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
>>48102364
>tfw some nazi fuck sent you to guard the north pole and nobody tells you the war is over for 3 months
https://m.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/germans-stationed-near-north-pole-last-surrender-september-1945.html
>>48102490
The Weather Wars are about as obscure a campaign as you could find in WW2
Question: How i am supposed to base a schwimmwagen platoon? some places says it is like a motorcycle platoon but in the FoW site they show the SS-Tank-hunter Platoon/SS-Scout Platoon with single based schwimm for each team without caring about if it is a command or normal team.
Normaly a command team uses a lone bike in a medium base and the MG/SMG team 2 bikes in a large base. Even the platoon diagram of that unit show this.
Now the unit i want to base is the HG Aufklarungsschwadron from the Gray Wolf digital, and in the platoon diagram its show 2 schwimm per team even the command one so that means 7 larges bases with 2 Schimms?
>>48105953
Two of them on a Large Base.
>>48105953
I would say base them as most other MC Recce platoons, 6 large bases with 2 vehicles each, 1 medium base with 1 vehicle for the commander. I have no idea what-so-ever as to why they show 2 cars for the command teams, but my money is on Battlefront fuck-up
>>48106019
at least it's not the Russians
;_;
>>48106019
Is this golden gaytime?
>>48105984
>>48105992
So for a complete company i need 28 schwimmwagen, oh good something like 160 dolars.
>>48106053
more like a gobstopper
>>48106068
DO ITschwimmwagen a cute!
>>48106068
You might be able to get them cheaper from Command Decision, skytrex, QRF, or old glory.
>>48106053
no that's an icecream.
>>48106053
>>48106215
How'd folks rate the command decision stuff? Looking at it they have "Russian Cavalry" which might be what I'm after since there's a seperate "Cossack cavalry" entry, and if it's really 50 pieces in a pack that's a damn sight cheaper than battlefront even if they're counting the horse and rider as seperate pieces.
>>48106068
Pretty much. 41 if you want the third platoon.
Have fun.
>>48109064
>implying Britain isnt pulling its own treason day right now
laughingcolonials.gif
So i want to play a mixed tankovy, what should i use as medium tank company? Lees or T34s? Lees have AT 10 guns and a little peashooter on the head that can still be useful against guns and infantry but they have FA 5 while T34s have only AT 9 guns and limited vision but they have wide tracks, fast tank and FA 6.
Guys what do you think about this 1750 point list:
HG Aufklarungsschwadron (Gray Wolf Digital)
CT Company schwimm HQ both with panzerfaust 90 points
CT HG Aufklarung platoon schwimm upgrade+full panzerfaust 275 points
CT HG Aufklarung platoon schwimm upgrade+Command panzerfaust 215 points
3x CT Pak40 130 points
3x CV Panthers 570 points
3x CV Stuh42 295 points
3x CV Panzerwerfer+extra crews 180 points
Total: 1755 points (idk what to drop to make it 1750)
Now i know that the most obvious thing to do would be drop the full panzerfaust platoon or panther platoon. But i really want to try the full schiwmm panzerfaust platoon.
Thoughts?
P.S: The company diagram don't show the option to use the marder platoon but it is in the support option listed in the pdf. Someone know if it is an error that was fixed in something like an errata?
>>48109898
You are running a mixed list, so I would definitely suggest the Lee's. They are cheaper than T-34's and will give you a strong firing line. Use your light tanks to maneuver around and set up the assault with you KV-1's.
If you want to pick a slow cheap tank like the valentine to hold a flank, you could go for the T-34's as a more agressive medium tank option.
I'd just pick the tanks you'd like to see on the board and work your strategy around that. If you bring the valentine, matilda , and KV-1e wall of creeping death please post pics.
>>48107773
varies from "okay" to "oh god what crap"
I personally find their infantry to be a bit too spindly and skeletal. which is probably more accurate to scale, but just doesn't look as good to me. IDK
>>48110777
I was thinking of something like
8x M3 Stuart with AA MGs
10x M3 Lees with long 75
7x KV-1e
3x BA-64
everything FC
>>48111394
personally, I've been fairly underwhelmed by Soviet Stuarts.
I like the Mark IIIs for being bitchytough (flank holder) and further diluting your opponents limited high AT assets.
I like the T-60s for being practically free, but at your point level you probably don't need to use them.
I also like the BA-10M, but understand if you don't want to bother getting those models since you can't really use them in LW.
I like taking the I-153 also. They almost never kill anything, but it's won me games before due to paranoid opponents costing themselves LOS in order to "hide" in forests/ruins. Conscripts get hit whenever they're shot at, so anything that tricks your opponent into shooting less is a godsend.
Anyone knows whats the length of the VSO102T Tall Flight Stand Add-on? I'm making custom flight stands for TY...
Anyone ever use midway monsters?
I fucking love the look of the Dicker Max but I get the feeling most people efuse to play against the men
Anyone had experience with them?
>>48113299
Overkill for MW, TBPH, just use the Horineese, it's like, almost the same thing.
There are good reasons not to use MWM, KV-5 comes to mind, that thing is weapons grade bullshit.
>>48111394
I can't comment on the stuarts as I haven't used them, but I would bring a few less KVs and bring the KV-1s instead of the KV-1e. Wide tracks and standard movement outweighs the extra armor.
Use the points you save from cutting tanks for some heavy mortars. If you don't bring artillery you are going to have to fully rely on your stuarts to pin enemy infantry with mg fire.
>>48113299
>>48113673
Dicker Max in midwar? Pshh... Pick up Barbarossa and you can bring them in EW! Distintegrate T-26s. Laugh at your friends KV list. Spend hours trying to find points for the rest of your list.
>>48114838
His list is FC so I would like to recommend trained katty rather than conscipt heavy mortar for the purpose of pinning infantry.
9 hours to go and it's jumped to nearly 22k pounds.
Potential last 8-hour surge to get the 3k needed for 15mm sextons?
>>48113299
The only MWM I have any interest in is the Turan, because it was actually issued to armored units in Midwar, although I have no idea when it first saw actual combat.
>>48106946
Don't know what they call icecreams where you come from, mate, but if I'm perfectly honest that looks like a public gay blowjob to me.
>>48113299
I have had experience playing MWM. The look of your enemies face as 3 KV-5s come on the board is hilarious. I've never made a game store hate me so fast.
What are some tips for a new player who wants to run an armored list? Any tactics I should be aware of on the table?
>>48117511
What nation are you thinking of playing?
Tank tactics tend to vary quite a bit from nation to nation.
>>48117511
the bigger the tank, the harder it falls. Running a list with heavy tanks is far trickier to run than mediums because if you screw up, things go south fast.
Infantry will beat the hell out of your tanks at the worst time. They will pass that tank terror test at the worst time for you. Be especially wary of pioneers and Germans in particular.
Tanks need support. Be that tank escorts to let them swing twice as hard in assault, recon units, breakthrough guns, or just an insane amount of shots, you need something besides AT guns to kill infantry. Not to mention fighting enemy air or artillery assets which can ruin your day, or worse, ambushing PaK 40's, the bane of many an allied player's existence.
>>48117602
I was thinking America but aren't they mostly late war? Does that matter?
>>48117746
US troops are in LW and MW, though honestly what period you play is going to depend on your group. If you're trying to start a group, you can pretty much pick whatever period you want (though LW is the most popular).
...OP of next thread should add a poll for favorite era, would be nice to see the results.
>>48117746
Honestly most people play LW because of all the toys. What era do you want to play?
>>48117746
They've got a decent selection in Mid-war list wise.
