Flames of War: V4 END TIMES HYPE edition

so, stuff we know on V4:

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 of ammo!
- Breakthrough gun is now reroll to save, not instant fail

and the rest we know....

- 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

Will IS-2s FINALLY BE WORTH IT?

>>51156341
Nope, they're Russian.

>>51156341
>>51156608
We can hope that Soviets might get smoke this edition. They got it in Team Yankee after all.

>>51156341
Well breakthrough guns are getting nerfed down to brutal. It will almost certainly have slow firing. Not sure if it will get any buffs in assault, but my guess is no.

>>51156002
Staff teams are guaranteed gone?

>>51156825
It will be something of a buff if panzerfausts and bazookas get nerfed to being side-firing instead of tank-assault. AT 10-12 vs side 8 and 5+ firepower is much nicer than AT 4-6 against top 2 and autobail.

>>51156914
yea

>>51156002
>>51155980
>artillery nerfs
was there a lot of reason to take artllery previously anyway.
maybe it's the mostly metal paywall but i haven't seen it do much aside from dropping smoke
or seen it all that much at all.
>at 3 against any armoured tank
>against the lightest tanks +2 ties

>>51157043
I think basically everyone took mortars or nebs if they could unless you were doing a hardcore arty park. If you can't do arty parks anymore and mortars are getting even better at killing dug in infantry then yeah, literally no reason not to.

>>51156981
Yeah, good point. I couldn't quite remember the stats for the side armor of the IS 2. Not sure if bedspring armor will be a thing, but it already seems better.

>>51157043
I play soviets and take heavy mortars every time. They were cheap and had good firepower and serviceable AT. The 160mm mortars that came with Berlin with AT 4 were truly special. Generally artillery is nice to pin infantry down and punish them if they are caught in the open. Some pieces could be effective against armor with a little luck.

I am sad that I will probably never get to use my 203mm howizers at their true v3 glory of AT 6, but it also seems that they will have a 4+ save (and hopefully retain volley fire) so I can roll them up.

Hungarians got nerfed

>Zrinyis
>149mm

The 2 best national units

>>51156825
>>51156608
I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that Soviets would still be shit garbage tier in V4.

>>51157799
Decloaking to throw my 2 cents in publicly.

Soviets aren't shit garbage tier in V3. The hero tabkovy lists, the IS-2, and depending on who you talk to the SU-100. They have some lists that can be quite good. Hen and Chicks limits your flexibility, but you can still perform well. I think the non hero T-34 is a great tank in FoW.

Battlefront has a very particular view of how the Soviet army operated in WW2 (and the Cold War). It's a view I don't always agree with and to some extent I think it does disservice to the wartime performance of some of the men and women who fought for the Soviet Union. However, Flames of War being what it is, I can live with it.

Honestly v4 has me a little annoyed by how much BF is sticking their hand in the cookie jar, changing all sorts of rules that probably could have been left. I'm willing to give it a go though. I don't see anything that really bothers me so much I won't play. I am probably most concerned about arty being used as a primary means of digging out infantry and morale (if in fact we are getting TY morale: in that case strelkovy and tankovy will be getting a major buff and there is less of a reason to run Guards).

For the Soviets particularly, I haven't seen anything thus far that is going to screw them over big time. Getting mission tactics is pretty nice. Like I said before morale is going to make a huge difference since you have large companies. I think the rule changes are looking pretty good for my Tankovy. We will see what they do with hen and chicks, but if it's similar to how it is now, that is fine by me.

>>51158082

thee is some extreme memeing over Soviet weaknesses.

though i saw a new player almost die once he realized what Hen & Chicks actually did...

>>51158214
Theyre the weakest of the big four (britain is also down there from what i recall) with usa and german so far ahead it reeks of extreme blatant favouritism

>>51158250
Compared to most nations the brits and soviets are fine, it's just the US and Germany that're really good.

>>51158602
Yeah, this is pretty true. A few minors have some ok lists like finns and LW hungarians and MW carri but it's very niche. As much as BF kinda shits on the Soviets there are many minors that have it worse.

EW is just a mess though and EW actually does have overpowered Soviets.

>>51158214
H&C ain't so bad when you buy the bargain stuff but the iconic Soviet gear is not it.

Matilda IIs and Stuarts ftw.

>>51158909

Because fuck muver ruska amorite?

>>51158993
Oi! you!

shagged ur mum 4 a fiver!


>>51158728
the fact we have overpowered Soviets anywhere was hilarious. here is a list of powerfull soviets, BTW:
>EW T-34's
>EW infantry
>opening game team yankee, before the West & Brits
>TANKS soviets
>that one list in 2008

>>51159702
what about EW LL list?

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5450

So they're following through on their promises. Free books to be shipped directly to you.

>>51158602
>Compared to most nations the brits and soviets are fine, it's just the US and Germany that're really good.
I'm of that opinion as well.
as much as i want more toys for brits i thin the smaller powers could do with some more.
i'd like to see the free pole army be a list if it isn't there and some love for the poles dispite their minor player status.
Romanians need some love too, Hungarians, Italians hell any axis power that isn't Germany.

>>51155980
>>51156002
The terrain rules I like. A lot simpler to use.

I also am totally okay with my man-packed guns getting a 3+ save now. Means my platoon of 47's won't die from being stared at too hard.

Not sure how new tank shooting rules will really impact my Italians.

New arty rules seem to be just a mess, though. Why fuck with AT and FP? Why only one observer team? Now you're making it harder for people to take multiple arty batteries(which is one of Italy's primary options for higher AT) because shooting with more than one a turn will be way harder.

The "only one smoke bombardment per a game" thing is alright.

Overall still iffy on v4. I suppose worse comes to worse I could still play ve with willing folks.

>>51159702
>>that one list in 2008
Which one, anon?

>>51158909
T-34s can play just fine with hen and chicks. Not going to open the other can of worms, but yeah it would be nice if there was a better list to play them without hen and chicks. I guess there is always Finns or Beute Panzers.

>>51158214
There are some potato sucking misconceptions about the Soviet skill and battle performance.

It's a bit frustrating at first, but then you can manage it well enough because you have so many tanks. Even with Hen and Chicks the T-34 is far superior and less spammy then the T-55AM bullshit in TY, which is like somehow finding a way to spam CT T-26s. The T-34/76 will really benifit from its dash speed once dashing is actually a thing in v4.

In before Battlefront changes Hen and Chicks to make dashing harder for the Soviets

>>51162326
>In before Battlefront changes Hen and Chicks to make dashing harder for the Soviets

Dashing without getting clowned on would help T-34s a lot but imo they're too pricey for what they offer with the H&C restrictions, especially in late war.

Big nerf to the Soviets is the assault rules though that make it hard to participate.

>>51160725

I don't mind the AT and FP changes to make arty more broadly usable against their intended target. AT guns got a buff anyway. The 75/76mm pack howitzers/field guns were almost totally worthless with the previous rules.

>>51158728
>>51160689
I mean, this is still a problem, because I've never been to a club where there weren't more big-four players than the rest put together and they're predominantly playing germans and americans.

>>51159702
Opening TY was a sweet spot for the soviets, where they had real strengths and weaknesses and could do stand-up fights. WGermany and Brits upset the scales a lot there.

>>51162810
>Big nerf to the Soviets is the assault rules though that make it hard to participate.
And going down to 8 pins to drive back.

>>51163967
Brits especially.

They have ungodly amounts of anti-tank missiles available to their infantry and air-mobile forces.

>>51163967
Yanks and russkies are getting there own books this year aren't they, that should give them their needed boosts.

>>51160553
>heavily debating selling off an army or two because Im not super impressed with how the ruleset seems to be changing.
>Battlefront offers up this

Goddammit I was so close to escaping too, but they pulled me back in.

>inb4 they're all delayed and none show up on time

>>51165632
>>inb4 they're all delayed and none show up on time
They're going to be delayed and then there's not going to be any germans for a month with no explanation while everyone's floundering on how to sell a game launch with one faction.

>>51165375
Yeah, FA 16 could deal with 8 shots of AT 20, but not 20+ at AT 21.

I initially got excited when I realised they can't shoot if pinned but soviet artillery being skill 5+ (and the brits still being 4+) makes that real hard to work with.

