Flames of War General /fowg/: I'm Fuching tired of gluing

I've finished putting together 2 boxes of Luchs. About to start 2 boxes of Fuchs. Once they arrive in the US, I'll be putting a box of LARS together. So how about a little arithmetic.

8x8 = 64
6x6= 36
4x6= 24

So my aufklärungs list will contain 124 wheels. The total value of points for all wheeled vehicles is 18 points, Thus I am getting a tremendous value of 7 wheels per point!

File: 1470335148028.jpg (388KB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1000x1333px

>>48827105
What about track wheels? Did you account for those?

>>48827105
Wheels. My god.

>>48826989
>Not titling the thread "Zero Fuchs Given"

Perfect opportunity for a pun and you wasted it.

Mdf bargain building man is back for those who were interested, ordered myself another 11 of various types.

http://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/15mm-Modular-Tower-Block-Wargame-Buildings-Laser-Cut-3mm-EMF-Flames-of-War-et-/361539073921?_trkparms=aid%253D222007%2526algo%253DSIC.MBE%2526ao%253D1%2526asc%253D20150519202351%2526meid%253D82ee5c334e2f44739238183dc92a3d6a%2526pid%253D100408%2526rk%253D1%2526rkt%253D5%2526sd%253D162035546149&_trksid=p2056116.c100408.m2460

File: WHEELS.jpg (81KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x427px

>>48827223

Hah, I am only counting the ones I have to glue on individually. But if you want the full number of wheels we'll just add 7 wheels x 2 sides x (4 gepards + 6 Leopard Is + 3 Leopard IIs) to the previous total of 124. That's 306 wheels, but the point value per wheel drops to 3 wheels per point.

>>48827429
That's fine, with the meta being the way it is at the moment, you don't want more than 4w/p anyway. I don't get how some people can play those <1 w/p lists though, just doesn't seem fun you know?

>>48827316

>What the Fuch did you just Fuching say about me, you little Commie? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Bundeswehr ...

Yadda yaddda

>>48827518
For 120 points I've got 270 wheels (10 Abrams, 4 M113s, 2 A10s, and 2 command vehicles/ objective markers) SO that puts me at 2.25 w/p, unless I did the math wrong.

>>48827679
Solidly competitive list, consider attaching some spare wheels to the sides of Abrams' turrets to bring yourself into that 2.5-2.75 w/p sweet spot.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 550x302px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x302px

>>48827518
>>48827853
>>48827679

Hinds are cheaper that NATO choppers and are OP with 4 wheels/chopper. NATO helicopters don't even have wheels... What was battlefront thinking?

>>48828235
AH64 longbow when?

File: f32fc0f16ccd39d745e557e561890247.gif (937KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 500x281px

>>48828591

So, I played a game of Team Yankee last night.

89 points of Soviets vs 93 points of Americans.

My Soviet list:
HQ T-72
5 T-72
5 T-72
5 T-72
2 Shilkas
4 BMP-2 Souts
2 Hinds

His American list:
HQ M1
3 M1s
3 M1s
3 M1s
2 ITV
2 VADS
2 Cobras

The table was set up as a 3-way road intersection between several large hills and forests.

I don't remember turn by turn exactly what happened but here are some highlights.

The Hinds were on point early knocking out 2 M1s from one of his Abrams platoons, but the 3rd tank passed his role to stay in the fight.

They survived return fire from his VADS for about 3 turns as they continued tank hunting, but eventually got turned into Swiss Cheese and blown out of the sky.

The T-72s and BMPs did their best to pincer up both sides of the field, but the Abrams and ITVs were set up in really good defensive positions.

I'd lose maybe one tank per platoon per turn, but mostly only cause bails with my own hits. Mostly just the will of the dice there.

The VADS went hunting for my BMPs and Shilkas once the Hinds were down and were able to turn them into Swiss Cheese as well.

By the end of the game both sides were risking Formation Morale checks, but he was able to force mine first which I failed.

Overall it was a hard fought game on both sides.

Tactics were sound from each of us, but dice caused a lot of good plans to turn into exploitable mistakes on both sides.

Eventually I reached the point of doing the "Fuck it" move and going for one final push before he broke me, and I had a chance of breaking him first, but the dice let me down, and I lost in his following turn.

>>48828730
>9 Abrams
>Under 100 pt game

The absolute madman, I salute him. I never really get the opportunity to use all 10 of my Abrams unless its a higher point game, since I like to go air-heavy.

>>48829230
He went tank heavy, and it worked. 10 M1s at just under 100 pts.

Although I have to admit he placed them well and played them very defensively. Then again he is former army, and I'm just some civilian schmuck who likes playing miniature war games.

Abrams on the defense are strong.

Granted I made significant progress up the board against him, but he still won out in the end.

>>48829230
i picked up 2 bannon's boys back when they had the bonus. a tank company is 12 tanks.. but i'll never field em because russian air will shit all over it. i'll also never field my cobras/a-10's because russian anti air will shit all over it.

american ftl. had i realized there was only 1 aa unit in the game for them i would of avoided building an american force.

>>48829995
I've played about a dozen games of TY with my Abrams and air support, and I've usually done fairly well, and had a blast. If you're terrified of every counter to your troops, then you may as well field nothing at all. The only time I've ever truly gotten my ass kicked was against West Germans spamming Leo 2s and tons of AA.

>>48829995
From my limited experience with the Soviets, I honestly think that while the US does need more AA, the VADS are nothing to sneeze at, they turned my Hinds into Swiss Cheese once they were able to get a good shot on them.

Frogfoots (Frogfeet? What is the plural on that?) might be a different matter, but the Hinds will still go down to massed Vulcan fire.

>>48830394
You haven't faced teh 32+ bmp 2 spam with AA that covers every inch of the board and will pborably garner minimum 10 shots before you even pick up dice for your aircraft.

i see that shit on a regular basis and it's not fun to face if you bring any air.

Worst part is if you are forced to have any reserves i'ts almost an auto lose situation.

try covering 2 objectives spread the fuck out and your only AA is 1 unit of vads that will probably run away after you lose 3 of em.


>>48830610
us really needs the carparal and redeye teams.

It also doesn't help that the vads unit's are restricted by stupid rules that in no way or shape really represents how vads are really deployed.

(normally spread the fuck out so far they can't see each other and each vad is suppoted by 1 or 2 red eye teams (wich don't exist)

Aw man, it seems like Dom's Decals are going to be too big to put on my tanks. At least where they're supposed to go on the actual tanks. That's a bummer, I was hoping to source some 6th Airborne decals for a Cromwell-equipped Airborne Armoured Recon platoon and 4th Canadian for an armoured recce squadron.

Has anyone ordered from him? Are they the right size?

>>48831256
Huh, so people are actually building the BMP spam lists?

I was mostly convinced that those were a theoretical threat that wouldn't be seen me ch in the table top purely because of how much fucking money you'd need to spend and how much painting would be involved in fielding the BMP spam list.

>>48832464
>I was mostly convinced that those were a theoretical

NOPE 2 players in my meta play them on a regular basis. (both max out their aa) 3rd russian player plays a mix of tanks/bmp with air support and every aa option he can field.

>>48832484
Abrams/Air fag here. At my FLGS, there's only one guy who plays a BMP-2 horde, and while he spams the shit out of them, and can be quite scary, he is in turn terrified of US mech infantry. Everyone is scared of something.

>>48832484

I think adding some mechanized groups to your list and some M109s with bomblets might help against all the BMP/AA Support spam.

I plan on running 4 PAHs in my list as Aufklärungs. I need the AT capability, since I can't put any Jaguars into my list. Then again all the spearhead ability for my recon units will let put pressure on their light vehicles right away. I am more nervous about facing tank heavy lists.

>>48833190
I stopped running tank companies when the bmp horde lists hit my meta. i run a inf company with only 1 unit of m1's in support. i'm still hurting bad becuse russian air dominates and their AA makes mine dissapear in 2 turns. it's gotten to the point i don't spend any points on air because it's usless and will be dead by turn 2.

meanwhile in reserve missions the russian just stuffs his AA units and gets to field over 80% of his force and i get crippled down to 50% of my force because of reserves.

and they bitch about night fighting .. the ONLY advantage US has vs russians... i'm serioulsy thinking about ebaying off my painted US army.

>>48833190
OH and don't forget about your us infantry being basically worthless. 8" minimumn range on tow missles means turn 1 they speed up into your face and you can't do dick to them. sure your laws can kill a few (max 3 per turn) but then they get to hose the fuck out of your infantry and you can't put your vads anywhere good to hide if you want to cover your shit from AA.

>>48833225
We don't have BMP hordes and night-attack US just completely owns everything else. Especially the hammerheads.

>>48833279
>We don't have BMP hordes and night-attack US just completely owns everything else. Especially the hammerheads.

i wish i was in your meta. i've seen a grand total of 2 might fiights in like 100+ games. Why? because russian players will never pick it and the time is rolled on teh chart. so yea good luck with getting that.

as for bmp spam. like i said it's regular thing in my meta.