>>48117511
Smoke and timing are your friends. You have resilience and speed, use them. Focus your attacks, and coordinate them well. You don't have numbers, but you do have individual strength.
>>48117888
>most people
That's a meta-specific opinion.
>>48117888
Probably Late War. I keep hearing about Germany and Soviets having ultima Tanks that make everything eat a shit sandwich with no bread. I'd like to run America as they'd seem fun to play but I don't want to invest in an armored army that's just gonna lose.
Maybe I'm worried about this far more than I should be.
>>48118077
>Patton
Americans have some of strong LW armored lists. They get a lot of special rules in LW to help them out.
>>48117982
Point taken, but I'd dare say LW metas outnumber midwar metas.
>>48118077
>Soviets having ultima Tanks
Soviet tanks are pretty shit DESU
>>48115979
If anyone wants to spend 3k pounds on PSC stuff in the next 7 hours, now's your time to be an hero.
>>48118077
>Maybe I'm worried about this far more than I should be.
You are. As long as your list composition isn't absolute junk, you'll be ok. The game, for all it's flaws, is surprisingly well balanced. 40K it 'aint.
>>48118334
I guess it doesn't help that my intro to wargaming was running IG Lemans and getting fisted by Flyrants and Ultramarines. I wanted to be a Tank Commander in 40k but that didn't turn out well.
Tbh, my disillusionment with 40k is what attracted me to FoW on the first place. That, the 10mm scale, and single tanks not costing $50 were all factors.
>>48118750
just a heads up, FoW is 15mm. There's stuff out there at 10mm believe it or not and it wouldnt match fow.
By the way make sure you look at all the brands that sell 15mm WWII models, because battlefront isnt the only company. Zvezda and Plastic Soldier Company have some good options for Americans in plastic that Battlefront doesnt make yet
>>48119030
Thanks for the heads up.
Since it didn't get any comments last thread, repostan. Plz rip to shreds.Only two of those are bread, Captcha. Stop trying to make me select the cookies.
>>48119672
hail satan
>>48119672
>Using them without permission makes you a cunt.
I laughed out loud. Perhaps it needs rewording into something less vulgar, but it certainly gets the point across.
>Tulip rockets
They add a +1 to hit, but ignore normal shooting rules and use a skill test.
I don't think those rules combine that way. Skill tests don't normally get more difficult.
>>48120174
The +1 doesn't apply when doing the skill test (which is ONLY against specific targets), only when shooting them normally. Yes, that means you're hitting buildings, bunkers, and gun teams easily (skill test), and everything else is really hard to hit (normal shooting).
The PSC 25pdr Kickstarter ends soon, and I'm thinking of picking something up with it. Any good models to get? Preferably those that look better/more historically accurate than their BF counterparts.
>>48120174
>>48120237
I'll edit the tulip rules to clarify what's going on, since I see how it can be unclear.
For the opening bit, once I'm confident enough in the balance of this to show it beyond 4chan (and/or once people start using it), I'll change it to something less vulgar.
Suggestions on something suitably British and insulting without being vulgar are welcome.
>>48121110
"Make you a wanker"? Mild swear in the UK, not a swear everywhere else.
another noob asking question.
been lurking and had a few demo games.
Want to dive in with some soviet heavy SPGs. Using the assualt gun list in redbear.
Is this an alright army.
Tyazhelyy Samokhodno-Artillyeriyskiy Polk HQ (p.103) - CinC IS-2 obr 1943 (135 pts)
- .50 Cal AA MG (5 pts)
Compulsory Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company (p.103) - Command ISU-122, 2x ISU-122 (345 pts)
- 3x .50 Cal AA MG (ISU-122 or ISU-152 only) (15 pts)
Compulsory Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company (p.103) - Command ISU-152, 3x ISU-152 (410 pts)
- 4x .50 Cal AA MG (ISU-122 or ISU-152 only) (20 pts)
Tankovy Company (p.22) - Command T-34 obr 1942, 4x T-34 obr 1942 (215 pts)
- Add Cupolas to all T-34 obr 1942 (10 pts)
Strelkovy Company (Guards) (p.26) - Command Rifle/MG, 7x Rifle/MG (160 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
Guards Rocket Mortar Battalion (p.140) - Command Rifle, Observer Rifle, 3-ton truck, 4x BM-13-16 Katyusha (110 pts)
- 4x Extra Crew (20 pts)
- 2x DShK AA truck (40 pts)
1500 Points, 5 Platoons
the plan is to have the ISUs and infantry form a defensive line in front of the Katyushas while the t34s run around as a flanking force.
>>48121674
Moderately okay list. You actually want to roll the ISU-152s and ISU-122s forwards against Infantry. Volley Fire activates when you're at short range.
>>48121722
ok thanks.
any changes you'd advise or just using it differently?
>>48121674
No recce, odd number of platoons, minimum sized platoons, and more katyushas than you need.
What books do you guys recommend for an American Armored list? I'm looking at Overlord atm.
>>48122410
Any of them works, but Blood Guts and GLory, followed by Bridge at Remagen, gives you the "best" lists (to the point of broken).
25pdrs funded
>All stretch goal options unlocked except Sextons (but I have a cunning plan....................)
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN
>>48122522
My full 8 Gun Battery is funded and hopefully will be mine soon. I'll have 16 25pdrs and 8 5.5" for an Artillery Apocalypse.
>>48122780
That's a lot of artillery. Can you even field all that in one company (support company shenanigans notwithstanding)
>>48122837
Nope. Max in one Rifle Company is two batteries, so either 16 25pdrs or 8 25pdrs and 8 5.5". And that's a lot of points that could be used for things like Anti-Tank, Anti-Air, Armour and everything else.
>>48122394
whats wrong woth an odd number of platoons or minimum sized ones?
>>48119247
>>48119030
FoW doesn't actually have a range, and the makers actually mention this in the rules. The only reason they use 15mm is because that's what Battlefront make. It works well at the same measurements for 10mm, jsut as long as your opponents are going into it with you and are also playing 10mm, or even 6mm. It would make 2000-2500 games much less parking lot.
>>48122951
Odd numbers of platoons screws you over for reserves. If you have five, you deploy two hold three in reserve.
>>48123084
And similar for company morale
>>48122951
Also, there is a saying: minimum sized platoons give minimum sized results. For one thing, consider how many teams you need to loose to have to take a platoon morale test (and never assume you're going to make these, experienced players will tell you that you'll fail your fearless morale tests half the time (and your opponent will makes his reluctant tests half the time...)). There is also the matter of how much a platoon can effect the enemy, either in shooting, or in assault. 5 trained teams (your infantry, after a few casualties) in an assault will barely do diddely. 10, on the other hand, can be quite a powerful force.
Oh god after really long time of not playing against LW americans forces it was pretty overwhelming to fight against all those specials rules. (In my FLGS everybody mostly play eastern front)
It is is pretty funny when you know those rules on paper but never played against them.
And it remembered me how mad i was when they buffed the 76mm AT when you compare it with the pak40 and the russian 85mm one.
Yeah russians need some specials rules like those in theirs guard or heavy units.
>>48122435
Can't wait 'til the bulge compilation nerfs them.
I can dream.
>>48124090
Honestly, only Patton really needs a nerfing.
As long as Patton either gets a points increase, or less powerful for his current points value I'll be happy.
>>48123764
>all those special rules
>the later Sherman models are faster than a T-34/85 even though they aren't as far as I can tell
>AT13 because they sometimes had up to two rounds of a specific shell per tank
Also my group was initially ok with Jumbos Lead the Way because we thought they had to be the closest target. Then we looked more carefully and found that placement didn't mean shit it just vacuums up a hit. Then someone took Patton and holy fuck that book did more damage to my group than anything.
