Flames of War General: Soviets: Pretty good this Edition.

So expectations for Americans and Italians when they get dropped?

I imagine 8MB won't change much if any, but I'm curious how they'll work it in with the stat cards.

I also wonder if they'll make platoon sizes smaller for infantry. Right now I can run 16 stand platoons without trouble. I also wonder if they'll up the platoon sizes for M14/41s or if they'll stay a max size of 5 tanks.

>>52199589

tfw no SG-43 machine guns.

>>52202793
I´m at least expecting most US armour to be rated Aggressive for their is-hit-on scores.
Should also provide a nice contrast with Brits using the same gear since they'll probably be Careful.

>>52204550
Pls no fucking stabilizers on the Lee...

Planning on writing an article detailing the changes to Tankovy and Hero Tankovy in V4. Looking for some community feedback as this is a little more complex than running statistics.

Do you think hero or standard tankovy benefit more from the V4 changes? Is there a Tankovy list you are excited to put on the table for V4 that you wouldn't have used in V3? Are hero IS-2s a valid list now?

>>52204726
Both guns stabilized, MGs stabilized

Cheers.

>>52205855
B-b-bastards...

>>52205821
I'm curious to see what the initial thoughts on this turn out to be.

My gut reaction is that it is still too early to tell, but perhaps there is some early data to examine already that might point to a trend.

>>52205821
>Are hero IS-2s a valid list now?
Nah, their fundamental problem (not enough offensive presence) is unresolved, and they still are just durable enough to pay a lot of points for it without being durable enough to ignore enemy fire.

What does high-speed jet mean in v4?

In v4, there are no countries with interception except for the Japanese army.


Looks like do not need to use a jet.

>>52206592
Jets were pretty pointless in V3, but now they're even more pointless. There's a bit of interception with the Pacific lists and EW Brits, but only the pacific lists can even be fielded in the same points system as the jets so...

>>52202695

Why the fuck did they not put all the stuff in the V4 books?

Are they seriously going to release another book to give us Sherman's and Churchill when the models are already available?

They must really need to make those Grant kits pay for themselves.

>>52206946
I'd imagine splitting it by battle / campaign is the main reason.

The Sherman tank was a late comer to both US and British forces in North Africa.

>>52207155

Well this would make sense to me but then they put the 17 pounder and Tiger in.

>>52207155
>I'd imagine splitting it by battle / campaign is the main reason.
>Tigers/Pheasants before PaK 40s and Nebs/Shermans and Churchills
lolno
It's about how much sweet plastic crack they can sell you without PSC taking their business.

>>52207248

Yeah expect the tank coverage in books to correlate with new kits. I don't think battlefront is any hurry to support the Valentine or Matilda in MW.

Why the flying fudge are there two Flames threads?

>>52207647
Begun, the version wars have.

>I am guessing someone derped and forgot to check before making one.

>>52207647
Is imagine two people both went and started new threads when the old one was about to 404.

Either way, this seems to be the active one.

>>52207248
>It's about how much sweet plastic crack they can sell you without PSC taking their business.

That's a rather cynical outlook.

Ok, yes. They're a business and they need to make money, but I assume there is some additional reason as well.

>>52207355
>I don't think battlefront is any hurry to support the Valentine or Matilda in MW.

Not being a MW player, can someone explain to me why people are so hungry for the Valentines and Matildas?

>>52207842
Valentines/Matildas are bricks of fuck your shit, you can't hurt me, with an itty bitty gun.

Also, they're infantry tanks, whereas what we have now are not. Makes more sense historically to have those and infantry instead of cruisers and infantry.

>>52207842
The Valentine is my favorite tank and I really wish there was a viable way to take an army of them. Just valentining all over someone.

>>52207842
>Not being a MW player, can someone explain to me why people are so hungry for the Valentines and Matildas?

PSC has elevated the Valentine from "In the Pipeline" to "Forthcoming Releases". I would be excited to use the valentine or matilda to help protect the infantry component of my force from enemy tanks.

If Valentines aren't supported in MW North Africa by the time PSC releases the kit, I'll probably just paint them as soviet Lend Lease tanks for EW and LW.

>>52207842
Valentines are the Tank of Love Anon: you don't hate love, do you?

Matildas are great because they're like the King Tiger of EW and are super cheap at £3/tank from Zvezda. Like £15 to make an EW list?

>fluff stories in V4 books
>Soviets basically fail everytime

They don't even try to hide their hate anymore.

>>52207647
Tripfaggotry is why.

>>52208583
Did they ever?

>>52208730
Not a single tripfag in this thread.

>>52208583
> Flames of War 'fluff'

It's just solid Wehrabooism and a meme tier understanding of WW2.

Remember kids - the only thing the Soviets did in the war was throw people (only half of whom who were armed) at the Germans with their amazing technology which is, of course, the basis of all modern technology.

>>52209419
THE MAN WITH THE GUN SHOOTS, THE MAN WITH THE BULLETS FOLLOWS

File: 1489553009381.jpg (36KB, 722x517px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 722x517px

Checked my new patton eagle box. Other than a few broken machine guns it looks fine.

I feel like the last time I opened it a month or so ago it had a armylist included but I cant for the life of me find it.

Does anyone have a screenshot of the army list slip that goes in the box?

>>52209848
Shouldn't it have come with a copy Bridge at Remagen? anyway you can find that in the Scans database

>>52209900
Yea it came with the book but I remember it also having a "Sample army list" slipped in with it. Unless I am mistaken.

>>52209419
They also didn't invent and perfect the concept of the Operational tier of strategic planning.

They also didn't cleverly and creatively find ways to take a nation that was largely made of poorly-educated rural folk - who mostly had never seen motor vehicles or electricity - and train them all to function in a modern army.

They also definitely didn't come up with any equipment that was a match for what the Germans had.

Psst, Hans! Hide the 12cm sGrW42, you're undermining the point I'm trying to make!

As I was reading through the scans, I noticed that there a points set up for fielding Japanese in a LW setting

Wouldn't this be suicide against somebody who has any semblance of armor or am I missing something

>>52210006
It sort of is. You're encouraged to only use LW Japanese against an appropriate LW US Pacific list, not against a LW European list.

Unless you're a grade A masochist

>>52202793
Have they said when they'll be dropping?

>>52210051
They said Americans were coming in september in the most recent Q&A interview. GF9 listings have spoiled the M4A1 for the british in July.

File: 0a51437cebccca1084f5ce7b4f0afb6fc5749f1ce6aae1e5b319da1474d74156.jpg (60KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 850x400px

mfw going through V4 rulebook
mfw all the infantry teams are clearly going to be downsized and combined with mg and mortar teams
mfw no more command team and six infantry team units

>>52210436
Brits have separate MG and Mortar Teams. So not all of them.

>>52210006
>Wouldn't this be suicide against somebody who has any semblance of armor or am I missing something
You can take up to 4 (IIRC) tank hunter teams per infantry squad when you deploy so if you're facing a lot of armour, deploy those, night attack, charging them with the human bullet teams (remember they always continue the assault even if everyone else is driven back) and hope like 16 dice of improvised TA 4 kills whatever you pointed them at. It's very feast or famine.

And it also makes the sherman pointless in PW points because it's insanely easy to deal with.

Hey, up in Ohio for family stuff, does anyone know if there's a hobby shop that has Flames stuff near Toledo?

What are some good sourcebooks for someone who is looking to run some JagdPanthers in their list?

>>52212350
Desperate Measures is the best one because you get CT Jagdpanthers (JPs are expensive enough you probably want to avoid going Veteran) and a ton of flexibility in other options.

Bridge at Remagan might have JPs in it, I can't remember. If it did they were overshadowed by the Jagdtigers.

Atlantik Wall had a list and a few other books include them but I remember them all being rather mediocre Briefings in V3

All the books should be in the OP so just download the LW ones and root around. V4 rulebook includes a list of the up to date LW books.

>>52212652
>Atlantik Wall had a list and a few other books include them but I remember them all being rather mediocre Briefings in V3
Even trained are, I feel.

>>52210436
I wonder what they'll do to my Paras and Fallschirmjägers.

And my fucking Udarny.

>>52210436
Except all of that is wrong, and you're just spreading panic for no reason.

>>52213721
Except it's clearly not and all evidence shows that FoW is going the route of Team Yankee infantry composition

>>52210436
>mfw all the infantry teams are clearly going to be downsized and combined with mg and mortar teams
Only the German motorized infantry who did get their support weapons mixed in historically have been like that so far.
Brit Motor platoons were always tiny, just as they are in LW.

>mfw no more command team and six infantry team units
I don't expect proper British rifle platoons to change at all, desu.

>>52213801
What, based on actual historical composition?

>>52207842

Matilda's are one sexy looking tank.

>>52214034

I should specify Matilda II.

>>52210045

Cool, time to reenact Sittang Bend.

File: 1436179981380.jpg (89KB, 420x480px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 420x480px

i had a weird hard on just now....

i wanna see a MW V4 book that has Falschirmjagers in it....

and...i wanna see if they are crazy enough to add the Gliders....

...then rub it up against my V1 Diving Eagles book.

>>52208583
>>52209394

Our beloved Italians are also ALWAYS on the end of a thrashing. Every diagram with Italians has them retreating

not entirely unrealistic for Italians but it'd be nice is the Soviets and Italians got the same hero treatment as phils favorites

File: IMG_0239.jpg (373KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1024x768px

>>52214128
B-but anon, you don't think I'm kawaii.