Sounds like too strong a paper-scissors-rock system?

>>48833225
>i'm serioulsy thinking about ebaying off my painted US army.
Don't do that! Metas (and rules) change.

>>48833930
It has that sort of feeling, at times.

Is the Bulge compilation actually confirmed to be coming in September? Considering that's also when PSC are releasing their 25pndrs, that's going to be an exciting time. I've not actually seen any press release from BF confirming that.

>>48834572
Bulge is apparently coming out January now.

>>48834572
any news on ardenes compilation? this review i read eralier really has me wondering how bad germans are going to be after it's release.

http://www.wwpd.net/2016/08/the-ardennes-offensive-reviewed-and.html

>>48834151
>>48833225

Yeah, if you can just hold out until the Americans get Bradley's and Redeyes, it should even things out a bit against horde tactics. Maybe you can convice the people you play with to play one of the book scenarios with you.

>>48835804
>Yeah, if you can just hold out until the Americans get Bradley's and Redeyes,

bradleys really won't help much. redeyes will help SOME but really need chapparals also and maybe re-do the vads to being 2 pts for 1 4 pts for 2 max 3 support so they can be spread out. chapparals should be 2-3 unit for 6-8 pts and handle redeyes like the aa inf in the leopard book.

bradleys might end up being a trap. i'm not 100% sure yet. tows min range still makes them marginally usefull vs a smart russian player.

i think they will be a bit overcosted. hopefully not tho.

File: gallery-1465585724-sinking-of-japanese-cruiser-mikuma-6-june-1942.jpg (143KB, 1280x1007px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1280x1007px

>NGFS

>>48836347
No need for TOWs against BMPs. I agree about giving an additional AA support to allow you to spread out. I once tried to run the VADS line abreast one game and had my commander sniped by a Hind attack, causing a rout. The firepower dice were not kind to me that game. Lots of rounds bouncing off the HInds. I think the 4+ firepower of the Gepard will perform much better.

>>48835339
Similarly, thoughts about the brit portion?
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/2016/08/monty-rescue.html

>>48836347
Yeah, the US AA in TY needs a German style overhaul.

Where do you think the Krauts got their Redeyes from in the first place?

>>48835339
They're the same as the previous Ardennes books, but the Skozreny commandos got buffed and the good PDF lists went into print. Nothing to worry about.

>>48834788
But why the publicity blitz now, then?

Also going by the British lists, BotB seems like a one-stop shop for anyone who wants to do late-war Western Allies (with the exception of the Canadians/Poles). You can get pretty much anything you want for US or Brits - paras, regular infantry, armour...only thing it doesn't have is Comets.

I think you could also do 'what if 30 Corps reached Arnhem' list with the 29th Brigade/British Paras list if you want to get into alternate history or whatever.

>>48833225
>their AA makes mine dissapear in 2 turns.
Mind explaining how they do this?
After all, you could simply hide your AA assets from enemy ground troops using terrain.
They can still shoot at aircraft that way because of how the LoS to aircraft works.

>meanwhile in reserve missions the russian just stuffs his AA units and gets to field over 80% of his force and i get crippled down to 50% of my force because of reserves.
It's not as if you don't have access to cheap units as well, man.

Honestly, sounds like you might be misplaying certain rules or playing with far too little terrain locally, which could explain a fair few of these issues.

>>48834572
As far as I know, it's still coming later this year, with the TY Brits after them to round out the year.

I have no fucking clue where >>48834788 pulled that from, since I haven't heard anything even remotely like that.

>>48841690

It doesn't make any sense to drop a battle of the bulge compilation right after the time of the battle, missing most themed tournaments.

>>48842355
Not sure what you mean with this remark?

And generally, BF doesn't take when a battle happened in the year into account when releasing stuff about it.

>>48842550

I just would think that they would try hard to get it ready before December if they have it pretty much finished. Just seems like they would sell more copies if it drops before everyone has their scenarios and tournaments in December and early January. Just seems like a shame to miss it by a couple of weeks.

>>48842355
>>48842581
Berlin wasn't out for April of it's year despite it being a perfect opportunity for it.

>>48842581
I believe their intended release date is actually before that, since the West German releases for TY end in late august and the Bulge stuff is next after that.

>>48827105
Don't forget to indicate that if half your army dies you ran out of Fuchs to give.

File: unnamed.jpg (83KB, 700x495px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 700x495px

So these are looking good

>>48843294
Man, so many people are going to mistake the gunner's seats on the carriage for mold vents/sprue gates and clip them off out of sheer habit.

I forsee tears.

Ok. I know it's for the joke, but in all seriousness, Fuchs is not pronounced like Fucks.

It's closer to Fooks.

>>48843294
Looks like, as long as you're willing to go without ammo carriers, you can do two guns from each kit. Good. I've got 8 incoming, will probably go for 4 18/25pdrs (or pure 18 pdrs, is there even a visible difference), 4 25pdrs for NW Europe and 4 17/25 pdr pheasants.

Just wondering, do we have the Afghantsy briefing for TY in our scans database?

>>48843414
>or pure 18 pdrs, is there even a visible difference

Completely different carriage and recoil system, yes.

>>48843720
From the 18/25 pdr? That was basically putting a 25pdr barrel on a 18pdr carriage? (Do note that the 18/25 pdr provided looks different from most 25pdrs)

>>48843513
Yep.

>>48843811
Yes, completely different from the 18/25pdr.

Gun barrel is the same as on the 18/25pdr, but carriage is completely different and it's also got a very different recuperator/recoil mechanism.

>>48843812
Ah, I failed to look in the fairly obvious FoW Digital folder.
Still, might be a good option to just have a separate Team Yankee folder in there?

In the meantime, it turns out I'd need 2 more Hinds to have all the required teams for an airlanding formation. Might be an interesting investment in the future.

>>48843937
A note on that, because I'm the one what did it, the support choices are all standard ones found in the main rulebook.

I didn't scan it mostly because I couldn't be fucked.

>>48843967
Which unit cards were provided alongside the booklet, by the way?

>>48844019
Hinds, Air Assaults, and Detachment cards.

So what did they change about the commandos in AO? They said something about not getting exposed but never confirmed it.

>>48845062
THey won't be removed from the table as soon as you fail a skill check, IIRC

>>48845198
Yep, and aren't in the same slot as recce anymore.

>>48845198
So what happens then? Are they rifle teams?

>>48842355
It's scheduled to be released in time for the anniversary. Which means it'll be a couple of months late.

>>48845808
I assume they just don't do anything.

>>48846086
If they're releasing it for december there's no way the Brits would fit in this year, which is what they aimed for. More likely the germans finish this month, so it's meant to be out next month and release for two months, then brits to close out the year, maybe the start of next year.

I'm aware the British had a weird district-based regimental system, where they had different districts of england making up regiments and then welding them together for divisions. What about all the armoured units? I see "50th Northumbrians", but never any "3rd Cobblebops Armoured" or anything. The only titles I'm aware of even are the Royal Tank Regiments. Did you have to volunteer to abandon all your chums or something or was everyone from Stirling mounted?

>>48847845
Nomenclature, first: the british had various "regiments", that mostly seems to have served as cadre for when new formations were needed. You then got battalions in these regiments that were sent out to the divisions, usually formed as 4 regiments to a brigade and 2 (or 3) brigades and support to a division. These battalions usually got logical numbers. The 3rd battalion formed in the Royal Tank Regiment, was the 3rd Battalion, RTR. and so on.

Some armoured battalions started as armoured, and usually as part of the RTR. Others began as cavalry and then traded in their horses for tanks (giving you most Hussar and dragoon regiments), when these didn't become armoured car battalions. Finally, there were infantry regiments that were transitioned to tanks but keeping the old name, giving you such ones as 4th County of London Yeomanry.

Of note is the entire Guards Armoured Divison, since all those regiments were initially infantry or cavalry, but they still formed 4 armoured battalions (and various Churchill battalions) from the different guards regiments.

>>48843404
>implying thats not how the tea drinkers say it

Emailed Battlefront last week about the shit quality of the Leopard 1 resin kit. They express shipped me a new box of them. Most of the defects were fixed. The tracks fit together better. The metal pieces look much better. Not to sound ungrateful, a few defects carried over. There is still a track with a couple of missing pads, and on another track some track pads are missing. Must be an issue with the molds.

I am planning on just using mastic to patch up the track pads then putting thin super glue to harden it up after patching. Anyone have any better ideas?

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4983

Battlefront's humour articles are top notch

>>48851801
>Standard gun tanks are better suited to covering the approach towards the mission objective, killing dangerous enemy units from afar, while the grunts do the dirty job of actually securing the objective. With all those Panzerfaust-laden infantry teams, late war tanks have to act cautiously in the vicinity of the enemy. A breakthrough tank like the IS-2 operates on the opposite principle.
Update: Top armour 2 makes you immune to a platoon of veteran infantry who're all AT 6.

