Flames of War General: Hit the beach edition

>>47543342
A quick question for the people who have experience with US Mechanized forces in TY.

What are your opinions about having the Dragons in the infantry platoons vs mounting them on the M113s?

Part of me says leaving them with the infantry is the smarter choice, but part of me says a mobile anti-tank missile might also be useful.

>>47543992
Dismounted, in my view.

You can't move and shoot with them anyway, so you always have the option of remounting if you need to get somewhere in a hurry. The M113 is also massively more fragile, while the infantry will be an annoyingly hard target for everything out of machinegun range.

File: D-Day defenses.jpg (399KB, 1239x697px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1239x697px

Not sure what it is about D-Day games, but something brings out the worst in me. Two separate incidents:

Person: Wave after wave of my own troops at your positions. Too bad for me Germans don't have pre-set kill limits.
Me: Sure they do. Approximately six million.

Me: We're going to build an Atlantik Wall, and make the Jews pay for it! And every time they say "please don't put me in the oven", we add another HMG!

>>47544531
>Ve're on a mission from Gott.
>Ve're getting the Brigade back together...
>Ze Dirlewanger Brigade.

>>47544531
>all that barbed wire
those infantry better be pioneers

>>47543992

Dismounted is always better.

m113s with dragons don't have the range or numbers bmps do so if you try to use them like bmps they just die.

>>47545104
Boat sections are capable of breaching wire and mines like Pioneers

>>47545356
I mean, I can see a super-niche situation where you need to make a big reposition on one turn and it absolutely can't wait, but you're almost always better off just having them on foot and remounting if need be.

File: Alternative Tiger Ace rules.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Reposting for comments, a proposal for a different Tiger Ace skill system.
Battlefront clearly want them to be random, they've had three editions and Panzerkanones to make them different. So my thoughts were to make them slightly more controlled in their randomness, by giving people at least the choice of avoiding Clever Hans!, which isn't bad, but is weak compared to the rest of the results.

>>47544531
>Trump/Hitler jokes

Talk about low-hanging fruit...

>>47545962
It's an interesting concept, but I'd say it probably needs a bit of play-testing.

File: 1463712838112.jpg (177KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x900px

>>47544531
Unpainted infantry

>>47550334
And to think I felt bad about half my army sitting on unfinished bases for the Firestorm: Overlord campaign I'm doing this Sunday.

>>47550367
That's terrible as well, though not as bad

So I have some Fallschirmjagers and Italian paratroopers lying around so I put together this Infantry Aces list that I'll probably never play. Speaking of which, anyone ever played Infantry Aces?

German 4. Fallschirmjagerkompanie
Infantry Company, from Fortress Italy, page 74

Compulsory Fallschirmjager Company HQ (4. Fallschirmjagerdivision) (p.75) - CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (55 pts)
- Upgrade CinC SMG to CinC Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)
- Upgrade 2iC SMG to 2iC Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)
- Panzerschrek (30 pts)

Compulsory Fallschirmjager Platoon (4. Fallschirmjagerdivision) (p.75) - Command Rifle/MG, 9x Rifle/MG (265 pts)
- Upgrade Command Rifle/MG to Command Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)

Compulsory Italian Paracadutisti Platoon (p.177) - Command Rifle/MG, 6x Rifle/MG (175 pts)
- Replace Command Rifle/MG with Command Panzerknacker SMG (5 pts)

Fallschirmjager Machine-gun Platoon (4. Fallschirmjagerdivision) (p.76) - Command SMG, 4x MG42 HMG (150 pts)
- Replace Command SMG with Command Panzerknacker SMG (5 pts)

Fallschirmjager Mortar Platoon (4. Fallschirmjagerdivision) (p.76) - Command SMG, 2x Observer Rifle, 4x 8cm GW42 (Stummelwerfer) mortar (120 pts)
- Replace Command SMG with Command Panzerknacker SMG (5 pts)

Fallschirmjager Light Gun Platoon (4. Fallschirmjagerdivision) (p.76) - Command SMG, 2x 7.5cm LG40 recoilless gun (55 pts)
- Replace Command SMG with Command Panzerknacker SMG (5 pts)


900 Points, 5 Platoons

>>47544531
damn, i mean, i know people tend to whitewash history but i feel like thats taking it too far

goddammit Im not even a dad why do I keep making such terrible dad jokes

File: Wargaming_at_CSW_Expo_2009_(002).jpg (386KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1200x900px

>>47551988
Playing historical war games brings out the dad in all of us.

I don't suppose anyone here has a copy of Osprey's "Universal Carrier 1936–48" book? A several hour trawl only pulled up polish, br, and ru scam sites.

File: 000 the 3 companies.jpg (87KB, 739x451px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 739x451px

Just finished the Girl und Panzer movie.

it's just as cheezy-cute as you expect, with plenty of new tanks.

>nice exhibition match
>fucking university and all their LLW tanks!
>T28 can get confusing....
>then...bolted on treads? what?
>Christie Suspension
>the rides never end....literally.

>and, you know you have taste when your command tank is a Centurion

all in all, a nice cap to the enterprize.
it'll get a TANKS version, but so many of those things are in Metal-Resin...

FoW GuP is now feasible, esp with the Pro-Level 30 tank games....

they even split to platoons in the movie....

>>47552407
shit, forgot to spoiler the image.

ok. manual spoilers above....

>>47552407

I'm guessing by the pic you found a copy with subs? I'd only seen the raw floating around until now.

I might try to grab that and watch it at the weekend.

>>47552267
>Alexander the sleepy

>>47552407
The Christie tank was phenomenal, yeah.

I was watching and thinking "Huh? Centurion? How's that legal?", but then I realised it's the prototype mark 1. That was clever.

The T28 had four sets of tracks, which made it too wide for rail. To overcome this, the exterior track could be detached to narrow the vehicle down (though it took two hours, rather than just popping off like in the movie).

>>47552407
>>Christie Suspension
That, and Säkkijärven Polkka. Pure awesome.

I really wish you could do a "gotta go fast" panssarikomppania in FoW

Blitzkrieg only, 1420 points, final destination.

British Infantry Tank
Tank Company, from Blitzkrieg, page 120

Compulsory Infantry Tank Company HQ (p.120) - CinC A11 Matilda, 2iC Light Tank Mk VI B (90 pts)
- Replace A11 Matilda with A11 Matilda (0.5" MG) (15 pts)

Compulsory A12 Tank Platoon (p.121) - Command A12 Matilda Senior, A12 Matilda Senior (475 pts)

Compulsory A11 Tank Platoon (p.121) - Command A11 Matilda (0.5" MG), 2x A11 Matilda (200 pts)

A12 Tank Platoon (p.121) - Command A12 Matilda Senior, A12 Matilda Senior (475 pts)

Motorised Battery, Royal Artillery (p.121) - Command Rifle, Staff, Observer Rifle, 15-cwt truck, 2x OQF 18 pdr gun (120 pts)

Air Support (p.129) - Sporadic Hurricane I (25 pts)


1400 Points, 4 Platoons

I was a little leary of leaving out infantry, but all the infantry tanks ought to hold up just fine in assault at this stage of the war. Top 2 means even ATRs are going to do very little and side shots do nothing. I was even considering leaving out arty, but I'm thinking it should be useful for pinning even if I don't need smoke to cover assaults.

From the FOW Forum, comment by JP on the Bulge Compilations thread:

"They are right after the Leopard book and its releases in September along with a couple of new plastic kits for late war."

>>47554883
>" a couple of new plastic kits for late war."

One of them will be (without a doubt) a Tiger 1 in plastic since they're seriously missing one for TANKS...and you can't to a tank based game without the Tiger tank (its like trying a Star Trek-game without any incarnarion of the Enterprise)

>>47554883
Wonder what the plastics are. Most of the vehicles and infantry are covered; we've got plastic US and germans with their halftracks and plastic M4s, Panzer IVs and Panthers. Plastic arty for the yanks and germans maybe, like the soviets got? I can't see them doing scout/armoured cars in plastic. I could see plastic TDs/hellcats, given their somewhat legendary role in the bulge, but I don't know what the germans could get they don't already have.

>>47555682
Ah, shame. PSC already do one and I'm quite happy with those. Tiger IIs, OTOH...

>>47555717
Hopefully, it's M10/M36. A kit was rumored when BF first launched their plastics, but has since disappeared.

>>47555739
It is likely to include the plastic M10/M36 kit as that has been m.i.a. for ages. I'm hopeful for a plastic KT sans zimerit, and a plastic Hetzer. Maybe a Panzer IV J with plastic mesh shüten? Plastic Panzer IV L/70 (V) would be awesome.

I hope for a Tiger I, or at least plastic parts to go with the resin hulls, but it does not fit the Bulge time-frame.

File: NVA 110.jpg (469KB, 1180x769px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1180x769px

>>47552318
If you're ever looking for an Osprey anon, go mention it over in /hwg/ and I'll upload it for you. I have pretty much everything. No need to go trawling through the scam sites!

http://www.mediafire.com/download/udtmnl3nmn0rdmb/Osprey+-+NVA+110+-+Universal+Carrier+1936%E2%80%9348.pdf

>>47556605
Thanks a lot, wish I had just asked here in the first place. Now to get to reading...

