Flames of War General /fowg/ - Damnit V4

Quite the bomb got dropped last thread, amirite?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each nation?

File: 1486214972899.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51560840
Yep.

>>51560661
Re-posting for the new thread.

>>51560840
yeah. leaks of MW stats are out. AT is all fucked up. 88s are AT 14 and 17pdr is AT 12. what the literal fuck battlefront.

MW also doesnt have stats for matildas valentines or shermans although it has stats for tigers despite them never being deployed to el alamein and only tunisia.

battlefront is so dumb.

File: 1486215187096.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51560661
>>51560923
The other pile of stats, and the mediafire link:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/2tojibqpyorxjr7/ElAlamein20160907.pdf

>>51560924
Also the short 75 on the Panzer IV is AT 7 with bombardment, but the short 75 on the Panzer III is AT 9 without.

And the 6pdr is now AT 9, so it can't even bail tigers when the first western tank kill of a tiger (by jamming the turret and forcing the crew to abandon it) was from a Churchill with a 6pdr...

File: me109-05(Afrika-Korps).jpg (36KB, 400x338px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x338px

>>51560924
>>51561127

Sounds about right for the Wehraboos.

At least the plastic kits will be nice.

>>51560923
I see my Marmon-Herrington armored cars are no longer an option. Yay. No Daimlers, Dingos, AECs or Deacons either. And no way I can use my Sherman platoon even if there was a list for the armored cars, which there isn't. No Sticky Bomb option for the infantry, and no Rifle Platoons at all.

Apart from 17/25-pounders (which I don't own) and maybe air support, I don't see why a single Tiger won't rape any British list in the book.

Even half my German Shutzen company appears useless now. Yeah, this V4 is waaaay better. Totally.

File: whatever i'm cute.png (466KB, 723x662px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 723x662px

>>51561170
plane camouflage looks like ground
Planes in air

File: sfdhs.png (361KB, 488x651px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 488x651px

>>51561265
Get read on plane camo.

>>51561265
Unsurprisingly, the top surfaces are painted to resemble the ground. Meanwhile the bottom surfaces are painted to resemble the air. Works pretty well unless you're cruising upside down.

>>51561265
That's fairly typical for most aircraft at the time.

Paint the top of the plane to light ok like the ground underneath it.

Paint the bottom of the plane to look like the sky above it.

I wonder what they'll do to my FJ, Paras, and Udarny. Do we have any indications, other than how they've messed around with infantry in the leaked lists?

>>51560924
Yeah, all this has me more than a bit worried.

>inb4 Italian tanks all have gins with AT2.

>Oh come on guys, V4 isn't going to be that bad!
>rules and stats leak
>nonsensical changes everywhere
>obvious bias in some of the stat modifications
>even more tank-centric
Time to make a shrine for V3 upon which to offer the burnt remains of V4 books.

>>51561783
Nah... I'm gonna get the V4 rules and smoke a few pages... it might allow me to enter whatever alternate dimension Battlefront have entered.

File: battlefront.png (546KB, 854x409px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 854x409px

What were they thinking?

File: IMG_1316.jpg (52KB, 550x424px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x424px

>>51561783
>Burning books

It's like you have no clue about the actual history that lead up to the events we recreate with this wargame...

File: elien rally nazi.png (209KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 680x383px

>>51562020
I figure it looked a bit like the following
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faEFH5N8XUY

>>51562021
It's like you take everything you read on 4chan seriously.

>>51560923
>>51560958
Do we know that these are the finalized versions of these books?

>>51562203
I don't know what to take seriously anywhere on the internet anymore.

Welcome to 2017...

>the V4 book still has the TY examples
I can't breathe. I know it's not final but I CAN'T BREATHE

File: 4.jpg (126KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 720x960px

Last one, hopefully there's a proper scan of the conversion book floating around somewhere.

>>51562094
I've got to re watch hellsing at somepoint

>>51562209
They're not finalised but given the level of finished-ness in them don't expect new units or anything. A book that's subject to heavy revisions looks like the el-alamein one.

>>51562327
It's somewhat literally TY WW2 edition, yeah.

>>51562451
>>51562474
>>51562516
>>51562545
There's not anything anywhere in there for the British 95mm howitzers, is there? Because them a) not having Brutal and b) not having unlimited smoke bombardments is dumb as all fuck. They're large bore guns, and they carried more than half of their ammo as fucking smoke shells.

>>51562724
I can't remember if there's a table somewhere in the book that would have all the statlines updated for V4, these pages just cover the special rules book by book.

I expect all arty in V4 to only be allowed one actual smoke bombardment, though I suppose there could be special rules to change that. It's weird, if anything the abstraction for arty has grown to cover MORE time, i.e. sustained mortar fire actually killing things rather than being an annoyance, yet smoke has been changed to only show up on the battlefield occasionally.

75-95mm is a bit of a weak spot for FoW, hell, if anything a Sherman's 75mm should have brutal just based on how it was used.

Soooo ... FoW wet full wehraboo?

>>51563659
That could explain the dislike of ths Bolsheviks...

Ok, so you can create Desert Rat Army where you can put literally 60 Stuarts or Crusaders... so explain me how you beat that as a German, becuase by the time they kill everything else the Tiger or the Stukas are fairly useless and you loose the battle...

>>51564185
spam vs super mega++ elite armies strikes again. Amazing how the FoW rules prevented this level of stupidity but TY/V4 doesn't...

File: Screenshot_20170204-102829-picsay.png (3MB, 1216x2829px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1216x2829px

1900 points South Korean tiger division list, using US mech rifle company.
Only mech platoons are painted in representing Koreans as the Korean army dispatched to Vietnam did not have any real tanks or choppers and called US forces when they needed them.
I can't understand why BF didn't even mentioned about Korean army in the TOD book while they dispatched 50,000 soldiers to Vietnam which numbers are second largest following US, while ANZACs have lists for them which sent only 5,000 soldiers including both NZ and Austrailian army.

>>51564270
Stuart has RoF 5 for MG (both stationary AND moving) and itss self defence AA, so it will prolly kill Stukas in time, and with that amount of dices you will kill of the infantry and gun times given time...

FFS, I didn't want to belive it can be this nasty...

>>51564330
Your vehicles are amazing, and your infantry is good but the bases might need a bit of work.

>while ANZACs have lists
BF is in New Zealand, so that's probably why they got lists but SK didn't (which is dumb)

>>51562545
It seems EW and LW retaining its points system(Barkmann is 275 points) while MW changing its point system to 100 max one.

>>51564330
Fantastic army m8.

File: fucking commies.jpg (47KB, 480x642px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x642px

>>51563757
>Bolsheviks
as much as i love lenin, there are many reasons to hate:
DIRTY
FUCKING
COMMIES
also i don;t think you can call Stalin's Russia bolshevik, he likely purged any party hold outs when he came into power.

Is it true that the Red Army is overpowered in Early?

>>51564743
Not for long friend.
Cheers

hey uh where could i find the Afgantsy in the scans?

>>51565507
Should be in the digital folder.

File: i don;t know what or where but i must kill.png (123KB, 317x411px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 317x411px

>>51565570
I can;t seem to find it even with control F

>>51565650
>FoW Digital Folder
>All the way at the bottom
>Team Yankee - Soviet Afgantsy Air Assault Battalion.pdf

File: marco laugh.gif (3KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 150x150px

>>51565763
thanks man
shoulda reasoned to check there.
i might be a stupid

File: Jagdtiger.jpg (34KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x360px

Dunno if it means anything after the leak, but here is some nice plastic from Zvezda

>>51560958
>>51560923

how the fuck?

wait, what the fuck....?

this...this is hard to read.
also, it suddenly makes the Panzer IIIN worth taking....oh wait...
what is a 50mm armored PzIII doing with a 7.5mm?

we have entered the land of what-if, people!

time to play legions of Panzer III K's!

