Flames of War General - Medium Mortar Edition

>>52806546
>>52806328
>What did you find wrong wih the King Turret? I just finished putting together 6 of these and the only problem I have is the lamely undetailed tracks.

The fit was so tight that I snapped one off. Gonna file the others down some more or something.

>>52806598
Damn. That's not good.

>>52806598
Oooor you could just try being a little bit more gentle?

Better a tight fit than loose crap like the Panzer 38 (t) where just turning the tank on its side makes the turret fall out.

File: 4-19.png (2MB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x608px

Due to a variety of real life things, I haven't kept on top of my paratrooper painting. Current group is the top right, who will be getting their khaki tonight but are otherwise done. Then I've just got a batch of 28 command/observer figures, and 36 mortar and HMG crews to do before I'm done. Given it takes ~6 hours to finish a platoon of 28, I'm pretty sure I can finish before the end of April as planned.

>>52807832
I can't load this picture, or three quarters of the images on 4chan actually. What do?

>>52808034
Hm, 4chan's doing the same here. Seems like the image servers are fucked. Hopefully they'll fix that soon.

In list format:
>finished
8 17pdr crew
16 6pdr crew
4 HQ PIAT crew
28 Airlanding Platoon members (4 SMG, 3 Bren, 1 Bren Loader, PIAT, PIAT loader, Light Mortar, Light Mortar loader, 1 officer, 15 riflemen)

>Need Khaki on combat webbing
27 Airlanding Platoon members (3 SMG, 3 Bren, 2 Bren Loader, PIAT, PIAT loader, Light Mortar, Light Mortar loader, 1 officer, 14 riflemen)


>Still in the pipe
3 Officer figures
10 Observer figures
13 NCO figures
3 Staff/command riflemen
8 HMG crewmen
12 Light Mortar crewmen
16 Heavy Mortar crewmen

Guys pop quiz, how does LOS into buildings work in TY/V4?

>>52808748
Looking at the rulebook, buildings are tall terrain, so stuff inside them can be seen if it's in 2" of the edges, but they specifically can't be seen through, so you can't shoot through them even if within 6" of the other side.

But I'm assuming this is based on a Phil comment so I'm going to guess that's wrong and there's meant to be completely unstated "you're not allowed to shoot through walls" rule.

>>52808748
Related question, does V4/TY say how to handle moving up/down levels in a building?

>>52808830
You can shoot through walls with a big enough gun. Which is why walls are bulletproof cover.

>>52808866
Yes but have you considered pre planned 80mm mortar barrages against bunkers?

>>52808858
I assume it's just linear movement but up. So you'd just go up 8".

>>52808890
>Yes but have you considered pre planned 80mm mortar barrages against bunkers?
Is this our next meme, following Portable Holes and Cheers?

>>52809022
Unlike Portable Holes, pre planned 80mm mortar barrages against bunkers are entirely intentional.

File: Hmm....png (503KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 800x600px

This is pretty great:

> The rules state that any team hit stops in the middle of the minefield, so unless the enemy are also in the middle of the minefield, they aren't going to get into the fight.

V4 really is amazing.

File: 20170420_122318-picsay.jpg (610KB, 2226x1019px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 2226x1019px

Finished Zis-2 platoon.
I think it is alright to place guns on medium bases like 6pdr, but their barrel is enormous and looks unbalanced to me.

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

2MB, 480x360px

>>52809184
i don't see a problem with this.

>>52809540
Check the quote against the rule again. Tank teams that fail saves stop, stuff that's hit and survives doesn't. Phil's wrong about his own game.

>>52809246
Yeah, if the gun has 4 or less crew you can use a medium base. The Zis and the PaK come on large bases because they're physically large, but you can still legally swap to medium bases.

>>52809597
Whats wrong with it? Even with quote I dont see what is problem.

>>52809885
Phil's said any team hit by mines stops in the middle of the minefield. Teams hit by mines don't stop; tanks that fail saves stop (infantry don't, because they're dead).

>>52809939
Yes, Phil and Wayne was having different point of view for list building with formation support, it seems Phil didnt wrote whole rule by himself.

File: cia.jpg (5KB, 189x267px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 189x267px

>>52809939
>no no no infantry teams become bailed out because v4 cheers phil

ok chaps V4 might have a few balls up but some of you seem to looking for fuck ups wherever.

File: with style reason and firepower.jpg (75KB, 817x434px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 817x434px

ok, fuckers, it's question time....

http://www.strawpoll.me/12791211

>>52810173
You don't think "infantry teams stop when hit by mines" is meaningfully different from "survivors complete their movement"? Really?

>>52810317
>http://www.strawpoll.me/12791211

ok Phil. stop fucking w' m' poll!

>>52812291
desu senpai u pst a sht q & u gt a sht ans

Never include memes if you want serious answers.

>>52812291
Lawful Cheers

>>52812291
You honestly expected anything better from FoWtg?

You seem to forget we're on 4chan after all, and still have some trollish tendencies.

Cheers

>>52809939
i also don't see what you are on about

>>52814242
I think his point is "Phil's idea of what the rules are is notably different from what the rules actually are, indicating that Phil has no idea what he's talking about and/or that BF didn't proofread for shit"

>tfw you're gonna have to sell 2/3rds of your armies soon to make rent

well shit

I"ve been playing americans and i'm depressed.

bmp spam everywhere in my meta. so much AA nothing can survive more than 1 or 2 strafing runs, and enemy Air is shredding me.

only competetive lists i've seen that work vs hordes of bmp is infantry spam with ITV spam.

When are they going to fix this piece of shit team yahkee game for americans? american infantry are 99% worthless,

i'm thinking of buying a bunch of m2 bradleys (anyone know of where i can get some right scale and will be cheap?) and hope that they make it into the book and the lists won't suck then.

>>52813941
We're still better than the (semi-)official facebook page at this point. At least the vast majority of /fowg/ contributors aren't illiterate fuckwits who freak about any little change. Or fail to realise that this doesn't apply to anything but what it says.

>>52815525
Yes, Stars and Stripes is due out this year, probably after Red Thunder, and we're getting the first volley of details probably about Red Thunder at Salute. So you'll probably get a better AA unit and M1A1 Abrams.

>>52808890
>>52809022
>>52809073

I'm late for the party, so can anyone please explan me about this medium mortar vs bunker thing?

>inb4 quick rundown

>>52816679
Bunkers aren't immune to Artillery bombardments no more.

>>52816679
Artillery in V4 start the game with a ranged-in marker on the table which is placed after bunkers but before other troops. Repeat bombardments are particularly dangerous now since every artillery unit gets [Mike Target]. Also, FP ratings have been increased, especially with FP6+ becoming 4+.

V4 artillery is one of the most effective ways to kill bunkers (which is a little ridiculous in and of itself, especially if bunkers are deployed in defilade) and medium mortars are generally the most points efficient artillery.

Meanwhile, 80mm mortars IRL struggle to have any lethality outside of the top floors of houses.

>>52814929
It's this yeah.

>>52816679
Bunkers are gun teams. Artillery that repeats fire re-rolls saves on gun (and infantry) teams. Mortar firepower got a massive firepower buff and no points increase.

File: 1152.jpg (366KB, 1280x868px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1280x868px

/NVA/

>>52810317
People who vote in polls without a vested interest are truly the greatest heros.

>>52806598
>The fit was so tight that I snapped one off. Gonna file the others down some more or something.

>Königstiger breaks down during common use

These are the most realistic models I've ever heard of

>>52817513
Nah, that'd be the BF models glued with shitty super glue, so one or both track units falls out mid-game.

So here's another v4 question: what's the purpose of the 2iC in v4? Page 8 says we pick "the" Commander (as in singular) and all rules I've checked so far only refer to "the Commander". Then there's a little box that says the other guy just becomes a normal Team - does it count as a separate platoon at least? Can it attach itself to other units or is that gone as well?

>>52817898
The stuff in your HQ now forms a separate HQ unit, including the formation commander.

It functions like any other unit, with the following exceptions:
>Can mistaken target to other nearby units.
>Never takes unit Last Stand tests.
>Any team in the unit can spot for arty.

So yeah, nothing special about the 2IC any more.
However, this change does make bigger HQ units (like British 4-tank HQ troops) worth taking.

>>52817898
There is no 2iC, he's just a normal team in the HQ unit.

>>52817898
The 2IC functions similarly to the old 2IC, in that if your CO is killed, your 2IC takes over for morale purposes. Just now he's always got to be nearby the CO (but by extension if your CO is killed, the 2IC inherits his motivational abilities now, so it's a mixed bag).