>>47555739
It'd be a shame not to include the M18, it had a sterling reputation and had it's last hurrah as a TD in the bulge.

File: 1450871842012.jpg (409KB, 1077x1500px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1077x1500px

>>47552824
Subs are on Kiss Animne. have fun with stopping and backing up, though.

>>47553768
oh, i did not know that one tidbit about the tracks. yes, GuP is filled with artistic licence...like all the 'tank rides'

>>47553878
if you play EW, then agree to support companies, you can get all kinds of awesome, like BunkerFlak/Dicker max companies or Polish Tankette Companies.why not Christie Tank Companies w tank riders?

>>47555717
we covered this in a PanzerFunk.

most likely candidates:

Tiger 1
M10/M36
Churchills
Stuarts

just for wide-application use
of course, they made plastic Pershings, so it's not like they stick to the wide-use items

we might get plastic KingTiger/JagdTiger kits....

>>47552407
I though it was pretty great on the whole, though I wish Rosehip and the Crusader had a little more time to shine.

>>47553878
That scene was great.

>>47552824
/a/'s got a thread up with the subbed 1080p version and OVA bundled last I checked, if you're still looking.

File: Le_upboat_cartel.jpg (698KB, 1776x1648px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1776x1648px

Looking through the scans , I don't actually see any terrain scans. I need to make a beach in the next few days for a dday game this weekend. I figured some shaped styrofoam, water effect, and paint? And docs or pdfs? Already Google fu'd but those guides seem really lacking.

While I have this idea, any color pictures of the beaches and French country sides? I can either find b&w pics of the assaults, or colored pics of today where everything is overgrown and faded.

Pic unrelated.

>>47557442
>>47557481
If you want to want to properly download your copy and watch it using your player of choice (or >VLC), it's also up at nyaa.se

File: 100_7283.jpg (314KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1600x1200px

>>47557536
There are lots of blogs on this sort of thing, if you search for "wargaming D-Day" you'll find several schools of thought on the subject.

You might also like to look for a magazine called After The Battle, which was published in the 80s and has detailed "walk arounds" of famous battlefields.

>>47557843
Yeah, that's the one linked in the /a/ thread.

>>47557473
Why would Churchills be in the Bulge compilation? It's going to be US and German. KT/JTs seem plausible; they're in an awful lot of LLW books, KTs are in almost every LW book, even.

>>47558496
Well, XXX Corps and the 6th Airborne did fight in the Ardennes, not sure if any Churchills were with the units involved though.

>>47558496
oh, that is just a list of tanks so commonly used a plastic set would be a smart idea.

>>47558496
Honestly we were looking at it from the perspective of the new Tanks game.

What vehicles could they add to that that would also make sense to have plastic kits for in regular Flames of War?

And those were the likely options we thought of.

>>47557139
Problem is that the M18 has a completely different chassi compared to the M10 and M36. And it would seem a bit superflouos to release two US Tank Destroyer plastic kits, especially since there is so much more that people want covered.

>>47560517
>And it would seem a bit superflouos to release two US Tank Destroyer plastic kits
Obligatory reminder that the M10 and M10C were heavily used by the brits.

>>47558757
I mean, you're not wrong and there was technically a tank regiment involved (that is not "armoured") but I feel it's really unlikely they'll include the brits. They didn't in any of the books that're going to be compiled/revised.

>>47560660

And especially with the 17 pdr. One of the better options for Brit mobile anti-big cats.

>>47562170
And in some cases (Churchill lists), the only option.

>>47562300

I may not recall this correctly, but I think the Wolverine also pops up in Soviet Lend-Lease lists?

>>47562557
Not unless it's in a digital list.

>>47562799
I tell a lie; looks like they were in the revised edition.

>>47557442
>like all the 'tank rides'
Tank rides?

>>47552267
>brings out the dad in all of us

oh i know. The ex used to mention that I had the most groan inducing dad jokes she'd ever heard. Saying "well you gotta practice, never know when youll be a parent someday" probably wasnt the smartest answer now that i think about it...

>>47564111
if you watch the film, you will see how they run tanks on over-sized amusement park tracks, and how they in one segment, equip tanks w duck-heads to blend into a theme park. they also scoot down an escalator w a super-light, and they weaponize a few amusement park items and terrain pieces.

>>47557473
what about hetzers? you could make a hetzer with variant vehicles built off the main hull like marders, the tractors, or even just panzer 35/38t's.

Even though the hull was a bit different length on the hetzer, it wouldnt be too noticeable at tabletop scale. Its possible at least and makes sense as a nitch not filled by psc.

The other possible German design would be a pak 40/50 and potentially 38 as well kit, since thats a very widespread german unit and both the open fire and metal ones are a pain in the ass to build.

>>47566349
I'm pretty sure that any PaK 40s you now buy are the plastic PaK 40s.

As for Hetzers/38t's, that is certainly an idea.

>>47566349

PSC do a 38(t) with an option to build a couple of types of Marder, but these are generally the mid-war Marders.

It'd certainly be nice to see something like a "Pz38(t) LW" box, with the option to build Grilles, Marder IIIs, etc, plus possibly Hetzers (and Flammhetzers). Given that a total of nearly 2000 Marder IIIs were produced, it also seems reasonable.

>>47569166
>It'd certainly be nice to see something like a "Pz38(t) LW" box, with the option to build Grilles, Marder IIIs, etc, plus possibly Hetzers (and Flammhetzers)

Such a kit was promised by PSC....nearly three years back. Now they're mostly doing board games, their actual miniature releases have slowed considerably.

>>47571175
Eh; there's probably more money in them. They're also manufacturing a huge range, now.

File: SuuIsHappyWithThis.png (24KB, 390x119px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 390x119px

>>47569166
Do PSC's pz 38t boxes not make marder IIIs? I thought they did.

Also
>mfw the captcha box has a sdkfz251

>>47571529
They make Marder III H, but not Marder III M

>>47573542
That picture reminded me that I wanted to ask you guys about A-10s in Team Yankee.

Have people used them? Are they better in groups of 2 or 4? Are they worth their points? Or are they too vulnerable to Soviet AA?

File: Ka-Mi Sensha Chutai.jpg (567KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 3264x2448px

My (for now) finished bunch of Type 2 Ka-Mi tanks... I might go back later and re-do some of the unit markings, as I did botch a few of them.

In total, it's 2 company HQ tanks, 1 platoon of 5 tanks and 2 platoons of 4 tanks each. Might get a 4th box of them at some point later on to max out the 2 remaining platoons to 5 tanks each, though that would leave me with 3 tanks I can't fit into the list.

Do things like bazookas and light mortars only have a 5+ save? If so, do command teams upgraded with panzerschrecks also have the 5+ save?

>>47575760
I also just realized that my figures are actually relevant to the current general.

>>47575760
>though that would leave me with 3 tanks I can't fit into the list.
Chop them up and use as scenery/objectives? That's basically the plan I have for Stuarts, since I'd end up with 2 spare from a PSC box of them.

>>47575789
Infantry teams have a 3+ save. Bazookas are infantry team, 3+ save. Command Teams with Panzeraust upgrade are Infantry team, so 3+ save. Panzershrecks are separate team, also infantry teams.

Some light mortars are Infantry Teams (e.g. British 2-inch Mortar, German 5cm), mounted on small bases, and have a 3+ save as infantry.

Other light mortars (e.g. US 60mm, Romanian 60mm, etc.) are Gun Teams, and have a 5+ save unless they are Gone to Ground, then 3+ save, etc.

>>47576198
Right, so it's not "man packed", it's being in the infantry or gun section?

>>47576480
Yes.

>>47576480
The 60mm mortars are "Man Packed Guns", just like HMGs. Infantry team light mortars are listed as such in the arsenals.

I've got an upcoming multiplayer D-Day game, and I've come to a list, but I have some wiggle with my weapons options. I'm looking at either 4 three-inch mortars, 2 machineguns, or 4 four-inch mortars and two three-inch mortars.

The machineguns might be able to hurt some infantry and would serve to pin, while the mortars can pin and smoke but are unlikely to do much hurting. Conversely, my main mortars being 4" gives me somewhat reasonable odds of actually killing some dug-in infantry the 3" don't have, and might hurt tanks (hey, it's technically possible...).

And yeah, the tiny extra platoon is pretty important to get me to 8 overall and I don't care about a small fragile platoon since the landing mission doesn't care about teams killed.

>>47577654
4.2" mortars for killing and smoke. A pair of 3" mortars for dedicate smoke and the odd pin...would be my choice

>>47577687
Good point, the smoke bombardment won't be too badly affected by the small unit size.

>>47577654

If you're doing a beach landing, bear in mind smoke will do nearly fuck all against bunkers. Bunkers ignore the concealment and the gone to ground effect; the only thing smoke would do is reduce the bunker's range to 16". And you need to be within 16" to attack it anyway.

Does anyone know a place where I can get a small number of bren guns and crew for cheap? I'm trying to add some to my Wasps, but am having serious issues finding usable models. The best I've found state-side is a pack of command decision bren carrier crew, but they're only sold in 50-crew lots for $13. International options are more reasonable, until you throw in the $10+ in shipping that makes it more expensive to buy 10 than 50.

