Flames of War: Volksarmee for Arstotszka edition!

File: carta_modelcolor_rev01.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

and, for posterity sake:

the Vallejo PDF

I just realised I own ten M1919 .30 teams.

>>51074147
USA infantry?

sounds about right, seeing 'transports' have .30cals by default

>>51074375
Gun teams. Transports not included. I'd never take ten (three ARPs and a support MG platoon?) in a list.

>>51073765
I used khaki grey iirc, might have been regular khaki but they are pretty similar anyway.

File: moto.jpg (271KB, 874x644px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 874x644px

>>51074553

Infantry: Khaki, tan yellow drybrush.
AFVs: Cam. olive green, russian uniform drybrush (though I may try feldgrau drybrush).

Too many of the bastards to laboriously paint them.

it is a glorious day, comrades!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGofoatz-20

>>51075329
I am going to need to make a glorious maxim gun cart model now.

I want this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-18_tank

>>51073572
That's fine. Might pick some new toys up if that's the case.

I've got Hellfire and Burning Empires on my kindle so I'll sort through those lists and see what I can build without needing a whole new army.

>>51074543
You can dismount the MGs from the halftracks, which means an ARP would have 2 LMGs by itself, another 3 from halftracks, and 2 .50 cal MGs from halftracks. Two such platoons, and you might need 10 LMGs (and 4 .50 cal)

File: tmp_16149-Screenshot_2017-01-06-20-58-581132424595.png (470KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 540x960px

>>51078123
Ah, good point, forgot about that. Been away for a couple years but I stopped doing that early on because of the worse save for gun teams. I'd leave the bazookas in the tracks if I wanted their guns. Well, at least I used the crew from the second platoon of M1917s for something else, so I don't have eight of those!

File: tank hunter.jpg (92KB, 600x784px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x784px

>>51077052
Hey,

i just looked through Burning Empires italians, and oh, man. i am ever sorry! do you run fucileri, bersaglieri, or do you do tanks?

they can roll a 5 and have Conscript Bersaglieri. oh, no man, no!

i'd have no problem if you went with minimum core troops and just stacked up on artillery and gun teams. those poor italians...and i only saw 1 AT Rifle per list....

i'd be willing to fudge stuff....

>>51075329
That has surprisingly good production values for what I assume is a 30's Russian propaganda film.

>>51081051
It's easy to have good production values when you only have to pay the artists in bullets.

>>51080984
Yeah, that'd basically be what I can do this far. Not a lot of tanks at my disposal currently.

Like I said: I'll look at the different lists and see what we can do.

>>51082362
cool. and i am guessing you have Semoventes over M13's?

so yeah...we will fudge shit....

>>51082844
I have some M14/41's, and also a platoon of Semovente 75's.

File: 0_57eab_64f91cdd_XL.jpg (122KB, 800x553px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x553px

>>51082865

>M14's

man, those are some hefty tanks you got there

is there an EW book for those at all? i know little of Italy...

maybe we can pretend they're M13's?

>>51083654
The M14/41 is basically the MW version of the M13/40 that appears in EW. Same chassis, so same miniature, with a different gun I think. So not hefty at all, really. The 13/40 is 3/2/1 with a 47 gun in the turret and slow tank.

File: 7y6I6fE.jpg (406KB, 1900x1069px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1900x1069px

>>51084224
oh, OK.

also, just to collect more offerings:

YOUR OWN PERSONAL TANK!
--ala GuP, with crazy paint and your choice of crew, no limits but 1945 and before....

template
>Your Custom color scheme
>any cool accesories?
>commander: defaults to you, but you can be another crew spot instead...
>you may pick anyone to be gunner, driver, etc. per tank: each tank has different crew sections.
>(other anons have to accept invite as crew, but any other person/character can be a crewmate)
>....
>What music blares from your speakers as you pass the burning enemy?

so far:

PANZERFUNKWAGEN KingTiger
--blue-green-white tie dyed
--
--Commander Eagles
--Gunner Viruscide
--
--Music:


C3K TROLLMACHINE IS-2
--Red and Gold, 'stalin's heroes' in cryllic
--flamethrower rear-turret
--Commader C3K
--Gunner: IS-2anon
--Loader: actual Russian Kodiak
--Driver: new player of IS Heroes
--
--Music: State Anthem of Soviet Union
ULTRASHERMAN M4A1E8 76mm
--3-tone OD Back and Tank, crowned gryphon insignia
--
--Commander Shermanon
--
--Music: US Artillery March

>>51084297
Obviously the music for the Panzerfunkwagon would be "we brought the funk."

>>51084297
>Panzerbefehlswagen KingTiger
--blue-green-white tie dyed
Modifications: 50.cal AA MG, Panzerfunk branded Schürzen, Aerial adorned with Stars and Stripes, and Boiling Vessel.

--Commander Eagles
--Driver Viruscide
--Gunner Marqod
--Loader: Panzerlehr
--Hull Gunner: Bartosz

--Music: Parliament - Give Up The Funk

File: 1468475246806.jpg (22KB, 299x246px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 299x246px

>>51085050

>i get the shit position

don't make me get my own tank! mfw

Boiling Vessel is an internal mod, i assume?

wait....

>Driver: Virus
wait, you don't even have the driver's license!
move over, vocal one! you get the radio ops position.
this bitch can drive.
in winter
no chains....

>>51085255
That's why I'm driving. It's inherently funnier if the job is given to the guy who can't drive.

File: well shit hans.jpg (96KB, 480x616px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 480x616px

>>51085287

....

........i'm still objecting

wait what is all this i am hearing about custom tanks lately?

File: 0215_20121010_.jpg (73KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x360px

>>51085371
for fun.

the idea of going Girl-und-Panzer, but you don't have to be loli and do what you want with a tank of your choice. senshado legal.

>>51085489
in that case i will take one semovente da 105/25 to go.

i actually only saw up to the british episode of GuP though.

File: Comet_tank_1.jpg (139KB, 900x555px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 900x555px

>>51084297
>Tank
A British A34 Comet.

>Your Custom color scheme
Standard SCC 15 green, with all markings appropriate for an armored recce regiment. The classic "gotta go fast" pic has replaced the normal divisional marking, and the squadron triangle has a star near the top with the three sides of the triangle labeled "Speed, Armor, Firepower" (left, bottom, right). There's also two thin red stripes down the sides to make it go faster (obviously).

>any cool accessories?
It has the unregulated gearing and engine of a C hull Cromwell, for a top speed of 40mph. If you're fine with fucking up the suspension, anyway.

>What music blares from your speakers as you pass the burning enemy?
Provisionally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doEwWzMz99A
I reserve the right to change this if someone can come up with something more appropriately British.

I was considering picking up the plastic soldier company T-34 battalion to get into late war and was just wondering how debilitating hen and chicks can be. Also just any tips in general on playing Soviets.

File: 8ac821af6d02ff83c2892b42b5eb16a5.jpg (94KB, 468x431px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 468x431px

>>51086483
>how debilitating hen and chicks can be
A lot, so shoot or scoot. You'll learn to live with the pain, tovarishch.

>>51086483
It'll pack your shit in, but make you better at playing for sure.

Too bad H&C also exists for units that shouldn't even have it though.

>>51086992
>>51087088
So would it be better to msu my tankovy platoons even if I have less tanks that way to have more options about how I move or blob them for numbers? Moreover should I just go get artillery instead of a bunch of tanks if I want to play Soviets? I do like B-4s.

>>51087160
I usually run 3x5 (sometimes more in each) t34/76s, and then rely on the sheer numbers and the more expensive non-scooters to do the heavy lifting (SU-85m is golden). Also equip your 34s with tank escorts for glorious soviet aesthetic.

>>51087160
Get what you think is fun and cool looking, man. Competition is just one aspect of this hobby.

>>51087213
Yeah, tank riders and escorts do sound fun.

>>51087319
Honestly a lot of stuff sounds like fun, I just worry too much about things I shouldn't I guess. Basically I just want to roll a bunch of tanks around or flatten things right now rather than fiddle with a bunch of infantry. I almost don't even want tank riders, but they're cool enough I don't exactly mind having to deal with all the little figures.

Bear with me since I'm half asleep but I put together something using Red Bear's Tankovy Batalon at 1500.

Tankovy HQ
T-34 obr 1942 with cupola and tank escorts

Combat Companies
Platoon with 6 T-34 obr 1942s, cupolas and tank escorts

Platoon with 7 T-34 obr 1942s, cupolas and tank escorts

Weapons Company
Motorised Mortar Company with trucks and observer team

Corps Support
Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company with three ISU-122s and AA .50s

Tank Killer Company with three SU-85Ms

Light Armoured Car Platoon consisting of 3 BA-64s, dunno if I want to swap out their AA for PTRS AT rifles.

>>51087482
What training/morale is that army?

>>51087501
Confident/Trained. The ISUs are Fearless/Trained.

>>51087482
The only issue is that you don't have any anti-air, but that's still quite niche. I think it's a very good list, and worth a try.

>>51087501
confident trained
>>51087482
Looks fine! You got your bases covered. I've never had any use for cupolas though.

BA64s are fine for recon, but with spetnatz you get to infiltrate another unit, which is nice if you want a headstart on your tank charge.

Keep in mind there's a difference between tank escorts and tank riders, no separate models needed for tank escorts.

>>51087517
and don't suffer H&C!

>>51086483
Learn to plan ahead for subsequent turns. You don't fly by the seat of your pants as Soviet tanks, you figure out where your tanks will need to be in 3 turns, and you move them there before (seriously) throwing some main cannon dice.

>>51087572
They're still at penalty to hit when maneuvering... Just with the ability of moving partial platoon and not fucking up the shots of the ones that didn't move.

