Flames of War General: Iwo Jumbo Edition

Regarding >>52330165 (I've no idea how to link to posts in previous threads)
Panzerkompanies from Muncheberg (Berlin digital exclusive bullshit) can take up to 4 patrols, so there's that. Not sure why you'd want to do so, though, since the company has a minimum of 5 CV Panthers with all the infrared stuff so you'll be struggling to fit all the support options in a list...

>>Especially since they're not as good in V4.
>Why's this?
Recce is much weaker in V4. You lose disengage and eyes and ears and get a deployment zone adjustment that's only really useful if you can spam recce units.

>>52330992
In Team Yankee at least, I've found the expanded deployment zones to be highly useful. Although I have not yet had the chance to try it in FoW 4th Ed.

File: DSC_0047.jpg (6MB, 5520x4140px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 5520x4140px

The back is a PSC 251/9, the front is one I just kitbashed out of a Zvezda 251 and spare parts from the BF plastic 234/3. So, yeah, if you've got the plastic Puma box you can use the otherwise useless 234/3 parts to make 251/9s.

>>52330992

The deployment zone adjustement is still really useful in certain scenarios. Recce should have some of the fastest dash speed as well. Useful for threatening artillery and harassing infantry that your opponent would otherwise like to reposition.

>>52330992
I don't know, but I feel that if you get first turn, that deployment zone bump could be invaluable.
>>52331055
That looks good. Wish I hadn't already built 4 of those from the PSC kits...

>>52330617

Why does the OP always pick such shit images.

How many Zvezda Jagdtigers should I buy? 6?

>>52331254
I have four as well (I think that PSC set with all the halftrack variants is great, so many sweet vehicles) but, hey, might as well build a fifth and sixth.

>>52331288
Maybe you should try making a new thread yourself instead of bitching about it.

>>52331288
>Sumo wrestling
>on a Japanese battleship

>shit image

It's actually kinda awesome if you ask me.

>>52331321
I don't think you can get the same number of low points cost Jagdtigers as you can King Tigers.

I'd say 2 or maybe 3 Zvezda Jagdtigers is probably a safe bet.

>>52331739
Hmm, yeah, 270 each at RT means six is 1605 without any support so I'll stick with four.

File: 1458938176278.jpg (427KB, 1279x877px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1279x877px

NVA

File: 1455069945895.jpg (343KB, 1280x888px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1280x888px

>>52332289
MTLB tundscha please BF

File: 1461042875510.jpg (961KB, 2830x1820px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 2830x1820px

ded thred
ded edition

>>52335426
I'm insanely curious, what's with the date stenciled onto that BMP-1?

Some kind of weird style of unit marking?

how many El-Alamein boxes did you get?

i ended up getting 2 in delayed action...

>>52332077
>I'll stick with four.

That leaves you 420 points left if you're building towards a 1500 point list.

Not bad, but you'll need to go super-low points on your support options to make up for your very high point tank hunters.

>>52335426
>ded edition

I've seen a fair bit of activity on the various forums and Facebook pages.

It's just the thread that seems to be a bit slow tonight.

File: 1176647337185.gif (2MB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x222px

I want an opinion from tg
My local game store is hosting a late war scenario for the push to berlin using german and russian forces. Ive been asked to play german, which i dont mind, but ive only got between 1200 tto 1500 pts to spend. I have tanks and infantry as well as accompanying tracks and trucks plus pak at guns ect, so i can field almost anything.

What lists (and books) do you sudgest for high survivability meets cost in this senario? Using points given and the old v3 rules.

>>52336315
None yet. But I'll probably get the El Al set, and a set of both the British and the German starter to start building some forces.

>>52336346
What minis do you have access to? I think you can't really go wrong with the Berlin Kampfgruppe in Berlin. It fits the scenario and you can bring pretty much anything. There are a lot of cheap options with Panzerfausts so you can dig in and hold against tanks.

>>52336346
Old men and young boys. Works like a charm.

>>52339542
Osa when, Battlefront? I remember those things being a huge pain in the ass in the original Mercenaries game.

>>52341144
Pffft, I'd rather wait for Zvezda to do them in plastic...

>>52338344
Is that the one with those sick road walls? Those things are awsome

>>52335619
6th Marines

>>52342688

I feel like seeing "6th Mar." and assuming it's the date isn't 100% my fault

I still feel like a fucking idiot somehow though

Running this list against the Volkspamee tomorrow. I hate running platoons short, but you have to to squeeze things in at 80 points. Plan is to use my LARS mines to funnel the East Germans into a kill zone where I can delay their advance until my reinforcements arrive.


Fuchs Aufklärungs Kompanie
HQ Fuchs ...............1

Fuchs Zug...................4
Fuchs Zug (short).......3
Leo 1 Zug (short).........6

Panzer Aufklärungs Kompanie
HQ Leo 1......................3
Leo 1 Zug.....................9
Leo 1 Zug.....................9
Gepard Batterie...........10
Luchs Spah..................1
Luchs Spah..................1
Leo 2 Zug(short)......... 22
________________________________
Support

LARS Batterie(w/mines)..7
Tornado Strike Flight(2)..4

Total: 80 points

File: Operation Grief successful.jpg (54KB, 370x290px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 370x290px

Is there something in the rules about 1s alwats failing? Or does a tank with wide tracks that uses the cross here order automatically succed its cross check?

>>52346198
Yes, page 4 of the EW/LW rulebook explains that a value is modified to be better than a 2+, it still fails on a 1. Stuff that starts at 1+ (noted as "Auto") automatically passes. Note that things like Wide Tracks and Smooth Ride are modifications to the base 3+ cross value, and do not make the base value a 1+.

>>52346198
Thanks!

>>52346391
>>52346444
oops! wrong post.

Hello /fow/

I like miniature wargames, and I find WW2 interesting, so this seems kind of up my alley.

My standard practice when picking up a faction usually defaults to who has the interesting lore or whoever has interesting stuff that appeals to me, neither of which seem to be particularly good rules to go by when it deals with a setting that happens to be real life.

I read all these writings on people who painted up their grandfather's or granduncle or whoever's unit and I think that's a great story and reasoning for making it.

For those of you who don't have a personal or family connection to this era, how'd you guys end up settling on selecting a nation?

>>52347467
I'm dead set on the Italians when they get re-released later this year, and I'm not even 100% as to why, I guess I like playing the armies that most people tend to not think too much about, or even would be dismissive of for gameplay or other reasons (Haqqislam in infinity for example, I know a lot of people just don't want to play it because it's named after a current religion)

Plus just the huge diversity in the army is just intriguing, you go from the guys on the eastern front who are stuck in a war they don't know much or care about to the black feathered hat wearing Bersaglieri which were commented on as being very impressive soldiers who knew what they were doing.

And my list will get to run both of 'em!

But for now! I'm simply sticking with Germany for the midwar period, simply because I love the Panzer 3, for no reason other than "I just do" and so, there's only so many lists that can take that particular vehicle, so maybe one day I'll play some other nation that can use that vehicle as well.

tl;dr I found something awesome about a faction no-one seemed to want to play, and I played a faction because I liked one of the models that only they can really use

>>52347467

I play Germans because they run the gamut. You have everything from disciplined professionals, through fanatical zealots (with modest training) through to the last gasp elderly and infirm given weapons and told to defend their homes.

You have the heaviest tanks in the game, or you have makeshift equipment welded together to try to form a stop-gap solution.

You have forces in what was every major theatre in the game, until the Pacific came out - Eastern Front, Western Front, Africa - and that means that you can play against almost anyone. Oh, and all your stuff has the option for interesting camouflage patterns, so no flat Olive Drab for you.

Per the user name, I latched on to the Panzer Lehr Division. The concept of emptying out the grizzled veteran instructors from the tank training schools to form a divisional cadre, because if they didn't stop the allies there might not be a next generation to train really impressed me. It's a combination of elite and desperate last stand which you don't often combine.

Because this is 4chan, I feel like I should add a throwaway joke like "oh, and because I hate the jews". But actually, even notwithstanding the standard "defences" like the snappy uniforms (which *are* neat, but hardly noticeable at 15mm scale) there are more than enough good wargaming reasons for me to play the Germans.

>>52347467
>For those of you who don't have a personal or family connection to this era, how'd you guys end up settling on selecting a nation?
Mostly going for any particular tank I like (hence the 50 shermans I show from time to time), intriguing unit organisation, reading about units that did awesome/interresting stuff, memoirs and, for lack of a better term, what "feels right".

>>52347467
>>52347550
>>52347551
>>52347556
Apparently you asked a question that was very easy to answer.

>>52347467
>For those of you who don't have a personal or family connection to this era, how'd you guys end up settling on selecting a nation?
I tend to like fast and mobile forces in games I play, and the british had the fasted and most mobile medium tank (the Cromwell). That got me into the brits, and then I've just been slowly expanding from there.