File: 1384653152367.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

HOLD UP
>12 Skoda 100mm guns cost 355 points
>12 Skoda 75mm M15s (the infantry gun Soviets use) are 180 points
>I can """downgrade""" to the infantry guns and get exactly the same artillery capabilities (4+ fp no smoke), while MASSIVELY increasing survivability (medium base concealed in open foxholes with a 3+ save at all times), saving 175 points in the process
>I have almost enough spare infantry guns and random crew to do this right fucking now
THE AGE OF AMERICA IS OVER
THE TIME OF THE GYPSY IS NOW

>>51162810
>The 75/76mm pack howitzers/field guns were almost totally worthless with the previous rules.
I dunno about other armies, but my 75's have done me pretty well. Not game changing win all the time well, but certainly an extra little boost of firepower with solid range.

>>51159702
>TANKS Soviets
Nobody plays that, and it only adds +1 to any other tank's shot after the first (it doesn't keep stacking). US have the better national rule there. And the Soviet SU-100 is pathetic.

>>51166542
Not to mention your Puscasi are going to fight nearly until the last man if the morale works the same as it does in TY. I for one welcome our new Romanian overlords.

>>51166873
Roll CT on the peasant army table and just shake your head at your big infantry blob as it spends the whole game pinned. That's been my experience with romanian infantry blobs.

Quote from the hobby page from the Spandrel ATGM carrier for Volksarmee.

"The roof mounted launch system meant that the vehicle could hide its bulk, only exposing the launcher and gunner’s sight on the top of the roof to the enemy making it difficult to kill or suppress should the enemy even see the weapon firing."

>difficult to kill or suppress should the enemy even see the weapon firing

>hit on 3+
>No Hammerhead/Swingfire
>4+ cross so you know you are bogging half of them when you go in the woods for concealment.

BF is trolling us with their fluff pieces.

>>51160689
The issue really comes down to Brits, Germans, and Americans getting the lion's share of focused, fine-detail lists full of special rules and specific motivation/skill ratings that are thematic.

The problem with Brits is that while they have a lot of these fine detail lists, they get kind of passed over. The focus is there, but the rules crunch is lacking. Historically the difference between a company with 4 platoons with a 3-tank platoon setup, and 3 platoons with a 4-tank platoon setup, was extremely minimal. In Flames of War v3 however, the difference between those two setups is colossal in regards to morale, motivation, and the lack of crunch to compensate (no widespread fearless brits, motivation rerolls for under half, etc).

Soviets are in a different boat. Some of their crunch works, under the VERY strict pretense that all you go highly motivated horde. But the fine detail is not there at all. Everything is widespread, over generalized, and generic, with very few options for motivation/skill. The difference in gameplay between the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade, and the 170th Tank Brigade that Bryuhov Vasily Pavlovich was part of, is miniscule. It amounts to Fearless vs Confident, and whatever thematic options you -decide- to limit yourself to. In history however, the differences were immense... The 170th Tank brigade was a meatgrinder brigade that went through replacement tanks as fast as they received them. Pavlovich attests to the ruthlessness of the brigade's commanders, and the idiocy of the orders they frequently received. Whereas the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade was a Red Banner awarded veteran brigade from Stalingrad that lasted through the entire war. And they were highly decorated, and renowned for taking on numerically or technically superior opposition with minimal losses. Even to the point of ambushing and wiping out a column of 3 King Tigers with no losses.

>>51166968
Or you end up with the biggest, hardest to shit blob of dug in veterans sitting on an objective... I've seen that in person. 3 turns of volley firing SU-122s couldn't make a large enough dent for my assault to have a mediocre chance of winning.

>>51167581
This but it's better when they're an entire army on their own like the italians. Infantry? Nah, HMGs. Tanks? Nah, AT guns. Leave them alone? Nah, they're artillery too.

>>51166836
"Nobody" plays TANKS because BF drastically underestimated demand and they sold out of what they thought would be 3 Months worth of stock in something like 3 DAYS.

Then add in the time it takes to schedule a second production run, produce the second production run, and get it shipped out.

It was essentially a dead game for anyone who didn't get their hands on the initial release.

Anyone have a conversion chart for Battlefront's old paint range to Vallejo? Or know what the old Brown Violet is called in Vallejo's range? Colours of War sucks.

>>51170714
BF's old paints are Vallejo paints.

So Brown Violet would be Brown Violet.

File: Screenshot_20170112-162721.png (417KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 768x1024px

This is my attempt at a fluffy Berlin list for a tournament. The only ahistorical bits are the forced mounted unit (duh) and the ISUs would probably be SU-100s but they kinda suck ingame. Other than that, this is a fairly bog standard Berlin assault detachment. Because this is a tourney I am open to ANY changes to do better--this is just the casual core. Building to 1790.

>>51167581
>Or you end up with the biggest, hardest to shit blob
This conversation took a turn...

>>51170937
Oh yeah, this is a theme tourney so ONLY 1945 lists are permitted.

>>51170953
Par for the course lately, what with WaterSportsGate...

Seriously, what is it with /pol/ and pee? Weren't they also the jackasses behind Piss For Equality?

>>51170937
My only question is "why cavalry?"

Especially in 1945.

>>51171814
Because they are the ONLY source of veteran T-34s for some reason.

>>51171299
now that was old /b/ along with free bleeding

>>51171814
Soviets loved them some cavalry. Less fuel intensive than mechanized/motorized troops with more mobility than infantry. They had a lot of experience in WWI and the Civil War that told them horse cav could be useful.

Anyone know how to remove the top magnet out of a pah?

>>51167168
Is this for real? Everything they've made that mentions how it fires behind cover has been hammerhead or equivalent so far, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't. It might be a typo.

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

59KB, 736x736px

>>51167168

>>51172493
Try using several equally strong magnets to pull it out of it's hole.

Sometimes that's powerful enough to overwhelm the strength of the superglue.

>>51172493
Put it in a freezer and wedge a screw head beneath the magnet. Superglue's brittle when cold, it'll snap out.

>>51160725
LaBamba, tell me you have at least 3 Gun-team platoons of actual guns (not mortars)

we need to do the Charge of the Light Brigade before v4....or at least, using v3.


>>51166542
>>51166873

oh, shit.....

File: vlad.jpg (47KB, 392x483px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 392x483px

>>51166542
>>51166873
>>51174335
inb4 heavy tourney swing to Romanian.
inb4 more plastic Roma.
TURK WILL NOT BE ONLY THING INTO REMOVED.

File: fames.jpg (123KB, 480x446px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 480x446px

>tfw I'm more interested in buying models and painting them than playing at this point

Volksarmee was a mistake

>>51175485
Phil was a mistake.

File: 12898263.jpg (361KB, 1167x683px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1167x683px

>>51175622
That too

>>51175485
You were a mistake.

File: lenin speaks the truth.jpg (7KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 263x192px

>>51175485
>>51175622
>>51175638

>>51175700
Counter point: East German Military A E S T H E T I C.

File: stalin purge time.jpg (10KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x252px

>>51175725
>East German Military A E S T H E T I C.
>east germans
>>>/gulag/
tovarish

File: 1456197445399.jpg (80KB, 784x484px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 784x484px

>>51175725
dat M56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDczkd-Ofw

>>51175725
https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/nva-field-trousers-strichtarn-surplus/4669?qref=tarn

>>51175766
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ
Soviet influenced Music!

>>51175813
A perfect mix

>>51175828
forgot my link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFAUxJTs7bM

File: cIIHbqCMJaK7l-1TEiDITXi1wHmJ-D2L0cjwp8Dkwn8.jpg (104KB, 807x605px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 807x605px

Was anyone else hoping for NBC figures?

File: shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg (73KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 500x313px

>>51175883
>if they ever released NBC minatures

File: nbc_13_by_anyman82-d4w5ci7.jpg (146KB, 824x970px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 824x970px

>>51175974
Yeah, seriously. This was the one big thing I was hoping for from a WW3 scenario. But they're not tanks, so haha. Maybe in a couple years...?

>>51175883
>>51175974
NBC?

>>51176030
Nuclear/Biological/Chemical

Basically, what troops would be running around in once the balloon went up.

