/hwg/ - Historical Wargames General

File: massacre.jpg (102KB, 600x485px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x485px

>Advanced Squad Leader
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/d9x0dbxrpjg48/Advanced_Squad_Leader
>Battleground WWII
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/cb83cg7ays4l1/Battleground_WWII
>Battlegroup
https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ
>Black Powder
http://www.mediafire.com/download/o5x6blwoczojmfr/Black+Powder.pdf
>Bolt Action
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/n7jmdnlv1n0ju/Bolt_Action
>By Fire And Sword
https://mega.co.nz/#!jxgCWTYD!FCp52DAqIUc-EM-TsRsWv7fB92nJ3kkzKsNcD_urI5Q
>Fleet Series
https://mega.nz/#F!i1N3xZxL!C6fQ3Z8o2U0gtk5kdXuVcQ
>Hail Caesar
https://mega.nz/#F!XsVD0KgT!twB1NWiFE3aKXK_O1EZ4pA
>Impetus
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/28i9gevqws518/Impetus
>Modelling & painting guides
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7b5027l7oaz05/Modelling_%26_Painting_Guides
>Next War (GMT)
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/eupungrg93xgb/Next_War
>Phoenix Command RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!b5tgXRwa!mzelRNrKPjiT8gP7VrS-Jw
>Saga
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/alj31go19tmpm/SAGA
>Twilight 2000/2013 RPG
https://mega.co.nz/#F!C9sQhbwb!NVnD4jvUn5inOrPJIAkBhA
>Wargaming Compendium
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cghxf3475qy46aq/Wargaming+Compendium.pdf
>Warhammer Ancient battles 2.0
http://www.mediafire.com/download/uttov32riixm9b0/Warhammer+Ancient+Battles+2E.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/ta7aj1erh7sap1t/Warhammer+Ancient+Battles+-+Armies+of+Antiquity+v2.pdf
>Warhammer Historical
https://mega.nz/#F!LxkElYYY!FJB5miNmlWZKMj2VfSYdxg
>Warmaster Ancients
http://www.mediafire.com/download/cifld8bl3uy2i5g/Warmaster+Ancients.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/3emyvka11bnna1b/Warmaster+Ancient+Armies.pdf

Desired scans :
Rank and File supplements
Harpoon 3 & 4 supplements
Force on Force supplements
Hind Commander
At Close Quarters
War and Conquest

File: 1207aa03.jpg (75KB, 720x430px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 720x430px

14th February in military history:

748 – Abbasid Revolution: The Hashimi rebels take Merv, marking the consolidation of the revolt.
1778 – The United States flag is formally recognized by a foreign naval vessel for the first time, when French Admiral de la Motte renders a nine gun salute to USS Ranger, commanded by John Paul Jones.
1779 – American Revolutionary War: The Battle of Kettle Creek is fought in Georgia.
1779 – James Cook is killed by Native Hawaiians near Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii.
1797 – French Revolutionary Wars: Battle of Cape St. Vincent: John Jervis and Horatio Nelson lead the British Royal Navy to victory over a Spanish fleet.
1804 – Karađorđe leads the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman Empire.
1831 – Ras Marye of Yejju marches into Tigray and defeats and kills Dejazmach Sabagadis in the Battle of Debre Abbay.
1879 – The War of the Pacific breaks out when Chilean armed forces occupy the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta.
1900 – British forces begin the Battle of the Tugela Heights in an effort to lift the Siege of Ladysmith.
1912 – In Groton, Connecticut, the first diesel-powered submarine is commissioned.
1919 – The Polish–Soviet War begins.
1929 – Saint Valentine's Day Massacre: Seven people, six of them gangster rivals of Al Capone's gang, are murdered in Chicago.
1942 – Battle of Pasir Panjang contributes to the fall of Singapore.
1943 – World War II: Tunisia Campaign: Von Arnim's Fifth Panzer Army launches a concerted attack against Allied positions in Tunisia.
1944 – World War II: A British submarine sinks a German-controlled Italian submarine in the Strait of Malacca.
1945 – World War II: The first day of the bombing of Dresden.
1950 – Chinese Civil War: The National Revolutionary Army instigates the unsuccessful Battle of Tianquan.
1979 – In Kabul, militants kidnap the American ambassador to Afghanistan who is later killed during a gunfight between his kidnappers and police.

File: Rescate_del_navío_de_l&i.jpg (157KB, 1254x791px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1254x791px

It is 220 years since the Battle of Cape St Vincent, one of the opening battles of the Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1808, part of the larger French Revolutionary Wars), where a British fleet under Admiral Sir John Jervis defeated a larger Spanish fleet under Admiral Don José de Córdoba y Ramos near Cape St. Vincent, Portugal.

In late 1796, the military situation ashore in Italy led to the Royal Navy being compelled to abandon the Mediterranean. The commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, Admiral Jervis instructed Commodore Nelson to oversee the final aspects of the evacuation. With the British withdrawing, Admiral Córdoba elected to move his fleet of 27 ships of the line from Cartagena through the Straits of Gibraltar to Cadiz in preparation for joining with the French at Brest.

As Córdoba's ships got underway, Jervis was departing the Tagus with 10 ships of the line to take up a position off Cape St. Vincent. Having left Cartagena on February 1, 1797, Córdoba encountered a strong easterly wind, known as a Levanter, as his ships cleared the straits.

As a result, his fleet was blown out into the Atlantic and forced to work their way back towards Cadiz. Six days later, Jervis was reinforced by five ships of the line from the Channel Fleet. His work in the Mediterranean completed, Nelson sailed aboard the frigate HMS Minerve to rejoin Jervis. On the night of February 11, Minerve encountered the Spanish fleet and successfully passed through it without being detected.

Reaching Jervis, Nelson came aboard the flagship, HMS Victory (102 guns) and reported Córdoba's position. While Nelson returned to HMS Captain (74), Jervis made preparations to intercept the Spanish. Through the fog on the night of February 13/14, the British began to hear the signal guns of the Spanish ships. Turning towards the noise, Jervis ordered his ships to prepare for action around dawn and stated, "A victory to England is very essential at this moment."

File: Cleveley,_Cape_St_Vincent.jpg (709KB, 1280x855px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1280x855px

>>51711185
As the fog began to lift, it became clear that the British were outnumbered nearly two-to-one. Unfazed by the odds, Jervis instructed his fleet to form a line of battle. As the British approached, the Spanish fleet was divided into two groups. The larger, consisting of 18 ships of the line, was to the west, while the smaller, made up of 9 ships of the line stood to the east. Seeking to maximize the firepower of his ships, Jervis intended to pass between the two Spanish formations. Led by Captain Thomas Troubridge's HMS Culloden (74) Jervis' line began to pass the western Spanish group.

Though he had numbers, Córdoba directed his fleet to turn north to pass alongside the British and escape towards Cadiz. Seeing this, Jervis ordered Troubridge to tack to the north to pursue the larger body of Spanish ships. As the British fleet began to turn, several of its ships engaged the smaller Spanish squadron to the east. Turning to the north, the Jervis' line soon formed a "U" as it changed course. Third from the end of the line, Nelson realized that the present situation would not produce the decisive battle that Jervis wanted as the British would be forced to chase the Spanish.

Liberally interpreting Jervis' earlier order of "Take suitable stations for mutual support and engage the enemy as coming up in succession," Nelson told Captain Ralph Miller to pull Captain out of line and wear ship. Passing through HMS Diadem (64) and Excellent (74), Captain charged into the Spanish vanguard and engaged Santísima Trinidad (130). Though severely out-gunned, Captain battled six Spanish ships, including three that mounted over 100 guns. This bold move slowed the Spanish formation and allowed Culloden and subsequent British ships to catch up and join the fray.

File: Rendicion_de_navio_san_jose.jpg (194KB, 1280x962px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1280x962px

>>51711207
Charging forward, Culloden entered the fight around 1:30 PM, while Captain Cuthbert Collingwood led Excellent into the battle. The arrival of additional British ships prevented the Spanish from banding together and drew fire away from Captain. Pushing forward, Collingwood pummeled Salvator del Mundo (112) before compelling San Ysidro (74) to surrender. Aided by Diadem and Victory, Excellent returned to Salvator del Mundo and forced that ship to strike its colors. Around 3:00, Excellent opened fire on San Nicolás (84) causing the Spanish ship to collide with San José (112).

Nearly out of control, the badly damaged Captain opened fire on the two fouled Spanish vessels before hooking onto San Nicolás. Leading his men forward, Nelson boarded San Nicolás and captured the vessel. While accepting its surrender, his men were fired upon by San José. Rallying his forces, Nelson surged aboard San José and compelled its crew to surrender. While Nelson was accomplishing this amazing feat, Santísima Trinidad had been forced to strike by the other British ships.

At this point, Pelayo (74) and San Pablo (74) came to the flagship's assistance. Bearing down on Diadem and Excellent, Captain Cayetano Valdés of Pelayo ordered Santísima Trinidad to re-hoist its colors or be treated as an enemy vessel. Doing so, Santísima Trinidad limped away as the two Spanish ships provided cover. By 4:00, the fighting effectively ended as the Spanish retreated east while Jervis ordered his ships to cover the prizes

The British captured four Spanish ships of the line including two first-rates. In the fighting, Spanish losses numbered around 250 killed and 550 wounded, while Jervis' fleet suffered 73 killed and 327 wounded. In reward for this stunning victory, Jervis was elevated to the peerage as Earl St. Vincent, while Nelson was promoted to rear admiral and made a knight in the Order of Bath.

File: DSC01629.jpg (2MB, 2918x2188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2918x2188px

>>51711219
The victory at Cape St. Vincent led to a containment of the Spanish fleet and ultimately allowed Jervis to send a squadron back to the Mediterranean the following year. Led by Nelson, this fleet achieved a decisive victory over the French at the Battle of the Nile.

Córdoba was arrested on his arrival at Cadiz, taken under military escort to Madrid and dismissed from the service by King Charles IV. Several of the Spanish captains were tried by court martial and dismissed or reduced in rank.

The Royal Navy referred to Nelson's extraordinary feat in capturing the two Spanish ships as "Nelson's Patent Bridge for Boarding" i.e. capturing one ship by crossing another.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/xxfqsxlucf29c6b/Osprey+-+BOR+031+-+The+Royal+Navy+1793-1815.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/h5xwr4i5cptzb1x/Osprey+-+ELI+048+-+Nelson's+Navy.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/n16aw9p7oot5c5i/Osprey+-+MAA+321+-+Spanish+Army+of+the+Napoleonic+Wars+%281%29+1793-1808.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/x9ydonat56qy5mn/Osprey+-+NVA+042+-+British+Napoleonic+Ship+of+the+Line.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/j89z3hah5vcce4b/Osprey+-+NVA+090+-+Napoleonic+Naval+Armaments+1792-1815.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/i0elktttlx6n0pl/Osprey+-+WAR+100+-+Nelson's+Sailors.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/download/ud9u26iriejds77/Osprey+-+WAR+131+-+Nelson's+Officers+and+Midshipmen.pdf

File: 4867iit54u4u.jpg (60KB, 800x472px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x472px

It is 73 years since the Action of 14 February 1944, one of the few naval engagements of the Asian and Pacific Theater involving German and Italian forces.

