Flames of War General /fowg/: East Germany is Best Germany

>>53027808
Plastic Desert Rats are in the pipeline, but are still on pre-order at the moment.

>>53027808
is that the fabled unironic cheers

legends have spoken of it

So let's talk Team Yankee for a second. Soviet Doctrine of this era was fairly regimented and VERY well understood by the West. If a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment was to advance, it would first send a Combat Recce Patrol which would be followed by the Forward Security Element and then Main Body. You can find this all on Google for fuck's sake.

With this in mind, why isn't it built into Team Yankee? If WW3 happened in the 80's, you can bet that the first units that Team Yankee would encounter would be the CRP, which they would probably destroy, followed by the Forward Security Element which would try to fix them so that they could be fucked by MLRS.

So how come Team Yankee even lets you play BMP spam? That's retarded.

>>53028643
If you play BMP spam, you might spend all your money on BF BMPs. Which lines their pockets. Capitalism, comrade.

Team Yankee should honestly FORCE you to play proper Soviet Doctrine. This would be:

You start with 3 x BMP and 1 x T72 (CRP)
When you get reserves, you get the FSE:
3 x T72, 10 x BMP, 8 x 120mm mortar, 6 x 2s1, 3 x BRDM TOW, 2 x BRDM Eng

Does BF fail to understand how regimented and specific Soviet doctrine was at this time?

>>53028911
BF doesn't give a flying fuck about soviet doctrine, except as an excuse to make them always hit on a 3+.

>>53028911
That won't get them lots of sales though. Capitalism.

Besides, this is based on a novel written by some dude, and not an objective look at actual doctrines and actual history. Which is (partly) why we're getting shat on if we want to play Pact nations.

>>53028911
>Does BF fail to understand how regimented and specific Soviet doctrine was at this time?
Yes, it's why they get 3+ to hit. Anyone who ever spotted any cover was immediately shot by the commissar to avoid anyone developing any skills.

File: stalin and lenin.jpg (81KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x900px

> when Battlefront believes Commissars just shot people
> this is the level of history they are one

>>53029052
uhm, Mandatory Unit purchase to play X unit is a GREAT way for a company to make money.

see GW, 2 troops and an HQ...now we have fill-the-checklist formations

all you have in the CRP/FSE thing is a mandatory formation.

File: 1454437105522.jpg (116KB, 960x677px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 960x677px

/NVA/

>>53030072
Sure, but with BMP spam you can sell even more shit. And maybe even tempt someone to buy units they won't ever use or need.

>>53028911
If someone can get me a good source on this, I'll have a stab at doing up a formation for Team Tankies.

>>53028911
>it's a horde faction lamo

I want to see the DDR anon, if he can say something about their training and tactics.

>>53030394
When you make that thing always paste this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGazG1sDG2g

Been away for about a year, and I hate to ask the lazy question but... 4th edition. Anything major changed?

>>53032836
>Anything major changed
Nah it's pretty much the same they tweaked a few tank numbers flipped the artillery target numbers.

Cheers.

>>53032836
It's Team Yankee. I could break down each point as to why it's Team Yankee, but there's not much point. Also, has anyone else found V4 games to take about 30% longer than V3? Like matchups that shouldn't last more than 90 minutes easily stretching for 2 hours.

File: Orders.png (2MB, 1675x630px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1675x630px

>>53032836
Oh boy did it. Running down the huge ones:
>Orders (see pic) are a thing now
>all units are 6" from unit commander for coherency, 8" if they have 8+ teams in the platoon.
>Hits from shooting are allocated by the attacker now, with the defender having a 3+ "mistaken target" roll to reallocate as they chose
>Artillery now ranges in on the user's skill, and hits teams under the template based on their skill.
>All artillery units (as well as rockets and bombs) got a firepower/AT change, all FP values are at least 4+, and all AT values got reduced by at least one, and are capped at AT 3.
>Planes are entirely revamped. They're always hit on a 5+ (6+ if they have concealment), have a 3+ save, and then need a firepower test to kill. However, they move about like normalish teams now, with the level of support determining how many planes you get and with dead planes staying dead.
>Assaults are now only conducted with teams within 4" of the enemy, and only teams in contact (or in contact with those in contact) get to swing.
>Defender no longer wins defensive battles if the game ends before normal victory conditions
>Morale is now a single check at the start of the turn after going down to a certain number of active teams ("in bad spirits"), not more destroyed than active.
>Formation (company) morale only cares about Combat, Weapons, and brigade/regiment supprt units. Dropping to just one unit that's in good spirits routs the company, no morale check allowed.

>>53033018
Let me preface this by saying: I enjoy V4. I enjoy TY. I like how mobile everything is. I like the thinned down rulebook in spite of its faults, but I think 3 things are causing games to last longer.

1) Asinine morale rules. Every formation is filled with radicals who fight nearly to the last man. This results in tedious clean up operations.

2) Lethality nerf for breakthrough guns and flamethrowers. You are hitting dug in vets on 5+ (more likely 6+) and simply rerolling saves is a far cry from complexly bypassing the save. Artillery is more lethal but it still takes multiple turns.

3) Assault changes make it harder for successful assaults to be pulled off and carried through.

I think there may be some minor things at play like not being as familiar with the rules or new movement allowing vehicles to get in better positions. As a whole there is more dice rolling with movement orders, brutal, and repeat bombardments. Still I am seeing time being an issue with TY and V4 in the games I am playing whereas morale made it less so in V3.

File: yafFOzv.png (195KB, 368x375px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 368x375px

>>53033214
>>53033374
>>53033018
>>53032988

thank you based anons

>>53032836
Hoo buddy... Did you just throw a hand grenade into a crowded room...

The best way to phrase it is to echo what >>53033018 said.

It borrows a lot from the Team Yankee rules. It's not a 100% port over, but I'd say it's at least 80% Team Yankee.

It removes a lot of the complication, but retains a lot of the tactical depth.

>>53033018
V4 plays pretty fast with armor vs armor. As soon as you get infantry or guns involved it starts to drag out. Even with artillery killing better, you're still looking at a ~1/8 chance of normal artillery killing an infantry team for each one under the template.

File: IMG_2751.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Two completely different German Marders.

Both are excellent kits, the Battlefront West German Marder IFV, and the Plastic Soldier Company Panzer 38(t) and Marder.

>>53028643

You are vastly overstating the degree to which Soviet doctrine was regimented at Regiment level (hue). While the Soviets loved their doctrine a Regiment commander would have had equal tactical training and flexibility in most circumstances as his NATO equivalent. Sticking to doctrine would not protect a Regiment commander from blame if an assault failed.

BMP spam can easily be explained as a NATO tank company intercepting the motor rifles as they go in against a built up target, with the Soviet tanks fighting another company on the next board over.

Particularly once the "front" devolved into pockets of forces you can not expect encounters to proceed nicely according to doctrine for a relatively small unit like a Regiment.

File: Marder.jpg (35KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x200px

>>53033841
Pic related.

>>53035252

The mud looks too random. It looks like it has had mud splashed on it rather than having gone through mud.

>>53035407
What kind of an animal is the Marder anyway?

It kinda looks like a ferret of some sort.