Idiots...

>>48851161
Green stuff?

>>48853132
>Hero Gvardeyskiy Tyazhelyy Tankovy Polk Tactics
>with Jorge Sancho

>Jorge Sancho

Yeah, SP/Soviet Pride himself: BF fanboi extraordinaire...surprised, I am not.

Next Up: Mcswinny/Fingolfen on why BF is the bestest best thing ever (unless is comes to the correct number of spokes on the Panzer IV J idler wheels, of course).

>>48853298
Who are these people?

>>48853298
You mean Dr. Michael L. McSwiney, PhD? If I ever list my name that pretentiously after I finish grad school, please shoot me.

>>48855840
Does grad school mean you get to call yourself Master?

I am John Doe, MASTER OF SCIENCE!! Cower before my mastery of masterism. Of science.

>>48855990
Here in the states grad school can be a catch all for masters or PhD. Contrary to popular belief getting a PhD doesn't make you a superior being. Just drags you further downthe autism spectrum.

Though it is tempting to to want to call myself Master Dr. Anon one time after I finish, McSwinney sounds like a dick for having both in his title on multiple occasions.

>>48856270
Technically most doctors tend to put MD, DDS, PhD, etc after their name to differentiate between Medical doctors, Dentists, and Scientists / Professors, etc.

File: m2-m3-bradley-fighting-vehicle-10-ts600.jpg (35KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x400px

Soon...

File: dick compensation.jpg (167KB, 1030x418px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1030x418px

>>48851801
>>48853298

oh shit, they really meant it.... that's... kinda funny...

the big problem with this article is that it shows a minimal understanding of a more Darwinist FoW community/meta. and, it's enthusiastic and serious. i would love to fight Jorge. i'd likely win.
----to point:
1: Big Cats are not the nemesis of IS-2's, they are 'equals' 2: using IS-2's as a primary driver of your assault is an OK idea...what's your back-up? 3: Panzerfausts and IS-2's do not mix...Panzerfausts and IS-2's do not mix.....

if i had to modify this?

1: Fear the High AT gun teams, 17 pdr and 43' 88's...for your assault against them is doomed, and your gun duel to BTG clean them out is not going to be as successful...send in Strelk or Mortars or something. anything else.
2: IS-2's can primary drive an assault if you have full infantry support, so you aren't just rolling 2 dice in assault. though, i'd say it's better to use something more numerous / has the ability to shoot on the move....like IS-85's, gee, i wonder why i use those? IS-2's work better if they push onto a spot they can hold and play 'bunker' with. go ahead and try this, but have something else useful you don't want smoked.
3: Panzerfausts kill the IS-2 in assault. better to sit at 16" and lob BTG at them....you do have recon also, right? just don't assault those pricks....at all.

Battlefront are now selling plastic sprues singly. So infantry, Guns, tanks, helos, etc. Which is pretty neat. I guess.

>>48860062
Do note that the tank sprues are the same price as TANKS expansions, so you get slightly less for the money... eh, useful if you'd never dream of playing TANKS and don't care for ebaying the cards, I guess

Still, useful for all things NOT tanks. And also extra confirmation of plastic Pumas and M10s/M36s

>>48860115
>Still, useful for all things NOT tanks
Yeah, single sprues of infantry are a niche PSC don't cover, so this is pretty great.

>>48860062
Where's this said? In the weekly update?

Taking a closer look at the Pak40s... How exactly do you get those off the sprue? It looks like you'd obliterate the barrel and gun shield removing it...

>>48863300
There's a listing for single Pumas and M10/36s in the plastic single order section, with a "to be released" note.

>>48863301
Yeah, the PaK 40s are made of explodium.

You need to kit the plastic frame itself to release some of the tension before you try to clip out any of the pieces.

>>48863318
Is this a hacksaw job or do the pieces hold if you clip the sprue apart?

>>48863318

I didn't do this and had to glue both gun shields back together again after they snapped in half.

>>48863318
>kit

Cut. Not sure how or why my phone replaced cut with kit.

It's also been swapping "in" and "on" in some cases where the wrong word makes no sense at all. *shrug*

But anyway, yeah, the PaK 40 plastic sprues are spring-loaded and ready to explode if handled incorrectly.

>>48863377
You almost have to cut it apart completely. Or at least I did anyway.

Things are too tight on the frame and that causes things to snap if they come off the frame the wrong way.

The big one is cutting out the corner where the gun shield is.

>>48863472
So definitely hacksaw, then? Or is the plastic soft enough for a knife/scalpel?

>>48863509
you can use a scapel, but it will take time.

i used quality clippers on my second go, and avoided the explodium. you can't just snap it, you have to pick a good spot and go with it.

>>48860062
>Individual sprues
>regular FoW *and* Team Yankee

Nice.

Although technically you'll still need to buy flight stands individually for any of the helicopters.

>>48864851
Why would you want individual choppers though?

Aren't they almost always taken by n multiples of 2?

>>48865870
3s in Afghansty

>>48841678
>>>their AA makes mine dissapear in 2 turns.
>Mind explaining how they do this?

my air :/

File: 32 bmp spam list plus extras.jpg (382KB, 1394x784px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1394x784px

for the TY players that don't think anyone plays the bmp spam list.. here is one of the player's army in my meta

>>48866546
Fucking hell, that's a lot of vehicles.

Granted they have tinfoil for armor, but there are still a shitton of them.

And that's without considering the horde of infantry that they're carrying as well.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure how I'd try to counter that. There are just too many of them. Especially since NATO forces are typically about half that size, if not smaller.

>>48866920
>>Fucking hell, that's a lot of vehicles.
>
>Granted they have tinfoil for armor, but there are still a shitton of them.

but does ti really matter because they can all take out M1's at range. or dug in infantry. sure they wil lneed maybe 5's or 6's to hit but when you're rolling a bucket of dice you' will get some hits and they do have a chance to destroy them (unlike us troop cariers wich have zero chance)

And yes the infantry blob is tough to deal with espceially when your inf are a fraction of them in size.

M109's come into play here with bomblets. if they are advancing and not dug in/buildings you can hit alot (alot will save but you'll get some kills) vads turn into anti inf duty (28 shots tends to thin the herd)

but yea pretty much if i'tsn ot night time and/or the fight has US using reserves (especially delayed) it's practically an auto win list.

note: in a reserve game he just stuffs his AA and air unit assets in reserve and facerolls you wihtout them because he's still bringing close to 80% of his total army points and you're getitng if you are lucky 60% of it and if you chose the m1's they will dissapear to 32 spandrel shots

>>48866997
Realistically speaking you won't be firing 32 missiles at once.

Things like line of sight, concealment, the BMPs moving, etc will all effect that.

But it is scary to think about.

>>48867251
Yeah... Realistically, it'll be more like 12 or 14. Still capable of toasting a few tanks.

>>48866997
What about minelets?

Choose a bottleneck point as your pre-planned bombardment and drop mines right in their path.

>>48863301
BF plastics are a little annoying in that regard - too many sprue connections and they're often in nasty places. Why must the sprue connect in eight places to the outside of the M4A3 Sherman track pieces? If that had been on the inside they'd save us so much time.

>>48866997
How about A-10s? I've never used them, but if you can focus down the 2 gophers first thing then you might be able to to use cluster bombs and your GAU to take out in infantry and the BMPs that are outside the shilkas range. Then focus your M109 bombardments on the units bunched up around the shilka.

>>48867386
It has to do with how the triple-k injection molds work, and reducing the number of misformed sprues are made due to not enough plastic making it into the little parts.

Our local group has been looking at getting a Tank Aces campaign going, and we were thinking about some house rules:
>Recovery Vehicles, while technically Transport Teams, may be deployed in campaign turns 1&2 as normal. They do not count for kills, tanks destroyed, or tanks alive. They cannot grab tactical edges.
>Aces gain an additional +1xp for each game you play where your force is entirely painted (3-color standard). This xp is not factored into determining the winner of the Scrapyard mission.
>A player may change the company they are using ONCE in the campaign. If you do so, your Ace loses half of the xp he earned in battle (including xp from destroying enemy teams). This may cause him to lose one or more Ace abilities.
First is just fixing what seems like an oversight, second is to encourage some of our players (such as myself) to paint, and the third is to avoid someone getting stuck with a shitty list for the whole campaign.
Thoughts?

>>48868567
The 3rd point seems a bit steep. Maybe make it 25% loss instead of half.

You want it to be punishing, but not crippling. Especially if it is supposed to be for getting out of a bad list, which probably wouldn't be earning many points in the first place.

>>48868567
I'd kinda change the scenario for rounds 1 and 2 as well.

As is, it allows tankspam lists to just flee from heavier, numerically inferior forces since the person with the most tanks remaining wins.
What we did was to adjust the rules to make it so the player who destroyed the most points worth of tanks wins.

