Flames of War General: New Years Edition.

>>44469372
I love the thread image. Good choice.

I should have some pictures to share later tonight. I'm just about done with assembling a Team Yankee demo kit for my FLGS.

>>44469372
>Not RIP sweet prince, Lemmy Killmeister edition

YOU HAD ONE JOB

>>44470596
He can have the next one

File: IMG_6462.jpg (292KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 800x600px

>>44470179
>I should have some pictures to share later tonight.

Pictures as promised.

Demo Kit Soviets

File: IMG_6463.jpg (386KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 800x600px

>>44473847
Demo Kit Americans

Yet more weekly lessons from gaming, this time against Germans that weren't veterans for once:

Fuck panthers
Holy fuck challengers kill everything
Smoke bombardments are god
I need more ways to root infantry with panzerfausts off objectives
Cromwell CS platoon a shit

What the fuck is up with these konigstiger barrels - they are 7 metric tons - these models make me want to understand why they wouldn't make a plastic barrel.

>>44475202
Because Multi-Media kits I suspect are harder to put together and ship out. Plus all of the Plastics post-date all of the King Tiger kits.

>I probably fucked up both the AT guns in Open Fire.
Maybe I'm stupid but I still can't figure out where the gun shield is supposed to go.

>>44470596
agreed. Virus, you failed

>2016 plans up
>"Because Unit Cards are such an important element of Team Yankee, these Digital-Exclusive Lists will be a bit special. The exact logistics are still being decided, but the basic plan is that when you purchase the digital briefing, we will send you a physical copy of each associated card as part of the purchase."
....why? I mean, I appreciate the effort, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier and cheaper just for us to print them out? It's not like cards are THAT vital to Yankee--this isn't Warmahordes where HP is tracked on the cards and so on. It's just a quick reference thing. I already memorized all the ones I'm using so far.

>>44475859
>>44470596
Well I was only just aware that he'd died recently, and I don't have the precise banner. You don't like it, make your own /fowg/ with blackjack and hookers.

File: Margaret-Thatcher-1986-Ma-047.jpg (201KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1200x801px

Battlefront's State of 2016 Article is up.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5091

Disregard that other post. I suck cocks.
Now, why did they mix British and American units in Open Fire? Seems kind of silly to me from a meta perspective

>>44476322
It represents a list out of the Market Garden books, British Armour supported by American Paras. It makes sense because you have two of the three largest Allied Armies represented in the same box. An American player gets a Para Platoon, British player gets two Sherman Platoons. Win win.

File: 1439007483034.gif (1MB, 296x142px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 296x142px

Looking to get into early war, how are Russia or Germany? I'd love to do a desert war, or god help me if I find Japanese player a Jap-Russo war.

>>44476380
Yeah. Not long after I posted this I flipped to the right page in the Forces book and saw that British force that can take a group of American Paratroopers.
Gotta say I'm getting pretty hyped up to get a match of this going.
Even if I'm not the best at putting models together.

>>44476269
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5091

>afghantsy

Virus, the HIND company is coming to play!

>>44475159
>I need more ways to root infantry with panzerfausts off objectives
What IS the best way to shove a dug in infantry unit off the objective? Artillery doesn't do much when they have bulletproof cover, and at least around here tanks tend to end up flaming wrecks when assaulting infantry. I was thinking flamethrower pioneers, but what other options are there?

>>44476322
I don't understand it myself, and I played Market-Garden era US Paratroopers for a while.

The Allied half of Open Fire is too specific. It forces you to play either British tanks supported by US Paras, or the other way around.

It would have made more sense to do British-only, or American-only. Hell even Canadian-only, even if they are very similar to the Brits rules-wise.

Just look at the German half. It's a fairly generic infantry and StuG list that could work for almost any Late War German book, and could probably be modified for Mid-War with minimal effort.

>>44476269
>Battlefront's State of 2016 Article is up.

Am I the only one a bit underwhelmed by this?

Pacific, digital-only Mid-War, Bulge compilation, digital Team Yankee, TY Brits, and a tank-themed X-Wing clone.

It seemed like the 2015 State of the Union had significantly more stuff, and significantly better stuff.

Hell, we did a 3+ hour Panzerfunk episode about the 2015 State of the Union.

I feel like we could discuss this one in 30 minutes...

>>44478215
Flame vehicles?

>>44478215
Breakthrough guns. Flamethrowers. Proper use of pinning and smoke before an assault.

>>44478405
This basically is State of the Union 2015 part two. I remember us saying back then that Battlefront was fronting up with waaaaay too much shit.

Although the original post about the State of the Union is gone, I can remember that they where promising stuff at this time of the year that wasn't Cold War Gone Hot, the Plastic Buildings haven't been mentioned again, although the Paint, Brown River Navy, Berlin, and Team Yankee came out. So what, that's two milestones they managed to miss?

>>44478742
yeah, pacific was supposed to be Xmas...

and i really wanted 150.00 minimum of those urban buildings...

>>44476269

So are the two new armies British and Germans for TY? What about the Warsaw Pact? That stinks of anti-Soviet Bias.

>>44479495
I suspect and hope they're referring to the East Germans.

>>44479531

The 'Copter is a West German one though.

>>44476269
>moving to a bigger factory

I want to say thank god and pretend that this will fix everything, but in reality this is going to cause a supply fuckup of astronomical proportions

>>44475837
a lot of people complain about them, it sits in a little groove in front of the axle,on the gun barrel, I think

I'm excited for the secret third LW book + plastics that's promised.
What could it be?

>digital only Mid War

They had to do one thing and they fucked it.

>>44478215
Depends on the arty. British and Yank artillery doesn't have that many issues, particularly with recon. You've got flamethrowers, volley fire, HBGs, pioneers, flamethrowers, large infantry assaults, pinning/spoke then charging with tanks (preferably either heavy tanks, or stuff with sideskirts).

The simplest option is just to roll up with your tanks and blast away. Once their guns are silenced, you've got time. Most armies tend to have a few things that'll work in that role.

>>44479495
Calm your tits, you whiney fuck.

Just received word that my copy of the Potecknov's Bears box has finally arrived at the FLGS.

Looks like I know what I've got to do in the new year.

>>44479495
Well, we get afghanisty paras, I guess...

I think the issue is that Warpac were all using the same kit so battlefront have less to sell, whereas different vehicles abound on NATO.

>>44481899
Though thinking of it, "blowing their wad" on the NATO forces might be a bit early; I don't think other warpac forces will be as hyped-for as NATO stuff...

