Flames of War General: Look I don't get paid to write funny

>>53084708
Can't wait for my M1A1s, HOT II missiles and Patriot Air Defence Missiles in Stripes to blast apart those untrained and unarmoured Soviet Hordes in Red thunder!

>>53084922
>NATO wish-listing

Absolutely none of that has actually been announced for Stripes

>>53085042
M1A1 is basically guaranteed, it's on sprue.

Patriot's almost certainly not in because it's too high-level air defence.

>Phil plays UK in Team Yankee
Explains quite a bit about their units especially the Chieftain.

File: 1454437329148.jpg (248KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1600x1200px

/NVA/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ

>>53085408
Reckon we'll get the avenger or chaparral? The latter is the quintessential cold-war anti aircraft vehicle and im sure the avenger could be "rushed into battle" with a muffled "cheers" in the distance.

>>53085642
Chapparal and stinger infantry (or stuck in an M113 like the brit infantry inexplicably were) are pretty much guaranteed. Sgt. York is, depressingly, pretty plausible, given that the Sgt. York never got the smack-downs ERA or the T-80U got when suggested (Wayne even suggested a few reasons it might've been out).

>>53084708
>"era is unplausible even if it was in use years beforehand"
>"soviet x unit was """limited""" production, even if those numbers were higher than NATO vehicles"
>"m1a1 was too late for the time period, but it can be considered rushed production"
>"m1 was limited production, but lets wait over a year to put out the actual mbt ciz need muh wank"
>"lets give the m60 era"
>cheers

>>53085642
Sgt. York confirmed

cheers

>>53085878
Who or what is Sgt. York?

>>53085917
US AA tank that was aborted for a number of reasons, money was being slush funded all over the show, congress was getting narky about it not working, and mechanically it wasn't very good. Tended to pick up it's own guns on it's radar at high elevations.

>>53085917
a meme SPAAG

>>53085917
A new hero unit for The Great War expansion.

>>53086087
Phill pls, dot go around revealing things

>>53085947
>>53085917
What Virus said. A boondoggle that basically didn't work but if you pretend it did gives the US a Gepard equivalent.

File: GroznySpetzazniki.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

so, Missile Armed T-64's are confirmed.

how do you think this is going to affect the long run of things? think we will see a 3rd soviet list-source book? and how bad ass do you think the bastion will actually be...wanna offer up some guess stats?

>>53086751
They could be AT40 but It won't matter because I know 3 things for a fact.

They have a shorter range than NATO ATGMs
They will only be able to fire stationary
You will only be able to have 3 in a unit line mine clearing devices

This will make them all but useless point sinks for WarPac in a game where they have to be constantly on the offensive to win.

>>53086751
It won't be Bastion because Bastion was for 100mm guns. It'll be Kobra. It's got about 50mm more pen than Shturm, so it'll be AT 23 or 24. If it is 24 and doesn't cost the earth, it'd be pretty meta-changing. One of the biggest things Leopards and Iron Maiden did was make it seriously hard to win a shootout with NATO MBTs, but putting them on 6s to glance immediately makes the soviet burst scary again. 6 live tanks means brits and germans go straight to a check.

>>53086888
>They have a shorter range than NATO ATGMs
Slightly longer than the ITOW, longer range than the Milan, marginally shorter than HOT. It should be 48" like all of them.

>>53086751
It doesn't matter in the long run because what we need as Soviet Players is an option beyond "Spam some more shit at the enemy". Also an end to the "Rules for thee not for me" attitude that currently infects sourcing for NATO V Warsaw Pact equipment that's leading them to get M1A1s when we can't get ERA.

>>53087049
Not being too confrontational, since I agree with a lot of this (especially the "no ERA" thing when the CIA documents covering it are public info now), but having a warsaw pact tank that actually wins shootouts with NATO tanks is going to be a BIG change from the past several months of "dash for flank shots or embrace death".

>>53087049
Doesn't ERA only effect side armour and then only against weak, short range AT weapons like the RPG and Carl Gustav? Sounds to me like you've already fucked up if you have to rely on such a situational piece of equipment.

>>53087100
Technically Chobham and BDD work the same way.

>>53087149
So why are you guys complaining about it then? You really should not be having your tanks flanked by HEAT(or any weapons) in the first place.

>>53087083
T-72s can win shoot outs with NATO MBTs, it's just that our Autoloaders are gimped to ROF1 which means that NATO outshoots us at 2-1 shots, which coupled with the hit on 3+ means that it's never a winnable prospect.

>>53087100
ERA should also increase your armour against Kinetic and HEAT rounds, but such is life, our super tank is nothing compared to a British Tank from twenty years ago.

>>53087100
>>53087184

ERA would be nice in case you ever needed to assault an enemy off an objective. BDD and especially Bazooka Skirts are too vulnerable to HEAT. Lining everything out in front of dug in infantry and trying to shoot them off an objective is not always conducive to winning a game in less than 3 hours.

>>53086968
You are going to have the same problem the SU-100 has. You need to be stationary to shoot the missile. A clever opponent is going to make sure his tanks are out of the missile range + 4". We'lol see what that range ends up being. I am thinking 36-40". Besides it seems like the shturm will be the cheaper option for heavy ATGMs. RoF 2 would actually make the T-64 scarier in firefights against NATO armor... ERA would have made it unique too, but you know...

File: 1442602163533.jpg (112KB, 994x689px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 994x689px

>What if the new book has ERA for T-72's, but it's not modeled in miniature yet....

File: 1466918659011.jpg (92KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 601x508px

>>53087699
>Side armour for T-72 against HEAT goes from 12 to 16
>Now pay 2 more points per tank

Looking forward to it!

Considering ERA is plastered all over the front of tanks, this lol side armour thing is bollocks

These new Mid-War Plastics are fantastic. I wish these had been available when I started collecting 3 years ago.

>>53085510
Good work

>>53088431
They just want to make them the Cold war version of schurzen.

Where can I order the cheap Zvezda KTs? PSC seems to be out of stock

>>53090093
Maybe the warstore?

>>53090138
Only if he's American. If he's not, they'll ream him out on shipping.

>>53086313
Why not use the PIVADS instead?

>>53090093
Wonderland Models if you're UK based.

File: risunok-enzo-maio-tank-t-72.jpg (91KB, 596x380px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 596x380px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTGM1n8CYyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzOLRj4iNPg

>>53092874
rof 1

cheers

>>53087184
You take side hits in defensive fire and assault which you need to do to get infantry off objectives and/or kill atgms. ERA is to ungimp soviet tanks in assault given the presence of actually good LAWs in NATO now.

>>53087186
>T-72s can win shoot outs with NATO MBTs, it's just that our Autoloaders are gimped to ROF1 which means that NATO outshoots us at 2-1 shots, which coupled with the hit on 3+ means that it's never a winnable prospect.
Which is what I mean. Concealed NATO is 5+ to hit so you need three shots to hit on average. Most of NATO then glances on a 3-4 depending on range. Those big six-tank platoons, WITHOUT casualties, get an average of one kill, which Leos and Chieftains get two and two thirds to three and third depending on range. NATO usually shoots first.

Comparatively, an AT 24 missile bumps the kills up from six tanks to two, outright, which is a much fairer shootout.

>>53087556
It really should be 48", it's about the same as everyone else's missiles. NATO MBTs need to be within 40" to shoot at you, remember, so if they're not in range they're not helping their side either and you can focus on infantry or light vehicles.

