Flames of War General: "Is Battlefront Revamping /fowg/,

Anyone know where I can find Battlegroup datacard scans?

Given that this place is joining the facebook group in quietly whimpering into irrelevance, can we just admit that 4th edition's a complete disaster nobody wanted and is killing the game?

File: 20170716_224135.png (269KB, 1440x2152px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1440x2152px

>>54448020
Have a rare Phil

>>54449263
I think it'd be pretty easy to point up West German Air Landing. I say go for it, Anon. I'd let you play with it.

I really want to see the 101st for the Americans and real soviet airborne in TY.

File: Applique Armor v0.68 - A LW British Supplement.pdf (691KB, 1x1px)

691KB, 1x1px

Well, did some more work on my pet project. Changes:
>Increased points for MGs on ARVs
>Churchill OP is now a replacement option for a Sherman OP if you have any Churchills
>Split cruiser tank upgrades RV/CT section
>Added rules for Mk I Crusader AA (one 40mm Bofors instead of twin 20mms)
>Added LCT(R) naval arty support, large template but less raw stats.
>Ram Badgers had their front armor decreased to 5, points reduced a bit to compensate.
>Removed points increase for FA 6 on Ram Kangaroos in points/rules changes section
>Added Airlanding Polstens for lists outside the AAR in Market Garden, since I found photographic evidence they were deployed in Varsity and records showing they were in the Overlord loading.
>Made the Wasp IIC MG a AA MG
>Under optional rules, made all additional UC hull MGs into AA MGs since they were mounted for that
>Cleaned up AVRE attachments, made Bullshorn not strictly better than Crabs for mine clearing and more realistic (may change in future for ease of play)
>Added note to "Exceptional HE" that if using it you should also apply it to similar guns for other nations
>Added Water Buffalo MG points changes, since the existing points charge you 15 points per buffalo for an absurdly minor change in capability.

I'd be half tempted to add something about PIATs being 6" range but being able to shot and remain GtG due to lack of a smoke trail, but that's maybe getting too autistic for even this project.

Note, this is entirely for LW V3, I do not have things changed over for V4, and some of the rules may be unbalanced in earlier periods.

>>54451181
I would disagree that the Eighty Eight had anywhere near the same amount of HE in it's shells as the British's 95mm. Document still looks fabulous and there's a lot of really good ideas and research done.

>>54451676
I figured an 8.8 shooting Flak shells at infantry would have a similar effect to the 25pdr/95mm. But I guess I'd need to specify which 8.8 I was talking about for that to make sense.

>>54448191
I don't think they exist.

>>54449056
Must be that all the cool "new" players chat elsewhere.

>>54449361
Cheers Anon, some interesting ideas.

>>54451871
>cool players chat elsewhere.

i'd say Discord has given us a hit.
that, and 4chan isn't as friendly as the crossboarders are thinking.

>>54451871
>Must be that all the cool "new" players chat elsewhere.
Or they just don't exist since typical gamers don't want to play a mediocre, messy IGOUGO game with nazis and crusty grognards don't want to play a watered down ruleset of historical nonsense, meaning 4th has created a dead edition that nobody cares about getting into while alienating almost all of it's existing playerbase?

Nah, you're right, 4chan's definitely being beaten by shit skype.

>>54452706
>shit skype
So... Skype?

>>54452706
Just because you say it's a dead game doesn't make it any truer.

>>54453010
The thread died with 50 posts to go because nobody's talking about this dead game nobody is interested in. This thread's only staying up because people are going to argue 'til they're blue in the face that the total lack of any kind of market for 4th doesn't mean it's a failure.

File: IMG_0712.jpg (31KB, 400x250px)

31KB, 400x250px

>>54452875
DIscord.

>>54452645
Yeah. I may try to do some reconfiguring of some discord channels so that more stuff gets routed onto here. I still think there is room for both platforms.

>>54453057
See picture.

I think if battlefront remove their heads from their asses and change a few of the most glaring issues with V4, we might be able to salvage it. In the interim I am still going to be playing it over V3, but with tank centric forces.

I am having better luck with Team Yankee. Game's not perfect, but if you and your opponent bring at least somewhat balanced lists, you can have a lot of fun. There's a little more to the lists than with MW currently.

Maybe we are in a bit of a valley, but I think there is still fun to be had for the meantime.

>>54453519
>DIscord.
Skype is really shit. Discord isn't worse than it, because it's really hard to be worse than that shitshow.

>>54453057
>I think if battlefront remove their heads from their asses and change a few of the most glaring issues with V4, we might be able to salvage it.
ahahahahahahahahahaha

Like they would. Most of the issues are from TY, and they didn't fix them after people complained there. They've decided they are right and everyone else is doing it wrong, and damn the statistics and feedback that say otherwise.

so, i see we need some blood.

who wants a Guppie update?
like, their next opponent in the next season, and the chance to play non-WoT GuP on /v/?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Z6L31E0ZA&feature=youtu.be

it's the frenchies...they get to fight the vichy frenchies!

>>54453057
>>54455560
>I think if battlefront remove their heads from their asses and change a few of the most glaring issues with V4

i'd really, really be up for a serious V4.2 update.....begfore it becomes 4.5

>>54455781
Fuck yeah, more cute girls in panzers!
>PS4
Unless there's a PC version, fucking dropped.

>>54456011
>PS4
i didn't say it was great, i said it was not WoT

things we know:
>Goliaths in Action
>flak balloons
.....both old news.
>BC uses Souma tanks
>There are 2 new delinquent characters who live in squalor...somewhere on Oarai.

a new tank team that uses a 2 person tank? what tanks only use 2 crew?

>>54448020
Who /GREAT WAR/ Here?

Was thinking about getting into it, what is the general scene like, especially in QLD?.

>>54456205
War Thunder exists and is not WoT. And is for PS4 and PC. I'm just sayin'.

>>54456721
The scene is currently desolate like no man's land.
It's just another alternate rule set that BF made, briefly supported, and then left in a ditch.

File: 1464631480484.jpg (76KB, 720x622px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x622px

>>54457127
Just like my precious Vietnam.

>>54457170
>>54457127
Of 5 games lines (FoW, TY, ToD, FoaN, GW), 3 of them are dead, and unless TY has releases planned beyond Stripes it might die too. So why doesn't BF get the same flak that Spartan does for making games and then not supporting them?

File: 1463324614009.png (861KB, 1059x962px)

861KB, 1059x962px

>>54457127
We'll never see RC Italians or CC A-H and never ever see a cheers non soviet Russia.

File: PanzerCHEERSwagon.jpg (121KB, 1334x541px)

121KB, 1334x541px

>>54458883

>>54457391
ToD and FoaN may get some love when they are redone for the TY ruleset, but if they don't fix the issue with the gooks/arabs being NPC factions, no one will be playing.

>>54455560
Rumors from Historicon have been hinting at Pete having a discussion with players. Things mentioned were morale and aircraft possibly getting a wave off mechanic. It's a start, but if BF are willing to change a few things, maybe we can get a few more changes.

