Flames of War: Dark Resurrection edition

oh,
old thread.

>>>54448020

i believe we were asking about T-64's....
....and no, the Leopard 2A4 is not as good as the M1A1...that's what the 2A5 is for!

File: TSUA03-40.png (298KB, 690x414px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 690x414px

Green plastic soldiers go.

File: Untitled.png (287KB, 517x445px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 517x445px

So has V4 destroyed FoW? Is there not enough things to bitch about, now that Soviets got a little better? Is TY gonna become BattlegroupNorthag?

Do you paint eyes on your panzergrenadiers?

File: 1156.jpg (212KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1024x768px

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

>>54613040
Among the other bizarre things in V4, the Soviets are actually among the strongest lists, with actually flexible heroes, hordes of dashing T-34s, unwavering masses of conscripts in EW with impenetrable tanks, extremely underpriced flying death tanks that massacre every vehicle before them, among other things.

So yeah, what specifically about the Soviets is there to bitch about now?

The Red Thunder release for Soviets in TY wasn't exciting enough to get much posting going (more missile launchers, more guided missile AA, a tank that shoots... guided missiles, artillery with a.... guided projectile), nor was it so bad to start the bitch train up again.

So here we are.

>>54613040
I don't paint eyes at 28mm scale, what makes you think I'm going to paint them at 15mm?

>>54612313
>green plastic

Just further proof that we really are just playing with toy army men.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

File: 2012blog19.jpg (591KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1280x853px

>>54614019
Just a running gag.

>>54613878
>a tank that shoots... guided missiles

to be fair, this was an item we wanted since TY was announced.
Russia's ATGM Cannons on their MBT's was a GREAT concern for NATO during the 80's.
we weren't sure how to combat the superior range and accuracy those hordes suddenly developed.

...we didn't know everything back in the 80's, we thought it'd be more widespread....

File: JBG-77.jpg (57KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x600px

>>54612313
The new T-72 starter will be in this colour too?

>>54616981
the BMP's in Yuri Wolves are Grey

so, new stuff gets colored until the old is out of stock
reprints will be colored.

>>54616981
Yes, the T-72s are colored green now.

>>54618213
Nicely painted!

>>54611419
So now that V4 has settled out a bit what are your guys thoughts on it?

Debating on what priority my 15mm historicals are going to go in the painting que. 8th edition has brought 40k back in a big way in my area and I even found a small group of Bolt Action players hiding out, so I'm kind of wondering if I'm even going to get around to painting 15mm again before 2018...

>>54618586
>So now that V4 has settled out a bit what are your guys thoughts on it?

My local group is getting used to playing Battlegroup instead, and the few who bought into TY are eagerly waiting for Battlegroup NORTHAG.

So V4 has basically killed FoW for us.

>>54618586

I have played a few games of V4. A couple have been really good. Some have suffered from various rule peculiarities and borked list pricing. For LW I am planning on trying to stick to V4 for now, but there are only a couple of people at the shop playing. I want to get some more games in, because when you play without anything completely broken the new rules are pretty streamlined. The biggest casualty of V4 is list variety.

There hasn't really been a flood of peopleor actually anyone getting into the MW sandbox. I imagine that is because there is little to bring existing players into MW, and new people aren't ever seeing Flames played, so yeah the boxes are just sitting on the shelves.

It also doesn't help that the new 40K release is taking off like a wildfire and everyone in the shop aside from a couple of grogs is playing that right now. We have a guy that's really done a lot for the Bolt Action scene here, so when I get back home I am primarily going to be working on Bolt Action stuff.

>>54620259
There's a world of difference to how Battlefront and Geedubs approached the launch of their new edition. Geedubs stripped and ripped their ruleset right down, some could argue BF did the same to V4.

However Battlefront fucked up where Geedubs didn't, Geedubs made it a point of almost pride that almost every model would be supported under the new ruleset. And they did. Battlefront made almost every single Mid War army obsolete overnight with no plans to restore them before quarter 2 2018.

>>54620400
Not to mention all the equipment in LW that just got turned to shelf tier. My ISUs and 203mm howitzers won't be seeing the table anytime soon.

And the stuff that is way too good now, you'd feel bad bringing it. Priority IL-2 Type 3Ms cost less that 100 points a plane and are nearly guaranteed to never die while shredding heavy armor.

>>54618586
I haven't had the chance to play too many games of 4th Ed, but I've been enjoying it, and looking forward to playing more.

As for my local community, it's always been small.

We haven't lost anyone over the switch to the new edition, but we haven't gained anyone either.

>>54620435
>>54620400
Yeah, they could have balanced the transition better. Rough guidelines on repointing stuff would help a good bit, not nerfing stuff into the ground/buffing it to god tier would also have worked. Anyone calling for a comprehensive unit by unit errata needs to pay attention to how many books there are, though.

>>54618586

Players in my area effectively split between Battlegroup and V4, TY players are waiting for BG Northag as well.

Generally speaking, the way BF handled the transition effectively killed V4 in the area. Concerning MW, a lot of people wanted to play MW Russians, and they have to wait a year to be able to do it? no thanks.

Also, what someone said, Wh40k 8th edition started really strong so I do not think we'll see new players anytime soon...

>>54618586
Dumped it in favour of Battlegroup. V4 wasn't very good and me nor my friend weren't fond of the direction the game was going in.

The group i play with Do play Team yankee but not flames of war but they do play battlegroup but have being playing that for years.

And people hav been thinking of getting in to FoW from playing team yankee.

V4 was IMO a year too early: it needed more play testing and polishing. A year later would (fortunately) also have avoided being overshadowed by 8th Ed 40K, which quite frankly is mudering everything else in sight right now.

>>54624338
>overshadowed by 8th Ed 40K, which quite frankly is mudering everything else in sight right now.

Yeah, that kinda is an issue. Very poor timing on Battlefront's part.

No idea if 40K 8th is actually a good game, but a lot of people I know, even those that swore off Games Workshop "forever", are considering getting back into it.

>>54625562
Addicts gotta taste the crack again eventually.

File: 100 percent accurate.jpg (715KB, 1024x860px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1024x860px

>>54625562
Well, I've played like 20 games of it since it dropped. To be fair, GW could have released literally anything and it would've been better than 7th edition, but GW did a lot of improvements and little things people have been asking for for a long time. They absolutely streamlined the hell out of it, new players often have the rules down entirely within 2-3 games, and honestly vets struggle the most just because they need to unlearn old editions. Game time has been cut in half as many of the argument inducing shenanigans have been removed. GW has also been super on top of FAQs and erratas for competitive play, I think I've seen 3 different ones drop since the release that have targeted subpar units and OP stuff alike to bring everything into balance. GW feels like it actually is trying to do better. It's nowhere near perfect and they still do dumb things, but at least it's more like 3 steps forward 1 step back as opposed to just straight up running backwards like they used to.

The game absolutely has flaws, but on the casual level where most people play, it's vastly improved and most armies in my area actually play how they're supposed to in the lore again. Best way I can put it is imagine going from having to spam a variety of lend lease Soviet tanks in late war to just have a chance that would have historically never fought with each other in one edition. Then in the next edition getting more bonuses the more closely you actually followed a Soviet tank battalion's TOE. That's kind of what it feels like.

Pretty much everyone I know that has played it has enjoyed, even salty ex players like myself that had been burned many times by previous editions. As long as GW doesn't fuck up the codexes it's only going to gain more momentum.

>>54625739
>getting more bonuses the more closely you actually followed a TOE

Huh, ok. That's an interesting twist.

I'd actually be interested in seeing something like that in more games.

>>54624338
If they released it a year later they'd have an extra year's worth of lists to actually fucking play with as well.

File: 1497374137993.png (211KB, 519x487px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 519x487px

>>54628807
>>54628807
yeah if you take more troops you usually get more command points, which can be used on strategem like rerolling a single dice whenever you want in a phase, autopassing a morale check, interrupting priority in close combat, orbital bombardments, getting an extra round in CQC, etc. They can swing a game but usually the most you see are 12 pts and many strategem cost 2-3 pts.

It means a guard player taking a few platoons usually has more strategic assets than a space marine player spamming assault Marines.

I really like it, it let's you counter some of the randomness these types of games have. I'll stop talking about 40k now.

>>54628807
>>54629446

To be fair, that's something that Battlefront approaches with the new morale rules. By only making "core" units count, it incentivises things like three core platoons, and the mortar platoon, which under v3 you'd often trade out for more support.

>>54629628
>and the mortar platoon
The new bombardment rules (and their absurd 4+ FP rating) took care of incentivizing that by itself.

>>54629763
>61 mm mortar
>Has FP of the 25 pounder
cheers

I was the person who did the groundwork for our group of 5-6 players, I got the initial terrain, struggled through hobby for years to get painted Brit and German LW armies ready for demos. Since about a month after the release of V4 there hasn't been any games.

I was quite looking forward to mid as I hadn't had a lot of games in the period and I liked most of the changes in TY, probably would have picked up one each of the new army boxes.

Then the playtest lists were leaked:
- No Brit Rifle Company
- No Shermans

So, my 3000+ points of LW Brits now can't put 100 points of MW on the table, Germans get Tigers, but Brits don't get Shermans. Like Phil said I could just proxy my Shermans as Grants... OR they could have just been included in the initial book.

Unfortunately for BF these days I'm pretty attuned to companies trying to shift product using a 'seasonal meta'. Overnight Battlefront went from a company I'd advocate for to one I'd like to see destroyed. If they can't treat an average mid-term player with a bit of respect (I started late V2-V4) why would I recommend or even want to be seen playing the product in-store?

Combined with the some of the sillier rules changes (arty FP) I don't really see the point of FoW anymore. It's an underdeveloped, poorly supported, overpriced and ahistorical game of toy soldiers. It doesn't do company or platoon level combat well, and at battalion level it's both too detailed and too simplistic.

