Flames of War General /fowg/ - Quality of Quantity Edition

File: Desert Rats.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

from the last two threads...

El Alamein WIP book:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2tojibqpyorxjr7/ElAlamein20160907.pdf

>>51642841
Fair enough but you don't get that many tanks more:
With 100 pts a W german player can field 20 Leos and 12 Gepards for a total of 32 tanks plus supports
With 100 pts a E german player can field 52 T-55s plus supports

It's 20 tanks more but the german player can output almost the same amount of shots (only 12 less) with more AT (and a fuckload more shots if it shoots against low armor targets thanks to the gepards) while being hit a lot less and getting the option to fire smoke

Am I the only one that thinks having that amount of vehicles on the table is ridiculous in the Flames of War scale?

>>51643212
Are you talking about TY? Yeah, the levels of spam are high with this one, but it's inherent with the point system. The top tier tanks like the Leopard 2 and Abrams are so good that they devalue everything else.

In my experience the game plays well with 80 points. Sometimes you still end up with Napoleonic firing lines of BMPs and T-72 blobs, but there is still a lot of room to maneuver on a standard board. Though with the T-55 the spam is next level.

I've been thinking of playing some smaller point level games that are more infantry focused to see how the rules handle it.

>>51643161
Yeah; herein is the real issue. 10 Leo 1s are 30 points, vs 19 T-55s. The leos are three-tank platoons, so can all pretty easily be GTG, whereas 10 tank sprawls almost never are. The Leos are going to be able to sit behind treelines and move up to fire on their turn, so they'll get the first shot. 20 shots on one company, most likely, so 13 hits, and we'll assume long range to be nice, so 9 tanks knocked out and the platoon's on 4+ morale, and if they're still around one, maybe two remount, so that's 9-12 tanks left. It's the usual story; NATO can just put out a ridiculous alpha.

>>51643161
>>51643563
muh soviet hordes

t.Phill

cheers

Has anyone noticed Volksarmee has way more poirot speak than Leopards did, despite both being german?

File: eivittumake.jpg (100KB, 537x532px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 537x532px

>>51643762
>mfw kameraden

5/5 research there BF

will we have to field 2x aircraft for v4 late war? painting aircraft is bitch and id rathet stop playinf than paint goddamn invasion stripes again.

>>51644986
Africa didn't have invasion stripes.

>>51645344
Reread his question.

>>51644986
I think so, but I am not sure. I may just try to find a prepainted 1/144 model for my second plane. I agree that painting planes is a pain in the ass.

>>51644986
You can just not paint invasion stripes at all, they started removing them short after D-Day since the planes that had them were too easily spotted, by the end of 1944 they were completely removed.

Not sure if it's confirmed anywhere, but I've seen a rumor that flamethrowers are no longer single shot but are Brutal instead of "you die".

On one hand, vehicle flamers really should get more than one burst, and flamers generally weren't hyper-lethal historically (very good at getting the enemy to give up and surrender, though).

On the other, if you take the mass of dead teams to represent them giving up as well as dying, current flamethrower rules are a pretty good representation. That infantry flamers would have ahistorically large amounts of fuel (if they also can fire every turn) or be utterly ineffective (if they can only fire once) also is annoying.

>>51643762
Volksarmee is written by Americans who don't understand even the hardest left of Communists still think, and speak, like human beings - and not robots.

>>51647075
Uh, isn't the BF crew from NZ?

>>51647108
New zealand, Australlia's Canada

>>51647108
My mistake, but it does come off like American propaganda from the cold war - which it is kind of based off.

>>51647075
>clueless biased Americans
>Americans
>Battlefront

Battlefront is a New Zealand company run by New Zealanders.

>>51647108
Almost the same thing. New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.

>>51647149
>American
Try more like Western propaganda.

>>51647190
>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for sheep.
FIFY

>>51647383
Yes, that is exactly what I said!

>>51647164
Isn't it run by Jabba the Hutt? That X-mass video still gives me nightmares.

>>51646558
WWPD stated what you said - they no longer leave the battlefield after firing, they fire their RoF (like normal shooting), have Brutal rule and hit with AT 2/FP 1+ (so essentially, any stand which fails the save is auto killed)

My first thought, when I heard it, was "Flame tanks are gonna get sooo good". Imagine KV-8 roaming around in groups, fucking infantry and gun teams left and right. Or Crocodille with FA 13...

Then I remembered It's V4 -.-

I've finally updated the Scans Database!

Now available:
- A new version of Panzertruppen
- A new version of Leopard
- A full version of Iron Maiden
- VolksArmee
- El Alamein 4th Ed Leak
- Afrika Korps 4th Ed Leak
- Desert Rats 4th Ed Leak

Pleas note, the 4th Ed Leaks are dated late December, and probably not final.

The design team seems to be from around the English speaking world, mix of people from all over, Americans living in NZ etc.

They do have a real problem with underwriting forces they aren't familiar with. There's a heap of books and digital sources that cover NATO units from the period, and you can just call or Facebook or ask any number of people with personal experience. For the Soviets, they probably just pick three accounts and an inaccurate book on organisation and say 'that'll do'. Unfortunately we're still just at the start of the window where accurate Soviet/Russian sources are being translated, most of the stuff that's available now has an element of bullshit to it (Suvorov). There's lots of good stuff too, but not enough of a critical mass to make some of the definite decisions they've stuck with.

The issue with speaking in banalities like 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' is that it conceals things that don't work on tabletop. Like even with good Soviet equipment, T72's, BMP-2's, 2S1's and Hinds, a 6x4 table is already packed. My game time is already spent almost entirely on team placement so I can actually get to return fire past friendly teams and burning wrecks. Qualitatively it's not any fun!

>>51646558
So, soviet ROF4 flamers. inb4 they're nerfed.

>>51649518
Yeah pretty much everything on the NVA is in German. Unlike WW2 research/documentation there's little demand for translation.

>>51649394

Thank you

>>51649394
It's about time, ya lazy bastard.

>>51649518
This so much. At times though, it feels like they don't even bother finding those dodgy sources, and just slap down shit off the first google search result.

And yeah, for designing a game, they've got to realize when the "good" stuff is already a bit too spammy, that making shitty zergling-tier stuff is just going to bog the game down even further. (Though yes, I am fully aware sales are made on models, not gameisms.)

>>51649982
You're welcome.

>>51650008
I've been busy. And sick.

>>51650167
Only the WarPac stuff feels overly spammy to me. The NATO stuff feels about right.

I think half the problem is that when you have high end stuff like the Leopard 2 in the same game system as the T-55, you're gonna have some problems with points values and spam.

Even with the Leopard 1 at 3 points per tank, I was slightly expecting the T-55 to maybe be a 2 point tank, but it's not even that. It's like 1 1/2 points per tank.

Which makes me think it isn't really meant to be the main tank for East German forces, but more of a support unit, much like the Leopard 1s are for the West Germans.

Although even there, the Leopard 1s are a bit more capable.

>>51651207
Even T-72s are spammy as shit. 15 minimum is a standard for them.

>>51649779
Skill 4+.
And yeah, they'll probably be brought back down to ROF 2.

>>51651350
15 T-72s against 7 Leopard 2s or 9 Abrams doesn't seem too spammy to me. The ratio doesn't seem that unreasonable.

But the potential of 30 T-55s against 8(ish) NATO MBTs? It seems a bit extreme.

>>51651855
The thing is 15 T-72s is a ridiculously wide frontage because the tanks are so damn big.

>>51652677
They've got the same footprint as King Tigers. So yeah. It's pretty tricky.

>>51651855
I don't think it's all that extreme.
i mean you can't really kill them until you reach side armour, and it doesn't like firing on the move or crossing terrain, not getting shot, not blowing up, etc.
or maybe i want to feel like less of a dick for the PSC order i made

>>51652784
Increasing table size to 8x5 feet suits well TY due to enormous size of modern tanks and increased range of AAAservices.

>>51653375
Yeah, the game plays pretty well on a 5x8 with 100 points. Not everyone is going to have access to a table that big.

>>51651207
>T-55 ... support unit

With the way it is, that is what it has to be. Their main advantage is that they are priced like BMPs while being immune to autocannon fire and light rockets from the front. Their are still clever ways to use them, but I am only thinking about using 10 in a list as a spoiling force or something to raid behind enemy lines.

