Flames of War General /fowg/ - Quality of Quantity Edition

Flames of War SCANS database:
mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108

Current Veeky Forums fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/

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

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

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

400gb.com/u/1883935

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

flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/CariusNarva.pdf

flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1949 the Azul Division: no longer linkable off the main page

Which army do you play the most?
strawpoll.me/4631475

what actual country are you from?
strawpoll.me/4896764

Do you play TANKS? what is the local scene / meta like? (multi)
strawpoll.me/12127794/r


docs.google.com/document/d/1JWmbvVANUraO9ILWJZduRgiI9w4ZC3ytNUQE8rK7Xrw/edit?usp=sharing an "i want to get a starter set" for late war.

Soviet Brainstorming Batalon Discord
discord.gg/BfbxDSp

Other urls found in this thread:

mediafire.com/file/2tojibqpyorxjr7/ElAlamein20160907.pdf
strawpoll.me/12306533
theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

from the last two threads...

...

El Alamein WIP book:

mediafire.com/file/2tojibqpyorxjr7/ElAlamein20160907.pdf

Fair enough but you don't get that many tanks more:
With 100 pts a W german player can field 20 Leos and 12 Gepards for a total of 32 tanks plus supports
With 100 pts a E german player can field 52 T-55s plus supports

It's 20 tanks more but the german player can output almost the same amount of shots (only 12 less) with more AT (and a fuckload more shots if it shoots against low armor targets thanks to the gepards) while being hit a lot less and getting the option to fire smoke

Am I the only one that thinks having that amount of vehicles on the table is ridiculous in the Flames of War scale?

Are you talking about TY? Yeah, the levels of spam are high with this one, but it's inherent with the point system. The top tier tanks like the Leopard 2 and Abrams are so good that they devalue everything else.

In my experience the game plays well with 80 points. Sometimes you still end up with Napoleonic firing lines of BMPs and T-72 blobs, but there is still a lot of room to maneuver on a standard board. Though with the T-55 the spam is next level.

I've been thinking of playing some smaller point level games that are more infantry focused to see how the rules handle it.

Yeah; herein is the real issue. 10 Leo 1s are 30 points, vs 19 T-55s. The leos are three-tank platoons, so can all pretty easily be GTG, whereas 10 tank sprawls almost never are. The Leos are going to be able to sit behind treelines and move up to fire on their turn, so they'll get the first shot. 20 shots on one company, most likely, so 13 hits, and we'll assume long range to be nice, so 9 tanks knocked out and the platoon's on 4+ morale, and if they're still around one, maybe two remount, so that's 9-12 tanks left. It's the usual story; NATO can just put out a ridiculous alpha.

muh soviet hordes

t.Phill

cheers

Has anyone noticed Volksarmee has way more poirot speak than Leopards did, despite both being german?

>mfw kameraden

5/5 research there BF

will we have to field 2x aircraft for v4 late war? painting aircraft is bitch and id rathet stop playinf than paint goddamn invasion stripes again.

Africa didn't have invasion stripes.

Reread his question.

I think so, but I am not sure. I may just try to find a prepainted 1/144 model for my second plane. I agree that painting planes is a pain in the ass.

You can just not paint invasion stripes at all, they started removing them short after D-Day since the planes that had them were too easily spotted, by the end of 1944 they were completely removed.

Not sure if it's confirmed anywhere, but I've seen a rumor that flamethrowers are no longer single shot but are Brutal instead of "you die".

On one hand, vehicle flamers really should get more than one burst, and flamers generally weren't hyper-lethal historically (very good at getting the enemy to give up and surrender, though).

On the other, if you take the mass of dead teams to represent them giving up as well as dying, current flamethrower rules are a pretty good representation. That infantry flamers would have ahistorically large amounts of fuel (if they also can fire every turn) or be utterly ineffective (if they can only fire once) also is annoying.

Volksarmee is written by Americans who don't understand even the hardest left of Communists still think, and speak, like human beings - and not robots.

Uh, isn't the BF crew from NZ?

New zealand, Australlia's Canada

My mistake, but it does come off like American propaganda from the cold war - which it is kind of based off.

