Flames of War General: "If they want war, then Soviet"

File: IMG_2834.jpg (26KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 224x225px

That pun.

Speaking of soviets
>waits for collective holding of breath to stop
anyone feel like the TY soviets are too light a green for soviet vehicles? They look almost khaki, when I tend to see them deeper green or more puke coloured. I've seen ones from Africa/the middle east that colour but I tended to assume they'd been sandblasted.

File: IMG_4355.jpg (692KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 2048x1536px

Damn tempted to adapt this PSO camo.

File: IMG_0575.jpg (80KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x375px

>>50247602
Perhaps a little bit, but not by too much.

It seems Cold War era Soviet Green was lighter than WWII era Soviet Green.

File: t72edesta.jpg (1MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2048px

>>50248265
Huh, was it darkened after the cold war, then? This is the sort of shade I usually think of T-72s and things being.

>>50248846
Maybe it's faded paint jobs compared to fresh paint jobs?

I honestly don't know.

Did we ever answer the rules question from the end of the previous thread?

I forget the exact wording, but it had to with an infantry platoon being almost fully wiped out by tanks, but still bailing out a tank. And how that would play out.

>>50249357
Tank platoon charges infantry. Defensive fire occurs, one tank is bailed by a panzerschreck or somesuch. It takes 2 to drive back tanks, so the tanks are in. Three tanks are in base contact with a stand each, and kill their stands. There are no infantry teams within 4" of an active tank, but the AT stand is still 4" away from the tank it bailed.

Is this tank still an assaulting team? If it is, there is an enemy team within 4" of an assaulting team, and the defender is allowed to motivate to counterattack. If it isn't, there are no enemy teams within 4" of an assaulting team, and the tanks have won the assault despite the potentially vulnerable position of the bailed tank.

>>50247602
I think late Cold War Soviet green is known for fading quickly to a sickly-looking shade. So think about how new your company is, and whether it's stationed somewhere sunny, and paint accordingly.

>>50249528
A quick check in the rules and a bit of FoW-logic: a non-assaulting team has to be nominated as such when charging into contact, or be changed into such by some rule. The tank obviously started as a "non-non-assaulting" team, and I find nothing in the rules that change it to non-assaulting upon being bailed. So the assault continues.

>>50249609
Yeah, my gut was that the tank will become non-assaulting (because it's bailed) if the infantry rally, but it was assaulting at the start of that step and is still assaulting at the end of it despite it's unfortunate encounter with a shaped charge.

File: B3FF47F3-F028-47EF-9040-6CA58AE2E6B1.jpg (800KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 2048x2048px

Is there any difference in the M-109 models between the 'nam and team yankee kits?

>>50250549
Decals

>>50250549
MG3 instead of M2 AA machinegun, I'd say.
The gun seems to be identical in that pic, and that's the easiest way to differenciate between the two versions. If they didn't bother with it, they probably didn't bother with the rest.

>>50250625
Good to know, thanks.

File: 636EC20D-F164-4C2C-8312-BAA8027D4DF1.jpg (422KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 2048x2048px

>>50250696
Wait, on further inspection it seems that the team yankee kit has a longer barrel but the featured models (painted) on the box have the much shorter barrel!
[rivet counting intensifies]

>>50250893
Isn't the longer barrel on the American M109, while the West German on retained the short barrel?

>>50250989
No the long barrel is in the german kit and the short is in the 'nam kit.

>>50250989
>>50251035
He means for the TY M109; the US and British versions have the long barrel there, while the German one has the same short barrel as the Vietnam-era one.

File: IMG_4371.jpg (85KB, 350x210px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 350x210px

>>50251226
And I'm saying the german kit comes with a long barrel according to battlefront's homepage.

Are the bases battlefront supplies with the older models (grey, no holes) plastic or resin?

>>50251359
Plastic. Unless it's one of the scenic resin ones.

>>50251350
They probably just recycled the image from the american kit.

>>50251589
Seems like it yeah.

File: 1457496096536.jpg (951KB, 900x972px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 900x972px

>>50247572
>"might makes right"
>loses

File: IMG_3918.jpg (45KB, 491x750px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 491x750px

>>50251743
>might makes right
>left

File: quit salin and get in the gulag.jpg (136KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1200x675px

>>50251773
the one left standing

Have people been using M109s in Team Yankee?

What do you think of them?

>>50252711
Much better than Carnations because they don't have fuck all for skill and can actually range in.

r8 m8s

Italian Carri
Tank Company, from Hellfire and Back, page 28

Compulsory Compagnia Carri HQ (p.29) - CinC M13/40 (65 pts)

Compulsory Carri Platoon (p.29) - Command M13/40, 4x M13/40 (325 pts)

Compulsory Carri Platoon (p.29) - Command M13/40, 4x M13/40 (325 pts)

Tankette Platoon (p.43) - Command L3/35, 3x L3/35 (100 pts)
- Replace L3/35 (not L3/35 Brixia) with L3/35 Solothurn (0 pts)

Self-propelled Coastal Gun Platoon (p.33) - Command Autoconnone da 102/35, Autoconnone da 102/35 (240 pts)

Bersaglieri Platoon (p.31) - Command Rifle/MG, 6x Rifle/MG (110 pts)

Motociclisti Platoon (p.35) - Command Motorcycle Rifle/MG, 4x Motorcycle Rifle/MG (95 pts)

Motorised Howitzer Battery (p.44) - Command Rifle, Staff, 4x 100/17 howitzer (165 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)

Light Anti-Aircraft Platoon (p.46) - Command Rifle, 2x 20/65 on 3-ton truck (50 pts)


1490 Points, 8 Platoons

>>50252785
That seems more like Soviet complaining than an actual recommendation for M109s, but I'll take that into consideration.

>>50253213
The carnation is 5+ skill; an OP is mandatory, basically. For the yanks, it's nice, but 4+ is a decent range in, 3+ is gravy. Brits and Germans are 3+ and if they bring an op it's straight up first-time-every-time bombardments.

>>50253255
Bombarderiffic

>>50252841
Also checking Hellfire and Back, do EW italians not have Avanti/Unknown Hero?

>>50254140
They put it separate from the 8 Million Bayonets rule for some reason. Page 49 has them.

>>50254271
Bizarre, but thanks.

My current dumb idea is trying to get a Firestorm Seelowe game down. Portsmouth to London, choo choo.

>>50255596
I guess the biggest question is lists. Maybe a mix of Blitzkrieg and Hellfire and Back stuff, given some of the hellfire lists are second-rate stuff that could be spared for Africa?

>>50253255
I assume the Hail Battery works the same way? Anyone else use rocket artillery? I use the LARS battery with my West Germans mainly for the minelets and pinning infantry.

>>50254140
who is a anti/unknown hero?

Is that a hero unit?

>>50256696
Avanti is stormtroopers in the shooting phase (so less useful), unknown hero means the first time a command stand is killed, you test motivation, and if you pass the platoon gets 2+ morale and the command stand remains alive instead (and if you fail morale you retry the next time a command stand's killed until one becomes a hero).

>>50256735
>Avanti is stormtroopers in the shooting phase (so less useful)
Also based off Motivation instead of Skill, per the Lessons From The Front errata. For infantry, it's actually more useful than stormtrooper, since it can let you get off a 14" charge instead of the normal 10" and, lets face it, you're probably not doing much normal shooting with your infantry.

>>50250549
the USA paladins have longer barrels

brits are not vietnam models either...

>>50258997
Movement is actually one of the most important, and most overlooked, parts of the game.

Getting into a good position is key, especially for launching an assault.

>>50258997
True, but I' playing a tank company so it's costing me some decent shots when I try and use it. Will keep it in mind for infantry, though.

File: 1444080692967.jpg (29KB, 342x400px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 342x400px

CyKa ByLAt!

>>50261935
Even with tanks, it's useful if either you're not in a position to shoot at anything (eitehr because you're hiding and trying to outflank, or because you'e already killed whatever you could shoot at), or because your guns (and do remember, we're talking italian guns here) don't really have a practical chance of killing whatever you're facing.

>>50262940
Early war, my friend. Italian tanks have good hard stats for EW. AT 6, FA 3 is solid for the period.

>>50262964
>>50262940
Yeah, that and it's blue/red desert, so I'm just going to have loads of cruisers and infantry to shoot, unless some nutter brings a matildas list.

Thinking of doing Bersags when they redo MW.

>>50263948
Same, desu. Dem feathers, man.

Here's hoping they actually release a plastic kit for them.

