Flames of War General - V4 speculative bitching edition

>>50529755
I'm gonna celebrate V4 with an Operation Unthinkable game. Total War high point value game between Western Allies and the Rooskies will be pretty great.

So my Romanians appear to be in a good spot in March. Consider that under the rules presented in the podcast, a fully maxed out Puscasi has to lose thirty stands before testing morale even once. QoQ seems to be baked into the core rules.

The Age of the Blob has finally come.

>>50530354
I gotta find time to listen to this.

I loathe them with a passion, but they get all the fucking scoops and behind the scenes access to the fucking Primary Shareholder of Battlefront.

>>50530665
I mean. I do live in the same country as them and I think Phil might know me by name and sight (Well that was like, six years ago). I could try reaching out to them.

>>50530753
It's not that I want the access. I could not care less about interviewing anyone.

I just want the guys doing the interview and discussing the new information to be a tiny bit more interesting than watching paint dry.

Us, we're a bunch of chucklefucks from 4chan, but at least we seem to be having more fun and interesting discussions than they do.

Maybe that's just them avoiding being controversial or critical of Battlefront, but they could put a bit more effort into sounding like they want to be talking about this stuff.

>>50530897

I hope it comes across to (both of?) our listeners that recording Panzerfunk is fun - because I certainly have a blast recording it.

>>50530897
> I just want the guys doing the interview and discussing the new information to be a tiny bit more interesting than watching paint dry.

I had the same thoughts.

>Maybe that's just them avoiding being controversial or critical of Battlefront, but they could put a bit more effort into sounding like they want to be talking about this stuff.

Absolutely, they walk very carefully around certain issues and then pass off said caution as "not being negative". The're increasingly shills and have been for a while now, much like the Breakthrough Shills. Because get free stuff.

>>50530897
>I could not care less about interviewing anyone.
You guys run a podcast - think of it as the next big step! If you had Lord_Viruscide ask for an interview, you'd want him to be upfront about you guys being a tougher audience, which might mean it's unlikely to happen anyway. But it'd be worth trying.

>>50531761
Well the key issue is that we've got the Scan Database and it's being shilled in all of the episodes.

Now see, I'm no lawyer, but I think Battlefront wouldn't like that.

>>50531883
Not to mention use of copyrighted music...

File: stug life (2).gif (250KB, 400x314px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 400x314px

>>50532320
Phil just wouldn't understand our memes

>>50531351
That brings up a good question, how large do we think the audience is?

I assume a lot of the people in this thread are listeners, but even here I doubt it's 100%, and we have no accurate idea of unique posters other than the Namefags.

>>50532463
Judging by previous threads we average between 30-50 unique posters.

>>50533238
Some people (myself included) post from our computer and our phones so it might be a little artificially inflated

>>50533453
Good point. I honestly haven't thought of that. Maybe we should run a poll sometime soon at least to determine a factor to account for phone + computer users. What happens if you use wifi vs data? Or if you use work vs home wifi?

>>50533629
different IPs = different poster

Reposting info about V4 from previous thread:

>late March but it's on Battlefront Time
>every existing list will have a conversion for V4, rulebook is 110 pages roughly (graphics still in progress)
>example: Bridge by Bridge has half a page of rules edits and "two rules are no longer used"
>explicit admission that EW and LW cards are categorically impossible, MW will not be on Forces because muh cards
>national special rules: Germans lose kampgruppe plus mission tactics, burgers lose tank telephones column security mumble mumble something or other, Hens and Chicks "has changed", QoQ is built into the core rules so isn't Russian specific
>artillery less effective bombarding tanks (all AT values nerfed by 1), sounds like everyone gains Mike Target but just against infantry
>many books for MW (sounds like Italy gets its own?), MW planes are effectively like TY but you only get two in the entire list period
>morale similar to TY

>>50533906
So, it seems like Germans and Burgers, and technically Russians also, lose some good stuff. H&C is getting fucked with once again, hopefully not for the worst.

I imagine the arty is getting nerfed so it fits in with TY's stats better, or some similarly retarded premise.

>>50533906
Team yankee morale makes no sense. That would mean a reluctant conscript horse would fight until the 3 stands remain.

>>50533906
From the forum, someone better at listening than me:
>8:1 scoring
>Reserves need to be 40% of points
>Art nerf aginst armour + 1 to FP - 1 to AT
>All batteries dont need to range in again next turn and inf / guns will need to re roll saves
>recon "simplified" a lot - don't know what this means though
>air turns up on a 4+
>3 new missions

>>50532463
According to Podbean we have a grand total of 5,817 Downloads over 49 Episodes(that includes Eagles' Nest and the old Grognard's Corner).

That averages out to almost 120 downloads per episode.

Although I'd assume some of the big episodes, like the Team Yankee launch special, got higher numbers than episodes that didn't have reviews of new stuff.

>>50534485
Hopefully its stuff that just got transferred into the core rules.

For Example, how many non-German lists also have Mission Tactics as a special rule?

>>50535197
Yeah, there's a few, but not that many. It should stay as a separate thing that can be pointed to. It was kind of a special line of military thought at the time, unlike today.

>>50531883
Which is a total shame, because you guys are far more entertaining than just about anyone else.

Wish I had a better mic, would love to get in on an episode sometime.

>>50535831
I feel the same way, but I don't want to mess with the groove the original Funkmeisters have. I was thinking of doing a more topical podcast in the future to be posted under the same channel. I can handle editing. Email [email protected] if you might be interested. Maybe there are some topics the general podcast isn't able to cover that we could try to give a stab at.

>>50531351
seconded.

that, and we accidentally have some of the coolest peeps in there...with opposing viewpoints...and we don't kill each other.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTFeG6ques

thought you lads might be interested. if there is enough interest and the producers don't do it themselves, i will subtitle it

>>50535197
at this point I'm surprised to see a special list that DOESN'T use mission tactics

>>50537094
it's got subtitles already

looks interesting

File: this pleases the Lemmy.jpg (17KB, 368x208px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 368x208px

>>50537094

yes.

it's also a movie. let's hope we get an EW snowflake list out of it....

>>50535831
I forget if we have your email on our list or not.

Email us at [email protected] and maybe we can invite you to join in on an episode when you are able to.

>>50536362
We're always open to more. But yeah, 4-6 people per recording seems to be the sweet spot.

Again, you're more than welcome to join us if/when you're available.

And secondary show would be cool. The only reason I've kinda slacked off on Eagles' Nest is because editing Panzerfunk itself seems to be taking a lot more time lately than it used to.

>>50537094
Interesting.

>>50537360
>Special Soviet list

We all know how unlikely that is.

>inB4 50+ posts about how poorly represented the Soviets are in FoW.

>>50537589
E-mail sent, my good man.

Does anyone have both the PSC British paratroopers and the BF British paratroopers? Looking at grabbing some airlanding 17pdrs and I need to know if they'll look ok next to my PSC paras.

>>50533906
>>50535175
I am NOT getting a good feeling from these rules... I will most likely at least try it out (especially since I like the desert war), but still...

>>50538241
The typical rule of thumb is that as long as the minis from the two companies aren't being used in the same platoon, it shouldn't be noticeable that they're from different companies.

>>50539256

Agreed, it seems like they've decided the game was too infantry centric (or not Tank centric enough) and that arty should be the counter to a dug-in platoon. Not really very interesting from a gameplay or historical standpoint. If anything tank main guns or infantry assaults should get some sort of buff if they 'prepare' for multiple turns. It was consistently proven that weight of arty fire failed to attrit dug-in infantry effectively.

This makes me wonder, why is a straight up V4 release good enough in this day and age? It should be publicly tested for months before going to the printers. Big part of the reason why I don't buy Battlefront books.

Hello I was the guy who was going to try and pick up doing a Vassal module for the game last thread. I got some good opening ideas; however I decided that the best way to go about proceeding was to make unit sprites and material based on each set of themed books. So I'll be polling a list of the books I have in physical form or have easy access to.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11803196

Once I get some results, probably cutting it off by Saturday 7 PM EST I'll begin working on sprites for all the companies in the first set of books and working them into a working module for Alpha release hopefully within a month or two.