What I want is an open system, probably built around Chain of Command, that scales from section to company level, has a basic points framework and encourages multi-player games.

When I first looked into Flames I was quite impressed with BF's attitude and online support. Unfortunately they've chosen to be closed rather than open. So rather than a free year-long public "V4 Beta", we got premium packaging, a premium release schedule and premium pricing.

>>54629628
I've personally always argued for taking as many of your core unit as possible.

Boys before toys.

Any chance of getting a nicer screenshot version of Red Thunder?

No interest in playing Team Yankee in 15mm but I do want to do 6mm. Does BF sell the cards separately from their models at all? I'd prefer having the cards instead of having to flip through the army book while playing.

>>54632850
the scan is out, dude

>>54633135
No separate cards.

>>54633135
Just print them out?

>>54615178
Didn't the American experiment with gun/launchers in the 60s & 70s demonstrate that the concept was more trouble than it was worth?

>>54635663
They just bunged it up. Just like they bunged up several other ideas that others figured out with less budget and stress.

>>54635742
See the Bradley and the BMP.

>>54635833
The space pen and the pencil.

>>54636369
Actually that one is entirely false. Pencils are a super bad idea in space because Graphite is conductive and they tend to break easily.

>>54636369
>space pen and pencil

that one is actually a bit misunderstood. There's a reason you want a pen over a pencil in space. Think about all the graphite dust and shavings pencils produce. Would you really want to be in a zero gravity enviornment the size of an RV with that floating around? Plus it can get into electronics or clog filters.

It sounds dumb but the space pen was a legitimate thing that was needed. Maybe not a million dollar idea, but the idea was a needed one.

>>54618213
Love the turret pitting - how'd you do it?

File: 1494791661409.jpg (2MB, 4000x3002px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3002px

>>54611419
TEAM YANKEE POLL ON RED THUNDER

http://www.strawpoll.me/13591695

>>54637909
>http://www.strawpoll.me/13591695
Good to see how much faith we have in Battlefront... (not that they deserve all that much, but still)

>>54618213
Looks like you added textures on turret and replaced grab handles. Noce job there.

Speaking of Polls and things vaguely related to them.

We need questions for the next episode of Panzerfunk.

>>54639997
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeOBxEJbNzS_Ec7I76zQmCU9P7o0C5bAgcXriKQ4bOWBp4QkA/viewform
And I forgot the link go me. I'll just be over here, quietly killing myself now.

>>54639906
>Good to see how much faith we have in Battlefront...

It's encouraging to see that perhaps there are portions of the player base that aren't completely and totally salty about FoW and TY right now.

>not that they deserve all that much, but still

...and there's the salt...

>>54636369
>>54636487
>>54636506
It was also independently developed by Paul Fisher of the Fisher Pen Company and then sold to NASA and, later, the USSR. They paid $6 per pen. https://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

>>54642150
>completely and totally salty about FoW and TY right now
Admittedly, there's some very good reasons to be salty right now.

>>54642376
Perhaps, but we're hardly going to grow the community if all people see and hear is people being upset about the game and the company that makes it.

People keep saying FoW is a DED GAEM.

I disagree.

But constant negativity about the game isn't exactly doing much to prevent that.

It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy before too long if the only thing potential new players see is existing players bitching about the game.

You want the game to live, then there needs to be an attitude of positivity, or at least willingness to trust that BF has some clue what they're doing.

If every post in this thread is something along the lines of "They changed it, now it sucks! Fuck this shit I'm switching to Battlegroup or 40K!" then it will be a DED GAEM before too long. Because nobody will want to interact with such a negative player base.

>>54642544
>You want the game to live, then there needs to be an attitude of positivity, or at least willingness to trust that BF has some clue what they're doing.
They've really burned that up over the last year with the consistent screwups. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending everything is fine isn't going to make things actually good. Lying to people to get them to play the game when the game is not honestly that good anymore helps nobody. I'm sorry, but V4 and it's rollout have been a mess with way to many changes in ways and places that don't make any sense from a gameplay, streamlining, or historical perspective. Battlefront's response to criticism and errors has been to stick their head in the sand and not communicate with the fans, which is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. If they looked like the cared even after screwing up, I might extend them some credit. But all we've seen is them going farther and farther down the GW route of "everything we do is fine and great, we're only going to support what we make, and playtesting has been thrown out for massive nonsensical changes". I've seen this shit before.

We always trumpet how "well, if you find out you don't like it, your minis are still useful elsewhere because you can always find a WWII historical ruleset." It's time to do that, since BF is becoming GW 2.0 and is no longer worth supporting.

>>54613040
>So has V4 destroyed FoW?
Yes. This is inarguably true and anyone who says otherwise is a shill. Everyone who's already played the game hates it, and it's not rigorous enough for grogs in other historicals and too weird and dad-gamey for 40k babies. It's going to kill BF.

>>54644320
>anyone who says otherwise is a shill

Shill reporting.

Now where the fuck are my Shillings?

Oh, that's right, I promote this game that I honestly enjoy, FOR FREE.

>>54644320
Could we NOT do the typical neckbeard thing of "My taste is the one true taste, all others are heretics/shills and should be burned"?

I don't particularly like V4 myself, and won't buy anything BF until I think they're back on a track I like again (which may or may not be when they launch V5), but you can still try to act like a grown-up

>>54618542
>>54637807
>>54639960
Ritterkrieg did it, actually. As for the pitting, a thin layer of plastic glue to soften the material, and a small tool to rough a texture into it.

>>54644320

I still enjoy Flames. Keep buying Battlefront's models, too. (Yet to see any shillbux though.)

Is v4 perfect? Absolutely not. But for EW and LW it's playable, even if the balance is shot in some areas. I haven't dabbled in MW yet, although I've got to say I'm not impressed with how they've handled the releases. But do you know what? I just don't play the bits that don't work for me. I'm going to house-rule the hell out of the D-Day event day I run. And I'm going to look into playing "historical" scenarios with fixed, rather than free, OoBs. But FoW v4 still is a good enough game, and still - for me - beats all of the competitiors I've tried.

>>54642544
>People keep saying FoW is a DED GAEM.
It is though. BF screwed the pooch; they're never going to realise they've fucked up unless they see it in their pocket.

I remember when everyone said 40kek was ded. (Every single time too)

>>54645326
>BF ded game
>BF not going to change unless they see it in their pocket

If they don't see it in their pocket is it really a ded game?

>>54646355
They have always run out of their pre order stock, so I guess they are probably thinking v4 is successful.
Satified people tend to praise less than dissatisfied people grumble, and how many people playing game is not impressive than how many copies sold.
When they heard bad news from the front, they will probably ignore it for its sake.

>>54648249
For them success is only measured by sales right? I mean look at the MW roll out. It's being done solely to sell new kits. I guess the question is will FoW continue to sell well in the long term?

>>54648715
No. It's not like they can pull a GW and render your army obsolete so you have to buy new minis. WW2 15mm is nice because it always works - you can use it for Crossfire, Battlegroup, Flames, etc. Aside from new players, or players starting new armies, they're more limited in what they can sell. This is why they branch out into different conflicts - to sell more minis. If BF survives long enough, hell maybe they'll make 15mm in Napoleonics or Romans.

>>54637909
>http://www.strawpoll.me/13591695

yay, i voted...

why am i always stuck with the biggest faction?
>wait a bit
i am going to have to do this anyway. i can afford to start V4 in earnest or i can get uber-Sov's for Red Thunder. i cannot do both....

>>54642544
>Because nobody will want to interact with such a negative player base.

eagles, don't curse us!

>>54649529
The Wargame series by Eugen Systems is a pretty good example of how a community will run the games into the ground. Towards the end all they were capable of was bitching about the games and posting East Germany/Soviet memes. Might sound familiar to some people here...

File: Wargame General.jpg (201KB, 1280x1250px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x1250px

>>54650620
Please don't remind me of that.

I've watched that general die twice already.

This general isn't nearly as bad as /wgg/ was in its death throes, which were characterized by pointless elitism and some bitter autistic shitposting that just drove the last of the community off.

File: bc8cde106c84af3df7dc1abd27676e24.jpg (639KB, 2519x1880px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 2519x1880px

>>54650740
>pointless elitism
>bitter autistic shitposting
Already here, just a matter of frequency.

It's a consistent problem across a lot of fanbases - and the tiny echo-chamber we have here will only make it more difficult to not get caught up in the negativity. As previously stated, the bitching can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it doesn't take much.

Say a prospective player decides to look at the general to see how people like the game, sees XX% of people bitching and decides he's better off just buying in to another game that feels like a safer investment. It's why I never got into 40K, I only really paid attention to it during 6th and 7th Ed. when people were pretty upset with the direction it had taken and I was convinced I'd be spending money on a game that no one was enjoying. So I never bothered.

There's stuff I don't like about V4. The new mechanic for Recon options feels like it's really hurt the cost-effectiveness of those units. Could I sit here and bitch about it with greentext and reaction images every time it gets mentioned? Sure. Will it do anything? Not much other than encourage other people to join the bitch-fest.

This is a problem that plagues the military (at least the Navy) a lot as well. If one or two people in your shop get a stick up their ass about something and keep bitching about it, it'll spread to everyone else. Doesn't take long before you all get a reputation with the rest of the command as being the shitbags that have no motivation. And it's true - it kills morale.

If V4 is truly bad, like a legitimately bad game (which I don't think it is, even though I don't like some of the changes), then FoW players as a whole will only make things worse if they can't be bothered to engage in some self-awareness and focus on propping themselves up instead of whinging at every opportunity.

>>54651088

V4 is legit bad, it's a late 2000's update of a 1990's style game. It has none of the careful design and production values of an FFG product, it has none of the open communication or community feedback of a well supported early access title, and believe it or not, it doesn't even have the value or list support of the latest 40k release. How the fuck did that happen?