>>47577840
Oh, I'm aware, but it might let me get past a bunker, and it'll work fine against infantry and tanks and the like.

A burger is not a sandwich recaptcha.

>>47577985
>A burger is not a sandwich recaptcha.

Technically it is. It's chopmeat, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickles, and sometimes cheese and bacon, on a roll.

>>47574704
I haven't had the chance to use A-10s yet in any of my games, but I plan to once I have them assembled.

>>47574704
I've played two games where my opponent had 4 of them in his list.

In the first game, he messed up so badly I'd won before he ever got them to appear since he put them in reserve to start the game.
Ambushing a company of T-72s into the flank of a platoon of 4 Abrams can tilt games like that. My opponent had forgotten they can move and still fire at full effect.

In the second game, they were stuck in reserve again, followed by a pair of bad rolls to make them appear.
When they did arrive, he made the mistake of placing them within firing range of a platoon of 4 Shilkas.
Some average to-hit rolls, horrendous saves and great firepower rolls later, three out of the four Warthogs were gone.
After blowing up a single T-72, the last one decided to flee as well.

To be fair, these were some of the worst-case scenarios for using the things.

>>47579021
To be fair, bad dice rolls and poor situational awareness can happen to anyone.

>>47579388
Yeah.
The worst thing about losing the aircraft in that second game is that it was wholly unneeded.

There was plenty of table space outside the reach of the Shilkas but within attack range of those T-72s without granting them concealment.
After all, those AtG missiles have ridiculous range.

My opponent was just a bit too focused on also placing them along the road the tanks were on, probably because it did look really cinematic.

>>47579602
>probably because it did look really cinematic.

It's a temptation of mine as well.

But sometimes you need to think tactically, not cinematically.

File: Cocaiiine.webm (481KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 360x360px

>>47575760
that is some glorious bullshit.

Im playing a dday game this weekend, and im using a fortress company of germans. What is my best bet on strategy? Should i bunker and dig in as many MGs as possible and pin the americans on the beach? I dont really have any arty, an oversight on my part.

>>47582225
They'll probably get off the beach eventually. The troops you kill get recycled into new new waves of landing craft.

It's not a question of keeping them on the beach.

It's how do you stop them once they're off the beach?

>>47583912
Kill them once they're off the beach. Every turn they fought and struggled to get off the beach is another turn that they have to repeat that performance in the next wave.

File: image.jpg (159KB, 500x303px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 500x303px

>>47580995
>But sometimes you need to think tactically, not cinematically.

I'm fairly certain you mean most of the time.

As tempting as it might be to shout "Wolverines!" As you attempt to single handedly shoot down a HIND, it's not very realistic. :-P

>>47585419
Shoot down one.

I've got seven more.

File: Applique Armor v0.2 - A LW British Supplement.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

And my silly pet project hits v0.2. Now includes expanded rules for Hobart's Funnies, a background and formatting, and some rules for the weird stuff the brits did with the Bofors.

Not included:
>Rules for the Churchill and Matilda CDLs
Only thing hinting they may have even possibly left england is a single passage in a diary mentioning a Churchill with a powerful spotlight. Meanwhile I've got a few sources saying the Grant CDLs both shot and got shot at while helping the americans and brits cross the Rhine.
>A fix for british pioneer platoons
They're just too damn tiny, and I can't come up with anything that isn't illogical. At least the Dragoons rule makes some sense.

If you think something in here is overpowered, is written poorly, or if you have a suggestion for something, please post your thoughts.

>>47585827
The major suggestion I'd give is to make some of these upgrades free. British platoons are already paying a lot for a little.
Also sundry changes to other British Heroes, like giving Robert Henry Cain his PIAT, and make the Forward Air Observer more effective.

>>47585827

>They're just too damn tiny, and I can't come up with anything that isn't illogical. At least the Dragoons rule makes some sense.

I had in mind a sort of universal rule that FoW could use.

Basically
>If a 1iC or 2iC is in command distance of two seperate platoons, a successful skill check may allow the two platoons to be treated as a single platoon for the purposes of moving, shooting, or launching assaults.

>>47585827

25 pounders shouldn't get Brutal, because they already have twice the ROF as most arty.

>>47585827
>Fireflies and Shermans with Tally Ho!
Are you insane? That's an incredible buff to their effectiveness. To the point of being an auto-include.

>>47586115

Their cost per team isn't remarkable one way or the other. Their biggest problem is small platoons. Everything else is froth.

>>47586220
Literally only works with JOE Vandeleur, and currently at a Fifty Point buy in, and only available to Guards Armoured and Guards Lorried Rifles.

>>47586278

So only a few armies get a badly balanced option. I'm not sure if you appreciate just how brutal Tally Ho can be with guns that don't suck.

>>47586115
>The major suggestion I'd give is to make some of these upgrades free. British platoons are already paying a lot for a little.
Except for the Archer training and the ARVs (which are no better or worse than everyone else's and so should pay the points for a MG as normal), most of those were not standard, so making them so would make no sense. And the archer one would have a big enough impact that it should raise their points (Though probably not as much as I have it being, given how cheap Stormtrooper seems to be)

>Also sundry changes to other British Heroes, like giving Robert Henry Cain his PIAT
I couldn't find him in any books the last time you mentioned him. Stanley Hollis does have a PIAT in his VC mention but doesn't have one in the game.

>and make the Forward Air Observer more effective.
For JOE? It seems pretty in line with what you get for air support upgrades, being 10 points for a bit less than half of the upgrade you get from the generally 25pt Close Air Support. You get to reroll any range in attempt and get the reduced wave-off distance, but don't get the "roll two pick one" that CAS gives. Probably drop him to 5 pts because he can be killed, but otherwise I'm not really seeing the balance thing there.

>>47586211
They're also overpointed (5+ bombardment FP while costing the same as US guns with 4+ bombardment FP), have lower FP than those do in direct fire, and are quite a bit less effective even with two shots.

>>47586220
Currently he gives re-rolls at short range if you moved, which is honestly worse than SIDF and not at all worth the 50pts initial cost, given his other rule is a very unreliable and limited extra move. Having to be within 8" of him and only working on a 5+ is pretty bad. Other option I had considered was making "Press on" a 4+ instead of 5+ for the extra 4".

>>47586593
>5+ bombardment FP while costing the same as US guns with 4+ bombardment FP
US costings should not enter anyone's head for even a second, as the appropriate points levels for things.

>>47586593
>honestly worse
Debatable. It's certainly a situation that comes up all the time, and the traditional line of whining on /tg/ is that SIDF never ever happens and is a generally objectively terrible rule anyway.

He's also a higher command team, which is great to have, and the air support perk is interesting, if perhaps in need of a 3rd ed rewrite.
Whatever's wrong with him, giving everything Tally Ho is massive overkill. I'd probably just adjust his movement buff to something like that American guys. A skill check, perhaps, rather than a 5+.

>>47586625
Ok, then lets use soviet Hero artillery, CT but hits as CV. Same points as 4 CV 25pdrs if you get 4 122mms and an observer, with the soviets getting a very impressive 3+ FP in bombardment to make up for their lack of special rules (which it very much does, being notably more effective than even the repeat bombardment with Mike Target re-rolls). Their bad AT in direct fire is only barely relevant, and in the anti-soft-target role the Volley Gun re-roll makes them (unsurprisingly) better than the proposed brutal 25pdrs.

Or we can use the germans, same points situation with their 10.5cm leFH18cms once you discount the points for the extra observer they get. They've got the standard 4+ FP bombardment, which the brits equal in effectiveness AFTER they start repeating with Mike Target.

All of these I've heard their users complain are "overcosted". And then from the gameplay perspective, everyone else can grab their mobile arty platforms, park them at 11", and shoot infantry off the objective. Brits try that with Sextons, they'll kill about half as many guys. Assuming 5s to hit (though the to-hit doesn't change the final kill ratio), we're looking at an average of .67 hits, .22 getting past the saves, and then .14 dead after the FP. Your average 100mm arty gun gets .33 hits, and then .275 dead after the FP. With Brutal on there, you get .25 dead after saves and FP for the 25pdrs.

>>47586645
I don't agree with the general whining that SIDF is utter shit, at least partially because /tg/ will then turn around and say Cat Killer is good. I'd say it's worse than stabilizers, though.

Skill test would basically read "pass on a 3+", since the lists that can take him are both CV. Though I suppose there is the potential for running two companies under him, where the second might be trained.

And I've got sleep now, so further responses will be in the morning.

>>47585827
One of the funniest things about the update is the medium support rule; realistically everyone's guns should be off table unless they had a direct fire mission in mind.

>>47586625
Yanks still exist; either they need taking down or everyone else needs a buff and it is the "buff britain" project.

And brit arty definitely isn't as competitive.

>>47586593
No, bonuses that are reliant on moving are useful. They're one of the best features of japanese sensha companies, f'rex.

>>47586995
The issue with both SiF, and coincidentally H&C, is that they require telegraphing. You have to park up somewhere, letting someone know exactly what you're about to unload on, and give them ample time to respond. SiF is particularly bad because in addition to "reverse behind that house", you can use the amazing strategy of "drive forward a bit", which negates the british bonus entirely while also lowering their armour and remaining statistically equivalent in terms of hits (8 shots on 6 and 4 on 5 are basically the same). It's just very easy to negate.