>>53091461
Because it's not really a big change from the VADS and because it's not a relatively cheap way of annihilating BMP companies which is the gepard's true calling in life.

>>53093404
I own 6 Gepards and can confirm the table rises a few inches every time I see BMPs within 28".

>>53093152
>40 vs 48
How often do you play on tables sparse enough this matters?

>>53095344
Rarely, but it's factually wrong that NATO MBTs can sit within 4" of your max range and scoot out. NATO MBTs will have to sit in missile range if they want to play.

I got some M48s the other day, and I am today noticing a sort of light-grey crust over them. I've washed them already, so anyone know what gives?

>>53096907
They are growing ERA in preparation for use in Stripes, the ATGM should be next.

Cheers

The GLATGM should have a longer range than the NATO main guns; the whole point of having them was to give the Soviet MBTS a range equivalent or range edge against NATO MBTs.

It'll also be heat, so no +1 armor at range for the Wessies. I also think the 17 armor is very much worthwhile; it means against the Americans you are now no-selling their 105mm guns on a 3+ when you're over 16" and even against the Challenger and Leo II, your save chance goes up to a 4 glance/5+ outright bounce, while with a HEAT GLATGM you can negate their own armor buff from range.

And yes, you have to keep moving on the attack, but this means you can leapfrog your companies; one shoots, the other moves and shoots with the main gun. Means NATO can't (relatively) safely ignore the long-range threat of another company of MBTs.

>>53097011
The armour bonus isn't the important bit; the main thing is whether or not the missile's AT 24 or not. Auto-KOing tanks you hit makes you a threat at range, because at present you're just not.

>>53097120
Well, the AT-8 apparently has the same kind of AP (if not more) than the AT-6 from what I can find, so it very well might be a near auto-KO. Hoping for AT23/24.

>>53097170
Yep, it SHOULD be better than the Shturm. On the other hand, there's cheers to consider.

>>53088738
There's a World War 2 version of Team Yankee?

>>53097209
Definitely shouldn't be AT21; it's warhead is twice the weight of the Spandrel's.

>>53097289
You joke, but that's essentially the case, yes.

>>53097306
The soviets used sawdust as filler on their missile warheads making them appear larger and more powerful than they were. Party officials were told they contained effective explosive compounds, but production quotas meant corners had to be cut.

Cheers

File: 51.jpg (72KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 604x453px

>>53087186

> No match for Anglo tech from the 1960's.

You're damn right and don't forget it.

Seriously though the Chieftain needs a nerf, best thing is though by the time it gets one the Chally 1 will be out and the rage can continue.

>>53088431
THIS MOTHERFUCKER RIGHT HERE!!!

THIS!!!

ERA should be a front armor affecting rule.

i guess i'm too stuck on game-mechanic vs. reality, but you really do have a point.

>>53098111
I assumed ERA/Chobham on the front armour was taken into account when stating front armour, that's why it is 17/18 with the sides being thinner but still having an ERA package meaning against kinetic penetrators they are weak but HEAT makes the ERA/Chobham activate.

Still, I reckon the rule should have been lees schutzen and more like:

ERA
A Tank equipped with ERA Ignores a hit from a weapon with the HEAT special rule on the roll of a 3+. This roll can only be made once per game on the first hit from a weapon with the HEAT special rule.

Even though it is far from how ERA works in real life, I feel this rule far more accurately represents ERA in the context of a tabletop game. Might even run a few games with this home brew rule, only issue being keeping track of who has/hasn't used their ERA.

>>53098320
>A Tank equipped with ERA Ignores a hit from a weapon with the HEAT special rule on the roll of a 3+. This roll can only be made once per game on the first hit from a weapon with the HEAT special rule.
Nah; the odds of hitting the same spot repeatedly with HEAT rounds are miniscule. Hence why we have tandem HEAT instead of "learn to aim".

>>53098608
So make it a 5+ and make it unlimited use?

>>53098637
Yeah, something like that. Honestly side shots against basically everything should be autopen in the MBT era, but this'd fuck with how assaults work.

>>53092874
To be fair the human loader is quite a lot faster
>>53098320
I really think TY could have benefited from a dual armour system like Fistful of Tows has, with different vehicles having different levels of modifiers against KE and HEAT rounds, rather than what is basically a flat special rule that says
>HEAT AINT SHIT

>>53099676
but is a human loader faster under fire?

>>53099692
Id assume he would still be faster.
I think fatigue would be more of a factor than being under fire but its probably hard to implement that in a game of FoWs scale without it just slowing everything down, *maybe* it would work in a DHC7B-esque game but even then it might get tedious.

>>53099676
>>53099827
yeah but battlefront are trying to keep their game quick and easy to play.
Hell i rememer trying the 3 open fire starter and finding the game faster than anything else i had played, and team yankee is even faster than that.

>>53084708
Club is running a 1000pts game of Team Yankee with 500pts a side, 5 player per side (so 100pts each)
Table is massive, and packed with terrain (city setting with wooded outskirts) and I'm on the Warpac team and playing East Germans along with another player on my team. The other team has 3 US, 1 UK and 1 West German Player. What do you recommend I bring? (we are allowed proxies) Also I will be taking pics and uploading a report.

>>53102079
60 T-55s.

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

53KB, 500x492px

>>53102304
>Table packed with terrain
>60 T-55s
>4+ cross
> half of them can't make it into the woods
>other half are clogging up the way forward for the rest of the WarPac
>massive traffic jam holds up the rest of the advance
>Allied artillery starts pounding the writhing mass of WarPac armor.
>Cheers

>>53102612
I could only Imagine the amount of Salt., god forbid they all take BMP hordes.

>>53098320
>Even though it is far from how ERA works in real life, I feel this rule far more accurately represents ERA in the context of a tabletop game.

No. If you can't write simple rules that reflect to a large degree how things worked historically you should not be writing rules.

"Bu.. bu.. but it's a game!" is an excuse to simplify things down not make them work ahistorically in a game making pretense to being historical.

>>53103934
Except that TY is based on a fictional story, and isn't any more historical than Red Dawn, Red Storm Rising, or any of a host of other similar works of fiction. It sucks massively, but it does give Phil some leeway to CHEERS the entire Pact.

>>53104081

No. TY and those other stories while fictionalizing a conflict all tried to base the effects of the technology involved on the best knowledge of the time.

TY had M1 rounds bouncing off a T-62 for example.

>>53104164
>TY had M1 rounds bouncing off a T-62 for example.
Like I said, fiction.

Cheers.

> Red Thunder
> T-64's
> Yay another horde unit

Fuck me, when are we getting the T-80's. I don't want to have to buy 60 Soviet tanks to play a 100 point game.

I wish they would stop stringing this shit out.

>>53104573
Well, the T-64 with missiles will likely be the T-64B. So we're looking at a T-72A with a missile. So presumably it'll be a point more per tank, maybe 2 depending on the missile stats and skill level.

>>53104573
>60 Tanks

That's pure hyperbole.

Even assuming you're talking about the East German T-55, you won't be seeing 60 tanks on the table.

Hell, my own Soviet list has a grand total of maybe 30 vehicles, and that's *if* you count the jets and helicopters.

>>53104164
>TY had M1 rounds bouncing off a T-62 for example.

Really?

>>53105141

It's called exaggeration for dramatic effect.