>>52347467
>selecting a nation
>implicit singular
I've got Germans, US and Brits. I like variety and list writing, and try to use a different briefing every game that I play. More importantly, I don't have factions other than those three because of cost and variety/viability of lists. Soviets are/were the weakest of the big four in V3 and were the most expensive so I never got into them, and minor nations suffer from ranges that are heavily metal/resin (as opposed to plastic vehicles and infantry for the others) and from less variety in how they use their equipment. Plus, there are enough interesting lists for the three that I run that I'd rather buy a few things to modify existing models - some trucks for my Germans to try Kampfgruppe Graebner, another ARP to run a mechanised US company rather than Tanks with ARP support, some 6 and 17 pounders to try a more defensive British list rather than Night Attacking, that sort of thing.

Building up from an infantry company and ten medium tanks to being able to build all sorts of different lists is fairly simple to do a little bit at a time, so I'm happy moving between the three factions at whim.

>>52347983 here

Germans are probably my favourite though, for a lot of the reasons >>52347551 mentions. They get so many interesting Briefings, at least in LW.

>>52347467
I was interested in the Red Army because I hadn't learned much about them and finding out the massive scope of the Eastern Front was impressive. Further, the sacrifice and grit of the Red Army impressed me. Plus I just like T34s.

Second army is likely to be Italians.

>>52348821
Oh hey another "I like this piece of equipment, time to play the faction that uses it!"

Man, you're gunna love Italians, you basically get T-26's in the M14/41's, sure is gunna be weird playing them at reluctant trained half the time, huh?

>>52347467
This is going to sound cliche as all hell, but I chose to play the 101st Airborne because I was a fan of the HBO Miniseries Band of Brothers.

From there I went on to read more about them in various books. The siege of Bastogne is what really sold me on them though.

When it came time to choose my first army for FoW I asked if US Paratroopers were in the game, and several people told me that it was, and that they were a very good army.

My second army was German Panzers. My thought process on that was basically, "what's the opposite of Allied Infantry?", and the answer was "Axis Tanks".

For my Team Yankee armies... I went with US first, because the Abrams and A-10 are iconic modern military vehicles.

The Soviets l picked up because my FLGS was having a sale on Battlefront stuff and the other local TY player had also gone with US...

>>52347467

I started with Soviets in FoW because I have always been fascinated with the Red Army in WW2 from documentaries, video games, and books I had read.

For Team Yankee I decided to go with the West Germans because I had played a ton of the Point of Existence mod for Battlefield 2 and had a lot of fun memories of blowing shit up with the Leopard 2. It's funny because the guy I usually play with painted his Soviets up as Ukrainian (the opfor in POE).

>>52347467
i had a dad in the british army and was sationed in west Germany during the 80s yet i lay west germans for team yankee

>>52349719
>had a dad
You coudl have more than one dad in the 80s? :P

>>52347467
Germans, because Panzer fick ja! Ended up with Fallschirmjägers because I love the idea of elite infantry. Now I have enough to play both Panzer and FJ as and how I wish. Sometimes I play the tanks as SS for a giggle, but I stay away from some formations (for what I'd say were obvious reasons).

Brits, and once again airborne (Paras), for much the same reason, but also because I'm something of an anglophile. "Tally ho lads, let's have at the Jerry rotters!"

And finally, I picked up Udarny Soviets mostly because I got the box cheap, and find the Soviets interesting as an army. They won the war, after all (with some help). Besides, sometimes it's fun to just throw men at the enemy.

>>52349928
it made sense in my head

>>52348899
Well, considering my choices with Soviets are Confident Conscript, Confident Trained, or Fearless Trained for Soviets, it can't be that bad!

Italian tanks might not have been great, but they look neat. Gotta admire those Italian tankers for doing their best with what they had.

Also I can hopefully get Bersags as my infantry so that'll be fun.

File: IMG_0082.jpg (53KB, 500x492px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x492px

Bump

>>52330992

Are you kidding me? Spearhead's an incredible ability. It's basically the Soviet infiltrate ability. It's incredibly useful. It's liking given reece moves to half your army.

>>52347467
I opted to do minor nations because they'd be obscure and thus more fun and less samey than the big 4 to me.

File: AirWar in the Pacific.webm (2MB, 456x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 456x320px

>>52347467
you, Anon, have the key to winning /fowtg/: sheer civility.

I guess i am a German player, despite the fact only 2 of my 3 fully painted armies are Soviet. i used to have more miniatures. life and eBay sales took their toll.

if i had to go through all my reasons:
--Germans: see Panzer Lehr's post. expect i am a Pumatard. ex Falschirmjager fanboy. may still do Gliders.
--Soviets: 3 of the most laughable off-center lists: Strahf, Enginner Sapper's, Cossacks...to be honest, fuck communism. i like their Engineers and Heroes. i love IS-85's.
--Japan: because i love how nuts they are, their shitty tanks are different to me, and....i'm a bit WeaBoo.
--Israel: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! i play Germans too, right....?
--Poland: see my name.
--EW Brits: this is the crazy old dashing Britain that used to wear redcoats and be ace on the high seas...tally ho!

was thinking about a return to Finland, but i am looking at my backlog...


btw:

anyone care about this?
http://tanks.gf9games.com/Home/tabid/56/entryid/173/Default.aspx

just wondering.

>>52354417
>anyone care about this?

Might be a good source of single tanks if you ever need to buy less than a full box to complete a unit, but other than that?

I don't actually know any Tanks players in my area.

File: IMG_0159.png (658KB, 1281x720px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1281x720px

>>52354417
>>52354752

TANKS is ded game, but like Eagles said, it's nice to be able to buy one or two of the TANKS boxes the FLGS has in stock instead of putting a single sprue order in with Battlefront.

Does anyone still play tanks? I want to believe the new tanks would breath some life into the game, but with how boringly simple the rules are, I doubt it.

>>52355194
>single blister
Yes. this. i plan to do this to get my 3rd V4 Artiepanzer.

>does anyone play?
kinda. i have garage queen Brits, USA, and Soviets, in that order of gusto. none are historical. was thinking of Germans, but to be serious, it'd be like paying for pocket pool: all my TANKS blisters for Germans go straight to my FoW Forces....

>>52354417
The fact they're giving Beits more British tanks is nice. Hopefully some increase in catalogue will do the game some good.

When will chinese get released?

>>52347467
My senpai fled the bolshies and went to NA. Family's still pretty slav, and while not wanting to be a commie, the cultural aesthetics rub off enough for me to get into the spam hordes. Several members of my family served as Leaf and US personnel in the war, and about half of them never came back. Though my interests in playing Canuck armoured and US airborne is independent of that.

>>52357904
It took the Chinese most of the 20th Century to get helmets as standard issue. And they'd be even more spammy than Soviets. Why the slant boner? Make me understand.

>>52357904
Team Yankee or FoW?

File: bmp-2_13_of_36.jpg (996KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 2560x1920px

Twice in one thread. Really is ded edition.

Anybody have some V4 battle reports to share?

I've been looking for some on YouTube and the popular FoW blogs, but I haven't been able to find too many.

>>52361510
second that one

also general feel of V4 in EW/LW

File: deployment.jpg (67KB, 725x435px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 725x435px

>>52362319
>>52362319
Actually played a 50-point MW game this afternoon.

Forces were mostly based on the starters:
German force:
-Panzer III kompanie
HQ: 2 Panzer III (kurz)
3 Panzer III (kurz)
2 Panzer IV (kurz)
-Support:
2 8.8cm FlaK36

British force:
-Grant armoured squadron
HQ: 3 M3 Medium
3 M3 Medium
1 Crusader III, 2 Crusader II
-Support:
2 OQF 17/25 pdr

Will post a bit of a report in a follow-up if people wanna hear it.

>also general feel of V4 in EW/LW
Played one 1000-point LW game so far; Forward Detachment vs veteran Grenadiers.
Worked quite well, with my mortars owning my opponent's and my infantry being pretty difficult to shift without that fire support.

On the other hand, I made the dual mistakes of a T-34/85 unit being my only AT assets and then sending them solo against the AT-heavy German flank while StuGs assaulted my AT-less infantry on the other flank.
That turned into a fast-moving grind where two StuGs were destroyed at the cost of 2/3 of my infantry and 5 of 6 mortars.

>>52362456
I take it you have something against Sturmoviks? :)

>>52362588
Bit too expensive for 1000 points and I tried to keep the lists kinda simple.

Did recently finish up my second and third of them, so soon.png.

>>52362456
>Will post a bit of a report in a follow-up if people wanna hear it.

Well, a couple people did ask.

I know I'd be interested.

File: a bit into the game.jpg (341KB, 1288x680px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1288x680px

>>52362661
The mission was Free-for-All.

As you can see in the image here >>52362456 I had my 88s defend the left objective, the Panzer IV unit in the center ready to bombard the 17/25 pounders and the Panzer III units on the right flank.
My opponent had his Grants central and to the left, the Crusaders on the far right and the 17/25 pounders on top of the hill to provide maximum field of fire.

The Crusaders charged up, but paid the price when the Panzer III unit blitzed out of cover, unloaded at halted RoF killing two and then scooted back into cover. The remaining Crusader III would fail Unit Last Stand on the next turn.
Meanwhile, the Grants were moving onto the left flank to threaten the 88s and the Panzer IV unit repeatedly failed to range in on the 17/25 pounders.

With the pressure of 6 Grants on my left, I decided to push forward with the Panzer III units while the Panzers IV continued to try and pin the Pheasants.
Should the 88s fall, the Panzer IV could try to hold that objective.