For me Flames of War was always a bit of a deal with the devil, you traded away realism and interesting tactics for an almost operational view of the battlefield. That was kinda interesting, and most importantly it got people playing WWII in a useful scale and talking about history.

I really can't overstate just how fundamentally the V4 arty changes break that tactical/operational dynamic though. What they've done is stretch out the sliding scale (terrain and time) so that you're arty is functioning at maybe 3x the speed of the rest of your force. Every turn you fire a repeat bombardment, that isn't one stonk but probably up to an hour of preparation.

What this does is stretches the sliding scale to it's extreme, because the real weapons that actually reduced infantry positions during WWII were direct fire and assault, artillery was simply not reliable. This distorts the core of the game, infantry do nothing but die, tanks are never called on to perform infantry support.

Flames of World of Tanks.

>>54637909
>Right: German collars, Russian hats, PPSh SMGs.
>Left: German collars, WWI-era hats, Mauser pistols.

Which border is this?

>>54651353
Well if you don't like it, why don't you just piss off then?

The game doesn't have to be one to one realistic, and Flames of War has always had issues with it's sliding timescale. Infantry assaults might only take a few minutes to resolve, but digging a company's worth of entrenchments for an artillery battery gets done in the same span of time.

Yes Battlefront have problems with communicating, but it's not like they're the first to have that problem. I mean PUBG's having a major issue where they almost made Streamers Judge, Jury and Executioners to protect their cash cows. Games Workshop three editions back to present. Payday 2's last Crimefest basically destroyed the game's fanbase in a way that would make Version Four's release look like the release of Star Wars Rogue One.

You know, if this stuff bothers you so, why are you still trying to play it? In my personal experience of myself and the twenty other people at my local club who play FoW constantly I've only known one of them who has an issue with it. That may have been because the guy who organised the Club Champs this year made it V4 and V4 had just been released, giving people not a lot of time to prepare.

I've had the dubious pleasure of being able to play V3 and V4 side by side, and I felt that V4 played in a much more superior fashion each time. The Orders are great, artillery nerfs made tanks worth taking more frequently, everything flows together more easily and pesky niggles from the old ruleset are mostly resolved.

I admit there's a few problems with V4, Aircraft are too powerful, a lot of units are overpriced/underpriced because of the conversion, but it such an improvement over V3 that I am pleased to see Battlefront continue with it.

>>54651553
Berlin Wall

>>54651553
I'm betting the east/west German border. One of the not-russian side ones also has an AK.

>>54651587

Because when I piss off the majority of the 15mm terrain leaves the gaming store and comes home with me, and the remaining stock is sold off at cut price and no longer supported. The store has already been solidly fucked over by both Battlefront and their distributor multiple times now.

Given the choice between abandoning 15mm WWII and shilling for a company that's more concerned about the short term than the long, I'll post on an image board.

>>54651587
If someone is upset enough with Battlefront, they're just as likely to stay and try to detract others as they are to piss off.

I've never really looked at the FoW forums - is anyone there providing feedback? Not complaining, but actually posting their inputs. And if so, how is it being received, if at all?

>>54651767
The FoW Forums, like all Official Forums are garbage. There are people who believe that the British in TY need a power boost after RT came out.

>>54651767

They removed the General Discussion subforum a few years back, it had the effect of shunting any negative feedback into a few other subforums where it was less obvious and less likely to reach critical mass.

Negative discussion about anything real, product, balance, support, communication, is shut down pretty quickly. Phil has to do something in-between his Cheers.

>>54649529
>eagles, don't curse us!

I'm just speaking the truth as I see it.

Like I said, I don't want this to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But I'm afraid that it will.

File: fun in the desert.jpg (841KB, 750x1125px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 750x1125px

>>54651767
battlefront forums are a bunch of grognards acting like anime girl characters. with none of the kawaii
>>54651837
that too. no one smart ever kills their General Discussion.
GD creates hang outs.

>>54652212
I'm afraid too. not because it's true, but because i don't put in near the hours the trolls do.


>My Official Stance on V4
...haven't played it yet.
SAD!!, i know, i'm so damn late i have a belly bulge and a growing wierd food budget.
- - i am looking at this, though
---my primary opponent will be 30 crusaders
---my list has 16 vehicles, 2 of which are recon and 10 which are various PzIII
---No tigers, no supermemes. fuck, no mk4-specials.
and, those Crudasers are not just gonna roll over and die at the sight of my Pz'swarm'
i don't have the stabilizers i do in TY
i don't have superior armor, unless 5 vs 3 is great when we both have AT 9 guns (remember, 30 to 16 odds) and i have a few AT 5's and 7's in my list. 4+ to hit is not so much when fuck-all desert terrain will be placed.

i have also looked at ...GULP.... getting my PUMAS ready for V4. Guess who is going all out on Gun Teams?
my most viable LW list is, of all things, my Hero Tankovy


V4 may not be satan's big black cock, but looking at this girl, she's one odd duck, and that pussy smells funny now that i'm taking her undees off...

I'd caution against telling people they can't post negative thoughts about V4 or else they should "fuck off". Most post give reasons of concern that at least give new players areas to research to see if the game is for them.

Besides, I don't think some bitching on a Mongolian finger painting board kills V4. What kills V4 is current players being driven into disinterest when there armies are made invalid, replaced with uninspired options. When shop owners are actually legitimately surprised to see anyone playing Flames because all the new stock is staying on the shelves.

Eh, I mean I am pretty much with Panzer Lehr. I want to get some V4 going at the shop.
I have even considered starting a MW tank aces league. Battlefront just really aren't giving us any help on getting a community going.

File: Hill-112-05.jpg (33KB, 400x251px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x251px

How many German noobtubes should I get?

>>54653909
3 ought to be about right, though 6 gives you nice rerolls (extremely useful if you're going Trained).

>>54653909
>>54656014
4 does have the advantage of being more resilient to counter-battery fire. Generally 3 for cheapness or 6 for effect are the best options, though.

>>54657988
3 also have the added bonus of being one blister, if you want 4, you'll need to buy a second blister, or alternatively find more people who want more than 3 but less than 6.

I want to be inside of a BMP

>>54652636
>I'm afraid too. not because it's true, but because i don't put in near the hours the trolls do.

And it's not even that they're wrong. Some of the complaints are completely legitimate.

The issue is that trying to discuss the legitimate issues with the game gets drowned out by complaints about absolutely everything. Whether or not it's a major issue, a minor issue, or even a complete non-issue.

Actual useful productive discussion devolves into inflammatory name calling.

I'll admit to falling into that kind of behavior myself.

I get frustrated coming here sometimes when people are in full-on complain mode.

Because it kills my enthusiasm for interacting with this community.

It kills my enthusiasm for wanting to even bother recording episodes of Panzerfunk.

It kills my enthusiasm for wanting to put in the hours of work in my spare time to edit the episodes.

And yet, I still do it. Because I still enjoy playing this game and talking about it with whoever is actually still enjoying it.

>>54651767
>is anyone there providing feedback?
Yes, it gets ignored for not being positive enough. Look how often people with actual rules questions who're enjoying the game tag their posts with something like "Not trying to spread hate, just want to raise the question!" or something.

>>54652724
>all the new stock is staying on the shelves
Literally my store. I'm sure BF's sold out from it's warehouse but I'm pretty sceptical about if they're going to see follow-up orders; I think they were assuming this'd be another Team Yankee.

>>54651835
>people who believe that the British in TY need a power boost

A power boost? They're one of the most powerful nations in the game, with West Germans and East Germans coming in in a rather close second and third.

British in Team Yankee do not need a power boost.

>>54662244
>British in Team Yankee do not need a power boost.
yeah but tell the forums that, not us.

File: IMG_7126.jpg (52KB, 615x413px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 615x413px

>>54662244
That'sthejoke

>>54662520
>That'sthejoke

I understand. I knew it was.

My point was more one of incredulity than actually arguing that Brits in TY are OP.

>>54662362
>yeah but tell the forums that, not us.

I avoid the official forums like the plague.

Partially because people are as clueless as to suggest TY Brits need a power boost, partially because they're going full retard on the spam lists, and partially because of the massive ego trips from the big names there.

Not to mention the CheersPosting from Phil...

>>54662244
East Germans are powerful?

I thought they were just the same old USSR unskilled mooks with even worse equipment.

>>54663696
Yeah, but they're cheap in points. Real cheap.

>>54663979
So they just spam so hard that you can't kill them all?

File: IMG_8621.png (52KB, 412x357px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 412x357px

>TY US not mentioned
Do I live in a paralel universe?
I'm getting destroyed game after game by warthogs and cobras backed up by ITVs, M109s and gorillions of men.

I'm fielding rolands, gepards AND redeyes gott verdammt!
>A10s just flies through it unscathed and lights up my shit

US OP plz nerf

>>54663696
Their skill checks don't suck and their T-72s are priced fairly.

>>54664019
You got it. Though, honestly, their T-72M isn't bad for the cost, AT 21 is acceptable when you've got 12+ shots.

>>54663696
Individually? No. They're mooks.

But when there are 50+ T-55s backed up by 30+ BMP-1s...

You'll be overwhelmed quite quickly.

>>54663696
Phil's CHEERS towards communists were cancelled out by his Wehrabooism towards Germans and so East Germany became a decent faction.

>>54660398

Feel for you there Eagles, you are doing a great job keeping the hobby flame burnin'. I really appreciate it and I think a lot of people do.

I think people need to chill the fuck out, it will take time for V4 to be sorted. I mean if we look at Age of Shitmar, it went from HAHA NICE MEME to an ok game with points, decent missions and pretty unique rules. The extremely loud negative responses on the net clouded the fact that the game is quite popular. Those who lamented the death of Fantasy so hard that they promised to drive an VBIED into the nearest GW store, are now picking up the Generals Handbook and buying the new AoS sets.

