[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: images.jpg (10 KB, 237x212)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
New Late USA Book
https://nodicenoglory.com/2019/06/10/d-day-us-assault-company-and-rifle-company/
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/d-day-american-forces-too-hot-or-not/
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/d-day-dutch-waffles/

Flames of War SCANS database:
https://mega.nz/#F!GaoGBYqB!zbhHgUJq_IMO9C-xgrwL1w
https://mega.nz/#F!31Ijnapa!zI0oEY8R6qcl3Z65853x2w
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108

Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw

Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/

Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts

WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8a13ampzzs88/World_War_Two
and, for Vietnam.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8i8t83bysdwz/Vietnam_War

--Guybrarian Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw/edit?usp=sharing

Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/

https://vimeo.com/128373915 a neat watch.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/CariusNarva.pdf
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1949 the Azul Division: no longer linkable off the main page

DISCORD
https://discord.gg/drZbxvm
>>
>FE fucking sucks
Back to playing TY,thank you.
>>
File: жетоны2.jpg (2.4 MB, 2480x3508)
2.4 MB
2.4 MB JPG
Got my copy of Seven Days To River Rhine, will play instead of TY
>>
>>66694146
Seriously what were you expecting?
>>
>>66694230
Oh, review please?
>>
>>66694106
not the most exciting release. not the worst of the lot either. except for the brits. god damn, just fuck the bong players right out.
>>
>>66696491
>b-but at least I have AT 14
*laughs in Tank Destroyer*
Go on, spam your Churchills or whatever you thought was going to be good two weeks ago.
>>
>>66696572
yeah. the brits got the hard shaft on this one, and this is going to be it until 2020. thanks phil
>>
>>66696587
>Brits get fucked
I am ok with this, teebs are the most insufferable faggots in every WWII game I have ever played.
>>
>>66696655
fuck your feelings about the players. the obvious dismissal of a full quarter of the game for their releases is bad form.
>>
>>66696746
Get fucked you entitled teeb. 4 months is not that long to wait.
>>
File: 1529377675141.png (349 KB, 338x654)
349 KB
349 KB PNG
>>66696922
the fuck you getting your times from? bongbooks dont drop until 2020 you brainlet.
>>
>>66696987
Yeah in Q1 about 4 months after the Germans get their book. Again get fucked if you think you should get your book before the Germans.
>>
File: hitler and dog.gif (1.74 MB, 472x264)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB GIF
>>66697616
of course not. you quite clearly don't know how to read.
>>
No jagdpanthers in FE fucking sucks. At least you can field a somewhat realistic panzergrenadiers with dismounted hmgs and 8cm mortars
>>
>>66696572
I have no idea why a semi large segment of the community thought Churchill spam was going to be da new meta. It's not like Germans are lacking for AT above 12 and the at 10 gun they're packing isnt anything special.
>>
File: sherman card.png (535 KB, 950x431)
535 KB
535 KB PNG
teasers and previews are up for the first D-day book, too. breakthrough assault did a shitty job concealing the points for the 76mil sherman. looks to be about 5.5 points per.
>>
>>66698824

The D-Day Sherman cards are in the "Hit the Beach" set.
Regular Shermans (75mm) are 18 (x5), 14 (x4), and 10 (x3), while veterans are 21, 17, and 13.
76mm Shermans are 23 (x5), 18 (x4), and 13 (x3) while veterans are 28, 22, and 16.
>>
>>66699072
Kinda weird how optimal platoons of 3 are, esp with that 3+ last stand. Is this the new anti-parking lot mechanic?
>>
>>66696491
I'd rate it 3.6
Not great, not terrible.
>>
File: plastics.png (164 KB, 600x295)
164 KB
164 KB PNG
plastic scouts
>>
hellcats probably a card release in a few months
>>
>>66697616
Furious Naziboo detected.
>>
>>66701193
Lol ok teeb, what ever you say. Keep bitching until February. That will show me.
>>
>>66701464
Game won't survive to February so I am not concerned.
>>
Bump
>>
>>66699406
MSUs have been a thing since Team Yankee. Luckily this doesn’t seem as bad as T-55s were.
>>
>>66701489
>B-baka I didn't like your game anyway
>>
Conversation feels like a 40K general these days. I guess that means Flames is on the map.
>>
Just the usual trolls who are unhappy with the game for some reason so they want to destroy it.
>>
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/32721091/#32809475