The Panzer charge cost me a tank in each unit, but one of the 17/25 pounders finally got killed by the bombardment.
Meanwhile, the pair of 88s was winning the shootout with the Grants, mostly because I passed all the 4+ gun saves I had to roll.
When one of the Grant units was wiped out, the Brits just had their HQ unit of 2/3 Grants and a 17/25 pounder in support left.
This meant the Brits failed formation morale and fled.

Matches with about 10 teams a side certainly can tilt on some lucky rolls and I feel I got that luck this game.
My opponent didn't play perfectly, but he felt he had to attack since I could outshoot him at range.

Things played out nice and quickly; the V4 rules really do streamline a bunch of stuff while also adding that flexibility with movement orders.

>>52363168
So, with the 6 Grants concealed behind the wall and the bushes, the 2 88s were still winning the shootout?

Id imagine that took time really good dice rolls on your part and some really bad ones from your opponent.

Also, those 50 point forces are smaller than I imagined. I would have thought forces those size would be more like 35 points.

>>52364564
>So, with the 6 Grants concealed behind the wall and the bushes, the 2 88s were still winning the shootout?
>Id imagine that took time really good dice rolls on your part and some really bad ones from your opponent.
Well, he managed to hit me five times and I passed my saves each time.

Also, those 50 point forces are smaller than I imagined. I would have thought forces those size would be more like 35 points.
Decent tanks are fairly expensive; Grants, 88s and Panzer IV (short) are 6 points a pop, Panzer III (short 5cm) are 5 each.

File: 1490482169478-picsay.jpg (167KB, 712x535px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 712x535px

>>52360757
We are too busy to play V4, have no time to silly chat on /tg.

>>52365956
Okay, I have to ask...

What the actual fuck is going on in that picture?

>>52366002
The halftracks are blocking in the Jacksons, since in V4 you can't move through any other units.

>>52366079
>Jacksons
Hellcats*
5 hours of RPGs and no dinner makes IDing TD's hard.

File: 081.gif (2MB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x287px

>>52365956
i wish i could get regular games of flames of a and team yankee or just any game tha's worth the time

>>52366079
But how are the halftracks that close without assaulting?

Don't you have to keep 2 inches away unless assaulting?

Did that change in V4?

File: 7211280.jpg (161KB, 900x540px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 900x540px

>>52366819
>Look up local tabletop community on facebook.
>40k, 30k, bloodbowl, xwing, cardgames

I am sure they're having fun but it fucking sucks for me.

File: sad.png (78KB, 412x351px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 412x351px

>>52367041
i know your pain
what's worst is that i ran demo games where all they do is mock you and say you've gotten conned with the game for paying such prices while they go on and play infinity, x-wing or MTG

>>52367161
>Paying Such prices
>Playing Magic the Gathering the Cardboard Jew

So do these people have no concept of reality? At least when you buy a TIE Fighter that's assured to remain legal and relevant to the game. Where as you'll shell out the cost of a Flames of War army again and again to remain tournament grade for almost any cardgame you care to name.

>>52365956
Either you're ignorant of the rules, or I am. And if I am, that's fucking disgusting GW-tier cheese.

>>52366924
Vehicles can be in within 2 inches of enemy vehicles, it was same in every edition of FOW.

>>52367161
>conned for paying such prices
>literally cardboard
>way overpriced bendy plastic
>retarded over-posed anime/furry swill
kek

>>52366924
That's only infantry, vehicles can move that close to vehicles just fine.

>>52367227
There is a reason it's called Cardboard Crack.

As for almost any miniature war game, it's all about showing people what is actually cool about the game, and hopefully catching their interest.

>>52367161
>$15 for two plastic tankies
>$15 for 7 pieces of glossy card
lafftrack.mp3

>>52367161
>£20 for 5 plastic tonks which will remain relevant literally forever and can be used for nigh infinite rule-sets with the best fluff, as WW2 will be wargamed until the end of time.
>£13 for an ok-ish modelled space-plane that can be used in a single game, which is based on a gay franchise
>actually paying any amount of money for a business card with a monster on it, from whom I guarantee you will not receive any additional business.

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

51KB, 604x453px

>>52369831
>gay franchise

>a science fiction and pop cultural icon for the last 40 years
>gay franchise

Whatever you say.

File: 1486165034662.jpg (138KB, 600x711px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 600x711px

>>52369831
i like you.

come to my house and fuck my sister.

>>52369831
>>actually paying any amount of money for a business card with a monster on it, from whom I guarantee you will not receive any additional business.
kek

File: IMG_0266.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Volkspamee are very nasty to deal with in Hasty Attack. Honestly would have been better off with a Leopard 2 list than what I brought. Deep, scattered reserves sucks against the Volksarmee. It almost makes me want to try to Hasty Attack myself to avoid having to deal with that. Probably didn't help that my infantry holding the hill got fragged turn 1 and 3/4 of my Leopard 1s moving to counterattack failed their 2+ bogging check trying to get out of a wood.

Had to proxy T-34s for T-55s because I derped and forgot to bring my T-55s, but had my T-34 foam with me for some reason.

>>52370160
That's okay anon. It's a bit more properly statted that way.

Incidentally, it's amusing to see a chain gas station next to a peasant hovel.

>>52370160
>See other peoples models with camo schemes
>Look really nice
God I'm so worried I'm going to fuck that part up. I've never painted camo before.

File: 1474323015682.jpg (92KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x576px

>>52373938
>leaf

>>52374157
What is with this meme, toaster?

>>52374550
Man hates Canada. Can't blame him. They created Poutine which is delicious and is hard to find in a foreign country, Justin Beiber, Nickleback, Trudeau, Canadian Geese, Maple Syrup whiskey, Quebec, and Celine Dion.

File: a fucking leaf.png (77KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x377px

>>52374676
Memri TV is the best thing to come out of the ME

File: IMG_0264.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>52371356
Which camo scheme, the Hinds or the NATO tricolor. For the tricolor I didn't go by the set patterns for each tanks. It still looks much better a couple of feet away than it does up close. You can also do West German stuff in a drab green color.

As far as the T-72s and the Hinds, the guy I play with is a really good painter. For the Hinds you can just use something like elmers sticky tack to mask off your camo. Spray your secondary camo color, roll out the tack into snakes and mask off your camo pattern. Press the tack down flat so you get a hard edge, reshaping the edges if necessary. Then spray your base coat.

Only takes a few minutes to do and you get and you get a pretty decent effect. You can see that some of my edges are a bit too soft from where I didn't press down the tack. But you can always clean it up later.

File: 1476177683049.jpg (171KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x525px

>>52367041
>>52367161


True, this is real horseshit. I remember trying to join the model kit club in university, and it was 95% 40K, and the last 5% was the professor responsible for the club who was making (actually great) 1:24 scale cars. Then tried to join a wargame club later on. I arrived, all happy, with a bunch of Soviet WW2 troops, and lolgetfucked, there was only Warhammer stuff, and some less modern-looking fantasy game that I didn't remember.

At least I got a friend to follow me in Team Yankee so I'm not getting stuck with useless armies again...

File: 399.jpg (48KB, 900x635px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 900x635px

>>52374740
First result on Google was 'memri tv memes', kek.

File: cam305.jpg (984KB, 1418x952px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 1418x952px

Kursk 1943: The Southern Front (Osprey Campaign 305)

Mauled at Stalingrad, the German army looked to regain the initiative on the Eastern Front with a huge offensive launched near the city of Kursk, 280 miles south-west of Moscow. Armed with the new Panther tank, Hitler and Field Marshal von Manstein were confident that they could inflict another crushing defeat on the Soviet Union. What they did not know is that the Soviets knew about the coming attack, and they were ready. This book focuses on the southern front of this campaign, which featured one of the biggest clash of armour of the warin the battle of Prokhorovka which involved over a thousand tanks. It examines in detail the tactics and mistakes of the army commanders as they orchestrated one of the bloodiest battles in World War II. Using campaign maps, stunning photographs and vivid artwork, this new study, a companion to Campaign 272 Kursk 1943: The Northern Front, examines whether that the German offensive was doomed from the start as it takes the reader through this titanic clash of armour.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nlyuxlql9ao5rwt/Osprey+-+CAM+305+-+Kursk+1943+%282%29+Southern+Front.pdf

>>52374676
>They created Poutine which is delicious and is hard to find in a foreign country

It's disgusting and thank god it's hard to find anywhere else.

File: eli214.jpg (669KB, 707x952px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 707x952px

World War II Infantry Fire Support Tactics (Osprey Elite 214)

As infantry units advanced across Europe the only support they could rely on from day to day was that provided by the heavy weapons of their own units. While thundering tanks struck fear into the hearts of their enemies it was the machine guns, mortars and light cannon that proved to be most important, causing the majority of casualties suffered during World War II. Common principles were shared across units but the wide variety of weapons available to the different armies altered the way they were used in battle. Focusing on the US, British, German and Soviet troops, this title offers a comprehensive guide to infantry fire support tactics used through World War II. Combat reports are complemented by specially commissioned artwork to show the way in which tactics varied, and highlight how developments obliged opposing armies to review their own methods.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ossk2au75evagh0/Osprey+-+ELI+214+-+World+War+II+Infantry+Fire+Support+Tactics.pdf

>>52375307
>>52375392
Sweet, thanks man

>>52375392
>>52375307
Osprey ScAnon is a god among men.

