Flames of War General /fowg/: Red Thunder Soon Edition

>>53421751
excuse me m'lord, but I believe the old thread has not yet hit the bump limit.

File: T64_card.png (171KB, 585x355px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 585x355px

Breaking news: Red Thunder might not be shit

File: BTR60_card.png (148KB, 578x388px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 578x388px

http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/coming-thunder-pt-1-new-soviet-units-in-red-thunder/

File: Gecko_card.png (177KB, 586x329px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 586x329px

Fuck you NATO airforce.

File: Storm_card.png (149KB, 581x294px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 581x294px

Fuck you NATO pig tanks

File: Arty_card.png (183KB, 574x365px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 574x365px

Fuck you NATO tiny western guns.

As a Soviet, should I use tanks or infantry for breakthroughs made possible with artillery and aviation?

>>53421848
Infantry strapped to tanks as "reactive" armor.

>>53421769
>AT-8 Songster
>AT21
>For a missile with 800mm of RHA penetration

Yeah, no, fuck this. I was waiting to see how this book would pan out, but I'm not going to buy in if they're just going to go full Cheers ahead.

It's a shame, because I really did want to give TY whirl - some actual attention to detail and they'd have had my money.

>>53421938
SinCe it was never used against a NATO tank in Honest combat conditions the 800mm pEn stat doEsn't Really mean much outSide of a lab.

File: Tank Protection.png (210KB, 699x432px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 699x432px

>>53421928

>>53421938
Wiki says it has 600mm penetration like AT-5 on bmp2, which has same level of penetration.

>>53421928

But infantry IS the best protection.

>>53422151

And the US Army intel document I pulled my number from lists 700mm to 800mm.

File: Ren-and-Stimpy-Eyes-stimpson-j-cat-11986564-500-375.jpg (29KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x375px

>>53421769
>>53421781
>>53421793
>>53421801
>>53421810

>>53422270
Well unless BF down in NZ has access to that, you can't blame them. If they do, send them a copy so that they can maybe correct it in the future.

>>53422270
AFAIK there are a couple of variants. Your documentation might use a newer version? I know the US got some Acacias from the Ukraine in 2000 or so.

File: T-72A_with_Comp.jpg (95KB, 800x874px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x874px

>>53422330

There's no reason they shouldn't be able to find it - I was the anon a number of threads ago who found it after a 30 minute search.

I sent an email about it and never heard back.

>>53422360
Durr, I derped. Was looking at two different documents. Never mind me.

>>53422360

Doc is dated 1991, so it's possible that they're referring to an upgraded missile, though as far as I can find the most modern version of the Kobra was the 9K112-1 which entered service in 1980.

>>53422403
Might I ask for some document details? I'd be interested in reading more.

>>53422412

You can have the whole thing - FM100-2-3 Soviet Army Organization and Equipment

https://a.uguu.se/NidEW7gMKRWQ_fm100-2-3.pdf

Upload is good for 24hrs.

I've been using this in combination with Ospreys for where info is out of date or missing.

>>53422530
Thank you!

Mr Cheers should read that and its companion volumes.

>>53422530
Can someone please upload that to zippyshare, mega or mediafire? I can't get anything from this link...

File: 1492927406144.jpg (189KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 700x700px

>>53421769
>tfw my Leopard 2 are no longer safe anymore

>>53423026
Try this?

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

If you want the other 2 volumes, just replace the last digit (the 3) with 1 or 2 for volumes 1 and 2 respectively.

>>53423047
Thank you, that worked like a charm!

>>53423085
One is glad to be of service.

>>53421751
SABER
WE MISS YOU
COME BACK
<3 HAUGE

>>53421769
>Red Thunder might not be shit
>Kobra doesn't help at all
>Acacia's a mild improvement on the carnation in bombardment with a bad direct fire and bad copperhead
>Gecko is 8 points on AA
The only decent thing is the Shturm, and that's going to be shit when it turns out it's 6 points for the platoon or something.

>>53423413
>Kobra doesn't help at all
No, it only outranges every tank gun in the NATO arsenal, letting you put shots on them before they can reach you.

>>53423483
This is backward, you need to reach them with soviet tanks. It helps for a bit if you're defending against MBTs, but that's it.

>>53423513
>It helps for a bit
>Kobra doesn't help at all
So which is it?

>>53423556
Would you prefer "Kobra is a profoundly marginal upgrade for a situation that very rarely occurs that helps a little bit then, but otherwise, doesn't help at all"? Because that's pretty pedantic but whatever floats your boat.

>>53423617
That sort of pedantry makes me rock hard, so yes.

>>53424163
>>53423617
>>53423556
>>53423513
>>53423483
>>53423413
The Kobra is also optional, so no-one is forcing your hand.

How much points T64s will cost per tank? 6 points? 7 points?
T72s cost 4 points per tank for initial 3 tanks and 5 points per tank added, I think T64s will cost more than that.
I do not think it should cost more than 7 points, though.

>>53421769
well i need to see the cost of these stuffs first, so i will not come back 40shits

>T-55AM2: A T-55AM1 fitted with the passive BDD appliqué armour for turret (horseshoe shape) and hull front (fitted to upper glaCis plate), sideplates fitted witH ExtEnsions pRotecting catwalk fuel tanks, the improved V-55U engine with an integral Supercharger delivering 620 hp and the R-173P radio system. The BDD armour panels consist of armoured steel boxes filled with Penpolyurethane. In addition there are cavities which can be filled with water or sand for additional protection. There is also a cluster of 8 smoke-grenade launchers on the right-hand-side of turret. T-55AM2 is fitted with additional headlights on the front fenders.

So why doesn't it have BDD armor in Tea-wait I already know the answer to this
C H E E R S

>>53425113
I asked that on the forums. The armour doesn't cover the front of the turret 100%, leaving some gaps, and so fuck the T-55.

"Cheers."

>>53424278
For 2 points per platoon it's worthwhile, but it's not going to hugely change theverything t64's performance.

>>53424799
If it's seven points it's shit. It's a hard sell at six given the chieftain is 6.

With the new edition, which Soviet Batallion would you recommend for a campaing? Which ones work the best?

File: 131.jpg (449KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 800x600px

>>53425282
This being the same game that gives you a 50% chance it hit the hull or the turret, no matter what the size of the turret is.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.mj/3BDDarmor02.pdf

>>53425601
Like I said, "Cheers."

>>53421769
>>53421781
>>53421793
>>53421801
>>53421810

Soviet player whining in...