I wonder if they'll bring the Puma into TANKS - maybe the 50mm version and the PaKwagen. It'd be a little weird - they could justify giving it -1 defense, but they'll probably be lenient and give it 0. I do hope they bring in the Puma.

For those who haven't played, the attacker rolls 4-7 attack dice based on their tank's gun (hits on a 4+, critical on a 6) and the tank under fire rolls defense dice that save on a 4+. The number of defense dice is the tank's base defense (1 for medium tanks, 2 for heavies) plus 0-2 for every move the attacking tank made, plus 0-2 for every move the defending tank made (up to 3 for fast tanks), +1 for cover, -1 for a side/rear shot, up to a max of 6.

>>48866546
>My Geppards are Hungry....

Are there any Finnish tank commander models? Are they analogous to german/soviet crews? I ask because all the finnish tanks don't seem to come with tank commanders.

>>48865870
The article suggested for objectives. You could do "Black Hind Down" for an objective marker.

Also in semi-related news: New Sabaton Album dropped today.
>https://open.spotify.com/album/1hFJW50enCkVVhKg9gA303

File: image.jpg (86KB, 440x700px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 440x700px

>>48873523
Looks like you should be fine using a soviet commander. Commander's tunic is on the left.

File: image.jpg (77KB, 389x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 389x500px

>>48875352
>>48873523

Here is another picture of a finnish tank crew from 1940. I assume for late war, the Finns would be using more German equipment, but for early or midwar, I'd say a Soviet tank commander will be fine.

>>48875391
Wasn't the whole Lapland party late war tho?

>>48867378
>>What about minelets?
>
>Choose a bottleneck point as your pre-planned bombardment and drop mines right in their path.

you only get 1 token and it's 2" arround it. yes it's great to pin down units with it but just remeber.. they have alot of em and they are cheap

>>48867651
>How about A-10s?
they still get shredded because of all the AA. 4+ save is good but not so much vs the amount of AA spam the russian players can put on the table

2 gophers
2shakila (zsu23)
2 gremlin teams. you can maybe avoid some of it... don't forget the 50 cal mg's as well.

>>48876977
There is no easy solution for the Americans right now to deal with BMP spam. They're going to add more stuff for the Americans at some point. We just gotta deal with it and utilize what we have. Bomblets, mines, Dragons, VADS, etc. Luckily, the West Germans hold the key to stopping the BMP tide, in the form of Luchs, Marders, Leopard 1's, and Gepards.

>>48876977
>you only get 1 token and it's 2" arround it.

2 inches from the edge of the token in every direction. That's a total area almost exactly the same size as a CD.

It's not a foolproof solution, but it is decent for area denial.

File: Untitled.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>48826989
Look what I just spotted on Wayland games.

(isn't even on the fow website at the time of this post)

>>48879354
a small army with rulebook and related army book for 50 quid not bad

>>48879830
They're not great armies though. IS-2, Panther and Comet Spam.

>>48879830
Shame that most of the armies are fucking awful

>>48879858
>>48879866
But if you're new to flames of war it's not the wrose place to start.

>>48879912
Rommel's Wolves maybe, but half of them aren't terribly Noob friendly or adaptable. Comets can only be used in one book, and require a good player to wield. IS-2s are just as dodgy. But at least you can use them in all of Late War.

>>48879912
>not the wrose place to start
Are you sure about that? I'm not sure I would be able to come up with any WORSE starter sets for the same cost and (roughly) points. At least not for the UK, and possibly germans as well (for the russkies, you could of course go with Hero Medium SPG, but that's not really saying that much).

The yanks are fine, though I wish they didn't have Pershings in all recent US starter sets.

>>48879912
It is actually: you're new, BF says buy this starter set. It's either OK (US), terrible (Soviet), terrible and only useful for one list (Brit Comets), or contains more heavy tanks than you can reasonably use (German set).

As an intruduction to the game or as faction starter sets, they're very poor. They are clearly designed to sell the "heavy tank" plastics that don't sell as well as the mediums. Thus Comets, IS-series and Pershings. 8-10 M4A3 Shermans would be better than including Pershing. British Shermans or Cromwells would be far better than rare Comets. The German set would be vastly better if it had 5x Panzer IVs replace current vehicles: 5x Panther and 5x Panzer IV, or 6x Panzer IV and 4x Panther, etc. would have been much better configurations.

>>48880021
>They are clearly designed to sell the "heavy tank" plastics that don't sell as well as the mediums.
It's battlefront's fault for making the only list that can take Comets reasonably DLC.

>>48880021
>>48880020
Part of the thing is also that they have to use briefings from one of the non-compiled books, since shoving a huge compilation hardback in there would raise the price too much.

Let's make this a bit of a challenge to see if /fowg/ can do better:
Set up an all-plastic list of roughly 1500 points LW, using a briefing not from a compilation (including the new Bulge books).
Try not making it too complex.

>>48877333
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a good direction; TY seems way too much in a position where the lists generally club each other and it's just which list is versus which that determines the clubbing direction. I'm kind of jaded by it at present; there really need to be more flexible lists.

>>48880164
Problem with going all plastic is that it means no recce, and almost no artilery.

That said, 13 Shermans (2 HQ 76mm, 2 platoon of 2+2 76+75mm, and 3 105mm) and an armored Rifle Platoon makes a surprisingly effective 1750 pts army.

>>48876977
>aircraft save.

I am pretty sure the A-10 has a 3+ save. Which I think is enough to start taking risks with it. If you can get it out at the start of the game (granted you are at the mercy of the dice) I think you can punish.

In the face of a rush list, you have to take some risks to blunt it. 8" range on the guns and mavericks give you some room to position to minimize AA fire.

I may make a house rule about preventing AA mgs on tanks from shooting down strike craft. It's a highly unlikely situation given the speed, armor, and angle of attack.

>>48875947

>Lapland Party
Yeah all of that is late war. I can't find too many images of finnish tank commanders for the late war. My guess is that if they are in a newer german tank, the commander may look more like the german tank commanders.

>>48880538
I don't think you need to worry about recce and arty in a tutorial-mode game, desu.

>>48881015
I dunno, if I'm doing a tutorial-mode game I'll either go for at most two platoons of tanks on each side (for the basics of moving and shooting, possibly toss in some infantry to demonstrate assaults), or I'll want at least most parts of an army, and I find especially artillery to be good/useful/needed for that. Not necessarily to kill stuff, but to pin and smoke. The recce, you can initially do without, at least as long as you avoid Veteran infantry that can just hide and be so fucking hard to kill (breakthrough guns somewhat alleviates this, as well).

761 tankbat are FV from the WWPD preview.

I'm looking forward to a US sherman party with protected ammo at 3+ on every tank.

>>48881350
I can only wonder how much they will cost. Personally, I'll fear the FT version more.

>>48827223
>implying Patton wasn't secretly gay

File: YgrGNh2.jpg (71KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1920x1080px

>>48881990
Patton X Rommel

File: am I kawaii Rommel-kun.jpg (265KB, 850x1236px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 850x1236px

>>48881990
>>48882014

File: bmp.png (307KB, 1000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1000x1200px

ДABAЙ, БЛЯДЬ!

>>48882062
>Hihg speed troop transportation.

>>48882032
man why is it that people with anime military avatars are universally shitheads

it's incredible

>>48882140
Comrade, why do you no understand that BMP is for making the hihg speed of the strelki transportation and for the making dead of the capitalist pig. Back to the Gulag for reeducation!

File: image.png (102KB, 1092x2188px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1092x2188px

>>48882032
>World War 2 generals as Sexy Japanese School Girls...

Two. Two atomic bombs. That's why the Japanese are so screwed up. We broke them. Psychologically. And they still haven't recovered from it.

>>48866546
That's a lot more than 100 points though:
hq 2
2x12 bmp-2 motor rifle coy 2x24
7 t-72 32
3 gvozdika 6
2 shilka 2
2 strela 2
bmp-1op 1
4 su25 14

>>48880164
Yeah, brits are straight fucked (only print Nachtjager to pull a list from), but they could have at least thrown in a pair of CS Cromwells and another Comet to make them reach 1420. As is, the brits are the worst deal.

Trying to keep the number of sprues the same across boxes, but here are my german and british ones:

DM German Veteran Panzer Kampfgruppe
4 Panthers
4 Stugs
7 Panzergrenadier teams + Halftracks
>1420

NJ Armoured Squadron
8 Comets
2 Cromwell CS
6 Stand Motor Platoon + Halftracks
>1420

No idea how the fuck to keep the Soviets near the same number of sprues without fucking them over by giving them a shitload of IS-2s. Americans are pretty usable as-is.

>>48879354
Speaking as somebody who was mad enough to put together an actual Comet list (except for Nachtjager and the motor platoon) it's kind of a bummer that I only just found out about it. Still, I guess it give me options of my own on how to expand my force.

Oh well, I can focus on building my other armies while waiting for a Rhine Crossing compilation to hopefully rebalance that list.