>>52818434
Mind pointing to me where in the v4 rules it says that a) he takes over the abilities b) has to be nearby?

>>52816513
>a better AA unit and M1A1 Abrams.

so basically nothing of value? bleh .. time to dump my americans then.

armor is overcosted and overrated. why buy a 10 point tank when you can buy 5 2 point tanks that can kill the same target.

americans don't need more high pointed tanks they need cheaper units that can actually do the same work their overpointed crap does.

This is why bmp spam will always beat americans and the only way an american force will win is if they dice the fuck out of the russian bmp spam player.

1 more AA won't cut it either. every force out there has 3 options for AA .. americans only have 1 shitty option that is better used to hit infantry with. (gepards at least srhed bmps and are good AA.)

Vads needs a rework .. they were never fielded teh way they are portrayed in this game.

Where are the stingers? they again won't be attachemnts for infantry if it follows how they were actually fielded.. Where are chappareals? again probably won't be done right again.

lastly M60's .. these need to be the american version of the leopard1. a cheap tank that can get the job done (3-4 pionts) so what if a t72 can kill it as long as i can bring 3 or 4 for every 1 m1 i'm fine with that.

>>52818598
Last I heard, MANPADS, vehicle missile AA, M60s and Humvee-carried troops were supposed to be in the new US book.

>>52818638
also hoping for a cheaper aircraft (f4 phantom?, f16 falcon? f15 strike eagle) .. fucking 20 pionts for a 50/50 no show 50/50 flies off when 2 guys get shot down really sucks.

>>52818524
Page 40.

In TY it was an emergent property I just spent ages typing up, but, now it's explicit on p40.

>>52818598
>so basically nothing of value? bleh .. time to dump my americans then.
Everything suggests the US is getting everything the other NATO forces have gotten. Stuff we've had hinted/told:

Stingers and Chapparals and possibly even the Sgt. Fucking York, a boondoggle that didn't work, so you're likely to be pretty set for AA.

M60 and M2/3s are also very heavily hinted, quite possibly appearing at Salute this weekend, which'll give you your spam-tank, anti-BMP IFV, and scout/spearhead option.

Jeeps are confirmed, loadout isn't, so possibly cheap recce (one wonders how recce can get any cheaper for NATO), possibly cheap mobile ATGMs. They might also be getting an infantry TOW if we're seeing more REFORGER stuff.

Everything said and hinted so far for the US looks like they're going to be up to par with the rest of NATO after Stripes, which is a bit worrying, because the US was the only army it was possible to play without making the ridiculous BMP horde.

>>52818807
Ah, awesome, thank you very much!

>>52818912
If you're wondering why he's got to be nearby, HQs are now "HQ Units", like any other platoon/company, for all rules purposes. You deploy them like any other, use them for counting good spirits, etc etc. Accordingly, they also maintain coherency with each other.

>>52819006
Yeah, I'm slowly, very slowly understanding how that changes the game quite a lot (no more attaching CIC & 2IC tanks to a tank platoon to make a big assault platoon).

Not sure I'm happy with this...

>>52819071
>no more attaching CIC & 2IC tanks to a tank platoon to make a big assault platoon
But you can still attach the HQ unit to a platoon for an assault, and you can also Combat Attach the 2iC to any platoon.

What size is flames of war? I'm trying to find something I can do with my father.

>>52819521
15mm

>>52818868
The BMP horde is also fucked against anyone not the US desu. British infantry can annihilate it in assault and keep back infantry with GPMGs (and APC overwatch if needed), and germans get Gepards (and can back that up with more gepards) if that's not enough. Both also have cheap autocannon stuff if they need to attack for some reason. If the US can recreate all the fun of trying to fight germany in BMPs with 12 gepards on the field with the sgt. york, then every NATO faction has the resources to hose every warpac build.

Been out of the game for awhile.

Is 4th going to be good for Mid-War Eastern Front battles?

>>52819702
We'll have to wait and see. So far, we have Afrika Korps and the 8th Army (well, part of the 8th army), for the desert. The eastern front is supposedly coming next year.

>>52819521
15mm or 1/100th scale. Generally you're fielding company-sized forces with some support elements.

Anyone have any idea when the new Eastern Front book will come out? I'm doing a 6k vs 6k Kursk scenario this Sunday and was interested. Not that I'd advocate swapping the book the weekend/day of, just interested.

I'll be posting the game as we play it, Sunday at 10am EST or so.

>>52820650
The next V4 release is in September currently, so I wouldn't expect anything before late 2018.

>>52820867
It could be this time next year.

But that depends on the remaining North Africa releases and the Team Yankee US and Soviet expansions.

>>52820650
>6k vs 6k Kursk scenario

That sounds like it will be impressive.

How large of a board are you playing that on?

>>52820650
Take pics and post them, please!

>>52825214

I'm also playing 5k tomorrow, admittedly Germans vs Germans. I'll probably try to snap some pics as well.

Following from Stripes chat earlier, do we know what's in Red Thunder?

>>52826227
T-64s, BTRs, Spandrels for the Soviets etc.

No sure betting on anything else, but I'd say T-55s in Red Banner at a guess.

>>52826227
We know we're getting the BTRs, because they're in Volksarmee, and apparently the T-64, too. According to one person who said BF had spoken at a con, it's FA 17, but I find that kind of hard to believe because the entirety of the warsaw pact lineup being the same tank but with FA 14, 15, 16 and 17 is too dumb even for BF. It would be pretty Cheers, though.

>>52824574
considering i played a 5,5k (1v1 fortified germans vs my soviet horses and dudes) on a double table you only need a double table.

>>52826449
We did Six by Twelve, three normal tables stacked together.

>>52826381
It's why I really don't understand why it wasn't the T-80. At least that had thermals.

>>52826449
>>52826529
>>52824574
We did a 6x7.5 for ours, 5.5k a side. I still need to get it all done up in a proper PDF report, since the battle was over six weeks ago, but I just keep dragging my feet since there's 53 4MB pictures to cut up for it...

>>52824574
We'll either be using 5 or 6 boards, probably the latter. The space we're in doesn't lend itself to much more. Means that it's one long strip of a table, but we manage. Mostly all tanks, from what I've been told. 4 Russians, 3 German players.

>>52825214
I plan on it, they have wifi there so I'll be posting as turns progress. If I can get entire unit lists, I'll include them.

File: 1454370778489.jpg (13KB, 305x294px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 305x294px

>>52819702

you sir, just touched on the one area that v4 presently does not cover

"sorry, gotta wait until June of 2018 to play v4 eastern front officially!"
"Cheers!"

>mfw

>>52826227
wait, Stripes chat?

what is this i hear?

>>52829318
Stars and Stripes and Red Thunder, the two separate American and Soviet books for Team Yankee to bring them into line with the British, West Germans, and Best Germans who all have separate books with more options than what was provided in the core book.

>>52829362
I thought the books was just called Stripes.

A reference to the comedy film.

File: 1410151949475.jpg (98KB, 555x475px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 555x475px

>>52829080
>most pivotal and titanic theater of the war
>aint even covered by the rules yet

Sasuga Battlefront

>>52831559
They literally just re-released Mid War as a whole. It's not yet there.

>>52831559
Just use the EW/LW v4 rules with the old Eastern Front book.

>>52832240
+1

>>52832240
We've done this to have some US forces for North Africa; worked quite well.
A 900-point US force seemed reasonably balanced against a 50-point German force.

Maybe I should try it with some Soviets next time I play...

Yeah I am pretty sure you can just use Eastern Front points with V4 rules for the Eastern Front for now. Everything in that book is pretty generic so all the special rule changes should be covered.

File: IMG_0393.jpg (335KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 2048x1365px

So here it is guys... the big Red Thunder teaser from Battlefront.

>No ERA option for T-64

Well at least the BTR looks cool.

I'd say cheers but it's too soul crushing

>>52832860
Cheers Phil.

File: IMG_0394.jpg (84KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 720x540px

The T64 sprue.

>No ERA
>T-72 with FA 17 confirmed.

File: Tank Protection.png (210KB, 699x432px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 699x432px

>>52832860
>>52832992

>No ERA
>Signature equipment of Soviet armor
>Omitted for reasons

I wasn't expecting much and I am still disappointed.

>>52832992
Is that not the ERA in the top right?

>>52806546
Yeah... They pretty much ruined team yankee for me, now there is no point, at least for me, to using any warpact nation....

And the few times I am going to play it i am going to think that my west germans are trying to conquer the world... again...

At least i can use the minis for another game maybe a skirmish one, battlegroup fulda gap when?