>>53035649
>Marder
German for Marten, which belongs to the subfamily Mustelinae like Weasels and Ferrets.

>>53035430
hmm look slike i've missed a spot.

Ratte in Flames of War when?

>>53036266
>Ratte

You're asking about a tank(more like a Land Battleship) that was never even built.

So, probably never.

>>53036367
I mean it's a 15mm miniatures wargame, it doesn't exactly have to conform to reality, and a 15mm Ratte wouldn't even be that big compared to most wargaming models.
I'm kinda surprised if there isn't a "secret weapons of WW2" expansion for alternate history enthusiasts.
But then I'm a newfag and I'm just now reading the 4th edition rulebook

>>53036437

There was a secret weapons expansion for 2nd ed.

>>53036437
With the exception of Mid War Monsters (which was recieved with a very... "mixed" reaction), Battlefront has never done a tank that never saw combat. They even leave out tanks that were produced but never made it to the lines. A Ratte is pretty unlikely. If the rumors about the Berlin compilation are true, though, we might see a 15mm scale Maus, which you'll be allowed one of in a game.

File: 20170503_134237.jpg (392KB, 1078x808px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 1078x808px

Am I doing Warpac correctly? Do i need more BMP's?

>>53036839
No Hinds -1945/10

All I could fit into 50 points, minus some T72's because I don't like the BF models waiting for PSC.

File: 1492161574993.jpg (8KB, 200x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x282px

>>53036839
BMP-1 spam or what do you want to do?
If not then:
>no glorious MBT
Back to Officers school

>>53036975
BMP spam, drown them in corpses, T72 coming when PSC does export versions.

So if I wanted to play a Late War Finnish army, do T-26s and T-28s do anything anymore against soviets or germans? I'm just starting Flames of War but it looks my local scene is going to be either Germans or Soviets.

>>53036839
Hah, I'm waiting for that exact same MiG-21 kit from a flgs for my future Romanian army. Please post pics when you build it.

Have you pre-ordered PSC T-55s yet?

>>53037297
Sure man will do, looks like a really nice little kit.

Not going to do T-55's they seem quite suboptimal. Since we have to basically choose between 55's and 72's i figured i'll go for the 72's

>>53037344
I've got a list lined up with 10 T-72s, 20 T-55, a company of infantry in BTR-60s, 8 Gaskins, a couple of airplanes and 6 Carnations.

Hopefully that BTR-60 from the sneak peek will end up being plastic, or I'll have to get Zvezda kits and pretend they're BTR-60s...

Does anyone here play Team Yankee at 6mm? How do you handle range conversions? Should I just halve everything?

>>53037502
Honestly you could just keep it as it is, it's probably more accurate, the only thing you probably have to change is the artillery template.

>>53037422
That's an ass load of stuff, no choice if we wanna play the badguys though.

I am assuming it's plastic too, I wanna do a soviet guards with BTR's and T64s

File: German Panzer.png (34KB, 961x409px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 961x409px

How's this for a first list? It's exactly 1,500 points. I made a point to try and only take all plastic sets.
Alternatively I guess I could just buy the Rommel's Wolves army set.

>>53037422
>Team Yankee
>For when your Soviets have as many vehicles as bases of infantry

>>53037515
Ok cool, thanks. The arty template is 1' squared right? I'll just make a 6" squared template or maybe use the FoW one.

>>53037574
Looks quite decent, and everything is plastic (which is good). I would personally swap a StuG for a Panzer IV, to get more than 3 tanks in that platoon, but I don't tend to confine myself to what is easy to buy.

>>53037591
More, actually. MUCH more. 24 bases of infantry, 16 APCs (including the observer), 14 SPG & AA, 30 tanks. That's 2.5 vehicles per base of infantry.

>>53037527
Yeah, but at least in the case of Romania, the shit-grade skill is decently accurate. During the 1989 revolution Romanian tankers actually shot at each other (from different regiments) because they didn't know the Romanian army had T-72s (for some reason this was a sort of a {badly kept} state secret).

>>53037649
Personally I love Stugs, Jagdpanthers, Tigers and Panthers over Panzer IVs but that would mean I'd have to goad my club into starting with 4 000 point armies to get all my toys on the table.

File: 3035f8505567b56bd03e4ea9bd8eb53ea3d73c6cbc13dcecd68fa42c00f41373_1.jpg (102KB, 460x574px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 460x574px

>red thunder drops
>russians become over powered
>what do?

>>53037760
Get your skis/snowboard and enjoy the slopes of hell.
,cheers!

>>53037760
Cyka blyat

>>53037649
Also if I read the 4th edition rulebook right, I don't need to deploy command teams for my artillery anymore so I don't need to worry about buying Schwimmwagens and such?

>>53037837
You still get one observer, which usually comes with a car of some kind, but aside from that, correct.

>>53037752
Now imagine 2.5x fearless trained strelk levels of vehicles

>>53037837
Why wouldn't you buy beschtwagen?

>>53037913
I guess I'm mentally damaged.

>>53037890
Hahahahahaa!
No.
I do not own a barn or stadium.

>>53036484
>Maus
Explain more

>>53037502
Halving the ranges defeats the main purpose of playing in 6mm, I keep it as is. I used halved base sizes though, and I've experimented with full size and half size templates and don't have a definitive preference. Starting with everything the same but with smaller models is what I'd advise though, and modify from there.

>>53038334
You'd make Phil and co very happy though, think of the possibilities!

>>53037760
Destroy my wallet because i would be able to play as Warpact

File: Metro-maus1[1].jpg (248KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x683px

>>53038373
There might or might not have been a functioning super heavy tank at some super secret Nazi research base. It was probably never used but the Soviets captured the prototypes.

>>53037574
>short infantry platoon
Nah, you wanna cut something to get that. Howitzers swapped for nebs, or minus a recce patrol or something.

>>53037649
If he's playing V4 he can just combat attach the 2iC to have a 4 tank platoon anyway.

>>53038407
I know about the wunderpanzer, i was asking about the rumor for FoW. I want to use that thing.

File: German Panzer 2.png (36KB, 1001x385px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1001x385px

>>53038410
Okay, so what about this?

File: German Panzer 3.png (40KB, 989x404px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 989x404px

>>53038445
Okay last one. At least now I know what to buy.

Reminder that in V4 MW hull MGs have 360° firing arcs since tanks just have MG dice

>>53038396
No I wouldn't. I'd get everything from PSC & Zvezda.
>>53038445
I'd downgrade the Pumas to 234/1 or 250 haltracks, replace the panzerwerfers with 15cm nebelwerfers (cheaper, can dig in and in V4 panzerwerfers can no longer remove smoke trails).

With the points you get you should be able to squeeze in another panzer IV or a couple of mobelwagens.

>>53038501
Thanks for the tips, but I think I'll go with >>53038468 this list based on personal bias. I just prefer how Pumas and Panzerwerfers look.

>>53038445
I think I like this one the best out of the three you've posted. Eight tanks is a little low so maybe the second? Two recce platoons is useful with the new Spearhead rules for the deployment flexibility? In something like Dust Up you could send one platoon into each empty quarter, or stick one at either flank on one of the long edge vs long edge ones. On the other hand, nothing above AT11 means you'll really struggle against that one guy with 4 RT King Tigers.