>>50264300
I wouldn't get them at present. Ordered some a few months ago and "burn victim" doesn't do them justice. The moulds are probably worn to fuck.

>>50263948
I'm currently going full grognard and reproducing the 9th Guards Tank Corps as seen in Berlin. Not full strength obviously. If V4 continues to shit on elite slavs I have backup plans.

>>50264730
>If V4 continues to shit on elite slavs
delete this

>>50265373
Hero lists are by and large laughable though. Cav are nice however.

>>50265950
But then we're going to have people saying hero is fine and the russians were never as good as the US, and then people saying there's over-statting all over the western front and that the fact all the red army stuff is rolled into two ratings loses that detail, and it's a huge flame war.

>>50266290
A huge Flames of War, you might say .

File: IMG_0582.jpg (49KB, 401x385px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 401x385px

>>50267175
>That pun...

Get the fuck out.

File: IMG_3930.jpg (38KB, 600x457px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x457px

>>50267537
Fuck you spiderman that was brilliant and I wish I had posted that.

It's absurd how much better the older starter boxes are. Even the soviet one; the hero list it's pointing you to is bad, but 10 T-34s isn't a bad thing to work from.

>>50269137
Yeah, the old 11 T-34 box was great for a Soviet tank starter force.

Although I don't think they ever did anything similar for say US Shermans or German StuGs or Panzer IVs.

>>50272224
Like we've said before, the current US set is pretty good, even if Pershing tanks are non-existent outside of Bridge at Remagen.

As for the Germans, going in half-and-half on Open Fire is a pretty safe bet.

Although a StuG or Panzer IV centered set would still be nice.

>>50269137
>>50272224
>>50274036

The new starter boxes were just made to ship the new plastic kits which presumably didn't sell as well as hoped. Of course some other models were thrown in to sweeten the deal (Shermans, T-34s, halftracks).

>>50269137
>>50272224
>>50274036
>>50274145
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JWmbvVANUraO9ILWJZduRgiI9w4ZC3ytNUQE8rK7Xrw/edit?usp=sharing

>>50274211
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JWmbvVANUraO9ILWJZduRgiI9w4ZC3ytNUQE8rK7Xrw/edit?usp=sharing

Can whoever makes the next thread please include this in the OP post?

>>50274145
>The new starter boxes were just made to ship the new plastic kits which presumably didn't sell as well as hoped.
Yeah, it really is abundantly obvious when you look at any of the non-american boxes. Sell them on clearance? Nah, let's just screw over a load of newbies.

>>50274036
>Although a StuG or Panzer IV centered set would still be nice.
I have a question: Where are all the generic StuG batteries? In my memory, there were a couple, but I'm steadily checking them and they're all, bar none, a specific battery that's fighting in support of a specific unit, during a specific action. Apparently there were only 10 StuGs in Normandy.

>>50276520
There unfortunately aren't any no-unit specific StuG Batterie lists...yes, we get a list for every bloody Tiger unit in existence, but the real workhorse units tend to get ignored.

Best bet is to try to use one of the existing StuG Batterie briefings, or build it as a Panzer list (e.g. Grey Wolf) but with StuGs for HQ & Combat Platoons. Not perfect, but BF does not seem to care much for the StuG units.

>>50276663
No StuHs in there, though.

>>50276868
In the Panzer list, yes. There are StuH in the GW StuG Batterie, and the Bridge by Bridge one. There's also the Hermann Göring Eastern Front list which is a great StuG list.

>>50274430
For soviets it depends on whether you're prioritising getting games in and learning or having a strong list. A few T-34s will let you field a hero tankovy, which'll let you l2p, but for the easiest strong list to buy I'd say you want two boxes of infantry, some guns and some ISUs. You'll be able to put on a reasonable all-comers list with minimal (for soviets) outlay, and what's more you'll be playing infantry, which'll mean you actually get to grips with things like assault, digging in, and pinning and suchlike that tank vs tank will mostly skip over.

>>50277031
Honestly, if I had to do a LW starter box for soviets again I would probably go with two loads of infantry and a gun battery. It'd break up all tanks all the time and it gives you a strong core for the soviets.

>>50277224
Having done the math, it matches up to the US box: 5 M4A3s, 3 Pershings, and an armoured rifle platoon is £79, 2 boxes of infantry and 1 of zis guns is 78. Including comissars, observers, etc, that gets you 1275 points, with guards, which is a little low, granted, but higher than the brit box.

So, our local group has recently been expanded by the addition of a new Russian player. Unfortunately for him, he bought the Stalin's Bears starter box (and a box of infantry, thankfully). He did ok in the quick demo game we threw together, but that was with trained opposition instead of the veterans that are common locally.

Do you guys have any suggestions for him on how to expand on what he has, and/or how to use what he's got?

File: IMG_4430.jpg (842KB, 2448x1947px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 2448x1947px

Gosh the BO-105 is so small and cute!

>>50278267
What does he got then?

File: 20161018_210824.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>50278286

>>50278306
Meine Brüder!

That rear rotor was a bitch to remove from the sprue.

>>50278305
6 IS-2s
3 ISU-122s
4 T-34s
1 Strelkovy Company w/ HMGs (http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=117&ProductID=6182)

File: bersaglieri1.jpg (30KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x363px

>>50264300
Those feathers and sweet motorbikes. Praying for plastics.

>>50278363
I have some nice clippers with a flat edge so I didn't have any difficulty, but I can see how many would. It's nice of them to give you two.

I see you did some modifications, looks cool.

File: IMG_4425.jpg (123KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 768x512px

>>50278389
Thanks, I'm doing them as hkp 9, the swedish version.
So tows instead of hot and some sensor cylinder.

>>50278373
Needs more T-34s. At least 10, preferably 15. Also the IS-2s are... hard to get value out of, especially by someone new.
Your pal needs more stuff basically.
>zis-2
>SU-100
>SU-122
>122mm heavy mortars
>katyushas
Any or all of these are good buys.

File: IMG_2607.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>50278373
Oh God he bought the Stalin's Bears box! Abort abort!

Pretty much what >>50278489 said. MW and LW war tankovy lists depend on T-34 spam supported with mortars or assault guns to dig out infantry. The T-34 plastic kit has so much value as it can be the core of LW or MW just by swapping out the turret.

Also this is now a BO-105 thread

File: IMG_2676.jpg (971KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 3264x2448px

Forgot I made a little fixes + glossed and wash.

Speaking of horrible decisions and Berlin, how shit (relative to other Hero units) is the Hero Assault Tank Company, with the mix of T-34/85s and ISU-152s? Can the T-34s shoot first and bail tanks for the ISUs to kill?

>>50278489
Why would you use SU-100s?

>>50279647
>Can the T-34s shoot first and bail tanks for the ISUs to kill?
Nope. All shooting within a platoon, excluding smoke, happens simultaneously.

>>50279475
>>50279496
Niice

Love the design of those murdercopters.

File: IMG_3890.jpg (687KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1920x1080px

>>50279669
At 16 and fa 9 for a decent price with cat killer to sweeten the deal.
What's not to like?

>>50279812
RoF 1, HnC, Slow and Overloaded.

So all is fine and dandy, assuming you're meeting a few Cats with no Smoke. Add smoke, add numbers, and they're moderately wasted.

>>50279812
Was going to answer but >>50279860 basically covered it.

RoF 1 kills it, the fact it can't reposition just makes it worse. Sure, it'll KO panthers if it hits, but that's a real big if.

File: IMG_4061.jpg (37KB, 340x659px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 340x659px

>>50279860
>>50279892
Well all those drawbacks is also why it is costed so low. They are always priority one for my opponents to kill, even one is a threat to any tank other than a KT. I like them, they are hard to use but kill hard. Very russian.

>>50280120
If your opponents are panicking and focusing on SU-100s, then they're not great players (or you use too little terrain, or have a meta where nobody brings smoke). Bypass if you can (since they can't follow you), and if you can't, just smoke them.

>>50280775
You got me. My opponents are panicky, bad players and we never play with smoke and have too little terrain.

>>50280775
>Something can be countered
>Therefore its useless

When you are smoking the SU-100, you aren't pinning your opponent's heavy mortars. Same thing with sporadic air support. Even if they don't kill anything they have value in forcing the opponent to react to their presence.

>>50281231
Generally speaking, the arty that gets used for smoke the most, tends to not be the arty you want to use for actual bombardments.

Besides that, if the Soviet opponent is Fearless, pinning mortars and hoping it sticks is a fool's errand.