>clueless biased Americans
>Americans
>Battlefront

Battlefront is a New Zealand company run by New Zealanders.

Almost the same thing. New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.

>American
Try more like Western propaganda.

>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for sheep.
FIFY

Yes, that is exactly what I said!

Isn't it run by Jabba the Hutt? That X-mass video still gives me nightmares.

WWPD stated what you said - they no longer leave the battlefield after firing, they fire their RoF (like normal shooting), have Brutal rule and hit with AT 2/FP 1+ (so essentially, any stand which fails the save is auto killed)

My first thought, when I heard it, was "Flame tanks are gonna get sooo good". Imagine KV-8 roaming around in groups, fucking infantry and gun teams left and right. Or Crocodille with FA 13...

Then I remembered It's V4 -.-

I've finally updated the Scans Database!

Now available:
- A new version of Panzertruppen
- A new version of Leopard
- A full version of Iron Maiden
- VolksArmee
- El Alamein 4th Ed Leak
- Afrika Korps 4th Ed Leak
- Desert Rats 4th Ed Leak

Pleas note, the 4th Ed Leaks are dated late December, and probably not final.

The design team seems to be from around the English speaking world, mix of people from all over, Americans living in NZ etc.

They do have a real problem with underwriting forces they aren't familiar with. There's a heap of books and digital sources that cover NATO units from the period, and you can just call or Facebook or ask any number of people with personal experience. For the Soviets, they probably just pick three accounts and an inaccurate book on organisation and say 'that'll do'. Unfortunately we're still just at the start of the window where accurate Soviet/Russian sources are being translated, most of the stuff that's available now has an element of bullshit to it (Suvorov). There's lots of good stuff too, but not enough of a critical mass to make some of the definite decisions they've stuck with.

The issue with speaking in banalities like 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' is that it conceals things that don't work on tabletop. Like even with good Soviet equipment, T72's, BMP-2's, 2S1's and Hinds, a 6x4 table is already packed. My game time is already spent almost entirely on team placement so I can actually get to return fire past friendly teams and burning wrecks. Qualitatively it's not any fun!

So, soviet ROF4 flamers. inb4 they're nerfed.

Yeah pretty much everything on the NVA is in German. Unlike WW2 research/documentation there's little demand for translation.

Thank you

It's about time, ya lazy bastard.

This so much. At times though, it feels like they don't even bother finding those dodgy sources, and just slap down shit off the first google search result.

And yeah, for designing a game, they've got to realize when the "good" stuff is already a bit too spammy, that making shitty zergling-tier stuff is just going to bog the game down even further. (Though yes, I am fully aware sales are made on models, not gameisms.)

You're welcome.

I've been busy. And sick.

Only the WarPac stuff feels overly spammy to me. The NATO stuff feels about right.

I think half the problem is that when you have high end stuff like the Leopard 2 in the same game system as the T-55, you're gonna have some problems with points values and spam.

Even with the Leopard 1 at 3 points per tank, I was slightly expecting the T-55 to maybe be a 2 point tank, but it's not even that. It's like 1 1/2 points per tank.

Which makes me think it isn't really meant to be the main tank for East German forces, but more of a support unit, much like the Leopard 1s are for the West Germans.

Although even there, the Leopard 1s are a bit more capable.

Even T-72s are spammy as shit. 15 minimum is a standard for them.

Skill 4+.
And yeah, they'll probably be brought back down to ROF 2.

15 T-72s against 7 Leopard 2s or 9 Abrams doesn't seem too spammy to me. The ratio doesn't seem that unreasonable.

But the potential of 30 T-55s against 8(ish) NATO MBTs? It seems a bit extreme.

The thing is 15 T-72s is a ridiculously wide frontage because the tanks are so damn big.

They've got the same footprint as King Tigers. So yeah. It's pretty tricky.

I don't think it's all that extreme.
i mean you can't really kill them until you reach side armour, and it doesn't like firing on the move or crossing terrain, not getting shot, not blowing up, etc.
or maybe i want to feel like less of a dick for the PSC order i made

Increasing table size to 8x5 feet suits well TY due to enormous size of modern tanks and increased range of AAAservices.