Also if you're buying Panzerwerfers you should perhaps consider extra crews but I don't think that's better than anything you could cut for it.

Speaking of King Tigers, I'd seriously recommend the twenty quid or so to grab some Zvezda KTs. The garbage rating lists are cheap as hell to buy and pretty fun. Really any of the Zvezda heavies are worth picking up for the points:price ratio.

>>53038526
Ok, fair. Just try to resist the temptation of throwing the Pumas into combat too quickly. That gun seems impressive on paper but, unless you're desperate, you should really, REALLY avoid trying to take on tank side armour or any gun teams that can shoot back with them.

>>53038547
I don't think King Tigers are a problem to start with. We've got one guy making a mechanized infantry platoon for Germans and I doubt he's gonna start with KTs. The other guy is going to start Soviets with the Red Bear book.
Also yeah I'll definitely see if I can find some Zvezda tanks next month, there's a shop a bit of a ways out from where I live that stocks a lot of them for 5 euros per box.
>>53038548
I figured they're made of wet tissue. I'll try to be careful.

>>53038547
Can confirm RT KT Best KTs.

>>53038417
Largely unconfirmed rumours are circulating that Battlefront might try to stick the Maus that may or more than likely may not have seen action into the next upcoming LW release which is Fall of the Reich.

>>53038868
RT?

>>53038868
>Maus

Why? Zvezda is releasing a plastic Maus this year and as far as I know Battlefront doesn't make a Maus. I highly doubt they'd do that unless they felt that they could sell minis.

>>53038902
Reluctant Trained.
So you only Motivate on a 5+
Skill checks on 4+
Hit on 3+

However your crap Motivation and To-Hit numbers are compensated by how little you'll ever need them. With FA:15, nothing breaches your front armour. So don't get hit in the side, and you're golden.

>>53038908
Because people like big tanks, Battlefront themselves like big monster tanks. So they'll probably do one in resin and metal. Can't compete with price so they'll compete with Quality instead. Also presumably because Battlefront's plans got laid out since before we knew about Zvezda's

>>53038902
Reluctant Trained- Germans replacement troops by the end of the war who had shit morale and were probably looking forward to being captured by the Americans.

>>53038948
>>53038941
Sorry, I am not on-board with the lingo yet.

>>53038964
RC RT RV
CC CT CV
FC FT FV
These are the stats in Flames of War (v3). First is morale (Reluctant, Confident and Fearless) second is skill (Conscript, Trained, Veteran). The level of the stats determines the dice needed to pass skill checks, morale checks and how easy they are to hit.

>>53039007
Yeah, I know that much, I just quickly read through the V4 rulebook for early and late war. I just have trouble with abbreviations.

>>53038964
It's fine. We really need to make an "alignment" chart.

>>53038941

Maybe they should just worry about packaging all their Digital lists into the book because Berlin and Nachtjäger (Nachtjäger means Night Hunter) were pretty meh on their own. Yeah Berlin had lots of variety for the Germans, but there was nothing in the main book covering Seelow and besides Hero Strelkovy all the good Soviet stuff was DLC. Imagine how bad Hero Heavy Assault guns would be in V4.

>>53039043
Plus Walther Wenck isn't a hero character, when he really should be. I figure it's going to be Berlin, Desperate Measures, Bridge at Remagen, and Nachtjäger all rolled into one with probably a Soviet, Axis, and Allied Book each.

>>53038868
I can just Imagine it, side armor 12/14 and front armor 18. Short 75mm coax and 17 AT. And only move 5cm.

It could be cool if they release something like the Panther F or the Kubelblitz, since they are at the same lvl of the waffentragers.

>>53039097
Try AT 16, the 12.8cm is already on the Jagdtigers.

>>53039097
>Kugelblitz

Basically the Gepard, but in FoW. I can get behind that as a go to breakthrough gun replacement.

>>53039139
Mixed the numbers, for a 1 min i thought the long 88 was AT 16 and since the 128mm is just 1 more, i went full retarded.

>>53039173
Wait i min... I was right

For a moment i thought It was mandela effect

>>53039043
>alignment chart
Like with examples of each?
RC is Volksturm
RT makes me think of the garbage KTs and stuff so probably that? Or Luftwaffe troops I think
RV has to be Desert Rats / 51HD
CC I can't think of anything off hand, maybe EW Soviets
CT has too many examples to have an iconic one, same with CV
FC also EW Soviets?
FT is Soviet Guards
FV is paratroopers or SS

>>53039915
>implying Soviets aren't RC

>>53039938
Maybe RC should be TY Soviets then, yeah.

>>53028935
>be early adopter of FOW 1st ed
>write articles on painting and modelling for BF
>Phil brings out regarded rules for snipers, allowing one rifleman to pin entire platoons with a single shot
>engage in debate both privately with Phil via email and also on forums
>stupid fucking unrealistic rule stays in place
>sell most of my models and never support BF again

They're a shit company if you like historical and tactical accuracy.

>>53039915
Luftwaffe troops are RT throughout the entire war (except Herman Goring division) and are in almost every German list.
SS falls in both FT & FV, so may as well leave paras for FV. For CV it should mostly be the Wehrmacht, while US/Brits can take the CT slot.
EW soviets are indeed CC, except Guards who are FC.
>>53039938
>Soviets RC
Ahem, surely you mean Fearless Potato, komrade?

>>53040185
>single shot
That single shot can also kill five dudes, maybe the one roll to hit means more than just one bullet.

You're not wrong about Phil though

Are the East Germans as hopeless as people on forums have made them seem?

I'm looking at Britbongs atm. I've wanted to do something with Cold War era British since seeing '71.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BaKfl1Ms4

>>53027861

Really? I remember the BF interview mentioning that plastic infantry were unprofitable and hard to make. I didn't think there'd be any more.

>>53036839
You need more BMPs.

>>53036839
>MiG-21

noice, but it's not an AS unit

try MiG-27 or Su-22 Fitter

>>53037502
inches as centimeters tends to work fine....

>>53037760
i really fucking wish.

>>53038941
>Can't compete with price so they'll compete with Quality instead.
Zvezda are actually really good lately, so this might be hard. You can do much cleaner lines with plastic than resin/metal.

>>53040463
Yeah, my Zvezda KTs are way nicer than my BF one and the 5 of them cost about the same as the one BF one.

>>53040336
Probably because you get an entire company in one box.

But yeah they're bringing out more.

>>53040256
They're the soviets but their tanks and morale are worse, their skill is better, and they basically only get BMP-1s. The one good thing about their skill being better is their artillery is actually fairly reliable; "look at all the cool blitz move stuff you can do!" is pretty fucking optimistic because 4+ skill is a 50-50 chance and anyone who's played trained germans should know not to base your entire plan on a 50-50 chance.

To be honest, East Germans are probably better than the soviets, because they're cheaper and nothing soviet can win in straight shootouts with NATO anymore and a T-72M is just as good at flanking MBTs as a T-72 Enigma. The fact they might actually be able to suppress ATGMs is really gravy.

My favourite thing about the V4 plane rules (possibly my new favourite thing about V4 full stop) is that if you lose the Unit Leader whilst they're split up then you can nominate a new one, but only if they're close to your Formation Commander.