>>52833140
Damn for some reason i quoted the op instead of >>52832860

>>52833127
Hatches, Hull rear, other random parts.

>>52833183
The literal top-left-most bit, adjacent to the base of the turret and above the hatches and gun IR lamps.

File: 110lp.jpg (12KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x240px

>>52832860
I can only begin to imagine how terrible the rules will be

>>52833230
Looks like the rear end of the hull to me.

>>52832992
My prediction:

>T-64 is just a T-72 with a missile, no ERA
>Red Thunder just adds the stuff the east germans got (and T-64) but with +1 courage -1 skill
>Stripes will come out
>M60s with ERA

>>52833249
Isn't the hull rear centre-bottom, between the tracks and the upper hull?

So is Team Yankee just some NATOboo power fantasy simulator?

File: IMG_0395.jpg (64KB, 720x450px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 720x450px

>>52833257
That looks like one of the pieces on the turret rear.

File: 1485666270043.png (440KB, 645x1260px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 645x1260px

>>52833252
>Stripes comes out
>Yanks get a challenger because there was one account of an american looking at one while stationed on the rhine.
>FA 20
>12pts

>>52833269
Increasingly yes.

If we get everything rumours say in Stripes, the US is going to join the other two NATO nations in having everything it needs to completely hose warpac forces.

Meanwhile, if there's nothing else major for Red Thunder (and it's not looking as if there is), and if Red Thunder doesn't feature a dramatic departure from asiatic hordes, the soviet's fundamental issues remain. A T-72 with a missile isn't going to help anything; it's points spent on encouraging you to do a thing you can never afford to do as soviets, which is sitting still.

ERA actually would have been useful to the soviets; it doesn't fix all their problems by any means but at least it'd mean they could assault NATO infantry without getting annihilated if they survived the ATGM firestorm getting there.

>>52833252
And don't forget about the new universal rule for warpact nations "slow firing autoloader guns" and the updated range of 28' for the 125mm cannons.

Cheers

>>52833341
You're joking but I am 100% sure the differences in the autoloader aren't getting into Red Thunder either. RoF 2 on soviet tanks would be unconscionable.

Incidentally, NATOboos? This is why soviet players keep getting excited about spam. It's literally the only possible way of fighting NATO in this game.

>>52833290
What would the challenger look like stat wise in TY?

>>52833441
The Chieftain.

I wish I was joking.

>>52833415
Honestly i have no problem with rof 1 in soviets guns,

What i don't like is the slow firing rule in the T-55 since there is actual no reason to give the tank that rule, and by the 80 the d-10 was pretty much pushed to its limits so it should have at least 18 of AT since it wasn't that far of the L7.

Another thing that annoy me is the less range of the T-72.

I can't wait to see how the M60 is going to be miles better than the T-55 and the Leopard 1 with a gun that would be able to pen the T-72.

>>52833476
>[muffled cheers in the distance]

I'd have been happy for the Challenger to have stillbrew chieftain stats but the issue is they WAY over stated the chieftain to start with.

>>52833335
ERA would have been a big deal. I've been thinking about the issues that are plaguing Soviets in TY and honestly being hit on 3+ isn't the biggest deal.

>Assaulting on 5+. Considering you are taking defensive fire from every unguided AT asset within 8", the payoff for assaulting is small. If we could get more units that assault on 4+ or better there might be more of a reason to assault.

>Side armor of tanks. Panzerfausts and Carl Gustavs can actually manage to pen assaulting tanks in defensive fire. ERA would make the T-64 immune to Panzerfausts and much more surviveable against Carl Gustavs.

>Prevalence of Milans means you can't sit back and try to kill the infantry by shooting. If the T-64 goes up to FA17, that would be a nice boost against the Milan.

Soviet tanks need to move in to avoid getting shot up by Milans, but they are fairly toothless up close against NATO infantry. Some small upgrades to assault and surviveability up close would allow Soviet tanks to play an appropriately aggressive play style.

>>52833525
Yeah, Chieftain Stillbrew (maybe with cross 2+ but, honestly, why the fuck is chieftain cross 2+ to begin with? The thing was well known for it's shitty engine) is basically a Chally. Instead, the Chieftain mk10 is somehow a better T-72, which is insane.

>>52833602
I think you're pretty right; I don't really want to see soviets hit on 4+ (at least not main line soviets; afghansty on 4+ would've been a nice "elites" force and east germans being 4+ would've made them TY's version of finns, which would've been far more interesting than "the soviets but slightly worse with a different roundel"). The soviets only getting 5+ assault with a doctrine that's 100% about getting into melee to kick the shit out of people is galling, though. TY's bad assault rules don't help.

Getting a full soviet company charging into your face should be nightmarish, but as it is you get like two fireteams charging, missing everything, then getting annihilated by some 'ardboys from brixton.

You've also hit the nail on the head with gear; milans and better rockets are what's really gutted the soviets. Even if everyone had kept US stats, the fact that you can now get annihilated by infantry both in assault and at range makes tank lists untenable.

>>52833522
I expect the M60 will be roughly on-par with the Leopard 1.

What are the Magach stats from Fate of a Nation? Those were modified M60s if I'm remembering correctly.

>>52833602

I'm going to tell you now they aren't getting any of that.

Phil seems totally unable to decide what he wants done with soviets - he penalizes them for using doctrines different from the west, but then makes them shit at the things they need to be good at to carry off those different tactics.

And unfortunately, nothing is liable to change his line of thinking - the man seems almost unable to reconcile any sort of data that conflicts with his preconceptions on a subject. It took actual photos of a ZiS-3 with a measuring tape to convince him it wasn't a heavy gun, and people had to do his research for him to sell the idea that Jordanian tanks didn't deserve H&C in FoaN.

Ultimately I think this means TY will wither the same way FoaN and ToD did once the releases stop and the hype dies down.

Meanwhile V4 suffers bad RAW due to poor proofreading and an arrogant approach to FAQ & Errata.

>>52833735
>I expect the M60 will be roughly on-par with the Leopard 1.
Really? Because I'm expecting the A3 to be FA 16, if not 17, and AT 20, and the M60A1 to be FA 14 but come with ERA. Both will likely be skill 3+.

>>52833735
Also they're magach 1, 2 and 3, so M48s.

>>52833755
So FoW is finally dead ? Hurray - more 40K players incoming !

>>52833735
Team Yankee T-55AM2: FA: 14 SA: 9 TA: 2
Fate of a Nation T-55: FA: 12 SA: 8 TA: 2

Fate of a Nation M48: FA: 12 SA: 8 TA: 2

So I would say the M60 isn't likely to get that great of a stat increase the M48 wasn't that different to the M60.

File: 1491668931345.png (139KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 480x360px

>>52833835
I'd rather play the mess that FoW is now than what 40K

>>52833843
>>52833835
Especially as 40k is about to hit it's own Age of Sigmar.

>>52833782
Did the A3 get the same ammo as the M1 in the mid 80s?

The M60 should be as fast and armored as the T-55 and hit as hard the Leopard, with the same skills/training of the M1.

>>52833842
Yeah, but Virus; it's a NATO tank. The Leo 1 had a reasonably good FCS, so it's moving RoF 2, even though it's a 1965 tank with a manual loader trying to load while bouncing around in the turret. The Chieftain's armour was really good for the 1960s, so it gets FA 17.

NATO needs very small justifications to get massive stat increases.

>>52832495
I thought a new point was ~15 old points...

>>52833835

All the new V4 product is flying off the shelves, yet the isn't the entirety of the story. I feel the launch has highlighted some weaknesses that need to rectified lest they go down like the HMS Hood.

Personally I'm not impressed. The new V4 starter is lackluster compared to how good Open Fire was, and adding an upgrade card mechanic rubs me the wrong way.

Only time will tell if my misgivings are well founded, or if I've fallen to the salty side.

>>52833835
Even with the fucking V4 and TY are getting, it's still less than any GW product by an order of magnitude.

File: IMG_0396.jpg (565KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1024x768px

The Commissar 3000 will begin recording today for a very special Tankovy edition. Discussion will cover EW all the way to TY with a special focus on how V4 changes both standard and hero tankovy.

If anyone has any questions regarding Soviet tanks in Flames of War feel free to leave it here or the discord.

>>52833886
There's a little bit of evidence to buff it from the M48, at least.

Hull:
M48 = 220 LOS
M60A1-A3 = 258 LOS

Turret:
M48 = 178
M60A1-3 = 250

A bump to 14 is pretty defensible (though it begs the question of why the DDR T-55 is only 14, given the BDD applique panels were another 100-150mm against APFDS and 200-250 against HEAT, but soviets take an armour penalty for being communists I guess).

