Flames of War General /fowg/ | No we still don't have Panzertruppen

That picture is amazing. It's so recognisable as a haka that I had to google to see if it was actually from the period and not photoshopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_Battalion

Further reading

>>49634931
So what is everyone working on?

I've had my nose to the grindstone editing the next episode of Panzerfunk, in which we review the new Bulge Compilation. With a little bit more work that might be ready tonight or tomorrow.

I've also been working on finishing up my Team Yankee Soviets. I have maybe 80 points worth sprayed green and in various states of painting.

I know this is a very scrub level question but what is the value of recon?

If you don't have artillery is it useless?

>>49635707
Any good WW2 game should have recon as a vital element. Are you saying there is no recon in FoW?

So... light recon vehicles are useless?

>>49635707
>pushes back ambushes
>makes hidden troops easier to hit
>can retreat fast enough to avoid shooting
>hard to hit

>>49635743
no no, I know it has value I just don't understand it. I've only played a few games with the Open Fire! box which doesn't have any of that

>>49635744
I guess I'll have to play to understand that in play. I'm thinking of getting some dingos as a recce force but I really have no idea how to use them.

>>49635626
First model in my canadian force.
Shermans are so cute!

File: image.jpg (677KB, 2817x1812px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 2817x1812px

>>49635772
Sorry, forgot pic.
(Sorry)

>>49635626
waiting for a Bf order before i can get back into painting. starting a Finnish light infantry from grey wolf.
the wait is killing me

>>49635769
I think recce is hard to use.
Try it out.
Even better, have an opponent use it well against you.

>>49635787
> BF Plastics

The one thing they are actually getting better and better at.

>>49635900
The original Open Fire Shermans were bad. But everything else, including the StuGs in Open Fire have been quite good.

Although the stowage baskets on the M1 Abrams models for Team Yankee were a bit fiddly to assemble correctly.

>>49635769
Lifting GTG makes all your weapons better. Against veteran infantry it's the only way to do anything.

Pushing back ambushes is useful in some missions.

They're mobile and hard to kill despite this, making them a great tool to keep a threat on an objective. Hard to remove, low-value, and entirely capable of winning the game.

Also they will still mostly rape infantry that're moving. There's very few recce that don't have at least one and sometimes up to five MGs, and buckets of MG dice take nice meaty chunks out of infantry that aren't in foxholes.

File: PANZERTRUPPEN.gif (410KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 300x169px

PANZERTRUPPEN!
I WANT MY PANZERTRUPPEN PDF!

File: image.jpg (314KB, 850x1097px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 850x1097px

>>49636897
We always shout incoherently for Fegelein when we play fow.
It's very satisfying.

From the FOW Forum:
"Heard on the grapevine:

V4 is coming early/mid next year

Initially based on the new mid war North Africa super update

Lots of Team Yankee stuff incorporated into V4

Flames will not be dumbed down (supposedly)
If flames does become dumbed down whether intended or not because of changes not thought through, then BF have officially jumped the shark.

I like Team Yankee for what it is and does but I love FOW for it's elegant but straightforward complexity and the tactical thinking required to play without getting bogged down in minutiae.

I do not want to see the game go belly up because BF have not consulted widely enough and more importantly, not listened to any concerns with changes the community may/would have. Thereby, possibly fragmenting the people who play the game into those who remain V3 and those who migrate to V4 all because of possible specious rule changes.

IMO BF, if you want the community to come along with you into V4 of Flames, then be open about some of the possible changes that you want incorporated in the current V3 rules to become V4 and then may the game continue to grow and prosper for your and our sakes.

I have spent into the tens of thousands of dollars over the last 8 or 9 years since V1 on your models, terrain, buildings, books (up to 3 or 4 times on some of those continually updated ones) and digital products. And our club has strongly promoted the game without any assistance from your company, through tournaments, displays and community involvement.

I'd like to continue enjoying playing Flames into the future, so please BF I reiterate, bring the community along with you in your charge to v4."
Thoughts fow/tg/?

File: image.png (456KB, 434x612px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 434x612px

>>49638199
They'll probably not cock it up too much.

>>49638199
>Thoughts fow/tg/?
One, I don't quite believe it. Yes, V4 is most likely being worked on. I do not think it's coming "early/mid next year".
Two: it's full of "the sky is falling, our game is doomed", as all suggestions of change are among gamers.

>>49638199
>Thoughts

>"In to the tens of thousands"
That HAS to be hyperbole. Has to. Otherwise this guy has literally put Phil Yate's kids through college.

But seriously though, I don't think we're quite due for Version 4 yet, but I do think the Mid-War overhaul would be the perfect time to do it.

As for incorporating elements of the Team Yankee rules, I'm all for that.

I actually prefer Team Yankee. The rules are significantly streamlined while still remaining tactically interesting and providing a fun and challenging game to play.

FoW can be overly complex sometimes in my opinion, and some simplification, or at least clarification is always a good thing if you ask me.

As for transparency in the design process, we have no right to demand that. They're not going to satisfy everyone and we'll drive them insane if we force them to try and make everybody happy.

Trust Battlefront's rules designers, and trust their play-testers. They tend to get it right a significant portion of the time.

>>49638199

Calm your tits, broheim. V2 to V3 was fantastic.

>>49638523
>They tend to get it right a significant portion of the time.
Gonna need a cite on that.

That said, I do generally prefer a lot of TY's mechanics; it clears up a lot of FoW's jankiness. Simplifying terrain and assault positioning, in particular. That said, I'm less sure about porting a lot of other changes.

>>49638523
>That HAS to be hyperbole. Has to. Otherwise this guy has literally put Phil Yate's kids through college.
I dunno; 10 years of the game, spending $100 a month, you'd break 10k easily, and phrasing "over 10k" as "tens of thousands" is more emotive.

>>49638868
>Gonna need a cite on that.

Look at it this way, they release a major rule book and dozens of books with God knows how many army lists as part of Version 3.

And from that we really only had maybe 3 or 4 major complaints about balance issues.

Tank Destroyers, Naval Gunfire, Patton, and British Armored Regiment. Maybe toss in "What can and cannot be gun-tanked?" if you want to.

That's less than half a dozen things out of probably 100+ things that they did in V3 that needed serious fixes.

And with the exception of the still horribly unclear gun-tank requirements, those issues were fixed.

So I'm willing to say that they get a lot more right than they get wrong. And they're not afraid to fix things that they did get wrong the first time around.

>>49638776
It was not my text, I was just passing it along for the sake of information.

I think some TY elements would be great for V4..."some", not all.

>>49639332
Only three or four..? I can think of spotty balance in most armies somewhere. Sure, most of the "core" lists for most factions are okay (though US are still too good in general, the soviets didn't get a good infantry list until berlin's digital, and aside from the US nothing has panzerfaust-platoon good levels of tank-denial), but as soon as you move over to cavalry, heavy tanks, etc etc you hit problems.

>>49639496
Heavy tanks are realistically handicapped if you ask me.

They're not meant to be Death Stars. They can be out maneuvered, out numbered, and killed by far more numerous medium tanks with high-AT guns.

A King Tiger will still dominate the battlefield if you are unable to flank it, but all their armor and high AT can't make up for their slow speed and inability to put as many rounds down range as a similarly priced platoon of Shermans with 76mm guns.

>>49639595
Sure, but some heavy tank lists work (CT and RT King Tigers/JTs, IS-85s), and all the others don't. And this doesn't address motor infantry, cavalry, heroes in general... There's a lot of lists that're a straight-up handicap choice.

>>49639880
I'm not entirely sure that full Heavy Tank lists are supposed to be playable.

And I know that's not what you want to hear, but hear me out.

Flames of war is meant to be a Combined Arms game. Where good use of infantry, tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft, recon, etc used together is supposed to help you win.

Full compani s of Heavy Tanks have to sacrifice a lot of those highly useful support options due to their understandably high points costs for their thick armor and good gun.

This, more than their speed or their low numbers and high points cost, is what makes Heavy Tank lists difficult to play.

It's also why I tend to say a single platoon of no more than 2 or 3 Heavy Tanks are best utilized as an armored anvil in an infantry list.

I'm fine with making full heavy tank lists nonviable, but it should be easier to find a list with one or two of them. In other words, more of those lists with only one compulsory slot, or with some other choices in the second one.

I'm also not sure there's any point to providing points values for taking 4 King Tigers in each slot. Are 20,000pt games a thing?

>>49640508
>Are 20,000pt games a thing?

God, no. 2,000 point games are barely a thing.

Most games are played at 1500 to 1750, give or take maybe another 100 points in either direction.

>>49640206
It's not good game design to present lists that look entirely reasonable but are actually unplayable. Mid war monsters and support companies are in the game too and are explicitly noted as being goofy nonsense that you shouldn't try and win with.

>>49635934
What was wrong with the shermans? How can I tell I'm buying the 2015 edition that isn't shit?

Also which armies do well/keep showing up on the competitive side brehs?

>>49640938
If you want to be The Best, just play late Americans. Even post nerfs they're probably the strongest army.

That said, all of the big four have reasonable lists if you stick to their core options (that is, armour or infantry; soviet mechanised doesn't really exist and british motor is terrible and lorried is just rifles with worse transports and no night attack).

I'm a new player looking for some advice on first purchases. After playing my first FOW game with someone else's army I'm pretty much sold on the game and after some thought I've decided to go with Russians.

The people I've talked to and advice around the internet seems to point toward armor lists for a first timer. I assume to keep things somewhat simpler and keep costs down.

If I'm looking to run some Russian tankovy lists, would the PSC Russian box with 21 t-34s and 5 t-70s and maybe a AT gun platoon and heavy mortar platoon be a passable first list? Or should I start small and grab one BF box of tanks from flgs to start?

Also any good Russian green spray cans out there?

>>49641240
The Soviets are a little trickier to get in on than most armies, both because their playstyle is different and also because they need fuckloads of vehicles and infantry. Really be sure you want to play them, or you'll get fed up halfway through painting the list (don't feel the need to stick to flat green, though, the Soviets did use camo and had a huge variety of styles).

T-34s are the mainstay of soviet armour through mid and late war. The PSC box (and battlefront's plastics) make both T-34/76s and T-34/85s, so you're covered for either there, though PSC have no cupolas. Going for 8-tank 1:1 76/85 tank companies was my first list and it's not bad, though it has weaknesses that definitely show up. You do really want some artillery, and for soviets mortars will do fine to start out. You will also want recce; this is even less negotiable than for most armies because of the soviet hen-and-chicks penalty.

Also, and I hesitate to say this because they're not good lists, do remember Heroes exist, if you just need to get stuff on a table to learn the game. I wouldn't aim for them, but if you just need to roll some dice to grok assault (you probably will), you might as well.

>>49636897

guys, i will have PanzerTruppen in 2 hours.

call me on it.

