Flames of War General: Hurry up Hans! France hasn't read

File: 1455503433442.jpg (140KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 800x642px

/NVA/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Lee_Conrad

>rom 1974 until his arrest on August 23, 1988, sold top secret classified information to the People's Republic of Hungary, including top secret NATO war plans.

Yet somehow, MUH NATO DOCTRINES

File: east german and soviet officers.jpg (96KB, 500x353px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x353px

>>53160985
"Conrad was arrested in 1988 by Federal Republic of Germany authorities and tried for espionage on behalf of the Hungarian and Czechoslovak intelligence services. Conrad was convicted by the Koblenz State Appellate Court on June 6, 1990 of masterminding an espionage ring that sold highly sensitive information, and was sentenced to life in prison. German prosecutors said that the documents Conrad leaked, dealing with troop movements, NATO strategy, and nuclear weapons sites, eventually made their way to the Soviet KGB. Chief Judge Ferdinand Schuth, who presided over the case against Conrad, concluded in the verdict that because of Conrad's treason:

If war had broken out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the West would have faced certain defeat. NATO would have quickly been forced to choose between capitulation or the use of nuclear weapons on German territory. Conrad's treason had doomed the Federal Republic to become a nuclear battlefield."

If someone could make an archive of every source we get in threads I would be grateful.

>>53160985
>>53161534

Due to NATO forces being allowed to innovate in the field the Soviets having detailed information about NATO force deployments was irrelevant.

Cheers.

>>53162424
> this is what NATOboos ACTUALLY believe

What´s the best way to build a good starter army from the Afrika Korps box?

>>53163176
I built my Panzer III as the short 5cm option, with 2 command tanks for formation HQ and a unit leader.

The Panzer IV I built as the short 7.5cm version, so they add a mobile arty option that's almost immune to counter-bombardment and can still help vs Cruisers.

Not much of a choice with the 88, but why would you want to choose differently than what they offer?

>>53164150
Why no uparmoured or "long" Panzer 3s?

>>53164372
Points, mostly.

For a starting force, the short Mark III offers solid volume of fire for the points, with the upgrades driving the cost up quite a lot.

Especially when Brit players are starting around 50 points, I kinda wanted a halfway decent number of tanks.
I did end up assembling a unit of 4 uparmoured ones afterwards, tho those will probably mostly be joining my infantry force.

CHEERS

File: 1221345631280.jpg (323KB, 1280x843px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1280x843px

>>53167016
T-thanks for the T-64B Phil.

File: Somethings Fishy.jpg (148KB, 1022x363px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1022x363px

>>53167016
You forgot your image

At the end i bought the Afrika korps book and starter, and them i remembered how i was fucking mad because all the shitty changes they made to the stats.

With the TY new movement table i thought they would finally give the Tiger the same mobility as the Panzer IV but with better cross rating, instead they killed the Tiger Ace ability and buff for no reason the 88 pen.

>>53164539
Same deal for Soviet tanks in EW. I don't think it's quite worth doubling the price of your T-28s to get 2 more AT, unless you have an exact plan of how your going to use them.

In the case with the DAK box, you already have 88s to assist with heavy AT work, so it makes more sense to bring the standard Panzer IIIs to increase your volume of fire.

>>53167246
Well, the Tiger is 10"/12"/16"/18" while the Panzer IV is 10"/14"/18"/20", so the Tiger is just 2" behind on dash speeds.

>>53167261
Exactly.

Also makes mistakes less punishing.

Those expensive Panzers need to be wielded like a scalpel to earn back their points, a bit like the Tiger I in LW these days.

>>53167261
Yeah, the Panzer III with the Short 5cm gun is the German workhorse for MidWar. Maybe the Long 5cm gun if you want a bit more punch.

File: 1493713535090.png (1015KB, 1200x746px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 1200x746px

>>53167016
>>53167203

File: 04_.jpg (310KB, 1200x1642px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1200x1642px

I think Eastern Front is my big benchmark for V4. Fucking up the desert's fine, I don't care about that to begin with.

>>53169776

top tier taste m8

I was getting the impression that V4 MidWar was sort of the test bed. LW is, if I had to guess, the real money-maker for Flames of War and they'll be able to adjust things with that book as people respond to MW.

>>53171192
I am not hopeful. It's looking like the soviets will mainly consist of hordes of T-34s and T-70s. Maybe if we are lucky we will get a plastic SU-76M or T-26 out of it, but I doubt we'all get half the options that were in Eastern Front

File: Game-Designer-Played.jpg (356KB, 1022x453px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1022x453px

>>53169942

a lot of us are this....

>>53171405
I'm kinda just stating the obvious. In MidWar Panzer IIIs are a good value for their points. Even the short 5cm gun is pretty good against the British tanks.

Stuff like the Long 7.5 on the Panzer IV, or even the 8.8 of the Tiger and 88s are a bit overkill against the British at this point.

My own list will likely be a mix of short and long Panzer IIIs, some Marders for some higher AT, some short Panzer IVs for bombardment, and some armored cars for deployment zone expansion. And then see what points I still have left.

Maybe sprinkle in infantry, AA, or Stukas depending on available points.

>>53172129
How do you jump from a US Abrams to Wat German Leopard 1s and Gepards?

>>53172259
I think the Abrams is supposed to represent Phil's view on SUPERIOR WESTERN TACTICS.

>>53172259
People tend to imagine Abrams, but TY offers spammed Germans and insanely good SPAAGS.

Is there a (roughly) average buy-in for a FoW army? I assume nobody really plays below 1000pts?

>>53174848
Depends on what you want to play, but prolly a couple hundred ameribux either way. Unless you're playing conscript anything armies. Then quadruple it.

>>53174848
~$200 will get you most veteran forces fully done for a 1500ish point game. There are ones you can get done for under $70, but those are either a pain in the butt to paint (Brit and German paras using the PSC kits for them) or are really hard to use properly (the new starter boxes for LW or Big Cat spam).

>>53172259
>>53172718

this

>>53169776
At least for now, in the old eastern front the Long 50mm were the workhorse and the F2 was the big punch.

>>53174953
Is PSC the go-to alternative for WW2 minis?

>>53175311
It's my understanding the major issue with PSC is you'd still have to buy FoW-style bases as they don't provide any.

http://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5600

File: psc-bren-3.jpg (75KB, 585x786px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 585x786px

>>53175311
Yep, Plastic Soldier Company is good quality and cheap, and they shove tons of options onto their more recent sprues (For example, just look at their new Universal Carrier sprue...). They have only three real issues:
>Some of their older infantry ranges are pretty inaccurate and/or look really thin and weedy next to Battlefront models.
>Some of the older tanks have multiple-part tracks, which are a giant pain in the rear to assemble.
>You need to get bases for them if using their infantry figures, though you can cut your own or buy base packs from them or Battlefront.
Overall, I prefer them to Battlefront, since they're about the same quality but PSC is much cheaper.

Especially with my airlanding company, where it's ~$60 for a 100% plastic 1500 point force with PSC vs $135 for an (equally detailed) metal version that same 1500 point force from BF.

File: canadian-universal-carrier.jpg (57KB, 600x461px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x461px

>>53176300
That's good to hear. I've wanted to start up a LW Brit army and from what I've seen on YouTube, PSC has a fairly new line of Brit infantry that look really good and can mix with Battlefront well.

Also, Universal Carriers give me a massive murderboner. If anybody has good UC pics, please share.

File: T-55CHEERS.jpg (247KB, 1380x785px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1380x785px

>>53175995
Well, moment of truth.
Are Soviets going to fucked forever or are they going to be rebalanced into something that doesn't suck? There is precedent for it after all; the Jordanians got improved when the actual FoaN book came out, and LW Soviets did eventually get actual veterans.

Dare we hope?