This is a thread roughly 5 years ago. Makes for an interesting read. I wonder if any of the same people are still here. I hadn’t bought into Flames of War back then.
>>
>>66704164
>http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/32721091/#32809475
holy god.
whole another atmosphere there.
truly
where did all the bro's go?
>>
>>66704486
>where did all the bro's go?
To play games from better companies. This general nosedived after V4 was released. TY kept it going for a while but even TY posters started to leave or turn bitter.
>>
>>66694106
I weep for what has happened to this game I love.
>>
File: 1470030068375.gif (1.32 MB, 200x200)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB GIF
>>66705574
i weep that people have forgotten all the old rulebooks STILL EXIST!!!!
fucking normies and their edition conformity.
>>
>>66706418
If you are going to play an "unsupported game" there are better ones than FoW V3.
>>
>>66706458
>If you are going to play an "unsupported game" there are better ones than FoW V3.
So, any recomendations?

I mean, I know Battlegroup and like it but its not as widely played. Bolt Action is pretty common but not 15mm and I do not consider it a better game.
>>
>>66706959
>So, any recomendations?
Battlegroup, Fistful of TOWS 3, Fivecore Company command, Chain of Command, Hammer of Democracy.

>I mean, I know Battlegroup and like it but its not as widely played.
If you've got a V3 group then play that I guess. Otherwise you've got nothing to lose.
>>
>>66706418
I know I can still play V3. I am just saddened by the community being killed in my area and the way the company/game is heading. It is hard to get new people to play when your game version is unsupported and the grogs poison them from giving V4 a go.
>>
File: image0.jpg (1.87 MB, 3024x4032)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
some discount kits I got to play along with hit the beach americans
>>
File: FoW_Deedurr.jpg (498 KB, 853x457)
498 KB
498 KB JPG
There was someone starting Canadians last thread: you still around? Have you looked into the materials I posted?

>>66704604
>where did all the bro's go?
>To play games from better companies.

I'd argue they haven't moved on as much as avoiding the atmosphere here. Few reactions to anything worthwile, it's just recycled shitposts and grumbling most of the time here now. Post a project, a list or a question and the same two or three people reply to that. Then there was the whole namefag-thing, so the same people probably still post, but you can't identify them anymore. I know, it's crazy.

>>66707254
>grogs poison them from giving V4 a go
I hate this so fucking much. Just leave people fucking a lone. Played a few games against grogs to show them V4 and they'd always sneer and chuckle at how rules worked. Fucking dipshits don't realize that's how 'serious' historical wargamers have at looked at FoW since its inception.

>>66707755
Nice! I've got those on my list as well.

To my everlasting shame I confess to ordering M4A3E8s for maximum Fury memery. In my defence they were also 30% off and free shipping, though.
>>
So, I have a decent amount of WW2 Soviets already.
I fancy getting a second army, something different - I have friends who have Germans/Americans and Germans/Brits, all LW.
I'm torn between LW Germans and going for the Elite wehraboo big-cat list, "Brits" and doing Polish 1st Armoured in Shermans/Fireflies, and 'Muricans for Fury-inspired stowage-heavy Shermans.

Is there any reason I should choose one of the above over the others?
>>
Well, getting Germans would complete your 'group setup', so each of you three would have one axis and one allied army. The most 'practical' choice, and although big cats are a bit memey and boring, the rule of cool applies. What cats are you looking at? Tigers? KTs? Panthers? Jagdpanthers? All the kittehs?

Polish 1st Armoured is cool, thematically. We'll have to wait for the D-Day British Command Cards to see what special rules they'll get. Until then they're regular British. Unless you still play V3 in which case the Polish special rules aren't as great as they used to be, but still fun.

I'm going for US tanks for 2nd AD myself, currently, getting some M4A1s from Hit The Beach for Normandy and also trying to get a few of the older kits here and there, to have a nice LW mix of models, for Cobra, Falaise, Lorraine and Germany.