File: polski.jpg (139KB, 596x904px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 596x904px

please comment with your honest feelings:

http://www.strawpoll.me/12306533

thank you.

>>51647164
>>51647149
>>51647108
>>51647075

While that's true, BF are such flagrant Yankaboos they probably wish they were American.

Has anyone tred to combine lower hull and tracks of zvezda stugB and upper hull of BF stug G?

>>51655886
...why though?

How good/bad are the Soviets AT Rifles?

>>51656678
Because plastic BF stug sprue has an extra hull, mg and 3 guns.

>>51647190
>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.
Australia is America's whore, New Zealand can't stand their arrogance. The former is still in Anzus, the latter got kicked out.

File: americo-australian relations in a single pic.jpg (28KB, 620x368px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 620x368px

>>51647190
>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.

Aussies love America much more than Kiwis. Well they did before Trump bullied their Prime Minister, anyway.

>>51658141
>>51657846
We had a big thing where we told the Americans to fuck off with their big nuclear boats. And they did. We do not like America's shit here.

>>51658167
Why? Kiwis are so full of their own bullshit you'd hardly notice.

Cheers.

>>51657300
zvezda stug is a bit oversized for the scale, so might look weird.

>>51656963
They're basically like everyone else's but with more shots.

They're volley-fire guns so they have some use digging out infantry too, but you'd usually want 45mm guns for that.

Generally if you can spare the points the 45mm is a better buy, but if you're planning on assaulting guns or have a terrain-heavy board the ATRs might be better.

>>51658788
>if you're planning on assaulting guns
Do note that USSR ATRs are Gun Teams, while most others (at least German and British, and some Finnish) are Infantry Teams.

THus, the soviets can't assault (they can still strike in close combat if assaulted themselves, of course), but they do get volley fire.
They're also useful as ablative meat for your more valuable guns (45mm, HMGs, what have you) at times.

>>51658839
Damn, you're right.

I can't see much of a use for them if you could buy 45mms instead, then.

>>51658849
You don't buy them instead of 45mm, you buy them in ADDITION to 45mm. (Or because you don't have the points for 45mm)

>>51658849
In V3 it's worth buying them as attachments with your CiC if you can. They can bulk out your strelkovy company numbers for Quality of Quantity. They can also shoot in volley fire over the tops of your other infantry if that infantry is gone to ground. So yeah they are pretty much meatshields, but RoF 2 volley fire isn't bad against lighter stuff.

>>51657846
Australia takes their self-defence seriously, NZ gave up.

>>51659208
Maybe we'll get an OP People's Liberation Army once China takes over New Zealand and censors Battlefront.

>>51659643
there is nothing i don't hate in that post.
>inb4 china is an army of one, but to show the people's collective will china fields armies as large as russia

>>51655732
I like how an outsider would find that poll incomprehensible, but to us it makes sense.

>>51659866

yep!

>>51658399
Because they don't like having a ship pull into port and then suddenly the number of military forces on the island doubles.

Also because they're stupid paranoid about nuclear stuff. Emphasis on the stupid.

New Zealand's a tiny country with a relatively meagre GDP, it's never going to have more than token military forces compared to other developed nations.

PSC just announced 15mm plastic British Stuart I Honey light tank up for preorder...

http://www.theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/

>>51660965
>It's actually more expensive than Battlefront's box of five M3 Stuarts about to be released.

PSC has probably fucked up here.

>>51661094
Well, if the PSC one can do the early M3s and the M3A3 in one kit, it'll still be beating the BF kit on versatility.

If not, or if BF really ups the versitility, that and their Carriers are going to be in a straight cost race against BF's stuff and losing.

>>51660618
Just saying, it's easy for them to talk shit about not needing help from the US while geographically positioned behind someone else who has no choice but to.

>>51661094
I'm seeing £19.50 vs £30 for five.

Side note, when the fuck did BF's tanks become £30?

>>51661497
Probably sometime after the British Pound tanked hard.

>>51661651
they've been £30 for years

>>51661497
Wait, wut?

The RRP I saw for my FLGS was lower than that for the Stuarts.

>>51660618
Not true. New Zealand actually did quite a lot during both world wars. Their current military really has no need to be much more than a token force. But historically when the need arises, they have raised up some very skilled formations.

One such case was WW1 where in Arras, France. Where during the siege a regiment of New Zealand miners were raised up to be sappers, and dig an elaborate system of tunnels under the city. The idea was to dig under the trenchline defenses of the Germans, and come up behind them. It worked spectacularly, and the tunnels and chambers are still there today.

I saw a presentation about this at a conference in Las Vegas for surveying and lydar mapping technology. There's a group from New Zealand going through and 3D mapping all the tunnels.

>>51661672
Then who the fuck knows. In the US a box of 5 plastic medium tanks is *about $45. 5 Resin was closer to $55.

>>51661651
I was going to say that wasn't it because everything else is still £20-26, but looking the $ price is still the same so I guess it is. Real glad we're making our country strong again.

>>51661733
There's a limit to how much you can mobilise out of a small economy and population. Yeah, NZ could have a bigger army, but it's still going to be a dozen divisions at most.

>>51661778
And that is their limitation, in it's entirety. They're a small country. But for what it's worth, the plucky bastards have formed some influential divisions throughout history.

>>51661753
>Maek Brituhn Greaterest Aghen!

>>51661864
Yeah, but my point is when faced with "NZ has a rubbish self defence force", that it could hardly be otherwise. If China tries to invade NZ they couldn't stop it even if they implemented universal conscription or something.

>>51662071
With their geography the issue isn't maintaining a large force of infantry and armour which is quite costly personnel-wise. A sea-air strategy which doesn't require a lot of manpower would be eminently suited but they've let their capability wind down even as the distant powers of the region grow.

>>51662535
They don't have the sheer resources or massive steel industry, to support a sea-based military. Like Japan, they would have to import or gather it from elsewhere.

>>51662071
To be fair, "If China invaded..." is a really shitty analogy. China invading almost any country would be expected to smash the fuck out of the poor bastards on the receiving end. The only countries that could in theory be expected to last against a Chinese invasion currently, are the US and Russia. And even for the US it's completely up in the air due to the massive gulfs between techcnological advancement vs raw manpower and numbers.

>>51662778
China invading the US runs into this issue called "the pacific ocean". Kinda have to cross that to apply any manpower advantage, and tech advantages can very well take the lead overmanpower when you have weeks to stop an incoming fleet.

>>51658141
No one in Australia gives any fucks that Trump gave shit to Turnbull.

>>51662724
Or just buy from the US/Australia. I don't see a modern regional conflict dragging on like a WW2 saga where domestic mass production is required. I think it'd play out more like a Falkland's scenario.

>Some "undefined asian power" tries to make a grab.
>A game of cat and mouse occurs where planes try to sink ships and the ships try to land troops.
>Hopefully the attacker takes too many casualties and calls it off.

>>51662778
It's not just about being able to win a war. It's about maintaining enough of a force to serve as a deterrent to Chinese expansion into your nation's waters. If you don't want maintain a fleet or harbor foreign aid you are just hoping something bad doesn't happen.

>>51662071
Naval invasions are hard; you don't need a superpower's military budget to sink an incoming fleet. I'm not saying it would make sense for NZ to prepare for that. There's no real threat. But if there were one, they could probably defend themselves by switching into an Israel-like siege mentality.

Taiwan thinks about it all the time, but circumstances are different. Bigger economy, 5x the population of NZ. 1/60th China's population. It's within range of Chinese land-based missiles, so a naval defense is unlikely to work without help. It's half densely-populated areas, half forested mountains, so guerilla warfare is more likely to work. It'd get ugly. Though the real problem there is a lot of older people, especially generals, still identify as Chinese (ROC instead of PRC, but they'd rather surrender than risk Taiwan becoming independent from either China).

Was going to have recording done but due to fucking Apple products, half my files got deleted between saves. Too pissed off to start up again until next week. Sorry for the delay.

>>51663114
>Israel-like
Israel still has a bigger GDP. This is what I mean; NZ is ridiculously tiny. It'd be like... I don't know, expecting Albania or something to have a military that's of any real consideration.

