Flames of War General: Muh Asiatic Hordes Edition

>>52253269

My mistake.
I agree with you that the T-64 needs more going for it, it at least needs to have ERA. After all the thing was a technological terror that helped to prompt the development of more heavily protected western tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, Leo 2, and LeClerc.

To continue the question I had from the previous thread, what suggestions do you have for someone and their friend to get into Team Yankee?

I got the main rulebook and Leopard, but don't have any miniatures besides a blister of heavy weapons for the NVA

just get one of starter boxes each and the an AA team is a good start

File: Phil.png (36KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x600px

>>52253425

File: Challenger2-on-unpaved-road.jpg (35KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x391px

>>52253500
whoops meant for
>>52253428

Real talk: If being "aggressive" meant you rolled two dice in assault it suddenly would look like the 3+/4+ split was actually reflecting a doctrinal preference rather than just being strictly better, and it'd help the huge assault nerf that came when the number of stands that could get in a fight dropped massively. Afghansty might actually be the best assault troops in the game, instead of that being regular Brit line infantry.

>>52253543

>Acknowledges that Soviets have different tactical and strategic approach to combat
>Does not represent it positively in any form ingame

As expected of the man who won't give the Red Army smoke cover.

File: Rusiansonreichstag.jpg (69KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x300px

Funnily enough, every time I read someone say 'cheers' in /hwg/ and elsewhere on /tg/ I think of Phil now. Thanks.

>>52253610

>WARPAC gets 5+ in assault. So with the new assault rules get mowed down by machine guns before they can get enough men into assault.

>WARPAC always hit on 3+. Which is fine, except it effectively doubles the chance for them to get hit when concealed and gone to ground.

>WARPAC tanks have RoF 1 or slow firing. Ask Phil why autoloaders will always be RoF 1 and he will say it's due to their slower RoF in "bursts". The T-55 doesn't have an autoloader, but gets slow firing. The same stat that a M-109 or Carnation with 2 part ammo gets.

People wonder why there are so many BMP hordes out there. Soviet T-72s are too expensive for what they do on the table. Still need to try out T-72Ms, but the only advantage WARPAC seems to have is spam. The lack of kit support for Volksarmee certainly gives the impression that Battlefront doesn't give a shit about the NPC mook faction.

Meanwhile Mary Sue Brits are murderous in assault, are bristling with Milans, Carl Gustavs, and MGs. They have the "break glass in case of tanks" airborne Milan section. They get decent MBT for providing supporting fire, as well as Swingfires and cute little recon tanks. Their only weakness is lack of AA options, even then they have the best missile AA in game.

How can one nation be good at so much? Well at least we in the Volkspamee can spam more shit tanks and have 4+ for skill checks.

File: 1448180897374.jpg (259KB, 1280x910px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1280x910px

>>52254021

I was digging at the fact that soviet tanks from the T-54 onwards could generate their own smoke screens, and doing so was a major part of offensive operations.

You aren't wrong however.

Also
>Soviet everything from the T-64 onwards are amphibious
>Not even mentioned in passing

>>52254090
>I was digging at the fact that soviet tanks from the T-54 onwards could generate their own smoke screens, and doing so was a major part of offensive operations.
T-34s had smoke dischargers too, rear-mounted ones; they're the weirdly shaped "fuel tanks" you see on some T-34s from 1944 onwards.

>>Soviet everything from the T-64 onwards are amphibious
>>Not even mentioned in passing
Not entirely BF's fault; T-(n) tanks that're amphibious have to be prepared for it, including the hilarious funnel. It was (and presumably is) also considered dangerous to do, and so likely would've only been done in cases where there were no other options.

>>52254090
>>52254115
Yeah, I've found people I play with don't want to make the water we put on our boards anything more than difficult going. If you were doing a campaign with proper rivers on the map, I think you could work that in.

>>52254115

It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well, to the point of
>Erect bow plate
>Drive in water
>You are now Soviet Navy

And the smoke isn't a discharger, it's an actually switch inside the tank that injects diesel fuel into the exhaust chamber, creating a great big cloud of oily smoke behind the tank.

In game turns it could have been as simple as
>Skill check with these tanks in the front
>On a success everyone else get concealed and GtG

>>52254173
>It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well,
Well, they do have the Amphibious rule in TY.

I would actually quite like to play some TY games with more deep river stuff to make them (and M113 stuff for NATO) more interesting.

>>52254021
>T55AM2 the final upgrade of the venerable T54, served reliably all over the world for 3rd world dictators, crewed by dumb arabs and africans in locations with crumbling infrastructure.
>Cross check 4+

>Chieftan, an overweight tank renown amongst its crews for poor engine performance and constant breakdowns.
>Cross check 2+

Cheers Phil

>>52254173
>It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well

Yeah, but those are amphibious at all times. The T-72 is probably not amphibious because it needs prep to go underwater.

>And the smoke isn't a discharger, it's an actually switch inside the tank that injects diesel fuel into the exhaust chamber, creating a great big cloud of oily smoke behind the tank.
Yeah, but the T-34 could also "generate it's own smokescreen", it just had an externally mounted discharger.

>>52254135
NATOboos love night-fighting where the soviets are straight-fucked but never want to play on boards with rivers because "only one of us can use that bit of the board".

File: NATO General Sees River.gif (1MB, 317x237px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 317x237px

>>52254283

The point I was trying to make was built in function vs add-on equipment, but I guess in the end the point is moot because they both do the same thing.

>NATO afraid of a little water, but not the dark

God forbid they have to force a crossing or take a bridge for once.

>>52254360
>God forbid they have to force a crossing or take a bridge for once.
It really is some bullshit. Honestly NATO players are probably the reason TY's struggling now, there's so goddamn many of them and they always want to play stuff that favours NATO (100 points, "but no spam", dawn, no rivers or rivers are just slow-going streams). I've been trying to get more people to come Warpac-side but nobody wants to because the NATO guys don't want to lose their toys and new players are intimidated by the size of the armies you need. I am pretty worried for TY's future.

File: Phill yates.jpg (62KB, 1280x715px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x715px

>>52254360
>>52254449
I've always wanted to play a game of any system with rivers and bridges in any game but nobody wants to have them because it's not easy to play.

It kinda suffers from the you saw in warhammer fantasy where they hated playing on tables with any terrain on because the terrain got in the way of their charges.

>>52254449

It's the exact same problem that plagued FoaN and ToD - one side is a faceless horde with only numbers to count on, and the other side is pretty much just the best troops with the best toys. So everyone flocks to one side, and few if any go to the other, because who wants to be the targets in shooting gallery every game? And the most disappointing thing, is that this didn't need to be the third time they've done this, because everyone is a modern standing army in this fight, and both sides have plenty of toys to spare.

But no, we got FoaN: Fulda Gap Edition

The worst part is I keep hoping that BF and Phil will see that the game's long term viability is a stake, and make an attempt to remedy it, but I know that would take a major effort on their part that they just aren't willing to make.

>>52253359
I was thinking of starting to play Flames of War since so many people at my university already plays.

How big are the average games? How expensive is the game? How long do they take?

I would probably play soviets.

>>52254513
Welcome aboard.

The average size for a game of FoW (1500 points in most eras) has you field about a company of troops plus some supporting elements.
However, the exact force size can vary a lot because of troop quality: well-motivated and highly skilled troops are worth more points, even if they use the same models as their less-elite comrades.
This also means the price of a force can vary a lot depending on the models used; stuff that has plastic kits available (including most common tanks and a fair amount of support stuff) will generally be a lot cheaper than an army requiring a lot of resin/metal.
I'd say a mid-sized game takes 2-3 hours, though some of that will depend on the kinds of forces on both sides. Two poor-quality infantry-focused forces can often take a while to get to a decisive result, while two elite armoured armies can have things end really quickly, especially if mistakes are made.

Speaking for Soviets in particular, most of your stuff will be of decent quality and have basic training standards.
You can field big units, which are robust moralewise but can be a bit of a hassle to maneuver effectively.
Soviet armour is often a bit less efficient than their stats would indicate (especially fighting on the move) but also cheap for their stats.
Some of the heavy armour does suffer from a poor rate of fire.
Later in the war, the Soviets also get access to more elite forces, although they still have the least access to veteran-rated troops of all the major powers. Still, that doesn't have to be an obstacle to success.

As for the expected cost getting started: it'll depend quite a bit on what kind of force you'd be interested in playing.
Would you prefer to focus on infantry or armour?
Are there any vehicles/weapons you particularly like the looks or history of?