>>53040455
Actually, MiG-21s have been used in ground attack roles as well (Africa, Yugoslavia). Not everyone has/had MiG-27 or Su-22, or they were simply too old and crappy to be used as dogfighters by 1985 so throwing them at the enemy (somewhat literally, as they tend to fall out of the sky by themselves) is a viable option when you need to saturate an area.

>>53036437
>a 15mm Ratte wouldn't even be that big compared to most wargaming models.

This is only a rough estimate but it would probably be as wide and tall as a Baneblade, and about twice as long.

That's monsterously huge.

>>53040455
Well they could be fitted with ground attack munitions, and the E-Germans used the MiG-21 the most, and it's my favourite supersonic, had to get it.

>>53041958
Eh, I have Baneblades, they aren't THAT big

>>53041958
in 15mm? Good lord man, it won't even be close to that, it would be less than half the size of a GW Chimera.

>>53042165
Ratte, not Maus.

>>53042216
ohhh sorry the Landkreuzer, my bad. I still don't think it would be that big. GW tanks are massive.

File: HugeTank.jpg (114KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x768px

>>53042227
Judge for yourself.

>>53042286
>>53042286
Yeah that's not too bad.

>>53042334
I beg to disagree, that stupidly fuckhuge.

File: Screenshot_20170504-001404.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>53042286
Well shit I didn't imagine it was that big duck me.

>>53042388
Oh of course it's stupidly huge, that's the point, but not too huge to fit on a table.

>>53042286
They were really playing silly buggers weren't they, did they not foresee it sinking immediately into any surface...

>>53042286
So how many shermans to a ratte?

>>53042485
Where "fit on a table" is defined as "less than 6'x4')?

>>53042512
Paper panzers: a bored engineer doodle something and makes a few approximations as to what would be needed, before his coffee break is over. It might later be brought out because the nutcase in charge wants big stuff (meanwhile, he's from the infantry, and have never been on the field since ww1)

>>53042535
Yeah, pretty much. It might be fun for a laugh once in a while.

>>53042512
>They were really playing silly buggers weren't they, did they not foresee it sinking immediately into any surface...
Well, it probably didn't get built for a reason. Maus had significant sinking issues, though, and totally did get built (not in numbers, but they fully intended to roll it out).

>>53042286
>Putting camo on a tank that is taller than most trees.

>>53042779
It does seem somewhat useless. Then again, they put camo on some (most/all?) battleships, and those don't even have any trees to hide behind.

>>53042779
Should camouflage it like a hospital. Safe!

>>53042961

Ship camo was more to distort your size/distance than hide the fact that a ship is there.

>>53042974
>How do you know that was a nuclear facility?
>Well, they tricked us on that one. That's a hospital. But it's a hell of a strike!

>>53042995
And I was imagining something similar here... then again, you have the tree next to it to compare it to (blasted trees). I guess it helps somewhat against the bombers that will be sent against it.

>>53042974
That hasn't helped modern day Palestinians very much.

File: IMG_0410.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Bumping with Volkspamee-induced foam tray sag

>>53046064
T-55s?

>>53046800
Yes. Metal ones at that.

>>53046985
I'm almost afraid to ask how many.

>>53047471
There's only 9 in there. I'll pick up 1 or 2 boxes of the PSC ones and then I am cutting myself off.

>>53043509
OY VEY, being a little anti Semitic there goy!

File: memedowner.jpg (16KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x301px

>>53043509

>>53038501
Now, now, fellow traveller. Those are capitalist opportunist vultures masquerading as hobby alternatives. You wouldn't dare betray the party product line, now would you?

File: 1480650851434.jpg (162KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 736x552px

Georgia bmp

>>53046064
wait....
....Britbongistan-anon?

new to this, why do the infantry pieces look like trash?

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

565KB, 1024x768px

>>53052544
Nope it's me.

And while I am namefagging, if you don't mind can everyone anwer this poll? It

http://www.strawpoll.me/12890878

>>53053211
Which ones specifically are you referring to?

Some of the older molds don't look that great anymore due to wear on the molds.

But most of the newer stuff is pretty good.

Is there a guide somewhere indicating which books are no longer relevant?

>>53054623
For EW/LW the V4 book lists what are the relevant books for list constriction, and there's only two MW books for V4 right now. Otherwise, the TO will usually list which books are relevant.

File: Soviet_cavalry_tank_BT-7m.jpg (34KB, 484x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 484x331px

>>53053496

File: 1492029141446.jpg (377KB, 981x840px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 981x840px

Your daily dose of cheers

>>53057049
I wouldn't mind this so much if there was some actual benefit to being "aggressive", like they rolled two dice in assault or always needed more hits to pin or something. As it is, all the "they're not worse, just different" stuff rings hollow when the only difference is that they hit more.

File: T-55CHEERS.jpg (247KB, 1380x785px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1380x785px

>>53057664

Because ultimately Phil doesn't care that much, and the system lacks the nitty gritty needed for it.
It's much easier to just penalize the Soviets for having different doctrines, tactics, and operational plans; especially when it plays to your inherent biases.

File: FOW-US412.jpg (13KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x500px

I doubt it, but does anyone here have Battlefront's baseless Dodge 3/4 ton truck model (this one)? I was wondering if the back covering was attached to the rest of the body, since it seems barely attached here and I've seen some pics that seem to indicate it's not attached.

>>53058776
I've got it, it's not attached, but instead an extra piece of resin that you can glue on (or you can hae it open, they provide parts for that as well).

>>53058845
Thanks. Apparently in the Varsity landings they used those for hauling the airborne guns around instead of the normal British trucks, so I was looking into getting some. The decision between ugly based and more expensive baseless is not an easy one...

Just me, or is PSC getting increasingly cheeky?
>forces for Battlegroup Tobruk and, ahem, other Desert WW2 games

File: PB25May07_006.jpg (99KB, 580x548px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 580x548px

>>53059192
Where's my plastic Crusaders with AA turret, PSC?

File: crusader-AA-2.jpg (87KB, 580x489px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 580x489px

>>53059329
I mean, if we just go off pics, I'm an entire market by myself. Nevermind that I'd only use 2-4 of them at once.

File: 03123.jpg (25KB, 600x296px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x296px

>>53059360
Besides, they'd obviously include those plebian desert crusader turrets as well, since unlike some group of Cheering assholes they actually fill their sprues up (You could have fit it in there, Battlefront!)

File: Crusader III AA Mk I Juno 001.jpg (35KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x267px

>>53059379
Probably wouldn't have the Mk I turret, though. Nobody remembers the Mk I.

File: crusader-iii-aa-mki.gif (38KB, 347x319px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 347x319px

>>53059395
Or if they do, it's the fully enclosed prototype that caused issues loading the Bofors. They ditched the rear half of the shield when it actually made it to combat.

And I think that's enough Crusader posting for me.

>>53027835
Picked up a box of Bannon's Boys today and was wondering, should I go ahead and assemble them now as M1s or build them as M1A1s for stripes?

>>53057049
it's true that a human being is incapable of hiding behind a bit of earth if he wasn't trained to do so!