>>51662986
Or that you're too pathetically small to be worth overtaking. There are many countries in the world who exist becausr nobody cares about where they are located.

>>51663639
What if Chinese directors want in on some of that sweet Lord of the Rings money.

>>51663677
Yeah, I think China is focusing on the cultural and/or economic victory, and just dumping their money into "defense" so nobody stops them. They have a wonder already, and are currently in the lead.

>>51663594
We're bigger than Britain. Much less people though.

Invading NZ would pretty much be a nightmare. There's so much terrain for Guerrillas to hide, even major roads are in some cases just Two lands winding their way up and around a mountain. Trying to get to Napier wasn't fun in the slightest. So you're either trying to put troops over the beach again, or some Chump with a LAW makes your advance bog down for six weeks. While not to the same extreme as Australia the Farming Culture in this country would provide a large core of people used to surviving in hard circumstances, and a lot of Guns. Sure you can probably hold Auckland and Wellington, but almost anywhere else and it's going to be Guerrilla central. Think a Temperate Vietnam.

Plus there's the whole Commonwealth thing. To invade NZ means you have to deal with OZ, and the Australians have their own Aircraft Carrier, M1A1s and are on the list of people buying the F-35. Not to mention Britain and Canada.

>>51663884
Destroying your country with a guerilla war should be the last resort in a worst case scenario, not Plan A.

>>51664180
As someone said before, only Russia, all of Europe United, and the USA have the power, manpower, equipment and industrial base to resist a Chinese invasion.

>>51664373
Japan would stand a chance. The Chinese Navy isn't quite there yet.

>>51664468
>Japan would stand a chance
Before or after their 1945 surrender treaty gutted their military? Because it sure as fuck ain't after, seeing as their military is only now starting to reform.

>>51663847
>Civilization victory conditions

You sir, are awesome.

>>51664510
Their navy is still superior to the Chinese navy, despite being called a self-defense force. The advantage won't last, of course, based on the how the two economies are doing.

>>51664690
China:
Size 255,000 personnel (2012)
492 ships (excl. auxiliaries)
Approx. 710+ aircraft

Fleet 1 aircraft carrier
4 amphibious transport docks
32 landing ship tanks
31 landing ship medium
28 destroyers
48 frigates
31 corvettes[5]
109 missile boats
94 submarine chasers
17 gunboats
29 mine countermeasure vessels
70 submarines
11 replenishment ships

Japan:
Size 50,800 personnel
154 ships
346 aircraft

Fleet 19 Submarine
26 Destroyer
10 Small destroyer
6 Destroyer escort
4 Helicopter destroyer
3 Landing Ship, Tank
30 Minesweeper
6 Patrol vessel
8 Training ship

Granted technology plays a role and l but... I'm willing to bet Japan's got issues if it engaged in a slugging match against China.

>>51664892
Main problem there is probably the submarines, I think the Japanese fleet could hold their own in a large scale surface engagement.

>>51665861
Technologically... maybe. It's difficult to tell from just raw numbers. But the fact that China has almost as many missile boats as Japan does ships in total, does not bode well. Nevermind the fact that Japan currently no longer has an aircraft carrier. But that's a bit less of an issue as Japan would be on defensive maneuvers. Even if you ignore the subs, China's got the bigger fleet, and a better spread of ships. So Japan needs some fucking Yamato railguns or some shit to really pull the balance back in their favor.

>>51665861
China's anti ship missile system is vast and poses a huge challenge to anyone wanting to contest them in their waters.

>>51665950
they are still a protectorate though, right?
I know I'm a johnny come lately to this conversation but i doubt that japland would have to defend itself alone, I like to think that oceana would jump to it's aid, to a prevent a Chinese take over.
As far as i can see india would likely try to avoid the imperial interests of china spreading and same with oceana because it isn't like the dirty commies(?, let's be fair, they are autocratic and aristocratic more then Marxist ) won't eventually come knocking at their doors.
then again phillip 2 was able to do the same thing

>>51664892
You're forgetting the large blob of American shit. Also China's mostly old hat trash only gets so far with its Quality of Quantity. :^]

>>51665950
A lot of China's "spam" ships are only really suited for zerg rushing Taiwan. If you compare the blue water fleets and account for the western ship's tech advantage it becomes favorable for Japan - bar the wildcard submarines.

>>51665983
>China's vast anti ship missile system
>poses a huge challenge to anyone wanting to contest them

It reminds me 'Quantity has a quality all its own'.

Cheers.

The reaction to V4 on the BF forums has been pretty hysterical, considering how anyone trying to defend it quickly gets btfo.

File: KOngou.jpg (222KB, 850x1097px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 850x1097px

>>51662819
>>51662986
>>51663114
>>51663884
>>51664373
>>51664468

wow, i love this. China is stopped not just by the Pacific, but by the US NAVY. thanks to smart people, we still have an A grade navy in the states. if USA ever dropped naval spending, we'd start giving the Chingos a reason to invade.

>>51664510
>>51664690
ahem.

i know for a fact:
A: China up-rates some of their lower ranking vessels when viewed on paper. That carrier is a 3rd gen Russian/Indian re-build, and a lot of those missile boats are literally some hull with 4 missile racks on them.
B: Japan down rates ALL of their ships on paper due to treaty dodge, a famous japanese tactic. those destroyers are all fucking light cruisers, those escorts are all frigates, and some of those heli-sips/landing ships have enough ASW/Anti-Ship choppers on them that they are literally an Erstatz Light Carrier.

also crews. Chinese Sailors get marks, and are not shit upon. US observers rate japanese crews as top-notch, and last i heard Japan wants good people in their navy, under sudoku level stress to stay good.

2 cents

>>51669206
Yeah, haha. Just wewlad.jpg at this point. I am glad for the new plastic kits at least.

>>51669206
>>51669841

i don't have a recent forums account. how bad is it? has phil sallied forth?

>>51669206
>>51669939

It's the only place that is recieving V4 more poorly than us.

>>51661733
there's actually a movie about that, Beneath Hill 19 or something like that. Lots of tunnel fighting scenes and the like, pretty interesting.

It has some weird pedophile romance subplot that's kind of weird but welcome to hollywood

>>51670201
You're thinking of Beneath Hill 60 which is about Australians, not Kiwis.

>>51669939
Funnily enough, he's been pretty quiet, besides picking small non-issues to chime in on with his little one-liners, cheers included.

>>51669984
Seriously?

I find that hard to believe considering how harsh some people have been here.

Also, what do people have on their assembly or painting tables?

I just got done assembling 4 Frogfoots.

(Frogfeet? What's the correct plural on that?)

File: 985.jpg (403KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1280x720px

>Comment multiple times in the past saying I've got a bad feeling about V4
>Keep saying these changes are fishy and don't sound good
>Everyone says I'm crazy and I'm just overreacting ring
>MFW I was right all along

I WARNED YOU!

File: tumblr_n4mghu2ZB41tydf9to1_500.png (362KB, 427x694px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 427x694px

>>51670344
It's pretty vocal over there, eagles.

VDV, that I'm going to sculpt some flak jackets and extra kit onto, and a bastard's spastiche of figures to model ChDKZ for non-FoW wargaming. Also an assload of early/midwar tonks.

Su-25s

File: IMG_0166.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>51670344
Check out this post:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=576156&afv=topic&afpgj=17

It has all the same reasons for discontent people are bringing up here. No doubt, some of our guys are going over there to stir shit up. Add in grogs freaking out about the Diana being gone and tourney players blasting the thread with their classic brand of crap. Then you have Phil cherry picking things to say cheers while ignoring valid complaints. And chase it all down with people asking I have X list can I play with it in V4.
_______

As far as my painting table I just finished some half track crew and have a platoon of grenadiers to base this weekend along with some more work on the Pumas.

File: IMG_1404.png (51KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x453px

>>51670451
>Su-25s

Ha ha.

Seriously though, is there a correct answer?

I know it sounds borderline autistic, but this is bugging me for some strange reason.

