Flames of War General: Advanced Missile Spam

What is the cutest model of BMP?

File: c3ks guide to EW tankovy.png (2MB, 3333x1875px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3333x1875px

Was halfway through recording the next episode of the Commissar 3000 when I realized that EW tankovy is too much to cover in one segment in an audio format. At least, I don't think it would be interesting to cover. I am currently in the process of finishing the script for a YouTube which will hopefully provide a humorous, but effective overview of EW Tankovy. Life is kinda kicking my ass right now, so release date is probably still a couple of weeks off.

>>54316675
Hello flames of war general! Wargames general is a TG and tabletop miniature game focused discord that'd love some more historical games players.

We promise not to make manlet jokes about your nazis.

We're too busy laughing at marinelets with the primaris release in 40k.

https://discord.gg/QU2djTV

>>54317182
The PRP.

>>54317584
Jokes on you everyone here plays Hungarians

File: 12799311.jpg (130KB, 761x822px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 761x822px

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

File: BMP1P-KSE1.jpg (29KB, 476x319px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 476x319px

phil pls

ded gam

>>54317584
>We're too busy laughing at marinelets with the primaris release in 40k.

>Be GW
>finally release True Scale marines
>have to invent bullshit fluff that doesn't invalidate the old Marines
>everyone will by new Marines because GW Fanboys

Talk about being able to have their cake and eat it too...

But anyway, this isn't a GW thread.

Is there any news out of the US Team Yankee Nationals?

I know the sign-ups were supposedly 2/3rds NATO to 1/3 Warpac, with the NATO side heavily weighted towards West Germans.

File: IMG_8597.jpg (1MB, 3176x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3176x2448px

Finally managed a spraying session.
A shoutout to everything and everyone getting in my way during it:
>my neighbours
>the setting sun
>clogging
>sudden gusts of wind
>a fucking hare
>running out of spray
Clogging was the worst desu

File: doggered.png (381KB, 474x449px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 474x449px

>>54321842
>trying to matt spray some BMPs to get rid of that glossy varnish sheen
>immediately starts raining

File: east german and soviet officers.jpg (96KB, 500x353px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x353px

>>54319588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unrtTjTujgM

What's your favorite list that you'll never build? For me it's probably the canuk armored cars from MG.
>Staghounds with assault bridges and some with 75mms for longer range duties
>a good sized pioneer platoon with jeep speed armored transports
>have all the wacky stuff like Archers, PIAT battery UCs, Land Mattress rockets
But everything is resin and metal. And armored car squadrons suck.

Why do people play TY in 15mm?

I love the idea of TY but people here play in 15 And it looks ridiculous.

>>54323885
It's because it's the official scale, and the official minis look pretty damn good.

That, and most gamers already think of 15mm as being absolutely tiny, espwhen they're mostly used to the 28mm scale of stuff like 40K.

Granted, 1980s Cold War arguably works better in 6mm, but Battlefront, PSC, and Zvezda all make models in 15mm.

>>54323306
The soviet fortified list from red beer.
I'm slowly building the required fortifications since that's my jam.
>too bad the list sucks
>and in V4 I might have to attack

>>54323885
I think it looks great.

>>54321765
>Be BF
>finally redo Mid War
>cant even be bothered to invent bullshit fluff that allows for Tiger and 17/25-pounders at El Alamein, but no Shermans.
>everyone will by new BF releases because BF Fanbois and you can't get the stats otherwise thanks to cards.

FIFY.

>>54324026
Oh God. I didn't realize till now that in V4 fortified companies might be forced to attack. That's just fucked up.

>>54324592
nobody forces you to play v4 with v4 mission selection rules.

>>54324359
to be fair, the Tigers are the least popular buys to hit the table in MW
i see them in Ost Colors or as KG Hummel fodder.

i think Crudaser Spam and Deutches Infantry Korps are the most sought after by the autists, while most thugs play Panzers or Grants

88's are sold easily...

>>54326112
I know, my group is making their own 3.5 ruleset, but it's still fucked up that that's a thing in V4.

>>54326307
Well, they give you options. Rolling for it is only one option

so, /fowtg/ if you are playing V4:

what list are you playing?
call it my need to know....

>>54328714
a bunch of D.A.K. Panzer 3's, it would be a swarm if i didn't have a few infantry and 88's

Anyone have much experience with the TANKS game? Would it be a good game to approach the X-Wing guys in my group?

>>54329194
Eh. On one hand, it's pretty similar, with cards and a pretty similar stat system. On the other, the movement is much more freeform and the models need to be assembled and painted, which increases the up-front time investment before playing and decreases the time till they hit the skill ceiling for the game. Easy to get into, hard to master, is a really addicting formula. Medium to get into easy to master is not.

It might work, but it also might make them think it's just a shitty X-wing ripoff. Which it totally is

>>54328714
So far, it's only been my LW US Paratroopers, but I do have plans for a Panzer III list if I ever get into playing mid-war.

>>54329194
I know none of my local X-wing pls would even think of touching it, but that's purely because they fall firmly into the "history is boring" mindset, and kinda like the fact that everything for X-wing is pre-assembled and pre-painted to a very good standard.

>>54329250
Oh, TANKS is unashamedly an X-Wing rip-off, but so is Star Trek Attack Wing, and that has it's fair share of players. Even if the game is utterly broken.

The funny thing is, if you're going to basically make X-Wing, but for WWII, the mechanics are meant for fighters. Star Wars space combat is heavily based on WWII fighter combat.

It would have been the perfect time for something like "Flames in the Skies, a game of World War II air combat".

>>54329843
>It would have been the perfect time for something like "Flames in the Skies, a game of World War II air combat".
Damnit, now I want this, especially if they can work ground attack missions into it so there's a reason to use all the FoW ground attack planes in it (besides as cheap fodder for proper fighters).

>>54329194
TANKS seems fun enough if you are playing with friends and have a lot of wargaming terrain to build interesting tables with. You really need terrain to make it interesting.

Like Eagles said it's an X-Wing rip off, but movement isn't near as interesting. You can pretty much zip your tank around in whatever direction. In my opinion TANKS needs some improvement to maneuvering for vehicles, so you can't always just dart behind whatever cover.

The other frustrating part is that they dumbed down the way armor works from Flames and overall it's a less robust system. Everything has hit points now and bigger guns give more attack dice. In my opinion they should have had some system that modeled penetration and gave advantages for angling armor.