Pic related

>>53177192

Gotta wait for Red Thunder and see whether there will be cheers or Cheers.

If RT doesn't fix it then IMO it will be too late as games rarely recover after a hype fade.

>>53177192

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak&feature=youtu.be&t=878

>>53177192
Wasn't there only one actual Veteran list (Cossacks) and a unit of over costed, inefficient Veterans in another list?

>>53177685
Heroes got a buff from 4th Edition, so there's that.

>>53177685
Engineer Sappers as well, and Hero Strelk have the option to take a few veteran units (Tank Destruction Company and Shturmovye Group, one each, as well as the usual scouts)

>>53175311
Unfortunately. Some of their stuff is pretty crap. Zvezda and Forged In Battle are a couple other alternatives.

>>53177685
Yeah, there's get-shot-like trained "veterans" that cost as much as veterans, but lack the support choices that allow actual veterans to be viable.

>>53177685
>Wasn't there only one actual Veteran list (Cossacks) and a unit of over costed, inefficient Veterans in another list?
Engineer sappers were alright. Cossacks were a gimmick list though, though it gave you VETERAN COSSACK T-34s so anyone who didn't play it was a moron.

File: 1494089051738.jpg (17KB, 368x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 368x270px

>>53160550
Let's have a go at stating the M60 shall we?
FA: 16 (with ERA package)
SA: 6
TA: 1
Movement: Same as Chietain with Stillbrew
Skill: Same as Abrams for all
ROF: 1 moving, 2 stationary
AT: 19
Range: 40in
Points per tank: 4
Unit size: 3-6

>>53178319

1)Should be AT20, it uses the L7 105mm gun as the Abrams.
2)FA 15 - even if you put ERA on it the thickness of the actual armor leaves a great deal to be desired - and US ERA packages for the M60 were designed chiefly to keep it from being murdered by HEAT rounds from T-62s, it never really advanced to cover kinetic penetrators the same way Soviet stuff did.
US ERA should probably just be a bonus vs HEAT as a result.
3)SA 8 or 10 at least, this isn't a Panther or Leopard I
4)TA 2 is mandatory on an MBT.
5)6-7 points a tank is probably a decent starting point - how much is a Leopard?

And US tank platoons have been 3-4 tanks since the second world war you dummy.

>>53178319
It does not Cheered enough.
SA should be rated 8, cross on 2+. It also have stabilizer so moving RoF is rated 2.

>>53178437
The m60 is almost certainly goingt to be FA16 , it has aroundone 260mm of armour and the t-72 is rated for 270mm

>>53175457
PSC sell plastic FoW-style bases on their website. It's a separate purchase since they don't make their kits specifically for FoW.

>>53175311
Yes, very much so. A few of their first kits are contentious among hobbyists, but are still miles better than BF plastics except a few of their early infantry kits, and even those are debatable (I for instance prefer their more realistic proportions).
>>53175995
No T-55 Battalion? I already hate it.

>>53178571
I don't think the T-55 came with a USSR card did it?

>>53178585
It didn't. Not enough of them were forward-based in europe to count apparently.

>>53178560

It has no built in composite.
Hull front is thinner than a T-55 (109mm v 120mm, both at 60 degrees), and that 260mm is only the gun mantlet, the rest of the turret front is not that thick.

The T-72 is also better than 270mm - you've clearly had to too much cheers for today.
.

>>53178642

You know the M60 is going to be rated with better armor than the T-72.

>>53178668

Maybe. But if it's going to be a cheaper option than the M1 the stats will have to go down accordingly. If it's Abrams but with 1 less FA then it competes with the Abrams both in list and kit sales. Making it weaker (and cheaper) means more go in a list and more kits sold.

>>53178642
>It has no built in composite.
Officially only counts for it's HEAT resistance trait.

>Hull front is thinner than a T-55 (109mm v 120mm, both at 60 degrees), and that 260mm is only the gun mantlet, the rest of the turret front is not that thick.
It's actually at 65, so it's more like 260.

>The T-72 is also better than 270mm - you've clearly had to too much cheers for today.
Check the TY rulebook. Their T-72 has 270mm front armour, which is the only possible way the abrams gets 18 and the T-72 gets 16. Reality has nothing to do with this; the M60A3 is going to get FA 16, because it's going to get it's actual armour value and the T-72 and T-64 are getting whatever armour values they wanked out for them, and conveniently that just so happens to make current-gen soviet tech inferior to western steel folded 1000 times. The T-72M is FA 15 with 240mm (by BF's working); it's not going to be statted that badly.

>>53178585
Was hoping Red Thunder wouldn't be USSR exclusive, but rather generic Warsaw Pact...

>>53178825
Well, DDR is basically your warpac book, featuring T-72Ms and BDD T-55s. You can just call them czechs or poles.

>>53178825
It really wouldn't be that hard to just make a generic supplement book, since most of WARPAC is all using the same shit. Just take all the unique units from different WARPAC nations and put em in a supplement book.

>>53178805

Your are probably right, but as >>53178756
said it could be weaker as a game concession. Also, I just opened up the Osprey on the T-72 and
>T-72A 500mm vs APFSDS and 560mm vs HEAT
>T-72B 520mm vs APFSDS and 950mm vs HEAT

Sweet Jesus, I was not expecting to see numbers quite that high.

>>53178908

The Gulf War gave Soviet tanks a bad rep. Before the Gulf War NATO planners were terrified of the Soviet tanks. Then the Gulf happened and M1A1HAs were murdering T-72Ms crewed by Arabs and suddenly the popular imaginings of how a 1980s Cold War would have gone completely inverted.

>>53178908
>said it could be weaker as a game concession. Also, I just opened up the Osprey on the T-72 and
The values fluctuate a bit depending on source, but 430-500 is a pretty consistent range for T-72A estimates and the B is usually 20-50mm better. You'll note this is the same or better than the abrams.

>>53178955
>M1A1HAs
With the silver bullet. Ammo advantage really can't be understated (remembering that, on the other side, a load of the iraqi tanks were using mild steel rounds the soviets had long put into training use as their principle round which was totally ineffective against NATO MBTs).

>>53178955
It drives me absolutely fucking mental the comparison between Iraqi T-72Ms which where decrepit because
>Arab Army
In many cases still had training ammo loaded and where afraid to fire their High Velocity rounds for fear of the gun bursting. Being used tactically incorrectly in an attempt to gun duel the NATO forces at night without Flare support no less, against the Superior versions of the Abrams that they'd built to counter the Soviet Tanks of the mid eighties.

That article that one of the big FoW blogs put out drove me spare for the entire week.

>>53178955
I can see how that originated all the cheers we have today: '70s monkey model tanks fighting '90s upgraded fresh from factory tanks

>>53178571
PSC infantry model quality doesn't touch BF plastics. Price and proportion are the only upside.

File: cpp.jpg (137KB, 1280x810px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1280x810px

>>53176802

>>53179029
>Being used tactically incorrectly in an attempt to gun duel the NATO forces
This is something else I forgot; a lot of people assume "had soviet advisors" means "have warpac doctrine", but that's not true at all. Warsaw pact advisors were typically technical or logistical; most third world armies that had soviet backing still used tanks as self-propelled guns. The soviets, on the other hand, used tanks as their manuever arm, like most of the forces who fought in WW2.

>>53179042
>PSC infantry model quality doesn't touch BF plastics. Price and proportion are the only upside.
Really depends which ones, their brits, paras, and grenadiers in normandy are great. Their US and Soviet troops are weird spindly potato men though.

>>53179018

Weren't there a lot of friendly fire incidents with the Yanks during that war? I vaguely recall one Abrams platoon knocking out another due misidentification, and that whole thing with 2 Warrior IFVs decked out with neon IFF flags getting the BRRT.