>>53059605
And all those pictures from Pact nations' militaries using cover while training and on maneuvres do not count. Those are just propaganda!

File: 1493804989870.jpg (109KB, 540x625px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 540x625px

>>53059593
Nothing?

>>53059593
Are we even sure we're getting M1A1s in Stripes?

From what I can tell, that is just US player wish-listing at this point.

>>53060025
Well all the parts for them are on the sprue along with the Cobra having options on sprue not covered in the book.

>>53059593
Any way you could build them as M1s, but keep the bits and do a quick switch if M1A1s are made for the game later?

>>53060099
Right, but the other Cobra parts are for options from the Vietnam version of Flames of War.

The M1A1 could be future-proofing for when Stripes comes out, but as far as I know the main tank from stripes is supposed to be the M60 which was still being used in Europe in much larger numbers than the M1 in the early to mid 1980s.

>>53060318
Do you honestly think the USSR isn't going to be cheers'd by the M1A1 when they only will get a non-era T-64?

>>53060516
I still say the M60 would be the more appropriate tank to be in Stripes.

I'm not throwing out the M1A1 completely, but production dates and production numbers as well as in service dates would all be strong arguments against it.

Besides, who honestly wants NATO tanks that cost even more points than the Leopard 2?

>>53060692
>he thinks production dates matter when it's the "good guys"
>he thinks the M1A1 won't be 10 points

To have such hope in the game and Phil must be so weary on your soul.

>>53060692
>I'm not throwing out the M1A1 completely, but production dates and production numbers as well as in service dates would all be strong arguments against it.

That will not stop Phill

>>53059593
>Bannon's Boys

Is that a World in Conflict reference?

>>53060831
It's a Team Yankee novel reference.
World in Conflict referenced the book too.

>>53060892
cool

File: stars of war.jpg (85KB, 600x497px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x497px

May the 4th be with you....

>>53060793
>>53060765
>>53060516

>Worried about the M1A1's in TY

>Not more worried about the M60 getting the Chieftain treatment.
>Not worried about Battlefront adding the Meme Core with 3+ assault, 3+ Morale, and 3+ skill.

File: faae5072d6f16ba70a68f8f3ff.jpg (126KB, 1176x1126px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1176x1126px

>>53061211
Hover tank with Cross Rating of 4+, droids are asiatic hordes.

Cheers.

>>53059605
>>53059903

funny, but given his logic maybe to-hit should be solely based on whether you are in cover or not?

4+ if near terrain, etc.
3+ if moving in the open

then add +1 if they are actually taken up in cover as opposed to using to to rabbit hop closer.

GTG as normal, etc....

>>53061258

dude just play Mandalorians. no one can beat you.

File: MTT Spam.png (2MB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x816px

>>53061258
>>53061211
Just finished my Trade Federation army. Too bad MTT spam is the only viable list for the Droids.

dead game

>>53060892
yeah except the Bannon in WoC is a very bad tank commander but redeems himself by willing to stay back and tie up a soviet tank company so they can be nuked.
Also game has Whitesnake yeahhhh

File: you filthy norts rogue trooper.jpg (144KB, 736x339px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 736x339px

>>53042286
That's a goddamned blackmare

>>53060692
>I still say the M60 would be the more appropriate tank to be in Stripes.

That's probably coming and it's getting Chieftained.

>I'm not throwing out the M1A1 completely, but production dates and production numbers as well as in service dates would all be strong arguments against it.

This literally doesn't matter if it's "cool", see also the MCT. Only the soviets are penalised for having low production numbers; NATO just gets everything handwaved away.

>>53061215
>>Not worried about Battlefront adding the Meme Core with 3+ assault, 3+ Morale, and 3+ skill.
Oh fuck I didn't consider it but this is definitely happening isn't it.

I can see it now. "NATO needs an elite option, cheers".

>>53061445
dead like the DDR

Exciting new Soviet Team Yankee releases coming in July and August, 2017!

- Red Thunder Briefing Book
- Yuri's Wolves Starter Army
- T-64 Tankovy Company (Plastic)
- BTR-60 Company (Plastic)
- 2S3 Acacia 152mm Heavy Battery
- SA-8 Gecko SAM Platoon
- Storm Anti-Tank Platoon
- Motor Rifle Company (Plastic)
- Motor Rifle Platoon (Plastic)
- Motor Rifle Heavy Weapons (Plastic)
- Afghantsy Heavy Weapons (Plastic)
- Motor Rifle Company (Plastic)

>>53063260
>No T-80
It's spam then.

>>53063260
Phil's trolling is enough please don't join in anon.

>>53063277
Have you heard the tragedy of T-80 the tank? I thought not. It's not a story Battlefront would tell you.

>>53063389
This is legit, just checked it on the TY facebook page.

>>53063456
It's going to REALLY depend on what the ATGM stats on it are and what the points cost is. If you can win a shootout with it (it's AT 23-24 and/or 2+ FP), it'll be fantastic.

File: 2000004607.jpg (267KB, 1400x917px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1400x917px

>>53063715
Well, I'll be...

>>53063890
>ATGM
No, those weren't commonly available at the time, except in select units, so we've chosen to skip them.

Cheers.

>>53063260
What's a Storm Anti-Tank Platoon?

>>53063260
>T-64
I bet it's the T-64 too, and not the T-64B. Because spam. Probably won't even have FA 17.

>>53063929
MT-LBs equipped with a Shturm ATGM launcher (a ground based version of the kokon missile the Hind uses).

I wonder what the impetus is going to be to take the OSA over the Gopher or Gaskin.

>>53063961
Well, the armour was more or less identical, so probably.

Now, they should both be FA 17 (since the abrams is apparently too high but they fudged it), but they're at least consistent.

>>53063929
Should be pretty ace, since AT 23 is actually decent against NATO tank fronts, so if it's 2-3 points for the platoon like it probably should be it'll be close to autopick.

>>53064016
It'll probably be Gaskin with tracks, since, yeah, it's not hugely different.

File: ve_td_9p149_o1.jpg (53KB, 665x300px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 665x300px

>>53063929

>>53063260
Any idea when on this stuff?

File: sad putin.jpg (80KB, 440x594px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 440x594px

So Team Yankee is going to turn into even more of an ATGM standoff simulator.

Also Aircraft aren't becoming any more relevant now that the soviets have 5 different types of AA.

>At least our motor rifle spam is all plastic now.

File: 9541149072_43fd27e975_b.jpg (248KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x672px

>>53064048
It's actually a wheeled chassis, but it does have six "ready" tubes compared to four, so maybe a higher ROF?

>>53064074
July/August is the rumor.

>>53063260
well... it is T-64 spam then...

maybe it is time for hiring a russian mercenary to "FIX" battlefront?

>>53064098
>Also Aircraft aren't becoming any more relevant now that the soviets have 5 different types of AA.
They'll probably go into the same slots, but, let's be real, nobody except the US is short on things to take out planes.

>>53064231
Yeah I suppose all 3 missile AA will go into the same slot, but at that point the question becomes "why bother?" I mean the Gecko certainly is a notable cold war vehicle but gameplay wise, woohoo another AA unit... wtf Battlefront.