Now, what probably will happen instead is that it becomes FA 16, because the T-72's only listed as having 270mm FA in the TY book, and it also fits with the "It's a good tank for it's time but a bit worse than the TEA INFUSED CHIEFTAIN STEEL" narrative that undoubtedly exists in BF's head.

>>52834080
>the T-72's only listed as having 270mm FA in the TY book
Wait, what? Why?

>>52834337
Soviet steel at a microscopic level is inherently thinner than western steel, due to reasons you wouldn't understand.

Cheers.

>>52833864
Warhammer 40,000: Age of Ultramar

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

141KB, 1280x715px

>>52834717
Flames of war: Age of Phil

>>52834643
No, I mean, seriously, why? 270 is below even the lowest bound for the A. Even Janes', after the cold war, said that the warsaw pact had "parity or even superiority in armour".

>>52834767
We need to compile a list of the most "cheers" rules/games concepts.

>>52834767
^ This - he blow up his own child with V4 shit RAW edition

>>52834030
we have a discord?

File: STOP BEING SOCIALIST.jpg (65KB, 572x544px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 572x544px

>>52833441
>>52833476
FA 26 2pts

Cheers

>>52833835
>going back to 40k if things get really dire, rather moving on to FFoT 6mm
Crikey m8 ur given me a rite giggle ere

>>52835134
Link in the OP.

>>52832860
goddammit .. fix americans now .. seriously .. every fucking army gets better with new releases and americans start the game short handed just get screwed more.

Is BF allergic to ERA or something? If they wanted to do clean hull tanks they shouldn't have set the game in the mid 80s.

>>52835784
you could just green stuff them on

>>52835750
Americans will get a proper release soon enough. Soviets are going to get a rushed release with apparently all the volksarmee shit plus a gimped version of the T-64.

>>52835820
Won't mean anything if they don't put the ERA in the rules though.

>>52835750
The thing is I bet you'll be able to play Red Thunder soviets against corebook US, because everything that's come out for the Warsaw pact hasn't made them meaningfully different in power level from the initial release. The US is lacking options for recce and AA, yes, but they're competitive with the soviets and DDR.

Comparatively West Germany (especially Panzertruppen) and especially the British just completely shit all over the soviets, to the point where I'm just expecting my 80% loss rate as standard.

>>52836122
>they're competitive with the soviets and DDR.

DDR maybe. . against sovites.. no not a chance in hell. bmp spam always beats anything americans can bring.

only thing americans have that is somewhat lukewarm competetive against that is spamming bare minimum company formation with cap ITVs.

>>52836301
American Mechanized with artillery support should be able to curbstomp BMP spam. I've seen it happen. Or you could just night attack. Either way BMP spam isn't going to move dug in/gtg infantry.

Soon Americans will probably be as loaded as British and West German mechanized.

>>52836301
US Tanks aren't so great against soviets but yeah, mech is pretty great. Dragons work fine on BMPs, you can mulch them in melee, and you have access to ungodly amounts of ITVs, which will never die. A couple of mortars to fuck up infantry trying to push and you're laughing.

>>52836831
Now, I should stress that I don't think the US is amazingly good against a BMP-rush. But I think they have a fighting chance and it's not a foregone battle. Where you've deployed, the terrain, what you have on/off, and so on, all that matters a lot for that matchup. Which is good, it's how it should be.

But against the Brits and Germans they're like 70-80% of the way to victory just deploying.

>>52836831
Yeah, it seems like NATO mech forces are much more points efficient than NATO tank forces.

>>52838844
It's because ATGMs are 90% of a tank for 10% of the cost.

http://www.strawpoll.me/12803590

Cheers

>>52833889
Leave Leo 1 alone, it is ok how they model it.

Chieftan in other place...

A tank that Wikipedia say is the best tank of the world in the 60s (citation needed), with a worst weakspot that the IS-2, a lower plate that pretty much the long 88/ german 128mm could pen.

And this is the worst thing that BF did, an RHA tank have 17 FA while a tank with full composite have FA 16/15.

120mm of RHA hull armor at 65 degress something that is a little better than the Tiger II 150mm at 55 degress, and if i remember well, 15mm more than the last M60 is much more better armored that something with at least 120mm of composite at 60/65 degress.

>>52839882
>Leave Leo 1 alone, it is ok how they model it.
It's kind of hard to justify how a tank with a basic stabiliser has a fantastic moving RoF, though. And it's a bit too cheap even in game.

>>52839728
You know you're going to get nothing but Cheers meme answers.

>>52840447
The question itself is a cheers meme

>>52832860

>Wanna get into TY
>Wanna play soviets
>Faction I wanna play boils down to asiatic hordes
>Waiting for redthunder to see if it breaks this
>Hoping for t-80, t-64 with ERA, maybe some heavy mortars
>Nope just a stock t-64 and btr
>No ERA rules in sight

Tell me why people even play the Warsaw Pact? Why even play team yankee with shitty game devs.

>>52841445
While the derp-level of game-design is annoying, it's not as bad as 40k (yet...) and you can start collecting models you like. The system will either improve or it will die and some better system will replace it. As long as you don't go full derp and buy truck-loads of BMPs you should be fine whatever happens.

Alternatively, if you have a laid-back gaming group you can house rule the fuck out of BF's rules to bring them close to reality.

>>52841445
>Tell me why people even play the Warsaw Pact?

My guess is there are just an unlucky few of us. Even less that are trying something other than BMP spam. All the facebook commenters are bitching that Stripes isn't coming first.

>>52841445

Some people just want to play a NATO power fantasy ignoring the fact that there was a very real possibility that Soviets might have handed us our asses in an actual shooting war. That's also ignoring the probability of such a war going thermonuclear in short order, almost certainly killing everyone and rendering the front line irrelevant.

>>52841445
I play them because when the game launched it was pretty balanced. The US was missing some options, sure, but the fights were fairly fair.

I'm still playing it because of stubbornness, I guess. I'm the only soviet player who is. The regional tourney is apparently having trouble finding soviet players, too; two people have asked me to come but I don't really want to travel that far.

File: 1478038222983.jpg (142KB, 761x822px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 761x822px

>>52841445
>Why even play team yankee with shitty game devs.

If you want "Cold War gone hot" it's either TY or a bunch of relatively unsupported grognardy niche games which will never catch on.

BF is in a position to really put the period on the map with their quality plastics and established FoW retailer support. But one guy is fucking the faction balance which could singlehandedly hamstring the game's life.

Which really would be a shame because the period is a lot more compelling to me than overdone WW2.

>>52841724
>>52841659
>>52841568
>>52841565

You all seem to have more time than me in the game.

My only question is why does battlefront do this? Why not just make the force comparably balanced and leave the games up to say technical (Not pulled out the ass) stats of the vehicles?

>>52841941
Because Battlefront works upon a popular image of history - pop history - not reality. The majority of their possible audience are people who base their understanding of history off of Hollywood and TV shows - they aren't reading about Soviet Deep Battle tactics and listening to lectures on the critical failings of German engineering.

>>52841899
It's galling because the mistake of having the mook faction and the proper faction is exactly the issue FoaN and Vietnam had.

>the period is a lot more compelling to me than overdone WW2.
Same.

>>52842106
The thing is, BF clearly go deeper than pop history a lot of the time; we get volksturm, FT SS, marine grenadiers, beutetanks, unreliable panthers at kursk, and so on.

Just... none of this extends to the soviets.

File: taxi feeler.jpg (397KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 800x800px

>>52842106
>be phil yates
>cites sources
>rambo III

>>52842637
You're right. BF has made a lot of good quality stuff for V3 LW. It's a shame that:
1. None of this has been extended to the Soviets in TY.
2. None of this has been extended to ANY of the new V4 desert factions. Those are the lamest lists I've ever seen, with the cards adding to the steaming pile of shit.

BF is really dropping the ball here. The V4 rules are so full of holes that it's genuinely unplayable unless you legitimately do not know the rules and 'grandfather' V3isms into the game. Known issues:
1. Assaulting through minefields.
2. Sniper concealment and cover
3. Armoured Assault holes
4. Inability to assault abandoned positions (won me a game because I was clever with my mistaken target use and denied my opponent an assault, lol he was pissed)
5. Unclear if units get the free remount roll if THEY are within 6" of OC, or if their TC is within 6" of OC.
6. Interactions between Gun Shields that dashed and bombardments - what is their save?
7. Can Panzerfausts shoot when they are pinned?
8. How is Line of Sight and Range to an aircraft calculated (book gives like 3 different ways).
9. US CAS spotting for bombardments
10. Clearing a minefield - do you have to be in it or within 2 inches (likely a typo in the rulebook)?
11. Do German HTs swing in assault?
12. Do you ignore "out of command" destroyed or bailed teams for the purpose of last stand? The rules state to explicitly discount out of command teams.
13. What is an Independent Team? Are single team KT units Independent Teams? (they meet the criteria on page 6/7 but this is stupid).