>>53179032

Yeah apart from fresh from the factory tanks they shipped pretty much every M1A1HA and M1A2 in Europe to the Gulf. Even ignoring how shit the Iraqi army was the American forces were not equipped as they would have been in Europe in the late let alone mid-80's.

In the mid-80s the main US tank in Europe was the M60, and the main version of the M1 would have been the straight M1 or the M1IP (improved performance) both of which lacked the 120mm smoothboore of the A1 and later.

>>53179085
Yeah, I am pretty sure the coalition lost more AFVs to friendly fire than the Iraqis.

>>53179178

The legend used to be that no M1 was destroyed by an Iraqi tank. Hence how Abrams got their super tank reputation.

File: rolleda1toland.jpg (44KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x363px

>>53179178

>Uninterrupted chain of command
>Full air superiority
>Accurate intel
>Still manages to be more lethal to friendly forces than the enemy is

If this is what happens when everything goes according to plan, I'd hate to see how it would have gone with everything gone to shit from a Warpac invasion.

>>53179231
Yeah, it would be a shit show from the time the first rockets started falling on NATO battalion HQs. I would anticipate that the NATO defense would be several isolated companies fighting for dear life.

In Team Yankee NATO tanks make the Soviet kit look like garbage to the point where you feel like you have a clear advantage outnumbered 2:1.

>>53179600

Let's not forget that NATO isn't even entirely on the same page.
American wants to nuke their way to victory.
The Germans demand no nuke used, and are prepared to defend ever foot or ground to the death, just like the did in '45.
The French are prepare to fight to the last German, but are unlikely to throw their own country under the bus for the rest of Europe.
The British expect there'll be plenty of time to bring reinforcements across the channel.
The Dutch and Belgians expect water obstacles, mines, and static defenses to hold the Soviets at bay.
The Turks hate the Russians, but are more likely to get bogged down in the Balkans than they are to counterattack the Soviet Union directly.
The Italians are on the wrong side of the Alps.
The Spanish are at the wrong end of Europe.
The Danes and Norwegians haven't been able to defend themselves, let alone anyone else since the century rolled over.
And the Portuguese are even farther back then the Spaniards, making them the last stop on the WarPact cross country tour.

Honestly we lucked out that the shooting did not start.

>>53179762
>The Germans demand no nuke used, and are prepared to defend ever foot or ground to the death, just like the did in '45.

Holy shit I butchered that sentence.

As is tradition.

>>53174848
£20 gets you enough Zvezda King Tigers or Jagdtigers to play, spend another £20-30 on some infantry and Nebelwerfers and you've got a surprisingly effective budget list. The nature of support platoons means you can expand out from that into infantry or even medium tank lists whilst reusing stuff.

>>53179762
>The French are prepare to fight to the last German
I kek'ed mightily
>The Danes and Norwegians haven't been able to defend themselves, let alone anyone else since the century rolled over.
More to do with a lack of manpower than actual hardware or skill (though selling off bases, subs, and ships, and buying horribly expensive shit from the US doesn't help either country). In a full-on war, the Russians will have more men than the two countries have bullets, combined, and more tanks/aircraft than the two countries have munitions to deal with either, combined. And that's just on the northern flank.

>>53177192
No
At this point I'd rather stick playing Red Dragon

So, how bad/good are the IS-2 in this edition? What about the KV-1, SU-85, ISU-152, Katyushas, and IL-2?

>>53181141
Harder to kill, still crap at killing things.

>>53181141
>>53181311
Not necessarily harder to kill, really (unless against american arty). The only one who's improved more than marginally is the Hero IS-2 (and mind you, those were utter shit in V3). Meanwhile, the ISU-152 has been utterly fucked now.

>>53181141
>So, how bad/good are the IS-2 in this edition?

Breakthrough got worse and RoF 1 is exactly as crippling as it was before. They were overcosted before and suffered massively under the v4 shakeup, making the "everything is still balanced" claim a joke.

>What about the KV-1,
Still good as a cheap heavy, like before. Suffers slightly from a weakening of tank escorts but it still does the things it used to do.

>SU-85,
Same kind of deal. Still kills Pz IVs real good and struggles against panthers.

>ISU-152,
Also lost out in the big guns nerf and bunker busters aren't anti-bunker weapons anymore (artillery does fine). Bunker busters are also now RoF 0 when moving so you just straight-up can't shoot. Also went from "struggling" to "never pick".

>Katyushas,
Improved hugely with the FP and artillery buffs and are now murder against infantry, but as fragile as before.

>and IL-2?
Cannon armed aircraft in priority flights are now one of the most OP things in the game so they're a strong pick.

File: Well that was quick.pdf (687KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1x1px

Been a while since I posted a batrep, but I figured since this one was short and it's the first time my airlanding hit the field, it'd be worth sharing.

This was a 2k a side 2v2 game, with each player allowed to deviate by up to 100pts as long as the total was under 2k. We were using a custom-made V3.5 ruleset that's still getting worked on, since the local group is isolated and we can afford to do that.

>>53182431
... ouch

>>53182634
Yeah... It was a perfect storm of shitty dice and bad tactics.

>>53182431
Am I reading correctly that they still had all their SPGs left when they gave up? That... seems foolhardy. It's a blow but 10 AFVs and 2 big guns is far from game over territory. I'd be surprised if you won, but then, I've won a game where I had an infantry commander on the objective and my opponent had 12 light tanks.

>>53183718
In Forced Withdrawl, the defender pulls objectives up on turns 6, 7, and 8, so they essentially need to capture one objective at the start of their turn 6 or have two locked down for capture on their turn 7. Else the defender will remove the objective they're about to grab. The defender also has to withdraw forces as the battle goes on, but we had plenty of platoons that would be irrelevant and safe to withdraw. So he's looking at trying to force his way through two large platoons of FV infantry backed up by AT guns and laden with gammon bombs and PIATs in order to grab either of the open objectives, or taking tanks without infantry support or turrets into a town with enemy infantry that have panzerfausts. He'd have to push hard with unsuitable armor through enemies set up to deal with that sort of thing.

I feel like i'm gaping on something here again, how close do you have to be to gain cover and concealment from trench lines? And is this covered anywhere in the book? It feels somewhat vague. I assume its full up against the trench line

>>53184108
To just throw a statistics check in there, all ten tanks firing at GtG Vet infantry from the halt will kill about a team a turn. Hitting on 6s sucks dick.

>>53184244
Sure, but you have one piat or two panzerfausts in each. Assaulting might've done something. I've just pulled off too many improbable wins to say an army that's got ten vehicles left is a lost cause.

>>53186152
The (Fearless) Airlanding have Gammon Bombs, so TA3. The Soviets were in buildings. Neither would be a good idea. (And you can't really count on Fearless British Bulldogs failing morale, empirical evidence notwithstanding)

>>53186152
Technically each airlanding platoon had two PIATs (one base, one attached out from the HQ) and a Faust (platoon command upgrade).

>>53186335
>The Soviets were in buildings
Yeah, trained very difficult bog checks every round are a great way to ruin your tanks...

What the german players should have done was advance the infantry through the town with the tanks right behind them, since the tanks would be able to shoot over the infantry's heads in defensive fire and to shell any Russians on the upper floors. That would have kept the infantry much more protected and let the tanks close without worrying about being assaulted or ambushed.

What model of T-72s are available to TY?

>>53186927
A strangely statted T-72A and the T-72M.

>>53187007
What about them is strangely statted?

File: Red-Thunder-Page-Fan-02.png (350KB, 690x313px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 690x313px

I see a front armor 17 and being hit 2+

>>53187247
A lot of divisional support, looks like you can take almost anything extra.

>>53186361
Ah, missed that. That is much dicier.

>>53186335
>Neither would be a good idea.
If you try and thin, pin and assault you have a chance. If you concede you don't. If you've showed up for an evening game, why not try it and see?