>>54460163
>Implying Phil's going to let player feedback make changes to his precious V4 baby

>saw Dunkirk
>want to play EW
>met Soviet
Anyway it was an EW game...

>>54461328
Brits vs. Soviets? RIP England.

>>54461381
He might have been running Germans. Then again, Blitzkrieg germans or blitkrieg brits, it would be the difference between assrape or assrape without lube against certain soviet lists.

>>54461405
Yeah, in V3 Germans had CAS Stukas to help, but in V4 they are left with what few 88s they get. Brits pretty much have nothing that can even bail a KV-1, so their best bet is to run infantry tanks and just pretend the KV-1 isn't there.

File: 1458938176278.jpg (427KB, 1279x877px)

427KB, 1279x877px

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

>>54456721
>>54457127
>>54457391
>>54457477
>>54460163
Blitzkrieg is better for running The Great War than the actual Great War book.

File: KakaoTalk_20170723_003026304.png (11KB, 295x419px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 295x419px

How do you think?

>>54456721

i would Great War if i could run out and try to destabilize the enemy artie park.
for a WWI game, it is seriously lacking in artillery
seriously...

>>54457391
don't forget TANKS

TY has more releases coming, it's not gonna die...

>>54463248
>TY has more releases coming, it's not gonna die...
The question is whether or not the complete atlas of belgian tanks is going to provoke the same interest as more americans. Judging from statements from BF, it also seems like the warsaw pact is basically "complete", which doesn't bode well for avoiding "The Good Guys vs Mooks" syndrome like AIW and 'nam had.

>>54457391
>Of 5 games lines (FoW, TY, ToD, FoaN, GW), 3 of them are dead,

Vietnam always felt to me like it was an attempt to make a square peg fit into a round hole. The iconic combat patrols into the jungle, doesn't work in FoW's 15mm Company-Level scale. It's more appropriate for a 28mm Platoon-Level scale.

Fate of a Nation more closely fits the gameplay that FoW does well, Company-Level mass combat. It also acted a bit like a prototype of Team Yankee, introducing some more modern combat elements. But it suffered from spammy bad guys, and from the Arab-Israeli wars being unknown to most non-grognard gamers.

And Great War? That was pretty much just Battlefront engaging in a masturbatory circle jerk of a prestige project. Something they did for the 100 year anniversary because they wanted to. Because they felt they needed to. But again, it lacked the appeal to non-historical gamers.

>and unless TY has releases planned beyond Stripes it might die too.

They've produced lists and miniatures for all the major nations. They can probably add some additional units over time, but unless they advance the timeline, we're pretty much set as far as having toys to play with and the rules to use them.

>So why doesn't BF get the same flak that Spartan does for making games and then not supporting them?

There are people genuinely upset about it.

As far as I can figure out 'Nam, FoaN, and Great War were all meant to be limited releases initially that gained some measure of interest. But nowhere near as much as any of the eras from World War II. Causing them to essentially become dead games with small but devoted player bases.

Nam suffered from the US and it's allies having all the cool toys, and the same can be said of the Israelis in FoaN.

Great War I'm not entirely sure about why it never took off. Quite literally nobody in my area even purchased anything for it. The starter boxes sat on a shelf gathering dust.

>>54463945
>Great War I'm not entirely sure about why it never took off. Quite literally nobody in my area even purchased anything for it. The starter boxes sat on a shelf gathering dust.
The closest our shop has come to selling any of it is a local German player is considering getting a pair of Mark Vs for the defense of Berlin.

>>54463945
>The iconic combat patrols into the jungle, doesn't work in FoW's 15mm Company-Level scale.

Completely disagree. The standard tactically independent formation for regular infantry was the company. The main issue with ToD is the same as FoaN: playing the mook faction gets boring quick. The second issue was they did a terrible job of representing guerilla warfare.

Am I supposed to just guestimate where the turret stowage boxes go on the PSC T-55AM?

>>54464698
>The main issue with ToD is the same as FoaN: playing the mook faction gets boring quick.

Agreed. The Vietnamese and the Arabs are Mook-Level above and beyond what we see even with other horde factions.

>The second issue was they did a terrible job of representing guerilla warfare.

This too. Although I'm not 100% sure what could be done to improve that.

As for Company-Level working for 'Nam, I'll agree to disagree. Platoon-sized games seem far more "thematic" for lack of a better word. They more closely resemble what people think of as the typical combat scenario of the Vietnam war.

Granted, that could just be Hollywood History, but it's what most people think of when they think of 'Nam.

>>54464895
>Granted, that could just be Hollywood History, but it's what most people think of when they think of 'Nam.

It is. The way to tell if a Vietnam movie was written by someone with no clue is if it features a lone platoon of regular grunts.

Most of the fighting wasn't even in the jungle. Rice paddies and elephant grass are the terrain most troops fought over.

File: New US Stuff.jpg (144KB, 679x960px)

144KB, 679x960px

Fresh off the social media

>>54466065
I could go for some Priests in plastic. Assuming the crew is generic enough for use in Late War.

>>54466311
IIRC US crew gear didn't change visibly from Africa to Europe.

>>54466371
Yeah, BF would have to fuck up tremendously to fail that mark. Of course, this is BF, we won't know for certain until we see the contents of the box.

>>54466065
Can anyone tell of those are M4s or M4A1s? I think -A1s, but it would be nice to know for certain.

>>54466432
Look like rounded/cast-hull M4A1s...pity, I was hoping for plain M4s, and plastic M4A2s for the British, though the latter was unlikely (would have been good for US Marines and Soviets too though).

Plastic Priests...at least a version too late. M3 Stuarts we've already seen with the British, wonder if there will be an M5 kit? ARP looks like repackaged LW box but they were good: kinda pricey here though, 52 Euros?

>>54466732
>at least a version too late.

Meaning what? That it's the wrong model of Priest, or that it would have been more useful in V3?

>>54468167
No, I meant they would have sold loads of plastic Priest models in V2 or V3: now, not so much. Armoured Mortars are much better for the points in Late War. In (new) MW, it remains to be seen.

6-vehicle US Priest batteries? A thing of the past. 8-vehicle British Priest batteries? Same. Mortars are simply far better in LW, and until the points are fixed ("soon") that's unlikely to change.

>>54456721

I really want to get into GW but as other have said it seems too be hanging precariously so I'm waiting to see what happens. I don't actually think we have rules for V4 yet so you can't actually play it without the OOP V3 rulebook.

>>54451181
You're my hero. Someone get this man a DSO.

How much longer do we have to put up with no counters? The only ones I can find on eBay are absurdly priced.

File: 20170721_151508-picsay.jpg (34KB, 773x335px)

34KB, 773x335px

PSC T55s turret looks too low, and its cheek armor looks too thin.

>>54473509
Counters for what?

If you're asking about the old dice and counter sets with unit specific insignia, those are long discontinued.