>>48125413
Yeeaaaa
>>48125350
Most american stuff is better and more flexible than other national equivalents. The custom-shermans even play into this, because while most nations need to look at rearranging entire units to get a good list, americans can just fiddle the amount of HVSS or M4A3s or whatever. Americans are basically the most points-efficient guys in the game and to top it off have numerous very good special rules.
>>48125350
You can hope for Phil to nerf Patton in one hand, and shit in your other hand. But I can save you the hassle by telling you which hand will fill up first.
>>48125413
>AT13 because they sometimes had up to two rounds of a specific shell per tank
That's consistent with the AP values of most FoW guns. In any case, you don't use those few rounds against most targets. You use them only against the big stuff, so in practise when, in the game, they DO fire at a head, one assumes that they fired the good stuff. Against everything else, they fired something else. All part of the abstraction.
>You may allocate hits to an M4A3E2 Jumbo tank as if it had the lowest armour rating, assigning it a hit before the lesser armoured tanks.
Doesn't to hit number happen before armour differentiation?
>>48126087
>happen before armour differentiation
it does, but if your E8 is an inch in front of your jumbo and they're still both at the same number, the jumbo still gets hit.
he's basically pointing out that jumbos don't actually have to lead the way in order to lead the way
>>48126156
Probably for the best. I'd hate FoW to degenerate into WMH carpentry. If you're really hard up you can position your tanks to block LOS to each other to force hits, or use terrain, or shuffle back a few inches to get some beyond 16.
Does someone have some upgrade cards and "pilot" cards from Tanks! ? Me and a friend want to try the game but we don't want to buy other tanks that we already have a ton of.
>>48126594
I mean, i want to know what the upgrade cards from various exansions do.
>>48126189
yea no it's alright.
>position your tanks to block LOS to each
Is this something you can actually do? I thought you could always draw LoS through enemy teams
>>48126087
Not exactly. The AT consistency only applies where AP rounds are assumed to be the norm (e.g. universally). For some tanks, the AP round was NOT the preferred round the tankers used, and thus it's not represented very well. An example being the ISU-152 (and SU-152). The HE round found a lot of use because it was one of the earliest examples if spalling damage being a potentially viable way of knocking out something you had a hard time penetrating. But in 1944 and 1945 there are quite a few reports of ISU-152 tankers acknowledging that the AP round wasn't preferrd against Tigers or Panthers. Instead they preferrd the heavy anti-concrete bunker buster round (that weighed a total of 56kg), precisely because it was a dense, heavy projectile. One such round went straight through the front glacis of a Panther in Vienna at (iirc) less than 1,000m, and set off the ammunution.
>>48126731
You can always draw LOS through your opponent's tanks, but you can't draw LOS through your own. A gamey, beardt tactic is to "snipe" targets, or nullify potential targets (Jumbo), by parking your own armored car in front of it.
>>48126890
I'm a new player and I'm having a hard time imagining this.
>>48126731
He's referring to using your own tanks to block LoS. Here's an example. You position tank 1 (or some other friendly unit that blocks LoS, like infantry stands or recce or whatever) such that tank 2 can see enemy B, but enemy A is blocked by tank 1. This way, any hit from tank 2 has to be allocated to enemy B.
>>48126937
And then I forgot my pic. Derp.
Easy counter is to hide your important stuff in the middle of your unit (where it's harder to limit LoS to just them), and keep some junk tank in the unit right behind the important one. If there was a enemy C behind B, the shots from 2 could be allocated to either.
>>48126966
>Easy counter is to hide your important stuff in the middle of your unit (where it's harder to limit LoS to just them), and keep some junk tank in the unit right behind the important one.
Also known as "the second most important thing for Soviet tankers to learn how to deal with". The first of course is H&C.
>>48126890
>>48126937
oh
ooohhh
sneaky
>>48126937
>>48126966
But can't Tank A shoot through Unit 1 to hit Unit 2? This just seems like Unit 2 is gimping himself.
>>48126594
If you buy the starter box you get one card for each type of tank that will have rules in "wave 1". So it's worth buying that just box, and then using your own models for everything else.
>>48126857
>The AT consistency only applies where AP rounds are assumed to be the norm
That would seem to be directly disproven by APDS rounds increasing the AP of British guns. They were never universal.
>152
You mean the tank with the very powerful gun that can mulch most targets?
>one such round anecdote
Which can happen in the game.
>>48127288
yes it can, but that's not the point.
The point here is when 1 and 2 are shooting.
Imagine: 1 and 2 are panthers (AT 14)
A is a Jumbo (FA 12) B is an easy8 (FA7, better gun)
The panthers want to kill the e8, but have trouble hurting the Jumbo.
The Jumbo must be allocated the first (eligible) hit.
1 blocks 2's shot to A(Jumbo) because of this, you roll 1 and 2 separately. Any hits 1 gets can go to either (so the 1st must go to the jumbo) but all hits 2 gets must go to B(e8) since A isn't an eligible target.
Now, say, 1 misses his shot, but 2 hits twice, now both of those hits go to B, and the jumbo doesn't swallow a bullet.
>>48127288
That's correct, enemy teams don't block LOF, only friendly teams.
And Unit 2 isn't gimping himself if tank A is a Jumbo, and tank B is an Easy 8. He wants to target the E8, but the Jumbo will bounce anything he throws at it. This configuration forces the hits from tank 2 to be allocated to tank B, because tank 1 is blocking the LOF to tank A. Friendly teams block LOF, so tank 2 can only shoot at tank B, even if tank A has a special rule, or lower armour value.
>>48127451
I>>48127474
Okay, I understand now. I wasn't factoring in allocation of hits... That's fucking ingenious!
Btw, What's a Jumbo or an Easy 8?
>>48127587
a Jumbo is a front armor 12 sherman that has a special rule where it will be allocated hits first, allowing the tank to, in rpg terms, tank.
an easy 8 is the e8 variation of the sherman, significantly upgraded with higher armor and a better gun than earlier shermans
>>48127587
Ingenious but not a good way to make friends. Pick the right time and place to play that way.
The Jumbo was a Sherman with a lot of added armor to lead columns with. The Easy 8 was the M4A3E8 Sherman, with the "E8" referring to a variant with a fancy new suspension and all the other improvements that had been implemented by then. Basically a later, better Sherman.
>>48127638
Are both of them in Blood, Guts, and Glory?
>>48126087
Not true, i am pretty sure that the 76mm cannon is the only gun that get the pen of its better ammo aside the german short 75mm gun.
Does anyone have precise questions about the Leopard book? I am kinda sad at how thin it is.
>>48127444
Yeah but at least the 17 pounder gun has the No HE rule because the solid ammunition.
Actually i think the AT 13 should be an upgrade or an standard stat for the Tank Destroyers since the HVAP supply was prioritized to them.
>>48127681
Yes.
>>48127444
"Directly disproven" is probably too strong a word (or two). As a rule it generally works, and BF always provide an explanation where there's an exception.
Interestingly, in the Tanks skirmish game they've given the ISU-152 lower firepower than the -122 but the first unsaved hit gets upgraded to a critical. Sounds like a reasonable mechanic.
>>48128264
That works. Firepower in Tanks is pretty abstract, but it creates a circumstance where the 152 isn't as good in general terms, but when it does hit, Kaboom. Clumsy but powerful.
>>48128110
I keep on hearing that the PaK40's stats implies the use of the PG 40 round.
>>48128246
>Yeah but at least the 17 pounder gun has the No HE rule because the solid ammunition.
That's a different set of circumstances, though. Persistent doctrinal fuckups in HE allocation. As opposed to a gun being more or less useless against certain targets despite specific measures implemented to deal with them.