If SiF were "whenever firing at long range" or "whenever firing stationary" it'd be much better, for example. "Whenever firing stationary" is kinda nice from a symmetry POV, too, being the opposite of the yanks.

>>47586995
>at least partially because /tg/ will then turn around and say Cat Killer is good.
I wasn't aware that /tg/ had ever seriously said that Cat Killer was good.

>>47586995
105s are expensive, though. That direct fire stat line prices them right out of EW, and makes them a fairly iffy choice in MW. You can't just isolate the game around LW. Particularly when 25 pounders do sterling service as ATGs in EW and MW. The Germans also don't get the reroll on the first range in, and they're a total crapshoot in direct fire.

>mobile arty
That's a way bigger problem than brits, and comes down to the save system and the effectiveness of guns in general. Tanks get the same problem when shooting at bulletproof infantry.

>>47588766

It's a rule mostly Russians get. It's evidence that BF hates Russians.

>>47588439
>you can use the amazing strategy of "drive forward a bit"
Reducing your own ROF and giving them an easy kill zone the next turn. SIF means they have the advantage in a long range duel, particularly defensively when you have to come to them.

>>47589137
As I said, 4 shots on 5 is equivalent to 8 shots on 6 and at a lower effective armour. You have a point about defence, but british armoured companies are going to preferentially attack a lot of the time and won't have that luxury, let alone free-for-all missions. The scenario envisaged for SiF being useful is extremely rare and easily avoided, and conversely it's a lot of work to set up for a fairly marginal benefit. Comparing it to stabilisers and stormtroopers there's just no comparison.

>>47589214
Hell, technically they can just drive one forward and leave the others stationary; you always have to take the easiest shot, so that one tank's preserved his entire team.

>>47589214

Yeah, but the Brits have more shots as well. You've advanced into their sweet zone to avoid SIF, which is retarded, because it just puts you in more danger, and you're unlikely to kill any more of them because you have less shots. So it's better to sit still and open fire where you are, because at least next turn the Brits aren't going to tear you a new one.

>preferentially attack
Unless they're playing against tanks. If they're up against mech or infantry, they have a lot more wiggle room because they can close a lot more safely.
>comparing them
Do we have any actual evidence that they cost the same? Stormtrooper's in it's own category, and for the most part, stabs don't help much one way or another, unless you also have smooth ride.

>>47589294

Same problem. The Brits now get lower TNs at the same ROF. You've cunningly negated their ability to fire more accurately at long range by making all their shots short range ones.

>>47588439
>Medium Support
Yeah, realistically none of the medium arty should be on table. This rule was just straight-up stolen from the Airlanding Light Battery in Market Garden.

>bonuses on moving
Fair enough. Looks like tweaking the "press on" rule is the better option.

>SIDF
Yeah, that's why I gave it the tweak of letting it keep the re-rolls when up close in exchange for the +1 to hit.

>>47588766
I've seen it mentioned positively in the monthly soviet balance fights, and my personal experience with both it and SIDF has been pretty good. On the other hand, my common local opponents are idiots. They never attempt to use Stormtrooper to get out of LoS and try to field big cat lists as often as they can, and don't understand what the point of using anything that isn't a tank. There was one particular instance where one of them drove his Panzer IVs across an open field at the other's Panthers and IV/70s, with no attempt to use concealing terrain because "I need to get in their side arc". He was down to a single Tiger and his company command, with 11 burning PIVs and 1 dead tiger at the start of turn 3, in exchange for 3 bailed Panthers. I miss our smart local players.

Which, notably, is why I never expect to use the special rules tweaks for myself. The funnies and upgrade options I can easily get allowed, but against my normal retarded opponents here the extra rules would be pretty pointless (And only the SIDF tweak would actually matter, since they don't use soft targets and I play armored recce)

>>47589119
Fair enough about it not being right in MW and EW, though this is explicitly a LW balance supplement and is not supposed to apply to MW and EW brits. In those it would certainly warrant a price hike.

>>47589302
>>47589311
So if you don't think that's the best move, you can not do it. You're also at liberty to roll off somewhere else or stand and shoot. It's always your response, which is the issue with SIF.

And again, full dice at +1 and half at standard are equivalent; your opponent has an advantage at long range. You're at least on even footing for a brawl if you move up, and you're probably closer to your objective too. The british are also getting roughly equivalent amounts of hits (slightly worse with SIF, but not by much).

And yes, I said "preferentially attack a lot of the time". Stabilisers are the same against vets and better against trained, but they're also useful while moving which is far more valuable simply because you're not obligated to submit your attack plan for your enemy's approval before you get to use it.

>>47589345
>Yeah, that's why I gave it the tweak of letting it keep the re-rolls when up close in exchange for the +1 to hit.
This is actually worse though. At short range, you hit 1/3 of the time, whereas 6 with reroll is 30.5%. It's 0.05% better against trained, but that's A: Marginal as hell and B: Pretty uncommon unless soviets are huge in your area.

File: SIDF.png (8KB, 461x178px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 461x178px

>>47589302
>Do we have any actual evidence that they cost the same?
Costs pretty much the same (5 point diffirence) for 4 CV american shermans (with default.50 cal AA MGs) as it does for 4 CV british shermans with the .50 cal AA MG upgrade. And in MWM, the T14 costs the same for both brits and americans, with the brit version having SIDF and the american version Stabilizers.

>>47589302
>>47589311
Mechanically, you're actually less likely to be hit when you close range unless you're vets getting some concealment. Obviously this ignores the decrease in front armor (though with one of the proposed strategies that only effects one tank), changes in concealment, and actually closing from somewhere within 32" to inside 16" with your average 6-12" move unit, but it's not a baseless suggestion.

>>47589461
It's a "may choose to", not "you must" wording. Assuming you're using that tweak, you can just not take the +1 and ignore the re-rolls.

>>47589461
>So if you don't think that's the best move, you can not do it.
You're the one that said:
>SiF is particularly bad because in addition to "reverse behind that house", you can use the amazing strategy of "drive forward a bit"
Which isn't particularly bad at all, any way you slice it. The special rule could be better, but if that's how you think you should counter it's existence on the table...

>which is far more valuable simply because you're not obligated to submit your attack plan for your enemy's approval before you get to use it.
That's little more than a tactics and skill thing. Soviets have never been known for being hard to predict, and they never had any trouble kicking the shit out of whatever it was they fought. Initiative planning should be done more than half a turn in advance, by both sides. SIF isn't the problem there, the player is.

>>47589461
My math, on the off chance I'm wrong (I assumed two 4 man platoons, but the proportion will be the same regardless):

Enemy tanks sitting at long range hitting vs brits:
8 shots, hit on 6, 1.33 hits overall.

Stationary British at long range vs veteran tanks:
8 shots, hit on 6, reroll misses. .305 hits per dice, 2.4 hits overall.

vs

Enemy tanks at short range moving:
4 shots, hitting on 5s. 1.33 hits

British tanks stationary at short range:
8 shots, hitting on 5s. 2.66 hits.

The brits have .26 of a hit more at short range, so it's worse, but not a whole lot worse, and you're at liberty to choose other options. The argument here isn't that you're able to drive forward and be immune to the british forever, it's that it's a very anemic rule that gives you time to plan around it and can be attenuated very easily.

>>47589562
>The argument here isn't that you're able to drive forward and be immune to the british forever,
I wasn't rebutting that argument, I was rebutting the idea that SIF was particularly bad because you could close range. As you've just proven, it doesn't help at all.

>>47589550
The point is that the rule does not substantively affect play. You're never going to pull off a cunning SIF attack nobody saw coming, and your opponent's never going to be thinking "I would've been able to do X except for SIF!". And from all that, it's really marginal; a reroll at long range you need to sit still for, for armour.

SIF is just a bad rule that doesn't add very much to the game. SIF whenever they're immobile would be nice, but maybe too good, given they'll also have full RoF for doing that; perhaps just whenever they're at long range. You can at least utilise that as part of an attack plan.

>>47589590
This is a flaw with SIF. You've not gained any kind of initiative or unique capability here. This hasn't affected the battle at all. They're just going to do whatever they were going to do anyway, and they've got an extra turn before they have to worry about it.

>>47589607
>and your opponent's never going to be thinking "I would've been able to do X except for SIF!"
No, but they certainly might think 'I could do X, but SIF would render it unusually painful'.

Just because I can't hide a FJP platoon or do surprising things with them, doesn't mean they don't fuck my opponent.
>>47589625
You have gained a unique capability. You're better at long range shooting that RAW for everyone else indicate.

>>47585827
>>A fix for british pioneer platoons
>They're just too damn tiny, and I can't come up with anything that isn't illogical. At least the Dragoons rule makes some sense.
Cautious movement, since they weren't intended to fight the enemy head on and were small platoons? Maybe add in something so they can be GtG while gapping obstacles (which is otherwise explicitly removed), though they still count as moving and will thus need concealment from terrain to use it.

Would need to avoid giving it to the large (8-14 men) airborne engineer platoons, though, which are actually usable.

>>47591051
CM is actually a pretty good idea.