Basically movement is way too easy without tons of terrain and I wish it were more complex. Half the beauty of X-wing is that you don't need a complicated table to have fun.

>>54328714
The few games I have had have been with Hero Tankovy since they actually suck less now.

Finishing up what was supposed to be a German Ausbildungs company from Desperate measures, but wow stormtrooper is really good this version, so I may also run them as veteran panzers.

>>54323984

Personally I went full crazy and play Cold War at 3mm. That way I can have platoon bases and the ranges don't look absurd.

>>54329843

Pretty sure Attack Wing is actually licensed though.

>>54333105
It is.

The actual mechanics of Attack Wing are almost exactly the same as X-wing, although there are a few small differences.

>>54331713
Hero Tankovy benefited a lot from the switch over to 4th Ed. The Veteran-like status they have got a lot more useful in the new rule set.

>>54333088
Yeah, but you have zero detail on any of the units at 3mm scale. Even 6mm has some detail issues.

>>54335577
On the other hand, if they HAD that detail, you wouldn't be able to see it. So if you just look at detail relative to size it's fine.

>>54335577

But you can have more..
It is a non-debate, of course you have less detail on a smaller scale. But if that is the issue, why doesn't everybody use 28mm or 54mm or Action Man?

>>54323306
Beutepanzer. Even if I got them from the cheapest casters I'd be dropping over $120 on a dumb gimmick.

Red Thunder https://mega.nz/#!L04hTTxQ!BgnL_UBPWCrId9zAM5xaU2Qr8T42NuyXl6LCuJ7MFPo

i gonna build a TY soviet army, for starters is best mech platoon or tank ones?. We are speaking at 50 points army.

>>54326264
Are tigers not good? I was going to run a tiger with a pz iii company and a rifle platoon.

>>54323984
The official minis are good but 30 tanks a side at 15mm looks fucking dumb as shit.

>>54338662
German players complain that their nigh invulnerable super tank is too expensive.

It might be. It's shit to play against, though

>>54338307
I feel you. I want to get a Tetrach company, but only BF makes them in scale, and 18 at $11.7 each (10% off) is over $210. It's absurd.

You just gotta tell yourself ''how can I afford this'' not always complain about prices.

>>54329843
X-wing wasn't based pretty much in the concept of Wings of War?

>>54339416
Well the simple truth is, I can't. I can't afford to spend $210 on a 850 point "for the hell of it" force that might see play 3 times. I could get a decent sized Hungarian army set up for that cost, which would be a much better and more commonly used target of my money.

>>54338662
It is expensive, it is boring in north africa and i am kind of mad that they buffed its pen

What vallejo or citadel paint should I use for DAK?

>>54340488
http://www.acrylicosvallejo.com/es_ES/afrika-korps-aleman-1942-1944-(dak)/familia/17/133

>>54340600
Thanks.

>>54339416
>You just gotta tell yourself ''how can I afford this'' not always complain about prices.
Why do you hate free speech?

File: stripes.jpg (42KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x640px

discuss how cheers willl it be?

>>54342075
Any look at the inside?

>>54342075
Doesn't look hardback to me. Looks magazine sized.

>>54342243
>>54342225
it's the just the front cover art the jokers at wwpd have gotten hold off

>>54342075

Are they going to re-release the rules not that the included lists are outdated?

Also do we have Red Thunder yet?

File: IMG_7101.jpg (29KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x250px

>>54342377
Have you tried looking in the thread?

>>54342377
>Also do we have Red Thunder yet?
Have you tried scrolling up?

>>54342438
>>54342440

I actually did but I couldn't find it, I just saw Red Bear (revised), Rising Sun etc.?

>>54342488
>>54338333

Oh right here it is.

Three cheers for the scanons!

>>54342377
Up thread as others have noted.

I'll be a few days getting it into the Database since I'm visiting family and don't have my laptop with me.

>>54342075
>LAV
>M60

Oh boy we are going to get 3+ Morale, 3+ Assault US Meme Corps with Leo 1s, but better.

Are the Songster missiles pretty much an auto include at this point? I mean it seems to be 2 points whether it's 3 tanks or 10 right?

>>54343664
Yeah it's 2 points no matter what. The only time I wouldn't take them is if I was doing babby sized platoons.

>>54342075

What do you guys think comes after Red Thunder?

https://strawpoll.com/e9xsyx3w

>>54344410
The US and the Eyeties will more than likely be released together.

>>54339682
Can confirm having played WoWar also same creator if i'm not mistaken.
>>54338333
>fuck giving soviets skill
>just give them a direct fire artillery bombardment.
Why?

>>54338333
So well. was expecting some updates for the T-72, at least T-64 seen much better.

Now i am genuinely scared about Stripes and how in the future all the USA player saying how realistic those M60+LAV raping soviets will be.

>>54345239
What, the Krasnopol shots? Yeah, they're garbage - hitting on 4+ or worse with AT4 vs TA isn't a better deal than the normal shit sandwich barrage, especially when those points could have gone towards Shturms or Spandrels that can actually penetrate armor.

Speaking of which, I see the SP ATGMs still can't retain GtG like the ITV can, despite roof mounted launchers.

>>54345872
>updates for the T-72
They couldn't even get the fact that the T-72A was better protected than the T-64B right to begin with.

Did you really think they'd buff the T-72 and tacitly admit they fucked up?

File: 20046327_1337243806328761_2564489089904646407_n.jpg (70KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x960px

Pulled from WWPD's FB page.

>>54347031
>Unfortunately we can't share any more details at this time, but this MW book is what everyone wanted for V4
Really? I'm surprised they managed to put the russians, aircraft revamp, assault revamp, sane unit stats, the missing british/german units, replacement errata for the cards, and EW/LW points re-balancing in such a small book.

Though I guess it could say "just play V3" inside.

>>54347226
Somebody's salty.

>>54347226
Post that on the facebook. I want to see the BF shills freak out.

>>54344410

I'm more interested in what will come after stripes for TY.

Are they going to go over all the books again and update the two German and British books or are we going to get a new force like France or possibly another Warsaw army.

I hope to fuck that the new US book for WWII has everything in it, none of this parcelling stuff out shit. I get an awful feeling the desert Germans and Brits will just be left to languish as they move on to the Eastern mid-war.

>>54349493
I think the left out stuff will be added with card addons

>>54344410
Wholesalers already have new plastic kits for TANKS in preorder. So the coresponding tanks for Mid War US are already done

>>54349631

Absolutely cor' blimey.