Something similar will happen with V4, after a while when books and cards come out, the game will pretty decent. I personally think it is a bit ad-hoc right now especially in LateWar. I only played two games sofar and it really didn't differ that much from V3 which I am bit tired off. Really love the artillery rules but the movement, morale and missions are still pretty samey.

Also people who say Warwick Kinrades games will leave FoW in the dust, good luck with that. He designs rules for his gaming group only. So unless you know him, the legendary british eccentric fuckery of his rules-writing means pick up games will be major headaches.

>>54664693
>it went from HAHA NICE MEME to an ok game with points, decent missions and pretty unique rules
It's still shit. You can't put points on a turd and pretend it's fixed.

>>54664912
It's pulling people in wargaming tournaments around here not 40k or warmachine numbers, but is on a third place.

Still the point was that Battlefront can develop V4 further and make it better. What we have now is not the end result.

>>54665180
Well, it might be the end result for MW.

>>54656014
>>54657988
Thanks for the considerations, chaps. Know I'm late to the party on that stuff, and it certainly didn't help that while it was easy to find mortars and arty, there was no werfers for me for ages.

>>54665180
>What we have now is not the end result.

I've said as much in Panzerfunk.

They will be expanding it.

Should it be expanding faster? Probably.

But what we have now isn't the be-all end-all.

>>54667649
We are along for the painfully slow ride as they base their expasion on the release of new shiny kits. At least the Americans are looking like a more complete release. The Sherman will also be much appreciated by the Brits.

File: 1445806291618.jpg (904KB, 2089x3715px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 2089x3715px

I found this picture again.

>>54669334
>50 points in MW V4

>>54669334

Please tell me there's a batrep or story of that match floating around somewhere

>>54669413
It's in one of the Panzerfunk episodes.

>>54669413
Over 100 vehicles consisting of various T-34 types and SUs. (And 5 T-70s if I remember correctly)

>>54669773
Episode 8, from about 2 years ago.

File: 97d9160842f19bdc5e1c2c99198d4de5.png (455KB, 500x706px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 500x706px

>>54663696
use of skill on a 4+ does wonders to make Best Germany actually good.
>i dare you use it on T72M's and see where that shit goes, bwahahaah!!!

>>54664057
US mecha in TY is pretty gay to fight.
how are A-10's being that evil? they are random as all fuck in my exp.
>vs West Germans
you have great players, anon! love me some blue-on-blue

>>54664693
aye.
>love the artillery rules
ok, i'm gong to go find my anti-artie rape tactics and get the train there on time...

File: IMG_8741.jpg (93KB, 670x960px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 670x960px

Is it only my panties that get wet for shermen with yellow stars?

>>54670795
Upside down bathtubs ho!

Hey, BF, gonna do Kasserine Pass? Yeah, I bet not!

>>54670795
>>54670907
that's Kassarine, i bet.

File: battlefront pls.jpg (112KB, 650x371px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 650x371px

So what is the best load-out for universal carriers?

File: Mortar, Bren and AT rifle.jpg (77KB, 800x578px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x578px

>>54672319

File: IMG_0730.jpg (45KB, 535x415px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 535x415px

>>54672319
>>54672695
You posted the wrong images. Let me fix that for you.

>>54670795
>50 Star Flag
>during WWII

Please tell me somebody caught that mistake before it went to print.

I know they're not Americans, but you'd think people who make a historically based war game would know about something like that.

>>54676268
>you'd think people who make a historically based war game
Given the "accuracy" of their recent MW releases, I can't say that they're aware of that. 8-rads having the same armor as Crusaders...

File: 1436.jpg~original.jpg (42KB, 640x439px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x439px

>>54672319
>>54672695
>>54673887
Not enough fire.

From an in-game perspective, I like to keep my scout carriers barebones. It costs 15 points to add three more MG shots, and another 5 to make three of the shots AT 4 FP 5+. Maybe if the additional hull MGs had the AA mounts they had IRL it'd be worth doing. You can add some Boys or PIATs or such, but their usefulness is questionable. V3, you want them removing gone to ground, not shooting. V4, they're already expensive enough and do the "assault arty" job just fine as-is.

Wasps are nice in V3, but in V4 you have to sit right up next to the enemy for several turns to get much use out of them, and for a 0/0/0 armor box that's not really viable. PIAT battery carriers are the complete opposite. V3 they're only really useful for pinning or if you catch infantry in the open, in V4 they're amazing because everything can repeat, everything gets FP 4+, they're armored so you can handle counterbattery fire decently, and you can spot for them with an invincible AOP. Shame about the range and limited lists, though.

Is it just me or does it see like Battlefront are finally getting MW off on the right track with the Americans. Hopefully a second lease for Germany and Britiain will make them feel more fleshed out.

>>54679287
I think be the time both the US and Italy are out and part of MW they'll be closer to being back on track.

Granted, people will still be upset that MW Eastern Front hasn't seen anything yet, but there isn't much that can be done about that right now.

>>54679827
The Brits could use a few more of their MW toys, probably stuff that will see double usage as British and Soviet Lend-Lease, but yeah, once the desert factions are done MidWar will feel far more like it should.

>>54681282
>The Brits could use a few more of their MW toys
Infantry tanks and Shermans made up, what, about half of their forces in africa?

>>54677441
>8-rads
that one pissed me off, and i'm the one using 8-rads.

>>54682926
large enough that there is historical precedent that they should be primary release.
Brit-Panzertruppen when?

It is also good news that Fightin'First comes before Stripes. I like that it shows they may have reservations about so much bottle-necking for their main game's MW era...one they have hyped the return for a bit.
hell, Italians by TurkeyDay would be a great add on to that....
>but, they will do Stripes for turkey day, release the shit for Xmas, and we get eyeties in February.

Are any other TY players losing interest with every release adding more ATGMs and more cheapo tanks? Feels like a true MBT list is only really doable if you are NVA or Brits, and even those seem like pseudo MBTs. Games get stagnant and a bit repetitive. My recon company is always stuck defending against a spam horde of WarPac because I simply cannot best all the ATGMs and dug in infantry if I elect to attack, so I am forced to be static.

>>54683954
>that one pissed me off, and i'm the one using 8-rads.
It's especially galling because in the previous version, 8-rads were armor 2 (a bit generous given some 10mm vehicles are armor 0, but withing fudge range), and Crusaders of all types were armor 4. But now magically the extra 2mm on the Crusader III makes it front 4, while the rest are 3 for... reasons? Doesn't even make sense from a gameplay standpoint, 4 instead of 3 would make the Crusaders notably distinct from the Stuarts instead of almost identical and thus boring.

File: piss on that faggotry.gif (2MB, 336x254px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 336x254px

>>54684624
you. you get a prize.

>>54684226
no, actually.
i am strongly headed toward 6mm Team Yankee as a way to broaden the game, while i maintain 1-2 15mm armies as a form of outside game event participation.
my 73 Easting forces set is going to go 6mm, so i'll have 50$ of Americans fighting 170$ of soviets-to-Iraqis.
generally i will use 6mm for Meme Yankee while my 15mm will be well-thought-out engagement forces and/or displays of art....

missile spam is only part of the game. one you have to plan for, that can get utterly annoying, but there are ways. it would be awesome if Sir Steelwhip could show up and get us some house rules for realistically ECM-ing the fuckers, though....

>>54686076
Same, doing 6mm Flames of War here and planning on doing Team Yankee as well.

Something to take a look at is these guys:
www.opsty.com
They adapted TY for 6mm including re-balancing the stats/points and adding a ton of missing units to it. The Soviets get things like T-80s for instance and the British have Challenger Is etc.

I'd be tempted to try doing something similar for FoW, given that I'm fine with the rules. But I'm really annoyed with the unbalanced points value plus the fact that Battlefront is taking forever to roll out new stuff.

>>54686076
>>54687238

If I continue with TY, it will be with 6mm. Will be far cheaper, especially when WarPac demands tons of models. (Seriously... motorized infantry are fucking expensive). Also the table will hopefully have more room to maneuver around.

I am going to keep my West Germans in case anyone at the shop wants to play, but mid war is looking like it will shape up to be the more interesting game/meta for the long term.

File: 20170804_131557-picsay.jpg (199KB, 1011x828px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1011x828px

Some kind of watermelons

>>54660259
get arma III and RHS: AFRF mod

has very nicely modeled BMPs and BTRs as well as many other Russian vehicles - Mi-24s Mi-8s, tanks, BDRM 2s. You can get inside, look around, drive them, shoot stuff. You can even make your own missions on the fly with Zeus.

I sometimes whip up an Afghanistan scenario and cruise around in a BTR convoy... until we get ambushed by Mujahideen with RPGs and Dashika HMGs.
BTRs and BMPs can't into taking hits from RPG-7s

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

File: Driver.png (535KB, 536x479px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 536x479px

>>54690694
You should also get the ALiVE mod if you plan to spend any time in the mission editor.

Its the easiest way to make massive battles as the AI commanders do all the work and it has a system for virtualising the AI past a certain distance, massively reducing CPU load.

I've had tonnes of fun with that mod

File: 20170608163613_1.jpg (371KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1920x1080px

>>54690713
I usually use MCC and Ares. MCC gives quick access to unlimited Zeus control while just fucking around in a multiplayer or single player game, while Ares adds some very nice things like enemy AI and random civilians / vehicles that only spawn within a certain distance of players.

Nothing like cruising around Afghanistan while random civilian cars and goats run past.

>>54690447

It's been a long time since I've ever tried but I remember failing horrifically to do that kind of camo cause I just seemed unable to make the lines feel random or flowing.

Despite being simple it can look great like yours.

File: TSBX17-14.jpg (107KB, 690x502px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 690x502px

>>54611419
Today was beautiful. Played Red Thunder against our resident UK player(who loved to stomp my pre-Red Thunder Soviets) and blew him out of the water. He had no idea how to deal with my T-64s because I just out-ranged him with the missiles and could fire them on the move.