File: 1483833696176.jpg (78KB, 460x562px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 460x562px

didn't they say V4 would have formation cards that allowed you to play alternate formations?

what if the vehicle boxes each come with that?

what if the new tiger box....

???

>>52218652
There are supposed to be card packs released for each individual nation.

So a German pack, an American pack, a British pack, a Soviet pack, so on and so forth.

>>52218652
>>52218735
I sure can't wait for the invincible Schwerpanzer Tiger company. It's not like 6pdrs ever hurt them or anything.

Yes I am disappointed in V4, why do you ask?

>>52216365
I'm not surprised; I just hope they don't get either totally fucked or practically ignored.

Also; we all know that WW2 was just the USA vs. bad guys with the occasional British side character.

>>52218818
A whole, wait for it. Three Tanks. Just like it was in Mid War previously. Lose two tanks and start taking Formation Last Stand Checks.

>>52218892
Have to lose those tanks first. When aside from a platoon of AT guns the enemy can't hurt you.

>>52218944
You also have only 13 points left over in a hundred point game. So good luck defending both objectives.

>>52218944
Bring planes? Swarm them with infantry(it's how my Italians killed a Tiger)? Use good positioning to hit their weaker side armor?

Just because they're strong doesn't mean they auto win. Focus on one tank, take it out and the game does the rest. Also; don't think the only stuff getting released is what we currently see.

Hey guys new to the whole flames of war thing in general and really want to try the game out. Main question is does FoW or TY have anything like dedicated volunteers that run demo games? Or is it pretty much find a forum and hope you find a gamer I'm your area willing to run you through it.

>>52219424
Basically the latter. They used to have people who'd do that for you, but then the plan got kicked in the head because Battlefront didn't support it properly.

>>52212652
NB that lists which felt mediocre in V3 might not be so bad now that eg Recce isn't mandatory.

>>52216365

I have to say, I was interested in getting Italians for mid-war but looking at their armour of WWII didn't fill me with confidence.

By far the line I read the most was 'it was already considered obsolete by the time of its introduction'.

What is the appeal of the Italians in mid-war? I want to be convinced since I'm sick of the same old boring Panzers.

File: 14836408594721.jpg (47KB, 496x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 496x600px

I'm trying to understand. Is the Forces army builder connected to BF's mobile app with books? It didn't work with my login, so I had to create a new acc with the same email.

Does the android app have any kind of army builder? Does it work with new North Afrika books? I've only seen the option to purchase them, but no force builder is present. I just want to build a 50pts DAK list, but can't find a way to do it in Forces or in the app.

It sounds like forces consisting principally or entirely of tanks are common in this game. Does this make units with rifles and machine guns a generally poor investment of points, where they can be avoided in favor of bigger guns?

>>52220981
Avanti and spaghetti movies.

>>52221073
Infantry can generally zerg-rush tanks, if they've got the numbers / aren't just thrown straight at them like bullets. Gun units are handy. But really, you'll want dedicated AT weapons.

File: 20170317_175342-picsay.jpg (109KB, 737x422px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 737x422px

>politically correct air signal flag

>>52221190
They look pretty plain. I'd put like, an Iron Cross on there in the centre. Or just do the Swastika and let Political correctness hang. Unless you're in Germany. Or next to it and likely to play Tournaments there.

>>52221232
Given that he called it out himself, odds are he just hasn't finished them yet.

>>52221190
If you're going to do ahistorical and have flags draped over tanks, might as well go all the way and make them dumb iron cross flags or something.

File: nazbolgang.png (42KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1200x800px

>>52221190
There's still time to make them Nazbol tanks

>>52220981
You don't choose italy for its tactacool weapons and tanks. You take them for their flare and the fact that they're a challenge to play.
I like the fact that i might get poor infantry or elites fof cheap. also you can horde infantry

>>52219056
Swarming with infantry seems quite hard to actually kill it? Like, I'm not sure how you end up surrounding it with enough infantry before an assault that it'll not be able to safely break off. Using a second platoon to prevent breaking off would require setup that presumably could be countered, and just using the one platoon requires multiple counterattacks to get enough men in position. I'm not sure that one stand on each side would be enough to prevent break off?

>>52219056
Infantry swarms literally can't hurt tanks anymore, so that's not going to work.

>>52219056
Unless you propose his infantry clamber all over the Tiger and snark it to death with complaints about the rule changes, I don't think that'll be much help in V4.

>>52221835
They could force him to break off and then destroy him when he was unable to safely break off? Very hard to do, needing a bunch of infantry but seems possible in the rules from the EW/LW book

>>52221835
Tell that to two of the three StuGs that tried assaulting a LW Streklkovy blob of mine several times last night.

Okay, I lost more than half the unit knocking em out, but that was because I was stupid enough to have no integrated AT or AT guns nearby.

>>52222099
That's true, but if you've managed to do that you've gotten insanely lucky or your opponent is hopelessly inept.

>>52222180
Actual V4 lists, not the hack-jobs on the EW/LW stuff. Tank assault is gone, so heavy tanks are immune to damage from infantry.

>>52219056
>Bring planes?
AT7 vs side 8 or AT 3 vs Top 2, good luck with that.
>Swarm them with infantry(it's how my Italians killed a Tiger)?
Assault distance got massively reduced so surrounding them is extremely hard now, and TA ratings are gone in favour of hitting side armor (AT 5 vs 8).

>Use good positioning to hit their weaker side armor?
Max AT is 9 outside of Pheasants, so that will take quite some time to do anything.
Even then, only things that can do that are Grants, Crusader IIIs (which have +1 to hit now), and 6/25 pdrs (which he'd have to wander into and present his side to)

>>52222430
First off,
>No true Scotsman argument

Heavy tanks are immune to infantry without proper AT weapons, yeah.

However, if they get surrounded and then lose their nerve, they will still be unable to break off and be destroyed.
So, aggressively pushing a single Tiger towards some infantry will probably lead to those infantry moving to surround and then assault on the next turn.
Then, if the Tiger fails to counterassault (only a 50% chance) they'll be cut off and destroyed.

You can also use cheap vehicles (like recce) to cut off escape paths.

>>52222520
Charging distance is reduced, but infantry have willingness to charge can move up to 12 inches before charging (tac 8" + follow me 4"), so I'd say it become easier to surround slow tank with infantry.

>>52222678
We're talking about the potential tiger list in Version 4, come on, man. Nothing has "proper AT weapons" in V4, at least not in assaults. It's all AT guns or nothing.

And yeah, it's possible to work around it if you're lucky or your opponent's awful but it's a really glaring oversight to not give infantry any weapons capable of dealing with close tanks when historically that was among the worst places for a tank to be.

>>52222689
You can't assault if you've moved more than 10", unless that's also different in MW.

>>52222830
An unsupported Tiger has a roughly 50% chance of being surrounded and killed by not being able to break off when facing off against a Motor Rifle platoon plus some fast vehicles to cut off the escape, like some Universal Carriers.

So yeah, being in close with infantry unsupported is a huge risk for your massive points-sink Tiger.
As is historically appropriate.

>>52222846
The 10 inches restriction is against tactical move and follow me is not tactical move. So infantry moved 12 inches in the movement step can charge into contact.
Somewhere in forum there is Phil mentioned about it.

John Frost and any unit with their unit leader within 6" pass motivation tests on a 2+. Does that mean that any British Bulldog units will automatically pass the test to counterattack?

>>52223233
No, they point out that units passing on a 1+ still fail on a 1, it just provides insurance against negative mods

>>52222885
If it gets to that point which is a hell of an if. You've got to be initiating an assault, for one, having not taken losses getting there, and having had a light vehicle move behind in such a way that it's impossible to break off anywhere from the first assault, which realistically he's going to do if it looks like he might get cut off. Don't forget also that stuff that can't contact no longer plays any part in the assault, so your odds of getting more than 2-3 stands into combat are very low, and that's with one who'll be doubled up behind someone, so you have two stands to try and surround, realistically.

It's not impossible but if you've done it you've gotten really lucky (either on dice or by having a board full of stuff tigers can't drive through) or your opponent's deployed really bad.

>>52222956
I'm getting really fed up of battlefront's half-assed bullshit. They're selling these things for actual money, they could at least check they didn't accidentally leave out part of their rules before they ship.

>>52223331
With a 20cm move (30 if you Follow Me) it's quite possible to get one infantry team to each side of a Tiger, dude, at least if it's getting close enough to threaten your infantry position.

And if he's not getting close enough to threaten your infantry position, you just ignore him.
After all, the amount of fire that one Tiger puts out is pretty minimal.
And if he's not pushing for you he probably won't be able to win.

I'm not saying it's trivial to remove a single Tiger with infantry; it shouldn't be considering the amount of points you spend to get it onto the battlefield.
But it is a realistic possibility.

>>52223469
>With a 20cm move (30 if you Follow Me)
I was wondering where the fuck you were getting distances like that, then I realized you were using "everything but wargaming" units.

>>52223524
Technically they're also "everywhere but the United States" units.

>>52212350
Atlantik Wall, Bridge By Bridge, Ardennes Offensive, Nachtjager, Desperate Measures, Grey Wolf (maybe?). Almost exclusively used on the Western front. Never in Italy, some on the Eastern front, mainly towards the end.

>>52223524
Why are most wargames stuck with imperial anyway?