>>50280120
They're very hard to use, because they suck. Slow means they'll never get an opportunity to flank unless the opponent actively lets them. Overloaded means either you "park and forget" them in terrain, or you leave them out of terrain to reposition if needed. They're Soviet, so they suck ass at avoiding fire... Expect 4s to be hit at long range, 5s if at range and in concealment. And the piss poor ROF means tank for tank they will have half the pile of dice to throw. This makes them frustrating as fuck to to use for trading dice against Panthers, or Fireflies.

I love the look of the SUck-100s, but they most frequently get left in my case for any games I play. They're cheap, sure... But SU-85 and 85m are cheaper still, have twice the pile of dice, also get rerolls at range, and can reposition with a +1 penalty (as opposed to derpy +2).

>>50281231
Like with IS-2s, you can construct hypothetical positioning scenarios where the IS-2 is the exact thing you want, but most of the time they're going to be pretty useless.

The SU-100 is like that and, hilariously, for a lot of the same reasons the IS-2 is; can't move and shoot, one shot, and surprisingly fragile, though at least it's not pretending it's an assault vehicle.

Smoke in particular is a bad one to try and pick up on. Sure, if someone's brought exactly one 10.5cm gun, your cunning masterstroke works, but 90% of the time someone's just going to use mortars or nebs or 75mm guns to pop smoke. Or just one of the many direct-fire smoke weapons in the game. Or, again, just go around or take a concealed path.

SU-100s end up being like slightly cheaper Jagdpanthers, in that there's never enough of them on a board to cover enough angles, or put out enough fire, to really be a problem.

>>50281709
+2 is fun because if you ever have to chase a unit (I've never played on a board where I could just set up a gun line at the start of the game and trade shots), you hit on 6s in the open. Go ahead and ram the barrel into someone's track. Still 6s.

>>50281784
At least two Jagpanthers can be unhittable while Gone to Ground in concealment, and will throw enough dice to scare even a Veteran Jumbo.

>>50281808
You have a weird idea of "fun". Most of the time if your SU-100s are chasing anything, they're going to be unable to hit. All it takes is Vets at long range, or in concealment. Good players know this, and will just happily drive their (usually Wide Tracked) tanks through the brush with impunity. As far as firing lines go, I have never had a game where they can just trade shots from turn 1, either. You can't infiltrate them (unlike T-34s), and unblocked LOS from deployment to deployment is a sign of a bad table. What you usually try to do, is give them a nice corridor to overwatch. But that doesn't help worth shit when something like Panthers drive into sight, kill 2, and then stormtroop out of sight.

>>50281963
>You have a weird idea of "fun".
I think he's using sarcasm, m8

>>50281784
>like with IS-2s, you can fuck with my white roomed assumptions by positing actual gameplay.

>>50282037
Cute but it's good to see you're going to follow this terrible line of argument to it's logical conclusion and argue the IS-2 is good.

>>50282037
You can try and meme if you like but my gameplay experience is that nobody cares about SU-100s because they're trivially easy to neuter, and are thus a bit crap. They're saved from actually being IS-2s by not being literally impossible to play usefully, but who the fuck doesn't have cheap smoke, even if your tables are awful?

>>50282121
IS-2's aren't impossible to play if you...
-Kill everything with AT 13+
-Spend a shit ton of points making them into assault monsters
-Have an objective for them to assault shit off of
-And can wait 6 turns for them to get there.

It's just unfortunate that failing any of those makes them a total waste of points.

>>50282037
Not any of the above, but I've had one encounter with SU-100s, on my side in a team game. Enemy had no smoke, and there was a clearish (concealment but no LoS block) corridor for them to see through. The five of them killed one Tiger. That's it. Three of them got killed by various sources of return fire, and his 34/85s accounted for two tigers (and a number of other vehicles) in comparison. They might work in your local meta, but for a lot of people they just suck. Never had someone use them against me, but since I'm brits and have DFS everyfuckingwhere in addition to my smoking arty that's probably for the best.

>>50282303
1 Tiger, I can see... If it's a Tiger 1.

If it's a King Tiger, I'm calling bullshit unless the opponent was running those shittier Porsche turret ones for 5pts less per tank.

Is there something wrong with PSC's stuarts? I've heard bad remarks about them.

>>50282501
different scale from what i remember

>>50282303
Yeah, they're workable if you play someone who fuckin' loves panthers, especially CT or RT panthers. Western allies can smoke everything, and if you're playing non-panther germans they're either impenetrable (KT/JTs) or you're left wondering why you're not just using SU-85s/T-34/85s, which do the same job but cheaper with better RoF.

>>50282303
>One nondescript game a trend makes.
>>50282121
>my meta blows at Soviets, therefore SU-100s are useless.

>>50282644
Or ISUs... Which are cheaper than IS-2s, have short range rerolls, heavy tank side and top armor, and none of the retarded SU-100 design.

>>50282644
Yeah, but smoking the Su-100s tends to leave you open elsewhere. It's the classic Soviet dilemma. You shoot at anything, and the rest of the list fucks you.
>why you're not just
From when I've seen them, it's been a case of strengthening the lists AT options rather than replacing them. Much like how a given British list might only have 1 platoon of 17 pounders, or a German list only 1 88 platoon or JPs, and the rest, lighter stuff, it's about covering your bases, confident that they can still fuck up lighter stuff.

>>50282552
Measuring mine it seems a bit short, but that might be one of those "do we measure the hull or the boxes stuck on it" things. Width and height are about right (2.3cm and 2.5cm for 2.23m and 2.56m, respectively).

>>50282730
ISUs are still fairly pricey, but at least have a clear gameplan.

>>50282737
Western allies really don't hurt for smoke. In addition to ubiquitous smoke in their arty (god help you if it's infantry), they tend to have direct-fire smoke in every tank platoon (brits get direct fire smoke in every infantry platoon, for added hilarity). You really only need one, two, conservatively, to knock out a whole platoon, and it's everywhere. As someone pointed out, the SU-100 can only really sit on overwatch down a fire lane, and if that lane's absolutely essential the yanks and brits will have no problems slapping down smoke on it. You also hit the problem of wondering why you bothered with SU-100s; unless there's a pershing or church VII, an 85mm gun does the same job, or at least 90% of it, with the bonus of being RoF 2 and able to engage in some limited manuever.

The Germans, on the other hand, are able to fully enjoy the storm-trooper shuffle against something that can't chase them. The germans also love their nebs, and hit the same "Why don't we just have more T-34s" problem. All of these hit the issue that SU-100s are real bad at forcing confrontations.

Most of the minors have numbers, contrarily, and if you have three max size platoons you're not going to care about spending a turn in a SU-100's sights, because the maybe-two tanks you're going to lose don't matter. Infantry or mech lists are that problem x 100.

Really, most of the issue is the nonviability of light-heavy tank lists, which are the only thing SU-100s really excel against. Superheavies you get, but nobody really takes lists with FA 9-11 tanks in abundance.

>>50282737
The best smoke arty is cheap. All you need is a trio of low-end Nebelwerfers, or whatever cheap ass smoke arty you can get as western allies. For the most part, you can completely ignore the SUck-100s until you have to cross their LOS or they reposition, then smoke them. Otherwise, there's not a lot of things for you to really smoke when playing against Soviets. Any Assault Guns, sure. ISUs and SU-122s are nasty if you let them take their rerolled shots. T-34s? If they're fielding those, then they're most likely attacking. In which case, smoke them when they stop moving to shoot you the next turn. IS-2s? Not worth bothering to smoke unless he's got a good shot and needs 4s to hit with at least 3 tanks. Infantry? No reason to. AT guns? Only smoke them if you're going to assault and need to remove their defensive fire.

Basically if you've got smoke bombardment, you brought it FOR smoke bombardment and little else. And for that, there aren't many better targets to smoke than SU-100s or ROF 1 heavy tanks.

File: IMG_20160203_205808369_HDR.jpg (590KB, 803x1293px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 803x1293px

>>50282701
You asked for gameplay, you got gameplay, you dismissed gameplay because it doesn't match want you wanted. Suck a cock.

>>50282461
Yeah, Tiger Is. Never heard someone refer to KTs as just Tigers.

>>50282737
>Yeah, but smoking the Su-100s tends to leave you open elsewhere.
m8 I have two 6"x12" templates and 12 DFS vehicles at 1500. I can smoke the 430 point platoon of paperweights without issue.

>>50283187

Ouch. That table. Now I feel spoiled by the tables at our club.

File: 2016111695212047.jpg (478KB, 1716x965px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1716x965px

>>50283302
We've gotten better at it. This is a deliberately sparseish table from an introductory game we did last night.