Following Italy's surrender to the Allies, a group of Italian submarines — including the Reginaldo Giuliani — were interned at Singapore by the occupying Japanese military on 10 September 1943. The Japanese turned the vessels over to the Kriegsmarine which operated several bases in southeast Asia. Reginaldo Giuliani had been converted to cargo service after being found unsatisfactory in an offensive role. The Kriegsmarine renamed her UIT-23, and she sailed for France on 15 February 1944 under the command of Oberleutnant zur See Werner Striegler with a cargo of tin, quinine and other goods. Aboard UIT-23 were several Italian submariners who made up part of the boat's crew.

The submarine was cruising on the surface about 80 nautical miles (150 km; 92 mi) south of Penang, Malaysia just off the western mouth of the Strait of Malacca when it was discovered by the British submarine HMS Tally-Ho, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Leslie Bennington of the 4th Submarine Flotilla. Tally-Ho was campaigning in the strait, where she sank several enemy vessels. Lt. Cdr. Bennington was also cruising on the surface, patrolling for enemy shipping, when she sighted UIT-23 in the daytime. Tally-Ho attacked at full speed. Tally-Ho and UIT-23 were headed straight for one another when they both fired a spread of torpedoes.

Only Tally-Ho made hits, and UIT-23 quickly sank with a loss of 26 men. Fourteen men went into the water where they remained for some time before being rescued by Axis seaplanes and taken to Penang. The survivors were forced to strap themselves to the floats of the planes where they rode out the eighty miles back to base.

File: wgh-cr-27-pullo-vorenus-b-600x600.jpg (54KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x600px

The community project this month, is a mini or unit based on something from military fiction. The cutoff date is the 16th.

File: Valentine.jpg (104KB, 1024x708px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x708px

>No Valentine tank

OP, I...

File: 2017-02-12 23.02.13-1.jpg (404KB, 1538x1826px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1538x1826px

>>51711295
Base unfinished, and the black boots are a bit rough. Any other feedback on my WIP?

>>51712544
Black leggings trimmed red, black moccassins and black and red breach clout.

All perfectly reasonable, but together they make your miniature a bit bland. It's really screaming out for some colour, to my mind.

File: Last-of-the-Mohicans-A.jpg (23KB, 576x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 576x250px

>>51712646
You're right, but unless I attempt the black warpaint it's pretty accurate to the film...

File: 5.jpg (282KB, 1842x1036px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1842x1036px

1800hrs 3 Nov 1956
Sinai Peninsula

After having cleared what resistance remained in the Gaza Strip the bulk of the Gaza Division was tasked to advance down the coastal road west to assist the 77th Division. Two battalions of infantry from the 77th and 24 Super Shermans from the 37th Armored launched an attack on the Egyptian defenders at El Arish along a 4 kilometer front. The Egyptians had fewer fortifications than expected but the defending infantry was backed up by several Archer SPATGs and Sherman tanks. The Egyptian tanks had their normal turrets removed and were armed with turrets from the French made AMX series of tanks. By noon the Egyptian forces had been thrown back out of the city with the only exception being some infantry on the south end of town.

In the center the 38th had finally cleared Abu Agheila and at dawn the division was unleashed to drive west towards the Suez Canal. The division made good time with lead elements clearing 75 kilometers by nightfall. The bulk of the division was scattered up and down the road leading those 75 kilometers back to Abu Agheila, but they were making good progress, passing the mountain Jebel Libni, the corssroads at Bir El Hamma, and securing Tasa Pass.

File: 55.jpg (249KB, 1842x1036px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1842x1036px

>>51713177
The Paras at Mitia Pass regrouped a bit and then they drove hard along the road west as well capturing some Egyptian supply vehicles as the sped twords the town of Port Tewfet at the southern end of the Suez Canal. The paras then turned south and drove for the village of Ras El Suda and then they would continue on to the villages of Tur and Jebel almost 100 kilometers away where the last of the paratrooper companies had landed the night before.

The 9th Infantry Brigade continued to move south and cautiously approached the town of Nabak. Intelligence had reported that there were Egyptian forces garrisoned there but the Israeli troops entered a quite town. The civilians had shuttered doors and windows and there was no sign of the Egyptians anywhere. A quick check of one of the garrisons revealed still warm embers where it looked as if the Egyptians had burned documents before bugging out. The 9th passed through and continued south.

But where was the bulk of the Egyptian army at? Recon flights had shown they had left their staging areas at the Suez Cannal...but no sign of them had been seen since. Where the hell were they?

>>51713177

It's back!

>>51713283
Thrilling! Keep it up mate

>>51713177
>>51713283

Keep em coming!

File: Israeli M113.jpg (158KB, 780x296px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 780x296px

>>51713283
What precisely are you playing?

I think I missed the first post and I'm actually curious about playing this myself.

File: Mideast67.jpg (102KB, 550x415px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 550x415px

>>51713286
>>51713684
>>51714570

got a few more turns to go. wouldnt leave you guys hanging, but dont want to overwhelm you either. 1 post a day is good I think ;) And I will say i think this was probably one of the better campaign games to start off with. 40 turns-only 3 weak divisions and some other units. gives me a good feel for operating large unit formations before i step into one of the monster campaigns. Like the 185 turn campaign game from his Fulda Gap '85 game....with the soviets having 11+ Divisions. not sure im going to do that one yet

>>51714622
Its the 1956 campaign game for "Middle East '67" from john tiller software.

http://johntillersoftware.com/ModernCampaigns/Mideast67.html

File: pr00265.jpg (303KB, 830x1271px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 830x1271px

>>51715507

Do his games ever go on sale?

>>51715949
ive never seen them go on sale, not even at christmas time. It sucks yeah.

File: 16508112_1448241285209625_1628660815211229291_n.jpg (53KB, 800x303px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x303px

>>51715949
on the up side-the Command Ops 2 series is coming to Steam. And they do have sales...quite often!

>>51716287
Speaking of, I just downloaded the core engine a couple of days ago to try it out and really enjoyed the default scenarios. One it goes up on Steam I think I'll pick up the Cauldron and Highway to the Reich modules next time they go on sale.

File: Advanced german tactics.jpg (256KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x720px

>>51715949
>>51716267
The pain of being in a relatively niche market.

File: Steel Panthers Vietnam.png (448KB, 1246x582px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 1246x582px

I know this is only tangentially related, but I don't know a better place to ask.

What are your favourite /hwg/ relevant vidya games?

Pic related is Steel Panthers MBT and one of my favourites for sheer variety of factions and conflicts.

>>51716910
Obligatory Total War comment, but the Conflict Series on Android really tickles my fancy for some reason, especially the Western Front one. It's not particularly complex, but it's good fun.

>>51716910
I really liked World In Conflict, because I also love all the old Cold War Gone Hot wargames, and it's just about the only vidya like that

File: air_512a_002.jpg (173KB, 750x602px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 750x602px

>>51716910
I can't get enough of CK2. I'm enjoying Total Warhammer, which isn't /hwg/, but that series has never been particularly realistic - I just like lining up my dorfs and cannon.

I keep going back to Firefight over the years. http://www.windowsgames.co.uk/ff.html Real-time WW2 tactics where your units will bog down into suppression hell, making you really appreciate the importance of reserves.

Advanced Tactics Gold is also pretty fun.

I keep meaning to try to learn SAM Simulator. https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home I mean, I've given it a very shallow look and done a few war crimes against airliners, but anything more than that...

File: Voot.jpg (656KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 1024x768px

>>51716910
Original Shogun Total War, both Medieval Total War games too, mostly for the mods. So many mods.
Close Combat series, especially #3.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm for dat WW3
Samurai Warriors 4-II; I'd know far less about the Sengoku Jidai if that game hadn't given me reason to be constantly looking up who the characters were IRL, which the Total War games never managed

>>51711138
"Historical" Wargames

An excuse to play your white conqueror sims.

>>51718800
It annoys me when games are written by historical illiterates who spend years studying minute details of the 69th SS Fuksteins but lump all brown people into "lol they're like tribal and shit" and consider in-depth research for the game they're writing to be reading the *whole* of the wikipedia article's summary paragraph.

Also I'm bad at games so the white conquerors tend to die horribly. :)

>>51718800
>>51718912
t.butthurt former colonies

>>51719013
England's still a colony, though?

fucking saxons, coming over here, stealing our land and acting like they own the place

and don't even get me started on rome

>>51719067
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

>>51719134
remove garum

File: steel_panthers_mbt01.jpg (359KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1024x768px

>>51716910
SP:MBT is indeed a superb game, especially with the mods they put out; there was a Twilight 2000 campaign that I particularly loved. Of course Close Combat and the Total War series too, as already mentioned. I would add the Sturmovik series too; not just was it a cracking flight sim but the amazing editor allowed you to design huge battles with all air/ground/naval elements, then sit back and watch them play out. I've never encountered a game that had the same kind of variety.

>>51719134
>>51719180
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

>>51719552
>free version
>40 bucks to get artillery and the ability to see how high terrain is
fuck

>>51719552
>The mods they put out there

Ok you've peaked my interest, what mods would these be?

>>51719668
>what mods would these be?
It's been a while since I looked - years honestly - but there was one based on battles from T2K as I mentioned, an Indonesian/Australian war one based around the "Tomorrow When The War Comes" books, and stuff for the wars in Rhodesia/Mozambique. I'm trying to dig up the old link but it's been so long I don't know if it's even active, so you may have to google around.

>>51716910
I found Men of War to be excellent. 1 V 1 head to head LANs were some of my best vidya / wargaming experiences. True fog of war (meaning recon is actually important - get those binocs out...) and fairly accurate armor / infantry / artillery tactics and implementation, plus the ability to actually drive tanks and go on crazy suicide scouting missions in cars.

Vidya is definitely one place where fog of war can be done excellently.

>>51715507
>1 post a day is good I think ;)

One a day is perfectly fine. Your AAR posts are gifts, so no one should be squawking about their frequency.

>>51719134
Conjugate the verb!

>>51718912
If you don't like how games handle it write your won rather than whinging. I know you're shitty bait but other more reasonable people may see this.

Did anyone have a copy of the expansion for Crossfire? I didn't see it in the list.

File: infinity player.jpg (10KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 183x275px

>>51718800
t.infinity player

>>51723839

What? No George?

>>51716823
at least they are not as bad as some of the Matrix stuff...that stuff pushes $100 for some titles. ok mostly just the stuff by Gary Grigsby

>>51716461
i tried the tutorial some months back. I want to like it..I really do...but i found what the turotial was telling me to do and how to do it in game were 2 different things. I suppose if I sat down with it and dug into it pretty hard I would be able to figure it out.

and more than likely I will at some point now that its on steam.....


>>51716910
Direct Wargames? Anything from John Tiller Software, The Scourge of War series, most anything Matrix puts out...

cursory wargames-almost anything Paradox does, the Total War series, I will lump the Sid Miers Civilization games in here.

Ill admit I always hated Steel Panthers. far to easy to manipulate the game. Want to make sure you are guaranteed a victory-hunt down his HQ and kill it. Stack the biggest arty you can and load it up with ammo depots next to them-unlimited artillery......far too many-cheesy exploits

File: 1466219114835.jpg (63KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x385px

>>51723839
>Can't help but see Rick Moranis as a Tommy.