>>48882945
Figured out a soviet one.

DM Guards Tankovy Batalon
13 T-35/85
3 IS-2 1944
>1420
Avoiding halftrack and infantry sprues helps get it to fit. Goes to 1670 if they want to Hero it.

>>48883465
>>48882945
You guys do know theres an ISU box right? A few ISU 122's would make much better support.

That, or, crazy thought here, just give them some strelkovy stands.

>>48880164
Part of the thing is also that they have to use briefings from one of the non-compiled books, since shoving a huge compilation hardback in there would raise the price too much.

Yes, and the fix is dead easy: print small booklets similar to the Afghantsy briefing, taking the content from another book but still making it a fully-fledged list. So, for Brits you could take the Armoured Squadron from Overlord or Market-Garden, put the necessary bits into a small booklet-briefing, and include that in the started box instead of an entire book, along with the relevant plastic models. German could use DM or Grey Wolf or whatever, and on you go.

It's a far better solution than including a soft-cover book.

>>48885194
Those both work too.

>>48886781
>Part of the thing is also that they have to use briefings from one of the non-compiled books, since shoving a huge compilation hardback in there would raise the price too much.

Should have been...

>>48886781
Afgantsy being printed seems to be an exception so far.

There have been talks about doing other small pamphlet lists(East Germans as an example) but those are supposed to be getting a full book now at some point in the future.

>>48885194
There's also SU-85 plastics.

File: THE BOMBS THEY DO NOTHING.png (3MB, 1898x2604px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1898x2604px

>>48882207

File: KingTiger Front.jpg (123KB, 1000x884px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x884px

Bump with new Zvezda

File: ISU front.jpg (339KB, 1832x1595px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1832x1595px

And some Soviet stuff too

>>48888691
KT(H)? Awww yeeeee

When's it out, any release date?

>>48866546
Lists like this is why i prefer to play with painted models only

>>48879354
>Bundle with is2

Do people really buy these things?

>>48888929
What, to try and discourage people from taking lists that are entirely within the rules and fluff of the game if they contain too many models for your liking?

>>48889017
No, that's why the bundles are being made. If you look they're all tanks that don't sell in huge numbers (because people don't need that many, or I suspect in the T-34s case because they buy from PSC because you need shitloads of them and the discount adds up on your sixth box).

>>48888929

>painted models only
Painted? The last frogfoot is missing the nose... And the cockpit.

>>48889066
Because people should put time and effort into putting together an army, don't just whip out the credit card and counter the current meta

Why buy the models at all.. Just write the team type on as base and use cardboard cut outs for tanks

>>48889248
Pic was so ugly I saw no reason to zoom in and notice that

>>48889250
It takes ages to paint thirty BMPs and people have other projects on top of that. The Frogfoots aren't even finished.

>>48889095
I think it might be more that BF's costs go up on a sprue by sprue basis, so by putting in a few of the big-point tanks they can give a larger point force (which a new player is more likely to see as "battle-ready") for less cost on their end. Plus, said tanks are generally the "high-end badass end of war" sort of thing that new players love.

Shame that the points don't support their badassitude.

>>48888691
that... actually looks pretty good

>>48889328
The real duds are the IS-2s, the comets are tolerable and the Panther and Pershing are good support options.

I still think they're all boxes they don't sell, though; they're mostly high-cost models, the IS-2s are trash and Comets are really hard to find a good spot for, and Pershings are generally a curiosity compared to a sherman circus. Even StuGs are surprisingly limited. The only thing I'd expect they sell any real number of is Shermans and Panthers, and even then not everyone runs a CT Panther list.

>>48889501
It needs to be out so I can give Zvezda money. I might well do a Remagen list if I can avoid paying through the nose for it.

File: 1471651161565-1204795177.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

Post to prove I'm not full of shit

Painting my Afghan vets now

File: 1264406140995.jpg (64KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x480px

>>48866546
>not even base-coated green
>not even glued together properly
Truly barbaric!
The basecoat even comes in a can! A CAN!
You dont even need to pick up a brush!

>>48890626
He's been busy painting other armies for comissions.

File: 1467937693073.gif (591KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 450x253px

>>48876977
>A-10
>4+

ignorant fuck should read before opening his mouth

>>48891184
>>
>ignorant fuck should read before opening his mouth

and you should actually put them on the table and watch them dissapear.

>>48889530
>the comets are tolerable
Eh... At their points, they aren't really. Yeah, they're so flexible you're probably going to get some use out of them, but you pay so MUCH for that flexibility and it doesn't really give you anything that you can't get for a few hundred cheaper through other options.

I mean, they're better than IS-2s, but they're still overpriced and not worth bringing.

>>48891887
>>48889530
>>48882945
>>48879858
>>48879959
Since people seem to know how to use Comets here, thoughts on this?

>HQ Platoon
Comet, ARV, 155 points

>Armoured Platoon
3 Comets, 435 points

>Armoured Platoon
3 Comets, 435 points

>Commando Platoon
7 Rifle/MG teams, 205 points

>SAS Troop
3 SAS Jeep, Armour, AA MG, 135 points

>25 pdr battery
4 25pdrs, 2 Command, Staff, Observer, 185 points

>5.5" battery
2 5.5"s, 2 Command, Staff, Observer, Transports, 175 points

>AOP
AOP, 25 points

6 Platoons, 1750 points.

>>48891887
I don't get why Battlefront didn't put Cromwells, or even better, Sherman V's as the tank de jour of that starter.

Any halfway sane Brit player is going to want those no matter what, not to mention theyre solid tanks.

The main thing that annoys me is the damn American box. It would be perfect for me to start my 761st unit except for the stupid fucking Pershings that I'll never use.

>>48893570
Yeah, as much as the US kinda needed a Panther Equivalent tank, the up-armored and up-gunned Shermans are a better buy than the Pershings.

>>48893379
The Five Fives are a waste of points with only two guns. Lose something, see if you can change Commandos into regular infantry or something, and get at least two more guns.

File: TG124.jpg (116KB, 690x502px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 690x502px

>>48826989
Is it just me or are the Tornados insane for their point cost? 8pts for a flight of 4 and they have AT8 bombs which as far as I know NO tank can save against with top armour. This isn't to mention that you can't even get 2 A-10s for 8 pts (costs 10)

All without mentioning the Gepards and their glory.

>>48894662
Probably because they have no range and their aircraft save is half as good as the A10. So you have to kill the enemy AA or they're going to get shot down before they can attack.

>>48894662
>>48894721
Save 5+ and a range of Six Inches basically means that if you didn't deal with enemy AA, you're coming down in a big ball of fire.

Most MBTs do get a save anyway, albeit on a six to be bailed out.

File: SlavabooV.jpg (729KB, 1000x1469px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1000x1469px

>>48894662
>>48894742

and that is why they are cheap.

i really feel Tornados are an pivotal moment hammer or a gambit piece. they are not going to weather AA like A-10's or Frogfoots can, but they hit so damn hard the temptation is real....you have to use them at just the right moment

otherwise, they are shit, take 8 pts of anything else instead

>>48891203
they don't. you need gophers to even try

>>48894486
Dropping the Commandos to a 9-team Lorried Rifle platoon saves 25, removing the upgrades from the SAS saves another 60, and then there's another 15 that can be scrounged up from the transports and the ARV. That gives 100 of the 140 needed to upgrade the 5.5s. You could take a smaller Lorried Rifle platoon of just 7 teams, and you could add the second pair of boomguns.

>>48894662
>>48894975

I want to see someone use the autocannon.

>>48897507
Why would you ever use it? You're almost certainly getting more guys in a 10" template, and it's going to go through a BMP just as easily as a T-72.

>>48897635
I guess it's mainly there for use against helis. I guess you could try to snipe a lone BMP or something.

>>48893379
The problem is that you're bloody low on tanks for a tank company, and the tanks you have are not as survivable as their numbers would indicate. I would personally scrap the 5.5 (you're a tank company, not a bloody infantry company) for an extra cheap platoon (perhaps go with 2 bare SAS instead of one boosted) and at least an 8th Comet. It's still 2 short of what I would want, but such is life with Comets.

Or you could go with Lorried Rifles, 2 platoons of 4 Comets in an infantry company (in name only).

>>48893379
Drop all the arty, the armor and mgs on the jeeps and aop, acquire 2 more platoons of cheap jeeps, put in more tonks. Done.

>>48899455
EDIT: add a couple mortars instead of the third platoon of jeeps actually

>>48899358
>>48899455
>>48899469
Can't get mortars in the list, 25pdrs are the cheapest 4-tube arty available.