>>44481899

Yeah, but it's not like the NATO equipment is going to be THAT variable. Challengers, Leopards and Abrams are all pretty similar when you get down to it. Although the French have got some interestingly weird stuff.

>>44481993
Yeah, but they're all visibly fairly different vehicles that'll need their own models. A soviet T-72 isn't going to be all that different from a polish T-72.

>>44480932
yes..but it should be the last year we hear of BF's lack of supply.

>>44481034
you caught that too?

i've no clue what that could be...it could be the western side of berlin...or hell, what late war battles are we missing?

>>44481931
> I don't think other warpac forces will be as hyped-for as NATO stuff...

you get out of the house often?
there are banks of people waiting to play East Germans. and to play T-55 and ZSU-57's in the Polish army grants it's own wierd hard-on....

>>44481993
you are thinking post 1990.
early leopard 2's would be like comparing a comet to a pershing. then again, i think the Leo2 has a bigger gun too.... so, big diff'
early challengers were not as mobile as Abrams, and had a bigger gun, i think. and then i think they had more armor....(before the (M1A1)

>>44482396
Chally should have a bigger gun and better armour but be slower. Hell, I think Chally /still/ has better armour, though probably not to a meaningful extent.

>>44482396
NATO has new toys to sell, though. Visually, Warpac has "More soviet stuff". I'm sure USSR are going to be fine with people who know loads about cold war stuff anyway, but as everyone's been saying, TY has turned out to have really broad appeal, and people coming from Infinity or Warmahordes or whatever are just going to see "More tanks with saucepan turrets".

>>44483113
True, though it will be older Soviet equipment, and a few odd balls. For example, I think it was the Czechoslovakian army that still had a local-built variant of the Sd Kfz 251/1 as a troop carrier and gun carrier around at the time.

The videogame Wargame had a campaign where the first mission was East German T-34/85s crossing the border and your first available units were West German Leopard I's. Needless to say you could finish that without losing a single tank if you didn't just attack-move across the map :)

>>44483264

SU-100s were in that game as well, IIRC.

Actually, a huge swarm of 5 point T-34/85s wasn't such a bad tactic. They could spall down larger tanks, and the 85mm was still enough against infantry and IFVs.

>>44483113
>NATO has new toys to sell, though. Visually, Warpac has "More soviet stuff".

Yeah, this probably plays a significant role in choosing what comes next for Team Yankee.

>>44482396
Chally1 had better armor, bigger cannon and the hydrogas suspension system that gave it incredible cross-country performance compared to the M1. I'd like too see if and how bf implements the hydrogas suspension since it was one of the biggest pros of the Challenger.

>>44487954

Maybe a slightly better cross country movement speed? When you're comparing it to the Abrams, it's all pretty small. The Abrams already crosses on 2+.

>>44488135
Better terrain dash, maybe. Cross country move is liable to be the same.

>>44489249
*slower

File: japs.png (1MB, 1000x789px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x789px

>>44476269
Fuck yes, finally, the pacific.

>>44476322
Worked out good for me. Americans for the band of brothers project, and more stuff for my Canadians and Germans.

>>44476388
Early russians are fun. Budyonovkas vs ski brigade any day.

>>44480990
Glad to hear I'm not the only one having problems with the PaK guns.

>>44490159
Apparently those are made of explodium.

The tension of the sprue itself causes parts to snap in half as you're trying to cut them off the sprue.

You need to cut the sprue itself to release some of that tension.

File: panzergud.jpg (131KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x574px

Does anyone have some ww2 American feelgood jpgs? Pic related

File: tumblr_npep9b2s4P1rqpszmo1_540.jpg (44KB, 540x254px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x254px

>>44493195
Here's the one from WWII that I have

i have some odd feelings about 2016....i think it's almost like battlefront themselves is telling me to go easy...

so, has anyone wish-listed the 2016 offerings?
as for me:
>--BANZAI
>--1 Japanese Army, likely w TONKS, 225 usd limit
>--1 1:144 scale F4U
>--Tanks starter Box. (shits n giggles)
>--a Tanks Comet/Cromwell, unless i go german, a gain. (also, shits n' giggles)
>--German Half of Bulge Compilation.
>--West Germans for T, $300 limit, may go to $500.

and, that does it. for all year.

unless i go back and buy old stuff (Great War) i think i'll be set to underspend on BattleFront in 2016...

anyone else feel like that?

>>44476388
Early war Germans are top noch if you avoid super expensive Panzer 3s and 4s. They arent as defensiv AS in Late war

EW Russland are static und horde ish. The t34 based tankovy kanst be pretty fun

>>44493730
I would so much like to get into great war but super power space marine Americans killed the game for me.

>>44494164
>Ivan
>complaining about Americans

I seriously doubt enough people even play Great War to make your bitching about Americans in Great War even remotely relevant.

>>44494164
i never got around to doing a spot for the Podcast on my review of Great War, did i?

short view: Americans
they are the horde of bodies list due to french organization. this is at CT level, at CV, they are much like any US Rifle company, but with more bodies.
the 10 renaults are nice,
the French artie is nice.
--french flamers are an attachment, lol!

i'd rather go French Metro for the hard defense, but if you love rushing, 10 FT-17's and a stack of bodies is not a sin.

the USA did essentially stop WWI

you could play it as 100 year war alternate and have Brits fight the French w german mercs for either side. see, no americans?

>>44493562
thanks, I'm trying to find an american one though

happy new years you magnificent motherfuckers

a few mates and i are getting together to set up a North Africa campaign to be played in full in a few months. The limit is one player per faction. So naturally nobody has chosen italy because most people don't like the 8 million bayonets rule but i on the otherhand am a gambling man.

how doable is an Italian Armoured force for mid-war? what are my chances of actually beating anyone? anyone got any experience with this?

>>44495893
>nobody likes Italy
Why not? They have massive forces with ALL THE GUNs. And the desert fort, and those stupid gatling 88 armoured monstrosities, and excellent value EW tanks, and unknown hero and everything.

Italian armoured's a bit risky. Up against a real tank company you're fucked, but eyetie tanks are very cheap, so you can go heavy on the support. I'd say go Infantry. The auto-defend buggers.

>>44496113
i was thinking of putting together a bersaglieri force but honestly... i am so sick of painting infantry hordes. If i was gonna go infantry i'd probably go para's since they're smaller numbers.

im totally with in though, Italy is pretty under-rated

File: goddamnitluigiitisntchristmas.jpg (594KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1024x768px

>>44495893
>Nobody likes Italy.