>>52254606
My idea of an army would be lots of T-34s, a few light vehicles, a few big units of infantry and its all supported by a big battery of katyushas.

I have no idea what that would be in points though.

Stelkovy with a t-34 company and some BA-64 & katyusha battery.

Pretty decent in MW/LW and even easily converted to EW.

How long will it take for early-war to get the mid-war treatment?

>>52255076
Sounds like a solid above-average sized force there.

Depending on if you'd want to focus on infantry as >>52255097 suggests or on tanks, you'll be playing either a Strelkovy formation with Tankovy support or the other way around.
BA-64 for decent recce and some basic Katyushas for arty should indeed make for a pretty decent list.

Still, if you plan to focus on infantry I'd also try to bring some anti-tank guns to protect them.
76mm ZiS-3 and 57mm ZiS-2 are both pretty effective guns to pick there.

There's also plenty of plastic kits available from multiple manufacturers for this typical Soviet stuff, which should also make things more affordable.

>>52255169
Probably a couple of years, since it looks like they want to focus on fleshing out MW and Team Yankee for now.

>>52255169
Long enough that you probably don't have to worry too much about what your EW force will look like until well after they've put out the eastern front MW stuff

>>52255177
>>52255188

So I can probably leave the Matilda's and Valentine's for now.

File: ww2pen3.pdf (147KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1x1px

To the guy who wanted the penetration figures, here's the most comprehensive collection of them I've been able to find. Keep in mind this is more than 20 different sets of figures, just presented in one document. Don't try to compare between different pages unless the testing criteria and range are the same.

>>52254490
>because who wants to be the targets in shooting gallery every game
It's not even just that; it's that you NEED spam if you want to play a competitive soviet list, and that's pricey when you could get an entire NATO army for 1/2 the price.

>>52255252
Man, those are some crazy numbers for HVAP.

>>52254489

Terrain in Fantasy was a fucking nightmare. Breaking the regiments up was torture.

Best thing was to just have some LoS blocking towers or something that would break up shooting but you could still wheel around them.

In regards to Team Yankee.

The Soviets need more tank options to make non-spam a more viable option.

I think the tanks in Team Yankee are all over the place. The chieftain seems too good because they obviously wanted to keep the Challenger back for wave 2 but didn't want to put people off starting Brits.

Meanwhile the T-72 is dog shit when really it should get more credit for being battle-tested.

Bring out the T-80's and make them unrealistically good or something, IDK.

File: panzerfunk camo logo.jpg (323KB, 936x817px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 936x817px

Episode 18 of the Panzerfunk Podcast is live!

Panzerfunk Episode 18: VolkSpamee

In this Episode the Funkmeisters discuss:

Recent Hobby Activities.

VolkSpamee - Our review of Volksarmee for Team Yankee.

Ask the Funkmeisters - Questions from YOU, our listening audience about our last minute thoughts on 4th Edition just before it's release, generating interest in less commonly played eras, and more.

https://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-18-volkspamee/

>>52255478
All we need is for the T-80U from Wargame equivalent and we'd be fucking set for Soviets actually having a choice

File: post-87-1409556939.jpg (92KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x750px

>>52256249
It was kinda a novelty when the Soviets had the best tank in Wargame: ALB. Then RD opened the floodgate for all sorts of post-1991 nato bullshit.

File: Phill yates.jpg (141KB, 1280x715px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x715px

>>52256249
>T-80U
>isn't very good in the game has to be spammed to be useful
>PHIL!

>>52255252
Great document! Thanks for sharing.

>>52253543
> autobiographies as sources

These really aren't good sources for information when it comes to a company level game.

>>52256880
"Well, as we all know, the T-80U was just a prototype, so therefore it had a lot of reliability issues, which we've chosen to represent in game so that the soviet player gets to play with more of them"

Fucking hell, I wrote it, and still read it in his voice...

>>52255197
The valentines are still interesting in MW, then again, I'm one of those people that take a Soviet Lend Lease battalion in LW, because off colour shermans and churchills gets my cheers hard

>>52253594
or just a single bonus die in assault.

you forget how outright lethal assault dice are.

>>52254489
who wants me to photoshop that head onto a porn star body?

File: 1449504488790.png (101KB, 124x357px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 124x357px

>>52254490
explain why people want to do crudaser spam or honey hoses in V4 then?

>>52257398
because spamming is an easy non thinking mans tactic

>>52257398

I have no problem with spamming being an option.

It's only a problem when it's the only option.

>>52257526
This

I have no problem with 41 T-55's being viable, just make it a hard decision over 10 t-64's, we have that in MW now with the british to a small extent, and the germans (big surprise) large extent!

>>52257398
BF seems to feel that every matchup needs an unwashed horde to spam on everything. Therefore British stats were altered to create the Anglo tide of garbage for "fun".

>>52257703
"If someone doesn't get 100 tanks, and the other player doesn't get 100 kills, we have failed as a games company"?

>>52257148
>Soviet maintenance crews were frequently over-worked and tired, often failing to install ERA packages properly.
>It is for this reason we given the T-80U a frontal armour value of 17.

Cheers

>>52257732
And then the Italians will be the Axis horde and the Americans will be the Allied elite. Remember though that playing elite vs elite is against the spirit of the game.

>>52257148
>>52257800

Why stop there, T-80's are going to be cheaper than T-72's.

>>52256880

As a new guy to team yankee...

What the fuck is up with this guy and basically boiling down the soviets to spam? I really want the T-80 but I have a sneaking hunch they're going to be shit because this fuck has some retarded biases.

File: IMG_0235.jpg (72KB, 355x531px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 355x531px

Obligatory reminder than a 4 man team of Soviets/East Germans with assault rifles are worse in assault than 2 British blokes manning a Milan.

>>52257831

This will probably be the case and annoy me greatly when the Brits had loads more experience at fighting in the desert when the US arrived.

One of the reasons for the US even entering the North Africa theatre was to get some experience.

>>52257925

Don't worry. The'll make the T-80U decent purely because it will have a plastic kit to sell.

They better anyway, because fuck buying and painting that many tanks. Makes a 6x4 board look like a T-72 factory park.

>>52257831
>>52257971
Eh, I'm expecting US armour in particular to be rated Agressive to hit.
After all, they're about as good as Late-War Soviets according to Phil.

Also remember that basically all US stuff available in the desert so far was Confident Trained before.

>>52257800
That genuinely made me angry, I gotta take a break from this thread, because I feel like I just peered into an abyss and saw the future

>>52254021
>>52254490
Thing is: I would torally play a "baddie" army if they jad more versatility. All my WW2 armies are axis because they have their own charm and character(whereas the allies have basically no minor powers outside EW or they all just use Shermans anyway).

I wish Soviets or Volksarmee had something that wasn't just "take this unit, crtl-c and then ctrl-v until points limit reached" because it would make them more appealing to me(okay, maybe not Soviets).

The main reason I'm aiming for Brits right now is I think a lot of their stuff looks cool, and the Harrier is one of my favorite jets of all time. Just sucks I'll have to go out of my way to not appear to be "that guy" while playing them.

>>52254449
I would love to play a board with a river running across it with like 2 or 3 bridges. Would lead to some interesting fights, and could make arty and air support really valuable.

>>52258339
The "Charm and Character" thing is 100% valid to me, you have no idea how badly I'd get into Italy, Hungary -and- Romania if I had a decent local group into the MW stuff, Hell, I'd even go for Greece and Poland EW if I could

>>52258484
My goal is to have two armies for each period. Finns and Italians in EW, Itliand and Hungarians in MW and Finns and Hungarians in LW. Gives me plenty of options to mix up my lists and playstyles.

Nothing sucks worse than playing that one guy who you know CAN mix things up, but just runs the same list over and over because "it's really good you guys!"

>>52258523
>Nothing sucks worse than playing that one guy who you know CAN mix things up, but just runs the same list over and over because "it's really good you guys!"
But, my Finns!

>>52257800
>>It is for this reason we given the T-80U a frontal armour value of 17.
>17
>not 14

>>52257703
>>52257732
>>52257831

Wait until we get around to Mid War Soviets...if the *British* can spam 60 Stuarts or Crusaders at release, what the hell are the Soviets going to be able to bring?!?

>>52258703
And you have multiple lists to pick from.

It's the guy I knew who played Americans, who have about 50 bajillion lists, and only played the same airborne list over and over again. Not because they were his favorites, not because his grandfather was airborne or something. No. It was because they were a stupid good list that did well at tournaments.