>>54474153
The proportions look ok to me.

>>54478638
Gorgeous little tenks. Those decals must have been hell to apply.

>>54478666
those are not mine but yea, the guy must be a fucking artist to make it so great on a 6mm scale

>>54474153

Looks okay to me, you always get some slight distortion on miniatures, sometimes it's just because it's an unusual angle.

>>54463945
>Nam suffered from the US and it's allies having all the cool toys,
>and the same can be said of the Israelis in FoaN.

hold it there,

JS-3's
T-34/85 spam for the cost of any other single platoon
Mig17
Those Integrated Infantry Fotification units
Those artie park Gods
AMX Sherms

they had some fun stuff in the Egyptian side. they just suck at 2+ to hit....

The Jordanians are pretty much Arabic Israelis w/o the point cost weight of rules, so you get them cheaper and they are just as effective. prove me wrong, new Jordan is good.

Other than PzIV's in 67' Syria is the real looser here.

also, i can post pics of my recent AIW mega-game...


>>54466065
awww yes.....

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

13KB, 305x294px

>>54471411
please, call it great war

>GW

Bit of a rules thing with V4 and hills:
How much needs to be hidden behind a hill to be concealed?

This came up at a local tournament with some tanks trying to go hull down on a ridge.

>>54480802
>they had some fun stuff in the Egyptian side. they just suck at 2+ to hit....
The problem is nobody wants to buy 9000 resin tanks to have a playable army. PSC probably made AIW more playable than anything else BF could've done with the rules.

>>54481369
Officially, 1/3, but honestly anyone who's insisting you can't hide a tank somewhere needs slapping, the ground scale's inexact and everyone knows what you're trying to do.

>>54481644

this. all of it.

BF made some playable fun with the UAR, but then, resin. you are correct sir: plastic was the way to go with mook armies the whole time. and they get the least love....

>>54474576
Yeah, when do we get new ones?

File: What it says on the Tin.jpg (415KB, 1280x846px)

415KB, 1280x846px

where do we have non-FoW evidence of Centurions in Egyptian Service, and which units did they serve in?

FOAN only has "they were in infantry armored batallions"

>>54482142
As far is I know, we don't.

It's been YEARS since they've stopped making those.

>>54482745
The game uses counters. That's pretty obvious. But they're not providing counters. Is anyone else making them? This seems really dumb.

>>54482777
Slow down and start over.

I think we might be talking about two entirely different things. The current token sets, and the old tins that included dice and tokens.

They still make tokens sets.

One for Desert Rats and one of Afrika Korps.

But the old tins, which had a much wider variety of themed sets to choose from, those have been out of production for several years now.

>>54480861

If you associate GW with a certain company then the issue is yours.

>>54483902
Is quite possibly the biggest name in gaming other than MTG or D&D.

Of course people are going to associate GW with that company before they associate it with Great War.

>>54481644
I find it always works best to talk about terrain before the game to clear things up.

Or to say as you're doing your move that you're placing them hull down on the hill.

File: Israel OP plz nerf.jpg (129KB, 951x615px)

129KB, 951x615px

>>54484191
thank you, sir!


...meanwhile.
reading up on the '67 war, it's got it's fair share of anecdotes

>>54481369

Agreed. Price point on a decent UAR army was what sent me away from the game.

>>54488605
i think you missed the post you intended.

>>54481644

>>54451181

PIATs shouldn't have any buffs against vehicles, but they should have similar rules to the LW Soviet faust teams. 4-6" range, bunker buster, matching firepower.

You'd see either an ad-hoc Seaforth style anti-tank platoon at Battalion level, or each company would have an extra couple of PIATs with the HQ.

Fun fact, both Canadian and NZ officers listed the PIAT as the 2nd or 3rd most effective weapon in post war surveys, after the Bren iirc. In both cases units had to learn to use the weapons properly after being forced to fight without tanks or arty for a time.

>>54488982

It appears that I did... That's what I get for not visiting image boards for a while.

So once Fighting First is out, Americans and Brits will be able to share formations right?

>>54490035
It depends on if they write it into the force organization chart.

The Germans at least have a spot on their Force Org that lists Italian allies.

Not sure if the Brits or the Yanks have the same thing in their Force Orgs.

>>54490035
>>54491402
In the chart in Desert Rats it's got a box that clearly says ALLIED SUPPORT: You may field one compulsory Unit from a US Formation as Support and one US Formation as an Allied Formation. So yes, but somehow I expect BF to screw it up and not give the Americans an option to use Brit units.

File: IMG_0713.jpg (43KB, 594x209px)

43KB, 594x209px

Just another day at the Battlefront forums.

>>54491816
Who is this delusional motherfucker?

NATO missile spam, especially British Milans are a serious threat to Pact tanks.

>>54491816
>>54491861
Fuckin' Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 is the shit against HEAT weapons, what fuck is wrong with them.

>>54491874
I think he's trying to say that Soviets aren't gonna see HEAT and so the missing ERA doesn't matter?

I think he forgot Brits exist?

>>54491895
Or worst Kraut Mlian Spam, or the up to Four ITVs you can bring as Burgerfuckers

>>54491816
They seem to think giving Russian tanks ERA would only add the ERA rule and not give an increase in Front Armour - which is calculated based on RHAE, regardless of the protection type.

>>54491909
good sir, the Limeys have the Krautenhunden beaten in terms of Missile Spam....

>>54474153
Most battlefront monis are kind of "chubby" and most of the times taller.

File: DSCN6580.jpg (1MB, 1200x1600px)

1MB, 1200x1600px

British Pax Cuntus Maximus List:

formation Alpha
1pt - - HQ w Lynx and SLR stand
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
11pts - 8 Milans, 3 Lynx

formation BBC
1pt - - HQ w Lynx and SLR stand
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
11pts - 8 Milans, 3 Lynx

formation Chad
1pt - - HQ w Lynx and SLR stand
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
5pts - 3 GMPG, 2 Milans, 1 Lt Mortar, 2 Lynx
11pts - 8 Milans, 3 Lynx

66 pts. 36 Milans.

12pts - 4 HELARM Lynx
12pts - 4 HELARM Lynx
10 pts 4x Harriers

100 pts, 36 Milans

you have to pay for 12 Lynx Boxes on top of it all, but then again, that is what rich douchebaggery is all about....

>>54492502
oh wait, you can take another Helo unit in support...

for 48 Milans at 88 pts!

> you can't count them for morale, but, so what?

>>54492083
It would though, BF have statted all the HEAT resistance kit as side only.>

File: hqdefault.jpg (380KB, 1328x1056px)

380KB, 1328x1056px

>>54492277
>>54479074
>>54474576

Maybe I am wrong about size of turret itself, but its cheek armors have definitely wrong shape, and it makes me turret looks smaller.