SAY THAT TO MY FACE FUCKER NOT ONLINE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS

Seriously though, Italy is pretty damn fun, especially in early war.

>>44491439
Having built several of these, I don't get what people are talking about. I imagine these people wreck the browning and mg42s when they remove those from the sprues as well?

>>44491439
>>44497467
Didn't have a problem with the plastic exploding. Just an issue of where the gun shield goes.

Wonder if they'll retain the US bomber list for Gung-ho, eh? Haha...

>>44498135
Why not bring it every game as a dad joke and after the massacre proceed to the real game?

>>44498135
>1 Atomic Bomb
>all of your points

>>44500337
>forgetting the observer team

>>44500337
that would be broken at low point games....

now, having a US pacific list with 2 AS options would be amazing.

2 flight stands on the table? hell yes!

>>44500773
>Observer team
>to call in an air strike

Do you even read the rules? Air support doesn't require an observer.

And besides, the Enola Gay seemed to do the job fairly well without some poor schmuck being on the ground to guide them in.

>>44501492
This is why you should look up the list, not just talk up your ass.

>>44481034
Maybe Operation August Storm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

File: hqdefault.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>44501492
Yeah, no offense, but this list requires an observer element.

>>44500337
Funnily enough, I had a 1/144 scale enola gay before I knew about this list. It just made the joke even sweeter.

>>44501874
My only thought is that even with the so-called "telescopic" ground-scale in Flames of War, there would be no safe place for an observer team in a theoretical atomic bomb scenario.

Everything on that table, including your brave little observer team, would be destroyed.

>>44503000
>Everything on that table, including your brave little observer team, would be destroyed.
nah, those boot covers will protect them from the radiation

File: 1448547233704.jpg (25KB, 282x270px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 282x270px

>>44503308
wat?

File: BMP.jpg (478KB, 985x567px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 985x567px

page 9

>>44501492
The list has an observer team. Did you even read the lists?

>>44505717
See >>44503000 for the reason I purposely left the Observer out.

Anyone know where to buy FoW miniatures in NYC? I've been looking everywhere, but I can't find shit.

File: fortheemparur.png (637KB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1200x960px

>>44476269
>Pacific theatre

Fucking hype. Can't wait to die for the emperor.

All this arguing over A JOKE LIST...

And as for it even being legal, I'm pretty sure the original Atomic Bomber list included a line about "if anyone attempts to bring an unofficial Japanese list your list against them consists of 1 Atom Bomb" or something to that effect.

With Banzai, (and technically Rising Sun as well) Japanese lists in FoW are no longer unofficial, and are in fact 100% official.

Meaning that the Atomic Bomber joke-list is itself now completely unofficial. Not that it ever was official to begin with.

File: image19.jpg (2MB, 3096x2204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3096x2204px

>>44498768
>>44500337
>>44500773
Is this something I missed? What list? anyone got it?

>>44506149
I can make a few suggestions for places on Long Island, but I'm not familiar with Manhattan or the other boroughs.

Although it suprises me that The Compleat Strategist in Manhattan doesn't stock FoW. There one of the big ones that I know of as far as popular games stores in The City.

>>44506347
Okay, back in the middling days of V2, some fuckwits where selling an unofficial briefing for the Japanese in Mid War and Late War.

The key point of that is "Selling" Battlefront wouldn't have given two shits if they'd been merely making the list available, I mean shit /fowg/ makes stuff all the time. So they started legal actions against the fucks on Ebay, and put out a joke list that consisted of ONE B-29 with Atomic Bomb, and ONE Observer Team with the rules to the effect that once you dropped the bomb, the opponent's models and all other fake Japanese Lists where irradiated for the next 100 years and therefore unusable. And that you won the game.

>>44506474
>fake Japanese Lists where irradiated for the next 100 years and therefore unusable.
>And that you won the game.

It seems like that second part was almost an afterthought.

>>44503780
at the time people believed those blue shoe covers would shield them from radiation

>>44507486
It was good propaganda. Better for the troops and populace to think that ducking/covering, white sheets over the windows etc could protect you from atomics than the soul crushing truth about everything being fucked forever by radiation.

File: why nukes are bad.webm (3MB, 747x420px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 747x420px

>>44507730

the horror.

>>44507730
According to the government nuclear Bunker down near Cambridge (whose name I forget) part of the reason for those propaganda messages was so that the normal populace would be too busy indoors sealing their windows or whatever and wouldn't be out getting in the way of important government traffic like the guys taking the PM to his Bunker.

>>44506391
Hmm. Well if you have any good recommendations for long island I'll take them. The closest to the city would be great.

There's always the internet if local FLGSes don't want your money.

File: 1439839610786.gif (860KB, 360x204px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 360x204px

i am trying to play veteran soviets that aren't shit, for an easy 1500 points.

so, in the Enginner Sapper list, what armor would you take, and what would you avoid?

i'd love to take the FV Tank Destruction teams, but they seem an odd part of an otherwise decently thought out list.

is the SU85M worth it, or should i sick w T-34-85 w' bedarmor


i own:
Eng.Sappers
160mm mortars
Spetznaz

we dead now.

(and pasta shows actual pasta)

>>44511052
I'm in the process of setting up a Team Yankee group at Game Master Games in Hicksville. Although I do have armies for Late War in standard Flames of War.

Nice store, nice owners, and nice staff.

They have a large, varied, and somewhat disorganized selection of Flames of War stuff.

If they ask, tell them you know Dan from the Long Island Star Wars and Doctor Who fan groups.

I tend to be there randomly on Monday or Thursday nights.

>>44506279
It was because someone was releasing fake Japanese lists right? Because it was an official briefing for use against fake jap armies as a way to end it.

Can someone post it, it mentions why it was made in the briefing somewhere and I remember it being funny.

>>44512609
It's gonna be tough, FV sappers cost an unholy amount of points.

I would focus on things that do stuff to support the sappers and take the heat off them, since sappers can literally murder anything in the game in a 1v1 assault. Be that get them into assault, or take out enemy units that can threaten them at range like enemy breakthrough guns.

For my list I'm heavily considering an IL2, ISU 122's (their rail cannon threatens almost anything) and perhaps a couple cheap throwaway platoons of su76's or something to up my platoon count. T34/85's and Su85's have their place, but I don't think this is it. There won't be nearly enough to tip the scale, they'll lack the firepower to contribute in a meaningful way, and they die easily.

