press F to pay respects.
Flames of War SCANS database (Great War and Berlin soon):
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts
WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
and, for Vietnam.
Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
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?
what actual country are you from?
I'm deprived of a camera (it got broke and I spent all my monies on tin/pewter/lead figures...) otherwise, I'd be down for showing off my attempt at redeeming Zvezda's Abrams. I bought a lot of their other stuff
and assumed they were good too.
Has anyone finished any of their Berlin stuff? Volkshits? Hitlerjugend? Red Banners?
Goodnight sweet prince
Wow I've never heard this one, oddly fitting for the thread.
He's one of the godfathers of metal, was a roadie for Hendrix, collector of WWII memorabilia, and lived to be 70 doing shit that kills most people in their 20's. He was a pioneer in the mixing of punk's speed and energy with the hard hitting power and subject matter of metal.
He died a few days ago and metalheads across the country have entered a period of mourning by blasting Motorhead at even louder levels than usual, as is custom.
Goddamn, Dio and Lemmy are both gone. Fuck it sucks losing these guys. You forget how old some of these guys are sometimes.
Jesus, THAT'S why the name is so familiar. I should have recognized him. Truly, what a legend.
You know, I've always peripherally recognized metal as a cool genre of music as a whole, but I've never really gotten into it. Maybe it's about time I give it a real shot.
>Maybe it's about time I give it a real shot
I feel like I'm teaching guitar lessons all over again. Sending 12 year old's home with AC/DC, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Motorhead, and other required listening for homework just like in School of Rock.
It was really fucking weird when the parents would come back and say "hey, do you have the other CD's this Motorhead guy made? I'm really digging this."
Not to go into /mu/ but here's some stuff to get you started
>Black Sabbath's Paranoid
>AC/DC Highway to Hell
>Led Zeppelin I
>Motorhead Ace of Spades full album
>And this Budgie Greatest hits playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54H3EUAzpVg&list=RDEMMMfhg3du9zEdEH30RvM2qw
Once you've gotten immersed a bit, you can really start to get into the crazy shit, but that should be enough to get you started.
Thanks anon. Some of this stuff I'm already pretty familiar with (kinda hard to avoid AC/DC, Zepp, and Black Sabbath even if I were trying), but I can already see why these are a good starting point to base my taste off of.
Also I've never heard of Budge before and it is RAD AS HELL HOLY SHIT THESE RIFFS.
Keep in mind not all their stuff is that heavy. You're in for a hell of a shock with the next song in that playlist.
There's just something about 70's rock that just has it's own unique feel to it, something ultimately heavier than nearly anything else out there when done right. Mainly due to the old equipment. The early metal bands were literally pushing their equipment to the breaking point by pushing gain and volume far past the original amp and guitar designers ever intended.
Hell, this is what Journey sounded like in the 70's
And with that, I'll stop derailing the thread.
I´m currently painting up my Bears. Got the Batallion Commander and one T-72 Company ready and the rest of the box undercoated. Since its a national holiday today, I´ll get something else done, too.
So far I really like the T-72 kits (especially the commander sprue is fantastic!), while the Hinds have given moe some trouble...
Haven´t played the game, yet, but apparently the Hunter-Killer-Rule makes Cobras better than they appear at a first glance.
I´ll probably have my first game tomorrow with a buddy who will field Bannons Boys, so I´ll see how they will fare.
I honestly have no clue, as I´ve never even touched the plastic T-34 kits. All I saw were really well-made command figures. Since all my FOW minis are made from pewter this came as a big surprise, since I´m normally used to that usual "blobbiness".
I think they're reliant on hunter-killer yeah, which isn't too hard to get since they can be placed basically wherever you want. The issue is the soviets get crazy amounts of AA. Even if they've only brought a cheap Shilka platoon or something you're looking at 3-5 hits, only half of which you'll save.
I just realised thanks to glorious soviet snap-fit I'm only rockets and SAMs away from being able to take one of everything soviet in the list.
Considering bringing this for some first-game attempts down to the local:
>T-72 Commander 5pts
>3x T-72 12pts
>3x T-72 12pts
>3x T-72 12pts
>4x Shilka 4pts
>3x Gvozdika 5pts
Finally got to put decals on my British tanks, so i got one question - how is 1iC and 2iC tank is different decals wise from others platoon? I realize they all get markings with same colors (all triangle, square) for platoons so what is the marking (if there is one) for HQ?
For a few divisions (mostly Guards, I think), they all had numbers inside the triangles (or whatever), otherwise the tanks in a company would all have the same markings. I advice liberal use of stowage and tank commanders to differentiate the bosses from the rest.
So how do I make difference between different Tank platoons - one is triangle and other is square (of the same color? Or they all have same and i find some other way to group them?
They are all the same (the shapes are divided by company, all of first company is square, while the colors are for different battalions). I would probably advice you to write platoon designation on the bottom of the tanks, and then just try to remember during the game.
Here's an article that might help a bit:
I've actually run that exact list in a couple of games against 50 points of US tanks, with several different ways to fill things up after the 5 compulsory Abrams.
It did pretty well; the 3-tank companies of T-72s are fragile, but still more reliable than the 2-tank Abrams platoons the US are stuck with at this points level.
You also get a lot of tactical mobility with that many units. Don't forget the smoke bombardment the Gvozdikas can provide once per game.
That reminds me, I should finish up the assembly on the rest of my Potecknov's Bears box; 2 more T-72s and the Hinds are next on the list, with the other 7 T-72s as lower priority until I finish my BMPs and the other stuff.
The Pacific stuff needs to be a separate game like Team Yankee or Vietnam because a KMT army or Japaneses island garrison isn't going to have much AT but it's not going to happen because BF will cater to the USMC fanboys. :/
Well, there's actually a decent amount of anti-infantry power there, with the bombardment from the Gvozdikas and the hail of 23mm rounds from the Shilkas. Even the T-72s can do some pretty nasty things to them.
From what I've seen so far, infantry in TY is mostly defensive unless you've got a good section of terrain (like a heavily wooded flank) that can be used to advance through safely.
And even then, they'll probably need some backup assets in case enemy MBTs show up.
I've always argued for Pacific being separate myself.
Partially because of AT issues, partly because of special rules such as jungle fighting, and partially because of theme/setting issues.
I'm still not sure what to think about the Dragon: it's pretty brutal against anything but the T-72, where it'll mostly be bouncing off the front before being blasted by return fire.
Still, they might be a bit nastier in lager numbers.
I think it's one of those cases where the effective use of mobility vs the selection of proper lines of fire is gonna come into play.
Also, neither unit will be operating in a vacuum.
Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing some US 'mech on the table, since it's mostly been tanks vs tank so far, apart from a handful of games where I proxied Soviet 'mech.
Given that they're releasing one book per faction and that those books don't mention E/M/L anywhere on the cover (that I can see) I think there's a good chance it'll be a standalone.
Does this look a solid start for a Berlin force? I've got a pack of red banners and half dozen T34-85
You won't be able to mix T-34s and Emchas. And IS-2s are hideously inefficient for what they do. The Hero ones are even worse, and gain hardly any benefit.
Otherwise infantry and tanks are a staple for Soviets, so it's a good start. But I'd still recommend Red Bear Revised, unless you have a colossal hard-on for panzerfausts.
You can. They made a shitty digital list that replaces the T-34s in the Hero Tankovy, with M4s. It is quite figuratively a copy-paste of the Desperate Measures one, just with Emchas instead. Not even fucking Snorlax could have been lazier at that shit.
Gonna go with Gvozdikas myself, mostly because I could get them in plastic from Zvezda early.
