Flames of War: How do we fit that in a list? edition

File: Applique Armor v0.65 - A LW British Supplement.pdf (679KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 1x1px

Well, I figure it's been long enough, and I've actually done some additions.

Applique Armor v0.65, now with Ram Badgers, Locust Littlejohns, and some rules stuff for Ram Kangaroos and Littlejohn adaptors. Dragoons (motor platoons can drop out of transports and shoot at full RoF) has been removed due to a lack of historical basis, 8 tradesmen has been clarified, Medium Artillery Support got a bit of a points increase, and the Tip and Run rule for Archers got a flat cost.

Importantly, this if for V3, it is not updated for V4 and will not be for some time. For those not familiar, it's split into three sections (new options/equipment, Funnies, and special rules), in decreasing order of my confidence in their balance.

As before, any and all feedback or criticism (as long as it's actually saying something in addition to "u r a fgt") is welcome.

When will psc do a t72? I want

>>52611080
The BF one is quite good. As is the Zvezda one.

Why specifically are you looking for a T-72 from PSC?

>>52611162
Bevause they will do the export versions in the kit in addition they will be cheaper than bf.

>>52611275
Potentially.

Honestly, if the T-55 does well enough for them, I expect that they'll go after another popular Team Yankee tank that Battlefront made in resin, the Leopard 1.

Or perhaps even try to beat Battlefront to the punch on the M60.

Hey guys looking into flames of war v4 and team yankee to make my jump into the battlefront product line. Normally a bolt action guy but looking for a game more conducive to larger fights.

Think this fits the bill I'm looking for?

>>52611576
It should.

The battles in Flames of War and Team Yankee are between several platoons of vehicles, infantry, and guns.

Games have a large, grand feel to them.

>>52611749

Sounds good to me anon I'm gonna look into it further.

I hear problems from these very threads though that the designers buy into stereotypes quite heavily. Is that true?

>>52611576
What specifically are you looking to find out?

We're glad to answer any questions you might have.

>>52610537
Regarding the Churchill OP tanks, a more historically accurate representation would be that they replace the original OP team/vehicle for any field artillery or field artillery SP battery that is taken in a force containing a tank company with Churchills.

The reason being that the tank was provided with just a few crew members, none of them trained in artillery observation, and the battery's OP team was meant to ride in it if they were providing support fire for the tank brigade. Same thing happened with Sherman OP tanks, they were also basically rides for the battery's OP team that were provided by the armoured regiment, rather than the tank coming from the battery itself.

>>52612716
Yes and no.

Typically the stereotypes are presented as helpful in game rules, or help to define the play style of one nation compared to another.

This typically means that the Germans have smaller more elite forces and very powerful vehicles, whereas the Soviets tend to have larger less elite troops.

The stereotyping typically works the worst for the Soviets where there is a lack of good information available in English, so the Communist Hordes theme is the default.

>>52612750
Yeah, I was debating between the two methods, and wasn't sure if they had their own trained observers or took some of the battery's for a ride. I'll swap it over to that for accuracy.

>>52612723

What's the average point level the games are played out for standard flames of war for say late war and what are the standard point levels for a team yankee game? How expensive is it to get to this level of play?

Really like the like look of team yankee especially and having the book in my hands for it the system seems good enough for me but I'm really just trying to persuade a friend to get into it even though he seems to be more interested in ww2 then ww3.

>>52612816

That's the only thing I don't like about it. Seems like the slavs and especially their allies in FoW and TY get the shaft.

>>52612923
>What's the average point level the games are played out for standard flames of war for say late war
Late war the average points level is around 1500 points. Early war is about the same. Thanks to the new release of V4, Mid War now has 100 points for the recommended average game (Mid war has been adapted to new point values, but Late and Early war have not).
>and what are the standard point levels for a team yankee game?
70-100 points, depending on local group. Some places with an abundance of WARPAC are going towards the lower end because the board starts getting really crowded at 100.
>How expensive is it to get to this level of play?
Well, I can't speak for the other eras, but Late War you can get a complete British Paratrooper army that's about 1400 points for a bit over $50, by going through Plastic Soldier Company. Generally you can't get a full 1500 list in two boxes like that, but you can get a good number of armies to 1500 or more for around $100 if you get PSC or Zvezda plastics. PSC is pretty good quality, fighting with Battlefront's official stuff, while Zvezda is doing relatively little to stop stereotypes of russians as making the cheap and cheerful stuff (though their new King Tiger set is apparently excellent). Prices climb rapidly as you need more resin and metal models, which have prices on the order of $12 per tank instead of $6 per tank.

File: 4-8.jpg (412KB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1080x608px

April 8th:
The crew for my guns is almost completed, but weekend RPGs have taken their toll on my ability to fully complete them. They still need few more paints to be completely done, but are at tabletop level now.

>>52613060
>Generally you can't get a full 1500 list in two boxes like that
Any german big cat list with plastic tanks, Fallschirmjaeger, almost any FV list that has plastic kits. Probably also US armor, since you can just spam a bunch of 76mm Shermans and then swap the turrets once your collection expands.

>>52613119
Absolute madman

>>52613119
Very nice work on those!

>>52616372
>13_of_36
I dare you to post them all.

>>52617774
There's actually only three in the folder, I just never changed the filenames. I do have about that many Churchill pics, but that's on my comp and I'm at work right now.

>>52617739
>>52614751
Thanks, they still need the webbing to be painted Khaki and for a few other misc details, but they're closer to done than the other 204 of them.

>>52617830
>204 more infantry miniatures still to paint.

You are an absolute mad man.

>>52618916
Admittedly, I only need to paint 151 of them to have the actually fieldable part done. Still a lot, but more reasonable than the full 204.

>>52619051
>151 better than 204

That's still a lot to do.

Haven't you heard of pacing yourself?

>>52619170
That's why I'm doing it in platoon sized chunks instead of all at once. It's only barely pacing, but it's helped more than trying to do all them at once (in two weeks) did.

>>52619170
You should have seen Marqod in the discord. Dude did most of a british and german force for MW in a weekend.

>>52619489
Oh, we have a Discord now? I've been out of the game for a while and just got back in for V4

>>52619547
Yeah, it started out as a "lets make some snowflake russian lists" thing, but then it just turned into a place to talk about stuff. It's at the bottom of the OP.

>>52619397
Ah. Ok.

That certainly does make more sense than just trying to do it all at once.

Hey guys looking at buying into team yankee. Can I get a point value for each of the starters? Wanna buy two comparable forces.

Oh and what are the next additions to the game? Hope the french are getting added.

>>52621833
Bannon's Boys
47

Charlie's Chieftains
36 - 41

Kampfgruppe Muller
63

Potecknov's Bears
44 (Red Banner)
31 (Volksarmee)

Hello I just put together 1 list ever in V4

I want to play 100 points of Africa Korps

6 Panzer IV (2xhq with long) = 44 pts
2 stukas (to deal with enemy arty) = 9 pts
1 8.8 cm (to freek out enemy and not role lone test) = 6 pts
4x 10.5 Arty (because arty is the king) = 14 pts

I need a build for inf company
HQ - 2 pts
2 paks - 8 pts

That laves 17 pts all together - I can get 2 smaller platoons of inf for 12 and then go to town with 5 points

What would be better - 2 small AA trucks to cover inf and tanks in first turns or mortars and carabines for inf ?

>>52622675
Maybe the AA. But that depends on how much people are using aircraft in your area.

>>52622675
Do you mind fully writing out your list?

Because I don't think you're building a legal list there.

>>52624090
It looks legal, the 6 panzers are for a Pz IV Tank Company, with 2 in HQ and 2 platoons of 2 tanks each. The only thing missing is the two infantry platoons needed for the infantry company in order to be legal.

Personally I'm wary of fielding tiny tank companies, and would recommend either increasing the platoons to 3 tanks each, or ditching the tank company altogether and just having a full-strength tank platoon as support if you're strapped on points. Alternatively you could downgrade to Pz IIIs instead to free up some points, as the Pz III is a totally viable panzer in the mid-war period.

>>52625860
Seconding this. In MidWar it looks like Panzer IIIs (of any variety) are meant to be the primary German tank.

>>52625860
>>52622675
Also, to add further, it looks like a 'Little bit of Everything' list, which often don't do that well in FoW. While I haven't played v4 yet, from what I recall of the rules you'll want full-sized combat unit platoons whenever possible, as otherwise they're fragile and prone to fleeing, and if they all flee the board then your whole force will go with them.

The problem with Germans that most new players face is that all their stuff costs so much, so you're forced to make trade offs and make due without all the stuff you wanted.

>>52626733
Thanks for all advices - I think I start to better grasp FoW. I wanted to have 2 formations (as opposed to only support) and use the strenght of germans (which is amongst other thing good morale rating). If I would have to throw some thing out it would probably be Stukas as thay kind of do the same thing as Arty.

I heard that Infantry in German list in mid war should not assault ever because British are far better at it (with better countercharge rating) and in German list you should only take 2 platoons for diging in and holding some valuable spot.

I also know that in mid I will be swamped by british tanks - but I think playing to my strenght would be using range for as long as I can and funneling them to kill zones. I think I will try to mingle with Panzer III (I would be able to get 8 of them) and Panzer IV and learn from looses. I realy like combined approach armys - maybe I should then wait for USA mid war ? What do you think ?

>>52613119
April 9th: The 6 pdr, 17pdr, and PIAT teams are 100% done. Tomorrow begins the first airlanding platoon.