>>53421938
3 posts!

File: 8e6b417aea9a2c1d506a70553a2ef020.jpg (65KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 530x600px

>>53425113
>>53425282
>>53425601
>soviet players still whinging

>>53426081
>>53425969
It's hard not to feel embittered as a Soviet Player when Phil seems to have a degree of hatred for you that most people would reserve for people who talk in the cinema.

100x German Sd Kfz 222 & 221 (2.8cm) armored cars, now 80pts in V4 MW.

Zvezda share prices rising as we speak.

>>53426267
Now how little is the a Mid-war T-26 going to cost?

>>53426301
BF will probably start MW EF at Kursk, so they'll avoid the problem for a while.

Probably 100 for 30pts...

>>53426371
>Probably 100 for 30pts...
CHEERS!

>>53425113
Worst part being that BDD is a T-55 and 62 only thing, it is the designation of the "horseshoe" turret armor and of the extra plate on the FRONT of the glacis.

But for some reason, "BDD armor" applies to the SIDES of the fucking T-64s and 72s. What the hell did the guys at Battlefront smoke? I mean, I'm not even complaining about the tanks or anything, it just triggers my autism.

>>53427754
Tanks should have separate armour values against KE and HEAT 2bh, or atleast a modifier like FFoT has.

>>53421810
>tiny western guns
>Carnation- 122mm
>Acacia- 152mm
>M109- 155mm

File: image.jpg (51KB, 283x352px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 283x352px

>>53428270
Fucking gunlets when will they learn?

File: 1458938176278.jpg (427KB, 1279x877px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1279x877px

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

File: gv0nhypfaiogic5wvszz.jpg (84KB, 800x427px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x427px

>>53429594
/USA/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZiWVJ3rvRQ

File: 1467222443790.png (909KB, 1273x900px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 1273x900px

>>53432059
ami go home

File: USA Vietnam 600pts.pdf (107KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1x1px

>>53421751
600pt vietnam patrol clash game coming up, me against a viet player and this is my list.

Any good?

>>53432932

Wait, wait, wait.

Someone plays FoW Vietnam?!

>>53433031
Yes
I also play Great War with some tweaking

>>53433062
I read that as "Great War with some twerking" at first.

File: memri2.jpg (82KB, 766x474px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 766x474px

>>53433089

File: I kill u last.gif (1MB, 360x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 360x200px

>>53433089
Oh god now I've got the mental image of a bunch of sweaty neckbeards twerking around a game table.

Thanks for that anon

>>53432932
You have no real ranged AT assets aside for air support - if your opponent brings anything heavier than a PT-76 you're going to in for it. The upside is that min strength armor would eat a third of his list, so you are unlikely to see it.
Unfortunately, that means he can buy something like 3 platoons of support weapons for the same cost if he doesn't go for tanks.

Anyone else not getting their daily login rewards?

>>53432268
irisdina is pure sex. 10/10 would babies and responsibility.

>>53435080
huh?

>>53435080
Wrong board pal.

File: Mantis.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>53435507
>>53435516
Derp, sorry guys, have a stupid idea for my stupid post.

File: 1E63150D.png (243KB, 1280x761px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1280x761px

>>53435492
Shut up Theo.
Gretel is better anyway.

>>53435718
ok, you have taste.

i forgot polish chic's name. she was the hottest sex, but Irisdina was everything else better

>>53433659
Should of mentioned we agreed on no tanks below 1000pt games as to get a jungle patrol feel for the game.

File: 20170526_185422-picsay.jpg (82KB, 704x444px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 704x444px

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Soviet armored train locomotive, Jimmy the Commie.

Plastic Soldier Company is offering 25% off on "selected products across our Plastic kits, boardgames and books". Shame I'm saving money for other stuff.

>>53439694
How huch T70s will be needed for future MW do you think?
20? 40?

>>53439863
I think it will be trivial to squeeze in 20, in addition to whatever else you're using. If you're mainlining it? Well, probably 1.5 times as many as you can have stuarts. At least.

>>53439895
At Kursk 70% of Soviet tank force was T-70, as far as I remember, so I am planning to build T-70s as my core force.
My concern is BF do not release T-70 and not include t-70 in their order of battle for 4th ed MW.

File: 20170526_205141.jpg (5MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4032x3024px

V4 objective card here

Are Katyushas metal or plastic?

>>53440557
The battlefront ones are metal and resin. Zvezda makes a plastic kit, but you won't get any crew.

File: 1363622179986.jpg (309KB, 1565x1164px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1565x1164px

>>53436719
>i forgot polish chic's name
Sylwia Krzasińska
Not surprising that you forget her name since she has barely any development in the animu adaption. I don't think they even allude to her traumatic rape victim past.

>>53440039
Wrong way round: 70% was T-34, the rest largely T-70s with a few other tanks in smaller numbers.

I'm not sure how many T-70s you'd get in V4 MW, probably masses if they're an option, but be warned: BF might nerf their stats (like the Crusaders) or, since PSC has a model, not include them at all. Because cards, and reasons.

>>53440286
How reliably can you get Precise Attack? It'll go well against those Crusader/Stuart heavy lists.

What units are a must have for soviet players in Flames of War?

>>53441375
Utterly depends on what kind of list you want to run. But generally, 120mm (or 160mm, if your force allows it) mortars. Then it depends on whether you want primarily infantry or primarily tanks.

>>53441375
T-34s. Usable in every stage of the war, and a unit of 7-10 of them is never a really bad idea to toss into a company (unless you already have more than that).

>>53441375
I'd say that at this point an IL-2 is a must have.

>>53441375
Depends on what stage of the war you're in. Check previous threads, the question gets asked a lot.

File: splinter smock.jpg (36KB, 276x551px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 276x551px

If 1420 was the standard list size for V3, what is the standard for V4?

>>53441438
Pre planned mortar barrages are impressive anti bunker weapons, definitely get some.

>>53442318
It was the standard for one year of tournies. If your local group kept it longer, that's on them, but the long-term standard was ~1500.

>>53442318
V4 rules seem to be pushing 100

Team yankee also considered 100 as standard but that settled down to 80ish

ww2 tanks are smaller than 1985 tanks as far as table space goes, but we don't yet have the russian cheers hordes in v4 mid war to contend with so it's hard to say where things will end up

>>53442387
Yeah, but how many people are regularly bringing bunkers?

>>53448230
Nobody, bunkers (and fortified companies in general) suck dick in V4.