>>50283381

Okay, that's fair. A shade more open than I'd usually play, but not hideous.

File: IMG_20160831_203211529_HDR.jpg (550KB, 803x1022px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 803x1022px

>>50283381
And a more typical type of setup. The fields and roads really help.

>>50283405
Yeah, wouldn't normally be quite that sparse but when teaching a guy using IS-2s to play, best to keep it a bit on the open side. >>50283451 is more typical.

We really need to get some hills though...

>>50283471
Goddamnit why does fucking nobody use linear cover. It goes by roads, people!

>>50283584
Next project I've got terrain-wise is to make some stone walls and hills, since something to go along the road is good but everyone here just HATES Bocage.

>>50282998
speaking of smoke how solid is the german rocket half tracks.
I'm eyeing a platoon but it's like 70 dollars
is it point effective if i am playing desperate measures panzers?

>>50283405
It was open so the new guys is-2s didn't get totally fucked

>>50283977
Solid. Veteran armored rockets that shrug off MG fire, can't be pinned, disperse their smoke trails on a 3+, and they're 165pts for 3? Worth it. Definitely. And if you need to, you can use them for their standard bombardment as well. Extra crew is optional, but you never really need more than 3 vehicles.

>>50283977
I got some old glory ones they weren't awful

Much cheaper too

I like them, a unit of three with the extra crew upgrade can put out the maximum size smoke template

File: thumbs up.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>50284208
>>50284223
thanks anons

>>50283977
>$70

That has to be in Pacific Pesos. No way they'd cost that much in USD.

>>50285387
They're $62.50 in Burgerland Fun Bux.
>Includes four Panzerwerfer 42 (with 15cm & 8cm rocket options) & with Loading Crew, one Command SMG team, one Observer Rifle team, one Kfz 15 field car with driver, one Kübelwagen & two Small bases.

>>50285387
It's cad.

>>50285387
they are indeed, as are the conventional artillery

>>50282998
Cheap but not always on the table. Reserves games particularly, and Soviets always have more platoons than you have smoke. You're damned either which way. Take smoke platoons, don't take garrison or ATG platoons.

>>50282934
>85mm gun does the same job
Unless you're after something to deal with heavier armour, in which case it's next to useless.

>>50283187
>that table
So Warmachine players have broadened their horizons, then.
>>50283381
Ah. That goes some way.

>>50283187
>You asked for gameplay, you got gameplay
I asked for actual data, and you mentioned a single data point and presented it as conclusive. You suck a cock.

WWPD puts some interesting numbers out.
http://www.wwpd.net/2013/11/mathpocalypse-now-cat-killers-and-you.html

>>50285618
I presented a single data point because that was all I had, and I was expecting others to chime in. And, currently, that's one more data point than you're presenting. Fuck off.

>>50286344
>>50285618
Gentlemen, if you could both stop acting like petulant children, that would be wonderful.

A single data point is not conclusive, but it can also not be dismissed out of hand either.

They key is getting a large sampling of data points with a deep understanding of the variables involved before any useful conclusions can be drawn.

Table layout, force composition, skill of the controlling player, skill of the opposing player, attacker, defender, mission, what units were in reserve or ambush, etc all play into how any given game of FoW will play out.

So put your dicks back in your pants. The pissing contest is over.

>>50286344
>I presented a single data point because that was all I had
Didn't stop you mouthing off as if it was conclusive, though.

So I was digging through my old stuff and found a 5th SS Panzerdivision dice tin laying about..these things worth anything now? I know battlefront doesn't sell them anymore.

>>50288116
There are always collectors. Don't know about 5th SS specifically, but they generally go for at least what you bought it for, most likely more.

>>50285578
As I pointed out, it only matters for stuff in the 9-13 kind of range i.e. Panthers. KTs and such are still impenetrable, less than that and you may as well bring 85mms. Now how often do you see people bring tigers and churchill VIIs? The only thing in that range I see in any number outside of Pantherspam is Jumbos, and those can be disregarded since they run off when the rest of their platoon explodes.

>>50285685
Underrated post

>>50286891
It's hilarious to see you accusing some guy of being conclusive when it was argued, with zero evidence, that the fucking IS-2 is fine because it doesn't meet the ~white roomed assumptions~

>>50285685
Interesting how this agrees with the analysis you're usually better off with SU-85s. RoF 1 is the real killer. If it'd had RoF 2 like stuff like the jagdpanther, M26 or jagdtiger, I expect it'd be much more worthwhile to take.

File: IMG_4442.jpg (1MB, 3069x2062px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3069x2062px

Luchs assembled.
Damn they are big! Compare to the Leo2.
The Luchs might be my favourite model of Team America, it looks so darned cool.

Not sure if they will actually do anything in my games but hey, two for 1pt.

>>50289262
>Jumbos
Said platoon being far easier to kill when at least one hit per volley isn't totally ignored.

>>50289311
I never said a word about the IS-2, cockgobbler. Way to try to put words in my mouth, though.

>>50289437
>agrees
That's a massive stretch. They're pretty similar. One scenario slightly favours one, the other, the other.
>ROF1
I wonder if they had something that removed the move and fire penalty. That might make them too agile, though. Perhaps not having the long range penalty to TN?

>>50290831
My last game my Luchs cleared an objective of enemy helidropped infantry, shot down two hinds with lol mg fire, and popped some BMPs. I use 8 in my list. Best 4 points you can spend.

>>50290990
>>50289311
>when it was argued
literally learn to read

>>50291050
Wow that is encouraging to read!
Maybe I do need another box...

>>50291089

Assuming BF ever reforms their point system for tourneys, the Luchs is a no brainer. You can still do a lot with 2 units. They are most useful to extend your deployment zone. Especially if there are roads on the board. It's fun busting out the 40" road dash. As far as shooting, I would stick to using them to pick at infantry or soften up a BMP attack. I haven't been able to hit soviet rear support with them yet.

>>50290831
If nothing else, they expand your deployment area.

>>50291050
Nice!

File: IMG_4443.jpg (713KB, 2386x2056px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 2386x2056px

Gepards done.

>>50291270
I love those models.

>>50290998
Skill check to remove the RoF 1 penalty?

Not to interrupt the soviet argument, but anyone got any advice for this?

>>50252841

Red/blue EW desert tournament (burning empires and hellfire and back only).

>>50292472
Further thoughts on this:
Gives Hero IS-2s more help than normal IS-2s, which is fine because Hero IS-2s are even more overcosted.
Gives you an out if you have to move, but isn't so reliable that you just move all the time and so makes moving a tactical decision.
Makes some sense historically, as better trained crews nearer to the end of the war could get a better rate of fire out of the gun.
Doesn't change them so much that you need a new points value for them.

>>50290977
The problem with the assessment on the jumbo, is that fewer shots at higher AT means that it's going to have a greater impact on ruining your potential fire. Assuming you're shooting from long range, 5 SUck-100s can expect to hit Veterans (with a Jumbo and no gun-tanking) *about* 2.5 times. With one of those hits going to the FA 14 (13 +1 for range) and likely bouncing off unless it rolls a 1 for armor.

Comparatively, 10 shots from SU-85s will likely get about 5.5 hits, with only 1 hit bouncing off front armor 14 (2 if it's a 4-tank platoon. Any sherman with a 75mm will likely be FA 7 at range, and hoping for 5s to deflect the shot(s). While even 76mm shermans with FA 8 will be hoping for 4's to glance it.

Compared to the 1 unlikely to die Jumbo and 1 railgun shot through a sherman, I'll always favor the bucket of AT 12 dice approach for it's statistical ability to *possibly wipe out or bail everything that isn't the Jumbo. Even more important, is the cheaper cost of the SU-85 and 85m means you can squeeze in yet more shit.

>>50290998
The ROF 1 is mostly a problem for things like the IS-2, which is expected, and designed, around having to move.

For the ISUs, they're only expected to move into firing position. For SU-100s, they're not expected to ever move at all, and their stats (ahistorically) reflect that. What the SU-100s really need is either a decent ROF of 2 (seeing as they had twice the fire rate of the Jagdtiger and IS-2), -OR- H&C removed entirely along with the movement penalty for ROF 1, and given Standard Movement. H&C in general makes no historic sense for the Tank Killers. They were far more autonomous than the Tankovy companies.

>>50293476
A skill check just to have a chance to hit dug-in Vets on a 6, or to have a normal chance to hit, doesn't actually help them much. The best idea I've heard, is to give them a "breakthrough tank" rule that allows them to ignore the +1 penalty to hit for moving, if their target is within 16" (short range).