>>54478638
>thinking it's 15mm
Those look great!
>realizing it's 6mm
I am seething with envy and inadequacy

File: 0_7509_ba96a685_XL.jpg (140KB, 624x800px)

140KB, 624x800px

>>54452706
This tbhfam

>>54449056
Me and my local group is loving the V4, it fixes a lot of things and cuts so much dross.
And sure, it has some problems.
But we just use V3 for the problematic things and it works just fine.
Y'all be exaggeratin

>>54495531
>Me and my local group is loving the V4, it fixes a lot of things and cuts so much dross.

Like what? The fact that mortars can devastate bunkers now?

>>54496118
It makes gun teams more viable.
Dug in infantry is easier to dig up.
Hit allocation is waay faster and easier to grasp with roughly the same result as before.
To name a few.

Mortars being effective against bunkers is wonky, I agree. So house rule it is my suggestion.
>I have never ever seen a bunker in play but that's just my local meta

To me, the fixes outnumber the errors by far. Sure, whining about it is fine and proper but throwing out the entire V4 is just asinine in my opinion.
Opinions may vary I guess.

>>54496170
>Dug in infantry is easier to dig up.

I don't agree. Breakthrough guns, bunker busters, and flamethrowers have all been nerfed. Infantry assaults are much harder to pull off, primarily due to the 8" defensive fire bubble. Even tank assaults run into trouble now that anti tank guns have better saves.

Medium and heavy artillery are improved against infantry a bit with repeat bombardments forcing a reroll to infantry saves, but if you do the math, this only really starts paying off when you have a large battery and catch several teams underneath the template. Medium mortars and infantry guns benefit more, but their effectiveness is exaggerated beyond historical reason. Artillery is pretty much the only threat to an infantry list. It seems to me that anyone running an infantry list would want to simply bring some cheap artillery of their own or potentially air support to pin/kill enemy artillery.

So overall my complaint is that the loss of variety of ways to deal with dug in infantry has made infantry lists quite boring to play or play against. This creates some weird artillery duel meta that feels more like WW1 than WW2.

>>54496635
Yeah, I agree with your points. That's why we kept V3 rules for flamewerfers, btg and bb.

Now, inf assaults are indeed harder to pull off but frankly executing them in V3 was such a hassle in rereading rules, judging angles of fire and assault etc that I'm glad it's harder now as a price for simplifying it. That way, our only assaults locally are made when there's an overwhelming advantage. I'm just glad for the time saved even if I'm the player who gets shafted by it.

>>54496697
Yeah I agree that assaults being simplified is a relief even if they are less powerful. I am going to try a list with mounted assault tomorrow. We'll see how that goes.

>>54494210
The front armour value on the tanks is a flat rating with no effect from special rules that's calculated from RHAE of the tank's front protection, whether that be steel, composite or ERA.

It's the side armour HEAT resistance bonus that depends on the specific type of protection.

>>54495069
Ok. I kinda see your point now.

>>54497628
It's a pretty retarded way of ruling it 2bh

File: hh_staat.jpg (43KB, 350x228px)

43KB, 350x228px

>>54500604
Pretty much.
Cheers.

File: IMG_0714.jpg (94KB, 750x750px)

94KB, 750x750px

Playing a 1500 point game of LW tomorrow. The idea of this list is to deploy the StuGs and Panzergrenadiers off a Puma Spearhead and use the Panthers to engage any tanks in the way. I'll be against Americans or Brits.

File: 2aab16005f17101e57ea276de4a801bd.jpg (118KB, 710x458px)

118KB, 710x458px

>>54500604
That's what happens when you reflavour spaced armour skirts into a dress of ERA tiles. Phil certainly likes to smoke it doesn't he?

File: IMG_7928.jpg (71KB, 576x768px)

71KB, 576x768px

Just got back from Dunkirk lads. Absolutely solid cinema, highly recommended.
Don't expect saving private ryan though.
>real film
>hoyt hoytema does photo
>zimmer
>nolan
>minimal/non intrusive cgi
This might be the last war movie of its kind. See it in 70mm and salute the queen.

>>54504996
It's the last of it's kind until Nolan does a Dieppe movie, followed by Market Garden, completing his trilogy of British military disasters.

File: IMG_4849.jpg (31KB, 480x480px)

31KB, 480x480px

>>54505137
You forgot the fall of Singapore.
You jest but I'd love if he actually did those movies.
>tfw barman flies the batwing out to hiroshima to detonate the nuke

>>54505137
>Dieppe
>Market Garden
>>54505369
>fall of Singapore
All of these sound like they could be good movies...

File: IMG_3098.png (32KB, 500x375px)

32KB, 500x375px

>>54505137
>trilogy of British military disasters

>>54506620
Dieppe sounds pretty bland in comparison though.
>Would still watch for small scale bad ass leaf and commondo infantry action

File: maus1.png (1MB, 744x639px)

1MB, 744x639px

Got my Zveszda Maus today. Here's the sprue.

inb4 IS-2 jokes

File: maus2.png (742KB, 1186x321px)

742KB, 1186x321px

And here's the dry-fit out of the box. The gun elevates.

If Forged in Battle ever fucking ships my order, I'll have a comparison between the three 15mm scale Maus tanks that I know of. One day.

File: FFoT.png (76KB, 1030x496px)

76KB, 1030x496px

>>54506977
That looks really good 2bh, especially for the price
>>54504908
Armour in TY should have modifiers vs HEAT, or at least separate KE and HEAT values. Literally all it would take is
FRONT SIDE
18ᵏᵉ -10ʰ 10ᵏᵉ - 8ʰ

lazy

>>54506977
So what do we have in flames that could actually pen or even bail a Maus? The long 88 and the 12.8 cm?

>>54509261

IL2 Sturmovik assault

>>54508054
Yeah, it's definitely a no-brainer for anyone wanting a 1/100 scale Maus regardless of why.

And you're right, the totally-not-schurzen ERA should be something better by a long shot.

>>54509261
I recall reading somewhere, that based on someone spending too much time researching this silly topic, that an IS-2 could, among some other vehicles.

>>54509261
From the sides anything with more than 200mm of penetration at less than 500m, from the front you are pretty much fucked, need a powerful APCR/APDS to pen the flat cheeks of the turret

File: I_like_trains_boy.jpg (3KB, 192x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 192x160px

Any tips on building/running an armored train list?
Many of my friends play Flames, I'm not that into it, but something about the idea of rolling up with a model train is hilarious to me.

AFAIK, my options are:
EW Polish - cool, also have the option of cavalry, but people don't play EW as much
LW Soviets (from Red Bear?) - one or two lists have the option. unfortunately, soviets will require more models, time and money
LW Germans (from Gray Wolf) - many lists have the option of taking it, probably the best option.

Are there no MW lists that can take armored train? What's a good set of cars? How to support it? How has V4 changed things? Any advice appreciated.

>>54510363
Late War Soviets don't actually get an armoured train, Mid War only has two books out at present, neither of which have trains in them.

Your options are Blitzkrieg, Polish. Barbarossa, Soviets, or Grey Wolf. Armoured Trains are actually reasonably effective artillery platforms and can deal a lot of damage. Less so in Late War than Early War obviously.