File: 1111.jpg (240KB, 1842x1036px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1842x1036px

1800 4 Nov 1956
Sinai Penninsula

The question on the minds of all Israeli forces was where the hell was the Egyptian Divisions? Air recon hadnt been able to find a single trace of them anywhere. Because of this-in the north the 77th and Gaza Division decided to stop advancing one reaching the town of Misfak. A bulk of both divisions were scattered back along the road all the wat back to Israeli territory. IF one of the Egyptian divisions was in the area, now was the time to form up a cohesive combat formation.

In the center the 38th Division continued its advance and managed to reach their major divisional target and found it occupied by Egytpian forces. Was this part of one of the Egyptian divisions? Israeli tanks formed up and started their attack with the AMX tanks in the lead and backed up by 20 Super Shermans. It looked like it was going to be a long night for the 38th.

The paratroopers made huge gains as they raced down the coast and manage to occupy the village of Abu Zenima with little trouble. The decision was that the paras would stop at this village and reform.

The 9th Infantry Brigade cautiously approached the village of Ras Nasrani, and were unsure if they would be met with gunfire or if it was going to be unoccupied as the village of Nabak had been. Gunfire erupted from the village and a sharp bitter firefight erupted but the Egyptians were quickly routed and the 9th continued on. Thier goal of Sharm El-Sheikh was only a few kilometers away. As the Israelis approached the town they ran into a string of pill boxes and both battalions of the 9th deployed for combat. b nightfall they had pushed several Egyptian forces back out of the town, capturing several pillboxes and the bulk of the town.

File: hurr hurr.png (23KB, 640x264px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x264px

I would appreciate if anybody has any advice on these campaign ideas for Hail Caesar in 15mm. (Hellenistic/Punic era)

The groups of players are represented by the red side and the green side. Winning the first battle will result in the armies belonging to the winning side setting foot in the territory controlled by their opponent. (For example, if the green side wins the first Pitched Battle, the next battle would be a Raid scenario in the red territory. If they win again the next battle will move another box to the left and so forth)
The campaign lasts until one side successfully conquers their opponents’ capital, represented by the Siege battle on the linear campaign representation below.
.


Each month each player’s army increases by 30 points to be spent in your chosen Hail Caesar army list (excluding generals). Points may be saved to buy more expensive units later on in the campaign.

If a unit was broken during the game, roll a die. On a 4+ this unit is considered shattered and the procedure for shattered units shown below is applied. On any other result the unit has retained enough men and organization to return to normal fighting capacity.

If a unit was shattered during the game, roll a die. This unit gains one of the following special rules:
- 1 or 2: Freshly raised
- 3 or 4: Levy
- 5 or 6: Militia

If a unit has broken an enemy unit in combat and has survived the battle unbroken, roll a die. This unit gains one of the following special rules:
- 1: Steady
- 2: Stubborn
- 3: Eager
- 4: Brave
- 5: Elite
- 6: Drilled

If a unit already already has the special rule rolled for, the controlling player must roll again on the table.

>>51716910
Not sure if you want to count it since its battles are mostly skirmishes but Jagged Alliance 2 (with the 1.13 mod obviously) remains my number 1.

Panzer Corps with its immense german DLC campaign is pretty awesome too.

>>51711171
>1944 – World War II: A British submarine sinks a German-controlled Italian submarine in the Strait of Malacca.
This piqued my interest, and I found this
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/KM/IndianOcean/index.html
Absolutely bloody fascinating.

>>51725460

I had similar Strategic rules for my first attempt - it bombed real quick, as I (essentially) fought one and the same battle over & over again.

Your rules are pretty good (although less harsh than mine) - standard post-battle, reinforcements-are-coming, stuff, no problem there.
The main problem is (or will become, IMHO) linearity.

Top advice: Make some rules that will throw a curveball at you.

>>51718800
Low quality bait.

>>51726928
It seems as if one side would snowball in terms of quality, and points increases are linear and equal.

Perhaps have defeats lead to an increased point value going into the next game, as a balancing mechanism.

Perhaps have somewhat randomised scenarios/scenario progression.

>>51726175
>Absolutely bloody fascinating.

Sunk by a RN sub, right? Almost like a duel. Both sub spotted each other about the same time, both launched torpedoes, but only the RN aimed true.

There was another sub vs. u-boat "duel" very late in the war. The submerged RN sub detected, tracked, launched on, and sank the submerged u-boat entirely by hydrophone (passive sonar). Fucking fantastic considering the tech at the time.

>>51726928
Thanks.
We have 6 players, 3 of whom have armies ready to field. We don't get together very often, so I didn't think playing the same kind of battle a few times wouldn't be that bad (we do that now anyway).

But maybe you are right about the linearity, I was thinking of maybe giving the ''defender'' some extra troops the closer to his capital he is? City guards, fanatical mobs.. quickly raised troops or mercenaries?

>>51727112
Good idea, but it is also to get people painting their armies. Making them paint extra is maybe not the best.
Random scenario's is good. I was thinking some cool stuff in the ''Raid'' battles (cattle stealing, convoy protection, that kind of stuff).

Good to have some input guys!

>>51727404
Would there be any way of getting rid of the special rules? So if an Elite unit was broken they would lose elite or a Levy surviving lose Levy?

Sounds good to me though! Genuinely intrigued!

File: 373_large1.jpg (118KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x600px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bs07OvqXp4

>>51730755
YON MODDES BE ASLEEPE, POSTE YE SHANTIES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_2g_kNTBek

File: IMG_20150425_111428.jpg (2MB, 4208x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4208x3120px

>>51730791
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY1fUAPYH3M

File: IMG_2273 (2).jpg (326KB, 1600x992px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1600x992px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08g_IcFXLcM

>>51716910
The original three from Battlefront

Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
Combat Mission II: Barbarossa to Berlin
Combat Mission 3: Afrika Korps

Countless scenarios are available online for free.

>>51731950
MAH NIGGA

I have Beyond Overall still installed. I spent so many hours on that shit holy fuck.

File: Afghanistan.jpg (147KB, 800x539px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x539px

>>51731950
>Based Combat Mission mentioned in this thread

I'm more modern, with Combat Mission: Afghanistan
Combat Mission: Shock Force
Combat Mission: Red Star

How do the old games hold up these days?

File: minqar.jpg (425KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1280x1024px

>>51731950
>>51732462
Oh man, how could I forget Combat Mission! So many hours sunk into those games. What made it so awesome was the fact it was like a minis game where you could zoom down into your army mens' perspective. I loved the alternation between the planning phase and the action phase; nothing like watch your plans fall apart in real time!

>How do the old games hold up these days?
They're still playable as hell, there's an active fanbase which continues to crank out skins and scenarios. I played a bit of Afghanistan; particularly the Operation Storm-333 mission which I fucked up completely.

I still have two screenshots saved from my CM days. Here's my valiant Kiwi major going down fighting at Minqar Qaim, as the Afrikakorps overrun his position. This was (both historically and in the game) a desperate last stand, as my valiant diggers had nothing but grenades and their fingernails to fight back against Stukas, PzIIIs and motorized infantry, yet they still clung on to the bitter end.

File: KVburning.jpg (526KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1280x1024px

On a more successful note was this Barbarossa-era scrap with the SS-Totenkopf regiment fighting against an armoured Soviet counterattack. They had no serious AT to deal with a KV rolling in; so I distracted it with one squad (seen in the distance) while another stalked around behind it in true panzerjager fashion and rained molotov cocktails down on the beast, igniting the wheatfield around it and frying the Ivans.

>>51720831
Men of War, Wargame red dragon and Graviteam Tactics Opstar

>>51730791
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWS5dGSDOc

File: doppelsöldner.jpg (45KB, 345x674px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 345x674px

>>51730967
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0szqSd0osoE

>>51716287
On the topic, PSA: Command Ops 2 is now available on Steam and all it's modules are 20% off. Would recommend.

>>51729956
I have added something for that now. An experienced unit utterly destroyed during a battle will get fresh replacements, experience waters down.
A freshly raised, militia or levy unit will lose that special rule after having fought and survived a battle.

File: 1462825339930.jpg (211KB, 1180x788px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1180x788px

In Bolt Action how much trouble am I in if I base my force around a historically accurate British platoon?

That is HQ, three rifle sections with Bren and an SMG for the NCO plus a PIAT and a 2 inch mortar. I have heard the game does not always favour historical forces.

File: IMG_20170212_154953.jpg (3MB, 2432x3286px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2432x3286px

>>51738888
nah. if you want to play tournaments you will encounter assholes playing cheese but in a friendly game you're fine with that.

>>51738888
I only played with historical OOBs, and usually to good effect.

File: 716_middle.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>51734680
I remember playing Combat Mission for month nonstop.
Such a great game.

I even have a couple of pics made in 2004 from it.

>>51738888
>I have heard the game does not always favour historical forces.

That's a function of all rule sets which balance game play by build points rather than victory conditions be it DBM, WH40K, Bolt Action, or anything else.

You want a game to be balanced so each side as an equal chance of winning but, unless you're "recycling" historic battles & skirmishes, it's hard to come up with victory conditions that aren't "Destroy/damage more units than your opponent does".

Take ASL. I can balance a historical scenario by using the historical outcome: Do better, you won. Do worse, you lose. Step away from a historical scenario and suddenly you're using points and army lists in an attempt to create a balance. Because points and army lists are partially subjective, things can get hinky.

As >>51738963 correctly points out, you start getting players who "game" the points and build list rather than playing the game. An example from DBM are players who field entirely legal armies which just happen to be 100% cavalry.

Unless you run into an "asshole playing cheese", using a historical OOB should provide you with a worthwhile game.

>>51738888
You lack something against armor. Sure, the PIAT, but its not that great.
I don't know what would be historically correct as AT-support for such a unit, but bring either a AT-gun or a tank of some sort.
Besides that you'll be fine. Sure, some nasty cheese lists can and will beat you, but i wouldn't recommend playing against WAAC-guys anyway.

>>51739533
Not him, but with my true-to-organization Tommies I use a 6pdr along with a PIAT, and that's usually enough.

>>51736838
Motherfucker, I'm broke until I get paid.

...ooh, base game is free and it comes with a couple of scenarios. That's OK, then.

I've been waiting for this to come to Steam for a while, it looks really neat from some LP-style videos.

File: end.jpg (103KB, 1842x1036px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1842x1036px

0600 5 Nov 1956
Sinai Peninsula

The only real action that passed through the night of the 4th and the morning of the 5th was the actions of tanks of the 38th Division clearing the crossroads final division objective and the 9th Infantry brigade securing its hold on Sharm El-Sheikh.

At this point, Israeli forces were put onto standby and told to cease combat operations as actions outside their hands were taking place.

The entire war that the Israelis initiated had been a plan put into effort by the British, French and Israelis against Nasser of Egypt. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, cargo shipments to and from Israel had been subject to Egyptian authorization, search and seizure while attempting to pass through the Suez Canal. In late 1954, Nasser began a policy of sponsoring raids into Israel by the fedayeen, who almost always attacked civilians.

Starting in 1949 owing to shared nuclear research, France and Israel started to move towards an alliance. Following the outbreak of the Algerian War in late 1954, France began to ship more and more arms to Israel.By 1956 France as one of Israel's largest allies.

Throughout 1955 and 1956 Nasser pursued a number of policies that would frustrate British aims throughout the Middle East, and result in increasing hostility between Britain and Egypt.

Britain was anxious lest it lose efficient access to the remains of its empire. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil.