File: IronMaiden1920x1440.jpg (2MB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1440px

>>52610380
Honest question.
With the success of Team Yankee would you like to see other major conflicts (both real and theoretical) Made into a game? We already have Vietnam, WW1 and the Six Day War getting a revamp and rumours of the Yom-Kippur War but what about the Korean War or a theoretical Second Korean War set in the early to mid 90s? What of Modern times conflicts such as a theoretical war in 2015?

>>52621833
French and Poles are rumored to be next, with the French likely being the NATO spam nation.

>>52628635
Wargame: Red Dragon the board game. I'd be down for it.

File: 250px-Swierczewski_Spychalski_Zymierski.jpg (29KB, 250x436px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x436px

>>52628838
I dread to think how spammy the Poles will be.

>>52629029
1 pt T-72s with AT 10 on the main gun because they didn't have enough gunpowder to make the shells more powerful and Armour 9 all over due to Polish steel being not quite there yet and ERA not being trusted by this one officer I read about, not to mention cross 5+ and hit on 2+ because of soviet tactics that relied on the enemy running out of ammo before you ran out of people as demonstrated in the historical film "Enemy at the Gates" which is all based on a true story.

Cheers.

>>52628863
Wargame: Red Dragon?

File: Wargame General.jpg (201KB, 1280x1250px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x1250px

>>52629415
A video game.

Incidentally, /wgg/ is back up on /vg/

>>52629029

I'm expecting same skill and motivation as the Soviets, but hit on 2+ with the T-72M and T-55AM.

The Marida won't even be mentioned.

>>52628838
Battlefront hasn't mentioned the Poles or the French aside from the , "yeah we'll do that eventually."

The next big releases are books expanding the Soviet and US forces. Battlefront has also mentioned Australians with an attachment of Kiwi Scorpians (the only way they could put New Zealand in the game). Canadians will likely also be released sometime soon as most their vehicles are already in production.

File: b32.jpg (9KB, 279x234px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 279x234px

>>52628863
That's the reason i wanted to start team yankee
Sadly having trouble getting my current friends into team yankee or any wargames in general and i met them all through playing 40K

Hey guys, I'm converting over from being a 40k scrub and I've got some of the new mid-war stuff. My FLGS had some desert rats stuff in a bargain bin but I've discovered that it's not actually plastic; is it old stuff that predates the switch? Also what the hell is it?

Also do they have that shitty metal that needs scrubbing with a toothbrush or is it fine out of a packet?

>>52631193
All the metal figs from battlefront were decent and needed next to no clean up but might depend on how old they are.

What's the absolute bare minimum I would need to get myself and a friend set up to try the game using the Great War miniatures. Would an infantry platoon and tank platoon be enough to give us a taste of the game without investing a lot of money?

>>52631193
If it's something you might describe as black, dark blue or grey then it's resin. Just give it a wash in warm soapy water and it'll be fine to paint after priming.

>>52631322
You'll be able to learn the rules but I don't think it'll be very fun with such a small platoon count.
It's more than the bare minimum but have a look for the Biltz's Battlegroup and Mitchell's Marauders army boxes as they have pretty much every you need and if you are lucky you might be able to find them cheap.

>>52628635
They probably won't touch anything after 1991 to avoid political shitshows, but they did say they planned on doing a "Late war" period after 1985.

File: do it again.jpg (21KB, 450x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x252px

>>52628635
Falklands war supplement when

>>52631568
Oh, shit. Is it toxic to handle?

>>52632379
No, you only have to worry if you're sanding it down and not using a mask.

>>52632673
Does that mean you should use hobby knives to cut flash away instead or is it just a bad idea to abrade the surface without protection at all?

>>52632128
No armour and armour is where you make your money

The one I'm interested in, which BF have said they're doing is "Bush War". Basically Africa between 1950 and 1980.

There are loads of cool things you can do with that, and the only other rival system I can think of is AK47 Republic

>>52632989
Knives are fine, it's resin powder that's not good to inhale.

File: 1491663949754.jpg (145KB, 499x366px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 499x366px

>>52633096
15mm Rhodesians with fals in short shorts

File: hgfdhjgfdhgf.jpg (108KB, 379x247px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 379x247px

>>52633141
North Africans firing MILAN from the bull-bars of their technicals

>>52633096
ANY kind of abrasive or cutting is going to generate dust and release organic vapours which are seriously bad for your lungs and potentially brain. For anything more than rinsing it under a tap and maybe a little scrubbing with a plastic-bristle toothbrush wear a mask.

File: Cassino-SP-10.jpg (81KB, 500x238px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x238px

What are those white and red bars that you can see on german artilley?

>>52633702
Ranging markers, IIRC.

>>52633702
http://www.wwpd.net/2012/05/what-are-those-red-and-white-poles-for.html?m=1

>>52634066
Thanks for the link, very informative.

File: 1456018168501_cached.jpg (582KB, 2000x1332px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 2000x1332px

>>52628635

I'd like to see the Falklands and the Gulf War.

>>52638657
It depends on how modern they want to go.

Team Yankee is set only 5 or 6 years before Operation Desert Storm.

Has anyone run a British Motor Company? I'm looking at the Canadian version from Market Garden. The next tournament here is going to be roughly 1500 points and I have to say making a list for them is pretty hard.

Also, the rocket launcher rules are weird now. Say I am running a Land Matress battery with those Canadians, and they only have one rocket left somehow. They still use the 12" by 12" template, because the rules only check whether you count as 4+ teams or not when handing out fuckhuge templates. The actual number of teams is nearly irrelevant for rocket launchers.

>>52639324

Well, once they add Challenger's they're pretty much done. The Abrams has the 120mm gun on the frame and we already have T-72's.

The only thing they probably weren't going to add to TY is Iraqi troops.

>>52638657
T-72Ms, but even worse, the Republican Guard, ostensibly the 'Elite' Iraqi unit, where still using Mild Steel Training ammo in combat. And the vast majority of their ammo was a round that the Soviets had withdrawn sometime ago even by the eighties.

>>52639414
>The only thing they probably weren't going to add to TY is Iraqi troops.
They've pegged the Soviets at about that level anyway, so it's not much change.

>>52639603
>And the vast majority of their ammo was a round that the Soviets had withdrawn sometime ago even by the eighties.
Almost all of it; a general trend of third-world armies is that they have whatever the soviets had two generations back.

Hey guys rookie to TY but is it just more does the game seem super anti soviet? They're whole shtick seems to be hordes of shit instead of being a comparable force.

>>52639959
It's historically accurate to the fighting capabilities of the Soviets at that period of time, as seen in historical documentary Enemy At The Gates.

Cheers.

File: desert-convoy.jpg (481KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1840x1232px

>>52639603

Can you see the enemy, commander?

WE HAVE T-72 SIGN THE LIKES OF WHICH EVEN GOD HAS NEVER SEEN.

File: Forces (1).pdf (316KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1x1px

I unironically intend to run this list at a tournament. The idea is to drop DOUBLE DOMINOS DELIVERY via AOP onto either the forces guarding the objective when attacking, or enemy arty when defending. In all honesty the mortars exist largely to make my rifles not so tiny. How fucked should I be?

>>52641805
You're playing Canadians. As long as you remain humble and polite, no one can stop your onslaught.
I approve.

>>52632379
dude, what are you to be afraid of unground resin? do not make me rub an old resin hull all over my dick and take pictures to embolden you....

>>52639959
>this has become a meme.
let's stop before we make some random namefag buy 500 usd of Soviets and begin whipping the shit out of people with them.

>>52642143
>before we make some random namefag buy 500 usd of Soviets
The fact this would be necessary is part of the issue.

>>52642143
I did whip Birdy Yesterday. Hinds went through fifteen shots and I managed to stick Spirals up the backs of His Leopards.

>>52642143
I actually do play Soviets(not very well) in Team Yankee, and while they are a bit weak against the British and West Germans, they feel about right compared to the Americans that they were originally released alongside.

While I'm certainly not going to drop $500 on them, I am certainly going to try and show people that Soviets and East Germans are not just the faceless horde NPC factions.

>>52643085
>>52642264

Can you guys help me make a cohesive argument against this notion then? Really trying to sell the game to a friend. Really partial to team yankee as I like the idea of ww3 more then just another ww2 game as I already play bolt action.

File: 1476319376946.png (1MB, 1600x831px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x831px

>>52629029
>>52630642

It would be spammy as fuck, but I'd like to see the Polish 7th Naval brigade included somehow, with Topas-2AP APCs and PT-76Bs. Could be fun, but only with plastic kits, 50 point lists and large maps.

>>52633141
Now THAT would be fun. Gimme Cuban T-62 based and South African wheeled armor decks.

>>52643404
I don't know, you can talk about the BMP efficiency, or the Hind based airmobile unit, or about the upcoming arrival of the T-64B (or was it T-80B?) which maaaaybe won't be as bad as the T-72A.

And yeah, as some anons were saying, take some AT value from the T-72M1 and you get a good Asad Babil tank lel.

>>52643404
This is going to sound counter-intuitive, but honestly, embrace the spam.

Soviets and East Germans need the larger numbers to fight on an equal footing with any of the NATO forces in the game.

BMP units are good, but high model count.

T-72s are good, but you really need to outnumber the NATO tanks 2 to 1.

Hinds and Frogfoots are great, but you need to be wary of enemy AA units, especially West German Gepards, Rolands, and Redeyes.

The units themselves aren't bad.

You just typically have to field them in combination in decent numbers.

I'm still trying to find that correct balance myself, but I know that trying to use them in small NATO style units doesn't really work for the Soviets.

So do you guys think I could get away with not painting camo on my infantry for TY? Verhicles I think I can handle, but that fine of detail(that youxll probably never notice when playing) on those small of dudes just seems both silly and daunting.