While they don't have the huge bombardment, they can at least bounce small arms and have some pretty brutal direct fire stats capable of knocking out even Abrams from the front.
Another small advantage they have is that you can take them as a part of your formations, making your force more robust.
Yeah, but you can't release everytthing in the Soviet arsenal in the first wave of a new game.
Quite often, using already existing models would mean adding two or three other sculpts for stuff that they'd be combined with as well.
Hello all, bit of a FOW/History newb, but wanting to do better.
I've seen pictures of sovjet tank crew wearing all sort of different uniforms. Is there a reason for one colour over the other? Is it by year or region?
Also I haven't seen pictures of a tank commander wearing an officer's hat before. Is it for the company commander?
Soviet tanks had seriously rough transmissions, in some cases they needed a hammer to smack them up a gear. You wouldn't want to go bareheaded in that. Plus Tank Officers didn't usually wear caps in tanks, usually berets. Because a Peaked Cap adds height to you that you don't want in a tank.
Here is some of my open fire krauts from Xmas. Looking to expand the set 3 ways with the Germans becoming a CT grenadier co from atlantikwall. The allies will be split by country and become 2 armored companies.
What's everyone working on right now?
Personally, I assembled 4 T-72s and a pair of Hinds (while watching some speedruns at GDQ).
Hopefully, I can get started on painting them and a quartet of BMP-2s tomorrow.
There's a famous quote explaining the difference in German and Soviet tank doctrine.
"When faced with the fact that crew were getting injured by being jostled inside the tank, Germany padded the inside of the tank. The Soviets issued a padded helmet."
I know if I was a commander, I'd we wearing that padded crash helmet no matter what the kommissar said.
I know why the cap is worn, I just want to know what the point of pic-related is. Is he company/batalon commander?
Also, why do some crews wear blue, others black leather or felt, and yet more still brown/tan. Even the caps are many colours...
when your enemy drives marders up into your entrenched infantry
Newbie lessons mk whatever, from my weekly game. Most of these were from my opponent's blunders.
Infantry die like bitches when you march them forwards with no cover.
Remember your smoke.
37 mg shots vs infantry in the open = dead infantry.
Elephants are scary but utterly fucking useless because of how few you can field.
Remember to put your artillery spotter SEPARATELY from the rest of your arty.
Use your fucking brain.
He had 2 platoons of infantry, 3 Elephants, and a platoon of arty. He finished on turn 3 with 2 stands of infantry, 2 elephants, and a platoon of arty, while I had lost a Dingo and a Challenger. He really did not think things through at any point.
Elefants are scary only on an open table or in ambush. Otherwise you smoke the bastard and then laugh at them.
Generally you put your Observer somewhere where they can actually do their job. Like church towers, up mountains, etc.
It's the defining mark of a Flames of War veteran against a Newbie, their opinion on smoke and how they use it.
>Elefants are scary only on an open table or in ambush. Otherwise you smoke the bastard and then laugh at them.
Or sweep around with cromwell/challenger platoons from two different flanks, so he can only deal with one at once and the other gets behind him. But yeah, really easy to deal with.
>Generally you put your Observer somewhere where they can actually do their job. Like church towers, up mountains, etc.
Yeah, at the very least I deploy mine on the other side of the board from my arty, so the arty can see and direct fire one half and the spotter can cover the other half. Though having an AOP when they have no AA is basically cheating. He put his literally right in front of his artillery. I have absolutely no idea why.
>It's the defining mark of a Flames of War veteran against a Newbie, their opinion on smoke and how they use it.
Yep. I don't use it as often as I should, but I would have at least used my arty to smoke the dingos that were 2" away from his infantry platoon, if nothing else to give them concealment during the assault he tried (Oh, that's another thing. Do not assault when the opponent has 10 MG shots for defensive fire and you have nothing to help your assault, which my opponent decided to do).
discussed this with a few people looking at the new game and that play flames of war.
Aparently to help their survivability it counts as being gone to ground when using tall terrain. even after it fires.
So you get 1 good shot at trying to neutralize enemy gophers so your a-10s can come in and rip out the rest of their AA before they do a number on you.
well i'm about to start buying some stuff to try this game but i find myself in a small quandry.
Do you all think Team Yankee will go the way of vietnam game? or do you think it will become popular like regular FOW?
i know Team yankee was meant to outline the novel itself. but it has so much more potential .. imagine makign scenarios that also fill out the book Red Storm Rising. or more modern setings.
i don't want to dump 2-300 usd on a game that people play for 5 months and then quit.
I think it's got legs, the amount of interest I've seen greatly outpaces what nam had, and it's even interesting people that never cared about FOW otherwise.
The key thing is Battlefront has to keep from fucking this up with supply problems, which they've been known to do before.
Dude, people love the Cold War Gone Hot scenario. Like seriously. So much cool kit and factions, and the fact it's all 'what-if' to begin with just lets the creative juices flow even faster.
Hell, it's like with video games as well. There's a shit tonne of cold war stuff, but hardly any Vietnam games.
Battlefront just needs to make sure it diversifies the content a bit. As much as I like gaming Vietnam, it's not that popular, and Six Day War, who the fuck knows why they thought that would be popular?
I've had more success in the last 3 months promoting Team Yankee at my FLGS than I've had in the last 3 years trying to promote standard Flames of War.
The funny thing is, all the people I've talked to about the game at my FLGS want to play Soviets.
It's like the inverse of the 'Nam problem where everyone and their brother played Americans.
At least I'll have plenty of opponents for my own Yankees.
Plus I forgot to mention in response to you >>44618217 here,
Nobody has done WWIII in a major game company and really pushed it. Several great games have been made for it (Fistful of Tows for one) but no have really gotten any momentum behind them.
This is the first one that's really said "hey, we're doing this, and we're making it big. You'll be able to find games for this and even get plastic models"
That alone is huge, because it gets it into the average FLGS where people who normally have no interest in historicals will see it. It seems to be attracting a lot of 40k, infinity, and warmachine players for just this reason.
I think they thought Vietnam would be good because Australia and New Zealand consider it an important war as much so as America, battlefront is a new zealandese company. as for the six day war. well anything America/Israel gives Phil a raging boner. Which explains BF's dodgy understanding of the war. I personally thought it was a good game though
Plus Battlefront also made their game accessible in a way that only Geedubs and PP had done, they brought accessibility to a Historical Game. I mean look at Seekrieg or Fistful of Tows, hella complex and not really laid out in an accessible way.
That's the mother of all superficial analysis's, right there.
They went Vietnam because they wanted something real, something big, something very well known, that wasn't WW1. Then they went 6 day war because they wanted a modern day conflict with all that entails, and the 6 day war was just about the dawn of modern military technology. They found the conflicts that happened.
What else were they going to do? Balkans? African bush wars? Afghanistan? 6 day war and Vietnam are the most real things that have been down since WW2, and seeing as Korea was effectively WW2 redux in a lot of respects, it doesn't have the appeal. And WW1 doesn't need any justification for inclusion.
As far as I know Team Yankee was the first game in at least 17 years to beat the monthly sales of GW at my LGS. Manager has taken the release-time estimates of what he wanted to order and tripled them.
This is only one data point but I am still in shock at the sales data. They murdered 40K.
I would've been ok with African Bush Wars. Combined, they lasted pretty much from the beginning of vietnam all the way to the fall of the Soviet union. Longer if you count central African civil wars as well, they're still going on. I think they wouldn't touch it just based on the complexity of all that
Yeah that's not the issue why they'd do it. For a start, how many people are actually interested in such a thing, and for a second, how well received would that be in a mass market environment? Lots of those wars where Genocidal, racial or just straight up unknown in the West.