Attempt 2:
>HQ Platoon
2 Comets, 2 Cromwell CS, 435 points

>Armoured Platoon
3 Comets, 435 points

>Armoured Platoon
3 Comets, 435 points

>Lorried Rifle Platoon
7 Rifle/MG teams, PIAT, Light Mortar, 180 points

>SAS Troop
3 SAS Jeep, 75 points

>25 pdr battery
4 25pdrs, 2 Command, Staff, Observer, 185 points

6 Platoons, 1750 points.

Could drop the CS for Wasps or another Comet (though if I go for another Comet I'll need to mess with the platoons to get an even number). With all the Comets I think I'm fine on AT, but I'm worried about having enough smoke and ways to dig up infantry.

>>48879354
I just might get the Stalin's Bears for my absolute mad man friend who likes IS-2s and IS-85s for their design opposed to in game ability.

>>48900216
The Patton's Eagles army looks like a decent spot to try and start playing from, at least.

>>48901240
Of course, it's yanks.

It's triggering me that Rommel's Wolves is for a force that can only be made after Rommel's died.

> Rommel's Wolves is a force based around a tank that worked more on reputation than anything and managed to suck up resources from more valuable areas of production

It's perfect.

List building conundrum:

Assume you're going for a german LW infantry list. You get everything you want, including a dedicated Anti-tank platoon or two, and all the mandatory upgrades (Panzerfausts, yo). You think this list will work well on most, if not all, occasions. There is only one problem: you're 10 points over the limit. Do you

a) skip the panzerfaust on your Company Commander?
b) skip the panzerfaust on your 2iC (we can assume he's generally not supposed to kampfgruppe in this list)
c) skip the panzerfaust on one of your platoon commanders, hoping that the CC and 2iC can make up for it
d) hope your list allows you to take Panzerknackers as well, and downgrade two of the above to those.
e) NEVER skimp on panzerfausts. Redesign the list, from the ground up if necessary.

>>48903365
Skimp on the 2IC, CO should *always* be with the men, since he's providing rerolls, but the 2IC is just there for a backup company morale check. It's fine to put him with a second-line group.

>>48903365
Also if you have pfausts on gun teams, don't.

>>48888664
Huh, so I'll soon be able to make a budget Kampgruffe Kerschner list or whatever, if I add my plastic OF grenadiers. All I need is cheap Hetzers.

>>48902845
>Panthers sucking up resources from more valuable areas of production.
>What are Tigers 2, JagdTigers, Maus and other Wunderwaffes.

>>48903917
>Kampgruffe Kerschner
Wasn't that a Tiger I only list? or i am wrong?

Question for TY - are tanks gone to ground when they don't move, shoot or assault, even if they are not in cover? Rulebook doesn't states contrary, as far as I read it...

>>48902845
The Panther was actually on par with the Pz IV since they finally (FINALLY) got around to doing line production like everyone else instead of hand-crafted artisanal tanks, but it also broke down constantly and was generally kind of rubbish if you were expecting an easy time fighting in your death-wagon.

>>48904265
5 (Compulsory!) Tiger Is, 2 Hetzers and 1 Königstiger... and a grenadier kampfgruppe.

>>48904357
Hey, it can be 4 compulsory Tigers. 2 of which are automatically in reserve.

>>48904346
Yeah, pretty much the Panther was the best modern/new tank that the Germans could made, but well since the first production was rushed as fuck, their factories were bombed, use of "slave" labour so they could sobotage your tanks, lack of proper standardisation, etc. You could expect that those tanks had reliability problems.

Quick question, guys. Would a Tiger I E be a Early, Mid, or Late production Tiger? Or did that label apply to all three?

I'm just wondering if I could make my Kerschel force with a box of PSC tigers + a Zvezda Tiger & KT. I'd like to know if I can mix up different production styles or if they all have to be uniform.

>>48904809
The problems were deeper than that; rushed building you could correct, but the flaws were in the design as a 30-ton vehicle blossomed into a 45 ton monster. The vehicle was badly designed. Even beyond the issues with the final drives, which were appallingly bad, you had issues with stowage, gunner visibility, radio operation, even things as minor as the roadwheels.

>>48904870
Yeah, also didn't the DB proposal (which more closely resemble the T-34) win the initial trials, but internal politicking wind up going with the MAN design anyway?

>>48904856
Tiger I E was used throughout the war, you may see references to "Tiger H1" but that's just it's first designation. Tigers are still placed throughout the war by what kinds of engine filter, hatches and cupola they had, though.

>>48904856
PSC Tigers dont have zimmerit so they are wrong by default.

>>48904923
Right. So could I have an early production, mid production, and late production Tiger I all in the same unit?

>>48904914
Yep. It was more or less a German T-34, as you say, fit neatly into the 30 ton range. Hitler even favoured it, but was convinced they needed a stronger tank.

It's classic trap to fall into: Your opponent's kit is stronger than yours, so your urge is to try and one-up them, instead of going for parity and using it better, but in the end they had to rely on the inefficiently-produced Pz IV anyway, because the Panther wasn't meeting operational needs...

>>48904943
Zimmerit is only used in a very brief window, Dec 1943 to fall of 44. There was a fear it'd catch fire. North African tigers shouldn't have it, nor should Tigers still around by Desperate Measures. Not all vehicles got it, anyway.

>>48904954
Certainly; the same vehicles were in use for a very long time, though some may have been rebuilt. You see pictures of Tigers from the first run on the Eastern front in early 45, for instance, probably from Panzer schools.

>>48904958
Yeah, it's why I kind of roll my eyes at people going WHY DIDN'T MCNAIR GIVE EVERYONE PERSHINGS.

I mean, there was one army that was focused on (on paper) 'superior' tanks that were untested and still mechanically unreliable, and those guys were the guys that lost. And the Sherman was proving damn well good enough for the task, even if on paper the opposition was 'better'*

*may not actually be better in practical terms

>>48904997
Thanks for this, that'll hopefully mean I can mix things up a little for my Kerscher force.

I mean, it's not exactly going to be a competitive list, but I bought enough tanks for a Comet company, so I'm not really that good at building these sort of lists anyway. Probably use it for demo games more than anything.

>>48904997
>Zimmerit is only used in a very brief window, Dec 1943 to fall of 44. There was a fear it'd catch fire. North African tigers shouldn't have it, nor should Tigers still around by Desperate Measures. Not all vehicles got it, anyway.

Schwere Panzerabteilung 502/511 got their last Tiger I deliveries between january and february 1944.

>>48905177
Yes, but it would've been removed, except maybe on vehicles that weren't on the front lines. It was deemed a fire risk; tankers are very nervous about things they think are fire risks.

>>48903365
You skip the CO PF, place him near the platoon to give re-rolls but not within 4" of the front line. The 2iC then is more expandable and handy with his PF, and you can afford to deploy him more aggressively.

>>48905284
Why's the 2IC more expendable? He's just good for a company morale check. The CO's reroll is useless if he's nowhere near somewhere he can use it.

>>48904856
Tiger I E was just the official designation of the Tiger since 1943, though some people use it to difference the Late variants from the "Early/Mid" ones but i am pretty sure that is wrong. Since there is mostly 2 "importants" variants the Early and Late production type. And most of Tigers I fighting in late 1944 and 1945 were a mix of both variants (even franken Tigers) since the production stopped in late 1944.

So you can easily make a Kersher force with mixed production types PSC Tigers I since that COULD be possible given the period of the war in the briefing, though the only "problem" with PSC kits is the lack of zimmerit since most Late Tigers I had it.

>>48905337
Because he (2iC) can only take Company morale.

I tend to deploy my CO at the rear of the first infantry platoon, in a position where he can hopefully attach to give a re-roll to other platoons (e.g. PaK40s) and has good LoS in case I need him to spot for a bombardment, particularity smoke (uncommon though). If your CO is place up front, he can only make use of his PF in defensive fire if he's within 4" of you front teams. If you lose a team or two, a hole appears and he can be killed fairly easily. A determine assault will also get him involved and German platoons do not always have the numbers to keep the CO from taking a hit.

In a defensive position, the 2iC can do all of this and if he dies it not as great a loss as the CO. The re-roll is a powerful mechanic and you need to keep your CO alive to use it. He needs to be involved, but not too involved.

>>48905241
Yeah just to bad pictures show quite a lot of the 511 tigers with zimmerit.

>>48905437
Oh, right; I see what you mean. Yeah, that's fair; in my experience my 2IC is right at the back, though, to provide an emergency company morale check, while my CO is somewhere near the front where he might actually get to swing at things.

>>48905516
Some don't, though; you see a definite mix by late war. It's obvious in a lot of cases it was removed, though maybe some people kept it.

>>48904870
Yes you are right, but still the most important problem with German desings is the lack of proper standardisation and their industrial "doctrines/philosophy".

>but flaws were in the design as a 30-ton vehicle blossomed into a 45 ton monster

Actually that could be fixed and be pausible, and for tanks designs in the middle of the war it wasn`t that uncommon, ok it is true that it is unnecessary complex, more expensive and will affect the original design idea, but at least it could be somewhat solved.