>>49641364
Thanks for the suggestions. Currently the only other army I'm thinking about starting with would be an American mechanized platoon. Which I feel might involve similar levels of painting, luckily I enjoy the hobby side of things so I'm not too worried about burn out.

The group I'm playing with seems to play a mix of all periods with mostly combined arms lists, so I'm not exactly focusing on trying to play the best tournament list.

Where should I look for a Soviet heroes list if I want to start small?

>>49641759
>seems to play a mix of all periods
T-34s are ideal, then, since they're in every period of the war. Though EW T-34s are a very different animal, since they're basically a heavy tank there instead of the medium they are in mid/late.

>>49641759
Protip: BFs T-34 kit is way better than the competitors.
t. SovPlayer

>>49642064
Agreed, as another Soviet player.
Bought a whole bunch of PSC T-34s, am now seriously considering replacing them with Battlefront ones for mainline service, keeping this for potential megabattles.

The Battlefront ones aren't that much more expensive and have much better details. They also come with optional 57mm barrels for the /76 turret, in case you wanna field some of those in Mid War and some more options.

>>49642064
I'm definitely trying to strike a balance between cost and quality, don't want to overpay but I also don't want to push around garbage sculpts/kits.

Anything specific about other kits you've tried, especially the more affordable options, that leaves them lacking?

>>49642064
>>49642195

Any things to avoid as new Soviet player? Trap options or rookie mistakes to watch out for?

Also how do you work around hen and chicks+ limited vision, seems like it'll be a pain to fight with especially against vets in concealment.

>>49642355
The combo basically means you don't expect to hit much on any turn you move.
In exchange, it makes tanks deliciously cheap.

Plan your tactics accordingly, making proper use of available terrain.
You can drive up to a proper position (if you're lucky, you can maybe hit something on sixes if you shoot afterwards) where you can concentrate a lot of force onto a portion of the enemy army and give the opposition two choices:

Option one:
Stay there, try removing some of those tanks (don't do this in front of a position where they can remove lots of tanks) then try to take the return fire. Maybe move some supporting assets into positions to also remove tank.
If you picked a proper spot, any supporting assets will have exposed themselves (maybe to your supporting elements) so they could take their extra shots and your tanks can sit there and open up to devastating effect.

Option two:
Move away to a safer spot, relinquishing that ground.
In this case, you move up to take advantage of the relinquished ground and try to repeat the trick.

>>49642563
>(don't do this in front of a position where they can remove lots of tanks)
Or in front of a position where they can easily smoke the entire company and ignore them for a turn.

Overall this tactic works best with two units, one that's advancing while another is providing fire. This is true for other forces, yes, but it's even more important for the soviets with H&C in play.

>>49642232
For early war T-34s, the ones with better-looking turrets (imo), Zvezda might be worth it. obr 1941, is it? Mediocre, shallow detail, but it's a bigger price difference. Battlefront sells their early war T-34s in packs of three (plastic + resin + metal) so the unit cost is higher, and Zvezda is particularly cheap.

For the mid and late war models it's Battlefront vs. The Plastic Soldier Company, and they aren't priced as far apart. The PSC models are cheaper, but the T-34 is one of their older kits so it's not as good. The tracks were annoying. I think they started including one-piece tracks, but the BF model still feels nicer. It'd be even better if not for the mold lines through the fuel tanks.

File: Das Panzer Truppen.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

...and i forgot to scan cards.

it's a short book. less than 12, truly. afghansty at least had full back up images...

photo's of cards shortly

>>49642563
>>49642807
>>49642866
Thanks for all the advice guys, I'm thinking I'll just buy a box or two of Soviet armor at my FLGS get them painted and try some small games with them.

I'm quite okay with taking losses from my men and I love the Soviet tanks so I think I'll have fun with them, even if some of their special rules seem a little harsh.

File: DSCN6709.jpg (2MB, 2000x1557px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1557px

>>49643350
cards 1

File: DSCN6710.jpg (2MB, 2000x1563px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1563px

>>49643350
cards 2

all in the book anyway, and books are how i roll....

>>49643402
Main thing to remember with those special rules: Hen and Chicks is making your '34s cost about 2/3rds as much as the equivalent Sherman, while having broadly similar performance. It's a harsh rule, but the discount is significant. Brits get a similar magnitude discount with their Sherman Crabs in the Breaching Group, but those can't assault, ever, which is arguably harsher than H&C is.

>>49643647
Which is odd because you'd think a spinning wall of huge metal flails would be excellent at assaulting.

>>49644190
Something something, Geneva Convention, something something...

>>49644350
> Letting some convention get in the way of performing "Will it Blend: Panzergrenadiers"
For shame.

File: 1442527616771.png (2MB, 1584x1057px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1584x1057px

so, anyone notice we DO have PanzerTruppen now for Team Yankee?
it's slim

File: image.jpg (413KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1080x1080px

>>49642232
>How to into buy soviets (late war)

BF is best but also for expensive (capitalism!)

From PSC
>T-70 very cute
>IS-2/85 big but probably not so good. Still. Big!
>45mm guns
>zis2/3 (Stalin approved AT guns)
>soviet infantry (shallow details and boring poses. Only buy if you are super cheap! Being cheap is party approved!)
>infantry heavy weapons (cheap med mortars, hvy mortars, ptrd guns, maksim hmg and decorative light mortars. Za rodina!)

From glorious zvezda
>katyusha (assembling the BF katy will ruin sanity and economy)
>Kv1 (two different models!)
>SU-152 (kinda unneccessary. But big!)

From BF
>everything else
>the plastics are especially nice

All glory to the motherland comrade!

>>49643402
Good call on starting small.

I bought a bunch of shit at first and realized I wanted to build armor first, so I had to go back and buy more. That said here are some kits that may be interesting to you for the future in order of importance.

1) PSC Russian Heavy Weapons: a beautiful kit that gives you heavy mortars (these are very good), medium and light mortars (less often used), AT rifles (8 of them!), and Maxim HMG teams.

2) PSC AT guns: there is a Zis-2/3 kit and a 45 mm kit. Both kits look great. If you want to run Guards Reserve artilley battery, you need Zis-3s, but the Zis-2s are more useful.

3) Panzergrenadier box w/ halftracks: I know what you are thinking. That's a german platoon! Well you can also build them and play them as spetsnaz, a really useful recon platoon.

Hopefully that will get you started. Soviets have a lot of good support options that can work well with your T-34s.

>>49644930
>examine that pic for 15s without managing to identify the tank
>...
>I need to go to sleep

>>49643350
>>49644930
Thanks Bartosz. I picked up my copy at the FLGS. A few things stand out to me.

1) New formation tree for Panzergrenadier Brigade 1. You can bring Leopard 2s as Divisonal support to any of your lists.

2) M113 Panzergrenadier Zugs get to bring 3 Milans for the same price(wish they would have decided this before only putting 2 in the blister). This seems well worth trading in the Marders.

3) The Fuchs Aufklärungs company gives any german force the opportunity to put more infantry on the board (and spam more Luchs.

All in all, I am super pleased as I feel like this gives the West Germans even more options than they had before. It should hopefully give a little buff to their infantry.

File: Leopard_1A5A1_2.jpg (241KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1067px

>>49645264
C3K, no problem.

i liked that too, and i had to look twice when Marders and M113's were the same fucking points. not right! well, +1 Milan per formation is way better. i feel these old guards will be able to hold for longer....

i am sad LeoJr's only get Jag'2's....i wanted armored Forward Defense Milans....

also, 13 Leo1's per formation...for 39pt. minimum, so, you can easily bring 26 Leo1's in a 100pt. game, and have good support

i'm doing it.

right now, i'll be running Leo2's with my force, since i don't have all those Leo1's yet....but that's ok...it will happen one day.

>>49643350
A GOD AMONG MEN!!!


>M113 cost the same as Marders
FUCKING BF ARE YOU KIDDING ME!

>>49646150
You get an extra Milan in exchange.

>>49646150
>Marders v. M113

it comes from the fact that they get +1 stand of Milans.
this is actually a good thing, if you play defensive infantry
so, you have more bodies, but also an additional shot at Tanks...

honestly i still think Marders are better just because of all the things you can do with a Marder, plus they look hellacool.

however, if you want infantry in Bundesweher, this M113 list is now a solid route

>>49646305
WOOOP DIE FUCKING DOO!

You still lose three autocannons and the speed of a Marder.

>Editing Panzerfunk
>Spending forever boosting the audio of Bartosz's answer to one of the questions in Act 3.

Bartosz, you need a *much* better microphone.

Seriously.

>>49646382
Maybe if you are attacking. If you are defending I will take the extra milan every time.

>>49650879
Yeah, on the defensive, anti-tank missiles are probably more useful.

Although I'll admit to not having done all the math on that.

>>49653584
>comrade, have you been hit by a driver of the uninsurings?

>>49653584
>It's just a little BuMP. It'll buff right out.

>>49647393
>Panzerfunk

Almost finished Eagles?

>>49653584
"Hehehehe T-72-kun, stop ... Hihihihi T-72-kun, what are you doing? Thats a long barrel! Ahhhhh T-72-kun, aaahhhhh"

File: valentine-mod-8.jpg (139KB, 928x643px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 928x643px

>>49641240
WALL TO WALL VALENTINES. Your opponent will stair in awe as you line up hub to hub across 4 feet of board.

>>49654822
>Almost finished Eagles?

I'll be working on it for the next hour or so before I have to run out tonight.

Hopefully that'll be enough to finish it.

>>49634931
>Ouchies is putting up FOW videos again

yessssssss

>>49640508
There was a store in Lexington that did 4-5k point games on the regular a few years ago, I remember I'd come in and just see this sea of big cats and Soviet heavy tanks slugging it out with a reasonable amount of basic support like infantry/arty/etc. It looked like a regular tank vs tank game if you replaced a T34 battalion and a Panzer IV companies with their respective heavies.

Not sure if they still do that though.

>>49656692
I'll be getting proper internet again soon so I should be able to start joining in from my new bachelor pad. If you need help editing with stuff in the future I'd be happy to help once I have home internet on the 14th.

>>49657005
Wait what?
He is?!

>>49657277
It's not difficult to do, just time consuming.

Especially when I'm trying to both boost audio volume and eliminate pops, clicks, and fuzz in the audio to the best of my ability, and not always succeeding in being able to scrub it all out.

As for joining us for recording, awesome. I'll be trying to schedule another episode recording session soon to review Iron Maiden, and possibly Panzertruppen as well. Keep your eyes out for an email in the next few days.

Also, the current episode I've been editing just needs to undergo conversion to an MP3, and then I can get it posted. I'll work on that either after I get home later tonight or tomorrow after work.

I'm grabbing the EW heavy weapons for the mortars, MG34s and 7.5cm infantry guns. It also comes with some PaK36s. Is there any use of these in late war? I had assumed that maybe some of the shitty tank lists used them, but nope, even the crappy normandy reserves are 5cm.

