Flames of War: Brexit Wars Edition

It's still a week or two out, at least according to the guys at my FLGS.

As for points, one of the previews showed 11 points per Leo 2.

Although in my Experience here, the only thing worse than "Soviets are totally Underpowered" Slavaboos screeching is the "Americans are not totally Overpowered" Freedomaboos screeching.

Soviets aren't underpowered; soviets need a couple of gear tweaks to represent gear better, and more importantly need more list varieties to have the kind of faction flexibility that the others get. It's not "soviets are the horde faction", it's "Soviets are only the horde faction", when everyone else gets loads of weird and wonderful lists.

Off the top of my head:

SU-100 needs RoF 2 and wide tracks. At the very least it needs to have overloaded removed.

On the same note, T-34/85 should have wide tracks.

Likewise, the BS (towed gun version) needs RoF 2, possibly 3 or a "more loaders for RoF 3" deal. OTOH, towed guns having weirdly low RoF is a common issue across the board, so maybe fair for the game.

IS-2 1943s could maybe do with a point more front armour; IS-2 1944 should be FA 13, 12 at least.

I don't think any lists let you take uparmoured T-34s, but I may be wrong on that, and this kind of overlaps with the "soviets don't get cool lists" thing.

on a similar note I don't think there's lists for the SVT either.

Katyushas are a bit shit but I'm not sure how to solve this under FoW's rules; artillery is generally not as effective as it was historically, and it can't be because it's far easier to use, and equally guns really shouldn't be on the table or at least there should be an allowance to leave them off table. Katys aren't great in game but the reasons for that is due to the slightly gameified use of artillery.

How comissars work is also nonsense.

Other than that their issues are mostly based around their lists offering a very narrow slice of the soviet pie, and cramming things that aren't into the pie if need be.

Yeah soviets really need some "thematics" and more specific lists. And some shit like a special character t34 veteran tank platoon.

I want the lists for whichever unit was still requesting their T-26s get repaired in 1944.

Let me clarify, back before Red Bear, Desperate Measures, and Berlin when the Soviets used to be a touch under powered, there used to be a very vocal subset that used to complain constantly.

>before Red Bear,
Christ, is that where all the "whiny soviets" complaints come from? Five years is a hell of a long time to hold a grudge. I wasn't even playing back then.

IS2 need a rule to let them move and fire or some shit like that, something to make them like a "super panther"

>I don't think any lists let you take uparmoured T-34s

I don't know, i am pretty sure that all the up armored T-34 were the 76 one, they could be useful in MW, maybe a little too good, but not in LW. Although it could be good for more variety.

Desperate Measures and Berlin didn't really stop the complaints.

It just changed them around a bit.

>"We want a tank list without Hen & Chicks!"
>"Ok, here's the Heroes of the Soviet Union."
>"This list sucks! I'd rather deal with Hen & Chicks than play Hero Tankovy!"

To be fair to the complainers, Hero Tankovy is a legitimately terrible list.

It's like taking away moldy bread and giving you maggott-ridden bread instead.

Nobody's interested because it's easier to laze around on welfare, you filthy communist fuck.

They employ the migrants because they don't ask for grossly overinflated pay and can easily be worked like slaves.

Player
>give us Veteran Soviets that dont have hen and chicks!

Battlefront
>sure we hear you, here ya go!
*hands player desperate measures*

playerS
>U 'avin a giggle m8?!?!

Battlefront's face >

LAS MALVINAS SON CHILENAS

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA

que?

Soccer, I presume. Argentina choked at the penalty shootout vs Chile.

It seems the bantz is leaking over from /sp/.

And inexpensive (moneywise) SU-76s because those lists look like they have potential.

Heroes do need a special rule besides the absence of negative special rules - but I can't think of a good thematic one. It still has to fit the "WWII: The Movie" feel of FoW.

Steal the Guards rule (re-roll platoon or company morale tests) from the british?

Just make them somewhat cheaper than other nations tanks even without Hen and chicks to account for the fact that they have no access to smoke.

Hungarian Tigers get a discount for not having Tiger Ace skills, I think its reasonable to lower the costs of "hero" tanks to account for that crucial weakness.