The point stands, most people here agree the Soviets have a thin player base. BF needs to stop withholding the toys and give them an injection of alternative play styles other than 'drown them in corpses'.

>>53105578

Yeah it's about the middle of the story when they go on the attack and Bannon gets separated from the rest of the platoon when they overrun their objective and keep going.

Two buddies of mine started with mid-war FoW V4, one playing Afrika Korps, the other Brits.
I'm thinking of getting back into the game again but I don't like the Africa Front setting and find the Afrika Korps list a bit lacking. I'd love to get an Eastern Front mid-war Wehrmacht army but don't know how to build proper and legal list. Any ideas on how to do this?

>>53106951
Get a company of dudes, several panzer IIIs, some panzer IVs, armoured cars, anti-tank guns, and rocket spam. Should be good.

>>53107057
My initial plan was to use the Afrika Korps list and just leave the Tigers away and paint my dudes grey. But I couldn't field any halftracks and rockets...

>>53106951
>>53107134
Locally, we're using the Early/Late war conversion rules on the old North Africa and Eastern Front books, since converting things over to V4 using that is pretty straightforward.

The only tricky thing is the points values.
It's probably 15-18 V3 points per V4 point for Mid War.

>>53104187
>>53105578
it's an M1 not an M1A1. meaning it still got the british L7 105mm gun not the Rheinmetall 120mm

>>53104573
Never because the Soviets don't possess the same chronal displacer as NATO do

>>53105141
>That's pure hyperbole.

East-German 9. Panzer Division
From Volksarmee, page 11

T-55AM2 Panzer Bataillon HQ (p.12) - 1x T-55AM2 (1 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 8x T-55AM2 (12 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 8x T-55AM2 (12 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 8x T-55AM2 (12 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Bataillon HQ (p.12) - 1x T-55AM2 (1 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 8x T-55AM2 (12 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 8x T-55AM2 (12 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 6x T-55AM2 (8 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Bataillon HQ (p.12) - 1x T-55AM2 (1 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 7x T-55AM2 (10 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 7x T-55AM2 (10 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 6x T-55AM2 (8 pts)

99 Points

>>53108709
69 T-55s, so cheers can fuck you both ways.

>>53108709
What in the goddamn fuck is this aberration? Who would commit such crimes against humanity?

>>53108709
Okay, so, let's talk about this because this list probably fucks over some guys pretty hard.

My friend's leopard 2 list, for example, has two platoons of Leo 2s and 1 marder platoon, plus the CO. These are basically the effective shots in the army, here, since gepards and luchs aren't doing anything to the front and you have nearly as many tanks as inches on the board so longways you can just make a wall of T-55s to prevent flank shots, or at least make them incredibly hard.

That company thus gets 84 effective shots per game, assuming 6 turns. Assuming no concealment they only hit with 56 of them, on average, meaning you've got 13 left, assuming you NEVER surround someone and plug him in the ass repeatedly.

>>53108752
>What in the goddamn fuck is this aberration?
>>53108721
>69 T-55s, so cheers can fuck you both ways.

>>53108709
One day someone is going to spend the $$ and turn up to an official BF tournie. I can not wait for that day.

>>53108958
Don't BF allow you to use PSC models at their tournaments?

>>53108958
It's not going to win the tournament but it's going to be 100% guaranteed to tank everyone it play's score.

But guys - it's not in the spirit of the game!

The spirit of the game is to bend yourself over the table so the NATO player can have his way with you.

i have 0 interest in playing TY on a tournament level. Mechanized Milan/spandrel memes and T-55 spam will pretty much ensure every game turns into a long slog since they didn't really put in a way to move infantry off and objective besides throwing buckets of dice at them.

Had an Afghansty player fail move my 4 stand Aufklärungs Zug off an objective. Now imagine Brit Mechanized or a full Soviet Mech company.

>>53109071
Imagine if it turned out that TY players are all just the tabletop gaming equivalent of healsluts.

>>53108709
>Over $1000 later...

If you want to do something like that, it's certainly your choice to do so.

I have no idea if it would actually be effective at all, but it would certainly have a strong "I'm facing HOW MANY tanks?!?!?" fear factor that would freak out some of your opponents.

I at least would suggest having some support options in there. At the very least some AA so you don't get massively cluster bombed out of existence.

>>53110137
Well, if he gets PSC it's only like $400 for all those and one spare one he can turn into an objective or something.

>>53110137
It's only £300 from PSC, at least.

>At the very least some AA so you don't get massively cluster bombed out of existence.
>implying that tornados or harriers are going to want to fly over 20 shots of 14.5mm

>>53107661
And? I did understand It was the L7.

File: IMG_0464.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

Thread dead

Anyone tried the Skytrex Strela1s? I kinda want a BTR60K but I need to get some more stuff to make the postage worthwhile.

>>53108665

> TFW they'll never be able to go back in time and kidnap Albert Einstein like Hitler did in Red Alert.

Why even play?

File: 31Sg64GUTKL.jpg (14KB, 266x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 266x250px

Looking at some lists for National, could use some help figuring these lists out. 3rd armored Reluctant Veteran from Bridge at Remagen.

CC - 1 M4A3 Sherman 80
Combat platoon 1
4 M4A3 Shermans (75mm)

Combat platoon 2
4 M4A3 Shermans (75mm)

Combat platoon 3
4 M4A3 Shermans (75mm)
Total 1040. Thinking about cutting down on how many and adding some 76mm shermans.

CC- 1 M4A3 Sherman

Combat platoon 1
1 T-26 Super Pershing

Combat platoon 2
4 M4A3 Sherman (76mm)

Combat platoon 3
4 M4A3 Sherman (75mm)

Support Platoon
Armored Rifle platoon
3 Rifle Squads, add 5 .50 Cal AA mg's to tracks
Total 1400.

CC - 1 M4A3 Sherman

Combat platoon 1
3 M26 Pershings

Combat platoon 2
4 M4A3 Sherman (76mm)

Combat platoon 3
4 M4A3 Sherman (76mm)

Support platoons
1 Battleworn Rifle platoon
3 Rifle Squads, add 3 bazookas

Armored Recon platoon
1 armored recon patrol, add hull mgs

File: skytrex.jpg (264KB, 1220x778px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1220x778px

>>53114799
>Skytrex Strelas
Ive got a couple m8, they are very nice models and the resins as crisp as you like, would recommend.

>>53115673
Nice, the preview pics looked pretty good and yours look just as good.

>>53114228
prev post: 1126
your post: 1341

holy shit nice save batman

>>53108721
>>53108709
For reference, this is over a third of an entire motor rifle division's armor complement. A 300 point mega-battle could employ a division. Cheers!

Do people think we'll get the T-80BV or the T-80U? I know there were no U's in Germany in 1985 but we can assume it would be all hands to the pump if war broke out.

>>53115673

Phwoar, das nice.

>>53116473

No model of t-80 would be in production by the year 1985 due to the tooling not being widely available and slavic foolishness.

Cheers.

>>53116473
So is this some kind of cheers bait?

>>53116473
>T-80BV

Explicitly no ERAs on anything, because they didn't have it in 1985, apparently, despite the CIA reporting seeing it on tanks in Germany in 1984.

>T-80U
It was only in service, not in service, and the soviets spent the six months or whatever they had preparing for the invasion fucking around, so they don't exist either.

