Flames of War General - "Read The Freaking Rules!" Edition

>>52500841
i have been gone

someone not reading the rules?

>>52500857
There's a new Edition out.

There is much confusion.

Most of it can be solved by actually sitting down and reading the new rule book.

Threadly reminder that Flamethrowers can fire in defensive fire and since they have no penalty from being pinned they are particularly effective at it.

>>52500927
Will people assault in V4?

>>52501010
Japan still might, especially for antitank work. Everyone else not so much.

>>52501010
Removal of Eyes and Ears and nerf to BTGs makes infantry significantly harder to shoot to death, although I guess everyone's just gonna chuck arty at them.

Asking again, but:

Is there any chance of getting a T-34 list in TY from one of the warpac minors, maybe? I kind of want to do a reserve-reserve-tier czech force with hanomags and T-34s.

>>52501117
Yeah, assault really isn't a good substitute. You really have to be trying to get more than maybe four teams in, and they're pretty likely to get merc'd first round of counterattack. Trained is also going to find it harder to get in in the first place with limited smoke bombardments (and pity the poor soviets who essentially lost QoQ).

Assault is definitely a shadow of what it used to be.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-139-1112-17,_Heinz_Guderian.jpg (135KB, 600x711px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 600x711px

Had a big game of TY about 200pts per player about 11 players.

I had ten leopard 2 kill about 30 t-55s

>>52501179
>merc'd
Do you mean merked?

>>52501254
Shouldn't they be killing like 20 T-55s a turn?

>>52501135
I don't even want to think about how spammy a list like that would be.

If T-55s are already 10 for 16 points, I could only imagine what T-34/85s would be...

10 T-34/85s for 8 points?

>>52501254
>Had a big game of TY about 200pts per player about 11 players.

So, about 1000 points per side? How huge was the table?

>I had ten leopard 2 kill about 30 t-55s

So a 110 point investment killed 48 points worth of stuff?

Not too bad, as long as everything else was keeping up as well.

>>52501135
I don't foresee that anytime soon. The sheer amount of spam would cover the entire board in T-34s or wrecks of T-34s. How would you even point out T-34/85Ms if a T-55AM2 is around 1.5 point per tank? Besides they would be crewed by guys who were conscripts like 15 years ago. The board would be covered in spam.

If they ever release the T-34/85, I will buy 12 more Gepards and run a 16 Gepard list at every nearby tournament until I face a T-34 Spam list.

>>52501269
Regional spellings are apparently weird.

>>52501434
I've often thought a platoon for a point, +1 point for the commander. So, 10 for 4 points.

>>52501010
>>52501179
Aren't Germans still able to assault with halftracks, though? I've yet to have time to properly read through the v4 rulebook, but I was under the impression that mounted assault means the dudes inside get to try to hit from inside, essentially. So if you somehow manage to get all 4 Sd Kfz 251s into contact, you will roll the full 7 dice to hit of a regular german platoon.

Actually gonna try out some Soviet Engineer-Sappers later this week, so I'll see how possible it will be to get into melee.

>>52501598
On reflection this might be too cheap; BMP-1s are essentially 0.75 points each, and have:

Less range
Less armour
Fewer MGs

Though, they also have an AT missile of reasonable usefulness and for all that FA 7 is actual armour it's still toast up against basically everything but .50 cal and 14.5mm MGs.

>>52501135
Probably yes because CHEERS, but then there's the huge issue of the point system breaking down at this extreme.

>>52501851
Yeah, it works the same. That might be the only way of making assault worthwhile though.

>>52501908
It's not "getting an assault off"; that still happens sometimes. It's that you get like 2 teams in and they get annihilated on the counterattack.

But, I'd be interested to see how EW/LW works out; we're trying out desert.

>>52501968
>It's not "getting an assault off"; that still happens sometimes. It's that you get like 2 teams in and they get annihilated on the counterattack.
Well, tell that to my Strelkovy company (without integrated AT) getting assaulted by StuGs for several turns. I ended up with 4-6 teams fighting in most rounds of combat.

Also, increased Tactical move means you can get at least as many teams striking on the first round.
Counter-assaults are in fact the ones that get disadvantaged the most since you can only move stuff up that's already close in.

In general, assaults are now more small-scale.

>>52502040
>tell that to my Strelkovy company (without integrated AT) getting assaulted by StuGs for several turns
Yeah, "getting assaulted" is the big bit here. You've got much more ability to respond to assault than you do to launch one since you have the stuff that was in already plus everyone in 4" (when everyone was in a 6" bubble already).

>>52501135
Honest question: Who here would play a DDR-as-czechs list using T-34s subbing for T-55s and OT-810s subbing for BTR-60s?

>>52501942
Yeah, I have no idea if they can do the T-55A without breaking the points system, let alone the T-34/85M.

>>52502677
Really the AM should've been better, and the T-55A should be where the AM is now.

So chaps what's rumoured for stripes and red tide?

>>52502948
T-64 with FA 17, ERA, and missiles.

>>52503104
T-64BV?

>>52502948
For the US its confirmed we're getting Bradleys and some form of Air Cav, as far as I know. Rumored is M60s, Humvees, M1A1s, Chaparrals, and stingers.

>>52502677
I'd say a T-34-85M is probably right at 0.75 points like BMP-1. It's got better range on the main gun, RoF 2, and anti-materiel armouring, but lacks missiles and IR and, while the armour's better, it's still 7 front so anything that's got a proper AT value will be straight-through.

Is it just me or are the germans way fucking underpowered? I've never seen a german player that didn't get tabled turn two...

>>52503769
TY or FoW?

In TY they have some real glass cannon tank lists and some surprisingly fragile infantry in the corebook. Panzetruppen lists are generally a bit more resilient. I could see someone playing uncautiously with Leo 2s losing real quick.

In FoW I have no idea what's going on because Germans are great.

>>52503769
>>52503804

Germans were pretty great in v3. There were a small number of allied lists - mainly US - which were consistently stronger, but Germans were always a solid pick.

v4, I just don't know yet. They can't always get huge platoon sizes, so I'm thinking FJs and Panzer Lehr might be strong lists for infantry; not aware of any tank lists with platoon size above five. The nerf to heavy artillery helps heavy tanks, but the Formation Morale rules definitely hurt the 510. Schwere Panzer list - the common version has only three core units.

File: don dokken.jpg (90KB, 770x859px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 770x859px

>>52503769
the leo2 is a good tank stat wise, good armour, good movement, good gun, good crew but it's 11ps and you can only have three per zug.

But it does hurt when you lose a single tank.
Their infantry insn't that bad on the small size but three G3 rifle mg teams with panzerfausts

I find leo 2s fun to play since i'd like the game not to turn into we spam our cheapest options.

>>52504498
Then warpac needs more decent tanks. You can't blame us for spam when that's the entire faction as-presented.

>>52505702

>T-55AM is gimped for reasons
>T-72 is a made up mish-mash of the A and B

At this point they need to make a major effort on the next WarPac release.

>>52506124
>T-72G is just a straight up worse version of the aforementioned franken T-72

>>52506124
>>T-72 is a made up mish-mash of the A and B
With worse armour than either.

>>52506124
>At this point they need to make a major effort on the next WarPac release.

If they fuck up the next WARPAC release, any interest for me to spend more on TY is going to vanish. Volksarmee is serviceable, but the spamminess annoys me.

>>52506748
>If they fuck up the next WARPAC release, any interest for me to spend more on TY is going to vanish

I know that feel. I was waiting to hop in when the NVA came out. Then Volksarmee killed any desire I had to do that. If the next release is good I may yet get stuck in, but the trend seems to be set and that worries me.

I don't think there's any interest in doing anything different for warpac. Look at AIW and Vietnam, they always have "guys you should play" and "NPCs".

As a noobie is it just me or in TY and FW feel like they go off memes of nations? Speak of TY they just boiled the soviets down to spam and it's a shame.

Hey guys in team yankee or fow new edition what would be roughly the equivalent of a 1500 point list ? 50 points? 75?

>>52508616
I think that's common of most wargame. A bit of exaggerated characteristics is good imo to add variety. You could do a VDV helo landing company for elite small soviets tho.

>>52508870

>You could do a VDV helo landing company for elite small soviets tho.

Except we got an air assault company - they are less elite than unblooded US troops.

>>52507432
Warpac forces are always tricky because they all just have the same Soviet export shit though.

Unless you did something random with a mix like Finland.

>>52509611
Well fingers crossed on new releases then...

>>52509620

Both the Poles and Czechs built their own variants of Soviet gear, and Romania went crazy with developing new vehicles and weapons based off Soviet stuff.

Problem is that the dev team hasn't shown any sort of interest in Warpac stuff - they seem to prefer super special NATO forces.