>>50535175
>Reserves need to be 40% of points
Goodbye heavy tank lists. This is literally one of the only upsides to them.

>>50541186
Yeah, not really sure where they are getting the infantry need to reroll saves with a repeat artillery barrage. If anything the second barrage would be less effective as the infantry would be more prepared to stay down. In my opinion they should just copy paste the TY artillery rules and leave it at that. If you want another way to dig out infantry you can give the Brutal rule to close support tank varients or other tanks with large caliber guns with an effective HE shell.

I was all for a V4 that streamlined some of the rules as I feel like many of us were. Some of the changes seem to be positive toward that. I hope they don't go too far, but I am having a bad feeling from what I am hearing here. I am especially nervous that they are messing with Hen and Chicks again, but not telling us. I guess we'll see as they spoil more.

Anybody have any experience getting people into this game in the middle of nowhere? The closest place that stocks this game let alone plays it is about 2 hours away. I want to try and get people together but it seems like a daunting task to indoctrinate people into the autistic world of Panzer Pushing.

>>50542054
The key is to find at least one other person to join you.

And then to play games at the store where other people can see you playing it and possibly get interested.

It's not a guaranteed thing, but it's a start.

File: 2016-11-30-09-32-47.png (207KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 494x879px

Which 1500 French early war list is better?

File: 2016-11-30-09-33-12.png (209KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 494x879px

>>50544004

File: 2016-12-02-17-32-34.png (220KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 494x879px

>>50544004
List 2

File: 2016-12-02-17-32-42.png (204KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 494x879px

>>50544043
Last part I promise

>>50544025
>>50544004
>>50544043
>>50544058
How about using print view instead of text view? It's much more compact and easy to read.

>>50542054
You might start with TANKS since you're unlikely to spend more than $50 on it, it only requires a 3'x3' board (90cm x 90cm), and the rules are quick. Good gateway game.

How much is too much artillery?

Is buying a full tank batallion (44 tanks) a good investment?

>>50544712
No but go for it

>>50544712
That's... a bit excessive. (German companies top out at 22, americans at 17/18, british at 20. Soviets at 31).

>>50544764

I'm pretty sure a company is 13 or so tanks and a tank platoon is 3.

>>50544963
Depends on which nation, and which tank.

My LW Germans have 4 PzIV Hs per platoon, and I think they could have taken 5 per platoon I'd I had wants them to.

Meanwhile Brit Shermans are maybe 3 or 4 tanks per platoon, and US Shermans can be anything from 3 to 5 per platoon if I'm remembering correctly.

>>50544963
And here is why it's important to differentiate between TY and FoW. 13 sounds about right for TY. The numbers above are for real FoW

>>50545229

TY?

>>50545251
Team Yankee. WW3 as imagined by Harold Coyle and the further interpreted by Battlefront.

>>50545292
>>50545251
It's a mid-1980s Cold War turns Hot war game based on the Harold Coyle's novel Team Yankee from the mid-1980s.

The novel itself is based on "The Third World War: August 1985" a fictional history book by British general Sir John Hackett.

File: 20161205_144109.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

>>50546246
I thought that sounded familiar

>>50546576
I really should pick up a copy of that at some point.

Tense as fuck game tonight; had the guy on the objective the turn I killed his CO and brought him under 1/2 strength. My major observation was that bunker busters are really shite.

>>50550402
Tell us more.

What nationalities did you play as and at what points levels?

What was the mission?

Why do you feel that way about Bunker Busters?

etc.

>>50544698
No such thing.

>>50551361
Bridge By Bridge
Support Company: Motorised SS-Artillery Battery.

FV Headquarters: 2x Rifle Teams

Motorised SS-Artillery Battery.
Two Gun sections with 6x 10.5cm leFH18
SS-Sturmbannfuhrer Hans-Georg Sonnestuhl
405 points

Motorised SS-Artillery Battery.
Two Gun sections with 6x 10.5cm leFH18
330 points

Motorised SS-Artillery Battery.
Two Gun sections with 6x 10.5cm leFH18
330 points

Assault Gun Platoon
3x CV StuG Gs.
285

Airsupport
Sporadic Air Support
FW-190F
100 points

Total: 1490

Thanks to Sonnestuhl, that's a Eighteen Gun bombardment, so you're using the Pizza box of doom template and rerolling missed hits, and if you hit first time. Time on Target. With a 12 by 12 inch template.

>>50544698
When you go to a tournament and they play one of the gay table quarter missions and you're attacking, but your army physically does not fit in the deployment zone.

http://www.team-yankee.com/Default.aspx?tabid=867&art_id=5397
>Team Yankee Special Order Or Something
>Link to buy Team Yankee book maybe
>everything is Graf Spee
Why does BF keep posting WIP articles and why are they so funny?

>>50550900
1420, LW Soviet (non hero) tankovy vs a LLW Panzer kampfgruppe. Mission was counterattack.

He set some ISU-152s towards the infantry dug in on the objective and a 10-tank platoon behind, another ten tank platoon heading to the other objective. I was concerned about bunker busters before we checked and realised they literally can't shoot tanks unless they're half dead already, which meant they got easily demolished before the T-34s arrived behind them and weren't in any danger of volley-firing the infantry into a position they could be assaulted.

>>50551395
AAAHHH

>>50551466
haha oh wow

>>50551491
>I was concerned about bunker busters before we checked and realised they literally can't shoot tanks unless they're half dead already

That's only true if the bunker buster has moved. If its stationary a bunker buster can shoot at any team in range of it's gun.

>>50546576

i'm so glad i own a copy...

>>50551395

wow. oh so nice.
i forgot Stonnestuhl allows Gun-gettai...not bad.

also: why support companies are in teh LULbox.

shall we put it up against Panzer IE's???

>>50551395

This is the new meta.

>>50533636
If you phone post using data it would give a separate IP from your home and work no?

>>50551395
>>50551761
>Support Company

Literally only used in massive multiplayer Total War games.

>>50551825
yep

>>50551395
>Support company
Come on man, try a bit harder than that.

So I hope version 4 doesn't totally nerf arty. I love big cannons in games like this, just like how in 28mm scale games I always want to have a sniper if possible.

There's something so satisfying about raining down a hail of cannon fire from a distance.

Now if only I could cram more into my MW Italians.

>>50556599
I think they're trying to make it less effective against tanks, not less effective overall.

>>50557461
Well that's good. I suppose my other big guns will do fine for killing tanks, although direct fire arty is nothing to sneeze at.

>>50557461
To be fair. Artillery has been in Flames of War a premier Anti-Tank Asset. Generally when I tell how to kill tanks, I tell them "Get a very large artillery battery.". I'd be interested to learn how many tanks were actually destroyed by artillery fire during the war. I'm pretty sure most of them would have been destroyed usually during preliminary bombardments not tactical fire missions.

>>50537094
>accurate Soviet Gear
>Accurate German tanks
>pov of the grunts on the front line
>it's made by slavs so you know shit's gonna get real
>guaranteed authentic URRAAAAAAAAAA

My body is ready

>>50558081
The tanks are CGI, that's Gaijin's doing. They're basically the same models from Warthunder just with a mild spruce up.

Also:
> An investigation by Soviet authorities in 1948, since declassified, revealed that the description of the events was not accurate. Not all the twenty eight were killed — six of the soldiers were still alive. One of them was arrested in 1947 on charges of high treason and confessed to having “voluntarily” surrendered to German troops and later joined a German police force.[1][2][3] The findings were kept secret, and the Twenty-Eight Guardsmen were considered national heroes until the collapse of the USSR.

>>50558171
>the tanks are CGI by Gaijin

Are you sure? Pretty sure those are real vehicles. The way the shadows come off the vehicles at 1:19, as well as all the smoke and steam, really looks legit. If they're CGI, then Gaijin did a hell of a good job and that's some of the most believable CGI I've ever seen.

Then again I'm watching this embedded on 4chan so it could just be video quality tricking me.