>>52225588
Murica and/or Britain.

File: fingerless-gloves-fedora.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>52225588
>metric system

File: fuck pc.jpg (396KB, 766x1362px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 766x1362px

>>52221190
Fuck being PC .. i prefer accuracy (yes i need to redo it some tho)

>>52225588
Because the US is the largest single market, and Canada/UK are second and still have memories of imperial. So imperial isn't an issue unless you were never under the proper rule of the British Empire.

>>52225588
It's called Imperial for a reason. The entire British Empire was using it at one point.

And most popular war games come from the US, UK, or other English speaking nations.

Would it be fair to allow someone fielding B Squadron, 15th/19th hussars to add a platoon of Comets, since A and C squadrons got those and they supported each other at various points IRL?

Not that there's much of a game balance worry, as Comets were bad in V3 and just like other Light tanks are worse in V4.

What happens to armoured transports when bailed in v4? Are passengers bailed out and pinned?

Also, if I have more than one airplane team (eg. "limited support = 2 airplane teams") does that mean two shots/bombardments?

>>52226803
Limited support isnt 2 airplane teams- it's two airplanes, in a single team. With priority being three.

>>52227243
>>52226803

Which means more shots if you are shooting MG or cannon, but as far as bombardment it shouldn't matter as aircraft aren't penalized for only having 1 or 2 planes in the bombardment, unlike artillery. You do, however, get more lives in case planes get shot down.

>>52227243
>>52226803
>Limited support isnt 2 airplane teams- it's two airplanes, in a single team. With priority being three.
It is, in fact, 2 airplane teams, in a single unit.

Teams are single vehicles or infantry/gun+crew on a base.
Units (typically platoon-sized, sometimes company-sized) are composed of teams.

>What happens to armoured transports when bailed in v4? Are passengers bailed out and pinned?
Nothing in particular happens to the passengers, as far as I recall. They're effectively still embarked.
Keep in mind for this that a "bailed out" status doesn't necessarily mean the people have left the vehicle; they could also just be confused/lightly damaged by the hit.

>>52202793
M14s should be simialrly costed to honeys/crusaders...

Otherwise I just hope they don't change too much. I realize BF will try to make them more appealing given the plastic sets they're doing for italy.

>>52227323
So a priority airplane unit has ROF3 when shooting cannons/MGs, and rerolls misses w/ bombs?

>>52228342
Nope.
Each aircraft team in the unit has 2 shots with cannon or 3 shots with MGs.
These shots are resolved like normal shooting except for LoS.

If they have bombs/rockets and choose to use them, the whole unit must do a single combined bombardement for which they themselves must spot.
Follows all the usual bombardment rules otherwise.

>>52228405
Thanks. Where can you tell that they have 2 cannon / 3 MG per team?

>>52228770
Page 44 of EW/LW book. Aircraft and changes from the handbooks.

>>52202695
so i was thinking of starting to play flames of war. frenchies probably.

how expensive is flames of war? how big are the armies generally when you play? how long does a game take?

>>52229247
French early war? That can be a bit more expensive than an army that has plastic kits available to it.

>>52229247
You pretty much have two options for French:

Early War - This is the French defense against the Nazi invasion. You'll have plenty of French made equipment and uniforms and you'll be playing a French list that looks and feels French. If this is what you're looking for, check and see who in your area plays Early War before you dive in head first. It's not as popular as the other two eras.

Late War - These are the Free French who escaped to England and trained with British and American equipment. They're back on their home soil after D-Day to reclaim it from the Nazis. They use almost exclusively US made equipment. Late War tends to be more commonly played, but the use of US equipment might not make it feel like you're playing "real" French.

Note that the French don't really even appear in Mid-War.

>>52229918
They have two mid war lists; Light Rifles and Combat Recon. [v3]

Now, if they get updated to v4 is another thing entirely.

>>52229960
There is a conversion guide for Early and Late at the very least.

As for Mid, that is completely up to Battlefront. All we know of so far for Mid-War in 4th Edition is British, Germans, Italians, and Americans in the desert.

And eventually Germans and Russians in Eastern Europe.

Nothing else has been discussed yet as far as I know.

>>52230025
If they drop the infantry blobs enough, I might actually be willing to play Italians.

>>52230249
I suspect they might bring the Italians back to platoon-level command structures.

I'm considering prepping models on their bases at the moment; I used to prep on lollipops and glue finished models onto the base, but I'm finding it's a huge pain in the ass to base stuff with finished models.

>>52220981
They're silly and fun and present a good challenge. They aren't an easy-mode army like Germany or the U.S., but they are a thousand times more entertaining in how wildly random and absurd they are.

>>52230806
For 4 men team it is OK to put figures on base and paint it, while for 5 men base I think it is not good idea.
You may find it is hard to paint 5 men team figures put on the base because there are not enough room for painting with brush between figures.

>>52230806
>>52230912
I'd add in that it also depends on how complex your painting is. Boring green or grey uniforms are easy to paint on base, but multicolor camo schemes you want to do on sticks.

File: Flamenco Beach Sherman (1).jpg (61KB, 750x402px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 750x402px

>>52225960

__ thin ur paints__

>>52229247
best option if you wanna play snowflake nations is to be sure you have a cloister of wierd brosephs who are willing to do 1939 diesel punk wars as well....

then pick playing V3, maybe use the conversion book PDF....

a fun little vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZ30WxvQkk

>all these micro-ratings in V4
Why? This seems so incredibly easy to fuck up. Before it was a simple "are you good at stuff" and the answer to that question determined everything. Now BF has to grind through historical data to determine if somebody needs a 4+ tactics instead of a 3+ and other petty bullshit. Does anyone really believe they're going to put in the effort to actually pull that off in a non-biased manner?

What does this granularity achieve? It makes things harder to memorize on my end and harder to design on their end.

File: 20170318_125034-picsay.jpg (899KB, 3982x765px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 3982x765px

Volksarmee 100 points

>>52233974
BUT IT'S EASIER TO PLAY!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!
Yeah, it's really stupid.

Bought Patton's eagles on a whim after watching gup. Haven't read rules yet or know any players in nj.

Any advice on how to build the minis without regrets.

Also anyone have link to site that sold 15mm girls und panzer transfers?

File: 20170318_135155-picsay.jpg (365KB, 1024x1316px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1024x1316px

Gophers firing at A-10 flight

>>52233974
>It makes things harder to memorize on my end
I get for people who only play LW that they don't have them yet, but all that info will be on unit cards.

I, personally, hated trying to remember all that shit. My guys are this rating, so they need a 3+ or a 4+? Oh, I need to be using their motivation? Okay so they're this rating and...

It just got tedius for me. Part of why I didn't play as much after a while(that and the constant "gotta have the best tourny list because you can't have fun unless you win on turn 2" mentality a lot of my group had).

>>52234047
Jesus. Why would you subject yourself to that?

Also I feel like Volksarmee is kinda a ripoff. Like 98% of the stuff in it is just Soviet units. I get that may have been how it was, but the book didn't feel very German.

>>52235087
>Also I feel like Volksarmee is kinda a ripoff

I agree, but for different reasons. They already established soviet forces as a spam army, with even the veteran air assault units only being 4+ skill... and then they gave us another spam army. Not only that, but basically using the same models as well.

Given that the East Germans were one of the better trained Warpac armies, this bodes badly for Poland or and other eastern bloc country they may add.

And that makes me worry for the game's long term health. Both VW and AIW had problems with noone really wanting the play the unskilled spam armies that are basically just there for the elite troops to beat on.

Will TY really have staying power if all the OpFor armies are just shooting galleries for NATO?

For me, I'm already tuning out - I was hoping to play semi elite guards units with T-80s and was denied that, then gravitated towards the better that conscript NVA, and was denied that too. Now I'm left with the hope that Poland or Czechoslovakia will get something to make them stand out, but I somehow doubt I'll get that either.

File: rolleda1toland.jpg (44KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x363px

>>52235508

Whoops, meant to link to

>>52235106

>>52234597
You will likely not need as many Pershings as it gives you.

Other than that, it's a fairly solid box set for starting Americans.

You'll want to use Bridge at Remagen as your source book, since that's the book that actually lets you field Pershing tanks.

The Pershing is essentially the American Panther, and will eat up a similarly high amount of points in your list. But they have a high anti-tank rating and good armor.

Then you can build a list with a mix of 75mm and 76mm armed Shermans as your core platoons.

The 75 will save you points to spend on other stuff, but the 76 packs a stronger anti-tank value which can be useful against heavier enemy armor. It's debatable how much of that you need sine you have the Pershings.

The Armored Rifle Platoon is a solid infantry choice and comes with a solid selection of equipment, especially since they have a good number of MGs and Bazookas built into the platoon.

As for players, your best bet is probably posting on both the official and unofficial Flames of War Facebook pages.

I'm sure you can find some other players in Jersey.

>>52202695
>Wehrabooism
Since when can someone say something like that here? I though this was one of the most civilised places in this imageboard

>>52235862
Occasionally you need to point to people and say "This mother fucker is a Wehraboo. Literally sucking down propaganda."

>>52234597
>Also anyone have link to site that sold 15mm girls und panzer transfers?
Company B.

So, what's everyone working on in terms of painting/modeling?

Personally, I'm about to put some varnish on a minimum-sized Engineer-Sapper formation and basecoats onto some Sturmoviks and looted Sd.Kfz. 251 for my Soviets.
Will post pics once the stuff has dried.