>>50293738
>With one of those hits going to the FA 14
Jumbos are FA12 base, but your overall points stand.

File: yes i am a genuis.jpg (20KB, 200x301px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x301px

I might be an idiot.
BIG FUCKING sale at the LGS
like 25% off everything.
The sum total of my german forces is now 5000 pts.
The fuck just happened

File: IMG_4422.jpg (122KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x720px

>>50294323
>25% off
No man would hold you to your actions.

>>50294323
What u buy?
Show us some loot pics

>>50294012
Duly noted, I always forget they're FA 12.

>>50294323
Last time that happened at my FLGS I bought the Rommel Box and the Bolt Action starter. Reason about time spent assembling and painting goes out the door when there is a sale.

>>50293738
Yeah, this is what I mean about RoF 1 being the killer. RoF 2 would make them more able to do the job they need to do, as SU-85s already do. Right now they're for sniping CT Panthers, and that's about it.

>>50294371
I'm away from home at the time.
10 stugGs
King tiger
Rudel.
42 rocket battery.
panzer iv platoon.
I have many
Many tanks now.

File: IMG_4447.jpg (266KB, 691x490px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 691x490px

>>50294761
You absolute madman

File: riding with hitler is super cool.jpg (45KB, 388x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 388x500px

>>50294785
I need every model i have to hold those Hungarian oil fields

>>50294323
It's hard to resist 25% off.

I purchased 100 points of Team Yankee Soviets recently during a 25% off sale at my FLGS.

>>50278489
Katyushas?

>>50279647
It's actually an interesting unit, the t34s defend the isu from assaults using machine guns

>>50295276
Does it operate like fireflies and cromwells and aren't 152s unable to attack tanks in general.

>>50293800
What exactly does H&C apply to, anyway? Anything in the "tank teams" section of the arsenal?

>>50293931
Better breakthrough tank rule

Make them do a as skill test with no modifiers to hit when shooting at unarmoured targets at close range

>>50295449
Hahahahahaha
No.

>>50295427
Yes. Basically, any "tank" unit (actual tanks, armored cars, halftracks, assault guns, etc) that move will suffer a +1 penalty to hit with their main weapon (not MGs). In addition, teams cannot move unless the platoon (company) commander team moves, even if the commander moved 0" so that some of the teams can adjust their position. If the commander counts as having moved, then the entire platoon (company) within command range also counts as having moved.

For example, if a T-34 moves to try to get into a better firing position, then the entire company of 10 tanks it's part of must count as moving, and all of them will suffer a +1 penalty to hit.

This stacks with ROF 1 weapons that move, so in effect an entire platoon (company) of SU-100s will have a ludicrous +2 penalty to hit if any of them move at all.

>>50295719
>>50295427
Also note that some units, like Guard Heavy Tanks and Heroes, ignore H&C. Also H&C is generally making stuff cost about 2/3 of what you would normally pay for the same stats.

>>50295828
The discount isn't quite 1/3rd off... Hero Fearless T-34-85s are 375 for 4, while H&C Fearless T-34-85s are 390 for 5. At base cost, it works out to about a 1/5th discount, give or take. The big kicker is that it also gives tankovy platoons (companies) a maxim size of 10 vehicles, and provides an increasing discount for subsequent tanks added. This is mostly because of the diminishing returns you get for taking those 9th or 10th tanks, as opposed to the 6th or 7th.

>>50295828
>>50295916
So it's 1/5th for small platoons, 1/3rd for large ones?

>>50296188
It could also be that the Hero tanks are more expensive than they should be.

>>50296503
Hero lists are mostly bad because of lack of synergies. If you compare Red Army T-34/85s to Overlord 76mm shermans they're about the same; both CT, one's 7/5/1 and one's 6/4/1 with protected stowage. But of course, shermans get stabilisers, get lists with smoke, get good mech infantry to follow on (that's fucking loaded with strong AT), have TOT artillery and AOPs, etc etc. With hero lists your trick is "we have okay tanks", which are the starting point for every other list.

>>50296654
Oh, protected stowage and an AA MG, apologies.

>>50296503
Seems to match up when comparing US and Soviet M4s. Using the Overlord versions for US and Red Bear for the USSR:
>5 M4 - 320 for US, 255 for USSR
>10 M4 - 640 for US, 415 for USSR

>5 M4 (76mm) - 470 US, 410 USSR
>10 M4 (76mm) - 940 US, 670 USSR

The russians are Fearless, though the loss of Stabilizers and Smoke probably accounts for the extra points for Fearless.

>>50296752
D'oh, shermans, of course. I'll just check out the Loza hero LL tankovy compared to the black panther hero one. Both FT with hero, which really helps.

It is some bullshit Loza's company wasn't vets, though.

>>50296783
I guess the 761st are paying a lot for mission tactics and superior fire control, since they're about a hundred points more.

>>50296783
For comparison, you should probably use the FT Hero LL list (Berlin digital), and compare it to the 761st Fearless Trained.

>>50296503
Not really. They like up quite closely with say, FT Panzer 4s. Slightly better guns and armour, no protected ammo or German space magic.

>>50298450
As I said, hero tanks, themselves, aren't that bad. It's the everything else.

>>50298760
At least you get nice mortars... yeah that's about it.

>>50298760
By extension, it's also a problem of pointing things individually and not based on synergies, which is also an issue with the IS-2. Synergies in FoW aren't usually all that complex; mechanised infantry can often prepare assaults in concert with tanks engaging, smoke covers vulnerable platoons, that sort of thing. But having those options is a huge buff to your net effectiveness. A vulnerable unit (trained medium/light tanks) is made much more surviveable if it also has smoke, for example. You pay less points because it should die quicker, but if it's being hit on 5s anyway that's not going to play out that way.

File: 20161118_213949.jpg (5MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5312x2988px

Found this in an old suitcase

>>50299139
When I volunteered at an archive they had a big ass collection of Stars and Stripes from Anzio to Berlin. There was also a French pamphlet about the liberation of Paris and a little magazine for US aircrews in Britain. Other things of note:
>series for English gentlemen--how to care for your horse breeds, golf, I could not even understand half the words they used holy fuck
>from Cobra to the Bulge there was a clear belief that the war would end, at the latest, in December
>jokes that were very much in the "us gamers huh" style (it was much, much worse in the official paper for some base in the lower 48)
My advice is that those papers were not made to last and you probably shouldn't move it very much if at all. I could not read most of the issues I managed out of fear of destroying everything. However I should note it was all crammed into a well-read scrapbook and your copy seems in better shape.

>>50298760
The main problem(s) to the Hero tanks, lie in the unit sizes, lack of smoke, and lack of any definable rules. It makes for small unit sizes that can't adequately avoid fire (like other Trained tank lists can), and that feels very dull to play.

>>50299277
We've got a whole pile of them, wat do

File: is2_berlin_2.jpg (71KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x600px

>>50299329
Furthermore, aren't Hero lists supposed to be the remnants of battalions? Where's the battalion support for soviets? (This is where their smoke and other good support sits)

>>50300176
Everything was a remnant of a battalion at that stage, though.
>battalion support
Present in those lists. Much like the more typical Soviet lists, you tend to have the kitchen sink when it comes to Soviet gear.
>their smoke
Yes, all those Soviet smoke options.

>>50300813
>Much like the more typical Soviet lists, you tend to have the kitchen sink when it comes to Soviet gear.
That mostly is because the lists are all designed with a "one shoe fits all feet" style. Since BF is loathe to make actual battalions, they represent all the possible support options the battalions in general had.

The downside however, is the Hero lists get gimped support unit sizes, and all of it is shitty trained.

>>50301000
>shitty trained
Pffft, l2trained, MW German kid.

>>50301203
Been sovieting my entire time playing this game. Trained medium tanks is shit, without smoke or raw numbers.

File: Paratroopers.jpg (32KB, 450x274px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 450x274px

>>50300813
No, man. All the other armies get smoke at the company support level and lower. The Soviets kept theirs at the battalion level, but it is not represented in game, despite BF making Soviets operate on the table at the battalion level.

Also that kitchen sink comment. It must be nice having properly themed, obscure as all hell lists for literally all other combatants in-game.

>>50303451
>It must be nice having properly themed
Firstly, I wouldn't know, I play Finns. My EW, MW, and LW lists are more or less the same, with slightly different guns in the ATG platoon.

Beyond that, the snowflakes are barely noticeable for the fact that the rest of the lists are more or less identical, and the actual themery being fairly irrelevant in the face of everything else that the given table list was written as.