File: 14039893_889408644525210_7608253486844880497_n.jpg (163KB, 540x776px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 540x776px

>>51176041

File: cheeki.png (62KB, 332x322px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 332x322px

>>51176041
I would like to play a s.t.a.l.k.e.r. army.
fuck i would switch to Russians to do that if it was Russian only

>>51175883
i see zero airtight uniforms

0/10, would gas.

>>51176177
you. i like you.

>>51176599
>i see zero airtight uniforms

Yeah, wouldn't troops have to almost literally duct tape themselves into those suits to create air-tight seals?

File: 1446335219581.jpg (184KB, 550x819px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 550x819px

>>51176599
It's obviously a for fun picture, comrade. To political indoctrination with you.

>>51174335
Uh...I have an anti-tank platoon with 4 47's.

I also have a cannon battery of 75's.

>>51178030

those are good...

feel like offering a christmas list?

why not 1 more round of guns....?

File: IMG_0099.jpg (46KB, 750x267px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 750x267px

This is Phil's world. We are all just living in it.

>>51178927
I want to pick up a battery of 100/17s and a battery of 102's in the future.

As for 47's; I plan to grab some Bersagleari(I'm sure I fucked that spelling) with them as well.

I need to get two more 14/41's; I only have 3 at my disposal currently. Thankfully Gajo has them.

File: dubious claims.jpg (22KB, 201x208px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 201x208px

>>51179427

>>51179478
And if I'm gonna play EW I'm determined to get some tankettes. They're just such cute little flamethrower weilding bastards.

>>51179427
what a smug motherfucker he is.

File: amused nazi.png (82KB, 180x184px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 180x184px

>>51179427

>>51179571
>>51179544
>>51179427
As I pointed out, Phil does have a twisted point there. The T-72 was meant to iron out the problems with the T-55 design. I'm just waiting for T-80s. At least he can't fuck those too hard. They have ERA, Thermal and better autoloaders. The West did not like them, so good luck trying to smack them with the nerf bat.

>>51179612
I am just going to weep silently as I click through all the pictures of T-55AM parking lots on Facebook. I think I may paint my WARPAC stuff up as North Koreans.

Honestly at this point who knows about the T-64B.

>>51179612
>T-80
>hit on 3+
>FA 17
>Cross 4+
>Same gun as the T-72, with no improvements for the autoloader

How am I doing thus far with the bat?

>>51179773
Oh, and the thermals are Soviet, so suck (IR rules), and ERA is also Soviet, so sucks (SA 14 against HEAT).

>>51179773
>>51179789
You're deliberately trying to hurt me.

Anyway looking at the stats on Wikipedia, the T-80U is actually better protected on paper than the M1A1 Abrams. Plus Gun Missiles and a Diesel Turbine. Even if they're still hit on 3+ like the rest of Soviet Forces, it'll be be yuuuge. It'll be like spamming King Tigers at RT. Because it's basically a NATO tank for cheaper and better morale. Probably.
>T-80U : Hull & Turret with Kontakt-5
780 mm vs APFSDS
1320 mm vs HEAT
>M1A1: Hull & turret –
600 mm vs APFSDS,
700 mm vs HEAT

>>51179895
>on paper
Inferior Soviet metalurgy during the Era of Stagnation (look it up) means it doesn't measure up to Western materials, and so it isn't that much of an improvement.

And believe me, it hurts to type this,

>>51179895
>>51180034
Oh, and what sources I have suggest that the T-80U was only put into series production in 1987.

File: TEBX02-03.jpg (91KB, 690x319px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 690x319px

So how many BMPs would I need to fully outfit this boxset? I'm guessing around 10-15.

>>51180805
Nine.

>>51180863
Is there a recommended number of BMPs to take or is 9 an acceptable number?

>>51181060
No you need Nine BMPs for the combat formation. That's how many it tells you to take in the 18 point motor rifle company in the book.

File: T-55A_Martial_law_Poland.jpg (93KB, 800x598px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x598px

>>51179612
Tanks not better at crossing than wheeled vehicles is garbage game design, desu.

File: t72m1989.png (1MB, 1024x455px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x455px

Jesus Christ, the BF forum is insane.

>if Soviet tanks were good no one would play NATO tanks
>Probably a good reason for the T-55s to be in resin to prevent cheap tank spam?
>it worked for tankovy, no one uses resin lend lease
And many more fun comments.

File: 1482958172874.jpg (167KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 800x600px

>>51181525

>>51180156
Wikipedia says it was in service from 1985, just not forward-deployed in europe (which probably reads as "kept near factories in case it started catching fire").

File: 1116221.jpg (25KB, 463x463px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 463x463px

>>51179427
>>51181525
>mfw

File: IT DIDN'T HAVE TO END LIKE THIS.jpg (65KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x680px

>>51181525

>>51181525
>it worked for tankovy, no one uses resin lend lease

Instead, everybody buy Zvezda's Matilda II, Lee, Stuart or PSC Sherman...

This is beyond retarded...

>>51181525
>>51181882
These people literally don't seem to understand battlefront's business model. Their books pay for their lights to stay on, but model sales are what gets them their Christmas bonuses.

File: the_fuck_is_this_guy_saying.png (421KB, 451x489px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 451x489px

>>51179427
>what is T-62
>what is T-64

the great thing about flames of war is that no store here will stock it because most of it is super niche shit that no one will buy but even if you took the stuff that people will buy exclusively that stuff can be had cheaper at psc/zvezda for the most part.

>>51181882
In this person's defensive I believe they were being sarcastic.

File: IMG_0100.jpg (50KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x480px

>>51182598
>persons defensive

Focking autocorrect

File: frankfurt marx.jpg (142KB, 778x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 778x800px

>>51181083
> 18 points
> Almost £100
> For 18 points

Why do the horde armies have to have the best gear and equipment? I can get like, 50 points of West Germans, US or British for half that.

>>51181908
The T62 was shit tof be fair. It was an urgent and largely unnecessary up gun to out-dickwave the 105mm.

>>51182239
I think this is a big part of the relaunch, to cut down on niche stuff that never sells.

>>51183334
BF did that to theselves... "there were nine Dianas in Africa? Here, have a model. Bunkerflak? Have a model. Grenadiers? We sell four versions just in LW platoon (excluding Volksgrenadiers). Stupid on-table artillery? We'll make it all, dozens of blisters," etc. etc.

>>51183334
I'm clad of that. There's way too much pointless crap that feels like it's there because one of the staff had a stiffy for that specific concept.

So, here's some good quality Leopard:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/l5bgp1ltn3kk4t8/Leopard.pdf

Also, Panzertruppen:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/f6iiue112jf2o15/Panzertruppen.pdf

And complete Iron Maiden:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qafgabqh0806o0m/Iron_Maiden.pdf

Enjoy!

Holy fuck peope on the FoW forums unironically buy the PACT are just an horde army that rely on numbers thing.

Like completely forgetting how soviet doctrine actually worked.

>>51183793
Thanks!

>>51184254
They may not actually know the first thing about actual Soviet doctrine. I certainly don't.

I don't even know the first thing about NATO doctrines either.

>>51183793
Many thanks! I shall have to look at those after work and add them to our database.

At the very least Panzertruppen and Iron Maiden were much needed.

Leopard we have (I did the scan myself) but I'll certainly swap it out for this one if the quality is better.

File: abd95dd2fb73f889c5bb0789d872f6701a078642a8ec9576ee51b3ac0ce36a2f.jpg (20KB, 338x310px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 338x310px

>>51184254
Welcome to the mindset of people fed on Cold War propaganda and Red Dawn style films - where the enemy is reduced to a faceless horde with no personality or character - like robots.

>>51184323
Searching for AirLand Battle for the US and Deep Battle for the soviets is a good start. It should give the very basics.

There is also a small cold war wargaming blog that explains with more detail the soviet operationa and tactical thinking and organization.

File: sexy lamp.jpg (6KB, 178x283px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 178x283px

How would you emulate deception in deep battle on the table top?

>>51184869
Not quite the same thing, but if the attacker in the Hasty attack mission can set two objectives down to spread out the defender, removing one of the objectives after deployment.