The thing with the Germans is that they wanted to make everything work just like they want, because a combination of a lots of shits (mostly politics and differences between the manufacturers). Since they never complety changed or redesigned the design of the roadwheels, suspesions, some minor things and if you add all the thing i said here >>48904809 then you can understand at least some of the bases of why the Panther had all those problems.

>stowage, gunner visibility, radio operation, even things as minor as the roadwheels.

Well those things but the roadwheels weren`t a problem at all.

But at least if you compare it with most Germans late tanks production desings the Panther was more usable and fixeable.

>>48906034
A 45 ton tank on a 30 ton specification is badly designed. A 45 ton tank on a 30 ton drive system, that is never truly fixed, is inexcusable.

Ammo stowage was bad and lead to unnecessary fires, and was an ergonomic problem for loading. Gunners only had a magnified optic, making it difficult for them to keep an eye on the battlefield and difficult to align with a commander's instruction. The radio set was crammed into a tiny space, with the operator having very little room to work, and a difficult-to-aim hull MG. The interleaved roadwheels were a maintenance nightmare, and would freeze up in frozen mud.

Hell, the transmission issue is even compounded by the fact it was front-mounted, meaning you had to un-build the entire radio set to get it out and repair it. This is appallingly bad design for what's meant to be a medium tank (with implicit high availability), to replace the Panzer IV.

File: Challenger_1MBT_Mk_3_(7527916878).jpg (5MB, 4272x2848px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4272x2848px

When are we getting British for Team Yankee and what should we expect?

>>48906377
This Christmas, Challenger Is and Chieftains and probably Harriers and Lynxes, and derisiveness and Maggie Thatcher era jokes.

>>48906400
Do you think they'll give us L85's or L1A1's?

>>48906510
Personally I'd say both. Because the FAL was gradually phased out and was only fully replaced by 1994.

>>48906573
They will probably be M240/M249 teams, since the teams are usually defined by their LMG.

>>48904335
tanks can't go to ground.

Infantry and gun teams can, but that's it.

Think about it, infantry can hit the deck as well as a gun team, but tanks can't exactly duck.

>>48906637
In WW2 tanks could "go to ground" by adding camo nets and such; this might not be the case in TY, I'd have to check, but it's not ridiculous.

Checking there's nothing that says tanks can't be GTG in TY.

>>48904958
what absolutely boggles my mind, is that the Germans KNEW they could take soviet designs and win with their better trained crews. There's accounts of German crewed T34's giving far better than they took on multiple occasions (at least when they werent hit by friendly fire) Even ignoring that, combat proved that their lighter, more sensible designs did the heavy lifting. The StuG had the most confirmed vehicle kills, and if I remember right the Hetzer was well loved by the infantry it supported. I don't remember any particularly glowing reports of the Panzer IV by crews or infantry, but it's design spoke for itself given it fought from the first day of the war to the last. Even if they ignored Soviet designs, focusing efforts on increasing production for these tried and true designs would have helped them considerably.

As for adopting the t34 design, especially in the earlier stages of the war, if they had changed up the profile a bit to make it recognizably German, and added in lessons learned from the panzer IV like the 3 man turret and cupola, they would've had a winner. They had better trained and more experienced crews in high numbers then and would've been able to make great use of a simpler, all around flexible medium tank.

Of course, this is going deep into armchair historian ravings at this point, and even with a 1st rate tank they still would've lost the war, but it's the principle of the matter that bugs me.

As the old adage goes, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". If I was a grenadier on the Eastern front, I know I'd much prefer a 50% chance that I'd have support from a decent medium tank than hoping I'm one of the lucky 5% that gets a panther or Tiger.

Finnish Pansarri (EW 1420)

CO and 2IC T-26 - 95pts

4 T-26 - 190 points

3 T-26 - 145 points

T-34 - 355 points

4 Jaakri squads with close-defence command team - 175

2 BA-10s - 155 points

4 K02s - 275 points

1390 points, 6 platoons

r8?

I'm considering swapping the second T-26 platoon for a T-28 but I feel like that'd leave me a bit under-tanked. Not sure what to do with the 30 points. I could maybe swap the BA-10s for T-38s to squeeze another 50-80 points out of it for another T-26 or two, but the additional set of veteran AT 7 guns seems helpful.

>>48906892
Wasn't the Panther only marginally more expensive than the Panzer IV?

I'm not convinced that German knew how to produce a medium tank at faster rates, no matter how it was designed.

>>48907056
The Panther was only marginally more expensive than the Panzer IV in both manhours and cost. This was the result of them having learned how to mass produce tanks and finally shifting to a total war stance on their economy.

>>48907056
Yes, at first glance they're not very different in price.

However, Panzer IV takes a lot less maintenance and is more reliable, so odds are in the long run, you would spend less on a Panzer IV than you would on a Panther.

Not to mention the Panzer IV is easier to work on, which means less downtime to work on it and more time fighting/quicker turnaround on rebuilt tanks.

Not to mention the Panzer IV had more time to get rid of its teething problems. This is getting into things that don't matter in Flames of War, but would've been appreciated by crews and lower level officers.

It's kind of like why you never buy the first year of a new model of car. There's ALWAYS something fucked up with the first year model, always weird issues like the headlights won't turn off in 3rd gear or sometimes the accelerator sticks and won't disengage unless you turn on the heater for 3 seconds then pop the sunroof.

>>48906326
>A 45 ton tank on a 30 ton specification is badly designed. A 45 ton tank on a 30 ton drive system, that is never truly fixed, is inexcusable.
Of course it is badly designed but it could be somewhat fixed but like i said before it would be unnecessary complex, more expensive and will affect the design objectives.

>Ammo stowage was bad and lead to unnecessary fires, and was an ergonomic problem for loading. Gunners only had a magnified optic, making it difficult for them to keep an eye on the battlefield and difficult to align with a commander's instruction. The radio set was crammed into a tiny space, with the operator having very little room to work, and a difficult-to-aim hull MG.

Those problems aren't really important. i mean they are real problems at least the german didn`t care about it because it wasn't a mechanical thing.

>The interleaved roadwheels were a maintenance nightmare, and would freeze up in frozen mud.

Yes you are right but they cared more about the mobility than being a maintenance nightmare.

>Hell, the transmission issue is even compounded by the fact it was front-mounted, meaning you had to un-build the entire radio set to get it out and repair it. This is appallingly bad design for what's meant to be a medium tank (with implicit high availability), to replace the Panzer IV.

Most German tanks had front drive configuration, and front transmission give you more space for the crew compartment, the engine and it could help the the driver and radio operator to survive a shot. And even if they decided to go for the rear mounted transmission and drive they had to redesign their engines first.

>>48907244
> Those problems aren't really important.
> Poor ammuntion storage leading to ammo cook offs at the drop of a hat
> Not a crippling design flaw for a tank
You realise this is, along with their mechanical unreliability and their difficulty of efficient maintenance (all things which the Panther shares) are the main reasons why early war British Cruisers have such a bad reputation right?

>>48907191
Yeah the Panzer IV was a pretty good and reliable tank, but it was going to be outclased by allied new designs (even the Sherman) and it was a really old design from late 30s. The most common late model didn't even have motorised turret traverse.

So is the Polish 1st Armored Division digital list any good? I'm looking at the Cromwell Armored Recon varient of the list and it looks utterly fantastic.

Also I want to paint hussar wings on the side.

>>48907440
I believe they took that out in the J models because they didn't have the resources to put it into every panzer.

>>48907440
The Panzer IV Asuf J deleted the Motor Traverse due to a shortage of Copper for electrical systems.

>>48907415
> Poor ammuntion storage leading to ammo cook offs at the drop of a hat
What? i though you were talking about the ergonomics problems, where do you get that the Panther have more catastrophic kill ratio than others German tanks?

>>48907481
>>48907493
Yes and? i didn`t say "the tank was so shit it didn't even have motorised turret traverse". I just say one of the negative traits of the Panzer IV at the end of the war compared with contemporary designs.

>>48907440
true, no doubt about that. I'm mainly arguing priorities in production. For example, the Panther was so rushed two burst into flames just from being unloaded off the railcarts at Kursk. One of the first tigers in Tunisia broke down unloading from the ship. While there's nothing wrong with a field test and some good ol' fashioned psychological warfare, it wouldnt have hurt germany to give these designs more time to be tweaked before being thrown into combat.

So for example, instead of debuting the Panther in 1943, Germany would've been better served testing it more and bringing it out in 1944. Instead of building fundamentally flawed tanks just to turn around and have to tweak it, they would better be served by outfitting more units with StuG III's, Panzer IV's, and even some more Tigers. These were working fine in combat, they just needed more.

>>48907603
The Armour and Firepower weren't up to standard by late 1944. 6pdrs, Shermans, T-34/76s could all make Panzer IVs their whipping boys.

>>48907702
I really like you.

>>48907702
oh yes and this >>48907708 reminds me.

The other reason you want to hold back and test a design, is so that you can commit them in force to catch an enemy off guard.