>>52509707
Yes, even if the big hardware is the same (BMPs, T-72s, Fishbeds, Fitters and Floggers), they do have their homegrown APCs, artillery systems, modernisations, a couple local variations of planes and tanks, not to mention that in the case of Czechoslovakia, the small arms were radically different.

It would be cool to have WarPac extended to include the Poles with their T-55 Merida, SKOT-64, Topas/PT-76 mounted naval infantry, and their airborne units equipped with the ASU-85, or even, if we can dream, Romania with its cool T-55 modernisations (including some with 1000+hp West German engines and composite armor). Too bad Yugoslavia wouldn't realistically fight along with the USSR, otherwise they could bring very interesting stuff to the table, from their boner for Malyutka modifications to their StG-44 armed paratroopers, including their homegrown APCs and IFVs, and the M-84 as an upgrade to the T-72A.

Another thing that would be cool to see are second line units, equipped with T-55s and T-34s, but they would end up clogging the tables with the sheer spam. This, and airborne units from both sides, Americans with Sheridans and Humvees, West Germans with Wiesels, and Soviets with BMD variants, ASU-85s and Nona mortars.

Oh, and on NATO side, I've heard that a Spanish company is going to make the Spanish (duh), French and Italian armies in 15mm. I can't wait to HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s and FAMAS armed infantry popping out of their AMX-10Ps and VABs.

>>52510353
>HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s

Would France be the spam army for NATO?

>>52510475
Looks like they might be, the Leclerc wasn't available during the TY timeframe

>>52510508

I'm not actually all that familiar with the Leclerc. I know its got the same 120mm gun as the Leo 2 and M1A1, but did it have comparable protection?

>>52510548
To my limited knowledge, it was essentially a French Challenger.

File: 5_17.jpg (167KB, 1193x956px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1193x956px

>>52502869
Yeah, there was absolutely no reason to bother including the T-55AM2 with the stats they gave it - and no Bastion.

5+ cross rating? I still can't fucking believe it. Cheers.

>>52506161
I feel as though the T-72M was statted fairly accurately. Similar RHA values to the T-72A but without the turret composite, less AP on the gun due to slightly older ammo. If they do advance the timeline I'd like them to give the T-72M1 better ammo and make it a bit of a can-opener.

>>52510808
I think the problem is that the base T-72 isn't very well represented. It's got the turret of the T-72 Ural, the laser range finder off the A, and the upgraded gun off the B. On top of that the ubiquitous ERA is missing.

So basically T-72M is off because they fucking blew it on statting the standard T-72.

To be fair, the gun stats for both tanks are accurate enough.

>>52500927
Actually the clause that makes smg rof 1 if pinned covers flame thrower as well

File: IMG_0290.jpg (66KB, 750x501px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x501px

>>52510353
>I can't wait to HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s
>>52510475

HONHON

>>52511499
HONHON'd in my pants to an extent

if they gimme FFL in kepé blanc i may explode.

>>52509620
>Warpac forces are always tricky because they all just have the same Soviet export shit though.

Which is why it was probably a really bad idea to peg it all so low and samey.

Example: T-72AB mashup vs T-72M. In reality, the T-72A's armour is far better: it's about 50mm better against HEAT and around 100mm better against sabot. In practise it's worse than the Chieftain's armour, which is comparable to the T-72M's, because reasons.

However, because of that initial lowball, now all soviet tanks fit in a 14-16 range, and presumably will always fit into that range, meaning all new and shiny NATO guns are going to increasingly turn soviet tank armour into overcosted .50 cal protection.

>>52510353
>It would be cool to have WarPac extended to include the Poles with their T-55 Merida... Romania with its cool T-55 modernisations (including some with 1000+hp West German engines and composite armor)...

You realise both of these would also just get "Slow firing, overloaded, +2 FA" right? There were reasons to expect volksarmee to have a somewhat unique tank, but as-is I can't see how it'll be any different from the T-55A.

>>52510808
Cross 4+ actually.

And as I said, T-72A should be a significant jump over the T-72M; T-72A has 410–500mm front turret and 360–420mm front hull vs sabot vs 380mm for turret and 335mm for hull on the T-72M. That's a big leap in armour protection.
>>52510883
I was giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they were just going off really generous sources for the abrams when the level of protection should be roughly similar (lack of protected ammo notwithstanding), but then they released chieftain at FA 17. Fucking 17.

(If anyone's wondering, Chieftain has 390mm for the turret and 350mm hull. Now you know why FA 17 is a fucking joke)

>>52512214
>(If anyone's wondering, Chieftain has 390mm for the turret and 350mm hull. Now you know why FA 17 is a fucking joke)
+15mm of armour is equal to +2 front armour.

Cheers.

>>52512214
Russian steel is inferior to western steel.

Cheers

>>52512344
Russians have less eyes and only one arm
so nato are hit on a 6+ and rof is always 1

>>52512414
Underfed conscripts can't lift the heavy ammunition so every tank without an autoloader must have slow firing.

Cheers

>>52512214
I don't doubt your source but there was a lot of variability within the "T-72M" designation. Including upgraded Russian T-72 Urals, export version T-72As, Czech and Polish indigenous builds, an up-armoued East German version.

File: william tell dildo.gif (505KB, 500x276px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 500x276px

>>52512344
>>52512414
>>52512429
I suggest these be made into memes and part of the thread image folder.

File: -worried_cameron_ballots_739444294.jpg (15KB, 360x307px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 360x307px

>>52512620
>be 2017
>battlefront finds the threads
>Battlefront chooses to turn our memes into rules

>>52512649
I'm sure BF automatically disregards us becuase of the 'Eww 4Chan' effect.

>>52512513
I don't understand where you are going with this.
Are you trying to imply the Chieftain's stats are somehow justified because there were multiple types of T-72M?

>>52512686
Nothing to do with the Chieftan. Just saying in some cases the T-72M could be close to the T-72A in terms of raw steel protection excluding (not insignificant) addition of the composite.

>>52512686
4Chan is a known hotbed of Russian/Soviet apologists.

Cheers.

I have honestly no idea where the numbers for vehicles in TY come from; even the lowest bands of armour I can find on most reference sites aren't as low as the stuff quoted in the stats in TY books.

A few years ago I tried to convert Flames of War into Cold War based of real numbers. I couldn't really make it work. A tank would be impervious to some weapons while being automatically destroyed by other weapons.

I do think the Soviet gear is under represented. They could have gone a totally different way with resetting the AV stats. Having Anti-Tank 20 and AV ranging from 0 up to 18 in a d6 system leads to complications..

If I was captain I would maybe start the t-55 and leo1 as Shermans in WW2 Flames of War (FA 6, SA 4, TA 1 and a similar gun) and work up or down from there, but maybe it would be too much of the same game?

>>52512845
I see. Only problem with that is as >>52510883 points out, we don't actually have the T-72A as such, just BF's unidentified 'Red Banner T72'.

I bet the M60 is going to be FA16 for 'reasons'.

so basicly V4 is load of crap and arty edition ?

>>52513149
Arty and AT guns edition. Gun teams are really king; infantry are just screening them.

>>52513168
so fook this unbalanced pice of shit - drops mike ...

>>52513149

It's not quite that bad, but it absolutely needed better proof reading.

I suspect it will get better from here, but for now I am unimpressed.

>>52513182
>>52513168
>>52513149
Yeah that's all a load of shit. Try actually playing the friggin' game first. Gun teams are good and all, but they suffer from their lack of mobility, in an edition where Mobility has suddenly become king.

>>52513149
Artillery has gotten better against infantry, but worse against most other stuff.

Infantry have gotten tougher against a lot of stuff, but are very weak against artillery bombardments.

Planes seem to be best used for bombing or rocket strikes, while their cannons aren't quite as strong anymore.

Everything has its weaknesses, and strengths. They just aren't necessarily the same as they used to be in V3.

>>52513433
We're playing mid-war desert. Our experience is that anything with armour can't stand up to the 4+ gun teams that are now the norm and are very hard to remove; manuevering to get objectives tends to be done later-game with things like SPAA and UCs, after guns have broken holes.

>>52513544
get gud

>>52513433
>I don't agree with what you're saying about V4, so I'll pretend you haven't played it
fuck off sheep shagger

>>52513607
This is our experience either way around (brit tanks or german tanks, with a couple of different players playing both) but okay.

It's been raised before but this might be a demographic issue; we're a group that's played V3 for a long time so we have a LOT of gun teams to be able to field. Two companies with all their requisite AT guns is doable for most of us. It's possible this is another case where BF haven't considered spammability; 1 or 2 AT platoons probably isn't as much of an issue to try and attack as 5 is.

>>52513544
how about planes ? Would stuka not budge those teams ? 2+ firepower seems nice and all ?

>>52513716

Gotta make those bombs connect first, and the infantry still have to fail their saves before you can kill them.

>>52513763
how much is normal game in MW ? 100 points ?