>>53116581
>>53116664
>>53116738

I didn't actually intend this as Phil bait but they'll probably find a way t fuck it up somehow.

>>53085408

They may have just put that on the frame for a Gulf War scenario.

If you're going to spend all that money on the tooling you may as well make it future proof.

>>53117749
"It's futureproofed" doesn't make sense when ERA ought to be similar though.

>>53117859

The problem is they don't give a fuck about Soviet players.

>>53117859
The Iraqi army lacked ERA on all their tanks too, hence why the M1A1s were able to beat them so easily. Meaning there was no need to include it on soviet tank sprues.

Cheers.

File: IMG_0131.jpg (78KB, 920x612px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 920x612px

Is V4 MW selling in your area, /fow/? Most of the tanks are collecting dust on the shelves at my FLGS in the states. Either people are like me and not interested in the sandbox or are old grogs with fully complete DAK and Desert Rats (when actual interesting options were included in the book like infantry tanks and ANZACs). I bought some howitzers and may buy some panders if they go on sale, but I am painting all that up as Eastern Front.

I understand why NA was done first, but why the hell did they revamp the entire range and drag release out through June? Why not crutch on existing models with a few key kits released? Why not take the small added effort of adding generic crews in with arty along with the ones wearing shorts? Retailers are going to have to jam in so many extra boxes once Ostfront comes out.

File: DAK V4.jpg (102KB, 566x402px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 566x402px

>>53119433
>when actual interesting options were included in the book like infantry tanks and ANZACs

>>53119604
Those also sold like shit, they'd sit around for months.

>>53119709
Kind of like all the box sets for V4 MW at my FLGS. Though oddly enough people have been buying the infantry, just not the tanks or starters.

>>53117859

Putting an extra barrel on the spure is much easier than the extra turret, body and sides that the T-72's would need for ERA.

>>53119433

Seems to be doing alright here, got quite a few people who were on the fence into FoW.

>>53119911
>extra barrel
m8, have you even seen the M1a1 bits? There's a lot more than just a barrel.

Phil's one of tue founding members and owners of BF, right? That can be the only logical reason they keep letting him get away with the bullshit he pulls with his rules.

>>53119929
That's good for your group. Were they they new to wargaming or into X-Wing or 40K before deciding to hop on? Has your group/store run any events to try to bring in new players?

I want to run an escalation league for TY or V4, but at least for V4 I feel limited by the theatre.

>>53119935

No I haven't but I watched a video where they showed how they design them and basically once they have what they need on the fill the rest of the space up with extra stuff, I can only assume the T-72 didn't have the space for an extra turret and body. Despite the Phil meming it would have saved BF money in the long run if they could have got it all on the frame.

>>53120033

Mainly GW stuff and TY. Yeah they ran a launch event for V4 so may not be representative.

>>53120033

If you have plenty of stuff you could run an 8th army campaign from the battle of France to North Africa to Italy to Normandy.

Checking to see if I'm still rangebanned from trying to post a picture of Feldgrau or something, even though it kept saying I wasn't banned except when FUCK.

>>53120079
I hope it carries over. We had a little interest in V4, but the store has done little to try and promote it up for new players.

I'd like to help push MW, but all my stuff is Eastern Front and I don't want to build a North Africa army right now.

>>53120123

I think desert is always a hard sell because you need specific infantry, specific camo and specific terrain that will only be used in that theatre.

>>53120158
Which is why I am curious why Battlefront is putting so many resources into it without really giving us much depth for it.

>>53120223

Because it is the main MW theatre that has Germans, Brits, and Yanks. And the Afrika Korps has always been popular. It was also a very tank-centric campaign so works for their new strategy of turning FoW into Tanks! (and selling optional extras for the long time players who actually want infantry and unique unit rules).

BF also like to cycle the periods so players don't notice how much they are getting screwed by having to buy new books and LW was updated relatively recently, while EW has always been a side show.

>>53120042
The T-72 wouldn't need an extra body and turret to model the ERA kit on it. Other companies certainly manage fine with it being pieces you glue on top.

As for the M1A1, the gun, bustle and turret basket is entirely different, as are the track skirts.

I just don't buy BF's excuse, when they can have all sorts of bits for similarly sized tanks.

>>53120347

Yeah the PSC T-55 kit manages to have glue on extra-armor/ERA as well as interchangeable glacis for the different marks.

>>53119433
> but why the hell did they revamp the entire range and drag release out through June? Why not crutch on existing models with a few key kits released?

Because BF have gone full GW and will now closely tie campaign books to new (plastic) kit releases.

I don't think it will work for them as they don't have the capacity to put out enough kits to quickly cover a theatre in the 2-3 months it takes before excitement starts to fade. Hell it's taken them 2 months just to do the core DAK/Desert Rats units.

>>53120341
I just think that there isn't enough there to connect new players to existing players. The new player experience is an isolated theatre of war that is standing alone in V4MW for at least another 6 months. I think things will get better when the Eastern Front finally comes, but we'll see.

>>53120427

Well my reading is that connecting new players to existing players wasn't their primary goal with V4 or the desert release. They are trying to sell to Tanks! players who probably just play with their mates at home. Hence the focus on providing the core wargaming experience including terrain and a game mat, and vastly simplified unit TO&E.

Does anyone have the first world war osprey books?

>>53121891
The Historical Wargames General should:
>>53036271

>>53120537

>Gutting a successful product line to try and boost sales of a dying one

If that is the case then I must seriously question the intellect of those who thought it was a solid business decision.

>>53119983
no, just a senior worker, since 1st ed

>>53121974
Tks...

>>53122036

If BF was run by good businessmen they'd be as big as GW. BF should have done Bolt Action before Warlord did for example. Not doing a game that was easy for disaffected GWites to pick up instead of trying to get them to adopt a very different game style was a bad business decision.

Though focusing on making a simple newbie experience is probably a good move as long as they don't hack off too many grogs. Lord knows I've tried to get into a few different historical periods and given up due to having difficulty figuring out what models I'd need.

>>53122236
It's less that they're building a newbie friendly experience, and more that the claim is they're aiming said experience at people who play Tanks!

Now, I don't have access to the same sort of market data that BF does, but I'd be willing to bet a significant number of Tanks! players were people who already played Flames, and that of the remaining playerbase there wouldn't be that many looking to jump into Flames who'd be coaxed into it by the new edition and gentler rules. Add into that my suspicion that Tanks! probably didn't have that big of a playerbase to begin with (at least compared to Flames), and you can see why I'm concerned about trying to snare those players at the cost of the existing market.

>>53122170
Jesus. It blows my mind the shit they let him get away with, especially with WARPAC in TY. Like; can they not see that something is wrong, or do they just really care that little?

>>53122320

As long as product is selling they don't care if the rules are just shit smeared on a page, and right now sales are being carried by NATOboos and new release hype. If one or both of those decline then the game will be just as dead as their other post war releases.

Honestly I would not be surprised if they have no idea how many players they have and what their playing, and with no information it's impossible to accurately survey the health of the game.

>>53122320
I'm going to play Iranians as my pact force because russian tanks do nothing for me and that's all warpac has to offer.

>>53122405
That's true. I figure they'd be able to see sales figures and see how biased it is towards NATO.

But perhaps I'm giving them too much credit. All I know is that blatant imbalance put in place by Phil makes me kinda not want to play TY. I'll still wait it out for my plastic Italians, but if they fuck those up I may just bow out.