Hell I'd even consider is 2's as much heresy as that is. You're going to need tough units that don't rely on the usual Soviet tactic of numbers to win

Sup.

Thinking of doing FoW in 6mm. Any pointers besides smaller base scale/half small base?

Also, if I'm reading the TY lists correctly, nobody gets to take hinds and hails, what gives?

And for last, how bad a 50 point leest would be
1 x HQ BMP-2
3 x Minimal Size BMP-2s infantry platoons
3 x T-72 tanks
3 x Gvozdikas
4 x Shilkas (Shilka love)
and a minimal size BMP-2 recon.

>>44507730

Except those measures would have had substantial positive effects.

You have to be pretty close to an atomic bomb to be vapourised, but the blastwave can certainly blow out the windows and shred anyone within a substantially wider radius. There's a number of accounts of people within Hiroshima and Nagasaki being vaporised or burnt to death, whereas the people that were behind even smaller brick walls, or ducked, survived with far, far milder injuries. There's also accounts that people were burnt badly, but only in the pattern on their clothing. The dark areas were burnt on, the white areas, merely 1st or 2nd degree.

They won't save you from a nuke that was dropped just a few kilometers away, but they could certainly dictate if you survived or not if you were any further.

Nukes are not the perfect death weapons they're made out to be. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fucked because they were made out of wood and papers, as much as any effect of the bomb itself. Look at the photos, and you see heaps of stone structures intact, other than fire damage.

>>44519257

Looks solid enough, although the minimum sized platoons might disapoint. You're at 7 platoons anyway, so dropping a single BMP platoon and increasing another might not be a bad idea.

>>44519257
>nobody gets to take hinds and hails, what gives?

What are you talking about? Soviets can get Hinds. They're a support option for your main force.

But if you'tasking if you can take Hinds AS your main force, no. Not yet at least. Supposedly that'll be a digital list at some point.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73495,_Oskar_Dirlewanger.jpg (50KB, 472x785px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 472x785px

What's the most controversial unit you can play in FoW?

>>44521536
What do you mean by controversial?
Considered to be historically the most notorious unit, controversial in terms of rules from an in game perspective or in bad taste on a meta level?
Cause if it is the latter I think, if you got issues like that, bringing them into historical wargaming is misplaced.

>>44521536

Volksturm? I'm sure there's a few anti-partisan style units you could play. Maybe one of the ones that's Sicherung platoon heavy. There's any number of SS style companies, Italian Blackshirts, Soviets, etc.

>>44521594

Most war crimes, worst reputation, that sort of thing.

>>44521613
Dunno. Guess you can call your units whatever you like. The worst war crimes didn't happen at the frontlines though, so translate badly to tabletop gaming.

I'm thinking of people like Mengele or Unit 731 with the Japanese.

File: image.jpg (32KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x300px

>>44521536
>>44521613
Look out, we've got an edgelord on our hands.

No offense, but coming in here and asking us if you can play a unit famous for war crimes makes me think you are either intentionally trying to be edgy, or intentionally trying to troll us.

File: Banzai.jpg (396KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1920x1080px

>>44506263
See you at the yasukuni shrine anon!

Managed to pick up my Potecknov's Bears box at my FLGS today, along with a can of primer.

Time to assemble a few of those T-72s and then continue on to the Hinds.

For those, I'm thinking about altering/replacing the tail rotor to keep things more sturdy.
I'm not entirely sure about the best way to do that, though. Will have to think about that.

>>44521921
>worse than a skull

a rat's anus.

File: WWII-Japan2.jpg (134KB, 500x739px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x739px

>>44521941
HEIKO TENNO BANZAI !!!

File: image%2Fjpeg.jpg (36KB, 500x427px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x427px

>>44522213

>>44522198
If we were fighting an army marching under the banner of a rat's anus, I'd probably be a lot less worried, Hans.

>>44522198
And if we were fighting an army fighting under the banner of a rat's anus I'd be a lot less worried Hans...

File: 1412782349486.jpg (29KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 448x252px

>>44522460
>>44522474

>>44515592
Cool. I'll be sure to drop by when I swing by LI next.

>>44522804
Awesome.

Are you looking to play WWII Flames of War, or Team Yankee?

>>44476322
Well first off im an idiot and assumed they were an operation overlord pack because while sword and juno beaches were up and running pretty quick and each exit secured pretty quick. the americans were pinned on omaha, utah (where they landed, not the real utah) and duhoc battery areas for the better part of the first 24 hours of invasion... But yeah market garden works too i guess...

>>44521536
You already know the answer in your heart.

36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, probably plays like a regular MW-LW SS division.

>>44521376
I are potato, I don't understand how Support works in TY. I just thought that because they don't appear in the boxes for, say, infantry bat, they're not an option.

>>44521536
>uses Dirlewanger's picture
>can't decide if it's bad enough dudes

>>44523178
you get X formations. those fill out formations.

you then add support options to your 1-4 formations you just bought.

done

>>44521536
Patton, that rule is bollocks

>>44496113
>>44496173
Italy is the best faction in the game.

>>44519257
There's a guy on either the Flames of War: Team Yankee or the 6mm Wargaming and terrain Facebook group who sells MDF half sized bases. I find that gluing the men to the base and then adding and around them is adequate for pre-paint basing ; it adds some texture and is quicker than other more complicated methods which is good when you've got dozens of stands to do.

>>44519257
>50PT list
>6mm
When tanks are like a dozen for a fiver why bother going so low as fifty points?

>>44517702
>ISU, Sturmovik

Yeah those cost a ton of points and are very unreliable. Really, I have a really low opinion of the ISU in latewar because anything with AT13 or more, totally murders them. Either you bring atleast 10 of them to survive attrition or leave them home. The sturmovik is like 200 points for 5 five aircraft dice, that is ridiculous.

If the guy wants to play 1500 points and engineer sappers are 400 points per platoon, and we are looking atleast 500 points for ISU leaving him with a 3 platoon army. I speculate a bit here since I haven't used engineer sappers but I would go for ZiS2s, SU-85Ms, small unit of mortars and maybe spetsnaz. Flamethrowers would be nice too.

>>44525043
>because anything with AT13 or more, totally murders them.

Yeah. Those massive piles of AT13 or better weapons. Can't throw a stick without hitting multiple platoons of them.

Please. That's like saying PaK 40s render Shermans obselete.

>>44525602
Shermans are at least cheap. And AT 13 by late war really is pretty common. You're probably facing germans, so nasty guns are going to be commonplace, but really everyone can bring AT 15 or better fairly easily in late war.