Oh absolutely. The problem is that the market's always been pretty low for it, never mind the fact I'm sure almost everyone wants to play US/Australia, leaving the locals in a slump. I really hope this doesn't happen for the Pacific stuff when it's out. Thankfully for my local buddies, I'd already said 'fuck it, I'll be the japs, you guys wouldn't be able to paint their damn flag anyway' and holy shit are those infantry night fighters beast.
I personally like the idea of playing the Arab/Israeli wars stuff, just because the weird mish-mash of kit on all sides, but no one here wanted to join in. Provides lots of the vehicles for ghetto armies in Team Yankee though.
Only old grognards really bother with 'Nam wargaming though, outside the odd exception.
I would love some bushwars stuff though. Only QRF makes buffels and casspirs remotely worth purchasing.
Yes but how mainstream was it? Was AK-47 Republic ever sold in mainstreet gaming stores, I'm pretty sure it's a Grogard's game for Grogards. It's marketed to people who already know their gaming.
>how mainstream was it
As mainstream as any wargame that's not about elves or space dildos is going to get.
>Was AK-47 Republic ever sold in mainstreet gaming stores
Yes, it was huge on the gaming scene when it came out
Well considering nobody seems to actually give a shit about Africa, why would they touch it. Anybody that actually bothers to spend 5 minutes reading about what happened on that continent during the cold war would immediately realize how much potential it has. But again, nobody gives a shit about Africa at all after world war 2 ended. Plus there was plenty of conventional conflict during that time period. You had Cubans and South Africans fighting tank battles in Angola, Rhodesians doing the same thing as Air Cav in nam, everything that battlefront does in FoW is there
I'll check it out, thanks man!
>I'll check it out, thanks man!
both editions here
Yeah, but considering you'd be reduced to selling 'generic africa militia', and the rulesets are totally unlike FoW style games, that's a bit of a dead end. Brush wars are too heterodox, and too uniconic to work well with FoWs system. Plus as virus said, there's a bit of a political element to it. Even Vietnam has that issue.
Fuck, the table would be entirely full of my Soviets if that happen, never mind my other armies, nor what the other guy has.
If it was only completely painted stuff, it would be only a normal-sized army. The shame.
See, with us it ended up with a hodgeodge of WWI and various WWII era stuff going at it in one big mess.
Made little to no sense, but it was great.
This is also why I'm hesitant to try FoW with people other than friends. I like realism as much as the next guy sometimes but holy shit some people go too far.
I like playing whatever with my friends, but I am that guy that has tanks specifically for red army and guards, all the versions of tanks, and then even more in white-wash for winter games. But this is because I have the money and time for that, and the hobby is what I do when I am not at work.
But hell, if you mean those guys that get anal because you have the wrong mudflaps on your tanks for the period their army is? Fuck those guys.
>Aparently to help their survivability it counts as being gone to ground when using tall terrain. even after it fires.
Not entirely true; you are no longer GtG after you fire, but Hunter-killer helos can move and remain GtG.
When combined with their hiding behind tall terrain, this makes them pretty capable of getting into a good firing position to launch that alpha strike of iTOW missiles.
I've faced Cobras in a proper game only once so far, and in that game my opponent placed them centrally, in a place where my Shilkas could get within firing range while concealed from his other forces.
That went about as well as you'd expect for him. To be fair, it was his first game of TY.
I just want to add to my collection, senpai.
The big weakness is they can never race around and dunk on someone with TOWs. They might, however, be able to shoot-and-scoot after. But generally you need the GTG thing to enable them to set up for a TOW barrage, and even then, if you leave them in range of shilkas even with concealment, they're likely to get butchered, given they're going to be taking between 8 and 24 shots hitting on 5+.
Oh, and chances are it'll be hitting on 6s. Base 4s, 5s because they're concealed by something, and 6s because GTG because they're hunter killers. And the Shilkas need to pass firepower as well. So assuming the Cobras are playing it safe, and the Shilkas have both full size, and haven't moved, you're looking at 4 hits, 2 or 3 failed saves, and about 1 dead helicopter.
Best case scenario, the Cobras in the open, you're hitting 12 times, and thus each Cobras has 2 and a bit hits on each. Not a terrible chance that they'll all survive, but it's also likely that you might get double kills on some. On the whole, there'll still be at least one surviving Cobra, maybe two.
So even if the Cobra guy is a big damn idiot, Shilkas are cheap for a reason.
They CAN race around and dunk anything that isn't an MBT with a reasonable likelyhood of success. Anything that isn't a big BMP platoon is duck soup, and even the BMPs are going to be pretty operationally fucked up. There's a reason they're 14 points for 4.
I'm really looking foward to fielding both them, and A-10s. Feels very Airland battle. Dig in or run, and let the airpower get to work.
Ah, yes, I forgot about the GTG effect.
You know, thinking about it, the straight-up immunity most air power has to most weapons makes it pretty reliable now, too... The cobra's GTG status is nasty, but even the Hind has it's nice 4+ save and the only thing in the enemy arsenal that's dedicated AA is the VADS.
Thinking about it, BMP-2-spam helps here too, since they have all those guided HEAT rockets they can fire back with...
>What else were they going to do but Vietnam and 6 day war?
>Do people who are non westerners have a history? Is such thing possible?
Holy fucking shit.There were other furious military conflicts with bad ass military hardware taking place all over the world between 1945-1990 if you could bother yourself to do a 2 minute Wikipedia search.
>Thinking about it, BMP-2-spam helps here too,
Yes, it does.
>since they have all those guided HEAT rockets they can fire back with...
But not because of this, since you can't fire ATGMs in the enemy turn as AA.
The autocannon with its Anti-Helicopter rule will help, though. Even if it fires only a single shot against helos.
Yeah, but you can fire back in your turn, which is potentially useful if they're in a setup turn for TOWs, and the ATGM has some crazy range and a 3+ FP check.
Plus the infantry and potential SAM, I guess.
Man, it just occurred to me, infantry are /anti-heli/ tools in TY, replacing their status as antitank in FoW.
>Do people who are non westerners have a history? Is such thing possible?
Not for the sorts of conflicts you'd make into a good conventional military company level combat that has a broad but manageable variation in figures, but still made a significant mark in history one way or another.
List a few, if you can. What would you suggest, one of the India/Pakistan slapfights? Bush warfare? Intra cartel violence? Putting down one of the various eastern Bloc rebellions? They all fall short.
Of course you're probably a troll given you did nothing but contradict me in a fairly half assed fashion. If you knew a good counterexample you would have mentioned it rather than tantrumed.
I love the idea of taking down copters with ATGMs.
>replacing their status
Just to check, -is- there anything US infantry can do do T-72s. All of their weapons seem objectively useless against them. Not enough AT, or bad range values. No defensive fire worth mentioning against tanks.
Well in the case Wikipedia is too advanced for you to use. Here are some examples from the top of my head:
Angolan war in the late 80s-90s
All these had mechanized/tank battalions and airforces duke it out which pretty much is the scope of FoW. The first two would be far more interesting to wargame than Israel Arab 6 day war which was basically and surprise airstrike and mopping up operation. Also Pakistan and India "slap fights" had way more interesting fights (like tank battles) than yanks dropping ten thousand tons of bombs on the south asian rain forest.
>far more interesting than 6 day war
Hardly. Not the same variety of units, civilisations, political context, and tactical innovation. Particularly not the innovations of the 6 day war, nor the regional significance, before or after.
Plus it's just the Iran-Iraq war. You don't have to be western to find it a bit boring in terms of global military history, compared to everything else.
Literally who tier. Great, another African civil war human rights clusterfuck. Two incompetant armies fucking about rural Africa.