>>51175725
OSSIE raus
t.Wessie

>>51184254
>>51184369

It's interesting that BF is not even trying to give Soviets and their allies any kind of Elite force list with current gear - small but tough. Hell, it could be one list, but enough to counter spam-a-lot we have now...

It's not rocket science, adjust points and some stats and that's it... or am I just delusional?

>>51185372
But anon then the Soviets would have a chance and wouldn't just be wave attacking men sharing one gun between 12 men, just like in the historical documentary, Enemy at the Gates.

>>51185372
I almost hate to say this, but I get the feeling that "improved" Soviets for Team Yankee would just be Heroes of the Soviet Union all over again.

And we all know how well loved the Hero lists are...

>>51185976
true

>>51185372
Well, we're never seeing 4+ hit warpac at least, since it's apparently having western doctrine that gives you 4+ to hit. Higher skill than 4+ is also unlikely since they made such a big deal about how expertly trained the best germans are. The only way they could do elite soviets is king-tiger-style elites where there's CT guys in supertanks, and given how the T-72A got rated that's probably not going to happen with the T-64 or T-80 (even with ERA).

In short, I think battlefront fully plan for warpac to be the horde faction well into the future, which is really not going to help the faction variety given how many of them are going to use T-55s, T-72s, and BMPs/BTRs.

Maybe strange question, but what about Warhammer 40k fan-made briefings? The FOW rules is much more balanced.

Summary of other nations:

Czechs: BMP-1s, the SKOT which is basically a BTR (wheeled, 14.5mm MG), T-72Ms, T-54As in the mech platoons.

Poles: SKOTs again, BMP-1s, maybe some BMP-2s, T-72Ms, T-55 Merida.

Now we've seen the east german T-55s, I doubt anyone else's modernisation programmes are going to change their ratings much, either, so it's going to be T-72s, T-55s, BMP-1s, and BTRs, hit on 3+ for everything, skill 5 or maybe six, and maybe slightly different morale ratings.

>>51179427
>Team Yankee will be fun they said
>Battlefront can't possibly hate the Soviets more they said

You poor bastards, I'm glad I didn't buy in though

>>51186524
It is a fun game.

And I'm saying that as someone primarily playing Soviets at the moment.

The tactics required to play them are a bit of an adjustment from what I'm used to, but they're not some god-awful unplayable force like some would have you believe.

>>51179612
The point is more that the stabiliser is somehow worse than the 'nam one and it's worse at going through bad ground than wheeled vehicles. Removing slow firing and 3+ cross would be fine and you might not be able to literally make a line of them across the board if they were costed for that.

>>51186617
>The tactics required to play them are a bit of an adjustment from what I'm used to, but they're not some god-awful unplayable force like some would have you believe.
I don't think anyone's said they're unplayable, though I feel they're suffering from coming out at the start at the moment, and moreso because they're the only redfor. The US is also kinda screwed but you can play WGermans or Brits if you want to play NATO. The issue is, like with soviets in the main game, they're presented as a horde army full of incompetents who're there to charge into machineguns so they can drown people in corpses and scrap metal, and that there's almost certainly going to be vanishingly little difference between each redfor faction going forward now we've seen the best of the best. And volksarmee was an obvious rush job.

>>51186716
Well don't you know? Every game needs a shitty horde faction! That's game design 101. If you can't describe every army in 5 words or less then something's gone horribly wrong.

Plus we all know the only tactic Russia has ever had in war is to drown the enemy on bodies. It's totally their thing!

>>51186716
The identical armies problem for WarPac comes from the fact that the WarPac did standardize a lot of their equipment.

Historically the Soviets did mass produce and export their military hardware to all of their allies in the Warsaw Pact.

Everyone had mostly the same equipment because they were all getting it from Mother Russia.

And at the very least Volksarmee is introducing some new WarPac units to play around with, even if some of them really aren't improvements over what we already see in the main TY rule book.

And yes, both the Soviets and the US suffer from being the first releases, but we are supposed to be getting books with expanded Soviet and American forces.

>>51187187
Yes, but even then, we're going to see variants being very marginally differentiated, given what we're seen of the AM2.

More critically, Volksarmee establishes, or appears to establish, the upper limits for warpac; "best trained" is 3+ tohit, 4+ skill. This means everything else is going to be worse than that, and that we're almost certainly not getting a warpac list that's not "spam bad armour/APCs" or "spam mediocre armour/APCs", with the potential "spam helicopters" dark horse.

Reading the forums is pretty grim, at the moment. Phil seems to agree with the thread that the T-64 is a T-72 with a missile, which begs the question of why they're making it. The warsaw pact is going to be samey enough already.

>>51187559
Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see.

Right now all we have is the Soviets and the East Germans anyway.

To my knowledge no other WarPac forces have been announced yet.

But yeah, like I said I wouldn't mind seeing better stuff for the Communists, but I'm afraid it would just turn into another Heroes situation.

File: IMG_0101.jpg (51KB, 750x180px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x180px

>>51189549
>>51188094

File: IMG_0095.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

I promise to stop shitposting about WARPAC in TY for the rest of the thread. What is on your painting table, /fowg/?

>>51189856
Nothing on the painting table, but I have a bunch of TY stuff up on my assembly table.

Some SU-25 Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) for my Soviets, and some A-10 Warthogs for my Americans.

>>51189856
202 British paratroopers. After my initial surge, I lost a lot of motivation. And I can't bring myself to glue them to bases before painting, so I can't field them till I finish.

File: Blackadder-Confused-Look.gif (561KB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 320x200px

>>51189720

>>51189720
oh god why

>>51189720
So by his logic, British forces out of Market Garden don't get recon units either? After all, Monty was pressing them on at a blistering pace.

File: tmp_6340-20170113_1755211132424595.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>51189856
Chunk of the Americans I've been painting for three years. At least I can skip those extra staff/observer teams.

>>51189720
> this tier of misinformation

Holy shit

>>51189720
asiatic
soviet
hordes

>>51191431
Of course not, silly! They aren't dirty commies!

Seriously, did a communist fucking murder Phil's entire family?

>>51186162
>much more balanced
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>51192824
A drunken toddler is more balanced than 40k. And flames is pretty good about balance when you don't go to the extreme ends.

File: cawl 1.jpg (1MB, 1268x1658px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1268x1658px

>>51192824
It is anon.
enjoy this little fella with costs about 90 pts more then the standard magos, and can give your entire army IWND, up to 4+ inv or +3 bs
note the 2d6+1 i 10 attacks

File: 6mm.jpg (303KB, 1056x748px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1056x748px

>>51189856
After dabbling in GHQ a few years back I finally caved and decided to build a whole 6mm army, heres the start of it which set me back about £90.
GHQ AFVs and scotia softskins.

>>51192939
>A drunken toddler is more balanced than 40k.

You're not wrong.

>And flames is pretty good about balance when you don't go to the extreme ends.

Unbalanced stuff tends to somehow sneak past the play testers on a fairly regular basis, but Battlefront is fairly quick to catch on and work on a fix when that does happen.

>>51193438
I see your giant flying wings up there, trying to sneak into the picture like we wouldn't notice.

>>51193498
They havent fixed any soviets
Glad i dropped this retardly biased anti soviet company

>>51189856
Bad news, gun barrels weren't primed red. They had a semi-gloss dark gray heat-resistant primer. No one's sure how dark gray... it might have been practically black.

>>51193498
>Unbalanced stuff tends to somehow sneak past the play testers on a fairly regular basis,
According to former playtesters on WWPD, this is because BF flat-out ignores playtester feedback.

>>51193625
I had to buy at least one stupid unusable plane, scotia do make atleast some nice stuff despite the flak they get.
Not sure what I can do with it other than use it as a airfield decoration, maybe it would work as a proxy for the Ar234? It's a tad big though

>>51193717
Funny.

I'm talking about stupidly overpowered stuff. Stuff like Patton, Tank Destroyers, Naval Gunfire, the British Armored Regiment, etc.

Stuff that needed to be whacked with the NERF bat.

Soviets could use some love, but they're not unplayable by any stretch of the imagination.

>>51194179
>British Armored Regiment,
is it really so strong after being nerfed.
their points have gone up and they lost charge

>>51194179
uh forget i said >>51194232
i skimmed through your post before reading it.