>>50556599
It will be more effective against dug in infantry less effective against tanks

I'm looking forward to fp1+ 160mm mortars

>>50558212
CGI's come a long bloody way since the Late 90s. Hell even Mad Max which was touted with "Muh Practical effects!" used a lot of computer touch up for Colour Correction and stuff.
Or when you see a car chase in basically any modern movie now, those other cars on the road are usually CGI CGI's fucking Fantastic for doing Materials like cloth, wood, metal, and if you do it right, fire and smoke can be handled pretty well too.
It all falls apart on Humans though because of the Uncanny Valley effect where the closer they get to looking human, the more we begin to notice the subtle differences, the way the mouth takes a second later to form the letter S, the way the eyebrow isn't moving correctly etc. Some tanks though? Gaijin have that down pat, WT's models are gloriously detailed already, just roll out the 4k ones they use for their own trailers and boom.

>>50558969
>I'm looking forward to fp1+ 160mm mortars

Oh man... 8 tubes of FT hero mortars cost 220 points. Plus you can bring 6 more tubes of 120mm hero mortars for 160 points. Their only downside is shorter range than other arty, but you could easily throw in some Zis-3s (which won't be so horroble in v4 with +1 FP) or Katys to pin/kill enemy artillery.

I could see air becoming more of a factor to threaten enemy artillery. Especially if you are running an infantry that isn't quite as mobile.

>>50558969
> I'm looking forward to fp1+ 160mm mortar

Yeah..."New broken things in V4 that BF did not consider (# 32948)".

While the list of V4 changes is incomplete/unknown, I have to wonder...will anyone even play infantry anymore? Sounds like they will have the snot pounded out of them ASAP bu all template weapons, and since tanks have less to fear from bunching-up...I'm calling it: V4 will be a tank-fest.

all this speculative bitching is getting me down. Not looking forward to having my nerfed as its the key strength of my defence and my troops are literally just there to put a wall between the enemy and the guns i use to cook tommy.

but i think simunovic made a good point. V4 will be free so lets just try it before we turn our noses up at it. i will kill pete if he takes away my warrior though

>>50559493
They plan on completely redo all the unit costs and lists to match TY format so i would expect a point increase for mortars and rockets

>>50561437
No, EW and LW points are supposed to remain the same, since their books will all be "backwards compatible". It's only Mid War that will have entirely new lists and stats.

Wait and see.

>>50551730
Which basically means that against highly lethal tanks, or Germans in general, the Bunker Busters will never get a chance to fire first unless the opponent lets them.

>>50550402
>>50551491

Yeah, Bunker Busters got nerfed hard in v3. The fault of that, was the absurdly cheap Brumbar. By the end of v2, every German list would have the damned things. They were frustratingly good when combined with Stormtroop, and their insanely low cost for Confident Veterans. BF opted to "fix" the issue by making Bunker Busters a less usable against tanks. The problem is they effectively neutered all Bunker Buster including the much more expensive Trained ISU-152, which was already less popular than the ISU-122.

>>50561666
Right, but Brumbars needed the nerf.

And how likely was it that some massive slow to load and slow to fire bunker buster could hit a moving target like a tank? Especially when they were moving also.

>>50560330
>V4 will be a tank fest
As if V3 wasn't? I feel like 98% of the lists I see at my LGS are armored companies. People look at me like I'm insane when I pull out infantry stands, doubly so when I pull out 32 of the bastards for two platoons.

I hope infantry won't become useless in V4. Combined arms is one of the things I like about FoW. Yeah an armored list is fun here or there, but not all the time. If the game goes that direction then my Italians may never see the light of day again.

>>50562135
You know "beast killer" comes from the SU-152 specifically because it was used to knock out panthers and tigers, right?

What vehicle do the Soviets use for mechanized infantry?

>>50563059
Generally, they don't (they're one of the few, if not the only, nation with no armored transports). No, T-34s don't count.

>>50563059
>>50563102
Correction, they have Rota Razvedki, which can use M3 Scout Cars, Universal Carriers and I think german halftracks (and possibly some other stuff as well).

>>50563059
Lend-lease American half tracks

>>50563119
Or GAZ trucks in independent transport platoons.

Phone BMP

Seems to be a slow day.

What lists are good if I want a lot of StuGs?

>>50568558
There's the StuG Batterie from Bridge by Bridge which lets you have a separate platoon of StuH42s, and some pretty okay Airsupport and support.

The StuG Abteilung from Atlantik Wall, also lets you field Luftwaffe Assault Anti-Aircraft Platoon which can bombard as well.

Or basically any of the El Generico Panzerkompanies/Kampfgruppes yeah.

>>50568558
Herman Goering StuG batterie in the digital section has the option to add a StuG ace who always has a chance to hit side armor

>>50568731
>separate platoon of StuH42
That's the winner, imo. Wasnt't there a recon abteilung PDF with Pumas and StuHs too? I wonder if that ended up in a compilation.

A lot of SPGs with 100+mm guns and ROF2 are undercosted in v3. You still don't see them much, though.

>>50563312
That would make them motorized not mechanized, if we were being pedantic, right?

>>50569846
It would. I mean seriously when AREN'T we being pedantic?

>>50569846
To be pedantic back, there's no such thing as (WW2) soviet mech inf in the game; razvedki are recon troops, and motostrelkovy are motorised infantry. Motorised guys would have used ZIS trucks.

File: Grey Wolf - GER Hermann Goring Fallschirm-panzerkorps Stug batterie.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50569300

>>50569300
>A lot of SPGs with 100+mm guns and ROF2 are undercosted in v3. You still don't see them much, though.

You see Zirinyi whenever someone takes Hungarians, ever. Soviet players frequently field at least one "company" of 4 SU-122s, and tend to spam the fuckers if they run the Light SPA. And any German player fielding StuGs will always take any optional StuH-42s they can.

>>50562135
Very. The SU-152 put up a good fight during Kursk, and earned the name Beast Killer (which was passed down to it's replacement, the ISU-152). As far as specific accounts, yes! The 46th Guards Tank Brigade infiltrated 14x M4A2 76mm, a company of veteran parachute infantry, and 3x ISU-152 into the center of Vienna, Austria, where they held it for 1 day and night. During the attempted counter-attacks by German forces, the ISU-152s were a key component in dealing with the Panthers, and even in one situation had a one vs one "square off" down a road from each other. The ISU-152 loaded one od it's anti-bunker concrete buster rounds, hit the Panther in the front glacis, penetrated, set off the ammo rack, blew the turret clean off, and shattered every window in the city block.

>>50570662
I think I've found a new favourite list... even if it's lacking in Begleits (though I might add a few just for the looks)

>>50571375
Right, but the key here, at least in regards to the rules in the game, is if that happened while the 152 was stationary or moving.

I'd imagine that it was while stationary.

>>50577156
In which case the Panther never used Stormtroop, forgot to fire it's weapon, and was not Gone to Ground in concealment while staying stationary.

>>50577156
The amount of shots anyone ever made, even the US, made while moving was negligible. I'm sure you'll be able to count the amount of shots a hull-mounted gun made, if not on one hand, then at least without the use of a second person's limbs.

Even postwar a moving shot was worthless; it's why the Strv 103 wasn't considered unduly hampered by aiming while stationary, because everything had to fire from a stationary position. Early stabilisers just kept the gun somewhere around where you wanted it so the adjustment when you stopped was minimal.

In any case, firing on the move isn't meant to represent literally firing on the move, it's meant to represent short stops.

File: flying tank_05.jpg (163KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1920x1080px

>>50529755
Flying tanks HOOOOO!

>>50577345
> In any case, firing on the move isn't meant to represent literally firing on the move, it's meant to represent short stops.

In theory: in practice the US tanks moving 14" and slamming two AT13 shots into a vehicle's flank before it can do anything bears no resemblance whatsoever with reality.

We'll see with v. 4 , but I really like running a pair of FC SU-152s in Eastern front. They have good armor for the period and I think a pair of them are only a little over 200 points. Pretty effective against infantry and can at least pose a threat against heavy armor. Put an objective in a large one room building for funny results.

>>50577640
That's the FoW shooting system for you. Where you can move a column of tanks between two buildings, and nobody ever thinks to take a shot.
>before it can do anything bears no resemblance whatsoever with reality.
Unfortunately the statistics disagree with you. That's pretty much exactly what tended to happen against Panthers, when faced with veteran US crews. They'd pop out of nowhere, and before the Panther crew got their gun aimed, they'd get a shot in the flank, assuming it wasn't an ambush to start with. The rest of the column usually didn't get a shot off before the next salvo was fired.