File: 20170222_194529.jpg (2MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1536px

>>52236922
Kursk Panzers WiP

File: Engineer-Sappers.jpg (2MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1536px

>>52237108
Looking damn nice.
Some cool variety in tank types as well.

As promised, here are the Engineer-Sappers.
Next up on my painting table: two more Sturmoviks, allowing me to field them at Priority level without using an aircraft die.

Tho since my spray basecoat has run out, I'll have to do that by hand.

>>52237108
>>52237375
Nice keep up the good work girls or boys.

>>52235684
75s also give smoke, which can't be underestimated.

>>52235862
If you've never met a wehraboo playing historical you're really lucky or really new.

>>52236922
Honestly my FoW motivation has drained with so many locals looking for other games. I was halfway into some Finns but I'm eyeing up infinity models lately.

File: IMG_0152.png (103KB, 1292x898px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1292x898px

>>52235508
I fear the Czechs and Poland are going to be either samey as the Soviets or a more reluctant, even spammier version of the soviets. Phil will just take how badly the Polish get their asses kicked in the book and run with it.

>>52235106
All the WARPAC equipment is pretty much that way. However instead of making the T-55AM2 an interesting tank to play, they made it chaff level spam. Historical or not, I would think the most interesting way they could have done East Germans is T-55AM2 and BMP-1 companies that are hit on 4+ and/or have 3+ skill. Throw in a T-72M company or two for support. The contrast between being well trained and having older equipment would have made an interesting force to play instead of Soviets, but spammier and they maybe can do a movement order.

All that said Volkspamee looks like a better option if you are going to run T-72s, since more tanks is better to have than more armor or AT.

>>52238051
Over where I play, pretty much everyone is excited to hop into V4.

We've even got some new players looking to hop in as well.

>>52238122
That's great for you but I'm not sure how that affectshe what I said.

>>52238122
Not the first guy, but our group's the opposite. Nobody's very enthusiastic about V4 here, mainly because it wrecks the balance between our LW forces and the MW stuff seems to have ditched historical accuracy for germany stronk.

>>52238174
> because it wrecks the balance between our LW forces
Have you tried a V4 LW game?
Yes, some units are stronger or weaker, but my initial impression is that the game didn't get less balanced.
If you mean existing army lists tuned for V3 rules, of course their performance will be a bit different after an edition change. That's how edition changes work.

>the MW stuff seems to have ditched historical accuracy for germany stronk.
I do feel the initial release for MW is too small in terms of available unit stats, but I don't feel it's more or less "Germany stronk" than existing FoW stuff.

>>52235508
There's genuinely little reason not just to use the Warpac infantry models for different Warpac factions, i.e., using East Germans to represent Poles, etc. because at this point they're all the same.

>>52234047
That's a 100 points?

Jesus Christ

>>52238226
>Have you tried a V4 LW game?
>Yes, some units are stronger or weaker, but my initial impression is that the game didn't get less balanced.
Key word is "our", there. The Finn now has nothing that can hurt an IS-2 or other heavy tank once his small group of T-34/85s is dead, since his bomb-only plane and heavy artillery can arbitrary never kill them now. The two British guys both use cromwells, which are much slower and have a harder time flanking. The Germans haven't noticed a change except for the one that used 15cms instead of nebs. The first American has already been able to swap to cheap mortars (when the others lack the option in armies they have models for) and so still has absurdly cheap and effective artillery. Thr second fielded uparmored E8s and no Jumbos, so has been able to ignore the nerfs to normal E8s and Jumbos. The Soviet is still fucked with his IS-2s.

>>52238226
8-rad has same armor value as a Crusader II despite having half the armor IRL. The 17pdr has the same AT as the PaK on the marder, which had much worse IRL. The 8.8 got a buff when it had the same pen as the very basic 17 pdr. The 6pdr can no longer kill a Tiger, nevermind that that's what got the first british Tiger kill and that it had slightly better pen than the Sherman's 75mm (which looks to still be AT 10 in the rulebook). The Crusader III is now overworked because two men in the turret is as bad as one apparently, since glorious Germany didn't do that.

So far it looks pretty biased to me.

>>52238427
>Limited collections not remaining balanced against each other after edition change
Yeah, that'll happen. Not something I'd go looking at another ruleset for, tho.
Just add 1 or 2 units to cover the gaps in your lineup.

I'm not sure on the AT rating and armour changes in MW, but I don't know the exact historical stats there.
Can you get me some sources on those penetration stats for the ammo available there, since you seem to have them?

>>52238505
>Not something I'd go looking at another ruleset for, tho.
Again, different guy than the first. We're planning on staying with V3, maybe takeing some bits of V4 we like.

I'll get you the pen figures, but I'm stuck with my phone for most of the day so I hope you can wait a while.

>>52238611
>I'll get you the pen figures, but I'm stuck with my phone for most of the day so I hope you can wait a while.
No problem, I always lke comparing historical studies to wargaming stats.

>We're planning on staying with V3, maybe takeing some bits of V4 we like.
I'd be careful with that, since it tends to be a road to massive imbalance and arguments, with people trying to tweak the changes to support the forces they play.
I've known communities to tear themselves apart doing that.

>>52238633
>I'd be careful with that, since it tends to be a road to massive imbalance and arguments, with people trying to tweak the changes to support the forces they play.
Yeah, we've agreed to do testing and not take anything with less than near consensus (all but one player). We're looking at the same chunks of the rules to take so far, and probably won't be taking much.

>>52238675
Sounds reasonable, then.
I assume you don't really do tournaments and stuff outside your local community, either?
Since taking this path effectively means locking yourselves (and any new players you might get) out of that option.

>>52238226
>Have you tried a V4 LW game?
>Yes, some units are stronger or weaker, but my initial impression is that the game didn't get less balanced.
The game is obviously unbalanced now. Why're you bringing tubes instead of mortars? Or bothering with heavy artillery? At the very least, this stuff has changed massively and needs repointing, even before you get air, or romanian spam, or how the ISU-152 is literally never-pick compared to the ISU-122 now, or...

>>52238697
>Since taking this path effectively means locking yourselves (and any new players you might get) out of that option.
A different guy again but, yeah, that's why we're looking for new rules.

>>52238698
Some things did indeed get worse.
On the other hand, other units got better.

I'd agree that points values might not be perfect for everything, but I'm not sure if I'd call the game itself unbalanced because of that.
After all, there were units not considered worth their points in V3 as well.

As for heavy arty in particular: they're still the only arty with 2+ or 1+ firepower; nothing else got upgraded over 3+.
That makes them the god-kings of digging out infantry.

As for lower-power tube arty: with the increased mobility, their direct fire stats become more relevant. And they also got the firepower buffs.

>>52238698
>romanian spam
You mean all those platoon-size units that are gonna be way easier to eliminate than the old blobs?

>>52238697
>I assume you don't really do tournaments and stuff outside your local community, either?
Yeah, our group is both small and isolated, so not going to V4 is an option for us. We're still going to learn V4 so that the rare passing player can play without worry, and so that when some of us leave we'll be able to play with others. But the points changes and our personal beefs with it make us unlikely to accept V4.

>>52238766
>That makes them the god-kings of digging out infantry.
And the same number of mortars or rockets kills 2/3rds as many for less than 1/3rd the points. Not worth it.

>>52238766
>As for lower-power tube arty: with the increased mobility...
You must be talking REALLY low-power, since the generic tubes (105s, 25s, 10.5s) are no more mobile than they were.

>>52238875
>And the same number of mortars or rockets kills 2/3rds as many for less than 1/3rd the points. Not worth it.
Keep the range in mind as well; mortars in particular tend to have some range issues.
Still, I do feel heavy arty might be kinda overpriced.

>You must be talking REALLY low-power, since the generic tubes (105s, 25s, 10.5s) are no more mobile than they were.
I meant the mobility of units in general, especially light armour/recce moving around to harass your arty.
Against those, you can be glad to have direct fire ability.
Also, I don't see anything about guns shooting as rifle teams, so tube arty are also the only ones that can provide defensive fire for themselves.
That means you don't have to commit as much to defending them as with mortars/rockets.

>>52238766
>Some things did indeed get worse.
>On the other hand, other units got better.
Yeah, but this isn't acceptable. "Some stuff is never-pick, but other stuff is now OP so it's fine" is fucked up logic. The game already had issues with balance, and throwing it even further out of whack is some real bullshit.

>>52239379
>"Some stuff is never-pick, but other stuff is now OP so it's fine"
That's is not what I'm saying.

Here's the point: changing balance doesn't automatically make it worse.
Are you sure the nerfs to some units and buffs to others made the whole less balanced?

In my experience from the couple of V4 games I've played, balance seems pretty good, not necessarily worse than V3.

File: t-72 front.jpg (63KB, 574x496px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 574x496px

>>52236922
Still going with my 6mm TY
I now have enough stuff on my desk to completely fill the unit caps for both a Soviet and US force, just need to finish painting these shits and then I need to convince someone to play it.
Then I'll probably make Brit and Chinese (soviet proxy) forces just for laff.

>>52238778
Wut? You used to have to kill 16 stands and make them fail one morale check to get them to run off, now you have to kill 23, including the fact the infantry can now sit GTG separately of the guns and the mortars can now pop smoke and gun teams have good saves. And then they have to fail five morale checks to get rid of them.

