Flames of War General: Soviet Battle Maid Edition

File: a34-comet.gif (269KB, 2066x2756px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 2066x2756px

Re-posting from last thread:

>>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?

>>48520976
Aren't Comets seen as a bit too pricey for what they do?

>>48521564
Certainly too much to make an army of.

As a supplement they apparently work... But personally I wouldn't want to take an FA 7 tank with a comet's point-cost.

>>48521564
Yeah, I'm only looking to do it because Comets are sexy. I know mechanically I'd be better off with Cromwells and Challengers.

>>48521564
They're fairly well priced for what is effectively a Light Tank sherman with a Panther's gun. It's just that those factors, combined with Veteran, makes for exactly the kind of pricey glass-cannon you'd expect to see.

>>48521800
Not even that, light tank, with a strong gun, and semi-indirect fire.

SIF kinda negates the usefulness of being a light tank. And vice-versa.

>>48521867
I find with the Comet, and Cromwells, that you use SiF as a "little perk". All it really does, is let you hit teams at long range with *about the same accuracy as if they were short range. 5's rerolled at 20" will generall get you the same results as 4's at 10". The main problem lies with Concealed Vets at >16", that are Gone to Ground.

This is how I treat my SU-85s, and it works alright. Keep the long range stationary focus on things like Challenger A30s, or Fireflies.

>>48522243
Makes sense.

File: Smoke Question.png (12KB, 535x650px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 535x650px

I've got a question about smoke. Say I have two tanks (Green), and one of them smokes the enemy big cat. The rules say "If any line of sight from a shooting or spotting team to the enemy team does not pass through a smoke marker, the smoke has no effect" Obviously, the big cat would need to move to see either of my tanks without the smoke being in the way (all MGs and the main gun can only trace LoS though the smoke). However, one of my tanks can trace LoS to part of the cat without passing through a smoke marker. Does that mean that tank can fire without penalty at the big cat, even if more than half of it is behind the smoke?

>>48524819
It'd still be a concealed shot because you can only see half or less of the tank.

>>48525411
Concealment says "half hidden by terrain", not "half hidden by anything". Smoke says it has no effect if there's any valid LoS that does not pass through the smoke.

>>48525703
I don't have the rules in front of me, but I don't think you're doing that right.

Smoke provides concealment. And each smoke ball is 2 inches wide, blocking almost the entire target vehicle. There are ways to get s shot where the smoke doesn't work, but you'd need to be basically behind the smoke screen shooting at the vehicle from the other side.

>>48527286
>And each smoke ball is 2 inches wide, blocking almost the entire target vehicle. There are ways to get s shot where the smoke doesn't work, but you'd need to be basically behind the smoke screen shooting at the vehicle from the other side.
That whole image is scaled so that 60 pixels is 1in. Those smoke balls are 120 pixiles in width, and the green boxes are 75x150 (about the size of most medium tanks). Pulling this off would require some very precise positioning (and of course hitting with the smoke), but I'm not seeing any reason it wouldn't work. If you mucked up the positioning (which is easy, given how tiny a window you have most of the time), yeah, you'd have to shoot through the smoke and the target would be concealed and gone to ground.

>>48521800
Well, can't you make a CT Comet company if you use the Forces booklet in Open Fire?

File: DUE75.jpg (930KB, 1414x947px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 1414x947px

Bradley vs BMP: Desert Storm 1991 (Osprey Duel 75)

In the mid-1960s, the Soviet Union unveiled the BMP, the first true infantry fighting vehicle. A revolutionary design, the BMP marked a significant departure from the traditional armoured personnel carrier, with a lower silhouette and heavier armament than rival APCs. One of the most fearsome light-armoured vehicles of its day, it caused great consternation on the other side of the Iron Curtain as the Americans scrambled to design a machine to rival the BMP. The result was the M2/M3 Bradley. These Cold War icons first clashed - not on the plains of Europe, but in southern Iraq during the Gulf War of 1991. Featuring specially commissioned full-colour artwork, this is the absorbing story of the origins, development and combat performance of the BMP and Bradley, culminating in the bloody battles of the Gulf War.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ajsd2849skmbhhr/Osprey+-+DUE+075+-+Bradley+vs+BMP.pdf

>>48532311
No, they're only in Nachtjager and accompanying digital lists.

>>48533819
>Nachtjager
What's a Nachtjager?

File: image.jpg (42KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 450x338px

>>48533844
*(Translator's note: Nachtjäger means night hunter.)

>>48533819
Am I hallucinating this, then?
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/OpenFire/OF-Forces-Lowres.pdf

>>48535506
Open Fire and Forces are basically the beginner mode for Flames of War.

The rules and the army lists are both significantly simplified from what they are in full Flames of War.

I'm not entirely sure if lists from Forces are kosher in full games of Flames of War.

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

2MB, 3264x2448px

Spent this morning painting a couple of BO-105Ps for a big Team Yankee battle. A small force of West Germans will be supporting the US against a soviet counterattack. The Americans liberated the city last battle.

Pictures and feedback to come.

>>48535690
Please excuse the shitty painting (especially around the windows). I have to go back and cleans those up when I gloss them.

>>48535690
You should give them a good hand of wash/ink imo, they look too clean and the details don't stand up too much by themselves

>>48535506
Those lists are basically missing 90% of the actual rules used in a full FoW game.

They're for learning the basics, not normal gameplay.

>>48536124
Yeah, I figured as much.

Still, I am the kind of person masochistic enough to run a Comet company anyway.

>>48536100
I gave them a wash with 50:50 clearcoat:black wash. Maybe I will go back and do a targeted wash over a few details.

Also, jokes on me. Missed the battle because the actual time was 3 hours earlier than listed on facebook.

File: Polish vs Russia.jpg (437KB, 1377x1920px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1377x1920px

which WWII weapons, barring the little boy and fat man, would be best for killing giant monsters?

>>48536512
How giant are we talking? House-sized? King Kong? Godzilla and beyond?

Anyhow, all in all, aircraft carrying bombs might be the best bet. Monster's aren't usually known for toting AAA, and even the smaller aircraft bombs usually carry more boom than even the heaviest shells that most artillery use (excepting extra-huge railway pieces, maybe). Even the biggest beast is probably going to be in trouble if they get booped on the nose with a 500kg bomb.

>>48536198
>Missed the battle because the actual time was 3 hours earlier than listed on facebook.

Idiots. This is why information posted online about dates, locations, start times, etc. needs to be **accurate**.

>>48536512
Anything long-ranged and high-powered with either good armor penetration or lots of high explosives.

What are your favourite gimmick lists and why?

>>48538501
Vickers Mk VI Bs and Universal Carriers with Always Defend, thanks to the Divisional Cavalry Squadron from Blitzkrieg. Infantry companies get rekt by the absurd number of armored machine guns you've got while they're forced to advance. 2pdrs and 18/25 pdrs supply enough anti-tank and bombardment to take care of mechanized and tank lists.

>fowlists gets team yankee up
>still doesn't have Nachtjager or Berlin non-digital
Fuck.

File: divisional-cavalry 1750.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48538613
For an example list, see here. Infantry dig in on objectives, carriers split 50/50 to assist. HMGs, 2 pdrs, and arty added to taste, while the Mk VI Bs act as a mobile reserve against infantry. Air support is literally the only option available against enemy air. Only thing I'd consider changing would be Regular infantry instead of Guards in order to free up points for gun transports.

File: EaglesNestLogo.jpg (264KB, 645x580px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 645x580px

New episode of Eagles Nest is up.

Eagles’ Nest Episode 10

In this Episode Screaming Eagles, Bartosz, Lord Viruscide and Guybrarian discuss:

- Game of Thrones - Including a Books vs TV rant, and Eagles literally judging books by their covers.

- Rogue One, Star Wars concept art, and novels from the New Expanded Universe.

- Summer movies of 2016.

- Gaming and Hobby Activities - Including Mordheim, X-Wing, Team Yankee, and Star Fleet: A Call to Arms.

- Eagle's friend Andre coming in dead-last at the New York X-Wing Regionals. (Sorry Andre)

http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/eagles-nest-episode-10/

Also, new Panzerfunk is currently in the process of being edited. Expect that in the next week or two.

>>48538649
It's a dude's club resource, he isn't actively updating it anymore except where he needs it for his club.

>>48538112

Well in their defense, I think there was a bit of glitch with the event time. I had missed the post about the event time actually being 11 or I had read it when it was posted a week ago and forgot.

I was able to catch the second part of the battle which they handled as a separate engagement.

>Afgansty held up in the "Löwenbräu brewery" in Munich.
>Damn Commies drinking our beer.
>Well defended in buildings with RPGs and PKM support. AT-4 outside.
>American Mechanized attacking on one side, West German Mechanized on the other. They have some mortar carriers for support.
>Americans set up and use Mortar Carriers and Dragons to pound the soviet infantry in the buildings and wipe out the outside stands with an assualt.
>German player is able to eliminate a few stands with Marder fire, but Soviets still outnumber his infantry.
>German assault is stopped. Just didn't have enough firepower to dig out the Afgansty.

Overall it was a minor NATO victory, but they had almost double the points of the afghasty. The West German player could have used his Milans better to dig out infantry in the buildings. The Marders were consistantly pinning the afghansty, but didn't really kill to much. West German infantry will struggle in an assault due to their limited numbers. Made me think about what things I could bring to dig up infantry.

I also heard complaints about the BO-105P from how it performed the first game, but I think it was just misplayed. They let a gopher unit roll in and shoot them up.

>>48539514
In still iffy about NATO helicopters myself.

Needing to remain stationary to fire makes it hard for them to get any shots off, but does make them decent for area denial.

>>48540220
Their range is insane, and they're usually at 6s to hit; I've found them really resilient. Especially since they can just shoot everything with how air LOS works.

>>48540247
Huh... Looks like I've been getting aircraft line of sight wrong.

I honestly thought buildings being in the way would block line of sight to units on the ground.

>>48540423
Eagles, I never imagined we would have to say this to you of all people...

Read the rule book.