Or is that asking for a sperglord attack?

File: IMAG0082.jpg (2MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1520px

>>52643814
>Hinds and Frogfoots are great, but you need to be wary of enemy AA units, especially West German Gepards,

Except if this happens where the Hinds take one loss from fifteen shots. I think poor Birdy must be starting to dread the sound of Hind Blades.

>>52644253
I think both players dread the sound of Hind blades. The enemy because they're deadly, the commies because their oversized butts just broke YET AGAIN.

File: 4-10.png (1MB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x608px

>>52627933
April 10th:
Some work's been done on the first Airlanding platoon. Tomorrow should be finishing the smocks, and maybe also getting to the webbing if I do better than I usually do.

Doing about 30 minis at a time, with 20 days left, I will finish on time if I average four days a batch. I'm aiming for three days a batch, so that I'll have plenty of time to go back and fix mistakes or add extra detail.

>>52644418
The magnets are snapping off of the base of the rotor blades because of how cold it's been.

File: 20170411_174650-picsay.jpg (138KB, 1024x534px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x534px

3 pc, 1 not.

>>52630642

Anyone want to extrapolate what the Merida's stats would be?

>>52646252
Nice models. .. though by the time Jagdpanthers entered service, a swatstika flag would have been like a large flashing neon sign saying "please shoot me".

>>52646252
>swastika flags post-43

>>52646252
How'd you do the tracks?

Also something something swastika flag

>>52643894
I'd be okay with it, but would also encourage you to give it a go. I think it seems more intimidating then it actually is in practice. Base green, dab some sand splotches, dab some chocolate brown splotches, you can cover a bit of the sand, and finish with black splotches(flatten out an old brush to do these since they are a bit narrower). In general you can make the blotches larger than scale so you get the impression of a camo pattern when they are on the table. I don't even think you have to worry about putting camo too close to the webbing.

You don't see too many pictures of British grunts without DPM during this era, and I think the final effect would make you happier with them on the table.

>>52643085
>not just the faceless horde NPC factions
But this is a case of presentation and niche, not their effectiveness. Nobody (used to, apparently 4e hit pretty hard) said that Soviets in WW2 were unplayable, but they still had an entire front wider than the entirety of the rest of europe characterised as "it's all either FT or CT, with no unique units at all".

>>52647373
The issue there is the lack of existing documents.

And what documents do exist aren't translated into English, and nobody at Battlefront can read Russian.

I'm sure there are plenty of stand-out units that actually existed.

Find Battlefront those multiple credible sources in English and rub their noses in it.

Until then we have Communist Hordes.

>>52647373
Furthermore in TY pretty much none of the WarPac gear has any merit besides being spammable or being cheap support to stick in a list. The Hind and Frogfoot are awesome, but the proliferation of AA means that they are often gimped (except when using Virus's loaded dice). Ultimately the WarPac commander is left with few viable strategies due to having a high model count of spam units. Support isn't as game changing as NATO support. Most is pretty vanilla. Maybe the next release will change this, but I won't be getting my hope up.

>>52647943
Hey!

>>52647911
>Find Battlefront those multiple credible sources in English and rub their noses in it.
And then they'll immediately go "oh, soviet propaganda" and ignore it.

File: Crabmando.pdf (18KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1x1px

This list gave me crabs.

>>52648402
You should really see a doctor about that...

>>52644253
>insert "Ride of the Valkyries" joke here

It's become intrinsically linked with helicopter badassery since Apocalypse Now.

>>52641805
Any reason to be Motor Co instead of Rifles?

>>52641805
I know we joke about the 12x12 template being a "pizza box", but that's one small pizza.

>>52655307
something something American serving sizes

>>52655307
A 12" pizza is small to you?

>>52657566
For me personally, it would be huge. So-called "personal pizzas" are usually 6 to 8 inches in diameter.

But for a family of four, or a group of hungry college students? That would be tiny.

>inB4 our resident New York Namefag shows up and goes full Pizza Snob on us...

So, what have people been working on? Anyone building up some of the new Mid-War stuff?

>>52653480
Absolutely none, I just felt like doing something unusual.

>>52653480
Well, he gets eight 6pdrs instead of six, so that's something.

File: 1491971509169.png (214KB, 1058x1363px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1058x1363px

3 super pershings in a list.

Cheers.

>>52661071
Okay... but why?

It's not like it's an effective list.

>>52661071
i like it.

people will underestimate it. also helps the persh' is part of a formation, and not support

File: FoW-FTW-Warren-Daves-Vietnam-Armys.jpg (179KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1280x720px

>>52610380
Holy fuck what is this dipshits issue? Warren is his name? Holy fuck how can someone be such a disinterested asshole and shit all over the history part of historical wargaimg even with Mr Skeltal there as a guest to help him.

Who the hell let this guy cover historics?

>>52662994
Welcome to four months ago, I am Lord Virus, please step onto this Hind for your free Complimentary (((Helicopter Ride))).

It is well known that Warren is a shitheel and it's kind of a reoccurring point around here.

File: 1469522989599.jpg (49KB, 775x837px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 775x837px

>>52662994
>he doesn't know about warrenposting

Wait till you find out about cheers.

>>52663018
Hope you don't overbook that Hind. Getting re-accommodated by Russians isn't my idea of a fun ride...

>>52662994
What the... they have the illiterate baboon doing FoW AGAIN?! Are they that stupid, or do they just not give a shit?

>>52647911

There are frigging Ospreys that cover the performance of Cold War era Soviet tanks.

God I'm glad I never got into TY because I knew they would ignore the fact that the non-monkey-model Soviet tanks were pretty much as good as, if not better then, all Western tanks except the A2 Abrams.

>>52663339
>the non-monkey-model Soviet tanks were pretty much as good as, if not better then, all Western tanks except the A2 Abrams.

On paper specs were often inflated, like tractor production levels, to appease the Politburo!

cheers

>>52663376
And then you pull out some Finnish/West German/Israeli tests done on purchased/captured USSR tanks, and suddenly it's "the Finns got the good stuff/the West Germans used faulty East German data/the Israelis are trying to oversell a threat for reasons. Cheers."

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

72KB, 355x531px

>>52662994
Is Warrenposting a thing now?

>>52663833
Which is why I am primed for disappointment with the next release.

Eastern front midwar when?

>>52663339
>Except the A2 abrams

Leopards would like to talk with you

>>52664524
2018, hopefully

File: Challenger_II.jpg (255KB, 776x377px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 776x377px

>>52663339
>Soviet tanks were pretty much as good as, if not better then, all Western tanks except the A2 Abrams.

>>52665411
>Challenger II
>Introduced to service: 1998
>Team Yankee setting: 1985

>>52665435
It's fair that NATO should get the Challenger II in '85, after all, Einstein built the Chronosphere for the Allies which allowed them to send prototypes back!

Cheers.

File: Romanov_3.jpg (17KB, 355x272px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 355x272px

>>52665473
Yes yes yes Red alert 2 this game up

>>52665513
That'd mean that the Soviets get effective tanks.

File: Desolator.jpg (155KB, 610x547px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 610x547px

>>52665513
>>52665550
and infantry

RE 2 is fucking gold man

File: IMG_2474.jpg (127KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x400px

>>52665513
>Red Alert 2

As fun as stuff like the Kirov Airships, Prism Tanks, and such were, I'm more a fan of the original Red Alert.

Or even classic Command and Conquer.

Give me a GDI Mammoth Tank and NOD Obelisks of Light any day.

I remember when i thought east germans would be much better than russians or at least add more variety to the "bad" side. I mean how can you make a game with only 2 sides, and one of them is expensive and so... boring? At this rate it seems i will never play TY unless both germany make their own side.

>>52667266
Only 2 sides? WWII has only 2 sides too. Do you abstain from playing that one too?

>>52668035
WWII at least has the Allies and the Soviets as kinda distinct

File: 1461269293174.jpg (168KB, 1033x679px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1033x679px

>>52665513
>>52666453
>>52666533
>Red Alert 2
Still one of the best game soundtracks of all time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_qOsP_OkDw

>>52662994
Based skelebro has a kuroneko mug?

>>52662994
>>52664402
>>52663064
I am 12 and what is this?

Well, not really, but this is my first time looking into FoW threads, and the game in general. What am I looking at here? Paisley?

File: IMG_2476.jpg (68KB, 640x449px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x449px

>>52669410
Warren Johnson(?), the face man of the wargaming website and YouTube channel Beasts of War.

He's typically rather enthusiastic about most games in his own buffoonish way.

But when it came time for them to do a series of videos called "FoW FTW", he just couldn't care less about the history, and made it quite well known that he didn't.

His co-host was a long-suffering history nerd with zero charisma that tried to lead the horse to water, but just couldn't make him drink. Or ever seem to get a word in edgewise.

This resulted in him boasting about his Weird War Indiana Jones inspired SS mystical artifacts brigade, the NachtWulfen, complete with Nazi Flying Disc air support.

His co-host, and everyone here on /tg/, did a simultaneous facepalm at that.

As such Warren is a bit of a well known, and commonly despised, figure here on FoWtg.

>>52669708
Oh, the fat one? Well, that's fine with me, I disliked him from the first glance already.

Hardly noticed him next to the skinny vaudeville stage magician anyway.

>>52668035
WW2 is typically thought of as having the allies, communists, and axis.

>>52669708
The big thing is that an army like that as someone's third army or such, from someone that actually cares about history, would be fine. With no respect or care for history, it's just insulting.

>>52670256
There is also the second part: both axis and allies can be built without resorting to spam. In TY, it's NATO and SPAM.