>hope they fix that....

File: 20170118_171850-picsay.jpg (672KB, 2587x1187px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 2587x1187px

Captured su100 for DM German pzgrens, a zvezda one.
Really nice kit, its gun can adjust elevation though the gun looks little thinner for its calibre.

>>51566527
It can adjust? Sweet. That defo makes up for the lack of hatches I can model.

File: 1413973619719.jpg (188KB, 1200x891px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1200x891px

>>51566527
noice.

so, let me make a shitty V4 list with the spill:

Panzer K Forces, etc.

HQ ----- 2x PzIII 7.5 ----- 16pts
CC ----- 5x Pz III 7.5 ---------------------------------------------------------- 40pts
------------ 1x Pz III 5cm long, 1x uparmored long, 1x short ------ 20
------------- 2x PzIV 7.5 short --------------------------------------------------- 12

---- 5cm tank hunter (CC as support) ----- 12pts.

the 5cm guns have a tactical speed, and the so-called K's get to ignore long range armor....
Pz4's are there to Smoke and drop light artie...

could drop the mixed platoon for basic 5cm and an OP?


whaddaya think?

>>51566813
The 5cm pak38 is way better than 6 pdr, as 6pdr has 2 inches tac move while 5cm has 4 inches tac move.
It is not only just 2 inches difference because teams with tac move rate of 2 inches cannot move with follow me, blitz, shoot and scoot and cross here movement order.
With German stormtrooper which allows 2 movement orders 5cm can move up to 8 inches in a turn with blitz, shoot its gun with halted ROF and shoot and scoot or 14 inches in a turn with blitz, dash 6 inches and follow me, while 6 pdr move 2 inches and shoot moved ROF or dash 4 inches.

>>51566969
Admittedly, you get 4x FV 6pdrs for 12 points, while you get 3x CV 5cms for 12.

Though both lost their formerly properly high RoF, and the 6pdr has lost its (historically much) better penetration because brits aren't allowed to have nice things and tonk stronk, it seems.

File: still-of-sean-connery-in-a-bridge-too-far-(1977)-large-picture.jpg (90KB, 685x1023px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 685x1023px

>>51567369
As if the brits didn't have it bad enough. Why does BF have boners for cold war Brits, but not their predecessors?

>>51567526

NATOboo's sell in Team Yankee, lots of very rose tinted nostalgia. Wehraboo's sell in WWII, rule of cool.

I'm really quite mad at the Brits lists in Desert Rats, not only are some very common armour and infantry formations excluded, you're only allowed one Motor formation, so I can't even simulate a rifle battalion or get close to 100 points with what I already own. It's like BF are saying 'we're going to all the trouble of making these lovely Grant and Crusader plastic kits, so I MUST INSIST THAT YOU PURCHASE SOME, if you want to keep playing.' I could proxy Shermans for Grant's, but what's the point in that..

Completely ignoring that they're not releasing US, Italians and Russians for months, they couldn't even give reasonable options for Brits and Germans, yet they managed to include Tigers and 17 Pounders? A big part of why Team Yankee is having this horrible meta bloat is that so little development was put into the initial book.

I've had a thought. What if these are playtested copies that the stats of which have been made less shit for retail?

>>51568899
I have looked through the final physical MW rulebook. Crusaders are still AT9 and one man turret equivalent, everything seems the same.

So far V4 doesn't look so promising. I had hopes from the rumors, but looking at those lists is just painful.

Maybe it's a good thing they aren't touching Italians until after summer, might give them time to unfuck things at least a tiny bit.

Then again I suppose I can wait for delicious plastic Italian tanks and such and just keep playing V3 if I want. I'm never going to play in a tournament anyway, so I don't lose much.

>>51568039
>so I can't even simulate a rifle battalion
you can take as many formations as you like, I assume you're allowed duplicates, if not you can take motor platoons as support platoons

File: brit.png (38KB, 422x525px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 422x525px

One 4-stand platoon of infantry in this company? What? Or are they saving space by not putting the other two on the sheet?

>>51571392
Oh balls, I am blind. What a stupid place for the second one. Also still, 8 platoons. Ick. You brits have it rough.

>>51571411
>platoons
Stands

I need to go the fuck to sleep.

>>51569222
I'm worried for my FJ. My Panzers will probably be much the same as before. I wonder what they'll do to the yanks, especially their armour and armoured infantry companies.

>>51571264

You're right, lots of things I'm still assuming work the same way as Team Yankee. Being able to add generic core units as support units is interesting.

>>51560958
>>51560923
These rulesets are more than a month old, let's hope they listened to feedback from the people they were given to and they have fixed some of the horrible stuff i've seen.

Is it viable to use snipers vs late Germans?

>>51566969
>With German stormtrooper which allows 2 movement orders 5cm can move up to 8 inches in a turn with blitz, ... 14 inches in a turn with blitz
It can't do either of these things; the two movement orders have to be different.

>>51568039
>A big part of why Team Yankee is having this horrible meta bloat is that so little development was put into the initial book.
I think you're really right on this; it's bizarre, for instance, that they put in the "Accurate" rule, but didn't put in Bazooka Skirts, which every subsequent book used in some form or another. I had a good feeling when I saw Accurate, because I was hoping it'd be the case that they'd already planned out (but not finalised) everything else, too, and so everything would fit nicely. But it really doesn't seem like that looking at Volksarmee and, honestly, even Leopard.

>>51561215
>a single tiger rapes whole British list
I played 2 games with leaked pdf files today, I see a tiger is not a problem for British if you decide to include 17 pdrs in your list, and 2 tigers are even worse.
Having 4 17pdr guns while the Germans have a or two rigers means auto-winning.
Stukas are suck, panzer 4 D do not worth points.
Having spearhead units is essential, as you can always adjusting points to deploy recon units in 50 points reserve limit.
I would say 4th edition MW is British bias.

>>51573774
>and 2 tigers are even worse.
Reading the el alamein rules 2 tigers are actually autolose since you can't have anything on the table, aren't they?

>>51573818
You put them in reserve and deploy the rest of your shit.

>>51573119
Was my explanation that poor?
One is a way to move 8 inches in a turn and shoot as halted ROF by using blitz followed by shoot and scoot, and another is a way to move 14 inches in a turn but without shooting by using blitz followed by follow me. My saying was not using blitz and blitz in same turn.

>>51573774
Since you tested them how's this list?

2x Grant HQ 12pts
3x Grant 18pts
3x Grant 18pts

2x Rifle HQ 2pts
Full Motor Platoon 8pts
Full Motor Platoon 8pts
2x 3" Mortar 3pts
3x Carrier 2pts
3x Carrier 2pts
3x Carrire 2pts

4x 17/25pdr 16pts
2x Hurricane 9pts

100pts

>>51560923
>>51560958
What a mess.

File: C1uf9zsWIAEJ_sz.jpg large.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>51573159
I think a part of this was down to them not thinking Team Yankee was going to blow up like it did.

