Flames of War General /fowg/

Any good recomendarions for cheap models?

>>48439794
Shit. *Recommendations.

>>48439794
Of what?

Most of Battlefront's plastics are fairly priced.

As are the vehicles from Plastic Soldier Company.

What specifically are you looking for? Shermans? StuGs? T-34s? Halftracks?

>>48439794
Plastic Soldier Company.

Repeating from last thread: Some pioneer squads have the option to replace teams with flammenwerfers. How many men are in a flamethrower team and what base do they use?

>>48439845
Basically a standard infantry team but with a flamethrower operator. Standard base. A flame thrower operator and some escorts.

>>48439838
I really need British trucks. Lots of em.

reposting from end of last thread:
looking to get into team yankee, are they thinking of doing a starter any time soon? Also, are the army boxes worth getting?

>>48440110
No
Yes

>>48440110
The army boxes are basically the starter sets.

But a nation specific army box, the rule book (and Leopard if you're starting Germans) and you're set.

>>48440033
>British trucks

Either PSC or Zvezda are a safe bet fot cheap trucks.

>>48440033
You're mostly stuffed then.

Zvezda do Matadors and PSC is about to release Morric/CMP quad tractors, but other than that there's not much available for cheap.

>>48440180
thanks, wasnt sure if i should hold out for a two-player box to sate my faction hopping or not.

>>48440487
I'll be honest, I'll be playing both US and West Germany.

My Americans are almost fully assembled.

The Germans have not yet arrived at my FLGS.

As for Soviets... Perhaps one day, but not anytime soon. Soviets require like triple the amount of everything.

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

1B, 486x500px

>>48440371
Well, there's these, if you're ok with really shitty papercraft.

>>48441425
Wish I could find a simple Zis-5 model like that. There are some nice papercraft models out there, but if I am slapping together enough for a motorstrelkovy company, I'd like it to be as easy as possible.

>>48441797
At the very least, Zvezda do a fairly cheap ZiS-5 truck, so it's not like there's no alternatives in that regard.

Granted it has Zvezda's patented pain in the ass chassis/suspension assembly, but still.

>>48439794
>recomendarions

U wot m8

>>48442244
I corrected it in the post below.

>>48441425
You are a legit lifesaver.

>>48442419
Nobody should be forced to pay $10 for a 5pt transport option. Enjoy.

>>48442562
It could be worse, You could be trying to do a Bersaglieri army which if I remember correctly is the most expensive combat choice in all of Flames of War because of the sheer amount of infantry, guns and weird stuff you need to build a single combat company.

>>48441425
do those exist for german trucks

File: bedford-qlt-4x4.png (98KB, 1156x581px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1156x581px

>>48445329
Not that I know of, unfortunately. I made this one from some orthographic projections I found online (pic related), and then arranged and added tabs to it. It wouldn't be that hard for someone to do the same for another truck.

Scaling was the only really tricky part, but once you know the DPI you're using you can figure out how many pixels tall/wide/long it needs to be and scale the drawings appropriately. I did this in MS paint until it was time to color it.

File: 1467837348108.jpg (372KB, 2244x1496px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 2244x1496px

Bump

>>48445017
Yeah, Italians can get expensive.

Are dismounted red army cavalry (not cossacks) just standard strelk?

>>48450899
Depends on the book. In Berlin they are Fearless Veteran but you have to field a platoon of nondismounted

>>48451273
I mean in terms of uniform and appearence. i.e. do they just wear strelk uniform or should they have unusual markings or something?

File: 5.5-inch_Gun_2nd_Medium_Regt_NE_2_Apr_1945._MIKAN_No._3209132.jpg (38KB, 448x290px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 448x290px

Repeating question from last thread: Should I take two troops of 4x 25pdrs, or one troop of 4x 25pdrs and one of 2x BL 5.5"s?

>>48451560
I would imagine that the two groups of four 25 pdrs would be more effective.

Small batteries of under 3 guns suffer penalties to range in.

>>48451560
>>48452636
Depends on what ya wanna do.

Do you want two sources of smoke/pinning?
Go for double 25 pdr.
You can still combine the bombardments if you want a bigger strike.

Do you want a single higher-power combined bombardment?
Bring in the 5.5"ers.

>>48452636
Penalties to hit (re-roll hits), but not penalties to range in. Thankfully they're CV in the lists I'd be using, and a combined bombardment with the 25s is always an option.

>>48452661
Yeah, I'm mainly trying to weigh the pros and cons. Local meta is unfortunately tankfags everywhere (despite my combined force frequently kicking their asses), so pinning isn't a big concern.

>>48451560
I prefer 8x 25-pounders as opposed to 4 + 2: even when combining, you lose a lot more than say US arty, going from Fp2+ to Fp4+....not really worth it IMO.

>>48451560
I'd go for the 25pdrs and 5.5" guns, use them for a general combined bombardment. It makes 25pdrs passable guns.

File: 800 MW - A.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Once more, I find myself in need of help choosing a list. An upcoming tournament with only 800 points, MidWar. I've decided to go with british, most likely infantry (surprise, Night Attack... unless I very much prefer to be the defender).

However, that said, I have 3 different lists that I can't decide between. I know only one of them has recce. My hope is that night and "rapid" movement by matildas will prevent them from putting to large a dent in my forces by ambush... I will most likely be able to do without lifting GtG, since I have only rifles and MGs that can dig up most infantry (the 25pdrs work over several turns, when I don't need the smoke).

Option A: Matildas (because I hope most people won't be prepared for TA2 tanks) and 25pdr artillery (will also serve as Anti-tank, if someone else decides to be cute with Matildas), as well as sticky bomb for desperate anti-tank work.

File: 800 MW - B.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48453301
Option B: Still Matildas, but only mortars for pinning and smoke (the idea of digging up stuff with artillery went out the window, meaning my only way of actually killing teams that are not infantry running around, is to assault it). Anti-tank is now provided by crazy ass Aussies (but I repeat myself).

>>48453330
And option C: No more Matildas, but 25pdrs and carriers, to make a valiant attempt at keeping enemy HMGs away. Still anti-tank in the form of crazy-ass aussies.

(I might also note that my figures are modeled as Aussies, with at least one slouch hat on each stand, hence the predominance of aussie lists).

File: 800 MW - C.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48453351
And I forgot to attach the list, like a fucking newfag.

>>48453330
>>48453301
I'd say it's a toss up between A and B for me.

There's not much you can do at 800 points in Mid-War, but those both attempt to cover most of the big things.

>>48454737
Seconding this.

800 is tight, but I like the look of A or B.

Fans of the finns:

I'm looking up finnish armour schemes and I'm noticing a mix of swastikas and a blue and white roundel; was the latter a post-armistice design to avoid confusion with german tanks, or what?

>>48458827
They changed to the roundel in August 1945, iirc. Better double check; that might only be true for their air force.

>>48458827
The Finn "hooked cross" was not actually a swastika. Irrc, they chose that because (like the Germab swastika) the symbol had historic relevance. Finland's has the hooks reversed in direction, and blue on white. Finland's also had absolutely nothing to do with the nazi party of Germany, or their place among the axis countries. Finland continued to use the symbol after they switched to the allies side, and only ever joined the axis in the first place in order to fight back against Russia.

>>48459044
-cont.- it should also be noted that Finland was not one of the Axis powers, and never signed that treaty. Rather they went to war against the Soviet Union (initially), and received aid and provided aid to Germany, until peace treat negotiations with Stalin had them turn on their former allies (see ref. Lapland war).

>>48459194
Huh, I never knew that about Finland.

World War II seems to be full of these "me too" wars where nations just wanted to reignite old conflicts.

>>48460516
Well, in Finland's case, it was mostly that the russians decided they wanted their old vassal back and settled for a pile of Finland's territory after the Finn's gave them a bloody nose fighting solo. So teaming up with Germany to rip Stalin a new one was less of an old conflict as a continuation war...

File: 1382831299560.jpg (584KB, 960x2692px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 960x2692px

>>48460516
Theres a lot of "you sunuvabitch, I'm gonna get my revenge now!" type of conflicts too.

A lot of countries were dragged into it without wanting any part of it, or were forced to keep fighting after they realized it was time to quit while they were ahead. Hell the Germans held Hungarian royalty hostage to keep them in the fight for example.

>>48460862
>Royalty

Even if Horthy set himself up as a King in all but name, he wasn't even remotely royalty.

>>48462323
Bagookas.

Hummels or sFH18's wat do

>>48462545
If you're talking raw optimisation, neither, German Tube Artillery is good to have if you can spare to the points, but you get no special rules. If you can get them cheap, like Volksartillery from B@R, then they're slightly better.
If you have the points, Hummels because they can't be pinned down. If you don't, sFH18s.

>>48462545
Context, m8. In what list, with what else?

>>48462598
Hummels are not bad for mobile Bunker Buster, too.

>>48462607
just in general, if you had to choose. I've recently run into situations where rockets don't quite cut it, and the Hummels and sFH18's seem like pretty ubiquitous ways to do some digging.

>>48462832
There's really no good metric for "in general" with these since they're really very niche compared to ubiquitous nebelwerfers. If you're having trouble with Nebs not being as killy as you like, get bigger 21cm or 30cm ones, in general.

Hummels come into their own when there's bunkers to bust, or when you're concerned about cunterbattery or pinning. They are expensive, though.

sFH18s... not a lot of use IMO outside of two, maybe three lists, with their "best" use being in the Bridge by Bridge companies teamed up with the special character that gives ToT and combined bombardment.
The rest of the time, they just don't bring enough to the table for their points. (and in EW, are so hilariously expensive that you'd almost never consider them.)

>>48463130
fair enough, I guess. It'd be in late war so, 230 points for a battery of 3 sFH18s, and 300ish for 3 hummels.

I've recently had the misfortune to play against a soviet arty park (and posted photos from the game) so I just wanted more options for killing dug in stuff.

>>48463219
Honestly, you're not going to win in a counterbattery fight with a Red God of War setup, at least not as Germans.

In that case you'd be much better off throwing some cheap shots out to pin them with the wimpiest nebs you've got, and then either concentrate on overwhelming the rest of the opponent's force, or chew up his pinned (or smoked, I guess) arty with flanking recce cars or light tanks.

Or hit them with air. A bomb Stuka is cheap and cheerful.

>>48463284
Or Assault them with fast Recon tanks like Luch, or undig them with breakthrough guns. Jagdtigers, Allied Zriny IIs, Sturmtigers, StuHs, etc. Or Flamethrowers.

>>48463284
>In that case you'd be much better off throwing some cheap shots out to pin them
As the other player in that game, that's a great suggestion until the re-rollable (damn CiCs) fearless morale tests come into play. At which point it's a pile of horseshit.

>>48463284
oh right yea I'll just pin down the fearless sapper infantry with the morale re rolls and send all my light tanks that germans have in such abundance to kill those dug in zis-3's that are behind them real quick good thinking thanks.

>>48463219
If your list is from DM why not try Rudel. Bit expensive, but auto-success ranging in and hit on 2+ with FP 3+ is great against arty park. Also, if there are only one team under the template it got hit twice.

>>48463454
I tried exactly that.

It's shit.

File: 1468685887494.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>48463219
>>48463284
>>48463349
>>48463421
>>48463449
>>48463454
>>48463460
So that this doesn't keep going in circles, here are the soviet lists (two 1750 lists per side)...