>>53187179
They seem to believe the T-72A has a little over half of it's actual armour and have statted it accordingly, the M suffering similarly but not as badly.

Oh, is TY one of those games where soviet equipment is nerfed so it can be cheaper because "Russia is the horde faction"?

>>53187625
100% yes

>>53187625
meant as response to >>53187564

File: Not_Phil_Yates.jpg (27KB, 185x127px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 185x127px

>>53187625
N-no.

>>53187625
yes
cheers

>>53187625
c h e e r s
h
e
e
r
s

>>53181348
>Not necessarily harder to kill
They're completely immune to artillery now, and air attacks and infantry assaults are weaker against them for the most part too. The V4 changes have definitely helped their survivability
>>53181363
ISU-152s are still better than arty at killing bunkers (either straight up, or point for point compared to medium mortars) but certainly not by enough to ever justify taking them in V4.

>>53188249
>ISU-152s are still better than arty at killing bunkers
Well, most arty. 1+ FP arty kills bunkers exactly as easy as the 152, and 2+ FP arty only takes ~4 turns instead of 3 to kill on average.

>>53188249
>ISU-152s are still better than arty at killing bunkers (either straight up, or point for point compared to medium mortars) but certainly not by enough to ever justify taking them in V4.
The issue is that a medium mortar is their competition because a medium mortar is always useful and basically auto-take now. Artillery in general is ubiquitous, and heavy arty can blow pillboxes away fairly easily.

Conversely, an ISU-152 outperforms them in this one specific niche, which it will never see because fortified lists got the living shit nerfed out of them, and at anything else it's mediocre to useless (and was already overcosted and underwhelming before).

And in this one talk we've already hit three things whose performance dramatically differs from their current points, making Phil's "some things are better, some things are worse, but the game is still balanced" nonsense.

Any changes to Finns in V4?

I need Phil's Afghansy CHEERS for a little something. Do we have it somewhere?

File: 85234.png (5KB, 800x110px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 800x110px

>>53188641
This?

>>53188639
Yeah but nothing terrible. Infantry and man-packed guns now get +2 terrain dash instead of doubling through woods, and they counterattack on 2+ instead of rerolling on 3+.

Intercepted Communication is the most interesting, you now place two artillery markers for your pre-ranged target before the game and remove one at start of play.

>>53188773
No, I meant the one were he enlightens us on how Afghantsy work and how their combat experience only made them better at inferior Soviet doctrines, and therefore they're worse off than some lads from Soho in a fight.

File: philOnSoviets.jpg (327KB, 981x840px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 981x840px

>>53188822
This one? I don't remember him every doing a direct comparison with Brits though.

>>53189061
That'd be the one. The comparison to Brits is something i threw in. Mea culpa, I ought to have been more clear.

>>53189061
Now I'm kind of curious as to how much info on the Soviets' doctrines from this time period is actually available, since the Russian documents are probably still classified and Western interpretations likely had at least some errors.

>>53189395
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf

>>53187247
>hit on 2+

Now that would be CHEERS

>>53187247
i can't read shit, i'd agree w 17 but 2+ is utter trollwax

>>53189458
I guess I misphrased my question, it was more along the lines of "how much of what we believe to be soviet doctrine from this period is accurate, and how do we know it's accurate
as opposed to just a best guess?" Presumably the best way to determine that would be to look at the original soviet documents (since they probably had a better idea of what their plans were than Western analysts), but I suspect most of those records aren't available for examination.

File: __cryska_barchenowa_muvluv_muvluv_alternative_and_muvluv_total_eclipse_drawn_by_jilpoong17__e793e549614ef321049a1ed24edd5e4c.jpg (327KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 700x700px

>>53171192
If you're gonna post an autistic Russian esper at least post a picture that isn't from a tracing hack.
Even if he was an official artist.

File: IMG_0477.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

How to use Soviet air against Gepards. They didn't die or even bail out

>>53189654
Right, most of what exists is probably still classified, and even then, you'd need someone who can read and understand the original Russian and translate it accurately in to English.

>>53192992

So between our potentially flawed understanding, NATO plans being sold to the Soviets, NATO itself being potentially unreliable, and Soviet gear being better than we usually give it credit for, how the shit did we 'win' the cold war?

>>53193155
Capitalism and the American Military Industrial Complex.

Simply put, the United States could simply out-spend the Soviet Union.

>>53193244
>The people get disenchanted with the system, and overthrow it
>"muh capitalism actually"
this is what Amerifats actually believe

>>53193155

Nukes and capitalism.

Nukes kept the Soviets at bay until the inherent inefficiency of command economies meant the Soviets couldn't keep up with the new generation of advanced weapons and electronics.

>>53193608
People were disenfranchised primarily because they saw how much better it was in the West. It's hard to sell to Soviet workers that the repressive Soviet government is protecting them from capitalist exploitation when the "exploited" workers of the West live in large houses, have two cars, and all the modern conveniences they could want.

>>53189061

Oh boy Phil, not like any Western military believed in rapid assaults and taking short term casualties to ensure a breakthrough. Truly this was a novel Soviet concept.

Oh wait the US Army adopted the AirLand battle concept in the fucking '70s based on the exact same fucking theories the fucking Soviets based their strategy on. Said strategy was used in the fucking Gulf War to much success.

But in Phil land apparently the US Army of the '80s was using the WWII/Korea "wait and attrite" strategy against an enemy with far more men, artillery, and tanks.

>>53194474
Viktor Belenko who defected to Japan with a MiG-25 Foxbat in tow said that the thing that shocked him the most about living in the West was Supermarkets. Just the sheer seemingly endless variety of food that was for sale, all the time, no KGB agents faking it from behind the scenes. Which is huge considering that massive amount of shortages of anything there was in the Soviet Union. The Crap cars that they had to be lucky to own, the sheer amount of run round you'd need to get enough booze for a decent party.

>>53194540

Oh also forgot that the fucking Israelis based their doctrines heavily upon Soviet doctrine while the Arabs were using "Western" doctrines (often taught to them by Western advisers). Also the Israeli army was, wait for it, mostly two to three year conscripts and reservists.

TL;DR: Phil is a clueless wanker that can't accept that any possible Western success in a Cold War Gone Hot would have been due to deficiencies of Soviet logistics or a civil uprising.

File: alessiocry.jpg (167KB, 746x942px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 746x942px

I JUST WANTED A FUN COLD WAR GAME!!

>>53194474
>the "exploited" workers of the West live in large houses, have two cars, and all the modern conveniences they could want.

Times sure change, don't they?

>>53194807

Yeah they do. My personal theory is that prosperous communist countries like the Soviet Union kept the West honest. I see legal protections for workers rights and unions, and giving the vote to all men (and later women) as a reaction to 19th century anarchism and communism rather than Western governments just deciding to be nice.

>>53194807
That's what happens when wages roughly double between the 70's and now, but the food, cars, and houses cost eight times more.

>>53194807
Its not so bad right now, future's looking a bit iffy, but its fine right now.

>>53194766
but anon, its fun if you play HATO
:^)

>>53194807
I blame corporatism
>i want cheap labour so i'm going to fill your system with people beholden to me.
>also they are going to bail me out if i over extend myself because i own your country.
the bad thing about capitalism is that some people win and those people are dicks.

>>53195067
>Its not so bad right now
The west's seen a plummet in living standards since the financial crash, and we're totally in equipped to deal with climate change.

>>53196725
>we're totally in equipped to deal with climate change.

you're right, we need to pay money to "experts" to prevent something unprovable

File: 4cfd5a04bc1a96da231109db3b95753f.jpg (40KB, 564x467px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x467px

>>53190627
>tracing hack
What's this?

Also we postin' military cuties now? Because...