>>44525702
*13 or better, even.

>>44522871
I'm pretty new to it all so I'm shooting for WW2.

>>44525702

So are the guns that can wreck them. It's the same issue.
AT-13 is a thing that you can expect to exist in LW. Doesn't mean it's common, considering it's overkill against most targets. It's just as likely they'll have a platoon or two of Pak40s and a Platoon of 88s, or Pak43s, or maybe some Panthers, etc. Maybe they're Americans, and they're really banking on their TDs or Easy 8s. Maybe they're Brits and relying on a single platoon of 17 pounders, or a single tank per platoon you can gun tank out, with the rest being pretty insigificant. Point is, that's far from difficult to manage, like any armoured force. It just means they -can- die.

>>44525843
Yeah, but your issue with ISUs vs, say, T-34s is that ISUs can die/be broken easily, whereas T-34s have the numbers to get a kicking and still drop 6+ AT 13 shots on something. It'll only take a few half-decent guns to ruin the ISU's day.

>>44527269

Like I said, you can still work around it. Like any heavy tank, really. If nothing else, you can distort their deployment. And they really have to deal with those SUs one way or another, you can leave those fuckers alone. Plus a lot of the time it isn't that hard to deal with their big guns anyway. It's not like Panthers exactly have an issue with LW, and they're more fragile, and have the same cost issues.

>>44527728
Yeah, but as you pointed out, towed AT guns can front-pen ISUs, it's not just other heavy vehicles. And the ISU also can't move and fire and is slow, so it's not exactly a nasty shock manuever. RoF 1 really hurts it. They're a bit better than IS-2s, but only because they're a bit cheaper; they really do suffer in practise.

>>44527728
If you compare german Panthers to Soviet ISU, I am going to go on a limb here and ask you if you ever used ISU-122 on the table?

They don't cut the mustard unless you take many of them. The ISU-122 is not an AT hunter type of vehicle (like german heavies are) unless people put tanks right in front of it. If they have to move, they will always be a step behind in the shooting phase due to RoF1 so they need to be stationary to hit anything. To get value out of them one needs numbers to take a round of shooting or two on the chin before while slowly maneuvering into a position where the survivors can dish out damage. And bringing 2-3 as lone vehicles in an engineer sapper list means they will degrade significantly before they become useful.

>>44525790
Do you have other people to play with in the city? Or would you be needing to drive out to LI for games as well?

If it's the second option, it might make more sense to join up with the Team Yankee group that I'm forming.

The interest in the WWII version of the game has been minimal, but I've got a small handful of Team Yankee players lined up.

>>44529289
Maybe? I was thinking WW2 since the Open Fire box seems like a really good deal. Since it comes with 2 armies I could play with one of my buddies.

>>44530414
Fair enough.

I have Late War US, Late War Germans, and Team Yankee US.

File: P40HeavyTank.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

is this shit legit? looks a little dodgy. Is it from 2nd edition?

>>44522213
>>44521941
>>44506263

Pacific Lists <3
will i be able to reuse my rising sun japs?

File: GimmeDatMankoBitch.jpg (491KB, 4309x3232px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 4309x3232px

Abe-bump

>>44531922
It is. It's the Mid-war Monsters thing, with all the oddball mid-war vehicles.

It's legit, but also one of those opponent's-permission things. The most recent rules for it should be on BF's website. Somewhere.

>>44532016
Almost certainly yes. Japanese army equipment changed very little over the course of the war - basically all of your EW models will be usable; even the tanks.

*maybe* not the cavalry - I don't know how extensively they were used outside of china.

>>44531922
Not only is it real, but John Matthews told me at the TY release that it remains one of their biggest financial successes. Suck it internet community.

>>44531922
that looks very soviet...

>>44532994
>Suck it internet community.
What? I wasn't aware that MWM was particularly hated here?

>>44533102
Not here, but the actual Flames of War Forum really, really disliked them at the time. A lot of toxic salt like you wouldn't believe at the time.

KV-5s are still kickass though.

>>44533130
The Official forum is a roiling cesspool at the best of times for any subject, really.

>>44532095
>*maybe* not the cavalry - I don't know how extensively they were used outside of china.

They weren't. Most got assigned to Mongolia I believe.

>>44533168
Yeah, I often marvel at how civil we are compared to the official forum.

>>44533102
I think a significant portion of the dislike for MidWar Monsters has to do with the fact that a lot of these vehicles were essentially prototypes that never saw combat, or only saw limited combat, and a lot of them had rules that were a bit too good.

Open Fire noob again.
Can anyone help here? I'm probably just going to turn the Germans into a Grenadier/Panzergrenadier list. But I'm not entirely sure where to take the Allies. I kinda want to play a fast, mobile army. But I'm not sure if I should go American or British with that.

>>44533168
I've found this to be disturbingly true for other games as well. Shadowrun and Battletech both have pretty shit official forums.

>>44538256
It's simple innit. With forums they turn into Signatures, Post Count Elitism, and Cliquism.

I mean, these threads don't suffer from it because we, the people with names, we realise that we're full of shit.

>>44537390
Sounds like literally every game with 'paper panzers' in it, really. Even video games fall into this for some reason.

>>44538412
>>44537390
By contrast though, I never saw any hate at all for LWL.

>>44538562
LWL is not official though

Hei /fowg/

I would like to build more and better terrain. (Yes I downloaded everything from the downlaodsection in /hwg/).
So I search some online magazines/books or something like that with good terrainbuilding instruction. It doesn't have to be free. I don't mind spending some euros for good stuff.

If you know a good terrainbuilding dead tree format book, I am open for suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

>>44538562
>>44539590
Hell, LWL is barely known even here.

>>44539639
Wasn't it made here?

>>44539881
Yup. And still not especially known.

>>44539973
I should think rather than it not being well-known, it's just not heavily-played or discussed much.

>>44539991
Well, using it takes models that very few people have and that are a bit hard to get.

I have so far tried the Maus and that wars fun

>>44540029
>Well, using it takes models that very few people have and that are a bit hard to get.

One could say that about many of BF's lists these days, especially those with MW-only equipment.

or Italians.

>>44541049
MW gets no love

>>44541221
or Italians.

>>44541221

Supposedly getting some soon. ish. Battlefront-soon.

>>44538562
>By contrast though, I never saw any hate at all for LWL.

There was that one guy... He was trying to make his own competing "eXtended War" instead.

Because according to him we were getting the Late War Leviathans "wrong" based on their in-game stats from World of Tanks or one of those other tank-based massively multiplayer online shooters.