>>52513866
Yes. You can go higher if you want, but the risk of encountering impenetrable tiger tanks increases as you do.

>>52513901
Isn't 2 tigers like more then half of the army :P ?

I mean from reading the rules I get that you should go for objectives - arty wont go for objecitves - tanks or inf has to do it. So how can an army based around antitunk guns and arty win any game in Mid War ?

>>52513866
75-100.

The cramp isn't as bad at 100 but 80-85 is definitely a lot nicer looking.

>>52513979
>Isn't 2 tigers like more then half of the army

It is at 100. Which is why if you play more than that they become easier to work in while maintaining support. And that support will make keeping the 17 pounders alive to kill them more difficult.

>>52513979
Tigers are a lot of points in MW. 29 points each if I'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, at 100 points even 1 Tiger is going to be a significant portion of your army.

As for AT guns and artillery, they'll play a big role in defending your own objectives, but won't be capturing any on their own.

>>52514038
So all in all it's not as unbalanced as people make me think.

You need something to hold your own objectives and something to go after enemy. You need inf to hold ground - art to take care of inf planes to take care of art and tanks to capture objectives and some antitank guns ... Ill try to get some AK list and you tell me how it looks like ...

>>52513544
Well, that is sort of accurate for the desert. Both sides tended to have tank attacks broken up by anti-tank gun-lines/strong points.

>>52514038
>As for AT guns and artillery, they'll play a big role in defending your own objectives, but won't be capturing any on their own.

Yes, but tanks can't capture objectives with enough guns on them. Emergent play is very trench-warfare-like.

>>52513701
Maybe a dumb question but have you tried playing it with the idea that you can only have one of each company, i.e. a max of 2-3 AT guns (depending on faction)?

>>52514634
>i.e. a max of 2-3 AT guns
Uh, you may want to look at the lists. The brits can get several 6 and 25pdr batteries, as well as some 17/25s, in a single formation.

>>52514743
2 6pdrs, 1 17pdr, which are what he's complaining about, surely?

>>52515165
25s are AT 9 (same as neutered 6pdrs), which is totally good in MW. Plus, that's 2-4 (probably 4) guns per platoon.

25pdrs are a generally good buy (as are 10.5cms but less son) since you can use them for AT or artillery work depending on what your opponent brings.

Because I'm bored at work, here's a dumb list based off of the reported V4 AT gun meta (our shop is staying V3 for now):
Airlanding company from Nachtjager digital
In formation:
>Airlanding HQ - 2 SMG, PIAT (80 pts)
>Airlanding platoon - Panzerfaust SMG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 5 Rifle/MG (230 pts)
>Airlanding platoon - Panzerfaust SMG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 5 Rifle/MG (230 pts)
>Airlanding Mortar platoon - 4 3" mortars (140 pts)
>Airlanding Anti-tank platoon - 4 6pdrs, jeeps (160 pts)

Support:
>Airborne Armoured Recce - 4 Locusts (160 pts)
>Airlanding Anti-tank platoon - 4 6pdrs, jeeps (165 pts)
>Airlanding Anti-tank platoon, Royal Artillery - 2 17pdrs, cut-down trucks (170 pts)
>Airborne Recce Mortar platoon - 4 4.2" mortars, observer Rifle, jeeps (175 pts)

>>52515714
Dig in and mortar away. Hope you can win the artillery battle. My major annoyance with the "artillery is the only thing that can kill infantry" decision is that fair fight missions are going to turn into WW1 and the issues of dug infantry that they were trying to resolve still remains.

Looking at some support options for British Rifles, I could get 4 OQF 17pdrs at CV with half tracks or 4 M10C 17pdrs at CT for the same points.

4+ save at Veteran is gonna be more survivable 4/2/0 at Trained against most weapons but could the extra mobility justify the M10Cs?

>>52518809
It mostly depends on what other mobile elements you have in your list.

>>52515714
Your list is completely static apart from those locusts (and they will be blown away with the first chance). You will also only have one observer team that will be hunted down like dogs.

You also don't have any anti-air. You are vulnerable to a well timed blitz, I fear.

Also, the list will be boring as fuck to play.

Get some bloody tanks!

>>52520943
He also has three Formation HQ teams to observe with.

>>52520943
>You also don't have any anti-air.
Welcome to Nachtjager brits. All of the lack of AA from reality, with none of the fighter cover they had. Also, not any way to get more than one observer in V4 anyway, so I don't get your point there.

List was a thrown together bit of boredom for a meta and version we don't play, I'm not expecting it to be amazing.

>>52520943
I feel like air power is far too unreliable for infantry to have to worry about. First they have to roll to get them it on the board, then it has to range in, then it has to hit, then you have to fail your infantry save, and then it goes to firepower if you are dug in. I am not sure AA is worth it unless you have some valuable arty or gun teams you want to protect or are running tanks.

>>52513523
Your plane view is a bit off. bombing or rocketing infantry is still your best bet, but cannons are now the only AT planes have that works due to the Top AT nerfs. You also get more plane closer and they can actually die, but you can have up to three of them.

Would giving dug in infantry +1 to their save fix the problem, or am I missing that entirely

>>52523873
>Fix the problem
What problem?

>>52524138
Is infantry dies due to his poor tactics

>>52523873
I don't see how that would fix the assault phase.

Does anyone know if the Bradley is gonna be just recon or will it be an infantry carrier as well?

>>52524371
We know exactly as much as you do.

>>52524474
Figured. Just thought I'd ask. If anyone would know, it'd be /fowtg/. I kinda have a hard-on for Bradleys, so I'm pretty hyped for those.

>>52524758
My gramps worked with them for a bit, so it'll be interesting to see.

>>52524371
Bradley will be an ultra fast troop transport capable of destroying a t72 at 10km that crosses on a +1

cheers

okay ill stop now

>>52524371
I think we'll see both variants; they were essentially the same vehicle in '85, except the Bradley scout didn't carry infantry and did away with the firing ports.

I imagine they'll have similar dash/cross-country to the BMP, since they have a similar top speed and power/weight ratio (BMPs is a bit better, actually). Armor might be a point higher, but at this point Bradley's weren't proofed against 30mm/RPG fire.

So really I think they're just going to be American BMP-2s, with a slightly weaker autocannon, probably a better TOW and probably the Scout special rule for the cav variant.

I found the most big problem for V4 LW Soviet after half a dozen games.
They suddenly become Eldar.
I can't find anyone wants to play against Soviet list.
The IL-2, that was ineffective for its point suddenly become the black death.
No one find ways how to deal with IL-2s.
When they bring tanks, the IL-2s chew tanks up.
When they do not bring tanks to not give any target for IL-2s, Zis-3 battery mess up their guns and infantry line.
Now I will keep my soviet army as reserve for who want to play with Rudel, like nuclear deterrent forces.

So what are the next factions for team yankee? Czechs and French I'm guessing?

>>52527707

American and Soviet updates. Rumors abound of Canadians and Kiwis because they use stuff that's already out.

File: 12th Devon 50%.jpg (391KB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1080x608px

So, some of you may remember my foolish attempt to assemble and paint my entire 202 man (and 16 gun) airlanding army in two weeks, which was caused by my models arriving two weeks after I had planned. Well, this time I have a much more reasonable goal (if still a big one for my general painting speed):

I want to finish painting all 232 men and 18 guns in this picture by the end of April.

202 of the men and all the guns are about halfway done, but the other 30 are only primed (being later additions). In order to finish, I need to:
>Paint boots and metal surfaces with Black Grey
>Paint the Webbing with Khaki
>Paint the guns and helmets with Russian Uniform
>Paint the Smocks Green Ochre
>Paint the berets with 50/50 Black Red and Scarlet Red
>Paint the Wood and some of the Smock pattern with Flat Earth
>Paint the rest of the Smock pattern with Luftwaffe Camo Green
>Paint the metal with German Grey
>Paint the metal with London Grey
>Paint shell casings with Brass
>Wash and Highlight skin, paint hair
This does NOT include the time to paint the 30 primed guys, who need US uniform, English Uniform, Olive Grey, and the base flesh.
Roughly speaking, I have about two and a half days per color, with the color for the thirty misc guys and the brass only generally needing a day due to the small number.

I'll try and post progress pics every day starting tomorrow, since failing to do that last time was the biggest cause (besides sanity) of me failing to keep my motivation. Ideally, this will all be done and finished by the time a certain friend gets back from college with his germans (Gary, I know you're reading this) so that we can do some interesting battles where I get my ass kicked due to having no real experience with an infantry army.

>>52527425
>Armor might be a point higher
Anon the Bradley has aluminum armor, and before it was upgraded was barely proof against HMG fire. Realistically that does not deserve to be BMP+1.

BF will give it more armor though because Muh Elite Forces of Freedom.