>>51670528
>own a metric fuckton of Valentines
>find out they're only doing Brits and Germans for 5+ months
>that's shit but at least I'm one of the lucky ones
>read leak
>I'm actually not allowed to play either
I was going to run demo games. I was going to fucking run demo games but even my North Africa armies are illegal. My store is liquidating most of their FOW stock and they have carried it since V1. When I looked at the owner and had to say that I did not know a single human being in the area who owned a legal Allied list for new MW, I realized that I had been giving money to retards. I realized that I was going to jump ship. I am putting over a thousand dollars worth of BF models up for sale on the 26th and I am never going to give them another nickel.

File: tmp_21658-20170211_001226304421308.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>51670344
Recycling staff teams. Feels a little like wasted effort with all this doom and gloom.

>>51670843
Surely you must own some stuff that is covered in the upcoming books.

With a collection worth "over a thousand dollars", you must have stuff that is still legal to play out of the new books.

>>51671153
I forgot to mention I'm in orbit, I guess.

>>51670358

yes, you were.

then again, i suffer the benefit of being neutral.

my favorite lists are those crazy jalopy lists with a little bit of every kind of odd vehicle here and there....

those are about gone...i still need to raze the El-Almein book in hopes of a tweak....

>El-Almein is a micro-rulebook, mostly team yankee tweaked.

awww shit.....

>>51671191
At the very least if all else fails we can still play V3. Not like they're going to come and take all our old books.

Can tanks and vehicles dig in?

So as someone vaguely interested in FoW what is the problem with V4?

This week my paragraph is about the British Mortar Platoon (Late) and how to use it, please enjoy! Unfortunately I thought I had the photos, but they are for a future post, the HMG Platoon, so I will get the correct (Three Inch Mortar) ones up as fast as I can.

http://theflamescorner.blogspot.co.nz/2017/02/flames-of-war-british-mortar-platoon.html

>>51673590
That's what we are still trying to figure out and to be honest, we can't honestly answer that question before we have played a game of it.

>>51673713
>>51673590
Battlefront seems to have started developing a nasty case of Wehrabooism. The books don't include staple companies and what was sold as 'Pruning the Snowflake lists' has turned into 'Two lists per nation eat shit otherwise.'

People with lots of staff, observer and command teams are probably narky because they're gone. Completely. The Actual Core Ruleset, well I don't think people have complaints about that yet, what people despise is how the 'Codexes' are being presented.

>>51673725
Oh and random Arbitrary buffs/nerfs, The FlaK36 88 and the Kwk 88 being now 14, and the 17pdr and 6pdr dropping to 12 and 9.

>>51673725
>>51673751
Pretty much this. I haven't really looked at the core rules yet, but my main complaints are, in order:
1) Removal of a lot of models I have (Transports, Spotters, Staff Teams, Gun Platoon Command Teams). Several of these models were stuff I enjoyed building, painting and/or putting my own spin on, and it will be sad to not be fielding those.
2) Arbitrary buffs and debuffs (buffed 88mms, nerfed british guns over all). Especially since it reeks of wherabooism
3) The lists presented, both in HOW it's done, the blandness, and the lack of options (though that one will presumably be fixed with time).

Oh, and scrapping anything exciting for the brits, but of course having to have the fucking tigers for germans.

>>51673751
Don't forget the long-barreled 7.5cm KwK for the Germans also being nerfed.

Honestly, it looks like they're compressing armour and AT ratings a bit, which I consider a decent move since those had escalated a lot, especially in LW.

It's just the 88 that jumps out because it's the only gun that didn't get the nerfbat but actually a slight buff.
On the other hand, the various 8.8cm armed units all lost their potential RoF bonuses.

>>51670843
I would say you can play V3 still but I understand your frustration. Not including one of the most iconic tanks from North Africa was shit. Expecting existing players to dumb down their list and play one of two formations is shit. I was wanting to do an infantry tank company with some Valentines.

Seems like they really want to move their new plastic kits. The only market I see people coming from are people who started playing Team Yankee. We'll see if this gets then the sales they want.

I am sure when they do Soviets and give them all POTATO 2+ to hit with one T-34 list and 1 strelkovy list In a 40 page hardback I'll feel the same way.

I wouldn't sell off all your mini's though.

>>51669788
>those destroyers are all fucking light cruisers
These days destroyers tend to be heavier ships than cruisers so I'm not sure there's much point making the distinction.

>>51672413
It's really hard to grow a dead game, though. Nobody plays warhammer anymore, for example, they all use the armies for KoW or 9th, or rebased for AoS.

>>51673725
>The Actual Core Ruleset, well I don't think people have complaints about that yet
I'll start you off:

They've changed morale to TY morale so enjoy never having soviet companies run ever.

>>51671167
>3k Russians
>1500 French
>1500 Polish
>1000 Kradschutzen
>2k Romanians
>2k Gebirgsjagers
>1000 Brits
There is other stuff but that is almost everything I own.

>>51674742
Don't be hasty anon, it might not be that bad, and I've heard some mods are being proposed.

>>51675021
Oh no I'm keeping the Russians, those are painted.

>>51674247
Well sure, but therexs plenty of stuff that already exists and plenty of players already.

I'll still give V4 a chance, and hope they don't butcher my armies, but the stuff we've seen so far with army lists isn't super promising.

Maybe Italians, Finns and Hungarians are so small they won't change them much because that would require taking more time away from jerking off to Germans.

>>51673713
>birdy

a little bird
with a little bill
was sittin' on
my windowsill.

>>51673821
brits really needed Matildas, Valentines, and oddly, Shermans

>>51676123
>brits really needed Matildas, Valentines, and oddly, Shermans
And a Rifle Company. I can kind of understand why they didn't bring along all the different Rifle Companies (Aussie, NZ, Indian...), but a basic RIfle Company, and Infantry Tank Company, would probably have made the book much more welcome, if only befause more players would then have ready armies.

>>51673821
>though that one will presumably be fixed with time?
Don't count on it. The Devs were explicitly trying to cut down on the huge bloat in 3rd. Most of that bloat being fairly minor variations.
>Tiger
It's the Tiger, though.

File: Valentine Armored Formation.jpg (253KB, 2375x1125px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 2375x1125px

>>51676148
Can you nerds stat me up the armor and movement for the Valentine II and Matilda II? Working on the formatting right now. Battlefronts points and unit cards make this hilariously easy to make.

>>51673590
There isn't. V3 had a huge problem with having a dozen books filled with lists that were more or less the same, but for a small change, or a slight adjustment in units. V4 is looking to blow all of that shit up, and scrape away a lot of the fairly meaningless padding elements FoW previous suffered from.

In other words, it's been heavily streamlined, and the grogs aren't happy.

>>51676148
You've still got LW and EW, though. I'm sure they'll pad out the lists once everything's settled down.

And serious, infantry tank companies? When did you ever see those? You saw them as support and as gimmick lists, but that's about it.

>>51676574
Just look at North Africa (in the OP), has all the stats there.
From memory, the Matilda is armor 7/6/2, gun RoF3-AT7-FP4+ (it's a 2pdr, I think those were statted for El-Al). Valentine has 1 lower armor all around. Slow and unreliable for the Matilda, only Slow for the Valentine.

>>51676584
Being unhappy that units you paid money for and enjoyed modelling were removed from the lists does not make you a 'grog'. No sensible person would be happy about that.

And they cannot even pull the stupid arguments GW can by changing the fluff, these are real units in a historical game.

>>51676769
How should I handle tactical movement and dashes?

>>51676830
Tac 8 inches for being, terrain dash for 12 inches, cross country dash 14 inches and road dash 16 inches for being just slow tank, subtract 2 inches for each dash for being slow tank and unreliable.

>>51676584
You do realize that the list bloat was mainly in LW, right? LW, that is almost completely untouched by V4 so far. Meanwhile, they couldn't even give the british an infantry list.>>51676619
>And serious, infantry tank companies? When did you ever see those? You saw them as support and as gimmick lists, but that's about it.
Do note the complaints in this thread about Valentines.

>>51676123
>a little bird
>a little bill

Mah nigga.

>>51660618
Its also not strategically important, so never has to worry about being invaded.

>>51676812
They're just staff teams. The average FoW list dwarfs any spotter or staff/command teams you can't use anymore. Beyond that, reuse them. Use them as objectives, add them to artillery bases, etc.

You still enjoyed modelling it.