I'd compare it to say, artillery 25 pounders not being able to shoot at tanks because they probably weren't issued with many AP rounds.
There's degrees of fuckup, and the degree that it characterised the unit.
>>48128197
There is actually quite a lot in there for a book of its size.
3 different company types with a dozen or so different unit types, plus "history", painting guides, and scenarios.
Not bad for 48 pages.
>>48128656
>I keep on hearing that the PaK40's stats implies the use of the PG 40 round
Not true pak40 had better penetration than the KwK40 since the latter one had more compact ammo for easier storage inside the tanks. Not that much but +1 AT is fair since the german 75 had the same ballistic characteristics than the russian 85mm and the american 76mm.
>That's a different set of circumstances... and the degree that it characterised the unit.
Wait, so you mean the Firefly have the No HE rule because it lacked a good HE ammo? my bad then i though it was because it was something like "it only use its APDS".
Then the Panther need the same rule since it was supposed to have a bad HE too. That is why i hate when BF use those special rules for every little gimmick but just when their ass want, like how some tanks lack wide tracks because reasons.
>>48129367
>my bad then i though it was because it was something like "it only use its APDS".
I might be totally wrong on this point, but my understanding of the issuing of APDS rounds was that they were issued on a very small scale. Each gun didn't have many, but they DID have them, for use against hardened armoured targets.
>Firefly
Well, that and it was seldom issued HE rounds. Because it was a bad round, yes. My understanding is that it wasn't generally issued with any HE rounds. The inverse of the earlier CS variant tanks.
>Panther
It had a good/decent HE round. Just not as good as the 88. Not hugely unusual one way or another. And significantly, they were always issued with them, being fully expected to engage enemy infantry/gun targets. It didn't have a -bad- round at all.
>special rules
I suspect it's a question of scope. You deal with the stuff in the same army before comparing them to other factions. The emphasis is on the choices YOU have.
>>48129367
>Wait, so you mean the Firefly have the No HE rule because it lacked a good HE ammo?
>Then the Panther need the same rule since it was supposed to have a bad HE too.
I haven't read any major complaints about the Panther's SprGr.42 HE round. It was good enough to be useful.
The Firefly's was so bad that they told their crews to just focus on anti-tank work. That's why the rule exists, because of how the Firefly was used. It's kind of like how the difference between medium and heavy tanks was their role, more than their physical characteristics.
At the end of the war, maybe even a little after, the Firefly got an HE round that was almost as good as the 75's.
>>48129746
>The Firefly's was so bad
A combination of the speed of the shot damaging the fuses, and the required thickness of the shell casting reducing the payload, I understand.
>>48129705
>t had a good/decent HE round. Just not as good as the 88. Not hugely unusual one way or another. And significantly, they were always issued with them, being fully expected to engage enemy infantry/gun targets. It didn't have a -bad- round at all.
Worse than the 75mm's on the Pz IV, and definitely the 88.
>>48129820
Also the case for the Panther; there's only something like 0.05lbs of difference in terms of filler. The distinction is doctrinal; a firefly is supporting a troop of tanks that do carry HE rounds, whereas a Panther is a multirole vehicle.
>>48127673
>Ingenious but not a good way to make friends. Pick the right time and place to play that way.
I would say doing this pretty much immediately makes you a cunt desu. The only excuse is the other guy doing it first.
>>48130424
What matters is that Panther crews were issued HE ammunition, were told to use it, and did. It wasn't the best, and that should be reflected in its Firepower rating. But it was alright.
If Firefly crews had continued to use HE rounds despite its deficiencies, then FoW would have HE ammo with a lousy Firepower rating. But they often failed to detonate at all. This isn't just about being weak, it's about the shells being unreliable and untrustworthy. I think they usually still had them in the tank but tank platoons were designed so that the Firefly wouldn't have to use its HE ammo at all. It would sit back and watch out for tanks while the Shermans with 75mm guns pounded German infantry.
>>48130796
>It wasn't the best, and that should be reflected in its Firepower rating.
D6 system again. It might not have been great, but was it really Pak 36 bad?
>>48130783
If he's running patton and playing Sherman circus games all gloves are off by default.
>>48130796
You're not really disagreeing. Panther had a "bad" HE round but was actually given them, and had to use them, whereas Fireflies were dedicated AT vehicles so the HE never really entered into it, especially when they were surrounded by 75mms that handled low-velocity shells fine. Again, the most major difference was that the Panther got given and had cause to use HE, and the Firefly generally didn't.
>>48131419
"Sherman circus" is just what a LLW American list looks like. Patton is some bullshit though, yeah.
>>48131434
I think I was disagreeing with someone, but not sure who anymore. It looks like most of us are on the same page.
What's next for WWII FoW? I was hoping for more plastic kits for that era - will they only happen in MidWar releases from now on? Sadly that would mean no plastic Königstigers but I'd be happy with Tiger Is. What else could be plasticized? Matildas, Lees, and Churchills? Or are Matildas too much of an EW tank?
>>48132231
I could maybe see Plastic PzIIIs, or more plastic artillery... though PSC kinda has the PzIII market cornered and they're steadily expanding their own arty line.
Honestly the recent mass of trucks/tractors from them has been a godsend for motorised forces. *Fuck* buying 20+ resin Kfz70s.
>>48132231
Matildas would be a great plastic kit since they're an all-war tank (only Soviets in LW really, but w/e)
Lees would also be a good one, but the... strangeness of the tank might make it hard to get good plastic molds for.
Churchills are probably not good plastic contenders. Mostly, you just don't use that many of them in a list.
>>48132441
Zvezda already do perfectly adequate plastic Lees; albeit with no real gun/grant options.
PSC already do plastic Churchills.
Actually, I think Zvezda do plastic Matildas already anyway.
>>48132441
If BF makes plastics then they'll be in the Tanks skirmish game... that's my selfish motivation for hoping they happen.
The PSC has taken a lot of the common types, and yeah, stolen BF's thunder. I hope that doesn't hurt BF too much because I still count on them for obscure models. I suspect BF's prices "subsidize" those.
Might explain why BF is going hard into a new setting. Unlike WWI, The PSC hasn't followed them there yet.
>>48132494
>Plastic Matildas.
Yup, Zvezda do both the Matilda I and Matilda II in plastic.
>>48132494
The Zvezda Matildas aren't great; it's one of their older models. The Lees are a little weird (I'd cut off the counterweight) and require some major gap-filling.
No complaints about The PSC's Churchills. I assume they'd be used mostly in Italy lists?
>>48132519
>stolen BF's thunder.
I'd argue that PSC's success was what galvanised BF to even get on the plastic train in the first place. "Stolen their thunder" kind of implies there was even a contest back at the start.
That being said, BF already has significant Cold War competition from, you guessed it, Zvezda. (And Revell, if the reports of their new 1:100 and 1:144 Helicopter lines are going to arrive soon.)
>>48132603
Plenty of Churchills in Overlord and Nachtjäger Digital.
Hell, the Brit Churchill lists with Platoon Debussing support infantry (Including Paras!) are probably one of the best Brit lists in the book, printed or digital.
>>48132652
>>48132603
Don't forget Soviet Lend-lease Churchills in MW and LW.
PSC's Churchills can also Represent North Africa Churchill IIIs. (Though not Churchie Is with the hull gun.)
>>48127444
APDS is an AP round, numbnuts. Nothing was "directly disproven".
>>48131434
Part of me wishes v3 had the "Poor HE" rule from v1 again. It basically added a +1 penalty to firepower rolls when targeting infantry or gun teams.