>>52527661
How's the Sturmovich more effective than V3 when they nerfed bombs and rockets into oblivion?

>>52524371
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
It's gonna be a heavily armed and armored troop transport with recon capabilities.
Cheers.

>>52529661
Cannons.

>>52529705
I love that movie. I'll be really curious to see how the BF Bradlye compares to the Zvezda kit. Whichever comes out on top will be the basis for a new company I'll have to make.

>>52530798
I don't have the Zvezda kit myself but from the reviews I've seen it's pretty underwhelming, especially compared to the quality of the BTR80 and T-72B.

>>52526628
TOW Freedom Missiles.

Cheers.

>>52531169
>We've decided to stat the Bradley with front armor 7, side armor 5, top armor 2, and chobham armor. Also, it's 25mm cannon will be ROF 4, AT 12, FP 4+, and anti-helicopter. The TOW will be ROF 2, AT 21, FP 3+. It will cross on a 2 up,have thermal, scout, spearhead, advanced stabilizers, & laser rangefinder.

Cheers.

>>52531167
Yeah, and the Abrams is even more lacklustre, unfortunately. It's quite surprising, considering the rest of Zvezda's recent kits.That's why I'm waiting for BF's kits.

File: 1403660373085.jpg (110KB, 976x648px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 976x648px

>>52531167
>>52531483
>Russian model company
>Makes lackluster modern Americans

I'm less surprised than I should be.

>>52531570
I honestly doubt what you're implying has any basis in truth. Look at the German vehicles they made - King Tiger, Sturmtiger etc. They're absolutely gorgeous.

Also, the Paladin is pretty good, according to a friend who got and built it. His only complaint was the fiddly assembly process, and he's pretty strict regarding model details...

>>52531570
They fucked up and released the prototype to the Abrams instead of the full model.

>>52531475
12 points a piece. And then NATO players start making 150 point armies.

Cheers.

>>52527661
Have your opponents ever considered bringing AA and some arty or cheap air of their own to deter your Zis-3s?

>>52527661
If all that is true, have you considered playing a more toned down soviet list?

>>52531570
desu Zvesda is the official model company of the Russian army so it's access to Soviet military equipment for study is pretty amazing, while the greatest demand from the company likely lies in that and Kraut-shit, which they also likely have a great deal of access to

Now that v4 has dropped i'm super excited to try this list out.
Now Churchill VII are basically better jumboes thanks to the rule change to jumboes and mistaken target, crocs can now full move and shoot with flamthrowers and they don't run out of gas either, being slow doesn't hurt much churchills since they can move more with orders and finally planes and arty now struggle to do something on top 2 tanks.
I could drop a CS and 2 AVREs to make space for 3 carriers but i don't think recce is really needed with the changes in their rules.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-04-13-57-12.png (195KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 720x1280px

>>52532555
Fug forgot list in excitment

>>52532555
Recce is still useful if you can squeeze it in. It can buy at least a turn in movement, possibly two depending on terrain. Then it can harass and deny ambushes as it always did.

It's no longer mandatory, but still useful.

>>52532555
The changes to flamethrowers make Crocs much worse at killing infantry off of a point, but they're now really good at defending one since DF flamethrowers wreck things.

Likewise, AVsRE are much worse although at least they get to Blitz move now? Loss of move and shoot, eyes and ears and the change to BTG makes them so much worse at killing infantry now.

I think you really want some artillery and/or infantry. 440pts for a second formation with 2 Rifle platoons and a 6 gun mortar battery at CT might be worthwhile if you can find anything to cut.

>>52528533
So was the M113, though, and that's somehow front 3.

File: 1455851364985.jpg (18KB, 168x213px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 168x213px

>>52532755

I hope Phil chokes to death on all those Yankee cocks he's sucking.

V4 tactics:
Take a Heavy artillery battery and as many other bombardment capable weapons as possible. 60mm mortars in every squad, that kinda thing. Cover your opponent's deployment zone in ranged in markers and he'll never remember which one was your heavy arty so you get a free and lethal bombardment right away.

>>52532922
Also, diminishing returns on long smoke markers means if you've got a bunch of 1 or 2 gun smoke bombardments you can keep a high value target smoked all game.

>>52532693
>The changes to flamethrowers make Crocs much worse at killing infantry off of a point, but they're now really good at defending one since DF flamethrowers wreck things.
I don't think so, sure they don'instakill anymore neither they hit with their skill but being able to do a full move and then shoot and also shoot every turn is a major upgrade to me. Usually infantry played by a smart enough player wouldn't want to stick out within 12" of a croc, it usually ended up being shot down by MG fire over several turns but still i couldn't use crocs for what they were designed for. Besides they're still 15 fp1 hits even hitting on 6 that's reliably 2-3 stands of dead people or guns, mortars can achieve that maybe in 2-3 turns of shooting and they are completely shut down by pinning, night and being out of los from the observer.

>>52533029
15 shots hitting on 6s averages 2.5 hits which means 1.39 failed saves, not 2 or 3.

>>52533159
FWIW, 6 gun 3" mortars repeating bombardments achieve that as long as there are 7 teams under the template*. If you have to range in they kill far fewer, of course, but since neither option is achieving much in a single turn it's probably safe to assume that they'll get to repeat.

* 7 rolls of 4+ rerolling misses averages 5.25 hits, 3+ saves rerolling successes is ~2.92 failed saves, 4+ FP means you're averaging ~1.46 kills

>>52533362
7 teams under the template is a bit of a stretch, any player i played with when i was using any kind of template spread out as much as possible his infantry averaging 3 teams under the template

>>52533382
*LESS than 3

>>52533159
Yeah my bad i still have the old BTG in mind and i didn't account for saves

>>52533394
*FEWER than 3

>>52533417
*A SMALLER AMMOUNT than 3

>>52532922
Cheesy cheating nonsense.

I'd ask you politely to clearly mark which ranged in marker belongs to who.

From there I'd call over a Tournament Judge if necessary.

>>52533407
Yeah, the BTG change means about half as many casualties and lack of Eyes and Ears means BTGs (and by extension FTs but they've changed in various ways) get a quarter of the kills they used to. >>52533382
3 or fewer teams below the template seems low unless they're small platoons? I can't do the mental arithmetic to work out the geometry involved but it seems tough to put 9+ teams within 6 or 8 inches of the command without having more under a template. Maybe depends a lot on terrain, but my thought is that with them that spread out (and implicitly without much terrain?) they'd be easy pickings for assaults. Anyway, 7 teams was just an example number of where mortars overtake Crocs - even if you're only hitting two teams each time you're getting better value for points, right?

>>52532922
Stuck with lots of useless Bogged Down and Moved At Double markers? Don't worry, just take a ton of mortars and artillery and use them as your Ranged In markers!

>>52533382
With coherency now being determined by distance to platoon command, this will be less easy to achieve without having the platoon be spread over a ridiculously large surface, in which case assaults might hurt it real bad (if they get to assault, that is...).

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

408KB, 2048x1425px

/NVA/

>>52533567
ninjad...

Anyway, re: geometry - you can place 6 teams in a circle around a command team, having each about 5-6" away from each other. But this will cover a >12" diameter area, i.e. the entire depth of the deployment zone in many missions.

This may also prove problematic when doing wound allocation, you'll have less legal target and thus more hits on each individual team.

>>52533567
>3 or fewer teams below the template seems low unless they're small platoons?
With Veteran platoons and their 6" cohesion you could spread out pretty easily, i usually hit 3-4 teams vs the us player and his armored rifle platoons but with the german guy i usually struggle to get more than 2 teams. They were pretty open to assaults sure but between LMGs and MGs/german halftracks they usually had enough firepower to make those assaults risky even with smoke/night (33% chance of falling back) and between pzfaust, bazookas and the weak sides of shermans i never dared an assault with tanks either.

>>52533567
>>52533599

I lied, I did the maths.

Considering an ARP deploying in an area where terrain isn't a restriction on deployment. That's 13 teams plus the platoon command and no attachments. If they're deployed perfectly in a circle around the command with each being 8" away from it then you've got a circle with a circumference just over 50" meaning you can have over 3" between each team. In practice you'll have a smaller circle but the restricted angles of the template and intervening terrain reducing possible aiming points means that sure, it's possible to space them out enough.

A 10 stand platoon (base FSJ, Panzer Lehr, Brits with 1 attachment, other smaller platoons with multiple attachments, etc) similarly can deploy with 3-4" between teams if in a circle around the platoon command.

The bigger issue is the tension between being spread out to avoid artillery and having enough firepower within 8" of potential assaults to repel them.

>>52533767
>Veteran platoons
We're talking about V4 where command distance is 6"/8" from the platoon Commander (depending on unit size) regardless of skill rating. No more daisy chaining.

>>52533771
I got one thing wrong here, the big platoon rule for command distance kicks in at eight teams rather than twelve so smaller platoons can be even more spread out with 5-6" between teams for an 8-10 stand platoon.