>>54329843
>>54330161
this. . i want a FoW aircraft game...rather badly.

>>54331570
TANKS needs a reverse gear stick....
they didn't cap guns, but they capped defense. what the fuck?
TANKS needs a v2 like mad

>>54338333
fuck yes. you get a drink and a whore!

>>54338845
fuck superheavies. any german player that has experience knows you want bigger mediums, not heavies. This is why the tiger is a Late War tank in my eyes.

>>54342075
....do want!
it'll be retarded levels of cheers. still worth buying.....

>>54347031
murrca!

>>54347226
you are right. one should not make broad statements about V4.
V4 will survive off it's eventual build, not one book of salvation.

>>54344410
>sorry for spam replies!

they stated on their website recently that they may be stuck in 1985 for a bit. go look, it's their most recent post, circa July 14.

so,
Stripes
USA
something else most likely dammit.
Eyeties

>>54349631
Fuck

>>54349493
>I'm more interested in what will come after stripes for TY.
>Are they going to go over all the books again and update the two German and British books or are we going to get a new force like France or possibly another Warsaw army.

I'm hoping they properly flesh out the 1985 theatre with France (maybe Benelux and Italy) + other NSWP before they move on to prototypes and rushed production shit everyone seems to be clamoring for.

100 points of new Soviets, how does it look?

T-64 Tank Battalion

1x T-64 Tank Battalion HQ - 6

6x T-64 Tank Company - 31
Songster Missiles - 2

6x T-64 Tank Company - 31
Songster Missiles - 2

Medium BMP-2 Motor Rifle Company - 18

2x BRDM-2 Recon Platoon - 1

2x Gopher SAM Platoon - 2

Divisional Support

2x Hind Assault Helicopter Company - 5

Small Hind Assault Landing Company - 2

Total: 100

>>54352856

I would prefer this as well, I think missing out France and Italy would be a shame, Britain should also get their Challangers and Falkland marines and paratroopers. I think after that pretty much all of Western Europe is done, you can make Belgian, Dutch and Commonwealth forces with what we already have.

>>54352902
Seconding this as well.

Also, a few other Warpact forces that aren't USSR or DDR would be nice.

>>54352902
you know Challengers will be 20pts. a tank and easily will be the KT's of 1985....

Marines and Para's would be good.
would the Para's have Lynx's? i don't know, would have to google.

>>54352856
>before they move on to prototypes and rushed production shit everyone seems to be clamoring for.
Already in game.

>>54354051
The trouble is they apparently don't want to add the basic T-55A (which I can understand, in fairness, since they made the T-55AM2B junk, so T-55 spam would likely be even worse), so what would that even add? You might as well just run your DDR as czechslovaks or poles.

>>54355037
you have a point

>>54354754

Yeah the para's were trained to deploy from helicopters and would have been used like this, but since BF didn't have any models for them they just made the highlanders and the light infantry the rapid force instead, which would be unlikely to happen. So I can only assume they plan on adding them.

>>54356158
Of the stuff they could include, what would it really change? BTR-50 is the only thing that'd be meaningfully different (being a BTR-60 with tracks and no gun or just an AA gun), but a vehicle that's even more useless is going to be irrelevant. T-55As barely matter compared to the T-55AM2B, which is already the bottom-feeder tank in the game. The Merida would get the same treatment. There's just not really anything extra to include.

>>54354754
Why is that? It'd be the same gun as a leo2 and maybe 1 more point of front armor.

File: V4 cards-1.pdf (492KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1x1px

so, i went all autist and made a gaming add so i can actually convert stuff to V4 without utter list-scrabble bullshit.

this is in essence, blank cards for FoW V4

i hope they work.

>>54357355
>i hope they work.
They work, but the dark blue makes the black text really hard to read. Use white text for those areas.

>>54357122
>Merida
>Dana SPG
>2S7 Pion
>RM-70
>OT-62 and OT-64 APCs
>MT-LB
>PT-76 with AGTM upgrade
>Bastion ATGMs for the Merida and T-55AM
>Mi-2 Salamadra
>All the mad max shit the Romanians were working on

The Merida would be really easy to do as well, use the same kit as the T-55AM but give it slightly improved stats the same way they've done the T-72A and T-72M and add the ATGM.

>>54357244

Yeah they'll just be Leo 2's with 19 armour and the same movement as an Abrams, hardly game breaking.

>>54357524
>>Merida
Would be a T-55AM2B
>>Dana SPG
Wheeled DDR stat Acacia
>>2S7 Pion
kind of out of game scale, would have a ton of problems that BF is going to make sure it gets, and would also be functionally similar to acacia
>>RM-70
DDR Grad
>>OT-62 and OT-64 APCs
DDR BTR-60 stats
>>MT-LB
worse BTR
>>PT-76 with AGTM upgrade
actually a reasonable option but would probably only show up with a naval infantry supplement
>>Bastion ATGMs for the Merida and T-55AM
never going to happen
>>Mi-2 Salamadra
another actual option, cheapo attack helicopter might be interesting but the AT-3 is bad. Maybe there to keep AA honest?
>>All the mad max shit the Romanians were working on
Can you imagine the spam? But, that might actually make it too.

Merida didn't have the laser system to fire the Bastion, it had a better gun-computer instead.

We also need BMP1P and the Mi-8 for fallschirmjaeger and vysadkari.

File: Italy.png (3MB, 1920x1912px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1912px

My friend was wanting us to build some forces for late war Italy, he's doing Americans and I'm doing Germans. Thinking about putting this list together.

>>54358236
if you don't mind shopping around a little, i think this entire list is available in Plastic from one supplier or another....

How should you use panzerfausts? Seems like you're just waiting for them to blunder into 4 inch range, which doesn't seem great on a tabletop where you can see where the enemy models. I guess if you have a mission with ambush you can get a couple of teams set up exactly 4 inches away from one enemy tank if they go to close to a forest or something, but you probably won't be able to get the rest of the formation unless they're traveling in a perfect column through woods.

>>54360164
Mainly, they're there for defensive fire and assaults, not for shooting. If the enemy charges you with tanks, you have a shot with every 'faust that's within 4" of them after the move into contact. Since two bails stops the assault, and 'fausts are AT 12, they are very good at stopping incoming tanks. If they manage to get past that, or you assaulted them, then you have a Tank Assault value of 6, which means you attack against their top armor with an Anti-Tank value of 6 instead of the normal infantry Anti-Tank value of 2. Tanks are only top 2 at best, and that's for heavy tanks, which makes panzerfausts murderous in assault against vehicles.