>>53122485
A lot of BF staff are massive WW2 Italian nerds. Low chance of them being screwed.

>>53122485

As FoW/TY allows blue on blue I don't think they care too much about imbalance. Though you'd think they'd have some beancounter who'd inquire why expensive new plastic kits aren't being bought as frequently as others.

>>53122515

Ah Italians. The diet coke of fascism. You can be a fan without people instantly suspecting you are a holocaust denier.

>>53122485

The sales might not even be biased against NATO. It takes plenty of stuff to play PACT, and TY still has enough hype going to attract new players who don't know the world of unfun playing PACT has in store for them. I suspect sales are still going strong for both, but that the playerbase is unhealthy - a great deal of what I've seen is PACT players bowing out after getting repeatedly chewed up by Westies and Brits or getting frustrated with lack of options and play styles. Red Thunder will probably cause a temporory surge in PACT players and new people jump in and old people come back to check out what's changed.

The thing is, if it ends up being just more of the same, the newbs will get burnt out and the old hands won't stick around, and the playerbase will have to play more blue on blue till the NATO players get bored and drop out.

Then it's FoaN all over again.

>>53122485
yeah but bad news dude. apparently we are only getting plastic m series tanks in plastic and the rest will be the napalm victim looking models from 2006 molds.

>>53122538
Unless those people are actually aware of Italian history before and during WW2, and will know might be into denying other genocides.

>>53122474
I've thought about playing East Germans as Iraqi Republican Guard, as the stats on the T-55 and T-72M certainly reflect them better than the East Germans.

>>53123613
Source? Those moulds are awful so I find that hard to believe

File: due078.jpg (767KB, 1418x952px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1418x952px

Panzer 38(t) vs BT-7 - Barbarossa 1941 (Osprey Duel 78)

The tank battles in the Soviet Union during the summer of 1941 were the largest in World War II, exceeding even the more famous Prokhorovka encounter during the Kursk campaign. Indeed, they were the largest tank battles ever fought.
This book examines two evenly matched competitors in this conflict, the German Panzer 38(t) and the Soviet BT-7. Both were of similar size, armed with guns of comparable firepower, and had foreign roots - the Panzer 38(t) was a Czechoslovak design and the BT-7 was an evolution of the American Christie tank. With full-colour artwork and archive and present-day photography, this absorbing study assesses the strengths and limitations of these two types against the wider background of armoured doctrine in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2v12p3mvfb61676/Osprey+-+DUE+078+-+Panzer+38%28t%29+vs+BT-7.pdf

>>53125108
Thanks Osprey-Anon!

>>53122485
At one point Phil had replied on Facebook saying that the original two TY starter sets, Bannons Boys and Potenkov's Bears, were selling almost 1:1 worldwide.

>>53122538
>the diet coke of fascism

Considering Italy invented it, I think you have that a bit backwards.

>>53127000
Italy invented Diet Coke?

>>53128077
Fascism.

The Nazis tend to get all the credit, but a lot of what Hitler did during his rise to power was a enhancement of things he copied from Mussolini and the Italian Fascists.

>>53123613
>only getting plastic M series tanks
The actual fuck, BF? I wasn't expecting the whole line revamped, but one fucking kit? That's all?

And it wouldn't be a problem if any other companies like PSC gave a damn about Italians. But no; we gotta churn out every minor varient of German tank that ever appeared in the war.

>>53128343
German stuff sells.

Even the completely fictional stuff like the Maus and Ratte.

>>53123613
Please let them at least redo the infantry metals... I want to do LW spaghettis without looking like my army escaped from the burn ward.

File: You_talk_of_sacrifice..._He_knew_the_meaning_of_sacrifice^_-_NARA_-_535236.jpg (974KB, 2310x3000px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 2310x3000px

>Real men bled and died on the many battlefields of WWII.
>You treat this tragedy like an enjoyable game

SHAME ON YOU!

>>53129233
>not wanting to honour them by lovingly recreating the battles.
>not worrying that forgetting them is a greater sin.
>not coming to a greater understanding of their history and struggle during the war.
>not using it as a jumping off point to learn more about the war
>enjoyable
cheers

File: DSCF1074.jpg (2MB, 3488x2616px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3488x2616px

>>53129233
t.liberal who dosen't know shit and hasn't spoken to a single war veteran

>>53129457
>liberal
The word you're looking for is Troll. Don't feed it.

>>53129233
I'm reminded of that 'Nam vet that remade his unit in FoW: Vietnam, and could tell you about everyone in it.

>>53129457
I'm a fucking communist and I play wargames, this is a troll thing not a political thing.

PSC doing Plastic T-55's with all the trimmings later this month oh baby, maybe i'll start playing some Volksarmee then.

Anyone else have an army they want to play but absolutely abhor some of the miserable resin/pewter kits needed for them?

>>53130625
Canadian armored car from Market Garden. And actually fun and not shit armored car list with cool little things in it... But you need to buy a bunch of Staghounds, Dingos, and White Scout Cars. Resin cars are always a bitch.

What list would you guys build from the Afrika Korps starter box?

>>53130625
DAK Panzerspäh.
US Armored Recon
EW British Tanks in general, both cruiser, light and infantry.

>>53130794
Yeah they only do plastic dingo's and those are Zvesda kits....

>>53130857
I know PSC does cruisers and matilda 1's, are they not decent kits?

>>53130923
>I know PSC does cruisers and matilda 1's, are they not decent kits?
PSC doesn't matildas, zvezda do.

>>53130936
the matildas are bretty gud.
well for how cheap they are sold for bucks

>>53130989
god damn i should edit my posts better.
or get some fucking sleep
point is the Matilda is still solid
where are my valentines

>>53131008
Apparently waiting to see if they can cram the Archer onto the sprue.

File: kampfpanzer-t-55-am2-b-ehemaligen-102136.jpg (279KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1200x900px

>>53130625
I was holding off at first, but when I saw dat sprue I instantly pre-ordered 2 boxes. They look great.

>>53130923
>>53130936
Zvezda is Zvezda, their details are too soft for my hamfisted painting, and they lack the options I like (such as open hatches).

I temporarily forgot that PSC does A9 and A10 cruisers, however, I would very much prefer a load of A13 (and once more, the option is Zvezda...)

File: romanian-t-55-tankos.jpg (121KB, 960x525px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 960x525px

>>53130625
Cold War era Romania w T-55s, BTR-60s and a few T-72s. Will be using plastic Eduard MiG-21s for air support and Zvezda Carnations for artillery.

Only thing I can't get in plastic (and unfortunately I don't see expect this to change) is Gaskin AAs... :(

>>53128343
I doubt that highly mate. Information is sparse on the ground at the moment, but I wouldn't believe that Battlefront would stab themselves in the foot so badly by continuing with a mould that's beyond it's use by date.

>>53129552
Cool, link if any?

File: anti-tank-tactics2.jpg (50KB, 404x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 404x400px

A 50's or 60's cold war gone hot would be pretty neat.

Hey, does anyone know how PSC Panzer IVs compare to battlefront's plastic Panzer IVs?

File: o-HGWELLS-facebook.jpg (419KB, 1536x1102px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1536x1102px

>>53129233

Someone said the same to H. G. Wells when he wrote 'little wars', the first modern set of war-gaming rules. He was a Fabien and fervently against WWI so people asked why he played war-games and he basically said it teaches you more about the futility and waste of war than anything other than being in one. Take that as you will.