Bearing that in mind you also basically never want to run Grenadier platoons with no attachments at all, even if you're just taking a 2iC and a Panzerschreck to increase your two combat platoons to 8 stands that should be decent.

Here's a fun question, speaking of coherency:

Is the minimum number of 8 teams for increased command distance determined taking into account combat attachments, attached independent teams and casualties? Is that checked on a turn-by-turn basis or just at the start of the game?

>>52533980
I think it's checked on a turn by turn basis

>>52533980
Combat attachments are part of the unit, so why wouldn't it count those?

As to how often they're checked, that's particularly interesting for when an 8 team platoon loses its Commander. Could you replace only within 6" or within 8"?

>>52528533
Actually, I found Phil on the forums saying that it wasn't any better armored than the M113 before later being uparmored. There was also a critical shortage of the AP rounds until the late 80s...

Maybe cheers will work against the Americans this time.

>>52534717
I don't think there was that much Cheers for the Burgers in the first place, I wasn't around on release but everyone seems to mention the initial US/USSR balance was solid. The Wessis and Bongs got the Cheers treatment.

>>52534038
At least in TY you could not; the rule to replace commanders is specifically 6". It made line abreast a trap choice.

>>52534717
>wasn't any better armored than the M113 before later being uparmored
This still means it'll be BMP+1, since the M113 is as well for some reason.

>>52534717
I'd imagine the Bradley would be roughly on-par with the West German Marder as far as in-game stats, but I'm no expert on military equipment.

>>52533980
What do you mean by "attached independent teams"?

I'm getting the bits together for Das Reich T-34s, but what are the chances of them being removed from V4?

>>52537317
Looking at how all the "weird stuff" got removed from Afrikakorps (and to an extent Desert Rats), high.

>>52537317
If you're talking about the Desperate Measures T-34 platoon, odds are it'll stay in unless they go for a much more extensive redo than it looks like they're going for. If you're talking about one in MW, you're probably fucked

>>52537657
Not necessarily.

I imagine the "Wildcard" slot in the MidWar army lists is designed for future expansions for things like captured tanks or other unique units.

File: tmp_17204-1487311164844-1541239523.jpg (405KB, 1000x1058px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1000x1058px

Life support.

File: 20170404_202141-picsay.jpg (510KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1024x768px

One tube 8cm mortar smoke bombarded to protect flank of panthers. It didn't work well at the time because shermans moved next to the panthers scored two 5 rolls.
I combat attached one of 8cm 250 halftracks of HQ section to aufkleungs so they may make smoke bombardment seperately.

>>52513992
cramp?

>my 100 pt german list design for spam only has 17 tanks....
> biggest brit list i hear is 60 stuarts

you have to try to cram the table. it does not happen automaticaly, buttcunt.

>>52544724
Settle down, Beavis. "Cramp isn't as bad", as in "less".

>>52529705
>>52530798
>>52531167

too bad i already have 12 of the Zvezda....

>>52544944
The Zvezda Bradleys are actually quite good.

The best of their US Cold War stuff.

File: April 4 Progress.png (1MB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x608px

>>52528490
Progress report for April 4:
17 pdr crew, command teams, and company PIATs have had US Olive Drab, warm skin tone, and Olive Grey applied. Tomorrow will see boots, knives, and guns painted black on some of the main mass of troops. Would be all of them, but game night doesn't delay for my painting.

File: IMG_3004.jpg (107KB, 914x600px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 914x600px

I'm absolute shit at identifying Sherman variants

All I know is that this should be either a M4A2 or a M4A4

Help would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

>>52548958
Out of those two options, it would almost certainly be a M4A2, judging by the distance between the road wheels. Could also be a M4A3, those two are hard to differentiate from this angle. But if you know it isn't that (likely, it seems to be crewed by british), then M4A2 it is.

>>52549027

Thank you

I'm just going on faith as the picture is supposedly from the 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards, who were equipped with Sherman DDs, and Wikipedia helpfully points out that Brit DDs were either M4A2s or M4A4s.

Which is kind of odd since they later fielded Firefly VCs and it seems kind of inefficient to group tanks that use diesel with tanks that use gas.

I'm confused on how the new formation system works for list building. Say i take a 7th armored Motor company from Overlord, do i have to take other formations from the sane division and be limited to 7th Armored and Lorried rifle or can i take something like an Assault company or Rifle company?

>>52549540
Basically if they're in the same book or part of it's DLC you can take them as a formation together.

>>52549599
Oh ok that simplifies things a lot

>>52549862
Also if you have Allied Support, you can get an Allied Formation. So basically if you're Teaboos , you can get Freedomaboos as a separate formation if your list allows you to get American support.

>>52549540
There are no strict rules yet for what additional formations you can take, but if the second one is available as support for the first one you should be fine. Think of it like an expansion on the support boxes, so rather than adding a Lorried Rifle Platoon to your Armoured Squadron you're adding a Lorried Rifle Company.

File: gangster-troops.jpg (108KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x576px

I'm considering getting some Volkssturm so that I can try a Remagen list (glorious 510. SPA). Has anyone here used them? How effective would you say they are, considering the points cost?

Also, is there any alternative producer making better models than BF's I'm generally not a fan of their infantry models...

>>52529661
cannons, you get thrice as many templates, flying tank matters. Three AT3 templates hit non-heavies as hard as one AT5 one, but no chance to be forced to reroll your hits. Also, flag-off distance is a lot less, so you now can actually use them in Strelkovy.

>>52551044
if they have Fausts and or their LMG they're cheap, effective trench-holders. Don't expect anything offensive or superior, and you're good. Usually used as bubblewrap to protect something important, like 88's, PaK's or SS.

File: King Tigers new edition.pdf (354KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1x1px

>>52551044
Yes. I have repeatedly in both the .510 spam and also as the Volkssfest 2015 which was all Volkssturm.
Also Mah Nigger.

First: Volkssturm should always have their LMG. Don't even bother to argue. Take the damn LMG and appreciate your extra firepower and five points deduction.

Second: You get what you pay for, in this case, a hundred point infantry platoon buys you a hundred points. They are at least numerous. Don't try to use them in assaults, don't try to use them to solely hold back an assault.

What you've got for your hundred points is basically almost like a minefield that can hold positions. You paid 100 points for them to sit there, on the halfway mark, or around your objective and for them to stay there. Keep your KTs or AA guns around them to keep assaults from hitting them with extra firepower. Bubblewrap your KTs with them using their large ass platoon sizes to prevent your KTs getting outflanked at close range. Remember those Panzerfausts and Blitz Moves. If you can hit a Five plus, sneak out of your hole and jam a Panzerfaust up someone's ass at eight inches effective range. Use the points you saved on not buying an infantry platoon not made up of Old Men and Little Boys and buy some more support.
It's my firm belief that Volkssturm are actually some of the best infantry the Germans can buy.
In terms of list construction I've been wrestling with the new formations, trying to think of the best approach to field KTs again. Platoons of two are no longer effective because you take a single KT down and the rest of the platoon can fuck off. It's a better choice I think firmly to take two formations of the 510. with three KTs in each. >But
Having just said that, an option I've just looked into recently one formation of the 510. Schwere Panzerdivision and another of the 506. SPD which are RV and with new Tiger Ace. For smaller point limits this might actually be pretty good because two RV KTs is 605 points, but three RT is 645.

File: tiger-promenade.jpg (97KB, 960x642px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 960x642px

>>52551180
Cool, thanks for the in-depth analysis. I was thinking along the same lines, in fact they seem a little too good to be true.

As long as they don't move out of their holes, they're 4+ to hit, 3+ save & fire power, so should take a while to whittle down. 100 points for 9 bases seems great.

As for list, I was considering two formations too (platoons of 2 are indeed atrocious in v4), but I just can't squeeze a 6th tiger at 160, so went with a company of 2 and a company of 3, plus 1x volkssturm, 1x RV volksgrenadiers (I'd like to have some mobile infantry too), 3x 10.5cm guns, 2 88s w extra crew.

You have a good point on the pair of 506. tanks being cheaper than 3 from 510. but I think 506. deserves its own dedicated list, i.e. 4x RV tanks, volkssturm, RV volksgrenadiers and artillery. Single company but harder to break, I think.

>>52551292
In terms of support. Volks Rocket Batteries are cheap as chips for an effective battery and you should start there and then see what points you're left with later.
If you have 60 points spare, upgrade them to a Volks Light Artillery Battery (Veteran).

I've never seen the point of 88s in a KT list, admittedly much of my thinking is still cloying down with V3 rather than V4, but if you have points, there's nothing terribly wrong with them. 3.7s are bloody underrated, great for threatening light vehicles that are too light to waste big shots on. Of course if you have two formations there's no reason not to take an AA slot from both.