>>49657868
The Finland reserves Digital and Security Forces in Poland from Grey Wolf have them.

Plastic pumas when?

>>49658688
Official release soon.

Actually available in real life in March.

Did they ever redo the plastic shermans in the open fire box, or are new players still stuck with the hell-plastics?

>>49659227
Redone yes. Newer ones go together apparently.

>>49657370
hell yeah brochowski check YouTube and see

>>49657868
Hungarians use them, and I believe lists like Berlin would have access to some variant. Grey Wolf should have them as well, given damn near everything was used as long as humanly possible on the western front.

>>49657108
Last thing we put on was the MW Kursk scenario. That was mainly allowing enough points for the Germans to bring Panthers, Tigers, and Elephants. Didn't have KV-1s to give the Soviets.There is going to be a big Kampfgruppe Peiper scenario in December though.

>>49659679
what day, I may be able to join in on that one

>>49659719
Still TBD but I will let you know.

File: tmp_5409-1475657140725-1081859409.jpg (148KB, 500x800px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 500x800px

Any of you fuckers in Japan?
dying for a game here.

File: panzerfunk camo logo.jpg (323KB, 936x817px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 936x817px

The new episode of Panzerfunk is online!

http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-16-the-battered-bastards-of-bastogne/

In this Episode the Funkmeisters cover:

- Recent Hobby Activities.

- "Monty saves the day?" - A review of "The Battle of the Bulge", the American and British half of the new Bulge compilation set.

- "Germans in disguise!" - A review of "The Ardennes Offensive", the German half of the new Bulge compilation set.

- Ask The Funkmeisters - Questions from YOU, our listening audience about starting Italians, playing Japanese in a Late War tournament, and much more!

File: tmp_17039-IMG_20161005_2209261051669591458.jpg (3MB, 2432x4320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2432x4320px

This is a front armor shot.

>>49661508
Um... No.

By my eye that would be an obscured side armor shot.

The Panzer IV is just past the imaginary line that goes across the front of that StuG.

>>49661589
Line of sight for tanks is drawn from the gun's mounting point. The front of the hull was past the StuG's front, but the gun itself was in front.

>>49661023
>http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-16-the-battered-bastards-of-bastogne/
Scorn! I wanted it to be called something like "Beat the Hun and be back for tea and biscuits" edition!

File: IMAG0001_BURST001.jpg (2MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1520px

Also I finished my King Tiger for the tournament, filling out to a even six King Tigers, two of which are mine, four of which aren't.

>>49661950
Yeah, but line of sight to the front of the StuG looks like it is blocked by the building being in the way.

And no line of sight would mean no shot at all.

>>49661508
Did your unpainted Stug atleast get concealment for being the same color as the road?

>>49662038

Mostly looks smart, but loses points for not drilling out the muzzle brake.

>>49662897
Physically can't. Don't have a drill mate.

>>49662936
>not owning a pin vice

what is this, babbys first hobby project?

>>49659325
>>49659227
Current version of Open Fire actually has the proper Sherman/Firefly sprue you also get in the platoon box.

>>49662038
Looks pretty good!

Using it in your King Tigers and Volksturm list?

>>49661508
looks like an ineffective facing system in FoW to me.

Assuming its the Pz.IV shooting at the StuG, its clearly a side shot, probably going to hit the side - rear area. quite vulnerable. some minor cover, but the StuG still only has about 30mm side armor. a 75mm from a Pz.IV at that range would annihilate the StuG if it hit, which would be a very easy shot provided neither is moving.

File: King Tigers and Volkssturm oh my.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49665011
Thanks mate.
King Tiger Smack Hammer goes into action this weekend. I've stress tested this list a bunch of times, and I know how to work it now. Important rules learned, placements worked out, I even got in the laser for determining frontal arcs.

The Game plan mostly is to wait out the turn counter because in most defensive missions the defender wins if the attacker can't get over the line or close to the objective. The Volkssturm form such an effective wall that I'm reasonably confident that nothing will get through. I've seen the majority of the lists that people are using (They sent them all out as part of the player packs, we were all entered before hand of course.) and there's not a whole lot that can stop me. There's no one bringing Commandos, Naval Gunfire, or such a depths of Artillery park as to pose a significant threat. Now to just not get outflanked.

>>49662075
Just a situation that happened at the local game night that I found amusing and also annoying. I've got (halfway painted) Cromwells and a few WiP Churchills, only thing of mine in that pic is the buildings, roads, and the big die in the tower.

>>49665773
Considering the pic says "TMP", I kinda assumed it was a ligitamate, if trollish, complaint about the game.

TMP, The Miniatures Page, has a legitimate hate-on for Flames of War.

>>49666133
Oh, no, that's just part of the automatic naming my phone does. Normally I get home and resize/rename pics first, but that one I wanted to share early since it's a silly edge case on the otherwise fairly reasonable (for the scale and speed of play) FoW arc rules.

>>49666133
They're just a bunch of grumpy old grognards that act as if we're all playing Warhammer 1942 instead of "real" war games.

>>49666133
I've frequented the TMP fow section for two years now and I've no idea what you are talking about.

>>49668181
They have a FoW s now?

That must be new.

Perhaps it's just a small handful of people, but most of the posts I used to see there involving FoW and Battlefront had a very dismissive and derisive attitude.

Like Flames of War was something to be disdained when compared to other WWII miniatures games and other historical miniatures games in general.

The attitude was that FoW is too big, to popular, and too mass-market.

"Damn kids, get off my lawn!" For lack of a better way to put it.

>>49665106
Best of luck. I look forward to hearing your post-tournament report.

>>49668324
Well not on their fow board is what I'm saying. And that board is at least 5 years old.

>>49661508
Sorry, who's shooting at who?

>>49670502
Panzer IV at the StuG on the town road. The gun mount for the Panzer is like half an inch in front of the line across the front of the StuG.

>>49661508
If you're playing TANKS (which appears to be the case), that's a side shot with the target benefitting from cover.

The front-right corner of the Pz. IV is behind the line drawn by the front of the StuG, so it's a side shot. But the Pz. IV only has line of sight to two corners of the StuG's hull, not three, so it's in cover.

>>49671377
Nope, Tank Aces campaign.

>>49659959
No, this is your punishment for chasing exotic vagina

>>49663629
>socialist country's players can't own nice things....

>all those taxes, 'free health care'

>>49672442
Actually it's because whenever I personally have cash I weigh up "More tools" or "More Toys." and toys always wins over tools.

That and the only ones I could ever find were Geedubs's rip off one.

>>49672510
For some men tools are also toys.

>>49672510
GWs pin vise is dildos and will give you RSI for sure and you'll die of old age before you drill 5mm into pewter

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Semi-Automatic-Precision-Adjustable-10%C2%A0Spiral-Diameter/dp/B01JO70YCS/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1475794022&sr=8-11&keywords=pin+vise

Try this one if you can spare some dosh (only 2 takeaways worth 2bh) its just like jacking off a tiny robot and it leaves a comfy hole.

>>49672683
>its just like jacking off a tiny robot and it leaves a comfy hole.
Why is it always sexualised robots around here?
Also Amazon are dicks and won't deliver to me.

>>49672683
>Try this one if you can spare some dosh (only 2 takeaways worth 2bh)
Is this even English?

And how does this vise work, does it convert in-out motion into rotation? Sounds good for objects you can grip in a vise, but I'm not sure I'd use it to drill out a muzzle brake.

>>49673331
Two takeaways = two meals "to go" or two orders of take out. I only know this because I recently spent a week in Potatoland.

Virus, how did your midwar tourney go? I want to know more about the T-26 swarm.

File: 20161006_205110.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

Hi did I do ok?

>>49674083
It looks like shit.
And by that I mean it looks great.
Nice work

>>49674083
Looks good! That scheme's always a lot of work. A dust-colored drybrush would help pull it all together if you want.

I assume that's brown and not red-brown primer on the gun barrel. Gun barrels and other high-temperature parts got a special primer that was more like a glossy dark gray or black instead of the usual red-brown.

>>49674153
I was considering an overall drybrush, yea. And it's just straight brown, wasn't sure if I should do camo dots on it. Thanks for the info about the primer, that's good to know.

>>49666133
I mean if >>49661508 is a front hit in FoW I can understand the hate-on. That's a pretty unrealistic way to handle facings. Things can still be realistic and simple without become simulationist and complicated. Even 40K handles armor facings better than that :^)

>>49674570
It's been decades(yes literally, 20 years probably) since I've played 40K.

How does 40K handle armor facing?

My father tells me that FoW is being overtaken by Bolt Action.

Is this true?

>>49674570
Eh, it's one of those edge occasions that occur in most rule systems. The tradeoff is that it's very clear if you have front or side shots (which I much prefer). Just see it as the price to keep the rulebook small-isch.

>>49675936
Draw line two lines from opposite corners of the tank and extrapolate, you hit the facing that occupies the same segment of the x as the firerer

>>49677189
Meaning the shape of the fucking tank is super important, and another fucking advantage to the fucking SMurfs with their metal square boxes. Remind me why anyone plays that piece of shit again?

>>49677300
Because it's popular. And it's popular because people play it. This is unfortunately circular.

I refuse to believe that anyone actually likes the garbage that is the lore enough to put up with the shitass gameplay, and it CERTAINLY isn't because GW is a good company.

>>49674049
Finished 9th overall. Outswarmed by Soviet Tank Regiment with two combat battalions totaling 56 goddamned T-26s. AT guns did really well, so did armoured cars. Am currently in the world's most Average motel in the world waiting for another tournament in a rather shite part of the country.

>>49677336
I think a better term would be Stockholm syndrome

I should know, I own probably over $1500 of models, and order from Victoria Lamb on the regular, the only good thing besides AC/DC to come out of upside downland, lair of the killer spiders that can bite through leather.

The best comparisons for the lore is the old Star war EU. There's a lot of crap, but damn if the few good bits really stand out, and with such a huge setting you have a lot of room to improvise. That and it's usually the gateway drug to wargaming. If I can get these people used to wargaming, I can keep dropping historical info with my lovingly converted IG army and warm them up to FoW over time.

Also Kill team is a stupid amount of fun, I don't care what anyone says. No formations, no pysker bullshit, no superheavies, just 200pts mano e mano stuff where a tac marine can be more than just a friggin wound counter. And since trying to get historicals going here is like trying to convince the weather to change by yelling at clouds, I've been taking what I can get.

Also Jesus Christ every time I play it in the store another person buys in. I'm not sure if I just look like a fun opponent or people love my super kitted out IG, but I swear it's snowballing and I can't get it to stop. I can't get people in historicals if I held a gun to their heads but I'll show up with a few guardsmen and Lamenters and you'd think I was Leonardo da goddammnvinchi from the way they talk.