The game might resemble Flames of War in a lot of respects, but it is technically a completely different game.

Make sure you know the rules.

You've probably completely underestimated Cobras and PAHs because you didn't understand how line of sight for aircraft works in Team Yankee.

Is it me, or are heavy tank lists paradoxically better off with the new 1420 limit? Yeah, you get barely any... But your opponent's probably not got a cheeky team of sappers to hedge against them if they've had to trim the list.

>>48540423
>I honestly thought buildings being in the way would block line of sight to units on the ground.
You would assume so, but you would be wrong.

Honestly, I think it's nonsense and is probably the second worst-looking thing after the mandatory tank/helicopter carparks the new command rules encourage, but if there's anything like trees or buildings near the middle of the board you can pretty much guarantee they'll shoot things from concealment, possibly GTG, all game, and quite possibly out of AA range for many AA assets. They're tricky to remove.

>>48540942
>Eagles, I never imagined we would have to say this to you of all people...
>Read the rule book.

Yeah, yeah. I done goofed. Everyone point and laugh at the namefag getting the rules wrong.

To be fair, I've probably only played less than a dozen games of Team Yankee so far.

>You've probably completely underestimated Cobras and PAHs because you didn't understand how line of sight for aircraft works in Team Yankee.

Looks like. I shall have to use them again with my new knowledge and reassess their performance.

>>48541077
>Is it me, or are heavy tank lists paradoxically better off with the new 1420 limit?

They potentially can be depending on what else is fielded alongside them.

The tools required to effectively deal with them tend to be semi-expensive. But not quite as expensive as the Heavy Tanks themselves.

>>48541144
>you can pretty much guarantee they'll shoot things from concealment, possibly GTG, all game, and quite possibly out of AA range for many AA assets. They're tricky to remove.

Huh. I guess I have seriously been looking at them the wrong way this whole time.

>>48541319
>>48540942
I keep saying, the only qualification what we have is the ego to put on a name.

>>48541077
Heavy tank lists have gotten better because they've gotten worse trained in my opinion. Once you've stripped off Tiger Ace skills and Fearless, you've got a big fat cat with a big gun and fuckloads of armour.

>>48538501
the su76 swarm.

Nothing will ever have that level of shenanigans

>>48541077
>not got a cheeky team of sappers to hedge against them

You're right, I have about 20, not to mention support

I'm not very well informed on infantry equipment IRL, so what's the reason that American and British Pioneers are TA 3 while everyone else seems to be TA 4?

>>48543862
Because they're more like Assault Engineers and their jobs were to remove obstacles in the path of the advance. German and Soviets and Finns expected theirs to go and deal with tanks as well.

>>48543873
Yeah, but what was the difference in issued equipment that results in the different ratings?

>>48543921
I'm no expert either, but it probably has something to do with carrying more powerful explosives or specially designed anti-tank mines and so-forth.

As for the exact names of the equipment and how it works... That is not something that I know anything about.

>>48544370
>>48543921
German Pioniers were issued with AT mines and AT grenades basically from the beginning; also the Germans had some fairly advanced shaped-charge explosives originally intended to use on bunkers (See: Fallschirmjäger at Eben Emael), but were also of considerable use against tanks.

Finns had satchel charges everywhere, and were enthusiastic users of petrol bombs into the engine compartments of tanks. They were the ones who coined the name "Molotov cocktail", after all.

Quick question.

Did Hind helicopters always have their underside painted sky blue?

I haven't really been paying attention to FoW stuff lately and only now realized the existence of TANKS. The idea of a tonk skirmish game is certainly appealing, but is it worth buying and/or fun? If yes, does the starter pack give you rules for other tanks or do you have to buy the expansion packs too?

>>48544370

German Pioneers were equipped with Teller Mines and sometimes the Hafthohlladung shaped charge (also known as a Panzerknacker). Additionally, they carried plastic explosive and enough regular grenades to be able to assemble bundles , each of which had some utility against light armour and weak spots.

http://www.mp44.nl/equipment/pioneer_bags.htm

>>48546142
Most of the time, yes.

I just started repainting ny soviets and do you guys think Dark wash or string wash would would good with the tanks? What about the infantry?

>>48550064
Strong wash*
Work well*

File: 20150307_202257.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>48550064
Yes in my opinion you should use a dark brown wash, it works well with the green. I usually apply a uniform green coat, paint the details like tracks or satchels, apply some weathering with a sponge, some metallic color for scratches and some brown for mud and finally i give it a generous brown wash. Pic is the end result, i like it since it gives a good grimy and battle-proven look with very little effort.

>>48549698
>Most of the time, yes.

Ah, damn. I was hoping to cut down on a little bit of the painting I'd have to do.

So I've not been at all impressed with the resin+metal vehicles I've ordered from BF; I've found them very slightly better than QRF, equivalent to skytrex, and worse than PSC's plastics by far.

Recently I picked up some finnish infantry however, and good god, the quality on those is fantastic. I have a few mould-line complaints, but they're tiny, and in general the detail stands up really well to painting.

So, I have to ask: Is this a worn-out moulds issue? Is there a cutoff date where I don't want to pick up older models? Or is it just sheer luck?

File: DSCN5433.jpg (297KB, 1200x656px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1200x656px

>>48552491
their process has gotten better, but in a lot of cases, we are talking about old master-models that were made in 2002....the Panther and Elephant come to mind.

they did re-release a few early Panzers, and we got new M3 Stuarts ....one who watches BF closer than i can probably list all the changes that were made.

>>48548104
its got a stupid cheap buy in, thats for sure.

The starter set is like $25 and comes with generic cards for all the supported tanks. You only need a single blister of each tank and the rest can be fleshed out with regular plastic boxes.

Ive been dying to try it but I can never find it in stock

>>48552491
I buy plastic whenever I can, and do not like to buy resin/metal models sight unseen anymore. Some have absolutely stunning detail, while others have insane mold wear.

I need to find him, but I have a German with a Flamethrower thats so bad his face looks like he's wearing a cobra commander mask.

Battlefronts plastic stuff is excellent though.

File: 100_6355.jpg (126KB, 800x384px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x384px

>>48552491
> Is this a worn-out moulds issue? Is there a cutoff date where I don't want to pick up older models?

I've been playing/collecting for 15-odd years. IMO the problem is one of quantity vs. quality: BF pushes out so much stuff that the quality of their casts is often ignored in favour of volume. I exclude the newer plastics from this, as they are very good, but the metal and resin components do suffer. Sometimes you can get great casts, and other times they're bad to awful.

The main problem (IMO) is not usually the quality of the molds or similar (they are replaced/remastered fairly regularly), but rather a lack of attention being paid during the casting process and an acceptance of sub-standard casts in favour of volume. Because really, most gamers aren't that picky and BF can get away with it a lot of the time.


> Or is it just sheer luck?

Sometimes, yes. You get figs/models from a good batch, six months later you buy the same thing and it's awful (and vice versa). Case in point: Team Yankee US infantry. The initial run was fine, the subsequent "we did not make enough - PANIC" run was very poor quality. So, you want to buy early and hope to get the best? This is nice in theory but in practice is not true. A recent example: US Marines. The Marine infantry were fine, the support weapons and crews (MG, Mortars, etc.) were terrible, and those were both initial releases. I've bough figures/vehicles after the initial release and then bought the same thing a year or more later and the later-produced stuff was better quality (and, again, vice versa).

So honestly, I really don't know why. I suspect in part it has something to do with *who* is doing the actual castings, how many are on order and how fast it is being done. If you have problems, get hold of BF customer service and do not take "no" for an answer.

>>48548104
It's fun as well as cheap. You get enough cards for what's in the box, as well as one for each tank in the first wave (what BF have released in plastic so far), so you don't NEED to get more. However, the expansion packs contain heroes and special equipment for the tanks (well, the nation) of the pack. They show you what you can get, but to get the most out of it, you need to buy more. Kind of a nice compromise, IMHO

>>48552642
>>48553964
>>48554106
Appreciate the responses.

It's disappointing to hear it's not just mold wear; I'm not sure I can justify paying top-dollar for figures where there's a reasonable chance it's going to be a bubbly warped mess or even odds on being kinda lumpy and badly detailed.

File: They Werf Panzers.jpg (148KB, 607x416px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 607x416px

>>48552491
I've mostly had good experiences with BF's resin stuff.

The old resin Panzer IV Hs were good, as are the resin Pumas and Panzerwerfers.

That being said, I tend to buy plastic as much as possible.

I prefer the model-kit like assembly process of plastic kits over the more simplified "superglue these three bits together" assembly process for metal and resin kits.

>>48554970

Even though plastic kits take more time to assemble, I much prefer them to resin/metal kits. Most my metal and resin kits have been good to great quality. It's the assembly that's the kicker. A good plastic cement is a dream to work with while superglue is usually fiddly for all but the simplest kits. The added detail is just icing on the cake.

>>48555197
Yeah, that seems to be my thoughts on it as well.

Superglue and I tend not to get along.

I tend to glue my fingers together, or my fingers to the model, almost every time I'm trying to superglue something together.

>>48553909
>>48554293

Thanks lads, decided to buy the starter box because why not. Now for the obligatory 2+ week "Battlefront is replenishing stocks AGAIN"-wait.

Ok, I've got a challenge for you guys.

Since it looks like I might have to put together a Soviet force for Team Yankee so that my club has one, I'd like to know what you guys think is the cheapest way to go about doing so.

If it matters, I have access to a starter set with 10 T-72s.

>>48558146
I personally run a solid core of T-72s.
They're good points for money and two or three units of 5-7 provide a lot of mobile battlefield presence.

Next up, some AA (Shilkas are good since they're multifunctional), some arty (I personally use 2S1 Gvozdikas) and probably a recce unit of BMPs.

That actually gets you most of the way there.

>>48558146
you want my input? on the best easy?