File: 1468550518131.jpg (5MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5312x2988px

>>48463556
And the deployments (no good angle pic). He should have his german list around somewhere, my brits were:

>Compulsory B Squadron HQ (p.11) - CinC Cromwell IV, 2iC Cromwell VI CS, Cromwell IV CS (245 pts)
--->Sherman ARV (10 pts)
>Compulsory Challenger Platoon (p.11) - Command Challenger, Challenger (285 pts)
>Compulsory Cromwell Platoon (p.12) - Command Cromwell IV, 3x Cromwell IV (380 pts)
>Cromwell Platoon (p.12) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV (285 pts)
>15th/19th Hussars Recce Patrol (p.12) - Command Scout Car, 2x Scout Car (90 pts)
>Scout Platoon (p.15) - Command Wasp Carrier, 2x Wasp Carrier (115 pts)
>Field Battery, Royal Artillery (p.32) - Command Rifle, Staff, 2x Command Rifle, 2x Observer Rifle, 2x OP Carrier, 8x OQF 25 pdr gun (315 pts)
>Air Observation Post (p.30) - Auster AOP (25 pts)
1750 Points, 8 Platoons

As you can see, no place to flank around the pioneers and assault the guns in the side, and like fuck are tanks going to successfully charge pioneers with AT guns in range to support.

>>48463556
Holy shit that arty park list is absolute crap.

BS-3s? *8* 152mm howitzers?

The only thing that could make it physically worse would be IS-2s.

>>48463556
The only AA that entire team has is 2 .50cals.

Take a Typhoon and go nuts on his arty park, his infantry blobs, and his pathetic quantity of tanks.

>>48463556
I thought two 1750 lists mean neither list can exceed 1750.
Why sapper list is 1770?

>>48463988
Even if they're combining the totals, with those pencilled-in transports they're *still* over.

>>48463626
>>48463556
Tell them to unfuck their points, to start. It's a point *limit*, not a suggestion.

>>48464009
We were doing combined totals, and we were 5 pts over as well. Probably should have insisted on 1750 flat per company.

>>48463983
Unfortunately
a) we don't get to play against him often (college friend that lives ~6 hours away now that he's moved states)
b) Even if we did play him regularly, he's got about 5000 points of Russians to choose his lists from. Each of us has a pretty set composition because we haven't thrown mountains of money and time at our armies.
c) he's an obligate list tailor. This wouldn't be bad were it not for b, which means he can easily do it vs us but we can't do it vs him.

>>48463963
Mind explaining your reasoning on the howitzers? Because all I see is 8 cheap AT 5 FP 2+ guns that hit as vets.

>>48464081
Dig-in or not, They're hellishly fragile - even light artillery like nebs, mortars, whatever - can pin and/or smoke the shit out of that massive blob of guns. They don't even have gun shields. Also, no turntables, so he's painfully vulnerable to flank attacks.

It's giant pile of a lot of guns that is protected by two small infantry platoons that are hit as trained and will often pack even more fragile gun teams, and the list's practical AT is either a couple panzerfausts, RGoW ZiS-3s, or 4 of the worst heavy AT guns in the game.

It also totally lacks any sort of mobile element - so unless you exclusively play 40K-style set-piece annihilation battles, that's going to hurt him in a lot of scenarios.

Finally, the whole list is painfully vulnerable to both pinning and smoke - nebelwerfers, mortars, etc. are ideal here.

Honestly, your cromwell list should've run roughshod over that if it wasn't for blobby mcsapper covering his weaknesses. In a normal game, it'd be toast against most lists - fast medium tanks *especially*.

I still maintain that Typhoons, or air in general are an *excellent* counter to both their lists as is.

>>48464224
On that note, Blobbly MCsapper's primary weaknesses were covered by the artillery park in general. It's clear like you said that they tailored.

That, I think is part of your problem here. You were using two 1750pt lists to fight one big fat 3500pt list.

It's like DOTA pubbies vs. a stomp team. Never ends well unless Literal Jesus showed up with his SS list.

File: sample_55ed20a4c7de2ef065ab1e40274dd261.jpg (418KB, 850x572px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 850x572px

It's happening. I've pulled the trigger on my Team Yankee purchases. Potecknov’s Bears, Hind Box, plus another King Tiger, IS-2 and Comet for Tanks. And one of those straight line lasers.

>>48463556
>all that FV infantry
>all that regular infantry
>no real AT guns aside from 8 zis 3's and a few T34's.

I'm kind of surprised you didnt park just outside of the infantry's charge range and hammer his arty park with massed stationary fire. With all the tanks you guys had you would win the initial firing match easily. Heck, StuG's would be completely immune to Zis 3's except for glancing on a 1 at long range.

I'm kind of amazed how well the slavs did with so little armored support. You guys must have been really shy about pushing up. Especially with all that smoke. You could essentially make any enemy direct AT fire completely worthless.

>>48459044
>>48459194
It is a swedish nazi's swastika, though. The finns have it because their first planes were given to them by Eric von Rossen, the brother in law of Goering, and he used a swastika as his personal emblem.

The Finns definitely weren't part of the tripartite pact, and they only once acquiesced to German desires to solve the "Jewish question" (in which either 6 or 8 jews were taken to Germany), but their swastika isn't quite clean.

>>48463219
>soviet arty park
-Soviet- arty park? Haven't seen that one before.

>>48464713
>You guys must have been really shy about pushing up.
Yeah, we mainly lost because we didn't push enough of our stuff hard enough. Though being constrained by the terrain against an arty park doesn't help. Game would have been very, very different if it wasn't longways.

Hey, I just got me some French infantry for bolt action. But since you guys use Frenchmen too I thought I could ask you.
I'd like to use Games Workshop paints since that's what I'm used to. For regular French riflemen and some colonial troops, what colours do I need to buy? My current paint is mostly dry and most are very colourful(playing bretonnia), so I'm kinda starting from scratch.

>>48464843
How large table did you have? I can't help but think that part of the problem is that you had too much stuff on a too small table.

>>48464743
The airplane was donated in 1918, two years before the National Socialist German Workers' Party was formed so there is no Nazi connection whatever. Von Essen adopted the svastika in 1901.

File: purhonen_53100808.jpg (47KB, 640x817px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x817px

>>48459044
The svastika adopted by the Finnish airforce was blue, but the short-armed version used by the armoured forces was black with white shadows acording the official regulations from June 1941, prior to that date there were some versions with long-arms,reversed blue etc, but gradually after 1941 most armoured vehicles used the regulation one,certainly after 1943 when the new camo scheme was adopted almost every vehicle used the official version of the hakaristi.

>>48465049
Von Rosen, Eric Von Essen is a jazz musician.

He predates the use of the swastika as the symbol of the nazi party, but given he was a high-ranking swedish nazi, it's inaccurate to say there is no nazi connection between Von Rosen's swastika and the nazi swastika.

Now, it's true that the Finnish swastika is a degree removed. But it's hard to see how the personal emblem of a nazi is unrelated to the nazis.

>>48465209
Guys, seriously. The damn thing was ubiquitous all across Europe and Asia as a powerful symbol, often times one of good luck, since ancient times. Read some history for once.

>>48465386
Yes, but when the guy who's using the symbol is -actually a nazi- there is a bit of a difference between the blanket labelling of every swastika as nazi. The skull-and-crossbones is generally accepted as being a pirate symbol but when it's used by an SS-division it's a nazi symbol. Same kind of deal.

>>48465416
A nazi appropriating a symbol from his culture suddenly makes it bad forever. Got it.

>>48465658
you're trying to argue with libcucks, you can't win

>>48464417

For some reason I was picturing you having already bought 10 boxes of Hinds. Are you still planning on making Afghansty?

Also, how are you using the laser level? I am curiousl because it sounds like it might be useful for deployment zones and maybe more.

>>48454737
>>48458409
I realised that I could also go with the following Infantry Tank Company (because matildas are cute)

HQ: 2 Matilda II, 2 Matilda II CS

3 Matilda II
3 Matilda II

3 RV South African Carriers

It is 10 (!) 7/6/2 tanks, though they're trained, slow, unreliable, and 8 of them are armed with dinky 2pdrs, the other two with 3" howitzers, which at least don't suffer from No HE... and no Night Attack.

>>48465658
You're not remotely arguing with what I've said.

Von Rosen was a nazi. Things he used as personal iconography were thus the iconography of a nazi, and nazi symbols. Other uses of the viking swastika from pre-nazi times are going to be generally not nazi (except where they were also later appropriated by actual nazis for personal use).

And yeah, things nazis stole to use as their icons are pretty tainted by association in their contexts. Lightning bolts, skull-and-crossbones, and hand grenades are pretty inoffensive (well, maybe not hand grenades), but the SS strips, totemkopf and dirlewanger emblem are considered bad. Lightning bolts, skulls and crossbones, and hand grenades existed prior to the nazis using them, but after using them, their respective icon forms aren't cool to plaster on things.

>>48465673
Fuck off back to /pol/

File: sample_1bbbdb519628c5d75511753b95b65c81.jpg (775KB, 850x1119px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 850x1119px

>>48465692
Well actually I was planning to use it for stuff like Mordheim, checking that lines of sight aren't stopped by buildings etc. Although it's also a good argument solver about forests and stuff.

Hinds and the gobshites to stick in them are bloody expensive though. So my initial plan is to run them under-strength and paired to a Red Banner Tank Division.

>Red Banner Tank Division "Chernyy Orkestr"
HQ: 5
Mandatory T-72 platoon 1. 4 tanks: 17 points.
Mandatory T-72 platoon 2. 4 tanks: 17 points.
SA-13 Gopher SAM Platoon. x4: 4 points
ZSU-23-4 Shilka Platoon. x4: 4 points
Subtotal: 47

>Air Assault Battalion "Krasnyye D'yavoly"
HQ: 1 point.
Air Assault Company 1.
7x AK-74 teams, 6xRPG-7 teams, 2x PKM Teams, +AT-4 Team: 12 points.
Air Assault Company 2.
4x AK-74 teams, 3xRPG-7 teams, +AT-4 Team, +AGS-17 team, +SA-1 team: 8 points.
MI-24 Hind Assault Helicopter Company 1: 4x Hinds
MI-24 Hind Assault Helicopter Company 2: 4x Hinds
Subtotal: 45 points

Supertotal: 92 points.

Still need to buy for this list: Four more bloody Hinds, SA-13s, Shilkas, Motor Infantry Box, Infantry Blister, Afgansty Weapons Blister.

In the mean time if I find anyone to play with I can run:

>Red Banner Tank Division "Chernyy Orkestr"
HQ: 5
Mandatory T-72 platoon 1. 4 tanks: 17 points.
Mandatory T-72 platoon 2. 4 tanks: 17 points.
Red Banner MI-24 Hind Assault Helicopter Company: 4x Hinds
MI-24 Hind Assault Landing Company
4x AK-74 teams, 4x RPG-7 teams: 4 points.
Total: 53 points.

Still to buy: Infantry.
Need to consider Artillery and airsupport at some point.

>>48465698
Now you are just getting Matilda crazy.

Maybe, you get lucky and no one comes prepared with enough AT or integrated AT, and your Matildas run right over them...

But then again what are you going to do when you come up against FC KV-1e or SU-152s. At best you could hope to bail them, knowing there is a good chance they climb back in. You aren't going to outmanuever them in Matildas. Even good AT is much cheaper in midwar and might be brought.

That Matilda list is powerful, but betting it all on the matildas is risky. Personally I like list B, because you will get to bring Matildas and FV Aussies.

>>48465956
IMO, it depends if you're playing for a laugh or to win. I think the aussies will be a more solid pick to win, but I'd go for the matildas and not really focus on winning so much as fucking with everyone else.

Modelling question here:

For LW soviets, should my panzerfaust/SMG bases have 1 guy with a faust, or 4 per?