Other annoyances:
1. Cards are less fun, more cumbersome, and more unwieldly than the current standard of "all stats on a single sheet from forcesofwar."
2. Command Cards look like they are going to turn the game into Tanks! (i.e. "Discard this card to get an awesome benefit for just one turn in an unrealistic and gamey manner.")
3. Battlefront is being very lazy about communications with the community

>>52842925
>1. None of this has been extended to the Soviets in TY.
None of it was extended to them in FoW, either. The closest thing we got was marine rifle divisions in Red Bear or maybe mixed tankovies in mid war.

>>52842925
>12. Do you ignore "out of command" destroyed or bailed teams for the purpose of last stand? The rules state to explicitly discount out of command teams.
This is hilarious.

"Sergei, I am worry, Grigori and Sasha are both not look so good back there."

"Is all right, Ivan, they are too far away for me to caring."

>>52842967
Or, I guess, heroes. Which, ahahaha.

>>52834080
>why the DDR T-55 is only 14
I asked Phil on the forums back in the day, The reason was that the extra armour didn't cover the ENTIRE front of the turret, and left some gaps. And so the T-55 got fucked.

>>52843074
Yeah, but the Chieftain's hull is shit. It's only the turret that's respectable. It's what, 200/150 upper/lower glacis? The T-55 is 200 for both.

>>52843417
As the Chieftan clearly shows, the hull doesn't matter. And we know the Chieftan got a lot more than it should have had (this was also mentioned in the same discussion where Phil shared his wisdom regarding the T-55).

>>52843417
It makes not a lick of fucking sense any more because even just from Wikipedia's basic armour tables the T-72 should whoop the shit outta the Chieftain. The Basic Ural Model has at worst 450mm, to the Chieftain's 195mm.

So what the fuck has happened with the fucking Chieftain to make it so wildly over protected?

File: khurasan0.jpg (197KB, 601x936px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 601x936px

>BF fucked up their T-64
Is there currently a better source for ERA-equipped slav units than Khurasan?

>>52843417
Checking the 3D model in WT it's like 250 upper, but still.

I imagine they're probably working from the data from before the bovington ultrasound that showed Chieftain's armour wasn't as thick as speculated throughout the cold war.

>>52843525
The T-72 is INCREDIBLY underballed; the TY stats show they think it has 270mm APFDS protection when it's at least +100 that.

>>52843512
(this was also mentioned in the same discussion where Phil shared his wisdom regarding the T-55).
What discussion was this?

>>52843525
I have a theory that is was actually meant to be the Challenger in Iron Maiden but someone accidentally wrote Chieftain with Phil and the team doubling down instead of correcting themselves ever since.

>>52843714
Don't buy it, the chieftain's a really unique tank. They must've known what they were making models of.

>>52843694
I forget the name of the thread, and I won't go digging in that cesspit, but it was one of the NVA discussions in the TY subforum. I pulled out technical details and numbers, and got shit like "inferior quality," "inflated numbers to make quotas/impress the bosses," and "the extra armour doesn't cover all of the turret."

Courtesy of the fora:
> The Afghansty, hardened veterans of a brutal war in 'The Grave of Empires' are less effective in hand to hand combat than some lads from South London.

God bless Viruscide.

>>52843768
Well, bullshit on the numbers at least, given they're partly borne out by espionage assessments.

>>52843805
And T-55s in WEST GERMAN and ISRAELI hands after reunification in the former and war captures in the latter. But no, Asiatic hordes.

Anyone want to guess the stats on the M1A1?

>>52843856
FA 9000, AT 40 billion, cost 1 pts, all skills at 1+.

Cheers.

>>52840095
now that i think about it which leopard 1 we have? i have yet to buy a zug, if it is the A5 it had pretty good FCS and stabilizers and even if it is the A4 it is ok.

>>52841568
>All the facebook commenters are bitching that Stripes isn't coming first.

Where?

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

46KB, 750x267px

>>52843694
You mean when was enlightening me on the progression of Soviet Armor

>>52843874
You forgot to put "Hit: 9"

>>52843789
I'm just frustrated now. No ERA and more of this Asiatic Horde shit is just killing my desire to finish my Soviet Army, even if my only opponent is Birdy locally.

>>52843925
If we can just lose Slow Firing, because how the fuck is it possible to be slow firing with a goddamn Autoloader, the T-55 would be worth taking. I wouldn't even mind the bad cross rating because yes that is a fuckload of extra weight up high on a ageing suspension.

>>52843956
Never mind, Apparently the T-55 doesn't have an autoloader after all.

>>52843987
Yeah but it has a two planes stabilisers, and the rof wasn't that far from the long 88. What was the justification of the shitty rof in FoW again?

and now that i think about it aside from hen and shit and the bad stabilizers the T-54s never had something as slow firing gun right?

>>52843856
Maybe 1 point more FA and AT 22. Low chance of AT 23 if they want to simultaneously represent the US's totes amaze ammunition and also fuck T-72s forever.

>>52843672
>Checking the 3D model in WT it's like 250 upper, but still.

You mean the Llos thickness?

>>52843956
>If we can just lose Slow Firing, because how the fuck is it possible to be slow firing with a goddamn Autoloader, the T-55 would be worth taking. I wouldn't even mind the bad cross rating because yes that is a fuckload of extra weight up high on a ageing suspension.
You're mad the wrong way around; the T-55 wasn't autoloaded (but should have a decent RoF since even in H&C-editions the T-55 with stabiliser could shoot on the move at no penalty), but the ground pressure was about the same as the T-72's.

And again, the Chieftain got cross 2+ on an engine that was only ever really fixed by being totally replaced.

>>52841565
>...and you can start collecting models you like.

Yeah since this game is "historical" you can use the BF models in whatever game you want.

>>52844178
Wasn't the uparmoring on the M1A1 quite extensive? Seems like it'd be more than +1 FA.

>>52844524
FA:21
SA:18
TA:5
AT:23 FP:1+
All Skills 2+

15pts

>>52844696
The sad thing about this is, is that it is going to be true, even though the the M1A1 and the Leopard 2 should be pretty much the same in the game, with the leo having a little better mobility.

>>52844524
Yeah, but "quite extensive" is relative, here. this is already the game where tanks can be 50-100mm out from each other and be in the same ratings slot.

We also again hit the issue that the T-80U should be about equal to the M1A1, but won't be, because Reasons. Or probably be in at all because only the Brits get time travelling tanks.

>>52844761
>Or probably be in at all because only the Brits get time travelling tanks.
Well only the British get Doctor Who, so this is fair enough.

>>52844761
>Or probably be in at all because only the Brits get time travelling tanks

Well i was reading in some facebook groups that the reasons the T-64 get no ERA is because it wasn't used in good numbers until late 80s

Wait, we're getting an M1A1 now? I thought the T-80U wasn't going to be in because production had only recently started so there weren't enough of them to be in game. It started dec 1984 so it's a month or two ahead of the abrams.

>>52844906
CHEERS

>>52844906
They included the A1's gun on the basic M1 sprue, so it's assumed there's going to be the M1A1 with Stripes.

>>52844696
>>52844906
Oh and don't forget the new special rule

Blowout panels: Blowout panels are designed to give way in the event of an ammunition cook off therefore leaving the crew unharmed and filled with confidence in their tank.

Tanks with blow out panels can never be bailed out.

>>52845043
You forgot the most important thing


CHEERS

>>52844956
The worst thing is cheers aside, I can see their logic:

Abrams get deployed in a platoon, so four tanks is enough for a reasonable group of M1A1s. Meanwhile, Soviets deploy companies, so you'd need 10 T-80Us per brigade at least, which is implausible.

>>52842925
>Cards are less fun, more cumbersome, and more unwieldly than the current standard of "all stats on a single sheet from forcesofwar."

But anon Fantasy Flight Games uses a lot of cards and their games are really popular! Now that Games Workshop aren't the only game in town Battlefront had to start mindlessly aping another company's style instead of trying to understand what actually made them popular.

>>52845073
Would a commander with a T-80U not work? Would they not work as additions to the regular brigades?

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

145KB, 793x676px

>>52843694
>>52843768
Someone should post this on that forum

>>52844880
>Well i was reading in some facebook groups that the reasons the T-64 get no ERA is because it wasn't used in good numbers until late 80s

That rules out M1A1s and Bradleys then.