>>52374676
>Maple Syrup whiskey

I am simultaneously curious to know if it is any good, and asking "why would someone do that to a perfectly good whiskey?".

>>52377744
canadian whiskey is low tier among whiskeys anyway....

>>52377744
>>52378255
>drinking whiskey rather than whisky
but why

>>52377744
I'm not the greatest Whiskey drinker, and frankly most of it's wasted on me. It could be pain stripper with some wood flavouring and I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Maple Syrup Whiskey made almost all of us who tried it gag instantly.

>>52375392
Nice!

I'll have to check that out.

File: brit.jpg (68KB, 604x392px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 604x392px

I've got a big team yankee game next sunday on a big big table
i've been told 200pts but will most likely be trimmed down depending on how many turn up?

>>52384460
How big is big big? 100 points feels about right on a 5' x 8' table. I would want to put 2 together to do 200 points.

File: This guy.jpg (107KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x540px

This fukkin guy.

File: Nachtjager - UK SAS squadron.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>52385694
That force is 2380 points as-modeled, if anyone cares. 140 for each group of three armored jeeps with all the guns (center and right), 95 for three unarmored jeeps with all the guns (left), 95 for two armored command jeeps (center), one spare jeep, and then 8 Comets for 145 each.

When or why the fuck you'd field it, I have no idea.

>>52385752
That is a deceptively high points value.

Why is that?

>>52387126
Comets are really expensive, 580 for a platoon of 4. The armored Jeeps are about 45 points each with the AA MGs, mainly because they're FV recce that can assault things. When you add FV ultralight armored vehicles, and really expensive tanks, you get an army that costs a bit more than it should.

Specific breakdown:
Comets - 1160 points (48.7%)
Jeeps - 725 points (30.5%)
Jeep armoring (2/3rds of them) - 300 points (12.6%)
Jeep extra AA guns - 145 points (6.1%)
Jeep .50s - 50 points (2.1%)

>>52384460
200 points?

Even 100 feels a bit large depending on which nation you're playing.

>>52384460
Are you just doing NATO on NATO? Otherwise you're gonna need a 20 foot long table to contain the spam.

>>52374777
Any. I'll be playing Brits(unless Canadians get some sort of support), and while the painting guides make it look pretty easy even for a ham fisted oaf like me I'm still worried I'll fuck it all up.

>>52389200
As of right now, Canadians aren't in the game.

But people have suggested that a force Built out of Panzertruppen would have a lot of the equipment used by the Canadians.

Maybe not a 100% match, but probably an 80% match.

guys is iraqi sand too light for my italians? it seems like it would look good but difficult to highlight. my undercoat would be ochre maybe...

>>52389781
When I painted Italians way back I went with ochre then just a heavy drybrush of Iraqi sand. The hit it with brown ink and raise it back up and it'll look great.

>>52389813
sounds good. the ink wash didn't kill the highlight?

>>52389860
I went back over it after the wash. I pretty much do that with everything I paint.

File: ow54.jpg (600KB, 706x953px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 706x953px

The Suomi Submachine Gun (Osprey Weapon 54)

Entering service in 1931, the 9x19mm Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun saw extensive combat with Finnish troops during their fight against Soviet forces in 1939-44. It was also manufactured under licence in Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, and remained in Finnish service until the 1980s, an indication of its durability. Rugged and accurate, the Suomi was a favourite with Finnish ski troops who would strike from ambush, cutting down Soviet troops, then skiing away into the woods. Initially used by the Finns as a light machine gun at infantry squad level, it eventually became a dedicated submachine gun, and since it had been designed to be more accurate than the typical SMG, it was often even used as a sniping weapon, or to supplement longer-ranged rifles such as the Mosin-Nagant. Featuring first-hand accounts and specially commissioned colour artwork, this is the story of one of World War II's most distinctive and respected infantry weapons.

https://mega.nz/#!608DWY5Q!BxYFyhwuYd2XNAV6xSt1KqHfCcs4EiroacN-SmBsPTU

File: nva254.jpg (854KB, 1283x953px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 1283x953px

Early US Armor: Tanks 1916-1940 (Osprey New Vanguard 245)

Between the two World Wars, the US contributed significantly to the development of the tank, a weapon invented by the British and the French seeking a way to break through the lines of German trenches. From the employment of the French Renault FT and British Mark V during their involvement in World War I, the US branched out with their own indigenous designs including the M1 Cavalry Car and the M2 Light and Medium tanks, the precursors to the Stuart and Grant tanks of World War II. Tank designers in this period faced unique challenges and so the story of early American armour is littered with failures amongst the successes. Featuring previously unpublished photos and fully illustrated throughout, Early American Armor (1): Tanks 1916-40 is essential reading for anyone interested in American armour, or in the development of tank design.

https://mega.nz/#!qsNR3JgZ!rwAZVb-ML_umIdRcZ6JrbE6jRWhrDkVtTAEIuEROdAs

File: Road to Rome - ITA Compagnia Bersaglieri.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

Revenge of the little guys:
Italians:
>Compagnia Bersaglieri HQ - 2x Rifle - 30pts

>Bersaglieri Platoon - 7x Rifle/MG - 135 pts
>Bersaglieri Platoon - 7x Rifle/MG - 135 pts

>Bersaglieri Machine-gun Platoon - Cmd Rifle, 4x HMG - 105 pts
>Bersaglieri Mortar Platoon - Cmd Rifle, OP rifle, 3x 81/14 mortar - 80 pts
>Motociclisti Platoon - 7x Solo Motorcycle MG - 180
>Transport Platoon - 4x 3-ton Truck - 15pts

Poles:
>British Armoured Platoon (5th Polish) - 3x Sherman III or V - 210 pts
>Anti-tank Platoon, Royal Artillery (5th Polish) - Cmd Rifle, 4x OQF 17pdr, transports - 225 pts

French:
>French Tirailleurs Platoon - 10x Rifle, Bazooka - 185 pts
>French Artillery Battery - Cmd Rifle, Staff, OP Rifle, 4x 105mm howtizer, transports - 185 pts

Total: 1505 pts, 8 platoons (after HMGs are attached)

French, Polish, and Italians working together on the allied side in LW. Such a magical sight. Shame about the complete lack of integrated AT assets.

>>52392203
it's unclear what formations they can get because bf didn't adapt the book yet, but I would say getting a tank formation with fireflies makes the most sense for Italians, as opposed to the 17pdrs.

>>52392229
I'm just going with the list attached to the post, where the polish support just has towed 17 pdr and 6 pdr guns, as well as plain shermans.

>>52384916
>>52388742
>>52389200

Yeah it is a bit much but we are playing on roughly 8X16 foot board

the host did say he'll most likely reduce the points limit

File: psc-bren-3.jpg (75KB, 585x786px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 585x786px

http://theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_37_39_55&products_id=1347

Nine. Nine of these sprues in one box. I think I've died and gone to carrier heaven.

>>52393306
Plastic UCs... BF BTFO again.

File: Fuck yes.gif (378KB, 281x266px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 281x266px

>>52393306

File: Noice goy.png (76KB, 174x193px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 174x193px

>>52393306
Looks like the lads won't be walking about for much longer.

>>52393384
Well, when is BF releasing their plastic UC kit?
Cause they're also doing one...

Inb4 PSC is trying to squeeze this out before that.

>>52393504
Theirs is supposed to be mid-summer, so PSC isn't squeezing this out. On the other hand, PSC IS increasing it to 9 models explicitly to match BF's 9 for the same price (they said so on their TMP post about it). So quality hasn't changed, but competition has increased the quantity we get.

It's great when capitalism works for the consumer.

>>52393877
>>52393504
Pfft, I'd buy it from PSC anyway, their models are far, far better than BF's plastics.

The crappy dimensions of the panther/jagdpanther kit pissed me off so much I still haven't finished the first one..

>>52394896
Crappy dimensions?

What to do with all my now useless artillery staff and command teams?

>>52395161

Use them in objective makers. Use a pair of staff teams and set up a fire direction centre or something. Pick up some German/British figures and make it look like the staff team is being captured by the enemy.

>>52395161
Play a proper edition.

Less sarcastically, you can use one as a token to mark which of the guns is the platoon commander, and rebase the others for objectives.

>>52394896
Built that kit myself, didn't have any trouble with it whatsoever.
What exactly pissed you off about it?

>>52394906
BF doesn't make the models very accurate in terms of proportions/scale. The model is considerably taller than it should be, and while most of the time you wouldn't be able to tell unless you put it next to a more accurate model from another company, with Panther's it's especially visible as there's a lot more room above the tracks.

I'll try to take a pic later on to illustrate.

>>52393877
I kinda wish PSC had stuck with six in a box: nine is too many IMO.

>>52394906
I hear the Panther sits too tall, which might be what he is referring to.

>>52395161
Rage-burn them, video it and become internet famous.

>>52393306
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pusZXECS0mM

>>52395478
>I kinda wish PSC had stuck with six in a box: nine is too many IMO.
It's the same price as 6, just means you get two scout patrols and a wasp section.

>>52395551
Ah, my bad: thought the price had changed too.