>>48466047
Well SSO197 only comes with four figures, so you should probably distribute them amongst a number of teams rather than spending USD $3 per squad.

>>48465974
In that case go for it. There's always the chance that no one brings enough AT to deal with it at that point level.

But you know if you really wanted to spam matildas you'd bring them in a soviet tonk horde. Who needs to kill anything in assault when you have TA2 and keep passing morale checks?

>>48465941
It's the laser thing that makes a line across a wall (or table in this case) right? I may have see about getting one.

I am running into the same problem for West German Recon. Getting to 100 points seems daunting, to say the least, so I am most likely going to add them on as a supplement to a Panzer division.

>>48466211
Sure, but I'm not the dude who's making the list.

>>48465209
But there is still no connection between von Essens svastika to the nazi svastika through Göring since he met Hitler and joined the nazi party in 1922, two years after that the nazi party was formed and 4 years after the Finnish airforce adapted the symbol... The only connection is that it is an ancient symbol used by many cultures before.

>>48464949
I paint desert camo with kislev+agrax+ drybrushed kislev. Idk about olive drab but you could look at some guardsmen painting vids. Also if youre starting from scratch, why not get some army painter paints?

>>48466584
>I paint desert camo with kislev+agrax+ drybrushed kislev.
This is exactly the kind of advice I'm looking for.
Desert camo doesn't show up on the compability list. http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Paint_Range_Compatibility_Chart Which colour is it specifically?

>>48466211
>It's the laser thing that makes a line across a wall (or table in this case) right? I may have see about getting one.

So useful.

I originally purchased it for checking firing arcs in X-Wing, but it also works really well for determining line of sight in FoW and TY.

File: Screen Shot 2015-04-06 at 23.14.48.png (329KB, 509x657px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 509x657px

>>48466657
>>48466584
Oh I see my mistake! Man, that looks like it will do the trick. Thank you for your advice and I'll be sure to try it.

>>48465386
Also in native america, the swastika is just the ancient version of the stussy S symbol.

>>48465692
>10 boxes of Hinds
>Lives in socialist ghetto so 60% tax rate

>>48466211
Right, not going full retard with the matildas, then. Since I'm lacking the CS tanks, it's also always nicer not to have to paint things at the last moment.

Looks like it'll be Aussies with mortars and 'tildas, unless I get more votes. Waltzing Matilda in a different way.

>>48467490
I like to refer to those former-soviet countries as kleptocracies.

>>48466047
Depends. For Faust upgrades found in Desperare Measures and Berlin (book is shit), it's one faust guy per base. For Engineer Sappers from Red Bear, Faustnikka teams are all 4 dudes on the stand have them.

>>48463556
Soviet friends don't let friends usr BS-3s. Seriously, they are shit in chips, and not worth the price tag. If you want AT guns, get ZiS-2s. The heavy AA 85mm guns with extra crew work if you keep them dug-in and in concealment (treeline), but otherwise aren't that great if they're in the open.

If you want Tank Killers, go SU-85s or SU-85Ms due to sheer weight of fire and rerolls. SU-100s are only good if you enjoy the frustration of very few dice, with high AT, on a platform that can't be expected to reposition itself and shoot to any degree of efficiency.

>>48468956
thats because the Engineer sappers can use theirs as Bunker Busters against Buildings and Bunkers. They also count as RoF 2

>>48469086
They might not have been the absolute best thing he could bring but they still murderfuck tanks when sitting behind a bunch of dug in sappers

Really it boils down to two things: the fact that is was double sized 3500 point game on a normal sized table, and that the game was two reasonable balanced separate 1750 lists vs two tailored lists that were built in tandem and went over the points value.

Whats in the pipeline for Battlefront plastic releases for WW2? Now that they're on to Team Yankee and all I haven't heard anything more about them updating anything else.

>>48469471
My guess would be that Battlefronts plastic releases will be closely tied to expansions for the TANKS game. Seems like they'd have to be working of a plastic Tiger kit, since the Germans are without their most iconic tank.

>>48469471
There are supposed to be new plastic kits coming out with the Battle of the Bulge compilation set.

Perhaps US Tank Destroyers or Chaffees.

Maybe a few more German vehicles like Tigers, Kung Tigers, or Jagdtigers.

Right now though their main WWII focus seems to be in the recent Pacific releases.

Is all that stuff out, or is that still in the middle of their release schedule?

>>48465795
So a simbol that he used in his 20s which was in a plane he gifted in 1918, 2 years before the adoption of the swastika by the nazi party without any connection with him make the hakaristi a nazi symbol?.

Even though, like you said, it is a nazi symbol because Von Rosen used it, but still Finns used it for another reason

>>48469692
Really, really hoping they don't just do a "US tank destroyer" kit and instead make an M10 kit that does both the US and Brits. It's the same except for one extra barrel option, the top armor options, and some crew options. None of which take up a lot of space.

Plus M10s are too fucking expensive because there's no plastic option.

>>48469838
It could be a possibility.

I'm just brainstorming possible ideas for plastic kits based on what books are supposed to be coming out soon.

>>48469584
>>48469692
Disappointing, consider how poorly German heavy tanks fare most of the time.

>>48470270
True.

But also consider how many brand new players ask us about playing lists with Tigers in them.

I know a guy who went full retard on tigers and 88s at 2000 points and then got pissed off when I beat him with my paratroopers built up to the same points level.

Tigers are the big shiny toys that a lot of new players want.

>>48470270
They can be good, they just really require brains to be used correctly, and the right support/points levels.

I know in low points games they can do surprisingly well, whereas in higher points matches they either need to have great support, like the B@R lists get, or be a centerpiece of another list, like a sole King Tiger backing up a Grenadierkompanie in Grey Wolf.

The problem is newbies want to run the Cv/Fv lists with a full allotment of tanks and minimal support, and make the same mistakes many commanders made back in the day. They assume a Tiger company can roll infantry all day long without realizing that infantry lists LOVE to defend against big cat lists. Or they charge into a medium tank horde with air support and think theyll be fine.

Its just a classic trap for historical players. Ive seen it happen in Bolt Action too, except there a single King Tiger runs between 555-666pts out of a 1000pts list, which is even more ridiculous.

>>48470701
FA 9 just isn't that good LW. Many things punch it from the front. I've tried running the SS list with Wittmann since I have them painted up but they get wrecked most of the time. They just can't kill fast enough since there's so few.

>>48470701
Yes, plastic Tigers is something that a lot of people want not only because the game but for modelling purposes.

Tigers I in Mid War are pretty good because even though a CV Tiger I cost as much as a FV Tiger II in LW, it works better since wide tracks, protected ammo and most things will not even pen the side armor.

File: KIMG0006.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Speaking of big cats, I'm working on the first of my King Tigers.

Going for a 1945 vibe and I'm a bit torn about where to take this guy from here.

Part of me wants to give him some smudged whitewash, as it would still be likely tanks would be wearing it up until march, and part of me wants to leave it as is, since my infantry are already based in a summer scheme.

What would be better from a Historical perspective? I've already committed to a pretty late construction KT (except for the zimmerit, forgot it had it until I had already done the red base) so Im really torn on where to go from here.

Also, sorry about the pic, my phone takes horrible pictures.

>>48470969
CV/FV Tiger I list only somewhat work against "thematics" list or not LLW lists.

Cheap Tigers I can be used as "heavy" mediums like Panthers they aren't really good but they can work. I wish we could equip Tigers with Tank Escorts in Desperate Measures.

>>48469471

Plastic M10s with the Bulge release, and an undisclosed plastic armoured car....I'm guessing Puma & variants or M8 Greyhound/M20 kit for the US.


>>48469584
I disagree: I strongly suspect TANKS hardly even registers in their plastic design plans, it's just a side-show game. If it isn't we should soon see BF release plastic Tiger Ie and King Tigers since they are conspicuous by their absence in TANKS....I don't see it happening anytime soon.

>>48469245
If they actually hit... It's not like you get much dice to work with.

Given a choice, no matter how many points we're going, I will ALWAYS pick ZiS-2s -or- 85s with extra crew, over BS-3s. Especially if they're going to be hangingout behind infantry, where I want a sizable amount of DF dice and not just 4.

The amount of difference the AT makes just doesn't fucking matter. If there were more FA 11/12 vehicles, and not this sudden jump of 9/10 to 15, it'd be a different story. But as they are you pay too much, for too few dice, all for an AT increase that only matters against Panthers or fools bringing IS-2s. And even then I'd rather go with ZiS-2s in defensive fire, and inch behind treeline.

So how do the Plastic Soldier Company 15mm models look compared to FoW? Is there a noticeable difference in the proportions of the models, or do they mix together nicely?

Hard to beat their prices.

>>48470969
The problem with the Tiger 1 in LW, is the price tag. You pay premium for veteran, wide tracks, AT 13, Side 8, TA 2, and Tiger Ace skills. They can hold their own against medium tanks sometimes if you're on fire with dice and shuffle rolls, but the minute you lose one it's a punch in your list's gut.

Tiger 1s need a discount, and Tiger Ace could probably stand to be reworked. Because the only time you really get your value out of a Tiger 1 in LW, is if you get Every Shot Counts, and/or the ROF 3.

>>48471787
Pretty good. Theyre a little more true scale, which means theyre slightly smaller. I've seen people mix BF plastic and resin T34's with PSC T34's and could barely tell the difference for example.

Early infantry kits were pretty weedy and would stand out on the same bases, but if you keep them separate from more heroic models you'll be fine. Their newer infantry like the Brits, fallschirmjaeger, and the Normandy/Early war Germans are almost perfectly matched with BF though.

File: 84331463.gif (2MB, 300x221px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x221px

>>48471886
Great, thank you. Was eyeing one of the German Normandy boxes, as a matter of fact.

Would have loved some cheaper Hungarians, but I didn't have my hopes up.

>>48471787
The tanks looks pretty good, and the German infantry I've seen is decent. Soviet infantry looked kinda ass, and very "samey". But otherwise PSC's good if you don't want BF's proportions and prices.

>>48466518
I didn't say Goring gave him or inspired the swastika. He appropriated the swastika from his culture. Years later, he became a nazi. Therefore, his swastika is a nazi swastika, as it was the personal emblem of a nazi.

>>48469790
Yeah, the finnish use of it is more unfortunate than anything else, but pretty much everything that happened to the finns is unfortunate. I certainly don't consider the finns nazis due to it's existence.

>>48469692
>Right now though their main WWII focus seems to be in the recent Pacific releases.
That seems to be stalled/over.

Also pacific was seriously disappointing in practise.

>>48471024
>Tigers I in Mid War are pretty good because even though a CV Tiger I cost as much as a FV Tiger II in LW, it works better since wide tracks, protected ammo and most things will not even pen the side armor.
Yeah, the change in mid is that side-armour 8 is amazing, rather than just mediocre. Some mid-war lists just straight-up can't hurt tigers, or can only try and plink with arty. Certainly pretty feast or famine, granted, but it can be pretty nasty against a lot of lists.

>>48471143
>except for the zimmerit, forgot it had it until I had already done the red base
Don't fret, late war a lot of tanks came out without zimmereit as there were fears about it's flammability and it delayed deployment of vital tanks.

>>48471886
>Early infantry kits were pretty weedy and would stand out on the same bases, but if you keep them separate from more heroic models you'll be fine. Their newer infantry like the Brits, fallschirmjaeger, and the Normandy/Early war Germans are almost perfectly matched with BF though.

Yeah, you want to avoid the soviet and american infantry but most of the germans and all the brits should be entirely comparable.