Joke! The US book will probably base their "M1A1" on the HA upgrades that didn't even go into production until late '88. Maybe even some A2s that were "rushed into production".

I'd also bet that the Soviets had more tanks with ERA than NATO had combined total tanks by the mid-80s. But of course Soviets aren't allowed to have "elite" forces and must instead be a faceless mook horde.

>>52845581
Gotta have cool toys so the NATOwanks buy all 3 armies. The Soviet players we have will be forced to buy dozens of tanks to spam a list out, so it will all even out.

>>52845509
They are the best warsaw pact army. They have 4+ skill.

cheers

>>52845483
Phil apparently thinks the T-80U only arrived three years after it's initial productions. Meanwhile they're teasing for the Sgt. York, a vehicle which never worked.

>>52845650

I don't even play this game because of their initial decision to give GSFG T-72s instead of T-64s I knew BF were going to ignore history and make Soviets mooks.

And it is the exact same issue that ensured that the Vietnam and Arab Israeli versions were flashes in the pan.

>>52845073
so 10 Tanks with FA 18 and AT 22 Rof 1 that are hit at +3 for i don't know maybe 60 points are going to brake the game?

>>52845918
I think you misunderstand; the argument would be that it's not historically possible for the soviets to have distributed that many T-80s.

So, what is the point of playing PACT in TY?

>>52846124

Extending your cuckold fetish into your hobby time.

>>52846124
You really liked playing Tyranids but would prefer they have tanks?

>>52846124
Hinds?

>>52846142
Oh, yeah, hinds are legit pretty great.

Though you need to play the US for them, really, since the Brits and especially Germans will paste them.

>>52846134
>>52846141


I'd rather keep playing Wargame Red Dragon

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

2MB, 2688x1520px

>>52846256
Not a sure thing as poor Birdy learned. One Hind down from 15 shots.

>>52846142
>stripes is released
>All NATO armies now get "captured hinds"
>Have Gepard cannons and HOT II missiles.

File: 16216073.png (17KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 633x758px

>>52846335
>mfw

>>52846325
If that was gepards, you got really lucky. There should be 2-3 dead helis there.

>>52846335
OH MY GOD, do we actually get captured Hinds?

>>52846429
Was literally rolling 3 dice for each helicopter as well

>>52846430
Since I can't slap the guy who's filled my head with the frightful Vision of Captured Hinds, I'mma have to settle for smacking you upside the head next time Birdy.

>>52846002

>I think you misunderstand; the argument would be that it's not historically possible for the soviets to have distributed that many T-80s

oh my bad, sorry.


But then how they would/where distributed in the mid 80s? in mixed battalions?

Sorry but i have to disagree, i see no problem from a game standpoint. Most of the panzer divisions of East Germany had more T-55 than T-72 and still, they are even more spammers than the normal soviets.

Russia had 1900-2300 T-80 between 1985-1987, fine it seems most were T-80BV and for some reason the T-80U was never deployed in europe (gonna need more sources)

But the point of the T-80 was to be the breakthrough tank for europe, so i want to belive in a WW3 scenario they would equip a few units at least in mixed battalions, HQ tanks or even mixed/little companies.

Yet in the game the Chieftan with RHA have more armor than a tank with composite.

>>52846430
Yes and captured Frogfoots and T-72s as well to represent the soviet forces who fled at the first sign of danger due to being a poor underfeed conscript army.

Yank captured T-72s will have RoF 2, AT 23 and 40in range due to having the auto loader pulled out and improved NATO ammo used and FA 18/4+ to hit from applying Brit stillbrew armour put on and a more cautious western crew.

6pts a piece up to 8 in a platoon.

>>52846503
God damn i really hate my writting with the mobile app.

Flames Of War Discussion and Questions Discord: https://discord.gg/4Phc6J7

>>52846519
Cheers

>>52844906
Introduction dates only seem to ironclad in one direction, T-64 no ERA because it wasn't widespread, T-55 with no Bastion because the NVA hadn't acquired them yet. But NATO gets all sorts of prototype shit because "if war really happened production would have sped up" and prototype shit would have been deployed to Europe in 2 weeks.

>>52848408
Then why even considering playing PACT?
Also, you forgot your cheers

>>52848408
Didn't the war in Team Yankee only go on for 3 weeks?

>>52848408

God Phil is full of so much bullshit. It isn't hard to find pictures of whole regiments of GSFG T-64s with ERA.

TY is like if LW FOW Soviets couldn't take anything developed past 1940.

>>52848529

Team Yankee the game is only loosely inspired by the book. The book was set in '84 IIRC so that means NATOaboos wouldn't get most of their toys because they either weren't deployed yet or were in only low numbers.

>>52848535
But they didn't? They just made more of it.

Thanks

>>52848529

Something like that. It's impossible to even come up with a realistic Cold War Gone Hot scenario that lasts long enough to start mass production of a prototype.

Within a month both sides would have been out of all the fancy missiles and shells and would have had to revert to near WWII level munitions technology.

>>52848602
Maybe, Id say a little more advanced then that...

Have we seen that PSC T-55 sprue yet? It was supposed to release yesterday right?

File: image.jpg (232KB, 1600x982px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1600x982px

>>52843619
Zvezda a T-72 with ERA is nice, and I remember Skytrex working on a T-72 with era (pic related) but it seems to have disappeared from their site at the moment.

>>52848535
>TY is like if LW FOW Soviets couldn't take anything developed past 1940.
I mean, technically...

Hahahahaha

>Med mortars can also direct fire over friendly teams. This is not in the rules due to oversight but is confirmed by BF

ha. haa...

File: IMG_0402.jpg (63KB, 749x336px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 749x336px

Instead of flipping through a dirty old rule book how about you try my handy dandy c a r d s

>>52852092

Who the fuck is behind this trend over several companies of having decentralized rules?

Do they actually not care how much harder this makes to learn the game properly?

>>52852223
All it takes is one company or game (X-wing, probably) to be wildly successful and then everyone else will blindly follow in the hopes that it will get them more money. X-wing has a single core book, and then pretty much every other distinguishing thing is on cards? X-wing has a 100 point system? X-wing is hard to master despite simple rules, giving it longevity? We can get those by cutting content from the rulebook and sticking it on supplement cards. There's also no way detail is lost going from a 1500 point standard to a 100 point standard, so lets do that. And finally, stripping out rules and making the game a rock/paper/scisors game between arty, tanks, and AT guns/infantry while neutering all other approaches will totally add tactical depth and not make them game fucking boring as you shoot at those GtG vet infantry on 6s for the 4th turn straight.

File: 20170423_104722.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

Good morning! Today I'll be posting a battle report of a game in progress. The sides are 4 Russians receiving an attack by 3 German players. 6000 points a side. Should be a good game. Rather than delineate lists by player, I am aggregating lists. The green strips throughout the board are minefields.

RUSSIANS

Command
Strelkovy Co HQ
-2 AT Rifle, 2 45mm AT gun
T34 obr 1942
T34 obr 1942
T34 obr 1942

Combat
2x Strelkovy Co
2x Strelkovy Co
Maxim MG
5x T34 obr 1942
5x T34 obr 1942
5x T34 obr 1942
5x T34 obr 1942
6x T34 obr 1942
-2x T34/57
6x T34 obr 1942
-T34/57
5x M3A1 Stuart

Weapons
4x BA-10

Support
Strelkovy Artillery Bn, 4x 122 1938 & 4x 76mm AT guns
3x SU-85
2x SU-152
2x SU-152
3x SU-122

File: 20170423_110905.jpg (5MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4032x3024px

>>52853127
Also there's a bit of correction on the Russians - I missed the fact that Russians have some Sturmoviks. Also, one Russian player forgot to place a unit in reserve.