>>52670323
Yeah, VA being spamy instead of TY Finns was really disappointing. Hard to hit high skill guys with shit equipment tend to be fun, but instead we got meh dudes with shit equipment. That's pretty much THE ball drop for TY.

>>52670323
I don't know what people were expecting given this has been almost every other game BF's released.

AIW? Space marine israelis vs potato egypt.
Vietnam? Space marine US/ANZAC vs potato VC.

I've never seen anyone actually play great war but it wouldn't be a surprise if it was space marine brits vs potato germans either.

>>52670323
>w-well okay Phil the Central Group of Forces was a regular soviet army, can we have the best Soviet troops, the Group of Soviet Forces Germany with T-80B?
>Okay, here's more of the same spam with T-64As, cheers.

A little speculation.

T-64. Highly secret, and not likely to show up (AFAIK, none were available to Group of Soviet Forces in Germany). However, some data. The Stillbrew issue show us that it really is only the FA of the turret that Phil uses for comparative values, so we'll run with that.

T-64B is the model we'll use, in service since 1976 (the T-64BV came in 1985, too late for this show). Turret FA, 410 vs APFSDS, 500 vs HEAT. That's enough to make it immune to the then issue HEAT round for the Carl Gustav (AT17). So we're looking at FA17 then, 16 if we want to be assholes and let the Tommies Bail them into submission. The 2A46-2 gun should give it the same AT and RoF as the T-72 of the main book, so AT22 and RoF 1 in all cases. It could also use missiles, but we know BF, so fuck that. Stabilisers were present, as were laser range-finders and all that other stuff. Superb. A good tank, easily capable of being a proper non-spam vehicle for elite Soviet forces.

Now, over to Phil.

"Soviet steel was of inferior quality, and data was often inflated to satisfy the heads (nevermind the fact that anyone caught doing that would get Stalin'ed) of the departments. Hence we've given it FA 15. Furthermore, Soviet Asiatic Hordes means it'll be hit on 3+ (despite being a tank held for the best units), and though it uses much the same gun as the T-72 in the main book (2A46-2 vs the T-72s 2A46), we've given it AT20 to account for inferior materials.

Cheers."

File: philOnSoviets.jpg (327KB, 981x840px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 981x840px

>>52671137
Phil seems to seriously believe and have written TY and probably v4 from the point of view that Soviets are doctrinally incapable of being capable of getting a 4+ to hit rating.

On a completely different topic, has anyone tried to have armies from Vietnam and Fate of a Nation square off against each other?

>>52672001
"Western Tactics"=Never seen actual combat, but damn did they do really well in those war games. Hit on 4+ and competent skill and assault.

"Soviet Tactics"= Never taught how to take cover so they are too fucking stupid to follow orders or assault. Hit on 3+, but hey at quantity has a quality of its own.

>>52672306
>but hey at quantity has a quality of its own.
Not in V4, unless you manage to get 12 teams into the 2" wide band between "more than 2" from the enemy" and "within 4" of the enemy".

PS V4 is cockgarbage outside of the desert I so angry I shit bees.

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

107KB, 652x782px

>>52672470
>outside of the desert
I'm happy with the desert myself, i mean i wish i had more EW support.
>tfw armoured Desert regiment.
>LRDP group.
>8th army.
it hurts man, at least i can play the 8th in mid

File: 20170412_174155.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

WIP

File: 20170412_174104.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Trucks are mostly done, other than touching up a few areas, a little more highlighting, and a some dullcote.

15 figs won't take too long, then the basing and viola.

File: 100_1680.jpg (2MB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x1728px

Also found some old pics of stuff I painted awhile back

>>52673249
>>52673270
>>52673291
It's a honey sir

>>52663339

They really weren't though.

The T-80 did very poorly in Chechnya.

The Abrams, Challenger and Leopard II were without doubt superior to Soviet heavy tanks. The level of superiority is the main point of debate.

>>52674195
Yes it did poorly in Chechnya because it was a Main Battle Tank being used to fight Insurgents which as the USA in fucking Iraq and the Syrians now are learning is a really fucking bad idea.

Might as well argue that the Sherman was shit because it couldn't withstand hits from panzerfausts.

>>52674253

Well, actually compared to the T-80 the Abrams and the Challenger did much better, hence why I brought that up.

File: dqlm463.jpg (178KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1024x768px

>>52674195
>The T-80 did very poorly in Chechnya.

Who would have ever thought sending unsupported tanks into a dense ruined city filled with a mix of fanatic insurgents and people with Soviet military training armed with anti tank weapons was a bad idea?

>>52674289
It's still a fucking retarded metric to judge it's performance by. All a tank in a COIN situation requires is the ability to fire high explosive and use it's machine guns. Virtually every tank sucks when you can sneak up on it and jam RPGs through the side armour.

The T-80 armour is equal to the Abrams and because it's also a Diesel Turbine, it'll get along at basically the same speed. Thermal scopes also included, and Gun Missiles.

T-80B Hull and turret armour:
>Hull 440-450 mm vs APFSDS. 500-575 mm vs HEAT.
>Turret 500 mm vs APFSDS 650 mm vs HEAT

M1 Abrams Hull and Turret Armour
>350 mm vs APFSDS, 650 mm vs HEAT
>470 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT

And then there's the T-80U version that barely squeaks in under the time limit for TY, which is superior to any Western Tank of the time. Refleks AT missile can penetrate 900mm of armour and with ERA it'll bounce any round fired at it.

File: battlefront.png (546KB, 854x409px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 854x409px

>be Phill Yates
>notice a small mole change shape and get bigger
>go to doctors
>he confirms that it's melanoma
>takes time off work to proceed with treatment
>9 months later beat the cancer
>feel fit with a whole new lease on life
>get ready to get back to work at battlefront
>all my co-workers are waiting outside the entrance to greet me.
>one shouts "three cheers for Phill guys"
>at that moment the clouds darken, lightning and thunder.
>the ground starts to shake
> Out of these black clouds starts raining fully assembled plastic T-72s
>Thousands of the tanks rain down no not asingle one smashes in to pieces from the fall.
>everysingle T-72 intact from the fall
>everyone is being hit repeatedly over the head by 100 battalions of T-72s
>New Zealand is flooded by these tanks
>many choke on the plastic russian tanks as they drown in the mass of russian armour
> the last words uttered by every New Zealander is the immortal words of "Cheers Phil."

>>52674657
And thus sayeth the Lord: "Quantity has a Quality of its own!"

>>52674442

You forgot to think about Dorchester armour.

Yes, BF swarm Soviets are going to far, but equally all you fucking Soviet rusaboos are going to far the other.

"Ah yes, nothing can penetrate glories Motherland steel."

>>52674195
>The Abrams, Challenger and Leopard II were without doubt superior to Soviet heavy tanks. The level of superiority is the main point of debate.
The main point of superiority was in stuff like optics and FCS, neither of which the game really cares much about because the compressed scale means everything's essentially a knife fight. When it comes to the "hard stats" everyone wanks over there's not a whole lot of difference between different tanks of the same generation. In these kinds of things, this is what is usually meant by "better than"; this kind of "soft stuff" is better, and training comes into that but BF fucked that too.

Now, you can say there's going to be a skill difference between 2-year conscripts and professional volunteers-for-life, fine. That's entirely fair. I don't think anyone was expecting basic soviets to be 4+ to hit and 3+ skill. What is weird is that hardened vets and the army that did have a stronger volunteer arm is still 3+, or that the NATO force that was conscripts is 4+ and 3+ skill.

>>52676081
I quoted the M1 Abrams, not the later M1A1s that where upgraded with the the 120mm cannon and the Dorchester Armour.

The problem is that Soviet players have seen the writing on the wall and the writing appears to read "Eat Shit, Cheers."

>>52676081
>You forgot to think about Dorchester armour.
Wut? M1 Abrams has Chobhams and M1A2 has DU mesh. Dorchester's Chally 2, not in timeline.

And in any case, that's including composite; you don't get wildly different HEAT/sabot values without it. There's not a lot of difference between T-tanks and NATO tanks of similar generation.

>>52676138

The very first Abrams had Dorchester armour, or Chobham as it's called in TY.

>>52676118

I can completely agree that BF took the horde meme too far but, as you say, a tank built two decades after another is bound to have minor improvements that make it better in a one-on-one scenario.

>>52676195
>a tank built two decades after another is bound to have minor improvements that make it better in a one-on-one scenario.
At that point you're in the territory of "this tank should be better armoured/gunned", yeah, but this is the thing: chieftain, which is two decades old by TY's timeline, has a higher armour than the T-72A (or what must be assumed to be the A. It doesn't specify but has BDD), which should be more or less basic-model Abrams quality.

>>52668236
>not grinder
YOUR FEELING OF HELPLESSNESS IS YOUR BEST FRIEND, SAVAGE

>>52668781
I'm somehow not surprised.

>>52676351

That's all irrelevant, yes the Chieftain is way out as well but my original point was in response to this: >>52663339

File: 1484081892706.jpg (506KB, 1164x974px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1164x974px

/NVA/

Do we know if the Soviet update is going to give them their SP mortars and the other artillery units they're missing?

>>52671057
Whats based Jordan like?

>>52681096

Jordan is actually competent and fun to play, though being trained with 3 tank platoons can suck.

>>52671057

Great War is space marine American marines.

That's also ignoring the shitstorm that came from FoaN's v1 release where Jordanian armor had arab flavored hen and chicks in spite of british organization and training because lol arabs.

>>52671057
Actually I love to play the potato army. I was one of the potatoes, a 2 year conscripted soldier. Being conscript, I was in the army because I do not want to go jail, I didn't have any proud of being a soldier and very reluctant to be a finest soldier. I believe the Russians were not much different.
I can't understand what is the problem with the Russian potatoes.