Bearing in mind of course that the full length armoured German Train is about the length of the widths of most tables. Also under the new ruleset the train and it's various units don't count for the purposes of staying in the game being a Support unit, so keep that in mind. I would advise against getting the Panzer 38(t)s on the late version, they're just kill points waiting to be claimed, Panzer IV tank hunter cars are probably a really good investment. The bastard who wins all of the tournaments around the local region has had good success with a minimum Armoured train before.

File: 1359778786_imstalengrades_377.6cdq3l4ppikog488kc4kk4wck.ejcuplo1l0oo0sk8c40s8osc4.th.jpg (61KB, 800x544px)

61KB, 800x544px

DT pewpew

>>54452645
Over at the Horus Heresy General we've also seen a drop-off. Dunno if 40k's new edition is sucking everyone away, or if it's just summer.

File: IMG_0716.jpg (254KB, 886x1065px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 886x1065px

Page 10... shit we better airdrop this one in.

>>54515281
Can someone explain this to me?

A parachute and rockets?

>>54516913
Seems to be something on the end. Presumably a BMP

File: AntonovA40.jpg (22KB, 513x293px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 513x293px

>>54516913
>parashoot tonk comrade
>plz attach retroboosters
>tenk not borscht on landing
>plz yuri not sit in tunk when drop

>>54456721
>>54457127
>>54457391
>>54457477
>>54462742
So what would be the best way to play WW1 with FoW rules?

Still pretty unsure as to why Great War didn't take off.

>>54517044
Use V4 with the Great War army lists and missions.

>Artillery is king.
>Assaults are basically suicide.
>Shitty morale rules lead to mass death just like WW1.

>>54517247
Was V4 Phil's way of punishing us for not buying into Great War by turning the whole game into it?

>>54516913
It's to stop the crew dying from the force of the landing.

File: locust-10.jpg (156KB, 928x590px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 928x590px

>>54516970
>>54515281
Meanwhile, in jolly old England, proper operational deployment of a tank by means of a Hamilcar glider.

>>54518692
Meanwhile in America, years of scarfed burgers led to the failure of 3 humvee parachutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjF8ju7YeLI

Why are BMPs so cute?

>>54519612

The Yanks make everything too heavy. A lesson we could learn from the Ruskies, keep them light, cheap and give them a big gun.

>>54519612
Talk about embarrassing.

Something tells me those weren't secured properly.

>tfw really want to get into the hobby
>only store around that sells it is about an hour away
>make the drive during their weekly FoW night to see what the community is like
>store is empty except for owner
>ask him about the gaming night
>he says, rather resigned, it's usually like this

Feels bad man.

I bought some Chieftains for no other reason than I didn't want to leave the poor guy without a sale.

>>54524606
This is the problem with Flames of War

if you don't live in/near a healthy gaming community, you will rarely see it.
sad, but true.

File: 1498946553161.png (175KB, 700x1167px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 700x1167px

>>54524606

Right in the fucking feels.

Build it and they will come though.

>>54524606
The nearest FoW seller to me is a six hour drive away, and the shop is always running games of X-Wing any time I actually am in a position to go to it. I still like building the little tankies either way though.

Anyone know a decent Bradley kit I could buy for TY purposes? Seeing as how BF is being retards and not making the damn vehicle. (And before anyone suggests it, the Zvezda Bradley is too modern for the 80's)

>>54525892
>Build it and they will come though.

That store owner may beg to differ.

>>54526780
ok, gotta ask?

country, state/province?

my bet is USA....it's always the USA

File: IMG_0717.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Alert! Alert! I actually had a fun game of V4. My mounted assault was bloodied but pushed through a platoon of veteran American infantry to secure an objective. Sent my potato Panthers on a snipe hunt on the left flank with the recon, and they got ambushed and put in a bad position. Was indecisive with my 2 command Panthers, and the American armor was able to pass a blitz move and machine gun down my Ausbildungs Grenadiers just before the objective was fully secured.

>setting my smoke bombment 2 inches to the right would have won the game for me.

I think I am going to swap out recon for more shitty tanks to support my Panzergrenadiers so that my Panthers can do Panther things.

>>54527904
in the new rules, recon is a garnish, not a meal.

>>54526594
you....just shat on the only one that has a decent price tag.

i think QRF has smallish shitty metal ones you pay more for. you were looking for period, right?
they will be 3mm smaller....

http://www.scalecreep.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=3723_1483_4069_4082

>>54527898
ok but buddy you gotta realize the US is huge

there's places in the US where the game is going strong

File: M3-Bradley-101.jpg (180KB, 1200x810px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1200x810px

>>54528106
The Zvezda one isn't at all suitable for the period, but it is a nice vehicle. I've got a few.

I knew about QRF's but was hoping there are alternatives.

>>54524606
fugg

>>54528581

yes

off the top of my head:
Seattle Region, City Wisconsin, Utah, East Texas, The Bay, Chicago.....i hear Arizona is generally gamer positive.

File: David Fletcher.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>54526780

I meant a community.

Get your mate roped in, then when people come in shill it to them like fuck.

>>54527904
good to hear anon

>>54516913
The old way Soviets air dropped armor, easier to use a rocket to slow decent in the last few meters. Nowadays they use a small gaggle of chutes like the west.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uGfOppQD_g

>>54457170

My dad and I have been having a kickass time playing Vietnam. He's got 101st and Tropic Lightning. I'm bringing in the NVA and the VC. Amazing game. I guess the downside is too many people wanted to be the yanks, and not enough the Commies.

>>54506977
Why is half of that IS-2 MG metal?

File: IMG_0723.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Had some mounted assault questions from yesterday's game. Here's how I think it works upon further reading. Is this /fowtg/ approved?

>1) Halftracks with dudes inside can charge into contact. There are only as many assaulting teams as halftracks.

>2) Defensive fire happens as normal.

>3) Since halftracks are in this weird loophole where they not TA 1 or 2, they only fall back if they get hit 5 times or more.

>4) Halftracks that are not bailed or destroyed can assault if the unit did not take 5 or more hits.

>5) infantry stands inside halftracks each add an additional dice to the assault

>6)Infantry that are in a bailed halftrack or move out of a destroyed halftrack do not participate in the assault.

The overall result is pretty damning for mounted assaults. While losing 2 or 3 halftracks out of 4 doesn't cancel the assault, getting hit by rifle or mg fire 5 times does.

In the pictured assault, I lost 3 halftracks, but I still would be getting into assault with 3 stands.

>>54534588
>3 stands
The halftrack and the 2 infantry dudes inside. The men I assaulted died. That's why they are not pictured.

>>54532981
if it's anything like mine, the metal barrel is impossible to glue back on after a snap so you just end up putting on a plastic on from your bits collection.

