haka+in+Egypt,+1941+(2)[1].jpg (167 KB, 1000x980) Image search: [Google]

167 KB, 1000x980

>>47835364

File: Maori+Battalion+haka+in+Egypt,+1941+(3)[1].jpg (155 KB, 1000x985) Image search: [Google]

155 KB, 1000x985

>>47835382

File: 1465628273323.jpg (51 KB, 618x349) Image search: [Google]

51 KB, 618x349

>>47835364
>>47835382
>>47835392

>tfw the last member of the Maori Battalion's A Company died the other day

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/80968534/Tributes-flow-for-last-28th-Maori-battalion-vet-Charlie-Patera-who-died

File: QMemo+_2016-06-18-12-04-36-picsay.png (393 KB, 863x1024) Image search: [Google]

393 KB, 863x1024

Played with this list today, against british tank company with 14 75mm and 5 fireflies, 2 crusader aa and priority typhoon.

The mission was pincer and of course I was attacker. I infiltrated a m4a2 76mm company and a strelkovy company. My opponent did not make his first turn. As I pushed everything in an objective I placed as close as I can, I took it and won in turn 3.

>>47835329

>All Blacks
>hellyeahmotherfucker.jpg

funny trivia, we coudn't discuss thre All Blacks at the University SUB because the security / admin thought we were being racist.

shameful, this liberal extremism.

has anyone played Maori company for Desert MW?

File: image.jpg (111 KB, 515x370) Image search: [Google]

111 KB, 515x370

>>47836144
>security / admin thought we were being racist.

Are you freaking kidding me?

>>47836144
I've run New Zealanders before, as support to my British Matilda mad bastard force that looked very much like an infantry company. The Maori rule used to be pretty brutal back in the 1.5 days when they were putting out the compilations for V2 that were adapted from the V1 faction books.

Honestly now it's a bit of a damp squib. I'd rather take Ghurkas which are the serious killers They all have mountaineer, and the same rule as the Maoris, minus British Bulldog, and the ability to re-roll failed hits against soft targets in assault. Plus the Indians tend to be Fearless Veteran/Trained which is better than not.

Swings and roundabouts really, do you want to kick arse in assault, or have mission tactics?

>>47836232
Heh. It gets better, the National New Zealand Football team, following the patterns of naming NZ sport teams is named the "All Whites"

File: KakaoTalk_20160618_233900464.jpg (252 KB, 960x720) Image search: [Google]

252 KB, 960x720

>>47835794

>>47836144
Not quite, but I run Maoris as support for my valentine list in EW - more historical than Matildas with Kiwis at any rate.

Looks like we unlocked the variant trac tors 25pdr kit for the football.

>>47830889
>Anyone know of a good guide for doing stowage and other accouterments for tanks? I don't know what half the stuff on the sprues actually are let alone where would make sense to put them on my tanks. I've also seen a lot of green stuff based kit people throw on their tanks like tow hooks and camo netting type stuff, but I don't know where to start.
Not him, but bumping this request. I've got no idea where to start on stowage, and not enough actual bits (damn PSC and their one flaw) to properly cover my tanks.

>>47838494
Is the 15mm metal HQ a free bonus with the set or another thing we can order?

File: image.jpg (3 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 3264x2448

Hungariboo and I had one hell of a midwar battle. 1750 points: FC tankovy vs CV grenadiers. It came down to the wire after we traded punches in the initial engagement.

I'll post more highlights later tonight. At one point his Panzerwerfers rushed forward to contest an objective.

File: KIMG0070.jpg (4 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

4 MB, 3264x2448

>>47844328
If the panzerwerfers arent having to drive into the middle of a T34 unit on turn 6 to prevent you losing the game then its not a real match.

I cant believe I forgot to reroll a single bail for protected ammo, that probably cost me the damn game

absolute blast though, hell of a way to get back to playing after not having a game for 9 months.

>>47844499
>forgetting protected ammo
I feel your pain. I once forgot that I had protected ammo on my Challengers, and both of them died from a double bail morale roll the turn after they got bailed in thw first place. Without them, I had no way to kill his last Tiger, and lost.

File: image.jpg (3 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 3264x2448

>>47844328
>>47844499

This is how close it came. If the grenadiers hadn't failed their last tank terror save then they likely would have taken out my batalon commander and saved the day.

File: Tornado.jpg (116 KB, 690x502) Image search: [Google]

116 KB, 690x502

>>47836232

nope. it was a combo of those students with wanna be police uniforms being in cahoots with the SUB staff in general, which was 100% liberal types. they got my explanation, but said the name was racist and we should never discuss that in public.

| was pissed for days.

>In other news.

guys....in Team Yankee, the artillery/salvo hits top armor, like in Flames of War....right?

i have to double check....but i'm pretty sure....

we have a winner.