>>53196750
It's really been proven beyond doubt that the climate is changing and that human action has affected this, so it's more like "people actually need to commit to things that might prevent the worst of it". The people who want more studies are the people who insist there's no problem.

>>53196725
>Plummet

Crime is the lowest its ever been, your average day to day shit is plenty cheap and technology is getting exponentially cheaper. You can expect to live longer than at any point in human history and have a higher quality of life in those years as well.

The biggest problems are unemployment and the housing bubble, the second of which is because of government interference to artificially maintain the high house prices in the housing market.

Calling it a plummet is wildly overstating the issue.

File: GuP.jpg (156KB, 600x813px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 600x813px

>>53196779
A freelance artist who'd done a lot of work for the ML franchise was caught for tracing a load of art he'd been paid for.

>>53196845
How the hell can you tell with jap art?

90% of it looks the same

>>53196809
>Crime is the lowest its ever been, your average day to day shit is plenty cheap and technology is getting exponentially cheaper.
Tech's getting cheaper. Food's getting more expensive. Combine that with other small increases in pricing and near-frozen wages, it's not been a great decade for a whole load of people. It's about things like cost of living rather than crime.

File: 10_.jpg (247KB, 1200x1696px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1200x1696px

>>53196845
>A freelance artist who'd done a lot of work for the ML franchise was caught for tracing a load of art he'd been paid for.

There's still some pretty top-tier waifus in the calendar though.

>>53196859
This.

Gimme >>53196779 any day!

>>53196750
>unprovable
It has been proven and analysed in so many papers in so many ways, it's getting ridiculous how many people still refuse to understand shit is hitting the fan.

>>53196859
How the hell can we tell apart different models of Panzer IV? Just about every niche interest looks indistinct and homogeneous from the outside.

Our WWII Hungaryboos might find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWQFtRId85U

>>53197407
Nobody cares about Jerry armour. Now, if you can't tell the difference between a D hull and an E hull on a Cromwell at a glance, you obviously don't know enough about proper British armour.

File: 6971961538_9ecc6c4807_b_zpsd8407f4b.jpg (285KB, 783x1024px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 783x1024px

>>53196972
>Gimme >>53196779 (You) any day!

>>53197997
I can, because Cromwell best girl. I literally have an entire folder of just Cromwell pictures, send help.

>>53198072
Then you'd know the D and E are identical unless you opened them up and looked at the gearing. The C->D saw the engine deck layout change, while the E->F saw the driver get a side-swinging door to escape easier. You have fallen for my autism trap!

Wait, no only I fell for my autism trap. Shit.

>>53198184
> tfw I thought D was what C actually is
I have brought such dishonour on myself!

File: __beatrix_bremer_and_irisdina_bernhard_muvluv_and_schwarzesmarken_drawn_by_genya_genya67__e674ec8819cda5761b3e673ed70c5961.png (5MB, 2400x1700px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2400x1700px

>>53196845
It was also the second time he had been caught tracing. First time was for the H-CGs in the 2011 remake of the ML related VN Kimi ga Ita Kisetsu.

http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/otanews/imgs/9/3/934c9737.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jBt0RVa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2zzQbCO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/WOyqA9N.jpg

And here's two of its characters with a Tiger tank to keep myself from getting too offtopic.

File: IMG_2787.png (186KB, 287x397px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 287x397px

>>53198229
Shamefur Dispray!

You must immediately commit Sodoku.

Why are we talking about anime tracing and global warming?

Anyway...

I managed to get in two games recently, one Team Yankee game, and one Late War 4th Edition game.

The TY game was 100 points of my Soviets vs 104 points of Americans fielded by Derek, the guy who just doesn't want to play small games.(eye roll)

With a combination of well placed T-72s and my jets appearing in some key turns, I was able to force morale checks on his Abrams units and eventually a formation morale check on his whole formation.

Glory to Mother Russia!

My LW 4th Ed game was against my long time friend and most frequent FoW opponent, Chris.

He fielded 1500 points of German StuGs, Tigers, nebelwerfers, and Pioneers.

I fielded my American Paratroopers, Para AT guns, Glider Artillery, and Veteran Shermans.

The game wound up being a draw due to needing to pack up as the FLGS closed.

I had managed to get into an assault with my paras right on top of the objective and force his units back, but he was still close enough to contest when we were forced to pack up.

No units destroyed or failed morale on either side, and no reserves came in for either side.

Not quite sure how to score that one, but it let us both get some decent experience with 4th Ed even if the final result was left up in the air due to it being closing time at the FLGS.

Also, I should mention that he recognized me as being Screaming Eagles. Apparently he recently started listening to Panzerfunk and had a major "I know that voice!" moment.

>>53200491

I played two games of TY this week, both slightly silly. The first was a three-hander, with East Germans, West Germans (painted up as Dutch), and my Brits, all vying for a single central objective. Due to some good use of Recce, I was able to sit on that from fairly early on, and ended up with my infantry proving just too much to shift, despite a few casualties.

The second was very quick, against the W German player again. In it, we demonstrated that a unit of three Swingfires will expect to kill a Leopard 2 a turn, barring surprises.

I miss fighting the US in TY. That was definitely when the game was most balanced, when everyone still had helicopters, tanks, and a couple of supports.

Is there a standard/recommended pts limit for TY?

>>53201366
Book says 100 but the book lies. 70-85 is best unless you have a huge table.

Anyone have the US support pack from PSC, and can post pictures of different guns put together? I cant figure out which poses go with the MGs, and which go with the mortars.

>>53201366

I'd say about 80pts. At higher points, NATO forces get too good, and overmatch WARPAC significantly.

Do we have more of Phil's stupid statements in screenshots? Those things are gold.

>>53203502
I don't have a collection of them myself, but I'm sure someone else here does.

>>53203505
Please take this elsewhere. This is neither /sci/ nor /pol/.

This is the FlMes of War and Team Yankee thread on /tg/.

So can we kindly get back to discussing our toy soldiers, the games we play with them, and the companies that make them?

>>53204820
>This is the FlMes of War and Team Yankee thread on /tg/.

It's like you don't want pictures of military QTs.

Weird question, but has anyone found that ex-service-people are more prone to asiatic hordes, "shoot the leader and the men will immediately become motionless robots", "the T-72 has all the armour of a kettle" type stuff?

>>53204997
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.

>>53204997
I had my one opponent Derek, a former US Army tanker, do pretty much exactly that in my game against him the other night, always trying to target the Unit Leader of my T-72 platoons.

He finally managed to make one platoon leaderless, but otherwise it didn't matter rules-wise at all.

He has this odd almost Phil-level understanding of the Soviets and their tactics.

Although he is knowledgeable as fuck about the US Army, and their tactics and equipment. It's educational stuff for me to listen to as a war gamer, but it's kinda undone by the Conscript Communist Hordes nonsense that he's talking about the next minute.

I guess it's partially due to how US and Soviet-made equipment performed in Operation Desert Storm.

The Gulf War makes many Americans, especially veterans, view Soviet-made equipment as a joke. Even though they were considered serious threats at the time.

>>53204997
you wot m8 i'll have you know my dad slaughtered an entire island of argies before being stationed in west german and i have no idea where i'm going with this.

but since both nato and pact were using simular tactics would make a dull game with every faction have identcally the same tactic to win?

File: >Meiyafags.png (4KB, 177x27px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 177x27px

>>53204934
>military QTs
Girls who fight CHOMPing, twizzler-ing alien miners, while wearing skin tight outfits (with erect nipples) in giant robots is stretching it a bit though, you must admit.

>>53181141
Harder to kill

Better at killing tanks thanks to 7 and 8 to hit rolls

Worse at killing everything else

File: 2D2A571D00000578-3263152-image-a-95_1444218398057.jpg (38KB, 306x434px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 306x434px

>>53205234
I'm not sure if this counts as whatever that is, but maybe?