GERMANS

Germans

Command

Panther D
2 Panzer 4 H
Grenadier CO HQ
-2x Panzerknacker

Combat

3x Panther D
3x Panther D
3x Panther D
3x Panzer 4 H
3x Panzer 4 H
6x Rifle/MG, Panzerknacker & Light Mortar
6x Rifle/MG, Panzerknacker & Light Mortar
6x Rifle/MG, Panzerknacker & Light Mortar

Weapons

3x Motorcycle Recce
4x Pioneer, Kubelwagen and Maultier

Support

4x 10.5cm leFH18
4x 15cm sFH18
2x Sd Kfz 7/2
4x Panzer 4 G(late)/H
2x Pak40
Priority 87 D Stuka

File: eli218.jpg (338KB, 701x949px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 701x949px

World War II German Motorized Infantry and Panzergrenadiers (Osprey Elite 218)

In World War II Germany's doctrine of mobile warfare dominated the battlefield. By trial and error, the Germans were the first to correctly combine the strength in tanks and in mobile infantry and artillery. This integration of mobile units, equipment and tactics underpinned Germany's successes in the first half of the war. As the war dragged on, the Allies sought to copy German tactics but German armies remained supreme in this type of warfare until their losses had seriously degraded their capabilities. This study traces the development of the different types of unit that came together in the Panzergrenadier branch from the inter-war years through World War II. Using colour plates to display the changes in uniform, equipment and insignia in all theatres of operations throughout the conflict, this is a complete account of Hitler's elite armoured infantry.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/29fdchd1w1ird9c/Osprey+-+ELI+218+-+World+War+II+German+Motorized+Infantry+%26+Panzergrenadiers.pdf

>>52853325
>>52853127
goddammit phone, position them the right way

>>52845509
Facts won't sway Phil. Only blunt force works.

>>52848535
Yeah, but all those tanks with ERA haven't actually got ERA, because half are just mock-ups to impress the press, the rest have had the explosives removed by privates selling it on the black market for more vodka, like those two I read about in that one article refering to a Soviet court martial in 1988.

Cheers.

File: 20170423_113421.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52853325
Al three Panthers blitz forward on a 4+, and the recce/command fail. German infantry on the right slide forward. Planes are in! Hope that routine continues.

Panthers all peg the T-34s at center and only kill 2, bailing one. Shame. The 10.5s follow suit and barely range in on infantry, but pin them.

Minefields will be a problem, but I'm counting on infantry to remove them.

>>52853332
Thank you, anon.

File: 20170422_135732.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

Shadows aside, this is what a real board looks like.
So much terrain that an entire advance can be halted.

File: 20170422_135754.jpg (5MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 5312x2988px

An alternative view.

>>52853736
"So much"? This looks pretty normal to me. How do people even play LW or TY with less terrain than this?

File: 20170423_115204.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52853630
Absolutely zero reinforcements come in, and they do not elect to push out their ambushing units. Fearless Russian infantry unpin.

The T34 at center remounts, mourning the loss of its bretheren. The surviving BA-10s move forward to engage the recce bikes, which intend to remove the minefields in way of the Panthers. Wisely, the surviving T-34s move away from the range of the Panthers. T34s on the right follow suit. Combined fire from the BA-10s and Stuarts manage to kill a stand of bikes. Ouch.

Artillery range in on a unit of Panthers, but they shrug off the hits.

>>52853325
>panthers in dunkelgrau
for what purpose

File: 20170423_121141.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52853849
There are no tests for the Germans to make. Three minefields are removed, and the planes do not return. Sad. The Panthers stay in place, and ones on the right fail their blitz move. The German war machine moves forward.

Panthers cleanse the battlefield of enemy T-34s. We figured out that per V4 rules, that player would be out of the game. Fuck that, this is a big game and he had stuff that could actually hurt my Panthers. He's still in.

Repeat bombardment on conscript tanks nets 7 hits. Paks kill off the remaining stuart and BA-10s.

File: 20170423_122458.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52853860
Not my Panthers. Either the store I was trying to buy them from were closed for Easter, or those that were shipped came a few days late. Quite unfortunate. But, the tank's owner defended this by potentially having them come off the line in 1942. I'm out of my wheelhouse on this, I don't know.

>>52854031
A unit of SU-152s arrive from reserves, with another unit of T34s. That's it.

Combined fire from T34s on the right manages one single hit, of which armor saves. Conscript tanks nail a Panzer IV on the left, actually killing it. A true Soviet hero. Artillery hits infantry and a Panther. The cat saves, and three infantry stands aren't going home. SU-152s roll to kill some Panthers, bailing the center tank.

File: Capture.png (20KB, 988x211px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 988x211px

Let me guess, this smug faggot plays UK milan-spam.

>>52854243
Looks like a British tank witch in his avatar, at least...

File: 20170423_124012.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52854155
The Panther fails to get back in, as does the Panzer IV on the left. Fire from the Panthers kills an SU-152, and they'll hopefully run. Panzer IVs on the right do what Panthers could not, hitting 4 times and bailing a T34.

Artillery spotters rolled 4 altogether to range in. 10.5s hit some conscript tanks, hitting three and bailing one.

File: 20170423_125901.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52854350
The T34s have arrived. They position on the German's right flank which is relatively soft, compared to the center. A(n asiatic) horde of infantry comes in on the T34's left side. SU-152s arrive from ambush within 16 inches of the Panthers near their reserves.

A bucket of hits pound the Panzer IVs on the right, and double bail one tank. It runs. Infantry pepper recce on foot and kill a stand.

Artillery pin the infantry and kill a stand. But the minefields are clear for the Panthers, so they can stomach the losses.

The Panzer IVs on the left side are taking losses, with 3 dead and 2 bailed. This will open up flank shots on the Panthers, which is never a good thing.

File: 20170423_132412.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52854566
The bailed Panther returns. Combined fire from 6 Panthers at one unit of SU-152s kill one and bail another. The remaining SU-152 on the left side of the table is bailed. As the player on the German's left lost their Panzers, he was given the dunkelgelb Panthers to command. The conscript tanks lose one. Woo. At least 3 of them are bailed.

Artillery ranges in on the center of the soviet blob, hitting 13 stands. They lose a gun stand and one infantry. Panzer IV fire on the right fails to accomplish anything, as does artillery. Planes engage the SU-152s, killing one and bailing another.

Guys I need some help with list building - I want to get some germans for mid war. Want a mix of units but cannot get it together anyway I try :/ - can some experienced Afrika Korps veteran help lowly noob ?

>>52854971
The SU-152 sticks around, goddammit. T34s move forward, desperate for delicious side armor on Panthers. They won't get them this turn, but they can accept losses. No planes from either player on the Soviets.

The horde of infantry unpins and shuffles forward. Flanks are beginning to be exposed on the German side. Thankfully the minefields on the right side are intact, so as long as the Panthers don't slide forward they cannot get to side armor. Unless they're crazy, in which case I'm wrong. They engage the Panzer IV's, needing 5's and 6's - getting none.

Y'know, the one turn I give a unit of Panthers an SU-152 would kill one. Everyone say 'fuck you, Matt' for me. Shots from the soviet infantry manage to kill the last stand from the recce infantry.

Forgot to take the photo for this one. Sorry.

File: 20170423_140754.jpg (5MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 4032x3024px

>>52855372
Infantry finds their balls and charges forward to the SU-152, seeking to avenge the Panther. It dies. Panther fire kills and bails the last unit of SU-152s behind the objective, and bails two T34s on the right.

Artillery fire repeats on a blob of infantry, killing three stands, of which one was an AT rifle. The last unit of Panzer IVs bails and kills two T34s each.

Aircraft shoot into the rear of T34s on the right flank, killing and bailing one T34. The hordes are thinning out.

Infantry begin their assault. Their CO are preparing sad letters home to their families, but they get stuck in and bail an SU-122. The bailed tank dies as they back up.

File: 20170423_142517.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52855700
A Russian plane arrives, finally. It manages to bail a Panther. T34s kill a Panzer IV on the right, bailing another. Infantry are assaulted on the left, and after about...5 turns, back and forth, the infantry are no more. Both SU-122s remain.

Things are starting to thin out on the field. More of a graveyard, all around.

>>52855700
We now officially have to stay halfway past the board or we lose.

Panthers at mid do horribly and only bail two T34s. No one can say 'fuck you, Matt' anymore as his two Panthers kill 4 T34s on the left side. Way to go, Matt. One more dead T34 from the commander. Artillery does little to the hordes, and Panzer IVs kill two more T34s on the right.

Things are looking well.

File: 20170423_143751.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52856242
Forgot to upload the photo.

>>52846335
Colonel, what's a Russian gunship doing here?!

File: 1412782349486.jpg (29KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 448x252px

>>52810317

the results of this poll are hilarious.

>/tg/ aligns w Phil Yates
>we have DnD
>none of us are lawful good
>none of us are chaotic evil,
>most of us who reported are Lawful Evil or Neutral Good.

>>52856313
The Russians, tired of withering fire from the Panthers, begin to charge forward. They've withdrawn (not out of the game) to the safety of buildings on the left.

Soviet artillery bail a Panther - if they can't remount next turn, there will be problems for that platoon. Both sturmoviks come in, but they both opt for bombs and both range in on the second attempt. A Panzer IV bails, and a Panther is double bailed and runs. Ouch. Two more dead Panthers and I am out.