I won't decide for you, but that's how I see it.
>>
>>66709108
Germans: I was looking at the Panzer Kampfgruppe box for a nice mixture. Not massively thematic in a historical sense, but gives some nice variety.

I love the images of Brit/Pole Shermans with mountains of stowage, custom camouflage, etc. I also have Polish grandparents, and while my grandfather was RAF rather than armoured, I'm still drawn to Polish stuff.

US stuff is almost purely to do muddy, weathered, gritty Shermans with slogans and crew names.

Do Brits/Yanks have largely different playstyles at all?
>>
Just got the Hit the beach box to split with a friend. Why the fuck would they mix the infantry on the sprue?
>>
>>66710165
Easier production
>>
Why the fuck USA players need shitty FE lists if normal book is month away
>>
Seven Days to the River Rhine https://mega.nz/#!L0ZBmKQC!6e_yGgbWaXRI4WC0xsVT-8ixsJlYUv9M_4piRAhlfK4
>>
so who exactly can observe for bombardments? is it just the designated observer unit and the company commander, or can the platoon command teams also range in?
>>
>>66709893
V4, then?

>US vs. BR playstyle
Hard to make general statements for me. Both like artillery, to be sure.

US armor should play to their strenghts, namely ROF 2 on the move. The US can also field an entire formation of Sutarts, the British can't. Infantry platoons can be quite large and rally on 3+, but are otherwise quite mediocre. Armoured inf used to be a thing, large unit + halftracks.
Every US Unit Leader can spot for an artillery bombardement, which can come in handy. US Tank Destroyers copy the German stormtrooper rule and get up to two movement orders, allowing them to blitz out of cover, shoot and then shoot and scoot back.

Brits have an overall slower approach, centered on their infantry getting into assaults and the enemy breaking off (or dying) eventually. To this end, their infantry has an Assault rating of 3+, they can concentrate their artillery (range in a second unit once the first one is ranged in, both hitting on the first unit's range in attempt), bring infantry tanks to directly support the infantry (better counterattack for churchills, meaning they'll stay in the fight longer, pushing the enemy into breaking off) and attack at night, to cross open ground in relative safety.

However, there are (were) some lists, that change these things. For the Brits e.g. Canadians have a very good remount and rally rating, but don't last as long in assaults missing the 'British Bulldog' trait and the Polish 1. AD has a better Last Stand rating, but also lacks 'British Bulldog' (use their regular Counterattack rating). Right now these specialists/named forces are missing though and will only come out next feb. Or simply play British Infantry as Poles in Italy (same thing, no Bulldog, but 3+ Last Stand).

So, there are tendencies to prefer different gear and approaches between the two Allies, Americans being a bit quicker and more average in their skillset and Brits very much focused on assaulting and pushing the enemy off objectives.
>>
>>66712512
Gun teams can always act as an observer for their own bombardements (and still shoot as part of that bombardement). Same goes for Formation Commanders, they can also always spot for arty.

In TY unit leaders may serve as spotter, in FoW V4 you need specialised observers (mostly tanks in V4 for some odd reason).
>>
>>66713076
thanks. What about for games of more than two people. can one player range in for the other one's gun battery?
>>
File: 1522807409178.jpg (31 KB, 540x447)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>66711546
Glorious work comrade.
>>
>>66713104
Yes
>>
bump
>>
>>66713104
Well there isn't really explicit rules for more than 2 players so do whatever you want really.
>>
>>66716415
No the rule says any friendly formation commander may spot
>>
>>66711546
This plan kills NATAOboos.
>>
>>66711546
Had a quick read. Looks fun. More low level tactical than TY and adds a reaction system without the crazy chaining reactions of other systems. But some of the vehicle stats are highly questionable. Such as the Leopard 1A1 having the same armour rating as the Centurion which is 10 tons heavier. The M48 is also 1 pt of armour better than the Centurion when at this level of granularity they should be identical. Looking at the stats you'd wonder why anyone wanted to replace the M48 in favour of the Leopard 1.
>>
>>66718633
I agree it looks fun, has several neat little rules to push combined arms that aren't hyper-convoluted. It also looks very similar to their 1914 ruleset which while I haven't gotten to play it yet (still painting up Baccus minis) seems alright.
>>66704486
To be frank I only stuck with FOW because it was the most comprehensive WW2 ruleset I could find. When V4 hit it actually became less comprehensive than several competitors whose rulesets I had preferred, but which had gaping holes like Minor Axis. It was at that point I stopped buying BF.
>>
File: i have become LOLZ.png (142 KB, 2000x2000)
142 KB
142 KB PNG
>>66707158
BattleGroup is just FoW but different. and a slightly smaller scale list-wise

Chain of Command is literal shit.