Surprise makes a massive difference, on offence or defence. And the stabilisers on Shermans certainly helped with that.

>>50578052
I think the accusation is more to the fact you tend to tokyo drift your shermans straight past them from the front; it definitely happens but it seems like an issue with IGOUGO more than anything.

>>50562766

Yeah, but I seriously doubt it was in a running tank battle. More like sniping off panthers, or park somewhere and shoot whatever comes near you. IE, what you can already do with Bunker Buster in 3rd.

For that matter, any argument for the SU doing it works for the Brumbarr. They have a very similar set of problems.

>>50570265

DID the Soviets ever make much use of Mech infantry, though? Trucks or tank riders for the most part. It's not like they made much of a priority for APCs in their manufacturing.

>>50578109
Exactly. I'd love to see some sort of overwatch mechanic in flames beyond defensive fire.

>>50578117
How often are you picturing tanks multi-track-drifting around each other and taking shots? WW2 wasn't GUP.

>>50578236

Exactly. V3 models Bunker Busters quite well.

>>50578281
If the bunker buster model is correct every other tank gun should also not be allowed to fire unless it was stationary. Tanks, as a rule, couldn't hit anything on the move.

>>50578408
Even less so for any hull mounted gun; turrets were a significant asset for tracking moving targets, as basically all panzer commanders who ended up with casemate guns attested.

>>50578155
A guy I demoed Team Yankee for said almost the exact same thing.

File: IMG_0662.jpg (45KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x350px

"December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy."

It has been 75 years since the surprise attack on the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that lead the US to declare war on Japan and enter into World War II.

>>50578408
See
>>50578439

>>50577156
>while the 152 was stationary or moving.
I know it's already been responded to, but IIRC early Soviet testing with stabilizers revealed that you had a 3% chance of hitting a target while moving without any fancy gear--it was basically pure luck. I'm trying to find the source but all I'm getting is WOT bullshit.

>>50578554
Yes? I don't see how that disagrees. Hitting stuff while moving was basically impossible, and especially so for hull mounted guns. Distinguishing between the ISU-152 and ISU-122 is pure game balance; it has nothing to do with reality.

>>50578641
Between the 152 and the 122, certainly, but comparing the 152 and say, regular tank guns makes the situation clearer.

>>50578759
Regular tanks that also couldn't hit anything while moving? Hull mounted guns were even worse than that, but that also applies to all hull mounted guns, it's not some magical weakness of the ISU-152 and Brummbar.

>>50579264
stupid question
if the hull mounted were terrible shots, what's up with the stug?

>>50579309
Firing on the move in WW2 is basically impossible. Firing on the move when your gun has to face the direction you're driving almost exactly is even more impossible. The StuG's mechanical accuracy was fine (certainly equivalent to the Pz IV's), just where it could fire was more limited.

>>50578117

>Yeah, but I seriously doubt it was in a running tank battle. More like sniping off panthers, or park somewhere and shoot whatever comes near you. IE, what you can already do with Bunker Buster in 3rd.

Not quite. The city center for Vienna is more of a large park. The infiltration group took the whole area and held it. The engagement between the Panther and the ISU-152 began with the shermans (at range) backing out of sight and calling forward one of the assault guns to take care of the enemy tank. The ISUs were not held in a position of sniping throughout the battle, but rather held back and called forward when they were needed, per the written account of one of the commanding officers who led the engagement. Therefore the ISU in that engagement actually had to advance into an ideal position (iirc the Panther was kept busy with the M4s, and then took it's shot before the Panther's crew could react to it's presence.

>For that matter, any argument for the SU doing it works for the Brumbarr. They have a very similar set of problems.

They are very similar vehicles, with similar statlines. The main difference is that the ISU has +2 side, +1 top, and a longer range. The main problem is Fearless Trained ISU-152s are considerably more expensive than Confident Veteran Brumbars despite having identical front armor values and gun stats. The difference between 3 ISU-152s and 3 Brumbars, is 100pts (210 for CV Brumbar, 310 for FT ISU-152). In a direct comparison, the ISUs pay 33pts more per vehicle to not have Overloaded, have extra side and top armor, and have 32" range when Volley Fire makes them want to be within 16" anyways.

This is an example of Battlefront cutting off the head to cure thr disease. The Back then the ISU-152 was already lackluster compared to the -122. The Brumbar's cost was the real problem, and Battlefront used it as the benchmark to nerf Bunker Busters from.

>>50578759
Hence ROF 1, compared to the standard "regular tank gun" ROF 2.

>>50579590
And things with RoF 1 are already worse at hitting stuff if they move.

>>50578281
If the ISU-152 was costed appropriately, then the current move-shoot limitations for Bunker Buster would be fine. The problem is a vehicle that cannot move and fire at other vehicles, is hit as trained, and only has a FA of 9, is NOT worth 105pts per vehicle. Especially when dropping it's front armor by 2, and side armor by 1, shaves 25pts off the vehicle (SU-152).

>>50570662
Sweet, thanks. Would you bother upgrading half the Sd.Kfz. 234/1 to 234/3 or /4? (short 75mm gun or PaK 40) or should they just be used as pure recon?

>>50579309
Stugs had a lower profile which strongly helped them shoot first--whoever shot first almost always won the engagement, unless it was something silly like a Panzer II confusing a T-34 with a BT-7, in which case it didn't matter at all.

>>50580818
Other assault guns with really low profiles included the SU-85, SU-100, SU-123, Zrinyi, Jagdpanzer 38(t), SU-76, and pretty much anything that wasn't a Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther, or ISU.

File: STUG LIFE.gif (207KB, 400x274px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 400x274px

>>50579309
>what's up with the StuG

>>50580704
I mean if you've got the points, another PaK40 is always hilarious. But remember if you fire you lose your cautious movement. The temptation to misuse these things is awful

>>50581154
The ISU wasn't a tank-hunter, at least; it was meant to be a direct-fire artillery piece, but it turns out enough HE to level a house also does fun things to the crew of a tank it hits.

>>50581154
Most of those having ROF2, though, like the StuG.

>>50581505

I heard there was actually quite a marked difference between the scores of the StuGs that used to be Panzerjagers, and the StuGs that used to be actual StuGs.

>>50581767
Which is hilarious when you have two vehicles with the same maximum of 6 rounds per minute, yet one is ROF 1 and the other is ROF 2.

>>50581505
>The ISU wasn't a tank-hunter.
Neither was the StuG, SU-76, SU-122, or Zrinyi.

>>50581903
Well, you're not wrong, but the StuG certainly had a multirole design philosophy from the F up. Saying it was a direct-fire artillery piece is like saying the Pz IV was an infantry support tank. You're not wrong but the role changed.

>>50581875
Expertly trained, RT loaders, my friend.

>>50582654
In that same regard, the ISU had a multirole design philosophy as well. Most of it being centered around Heavy Assault Gun, Heavy Artillery, and as a tank destroyer when needed. Unlike the StuG, which eas buit mostly as a versatile medium assault gun, the ISU was built mostly as a way to get the ML-20S field gun into forward positions (safely), with the intention of leveling strongpoints and fortifications.

I've realised I can get much more brush control out of larger brushes than I thought. I used to be addicted to fine detail brushes but it's not too hard to do hands/faces with a bit of care.

>>50586706
Yeah, those little brushes dry out as I bring them up to whatever I'm painting. So it's #1, maybe #0 for me, it just has to have a fine point.

>Best Germany pre-orders are up (at least some of them)
>scroll down to T-55
>72.50 burger bucks a pop
>I permit myself about $100 a month for gaming
It's like the old days, except my budget has gone down and the per-model price has edged up.

>>50587499
$14.50 a pop, ouch. Plastic tanks are $9.00 each.

Not doing the T-55 in plastic was such a strange decision.

>>50587530
It's because their plastic production slots are probably full up for V4 next year and it takes an entire year of build up to make a new plastic kit.

Oh and the Volksarmee were upgraded mid production from booklet Afgansty sized Briefing to full Book.