File: TY501.jpg (167KB, 283x400px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 283x400px

Does anyone have the digital army lists? Afghansty and the German one etc?

>>52681656
Yes in the friggin' Database in the OP.

>>52671057
>I've never seen anyone actually play great war but it wouldn't be a surprise if it was space marine brits vs potato germans either.

From what I gather the Germans and Brits are both CV. The German storm troopers are FV. However they still made the US Marines CV.

>>52681795
>Germans and Brits are both CV. The German storm troopers are FV.
They can both choose between elite formations (CV) or ordinary line formations (CT). French are RV Ruropeans or FV Colonials.
>However they still made the US Marines CV.
Not Marines. "Ordinary" US infantry divisions (y'know, the guys famous for being so godawfully bad that the brits and french, screaming for manpower in the trenches, decided that they needed to be retrained to a huge degree before being deployed). Those guys get a choice of CV (or CT, where CT and CC would be more apt).

>>52681096
>Whats based Jordan like?
Alright but you have limited options.

>>52681389
What nation, if you don't mind me asking?

>>52647943

Sounds about right, though. The basic gameplay in West Germany was for NATO to flee the WARPACT conventional troops while constantly ambushing them, and letting the support elements do the real damage.

>>52671057
>potato VC.
FT, you mean. Hardly potato, and the US gets CT and FT ratings as well. The basic US rating is T, after all.

>>52681907
>they needed to be retrained to a huge degree before being deployed
Which they were. Green troops for both nations are T rated. Veterans are V rated. Who'd have thought it?

>>52682177
Yes. They were. And would hence have a T rating. V is too much. (and had they not been retrained, they could have earned themselves the first "potato, hit on 1+" rating)

>>52682164
Soviets are also FT (effectively) in TY; I'm saying the general trend of Battlefront games is to have an awesome PC faction that gets loads of good toys and cool special rules fighting a horde of nameless mooks who have one or all of the soviet drawback special rules. The consistent issue with these games is that the NPC faction is less attractive and more expensive, and so it ends up being heavily stacked towards training exercises because nobody plays the "bad guys".

>>52682082
I am Korean.
Not Best Korea, though.
To prevent my Korea being Best, I was paid 0.4 US dollors per hour.

>>52682187
Experienced retrained units, T rating? Don't be ridiculous. You have your elite units, which are V, and your trained units, that are T. The American veterans weren't that bad, particularly considering the rapid adaption over time.

>>52682263
I'm pretty sure if you where Best Korean, you wouldn't be playing Flames of War or be on the internet.

>>52682189
>General trend for representing the mass attack conscript armies as armies that launch massive attacks with conscripts.
>awesome PC faction
That's at best a subjective assessment.
>loads of cool toys
Literally matched toy for toy.
>special rules
Again, literally matched rule for rule most of the time.
>nameless mooks
You're projecting.
>nobody plays the bad guys
American meta is filled with morons, who'd have thought it?

>>52682263
Awesome, so's my girlfriend. I know her dad has hearing damage from a grenade accident in mandatory service; doesn't sound fun.

>>52682304
>Again, literally matched rule for rule most of the time.
You're right! Israelis get Few Against Many and Every Soldier Is A Leader, while Egypt gets hen and chicks and centralised control. It's the same number of rules so it's the same betterness.

>>52682450
>mostly irrelevant shit vs practical implementation of large number armies

None of those 4 rules mean much.

>>52682464
What universe are you living in where stormtroopers and mission tactics are irrelevant?

>>52682403
I served as a 81mm mortar crew, I saw few guys leave the army before their mandatory service due to knee damage caused by walking. Medical services for soldiers are free, with lowest quality. Doctors can subtitute their mandatory service to a 3 year duty medical officer. They are fresh, not good at fixing people. The worst case I have ever heard is a doctor injected alcohol instead of medium contrast, the poor soldier lost one of his arm. The hospital was the best hospital for army duty. Not much conpensation was made, nor punishment for the doctor. Not fun at all.

>>52682582
I had a friend dragged out of uni to go serve for south Korea. Wasn't pleased at all and didn't really enjoy it but came out seriously ripped and with a lot more confidence. he Israelis I have meto you served seem to have it better in the respect of care and pay but then the risks are greater (not denying the danger on Korea by any stretch, but tunnel kidnapping sounds harrowing)

File: NVA1.jpg (145KB, 793x676px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 793x676px

I have something for Phill

>>52683148
Oh, but they were trained in soviet tactics (he would state), and thus would not be as cautious as western forces, and still be hit on 3+.

Cheers

>>52683148
>small size
>the best trained
Oh i see we were totally wrong on soviets! We need to go back to the drawing board and make soviet T-72 have front 12, AT16, cross on 5+ and hit on 2+, of course there would be a generous point reduction and we will rise the platoon size to 20. This way Volksarmee will look like the best trained elite force of the Warsaw Pact.
Cheers.

>>52682295
B-but senpai, Fwames of Raw is Dear Leaders 2nd favrit gaem.

(but even he thinks V4 is shit...)

File: Preview-Card-PanzerKnacker-350px.png (353KB, 350x494px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 350x494px

So....preview of "Command Cards" is up (pic related, plus "Fog of War" cards.

I didn't think V4 could get any more retarded. but it clearly I was wrong.

File: 1491497026618.jpg (18KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x320px

>>52684814
It's going full 40K

>>52684814
Some of the cards seem like the missing units from the old North Africa book and it's good we're getting them back but I'm still annoyed they didn't get put in the new books in the first place.

I'm not keen on the new "upgrade" style cards. They seem better suited to a game like Tanks.

>>52684899
The article seems to say the upgrade cards are hidden until used as well. Between the effect and the mind games, they're feeling pretty p2w.

>>52684814
oh good, I love exaggerated nationality traits

Other cards:

BANZAI!, 1000 Times Folded Steel, Tiffin and Tea, What ho!, In Soviet Russia 28 T's You, I Was Pissing By the Window, Er You Expecting A Berm, Heil Hydra!

>>52683148
Increasing their skill rating was a good start but it should have only been the start. Who knows what he's gonna do for the poles/czechs.

>At the start of your turn roll a 4+ check, if you fail your army defects to NATO and you lose. Cheers.

>>52684982
>At the start of your turn roll a 4+ check, if you fail your army defects to NATO and you lose. *But your army at least is now hit on 4+, because Western Doctrine*. Cheers.

FIFY.

Cheers.

>>52684897
You haven't touched 40k since 2nd ed then?

>>52685072

Not that anon, but I liked 2nd Ed 40k. Sure, it was clunky, and some of the wargear was almost unplayably unbalanced, but it was fun.

File: 11742952761280.jpg (527KB, 1153x1065px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1153x1065px

>>52679090
RM70 with dozer when?

>>52685121
Yeah, but 3Rd edition 40K came out nearly 20 years ago so it seems weird describing it as going full 40K?

My first thought was DZC as a recent wargame that uses surprise cards.

>>52685304
It's more "full x-wing" than 40K desu.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5579

Fuck.

So... how about that Battlegroup ruleset? Anyone care to shed some light on it?

>>52685497
>>52684814
What the fuck.

>>52685497
>One of the things we wanted to do in these Command Cards was add content that we could not include in the book.
>we could not include in the book
I don't think that's true.

>>52685497
Objective cards are great, I like asymmetrical objectives and I like hidden objectives. It's the sort of thing that adds interesting strategic or tactical depth to the game as an optional addition?

Command Cards look pretty awful for a bunch of reasons. Feels like a cynical cash grab, needing to buy card decks to stay competitive? Especially if there's additional ones with each release. Plus the whole thing feels wrong somehow, like too board gamey or something.

>>52685725
Theoretically I like asymmetrical and secret objectives too, at least in theory, but I hate them being random, and those on the BF site don't look good, especially the one with the HQ having to go in the building - imagine bogging down with your HQ's tank.

>>52685497
Battlegroup is a fun and creative game, it's absolutely worth playing either alongside or instead of FoW. Force morale is a poker-style mini-game but better than that sounds. There are random-type events mixed into it ("your tank is out of gas!" or "surprise! mines") which I suppose you could play without but they aren't bullshit. Force construction allows a lot more leeway/creativity without being retarded or ignoring the history and determines your total force morale for the match. Off-board arty options, much better unit activation system (you get chits based on on-board officer presence which you spend to activate units), you can shoot through stupid little log cabins at the 10 tanks hiding behind and target treeline with your guns. Fuck, it' s a good game. Only nerds bitch about range tables (there's a couple? I haven't played in a few years).

Chain of Command (from Too Fat Lardies) is also a great reinforced platoon-level game designed for 28mm (way better than Dolt Action) but it plays perfectly at 15mm. It has a cool recon pre-game to establish pickets which determine deployment. Also has a lot of campaign supplement books. I Ain't Been Shot Yet Mum! is their (Lardies) 15mm infantry company system, haven't played it yet.

I haven't played FoW v4 yet but that card article is condescending in its explanation of the system. They're clearly pandering hard to normies to get paid. Their prerogative, they're running a business, but it sounds like shit. Team Yankee looks kind of crap and these cards make v4 look worse.

Play Battlegroup and Chain of Command you fucking niggers. I hate Bolt Action.