>>53449023
Right.

So why are we talking about something being a good weapon to use against something that we rarely, if ever, see on the table top?

>>53449360
Memes, son.

>>53449360
Because if we do that then no one will take mortars because there are no bunkers. Then SURPRISE! Nothing but bunkers and a fortified company list. It's a next level strategic ruse.

>>53439560
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8HO6hba9ZE&t=0m22s
(using timestamp does wonders)

>>53440934
....and this changes everything.
too beautiful for something like that NOT to happen.

File: CaoCao is amused.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>53450945

has anyone had ANY of their old army lists work just fine in V4?

i am finding out it's impossible

>>53453758
Maybe your old list was just kinda bad?

My old standard King Tiger list suffers a bit from the new morale rules and Deep Reserves but I have since found ways to adapt to it, splitting off half of the tanks into a separate Formation and keeping one extra KT in the HQ means that I can deploy at least Two on the board in case of deep reserves.

>>53453792
>Maybe your old list was just kinda bad?
Or maybe his old list had any of the many things that now suck in V4, instead of a force that's only weakness now is the morale rules?

>>53453758
My go-to sherman lists seem to be fine. A bunch of shermans, recce and artillery (though now I can be satisfied with M4 mortar halftracks, no need to splurge on priests if I want to do more than pin and smoke, or I can just go with Sherman 105s)

>>53453758
No problems yet with my usual Late War lists.

>>53453758
No problems with my typical Soviet lists (Forward Detachment, Strelk) beyond the ones they already had in V3.

Haven't tried Hero IS-2 yet, tho...

>>53453758
>>53453758
Could you give some list examples? Maybe your stuff is suffering under the retarded morale rules. Or maybe you have some breakthrough guns that can hit with the nerf bat. Or maybe your list has options that are just overpriced compared to pre-ranged medium mortar bombardments.

File: 1459267776039.png (64KB, 264x221px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 264x221px

>>53435718
>>53436719
Now this is good taste

>>53453758
My EW/LW Soviet/German/US lists just work fine. No problem at all.
My LW Hungarian cavarly do not work well in V4, due to nerf of cavalry. But I do not disappointed as I did not played my Hungarian cavalry competitively. Hungarians still serve well for their purpose.
I have no problem with MW lists too, because my MW Soviet and US lists are branched from LW list and share models with LW lists so I did not lost anything.
My WW1 US/Vietnam US and NVA/FoaN UAR lists lost their job, though.

>>53456992
>>53456992
>LW Hungarian cavarly
Nice. Any details about it you can share? I had been considering doing that as a second army once I got my brits finished off, though V4 has put a major dent in that. How'd it work in V3? What list did you use?

>>53453758
I have yet to see the (non Strelkovy) Infantry list that can beat Matilda Tankovy: 21x Matilda IIs, 10 x Valentine VIIIs, 6x 82mm Mortars & Observer, 6x SU100s and 3x Tip3M Shturmoviks. That's 1650, but it scales very well: in fact, it's more dangerous at lower points.

File: oh shit nigger what are you doing.jpg (18KB, 366x380px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 366x380px

>>53455581
>Haven't tried Hero IS-2 yet, tho...
that didn't work in 3v

>>53458132
Hey, I managed to go 2-1 with them in a local 1250-point tournament....

File: IMG_0534.jpg (50KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 450x450px

>>53457693
>using more Lend Lease infantry tanks than were around in late war
>Tip 3M is literally the angel of death in V4

>>53458463
Hey, I don't use the list,several other I know do. I hate how cheap and effective the cheapo LL stuff is, the only LL I like are the Shermans, I play them or T-34s: Matildas, Lees and Valentines are still the better choices though thanks to absurdly generous support options.

Tip3M are absolutely retarded. 290 Pts for three "vehicles", hit on 5+ (or 6 over 16"), then have a 3+ save, then you need to roll Fp -1 thanks to Flying Tank, and they shoot RoF 2 with an AT12 cannon always on side armour...retardedly good for less than 100 pts each.

>>53458590
Yeah the Tip 3M also has a FP 1 template for murdering dug in infantry so it's not even lost value if there are no tanks around.

Airfcraft (with cannons) are super broken in V4. The only thing you can hope for if you are against them is that they don't roll to come in.

>>53440286
Do you also have the German and British Command cards?

>>53453758
They don't have recce lists anymore, so no.

>>53459509
Yeah: my Puma Companies went from fun and OK lists to complete and utter shit. Thanks BF.

>>53461690
>>53459509
But recce is good now!

If you don't mind being near useless against infantry now, not getting the benefit in half the missions, and limit recce to "one platoon of 2-4 vehicles for deployment zone expansion"

File: GE590d.jpg (26KB, 500x192px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x192px

>>53461767
I know

If only there was some kind of unit you could get, that almost every list has access to, that would help against infantry

>and limit recce to "one platoon of 2-4 vehicles for deployment zone expansion"
Where did you find that "one platoon"? ALL Spearhead units get to do their magic, and then you have a larger deployment zone.

File: 1478557579646.png (1MB, 1280x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1800px

>>53456206
Cutest commissar.

>>53462055
I'm saying generally you don't need more than the one spearhead expansion (which half the missions start you too close to use for more than a tiny few extra inches), so most lists want one tiny cheap-ass recce platoon with a few teams for that expansion, at most. Otherwise recce's overpriced as hell in V4, since it's paying for a pile of abilities it doesn't have anymore. Armored car lists just get fucked.

File: 1460431888012.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

>>53462116
More cute with glasses

File: Weeb B Gon.jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>53462571
>>53462116
Shoo shoo

>>53464375
Really?
where do you think you are

File: 1467912471138.jpg (121KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x720px

>>53464375
I've got this senpai.

>>53464413
The flames of war general.

I think you'll find a board called /a/ will be more receptive.

File: russian pizza.jpg (127KB, 647x962px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 647x962px

>>53464444
I see your digits
Weebs begon

so let's go back to warpac whinning

File: 1277.jpg (29KB, 359x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 359x500px

>>53464697
muh pact

>>53464375
The images are hidden by spoiler tags. Either you opened them yourself or you have spoilers turned off. You had to choose to see those images, why are you complaining?

File: Patton.jpg (2MB, 1169x1700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1169x1700px

My American lists just aren't the same without a broken Patton leading them.

>>53464954
Since when did Patton fondle young boys and have a camel toe, or own Trump's skin tone below the neck? You guys should have nuked Japan a few more times.