--HQ T-72
--9x T72
--6x T72
--3x Gozvidkas
----6x Grads *
----4x Hinds
----4x AK's, 4x RPG's --with the hinds

that's 5+42+27+5+8+10+4, for 101 pts.
or, Starter, extra T72, Zvezda T72, 2x Grad Box, 1x Gozbox, SovInf blister and extra hind box.

drop 3 Grads, add 4 shilkas if you like.

it will get beat to shit, but it will be a fun rush every time.

>>48558146
>>48558409
I'd split the T-72s up into three units at least, Team Yankee's rule set punishes larger units mobility wise.

>>48558639
I'm probably thinking either 2 units of 7, or 3 units of 5. Depending on the points values.

I also have 2 Hinds from the starter set.

Maybe add in some BMP-2 recon for the expanded deployment zone.

Then maybe cheap Shilkas from Zvezda.

Cheap artillery from Zvezda is also a possibility.

Maybe cheap 1/144 Frogfoots from Academy.

I honestly don't know yet what I want to put in the list. But I'd want it to be decent, but also cheap.

I still am going to be building West Germans as well.

>>48559051
does zvezda make BMPs?

File: image.jpg (70KB, 673x575px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 673x575px

>>48559051
Go with 3 units of 5, unless you want perfect honeycomb targets for artillery to focus on. You could go line abrest, but you risk having a tank out of command if your command tank is hit.

This list might be the cheapest you can get away with. If you rather have artillery, take 3 carnations instead of the Hinds. You should have an extra T-72 from the demo kit, right? If that's the case you just need 5 T-72s, Shilka, BMPs, and the Frogfeet (is that the correct plural form?). That should be under $200.

>>48561563
No.

>>48561563
Nope.

Just T-72s, Shilkas, Carnations, and BTRs.

And some trucks. Although converting those into the rocket trucks is probably a bit more complicated than I'd care to attempt.

>>48561798
I'd like to get 4 SA-14s with one less T-72.
My initial list was just like yours, and 4 A-10 crushed all of T-72s. Without infantry, T-72s take forever to dig a mech platoon out of buildings(tanks can't assault into buildings) and 4 A-10s destroy 4 T-72s when they come.
Zsu-23-4 can't stop A-10s.

thought you guys might be interested to hear about this

> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698101.pag

Battlefront is looking for more playtesters. Linked Dakka because it has the whole spiel where you can see it no problem without signing into Battlefront's forum.

Long story short

>Be a special tester
>Be part of a super speshul secret society that gets to see stuff before it gets released.
>dont spill the beans or the Battlefront gestapo will find you
>get credits in the book/list/whatever and or free shit as payment

File: 1467857164604.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>48563280
>Battlefront is looking for more playtest groups, so now is your chance to get involved!

>What Do Playtesters Do?

The most important thing playtesters do is to play games that test new games and expansions that we are developing. If your playtesting group has been assigned to a project, everyone in the group will be expected to play at least one playtest game each week for the duration of the project and report on the outcome. Playtesters also provide less structured feedback on the project, highlighting issues that they see and contributing their unique experiences and insights to the design process.

>How Do I Become a Playtester?

The simple answer is: ‘Form a playtest group!’

A playtest group is a bunch of six to twelve committed players under a playtest leader. The group must have a venue where they can meet and play weekly games in an environment that allows them to maintain confidentiality (so not in a shop during opening hours for instance).

Once your group is signed up, you will be given access to the secure playtesting forum where you can see the latest playtest material, give feedback from your playtest games, and discuss the outcomes. Your group will then volunteer for projects as they come up, and run playtest games each week until the end of the project.

Agreement and you’re ready to volunteer for your first project!

>>48563475
>Your Responsibilities

Aside from playing weekly test games, a playtester’s most important responsibility is to maintain the confidentiality of the material they are provided with – You DO NOT talk about Playtest Club!
This confidentiality does not end with the public announcement or release of the product. Even if Battlefront staff members are discussing an unreleased product on a public forum, you as a playtester may not do so. Once the final product is released to the general public, you may discuss it product to your heart’s content, but anything that happened in playtest stays in playtest.

The group’s playtest leader has additional responsibilities. They are responsible for their group’s behaviour and will be held accountable for both the groups’ contributions and indiscretions. The playtest leader is also responsible for the group’s administration. They recruit new playtesters as needed and remove inactive playtesters from the group. They maintain communication with Battlefront about the state of their group and administer rewards.

One important thing to note is that you don’t have to be any particular sort of gamer to be a great playtester. We want a wide range of playtesters so we can evaluate the project across our entire audience. So, if you are a hard-core tournament gamer, you’re welcome as a playtester. If you’ve never played in a tournament in your life, you’re welcome as a playtester. If you are new to Flames Of War or Team Yankee, you’re welcome as a playtester. If you’ve been playing Flames Of War for longer than you care to remember, you’re welcome as a playtester.

>>48563488
>Your Reward

Yep, that’s right, you don’t just get the satisfaction of making great games greater, you also get rewards for playing games (and reporting them, but that’s not too hard!). The rewards vary from project to project, but typically include acknowledgement in the credits and some product related to the project.

>What to Do Next

Organize your playtest group and get the playtest leader to apply to [email protected] with the following information:
•A short biography highlighting why you should be a playtest leader
•A short description of your playtest group
•Where and when you are planning to run playtests
•The name and email of each of the playtesters in the group
•A sentence or two on each playtester highlighting why they’d be great playtesters
Once your group is approved, the playtest leader will get everyone to sign a Non-Disclosure

File: ra,classic_tee,x3104,fafafa-ca443f4786,front-c,625,650,900,975-bg,f8f8f8.2 (1).jpg (141KB, 900x975px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 900x975px

T-shirts for Soviet players, spam for everyone!
http://www.redbubble.com/people/jcdent/works/22670684-straight-outta-fulda-gap/

>>48558409
Drop the gvozdikas for some recon and an observer and you have a solid list, personally i'm not a great fan of small infantry platoons on hinds, i think they either limit hinds a lot when dismounting while they could have done much more with their turn or they don't get used at all.

File: BoW-Warren.jpg (9KB, 394x136px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 394x136px

>>48520931
What the fuck is this guys issue?
He is the "that guy" of flames of war holy shit.

>>48536512
A 9mm bullet kills a 1.8 meter tall person

A single 90mm canon round should be able to kill an 18m tall monster

>>48536512
The square cube law should do the job.

>>48543396
One of the few lists that can afford to use both is2 and Air support

>>48565841
He's a bloody moron who's been spoon-fed gee-dubs shit and fails to realise that not everything must have lazors.

>>48565841
The problem is that he's the face of their website, has no interest in history at all, loves pulpy Indiana Jones style Weird War stuff, and fully buys into the "my doods" philosophy of basically doing whatever you want with your army and then coming up with a story to justify it.

Then add in the fact that his FoW teacher is a Doctor Who look-alike with all the charisma of a wet paper bag...

Be glad they have John back to handle all the Leopard and TANKS stuff.

>>48565841
Literally who?

File: 03000112.jpg (98KB, 800x588px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x588px

>>48566979
Basically, imagine if you decided to work with a guy who knew nothing about history to promote a historical wargame.

Now imagine that he not only knows absolutely nothing, he makes a point of saying how boring history is and how he doesnt care.

THEN, imagine trying to get this man to show off the game when he doesnt do the book scenarios because theyre "boring", talks over the guy teaching him the game, and makes a completely terrible list on a whim to show the game off with despite constant advice that he shouldn't.

Then he names it "The Nachtwulfen" and makes something so outlandish the Red Skull would passout from laughter.

Thats Warren.

>>48567442
I guess the big mistake was made by who put him to show off a game he clearly doesn't like/isn't cut for. Why didn't they make him show off another game and took someone who actually cares to show off FoW? Also the other guy being borderline creepy isn't helping at all.

>>48563280
>most of my FOW group are hardcore tourneyfags who travel all over the continent to win harder
Oh man I'll have to tell them about this, if anyone can playtest they can.

>>48567633
Warren is the guy who owns Beasts of War if I remember right.

He's not so bad if you give him fantasy or sci fi, but he's notorious for his abuse of historicals. There's a bolt action episode where they made him a soviet army and specifically mentioned it, something along the lines of "I better not see any were wolves when youre done". Apparently even his partners are sick of it.

Hopefully Konflict 47 will give him something to vent that into so he'll stop messing up other historical rulesets. Not to knock K47 of course, it actually looks like a lot of fun and I cant wait to start picking up stuff, its just a Warren magnet.

>>48566979
An insufferable buffoon who makes it a point to yawn loudly and exclaim how boring anything vaguely historically based is, and derides people who like history, and yet is the one in charge of making their flames of war videos.

>>48567727
>its just a Warren magnet.
I already hate it...

I wonder how many people who watched BoW and were previously la in how their opposing armies were painted suddenly turned much harder after watching the illiterate baboon.

Anyone know any good sources for the 1st Polish Army (Berling's Army) in the east? I'm most looking for a timeline of what their tank brigade was equipped with; I've been told that their tank brigades were given 1943 T-34/85s, as the unit was formed in 1944 and could be fully outfitted with them at it's creation, but I've also been told they were disliked by the soviets and were passed over for /85s. Anyone know the story?

>>48567722
One of the funny things is that tournament-style players and casual players sometimes reach opposite conclusions when play testing. Some will call a tank overpowered while others call it underpowered - usually happens with things that are expensive but need specific units to counter them. Different play styles, I guess?

>>48555197
>>48555677
I've had a much better time ever since I switched to the Krazy Glue bottles with a brush applicator.

File: battlezone.png (44KB, 804x601px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 804x601px

>>48548104
Others have answered the specific questions - but yes, I'd say it's totally worth it. It's actually fun, unlike the Flames of Tanks minigame they came out with a couple years back. Movement is a little... freeform, but it's not a serious enough game that I want to keep track of what turns I'm making.

If you don't have any tanks already then I'd say the starter isn't enough, especially the single German Panther/Jagdpanther. Pick up a Pz. IV or StuG as well and play 50-60 pt games with two tanks per side. Most people will play 100 pts (3-5 tanks) and one of the devs says he prefers 120. Oddly, the Panther is a greener shade of dunkelgelb than the Pz. IV and StuG sprues.