Civil war, massive slapfight. Strategically insigificant for the world, boring gear, another bunch of morons slaughtering civilians.
>which was basically and surprise airstrike and mopping up operation
Yeah, but a lot happened in those 6 days, and the overall length of the war isn't particularly important from a miniature wargaming PoV.
>than yanks dropping bombs
Probably why rainforest bombing is almost irrelevant in the average FoW game.
That sound about as interresting from a company scale wargaming perspective as mashing two Confident Conscript Strelks against each other.
> Ogaden War
> Angolan war in the late 80s-90s
Most people haven't even heard of these, which won't sell many games.
It seems that you are more interested in available settings in very simple digestable format than actual military history, now that is fine. There are a lot of available sources and one can get lost in the "mystique" of the setting. But just because there aren't million dollar budget hollywood movies about it and none of the participants speak English, doesn't mean a WW2 style combined arms military conflicts didn't happen.
>Yeah, but a lot happened in those 6 days, and the overall length of the war isn't particularly important from a miniature wargaming PoV.
Really, like what? Arabs got their air forces taken out day 1. Under total Israeli air superiority, fighting forces lost cohesion and morale, command broke down and they had to conduct a very poor withdrawal in very tough conditions. Not fully read on the conflict, but what engagements did you find particularly interesting? A failed withdrawal just isn't interesting to war game.
Sepahe Pasdaran light infantry and Republican Guard tank divisions were deemed a lot more capable than "confident/ conscript" strelk by practically everyone. But I really shouldn't bothered replying to this.
The conflicts I mentioned are a lot bigger and meaner, if you consider the scale of the fighting, WW2 style tactics and serious hardware involved on both sides than something like FoW Vietnam. Without accessibility (american movies, books) the conflict in Vietnam involving the Americans was boring because yank firepower decided every engagement. The main strategy of the communists was to NOT engage the Americans and save themselves up for the ARVN, a classic guerrilla war that unfortunately and such wars don't have decisive tactical engagements.
I would very much prefer a WW2 style Iran-Iraq Battle of Khoramshahr city fight to the last bullet with tanks and artillery on both sides than FoW Vietnam. Especially on a company level game.
Anything that isn't Dedicated AA, Guided AA or mounted on an aircraft only gets one shot when firing at aircraft. If they already have RoF 1, they get a +1 to hit penalty.
A dry run for Fulda. Airpower, ATGMs and SAMs getting their baptism of fire, modern tank designs, intelligence operations, wildly successful blitzkrieg style tactics against a variety of opposition in a variety of states, all sorts of interesting cultural problems across a very hetrodox set of forces, using everything in the arsenal of both warpact and nato.
>just because there aren't movies about it
Yeah, because Angola was up there with the North African campaign and Bagration. Most participants in WW2 didn't speak English as a primary language either.
What on earth would draw anyone to those three conflicts you mentioned?
WW2 style tactics is giving them way too much credit.
>yank firepower decided every engagement
And yet, the North Vietnamese made it a damn fine war reguardless, and there were plenty of conventional actions, even if the NVA and VC made sure that they were never on remotely symetrical terms, which is part of the appeal. It was also one of the largest proxy wars between the commintern and the west, involved a huge amount of doctrial development including the first major use of air cavalry, all sorts of developments in the air, an interestingly mismatched but combative set of combatants, in an interesting geographical environment.
You aren't middle eastern, are you? Why the interest in the Iran/Iraq war? Of all the wars...
Jeez. While I like TY the rulebook really isn't the best.
It seems a bit sucky that anti-helicopter weapons don't get full RoF. Also, checking, it doesn't seem any of the AA MGs can actually fire at aircraft either; what gives?
>It seems a bit sucky that anti-helicopter weapons don't get full RoF.
They're capable of firing against helos, but they aren't dedicated AA weapons with radar guidance et cetera.
>Also, checking, it doesn't seem any of the AA MGs can actually fire at aircraft either; what gives?
They can, any weapon with AA in the name can fire at aircraft.
>You aren't middle eastern, are you? Why the interest in the Iran/Iraq war? Of all the wars...
What kind of question is this? No, I am not. Who said Americans must only be interested in american wars and middle Easterners must be interested in middle eastern wars?
>A dry run for Fulda. Airpower, ATGMs and SAMs getting their baptism of fire, modern tank designs, intelligence operations, wildly successful blitzkrieg style tactics against a variety of opposition in a variety of states, all sorts of interesting cultural problems across a very hetrodox set of forces, using everything in the arsenal of both warpact and nato.
It is a dry run for Fulda? If Fulda was anything close to this NATO wouldn't been necessary. In 6 day war Arabs fought outside of air cover, they were demorilized by the best air force in the world and they couldn't fight effectively in such conditions. That is why they were defeated in 6 days. This just isn't very fun to wargame, just like the American Gulf War because there is no way for one side to win a tactical victory under any kind of circumstances if we want to game the real thing.
>What on earth would draw anyone to those three conflicts you mentioned?
Like I said, we battles where BOTH SIDES are using their air forces, mech/tank brigades/divisions to achieve decisive tactical victories in combined arms operations. Also more importantly, sides were about somewhat equally capable which is what makes Ogaden and especially Iran-Iraq war interesting. If one wants to game something something like a combined arms tactical engagements, such things exist post 1945 and I just mentioned some real world examples I am familiar with.
>What kind of question is this?
One motivated by curiosity. It's a pretty esoteric war to be interested in, and even less one to nominate as a viable source of miniature game rules against the 6 day war or Vietnam.
>dry run for Fulda
NATO wishes the Soviets acted like the Arabs, but the fundamentals were there.
An lesson for all to follow.
Exactly what makes it interesting. It's like Barbarossa. Technology vs humanity vs organisations vs culture. All very mixed up and presented in the most critical of situations.
>there is no way
Exactly why a wargame works. You don't need to worry about the Arabs winning tactical, FoW battles because clearly those victories weren't enough, but they were hypothetically possible, particularly with a finger or two on the scales.
Considering air forces play a fairly minor role in FoW, it's not a good critera, particularly when they were used as indecisively and clumsily as in African civil wars.
Yeah, subsaharan warcraft is pretty pathetic, but at least that's the standard.
>Vietnam War... appealing
Yeah its one side blasting the other to smithereens if they show themselves which is why we get kill ratios like 20-1 for the Americans (correct me if I am wrong here). To me that looks like space invaders with painted miniatures.
>Yeah its one side blasting the other to smithereens
And Long Tan had a 10:1 kill ratio. Didn't stop it from being a fantastic example of a FoW ruleset fight, in a lot of respects. Not a battle that didn't involve tactics, intergration, and a hell of a lot of hand wringing. Or any of the better conducted VC base assaults. Very fiddly, and very nicely pulled off by the VC considering their disadvantages.
Overall maybe. But tactically, at the platoon/company level, there's plenty of scope for all sorts of things to happen, particularly in such a melting pot as the Vietnam war.
I do mean those guys, yeah.
Not all that much really. I just don't think I'd have fun playing with people who are incredible anal about minute details. I'm making sense right?
There is nothing from stopping you from playing more esoteric conflicts with Team Yankee rules once more models are out. They of course won't sell these conflicts but you can make your own briefings.
I'd like to like them as well, but FoW's not really suited for it. I love that sort of operational battle in games like Panzer Corps, though.