>>47591051

Wouldn't the easy solution be to enable the player to buy them in full platoons, rather than by the squad? I'm sure they were aggregated more than a few times. You might even be able to add something cool, like the equivalent of the Lorraine roadblock platoons. You buy a few squads of pioneers, and the fortifications that they deployed. The Brits always used them more for that sort of thing than as assault troops anyway.

File: 1455851146861.jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>47585463
>not 11?

File: Cromwell Hell Yeah.jpg (221KB, 1375x1072px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1375x1072px

>>47586220
>>47586378

put Tally Ho and Broadsides on any Cromwell, Challenger, or Comet and you have me motherfucking sold.

hey guys. more of a historical question then anything. i have some friends that keep insisting that the Italians had zero value during the war and they were the just the worst. im having this feeling that they talk bullshit but i cant really prove it as i dont know history very well. can you help me ? or maybe confirm what they say

>>47592796
>north africa

>>47592593
Not Comets, they weren't around for Market Garden.

The entire point of that suggestion was to drag JOE up to the level of someone like Patton. Also to make people sit up and take notice of how bad the original rules for him are.

>>47593079
>The entire point of that suggestion was to drag JOE up to the level of someone like Patton.
>drag JOE up to the level of a character that costs twice as many points and is OP as fuck.
wat

>>47593143
Exactly. I'm sick of the love that Americans get, while the British forces get shafted again and again by things like Nachtjäger (TL: Night Hunter.) and Market Garden because Battlefront are too lazy or stupid to see that a vast majority of British equipment and points are too expensive for too little.

>>47593202

Not to mention that half of the British rules for equipment haven't ever applied to Late War. (Tally Ho, Broadsides, Tip and Run)

File: 43a27b85f8b1e6934830210e5784330c.jpg (18KB, 236x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x300px

>>47593402
Well the first two are understandable, they're all about Cruiser tanks and how they were special, but no Tip and Run for Archers really takes my biscuit.

>>47591807
>You buy a few squads of pioneers, and the fortifications that they deployed. The Brits always used them more for that sort of thing than as assault troops anyway.
Maybe let them buy two barbed wire obstacles or booby traps for +20 points that can only be placed if you're using the Prepared Positions rule, and which may be traded for another pioneer team if you don't deploy any of them?

>>47592796
as long as theyre not lumping in the paras, theyre pretty spot on.

I guess they tied up allied soldiers who could've been fighting Germans instead though.

>>47586995
>I don't agree with the general whining that SIDF is utter shit, at least partially because /tg/ will then turn around and say Cat Killer is good. I'd say it's worse than stabilizers, though.

Russian player. Cat Killer is shit. The only vehicles it's good on, are SU-85s and SU-85Ms, and that's only because they can eventually move and fire if needed to a normal degree (for Soviets). For SU-100s, it's a sloppy band-aid and half-assed attempt to alleviate the shit-tier design work by the Battlefront. Nobody fielded the fucking things when they had Volley Fire, because they suck balls. At this point the only reason anyone takes them is to be a stationary long-range gun-team, but without having to worry about being pinned or hit by heavy mortars. In short, they're only useful because BS-3s are absolute rubbish.

Fuck Cat Killer. I'll take ISUs over SU-100s any day, because at least they're not fucking worthless against infantry lists.

>>47593974
Yeah, taking all those prisoners tied up a lot of troops and logistics.

File: C.205_V.jpg (40KB, 800x335px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x335px

>>47592796
They had the prettiest fighter planes.

They were a net liability, but they at least drew the Greek army into Albania, leaving mainland Greece relatively open for the Germans. Along with Bulgaria, Italy contributed a lot of troops to the occupation of the Balkans (anti-partisan fighting), freeing up some German manpower. And they did some damage to British shipping in the Mediterranean. Italian manned torpedoes ftw!

And Italy contributed to the annals of history the last large cavalry charge, somewhere in Russia: http://www.history.com/news/the-last-major-cavalry-charge-70-years-ago

Really excited to be getting into Vietnam with a friend. He's going for an Aircav army and I'm going for NVA Infantry. Rock on human waves as we reinact We Were Soldiers. This game looks a heck of a lot of fun, and I can't understand why it wasn't as well received. Anyone here played it?

>>47598427
It does look fun, but I'd rather invest in Flames of War because that's a game people actually play at my local gaming store.

>>47592796
>i have some friends that keep insisting that the Italians had zero value during the war and they were the just the worst.
tell them to look up
Decima Flottiglia MAS
Folgore Brigade
The SS Vendetta Brigade
The partisans
Your friends are a bunch of meme-loving fucks who need to read a book

Is there a pdf of the Nachtjager lorried rifle intelligence briefing?

The one that lets you field Comets as support platoons

File: Nachtjager - UK Lorried rifle company.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47600688
This one?

>>47600937

Thank you Anon, that's exactly what I was looking for.

>>47600688
That reminds me there's a fuck ton of files I still need to upload to the database...

There were entire zipped folders of digital stuff that got posted here recently that I haven't put up in the database yet.

Hell, I haven't even had time to un-zip them yet...

>>47601207
Yeah, that's where I procured >>47600937 from. Whoever the original uploader is deserves a medal.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x225px

>>47601232
Indeed.

>>47601207
>There were entire zipped folders of digital stuff that got posted here recently that I haven't put up in the database yet.
As long as the funk is coming, database updates can wait a bit.

>>47601661
I'm hoping to have the new episode edited and uploaded by D-Day.

I'll probably need to work on it most of the weekend to make that happen.

What nations have horse cavalry lists?

Poland and Romania?

>>47603525
Hungary, and the Soviet Union.

>>47603590

Cool beans, thanks.

So I'm working on a Fallschirmjager list from Fortress Italy, and I was wondering if it's worth it to take a single Tiger I E for my Armour support in a 1250 point list.

>>47603977

In LW? It's feasible, although that could be a very brittle platoon at that level. One bad armour roll...

>>47592796
Italians were a clusterfuck in WW2, yeah. Individual or localised competence was far outweighed by top-end leadership that didn't have a clue. Remember mussolini declared war on greece before allowing the army to get into position to actually invade, and despite the fact greece was axis-sympathetic but had guaranteed neutrality.

>>47593202
I feel you but Patton is legit broken. He's just about the only thing I'm going to sideye unless the player's a complete newb.

File: 1464696143405.jpg (3MB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2480x3508px

>>47601232
Do you also have the commandos list from Nachtjäger?

>>47595581
Cat killer encourages you to sit at ranges you can't hurt the things it's nominally there to kill to take shots at them so it's pretty shit.

>>47598427
I think there's a few things.

1. I'm in the UK so opinion of 'nam has less of the tragedy-tinged-with-oorah feeling the US seems to have of it around, so I don't think there's as much emotion in the period.
2. There's only really two list types, and if you don't like high tech elites or hordes of conscripts, you don't have much of a spot.
3. Most of the line's in metal and resin, much harder to easily buy into.
4. None of the gear is useful for anything else either; even vehicles that could show up in TY like sheridans have things like the MG pillbox on top of the tanks.
5. Ruleswise it's very different, despite being FoW core: the NVA endless reserves, kills being paramount, wounded... Even artillery is off-board! (where it should be, frankly)

All that meant it never got a critical mass of players.

Don't mistake this to mean that I'm down on the game; I actually wish more people played it, the special rules look like they'd make a really different experience, and there was some clear thought into the asymmetry aspects of the war. It was a huge improvement on FoaN. But I think those are more or less the reasons it never took off, and it's hard to get people into an unsupported line without a big playerbase around.

File: Nachtjager - UK Commando.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47605472
Not that anon, but here you go.

File: 1464594409946.png (3MB, 1500x1250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1500x1250px

>>47605563
Ty great anon!

>/fowg/ actually knows nothing about WW2
I suppose that's what happens when you play the arcade version of it

File: 1455110156971.jpg (27KB, 368x399px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 368x399px

>>47605774
?

>>47605774
What's gotten your panties in a twist now?

>>47605774
>>47605817

I'm reasonably sure this is bait. Sure, there may be some misconceptions, but I'd probably back us to be of above-average knowledge of WW2.

File: drunk.png (78KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 622x626px

>>47605774

If anyone needs something to actually be mad about, battlefront are trying to get the FoW facebook fanpage shut down while the owner is on overseas deployment.

>>47603525
>>47603590
In EW, Germans, Japanese and Italians also have horse cav.

>>47606371
Why shut down a fan page?

Even if it is actively critical of Battlefront, (Is it?) there's nothing illegal about that.

>>47606371
Link to page?

File: keen diplomatic grasp.png (240KB, 836x938px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 836x938px

>>47607537
>>47607652

>>47607677
To be fair, that's partially Battlefront's own damn fault for having their official page named "Battlefront" and not "Flames of War".

But what do I know? I'm just some dumb fuck on the internet.

>>47598427
We have an ANZAC, 2 US, a NVA, a local force player here.

No one wants to play AVRN, and the game always lacks communists.

It is fun, and very different from vanilla FoW.
The freeworld's firepower is immense, and communist's manpower overcome that firepower.
About 15~20 base of Vietnam infantry are killed for destroy just one m113, and replaced by new company.

>>47607677
Dammit BF: every year, every single fucking year you have to pull shit like this, and inevitably it becomes a PR clusterfuck.

Every. Single. Time.

>>47607917
>inevitably it becomes a PR clusterfuck.