File: large_000000.jpg (73KB, 800x483px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x483px

>>51740285
On late 5 November, an advance element of the 3rd Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment dropped on El Gamil Airfield, a narrow strip of land, led by Brigadier M.A.H. Butler. The "Red Devils" could not return Egyptian fire while landing, but once the paratroopers landed, they used their Sten guns, three-inch mortars and anti-tank weapons with great effect. Having taken the airfield with a dozen casualties, the remainder of the battalion flew in by helicopter. The Battalion then secured the area around the airfield.

At the same time, Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Chateau-Jobert landed with a force of the 2nd RPC at Raswa. Raswa imposed the problem of a small drop zone surrounded by water, but General Jacques Massu of the 10th Parachute Division assured Beaufre that this was not an insolvable problem for his men. 500 heavily armed paratroopers of the French 2nd Colonial Parachute Regiment (2ème RPC), hastily redeployed from combat in Algeria, jumped over the al-Raswa bridges from Nord Noratlas 2501 transports of the Escadrille de Transport (ET) 1/61 and ET 3/61, together with some combat engineers of the Guards Independent Parachute Company

At first light on 6 November, commandos of No. 42 and 40 Commando Royal Marines stormed the beaches, using landing craft of World War II vintage (Landing Craft Assault and Landing Vehicle Tracked).[236] The battle group standing offshore opened fire, giving covering fire for the landings and causing considerable damage to the Egyptian batteries and gun emplacements. The town of Port Said sustained great damage and was seen to be alight.

File: positions.jpg (281KB, 1842x1036px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1842x1036px

>>51740333
The British government faced political and economic pressure. Sir Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister, announced a cease fire on 6 November, warning neither France nor Israel beforehand. Troops were still in Port Said and on operational maneuvers when the order came from London. Port Said had been overrun and the military assessment was that the Suez Canal could have been completely taken within 24 hours.Eisenhower initially agreed to meet with Eden and Mollet to resolve their differences, but then canceled the proposed meeting after Secretary of State Dulles advised him it risked inflaming the Middle Eastern situation further.

And what had happened to the 2 Egyptian Divisions? They had taken up positions in the Gidi Pass, north of Mitia Pass and sat there the entire war.

(ok...way to much actual historical stuff in there but i wanted to put some context onto why the war occured. Hope people enjoyed!)

>>51739533
That is why I said base around.

There will be an AT gun, a tank and such in there too as attached support depending on scenario. I just wanted the core of the list to be a period accurate platoon.

>>51740285
>>51740333
>>51740375

Thanks for all that.

>>51738888

I run an Operation Lightfoot-era Desert Rats list that is extremely similar to that (swapping a Boyes AT Rifle for the PIAT). It works just fine as long as you have a gentlemen's agreement in your meta to all field historically-inspired and/or historically-accurate lists.

There are two things to note:
1) if you go to open tourneys, you will have a Bad Time. Open tourneys are, as you surmise, completely dominated by a-historical play (notably fielding all minimum-sized infantry groups in multiple platoons to maximize support weapon choices and to generate the largest number of order dice).

2) As you get into Late War era, particularly with Germans, the whole concept of the "gentleman's agreement" starts to break down, because you can almost always find an example of some unit, somewhere, at some time, who through heavy casualties fielded very small numbers of troops and very large numbers of support weapons, playing into the aforementioned min-maxer's hands. This is easily dealt with in a local club setting (just extend the agreement to "paper OrBats are your sources unless the rest of the club agrees to it). This would allow you to field something like Team DeSobry's Day 1 defense of Noville (platoon of M10s, company of M4s, platoon of M8s, company of engineers, company of armored infantry), which had no relation to a proper OrBat but is clearly a theme list that isn't going to be exploitable in the manner I discussed above.

Oh, final note: it's fine to take company and battalion-level assets to support your accurate platoon. A sniper team is a battalion-level asset, as is a 6-pdr AT gun, both of which I strongly recommend. Likewise, a Vickers team is a company-level asset, and you really should have one available.

>ok, off to take pics for the /hwg/ community project

>>51741075

...or I could have refreshed the page and found most of those points were answered already. Oh well.

File: 1432822469527.jpg (221KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x682px

>Bolt Action gives Shermans an "easily catches fire" special rule

Some memes will just never die will they?

>>51741075
Thanks, and see >>51740461 that was just going to be the base. I plan to have an AT gun, a machine gun team and such like.

>>51741366
>Some memes will just never die will they?

Nope.

Although I did read somewhere an actually interesting defense of everyone giving Shermans a "catch fire easily" special rule. It's there so there's a distinct mechanical contrast against later-model Shermans which had wet storage and thus don't have the "catch fire easily" rule.

Yeah, I know there's some logic holes there, but IMO there's also a valid point.

Oh, and for your comparison, my go-to Bolt Action list is:
OPERATION LIGHTFOOT THEATRE LIST
1 Batt, Rifle Brigade + attachments
22nd Armored Brigade, 7th Armoured Division

>HQ .........................93 points
2nd LT (50) Regular
+1 aide (10) Regular
Medic (23) Regular
+1 Aide (10) Regular

>Light Mortar Team.....35 pts....Regular

>Able Section..........123 points......Regular
NCO (50) Cpl
+4 OTOs (free)
+5 OTOs (50)
Bren Gun (20)
NCO SMG (3)

>Baker Section..........123 points......Regular
NCO (50) Cpl
+4 OTOs (free)
+5 OTOs (50)
Bren Gun (20)
NCO SMG (3)

>Charlie Section..........123 points......Regular
NCO (50) Cpl
+4 OTOs (free)
+5 OTOs (50)
Bren Gun (20)
NCO SMG (3)

>Vickers MMG Team.....65 pts....Veteran

>QF 6-pdr AT Gun....75 pts....Regular

Sniper Team.....50 pts.....Regular

>No6 Commando Team.....95 pts.....Veteran
NCO (70)
+4 OTOs (free)
5 SMGs (15)
AT Grenades (10)
Bren Carrier for Commando Team....72pts....Veteran

>1st Royal Tank Rgt. Mk VI Crusader III........145 pts.....Regular

Total: 994 pts

(I misspoke above about the Boyes. I include that into 1250-pt lists, not 1k lists)

File: 1455299560732.jpg (56KB, 794x800px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 794x800px

>>51741612
Thanks, that's basically what I was going for but with a PIAT team and a Cromwell vs the commandos and a Crusader.

Since I think I am going to go for late war Western Europe.

Why the fuck can't Warhams be as affordable and fun as something like Bolt Action, fuck

You get significantly more fun out of most of Warlord Game's lineup with far less investment than any GW stuff barring like Blood Bowl which is completely different

>>51742784
Because it's GW, what did you expect?

Anyone had any experience painting a lot of 10mm medievals? Struggling to find the motivation at the mo, and don't know how to space them when basing.

>>51743179

I just finished my first Napoleonic in 10mm. Stuck them on a base. Now the question is how to get sand between the little guys and paint the sand without getting them all brown.

What a horrible scale! Battalion looks great though.

>>51743179
>base colors
>wash or dip
>wait to dry
>dull coat
>...
>PROFIT

good night /hwg/, i'm going to bed

I've decided to dust off my copy of merc 2000 and give it another go, but I kinda feel weird running games in actual countries, especially in africa, dunno why, so does anyone have any Imagi-nations, african (especially psudo-west african) or central asian to share?
Thanks much, lads

File: Constitution vs Java HWG Community Project.jpg (4MB, 2328x4752px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2328x4752px

OK, /hwg/, here's my entry for the community project. I selected a passage from Patrick O'Brien's "Fortune of War", which places Jack Aubrey as a passenger onboard HMS Java during its engagement with the USS Constitution.

The Java's foremast was shot off at precisely 3:05 PM by the Constitution's logbook. As far as I can make it, the relative bearings of the ships and the wind direction (indicated by sail positions and flags) are as accurate as I can make them as per the combat track chart here:

>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Constitution-Java_battle_plan.png

Possible historical inaccuracies:
1) The HMS Java had ordered "all sail" to compensate for Constitution's larger sail area. The appropriate sail set was not available from Langton Minis.
2) The colors HMS Java was painted in are not known; the only period painting of the engagement has both ships in identical colors, and those colors are definitely wrong (green instead of black). The most common color pattern for RN ships at the time is the gold-on-black pictured.
3) The hullform for HMS Java is not available in miniature form (being a short-run, French design); consultations with Rod Langton informed me that this was the best equivalent; it's off by 2 guns and holds an extra 1/2-millimeter of beam.
4) There is conflicting evidence as to the direction the foremast fell (though all agree the wreckage covered the deck and made firing the forward guns impossible); I've chosen the most stable mounting.
5) The ships aren't rigged because this is the first time I've done rigged ships in this scale. I could not source the shrouds (the "ladder"-like ropes on the sides of the masts) in time and IMO they're impossible to scratch-build at this scale.

Things that you think are inaccurate but are correct:
1) The US flag in 1812 did actually have 15 stars and 15 stripes.
2) The lines on the sails of the Java are essentially the same color as the sails themselves and so are not picked out

File: dio_thanks.jpg (24KB, 300x317px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x317px

>>51744330
thats pretty damn cool.....

>>51744330
Top stuff m8

>>51744153

Doesn't AK47 Republic have a system for rolling up "Ecetera-stans"?

>>51744330

WOW!! The skill and abilities of the modelers here never fails to astound me.

Thank you so much for sharing with us.

>>51744445
It certainly does, I just figured that anons might have more complete and more interesting ideas than would come from tables alone.

>>51743515
I got 90 infantry the other day and they're just fiddly little bastards to paint.

I cant decide most of all whether to space them out relatively loosely or pack them tightly together and have a shield wall. Then I won't be able to base them easily.

Why did I abandon 28mm?!

>>51711138
Hey /hwg/ I'm interested in getting into Bolt Action with a friend of mine and was wondering what point set is a good start. He's used to playing wh40k Kill Team so I want to start him on similar ground.

Also, I want to start a DAK army and was wondering which Citadel colors would be a good start (I have a fuckton of them already)

I appreciate any input! Thanks

>>51745115
500 to 1000pts
warlord do sell 500pt and 1000pt starter boxes
most consinsting of a good base of infantry with support weapons (mortar, mmg, antitank gun)
and a tank

File: USA-P-Marianas-p426.jpg (122KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x414px

>>51741366
>Bolt Action gives Shermans an "easily catches fire" special rule
I approve and find this hilarious.

You can always play a game that doesn't base its rules on the history channel if you dont like it

>>51742784
Warhammer is pretty cheap to get into these days, especially fantasy, you can buy peoples second hand armies for cheap. BA and Warhammer are about the same price, both pretty expensive compared to smaller scales or cheap scales like 1/72

>>51745152
Cool thanks anon! I was looking into that. I want a Afrika Korps themed, would it be heretical if I got normal german grenadiers and painted them as such? Or should I just get the Perry DAKs?

>>51742784

But BA is Warhams. As one anon said once, BA is Warhammer 40k 3rd edition where everyone is playing Imperial Guard and instead of Space Marine releases you get Nazis.

One thing that I don't like about BA (well, the rules ARE Warhammer derivatives, but probably the best 40k they could pick before 5th ed retardation) is that it's killing everything else in my area. Play BA or you are out as everyone is doing that. It's kinda puzzling, and it's giving me weird flashbacks to my teen years when stuff like AT43 or Warmahordes failed to find any grip on my area due to sheer intertia.

Bah.