Our own LWL were underpowered according to him, so he tried to make what he called "eXtended War" instead.

>>44541937
Was he complaining about about all of LWL, or just the paper-only prototypes that were never made?

>>44531922
>The P40 is the most powerful tank in the
Italian arsenal. It will face anything the
Allies can field and win.
>FA 5
>AT 10

gg italy.

>>44542100
Mostly the Paper Panzers if I'm remembering correctly.

Especially the Maus. Our fan-made Maus stats needed to have like triple the armor and double the AT value or something like that according to him.

Because he was going off of their stats in World of Tanks.

In the other hand we were looking at real world armor and gun statistics for something like the King Tiger, comparing it to the FoW stats, and trying to extrapolate something that seemed both powerful and balanced for the Maus based on that.

File: 1397978455769.jpg (79KB, 695x455px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 695x455px

>>44542483

>>44542483
I used to think that armour was based on a 10mm=1 AT kind of metric, but now I really have no idea how you're meant to work it out.

>>44542874
It's about relative protection values and chance to kill something on so on, surely?

>>44543099
Yeah, that's clear, but how they get those numbers seems to be pretty random. I mean, Tiger II P is impervious to most guns at all ranges, when it had the huge glaring turret weak spot, and there's tanks with "0 armour" that were definitely immune to small arms and stuff. Values just seem inconsistent.

>>44539627
and no one has answered you?

sadly, the internet, as opposed to dead tree, is the best place for tip on terrain...

heck, creativity and handbuilding does a ton.

there are lots of terrain-parts companies, but i am foggy on names right now. Zitterdes comes to mind, but they are mostly fantasy, and JR is dead.

>>44542330
you will notice they write in a lot of propaganda into the fluff.

File: DSCN5740.jpg (1MB, 1550x910px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1550x910px

have i gone insane?

the 1st Hero Tankovy Brigada, 70% complete...

>>44543978
Do you have a blog or something? I am interested in some battle reports.

I wanna play that Open Fire! mission with the V2 launch platform and the launch bunker, but I wanna build this huge bunker as the bunker objective and a few smaller bunkers around the V2. How many points should I cost them as? There's no bunker costs in the Open Fire! book and I figure it'd be unfair if the germans have some good bunkers without a point cost. They're Confident Veteran infantry troops, by the way.

>>44543204
There's a sliding scale they use to determine it, with diminishing returns as the thickness and slope improves. They also subtract for things like weak spots, rivets, etc. No one knows the exact method, but they've mentioned their thought process on their forums way back.

And 0 Armour represents most kinds of bulletproof plate that still had thin spots or exposed parts. So while a vehicle with 0 Armour might have bulletproof plate iRL, if you poured enough small arms fire into it you could damage something or punch a hole somewhere.

>>44545868

Or kill the crew. A lot of the armour 0 vehicles around are open topped.

>>44545868
I'm still pissed that there's no way for tanks like the su 152 to score crew kills on tanks they can't penetrate like they're historically able to.

For example, elefant crews in kursk being killed by su152 rounds hitting them in the front, not by penetrating armor, but from the sheer force of the blast causing spalling or in some cases, the pressure wave alone killing the crew outright.

Perhaps a rule like bunker busters can test a special "firepower check" against armor they can't penetrate, say 1-3 nothing, 4-5 bail, 6 kills anyways.

Thanks for the Panzerfunk podcast. I have gone back to the first podcast and am listening through in sequence. I have a couple of thoughts for feedback.

1. Where is the 15mm or 6 mm Star Wars battle game?

2. Are you going to go through each book and talk about their strengths and weaknesses for each book/list?

Thanks again! Keep up the hard work!

>>44548600
Yeah this is definitely some bullshit.

Further thought: Are any TY vehicles going to get a HESH special rule that lets them kill things with spalling?

>>44551626
Talking about specific battles/campaigns is something we really should put back on the agenda.

Any suggestions you guys would consider interesting?

>>44551900
As a new player to the game, any would be good, but we are mostly LW in my area. But listening to your thoughts are better than no podcast at all :)

>>44469372
looking through op's links can't find the team yankee book. was it removed?

>>44551626
>Where is the 15mm or 6 mm Star Wars battle game?

It's something I would love to see, but it looks like the direction Fantasy Flight wants to go with Star Wars is with starfighter battles, fleet battles, or small squad dungeon crawler style board games.

>Are you going to go through each book and talk about their strengths and weaknesses for each book/list?

We've been doing it for the new books because it gives us something new and exciting to focus on.

Berlin was highly anticipated, as was Team Yankee. And we covered both in some detail.

We'll likely cover the upcoming Pacific books Gung Ho and Banzai in some detail as well.

>>44551900
>Talking about specific battles/campaigns is something we really should put back on the agenda.

You mean I gotta do homework to prepare for the damn show?

Recording and editing isn't enough work for me? :-p

>>44553737

It's there -
CTRL+F
FoW_Team_Yankee

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ikpbqjpfm7fxd6q/FoW_Team_Yankee.pdf

>>44554478
>It's there -
thanks anon

i'm thinking of picking up the us special box (has 2 cobras) and an a-10 box

>>44554501
You are welcome!

I don't know what faction to pick - :/

File: a10 freedom.gif (2MB, 902x345px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 902x345px

>>44554843
>You are welcome!
>
>I don't know what faction to pick - :/


well to me i went with asthetics

i loved the look of the HInds. but i love the sound of freedom more.

>>44554843
I think i'm going to paint/mod my HQ tank to be Tank girl.

it will give the "realistic above all" players fits

>>44555115
>>44555058
I love you both.

>>44555410
same person thanks!

>>44551869
They could but that would require 2 profiles for each cannon, maybe they could make it work like bombardments so low AT value (5-6) that hits the top armor of the vehicle

>>44544549
update:

i won my first battle with the Hero Tankovy
mostly PzJ's and Jagdpanthers
i was mostly what you see there, CT+Hero
end was i had the objectives, and had won the attrition game. it's amazing what you can do w no hen and chicks....

and, sorry, not a blogger.

>>44541937
>WoT stats
That game has all the paper panzers, and they're all way better than the actual tanks. What a crock of shit.

>>44548600

Considering the AP value of the 152, it's an almost entirely academic issue, given that they'd gib most tanks they hit. Spalling isn't exactly reliable.

>>44549919

Oh man, I have a heap of those magazines. Fantastic stuff.