FFoT3 is great, but it's OSR level groggy.

other two i'll look into.
>>
>>66719332
Oh boy he is gonna sperg about CoC now.
>>
World in Conflict rules when?
>>
>>66720287
>World in Conflict rules when?
Never?

Most I've ever seen about that game is one sketchy youtube that I can't even find the link to anymore.

There's that one anon on here who posts about it but that's the most I ever heard about it.
>>
>>66694106
Played a 50pts co-op 'Nam game today 3 players on each team for 150pts a side. ANZAC+USMC+ARVN against 2 Vietcong and 1 NVA. Fun as fuck and would recommend playing like this.
>>
>>66720457
>Most I've ever seen about that game is one sketchy youtube that I can't even find the link to anymore.

It's got a decent story and production value locked behind some lackluster samey gameplay.
>>
Last thread died way early. Took days after it died for someone to make a new thread, and it will probably die early too. Is there any doubt V4 killed FoW?
>>
>>66722380
There are signs of reborn with new LW, who knows
>>
File: Armoured Rifle Company.jpg (1.2 MB, 4032x3024)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB JPG
built up my american rifles, going to get their half-tracks once my PSC d-day sale stuff arrives. Still got 2 full sprues left too, so I can easily build a 3rd one eventually, should I need it.
>>
>Everyone is looking into Hit the Beach
>I'm cruising for EW lots on ebay

EW sale when?
>>
>>66722380
No, FoW is completely and utterly dead forever, that's why we're not talking about it, duh.
>>
>>66722034
Sounds awesome. I'm currently trying to get another player into 'Nam, so we could actually have at least a 2v2
>>
>>66722753
I know that feeling man: EW stuff is getting so hard to find.

But don't worry, I'm sure BF has another minor period to introduce so they can make another range that doesn't sell and leave EW languishing.
>>
>>66694230
I was looking for it to evaluate. what are your impressions ?
Frankly tired about TY and its parklot syndrome, ineffective artillery and cheesy ATGM lists.
Anon, let's we know !
>>
>>66723580
Anon dumped it >>66711546
>>
File: 81mm Mortars.jpg (810 KB, 4032x3024)
810 KB
810 KB JPG
American mortars
>>
File: soviet t90.jpg (76 KB, 800x459)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>66723593
Sorry, replied without reading the entire thread, my bad.
thank you for sharing it Anon, but I 'm still interested in your opinion and a comparison with TY !
see ya
>>
>>66723711
Not played yet, but will try soon.

Looks more realistic in scale - no carparks, no on table arty except inf mortars, more tactical
>>
Battlereport on a 7v7 event game I took part in almost 5 years ago. Never did a write-up though, until now.

900 points per player, 7 players per side, one of who was also supreme commander of that side, assigned the players their sectors and objectives.
each player was assigned a 36"/90cm part of the frontline, with objectives scattered around the terrain, meaning players had their own "sector", but could lend support left and right if need be.
artillery was a centralised asset per side (2 light batteries, 1 heavy battery) and could be requested from the commander.

https://knautscher.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/breakthrough-at-monte-cassino-21-06-2014-part-2/
>>
>>66711546

Thank you!
>>
>>66724575
dude that looks fun as fuck. thanks for the write up
>>
File: QF25 pounder.png (1.05 MB, 1280x848)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB PNG
Finished some 25 Pounders to clear out the backlog. Hopefully get some trucks for them soon. Phil pls.
>>
>>66730642
Sadly i see no point in using them anymore when priests are only 0,5 points more for a fp upgrade and being armored and all. I have 8 of them on the shelves and i'm pissed.
>>
>>66731179
oh I agree hand over fist. there are much better options and it makes me sad how battlefront treated the bongs in the fortress europe. I'm a shameless slut for towed guns, and I have these and not priests on my shelf. At least the QF 6 Pounders still have a place on the table.
>>
File: 1557952683430.png (691 KB, 940x1039)
691 KB
691 KB PNG
>germans can take 14 flammpanzers III
Holy shit
>>
>>66728568
It was. Wish there were more events like this, with some thematic limitations imposed on the players.