Which didn't change the fact that a lot of US bases in Vietnam came very, very close to annihilation, as did any number of bodies of soldiers. Particularly on the company level. The US didn't have as big of an advantage as you might think. Particularly towards the end, the NVA had a lot of expertise and gear at it's disposal, and the asymetric nature of the conflict provided a great deal of opportunity for equalising the tech difference. Witness the vietnamese rules in FoW. Cleverly, they've also included the whole wounder/kill point system. You can mow down a lot of Vietnamese, but the media and military might still count it as a pyrhic victory, at best.
I seem to remember /k/ mentioning somewhere that the Ethiopians were involved in some Mig-29 vs Su-27 fights.
Either way, given the state of Ethiopia, I doubt they compare to any first rate military. I can't imagine they get many air hours in per year, and the state of maintenance. Ethiopia is not a rich country by any standards, and an air force is a very expensive budget item. They fight other similary impoverished nations, but considering that the Iraqis are also trained by the USA, that doesn't mean anything much as far as skill is concerned.
Oh, yeah, the 'you painted his lapel emboidery ocean grey, not military grey, I can't play with this level of inaccuracy' sort. Rivet counters, we call them. They're very thin on the ground for FoW. The ruleset tends to drive them off, so we can have fun without them.
Nondedicated AA reduces ROF to 1. So stuff that already has ROF1 is at +1 to hit. So T-72s are somewhat wasted, particularly if they moved, but Abrams aren't bad at anti helicopter plinking. Expensive way to kill Hinds, but if you don't have anything else.
I had just assumed that that referred to the special rule.
I mean, why is there an anti-aircraft special rule if none of the AA guns have it (that is, the one called "anti-aircraft", not the one called "dedicated" or "guided anti-aircraft" which several weapons get)?
And the ROF 1 penalty is listed as a property specific of anti-aircraft special rules, and -isn't- mentioned under anti-helicopter.
This is the kind of stuff I mean about the rulebook being unclear. It's not disasterous but there's lots of room for people to reasonably make incorrect readings.
>I had just assumed that that referred to the special rule.
An easy assumption to make, yeah.
>I mean, why is there an anti-aircraft special rule if none of the AA guns have it (that is, the one called "anti-aircraft", not the one called "dedicated" or "guided anti-aircraft" which several weapons get)?
Probably redundancy. They might add weapons where they can't add AA to the name in the future. There are no Accurate weapons yet either, for example.
>And the ROF 1 penalty is listed as a property specific of anti-aircraft special rules, and -isn't- mentioned under anti-helicopter.
Re-read the rule on page 44. Weapons with certain special rules (or mounted on an aircraft) fire at full RoF. Anything else fires at RoF 1.
>This is the kind of stuff I mean about the rulebook being unclear. It's not disasterous but there's lots of room for people to reasonably make incorrect readings.
Things can be a bit unclear if you read over things quickly and make some assumptions, yes. A careful read of the specific rules generally clarifies things, though. And there's the FAQ (which is kept up-to-date pretty well) for other stuff.
To be fair, it does seem a bit weird that dedicated AA, guided AA, and helicopter AA are all clearly marked by a special rule, and anti-aircraft doesn't use it's special rule and is reliant on the name of the weapon. It's a bit inconsistent. It'd be clearer to just give all AA weapons the anti-aircraft rule.
It looks a bit like they wanted anti-air to be a core rules mechanic, then realised they needed enough exceptions for special rules anyway, and just kind of did a bit of both. The rules work, it's just sometimes you're looking for special rules and sometimes you're looking for a passage of core rules.
I was speculating that perhaps anon had some personal or familial connection to one of the wars in question. They're hardly well known, particlarly to defend their relevance with such vehemence.
So I've never played FoW, only 40k (yes, I know, I'm a shill), and I really want to paint and/maybe? play FoW due to 1) no Jew GW taking my money and 2) I have actual historical backgrounds to things and 3) rules not shite, most importantly.
Should I make the transfer
I did, and never looked back. FoW has a large, thriving community, it has great sculpts from the parent company, and any number of alternatives, and the ruleset is really good. The scenarios are great fun, and the period system keeps everything surprisingly varied.
Know much about FoW? What armies did you have an interest in collecting?
I'd be a bit more pessimistic and say the rules are okay. I really like what I've seen in TY but the core game runs a bit slow, and it's IGOUGO.
That said, the rules are absolutely good enough to have fun with, and it's pretty widely played in my experience.
While it's IGOUGO, I found it vastly different from 40kshit when I transferred (many years ago), in that you need to be present and mentally engaged even in the opponents turn (and not just to roll a bucketload of dice in armor saves)
>Should I make the transfer
I did a LOOOONG time ago and never look Ike's back.
You'll find a lot of similarities in the turn sequence and the HQ + 2 Troops army building format, but the actual rules themselves are significantly better.
FOW can be played at FLGS with whatever you want. Try even using oldschool 40k stuff at a GW, or heaven forbid, one of its ex-specialist games. You'll get banned just cuz.
I'm not really sure what for; you can (or should) be able to see everything that's happened when you get back via tokens or other markers. The only things I can think you actually need to be there to do are AA fire, defensive fire, and saves/morale checks, and of those only AA fire is an actual decision you need to make (and even then, usually a pretty easy one).
But relevance when it comes to military history is a comparative term. Relevant compared to what, whom and under which circumstances?
Don't get my wrong here, the guy came off as a aggressive jackass but saying a war between two states in lets say South America isn't relevant, is true for a fisherman in Iceland or Northern Sweden. But such conflict could hardly be "irrelevant" for everyone on the planet.
To be honest, I don't know anything about FoW. All I've heard is the rule set is better than 40k and much more balaced (except when it comes to fighting as Japs). While that's not saying much, I'll take any other rule set other than 40cheese
As for an army, I'm not sure if any groups exist around my area. They probably do, considering New England is a pretty big gaming region in the US, but I dunno. I'd want to do Early year UK and build up to late year just because KING AND COUNTRY
Fair warning, Brits don't use much, if any, of their early war kit by late war. Most likely you want to check what your local groups play, but early war (and mid) tend to be less popular than late.
>and much more balaced (except when it comes to fighting as Japs).
Japanese are balanced just fine. They play a little differently from most other EW armies, but they're certainly not particularly over- or under-powered.
Even that's about 15 years before the US entered into World War 1, so it would be stretching credibility to make US Veterans in WWI based on the Spanish-Anerican War, the Philippine-Anerican War.
Hell, even the US actions against Mexican Revolutionaries led by Poncho Villa (**just** before the US entered into World War 1) really weren't the kind of battles that would account for Americans getting a Veteran unit in Great War.
>You aren't middle eastern, are you? Why the interest in the Iran/Iraq war? Of all the wars...
The Iran-Iraq War was fucking giantic in scope and is one of the few wars outside of WW1 to involve the use of chemical weapons. You don't have to be middle eastern to find it an interesting conflict just don't be a complete ignoramus about history.
Thoughts on this 1600pt list?
>British Armoured (Guards Armoured Division)
>Tank Company, from Market Garden, page 102
Compulsory Armoured Squadron HQ (Guards Armoured Division) (p.103) - CinC Sherman V, 2iC Sherman V (170 pts)
- Equip CinC Sherman with .50cal AA MG (5 pts)
- Equip 2iC Sherman with .50cal AA MG (5 pts)
- Sherman ARV (10 pts)
- Warrior Joe Vandeleur with RAF Forward Air Controller (60 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Platoon (Guards Armoured Division) (p.103) - Command Sherman V, Sherman V, 2x Firefly VC (435 pts)
- Equip Sherman with .50cal AA MG (5 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Platoon (Guards Armoured Division) (p.103) - Command Sherman V, Sherman V, 2x Firefly VC (435 pts)
- Equip Sherman with .50cal AA MG (5 pts)
Lorried Rifle Platoon (Guards Armoured Division) (p.123) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (190 pts)
- 2x 3-ton lorry (5 pts)
Column Platoon (Guards Armoured Division) (p.105) - Command Universal Carrier, 2x Universal Carrier OR Command Rifle, Troop Carrier, Observer Rifle, 2x ML 3” mortar, 2x Mortar Carrier OR Command Rifle, Troop Carrier, 2x OQF 6 pdr gun (late), 2x Loyd Carrier (100 pts)
Air Support (p.141) - Limited Typhoon (170 pts)
Tempted to drop the infantry to 7 stands and their remove independent transport (lorried rifles want to stay on the tanks anyway) in order to upgrade the Typhoon to Priority, since I have the forward air controller.