Shooting-wise, if anything, they got tougher, because you can't lift GTG and guns have good saves now, and assault favours the defender, especially with infantry.

>>52239456
>Here's the point: changing balance doesn't automatically make it worse.
Explain why you'd take ISU-152s over ISU-122s, absent re-pointing.

>>52239551
Same reason you'd even take infantry guns in V3.
Some units were not really viable in V3. Some units are not really viable in V4.
It's just different units now.

I'm not talking about individual unit balance here, but the balance of the game overall.
I feel there are fewer useless units in V4 than in V3.

>>52239617
Okay but you're realising this is admitting that stuff is never-pick but it's okay because different stuff is OP now. EW and LW is fucked until they revisit it.

>>52239729
Hardly.

Individual units might be better or worse. There will be a period of people exploring exactly how the changes will effect the wider game.

But the game is hardly fucked.

It's just the usual Edition Change shake-up that almost every game goes through.

People will figure out how the changes effect overall balance, and will adjust accordingly.

>>52239729
>Okay but you're realising this is admitting that stuff is never-pick
Yes, or at least suboptimal.

>but it's okay because different stuff is OP now.
Not OP, just properly effective while it used to be suboptimal.

>EW and LW is fucked until they revisit it.
Strongly disagree with this.
I feel it's at least as balanced as it was, just with different stronger and weaker units.

You seem locked in a mental rut that because some things got better or worse, the entire overall balance of the game is somehow obliterated by that when there's no clear evidence of that.
I'd try taking a hard look at the conclusions you seem to be stuck on before continuing this argument.
What actual data are you basing your judgment of overall game balance on?

http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.html

Just figured you guys might want to see some British wartime research on the effectiveness of various types of artillery, complete with various non-british gun effectiveness.

>>52238370
>That's a 100 points?

Yep it's pretty bad, fortunately we're starting to see some traction within the community for a new 75/80 point standard.

>>52238370
>That's a 100 points?

Yeah, Volksarmee lets you take a large amount of stuff.

And that's without factoring in the extremely low points cost of T-55s.

>>52239942
Copy and paste it into your browser. I remember looking that up when the arty changes were announced. My takeaway from that data is the gap between light mortars and heavier artillery is too narrow in V4. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

File: IMG_0120.jpg (493KB, 625x648px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 625x648px

>>52240282
>Paint 14 tanks
>30 points
>Basically have to do everything all over again to have a 60 point core force
>Life in the Volkspamee

>>52240333
>Volkspamee

I just found the name of our Panzerfunk episode!

>>52240289
>My takeaway from that data is the gap between light mortars and heavier artillery is too narrow in V4.
Yeah, that and that artillery is way more effective against dug in infantry than it should be. 20% casualties expected in the open, 2% expected from the same fire mission if they're in slit trenches or foxholes. I can understand some fudging for gameplay, but when even the lightest mortars only have a 50% reduction in effectiveness that's too much.

>>52239513
New Special Rules & Warriors book makes at least LW Romanians into platoons.

>>52240453
Artillery was fine in V3, it was just a bit too good at killing armour for the points paid. Changing the ability to range-in anywhere would have been a useful addition.

Artillery is far more powerful in V4, it is just so against infantry and guns rather than tanks. The best armies will be armour-heavy with lots of cheap template weapons.

>>52240453
I can live with the new arty rules (going to have to now), but I thought mortars worked fine before. They were cheap and good for pinning and harassment of infantry in the open. If you had to, you could bring them in close and direct fire. Keeping breakthrough guns and giving guns with HE at 75mm and up brutal would have been a more accurate way to nerf infantry parks.

But anyway that ship has sailed.

>>52240513
Another neat thing is that the page mentioned that one of the biggest killers of german armor in italy was heavier artillery. But not in flames, where the AT 3 cap makes arty rockets and bombs useless against tanks.

>>52240546
>But not in flames, where the AT 3 cap makes arty rockets and bombs useless against tanks.
They can still work; rolling a 1 on that save followed by a passed firepower check still kills any medium tank.

It's just the heavies that are nigh impossible to knock out with arty except by double-bailing from two different bombardments on the same spot.

With the lack of heavy armour and absurd amounts of arty used in Italy, that still seems sensible.

>>52240528
I'd make it 86mm+, so it's not literally everywhere in LW. V4's already hurt non-mechanized armies a lot by forcing armies to attack half the time regardless of force comp. I fear >>52240513 is right about the best armies being armor with cheap ass templates.

>>52240608
It's absurdly low odds. +1 to hit them because you need direct hits, or some revision in the way Top armor is handled (use a d3, for example) with the current changes. Those would have worked, but now arty is useless against armor and absurdly effective against infantry.

>>52238427

What about Pioneers and PaK 40s? IE, the way we used to kill heavy tanks before?

>>52240807
Literally nothing has changed about their effectiveness.
In fact, PaKs are now more survivable after firing.

>>52240859

Although artillery is on the whole far better at digging up infantry.

>>52240878
This is about killing heavy tanks, not killing infantry.

Brits got pretty fucked in the LW update. 25pdrs struggled with mortars before, now they're just strictly worse. I assume the same is true for soviet superheavy mortars.

>>52240902

It's about facing heavy tanks, which now is a lot harder because their previous lack of numbers has been balanced by their increasing ability for their lists to destroy the threats to them.

>>52239795
This is a total hack-job of the rules that's obviously untested. You can't just put out a new ruleset, change everything's rules, and then say "but it's just as good as it was before" unless the original game was a hack job.

>>52239834
>Yes, or at least suboptimal.
Either it's busted for it's points or it isn't. A lot of stuff is.
>Not OP, just properly effective while it used to be suboptimal.
Again, it's busted or it isn't. The game is very obviously imbalanced now.
>Strongly disagree with this.
Cool.
>I feel it's at least as balanced as it was, just with different stronger and weaker units.
"The game wasn't balanced before so it's okay if it gets worse" isn't a good defence.
>You seem locked in a mental rut that because some things got better or worse, the entire overall balance of the game is somehow obliterated by that when there's no clear evidence of that.
If you made a game, playtested and balanced it, then changed all the rules while keeping the same valuations of the units (points, basically), then it's unbalanced. If it is balanced, it's a random accident, but fortunately it's not.
>I'd try taking a hard look at the conclusions you seem to be stuck on before continuing this argument.
Or you.
>What actual data are you basing your judgment of overall game balance on?
1. Significant changes in the effectiveness of artillery that have exacerbated the mortars/tubes divide even further.
2. Significant rebalancing of infantry and gun surviveability, which is also totally unaccounted for in points.
3. Massive changes to assault rendering a lot of assault-focused stuff much weaker, certainly neutering the effectiveness of soviets getting into melee.
4. Relatedly, going from 10 to 8 hits to push back, not costed for.
5. Airplane effectiveness changed, simultaneously improving the ability of tank busters to shoot things without ranging in and weakening their utility against infantry due to the lack of autopins.

I could go on but character limit.

>>52240038
>75/80 point standard
I think this is going to have to be how it goes, but I can't get NATOboos to stop whining about how it limits their lists.

>>52240650
Honestly, from what I've seen of mid-war, german infantry seems really ugly to fight since they can just sit dug-in with AT guns everywhere and neuter anything, and tanks now lose shootouts with AT guns.

>>52240513
>New Special Rules & Warriors book makes at least LW Romanians into platoons.
Yeah; that's what I meant. When it was one massive blob you had to kill 16 stands to break the company blob and have it run off. To get the entire blob of guys to run off now, you need to kill 23 of them, and they all have to fail morale. If anything, the blob seems more resilient, not less like the original comment claimed (especially given the gun teams are now much more resilient and, as an independent platoon, the infantry don't lose GTG from the guns firing).

>>52240998
Have you actually played a game of V4 are are you just spewing theory?

Half of your replies don't even address the issues you brought up or my responses to them.

Give me actual evidence, not theoretical rambling about "muh stats changes, muh odds" in isolation without taking the combined effects into account after seeing them applied in practice.
Just ranting about theory isn't a valid argument.

File: C6WJK_wVAAAw-uu.png large.png (1MB, 1278x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1278x1500px

>>52235684
What are the longer barreled pershings it inculdes?

Is there any way to build both turrets for pershings or should I just do one as long barrel?

>>52241308
Not him/her but... There are two turrets and two guns one to build the rare super pershing and one to build the normal one

File: bt_5-fished-out-of-river.jpg (55KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x335px

>>52235684
Any advice on how to model tanks with people sitting up top or machine guns?

Are machine guns extra points or should I just model all my tanks with them?

What about that weird fat short barrel it comes with for shermans?

How about extra armor?

>>52241328
Can you build both?

>>52241350
Yes, you just switch out the turret. thats the only difference i believe atleast http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4482 here you go.

>>52241336
>Are machine guns extra points or should I just model all my tanks with them?
Americans get them by default, other nations tend to pay extra for them

>What about that weird fat short barrel it comes with for shermans?
That's the 105 howitzer, used vs infantry but not generally super-useful.

>How about extra armor?
There are Uparmored Shermans, which have better armor values but are a bit slower.

>>52241308

If you have box of 3 I would highly recommend you only build 1 as a Super Persh.

>>52241350
Yes, common suggestion is one super and two normal, as you can never have more than one super Pershing.

>>52241328
>Not him/her

I am most definitely a he. Thank you very much.