>>52687003

Counterpoint: I played Battlegroup, but for me it doesn't replace Flames. To me, it's an intermediate scale between Flames and Bolt Action. To wit:

-Units are activated individually for tanks, and in fireteams for infantry. Each officer gives you d6 activation points, so enjoy only being able to move a platoon of tanks at a time.
-Tracking ammo (HE and AP). Bookkeeping is great for computer games, but tedious for tabletop.
-It also felt table-heavy. I've recently picked Battlefleet Gothic back up, and there's a comparable level of lookups.
-To its favour, the fire mechanics (suppression/aimed) and 'overwatch' (reserved move/fire actions) played well.
-Recce units gave a strategic benefit but were limited once tactical engagement had begun, which I guess is appropriate.

>>52685497
>The old Tiger Ace abilities live on in the Command cards! Rules like the Tiger Ace rules have shifted into Command cards

This pretty much ruined my long weekend, it is funny how they killed Tiger aces and yet W40k Shermans park rules are still in the fucking game. Can we drop the game or make a custom ruleset based on TY and Battlegroup with V3 stats?

>>52685497
FUCK PORTEES ARE A FUCKING UPGRADE CARD???

>>52687446
i am pretty sure they are going to make all the missing options, upgrade cards

File: KAREN.png (137KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 600x375px

couldmn't you just choose not to have wild cards in your game
But really how bad could they be?

>>52687253
-Infantry are activated by squad. You want more activation chits, take more officers. That's a factor in list construction. Senior officers let you re-roll a bad roll if it's crucial for that turn. Reserve orders let you sandbag for a better roll later.
-Tracking ammo is nerdy. It can be safely ignored without harming the game.
-All the tables (I looked, there's exactly one you have to reference multiple times during play (armor penetration), the rest are weapon ranges and shit you'd commit to memory quickly) are on a single quick reference sheet. Hardly excessive.
-Reserve move in particular makes manoeuvre quite interesting.
-Recce (units with scout) mostly contribute to the pre-game recce thing, yeah (going first can be important/preferable), but they're usually mortar/artillery/air spotters as well, and can be officers. Scout armoured cars/light tanks (Soviets can take a scout T-34 in Fall of the Reich) aren't useless in a fight considering this game usually has plenty of soft vehicle targets on table, and they counter enemy scouts.

Battlegroup didn't replace FoW for me either, I like(d) v3 a lot and they're different enough to enjoy separately each on their own merits, but v4 is looking straight up worse. I don't play Bolt Action anymore, despite the guys all being into it, because I don't like it. I just play less. I'll settle for fewer sessions of games I think are good than play shit (Bolt Action is shit) for the sake of playing something.

>>52687003
>>52687253
>>52687349
>>52687761

I've played FOW since the play-test rules (so, about 2001), through V1, V2, V3: personally, V4 just does nothing for me.

I love Battlegroup: it's not perfect, but the games are great. But I know it's not for everyone, and that's fine too. Prefer FOW V3 or V4? fine...we all just want to play good games, and as individuals we find what works best for us. It does help to try other games: it broadens your perspective and you begin to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each different rule set.

File: alessio cavotore blog.jpg (47KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x960px

>>52687761
>Bolt Action is shit

>>52687848
I mostly played Warhammer Fantasy in 5th edition in the 90s, but I played some 6th (I think when Alessio showed up there) when it came out, and I followed the game's evolution for longer than that. He wrote a great book for Vampire Counts in 6th edition, very cool and characterful. He and Priestly and the rest have succumbed to entropy (and/or been clobbered by capitalism), or maybe they were always inept and just got lucky, but the degradation is apparent to me.

Warwick Davis (wrote Battlegroup) worked for GW in the 90s, too. He seemingly maintained his passion for the hobby; it's apparent in that game's rules (same with the Lardies and their stuff).

FoW v4 is such a bummer.

>>52688003
*Warwick Kinrade, not Davis. Who is Davis?

>>52688034
*Shit, Warwick Davis is Willow. Great movie. Okay, done samefagging.

File: Warwick-Davis-Willow.jpg (63KB, 431x266px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 431x266px

>>52688034
that dawrf from willow

>>52687003
>>52687253

Thank you both. I was hoping Battlegroup would be a suitable replacement for FoW, but keeping track of ammo is not something I'm eager for. Though that pre-game recon sounds VERY appealing.

>>52688053
>>52688057

And R2D2. And, like, half the other dwarfs in Hollywood, ever.

>>52688136

Dude, no. R2 was Kenny Baker.

Although, to be fair, Warwick Davis is *the* go-to dwarf guy, if you don't want actual Tyrion Lannister.

>>52688034
>>52688053
Also the main Ewok that Princess Leia interacts with in Return of the Jedi.

>>52688136
R2-D2 was Kenny Baker.

>>52688093
Ammo works like this: any vehicle with a cannon/howitzer has finite ammo (a depleted combat load, basically) for a match. Some of these are hilariously low for game balance reasons (IS-2 has 3 rounds, I think). You're supposed to, before a match, divide this ammo into AP and HE. The one thing I'd recommend people not do when playing is this. Just count ammo and use the appropriate round. Now, even counting ammo sounds dumb, but it is a gameplay abstraction for balance reasons, and you can take resupply vehicles to give you more (this is very important for things like SPG batteries sitting in the corner shelling shit, they'd be kind of ridiculous if they weren't ammo-constricted and didn't require supply vehicles (which you have to activate to use)).

Only vehicles have ammo (field guns don't), and only cannons (mgs/autocannons are safe).

I never experimented with ignoring ammo completely. Take a Sturmtiger or something if you do.

so is there anyone who is really enjoying V4?

>>52688338
I'm enjoying it, but there's not a whole lot to say positive about it other than "This is fun and I like how they've streamlined XYZ or changed ABC mechanics" and it's far easy to spend time complaining, even as someone who likes it.

I'm specifically talking about EW/LW though, I'm rather unsure about the new MW.

>>52688253
> The one thing I'd recommend people not do when playing is this. Just count ammo and use the appropriate round.

Yep, agree.

> I never experimented with ignoring ammo completely.

I've played quite a bit that way: it messes with the point cost (vehicles with low ammo count are cheaper, e.g. StuG G vs StuG IV). Not counting ammo does not break the game, but it dose mess with a few rules.

However, counting ammo encourages players to play more realistically, e.g. you have a slim shot at an opposing vehicle where you can see maybe 20% of it and your odds of a kill are extremely low: in real life you'd probably not take the shot (unless you were desperate), giving away your position, expending finite rounds, etc. Counting ammo encourages you to play more realistically, taking the shots where the odds of hitting are reasonable rather than blazing away just because you could *maybe* hit something.

At first, local guys were against counting ammo, but after playing for a bit you see that it works pretty well and really isn't much "book keeping". Personal choice.

>>52688338
In these threads, I know Virus and Birdy do. On my end, my local group is at best mixed on it. We're making our own v3.5

>>52688253
>>52688433
OK, that sounds fair, but THREE rounds of fire for the IS-2?

Meanwhile, what point levels are the games played at usually and what's the cost of a King Tiger? Alternatively, is there a repo with the rules?

>>52688338
I'm looking forward to trying it out.

I have been unable to get my hands on any of the Mid-War stuff because my FLGS owner hesitated on ordering anything.

And the main guy I used to play LW with has a wife and two kids, so scheduling with him is difficult.

That being said, I have been reading the rule book and am excited to try it.

As a fan of Team Yankee, all the "negative" comparisons to that are actually kinda selling points for me.

*shrug*

>>52688338
I'm enjoying it but we have a good group. I'm not sure I'd recommend playing this game or playing in this club.

>>52688530
This link is in /boltactiongener...../hwg/:
https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ
Dunno how complete it is, I still don't think there are great scans of this game on the web.

3 ammo sounds goofy, but it's important gameplay-wise. As the other anon said, it makes sense after playing a few. An IS-2 might not even shoot it's cannon 3 times in a match if it never gets decent shots lined up. Again, it's about consequence and resource management.

KT is 121 points and has 8 ammo. I don't even fucking remember the points sizes of the games we were playing. I need to get my group off Bolt Action.

A feel for you Soviet players who bothered buying shitloads of Zis-5s because they were your only motor strelkovy transport option. Have a card instead.

>>52688611
>As a fan of Team Yankee
I'm a big fan of Team Yankee, all the stuff I don't like about Team Yankee has been stuff that's slipped in after the initial release.

Which is one of the reasons V4 drives me barmy because loads of changes from TY feel so unnecessary; why do tanks all have weird movement values, now? Why do we have artillery AT caps? Why're aircraft immortal? TY worked fine as it was.

>>52688710

Honestly if I'd been in charge of V4 I'd have just made motor infantry have a higher dash value to start with. Putting it on a card is either bad planning or scalping.

>>52688530
Ammo count in the game is (roughly) real life count /10, rounded up or down...the IS-2 carried, what, 21 main-gun rounds? Not many.

It's not literally "three shots", but "three burst of fire". FOW does this another way: it makes the IS-2 *RoF1* to represent low ammo loads and slow firing. Think of the IS-2 in FOW...how many RoF 1 main gun hit do you actually get? I'd much prefer to have IS-2s in BG than in FOW: get hits, and the gun kills like few others.

Restricting ammo this way make the large, heavy calibre weapons need re-supply more often, and prevents them from lobbing shells as much as they'd like, auto-killing anything with less-than-really-heavy armour or vaporizing infantry squads (150mm-ish rounds...). You can resupply multiple time in a game anyway, it just means you lose a bit of front-line shooting time. This encourages you to also consider medium tanks, since Shermans, Panzer IVs and T-34s have 9-10 ammo each and are thus more tactically flexible.

>https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ

Link has most of what you'd need to get playing. There are gaps in the army list (e.g. Bagration) but BG is not "list-centric" like FOW. A Panzer Division list from Overlord for Normandy will work just fine as a Panzer Division in the east for 1944, etc. as just as in real life they'd be 95% the same.