Alternatively you might like the skinnier, "realistic" look, just be aware they're "assembly required" figures on the older sprues. And 15mm.

>please select pancakes
You yanks have some fucking weird pancakes.

>>48471787
PSC tanks use more realistic proportions so sometimes BF tanks look a little bigger, but we are talking about 1 to 3 mm of difference. The most commons differences are barrel lenght (PSC panzer IV and T-34-85 for example) and longer hull in BF models. Still you will only notice this when you look at them when they are close. I am not sure about the difference with the BF plastics though (Panthers G and Half Track)

The only problems IMO with PSC kits at least with German tanks is that they suck for the late 43 to mid 44 tanks because the lack of zimmerit.

>>48471963
Hungarians are pretty much Germans without camo smocks and gasmasks from a model standpoint. By late war they were using a mix of their own equipment and whatever the Germans would hand down to them, so it wouldnt be unusual to see Hungarian infantry with Mausers for example.

If you can find Germans with minimal kit, or can find plastics that would be easy to shave them off, you should be set. The only real problem then is the Y harness for their webbing on the backs, but maybe you could cover it with greenstuff.

To be honest, I'd just buy Hungarian infantry then save elsewhere, thats what I did. Especially if you use German tanks and equipment like I do, you can save a ton by planning your purchases out. It also helps that most German vehicles used by the Hungarians kept their original paintjobs and markings from what I've seen, so usually you can use the vehicles for both armies with no alterations. The exceptions, oddly enough, are Stug's and Hetzers, which you often see with the Hungarian cross on their sides.

Also, keep your eyes peeled on ebay, amazon, etc. Usually people will let the old boxsets go pretty cheap cheap if you keep your eyes peeled.

>>48472334
>>48472329
That's great info, thank you.

Been camping Bartertown too, since I can usually find a decent deal there.

>>48471143
I'd just lightly drybrush it with some dusty color to dull it down a bit.

>>48471357
>I strongly suspect TANKS hardly even registers in their plastic design plans
Probably true.

If Team Yankee keeps getting plastic kits, then it'll be a while before we see plastic Tigers. But at some point TY will take a break...

>>48471963
>>48472334

PSC early war German infantry with some moustaches and work in the uniforms could be used as Hungarian infantry, since if i am not wrong they produced some Kar98 and MG34/42, and if you want you can mod the Mausers to Mannlicher Rifles and Danuvia SMG with just some little changes (because the scale). I don't know about the MP40.

>>48472153
Finns actually handled themselves quite well, both during and after WW2. During, they ended up ensuring their survival by striking a peacy treaty with Russia, which had them push their former ally out with minimal bloodshes (although German troops started a scorched-earth campaign out of spite). Then during the Cold-War, Finland was a strange island of western democracy and free market economy, amidst a sea of red. They actually profited pretty well off that, and acted as a kind of back-channel trade mediator.

>>48472658
If they don't make them with the Bulge compilation we can only expect them to at least make new Tiger I plastics with the re release of Mid War.

File: KIMG0011.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>48472645
Its dulled quite a bit, the camera isnt doing it justice. Heres an unwashed StuG in Middlestone for comparison. Its actually very dull already and I havent drybrushed yet.

>>48472755
Wouldnt be unrealistic to see a Hungarian running around with an MP 40. Less likely than a mauser but Im sure they got a few.

I mean if you absolutely had to, and had schmock guys mixed in, you could paint them as regular coats. There's a Hungarian soldier in the Grey Wolf artwork that has a green coat that looks similar to a smock. Wouldnt be unrealistic at all in the colder months. Greatcoats would work for winter Hungarians as well, they seemed to have a mix of winter gear similar to how Germans were. They probably took whatever they could get.

>>48472786
Sure, they did well for their situation, but their situations went from sucky to sucky. It's a testament to their character they navigated it all so well, though.

>>48472962
It's interesting to note that Finland itself, its people, and the government, didn't see it as a "sucky" situation for them. Indeed it was mostly the western powers who looked at it and weren't able to see the importance of what small nations need to do to survive while sharing a border with a Cold War superpower. I wouldn's say it's a testament of their resolve during a bad situation, but rather they (as a country) doing what was necessary to maintain the really fucking fucking good situation they negotiated for during the war while not pissing off the western countries they were working with.

>>48467490
I buy them in USD and then they get shipped here usually for free because Battlefront uses UK Mail to ship stuff out. Anyway, New Zealand's not a proper socialist country, it just has a few Socialist elements to it, like a welfare state, free healthcare, and effective democracy~

>>48471791
>Because the only time you really get your value out of a Tiger 1 in LW, is if you get Every Shot Counts, and/or the ROF 3.

Yep. A 50% chance to get something useful. I never assault infantry with such an expensive tank, its far too risky.

>>48471691
Again, you're not wrong, I'm just saying it didn't matter much that they were suboptimal

File: lirr.gif (85KB, 1271x637px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1271x637px

>>48474073
>and effective democracy

Virus, having a more effective democracy than the entire United States isn't exactly an accomplishment when the island I live on has a larger population than your entire country...

>>48474691
It must be real cramped there, buddy.

File: Tumblr_mlimfjrSL31s9xwv2o1_500.jpg (57KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x380px

>>48474691

destroyed

Speaking of finns...


Compulsory JaakariKomppania HQ (p.243) - CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (50 pts)

Compulsory Jaakari Platoon (p.243) - Command Rifle, 8x Rifle (175 pts)

Compulsory Jaakari Platoon (p.243) - Command SMG, 8x SMG (235 pts)
- Upgrade platoon to be reconnaisance (only one platoon can be upgraded) (60 pts)

Jaakari Platoon (p.243) - Command Rifle, 8x Rifle (175 pts)

Jaakari Machine-gun Platoon (p.244) - Command SMG, 4x Maxim HMG (150 pts)

Jaakari Mortar Platoon (p.244) - Command SMG, Observer Rifle, 3x Tampella M/35 81mm mortar (100 pts)

Jaakari Tank-Hunter Platoon (p.245) - Command SMG, 2x Lahti anti-tank rifle (40 pts)

Panssarii Platoon (p.239) - Command T-26, 4x T-26 (160 pts)

Armoured Car Platoon (p.254) - Command BA-10, 2x BA-10 (135 pts)

Artillery Battery (p.253) - Command SMG, Staff, Observer Rifle, 4x 76 K/02 gun (135 pts)


1415 Points, 9 Platoons

I'm planning to stick the MGs onto the two infantry platoons, since they're just Rifles, which is pretty painful for defensive fire even with 9 stands, so it's effectively 8 platoons.

I'm aware the finns are a very tricky set of guys to play, but they have a part in my family tree so I'd quite like to put some together. What's the skinny on how to play them?

>>48475448
>It must be real cramped there, buddy.

There are times it feels like it, and there are times it doesn't. It's not as cramped as the island of Manhattan, but it's not Podunk, Iowa either.

Either way, it's home.

And besides, I'm just poking fun at Virus.

>>48472843
>the re release of Mid War.

That will probably not be for a while yet, I'd imagine.

The last I heard, the "serious" mid-war overhaul, as compared to the half-assed job we just received, isn't due out until we get Version 4 of the main rules.

>>48476360
I know, that is why i said at least, though i am pretty sure we aren't that far for Version 4 (something like 1 or 2 years)

File: image.gif (156KB, 852x388px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 852x388px

>>48475568
Your mainly infantry, do you will likely be defending most of the time.

What are Finns rated? That could give me a bit of a better idea of how they should play on the table top.

>>48475754
>Either way, it's home.

I think you mean "I LOVE THIS TOWN!"

>>48476360
I've heard the same about Mid-War.

At least it is still pretty playable, even if it is technically an edition behind.

>>48477523
>I think you mean "I LOVE THIS TOWN!"

>Eagles not using an obvious Ghostbusters quote?

You feeling alright Bird-Man?

>>48477523
Jaakari are FV with CV support

>>48475568
I like it, Finns can make really good infantry lists but what happened with the AT?

The Anti-tank rifles platoon with just 2 teams seems pointless, better use those points to upgrade the Command teams with Panzerfaust and a pair of Pak40 can be pretty good idea.

Has anyone had any success balancing a three-way game of flames?

File: image.jpg (139KB, 476x421px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 476x421px

>>48477742
>Eagles not using an obvious Ghostbusters quote?
>You feeling alright Bird-Man?

Yeah, yeah. I missed an obvious opportunity to quote one of my favorite movies.

Ha ha.

Besides, that quote refers specifically to the city of New York. I live in the suburbs.

Also, Bird-Man? Seriously?

>>48478546
>Has anyone had any success balancing a three-way game of flames?

You'd have to make it something that all sides were fighting over, or else two guys would quickly gang up on the third.

Maybe have multiple objectives that are all worth a given amount of points and then have players need to reach a certain value to be declared the winner?

*shrug*

>>48479300
>Maybe have multiple objectives that are all worth a given amount of points and then have players need to reach a certain value to be declared the winner?
How about
>Put down 3 objectives, located at fairly middle-of-the-board locations.
>Get 3 points for each objective you control, 2 points for each you contest.
>Add points to your total at the start of your turns, first to reach 16 wins.
Means someone that contests two objectives wins before someone that is sitting in the back hiding, and points are awarded fast enough to encourage quick and bloody games (or at least attempts at such). Normally I'd be worried about designing so that infantry can get into place, but the local players are either tank spam or mechanized.

>>48475568
Which era? You will get utterly fucked by tanks in either case. Get some Anti-tank guns, or at the very least integrated AT in your combat platoons, preferably panzerfausts if late war.

>>48478492
Would you say it'd be fine to ditch the recce upgrade and get either AT guns or better tanks?

>>48481494
If you want yes, you already have a recce team with those armored cars, now with the tanks... well i don't know your local meta and you will play At low points but if you face things like big cats, jumbos, stalins, etc you will need things like panzerfausts and pioners since finns lacks heavy AT

T-26 can be useful against infantry and light armor since they are cheap but well this is something personal.

Now against medium tanks if you don't want to go to the somewhat expensive sturmis, that light infantry list shine because you can take 3 platoons of 2 Pak40s, 2 of thems are FV and the third one use an armour slot but it can be FV or CV.

>>48478012
FV-FV support actually.

>>48481747
Do they do winter PaKs?

>>48481849
For the Germans yes but i don't know if they use winter uniforms thet that could be used like Finns. I know they make Paks with Finns crew but i am not sure about Finns winter crews.

File: commie_doggo.jpg (15KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 620x348px

I want to get into team yankee, how is this list?
Tank Battalion
Cic T-72 (5)
7x T-72 (32)
7x T-72 (32)
4x BMP-1 Recon (4)
4x SA-13 (4)
Support
4x BMP-1 Recon (4)
1x BMP-1 OP (1)
6x BM-21 (8)
4x Mi-24 (10)
100 pts

>>48482019
I mean they make lots of winter uniform finns in general, I'm just not sure about gun team crews.

>>48482025

I would drop the artillery, upgrade the BMPs and take the extra two hinds.

Alternatively I might keep the BMP-1s and take 2x2 shilka platoons to bump up my platoon count.

>>48483212
I want that sweet smoke bombardment though

>>48479564
Any thoughts on this?

File: Leopard(it means cheetah).jpg (363KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1600x1200px

Has anyone scanned Leopard yet?

>>48482019
FSO113 Finnish Anti-tank Gun Group (Winter)

>>48484553
>not Leopard (it means Cheetoh).jpg
Way to drop the ball anon.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2496x1664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2496x1664px

>>48484553
>Has anyone scanned Leopard yet?

Yes. Personally.

It's in the database. Link in the OP.