>>51573934
I like it.
Except 2 gun battery of 3 inches mortar. You cannot hit anything having penalty of -1 to hit being 2 guns, your guns will hit German infantry or gun teams being gone to ground on 6 even if you succeeded ranging in on first attempt. If primary role of the artillery is pinning infantry or guns before assaulting I'd rather choose 4 guns of vickers hmg or 4 guns of 25 pdrs.
Thats why I said stukas are suck.
It depends on how terrains placed on your table though, as always been in FOW.

>>51560923
>>51560958
> Those tiny platoon sizes

If I wanted to play Team Yankee I'd fucking play Team Yankee.

Is it worth it to have the soviet 45 mm anti-tank guns when I already have 57 mm tank destruction company?

>>51574270
I like having 2 HQ support 45mm AT guns with a 57mm zis 2 gun platoon. 45mm guns cannot do much damage to pz4, stug, panther or shermans at front arc but they will need to take at least one or two more turns to clear those little guns to push back entrenched strelkovy company by safe charging after they managed to clear 57mm gun positions.
Imho buying a turn for arriving reserve by paying 40~45 points for 2 guns is very reasonable choice.

>>51574555
They're also FP 4+ RoF 3 volley-fire guns, so if you're assaulting they can come with the infantry and knock out gun teams. 4+ firepower is good shit against dug-in infantry.

>>51574555
Agree with this: they are also handy to light-up Recce and half-tracks, so you can save the Gone to Ground status on your better guns. Quite useful little guns in my experience.

>>51562545
>>51562516
>>51562474
>>51562451
Did the rulebook mention changes in planes anywhere? Because the new rules for planes are substantially different and the old ones don't work anymore.

>>51571392
It think it mean you can have a motor platoon or a antitank platoon as a compulsory choice

>>51574044
Yeah i took them pretty muc only for the smoke bombardment.

How's this one instead?

2x Grant HQ 12pts
3x Grant 18pts
3x Grant 18pts
3x Honey 5pts

1x CrusaderII 2x CrusaderII CS HQ 5pts
1x CrusaderII 2x CrusaderIII 7pts
2x CrusaderII 1x CrusaderIII 6pts

3x Carrier 2pts
3x Carrier 2pts
4x 17/25pdr 16pts
2x Hurricane 9pts

>>51574022
Battlefront always underestimates demand.

They'll produce just enough of something so that they won't break the bank if it's a flop, and then quickly run out of their production run when it turns out to be a smash hit.

>>51574062
Don't knock it until you've tried it. team Yankee is actually a much more fun, easier to understand, and fast playing game in my opinion.

>>51576809
>team Yankee is actually a much more fun, easier to understand, and fast playing game in my opinion.
Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic. It's not going to be V3 but V3 plays so slow compared to TY.

>>51576809
>Don't knock it until you've tried it.
My issue is not gameplay, but with the loss of accuracy for changes that matter mainly at points balancing and force construction (ie: pre-game). They dumbed down and changed shit to less accurate forms in places where it doesn't matter at the table (all these changes to individual AT values, force org), which was 100% unnecessary for speeding up the game itself.

>>51573774
Doesn't matter what the gameplay balance is, the british equipment has worse stats than it should, and some units on the german side have the EXACT SAME GUN but entirely different stats for it. The british shit should be better and should obviously pay the points for it, but having 6pdrs have the same AT as 5cms, having 17pdrs much worse at penetrating then 8.8cms, and making Crusaders have the same fucking armor as the 8-rad make no fucking sense at all. They should have given them proper stats and adjusted the points appropriately, but it seems like they designed the points first and the stats second.

>>51577069
I agree. The core rules may be fine, but the stat fuckery is what has me most worried. There seems to be no logic, or consistency, behind it other than "Germans must be the best at all times!"

Just blows my mind a bit.

>>51577069
>some units on the german side have the EXACT SAME GUN but entirely different stats for it
Wait what?

>>51578077
No idea what he's talking about there desu.

>>51578077
He prolly means caliber or something. I'm not gonna take the time to sort that out tho.

Only thing I can see is the Pz III KwK37 having HEAT shells, which makes it AT 9 instead of 7, but, that's because it's firing the improved HEAT shell.

>>51578181
>>51578156
>>51578077
The short 7.5 on the Panzer III is AT 9.
The short 7.5 on the Panzer IV is AT 7.

>>51578653
The Panzer III ones are firing HEAT rounds, the IVs aren't.

>>51578713
Was the HEAT round never issued to the Panzer IV?

Not like history matters when they give Tigers but no PaKs or Nebs.

>>51578788
Well, presumably not since they were refitting with F2s, but god knows what time period it's meant to represent with Tigers at El Alamein.

Anyone got the feeling they did the math and found the desert was the least-played area so they'd sell more there?

>>51578788
I feel like making historical and nicely detailed and interesting lists falls has taken a back seat to selling new miniatures.

>>51578969
Which is a damn shame, the historical and nicely detailed lists are what's kept me in the game.

File: 1469183391047.jpg (15KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x231px

>>51579544

funny, in the end we will miss the snowflake lists and the vast diversity that was earlier FoW...

>>51579751
The problem isn't the lack of snowflakes so much as running a historical list is no longer supported in the ruleset.
>I want to run a Valentine unit FUCK YOU
>I want to recreate the first Tiger kill (6dpr to the front from a Churchill) DOUBLE FUCK YOU
>I want my infantry platoons to be at their real-life compositions FUCK YOU
>I want to play any of the armies I actually own REALLY FUCK YOU
They literally made accurate lists illegal.

does flames have as much tornie player whining as 40K and infinity?

>>51580034
Nope. Flames is a much better balanced game than 40k, tournies tend to see a greater variety of lists (especially after they nerfed Patton from god to ok). They also switch the points up frequently, to keep a fixed meta from forming.

>>51580034
Nah, we complain about soviets, how the Germans get every vehicle they ever thought about making, and how OP the US is.

>>51580102
>Flames is a much better balanced game than 40k
*was

cheers

>>51580146
>*was
v4 is stil >>> 40k
you seen what 40k is now a days?

>>51580316
>you seen what 40k is now a days?
nah, been out of the loop for a while

>>51580721
It's not pretty.

>>51580146
When you see your opponent's greyknights moving 36 inches in turn 1, swapping his positions for wulfens with librarian formations by psychic succeeding on 2+, the wulfens charging and killing every front line models of yours on turn 1, surviving your models striking back and killing some of ze wulfens but dying by the dead wulfens striking again even though they attacked already, and realizing you can't do anything with your old models bought a year ago and now you are just a dice rolling onahole for his ze imperium fapping, you will not saying cheers for 40k anymore.

>>51580721
Take every shitty game design idea you can think of and put them in one game.

>>51581055
>>51581048
>>51580721
It's a shame really because the core ruleset is actually pretty good in itself, just the codex and formation creep is turbo insane.

File: 4jvl94.jpg (234KB, 1200x533px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1200x533px

>>51581055
Infinity

>>51574022
That rock would be pretty good unit.

I can't find promised re-rolling successful saves of infantry and gun being hit by repeated bombardment of artillery from leaked pdf files. Did anyone finds it?

>>51582800
Well, that's good.

Less good is that even the lighter mortars are 4+ FP now (because that totally makes sense...), and they've lost their direct-fire stats.

Oh, another thing to note is that the Universal carrier is now front 1. I guess the brits are allowed one good thing.