Maan I'm in such a painting funk.
Haven't finished a model in months and can't even assemble my precious TY demo kit.

Shame me with pics of your painted and worked on stuff /fowtg/.

>this is even more embarassing considering I was the instigator of paintpocalypse

>>44558638
My point exactly.

And yet there are people who quote that game as their "source" for their inaccurate information.

>>44560835
I don't have anything to show off yet, but I should sometime later this week.

I'm slowly working on a Team Yankee demo kit myself.

>>44558793
The point is the AP value of the 152 doesn't let it destroy vehicles that it could in reality. Obvious example being the Elefant, but it also applies to KTs, where the simple crushing force of the explosion would usually kill everything.

I'm debating between two points-finishing options for a list I'm working on. Option 1 is a Dingo and a Cromwell ARV, while Option 2 is a Auster AOP for my 4-gun battery of 25pdrs. Which do you guys think will be more useful?

The rest of the list, for reference:

>British Armoured Recce (11th Armoured Division)
>Tank Company, from Market Garden, page 112

>Compulsory Armoured Recce Squadron HQ (11th Armoured Division) (p.113) - CinC Cromwell IV, 2iC Cromwell IV (145 pts)

>Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (335 pts)

>Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (335 pts)

>Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV (220 pts)

>Scout Car Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Daimler Dingo, 2x Daimler Dingo (70 pts)

>Lorried Rifle Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.123) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (180 pts)

>Field Battery, Royal Artillery (p.138) - Command Rifle, Staff, Command Rifle, Observer Rifle, OP Carrier, 4x OQF 25 pdr gun (185 pts)

>1470 Points, 6 Platoons

>>44562176
I'd go for the AOP.

It makes the arty so much more effective, with an effective fifth attempt to range in and less messing about with observer placement.

>>44562176
Get the AOP. Be amazed.

>>44562176

AOP, even if it's just to push back ambushes. A single dingo and recovery vehicle isn't likely to have much effect.

>>44562454
British AOPs don't push ambushes, no Column Security.

>>44562454
>AOP, even if it's just to push back ambushes.
Brits don't get that on their AOPs, which is why theirs are 15 points cheaper than the American ones (25 vs 40). Should honestly be a 20-25 point difference instead, given just how damn useful column security is.

>>44558638
B-but m-muh wunderwaffe

>>44562572
Priests + AOP is such a great deal for Yanks. Column Security can pay for itself multiple times over when you're making an aggressive attack, and having observers with actual guns in their tanks makes the spotting capabilities more useful.

>>44556434
I could see it working like the Petard mortar does.

>>44563822

Kinda begs the inclusion of that sort of profile for a heap of units, though. God knows spalling was possible with a lot of weapons.

>>44561838
For something that's really ineffective even against vehicles that it auto pens, and given BF's explicit 3E policy of Bunker busters not being overly effective anti tank I don't think there's much chance of any change. Perhaps giving more Bunker busters indirect fire stats? A 3/6 bombardment could take out a KT, it'd just be really ineffective which is presumably the goal?

>>44564404
I could see how all Bunker Buster guns, in addition to the usual drawbacks, always hits the top armor or vehicles they fire at (and then a reduction of their AP to 4-7)

>>44564404
>explicit 3E policy of Bunker busters not being overly effective anti tank
More like Vehicles that were never used as such being unable to function as highly mobile tank destroyers. And THAT was mostly because of Brumbarr spam.

>>44564404
>>44564676
Shouldn't a lot of bunker buster guns (or other guns for that matter. Like 88s) have a bombardment profile anyway? SUs always had something of an SPG role.

>>44566310
88s have a bombardment profile in a few instances so I suspect there's supposed to be a policy of only giving them in it when they definitely used the airburst shells in that manner?

I don't know if I'd want to pay the extra 5pts a gun or whatever to have a mostly useless bombardment stat.

>>44566373
>in a few instances
Very few. Ahistorically few. Where there were 88s, there were 88s being used as ersatz artillery.
>mostly useless
They'd be similar to 25 pounders, bombardment wise, most likely. Maybe a bit worse.

>>44566489
>Where there were 88s, there were 88s being used as ersatz everything.
Fixed. Damn did the germans make a winner with that gun.

>>44564404
>>44564676
Something like "Concussive. A vehicle that passes its save against a Concussive weapon then rolls an additional Concussion save. 1: Destroyed by spalling, Turret removal etc. 2-3: Bailed Out. 4-6: Fine."

Apply to real big guns, mostly bunker busters. Or just roll it into Bunker Buster.

>>44570488

Works for me. And you could also give that rule to high-end HESH in the modern era, e.g. the Chally 2.

>>44570488
I like that, that's more elegant than my wording. I also like the "attack top armor" idea as many tanks were killed in that fashion even if its a bit more complex. It wasnt uncommon for a tiger to get hit in the turret's "face", and then cave in the roof of the driver and radio operator's compartment, with the pressure wave from that knocking out the crew.

Ultimately though, virus's solution is a bit more elegant and a lot easier for players to comprehend and remember.

>>44570488
>>44571408
I would probably rephrase it, and give the roll to the shooting player. Something in line with Herman Bi's "KV Killer" rule from Barbarossa (if a vehicle passes it save, and is closer than 20cm, roll a die. On a 6, the vehicle is destroyed anyway).

>>44571529
Hmm. That is a point, players tend to forget about negative rules when they apply to their stuff. That's why the Sherman and Panther lost their flammable rules from V1 to V2.

"Concussive: If an enemy tank team passes an armour save when hit by a Concussive weapon, roll a die. On a four or five, the enemy tank is bailed out. On a Six, the Tank team is destroyed."

>>44566310
I think this is meant to be their "volley fire" rule, but yeah, SUs were sometimes bombardment weapons, especially heavy ones like 122s and 152s.

>>44571408
Honestly, I think "attacks top armour" is simplest, though yeah, you want a normal fire profile for being able to straight-blap things like armoured cars or whatever...

>>44571864
There was seriously a ronsons rule in FoW? Jesus christ.

>>44572410
Was being the Key word there.
>Burns Easily: The opposing player re-rolls any failed firepower tests to destroy a Panther Tank.

>Ronson: The opposing player re-rolls any failed firepower tests to destroy a Sherman with a Petrol engine.

Also if you botched your Airsupport roll, your opponent could reposition the Airstrike.

File: DSC_0050.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Am i missing the guns from my 88s? First box I have purchased, and it seems I might be missing something. Unless they are those metal sprues in the top left quadrant?