Yeah, the game plays pretty well on a 5x8 with 100 points. Not everyone is going to have access to a table that big.

>T-55 ... support unit

With the way it is, that is what it has to be. Their main advantage is that they are priced like BMPs while being immune to autocannon fire and light rockets from the front. Their are still clever ways to use them, but I am only thinking about using 10 in a list as a spoiling force or something to raid behind enemy lines.

please comment with your honest feelings:

strawpoll.me/12306533

thank you.

While that's true, BF are such flagrant Yankaboos they probably wish they were American.

Has anyone tred to combine lower hull and tracks of zvezda stugB and upper hull of BF stug G?

...why though?

How good/bad are the Soviets AT Rifles?

Because plastic BF stug sprue has an extra hull, mg and 3 guns.

>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.
Australia is America's whore, New Zealand can't stand their arrogance. The former is still in Anzus, the latter got kicked out.

>New Zealanders are just Australians with a bigger hard-on for American culture.

Aussies love America much more than Kiwis. Well they did before Trump bullied their Prime Minister, anyway.

We had a big thing where we told the Americans to fuck off with their big nuclear boats. And they did. We do not like America's shit here.

Why? Kiwis are so full of their own bullshit you'd hardly notice.

Cheers.

zvezda stug is a bit oversized for the scale, so might look weird.

They're basically like everyone else's but with more shots.

They're volley-fire guns so they have some use digging out infantry too, but you'd usually want 45mm guns for that.

Generally if you can spare the points the 45mm is a better buy, but if you're planning on assaulting guns or have a terrain-heavy board the ATRs might be better.

>if you're planning on assaulting guns
Do note that USSR ATRs are Gun Teams, while most others (at least German and British, and some Finnish) are Infantry Teams.

THus, the soviets can't assault (they can still strike in close combat if assaulted themselves, of course), but they do get volley fire.
They're also useful as ablative meat for your more valuable guns (45mm, HMGs, what have you) at times.

Damn, you're right.

I can't see much of a use for them if you could buy 45mms instead, then.

You don't buy them instead of 45mm, you buy them in ADDITION to 45mm. (Or because you don't have the points for 45mm)

In V3 it's worth buying them as attachments with your CiC if you can. They can bulk out your strelkovy company numbers for Quality of Quantity. They can also shoot in volley fire over the tops of your other infantry if that infantry is gone to ground. So yeah they are pretty much meatshields, but RoF 2 volley fire isn't bad against lighter stuff.

Australia takes their self-defence seriously, NZ gave up.

Maybe we'll get an OP People's Liberation Army once China takes over New Zealand and censors Battlefront.

there is nothing i don't hate in that post.
>inb4 china is an army of one, but to show the people's collective will china fields armies as large as russia

I like how an outsider would find that poll incomprehensible, but to us it makes sense.

yep!

Because they don't like having a ship pull into port and then suddenly the number of military forces on the island doubles.

Also because they're stupid paranoid about nuclear stuff. Emphasis on the stupid.

New Zealand's a tiny country with a relatively meagre GDP, it's never going to have more than token military forces compared to other developed nations.

PSC just announced 15mm plastic British Stuart I Honey light tank up for preorder...

theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/

>It's actually more expensive than Battlefront's box of five M3 Stuarts about to be released.

PSC has probably fucked up here.

Well, if the PSC one can do the early M3s and the M3A3 in one kit, it'll still be beating the BF kit on versatility.

If not, or if BF really ups the versitility, that and their Carriers are going to be in a straight cost race against BF's stuff and losing.

Just saying, it's easy for them to talk shit about not needing help from the US while geographically positioned behind someone else who has no choice but to.

I'm seeing £19.50 vs £30 for five.

Side note, when the fuck did BF's tanks become £30?

Probably sometime after the British Pound tanked hard.

they've been £30 for years

Wait, wut?

The RRP I saw for my FLGS was lower than that for the Stuarts.