It's that, or give them some way to use their smoke pots in game to say give them concealment even in the open, or you know, pop smoke on themselves. I realize this is supposedly counted into the veterancy rules (i.e. vets use the smoke better) but they need an actual rule. Perhaps a tank can roll a skill test to give smoke to his platoon at the expense of being unable to shoot to allow them to close with the enemy or something?

Or, here's a crazy thought, give them fucking veteran. German units received just as gruesome losses and still get veterancy, I don't see why the Soviets get screwed here. And I primarily play Germans, all the excuses battlefront uses for forbidding Slavs from having vets count just as much for the germans in the late war. At the bare minimum, there is no excuse for Loza's battalion to be hero, those guys should count as vets if even a third of his stories were true.

>Just make them somewhat cheaper than other nations tanks even without Hen and chicks to account for the fact that they have no access to smoke.
>Hungarian Tigers get a discount for not having Tiger Ace skills, I think its reasonable to lower the costs of "hero" tanks to account for that crucial weakness.
That should be reflected in the cost of the smoking units, not in the cost of the units that don't have smoke. Otherwise you penalize someone from another faction that doesn't take smoke.

Agree that honestly they should get some fucking vet tanks, though I bet if they're priced appropriately we're STILL going to get slavaboos bitching.

They should have a couple of veteran lists. I agree with BF on keeping it very rare, though.

Smoke pots would, at best, be a special rule that affects deployment. Hmm, maybe deployment can by their "thing" for various reasons. Still be easily killed, but get into combat quicker.

>I agree with BF on keeping it very rare, though.
Except that everyone but the soviets gets it like candy.

Yea, they were. But it's a thing T-34s had that isn't in game yet, so far as I know.

Because of course, lowering migration will immediately reorganise wealth to make employment plausible, people love being on welfare, and people loving being on welfare isn't paradoxical with the idea of people having their jobs stolen from them.

This is something I love about modern right-wingers: They're convinced both nobody wants to work and that migrants are stealing all those people's jobs.

You've also failed to address the influence of supermarkets scalping farms into oblivion which has done far more to kill off farming than the EU ever did.

>Except that everyone but the soviets gets it like candy.
This, yeah. We have veterans who never saw combat, for god's sake. We have freshly raised troops who're veterans. And you're telling me Hero lists, the lists made up of the guys who survived the 1/5 chance of dying a soviet soldier on the eastern front had long enough to get to Berlin, aren't Vet across the board?

They are, in Eastern Front (mixed Tankovy can take them, as can most stuff that have medium tankovy companies as support). Gives armour 7/6/1 instead of 6/5/1, for +15 points per tank, all or nothing for the company. Available for both Guards and Red army, costs the same.

FFS, BF even have a model for it (SU061)

Wrong way round.

Because modern young people would rather spend their time living off welfare or getting Gender studies degrees, they won't take the jobs in the first place, migrants or no. As such, farmers need to employ migrants because there's no other choice. They're a necessary evil.

Therefore, the only way to recoup the expulsion of migrants is to remove welfare from the young people who are content living in indolence on everyone else's dime, a state of affairs facilitated by the EU's ivory tower pronouncements that are big on ideology and utterly lack any sort of practical value.

The EU's commandments favour corporate oligarchy over all, so obviously the supermarkets they benefit have pushed out other players in the market. Remove the EU's destructive subsidies, and it's the first step in redressing the imbalance.

I mean, the EU's already showing early signs of collapsing in on itself; but why wait?

Hell, thinking about it, "Sharper, luckier, smarter" basically describes the traits we assume of Vets anyway.

>Because modern young people would rather spend their time living off welfare or getting Gender studies degrees,
Oh, right. I see. You've just got no idea what you're on about and are blaming it on Kids These Days.

You realise The Darn Kids, even ones with degrees, can't get jobs because of experience requirements? You realise that most of these jobs are still filled by people who didn't want to leave because of the financial crash and the glut of people leaving with degrees who couldn't be employed elsewhere? How much do you think jobseeker's allowance gets you, exactly? How much free time do you think people on JSA get?