I like how the casualness of the game makes me feel like I can paint the tanks however I want. No need to be too historical here. I can't quite get myself to paint them black with neon edging and play on a black mat... it'd be pretty cool, though.

File: Inomarochnikiy Infiltration.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

19 Shermans infiltrating to steal your gf. What do you think, tovarish?

>>48569096
Been done before. It's cute, and will royally fuck over any poor bastard defending on Delayed Reserves. Not quite as potent against purpose-built defenders on a mission not designed to fuck them in the ass. Especially since the only tools you're bringing are 2 massive sledgehammers, arbitrary recce, and sporadic-firing Katys.

>>48554380
With BF we're paying for model variety - no one else comes close to covering their range. I wish their pricing would also mean consistent quality, but apparently not. I've gotten some terrible metal parts in their resin/metal kits.

>>48563718
>Straight
>Outta
>This Shitty Meme

>>48569225
What can i do if i happen to face such a list? Also what's a good example of a list wich does really good on defense?

>>48569314
Bring air support, infantry with cheap anti-tank guns or lots of medium tanks with smoke.

>>48569314
>What can i do if i happen to face such a list?
Hope you have enough anti-tank guns and panzerfausts.

Oh, you're not playing LLW german grenadiers? Then this gets rough.

File: Forces.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48569314
>>48571266
Yanks say hi. Against that infiltrating blob of soviets, put the 3 recce patrols in reserve, together with the AA and the HMGs (after having attached out their bazookas). One infantry platoon on either objective (with 5 bazookas each), Artillery near the rearmost objective, TDs near the frontmost objective, and AT platoon in ambush. That russkie's gonna get raped.

>>48571494
That's 120 more points than the other comrade's list you stinky capitalist pig

File: Forces.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48571747
Fuck. Shows me I shouldn't plan lists when tired, I just assumed it was 1750 since that's the standard around here. Here's a new version, nothing much lost (trained TDs, but they're M36, lighter artillery, but it's there mostly for the smoke and terror).

>>48569096
>Step 1. watch your veteran 149mm howitzers hit 7 shermans and 2 IS 2's under a single template only to kill the 2 IS2's and 1 sherman

>Step 2 Watch 2 Tigers and a platoon of zrinyis only kill 2 more shermans

>step 3 Watch the remaining 15 or so shermans assault your CV 10 stand pioneer platoon, where they immediately fail tank terror and you lose the game


Yes, I'm still salty about it

>>48573081
How the fuck did you manage that? At the very least, you don't check objectives until the beginning of his next turn so you could have driven forward a tank to contest the objective.

Also, lesson to learn from this: always deploy your infantry so that you can fall back once and still contest, preferably so that you can do it twice.

>>48573081
>hit 7 shermans and 2 is2s
>with a single 6"x6" square
I guess your friend is not the smartest guy on the planet

>>48573081
>where they immediately fail tank terror and you lose the game
I assume you mean counterattack? Because you only test for tank terror when initiating an assault.

>>48569291
that meme: it was an ad ploy by Dr. Dre, so, the worst kind of corporate shill bait meme...

>>48574072
you test tank terror every time I thought. Even if you dont, you still have to roll motivation to counterattack if youre hit, which I was.

Either way it was the initial counterattack. Never got to swing. If I had there would be a lot more dead tanks

>>48573967
the dude had 25 armored vehicles attacking lengthwise, he didnt have a lot of places to go

>>48573195
they couldnt escape all the tanks.

he still had a ton in the area. I screwed up with the tanks admittedly and had them a bit too far back, but trust me even if I had gotten them in range it wouldnt have helped with that many shots.

I'm not saying I lost through no fault of my own. Just that I got a lot of raw deals in a row that made what would normally be small mistakes far more painful.

>>48575814
>you test tank terror every time I thought.
Tank Terror is only for initiating an assault while within 6" of an enemy tank team.

There's a rule that you must test to counterattack against tanks even if they miss with every attack, but that's just part of the counterattack rule, not its own independent rule like Tank Terror is.

>>48575899
ok then Ive been playing it right then.

File: slack_for_ios_upload_1_8d047d5a6fdde396cc00e197e384cb76.today-inline-large.jpg (37KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 401x600px

Following up on the Soviet naval infantry discussion from the last thread - if you've ever wanted the blue and white striped shirt, just get a US Olympics Closing Ceremony uniform!

(The US Opening Ceremony Uniform appears to consist of a Russian flag under a blazer with a ridiculously oversized Ralph Lauren logo... life is weird).

I played infantry for the first time today. I actually quite like it; I'm considering being crazy enough to try Strelk.

On that note, how'd these look?


Compulsory Strelkovy Batalon HQ (p.25) - CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle, Battalion Komissar (30 pts)
- 4x PTRD anti-tank rifle (40 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company (p.26) - Command Rifle/MG, 21x Rifle/MG (350 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company (p.26) - Command Rifle/MG, 21x Rifle/MG (350 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)

Strelkovy Scout Platoon (p.27) - Command SMG, 4x SMG (165 pts)

Heavy Mortar Company (p.73) - Command Rifle, 4x 120-PM-38 mortar (95 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)

Tank Destruction Company (p.136) - Command Rifle, 4x 57mm ZIS-2 gun (145 pts)

Tank Destruction Company (p.136) - Command Rifle, 4x 57mm ZIS-2 gun (145 pts)


1415 Points, 6 Platoons

vs

Compulsory Strelkovy Batalon HQ - CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle, Battalion Komissar (30 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company - Command Rifle/MG, 21x Rifle/MG (420 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)
- 3x Panzerfaust SMGs (30 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company - Command Rifle/MG, 21x Rifle/MG (420 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)
- 3x Panzerfaust SMGs (30 pts)

Strelkovy Antitank Rifle Company – Command Rifle, 8x PTRD anti-tank rifle (95)

160mm Mortar Battalion - Command Rifle, 4x 160mm obr 1943 (130 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)

Tank Destruction Company (p.136) - Command Rifle, 4x 57mm ZIS-2 gun (165 pts)


1415 Points, 5 Platoons

The second one obviously just turns the PTRDs into more AT teams in the strelk squads, which might (maybe?) make them nastier to drive a tank through, especially with the soviet ones being gun teams.

>>48576813
What's the skill rating on these guys? And what period of the war? Not that familiar with soviets.

>>48577152
The first list is CT, the second is FT, both for LW.

All soviets in LW are FT or CT, with the exception of scouts/spetsnaz (FV), hero cavalry (FV) and hero sappers (FV).

>>48576813
>21 stand infantry companies

Uhhhhh... you're going to want a few less just a heads up. Even two 14 stand companies can hold a huge swathe of ground. I'd recommend staying at 14 or so and putting the spare points into something mobile like tank or air support.

>>48576813
Your second list has an uneven # of platoons, so I would have to say go with the first one. Scouts may be handy for infiltration in the event that you need to attack. I imagine they won't be of much use on the defense.

File: Drunk Russian Dodge.jpg (6KB, 240x136px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x136px

>>48578004
>Not wanting to cover the entire board with glorious Strelkovy stands

Comrade please...

File: Drunk Russian Dodge (2).gif (5MB, 505x287px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 505x287px

>>48578329
Three posts in a row because I don't know how to GIF.

>>48559051
i posted the list i did because it's easy to make, and uses the minimal components. least possible money/boxes. hell, drop infantry, use 2 Hinds with Z-Shilkas. cheaper indeed

also, that list has 2 Smoke Bombardments.

>>48563501
if GAJO is not already, we are applying.

>>48566761
John is best beast. we all agree.
>Tank episode, in a tank garage. his plan.

multi-posting as usual is no sin. long diatribes....that's another

File: BMP MOTHERFUCKERS.webm (1MB, 1140x540px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1140x540px

wake up, we need to stay awake.

>>48576813
You never want to go full retard with the strelk, they're just too ungainly. Either go 3+1 platoon, or 2+2.

Also, you REALLY want to have an even number of platoons.

>>48578204
Scouts are handy on the defensive by being a cheap platoon that you can but in reserve.

File: GBX29.jpg (101KB, 690x486px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 690x486px

I just impulse bought the Flak Nests box on eBay, and am now wondering which lists I can use them in? They look pretty fortified - would it be something like a Grey Wolf fortified (barricade-y) list?

Or can I just swap them for any normal Flak team and say "yeah, these guys are deployed in a building"?

>>48581846
Basically if it has an option for Flak Nests, you'd be good to use those. Otherwise I wouldn't screw around with things like changing out the buildings etc.

>>48580583
>BMP
I wanted to ask about this meme
With a name like BMP what will it be? A tank? A gun? A plane?

>>48582092
None of those, it's a bronevaya maschina piekhota, tovarish

>>48582092
Be educated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_development

>>48581448
>Also, you REALLY want to have an even number of platoons.
>>48578204
>Your second list has an uneven # of platoons

As I mentioned, the PTRDs are there to be combat-attached, so it's really four platoons.

Also I'm not so sure about 15 teams; that's only one team lost before I've lost QoQ. Though I guess PTRDs give some room to combat-attach past that.

>>48582092
It's a soviet troop carrier. Think like a sdkfz 251 but more cold-war-y.

>>48582092
It's a Soviet Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

Also, it's just one letter away from BuMP.

File: bmp2.jpg (291KB, 740x491px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 740x491px

>>48583816
privet, 4chanya!

Well, adjustments. I'm not entirely convinced on the medium strelk companies; komissar rerolls and being trained seem like they'll get casualties mounted very quickly, and my experience from tankovy is that a strelk company without QOQ is useless. But I have tried to bulk them out a bit.