>>51745161
>BA and Warhammer are about the same price, both pretty expensive

Where care living for that to be the case

>>51745182
go look at perry miniatures they do a good box of afrika korps and desert rats

>>51745210
Thanks anon, you're a saint.

Can't wait to get some afrika korps and make all my shit look jerryrigged/used/battered as fuck.

I'm excited. The Afrika Korps is my history nerd fetish.

>>51744330

Damn, dude, that's amazing. That's starting to turn the corner between "game piece" and "art". Well done.

>>51745295
Entry-level.

ABDACOM is my fetish

>>51745838
>ABDACOM

Theatres of war that don't actually matter are, indeed, worthy material.

>>51745295
>>51745182

Anon, I have a pair of boxes of Perry DAK here unused, where are you based?

>>51744330

You shouldn't have posted this just before all the Britbongs went to bed.

File: image.jpg (84KB, 744x504px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 744x504px

>>51745838
Excellent taste anon.

File: ww.gif (45KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x240px

Hello guys, I am new to historical games and I am interested in a setting in Wild West but preferably with a funny twist. Checked the links for miniatures but didnt find anything of good quality that is not only cowboys. Any help?

>>51732462
They hold up very well. I have an old laptop and still go into battle every once in a while.

File: Wittmancmbb4.jpg (106KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x600px

>>51749447
Forgot pic

>>51746215
I'm in Southern California, US.

My email is turtlemedik@gmail if u want to talk more.

>>51741612
>Although I did read somewhere an actually interesting defense of everyone giving Shermans a "catch fire easily" special rule. It's there so there's a distinct mechanical contrast against later-model Shermans which had wet storage and thus don't have the "catch fire easily" rule.
So where's the Panther's special rule for occasionally catching fire just for having the engine turned on?

It's a stupid rule for wehraboos.

>>51748630
Wild West, but with a funny twist. How about something set in Manchuria, in 1939, based on this film?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good,_the_Bad,_the_Weird

It's a really good film and Western as fuck.

File: 204f95e46f85cacc06522fe96d999f6f_f5709.png (633KB, 750x493px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 750x493px

>>51748630
Have you check out Foundry/Perry Bros?
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/our-ranges/old-west/

>>51750667
>So where's the Panther's special rule for occasionally catching fire just for having the engine turned on?

Oh get over yourself. Shermans did burn easier than anyone else's tanks, just not as much as the popular meme says. They did get named Ronsons for a reason, and all your bitching can't change that there's a reason for them to have been called that.

>>51750996
Shermans burning was mostly to do with being shot by 88s and long 75s on the regular - weapons designed to annihilate medium tanks.

It was one of the most common allied medium tank on the western front, and the germans had a shit ton of long 75s and 88s, as well as HEAT rounds etc, so its no wonder they got a bad reputation. Purely the fault of U.S. armor design thinking a medium tank from 1942 would still be relevant in 1944.

This doesn't really need a special rule to implement though, just make 88s and long 75's annihilate medium tanks in a single hit, most of the time (assuming they dont already? - I'm not a BA player)

Problem is a BA armies rarely feature more than 1 long 75mm or 88mm gun, or at least from what I've seen.

>>51751086
>Problem is a BA armies rarely feature more than 1 long 75mm or 88mm gun, or at least from what I've seen
Yes, platoons should have multiple 88s, that would fix it!

>>51751142
The field gun of the 88 should at least be relatively cheap due to them being common and inexpensive to produce.

Make common things cheap and points efficient and uncommon things expensive and suddenly you get incentive to build historical-esque lists.

Things that require a lot of maintenance or are prone to break down (Tiger, Panther, etc.) should be expensive, and more reliable things that were easy to mass produce and maintain like the Sherman should be cheap.

You dont really need special rules like tiger fear or shermans prone to burning, just have things perform like they did irl and have their points costs reflect their rough power, with rarity and ease of production / maintenance factored in.

More game designers should think more about how unit points costs influence how the lists are built and how the game plays. With correct points you can encourage historical lists and still maintain balance.

>>51751086
>Purely the fault of U.S. armor design thinking a medium tank from 1942 would still be relevant in 1944.
not necessarily. The Sherman wasn't designed as an anti-tank weapon but mainly with infantry support in mind. Anti-tank role was assigned to the attached anti-tank guns like the M-10 or M-18. at least afaik.

>>51724004
*baldrick

>>51751245
>with infantry support in mind
well it still failed at that. I'm talking about the armor protection, not the armament. Even just against AT guns the armor was insufficient.
I mean, compare it to the IS-2 or the Churchill w/6pdr and the Sherman really doesn't seem up to the job of even infantry support, especially against a dug in opponent on the defensive with large caliber AT guns. Its not like they didn't know about PaK-40s, 75mms and 88s. Its mostly that they didn't have anything else in large enough numbers, so they used what they had. It was mediocre for the job, but they had enough to get it done. Just like the T-34 - cheap medium tank spam eventually overwhelms expensive medium and heavy tanks in smaller numbers

Interview with a Sherman gunner if anyone's interested

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8lpEHaWTI

>of 5 tanks, only 1 made it past some german TDs
>his tank gets hit and burst into flames immediately

I love videos of WW2 veterans talking about their experiences

>>51751305
>well it still failed at that

eh, it was all right. even with its relatively piss-weak gun it could ruin a pillbox's day.

>>51751305
An idiot has spoken.

>>51751305
dude, you're comparing two super heavy tanks of late war design with a medium tank.
The Sherman was adequate for the job it was designed for. srsly all this "Sherman is shit yo. King Tiger could take it out with just one shot!" talk all the time. yeah no shit.

>>51751228
>Things that require a lot of maintenance or are prone to break down (Tiger, Panther, etc.) should be expensive, and more reliable things that were easy to mass produce and maintain like the Sherman should be cheap.
Due to their higher armor and better gun, they are more expensive, I rarely see anyone fielding them. When we played a 3k big battle, the German player berought 2 Panthers, 1 King Tiger, and maybe a Pz II lus some Fallschirmjager, while we, as the Soviets gt like 3 T-34s, KV-1s (completely ahistorical in a late war battle, but didn't have anything else available), a Su-85, an M3 Lee plus fuckton of infantry...

>>51751086
>Purely the fault of U.S. armor design thinking a medium tank from 1942 would still be relevant in 1944.
What about the Pz IV, a design from before 1940?

>>51751086
The problem is idiots will just never let go of the idea that a medium infantry support tank should actually be a heavy tank designed to defeat Tigers. Which just proves they do not understand anything whatsoever about logistics or armoured warfare.

BA also slobbers all over the T-34 and pull the 'best medium of the war' bit even though its inferior to the Sherman in any realistic sense. Another stupid idea that needs to go away.

File: IMG_20160513_155333_resize.jpg (425KB, 1314x973px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1314x973px

>>51752021
>BA also slobbers all over the T-34 and pull the 'best medium of the war'
it does? point wise it's not better than the Sherman. The Sherman actually (especially the 105mm one) is one of the best, if not the best tank in BA.

>>51752058
In the descriptions.

How do these nonsensical ideas even come about. The T-34 does not have a clear advantage over the Sherman in any respect but is less reliable and less ergonomic for its crew. And the Sherman is no more fire prone than any tank, less if anything since it has wet storage which not everything did.

>>51752096
>The T-34 does not have a clear advantage over the Sherman
Didn't they make more? Also, the 85mm gun on the latter versions was pretty good.

On the other hand Soviet tankers favored lend-lease vehicles because they were usually more mobile and were more comfortable. Afterall, the T-34 was made by the country whose leader thought it's a good idea to execute all competent military leaders before going to war.

>>51752115
'More of them were made' is not really something you can compare two vehicles with individually.

Besides, when they made them that fast quality was awful. I have seen actual modelling magazines say it does not matter if the panels on your T-34 do not fit quite right, the real ones often didn't either.

For what it's worth the one time Shermans and T-34s went head to head (in Korea), the Shermans did pretty all right. Admittedly, these were Easy Eight Shermans with a 76mm gun and much better optics than what the T-34-85s the DPRK had.

>>51751964
It could be reliably killed by the still cheaper and more numerous Sherman, even with the late models applique armour and was exceptionally vulnerable to any of the towed AT guns in use by the Allies post '42. Much like the Sherman Or the poor Cromwell which was an excellent 1942 tank except it wasn't made until '43 and didn't see combat until '44 the Pz IV was past its best years well and truly by the time of the Normandy campaign but none of them were truly obsolete designs, and still did good work in their respective militaries.

File: f74ce117345affe509efcd77f630dd3c.jpg (35KB, 564x402px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 564x402px

>>51744330
Sexy, and it shows a level of research and thought that I don't think any of our other submissions have so far. Really blows us out of the water.

File: Peter Cushing and his toy soldiers.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>51753056
Speaking of which, it is the 16th, so show us what you got /hwg/

File: Getheredammit.jpg (79KB, 168x387px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 168x387px

>>51753067
Unfortunately, this is all I have as of this morning.

Gonna be a late submission, along with another late breaking idea I didn't have time to really carry out.

>>51753067
My dog ate my homework...

No really though. My sister knocked a hussar to the ground and my dog bit him in half. Waiting for a second sprue since last week.

File: 2017-01-01 07.12.32.jpg (158KB, 750x1687px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 750x1687px

Not worth taking more photos yet, still waiting for inspiration to strike for how to spice up Magua.

Any suggestions for the next project?

>>51753215
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pCv7k_Hzvg

>>51752058
Wasn't the frant the best tank in the game at one point but hasn't the rules on 75mm guns solved that?

>>51745161
I couldn't tell that they were about the same price. Also, the reason I've stayed out of Warhammer fantasy is because of Age of Sigmar shitting things up. I like WHFR but that's pretty much it.

Anyways, just from checking prices on their websites it seems like you get a lot more value out of Bolt Action purchases vs Warhams purchases. They seem to be at least 25%-40% cheaper in many cases.

>>51754607
I agree with you.

BA is far cheaper than even WH AoS if you compare with new prices. Even used AoS is pricey.

BA- 30+ models new $30
AoS- 16 models for $36

Vehicles are also cheaper.
BA- ~$35 or $80 for 3.
WH40k- $45-60 unless used. A used chimera w/shit paint on eBay came to about $30-$36.

It's not even a fucking comparison. BA is cheaper than GW. And I'm a huge wh40k fag.

>>51754607
>>51754918
Its a consequence of there being more completion in historical games. You cannot copyright real life units from WW2.

>>51755147
Khm, Battlefront, khm.

>>51754918
>Vehicles are also cheaper.
>BA- ~$35 or $80 for 3.

It becomes even more insane if you use Tamiya models for your vehicles. A 1/48th scale vehicle (use 1/48th, it looks better than 1/56th) is generally about $20 and you can often get free shipping.

I got three Universal carriers ($13 ea), a Churchill ($20), a Matilda ($18), and a Sherman Firefly ($20) for a bit under $100 last month. Including shipping.

>>51744330

Goddamn, NEA. Is that why you haven't been doing anything in the Battletech threads lately? That's amazingly well done. I also agree with >>51753056. That puts the "historical" in historical wargames front and center.

>>51751228

Are you the "no special rules ever" guy again? Look, whether you want it or not, special rules are going to continue to be a thing. Even <if> you're right in your arguments, if you release a wide-scale historical game like Bolt Action or FoW without special rules, you're going to have a fuckton of gamers jumping on your ass because you <didn't> include the special rules. It's a no-win scenario, and at least if you include the special rules you can claim that you THOUGHT about the topic, whereas there's no evidence at all that you even considered the issues if you leave everything up to point cost.