>>54360250
That's fair. Yeah I was looking at my falschirm platoon up there with the panzerfausts and deciding if I actually wanted those, since I'm paying 70 points to equip the platoon with them. But fearless veterans that can take a tank assault does sound good.

>>54360305
Basically, the Panzerfaust for the whole platoon option is 70 points to make your opponent never assault you with tanks, ever. If they like tanks a lot, it's a great investment. If they're infantry with a few tanks, upgrading just the command team will generally be enough.

>>54360392
That's a good point. I don't think he's going to be running a lot of tanks. A few shermans definitely, but mostly tank destroyers and infantry. So I'll see what I can do with those 60 points elsewhere.

>>54360305
You might be able to field an option where only the commander has a panzerfaust. Typically you at at least want one. Having each platoon member have one can also be nice, but you'll pay for it.

For Germans I would not recommend bringing infantry without any panzerfausts unless they are pioneers (which have better tank assault values against top armor than standard infantry.)

>>54323885
I was actually wondering about rolling all MicroArmor for TY.

>>54360392
>>54360425
So in my list up there, I can drop the panzerfausts off everyone but the command team and drop one of my Pz IIIMs, and then add either 3 motorized pioneer teams, or 3 motorcycle MG scout teams with a panzerfaust.

>>54360471
I am thinking the same thing. Seems like I would be able to do a WarPac force without spending a fortune and do Americans once Stripes comes out. Plus if you keep all the distances the same, I think the scale would actually look half decent.

>>54342075
Do we know yet if they've announced anything about new plastic kits for Stripes?

I'm hoping we'll get the Patton and the Bradley in plastic.

The Humvee I expect will probably be in resin.

>>54360471
>>54360748
I've heard of people playing WWII FoW at 10mm and 6mm scales. They sometimes reduce the movement distances by half, but they always agree on leaving the weapon ranges the same.

>>54362092
No Bradley. It's gonna be muh-reens and nasty girls. M60s, LAVs, AAV-7s, etc. No Bradleys, M1IPs, Blackhawks, or Apaches till next book.

>>54362383
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that's a Patton, a Humvee, and a Bradley on the cover picture seen here >>54342075

>>54362494
No it's a LAV-25. I talked to a friend of a friend of a friend who works for BF.

>>54360471
>>54362345

this. i'm doing TY in both 15mm and 6mm, using the inch distances as centimeters for the fuck of it...
(my 6mm forces will not be repeats of my 15mm)

>>54362494
>>54362614

that is a LAV-25, you can tell by looking at it, BF nothing.

>>54362092

Nothing yet, though if the rumors about the Sgt. York are true I'll probably be screeching autisitcally about it.

>>54362623
>this. i'm doing TY in both 15mm and 6mm, using the inch distances as centimeters for the fuck of it...
>(my 6mm forces will not be repeats of my 15mm)
6mm Flames of War player here. It makes the game a lot better (and cheaper). Scaling factor for centimeters to inches is 2.54, likewise 6mm to 15mm is 2.5. So reading inches as centimeters is IMHO the best way to play. You wind up with much bigger battlefields and armies and more room to maneuver.

>>54362383
>"the US army in world war 3"
>it's the marines
I guess it's not surprising BF are retarded given the rest of TY, in fairness. >>54362494

>>54363970
Yeah I'm triggered. I was going to go for an ACAV style unit, with Abrams and Bradleys, since that's what I did, but instead we get crayon munchers. Oh well, guess I'll start a Leo 1 army or Brits.

>>54363970
>>54364166

Can someone explain to me why the US Marines have so much fucking equipment?

I understand that they need more gear than just infantry and landing craft to do their jobs, but from the perspective of someone outside looking in it looks like the US has duplicated all the functions of is army, added aircraft (both rotor and fixed wing), and then added landing capabilities on top of that.

Are all those extras really needed by guys who's main job is to fight from ships and establish beachheads?

>>54364404
>Are all those extras really needed by guys who's main job is to fight from ships and establish beachheads?

No. But historically, the marines have been used for far more than that. From their inception the marines have been used as an instrument to project power wherever the government needs them to do so, whether that involves a beach landing or not. The US military is also heavily factionalized, with different branches frequently duplicating stuff the other branches do in order to gain more prestige and independence from the other branches. I think I even remember them testing ballistic missiles similar to the army's Redstone back in the 50s or 60s.

Hell, Tom Lehrer had a song about it from the 1950s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc

>>54364927
Oh, and when I say "heavily factionalized" I mean more during this time. There were a lot of inter-service rivalries but they work together much more closely now. There used to be a ton of money wasted by each branch developing their own systems to do the same task.

>>54364927
So the marines are less navalized infantry and more imperialist aggression force. That explains all the extra toys.

Still seems odd to me. Wouldn't combined arms units drawn from the army be able to do the same thing for less cost? Or is this one of those Americanisms that a foreigner will never understand?

>>54365086
It's definitely a tradition thing. Marines were a small standing army for a nation that didn't really have much of a standing army otherwise for most of its pre 20th century history.

>>54365086
It has to do with how the marines have traditionally been used.

Marines are generally more experienced than regular army because between wars there's always some kind of low-level bullshit that marines are getting involved with that gives them experience in the field that the army lacked. That's why you saw the marines deployed in France in WWI for example, they had a core of veteran officers and NCOs that the regular army didn't have. They didn't need to conduct a landing on France in the first world war, but they were there anyway. Being an imperialist aggression force means that marines are more experienced and so are better off at doing things like that. The marines have a tradition of marksmanship and NCO skill and experience that dates back to when they actually were just naval infantry firing at the decks of other ships.

File: IMG_0391.jpg (195KB, 572x444px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 572x444px

>>54335577
6mm detail is getting really good lately.
The detail on GHQ 6mm minis quite often beats Battlefronts 15mm, even the "budget" brands like H&R and Scotia manage to squeeze a good amount of detail into their newer miniatures.
The difficulty comes in painting it so it stands out and doesn't turn into a beige or green blob, so drybrushing doesn't really work in most instances.

Pic related, 6mm budget Motor Rifle at £4 for 50+ figures

Current thoughts on my 100pt afrika korps list. Decided to spring for a pair of 105s because they're the only thing that can put down a smoke bombardment in the army, if I can drop smoke to protect the tiger from 17 pounders it's basically untouchable.