>>50587620
They really, honestly should've just waited and done a full release with plastics; they've said they can't justify redoing in plastic what they already have in resin, so the net effect of this is going to be that 90% of the warsaw pact are going to be ridiculously expensive.

Reading v4 stuff, I think a better idea if they wanted to remove infantry supremacy would be to make main guns (definitely 85mm+, possibly 75mm+) into Brutal weapons. 3" guns show up as howitzers and infantry support weapons before they do as AT guns, after all.

>>50587499
The resin T55's are pretty expensive and it is a bit of a bad call but the more glaring thing for me is the resin BRDM2 that has all its options spread across 3 boxes.

>>50587499
The release order particularly confuses and annoys me, and I'm not even going to go in for them.
Why are the infantry and mbts the final release, while the transport is first?
Has Phil given up trying to look like he gives a shit about commies?
Was he in a gulag when he was younger?

>>50587642
Brits had 5 platic kits. Would've been nice to get one kit for East Germans. At least T-64s will be in plastic.

>>50588357
>>50587530
>>50587499

I went with Old Glory metal T-55s. $8.33 per tank. You don't get the sweet armor addons, but I am leaving mine generic to use as other OPFOR T-55s down the road. QRF also has a few T-55 models including an AM. Can't justify paying $14 dollars on a 2 point tank when the Leo 1s I bought were craptastic.

>>50588505

They are being greedy on this one. There's not thay many pieces and the you can see they use the same fucking base on the box. Will probably still end up buying them if I don't go with QRF. They look really nice.

>>50589250
You will at least be able to use BMP 1s until the BTRs come out.

>>50588505
5 extra metal/resin pieces to have all 3 options. I am sure that would devestate their bottom line.

>>50589320
Plus making 3 kits from one box adds more selling points and reduces stress on supply/logistics. What if someone goes to their FLGS wants the recce but they only have a box of strela and 2 of konkurs?

>>50589969
Also it takes up one-third the shelf space. The GW move towards making everything a dual box is one of the few things they've done in recent years that's at all clever.

>>50589251
QRF isn't bad right now, either. $7.60 per T-55 and that's the bells and whistles version with the composite armor add-ons. Why buy from Battlefront when I can get twice the tanks for the same price?

>>50588436

Yep or create a rule called something like 'infantry support tank' which gives them brutal when under 16". That at least creates some interesting dynamics between infantry assaults and anti-tank guns vs tanks.

Tbh I'm concerned this will completely break the flow of the game, the average list could switch from being well rounded combined arms to pure tank and arty spam. Battlefront has had me worried for a while but this...

File: IMG_2878.jpg (286KB, 682x1213px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 682x1213px

>>50590507
For sure. Lots of other options to be had out there. If battlefront is going to have its head up its ass, I don't have to spend $600 on my OPFOR army.

>>50589969
Yup now it's pretty much preorder or be left behind, at least at my FLGS.

>>50589250
Considering how Team Yankee as a Novel is fairly anti-Communist and paints a way too positive image of NATO military capability and success - probably.

>>50587499
At least the infantry look good - and there are options for based, not overly expensive T-72 tanks.

I'm going to be trying this out for LW east front; how'm I looking? At present I'm against "all the T-34s" tankovy and the Stalin's Bears guy.

Finnish Jalkavaki (Elite)
Infantry Company, from Grey Wolf, page 246

Compulsory Jalkavaki Komppania HQ (Elite) (p.247) - CinC SMG, 2iC SMG (50 pts)
- Sniper (50 pts)

Compulsory Jalkavaki Platoon (Elite) (p.247) - Command SMG, 8x Rifle/MG (225 pts)
- Replace Command SMG with Command Close-defence SMG (5 pts)

Compulsory Jalkavaki Platoon (Elite) (p.247) - Command SMG, 8x Rifle/MG (225 pts)
- Replace Command SMG with Command Close-defence SMG (5 pts)

Jalkavaki Scout Platoon (p.252) - Command Rifle, 8x Rifle (235 pts)

Panssarii Platoon (p.239) - Command T-34/85, 2x T-34/85 (355 pts)

Heavy Anti-tank Platoon (Elite) (p.252) - Command SMG, 2x 75 PstK/40 (7.5cm PaK40) gun (120 pts)

Artillery Battery (Elite) (p.253) - Command SMG, Staff, Observer Rifle, 4x 76 K/02 gun (150 pts)


1420 Points, 6 Platoons

File: Char2Cpainting8.jpg (48KB, 640x315px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x315px

Hey guys anyone know a early war French list that has the option for a CharC2 tank?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_2C

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

21KB, 480x480px

>>50593682
>anti-Communist
I'm pretty fine with that
>>50589250
better dead then red

>>50594506

Wait, Jalkavaki can take Panzerfausts in LW, can't they?

I'd probably swap the scouts for Pioneers, and those guns aren't going to do much that some heavy mortars won't. I'd also probably swap the T-34s for Stugs/StuHs with tank escorts. Much more utility that way, similar anti-armour potential.

>>50595092
>Wait, Jalkavaki can take Panzerfausts in LW, can't they?
Yeah, I was just keeping under 1420.

>I'd probably swap the scouts for Pioneers,
I'd be missing recce altogether there, though, though I guess I can usually count on defending with present matchups.

>and those guns aren't going to do much that some heavy mortars won't.
Yeah, I just want an excuse to take guns for once since they look awesome, but there's pretty much never any point, you are right.

>I'd also probably swap the T-34s for Stugs/StuHs with tank escorts.

>>50595189
forgot this

>I'd also probably swap the T-34s for Stugs/StuHs with tank escorts.
I think I need the AT, personally; if nothing else, IS-2s have FA 10, so they're going to autobounce StuGs at range and glance on 1s.

>>50595203
You're Finn. You don't kill tanks in shooting, you eat them up in assault (and defensive fire).

>>50595203
IS-2s are going to rape T-34/85s anyway. You don't have enough to matter, and their guns are barely adequate as is. StuGs are still great against mediums, and they have a lot more utility. They give you a real counterpunch arm, along with your Pioneers.
>keeping under 1420
Panzerfausts are amongst the cheapest, best upgrade you can give them. For one, you have 1 hit per platoon that can reliably fuck enemy tanks. Close defence are nice to have, but you can't rely on them one iota, even against mediums. Plus defensive fire is a big advantage, particularly with your Panzerschrek (where is that, by the way?) in the right spot. It brings you to that point where you can either damage or drive off an enemy tank assault.
>recon
Who cares? What would they let you do, range in with your 6+ firepower guns? Let your 3 non HBG tanks hit them slightly easier? If they were a core platoon, that'd be great. But they aren't, and so you really have to judge if you want another platoon of infantry, or pick up a platoon of pioneers, and their TA4 and flamethowery goodness.
>guns
Don't get me wrong, I almost always take those guns in EW (hello, 4 gun ATG platoon with a smoke/anti infantry option), but in LW, 105s and 150s aren't much more expensive, and they're a lot more useful.
>>50595378
See, this guy gets it. 3 turns of cowering, 2 turns of desperately hoping you get average rolls, and 2 turns of frantically cutting Russians in half with your shovels, and macing tanks with the Panzerfausts. IS-2s are in an awkward position. Having said that, they're vulnerable to a counter-attack with your pioneers, so on the whole, them getting close is a win condition for you.

>>50594999
Time to hang lumpenprole.

>>50595576
>IS-2s are going to rape T-34/85s anyway.
Only if they manage to hit. IS-2s are expensive as fuck, and can't avoid fire (or hit much) for that matter. They're looking at 5's to hit (Finnish) T-34s in concealment, at short range. 6's if they moved.

>>50597562
Either way, it's a bad matchup for the 85s.

>>50598365
Not any worse than going against Panthers. Indeed, it's actually a better matchup, because the IS-2s are Slow, have shit aim, and half the dice to throw. Finland's real problem in that matchup, are the comparatively few tanks they do get. But if need be, you can always park them 0.5" behind a treeline, but in defensive fire range of an objective. And murderfuck the IS tanks when they have to assault the objective, but can't shoot the T-34s on the way in.

>>50598678
Man, you really want to argue with someone, huh?

>>50598719
Not really, I'm just very familiar with trying to use IS-2s, and how utterly incompetent they are against Fearless Veteran mediums that cost less and can still punch through SA 8.