>>51676907
>You do realize that the list bloat was mainly in LW
EW was starting to get it, and generally suffered from the same problem, even if it wasn't as catastrophically redundant as LW tended to be.
>note complaints
Yeah, now that they're taken away they're big fans.

>>51676907
>Do note the complaints in this thread about Valentines.

This is probably the most I've ever seen people in these threads talk about Valentines other than the obligatory puns every February 14th.

>>51677500
I think people were hoping to have a chance to build an infantry tank list once a plastic kit is available. Either way they are big part of the North Africa campaign to leave out.

>>51677650
Indeed. I was looking forward to finally putting that Matilda list together once V4 dropped. Now, looks like nope.

>>51676123
>brits really needed ... Shermans
Amen to that...

>>51677203
Neither were the Falklands, until a dictatorship whipped up a revanchist fervor for domestic political gain, sometime bad things will happen for no good reason. A well funded military is like insurance.

>>51677722
The same argument could be made for so many lists, though.

At the moment, it's early days. Make the figures if you actually like them. Beyond that, they're something of a dud option in game. There's a reason you see them so rarely.

>>51677484
>play semi-historical wargame, where C3 teams are kind of mandatory, where command is very vital to getting shit done
>it's all removed 'just cuz'

You realize, the more they dumb down this game, and the more ahistorical it gets, the less their target audience is going to want to play the game right? The GW strategy of going after 14-year-olds with mum's money isn't going to work, when kids aren't even interested in history these days.

>>51678006
It's not a dumbing down. It's a streamlining.

Not everyone has 4 hours(if you include set-up and breakdown) to dedicate to playing a game anymore.

I know I don't.

A faster playing, smoother playing game is a good thing in my opinion.

Simple is better than complicated.

My biggest hurdle to trying to get people interested in FoW has **always** been the over complicated rules.

Meanwhile, people I've demoed Team Yankee for seem to prefer the faster play, and easier to learn, easier to understand rules.

>>51678190
What's the point in playing anything larger scaled than a simple skirmish, if you're not going to model the chain of command?

>>51678283
What are you talking about?

You have a company commander, sometimes a Company 2IC(depending on the list), and then platoon commanders.

That hasn't changed.

>>51675065
And the rest aren't? what's wrong with you?

>>51678457
He could be one of those (like myself) that really enjoys modeling, likes playing, and HATES painting.

if you demand everything be painted but don't convert for accuracy, you're badong.

>>51677650
PSC doing Valentines...I was deffo gonna do a company. Despite being pretty rubbish, for some reason I've always loved the tank.

But I probably still will, just do my own thing or use the V2 North Africa list, etc.

>>51678574
>He could be one of those (like myself) that really enjoys modeling, likes playing, and HATES painting.

Seconding this. I love putting stuff together, and I love playing the game, but painting is a long and tedious process that I'm not even all that good at.

That's why I love using color primers. It cuts down significantly on painting time.

>>51678006
>the less their target audience is going to want to play the game right?
You think history grogs are their target audience?

The guy at cancon was talking about the intimidation factor the list building and book system was to newbies. Historical gamers are't who they're after.

Also
>C3 teams are kinda mandatory
Yeah, and the game actually has a more sophisticated C3 system than V3. It just doesn't have an arbitrary commander team all on his own.
>just cuz
Yeah, they did everything arbitrarily. Pull your head out of your ass.

>>51678283
Have you even looked at the new rules?

>>51678734
No, I'm just getting guaranteed replies.

>>51678728
>Yeah, and the game actually has a more sophisticated C3 system than V3.
we're being rused

Well, regardless of edition, what minis are you guys working on?

Personally, I'm working on some Panzers III and IV for some desert war action.

>>51678967
Long or short barrel, or uparmored, anon? (and don't you dare refer to them by letters, young man!)

>>51678967
Shermans, of course.
(A platoon of sandbagged M4A3s, 3 75mm, 2 76mm)

>>51678661
>battlefront sees PSC doing Valentines
>ohnoyoudon't.jpg
>removes them from the game

Now who's laughing?

>>51678992
Do gotta admit that weapon/armour description is easier to grasp for casuals than model letters/numbers.

So short 5cm and bolt-on armour.

>>51679009
Excepting that Battlefront make their own Valentines. That's just shooting themselves in the foot as well.

More over that's some Geedubs levels of stupidity and spite. I don't think they're that stupid.

>>51679026
I'm not a fan of casualizing, but yeah ezpz. The new plastic kit's gonna be tight.

>>51678967
On my painting table atm:
1 Typhoon
1 Auster AOP
2 17pdrs (airlanding) and crew
202 PSC Paras
8 25 pdrs and crew

And on the modeling table:
Stuart PaK conversion
White Scout Car conversion to airborne version
Academy minicraft spitfire gap filling
Scenic objectives
Hills

>>51679026

Yeah, that was a big point of confusion when I first got into FoW. Like 60 different variants of Panzer 3 and 4, all of them looking pretty much the same.

File: 15cm Schweres Infanteriegeschütz 33-1 auf Selbstfahrlafette 38(t) bison.jpg (46KB, 324x247px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 324x247px

>>51679054
Germans, man. Overwrought and overblown.

File: Valentine Armored Squadrion Inf Tank Formation UNOFFICIAL fowtg.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Rough draft with some fuzzy text, but this should get you everything you need to run a valentine formation in V4. Didn't slap on overworked for the Valentine VIII because it is already missing out on the coaxial MG. Opinions welcome.

>>51678967
On the desk: 4x King Tigers for a local gamer, some Japanese (10 down,about 150 to go...), and some new infantry to be individually-based so I can try other games (Battlegroup, Chain of Command, etc.) in 15mm.

>>51679226

Looks pretty, good, except for two things: (1) Vals and Matildas were not mixed, except some Val units had Matilda CS tanks as there was no Val CS variant; (2) the other problem is BF have left out the support these units would have, i.e. that from Infantry Divisions. They weren't generally found supporting say Motor Battalions. But it's still a very good effort, I guess you just need points for Rifle Platoons, and the equivalent of maybe CV 6-pounders and 25-pounders as those in the book are FV IIRC.

>>51678006
>when kids aren't even interested in history these days.
>what is world of tanks
>what is war thunder
>what is girls und panzer

There's a load of kids into historically-adjacent stuff these days.

>>51679571
>tanks
>tanks
>tanks, anime shit
These things chiefly misinform. They fetishize, in autistic fashion, one type of equipment. They teach nothing important about history.

>>51679761
This is a pretty great statement because this basically describes wehraboos, who weren't invented by GUP.

My point is there's loads of younger people who'll buy a game about pushing tanks around. They don't need to have a fixation with orbats to have an awareness of and interest in WW2-themed stuff.

>>51680030
And my point is they don't buy those games because they have an interest in history, but in cartoon portrayals of kool tanks. Historically-adjacent is very apt, and better describes FoW than ever before, but I don't equate it with a genuine interest in the period's history (not the technicalities of orbats, either).

It's all rather slimy and cynical. $$$

>>51678967

Cruiser Tanks for EW....
a certain BT-42

nothing much, other projects have jumped up and taken a lot of my FoW time...

>>51680222
>a certain BT-42
If it's not trackless and driving on one side, I will be vaugely disappointed.

>>51680151
Right, because everyone who's ever played FoW has been a history BA. Come off it. The only difference between the target audience of the old FoW and the new FoW is one grew up with MMOs and anime.

>>51678967
Still working on the arty teams for my 75s. Just bought a new detail brush, so I can finally get back to work on them.

Now to find some new paints because fuck I'm sick of these P3 paints.

>>51680288

you are asking for a shit-ton of conversion work....

be disappointed.

has anyone tried list building from those 2 leak books, just for shits? anyone trying to salvage either fun or playability from those?

cheers!

>>51678967
FINNS.
I love that they get some of everything.
I'm trying to find a way to have German, Soviet, Finnish and British equipment all in one list.

>>51682215
Yup, made awesome list - 60 Stuarts.

Brits are now soviet spam tier. I don't want to think how the soviets will look in v4 eastern front...

>>51680222
A certain BT-42? Mind sharing?

File: 1486858724986-picsay.jpg (70KB, 800x565px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x565px

>Maximum wehraboo

>>51682215
The game is absolutely playable and fun.
AT nurf/buffs of the grogs complaining about does not matter for gameplay at all. If you already have models did not included in El Alamance edition it might be frustrating, though.
I am anticipating for incoming US and Italian book.