>>66730642
nice, reminds me I need to do the red-and-white on mine as well; currently updating mine for LW as well.

>>66731179
Who forces you to go for maximum efficiency? If you want to field them just do so. Saves you some points, too, to get a carrier patrol or something in. They're also turntable guns, which is a nice security feature against flanking (light) tanks.
>>
>>66731521
>Who forces you to go for maximum efficiency?
My autism
>>
>>66731560
well at least you won't die of measles
>>
Page 10 despair bump

What's even the point anymore?
>>
>>66734640
yeah. it's really the final last gasps of the game. My local shop has had a ridiculous sale on blisters and the boxes for a while now, and hasn't bought anything new from battlefront in about 4 years. the shop still has practically an entire wall full of the metal platoons.
>>
>>66711546
thank you Anon, thank you very much !
>>
When is Great War going to be available on digital so we can get a pdf?
>>
File: 15mm canadian m113 02.jpg (82 KB, 960x720)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
m113 counts as a b(u)mp !!
>>
I am going to give pic related a try this weekend. Any other pasta anons tried it yet?
>>
>>66723989
Only Soviet Union for the Warsav Pact ??
Entire NATO but only USSR ??
And how do you make a list ? It is a bit confusing if you confront making a list with the simple schematic in Team Yankee...
What do you think, Anon ?
>>
>>66735237
>Only Soviet Union for the Warsav Pact ??
>Entire NATO but only USSR ??
It's a list of USSR equipment. Which can be used for any WARSAW pact country. All you are missing out on is some minor APCs and SPGs, and the APCs would have identical stats to BTRs anyway.

>And how do you make a list ? It is a bit confusing if you confront making a list with the simple schematic in Team Yankee...
It's on page 24. You either use a historical order of battle or just simple points buy.
>>
>>66735167
one of the few models from that era I don't own. I don't think it compares that well stat wise to what's already available in that department though.
>>
>>66736133
It has being immune to pinning going for it. But being unable to troll heavy AT guns is lame.
>>
>>66736444
lancias can't be pinned either though. they have tank morale
>>
>>66736536
unarmored tank teams can be pinned
>>
File: Arras5.jpg (100 KB, 652x432)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
I want to travel the French countryside in a panzer.
>>
>>66694106
Just let it die guys, it's over. We had fun while it lasted but it's time to move on.
>>
https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6529 free official command cards
>>
>>66739512
Oh shit i have my cheaty range-in marker, finally
>>
>>66734767
Tell them to ebay the stuff, if it's hard-to-find blisters they'll make money.
>>
>>66735351
>It's a list of USSR equipment. Which can be used for any WARSAW pact country. All you are missing out on is some minor APCs and SPGs, and the APCs would have identical stats to BTRs anyway.


Who are you, Battlefront?
>>
>>66739436
NEVER
>>
>>66740263
Battlefront never gave us the stats for things like the ASUs or BMDs you'd need for doing an airborne armour unit, let alone formation charts. For SDttRR you only need the vehicle stats and you can build any historical formation that used those vehicles. There aren't country specific rules or crew statistics.

It'd be nice if it included the missing kit but do you really need to be told that an OT-64/SKOT has the same stats as a BTR?
>>
File: Delusions.jpg (61 KB, 640x640)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>66719332
>Chain of Command is literal shit.
>>
>>66740375
I figured as much. I just found it funny, as it is the exact same explanation ("just pretend they're Polish") that everyone gave Battlefront shit for.
>>
>>66740448
If BF just gave WARPAC a big list of units with points values for different ratings I'd be fine with it. Then I could actually build historical lists instead of the cack BF drops.