File: not from a jedi.jpg (27KB, 591x443px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 591x443px

>>53063456
the T-80 tank was an armored fighting vehicle most wise and powerful.

it's grand 125mm cannon could even....shoot missiles...

File: slavic fury.gif (3MB, 260x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 260x200px

>>53063260

>if it includes T-72 as well

>pic related

>>53066223
Game already includes T-72s?

>>53066365
I think he means Yuri's Wolves.

>>53066385
Apparently T-64s and Hinds.

>>53066385
no, the list:

Red Thunder may be a separate book to draw lists from. maybe. but, if it has all the good stuff from the core, it will replace the old USSR!

>>53063260
Do we know if the infantry will be hard plastic or the bendy plastic they used for the v4 artillery crew?

>>53066959
dunno.

also, new /bant/ board is actually pretty based....

File: 200px-RAF-Logo.svg.png (10KB, 200x197px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x197px

> Team Wankee looking like it's going to turn into even more garbage
> mfw bough the Volksarmee and East German Infantry boxset
> mfw no cheap way of getting 9 T-72s and 2 Hinds now
> mfw Battlefront really doesn't want me as a customer at all

At this point I'm tempted to just field them as West Germans or something because I only play with one other person and he won't mind - Battlefront is clinically retarded and these rules are shit tier

>>53067158
>> mfw no cheap way of getting 9 T-72s and 2 Hinds now
What cheap way of getting 9 T-72s and 2 Hinds? The starter box is a pound off, it's literally "the stuff you were going to get but in one box".

>>53066862
I mean, why shouldn't it have all the core stuff? Soviet and American core rulebook lists are kind of bare bones "we haven't actually made everything yet" lists.

...Kind of like the new v4 stuff but they're selling that as seperately books

>>53067158
They're not gonna retire the Potecknov's Bears box just because the T-64s are out. They spent all that money on the plastic tooling plus the Red Banner and East German lists still need them.

Okay, so, is this me, or is the BTR company just... Really shit? You pay one point less than a full BMP company, and in return you get one less MG team, half as many ATGM shots (albeit with less minimum range, but pinnable), and your IFV is just... totally shit. I just don't get what the fuck they're for.

File: antitank_aircraft.jpg (14KB, 490x306px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 490x306px

>Germany, March 1945
"We're out of rifles, but we've got penty of panzerfausts. So Franz, you get a Panzerfaust."
>"Ya"
"Hans, you also get a Panzerfaust."
>"Ya"
"Hell, everyone gets a Panzerfaust."
>"What about the plane?"
"Fuck it, the plane can have a Panzerfaust as well!"

So is WW2 FoW dead or not? I can't tell.

>>53068987
>Panzerfausts on a Storch
>look like the 60-100 m varient
>on a Storch
>What about the effect of backblast on the elevators?
>60m range
>on a plane
>how the fuck do you even aim that
>too bad it's only AT 3 now.

>>53069165
Not even close. People are just getting reacclimated to V4. Mileage may vary depending on personal opinion, but I am having fun. We've mainly been bitching about TY because Phil and BF keep giving us a never ending supply of cheers.

>>53069165
It's certainly a rocky transition. Some people say they like it, some people say it's bad. I'm more in the second category but I can't get over how shoddily the rulebook's written.

>>53069171
Bücker Bü 181 Bestmann, actually. And those might be PF 90s, not that the range matters when dive bombing. But yeah, really dumb and desperate idea to equip training aircraft with panzerfausts as an anti-tank measure.

>>53069226
So when the shitty rules drive away players... where do they go? Just back to GW? Bolt Action?

>>53069303
>Just back to GW?
We're at the point where at least in my area, GW products are more mythical than played. You would have to go back at least 4-5 years to find people who actually started out with their games around here.

File: Anotherfortheerratapile.png (403KB, 1127x556px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1127x556px

>>53069226
Speaking of, can anyone spot the problem here?

Does Battlefront have a history of being poor at first versions of a rulebook? Is the game drastically different from how it used to play? Is MidWar sort of the test bed before they release the book for Late War which, I assume, is the most popular way to play FoW?

>>53066144
my sides.

Apparently unescorted tanks are fiiine against infantry now, too. The finns had AT 7 machineguns or something.

>>53027835

Do we have any images of Red Thunder yet?

> Cheers.

>>53027835
>americans get m1a1
>soviets arent even allowed to have ERA

File: General_Rotmistrov_,commander_of_the_7.Tank_corps.jpg (963KB, 1410x924px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 1410x924px

My gaming group is into mostly 40K and X-Wing right now, but I'm unable to prevent myself from trying to convert them to historical gaming. So I bought the El Alamein box set and plan to bring it next time. Has anyone had notably bad/good experiences pimping this game out?

Also General Rotmistrov looks like he could be a lost Marx brother.

>>53069303

> Hmmm.... you know what, FoW and TY's 100 page rulebook just doesn't have the depth I'm looking for in a war-game.

> I know! I'll go play sage of smeg with 4 pages and 40Kid with 12 and bask in their easy going communities.

No.

>>53071602

> Marx brother.

Groucho and Karl weren't related.

>>53071659
I don't follow.

Is 1500 points standard size for LW?

>>53072327
Late and Early war both build from there as a points limit yes. Mid War and Team Yankee are still in flux, a lot of people are saying 75 points is the new black for that.

>>53071804
Most of the complaints about V4 are that it's unrealistic and tosses away stuff for pointless simplification.

40k and 40K:WWII edition are very much the opposite of what they're looking for.

>>53072447
Are those complaints all that valid? I dabbled in FoW when it first came out but not since. I know communities like to scream about things being dumbed down a lot.

>>53072506
I wouldn't personally say that the simplification was unnecessary or pointless. V3 now that I've got something to compare it to, feels old, it feels like it's got a lot of unneeded weight dragging you down.
V4 plays a lot simpler and cleaner. It's faster, and while complexity is down, tactical choice is up.

>>53072506
Depends on who you ask. It's naturally going to end up a war of
>opinions
Personally, I feel that yes, it is. But I also know that everyone's already dug into their trenches on this, armed only with rifles, and with recce not making it easier to hit any more, it's pointless to get into an argument about it.

>>53072557
>complexity is down

yea good thing we don't have to worry about using more than one smoke bombardment or having our planes ever shot down or our heavy tanks ever damaged by bombs and artillery

Wait, I must be autistic because I like more depth than tanks shooting other tanks

>>53072745
Comon anon. Heavy tonks arent going to bite it from arty unless a direct hit occurs. As any proper grog knows, that is exceedingly rare. As for smoke, BF is clearly balancing out all the spam from last edition, and is making up for the surprising lack of smoke bestssr had. You need to think outside of the fascist line.

>>53073291
I can't tell how much of this is memeing and how much is serious. Well done.

>>53073291
I agree with the smoke, here in my group and at the LGS it was constant annoyance, but that's not how arty works.

>>53073375
Our local shop's been trying a hybrid thing, unlimited smoke but you only get one 2" ball per gun, placing them in a straight line wherever you want as long as the whole line is in line of sight of the observer (still have to range in, of course). Using the V3 smoke modifiers instead of V4's "can't see beyond 3", it's worked pretty well at stopping the table being half covered in giant smoke templates, while still allowing historically reasonable use of it. Makes it much more difficult to cut out entire sections of the battlefield when you get a 6"x2" line instead of a 6"x12" block.