Now, thats not saying GW is good at rules (theyre not) or that it's fairly priced (its still not) but many gamers get in through it now, and usually thats how new blood comes in historical games by proxy. I mean, thats how I got started. I didn't even really know historicals was a thing until I ran into guys playing on a Sunday when I showed up for 40k. Especially IG players. The moment they hear how a lot of the army is based on WWII, theyre hooked.

/offtopic

>Captcha: Stop old

You can't stop me

>>49674083
Learn how to paint, get better brushes, thin your paints, read up on washes/shading, try again.

I was at my FLGS and saw them sell a weathering spray. What does that do/does it look good?

I don't do weathering effects myself because I'm not much of a painter but there is appeal in something that adds a little extra something to my tanks.

>>49678431
How would that even work?

Stay away from such crap.

>>49678581
http://www.thecombatcompany.com/hobby/paint-and-paint-sets/plastic-soldier-war-sprays/weathering-spray-dirt-brown/

This is the product. Dunno how it would work.

>>49678740
Thats not how weathering works.

>>49674570
Most systems have a weird point where the angle fired from looks janky.

>>49676998
Completely different games. Bolt Action focuses on platoon level (mostly infantry with a tank or two) combat. Flames of War is focused on company level combat with the ability to bring a lot of vehicles. Bolt action is gaining popularity, but I don't think its hurting flames.

I just bought the Bolt Action starter set during a sale at my FLGS. Haven't put anything together on it, and honestly I much prefer 15mm. Figured it could be a lot of fun for some house to house fighting.

>>49677642

I am still not sure how someone even has 50+ T-26. Good luck at the LW tourney.

>>49677054
Seems like a pretty flawed system to start with. having to cross the front line of a tank to target the side... it may be simple and work well for tiny 6mm tanks or something where its hard to work out exact facings, but at FoW scale should be easy enough to work out using a proper system like the corner to corner of the chassis, or creating an X on the centre of the vehicle, with each line 45 degrees apart and having a front facing cover the front, side cover the side, and rear facing cover the rear.

It would probably take the same or less rules that there currently are (which is only half a page in the V3 rules I have - and most of that is an image)

Also the fact that rear armor is never counted seems very odd. Many tanks had different rear armors to their side armor. Pz.III for example famously had the same thickness to the rear as to the front, only the sides were weaker. This was to do with their doctrine - I forget the specifics but something to do with being able to drive away from the enemy and still have thick armor showing.

Other tanks like the churchill had much thinner armor to the rear than they did to the side. Neglecting the difference between side and rear, and having a system that calls >>49661508 a front armor shot just seems very flawed to my eyes. Its clearly a side shot, and rear armors often have huge differences to the side armors - differences that were often taken advantage of in real life.

I guess its fine to reduce rules bloat, and considering the rules are already 230 pages, there isn't much room for more detail, but these basic flaws seem unforgivable to me, considering so much of WW2 armored combat was angles and taking advantage of flanking maneuvers.

The corner to corner system works pretty well - yes its dependent on the shape of the vehicle, but so is the armor facing in real life. A long thin panther has very large side facings that need to be protected or kept out of sight.

>>49679231
Corner-to-corner isn't accurate either and is really fuzzy. You need to be some distance from a tank's front before you're getting a "side" shot, since if the tank's in a diamond the armour's at it's strongest. When you consider that FoW's ground scale is far above it's model scale then it's not such a big deal; consider that RoF 2 represents a burst of shots, so it's probably more accurate to think of the armour face as how practical it is to bring the armour to bear in the time they're being fired at.

The side and rear armour thing also barely ever comes up, and a hell of a lot of tanks have similar rear and side armour, including most of the mainstays. T-34's 55/64, Panther's 50/45, Sherman's 38 all around. Even the Churchill's only 50/60, which probably won't change it's armour rating. It's more unusual for the side/rear difference to be significant.

Corners to corners, conversely, is a terrible system, and would lead to tanks like the Churchill getting a hull-mounted-like arc of armour, again, often where the vehicle's armour is strongest.

>>49679394
I've found corner to corner to be very accurate and gives realistic outcomes. Its very simple too.

Side vs Rear armor doesn't matter for many vehicles like T-34s, shermans, panthers, but matters a lot for many other vehicles. Not sure what kind of Churchill you're looking at but most of them had 80mm to the side and only 50mm to the rear, which is a huge difference. later on it was 95mm to the sides and still 50mm to the rear. Differences like this are life and death in WW2 where, for example a german KwK 38 with PzGn 39 ammunition could only penetrate 60mm 100m. It would mean it could penetrate the rear of a churchill easily, but not the side or front.

Similar examples of side and rear armor being very different would be: IS-1, IS-2, KV-1, ISU-122, Pershing, Sherman Jumbo, Chaffee, some later Pz.IV variants, and most notably everything based on the Panzer III chasis, which is a significant chunk of German armor.

I mean, you guys are all used to the system and it "works" but as someone who has played a few other WW2 systems, this seems like a glaring hole that will not give realistic outcomes. realism and complexity dont have to go hand and hand, you can easily have acceptable degrees of realism with simple rules.

>>49679601
I should specify 5cm KwK 38. derp. that makes a big difference

>>49679231

Having played other games where they do what you suggest (to one degree or another).... No.

Keep in mind that the 180 degree facing stuff is all abstraction. Its not like a Tanker would sit there and watch an enemy tank drive around and get a good angle on him, but if you take what you are doing on the table literally then that is what is happening.

So they abstract it, that you have to get past the "180" represents that the other tank maneuvering against your tanks to keep them from being flanked.

Since this is a IGYG system its just abstracted and you don't actually have to move the tank around.

>>49671675
HEY! exotic vagina chased me!

Anyway i know there is at least one other dude from fow who is in Japan.

show yourself other filthy gaijin.

http://www.team-yankee.com
>Iron Maiden Launch Weekend
>The British Are Coming!

Damn it Battlefront, you should know better.

I get it, you're making a Paul Revere reference.

But at the time of the American Revolution, many American Colonists would have still considered themselves to be British.

What Revere probably was shouting on his famous midnight ride would likely have been "The Redcoats are coming!"

Rifle HQ 55
2 section Bar Platoon + 2 Amtracs 245
2 section Bar Platoon + 2 Amtracs 245
2 section Bar Platoon + 2 Amtracs 245
Full Company MG Platoon 150
Full Mortar Platoon 125
Full Assault Section 160

Machine guns get attached to the infantry platoons, same as the assault sections.

Pls rate, comment and subscribe.

>>49679601
Yeah, but the chances of it being actually relevant are pretty slim, the chances of it making a big difference to the shot is pretty slim, and on the whole, it's more bookkeeping, that adds very little to the actual game. FoW is based in many ways on having elegant, minimal ruleset without the autism that tends to cripple a lot of historical rulesets. And particularly when you consider the variability of each shot anyway, the ranges involved, and stuff like angling.

The outcome it gives is 95% of the time going to be fine.

>>49680024
Pacific Era points, I assume?
How are the marines tank assault?

>>49680244
>minimal ruleset
>230+ pages
You'd think somewhere in there they would get armor right. It makes a pretty big difference, the difference between being able to destroy an enemy vehicle and not, which is a large part of WW2 gaming (and history) many stories of tanks having to point blank shoot other tanks in the rear facing to take them out. Something like a Pz. IV vs a Churchill or a KV-1, the Pz.IV would have very little chance unless it was either very close to the side, or firing at the rear facing.

Lional Tarr's WW2 rules from the late 50s cover everything FoW does in 5 pages, and even his rules distinguish between firing at the side or the rear of a vehicle.

>>49680438
Have you considered that you might be autistic? This is a game that simplifies front and turret armor into one statline, combining side and rear is relatively minor in comparison.

>>49680438
>230 pages
FoW is pretty padded out as far as examples and pictures are concerned. I've had a few newbies speak very highly of the rulebook for that. And that should tell you of the challenge of making good WW2 rules that need to deal with such a spectrum of situations.
>get armour right
They did. They didn't make it a perfect simulation, but that's not a very important goal at the best of times for tabletop games. They don't have different AT values for each inch of separation, after all.
>many stories
Memes, you mean. And they tend to turn up in the game as it stands. Close range side shots for Shermans against Tigers, for instance.
>firing at the rear facing
At this scale, and with this level of positional abstraction? Needless complexity and measuring time, for no real practical gain.
>even in 5 pages
Rear armour seems like a common sense addition, but it isn't. Strange that he'd pad out a system so obviously emphasised on cutting the system to the bone.

File: L-TARR.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49680765
>Strange that he'd pad out a system so obviously emphasised on cutting the system to the bone.
5 words isn't really much of a "padding out"

Here's the rule set if you're interested. It has pretty much everything, but its functional and the guy used it to re-fight the entire eastern front over a series of 10 years.

I guess I just haven't been indoctrinated to the FoW way of life, so I see the glaring holes that could easily be rectified, like >>49661508 being a front shot.

Rear armor is a minor thing I could live without, but having accurate armor facings isn't very hard to implement. Its not going to change, I understand that, I'm just poking fun.

>>49680882
>It matters for stuff like the Panzer III!
>System is a flat -2 for side, -3 for rear
Real accurate system you got there.

File: Example game lists.png (9KB, 205x485px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 205x485px

>>49681094
Ah I dont use the Tarr rules, its just an example of how little is needed to implement a difference between side and rear attacks.

The system I use (Ostfront) has separate front, side and rear armor for every vehicle, and distinguishes between hull and turret, as well as different types of turret. Some specific tanks even have custom turrets, like the Sherman or Panthers heavy gun mantlets to the front of their turrets, or some soviet turrets being weaker to the rear (like the KV-1 and the turret-rear MG making it not-as-heavy to the rear).
All this is done in a simple way, and the main rules are only ~20 pages, with pictures.

We had some ex FoW players staying the other weekend and we did an example ostfront game for them, and they were surprised by how fast paced it was. A game with the pic related army lists only took an hour to get through 8 turns and finish. Not sure how that compares to FoW but these guys were suitably impressed and decided to take up WW2 wargaming again, using their FoW minis, but with the ostfront rules.

>>49680882
Well there's your problem. Most of an anti tank attack is based on the 3d6. The actual weapon is only a part of the attack, and the defence values are huge enough that the tiny adjustment rear attacks make is possible. It also doesn't account much for the different degrees of side and rear weakness, it's always 2 and 3 points.

>glaring holes
Any system is going to have odd parts. Calm your tits. In this case, it's a very acceptable break for quick, clean gameplay. And as I said earlier, obviously any miniature game is going to have a degree of abstraction for positioning and place hit. Most of the time, facing, angle, and the driver shifting position is going to smooth out the bumps.
"Glaring Holes" is at best hyperbole, and at worst meaningless pedantry.

Although that would describe a lot of historical gamers pretty accurately.