It's the same mentality as the people who go "why would you play anything less than fearless vets?"

>>52259203
There are lists other than Jaakari?

>>52259203
>It's the same mentality as the people who go "why would you play anything less than fearless vets?"
Uh, because FV is often overcosted and CV or even RV can do the same job just as well with more men? At least when talking about tanks.

Lord Viruscide, you online?

We're waiting for you to record Panzerfunk.

>>52259130
Well, based of 3 Crusaders in V3 being 150 points, and now being 5, that makes for a very rough translation of the spam tanks of 30pts = 1 pt.

Based off that, I expect we'll see T-60s, T-70s, Valentines, and Stuarts for about 1pt per tank (at conscript).

Who's ready to cover their deployment zone in tanks?

>>52253359
Virus, we are in motion.....

>>52259829
Crusaders IIs are 5 Pts for three...hit on 2+ Soviets with Hen and Chicks might be 1 Pt for 2-3 tanks, depending on model. Maybe they'll alleviate it a bit and make the Soviets all hit on 3+.

Yeah. Who am I kidding...

60 crusders why would even want to spam that many tanks?

>>52258523

Always a good idea in historics.

Bring both sides and you'll never be disappointed.

Also, that feel when you have a brigade from early war to the end.

File: 1467745879455.jpg (422KB, 1280x882px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1280x882px

>>52256200
Probably not as scathing as I would've been, but I think you all reflected the sentiment here pretty well.

>>52260967
Well I don't really have both sides; all those armies are axis.

>>52262489

Oh right, sorry. I'll admit I didn't read it.

Still, my advice stands.

>>52262162
We call bullshit when we need to, but we try not to be overly harsh.

File: Lorried Rifle.pdf (286KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1x1px

Decided to whip up a list for both V3 and V4, with the intent of using my newly acquired Comets in a reasonable way. It's got three infantry platoons, two mortar platoons, recce, the Comets, and 6 pdrs.

V3: Being a Mechanized company always hurts when you're not in halftracks, but hopefully this list can handle it. On the attack, I have two platoons dropping smoke to cover the advance while everyone slogs up into position. The carriers will take an active role in silencing enemy spotters and such, since without that I'm rather vulnerable on the advance. On the defense, much of my reserves may be a bit slower than desired but 6pdr ambushs cover many sins.

V4: 7 formation platoons, so it'll take a lot of work to force me from the field entirely. 40% reserves means I stick the Comets and a lorried rifle platoon in the back while defending. Two smoke bombardments helps close when I have to attack, as does the Recce spearhead. And of course, this list gets to abuse the absurdly good new mortar stats.

File: Lorried Lorried Rifle.pdf (296KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1x1px

>>52264261
And the alternate version, with one less Lorried Rifle platoon, but with armored SAS jeeps for assaulting and Flamethrowers for burning. Also everyone (except the 3" mortars) has transports now for extra mobility.

File: MkII_Saurian_43RTR_33AB_3ID.png (214KB, 679x250px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 679x250px

Say, anons and namefags, if German command style is referred to as "Mission-type Tactics", and the Soviets have "Centralized Command", what do you think would be an apt title for the Brits/US?

So I'm interested in getting into Team Yankee, especially a Soviet Motor Brigade themed army, but from this thread it seems WARPAC is kinda shit. Will I regret buying into them? Or are the balance issues mainly in competitive play?

>>52264458
Soviet BMP-2 lists are pretty effective since the BMP-2 has an effective AT 21 missile, a decent cannon, and infantry that stick around even if it dies. The annoying thing is that you have to buy and paint a lot more than if you were playing NATO.

>>52264791
I pretty much always play horde armies so that's not an issue. So is it just WARPAC tanks that are shit?

>>52265195
It depends on which tank.

By far the spammiest of the spammy is the East German T-55AM2.

Slightly better, and probably at the sweet spot for points cost vs effectiveness, is the East German T-72M. You lose some armor and AT compared to the full Soviet T-72, but it feels like you're getting a better deal.

And probably the least worthwhile is the Soviet T-72. They were decent when it was just the US and Russia in the game, but with West Germany and England in the game, NATO guns have gotten more powerful, and the T-72 isn't quite as good as it once was.

>>52264374
i dunno. something about Sargent Majors running the show while junior officers give vague but spirited orders.

>>52265627
"Man, the new Lieutenant sure knows fuck all about why we're here, but damn does he have a nice mustache, so what're we gunna actually be doing sarge?"

It's not really in the templating though, is it?

>>52265396
The T-7w has a gun that's the same AT as the Chieftan, with 1 point less front armor(not counting stillbrew) and 2 points better side armor.

Yes the Chieftan can get off an extra shot if it doesn't move, but other than that it's not really all that much weaker until you take into consideration the hit on 3+ and shit skill ratings.

>>52266320
"sarge... sarge they're shootin at us"

>>52268239
"so shoot back"

HOW TO START FIGHTING FOR GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA? I DO NOT CARE HOW, JUST TO DROWN THE ENEMY IN VODKA, BLOOD AND TREADS

Question. How do I simplify Flames of War for convention play for people who have never played before? I was considering dropping national rules completely but not sure how much they factor into points costs.

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?

>>52257967
Have you ever had your faced bashed in with 15kg of missile tube?

Cheers

>>52268931
You see Ivan, now is not of good moment to be army of motherland. It was never of good moment if i am honest. If you want of start fighting for our glorious leader Joseph Stalin i suggest you go of asking Red Bear book at the state's library, comrade librarian can be of help with that. Зa Poдинy!

>>52266781
The thing is the chieftain has AT 22, as everything now does. At the game's launch, AT 20 was the primary antitank value, because everyone had Abrams, and the T-72 could shrug off hits from it with some regularity. Against Leos and Chieftains you glance on 6s, so any hit knocks your tank out at least.

This changed the calculus on shoot-outs a lot; if NATO gets front armour the T-72 gets wrecked. The only tactic that still wins you that now is flanking... for which any kinetic damage value over 15 will do. The soviet T-72 accordingly pays too many points for a useless +1 AT.

File: God save the queen.gif (912KB, 397x312px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 397x312px

>>52257967
An accurate representation of what truly cheeky lads are capable of.

>>52269168
Have you looked at the new 4th Edition rules? They are significantly streamlined and less complicated than the Version 3 rules.

>>52269339
Some Shermans and Sherman Fireflies are a good choice.

After that, perhaps some artillery or mortars would be a good addition as well.

>>52265396

> England.

Out.

>>52269339
>>52270901

Get the Open Fire box, you get 8 British Sherman's, two of which are Firefly's.

>>52271047
The Open Fire box is starting to become hard to find, since it was the starter set for the previous edition.

>>52257967
2 people are harder to hit than 4

Cheers

>>52271916
This... almost makes sense.

Cheers

File: IMG_2084.png (15KB, 576x228px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 576x228px

>>52272687
>>52271916

>Panzerfunk's Volksarmee episode was uploaded one day earlier than WWPD's Volksarmee episode.

I think this is the first time we have ever discussed something before Battlefront's pet podcasters.

>>52273270
I am curious to hear their shill take on it. I am guessing it's going to be 2 hours of Mitch saying "well I thought it was going to suck, but don't knock it till you try it" and Luke and Eric "wanking over spam lists"... Actually let's be honest, they are all playing Brits.

>>52273460
"Spam is a sometimes food"

>>52273460
I'm listening to it now, but they haven't actually gotten to Volksarmee yet.

Also, they keep talking about "upcoming tournaments" that happened at least a week ago now.

I was just going over the points values of the two starter armies for 4th edition.

Am I correct in saying that the german box gets you about 60-70 points depending on how you setup your panzer 3/4's and the british get around 40-50 depending?

Is there actually much reason -not- to get a Rommels Afrika Korps box with a tiger one and calling that "my first 100 points"?

>>52273671
The German box does indeed offer you more value; it's an effect of the Germans getting more powerful tanks in the first wave.

>Getting a Tiger
I personally wouldn't field a Tiger with my DAK forces, since it's a huge points sink, but that's based on theory alone so I'm not sure how effective the big kitty would be in practice.
Still, while I'd rather go for some combined arms stuff it might work if you're pressed for points.

>>52273763
I'd be more than happy to field this panzergrenadier platoon in this blister, but sadly they don't come with the pzb41 and I can't seem to find any that have DAK crew anywhere on battlefronts website, my understanding is I can't take them without the gun and the "proper" afrika rifle platoon doesn't come out for like 8 weeks right?

>>52273501
More like spam is barely a food.