Also, I don't know of too many women in the historical war gaming community.

I know a few that play board games, RPGs, and even X-Wing, but not too many that play Flames of War or Team Yankee.

>>52241308
The other turret and longer barrel let you build the Super Pershing.

This is a one-off modification that takes the standard Pershing which is essentially equivalent to a Panther and tries to Up-Armor and Up-Gun it to be loser to a Tiger or King Tiger.

Only one was ever built.

>>52241336
US tanks have a built-in .50 cal AA MG built into their stat line, so definitely put the .50 cal on when building your US tanks.

The short, fat barrel is the 105mm cannon, which is primarily used for anti-infantry work.

>>52241350
I don't think they give you enough hatches to fully build both turrets. And I think you only get one turret bottom half per sprue as well.

>>52241370
Is it okay to strap armor onto normal shermans and just say they are applique armor and not slower?

Or do I have to build them vanilla as fuck?

>>52241455
>be loser

**be closer**

>>52241465
Do they give you any crates, fuel cans, tarps, etc on the sprue?

That should help you to add some character to each individual tank.

>>52241465
Applique that improves armor value will slow you very slightly for shermans (lose the extra 2" from Detroit's Finest which is basically nothing in V4 since it's only to dash movement). Applique as a stand-in for Improvised armor won't slow you but will only help against infantry AT weapons.

Does anyone have any figures on how many Grants the British were using when the campaign in Africa ended?

They started replacing them with Sherman's as soon as they became available so I assume there weren't that many by 43.

>>52241129
No, you address the points I've raised. At this point you're just resorting to "w-well play the game!" ad hominem to avoid arguing in good faith.

File: UBX44b.jpg (89KB, 690x876px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 690x876px

>>52241465
>>52241547
It comes with armored plates dozer blade and two different fronts one with an armored plate and one without.

Basically im asking if I glue armored plates onto my shermans or pick the armored front can I still call it a normal sherman? Or would it be a different unit alltogether.

>>52241455
>Only one was ever built.
I think you mean
>only one was ever kitbashed together by a demented engineering department with too much time on their hands

There were actually three with the long 90mm, one of them later showed up in korea but it was hard to counterweight and got ditched a lot.

>>52241680
You can mix and match uparmored and normal shermans in platoons. Most opponents won't mind you saying "all these uparmored Shermans are normal shermans" or such as long as you're consistent. "This uparmored is a normal but this one is still uparmored", for example, will be looked down on.

>>52241680
>>52241725
Well shit I just realized my patton's eagle box didnt come with any decal/transfers at all.

Why battlefront?

>>52241732
Yeah I don't think any of the big boxes came with transfers of any sort. Pretty stupid.

>>52241662
I did adress your points.
Your replies in that previous post don't actually address my replies.

You seem to gloss over the fact that despite some unit getting worse, a lot of other units have gotten better.
You also keep denying the possibility that these shifts in effectiveness combined can provide a balanced game experience.

For example, when I say that some stuff has gotten better but not OP, your reply is:
>Again, it's busted or it isn't. The game is very obviously imbalanced now.
That doesn't address that point.

When I say that I feel the game is balanced in V4, your response is:
>"The game wasn't balanced before so it's okay if it gets worse" isn't a good defence.
I'm not even saying what you claim I was saying there.

When I address that you seem unwilling to review your points, you reply:
>If you made a game, playtested and balanced it, then changed all the rules while keeping the same valuations of the units (points, basically), then it's unbalanced. If it is balanced, it's a random accident, but fortunately it's not.
This does not address the point.

Yes, some things have gotten better or worse.
Trying to interpret those changes without seeing how they work in concert and trying it in practice isn't enough to say a ruleset is busted like you're claiming.
For example, while you seem to feel Soviets are going to have much more difficulty getting infantry into assaults, in my experience (from actually playing, not just theorycrafting in a vacuum) the arty changes actually help them a lot in setting up those assaults compared to before.
And that's not even counting how the Last Stand rules benefit Soviet infantry.

You're cherrypicking things you don't like while disregarding things that compensate for them and refuse to actually address points.

>>52241732
Also just realized I got a 3rd not 4th edition rulebook.

Ordered it online from ebay seller so no way to get a free rulebook since no stores around me carry FOW.

>>52241912
Send Battlefront customer support a message and they should mail you the V4 rulebooks for free.

>>52241912
Email Battlefront with a pic of the book, they'll send you the V4 books directly

>>52225960
>I prefer accuracy
>I model my tanks with flashy flags draped over them
Pick one.

>>52233974
It's exactly the same as V3 but it's special rules "-1 score needed" rather than "reroll", I'm not sure what's so difficult?

>>52242411
I'm referring to the MW stats.

>>52242438
Still the same; all those small mods are what would otherwise be special rules.

>>52241874
>You seem to gloss over the fact that despite some unit getting worse, a lot of other units have gotten better.
Yes, and their points have stayed the same. Print that out and frame it, that's the issue here; some things are better, and some things are worse, and there has been no adjustment of whether the better things should be in fewer numbers or the worse thing in more. Yes, it's quite possible if you find all the new brokenly undercosted things you can have two broken lists playing each other; this should not be a state the game should be in, and it quite clearly is. And this is an avoidable issue, since issues like this were brought up in playtest and not addressed, a lot like every other thing BF's playtested.

You've clearly made up your mind regardless, so feel free to keep sucking BF's cock on this one, but everyone else can see how ridiculous claiming the game's exactly the same as it ever was is.

Also if you don't think the new assault rules are a big nerf to big platoons you're fucking trolling, it's been an issue since TY launched.

>>52243037
>Yes, and their points have stayed the same. Print that out and frame it, that's the issue here; some things are better, and some things are worse, and there has been no adjustment of whether the better things should be in fewer numbers or the worse thing in more.
Remember that they were worse because they cost more points than they were worth.
Or good because they cost less points than they were worth.
Now, in many cases, they're often closer to their true worth.

>And this is an avoidable issue, since issues like this were brought up in playtest and not addressed, a lot like every other thing BF's playtested.
Gonna need a source on that pretty big claim, mate.

>everyone else can see how ridiculous claiming the game's exactly the same as it ever was is.
Except I'm not doing that.
It's indeed a different game.
It's just not a clearly worse game, like you seem to be convinced of.

>Also if you don't think the new assault rules are a big nerf to big platoons you're fucking trolling, it's been an issue since TY launched.
Yes, the assault rules are a nerf.
They got buffed in other ways, making them still worth their points.

Once more, you're failing to properly address the points made while just spewing hate against the new edition without providing proper evidence.
I suggest you stop posting now, because while some of your criticisms have a basis, you're simply not correct in saying the whole ruleset is ruined by the V4 transition.

And if you do feel this game is no longer worth your time, feel free to leave.

>>52243130
Adding on to this a bit, while I'm not claiming V4 is perfect by any means (and never intended to, even if you drag my quotes out of context to imply that) I don't feel it's the trainwreck you're claiming it is.

If that had become a bit unclear in the heat of the argument, I apologise for that.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled /fowg/.

>>52243130
>Now, in many cases, they're often closer to their true worth.
[citation needed]

>Gonna need a source on that pretty big claim, mate.
Either you're going to believe playtesters say that a lot off-record or you're going to ignore that playtesters couldn't publicly say that because of NDAs and say there's no problem.

>It's just not a clearly worse game, like you seem to be convinced of.
It's imbalanced, which you're ignoring.

>Yes, the assault rules are a nerf.
>They got buffed in other ways, making them still worth their points.
This is one hell of a claim. Their only remaining strength is tarpitting, which they got marginally better at because of the morale change, but this does them no good since you either capture objectives or kill everything now, so there's much less benefit to sitting on an objective now.

>Once more, you're failing to properly address the points made while just spewing hate against the new edition without providing proper evidence.
You're literally just ignoring everything and claiming nebulous "benefits" make up for all the drawbacks and citing a game you played once.

>I suggest you stop posting now
no u

>And if you do feel this game is no longer worth your time, feel free to leave.
Nah, I'm going to stay here and keep pointing out the bullshit BF and it's shills are trying to feed us is exactly that.

The EW/LW updates are a half-assed get-you-by job and you're better off playing 3rd edition or finding another ruleset until they do a proper update. This is how it is.

>>52240282
I pre-ordered 6 boxes of PSC T55s, which will allow me to field 30 T55AM2 by 21 points.
I love the term Volkspamee.

>>52243455
>More repeating of previous points

So you're just gonna tell everyone enjoying V4 that they're wrong in doing so?

I have no problem with people playing V3 or other rulesets instead of V4.
As I said before,
>while I'm not claiming V4 is perfect by any means (and never intended to, even if you drag my quotes out of context to imply that) I don't feel it's the trainwreck you're claiming it is.
What I do have a problem with is you barging in here and just spewing hate and being unwilling to compromise.

How about we both agree that our viewpoints don't match up and we'll both just play the ruleset we prefer?
No need to shit up the thread with a discussion that looks like it won't end.