So, since our aces league is getting reset, and I need to go with a mech or infantry company, I need to decide between my airborne armored recce and my airlanding. I will be paired up with a tank player each round, though who I'm teamed up with will change with the rounds. For the tank players, we have a russian with IS-2s, a CT tank destroyer spam panzercompany, and the last is some flavor of FREEDOM tanks. The other infantry/mech are likely FJ/Pioneers and Finns. There's a chance the Finns might be tanks and the Russians infantry.

Exact lists under consideration for 500:
HQ- 2 SMG, 2 PIAT
Airlanding platoon- panzerfaust/smg, 5x rifle/mg, PIAT, light mortar
Airlanding platoon - panzerfaust/smg, 3x rifle/mg, PIAT, light mortar
Later expansion will be 6pdrs, full platoons, and mortars.

HQ - 2x white scout cars
Airborne - 4x Locusts
Airborne Recce - 1 UC, 1 Dingo
Mortars- 4x 4.2" mortar, rifle, observer
Expansion options include MMG carriers, M10Cs, Chruchills, Airlanding platoons, and swapping the Locusts for Cromwells.

The airlanding are pretty barebones to start with, but get cheap support platoons as time goes on. The AAR have cheap core platoons and get interesting support options.

>>54534588
I'd honestly need to double check the wording in the rule book, but that sounds right to me off the top of my head.

Someone feel free to correct us if we're wrong.

>>54537001
Anyone have any opinions on which I should use?

Also bump

>>54527904

> A fun game of V4

the fuck outta' here

>>54537001
>>54539559
Both seem solid to me.

The Airlanding will probably have an edge at the lower points levels and expand nicely.

The armored recce seems a bit lack luster at lower levels, but should perform better at higher levels.

>>54540506
>there's no possible way that you can be having fun
>it's bad and it's wrong

Why don't *you* get the fuck outta here?

Does anyone know what the results were from the US Team Yankee Nationals?

I'm curious to see what types of lists were coming out on top.

I have some pet theories, but I'm curious to know what the winners actually fielded.

File: 800px-West_German_Bundeswehr_1960.jpg (137KB, 800x593px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x593px

>>54543089
Weren't most of the lists wessies? It's probably wessies or brits. Could be wrong though.

>>54543089

Name Wins Total
Ben Gobel (UK) NKOTB 3 16
Ben Lanagan (FRG) 757 3 14
Scott Maclemore (FRG) NKOTB 3 14
Chris Jackson (DDR) 3 13
Nate Duncan (DDR) 2 16
Derek Foehrkolb (FRG) CS 2 13
Steve Toth (USA) CS 2 13
Joe Lewis (FRG) AK 2 13
Ian Birdwell (USA) 757 2 12
Tom Burgess (DDR) OAG 2 11
Scott Dyer (FRG) (AK) 2 11
Andrew Johnson (USSR) 2 11
Ben Gross (USSR) Iron Star 2 11
Tristan Jacobs (FRG) GTM 2 9
Andrew Hopson (UK) AK 1 13
Luke Melia (FRG) CS 1 12
William White (USA) 757 1 12
Kurt Reese (USSR) Iron Star 1 12
Mason Athey (UK) 1 11
Peter Zerphy (DDR) G&S 1 11
Matt Nielson (DDR) 1 11
Robert Burnham (USA) NKOTB 1 10
James Best Sr (USSR) OAG 1 10
Ed Sales (FRG) 757 1 10
Nicholas Reid (USA) iron Star 1 9
Tom Mullane (FRG) AK 1 9
Glenn Goddard (USA) OAG 1 8
Dan Ward (DDR) GTM 1 8
John Barnett (USSR) 1 7
Joe Roach (FRG) G&S 1 7
Glenn Van Meter (FRG) G&S 1 7
Joe Angelo (USSR) 1 7
Kevin Kelley (USSR) NKOTB 1 5
Chris Fretts (UK) AK 0 10
Michael Hall (FRG) 0 9
Howard West (UK) 0 8
John Sulek (USA) OAG 0 7
Karl Treier (UK) GTM 0 7
Mitchell Treier (USSR) GTM 0 7
Andrew Hartnett (UK) 0 7
Jerry Lane (FRG) Iron Starr 0 7
Gary Hoover (USA) G&S 0 6
jefffrey whitlock (DDR) 0 4

>>54544805
Some statistics and highlights.

>As many would expect the Brits won overall. Supposedly the list has "multiple platoons of Chieftains", but even then there would be plenty of points for hellish levels of Milan Spam. What is more surprising is that the next highest British list came in 15th and several were in the bottom 10. Judging from the scores it seems like defensive (passive) play led to mutual losses.

>Wessies and Ossies had a strong showing. Post Panzertruppen West Germans have so many options, it's no wonder they had a strong showing. The discount tanks in Volksarmee likely led to a several lists successfully using Hasty Attack to secure victories.

>The highest Soviet player finished 12th with the rest placing mid to bottom of the pack. BMP spam lacks the ability to quickly remove enemies off an objective to secure a win. We'll see how the T-64 changes Soviet performance.

>Just of a third of the games ended in a mutual defeat (draw). Only 4 players were able to win all 3 games. 14 players managed to win 2 games.

>USA performance was all over the place. I wonder if it was a case of matchups or list composition.

>>54545113
>>The highest Soviet player finished 12th with the rest placing mid to bottom of the pack. BMP spam lacks the ability to quickly remove enemies off an objective to secure a win. We'll see how the T-64 changes Soviet performance.
Let me guess EXACTLY NONE.
How are people so blind and stupid that they can't see how AT missile spam has ruined the balance of TY.

>>54545113
>12th

C H E E R S

>>54545216
Well the T-72 is underpriced shit that is bad against everything. The T-64 has +1 front armor a longer range missile if you get it, so yeah it's not stupid to think there would be a difference.

>>54545771
over priced shit

but yea, the +1 armor isn't going to make a noticeable difference against infantry Milan spam

>>54545944
Oops. Mistyped. It's not going to make your tanks impervious, but you go from a 1/3 shot at a glance/bounce to a 1/2 shot for a modest points increase per tank. Still wish it had ERA.

>>54546198
yea but that's still not gonna win the shooting duel, and you're definitely not gonna be able to assault them

>>54448020
>Phil calls the t-64 shit on the forums and states the t-72 is an outright upgrade
>Red Thunder comes out and the t-64 is far better than the t-72

Was it cheers or were my almonds activated for another reason?

>>54547707
He shat on the t-55 on the forums

Anyone know what the Vallejo equivalent to DAK Sand is?

Its not on the paint color conversion chart.

>>54547707
>Phil calls the t-64 shit on the forums and states the t-72 is an outright upgrade

I don't have the Cheers post on hand, but Phil was talking about the T-72 being an improved and upgraded T-55.

The T-64 wasn't part of that discussion.

>>54545771
The trouble is that NATO has gone from AT 18, 28 inch range, to AT 21, 36" range, and retained the same cost. That's a huge upgrade and soviets weren't costed for it.