>>47847233
oh, fuck. the above is (me)

and i just checked TY:

fuck yes, look at what the German Planes can do!

>>47847233
Yes, unless you're using the laser guided projectiles. Those are a direct fire attack.

>>47847327
oh, yes.

please tell me everyone has taken a look at that Bomblet Cluster the Tornados' have....

i'm so glad i bought 4 of those already! they aren't A-10's, but i don't care....

>>47847233
Yeah, but that 6 inch range...

You'd have to almost literally be right on top of your target.

>>47847590
Tornadoes aren't going to like massed AA fire.

>>47847590
>>47847638

correct

but,
i have...an angle...

true, i will 100% read Leopard in depth before finalizing anything, but i can guarantee the Tornado's are gonna be sitting tight until after the Gophers have been properly purged...then, we unleash hell

>>47836144
I'm liberal and that's ridiculous. I wonder if "tall blacks" and "all whites" cause even bigger problems.

>>47849948
Liberal is a different thing altogether in Australia

>>47847233
5+ save with that bomb profile? Eesh...

>>47842578
Yes.

Free with kickstarter orders, purchaseable set post KS.

I emailed Will to get a clarification, it's not that hard guys.

>>47852299
Decal sheet unlocked

File: image.jpg (55 KB, 394x286) Image search: [Google]

55 KB, 394x286

Not quite sure what to think of the Leo 1.

It's kinda outclassed.

Is it's main gun even strong enough to take in T-72s from the front? Or will they be looking for flank shots?

>>47854002
Well, it *is* quite an old design, comparatively, by the time of Team Yankee.

Though, given that it should be able to fire the same ammunition as the M1, I agree that the gun is probably a bit artificially weak.

File: IMG_20160619_200331-picsay.jpg (334 KB, 1024x768) Image search: [Google]

334 KB, 1024x768

MAD AMX : FURY ROAD

>>47854002
>>47854278
Wait, a German tank in a wargame that's weaker than an American one? What is this, Bizarro World?

>>47854525

Better than a Leopard 2, and thus basically an Abrams clone. Variety is the key. Anyway, it's probably going to be pretty cheap.

>>47854278
>>47854278
It doesn't have the abrams' long-rod penetrator. It's an ammo deficit.

>>47857370
>translator's note: Gepard means Cheetah

I'm thinking about starting a soviet tankovy for EW-MW, how is this list?

Cic T-34
2xT34
8xBT-7 w/ Turret rear MG
6xBT-7a
4xKatyusha w/ extra crew (CT)
Chaika
1550, 4 platoons, all FC unless noted

File: Leopard-2-HQ.jpg (138 KB, 690x502) Image search: [Google]

138 KB, 690x502

>>47854525
That's not their main tank, that's their M60 equivalent

>>47858499
>translator's note:panzer means tank

File: image.jpg (55 KB, 354x500) Image search: [Google]

55 KB, 354x500

>>47859257
>Translator's Note: Nachtjäger means Night Hunter

>>47854002
If team yankee has the same rules as vanilla fow in how AT works it could pen them, if i remember well the the t72 armor was like 16 in the front and abrams AT was 20. I just don't know why the -1 pen for the leopard 1.

>>47860198
The Leopard 1 is an older tank with older ammunition.

The Leopard 2 is the M1 Abrams equivalent, but with the gun that would eventually get put on the M1A1.

>>47859527
it does?

File: image.jpg (61 KB, 311x311) Image search: [Google]

61 KB, 311x311

>>47860318

>>47860267
After a quick use of googlefu i think i know why... since the game takes place in the mid 80s at least the first wave (because we only have M1 abrams), the leopard 1 we got is the A4, the one with more advanced ammo was the A5 and by that time M1A1 abrams was the standard american tank.

Although the turret in the leopard 1 card looks like the A5.

>>47860846
Yeah, Team Yankee is set in either 1984 or 85. I forget which off the top of my head.

Wait in Team Yankee i can't use T-62, T-64 and T80?

>>47862730
None of those are out yes. The current betting is that they'll be out when they do second line Soviet troops and the other Warsaw Pact nations.

>>47854002
The Key point is that it'll probably be a lot cheaper than Leopards 2 and reasonably fast. So you can go for flank shots, and with the points you've saved you can have a shittonne of Tornadoes, Jaguars, and PAHs.

>>47862883
The T-64 should be a frontline vehicle, actually. Thinking about it the T-80 is probably pretty similar.

>>47862883
>>47854552
>>47854002

Breakthrough assualt said it was going to be the Recce company's HQ and platoon option. Will this give any advantages? I haven't read through recce rules yet.

>>47864635
The tank card itself doesn't have any rules associated with recce, so I think not.

>>47862883
>>47863691
Since T-64 and T-80 were designed for breakthrough through europe and were used by the "elite" tank companies, i thought they were already in the game. God i really need to read the team yankee manual.