Isn't it basically just pork "leftovers" and gelatin?

>>52273763
>>52273887
>>52273671
Also honestly I'd rather play Italians, but they aren't coming around until september right? I'm just kinda being impatient wanting to get into the game now, and I remember reading that I can take a combat platoon of an allied country as a support option, right?

File: Volksarmee.jpg (40KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x301px

2 minutes into segment 2 and the WWPD derps are already wanking about spamming T-55s. "It's not bad." "Bryan is doing a full 3 companies."

>Fuck you Bryan

>>52273897
And salt. Don't forget the salt.

>>52274111
Where's bryan gunna get his other 85 points from though?

>>52274111
>full 3 companies
>>52274163
>Where's he gunna get his other 85 points from though?

The 3 full units, plus 1 HQ tank, comes out to 49 points.

>>52274829
>Forgot that sarcasm isn't legit on 4chan unless we have the mystical implying arrows
>>52274163
>Fuck I'm an idiot

>Panzerfunk: it's ridiculous(in a bad way) how much stuff you can spam with Volksarmee

>WWPD: it's ridiculous(in a good way) how much stuff you can spam with Volksarmee

>>52275051
To be fair they did say that 80 points should be the new tournament standard.

Hey guys, new prospective player here, looks I jumped in at an awkward time. I'm familiar with how lists work in v3, but what's changing so much that you can suddenly spam things? Is it formations? (No idea how those work.)

I was thinking of waiting until MW Eastern Front gets fleshed out a bit and maybe the Spanish Blue Division gets v4 rules. But the WWPD guys seem to think all-infantry lists are screwed in v4. Is it now easier to add tanks to an infantry list?

File: Krasny Bor.jpg (170KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1600x800px

>>52275576
Oops, meant to post pic. And I realize there are still a lot of unknowns. I'm patient.

>>52275576
The spamability comes from the new Formations, which are essentially what used to be companies in Version 3.

In 4th Edition your force can contain multiple Formations, which can lead to things like stupid amounts of M3 Honey Stuart's or the like.

Note that these probably aren't actually good ideas for a list, but they are possible.

As for infantry, I don't think they're screwed. A few things have made things like mortars better at killing them, or made it possible to hit concealed gone-to-ground veterans at long range, but overall I wouldn't say that infantry lists are screwed.

>>52275938
>made it possible to hit concealed gone-to-ground veterans at long range
I don't get the people who think that matters, but I'm not very good at math. It looks like, if you need 6 shots to get a single hit on 6s on average, then you should need 18 hots to get a single hit on a 7+ (three sixes followed by one 5+). You need some comically large number, like 90 dice to pin a unit of Grenadiers from long range fire.

Also I think the one observer thing is extremely important. By positioning yourself in or near terrain you will frequently force a +1 to hit on the enemy ranging in, and you can choose targets. I would never get remotely near the enemy with Observers because flubbing that Mistaken Target will fuck you good. I want to test this all out soon.

>>52277530
I also don't find the ability to hit on 7 or 8 all that game changing either, but I think the basic argument is that at least it's possible now even if it is unlikely, whereas it was completely impossible before.

A slim chance instead of no chance.

>>52275938
>A few things have made things like mortars better at killing them, or made it possible to hit concealed gone-to-ground veterans at long range,
Also having to attack 50% of the time, which means you can no longer expect your infantry to defend and design based on that. Enjoy charging those MG laden tanks.

>>52277884
There were quite a few old missions where the "defender" didn't actually defend, but I get your point.

I'm still not sure Infantry is screwed, but in that situation integrated AT will certainly be highly useful.

>>52277884
Infantry are now more mobile using dashes and movement orders. Infantry can also use blitz moves to creep up on tanks 4" at a time remaining concealed and gone to ground. You still are going to need some accompanying AT to deal with tanks. Or maybe just an IL-2 Tip 3M

Guy who bought patton's eagles again.

Building my m3 halftracks.

Does this kit build another vehicle too? On the website they mention m5 halftrack too.

Also what kind of MGs should I put on my halftracks?

>>52279381
According the the Bridge at Remagen armored lists, 2 of the M3 Halftracks have .50 cals, the other 3 have .30 cal brownings.

>>52279381
>Does this kit build another vehicle too? On the website they mention m5 halftrack too.
Yeah, the Brits use M5s, US uses M3s. Since it's only a few extra bits on the sprue, they figured they'd combine them.

>>52281220
So both vehicle come from same sprue?
Is it possible to build m3 with m5 package?

>>52281920
Yes. It's are on the same sprue.

This article on the web page should help explain how to build the Halftrack kit.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4418

>>52282436
>It's are

**It's all**

>>52275576
>But the WWPD guys seem to think all-infantry lists are screwed in v4.
The guys from WWPD are either fucking morons or getting paychecks from BF. If BF want to push armor heavy in V4 of course those idiots at WWPD say infantry suck to encourage more people to buy tanks.

>>52271916
>4 assault rifles with bayonets vs 1 and a handgun
????

So apparently the tanks from the new MW sets are getting release again for TANKS.

Tiger
Panzer IV
Panzer III
Grant
Honey
Crusader

So at least Germans and Brits are getting some more stuff.

Although I like that of the three British tanks only the Grant has any armor rating.

>>52283517
Looking a little more, the issue they cited is that infantry lists are more likely to have to attack than in v3.

>>52284683
>2 fukin ded 'ard, roided up lads from Teeside vs 4 under-fed communists
Fixed

>>52286212
>underfed soldiers in a 'some are more equal than others' society

File: IMG_0247.jpg (37KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x360px

>>52286850
>>52286212

>Phil's source for the performance of the Soviet army in any era

>>52287104
> Soviet *elite* forces attempt to re-take Stalingrad c. 1942 (colourised)

Cheers.

File: Literally me.jpg (91KB, 604x560px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 604x560px

>>52287104
>>52287183
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgRyLz47liM&ab_channel=tunnglet
I think I've found Phil's wanking material

>>52287212
>Flames of War V4: MW Ostfront Hype Video LEAKED

>>52256200
Next time you do an episode, could you list the times when topics change in the episode itself? Not that I don't enjoy the entire episode, but it's nice to be able to pop to certain topics (in this case, the questions).

>>52287212
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KefqkMoUIMo

I'v been looking into 4th for a bit now and I'm a bit confused about formations. How do I know what formations I can take if the division isn't clearly stated? Like for example the Grenadierkompanie from Grey Wolf.

Am I missing something obvious?

Reading V4, you now only get QoQ if you get 12+ stands in contact, and contact now has to be touching an enemy base? Is that correct? Because if so, holy hell what the fuck.

>>52288657
Yes, and a 25 stands unit do not runs away until literally 23 stand died.

>>52288806
So, Soviet platoons are now for sitting in foxholes all game, I guess?

>>52288824
Nah, just charge them into MGs over and over again until it takes. It's finally the game Phil's always wanted.

There's at least smoke now.

File: phil yates.jpg (21KB, 603x464px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 603x464px

>>52288841
Did battlefront hire zapp brannigan?

>>52288841
To be serious, what's going to happen is this:

You'll get to short range one turn, hopefully with them pinned and maybe smoked, and charge with stuff that can make contact. You'll probably fail since MG teams are still RoF 2 pinned and it only needs 5 hits on 3s/4s, which is easy territory for a full squad let alone more than one.

Their go is firing through smoke, kills 2-4 more of your stands with MG fire, 3-5 if they unpinned, and pins you again.

Next turn you unpin because you have a comissar, stuff follows up; now you're right in their face you can assault with everything clumped up enough to get 12 stands in base-to-base and you've lost 10+ stands in the process, for historical accuracy.

It's basically now all about whether or not you run out of guys before they get unlucky. You get smoke but it's one barrage per game, now, so you can't rely on it to always get into assault like vets could in V3. The soviet special rule may or may not allow you multiple smoke bombardments; I've seen it argued both ways.

As an aside, 8 hits to assault would be a nice rule for Aggressive troops. At the moment it's still "bad" and "good" hit ratings. I have no problem with bad and good ratings, but there's really no reason to label it "aggressive".

Hi anons. Randomly I get a (supplement I guess) World War Three FoW PDF called Team Yankee.

It does not have any weapons chart or anything. Are there more books in the WW3 settings? If so, which ones? Or at least the weapon stats would be nice to have, thanks!

>>52289309
The weapons are listed in the entry for each unit.

>>52289184
When did Soviet artillery get smoke?