I would recommend reading mainlymacro for a broad overview of the economics affecting these things, but I can guarantee things are nowhere near what you assume.

I'd take away the Sharper and Smarter rules and replace them with something to the effect of, Heroes are hit as if they were Veteran, but do everything else as if they were Trained.

In case he's not going to tell you it's 58 pounds a week. Also yeah, hey, 2:1 maths graduate, no job. If there's a way to live in indolence on benefits I'd really love to hear it.

>maths graduate, no job.

You dug your own grave with that one.

>You realise The Darn Kids, even ones with degrees, can't get jobs because of experience requirements?
Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start. You think yo can cut ahead because you have a bit of paper?

The real criminals here though are the sad sacks who think flipping burgers is a career and don't move on to let new blood come in and gain experience.

>mainlymacro
>Mouthpiece for an oxford communist

No thanks.

>You dug your own grave with that one.
This is the first time someone's alleged maths is an easy degree people go on to find themselves. Is it full of SJWs, too?

>Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start.
Why? Because you had to back in the 80s, 70s or 60s, when the economy was nothing like it is now? That's literally just sour grapes.

Also do you actually think that's what people want when they say "experience"? They want you to have worked in their industry before. Half the graduate population or something's worked part time to fund uni, so if it was a lack of burger flipping experience that wouldn't be a problem. Most people end up having to take unpaid internships for the relevant experience clause, and if you can't afford to do that you're fucked.
>You think yo can cut ahead because you have a bit of paper?
I mean, my entire life everyone was telling me to get a degree, and get a good "proper" degree, so I would have a decent job. So yes? I don't want to "cut ahead", I want a decent job that actually pays. If the answer is "nobody should get a decent job that pays", then your worldview is fucked.

Anyway, you didn't tell me how I'm meant to live in luxury on 3k a year.

Not easy, just worthless. They have chinese and indian people to do maths for them cheaper than you'll ever be.

And you shouldn't have listened to them about the degree. That shit's basically meaningless compared to getting in the workforce, outside of that short bubble back in the '80s and '90s where anyone with a degree was hot shit and shaped the worldview for the current period.

>Kids, *especially* ones with degrees, should be gaining workplace experience doing absolute shit jobs like everyone else had to to start.

As one of the "kids"...this in large part. Too many think their lives after school would look like some stupid sitcom on the telly, all fun and no real work necessary. We were sold a lie and in ignorance we bought it: that's on us, "unfair" is irrelevant. But then, I study history, and even with the little I have I live in comparative luxury compared to what I would have had in 1716, 1816 or even 1916, etc.

We're soft and spoilt and have been for decades. But the The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return, as reality always does.

>In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
>By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
>But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could >buy,
>And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

That's your problem. You're not *meant* to live in luxury. You're meant to work and save and suffer and put some bloody hard yards in. That's exactly your problem, you think because you have a fancy piece of paper you're somehow entitled to a life of luxury.

Here's a hint: You're not.

Oh shit, yeah, you're right, it was so easy spending three years studying like thirty hours a week and working twenty!

Pull the other one.

You realise you've just admitted it's not actually possible to live in indolence like you claimed, right?

And frankly fuck any idea that the basic way of living should be suffering. If you think suffering is desireable I don't know what to tell you. You're just wrong. This should be a basic thing you understand as a functional human.

Nah, you need both. You need a degree and 2-3 years experience in whatever the field is, for basically any job. But again, I'm curious, what's the degree I should've taken?

Didn't you hear what he said? You're not supposed to be educated, you're supposed to be a groveling slave worker who barely knows how his machine works.

Reading Comprehension Fail: the post

Did you miss the part where he wants a job and is on 3k a year? How the fuck are you meant to have savings on 3k a year?

Savings are actually a burden when you go on benefits, my uncle had a stash from when he was in a factory and because he had means enough to live on he didn't get any JSA.

My team's shitty economic policy isn't working, quick find a scapegoat: the thread.

Our economic policy hasn't killed billions buddy.