File: a29b5bb5040a0d7ffd4f2ed444c2a187.jpg.png (3MB, 1367x1835px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1367x1835px

I dont know where else to ask but what type of epaulettes did soviet conscripts have from ww2

>>52395625
Nah, they realized that BF would undercut them at BF's promised 9 per box. They decided that, as the cost of extra plastic sprues are tiny compared to startup costs and the lost sales, it was cheaper in the long run to up the carriers per box to 9 and leave the price.

Flames of War LW Review:

It seems like the Germans are now overcosted. Three of their unique advantages, which were very important, have been taken away from them. This is as follows:
1. Stormtrooper - everyone can do it, although the Germans can still do it better. Given that there are diminishing returns to these movement orders, this is not as good as before.
2. Mission Tactics. Everyone gets it.
3. Kampfgrouppe. This used to allow Germany to get a 'free' even number platoon so that they can frontload the table. This is no longer the case and Germany is stuck to the normal 60/40 reserves rules as everyone else.

Ultimately, this means that German special rules are no longer worth the points that they were. Looking at the math, it appears that German units are 10% more expensive than their equivalent.

(Examples are all CV)
British Rifle/MGs cost 20 points per stand.
US Rifles cost 18 points per stand (but with the automatic rifles special rule, not significantly worse than Rifle/MG in most roles).
German Rifle/MG costs 22 points per stand.

Panzer IV costs 90 points each.
Basic British Sherman costs 80 points each.
Basic American Sherman costs 83 points each.

Panzer IV and the Shermans are rough equivalents on the table. Yes, Shermans have more side armor and special rules, while the Panzer IV has an extra point of AT and protected ammo - they are as even a match as we are going to see between tanks of different nations.

In our test games, Germany seems to have a very tough time at the current points levels. This is because their 10% overcosting means that they will always be outmatched by their opponents, which is new to V4.

10% at 1500 points is about as much as an extra Rifle/MG Platoon. This needs to be fixed immediately.

There will be an upcoming LW v4 tourney in my area. I'll be pretty pissed if Battlefront killed all competitive EW/LW gaming through this fuckery of a new edition without corresponding points updates.

>>52397133
Mission Tactics is 10pts flat per platoon, the way BF prices things. Seems to tbe the same for British Bulldog and Stormtrooper (both of which got nerfed)

Your conclusions about Panzer IVs are pretty fucking wrong, AT 11 and protected ammo are huge advantages. I'd much rather have that than semi-indirect that never sees use.

Also, you ignore the nerfs other armies got (poor cromwells and chaffees). Take 10pts off every platoon that had mission tactics (and its clones). That'll fix the EASY bits, but arty needs to be entirely repointed, as does recce. Those at least are mostly fucky across the board.

>>52397133
>>52397343
That all said, the best fix to V4's unbalance is simple: Don't play V4.

>>52397133
>Stormtrooper - everyone can do it, although the Germans can still do it better. Given that there are diminishing returns to these movement orders, this is not as good as before.

Wrong. Everyone can blitz, and everyone can shoot and scoot.

Stormtrooper is now a rule that lets Germans units perform two movement orders in the same turn provided they succeeded on the first movement order.

Read the fucking rules.

>Ultimately, this means that German special rules are no longer worth the points that they were. Looking at the math, it appears that German units are 10% more expensive than their equivalent.

There has never been any explicit statement that national special rules have ever played a role in determining points values. So no, they aren't "10% overcosted".

>>52397343
I disagree. The extra point of AT and prot ammo is nice, but Brit Shermans beat them at long range with semi-indirect fire (I did the math). I have not done the math to see how stabilizers affects the contest.

Panzer ivs also do not get smoke.

So, they are functional equivalents.

Reinforcing the earlier point, using accepted stand points costs, a CV German "armoured riflr platoon" equivalent would cost 350 points.

Anyone know when LW is getting its points updated? My gsmes on the weekend against German opponents show that it is currently unplayable.

>>52397579
A german rifle/mg stand is about 22 points. A british one is 20 points. This used to be justified but it is no longer so.

>>52397644
>but Brit Shermans beat them at long range with semi-indirect fire (I did the math)
Please post said math, along with why you're ignoring your greater mobility and ability to close to not-long ranges, or just break fucking LoS. Unless the enemy is an idiot, you rarely get more than a turn of SIDF fire off.

>>52397644
>unplayable

How so? I honestly have difficulty believing that after only a handful of games with the new rules, less than 2 weeks old at this point, you can honestly and unequivocally say without any bias that the game is "completely unplayable".

>>52393306
That kit's pretty universal!

>>52395161
Fellows like me would probably want to acquire them from you.

>>52395686
Depending on where and when, a lot of Soviet troops either didn't have them at all, or frequently they were the same colour as the uniform itself. Otherwise, if they're rifle units, those were red, kind of like the CW sovs in your picture.

>>52397133
>a wehraboo cries

>>52397733
I will look through my desktop for thr spreadsheet. I hope I still have it.

Against a determined opponent SIF isnt huge. Personally, I am not a huge fan and i play Brits.

Would you play in a 1500pt tournament with only 1350? Because that is the reality dor German players in LW

>>52398399
I am actually not a Wehraboo. I play British. I just do not like playing an opponent who I know has a disadvantage.

>>52398409
Reminds me of the old days, when Germans got fewer points.

Will the shitty artillery parks disappear with the V4 changes?

>>52398662
Maybe. Arty parks are shit vs tanks but destroy infantry. It depends what your local meta is like.

US Tine in Target is even better because now it is easier to range in on the first attempt.

>>52398409
>>52398421
So try a few games where the German player gets an extra 10% points and see if it feels more balanced. Until you do so, you can't really be confident in your hypothesis.

I played only Germans in 2/3ed and while I feel some of the nerfs pretty hard, there are also boosts that will make up for them, at least in part. Not needing staff teams to repeat bombardment, for instance. Rerolling morale simply due to being close to the CO or 2IC.

The old storm trooper 'space magic bullshit' has now been replaced with 'blitz + shoot & scoot'. Granted, it takes 2 die rolls, and the penalty for failing is greater (+! to hit) but the potential reward is greater too - stationary RoF. Combine this with any source of reroll for the skill test and you're going to have one frustrated opponent.

Give it time and experiment, refrain from doomsaying for now. Otherwise just go back to 3ed.

>>52398755
Thats a good point. A test game where Germans have more points should be played.

I will post once that is done.

>>52374157
Who's the qt on the left?

>>52393877
And remember BF's just makes the base UC, while PSC makes... basically everything.

>>52398684
>Arty parks are shit vs tanks but are the only thing capable of hurting infantry.
Fixed that for you.

Infantry (with gun support) are just retardedly good at facetanking tanks, now. They straight-up win shootouts. Artillery is just getting you back to the point you were in V3 after the massive buff guns got.

File: IMG_20170327_233751.jpg (2MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x3120px

>>52395464
>>52394906
Let's see if this works:

File: IMG_20170327_233026.jpg (2MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x3120px

And one more:

>>52399177
>>52399204
The difference in size and proportions is visible to the naked eye, even from medium distances. I was going to magnetise the tops to switch between Jagdpanther & Panther, hoping to mix the Panthers from both manufacturers to play both lolsome FHH lists from Blood, Guts & Glory as well as funsies from Desperate Measures and other later books...

Right now I'm thinking the only way I can get over this is by giving the tanks radically different paintjobs. Doing the PSC Panthers as Wiking 1944 and the PSC Panthers as 1. SS in the Ardennes 44-45 (with infrared thrown in for Nachtjager lulz).

I'll see what I do when I get more seriously back into the hobby in april...

Back from more TY and I've got to say, after several weeks of running it, I really feel like the T-72 needs either a points cut or a buff. I'll possibly look at running them as T-72Ms, also, but I very, very rarely find myself going "I'm really glad I had T-72s here, because a BMP couldn't have done that".

I am also, as usual, concerned about the health of the game. Being the only soviet player in town is nice but I had my good friend trying to talk me into coming into a tournament because they were having trouble finding soviets to fill out the slots.

File: TychoGabeSquee.jpg (51KB, 255x349px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 255x349px

>>52391294
>>52391308

>>52399379
A buff would be better than a points drop
the game didn't have bad balance wise at the start untill the west germans and brits turned up.
then they would later drop the ball with the east germans.

hopefully they fix the russians with a few good buffs but we all know w'll be saying cheers phil later in the year.

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

72KB, 355x531px

>>52399504
>>52399379

There is no way in hell Phil is going to buff the T-72. The best we can hope for is a slight points adjustment in the next book. The cynical part of me thinks that there will be no point adjustment and the T-64 will be only marginally better than the T-72 while remaining overpriced.

We've had a lot of fun games with Team Yankee, but I have been playing a Aufklärungs list that is far from optimized. Even still my friend has swapped to Volksarmee because the Soviet T-72s underperform every game. Think about it, you can buy a lot of T-55s as meatshields just from the points you save using T-72Ms instead of the Soviet model.

Viva la Spam.

My buddy wants to start Russia and I want to start Germany, and we want to do the battle of Stalingard. Any ideas on where we start with the new edition we keep hearing about?

>>52401601
Eastern Front hasn't been released yet. Sorry to rain on your parade there.