>>53205212
>The Gulf War makes many Americans, especially veterans, view Soviet-made equipment as a joke. Even though they were considered serious threats at the time.
I've also heard "Well at the time we thought they were scary, but after the soviet union broke up and we could go over to visit, it turned out everything was broken and people were underpaid and demotivated and I reckon we could've taken that lot easy", ignoring that the post-soviet finances of russia were a total shitshow that destroyed any semblence of great power-hood the country would've kept after the breakup of the USSR.

>>53205224
>but since both nato and pact were using simular tactics would make a dull game with every faction have identcally the same tactic to win?
This is what NATO training exercises is... which is what's happening because of how unattractive the soviets are.

>>53205342
>I've also heard "Well at the time we thought they were scary, but after the soviet union broke up and we could go over to visit, it turned out everything was broken and people were underpaid and demotivated and I reckon we could've taken that lot easy", ignoring that the post-soviet finances of russia were a total shitshow that destroyed any semblence of great power-hood the country would've kept after the breakup of the USSR.
Even then, I see loads of "We had the BEST TANKS IN THE WORLD, impenetrable to MERE COMMIE STEEL, protected with GLORIOUS BRITBONG ARMOR". When the big difference between the armour of the T-72A and M1 was HEAT resistance.

>>53205224
>but since both nato and pact were using simular tactics would make a dull game with every faction have identcally the same tactic to win?
This is true of WW2 as well but I don't see people bitching.

>>53205525
Soviets in ww2 actually have some elite units

But most of it is
>muh enemy at teh gaytes

>>53205597
I really don't like giving them points for digital because most people never see them.

>>53204820
>Please take this elsewhere
well you asked nicely and i can respect that

>So can we kindly get back to discussing our toy soldiers, the games we play with them, and the companies that make them?
just picked up some t-26s and t-28s to go finnish tank company.
am i fucked?

and can i get some fin advice

>>53205597
I was more probing how fucking stupid it is to base a historical game on national stereotypes than how people actually fought.
>Soviets and Germans based their tank doctrine and design on joint training exercises in Ukraine
>infantry tactics were so universal that Britain asked drill instructors not to use foreign phrases when training people
Any exceptions were largely due to equipment quirks, such as American half-tracks not being as trusted as German ones to engage in combat, and the Soviets not having them at all. France was the farthest outlier and they got their shit pushed in so hard it just reinforces how important the standard formula was.

>>53205922
Late or Early?

In Late war you could do a decent T-26 formation as support to an actually effective company like StuGs or Captured Armour. Sure they're not great against a lot of things, but 160 points for ten shots at FP4, by sheer weight of fire you'll dig up some infantry.

>>53206000
I like to keep my lists as versatile as possible. Although, considering Finnish equipment building around how wonky fins are late war is probably a good idea to start.
we actually have a weird group around here and it's hard to know who will be in with EW and LW at any given date

File: FFG-A_Fistful_of_TOWs_3_Sample.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>53194766
FFoT
F
o
T

This is a heavily trimmed sample, the full book is THICC AF

>>53205922
Finns can bring a platoon of fearless veteran t-34/85s, and a seperate platoon of t-34s. It's nice

>>53207501
sounds good, really good.
still going to bring some t-28s because comfy casual games

>>53189458
haven't read all of it, but so far it looks like soviet doctrine is pretty much exactly the same as western doctrine with some slight changes in names and priorities.

>>53207872
>pretty much exactly the same
okay, so I jumped to conclusions there, but the book does make it pretty clear that they no longer follow the "mass attack" idea that was used in WW2.

>>53207785
oh for sure, they're hilarious against infantry

Any new leaks about TY?

File: Propersize Cutie.jpg (90KB, 736x1042px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 736x1042px

>>53205301
size matters

Any scans of Command Cards?
So stupid to actually buy them

>>53209996
Are the cards even out yet?

>>53210042
>>53209996
No.
and No

File: brewster.jpg (8KB, 257x196px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 257x196px

>>53205922
Yell PERKELE if things start to go south. That scares your enemy and gives you enough sisu to do miracles.

Can I use the Tau Supporting Fire special rule *every* time someone get's charged? Even if that model conducted supporting fire already that turn?

>>53210484
I think you may have the wrong thread.

>>53210484
>Tau

>>53208066
They didn't even use it for all of ww2.

File: brit.png (254KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 512x512px

>>53209601
Needs more Queen and Country.

File: jp.png (285KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 512x512px

Actually why not just have the whole set, maybe someone will get them done as decals.

File: US.png (326KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 512x512px

>>53212248

File: USSR.png (299KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 512x512px

>>53212259

File: wgr.png (270KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 512x512px

>>53212280

>>53212287
A King Tiger's turret side does have a lot of space on it.

>>53212290
>King Tiger
>With a german tricolour on it
What are you, some kind of communist?

>>53212332
>King Tiger
>Without a pretty girl on the side

What are you, some kind of Homo?

>>53212343
The tricolour was always an emblem of revolutionaries, liberals, and democrats. It was a non-cool flag to be waving around while the nazis were in power, being none of those things.

>>53212228
>>53212248
>>53212259
>>53212280
>>53212287

>no italy
>io non sono felice

>>53212387
It only covers major nations.

>>53212405
hurt me more why don't you.
its bad enough my tanks are held together with pasta starch

>>53209601
>>Present-day Ukrainians
>>Wolfsangel
Wannabe Aryans never change

>>53211107
I think he means US Armoured Rifles

File: realemoji.jpg (30KB, 720x438px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x438px

>>53213454

File: 1492906664736.jpg (43KB, 750x267px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 750x267px

>>53203502
Here
cheers

File: ss+(2017-05-13+at+09.29.30).jpg (282KB, 1331x775px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1331x775px

Are Trench Lines treated as Flat, Short or Tall? Mostly thinking about if they block the Line of Sight of an Artillery Observer.

>>53213983
what is this?

>>53214029
Tabletop Simulator, the poor man's way to play things like Flames of War

>>53214079
so its a FOW video game?

>>53213983
The rules doesn't seem to specify (what a surprise), but I would judge them Flat (it's mostly below ground level, with at most a small parapet in front).

>>53214079
There's a FoW module for TTS?

>>53214112
It can be, it's literally just a tabletop that you can put things on. Sounds ridiculous but it works quite well.

>>53214120
Figured as much, the physical models rise up off the surrounding terrain so I thought it might be something higher, though that could well just have been done for the aesthetics (not like you can dig through a table after all).

>>53214156
No, I just do the digital equivalent of kitbashing. Works well for the troops, though vehicle models (those half-tracks are standing in for RSOs) and artillery and the like can be lacking (especially if you aren't playing Germany).

>>53214196
Table made of removable infantry sized blocks when

File: ss+(2017-05-13+at+11.38.33).jpg (109KB, 1165x779px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1165x779px

>>53214842
Whenever you want to spend the time, I guess.

File: _20170501_194751.jpg (144KB, 1772x796px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1772x796px

>>53203502

>>53160550
Bmp

Is there any interest in Early War here?

I've got a game coming up next week, admittedly Germans vs Germans, and wondered whether anyone either had any advice, or might be interested in pics etc after the event.

>>53220119
Shitbox German battle tractors are literally my fetish. Post more PzIs.

>>53220151

Would love to, but I'm planning on taking all infantry. AT rifles and PaK38s, mortars, nebs, and leIGs...

>>53205224
>but since both nato and pact were using simular tactics would make a dull game with every faction have identcally the same tactic to win?

Except they weren't identical. What I've been saying is that Soviet tactical ineptitude and the inflexibility of their doctrine is being vastly overstated.