ISU-122s are alright, but not anything amazeballs. They are arguably the best fucking heavy tank for Soviets in Late War, with possible exceptions to the IS-85 and KV-8s.

>>51087536
You have to roll for air support and it costs a lot right? I looked at the air support options I had and it was like 200 points minimum for a single plane, then again anti-air looks cheap.

>>51087555
>I've never had any use for cupolas though
No? They just sounded like a good idea at the time.

>BA64s are fine for recon, but with spetnatz you get to infiltrate another unit
Decoy tanks were tempting but I didn't have the points at the time, dropping the cupolas though would get me the extra bit I'd need to get either those for the infiltrate. I'd lose out on recce though right?

>no separate models needed for tank escorts.
So they can't get dropped off period then? Thats interesting. I was just taking them instead of tank riders since I vaguely remember something about requiring an even combat platoon count.

>>51087576
Cool, I think I can do that. I'll just think about it kinda like SW: Armada then.

>>51087624
Anti-Air in terms of Anti-Aircraft Guns. Which you can at least use them to guard objectives from infantry.

You don't really want Decoy Tanks. They let you do an infiltration, but they're also RoF 1, and vitally, not recce. You want Spetnaz if you want Infiltrators.

Tank Escorts are essentially a part of the tank, like having an extra machine gun. They can't leave, you always have enough tank escorts for your tanks, but they can be pinned down in an assault.

Even platoons stop you from being screwed over for Reserves.

>>51087650
Thanks for clearing all that up. I believe I have a good idea of what I'll be buying now so I'll be headed to bed to sleep on camo schemes. Thanks to all of you in general too for answering my questions too.

>>51087624
>Decoy tanks were tempting
Never ever ever ever ever ever use decoy tanks. They're a small platoon with RoF 1 (and, IIRC, H&C, but RoF 1 is bad on it's own) and crucially they MUST be deployed. Even in missions where you can't use infiltration. You basically never want to put down two mediocre-at-best tanks if you defend.

holy fuck i cannot do camo

how can i strip my plastic tonks back to scratch and stick to dunkelgelb.

HOw long before Volksarmee gets scanned?

>>51089462
It's not even out yet.

So probably quite some time.

>>51089305
If you can find a cleaning product called Simple Green, give it a dunk in that. And then give it a scrub with an old tooth brush.

>>51089305
an acitone free Nail vanish remover

>>51085718

>Comet
>meme markings
>military food groups
>redline ref'
>SPEED!

....i like you, you....

>standard green
>2 thin red stripes

you do know the two stripes on each side a stock black gloss are every americunts' 2016 trendy choice paint job on their pussywagon sports cars?


we really need a SteelWhip tank in here....

>>51091578
>we really need a SteelWhip tank in here....

The GrogStuG

>>51091578
>we really need a SteelWhip tank in here....
TOG2*?

File: hello darkness my old friend.png (719KB, 864x748px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 864x748px

>>51092298
>>51092142

i dunno, SteelWhip hasn't shown in forever....

>>51091578
>you do know the two stripes on each side a stock black gloss are every americunts' 2016 trendy choice paint job on their pussywagon sports cars?
Yes. If the post wasn't half exaggerated self mockery (I end up playing fast moving forces in pretty much every TT game I play), it'd just be a normal Comet.

>>51075329
Seeing the succes of great war and the incoming v4, FoW russian civil war is unlikely to come in a near (far) future

>>51093228
>fast moving forces
the only way, Druchi, the only way...

>>51093758
also a sarcasm.

> Be me
> email BF customer service, two boxes of plastic IS-2s I bought were missing crew sprues.
> CS says they'll fix it, email later, say replacements have been sent.
> Find today I've been charged $90 for "replacements" as they sent two whole boxes when I just needed the crew sprues

Is this normal? WTF? If I had know this would happen I'd just have ordered the crews separately.

>>51095440
No, that is not normal, what the fuck? E-mail them about the charge and them sending the boxes, and if they don't do anything contact your credit card company.

>>51095440
where are you? seems like a normal interaction with bf to me. once they took so long to process my order the bank thought it was fraud. i asked battlefront about it and they said they didn't even have a copy of my order but still sent me a confirmation email. so yeah.... expect fuck ups.

Is Labamba man in the house?
just wondering how you paint your italians. mine look... wrong.

>>51095440
>>51098227
Battlefront apparently only very barely know what the fuck they're doing most of the time.

>>51098594
I don't think any of them actually know the first thing about inventory management.

>>51100679
Been waiting for months for a couple of spray cans. Thought it was supposed to make things easier. The Soviet Green spray was dead on Vallejo Russian Uniform green. The key to working with battlefront is order at release or else it's a shitshow as to whether or not you will get what you are ordering.

Been considering an airbrush. I work in a lab, so I would have space to work and a compressed air supply. I used a spray gun one summer job to spray paint all the fire hydrants in the town. Thing was a hardware store special and had to be disassembled at lunch and at the end of the day for cleaning. Are airbrushes a similar pain in the ass? Anyone have any recommendations for something in the ~100 USD price range or is that too cheap of an entrance point?

>>51098227
Yeah, I'm here.

My italians are a black primer, rucksack tan for the tan, bootstrap leather for leather bits(belts, pouches, helmet straps), bloodtracker brown for the wood of the guns with either ironhull grey or cold steel for the metal bits(can't remember which).

I'm a shit painter, though, so take my advice with a few pounds of salt.

>>51101818
And if anyone knows the vallejo equivilents of those colors please tell me. I've searched and never found anything.

>>51076852
BF already makes them, They're called Tachanka's like how the video is named

>>51093758
But Tachankas are already in WW2, so no need for a new era for them- you can even field them in any WW2 era, and BF makes them already.

>>51088570
No H&C for decoy tanks.

I revised my list from last night with /fowg/'s advice in mind. I think its a little more aggressive and at some point massed katyushas sounded like more fun than motorized mortars even if its expensive in comparison. For spetsnaz I just buy a small German infantry platoon with halftracks and paint them a bit off, right?

Red Bear Tankovy Batalon
1500pts
Confident Trained

Tankovy HQ
T-34 obr 1942

Combat Companies
Platoon with 6 T-34 obr 1942s

Platoon with 7 T-34 obr 1942s

Corps Support
Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company with three ISU-122s and two and AA .50s
[Fearless Trained

Tank Killer Company with four SU-85Ms

Spetsnaz Platoon
[Fearless Veteran]

Guards Rocket Mortar Battalion with seven Katyushas and one Katyusha with additional crew.
[Fearless Trained]

File: leonov5.jpg (161KB, 488x334px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 488x334px

>>51102732
not bad....

i made my recon by buying the artillery HQ, and mixing the various signal men into radzvedki.

spetznaz can use the standard soviet scout blister is you like. but if you want disguises, sure.
though i didn't check to see which small german blisters mix up to soviet the best....

>>51103374
I think I do want to go with disguises, but I'm having trouble finding German infantry packs that I can be sure will have enough MP40s to represent them properly as SMG teams. Worst comes to worst though I can get that standard blister and not have to worry to much about it.

Just so I have this right, the Katys exchange all their fire for a single devastating template since they count as having nine weapons, correct? I'm just assuming thats better since it sounds like a blast.

>>51102732
>Guards Rocket Mortar Battalion with seven Katyushas and one Katyusha with additional crew. [Fearless Trained]

I don't think this is possible, extra crew is generally an all or nothing upgrade.

>>51103651
Is it not? Their forces of war listbuilder was letting me, if not I guess thats not so bad but I think I'd only take four Katys then and get a few more tanks or another spetsnas squad.

>>51103608
The Oberfeldwebel Schmidt & Assault Troop pack's got a lot of MP40s and PPSHs in it.

>>51101818
i used army painter desert yellow as my primer. dude at my flgs insisted that vallejo desert yellow matched the army painter primer. protip: it fucking doesn't. managed to kinda save them with a heavy dry brush of iraqi sand but its a real shit show up close.

>>51103812
Thanks, I'll take a look at those now.

>>51103709
That's not a good excuse. You need to read the accompanying text as well. It probably say something like "equip all katyushas with extra crew for +10 per katyusha" or something similar. "All" is a very important word here.

>>51100901
>order at release
This didn't help with TY or tanks.

>>51104755
Yeah, I misread it. I just bought the upgrade for a platoon instead of a single Katyusha. Judging by the chart thats an extra 40 points on top of the eight just to hit the devastating template even though only one more would be needed so that blows. Maybe I'll just stick with mortars even if they don't feel as cool, because katys sound like they'll let me down more often than not for that many points.

>>51105153
It's sixteen guns, and soviets get some weird rules with large batteries of rockets. IK think you get devastating and rerolls?

>>51105153
Mortars are generally better, simply because they can be dug in, and thus less vulnerable to counter-attacks.

>>51105201
Nothing "wierdly soviet" about it, 16 gun bombardments means devastating template and reroll misses. (The soviets do have special rules with rocket launchers that can get up to 32 "guns" firing)

>>51105201
Yeah, thats what it says. Its only one template though right?

>>51105277
That makes sense, ah well. I was just thinking I needed something to dig infantry out of defensive positions for my tanks as they push up.

>>51105391
>Yeah, thats what it says. Its only one template though right?
Yes, still only one template. A single platoon (and russians count "companies" as platoons) can only ever provide a single template.

>That makes sense, ah well. I was just thinking I needed something to dig infantry out of defensive positions for my tanks as they push up.
First of all, artillery isn't really that good at digging up infantry, and the mortars would most likely be better at it (they have 3+ Firepower, as compared to 4+ for Katyushas, if I remember correctly). They're mostly useful for pinning stuff, annoying anti-tank guns, and harrassing infantry that isn't dug in any more (due to coming in from reserve, or because they needed to move).
Secondly, you have an excellent tool for digging up infantry in your ISU-122s.