>Leopard (it means Cheetah)

Gepard means Cheetah.

>>48484709
>not Leopard (it means Cheetoh)

That is a color that can best be described as "Cheetoh Orange".

Why is that Leopard painted orange?

>>48485092
Didnt russia hold some sort of tank olympics once?

>>48485092
>>48485228
>>48484553
That specific Leo II was painted orange by the Dutch military.
It was in support of the national teams in the 2008 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.

The text on the side translates as "proud of our boys".

>>48485092
It was for some dutch soccer thing.

Question: did the british (or canadians) ever use foliage as camo (similar to how the germans did it), or did they rely on camo nets and hessian strips?

Reason I'm wondering: camo nets/hessian strips are a pain to model in a good way

File: Vw.png (936KB, 1201x807px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 1201x807px

>>48485683
When they used foliage it tended to be shoved into nets, though if the foliage is thick enough (and it was at times) you couldn't really tell.

File: Cromwells.jpg (521KB, 1426x803px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1426x803px

>>48485683
>>48486184
As for modeling it, if you're just going for the foliage put some flattened green stuff down in the shape of your foliage clump and rough the surface up some. The greenstuff is just to give it a surface to adhere to and not look like it was glued to the tank. Then use a 50/50 mix of white glue and water to stick tea leaves (just rip open a bag of tea) onto it. After it dries, apply another layer of watered down glue to seal it.

If you want nicer-looking netting (And sparser foliage), roll the diamond patterned grip of a hobby knife over the flattened green stuff before transferring it to the tank. This will make it look like netting. Apply spots of glue and tea leaves as above, but don't cover the greenstuff entirely like with the previous method.

Hessian Strips are a bitch to make, 1/10 would not recommend.

Here's some pics of the middle method (netting and leaves) from my vehicles (before I painted them). You can see I only bothered with the Hessian camo on one. It looks nice, but it's a giant bitch to do.

File: Camo.jpg (869KB, 2039x896px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 2039x896px

>>48486345
And I just realized that pic was BEFORE I put the leaves on. Didn't get any pics before priming, but here's some of afterwards.

Note that there are some patches where it's greenstuff green. That's because I forgot to do the second glue coat. Don't forget the second glue coat.

>>48486345
>>48486462
>Using tea to camouflage a British tank.

Tommy/10

>>48486345
>Tea on british tanks
It's like pottery

>>48485092
>It's in the database. Link in the OP.
Thanks, i must have missed it somehow

File: KIMG0002.jpg (522KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1280x720px

Hey guys, which works better? I'm torn between just the tan/green and mixing in brown

I think the two on the sides look better but at the same time it feels weird doing a 1944 scheme without brown in it.

File: KIMG0003.jpg (437KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1280x720px

>>48488562
side view

>>48486345
>>48486462
Thank you for that tutorial, saved and will be useful.

>>48488562
>>48488591
I like the green/dunkelgelb one the most, but then I like two-colour schemes better than the tri-tonal ones. There were plenty in use, dunkelgelb/green was not uncommon by any means.

A single camouflage colour also looks better IMO if you're doing a wavy pattern like you have here.

>>48488562
My votes are for Left or Center.

That green looks darker than I think it should, but I still like the left one the most.

>>48488769
>>48488889
thanks guys I was feeling the left one but since I'm gonna be painting 10 of the little bastards I figured I would ask for a second opinion.

>>48489893
Its vallejo German Camo dark green, the color used for stahlhelms. I thought that was the same tanks were painted with until you said this and I checked my Grey Wolf painting guide.

Turns out the "official" color is Reflective Green. I'll try that on one and see how it comes out.

>>48490561
You might consider lightening the Reflective Green, too (it can be pretty bright out of the bottle). You'll be applying it over a dark undercoat instead of over dunkelgelb. There's also a scale effect with paint - the smaller the scale, the more you want to lighten. Finally, dust tended to reduce contrast and lighten darker colors.

The pattern looks great. That might've been what was throwing the 3-color version off, it was a little too regular.

Finally picked up my copy of Leopard and KG Müller from my FLGS.

Took long enough. Only 2 (3?) weeks late.

Also, I might have another potential Team Yankee player. A US Army vet who wants to play, you guessed it, Americans.

*shaking my damn head*

Seriously, why can't I get one damn Soviet player?

Better than nothing I guess...

>>48492741
At least Best Germans v. Americans will be more fun than American/American mirror matches. I think I will have to hop in with the next Warsaw Pact faction or Soviets to be able to reliably get a game in.

You'd have to think the number of models factors in for many people. I know it's a factor for me: cost and assembly/painting time. Playing Soviets in Flames doesn't help matters. Maybe there is a bit of Blufor bias, but the Soviets in TY are really cool with some great stuff.

>>48493116
Indeed. It could potentially be army #3 for me at some distant point in the future, but for now I'm still working on my Yankees and just starting my Krauts.

Commies might come at some point much later. *shrug* Especially if I can keep it mostly to plastic kits.

>>48492741

I'm lucky that there were several players interested in playing Soviets in my group.

But rather than collecting worst Germans as a second force start a soviet one and solve the problem yourself instead of whining about it.

Just run a t-72 list with some AA, BMP recon platoons and hinds then spray the models green. Done now you have an OPFOR you can lend out or play yourself.

>>48493937
I might. But the Best Germans appealed to me more.

Plus my one opponent is considering Commies as his second army.

But yeah, I'd probably go T-72 heavy with some BMP recon, Hinds, and some Zvezda Shilkas to keep it cheap and all-plastic.

>>48492741
Soviet, too expensive. Not effective with little buying.
I've spent over $800 for TY Soviet army(though I regret purchase of 2 set of P's bear), as no one would like to get in Soviet in my group.
One good point of being Soviet player, is you can choose your opponent as you want because there are no alternatives if they want to play against Soviet.

File: GloriousBastardBeingNationalHero.jpg (22KB, 425x319px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 425x319px

Damn after i ordered my Potecknov's Bears i can't stop watching the Seattle invation trailer from World in Conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlaK98w9jJE

Even though i don't like USA that much, now because that video i want to make an American army with a Command Team with someone carrying the American flag like pic related.

File: cantpaint.jpg (1MB, 852x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 852x1136px

Started painting my force. Really, really not used to this scale, though i'm happy with how the command panther has come out thus far.

Please ignore my first attempt at greenstuff in the background >_>

>>48495003
It could use some camouflage or maybe a wash, but you're off to a decent start.

As for the GS in the background, it could use some work. Plus I don't think any tarps popped up quite that high on any halftracks.

>>48494562
I want to say you can do Soviets affordably in TY, but it would require some pre-planning. And sticking mostly to plastics.

But then again I haven't really given it too much thought.

File: Kuromorimine01.jpg (73KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x400px

>>48495220
The popping tarps was the main issue. I tried to make a frame with paperclips but i think i made them too high. I'm also not really sure how to remove it. Any tips for GS?

The actual scheme i'm trying to keep somewhat plain- being the weeb i am, i'm trying to paint them up as KMM from GuP. I intend to muddy down the yellow with a wash.

>>48495257
Yeah, the yellow certainly seems very vibrant, but that could just be your camera.

You're really looking for more of a yellow-tan then a pure yellow.

>>48495341
I'm using GW's averland sunset. On a black basecoat it looks a lot more sandy, and with the wash it'll be muddled down even more.

Were hull MGs painted the same color as the tank or was the barrel just a plain black?

Anyone knows Osprey's M36 of pdf version?
This thread's mediafire link seems do not have the pdf about M36.

File: 03000892.jpg (111KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x450px

>>48495003
I hate to be that guy, but thin your paints a bit more. Its pretty noticeable in a couple of spots, especially the gun mantlet and sideskirts.

Another tip for freehanding symbols.

See how your iron cross has random junk sticking out from it in splotches? Try cleaning that up with the base color to make the borders clean. I usually just do it in clean, single swipes along each edge one at a time. It seems obvious but its how I do all my free handing and works quite well, especially for simple stuff like stars or crosses.

This is of course ignoring basic tips like a wash and some basic highlighting. Dont worry dude, we all start somewhere, you'll be amazed how quickly it comes together when you give it a good wash and a matte varnish.

Also, I have that Averland sunset youre using as well. Itll look a bit off until you give it a wash. It REALLY darkens if you wash it right. Not to mention dunkelgelb (the base color german tanks came in) varied quite a bit, so as long as you have a dark yellow/tan/greenish yellow/yellowish khaki you'll be ok. There's an article on Battlefront's website that shows a good 10 ways or so to paint it in all sorts of various shades, so you'll be fine.

>>48495257
The Kuromorimine Panthers were basically made with something pretty close to Dunkelgelb (light brown/yellow), historically most tanks were painted like that in the factories and then their own units would paint it in the front based on what they needed.

So if someone is a little mad or is a rivet counter about yours "weebs" tanks you can say they are just a rushed platoon that still couldn't be painted in the division workshop, and nobody notice the smoke dischargers.

>>48495520
Paint the MGs black, dark grey or GW/citadel gunmetal.

>>48493116
I know I stalled on my soviets when I realised just how many motor infantry I was going to have to paint. Most of my strelk in WW2 are still primered because seriously fuck painting sixty bases of infantry.

>>48495783
>So if someone is a little mad or is a rivet counter about yours "weebs" tanks you can say they are just a rushed platoon that still couldn't be painted in the division workshop, and nobody notice the smoke dischargers.
Which is not just a dodge but historically accurate. You could even do your schoolgirls as a panzer school list, though those lists are kinda subpar, especially compared to the hugely flexible regulars from the same book.

>>48497219
>Use schoolgirls as panzer school lists.

Actually that is an excellent idea good sir. I am going to use it to my own girls und panzer list.

>>48451347
in the cossack painting guide you can see that the cossacks wear stripes on their pants and a pattern on their hat depending which kind of cossack they are. Applying that to your dismounted inf seems like the way to go

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=2193

>>48497185
I have to chain myself to the chair to paint strelkovy. By accident, I have found that the TY Russian Green spray is nearly an exact match for the color I am painting the greatcoats and jumpsuits of my strelkovy (vallejo Russian Uniform WWII). So my plan is to spray all my remaining stands, leaving me with just a few passes for details.

So i have not been keeping up with Flames of war much but i am aware of Team Yankee and shit. My question is. Is it any good? I mean if it is i might buy 2 starters(Germany and Russia possibly) to spread awarness of the game around here.

File: not from a jedi.jpg (27KB, 591x443px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 591x443px

>>48499609

do it.

do it!

File: NVA 057.jpg (345KB, 701x950px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 701x950px

>>48495564

The M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53 (Osprey New Vanguard 57)

The US Army had a unique tactical doctrine during World War II, placing the emphasis for tank fighting on its Tank Destroyer Command whose main early-war vehicle was the M10 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage, based on the reliable M4A2 Sherman tank chassis. This durable and versatile vehicle saw combat service from the North Africa campaign in 1943. By 1944, its gun was not powerful enough and it was rearmed with the new 90 mm gun, becoming the M36 90mm Gun Motor Carriage. This book details one of the only US armoured vehicles capable of dealing with the Panther and Tiger during the Battle of the Bulge.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/eoq6a6wymy2gctk/Osprey+-+NVA+057+-+M10+and+M36+Tank+Destroyers+1942-53.pdf

>>48501066
At work, so I can't look, but does it talk about the British usage as well?

>>48499609
It's a faster playing, more slimmed-down rule set than regular Flames of War.

The miniatures are beautiful, and the rules are pretty solid.

The 3 armies currently in the game seem to range from small elite forces with good support, to medium sized forces with decent support, to larges forces with a wide range of support.