Did they learn nothing from the Paramount/CBS vs Axanar fiasco?

Your fans are your greatest resource. Their love of your product helps to promote your product.

Don't squander their good will towards you by attacking them.

>>47595581
Cat killer is the best Soviet rule next to volley fire and the su100 is the best late war tank. They are cheaper and hit easier than ISU. Good luck rolling ISU into volley fire range of another vehicle. ISU122 are worse than IS2, which can already assault. They are expensive and bad and everything they do, SU100 and SU122 do better.

>>47607677
That fucking idiot hard five years of OJ Simpson spam to make a new admin. I like this move from battlefront. It will shut up the fanatic 3D printing retards for good. I don't want to see 10 pictures each day of fat chubby white hands holding a grey pile of resin shit ever again. So yeah win\win

>>47608121
Looking at their page, your obviously exaggerating.

It pictures of people's games and models.

If anything there is some decent looking 3D-printed terrain, but I'm not seeing "chubby white hands holding a grey pile of shit".

File: TRIGGERING.png (282KB, 700x488px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 700x488px

Okay, this is something that bothers me quite a bit with the Banzai book. The rules for the Type 97 Kai Shinhoto Chi-Ha state that it has a Co-ax Machine gun, and no (japanese) turret MG, but if you take look at the model, it clearly has no Co-ax, but has a (japanese) turret MG. I get that it might be a balance decision, but just seems a weird way to do it in my opinion.

Another thing that slightly troubles me is that the MG equiped Type 97 Te-Ke tankettes don't have their MG's as Japanese Turret MG's which basically just means that it cannot shoot it's main MG while bogged/bailed out. This however is way more understandable in my opinion.

>>47608728
also, the Kai Shinhoto can still fire it's Co-ax while bogged/bailed since "Duty To The End" covers both Japanese Turrete MGs and Co-ax MGs. Basically this means that the Kai Shinhoto having a Co-ax instead of the turret MG is purely a buff.

File: Respectful nod.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>47600937
>>47605563

>tfw people share digital content you uploaded

I know it's probably vanity, still makes me happy seeing it spreads around...

>>47608728

Probably because BF hates Soviets.

>>47608728
What the hell is going on with those tracks?!?

>>47608922
>Probably because BF hates Soviets.
what has that got to do with a Japanese tank?

>>47608951
I like the fact that the japanese tank tracks look a little goofy in general, but I agree that the left track from the front looks a little odd in that picture.

>>47608984
>what has that got to do with a Japanese tank?
Since when has that mattered?

>>47608984
>what has that got to do with a Japanese tank?
because le maymay whiny soviet lolol from people who clearly have absolutely no experience with it, making them experts.

>>47609329
Exhibit A.

File: height of wit.jpg (40KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 349x642px

>>47609359

>>47608984
>>Probably because BF hates Soviets.
>what has that got to do with a Japanese tank?
People are such autists they've got to fight out their gunwank in the pacific too?

>>47609570
I like tankwank better, it rhymes.

File: CAM 293.jpg (881KB, 1206x810px) Image search: [Google]

881KB, 1206x810px

I understand Late-Late War is all the rage in Flames of War at the moment, so some of youse fellahs might like to look at this:

Downfall 1945: The Fall of Hitler’s Third Reich (Osprey Campaign 293)

As the final month of fighting in Europe in 1945 dawned the Allies embarked upon a series of mopping up operations, destroying the last centres of German resistance as the essentially defeated Wehrmacht fought on in increasingly desperate conditions, driven on by the explicit no surrender order issued by Hitler. Yet at the same time, the Allied alliance was already on shaky ground, as German resistance was crushed the Allies began to eye each other nervously across a battletorn Europe, with the politically driven military decisions to have a huge impact on the future of the continent. This book traces the final operations of the war, from the liberation of Denmark, the Allied drive towards the Baltic straits, incursions in Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and engagements in Eastern and Western Germany, whilst also analyzing how the Allied strategies in the final days of the war were a hint of the future difficulties that would drive the Cold War.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/nrlm9jxb2gx072x/Osprey+-+CAM+293+-+Downfall+1945.pdf

File: Bedford real.jpg (466KB, 1426x803px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1426x803px

I decided that paying $13 for a 5pt transport upgrade was absurd. So I decided to make a little paper box Bedford. This is my first printing and folding of one. I'm sure /po/ would have my head for such a shitty box and attachment job, but it's cheap enough that I don't care.

>>47610289
Doesn't Zvezda have really cheap plastic trucks as well?

File: Bedford QLT.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47610335
Still $5 a truck, and the only one the have for the brits was only used as an artillery tractor.

>>47610289
And for anyone interested (all two or so), a pdf that prints 4. Note that this is sized to be to scale on 8.5"x11" letter paper, printing it on A4 might cause some problems. Now without a blank white page.

>>47610289
You might be able to get them slightly cheaper at peter pig, old glory, or somewhere like that.

Anyone know if we're getting brits and chinese for Pacific?

>>47611771
Brits, Aussies, Kiwis etc. are apparently getting Digital Briefings for pacific, no idea when tho http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5152

File: 1453072017416.png (807KB, 1792x1080px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1792x1080px

>>47612657
>digital

some Road to Rome with digital content for all the fowtg to enjoy...
http://www.mediafire.com/download/apdp6qeicllj67s/Road_to_Rome.rar

File: image.jpg (18KB, 300x202px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x202px

>>47613019
Sweet!

I promise I'll get this, and the others, uploaded to the scans database soon.

>>47613019
Didn't even know RTR had digital!

>>47613019
Having read it... Late war conscripts, wow.

File: perfection in 15mm.jpg (60KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x960px

>>47608121
> I'm not seeing "chubby white hands holding a grey pile of shit".

I us to have my morning coffee, hit the facejew and see this almost every day. It makes you wonder, is this how other people see my hobby?

>>47613910
That Leto guy posts about his shit at least once a day.

>>47613910
That's about par for the course when it comes to affordable 3D printing at the moment.

It could use some clean-up, but after a coat of paint, they'd probably look decent at typical table top distances.

They're no Battlefront or PSC, but they're no Gamodl either.

3D printing for things this small does have plenty of room for improvement. But if someone 3D printed their entire army, I'd have to be impressed.

And I certainly wouldn't say no to playing against them.

>>47614522
>But if someone 3D printed their entire army, I'd have to be impressed.
Is it not every modeller's dream to build their entire army themselves? This is just adding a few more steps...

Checking, 25pdrs do seem a little overcosted. Their big bonus is turntables, but I'd seriously question if that's meant to be worth +1 firepower compared to the 105mm. It's considerably harder to get kills on dug-in infantry with them, which is presumably why you took tubes and not cheaper mortars that smoke and pin just as well.

>>47616121
There are people who would do it all themselves if they could.

Serious hard-core Makers.

The kind of guys who 3D print full-sized R2-D2s and BB-8s.

Me? I'm happy just assembling regular plastic or resin model kits, and editing podcasts.

>tfw want to start playing, but but nobody near me plays

>>47617877
Where are you from? Maybe there are some locals here on /tg/.

>>47617928
Des Moines, IA
I tried looking on the internet for groups, but the only thing I found was a short lived forum. The last post was made sometime in 2012 I believe. When I asked my FLGS, they just asked me "Flames of War? What's that?"

>>47618929
From what I've heard about Des Moines (my brother lived there for about a year), it's a growing city.

Perhaps there are other gaming stores in the area that night have an active group.

Or maybe something like a college gaming club.

>>47618929
try posting on the shop's facebook/forum and even putting up a flyer or notice on the communal notice board.

A lot of time others are interested or already play, but come in on a different day or even just come in for a pot of paint occasionally. Ive found out about groups that way and found others through posts/notices that way.

I'm looking at potentially having to start a new group in Murray Kentucky for example so I'll be having to do this soon as well.

>>47618929
I've found that established groups rarely have much of an online presence. There's a pretty big group of guys that play here in Hawaii but you'd never know unless you went to the only FLGS that stocks Flames of War.

File: 1464996478121.jpg (131KB, 752x1062px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 752x1062px

Are there any british LW briefings that allow fielding Crusader tanks?

>>47621822
Several Overlord lists have Crusader A/A's in their Tank Anti-aircraft Platoons.

File: berlin zoo.jpg (102KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x600px

>>47609750
Thanks, man! I'm a nut for Berlin, and this will come in handy!

>>47621822
The Crusader is very specific unfortunately, it's mid-war north africa and that alone.

>>47622027
And Early War.

>>47622035
Huh; so you're right. No idea how I've missed that all these years.

>>47622025
surprised all the animals weren't eaten by that point.

Is there anything that mentions the animals escaping during the siege?

Was the US's desert/italy uniform just their normal uniform? How did they manage to fight in that?

>>47621822
most aggressive Girl with Panzer

i bet she humps like a piston engine....

>>47624955
i believed it was their 1940 uniform.

then they go their 42 uniforms in 43-in time for D-Day

then they got their 1944 uniforms in time for late 44' /45

how did they fight in it? US troops in Iraq fought with a uniform w 2 layers and long sleeves, and still put full gear and armor over that.

roasting in the desert is an old military tradition, as far as the USA is concerned.