In terms of a mobile assault asset, I've always had a pretty good regard for the SS Training Panzers. Your primary foe here is your own motivation and the SS at least can counter that.

The primary advantage of Volkssturm is that they're always on the table in reserves now unlike how they used to be.

It is an interesting dichotomy though that while in Version Four, Heavy Tanks got more survivalable on the whole, their platoons are now much more brittle. Previously if you had a KT bailed out, he just sat there like the muppet he is until your Commander turned up to put a helpful foot up his arse. Now though it's 5+ to remount and then 5+ save or die for being in poor spirits. Which drags down both tanks in the platoon.
Interestingly the 506. SPD which retain Tiger Ace are at 5+ and then 4+ Save or Die for being in poor spirits.
The downside of the 506/510 double bill is that if the 506 lose just one tank the other 506 KT fucks off as the Formation ceases to be in good spirits. The new formation rules may be more of a hazard than I've thought them to be. You can't fight to the last KT no more, and your weapons platoons are only Panzer Crews. So there's no way to bulk it out to fight to the last KT.

>>52551393
That's why the 506 list I mentioned only has 1-tank platoons. So essentially 3 of them need to be gone to make the formation disappear.
But yeah, I kinda hate the new platoon morale 'system'. I'd have been ok if that forced a company morale tests. Auto-break has never been a good mechanic in any game I've played.
>>52551342
Yeah, nebs are more point-efficient but I like to build my armies mainly from plastic, so I will pillage some of those new Afrika Korps 10.5's when they show up.
The 88s were thrown in to add some more shots and relieve some pressure off the Tigers. 3.7's would have been better, but see the point above about plastic > metal.

>>52551393
Which is why you don't field KTs in two's anymore, you only field them singly or if you can, in at least a 3-vehicle platoon. The latter is not really possible at most points levels, so singly is the way..

A 1-tank KT platoon and a 2-tank KT platoon test morale at the same threshold, i.e. 1 tank bailed...thanks BF for retarded morale rules.

Even so, 506. and 510. lists are dead: their "core" units are just too weak to make the lists viable, their formation morale will break pretty easily.

>>52551485
>their "core" units are just too weak to make the lists viable

Motherfucker they're still King Tigers. A brick shithouse of firepower and armour. Typically I expect to lose at least one just because I can't guard against every eventuality, but this is a new edition, all of the good KT killers where ground zero for the Atomic Nerf Bomb.
Naval Guns, Heavy Artillery, American Tank Hunters, most forms of Aircraft.
Aircraft are actually more vulnerable because once they're gone they're fucking gon' and if you have AA support, you can make a nice little bubble to deter the fuckers. Which means they can't even try to get lucky with Cannon Aircraft like in V3.

Hell this edition I'm figuring that my KT loss ratio may even drop. Breaking formation morale is still a hell of a fucking job when it sits behind FA 15, SA 8 and TA 2.

>>52551582
Until Sturmoviks with AT12 cannons show up and singlehandedly own all you silly King Tigers.

>>52553005
That's generally what AA is for, though because of V4s handling of Air it now takes forever to actually deal with aircraft. You basically have to go with the 24" range options now due to the increased attack distance for planes and the loss of the exta 8" range when doing AA fire.

All that said, a 6-strong 3.7 battery has 24 shots, and will on average kill a Il-2 a turn if they have no concealment from the battery.

So if AT guns are the new meta, why isn't everyone playing Kampfgruppe von Swoboda? Lack of glorious 8.8s?

I had a good look at aircraft rules (as spread out as they are all over the rulebook now...).

They're far more resilient now, which I guess was partly necessary since once they're down, they're gone. But why the heck did they have to make it so that all aircraft are always hit on 5+, regardless of shooter skill?

Also, if I understand correctly, guns no longer need to range in, and targets only get concealment from terrain if it's actually in the way, yes?

>>52555002
For planes, yeah. Cannons and MGs fire like normal weapons, while rockets and Bombs now are artillery that can be fired on the move (literally, they use the bombardment rules, ranging in and all)

>>52554907
I bet the formation rules really help them out too, gives them much more flexibility.

Taking a ton of 88s feels a bit awkward when you have to attack though.

>>52555228
Lol, yeah, 88s will be fun vs infantry. 7+ to hit Veterans. Only 54 shots to kill one stand.

>>52555398
The more relevant part of Swodoba is probably taking 8 guns as a second formation, if you just wanna spam some 88s into another list

File: VOLKED.jpg (356KB, 977x955px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 977x955px

>>52554907
Is this 1790 list close enough? Out of like 17 platoons I get 16 on the table.
>why did you buy recce
To move the 88s closer to the enemy when attacking. They're pretty slow after all.
>why the smaller flak guns
Historically this kind of strongpoint wouldn't have just been 88 spam, I include the tiny flaks for that reason.
>do you realize every formation unit in your list is Reluctant Potato
I live on the edge.

File: londo-brilliant.gif (458KB, 250x162px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 250x162px

>>52556030
I'd like to see a match with that army. Especially if it's versus Soviet strelkovy or something...

>>52556030
What book is that abomination out of?
The 3 units of scouts will let you completely surround the enemy with Volksturm and gun teams in Bridgehead, Breakthrough, Counterattack and Dust-up.

>>52556030
>>52557789
Derp nevermind. I see it's from Berlin.

>>52557789
Berlin Kampfgruppe.

Also offers the option of multiple formations all chock full of Volkssturm.

>>52557875
Volksturm: When you want to outnumber the commies, accept no substitutes.

File: on the day of my piglet's wedding.jpg (10KB, 380x296px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 380x296px

Got a friend intrested in team yankee and wants a rubdown of tactics by army?

OH hello, took a look at the 'new' ambush rules and I see nothing about Immobile Gun Teams having to deploy 16" away from enemies. FlaK 36 up the keister, go!

>>52558469
Oh bollocks, never mind, they moved that to the 'Large Gun' special rule -_-

>>52558394
West Germans are essentially long range masters. With a few exceptions, don't get close to the enemy. Usually lowest model count if you use any kind of Leo 2s. Brits are what you make them. Can be anywhere from cheesy milan spam, to unbeatable defensive infantry, with tons of light tanks, AT, and good AA. The Chieftain is pretty good, not as advanced as the Abrams or Leo 2. The Americans are kinda weird right now, as they lack real AA and totally lack recon. They're supposed to get a bunch of new toys this summer. Meanwhile, the Abrams is a very solid tank, the infantry aren't great against tanks, but against BMPs and infantry are amazing. The ITVs are supposed to fill that gap, giving you lots of cheap TOW missiles. US has the best (imho) air and gun arty in the game as it stands. The A-10 will delete anything it hits, and the Cobra, while fragile, is sneaky and hits hard. The Soviets are decent enough, their T-72s being not as good as western tanks but you get more of them. BMP spam is very effective as well. Russian infantry is kind of a mixed bag, being built for the assault but being bad at it. Their RPG-7s will still kill anything within 12" smaller than a MBT. Solid, cheap AT, AA, arty, and recon assets. Air is pretty decent as well, just be careful fighting anyone but the US, as everyone brings shitloads of AA these days. East Germans are just spammier Russians with a higher skill rating, weaker T-72s, T-55s, and other outdated but still effective support options. With the new Russian book coming out in the summer, if you play either WARPAC, you can play as any WARPAC at will. I personally play US armor and West German infantry/armor mix, and I love em both. Hope this "rubdown" is helpful. Sadly, didn't bring lotion.

File: John-Norum-europe-band-fan-club-29323899-290-410.jpg (53KB, 290x410px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 290x410px

>>52559413
thanks dude

>>52558394
>rubdown

I wonder how many times you have to type that for it to get stored in your phone's autocorrect...

>>52561605
I dunno if you're using some weird German or Russian keyboard or something but for me B and N are right next to each other so it's an understandable typo.

>>52561668
I'm trying to make a joke about the guy being a pervert, and here you are taking things far too literally...

Anyway, has anyone else had trouble with their local store getting in the new 4th Ed MidWar stuff?

My FLGS didn't place an order for the initial release, and can't seem to get it in.

>>52561852
>My FLGS didn't place an order for the initial release

Found your problem. Maybe battlefront will be back in stock in a month. Meanwhile multiple boxes are collecting dust on my FLGS's shelves because MW is not catching on. I think we've all tapped out too much cash on TY and two of our guys already own DAK and Desert Rats.

Since every bunker is an individual Unit each one is therefore a Unit Leader and so HMG nests can act as spotting teams in a US Road to Rome list with Field Fortifications.

I didn't care about spotting teams until BF decided to remove all but one from each list and yet now I'm desperate to find weird quirks of the spotter rules.