File: polishzsu.jpg (47KB, 500x303px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x303px

>>51186458
don't forget they kept ZSU-57's active long after it was a smart idea....

it'd be the WARPAC Geppard....


>>51194179
this guy is right. FoW has an imbalance scale of 3 on a 1-10 scale.

WH40K is a solid 9 or 10.

>>51194140
This explains a lot with how you've got stuff, like, say, tank destroyers using the same rules instead of including the errata.

>>51194976
>>51194140
Also because I heard from NZ people in the know, because some of their playtesters are actually retarded.

>>51194179
>Soviets could use some love
Which they'll fucking never get cause phil is a delusional faggot

>>51194232
It got hit so hard it died afterwards. 20% was way too much of a point increase on top of losing Charge.

>>51195321
What is this?

...Were brits OP at some point?

>>51195359
The first incarnation of the British Armoured Regiment lists in Blitzkrieg and To Hellfire and Back where horribly OP as fuck. They cost 20% less, which meant there where a bloody lot of them, and they ignored the first platoon lost for company morale.

So there where lots of them, and they had some of the best AT guns in the era.

>>51195486
It was for victory points and if I'm not mistaken their platoons were companies.
You could crush an entire company and note get anything for it.
I personally prefer H&B's selection because you can get non allied air and mech support as well as a sit ton more support options

>>51195616
They're the multi part companies. So they are bought as a company, and then deployed as one unit, but then break up into separate platoons.

>>51195359
Yes, in Early War only. Then they swung the nerf bat hard enough to make the list go from OP to on the bad side of average.

Not that early war is super representative of the rest of the game. Heck, Soviets are OP in EW, as long as you use the gamebreak of Barbarossa.

>>51195671
I thought it worked like Russians, or at leeast it had that wording of "treat wording of platoons as companies."
welly either way they removed that rule for a reason and ratcheted up the price.
i think the minium buy in is 900 - 1100 points for them plus those glorified armored cars the mk2b-cs LTs

>>51195930
mk5s
sorry

>>51195780
I am just curious because though I own Barbarossa, I've never played a game of early war. What list from Barbarossa is everyone seeing as game breaking? CC T-34s? At 1500 points you can only take 6 at most.

I think the lend lease list with the ability to bring cheaper Valentines and Matildas might be stronger.

Also, how do the Soviet Barbarossa lists balance with their German counterparts?

>>51196451
Even a couple of T-34s and/or a KV-1 is seriously bad news for most people. They're like the Tigers and King Tigers of Early War. Basically nothing cheap can stop the bastards. Hell most British forces can't actually stop the things from the side.

The Germans also get bloody Nebelwerfers which are free from the Early War 'Artillery as Improvised Anti-Tank gun' tax.

File: 1469055544631.jpg (107KB, 800x455px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x455px

>>51183525
Granted, I like niche stuff, but the Nazi boner BF has is just absurd.

>>51184254
Yeah, they were literally laughing at a guy for having the audacity to mention the idea of any soviets getting hit on 4+.

>>51184323
Funnily enough, the IRL soviet cold war doctrine is one of the easiest to wargame correctly from the period, what with making the plan pretty simple and solid, and throwing a shit ton of firepower right in one spot to wreck it and force their way in. Doesn't really matter when BF turns them into generic zerg rush mooks.

Now, granted it's way out of TY's scope, but why can't anyone make a not-shit model of the BTR-40 and -152? Normal QRF's models are good, but holy hell is it a stinker for these vehicles.

>>51196710
They are well armed and armored, but they are also conscript. Maybe they are meta changing, but I certainly don't see them as game breaking especially with their cost. I've only considered bringing either the KV or T-34 as support to motorstrelkovy or T-26s.

It would be a tough order for a list full of either tank to be able to force a well supported infantry company off an objective. And weapons exist to kill them even if some nations have more trouble than others.

I could be completely wrong, as I have admittedly never played EW, but I'd be curious to hear people's experiences playing or playing against the T-34 or KV-1 in EW.

>>51198491
It's the same armour, although I suspect the FA:13 is probably more due to the section of Panther's armour jammed onto the Gun mantlet.

>>51185372
T-72s and Afghanski.

>>51198768

Turret armour seems to be one of the more important qualities when determining the armour rating in FoW.

>>51198768
I was going to say, wasn't the Super Pershing basically a heavy tank's worth of armour, with the Panther's armour welded on top of that?

>>51197944

It's the usual Soviet thing. They have such disgustingly high amounts of firepower and numbers that they tend to be able to smash through opposition if their player works them right.

The same problem that British Motor companies tend to have. Localised are at a premium in FoW, and the Soviets have them. Conscript doesn't mean shit compared to armour and firepower.
>It would be a tough order for a list full of either tank to be able to force a well supported infantry company off an objective.

Except the typical scenario is each objective having something like 1 platoon of infantry, and 1 platoon of guns on it. Maybe if they're a 10 platoon list there might be a mobile tank platoon as well.

So you have 4 Pak-36s, and 5 average tanks, against god knows how many Russians. Yeah, that first turn moving up is rough, but the next turn the survivors shred you.

>>51198938
Standard Pershing is FA:10. Like the Panther, but then you add on the boiler plates to the front a which is 76mm of extra armour of debatable quality, and an extra 80mm to the turret face, which was nicked from a ruined panther.

>>51198994

Most AT guns wouldn't have a chance at combat ranges. That seems to cover FA13 well.

Fuck me; finding a way to fill the last 60 points is a bitch. Especially when you're at 8 platoons and kinda don't wanna.

>>51199402
AA MGs for everybody!

>>51199416
EW, Italians. No AA MGs to be seen.

>>51199402
Well, at least 9 platoons give you SOMETHING: Imagine sitting on 6 platoons and 60 points left...

>>51199441

Drop a few guys on your secondary platoon and pick up some guns? HMGs? Drop a light mortar or two and pick up something light somewhere?

>>51199529
I have two infantry platoons with 16 stands and then one has three brixia mortar teams and the other has three HMG teams.

And I've already got a full platoon of tanks, and some tankettes, along with an anti-tank platoon and two arty batteries.

I'd love to toss in some air support, but that's 90 points.

Doing Blackshirts from Burning Empires, by the way.

>>51199581
Damn them for closing down easy army.

Could you drop a HMG and get air support? Could you drop one of the platoons in one of your companies, and reinforce the other with organic guns and pick up air support with the leftover?

>>51198768
It didn't used to be the same armor. In the initial pdf for the 6-day War, the IS-3 had a frontal armor of 12. There was a lot of bitching about that, not the least of it was from myself. I argued with Phil on the main forums over the course a few days, and his reasoning was "hurr FA 12 because the front plate was usually poorly welded, durr". At which point I masterfully vomited out that the various technical assessments of the King Tiger hulls post-war from both western and eastern sources, cited splintering and lower metal quality problems, and how that doesn't seem to affect the KT's front armor 15. Or how Israeli reports during the 6 day engagement said that they had serious issues penetrating the Arab IS-3s from the front with their 90mm Pattons, and had to flank the slow as fuck failure tanks, and murder them from the sides (historically accurate, btw). Whereas the T-55s were not specifically mentioned for difficulty of penetrating from the front. I also argued relative lack of bullet-traps, the Churchill VII being practically made of bullet-traps, and the shallower angle compared to the T-55.

At that point, he stopped responding to the thread and I figured I had been more than enough of an armchair fuck-ass. He probably just tired of arguing with some stubborn cock-bag from the internets. So colour me very surprised when the final book release gave the IS-3 front armor 13.

900% true story.

>>51196451
It's less the T-34s and KV-1s and more the massive dirt cheap gun parks available to the EW Soviets.

>>51199652
Glad to hear you took him down a notch.

>>51200610
>implying phil can hear criticism

>>51200559
Yeah it seems like the Soviet artillery dramatically goes down in cost in Barbarossa from what it was in Rising Sun.

>>51199652
Huh, that got changed? Because I remember seeing that and silently mouthing "what the fuck" when we had AIW being a thing.

>>51199652
>Phil in charge of being in charge of a game company
He seems like an awful person holy shit.

Have many people done the TY themed missions? How'd they go?

>>51201824
Phil does the rules, Peter Simunovich (sp?) is the main dude, with JP Brisigotti as 2ic.