Speaking of BMPs.
Is there ever a pressing reason outside of some kind of absolutely horrific min-maxed list that needs absolute dirt cheap core options to pad as much as possible to ever take BMP-1s over BMP-2s?
They're cheaper, yeah, but for 2-4 more points for the entire platoon/company, you get:
-ROF 3 autocannons
-4" more range
-ATGMs that can front-pen the Abrams
All you lose is 2 points of AT on the gun, but it fires more shots, and AT 10 is sufficient to clean-through all enemy armour anyway.
Looks good. you could shave away 25 points in upgrades, but I have no idea what to get instead, so let them stay.
>Tempted to drop the infantry to 7 stands and their remove independent transport (lorried rifles want to stay on the tanks anyway) in order to upgrade the Typhoon to Priority, since I have the forward air controller.
DON'T! Your 7 stand infantry will be significantly weaker than th 9 stand one (one of the major disadvantages of germans, they can't always easily get more than 7 stand in an infantry platoon). Unless you're doing russians/italians/romanians or have a lot of experience (and a plan), don't go for less than full infantry platoons.
>Looks good. you could shave away 25 points in upgrades, but I have no idea what to get instead, so let them stay.
Yeah, cheapest thing aside from those upgrades (that actually does anything, unlike a brit AOP for this list) is 60 points, so jack squat in the way of options. Figured it was best to shove on some extra MGs rather than waste the points.
>DON'T! Your 7 stand infantry will be significantly weaker than th 9 stand one (one of the major disadvantages of germans, they can't always easily get more than 7 stand in an infantry platoon). Unless you're doing russians/italians/romanians or have a lot of experience (and a plan), don't go for less than full infantry platoons.
Advice from this thread in the past was why I made them 9 men strong in the first place. Temptation is tempting, but not necessarily smart.
It looks like they have higher FP, but even counting that, one BMP-2 is producing half a kill on an M113 (and 1.5 knock outs), while a BMP-1 is only producing a third of a kill and half a knockout. On the move the BMP-2 goes down to 1 knockout and a third of a kill also, but it's got more range, stabilisers, anti-helicopters, and so on.
BMP-2s are basically a really good investment of points, yeah.
Also consider that knock outs are fine in TY, since even if you knock out a platoon it's got a chance of scampering off. And I think you're also chancing kills for the passengers so long as you pen but I don't have the rulebook next to me.
Iran-Iraq FoW sounds like it would be fucking amazing.
I mean I thought about using some of the FoW Arabs and Jordanians to do it, but I wasn't sure if they'd be incredibly fitting.
Wasn't the Iran-Iraq war basically a Fearless Conscript Army going up against a Reluctant Trained Army with really high tech?
It's certainly one of the more interesting wars of the modern period, it just may not work as a Commercial Flames of War setting because of A: The lack of commercialisation. B: The sheer brutality of the war. C: The complete demonisation of both parties by the west.
No it wasn't that simple. Iranian morale was high in the beginning but waned as the war went on. As their army was under terrible attrition, they had to improve light infantry tactics. The war was like for 7-8 years so there was a lot of time to learn. Their air force was considered top notch and there has been some suspicion that they got spares and technicians from Israel who used very similar aircraft.
I am not sure how the Iraqi army worked but I think it was in three tiers. The Republican Guard, it consisted of the best recruits from universities, strong alliances with Saddam (politically reliable) and they had the best weapons. Then we had the regular army, which consistad of shias and the ruling elite was uneasy about it because looked at it like a scalpel. It could cut put if you push too hard it would brake. The lowest were the popular mobilisation units, I don't know anything about them except that they were very sensitive to morale and weren't well armed. The difficulties Saddams army faced except modern warfare in general was slowly going from careful british tactics where you shoot from afar and do slow deliberate advances, to soviet style combined arms operations.
Now a little bit about the terrain, from what I understand the main fighting was around the Shatt el Arab which is kind of marshy ground and desert, and there was a northern theatre in the mountainous. Both were very difficult conditions for armies to operate.
The problem for the Iranians initially was two things, not enough weapons and extreme lack of coordination. The mullahs kept a very hands off approach and it wasn't until later on that the different Iranian factions could cooperate effectively, like Revoulatinary Guards getting accurate support from the army and air force who had completely separate commands. The second problem was logistics for extensive operation and lack of spares. Their strength was the air force and very tough light infantry.
Iraq went through a doctrinal change, but it also couldn't mobilize its entire population as it would grind the economy to halt and their intelligence was very poor. Tactically that meant that Iraq was on the defensive for the most part and frequently got attacked from unexpected directions.
Americans (and pretty much all westernes) have extremely low opinion of the current Iranian regime and I guess they are BFs biggest market share so it makes sense. I guess nothing is stopping people from making a breifing or something to fit Team Yankee. But the military side of the conflict is pretty interesting if one can look past some American or Israeli authors which deem it as a 8 year long shitflinging tantrum thrown by primitive sand apes. I recommend Kaveh Farrouks Iran at War and Saddams Generals. There is another one that I can't remember.
as an infantry company should I go for:
full (4 tank) tank platoons, with 7 platoons total,
or 3-tank platoons and 4 heavy mortars,
or 2 heavy mortars, one full tank platoon and one 3-tank platoon?
Been a long time since I posted here, but meh, such is life. How's everyone doing?
And a quick question to you gentlemen:
Can a panzersturm platoon w infrared gear make a spearhead move if they're embarked in their transports? What if they're on foot? The FAQ says the whole platoon has to be equipped, but I'm not sure how transports count (what if they're at the rear?).
>which deem it as a 8 year long shitflinging tantrum thrown by primitive sand apes
Look at the Gulf War. They're not apes, but goddamn, the Iraqis were massively overestimated by everyone. Their military and civilian culture were profoundly innappropriate for proper military action.
Exactly. The war was characterised by everyone getting in their own way. It wasn't a clash of societies and doctrines and technological methods, it was two groups of barely organised chucklefucks slapfighting in shitty terrain and slaughtering their own forces in the process. And now, the warcrimes phase!
Depends way too much on specifics. 2 gun batteries lose a lot of effectiveness. Multiple tanks in infantry companies can be pretty great, but it depends on everything else.
Post the list.
I think you give Iran too much credit if you compare her military might to the coalition in the Gulf War. The Iraqis knew that if they fought against the coalition they would have been exterminated as a people, but armed resistance against Iran could accomplish some gains.
When I talked about Iranian lack of coordination, I mean in the same way that the Nato and UN intervention in Afghanistan 2001- lacks coordination. There is no overall strategy and every actor does kind of what he thinks is best. On the tactical level (ie Flames of War level), you can still have people who know do a good job and work in their lane, but Iran as a state the lacked a clear overall strategy.
> It wasn't a clash of societies and doctrines and technological methods,
I tried to explain above, that Iraq was shifting from a careful British doctrine to a Soviet one with deeper emphasis on operational tempo. They managed to achieve quite spectacular resualts in the 88-89 offensives where they encircled and destroyed entire divisions in very rapid combined arms operations.