File: hello darkness my old friend.png (719KB, 864x748px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 864x748px

>>53122474
>>53124210
my brothers! you give me hope!

>>53128343
>>53133810
Bamba, but Virus is right...we have no clue on the Italian release plan....

>>53130558
Commies are not auto-USA bullshit liberals.
....still, Poland gives it's regards.

>>53135754
i like you.

to t.troll:
WE HONOR THE DEAD, CHINGO! WE LIFT UP THEIR FIGHTS AND WE RECITE THEIR NAMES!!! GTFO!

Is there any particular reason why British motor platoons have only one squad per halftrack when Americans and Germans get 2+ squads per halftrack?

>>53136307
That's just how they were historically.

>>53129233
I know this is bait but I have yet to meet a Team Yankee player who wasn't stationed in Europe at some point. They are the only reason I know anything about that game.

>>53136340

Huh.

I like the idea of halftracks but I'm puzzled how you use an infantry platoon that is incredibly tiny.

>>53136401
In game? You don't, really. They're pretty awful.

In reality they were infantry flank-guards with an absurd amount of MGs who were there to beat away light vehicles and infantry who were trying to fuck with your tanks.

>>53136401
In flames? You don't, brit motor sucks hard.
In real life? The motor companies were used to rapidly respond to breakthroughs in the line and stop them, actually being more defensive than the standard rifle companies who did more organized offenses.

>>53136510
>>53136516

holy shit hive mind

Thanks for the input though anons, I got the Monty's Hound box and I like the models and everything, the platoon just looks kind of... sparse.

>>53136516
>actually being more defensive than the standard rifle companies who did more organized offenses.
The bulge actually gets this right, incidentally, by making motor companies infantry-grade (accurate; the motor platoon's rushed into a breach, and set up a defensive perimeter bristling with MGs to hold the line), while making the infantry companies mech (semi-accurate, especially with kangaroos becoming an option).

>>53136597
>I got the Monty's Hound box
You poor bastard.

Brit Motor and Comets aren't unplayable, but they're both fragile and kinda expensive for what they do. If most armies are a generic sword, they're a rapier, requiring precise and skilled use to get the most out of them, and not wanting to ever get into a stand up brawl with the enemy.

Sadly, that's the opposite of what they should have put into a new player box for the brits, but they were limited by making the box be plastic armor kits, and also had to be from lists in one of the small books. As Nachtjager was the only british small book, and the only list from it with just plastic core troops was the Comet list (the cromwell list also requires Challengers, which are resin and metal), that left them with only one option for the brits.

>>53136695

That's unfortunate but oh well. Better to be on the side of under powered rather than overpowered lest accusations of power gaming get leveled your way.

Then again, I would like to think the population that plays these games is a little bit more mature than that.

>>53133810
God I fucking hope not, but BF has made some really stupid choices lately and I have a little less faith in them than I previously did.

Here's hoping, and if they don't toally fuck the Italians on releases then great. If they do, I may just have to stop playing(for all the fucking playing I do now anyway).

>>53137296
>Better to be on the side of under powered rather than overpowered lest accusations of power gaming get leveled your way.
>Then again, I would like to think the population that plays these games is a little bit more mature than that.
Flames has pretty good balance, the only really powergamy things in V3 late war that I can remember offhand were Patton before he got his much, much, MUCH needed nerf, and the US arty party (and to a much lesser degree, UK arty party).

>>53134596

Not really as the Soviets would easily have won the conventional fight and then been nuked.

I'd put my money on the Soviets 100% until the mid-to-late '80s when NATO forces had expanded and modernized.

>>53139651
To clarify on this a bit more, because the generic sorts of lists that people start with (medium tanks, infantry, mechanized) are all pretty well balanced, with few showing up with notably more power than the rest, the game's normally pretty good. There are certainly sub-par formations, like Armored Car lists, but because the basic "Everyone has this" lists define most of the top end and most of the lists available, balance is pretty good.

Everything's getting a bit shook up with V4 though, where some rules and unit stats changed dramatically but, due to the number of lists and units in the game, Battlefront couldn't change the points (a book with all the points changes would easily be twice as big as the previous rulebook, which was itself three times as big as the current V4 rulebook)

>>53130847
Any ideas?

>>53139677
>nukes would have been thrown

File: e05.jpg (39KB, 498x441px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 498x441px

>>53139677
It'll be no fun because of the lack of NATO wank, right?

>>53140724

No if BF did that era some how the NATO Shermans would be better than T-54/55s, and M46 Pattons front armor would be bouncing shots from T-10s.

So since WW2 is dead.... what do I do with my 15mm Commonwealth? Is there another ruleset that people are using more frequently?

>>53140891
I wouldn't call Flames of War Dead. Not by a long shot.

do we know the content's of yuri's wolves?

>>53141074
T-64s and BMPs. For numbers, we don't know yet.

File: IMAG0370.jpg (144KB, 958x426px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 958x426px

So, are the things stated in the OPs "i want to get a starter set" still valid in V4?

I bought the Open Fire-box something like a year ago, and kept it in closet until couple of weeks ago. Id like to expand the germans into something that I can play with. Are NWs and Panthers still the way to go for late war? How about mid-war, what kind of support platoons should I get to field something that wont just get steamrolled?

Im more of a painter and collector so propably im going to find some real-life battlegroup and make that to keep on showcase, but it would also be nice to have a force to play with.

Pic related, my first try at 15mm, bases for PaKs. Need to go and buy smaller tufts to liven these up, my normal tufts are too big. Damn these guys are small.

>>53140891
Chain of Command

Also I think Bolt Action has a 15mm option that feels scaled right on a 4x4.

>>53124811
gimme a day or so and i will get around to posting my cannone 90/51 and you can laugh at my melted dwarf looking crew who could not be saved by any paint job.

Seriously i couldnt even distinguish the webbing from other muddled looking parts of the body

>>53141365

Chain of Command is platoon scale though. For company scale you want "I Ain't Been Shot Mum".

>>53141091
5 and 2, respectively. The Bears box is being reduced to 5 T-72's and 2 Hinds. It's to bring the price in line with the other starter boxes.

>>53141074
From the picture on the box, at least 5 T-64s and 2+ BMPs.

Quick question: are there any good sources of 15mm T-64s that *aren't* BF? I want a T-64 force, but I don't want to throw money at Phil and his company.

>>53141878
>The Bears box is being reduced to 5 T-72's and 2 Hinds. It's to bring the price in line with the other starter boxes.

An odd decision. Still means the WarPac player has to spend that money to buy another box or two to fight his mate who went one of the NATO boxes.

>>53141883

Khursan has T-64s IIRC. If you can find a time when the site is open for orders.

>>53141926
They're becoming what GW was a year ago.

>>53141950
Thank you, anon.

File: 17976744_10154445095736835_1948478900_o22.jpg (556KB, 1620x1164px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1620x1164px

Did I just get cheers-ed?

>>53142006

Either your lighting is really weird or that paint was mixed wrong.

>>53141984
>>53141926

Well to be fair, there is another tank option now. So it will supposedly give the player more of a choice for tank composition.

>>53142014
Hahaha oh wow. So that's $60+ AUD down the drain thanks to battlefront.