>>50598843
>SA8
If you get side shots/pens/kills on them with finnanons list, the IS player deserves to lose.

What should I get as the Soviets?

>>50599328

What period and type of list?

>>50599328
Rid of your hope.

>>50599328
i was eyeing a late tankoy batalon that psc had.
21 t34s, 5 t70s
that sort of thing
at 111 canadian pesos it's much better than stalin's bears.
if you can handle PSC's bullshit
otherwise the late war strekovy set from PSC should also be pretty solid

>>50599402

I'm completely new to this game. I don't own anything yet. I'd like at least some/lots of tanks, lots of artillery/mortars, and motorized/mechanized infantry. Which period would you recommend?

>>50599537
Late war seems about right
>lots of
i think you've picked the right army anon, jut so long as your....
>mechanized infantry.
you might be out a fucking luck anon.

>>50599242
With the massive chunk of points they eat up it's difficult to bring enough other stuff to support their flanks (435 for 3 minimum, if you want assault value). In order for IS-2s to pull their weight, they need to begin moving towards their target objective(s) ASAP.

>>50599328
SU-76s. 21 of them.

In seriousness, Infantry, tanks, and whatever else you want to support them with. In Late War, I recomment against getting the following: IS-2, SU-100, ISU-152, and 200mm siege-gun thing that doesn't have a gun shield. IS-85, SU-85 and SU-85m, ISU-122, and 160mm Heavy Mortars, are alright, however.

>>50599537
Whether you pick Team Yankee (1980s) or WWII is up to you. Within WWII, Late War ('44-'45) has been the most widely played by far, but next year the focus will be on Mid War ('42-'43). There will be a lot of releases through the year, so if you're starting now I'd do LW instead. It has plastics available. You can probably use some of that stuff in MW too (Eastern Front and Italy, at least).

In LW, Soviets are the only major power without many mechanized options, though they do have a few (Rota Razvedki has M3 Scout Cars as transports, iirc). They have good mortars. The Brits have Kangaroos and M5 halftracks, the Americans have M3 Halftracks, the Germans have their Sd. Kfz. 251s... you're not asking for anything unusual.

Are Katyushas good?

>>50599537
Well, 4 SU-122s will give you a cheap, effective anti-infantry unit. If you're going infantry, then a strelkovy box will serve you well, if you're not, some T-34s. Zis guns see a lot of use all over the war, and a scout platoon will help you move your forces around, and help you dig up well defended positions, as well as protect against ambushes. 120mm mortars are a very flexible, good value unit as well.

>>50599934
They're cheap, and extremely brittle, but they offer a useful sort of long range firepower. They're a good final platoon to round out a list, and give your infantry some good on demand support. Small platoons tend to be the rule, though, because they're easier to hide. Unarmoured trucks don't like enemy fire.

>>50599934
"Meh..." They're ok... But generally speaking, the Heavy Mortars are the Soviet artillery of choice. Katys are extremely fragile, and they can't fire a 6-gun bombardment that lets you reroll failed rolls to hit (like Mortars can).

>>50599404
Underrated post.

>>50600271
The superheavy ones are best, 160mm. The 120mm ones are okay but are outclassed by 160mms.

Just put together the Zvezda Tiger II.

Pretty good kit, went together really quickly and without serious issues.
Detail seems pretty solid as well, although some if it is a bit shallow as is often the case with Zvezda minis.
Really nice buy for the price, tho, and has made me seriously consider a German LLW force using a few.

Now to decide if I wanna paint it historically accurately or in Kuromorimine colours...

>>50570265
Isn't there a Soviet briefing with captured Sdkfz. 251s and a Panther or two? There's some Soviet mechanized infantry then, if I'm remembering right.

Of course I have recently glued a large number of Churchills together, so it may have just been a fever dream brought on by inhaling superglue fumes.

>>50602198
Spetsnaz get captured hanomags as part of their infiltration thing. They're mutually exclusive with captured panzers (which is where you see panthers) though.

>>50541365
I do have link to the one that was made previously,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyrmfkhflx0ptzu/Vassal%20FoW.zip
can provide a starting point if you want. only got basics and very little in the way of vehicles, also only USSR, USA and Germany

>>50602198
The "Decoy Tank" platoon in the Bagration part of Red Bear, gives you the ability to field captured German tanks. But they eat up your recon slot, and are ROF 1. So in other words, they SUCK. BALLS. Big, harry, High Jackman balls.

>>50602513
>>50605059
Good to know I'm not bat-shit insane yet then. Speaking of insanity, has anyone played a game with the Guards Tank Squadron (Nachtjager Digital) with 12 Churchills on the field at 1500 points? I'm expecting it to be less-than-effective, and only running it because it seems fun.

>>50606673
No, though that's because I have to wait for my M10s to arrive, as I have my Stuarts and Churchills already. Can't go without M10s with all the Panthers and such around here.

>>50599404
Underbuttered toast

>>50606673
12 Seems like a non-optimal choice, since you're then most likely running around with the 2iC grouped with 1 single other tank. 2-tank platoons seems utterly stupid unless they have REALLY good armor, gun or both. And the churchill doesn't really have THAT good armour (similar to a Tiger, and we've heard the moaning about those), and the gun is piddly at best, especially since the 2iC will be forced to have a 95mm CS gun.

>>50605059
And they force you to commit a platoon that's like two tanks and 100 points to the table; they're a terrible trap choice.

>>50611019
It's okay anon, v4 is going to do that anyway.

>>50611308
Why all the naysaying over V4?

Are we honestly expecting an Age of Sigmar level screw-up here?

>>50611933
Yes

Either we'll be right or pleasantly surprised

>>50611933

Nah, I think the concern on /tg/ mostly stems from where battlefront is going beyond streamlining the game to modifying rules that will have a big effect on gameplay . People are particularly concerned that the artillery rules will negatively impact the way the game plays and make infantry conpanies underpowered. I think we'll have a better idea what we are actually dealing with in the coming months.

>>50612032
Ok, but why are we expecting it to be that bad?

I don't remember this level of anxiety from the switch over from V2 to V3.

File: Guards Tank Squadron - 1490 - Many Churchills.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50606805
That's probably a good call.
>>50610544
>Seems like a non-optimal choice
Oh I expect this will be fairly poor, but I got three boxes of PSC Churchills for pretty cheap from my FLGS, and how could I say no to that?

>>50612082
We're afraid the changes to arty and national rules set a trend for skewing the balance towards tanks and tanks alone

>>50612083
And it's 5 platoons, as well? Yuck. I would honestly prefer to run this one tank and some 100 points short. But I like the idea in principle, make no mistake

>>50611933
Not quite THAT level of screw-up, but it's not looking good from what I'm hearing.

>>50611933
My joke was that v4 literally is going to make people put tiny platoons on to start. 60 point 2-gun AA platoons aren't going to be safe reserve fodder with reserve point minimums.

>>50612711
I couldn't find any M10 17pdrs, which it so desperately needs, so I'm running it all out with the silly, and hoping for meme magic to carry me through.

>>50594999

Enjoy your toys with no one to play against.

>>50613185
Team Yankee: World War III Blue on Blue Training Exercises

>>50611933

Because a small number of grogs are afraid of change.

>>50613644
it's got more to do with stuff that's shown up in the previews, but okay.

I mean, heavy tank lists are even deader than they were before now, even with the little we've heard.

>>50613317
The Russians aren't bad.

I'm not sure I know how to play them properly yet, but they're fun.

I worry about the East Germans though. Those T-55AM2s are expensive. Meaning that even with the East Germans we're not likely to see much variety in the WarPac forces since it'll still be less expensive to just buy Soviet Plastics to use as East Germans instead of the new East German Resin kits.

>>50613644
Let me guess, anyone that's played for a shorter time than you is too inexperienced to know anything, while anyone that's played for longer than you is a grog afraid of change?

Regardless, the issue is more some of the changes that HAVE been revealed. Some changes, like TY's terrain system (you're concealed and can see out fine if you're within 2" of the edge of the terrain), would be very welcome (and I'm even tempted to try and float that as a house rule here before TY comes out). But some, like TY's commander distance, "everyone has mission tactics", and the "artillery turbofucks infantry" they've revealed, would suck balls.