>>54548567
And the Soviets get no access to cheapo mortars for bombarding infantry. They can bring one 3 strong hail battery for 4 points, and their company artillery is 3 carnations for 5 points. The West Germans, Brits, and Americans can bring a 3 strong mortar battery for 3 points for each Mechanized formation (or even tank formation for the Americans) they have.

>>54550996
how oft do players forget artillery in TY?

>>54551982
I don't have arty at all.
Maybe I should buy it but my math hammering isn't encouraging me...

>>54552106
>>54551982

I only use a minimum strength LARS battery with no mines or OP for the sole purpose of pinning down advancing soviet infantry.

Maybe if I was bringing a mechanized list I'd bring some mortars, but I could never see bringing M-109s as West Germans. Most artillery is squishy as hell and is only good at killing infantry when used en masse.

How do I be as cute as a BMP?

File: IMG_7018.jpg (43KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 448x252px

>>54556938
Get a lot of russian soldiers inside of you

>>54557057
Guess that's why East German has so many.

>>54557126
too soon

>>54449056

I think that V4 atleast in Late War, is some kind of ad hoc solution until everything gets updated to the mid war standard and re-pointed.

Also version 3 in LW was really really bad. It was a bloated mess of special rules where as an american player you were better than your opponent at everything. Unless you play with the wife once a year or whatever I understand the resistance to change, but I played V3 regularly for 4 years and got really tired of it. The Late Late Late War germans with extra quirky special rules weren't doing much for my hobby erection. An update was needed to make things fresh and exciting again.

I think people are overall a bit too dramatic over the new rules set. It is going to be good once things get sorted out but that might take a while.

>>54558443
> but that might take a while.

You're assuming BF has "a while": they don't. Half the local base has moved to 8th Ed 40K, the other half is wavering as many new games are being tried. While V3 had problems, it at least had a player base.

If BF wants V4 to succeed, they need to act faster. No Eastern Front MW before 2018 for example is absurd.

>>54558443
>It is going to be good once things get sorted out but that might take a while.
So why should I play it now, when V3 is much more functional than current V4? They patch it up, I'll change my tune, but until they fix it I'll be sticking with the old stuff.

>>54560038
>>54559672

Who knows how long until we have a LW or EW with proper points. I've had some fun with V4, but I can see lots of holes in the rules and some things completely fall apart with large infantry formations or IL-2 Type 3Ms. Morale rules are still beyond retarded and make list building for some forces hell. Anyway, I really just wish they had taken their time and rolled the new version out to be fully compatible with all eras.

File: waiting.jpg (204KB, 999x860px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 999x860px

>>54561887
the way things are going, i'd say 2019-2020.

sorry! we'll be lucky if we get full MW desert by mid 2018, and lucky to get any Ostfront by 2019...

>>54562084
I mean say what you want about gee dubs, but they just had a fairly clean transition into a new version. Same for Bolt Action. Flames is a bit of a mess right now.

>>54562270
There's also significantly more material that needs to be updated.

GW has a dozen or so armies total that all got rolled into the various Index books from the old Codexes.

Bolt Action has a similar codex-style "Amies of..." system with a similarly low number of overall books to update.

FoW has hundreds of possible lists spread over dozens of books.

It's a completely bullshit comparison to say that those companies did complete updates all at once, so BF can too.

The amount of material in need of updating is orders of magnitude larger than what GW had to update.

File: Page0001.jpg (2MB, 3384x2424px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3384x2424px

>>54448020
Hey, I was doing this as a favour for a friend (Because HH is dead and he wants a living game to play), and wanted to ask if anyone here would want these? HD scans of the German painting Guides from the Old Art of War book.

>>54563398
nice. very nice.

File: Page0002.jpg (2MB, 3384x2412px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3384x2412px

>>54564132
I'll take that as a yes and post a few.

File: Page0004.jpg (2MB, 3384x2447px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3384x2447px

>>54564195

File: Page0005.jpg (2MB, 3396x2435px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3396x2435px

>>54564216

File: Page0006.jpg (3MB, 3396x2435px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3396x2435px

>>54564238

File: Page0007.jpg (1MB, 3396x2435px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3396x2435px

>>54564262

File: Page0008.jpg (2MB, 3396x2458px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3396x2458px

>>54564279

File: Page0009.jpg (1MB, 3384x2401px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3384x2401px

>>54564300

File: Page0010.jpg (2MB, 3407x2435px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3407x2435px

>>54564314

File: Page0011.jpg (2MB, 3396x2424px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3396x2424px

>>54564326
I can post more later if anyone wants it. Sorry if I was intruding with any of this, I thought it might help someone.

>>54564341
Post something other than the bad guys.

>>54564341
Scanon?

>>54563390
>The amount of material in need of updating is orders of magnitude larger than what GW had to update.
Admittedly, most of said updating would not be necessary if they hadn't completely and unnecessarily altered the balance between unit types. Why is arty now god-king of killing entrenched infantry while flamethrowers and anti-bunker weaponry sucks? Why are planes now made of adamantine while Recce units have forgotten how to run from danger? Why did AT guns become able to survive twice as much punishment while Fortified Companies get forced to attack at times? Not one of those changes was necessary from a game balance or streamlining standpoint and are directly ahistorical, yet they're V4 design decisions that massively fucked up unit and formation balance.

>>54564341
Not intruding at all. Its awesome, thanks!

>>54529749

Where do Seattle people play at?

>>54563390
As >>54565282 said, they should have considered the impact fucking around with each piece would have on game balance and list construction. Battlefront kept sticking their hand in the cookie jar, and as a result we have a huge mess. A mess that is technically still playable in LW, but at the expense of unit variety and with the risk of coming across something completely broken like the IL-2 Type 3M is right now. If the issues were with particular balance of a certain list from a book, I'd agree with you that the increased number of lists were a factor. However we are seeing balance issues for how particular equipment works over all books and eras.

My latest little hole in the rule I have found is that TA 0 vehicles can carry out an assault even if they lose 2 or more tanks to defensive fire. They are only forced back when they take 5 hits. Did the SU-76M just become a good assault tank?

>>54564341
I'm loving this.

As far as I know, we don't have Art of War in the scans database.

V4 House rules

I'm having my first game soon and I'm wondering what house rules people are using.
My group is considering any and all of these:
>every 5 hits waves off one aircraft in AA
>keep V3 BTG/BB and flamethrower rules
>fortified lists keep always defend
>T:0 vehicles stall assault as they were tanks

Art of War, both Volumes:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lo19twy0cldlyfm/The_Art_of_War_Volume_One.pdf

http://www.mediafire.com/file/wy6v19ky8fvbaeh/The_Art_of_War_Volume_Two.pdf

>>54570461
Awesome. I'll have to add those to our database when I get the chance.

>>54545113
>>54545216
this is not the future I choose

>>54571723
I saw some British player on the forum or facebook (can't remember) complaining about "power creep" with the new Soviet and US releases and asking when the Brits and Germans will receive their second book. I laughed my ass off.