I recommend it.

File: gy76y.jpg (526KB, 1195x901px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1195x901px

>>48501119
Seems like it covers every nation that used it, anon

>>48499609
Russians are (still) retardedly expensive to play, requiring about 2 to 3 times the shit. In other words, army cost is business per usual FoW.

>>48501258
Thanks. Looking forward to reading it when I get home.

>>48492741
We have 6 players, 4 are soviets, 1 american, 1 west german. Everyone who is just looking at it wants soviets. American players and myself are the only ones with no military background.

>>48501438
That’s just how it is.

They weren’t as poorly led as in WWII, but they were still expected to outnumber Western Forces by a good margin. They’d have to, if they were attacking… you generally assume that you need a 3:1 advantage if you’re the invader.

>>48495520
Averland’s really too yellow. It could work for the yellow stripes that Japanese tanks used in their camo, but it isn’t close to German dunkelgelb, which actually varied. I’d call it a 3-way mix (with varying proportions) of Zamesi Desert, Nurgling Green, and Karak Stone. Yes, it was often pretty green. You’re really better off getting a Vallejo or Army Painter bottle, since they have paint ranges for military modeling. Or a spray for the basecoat, and then use your GW paints for washes, highlights, and details.

You could get West German / modern German decals for the KMM insignia. If you’re going to hand-paint the iron cross, it’s easier to overdo the first pass and then sharpen it by going over it with dunkelgelb afterward.

It’ll work well in the TANKS minigame, but it will seem a little out of place if someone puts down a recreation of a real-life Soviet battalion and then you’ve got a company of schoolgirls playing a tank-based high school sport against them. But if anyone minds, blu-tack a spare tread over each symbol and you’re done.

>>48503545

Yeah, that is true. I am still hoping we get the T-80 for a heavy armor option. I'd like to have a list with T-64/T-80s supported by T-55s/T-62s. I'll be running both Leopard 1s and 2s as the Best Germans.

So I've recently become interested in FoW, and I was wondering about what campaigns people have played? Which ones have you liked/disliked? Do you have any home-brewed campaigns you've made?

>>48503545
>They weren’t as poorly led as in WWII
That is a very broad, and heavily generalized statement. Soviets were at their worst in 1941, to 1942. In '43, they started turning things around. By '44 there was a pretty stark divide between formations that were intended to just weather casualties (meat-grinder brigades), and formations that could be expected handle difficult assignments with minimal loss (many of the Guards or Red Banner brigades).

Compared to EW, MW time period, yeah I'd say TY Soviets are better led. By LW, especially the more heavily decorated Guards or Red Banner brigades, they make TY-era Soviets look like Hollywood clownshoes. And that's not even going by FoW's ridiculous assessments.

>>48504291
I'm interested to see what they do to T-64s and T-80s. Part of me really hopes the T-80, despite being an over-engineered failure, will be a bit better quality in game than the T-72.

>>48498533
Would this count for both cossack mounted and red army mounted?

>>48501170
>The 3 armies currently in the game seem to range from small elite forces with good support, to medium sized forces with decent support, to larges forces with a wide range of support.
Who's the medium size list? NATO both seem to be the elite few and the soviets are the horde.

>>48505967
>Soviets were at their worst in 1941, to 1942.
This also depends strongly on who you're actually looking at; high end leadership suffered terrible communications failures during barbarossa (of the practical, rather than technical nature), and as a result the soviet front was incoherent and huge divisions were completely wasted carrying out nonsensical orders and attempting even the ones still absed on current reality with no supply, but within the state of chaos at the time there were low-level commanders who demonstrated talent and groups who fought both tenaciously and with good grasp of strategy and tactics. It's one of the reason's battlefront's "soviets get two ratings, period" system always annoyed me; it's like trying to put, say, every part of the commonwealth into two narrow bands and saying "they're regulars or guards". In fact, that is literally what it is.

File: 1384541149455.jpg (2MB, 3743x1739px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3743x1739px

>>48505967
>And that's not even going by FoW's ridiculous assessments.
With a few exceptions - namely some, but not all Guard units - Soviet tactics were still wasteful even in 1945. Their stragetists were excellent once Stalin learned to leave them alone, but the lower levels of leadership still had someone looking over their shoulder and it kept them scared and stupid throughout the war.

Late in the war, they still drove into minefields, drove tanks across fields without ever peeking their heads out of the cupola to check their flanks, performed "recon by death", etc. Yeah, BF isn't giving the better battalions their due respect, but overall they're not exaggerating.

>>48506319
>Who's the medium size list? NATO both seem to be the elite few and the soviets are the horde.

Soviets are the "horde", though West Germans can also end up deploying quite a few Leopard 1 tanks since they've actually got lower points costs than the T-72.
Soviets are quite well-motivated but somewhat less-skilled than NATO forces; a rather reasonable assessment considering their training standards. Equipment is solid, if sometimes a bit more basic than the NATO equivalents.
You can field huge units, but they're unwieldy in practice and bit targets for template attacks, so a more tactical approach with medium-sized units is generally the better idea.

USA are currently the mid-tier, though even there the MBT, the M1 Abrams (without its later gun and armour upgrades) gets really expensive pointswise.
The big weakeness of US forces is that their small units are easily forced to take morale checks, which they only have a 50% chance of passing. Pretty solid skillwise, though.

West Germans are the most elite force out there, with generally the best equipment (they modernized more quickly than the USA), excellent motivation and top-tier skills. You also get some cheaper "old" options, most notably the Leo 1, currently the least powerful tank in the game.
The downside: you pay for your eliteness dearly, so if you don't utilize them well, those elite units can easily be wiped off the battlefield by competently used Soviet forces. This can happen to US forces as well, but it's even more of a risk here.

Going for a straight-up shoot-out will generally end in your loss as a NATO player, which aligns nicely with the historical expectations.
Utilise your superior mobility to concentrate your forces and eliminate the enemy piece-by-piece.

Hey guys, I'm drawing a blank. What does Battlefront call their guys they use to run demos and promote the game? I know they used to be recruiting for it on the website but I cant find it anymore.

My local FLGS (Dragon's Hoarde in Murray) expressed interest in Flames and said if I'm willing to put in the hard work of building the community, he'll support it with carrying product and providing tables. I just wanted to see if I could get the "official" demi stuff from Battlefront, not to mention a copy of Open Fire, to make it easier.

Because right now, I've got between 3-4 thousand pts of Germans, Soviets, and Hungarians each, with absolutely zero Americans or Brits.

I'm not even sure how I'm going to do demos yet, due to the odd armies I've built for my Slavs, as theyre Assault Engineers and an SU 152 company.

Not to mention every bit of terrain I own is urban bloc factories and house/apartment complexes.

>>48507774
Rangers. Rangers Lead the Way program, Battlefront's site is and has always been a mess though and I can't find any details of the program.

Plus it's a stupid name. They shouldn't be Rangers, they should be Pathfinders.

>>48507774
>>48507804
Actually, the Rangers program was discontinued more than a year ago.

>>48507866
I seem to recall that Battlefront rolled it out pretty half assedly and it was generally a lot of work for the people involved without a lot of kickback.

>>48495757
>everyone starts somewhere

I have like 30,000 points of 40k. I just can't paint.

Thanks for the tips on freehand. The thinning was from me OVER thinning the paints, and trying to compensate. I'm noticing that this much smaller scale is a hell of a lot less forgiving than 40k.

>>48508111
In military modeling you want your basecoat to be pretty similar to your final hull color. That will help a ton.

>>48508206
I mean primer.

>>48507774
Let's run a demo Labor Day weekend when I am in town. I can bring some Strelkovy and T-34s. It will still give people a good look at the game even if they rather do the western front.

I'd also look into getting people into TANKS. Seems like a good starting point.

>>48509417
Yep I was thinking the same thing. I also figured we could do a normal game to show people what a full game looks like.

I'm hoping playing the game in front of people will spur interest.

The big problem is none of my Soviet stuff really works in the 800-1000 range.

I have

>30+ stands of assault sappers
>6 KV1s
>5 KV 8s
>12 SU 152's
>5 T34/85 /76
> Katyushas

I just picked up a box of zis 3's that would help but theyre at my parents house in Lexington.

I really need to come up with something because as it sits demos are gonna be rough otherwise.

It also doesnt help that all my terrain is urban.

I'm considering just doing 1500pts but keeping the units "simple". The only problem is Engineer sappers are one of the most speshul snowflake lists ever.

How much would you expect for armor rating of T-80 if there are T-80 in TY?
FA 17? 18?

>>48509631
I honestly don't know enough about Cold War era tech to even guess.

Is the armor thicker, or is it more of a Chobham type situation where the armor is just better without necessarily being thicker?

>>48510303
I'd put it at FA 17, or FA 18, but without Chobham Armor (even though the hull is a laminated armor, it's not as effective against HEAT as the M1.)

>>48509624
Oops, forgot to reply to this one too.

I have
>Around 40 or so stands of strelkovy
>9 Maxim Teams
>4 Zis-3s
>4 Zis-2s
>6 45 mms
>Heavy Mortars
>17 T-34/76/85
> AT Rifles
> 5 ISU 152/122s

Surely between what we have we can put a balanced list that will showcase a few different types of units.

>>48510393
If we get the T-80U, yeah sure. Honestly what i mostly expect about the T-64 and T-80 are better ratings, thermals and some rules for gun fired ATGM.

>Tabletop simulator has some Flames of War models
>It's Early War German and Poles

Well, thank you, based gods.

>>48510487
oh yeah Im not worried for our game. I'm worried about afterwards when I'm on my own. Soviets vs Germans is kind of awkward for noobies.


I may end up picking up a small American or British company at this rate. I just dont have the cash or the time to do that right now. That or maybe I'll pick up an Allied half of open fire (the newer one I hope) and use that since I know I have plenty for the German side.

Plus I gotta get a move on painting, I had forgotten about that. I've got a good start on the core for both sides but many support options are still just primer.


Just a heads up c3k, if we only use my terrain (which is pretty much all there will be unless I find some cheap carpet and forests in the next couple weeks) there will be a LOT of urban fighting. Hope you have flamethrowers, breakthrough guns, or assault infantry. If not, lord knows I can lend you some.

>>48495257
Did a whole fleet with GuP Tanks, the colors I used for KMM were:
Tiger: VMA 025
Jagdpanther & Jagd4: VMC 824
Panther: VMC Middlestone but with a healthy spray of Desert Tan on top

(VMA = Vallejo Model Air / VMC = Vallejo Model Color)

File: Comet_tank_1.jpg (139KB, 900x555px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 900x555px

So, Comets. Assuming I had to use a platoon or more of them, which of the 6 lists with them should I use?
For reference (all Nachtjager):
>Armored Squadron
>Armored Car Squadron
>Commando
>Lorried Rifle Company
>Motor Company
>SAS Squadron

>>48515587
I would say SAS or Lorried.

File: rolling_in_style_by_bezsoba-d5iw0ki.jpg (73KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x360px

>>48497219
>>48514085
That said, i know there's an GuP ruleset for Fow (i have it), but i heard some talk that there is one for Tanks! being made?

>>48515587
SAS, Lorried Rifle or Armoured Car.

>>48516521
Here's what I know:

The original project was designed with Flames of War in mind. And an early "beta test" was put out.

Since then TANKS has come out and seems a much better fit both rules-wise and thematically.

It allows for groups of mixed vehicles with crew and other upgrades to be fielded a lot easier than normal FoW would.

I believe a version based n the TANKS rules is currently in the works.