>>52563337
I mean, that works because a bunker could slash would have it's own telephone line.

all the gun teams

>>52528490
>>52548481
April 5:
I apparently forgot to paint English Uniform on the back side of the legs on 56 minis. Today's painting was mostly occupied by fixing that error. While the EU was out, I went and got the PIATs and 17pdr crew also painted up with it. Manged to get three sticks of infantry painted with black as well.

Tomorrow will see the 6pdr crews painted with black, and then either finishing it up on the rest of the troops or starting to focus down one platoon at a time. If I do everything, then the primer coat should be hidden on everything, making it obvious where any overlooked bits need touchup before I then move to platoon by platoon finishing.

So... can observer teams no longer deploy anywhere now? I've looked through the book and there's nothing special about independent teams except using mistaken target, and nothing special on observer teams except the limit to 1...

>>52568054
They were always restricted to within your deployment zone, now they're placed whenever during I believe.

>>52568120
Hm, I could swear I used to place them in the middle of the table (like infiltration in 40k). Oh well.

>>52568327
They used to be deployed the same as any other independent/ warrior team, but still within your deployment. The only units that can deploy in no man's land are snipers and special ambush teams, as far as I know.

>>52500841
New to FoW, am I right in thinking that MW has its own rulebook in the scans database so more people play it?

>>52569169
Basically during the edition change Battlefront took the opportunity to completely redo Mid War. since it hadn't been properly looked at since the first edition. So there's a Separate Mid War ruleset and the Early and Late war rulesets. Most of it is the same, except Mid War uses a 100 point scale where as Early/Late use a 1500 point scale, Mid War also uses a different template for Artillery bombardments and different minefields.

What do people suggest as a good number of Panzer IIIs to have in a Mid-War list for V4?

And what type? Short barrel, long barrel, or up-armored?

>>52568327
You might be thinking of Bolt Action, if you play that too.

>>52569274
Will the early and late be team yankeed at some point?

>>52571193
I believe that's the intention.

>>52571193
Eventually.

I'd assume they'll work on more Mid-War stuff first, then upgrade Early War to Mid-War 4th Ed standards, and leave Late War to last since that has the most books that need to be upgraded.

Does anyone know of a good place to buy 15mm army bundles. Thinking of buying from 'Plastic Soldiers Company'. Looking for British paratroopers and German grendiers.

>>52569169
MW has its own rulebook because they are redoing the whole system and they decided to start with MW. The EW and LW book is just a hold over.

>>52575734
PSC is great. My only issues with their kits are minor, and they're amazing value per dollar. Just two boxes (the british paratroopers and the british paratrooper heavy weapons) gets you a nearly 1500 point force. Only issue is painting all the little buggers. Can't speak on the Germans.

Does anyone here play Canadian armor and mind going over the various lists available to them? Power's down at my house or I'd be looking through my PDFs myself.

>>52576257
Thanks for the input, pretty much seals the deal.

>>52576392
Only things to look out for is that one of the guys (thankfully a nonvital one) in the weapons pack has a miscast back, and that the 6pdrs included are the normal ones instead of the glider borne mk3 carriage. Otherwise they're great, though you'll need to supply your own bases.

>>52570012
Pretty difficult one.

At 50 points, you're pretty much restricted to at least some short 5cm ones.
While decent, they can struggle a bit against Grants, especially if you can't make full use of Stormtrooper to engage them.
Murder against Crusaders and Stuarts, though.

The uparmoured version and long 5cm both seem like good AT mainstays, with the 7.5cm having shorter range but the pretty nice HEAT rule. You do pay for them, though.

>>52576290
Haven't played them in V4 yet, but used the Market Garden list a lot in V3.

If you want Veterans, ya gotta go with Market Garden (representing the Schelde campaign) or Road to Rome.
Those lists are fairly similar, but with some different support options.

The lists in Overlord are trained, meaning you can get a lot more stuff even if it dies more easily as well.
Also notable here is that the 17 pdr here is a bit less scary as well with the lack of APDS ammo.

You get decent tanks for long-range shootouts and all the typical British toys, except you get a bonus to unpin/remount instead of a bonus to counterattack.
I'm actually quite curious how they'll do in V4, but for now my Soviets and DAK are higher priority.

>>52576856
50 points is one thing, where I'd agree that the short 5cm is probably the best choice.

At 75 to 100 points though I'd say it's worth considering upgrading to the long 5cm, or the up-armored PzIII.

>>52576988
I might go for a mix, depending on what the local Brits are running.

Short 5cm for volume of fire vs cruisers on the move, some of the others to engage the Grants.

>>52576856
Local group is staying V3 atm, but since this is for a project once I finish what I've already got I'll probably end up playing it mostly in V4. Are any of the uniquely Canadian things, like the Land mattress and Ram kangaroos, any good?

>>52577211
Both are quite solid.
Matresses offer excellent bombardment value and the Kangaroo is one of the best infantry transports in LW.

>>52577211
Kangaroos aren't uniquely Canadian, but they're good. In V3 they're exceptionally useful for a Night Attack playstyle (since you get to Spearhead inside of them), and despite Night Attack being heavily neutered in V4 they do get to operate independently whilst empty which is very useful. You get three with the 50cal upgrade for 30-45pts, that's worthwhile just to harass enemy infantry and light vehicles with even if you never transport anything.

File: tmp_13655-IMG_20170406_201330558953628486.jpg (2MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4320x2432px

>>52565245
April 6: power outages suck. Got the final trimming and stuff done on my airlanding 6pdrs, since with no power I couldn't get proper lighting for painting. Figure I should get the AT guns done first because I can use them with the Airborne Armoured Recce squadron I have, though I might change my mind and do some of the normal soldiers instead.

>>52579279
Oh, and for reference since I mentioned the inaccuracies in >>52576590, autisming them consisted of reducing the width of the front shield, cutting back the bottom and smoothing the top of the main shield, and cutting the wheel mounts to bring the wheels closer together (thankfully the design of the wheelmounts saved me from having to also move the mounts forward). At the TT level nobody but rivet counters will care about these modifications, and most of those only care about their own units.

if you look at some latest announcements, it looks like BF is throwing some of their suppliers under the bus.

good question, is 'armor green' worth it?

>>52579965
I think it's a two way street on this. Battlefront's suppliers fail to do what was presumably contracted of them to do, and then Battlefront has to go looking for another supplier. Has to be like the third time this has happened.

So as far as I can tell there's no rules for the Ram Badger. You guys mind telling me how unbalanced these are?

Badger Troop (CV)
>2 Ram Badger - 120 points
>3 Ram Badger - 175 points
>upgrade all Badgers with cupola MGs for +5 points each.

Badger stats:
>Standard Tank, 5 front, 3 side, 1 top.
>Flamethrower, 4"/10cm range, ROF 3, AT -, FP 6, hull mounted

Available to canadian companies from MG, follows standard Canadian rules.

This lowballs the armor a bit (it was thick enough to be Front 6), and doesn't include an option for the final models that had a turret with a 6pdr since there's no evidence those ones saw action. Unsure if the points are fair.

>>52579965
>>52580065
Battlefront's rattle can logistics has been one giant fuck up.

Do we have a picture (or CG render) of the sprues for the T-55 kit PSC are releasing, yet? It's out in like two weeks and I haven't seen one, which is making me nervy about what it actually builds.

File: IMG_0350.jpg (76KB, 692x365px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 692x365px

>>52582038
Crappy image of the T-55AM2 was all I could find.

The kit also builds the T-55A and the T-55.

>>52582038

They've said it builds the the T-54, T-55A, and T-55AM. They're not prone to making shit up so I'll take their word on it.

I preordered 2 boxes and I don't even play TY

>>52576257
Yea dont be like me and buy 4 of each cause you were drinking at 3am.

I could proxy my german infantry as strelkovy.....and i still don't have them all put together

File: notagame.jpg (137KB, 560x374px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 560x374px

>>52582709
You have some serious self-hate issues there :)

>>52582709
You could always play one of the FC penal companies

>>52582709
Drunk purchases typically aren't the best idea.

>>52586326
I don't know...that's how my friend met his wife, and she seems like a nice enough person.

>>52588102
Did he buy her?

>>52582156
Well they said their truck kit would include the Ford V3000 but it didn't.

Have we seen any preview renders of PSC's M3 Stuart?

>>52582709
Jesus. Why not resell some of those on eBay?

>>52581481
Ram Kangaroos are 5/3/0 and Sherman Kangaroos are 6/4/0, so 5/3/0 is probably right for the Ram.

>>52581481
After comparing with the Flammpanzer III and the M4A2 'zippo', my first attempt here seems a bit overpriced. The flammpanzer III has one more RoF, one more front armor, and two MGs with the flamethrower in a turret for the same cost and rating as a Badger with the cupola MG. Given the Badger had effectively the same armor thickness as the Sherman and other medium tanks, I think I'll bump the front armor up to 6 and repoint from there.