However the real MVP was pic related. I took the Krasnopol Projectiles and all of his Milan teams in cover melted. After the game he complained that UK is now underpowered and that only the Challenger can save them.
I feel a new dawn rising, a Red Dawn and it feels good.

>>54691216
What do Krasnopol do, out of curiosity?

>>54691298
Count as firing a normal tank gun with the following exceptions.

>Can fire indirect using an observer just like normal arty rounds
>Enemy tanks don't get a bonus to armour over 16"/40cm
>Don't get +1 to hit on enemy teams over 16"/40cm

And my favourite

>Always hit the top armour of vehicles.

Fun stuff.

>>54691216
>The Red Bear Has Awoken
>The World Will See His Might

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TN68sp-vIw&ab_channel=MattMorelli

>>54691358
This is basically why I decided to play Soviets truthfully.

>>54691358
>Para dropping T-62 / T-72
Didn't they try this but never implement it?
BMD is the only real 'tank' they regularly para-drop.

The idea of soldiers advancing alongside an ICBM launcher is also somewhat retarded, as is the sub firing a missile on the move, with less that 5m on each side of the hull, and below.

I assume the game isn't supposed to be very realistic?

>>54691605
Everything gets paradropped in that game. Abrams too.

>>54691620
>Paradrop RT-2PM Topol + MAZ-7917 Mobile Launcher
>Launch ICBM before it hits the ground
>Air is good, comrade.

File: 20170804_205021-picsay.jpg (897KB, 2585x1648px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 2585x1648px

Finished watermelons

>>54691620
>>54691671
Had a guy try to tell me he should be able to "deep strike" his paratrooper list because "that's how they did it in WW2"

>>54691708
Damn nice job there anon.

>>54691710
Bringing a platoon on from reserves in a not-normal but random location due to the natural inaccuracies of a drop, I could understand. Plopping them down wherever on the table as a combat drop, fuck no.

>>54691708
How long did that take you? And airbrushed I assumed yes?

>>54691216
No offense to you, but your buddy sounds like an idiot. Even still it's nice to see tg Krasnopol being effective. Can you go into detail on how you used them? Did he attempt to move the hits onto other infantry teams within 6"? How did you ensure your observer was safe? I am just trying to get a feel for how I should play the Acacia.

>>54692373
I used the "shoot and scoot" order or whatever it is to let my Observer move back into cover at the end of the shooting phase. Keeping it safe was more or less because I was baiting/pressing him with an infantry platoon that was starting to threaten his flanks (hard to explain in words).

He used the super Milan airmobile unit with nothing put ~8 Milan teams in it. The next closest unit to it was a rapier to protect it from air assets I assume. Honestly just proxy a bit to get a feel for them yourself, they might not suit your playstyle or you may find a better use for them.

No offensive either, he is the "that guy" if our club had to have one.

>>54613878

And the US finally got a conscript unit for North Africa.

>>54692550
Yeah... protecting infantry from air with rapiers... that's special. Still, it's good that the krasnopol is seeing some use.

>>54691995
Thank you.

>>54692179
Each vehicles took 45 minutes to build.
It took a week for me, because I could dedicate a vacation to build them.

>>54691708
Excellent job. Very well done.

>>54691708
bretty gud

File: 20543733_1378731448901618_2177723705879491933_o.jpg (153KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1200x800px

Wessis get their spam tank too.

>>54695805
I am very stoked

File: IMG_4992.jpg (25KB, 340x320px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 340x320px

>>54695805
Ohboyohboy westspamkrauts here I come!

>>54695805
I hope PSC are still making ww2 stuff, not everyone likes cold war at 1/100 scale

>>54695805
Very nice. I'm looking forward to those.

>>54695948
They just released stuff for British in North Africa as well. M3 Stuarts and Universal Carriers.

PSC plastic flak 88 when

>>54695805
Awe yeah! Want Want Want Want Want Want Want Want Want....

>>54696916
What's wrong with Battlefront's plastic 88s?

>>54697119
>What's wrong with Battlefront's plastic 88s?
the Crew are DAK

File: IMG_0735.jpg (122KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x720px

>>54697302
The crew are mudmen

>>54697302
>>54697553
Both these. I want decent looking european theatre 88s.

File: IMG_8774.jpg (912KB, 2448x3076px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 2448x3076px

Bmp

File: muh paehnuss.gif (936KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 500x281px

>>54695805

pg10bmp!

>>54700810
If it's a combined Leopard 1/Gepard kit, I'm right there with you.

>>54702789
>look at their FB page
>no more Leopard commen-

10mm plastic moderns?
ten?
TEN?

are they planning on Gundam like kits next?

>>54702964
I mean they are bad enough with the grog tier 20mm kits.

File: erection in progress.jpg (25KB, 450x317px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 450x317px

>>54695805

>>54691605
What is wrong with anti-saboteur guards for scud, comrade, or are you trying to trick glorious Soviet security? To firing line for you.

>>54695948
Go suck a dick with your billion WW2 kits. This is all of the second CW kit of theirs.

File: Leopard C1.jpg (128KB, 604x408px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 604x408px

>>54695805
hype get

File: IMG_0739.jpg (475KB, 640x1613px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 640x1613px

Bump

>>54709531
Keep /pol/ in /pol/ would you? Islam is not some boogeyman out to kill your nation.

>>54710572
It's amazing how fast some of you fucks get triggered.

>>54710635
I bet you get to say that a lot in your life.

File: IMG_0746.jpg (110KB, 396x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 396x720px

Time to dump some Fighting First spoilers before the battlefront has the Singapore government torture "Blitz and Peaces".

File: IMG_0743.jpg (103KB, 486x720px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 486x720px

Oh look... M10 companies.

File: IMG_0744.jpg (69KB, 720x266px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x266px

Speaking of Tank Destroyers.

>>54710572
Fastest way to make people care is to respond, moron. You think something's stupid/harmful/whatever on a Mongolian finger painting board, ignore it. Replying only draws attention to it and makes you seem like a whiny bitch. If it's against the rules, just report it. If not, grow up.

File: IMG_0742.jpg (120KB, 720x492px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 720x492px

Sherman gets some AT 10.

File: IMG_0745.jpg (81KB, 396x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 396x720px

Armored rifle is t h i c c platoon.

>>54695805
I like the look of these
any pictures of the Gepard options or is it just the Leo1 model at the moment.

>>54710753
>>54710793
>>54710817
Somehow, this does not fill me with confidence

File: IMG_0741.jpg (100KB, 720x453px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 720x453px

Tomahawk seems interesting. AT on the bombs not as good as the Stuka, but it has some .50 cals to take out light armor.

File: IMG_0740.jpg (116KB, 405x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 405x720px

Last one is just some painting shit. This leak has been brought to you by Google's reCAPTCHA.

>>54710771
The fact that replying is the only way to ever get a condemnation is why /pol/ took over 4chan.

>>54710729
>>54710753
>>54710793
>>54710817
>>54710835
So the UK and Germany get gimped hard but the yanks get done some justice?

When did Phil become such a Burgerboo?

>>54710793
>>54710835
Also is Green the new Conscript rating?

>>54711283
UK was gimped because every era is mandated to have an unwashed horde. Bringing 60 honey stuarts increases meta diversity.

>>54710817
Unit composition is nice (back to the six infantry) but everything else is just Freedomboo trash

>>54711294
I like that you can represent lack of training without your men being bumbling idiots who are apparently out in the open (2+ to hit Conscript). Though I have heard that the Stuarts might be "Reckless" 2+ to hit.

I am still intrigued by the US release. A lot of cool vehicles. Wish we could see some infantry tanks or some more mobile support like the Bishop for the Brits.

File: 1354660469787748.png (209KB, 1376x716px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1376x716px

>>54711058
The guy posted a funny spurdo comic, not some neonazi conspiracy. Go back to neogaf.

File: IMG_0747.jpg (733KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1536x2048px

Here is your weekly "TY is a car park" pic

>>54713374
Loving how the spandrels can't shoot anything even if they wanted to.

File: DSCN7248.jpg (576KB, 1000x931px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1000x931px

>>54710707
>america has better options that Germany or Brits
k.
>>54710817
aww, shit.
>>54710835
aww, yes!
ok, gotta ask
>Flames in the Skies when?

>>54711301
this statement triggers my jimmies.

>>54714405
yeah, why aren't they flanking/out in front?
git gud!


so i got my Red Thunder crap rolling in.
this,
>pic related
this is my mini rulebook for Team Yankee.
nice, eh?
i'm thinking Cust.Service soon.

>>54714846
It's a common occurrence for every paperback that they put in a box with plastic sprues.

The sprues tear the paper to pieces.

>>54715030
I got one of the Potechnkov's Bears boxes, had so many sprues crammed in I am surprised none of them were damaged. Even with a few less tanks in the new box I can see how they'd tear up the book.

>>54715030
They could do what most companies do and put a cardboard separator between the book and the rest. But I guess Malaysians sweat monkeys aren't smart enough for them to be told to do that.

This is called "sarcasm", buttbasted anon

>>54715173
And now you need to shut up too. Is everyone in this thread retarded or do they just want to finish this dead game off shit-flinging?

File: IMG_0700.jpg (82KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x540px

>>54716331
This is really good troll work, anon.

/pol/ comes on.
Tumblr screeches at them to get out.
Tumblr comes on.
/pol/ screeches at them to get out.

After enough cycles, thread is kill.

File: IMG_8779.jpg (1MB, 2444x3227px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2444x3227px

Ok lost a game of LW today and I think I made my biggest fuckup yet.
I somehow deployed 14 stands of smg dudes less than I should have
Plz no gulag

>>54716700
How do you forget about 14 stands?