>>53465110
>fondling
I would not put it past Patton, knowing his affinity for balls and thrusts.

>>53465110
>You guys should have nuked Japan a few more times.

I think that would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Japan has this double-standard reputation as a very formal hard working business centered country, and as a country full of depraved perverts and man-children.

I don't think additional atomic bombs would have improved the situation.

The bombs, and losing the war in general, where what helped fuck up their cultural identity into the professional perverts we know today.

>>53465308
The world's oldest surviving tentacle porn seems to imply that, no, they were always a bit touched.

>>53421751
You are now aware that while no one was looking Battlefront quietly switched the Vietnam and Arab-Israeli M113 kits into plastic.

File: yeah okay good job.jpg (25KB, 680x349px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 680x349px

>>53465430

>>53465430
>Vietnam
>Arab Israeli

People play those? I thought they were in the dust bin with Great War.

>>53466041
Well i'm the guy who plays Vietnam and Great War with touch ups, so there is that.

>>53465430
They were always plastic, anon.

So what's the best list to use for building us parachute infantry.
Market garden
Overlord
Nachtjager exclusives?

>>53467880
I don't know if it is necessarily the best, but my personal favorite is the list in Battle of the Bulge.

Anyone here autistic enough to know what sort of camo pattern a jagdpanther on the western front in march of '45 would likely be painted in? I figure that might be a bit too specific, but I'm used to brits where there's none of this "camo" nonsense.

File: stewjagdpab.jpg (122KB, 550x405px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 550x405px

>>53469931
Ambush camo, Kamerad.

File: 20170528_170334.jpg (5MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4032x3024px

Finally finished my 1st TY platoon. Feels good to be painting again after 5 years off the brushes.

Is the new(ish) red thunder infantry in the old or the new plastic?

>>53470703
Clovers grow real big here in the Fulda Gap.
Also there's a 4-leaf on the left side of the shot, anon, did you grab it?

>>53471890
I hope hard plastic because they basically cost the same as metal.

>>53470703
Very nice.

You did an excellent job making that flat forest green paint scheme look really good.

>>53470703
>>53474728
The dark area around what I assume is the exhaust is also nice touch

File: 10300273_914527255258449_4823471069189000514_n.jpg (51KB, 650x432px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 650x432px

>>53470073
Thanks, wasn't sure if they were still doing that or if they had been forced to go to the oxide and yellow scheme by that point (or if that was an eastern front "oh fuck russians" scheme)

File: 1483453271340.jpg (75KB, 373x500px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 373x500px

>>53440286
>>53458991
post dem faction cards lads

>>53464954

i want to fight old Patton so bad. i never got the chance.
had a list tooled to kill americans led by Patton

File: 1453953343044.gif (3MB, 400x293px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x293px

>>53470703
>photo's outside

awwwwwwww man! makes me feel like a kid!

>>53474926
Depends how recently shipped out it was. There weren't that many tanks left in the west at all; even in the late stages of the war they were mostly going to the east.

>>53421938
why dont you try the not shit version of 6mm TY? >https://www.opsty.com/

Honestly, what is the sense in playing a game with tanks shooting over 2km with a board that wont cover more than 1km max?

>>53478515
>what is the sense in playing a game with tanks shooting over 2km with a board that wont cover more than 1km max
Engagement ranges of 2k would be rare, to begin, and 6mm doesn't give you 2km ranges either unless your board is huge.

>>53475974
I can only say Virucide was wrong about tank capture card, German infantry really can capture and use British tank during game, though it become on hit 2+.

>>53480733
>German infantry really can capture and use British tank during game, though it become on hit 2+.
That's dumb as fuck. There is no way they'd suddenly learn to use a tank in the middle of combat, not just the "how to hide" factor, but everything else. They have no training on how to drive it, how to traverse the turret, how to load the gun, what the various shells are, how to use the sights to aim, and not one thing is going to be labeled in a language they understand.

Pics or it didn't happen.

>>53480733
Duh....Virus is a butthurt muppet. When the UK's No. 1 player says "there is this card, it does x"...it exists and does what he says. Trying to pass that off as "my mate Geoff said" because you're a V4 fanboi was just further proof that Virus is a passive aggressive little bitch.

Virus BTFO.

File: the-kubler-ross-model-for-the-5-stages-of-grief-according-13518538.png (203KB, 500x745px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 500x745px

>>53480930
Stage 1 : denial.
And I didnt took pictures, the command cards are too many.
Believe or not the card exist, like god.

File: 1439697958215.jpg (27KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 768x432px

>>53481080
until we see the card, you are still just a troll.

and,

an asshat.

>>53465110
Think thats from when Patton slapped a soldier silly for claiming to have PTSD. It was a huge stink even back then

>>53481080
I didn't believe it existed because it sounded retarded for all of the reasons >>53480930
said, plus the fact that if you where a German Anti-Tank Gunner, and if you saw a tank moving when the platoon was "Overrun" you'd assume that your situation report was wrong, and shoot the living fuck out of it regardless of who was commanding it. There's a reason why Beutepanzer where marked with huge white crosses.

Plus I know several people all of whom have been NZ's No. 1 player at one time or another, and they're all capable of being wrong or buttlords if that makes any difference. He could be wrong, he could have seen a beta version of the deck that hasn't made it into the final build, he could be trolling.

So yeah. Pics or Gtfo

>>53481240
I started working now and don't have the cards at my hand for now, maybe I can take picture of it 12 hours later.
Remember, 'Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.'

>>53481517
Three words.

Trust, but verify.

>>53481517
In God we trust. All others pics or GTFO.

>>53481080
Who is more the little bitch, the one expressing reasonable doubt, or the one wanting harm on someone from the internet, anon?

>>53480930
There's a recount of this happening with M8 Scotts in NORDWIND in 7 Days In January. Though, perhaps in testimony to what you said, they came under fire almost immediately, were unable to return fire, and destroyed by shermans.

File: you made Hitler puke.png (109KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x600px

>>53481517

>'Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.'

the fuck is this?

there is a reason religion is mostly manipulative bullshit. this is a terrific example. fuck, i'm so glad i left church behind and all those head-games.


pics in 12 hrs, or [spoilers] you will grow a vagina...because God says so. [/spoilers]

>>53482624
Bartosz mate, we gotta get you some sandpaper for that edge.

>>53482624
Spoiler tags have no "s" at the end. Also, you can just go ctrl+s while highlighting the text you want spoiled for automatic spoilers.

>>53482791
....

yes. and deeper board culture escapes thee.