File: IMG_0250.jpg (34KB, 236x321px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 236x321px

>>53142006
Oh god... Someone at my store used the NATO green in their west German box and the tanks ended up being puke green.

To anyone out their reading, Battlefront's new paints are ass. Don't buy them. Even when the color matches, most of the paints are like painting with water colors. Just convert everything over to Vallejo colors and buy those.

>>53142068
Well I'm sure as shit going to do that from here on out. I've posted on BFs forums. I'll see what they say and go from there.

File: Abrams forest green.jpg (269KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1000x667px

>>53142024

Well you could ask for a refund because that is way too bright for "forest green".

>>53142082
I'm emailing customer service now, which will be the second email I've sent them as the same green leaked all over the god damn insides of the box during postage. fml. Never buying BF paints again.

>>53142006
BF paints have shit quality control. I would avoid.

The Vallejo equivalent is...893 US Dark Green, funnily enough (for the bottom pic, not the juicy green in the top pic). European MERDC Colours in Vallejo:

893 US Dark Green - (mix in 884 Stone Grey for highlights)
873 US Field Drab - (Use 874 Tan Earth for highlights)
819 Iraqi Sand - (or anything darker: 821 German Camo Medium Beige or 988 Khaki for a more weathered, less bright look)
950 Matt Black - (or 995 German Grey for a less stark, faded look like RL)

>>53142116

Yeah I never transitioned off Vallejo as people have figured out scale appropriate camo painting guides for them.

Pretty sure the new BF paints are some cheap Chinese shit as I've seen knock off paints using the same try hard bottle design.

>>53142126
Sweet, I've already ordered that color for the infantry.

>>53142129 I though they where army painter, but that would explain the poor as fuck QC.

I'm hoping against hope they replace the tanks for me, can't believe I waited a week for the 'correct' colour for them.

>>53142141

I mean they were recently trying to palm off some off color sprays on the FoW home page. Their supplier obviously doesn't give a fuck if BF have to try and sell them instead of returning defective product.

>>53142158
It would also explain why I had to go to a web store and not BF direct to get the paint. They where out of stock. Fuck me dead I should of stuck with Vallejo and the 'wrong' colour of green.

File: USCG HIND 2.jpg (65KB, 630x418px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 630x418px

>>53134596

Dropping tram lines on tanks to electrocute the crew? Metal ... but citation needed.

>>53141926
The boxes are actually at a 10% discount now, compared to the old Bears box that was a pound off (of 75).

>>53142006
>>53142024
Strip and repaint. It's not all that hard.

>>53143177
That's the plan.

File: thredded.gif (4MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 400x300px

Bamp

>>53142006
You're not the first person to notice that off-color paint unfortunately.

Honestly, see if you can get a refund on the paint at the very least, (I doubt they'll refund the tanks), and try to strip off the paint job with some Simple Green.

>>53142006
>>53142126

For the record: Vallejo 823 Luftwaffe Green is a very close match for Vallejo NATO green primer, and a decent scale colour for NATO Green on 15mm if you want a bright version.

Is anyone aware of guns in TY that had their ranges altered from any FoW books they were in? I can't think of any examples.

>audio on Panzerfunk podcast is still shit
How is this possible?

Has anyone got any of PSC's stuarts? How are they? Does it come with many options?

>>53149632
i have them.
you get the honey, the british mid -late war and the American one if I'm not mistaken.
not really anything more than that

hey
Been thinking about picking up finns
any advice

>>53149632
M5s? Come with Brit and American parts. No Honey, that's the M3. Models are nice, .30s are flimsy.

File: 10thPz.jpg (599KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1296x968px

>>53084708
Some Germans i'm working on. I used spray paint for the green on the tanks, it's a lot brighter than i'd like, hope it doesn't look too bright

>>53150550
Do you have any experience setting up infantry where they can be put on a base for FoW or removed to work individually like in Bolt Action?

>>53150629
Not at all. These guys will be used for 'bolt action' as well thou

>>53150647
I'm trying to find an elegant solution to the problem because I like both rulesets, but to no avail.

That PzIV looks awesome. Doesn't look drybrushed?

>>53150647
None at all**

>>53150715
Thank you.
It's just washed and edge highlighted, then scratched up with foam.

File: 2017-05-09 16.59.57.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>53149632
Well, you get three upper hulls and two sets of tracks, so if you're decent with plastic card you can get 10 tanks from the box (5 normal and 5 jalopies/T8E1s).

The one in the middle back here is an extensive conversation, but the rest are all made from the kit.

>>53150036
The current PSC Stuart isn't the M3 Honey, it's the M5.

But they are coming out with an M3 Honey kit.

>>53151291
Is it not out yet?

>>53151748
It might be. I'm not 100% sure. They had a few new releases recently. That could have been in this batch of releases.

My point was that what >>53151129 posted is their older M5 Stuart kit.

If you're looking for their M3 Honey Stuarts, those either just got released, or are coming out in the next few weeks.

PSC T-55s delivering, motherfuckers. What variant should I make 'em as, folks?

>>53151820
I am going to make mine the A variants with the laser rangefinder, but without any brow armor.

Am I looking at it right when it says the Vickers 6 ton under the Finnish Rising Sun list has 0 armor?

Isn't the Vickers 6 ton basically a T-26 with a different gun?

>>53119855
>Kind of like all the box sets for V4 MW at my FLGS.
at mine they all sold out
:^)

>>53151970
Probably that the vickers is welded, while the T-26 (at least by the winter war) swapped over to welds and casts. I think the T-26's turret is stronger too.

>>53150629
Small magnets, built into the brown bases with holes? Just an idea.

>>53150629
Why not just base them normally for FoW and keep a d6 by the base to keep track of 'wounds'?

>>53149464
Ok, so other than Bartosz's mic always making him sound like a Cylon (which I have no idea how to fix in editing unfortunately), what else is wrong with the sound quality?

I genuinely want to know so that I can keep trying to improve.

>>53152614
What if Bartosz actually is a Cylon?

>>53141365
>>53141864

CoC is also an ass system.. have played, cannot recommend.

>>53142006
could salvage by using some art techniques: use a brown wash and being highlight drytbrush over that: it gets better if you are trying camo....

>>53152193
>Probably that the vickers is welded, while the T-26 (at least by the winter war) swapped over to welds and casts. I think the T-26's turret is stronger too.
Vickers is riveted, even.

>>53153622
>CoC is also an ass system.. have played, cannot recommend.
CoC's great, but it's far more on the end of a narrative wargame than a competitive one. You're absolutely agreeing that random stuff is going to fuck up all your plans when you sit down to play it. If you enjoy friction as an element of wargaming, it's great. Some of my best games have been CoC. But I'd hate to play it in tournaments.

>>53151844
>I am going to make mine the A variants with the laser rangefinder, but without any brow armor.
I'm more thinking of nations. DDR? Czech? Poles? We had polish airmen in this very house in the war, but I'm not sure they'd be happy with me making commie poland tanks in their memory.

>>53141984

No, GW would have reduced the number of tanks and kept the price the same.

>>53153726
Plus BF are probably sticking a rulebook in the revised version like they mentioned they where going to do retroactively after Charlie's Chieftains.

>>53152614
>>53153321

Bartosz here.

well, i'm no Cylon, but i think it's one of 2 things:
--if recorded prior to 4-29, my shit internet. i now pay for fiber.
--one of the other mic's (likely the built in) doesn't shut off for some reason and i get double pick-up. double pick-up is how you make robot effects in SFX recording.

i am gonna try a fix session one of these days.