>>47625745
>most aggressive Girl with Panzer
Katyusha forgives you, but only because she's a big person.

>i bet she humps like a piston engine....
This is probably true though.

>>47625855
>but only because she's a big person.
for you

>>47577880
Bumping the thread and this.

File: 1443779679997.jpg (160KB, 566x677px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 566x677px

Rules question. What happens when a platoon commander dies?

Also what the hell is up with company command platoons? They are so small. Do the team's attach to other platoons? If so how?

I am new to the game. I only have open fire. I am sorry for being a tard.

>>47628057
>Out of Command
Platoons without a command team may not move, or fire bombardments, or launch assaults. They may counterattack or shoot as normal, as well as digging in.

>Company command platoons
Infantry or gun teams may attach to any combat or weapons platoon in the army. Tank HQ platoons must be led by the 2iC. Typically they're there to strengthen your force subtly. For instance, Finnish forces may often pick up some extra anti-tank rifles or close defence teams that they can effectively increase the size and firepower of their infantry platoons with. Some German pioneer companies can pick up some HMGs in their HQ section to improve the firepower of their mostly rifle armed platoons somewhat.

>>47628211
Correction: you may still fire bombardments when Out of Command

>>47628057
Note that the Company Command team and the 2iC are independent warrior teams, meaning they can go around and temporarily join other platoons.

>>47628293
>>47628211
THANKS I GET IT NOW!

>>47628444
Also relevant, when the Company Command (but not the 2iC) joins a platoon they give that platoon a re-roll on motivation tests, though if the platoon flees the field the commander runs with them.

>>47628587

And if a command team dies, the company HQ teams can appoint a new one in the shooting phase, or serve as the command team themselves.

Hey guys, just a quick update.

It looks like Panzerfunk will not be ready in time for D-Day like I had planned.

I've been dealing with a significant family health crisis today, and that of course takes precedence.

The episode is about 50-60% ready and will probably be uploaded some time during the week unless things take another turn for the worse...

Thanks for being patient and understanding.

>>47631097
Best of luck, Eagles.

Are there any platoons with a mix of Pioneer and non-pioneer teams? Ignoring transports.

>>47633435
Possibly the D-Day landing platoons?

At the very least they had specialist equipment for breaking through the beach fortifications.

>>47631097
You have your priorities in the correct order. Be strong, have faith, and come back.

>>47591051
After some research and osprey reading, it seems the British would reorganize their infantry platoons to have some pioneer sections when assaulting positions where they expected the enemy to have mines and other defenses. Letting the teams in the Pioneer Platoon be Combat Attached might be useful enough to consider using them.

>>47619331
If you ever find your way over to Lexington, look up the Battleforge, we have a decent sized FoW community.

>>47625745
>1943- in time for D-Day
D-Day was '44 friend.

>>47636938
'43 is in time for '44. He's not wrong, but his wording does need work.

>>47637178
>>47636938

si, el correcto.

Played my first game of Flames of War today as the 50th Infantry Division landing at Gold Beach. I barely made it off the beaches and was slaughtered by German artillery. All and all, a good time.

>>47641140
Congratulations! A D-Day landing is pretty rough for a first game.

>>47641732

Truth. We played a D-Day event yesterday (2 beach landings and an airdrop; followed by a big multiplayer game) and every battle in the first round was gruelling.

it's even worse if you stop to consider what it means when you recycle a platoon and send in the next wave...

>>47641732
It was rough, but I did learn a lot about terrain and effective tactics for fighting a defending army. I enjoyed it and the community here is awesome so I'll defintely be playing some more.

File: IMG_20160606_175851-picsay.jpg (191KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1024x768px

Table for ty
Still needs buildings though

>>47641870
>>47641882

That looks nice in terms of the quality of terrain, but I have to ask - have you ever seen a road before? Those are some strange layouts that don't quite seem to 'flow'.

>>47641844
Planning to continue with brits, or some other arena caught your fancy?

File: image.jpg (19KB, 405x248px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 405x248px

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces:

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

~ General Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 6th 1944

>>47643362
I can't help but think we'll never again see a single military undertaking of its ilk again, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

>>47643755
Good. I won't deny it was astonishing, but the amount of death and the underlying causes of the war being what they were... The past's an interesting place to visit, but I'm grateful I don't live there.

>>47643755

10,000 men were killed or injured on the first day of the Normandy campaign alone. 4,414 of those were fatalities. The total US casualties of the Iraq war were 4,425 dead and 32,223 injured.

That's approximately 9 years' worth, at the current rate, in one day.

I'm okay with never seeing anything like that in my lifetime.

>>47643755
It is both equally impressive and terrifying.

Operation Overlord was a great triumph in what it was able to achieve, but a great tragedy in loss of life.

It's easy to think of the heroism and the victory.

But a lot of sacrifice went into making that possible.

The time has come to deal the enemy a terrific blow in Western Europe.
The blow will be struck by the combined sea, land and air forces of the Allies together constituting one great Alled team, under the supreme command of General Eisenhower.
On the eve of this great adventure I send my best wishes to every soldier in the Allied team.
To us is given the honour of striking a blow for freedom which will live in history; and in the better days that lie ahead men will speak with pride of our doings. We have a great and a righteous cause.
Let us pray that " The Lord Mighty in Battle " will go forth with our armies, and that His special providence will aid us in the struggle.
I want every soldier to know that I have complete confidence in the successful outcome of the operations that we are now about to begin.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory.
And, as we enter the battle, let us recall the words of a famous soldier spoken many years ago :
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dare not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all. "
Good luck to each one of you. And good hunting on the main land of Europe.

~ Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, June 5th, 1944

I just opened a box of Panzer 4 tanks from Battlefront, are you not supposed to get some transfers?

>>47643975
Depends. There are supposed to be transfers in the 5-strong box, but I think the 2-strong as supposed to be without.

TY Soviet List:

T-72 commander 5pts

3x T-72 company 12pts

3x T-72 company 12pts

3x T-72 company 12pts

4x Shilkas 4pts

3x Carnations 5pts

>>47643867
Speaking of sacrifices, shouldn't you be slaving over an episode of Panzerfunk around now? Or has poor weather over the audio channels delayed the operation?

>>47644099
He's got a health problem in the family, scroll up.

>>47643999
well darn it then.... real bummer

>>47644116
Gah, must have missed it while skimming the thread, apologies Eagles.

>>47644099
I've been dealing with a major health crisis with my mother.

I try not to talk about it here on /tg/, but it's been a month-long problem, and things are not getting better.

I worked all day Saturday on the episode and its maybe 50-60% complete.

But spent all day Sunday in the hospital because things took a turn for the worse.

The next 24 hours are critical.

So, yeah, I haven't forgotten you guys, but I've got much more serious matters to deal with that obviously take precedence.

Again, I thank you for your support and understanding.

>>47644286
Fully understandable mate, hope things turn out alright.

>>47644286
>The next 24 hours are critical.
Christ, sounds bad. Best of luck to you and your ma, eagles.

>>47644286

Really sorry to hear that. I really hope it turns around and things improve.

And whether it does, or not, either way - if you want some folks to chat to, just to take your mind off things, you know where to find us.

>>47608085
Dude, I want whatever crack-pipe you're smoking out of.

The SU-100's so cheap, because they've made the entire damned platoon into a formation of bunkers that are worthless the minute it so much as moves half a cm. You move at all, with your ahistoically slow and overloaded tank, and you get to enjoy not being able to hit conscripts. All BF's "fix" for the SU-100 did, was put it's reroll at long range, as opposed to short.

The ISU-122 in comparison is less vulnerable to artillery, can move and fire to the normal degree of Soviet competency, does not ruin the entire platoon's chances to hit if one so much has to reposition, and can(should) mount a .50cal AA MG. Futhermore the ISU is actually better than the IS-2 (obr 43), because it's 20pts cheaper, and isn't trying to do everything at once. It hits better than the IS-2 (thanks to Volley Fire), still has decent armor and that nice TA 2, and doesn't need to assault anything (unless you want to).

Now, I will admit that the SU-122 with it's belt-fed reloading device, is utter bullshit. One of my biggest gripes in FOW is the ridiculousness of any breakthrough gun having ROF 2. And that includes the Zriniy, StuH, SU-122, or anything incapable of reaching more than 6 rounds per minute. But that's a balance issue in FOW with how their ROF inconsistency, and not a strike against the ISU itself. But as far as the SU-100 vs ISU-122 comparion goes, the ISU is objectively better, against a wider range of targets. Especially on a table with normal amounts of terrain.

>>47644032

Yeah, that looks basically doable. I'm not sure how the numbers scale, but having 2 big platoons is better than 3 little ones. You'd still have even numbers for reserves, as well.

>>47644032
Seems decent for 50 points.

But I'm worried that the 3 3-tank platoons might be a bit fragile.

Depending on the points, making them 2 platoons of 4 or 5 might be better.

File: eastern-front-german-panzer.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

So /tg/, a friend and I are looking at playing a simple tank-only Kursk game over one of the halfway-finished FoW Vassal modules. Both sides are 2900 points. Would you guys mind telling us how balanced (or not) these forces are? German list...

File: eastern-front-soviet-tankovy-regular.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47647878
...And the ruskies. We were figuring the terrain would be mostly open with some rolling hills, based off what we'd seen of the battlefield on the internet.