>>53482770
I'm just wondering who the hell quotes scripture on 4chan?

Or perhaps more accurately, who quotes scripture on 4chan and honestly expects that they won't get mocked for it?

>>53482810
A reference to the time when /tg/ didn't have spoilers is going to be mistaken for someone that just has no idea how they work. Sorry m8.

File: 1408931682265.jpg (103KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x960px

>>53483252
it's ok.

i was only pretending to be retarded


oh, wait....

>still wanting to see pic of the cards

so...anyone getting /tg/ related stuff for US Memorial Day?

is memorial day USA only?

>>53485068
Yes we have Anzac Day instead in NZ/OZ.

File: jagdpanther.jpg (101KB, 640x422px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x422px

>>53469931

Autist here. By that point you were seeing tanks sent out with some dunkelgelb just blotched over the red-brown primer.

Ambush camo is pretty cool looking as >>53470073's picture attests. I'm sure it wouldn't be unusual to see it.

>>53486071
In 1945 after Watch on the Rhine they changed colour schemes yet again, and subbed out Dunkelgelb out for a green that lasted to the end of the war. They still used Dunkelgelb apparently.

File: e10mby_1.jpg (51KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x467px

>>53486231
Got any neat pictures of that? I'm thinking of getting into some LLW stuff.

File: Panzer_I_Winter_Kiestinki_Finnland.jpg (43KB, 850x556px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 850x556px

>>53486071
any pictures of that sherman to the right?

File: 20170529_191151-picsay.jpg (86KB, 384x506px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 384x506px

>>53482624
Thank god, for saving my balls.

>>53489144
Goddamnit battlefront. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

>>53489144
What the actual christ.

>>53489144
Welp, I was hoping BF weren't that retarded, but here we are. Goodbye v4.

>>53489144
So they keep the skill and morale rating of the crew. So if you capture a Tiger, you are magically blitzing on a 2+ each turn.

>>53489144
Okay that is retarded. Fucking why would you do that.

>>53490024
Because Battlefront, I guess?

>>53489144
Fucking Mutant Hijackers.

>>53489734
Look at it this way, captured T-34 will be fearless potato.

>>53490024
Stage 2 : anger

File: IMG_0549.jpg (77KB, 700x599px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x599px

>>53489144
Maybe this is an alternate universe where tanks are sentient and responsible for their own morale and skill

>>53490323
I'm just skipping straight to accepting v4's going to be nothing I'm ever going to be interested in and abandoning FoW. I'll still play Team Yankee, but at this point I think FoW's becoming a legacy-only game. I'll probably try and see how cool the BA and Infinity communities are to newbs.

>>53490594
Bolt Action is a shit game for faggots. Play Battlegroup.

>>53490824
But people actually play Bolt Action...

>>53490594
I think you are overreacting a bit. Cats and dogs shagging each other and such.

File: 1494324505852.jpg (35KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x415px

>>53490824

>>53491092
I've been on the fence for a while, this is just the nudge that's finally pushed me off.

>>53492325
Fair enough, I've been getting into Bolt Action myself. At least locally the community is really nice.

>>53489144
What in the actual fuck BF?!? I...really, I just... what the fuck man?

File: Memorial Day Army list.jpg (366KB, 700x634px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 700x634px

>>53489144
yes good sir, you may keep you ba-
....
THE ACTUAL FUCKING--

dammit. dammit all to hell.

......
so,

i cooked up a list for memorial day. these are Grand-Uncles of mine. i really don't know which unit they served in...i had to guess the type.
what is hard is i have no memories or information how my family served in Poland: i know these two served, and any other mention is not given. worse that Poland is so far from my present home, and the culture i was raised in wasn't Polish but Hippie American, so i have no way of knowing exactly. and, the overly anit-war bullshit. i only know my mother said "they thought they were knights" once, and in my naieve mind, i thought she was mentioning the far past or don quixote or something.

File: oie_Kane.jpg (8KB, 299x343px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 299x343px

>>53489144

>>53489734
>>53490263
>>53489144
>>53489144

actually a pretty shit card because it's conscript hen n' chicks.
since it uses the tanks normal stats, you can capture a recon tank and suddenly have cautious movement.
do they keep Tally Ho?
it may also use it's full movement: it's not unreliable right? if you get hit on 2+ why not open the throttle?

so, cross check, remount, and skill all stay the same?
if Germans were playing in 2019 and used this on a soviet tank in an open MW tourney, they'd suddenly have shit stats on top of 2+ to be hit.

what if it's Blue on Blue in a Desert tourney and we kipped Italians with lower morale? so, they got scared by jumping in a tank? i guess if 2+ to be hit it is, you gonna shit a little? why not a drop for all tanks?

card makes no fucking sense, as written.

expect errata and Cheers.

>>53493477
> actually a pretty shit card because it's conscript hen n' chicks.

I'll take a looted KV-1/2/85 with that...for 1Pt? Worth it.

>>53494083
got me there.
but it still has shit stats.
(this card will rock ass if you want a Finnish KV in blue-on-blue)

File: coverlogo003.jpg (779KB, 1733x414px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1733x414px

new v4 logo....old colors!

please use and abuse at your whim.

>>53494640
Looted Ferdinand/Elephant? Who cares if hit on 2+, for 1pt it's worth it.

>>53495765
hmmm.

>blue on blue MW
>but it's DAK vs Grossdeutchland/Kursk
>.....
>profit?

hide your elephants, we chubby-chasers now.

>>53494640
>>53493477
They had a card with the same name for the brits in the card list, presumably it functions the same. So no need for BvB to loot a tiger.

>>53496277
Since at least the british get the same card, it doesn't even have to be blue on blue.

British infantry, 4+ skill/tactics. Get them into a tiger, and suddenly they're dancing like a gazelle... Makes sense, right?

>>53496667
Brits get it too? So when my Soviets get done for V4, I can get my own captured Panthers, in game...

File: 1468475246806.jpg (22KB, 299x246px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 299x246px

>>53496536
ok....

do we have pics?

Is there any word on when I'll be able to play Brits in North Africa that *aren't* Desert Rats?

>>53497319
Pics, no. Word of a friend who got the packages, though.

File: Screencap.png (139KB, 828x464px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 828x464px

>>53497319
>>53497726
We have the Flames of War website.
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=53&art_id=5618

Highlighted the bit in this screencap. Same name and same card type as the German one, just like with Softskins. Could be different points or slightly different mechanics, but highly likely the brits get something similar if not identical.