Go and look at the original books BF made Red Bear and Grey Wolf out of. Everyone got their snowflakes and representations one list each, one pair at a time, for the most part.
>obscure
Implying.

>>50304109
Not that guy but are you seriously saying soviets got snowflake lists? And on par with germans?
I can only think of shtraf. And that list is shit. Fun though, but shit.

>>50299329
Unit size isn't that bad; four tanks is alright. Brits and LLW Germans do fine with it. Likewise, the points are competitive with other units of their stats. The issue is smoke, in part, but also that most of their support sucks and they don't have the perks other armies get (Stabilisers, stormtroopers, even SIF is better than nothing).

>>50300176
>>50300813
You've both got it backwards, the standard "company" available to the soviets is a battalion. The DM/Berlin lists are the remains of brigades.

File: MAA 508.jpg (510KB, 1413x953px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1413x953px

World War II Croatian Legionaries: Croatian Troops under Axis Command 1941-1945 (Osprey Men-at-Arms 508)

As Europe descended into war the newly formed state of Croatia found itself an ally in Nazi Germany. Tens of thousands of Croatians volunteered for the German Wehrmacht, with Croatian-badged units created within the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, Waffen-SS and Police force. When Hitler turned his attention to Stalin's Soviet Union many of these men found themselves thrown into the fray, with Croatian soldiers serving at Stalingrad, fighting Tito's Partisans in the Balkans and battling against the advancing Red Army in Hungary. Aided by detailed illustrations, author Vladimir Brnardic explores the uniforms and equipment of World War II Croatian Legionaries.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/amahnnhnkrdf519/Osprey+-+MAA+508+-+World+War+II+Croatian+Legionaries.pdf

File: brave motherfucker.jpg (70KB, 650x435px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x435px

>>50304185
>>50304109

the Soviet Snowflake Lists:
--Engineer Sapper, Berlin Cossacks, Strahf and Hero Tankovy w Berlin Mods (because shit rules).

semi- snowflake-ish lists:
--Imnocha'Tankovy, Guards Heavies, SU-magical realm, Red Banner Berlin Infantry, Rota Razvedki, Berlin Hero Tanks

fake snowflakes make of standard paper:
--Udarny, Hero MotoStrelk, Hero other Armored stuff, most other attempts at being unique

>>50305168
I'm not sure this is a "snowflakes" list; other armies have cav and engineer lists, and all the hero lists are standardise, maybe excepting the Red Banner infantry. Rota Razvedki is just a recon company, too, and none of them are "This is this particular unit with a load of special rules because it did this thing".

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

1B, 486x500px

Speaking of snowflake lists, I've been stupidly considering getting a bunch of the Axis and Allies Tetrarchs for really cheap, and then making some horrible list like this. Anyone want to tell me how dumb this is? And does anyone have experience with the quality of the A&A minis?

>>50305388
compared to russia, those lists are the lists whose:

--models are the most different: they can't pass for normals
--their rules work far different than normal...

by you logic a tiger company and a pershing company (hypothetical) would be the same list

were' saying "unique for the nation the army comes from"
as in
not a list (soviets) had generics of

File: zzzzziing.jpg (65KB, 736x893px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 736x893px

>>50305785
my pumas will fite u

>>50305793
Snowflake lists are the ones that're specific to a given regiment or engagement (or kampfgruppe, or whatever); having special rules or whatever doesn't change whether or not they're snowflakes. Having Easy Ride doesn't make the LLW American lists snowflakes, and the Company of Heroes lists are snowflake lists despite the fact they're just US paras because they're putting the character of that unit in that engagement first. It's the latter thing the soviets almost totally lack; hero lists give them some more special rules but they don't make them any more unique since it was just "the red army" fighting in every engagement. Tiger companies are, indeed, not snowflake, since they show up in every book I can think of as a generic list.

File: 1476192838520.jpg (40KB, 281x277px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 281x277px

>>50304967

Nothing screams class like a Nazi fez.

>>50305992
so, who could the soviets have?

and do the Straf and Engineer Sappers count? from what i recall they were specific units.

>53rd Guard Tank Brigade
>Naval Recon Detachment
>???

File: BMP-2 awf-v.jpg (187KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1920x1080px

emergency pg10 bump!

>>50308671
ah good idea.

sup /ffg/ I need to know what you folks think what is the best german gun teams/artillery teams in late war.

>>50308759
The Cheaper the better. Can't go wrong with the classic Three Gun Nebelwerfer battery, but you can sometimes get a 105mm battery in the same price area.
Because German Artillery is inherently flawed with it's lack of special rules, it's best not to rely on Tube artillery, but generally my stance is, cheaper, better. So things like Volks Light Artillery Batteries etc.

>>50308877
Oh the 8.8 is that worthwhile?

>>50308759
Nebelwerfers for artillery.

PaK 40s for anti-tank guns.

>>50308901
i mean for anti air, i group it mentally with gun teams because of rommel

>>50308901
Well you can get Artillery FlaK and PaK43s 88s, so there's that.

For Luftwaffe FlaK88s, never ever buy them additional crew. With motivation Reluctant they will virtually never unpin and you've wasted something like 20-40 points.
Buy 37mm AA guns over Quad 20mm guns, if they're pinned down, which does happen, a few big shots at firepower 4+ is better than firepower 5+.

Infantry Gun Platoons are great, two light guns that can generally help ward off tanks, punish infantry for moving in the open, can be conscripted for removing machine guns or anti-tank guns if moved up, and vitally, cheap source of smoke.

When buying a PaK40 battery, ask yourself, if this is the only source of PaK40s you're going to have, can you find the points to make them Self-Propelled? Even the worst Marders are better than static guns in terms of survivability, Mobility, and the ability to Shoot and Scoot.
Also remember that your PaK40s are decently good at shooting other things. If they're deployed in and around your front line, the enemy's artillery won't appreciate 4+ Firepower 3+ shots per turn at their guns.

>>50308906
88s get RoF 3, 40" range, and AT 13 isn't much of a drop. I generally prefer them, though being bigger guns kinda sucks.

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

2MB, 3264x2448px

Old Glory T-55s came in! 9 tonks for $75. Not perfect, but fairly easy to put together and quite nice for the price point. I'll do a full review when I get them painted up. Main problems are a few mold lines and a really weird mount for the DSHK, whick I just trimmed off.

Not sure if I should keep these as is or try to make some ERA or turret armor.

>>50310258
That looks pretty ok actually.

>>50310258
Is it made of that skytrex super-bendy metal?

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>50310794
Nope, standard pewter or white metal equivalent. Only bending issue has been with the cannon

>>50311079
Once you bent it back, was it minor knock/light pressure resistant? Like, do you have to give it a bit of a squeeze to bend it into shape?

>>50311934
The barrel bends without too much force. You can flip it with your finger but if you give it a flick it will bend. The long barreled 100 mm gun is long and thin, which makes it hard to keep the white metal barrel from bending when it gets bumped.

The tracks don't bend even if moderate force is applied.

File: 1C15259D-B457-4837-8AEF-F9ADC042F7B8-29279-00002ACD5C891E71_tmp.jpg (26KB, 500x318px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x318px

Off for the night, but here is a picture of the Command Decision T-55s from Old Glory's website. Can anyone spot what's wrong?

>>50313232
Front T-55 put his tracks on backwards?

>>50313573
if by front you mean leftmost, yes.

>>50315396
You also forgot "Tanks on bases".

That is just wrong.

>>50305168
Way to move those goalposts.

>>50309230
20 points. So they're still extremely cheap even if they get pinned, and more than make up for it with their 50% improved killing power when they're not.

>>50318706
Given how lots of German lists end up it's also probably 20 points you weren't spending on anything else.

>>50318862
I tend to run infantry, so touch wood, but yeah, a lot of the time it's exactly the level of excess points you have to spend.

File: 1441755575279.jpg (48KB, 597x404px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 597x404px

>>50318661

y'know, if there was an american list that had plain standard shermans with basic Rifles and Artie in support like the most generic tank company, then had less of those support options...then the standard shermans and short 105 platoon all had unreliable and slow traverse, only available in platoons of 3 or 4, but could get improvised armor and had 2+ motivation,
that would be called a snowflake list.

it should be called shit. but i've notice logic faults and bias on THIS board, as well as Battlefront

>>50320085
What are you even arguing anymore? That we should conform to your definition of snowflake?

>>50320085
I have literally no idea what the hell you're trying to say here. Perhaps you should take more English classes, or lay off the booze?

File: 2016-11-20-14-18-34.png (207KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 494x879px

Hey guys which early war list is better?