Panzer III Company

Up-armored Pz III HQ (8)

Pz III platoon, 1 up-armored and 3 standard (23)

Pz IV platoon, 1 short and 1 long (16)

Rifle platoon, 3 mg34 stands, 2.8cm AT gun, sMG34 (7)

Light scout car squadron, 2 Sdkfz 222s, 1 Sdkfz 221 with 2.8cm (2)

2 10.5cm field guns (7)

Tiger I with up-armored escort Pz III (37)

Will running this support heavy be a problem? I'm hoping that if stuff looks bad I can drop smoke for what's left of the Pz IIIs and IVs and try to stay in the fight with the tiger.

>>54364166
It can't be just marines though,that's an M60A3

>>54365549

I'd ditch the escort Pz.III, it's not really tough enough to hang with the Tiger, and if it's just there to tank a 17 pounder hit you might as well save the points and give the extra armor to one of the Tanks in the platoon, cause it won't be helping here.

>>54365405
>Pic related, 6mm budget Motor Rifle at £4 for 50+ figures
What manufacturer? I've been looking at getting into some 6mm moderns, still prefer 15mm for WW2 though.

>>54365599
My guess is Battlefront is going to say. "The army is just borrow LAV-25s from the meme corps XDDDDD"

>>54365628
Those are Heroics&Ros, these are their newer heroic infantry, afaik they currently reworking the rest of their infantry to the same style.

I've posted it here before, but I started this for people looking to get into 6mm TY etc without forking out for GHQ

https://coldwargonesmall.bl*gsp*t.co.uk/

File: EW Soviet Strelkovy 2000pts.pdf (108KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1x1px

>>54316675
Going to play a 2000pts Early War tourney this weekend coming and was going to run this list, thoughts?

Yes I do have the models for it.

Only because i'm borrowing from 2 other peoples collections on top of mine.

>>54366150
People who insist on that point scale for EW should be gulag'd. Pretty much just asking for Soviet waves of conscripts or heavy tanks to sweep the tournament.

>>54366385
Agreed. It will be a game of mostly soviet spam vs Matildas

>>54366385
>>54366460
I wanted to take this because I heard there would be quite a few Japan/German SS/French lists.

>>54366150
Why, in God's name would you ever even consider bringing a point limit beyond 1750 in a tournament. This is like, the worst possible idea for a tournament.

File: IMG_0694.jpg (134KB, 750x1072px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 750x1072px

>>54366150
Also, why don't you just run that same list out of barabarossa? You'll have a few less infantry stands but you can bring more interesting support options. You can also spam unarmed sapper memes out the wazoo.

File: 2000pts Japan EW.pdf (111KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1x1px

>>54366522
I also have the models to run this If I want. Would have to borrow the actual army from my roommate though.

>>54366520
EW has more expensive tanks, that do less.

that tourney is being funded by ex LW players.

Anyone had any experience playing "Panzergrenadier Deluxe" or "I Aint Been Shot Mum"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0CcmqSrq_E

Or should I just try Battlegroup?

>>54342075
How are people confusing the LAAV as a Bradley? You can literally see the wheels.

>>54365611
I could move it to the HQ section of the platoon, the HQ section is 1-2 tanks.

>>54365611
Oh, and if you mean just making it a standard Pz III and making a different one up-armored, escort Pz IIIs have to either be the 8 point uparmored one or a pz IIIN for 8.

But yeah it's just there to take a 17 pounder hit for the tiger, since nothing else matters. So I could just take the tank away from the tiger entirely, either adding it as a second HQ tank or as a 5th tank to the pz III platoon.

>>54367231
IABSM is not really designed with the FOW audience in mind honestly, there is no way I can recall to do pickup games with it or much of anything except historical refights. Never heard of that first game. Really if you want a quality FOW experience at this moment it's Battlegroup or bust.

Also, I really enjoy the orders system and how it reflects unit quality. If you haven't looked at it yet, each officer adds an order to your pool on top of the ones randomly generated to move squads around. In Kursk Soviets get jack shit for officers, their tanks have virtually none, and whether or not they will respond enough is based on RNG despite being objectively superior to the vast majority of German tanks in their list. In the Berlin book, a T-34 company gets four times as many officers, which is staggering. Properly built you have two officers for every three plebs while the Germans are still one for three or even five. At the same time, basic bitch Volk units are still split into two teams per squad, which hurts when you no longer have order supremacy and you are buying boatloads more infantry due to them sucking. Do Volksgrenadiers have more firepower than Motor Rifles? Yes, unquestionably. Do they have the orders to actually employ all that fire effectively? Doesn't look like it.

I know that's a long side rant but Battlegroup looks better every time you look at it.

>>54364404
Marines are redundant. Everything they do the Army can also do, and historically, can do better.

t. Ehrmee (If you ain't Cav)

>>54370458
Thanks for the comments, I'll look into Battlegroup. Does it work like FOW w/ a main rulebook and seperate army books?

File: IMG_8612.jpg (1MB, 3264x2268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2268px

>running out of fuchs

>>54364404

Military industrial complex and the empire are why they are as they are.

>>54364404
Simple, blame WWII.

The US Marine Corps during WWII had to be a more or less completely separate and independent military force in its own right to be able to carry out the war in the Pacific. They needed infantry, antitank weapons, tanks, artillery, aircraft, anti-aircraft weapons, etc that were all under their control and able to conduct and assist in conducting beach landings and amphibious assaults.

That meant that they were essentially a duplicate Army and Air Force with the additional training and equipment to conduct amphibious operations.

And since then they've kept up that separate and duplicate organization.

But instead of being just an amphibious assault force, they've become more of an elite rapid-reaction force.

>>54373555
Yeah. Rulebook, Barbarossa, Blitzkrieg, Kursk, Tobruk, Fall of the Reich, Overlord (currently being redone into two books, the first is up for pre-order on PSC), Wacht Am Rhein (supplement to Overlord, uses units from that), and Market Garden is the next book to come out. Game's great.

So, if you wee granted the choice odd adding one unit/vehicle to TY what would you add?
The only catch is that it must have been at least theoretically available before 1990.

>>54378474
The T-72

File: the emprah approves.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>54378501

>>54378474
T-80U.

Is communist version of Western Pig Dog Tank. Except cheaper.

>>54378474
I'm a simple man, just give me my Bastion and a cross check worthy of a tank.

>>54378474
UAZ Jeep, MT-LB, T-80BV, T-72B, T-80U, BMP-1PG, Tunguska, Tor, Mi-17, Su-17, Su-24, BRM-1, PRP-3

Only USSR units because I know shit about US and the rest of NATO

>>54378474

I think it would have to be the T-80 as well.