>>51105517
So Katyushas are just more mobile and cover a wider area. I'll probably end up buying both if only to attempt to bury things in rockets every now and then for grins.

>>51105517
>ISU-122s
I think you mean 152s.

>>51105628
I am fairly certain your list says ISU-122, which have Breakthrough Guns, so no infantry, gun or unarmed vehicle saves. And 2+ Firepower, so you're quite likely to eradicate whatever [not an armored vehicle] you manage to hit.

>>51105644
Thats not me, and yeah you're right. 152s have the 1+ firepower but 2+ is still pretty great.

>>51105733
The important thing isn't the firepower, the important thing is that they both remove infantry saves (so no negating 2 out of every 3 hits you get on them).

>>51105778
That does sound like a pretty big deal, especially considering they look to be strong AT too. I'm guessing they're going to be the highest priority target most of the time then considering they can smash most things they run into.

>>51105858

Sort of?
With RoF 1 smoke can massively limit their effectiveness.

>>51105905
Oh yeah, easy to forget smoke exists when basically nothing I have can take it.

>>51105914

Well, your assault engineers get smoke pots.
Isn't that cool?

Nevermind that they will all probably be dead before you have chance to use them.

>>51105997
Yeah...

> Pay for uber-expensive assault engineer with smoke
> team has to remain stationary to deploy smoke and cannot assault

Thanks so much BF...

>>51104806
Doh! I feel your pain because I was excited for tanks and came in the weekend after we got it in at the FLGS (a few weeks after it actually came out because I guess they only printed like 100 starter boxes) and it was bought up. Had to wait even longer to get it ordered in.

Battlefront tends to be very cautious when dropping new products. But for the Tanks starter box it was just cardboard with 3 spruces tossed in, so I don't see why they couldn't have made a few more.

Question to Bartosz or anyone other from Poland:
Do you buy minis directly from BF, or from other sources? (shops/local distributors).
If from BF, how long it usually takes for your order to arrive?

>>51105644
Yeah I'm some other guy, didn't realise you meant his list specifically.

I prefer 152s because of their utility against buildings but either works. OTOH most of the batreps here have barely any terrain so maybe if you never see buildings they're less useful.

>>51106595
Honestly I'm more pissed off about the fiasco with TY's launch.

Do looted t34 panzers get hen and chicks?

also is it worth getting some manpacked infantry guns to knock out dug in infantry? i could see my stugs doing that anyway plus they can move faster. any reason to take them?

>>51107168
>I prefer 152s because of their utility against buildings but either works. OTOH most of the batreps here have barely any terrain so maybe if you never see buildings they're less useful.

They basically force enemy infantry to spread out, and most buildings would probably only contain 2 teams at most anyway, so the bonus is minor. The price, is much worse anti-tank (both a lower AT value, and they can't chase enemies at all). Meanwhile, the ISU-122 is something as rare for soviets as a good all-rounder.

>>51107242

>t-34 beute panzers
no hen and chicks just CV T-34/76s.The main gun is a little anemic for LW, but they have wide tracks and fast tank (mostly useless until v4). The looted versions are unreliable, which shouldn't really matter until v4 either because you will rarely be moving at the double and wide tracks lets you reroll bogging. You can (and probably should) bring one as a T-34/85 for 30 extra points.

I need to buy an extra box of T-34s to paint up as looted panzers mainly for fun. I would say StuGs or Hetzers are almost certainly the better buy in Desperate Measures, unless you needed a tank that you can be more aggressive with, as the T-34 can move through terrain more easily and is somewhat protected on it's side.

>>51107242
>also is it worth getting some manpacked infantry guns?

In V3 not really. They are cheap but their bombardment is worthless and they aren't really mobile. In V4 their FP in bombardment will go up by 1 making them a step above worthless in bombardment. In direct fire 8cm mortars do everything infantry guns can do against infantry at a longer range. Plus they can do a smoke bombardment.

>>51105997
Never mind that the usual fashion smoke pots were deployed was from the ass-end of T-34 and KV tanks while on the move to mask everything behind the lead tank. But of course, BF wouldn't want Soviets ever using any of their smoke screens ever. That's actually what the smaller fuel-tank looking things mounted on the rear of the tank is.

Haven't played in a few months and decided to drop by when I saw on the Battlefront website 4th Edition is dropping soon.

I saw this on the website. "In addition to the new 4th Edition rulebook, we also have the two new books coming out to keep playing Early and Late-war.

The new Flames Of War, 1939-41 and 1944-45 rulebook contains all the rules you need to play Flames Of War, The World War II Miniatures Game Fourth Edition. This rulebook, along with its accompanying book Flames Of War, Special Rules and Warriors, 1939-41 and 1944-45, has been written so they can be used with all the great Intelligence Handbooks already available for Flames Of War."

Are they going to have separate rule books by era?

>>51112062
>Are they going to have separate rule books by era?
No, but they provde updates for EW and LW with the additional books, and will focus the ordinary coming books on MW:

>>51112287
I dont understand why they cant have 1 comprehensive rulebook.

>>51112731
Because the rulebook shouldn't contain adjustments and clarifications relevant to specific army books?

As I understand it, the V4 EW and LW books will contain arsenal adjustments, clarifications of how rules interact with each other, updated warriors and similar stuff.

>>51112731
Also, there might be a need for slightly different national special rules, if they're going the Team Yankee way (britsih bulldog would then be improved morale for counter attacks, not a reroll, and similar stuff).

>>51105997
Kinda, but Red Bear's Tankovy list doesn't have them.

They must have died on the way there

How are Soviet Shock armies by the way? In the future I may want to throw penals and shocks at the enemy under constant artillery cover.

WWPD has pictures of the BMP and SPW Mot.Schutzen battalions.

ooooooohhh the BTR,

>>51111282
Really? That's fucking neato.

File: Pak40.jpg (260KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1080px

Can anyone remember that pak40 list that had like 14 of them in or something?

>>51115580
78 Sturm division, and depending on how many marders you take, I think you can up the number to either 17 or 19

File: FOW German arty support company.png (38KB, 1242x515px)

38KB, 1242x515px

>>51115580
no, but did find the crazy Arty support company one

>>51115812
Hey look it's me. The key issue with this is that it's actually really boring to play. Because you only get one bombardment total per turn. I mean fuck it's going to be a good one, but That is effectively your turn done in one turn. The StuGs where there to give the player something else to do, and to defend their artillery with.

>>51115969
Can't you use the batteries separately?

>>51116662
Yeah but then you're not hitting them with eighteen guns at once. So why bother living.

>>51116734
going to try making one for the British when I get a chance.

>>51117012
I got you dawg.

Road To Rome
Support Company: Field Battery, Royal Artillery (New Zealand)

CV Headquarters: 2x Rifle Teams 35 points

Field Battery, Royal Artillery (New Zealand)
Two Gun troops with 8x OQF 25 pdr Guns
335 Points

Field Battery, Royal Artillery (New Zealand)
Two Gun troops with 8x OQF 25 pdr Guns
335 Points

Field Battery, Royal Artillery (New Zealand)
Two Gun troops with 8x OQF 25 pdr Guns
335 Points

Naval Gunfire Support
Light Cruiser with AOP
250 Points

AOP with Dixie Air Support
35 points

Commonwealth Anti-Tank platoon
4x Late OQF 6 pdr Guns.

Total 1490 points

So that's six four gun artillery batteries with a total of 24 guns that have Time On Target and are Confident Veteran, because they're New Zealanders. However you can't combine them together like you can with the Americans and the Sonnestuhl list for a big old cockslapper of a bombardment. So it's good if you want to piss all over multiple sectors of the board at once. Less good for cockslapping individual sectors to death. Plus some AT To stop bastards charging your gun line, and if your buddies have air support and you can use one of your six observers to spot the target, you can use the Dixie Support to help them.

>>51117301
>However you can't combine them together like you can with the Americans and the Sonnestuhl list for a big old cockslapper of a bombardment.
Don't they still have the normal brit artillery special rules, which would in fact allow that?

>>51117709
My mistake, you can actually can, but it'll require some daisy chaining.

>>51115275
Quite so! I think BF's IS3 even has the damn things modeled on it. They continued to develop them into the 50's, even using them on T-55s, but there was some obvious weaknesses with the system, being that while it produced a lot more smoke than a western smoke projector, it couldn't be fired ahead. They were either, through an electric switch in the tank, lit up while attached, or primed and released off the back to cook up a smoke screen in place.

File: KURWA.jpg (101KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 200x200px

>>51106925

whoa, gotta make note:

while i am pretty much genetically polish, and have a strong back of polish culture, i was born and raised in the states essentially.

i can cook golopki and i remember what my dziadu taught me, but i am no source for being a polish hobbyist in poland.

aka, i'm a fake ass pole.

like most of us that survived WWII.....thanks Stalin!

>>51117301
no 5.5's?

>>51122532
Five Fives don't benefit from the New Zealand Rumpus Rule.

What's the difference between tank rider and tank escort?

Can I just use a rifle strelkovy company for "count as"?

File: IMG_0060.png (302KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1536x2048px

Rate my list, I have used it beforehand and have beaten a Patton list with it, although it was the first time my friend had used a Patoon list, so it's not a huge achievement.

>>51122676
I believe Tank riders are simply infantry that get a 3+ save whilst riding on tanks as transports (something you should NOT rely on) while escorts are more or less additions to a tank team that give the tank +1 in assault, +1 in defensive fire, and defensive fire on infantry teams that sneak up on tanks.