>>51560923
>Honey OP Observation Post
Well I'll have to get the money for my spare honey by going to the ATM Machine and putting in my PIN Number

>>51582800
>>51582882
It may that it was added later. By date alone in the name of the file, this looks like an early version of rules. Check the Mike Target rule - it states that you reroll misses on All Guns Repeat! (contrary to the Mike Target in DR Books).
Also in podcast, No He was +1 to hit infantry and gun teams. In Elalamein book it's another 5+ roll after successful hit. It is quite possible that they were experimenting with different options, so discrepancy we see is result of different ideas ;)

I think we should definitely wait for some recent version of the rulebook...

File: 20170206_115003-picsay.jpg (366KB, 1798x1480px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1798x1480px

I will not buy BF 221 made of resin, instead will use a proxy model made of zvezda 222 and psc 2.8cm

>>51581077
Eh. I think the IGYG and phase system don't work so well for 40k. With FoW the scale makes it a bit more bearable.

>>51581079
Despite its issues it's still better than the clusterfuck that is 40k.

>>51581079
So far infinty feels pretty well designedm despite it's weebness.
>furries
only faggots play bakunan

>>51585189
Not bad.

I sometimes forget how good Zvezda's stuff can be, considering how low priced it is.

>>51585189
Soon, we'll get them in BF plastics as well.

File: 20170206_111930-picsay.jpg (235KB, 1130x940px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1130x940px

>>51585189
I will not buy battlefront's DAK rifle platoon either, will make them using unused hungarian puskas figures and unused 2.8cm AT rifles from psc sd.kfz 250 halftracks, though I need to cut and widen the gun's leg.

>>51589900
At double price.

>>51589900
No, 222 and 221 light recon platoon did not have label (plastic), so I guess they would be resin models.

PSC are making an armoured cars box so I'd just wait it out.

I am planning on recording a short review over Panzertruppen this week. The focus will be covering the new force and formations and armchairing about the possibilities in the post-Volksarmee meta. Is there anything you guys want covered in particular? Well... anything besides Gepard magical realm, because I am definitely doing that.

>>51591329
Leopard 1s vs T55s would be an interesting comparison.

>>51591329
No recommendations for the episode itself, but send me the file when it's ready, and I can upload it to the Panzerfunk podcast.

>>51587607
The only bad things about zvezda are Abrams and threads in general, it becomes evident on tanks with large threads like KV-1, Tiger and Elefant. They didn't put much detail in those tracks and the Abrams has literally 0 details.

>>51591359
You got it. Whatever analysis will be situational, but I will run some numbers and try to give a fair comparison between the two.

>>51591725
To be fair, the Zvezda Abrams is quite possibly the least detailed kit that Zvezda makes.

For more or less the same price per tank as Battlefront's Abrams tank, Zvezda's is significantly worse.

Their Soviet Cold War stuff is pretty good though, as is their Bradley.

As for their WWII stuff, I can't comment since I've only tried their Cold War kits.

>>51592271
>Their Soviet Cold War stuff is pretty good though, as is their Bradley.
And M109.

Their WW2 stuff ranges from okay to great. Depends which you're buying.

File: 39-45.jpg (311KB, 595x842px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 595x842px

the website says that the 1939-41 and 1944-45 rulebook contains inteligence briefings, are these army lists?

most likely as a way not to piss off all of the current FoW players

>>51592802
I believe it's fixes that being the existing Early War and Late War books into line with the 4th Edition rules.

>>51562451
>>51562474
>>51562516
>>51562545

Thanks, anon! Any scans or photos of the other book, so we can see how EW/LW are changed?

>>51592802
The guy going for the faust in that pic looks remarkably relaxed all things considered.

>>51593394
Well that tank's going to need at least a 5+ to hit him, so I get why he's calm.

>>51593394
No shit, he's Fearless

>>51593394
that looks like the face of a man who is thoroughly enjoying the war....

>>51594863
Plus his Gone to Ground status has not and cannot be revealed.

File: IMG_0164.jpg (92KB, 750x874px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 750x874px

>>51593394
This is for nerfing Patton!

File: tank-submachine-gun-800.jpg (56KB, 620x353px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 620x353px

>>51595694
A shame he's going to miss every shot in the magazine.

>>51592802
>Drive closer, so I can shoot them with my pistol

I played, and loved, TY at launch, and it felt like a very strongly balanced game. I felt like most lists, and options, were viable; it was hard to feel like you'd gimped yourself. I played pretty fanatically in the initial launch period, then went back to FOW for a few months, thinking I'd check it back out when it was a bit more filled out. The inclusion of some unused rules in the corebook made me feel pretty confident in the longterm design clarity.

Having played four games with the newer books, using two different lists, I'm not so sure. T-72 felt about right, at launch, being easier to hit but no worse at taking them than the abrams was in return; six tank platoons were pricey but powerful. Now everything's AT 21 or more; their front armour isn't really worth anything. The gun's still good, but given NATO (especially as everything is skill 3+) can always get the alpha, that six tank platoon is mandatory to survive to get return shots.

Likewise, air power is much more fragile with the proliferation of soviet-plus AA; there's not much point to hinds when they're guaranteed to be shot down by gepards if they come on.

The list I can still see being effective is the BMP-horde; given armour doesn't matter and NATO is hard to hit in the first place, weight of fire seems to be a priority, but you really need at least 31 BMPs for that.

Which brings me onto the bad vibe I'm getting; where do the soviets go from here? Within the constraints BF have assigned them, there doesn't seem to be any way to mitigate these problems, and, from battlefront's POV, very little to get excited about. We're not going to see a tougher tank; all the vehicles of the period are about the same, plus or minus ERA. We'll see wheeled APCs, but those won't amount to much. Maybe 152mm SPArt. But, aside from that, with BF constraining the warpac to 3-4+ morale and 4-5+ skill, where else is there to go?

I had a lot of fun, today, but I'm a bit worried BF's going to have climaxed early, here.

>>51598763
That has generally been my beef with the way BF has handled TY Soviets. It's all about pushing more shit on the table. Volksarmy added the T-72M, which is a cheaper T-72 with shittier armor and gun, but better skill rolls; and the T-55A, which is the very definition of hot spammable garbage. They have not added anything to get jazzed about, other than spamming Hinds and adding some token tanks to take down AA.

Personally, I'm waiting on French. Which will likely be spammier NATO.

>>51599118
>other than spamming Hinds
what? how?

>>51599139
Afghantsy. It adds air-cavalry. Basically you get Hinds carrying a fuck-ton of infantry as your core companies. And the infantry is loaded for bear. You're still cannon-fodder at 3+ to be hit, but your skill levels are at least decent.

>>51599118
Honestly the T-72M is probably better than the T-72 given FA 16's stopped mattering anyway. At least you can get big platoons to soak casualties.

>>51599176
Yeah, but you're making it harder for your 1-shot main guns to do anything to the NATO MBTs. T-72Ms are just a way to get more (shittier) T-72s out on the field, and have the pass a few more skill rolls.

>>51599174
I'm not impressed with that actually, one point more, capped at 6 per company and would require 3 maxxed company to carry one maxeed airlanding
I have no idea why that is what it is

>>51599287
The Hind-swarm can shred anything that isn't packing sufficient AA (see west germans...). If you go that route, you go big or go home. Max those fuckers out and treat it like a flying BMP-list.

>>51599365
A flying BMP list that crowds out the fucking table, even as the rotor blades touch.

>>51599238
Yeah, but it's only one point and getting a 10-tank company is feasible with T-72Ms.

>>51601190
To clarify, I think the odds of having some tanks to take shots with with a 10-tank M platoon is higher than with the A platoon. Six tanks feels like what you need at bare minimum to need to not die to a NATO opening salvo, and that's eight points cheaper with Ms.