Also, a game that breaks down into "take as many 88s as possible", "fire 88", "hit", "remove Allied tank" would be miserable to play. Games do still have to be played, and being completely true to history is almost always terrible to actually play.

File: t34 advance.jpg (301KB, 762x1018px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 762x1018px

>>51752096
>The T-34 does not have a clear advantage over the Sherman in any respect
Except for in fuel economy and cross country performance, in which the T34 definitely outclasses the sherman.

>>51751383
>>his tank gets hit and burst into flames immediately

What's wrong with this guy? Doesn't he realize anon said that Sherman's weren't prone to catching on fire? How dare he contradict anon.

>>51750996
>They did get named Ronsons for a reason
They literally didn't and the meme catchphrase about lighting first time every time wasn't even used by the company until after the war was over.

>>51755730
At this point the people spreading this meme are just being malicious.

They cannot even fall back on ignorance.

>>51755691
Just about every tanker that's been in a tank that got hit and penetrated thought they were a deathtrap, regardless of what type of tank it was.

>>51755691
>What's wrong with this guy?

Next interview ask him how much ready ammo they had stowed against orders in the turret bustle, faggot.

The Tommy Cooker/Ronson myth has been debunked since the 40s, asshole. Educate yourself.

>>51755909
Nah, tanks catch fire when shot. That guy's talking about a platoon of tanks under fire from tank destroyers, and probably other stuff. That's got a good chance of killing any tank.

The meme is that Shermans are hyperflammable deathtraps, not that they can catch fire.

...they're also notably pretty good at catching fire more slowly and being easier to escape from than other designs, so you get more stories from crews whose tanks caught fire and survived than in, say, Tigers who get shot in the front by a Sherman and die after their armour spalls and kills the crew while plates of it just fall off. Not that that Tiger would be reported as lost for several days, though, it'd stay on the books as active until it was bravely destroyed by its own crew after single-handedly annihilating several enemy battalions that weren't even within a hundred miles of it.

>>51750775

these are nice, but I am not sure about the funny twist. Something like fat mexicans or prostitutes with guns.

File: 1440003060641.jpg (404KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1680x1050px

Is there a reason the heavier tanks seem to be quite rare in Bolt Action?

>>51756477
They don't seem that cost effective

I had a really big game of bolt action couple weeks ago.
And the german player took mostly panthers and tigers and two king tigers

While the allied players did take a few chruchill but mostly shermans and buried them in target saturation.

>>51756477

Min-maxing. Also the fact that heavy tanks WERE rare, especially compared to the numbers of medium and light tanks in basically every theatre. But mostly min-maxing.

What tends to win fights in BA is twofold: first, the availability of support pieces outside the infantry squad, like artillery or fixed MGs or light vehicles. Second, having more order dice is *always* better for a whole lot of reasons.

So when min-maxed, the "optimal" builds out of the existing BA rules tend to be several tiny squads of infantry to create multiple platoons. The availability of support pieces is dependent on the number of platoons you bring; bring 1 platoon, you can have 1 MMG team, 1 medium mortar, and 1 armored car. Bring 2 platoons, and you can have 2 MMG teams, mortars, and armored cars.

Since heavy tanks are very high-point-cost units, bringing them is directly anathema to the accepted min-max build strategy. For the cost of 1 Regular Tiger (you *don't* want Inexperienced heavy tanks), you get 1 unit that can shoot at 1 thing per turn and 1 order die. Alternatively, you can get 2 small infantry squads, 2 mortars, and 2 MMGs for about the same cost, giving you 6 order dice and a far better ability to generate Pin markers, plus all those units can't die at once to a single shot the way any tank can.

It's for this reason why I advocate strongly that BA lists be generally accurate to a period "ideal" OrBat for a unit. Not that accurate OrBats would necessarily mean more heavy tanks, but that it at least shuts this sort of min-maxing down relatively well.

>>51756587
>They don't seem that cost effective

They're incredibly NOT cost-effective. Eats a huge chunk of points, almost certainly will never see a return. You're basically better off every time with just a medium tank that mounts a couple of machineguns.

>>51756712
I'm fine with the big cats being wehrb bait that causes them to whine when they lose.

>>51756632

Everyone should read this post until they understand it.

Thank you, NEA.

File: m8-greyhound-02.png (490KB, 1600x1195px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1600x1195px

>>51756632
It seems like '1 platoon per 1000/1500 points' would solve so many problems.

>>51757077

Thank you.

>>51757156

Only partially. It's probably the simplest answer, yes, but it will end up being extremely constraining on the composition of some forces. Some low-equipped horde forces (like folks who run Soviet conscripts) can actually have problems equaling 1000-ish points in a single platoon.

The reason I like "use an 'ideal' historical OrBat to justify your list" more is forces players to research things and put a greater emphasis on the history. It'll occasionally force people to play non-optimal mixes of forces, which is precisely what historical gaming is supposed to be about. It *does* make things more difficult on a hypothetical tournament organizer, but honestly, BA is a lousy game for tournament play in the first place (much like the game it was based upon).

With all that said, I can't think of any list-building fix that would generate a greater utility for heavy tanks, aside from Age of Sigmar-style "bring whatever you want" sort of play. As long as initiative is tied to the *number* of units you bring, a single large expensive unit will almost always be an inferior choice to several less-expensive units.

Finally, BA is hardly the only game to run into the "horde army = better" issue. There was a microarmor system I recall playing years ago. An Abrams or a Leopard is priced at something like 100 points. A Stuart light tank was ~4 points. What would happen almost every time is that the Abrams platoon (4 tanks fighting 100 Stuarts) would kill about half of them without fail...and then be *literally* buried in Stuarts making ramming attacks until the Abrams crews starved to death.

>>51757944
>Some low-equipped horde forces (like folks who run Soviet conscripts) can actually have problems equaling 1000-ish points in a single platoon.
A single 12-men Militia squad without anything added is 63 points - 5 men with rifles, the rest unarmed. You can take 5 of these for 315 points, plus command, let's say we're at 400 points. Then you can take a mortar, MG, sniper, flamethrower, transports, armoured car, tow, artillery, medic, observer, tank, etc. etc. Nobody troubles putting a single platoon on the table from 1000 points.

>>51758103
>mortar, MG, sniper, flamethrower, transports, armoured car, tow, artillery, medic, observer, tank, etc. et

Except for perhaps an artillery observer, somebody running genuine Russian conscripts should have none of those things.

File: Sun Yat-sen's Mausoleum at Nanjing, 1938.jpg (127KB, 903x568px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 903x568px

>>51757944
>4 Abrams fighting 100 Stuarts

That sounds like a shitty /b/argument thread.


It's hard to make points (semi)balanced within a given period and fielding units from across eras is probably never going to work well in a points system.

>>51758580
Ffs...believe me, what fucks shit up is not 3 platoons of unarmed guys running around, collecting pins but minmaxing faggots taking 5-men Volkssturm squads, all with Assault Rifles.

>>51758949
>but minmaxing faggots taking 5-men Volkssturm squads, all with Assault Rifles

Yeah, 3 platoons worth.

>>51758949
In all fairness, thats not too a-historical given the nature of fighting in the late war.

>>51759013
StG44s were not that common.

>>51758988
Yes, did I say otherwise?

>>51759013

Just ban late-war Germans. Those seem to be where most of the butthurt comes from.

File: IMG_20170216_204525.jpg (2MB, 3231x2404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3231x2404px

The first dozen of my Compagnies Franche de la Marine.

>Brits out REEE!

File: IMG_20170216_204508.jpg (1MB, 3422x1457px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3422x1457px

Some militia or marines in field/patrol clothing.

File: Ardennes.jpg (72KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x570px

>>51759039
>StG44s were not that common

They were produced in surprisingly large quantities and it wouldn't be all that surprising to see them concentrated in units at the scale Bolt Action takes place at.

Trying to definitively say "this didn't happen" when referring to late war German defensive efforts is ignoring the ad-hoc nature of that effort.

File: IMG_20170216_204450.jpg (2MB, 3947x1625px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3947x1625px

some more militia/marines

File: IMG_20170216_204808.jpg (2MB, 3012x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3012x2432px

And finally some sweet banners by GMB designs. I have a four more militia, eight injuns and ten more line needed to complete the force.

I am also unsure as to basing. I am thinking mostly deadfall/leaf litter to match my British aligned injuns but part of me is tempted by snow and a winter theme.

>>51759162
>Trying to definitively say "this didn't happen" when referring to late war German defensive efforts is ignoring the ad-hoc nature of that effort.
If you play against such lists over and over again, you'll question the validity of such lists yourself. Germans in Normandy happily used K98s and Gewehrs but I swear to fuck I've had enough of that shitty StG. Friend sends his list to me, open it, 3 squads full of assault rifles. Grand. And then he complains about my free arty observer and how OP it is.

any ASLbros that have scans of the scenarios from starter kit 2? the SK2 content in the mediafire links are just the rules, no scenarios.

>>51759274
Oh no, its entirely reasonable to find it extremely irritating and cheesy, but its not entirely a-historical.

Bad sportsmanship really.

>>51759395
>Bad sportsmanship really

Fuck sportsmanship. The point of a wargame is to win. If you weren't supposed to do it, there'd be a rule against it or it wouldn't be legal in the first place.

>>51759472
O hai current/ex 40k-player, this is /hwg/.

>>51759472

The point of an historical tabletop wargame is to have fun throwing dices, putting your military surplus USSR officer cap while leading your Soviets, putting Nazi music on and ending the thing driking and laughing.

Methinks yer wrong.

>>51759472
>fuck sportsmanship

you're a cunt

>>51759472
>t. Warmachine player

>>51759506
>>51759529
>>51759530
>>51759537

It must burn you people up to have to lose to people like me, over and over again. Late-war Germans are the absolute best, because since they fielded practically anything in every combination, it doesn't matter what I field. It's going to be historically accurate somewhere.

And there's nothing any of you can do about that.

>>51759616
>And there's nothing any of you can do about that.
They can stop playing with you. That's what I did with our groups try-hard wargamer anyway. His army is collecting dust now. Mine isn't.

I don't play BA anyway

>>51759616

But I don't lose to people like you. I don't even meet people like you.

*Goes forth singing,drinking and throwing soviets around*

>>51759616
I don't even play Bolt Action. It's just a really shitty attitude.

>>51759616
>It must burn you people up to have to lose to people like me, over and over again.
It must burn when you run out of people to play with :^)

File: Crusader_III_AA_Tank_Armed_with_Twin_20_mm_Oerlikon_Guns.jpg (112KB, 1186x898px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1186x898px

I am torn between the fact it was hardly ever used in combat historically and the fact that the Crusader AA looks really cool.

>>51759616
A really bimbo minkia!

>>51759641
>They can stop playing with you.

Bingo. That's what we do with try-hards and their 100% cavalry DBM armies.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3024x3024px

>>51753137
Well, my box of Dragon Dildos finally arrived.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3024x3024px

>>51760475
Most of the pile is stuff to fill out my ABDA and Marine Nationale collections some more.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3024x3024px

>>51760502
The aforementioned Dragon Dildo and the two bits that go with it that will be late submissions. Also have another separate project I'll probably just post pictures of later for shots and giggles rather than as a submission.