NATO seems to be almost done for 1985 stuff and the USSR should have the ability to go quality over quantity.

>>54378474
The US needs missile AA.

Maybe the Redeyes could be added to the US lists since the Germans did get them from the US.

File: IMG_0398.jpg (130KB, 699x556px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 699x556px

>>54378474

Whats the official lw points nowadays?

>>54378501
>>54378759
>>54379045
How are these not already part of TY?

wow it must have limited units to choose from.

>>54384169
Phil and by extension the rest of Battlefront have some kind of internal narrative about how World War III is "supposed" to go. The Soviets are supposed to be a horde while the proud the brave the few of NATO fights them off. I've been looking at Soviet TOEs and it's funny, three years later sure NATO Pigdogs would have the M1A1 and the Leopard II with the pointy turret, but basically all of the Soviet units on the border equipped with T-72s would be reequipped with T-80s.

>>54384169
I was being a wise ass about the T-72.
But for real it absolutely sucks for the point cost, and it should probably have been FA 17. I expect that any sane person will be replacing their T-72s with T-64s unless they are running Volksarmee.

>>54384222

It's almost as if this is a game and not a WWIII simulator or something.

>>54384728
THing is, if you have a bunch of tanks called "T-72", "Leopard 2" "M1 Abrams" and so on, one would expect the two to be roughly similar in power and such. Otherwise, you might as well call them Leman Russ, Hammerhead or whatever.

File: IMG_0702.jpg (126KB, 355x395px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 355x395px

>>54384728
It's just toy soldiers anyway. Just throwing some tanks on the table and rolling some dice, yeah?

>>54384821
But what your arguing for is no better.

If all the stats are more or less equivalent you might as well just call them Tank(Soviet), Tank(American), and Tank(German).

There were noticeable and significant differences between the various MBTs that are represented in Team Yankee.

How well they're represented is another question, but they're hardly identical.

>>54386140
I wasn't saying that a T-72 should be equal to an M1 Abrams (or whatever), but if, in real life, a T-72 had better armor than an Abrams, and an equal gun, IRL, then it should NOT be shittier in the game. If a T-72 was 95% as good as an Abrams, then it should be so in the game as well. and THAT's the problem right now.

(I don't recall the stats, either in the game or IRL off the top of my head, assume they're somewhat correct for right now)

>>54384836

> A false dichotomy.

Doesn't mean it has to be age of sigmar either. But having all the tanks be 1:1 bar the T-55 would be boring as fuck, this has been massaged to make the game more interesting.

>>54386469
>Honk

No one is asking for the tanks to all have 1:1 stats. Some of us just want vehicles that have stats that reflect the real life capabilities of the equipment. There are ways to differentiate sides without down-tiering one sides stats to make their equipment more spammable. I think the way battlefront has handled skill is a suitable way to achieve that, as are the differences in RoF.

In fact more parity in tanks or at least a subtle reprinting of the T-72 stands to make the game more interesting. The current WarPac meta of infantry hordes backed by ATGM missile spam or T-55 spam backed by a few T-72M don't make for a particularly interesting game if they are the only viable options.

>>54386634

> If a T-72 was 95% as good as an Abrams, then it should be so in the game as well.

For a wargame with 10 stats 95% is pretty much 1:1. There isn't the granularity to really differentiate this.

The last part is down to personal preference, I think for most people having parity would be less interesting though.

>>54386697
Once more, you're either missing the point, or being deliberately obtuse.

IF two tanks were equal in real life, THEN they should be equal in the game.
(And obviously, minor differences shouldn't be insanely exagregated, nor should a tank that was better IRL be worse in game)

>>54378474
T-34/85

>>54386766

I'm not missing the point.

You seem to think this is a WWIII simulator where they are actually trying to represent the tanks accurately.

It's not, this is a 1980's flavoured wargame that is just trying to capture the essence in broad brushstrokes. Just like Flames of War does. This is a mainstream wargame, it has never been and never will be an accurate simulator, if you want that try /hwg/.

>>54386830

I mean if Phil came out and said, yeah we are fudging the stats for game design, then that would be well and good. Instead he cites some unknown sources that verify all the stats decided for Team Yankee. By his posture, he is indeed trying to simulate the potential of equipment in WWIII.

Also aside from a few exceptions FoW does a reasonable job of modeling capabilities of WW2 equipment without being autistic about it. I think it's fair to expect the same out of TY, or to be displeased that WarPac got made into Orks.

>>54386961

Well the first book we had gave us Abrams vs. T-72's and showed us the meme magic so I don't know why anyone would be under the impression that this was ever going to be accurate.

Phil probably does do his research, but he ignores it for the sake of making the game more diversified.

Flames of War is the same, all the Allies are spamtastic as well.

>>54387021
It's funny because in the release Meta T-72s vs Abrams was a decent matchup, at least on a points basis. It was only when Milan/BMP missile spam became a thing that everything shifted out of balance.

>>54387165
This.

The T-72 compared to the Abrams feels roughly correct. At least from a game play stand point.

The larger numbers balance out against the M1's higher rate of fire.

The guns of both have roughly the same chance of penetrating the armor of their opponent.

It felt pretty decently balanced.

Then you got the additional nations and their equipment, and it started to feel a bit more skewed.

The Milan spam available to the West Germans and British makes pretty much any tank a joke, especially WarPact tanks.

I haven't seen the results of the US Team Yankee Nationals tournament, but I wouldn't be surprised if Milan-heavy British and West German lists dominated.

>>54386961
>aside from a few exceptions
*cough*V4 midwar*cough*

>>54387553
Well I was more talking about things like Jagdtigers, BS-3 one shot meme, etc...

>>54387446
Yeah I am curious to see the results. I am expecting Brits to have won it all.

>>54387697
Brits or Panzertruppen-based West Germans.

File: IMG_0687.jpg (85KB, 758x325px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 758x325px

Valenbump

>>54387741

Red Thunder may redress the balance, the T-64 looks much better for 1 point.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't soviets replace Mi-24 with Mi-17 in Infantry transport duties due to their experiences in Afgan?

>>54393572
Why tho

>>54393572

They probably did but since BF don't make a model for it we'll have to wait until the next soviet book.

>>54393572

Same for the Brits, we would use the Puma more than the Lynx for transport duties.