>>51592240
Cool, thanks.
Or rather, cheers.

i wonder if they will update Afghantsy in Red Thunder....

>>51602046
They might give them an option to integrate the T-64 in.

tbhfam, I just wanted the VDV to have one-piece uniforms and stuff, instead of recycling the strelk figures. Considering NATO's not starved for figure variety, heh.

Wonder if the plastic hummer's gonna have all the itty bitty accessories.

http://flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=576156&afv=topic&afpgj=15#1442894

>people complain about lack of things
>no, no it's all there, you are just missing it...

Interesting how from the whole thread where people express their discontent with the V4 so far, Phil focuses on rebasing the models...

cheers

>>51607346
I've always felt Phil was really bad for ignoring the substance of complaints in order to return a one-liner.

>>51608065
It's about providing the appearance of community interaction without ever having to commit any substance.

Cheers.

Apparently the T-64 is going to be FA 17?

I don't really know what to think about that. It seems like we've basically seen everything the soviets can bring, now; they're all going to be FA 15-17, all have skill 4 or 5, and all have morale 3 or 4.

>>51608210
True that.

Cheers.

Do you guys think North Africa will be enough to get new players into the game? Especially with it's limited options. I could see existing players buying Italians when they come out, but are new players really wanting to invest money and time into a theatre where your dudes look out of place on nearly every other table?

Reminds me of the Forgotten Hope 2 mod for BF2. They started with North Africa and while initial interest was high due to the popularity of the original mod for BF1, the population of players started to go down a couple weeks in. They released other theatres in the following years, but it was too little too late.

>>51608838
I love the desert...but if BF was being smart (ha! hahahaha!), they should have started with a "Kasserine Pass" starter set (US vs Afrika Korps) rather than El Alamein, or gone Eastern Front first. Both better options in terms of sales IMO, especially for the US market. The rest could have followed.

Otherwise, we'll see I guess. Half of my Shutzen and Motor Company options aren't even available in the new lists. I'll give V4 a try, but I'm not nearly as optimistic as I was a few month back.

>>51608838
for me it's obvious the main target of V4 are new players who never played this game before, and maybe some old players who doesn't have NA Brits or Germans as an army and wants to start them. That's pretty much it. Will it be enough to sustain the game? Remains to be seen.

This whole V4 stuff seemed like a rush project from like a year ago. It's almost as if they had a meeting, looked at the figures and went "well, TY is going well, FoW not so well, and we have entire MW to update... I know! Let's make V4 copy pasted from TY with plastic kits! It's going to be smash! Cheers!"

File: PSC 15mm plastic German SdKfz 231 8 rad Armoured Car.jpg (131KB, 636x900px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 636x900px

Some joy from PSC...

>>51608906
>>51608920

I think the British are really hurting for something cool. Right now plastic 25 pounders seem to be the biggest wow factor. Lees are meh, and with the stats on the Crusader I don't see who'f want to actually bring them. I suppose we will get an expansion that adds infantry tank units later on.

With Panzertruppen, Battlefront have showed they are more than happy to release an expansion that more or less retcons the forces in the original book.

>>51609056
>infantry tank units later on.
Sadly, those won't be that exciting either. Especially since it will most likely be Matildas and Valentines (Churchills would be kind of interresting, except that the poor 6pdr got hit with the nerf bat so hard it's not funny).

Then again, that have always been the problem of the brits, they're "boring", with very little flashy kit.

>>51608906
>Eastern Front
I think this would've been a better idea if they wanted the WoT/GuP crowd.

>>51608920
Rushed V4? Definitely.

>>51609056
>Panzertruppen

Over the years I've come to believe that BF often has little or no idea what they're doing.

>>51578788
Both were issued HEAT rounds. Any german short barrel 7.5cm or short 5cm gun in mid or late war is usually capable of firing HEAT. even pak-38s were able to fire HEAT, keeping them relevant in late war.

>>51609056
>Lees are meh
But lend-lease tankovy just became affordable.

>>51609056
>With Panzertruppen, Battlefront have showed they are more than happy to release an expansion that more or less retcons the forces in the original book.
Yeah... I know I keep saying this but when I saw "Accurate" in place for future tanks I thought "Oh, hey, they've planned all this out". How wrong I was.

>>51609283
> even pak-38s were able to fire HEAT, keeping them relevant in late war.
I'm gonna need a source on that anon. 50 mm HEAT sounds like it would be basically useless as I understood the 50 mm L/60 got APCR rounds to keep it relevant (though never in sufficient quantities), not HEAT.

>>51609337
They probably mean stielgranate?

>>51609417
Weren't those for the Pak 36, not 38?

>>51609448
It's the only HEAT munition I can think of that was used in in PAKs below 7.5cm, at least. The 5cm had a HVAP round, but so far as I know, not a HEAT round.

>>51609514
That was my understanding too, which is why I was interested to see if anon knew something I didn't.

File: 20170207_222254-picsay.jpg (427KB, 1380x1635px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1380x1635px

2 zvezda 222s and a 222 pretending 221 with psc 2.8cm AT rifles from sd.kfz.250 halftracks.

>>51609417
>>51609448
>>51609514
>>51609537
This table lists the Stiel-Granate 42 for the PaK38. Might be what the anon meant.

http://www.panzerworld.com/armor-penetration-table#german-guns

>>51609093
I am sexually attracted to valentines, but I guess I am an exception. I was sad they weren't included especially since PSC is doing them in plastic. I would also like some Bishops.

>>51609288
Zvedzda's had reasonably detailed Lees and Stuarts out for a while. The battlefront ones look sexy though. Love the detail on the rivets.

>Panzerpoopin

I think Panzertruppen is solid and probably how the West Germans should have been to begin with. It's annoying having to buy the extra flimsy magazine when they could have just put it in Leopard.

>>51609723
>psc plastic valentine and zvezda matilda in plastic
I guess that's why they didn't included both tanks in 4th MW

>>51609654
Cool! That was fast.

>>51606219
Why would the Hummer be in plastic?

It a little jeep-sized thing. It could easily be done in resin.

>>51610072
Be little or big does not matter.
The rate of selling matter, though.
If BF expect hummers would be sold as much as m113, they will be in plastic.

>>51610204
T-55. Resin.

>>51609772
That's what I am thinking. I think I will stick to V3 if they take valentines away from the Soviets in MW V4.

>>51610239
We all know that was a unique case. We can still give them shit over it but I don't think it will be the norm.

Looks like I'll be sticking to V3. V4 looks like an utter mess, and those redone lists and small platoon sizes look utterly atrocious.

>>51611836
ah, the platoons aren't that much smaller, it's just the lack of company and platoon types that gets me.

>>51611223
M26 Pershings. Comets. All plastic.

>>51612780
Admittedly, enough Comets were deployed that plastic ones isn't utterly nonsensical, and if they were pointed appropriately you'd probably see people actually using them.

The Pershings are indefensible, though.

I'm selling all my FOW stuff except Gebirgsjagers (because they are amazing models) and Soviets because I'm a commieboo. I was intending to get rid of most of that later, but I'm genuinely scared of a mass sell-off when V4 hits. If I don't find an alternate ruleset I like I'm just going to release my own for free because I'm rich and lazy.

I have like 6 big boxes full already what the fuck.

>>51614145
Maybe you should check PSC's Battlegroup, you have the ruleset in the /hwg/. i looked for it as an alternative system to V4 (apart from V3, obviously). It's quite interesting, altought I still didn't try it so I can't say how it works. Maybe someone here played it and can give some details.