>Post the list.
Rifle Platoon - PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG
Rifle Platoon - PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG
Anti-tank Platoon - 4x OQF 6 pdr gun (late)
Mortar Platoon - 2x Observer, 4x mortar
Machine-gun Platoon - 4x Vickers HMG
Heavy Mortar Platoon - Observer , 4x heavy mortar
Armoured Platoon - 2x Sherman V, Firefly VC
Armoured Platoon - 2x Sherman V, Firefly VC
1500 Points, 8 Platoons
I could swap the heavy mortars for an extra Sherman v in each platoon
It's not a question of military might, it's a question of the US expecting an organised, if underpowered enemy, and finding out that Saddamns forces couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. They expected casualties to be significantly higher, but didn't count on the catastrophic disfunctionality that characterised Iraq's military. Everyone that's trained Iraqi's or had anything to do with Iraq's military says the same. It's a bloated, political, fucked up organisation. They had no idea of span of command, the training and recruitment methods blew, there was active hate and contempt between officers and enlisted.
>lack of coordination viz a viz FoW
Yeah, but there's a difference between 'this is a thing that probably happened', and 'this is a thing that hypothetically might have happened somewhere, but almost nowhere'.
>Iraq was shifting
From a system that required westeners, to a system that could be imposed by totalitarian states on their masses of conscript rabble. Except the Russians actually managed it very well. Saddamn paid it lip service without ever really coming close to pulling it off. What was left of the British doctrine? The elite NCO corps? The tight intergration of arms branches? The strong air force? The highly adaptive and intitiative based mindset strongly encouraged at all levels? The focus on high levels of training at all levels? They didn't HAVE any of the characteristics or methods of the British. They just had a few rusted bits of gear hiding in warehouses somewhere. They were moving from one doctrine they never used to another doctrine they never used.
Anything's possible when you fight student militia and freshly purged religious fanatics.
>Can a panzersturm platoon w infrared gear make a spearhead move if they're embarked in their transports? What if they're on foot? The FAQ says the whole platoon has to be equipped, but I'm not sure how transports count (what if they're at the rear?).
Not sure I understand your question. When I look at the rule in Nachtjäger, it says that "all German platoons with Infra-red Equipment can use the Spearhead special rule". Infra Red equipment is something that is bought both for transports and infantry for 10 points. So if your buy that upgrade, your dudes can do spearhead moves if you chose to night attack.
Neither this rule nor Spearhead says anything about transports, so you can do it on foot or mounted.
8 platoons is a big help. I'd say keep the mortars. They're dead useful, and you don't really otherwise have much ability to threaten dug in stuff. An extra Sherman would be nice, but wouldn't fundamentally change the unit much, and you've got the fireflies.
You don't have to be so aggressive. I don't pull this doctrinal shift out of my ass but it is explained in more detailed by an lengthy interview of Ra'ad Hamdani in one of the books I mentioned. It was either in Saddams War or Saddams Generals. Anyway he was in charge of training armored troops for the Republican Guard during the war and there is a section that explains what went on. The PDFs aren't really hard to find and you can check it out for yourself.
>They had no idea of span of command, the training and recruitment methods blew, there was active hate and contempt between officers and enlisted.
This just wasn't true, for example in the case of the Republican Guard. I read somewhere that officers and men were from the same sunni tribe and in a patriarchal tribal society, had obvious interests in not fucking up for each other.
Yeah, that extra tank isn't going to change the equation too much, and the easier TNs might actually bite you in the ass. It's not a big enough rate of exchange to make it worth it, I think. At least with this number of tanks involved. Infantry tanks are more about the bulletproof guns, and being able to move out and threaten people. You don't need to smash the enemy to bits. And Shermans are dogmeat against organic AT anyway, so an extra one isn't likely to help that much.
I'll see if I can find it, but I've heard other issues turning up during the Gulf War, and post Iraq retraining. NCOs keeping the technical manuals to themselves for prestige (literally telling the training Americans that the crew couldn't read), no crosstraining because everyone has their own crowns to polish, the Officers in POW camps refusing to assemble shelters while the enlisted can see them, because that would be beneath them, massive class divides between officers and men. Constant buck passing, minister of defense having to sign off on battalion level manuvers (or a general culture of getting someone way above you to handle things), a total lack of army-wide crosstraining because the regime didn't want any one general to get too competant and influential. Officers fucking off mid-route leaving them men to their own devices, strategic paralysis in any sort of risk taking situation.
They were a political military. The RG were the only section that remotely resembled a regular one, and they still didn't have the coordination of the Soviets, or the initiative of NATO.
Arabs don't into manuver warfare.
I'll take his word with about as much as I'd take a top leader of a failed state with a reputation for mediocrity and political favour. He's almost certainly covering his ass and passing the buck. It's what he was trained and selected for.
>Without accessibility (american movies, books) the conflict in Vietnam involving the Americans was boring
If you consider every engagement as the point where two sides commit to the firefight, then yes, that's probably boring
>because yank firepower decided every engagement.
The NVA did very well to diffuse American firepower with an extraordinary width of skills, including the capability to break down divisions to the squad level to pass them through the Cambodian border and assemble for the attack. They were meticulous planners.
Another event was the siege of Hue. North Vietnam managed to infiltrate the cultural center of Vietnam with multiple divisions, button up the town as tight as Stalingrad with intricately placed pinhole firing positions and combat engineering skills, then exfiltrate without the Americans noticing once they felt the jig was up.
There's even a tower where NVA observers/MG gunners were utterly dominating all movement in Hue. The Americans got so fed up after trying to deal with it using tanks that they finally called in F-4 Phantoms with Napalm and the biggest bombs they had. To the Air Force's credit, they nailed it on almost every run, but the tower still stood and remained in use.
This is not touching the political war element of Vietnam, which grants even greater depth to the conflict.
So after one match I'm already thinking I should drop the Open Fire book. Because it looks like it either oversimplifies everything tremendously or just doesn't mention everything. Should I even take anything out of the Quick Guide and Forces besides the core rules? Mostly talking about the things like Artillery and Recon rules.
OK, I somehow missed the fact that the halftracks also get infra-red. Never mind then. Cheers!
You mean this:
4 Shilkas, 4 Gophers, you mean? Maybe they get lucky with a MANPAD shot, if they dismount. Both of which being able to probably kill one A-10, best TN scenario? And both being a pair of A-10s away from instant death?
Of course, a single A-10 death pays for the platoon.
Surprised they don't have Rockeyes, though. They were going to be a bigger tank killer than the Mavs ever were.
They're cheap enough to get multiple detachments. Someone posted the "no fly zone" build last thread, but you only need two or, hell, one and some division support, to put an awful lot of rounds into the air.
Soviets can field their AA assets (both Gophers and Shilkas) as a part of each of their formations, unlike the US AA, which is a force-level asset which can only be fielded once.
And yes, you can field multiple formations within a force.
Having multiple small formations can make them fragile in terms of morale, though.
The fragility is kinda 50-50, though, since equally, the entire regiment won't run off at once. And given just how much cramp two BMP regiments can spam it'll be hard to get everything in bad spirits at once.
Yeah, but you'd be forking out a lot for each extra formation. Hardly viable with tanks, even with minimum platoons. And BMPs still add up, even with minimum platoons.
You get what you pay for, though.
It'll depend, since being Veteran also alows you to hit targets more easily.
And being more difficult to hit can still be useful in case your adversary has an AOP or something like it, even if you have a nice spot to keep them hidden.
So, it'll depend on what else you'll have in your list.