>>53153773
Have you tried simply disabling or uninstalling its drivers?

File: 20141103232445.jpg (187KB, 750x486px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 750x486px

>>53142202
I don't remember where I found it, but it was part of a larger article describing the various anti-tank tactics used by the resistance forces during the attack on Budapest.

>>53153622
What's wrong with Corruption of Champions? :^]

>>53154537
futa

File: BLUE_DIV_263_REGT.jpg (43KB, 486x506px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 486x506px

>>53154669

>>53153847
i did deactivate the one driver in episode 10 i think, but you know, i think it may be an each-time thing. so yeah, i will try that. if i reset my settings afterward, my PC leaves them back in active status....?

>>53154537
I thought he was talking about Call of Cthulhu. :-P

File: DesertRats-Cover.jpg (217KB, 690x970px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 690x970px

Well lads it's been a few month. What's the general consensus on 4th edition?

>>53134923
It is pretty easy to found in the net, now i can't but BF Panzer are actually bigger and the PSC have the wrong muzzle break for the late Panzer IVs.

>>53155363
It plays very slowly. t. I don't own any tank companies

>>53140891
>something that is based in WW2
>dead
Are you trolling or something?

>>53155363
Enjoying it for late war. Hoping to do some EW strelkovy soon. MW is ded, ded, ded. It's not selling at all.

File: 075.jpg (28KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 680x383px

>>53150550
>Bolt Action in 15mm

>>53155476

That's a shame to hear, I was planning on getting some Brits for mid-war but later in the year once I've finished my current project.

>>53155363
>What's the general consensus on 4th edition?
The general consensus is that there is no consensus.

>>53155127
So did I, but you know, can't pass the joke up now can I?

>>53156299
I'm almost afraid to admit it, but I don't actually know what Corruption of Champions actually is.

>>53155363
There really isn't a consensus. Some people love it, others hate it.

Most tend to think it has a few flaws whether they enjoy it or not.

Me personally? I'm working on some DAK to dominate the deserts of North Africa.

>>53156689
>I'm almost afraid to admit it,
It's a /d/ game. Dig further than that at your own risk.

So I haven't played a game of Flames since Berlin came out. After that the group at my local store just stopped playing. I've been looking at getting into team yankee or starting up Vietnam with a few friends/ an actual Vietnam vet. What am I going to be getting myself into?

>>53156943
>team yankee
NATO wank, hilariously but painfully bad warpac forces
>Vietnam
ded game

>>53156943
BF has discontinued their Arab/Israeli lineup, and I wouldn't doubt the Vietnam one is on its way too.

>>53156965
So NATO is OP as predicted, and Vietnam is still as dead as I left.
Guess I might as well paint up some middle eastern/ WarPac tanks.

>>53157025
BMP spam is strong and theoretically you could bring 69 T-55s which is unstoppable

It's mostly the warpac rules ignore history in favor of Phils idea of "conscript hordes"

>>53157179
Well, I was looking at doing T-62's painted Iraqi style. That or try to make a Soviet Afghan war style army.

>69 T-55 tanks
>wot?
>tfw my early war BEF along with 50% of my 40K isn't painted.

>>53157228
>>tfw my early war BEF along with 50% of my 40K isn't painted.
>tfw you only have 152/252 infantry painted for one company
>tfw you still have 75 vehicles, 3 planes, 65 men, and 8 guns to paint for your other two companies
>tfw you have over 60 mechs for battletech that need to be painted as well
>tfw you never finished painting any of your 40k or fantasy armies before you gave up on GW, leaving their unpainted carcasses fouling up your basement
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

>>53156995
They are getting redone as Team Yankee: Early and released with hardback books. AIW is getting 73 options too.

>>53157557
Where/when was this announced?

>>53157576
http://wwpd.libsyn.com/podcast/why-we-fight-episode-7

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/705833.page#8971745

>>53157609
Jesus, that dakkadakka breakdown is painful to read.

>3. BF are committed to finishing off Berlin. We should expect a compilation in March 2017.
>6. The new V4 rules will be inspired by TY. However Peter went out of his way to say they will not be the same. To paraphrase him, WW2 is a much richer historical period than the Cold War, with more forces and troops and vehicles. The rules will need to match.
>9. The new rules will retain the current morale and motivation settings. Peter used the example that Fearless Veteran will remain. This to me is good news. This is one of the charming aspects of FOW and something that isn’t really in TY.
etc.

File: 20120616adf8118679_122.jpg (430KB, 1600x1042px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1600x1042px

>>53157725
Yeah it's shit, but that's the TT gaming scene for you.


In other news the lesser nato + ANZACs book sounds cool. Also I really hope they do Iran/Iraq.

>>53157725
>>53157758
Where's my Pacific (Digital) lists, Battlefront?

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

13KB, 461x147px

>>53157725
>8. The rules will be more streamlined and won’t cover every possible point like the current 300 odd page V3. Instead there will be a new Letters from the Front type document with a cooler name that will serve as a living document to accompany the rules. I see this aimed more at the tournament gamer than the Friday night garage gamer.
Well they're doing great at that so far. Just look at that comprehensive errata docu- oh.

>13. BF are trying to be cautious with the new rules. In summary it seems there are still discussions and heated agreements over aspects of the rules in the playtest group. Peter was careful to point out that this game is precious to BF and they are not treating the new version and the potential fallout lightly. They are calling for reasoned feedback as his team are working very hard on the release and contents.
The playtesters seemed to say otherwise.

>>53157758
>lesser nato + ANZACs book
What the hell are you on about?

>>53157978

There is supposed to be a digital release or some such for Canadians and Aussies coming up - mainly because they use stuff that's already released.

File: checkmate atheists.png (20KB, 1262x242px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1262x242px

For those hating on V4's inability to kill heavy tanks, consider the following in pic-related.

>http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/artillery.html

>>53159055
Alternatively consider this:
http://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

Modern tanks (so way tougher than stuff from WW2) were considered destroyed by a reasonable substitute of a 152mm gun barrage. As it points out, it's primarily a matter of doctrine for engaging mobile units.

Does anyone know a manufacturer for cold war poles or czechslovaks?

I ordered the Rommel's Wolves box set for my starting army
Did I do a dumb

>>53159311
You didn't order Monty's Hounds. So you could have done worse.

>>53159311
Only a small dumb. And you're most likely never going to have to order panthers again.

>>53159314
>>53159327
>it's impossible to make an exact 1,500 point list out of these
Fug

>>53159273
QRF miniatures does a few vehicles for the Czechs that I know of.

http://totalsystemscenic.com/product-category/qrf/qrf-qrf-1900-onwards-postwar-1945/

>>53159418
It's mostly infantry I'm after.

Also, new thread?

>>53159390
Eh, it's almost always impossible to make on the dot lists, unless you have a shit-ton of small upgrades. I've been anthing up to 20 points under points limits, and that's with my yanks (where I have a shit-ton and most options).

>>53157978
They are doing generic nato infantry and a book for the dutch, belguim etc.

>>53160550

New bread.

>>53159055
Source is a dude's talks instead of any actual data set. I think I'll go with >>53159152 over that for a source.

Wouldn't be a problem if top armor was a D3 scale so you could actually cause a reasonable number of bails from a heavy arty bombardment.