>>51122809
>and defensive fire on infantry teams that sneak up on tanks.
Note that you only get the escort's single shot in this case, but it's better than surprise buttsex.

>>51122532
Better than all the people pretending to be Irish on St. Patty's day.

Also; do you play TY at all?

>>51122863
do i play TY?

YES!

i have Murrkans in 73 Easting colors, and i am working on 50billion West Germans...i expect them to be done sometime in december *ahk!*

i plan on getting Volksarmee and Stripes, dunno about new forces though. i wanna see the Polish book....despite Volksarmee being what it is....

>>51123101
Cool. I plan to grab some Brits at some point.

Is the soviet Strelkovy Battalion (not company) on the store plastic or metal? Can you use them as motorstrelkovy?

I've collected plastic figures until now. How different is metal from plastic? Is it toxic?

>>51122532
hahaha all this time i thought you were hungarian, i feel stupid. in my defence putting sz together looks very hungarian

>>51123528
>Is it toxic?
Metal? Well if you eat it, sure.

Quick rules question: if I have two batteries of the same guns can I combine them for a big template or does that require some sort of special rule? Just noticed that one of the companies for Italy in Burning Empires can take two cannon batteries of 75's.

>>51123528
>Strelkovy Battalion (not company)
Which product code? Generally, BF tends to tell you if it's plastic. If they say nothing, it's most likely metal.

>>51123643
You ALWAYS need special rules permission to combine artillery batteries.

>>51123957

SBX02 Udarny Strelkovy Batalon

>>51124718
Those are definetely metal.

>>51124718
>>51124890
SBX33 Strelkovy Company is the newer plastic one, any of the others will be metal. Lead hasn't been used in miniatures since, well I don't actually know, but probably the late eighties, they're made of white metal which is a different, less toxic composition. Probably still should not eat your models though.

>>51123528
The only people in the red army who don't look like strelkovy are assault-sappers, scouts ("spetsnaz"), some cavalry (the cossack-y uniforms were actually relatively rare, and most were just strelk on horses), and tank crews.

The vast majority of the army wore the standard uniforms, including sappers, strelkovy, tank riders* and motostrelkovy.

That being said, though, weapons differ between them and between eras. A lot of sappers and earlier generations of strelk don't have MGs in their rifle teams, and motostrelk and tank riders are armed with SMGs. At FOW's scale this isn't a huge deal since that kind of stuff is hard to see in play anyway, but if you want to go full autism it might be an issue for you.

Bear in mind also that the soviets had winter and summer uniform (and the winter could be either padded telogreika coats or the more famous longcoat), and those shouldn't be mixed (someone is either dying of heatstroke or frostbite), and that the colour of the uniform shifted over the war as the dye sources changed (from a brown-yellow to a brown-green). A long running unit could have mixed colours of uniform but bear in mind that the soviets raised many fresh units even up to very late in the war, and those would all be very green uniforms.

*it has always been bizarre to me we have spetsnaz instead of scouts, but tank riders instead of tankodesantniki.

>>51125075
Lead hasn't been used in toys since the 80s. Miniatures are collectibles. The US has a total ban but other countries don't. Though the amount of lead used has dropped most places because it makes the models more rigid.

That said, lead metal isn't too dangerous; don't eat it, but the real danger from lead is vapour or organic lead compounds, both of which make it into your blood easily. Solid hunks of lead in models, even shavings, have relatively poor uptake... but still don't file metal anywhere you eat and dispose of the dust after.

File: 10866271.jpg (408KB, 2048x1425px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 2048x1425px

VOLKSARMEE WHEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDczkd-Ofw

>>51126822
I think in the next two weeks. Basically the entire book is on WWPD now. Mitch actually gives it a decent review even if sometimes I can't figure out what is going on through his head.

He has an interesting idea about playing Volksarmee vs. Panzertruppen at a small points level on the same sized table. Sounds better than massive parking lots of tanks.

File: 12779204.jpg (98KB, 1000x638px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1000x638px

>>51126961
cool

Anyone here have experience setting up historical scenario games?

>>51127551
yeah. have done a north africa campaign.

>>51127551
I've put on a scenario for Prokhorvka this past summer. What scenario are you thinking?

There are different ways you can approach setting it up: either abstraction or detailed replication. I favor abstraction. It takes less research time, and allows you to be flexible for the materials and rule set you are using. You can try to replicate every detail of the battle, but the ruleset may screw everything up.

Our historicals group at the FLGS meets every other week and often we will play scenarios based on historical battles. When I set up a scenario I like to start with the layout of the battlefield, particularly major hills and terrain features. I try to abstract this out in a way to simplify the board for setup and play, but to keep the flow and feel of the scenario. I like to use a larger table if I can.

Then I look to unit composition. For the Kursk scenario I balanced points while trying to keep the historical deployment of both sides. The soviets had many more tanks (T-34 and T-70) than the Germans, but they had very little that could deal with the German cats from the front. The points were pretty even. You have to think about reserves and deployment, and researching the initial actions of the battle you are trying to model can help with that. Reserves make things interesting and add a bit of randomness to the scenario.

Everything else is special rules and conditions that you get to sprinkle in. I kept artillery off board and had a fishbowl (draw out of a hat, put it back if you don't want to use it this turn) system for support. It wasn't perfect, but I like the randomness of the system. I even added some vital support like SU-152s and an extra Ferdinand to the support pool.

Overall the resulting scenario wasn't perfect, a lone I-153 swooped in and fragged an entire Panzer IV platoon because I did not provide enough AA. However the end result was close enough to historical that I was happy.

>>51123957
>You ALWAYS need special rules permission to combine artillery batteries.
Damn.

>>51128026
Was thinking over a few options for scenarios. Mainly I was wondering how to properly balance them to be fun, and how historically accurate to be with the forces (within reason, doing a full regiment v regiment game is simply infeasible). Particularly for scenarios where the forces were drastically mismatched.

>>51122846
Not for the cost, though... Assault guns lacking their own defensive fire (e.g. SU-85s, SU-122, SU-100s) shouldn't ever bother with Tank Escorts. There is a case for using them with SU-76s, due to their ability to crash through woodlines and launch hilarious assault against unsuspecting defenders... ISUs often can make use of Escorts as well.

>>51126822
http://www.wwpd.net/2017/01/thats-all-volks-armee.html

Pretty much entire book is here, you can fill in the rest with TY Rulebook (i belive points are the same)

>>51113617
Udarny? They're meh. But Red Bear Udarny have access to better support choicrs than Hero Strelk. Otherwise, Hero Strelk has 160mm mortars, (possibly) veteran storm platoon, and bedspring option for T-34s. Between the two, they're fairly similar... Personally I prefer the Storm Battalion in Red Bear over either the Udarny shock army, or hero Strelk.

>>51128368
Man, this seems like a really underwhelming release.

I do agree that this'd be far more interesting if there was any real support for lower-point units; as it is the gameplay meta is very much heavy-tank biased, so it's kind of pointless bringing, say, panzertruppen or T-55s.

>>51129304
Not to mention expensive, especially now that we only have resin and metal options. They fucked up big time making the T-55 chaff tier. East germans are going to be even spammier than the soviets no matter what you bring.

>>51128340
I evened the points out in my scenario for balance. You might be able to play with motivations/skill when you are putting lists together to give the outnumbered side a better chance of not getting steamrolled. Digging them in and giving them terrain cover could also help even the odds, even with uneven points. Something like clearing out a city/town would be a hard fight for the attacker unless they had some kind of breakthrough gun.

>>51128368
What a terrible release.

>>51129552
>Not to mention expensive
This is kind of what I meant, sorry. Everyone has an MBT-based army, because they're by far the easiest things to get in with (much like how it's easiest to get into 40k with marines. Or, was, I don't really know what's going on with 40k these days). We have two people who don't play heavy tanks and they're both airmobile lists (afghansty and british airmobile).

>>51129552
PSC to the rescue!

They'll be coming out with plastic T-55s by March or April assuming they're on schedule.

>>51130656
Oh, yeah, I know they're going to make bank, I'm just mad at how badly BF failed at planning their releases out. As it stands it's less WW3 and more NATO training exercise simulator.

>>51122532
Oh thanks anyway, i will end buying from bf then (closest chop only goes for fantasy anyway)

>>51130759
I can almost see why. Get the big 4 out of the way first.

Although that does mean it's heavily NATO focused...

>>51130821
I said before but there's only two of us left playing soviets (and one of them hasn't played much lately). Loooot of blue on blue.

>>51130656
Still going to be pricy since you will need probably 2 boxes minimum of T-55s to run them as support to your motorized units and 4 boxes minimum if you want them as your main armored support. I have 9 and it feels like that is nothing.
I am trying to figure out if I want to move them around in units of 5 or 10.

>>51130550
Tanks are an easy point to hop in, especially for NATO. I know I spent a lot more money going for the Recon list, which I am still not finished painting. It's a tough sell to get people on board for the soviets. You are paying for and painting close to twice as much stuff and it people are finding the performance lacking and the options limited.

I was going to go all out for Volksarmee until I saw the release. Figured I was better off spending my gaming money on Armada and my hobby time on some Desperate Measures Germans. I am still slowly going to work toward a Volksarmee list, but even with 5 T-72s and 9 T-55s I am only maybe a 3rd of the way to a 100 point list.

Any insight into *why* BF decided to make such a mess of the East Germans? Especially stuff like ignoring the Bastion missiles, using the wrong ground attack aircraft, and not bothering to do research on the T-72 models in use by Warsaw Pact countries.