>>51682215
I'm considering playing the new edition but ignoring the books - which look like steaming garbage. I dread to think of what BF will do to Late War.

>>51683099
I'm hesitant about what'll happen to my poor Italians. They'll either stay the same, or get worse. I have no faith they'll get better.

But sweet plastic tanks makes me happy. Hopefully it's not JUST M14/41s that we get in plastic.

>>51683099
>does not matter for gameplay at all
No, but it does matter for my immersion.
>17pdr worse than 88 at penetrating
>6pdr can no longer do what it did historically
>15mm barely sloped on the 8-rad is the same as 49mm on the Crusader II
Like, really, the wehrabooness of these is fucking horrible. It doesn't matter for gameplay one way or the other as long as the points are balanced, SO WHY REWRITE THE STATLINES TO MAKE THEM LESS ACCURATE AND CHANGE THE POINTS AS WELL?

File: Get out of my head! Get out of my heart! Away baby I wont fall apart!.gif (3MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x169px

>>51679761
>GuP
>not historically accurate

File: namesEmporer Achilles Ajax Phantomschrift1.jpg (64KB, 1050x337px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1050x337px

>>51683363
This so hard.

>>51683634
>tiger turret traversing remotely that fast

>>51683099
>AT nurf/buffs of the grogs complaining about does not matter for gameplay at all.
If they don't matter, why did they go out of their way to make everything less accurate? The existing players are pissed because it makes no sense. New players either don't care at best or notice there are issues and get upset too. Again, the BEST CASE scenario is not caring on the player's part.

Why? I'm guessing that permitting players to disable Tigers hurt Phil's fee fees.

>>51683826
Normally I'd say you are crazy, but they went out of there way to make the Tiger even more of a juggernaut. Even the only allied air support option uses an autocannon which can't scratch the Tiger. Are they that desperate to sell a few plastic Tigers?

File: I want to beleive.jpg (308KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1920x1080px

>>51682912

>>51684048
i mean it's still 29 something points.
and if people play 80-100 points then they'd move more resin tigers then

>>51643102

i seriously hope we can take more than one of each formation,

looking at the PV of units on the leak, if we can't take multiple of each of those brit formations, we will have monobuild coming up pretty fucking soon!

File: 100% sad.jpg (45KB, 442x740px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 442x740px

>>51686438
There will likely be a monobuild
It will likely be german

>>51678967
I just discovered Team Yankee, sounds cool, so I came here from my usual /k/.

Since I'm not sure of what kind of force I'll be building, I got, built, and will weather today a 2S1 Gvozdika and a ZSU-23-4 Shilka, these should fit fine in pretty much any redfor unit.

>>51686820
They'll work well for either the Soviets or the East Germans, the two WarPac nations currently in the game.

>>51686820
Hey /k/omrade. Both of those are solid multipurpose units.

>>51685681
There's the TANKS boxes or Buying the big box in preparation for the Eastern Front. It is really expensive, I give you that. But I think it will be pretty easy to work into a list when the only thing you have to do to keep it alive is stay away or DFS the Pheasant guns.

>>51686438
That's explicitly how things are going to go.

The goal is to create a monolist for each nation, and have all of the smaller lists as formations for it.

So you can basically mix in whatever, and there'll be allied slots and wildcard units and HQ units for character.

File: IMG_0174.png (689KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 750x1334px

>>51686531
>>51688465
>>51686438

Yeah they way that formations work is you will have one force tree that is composed of various formations. Formations all have separate command and morale. It's a nice idea from team Yankee that should make list building a lot easier.

I think the monobuild the other anons are talking about is a single list that is THE list to bring. I am not sure if that's a thing, but maybe it could be. This El Al stuff seems a lot less Rock Paper Scissors than Team Yankee was early on.

>>51682911

Look at the force diagram. You can't spam honey's because you only have one honey formation. Even if you are maxing honey troop options in other formations you won't have much more than 20 of them.

>>51688739
That is unless you can copy paste formations, which is fucking sloppy work from Battlefront. They should have given a set number for each option like in TY.

>>51688765
>>51688739

"Your Force must contain at least one formation and may contain as many Formations as you like."

I think it's clear you can take multiple honey formations...

>>51688840
That specifies nothing about how many of each formation you can take, but I see what you are saying. Really sloppy work from Battlefront.

File: Desert Rats Formation.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I see no restrictions here, like in TY.
Minimum of one, maximum of infinity... -.-

>>51689134
Some team Yankee force trees like Panzertruppen did have lists to tone down spamming of certain powerful formations like M113s with Milans. If not for that a list with 42 infantry teams supported by 36 Milan teams and 36 M113s (with enough points left for 4 Gepards) would be a thing. Not saying the Stuart is that powerful, but still 60 of anything would be awful to have to play against. And before we say that we'll never see the spam lists, I have played against the hordes of BMPs in TY and some guys around the shop can spend and paint at an alarming rate.

>>51689269
>limits not lists

File: quote-the-sadness-will-last-forever-vincent-van-gogh-43-91-63.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

>>51688465
>>51688739
>>51689134
>>51689269

> monobuild
> spam
> even less of a historical element

Looking at the V4 starter boxes, how's this for a demo setup:

>>Brits

>Grant Armoured Sqn

Sqn HQ: 2x Grant
12 pts

Grant Armoured troop: 3x Grant
18 pts

Crusader II Armoured troop: 3x Crusader II
5 pts

>Support

17 pdr AT troop: 2x 17/25 pdr gun
8 pts

Total: 43 points

>>Germans

>Panzer III Tank Company

Company HQ: 1x Panzer III (short)
10 pts

Panzer III tank platoon: 3x Panzer III (short)
15 pts

Panzer IV tank platoon: 2x Panzer IV (short)
12 pts

>Support

8.8cm Heavy AA platoon: 2 8.8cm AA Gun
12 pts

Total: 44 points

File: 20170212_154715-picsay.jpg (2MB, 3944x1865px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3944x1865px

V4, no more frustration from seeing your infantry platoon fails tank terror test and gets wiped out next turn.

>>51686820
Fair warning, the 2S1 is generally pretty balls with the soviets. East Germans might have some use from it with 4+ skill.

>>51688973
Can't wait to post the question on BF's forums and get told condescendingly that it's "obviously" X interpretation and the only reason anyone would think otherwise is intentional trolling.

>>51689884
The forums are a mix of a daycare for the WWPD crowd and retirement home for grogs. Phil is the nurse going around making sure everyone is taking their medicine.

Anyone had a chance to put East Germans on the table yet?

>>51686820
>>51686937

hey, a /k/ bro!

they only have 2 Red Forces now, but we will get a full awesome Sov'Update this year, so USSR can use the DDR releases

(funny right? game companies...)

>>51686937
>>51687028
>>51689869
>>51692037
Thanks for the advice guys! OK, I went for a Soviet-style livery, so that will be it. Too bad that the 2S1 sucks, but hey, it was $3.50, thanks Zvezda. Now as far as I've seen, updates tend to massively change things, so I'll be getting a company of T-72As and some regular infantry, these will always be useful anyways, I'll get specialised stuff when the update comes.

And to join that guy >>51691714 , anyone tried the Volksarmee, especially their T-55s?

By the way, Plastic Soldier Company is bringing to the market boxes of five T-55s, with the possibility to do the baseline version or upgraded ones, in April! These guys are legit, I've bought several times from them, the models are quite good, they're quick to assemble and can compare positively in terms of looks to some display/realism-oriented models.

>>51692554
My buddy and I played a 110 point game of East VS West Germans. Fuckin bloodbath. They play about as you'd expect. I was hard pressed to hold back the Red Tide, but at the end of the day the Leopard 2s carried the battle. Fuckin terrifying to set up your couple platoons of infantry, maybe a tank platoon, and some AA and see that fuckin wall of vehicles and infantry come rolling at you.

>>51692554
We are well aware of PSC's T-55s.

They're picking up a ball that Battlefront massively fumbled.

Who makes their massively spammable swarm tank in resin?