>>52401601
V4 MW won't be reaching the Eastern Front until next year, but if you wanted to start painting Germans, Phil has pretty much said the Pz. III and Pz. IV will largely be the same for the Eastern Front. You can pretty much paint them in feldgrau or whitewash and be good to go for Stalingrad.

Infantry is infantry for the most part. Most blisters or boxes will tell you what era they work for if you want to get particular. If your buddy wants tanks he can start with the plastic T-34 box.

>>52397133
Everybody got hit in various strategies they used, and adapting to that is part of getting a new edition of a game.

Like, just off the top of my head the US lost JLTW, Smooth Ride, Detroit's Finest, those super cheap OP Shermans, the mobility changes hit Stuarts and Chaffees, tankbusting combined arty barrages.

For the Brits the most obvious thing that pops to mind is 25pdrs losing a lot of their uniqueness and just being awful compared to eg 3" mortars. Night Attack is heavily nerfed too with it having no Spearhead, no Always Attacks and being very restricted in terms of missions it may be used in.

Soviets have basically lost QoQ; not only does everyone get it but it's been nerfed so hard to be practically nonexistant, at least when assaulting.

Or, you know, tiny nitpicks like the Small Infantry Teams rule that off the top of my head only affects the Allies and Panzergrenadier Lehr? Maybe something Soviet too?

>>52401601
As said, the V4 books for the eastern front haven't been released yet, and will be after the Italians and US troops in the desert. However, you can both use the points in the old Eastern Front book, and use the EW/LW conversion rules to field them with V4 stats. It's a cludge, but it will do decently till they release the V4 books for the russians.

And as >>52401746 states, the models aren't going to change much, if at all. Advantage of historical wargames: A Panzer IV is a Panzer IV.

>>52401958
Jesus Christ are they making everything the same bland pile of stats now?

>>52402117
They're getting rid of a lot of the feature creep that lead to every V3 list being full of special rules and exceptions, sure. I don't know that it's fair to say "bland pile of stats" yet, but I've not played nearly enough V4 to get an idea of how distinct things feel.

>>52401566
Yeah, any hope for something like the T-72B was dashed when the plastic kit came with no ERA, meanwhile the yanks are gonna get M1A1 at some point putting the T-72A at the clear bottom of the meta.

>>52401566
Why does Phil think spam is fun? Has he actually played with the armies he makes spam? It is so fucking tedious and encourages one-dimensional bullshit.
t. someone who will never play anything cheaper than fearless vet ever again

>>52402663
>Why does Phil think spam is fun? Has he actually played with the armies he makes spam?
As someone put it around here: "I'd love to play a horde army, just not buy and paint it."

People who own wargames companies don't have to buy and paint their hordes if there's a studio army.

>>52402729
I am building Volksarmee as a second force and as I don't have an airbrush, I just painted them all in Vallejo Soviet Uniform. Didn't even think about trying to do anything creative with them as there are just too damn many to have to pump out.

>>52402663
There are different levels of spam. A rush build using T-72Ms and T-55s is fun to play and play against. A plop down all the T-55s or BMP-2 list is bland and tedious to play against and a nightmare to paint.

Meat is great, but you need more than a stack of it to make a good sandwich. I think there is so much more to wargaming than picking a unit with good stats and bringing more and more and more and more of it.

As German, how do you kill the American Armoured Rifle Platoon in v4? In V4...

1. Halftracks stay on the table and blaze away with .50cals
2. No morale check until your platoon is 87% destroyed.

Furthermore, the platoon is incredibly cheap. 15 stands and 5 halftracks costs 295 Points (CV). German players can buy two Rifle/MG Grenadier platoons for 155 each. Therefore, it costs the German player 310 to get the same amount of infantry stands on the field, WITHOUT the halftracks.

Obviously the costing is fucked up. It kinda' looks like Battlefront killed whatever semblance of balance remained with the new edition. 1

1. Any idea when we're getting new LW books?
2. How do *you* deal with American Armoured Rifles as German?

>>52403890
>Furthermore, the platoon is incredibly cheap. 15 stands and 5 halftracks costs 295 Points (CV). German players can buy two Rifle/MG Grenadier platoons for 155 each. Therefore, it costs the German player 310 to get the same amount of infantry stands on the field, WITHOUT the halftracks.
They took a hit for small stands, so it's balanced.

cheers

>>52401958
Soviets may have actually been kinda buffed by the V4 changes. Hen & Chicks no longer forces every tank in the platoon to move if one tanks moves. T-34-76s are now a lot more mobile on the table because they're "fast tanks", the Hero lists have more consistent access to a lot of the movement orders, Soviet light artillery (Zis-3s) are now very effective because they actually have a decent bombardment block and are still reasonable in direct fire, even in LW. Plus you can get oodles of them with armored MG halftracks and drop three templates.

Heavy mortars are still pretty fantastic. And the IL-2 in LW is godlike because it has ROF2 AT12 cannons, so it can blow every tank in the game off the board, especially if you come in and hit side armor.

Plus infiltrate is now a slightly better spearhead move with no more failure chance.

On the flipside, ISU-152 is now incredibly worthless and their manpack flamethrowers got hit with the nerfbat like everyone else's (although they still get 4 shots and stick around, so IDK). Catkiller is still kinda meh. Giant infantry blobs are even MORE unwieldy.

>>52403890
The Halftracks count as a separate unit t for the purposes of unit Last Stand checks.

Read the fucking rules.

>>52405025
>Read the fucking rules.

Why do I get the feeling this will be a common refrain over the coming weeks and months?

>>52402663
>someone who will never play anything cheaper than fearless vet
So 90% of the fucking people who play FoW?

Seriously; when I started playing I was the only person in my group not running exclusivley FV and someone asked why I didn't just play an airborne company with my Italians so I could get FV no matter what.

>>52403890
Mortars that can repeat bombardment no. Breakthrough guns may have been nerfed, but StuHs will still hurt them pretty bad. Flamethrowers for a couple of turns followed by assaults.

All these will take a few turns, but there's never been a way to remove that huge batman blob in one turn without significant risk.

File: EWLW rules.png (185KB, 491x336px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 491x336px

>>52401958
>US lost Smooth Ride, Detroit's Finest

>>52408118
Lost in the sense of, they're not hideously overpowered any more. At least in the case of Smooth Ride.

Fighter Interception. Who has it?

>>52408183
EW French and British

>>52408183
>>52408193
In effect nobody in LW to make the Sturmvogel/Arado extra points cost worth a damn...

>>52408266
No, LW Japanese and Marines have fighter interception.

>>52408640
I thought LW Pacific isn't balanced to work with Europe...

>>52408680
It's pointed the same. So you can play Pacific in Late and Early War.

>>52408157
>lost in the sense of still have.

>>52408812
Oh come on. They still have the special rule, yeah, but the rules are not nearly as powerful as they were in V3. No Yankee magic tanks zipping around sniping shit at full rate of fire.

i always wondered why Bfs models on the website looked so badly painted. now i understand. no paint job could ever save those horrible models.

>>52409282
Is there any kit you are particularly referencing?

>>52409301
anything italian

>>52409323
Most of those moulds have been in service since the first edition. They're probably more than a little worn out by now.

>>52409323
They are probably using ancient molds. That might change when they redo Italians for midwar, but then again they've had a bunch of quality issues with metal and resin for Team Yankee. Maybe infantry will be in plastic so they don't look like clay face, like my West German grenadiers.

>>52409361
The quality issues for Team Yankee are because of a rushed second production run to meet nearly double the expected demand.

>>52409282
The older models have some issues with the molds breaking down over time.

Some stuff definitely needs remastering. Maybe even resculpting.

But almost all of the new stuff, plastic, resin, and metal, has been quite good.

The plastics for Team Yankee have been top notch, as have the new Mid-War plastics.

As for the resin, I've only heard about issues with the Leopard 1s.

>>52410940
Which is why I am expecting the exact thing to happen for V4 Italians. When has Battlefront ever guessed right about demand?

>>52410998
Are Italians actually that popular?

The old group I used to be part of only had a single Italian player out of a group of about 12 players.

>>52411036
depends. History focused metas generally have a great mix. Otherwise its usually just the big 4.

>>52411174
Yeah, my group had a fairly solid mix of the Big 4 for Mid-War, with several players having more than one nation.

And then there was that one guy, who always got teased just a little bit, who ran Italians.

And as much as he wanted to love them, he was often cursing them because he tended to roll hilariously poorly for their Random Skill and Motivation.

>>52411036
The last MW tournament I went to had more Italians than Russians.

>>52407712
There is no way the number of people who only run FV is 90%; at least in V3 it was fairly common knowledge that FV was overrated / a noob trap / not worth the points.

Sorry your local meta sucks

>>52412094
It's not about being good (CV or even RV is probably the perfect rating) it's about having a reasonably sized army.

Reluctant Veteran was, if you value mathammer, probably the best.

>>52408118
The rules still exist by name but are very different, and US Tank lists are weaker at what they used to do than they were before. They've moved from mechanics encouraging a constant move and shoot style of play to mechanics that encourage flanking dashes and the like.

Like, if someone is going to complain about Stormtrooper changing for the Germans they have to acknowledge these things changing for the US.