File: 3464743128993.jpg (523KB, 1164x974px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1164x974px

>>51131782
They told us pretty early that the book was an ascended .pdf/booklet mini supplement, rather than a full release wave a la Leopard/Iron Maiden. Hence resin T55, russian Su25, ahistoric BM21 instead of RM70, no BTRs on release.

As for their insistence on +3 to hit, no bastion and other shit stats (despite claiming on the book the NVA was supposed to be a cut above average Warsaw Pact forces) you only have BF's faction designers to blame.

>>51131330
The planned price for the PSC T-55s is £21.50 for 5 tanks.

Right now that is roughly $26 USD.

Assuming the Pound stays weak for the next several months, it'll still be significantly more affordable than BF's resin T-55s at $72.50 USD.

Why BF ever thought a spam-tank in resin was a good idea, I'll never understand...

>>51131330
Yeah, tanks are just easy to get up and running with, and it's still a harder look as soviets.

>>51131782
They realised they'd been planning non-stop NATO about five months too late, basically. It's a really dumb mistake to have made given it's the same damn thing that killed FOAN and Vietnam.

>>51131950
>(despite claiming on the book the NVA was supposed to be a cut above average Warsaw Pact forces)
This just means "every other warpac force is going to be even more potato", not that the germans are actually good. Expect 6 skill on non-guards soviets and czechs, I guess (they might go easy on the poles because of western doctrinal influence, which is apparently the only way to have decent stats according to Phil).

>>51131964
>Why BF ever thought a spam-tank in resin was a good idea, I'll never understand...
Because it was a rush job because they think it's fine to have NPC factions, see above.

>>51132237
>every other warpac force is going to be even more potato

AAAAHHHHH

>>51132261
Search your heart, you know it to be true. Nothing red's getting hits on 4s or a skill higher than 4. I wouldn't be surprised if we see warpac forces with hits-on-2s or skill 6, to be honest.

File: IMG_1166.jpg (81KB, 564x338px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 564x338px

>>51132237
We have a real salt mine here!

>>51132393
It's called free speech. Don't like it move to north korea.

>>51132476
You're the one upset about the poor treatment of Communist forces compared to Capitalist forces.

Seems Best Korea would be a far better match for one such as yourself.

File: tank_triggered.png (116KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 320x371px

>>51132522

>>51132182
They had a decent plan in mind which was to get the 4 main powers of Cold War Europe released first.

Which sounds good in theory until you realize that basically means 3 NATO Nations plus the USSR.

>>51132393
Hey, drive all the opfor away with your partisan bs. Enjoy your (more historic) game consisting of blue v blue training exercises.

>>51132522
If you need a safe space to protect yourself from people who play a different team from you maybe don't post on 4chan.

>>51132732
This isn't quite the problem, though. I agree that the British being the third wave wasn't a great move; there's been some serious bias ever since then, but, you're right, those are the Big Four of the game. The issue is they really needed #5 to be a warsaw pact faction, with a big release with a good starter box. Ideally they wanted that release to be an elite warpac formation, so newbies who're in the existing NATO-dominated areas have a cheap jump-on point (my area's NATO heavy just through new-hotness attrition even without considering how many people were actually in BAOR and the bundeswehr, so I assume that it's lopsided elsewhere too). Instead they apparently sent all the brits out then went "Wait, what? People want to play... the other... side..? Oh, the communists? Are they in this game" and it really kind of shows. Consequently I don't think it's going to fix the imbalance they've generated.

And I watched this happen to FOAN and Vietnam, too, and I'm pretty concerned TY's not going to be able to coast on initial hype forever if it continues to be The Good Guys With All The Cool Toys And Shit vs Some Other People We Guess And You Need Seventy Tanks To Play Them.

>>51132882
>The Good Guys With All The Cool Toys And Shit vs Some Other People We Guess And You Need Seventy Tanks To Play Them.
Honestly at launch this wasn't bad at all; the soviets probably (I didn't count) had more stuff, even. The M1 got it's WORLDS BEST TANK ALL YEARS blowjob, but I generally excused the bias because it was quoting directly from a book that was written in the 80s. The cool stuff the US got like copperheads and minelets didn't seem egregious compared to what the soviets got (better air defence and spearheads, primarily). It's really been Leopard (and panzertruppen) and Iron Maiden that've tipped the scales, especially with Iron Maiden giving the brits Better Afghansty.

>>51132882
The resin tanks and lack of a starter box for East Germany is a pretty big screw up.

They certainly dropped the ball there.

As for needing 70 tanks, that's an exaggeration. At 100 points you could probably have 21 Soviet T-72s, and that's only if you take nothing else in your force.

Unless your talking BMP spam, but those aren't technically tanks. And I don't know how many you can max out on off the top of my head.

As for the East Germans... Yeah, spam central.

The T-55AMs are dirt-cheap points wise and you can take 30 of them assuming you don't take 10 T-72s and 20 T-55AMs instead.

As for small WarPac forces, I'd say a mix of Soviet tanks and infantry is your best bet. And even that would still be larger than a similar force from one of the NATO countries.

>>51133159
Yeah, I was exaggerating. I don't think anything lets you take 70 tanks. But I remember the dying phase of FOAN and 'nam was "Oh, you've got a lot of people playing Israel/US, maybe I'll grab some Egyptians/Vietcong. Wait, I need how many tanks/stands?", and I'm seeing that again with east germany.

>>51133211
FOAN's problem, other than massive Israeli favoritism, is that it just doesn't have the mass appeal of something like World War II or 1980s Cold War Europe.

The Arab-Israeli Wars, while important, are all but unknown to most common people who are not historians or historical wargamers.

As for the barrier to entry for E. Germany, I'd say BF screwed the pooch big time there.

I still hope it'll be a fun faction to play and to play against, but I doubt I'll see too many people playing it unless they go with PSC T-55s, or just reuse their Soviet T-72s for E. Germany.

>>51133408
Maybe, but we had about five people go in for FOAN here... and they were all Israel.

'nam was a bit more widespread but I'm glad I didn't buy in since it ended up something like 8:3 US vs NVA.

Is there any way to get info cards for TANKS ... for free? I love BF, but they already got the equivalent of a couple of my pay checks, and I don't need any more models.

>>51133592
IIRC the starter box has one of everything?

>>51133641
One of each plus an additional 75mm American Sherman.

>>51133458
'Nam suffers from Cool Toy Syndrome.

The US had all the cool toys.

Who doesn't want to ride in on a helicopter blasting Fortunate Son or Ride of the Valkyries over the loudspeaker?

>>51134022
My point is NATO is steadily turning into the cool toy faction at it's current rate, and East Germans are not going to be enough new hotness to pull things in the other direction.

>>51134022
>>51134078
Warsaw Pact forces at least have Hind Ds.

>>51134078
>>51134152
Yeah, the cool toy for the Soviets is the Hind.

For the US, it's the Abrams and the A-10.

For West Germany it's the Leopard 2 and the Gepard.

For the British it's the Harrier.

For the East Germans? Nothing really jumps out at me as their Cool Toy.

>>51134227
I'm not sure the hind was actually all that useful to kick off with. I would've called their really good AA their cool toy to start with, but the brits and germans replicated that to the point where it became that US air defence sucked rather than the soviets being particularly good at it. They probably have better AA, honestly.

NATO helis seem more cost-effective than the Hind; being harder to hit, especially in the crucial AA shots, is a big surviveability boost even on 5+ saves, not to mention being 4+ to hit to start with, and their missiles allow them to readily be outside of a lot of air defence radiuses. The cobra, at least, also had a bombardment and guns.

The Germans got the actual best tank, and made the T-72's lack of armour really punishing (which continued with the Chieftain), as well as some really solid infantry support from the jaguars, amazingly good cluster bombs that made good AA essential, and luchs shenanigans.

The Brits got the most nightmarish infantry in the game, as well as a cheap anti-AA/arty strike force in the recce groups and continued with the "planes you cannot allow to fly unmolested" trend.

I don't know what the cool thing soviets do in game is, other than "potentially allow you to spam 45 BMPs if you don't need to eat next week". And honestly "Spam loads of stuff" is usually seen as a disadvantage, given you have to paint it all.

>>51085538

That's unfortunate, the anime is pretty shit up until the part where they start blasting away at each other with tanks.

>>51134227
Could have been scary assault infantry or a tank shooting missiles. But the NPC faction needs a carpark of rubbish tanks so blue can play a Gulf War simulator.

>>51134627
>I'm not sure the hind was actually all that useful to kick off with.
The Hind was pretty good when it was only really seeing the VADS. It was short-ranged enough that you could often get away with 28" range and 4+ save and 5+ FP meant even with hit-on-3+ you'd still have a unit left to shoot with even if it did. With the super-radar Gepard, Fliegerfausts, and potentially Rolands just forget it. With Rapiers and Blowpipes forget it (honestly, the brits are the worst since the odds there's not a cheeky platoon full of Milans sat waiting to annihilate some recon BMPs or whatever you've sent to try and nuke their AA is nonexistent). The hind's just not worth it when it's so many points for paper and is paying extra for the opportunity to lose even more dudes.

>>51134627
>being harder to hit, especially in the crucial AA shots, is a big surviveability boost even on 5+ saves
4+ to hit and a 5+ save is statistically identical to 3+ to hit and 4+ save. In both cases it's (2/3)*(1/2), or .33 shots that go to firepower. The major difference is that the Hind will very rarely benefit from cover, so it's pretty much always on .33, while the Cobra (or whatever) will usually be concealed and gone to ground before it shoots (or at the very least concealed since I've had cobras concealed by accident before), so it's usually on .22 or .11 dice counting. If you're even in range because NATO helis get like 20" more out of ATGMs for some reason.