>>48506402
The problem is that a company-level game is granular enough to feature all the diversity and oddities of each army. In fact this is the case with every major nation except Japan (because they just fucking started) and Soviets. I understand brushing over minor nations for the simple reason there is so very little written out there in English. We are finally past that point with the Red Army so it's sad that they are still treated so blandly.

This didn't bother me anywhere near as much back when MW was the only real period and nobody had any depth at all.

>>48517029
Yeah, the perennial example to me here is naval infantry. So, okay, you're going to lump all the guards and regulars together even if there should be a few Nisei companies, Indians and SS type groups around in there, but naval infantry, with both their pop-culture reputation as hardcore badasses, and their unique and distinct doctrine and equipment setup, amounted to "Guards with one less stand".

>>48517707
There was historical reports as well, that suggest the Germans depsised having to fight against them due to their almost fanatical morale. They were referred to as the Black Death for a reason. Yet they're "just Fearless". Meanwhile you get the American Nisei company, which was also noted for being extremely motivated badasses, and they're given Fearless+ with 2+ Motivation to reflect all that.

The Naval Infantry, and indeed Soviets as a whole, are represented like shit in Flames of War. And from reports of players who've tried to send in snowflake briefings, Battlefront gives them a big middle-finger in response.

>>48515717
>>48516526
I can kinda see the SAS (core platoons are dirt cheap and are nice Recce options), but why the Armored Cars? And why not Commandos?

>>48517029
Yeah, I agree with all that. I'm just arguing that the generic Soviet lists are appropriate.

I've also tried to find information about particular units and I just can't. I assume it's a lot better if you can read Russian (I hope - do these records even exist?), but there's so little out there for the rest of us. All you can do is make guesses based on eyewitness accounts, which aren't that helpful for list creation.

>>48517707
>pop-culture reputation as hardcore badasses

Really? Because I know almost nothing about them.

Now if you were talking about the Spetsnaz, or the VDV, I'd say you have a point, but I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with the concept of Russian Naval Infantry as badasses.

>>48517875
>Battlefront gives them a big middle-finger in response.

Hyperbole and exaggeration.

>>48518030
Not in the slightest, actually.

>>48517975
not that guy but most of what Ive heard of them is from the Germans ironically. Thats where the term "black death" comes from after all.

Apparently they had a level of bravery that made them appear fanatical, even amongst their comrades.

I've been meaning to get some, its just hard to find models for them.

>>48518030
Figurative, but not an exaggeration. I encountered this myself when I tried to contact them about doing a write-up for a 46th Guards Tank Brigade list. I asked what format I should be writing it in, and how much detail I needed to go into, and was met with a "we're not currently interested in a breifing for the 46th, but might be if we ever do Manchuria".

>>48518227
"We are not currently interested" is far cry from them telling you "Go fuck yourself".

Your offering to do unsolicited work that they're not interested in having you do.

It's a polite but firm "No thank you", not a "Fuck off".

>>48517975
Yeah, but I assume you're from America, or even western europe. The huge information deficit means that very few of the soviet union's famous war heroes are well-known outside eastern europe and russia.

Also I'm pretty sure the VDV and spetsnaz are memorable for their cold-war status; the spetsnaz of WW2 are certainly totally different.

>>48517707
>and their unique and distinct doctrine and equipment setup
Bullshit.

>>48518227
is that the unit that was asking for reinforcement T26's in 1944?

Because I would love to see a Fearless +2 army of them

>>48518225
>black death
Yeah, and the Germans knew the Marines as Devil Dogs, right?

>>48517918
There is actually quite a bit if information on specific formations, if you take the time to research it.

The generic lists are only appropriate from an extremely generalized standpoint. It'd be like if all the American lists in LW were Confident Trained or Confident Veteran, and there were no other ratings. Pershings are universally available, but the Super Pershing isn't found anywhere. And no special briefing rules of any kind existed (no Jumbos Lead the Way, no Nisei, no Spearhead or Patton, no Detroit's Finest).

Another example would be to say all German lists were either CV, or FV (catch-all SS), and all the snowflake briefings (e.g. Panzers to the Meuse, Wiking SS, ##th whatever, etc) didn't exist.

Yeah the generic Soviet lists *work*, but they leave a lot to be desired. Whereas all other major nations reward a player for say bulding a thematic Desert Rats army, or Big Red One, the Soviet players are instead expected to limit and effectively penalize themselves if they want to make a list based on a historic brigade. Take the 46th Guards Tank Brigade as an example, if I want to run their Vienna incursion, I have to take a LL Tankovy briefing and limit it to just 14 76mm M4s, with 3 ISU-152s, and a company of Guards Motostrelkovy. Some leeway could be used to justify a platoon of sappers and air support. But if this was any other major nation (and indeed even some minor ones), we'd see a FV briefing with a company-setup (no Centralized Command), that broke the 76mm M4s down into groups of 3. ISU-152s would be in there, with some kind of "Panther Killer" rule that allowed them to maneuver and shoot at tanks with an AT of 14 to represent the bunker-busting shell, and platoons of die-hard veteran paratroopers would be the infantry support. There's be no Hen and Chick, and there doubtless would be some kind of bonus special rule of being "all out on your own, no support coming" allowing rerolled company cohesion checks, etcs.

>>48518225
>not that guy but most of what Ive heard of them is from the Germans ironically. Thats where the term "black death" comes from after all.
I doubt it was all irony.

The naval infantry were pretty hardcore. In addition to some serious stones, they had a very distinct "swift battle" doctrine heavily focused on manuever fire; they were very early adopters of the SMG, wanted SVT rifles, and dismissed maxims altogether in favour of the DP. They really should look pretty distinct from guards strelkovy.

Now, within the naval infantry there's notable groups; one was made up almost entirely of communist party members, for instance, while another got the order of the red banner twice. These guys should be pretty easy sells for nisei or desert-rat treatment.

>>48518459
>Take the 46th Guards Tank Brigade as an example
The unit pretty much tailor made for snowflake list complaints? The one that gets rolled out overtime the Soviet whiners breach containment?

>>48518443
The soviet naval infantry weren't part of the army until the beginning of WW2; why -wouldn't- they be distinct from plain strelkovy?

>>48518295
You do realize, I hope, that the LW French, Panzers to the Meuse, and all other pdf briefing lists like that were player-submitted just the same?

>>48518475
> manuever fire
None of which is particularly representable in FoW
>SMG
Already represented. Soviets get very easily access to large numbers of SMGs.
>Wanted SVT rifles
Irrelevant in the face of rifle/mg teams.
>dismissed maxims
So don't use many HMGs. Or just abstract it the way that the Germans use MG-34s/42s as both rifle/mgs and HMG teams.
>These guys should be pretty easy sells for nisei or desert-rat treatment.
Not really. The Soviets were known for their incredible morale. The American's weren't. And the Soviets get Commissars, which are one of the most brutally effective morale special rules in the game.

>>48518495

Doesn't really mean much if in practise FoW scale doesn't change anything. Which it doesn't need to, if the incredibly weak gear differences are apparently the calibre of the case for changes.
>>48518503
>LW French
You mean generic American list?

>>48518446
No, that's the LL Tank Brigade that Loza was part of, and wrote about in his memoirs. They were the ones who did shit like infiltrate Vienna, knock a plane out of the sky with a sherman's 76mm, perform flanking maneuvers through marshlands, etc. They started with Matildas in MW, and were awarded Guards honors, reformed, and outfitted with all 76mm M4A2s until the end of the war. They were pretty well decorated by the end of it.

>>48518528
Everything you said just reinforces the problem of having to take a generic list, and strip it down to represent a particular force. Which is exactly what was done with "Strelkovy with 1-less stand".

>>48518528
I don't see how any of this contradicts the idea that soviets get the short end of the stick on special treatment, though?

Most countries that had doctrinally unique lists get their own special rules for those. Naval inf don't.

Soviets do get large numbers of SMGs; but this is characteristic of the "soviet lists are all generic and just expect you to write the historical briefing out of them" thing. The same is true of taking less maxims; in what way does this help make them more unique?

SVTs are entirely relevant, since america gets automatic special rules, likewise for marines who do have MGs. They should even be very similar on that, since they're both after the same kind of practical effect from their loadout. It's arguable that not all units would have had enough to load out whole companies, but that's another argument against making every soviet force a battalion; three platoons, one with SVTs could fix that.

Soviets being known for morale should make a group known for even better morale... better. But it doesn't; instead they lag behind the japanese, nisei, and other groups who have 2+ morale.

And the existence of comissars doesn't help anything; so what if they get comissars? All soviets get comissars. They're not a way of representing naval infantry's morale.

>>48518493
Possibly because it's a bloody obvious example?

>>48518560
LW French plays quite a bit differently than American. They're basically French, with LL equipment. Not unlike British using all LL, or Sovieta using all LL.

And the entire briefing was player-submitted, at a time when BF wasn't even concerned with French, or even that part of the war.

>>48518560
>Doesn't really mean much if in practise FoW scale doesn't change anything. Which it doesn't need to, if the incredibly weak gear differences are apparently the calibre of the case for changes.
Gear differences and a wholly different doctrine designed around it. Look at the difference between american marines and rifles! And, again, it's the kind of gear difference that is the exact thing the americans get special rules for.

>>48518653
There's also something to be said about how commissars became more of a rarity late in the war... But the continued prevalence of them in all soviet lists is yet another synptom of BF not trying very hard.

>>48517903
>>48516526
>>48515717
>>48515587
Fooling around with Commandos:
Company HQ - CiC Rifle (20 pts)
-->2x PIAT (40 pts)

Commando Company - Command Rifle/MG, 6x Rifle/MG (205 pts)
-->2x Water Buffalo (25 pts)
-->Panzerfaust/SMG command (10pts)

Commando Company - Command Rifle/MG, 6x Rifle/MG (205 pts)
-->2x Water Buffalo (25 pts)
-->Panzerfaust/SMG command (10pts)

Commando Machine Gun Platoon - Command Rifle, 3x Vickers HMG
-->Water Buffalo (10pts)

Commando Mortar Platoon - Command Rifle, Observer Rifle, 3x ML 3" Mk II Mortar
-->Water Buffalo (10pts)

Armored Platoon - Command Comet, 2x Comet (435 pts)

Daimler Recce Platoon - Command Daimler I, 2x Daimler I, 2x Daimler Dingo (175 pts)

Field Battery, Royal Artillery - Command Rifle, Staff, 2x Command Rifle, 2x Observer, 2x OP carrier, 8x OQF 25 pdr (315 pts)

Air Observation Post - Auster AOP (25 pts)

1730pts, 8 platoons

Each infantry platoon will have a panzerfaust and two PIATs, combined with all the commando niceness. The Comets provide some mobile tank-busters, while the artillery and recce do their classic jobs. Nice thing about Commandos is the "You are not Alone" rule, so I need to lose *6* Platoons with this configuration before taking fearless company morale tests. Plus ability to Night Attack, and the infantry having all the fun of the LLW commando rules (hit on 2+ in assault, Mission Tactics, have British Bulldog combined with FV)

Main thing I'm worried about is that I might not have enough AT weaponry, or that I have too much artillery/tanks that are paying extra for unused speed when night attacking.