Compulsory Strelkovy Batalon HQ - CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle, Battalion Komissar (30 pts)
- 4x PTRD Antitank rifle (45 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company - Command Rifle/MG, 14x Rifle/MG (290 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)
- 2x Panzerfaust SMGs (20 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company - Command Rifle/MG, 14x Rifle/MG (290 pts)
- Komissar (15 pts)
- Maksim HMG (25 pts)
- 2x Panzerfaust SMGs (20 pts)

Strelkovy Scout Platoon -Command SMG, 4x SMG (165 pts)

160mm Mortar Battalion - Command Rifle, 4x 160mm obr 1943 (130 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)

Tank Destruction Company - Command Rifle, 4x 57mm ZIS-2 gun (165 pts)

Tank Destruction Company - Command Rifle, 4x 57mm ZIS-2 gun (165 pts)

1415 Points, 6 Platoons

The komissar, maxims, and PTRDs make the platoons up to 19 stands, at least, but that's still only 5 kills at trained...

On the plus side, it's up to six platoons and that includes double ZIS-2s, which should make medium tank lists cry.

>>48585331
>double ZIS-2s, which should make medium tank lists cry.

Those are what, RoF 3? I'd imagine they'd certainly make tank lists think twice.

>>48586635
RoF 3, Anti-tank 11 Fp 4+. Those will make TIGERS think twice.

>>48586635
>>48586806
As a brit that uses 6pdrs: Oh yeah, they work wonders on medium tanks at range, and even heavy tanks really do not want to take them in defensive fire.

>>48586885
Yeah, but as a brit player, our 6pdrs are only 24" range.

ZIS-2s are 32".

>>48586915

That's enough. The rest of the time, half the time you want to stay G2G anyway.

>>48587042
Maybe, but the opportunity to open up on tanks moving to and fro or occasionally get the first shot in on things with lighter guns like the 37mm is occasionally very useful.

>>48586806
They also have volley fire and move like light gun teams.

>>48585331

I think that should be a strong list. I think your biggest weakness may be against artillery or heavy assault guns, but you have enough tools to react to those threats. The heavy mortars are very nice and can potentiall kill or bail TA 2 vehicles.

Let us know how it goes. I am working on my own Strelkovy list, and would be interested to know what is and isn't working.

>>48587312
>I think that should be a strong list. I think your biggest weakness may be against artillery or heavy assault guns, but you have enough tools to react to those threats. The heavy mortars are very nice and can potentiall kill or bail TA 2 vehicles.

Yeah, totally; the HM has more or less replaced actual artillery for the soviets, as far as I can see.

You don't think having only 19 stands per platoon is going to make them very fragile?

>>48587356
Heavy Mortars, even the 120mm ones, have been the preference over howitzer artillery.

>>48587418
I think this is the case for everyone isn't it? Except maybe americans.

Heavy mortars are much cheaper, or rockets if you can get them, and do everything guns do without being a huge points sink. The range is shorter but who the hell needs 80"+ inches of range on a 6x4 table?

>>48587504

Smoke and AT can be factors, particularly if you've only got the one artillery platoon.

>>48587738
That's pretty much my point; most of them do smoke and most armies have an AT 3-4 option for not-quite-artillery.

I've just rarely seen lists that make tubes look appealing outside of US TOT nonsense.

>>48587356

Potentially. The issue is if your opponent has heavy artillery or a breakthrough gun that can start digging out your infantry before the main assault. Thus causing you to lose QoQ before the assaulting force closes in. Artillery will still be able to pin you with a single hit either way.

More platoons will help you maintain QoQ and make you meatier against an assault,but it also is harder to manage. Artillery will be able to target more stands per turn using the same template. If you think you need the extra stands you might be able to shift some points around and bring them.

It's hard to say what will be the better choice.

>>48587761
>I've just rarely seen lists that make tubes look appealing outside of US TOT nonsense.
Well, as brits, you can't use the AOP or Mike Target with the mortars, as they lack a staff team.

Getting the extra stands in as more PTRDs or Maxims (can you combat attach maxims?) is probably going to be much better, though, since they'll be infantry-save teams you can allocate hits away from until assault, at which point they're RoF 3 guns that can shoot past your infantry in defensive fire and have modest AT capability.

>>48587761

Some of them have smoke, you mean. Beyond that, a lot of the time it's a case of paying a little bit more and getting full artillery. I know that's certainly the case for my LW Finns. Spend a bit more, get a viable anti tank option. British have nice rules as well. Meanwhile, the Soviets get ATGs as their artillery.

>>48588126
Those few points count, though.

I forgot brits also get AOPs, so they have some use, and I don't know much about finns, but soviet artillery is hardly a substitute for ATGs. If you're using ZIS-3s as AT, why, they're only AT 9 and suck and if you really needed ZIS-3s they come without a bombardment profile for a slight discount anyway, and you're way better off using ZIS-2s. The only reason to take 76mm artillery is if you're locked out from anything better without it. The 160mm mortar essentially replaced other artillery. There's nothing special you get with a staff team in the soviet list that makes tubes appealing.

What designs that were planned but never saw service would you love to have in your army? Similarly, what designs that saw limited service would you like there to have been more of?

For those that never saw action, it'd have to be the Cromwell III. I'd love to have 6pdr cromwells, since with the speed of the cromwell the lack of SIDF and range isn't a big deal.

For those that had limited production, welded cromwells. Gaining an extra 1-1.5" of plate on all front facings without a weight increase or speed drop would have been amazing for the cromwell, but the brits just didn't have the welding industry to do it.

I may be a speed addict.

>>48589769

Never Saw Action: The Antonov A-40 the T-60 with wings to glide directly onto the battlefield. It would be shenanigans gliding them behind the enemy lines with some special rules to see if they actually land smoothly or lawn dart into the ground.Yes I know that the only time they tried to land it they had to do it with no gun, ammo, or barely any fuel, but a man can dream.

Limited Production: The T-50. It would be nice to have a well designed light tank as the soviets.

File: AntonovA40.jpg (22KB, 513x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 513x293px

>>48589769
Picture for reference.

>>48589769
>http://tankarchives.4chanhates blogspoot.co.nz/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html
The British could have put T-34 and KV tanks into production, better, ones with absurd guns for their turrets. It was cramped inside the Sherman with a 17pdr, perish the thought of jamming one into a T-34's turret, and a KV-1 standard turret but with a six inch howitzer in it?

Still. Late war would be pretty fun with these tanks.

>>48590134
Hell, the finns should have one; one T-50 was used as a company command tank, and is one of only two surviving models.

>>48589769
The Ho229; it's just a great looking plane.

File: 13932854_1024746940977874_4978610344979772311_n.jpg (93KB, 624x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 624x960px

So, who's up for possibly not broken Patton?

Who am I kidding, he's going to be OP as fuck still.

>>48593158
>Battlefront
>hardcover
>current year
Are they finally pulling back from their "everything interesting is DLC" move? Or will they also tack on 30 lists outside the books too? In other news I got to see John Matthews again and TONKS is doing great. Like Team Yankee great. I wonder how close he lives I need to play more games with him.

>>48593395
>and TONKS is doing great
Good to hear. I think it works really well.

>>48593158
Woah, we're actually getting British forces in the Bulge.

>>48593395
>John Matthews

Who??

File: KIMG0007.jpg (417KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1280x720px

Wish my phone took better pics.

Three dirty little StuG's pretty much ready to go with weathering and all that.

They just need a matt varnish and a couple small details touched up but otherwise super happy with them. Camera doesnt do them justice, the weathering looks great in person.

I've read that the dust in the summers on the Eastern Front was just horrible so I tried to give them a very dry and dusty look. Once theyve been varnished the decals will get a small amount of weathering too to help them blend in.

>>48588097
You cannot combat-attach maxims.

>>48593158
right on.

>>48593840
also, step in the right direction

>>48593158
so what happens to 2. Panzerdivision and Panzer Lehr Division? In Panzers to the Meuse, 116. and 9. are both slight variations on the 2. Panzerdivision options.

File: 106Infantry_Division.svg.png (18KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 150x150px

>>48593158
>notable absence of the 106th ID "Golden Lions"
No Reluctant Conscript Americans for you!

>>48594530
Looks awesome. You could add some dust on top if you wanted, but they're great already.

>>48576400

I've got one of the VDV shirts sitting in a box somewhere from some cosplay/RPG stuff. It's comfy as hell and breathes great.

>>48597808
Or they're in the Digital lists, like 2. Panzerdiv and Panzer Lehr probably will be.

File: cat.jpg (72KB, 720x690px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x690px

>>48593158
>51st Higland

>>48593158
I can't help it, I'm a bit excited for this. Specifically the brits. I am suddenly considering waiting a little bit before I start my 7th Armoured, to see what is included here.

I do note a few things that seem to be missing, specifically 2nd Infantry Division (though 29th probably covers that spot, as the CV Rifle Company).

And wasn't the 761st Tank Battalion one of the black units? Or am I misremembering stuff (again)?

>>48597808
>>48598373
>Implying BF would ever give the Yanks conscript
>Even when they Deserve it
>Russians were only ever as good as the Americans at Kasserine!

>>48598776
I'm fairly sure it was olive drab like the rest.

>>48598987
>>48597808
Point of order: in Devil's Charge, it's recommended that if you want to field the 106th, simply use the 99th as substitute (meaning you get CT and reroll the first company morale test)

>>48563264
Shilkas are outranged by every current western air unit other than tornados. I play Americans, and I always do ghetto SEAD with my air support on Shilkas when granted the opportunity. If you want to run Shilkas, you gotta be very aggressive.

>>48598776
>And wasn't the 761st Tank Battalion one of the black units? Or am I misremembering stuff (again)?
No, you're correct.

>>48599613
They made a Saints and Soldiers movie about em. Cheesy, like the rest.

News from Battlefront, JP via the official forum:

>Trying to not to give too much away about the start of next years plan at this point we are busy working on new books and plastics for a sandy warzone but given the scope of going back to a period for the first time in eight years we have a very large pile of things to make and with over twenty plastic codes being worked on time is what was needed to do all this work. Comprehensive plans and plastics take time but as you will see in a few months time when we start sharing the detailed plans the scope of the work you will see we have not been idle and FOW will be getting no end of love whilst we continue to add a further three new forces to TY and it will all out in 2017.

If it's true and works out, it sounds GOOD.