Something I've criticised BF for is that despite their "wArPAc AlL UsEd thE SAmE EqUIpMEnt" crap they've created false points of differentiation with stating basic shit like BTRs and SKOT.
>>
>>66722628

are these Battlefront or PSC? hard plastic?
>>
>>66740286
We will play FOW on the beachs, we will play it in the cities, we will play it in the fields and hills. We will never surrender! Cheers!
>>
>>66739512
are the US command cards working for anyone? I can download all of them except the yanks. If it is working for someone would they kindly post it here?
>>
>>66742158
BF just fucked up the link, there ya go

https://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/FortressEurope/CommandCards/FE-American-Command-Cards.pdf
>>
>>66735351
Ok, but if i use points there is no guidelines, i can even field 250 points of Ghepard?? Really ??
>>
>>66742262
The guidelines are historical orders of battle. If you do something real stupid your opponent will probably just refuse to play. Welcome to actual historical gaming.
>>
>>66742216
Thanks anon.
>>
>>66742301
actual historical gaming ? in a fictionary war never happened ? ahahaha
>>
>>66743114
Gaming what could have happened is common in historical gaming. The hobby came from military gaming of possible conflicts. If you reject that as part of historical gaming than all you have left is strict simulations of actual battles including carrying out the real life orders.
>>
>>66743225
>The hobby came from military gaming of possible conflicts. If you reject that as part of historical gaming than all you have left is strict simulations

or pure batshit-insane fantasy, which unfortunately many people seem to opt for. Since 'it's all pure fantasy durr, why adhere to any kind of historical probability? btw here's my two under-strength inf platoons, supported by the entire regiment's AAA, not because I need AAA, but because they are disproportionally effective against light vehicles'

Best games I've played have been with limited and/or pre-arranged forces I just had to deal with.
>>
>>66744115
Some people just have restrictions 8n their minds and happy to play to each other. Others are treating wargames as a sport an need strict restrictions. It's just different worlds, don't bother to understand the other side, look for restrictive sport games and it will be fine for you.
>>
>>66744115
>Best games I've played have been with limited and/or pre-arranged forces I just had to deal with.

I have more fun being the non playing GM and creating a balanced scenario for 4-6 players than I do playing the game sometimes. Currently working on forces to do British counter attack at Arras.
>>
>>66746488
>Some people just have restrictions 8n their minds

that's what I meant; have certain limitations based on historical plausability, even though a ruleset offers no such restrictions. challenge yourself, that kind of thing. I know some people view this as sport, but I'm not one of them.
>>
File: 1414536292541.jpg (42 KB, 604x392)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
Hello.
Just here to shill our nice comfy wargaming server. We have a strong historical emphasis but also have active fantasy and scifi tabletop players. As far as FoW, we have some V4 and some V3 palyers around too.
Also stuff like movie stream and painting competitions.
Do you want to know more?
https://discord.gg/R3RYbm5
>>
>>66746488
well, is there a medium ?
If I shell 15 quids for a ruleset is it reasonable to ask for army lists, a couple of tematic and detailed scenarios and, at least, a force diagram ??
OR outside GW and BF it is unfinished, unpolished and incomplete stuff realm ?
>>
>>66748198
do you have Oil Wars ?
>>
>>66748375
>OR outside GW it is unfinished, unpolished and incomplete stuff realm?

FTFY.
>>
>>66748744
>FTFY
ok ok, you are right. TY was not a perfect product but, at least, it had playable scenarios, army list and table forces !!
>>
File: M7 Priest.jpg (1.05 MB, 4032x3024)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG
decided to go with a camo for my US tanks
>>
>>66750814
Not doing mud camo? So unamerican of you... looking good though
>>
>>66750814
looks cool
>>
>>66748375
Including orders of battle for for all the countries listed in the book would triple the page count. Just for the US alone there were three reorganisations through the '80s. Real historical rules writers expect you to have an interest in the period and to look up orders of battle. And if you are coming from TY than the TY OOBs are close enough.
>>
>>66740399
He literally cant help himself lol
>>
File: M7 Priest Battery.jpg (1.27 MB, 4032x3024)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
>>66750814
done, adding decals once I get some
>>
>>66756327
Should blackout the vision slit.
>>
>>66756511
oh right, thanks for pointing that out! I might tone down the spare track links a bit, as well as do some chipping like on the tigers I posted awhile ago.
>>
File: ytmndfow.jpg (8 KB, 277x155)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>66756327
very nice, anon
this actually motivates me to get painting again myself.
>>
File: rifle plat.jpg (1.48 MB, 4032x3024)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
>>66756573
thanks, next unit to paint is infantry. I've been feeling really motivated to paint recently
>>
>>66754695
>Including orders of battle for for all the countries listed in the book would triple the page count. Just for the US alone there were three reorganisations through the '80s.