>>51115580
>>51115673

Is there a scan/pdf of Stalin's Onslaught in the mediafire? I looked but I could be blind

>>51135051
Stalin Onslaught was replaced with Red Bear Revised.

>>51135079

Oh, I thought the 78 Sturmdivision list was in Stalin's Onslaught, and Red Bear is nothing but Soviet/Polish/Romanian lists I think.

>>51135130
Then it could be in Grey Wolf, the German half of that set.

>>51134955
I honestly wouldn't want my aircraft on field against anyone but america. Except maybe as america if I had Warthogs; half shots missing and a 3+ save is enough resilience that if I wanted some tanks dead right now I'd probably be willing to chance it, especially against Shilkas. You'd need to be insane to do it with anything else, AA is really nasty to basically every other plane. Unless you can stay out of return fire range, I guess, which I guess a lot of nato helicopters can do.

>>51135277

I think it's the Sturmkompanie, thank you.

Can only get 12 PaK40s including 4 Marders though

>>51135635
sperrverrband can get a bunch some of which are veteran tank-hunter pak40 auf RSO that can move and still fire full RoF while inside a terrain feature

>>51135311
You'd actually be better off vs gophers. 0.88 kills for the SAM vs 1.33.

>>51135635
you can also get a Pak 40 alongside your panzerwerfers, which ups it to 15. I can't remember where the others are hiding. Did you remember to grab the two that can combat attach to your Sturm Platoons?

File: 12502003_751301658338098_1863596754_n.jpg (59KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x640px

>>51131782
Anon, you know how Phil is with Soviets.

>>51136221
I actually don't. Which is why I ask.

>>51136221
I feel really lucky this time. I wasn't around for the kasserine pass thing, but I did get to see "The afghansty never adopted western tactics so they get hit on 3+" thing.

>>51136352
Phil is convinced enemy at the gates is a documentary, basically.

>>51136456
Do we have any interviews or written records? I mean, I get what you're saying (and just look at the NVA release), but if we have an interview or forum post by the man that'd be a nice thing to point to. I'm already getting "you're just paranoid" when I mention my lack of faith in future WarPact releases.

>>51136352
What >>51136367 and >>51136456 said.

Basically, they think that the Soviets in all sense of tactics, strategy and operational levels of military, the Soviets were never better than a shitty fumble the US did early into their time in WW2. Stuff like Operation Bagration and many other events never happened, and the reds are drooling retards.

The latest blunder was making the Afghantsy, literally the only combat veterans in TY's scenario, shitty compared to green newbs that haven't ever fired a shot in anger against the enemy, in all ways.

>>51136663
Yes, Phil was quoted as saying as such. It's kind of a surprise people haven't seen it, considering how many times it's been linked to on /fowtg/

>>51136221
>>51136352
>>51136367
We have it on record that Phil compared the Soviet Forces attacking Berlin with the Americans fresh off the boat at Kasserine Pass. This being the incident wherein quote: "Inexperienced and poorly led American troops suffered many casualties and were quickly pushed back over 50 miles (80 km) from their positions west of Faïd Pass."
The Soviets in Berlin were some of the finest fighters in the war. Many veterans, or people fresh out of prison camps and burning for blood. They had innovative assault tactics and did things like issued 45mm guns like they where Panzerfausts.

Then there's people like Dmitriy Loza, who's not veteran despite leading the assault on the Budapest post office where they repelled German Assaults for several days, knocking out at least two panthers and taking only a few casualties in return.
The Soviet Marine Infantry units who conducted a amphibious landing with naval gunfire and where armed with the largest percentage of SVT-40s are basically a standard Infantry unit in Flames of war.
Then there's the Hero Units which are pretty damn shameful. People wanted and got T-34s without Hen and Chicks, and boom, they're in much too small units without the benefit of smoke that similar western units get.
The Germans get the Dicker Maxes, and almost every damn obscure piece of equipment that Hitler squirted over, where as the Soviets can't get the SU-100Y, noted for fighting around Moscow, or their own Armoured Trains and Railcars,

The key problem here is a lack of outrage from the community, which we should really work on, we need a cited and sourced document that proves what we're wanking on about regarding Soviet effectiveness both in WW2 and the Cold War. Also market pressures, the Germans and the Americans are their favourites because they sell the best. So encourage people not to play Krauts and Yanks.

>>51136683
>The latest blunder was making the Afghantsy, literally the only combat veterans in TY's scenario, shitty compared to green newbs that haven't ever fired a shot in anger against the enemy, in all ways.
Specifically he said, to paraphrase (it'll take me a few to dig up the quote) that afghansty are only 4+ skill and hit on 3+ because, while they learned a few tricks in Afghanistan, they hadn't evolved a western combat doctrine, so they were still of inferior quality. I always thought he had a kind of "asiatics" view of the soviets, but hearing that it's literally the case that they're worse because they're not western was refreshingly honest.

>>51136851
What really hacked me off about that quote which is probably still floating around the forums, is that he implied that the VDV where still the elite of the Soviet Army, and that they where still totes hardcore.

>>51136851
To be honest, the "not western" comment sounds like "Asiatic mongrel hordes" thinking to me.

>>51136747
Let's also not forget RoF 1 on BS-3s and SU-100s, vs RoF 2 Jagdtigers...

>>51136851
I really hate battlefront's forums infrastructure.

>>51136747
I'm just sitting on a pile of documentation and rolling out my own Soviet lists after V4 hits.

>>51136747
>we need a cited and sourced document

Which is a pain in the ass to find for Soviet's on the eastern front.

Which is why the Soviet Brainstorming Batalon needs YOUR help:

We have 3 main initiatives right now:
1) A list to represent the Soviet forces desperately holding the German Army Group Center combining a strelkovy core with some armor including prototypes that saw action like the SU-100Y. We need some sources to nail down what the Soviet unit composition and available armor looked like.

2) Soviet Airborne list(s).

3) Soviet Afghansty that is actually veteran. I think we just need to pin down what we are changing besides making the Afghansty 4+ to hit. There has been talk about increasing the range of the Hind D. Everything else comes down to rebalancing points, which will require some serious math with TY's morale system.

Come join us!
https://discord.gg/drZbxvm

I hate hate hate looking for stuff on BF's forums...

>>51138189
I have been reminded Phil is one of those annoying game designers who just keeps repeating "common sense!" and "spirit of the rules!", though. Fine if you're arguing on the internet but you wrote the goddamn thing, surely you can explain the rules interaction you intended?

>>51138572
What is this in reference to?

>>51138189
It's a fucking pain. I am sorry I asked for evidence, now that I see myself what a horror it is.

>>51136747
>tfw playing brits in allmost every stage of the war and in TY.
i wish we got some new toys but i think the poor russians need it after the poles, free french, Italians, Japanese, midwar and possibly Chinese

>>51138777
Playing Brits is suffering as well. You pay as much for American 105s as you do 25pdrs, British Shermans are soul crushingly dreadful for their costs, Comets cost the same as Panthers, and our force charts are way more rigid than American ones.

>>51138699
I will find it at some point, and then I will screenshot it so I don't have to do it again, but it may well be tomorrow... The basic issue is search doesn't work and instead of having seperate pages of threads (possibly with a "posts per page" selector) it's some horrible HTML thing that just displays different posts on the same page, so you keep reflexively hitting back and going back to page 1 of the forums (because the main threadlist works the same way). So I have to read threads in the TY section until I see Phil's posted while occasionally throwing myself back to the beginning via dodgy muscle memory.

>>51138649
Basically every rules question he's been asked on the forums (usually about helicopters since they have a lot of weird interactions with movement orders). This quote is pretty standout:
> Trying to get all helos within weapons range of it's intended target without exposing so many to enemy fire is really, really hard.

>Therein lies the problem. If you stop trying to be so clever and just play the game and accept that the enemy is going to shoot at you, things are much easier (and IMHO more fun!).

Trying to minimise exposure to fire is "being clever". No wonder there's always so many holes in BF rules...

GOT IT.

> They are veterans of rapid assaults against insurgents. That's what they do, and that's what they do well. Get in close and finish the job. They are some of the best assault troops in the game and won't give up easily.

>Reading many autobiographies of Soviet soldiers, it's clear that the veterans learned tricks to survive, but they mostly came down to taking a covered approach to the target, then rushing it quickly. They didn't evolve Western tactics, they just got better at their own tactics. Just as veteran Western troops in WWII got better at taking cover and calling in fire support, rather than evolving the shock tactics of the Red Army. Both are veterans, but they fight very differently.

Literally "they learned to use cover good but they didn't fight like NATO so they'll always be hit on 3+".

>>51138876
Well, sometimes you do just have to survive the incoming fire, or risk the return fire.

Besides, helicopters can move anywhere and only get shot at when they start their attack, or in your opponent's turn.

>>51139141
>it's clear that the veterans learned tricks to survive, but they mostly came down to taking a covered approach to the target
...isn't this literally why veterans get better hit ratings?

>>51139224
Yes, provided they're not soviets

>>51139224
No you get better hit ratings from your decadent western forcefield, can't you read.

And here we are with an imminent release of Volkspamee when we could have had so much more. Imagine the same T-72M and T-55AM (without slow firing bullshit) with 4+ to hit and a higher point cost.

>>51139141


Anyway Virus and I were discussing new stats for Afghansty and we were thinking:

Courage: 5, Morale: 3, Rally: 4, Skill 3+, Assault 3+, Counterattack: 4, 4+ to hit

Basically experiences with the Mujahideen have made them more or less reluctant. They are skilled at assaulting and taking cover, but need reinforcement from their armored or motorized support because they won't be able to hold out forever. Anyone have any thought?