Hitler's idea of committing panthers as a lynchpin to the massive effort of Kursk wasnt flawed on a fundamental level. Had the Panthers worked as promised (and more importantly, not delayed the offensive for so long that the Soviets could create one of the most impeccably designed killing fields in history) they could've had a large impact.

However, as we saw with Kursk, not only were they only slightly more impressive than a rolling dumpster fire, they delayed the offensive to the point that it was doomed from the start.

Had these Panthers been held back, tweaked, and committed en masse in the next summer, they would've have been a rude surprise for the Soviets. Especially if the Germans had dug in their heels in 1943 and bled the Soviets through attrition instead of the ill fated Kursk operation.

And again, armchair history, still wouldn't have won the war, yadda yadda yadda, but it would have made a noticable impact, at least far better than how they performed in Kursk.

>>48907924
Or you could just not give the Soviets battle at Kursk at all. Kursk was a functionally useless battle for the Germans other than to break their power. Hitler was basically the only person pushing to give battle at Kursk.

>>48907924
Even if the Panther had been ready six months earlier and preformed like it was a post 2000 model Leopard 2 it wouldn't have been enough to win the war.

>>48908113
Well they'd never have lost another tank battle for the rest of the war, so it wouldnt have done any harm.

File: Panther mit bench.png (712KB, 1266x592px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1266x592px

>>48908035
Yeah, attacking a position they'd given the Soviets time to fortify was ridiculous.

>>48907702
But I don't see the Panther as fundamentally flawed at all. The Tiger I maybe, due to its cost. The Panther had flaws that would have made a six-month delay well worth it, but nothing fundamental imo.

>>48908035

My understanding was the Generals pushed for Kursk and Hitler in private dispatches agreed with its naysayers. It was the final time he'd let his generals truly dictate anything of scale.

File: art-polskie-krylatye-gusary.jpg (347KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1366x768px

>>48907464
fuck, do red and white tanks bearing real hussar wings and emblazoned with KURWA!!! upon the sides.

>>48906831
And things like the ITV have rules that say that they can remain Gone to Ground even if they fired.

Got into FOW and after some wonderful advice, the 352nd Infantrie Division Fusilier Kompanie I'm working on is almost complete. I've also dabbled into Vietnam and am working on a Tet Offensive V.C army. My next project is going to be TY and I'm really tempted by the M1A1 and doing a 2nd Arm Division company. My concern is (from random tidbits online) is that the USA are woefully underpowered compared to the commies and germans.

After playing a deliberately weak late war FOW army (Stug G + Panzerknackers = height of my AT), and Ho Chi Mihn's pyjama party, both armies and themes I love, I'm a bit concerned I'll be making a hat trick of picking underpowered forces. Is there any truth to that?

>>48910535
Team Yankee's Balance is a bit up in the air as things roll out. There's a rough sort of rock paper scissors of the Soviets, Americans and West Germans. Pretty much all of the sides in TY are viable.

>>48906637
>>48906676
I agree, i didn't made sense to me as well to have thanks go to ground, but the rulebook explanation of the rule says "Teams", without further explaining which team can/can't do this...

>>48906831
yup, that's what bothered me as well, so that's why I brought the question.

>>48911616
Tanks can go to ground, but they need to be concealed. IIRC.

>>48911637
I agree. Problem is that the rule is written in such way that you can literally park the tank in the open field, do not move, shoot or assault and benefit from g2g...
That's what I'm trying to figure out.

>>48911815
You can't; tanks need to be concealed by some kind of terrain. Being GTG, on it's own, does them no good.

>>48906939
Any advice on how I could fill out those last 30 points, guys?

>>48912706
Not just tanks, if I read things correctly. There is NO "concealed in the open" in TY.

>>48912706
>>48912799
thanks for the answers guys...
One more thing - in american Tank HQ, when you buy additional tank apart from Commander, is it now a separate unit, with all the rules like any other unit? and you can join other units when you choose to do so, if i read this correctly?

>>48913543
formatting fail.


Mechanized HQ
M16 Team 1
M113 1
1 point

2x Mech Platoon
M249 team 4
Dragon team 4
M113 4
14 points

Mortar Platoon
M106 6
6 points

4x Anti-Tank Platoon
M901 2
12 points

Tank Platoon
Abrams 4
32 points

Field Artillery Battery
M109 6
Laser Projectiles 6
20 points

Fire Support Team
M981 1
1 point

AA Platoon
M163 4
6 points

Helicopter Platoon
Cobra 2
7 points


99 points
57 stands/models

>>48906939

T-28s are pretty amazing in EW, though. And 3 T-26s aren't going to accomplish much. Minimum sized platoons, minimum sized results.

>>48913584
Just one T-28, though? Feels like it'd be fragile as hell.

>>48913693

No, you take 2. Seriously, don't take reduced size core platoons, it never ends well.

>>48913696
Where am I going to fit another 150 points in that list, though? I'm looking at another 100 points if I get cheaper recce, not 150.

Looking at it, I can squeeze 155 out if I take off two stands from the Jaakri, and go down to two T-38s instead of 2 BA-10s, but they're only rifles so defensive fire becomes pretty much useless at that stage even against conscripts. I really don't want to go down to 4 platoons since soviet tanks are going to be always-attack.

Quick question: if I were to print out the pdfs of some digital-only lists from the scans database, would that be unusual, or do people who get the lists legitimately do the same thing?

Just I'd rather not shell out for a copy of Nachtjager for my Comet list but I'd rather avoid awkward questions of where I got my briefings from.

>>48913891
You could just buy the Digital List. It's only 1 dollar or so and print out the list you made from the scan.

>>48913768

You could try swapping out all your T-26s for Vicker's 6 tonnes, and swap the recon for the cheapest option. You could then swap the Jaakari for Pioneers. Flamethrowers, tank assault, and numbers.

>>48913861

Your defensive fire was going to suck anyway, and with these sorts of guys getting into melee is a good place for you anyway. Plus, you have tanks. MG fire isn't the weak point of your list.

>>48914123
Yeah, that's a point. Any time I'm going to have the jaakri defending I should be able to have at least 2 MGs with them.

>>48914081
Yeah, but I don't want to subsidize their DLC based marketing strategy.

If there's a decent enough explanation I can get away with for why I have a printout of the scan, then why waste the dollar? I already bought the tanks.

>>48913891
How else would you bring a pdf to the table?

>>48914599
On a digital device like an iPad or other tablet.

>>48914150

Don't forget about Lahti rifles as well. A pair of them is a real threat against armour, while maintaining the ROF of a HMG. AND, if they're a seperate platoon, they're more resistant to attempts to pin them.

>>48914926
But how would I afford buying figures when I have to waste money on crap like a tablet?

>>48913253
anyone?

>>48916122
It's always a separate unit. IIRC, you can still allocate hits to another unit next to it, like with any kind of shooting.

My TY rules-knowledge is kinda rusty.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 236x242px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 236x242px

>>48914237

>b-but DLC

Battlefront's online lists are literally catered for exactly what you are needing. It's not even like you are buying a book with a bunch of useless lists. You are paying 1 fucking dollar for a list you've already spent over $100 to build. If you wanted to just print the PDF, you didn't even need to ask the question. Just tell people you have the digital list. The Battlefront gestapo isn't going to check for papers and have you shot.

Are Cromwells any good?

The gun and the lack of armor makes me feel a little uncomfortable about taking them.

>>48916644
>The gun
The effectively standard LW medium tank gun, give or take?
>the armour
Standard LW Medium tank?

If you're not up for Cromwells, T-34s, Shermans, and Panzer 4s aren't going to satisfy you either.

>>48916699
The AT10 just makes me a little anxious in case I run into tigers or other big cats.

>>48916758
As it should for a basic medium tank, no?

>>48916758
That's why you generally bring Fireflies of Challengers.
There's a reason the Bits added those to their tank platoons.

>>48916787
I guess. It's just not having fireflies makes me nervous.

>>48916758

Tigers really aren't that scary. Even KTs.

Just so long as Cromwells aren't the only tool in your bag. But as a Brit you have access to 17-pdrs, smoke, assault infantry, decent artillery, air support... all things which are better suited to neutralising heavy tanks.

Note that I didn't say killing; remember to play to the objectives, and don't get hung up on going for kills unless you have to.

>>48916758
You're a cromwell, smoke them then shoot them in the ass. It's why god gave you 16" movement speed.

>>48913891
People who don't have iPads have to do that. It's fine.

>>48915536
They're probably operating under the assumption that a large portion of 20-somethings and 30-somethings in North America and Europe already own a device like that.

If that's actually true, I couldn't tell you. I don't know the statistics on that.

>>48916644
Yeah, they're good. Tigers and King Tigers are a pain, but that's what your Challengers are for. Panthers have a nice and weak side armor of 5, which the cromwells can easily exploit. Similarly, the most common German mediums (Panzer IVs and StuGs) have Side 3, which means they don't even get a save if you flank them.

New thread:

>>48919371
>>48919371
>>48919371