>>51693211
Folks trying to Rush their product out the door

>>51693410
Yeah, the Leopard 1 didn't need to be included in the West German wave, they could have set it aside for a second plastic release like the speculated M60. I can buy the T55 excuse, but with the Leopard 1 they knew exactly what they were doing.

File: 1465657249554.jpg (88KB, 1277x671px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1277x671px

I shared the leaked V4 stuff with my club and everyone's already talking about quitting the game.

File: jew tales wooo hoo.gif (3MB, 345x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 345x258px

>>51693792
jesus, i forgot about the leo 1.
yeah i wouldn't think such avid wehraboos would be so jewish

>>51694352
I don't get it, isn't V4 like TY, and people loved that.

>>51694660
t.Phil

Cheers.

>>51694660
My personal experience with my group is that they started out liking TY but the more they played it the more they thought it was awful.

>>51694660
The core rules are 5/10, streamlined but also dumbed down, up to personal preference if improvement or not.

The leaked army lists a 2/10 what the fuck nonsense.

>>51694706
Similar experience here. Basic rules are fun but the list construction is allowing the more competitive players to field increasingly extreme spam lists. It's starting to put the rest off.

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

875KB, 2000x652px

>>51693211

I do.

naw, seriously eagles. we love the idea of plastic T-55's. i myself am thinking that way too...

good thing it's april..that army is still pretty much in that condition....

>>51689813
That infantry platoon deserves to get wiped out.

>>51694987
It's a real rock-paper-scissors game, and some scissors are exorbitantly expensive (airmobile, BMP hordes, fuckloads of gepards).

I feel like the balancing is getting worse with every successive book, which isn't a good place to be in.

How do you counter a red horde of infantry, lots of artillery?

>>51695663
Machine Guns. Lots of Machine Guns and cannons.

>>51695663
If V3, mortars. One hit from arty pins them, QoQ makes no difference, so having a bunch of mortars to spam rerolling-first-attempt hits on them is a tasty way of pinning them and knocking a few stands off. HMGs are nice too but will mostly just kill them.

File: uft.png (350KB, 692x236px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 692x236px

Anyone else noticed how much BF's photos have gone the GW route, by only showing off their shitty battlefield in a box stuff? I miss seeing their scratch-built tables.

>>51696155

true.

i have a few 1st/2nd ed books that really have a ton of handmade BF terrain. they were rather proud of their meager stalingrad set up, by the choice of photographs they included. and they had some good boards.

now, i can see they are selling a product line....

...overtly

>>51697095
>>51696155

I believe that GW's tinkering with Warhammer/AoS (destroy setting then reboot it) combined with non-stop output of new miniatures in all settings they owned made other companies believe that they can repeat the process and get the loot.

Trouble is, GW is too big, and you need to be a real idiot to slam it into the ground. BF is not GW - not in size, capacities or anything else. So by taking the similar route they expect similar results.
So stupid. Pay in mind that GW never excluded any models from WH/AoS - you get scrolls for almost any model they produced, ever and you may use them in games... And then look at current MW range - something's missing? Of course it is. I believe half of the shit flung at BF would be gone if they didn't excluded all the things they already have from lists.

>>51697463
Well, some of the older factions like Bretonnians, Tomb Kings etc, some of them have actually dropped off the map since General Compendium was released. Also good luck to you trying to play Sisters of Battle, they've only been barely updated since Late 3rd Edition in the early 2000s.

>>51697463
>Pay in mind that GW never excluded any models from WH/AoS
As an ex-TK player, I don't believe you.

>>51697463
This. A bunch of their crew used to be GW, and they seem to struggle with the concept that they lack the intertia to survive fuckups like the big bad has.

Also that's a good point with AOS and supporting all existing Fantasy models. What does BF think will happen to their sales in MW product that doesn't have rules? Will people still buy the dozens and dozens of blisters that are only really viable in MW, or at least they were until they were placed in limbo? So
>EW and LW are in hell because everything is changing EXCEPT points
>95% of MW is in hell because it doesn't fucking exist
What will their source of income be for the next year plus? Does Team Yankee provide enough revenue to hold the entire company together?

File: I'm not crying.png (232KB, 500x278px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 500x278px

>>51697936
>As an ex-TK player, I don't believe you.
what's the matter anon do you know like playing deathrattle(TM) in your DEATH GRAND ALLAINCE (C) In Age of Sigmar

File: pic3074427.jpg (3MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x3264px

I'm not sure if it's a good thread for my question or should I start my own one but I will try.

I'm thinking about buying a Tanks starter set for my friend who is interested in tanks. Is it any good? People are describing it as an X-wing with ___tanks___ but components quality doesn't seem to be as good as FFG stuff but it's undestandable - Tanks prices are 30% lower compared to x-wing prices at my LGS. He has never played any wargame yet so is it newbie friendly? Also is one starter set enough or should I buy two or an extra model for one faction to balance it?

File: team yankee micro.jpg (158KB, 738x520px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 738x520px

>>51670344
Did a bunch of 6mm TY stuff over the weekend, need to buy a NATO force in the same scale so I can actually play it with somebody.
Luckily its cheaper as chips, but Ive found buying little tonks even more addictive than buying 15mm stuff.

Why RPG-7 of Volksarmee has FP 4+ while Soviet one has FP 5+?
Maybe typo?

>>51698047
> Does Team Yankee provide enough revenue to hold the entire company together?
It might be. TY seems making money and if the old chicken does not provide enough eggs BF wants, that's why they change entire FOW range into TY style.

>>51698214
The biggest barrier is the assembly and painting (which is up to you and your group as to how/if you paint your minis). Your friend will need a pair of sprue clippers, a hobby knife, and a good plastic glue with a needle applicator to get started. The plastic kits are pretty simple builds.

The other barrier to entry is terrain. You want a lot of terrain and buildings on the board to make the game more interesting.

Does he like tanks instead of spaceships? Honestly I would say it'd be better to just get into X-Wing.

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

hahahahahaha back-pedalling like an anarchist on a tandem bike

cheers

>>51699483
This looks like the same article?

>>51698426
noice.

>likes 6mm better
my afrikan soldat!

>>51699483
>that article

and we are ALL gonna go to PSC to get models to play that spam....

gratis

>>51699672
No kidding.

Affordable plastic tanks for a spam list is pretty much a no-brainer. Especially at their pre-order prices.

>>51699483
It's funny because if their T-55 had accurate gun stats (and the MISSILE IT ACTUALLY HAD) it would be expensive enough in points that at least some people would buy it from them. As is the model is simply too cheap to be viable in resin.

>>51701944
Perhaps the Soviet version will have the missile.

>>51701635
Between my existing Soviet collection and the PSC T-55s I have most of the available WarPac stuff covered, with the exception of the various E. German armored cars.

>>51699105
>Your friend will need a pair of sprue clippers, a hobby knife, and a good plastic glue with a needle applicator to get started
I'm an AoS player so paints, clippers, brushes etc. are not a problem.
>The other barrier to entry is terrain
Also not a problem - LGSs are well equipped with them. Making own one would be a lot of fun too both for him and me

>>51705184
Sounds like you guys are good to go. Tanks is a little simple, but it plays pretty well when you have a bunch of terrain on the board to block LOS.

>>51701944
>and the MISSILE ONE OR TWO IN A COMPANY ACTUALLY HAD

>>51706291

It would be one or two per tank, but many companies would not have them.

Though to be fair, everyone needs to stop sperging out about not getting them with the east germans - as far as I am aware GLATMs were only ever deployed with soviet units - either the other warpac countries couldn't afford them, or more likely the soviets were keeping the best gear for themselves.

Also, what do we think the odds of the T-55AM being the shitty baseline model with better ones like the Merida and Dyna for Poland and Czechoslovakia respectively?

>>51706393
>Also, what do we think the odds of the T-55AM being the shitty baseline model with better ones like the Merida and Dyna for Poland and Czechoslovakia respectively?
Zero. They've established the differences between most soviet stuff fall below the threshold they represent (and then lowball from there).

>>51706393
It could be. We honestly don't know yet.

We don't even know if/when Poland or Czechoslovakia will be added to the game.

The next upcoming releases for Team Yankee seem to be expansions for the American and Soviet forces.

I think a Canadian list might also be in the works since 95% of the equipment they used is covered by kits that already exist for the Americans, British, and West Germans.