>>51614145
>>51614946
Same here...been doing some Battlegroup for a few months, really enjoying it. I'm busy painting new infantry to base individually as it makes for more interesting infantry formations and deployment, but all games so far have been with FOW bases: works OK.

Far more interesting tactical game than FOW, and much better infantry tactics. Also...Soviets aren't shit, and things like the T-34 are actually dangerous. The BR morale system is really interesting too.

So someone earlier was mentioning how dropping the British 6pdr to AT9 was going to make it impossible to kill Tigers.

I was thimbing through my North Africa book and even at AT10 the 6pdr wasn't doing much against FA9 or SA8.

Am I missing something else here?

>>51615647
before it still stood tiny chance against side armor

>>51615647
Yes...it was already underrated at AT10 >.<

File: Thumbnail.jpg (69KB, 559x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 559x400px

>>51612780
>>51612858

Tha't's why we had this nad the British version...

File: 1475841145477.jpg (77KB, 653x428px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 653x428px

I've become cheese, destroyer of worlds

>>51615647
It was still possible to get a double-bail kill from the front or an outright kill from the side. Now you can only go for the double-bail on the side.

>>51615978
And you could at least hopefully keep off the damned 7-tank KV-1 Company of Doom. Now you're completely stuffed in comps or open play against KVs without the 17/25-pounder....and even that got worse.

>>51615933
You sick fuck: you know you're just giving Pete @ BF a new yacht, right?

Do you remember when BF stated after Paciifc was out, that we will get digital lists for other nations fighting in the Pacific theater?

Neither do I.

Cheers!

>>51615647
You now HAVE TO be in the side, and the German has to rolls three 1s, and you have to roll two 4+, and you will probably hit on 5s due to overworked.

>>51616393
That overworked rule doesn't seem to exist. They're ROF 2 stationary, ROF 1 moving just like they usually are.

>>51616412
The overworked rule is in the final rulebook.

>>51616296
I do remember it, but they ever materialized: BF has probably given up on them, or will try to do them in a V4 manner...many years from now, if ever. I was looking forward to the Burma lists.

>>51616426
I think it will be like it was for basic stabilizer on T-55s

File: 1486205120046.jpg (30KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x300px

So what the fuck is going on with V4? What's this about smaller platoons?

t. Guy who was gonna start playing with V3 but is now confus

>>51608947
Oh, sweet!

File: CMP 15cwt truck.jpg (32KB, 300x212px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x212px

>>51618010
Not many changes to British platoon sizes, apart from loss of command teams, the biggest thing for the Brits is the loss of multiple AT rifles in the motor platoon and loss of 15cwt truck transports.

The German platoons stay roughly the same as well, except for the infantry platoon, which loses 2 MG teams and gains a sMG34 team. The German light AA platoon gets a size increase (from 3 to 4) anf the Flak36 platoon gets a boost from 2 to 4 guns. The tiger platoon gets smaller (4 to 2) but who really uses 4 tank tiger platoons anyway. The Light Panzerspah Platoon loses it's radio 222s. Similar to the Brits the German rifles lose their kfz70 trucks and all platoons lose command teams.

Both German and British aircraft have changed, but I don't know in what way (I don't use aircraft)

But the main issue with V4 is the lack of platoon types and lack of company types (Where are my British Rifles? Aussies? Indians? Sith Africans?) and options within platoons for captured weapons and the like, or transports.

>>51610072
I remember hearing it was going to be plastic, is all. It may or may not be.

>>51610239
BF are dumbshits.
>muh there's no room in plastic moulds for t-55 kit
>"not enough demand for the world's most popular tank for it to be in plastic"
>"best germany can't have its awesome helicopter, because no demand for it, but the britbongs get all the plastic, including the entirely unarmed derpcopter"
>tiger with zimmerit
>tiger without zimmerit
>other exotic options in plastic
>only a couple justified in plastic options

>>51608838
>>51608906
Kasserine starter set would never happen, because it would require conscript/low-skill Americans, and BF will never allow Americans that suck.

File: unnamed.png (805KB, 800x544px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 800x544px

Any 8-rads in the V4 books? Because PSC just released new plastic ones.

It is hilarious to see German a rifle platoon running 20 inches in a turn by succeeding blitz, dashing, and succeeding follow me. I expect many things will change in V4, and understand why they removed kfz70 trucks.

>>51618762
>tiger without zimmerit
That was more than likely done at the same time as the regular Tiger because the Tiger uses a set of standardised sprues.

>>51618921
Still, that's two tiger kits, for El A la main dish.

>>51618758
Yeah I think i'm just going to ignore V4 and just play V3 until V5 comes out.

>>51615225
Are there any pdf files of battlegroup?
I have interest on it

>>51619237
yeah, in hwg

>>51618878
Yep. Afrika Korps has a 231

>>51619259
There's so many random d6 rolls in this. What is with british design and thinking randomness substitutes for tactical depth?

>>51619795
The presence of random rolls does not necessarily indicate a lack of tactical depth.

>>51618763
Well by Phil's metrics they would be CT/FT.

>Source: Ratings of Soviet Army at the end of the war and the US lists from North Africa.

>>51619878
Hardly, no, but I've seen a lot of british games working with the "if we have a random roll for everything that's better" style of design.

Important query: If you blitz move, are you GTG at the end of turn (provided you didn't shoot and meet the other criteria)? Same for infantry and concealed-in-the-open.

>>51619944
Yes, well, we all know Phil's metrics are stupid.

>>51619259
What is hwg?
Where can I find the pdf?

>>51620100
Yup
a team tried blitz but did not make any further move, shoot or assault is gtg

>>51620251
historical wargames general, just look it in the catalogue...links to PDF are usually in the first post

>>51620349
OK, thanks
How much points for a regular size game, taking 2~3 hours to play?

>>51618763
There is also the common conception of the North Africa campaign as being the British part of the war.

Sure, Americans were there towards the end, but the British and the commonwealth countries did the vast majority of the fighting in North Africa.

Americans only really start to get their act together for the invasion of Sicily.

So can anyone point me to the Vallejo equivilents of some P3 paints?

Looking for:
Rucksack Tan
Bootstrap Leather
Bloodtracker Brown

Want to replace my P3's with good stuff as I'm sick of the tab breaking off the lids and making it damn near impossible to open the fucking things.

>>51618758
>Where are my British Rifles? Aussies? Indians? Sith Africans?
Snowflakes. Get in the bag.

Seriously, the BF rep was pretty clear that unless it's a massive change to an existing list, it's probably gone. You MIGHT see Command sections or wildcard units to fill some of the gaps, but this edition is all about getting rid of bloat in MW.
>But the main issue
Just use different sculpts, or proxy. Your dudes...

>>51618010
Some dumbass was used to non-British platoons and assumed that everyone was the same. Nothing's changed.

>>51615810
Sure it was.
Also, we don't use emoticons here.

>>51599118
>They have not added anything to get jazzed about
That's your call, dude. You'd find something to whine about one way or another. What else would T-55s be? It's a 1985 game, spammable garbage is basically the T-55 in a nutshell, and gives the Soviets a sort of counter option to the Leopard 1. It's given the WARPACT player another option, and created true to life game situations at the same time.

Do you have to buy an aircaft to get the aircraft dice? Are aircrafts made of plastic or metal?