A good example of actual difference is that Soviet artillery was not "on call" like NATO artillery was. Divisional and Army assets would have been doing largely preplanned fires in support of attacking units. However Soviet Companies and Regiments had a lot of organic heavy mortars which sort of made up the difference. If a Soviet officer needed fire support he wouldn't call up a battery that wasn't directly under his command, he would make a request to his superior (and so on) who might order a fire mission.

This made Soviet artillery less flexible than NATO artillery, but no less devastating.

The issue is that TY makes WARPAC forces incompetent, rather than just less flexible.

Who /NVA/ here?

File: Screenshot_20170514-130932-picsay.png (207KB, 624x819px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 624x819px

I am thinking KG Spindler at Oosterbeek, assisted by KG Swaboda with 88s.
Platoons marked yellow will be deployed when the force is caught in reserve.
How do you think about it?

Did we lose a load of posters all of a sudden or something
?

TY question. Is there any good reason to slap the milans on my marder? I could say maybe taking the one and putting it in a Fuchs, but the marder already has an okay gun.

>>53227603
It's Saturday Night in Burgerland. Everyone's out having a good time.

>>53227603
We're mostly just grownups with lives.

(Personally, I've been busy painting and thinking about not-FoW)

File: fuck.png (453KB, 640x634px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 640x634px

Rising Storm 2: Vietnam's beta is on, so that's where some of us have been.

What's next for battlefront? Mid-war Yanks and Spaghetti?

>>53225779
Some of your reserves choices feel odd to me. e.g. I'd keep the guys in trucks in reserve, because when they come on, they'll be the ones you have most ability to redeploy to where they're needed.

>>53227879
not that guy but its only a supply truck, not transport trucks

Is there a leak in the T-64 unit card yet?
I wonder what is different from the t-72.
Maybe it's got to be faster.

>>53228083

You're right, and I'm a moron for not reading properly. In that case, yes, keep the supply vehicle on for wire/mines.

File: 5_3.jpg (56KB, 1300x306px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1300x306px

>>53223500
present

>>53228120
I am the guy and I think yours is also reasonable, as they can re roll dug in with supply truck when they came out. I just thought placing minefield or wires is more useful, though.

>>53227641
In general there isn't really much of a reason. In general APCs are more vulnerable than infantry since high AT is everywhere. Mounting them does let you shoot your Milans while leaving your infantry GTG, but you lose teams from the already tiny grenadier zugs. I usually just use the Milans as ablative armor for thee other teams when the enemy closes in.

The only use I could see would be having mounting the Milans on the APCs when you are on a big table against a NATO opponent. In that case you could potentially flank around and hit the more vulnerable side armor.

File: 1457380551085.jpg (76KB, 943x267px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 943x267px

>>53223500
I am

>>53223500
I am waiting my 30 PSC T-55s, they told me they will ship the tanks in may 22. The shipment will arrive in a month, so I can expect I can play the NVA in July.

>>53229557
>I am waiting my 30 PSC T-55s, they told me they will ship the tanks in may 22.
I thought I had a shipment notice but yeah it looks like it's delayed. Kind of annoying.

Another TY question! How do west Germans kill infantry? I've heard take 6 Gepards and just spray them down, but I'm trying to have a relaxed for-fun list instead of tournament min maxed. Any other good way?

>>53229217
>they couldn't add these to TY because the they'd have to make another kit so you don't use somebody else's models

>>53231045
That is your good way. You don't have brutal guns and infantry assaults are a dumb move now given you almost always suffer worse as the attacker and your platoons are tiny. Maybe use artillery to pin and drive tanks over them? Expensive to kill infantry but they basically can't hit you.

>>53231488

Do attackers get a bad deal? I know there's a ton of integrated AT out there, but I thought most MBTs had enough resistance to HEAT to mostly ignore it. And with TA2, nothing is going to even bail you in the actual assault?

File: 5_17.jpg (167KB, 1193x956px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1193x956px

>>53229557
>>53230086
I got 10 just before the pre-order promotion ended. No much of a wait for me compared to those who put in their order when they were first posted.

>>53231045

Gepards or repeated shelling with Leo 1s or repeated arty bombardments are the only way to dig up infantry. You could also try to repeatedly ram them with Leo 2s, but that could really be risky. You'll AT least want arty to keep the Milans pinned.

>>53231520

Attackers have a challenge against infantry. There is no quick way to eliminate them. However in a tournament defenders really have no way to ensure a decisive victory. I can only imagine TY tournaments will shift to complete clusterfucks of draws as the meta becomes increasingly infantry focused.

>>53231794
What points limit are the tournaments using? 100?

>>53231835
Anywhere from 75-120 points from what I have heard. I think they are trending more toward 75-85 these days. Even at 80 points games can drag on.

>>53204875
TFW your army still uses towed AT.

>>53204997
Tank crews or tank mechanics? Line infantry, or supply troops?

Because, yeah, somebody serving with a NATO army in Europe is gonna have first hand knowledge of NATO's issues with supply, maintenance & interoperability, and anything their intel people will tell them about how fucked up "slavshit" actually is, will be taken with a grain of salt.

>>53215173

At that point you might just want to make a hex map?

More TY questions from the new guy. Is arty really lackluster? It doesn't seem to do much to infantry cuz it isn't brutal, and it struggles to hurt tanks.

>>53232911
Arty has no special rules to boost its effectiveness at killing dug in infantry. Even in direct fire, it's merely brutal. The AT can go up to 4, but most all tanks are TA2. You get one smoke barrage per battery. US Paladins get some cool stuff like bomblets to wreck infantry out in the open, minelets, and copperheads which basically turn the guns into ATGMs that you can hide. They fire at whatever target the OP is spotting. West German LARS get minelets as well.

In general artillery is nice to have for pinning. If you are a West German player, I highly recommend the LARS. 2 of them are only 3 points, and the Salvo template will help overcome the +1 to hit for having a 2 gun battery.

>>53233371
I've been running 4 LARS. They're fun, but seem to be more psychological than actually effective.

>>53233569
We usually play 80 points at my shop. I have gone from 4 LARS with minelets to 2 LARS without minelets. I can still use them to pin infantry with the big salvo template, but I save 4 points. No need for an OP either. Just spend the point on another Luchs Spah. 3+ to range in is fine and you should always have a Luchs or GtG infantry to spot in arty.

>>53232911
>Is arty really lackluster?
Arty's important for pins on ATGMs, but that's about it.

>>53212374
if you compare them to the modern, the nazi were actually quite liberal.
at least, their techniques are starting to match....

File: IMG_0125.jpg (685KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1536x2048px

/NVA/

>>53238454

speaking of NVA, i got 2 games of team yankee in, one was playing with my West Germans vs. NVA, and the other was playing as NVA vs British standard infantry

any preference which i speak of first?

(don't have pics....sorry!)

>>53228089

A T-64 isn't really any faster than a T-72 - the T-80 was the fast one.
We know the T-64B is going to be FA17. The fact that the T-72A had slightly better protection (500mm v KE and 560mm v HEAT against 410mm v KE and 500mm v HEAT for the T-64B) apparently does not factor into consideration, because as far as BF are concerned T-72 = slav swarm & T-64 = elite slav swarm.

I'll be surprised if the Kobra GLATGM is even usable at this point.

If I'm going to wishlist I want Soviet Naval Landing Infantry with their T-55AM using Bastion and Drozd.

>>53238767
As someone who has Wessies and is working on Ossies. I am very curious to hear about both.

>>53238866
>I'll be surprised if the Kobra GLATGM is even usable at this point.
It's probably going to be AT 21 or 22.

>>53238866
>The fact that the T-72A had slightly better protection (500mm v KE and 560mm v HEAT against 410mm v KE and 500mm v HEAT for the T-64B) apparently does not factor into consideration,
But it didn't have CHOBHAM ARMOUR so the armour was actually shit.

Cheers.