>>52289402
Thanks! But, are more futuristic FoW books like Team Yankee? I'd love to have them ^_^

>>52289806
Take a look in the Scans database for the following:

>Leopard
>Volksarmee
>Iron Maiden

Those are the current army books for Team Yankee. We should be seeing two more before the year ends to add more for the Americans and Soviet Union.

>>52289806
What do you mean futuristic?

Team Yankee is set in roughly 1985. No Flames of War or Team Yankee book goes any further than that.

The books for that time period are Team Yankee, Leopard, Iron Maiden, and Volksarmee.

Leopard has the West Germans, Iron Maiden has the British, and Volksarmee has the East Germans.

Check out the scans database link in the OP, you can find them there.

>>52257800
>>52257148
>>52255478

Yeah, having the T-80 would be nice. Fuck, the entire category A forces in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was equipped with T-80Bs/BVs by 1985... which means that for the first week of the conflict, the Soviets would field an overwhelming majority of that model, before attrition rates take their toll on GSFG forces and reinforcements from the mainland USSR arrive. Of course, non-Soviet Warsaw Pact forces stick to the T-55 and 72.

Fun fact, the GSFG maintained until the early 1980s independent tank battalions equipped with fucking IS-series tanks. Not only the T-10/10M, but IS-2s and 3s as well.

>>52288228
I have to double check this, since I'm still trying to learn the new rules myself, but I think you pick one company as your main formation.

Then your other formations can come from units that were support choices for your main formation. So if one of your support choices is a Panzer IV platoon, you could choose to do a second formation which is a Panzer IV formation.

I think that's how it's supposed to work. I'm not 100% certain on that.

Obviously somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken about this.

File: 1476176949456.jpg (2MB, 3000x1684px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1684px

>>52289942
Fuck, forgot part of my message. As >>52289884
says, the action happens in 1985. This means that the Soviets should get a large majority of T-80Bs and BVs, since the first T-80B was made in 1978 and theKontakt-1 reactive armor introduced in 1983. Then T-72As, then T-64Bs (especially for the southern fronts and forces coming from Soviet territory), with reactive armor.

T-72Bs and T-80Us, however, were introduced during 1985, so I guess that they don't absolutely have to be introduced. They can, since the M1A1 Abrams with the 120mm tube was put in service this year as well, but the USSR can field a realistic combo of T-64B(V)s, T-72As and T-80B(V)s without resorting to the bigger beasts.

>>52289753
All artillery gets one smoke barrage per game in v4.

>>52289975
Thanks, that's the way I interpreted it as well but I found it to be a bit too vague to be sure.

>>52290047
Only if they're smoke units already in EW/LW. The rules are actually different between periods, so soviets don't get any smoke (still).

>>52290007
Right now the game has the US with the original 105mm armed M1, and the Soviets with a somewhat ambiguous version of the T-72.

The West Germans have the Leopard 2 and Leopard 1.

The British get the Chieftain, with or without Sillbrew armor upgrade.

And the East Germans get the T-72M and the T-55AM2.

Latter this year we'll be getting expanded American and Soviet forces. Probably giving us the T-64 for the Soviets, the M60 for the US, and some other additions to their arsenals.

I'd love to see stats for the M1A1 in the upcoming American expansion. Especially since the plastic kit does include pieces to build the kit as an M1A1 with the 120mm barrel and expanded stowage basket.

File: DSCF1115.jpg (609KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1600x1200px

Rate my shilka's does the camo look right?

Let's say hypothetically a well-funded neet with a personal reference library wants to write a comprehensive wargamer's guide to WW2. What would you guys want to see in such a tome? What would you pay monies for? I want to focus on shit that you won't find on the internet, at least not in easily digested form. I've seen """reference"""" books that just steal shit they googled and I really don't want to do that.

>>52290264
>Right now the game has the US with the original 105mm armed M1, and the Soviets with a somewhat ambiguous version of the T-72.

It's a T-72A.

>Latter this year we'll be getting expanded American and Soviet forces. Probably giving us the T-64 for the Soviets, the M60 for the US, and some other additions to their arsenals.

I really wonder why the T-64's getting added; by the time period it's a T-72 with a better autoloader, and they've stated they don't feel autoloaders were ever good enough in the period to give them RoF 2.

>I'd love to see stats for the M1A1 in the upcoming American expansion. Especially since the plastic kit does include pieces to build the kit as an M1A1 with the 120mm barrel and expanded stowage basket.
Almost certainly getting M60s but the rules for those might be included.

>>52290457

For me, if you're doing it for wargamers in general even if not one specific system, nonetheless go all in and make it as "wargame-y" as you can.

Orders of battle, scenario ideas, linked campaigns, etc. Possibly some theatre-specific chapters with formations, paint schemes, and unique equipment if there's enough to differentiate it from what else is out there. Maybe aerial photography from the time, with a clear read-across for how to make this into a wargaming table. Ideally playtested to have something that's not too one-sided, or with a deliberately lop-sided scenario to compensate if not.

Ideally a balance between platoon, company, and higher level games to allow people to get stuck in at different levels and in multiple systems.

>>52290559
>Ideally a balance between platoon, company, and higher level games to allow people to get stuck in at different levels and in multiple systems.
Yeah that was the idea. I was even thinking of going one step further and including ways to manipulate real-life battlefields so they work in more retarded game systems that don't let you shoot the length of Pegasus Bridge.

Is anyone else realizing that tigers in v4 are no longer an overcosted points sink? Tiger Ace now gives +1 to last stand and blitz, so vet tigers are almost guaranteed to blitz.

Tigers may be displacing panthers in my list very soon.

>>52291299
I know personally I'm very tempted to try them, especially considering now if you're into plastics, you only have to buy one extra tiger you'll never use in a real list as opposed to four!

>>52290288
I couldnt tell you if it was accurate, but the contrasts are good and highlights are strong, so I like it.

>>52289842
Thanks anon, much appreciated!

>>52289884
I mean WW3. I said futuristic because it didn't happened yet xD And thank you too!

:)

File: Untitled.jpg (694KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1600x1200px

>>52290288
East German or Russian?

One thing I've seen a lot of people got wrong on the Verzerrungsanstrich is making the applied patterns too vivid. Huge splotches of matte black and flat white dominating the green too much, looks like a fucking spiderman pattern. The colours actually used were more of a charcoal black and smokey grey which had a much more subdued effect.

>>52254173

>Erect bow plate
>Drive in water
>You are now Soviet Navy

Thank you anon I'm cracking up over here

>>52292237?
Russian is there something wrong with my application of it?
i'll admit the photocolour is different that it in person.

File: 17015966_1400473540004239_8917814613128399584_o.jpg (361KB, 1167x683px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1167x683px

>>52293361
Oh, I don't know all that much about the practicals of miniature painting. I just took the opportunity to grog-out over some of the NVA paintjobs I've seen on facebook.

How to start drowning my enemies in soviet bodies and tanks?

>>52293668
That depends on if you're looking to play WWII or 1980s Cold War.

We can make some recommendations from there.

>>52294148
Wwii I kinda of want to say early war because I have market garden stuff for late war already.

>>52294991
First, see if you can get a copy of the Early War/Late War 4th Edition rule books.

After that, I would recommend the Barbarossa book.

Take a look at that, get an idea of what you'd like to do, and then we can offer ideas and suggestions.

>>52295062
There's different core books for war periods now?

>>52295552
Yes. For some reason. Mid War and the Late/Early books are basically the same though just Mid War has the 100 points scale.

>>52295552
They launched 4th Edition with Mid-War desert.

Everything besides that is still using the Version 3 sourcebooks.

So EW and LW have a rule book that uses the same rules as the new Mid-War 4th Edition, but tells you how the older stuff translates to the new edition.

File: Screenshot_20170322-073511-picsay.png (292KB, 624x990px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 624x990px

Commie British list

Did we ever get an explanation for the T-55 having RoF 1 and Slow Firing? The damn thing has a loader, one-piece ammo, and the loader has at least as much room as the loader in a Comet (and those things don't have Slow Firing).

Is it just more bullshit "muh asiatic hordes" from Mr. Cheers?

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

46KB, 750x267px

>>52297026
When I complained about it on the forum I got this back.

>Cheers

File: 1489626576065.gif (2MB, 448x352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x352px

>>52297175
What the fuck...?

File: communist_britain_flag_by_party9999999-d3r9ib6.png (30KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 900x500px

>>52295940
Commie British?

>>52287890
No one made an Asiatic hordes joke, tsk tsk.