>>51626004
>Do you have to buy an aircaft to get the aircraft dice?
As far as i know yes
You don't need the dice anymore though since they changed aircraft rules with V4
>Are aircrafts made of plastic or metal?
Resin with metal bits (they don't have propellers).
If you want plastic aircrafts (and with propellers) try looking for Zvezda and Revell 1:144 planes

>>51625664
Except it's not just a case of "your dudes", nor was this a good way to deal with 'bloat' - dealing with bloat would involve not making a unit for every single type of German tank that might have existed, or maybe at some pointed been sketched down - now we've gone to the other end of the spectrum with a complete loss of options disguised as 'stream-lining'.

I can't wait for this to spread to late-war so fun, pseudo-historical lists (because what we've seen in Mid-War is outright ahistorical) will be removed because of BFs inability to make competent decisions.

>>51625675
>removed stuff
>nothing's changed

>>51625664
>this edition is all about getting rid of bloat in MW.
...All the bloat in like, two books? What? Of the theatres you could say there's too many books for it's really hard to accuse MW of that.

>>51625702
A resin spamtank? Man, so jazzed.

The T-55 modernisations were considered 2nd Gen MBTs due to the degree of improvement; the way it is now I struggle to see how they'll even stat the T-55A.

>>51625702
>What else would T-55s be? It's a 1985 game, spammable garbage is basically the T-55 in a nutshell

Yeah the T-55A, not the T-55AM2B with applique armour, laser rangefinder and bastion.

>>51627053
Improved FCS in general, actually.

>>51625702
>counter option to the Leopard
I've been running some numbers for my Panzertruppen review and I got some bad news for you... Slow firing really hurts the T-55's ability to get an alpha strike in.

I need to run the comparison for the T-72M, as that is priced closer to the Leopard 1 than the T-55AM.

>>51625664
I think the added infantry options gave some cool flavor to list building, but I could see why they wouldn't be trying to stick all that in the initial V4 book. Infantry tanks on the other hand? Come on man... Not to mention giving the Germans the option to bring a Tiger at El Alamein. Gotta sell those new plastic kits!

>>51627098
There was some engine upgrades as well, right?

>>51627286
I believe the improved engine was just a standard feature of T-55s after a point.

>>51627144
>Slow firing really hurts the T-55's ability to get an alpha strike in.
On the whiteboard, maybe. In the meantime, there's a fuckload of them, and their guns are pretty good.

>>51627144
Might as well get the Tiger in early, they'll have to do it sooner or later. And it's close enough to Tunisia, where Tigers DID see battle.

>>51627024
>All the bloat in like, two books?
EW and LW. Hence why they did MW first. There's far less to manage and convert, and it's generally a more overlooked period, so it's a good area to experiment on.

>>51628246
OP said "all the bloat in MW". MW was fine.

>>51628223
>On the whiteboard, maybe.
Repeat after me, "how a game went once is not a substitute for statistical analysis".

>>51628235
>Might as well get the Tiger in early, they'll have to do it sooner or later. And it's close enough to Tunisia, where Tigers DID see battle.
The weird thing is that there's tigers but no PAK 40s or nebs. Or, on the brit side, any rifles or infantry tanks at all.

>>51627144
>Tiger at El Alamein

See, I was worried that this might happen. Now that BF has opened the alt history door with Team Yankee their game is going to become less an less historically accurate until they become Dust Studios.

>>51628223
Right, their guns are more than adequate to take out the Leopard 1, assuming they can hit. The main issue is that the Leo 1 will always have the initiative. They can wait in cover gone to ground, and the Leo 1s going from 6+ to 7+ to hit is a huge issue for the T-55's. Alternatively the Leo 1's can also choose to initiate contact between 36"-40" forcing the surviving T-55s to have to attempt a blitz or move to shoot, reducing the number of tanks that can shoot back or causing penalties to hit.

I know the game is more complicated than some basic probability I have thrown together, but I am doing a statistical analysis for several cases to try and pull out how the vehicles behave on the battlefield.

>>51629307
Yeah; slow-firing is the killer. Hitting on 7s essentially means that even a full T-55 company is unlikely to knock anything out. Even hitting on 6s, you're only KO-ing a tank and a half. three leos, meanwhile, will KO 3 tanks. You need that 10-tank company to soak up fire to get to where you can shoot stuff, basically.

>>51630278
and furthermore the T-55 is never going to get the first volley with 10 tanks unless the West German player is mismanaging his Leo 1's or has them tucked into the woods gone to ground at 7+ to hit.

how does Zvezda's hinds compare to battlefront?

Does it exist full scan of Iron Maiden book?

>>51632444
the rules are the only thing that really matters honestly.
the story sucks

>>51632417
They are 1/144 compared to the humongous 1/100 Battlefront ones.

>>51632653
too small then
a shame, they are cheap and fucking would make buying an afgansty force much cheaper

>>51632444
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qafgabqh0806o0m/Iron_Maiden.pdf

>>51632700
Try Revell, I got them dirt cheap (bellow 5 EUR a piece on some Christmas sale), made some custom stands and they are good to go...

>>51625702
>What else would T-55s be?
A T-55. Which is exactly what it is, just with slow firing, no improved terrain crossing ability, and a slightly better crew than the UAR had for the 6 Day War.

You seem to think I wanted the T-55 to be something it wasn't for TY. But it is exactly what I expected it to be. A predecessor to the T-72. Meaning you get a fuck ton of them, and they can't hit for shit. Volksarmie is nothing to be jazzed about not because "hurr BF haets T-55", but rather because it's just more of the same T-72 spam, but now with T-55 super-spam.

How complicated are the Revell kits to put together? I ordered 4 of them and want to know about how much time it will take to assemble.

God damn, those new MW rules they just killed my fav period. I don't want to see what they are going to do with the best book, Eastern Front.

The good thing about FoW is that you can't drop the game and sell everything like 40k because you can use your armies in other games.

>>51628246
It's all knee-jerk reaction. Basically Battlefront got a lot of shade thrown at the for having fuckloads of unique detachment lists all over LW western front, and Germans in general. But not having anything nearly as expansive for eastern front. Rather than research more on eastern front, they instead opted to just dial back their fanboy bullshit for the west. Starting with all the nonexistent unique lists in MW.

File: rem thanks for the treat'.jpg (18KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 680x383px

>>51632818
>Revell
sounds good there's actually store that stocks them like 10 minutes road.
Thanks anon

>>51632905
normally they state the difficultly on the thing.
I'd keep the instructions on hand depending on the item, if i drop by the storethat stocks it and they have t-72s or hinds i'll give you an in-depth description. If i could be arsed i'd do it now

>>51560923
>>51560958
So are they going to change these ones?
Because i hate the stats of all the guns
Short 50mm now AT8 Rof 2 before AT7 Rof 3
Long 50mm same AT9 but Rof 2
Short 75mm different values for 2 tanks that both used HEAT irl.
Long 75mm from AT11 to AT10 this one make me more mad than everything. why did they nerfed one of the most importants guns of germany for both MW and LW, the germans never upgrade it that much so this one can't be an early version one. This mean Pak40 will be AT11?.
Short 88 of both Flak and Tiger being AT14. Just why? what this mean Panther with AT13 or 15?

I don' t even want to talk about the british stuff.