Sorry. Current failures of capiitalism are due to failures in application of capitalist theory. Whilst our partially free market provides tremendous boons, it is not free enough to benefit everyone.

Also, not an argument.

Come back when you have one.

Can we kill this thread and start a new one that doesn't have politics bait in the title? I don't care about any of you, I want to talk about tanks.

The BS-3 does get crew upgrades in Red Bear Revised.

T-34/85 are up-armored compared to T-34/76's

Why are there so many butthurt socialists on here?

They weren't here before.

>He thinks the only alternative to tory austerity is communism

this desu, not everyone wants to hear about this, and some people are sick of it

>The BS-3 does get crew upgrades in Red Bear Revised.
What? No it don't.

The /85 gets an armour upgrade from what seems to be the "turret rule". Tanks where the turret is noticeably better or worse than the hull armour seem to go up or down one armour point. Tiger II is the other example I can think of. T-34/85's turret is something like 90mm.

they have some FV tanks in the FV cossack list. Granted, it's one unit of Hero T-34/85's and your default platoons cost loads for being FV cavalry with panzerfausts, but you do get them.

I hadn't realised we had so many libertarians and fascists, personally. It seems to be the consequence of breaking the unspoken no-politics rule.

Can we go for one thread without some chucklefuck trolling?
And you two morons feeding him.

>Likewise, the BS (towed gun version) needs RoF 2, possibly 3 or a "more loaders for RoF 3" deal. OTOH, towed guns having weirdly low RoF is a common issue across the board, so maybe fair for the game.
It's not a Soviet thing. 17 pounders compared to Challengers, anyone?

What page is the cossak list on? Horse- mounted tank hunters sounds awesome.

>Can we go for one thread without some chucklefuck trolling?
It wasn't (supposed to be) trolling, it was pointing out how fucking annoying the brexit "discusssion" is.

It's not desirable, it's the way of the world whether we like it or not - you have to do it to get ahead. Whether you like or enjoy it or not doesn't enter into it.

The indolence I rail against is that of either those children who've gone and discarded any attempt at education or advancement whatsoever in favour of rorting the system; chavs and the like, or those who feel that utterly ridiculous degrees like Gender studies or tantric yoga somehow make them worth anything to society.

You at the very least, have attempted to better yourself, even if your choice of path was misguided.

Something more directed would have been better for you; if you're mathematically minded, Engineering would have been of greater benefit. Paying apprenticeships, if that's valuable to you, are also much easier to obtain in that area.

Besides, don't bother trying to say 50 hours a week of work is somehow amazing. I work 60 if I want to keep my position, and that's when I have the occasional luxury of not working weekends. You're not going to win a "who works their butt off more" contest here.

Wanting benefits *is* the problem, but that's more of an ideological quibble. Besides, if you're only on 3k a year I'd hope you're actively trying to find a job. And by actively, I mean sending out applications not just to every single job advert, but to places that haven't, either. Get a phonebook, look up every company even vaguely related to your training (or even those that aren't if you want the extra effort - it often works), and send all of them emails asking for a job. It tends to work; more often than not some HR manager is going to appreciate the initiative.

No, not at all. Education is good; but you need to recognise it's not a free ticket to a cushy job. Once you get that education, you need to put in the hard yards applying the shit out of it, often in menial, underappreciated positions, until one day you too can get to a comfortable position.

>Implying it's not just the same two people.

DLC

>How comissars work is also nonsense.

Don't look at it so literally. FoW was never based around accuracy of specific mechanics, more about the effect it has on turns.

Soviets take slightly more casualties, but they keep on going where everyone else would fail. Often taking less casualties in the long run because of the momentary pain in the short term. Commissar's are an easy way of representing the Soviet morale/determination situation. Morale is not the reason why the Company attack was shut down. Particularly considering the company/platoon situation.

System working perfectly.

You knew exactly what you were setting off, asshole. When has it ever not resulted in massive slap fights?

Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be eplained by stupidity.