>>51201824
I think Phil is an alright guy. Just opinionated about certain topics. At least he actually takes time to communicate with the community.

>>51189720
Phil, report yourself to your local Polit-Commissar for "reeducation".

File: 5536c3.png (179KB, 500x644px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 500x644px

>>51189720
Jesus fuck...

>>51199600
If I drop the brixias I can take air support and be 5 points shy of total instead.

The main problem is all the good Italian lists for EW are in H&B, but they'd require me to basically buy and entire new army.

>>51199581
>>51204325

cool.

i do BAR.

it's really up BARtosz' ally to go w the tanks...


tbqh what you want to fight me with is either all the italian tanks, or gun teams. and i think you have three gun teams...
so,

your infantry blobs will be better than you think. you will see when we play....

>>51183793
Thank-you, kind Anon: these are great!

Was the machine gun on the Panther's hull removable? And if so, how likely would it be for the crew to take it with them if they had to abandon the tank?

>>51204788
Yes afaik, and it probably depends on the circumstances whether they would take it.

>>51204665
I'm looking forward to our game.

I just need to buy a Falco, some 100/17's, two more tanks and a tankette pack.

At the very least I know Gajo sells the arty and has a few Falcos in stock.

File: jagdpanther_destroyed.jpg (150KB, 1170x691px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1170x691px

After bogging down in deep mud. Managed to find a pic of one that seems to have done just that, and it looks like they took the MG out.

>>51204788
> Was the machine gun on the Panther's hull removable?

Yes. It was often mounted on the AAMG mount for long marches (road or rail) where contact was unlikely, though German tank commanders were not keen on the whole "fire the MG from the open turret" thing: not surprisingly, since you lose a lot of tank commanders that way.

> And if so, how likely would it be for the crew to take it with them if they had to abandon the tank?

If they had time, they might remove it. If pressed for time and/or under immediate threat, then maybe not. It's not something I've really seen mentioned, maybe someone else can shed some light on the matter.

>>51204788
Yes, as others have said, and also you aimed it with your head.

>>51193438
tempted to grab some tanks from them for training practice, have small scale skirmish with min size forces.

>>51194975
cycle of cheese to get the mice buying expensive minis.

>>51199416
this was what I did with my Armored Moose list.

>>51205592
yep, welcome to the hobby

Earlier people were saying we're getting T-55s and Leopard Is from PSC; I've seen the announcement for the T-55, but are we still getting the Leo?

>>51206853
From what I've heard on FB, Leo 1 sometime after the T-55.

>>51201196
I'm sure he wouldn't, but kicking his ass in public is still nice.

>>51202063
>communicate
Voicing an opinion without taking others into consideration is not communication, it's dictation.

>>51206853
Supposedly, but there has been no official announcement yet.

That being said, I'd assume it's a safe bet.

>>51209281
Thanks; will hold off on a panzertrupp then.

Hello /fowg/ I have been looking into getting into historical wargaming for some time, and I saw that a new edition is being released, and it is emphasizing mid-war. This is great since I love mid-war english tanks, in particular the Matilda II and Crusader. I am looking for advice, is their anyway to run both of these in a company? In addition, any tips for someone wanting to play mid-war british armor, particularly cavalry tanks?

File: i looked in your eyes and knew you were my nigga.jpg (41KB, 1033x679px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1033x679px

>>51210447
>This is great since I love mid-war english tanks,
>tfw new box for brits are 5 grants, and not 8 crusaders.

>> is their anyway to run both of these in a company?
probably one small detachment I'll check the books

For Hens & Chicks rule, does the leader have to be at the front, or can he be behind? Also, can you move different distances?

>>51210447
>I am looking for advice, is their anyway to run both of these in a company?
In current V3? No, because historically the Infantry tanks and the Cruiser tanks fought as part of entirely separate formations (which sadly killed my similar dream of a Cromwell+Churchill force in late war). That said, if V4 takes the more lax approach that Team Yankee takes, then it'd be easy for you to field a formation of Matildas and a formation of Crusaders.

>>51210447
the new version will be lighter than most historical rules. a lot of generalities, by comparison.

gotta go fast!
you will not be good at a stand-up slugfest.

and keep in mind, your turret determines everything armor-wise!

>>51210447
infantry tank company does not allow for light.
the light does allow heavy tanks but those are grants not Matildas or valentines
rifle company Africa does allow for one light and one Matilda
if you want valentines and crusaders death or glory allow you to have a light detachment
motor company tunsia does allow for both valentines and crusaders
that's it

>>51210672
>No,
in infantry companies yes

>>51210606
yes. all the above

File: SWEET PAPYRUS.png (6KB, 96x112px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 96x112px

>>51210672
>Cromwell+Churchill
I like that

>>51210760

i'd love to play alist that allows you to hodgepodge tanks ytou like from one nation, and just go for shit.

FoW may not be my game then, and since TANKS is so damn oversimple, i may need to head elsewhere....


>in other news:
Virus, check you email, bud....

>>51211711
I wouldnt mind seeing more flexibility in the orgs myself. Would like to try 30 T-70s and then a bunch of support.

>>51211711
Mixed tankovy company in MW or lend lease tankovy in EW, comrade.

I suppose we will have formations in the MW which will let us hodgepodge:

>>51210606
Doesn't matter where your commander is. You can move everything different distances. You don't necessarily have to move every tank but they all count as having moved shooting at ROF 1 with a +1 penalty to hit whether or not you move your models.

>>51210305
>>51209281
I hope they pull through (and also give us plastic valentines). Doing Panzertruppen with battlefront models would be expensive and the resin Leo 1s are bad kits.

>>51212714
>Doing Panzertruppen with battlefront models would be expensive and the resin Leo 1s are bad kits.
Not as ruinous as the T-55, but how do you mean bad kits?

File: DSCN6893.jpg (875KB, 2000x652px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 2000x652px

>>51213715

the tracks. have fun with those
barrels also barely fit....the hatches are as bit weak....

>>51213715
Oh boy. I feel bad when I go in this rant. Now I don't even have any of my pics to show. Received a new phone.

Honestly once you paint them up, they will look good, but I had some issues with defects:

1) Bent resin tracks which I had to soften in hard water to bend back into place. Even after fixing tracks don't fit together right.

2) Pronounced mold lines and flash in the metal pieces including the IR sight and gun barrel.

3) Holes in tracks due to broken track pads. Random defect of a chuck of resin in one of my tracks.

4) A couple of holes in the hull.

Emailed Battlefront after the first bum box I recieved. They sent me another box that had many of the same issues except the metal pieces had less pronounced mold lines. Emailed them again to just let them know they are having the same defects. No reply back. All the other West German resin I have is fine, but I am still hesitant to buy any more Leo 1's from battlefront.

>>51213811
Knowing you assembled that many Leo 1's makes me cringe, but I really like the FIST!

File: 1453953343044.gif (3MB, 400x293px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x293px

>>51213986

FIST is the US version

this is a deutcheBeobachtungspanzer M113

>>51213950
All of this makes it sound like either god-awful quality control, or a rush-job.

Possibly both.

Pretty standard for BF. I've got quite a few vehicles from Old Crow Mini's, I imagine Skytrex is very similar. The resin is very plasticy, kinda soapy, way less brittle than BF. I don't know if I'd bother buying resin mini's from BF again. (too many broken mudguards)

Awesome thread btw, this made my day. It seems you can't use the FoW forum without being browbeat by some corporate apologist. Watching an Armored Cavalry vet get shouted down when he asked for 4+ Soviets was kinda confronting. While Battlefront has structural problems this seems to be Phil's fault as the lead designer. In the end he's making these balance calls and as the system is his baby, we can't really expect anything to change.

Made plans today to play through Firestorm: Caen once V4 is released. Should take up the whole middle of the year. I'm hoping the lack of balance in the campaign will shield us from any weirdness in the conversion books and the lame mid-war release schedule.

>>51216284
I guess we can only imagine how bad it would be without their shift to plastics.

>>51213811
>>51213950
Have you guys had problems with the resin tank commanders as well?
Some are superbly cast, and others look like they were involved in ammunition fires and they only just made it out.