>>48518653
>I don't see how any of this contradicts the idea that soviets get the short end of the stick on special treatment, though?
This isn't 40k. The game was never based around that sort of faction differentiation.
>special rules
Depends on how special those units were. Naval Infantry weren't.
>Soviet Lists
Look at the actual books where Soviet lists were released concurrently with German ones. Same stuff. Both factions get mostly generic lists with a few new units or a unit with a special rule. Maybe a character or two. The Eastern Front books are very consistent in that respect.
>Americans
Stupid example. They were near universally armed with them at the expense of proper squad LMGs. It's a perfect storm of gear issuing. If the Americans issued LMGs properly, they never would have gotten the special rule.
Particularly when the Soviets get such easy access to SMGs.
>even better morale
They've got 3+ with all the Soviet stuff. That's pretty much peak morale.
>All Soviets get Commissars
Yeah, they went a bit over the top with Soviet bravery. Kinda memetic, really. The initial bar is very high, and the Naval Infantry aren't significant enough compared to say, Guards, to really need anything novel.

>>48518744

They often become options, though. Anyway, in practise it's obviously because they create the right dynamic for Soviet lists. Soviets tend to not have to worry about morale as much as the other guys. Getting into CC is pretty much a win state for most Soviet infantry lists, and Commissars create the right mix of persistence and acceptance of initial casualties. The fluff is another thing entirely.

>>48518658
>plays differently
They swapped a few special rules, you mean?
>And the entire briefing was player-submitted, at a time when BF wasn't even concerned with French, or even that part of the war.

That may well be why it was accepted. A token throw of a bone to French players that otherwise were near totally overlooked.

>>48518493
There's also the 1st Guards Tank Army, which is quite noteworthy. Aleksandra Samusenko was a liason officer in it, and the 1st Guards Tank Brigade (in that unit) also liberated a concentration camp and subsequently had Sergeant Joseph Beyrle join them as an engineer. He was the only known US soldier (from the 101st Airborne division) to join the Red Army and fight the war on both the western and eastern fronts. It even had to be cleared through Moscow-DC communication channels.

>>48518953
Have you looked at it? It's quite a bit different than a standard US list. Tanks and equipment are the only real carry-overs.

>>48519025

So what's actually different? Literally a few special rules that were swapped.

>>48518876
It's just more generalization. Comissars don't help you get into combat, they just help you not to run away (at a cost). Soviet Infantry only really does well in assault because it's tenacious, and there's a fuck ton of them (due to having a batallion sized briefing in a company sized game).

>>48518991
>which is quite noteworthy
For?
And was it noteworthy in a way beyond simply being administratively continuous despite a number of key battles?

>>48519071
>Soviet Infantry only really does well in assault because it's tenacious
And huge platoons. Either way, they're very good at it. It's something of an artefact of the assault/turn structure, but so is Motor Rifles sucking because of the small platoon sizes.

Actually, you know what would make me really goddamn happy? AAR losing the 'Bazooka teams', and making the rifle teams, 'rifle/bazooka' teams.

It'd cut down on so much of the bullshit that the Americans get as a result of de facto huge platoons and seperate bazookas.

>>48518854
>This isn't 40k. The game was never based around that sort of faction differentiation.
Except for all of the unique lists, you mean?

>Depends on how special those units were. Naval Infantry weren't.
Hell of a claim to make given their reputation both at the time and subsequently, and the fact that, again, they existed distinct from the army before the onset of hostilities in 1941.

>Look at the actual books where Soviet lists were released concurrently with German ones. Same stuff. Both factions get mostly generic lists with a few new units or a unit with a special rule. Maybe a character or two. The Eastern Front books are very consistent in that respect.
The difference is germany still has all of the western front to choose from.

And even then, moving from Grey Wolf (which covers two years and is indeed pretty generic; even there, there's specialist SS though) to DM and Berlin, Germans got weird unique stuff, and soviets got more generic shit. There's no PzAbt for the soviets.

>They were near universally armed with them at the expense of proper squad LMGs. If the Americans issued LMGs properly, they never would have gotten the special rule.
Except for the marines who are rifle/MGs and still have an assault rifles rule.

>They've got 3+ with all the Soviet stuff. That's pretty much peak morale.

Peak morale would be 2+ morale. Which again, some people get. And "all the soviet stuff" just means QoQ and maybe a comissar; QoQ is a necessary fudge to make massive platoons work with any degree of smoothness (and largely inferior to other morale rules; the japanese take bombardments better) and comissars are neither guaranteed nor appropriate for every list. Certainly, always-executing comissars aren't.
>not different enough
Except for all the reasons given.

>>48518854
>This isn't 40k
Which is hilarious to even mention, because Americans and Germans come across as Space Marines with their fuck ton of snowflake shit.

>>48519050
Nation rules, for starters. The organization of the units, and what equipment they have. Everything is Veteran. They also have access to some of their own Somua and Chars (shitty and cheap by LW standard), and largely follow French organization.

It is only "reskinned americans" by virtue of the fact that they were outfitted with Lend Lease equipment.

>>48519124
>Except for all of the unique lists, you mean?
They're interesting novelties, not the mainstay of ones view of the game.
>distinct from the army
If the boot fits.
>still has
Same principle in play there, except there's way more need for snowflake lists on that front because of the nature of the operations. You can't do Market Garden at all without snowflake German lists. And the Heer falling apart and the various new stuff they were rolling out in small numbers further cements the need for the Germans to have a lot of weird stuff. As for the Americans, you can't release the same list a million times. For the most part it's small tweaks and a particular special rule, etc.
>Soviets got more Generic shit
Rubbish. They got lots of neat stuff. Soviet players whined about it, but they got it.
>Marines
They get the BAR rule, and that's hardly assault rifles.
>peak morale
Which would be insane with Commissars and QoQ on top of that. You can get away with 2+ morale on a very selective basis.
>Soviet stuff
And the huge platoons improving the odds of 1iC support.
>QoQ
De facto it's a huge advantage for Soviets getting into assault, large or small platoons.
>Commissars
Don't think of it as executions. Think of it as the strong morale of the Soviets being willing to take a hair more casualties now in order to stay in the fight. Particularly considering that one more counterattack can be critical in a lot of games. The Soviets often save bases by executing one for the re roll.
>reasons given
There were no reasons given. None worth a damn. Maybe in Bolt Action scale.

>>48519217
The Organisation is almost entirely American, Veterans are also American, and the tank options aren't nearly enough to make them stand out when they're otherwise 90% American.

>>48519079
>I'm too lazy to look anything up...

>The 1st Tank Army was a Soviet armoured formation that fought as part of the Red Army on the Eastern Front during World War II. The army was commanded throughout most of the war by Mikhail Katukov. It fought in the early defense during the Battle of Stalingrad, and Operation Uranus, also participating at The Battle of Kursk
On top of that, they also took part in Berlin, and were one of the very few to receive the Red Banner honorific.

Fuck, do you need it spelled out to you? Beyrle even fucking wrote about his time with them! Do some fucking research!

>>48519217
>The organization of the units
No, seriously, what are you talking about? I just looked through them again. They STILL get ToT and Truscott Trott. They're otherwise almost totally a carbon copy of an American list out of say, Turning Tide, or Dogs and Devils.

The only list that's any different is the Escadron de Spahi, but that's one list of a number.

>>48519317
>I'm too lazy to do anything but post from Wiki, and post stuff that already confirms what anon said about them being fundamentally not that notable.

>>48519117
>and there's a fuck ton of them
Huge "platoons" was mentioned. Try not removing things out of context.

>>48519414
>Red Banner
>fought in Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin
>not notable
Kay... Whatever you say, captain goalpost.

>>48519523

As opposed to what? Those other elite assault platoons that are good because they hit on a 3+ rather than a 4+? That's mostly the difference. Assault in FoW is a pretty simplistic affair.

>>48519559

They're a good example of a Guards unit, certainly.

>>48519443

Wise ass.

>>48519260
>They're interesting novelties,
Which everyone else gets.

>If the boot fits.
What're you even talking about? They're as different as you can get without being a different nation. Speaking of, there's no polish lists, either, despite every other polish list getting fate of the nation.


>As for the Americans, you can't release the same list a million times. For the most part it's small tweaks and a particular special rule, etc.
Which the soviets don't ever get. Is this making sense? I feel like I'm repeating myself here and then you bring up something totally irrelevant.

>Rubbish.
Are you about to argue the printed hero lists are good? Because they're not. They have a few workable builds, but they're really bad lists.

Also, they're "a generic battalion, after some casualties", so still not a counterargument.

>the BAR rule
I meant automatic rifles, but the point is this is exactly the kind of "minor gear upgrade" that you claim doesn't exist.

>>48519260
>Which would be insane with Commissars and QoQ on top of that. You can get away with 2+ morale on a very selective basis.

Sure, but you're claiming they have the absolute best morale, which isn't true.

>De facto it's a huge advantage
It just stops them suffering from having multiple platoons welded together and still being the same target area. Having a 1IC in command is hardly a unique advantage to the soviets and is amazingly fringe if you're claiming it is.

>or small platoons.
It literally only functions if you have a big platoon.

>Don't think of it as executions.
The rule literally represents executions. This is your headcanon of the game.

>no reasons
You're just ignoring them at this stage.

>>48519597
That could be represented with it's own briefing(s). It's not like they just handed Red Banner honors out to everyone, contrary to your implications.

>>48519597
Yeah FT represents veterans who survived from the start to the end of the war. There's no CV, RV, or FV veterans in russia.

>>48519712
>Wise ass.

Guilty as charged.

I'm just sitting back and enjoying the debate since I'm not knowledgeable enough about Soviets to contribute to this truly civilized discussion.

>>48519796
>civil
There's never anything civil about these discussions. It always comes down to the players who want to see more than a cursory overview for the soviets, and the fuckwits who don't want a nation to have anything fun or interesting.

>>48520040
I think Eagles might have been a tad bit sarcastic there...

Me, I'm over here with the marshmallows.

>>48520040
>It always comes down to [My Side], and the fuckwits on [Other Side].
FIFY

File: 1384304536826.jpg (108KB, 700x504px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 700x504px

>>48520040
>and the fuckwits who don't want a nation to have anything fun or interesting.

No, these always involve a lot of talking past each other. Look above - as in other threads, this conversation basically went like this:
>LW Soviets were idiots
>No they weren't, there were good brigades.
>Yeah, but in general they were idiots.
>Who's talking about "in general"? There were non-idiots that don't have lists.
>Who's talking about non-idiot lists? I"m saying that in general, they were idiots.
>You're an idiot.
>You're an idiot!

The only thing the two sides disagree with is what the hell we're arguing about.

>>48520040
>fuckwits

And that just goes to prove my point about exactly how civil these discussions usually are...

Argue your point. Do it with passion and eloquence.

But don't stoop to calling people fuckwits. Because that only makes you look just as bad yourself.

>>48520040
For reference, hero lists are neither (except two of the digital hero ones, because god forbid battlefront ever print a full book of lists again).

>>48520157
I don't know; either there's some very deep miscommunication or it sounds like some people don't want soviets to have non-generic lists period.

>>48520157
It is painfully clear that the two sides disagree with the idea that soviets should be made up entirely of generic lists in FoW.

>>48520228
The communists certainly need some love and attention.

I honestly think they'll get some once mid-war gets its full-scale re-work instead of the stop-gap we just got online.

Mid-war offers a lot of significant battles to look at on the Eastern front.

That would be a good place to start adding more variety for Soviets.

>>48520177
When the bulk of the argument on the opposing side amounts to plugging their ears and saying "Soviets shouldn't ever have specific, noteworthy formations represented", It's safe to call them fuckwits.

Trolls also works.

>>48520228
Some of it is probably backlash against the extremely rude and entitled way that "soviets need more stuff" is normally presented. Because calling everyone on the other side "fuckwits" is not going to help your cause.

It's the same situation with soviet players and potheads. Yes, intellectually I agree with many of the major points in favor of diverse lists/legalization, but most people in those groups act piss me off so like hell am I going to help them.