>>50614067
Artillery turbofucking infantry isn't from TY, at least. But it's a bad change.

>>50614226
It'd open up the lower firepower guns to some practical use, though. And it would make tank sniping with them a bit less ridiculous.

Beyond that, I'd be very surprised if it didn't come with points adjustments. It's a flat out nerf against defensive infantry lists. It'd have to be countered somehow, because it's not like infantry wins disproportionately.

>>50614330
Only thing I can think of is making counter-battery fire much easier. Except under the new rules armored artillery would be much more durable against that.

Also I would be shocked if there was much boosting beyond 2+. Almost as unlikely as BM-31-12s becoming 0+ firepower because it's an across the board change amirite?

So we have a local who may be interested in starting flames of war... As LW Finns. Can someone give me a brief rundown of how they play and what they're good at?

>>50614696
Finns tend to have Veteran-level skill ratinga, with Fearless being a typical motivation (sometimes it's less). This means they are usually highly skilled, highly motivated troops. But that comes at a high point cost which means fewer numbers. Beyond that, Finns tend to be mostly a stubborn infantry force that finds itself defending a lot. Their tank support is minimal and usually involves looted soviet tanks, most notably from earlier eras. In short, Finland is mostly an infantry-based nation.

>>50614758
Thanks. Our local meta is mostly tank players, so how well do Finnish infantry do against tanks?

>>50614885
>Veteran infantry against tanks

Here kitty kitty kitty...

They'll be dug-in on the objectives and difficult to shift off of them.

>>50529755
Sorry if i sound lazy to read all the post and previous threads, but someone can give me a little summary about the news of FoW/TY? and V4?. I have eeen away from all the hobby related things since they released the West Germans.

And how much of this stuff >>50533906 is known to be true.

>>50614330
Infantry overall, no, but the good infantry lists are real hard to lose decisively with.

>>50614885
Finns also get a pretty cool hero PaK40

>>50615601
The Jaakari hero is also pretty sweet, though you pay for it. He's a TA 4 SMG Recce team, but his platoon goes from Fearless to 2+ motivation, and his platoon gets to re-roll ANY failed skill test. So re-rollable 3+ to hit in assault, dig in, gap obstacles, remove GtG, etc...

>>50615335
Here's the summary:
>>50533906

It's all known to be rumored to be true.

>>50616585
>>50615335
It's taken from an interview wwpd did with one of the higher ups at BF. It's about as not-rumour as you can get.

>>50617310
I hope they still have room to make adjustments.

>>50615335

V4 info, all-in-one

>late March but it's on Battlefront Time
>every existing list will have a conversion for V4, rulebook is 110 pages roughly (graphics still in progress)
>example: Bridge by Bridge has half a page of rules edits and "two rules are no longer used"
>explicit admission that EW and LW cards are categorically impossible, MW will not be on Forces because muh cards
>national special rules: Germans lose kampgruppe plus mission tactics, burgers lose tank telephones column security mumble mumble something or other, Hens and Chicks "has changed", QoQ is built into the core rules so isn't Russian specific
>artillery less effective bombarding tanks (all AT values nerfed by 1), sounds like everyone gains Mike Target but just against infantry
>many books for MW (sounds like Italy gets its own?), MW planes are effectively like TY but you only get two in the entire list period
>morale similar to TY
>8:1 scoring
>Reserves need to be 40% of points
>Art nerf aginst armour + 1 to FP - 1 to AT
>All batteries dont need to range in again next turn and inf / guns will need to re roll saves
>recon "simplified" a lot - don't know what this means though
>air turns up on a 4+
>3 new missions

>>50616585
>>50617310
>>50617363
Thanks, so they are going to rerelase MW with V4, right? some news about warsaw pact nations for Team Yankee?

>>50618272
East German Volksarmee is due out in January.

File: 15380456_10154822762149294_5787186223934346331_n.jpg (49KB, 629x448px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 629x448px

And we also get our first named character in the game...

>>50612082
We weren't that coordinated in 2012, threads only really got back off the ground in the last couple of years. Plus there is no dissenting thought allowed on BF's forums and where else was there to discuss shit?

File: what yuri.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>50618377
i would play russians in a second if pic related

Anyone ever tried a 26 puma list?

>>50617363
im so fucking worried about this recon simplifying shit. Does anyone know anymore?

i play an Italian cyclists list from FI. The only thing that makes it a good list is its recon abilities. You don't have the numbers or organic support of Ew and Mw so you're basically a generic german infantry list with pretty dull support options.

i imagine this will effect a lot of french and german lists too.

Is recon in TY much different? im guessing they've done the imfamous crtl+c ctrl+p (spelling mistakes and all) for a lot of their rules.

>>50618671
It would suck having your units mind controlled.

>>50620932
IIRC, there are no "classic" recce units in TY (as in FoW), and no Eyes&Ears rule, so you cannot remove GtG.

>>50621163
welp... guess i will stick with V3

i wasn't around for v1 or v2, but was there this much annoyance from the community when those versions came out?

>>50618345
I'll probably end up playing a E. German T-72 lit with BMPs and infantry. Because I'm a sucker for E. Germans. And I already have T-72s.

>>50620932
team yankee 'recon' extends your deployment area instead of doing the other stuff

I'd call that "radically different" instead of "simplified" but you never know with

>>50621192

Keep in mind that if they are changing recon to be more like TY then they are going to have to change how shooting works to match. In TY you can hit on a 7 or 8 so that "veteran" units can't hide in some weeds and become invulnerable.

Personally I like this a whole lot more and I don't miss "eyes and ears"

I guess I'm in a minority though as none of the proposed changes for v4 sound bad to me, but IMHO Team Yankee is the better game to begin with.

>>50621192

I should add that yeah, when v3 was on the horizon there was a ton of doom, gloom and assorted bitching about it. Lots of " they changed (some rule) v3 is shit BF ruined the game!! I'll stick to v2!!" And so on.

All of it turned out to be unwarranted though.

>>50622150
>In TY you can hit on a 7 or 8 so that "veteran" units can't hide in some weeds and become invulnerable.

wait what? how does that work? do we need more than the standard D6? i don't play TY so i have no idea what that means but the justification seems fair.

>>50622346
6 then 5 for 7, 6 and 6 for 8

>>50622398
I thought the max was just 7, and that was two 6s in a row

>>50622678
pg 44 "if the score needed to hit is 8 and the die roll is 6, then the shot scores a hit on a further roll of 6"
and you know it's really because only a rule book would write it in such an assbackwards way

>>50622905
Ah, so it is.

So 8's would be what, a concealed and gone to ground NATO target at long range that you're shooting a slow firing weapon at?

I know they say 9 is impossible, what condition would put the score that high?

>>50623104
Moving as well as that.

File: IMG_2881.jpg (93KB, 745x539px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 745x539px

Other anon spoiled some pics from Volksarmee last thread. I will be reposting the unit card for the T-55AM and Spandrel, both shameless ripped from someone on the Facebook page.

Looks like the East Germans are still hit on a 3+ base, but have a 4+ skill. I am happy about the skill and will certainly be attempting to use blitz moves when I can to get down the board.

File: 12774545452.jpg (244KB, 1180x870px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1180x870px

>>50623356
where's muh bastion?

>>50623356
I'm bloody unhappy that they're hit on a 3+. Weren't these cunts meant to be on the same readiness scale as the Soviet Guards units? Further, what the fuck is a Basic Stabiliser.

File: IMG_2882.jpg (97KB, 736x528px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x528px

The Spandrel seems to be akin to mounting Milans onto a Fuchs. The road dash makes it potentially very mobile. They are important for the East Germans, as the BMP-1 sagger missile only has AT 19. I am curious to know how much they cost in game. Right now I think I want 8 of them but I will probably start by ordering 3 of each varient of the BRDM 2.

>>50623416
Speculation is that it will either be an upgrade (potentionally only for the command tanks) or be absent altogether. The latter case you be disappointing. A more capable, more expensice T-55 would play better than a horde tank.