Going to be playing a guy that I know only has StuGs, Panzer IV/70s, and Panthers. This is the list I was planning on using:

HQ - CiC White Scout Car, 2iC White Scout Car (70pts)

Airborne Armored platoon - 4 Cromwell IV (420 pts)

Airborne Recce platoon - 2 Universal Carrier, 2 Dingo (140pts)

Airlanding Platoon - Command Panzerfaust/SMG, 5 Rifle/MG, 1 PIAT, 1 Light Mortar (230pts)

Guards Tank Platoon - 2x Churchill VI with Applique, 1x Churchill IV with Applique (335pts)

Field Battery Royal Artillery - 3x Command Rifle, 2x Observer rifle, 2x OP Carrier, 8x 25pdr (315pts)

Total 1510pts 6 Platoons

Can halve the size of the Airborne recce platoon to add an AOP and make one of the Churchills a VII.

>>51633195
I get the feeling a lot of guns and armor values are going to get reevaluated. I wouldn't be surprised to see more changes like a drop or boost in AP at different time periods to signify worse/better ammo. Or even just rejuggling values to fit their view.

>>51633240
Other change option:
Swap Cromwells for Locusts, replace half of 25pdr battery with M10Cs, add AOP.

>>51633195
I really don't understand why they changed the 88s, Phaesants and 6pdrs. I don't think they were unbalanced in the previous rulebooks, also the Tiger got even more godly than what already was, i don't get it.

>>51634351
I'm wondering...the Panzer IV F2 went to AT10: will the Sherman still be AT10? 17/25-pounder went to AT12 from 13. Will the M10 and PaK40 drop to AT11 from 12?

So far, the Tiger looks to be the real winner in V4. With no Infantry AT options presented so far...what do you kill them with? Air and 1-2 options?

>>51634447
>Air and 1-2 options?
I think you mean 1 option. Brit air is AT 7 and not bombs, so that's not going through side 8. Literally the only gun the brits have that can hurt it at all is 17/25s.

>>51634447
>will the Sherman still be AT10
M3 has AT9 and no gun upgrade, so it's possible they've compressed penetration to the point where they are indeed AT 9.

I really hope the IS-2 gets an armour buff if we're going to see more AT from big guns; they already suffered a lot.

>>51634447
Tiger is now literally unkillable without 17pdr, as wehravoos wanted, but it do not hurts British for the game.
Tiger has limited firepower, 2 shots for 29 points and 1 shot for 29 points if it moves.
The tactics for LW big cats can be applied, ignoring the cat and kill rest of Germans. The tactics can be applied much easily as tigers do not contribute for formation morale and with tiger Germans can't have formation strong list.

>>51634875
>how to make the Sherman V even MORE useless 101
Please BF, make me suffer more

>>51634875
As the IS-2M showed us, more armor does not make that tank any better. It needs to be able to hit its targets. This is (still) why it's a better idea to get the ISU-122 instead.

And keep in mind... Breakthrough Guns are going to have the Brutal nerf. So unarmored teams will go from getting no save, to rerolling successful saves.

>>51635317
If they don't give it slow fire or if they give it rof2 while standing still i think should fix it

>>51635317
And gun teams have at least 4+ save. Re rolling 4+ is a bit worse than 5+ save in math, but still better than no save at all.

>>51635352
Look, I'm not going to get your hopes up with conjecture. IS-2 and IS-2M are both going to be ROF 1 with Slow Firing. Ditto for the ISU-122, but it will still at leasr have Volley Fire. What you will probably see however are faster movement values on the IS than what most "heavies" have, but slower than most "mediums". AT and Firepower will probably remain the same.

>>51635457
>the IS-2 is still going to suck
t-thanks phil

>>51635604
Asiatic horde.

Cheers.

>>51635604
Why would you expect more? SU-100 is probably dropping a point in AT. And I would predict so will the soviet 85mm guns, especially in MW. I don't see the T-34-76 changing in AT at all.

The IS-2 is always going to suck. Get over it.

>>51636147
But why, though, when it was one of the more effective and iconic heavy tanks of the war? Especially when german heavies have been unrealistically good since forever.

>>51636175
see >>51635850

>>51636175
Because the Soviets in WW2 are based entirelu around being the spam horde. And it is difficult to portray them as such, when you begin to represent any kind of quality in their equipment. This is pretty much why the historically wide tracks od the T-34 get left out on the -85, by saying "the barrel would get stuck or some shit". Likewise it's difficult to represent the numbers of SU-100s and BS-3s fielded at once, if given ROF 2. So in the effort of having 1 or no more than 3 Jagdtigers on the board, they were made stupidly high in ROF and given more mobility. But in the effort of having upwards of 7 IS-2s on the board, they were made absolute trash.

>>51636175
I've read a couple IS-2 after action reports, and it seems like as the war went on they were used from greater and greater distances. The accuracy was truly insane, reliably scoring kills out to 2km when terrain permitted. Cat Killers but they won't because it is illegal to release good rules. Cheers

>>51636451
>Because the Soviets in WW2 are based entirelu around being the spam horde
This is honestly so major and hamstringing.

>>51636548
I wouldn't say the accuracy was good, but rather the vehicles they hit didn't survive... Those 122mm shells tended to royally fuck anything they hit. And if the tank did survive (like the Tiger 2), the crew weren't doing well.

I feel like Battlefront is Sassing us again.

>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5458

>>51639046
Perhaps if you stopped taking everything so goddamned personally like a fucking snowflake, you wouldn't feel that way.

Battlefront is just trying to sell their stupid resin spam horde of T-55AMs. It's a superfluous article that amounts to "the T-55's stars suck, and it can't hit for shit; but you can field a fuck ton of them! ORDER NAO!!!"

File: spilled-salt1.jpg (1MB, 1000x830px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x830px

>>51639158

>>51639046

This is worse than the hero IS-2 article.

Basically the T-55 is shit on a stick but you can spam more so it's a better tank! Because obviously as a WARPAC player you slap your asiatic horde on the table and just push them up and Dash speed each turn.

The T-55 will be good in certain situations to harrass lighter enemy support vehicles that either have insufficient AT or rate of fire to deal with them. Running an entire spam list is not going to work because NATO MBT's are going to have them for breakfast.

>>51639046
>It's clearly a piece of crap in a 1 on 1 comparison.

>Good thing you'll massively outnumber your enemy.

I'd be more willing to forgive the swarm tactics aspect of the East Germans if their massive spam tank wasn't an expensive resin kit.

I honestly think that there is a place for T-55s in an East German list, but probably not as their main tank.

>>51639414
This, also with gepards and leo1s west germans can field almost the same amount of much better tanks

>>51639046
>every fucking time they say "quantity has a quality all its own"

Like fucking Christ, isn't this article supposed to be written by at least a semi-professional writer?

>>51641847
That is a professional writing, from who paid by BF, saying buy this shit many

>>51641894
Spamming the same redundant phrase almost literally a dozen times in a small article is very poor form. But what can we expect from BF eh?

>>51639046
Quantity has a quality all its own.

Cheers.

>>51641914
Redundancy? From Battlefront? Impossible.

Cheers.

>>51641914
Literally following the adagium in the article. Nothing wrong with that.

Cheers.

I really hope you're not just Phil same-fagging hard.

>>51639046
I love how they took the complaint "it's nothing but cheap spammable shit" and answered with "but it's cheap spammable shit"

>>51642586
They are in full damage control mode now.
(read: ignore the shit we made with 4V and Volksarmee and pretend it's better this way!)

>>51639046
Loving how this ignores the slow firing debuff that's going to have you hitting on 6s at best. I feel like people don't really appreciate what a pain high hit ratings are.

>>51641344
Nowhere near, still. 10 Leo 1s is 30 points, almost double the T-55.

>>51642841
I mean, saying that, it's also double the shots, which any soviet player can tell you is a massive advantage.

Also new thread?

New bread here:

>>51643069