>>48133332
The point pertained to the effect of limited issuing of a given ammo type on the AT value. L2 comprehension of context.
>>48132441
Same with Valentines. All-war tank you need a fair few of.
As an aside, the fact LW brit motor companies are bad blinded me to desert motor companies: sure, they're only what, 5 stands base? But then tack on 3 ATRs and go to fucking town.
>>48133369
I feel like Flames of War could stand to have some extra complexity. Why not just have separate HE and AT profiles. Also a Concussive Rule for HE shells to represent their effectiveness against tanks.
Actually this could fix Early War artillery, a lot of those wouldn't have dedicated AT shells.
>>48133535
>Also a Concussive Rule for HE shells to represent their effectiveness against tanks.
Stuff with good HE can either bombard, or has the AT value to blow straight through.
>complexity
The game tells a good story as is, and the majority of the time it works well. Every ameteur wants to add extra rules into the system, but that's how systems die.
>>48133695
>Stuff with good HE can either bombard, or has the AT value to blow straight through.
Tell that to the Russian 152mm which could kill KTs with it's HE rounds... and has AT13 ingame.
>>48133535
I dont think it'd be that hard, either; HE rounds hit top armour with their bombard profile, or an equivalent if they don't have one. Hell, it's how the petard mortar already works.
>>48133735
It still has a good chance against the Tiger 1 and decent chance against the Panther. Just think of that save as representing hitting the transmission or only taking out the radio operator. If you hit a more important part then you pass the Firepower roll for sure, which (imo) makes up for the weaker AT.
>>48133735
A momentary lapse of simulation in a gun that otherwise has a marked tendency to liquidate targets.
>>48133735
Also, that would really open the floodgates as to the gatekeeping for spalling, given that it variety so much on target to target, gun to gun, and more or less would result in a WoT style HP system for tanks so they could be spalled to death, as is realistic when a well armoured tank is covered in shot.
>>48133890
Not very precise. Armour of stuck section has a significant effect on HE effect, and TA hardly changes. A Panther is going to laugh at a HE round from a Sherman, but a Panzer 35(t) is going to lose the crew.
>>48133902
>makes up for the weaker AT.
It really doesn't.
>>48133905
>a gun that otherwise has a marked tendency to liquidate targets.
Have you ever tried to actually shoot anything with a -152 ingame? Actually hitting in the first place is cause for a party.
>>48134115
>hitting
Nothing to do with the ammo. Beyond that, I find it about as hard to get shit done with as Brummbarrs and BT-42s. That is to say, not hard, because I'm not a slack-jawed chimpanzee ex-American/German player.
>>48134172
>immediately resorting to needless ad-hom
Are you *sure* you're not a Soviet player? You're doing a very good impression of a Russkie.
To the guy i was talking about the Firefly AT sorry i didn't know that units with Firefly use little to no HE rounds. I thought they were equiped with them, not like the other tanks but still a decent amount of them even though they were bad. Fault my lack of deep knowledge about UK tanks units.
>>48133535
I used to think like that, but it is fine as it is. A generic AT value based in the standard AP ammo and with the firepower of the HE round
The only thing i am still mad about is the AT 13 of late Shermans when you compare it with other guns with the same characteristics that have less AT in game because reasons.
>>48134223
I play Soviets, amongst a heap of other armies. Started with Finns. Meandered around the factions for quite some time.
Anyway, ROF1 and HnC are a pain in the ass, but for the most part, can be overcome with a bit of planning. The charm of playing Soviets is having the enemy having plenty of easy kills, but only able to pick one of them, and knowing that anything that drops G2G is utterly fucked next turn.
>>48134317
>less AT
Most of the similar guns have very similar AP values. The 85 for the Soviets, the various 75mms for the Germans, the 17 pounders and such for the Brits. They're all pretty similar.
>>48134317
It's all good. The Firefly HE thing isn't as clear-cut as the QF 2-pounder for which HE shells were literally never made (I think). Perfectly reasonable for you to read that the Firefly's gun DID have an HE round and wonder why it wasn't in the game. Now you know!
>>48134525
They were made, but they sucked. Or rather, they were MADE in small quantities, but not issued. Like the HVAP rounds for the Americans.
>>48134514
The 17pdr hasn't had similar AT values to any of the other guns on that list for years, not counting mid-war... which badly needs an update anyway.
>>48134555
It had a good value around 13/14, and now it has a great value around 15.
>>48134317
>The only thing i am still mad about is the AT 13 of late Shermans when you compare it with other guns with the same characteristics that have less AT in game because reasons.
Seems to happen a lot. Even in the Tanks skirmish game, the American Shermans are really good - as good a gun as the Panther, and the most damage capacity (6) of any Defense 1 tank (Defense sort of represents front armor - the Panther, SU-100, and heavy tanks have at least 2). Were late Shermans that well armored and was their gun that good?
>>48102364
>Back Surgery Edition
Ouch.
Reminds me of the old RAF vet that used to live a few houses down. Bailed out of his fighter well below safe altitude and broke his back. Apparently it was supposed to have been the lowest survived altitude jump at the time.
>>48134514
Similar guns that should have the same AT but what we see in game is different:
Shernan 76mm AT13
Panzer IV or Stug AT11 but Pak40 AT12
Russian 85mm AT12
I am fine with the AT11 for the Panzer IV and Stugs, because Pak40s are a thing.
And the 17 pounders have pretty much pretty the same characteristics with the L70 from the Panther, but AT15 in the late model is fine because it was an specialist anti tank unit, so apds for them.
Like i said before it is ok if the americans TDs have the AT13 because most of HVAP were isued to this kind of units, while the rest of the tanks had a pair or even none of the kind of rounds.
>>48134883
And as has already been said, 6 pounders were issued with very few APDS rounds, but they still get the benefit of an increased AT rating as a result.
Ok assholes what looks better
>>48134587
in the old books it was 13, now we have 2 stats the mid war one is AT14 and the late on AT15
>>48134682
They were pretty good compared with the 75mm sherman but still they lacked a punch against big cats like Panthers and Tigers. The HVAP ammo give them the possibility to pen the Panther turret from 1000m but well Panther could pen them from far greater range with only its standard ammo compared with the specialist ammo.
But well mind you that the Germans made guns like that to fight Russians tanks because they were fighting against worst beasts, and since americans mostly fought Panzer III/IV and Stugs they didn't feel that making a good anti tank gun was necessary because the shermans were doing their job, supporting infantry if tanks were problem they had M10/M18 to do that mostly a doctrinal thing.
After the first battles in france it was evident that all the tanks needed an AT upgrade since germany had good amount of Panthers and used Tigers little numbers very well. So the 76 was some kind of stop gap solution to this, and then you have Pershings, M36 jacksons and some heavy prototypes desings to fight Tigers and later Russians tanks.
That is something that bug me a lot, tanks battles in eastern front were more interesting and bloody than in the western side of the war (western front is more about grandfather stories, airborne troops, easy company and infantry actions) and in the game russian lacks some special rules/gimmick things and a good amount of IS2 in most lists.
It is funny how you see more Panthers and Tigers in table than IS2.
Still needs green stuff and shit
>>48135552
Seems reasonable. The 17 pounder was better than the 76 by a noticeable but not decisive margin.
>>48135526
one on the right looks cleaner, one in center is more accurate
>>48134930
i know but it is the same as Firefly, they are an antitank unit and they deserve it gameplay wise even though apds wasn't that common.
>>48135694
well at least you knew what I'm going for.
some green stuff and it'll look ok
>>48135590
Yeah and since it wasn't a national design the american army didn't like it, the lack of good HE rounds and the loss of accuracy using the APDS round were some decisive factor to don't adopt it.