>>53498240
Well sheeeit...

File: vandenbergband2.jpg (97KB, 281x280px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 281x280px

Just had a big game taking part in some sort of campaign of Team yankee with roughly 200pts to 300pts per player mostly a bit more on a 20ft X 6ft board
was pretty fun, since we don't take the game particularly serious enough since we had a guy playing as poles with T-34/85.

I don't really get all the moaing about the game but that might be because i'm not playing in a competitive manner.

File: OPM ok anime.jpg (59KB, 833x463px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 833x463px

>>53498240

>>53499905
>poles with T-34/85.
>in 1985

I don't even want to think about how cheap and spammy points-wise T-34/85s would be in 1985 considering how low points and spammy the T-55 is in Volksarmee.

>>53499905
Take any pics?

>>53501246
no i don't own a phone with a camera on it
I don't really like phones

>>53501206
>I don't even want to think about how cheap and spammy points-wise T-34/85s would be in 1985
1 point for the company.

>>53479125
have you ever been to germany? Or did you want to do a tank battle in a town?

Also, every mid sized board can go to 2km.

>>53502147
Most tank battles happened within 950 yards, and this was primarily due to terrain. For WW2, the mean engagement ranges for busy countryside was 405 yards (standard deviation 380), and 1204 yards (standard deviation 735) in open country.

2000m is going to be your upper end of engagement range.

And a 6x4 table isn't going to be close to 2km even in 6mm; 300 x 6 is only 500 something meters.

>>53501206
>I don't even want to think about
Neither has Battlefront, won't stop them from releasing it anyway.

>>53501323
Dang. I would have loved to see all those tonks.

>>53503199
Of course, it's all moot with FoW's "telescoping scale", but I know other games use the 1 cm = 10 m ground scale, which makes 6 feet around 1800 something meters. Not too shabby suppose.

Hello i am new

>>53498240
p o s t

scans

File: IMG_0235.jpg (72KB, 355x531px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 355x531px

>>53505021
Hi

>>53421980
subtle

>>53505718
Hello i am bunp

File: tightestshit.png (267KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 500x375px

>>53470703

File: 20170530_173210-picsay.jpg (41KB, 450x305px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 450x305px

Big marder

Is it just me or are command teams and observer teams pretty much absent from most platoons in V4? I'm looking at the Desert Rats book and this just says 4x 25pdr. Nothing about anything else.

>>53509814
You only get one observer team per army, period in v4. And yes, most weapons platoons (artillery, anti-tank guns, heavy weapons) lost their command teams.

>>53509814
Yes? That was one of the big "this is supposed to be good" things with V4

>>53509943
Infantry platoons as well. There's a company command with 2x 3-man stands, but the Motor Rifle platoon, for example, just says 4x Bren Gun teams, ATR, and 2". Says under that the unit leader is a one of the bren teams and is mounted on a small base... which makes absolutely no sense if you're trying to get something to actually look like a real rifle platoon. You'd have the lieutenant, with 3 sections - each with a rifle and gun group.

>>53493028
They could be from north poland, the Teutonic Order was there until it got annexed by poland. Leftover knights stayed there.


Assuming she wasn't just making shit up

>>53496977
Soviets already got a unit of captured Panthers LW, just at RoF1 which made them worse.

>>53510002
You realise those are Motor Companies of the armored divisions, not actual leg Rifle Divisions (because those aren't in yet, apparently because noone plays them, or something).

>>53510024

And Motor Rifles have differently organized platoons?

>>53510061
Smaller platoons. Meaning they get reduced to one team per squad. (Look at V2 and V3 books, they were 4 MG teams and support weapons there as well). And the command team has traditionally been armed the same way as the rest of the "ordinary" infantry teams unless specifically upgraded, for ease of use.

>>53510021
I know....but now we can have them in Mid War too.

File: IMG_2781.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Some recent hobby work. Two Mid-War Tigers assembled and ready for priming.

File: dak p3s 1.jpg (106KB, 960x713px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x713px

thoughts on the dak p3s? Still need to do crew and minor details

File: dak p3s 2.jpg (105KB, 960x713px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x713px

>>53513453

>>53513453
I like them.

Plenty of stowage without looking too cluttered.

Maybe strange question, but wich armylists would be best for Ukrainian Insurgency Army and Yugoslavian Partisans? Armia Krayova/Soviet Partisan, with some changes, from Red Bear?

I'm a noob at this but very much into the cold war.

I want to create a Soviet vs. China scenario for the overall Team Yankee narrative (i.e. 1980s).

I noticed FoW hasn't released any Chinese figurines, are there any plans to?

Otherwise simply painting north vietnamese differently could work given the time period, they looked pretty similar.

>>53519888
I don't think there's any plans to do 1980's China within the Team Yankee range. You might be able to come close using the east bloc content available.

>>53519888
I imagine there are 1980's 15mm chinese out there somewhere, if not just repainting some older soviet cold war stuff would work I guess.

>>53510007
i took it as "cavalry men"

>>53518519
wait, as in WWII or cold-war/modern?

>>53519888
nice idea: what is your basic premise and date?

>>53513453
>>53513482
They look great but why do you have so much stuff on the turret? That shit is sitting on top of the ventilator and directly in front of the vision slit in the commander's cupola that he would be using whenever they were buttoned-up.

>>53524498
I'm less into german tanks so to remind me where is the ventilator. I knew there were some hatch slits but I figured I'd go with the "officers always peek out" meme

File: Nt8gHCY.png (750KB, 805x391px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 805x391px

>>53524829
No bore evacuators on those so there's a fan in the turret that pulls fumes out and provides ventilation for the crew.

>>53525058
wow, those really don't look like vents. Anyway, I don't think any were fully covered since I tried to use flat spaces, but I'll check to make sure. Thanks.

File: sdghjjkk.jpg (49KB, 440x294px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 440x294px

>>53524239
Basic Premise is based around a supposed agreement Nixon and Deng Xiaoping worked out during his visit to China, that if the US were to enter into a war with the USSR, China would open up a second front. China and the USSR were very much enemies at this time.

So as the Soviets are fighting NATO in Europe the Chinese send 150 divisions up into Siberia. The Soviets are greatly outnumbered but better equipped.