And i STILL prefer it to brexit.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Realistically, towed guns should have high rates of fire; I think the 6pdr's RoF 3 should be basically universal. Most towed guns, even fairly large caliber ones, had RoF of 10-12 RPM, since having sufficient crew allowed people to whack shells into the breech as fast as they could fit them in. There's no overworked guy lugging massive shells around in a cramped area. OTOH, RoF 3 on every gun might make them too good. RoF 3 88s are already amazing.

True enough, my apologies.

Fuck battlefront.

Ooookay. Explain how this leads to the bit where if the comissar fails to field-execute someone the troops rebel and kill them?

I don't think anyone's mentioned brexit for a while, it's just some old faggot shouting at poor people because his job sucks.

I think we've done pretty good honestly, we've identified a couple of problems with the soviet list vis a vis historical accuracy, and agreed the real issue is bad list diversity. I said it before but I want a list with the guys who were still using T-26s.

Probably for the same reasons artillery is so anaemic. The game is decently balanced as it presently stands, and the difference between ROF3 and ROF 2 isn't as dramatically different as the difference between ROF1 and ROF2, or ROF3 and ROF4. The wiggle room they have isn't much.

Has anyone had unlikely victories?
Webm related.
>Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy
>skirmis against A.I
>carefully pick a well-rounded, heer company with pair of PaK40 guns hidden in bushes, offmap heavy mortar support and couple of mixed minefields
>map is typical Normandy rural area
>position one PaK in a good ridge to lob shells down westermost road
>two squads in hedges
>one MG on the same ridge with the PaK
>mixed mines to plug any inconvenient gaps in the map that I can't afford troops to overwatch
>match begins
>expected the A.I to pick about 6 tanks and lots of mechanized infantry
>the A.I picked lots and lots of tanks
>the entire force is coming up the westmost road
>PaK managed to get out five shells and knock out two tanks before it and the ridge around it disintegrated
>all that's holding the onslaught is three squads of grenadiers with two panzerfausts each and one single panzershreck team
>tanks rolling up towards them
>every single panzerfaust hits and knocks out tanks
>one fucker knocked out a Stuart with a rifle grenade
>the rest were disabled or knocked around with grenades so much that the crew panic and abandon tank
>win with only losses being PaK, MG team and grenadier squad
webm related

Similar principle to failing a company morale check, I imagine. Soviet morale is strong, but it can break. And after the Commissar is dead, the unit is still not as strong. Once beaten, twice shy, on a company level. At least for that specific engagement. The story of the battle still fits easily enough, and you have a way of keeping the Soviets charging/fighting/enduring the enemy bravely, as they did.

Plus you'd want to have SOME sort of fragging rule with commissars. God knows it's rare enough, and it's a fun addition.

The Soviets needed some sort of significant morale boosting rule. You wouldn't have the Soviet character otherwise. Commissars was an elegant way of doing it.

>Similar principle to failing a company morale check, I imagine
This is a nice headcanon but the rulebook explicitly calls it a fragging rule. And an execution rule, come to that.

I'm thinking it could serve to change up the dynamic of towed guns being worse tanks for infantry, at least.

>On the same note, T-34/85 should have wide tracks.
Only Panzer 4's get them as well. The T-34/85 had a lot more weight on the same tracks. There's nuances and arbitrariness with a lot of the ground pressure stats, but the T-34/85 was certainly far heavier for it's tracks than the earlier T-34s.
>IS-2. The turret didn't change, though. Only the hull was adjusted slightly. They're slightly more protected, but 13 is hugely excessive, and 12 is pushing it.
>SU-100
A very low, very long gun. You're not going fast over cross country if you want to keep your gun un-impaled into a bump.
>T-34s
Were they really that much more protected though? Compared to /85s?
>SVT
Not nearly common enough to change the Rifle/MG designation.
>Katys
That's an unarmored team problem. Or specifically, the on board artillery problem.
>cramming things into the Pie
That's the Soviets advantage. They've always had the entire kitchen sink crammed into most lists. They cover basically everything, particularly these days.

I take my earlier comment back, soviets-can't-have-nice-things is back.

It's a tabletop game. The description and the effect on the story and the de facto practise and heavy abstraction at every level have always been part of the vision of the medium.

You got what you were after, don't get greedy.