>>48128197
I am just getting into team yankee, but I just heard from someone today that you can mix 2 companies. Am I just making this up?
>>48135552
It's kinda sad that there are so many crazy things the Russians could do that they can't. Example, Dmitry Y. Yakovlev:
>48th Tank Division commander
>late July, 1941 gets told to take back Velikye Luki, a fairly dull city around a huge rail junction
>78 T-26 and 7 BT-7, no armored cars, no artillery, nothing but barely working tanks along with 4 barely equipped rifle divisions working under a guy named Ershakov
>becomes the first Red Army officer to liberate a city when he takes Oh Fuck How Do I Spell You on 21st July
>it takes over a month and a large chunk of the 9th Armee to finally surround the area
>Yakovlev breaks out of the city with 2 tanks and 2,400 dudes he managed to drag with him from Ershakov (dunno what happened to him)
>is executed by the NKVD when he issues a complaint about an order to retake the city when the enemy has more tank divisions than he has tanks period
Source is Schwerpunkt by Robert Forczyk. I'm unemployed right now so I'll probably make up a homebrew list for the 48th.
>>48135999
>Yeah and since it wasn't a national design the american army didn't like it
Meme history. The US military had a long history of grabbing other nation's designs and using them. Jingoistic they weren't. They didn't adopt it because they tested the shit out of it simultaneously with a few other options, and it came out that it was a worse option compared to the 76mm. APDS accuracy wasn't the important part at the time. HE wasn't great, but the 76mm wasn't particularly impressive in that respect either.
The Chieftain posted most of the docs and memos from the testing process on his blog, pretty eye-opening stuff.
>>48136130
And just to clarify this is for the leopard book.
>>48136206
>meme history
Sorry i fucked it, i tried to say that because the difference between doctrines and, well i know it wasn't really problem for the american industry to adopt a foreing desing but still it is cheaper and easier to adopt the national one. And more importantly...
Well i know i adopted the most meme form to say it, but those still were factors.
It is true the army didn't cared that much about more penetration when there was no practical achievement from that better (none of those gun would pen tiger or panther hull armor at great distances), and at the end the 76mm gun was more practical and realiable. Now what i don't remember is if the development of the 90mm had something to do with it.
>The Chieftain posted most of the docs and memos from the testing process on his blog, pretty eye-opening stuff.
Care to share the link please? i love that kind of things.
>>48136138
BF do tend to listen if you post a homebrew list with a source that can be read in English.
>>48136479
You field Formations which are like Companies in normal Flames of War.
Your force can choose to field multiple formations inside of a given points limit.
So at 100 points, you could for example field a 70 point formation and a 30 point formation.
Each formation however would need to field an HQ and its mandatory units.
>>48137855
are there any upsides or downsides to having multiple HQs?
I need this in 15mm. It'd only be a terrain piece, but that's okay.
>>48140083
Maybe we can get a P1500 Monster conversion kit for it as well.
>>48140083
And do some rules for sevastopol and nothing more
>>48134930
>And as has already been said, 6 pounders were issued with very few APDS rounds, but they still get the benefit of an increased AT rating as a result.
Completely incorrect: APDS for the 6-pounder was issued by the bucket-load. In Normandy, even Battalion-level ATG platoons began receiving some by July, and since the priority was for Corp AT units to receive it first, then Divisional, then Battalion-level...the higher-up AT units had plenty if it was already filtering down.
It was even present from about Aug 1944 in Italy: the Churchill brigades were offered up-gunned SP M10s for extra AT, but chose to stick with their 6-pounder armed Churchills since the arrival of SVDS ammo meant they were more than capable of dealing with Panzer IVs and StuGs (Tiger and Panthers were very rare in Italy).
>>48138024
Each formation tracks its own formation morale.
Support units taken from outside a formation (for example, air support) don't count for any formation's morale.
If all of your formations have been destroyed (through enemy action or failing formation morale) you auto-lose, like when failing company morale in FoW.
>>48132616
>I'd argue that PSC's success was what galvanised BF to even get on the plastic train in the first place. "Stolen their thunder" kind of implies there was even a contest back at the start.
Absolutely this: back in the day BF is well know for stating they would not do plastics. About 2008/9(?) they released their plastic Sherman and German half-track sprues, but these were to be combined with resin hulls so no price decreases. BF had the chance there to continue their development of plastics, but chose not to, believing the market would continue to pay what they wanted.
PSC came along, first with the T-34 kit with two turrets, and promptly kicked arse. They then released more kits that were great value, though they had their niggles on occasion. BF did what they always do: ignore something they don't like, publicly belittle it ("silly plastic tanks" - Mike Haught, "the Plastic *Toy* Soldier Company" - JP Brisigotti, etc.) and hope it goes away. Did not happen. They then were forced to play catch-up and their initial offerings (the old Open Fire plastic Shermans and StuGs) were pretty poor as a result.
To their credit, they have improved vastly these past few yeas in the plastics department: after their initial rush to get things out, they took them time and did things better. Now a lot of their new stuff is as good or better than PSCs. They also did one-piece tracks from the start which..."encouraged"...PSC do to the same. BF plastic Infantry are also better than PSC's and forced the latter to upgrade from their terrible weedy versions to the current bulkier/more heroic proportions.
Nonetheless, BF had the chance to be leagues ahead of any potential competitors, but they did not have the foresight to see that plastics were the future. If they had, it's likely PSC would never has existed, at least as a producer of plastic 15mm WW2 models.
Besides that...we, as gamers, are the one who have benefited most from the competition between the two. Win-win.
>>48134883
The one that annoys me is the Tiger and -85 being different, despite testing putting them about the same either way.
>>48135999
More important was barrel wear. A concern for the USA, that was dealing with unrestricted sub warfare, but not for the UK who just had to get their guns over the channel.
>>48136138
I keep saying it but I want the list for the guys who're still using T-26s in 1944.
>>48137855
Makes sense to me. I was wondering how I was going to ever get to 100 points by only fielding 1 formation.
>>48136797
>BF do tend to listen if you post a homebrew list
Oh, well, that's fair-
with a source that can be read in English.
I now understand why soviets are the mook faction.
>>48141642.
Actually no, they were different at least between the T34 and the Tiger.
The early war Flak AP ammo from the the 88 had the same if not worse penetration. but after late 42 it is a complety different history mostly because the difference between ammo desing.
>>48141696
>with a source that can be read in English.I now understand why soviets are the mook faction.
Pretty much, and nobody seems to care to translate some russian books.
>>48141576
>they did not have the foresight to see that plastics were the future
Future? Plastic has been the material of choice in wargaming for decades due to Games Workshop.
Anybody who was sticking with resin or metal has been behind the times for 20+ years.
Do t get me wrong, I love metal and resin when they are sculpted and cast well. I'm really looking forward to the West German resin kits like the Leopard 1 and the Gepard.
But plastic has been the material of choice for quite some time now. Historical Games companies were just slow to come to that realization. And Battlefront isn't alone in that.
>>48141695
>I was wondering how I was going to ever get to 100 points by only fielding 1 formation.
You easily can as US, Soviets or Germans.
Abrams and Leopards are expensive points-wise and will eat up a lot of points very quickly. T-72s are lower points, but can still add up.
And that's without including mechanized infantry, aircraft, and other support options.
You can easily do a 100 point force of only 1 formation.
>>48142445
I struggle to believe that Battlefront, a company run by their current owner who reports say is a little Tom Kirby-esque, would willingly surrender the initiative on a new revenue stream. I think it's more likely that it's due to the cost and difficulties of investing in plastic moulding which is a lot more tricky than resin or metal moulding. Plus the sculptors have to be retrained for plastic which usually uses a lot more 3D and Computer assisted design work, which is another expense.