>>51213811
>8 Flakpanzer Gepard
My dick

Haven't played in about 4 years

Used to have an SS-pgren (half track) company and I'm looking to get back into it but with 4th edition should I wait? Really want to get another SS force but I didn't particularly like the point cost

Any other vet infantry force?

>>51218200
Unless you still have the Panzergrenadiers, I would wait for Fourth Edition to drop. Or at least if you got in now for Third, you'd get a fourth edition book for free.

Otherwise, bide your time, wait it out.

Finnish, Japanese, Paratroopers, Fallschirmjaeger, they're all FV. Or you can do FT SS now.

>>51217872
Yeah some are good and some are derpy for me.

>>51216284
I have a feeling it was both. Compared to most other companies, it seems that Battlefront spends the least amount of time cleaning up models after they are cast. When they are trying to keep up with high demand, problems result. My Gepards went together fine, but were sticky from where they mixed the resin incorrectly.

>>51216753
>too many broken mudguards

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention pretty much every one of my Leo 1's has a least on broken mudguard.

>>51214696
>deutcheBeobachtungspanzer
The German language is a thing of beauty.

File: bocages.jpg (126KB, 1080x606px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1080x606px

I finished some bocages. I know real bocage wouldn't have all that visible stone, but I like the look.

>>51218089
>8
>when you can easily field 12 of them
>or go full balls to the wall and field 18
>and then procede to block out the sun with your 40mm projectiles

File: fight-in-shade.gif (2MB, 445x185px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 445x185px

>>51219244
>and then procede to block out the sun with your 40mm projectiles

>>51219176
Very nice.

But you'll need a lot more for a full Normandy table.

I have finally perfected my speedy T-72-painting method as black undercoat, cam olive green basecoat, black wash, russian uniform drybrush, canvas cover and gunmetal gun.

>>51222505
Thanks for sharing. I will save this for the future since getting BF Soviet Green spay seems to be impossible.

File: left-or-right.png (1MB, 1045x698px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1045x698px

Is the min number of troop the ones displayed on the diagram or the column with the points? Why does the diagram says that I must take 3 platoons, while the column seems to imply that I can take just one?

>>51222780

The points column is correct. The dark units show the "core" elements of the platoon/company, and the light units are optional additions.

>dig through basement
>sell a ton of old 40k and Fantasy stuff for over 1K
>find a bunch of old Soviet blisters and boxes
>get them all built
>about to go buy paint
>go back into basement instead
>find a box with several hundred paint bottles, along with half the vallejo range
>also find and sell a bunch of rare video games
How do people without basements carry out hobby-related tasks, or pay for things? I've seen selling shit from my basement for years now. I still have about 500 books to sort through.

>>51222841
man I wish I had a magical basement that generated hobby supplies and disposable income

Evening all, babby little noob here, me and some buddies are looking to get in to FoW and I've taken the plunge and made the first move.

I've bought the following after doing a little research but I think I might have dun goofed and bought a couple of things that won't mesh together in to an actual working list. Help me out?

I've just bought:
Open Fire! (The Allies in it are going to a friend)
A Panzergrenadiers Company HQ box
A Panzer IV H platoon box

Looking back on it, from what I can find I'm not gonna be able to use the German infantry from the Open Fire box and the Panzergrens at the same time. Am I a moron?

>>51224894
buy some more halftracks and you should have the beginnings of a few lists.
any theatre take your fancy? or you could scrap the half tracks and take the grenadier list from grey wolf.

>>51224894
You can use the HQ, just not the half-tracks....though IIRC the OF Infantry comes with two platoons and an HQ anyway.

>>51224894
German Gepanzerte PanzerGrenadier

Mechanised Company, from Grey Wolf, page

Gepanzerte Panzergrenadier Company HQ - CinC SMG, 2iC SMG, 2x Sd Kfz 251/1 half-track (65 pts)
- Upgrade CinC SMG to CinC Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)
- Upgrade 2iC SMG to 2iC Panzerfaust SMG (10 pts)
- Panzerschrek , Sd Kfz 251/1 half-track (40 pts)

Compulsory Gepanzerte Panzergrenadier Platoon - Command MG, Sd Kfz 251/10 (3.7cm) half-track, 6x MG, 3x Sd Kfz 251/1 half-track (220 pts)

Compulsory Gepanzerte Panzergrenadier Platoon - Command MG, Sd Kfz 251/10 (3.7cm) half-track, 6x MG, 3x Sd Kfz 251/1 half-track (220 pts)

Panzergrenadier Anti-tank Gun Platoon - Command SMG, 2x 7.5cm PaK40 gun (105 pts)

Panzer Platoon - Command Panzer IV H, 4x Panzer IV H (450 pts)

Panzer Platoon - Command StuG G or StuG IV, 2x StuG G or StuG IV (285 pts)


1405 Points, 5 Platoons

There's literally no reason not to use the German Infantry from OF as Panzergrenadiers, they all wear basically the same uniform and use basically the same guns. The only difference between the Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers that is noticeable is that Panzergrenadiers should have an additional Light Machine Gun per team. However, at this scale, no one will notice.

>>51225339
>>51225343
>>51225351
Thanks guys, looks like I'm gonna take a look through Grey Wolf :)

From the looks of what the other guys are interested in getting, probably late-war Western Front is the theatre of interest, as the others are mostly looking at Late War British or Americans.

File: waitingforcomissargodot.jpg (82KB, 1136x852px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1136x852px

Ran a LW Fighting withdrawal 1400pts today.
Slavs vs Bongs

File: allthosepotatoes.jpg (76KB, 892x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 892x960px

And with bongs I mean canuck recce.

We tried out the distribution of hits and terrain rules from TY.

Results: an absolute success.

>>51225351

A pair of armoured mortars (with command) would run to 100pts, or 3 Nebelwerfers would be 105pts.

In either case, if you drop one Panzerfaust, you'll have a pretty capable list, with two tough infantry platoons, two mobile AT units, and smoke. No recce yet, but at 1500pts and veteran it can be hard to cover all bases.

>>51225351

can mechanised panzergrens do without arty/smoke?

File: well.jpg (99KB, 1136x743px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1136x743px

>>51226135
Anyways. Sovs lost by failing company morale round 7.
Had they held out just one more round it would have been a communist win.

>>51226206
It's not an effective list, it's a "Here's all of your shit on the table" list. Otherwise you'd want at least six more PaK40s, never leave home without your PaK40s, ditch the StuGs and the Panzer IVs for Panthers, get Nebelwerfers for smoke, and some recon probably, new plastic armoured cars etc.

>>51219244
>>51220133

what do you think my end-game is composed of? these are all 1st wave purchases.

man, damn tumblr gifs and their 2 second max....

>>51223322
i had one of those...i sold it all so i could leave shit-assed Idaho.

>>51224894
get a box or 2 of just Sdkfz 251's as well, you can make the Gepanzerte versions as well

the Herman Goring Division models in Fortress Italy are shown wearing a variety of royal blue uniforms- were these ever issued in an entire set or at random? The osprey of the HG Div doesn't mention blue at all...

Also would the FallschirmpanzerAufklarungsabteilung
Hermann Goring (Parachute armoured recon) be in panzergren uniforms or fallschirmjager?

>>51170937
Pretty close to how i built mine, generally i don't take the ISU's because i want to field more horses and or gain quality of quantity, and i do field all mounted. With the points saved i take 76mm field guns to add to one company so it has 21 teams (and as such has QoQ on FV horseback) plus more horses.

>>51226221

Panthers? Really?

I'm prepared to believe that NZ has a very different meta, but around here I've rarely seen StuGs (or plain-Jane Panzers) do poorly. They're a decent, all-around tank for a decent price. I'd rather have 5 StuGs or Pz IVs than 3 Panthers for the same points.

>>51227313
He's the same guy that swears by King Tigers and Volksturm.

What do you expect?

>>51229307
Don't you disrespect the Volkssturm. I don't expect them to perform miracles. I expect them to stand there, on an objective, bubble wrapping the King Tigers to prevent them getting outflanked at short range. And for 100 points always deploying on the table, always in prepared positions, they're damn useful.

>>51229307
KTs and Volksturm are a decent list, though.

In today's "Phil's an ass" report, Stillbrew gives armour 17 because while it only covers the turret weak spot and turret ring "the overall effect is pretty good", but the T-55AM's upgrades aren't all over the vehicle, so it's hit and miss.