> the T-34/85 was certainly far heavier for it's tracks than the earlier T-34s.
0.87 for the T-34. Panther's is 0.88, and it is wide tracked. Though, you are right, this would include the Pz IV. It should also exclude the churchill, though. Wide Tracks seem to just be a mess generally.
>>IS-2. The turret didn't change, though. Only the hull was adjusted slightly. They're slightly more protected, but 13 is hugely excessive, and 12 is pushing it.
The hull was not "slightly" adjusted, it's massively thicker, on par with the Churchill VII and sloped. It might go down to 12 from the turret rule but 11 is nonsense.
>>SU-100
>A very low, very long gun. You're not going fast over cross country if you want to keep your gun un-impaled into a bump.
This is basically just WW2 fanon. Other tanks had similar issues and don't get Overloaded.

>Were they really that much more protected though? Compared to /85s?
No; they were pretty much the same. Also it turns out they exist so nevermind on that one.
>>SVT
>Not nearly common enough to change the Rifle/MG designation.
"You can replace one squad with automatic rifles for X points" is too much to ask?
>>Katys
>That's an unarmored team problem. Or specifically, the on board artillery problem.
Yes, very much so.
>>cramming things into the Pie
>That's the Soviets advantage. They've always had the entire kitchen sink crammed into most lists. They cover basically everything, particularly these days.
It also stops them getting the cool unique lists every other faction gets.

I guess at least we can agree RoF 2 SU-100s are reasonable.

I have no idea why the Panther has it, except to differentiate it from the earlier Panzer marks. It shouldn't be the standard, in any case. I think it's more of a relative thing within a faction. Obviously the churchill needs to have wide tracks compared to the other british tanks, though. It had much better cross terrain mobility.
I guess it's a weakness of not having a 'narrow tracks' ability. Like the old Ronson rule for Panthers.
>slightly adjusted
Depends on what part of the glacis you're referring to. And the thicker plate had less of an angle as well. It needed an improved armour rating compared to the IS-2 because the hull was better, but the turret wasn't, and that's where most of your hits happen.
>other tanks had similar issues
Like? Most of the really long guns were on turrets, high up, not low to the ground, on casemates. And the SU-100 had a very long barrel.
>automatic rifles
They were issued to NCOs though, weren't they? Like, one guy per fire team? In some formations? And considering the prevalence of MGs, it's still an irrelevant addition. Americans only get it because they were so under equipped with LMGs on the squad level.
>cool unique lists
Depends on your perspective. Most of the Eastern Front books tended to add in lists that were basically the same as the Feasting Europa lists, but with a few additions. Soviets and Germans. Mostly the same old stuff, but with a few tweaks.

It's the Western Front that really throws things off, and that's kinda inevitable because a lot of the weirdness over there. Market Garden can't be done without snowflake lists, for instance.
>ROF2 SU-100s
There's a good case to be made for it having a shitty ROF. It has about a third of the ROF of a PaK40, for instance. And a low rate of fire by any estimation. The issue is more in comparison to other tanks, and that's a fairly thankless task, as the earlier discussion about towed guns shows.

>A very low, very long gun.
So how come the Porsche Tiger, Hetzer, Jagdpanther and SU-85, aren't similarly effected?
For that matter, I've got a source kicking around here that states that the Panther had serious trouble traversing it's turret on anything but level ground similar to the KV-2 due to the weakness of the motor. Where's the Panther's slow traverse?
General point is that you should decide if you're going to say "This is like this for Historical accuracy reasons" Then you need to be consistent.

Most Soviet players in my experience from here aren't mad that they don't have twenty million Snowflake lists, they're mad that there's only El Generico lists on offer. Even for the Formations like the Black Death Naval Infantry. It'd be like if there wasn't a separate Screaming Eagles or All American list, if it was just a copy paste of the infantry company.