I can understand 2 stands, like in my most recent game(I forgot the Mortar in both of my Para platoons), but 14?

File: IMG_0748.jpg (48KB, 400x257px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x257px

>>54716700
>>54716768
All aboard, anon.

>>54650740
that game could fix itself if they just openned up fucking mod support. at least give us fucking map maker.

File: IMG_8777.jpg (1MB, 2424x3064px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2424x3064px

>>54716768
I bought two mid sized motostrelks and when it came to taking out the figures I thought "yeah I bought the smaller size" and took out 2x7.
The logical failing was that they were smaller than large (21)not smaller than medium(14).
Oh well.

>>54716505
i think the SJW and the Trumpites are secretly trying to start an Internet Civil War together.

anyway, back on topic.
>>54716422
thin your fucking paints.
also
>>54717931
learn to soviet. the worse thing about playing soviets is that yes, they get shittons of dudes you literally have to cross reference chart and listed entry to be sure you have the right amount of stuff. i have done similar before too, having switched sides from Germany....
and the bases you have to assemble get staggering.
it is rough
but
it is god's work....or shall i say, hard work all for the glory of the motherland!

>in other news, captcha is playing new tricks

>>54717931
Ouch man. Most I've done is forgotten an ARV or AOP.

>>54718327
>i think the SJW and the Trumpites are secretly trying to start an Internet Civil War together.
I'd post my best way to piss off both, but global rule 15.

>>54710793
But wasn't the 75mm armed Sherman always AT10?

>Stabiliser
Please tell me they still have the old rule of -1 to hit.

So, /fowg/, is there any reason ever to use Brummbärs as Krauts?

I bought four because I like the models (and didn't own any, despite owning almost every other vehicle they've ever made), but the rules are just... not good. Bunker Buster just seems to be a massively inferior version of Breakthrough Gun. Should I just use StuHs instead?

>>54718757
It's weird because the 6pdr (which penned better) got reduced to 9, and the german long 75 on the PIV gor dropped by 1 to 10.

>>54718958
And the reduced rof of the Panzer III and the useless Tiger pen buff (that would make sense in late war because late ammo), i am still completely mad with BF.

Poeple stopped playing FoW here and nobody like TY because soviet CHEERS stuff. GW really won this year, more people is coming back to 40k and i am really close to get my old Guard stuff. I will try to push Battlegroup for now.

>>54709531

You know Koskela gets himself killed in the end don't you?

I'd totally play a wargame built around keeping your men safe from your ineffectual, nationalistic company and battalion staff.

>>54651587

He is trolling. None of the critique he put forward is V4 specific and some of the things he points out (like artillery) are actually improved in V4.

I have some sympathy for these people who came here just to shit on FoW. Long time ago a change in 40k rules could cause a deep personal crisis. For me, it worked to find other miniature games.

>>54718778
>Should I just use StuHs instead?
Unless you plan on regularly having to blast out infantry packed like sardines in buildings, the Brumbar is essentially worthless. Even the StuH has taken a big hit with the breakthrough gun nerf. Battlefront seems to think using the nerf bat to remove unit variety from the game is good design.

>>54719138
My guess is Phil has been staring in his Palantir divining the "unseen truths" behind WW2 ammo.

File: 1287096016684.jpg (30KB, 762x574px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 762x574px

>>54709531
> being proud of a war you lost

Daily reminder; Finland did not win the Winter War and was a reluctant participant at best

File: Fuck yo Konigstiger.jpg (2MB, 3426x2480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3426x2480px

>>54719382
>and some of the things he points out (like artillery) are actually improved in V4.
That is 100% your opinion. Artillery was not god-king of killing dug in infantry IRL, but in V4 it is and all the other methods that previously existed got nerfed to fuck and back. Oh, and this can never happen now, because arbitrary AT 3 cap. The only thing they didn't fuck up was making it range in on your skill and hit on theirs.

>>54719382
Maybe you should reread his post. Anon was complaining about how the artillery changes and subsequent nerfs to any other anti infantry method result in an ahistorical product. The points mentioned are pertinent specifically to V4 changes. And no shit artillery is improved, anon was arguing that it is too effective at killing dug in infantry.

I'd probably be less harsh in tone if you didn't decide to write him off as a troll with personal issues just because he brought up points you disagree with.

>>54719382

I wasn't trolling Ivan Ivanovich, I just understand the practicalities of time and distance involved in FoW's sliding scale.

It's always been a much better operational game than tactical. V4 makes it a fun tactical game BUT it also...

Do we think the Lee with have AT 10? I am trying to consider how the role of the Lee and Sherman may differ in MW.

>>54719679
Lee is AT 9 for reasons as is the 6pdr. The Sherman is AT 10, also for reasons. Expect AT values to wiggle up or down a point at random.

>>54720000
Certain tanks Had diffErEnt ammo load-outs my fRiend, hence the at value changeS.

>>54720000
So we know the Grant has AT9, but doesn't the kit also come with a longer barrel/presumably for the Lee?

>>54719507
>Artillery was not god-king of killing dug in infantry IRL, but in V4 it is and all the other methods that previously existed got nerfed to fuck and back.

What other methods? Volleyfiring SU-122 ( a total garbage tank IRL) with the bullshit underpriced Breaktrough Gun rules or was it divisional recon assets helping a lowly company commander scout for 3 infantry teams like they did in V3? None of those options were remotely historical. Or did you bring the totally historical TOE, Sherman crocodiles, how many of those were made again?

What I hate with this medium is that I don't know how much FoW V3 any of you played. Some of the people who comment here maybe played 4-5 games with their wife or daughter. I played a lot, and people repeatedly took those six trillion stand infantry companies in tourneys and were guaranteed victories in missions where they defended on regular game time. I even did it myself. With Eyes and Ears removed (again divisional or army level assets to hold a company commander in the hand?), infantry companies would have been a real issue in V4. If you don't play a lot against competative jackasses and don't put the game system under a lot of stress, then these problems are hard to spot. But fuck playing some dudes bullshit 2nd Infantry Division for 4 hours in a pick up game because the stuff on the objective doesn't die. In these matter Version 4 is an vast improvement.

>oh, and this can never happen now, because arbitrary AT 3 cap.
What can't happen now?

>>54719548
>Anon was complaining about how the artillery changes
As I describe above, the introduced changes beat Version 3 by a long shot and nothing in his argument indicate that he played the earlier version. The complaints he is making (time and scale) have always been a feature of FoW. Remember, in Version 3 you could dig in the artillery and fire a bombardment in the same turn. How is that for time and scale.

>>54721383
Battlefront doesn't pay me to suck their dicks, but give credit where it is due.

>>54721383
>What other methods? [insert a bunch of strawmen here]
Breakthrough guns, Bunker Busters, Flamethrowers, Recce, ASSAULTS, all are nerfed. The solution to infantry is now artillery, full stop, no exceptions, no tactics, no variety. Since you're able to accept 60mm mortars causing ~14% casualties to dug in troops when IRL a proper battery was expected to cause 2% casualties against dug in infantry (and there's a source for my claims: http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm), maybe you could accept the tiny few edge cases from before that gave these things called "list building options" and "variety". Because ISU-152's certainly didn't need a nerf, Churchill Crocs/Wasps weren't uncommon, and surprise, people took company and regiment level recce assets (generally they were cheaper and better anyway).

>What I hate with this medium is that I don't know how much FoW V3 any of you played.
Over the last two years? ~60 games, against and alongside 7 other regulars, a friend from college, and several one or two game guys visiting or trying it out.
>Some of the people who comment here maybe played 4-5 games with their wife or daughter.
[strawmanning intensifies]
>and were guaranteed victories in missions where they defended on regular game time
Well that got "solved" by making those missions end in ties, which gives us tournies with 20 of 24 games being ties. Not like the new morale or gun saves helped reduce their durability in any way.
>With Eyes and Ears removed
Who's fault is that? Oh, BFs. Maybe if they hadn't nerfed the ways that didn't need it besides arty...

Basically, you seem to be saying "Hey, artillery in it utterly ahistorical current form is needed because of all the other changes they did!", which just brings up the question of why the hell did they do those other changes?

>What can't happen now?
Any heavy tank being destroyed by artillery bombardments or air power. Some AT nerf I could get, but the AT 3 cap is stupid.

>>54721383

See, the examples you're relate to the TACTICAL half of the game scale, rather than OPERATIONAL. Flames of War is intended to shift from seconds and feet to, at least in V4, half days and a dozen plus miles. Each game you're subbing in for all of your platoon leaders, probably multiple company and battalion commanders, and the brigade commander. Even if you have a full company on the table, in game scale it's representative of a thin slice of a much larger force.

Divisional recce would routinely be the only units ahead of the infantry, they'd end up with an area of responsibility over 1/3rd of the standard 6x4 table. OPERATIONALLY they'd be fulfilling a recce, screening and exploitation role. In V3 they could largely do this, even if it was a bit janky. In V4 they're just a cheap screening and combat unit.

'Digging In' has never really represented a unit being dug in, that passed skill check results in the unit being 'in position', positions and arcs of fire are allocated, guns are placed, and the unit starts digging individual shell scrapes. It was and still is a flaw in the scaling that there's no real benefit to real prepared positions, i.e. starting the game dug in or in trench lines.

In V4 the game has both scaled down (better command and movement rules, orders, just more fun in general) and scaled up (potentially waaaaaay more teams on table, arty buffs, morale rules).

This is a problem because right in the middle of the scale is the historical rock paper scissors of combined arms, infantry, supported by tanks, attacking under artillery.

Artillery now 'unlocks' infantry positions so tanks can overrun them. This is elegant because it sets up how Battlefront want you to be playing and buying, large, mobile forces with a good chunk of support. Right as they make it a fun tactical/skirmish ruleset, they scale up the whole game so that the core tactical challenge of WWII because irrelevant.