>>54387021
>he ignores it for the sake of making the game more diversified
I can only speak for my meta, but based off that he failed miserably. There are more LW Italian players than Soviet players here, nobody wants to lug around a battalion of anything in a company-level game. I don't care whether it's harder or easier to play, it is boring. The only diversity Phil has fostered at my store is a split between fun and spam, and I've never seen the latter in person.

I miss axis and allies miniatures. How hard and expensive is FoW to get into? I really don't enjoy the assembling and painting part of tabletops but I also want some more cute little panzers to sit on my desk.

>>54396607
If you are looking for display pieces Battlefront sell plastic tank sprues individually. That or you can buy a TANKS kit for like $10 at your shop. Resin tanks are usually between $11-14 in the US.

>>54384169
Battlefront are NATOBoos and Wehraboos with a general contempt towards the Soviets

>>54394850

> Anecdotes.

The same would be said if every faction played the same, people would be on here complaining.

My Brits have 10 tanks, my Soviets have 15, I would not say that is a prohibitive increase in the number of models needed.

>>54397049
Assuming T-72s, your 10 British tanks would kick the shit out of the 15 Soviet tanks 9 times out of 10. BMP spam was the only valid option, now T-64s at lease seem worthwhile to field. BMPs are where it gets cost prohibitive.

>>54397115
I expect to see T-64s replacing T-72s for a lot of players.

Or perhaps T-72s shifting from Soviet to East German.

And yes, BMP spam can get stupidly expensive, but people still have done it.

File: IMG_0705.jpg (320KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 620x412px

>>54398845
The usual suspects on the forum are flooding posts with BTR-60 spam lists now.

>>54387741
by Panzertruppen, we mean M113 formation x3 with all milans?

Leo 1's aren't all that snazzy

>>54393572
In fact, mi24 was never used as transport. It's a gunship with very small transport compartment, where only small 2-3 man team could fit. It was used for evacuation, not for regular infantry assault

>>54400159
Yeah, mainly the Milan abuse. The M113 company gives you 9 Milans w/ all the other Panzergrenadiers for 22 points. Then you can stack a couple of Leo 1 + M113 platoons on for 19 points each. So 60 points gets you 8 Leo 1s, 15 MG3/Panzerfaust teams, 15 Milan teams, 16 M113s, and a G3 team. Your Leo 1s do most everything skill wise on a 2+ with the formation commander attached, so they can go flank around in the woods while your infantry hold the objectives forever. You have your remaining points to tack on whatever support you need.

File: 1445389719855.jpg (157KB, 1198x830px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1198x830px

>>54400263
yeah, only 1 unit of M113 allowed.
not as egregious as Brits, but....

Why not add +2 Marder formations?

>>54400422
You can do that, if you do you should end up with more infantry overall. Though the Leo 1s are pretty nice to have if you want to take out lighter vehicles like BMPs or Shilkas, or maneuver around the enemy and threaten the flank. If you play with trees they are great. Excellent cross check and adequate speed with the stabilizer.

File: MILAN 100pts.pdf (102KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1x1px

>>54400263
>>54316675
>>54400263

Did someone say MILAN?

>99pts
>46 MILAN teams

>>54400539
Go steep yourself in some boiling hot water, Tea Scum.

File: ITV 100pts.pdf (101KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1x1px

>>54400263
>>54400159
>>54400539
>>54400593
What about this?

>100pts
>32 ITV
>25 DRAGON Teams

File: IMG_0706.jpg (9KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 275x183px

>>54400630
Goddamnit, time to buy more artillery.

>>54400263
>>54400539
>>54400630
>All this fucking missile spam
>BTR Companies didn't even get their integrated ATGMs

File: MIA 1.jpg (98KB, 826x692px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 826x692px

>>54400749

And I forgot my fucking pic.

5+ Skill indeed.

File: HIND 100pts.pdf (99KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1x1px

>>54400539
>>54400630
Can I join in?
>100pts
>24 Hinds

File: MIA 2.jpg (68KB, 815x592px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 815x592px

>>54400765
They didn't get their Battalion AT platoons either, though one could argue the option to add 2 ATGM teams could represent them being farmed out via combat attachment.

>>54400795
>>54400765
The consensus that my guy what knows Soviet TOEs and I reached was that Battlefront fudged them a lot to fit them as just big ass platoons.
The AGS Grenade Launchers are meant to be HQ attachments.

File: Shilka.pdf (102KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1x1px

>>54400792
100pts

24 Shilkas

Pssh....Nothing personal hind.

File: MIA 3.jpg (146KB, 815x693px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 815x693px

>>54400841

That's this lot here right?

>>54400932
Yeah. Also battlefront for some reason relegated Soviet Heavy Weapons to large bases effectively cutting their weapons by half where as non-Soviet armies haven't been slapped like this.

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

247KB, 1380x785px

>>54400982
Probably the same reason the Vietnamese got Hen and Chicks.

File: Locust_3.jpg (10KB, 407x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 407x216px

Tiny Tank bump

File: FT-17-argonne-1918.gif (99KB, 586x441px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 586x441px

>>54404244
DID SOMEBODY SAY TINY TANKS?

File: OthWW2-2(5792)(PA2614).jpg (98KB, 760x563px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 760x563px

THIS IS MORE OF A BATTLE CART BUT FUCK IT

>>54400792
you can only ever bring 1 afghantsy formation from afghantsy booklet

File: 76 Vickers Carden Loyd Mk VI MG carrier.jpg (408KB, 1600x1152px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1600x1152px

British Tiny is Best Tiny

File: tks20mm_Ge_01.jpg (96KB, 636x523px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 636x523px

tiny tank compensating

File: Body recovery on knocked out Free French Forces sherman tank (Normandy 1944).webm (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>54404244
>>54404271
What about sad tanks?

File: M5-Stuart-M22-Locust-75mm-Howitzer-Barracks.jpg (294KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1200x900px

When a Stuart looks huge next to you, you KNOW you're tiny.

File: vickers-light-tank-mkvic-malta.jpg (57KB, 650x389px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 650x389px

tiny tank pretending to be a tiny wall

File: IMG_0708.jpg (110KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 700x466px

Tiny Cold War "Tenk"

>>54404954
It's amazing how similar they look to >>54404340

File: Locust.png (468KB, 574x374px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 574x374px

One last Locust before work.

I've finally had the opportunity to add Red Thunder to our Scans Database.

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms

Thank you again to >>54338333 for providing us with the scan.

Has anyone got their hands on the Zvezda Maus kit yet?

If so, how is it?