What I'd like to see in terms of El Generico Late War Soviets, is more options, I think personally Battlefront need to have at least three lists for Soviet Tanks, CT, FT, and RV all with Hen and Chicks representing Fresh units coming from Russia, Guards units, and Units that have been in combat for a very long time. Heroes should run between being FT+ with additional Morale rules representing units that were reinforced from Prison Camps, or FV for the companies that have fought their way to Berlin.
Then jam in a few extra lists for the sake of Variety. Black Death Infantry lists as FV Companies supported by Naval Gunfire, Dmitriy Loza's Sherman Brigade as CV with something extra to represent how well they fought in Vienna, they lost no tanks, and knocked out two Panthers.
Actually something I would like to see for the Soviets is their Smoke represented. My General idea is that to represent Strategic use of Smoke, the Soviet player draws a line across the table before the first turn, and that line begins smoked. For each artillery battery you have you could smoke an additional target.

>Tiger
High up.
>Hetzer
Little gun
>Jagdpanther
Gun mounted higher up.
>SU-85
Shorter gun, slightly taller tank.
>slow traverse
Probably a question of degrees and the likelihood of it happening. The KV-2 didn't just have a slow rotation, it had major balance problems.

>they're mad that there's only El Generico lists on offer
That's because their El Generico list has the entire kitchen sink. They got the Supreme Pizza and are mad that the other guy has a cheese pizza. Except that other guy has the extra option of having salami or olives, and they don't have those options. Soviets are still ass deep in options.
>seperate screaming eagles
Considering most of the 'snowflake' lists are 99% copy paste jobs, that's more or less irrelevant.
>RV Soviets
>R Soviets
No chance.
>Heroes from Prison Camps
The existing options represent the permutations fine.
>Naval Gunfire
Almost never happened.
>Dmitriy
You have all sorts of lists for good tankers, you have Sherman LLs, and you have the guy himself.
>how well they fought
Quote unquote.
>Smoke
They have smoke pots, and strategic stuff is way too murky to get into on a game that's fundamentally company level. Preliminary bombardments aren't represented explicitly, I doubt strategic smoke stands a chance.

This Jagdpanther with the gun nearly 3/4s of the tank's length? You can ground that shit all the time in Warthunder if you go over the wrong slope.

Yeah, that gun similarly lengthy to the jousting lance that was the D-10, but mounted -far higher up-. The game isn't that granular. Although there's a case to be made for casemate guns having a meaningful difference compared to turreted tanks.

The Tiger P should just be overloaded anyway, seeing as it was a fat fuck even by Heavy Tank standards.

You're delusional if you think the SU-100 had some unique ditching issue other casemate designs didn't. This also isn't what overloaded means.

Why don't guns that the ditching issue was actually a regular complaint on have it? The T-34/85 did, as did panthers and tigers in italy.

>You're delusional if you think the SU-100 had some unique ditching issue other casemate designs didn't.
I don't. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and the SU-100 had it worse. Worse enough for a special rule.
>overloaded
Apparently it does. It's a rule, with an effect. They need the effect so that the game of WW2 tells the right story, so they use it.

>Regular complaint
Because those tanks are really common, and we're much more likely to hear about it. That, and people don't care about some support fire Russian gun box. Tanks are sexy. Particularly media queens like the big cats.

>Has anyone had unlikely victories?
Oh yeah. This was a team game, me with my cromwells and my ally with his SS Panzer IV horde, against a bunch of Panthers and Panzer IV/70s. My teammate decided to run straight at the enemy's gunline, and was down to a single Tiger and his platoon command at the start of game turn 3, after bailing a total of 3 Panthers. He then promptly fled, leaving me to fight 6 IV/70s (I had managed to kill one with a Challenger early on) and 10 Panthers.

My turn 3 went very well, and I managed to take out 4 of the IV/70s (three from shooting, one from a failed platoon morale) and two Panthers from artillery double-bail. All my opponent had to do was pull back, reorganize, and shoot me to death...

But for reasons that remain unknown, he charged in instead. That cost him the last of his IV/70s and 3 more Panthers, before he realized he needed to fall back instead of charge. We called it on turn 6 when he was down to 4 working Panthers and one that would not bail back in, and I had only lost one Cromwell.

Fear Naught, m8.

Seriously though, well played for keeping your head after your ally routed, a lot of players would've thrown in the towel or panicked and made a silly mistake after that.