But we're in the middle of nowhere and so freely able to make our own PathFlames of war, not terribly appropriate for those playing with more generalized groups.

>>53073512
er, 6" for v4, hit the wrong key there.

We also reduced Direct Fire Smoke to just a single 2" ball, which again reduces clutter on the board and makes it a bit easier to play around smoke spaming.

>>53060793

My money is them doing the M1A1HA (ie the one with depleted uranium armor) as a "rushed into service" unit.

Also the M60 will be better than all Soviet tanks while the M48 is on par with the T-72.

>>53066959
>or the bendy plastic they used for the v4 artillery crew?

You mean the 10.5cm german guns? I was about to order a set of those and some 88s. Should I pass? Mind detailing a bit more?

File: Red Thunder Releases.png (797KB, 807x457px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 807x457px

>>53063260
And here's pics of the releases. I'm not sure whether to get Khurasan T64s, or get these ones. At least I can rely on Zvezda for most of my other models.

File: angrypie.jpg (170KB, 750x935px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 750x935px

>>53075306

>MFW No Uragan
>MFW No 2S5
>MFW No T-80
>MFW No ERA

They had better remember that AT platoons were a thing in motor rifle battalions - I really want to mess up some NATO vehicles with SPG-9s.

>>53073562
>Also the M60 will be better than all Soviet tanks while the M48 is on par with the T-72.
I'm expecting AT 20, FA 16, and a meme corps version with 3+ skill and 3+ courage. If it does M60A1 there's going to be a FA 15 one with ERA just to fuck with us.

>>53075306
They have finally noticed that boxed deals actually need to be deals, though. Both are about 10% off buying everything separately.

>>53075361
Tripod mounted, breaks the "no gun teams" rule. Same reason nobody has any mortars and the US doesn't have TOWs.

>>53075361
I'd like the BM-30 Smerch as well. Just massed Rocket Artillery to smother the enemy.

>>53075397
>I'm expecting AT 20, FA 16, and a meme corps version with 3+ skill and 3+ courage. If it does M60A1 there's going to be a FA 15 one with ERA just to fuck with us.
Oh, and the A3 will be 4.-4.5 points per tank, so expect a full platoon for less than 20 points.

>>53069303
For me, hastily written rulebook is one thing. But Phil's dismissing attitude towards legitimate questions people have about the rules he wrote and his "cheers" approach to game design, while hiding behind "I'm in this business for 15+ years" made me pack the figures and go look for fun somewhere else. You can do something all your life and still make mistakes, unless you learn to appreciate others opinions and value the info you may get from it. Just thank the person for pointing it out, improve upon it and continue. Instead we have “stop playing this game the way I didn’t think anyone would play, just leave the table, shoo shoo…”approach, and that pisses me off.

Personally, I started playing Shadow War: Armageddon and returned to X-Wing (had the miniatures already so no big monetary investment there). Different scales and games, I know... but I'm having fun. Which is also something I wish to everybody here - wherever you play V4, stick with V3 or go somewhere else...

Cheers

File: elmo-explosion-o.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>53075432

Smerch is likely too late to make it in (1989). Same goes for the TOS-1 Death Burrito (1988).
LUNA-M rockets would be nice, but nuke version is right out, and I have not idea how they'd represent the HE warhead version.

I'd settle for ERA honestly.

>>53063260
US releases for September:

M1A3 Abrams
M270A1 MLRS
F-22 Raptor
AN/TWQ-1 Avenger (after complaints the Sgt York was never used we at Battlefront decided to implement a different unit, cheers)
V-22 Osprey
Prism Tank

We feel this list accurately represents NATO combat doctrine of the era.

Cheers.

>>53075555
>Prism Tank
Mooootherfucker.

At least you didn't say Mirage Tanks.

Unless the T-64 is drastically different (unlikely) or Red Thunder brings in some more ratings for soviets (very unlikely), Soviets strategy is still going to be spamming BMPs and ATGMs if you don't want to be stuck with overpriced tanks that underperform.

>>53075555
>V-22 Osprey

Do you make reliability checks for them, or do you just remove it and D6 stands of marines as casualties when the game starts?

>>53075611
Accurate documentary Ghost in the Shell shows special forces units deploying from Ospreys, so we've given them stats to match

Cheers.

>>53074058
If they're like the 25 pounders then yes. The plastic is flexible and those sticks some of the crew had came bent. You can't scrap off the moudline easily. I tried cutting them off but that just caused me to damage the models so I ended up leaving them with mouldlines on the helmets. They do paint perfectly fine.

>>53075489
Kinda feels like I should cancel my order of El Alamein and just embrace X-Wing at my LGS.

>>53077026
It's a very entertaining game, but there's been some wonky rules wordings in the new rulebook and addressing all of it is gonna take a bit more time.

Still, we've never really run into any issues in our weekly play at the FLGS.

>>53077026
>>53077026
fag

So, not to open old wounds or anything, but what was the raft of complaints with the SU-100 being statted inappropriately? I vaguely remember something about the rate of fire and movement speed.

Asking because while we make our V3.5 we're also going to tweak some unit stats a bit for more accuracy, and those seem to be the cause of much complaining.

>>53077383
The SU-100.

>RoF1 so +1 if you move
>Hen and Chicks so another + 1 if you move
>they spent the game getting eternally smoked

With reduced smoke and blitz orders, they should be improved in V4. Not sure about costing.

>>53077383
The gun was absurdly good. In Berlin they alternated between sniping machine-gunners out of rooms and just taking the whole building down.

>>53077523
I meant I remember people saying it was slower and had a lower RoF than it should have had based off what it did IRL. But I can't remember the sources or anything.

>>53077581
You could try giving it RoF 2 or just getting rid of Hen and Chicks and see if it plays better. You could also throw in BTG for gigs.

>>53077581
The SU-100 is in most respects a T-34. It should have the same speed as a T-34, being approximately the same weight and engine. It's not overloaded, unless you're going to say "but the gun was so long it ditched", in which case a bunch of other casemated TDs should be, not least the jagdpanther. RoF is defensible, as it was relatively slow at 6 rounds per minute, but only via the metric of "fucking everything in FoW has a RoF plucked out of thin air", since it had a similar RoF to the jagdpanther and KT which are RoF 2, and a significantly better one than the jagdtiger, which is RoF 2 despite having the same practical RoF as the IS-2. More galling is that the BS-3 (the same gun on a carriage) had a very high rate of fire (10+ rpm), due to a loading crew and unlimited room to work... and is also RoF 1 with no option for loading crews to even bump it to 2.