File: image.jpg (180KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 736x552px

I have 2 boxes of Luchs and a box of Leopard 1s on the way. 8 Luchs are 4 points. I just need to figure out how to best use them.

>>48600067
That luchs cool.

>>48598987
>>Russians were only ever as good as the Americans at Kasserine!

>Citation needed

Seriously. Source for this quote.

It's always trotted out by the "BF hates Soviets" crowd, but I've never seen a link to where anyone at BF supposedly said this.

>>48600057
Ambitious.

Now let's see if they can actually release it all on time.

Both the initial Tram Yankee release and Leopard were late.

File: 1462418762666.jpg (157KB, 913x1000px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 913x1000px

>>48600057
>and it will all out in 2017.
So, we should see it all done by the end of 2020, if we account for Battlefront time.

>>48600114
It was when an anon from here interviewed either Phil or one of the other Dev staff at a BF even tin NZ about a year or so ago; there was a transcript and I *think* an audio recording.

I'll have a look for it in the archive.

File: Seelöwe according to wayne.jpg (205KB, 574x742px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 574x742px

>>48600143
>>48600114
Found it.

An interview with Wayne at FlamesCon 2014 -

http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/35577379/#q35593837

At 4 minutes in the recording. "Basically the Red army by the end of the war was about where the Americans were in Tunisia."

>>48600259
Nitpick: That's Phil talking, the key difference is that Phil sounds moderately pleasant to listen to, Wayne sounds like the average Grognard who's spotted a idler wheel that's been incorrectly modelled.
Still it's a fucking annoying attitude to take. Considering that the Americans in Tunisia were fucking dreadful, to the effect of "Failing to dig after marching despite warnings to." which allowed the Afrika Korps to kick their shit thoroughly in.

>>48600259
So the mythical beast does in fact exist.

Well, colour me *fascinated*.

>>48600317
>That's Phil talking
That kinda makes it even more horrifying, DESU.

>>48600336
Well, in retrospect, they must have changed their minds at some point because Veteran Soviets was included in Berlin and the DLC lists, and the Soviet Berlin Lists are pretty effective.

>>48600067
Spearhead, hunt BMPs and AA, remove GTG

>>48600352
Maybe some of their staff browse /tg/ for funsies and gave Waynephil a "What the actual *fuck* did you say on camera" broadside after?

I suppose we'll see if it wasn't just a fluke when we get this rumored MW revamp.

>>48600352
The soviet berlin lists are everloving terrible. There's three playable DLC lists; cavalry, sappers, and vistula-oder (vistula-oder is actually pretty great), but the actual book isn't worth buying if you're playing soviets.

>>48600376
I really hope they don't because they'd see what nasty things I've said about them and they know what I look like and where I live and I live in the same country as their main office.

>>48600398
AND THIS IS WHY WE DON'T NAMEFAG


TMYK.GIF

>>48600386
What's so wrong with the Berlin Strelk? A veteran assault platoon (if you're going Guards), some veteran support (mainly guns), a cheerleading platoon that's trained, decent support artillery (aka heavy mortars).

>>48600398
>
Watch out, they'll send Warren and his Nachtwulfen after you.

>>48600413
They're not veterans. They're trained and don't have QoQ or smoke (There's not even infantry command assets to try and fudge them into a fragile QoQ). The 160mm mortar's a point in their favour, but it's been backported to DM and you can get it in vistula-oder for a proper strelk battalion. The idea of assaulting with berlin strelk makes me wince.

>>48600398
>I really hope they don't because they'd see what nasty things I've said about them

So? They know fans are critical of them.

>and they know what I look like and where I live

How? You're being paranoid.

And unlike me, you've never posted a photo here that you're actually in.

>and I live in the same country as their main office.

So what? Again, you are being paranoid.

Is the hero emcha regiment from berlin digital any good? I love shermans and really want to play some soviet shermans.

>>48600661
Did you forget about the optional veteran platoons in there?

The ones that can actually give themselves smoke cover as they assault as well?

File: NARA_-_5325241-1.jpg (2MB, 2806x2930px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2806x2930px

>>48600722
forgot pic

>>48600726
The one platoon of them? And they don't get smoke, they get smoke pots, i.e. "pay more points to gimp your assault for a privilege every other army gets for free".

If you're running the berlin heroes they're going to be what you have to rely on but having one decent unit in one list doesn't redeem heroes or Berlin (from the soviet perspective, I don't know how german players felt about the berlin kampfgruppe)

>>48600661
From Berlin:
>A Guards Hero Shturmovye Group Platoon
is rated: Fearless VETERAN
>A Hero Tank Destruction Company is rated Fearless VETERAN.
(And we already know about the Inzhernero-Saperniy)

>>48600722
Sadly, they're Sovet Hero Tanks, which means they suck moderate-to-hard bollocks.

>>48600768
Yes, this is not a veteran list, this is one (or two, but guns care less about being veteran) veteran platoon. As stated, they're what you're going to be forced to rely on, but it's not a good list.

>>48600879
Okay, rereading I see that the OP meant "one veteran platoon". It's still a shit list.

>>48598776
>761st finally has a list

well I finally have an excuse to start Americans now. They were one of the first units I ever read about in WWII and were part of the reason I got into reading about history. I'm sure they had a list to represent them already but a true list would be neat.

The stuff they accomplished given how shitty their training was (they only got to fire one live round before being shipped out) was pretty incredible.

I hope they have a sort of "reich divided" style rule to represent how a lot of white soldiers were leery of trusting them at first. If they can just have support willy nilly with no drawbacks thats gonna be pretty odd historically speaking, if I'm remembering them right.

>>48600376
>staff browses /tg/
>allows us to have the largest archive of high quality scanned books pretty much anywhere on the net
>some of which get put in the archive before most people even get their paper copy in the mail

somehow I doubt that

>>48601734
>Americans
>Getting negative special rules in FoW
Yeah, not likely

File: Desert Stuart.jpg (51KB, 564x371px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 564x371px

Does anyone know where I can find EARLY war british AoS markings (specifically, white 24 on red square)? Seems that everyone who does decals (that I've found, at least) does it for late war, or at earliest for the organisation in 42

>>48602173
Your google-fu is weak, literally the first result while searching "ww2 15mm decals"
http://www.minibits.net/I-94-DecalsTransfers-c23/1100-15mm-Armour-sc76/ here you go

>>48602441
My google-fu is not weak, it's fucking awful.

Anyway, thank you. Has anyone bought from those guys? How are they?

>>48600722
Just run a lend lease tankovy list. The Hen and Chicks rule is not too bad as long as you plan ahead. You won't be able to get enough tanks on the board running a hero list.

>>48600359
I just wish they had a 3+ recon save like in FoW. Even still, I would like to use them to screen against enemy armor. If I bait the enemy into shooting their tank cannons at my cheap recon, that will buy me time to maneuver my other pieces.

>>48602516
Armored recon units don't have a 3+ save in FoW either, only softskin recce have that kind of save

>>48602560
Yeah my bad, I got that rule mixed up with the disengage rule.

>>48600722
The only Berlin Digital exclusive lists worth getting, are the non-Hero Strelkovy (Vistula), Hero Engineer Sapper, and Hero Cavalry. Nothing else is worth wasting time or money on.

If you like shermans, and want to do a lend lease Soviet list, go to Red Bear Revised. Shermans can be used in place of support platoon T-34s, in all the companies in that book. Meaning you can run a Razvedki, Motorstrelk, -weight- Self Propelled Artillery, or even Engineer list, and take Shermans as a supporting platoon. You can also run the Forward Detachment with a Sherman focus. And of course there's the LL tank battalions allowing you to run as many shermans as you think you can get away with. Of all the emcha setups I've gone with, I've had the most fun adding them to Light/Medium SPA Regiments, Razvedki, and using them as the focal platoon of a Forward Detachment. Usually you can get away with just 6 or 8 in a platoon, as Fearless and Protected Ammo will do a lot for your ability to stick around.

File: YhcMSh2.jpg (319KB, 890x1200px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 890x1200px

>>48600718
Eagles, Eagles, it was a Joke.You know, one of those things I make. Jeeze.

>>48605264
Ah.

I'm never quite sure just how serious you are actually being some times.

Besides, we all know Battlefront can't afford Secret Police.

Now, Games Workshop on the other hand... :-p

>>48593158
please please please please have a multifaction plastic M10 box... I really don't want to buy another set of resin and metal M10Cs with the wrong counterweights.

>>48605490
I'd say the various Tank Destroyers in plastic are almost certainly a given since they were made popular by the books that this new set is replacing.

As for the other plastic kits, I would cautiously hypothesize that they could be related to the future Mid-War revamp.

I wouldn't hold my breath mind you, but it would certainly be nice to get things like Stuart's, Lees/Grants, Panzer IIIs, etc in plastic.

>>48606285
>plastic Lees

Oh baby

They did mention something like 20 some odd plastic kits. Now say theres 4 for each of the Team Yankee releases in 2017, thats still 8 kits for WWII. I'd imagine American Tank destroyers are a given.

From there, maybe a Panzer III kit? It would make sense for MW. Other options would be a Tiger box, some sort of MW plastic thing for Brits (which I guess lees/Grants could cover, or M4A2 Shermans) and perhaps plastic infantry companies for the desert fighting?

I would be even more stoked to see winter Germans and Americans released with the Bulge book though.

>>48606285
>but it would certainly be nice to get things like Stuarts
I would love non-oversized plastic Stuarts. That said, if they did them for MW they'd probably be the M3, while LW was mostly the M5 or M3A3s. Though if BF did a kit with even half the options that PSC included...

I sure as hell hope the TY releases are going to include more soviets.

>>48606612
The British were slated for this year. So they're up first if Battlefront intends to follow through on stuff they've said.

Why do softskins lose their saves as soon as their gun shield is pointed at the enemy? And how do you keep them alive?

>>48606612
Theyd have to. If they did it even remotely right, theyd release 2 eastern bloc releases to even things out.

So maybe East Germans and Poles, or, even better, Czechs?