They're retooling the Soviet starter so perhaps we'll see t72s with the proper Era

Just kidding only more atgms cheers

>>53239320
>CHOBHAM ARMOUR
The fuck is it with some people and Chobham, anyway? I see so goddamn many "NEVER PENETRATED IN COMBAT, MOST ADVANCED ARMOR EVER" type posts in cold war discussion. There's even one on the forums going MUH CHOBHAM THO everytime someone posts actual T-72 armor measurements.

>>53239852

It's meme armor.

>>53239852
It's particularly weird considering the sheer number of undeadable Abrahams found burning in Yemen.

>>53240051
Soviet Propaganda. Muh three-decade old tonk is invince-abible!

>>53240051
But those are just export models, they don't have all the features and American Abrams would have.

Just like T-72s?

>>53240362
Just like T-72

File: 0_7509_ba96a685_XL.jpg (140KB, 624x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 624x800px

bmp

File: cease&desist.png (426KB, 1327x672px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1327x672px

>>53239064

>Bundeswehr
The Leo1 dies like flies without terrain. it is a capable warrior, since it outnumbers T-72's in some circumstances. The Geppard is not magical, but it is vastly superior to the Shilka and the VASD, due to 28" range and high AP. i literally finished the one game with a charge of the Geppards into a flock of Carnations and Shilkas, with some T-55's in the mix too.
--You NEED to have terrain and recon to survive as the WestGermans.
--T-55's can't deal with bottlenecked Leopard 2's. just try getting behind a Leo2 when your cross 4+ slow tank is trying to outflank a tank that can Cross 2+ / tactical 14 as fast as you can terrain dash.

>NVA
well, the army was borrowed from a poor sod who owned 15 resin T-55's. and let me tell you, the worst thing is not my armor nor my gun or slow firing....
it's the CROSS VALUE.
i literally took 7 casualties while bogged up behind flat terrain that forced a cross check. i did a 'cross here' twice and was able to get the survivors somewhat out of it.
My T-72M's did far better, though i'd prefer they be fielded in smaller numbers, but this guy's force had 10.
Thank God, Milans die to 105/125mm guns! and, he did not have max Milans!

result:

--Hard win with my Leo1's: due to a rough forest battle (5+ to hit me at Point-Blank) and having 2 Leo2's as well-placed reinforcements, i was able to decimate the enemy at the loss of 60% of my force...
--Called game with Possible Objective reached for NVA. with 1 extra turn, i'd have had 4 T-72's crossing off his table edge and 3 last T-55's holding up his guys in near-urban warfare, with 4 Gophers to follow the T-72's later.....

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

478KB, 985x567px

>see filename

File: Centaur_IV_tank_of_'H'_Troop,_2nd_Battery,_Royal_Marine_Armoured_Support_Group,_13_June_1944._B5457.jpg (109KB, 800x776px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x776px

Hello /fowg/.

I have never played Flames of War. A friend of mine is having a kid and is clearing out a lot of gaming stuff he doesn't use anymore, and he's going to give me a bunch of Brits. Infantry, tanks, guns, from what he's described there's a lot.

1. When is it okay to panic?
2. Is there a British list that people would recommend for starting out? He mentioned that there's no Late War for the new version yet which seems counterproductive.
3. If I post pictures on here, would people be able to help me color match in case I want to buy more stuff in the future?
4. Anyone know what the azimuth markings on the turret are used for in pic related?

>>53243306
>1. When is it okay to panic?
When you roll a 1 or 2 on your morale check
>2. Is there a British list that people would recommend for starting out? He mentioned that there's no Late War for the new version yet which seems counterproductive.
V4 has rules for the existing early and late war books, they're seperate from the midwar rules because reasons, but if for some reason you want to play v4 instead of v3, you can still use the same books.
>3. If I post pictures on here, would people be able to help me color match in case I want to buy more stuff in the future?
Probably
>4. Anyone know what the azimuth markings on the turret are used for in pic related?
Maybe so that somebody could see where stuff was relative to the tank to tell them "hey, there's Krauts to your 40?" Just a guess.

File: Centaur.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>53243306
The Centaur had those markings because they were supposed to be used as a shore support battery from the landing craft operated by the Royal Marines. The markings help with making sure the turrets are properly aligned to the target, since the 95mm howitzer they have is, well, a howitzer.

It's pretty cool to look at, though the Cromwells with 95s didn't do the same thing. If you don't know the difference, the Centaurs had an older, shittier engine and no hull MG (the later being what you can tell at the tabletop scale).

I need a suggestion for a tank to do in all Gold as a Trophy. I'm thinking either a KV-2 or a Maus.

>>53245250
What will it be a trophy of? I assume a tournament, but which era? Are all fronts allowed?

I would go with whatever tank would be iconic for that era/front (unless it's a tiny piece of bother, then go for something larger).

>>53245318
TANKS One day Tournament I'm thinking.

>>53245326
Ah. Maus, Tiger or KV-2 sounds good, then. Possibly an IS or Pershing. Something HUGE at least.

>>53245250
All gold will probably work best with intricate detailing, allowing the metallic-ish surface to catch and reflect the light at all sorts of angles, while large smooth surfaces will tend to show off the gold paint for the paint it is.

File: bob semple tank.webm (3MB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x377px

>>53245250
It's the Kiwi thing to do

>>53245409
I wish, there's only one source of them and it's a shapeway thing that costs an arm and a leg for what seems like a small 'Tank'

File: 658389.jpg (91KB, 768x1100px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 768x1100px

>>53245423
There's a 1/76 resin kit produced by a Dutch company called Giesbers Models, I came across it once when searching for VBCW stuff because they make various oddball vehicles.
http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article/bob-semple-tank-in-1-76/23149

File: IMG_0487.jpg (221KB, 1332x614px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1332x614px

Cheers VII: Return of the Gun Barrel Argument

>>53246115
wut? Ground pressures for cold war MBTs:

Abrams: 13.50 psi
Chieftain: 12.8 psi
T-72B (presumably with ERA): 12.8 psi
T-55AM: 12.6 psi

I have no idea what he means about road wheels, the Chieftain also has 6 and the Abrams has 7.

>>53246115
>long, low gun barrel
(that apparently can't be turned, despite being on a fucking turret)...

>>53246115
Cheers Phil.

>>53246248
He's talking about the maximum ground pressure. The psi you list there is the average over the entire track, and it peaks higher right under each individual road wheel. Less road wheels or the road wheels being more spread out results in the maximum pressure under each one being higher.

He's a complete fucking moron for making them have such shit cross ratings, though.

Kind of a shot in the dark, but are there any swiss guys here that would be willing to play TY?

Vallejo Grey pumice or White pumice for basing?

>>53247005
Yeah, but this kind of falls down still since the Chieftain's heavier than the T-72A, higher ground pressure, same number of wheels, and still better cross rating. It can't even be the engine since the chieftain and T-72 have similar horsepower and the T-72A's power/weight ratio is much better.

The only one it makes sense for is the T-55AM, which, sure, I'm willing to buy a tank heavier than designed with fewer road wheels is 3+ cross, but 4+ is a joke because that's armoured-car-bad.

>>53248066
Essentially the issue is it's comparing the difference between a tank with 5 road wheels to one with 8, which is a potentially big difference. The difference between the T-72 and M1 is 2.10 to 1.93 psi, if you're dealing with the psi per road wheel.

>>53248066
Yeah, I'm not saying that the difference is enough for the different cross ratings, just trying to explain the physics he's trying to use to back up his bullshit.

>>53246115
You know, I've seen that video. It's a good source as to why the Panther has a better cross rating than a sherman. The gun barrel bit also explains why the jagdpanther has a worse rating because it's long hull mounte- wait, nope. Cheers.

New Thread
>>53251697
>>53251697
>>53251697