>>47644099
that wa also a copt pasta. a well-timed, well-thought copy pasta, but a 2 minute post from a cell none-the-less.

proof our leader is on task, no matter the situation

(and, to be fair, editing is not his primary task here)

>trying to decide on lists that I might want to make to get back into FoW
>Realize that probably I'll end up going back to British Infantry.

The comfy is too real.

File: 1454175893792.jpg (131KB, 588x751px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 588x751px

>>47647878
>Kursk List

good sir, can you take 1 of those as PzIII / PzIV, and do with 1 less Tiger? you may be able to get something useful with the remaining points as well....

if you are not trying to represent Kursk, you are fine in a tank only fight.

but Kursk was Primarily the PzIII and the PzIV....most other tanks were sprinkled on. i once pulled the Zagola book and did percentages....the Pz's made up about 60% of everything....

i tried to break them down to something close to 40/50 tanks was = to 1, and i got:
>Tiger I: 8
>Pz IV: 44
>Pz III: 25
>StuG's: 26
>'old tanks': 19
>Brumbarr: 3
>Ferdinand: 5
>Panthers: 5
>Flammpanzers: 3

and, that's just me doing some ostentatious rounding to do a GHQ mini's buy.....

>>47648140
correction:

my formula was decimal up one, divide by 2, round however.

>>47647942
not bad:

the Iconic SU tank of Kursk was the SU-152, as odd as it seems.

they had some T-70's, and what not..the Soviets did not make a clear list of their stuff in each Front.....

>>47642020
I plan on sticking with Brits/Canadians for now since I've already collected something like 1500 points of British at this point.

>>47648140
German player here: we're using Kursk mostly because it's an excuse for a tank-only match at high points value. We're not going for too close to historical accuracy. Also, I usually when taking tanks like to go soviet horde, and I felt like this was a cool opportunity to try an elite big scary tank list. Hence the lack of Panzers. You're absolutely right about the Panzers being the vast majority of tanks in the German arsenal, despite what Hollywood wants us to think...

Also, while I did fiddle around with replacing one of the STUG platoons with a Panzer one, I wasn't a fan of the reduced front armor. I know I'm going to be outnumbered by a lot, so just 1 more point of front armor will help deflect more rounds. At least, that's my hope. Thank you for the input though!

>>47648228
>the Iconic SU tank of Kursk was the SU-152, as odd as it seems.
Really? You mean they were more successful than the other SUs? I could believe that. But there were only one or two dozen SU-152 present at Kursk, with a larger number of SU-122s. There were some SU-76s, but fewer than 122s because the changeover to the more reliable SU-76M had just taken place. They also had <20 SU-76i's, the ones based on Pz. III hulls.

File: anime stuG.jpg (182KB, 850x597px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 850x597px

>>47648799
ok, cool.

you are right then. the correct way to play german Panzers is to StuG...those who do not StuG must rely upon terrain and their enemy's mistakes....

if You like a mash of Higher armor units, try Desperate Housewives, i mean, Desperate Measures...

You get Panthers/PzIV-70's/StuG's/Tigers all in the same list.....add /Jagdpanthers if you do not care about Confident Trained....

>>47649147
i said iconic, not the most popular/on the filed in numbers.

it was the "Tiger Tamer" remember?

>would not have said anything abt. the german player's Tigers...they were there in the list....

>>47649208
Thanks for the feedback, cheers!

>>47649208
>if You like a mash of Higher armor units, try Desperate Housewives, i mean, Desperate Measures...
Bit hard to use that for a one-off in MW.

File: Knowing is half the battle the rest is battle.jpg (43KB, 382x597px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 382x597px

Been out of the loop for 6 years, how viable is MidWar Finnish Jääkari-lists? Alternatively Armored lists, as I worked on a T26 swarm (+ a couple of KV1's IIRC) before I had to quit.

>>47648111
It really depends on your play style.

What kind of an army appeals to you the most?

>>47649322
Good news: Mid-War hasn't been updated since you left.

>>47649300
just saying in general....

its obviously LW....

Primary finding of the night: Night is way too good for the Americans. With Night in effect they're 5+ to hit, and largely don't care themselves, especially after initial contact when everything can just use muzzle flash. 6s to hit everything is bad enough, but having the helis and ITVs on 7s as well is crazy.

I'm also quite confused by how things disrupt LOS to aircraft or, more accurately, how they don't. Maybe they thought it'd be negligible given you can just put them anywhere? Having things sit on the other side of a building half the board away and fire rockets through buildings felt weird though, and conversely the best place to put Shilkas turned out to be totally boxed in by terrain, since nothing else could hit them.

>>47649499
Yeah, but V3 isn't 6 years old yet, is it?

>>47649499
Mid War did get mildly updated with the digital lists, scans of which are around here somewhere.

>>47649395
Real sorry about your Mother Eagles. Hope she pulls through.
Also I thought were meant to be steering him to the comedy most awful option, like Beutepanzers?

>>47649499

Welp, that's a mixed blessing, I suppose. Still have to get new books, didn't have the space to save the "old ones". Will probably stil regret my purchase of the 155mm artillery (all three of them), but hey, gaming is about having fun.

... Said the guy who keeps losing silently, weeping, to himself.

>>47652108
>Real sorry about your Mother Eagles. Hope she pulls through.

Thank you. All of you. For you words of encouragement. But it's not looking good...

>Also I thought were meant to be steering him to the comedy most awful option, like Beutepanzers?

I thought I was trying to talk him into Team Yankee instead.

Or maybe something like a Japanese boat-tank list.

>>47654141
I hope you are able to make your peace in time, with joy where you can find it.

Prayers for you and yours, sir. _/\_

File: wermacht 02.jpg (555KB, 1143x869px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1143x869px

>>47654141

have strength

File: [ROKUGA] GIRLS und PANZER der FILM (BDRip 1920x1080 x264 DTS-HD 5.1ch) (1).mkv_snapshot_01.54.25_[2016.06.06_23.52.06].jpg (292KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1920x1080px

>>47552407
Just got done watching it myself, it's definitely great fun.

File: The Epic Line-up.jpg (108KB, 793x445px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 793x445px

>>47656724

great fun, you say?

File: [ROKUGA] GIRLS und PANZER der FILM (BDRip 1920x1080 x264 DTS-HD 5.1ch) (1).mkv_snapshot_01.23.32_[2016.06.06_23.09.12].jpg (155KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1920x1080px

>>47657202
Yes.

Does the PW Sherman seem a bit overcosted to anyone else? Sure, front 6 is pretty good for the area, but Japan's not short of stuff that can penetrate that, and it's not like it's a matilda with equally-tough sides.

>>47659706
It also has (comparatively) fuck you anti-tank, Fp 3+ and is Fearless Veteran.

>>47659746
Sure, I'm not saying it's bad, just compared to even something like three M5s, it doesn't seem nearly as good. I feel like the armour's a little overcosted given EW seems to be written under the assumption things higher than AT 7 are super rare, when in AT 8 in the pacific can be as cheap as 20 points.

>>47659706
Pacific War costs are pegged to Early War.

>>47659908
That's no longer the case post-Barbarossa; AT 7, 8 and 9 are everywhere. Of course, I'm not sure that's a good thing for EW either, but such is life.

A further TY thought from yesterday: I'm really not sure how much Abrams safe stowage matters. Sure, it's 2+ to remount, but with tanks in play most of the penetrations are kills anyway. Maybe this'll change with more 3+ and 4+ RPGs, as more factions come in and people get more stuff to surround their starter boxes.

>>47660058
Do also keep in mind that you can get bailed if your armour save equals the enemy's AT, which is pretty likely with most Soviet AT vs the front of an Abrams.
Also, "anything but a one!" is depressingly common.

In my TY games, that 2+ to remount has proved pretty valuable for US adversaries several times.
Abrams are so expensive, you don't want any out of the fight if possible.

>>47659706
Paying for FV does not help either, as Fearless adds unecessary extra cost.

>>47660193

Yeah, Fearless is a prank BF left in. There's no advantage in having fearless troops.

>>47660193
>>47660241
Right. You guys are clearly delusional.

>>47660193
It has some limited assault utility I guess.

>>47660098
>Also, "anything but a one!" is depressingly common.

Call it superstition, but I find that actually saying the words "Anything but a one." pretty much guarantees that you'll roll a one.

>>47655949
>have strength
>>47655919
>I hope you are able to make your peace in time, with joy where you can find it.

Thank you.

>>47657317
Why is that Hetzer flying?

>>47660098

Yeah getting bailed in TY happens more often than you think.

>>47660825
Just for you, I said quite loudly "Anything but a one!" and rolled a d6. I got a 3.

Also, that's not flying. It's falling. With /style/.

>>47660881
I'm not saying you're wrong but both games I played, no abrams were bailed, and the only bails on the T-72s were from the hueys.

>>47660948
But you didn't do it in the middle of a critical in-game situation.

>>47661156
Well, I'm facing russians in a kursk-esque battle tonight, and they need a 1 to penetrate the front armor of most of my tanks with most of their guns, so I can test it there!

Can someone start up the new thread?

I'd do it myself, but I'm posting from my phone.

>>47662295
Coming

New thread
>>47662351