Because I love me some czechnology. My cz 82 has the smoothest trigger ever and I've always wanted one of those crazy looking Czech Ak's.

>>48607067

Because a gun shield is, in almost every case I can think of, better than or equal to a 5+ save.

For a 3+ firepower, it is equivalent (33% chance of success). For 4+ or worse, the gun shield is better.

For a 2+ firepower, you probably wouldn't have gotten a regular save anyway because most 2+ FP is also Breakthrough Gun; and most 1+ is Bunker Buster. There are exceptions for bombardments, but those are unaffected by gun shields anyway.

So it simplifies a step while making your odds (generally) no worse or quite a bit better.

>>48607067
The softskin save relies on the fact soft-skin vehicles are -so- thinly armoured bullets, even tank shells, go straight through; if the crew is lucky (i.e. on a 5+) nothing solid enough to do any damage was hit.

The gun shield is a hard contact point for shells, so they can definitely impart full force, or worse, explode, if they're hit, whereas it's a hard contact point for bullets that's also more or less impenetrable to them.

>>48607753
>The softskin save relies on the fact soft-skin vehicles are -so- thinly armoured bullets, even tank shells, go straight through; if the crew is lucky (i.e. on a 5+) nothing solid enough to do any damage was hit.
I guess that makes sense. I was seeing it more as "near misses" and such, which having a gun shield wouldn't suddenly prevent.

File: what black people act like when you aren't around.jpg (202KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1200x600px

>>48601734
>761st.

>pic related.

>>48600411
dude, only one of us is dumb enough to use his real name....

Soviet Light Tankovy
Tank Company, from Rising Sun, page 56

Compulsory Light Tankovy Batalion HQ (p.57) - CinC T-26 obr 1933 or 1939 (35 pts)
- Add Turret-rear MG to T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E (5 pts)

Compulsory Light Tankovy Company (p.57) - Command T-26 obr 1933 or 1939, 9x T-26 obr 1933 or 1939 (385 pts)
- 10x AA MG for T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E (50 pts)
- 10x Turret-rear MG for T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E (50 pts)

Compulsory Light Tankovy Company (p.57) - Command T-26 obr 1933 or 1939, 9x T-26 obr 1933 or 1939 (385 pts)
- 10x AA MG for T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E (50 pts)
- 10x Turret-rear MG for T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E (50 pts)

Motorised Artillery Battalion (p.64) - Command Komissar, Staff, 4x 122mm obr 1910/30 howitzer (140 pts)

Motostrelkovy Company (p.63) - Command Komissar, 27x Rifle (260 pts)

Air Support (p.78) - Sporadic I-153 Chaika (90 pts)


1500 Points, 4 Platoons

The basic idea is to drive over and ram whatever's left of the platoons into some infantry, use the turret-rear MGs to avoid casualties. If it's tanks, just V-formation out and end 10+ AT 7 shots at them. Chaika for the lulz but I can take it out if the list needs to go down to 1420.

Thoughts?

>>48610130
If you go up against a list with heavy tanks, at guns, decent artillery, or even a lot of AT rifles you are screwed. But something about 21 T-26s is tasty. Plus you get to use the human wave rule with your infantry.

But what kind of sick man wants to paint 21 T-26s and infantry stands?

Going to an early war tournament at my FLGS. Never played early war. Either gonna play Germans or Russians. What is a good list to run for either faction?

>>48612465
Cavalry.

>>48612595
I prefer Germans, as I play them in LW. Do they have cavalry?

>>48612644
Yes, in the Barbarossa Digital lists.

>>48612875
Huh. I'll look for the scans. Any others?

>>48612949
Pioneers of any sort; especially when backed up by rockets/heavy mortars/flammpanzers. The Liechte Pioniers in the digital lists are pretty nice.

If you want Russians, the Lend-lease tankovy is pretty damn solid, and just running as many T-34s as possible is always a laugh, and low-model count too. Fast or Light tankovy from the barbarossa digital lists are actually pretty nice, as well - better support than from Rising sun.

>>48613058
My Russian stockpile consists of fucktons of infantry (semi-painted), 4 Zis-3s, 5 T-34s, mortars and machine guns galore, 8 flamethrowers, and some AT rifles. Wat do?

>>48613197
>5 T-34s
Well, that's a 1500 point list right there. And people say Russians are expensive to build.

>>48613600
Question is if its a viable list.

>>48613197
Well, you could always just run a strelkovy with a pet T-34 or two.
Red Banner is pretty nice, to run.

>>48613643
It actually is - there's so few things in EW that can actually hurt a T-34 at all int he first place, and they tend to be niche or expensive.

For the minor allied nations, not taking expensive 75mm AT 8 Artillery quite literally means the have no way to hurt the things. They're quite brutal.

>>48613703
How about this?

Red Banner Strelkovy
Infantry Company, from Barbarossa

Compulsory Strelkovy Batalon HQ: CinC Command Komissar, 2iC Rifle, 2x PTRD (65 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company: Command Komissar, 18x Rifle teams (275 pts)

Compulsory Strelkovy Company: Same as above (275 pts)

Tankovy Company: Command T-34 obr 1940, T-34 obr 1940 (480 pts)

Strelkovy Heavy Mortar Company: Command Komissar, 4x 120-PM-38 mortar (90 pts)

Tank Destruction Company: Command Komissar, 4x 76 mm obr 1936 (370)

Total: 1555 and 5 platoons. Tournament is 1575. Fearless Trained infantry and FC support. Whaddya think?
Compulsory Strelkovy Company: Command

>>48614509
Disregard that bottom line, computer went full retard.

>>48614509
Or this:

Infanterie Kompanie
Infantry, from Barbarossa

Compulsory Infanterie Kompanie HQ: CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (40 pts)

Compulsory Infanterie Platoon: Command SMG/ Panzerknacker, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (185 pts)

Compulsory Infanterie Platoon: Same as above (185 pts)

Infanterie Machine-gun Platoon: Command SMG, 2x MG-34 HMG (75 pts)

Regimental Anti-Tank Gun Platoon: Command SMG, 2x PaK 38 50mm (170 pts)

Looted Panzer Platoon: T-34 obr 1940 (260 pts)

Luftwaffe Heavy Anti-Aircraft Gun Platoon: Command SMG, FlaK 36 88mm +EC (160 pts)

Light Artillery Battery: Command SMG, Staff, Observer Rifle, 4x 10.5cm IeFH 18 Howitzers (360 pts)

Limited Stuka Air Support (115 pts)

1550 pts, 6 platoons with combat attachments

>>48615535
Definetely this one, since it's got even platoons. Also, what points are the tournament at (assuming this is for that)? If it's 1550, the russian list would be illegal (the points limit is a LIMIT, not a suggestion)

>>48615947
Not him, but
>>48614509
>Tournament is 1575.

>>48615958
Ah, sorry. Just woke up, more groggy than I thought (and here I even tried to look for the tournament points...)

>>48615535
>>48615958
>>48615958

I wouldn't reccommend the leFH18s at all. THey overpay like hell for their direct fire statline. Get either heavy mortars or rockets, and bulk up the 88s to retain heavy AT

The starter packs worth it? I'm just starting my first army and debating on what to start with

>>48616221
Generally, yes. Do you mean Open Fire (worth it if you're starting germans (any book) and british armoured from Market Garden, or if you can split/sell away the part you don't want. Also kind of worth it if you're starting british armoured from someplace else and are fine with a few models of no use), or one of the large-ish tank boxes (still cheaper than bying everything separately, though the US one is kind of limited, since it's more expensive than buying everything except the Perhsings)

File: image.jpg (281KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 640x1136px

>>48616274
It does seem like a decent deal for $70

>>48616363
Considering that for the same amount of money, you'd normally get about 10 tanks (2 5-packs of tanks), yep. At least as long as you want what's in it, as said.

DO note that the rules and army lists provided are for the (much) simplified (and derided) Open Fire version, you still need to get real rules and army lists. But hey, look at the OP. Free scans.

>>48616221
I bought the Open Fire set when I first started. It's good shit for the price (at least at my FLGS), and it helps ease you into the mechanics of FoW. You'll definitely need to flesh it out if you plan on playing against any other lists.

>>48616638
I still have yet to check my FLGS stock of FoW stuff along Plastic Soldier Company seems like a good alterative according to the noob guide

>>48616681
I have no experience with PSC but I've heard it's pretty solid if you use it right. I always just bought BF stuff because my FLGS gives me good deals on shit.

>>48616681
PSC is great for tonks but unless you play germans or britbongs their infantry is not so great

File: Brit Inf - BF vs PSC.png (11KB, 432x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 432x243px

>>48617236
Just a note about british infantry, plastic PSC vs BF: PSC have much less variation, you get mostly riflemen of various sorts.

Pic attached is some calculations I did when debating which to buy. As can be seen, BF provides much more variety, especially when it comes to officers, allowing you to build extra command teams.

The numbers are based on:
-Company commander with 2 Officer figures,
-Company 2iC with one officer and one "NCO". -Both have a communication trooper (radio or runner).
-Three full Rifle Platoons (with 4 figures per team).
-"NCO" is defined as "has a SMG" (since that's how I think most will use those figures).
-When it comes to Light Mortars and PIATs, PSC provide only the absolutely necessary, while BF gives you 3 extra of each. Especially the 3 extra PIATs feels like they could be useful.
-With BF, you have enough extra figures (and brens) to make a Motor Platoon, if you're feeling masoschistic.

With this in mind, you pay roughly 10 £/$/euro extra for BF

>>48617330
Do they have the same lack of variety with the Germans and Americans?

>>48617330
>With this in mind, you pay roughly 10 £/$/euro extra for BF

BF are somewhat better figures, and you also get bases which helps offset the cost somewhat. BF's plastics are pretty reasonably priced IMO.

>>48617386
I don't know, nor am I in the mood for doing all that digging again (basically, look through pictures of all the sprues, do arithemtics to figure out how much of each you get, punt into excel or similar, compare with what you need).