>>52297635
ho ho! I just got that. When I watched it this morning, all I could think of is why the fuck are all these Red Army soldiers slants? I guess I just reasoned it off as them all being Kazakhs.

>>52297678
They're Koreans, and a Japanese dude, from the movie My Way. Kinda neat flick.

>>52297585
Russians using equipment that is most commonly used by the British.

>>52297175

What a cheeky motherfucker

>>52295940
Need to swap the 251s for Whites

>>52297175

I guess he really showed you huh...

File: af6.png (584KB, 769x738px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 769x738px

Come to think of it, why didn't BF throw some actual Soviet Asiatic hordes vs Japan stuff for late war?

File: raaaauuuus.jpg (258KB, 800x502px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 800x502px

>>52256200

>my audio

holy moaning jesus mary-motherfuck my fucking audio. holy shit...it's fuck-ass terrible! did any of you guys hear me like that? fuck my life!

for jesus fuck sake....tell me if i suck that bad...!

>>52297936
>>52297175
Surely he must realize that such flippant replies don't to anything to help his image, right?

>>52298431
Because the soviets were indisputably top dog in manchuria and the soviets aren't allowed to be good at anything.

>>52298450
I dunno. It probably doesn't even come across his mind. His cheekiness does bring us great Cheers. Kind of like the giddiness I have when I end up buying most of my asiatic spam tanks from other companies.

>Cheers

At least Soviet's are by and large better all around in V4 (well besides losing QoQ).

>>52298431
It's EW, but here is more Phil wank material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfM7syO6hY

File: IMG_0250.jpg (34KB, 236x321px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 236x321px

>>52299179

File: IMG_3303.jpg (270KB, 1600x666px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1600x666px

Based Ritterkrieg

File: IMG_3307.jpg (446KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1600x1066px

>>52299541
I love the bucket, and the schurzen he sculpted on.

File: battle-stalingrad-rare-pictures-amazing-russians-soviet-soldiers-eat.jpg (80KB, 560x377px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 560x377px

>>52297678

>>52290264
Oh, my bad. I'm new to Team Yankee, and I've read entirely only the Soviet and Volksarmee rule sets, I mostly glossed over NATO stuff.

So yeah, if the M1s are the 105mm armed ones, then T-72A/Ms are appropriate opponents, and T-64Bs or T-80Bs wouldn't be game breakers, either.

Then one could imagine some kind of Big Beasts ruleset, that would include platoon-sized and expensive units of M1A1s, Challenger 1s and T-80Us to use as game changers.

Could be nice to have something about airborne units, too, which would include on one side M551 Sheridans and Wiesels, and on the other side BMDs, ASU-85s and BTR-Ds.

>>52298450
You assume he cares. As long as the product with his name on it sells he gets to keep making money and the games with his wank all over them.

>>52298964
This. It would be hilariously one-sided and boring as fuck to play. For example, in 1945, the Soviets left their T-34s and IS-2s to take old BT-5s and 7s out of their warehouses because they were faster and armored enough to deal with the Japanese "anti-tank" weaponry anyways.

>>52303418

It was less that they were faster and more that there were divisions of the things that had spent the whole war just siting there is the far east, so why not use them?

That said they did bring some of their modern armor east when they shipped troops in for August Storm.

I'm still in awe of how they crossed whole mountain range in 5 days with an entire tank army.

>>52303418
>>52303453
I've heard tales that some IS-3s were sent east and saw "action" against the Japanese in the closing days, but I have no way of confirming said tales, and I doubt the action would be more than shooting at stubborn Japanese troops to prove a point (it's not like the Japanese at that point could do shit against the IS-3 anyway, but there is no kill like overkill).

>>52303495

The Japanese could coat the IS-3 with suicidal explosive laden infantrymen. When one of you top generals tells you the fight is down to your spiritual superiority versus the enemy's material superiority, you know it's basically all over but for the dying.

>>52303547
I dunno when your plan relies heavily on an assumption that is easily proven wrong by even the quickest glance at a history book, which further involves squaring up against a nation with six times the industrial capacity that you have, I'd say you where fucked from the word go.

So I just dropped by after being burned out on WW2 for a bit and went to PSC's website and saw...

Forthcoming Releases
15mm German SdKfz 231 8 rad armoured car
15mm Valentine

Fuck yes, LL Valentine horde will finally become financially feasible.

>>52303547
Assuming of course that the IS-3s aren't sitting at great range, surrounded by infantry, and backed up by artillery. It's not as if any Japanese infantry wave attack would have gotten through that. Pelted by IS-3 and artillery fire at long range, mortars and MGs as they close, and if anyone got through that they'd face Soviet burp guns.

>>52303418
>It would be hilariously one-sided and boring as fuck to play
I dunno; in a points game you're going to have equivalent numbers of stuff. Can you imagine a T-34/85 in EW points?

>>52303495
Alas one of those rumours nobody's ever proved.

File: 1429403795943.jpg (208KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 900x1200px

>>52304120

Something something honor.
Something something die for the Emperor.
Something something BANZAI.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1024x683px

>>52297175
Lol

Were the Soviet's fighting in Manchuria mostly green or did they send any veterans from the front with Germany to the Far East?

File: glorious T34.jpg (85KB, 1072x832px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1072x832px

>>52305166
The soviet force that invaded Manchuria was almost entirely comprised of veterans from the fighting against Germany.

>>52305166
>1945
>green Soviet forces

Hi Phil!

Cheers.

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

229KB, 458x347px

>>52305615
>soviets
>veteran
Cheers
h
e
e
r
s

>>52305648
When I was reading up, I noticed a few of the units involved had been stationed in the East all war. Wasn't sure if that was an outlier or the usual.

How do people feel about US LW armour now? The cookie cutter of 1 M4, 2 E8, 1 Jumbo is maybe not such a no-brainer with the changes to E8s and Jumbos, so maybe some other setup is better now?

>>52306771
Given how minor Detroit's Finest is now, I expect we'll see a rise in uparmored shermams with a mix of 75s and 76s.

>>52269339
If you've got PSC infantry I'd recommend grabbing the PSC heavy weapons box (HMGs, Mortars and stuff) and the 6pdr box to give you some support options. A platoon of armour wouldn't go amiss either, with Shermans being easier to fit into a list than Churchills.

>>52307144
To add to this, here's the various support tanks from most widely available to most restricted:
>Shermans
Fucking everywhere. Can't get a LW British book without a infantry force with Sherman support, and commonly several per book.
>Churchills
Not as common as Shermans, but still decently so, in line with their nature as infantry tanks.
>Cromwells
Only Lorried and Motor infantry companies get these for support, but they're decently common with those.
>Comets
Literally three infantry lists. Rare as hell, only appearing in Nachtjager and only supporting infantry in the digital lists.

o/ folks

Looking to get back into FoW, and am having a bit of a hard time getting my head around the v4 force selection rules. I understand I can take multiple companies now, but I could swear I saw somewhere that I can also just take a platoon from another company from the same division/force. I'm looking through the v4 LW rulebook right now and I can't bloody find any mention of this. Was I dreaming when I saw "if you want to take more than a platoon, you'll have to get a company HQ as well"?

Also - the Night Fighting rules in the v4 rulebook say you may only move at 'terrain dash speed' while it's still night. Then the new Infra-red Equipment rule says units from Night Attack formations may move freely at night, but units from other formations may not move out of their deployment zones. Does that apply to the enemy formations too, or is does this rule only gimp half the german army?

>>52308050
>>I could swear I saw somewhere that I can also just take a platoon from another company from the same division/force.

Don't know about LW or the unit cards (waiting for my mail service to start being useful) but I know in the Afrika Korps Book, under force selection there's a boxout with this text

"FORMATION SUPPORT You may field compulsory Combat Units (with a black box) from the above Formations as SupportUnits"

It's entire possible it's a MW only option at this point, if it's an option for EW and LW then I assume it's the same deal, compulsory units only

>>52308050
>Was I dreaming when I saw "if you want to take more than a platoon, you'll have to get a company HQ as well"?

Missed answering this section, whoops

Again, no clue if this is MW book only (Could go either way, I don't know) but if you stay within faction say british and more british, you can take as many compulsory units as support units without an additional HQ as you wish, they're kinda nerfed from the fact that they don't count towards your force being in good spirits, so once your actual formations are gone, then they'll just leave the battlefield.

Allied units appear to be different though

"ALLIED SUPPORT You may field one compulsory Unit from a Italian Formation as Support and one Italian Formation as an Allied Formation."