>You still need to knock-out somewhere between 16 and 36 BMP
What kind of list do you see people using, exactly? Do you really expect the list to field 60 points of BMP-1s? Or almost 75 points worth of BMP-2s?
In the meantime, the game has a lot of firepower. As many dragons and M1s and ITVs and Cobras and A-10s, BMPs get knocked down very, very quickly, smoke and concealment or no.
>lists have counters
That's about as true as it is in WW2 FoW. IE, kinda sorta not.
16 BMP-1s is the absolutely lowest, double-formation force there is, and clocks in at 30 points for that. As I say, I doubt people are going to use that, but it's also not 75 points. You're not just getting "haha, brrt" on a BMP-focused list, and you're going to have a lot of AA firing back every time it's tried.
Where the A-10 is going to shine is as a tool for removing soft-skin attachments to tank lists, since tanks you really do need to stick with one formation with. And it's still worth noting that the most expensive AA pairing (4pts Shilkas, 4 points gophers) is cheaper than the cheaper A-10 platoon (10pts for 2).
You said up to 36 BMPs. That's 48 points of BMPs if you only have BMP1s, without manpads, without command.
You're not going to have much in the way of airsupport, helicopters, arty, tanks etc, at that rate.
>you're going to have
Depends on how you use the rest of your list. God knows AA isn't exactly resiliant to anything in particular, and if it's hiding, then it's going to be even less effective. And 12-16 points on just AA is overkill if you're really wringing the multiple formation thing. And that also demands that your onboard platoons are your AA as well.
Like I said. A single dead A-10 pays for the platoon, and best case scenario as far as TNs are concerned, you can statistically kill more or less a single A-10 per platoon, Shilka or Gophers.
I'm saying you need to be able to seriously manage A-10s if you want BMPs to have even a slight chance of getting things done. And that the existing methods of anti-brrrt are pretty ineffective, if efficient about it. You have to attrit down the A-10s, but they can do so much damage to softskinned stuff in such a casual fashion, that either rapidly losing the protected platoon, or losing the AA is a very real possibility. Reserves games are going to make that very hard, I think. Although Shilkas utility against M113s might be a saving grace there if they have to defend.
I think you're underestimating how resilient BMPs will be. It's 4 3+ shots each, so about 2.5 knock outs for each plane, but only 0.8 of those are kills and they're remounting on 3+. If even 2 are still around you can't even scare them off, and they're saving on 3+. And this is on a platoon which is at best 10 points and is showing up on half your turns.
In return, you're likely taking at least a shilka or gopher barrage, and probably both of those and some MANPAD fire since it's only 1 or 2 points. The A-10 is resilient, but it needs to be in this scenario.
BMPs aren't safe from warthogs by any means, but the warthog is going to need to be supported just like anything else.
Not if they're mounted up.
2.5 knock outs per plan puts a mid sized platoon at 0 functioning tanks. Destroy a few, a few don't remount. You've just cut the platoon in thirds. Hell of a way to conduct an assault.
>getting shot down
This is the key issue, I think. It's not that hard to kill the AA, but that means you're not going after the real targets. Depending on terrain, etc, a turn or two might be all they need.
Although if they DO dismount and gear up to assault, that makes for a very nice A-10 target, bombs or guns.
>going to need to be supported
Yes, yes, but unlike every WW2 infantry list that I've played, TY, with Helicopters and A-10s and neat arty rounds, really gives the defender plenty of wiggle room to reach out and fuck up the attacker. It's nice. I'll have something to do in my turn other that miss with the few ATGs I have and wait for assault.
That can be the case sometimes in FoW if you're playing an infantry list in a mission with reserves, but the mechanised nature of all forces in TY and the sheer range of many weapons will force both sides into direct action much more quickly in TY.
Been working on these older Open Fire Shermans. Greenstuff sandbags and lots of gap filling, will they look half decent?
The front two in that picture could use a bit of gap filling between the top hull and the side hull.
But other than that, they're looking good.
The sandbags look in-scale and came out really nicely.
Yeah the gaps at the back aren't so good but an easy fill I think. The sandbags were just made rolling the green into a long sausage and cutting them off one at a time and they came out the right shape. It was quite a quick job.
>What kind of list do you see people using, exactly? Do you really expect the list to field 60 points of BMP-1s? Or almost 75 points worth of BMP-2s?
In my local meta (houston) the russtan players are talking about just that.
Guided missles for cobra/a-10 removal + gohpers plus all the gremlins. high model count = high morale break #.
t72's are going to be cut through like butter so you may as well bring more models with AA capability to netralize american/nato superiority wich will be air.
arty/m1's are gunning for the AA .. paladins are gunning for the aa so the a-10's and cobras can try kill the heavy armor. (if there is any)
If it's the new Open Fire, yes, drop it, it's not a full rulebook. You only want the core rules. The stuff in the Open Fire box that isn't the Core Rules is just quick start stuff.
>The stuff in the Open Fire box that isn't the Core Rules is just quick start stuff.
That seems like a really stupid move on their part. Thanks though, going to go read around the rulebook PDF now.
I completely agree although some of the chaps from P-Funk don't. The thinking is that Battlefront pulled the mini-rulebook from Open Fire as to not overload the new players with information.
I'm working on a FOW conversion for the Levant conflict for use with the Khurasan miniatures.
What do you guys think the ratings should be?
Iraq Army: RT
Not sure about the Syrian army or Al-Nusra though.
Peshmerga gets mountaineers. Kurds are hardy mountain folk.
Syrian army gets a million bayonets, since it's a mix of Russian trained hardasses and fresh forced conscripts.
ISIL needs something to represent the fear/intimidation factor. And if a faction facing them takes US air support as backup air support dice are lost to represent Zionist moles tipping off ISIL about planned air attacks.
ISIL should be FT I think, and SAA should be CV. They've been fighting for a long while and only the vets are left.
Early war (BT series tanks) the uniform was blue overalls, padded helmet, leather belt and a map bag.
Looks almost like a Swedish stridsvagn 74
I should add that personally I don't buy that idea. Terrain will prevent concentration of fire in many cases and the inability to move and shoot the ATGM will make it difficult for a BMP spam list to attack.
It would be a good counter to a Air-power focused NATO list but I doubt its going to be that good against lists that focus more on ground units.
Then again I see lots of FoW groups playing on tables that look more like 40k tables and yeah BMP spam will dominate those, and I suspect they have the same issue with germans heavies..
>"There were 3 rifle sections of 9 men, including the driver, they were armed with 1 84mm MAW, a GPMG and SLRs with upto 6 M72 66mm LAW AT Rocket and a number of smoke Grenades and fragmentation grenades. MAWs may be left in the vehicle dependant on the situation, I tended to dismount 1 with the reserve but not with the assaulting sections. "
From here coldwargamer dot blogspot dot co dot uk slash 2012 slash 05slash orbat-1980s-british-bg-part-7-infantry dot html
Looking at it, the MAW of british troops is their main antitank weapon, whereas the GMSL for the yanks is in their platoons. The brits seemed to have kept their GMSLs as separate groups.
As I understand it, Americans have LAWs scattered about liberally, with Carl Gustavs in weapons platoons, and Javelins/Dragons in Weapons Companies, each incorporated into rifle companies, and battlions, respectively.
WIP BMP, even tho I recently posted this on on /hwg/ as well.
They're the BF ones.
In fact, all of the minis in that pic are Battlefront plastics.
With the BMPs, the upper hulls fit nicely without glue, so I left them separate so I can swap between BMP-1 and BMP-2 as needed.
I've currently got one upper hull per lower hull painted. The other ones have a lower priority than the Hinds and might only get done after the rest of the T-72s.