File: 2016-11-20-14-18-42.png (204KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 494x879px

>>50321747
1500 point lists

File: 2016-11-09-09-35-40.png (208KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 494x879px

>>50321763
List number 2

File: 2016-11-09-09-35-53.png (208KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 494x879px

>>50321772
Second part of list number 2

File: 2016-09-19-23-03-31.png (208KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 494x879px

>>50321747
List number 3

>>50321763
Considering that the first list is 5 points over (it's called a limit, not a suggestion), list 2 would be the only legal one. The fact that it's also even platoons makes it even better (well, less shitty, at least, I'm no expert on the french)

File: 2016-09-19-23-07-02.png (205KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 494x879px

>>50321799
Last part

File: IMG_4475.jpg (1MB, 2448x3133px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3133px

Taking forever to assemble tanks.
What arty should I buy for me germans?
Lars or M109s? None?
>inb4 pzMörsers

So if I go and buy BF's new M10s, how would I go about getting the proper crew for Brits? It seems to come with American crew in the box.

>>50324045
Get some command decision commanders? Peter pig might also do some.

>>50324045
They sell Crew Sprues separately on the site.

>>50323208
I went with M109s, and magnetized the barrels, with the right paint scheme and some scrounging for bits, they could be American.
I also went with Panzermorsers, because M113s are my fetish.

>>50323208

Are you running a panzerdivision?

M109G
>more expensive at 7 points for 3 guns
>smoke
>No add-ons like the Americans have
>smaller template but better AT and FP
>can be used in direct fire if you are desperate (might be useful for smoke)

LARS
>4 batteries for 6 points
>that means 2 more inches of smoke bombardment
>Can only bail MBTs
>Salvo template for maximum pinning
>Minelets for a point
>5+ tank save

You can decide for yourself. I chose LARS for the minefield and salvo template for pinning. If you want to run a Panzergrenadier company without spending tons of points on artillery, I'd spend 3 points for Panzermorsers.

>>50324482
Good points. I'm running lots of leo2s so I think lars is more up my alley.
I also happen to love the models.

>>50324482
Panzercompany*

Also I forgot to note that the M-109's have the added bonus of counting toward formation morale. Since every unit in the formation has to be in bad spirits for it to take a morale check, this can be handy. LARS come out of divisonal support.

>>50324817
The models are really nice. You'll definitely want to magnetize the rocket batteries.

>>50305168
Those are not "snowflake lists". The only Soviet snowflake list is the 8ya Shtraf battalion, which is shit on chips. Snowflake lists, as in "mah unique and special snowflake", are lists built after a specific brigade, company, or detachment. Such as the German SS Wiking/Totenkopf list(s), 512 Schwere Panzerjager 1st/2nd company, US "Easy Company", US 3rd/9th Light Armored Companies, British 2nd New Zealand Division motor/armored, etc.

"Snowflake briefings" are usually designed around reflecting that particular formation, it's respective motivation/skill (often different from "the norm" for that nationality), the equipment the had, and often times special rules to give them a thematic feel.

The only Soviet "snowflake list" like this, is the Shtraf battalion.

>>50325125
I was going to say "Berlin sappers" but checking it doesn't actually say if they were the 25th (I had assumed they were).

The other really funny thing about the berlin stuff is that the reason for "Hero lists" is that the soviets typically didn't reinforce divisions, preferring to raise new ones and disband as necessary. But the 3rd and 5th shock armies were reinforced, so by that logic they shouldn't be hero formations in Berlin.

>>50325125
wait by your description would that mean the british 8th armoured (desert rats) were snowflakes.

>>50325962
I mean, they are. They have unique units (nobody else gets main-line cromwells), and cautious, not stupid.

>>50326302
>nobody else gets main-line cromwells
What do you mean by that? You referring to the core regiments, or any regiment at all in a division? Because there's the armored recce regiments for the 11th and Guards.

>>50325125
>only I get to define snowflake lists in an incredibly biased fashion
>oh look, I'm always justified

>>50326302
Christ, that's an incredible low threshold for snowflake lists. Most lists in the game outside the V3 book are snowflakes by that definition.

>>50327433
How the fuck would you define it, then? Because that seems like a quite reasonable definition of snowflake.

>>50327446
>that's exactly the conclusion he wants you to come to
>so he can continue to complain about how everyone gets them except for the Russians

Seriously though, most of Late War is made up of units that historically operated in a way that is non-standard compared to the rest of the military forces of that nation.

But to leave out these "special snowflakes" would be to ignore the fact that they did exist historically, were organized differently, were equipped differently, and operated differently than the rest of the military they belong to.

>>50326302
>(nobody else gets main-line cromwells)
page 82 (overlord)
armored recce squardren.
I think you mean firefly - cromwell

Can we wildly speculate about how Soviets are going to look in redone MW?

>in before more hero lists to represent survivors of units in Stalingrad.

>>50328278
They'll look about the same as they do now. Myabe with some Self Propelled Artillery briefings, for MW (e.g. A worthless SU-152 spam "Heavy" SPA, a Tank Killer SU-85, and an SU-76 / SU-122 briefing). Otherwise, everything will still be Fearless Conscript, or Fearless Trained.

>>50327433
>oh look, I'm retarded
By it's very fucking definitions of being "speshul snowflake", the briefing has to be based around some named formation. This is why US and Germans have always been bitched about as being the snowflake factions. I'm not defining anything. This is literally the reason why the term started being used for Flanes of War.

>>50325962
>British 8th "Desert Rats".
>Special rule for them
Yes... and...?

>>50325703
The Soviets tended to not reinforce the "throw-away" divisions. More note-worthy brigades/regiments did get reinforced. Loza's formation was reinforced several times throughout the war, the last of which was when they were brought back up to full strength in preparation for Manchuria.

>>50328397
the fuck are you trying to say here anon?

>>50328436
I'm saying "Yes, the Desert Rats were a specific formation, given Reluctant Veteran motivation/skill, and have a special rule allowing them to reroll their attempts to recover from being pinned under certain circumstances. Hence, they are snowflake breifing."

That clear enough?

File: Kanev.jpg (31KB, 221x320px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 221x320px

>>50328278
Paratroopers and black death done properly, please. (Also a plastic SMG company box)

I'm stoked all around for what plastic kits come out of the revamp, regardless of the countries.

>>50328380
>By it's very fucking definitions of being "speshul snowflake"
>implying

N00b here. Is there a Late war Brit list in which one can take Sherman Vs, Fireflies and Comets in one list?

>>50330476
They wouldn't be any different to a Guards unit, though. They weren't used in their original roles very often, and the typical Soviet list has basically the entire kitchen sink as options anyway. They never did anything to really warrant any particular snowflake special rule either. Bottom line, they were mostly interchangeable with guards lists, particularly if the player's designing with one of those units in mind.

>>50331228
I don't think so. Comets are limited to Nachtjäger lists (and specifically 11th Armoured in nachtjäger, since those were the only ones who used comets during WW2). At the same time, those had no Shermans or Fireflies left (traded them for comets, all of them).

However, there MIGHT be some rifle company briefing that allows both as support. I don't think so, but I don't have time currently to check them all.

>>50331246
>british guards are mostly interchangeable with rifle/tank lists
>Panzer lehr is mostly interchangeable with 2nd pzdv
>The 761st are mostly interchangeable with the 3rd armoured

If you don't see the double standard you're blind. Fuck, just compare how the 29th have like six pages of "here's other regiments you could do", while the soviets don't have anything comparable. Eastern Front is covered as faceless hordes, the western front has personality.

>>50327446
Not that guy, but if most of the lists outside Forces are snowflakes, except for the russians, what does that tell us?

>>50331497
>eastern front
Including the Axis.

>>50331497
>double standard
Yeah, except the Naval infantry were literally deployed as ersatz infantry, with the bulk of the units made up with regular conscripts or retrained naval personnel. They're literally not special. Ditto for the Paras. Once they're on the ground, it's Strelkovy central.

>>50331518
That the Eastern Front hasn't been salami sliced to hell and back so often that it needs piddling little differences to avoid books literally being clones of each other. Less than half a dozen books for the Eastern compared to what, 20 books for the West?

>>50328338
I really like the SU-152 in midwar. TA 2 and a gun that can bust open tigers. I would try to run a Fearless Conscript version of them.

I think soviet tankovy really shines in midwar. Going down to conscript lets you build up numbers, while a lot of the tanks you can put on the board (T-34, Matildas, Valentines) have good enough armor to make up for being hit on a 2+ base. Hen and Chicks is not that bad. Mainly just reduces flexibility of your forces.