>>50623418
I wish we'd get WARPAC hit on a 4+ as well. At least East Germans have some shot to pass skill checks. Basic Stabilizer probably limits the T-55 to a 10 inch tactical move without the ability to move 14" with an additional plus 1. Let's hope they aren't shitting on it anymore besides the (bullshit) slow firing tag.

>>50623416

Not exported to the East Germans as far as I am aware.

Soviet ones should definitely have it.

Really these ones shouldn't have basic stabilizers either, as they were pretty comprehensive with the upgrades.

>>50623169
slow firing is the only time you are penalized for moving, otherwise you just use the moving RoF

I think I figured it out though, night time and smoke are just modifiers to hit instead of granting concealment like in FoW

Here's a rumor blatantly stolen from the unofficial TY FB page.

PSC supposedly has plastic Leo 1s and T-55s in the works.

Would be awesome if true.

>>50624450
I hope with bits for the AM2 version, there's already a bazillion other guys who do T54/55As

>>50624476
Or resin or metal? Sure.

In plastic? None that I've found.

And PSC tends to be good when it comes to including pieces to make multiple versions of any given WWII tank that they make, so I'd imagine the same would apply to the Leopard 1 and T-55 if they wind up making them.

>>50624450
Once more, PSC makes money from BF being stupid. Anyone else remember the plastic M4A3 shermans? One would have thought that BF would have learned...

>>50624618
What was wrong with BF's M4A3s?

Or are you referring to the Open Fire Shermans which I think were either A2s or A4s?

>>50624802
>What was wrong with BF's M4A3s?
Mostly the fact that they weren't available (as in, hadn't been released yet) when PSC released theirs.

File: DUE077.jpg (173KB, 592x400px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 592x400px

Bazooka vs Panzer 1944 (Osprey Duel 77)

World War II saw tanks assume a dominant role in warfare, capable of tearing through the enemy lines if left unchecked. To combat the threat posed by these armoured behemoths the United States developed the M1 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher, better known as the Bazooka. First employed in combat during 1942, the weapon required a great deal of skill and courage to use effectively. By late 1944 it was a mainstay of the US infantry's anti-tank capabilities, alongside towed weapons, anti-tank grenades and other longer-established measures. Focusing on the savage close-quarters fighting between Germany's armoured divisions and the US infantry during the Battle of the Bulge, Steven Zaloga's absorbing study compares and assesses the strengths and limitations of the cutting-edge technology used by both sides. Featuring specially commissioned full-colour artwork and explosive battle reports, this volume casts new light on the evolving nature of infantry-versus-tank combat in the closing months of World War II.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/i51jtt3sxo7pybg/Osprey+-+DUE+077+-+Bazooka+vs+Panzer.pdf

File: WAR188.jpg (178KB, 568x417px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 568x417px

British Commando 1940-45 (Osprey Warrior 188)

With Hitler's army rampaging across Europe, Winston Churchill ordered the creation of a special fighting force - the Commandos. These valiant men were volunteers drawn from the ranks of the British Army, formed into a Special Service Brigade and put through a rigorous but highly effective training programme. Over the course of World War II they would see action in every major theatre of operation and are credited with numerous feats of gallantry during the D-Day landings. Although many units were disbanded after the war, the Royal Marine Commandos have maintained the standards of this elite fighting formation to the present day. Angus Konstam explores the history of the Commandos during their formative years, providing detailed descriptions of their training, weapons and equipment. Battle reports are accompanied by specially commissioned Osprey artwork and historical photographs, offering readers an in-depth analysis of some of the most famous fighting units in the British Army's history.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/4hazj4tbrf5z4ei/Osprey+-+WAR+188+-+British+Commando+1940-45.pdf

Anyne have any good images of IS-2 tanks with bed spring armor? I'm especially looking for if and how it was mounted on the hulls.

>>50624450
If true PSC are getting all my money.

>>50622150

You're not alone. I'm a bit apprehensive about the infantry thing, but the reserves changes was sorely needed, it was a massively gamey problem, particularly for some list types. TY already has a serious problem with it with Germans. 4 platoons of Luchs, 8 points total, leaving you with 92 on the board.

>>50625517

Cheers anon.

>>50625972
The thing is some lists are built around the idea they can frontload their lists, in particular anything with heavy tanks and some points costs of soviet tankspam.

>>50624450
God, I hope this is true. Punishing BF every time they fuck up like this is going to be the only way they'll ever learn.

>>50625522
A thousand blessings upon you and your ventures, anon.

Are there any good 3D printing ressources for stuff that's applicable to FoW? Like these: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:310476 also looking for stuff like stowage, bedspring armor, "accessories" etc.

>>50627041
The only thing keeping me from printing an entire army is that 3D printing aren't capable of printing proper slopes and curved surfaces and they come out pretty shitty

>>50625972
Aren't Luchs two for 1?

>>50627041

No 3D printer, whatever the resolution is going to give satisfactory results without expert skill, and hours spent treating and cleaning up the prints. Even then, most washes would ruin the paint job exposing the texture rendered by the 3D printing process. Unless you are very adept at 3D printing, it's best just to leave it be.

However if you need a few transports or attached vehicles, some objective markers, or terrain, 3D printing may serve you well.

>>50627144
It depends on the kind of 3D printer. Some of the real high end ones, bordering on being rapid prototyping machines, do slopes, curves, semi-spheres, circles, etc quite well.

But what most people think of as 3D printers, not so much.

>>50624450
If true...kek be praised!

>>50625517
>>50625522
Thanks! Great titles!

Looking at Panzertruppen, it occurs to me that weak NATO guns work fine on soviets, but bad soviet guns are just going to autobounce NATO MBTs. Unless Leopard lists become way more popular that seems like an issue.

>>50629979
Except the East Germans have wide access to AT 21 guided missiles and T-72s. I think they are even getting a BMP-2 option even though they had very few in service.

Besides, Leo 1s need some kind of AT support. Play Leo 1s head to head against T-72s and let me know how long they survive.

>>50629979
The T-55 really should have at least AT 18, if not 19. The ammo used is two generations ahead of the AT 16 we saw in vietnam and significant gains were made in the step up to sabot.

What's best/most fun? A Soviet infantry battalion with lots of artillery or a tank battalion + some infantry + artillery?

>>50630405
More artillery is usually a safe bet but combined arms is more fun.

OTOH arty parks tend to be american so maybe that changes things.

>>50630405
I prefer the combined arms approach. I played an armored company a few times and found it boring.

File: 117492359.jpg (337KB, 1252x887px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1252x887px

>>50630288
Yeah East Germany is gonna be all about using their ATGM platforms to deal with NATO tanks, backed up with enough numbers to not get shot off the board in a couple of turns. I'm hoping the T72M's AP has not been gimped too much.

>>50623557
who would be shocked in the Czechs for some reason got 4+?

what if it's DDR infantry but not Vehicles?

>>50631992

Maybe so. Would make them pretty formidable in assault. We should see the card for the infantry soon.

>>50631499
I think we will see the same AP for the T-72M, but without the BDD (Bazooka Skirts instead)

Does anyone know which side of the turret the commander for a Stuart was on? I think it's the right side (from the back), but I'm not sure.

File: IMG_0677.jpg (152KB, 1023x685px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1023x685px

>>50633424
This should help.

>>50630288
Yeah the NVA BMP2 is semi-inaccurate. If they wanted to give Volksarmee a heap of konkurs launchers they could have done BMP1P, which was the upgrade path the NVA was pursuing historically for their BMP1 fleet.

So would 50 points be a good starting point for TY? I've been looking through Iron Maiden trying to figure out what to buy. I know I'll grab the Brit start box, but I'm debating what to get after that.

>>50635340
I'd say 50 to 60 Points seems to be what is included in the various box sets.

It is a fairly good starting point.

>>50635494
I would argue 60-75 is better than 50; with the stuff we have in most of the boxes 50 points leaves you "running a heavy tank list" a lot. There's not much room for interplay with supporting elements at 50 points with most of the MBTs in the game at present... Though it'll do for the raw process of learning how to chuck dice.

new thread, you big glorious basterds

>>50636372

File: SkypePhoto_20161209_14_03_24.jpg (225KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1200x900px

>>50627041
using that to make Universal Carriers and Stuart Recces for my army. note if you print, the scale is 1:200 in that file as seen here