V3 - 200 games, TY - 40 games, V4 - 5 games

>>54719507
>Oh, and this(a tank getting flipped on it's side) can never happen now, because arbitrary AT 3 cap.

Technically that could never happen in the rules. The rules don't model unusual statistical improbabilities.

They model a representative, but not necessarily 100% accurate depiction of what is within the expected realm of possibility, or at least plausibility, based on the imprecise way the rules attempt to recreate reality.

Also, I'm fairly certain that an explosion powerful enough to knock a King Tiger onto its side probably came from a truly massive bomb, not from an artillery strike.

>>54719507
That was caused by a high level bomber, you dummkopf.

>>54724668
>They model a representative
eeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh

>>54724668
>Also, I'm fairly certain that an explosion powerful enough to knock a King Tiger onto its side probably came from a truly massive bomb, not from an artillery strike.
>That was caused by a high level bomber, you dummkopf.
Rockets and bombs are the same cap as arty. AT 3, even for the Arado's previously AT 6 FP 1+ bombs.
But fair, I heard it was a naval gun but sources can be wrong.

>>54724802
It could potentially be naval artillery as well, but those are fuck-huge shells that are far more massive and far more explosive than land based artillery by at least one order of magnitude.

But even there, Naval Gunfire has never been accurately portrayed in Flames of War.

It has been significantly overpowered in game terms in the past, but even then, it wasn't living up to the reality of Naval Gunfire.

>>54724870
>But even there, Naval Gunfire has never been accurately portrayed in Flames of War.
10 second sleep deprived revision:
AT 7, FP 1+, before deployment write down coordinates from a fixed corner (such as 40" up, 32" over) for 10 turns of artillery bombardment. Place the 6"x6" template on that point aligned to the board edges, and resolve as a battery of 6 guns.

>>54724970
Oh, and after 10 turns the fire mission is over, and you can use your spotter to call in follow up strikes as normal.

File: IMG_3831.png (10KB, 300x134px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x134px

>>54719388
>Phil has been staring in his Palantir divining the "unseen truths" behind WW2 ammo

I don't know why but that's the funniest thing I've read all day

>>54719924
Are people Whining about T-64 not being a leopard 2 with a ruduced points cost?
and that the still can't win easily with red thunder?

>>54727204
I'd say people are content enough with the T-64B at this point. Not sure how it performs on the table, but considering how the meta swallowed up the T-72, the T-64 has a lot more things going for it for just a marginal price increase.

Still, ATGMs and dug in infantry rule the day in TY. The Brit player who won historicon used Chieftains and scorpions to dig them out through dice. Pretty clever play.

>>54727204
>and that the still can't win easily with red thunder?
yeah, pretty ridiculous. Everyone knows that's brits.

>>54727851
Jeez brit players complaining
But then again in my area there are loads of British players who are shite while the Russian and East Germans can easily roll them over pre red thunder.
But we mostly play 200pts a player games on a huge table with a homebrew Polish and Dutch armies

File: 1497833667201.jpg (163KB, 750x640px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 750x640px

Your daily dose of CHEERS

>>54727920
>But we mostly play 200pts a player games on a huge table with a homebrew Polish and Dutch armies
So... Your experiences are basically irrelevant and you have no experience with the game as most people play it? Cool.

File: atarisnug.png (294KB, 340x517px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 340x517px

>>54728696
>how dare you have fun playing the game than bitching about the torunment meta inbalance.

I'm having fun playing the game with people who aren't completely torunament focus minded it

>>54728760
>people who aren't completely torunament focus minded it
what did he mean by this

>>54728760
Playing a game that's broken and saying it's okay because you can write homebrew expansions that fix it is literally being scammed. It's the writer's job to make a game that works and you pay money for that; if you pay money and it doesn't work, you got ripped off and should stop throwing effort into a game that represents contempt for your time and work. A game that doesn't work in it's expected parameters is bad and was designed or playtested badly.

>>54727920
>But we mostly play 200pts a player games on a huge table with a homebrew Polish and Dutch armies

>we play at double the suggested points values with army lists that are completely made up

Okay, but how does that apply to people that are using the official army lists at the the recommended points values of 75 to 100 points?

I'm not saying "Your fun is wrong", but it's not representative of the way that most people play the game, and as such, the balance might be entirely different at that point level.

Also, I weep for your local WarPac players. 100 points of Soviets or East Germans are expensive enough as it is. I don't even want to think about what 200 points worth of stuff would cost...

>>54728760
It's not the same thing. You're playing with armies that aren't even in the game. You might be having fun but you can't comment on problems that emerged in the meta of actually published books, being played at the scale the game expects. I could play homebrewed 750 points lists on a 2x3 board with no cover but that's not going to reflect on the game at all, being basically a spinoff game at that stage.

>>54728923
> I don't even want to think about what 200 points worth of stuff would cost...
Approximately double.

>>54729033
Well yes, technically.

But you know what I meant. WarPac armies are expensive enough to buy for 100 points. They already have significantly more stuff in a typical force than any NATO force at the same points level.

File: cheers2.png (6KB, 352x70px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 352x70px

>>54728145

File: Tiger-1.jpg (69KB, 572x405px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 572x405px

>>54719388
>>54727175
> Phil has been staring in his Palantir
dude, we all know those Kiwi Hobbbits use only the finest Pipe-Weed to fuel their...fantasies.

inb4 Viruscide declares shots fired


so,
Funkmeisters:
are we on today? or is that in 2 hours?

>>54719924
what if i'm in both the TY cheers camp and leaning into the V4 is shit camp?

>>54721383
>Some of the people who comment here maybe played 4-5 games with their wife or daughter.
>not 'played solo games with their right hand'
Ivan, this is 4chan...

>>54730450
Cheers.

>>54731407
You're early for Panzerfunk. But yes. We'll be recording in about 2 hours.

>>54721717
>Breakthrough guns, Bunker Busters, Flamethrowers, Recce, ASSAULTS, all are nerfed.

Assaults aren't that nerfed. Infantry moves faster and they don't test for tank terror. New shooting allocation rules allow the attacker to pick out problematic teams in defensive fire.

>"Hey, artillery in it utterly ahistorical current form is needed because of all the other changes they did!"

Weird to work from the historical viability premise since Version 3 was overall less historic than what we got now. Gameplay, balance and flow is what interests me. Five special rules to accurately represents the amount of sodium they had in water flasks during the Battle of Kursk, does not.

I am also PERFECTLY fine with people who expect to point, click and win with 155mms and AOPs laced with underpriced special rules, not liking the game.

>>54731407
I was trying to be polite. Also, going by the facebook group, some FoW fans tend to be very old.

>>54731947
>New shooting allocation rules allow the attacker to pick out problematic teams in defensive fire.
What?

>Version 3 was overall less historic than what we got now
citation fucking needed

>>54731947
>Weird to work from the historical viability premise since Version 3 was overall less historic than what we got now.
Canttelliftrollingorjustretarded.jpg

>>54731991
>I was trying to be polite.
You threw that out when you declared people that disagree are trolls and threw more straw around than a barn worker.

>>54732087
in V4 you pick the target, such as, HMG teams covering infantry
solved.

File: 10690502.jpg (26KB, 400x545px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x545px

>>54727204
>T-64 not being a leopard 2 with a ruduced points cost?
Nice strawmanning

Where do people get this "X but cheaper still" thing from. The only consistent argument the Sovs put out that might even be close to what you suggest, is that they would like BF to stop making it a "company scale wargame, EXCEPT for Soviets! They are reserved for the potato zergling rush tier, and therefore must be at least battalion strength!" Funnily enough, if you stop making them bottom of the barrel, drooling incompetents that German civilians with panzerfausts can out qualify, people will be more satisfied.

What's even more hilarious is the Brits whining now.

>>54733211
And watch it get bounced by the 3+ reallocate, 3+ save, and then the FP check. Actually hurts assaulters more, since in defensive fire or after they fail a charge they're too close for mistaken target and have no bulletproof cover, so goodbye panzerfaust/Piat/whatever.

>>54733408
Is it just me, or would that pic make for semi-decent Red Alert Soviets?

File: 12_zps9eb8e582l.png (849KB, 776x543px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 776x543px

>>54733427
I've been thinking of doing some Allies(Americans) when I finish my East Germans.

>>54733482

Is that an IS-2 with ROF2?

>>54732262
It isn't like people would come on /tg/ and start edition wars shit without playing any of the games. I did my fair share of BATTLEFRONT HATES SOVIETS-posts back in the day even though I won a lot of games with the Strelkovy.

People who say that Flames of War has an problem with time and scale compared to other miniature games, make good points. People who say that artillery rules have gotten worse, didn't play V3 or are trolling. It's that simple.

File: communists and finland.jpg (43KB, 720x371px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x371px

>>54719399
>Finland
>not being allowed to be proud of their ridiculous kill count against soviets
They didn't win but they made the soviets victory Pyrrhic. With Soviet military intelligence having been totally purged just before the Ruskies were fucked from the get go.

You know things are bad when Russians blame the cold for military failures.

>>54733501
It's actually an IS-3 with RoF2.

>>54733482
That'd be right wicked.

>>54733555
>People who say that artillery rules have gotten worse, didn't play V3 or are trolling. It's that simple
>My opinion = fact
Fuck. Off. It's less realistic and has killed variety of counters. It is not better except in a pure effectiveness standpoint, where light mortars have gone from meh to god-kings of price effectiveness and infantry/gun/bunker killing.

>>54712194
>back to the six infantry
armoured rifles were always 6 rifle bases, if you convert the old command base into another rifle base

>>54733555
Sorry Ivan, people are going to disagree with your opinion. That doesn't make them trolls who have never played a game of V4. Get over it.