>>54571723
Yeah, I'm unsure what to do with my soviets now.

>>54573159
Make them /nva/

File: IMG_0676.jpg (115KB, 690x452px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 690x452px

Bumping for ded gam.

File: IMG_0526.jpg (193KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1920x1080px

>>54573948
Make them /dprk/

>>54577538
>implying the DPRK had anything near as good as the T-55AM2B

>>54577703
I'm sure the later Chonma-Ho variants where at least equal to it, they are basically just T-62s with flashy bits attached.

Christ these threads move at the pace of an arthritic snail.

>>54578812
That's being generous.

Just for the sake of getting a topic going. Now that Hero Tankovy isn't total shit anymore, what do you think makes for the better hero tankovy list? T-34s or Lend Lease M4A2s? Explain your choice.

>>54578812
>Christ these threads move at the pace of an arthritic snail.
Possibly because everyone's quitting because v4 is shit?

>>54579065
You could play Battlegroup, anon.

>>54579065
Or because we're all adults with lives who don't spend 24/7 on 4chan.

Unless I have something specific I want to post about, I just sit back, see what people are posting, and join in when I have something useful to contribute.

I'm not going to post just for the sake of posting.

>>54579036
Call it a thematic choice, but I fell playing Soviets and using American-made tanks is just blasphemy.

Soviet tankers apparently loved the Sherman, but it feels wrong for the commies to use the weaponry of the capitalists, even if it is a perfectly historical force.

>>54580211
Now communists m4 better due to mandatory using stabilizer, suffering capitalist as if they have hens and chick

>>54564341
Yeah post more whenever you want, we lack a Art of War scan in the database.

>>54580211
>Or because we're all adults with lives who don't spend 24/7 on 4chan

this

i work 50 hours a week. and i work on cars at times too.

no time to 24/7 the thread

>>54564341
Go for it, my man!

File: HK.jpg (59KB, 596x293px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 596x293px

>>54572269
Fucking wew and lad.

File: 1485790039451.jpg (234KB, 700x422px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 700x422px

Imagine

>>54584221
[GLA OST intensifies]

>>54580997
The only time adding the +1 to hit to keep RoF2 makes the chance to hit worse is when going from 6's to 7's to hit.

>>54579036
T-34s were always better as the Hero version: they don't have to pay for Fearless, so you can build-in more support to mitigate the weakness of your tank.

A FT Sherman is still just a Sherman: the CT T-34/85s are better value by comparison.

>>54584695
>They don't have to pay for fearless
That is true. For my T-34 hero tankovy list I am looking at bringing them all as CT Heroes with T-34/76s.

>>54584695
>CT T-34/85s are better value by comparison
On a tank for tank basis, yeah I can see that. FT Shermans have a really good chance to remount after a bail, but in LW the AT you are looking at will be more likely to result in kills.

The main reason I was looking at hero lend lease is the ability to bring more than 13 tanks. It also has a hero Valentine slot which I think is pretty cool. The only thing I really dislike about the hero tankovy lists in DM is basically being forced to bring SU's.

>>54586807
this guy gets it. good post.

File: 1495741883642.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>54572269
British player complaining about power creep
ps a westgerman player

File: IMG_1404.png (51KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x453px

>>54572269
>British player on the forum or facebook (can't remember) complaining about "power creep"

Wow. Talk about complete and utter cluelessness...

>>54572269
Lemme guess it was that faggot Smee.

>>54584273
>>54584221
OUR CLAN IS STRONG!

File: 02_A.jpg (123KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x540px

Do you guys prefer towed or self-propelled arty?

>>54592514
In general towed, since it can be dug in, but certain self propelled artillery may be just what the doctor ordered against medium mortars. Your self propelled arty needs to be armored though, or else you are going to be way too squishy.

File: Page0045.jpg (3MB, 3407x2446px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3407x2446px

>>54570345
>>54581222
>>54583211

Actually there's no point, it turns out there's a far better PDF copy. >>54570461

Feel a right fool, I could have not bothered scanning and just used that.

>>54564707
HH is in a terrible state and the threads are not worth anything, and if a friend wants to learn FoW I'll depart for sunnier shores

File: proper cutie 3.jpg (99KB, 736x1041px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 736x1041px

>>54594377
HH?

the Heresy?
i thought that game was overly strong in culture compared to 40Gay?

yes, come play FoW: we have dank memes, many editions to choose from, cute girls, and above all else, the models you buy will ALWAYS be useful!

>even if it's in some other game....

>>54448020
So what is it about the East Germans that makes them the most powerful faction currently in Team Yankee?

>>54595299
Their incredible German fighting spirit allowed them to overcome their inferior slavic overlords and even infuse their abysmal weapons with the spirit of kruppstahl.

Cheers

>>54595299
Spam.

It's literally a case of "There's too many of them!!!"

>>54595299
>So what is it about the West Germans that makes them the most powerful faction currently in Team Yankee?

Fixed that for you.

>East Germans

Well the DDR is pretty strong because their T-72 isn't overpriced like the Soviet version. Their training actually allows for movement orders, especially when you attach your formation commander. They also have a spammable chaff tank to rush enemies position with while they move in infantry or harass the opponents with ATGMs from BMP-2s and Spandrels.

>>54448020
Is it just me or is the Leo 2 massively overpriced compared to the Abrams and Chieftain?

File: nwp9s8b1ut1t51d3to1_1280.jpg (101KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x768px

>>54595631
Nope.

>>54595631
The Chieftain is underpriced for it's nice stats, especially since the Brits usually end up defending. The Leopard 2 price is inflated for the gun and the morale. It's the top shelf tank in Team Yankee and when used well, can smash anything before it.

But yeah, I personally never bring more than 3 Leo 2s. You have to babysit them with AA and it's too risky to put too many of your points into expensive tanks. Treat them like you'd treat big cats in LW.

>>54596383
>like big cats in LW.

i'd hate to see points for the Challenger II or the M1-IP....

>>54596894
>Challenger II
Front armor: No. Side armor: No. Top armor: 3

>>54596894
The M1-A1 would or on par with, or perhaps more points than, the Leopard 2.

Can anyone tell me how accurate to real life those Battlefront T-64s are? I've been buying Zvezda T-72s because the Battlefront ones are not historically accurate, and I don't want to get the T-64s if they're the same.

>>54602412
What's wrong with the T-72, and can it not simply be fixed by covering the thing in bricks? (Besides the AA MG mount)

File: sovietblob.png (3MB, 2391x845px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2391x845px

Jesus. That's what, 1500 conscript potato points?

>>54602815
More than that in just KVs, probably.

File: Sixth-DP-Lewis-1.jpg (23KB, 720x320px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x320px

>>54602877
It is joek, comrade.

>>54602412
Why do you care if you're too lazy to figure it out for yourself, you sperg?

File: IMG_3232.jpg (126KB, 355x395px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 355x395px

>>54602815
CHEERS