>>49681446
>Ah I dont use the Tarr rules, its just an example of how little is needed to implement a difference between side and rear attacks.
The BF system could near effortlessly implement rear armour. There's already 3 armour values for each tank, throwing in a 4th wouldn't mean much. But it wouldn't add much either, it'd complicate the LOF system, and it'd mean more bookkeeping.

>>49681446
Looks like a bit of a dogs breakfast of a list. Is that a single Panther, and a single Pak40?

>>49681553
yep single of each. List building is freeform in ostfront, the only limitations are air support and preliminary bombardments, and those limitations are only there so that you actually have to field something on the table (both being off-map support). Games are objective based too and things like light vehicles and field guns dont capture objectives, so it promotes balanced lists. Field guns for support, light vehicles for recon, and tanks, SPGs and Infantry for actually taking objectives.

>>49681538
3 armour values for each tank - why wouldn't these be front - side - rear? what other armor are they representing that is more important that the rear armor?
I understand the system works, and no need to overcomplicate, especially if the system is already quite complicated. It is always interesting to see how other systems handle things like armor and facings. The more I look into FoW the less I'm convinced by it though.

>>49681675
Well, as earlier mentioned, the difference between side and rear, and the average relevance, is pretty minimal. And only using front and side means the arc system can be very simple. The third value is TOP armour. This gives a bit of depth to things like close assaults (as close assault hits from infantry hit top armour), air attacks, bombardment, and selectively armoured vehicles like American TDs, halftracks, recon vehicles, etc. It's also useful in areas like commander mounted MGs, and the effects of things like flamethrowers.

>>49681811
To clarify, top armour values tend to be quite small in terms of total armour, but most of the time attacks that specifically target top armour can use their own AT values (aircraft dropped bombs, for instance, or artillery). Open topped vehicles tend to have 0, regular vehicles tend to have 1, and heavy tanks tend to have 2.

The default infantry anti-tank value (that is to say, tank assault) is 2. So infantry are quite capable of causing problems for halftracks close up, but they will find it very difficult to knock out a KV-1 or Matilda from close up. This is how you represent teams with say, sticky bombs, or Finnish close defence teams. They don't shoot any better, but they have an improved tank assault rating. It also means you can wiggle the figures a bit for things like Panzershrek, Panzerfaust and Panzerknackers. Their shooting and tank assault values vary as appropriate, and because their close assault performance once combat has been joined is using a different stat, you have comparatively more wiggle room to represent them.

File: image.jpg (189KB, 800x1098px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 800x1098px

Haha who cares neerrrds

>>49679601
No, corner to corner gives very unrealistic outcomes if your tank isn't a square.

Also the Churchill III is 65 side, 50 rear. KV-1 is side 60, rear 75. IS's 90 side (100 near the front) and 60@50* to the back which is more or less also 90. Pershing and Jumbo are the only ones where there's a significant difference; the Chaffee is paper all over to LW guns.

It's really not that big a deal. This isn't a 1:1 ground scale 56mm game where we're looking for individual bullet holes. The game's an abstraction that's representing short firefights, nobody is meant to be sitting exactly still while they shoot or get shot.

>>49680244
>elegant, minimal ruleset
I agree that the tank armour is the best way to do it but "elegant and minimal" FoW is not. Hit allocation and assault are both huge messes.

>>49682551

They're not a mess at all. They're quick, easy, and make sense intuitively and from a game balance perspective.

>>49680438
>get armor right.
>If it's not how I want it it's WRONG.

If you like Lionarse Tard's rules just go play his game and stop being a moron.

>>49680882
His rules are wrong, you don't increase a tiger's armour for firing at it from a 45* angle. Angling happens in real life so it must also be in the game, otherwise it's wrong and bad.

>>49682578
Game balance, maybe. Maybe even assault fits the history, though it's a huge pain in the ass to get everyone's positions right. But hit allocation is just blatant gamism, and annoying as hell.

File: IMG_3759.jpg (343KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1600x1200px

>>49674083
If you want a cleaner edge on the patterns you paint, then you can use blue tack on the model to mask off the stuff you don't want to paint :) just like pic related.

File: notevensureifwanttodooilstreakingornot.jpg (743KB, 1600x600px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 1600x600px

Italy/Australia/Hungary bro here, haven't posted here in ages. Looking to get off my arse and finish the forces I have sometime soon, but need to wait for humid weather to pass here in Dingoland.

Also quite off topic, but this seems the most likely place on 4chan I would get engagement on this topic.I was wondering if anyone here has been playing Wargame since the latest patch, and if so, what their thoughts on it are? For those who don't know, Wargame: Red Dragon added Israel recently, and feels like the closest vidya game to Team Yankee out there (which considering that even if my area didn't have awful supply issues I would still be the only one willing to shell out for TY is a godsend). Anyone been playing it, if so, what do you think of it so far?
Also, just looked at what I need to do to finish my Hungarians. Finish the five panthers, base 6 stands of infantry, build, paint and base 9 more stands. Once this weather clears up it should be fun.

>>49683640
I play Red Dragon, but I'm not that great at it. It's enjoyable enough.

>>49682625

>positions
Considering the movement rules involved, it tends towards the quick and brutal, for me. It's unfortunate than often you need to swing one team at a time, but all things considered it's a pretty zippy process.
>hit allocation
It balances things out, and speeds up gameplay. The end result tends to fit with history for the most part, and is fairly easily justified where it isn't.

What specifically annoyed you? Even distributions of hits?

>>49674570
I think it's alright the way it is.

If you're in front of a tank but hitting its side armor using the corner-to-corner method, you're hitting its side armor at a pretty acute angle. The game penalizes you by making you roll against front armor. Sounds fine to me.

Are there any pictures of the IM cards?

>>49687763
Nobody here has mentioned that they have Iron Maiden yet.

Thought of something. Aren't some of these "new player here want to start soviets" posts some kind of elaborate trolling?

They are trying to run an Firestorm Bagration campaign at the club, and it is almost impossible to get Soviet players. They had to allow for Americans and Brits to fill up the allied team. Yet as soon as I go to fowtg its always two or three "HALP! NEW SOVIET PLAYER HERE" posts. Your thoughts?

>>49688201
It could just be your local players. *shrug*

I don't think we really get too many more questions about help starting Soviets than we do about any other armies.

>>49687903
>Nobody here has mentioned that they have Iron Maiden yet.

I have a rules-only scan provided by Bartosz.

It might not be in the correct order and is missing the fluff, maps, etc, but It'll work until we can get a full scan.

It's in the main folder of the Scans Database:
https://www.mediafire.com/#8ciamhs8husms

I also have a scan of Panzertruppen that I added to the FoW Digital folder.

>>49681811
>TOP armour
Ah that makes sense. I can understand that being important. In Ostfront we have all indirect attacks like grenades, air strikes, etc. ignore armor completely, but inflict different damage depending if the vehicle is light, medium, heavy, etc.

>>49682486
Long tanks have big side facings. That's just life. Most Churchills (From the III onwards) had applique armour giving an extra ~30mm to the sides. The difference between 90mm to the sides and 60mm to the rear is quite significant.

KV-1's produced from 1941 onwrads had an extra ~30mm added to the sides too. Making a very big difference between 105mm and 70mm

Just saying, there are significant differences. So if a tank is "unkillable" by a specific weapon in FoW, it may well be historically inaccurate due to rounding off and no rear armours.

I also dont like the rule where infantry can't get cover behind tanks. Even a destroyed tank could give great cover to infantry - they are huge and armored, what more could you ask for in cover? Many many images from WW2 show infantry taking cover near tanks, or advancing alongside tanks. That was part of the entire British infantry tank doctrine - to support and protect the infantry.

>>49682551
>elegant and minimal" FoW is not
This definitely comes across reading through the rulebook.

>>49690727
>infantry can't get cover behind tanks. Even a destroyed tank could give great cover to infantry
Infantry can, in fact, take cover behind vehicle wrecks.
It's just that getting bulletproof cover from moving, fighting tanks is rather tricky; it doesn't really happen at the scale FoW is in.
Any advantage infantry would get from sicking close to tanks is effectively already a part of the 3+ infantry save, which represents making use of any and all available cover no matter how small.

>>49690727
>I also dont like the rule where infantry can't get cover behind tanks. Even a destroyed tank could give great cover to infantry - they are huge and armored, what more could you ask for in cover?

I agree with >>49692748

The cover taken moving up alongside tanks is a 3+. As far as taking cover besides the tanks themselves. That's not always easy. Tanks attract a lot of fire which even if it doesn't pierce the tank, could be deadly to the grunts crouching behind it. You could also risk getting squished if you didn't maintain communicationnwith the tank commander.

Not saying it never happened, in my opinion the troops who stuck close to the tanks are best represented by the tank escorts rules at the moment.

My friend and I game a lot on my dining room table.

What's a cheap way to get big green "turf" cover that doesn't crease like a motherfucker?(this is the issue I've had with almost all turf covers. Never sit flat)

>>49688201
I know a lot of younger people are more interested in eastern front because they're better represented in a few WW2 PC games, like Company of Heroes and World of Tanks.

Currently working on some 50-point demo forces for TY, roughly based around the starter boxes.

For my Soviets, I've basically got everything I need (and then some) painted, except for the Hinds.

Do you guys have any recommendations for Hind colour schemes that aren't just the generic yellow/brown or yellow/green?

>>49693316
The old GW (fabric-backed) grass mats were excellent for this, but they've been out of production for years now.

Haven't managed to find a solid replacement for them myself, though I'm considering some of those mousepad-type mats with a fairly generic grassy surface print.

>>49690727
Long tanks have big sides. Long tanks do not have really narrow facings where they get front armour saves. Again, corner to corner on a churchill, you get weak saves where the armour is -strongest-.

Your "significant differences" occur at least as often as the sides and rears are negligibly different. There are tanks that can't hurt tanks they could historically, but the amount of them where this is because they omitted a point lower rear armour value is extremely niche as to be pointless and would complicate the game for no reason. Remember, your armour save is a firefight, not every individual hit.

IRON MAIDEN PDF WHEN?!

>>49693487
what are the mousepad type ones like? I imagine you wouldn't be able to do the old "book underneath to make a slope" trick.

Price and that aside they do sound good.

>>49693663
The ones that are nice and solidly thick are indeed a bit too inflexible for the book into hill trick.

Also keep in mind there's quite a lot of variety in price and quality for these mats; I'd recommend checking out reviews or maybe even see if you can inspect some in person before you buy.

>>49693316
Im still waiting for antenocities matowar to come back in stock, I might just buy the desert version for the time being because its taking forever

>>49693562
I JUST SAW THERE ALREADY IS AN PDF, PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST.


So, british mech > german mech?
All those Milans!

File: Churchill Armor.png (76KB, 1005x1217px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1005x1217px

>>49693519
>weak saves where the armour is -strongest-.
Where exactly?