Not to be a pain in the arse but why is Red Thunder all to pot?

>>54409227
Because asiatic hordes and CHEERS

>>54409254

Well I know Phil gets blamed for everything but I meant why has the PDF got massive white boarder around it.

What is the historical cut-off for Team Yankee? I know the original book was 1985 but I want to simulate the Russians invading the Baltics in, um, 2017?

>>54411250
Go to /hwg/ and ask them for a better system - TY as a system is not going to do that any justice. It's already missing '80s era weapons all over the place, let alone another thirty years of military development and reorganizations.

File: IMG_0709.jpg (41KB, 563x374px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 563x374px

ded gam

File: 1384805878868.jpg (199KB, 817x884px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 817x884px

>>54415502
ded tonk

>>54411250
Try Fist Full of TOWS, or Field of Fire, instead of some half-assed alternate history game:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163152/fields-fire-miniatures-rules-modern-combat

>>54409331
That's the way it was when the scan was first posted.

>>54412820
Team Yankee has a decent sampling of mid-1980s tech, but the unit selection is a bit limited since it began as an limited game with only 2 factions and only a small selection of equipment from those two factions.

They didn't want to commit too much in case it didn't gain any popularity.

Since then they've gone about expanding with more nations, as well as plans to further expand on the original Soviet and American releases.

But either way, the tech we have available is pretty much all 1984/1985 and earlier.

It doesn't really even expand as far as the Gulf War even 5 years later, as both the Bradley and the M1A1 do not have stats in the game.

The US is only fielding the basic M1 at this point.

Is there any way to get my hands on the Battlegroup supplements and datacards? I've only found the rulebook in the scans.

>>54419468
The Bradley is mentioned in US Cavalry units in the rulebook, which adds to the ass chafing I get that the US doesn't get recon.

>>54419996
Yes there is....buy them.

>>54415603
FFoT is really good, but I don't like how it handles aircraft.
iirc having AAA nearby just reduces the effectiveness of aircraft rather than "killing" them as such,
Nobody wants to shoo away that Su-25, I wanna see that fool explode

>>54421629
Any other way? My funds are tied up in non-refundable plastic crack.

>>54378474
Otomatic

File: IMG_0711.jpg (111KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 600x430px

>>54423508
Wtf is this spaghetti space magic?

>>54423209
Have you checked the folder in /hwg/? It has scans (just the lists) for Kursk, Overlord (Normandy) and Fall of the Reich (1945 battles in Germany).

FOW /tg/ is pretty spoilt when it comes to scans, most other systems are not nearly so well-provided, something we tend to forget.

*raise glass* to all Scananons: thank you.

>>54424316
Stupid questions: What's /hwg/?

>>54424628
historical wargames general. found here on /tg/. It's where the true grognards live.

File: failing your 2+ bogging check.jpg (60KB, 599x419px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 599x419px

The thread has been moving at a glacial pace lately. Is anyone playing flames? Some batreps or pics or something would be nice to see. I am going to try to get a game in next week, but summer traveling has been dominating.

File: IMG_8623.jpg (190KB, 1273x673px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1273x673px

>>54427569
I got one game of TY done last week.
My w(b)est germans attacked dug in brits and I was holding an objective by turn 4. (Thank you double spearhead I'm buying more Luchses) Tea slurpers got desperate. Two Lynx with troops made a suicide drop right on the objective to contest. They died, but they contested. Troops continued to pour in to contest. Leo 2s run them over. I'm slowly losing the rest of my army to 7 chieftains and bullshit milans everywhere oh god.
>one roland tries to hide in bushes
>bogs down
>stays bogged for three turns
>is also holding the objective while my Leo 2s are assaulting left and right
>bogged roland gets shot at
>a lot
>survives 3-5 milans, 2 chieftains and all the carl gustavs
>finally succumbs after three turns
I'm down to 3 leo 2s but I can still win damn it.
>is hit by three milans
>in the front
>obscured
>lose all three tanks
Fun game, spectator who left half way through thinks I'm lying when I said I lost turn 10.
>screw you Tornadoes failing to show after turn two

File: IMG_8617.jpg (2MB, 2448x3178px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3178px

>>54428898
Here's the Roland in question.

>>54419996
>>54423209
>>54424628
See this folder: https://mega.nz/#F!SolyxarJ!GUg6zWBStfznr6BvYedghQ

>>54427569
> Is anyone playing flames?
For me, not much; too busy at the moment unfortunately.

I have been playing a fair bit of Battlegroup, really enjoying it. Otherwise, guys are playing their last few V3 games (which I keep missing) before going to V4: some enthusiastically, some not as much, others will play whatever everybody else is playing, etc.. I don't like most of V4 but will give it a try when it actually gets going locally. After the ETC the locals will move to V4.

My future game for WWII is pretty much Battlegroup. But then, I've been playing FOW since 2001, so it's probably a combination of FOW-fatigue and wanting something new that has me unenthusiastic about V4. Still, I'll try to be part of the community to keep it alive.

>>54428898
What mission? I need to tweak my list so I can pull a quadruple chain of Luchs spearhead and drop Leo 1s into the opponent's back on corner deployment missions.

>>54427569
I don't think I've mentioned it in the thread, but my FLGS is shutting down.

So I haven't been playing many games, and I kinda need to start looking for another place to play since neither myself or my regular opponents have the space to set up games at our houses or apartments.

So I'm kinda in limbo lately for actually playing until my small group sorts something out.

I'm still doing the building and painting side of the hobby in the mean time, but I haven't gotten any games in myself recently.

File: IMG_8672.jpg (162KB, 999x709px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 999x709px

>>54429304
Counter attack
Managed to spearhead my entire force out of my deployment quarter and placed it right next to my opponent's man-filled metal boxes and aa.
It's ludicrous how little death you can inflict on infantry filled apcs when firing upon it with everything you got.

>>54429309
That sucks.

But I can completely understand. Hopefully you get that figured out soon.

File: Buffel + Panther 2.jpg (77KB, 643x479px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 643x479px

>Panzerbumpwagon

>>54434880

Panther II and E50 are the same thing? That is new to me.

>>54435403
Isn't the E50 just the Panther II, but standardized using E-series parts?

>>54434880
That top one kinda reminds me of a Cold War era IFV like the BMP or Marder.

Were the Nazis working on a similar concept near the end of the war?

File: E Series.jpg (159KB, 618x1190px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 618x1190px

>>54438113

Yeah, they had a whole series of stuff.