Which does fit with what you heard before, the only issue is I don't have an answer for when a formation is "in the same division" or "allied", for all I know, it could mean from different books, from only the one book, or if it means actual damn division

>>52308253
Ah, righto, it was in the MW book. Balls! This makes taking multiple companies of anything other than Panzer IVs or infantry pretty much impossible at a regular points level. especially from LLW lists...

>>52308041
You also have armoured cars and TDs to consider in that regard.

Universal Carriers are ubiquitous and well worth picking up for British infantry, the other options were not worth the extra cost in V3 but the removal of gun tank / addition of Mission Tactics to everyone make them better. Then again, movement changes make half tracked speed UCs better relative to jeep and wheeled speed vehicles.

M10s are fairly common and are alright with the 17pdr. Not sure I'd pick them over the towed 17pdrs or Fireflies though.

>>52308410
Well, the LW book does specifically state you can field the same formation several times.

One thing we brainstormed about with the Panzerfunk crew is multiple Berlin Kampfgruppe formations...

>>52308410
You could chuck a Panzerspah company into most lists given how frequently they're available as support options.

Bridge by Bridge has some really silly potential uses of the support formation rule.

Bridge at Remagen lets you spam single tank units of various big cats with shitty ratings if you wanted to. 7 RT King Tigers is 1505.

>>52308050
>Does that apply to the enemy formations too, or is does this rule only gimp half the german army?
Only half the German/British army, the enemy can move normally. Yes, it's completely retarded, and along with the bombardment/plane AT cap and short command distance is one of my biggest issues with V4.

>>52308715
Also note that Germans can only night attack when they're attacking whereas the Brits can declare a Night Attack when defending.

>>52308569
Yeah, I've been looking at Bridge at Remagen, Nachtjager and Ardennes, as I like fielding my painted Me262 (one of the few models I've painted to a decent result).

From Remagen I've been toying with 510. lists since I've nabbed a bunch of Zvezda King Tigers, but the only other company in the book that's worth combining them with is the SS-Panzerbrigade Westfallen (and with Enjoy the War this isn't such a bad idea).

>>52308715
Thought so. That basically means Nacthjager companies will only work if combined with each other...

>>52308971
>A player commanding a British Infantry Company (as noted under the Formations title) may elect to make a Night Attack in a mission where the defender has Minefields. If they do so, Night Fighting Dawn rules (see page 91) are in effect at the start of the game.
Nu-uh?

>>52308971
Brits are limited to doing so in missions where the defender has minefields as well, for arbitrary reasons.

>>52309194
There's literally nothing in that text saying the British player has to be the attacker, is there?

>>52309321
Unless the British Infantry Company itself has Minefields, yes, there is.

>>52309477
Yeah, so if the British player is defending on No Retreat he can declare a Night Attack.

>>52309204
This is the new prepared attack, basically.

>>52309577
>Units from Formations with Night Attack can move freely from the start of the game. British >Units from other Formations or Support may not move out of their Deployment Area until morning breaks.

So no.

>>52309666
I don't see how that text precludes using Night Attack as the defender? Like I said, compare it to the German special rule that specifically states you must be the attacker.

File: V4 Night Attack.png (169KB, 382x339px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 382x339px

How about you guys just take a screencap and post the rules to the thread?

RAW, there is nothing to prevent them declaring it as the defender. However, RAW it also doesn't make them Attack. So you only actually get to Night ATTACK if you're attacking (50% chance) in Bridgehead, Rearguard, or No Retreat. None of which are on the basic D6 chart for missions. Also, for arbitrary reasons, the rest of your British troops can't do anything till dawn breaks, but the ENEMY can move about normally, and any non-brit allies can also move normally.

V4: Brought to you by goddamn incompetent fuckwits.

>>52309850
Myeah, they really seem quite random about this. Germans have a better version, allowing their Support units to move too.
>Units from Formations with Night Attack and Support Units can move freely from the start of the game. Units from other Formations may not move out of their Deployment Area until morning breaks.

>>52309718
Ah fuck, sorry, wrong text.

>If a Force with Night Attack is the attacker in a mission where the defender has Minefields, the player may attack at night. If they do so, Night Fighting rules (page 113) are in effect at the start of the game.

>>52309850
Which is interesting because it conflicts with that; RAW in the book I've got lets you night attack with presumably anything.

If y'all want to argue about something really dumb, the Special Rules for warriors (eg John Frost) use phrases that refer to "Every unit with its leader within 12 inches" without anything saying they only apply to friendly units.

>>52310438
Christ. Can we accept the conversion books are a rush-job so that old books are technically compatible and aren't very good?

I just had a horrible thought. Smoke's universal now, yeah? Imagine:

>Soviet special rules:
>The soviets were expected to advance directly into machinegun fire, allowing sheer weight of numbers to break through. Accordingly, they didn't prepare assaults with smoke, and have the No Smoke special rule.

File: 1490128325629.gif (568KB, 240x291px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 240x291px

>>52310739
i know it's you phil

>>52310739
cheers

File: MW Night Attack.png (107KB, 371x167px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 371x167px

>>52310214
>Which is interesting because it conflicts with that; RAW in the book I've got lets you night attack with presumably anything.
MW vs EW/LW, I suspect. Because they aren't actually the same, just quite similar.

>>52310739
>Smoke's universal now, yeah?
Nope, still only available to units with Smoke Bombardment or Smoke. Sorry, Phil's still cockblocking you.

File: Learn to read english you commie.png (87KB, 660x96px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 660x96px

>>52310739
lrn2read

>>52310981
Ah, yes. That's the one I'm reading.

Why are they being touted as cross-compatible if they aren't?

>>52311004
Admittedly I misread that too, and my entire thesis that stuff had improved for the soviets was based on the idea they have smoke now.

I guess they are for sitting in foxholes forever now.

>>52311446
>Why are they being touted as cross-compatible if they aren't?
Who is saying that? I've not seen anyone claim you could play a LW game with the MW rulebook or vice versa.

>>52311465
Battlefront claimed there'd be a 4th edition rules update for existing EW/LW stuff, it turns out that it is, in fact, a V3/4 kludge because the handover rulebooks are a rush-job to placate people.

>>52311465
>>52311555
There is the 4th edition rulebook for EW/LW which is different from the 4ed rulebook for MW. They're too different books. The rules are supposedly the same, it's onyl the references to old company diagrams vs new formations, as well as updated AT & FP for arty & other such details being the only differences.

I'm pretty sure the British special rule is supposed to be the same in both books, but one of them didn't get a good enough proof-reading before being sent off to the printers. I expect it will be FAQed along with other weird rule instances (I suspect the German Night Attack rules here, for instance) eventually.

Look at it this way - it could be worse... *cough*GW*cough*

Has anyone ever used any of the krylon camo sprays on their stuff? I'm getting ready to paint a whole mess of early war German infantry.

>>52311555
I ordered some stuff from the war store since they're giving away the free rulebooks, I'm morbidly curious what the new changes are going to be.

I'll be quite disappointed if this is the case and a new updated V4 hardback with different rules hits the shelves a few months down the line.

>>52303892
the 8-rads are out.

>>52312978
krylon works perfectly fine.

I'm seriously considering the Volks T-55 spam with BTRs in the hopes of drowning my foe. How boned am I?

>>52315977
If you must go for T-55 spam, save yourself a shit ton of money and go with The Plastic Soldier Company's upcoming plastic T-55s.

>>52314847
you have any idea if their grey camo will look alright for feldgrau, or is it to dark like most greys?

>>52315977
You need to supplement it with Spandrels and possibly some Hinds/Frogfoots for more AT. Using you spam to remove their AA asset before unleashing Hinds on the enemy tanks may be a good strategy.

On the other hand you can just try to defend, in which case the game will always end in a draw or a victory for you after your opponent immediately resigns after seeing all your spam.

>>52315977

Personally I don't think it will work all that well unless we are talking low point games.

>>52316685
i know their grey primer but not the grey camo...lemme go look.

File: 1463964966912.jpg (50KB, 359x384px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 359x384px

Are V4 scans ready yet?

>>52321720
>http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
In the OP you dense motherfucker.

>>52322701
Or you know, he could just be new.

>>52323126
It's the very first line and it says SCANS in caps. Not sure if 'dense motherfucker' was necessary, but the guy could pay a bit more attention and find everything his heart desires in there. And yes, that includes fetish pornography, why do you ask?

>>52323160
Panzer Tracts and Ospreys count as fetish porn?

Or has somebody added a secret kink folder to the scans database that nobody told me about?

>>52323160
>that includes fetish pornography
You have my attention.