If you say that vehicles with significant differences between rear and side armor are just as common as vehicles that have little to no difference, that's 50% of all armored vehicles. A very significant portion. I dont really have the stats for that, but I think its probably more like 30 - 40 % of vehicles with a significant difference, still a large portion.

So if an armor save is a firefight, not an individual hit, why take facings into account at all? the vehicles will be moving around, firing at whatever target is in front of them like >>49679747 suggested.

I'm of the opinion that a game should either represent facings correctly, or not at all.

Another thing we haven't really covered here is angle of deflection. If you're firing at a churchill from a forward-left position, not quite to the front, but not perfectly to the side, your shot is going to have more armor to go through, and have a large chance of bouncing off. This is somewhere where the FoW system of not getting to the side unless you pass the front line of the vehicle makes slightly more sense, but still isn't very accurate - you would have a good shot at the side armor long before crossing that line, like in >>49661508.
I've seen tools used to work out angle of deflection, its like a protractor where hitting dead on you have no negative, ~20 - 45 degrees angle you have a negative to your shot, and 45+ degrees you have an even larger negative to your shot. These kind of tools give very accurate results, but are verging on simulation. In the end its down to how much detail you want to include, and I certainly dont think FoW needs more detail.

>>49693840
That picture gives a good 10-20* to the sides that's going to be thicker due to angling. Also the sides of churchills are 60mm. Also you're drawing from track guard to track guard, the hull is further in (you can literally see it in the middle).

The firefight is relevant because it means facing is more about the amount the tank can reasonably protect itself; across the front line and it's within the area the tank can bring it's armour to bear under fire. This is also why veteran targets are harder to hit; they're not literally mystically harder to aim at, they're taking better use of cover or driving evasively. You keep saying the game's wrong when you're actually just not understanding it very well.

>>49693950
>the sides of churchills are 60mm
They had applique armor adding up to 30mm from the Mk.III onwards, later versions had up to 95mm on the sides, without applique.
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66:churchill-infantry-tank-a22&catid=38:infantry-tanks&Itemid=56
Also the wikipedia entry lists side armour as 89mm. Not that wiki is 100% correct all the time, but its a very good indicator.

I'll admit I dont know the FoW rules very well, and the idea of more experienced crews being harder to hit makes total sense. But why represent side armor at all if a veteran crew would be able to always be in a good defensive position? A good crew would never find themselves outflanked, and certainly not surprised from behind... or would they?

Maybe I'm just used to systems with saner handling of armor facing, but >>49661508 as a front shot seems pretty wrong. The front can't even be seen in this image. The StuG is so close to the building behind it it wouldn't be able to turn to face the Pz.IV even with the most veteran crew in the world.

As for drawing lines corner to corner, it should really be literally corner to corner, I wouldn't specify the hull, as it adds too much confusion on where a hull starts and a track guard ends. Simplicity is key in wargames. If one can make a simple system with realistic outcomes, it will be a pleasure to play.

File: 3f42f9949ae0e31e783aac61b8fc9f2b.jpg (63KB, 458x730px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 458x730px

>checking that Iron Maiden upload
>Queen's Royal Lancers
>Irish Guards
>the Gordons
>QDG
very nice selection of regiments there

>>49694105
Applique wasn't always on, and the Mk VII is essentially a different tank.

The ground scale is also not 1:1. You're playing an abstraction or the game board would have to be the size of a car park. "The area the StuG is in" gives it enough room to pivot.

If you're including every part of the tank in corner-to-corner then tank armour changes depending on if the tank has improvised armour, mine ploughs, fuel trailers, stowage, etc. "Oh, but those don't count" I hear you say! So if the churchill has the full track guards on (that one doesn't) the hull is longer, then? You count the track guard there, and at the rear of the tank you've counted the full track guard, but you've omitted it at the front track. Subjectivity. More time taken arguing about whether something's in or not. A line across the front, love it or hate it, is very easy to discern.

And again, "It's insane", "It's wrong". You're just kneejerk disliking something you're not familiar with. You have a ruleset you're happy with, go play that.

File: Angleshowdotheywork.png (193KB, 686x716px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 686x716px

>>49693840
>>49694105
There's this thing called "Angling". You know how sloped armor is good? Same shit happens when shooting the hull at an angle.
Trackguard to trackguard is a gobshit method. 90 degree arcs is also bad. A flames-style method with a 20-30 degree template for determining the arc would be best for RL accuracy (short of computing the angle every time and directly recalculating the thickness), but then you end take up more time placing the templates. As fast and lose rules go, flames is actually *saner* than your methods of choice.

I kind of want to make a tank destroyer list. I know it's insane, but hellcats are just so iconic.

>>49695853
Now that you mention it, are TDs back to being recon platoons? Bulge lists them as reconnaissance without any qualifiers, and I would assume that supersedes the patch to Nuts/BGG.

>>49695853
They can be quite devastating if you're able to get off your alpha strike.

But be warned, when you deploy the TDs from their ambush you need to make sure you annihilate your target. They won't withstand any return fire for long.

>>49690727
So does ostfront differentiate between say, regular infantry, pioneers, troops well equipped with improvised measures like paratroopers, and say, Finnish close defence teams, as far as killing tanks close up is concerned?
>different damage
Ah, so the tank functionality level has some nuances to it? Hull points, or something similar?
>I also dont like the rule where infantry can't get cover behind tanks
When they're near tanks, they got the +3 save from being protected. When they're not, they got the 3+ save from being stealthy and easily hidden. Plus FoW has a bit of a sliding scale thing going on. Positioning is a bit abstract, and they particularly wanted to avoid the possibility of blocking LOS, 40k style. Physically screening platoons shouldn't be a thing. FRIENDLY units block LOS, but enemy units don't.
>>49693840
>why take facings
To facilitate things like ambushes. In reality, it's more likely to be used in cases like defensive fire, that always hits the side armour to represent the extremely close range, and aircraft cannon attacks, to represent the advantageous position they attack from.
>facings correctly
There's some possible nuance here, though. Yes, you should represent facings, but there's degrees of detail. FoW gets things like flanking attacks basically possible, without excess detail and carpentry. Also see
>>49694828
You could be in the 'side' arc, and yet have a miserably bad shot because of the armour angle.

>>49695853
It's doable. Try Task Force A. They get tank destroyers and some really excellent support platoons by default. A TD based list is going to be a total crapshoot in terms of effectiveness.

File: ARMGP.png (288KB, 754x360px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 754x360px

Thoughts on these vs a normal British HMG platoon? Normal HMG platoon at the same rating (FV) is 85 for 2+command, and 160 for 4+command.

>Pros
Can't be pinned before assault
Faster while being able to fire
If close enough to assaulting troops can force a Tank Terror test

>Cons
Slower in terrain (and can bog) and compared to HMGs in jeep transports (which admittedly can't fire)
No Bombardments
Arguably easier to destroy than dug-in HMGs.

Just finished my Team Yankee game (I'm the neckbear in that one pic) and it seems like at some point there will be comprehensive Soviet and American books that cover essentially everything. The East German book is not just East Germans the BTRs are for "other countries" it sounds like. Soviets will be more varied. They think the Armata is pretty but no plans for it at all.

>>49697022
Sounds good and sorta expected.

Not getting the Armata is obvious, it´s way too modern.

File: 2016-10-08 18.58.08 Wolfgang.png (1MB, 673x1196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 673x1196px

So I don't know if this is actually limited edition, or if that's just a marketing ploy, but anyway, I finally bought into Team Yankee, and scored a copy of Wolfgang. This was a good day.

>>49697156
Acrually the reasoning on the Armata is that they don't have reliable stats on it. Team Yankee is going to become
VERY
VERY
broad.

>>49697022
I heard that Marines and Nasty Girls were coming fairly soon as well, after the French.

>>49697491

Nasty Girls --> National Guard?

>>49696587
Anyone? Considering buying some (or converting from UCs and PSC HMG teams), so I'd like to know people's opinions.

File: 1467745879455.jpg (422KB, 1280x882px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1280x882px

>>49697022
>The East German book is not just East Germans the BTRs are for "other countries" it sounds like.

That kinda sucks, I was really holding out for the NVA. To get lumped in a Warsaw Pact compilation is lame.

>>49698126
I'd assume it would be East Germans +.

East Germans + other Soviet/WarPac reinforcements.

>>49698126
Just shows how interested BF is in Warpac.

>>49700158
Not BF's fault that the USSR standardized the fuck out of everything.

>>49700343
except for Czechnology.

Seriously from an equipment standpoint at least the Czechs deserve their own book you would think

>>49693723
those look good. Ever used/seen one in person?

>>49701301
Not as far as I know, I'll order the desert one over the next few days and see what its like. Ive heard good things though

File: Dingo6thAirborne.jpg (95KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x559px

>>49696587
bump

File: OSTFRONT QUICKFIRE RULES.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49694828
Yeah this is more accurate. You can really see the massive difference between the side and rear armor here. Also shows the very thick side armor of every churchill post 1941. You dont take 80 hits from various German guns including 88s and survive with only 60mm of armor.

>>49696140
Ostfront has 3 different types of infantry that are the same for every faction; Conscripts, Regular infantry, and Assault Infantry / Veterans. This helps maintain balance between the factions, where it comes down to how you use and support your infantry rather than any special rules or special weapons. Conscripts only have rifles, while regular infantry have all the usual weapons of an infantry platoon - rifles, MGs, AT rifles, Rocket Launchers, grenades (depending on period - no rocket launchers in early war, and no AT rifles in late war), Veterans have all the same weapons as regulars, but get bonuses to killing infantry and infantry-based targets like field guns. They're also better at taking out vehicles, and can turn up from unexpected areas to account for things like paratroopers or outflanking. Each infantry type has a different morale value for pinning tests too.
Mortar teams and all the usual field guns are represented, but the only real exception to the "3 Types of infantry" are the Japanese who get MG nests in spider trenches, as well as the usual 3.

As for damage, there's a damage table where armor, range, and the weapons power modifies the roll. You can check out in PDF related if you like.
Indirect weapons are handled differently, ignoring armor completely, and inflicting a set amount of damage depending on the type of weapon and vehicle targeted.

I'm glad infantry do get some kind of cover from tanks, makes total sense. And the facing system and defensive fire makes more sense when you think a bit more abstractly about a tank being in a general area, and side counting more as a "weaker area" or "flank attack" rather than an actual side.

Hey /tg/ I'm starting a late war Fallschirmjager army and so far I have the Command team and 18 rifle/mg teams. Where should I go next in terms of escalation?
Any ideas welcome thanks

>>49705825
well you should try and cover all your base. anti tank, anti air, recce, armour etc. which book is your list from?