Average game is 500-600 Pts (called "platoon level" in BG rules, since you command one or more platoons but which equates to FOW's Company Level).

Again, it's not for everyone, but playing a few games can't hurt if you're interested.

>>52688939
>Again, it's not for everyone, but playing a few games can't hurt if you're interested.

Yeah i did the same and i really liked it, and the good thing is that i have a seen a ton of people using their FoW forces for battlegroup testing.

15mm is far better option for battlegroup than 1/72 imo, at least for big zise games.

>>52689193
>inb4 some 6mm fiend
Everything that plays at a larger scale plays as well or better at 15mm. FoW and these other games have made me dislike 28mm in particular.

>>52689193
Agreed. I do like 1/72/20mm as a scale, but after so many years of 15mm...terrain man, terrain. I'm just not re-building it from scratch.

Also, the weapon ranges in BG are larger than FOW, which looks really good in 15mm.

File: 5_2.jpg (41KB, 770x209px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 770x209px

>>52689251
I can see the merits of 6mm gameplay-wise, the small coherency bubbles and "hordes" of Warsaw Pact tanks certainly make it a tempting prospect to ease gamey "parking lot" issues.

But I think hobby-wise, 15mm is the smallest you can go to keep the cool looking models and being able to paint camouflage patterns, apply decals, etc.

>>52689251
Loving 15mm stuff made me understand why people like 28mm, since it ispretty much the "big one"/Heroic style from the small scales. I use them for every rule set i try like Bolt Action, FoW, Battlegroup, DH, Operation WW2, etc.

>inb4 some 6mm fiend

Honestly, at least for me, less than 10mm feels pretty pointless, micro armor is good and all but infantry, are pretty much glorified tokens.

>>52689412
6mm can have an appeal "en mass"; you get a good sense of scale. But you probably need more than like six NATO tanks to work that.

>>52688338
Having great fun in both MW and LW.

The game flows more quickly, movement orders give everyone more options and there's been far less sitting in place and waiting while you try to slowly pummel your enemy with arty etc.

Working on British and German forces for the desert that will also allow me to try and drag some players into EW battles as well.

>>52688768
>loads of changes from TY feel so unnecessary;
>why do tanks all have weird movement values, now?
Erm, which ones?
There's about as much variation in V4 tank movement as in TY tank movement. Same number of movement stats too.
>Why do we have artillery AT caps?
Cause heavy arty was the go-to answer for all a player's problems, which they addressed by buffing arty vs infantry/guns and nerfing it vs tanks.
Resulted in some wonky points values in EW/LW, but severely nerfs the sitzkrieg lists.
>Why're aircraft immortal?
Erm, they're not?

6mm FoW looks better than 15mm, but it is quite an investment getting terrain for it.

I am planning to do TY in 6mm, but keep my FoW in 15mm for now. I do other stuff in 15mm too, so can use universal terrain.

>>52689494
>which they addressed by buffing arty vs infantry/guns and nerfing it vs tanks.
Excessively so in each direction.
>Erm, they're not?
I think he's reffing to how the combination of base 5+ to hit, no increased range for AA, a flat 3+ save, and then firepower checks in the 4-6 range makes them stupidly durable. Making it some given planes (with magically rearming weapons) instead of the nebulous group of air cover meant they had to do some really dumb things with aircraft.

>>52689494
>There's about as much variation in V4 tank movement as in TY tank movement. Same number of movement stats too.

There definitively is not. In TY all MBTs are 10 or 14" movement. In V4 it's 8, 10, 12, or 14, and only because they haven't had a chance to stick in infantry tanks which're probably getting 6".

>Cause heavy arty was the go-to answer for all a player's problems, which they addressed by buffing arty vs infantry/guns and nerfing it vs tanks.

TY has heavy artillery with AT 4 and doesn't have this issue.

>Resulted in some wonky points values in EW/LW, but severely nerfs the sitzkrieg lists.

The way it's played out, at least here, everyone's doing even worse trench warfare impressions than before with how much worse infantry can turtle with unremoveable GTG and how much tougher 3+ gun saves have made everything.

>Erm, they're not?
5+ to hit and 3+ save ignoring concealment's real fucking hard to get rid of.

>>52689627
>I think he's reffing to how the combination of base 5+ to hit, no increased range for AA, a flat 3+ save, and then firepower checks in the 4-6 range makes them stupidly durable. Making it some given planes (with magically rearming weapons) instead of the nebulous group of air cover meant they had to do some really dumb things with aircraft.
Bingo.

In TY you bring in planes when things look clear, or bring A-10s/Frogfoots and accept you're going to lose one or two if you really urgently need something dead right now. In V4 you just stuka everything repeatedly because lol why not nothing can stop you.

>>52689632
>There definitively is not. In TY all MBTs are 10 or 14" movement. In V4 it's 8, 10, 12, or 14, and only because they haven't had a chance to stick in infantry tanks which're probably getting 6".
Ah, I was including other stuff classified as Tank teams as well.
And it fits, since there was a much greater variety in performance in WW2 compared to the MBTs present in TY.
In fact, with less variety people would have been up in arms about a lack of distinction between some tanks.

>TY has heavy artillery with AT 4 and doesn't have this issue.
The specific cap at 3 is probably a stopgap, since the stuka in MW does have AT 4 bombs.

>The way it's played out, at least here, everyone's doing even worse trench warfare impressions than before with how much worse infantry can turtle with unremoveable GTG and how much tougher 3+ gun saves have made everything.
For us, people are taking more mobile assets since static infantry/AT positions just get pummeled into the dirt by arty.

>Aircraft toughness
Kinda agreed on that one.
They are damn tough now, though with dedicated AA you still have decent odds of downing them.
Then again, even stuff like .50 cals can still get lucky, as my Sturmoviks found out last LW game I played.

Do we have any idea when the rest of the warsaw pact is coming to TY?

File: 5310161679_034b3287c4_b.jpg (218KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1024x768px

>>52691045
No idea at all, probably not this year.

>>52691045
>>52691171
Red Thunder's this year, rest of the Warsaw Pact is no clue.

>>52691244
If TY keeps going as it has though you'll be able to use the shit gear in Red Thunder to represent WP.

So... has anyone actually managed to activate the new QoQ, yet? Getting infantry in in v4 seems to be a nightmare now, at least against panzergrens.

File: 1490903003440.png (13KB, 461x147px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 461x147px

>>52692297
Haven't seen it happen yet, despite the local soviet trying. Having to be within 8" of the commander, more than 2" from the enemy, and less than 4" from the enemy in order to get it... It's just not going to happen.

On the math side, to fit 12 teams in you need to have a 11" wide front to assault on, assuming you're going base to base with all your minis since infantry teams are 2" wide but you can measure to any point. It's rare to see a properly set up board with more than a few places you could do such an assault, and if the enemy deploys with even a modicum of sense you're just not going to get it.

Not that BF cares.

How are you guys getting assaults off, then? I've been getting then, but even panzergren platoons alone are pretty harsh right now given that everyone can shoot over stationary teams regardless of target (so the usual "come from an odd little angle" trick doesn't work anymore) and halftracks stick around so there's another 12 unpinnable shots loitering around. I've had a few go in but that's definitely dice gods favouring me; I feel like the odds are pretty heavily stacked against.

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

169KB, 382x339px

Listening to Panzerfunk episode 18:
"I think V4 is going to be real kind to British trying to do night assault."
You could not have been more wrong, Virus.

I have a Kursk scenario in a week and change, the 23rd. 4v4 at 1500 points per person, possibly 2000 as one german player is likely to drop out. Is it a dick move/gamey to bring 8 or so Panthers? They'd be CT but they're still Panthers. Using the V4 rules.

>>52692895
That's a lot of Panthers. You guys just going for a super-generic kursk game, or are you doing a specific front and battle? The Panthers only got used on the southern front, which is why I ask.

>>52692797
At the time I'd looked at the ruleset for about five seconds in the between appointments.

Even then, I'm still pretty confident in British Night Attacks being better than they used to be. Your standard infantry speed is up, and your mighty gun batteries can start pre-ranged in.

>>52693138
It'd be more generic than a specific front, as it wasn't declared. Tone it down some? I know that there will be 30+ T-34s.

>>52693152
>Even then, I'm still pretty confident in British Night Attacks being better than they used to be. Your standard infantry speed is up, and your mighty gun batteries can start pre-ranged in.
You no longer get a spearhead move, so your distance is the same for the average 3 turns night lasts. Unlike yourself, the enemy can move all their units around just fine, while your support platoons and any other formations are stuck sitting in your deployment zone like a bunch of drooling retards. Oh, and you have to already be attacking to use it, and you can only use it in three of the 10 missions. So from being a tactical option to consider (depending on mission and the enemy force) in 75% of missions, it's something that might be maybe useful the 15% of the time you can even use it. It's much worse.

>>52693308
It'll probably work, but I'd take some Panzer IIIs or IVs to protect your flanks (or make sure an ally is doing so). You'll die if you get flanked, and with that many Russians there's good odds they can ignore a turn of casualties to murder the Panthers.

>>52693152
>At the time I'd looked at the ruleset for about five seconds in the between appointments.
Forgot to mention this in >>52693328, but yeah, I get that. I just find it amusing and depressing how wrong that turned out to be. Night attack's been crippled, and I lost a lot of options with it.

File: ss+(2017-04-13+at+10.41.32).png (47KB, 821x897px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 821x897px

>>52693356
This would be what I'd bring at 2000 points.

File: fuck this shit.jpg (52KB, 960x518px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x518px

>>52687003
>Chain of Command (from Too Fat Lardies) is also a great reinforced platoon-level game

AHEM!!