Almost like a tank with a WW2+ hull!

>>51222780
You can take just one platoon. Kepp in mind Soviets bump all the terminology up one size level... So a Company for the Soviets, is identical to a platoon for German/Brit/US (there's just more stands of infantry there).

So when you purchase that "company" of infantry, you get the Headquarters, and however many platoons you wish, plus whatever upgrade options (HMGs). So you *can* purchase 1 platoon of 6 stands with an HQ stand, at the price listed to the left.

>>51193717
>They havent fixed any soviets
You clearly had your head up your ass for the original copy of Red Bear when they made Hen and Chicks worse than v2, and upped the points. THEN when it was worked out on the forums that Soviets were paying (effectively) the same as US forces for Trained medium tanks that were worse, the Soviets were fixed. Half the reason why new Soviet players to LW are urged to run Red Bear Revised, is becaude it's pricrd correctly, is competitive (enough), and WAS FIXED.

>>51230917
You have YOUR head up YOUR ass if you think Soviets are still anywhere near US and Germany
Battlefront is pure retarded shit

>>51226553
i think the blue was their airforce standard work uniforms that on occasion got mixed in with regular gear because digging holes in the italian climate was sweaty work. never heard of front line troops do it. unless you plan to model them as last ditch reserves caught off guard which could look cool and different.

>>51231925
fokkin noice. 15mm BA?

>>51231526
Sovs are playable, they just aren't ace tier. you really need to be a whiole different type of tactician to make the soviets work. also, protip: Sov's do exceedingly well in 1946 scenarios where they are the axis and germany is a goner.

>>51230335
>Stillbrew gives armour 17 because it was made in Bongland, folded over a million times by the finest armour-smiths known to mankind
God save the Queen

>>51231526
That is moving goal-posts. They are playable, and they WERE fixed, you stupid fuck. They're up to Germans, just not as diverse or detailed in briefings. US has been a fucking retarded league of it's own, and top tier, since Blood Guts and Glory. And they've been toned back a bit in the latest compilation book for them.

Soviets are playable. They're not top tier, but they still put up a good showing. You're just a fucking retard.

>>51234612
>They're up to Germans, just not as diverse or detailed in briefings.
Not that guy but they're really not. Germany's behind the US but they're above everyone else in the game.

>>51235635
I feel like it's a combo of them having access to heavy infantry AT squads (and some of them being real damn cheap), nebs, and stormtroopers. Having those AT platoons is basically a "fuck you" to armour lists, being disproportionately hard to shift, nebs are really points-efficient given the direct dire tax most guns pay, and stormtroopers is a capability to avoid return fire no other army in the game has.

File: 16105949_1313551205374401_4746079889344175752_n.jpg (41KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 540x960px

>>51235744

>>51235744
>>51235755
Just FYI for the BoW intro to V4 Mid War, apparently.

You know your PR sucks when...you use BoW to market your new releases.

>>51235772

Does this mean we are going to get some more Warren playing Indiana Jones Africa Corps?

>>51233358
This is my experience playing Soviets. Deployment is very important, because you want to have a plan of attack you follow for the rest of the game. Soviets aren't flexible enough (due to H&C or huge strelkovy company sizes or RoF 1 on some of their assault guns) to be deviate too much from your original plan.

When I deploy I usually use my numbers to spread the board attacking from both flanks. Depending on what I am facing I will choose one flank to commit to, using reinforcements to reinforce my advance or delay the enemy from taking an objective on my side. The tactic is more or less based on Tactically Deep Battle doctrine and works well enough in Flames. You run into issues if both your attacks are blunted.

>>51236527
> Does this mean we are going to get some more Warren playing Indiana Jones Africa Corps?

Yes, with flying saucers 'n shit. And Werewolves...or it's DAK, so maybe Werefoxes ^_^

>>51234612
Show me tournament results to back that up.
retard

>>51236527
>Does this mean we are going to get some more Warren playing Indiana Jones Africa Corps?
That wouldn't be TOO bad... so I guess the illiterate baboon will think of something even worse, to make sure to kill the interest of anyone who've ever actually heard about the desert campaign.

Volksarmee scan when? Or does anyone have any link to points costs/unit comps?

>>51236795
http://www.wwpd.net/2017/01/thats-all-volks-armee.html

most of the things are here, the rest is pretty much the same as in TY rulebook (Carnation is 6/12 because of better skill rating)

>>51236816
>http://www.wwpd.net/2017/01/thats-all-volks-armee.html

Well having a look through those points values, is there any source of BMP1/2s that isn't insane? At for 28 points I'm already at 9 BMPs. Buying them individually off Battlefront might work but I'm looking for any kind of way to cut costs.

>>51235772
To be fair, Beasts of War hosts these Game Introduction Weekends for pretty much every game they cover.

The did it for Team Yankee, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, and a few others if I'm remembering correctly.

Doesn't necessarily mean they're the right ones for the job, but they are the ones with the huge website and YouTube channel.

>>51236640
The Burden of Proof is on you to discredit their ability to perform in a tournament.

>>51236670
If someone had an indiana jones army I'd be legit impressed, honestly. You could have a casket objective. It'd be like having a kelly's heroes sherman or one of the IS-2-tigers you see in every war film.

Not sticking to history is fine if you have a decent gag and can pull it off.

>>51237749
Yeah, it's all about what the gag is and if people are ok with it.

People could probably appreciate a Indy objective, Captain America command stand, a Nazi Flying Disc, or a Pink Panther tank, but it's another thing when the entire point of the army is to be Nazi Occult or Nazi Super-Science.

The guy was introduced to FoW with Open Fire, and then built a complete 20-something StuG army of "Indiana Jones Nazis" who were the NachtWulfen SS Super-Science and Occult Division. Complete with a Nazi Saucer as his air support, Panzer Grey in 1945, and Space Wolf symbols on the side skirts of the StuGs.

It could have easily been a fun theme, but it seems like he wanted Pulp Nazis and/or Hydra instead of actual German Forces during WWII.

>>51235635
Germans aren't all that top of the pile. They have the lion's share of briefings and unique lists, but comparatively they have some major issues that hold them back. For starters, the "space marines of FoW" is not incorrect... Everyone with experience knows how to fight against them. Their tanks are expensive, even if medium Panzer IVs. That is apparent when you compare their CV cost to Hungarians. Their artillery is generally pretty "meh", with exception to cheap smoke-firing rocket nebs. Their integrated AT is good, but also very excessive in late-late war lists. To the point where every stand is MG Panzerfaust. While in theory those stands should be hard to take on, they are excessive beyond what's needed, are expensive, and suffer from diminishing returns because of those two factors.

Really the biggest things Germans have going for them, is the sheer variety of shit thry can bring, not having to worry about losing AT command squads, and Stormtroop covering up their tactical blunders.

>>51237987
Honestly, if someone had a pulp WW2 army I'd be fine with it (maybe not if it had zombies but there's probably no hope for people who have to put zombies in everything these days). It's that plus his specific deal with being really scornful about actually caring about history. You can both respect the actual origins of the game and also like indiana jones.

>>51238183
Yeah, as I said they're behind the US, but the US sometimes dip into autowin territory. They're definitely stronger than most minors, though, whereas I feel like the UK and USSR are about the same.

>>51238413
>It's that plus his specific deal with being really scornful about actually caring about history. You can both respect the actual origins of the game and also like indiana jones.

Exactly.

I'll openly admit to enjoying Nazi Super-Science (jet packs, flying discs, giant robots, etc), and to being a fan of Indiana Jones and similar Enchanted Artifact Pulp Adventure stories.

But I also have respect for (although not always full knowledge about) the actual historical events that the game is meant to recreate.

It's when you dismiss history as boring, and act obnoxious about it that it starts to get annoying.

And then there was his god-awful obsession with "What about the nukes?!?" when it came to Team Yankee.

i will donate my first born child and german army to whoever can kill, maim or otherwise prevent warren from BoW from making another video.

>>51238755
How many points we talking here?

>>51238755
>BoW
there's your problem, BoW is trash
>donate my first born.
no thanks pally, talk to s'tan the man about donating flesh and blood

>>51240311

new thread