>>49693723
>>49701301
>>49701547
Mat-O-War is highly overrated IMO: I was a retard and bought two, desert and green. They arrived folded and creased AF, and then you're supposed to wash/knead them to get them right and get rid of the stiffness. Well, I did a fuck-ton of that, even washed each a dozen+ times with fabric softener, etc...results are not very good. Yes, it is nearly indestructible, but it does not drape over hills or anything like that, and it does not even lay properly flat either. Even a mousepad-type mat (which I don't like) at least lays flat...

I'm pretty much convinced that most of the online praise is just a few guys shilling their own company/their mate's company as the supposed greatness of the product really isn't there.

Now, if you want a permanent table covering, you could glue it down to a 6x4 board or whatever, and that would work provided you glued it well (and flat). However, I don't have space for such a permanent board, so it's not particularly useful to me.

I bought a Cigar Box Battle Mat recently instead...quite expensive, no doubt (and more than MoW), but a far better gaming mat for my needs as it stores easily and drapes over hills if necessary to produce nice gentle contours. There are quite a few reviews online.


tl;dr - Mat-O-War is poor as an actual cloth, try a Cigar Box Battle Mat instead as they are far better and drape very well: even the plain ones (without printed terrain) are a far better product than MoW.

>>49705825
Late War?

FJ 8cm Mortars and FJ PaK40s are the next best additions. AA is really unnecessary, infantry are not terribly worried about aircraft. If you want more Panzerschreks, there's the tank-hunter blister. 12cm Mortars are pretty good fire support too, but a lot of lists can take Heer/Army Nebelwerfers or similar so it depends what list you're working with.

i followed BFs guide video for painting LW germans but the dark green in the recesses seems a little unnatural. there is no gradiation to fieldgrey.
if i wanted to use the darker colour as a wash by watering it down say 10:1 with water would that look okay?

>>49705825
Luftwaffe 88s, 3 of the 15cm Nebelwerfers, a platoon of Fallschirmpioneer, some PaK40s, and some StuGs.

>>49706888

I would recommend mixing in some tension reducing medium along with water so that it more readily fills into the recesses, but yeah that should work.

>>49706888
The reason they go with such a strong light-dark contrast is so that things show up even at an arm's length, which is the kind of range you'll generally be seeing the minis at.

When painting minis, especially at this scale, there's a clear contrast between things looking good from a distance and looking good in a close-up.
Which direction you lean is, of course, up to you. Both can be excellent.

File: 1475896427582.jpg (145KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x600px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_9-hdJtn_Y

VOLKSARMEE!

>>49708131
Aw yiss, an excellent look at what's coming in the future (even if the T-55 will probably be resin/metal, not plastic) and some insights into certain design/model sculpting choices.

Their earlier video about using 3d modeling to sculpt plastics was already pretty interesting, but this is the big info-bomb.

Also, take a look at the minis they have on the tabletop there.
Most of them are TY plastics, but there in the front we have the new plastic Puma and what appears to be a plastic FlaK36...

>>49695946
Depends. Are you a WAAC RAW asswipe? Then they're recon again. RAI should be pretty clear, they're not (BF just sucks at error correction)

>>49706194
>>49706252
>>49706892

I'm pulling this list from the Atlantik Wall book. I got some pak 40s this morning. Will think about get some mortars soon and maybe a werfer. Thanks for your input guys.

File: summer.jpg (97KB, 1051x823px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1051x823px

>you will never sunbathe this comfortably

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

1B, 486x500px

Bumpan with a list I can't actually make.

>>49710855
It seems relatively standard.

Why can't you make it?

>>49711377
I'm 2 mortars and the MMG carriers short. Otherwise I've got everything for it. Normally I'd just use 4 HMGs instead and drop the transports, since it gives me effectively the same bombardment and defensive fire capabilities, but this config lets me move the HMGs around more and gets me the option of a more effective focused bombardment/more smoke.

File: T-55_East_German_1960s.jpg (172KB, 1610x502px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1610x502px

>>49708131
Why wouldn't they want to do a T-55 in plastic? That's basically one of the most widespread tanks in the world. All manner of people will want them for wargaming, from Africa to Fulda. I mean fug, the British got the tank, APC and light tank in plastic, US is gonna get even more plastic, etc. Never mind all of Nato's plastic products as a whole.

File: muhreens overview.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

I started painting my muhreens.

Pls rate, comment and subscribe.

File: muhreens.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

MUHREENS!

File: muhreens assault.jpg (2MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4128x2322px

More MUHREENS!

>>49708131
>>49712891
GG BF, good work making any T-55 list dead on arrival.


Pls dont forget to rate, comment and subscribe.

>>49713087
Yeah, really. In resin it'll be hella expensive, never mind other companies already do just as good, if not better T-55s for cheaper.

Marines are lookin' good though. Gonna have dog teams, Flash Gordon rocket launchers? Beach or inland bases?

>>49713205
Its not only the price, but their resin/metal quality regarding the TY products is just utter crap.

I was surprised the Pacific range isnt plagued by these quality issues. Atleast I had no problems yet.

>>49712891
>>49713087
In this case, it's probably a scheduling issue.
Since the East Germans were originally planned as a small booklet-release with probably only the new infantry as actual new models, they didn't need to plan in a plastic T-55 at that point.

However, if ya wanna expand things properly like they decided to do, it's an obvious release alongside other Soviet gear that was probably already in development.
But since it takes about a year to get from initial planning to delivered plastic kits, they can't get a good plastic T-55 developed in time for the planned release. At that point, the quicker-to-develop metal/resin kit is the only option.
Same issue with the Leo 1 in the German arsenal, which was also something they expressed regret over in that Q&A.

For those wondering why metal/resin kits can be made more quickly: all of that is done inhouse, unlike the mold-making for plastics.

>>49713344
>>49713205
>>49713087
Of course they could always make a Plastic T-54/55 kit later.

>>49713344
Well, then they should plan something better.

I just hope someone releases a plastic T-55 and takes all the profit from them.

File: 1467253867969.jpg (354KB, 871x1140px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 871x1140px

>>49713397
I guess the positive is that there will be multiple chances to revisit the decision. East Germany is the only NSWP we're getting for the time being but when they start thinking of Poland or Czechoslovakia in 2018 they can reconsider.

>>49713558
They did say it takes about a year of turn around time to make a Plastic Kit. Which really bothers me then because why haven't they set out to do the big major pieces in Plastic First like King Tigers, Tigers, Artillery batteries for all nations, Stuarts, and major AT guns for non-German powers.

>>49708821
If the rules aren't written properly it's hardly someone else's fault for reading the actual words printed on the page. I mean hell, this isn't even a grammar dispute like the panzer lehr spearhead, it literally just says they're recon and if Battlefront didn't mean that they could've taken the thirty seconds it'd take to put "They use cautious movement but are not recon" or whatever there instead. This is battlefront's issue, not the playerbases'.

>>49713656
They just dont care.

Just look at the crap they sell, literally no quality control. The only thing keeping them afloat is their big range of products.

Their quality is crap though and always has been. We can only hope a company producing high quality 15mm ww2/cold war kits enters the market, forcing BF to fix their quality control and attitude towards their customers.

From my background as a scale modeler it was very interesting to see how all the new chinese companies were literally pushing all the established companies against the wall, this is exactly what BF needs to fix their shit.

Without aggressive competition they can get away with all the crap they are pulling.

Painting my LW krauts to look like Croatians. Gonna be using a weird mix of Italian/German/British gear.

Any ideas for rules or support etc? Probably gonna have them as CC for regs and FT for Ustase units.

obviously not for tournament play so i guess it doesn't need to be super competitive.

>>49713656
>Plastic King Tigers
The market for those is pretty limited, to be honest.
Then again, probably less limited than the Pershing.

And I expect to see most of what you mentioned there materialising next year since they seem to have found their plastics groove.

>>49713843
I do feel their QC needs some serious work.
And it does seem that PSC is at least providing some opposition, with Zvezda looming off in the distance as well.

All in all I'd say BF is still one of the better minis companies on the market, even if they clearly have a bunch of places to improve.

>>49713843
Seriously, I used to assume with BF I was paying for quality, until I actually ordered stuff from them. Horrible mould lines, flash, some sets are just so distorted they're barely recognisable. And you're sure as hell not paying for speed, I put in an order for stock months ago at my FLGS and it's still not come through. I just cancelled an order for their scenic bases because it'd been a month and they hadn't been delivered and in that time I ended up just basing them myself.

>>49714092
>Zvezda looming off in the distance as well
Zvezda's stuff is generally good then keeps fluffing it on really minor stuff. It's annoying.

File: IMG_2799.jpg (169KB, 900x965px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 900x965px

>>49714356
My second pack of Panzergrenadiers for TY have a rifleman who looks like Gothmog... and a Milan operator who has apparantly melted all features off of his face. I think the key is to get the first run of whatever resin/metal kit you need. Unless of course the kit is flawed like the Leopard 1 kit.

Panzertruppen was a great book, but there is no way I am going to buy 2 more shitty resin kits to run the Leo 1 list.

>>49714869
2 more boxes of shitty Leo 1s*

>>49713205
>Flash Gordon

Buck Rogers. They were known as Buck Rogers rocket launchers.

File: Damaged_Iraqi_BMP-2.jpg (337KB, 1720x1160px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1720x1160px

I am out of BMPs. Though I suppose just reposting >>49661508 could keep the thread alive and going for another day.

>>49714906
How bad is it?

This is the only place I've been seeing serious complaints about the Leopard 1 kit.

Perhaps it was just a production issue with the specific batch you ordered?

>>49717960
It is worth pointing out that he got free replacements from Battlefront. Their replacement game is hella strong. Send them an email, and they'll double time to fix the mistake.

>>49717999
>send them an email

yeah and maybe get a reply in 8 months.

>>49718031
If by "8 months" you mean "about a week", with the replacement parts arriving in another week (or possibly 2), then sure.

Suffice to say, my experience with BF replacements seems to be wildly different from yours.

>>49718298
yeah no kidding. i could accept maybe a month to answer an email. but i don't hear from them in anything less than 3.
actually ordering something is even worse. Lived in 3 different countries and its always the same.

>>49717960
Yeah, like Virus said, they were great about sending me a second box. The second box was better off than the first one, but I still had issues with warped tracks and various holes in the track pads and bazooka skirts. One track had a giant chunk of resin in the wheels that I had to grind down with my dremel. I know a resin kit isn't going to be perfect, but when they are charging 40 USD for 3 tanks...
Really wish they had planned ahead better and made it in plastic.

>>49718532
Just request another until you have 3 ok models.

I complained about 3 TY products and got replacements in ~2 weeks. While their replacement service is good, I dont want to have to order replacements just because BF cant get their quality control to work.

>>49718379
What kind of shitholes have you been living in?

>>49719463
australia, singapore, japan

australias postal system is slow though to be fair.

seriously has no one else had to wait this long?

>>49714908
You've probably never heard of the melty honey either.

>>49719678
The one time I had to contact BF customer support (back in the V2 days) for a pair of StuGs with broken schürzen, they sent me four replacement minis within a couple of weeks.