>>51760552
curious to see how they look painted up. still not a fan of the 3d printing thing but willing to keep an open mind

>>51759111
How did you make the flags?

>>51760648
I bought them, I said later on. I purchased them from GMB.

File: Graham+Bonnet.jpg (39KB, 245x315px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 245x315px

>>51759472
t. infinity player
> The point of a wargame is to win. If you weren't supposed to do it,

no the point is to play the game to have fun, you are the cancer in the wargaming

>>51760769
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrCw-IufvV8

File: Deployment02.jpg (898KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 2560x1536px

>>51745838
>>51747523
My niggas.

>>51756477
I take a heavy tank every game.
My opponents know this, yet never take effective counters.
They're silly, and my glorious Soviet steel bounces shots from light AT guns all night long.

File: Crusader AA Mark III SKYRAKER, 5 RTR 22nd Armd Bde 7th Armoured.jpg (61KB, 720x704px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x704px

>>51759762
I remember reading that 5 RTR used theirs pretty extensively in NW Europe, attached to their Recce Troop to provide Fire Support against dug in infantry and AT guns.

>>51755909
>The Tommy Cooker/Ronson myth has been debunked since the 40s, asshole
>Tanker who was actually there describes the tank catching fire and/or exploding every time it was hit.
Gee, good thing they "debunked" what actually happened. Its already been covered that this is primarily the fault of the Shermans armor, it wasn't up to the job like the infantry support tanks of the guys who had been fighting since 1940 and had the experience of what was needed against the German weapons, by the time 1944 came around, IS-2 and Churchill were far better suited to infantry support.

>>51759162
>They were produced in surprisingly large quantities
Lots of them were left in warehouses and not distributed to combat units. Compared to other standard German infantry weapons, they were pretty rare.
Production doesn't always equal widespread usage

>>51761906
To be fair, the Sherman was designed as a general-purpose medium tank, not a pure close-in infantry support or massively-gunned tank killer.

It filled the middleweight, decent-at-everything role well, while also being excellent in terms of repairability.

>>51762151
Yeah it was good in the maintenance and ruggedness department, and had pretty good speed.
Patton thought they would need a fast, maneuverable tank in the invasion, and that lightly armored TD would be able to speed around the flanks and destroy heavier tanks, but he thought wrong, they needed a slow moving heavily armored tank like the Churchill and I dont think they realized that heavy tanks wouldn't be sitting out in large open fields waiting for a fast TD to outflank them. Patton probably focused too much on what he learned in the desert.

>>51762231
>they needed a slow moving heavily armored tank like the Churchill
They honestly didn't though.
Decent mediums were the backbone of every army (see T-34, Panzer IV/StuG G) in terms of armour numbers.

Even for the Brits, most effective fighting was done by Shermans or "fast medium" Cromwells.

Another issue for the US was transportability.
The logistical issues in shipping in anything significantly bigger (never even mind heavier because harbor cranes) than a Sherman made such a choice non-viable at a large scale anyway.

>>51762299
>Another issue for the US was transportability.
Yes thats a good point. There was a weight limit, so thats why we see a lighter medium being used when a heavier medium or heavy tank would be much more suitable. And hence the name ronson - light, maneuverable medium tanks being used in static ambush situations against heavy weapons.

>>51761906
Isn't the "Ronson" nickname a myth though? Because the "lights the first time, every time" ad blurb wasn't even used by the company until the mid-50s?

File: Ronson Ad from 1929.jpg (236KB, 840x1142px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 840x1142px

>>51763587
>Isn't the "Ronson" nickname a myth though? Because the "lights the first time, every time" ad blurb wasn't even used by the company until the mid-50s?
nope, Pic related. By the 40s and 50s they had much more sophisticated ad programs, the Germans were quoting an older slogan. By the 40s and 50s lighting every time was likely not such a big deal.

File: Ronson lights every time.jpg (356KB, 1193x1600px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1193x1600px

>>51763587

Not quite. There was a 1927 Ronson ad that was close enough to easily make the linguistic jump/drift. Pic related.

There ARE WW2 vets who insist that M4s were nicknamed Ronsons. Unfortunately, there's no real way to tell if they're mis-remembering due to the myth that was created in the 60s and 70s as documentaries and interviews became common, or if they're referencing the very real tendency to brew up *slightly* easy due to poor and/or improper ammo stowage, or if they're referring to the fact that the flamethrowers in some of the converted Sherman flame tanks were in fact partially made by Ronson and Brit troopers occasionally referenced the Sherman flame tanks as Ronsons due to *that*. Or any combination of the above. Or that they really did nickname them Ronsons - in their specific unit - because some old SGT remembered that Ronson ad.

Shermans originally got "easy to catch fire" rules in wargames due to ignorance, and those rules are kept in the game for both tradition's sake (people will yell at the devs who take that rule out), and to differentiate them from the more stable "wet stowage" designs. It's hardly ideal, and it's not good history, but it's at least *understandable* how this whole clusterfuck came about.

So how were rear torpedo tubes used on subs?

File: aft_torpedo_crop_intro.gif (30KB, 900x357px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 900x357px

>>51766175
You mean aft, not rear, me old lubber! Seriously though it was added firepower, providing them a few more torps to shoot off; also an effective defensive weapon, you could swing away from approaching escorts and still fire at them. Some sub skippers (Otto Kretschmer comes to mind) used to sit in the middle of a convoy and fire off both fore and aft tubes, blazing away like a drunk in a saloon.

>>51759529
No joke tho when I play Black Powder I wear my kepi and play Dixie while shouting at whatever yankees dare oppose me.

>>51767502
>Let me tell you about Carthage

File: C42uv1qWAAALYCa.jpg (162KB, 1200x888px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1200x888px

>>51767728
got myself 2 MDF 88s for 2 bucks as terrain pieces or objective markers. next step is painting them up and build a small fortification to put them in.

>>51768064
They look really nice from what I can see, anon. Are they MDF as in lasercut MDF or was the manufacturer called MDF?

File: C43q0nvXUAA8I4u.jpg (176KB, 888x1200px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 888x1200px

>>51768807
they're lasercut MDF.

>>51768064
Where can you get them?

File: Sculpt Comparison.jpg (468KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1000x750px

>>51769228
Did you have a file and someone you knew with a laser cutter? Because otherwise that's a ridiculously awesome deal. Also, did you supply the barrels, or were they part of the kit?

>>51760637
If you take the time to prepare your models properly (which isn't any different from any other model, really), they take paint pretty well. All my Shapeways stuff is White Strong and Flexible, which is the cheapest material. It's got an initially grainy quality to it, but it's significantly cheaper and it's more durable than the detail plastics. The biggest trick is to use something that seals the plastic and fills the grain a bit, and to lightly sand it if there's noticeable lining. Pic related is a comparison between an Axis and Allies: WaS La Galissoniere (fore) and a Shapeways one (rear). Note that the Shapeways one is also an early war variant and the WAS one is a late war upgrade.

You can see that some of the texture is still a little apparent, but it's not really noticeable at all on the table, while the detail from the sculpt still is.

>>51769446
unfortunately they're not for sale. I've got them from a kind anon from Belgium, who printed 10 of them but only needed 8 in the end.

>>51769526
>Did you have a file and someone you knew with a laser cutter? Because otherwise that's a ridiculously awesome deal. Also, did you supply the barrels, or were they part of the kit?
the barrels are self supplied. the original ones were square shaped.
and yes >>51769527

>>51769526

Ohhh... thank you SO MUCH for that comparison photo.

I've seen plenty of printed stuff like the pic >>51760552 kindly shared with us, but I've never seen the finished product so to speak.

You just convinced me to give the printed stuff a try. Thanks again, kind Anon!

>>51769733
You can find a load of pictures of 3D printed ships here:

https://naval-war.com/navypedia

This guy mostly uses FUD (Frosted Ultra Detail) quality prints though, quite a bit more expensive than WSF. In the details at each picture he listed the print and the material used for the mini.

>>51770275

Thanks for the link!

File: Marine Nationale.jpg (391KB, 1200x433px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1200x433px

>>51770370
Don't just look at the pretty pictures, make a forum account and give the game a try as well.

Beta version of Fear Naught's up on WargameVault for pay what you want.

http://www.wargamevault.com/product/205460/Fear-Naught--Quick-Naval-Wargaming?src=newest_recent

>>51769526
>but it's not really noticeable at all on the table, while the detail from the sculpt still is.

and looking good on the table from a few feet away is about the only thing that really matters!

>>51752635
Except the Americans actually did a good job of modernizing the Shermans by doing more than just "throw on more guns/armor)

>>51766261
See, I thought that, but then I saw mention of firing aft torps with the gyro angle at 180, which would imply using them to attack forward. (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/SS-Doct/index.html, chapter 4 section 1, gyro angle)

>>51774447
That's a pretty neat document. Thanks for sharing!

>>51774557
The "Misc Resources" section is one of the best for primary sources (even if a decent chunk aren't there and probably can't be found outside collections)

>>51768064
Weird reply

>>51748630
If you want a good game system, check out Dead Man's Hand.

>>51748630
>>51779455
This, have played this quite a bit and can definitely recommend it as doing more than just cowboys. The system is simple but has a good set of additional bits of detail to make it more than a bland skirmish game. It does need a default 'gang fight' scenario though as the ones provided in the book are very narrative-based. I have some notes somewhere on what worked out as a good default that I should look up...
The card-based activation is nice (and I am glad the cards come with the book, not even needing to be cut out) and keeps things tense, and the additional plays that can be made by using the cards add nicely thematic and not particularly unrealistic (a bit cinematic but a lot more Dollars trilogy/Unforgiven than Bonanza) extra bits of chaos to the play. And I do like a good bit of chaos in playing to keep things not entirely mechanically predictable.

Though somehow I/my group were managing to get even the simple rules wrong and having too many cards to play by not limiting the amount that could be played in a turn/replenishing the hand by 3 at the end of each turn... which actually worked out just fine and I think made for a better game because it was still a case of having to be careful with their use, and playing counters (playing a card of the same number to stop an opponent's card play) happened more so it didn't even unbalance things.

What's the tactical viability of a historical mid-war German squad in Bolt Action? (i.e. One NCO, one SMG, five riflemen, three man mg team)

Would an army composed in such a way be able to put up a proper fight or should I go with something else?

>>51781060
>should I go with something else?

From what I understand, every BA german player takes nothing but 5-man squads with maximum STG44s and occasionally some mortars or armored cars.

it depends on your local meta mate. If they're cunts, then no. If they're cool, then yeah it'll probably work.

File: IMG_20170121_144906_resize.jpg (791KB, 1216x1643px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1216x1643px

>>51782246
>From what I understand, every BA german player takes nothing but 5-man squads with maximum STG44s and occasionally some mortars or armored cars.
no one I've ever played used something like that. it's a massive waste of points because 5 man squads with StG44s die way too fast.

to answer >>51781060
Yes that's a perfectly viable composition. especially since MGs were now upgraded to 5 dice and 36" of range. also: MGs in BA only need 2 men. shooter and loader.
and give the MP44 to the NCO by the way.

File: 1312690348462.jpg (149KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x853px

All this talk makes me paranoid about putting a veteran squad with assault rifles in my force if I have late war Germans.