File: ks-23m_8774.jpg (99KB, 468x627px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 468x627px

>>51139394
Haha, and all the while I was driving some glorious stalinium tonks to the sound of discord notifications from that conversation.

The reluctant thing seems like an interesting take on it all. I was thinking of chiming in on the discord about how the VDV were in Chechnya before remembering I was confusing them with the Red Army units that were there too. One thing I have noticed as a general thing with modern Russians, is that while they might get stuck in shitty spots, they put up very stubborn defense when caught.

File: 1480574761785.jpg (59KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 736x736px

>>51139141

>>51139141
>>51139750
A further guess: fuckers couldn't get the DDR the right air support, so they're going to go cheap and give us the wrong Hind as a cherry on top too?

>>51139394
>T-55AM (without slow firing bullshit)
This is the biggest thing to me; the rulebook even goes on about how it's the most advanced T-55 with the best FCS and stabilisers and bla bla bla, but it's somehow worse than ones from vietnam.

Also I'd be tempted to say counterattack 3+, since they're meant to be stubborn.

And hell, they're Paratroopers. They're meant to be surrounded.

>>51139633
>>51139394
The other suggestion I had was based upon improvements in tactics in Afghanistan, a separation for Hinds being used in a Gunship role and those being used as Transports. Basically a Hind Gunship would trade passengers for hunter killer, and have the option to upgrade the rocket pods to S-24 rockets, or mount bomb racks. Also an increase to the range of the Spiral missiles.

>>51139824
It's not actually worse than the one in Vietnam, though. It trades +1 to hit on the move for RoF1 for Slow Firing (so the same penalty, really), and with the laser rangefinder doesn't suffer a penalty for distance. On top of that, 1 better AT, 2 better FA, 1 better SA. Both are hit on a 3+ (not accounting for Concealed).

Cold comfort, but it's there.

>>51129597

and i will play the fuck out of it....

as Iraqi's....

>>51136747
can't deny this....

>>51139750
>>51139141

reminder: the GuP wargame gives the German Heavies list Hen&Chicks while the Soviets are better at re-positioning....
>your pic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zGFZNinsk

>>51139822
Mi24D? I'm pretty sure that's right. Putting the Mi24P on the cover and not giving us one was a bit of a tease though.

So guys, why does the BS-3 have a RoF 1, if it could maintain a IRL rate of 10 rounds per minute?

>>51136747
I'm pretty sure Battlefront are just a bunch of huge
Wehraboos/Ameriboos with their meme tier level of understanding of the conflict.

File: 1416105208106.jpg (107KB, 840x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 840x1000px

>>51141091
I remember contributing that idea, but that was predicated on the idea that every time you see Kuromorimine in their big battle, their fire drops dramatically in effectiveness when they're not Firing from the halt. When Turtle team forces them all to adjust their positioning during the assault on the hill their cohesion goes straight to shit. See Erika shedding a track as she attempts to chase down Oorai. Watching Episode 11 again, and Kuromorimine usually comes to a complete halt before firing. Kay actually says "Kuromorimine trains to stay in formation and fire accurate shots but in return they can't handle unexpected circumstances."

Where as Katyusha's forces are constantly on the move, hunting in packs and flanking. I mean hell they manage a flank with an IS-2 and a KV-2.

>>51141874
The issue is that Volksarmee was meant to be a magazine release that's been transformed to full book. Frankly at this point they should have left it as a Magazine so that they could undo their fuck up later.

>>51142498
"Balance"

File: pre-war designs.jpg (54KB, 584x649px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 584x649px

>>51142992
>"Balance"

Phil would probably say that unironically.

So what's with this GuP game you're talking about? A FoW fan project or so?

>>51143225
There's two of them now, both of which are done by Bartosz, the first one which is around somewhere is a more traditional adaptation of the core Flames of War ruleset. But then TANKS the game came out between then and now, and I said to him "Why not just make TANKS cards for them, it's a lot easier than trying to re-write the ruleset to support the crazy bollocks of GuP." So I think he's working on that.

WWPD's Why We Fight - Episode 11 is up.

FOW V4: ded gaem

>>51144337
Oh no. What are they fucking up now? Is this the episode where we learn the morale rules are the same as Team Yankee?

File: IMG_0096.jpg (67KB, 720x468px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x468px

>>51142498
Because in battlefront's mind your soviets are so potato stupid that they load the powder first, the the ammunition, before realizing they did it in the wrong order. If they were aryans they'd be able to have RoF 2 like the Jagdtiger.

File: 1453397946587.jpg (950KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 2048x1536px

>>51131782
>>51136221
Can't deal with the Trabant

File: 1457380551085.jpg (76KB, 943x267px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 943x267px

>>51134227
>For the East Germans? Nothing really jumps out at me as their Cool Toy.
Armed as fuck Mi-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DZ9k7E690

>>51144337
Reason, and not just griping?

>>51145124
Sadly not in Volkspamee. Just plain old Hind D's, even though they put a Hind P on the cover.

I made the mistake of reading the forum post about Volksarmee. I think I have cancer now. Just a giant circle jerk about spamming all the tanks. Anyone dismissing the release is greeted with replies of "muh Muricans!" Assuming that is the audience BF is pandering to, it makes sense that this is what we are getting.

One more note about side shots with the T-55. You aren't getting them. When NATO can tactical move 14" and still blast you with no penalty to hit. You will have to basically completely surround the NATO units to keep them from just turning their fronts to you.

>>51144337

- No HE is now +1 to shoot
- After shooting on Aircraft in enemy turn, apart from no def fire and shooting and assaulting turn after, you may NOT be GtG until the end of enemy's next turn
- When you rotate to hit, you can rotate the turret OR rotate the whole tank 90 degrees

>>51145433
>No HE is now +1 to shoot
Wut

>>51140297
I meant the FCS, specifically; in 'nam you can fire at +1 to hit while moving up to 12", in TY that would still have you on +2 (for breaking the 10" speed barrier).

Now, this is likely because 10" became Standard Tank Speed, sure, but having "the best, most awesomest, superior german kruppstahl FCS, best FCS 100 years, best FCS.com" FCS be indistinguishable from surplus tanks from the 60s is kinda bad and is one of the reasons I think the warsaw pact is going to be the NPC faction.

>>51145376
>I made the mistake of reading the forum post about Volksarmee. I think I have cancer now. Just a giant circle jerk about spamming all the tanks. Anyone dismissing the release is greeted with replies of "muh Muricans!" Assuming that is the audience BF is pandering to, it makes sense that this is what we are getting.
They have a real closed circle of feedback, I think. Especially given all the questions that've come up with flight movement lately.

>>51145433
- No HE is now +1 to shoot
wat

The biggest thing with the NVA T-72 price drop is it shows how much AT 22 has proliferated in the game. At launch, against the 105mm gun, FA 16 was alright. Not glam, but you could win a shootout with it. With everyone playing brits or west germans you just died. Sure, you have to take a lot of casualties to actually go but your firepower drops pretty rapidly losing 2-3 tanks a turn. It made the only thing you could do with them to win dashing forward into the flank and getting side shots... and AT 21 or 22 doesn't matter for that. So the NVA T-72 fits the emergent meta that more recent NATO releases have had better for cheaper. No wonder everyone's hype.

>>51145756
>>51145670
Its from the latest WWPD podcast where they discuss V4, this is what I picked up from the first hour, think it's all correct:

SHOOTING:
- Shootingh - either MG or Main Gun
- Shooting at Aircraft - similar to TY
- 8inches for AA safe zone
- Like in TY - LoS to Aircraft can never be blocked
- terrain like in TY - either tall or short
- 2 inches from the edge of terrain you can see normaly otuside but you are concealed
- teams in upper flors of buildings see teams outside in buildings not ceonceald, even in short terrain
- No HE is now +1 to shoot
- After shooting on Aircraft in enemy turn, apart from no def fire and shooting and assaulting turn after, you may NOT be GtG until the end of enemy's next turn
- When you rotate to hit, you can rotate the turret OR rotate the whole tank 90degrees
- shooting through smoke is only +1 to hit
- your hits must be assigned to the same type of teams and 6 inches within hit team
- MAn packed gun teams and light/medium guns are now 3+ save
- Heavy and Immobile guns are 4+ save
- Aircraft has it's own save now - 3+ usual and shooter needs to pass FP test to kill it
- passengers in destroyed transport retain their usuall save - 3+ or 4+
- Everybody get mission tactics
- Warrior save is now 3+
- Unit with 12 or more teams at the start of the shooting step need 8 hits to be pinned
- Commander morale reroll to every unit that is within 6 inches of commander and has LoS
- Flamethrowers do not run out od ammo!
- Breakthrough gun is now reroll to save, not instant fail

>>51145926
Like, is the No HE thing just against infantry and guns, or is it against everything? Because if it's against everything then gg, UK fuked as hard as Volksarmee.

>>51146358
I think it's only against infantry and guns, no sense to have the same penalty against armored targets...

wtf couldn't they just make no HE a firepower penalty given what its meant to simulate.

its one retarded decision after another.

i know theres always a shit storm when new versions come out but honestly aside from movement there hasn't been much good news from v4.

at least i can play v3 at home...

>>51145926
there is a lot of stupid here but the thing standing out to me is everyone gets mission tactics?

do they mean every NATION gets mission tactics but its only applied to selected formations? or literally fucking everyone? i hardly think a squad of Romanian infantry are comparable to say Germans in so far as military professionalism or leadership. im not being like "muh aryan super soldiers" but there were vast differences between different forces and it seems stupid to put them on even footing like that.

File: 1458254470015.jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>Volksarmee released
>It's shit
>mfw

Back to Wargame Red Dragon I guess

>>51147384
get gud

>>51147115
I am assuming it will work like TY, so that for any unit a stand within 6" of the killed leader takes over if the leader is killed.