My FLGS did have some trouble contacting their EU coordination people for some time, but it turned out that was because someone new was just starting to fill that post and it took a whole bunch of work to sort through the stuff his predecessor had left behind.

>>49718935
Yeah, I have 3 okay models now. I just have little confidence that any new box I buy won't habe the same problems.

>>49720279
Thats exactly what keeps me from buying a german TY force.
Too much resin/metal.

If you haven't got a zvezda KT yet, get one, it's actually surprisingly detailed. Even comes with track stowage on the turret.

>>49720539
Would it be possible to get a pic of it? Preferably also a comparison with BF.

>>49720368
Is it just the Leopard 1s, or do the other West German resin kits also have problems?

I haven't been hearing anything like this about the Luchs, Fuchs, Gepards, etc.

>>49721160
will give it a pop

File: 20161010_144925.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

First time phone post be gentle

File: 20161010_144830.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>49721415

>>49721415
Did you thin your paints with plaster?

>>49721415
>>49721425
the BF one's an ebay rescue, before you mention it. I keep meaning to strip it so it's on my desk already.

>>49718532
>>49718935
>>49720068
So, one question - I bought recently from my FLGS British Rifle Infantry company - but the metal ones (they were on sale and the price was really nice ;) ). One of the Bren carriers is missing part of the Bren's tube. Since metal ones are made no more, should I bother trying to contact BF for plastic replacement?

That zvezda KT looks great. Too bad I don't play germans.

File: -Catch the Tiger- Picture from the book - tiger 131 just after it was captured.jpg (60KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 615x409px

I have a question regarding assaulting tanks with infantry and bailed out tanks.


I charged my friends stugs from the side and since they don't have guns that can turn I he had defensive fire. By the end of the combat I had bailed out one of his stugs.

He rolled to counter attack but tanks can only Break Out (this is the first point we were unclear on) and since the stug was bailed out it couldn't move and therefore was captured/destroyed. The other stug couldn't move move the 4 inches without ending up near a foe and was captured/destroyed too.

Does this mean that in assaults bailing out a tank is a good as killing it, so long as you win the assault since it cannot move and therefore cannot avoid being captured?

Similiarly could you bail out two tanks with AT guns, then charge them with inf with no tank assault rating and win because they cannot do anything (so you auto-win the assault) and they cannot flee, so are captured.

Is this all correct because it seems like a pretty effective tactic.

>>49721454
>I he had defensive fire.
Dunno what happened there: "he had no defensive fire"

Short review:

The scale is fine, you could probablyuse them in the same platoon without issues. Detail is surprisingly crisp, especially given it's zvezda. It's not got zimmereit, but it does have various moulded on cables and tools. Looking at pictures the hand-guard around the cupola could go either way. The barrel is a little more proportional, which is typically a strength of plastics.

The cons: It's a complex build, that took me about 40 minutes (granted, I filed it heavily to try and get all the joints flush), and while it's entirely snap-fit, personally, I would use glue to ensure clean fits, since there's a few areas where I've not pushed everything in all the way and there are small but annoying gaps.

Overall, a solid 4-star offering. This is definitely a standard beyond "acceptable filler". I'm excited to see how the IS-2 and ISU look now.

>>49721454
It sounds like you got a bit confused, yeah. Tanks can absolutely counterattack; if they -choose- to break off after passing motivation they can break off through enemy teams, since infantry have to GTFO or get run over.

A bailed tank is captured in assault if it's left behind by a group that's breaking off, and obviously it can't fight, so bailing is definitely good, but destroying is better.

And yes, if you assault a fully bailed platoon then they can't defensive fire, you don't have to pass a tanks are scary check, and they are all automatically captured when the assault ends since they can't flee.

>>49721444
They might still have some of the metals lying around, but yeah; contact their customer support about the defective product, possibly including pics.

Odds are good that they'll send some form of replacement.

>>49721454
>He rolled to counter attack but tanks can only Break Out
Did he fail his morale? If so, then yes, all he can do is Break Off.
If he PASSED his morale, he can choose to counterattack as normal, or Break Off, or Break Through.

Breaking off is a normal move: Those Stugs have 12" to get away with, subject to the normal restrictions about not getting closer to enemy teams already within 4" (which means you can surround and kill retreating tanks without killing any of them directly).

Breaking THROUGH is a special thing that tanks can do if they pass their counterattack test: They can break off in any direction, even through the enemy assaulting them and deeper into enemy lines. Note that if they fail to pass the test, they can only break off as normal.

As for bails: Yep, bogged/bailed tanks are horribly vulnerable to assaults. Assaulting with infantry after bailing out a bunch of tanks is a great way to eat a chunk of the enemy armor.

>>49721532
>>49721576

Where does the book describe how tanks counter attack? We only have the mini-rule book that comes with Open Fire if that's any different.

Thanks for the clarifications

Well, well, well. This is a new one for Zvezda; alternative gun barrels. I believe this ISU kit makes both I52 and 122mm assault guns.

>>49721615
Confirmed, it makes both ISU-152 and ISU-122. That said, the assemble closes off the gun mount, so you have to pick one. But to be fair, it's three pound a pop.

>>49721593
>Where does the book describe how tanks counter attack?
When they pass their morale and counterattack, they do it like every other team. They also fight in assault like every other team. Only unarmored tank teams (those vehicles with -/-/- armor) have to automatically break off. Anything with armor (Even if 0/0/0) fights on. Pages 162-166 cover all of it.

>We only have the mini-rule book that comes with Open Fire if that's any different.
Except for the layout of the quick reference sheets in the back, there's not any difference.

>>49721593
>>49721837
The Open Fire booklet, or the half-sized paperback of the full rules?

Those are not the same thing.

>>49721247
Seconding this question.

How is the rest of the West German range for Team Yankee?

Is it only the Leopard 1s that have problems, or is there stuff to be careful with in the rest of the resin rage as well?

>>49722085
Dunno about the resins but the infantry were hideous.

File: wiesel-1-tow-bundeswehr-2996568.png (115KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 500x355px

>>49721247
I'll lay out everything I bought and my thoughts.

Luchs: Bought 2 boxes at launch. Good kits. Some kind of putty or greenstuff will help hold the wheels on straight while they dry.

Fuchs: Bought 2 boxes at launch. Same thing goes for the wheels as the Luchs, you just have less of them. Really simple kits to knock together everything.

LARS: Bought a box at launch. Again with the wheels.You are going to want to magnetize the launcher to the truck. It isn't very stable without magnetization. Otherwise it's a really nice kit.

Gepards: Bought a box at release and a box later. The first box was kind of sticky from the resin casting process, but the model fit together perfect.I was really impressed. The second box didn't fit together near as nicely and had some bazooka skirt defects. I think its a classic case of the second run being rushed.

Leo 1s: REEEEEEEEEE. Okay they aren't that bad when painted up, but I would put them in the same category of frustration as Gen 1 Open Fire Shermans or the old resin Panthers.

Panzergrens: 2 blisters. The one bought at release looks fine. The one bought afterwords has a few mutants/burn victims included.

Fliegerfausts: Bought a blister at launch. Pretty much like the first blister of Panzergrens.

So overall: No, the other resin kits that I have are perfectly fine. It's just if you happen to buy a box that was rushed out after they sold out of the launch inventory the QC will be poor. The Leo 1 seems to be the only rotten kit of the bunch.

>>49714356
BF’s metals are terrible. I’ve had good luck with their resin stuff, but I realize it doesn’t always go together well. The metal pieces, though… bent gun barrels, misshapen little dudes, tracks that aren’t anywhere near straight, etc. Is it so hard? Games Workshop has made a lot of metal weapons of similar thickness as those gun barrels but they stay straight. And they’ve made 28mm and 6mm metal infantry with far fewer casting errors.

The only saving grace is that BF does a ton of stuff that no one else makes and that will probably continue to be the case. That probably explains their prices and their terrible distribution system, too. Someone has to do it, though, because even The PSC only gives you a tiny slice of WWII.

>>49719678
>seriously has no one else had to wait this long?
The TANKS community never took off because of a lack of availability. They blew it.

>>49721503
Which kit are you talking about

>>49723474
Zvezda's King Tiger, pictured up above.

>>49723327
>>49723453
I put in an order for some stuff on the 20th of August, still hasn't arrived. Battlefront need to sort their shit out.

>>49723453
Yeah, BF tends to play things too safe in terms of initial production so they don't ruin the company in case of a flop.

The demand for Tanks was so high needed to produce twice as much as their initial production run to catch up.

Similar things happened with the initial Team Yankee release, though there things were compounded because of their factory move and one of their plastic casting machines breaking down.

Silly question for the end of the thread:

Should I go with Cromwells or Churchills for my british tank company? Will have enough Shermans with US and Canadians (which are a rifle company supported by 8 shermans, thankyouverymuch)

>>49724285
Do you wanna go fast or be tanky while going anywhere?
That's basically the distinction.

Also, Cromwells bring along integrated heavy AT (Fireflies/Challengers) while Churchill lists will have to look to their support for that.

They play very differently.

>>49724285
I only like Churchills in infantry companies.

File: Nachtjager - UK Guards tank squadron.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49724285
For a full tank company? Croms are probably the better option. Integrated AT from Challengers and their speed make them very flexible, and since you're going to be attacking more often than not being able to choose where your engage is very useful. Most also have some Lorried infantry, who can ride on your (fast) Cromwells and dismount near the enemy while getting a nice 3+ passenger save instead of the normal 5+. You'll have a total of 5 lists (with two having multiple versions), covering Guards Armored, 11th Armored, and 7th Armored versions. Overlord, Market Garden, Nachtjager, and Battle of the Bulge are the books you'll want to look over.

Now, Churchills are totally viable, but you absolutely need a platoon of Achilles to deal with enemy big tanks, or Panthers and Tigers are going to eat you up. Most medium armor will have issues with you unless they have integrated high AT weapons, which unfortunately means basically everyone. And to top it all off, for some reason the Mk VIIs don't have something like "Jumbos lead the way" despite being used the exact same way operationally and being just as hard to distinguish from the normal Churchills in the platoon as the Jumbo was from the other Shermans. You'll have 3 lists (with the OL one having Guards and 2nd Army versions), covering their usage in Italy and NW europe. Road to Rome, Overlord, and Nachtjager (digital) are the books you'll want to look over (in case you don't have the NJ Digital, here's the Churchill list from there).

>>49642355
trap options for soviets don't really exist, there are some units however that are very niche in their application/enemies required that you might want less of them. For example: IS-2 tanks (assaulting non-faust platoons), BS-3 guns (big cat side armor wreckers that can't move), big platoons of HMGs ( only work against infantry lists, but then they're absolute murder). Generally combined arms makes good lists, so some of every category is good, but soviets generally want big companies of dudes to avoid morale issues.

New thread:
>>49726254