>>51784182
>MGs in BA only need 2 men

I'll likely treat him as a spotter or such and just give him another rifle. I haven't checked the rules for BA2, is it no longer 2 smg per squad?

Anyone know where to pick up some good plastic Germans besides Warlord?

>>51784660
>plastic Germans
nope.Warlord makes the best in that regard. Only plastic would be perrys DAK.

>>51784883
Damn. I like Warlord's but the plastic machine gunners are hell to position properly and I don't particularly want to shell out money for a metal team.

So apart from making LMG's better and lowering the range on assault rifles has BA2 changed anything massively?

>>51785350
>Catalog
Templates, pins on vehicles and flamethrowers have been nerfed

File: Tyskt infanteri på väg till fronten.jpg (611KB, 1247x911px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1247x911px

I want to create an armoured list. Since I already have a Panzer IV I think I could build on that. Is the Panzer III Zug viable?

The list would then be one Panzer IV and three Panzer III with a sprinkle of infantry in transports.

File: 15th PzrGrnDiv.jpg (1MB, 1383x778px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1383x778px

>>51784660
>Anyone know where to pick up some good plastic Germans besides Warlord?

Do not - I repeat - DO NOT pick up the Wargames Factory plastic late-war Krauts.

They had a Christmas sale where boxes of them were $6, so I picked one up (plus a PIV-H and a couple of Hanomag 251) so build an OPFOR since most of the local players play late-war Allied forces. These minis are *miserable* to build and paint. They're multipart plastic, but they're not actually "multiPOSE" without a fair amount of milliput to fill gaps. They come with some MP40s, Kar98s, and a couple of Gewehr 43s (including scopes), but no StG 44s at all.

Most damning, the detail sculpted on the models is so flat as to be almost completely nonexistent. The load-bearing gear straps disappear after a single coat of spray primer and a single baseboat. The faces are so flat it's near-impossible to wash them. The stick grenades tucked into their belts are closer to spatulas than being round. The detail on the pouches and belt is to flat you can't really highlight it by picking raised edges.

Oh, and just to be a kicker, the mold lines are near-impossible to remove. First because the detail's so goddamn flat that if you take off the mold line you'll take off what detail there is. Second, they do things like have the mold line on the 98ks run LENGTHWISE down the side of the weapon...and across the detailing for the bolt action while they're at it.

I didn't get what I paid for. I paid too goddamn much at $6 for 30 minis. At least painting the tank has been fun (everything in photo still WIP).

>>51785606
Based on your description and my experience with the models...you're just a bad modeler. I really had no problems putting them together, the biggest problem was that there are no support weapons compatible with them.

>>51785630
>you're just a bad modeler

Did you not see upthread? >>51744330

Fuck mate, did you just not see the tank?

>>51785687
Not bad, but nothing spectacular desu.

The WGF minis are certainly not as bad as he described them to be.

File: Desert Rats Perry & Warlord.jpg (1MB, 1383x778px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1383x778px

>>51785630

Yeah, except my complaint isn't really about putting them together. They go together just fine as long as you're following the directions about "put these two arms on this torso". My primary complaint is about the irritation of painting them after assembly.

Compared to painting Perry Bros Desert Rats or Black Tree stuff or even the official Warlord minis, the detail relief on these models is extremely low and therefore very annoying to paint if you like using wash/highlight painting on your minis pretty much at all.

I've got no issues painting Perry or Warlord, as my current WIPs of my Desert Rats should indicate. But the WGF are just annoying as shit to work on.

File: WGF Review.png (483KB, 1201x995px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1201x995px

>>51785768
>>51785630

Right. So what's it like working for Paul anyway? I heard that Wargames factory was getting restructured; does the PR head position pay well?

NEA's hardly the first person to point out that the relief on the minis is terrible.

>>51785844
>you don't think they are absolute shit so you're shilling for a company that doesn't exist now

Flawless logic, Sherlock.

File: 1459919462239.jpg (180KB, 645x912px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 645x912px

>>51785870
You called someone a bad modeller because he pointed out a blatant flaw with some models and posted a picture that illustrates that fact.

There is literally no sensible reason for you to act like this.

>>51785844

C'mon man. This isn't BattleTech General - don't start with the "shill" stuff for somebody defending a company. Keep /hwg/ chill. Yeah, I disagree with him, and yeah, my opinion happens to be backed up by other reviews and so forth. That doesn't mean we need to take the argument there.

WGFDefenderAnon, for what it's worth, I think the WGF 15mms are quite nice. And I had less of an issue painting the 28mm US infantry for one of the guys in my meta; the detail seemed slightly higher and *definitely* captured the shading wash better, especially on the face. I just have had a miserable time painting the Germans, specifically. Or are you telling me that my opinion and experience are objectively wrong?

>the lack of support weapons in *all* of the WGF 28mm boxes is irritating, but there's that whole "you get what you pay for" thing going as well.

>have to go actually run a game now.

>>51785962
>Or are you telling me that my opinion and experience are objectively wrong?
If your usual methods don't work, try something else. Just because a mini doesn't take washes well, it doesn't mean other techniques won1t work either. Case in point, Claudia Zuminich did a wonderful work on the WGF US figures.

File: claudia_zuminich_us.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>51785983
Shitty screenshot from the Youtube video.

File: IMG_20161127_124213_resize.jpg (833KB, 1643x1216px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1643x1216px

>>51785937
>There is literally no sensible reason for you to act like this.
some people man. some people

https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-82-war-is-heck-feat-pisspiggranddad-21317

Stupid modern wargaming inspiration?

>>51785999

Wow, those paints aren't completely smooth, moldlines are still visible, and the whole thing isn't clearly done by a professional painter like Claudia Zuminich. You must be a bad modeler.

File: Saxon hornblower.jpg (131KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 2048x1536px

FOR GOD'S SAKE GET YOUR GROUND LIGHTS ON

>>51786029
I had to search very hard for those moldlines though

>>51786037
I've never thought about it before, but how far should you drill your horn?

>>51786047
So deep it can produce a sound when blown.

>>51786029

kek

>>51785999

You really should look at the mold lines on the helmets, though.

>>51785112
>I don't particularly want to shell out money for a metal team.
Oyvey?

File: IMG_20161029_144747_resize.jpg (943KB, 1643x1216px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1643x1216px

>>51786058
>You really should look at the mold lines on the helmets, though.
maybe when I find the time. they're barely visible on the table and don't bother me or anyone I play against.

>>51785983

You do know that saying a professional painter is capable of making minis look good does not actually invalidate any of the claims about the quality of the minis which have been posted, right? I'm pretty sure if I handed an actual ball of shit to Michelangelo and said "sculpt something beautiful", I'd get back something beautiful. That doesn't mean the beautiful thing isn't actually still made of shit, though.

>>51786121

Bout everyone knows that if your minis don't look good in extreme closeups under harsh lighting instead of being viewed from a meter away under house light, then they're painted terribly.

>>51786178
>Bout everyone knows that if your minis don't look good in extreme closeups under harsh lighting instead of being viewed from a meter away under house light, then they're painted terribly.
okay. if you say so.

>>51786205
>okay. if you say so.
I think that was a joke

Hi /hwg/ sorry if this is kind of a dumb question or a repeated one but I'm looking for scenery. like trees, buildings and such for a WWII game I'm preparing. any good site with kits for sale? thanks.

>>51786554
Any particular scale?

>>51786564
here it says. 15mm minis. now I don't know about vehicles measures.

>>51786693
I believe 15mm corresponds roughly to 1/144 and N-Scale.

File: img_3161.jpg (1MB, 1936x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x1936px

>>51786693
>15mm
Well that's good, lots of stuff for that.
JR Miniatures: http://www.jrmini.com/shop/jrmini.php?m=product_list&c=65
Miniature Building Authority: http://www.miniaturebuildingauthority.com/products.asp?cat=15mm+European+Buildings
You could try asking in the Flames of War /fow/ thread too, that's 15mm; check out this: https://brooklynwargaming.com/2014/03/16/flames-of-war-modelling-western-european-terrain-in-15mm/

>>51786735
No. 1/100 is much closer, and n is different depending on continent for arcane railgrog reasons.

>>51786735
>roughly to 1/144
1/100

>>51786745
thanks, I'll check these pages. if anything else I'll come back again.

Covert Intervention Games is now manufacturing Elhiem stuff and there's some agreement between them as it relates to CIGs upcoming ultra-modern ruleset.

No word on how this impacts this impacts Elhiems relationship with Ambush Alley Games.

>>51786797
>Covert Intervention Games is now manufacturing Elhiem stuff
Hmm, that's interesting. Never heard of Covert Intervention Games before but let's hope this is something good and doesn't make things sour between AAG and Elhiem.

>>51786830
> Never heard of Covert Intervention Games

That's because they're so covert.

>>51786848
Hah! It also seems like Elhiem's prices rose a bit

>>51786766
It's because N isn't a scale, it's a gauge. N gauge means your train tracks are 9mm.

>In the United Kingdom, a scale of 1:148 is used for commercially produced models. In Japan, a scale of 1:150 is used for the models of 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) and 4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm) in gauge trains, while a scale of 1:160 is used for models of standard gauge Shinkansen (Bullet Train) models. In the U.S. and Europe, a scale of 1:160 is used for models of trains, irrespective of the gauge of the real trains from which they are scaled. All of these scales run on the same 9 mm (0.354 in) track gauge (N gauge). This means the track is a little too narrow for 1:148/1:150 but the difference is usually considered too small to matter. Strict 2 mm fine scale modellers use slightly wider and usually hand-built track.

>In Britain, some N scale models are built to "2 mm scale" for "2 mm to the foot" which calculates to a 1:152 proportion. Early N scale was also known as "OOO" or "Treble-O" in reference to O and OO and was also 1:152, though for an entirely different reason.

1:144 is the closest wargaming scale, which is (obviously) half 1:72, where you find a lot of the classic model kits. Those are 20mm. Unless you're reading old grogs and ranges from back in the day where they were called 25mm, because measurements on figures are weird and some people went to the top of the head, but that all settled down in the end and 1:72 is 20mm now.

ish

1:100 is 15mm. Or maybe 1:110. 1:120 if you squint. 1:72 is right out, unless it's a particularly small model, because model scales tend to be somewhat inaccurate due to box size constraints and laziness.

>>51786878
That's separate from the CIG partnership. It's related to the pound being depressed

>>51787533
>It's related to the pound being depressed
Yeah, I know. Should've been more elaborative with my sentences there.

File: BMP DDDDDDD.jpg (179KB, 1046x843px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1046x843px

BMP :DDDDDDD

Fuggg atgms

File: He who writes the history books.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Bumping onward

>>51794180
>please shoot me right here.jpg

did they bump the thread limit count?

File: 10608701856_0e30947813_b.jpg (468KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1024x683px

>>51795344
I think it's 310. Might as well just start the next thread now though.

>>51795414
I'll do it when I get home. We'll still be around for a few hours yet, seems like a quiet weekend.

Hail lads. Any of you have knowledge of professional board or paper wargames used by military outfits? I'd love to give that a shot, but am not sure which system to select. Emphasis on clarity and ease of play

>>51797795
>Emphasis on clarity and ease of play

You're probably going to have a hard time if you're looking for that from a wargame used by the actual military. Its my understanding that they tend to rely on umpires quite a lot.

If what I've heard isn't exaggerated they also tend to be quite awful to play, thus continuing the age old truth that "military spec" is not a good thing