>>44572688
Best thing to do is to get into contact with Battlefront, Battlefront are regarded as one of the best in the business at replacing missing parts.

>>44572774
Thanks for confirming!

Problem with applying that concussive rule is that you're modelling the effect of a large HE shell striking the tank, not the AP shell. The stat line is unfortunately a merger of the two.

If FoW split the gun statline into AP, HE, and whatever else specialty ammo it had, then it would be easier.
Then you'd have a decision to make, on whether you fire the AP and hope for a penetration, or fire the HE and hope to spall the target.
Having a separate stat line would also fix HEAT, since its Firepower rating should often be a tad worse than the HE shell's. A StuH42 firing HEAT would more likely be a Firepower 3+, not a 2+ as per the HE.

File: zv1.png (2MB, 805x1427px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 805x1427px

Zvezda's new 15mm items for 2016,
Well, there will be no zimmerit coatings for all german items and no 12.7mm AA MGs for IS's and ISUs, I guess.

>>44572493
Talk about movie-WW2.

>>44574622
>1/100 /76
>1/100 SU-152
>1/100 Elefant
>1/100 Brummbar
>1/100 Tiger II P
>1/100 Jagdtiger

Zvezda, please, there's only so much my wallet can take!

>>44574792
Any idea when these are out?

>>44574817
I got my M3 lees in December 2015, while I saw them from their catalog in January 2015.
You should notice the tigers and T-60s were in 2015 catalog but still not released.
For your reference, Pz4 F2s noticed as new item in 2015 catalog were released in second or third quarter of 2015, and all other items like M3 lees, M4A2s, M3A1s and Cold war stuffs were released in fourth quarter of 2015.

>>44574792
It is not a brummbar, it is a sturmtiger.

File: bazooka charlie i presume.jpg (205KB, 780x840px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 780x840px

>>44572688
you are definitely missing guns, sir.

>>44574622
i'm so fucking had...sorry, just plain finished....

File: LlRDVXf.gif (444KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 200x150px

>>44575476
>Plastic Sturmtigers

>>44575476
I know places that have Tigers and T-60s for sale, actually.

File: 1429837941141.jpg (22KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x200px

>>44574622
>plastic su152's
>a year after I bought 13 resin and metal ones
>mfw

File: American - nuclear option.jpg (63KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 540x960px

So glad to hear the Pacific is finally getting its due. I will finally have a use for all these bare-chested marines, and loin cloth wearing Japanese.

>>44577602
>that pic
saved. i'm making a fucking banner, i am.

>>44564676
Like the sturmtiger

>>44577602
Ah, there it is.

>>44574752

Pretty certain that's why Germans tend to have the protected ammo rule. I heard in V1, Panthers had the Burns Easily rule, and everything else had nothing. They sort of inverted it in V2. Panthers DON'T have protected ammo, everything else does. Shermans have no special rule now, and the better versions have protected ammo, rather the early Shermans having a negative rule.

Way, PETROL Shermans? Goddamn BF.

>>44581297
The annoying thing, though, is that we've picked up Ronsons from Death Traps, when in reality shermans were no more or less likely to catch fire than anything else. Hell, the gasoline engine "flaw" was shared with a variety of tanks all around the world, including German and Soviet designs that aren't memetically notable for catching fire. If there's any flaw in design, it'd include unsafe ammo storage, especially to make use of the "wasted space" in the sponsons; but this, too, is a flaw most tanks of the era suffered from.

>>44574622

>>Plastic King Tiger

My body is ready. Been wanting to try one of those gimmicky LLW bargain basement German armored lists.

Is Zvezda still using really weird plastic though? Got one of their Panzer III's free at a convention 3 years ago and the plastic is kinda hard and shiny and bendy at the same time. Not fun to work with.

>>44584058
>zvezda

It is soft but it gets a bit stiffer after paint and varnish. Zvezda offerings usually scale better to Battlefront models than Plastic Soldier used to do, but details are quite shallow. Worst thing is when the kit has a million parts like their BA-10 and build time is significant.

I have Panzer 38s,T-26s and KV-2s from Zvezda. I've built their katjushas, sturmovik and BA-10 aswell but got rid of those. Battlefront is the better alternative if you are into painting and fielding nice models but they are almost twice as expensive as well. For a King Tiger army, I would go with battlefront because you need like 5 or 6 at most.

I plan to get T-60s and M3 Stuarts from zvezda to finish of some soviet tank hordes but the local dealer doesn't stock them just yet.

>>44584058
I did not have any of those problems with their Cold War stuff.

Something I'd like to see, but probably would never ever be implemented in Flames of War.
Basically within the same period, if you run a 1940 company against a 1941 company, you'd get 10-20% extra points owing to the fact that the latter company has access to better equipment. So if I come up against a T-34 company with my French, I get a little extra points.

>>44588671
I think the solution there is to just run book-specific tournaments.

Blitzkreig-only or Barbarosa-only instead of completely open Early War.

Either that, or completely reorganize the game by Year instead of Early-Mid-Late. But even there you'll run into significant differences in the equipment used by each side.

>>44588671

It used to be the case in V2 and before that you could field variant units (e.g. a Tunisia "Marschkompanie", downgrading Veteran troops to Trained, which gave you +30% points). Something similar might work.

>>44588671
>with your french
And your assorted gatling anti tank pimpmobiles that can Ambush. French have issues. Dealing with T-34s is not one of them.

And that system's already been implemented. Forces using 1941 gear pay an extra 10-20% than forces using 1940 gear. Ever notice that T-34s are more expensive than S-35s?

>>44588803
V1. And that was simply because they didn't want to write down seperate costs for the various units. The Brits/Commonwealth had the same system. Aussies were an extra X%. They just write down the seperate points costs for each profile now.

File: image.jpg (896KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 3264x2448px

The Open Fire Shermans are a bit shite. I've put these together as best as possible leaving only a gap in the front. I'm thinking of covering them with a mix of twigs, camo nets or sandbags.

It is a pile of shermans form my British for D-Day though. I've some DD Shermans to finish too.

>>44588671
Then why would you ever run a 1941 company? All you're actually doing there is adding extra points to the cost of later equipment, which done explicitly would be a more elegant solution IMO.

Looks like PSC put brit paras on their forthcoming page! Are you hype? I'm hype.

>>44590007
It's been fixed since those original kits came out, but yes the original Open Fire Shermans had some significant gap issues.

Cover it up with some bits of stowage, or some cammo netting or something.

>>44590007
This just makes me glad the new version is far above in quality.