I've had my nose to the grindstone editing the next episode of Panzerfunk, in which we review the new Bulge Compilation. With a little bit more work that might be ready tonight or tomorrow.
I've also been working on finishing up my Team Yankee Soviets. I have maybe 80 points worth sprayed green and in various states of painting.
Xavier Sullivan
I know this is a very scrub level question but what is the value of recon?
If you don't have artillery is it useless?
Lincoln Adams
Any good WW2 game should have recon as a vital element. Are you saying there is no recon in FoW?
So... light recon vehicles are useless?
Juan Garcia
>pushes back ambushes >makes hidden troops easier to hit >can retreat fast enough to avoid shooting >hard to hit
Brandon Moore
no no, I know it has value I just don't understand it. I've only played a few games with the Open Fire! box which doesn't have any of that
I guess I'll have to play to understand that in play. I'm thinking of getting some dingos as a recce force but I really have no idea how to use them.
Hunter Wright
First model in my canadian force. Shermans are so cute!
Josiah Morris
Sorry, forgot pic. (Sorry)
Aaron Torres
waiting for a Bf order before i can get back into painting. starting a Finnish light infantry from grey wolf. the wait is killing me
Connor Foster
I think recce is hard to use. Try it out. Even better, have an opponent use it well against you.
Easton Wood
> BF Plastics
The one thing they are actually getting better and better at.
Dylan Torres
The original Open Fire Shermans were bad. But everything else, including the StuGs in Open Fire have been quite good.
Although the stowage baskets on the M1 Abrams models for Team Yankee were a bit fiddly to assemble correctly.
Michael Fisher
Lifting GTG makes all your weapons better. Against veteran infantry it's the only way to do anything.
Pushing back ambushes is useful in some missions.
They're mobile and hard to kill despite this, making them a great tool to keep a threat on an objective. Hard to remove, low-value, and entirely capable of winning the game.
Also they will still mostly rape infantry that're moving. There's very few recce that don't have at least one and sometimes up to five MGs, and buckets of MG dice take nice meaty chunks out of infantry that aren't in foxholes.
Liam Young
PANZERTRUPPEN! I WANT MY PANZERTRUPPEN PDF!
Austin Phillips
We always shout incoherently for Fegelein when we play fow. It's very satisfying.
Ryder Miller
From the FOW Forum: "Heard on the grapevine:
V4 is coming early/mid next year
Initially based on the new mid war North Africa super update
Lots of Team Yankee stuff incorporated into V4
Flames will not be dumbed down (supposedly) If flames does become dumbed down whether intended or not because of changes not thought through, then BF have officially jumped the shark.
I like Team Yankee for what it is and does but I love FOW for it's elegant but straightforward complexity and the tactical thinking required to play without getting bogged down in minutiae.
I do not want to see the game go belly up because BF have not consulted widely enough and more importantly, not listened to any concerns with changes the community may/would have. Thereby, possibly fragmenting the people who play the game into those who remain V3 and those who migrate to V4 all because of possible specious rule changes.
IMO BF, if you want the community to come along with you into V4 of Flames, then be open about some of the possible changes that you want incorporated in the current V3 rules to become V4 and then may the game continue to grow and prosper for your and our sakes.
I have spent into the tens of thousands of dollars over the last 8 or 9 years since V1 on your models, terrain, buildings, books (up to 3 or 4 times on some of those continually updated ones) and digital products. And our club has strongly promoted the game without any assistance from your company, through tournaments, displays and community involvement.
I'd like to continue enjoying playing Flames into the future, so please BF I reiterate, bring the community along with you in your charge to v4." Thoughts fow/tg/?
Colton Jackson
They'll probably not cock it up too much.
Justin Carter
>Thoughts fow/tg/? One, I don't quite believe it. Yes, V4 is most likely being worked on. I do not think it's coming "early/mid next year". Two: it's full of "the sky is falling, our game is doomed", as all suggestions of change are among gamers.
Luke Taylor
>Thoughts
>"In to the tens of thousands" That HAS to be hyperbole. Has to. Otherwise this guy has literally put Phil Yate's kids through college.
But seriously though, I don't think we're quite due for Version 4 yet, but I do think the Mid-War overhaul would be the perfect time to do it.
As for incorporating elements of the Team Yankee rules, I'm all for that.
I actually prefer Team Yankee. The rules are significantly streamlined while still remaining tactically interesting and providing a fun and challenging game to play.
FoW can be overly complex sometimes in my opinion, and some simplification, or at least clarification is always a good thing if you ask me.
As for transparency in the design process, we have no right to demand that. They're not going to satisfy everyone and we'll drive them insane if we force them to try and make everybody happy.
Trust Battlefront's rules designers, and trust their play-testers. They tend to get it right a significant portion of the time.
Luke Ortiz
Calm your tits, broheim. V2 to V3 was fantastic.
Colton Lewis
>They tend to get it right a significant portion of the time. Gonna need a cite on that.
That said, I do generally prefer a lot of TY's mechanics; it clears up a lot of FoW's jankiness. Simplifying terrain and assault positioning, in particular. That said, I'm less sure about porting a lot of other changes.
Ryder Jackson
>That HAS to be hyperbole. Has to. Otherwise this guy has literally put Phil Yate's kids through college. I dunno; 10 years of the game, spending $100 a month, you'd break 10k easily, and phrasing "over 10k" as "tens of thousands" is more emotive.
Josiah Cook
>Gonna need a cite on that.
Look at it this way, they release a major rule book and dozens of books with God knows how many army lists as part of Version 3.
And from that we really only had maybe 3 or 4 major complaints about balance issues.
Tank Destroyers, Naval Gunfire, Patton, and British Armored Regiment. Maybe toss in "What can and cannot be gun-tanked?" if you want to.
That's less than half a dozen things out of probably 100+ things that they did in V3 that needed serious fixes.
And with the exception of the still horribly unclear gun-tank requirements, those issues were fixed.
So I'm willing to say that they get a lot more right than they get wrong. And they're not afraid to fix things that they did get wrong the first time around.
Juan Smith
It was not my text, I was just passing it along for the sake of information.
I think some TY elements would be great for V4..."some", not all.
Aaron Harris
Only three or four..? I can think of spotty balance in most armies somewhere. Sure, most of the "core" lists for most factions are okay (though US are still too good in general, the soviets didn't get a good infantry list until berlin's digital, and aside from the US nothing has panzerfaust-platoon good levels of tank-denial), but as soon as you move over to cavalry, heavy tanks, etc etc you hit problems.
Logan Johnson
Heavy tanks are realistically handicapped if you ask me.
They're not meant to be Death Stars. They can be out maneuvered, out numbered, and killed by far more numerous medium tanks with high-AT guns.
A King Tiger will still dominate the battlefield if you are unable to flank it, but all their armor and high AT can't make up for their slow speed and inability to put as many rounds down range as a similarly priced platoon of Shermans with 76mm guns.