>>53078354
>despite having the same practical RoF as the IS-2.
Same reason, incidentally, large two-part ammo (two part ammo is easier to load than an enormous round incidentally so everyone doing the BUT MUH 2-PART AMMO IS SLOWER TO LOAD" needs to consider how the fuck they're going to get a 128mm shell the length of their torso around a gun breech in a cramped space), but 2-part ammo only slows your loading speed if you're a heavy tank veteran in a guards division rather than being a miserable panicked teen who's been grabbed from school and told he's a loader now.

http://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5595

Some things:

>Yuri's wolves are T-64s with BMP recon serving as a coward detachment
>Missiles on the T-64 seem to be confirmed
>Potecknov'a Bears is back on Pre-order (lol wut?)
>Flavor text calls Afghansty "elite" so take that as you will for the ratings of the T-64 and BTR companies.
>Soviets=Macross Missile Bukkake Spam force

>>53078354
>More galling is that the BS-3 (the same gun on a carriage) had a very high rate of fire (10+ rpm), due to a loading crew and unlimited room to work... and is also RoF 1 with no option for loading crews to even bump it to 2.
Yeah, I've been tossing around a LOT of ideas regarding gun teams and their oddly low RoF (being the same as tanks with the same gun, despite having larger loading/shooting crews and more room to work with), but we're trying to avoid re-pointing a quarter of the units in the game. Will probably fix the BS at the same time as the SU-100, and just leave further RoF increase to any future changes to all gun teams.

>>53078406
could they be updating some of the stats for the current russian units?

>>53078406
Fucking autocorrect

>coward detachment = forward detachment
>Potecknov's Bears

>>53077383
The rof is lower than german stuff that historically fired twice as slow. Also spg tankhunting teams shouldnt have hen and chicks considering they had different doctrinal practices and radios.

>>53078520
Maybe there's some new formation cards with the new book. There's not new T-72 or Hind box listed so I don't think they are changing the models.

I highly doubt we'll see any stat changes one existing stuff. Especially since they went ahead and put BRDM-2 cards for the soviets in with those boxes.

>>53078543
Sounds like cheerscorrect to me.

>>53078588
Phil Yates siri when?

>>53078406
Wait, did they take the metal infantry and turn it into identical plastic ones?

>>53078624
So you can spam mooks for a better price, comrade.

>>53078624
Yes. Which is really nice since the old metal was the literal worse. The rest of the release are basically it's like (insert any soviet option) but different!

>>53077383
Remove all the Shermans park rules. Or give the Tiger and IS 2 normal tank speed. And one of those better cross rules to the Panthers, Jagdtiger and all Tiger, the IS-2 and all the variants of T-34.

An East eight should never be faster that any decent tank with good suspensión.

File: tumblr_inline_nea921IqF21rwq9lo.gif (30KB, 100x81px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 100x81px

>>53078406
>Missiles on the T-64 seem to be confirmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs

>>53078406
>>Potecknov'a Bears is back on Pre-order (lol wut?)
It's a new box that's actually in some way cheaper, and 5 T-72s and 2 hinds isn't a bad topper-upper.

>>53078653
Hilariously you can't because they're the same price.

>>53078696
This is true though, my entire box felt like it needed at least 15 minutes of filing per dude and that's serious go-fuck-yourself levels of mould lining on an infantry box.

>>53078737
>That just confirm the M1A1 for balancing reasons

>>53078696
I dunno, I got mine in the first run, and they are fine. The base plugs needed a lot of filing down though. Way too thick.

>>53078759
>same price
Fucking Christ BF

>>53078772
Anon, this is why we cannot have nice things. Don't harsh my buzz over this.

All this talk of different RoF is making me think of RoF King Tigers spammed all over the table - how much cheaper would they be?

And how much more expensive would a gun team be if its RoF increased? 20%?50%?

>>53078962
>And how much more expensive would a gun team be if its RoF increased? 20%?50%?
Would depend on how much the RoF increased, and how much base RoF it had.

>>53079027
Most units have RoF 1 or 2. RoF is pretty rare (on big guns, that is).

>>53027835
So how do you guys think they'll handle M1A1s?

Just make them another generic option or a "one platoon in the formation can be upgraded" kind of deal.

I'm hoping for the latter but and expecting the former.

Are Hero IS-2s playable in V4? Heavy tanks are harder to kill, Sturmoviks are better, Heroes are better because of movement orders, might it work?

>>53080384
Breakthrough guns are worse though, and the problem was never really the durability, so much as it was that they simply can't kill anything. Sure, whatever they hit is in trouble, but when you're paying 150 points per shot...

>>53080384
Playable? yes.
Good? No. You are still spending way too much for a RoF 1 gun without volley fire or cat killer. They are probably best used in a platoon of 3 in support of strelkovy. Dash them into an assault and be done with it.

>>53080384
>Are Hero IS-2s playable in V4?
Hero IS-2s were always playable. They were just godawful. This has not changed; arguably they're even worse since they don't even delete infantry they actually manage to hit anymore.

>>53083234
>>53080850
As someone who's actually ran Hero IS-2 at a tournament in V3, you don't really wanna rely on the gun to kill infantry either way.

That's what your mortars and/or assaulting with the tanks/supporting infantry is for.

I have yet to try my IS-2 force in V4.
Though units will likely be more fragile moralewise, the movement orders will be a great help in getting where you need to be without moving, which should allow greater use of your long-range firepower vs tanks.
And new and improved arty should help in dealing with any pesky infantry units loaded with integrated AT to a level where the tanks can charge in to mop up the survivors.

Overall, I'm expecting things to still be tricky and not the easiest to win with by far, but still viable enough to have fun playing.

So, turns out there's a CIA report that mentions soviet ERA being spotted on tanks in 1984. Is this just going to be cheers'd away too?

File: cheers right in your soul.png (83KB, 220x190px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 220x190px

>>53083442
>well you can't really trust intelligence from the cia , hey they said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which turned out to be untrue.

>>53083202
>>53083234
"Playable" is synonymous with "Good" in this context. As in, "That list has no recce, it's unplayable"

>>53083442
ERA on Soviet tanks (EDZ) started in '83 on the T-80 but wasn't really in widespread use on other models for another 2 years.

>>53083645
Phil's claimed it just straight-up wasn't issued at all, though. Not "limited numbers", "didn't exist". He's factually wrong there (though the CIA might have mistaken T-80s and T-64s, though this postdates the realisation there was a fork in design).

>>53083721
Who the fuck is Phil?

>>53083745
World renowned expert in all things Cold War. Has never made a mistake or ignorant decision in his life.

Cheers.

>>53083745
Phil Yates, one of the Flames designers.

>>53083890
Oh. Does he have any, you know, experience? Like military service or scholarly studies of military history at maybe an institute of higher learning? Because just being in the wargame industry is not great for building a picture of history.

>>53083926
He reads a lot of books that tell him very specific stuff that is always correct and never debateable with further research. See also "Tanks are immune to infantry in close assault if they're heavy enough" and "Artillery can't hurt tanks unless it gets really lucky".

>>53083926
His degree's in something crazy mathematics, planning or something and apparently according to one of my sources he's a member of some big New Zealand almost guild.

>>53083745
A social construction

File: too intelligent tobe smart.jpg (223KB, 1050x848px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1050x848px

What if Phil dosen't exsist and that he's just a meme for us to project all our bad gaming decisions onto.

>>53084343
Well I've actually met him. If you've been in the NZ Fow Community for more than a few years, you've probably met him as well.

>>53084408
Is he as much of a smug fuck IRL or does he just have awful PR skills?

>>53084510
I wouldn't call him a Fuck, he's a nice enough chap, but this was years ago now.

>>53084708

Why does Phil say Cheers so much?

Cheers.