>>52243632
>>More repeating of previous points
You've never addressed them, you've just said they're the wrong points.
>So you're just gonna tell everyone enjoying V4 that they're wrong in doing so?
I'm going to tell them the EW/LW translation's crap. People apparently enjoy crap sometimes given the success of nickelback.
>I have no problem with people playing V3 or other rulesets instead of V4.
Sure. You're allowed to enjoy crap. It's a free country. I don't think BF should be encouraged to continue doing crap stuff, though, so yeah, this'll remain my view.
>As I said before,
>>while I'm not claiming V4 is perfect by any means (and never intended to, even if you drag my quotes out of context to imply that) I don't feel it's the trainwreck you're claiming it is.
>What I do have a problem with is you barging in here and just spewing hate and being unwilling to compromise.
If by "spewing hate" you mean "giving evidence-based criticism", sure. I'm aware a lot of people lately can't take that, but I see no reason 4chan would be one of those places.

>How about we both agree that our viewpoints don't match up and we'll both just play the ruleset we prefer?
>No need to shit up the thread with a discussion that looks like it won't end.
Sure.

>>52243455
You looks like a crying child, clinging mother's arm and repeatedly saying "mama I do not want going to the dentist", not ready to discuss the matter reasonably.
Pretty ridiculous to see, so please continue it.

>>52243533
I ordered some for myself as well. I want to give them a try in the table, and I trust that PSC will make a great kit.

What I don't understand however is the people I've seen (mostly on Facebook) advocating for going for the maximum spammable amount and claiming it to be the height of tactical genius to just drown the enemy in spam.

Granted "There's too many of 'em!" Can be a valid tactic, it's hardly original, creative, or ingenious.

>>52243841
>advocating for going for the maximum spammable amount and claiming it to be the height of tactical genius to just drown the enemy in spam.
Why do people enjoy this? It's so fucking boring and looks/feels extremely gamey as well.

File: IMG_2066.jpg (73KB, 600x567px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x567px

>>52243768
Please don't feed the troll.

>>52243864
Exactly my point.

I don't understand it either.

And yet, I've seen people singing the praises of lists containing two (TWO!) formations of T-55s.

I just don't get it.

>>52243864
Going for maximum spammable amount as many as you can and throw them in particular area to breakthrough is a typical doctrine. I don't think it is boring nor gamey.

File: IMG_2068.jpg (440KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1920x1080px

>>52244009
Try playing against it some time.

If I, as the defender, feel like I've been reduced to playing a game of Space Invader, I'm probably not enjoying myself.

>>52244171
Leo 1's, Milan spam, M-109s, and/or LARS with mines can all help deal with T-55 spam. Tornados or Harriers could get in a devestating strike, but you may take too much MG fire on the way in.

With the amount of terrain we play with, I would love to funnel the T-55s into a kill zone. The simply can't get into difficult going terrain, so if you concentrate all your firepower on the passes, closing up what you can with mines, you can overcome the numbers advantage.

I'm having a much harder time thinking about how to deal with the "plop as many Milans as you can on the table" strategy.

>>52243768
>>52243885
And fuck you too buddy.

>>52243768
He's right though.

>>52243841
I want to see screencaps of people claiming a spam list is the height of tactical genius because I don't believe you. Nobody calls list-building tactical. People probably consider concentration of force good tactics on a board, but that's because it is.

File: homer.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

is 6x4 too small for team yankee?

File: IMG_2069.jpg (371KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1242x2208px

>>52244571
>I want to see screencaps

Here you go.

>>52244694
For 100 points yes. For like 80 or less it works fine.

File: IMG_2070.jpg (376KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1242x2208px

>>52244571
>>52244808
And another one.

>>52244808
>>52244876
That, uh, doesn't seem to be people saying it's the height of tactical genius, just how to play a swarm.

File: IMG_2071.jpg (305KB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1242x2208px

>>52244571
>>52244808
>>52244876
One last one.

>>52244962
those look like the dullest list ever

>>52244980
My point exactly.

>>52244997
Never mind what 42 T-55s would actually cost you if you paid full price for Battlefront resin...

File: orange and cookies.jpg (92KB, 600x764px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x764px

>>52245171
about £300

>>52244808
>>52244876
>>52244962
The only one that's close to "height of tactical genius" is maaaybe that last one. Other people are talking about mass and positioning which are both valid tactics. I don't see what the issue is (other than that, in actual practise, swarm lists take forever to play against, which is an issue with that being in the game in the first place instead of having a reasonable set of options for volksarmee).

>>52245202
I think your math is off, I'm getting closer to £400, or right around $650 USD for 9 boxes of T-55AM2s.

That's no small chunk of change.

>>52245334
i think there's reason there are more nato players
i wasn't really doing any real maths for that number anyway

>>52245293
Agreed. If Battlefront had at the very minimum taken slow firing and the bogus cross penalty off the T-55, we wouldn't even have to worry about it. But then I guess it'd be too samey to the T-72M

I'll take Hyper for 500, Alex.

>An obvious and intentional exaggeration not intended to be taken literally.

What is Hyperbole?

>>52245408
Friendly reminder that the T-55A is going to need to be even worse and even more spammable.

>>52245453
Well, when they'll stop jumping down the throat of everyone that says anything wrong about V4 because obviously they're exaggerating about how bad it is, we'll stop telling them to cut out the hyperbole on their own side.

>>52245586
Moderation on both sides does sound pretty good.
Would also keep this place as comfy as it is most of the time, which I think all of us want.

>>52245496
Worse armor? Hen and Chicks? I can't foresee the T-55 being any worse in this era.

>>52245879
The "A" is I think a generation earlier than the "AM2". So yes, it can potentially be worse.

>>52246044
Do you think it will be included for Poland or Czechoslovakia? I was under the impression that both had a modernized variant.

>>52245879
It'll have lower armour and presumably the same stats everywhere else.

>>52246136
T-55A is still the predominant service variant during the period. Even for the USSR itself, IIRC.

>>52246148
I suppose you can also say that about the DDR as well, but they elected to only bring the T-55AM2 in. I guess we'll see. Spam for the spam god.

So, for those of you who are starting up new Mid War forces, what are you thinking of doing for your army list?

I'm highly tempted by either a British list built around Grants, or a German list built around long barreled Panzer IIIs.

>>52247716
Short Barrelled Panzer IVs. They're suddenly great at bombardments and reasonable at anti-tank. I dunno throw a Tiger in there I guess.

How to dig out Soviet infantry with TY West German?
I am probably not going for Leo2.

>>52248115
Gepards. Five shots at firepower 4+

>>52242364
>what is aerial recognition

>>52242364
a random retard appears

File: de^panzer.jpg (193KB, 618x573px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 618x573px

>>52242364
When the Germans had unquestionable air superiority, they needed to be able to recognise their own tanks from the air. Then when the Allies had unquestionable air superiority they painted massive white stars over the decks.

File: 32 bmp spam list plus extras.jpg (382KB, 1394x784px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1394x784px

>>52244571
here you go..

nice abrams tank company you have there.. it would be a shame if something were to happen to them...

>>52248115
Gepards. Just keep throwing dice at them until they disappear. Once you kill off the RPG-7s, Leo 1s could have a better chance to assault the enemy infantry.

Artillery is a bit hit or miss, but the LARS can keep the enemy pinned down and occasionally kill a few stands. West Germans don't have big enough platoon sizes to grind it out in assault.

Brit infantry are an even worse prospect to dig out. I wish the V4 arty rules were in play where repeat bombardments could force them to reroll saves, because as it stands infantry are really sticky in Team Yankee.

File: 200% triggered.png (327KB, 500x529px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 500x529px

>>52248220
>90% unpainted infantry and vehicles
>Su-25s not even built

>>52248639
he's been painting other peoples armies for commision. that pic is about 3 months old. he's got it mostly finished now.

>>52248288
So take 6 of them and leave AA missions to fleigerfaust teams?

>>52248800
Yeah, or you can take multiple groups of Gepards if you are bringing more than one formation. If I am not directly attacking infantry with my Gepards, I have them right by my Leo 2s to make sure no enemy air comes close. Though if you don't have any Leo 2's in your list, I'd just be aggressive with them and go after infantry and lighter armored vehicles.

I do rely a lot on my fliegerfausts to protect against air. I deploy them off a Luchs spearhead so that they cover the entire table. I've had pretty good luck with them, despite the poor firepower.

File: PSC_15mm_LW-Brit-inf_400.jpg (70KB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 400x220px

Starting Flames of War with Brits. I picked up the plastic soldier company late war British infantry company box what else do I need for a well rounded list?

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

101KB, 200x200px

>>52245496

How fucked am I with V4?

2 Comet
2 Cromwell VI
>435

3 Comet
>435

3 Comet
>435

Commando Platoon
>205

File: michinai.gif (519KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 400x225px

>>52248220

>>52250199
>Comets
You came prefucked mate. The ruleset didn't make a different.

Good side. At least you've gotten faster and orders make you more tactical.

>>52250199
y tho

I can accept your daring however.

>>52250197

Poland could conceivably not be fucked - the did have a homegrown upgrade program for both the T-55 and T-72.

It's debatable whether that can overcome the power of cheers though.

>>52250199
>comets
Very. You're going to want some Spearhead, and some more effective artillery than the CS Croms. having a 2iC is no longer vital, you just need to keep one combat, weapons, or brigade support platoon alive and in good spirits. I'd go with something like this:

>CiC Comet - 145 pts
>3x Comet - 435 pts
>3x Comet - 435 pts
>7x Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 3-ton Trucks - 185 pts
>3x Scout Car- 90 pts
>4x 25pdr, Quad Tractors, Sherman OP - 200 pts
>AOP - 25 pts
Your observer can be either the armored Sherman or the flying AOP depending on what the enemy has. The scout cars will get you a good forward deployment area for your infantry and/or Comets, and transports all around keep you mobile. You have 4 platoons in your core formation, so it'll take some work to break your morale. You'll need to keep 610 points off in reserve missions if my math is right, which is easily doable with one Comet platoon and the Lorried Rifles.