>>51147437
No amount of "gid gud" will fix a broken premise

t-thanks Phill

>>51147115
Honestly mission tactics didn't really provide a good reflection of that anyway. Only idiots think of rules as physics.

http://forum.wwpd.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20373

List of some changes.

>>51147437
TIL you can get gud enough to make resin tanks into plastic and edit books after they've been released.

>>51147789
>1. Only teams 4” from an enemy can assault, defensive fire still from teams up to 8” away though
RIP soviets

This is the rest:
- Artillery - you have only 1 Observer, other units may spot depending on army
- May not fire artillery bombardment if you attempted to dig-in!
- aiming point may be on the ground, anywhere observing team can see, no need to put it on
team
- No more double width template
- You only have three range in attempts for one observer team, if you range in on first, you may give the rest of range in attempts to another artillery, with penalites for second and
third range in
- you hit on enemy rating
- 5 or more guns get reroll to hit
- Staff teams are gone, so everybody have all guns repeat!
- Change to Artillery FP and AT rating depending on whetever you hit infantry/gun team or tank:
on Infantry (older FP/newer FP) - 1/1;2/2;3/3;4/3;5/4;6/4
on tanks (older AT/newer AT) - 6/3;5/3;4/3;3/2;2/1;1/0
- Repeat bombardment may be with different spotting team
- Infantry and gun teams need to reroll saves when under Repeat bombardment!
- 1 Smoke bombardment per game per artilery unit
- LoS through Smoke is blocked unless you are within 6 inches, otherwise +1 to hit

ASSAULT
- More or less like Team Yankee
- Teams on small bases got +1 to hit in assault
- Infantry choose how to hit tank - top armour against TA2/FP1+ or side armour against any AT weapon you have.
- Shurzen is now Side armour 5 against At weapon with 5 or 6 FP

>>51148045
maybe they'll do something different with strelk/fucileri/puscasi and make them multi-part platoons or something. Buy together, deploy seperately.

>>51148319
Maybe, but otherwise 90% of your platoon not getting to fight is going to be fun with Trained.

>>51148308
>on tanks (older AT/newer AT) - 6/3;5/3;4/3;3/2;2/1;1/0
Ahahaa what the fuck? So artillery's just going to be useless against tanks now? I hope they're going to massively slash the points cost of arty if it's going to become dead weight against 90% of the lists in this fucking game.

>- Infantry and gun teams need to reroll saves when under Repeat bombardment!
RIP brits

>- Infantry choose how to hit tank - top armour against TA2/FP1+ or side armour against any AT weapon you have.
RIP soviets again and also basically every minor

>>51148308
>- Shurzen is now Side armour 5 against At weapon with 5 or 6 FP
So shurzen is going to be useless against bazookas/fausts now? WTF?

>>51148810
To be fair TA2 has always been immune to normal infantry in assaults.

>>51148882
Yeah, but you had the option of sticking close defence/AT rifles/etc etc in for some TA 3/4 attacks in most lists. The motor rifle company in afrika was a nice antit-tiger play since they always had to be a bit scared of three teams of AT rifles jumping on it's arse. That's gone now.

Also small bases are +1 to hit? This is the most goddamn annoying thing in TY, especially since the small bases are all the things that're actually useful if you're assaulting vehicles.

What're they even going to do with stuff like panzerknackers and close defence? That's not a gun, it's just a dude with satchel charges.

File: antitank-lunge-mine-japanese.jpg (32KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x265px

>>51148939
>That's not a gun, it's just a dude with satchel charges.

That never stopped the japanese

>>51148939
Some of those are command teams and assault normally.

>>51148939
For knackers, sappers, etc, I think they will keep the TA 3/4. Either that or they will have to abstract out an AT value. There's definitely enough room on the unit cards to have a side notation that says TA 3 or something. Not sure how they will handle it for EW/LW.

>>51148308
>1 smoke bombardment per arty unit per game

On the plus side, my SU-XX will no longer be made useless for a whole game because some asshole brought a 70 pt rocket artillery unit.

On the downside, W. Allies lost a tool for fighting big cats.

>>51149953
I'm wondering if Soviets finally get smoke as well.

>>51149953
At least they will get to keep direct fire smoke. Honestly I am a fan of cutting down the smoke bombardments. They are still useful, but when I think of ww2 I don't think of arty units dumping never-ending smoke on tanks.

>>51149977
I am going to do an armswap on the next Soviet tank commander I add on to have him throw a smoke pot out of his tank hatch.

>>51148984
He's wondering if they're going to make panzerknacker teams or gammon bomb teams hit side armor with their Tank assault five

panzerfausts have tank assault 6 but under the new rules will hit side armor with their shooting AT of 12
Panzerknackers and gammon bombs have tank assault ratings but don't have a profile to shoot with like a 'faust or a bazooka

>>51150135
Smoke pots were a bit big for that. They're small-bucket sized things, not smoke grenades.

>>51150233
how I understood it, u use side armor in assault if you have AT gun in team, so late 6pdr could hit tank in side armor and if it's 4 it would kill it instantly or bail it if its 5.

Infantry that has special TA value (gammon bombs etc, pioneers etc) retain it for the top armor, same goes for panzerknacker teams... that's how I understood it

>>51150438
This isn't how TY works, which they seem to be directly porting everything from. You attack with your assault rating and if you hit you do an AT 2 hit against top armour or you hit side armour with your weapon stat line. So, this makes american armoured rifles and LLW all-panzerfausts slightly less insane since they can't absolutely murder even heavy tanks in assault anymore, but is going to mean LW brits are pretty anemic against them and is going to completely fuck most of the nations and time periods in the game who either have relatively shit stuff like AT rifles and panzerknackers.

>>51138777

Wait wait wait, China is in FoW?

EW China should be great fun given how much random wacky shit they used

>>51148308
So, as feared, they basically took TY and stuck WWII special rules and equipment into it. Fuck BF. Time to make a V3.5.

>>51150710
I can't think of a list, I'm thinking he means they need one.

And yeah, random US/German/Russian/Japanese stuff in it would be fun.

>>51150782
That and fucked with the artillery AT/FP.

>>51147384
the game where you have to fight 1995 NATO wunderwaffen with a 1985 army?

>>51150822
Honestly i dont know how you would make chinese infantry different from fucileri with a worse 8mb table.

>Every v4 change mentioned sounds good and addresses every reason people in my group started to refuse to play late war FoW over
>Volksarmee released and all soviet players in area switching to best Germans.

Sometimes I think you guys just need to be mad about random shit like a Poltard needs BBC porn.

>>51151618
Honestly, no one individual thing sounds all that game-breaking to me.

But all of it taken together, it sounds like a massively different game.

>>51151618
Volksarmee is still bad though. The T-55s should have their missiles, where's the cannon armed hinds, and why are they Potato rating?

>>51151618
If you're seeing people switch to NVA it's probably because you can make a list for it with existing soviet stuff and they fit the meta better if you don't have nine million BMPs to chain rockets into.

>>51151755
Yep. If you have T-72s and Hinds already you're probably better off with an NVA T-72 company. When it was just the US, infantry ATGMs and tank guns were bad, so T-72 having uncharitably-rated front armour was fine, since they were reasonable brawlers against AT 20 and 19. Leopards and Iron Maiden changed that heavily so T-72As are paying a lot for perks they won't use much.

>>51151710
>why are they Potato rating
because they're the baddies

>>51151618
My FOW group died because of special rule bloat, so every core rule change is more or less irrelevant if they don't grapple with the Late War books and make major changes. Except they're not changing the Late War lists, which is the only era anyone did or does own armies for in my area.

>>51150927
Yep. Based off the changes, there is now 0 reason to use 25 pdrs over some cheap ass 3" mortars. The only good decisions I've seen are the 2" terrain thing (much better looking) and flipping veterancy order with arty (and the side effect of being able to target ground instead of the enemy).

>>51152024
Making 81mm mortars worthwhile is good but fow is feeling the limits of 1d6 mechanisms now.

>>51152187
I feel like this with most games where a d8 or d10 would be a better fit.

File: gVpI4.jpg (84KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1440x810px

>>51143374

hey. now that you bring it up.

Tanks GuP is on the same lenient finger that FoW GuP v2 is, this time since A: v4, and B: Tanks is proving to be a game for 3-6 tanks, where GuP is clearly in the range of 5-15+ tanks per side, more akin to lower pts FoW.

yup.

challenge match Gloriana: 5 v 5
Tourney match Sanders: 10 v 10
Tourney match Anzio: 10 v 10
Tourney match Pravda: 15 v 15
Tourney match Kuro': 20 v 20
Exhibition Allied: 18 v 18
OMG Match: 30 v 30 (allied)
new series matches may actually not be matches, BTW, we only have one PV anyway...

my idea is to release them both relatively soon, but no later than 2017.

i have a non- /tg/ project that is taking up my primary work-slot, so that also forces my hiatus....

sorry!

>>51155685
Well my idea was to make the crew cards completely mental, and then have it so that your points limit is the amount of tanks you're allowed to field, plus points for crews and upgrades. So tanks are free, you can have as many grunts as the situation allows for, but your hero tanks have a points value.

So because Oorai have only like, seven tanks, they get a lot of points for crew, equipment, and flashy moves. Kuro has 20, so they only have Maho, Erika, and Jagdpanther-chan.

>>51152772
man, i don't know you Anon, but you think as a brother should!

you have my sword!

....

new thread? i'm gonna look for a cool banner....

>>51155791
>free tanks....
whoa, e-mail me the details of that, i didn't catch that in the last workthread....

ok, new bread....

>>51155940