File: 20170323_231013-picsay.jpg (685KB, 2782x1058px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 2782x1058px

Just finished zvezda Katyusha rocket launchers.

>>52324492
looking super any good tips?

>>52324492
Is of glorious comrade!

So I recieved my V4 update book today. It seems rather lack lustre when compared to the v2--v3 mini rulebook I recieved. Also the Mid War period seems omitted? Does one have to buy the new books to be covered for that period?

I would like to add that I have not palyed FoW in quite a few years despite it being my go to 'club game' from 2009-12. This was parly due to BF shitty practices, dislike for the newer style books as well as apparent abandonment of Mid War (my go to and favourite period).

>>52325455
Mid-War is completely relaunched with the 4th Edition rules. The new 4th Ed stuff is all MW Desert.

MW Eastern Front will be coming in the not too distant future.

Early War and Late War got a rule book that allows you to use the existing EW and LW sourcebooks with the new 4th Edition rules.

File: 14680647_2103462823212743_3962343164988183913_n.jpg (38KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x375px

>>52323126
>>52323160

>he could just be new
>not sure if "dense motherfucker" was necessary
>general disapprovement of aggressivity
>mfw

... is /tg/ really on the same 4chan as the other boards? I mean, on years of /k/ and some browsing of random other sections, I've never seen that.

>>52325455
That book is designed for the old v3 source books. Mid War will be played with the new source books, which among other things involves those stupid cards, so yes, it will be played with a different rulebook, which will become the main rulebook once they release v4 sourcebooks for EW & LW.

Yeah, it's going to be a pain in the ass for a while. Especially since it will take a while until the v4 books reach the level of development of the old Eastern Front & North Africa books...

>>52325573
Not sure about the rest of /tg/, but this thread is generally polite and helpful to potential new players instead of degrading and insulting.

>>52325608
I find the stat cards to be incredibly useful.

>>52325573
I've been lurking here for a long time now, and one of the reasons for always coming back is knowing this thread is nothing like the rest of 4chan.

>>52325608
>>52325511

Cheers for the Info lads. I guess I'll just keep playing Battlegroup then especially with the new desert book.

>>52325573
/tg/ is better than the other boards, because its not as obsessed with living up to the "4chan image".

Although I'm worried that even /tg/ will succumb eventually and forget that we're all here to discuss things we enjoy rather than endlessly shitpost.

>>52323856
You don't know about the secret Nazi Dominatrix porn folder?

You're missing out on some sweet Aryan Femdom.

>>52325681
It's ok, shitposting tendencies are avoided through venting whenever Phil and/or Soviets in FoW are mentioned.

>>52325672
Does Battlegroup still have complicated rules for artillery, ammo etc? Is it still mid-way between FoW and Bolt-Action regarding scale of engagement?

>>52323895
And mine. It's hard to find what I want, even though it's fairly pedestrian (if not downright pleb tier).

Apparently the Engineer Sapper Regiment from Red Bear now breaks all the engineer platoons off into separate formations, according to Forces of War. Can anyone confirm this?

>>52303418
They did not leave their modern tanks behind. The older vehicles were just added to the attack. The lend lease (mostly sherman at that point) brigades were part of the attack as well, but were sent to take less important objectives specifically so the T-34 equipped brigades could be in the spotlight for the whole engagements.

>>52305166
The 46th Guards Tank Brigade (Loza's Lend-Lease formation) was sent to Manchuria. He specifically mentions that about 80% of the entire brigade's tank crews were surviving veterans from the Eastern Front. When Germany surrendered, the 46th had about 12 M4A2 76mm remaining (and apparently a T-34-85 from somewhere). When they were redeployed to Manchuria, they were fully restocked up to starting strength with (iirc) 60 something shermans. I recall him saying somewhere in an interview on iRemember that survivors of a lost tank usually became part of the tankodesantniki, or infantry attached to the tank brigade, until a new tank arrived for them.

Is Stakingrad a mid war battle? If so, how long to wait until we can get the v4 book for it?

>>52326841
Yes and nobody knows, ask BF.

>>52326841
>Stakingrad
Never heard of the place. When did it happen?

>>52326362
Looks like it, based on the text.

>>52326956
Huh... that seems... weird. Did BF decide that formations of 14 to 21 super fucking engineers was somehow broken? But at the same time, I'm not sure but I think this might be a good thing. Even 7 stands of Engineer Sappers are good, if expensive as fuck.

>>52326768
Thanks Anon!

>survivors of a lost tank usually became part of the tankodesantniki, or infantry attached to the tank brigade, until a new tank arrived for them.

Sounds like good motivation to keep your tank alive.

File: stakingrad.jpg (229KB, 1195x830px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1195x830px

>>52326898
15th century, as a matter of fact...

>>52327130
Eh... I think it varied from brigade to brigade. For Loza's, being part of the tankodesantniki wasn't bad. They rode the tanks during non-combat maneuvers, and were treated as just part of the crews. There was even one case where Loza's group were ambushed and outnumbered by German infantry, and they had just enough time to crowd all the tankos into the tanks and seal the hatches before the enemy was pounding on the hulls with shovels and trying to get them to surrender (they called a katyusha strike on top of themselves to drive them off).

For other brigades, it was a mixed bag... There are accounts, especially from non-Guard brigades, of the tankos being treated like little more than expendable SMG cannon fodder. I would say Loza's brigade wasn't an exception, but just another stark example of the differences between the meat-grinder horde brigades, and the Guards brigades that actually earned their title (and weren't Guards in name only).

>>52327219
>impaled through the chest

you tried

>>52327239
>crowd all the tankos into the tanks
Wow. Good thing they were a Lend-Lease unit. Imagine trying to do that in a T-34.

>>52327328
Yeah, he said it was really cramped. I don't think they could have done it with T-34s. If you get a chance, Commanding the Red Army's Shermans is a fascinating read.

>>52326898
Literally one of the most famous battles of ww2 along with Iwo Jumbo and the battle of Kirks

File: IMG_2120.jpg (71KB, 634x371px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 634x371px

>>52327783
>battle of Kirks

>>52327783
Iwo Jumbo... Wasn't that where a bunch of American soldiers assaulted up a hill in rascal scooters?

>>52328015
Nope, its where we drowned stubborn dug in Japanese infantry in rivers of Ice Cold Coca-Cola™ in a jungle somewhere. We flew it in and then made it cold in the middle of the tropics to make the beachhead secure.

>>52328015
no Iwo Jumbo was that British vs Japanese mass elephant battle in malaya

>>52328341
Nah, that was Iwo Dumbo.

>>52328576
Then what was Operation Dumbo Drop?

>>52328988
When we returned Hillary to her natural habitat.

>>52329014
But anon, she lost the election... So she *not* in her natural habitat.

>>52329014
New York is NOT her natural habitat, as much as she has thrived here...

Probably because "Senator from Arkansas" doesn't quite carry the same level of respect as "Senator from New York".

>>52329245
Careful Eagles, you'll get Arkancided if you're not...........................................

Is there any reason to build pumas as the 7.5cm cannon version? It only seems to show up in a few lists and +1 FP doesn't seem worth losing the turret and top armor compared to a regular Puma.

Is there any reason to build more than 3 PaK Pumas? I can't see any list that can take more than 3, and I don't think taking multiple formations just for that would ever seem sensible.

>>52330165
> Is there any reason to build pumas as the 7.5cm cannon version? It only seems to show up in a few lists and +1 FP doesn't seem worth losing the turret and top armor compared to a regular Puma

Not really, only if you like them and play the Panzerspah list.

> Is there any reason to build more than 3 PaK Pumas? I can't see any list that can take more than 3, and I don't think taking multiple formations just for that would ever seem sensible.

The Hermann Goring Panzerspah list can get four patrols, each with a single 234/4 and 234/1...but since you only have 2 compulsory units and the other books only allow 2-3 (Nachtjager, Desperate Measures), 3 234/4 vehicles is probably enough. Especially since they're not as good in V4.

>>52330289
>Especially since they're not as good in V4.
Why's this?

Since I've already got two 234/4s and two Pumas I'll probably just build five Puma and one 234/4 to give me the option to run three mixed patrols, or to run a Panzerspah list with one HQ and three patrols of two Puma; rather than try and fuck around with being able to swap between models.

Hmm, I could use the spare 7.5cm cannons with some Zvezda half tracks to make 251/9s (I already own 4, another 2 could be nice) and extra PaK40s could be used somewhere I'm sure.

>>52330617

New Thread