However, 1) I think it's similar for the germans
2) Don't get the americans. PSC americans have soft as shit details, and their webbing is all wrong. Meanwhile, BF provides not only your riflemen, NCOs and officers, but also a shit-ton of bazookas and more than enough figures for a weapons platoon, if you would be so inclined.

>>48617391
Yeah, you get what you pay for in either case, and both can be used to make a 3-platoon strong rifle company (you just have to have a few NCOs with rifles if you go PSC; nothing big).

>>48617391
The infantry, yeah, their tanks are rather more expensive.

>>48602848
I see. So say i want to play a fuckload of sherman 76 since i really like how they look out of all the shermans, should i go with soviets or americans? Soviets seem like are able to field more of them but they have H&C wich is really hampering them while americans even when CT get their stabilizers but from what i've seen they can't play more than one platoon of them or more than 2 shermans 76 in a mixed platoon. What do?

>>48617547
I forgot to add that i currently play brits and i already had my fix of sherman 75 and fireflies so the more i avoid the 75s the better.

>>48617547
Depends. Do you want to go FULL RETARD with 76s, or do you want a GOOD army that uses mostly 76s for offense, and with access to easy eights at that?

Also, do note that british 75s and american 75s play very differently (and american 75 (late)s are different enough modelling wise). And also that you can certainly run a US company with very few 75s. Go with a platoon of 4 tanks, 2 76mm, a jumbo and then either a 105 (limited to 1 per company) or a 75 (late).

>>48617603
The idea is to have as many 76s as possible while trying to remain somewhat competitive and i would like to avoid E8s and Jumboes, they look too cheesy imo.

>>48617641
Either can be made to work, so...

Do also note that Bridge at Remagen allows you to take 3 76mm Shermans in either platoon, though it limits you to Veterans (Confident or Reluctant)

File: image.jpg (110KB, 750x756px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 750x756px

>>48614509
Just a few thoughts about this list:

I think you are really overpaying for the 75mm guns. I'd take them out and get some more things you need like AA and machine guns. You'd also like to bring an even number of companies (platoons). With 5 you'd only be able to deploy 2 companies in a game with reserves.

Here's a list I modifed from yours. Took out the 76mm guns. Added 85mm heavy AA guns for AT work. Bulked up your infantry with 2 maxims per company. Added a cheap AA truck option. To squeeze out a few points I made your T-34s Confident instead of Fearless.

>>48617878
Looks good, just gotta see if I can get/ proxy some AA trucks. FlaKs will work for the 85s. Still gotta decide between the Russians and the Germans.

>>48617641
I find a couple of easy-eights and a wet jumbo are a nice bonus tank platoon to a mech list.

>>48618093
>a wet jumbo
Wut?

>>48617950
Yeah, any truck model should work for those. A Zis or Studebaker would work best. Techinally they can dismount their gun teams, but you don't have to use that rule.

>>48618115
The 76mm ones with wet stowage. Probably inaccurate but I learnt all the 76mm ones were wet shermans young.

The kind of list I'm talking about:

Mechanised Company, from Bridge at Remagen, page 18

Compulsory Armored Rifle Company HQ (9th Armoured) (p.19) - CinC Carbine, 2iC Carbine, Jeep, M3 half-track equipped with .50cal AA MG (25 pts)

Compulsory Armored Rifle Platoon (9th Armoured) (p.19) - Command Rifle, 5x Rifle, 5x Bazooka, 2x M1919 LMG, M2 60mm mortar, 2x M3 half-track equipped with .50cal AA MG, 3x M3 half-track equipped with AA MG (295 pts)

Compulsory Armored Rifle Platoon (9th Armoured) (p.19) - Command Rifle, 5x Rifle, 5x Bazooka, 2x M1919 LMG, M2 60mm mortar, 2x M3 half-track equipped with .50cal AA MG, 3x M3 half-track equipped with AA MG (295 pts)

Heavy Tank Platoon (p.11) - Command T26E4 Super Pershing (275 pts)

Tank Platoon (9th Armoured) (p.12) - 1x Command M4A3 Sherman (late), 2x M4A3 Sherman (late) (310 pts)
- Replace M4A3 Sherman (late) with M4A3E8 Easy Eight (up to 3 per platoon) (45 pts)
- Replace M4A3 Sherman (late) with M4A3E2 Jumbo (76mm) (only one per platoon) (105 pts)
- Replace M4A3 Sherman (late) with M4A3E8 Easy Eight (up to 3 per platoon) (45 pts)

Cavalry Recon Platoon (9th Armoured) (p.26) - Command M8 Armoured car, Mortar Jeep, Recon Jeep (90 pts)

Armored Field Artillery Battery (p.31) - Command Carbine, Staff, M4 Sherman OP, 3x M7 Priest HMC (220 pts)

Air Observation Post (p.33) - L4 Grasshopper AOP (40 pts)


1745 Points, 6 Platoons

>>48617878
As a note: For the big, defensive platoons like soviet infantry, man-packed guns are really useful. Gun teams can fire over stationary infantry, so the maxims and PTRDs are all going to be able to contribute from the second row of deployment and they're vastly harder to selectively position against when coming into assault. I think PTRDs are pretty good in LW since even there they're basically a machinegun that doesn't care much about positioning, but in EW where they can actually knock out tanks they're even better. As a bonus they bulk you out for QoQ.

What I'm saying is soviets want lots of man-packed gun teams.

>>48618229
I think this is where I point out that no Jumbo, 76mm gun or not, has Protected Ammo, so no wet stowage. The 76mm Jumbos were field conversions, just pull a 76 out from a wrecked sherman, install into the jumbo (well, more or less field conversions, the potential was intentionally there from the start, but it was done at the field workshops).

Nice list, I might steal it some time.

>>48610130

I've played early war soviet tank swarm a bit and I think your better off with BT-7's for it. For one T-26's are slow tanks if you are facing a infantry company with a big gun line you will find yourself getting shot to pieces before you can get into assault range.

The only downsides to the BT-7 is that I'm not aware of any plastic model for it (only expensive, though nice BF resin kits) and its slightly more expensive than the T-26 points wise, though I think the standard tank movement makes up for it in the end.

But if you want to stick with T-26's I might suggest dropping the motostrelkovy all together (if you want to play Russian tank swarm play Russian tank swarm don't hedge your bets with some very shitty infantry IMHO) and maybe pulling a tank or two out of the T-26 companies to put in 6 or so T-28's into the list. These guys are "fast" (Standard tank movement), FA 3 (can't be bailed by HMG's) and have a 3+ FP gun for digging out infantry. Use your T-26's as a mobile gun line and the T-28's for assaults.

>>48618612
You're welcome to. It's a real all-comers kind of list.

File: comrade_stalin_ordered_tank_to_fly-541391.jpg (73KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x595px

>>48618682
Zvezda has plastic BT-5's...good enough!

>>48618682
Interesting suggestion. I might try it.

>>48618682
T-26s are considerably cheaper than BT-7s. And EW lacks the AT to handle that many cheap tanks, all of which are throwing buckets of AT 7, Firepower 4+. T-26s win by absorbing that fire, and then burying anything in maingun or MG dice, and then continuing their advance towards the objective. BT-7s basically just get you 4 extra inches of movement, and a useless Fast Tank rule. As well as no twin-MG option, or T-26E if you really want to fuck over enemy tanks. T-26s also pair pretty well with T-28s.

>>48618807
>you will never pilot a BT-7 through the skies of the Eastern Front, shooting down fascist pigdogs for the glory of the Motherland
Why even live?

>>48620239
>You will never get FT BT-7s in LW, without Unreliable.

I would spam the shit out of that so hard, and support them with SU-76s!

>>48620287
And what would you do with the other 1000 points?

>>48616221
If you mean Team Yankee, yes. For WWII, the Open Fire box is only ideal if you’re going to do a German infantry army or one of the few combined British/American lists (British tanks, American paratroopers). It might be worth it anyway for the shear amount of stuff, but it’s not a slam dunk.

>>48620287
Closest thing would be playing Finns with their whopping three BT-42:s per list. Somehow the damn things aren't unreliable despite being even worse than the original versions.

File: Disregard the Constabulary.jpg (122KB, 1386x1103px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1386x1103px

>>48620287
>Not joining the No.1 Armoured Squadron RAF and giving bally Jerry a good rodgering above the cliffs of Dover before sending him over on his Betty Harpers into the briny
Poor taste old fellow

>>48620308
What wouldn't I take!?

What's the smallest mechanized list I can make and not be utterly fucked by everyone else?

>>48620847
Something something 'Murricans. Or maybe one of the German Halftrack lists.

Soviet Razvedki and SU-76 swarm can be really good, but they are by no means small.

>>48620847
Scroll up to that 1750 list, looks like it'd work a treat.

>>48620896
Depends on how you define "smallest". Say what you want about american armored rifles, but they're not small.

>>48620847
How do you mean smallest? Least to paint? Cheapest?

>>48620588
>old fellow
>not old chap
2/10 Teacups, you tried

>>48620967
I would accept multiple definitions, fewest miniatures and cheapest being the focus. Smallest individual miniature size is not in line with what I want.

>>48621766
The difficulty with doing a small mechanized force is that no matter what, you will be building and painting both the infantry and their transports.

So that basically doubles the amount of work you need to do compared to either foot slogging infantry, or tanks.

>>48621766
I think the best bet would be either german armoured cars (pumas, luchs, what strikes your fancy) or Gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers (or Gepanzerte Aufklärings). Mind you, these are cheap/few only by comparison to other mech forces. Tanks or even infantry will still be both cheaper and fewer (well, maybe not infantry compared to armoured cars... maybe).

>>48620525
Reread Eastern Front and Grey Wolf, dude. They're unreliable.

I mean, don't let facts get in the way of a good whinge about Soviets, but...

Do we autosage at 310 or 315? Anyway, not many posts left until we need a new thread.

>>48625942
310.

one more post, anon. one more post.

>>48627178
Well, all posts after 310 won't bump the thread, but post 310 is reply 309. So your post there is actually the last one that will bump.

>>48628253
Eat, Sleep, Make Thread, Repeat.