BS, just two pages with a couple of scenarios and related OOB could be squeezed in removing a lot of unrequested pictures advertising BF miniatures... I wasnot asking for a Zaloga's complete history of soviet armored division but 2/4 pages just to start.


> Real historical rules writers expect you to have an interest in the period and to look up orders of battle. And if you are coming from TY than the TY OOBs are close enough.

BS2, that's the way to tell people to go away and play something else, even TY let's you play right from the start and not needing a research or external products just to play a couple of game.

7dttR may be a ggod ruleset but looks like every other minor ruleset, a missed chance...
>>
>>66740399
Don't even bother, they insist on playing the games that most resemble GW's output and company practices for a reason.

Just laugh when you remember that their discord cabal tried propping up this thread by turning it into 20th Century Wargames General despite their rejection of any more respectable systems.
>>
>>66756856
>more respectable systems

Phew. Okay.
I've looked at and played a few different systems, but the fact remains, that none of those caught on as well as FoW/TY/Nam have in my area, nor were they as enjoyable or smooth to play. They were interesting, certainly, and sometimes quite detailed, but overall Battlefront's offerings (flawed as they are) remain my go-to option to actually get a game in and have fun.

I do however understand your nosy approach to all of those 'lesser' games. While I do not feel the disdain for other peoples enjoyment that you display here, I only grudgingly participate in games of SAGA or Bolt Action, to humor players of those communities and soften them up to eventually expand into FoW. For me, these games don't flow as well and/or are too simple or random to be interesting.
Going by my own experience there, I think someone like you (playing 'respectable'/trve/hardcore/realistic/etc. wargames without polish and guidelines), might feel the same about the BF games.
>>
BTR-152
>>
https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6239
5 points for MW that can only be spent on cards. Gotta pay extra to play, or be down points.
115 points for TY? They must have liked the parking lots a lot...
>>
>>66760741
Haven't a lot of tourneys been doing 75pts and similar? BF really are copying the worst era of GW.
>>
>>66759616
nice bmp
>>
>>66760741
Points restrictions based on cards is dumb. There was a tournament in my area which only allowed 6 points for cards but with my American list I wanted to run a vet company which added up to 20 points in cards.
>>
>>66750814
>>66756327

nice brits
>>
BRDM
>>
>>66764334
I thought the whole point of cards is that they were optional and that they spent the same army points you used to construct you whole force. This sort of 'side table' card use is with points ring fenced for them defeats their purpose.
They should have just used them to make formations with small variances like Vet US companies or recce companies
>>
>>66764334
I thought it was 5 points are reserved only for cards, but of course you can use some of your other 'general usage' points to also invest in cards. It's a way to bring variety to the games, by allowing for more points, but not swamping the table in units, necessarily.
>>
>>66767025
You're correct for the official side of things but this was before this new scale of tourney points. The TO made it very clear that you had 103 points for your list and 6 points for cards and there was no crossover. He also made some bullshit system for deciding attacker/defender based on total top armour ratings and drawing missions out of a hat instead of just letting people bid.
>>
File: 20190615_021425.jpg (3.23 MB, 2160x2160)
3.23 MB
3.23 MB JPG
>>
>>66740219
there's a whole shitload of the small blisters for all factions, and a whole bunch for the poland, finland, and hungary too. Every time I stop by I cant help but eyeball some of the SS or fallschirmjaeger blisters. The dude has the larger boxes priced up to ridiculous levels tho. Eighty-something for that american 29th Infantry Division assault company, close to seventy for a box of heavy 5.5" british guns. same for whole fallschirmjaeger kompanie, and a battery of panzerwerfer 42's too. Is there anything I should keep an eye out for, specifically?
>>
Decided to buy some FJ infantry from PSC, to start playing. Realised that the airborne books aren't coming out until later. So how do I build/base these guys? Just follow the directions for regular German infantrymen the FOW website? I'm so confused!
>>
>>66767791
yes! just follow the guidelines for the rifle and command teams already out there. If you want to get super fancy, magnetize them and the bases to swap them around when you feel like
>>
>>66767791
The old V3 books in the OP should have unit diagrams that should help. You should be able to make three platoons from the PSC kit: 27 teams of 4 guys to a base (with a machine gun on 1/3-2/3rds of those) and 3 teams of 3 guys to a base (the command). You might also have enough guys left over to make another 2 3-man small bases (company command). Don't remember how many the PSC kit has.
>>
>>66767791
Don't worry about it too much, the general infantry basing guide will do you well. No one's gonna complain if you get it wrong even, a medium Base is a medium Base and people won't check if you have the exact right amount of LMGs.
>>
>>66767969
Think of the triggered rivet counters Anon
>>
>>66768186
What is it supposed to be? Nco, rifle, lmg, loader?
>>
File: basing guide.pdf (588 KB, PDF)
588 KB
588 KB PDF
>>66768337
an officer and two others on the small base command teams, the four man teams an LMG+loader every few bases, same with the NCO every couple of bases, and the rest of the spots with riflemen
>>
>>66767739
noice. verri noice.
>>
>>66768382
Thank you!!
>>
I still cant post pictures, darn intrawebs
>>
>>66767739
>single based 15mm