>>52412230
The rules changes for the US bring them in line with other nations and get rid of their super and cheap shermans. This is a correction that in my opinion is overdue.

>>52412230
The US still have a tonne of good special rules: time on target, truscott trott, tank destroyers, automatic rifles.

What do the germans get? Stormtrooper and begleit? lol

File: Grizzled Wehraboo.jpg (74KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1280x720px

>>52413854
An improved Stormtrooper which can vastly improve German mobility, or let them pop up and shoot full rate of fire before hiding again.

An improved Tiger Ace. Which in addition to rerolling misses, lets the Tigers better utilize Stormtrooper and stick around to fight longer despite small platoon sizes.

Mounted Assault is extremely powerful now, especially when considered with the fact that passenger in transports get an infantry save if the transport is destroyed. Especially nice considering the new assault rules make it harder to get infantry in for an assault.

Yeah you're right Germans don't get shit for special rules...

>>52414304

Tiger Aces only re-roll misses for the Formation Commander. But super-blitz and super-morale are both pretty useful; I'd certainly take both over Clever Hans, although they don't quite beat the 1-in-36 chance of RoF3 and re-rolling.

>>52413854
>tank destroyers
Literally just Stormtrooper but strictly worse

>>52414304
>>52414304
What edition of the game are you playing? Clearly you play non-germans and want to keep the rest of the board unaware of the advantage that you have.

1. Tiger Ace is an imporovement. This is good, but this is limited to two types of tanks that do not see broad play. This special rule is nice but will unlikely have a huge impact on the game. This rule is also included as part of the Tiger/KT cost.

2. The new stormtrooper rule is a net loss for the Germans. There is diminishing marginal utility per 'move order'. That is, the first move order you do will obviously be the most important to your position - and doing a second will add less utility. In the past, only the Germans could get an extra 4 inches of movement. Now everyone can. Stormtrooper only lets them do the 'fritz move' to shoot and run away. Everyone else can still do this, but at moving ROF. US TDs can do this on par with the Germans.

Their other special rules are INCREDIBLY specific: Begleit, Stuka Zu Fuss, and Schurzen. Schurzen used to be incredible (50% to shrug off bazooka). Now, it is only about 33% (actual value is less, but I dont feel like doing the math). This further exacerbates the power of the American Armoured Rifles. I don't play German, but my friends who do feel like they are getting unfairly beaten by American players due to pointing issues. This isn't fun.

>>52415659
> Everyone else can still do this, but at moving ROF.
Do note you can only shoot and scoot if you shot at halted RoF.

Does Wayland still do the free TY mini-rulebooks?

>>52417133
SHOOT AND SCOOT — TACTICS
A Unit Leader that did not Move in the Movement Step can issue a Shoot and Scoot Order in the Assault Step instead of Assaulting. If it does this roll a die.
• If the score is greater than or equal to the Unit Leader’s Skill rating (or their Tactics rating if different), the Leader and any Teams that are In Command and did not Move in the Movement Step may immediately Move up to 4”/10cm.
• Otherwise, the Unit remains where it is

Nothing about being Halted.

>>52417696
>A Unit Leader that did not Move in the Movement Step
> any Teams that are In Command and did not Move in the Movement Step
What's this then?

>>52417759
That has nothing to do with their RoF? You can shoot with whatever RoF you want.

>>52417776
>Everyone else can still do this, but at moving ROF.
What was this about then?
The initial thing was in reference to that.

>>52417776
Since you're probably going to ask, it matters for stuff that doesn't get a halted RoF.

>>52417851
No idea, not that guy. You can't do the poke out->shoot->hide thing if you're not german anymore. You can shoot with moving RoF and scoot, though, but admittedly I don't know if that'll ever be relevant for WW2 stuff if there's no helos.

How do you guys who don't own an airspray do camo on vehicles without it looking bad?

>>52419186
On vehicles, I haven't tried since brits didn't bother with camo in europe. On aircraft, using silly putty pressed into the rough shape does pretty well at preventing the brush from going out of the area.

>>52417573
No, but they do send the free EW-LW v4 rulebook & special rules books instead.
>>52419186
Very, very carefully. It helps a whole lot that most camo has no perfectly straight edges, you just need to do a steady, squiggly line to define the shape and then fill in the shape with paint.

>>52419186
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsH1A21UCw

>>52419186
There are different techniques you can use. If you want a hard edge camo you can use a liquid mask or just have really steady hands.

If you want a soft edge there are a few options. You can use a rattle can to paint your secondary camo color (the stripes). Then roll up some sticky tack into snakelike shapes. Gently affix the snake to the vehicle to mark out your camo without pressing down. Then use a rattle can with your primary camo color.

If you rather use a brush, just paint your primary color first. Then mix your secondary and primary 50:50 and use an older brush to the dab the camo patern on. Then use the secondary color to fill in the middle with the same dabbing motion. After you apply it, apply a wash and drybrush with the primary color.

Check out this video for brush painting soft edge camo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsH1A21UCw

So I need to decide between three lists for tomorrow's game night. Do I take:

>11th Armored Recce
CT Cromwells, Challengers, and Dingoes backed up with a full 25pdr battery?

>2nd Army Tank Brigade
CT Churchills, with artillery, infantry, and air support?

>Canadian Armored Recce
CV Shermans with some recce rules, supported by heavy AT, arty, and AA?

Playing V3, since it matters.

>>52420868
Stealth Canadians are the best choice for V3. V4 would improve Churchills and Cromwells a lot as to make this a pretty even tie..

>>52420868
No infantry in the Canadian or 11th Armored lists?

>>52421063
Normally I do include a platoon, but none of the local germans actually bother to bring infantry and we try to stick to axis vs allied when possible. Yes, it gets annoying. I want to try out these crocs, but they're useless.

>>52421009
>Improve
>Cromwells
Dash is no substitute for being able to fire after you move. Especially against StuG spam.

>>52409282
BF's product has always been painted to a "normal wargamers" standard. I think nicer-looking pictures are better, but I can understand the point.

>>52421360
I was thinking more about improved speed in general, orders particularly Blitz, improvements to Artillery killing power, and Spearhead.

Anyone else feel Team Yankee would be better played in 6mm?

>>52423443
maybe. i've stopped playing TY till americans get a fucking balanced list.

getting sick and tired of getting run over by 32+ bmp2's with air support out the ying yan and my a-10's and cobras stay at home because for some reason everyone EXEPT amreicans can have 3 diffeent types of AA covering the entire goddamn table but noo americans get 1 unit with a 35" bubble and that's it.

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

382KB, 1394x784px

>>52423556
I'm also tired of the bullshit that russians pull .. what's that 1/2 on 1/2 off? fine .. you have no air so all my AA assets are in reserve.. and i still have 80ish points on the table .. where americans get somethilng like 45 pts.

I do feel for American players left behind by UK/WGer releases but I don't have any doubt there's a bunch of cool stuff on the way.

>>52423556
>>52423586
I forgot how bad some of you have it playing against randoms in a store. I play with a group where I set up the battles, and thus make sure the lists are fairly equal so each side has a legitimate chance at winning.

Maybe I'm just burned out but I have more fun setting up a table and refereeing for 2 v 2s or 3 v 3s than actually playing right now.

>>52423586
The issue is you're playing 100 points. Getting more than about six platoons into 75-80 points as the soviets is actually reasonably hard, whereas NATO can run mech anything or panzertruppen/brits and have like 12 platoons so win on deployment. Soviet lists are so easy to fuck up in list-making and T-72 lists are basically traps.

>>52423586
I own a list like that except I got all the way to half painted before the suicidal thoughts started

>>52423762
I've been playing T-72s for a couple of months and I'm coming to the conclusion that 30-40 BMPs is probably the only viable way of winning a lot of games by big margins so this might be my future too.

Or I might just stop playing TY, one of the two.

>>52423762
>>52423844
Man up buckos. Russian tanks are just green. I did 25 German vehicles in tri color in a single weekend.

>>52412094
Maybe 90% is an exaggeration, but it seemed like an overwhelming majority of the armies were FV(mostly Germans and Americans).

>>52424014
You had a lot of para players? That's the only way to get US FV (that or the segregated lists).

>>52415659
Italians and Hungarians both had rules to let them get an extra 4" of movement. The difference was they had to give up their shooting phase to do it while Germans could still shoot people and do Stormtrooper.

>>52424979
Annoyingly on the Hungarian side, giving them a -1 bonus on Follow Me for Huszar just gives them the same 3+ they generally had previously. Most units with Huszar were CV, and as before it was a skill check and is now a motivation, the -1 to it just makes them as good at it as they were before.

But hey, some people just gotta whine about being able to do two orders because that's totally not nice or anything.

The mission tactics price complaint is valid, just remember to apply any points reduction for it to Leafs, Shitposters, Kiwis, and US paras. Oh, and all those various Special Forces dudes.

>>52425278
The bigger loss with mission tactics in V4 is that your Panzerfaust is no longer unkillable. That's pretty huge

>>52426452
Wait....wat? The fuck BF.

>>52423586
>>52423754
I wish they would just update it so that reserves are based on a certain percentage of points like V4. I can bring 4 Luchs Zugs as West German and stash them all to put all my tanks on the board unless it's a deep reserves mission.