Fortunately for me, North Vietnamese and Chinese soldiers in this era had very similar uniforms and almost identical equipment. Pic related are 1980s-era PLA

Team Yankee Soviet soldiers are pretty straightforward, for China I'm thinking converted North Vietnamese T-54's (as Type 59's) and T-34s tanks, BTR-50's as Type 77 APC's, BMP's , ZSU-57-2's, Arab MiG-17's for J-6 fighters, and Arab Army Howitzers

File: the party just started motherfuckers.png (350KB, 522x613px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 522x613px

>>53525824

nice....

very, very nice....

>There's a reason that NATO tanks weight 50% more and cost many times more, and it's not because Western engineers are rubbish. The tanks are 50% heavier and at least 50% better, that's what all the extra weight is for.

From Phil's mouth to our (ch)ears.

>>53527026
NATO tanks weigh more because they have more support systems and interior reinforcement, also because they have accommodations for extra crewmen whereas soviet tanks are about minimal crews of 3

>>53527081
soviet tanks are actually lighter?

i never checked

>>53525775
It looks like the detail has been "simplified" ("streamlined!") on the new plastic kits: there should be holes for the vents, etc.

>>53529130
Yeah, soviet tanks are 35-50 tons, NATO are 50-70

>>53527026
CHEERS
H
E
E
R
S

Ok, I'm a total newb when it comes to FoW but I've had a bit of experience in modelling and I want to know how to do FoW right.

Questions:
* Is it worth my time and energy?
* What is the deal with the latest edition change? I cannot wrap my head around which units lose command teams and which don't
* How do y'all base? I'm not used to basing
* What's a good way to start out? Initially I thought Germany looked good but so does Late War British
* What should I do for terrain starting out? I don't want to play an empty table

Any thoughts or suggestions you might have would really help.

>>53532301
>* Is it worth my time and energy?
IMO yes, depends on your personal interests.
>* What is the deal with the latest edition change? I cannot wrap my head around which units lose command teams and which don't
If you're jumping in on v4 with desert rats and afrikakorps things are as-written. I personally wouldn't play the v3 conversion, because it's bad, but basically any non-man-packed gun loses a command team, and anything with a staff team loses it.
>* How do y'all base? I'm not used to basing
Splash some PVA on the base and dip in chunky gravel, wait for it to dry overnight, splash some PVA around everywhere I didn't gravel, dip in sand. When that's all set, paint the base with the model and flock appropriate spots after.
>* What's a good way to start out? Initially I thought Germany looked good but so does Late War British
The V4 beginner boxes get you about 50 points of dudes, alternatively you can probably still get the [General]'s [Animal] boxes. Just not the soviet or british ones.
>* What should I do for terrain starting out? I don't want to play an empty table
Cut out some green paper circles for forests, green paper strips for treelines, and chuck some fabric down for roads.

>>53532301
3 men for CC base
2 men for PC base
4 men for infantry base
2-3 men for weapon team base

>>53532301
In order:
Yes, Flames of War is still a great game. Actually I think version four is the best it's ever been since version two.
Gun Units like artillery, machine guns, mortars etc lose their command teams, Staff Teams and all but one Observer team from a select battery.
Basing is, and to be perfectly fair, a fucking chore. Get some pre-made bases, BF sell them, try Geedub's texture paints, spackle mixed with appropriate paint, I'd recommend painting the figures before sticking them on the bases.
See if you can find a Open Fire Box, it's the old Starter Box. Either that or flip a coin.
Cardboard terrain comes in certain boxes.

>>53532301
>* Is it worth my time and energy?

Do you have people around to play with? Is there a FLGS locally where they play Flames? If not you will have to bring people in or use the hobby aspect to keep you interested.

>* What is the deal with the latest edition change? I cannot wrap my head around which units lose command teams and which don't.

Guns teams like artillery and AT guns lose their command teams. Infantry retain theirs. Basically if the conmand team is an infantry stand for a non infantry unit, you won't be fielding it.

>* How do y'all base? I'm not used to basing

I use cheapo brown paint mixed with very fine sand and PVA glue for the texture. A simpler way would be using grout (filler) and using a metal tool to spread it on. After that you will want to paint the base brown and then use watered down PVA glue to attach what ever static grass/ flock you want.

>* What's a good way to start out? Initially I thought Germany looked good but so does Late War British.

If you can find a copy of Open Fire, that was by far the best value, especially if you wanted Germans or British armored (shermans). If you don't want that pick a list that interests you. I recommend running it by us, as some lists may not be new player friendly.

>* What should I do for terrain starting out? I don't want to play an empty table

Get some green cloth to spread over the table. You can put things under it to form hills. See if you local fabric store has scraps of felt in dark green (hedgerows), grey (walls), brown (roads), blue (rivers), or light brown (crops). You can add 3D terrain as you go.

While we're discussing some hobby-related aspects: is it considered lazy of me to just use static grass for my bases? I honestly prefer the way it looks compared to the gravel/sand options out there. Also - where do people go for primers? I'm told I can get primers in that are historically accurate and that would be real helpful for the 3,000pts of British I inherited last week.

Thanks for all the responses guys, really appreciate it

>>53532414
I'm not too keen on playing mid war so I think I might steer clear of the Afrika Korps stuff, I've always been a bit of a fan of the tech that came out of '43 to '45.
>>53532436
Cheers for this, I understand the observer/command thing. The guy on the website doesn't fully explain it, just in pieces whenever it comes up and it confounded me until you cleared it up for me. I suppose if I make a tank force then I don't really need to base?

>>53532494
I told a couple of my friends about it when I discovered it by chance the other day and they seemed interested, maybe not excited yet but they're also into modelling. I'm near two FLGSs, one who if I recall correctly (it's not my current preferred FLGS) seems to always have what I can now assume is FoW being played, so for opponents I think I'll be fine. I really like fluffy lists, like rear echelon troops who ended up frontline or just not generally front line troops like specialised reconnaissance, although I had a look briefly at some of the PDFs and the Late War list with the Comets looks really appealing to me, although I'll look into that starter box.

>>53532666
>Comets looks really appealing to me

Sorry Satan, but this is one of the danger lists for new players. Comet are very expensive and less forgiving than a sherman or cromwell list.

>>53532685
>>53532666
Yeah, do not do Comets first. Comets are super good in TANKS but are the worst, the most overpriced thing in FoW. Comets are great for outflanking or for shooting stationary. But they cost an arm and a leg for the stuff they provide.

>>53532685
>>53532737

Ah gotcha. They did look rather overpriced for what you get to be honest, but the 77 was built to be superior. I'd rather pick up Germans to be honest then.