>>52250448
>you just need to keep one combat, weapons, or brigade support platoon alive and in good spirits.
Correction, that's TY, you need to have two combat, weapons, or brigade support platoons alive (good spirits checks are done before you see if you auto-lose)

You're probably fucked because of small core platoons, but you're playing Comets so there's not shit we can do to help there.

>>52250308
I thought I moved 12 now? Orders will be nice I guess.

>>52250376
Because they're cool.

>>52250448
>>52250477
Thanks. Time to get some scout cars I guess.

>>52250587
Yeah but your Dash is 28 inches cross country.and sixteen through terrain. Plus orders like Blitz Move.

How pivotal is combined arms in TY? Like I know infantry are hard to dig out, but aside from the BMP spam list and milan spam do people use them much?

It just seems like MBTs are a big ass investment of points. 7 Chieftans is 42 points, eithout any stillbrew thrown in.

So is it better to bring some infantry and a main force of armor, or only jave a platoon of Chieftans and spend the rest of my points on infantry, light tanks and air support?

And for the record: No, I have no intention of doing milan spam. Fuck that noise.

>>52250387
Aside from a few tank upgrades what else could poland get to actually attract players. i heard their airborne are good... but so is everyone elses.

Czechs might get some fast moving heavy hitting SPGs.

I vote Albania for next eastern euro nation. so that i can play a 100 point list of bunkers manned by teenagers.

>>52251380
>I vote Albania for next eastern euro nation

If were going to wish list, I want Romania.
T-55s with 20 tons of extra armour.
AT missiles made from 3 RPGs mounted together.
T-72 turrets on on lengthened T-55 chassis.
BMPs made from MTLBs, and BTRs that have and HMG with a coax MG and a roof AA MG.

They're the mad max of warpac nations.

>>52234047
Came here about to ask for a good way to start a volksarmee force, apparently step one is a loan (but seriously, I grabbed a blister of the infantry just to see how they paint and if I can actually make 'em look good at a scale like this)

But anyway, I'm not even sure I've got local players who're interested in it, but I'm one of those scrubs that just collect small amounts of a dozen different miniatures games because I'm just an idiot or something :P

are 50 point (or any other points level) games actually enjoyable for team yankee? or is it the 15 points from Warmahordes v3?

>>52251985

50 points is doable, however it might make NATO players cry because of how many toys they won't be able to afford.

If you're planning on running NVA spam, check out Plastic Soldier Company - they've got a plastic T-55 kit coming out next month that's a fraction of what BF wants for their resin tanks.
Skytrex is another manufacturer that does good cold war minis at 15mm scale for a decent price as well.

>>52252116
Basically the plan was for me and a friend to just pick up a box (For NVA potecknovs bears in 3-colour and replacing some of the decals with the NVA ones seemed like not a terrible way to get most of the way there) and some extras, I know the charlies chieftains is a little under 50, so that was more the plan, and it's not like team yankee has issues where 90% of the lists cost a single point or something

I have no damn clue what madman thought that the T-55's needed to be a hybrid kit, I mean, god damn

I'm usually one of those purists that tends to avoid "third party" models, mostly because I hate having 2 panzer 3's next to each other that look completely different (thanks bolt action for your 500% accurate scale), but if -all- my T-55's are PSC.... >.>

I also kinda hate how, half arsed? the NVA release has been, we finally got a second Warpac faction and they just seemed to not care, I mean, we didn't get a paint set, the british didn't either (I don't think), and we didn't get a starting box (probably because we just use everything in the Potecknov's bears but at ten points less or something), but I was surprised to hear that if I was to use 100% offical models, that Heavy Weapons blister I bought, I can't even field half the stuff in it, because I can't seem to find a trace of BTR-60's on the battlefront website, the best I'm kinda hoping for is an NVA version of Panzertruppen, where we actually get the NVA members who aren't just soviets who got lost.

Anyway, would grabbing a Potecknov's bears, and maybe some bmp's and infantry, be an okay game against a starting set of Charlies Chieftains, or should I be looking elsewhere for a basic two player game with TY?

>>52248162
>>52248211

From which planes? The luftwaffe was dead by the time dunkelgelb was standard.

>>52252238

You aren't alone in having those feelings about the release.

And I don't think the BTRs are out until the Soviet update book comes along - so you'll have to get those from somewhere else if you want them. You might also consider adding a little to the brit starter as well - 5 tanks and 2 copters doesn't leave them with alot of wiggle room in what they can do.

Honestly though, the starters just being tanks and helicopters in game about combined arms kind of irks me, especially after how Open Fire knocked it out of the park as a FoW starter.

>>52252384
That's desert camo, you mong.

>>52252429
I also grabbed El Alamein, and after seeing what was in Open Fire, god damn is El Alamein disappointing, we can't even buy fucking infantry that's in the discrete units that the books suggest until fucking April, like, what?

Soviet Update book huh? haven't heard much about that, we got many details or is it just an "it's coming, we swear" but we have no idea when because the release schedule is full of 18 different types of german armour for 4th edition?

>>52252485

I don't remember what the release date for it was - I think it was either April/May or a generic Q2/Q3. As for details, we know there will be BTRs and T-64s, and that it's going be called Red Thunder.

There's also a US update book in the works somewhere, and then I think it's more Brits, and many the French or some other NATO member.

This is all while V4 midwar is launching with BF coordinating the whole thing using some signals.

So I guess what I'm saying is, there will be more stuff, but hell if I know when or how much.

>>52252548

>some signals

SMOKE SIGNALS, I MEANT SMOKE SIGNALS.

>>52252548
>More Brits
Didn't get enough wank to start with did they?

>>52252617

They're a favorite of someone on the design team.
So they'll probably be back with challengers and eurocopters next.

>>52252664
>>52252617
Really? Because British in WW2 usually get the short end of the stick, random Nerfs, tanks too expensive, neat equipment never modelled.

>>52252724

Hungary is on the wrong side on the iron curtain in TY, and the Finns are non-participants. So you see, suddenly Brits were desirable again.

>>52252548
T-64's sure would be damn sweet, sure am looking forward to them getting hit on a 2+ with 6+ skill raitings!

But seriously, might just hold off on the NVA and see what the update book is like, thanks for the heads up

>>52252863

According to BF's forum the T-64 is just a T-72 with an extra point of front armour and the GLATM.

I'm half expecting them to put the wrong missile on it.

>>52252863
so much cheers in one post

>>52252900
Couldn't even bullshit in something like "Oh, it had a different autoloader so it gets a moving ROF that isn't 1", even though that'd be complete bullshit, it'd at least give us something more than a 5 point T-72...

>>52253045
That feel when unsure if "Cheers" is the normal meaning or if /tg/ has their own version that I'm unaware of

>>52253116

I think the RoF 1 moving or stationary is survivable, it's giving the T-55 (and presumably the T-62 as well) slow firing when they have crew loaded guns.

Early model T-62s would actually deserve slow firing due to the retarded case ejection system limiting them to 3-4 round a minute, but that was corrected for later models like the T-62M. And I swear to god that gun of theirs had better be AT 21 HEAT.

>>52253128
Head designer Phil Yates says 'Cheers' on all of his Forum Posts. Usually after telling us why Soviets can't aspire to anything other than 'Muh Asiatic Hordes'

>>52253208
Was referring to the disgusting technology packed T-64, not the T-34 with a million upgrades T-62

>>52253229
Oh, one of the people that say that "Soviets not having veterans for a single list is what makes them so special!"

That feel when a relatively unsupported army like the Italians have more support for diverse lists than one of the big 5 (I haven't looked at any of the pacific stuff, but I'm assuming Japan is a little restricted atm too)

>>52253286
His reasoning for why the Afgansty weren't proper Veterans despite being one of the few armed forces in 1985 to have seen recent actual combat basically amounted to "They got better, at Soviet Tactics. Not Western Tactics."


Also new thread.
>>52253359

>>52250197
>polish eagle
>with crown
Bourgie scum detected.

>>52253367
>"They got better, at Soviet Tactics. Not Western Tactics."
Which is funny considering it would probably be more fair to say they got better at counter insurgency and mountain warfare rather than the kind of fighting that would be seen in a Team Yankee game.

Still pretty bullshit considering the level of abstraction and all around memery in team yankee, but a better reason.

>>52252724
For WW2 yeah. This time around they got plenty of kit, good stats, even an unarmed transport copter, while other just as deserving ones were given a "we're never going to produce this as a kit because lol" word of god excuse. And hell, if they're getting another expansion right after US/USSR, well yeah, someone's got a hardon for CW britbongs.

>>52253116
Now I know FoaN and TY are worlds apart mechanics wise, but if I remember correctly, everything with auto-loaders had RoF1, except for one exception (the sherman with the french turret?) with its RoF2. I could be very wrong on that though, so don't take my word for it. Just always thought that was retarded that the Israelis ofc got an autoloader with RoF2.

>>52253807

I just check the FOAN stats, everything with an autoloader is RoF 1. The egyptian sherman with and AMX turret of course has hen and chicks though.

>>52251380
I mean, polish airborne has been awesome since market garden