A man of culture I see.
>>
>>66767739
20mm washers for each soldier and 25mm for MG ??
nice, very nice !!
>>
>>66767464
>He also made some bullshit system for deciding attacker/defender based on total top armour ratings and drawing missions out of a hat

wtf, how is he in charge of a tournament?
>>
File: IMG_20190523_203550-01.jpg (944 KB, 3951x1555)
944 KB
944 KB JPG
3D printed tigers come out to play in V4!
>>
>>66773339
very nice too, Ender 3 ?
>>
>>66757479
>>>66756856
>>more respectable systems
yes, one thing I hate viscerally is the unhistorical BF choice to let you play, in FoW or in TY, allied vs allied or german vs german or nato vs nato and so on. blue on blue a la Warhamner !
I really HATE this approach and it is what still force me NOT to play FoW/TY outside my little group.
>>
>>66773880
Sure but how are you gonna get pick up games. Not everyone wants to own both sides and in the likely event you play someone with the same side as you what do you do? Give up and go home?
>>
File: NVA_tc.jpg (10 KB, 232x236)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>66773880
Whenever I play outside my group I talk to them first, as to what army and list they're going to play. If it's to gamey, then I won't play. Apart from the aggressive rules-lawyering blue-on-blue and unrestricted minmax-waac-lists are the main reason I stay away from tournaments.

If you scrool up in this thread, there's a blogpost about a monte cassino event I posted. Many of those players were regular tournament players, but they still had fun playing with these many restrictions. However, some of those types also brought Fireflies and Panthers to a 900 point-per-player game, set in the italian mountains in 1944. So a bit of gameyness made it in. My point is: even the people who have no problem with over-the-top lists and blue-on-blue often enjoy more historical set ups.

BF offers (too) little to guide new players toward historically plausible lists, but in the end the game is what the players make it. So it's more about finding decent players than the (or any) system being shit.
>>
>>66773880
US/UK vs Russia is fine as long as they're both using late '45 equipment, as if Operation Unthinkable had happened.
>>
>>66773132
I have no idea, I didn't bother going in the end. Probably my favorite aspect of v4 is the mission bidding system but the grogs can't seem to accept it and I really don't understand their disdain for it.
>>
>>66775300
>grogs can't seem to accept mission bidding system

they can't handle the freedom
>>
>>66775322
No, they like sitzkrieg and deep reserves in my experience.
>>66775221
They funny thing is some of the dumb 'WAAC' lists only take minor tweaking to be 'historical,' at a Stalingrad event I swapped my allied German armored cars for some infantry representing dismounted cavalry and all the sudden it was historical and I still smashed peoples faces.
>>
>>
File: phewree1.jpg (1.3 MB, 1920x1080)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
currently working on doing a Fury-like M4A3E8 to use for introductory mini-games (basically just the combined arms assault against the hedgerow in the movie)



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.