>>53532917
Bear in mind that rommel's wolves makes a very specific list, specifically a late-late war fresh panzer company. You will only ever use that many panthers in that list.

>>53532737
>Comets are great for outflanking or for shooting stationary. But they cost an arm and a leg for the stuff they provide.
Specifically, they cost that much because they get charged full price for their high move AND for their effectiveness when they stand and shoot. They're priced like they're doing both every turn but they're only doing one or the other.

>>53524239
in WWII obviously

File: tmp_2278-pak_stuart1194625921.jpg (17KB, 400x329px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x329px

>>53518519
I don't know, but I've got a Stuart PaK 40 if there's some hidden list for them.

>>53535189
>Specifically, they cost that much because they get charged full price for their high move AND for their effectiveness when they stand and shoot. They're priced like they're doing both every turn but they're only doing one or the other.
Same reason IS-2s suck, then.

>>53536043
Similar, yeah, but the IS is overpriced because all the armor in the world doesn't matter if you can't kill the enemy. And RoF 1 makes the later very hard even with AT 15.

>>53536107
>Similar, yeah, but the IS is overpriced because all the armor in the world doesn't matter if you can't kill the enemy. And RoF 1 makes the later very hard even with AT 15.
The armour actually isn't that great, but more than that they're paying for both being an "assault tank" that's meant to be loaded up with escorts and charging stuff, and for being AT 15.

>>53536856
>The armour actually isn't that great,
The only tanks with more are the biggest of german kitties. 11 front means LW US is struggling to pen at short range and even a Panther has good odds of just bouncing off. 8 side means standard medium tanks still struggle after flanking it. It is actually pretty great armor. It's just that the shit gun makes all that armor irrelevant since the enemy can smoke and ignore it.

>>53532301
>Is it worth my time and energy?
Historicals are always worthwhile, there are countless rulesets you can use your vehicles with if you end up not liking FoW, and a lot of games are very lenient with basing so your infantry will quite often work across games too.

>>53537308
It was 10 all the way up until Berlin, and it's also beaten by the Church VII. Of the countries that fielded heavy tanks (the US essentially isn't in the race), they have one of the lowest FA values.

>>53538502
Right, I forgot that Red Bear only has the '43 version. Desperate Measures has the 11 front '44 though, which is the one I've seen fielded. Our poor local Finn has no way to deal with them, and the US players have real problems removing them. The germans, it depends on how many big cats they brought this week.

And yeah, forgot the Churchill VII because the one Churchill user here rarely brings one. The shots just always went to the other two Churchills in the platoon.

Had a chance to look through the Desert Rats and Afrika Korps cards today. And well... out of each deck, about 10 went into either the "sure, this makes sense" pile or the "why isn't this in the book" pile. The rest? Gamey shit that makes you wonder if you're playing a computer game (of the FPS sort). So... when's version 5 coming out, do you think?

>>53540104
>about 10 went into either the "sure, this makes sense" pile or the "why isn't this in the book" pile. The rest? Gamey shit that makes you wonder if you're playing a computer game (of the FPS sort).
Sadly that's pretty much what I expected. Damnit battlefront.

>So... when's version 5 coming out, do you think?
Hopefully? Soon, because BF seems to be pissing the bed with V4 so far.
Realistically? 6 years from now, seems to be the average edition lifespan.

>>53540104
PICS + SCANS GOD DAMMIT

>>53540104
ok right but so

what were they

>>53541480
"Why isn't this in the book": new/changed formations (Guards or Indian Motor Companies, ANZAC divisional cavalry, panzerspäh), a few pieces of equipment (panzerknacker/sticky bombs, softskin transports, portees, captured guns).
"I can accept it": warriors, mostly. I also remember the option to upgrade your crusader and stuart tanks into proto-scout tanks (though I've forgotten the details. I seem to recall being hit on 4+ and losing Tally Ho).

>>53541552
Hit on 4+ and lose Tally Ho seems pretty nice, since TH fucks you on orders and with 3 tank 5+ morale platoons you want every missed shot you can get. You remember roughly how many points it cost or any limits on how often it could be used in a list?

>>53542364
Sadly, I've already forgotten the details (it was a quick look-through to determine whether it was worth spending money on... turns out that I won't give one quid to battlefront, and I doubt I will be playing Flames of War, for quite some time).

eBMP

page 9

File: IMG_0559.jpg (158KB, 750x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 750x720px

Mass = Density x Volume

Or if you are Phil

Mass= Capability/Cheers

>>53547294
wow what a fuckwit

>>53547294
Phil was cheers-ing it up but the guy he was replying to was pretty wrong.

>>53547294
>50% heavier and at least 50% better.

Nyet Tovarish, Soviets just pack men better.

>>53421769
>>53421781
>>53421793
>>53421801
>>53421810
(You)

Question time - does /fowg/ choose very specific historical units to represent with paint schemes, OrBats, and insignia or do they leave stuff generic looking so it fits in anywhere without triggering grognards?

>>53550647
Depends on my list.

For my Germans and Soviets, I'm deliberately leaving off divisional markings etc. My desert Brits have their div markings visible but their regimental markings present but not readable because freehand.

My Canucks, on the other hand, were specifically based on the Perth Regiment (for the infantry) and the British Columbia Dragoons (for the Shermans).

>>53550647
My British paras are supposed to represent elements of the 12th Devonshire, one of the airlanding regiments. But the unit specific markings are impossible to paint at this scale, so they can be any para or airlanding force.

My cromwells are going to be B Squadron, 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars, complete with all the markings. But I have to get to painting them first.

Similarly, my Churchills will be from either 2nd or 3rd squadron of the 4th Grenadier Guards. All the markings, and the historically accurate tank names.

File: 1489705156303.jpg (34KB, 582x365px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 582x365px

>>53509558
You should edit it like pic related

File: Soviet Convoy - Afghanistan.jpg (114KB, 655x904px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 655x904px

>>53525824
>as the Soviets are fighting NATO in Europe
The Soviets had just entered Afghanistan at this time. the majority of army aviation was there, and a decent chunk of the army.

Have you thought about gaming the Soviet-Afghan war?

Does TY cover Mujahideen?

>>53554339
I think you got this mixed up with the War Thunder general m8. You're right of course, Gaijin are relentless cunts and like a certain other Ex-Soviet Union game dev seem utterly opposed to doing anything right when it comes to the British.

>>53554403
Yeah, wrong tab, which is why I deleted the post. Though since this thread is about to hit autosage it doesn't terribly matter.

New thread?