>>52856377
A Hind D?

>>52856582
Metal gear?

>>52856563
I'm-not-a-/fowtg/-regular-but-I-think-this-poll-is-cool is master race.

>>52829318
>>52829362

specifically, Stripes CHAT

where was this?

>>52854243
People like that make mad.

This game push me to defend the soviets, something that i hate with all my heart., it even make me cancel most of my west germans orders. (i am a huge german fan, i can even fap to Panther photos)

File: o1_500.jpg (105KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x333px

>>52832860
>Red Thunder

let's get more leaks, guys! so, we know the 2 plastic releases....

>Fuck Team Yankee
to be fair, all this anti-soviet talk is making me want to try to break the shit outta a list in Red Thunder, and see how far i can take it down the rabbit hole.

I will fuck faces. and i will enjoy it. and i will share my sauce....

...

i know the USA is crying, but we have not seen anything of Stars n Stripes yet

.......my guess is we will have 2-4 M60's in a unit, with stats similar to a T55 but far better, Humvee troops, Bradley Troops that are really understaffed, and Huey 101st airborne....a M1-IP would be an odd addition.

>>52853860
They're elite Nachtwulfen troops

>I am a major TO with 7 tables of terrain for V3 tournaments. I will just keep my terrain boxed and never run a V4 tournament. That in itself kills our gaming club. Phil Yates needs a public relations firm to address the damage done to our gaming community. There are players in our club that bought armies and painted them to play version 3 tournaments. I am sad to say they are worthless to play with V4. I am just waiting for the lawsuits for deceptive practices in the US.

File: M1A1-Abrams-Tank.jpg (68KB, 1083x563px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1083x563px

>>52843856
>M1A1

btw, the M1-IP is actually next in series, but, oh well.

>M1A1:
>same courage and skill based stats, hit on 4+, cross 2+
>FA20 (yes) SA10 TA2
>same 120mm as the Leo2, same rules
>same MG's

>15 pts per tank

File: 20170423_154108.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52856574
Things are going fairly fast now, I apologize for missing a full turn. Key moments are:

-The unit of grey Panthers suddenly yearning for home and retreating
-A sturmovik failing to pop a halftrack
-The remaining T34s mostly being useless, as we turned left.

Our new goal after losing the right flank is to move lazily to the left. Panthers killed the SU-122s at minimum range and charged for an objective. Planes came in again (thank god) and position to kill the last conscript tanks on the field.

The last unit of Panthers move forward to hold an objective, and cannot be killed by nearby soviet anti tank guns. Panther and Airplane fire kill off the two out of three conscript tanks, leaving his force commander double bailed.

Anyone have any Skytrex guns? Are they as flimsy as they look on their website?

>>52856675
sorry, but i thin this poll says PHIL YATES is master race

whothefuck did that? i know how we think in here!

>>52857438
do you like bent barrels?

File: 20170423_155440[1].jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>52856574
Alright, things went extremely fast at this point. The game officially ended on turn 9. The only thing that stopped the german war machine was a unit commander by his lonesome failing a double bail routine. Three Panthers automatically ran after this. We even rolled the old way - testing on 4+ to keep the platoon in (which failed, of course). Mark - the one who would have been out of the game on Turn 2 - argued that I (Pantherbro) should have stayed in, as turnabout was fair play. But, it's a game and the rules are what they are. If I'd just stayed, the game would be won near automatically. I wasn't interested in winning on a technicality.

Victory goes to the Russians, just as it was in history.

>>52857515
Only when I'm shooting around corners.

>>52857438
Ive got some of their T-62s, and yes they were very thin (towards the mantlet especially) so I switched them for brass rod.
Very nice models, but if you're even a slightly ham-fisted player I would avoid them unless you plan on replacing them.

>>52857531
Nice! The germans are stalled and most of the Russians are dead. Seems historical enough to me.

>>52857986
Kind of. On the right flank you're 100% right - the T-34s were actually pushing through our lines. On the left, the Germans essentially held. If the command tank had stayed in, the Panthers would have won the game. There is a full platoon on an objective, barrels turned around to deflect shots from a spare T-34 or two.

>>52857263
The IP wasn't a major upgrade, though. I doubt you could even tell the difference.

The Abrams has the issue that it's already over-rated; apparently it should be FA 17 but it's too good against HEAT to allow that.

a dreadful comment i have to add:
the BOW salute coverage would usually have a gush of stuff to talk FoW at the Battlefront booth, right?
go look at it. he talks about Dr Who and the Star Trek game, and only mentions how everyone likes the new MidWar stuff.
.....
not even so much as teased releases or info....this does not bode well, seeing how sociable the BOW trogs are.

I was looking at the Spartan Support Troop for the brits in Iron Maiden

4 points for x4 Spartans + x4 GPMG plus LAW squads doesn't seem like a very good deal.

That seems kind of expensive. Am I missing something or am I just out to lunch?

>>52853332

Are you the same osprey-anon who posts in /hwg/?

I love you man

>>52857531
Very cool, thanks for taking the time to post the report, man!
>>52856939
I see what you did there.
>Approves
>>52856695
Regular Panthers or that weird furry/mecha/porn stuff?
>Not judging, just curious.

>>52858817
Considering five points gets you 3 of those, plus 2 charlie Gs, and a light mortar, as well as access to milans, god knows.

>>52856618
Now I want to see Metal Gear statted for TY

>>52858929
>Not judging, just curious.

I said that i can, not that i already did it, just to show how biased to germany i am, though i was talking about the real tanks.

Maybe to a mecha musume or one of those shits but well that isn't that weird when you are already weeb.

>Hull and turret of the "Chieftain" has no protection against shaped charge projectiles, and can be hit with cumulative ammunition both in the frontal and in the side projection. Since the horizontal thicknesses (LOS) of turret armor does not exceed 250 mm the tank can be penetrated hby 125 mm APFSDS from a distance of 3000 m and 115 mm APFSDS from a distance of 1600 m.

All of this is about the 60-70s when the chieftan was consideredIt was the "most formidable main battle tank in the world" at the time of its introduction in 1966 with the most powerful main gun and most effective armour of any tank yet made (citacion needed)

Source http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm

Someone knew that page? seems pretty interesting but well sinceeverything that is written in russian is propaganda...

>Odd that poorly maintained T55's with minimal technical support have poorer Cross ratings than Brit chieftains with heavy logistical and mechanical engineering support. Oh wait, hang on...

You fucking idiot man. Chieftains had heavy Logistical and Mechanical Support because they had a chronic habit of catching fire and breaking down. That's like arguing that German Tigers should never be unreliable because they fucking have many recovery vehicles and mechanics.

>>52860751
I have literally never heard anyone describe the T-55 as unreliable. I've heard the exact opposite, that the T-55 is so popular in africa and the middle east because, much like the AK, any idiot can keep it running. This is a tank initially designed during WW2, after all.

File: 1200px-RAF-Logo.svg.png (66KB, 1200x1180px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1200x1180px

>>52860751
> poorly maintained
> newly upgraded

Pick one

>>52860751
You missed out the part where he said it'd be dumb if all the factions played exactly the same.

Yeah. That'd be real dumb. Good thing no armies in the game are carbon copies of each other.

I'm getting the impression the argument is "The BMP horde is OP, so it's okay that T-72s suck".

>>52861266

That's the thing though. T-72's shouldn't suck. The T-55 should have barrel fired missile and should have better cross ratings, the t-64 SHOULD HAVE ERA.

Reminder if you willingly play Pact you are a cuck.

dosen't the main TY rulebook have rules for ERA already?

>>52861372
Yep side armor 15 against HEAT.

>>52861372
It does, but that's not the issue. The issue is that with ERA armour, the T-72 gets armour protection roughly on par with the M1 Abrams, and that the T-64, a tank prolific for ERA deployment, doesn't have the option on the sprue.

File: It's not just phil.png (36KB, 497x208px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 497x208px

>>52861349

File: ww11 vetern.png (168KB, 480x306px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 480x306px

>>52861443
T-72B ERA AND WERE IN SERVICE IN 1985
GIVE US THE ERA PHIL
GIVE US THE ERA PHIL
GIVE US THE ERA PHIL

>>52861443
CHEERS

Yeah but we haven't seen T-65 armor stats yet

new thread for all you needles out there....


>>52862829

>>52862828
armor is overrated.

why? simple math.

if it takes me 12 shots with 1 weapon to kill a high armor tank and i can bring 6 of them for every 1 the enemy has then it behooves me to take as many as i can so i can get enough rolls to win the attrition war.

that's why the bmp spam is far superior to m1 abrams.