>>48142113
You sure there? The soviet trials put the 85mm and 88mm a few points different in the tiger's favour.
>>48142445
Plastic is the material of big companies. Tooling for them is far more expensive, so you need to sell much more to recoup costs. Costs have totally gone down, and kickstarter has made getting the money for them up-front easier, but metal will always be the material of choice for guys working in their garage, which many historicals makers are.
>>48141434
And FoW doesn't give them the ADPS bonus then why?
>>48142561
My only point is that in 2016 saying "plastic miniatures are the future of the wargaming industry" is a bit like saying the same thing about laptops, tablets, and smartphones being the future of the computer industry.
You're not wrong, but that "future" is kinda already here.
>>48136758
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/
Citations up the wazoo. The 76mm is actually highly underrated in a lot of the less sexy, but still essential components of anti tank guns.
>>48142692
It DOES. It goes from AT10 in Midwar to AT1 in Latewar
>>48142797
Right, forgot that they backdated the Market Garden buff to the remade Overlord books.
i have a box of Panzerkanonen.
metal and resin StuG and PANTHER
shall i assemble them?
shall i weave a dank tale of modeling?
>>48142689
Well with 1943 ammo the Flak 88 and Tiger I had better penetration than the russian 85mm.gun. But like i tried to said before one of the reasons Germans guns had superior penetration was because the ammo desing.
And that was mostly because design philosophy, Americans and Russians ammo had "more" killing power because bigger explosive filler, now if you think that is useful or not is another history.
>>48142709
Thanks, now i really remember those articles, they were pretty interesting, something that Wargaming did better than Gaijin.
>>48143134
Why did you bought them if you don't gonna put them together.
>>48143134
Technically the StuG shouldn't be a Panzer Kanone since Wiking only had StuG IVs... not that BF cared to look apparently.
They are nice models though. Did yours come with plastic parts?
Early war: What's people's experience of Matildas, presumably other heavy tanks? My group told me they had tried EW and found that heavy tanks simply couldn't be destroyed and tended to win battles easily. Does this match with other people?
>>48143759
Your group sucks.
Matilda are good to have as infantry support, but aren't numerous or flexible enough to stand on their own easily.
They don't win battles easily against savvy opposition. Try charging a platoon of pioneers, or Brits or Finns, or manage any of the better ATGs that are about, or ambushes of any of the same. Heavy Tanks are strong, but they lack numbers, and can go down to all sorts of things. Combined arms is the key.
The heavy tanks do vary a fair bit. Matildas are different to KVs are different to Chars.
>>48143881
To be fair, the specific complaint was Blitzkrieg; Matildas aren't going to be facing brits or finns doing historical matchups in western europe, which is what my group plays.
>>48143134
Theyre cool looking, I love mine.
Thats only because the Panther came with plastic parts though.
If I had to build another panther with metal parts I would stab somebody.
>>48143881
To be fair, pre-barbarossa (and Pre-rising sun, arguably), Matildas did kinda run roughshod over basically most things in EW.
Barbarossa really kinda fucked the whole era's balance.
>>48143759
Flak 88 and Stukas all the day.
>>48144291
>To be fair, pre-barbarossa
Except if they were facing infantry. At which point, they just bounced off. Or they were taken out by 88s. Or those stupid gatling french AA/AT jalopies. Or pioneers ate them, or they took a stuka to the face or arty got them, or they simply didn't have enough shots to get anything done against tanks.
Someone have a complete scan of the north africa MW book? the one in the database lacks the warriors units
>>48144917
Eh? Infantry that can't hurt them? Unless they're cornered you just need to pass a british bulldog counterattack test to keep nibbling away at infantry, if they don't run away to begin. French aren't going to be fighting Brits outside of tournaments anyway, but the armoured cars won't do much either, since they're only AT 6.
The only things that do work there are FlaK 88s, pioneers, or indirect fire/air, and putting an 88 into every list is pricey.
>>48145109
>French aren't going to be fighting Brits outside of tournaments anyway
Speak for yourself. The local group I used to play with had numerous red on red, or blue on blue games.
Quick! Claim your tankfu!
>>48144291
The thing about barbarossa that a lot of players tend to forget, is that the heavy tanks suck balls. Ok, the stats are good, and a KV is damned near unstoppable until air easily picks it off, or an 88 effortlessly hits it. But for all it's beefiness, a single and expensive KV in EW is only killing a stand of infantry 1 out of 3 counter-attacks. Matildas in EW are in the same boat in assault, needing 3 tanks to reliably kill one stand of infantry. Conscript makes for cheap vehicles, but also means they're fairly toothless in assault.
This is why you simply will never see an all T-34, Matilda, or KV list in EW from Barbarossa. You need the expendable, diet cheap T-26s, or even shitty BTs or light tanks, just to score enough hits in an assault to matter.
>>48145130
Playing historical engagements in a historical game is hardly some freakish niche sport, dude.
>>48136797
Bullshit. If that was remotely true, we'd see a list for Loza's battalion, instead of a half-hearts Loza warrior and a copy-paste hero lend-lease.
>>48145170
Dibs
>>48145202
>This is why you simply will never see an all T-34
Actually, "All T-34s" is the closest I've seen to a viable all-tank list in FoW, since you can potentially get enough pseudo-heavy tanks in to be able to nuke everything off the board. 8 T-34s against someone who hasn't brought FlaKs with extra crew can be quite tasty.
>>48145262
>I didn't have a beer with my free blowjob.
>>48145130
Most of Australia's events tend to prioritise RvB matchings.
>>48145207
Of course it's not. But don't pretend like your group's refusal to play anything other than tournament or historical scenario is par for the course.
>>48141642
The one that annoys me is the Tiger and -85 being different, despite testing putting them about the same either way.
>>48143347
>Well with 1943 ammo the Flak 88 and Tiger I had better penetration than the russian 85mm.gun
So... it makes sense for them to have different anti-tank values?
>Americans and Russians ammo had "more" killing power because bigger explosive filler, now if you think that is useful or not is another history.
Did any AP shells have explosive filler?
>>48145283
Not in EW it isn't. Spamming 300pt Conscript T-34s is a recipe for disaster in EW.
>hear about afghantzy list for team yankee
>Get excited for swarms of Hinds and badass slavs
>start to look up cost
>2 hinds are $40
>mfw
>>48145304
Your analogy would work if you didn't fail to mention the person givig the blowjob used HIS teeth, and had all the skill of a pug eating a hotdog.
>>48145400
Afghan "veterans" are just more conscripts, except spamming helocopters.
IMO, not worth getting into Team Cheeseburger for.
>>48145400
Zvezda has Hinds for about half the price.
>>48145419
>ablooblooblooblooo
>>48145357
It's been my experience of every group I've played in. Historical matchupps outside of tournaments. Hell, most tournaments I've been to have been historical, though that's more even. Blue-on-blue is very rare and usually a case of "We have literally no other figures this evening and we need to play something". I've had maybe three or four games where that isn't the case at clubs.
>>48145377
>Did any AP shells have explosive filler?
All the time, Brits are the only exception. Explosives are common in every other major power. Actually, maybe not Japan, but eh.
>>48145385
Agree to disagree, then; what I saw was that without some heavy guns it's easy for the tanks to chew through significantly larger forces. The real issue is keeping stuff off the objective.
>>48145466
They're 1/144.
>>48145728
>I'm literally retarded
>>48145825
>They're 1/144.
are Bf's ones 1/100?
>>48145849
BF helicopters are, yes.