>>54733555
>People who say that artillery rules have gotten worse, didn't play V3 or are trolling.
Or they mean "Artillery is now unhistoric and has risen to a level of anti-infantry dominance that makes it a necessity in lieu of other anti-infantry measures that all got nerfed" instead of "I can't win everything with american arty party, waa" like you seem determined to strawman them as.

>>54731947
>Assaults aren't that nerfed.
Any team can fire over stationary friendly infantry teams, which massively increases the amount of incoming shots from defensive fire. You get one smoke bombardment per game and the new Quality of Quanity replacement is near impossible to achieve, so getting any assault off with a trained force is a fantasy. When assaulting tanks they just allocate all their MG shots to your AT weaponry and you can't reallocated. And on top of all that, you have to be within 4" but more than 2" from the enemy teams to assault, with no follow up waves, and only the enemy within 4" of your assault is involved. Assaults are limited and hard to even pull off now.

>>54731947
>Weird to work from the historical viability premise since Version 3 was overall less historic than what we got now.
You can't be serious. 8rads and Crusaders share armor ratings, concrete bunkers designed to handle naval gunfire can be killed by repeat 60mm mortar bombardments, a flamethrower with 10 1 second bursts can fire forever, there's only ever one observer no matter what the real life organization or use was, armored transports run around freely and machine gun the enemy instead of staying with their troops or retreating, tanks can't crash through any buildings ever, you can't shoot your main gun and the hull machine gun at the same time, an airplane can dive into a battery of flak guns and expect to survive unscathed, close air support is cannons or nothing, flamethrowers safely fire over friendlies, AOPs might as well be made of adamantium instead of wood and cloth, killing 90% of your unit in a turn doesn't matter for morale because you still have three stands left, you can kill 5 guys with a soild shot round from a 17pdr, Cavalry charge as fast as infantry, and trained engineers don't clear obstacles any better than a few conscripts with no idea what the hell a mine is.

File: IMG_8790.jpg (1MB, 3264x2263px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2263px

Had my second V4 game tonight and let me tell you, me and my local meta absolutely loves it!

We also tried out the fog of war objective cards and that made for a very unpredictable and tense game. I won on formation break at round 6 though.

Arty is fun. HQ units are fun. Snipers are surprisingly good.
>my IL-2M Tips are too good though

>>54735192
>that firing line on the middle stand

>>54735192
lookin' good, how do you base them?

>>54735192
Huh, you actually got PSC's stuff to look pretty good. How'd you do it?

File: IMG_8794.jpg (1MB, 3264x2225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2225px

>>54735258
I always get comments on that
>don't mention katyn
>komissar execution detail
It's the last stand made out of the five last models left from the psc box. It was that or a stand made out of grenade lobbers and nurses.
>>54735650
Pumice, hay colored flock and autumn tufts. It's easy when you got the material.
>>54736010
Thanks. Dunno, careful posing, some basing love and wash/drybrush?

>>54736635
i like putting my MW soviets into nice firing/marching lines.
they are the conformist faction

also: http://www.wwpd.net/2017/07/historicon-q-session-with-pete.html
for those who missed it.

>>54738229

The accompanying thread in the TY sub-forum is excellent. Great debate about the state of the game and sunk cost vs complain till they patch.

http://forum.wwpd.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=20691

>>54738515
>those forum posts

since they cannot shitpost, they summon the lords of high economics instead.
bravo, grognards!

bravo!

>>54735192
Very nice paint job on those!

>>54738515
I dare not look. A quick rundown on what is said?

>>54733611
> being proud of things you didn't do

National pride is fucking retarded, and the Soviets still won. 'Pyrrhic' or not - the victory ensured the Soviets lost less territory during Barbarossa and secured the countries borders.

>>54743559
What finns achieved during wew2 and not getting satelited during cw is pretty damn astounding.
>finns all carry knives so watch out

File: IMG_0758.jpg (74KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x486px

>>54742100
Basically there is one autist screaming about economics and comparkng PSC to Home Depot saying that people should be willing to pay more for miniatures....

I just don't even. I had to take some ibuprofen a minute into it.

>>54742100
>Cheaper isn't always better, and competition can result in destruction that isn't creative. As frustrating as BF can be, I care about the offering they bring, and so I think twice about buying cheaper alternatives.

>>54743776
He did admit that in T-55 case he would prolly go PSC way...

Mark should not buy BF tanks. He's mad at BF, he doesn't want to play their game, and their tanks cost more while being of equivalent quality to him. Even at the same price, his net value is higher if he buys PSC.

I should buy BF tanks. I desire a game that's commonly played at a location near me, and is balanced like a tournament game should be. I need my LGS to make money on the product so they continue to support it with stock, table provision, and events. I want regular updates to the game to keep the interest up. I highly desire to have many, many choices of factions and units. I like to have a competitive environment that challenges me to improve my game. Most the PSC tanks I've seen to date have not been as nice as the BF ones, and BF has much better infantry IMO.

I get more value buying a $9 BF tank than a $6 PSC tank because frankly, if BF doesn't fix their WW2 game, I'm getting zero benefit by buying another tank. The trouble of storing the damn thing is going to overcome its resale value to me.

So if you want to play FoW, avoid buying PSC. It's not offering more value because it's likely to end up being useless. Buy from the vendor who supplies the experience, not just the part. It's the same as buying from your LGS who provides space, convenience, and other things that will cost you time and money to provide without them. I'll show up Wednesday nights and almost always find a game. If I have to use Facebook and beg or pay for space and haul everything needed for a game somewhere, it's likely to overcome the dollar savings alone. The time and hassle will just be extra.

Your mileage may vary, but please stop thinking price and start thinking VALUE

>>54743850
>Your mileage may vary, but please stop thinking price and start thinking VALUE

Sure. Should I simply ignore the idea that value may be subjective....?

>>54743850

Thanks, excellent summary.

Most importantly to me as counterpoints:
- a game that's commonly played at a location near me
- is balanced like a tournament game should be
- my LGS to make money on the product
- I want regular updates to the game
- many, many choices of factions and units
- competitive environment that challenges me to improve my game

Broadly, most of these were in-place through the latter half of V3, though the balance started to get a bit stupid and Battlefront seriously fucked local stores in pretty much every possible way.

In V4, none of those conditions are met. Battlefront has taken a swing at some of them, but the support just isn't there.

>>54691358
This game was my childhood and why I'm a huge Slavaboo

>>54743762
He's baiting, you shouldn't have replied to his initial post.

File: IMG_8811.jpg (35KB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x304px

>>54746816
I know, I'm just excited about finns.

File: Damaged_Iraqi_BMP-2.jpg (337KB, 1720x1160px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1720x1160px

Near useless BMP

>>54743850
>Your mileage may vary, but please stop thinking price and start thinking VALUE

For me, it's a matter of finding the balance between the two.

I'll buy rulebooks and Battlefront plastics for mast of the stuff I need. This is because I want Battlefront to make money and continue releasing new books and miniatures for their games.

But at the same time, I'll buy PSC or Zvezda plastics if it's something that Battlefront only makes in resin. The Resin kits are overpriced. Plain and simple. And for a unit that is meant to be a cheap spammable unit in-game, having them have an expensive resin miniature is just complete idiocy from Battlefront.

As for supporting your local game store, I try to do that as much as possible. But even there, it's a question of what I can afford. I buy there as often as I can when I have the money, but I'll also take full advantage of a good internet sale.

File: Castle Bravo.webm (3MB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x576px

giant explosive dicks.

>>54743850
>. I desire a game that's commonly played at a location near me, and is balanced
thank god they released TY and v4 then

>>54749772
>But at the same time, I'll buy PSC or Zvezda plastics if it's something that Battlefront only makes in resin. The Resin kits are overpriced. Plain and simple. And for a unit that is meant to be a cheap spammable unit in-game, having them have an expensive resin miniature is just complete idiocy from Battlefront.

Yep. I'm less concerned with "price - value" or whatever...I want quality, and that almost always means plastic models as they're simply better IMO than metal and resin, particularly given BF's shit QC. New BF plastics are really great, so I buy them if it's something I want. But if the choice is BF metal/resin vs PSC plastic...PSC is getting my money.

Case in point: Leopard Is. BF can get stuffed if they think I'm paying their prices for a full company of resin.

>>54749772
>But at the same time, I'll buy PSC or Zvezda plastics if it's something that Battlefront only makes in resin.
I'll get PSC or BF based on which I feel put out a better kit. BF's Cromwells are decent, but I think PSC did an overall better job on the parts you actually see (overhang on the rear engine deck is more relevant than tread detail for me) even if they're really close. PSC's UCs have not-potato crew and 8 options vs noface and only desert options, so that was also an easy decision for my LW force. Zvezda only gets my money for transports and other stuff that I need like 1-2 of at most and really don't care terribly about quality. Other than that it's mostly follow the plastic. PSC gets my money for Paras, Stuarts, and Churchills while BF gets M10s and Comets

File: DSCN6893.jpg (875KB, 2000x652px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 2000x652px

>>54751441
Some of us are that crazy.
i guess it took too long for plastics?
New thread soon, brothers. The fire is rising!

>>54752189
>Zvezda only gets my money for transports and other stuff that I need like 1-2 of at most and really don't care terribly about quality.
Their KT is good and I like their T-26 a lot.

>>54752314
True, but as a british player the only things relevant for me are the Stuart, Grant, and Dingo. And the Dingo I'll actually get the resin one instead (cheaper per dingo and more accurate to the LW MkIII). Outside of that it's for objectives or captured transports, no need for a KT from me.

File: IMG_3006.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>54752314
>Their KT is good

Seconding this.

I have a fairly positive review of it that I put up on the Panzerfunk Facebook page.

The track detail is a bit toy-like, but the rest of the kit is solid.

File: IMG_7102.gif (991KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 500x281px

>>54752250
Beautiful

neu faden, mein hunden:
>>54753348

>>54736635
>Pumice
Do you mean pumice gel? Surely not the porous rock?