New points:
>2 Ram Badger - 110 points
>3 Ram Badger - 160 points

That makes them 50 points per tank (55 with MGs), vs ~62.5 for the flammpanzer, which has one more flamethrower shot and 1-2 more MGs (Depending on if the Badger is upgraded). It also keeps them enough points more than the Wasp that you have to seriously consider which one you want to use.

And for the Badger Mk II that showed up at the end and may not have seen action:

>Upgrade Badger to Badger Mk II for +45 points
>Standard Tank, 6 front, 3 side, 1 top, Co-ax MG
>OQF 6pdr, 24"/60cm range, RoF 3, AT 11, FP 4+
>Flamethrower, 4"/10cm range, ROF 3, AT -, FP 6, hull mounted

>>52589888
Does the Badger have more armour than a regular Ram tank? The Ram Kangaroo has less armour than a Sherman Kangaroo in FoW.

>>52591428
It's more that the Ram Kangaroo is lowballed by BF. The armor maxed out at over 80mm thick, but I guess they just assumed that because the bottom half of the tank was the same as the Grant that it was the same as the Grant all over (Which wasn't true at all).

Also, if it was pointed appropriately for armor 5 then it starts being too cheap compared to the Wasp.

>>52577449
Man, I keep thinking about this and I'm pretty sure Kangaroos are just nuts in V4? I can pay 120pts for three UCs with 50cal+hull MG, or I could pay like a third of that to get medium tank armour instead of recce? They just seem like good value light vehicles.

>>52591555
The Ram was kinda like a Grant/Sherman hybrid, correct?

It was going to be built in Canada for Canadian use, but was abandoned when Sherman production in the US proved sufficient to equip Canadian and British forces as well.

>>52594524
Kinda. Grant lower hull and suspension, but the upper hull was an entirely new design. They kept making changes to it, and after nearly 2000 built they shut it down because it was basically a Sherman with a 6pdr and no parts commonality (and worse, with a number of variations in its own hull and turret design). The hulls then got reused for a lot of things, such as the Sexton, the Ram Kangaroo, the Badger, and a few types of ARV.

The Grizzly was similar, but was fundamentally a Sherman with different tracks. Neither design saw use in their basic forms, only heavily modified variants. Which means they still did better than the Aussie Sentinel.

>>52591640
They won't give spearheads, but, yeah, they're insanely good value for a light tank with a .50 cal. Especially since .50 cal MGs are one of the few things that helps with new hell-infantry.

>>52594952
>Especially since .50 cal MGs are one of the few things that helps with new hell-infantry.
It's really annoying how binary infantry are in V4. If they lose the roll for attacker/defender and have to attack, they get chewed up and spit out. If they get to defend, the opponent has to be spamming artillery or everything will take forever because you're hitting them on 6s.

Oh, and Trained infantry is just useless, thanks impossible not-QoQ and limiting of smoke.

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

961KB, 2830x1820px

So I think we're a year from TY's release now, so how common are those BMP lists? And how transparent of a BuMP is this post?

>>52597544
At least in my local area the BMP Horde is a bit of a Boogie Man. Something pretty much everyone is afraid of.

The thing is, nobody has actually run it yet.

Maybe it's lack of money, maybe it's lack of time to build and paint that many models, who knows?

But either way it's something that is often discussed and spoken of as the ultimate terror, but we've yet to actually have anyone field that many BMPs.

We could maybe pull it off if the WarPac players all let one player borrow all the BMPs and associated infantry, but no one has actually taken the effort to make that happen.

And yes, your post was a blatantly obvious BuMP.

File: 4-7.png (1MB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x608px

>>52579279
April 7th:
Got the main color of the smocks painted on the extra PIATs and on the 17pdr crew, and half painted on the 6pdr crews. Also got all the boots and knives and such painted. Tomorrow will be finishing this lot, and maybe beginning on the first main platoon (or 28 man group of riflemen figures, same thing)

>>52597544

We have one soviet player left. He does combined arms.

By comparison we have 2 yanks, 2 westies, and 3 limeys.

Long shot, but is there a list that lets me run Churchill platoons of nothing but Churchill VIIs?

>>52599716
Shit outta luck mate.

>>52599772

sadtrombone.wav

Thanks though

>>52599301
Same. I'm the only active soviet player left. Everyone was interested in volksarmee then bounced off when they saw how little difference there was while one guy went "I told you, there was no real differences in the warsaw pact!" and annoyed everyone.

T72 by psc when? I want accurate export versions.

>>52599301
My area we actually have way more WARPAC than NATO, the majority of them playing Volksarmee.

>>52597544
I'm more afraid of Volksarmee tank Spam than BMP lists, but I play a West German list with a lot of autocannons and Leo 1s. Had my teeth kicked in by the Volksarmee last time I played because scattered delayed reserves in Hasty Attack.

I suppose I am most afraid of British Mechanized Inf, but I haven't had a chance to play against them.

Got a tournament in a few hours. 60 points Team Yankee. What do you guys think of this list?

Marder Panzergrenadierkompanie:
HQ- G3 team, Marder (1pt)
Full Panzergrenadier Zug (7 pts)
Full Panzergrenadier Zug (7 pts)
Full Panzergrenadier Zug (7 pts)
Jagdpanzer Zug- 3x Jaguar 2s (5 pts)
Flakpanzer Batterie- 2x Gepards (5 pts)

Panzeraufklarungskompanie:
HQ- Leopard 1 (3 pts)
Leopard 1 Zug- 3x Leopard 1 (9 pts)
Leopard 1 Zug- 3x Leopard 1 (9 pts)
Luchs Spah Trupp- 2x Luchs (1 pt)
Luchs Spah Trupp- 2x Luchs (1 pt)
Flakpanzer Batterie- 2x Gepard (5 pts)

60 points, 10 platoons. Hoping to out-dakka the WARPAC (or at least match it) and hoping shitloads of milans will stop any NATO tanks.

>>52601105
The only thing I would consider is combining you Gepards into 1 unit so morale rules don't trip you up. They can cover a wide swathe of the board so only the occasional sneaky frogfoot will give you trouble. But you don't really have any Leo 2's so you will be fine.

>>52601198
The only reason I split them up is for the extra platoon, to get 5 platoons on the board for reserves.

>>52601226
Team Yankee still does that....got 2 spare points you could do for 2 more Luchs plts?

Small infantry teams such as PIAT, Bazooka, etc take a +1 to hit penalty unless they're a Unit or Formation Leader. However, since you're free to nominate any team in the unit (as long as it's the same type of team as the intelligence briefing's Platoon Commander) it's usually going to be beneficial to nominate one of the small infantry teams in your platoon as Unit Leader.

File: tumblr_lsnud3M7q01r1d7j6o7_250.jpg (22KB, 250x161px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x161px

>>52604251
PIATs run the show now.

>>52599716

You can run Churchill Crocodiles platoons which are almost the same as Churchill VII except with a flamethrower

File: Challenger 1.jpg (274KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1200x800px

When Battlefront!

>>52607149
When we're done making all the Pact nations spam, and we've got the resin moulds ready.

Cheers.

File: IMG_0353.jpg (104KB, 1000x597px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x597px

>>52607149
We already have it out in plastic.

Cheers

>>52607536
You're joking, but, seriously, where is there for Challenger to go from the Chieftain? It's already FA 18 with stillbrew.

>>52607149
>when you get free tanks because the nation who intened to buy them goes under due to a coup

>>52607831
Yeah, people are already complaining about fitting the 11 point Leopard 2's into less spammy sub-100 point meta.

>>52607838
The same thing happened when the Ottomans ordered some battleships. Choose your suppliers wisely or you'll be fighting against weapons you paid for.

>>52607335
>>52607536

> Wakes up, bed-sheets drenched in sweat.

>>52608434
I can't wait to see them turn the T-64 into a shit spam tank, despite the armour being almost as good as the M1 (and that's *before* ERA) and having a decent gun.

>>52608597

Just watch, the M60 is probably going to have the same or better armour than the T-72.

File: image.png (560KB, 720x526px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 720x526px

>>52607831
Front armour 20

>>52604372
The shooting at side armour rule probably helps AT10 / TA4 teams like PIATs a lot too. A bail is often as good as a kill and there are lots of TA1 tanks with SA less than 6.

>>52609582
Of course, against stuff that has side 8+ it's worse (I'd say 7+, but I think every side 7 tank also is top 2), and those are generally the ones you really want to stop.

File: 85.jpg (107KB, 652x782px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 652x782px

>>52609433

It could end up being 19.

>>52609798
I play soviet and it's going to be more(still waiting psc) t-55,t-72 than bmp.
hell i use airlanding more than bmp right now
shit's expensive homes.

>>52609798
opps
>>52610279 , meant for
>>52597544

>>52610380

new thread to ponder, ye gentlemen,

ta'ta!