>>50331562
Partly true for Grey Wolf (though they also get things like Sturmbrigades and their attached StuGs and all the lovely SS brigades with their special rules because everyone knows the SS were the most powerful fighting force to have ever lived etc etc), but not for desperate measures or Berlin, and especially not when including digital stuff, where the contrast is even more stark.

>>50331571
>Ditto for the airborne. Once they're on the ground, it's Rifle central.
Literally the same argument.

>>50331578
You realise you keep making my arguments for me, right? Like, yeah! You're totally right! The western front has way more books and correspondingly attention and releases than the east. This is the problem. Battlefront clearly loves the Germans and Americans (I'll accept the British get a bit less attention, but even then we have the Canadians, Scots, Desert Rats, etc), and doesn't love Soviets.

>>50331720
>were the most powerful fighting force to have ever lived
None of their special rules are based around that, though.
>DM or Berlin
Literally both have plenty of new shiny stuff for the Soviets. You might not think it's powerful, but it was written in.

>>50331744
>Battlefront clearly loves the Germans and Americans
More like they've done the major battles and campaigns in each front, and you can't exactly put the Lorraine and Market Garden together.

>>50331747
>None of their special rules are based around that, though.
Sure, but they have them, there is nothing comparable in the soviet arsenal outside of the shtraf and, maybe, to be incredibly generous, sturm groups.

>Literally both have plenty of new shiny stuff for the Soviets. You might not think it's powerful, but it was written in.
It's still generic stuff! How is this not getting through? There's not even a note for "5th shock army" or anything, let alone what division or brigades units are meant to represent.

Goddamnit, not again.

Commiefags, try at least doing something productive like that one britfag that makes that fanbook, instead of just bitching and doing nothing all the fucking time. Also stop calling everything snowflakes.

Everyone else, they do have issues with being lumped together too much. You've got distinctions between british airlanding and paratrooper platoons, the commies can get some more precise lists as well.

>>50332001
>You've got distinctions between british airlanding and paratrooper platoons
Things which are actually different. There is literally no difference between strelkovy and paratroopers. Barely any soviet units had training, and they can take any support they want, so they are all interchangeable. Soviets won via numerical supremacy, not because any of them had any unique tactics.

File: 1940-43 foreman 2nd article beach party.jpg (56KB, 248x667px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 248x667px

>>50331571
You're kidding right? The paras had plenty of training to be independent, unlike the usual strelki spam, very visually distinct from them too. Like, they could even be played in the normal company scale like other armies in FoW. Furthermore, the naval troops were feared by the Germans overwhelmingly so. They had entirely different training regiments, equipment and standards, which even led on to things like the VDV of today. Instead we get "lol strelki with one less stand". Hell, and then this is stood next to tiger crews that should be bumbling morons rated RC towards the end of the war, but nah, FV, right guys?

I don't even care anymore, I just want the damn para figures. But oh wait, they're not Germans, so GGNORE.

>>50332001
I have a list prepared but I'm just waiting for V4 at this point.

File: user990_pic27213_1248153867.jpg (86KB, 816x557px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 816x557px

>>50332177
Do share, anon.

File: 1473381903999.jpg (871KB, 2272x1635px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 2272x1635px

/fowg/, I need your advice on something: the LGS in town will be holding a 1500 point EW tournament, and I decided to do a Vichy French Foreign Legion list. This is what I've come up with so far. Any suggestions on how to improve it would be great.

Compagnie De Tirailleurs HQ, CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle, 60mm mle 35 mortar, 2x 81mm mle 27/31 mortar, 3x Renault UE
Tirailleurs Platoon, Command Rifle, VB, 6x Rifle/MG
Tirailleurs Platoon, Command Rifle, VB, 6x Rifle/MG
Tirailleurs Machine-gun Platoon, 4x 8mm mle 14 HMG
Legionnaire Sapper Platoon, 6x Pioneer Rifle
Mortar Platoon (Legion), 4x 81mm mle 27/31 mortar
Anti-tank Gun Platoon, 3x 25mm SA-34 gun
Vichy Anti-tank Gun Platoon, 3x 75mm mle 1897 gun
Heavy Artillery Battery, 4x 155mm C mle 1917 S howitzer

I know for sure there will be a Finnish list, probably infantry. A Jock Column, and a American Marines list from Gung-Ho. And I can count on at least one Russian player being there as well.

>>50332092
There is still no difference. Theoretically soviets had all these wonderful commanders but none of them dared speak up because of the purges. All advances made in soviet doctrine were ignored, and in practise all soviet troops were undertrained conscripts who were herded forward. You don't need tactics when you outnumber someone 10:1, and indeed they didn't. 14 soviets died for every german. Those are the numbers you get when you charge into machineguns until they run out of ammo.

You want soviet veterans? Trained is your veteran; those are the most battle hardened a soviet could get before they either lucked out and got to go home or died.

>>50332293
Phil? Is that you?

>>50329158
You arrived pretty late o say that.
And it was unneeded because it was already answered so i have no clear reason why the fuck you said anything at all

>>50332325
No, but it's telling that the person who's done the research and helped make the most popular WW2 wargame agrees. Very telling.

>>50332398
Yeah you don't know much about the eastern front. Wonder why you think you do though.

>>50332293
>14 soviets died for every german.
These are the numbers you get when you include soviet civillians so what the fuck?

>>50332412
I don't need to, I am happy to trust other respected figures in war gaming and history, unlike you who appears to believe, unquestioned, Russian historical revisionism.

>>50332416
Soviet "civilians", by which you mean militia, partisans and terrorists, yes? I am not denying that the Nazis committed many grave crimes, including mass killings, but the vast majority of soviets killed were killed in action; it just depends on whether this was official, organised action by the red army, or independent action by soviet-backed resistance. Those are still soviet soldiers who died.

>>50332469
don't forget the soft genocide on the way to mid war and the way to berlin

>>50332416
B-but Germans killed a lot of Soviet civilians, obviosly knowing that retards would later factor the deaths into the k/d ratio in a transparent attempt to inflate German combat effectiveness...

>>50332506
It is undeniable the Germans were the most tactically advanced and highly trained force in the world during WW2. They had the equipment, training and discipline. Politically they were monstrous but their low-level combat effectiveness is undeniable and was vastly superior to that of the soviets, or indeed any other force in the world at the time, to the extent that almost every army in the world took their doctrine and training after the war (including the soviets, who would then attempt to pass it off as a development of pre-war doctrine they were never able to implement).

fun as listening to a nazi spout off about how the soviets are shit is we need a new thread.

I suggest one without a soviet/russian header, it's bad luck.

>>50332592
Explain where I have made a Nazi statement. I have stated history as it happened, nothing more or less. Of course I condemn totalitarian regimes such as naziism and stalinism absolutely. I am speaking entirely of military realities.

File: commie tears.jpg (21KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x480px

>>50332592
diff anon
>not one step back
>hen and chicks.
>etc
it's hard to say the soviets were effective at anything else than a hammerblow.
and i don't think you need to be a nazi to determine the nazis use as close to modern tactics as you can find during that age
bar MBTs of the british.
fucking commies

>>50332624
are you aware of hungerplan ost

>>50332644
>hammerblow.
I should really stress that by that i mean who needs an army when you could shoot and peasant that doesn't run at that machine gun nest like it's serious sam

>>50332644
This isn't really true, though. Look at the massive deception operation surrounding Bagration. It was a strategic masterstroke that crushed axis support almost entirely, and left them wide open to invasion of their territory, and the deception was so complete that even postwar nazi memoirs blamed the fact they were outnumbered everywhere they fought on asiatic hordes instead of the fact they'd been outplayed. Low level, the soviets worked like basically everyone with only one LMG per section did (which is notably better than the americans, who nobody ever accuses of being idiots who could only throw bodies at people).

>>50332703
I think you've missed some words, anon.

>>50332722
I am pretty fucked right now.

>>50332177
>>50332230
Yes, please share, it'd be nice to see something constructive instead of more internet arguments and it'd be cool to see what you've come up with, even if only partially completed.

>>50332807

thred

>>50332821

Beat me by 30 seconds. REEEEEEEEE.

Anyway thanks for adding the guide about the new box sets :)

File: Wehrabingo.png (142KB, 1380x1600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1380x1600px

>>50332076
>Soviets won via numerical supremacy, not because any of them had any unique tactics.

Your average flames of war player ladies and gentleman, whose greatest source of knowledge is a half remembered viewing of enemy at the gates.