>>51706393
I heard that command tanks alone got them, and that was in the Russian units.

>>51661877
>triggered by the concept of someone being happy about their country's economy doing well
What an utterly miserable existence you must lead.

>>51706393
I'm almost certain we're not getting Polish lists.
>"something something would they really be different enough to bother?"

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

408KB, 2048x1425px

A documentary for Phill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAXtbsMtUxQ

>>51708184
Soviet propaganda

Cheers.

File: IMG_1017.gif (9KB, 524x220px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 524x220px

>>51707977
Sure buddy.

>>51706393
The tanks (excluding the Polish one) were fitted with the equipment to shoot the missiles. The AM2 upgrade program leaned on the added killing power and anti-helo utility of the missiles. The Bastion was expensive but not within the realm of "secrit USSR only equipment donut steel".

Bastion for the NVA *is* a bit beyond the 1985 timeline but so is the camouflage scheme depicted and the T-55AM2 as a whole.

Why even add the tank to just use as chaff spam when they could have reboxed the AIW T-54/5s?

File: image.png (229KB, 458x347px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 458x347px

>>51699636
It's just so cheap, and cracking open the box from the postman and seeing shitloads of little tanks is the best feel
>15mm serfs considering selling sexual favours to fund volksarmee
>£50 could buy you so many 6mm T-55s you couldn't even hope to field them all at once

>playing Phil's fukksarmee

>>51709484
> The British economy turned in a steady performance in 2016, growing at the fastest rate among the G7 economies. Growth in the sixth months following the EU referendum was significantly stronger than some had feared pre-vote, when the Treasury and others predicted a Brexit vote would result in recession.

Riiiight...

>fastest rate among the G7 economies

Cheers.

>>51711830
Yet the pound still sucks, and has yet to recover.

Pull all your snippets from unknown sources about how the economy is doing great, but the end takeaway from BBC's own report is that things are just now finally stabilizing and beginning to recover. The economy itself is doing better than was predicted, but inflation is up. Unemployment is (finally) starting to decline, and the construction industry is starting to recover as well. The trade deficit shrunk a bit, but that's moot because Britains still imports far more than it exports. Even worse is because the pound is so low, that hurts Britain's reliance on imports.

So overall, it's a mixed bag of dicks, with the economy as a whole doing alright, and everything else slowly recovering from one of the stupidest decisions of last year. But despite everything 2019 is when the results will actually be seen, as that's when Britain is slated to finally have removed itself from the EU.

And on a last takeaway, hate crimes and religious abuse jumped sharply after the vote, and have been decreasing. But I chalk that up to Britain temporarily trying to be as retarded as the sibling-fucking south of 'Murrica.

Who let reddit in?

>>51712741
The post quality is still too dumpster-fire tier to be reddit. Only 4chan could be this shitty.

File: [booing intensifies].png (130KB, 321x304px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 321x304px

>>51712293
You hoping for a Le Pen victory to make it a hat-trick?

>>51712293
> le BBC

Hahahahahahahah....you fucking cucked moron.


>And on a last takeaway, hate crimes and religious abuse jumped sharply after the vote, and have been decreasing

You mean..some Britons have decide that they actually *want* their country to be theirs instead of Shitistan? I'm shocked.


>>51712963
Make France Great Again!

>>51713168
>>51712963
>>51712293
Fuck off with your politics. We have enough things to be pissy about in here without real world concerns.

I'm still kind of hyped for Late War V4 because of the expected nerfs to artillery making my Five/Six KT list more powerful.

>>51707977
Our economy isn't, I was being sarcastic.

Has anyone heard of any leaked LW V4 sourcebooks yet? It's only a month away... they have to be around here somewhere.

>>51713707
uh
>>51643102
>>51643139
>>51643154

>>51713707
LW Isn't for V4 quite yet. There's free books due out on the eleventh, but the next Late War Book is the Berlin Compilation which is like, Third Quarter at best. Fourth or Next year at worse. Mostly it'll just be a series of Tweaks I am led to understand.

>>51713843
I'm referring to the free books - the rulebook and the conversion book. I need to start list-making as soon as I can!

What's the point of even releasing the Berlin compilation now that everyone has moved on?

>>51713821
I mean the 2 x free LW V4 conversion books. I've already given up on MW - the lack of list diversity and historical accuracy for the sake of gaming irks me.

>>51713890
>>51713870
The Eleventh of March is when my FLGS quoted me. But check with yours or get one from BF directly.

File: IMG_1422.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>Looking at the rather pitiful table I have set up
>realize I need to expand/improve my terrain collection
>also realize I don't really have too much extra money to do so

Being the driving force for this game in my area can be painful at times.

Anyway, wish me luck with tonight's game.

>>51714243
That's still better than me Mate. I have:
>Tabletop

I don't even have a green sheet yet.

>>51714243

You should look the terrain tutor up on YouTube. He has tutorials on how to do terrain a few different ways so you can optimize time and money with quality. I think you mainly just need a few hills right now.

>>51714384
The green sheet belongs to the store.

Everything else in the photo is from my own personal collection.

At the very least I feel like I should buy some trees to put on those cardboard forest templates.

And perhaps some additional sections of road.

Af for getting a sheet, Battlefront is supposed to be putting out a two sided grass/sand 6 by 4 playmatt sometime soon made from the same mousepad like material most of the nice playmatts are made from.

>>51714463
I've been meaning to try to make cardboard and newspaper hills.

My job gives me access to a lot of corrugated cardboard, and newspapers are cheap enough.

>>51713707
We have a store copy, what do you want to know?

>>51714582
Try this guy if you're looking for cheap
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsmD5774MOQhjYBkXqu3Jdw/videos
he sources most of his materials from the poundshop here in Bongland, but im sure you can find something similar in the US

>>51715065
Strike Aircraft working like they do in Team Yankee. Are they in for Late War?

>>51715065
List building for LW is same as MW? I mean is there a grand detachment (or decurion whatever it called) and several formations under its command and common support units shared between the formations?

>>51715648
Gonna have to check the book tomorrow for a lot of this but lists in V4, at least with the standin books, are as they are now, with the exception that taking multiple lists isn't an awful idea anymore because they break seperately.

>>51715877
What about points value? Are points adjusted for new rules?

>>51716319
Nah, the conversion guide literally makes the rules V4-intelligible. Most list construction is the same (except for where the new rules have some impact, like multi-formation being viable because formations track morale seperately).

>>51716435
>>51715877
So basically LW and EW balance is shot. Joy.

>>51716435
Well, C&C red alert is now come with V4, I guess.
The most feared result now come true.

>>51716615
Huh? How so?

I'll admit to not fully understanding the 4th Ed changes yet, but I don't see how it suddenly becomes like Red Alert.

>>51716544
Yeah, it's a get-you-by. In some cases the changes are minor but some are massive and I'd expect significant differences in outcomes, generally.

>>51716544
I expect the vast majority of stuff won't become unbalanced.

But gamers being gamers, I expect that the highly exploitable stuff will be found and used by the Win At All Costs gamers.

>>51717210
My main issue is that a 3"/80mm mortar is now AT 1 FP 4+, and 25Pdrs are AT 3 FP 4+. Yes, the 25pdrs have a direct fire stat, but we all know how useful that is. The price difference for what is effectively the same bombardment (at 4 tubes each) is 65 points. That's enough to take the 3" mortars to a 6-gun and still be less points than the 25pdrs. Oh, and since Mike Target has basically lost all importance, there's not even a special rules reason to use the 25pdrs.

>>51717570
And Man Packed is now 3+ save vs the 4+ for the heavy 25s, and gun shields seem to be gone so the 25 pdr is also now easier to kill.

But hey, it's not like these two options are in nearly every british company, inviting obvious proof the rules aren't balanced... Oh.

>>51717640
>inviting obvious proof the rules aren't balanced...
That would require people play limeys.

>>51717570

Yeah, so the basic mortars aren't useless a lot of the time. Great. The idea that anti-infantry mortars, exactly the kind of tool you'd use against dug in positions, are useless against dug in positions most of the time, was just ridiculous.

>>51718277

new bread, gents

>>51717570

Dingus, you know the mortars only come in pairs, right? And that they're useless for AT work, unlike the 25 pounders?