CoC (pronounced cock) is written like shit. it's so fuckign random you can literally have a game where the opponent is taking turns 80% of the time, due to command dice shenanigans. and do not even start me on their platoon selection process. the supports points are not the best to calculate, and you end up having nations who are fuck-awesome because they organized their platoons on a higher level than another nation, with this barely compensated for in support points calculation

i'd rather play Bolt Action (v2. v1 was shit)

Why no Bastion ATGM for T-55

Feels bad man.

>>52688338
i have yet to actually play it. i got a job change, a move, and have been trying to actually clean up my life.

i know there is v4 optimism, but i am withholding judgement.

i also have a really awesome idea in case v4 does not end up passing my roster

>>52692797
does this lock down most brit moves?

>>52693449
Personally I'd take L or Ms over the Ns, but that might just be my love of RoF 3. As long as you're standing still you kill just as many tanks on average, but you bail more. Shurzen isn't so important when the enemy only has AT rifles and no fausts/zooks/PIATs.

>>52693824
Would it be worth it to opt for CV panthers, or will CT be alright? I forget if Hen and Chicks is still in V4, which would help.

>>52693680
We found it would make the T-55AM2 worth more than 1 point so we decided to exclude it to keep the "quantity has a quality of its own" flavor intact. Cheers.

>>52693680

Yeah seriously what the fuck happened to the soviets barrel fired ATGMs?

>>52693857
It is, though honestly now that just means they'll dash on the turns they're not planning on shooting. And T-34s are a lot faster now that Fast Tank isn't garbage. As for trained vs vet, as long as you keep him in your front arc he can't hurt you outside of artillery. Trained makes you cheaper and so makes it easier to cover your flanks with other platoons, but Vet makes you get hurt less if he does get into your flanks. Can't really speculate on the right balance, though if this giant game is happening on a normal 4x6 table I doubt there will be much flanking going on.

>>52693904
If they are not in Red Thunder i will be deeply disturbed....

>>52693824
The N's are to Mistaken Target off the G (late)'s that can be expected to kill things. Extra point of armor over the earlier variants with similar AT to the L/Ms and lower firepower needed. And 5pts less.

File: 20170414_122832-picsay.jpg (1MB, 3275x1867px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3275x1867px

Finished Russian 82mm mortars.
I don't know why the blister contains 9 mortars, anyway I built it.

>>52693950

So we even know what's coming with red thunder?

It seems like the USA is getting thier reservist unites and I'm hoping the soviets get thier elite ones with red thunder.

BDMs, T-80, t-64, heavy mortars, barrel fire atgm's, VDV.

>>52694202
MW Strelkovy can get them in companies of 6 or 9, and the models are the same. So that's probably why it's 9 to a blister.

File: 4-13.png (1MB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x608px

>>52644483
April 13:
Forgot to update for two days, but here we are. The first airlanding platoon (right) is done except for the khaki on the webbing. The second is laid out and ready for the smock painting to start. Everything's progressing pretty well.

I also decided to see how long it takes me to get a platoon done. It takes about 5-6 hours of painting for me to finish a platoon of ~30 from the basics, and I have about 4 platoon-sized groups left (command teams, 2nd and 3rd platoons, and the HMG/Mortar crews). Doubling the time to account for random crap then dividing it over the remaining 17 days in April, that should be a bit under three hours of painting a day (only 1.5 hours a day if I don't dawdle) to finish on time. This is looking pretty doable.

To all Gothenburg Anons:

Gothcon this weekend, starting today. Yggdrasil has a room, where you can try out V4 (as well as other fun stuff).

>>52693666
Bolt Action is a lazy mess written by creatively bankrupt careersmen as a commercial for a model range. V2 didn't change that.

>>52697435
harsh but true

>>52693666
I won't disagree it's written like shit, because it's got the usual "it's a game to play with friends and have fun so just don't exploit stuff!" mentality a lot of brit games have. But if you've had a game where your opponent's gotten 80% of the turns you've been real goddamn unlucky and might as well complain BF wrote a game where machineguns can't hit anything because you rolled too many 1s.

File: alessiocry.jpg (150KB, 746x942px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 746x942px

>>52697435
>>52697546

Delete this

>>52699068
lol that portrait is pure art

Is it time for the commu ity to reclaim FoW and fix the rules itself? It seems like bF released a shitty rulebook that was not proofread and has not fixed many of its glarinf issues.

Do we move away from BF as a group and take ownership of managing the rules?

>>52699269
Uh. No. V4 is pretty all right, just needs some more time so that we can judge it properly with the abuse of many many games. I personally really like what I've played of V4, and I have played since V2.

>>52685014
I'm fucking dying

thanks anon

>>52699269
Depends. A decent portion of the community, like myself, is working (in various completely independent groups) to make a V3.5 with the good things from V4, without some of the less intelligent decisions from BF. For example: a QoQ replacement that actually works.

Then there's people like >>52699347 that are liking V4. Those people are badong.

>>52699464
Well fuck you too man. I don't agree with everything battlefront does, but hey, if you want to throw out yet another community designed ruleset that goes on the massive pile of such things. I ain't going to stop you. My advice is to put parts of it up on 1d4chan so it's at least not just some vague anomalous Google Documents forever.

>>52699523
I was hoping the Kung Pow reference would make it clear my tongue was firmly planted in cheek with that comment. But yeah, after we get some more playtesting with it I'll throw it up for general critique.

>>52699464
Id love to participate. Do you guys use wwps to communicate?

V4 is unplayable without serious fudging. the rules contradict themselves on numerous occasions and bf doesnt seem to care. I would be morbidly embarrassed if I were them, and endeavor to correct ambiguities and errors.

BFs MW with command cards looks like a shitty stopgap because the books they put out were shit. I dont want to play a wwii game with Trap Cards.

>>52699269
V4 really needs better lists, which people have made since forever. So, that's the area to look at.

>>52699269
>>52699347

Most of the V4 changes seem fine to me. What worries me is the style they're trending towards as exemplified with Mid War.

I like buying a nice book with all the options in it. I don't want to buy umpteen booklets and cards and whatnot so that I can have a bit of choice.

So far that means V3.5 looks breddy gud 2 me.

Rules are in essence just the means to an end. The end differs from person to person, most people want a balanced game. Some people want a balanced game no matter the cost.

All this talk about lists, unless you play a tournament or a pickup game where you have no communication opportunities with your opponent they really don't have to be foolproof.

Instead of ''lets play a 1650pt late-war game on friday'' go for ''lets play a late-war game on friday where my panzer pionier company assault your stelkovy, what do you think would be a cool match up?''

>>52699269
I may be in the minority here, but I actually kinda like what BF hasdone here.

Version 3 was a great game, if a bit over complicated. I started playing it from day one with the book replacement program that Battlefront ran for the transition from Version 2 to Version 3.

It played really well. It was a solid rule set and a significant improvement over Version 2.

But it was complicated. It all made sense once you knew what was going on, but to get to that point you had a bit of a steep learning curve.

That was always my biggest problem with Version 3, it was difficult to teach to new players because it was so dense and complicated.

4th Edition is more in the mold of Team Yankee. Tactically complex without being a complicated rule set to learn.

Team Yankee at least is fun, fast playing, easy to learn, and easy to teach to other people.

And that's what I think Flames of War needed. A simple, but tactically complex rule set that is easy to learn and easy to teach.

Hate on it if you want. It's not a perfect rule set.

And I'm sure there are exploits that can and will be found.

But overall, I think 4th Edition is a good game.

I thought the skill/motivation system was really easy. I find it a little weird that they kinda dropped this system and went with different values in some situations.

>>52699817
It's really no different than what it used to be.

This unit is Confident Trained, except for situation X when they count as being Fearless, or Veteran, or get a re-roll etc.

>>52699817
Look at it this way: Hero units and the like (as well as Rangers) already existed, doing basically exactly that.

Can someone do me a favor and set up the new thread?

I'm posting from my phone at the moment.

>>52610380
What would be good stand-in units for 1980s North Korea for TY?

I would probably play them as a mechanized soviet or volkspamee force im more interested in making slightly different looking models though DESU

v4 is good. Most people like the changes. Move orders are kinda gay, but the simplification of somr aspexts and nerfing arty vs tanks was a very good thing.

What people dont like are piecemeal books, unplaytested or proofread books, ambiguous rules, squatted lists, buying carss like X Wing or Tanks, and a change to the core feel.

Unit cards are so dumb. It is vastly more convenient to usr a printout from forces.

>>52699772
People keep saying "3e was so complicated", but, honestly, what was so hard to follow about it that doesn't exist in v4? Yeah, it explained it more lengthily, but on the other hand, it didn't leave loads of holes for ridiculous "patched in the FAQ" nonsense BF is now relying on.

>>52700956
The assault phase was the only one I consistently saw people get confused with. They fixed that by making assaults irrelevant.

>>52700956
It was a 350+ page rule book full of stuff that only ever applied once ina blue moon, but that you could never actually find when the situation popped up and you actually needed to work your way through it.

Hit allocation was pages worth of computer programming style "if-then-else" statements.

Assaults were poorly explained and difficult to carry out correctly.

Artillery was often something I or my opponent had to double check on occasion.

We'd constantly forget about having to do specific checks at specific times.

We'd forget tons of stuff that we would later realize would have drastically changed the outcome of the game.

It was complicated. An improvement over what came before (I don't even want to think about V2 assaults), but still complicated.

And complicated is bad.

Complex is good. We all want complex and tactically deep game play.

But complicated rules that slow down the game and confuse the players, that's bad. Even for someone like myself who thought he had a halfway decent understanding of the old rules.