>>52427527
Read the rules, if your unit leader dies, another team in the unit becomes the unit leader.

File: IMG_0275.jpg (189KB, 643x826px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 643x826px

>>52427615
The rules state that you nominate a new team to be the unit leader and that you only may swap the stands out if they have similar characteristics. So yeah Panzerfausts/knackers can get swapped unless you have a hot hand with mistaken target. That's going to be rough for a lot of German lists

>>52427648
The mistaken target rules also make it really easy to, say, snipe off the one PIAT in a platoon. Because nobody would pick up a fallen AT weapon, apparently.

Picking up fallen AT weapons has no real place in a company scale game I think.

>>52428822
You could simulate it easy enough by, say, letting another team die instead. Or giving the team a warrior save.

>Complaining about no longer being able to do a thing only Germans used to be able to do

>OMG TEH GAEM IS BROKKEN!!!11!1!

>>52428963
>only Germans
You really are an idiot, aren't you?

>>52428987
Swapping HQ upgrade weapons with mission tactics?

Strictly a German thing.

>>52428822
Why not? It's simple common sense. As >>52428845 suggests, a warrior save at least would be fine.

>>52428963
>>52428987
Stop being dicks, you're not accomplishing anything other than looking like (anonymous) fools.

>>52428963
Who's complaining?

Who's saying the game is broken?

>>52429060
>Strictly a German thing
So you're telling me that Mission Tactics as a rule was different for every single force that had the rule?

Yeah, you're still an idiot.

>>52429083
Read the thread.

A recurring theme is that "Nation X can no longer do Special Rule Y, so therefore V4 is a horribly broken and unplayable mess!"

In this case, Mission Tactics in V3 used to let you keep HQ weapons upgrades alive for the Germans. A new team would become the command team tithball its upgrades, equipment, etc.

Now, the team dies and a brand new team is the commander, but the upgrades and equipment dies with the dead team.

>>52429152
Only Germans were able to use it to keep a special weapon upgrade for their HQ alive.

No one else who had mission tactics had any special HQ team specific upgrades that the could keep in game because of mission tactics.

>>52429169
I'm reading the thread, but I'm not seeing anyone saying the game's broken because of Mission Tactics or anything? The most extreme responses I can see is "That [change] is pretty huge" and "That's going to be rough for a lot of German lists"

>>52429169
>In this case, Mission Tactics in V3 used to let you keep HQ weapons upgrades alive for the Germans. A new team would become the command team tithball its upgrades, equipment, etc.
Same with Canadians, Kiwis, and even the Foreign Legion.

>>52428845
Yeah, and add a 4+ check if the weapon is damaged. Another 3+ for the succes in finding the ammunition. Except when the team was destroyed by a FP 2+ or better weapon. Of course not applicable when the destroyed team was dug in and killed by artillery.

And naturally no picking up the AT weapon when the original team was destroyed in CC.

See where I am going with this?

>>52429183
You mean like, say, Kiwi infantry in Road to Rome and their HQ sticky bombs? And who had Mission Tactics *just like the fucking Germans*?

>>52429187
What platoon command weapons upgrades did Canadians, Kiwis, etc have? I think there was an 82nd Airborne list that could get Panzerfausts?

>>52429201
Has Road to Rome been erratad or something? I'm holding the hard copy here and it says "Equip all Rifle/MG teams with Sticky Bombs for +10 points for the platoon" under the Commonwealth Rifle Platoon option, so Mission Tactics was irrelevant.

>>52429189
OR for the sake of simplicity leave it as a single die roll...

>>52429189
I see you're a fucknut that doesn't understand how to do a simple implementation of things, yes.

>>52429273
Wouldn't the simples be; dead = dead ?

>>52429293
We get it, you're retarded, you can stop showing the class now.

File: ab704daa2a2e471e84192751951f07ab.jpg (886KB, 840x840px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 840x840px

>>52429183
>HQ
>>52429213
>Platoon

And we're moving goalposts, so fuck this shit.

>>52429325
Company HQ upgrades have nothing to do with Mission Tactics, this discussion has always been about platoon commanders, even if that guy used misleading phrasing.

>>52429320
I see we are not going to agree on it. My reasoning is still that a company sized wargame in my opinion doesn't benefit from minutiae dealing with specific weapons passing hands.

Since you prefer to just shout insults instead of actually having a discussion I guess we're done. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Cheers!

>>52429183
>Only Germans were able to use it to keep a special weapon upgrade for their HQ alive.
Nachtjager paras and the 82nd US from MG would like a word.

>>52429495
If you didn't keep propping up strawmen, maybe we would have had a discussion, but you did, so we don't.

Cheer yourself in hell, Phil.

File: DSC_0053.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

Time to see how these new Zvezda kits go

>>52429584
PaK RSOs? Please be PaK RSOs...

I have yet to play any V4 games with a force with "unit leader only" AT so I am not sure exactly how harsh it will be on them. My german list is the LLW variety where every stand has a panzerfaust.

Personally I agree with >>52428822 , as I think you can get into a pretty slippery slope when you think about how each stand is operating with each other. Though I would be willing to try a simple 3+ save to see if you can swap another stand out for the panzerfaust/panzerknacker.

Either way I think Germans playing lists with limited AT might want to consider spending a few extra points for a couple of Pak 38's or infantry guns (that can bombard while you don't need to shoot at tanks) to dissuade medium armor from trying to run you over.

>>52429634
>Though I would be willing to try a simple 3+ save to see if you can swap another stand out for the panzerfaust/panzerknacker.
There sort of already is with the mistaken target rule

>>52429688
That disappears under 8". Which makes sense for tanks and guns, but not for infantry.

>>52429622
I think you can build either, just got a bunch of stuff today. Got snipers aswell i know they arent top tier atleast so ive heard but they should work out pretty well and be fun

>>52429852
Only for tanks and guns. You get to roll mistaken target for infantry as long as the shooter is more than 10 cm or 4'' away.

>>52428822

I don't agree, particularly when the situation at hand is a question of platoons and squads rather than companies. It's not like you've got a little marker saying that XYZ guns were dropped here.

It's a PIAT. It's far more likely that the gunner will die than the gun, and you bet your ass people will keep it manned. Ditto for MGs.

Is it possible to keep the HQ with panzerfaust alive if it dies during an assault?

>>52430032
Yes, if there are other teams around for him to replace. (Page 40, Killing Commanders)

>>52428822
If anything the higher level of abstraction means that you'd be more likely to say "the unit has a PIAT" than "this specific guy has a PIAT". I mean, look how wonky the US got because they had to give the exact right number of bazookas to them.

>>52429183
In addition to all the ones mentioned so far the Finns did as well.

>>52429913

It would make sense to keep heavy and support weapons manned during combat. However, was that the reality during an engagement? I honestly don't know. I can see the advantages in keeping the piat, panzerfaust or mg34 in action, but I cannot see the situation when a private drops his rifle and picks up something else.
I don't even know if everybody had the training to handle these weapons, but I doubt it?

In the end it might come down to what people like to focus on, a detailed tactical situation or a more abstract tactical situation. And in that case it will be horses for courses within the FoW rules, some will be favoured by one "party" and others will be favoured by the other.

>>52430371
>but I doubt it
I think you're severely overestimating the difficulty of operating most infantry AT weapons, and severely underestimating the intelligence of soldiers, in order to support your personal conclusion.

>>52430517
On the one hand, some armies have weapons, like bazookas, that only certain soldiers are trained to operate.

On the other hand, the Germans were handing out panzerfausts to 12 year old boys and 70 year old men by the final days of the war.

So I'm not exactly sure where that leaves us.

>>52430639
Probably confused and annoyed, on average. Exact cause tbd.

File: DSC_0054.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>52429622
Seems reasonable enough to build modularly, with the extra guns from this kit (or, in my case, from the Puma box) I think you can make gun teams, PaK40 RSOs, and RSO tractors.

>>52430639

Except almost everyone was trained in using the Bazooka. Every rifleman, anyway. There's a reason you see them everywhere.

>>52430371
>However, was that the reality during an engagement?
Yes. Considering how important they are to elementary squad tactics of the period, and their ubiquity in terms of who was trained in their use.
>I don't even know if everybody had the training to handle these weapons, but I doubt it?
Of course they did. They're elementary weapons. Platoon level weapons. Nobody was THAT specialised that they wouldn't train their soldiers in a weapon that every 10th or more men would get, and was critical to the way the squad operated.

We're not talking about artillery here, or even anti tank guns.

We need a new thread, but I'm on mobile and at work. Can someone else get up a new one?

>>52402663
I think my Soviet spam is fun. It is, however, a bitch to transport, move around on the table, and paint.

>>52404572
Tbh the flamethrowers are more attached stands with ridiculous inf clearing and they get to defensive fire @rof2 when pinned, so you can bail or hit against any assaulting platoon. If not for the artillery changes this would've been Sitzkrieg: strelkovy edition, especially since PTRD's are now basically same-price additions to strelkovy with more tank assault and free anti-transport capabilities. Remember, you can attach 12 bases PTRD's and 16 bases flamethrowers to strelkovies.

>>52432291
Here you go

New Thread:
>>52433547
>>52433547
>>52433547