I swear to god, some of the anti-soviet whiners aren't going to be happy until soviets have to call their opponent daddy before they're allowed to move.
>>48145910
You may be thinking to yourself, "Hey, doesn't that mean the hind is fucking massive?". And the answer is yes, yes it does! A lot of folks are talking about doing it in 6mm since all the vehicles are so huge in 1:100. The hinds are the worst offenders, though if you take the rotors off it's just about manageable, though it still looks ridiculous.
>>48145965
It must be what, 7" long? (17.5cm)
>>48145925
>soviets have to call their opponent daddy before they're allowed to move
But enough about Age of Sigmar...
>>48145377
>Did any AP shells have explosive filler?
Most of the non APCR/HVAP/Pzgr40 shells had a least a little explosive filler, the only nation that didn't use them were the British.
>So... it makes sense for them to have different anti-tank values?
Yes, the thing is that the american 76mm was as good as the russian 85mm and the pak40 but a little worse than the 88 from the Tiger I.
That is why i said before that the AT value of the Sherman 76 is unfair when you compare it with tanks with comparable guns.
>>48146015
Sounds about right, I'm away from mine.
TY has cohesion as a 6" bubble, too, which means keeping the hinds in cohesion, especially if you brought all six, is a nightmare. With rotors on, it's impossible, but it looks ugly as all hell and leads to constant bumping even without.
>>48146083
Also this is an issue even with tanks and infantry, especially on the soviet side, where the tank-car-park looks infinitely worse. Also transport is more awkward with big models, especially the ones with more fragile bits.
I can kind of see why they did it, they make 15mm figures anyway and they look great, but the game feels too big for it's scale, even moreso than some of the worst excesses of FoW.
>>48145400
If i am not wrong i think revell make 1/100 hinds.
>>48146083
>>48146129
This is where the line abreast formation makes sense both for gameplay and looks.
Also, there's way less of a penalty for being out of formation, so it still works pretty nicely.
>>48146129
Team Yankee: should have been 10mm.
I think you need an 8x5 for a good-looking TY game. 6x4 is tight with 100 Pts.
>>48146362
Line abreast looks even worse with tanks. The game just looks too silly beyond low points levels with the amount of spam the soviets are clearly encouraged to be doing.
>>48146530
Well, most of my games have had units of at most 7 T-72s.
If you bring a full infantry company, I'd expect to either dig it in on a pretty broad front to block stuff off or advance broadly, with large parts of the unit not in formation.
>>48146597
Yeah, but by having formation rules you encourage staying in formation. If you can avoid a penalty by having your infantry in an ugly blob or your tanks grinding their sideskirts together, you'd take it.
>>48146659
In return, you get a penalty by making yourself very vulnerable to arty strikes and the likes.
There is quite the payoff the other way as well, if your opposition knows what they're doing.
>Soviet spacing issues in Team Yankee
Set them up in a hex pattern. You can have the platoon leader in the center, and the other tanks set up in coherency around him.
This hex grI'd is a good example for a 7-tank T-72 platoon.
>>48146720
This has nothing to do with tactics, and everything to do with the look and feel of the game. The board is just way too cluttered with huge tanks and enormous aircraft, especially with the designated opfor having lists that encourage slapping 4-6 aircraft together and 5+ tanks in a big blob. Then putting all of these blobs on a 6x4 board. It's just goofy looking.
>>48146471
So use the Team Yankee minis for a platoon lvl game set in WW3?
>>48147026
Or better yet, use Micro Armor for TY.
>>48146893
The problem with a setup like that, is you will rarely want to keep it once you engage the opponent. Maintaining a hex formation will limit you to 5 tanks firing, with 6 being a perfect situation. So you start adjusting the ones in back, so they get shots, and the hex formation and coherency goes out the window.
>>48145799
While they can attack pretty much unmolested in EW, against a force lacking heavy guns, that doesn't mean they'll actually hit. I've seen combat rounds where counter attack after counter attack results in a pair of conscrip T-34s killing one stand before finallu failing a motivation and falling back when hit. Soviet tanks in EW need those cheaper, shittier tanks to make up for the 5+ to hit in combat.
>>48147214
I'm just giving an ideal situation example.
Yes, even if you try you won't be able to fully maintain that formation.
Which is why I'm thinking that having say 3 platoons of 5 tanks each(as an example) may be better than 2 platoons with 7 tanks each.
Coherency is easier to maintain with smaller unit sizes.
>>48145746
And I've had exactly the opposite. Indeed one of the best parts of FoW is how quickly and easily you can take any force and pair it off against another from the same era, regardless of faction. The only trouble spots tend to come from the large power gap in EW between Blitzkrieg and Barbarossa. Historically accurate matchups occured often, but so did matchups like US vs Soviets, British vs Finland, or Hungarian vs German. Tournaments are tournaments, and tend to be whatever the TO sets it up as.
Since it was brought up, how do you recommend dealing with KV-1s, and to a lesser extent T-34s in EW... when your army of choice is brits from Hellfire and Back?
>>48145925
It's called trolling. Except some of them do seem to take an honest effort to make Soviets as no-fun as possible.
>You should be happy with your shit-tier, no-name hero list while I play HBO's Band of Brothers!
>>48147431
Air if you can, artillery otherwise. Ranging in is hilariously easy. Even a KV-1 driving through woods is ranged in on a 3+ from air. It's a crap-shoot, but it's easier than hitting a King Tiger in LW. KVs you can possibly surround if you get enough men around it and cause it to retreat. For Brits, you are more likely to hit, and counter assault, than it is. T-34s can actually be killed if he rolls a 1 for saves, and don't have the annoying turret rear mg.
>>48147331
I still say that were I to do a Soviet horde for TY (baconator), I would go BMP and *maybe a platoon of 6 rubbish tanks. Tanks are not the Soviet's strongpoint.
>>48147491
Brit, so no Air. The artillery one can get is AT4 fp5+. Somehow, that doesn't look all that great aganst a fucking KV (sure if I manage to bail him, it's an easy kill. But to get that bail...)
>>48147692
Forgot, there is also 4.5" howitzers, with AT4 Fp3+, but they must be paired with 18pdrs, so it quickly gets expensive...
>>48147599
Honestly, even in a swarm I don't think the BMPs pack enough of a punch against NATO's main battle tanks.
Ok yes, the T-72 isn't exactly the best tank in the game, but I still would recommend taking them if only because they can be mobile while firing their high-AT guns.
The BMP's missiles need to be stationary to fire if I'm not mistaken.
>>48147599
>>48147821
I've mostly played T-72 heavy lists (units of up to 6 tanks, up to 3 units) supported by AA, arty and recce.
It seems to work quite well.
I also like the T-72 better as a tank than the Abrams.
It has a solid mix of protection, firepower and armour without overspending on any of them.
The Abrams is a bit too elite for my tastes and the Leo 2 will probably have the same weaknesses to deal with.
The move-or-shoot and minimum range on the BMP-2 seriously impact its performance on the highly-mobile and highly-lethal TY battlefield.
It's also quite vulnerable to pretty much everything in the game, unlike the T-72.
>>48147156
Why not both?
>>48147692
>>48147717
and since it's EW, no Mike Target on artillery. Otherwise, try jock column with motor platoons, Confident Veteran platoons with AT rifles with TA 3... or Tobruk Strongpoint, with mines at what not...
>>48147692
That's right... I always forget that Brita and French have no ground attack air support in EW.
The 5+ Firepower sucks on bombardment, but it's better than absolutely fucking nothing. Use it on the KV(s) if you've got nothing more pressing to aim it at. If you can afford the 4.5s, then you know where they should be aimed.