Not true. New Zealand actually did quite a lot during both world wars. Their current military really has no need to be much more than a token force. But historically when the need arises, they have raised up some very skilled formations.

One such case was WW1 where in Arras, France. Where during the siege a regiment of New Zealand miners were raised up to be sappers, and dig an elaborate system of tunnels under the city. The idea was to dig under the trenchline defenses of the Germans, and come up behind them. It worked spectacularly, and the tunnels and chambers are still there today.

I saw a presentation about this at a conference in Las Vegas for surveying and lydar mapping technology. There's a group from New Zealand going through and 3D mapping all the tunnels.

Then who the fuck knows. In the US a box of 5 plastic medium tanks is *about $45. 5 Resin was closer to $55.

I was going to say that wasn't it because everything else is still £20-26, but looking the $ price is still the same so I guess it is. Real glad we're making our country strong again.

There's a limit to how much you can mobilise out of a small economy and population. Yeah, NZ could have a bigger army, but it's still going to be a dozen divisions at most.

And that is their limitation, in it's entirety. They're a small country. But for what it's worth, the plucky bastards have formed some influential divisions throughout history.

>Maek Brituhn Greaterest Aghen!

Yeah, but my point is when faced with "NZ has a rubbish self defence force", that it could hardly be otherwise. If China tries to invade NZ they couldn't stop it even if they implemented universal conscription or something.

With their geography the issue isn't maintaining a large force of infantry and armour which is quite costly personnel-wise. A sea-air strategy which doesn't require a lot of manpower would be eminently suited but they've let their capability wind down even as the distant powers of the region grow.

They don't have the sheer resources or massive steel industry, to support a sea-based military. Like Japan, they would have to import or gather it from elsewhere.

To be fair, "If China invaded..." is a really shitty analogy. China invading almost any country would be expected to smash the fuck out of the poor bastards on the receiving end. The only countries that could in theory be expected to last against a Chinese invasion currently, are the US and Russia. And even for the US it's completely up in the air due to the massive gulfs between techcnological advancement vs raw manpower and numbers.

China invading the US runs into this issue called "the pacific ocean". Kinda have to cross that to apply any manpower advantage, and tech advantages can very well take the lead overmanpower when you have weeks to stop an incoming fleet.

No one in Australia gives any fucks that Trump gave shit to Turnbull.

Or just buy from the US/Australia. I don't see a modern regional conflict dragging on like a WW2 saga where domestic mass production is required. I think it'd play out more like a Falkland's scenario.

>Some "undefined asian power" tries to make a grab.
>A game of cat and mouse occurs where planes try to sink ships and the ships try to land troops.
>Hopefully the attacker takes too many casualties and calls it off.

It's not just about being able to win a war. It's about maintaining enough of a force to serve as a deterrent to Chinese expansion into your nation's waters. If you don't want maintain a fleet or harbor foreign aid you are just hoping something bad doesn't happen.

Naval invasions are hard; you don't need a superpower's military budget to sink an incoming fleet. I'm not saying it would make sense for NZ to prepare for that. There's no real threat. But if there were one, they could probably defend themselves by switching into an Israel-like siege mentality.

Taiwan thinks about it all the time, but circumstances are different. Bigger economy, 5x the population of NZ. 1/60th China's population. It's within range of Chinese land-based missiles, so a naval defense is unlikely to work without help. It's half densely-populated areas, half forested mountains, so guerilla warfare is more likely to work. It'd get ugly. Though the real problem there is a lot of older people, especially generals, still identify as Chinese (ROC instead of PRC, but they'd rather surrender than risk Taiwan becoming independent from either China).

Was going to have recording done but due to fucking Apple products, half my files got deleted between saves. Too pissed off to start up again until next week. Sorry for the delay.

>Israel-like
Israel still has a bigger GDP. This is what I mean; NZ is ridiculously tiny. It'd be like... I don't know, expecting Albania or something to have a military that's of any real consideration.

Or that you're too pathetically small to be worth overtaking. There are many countries in the world who exist becausr nobody cares about where they are located.

What if Chinese directors want in on some of that sweet Lord of the Rings money.

Yeah, I think China is focusing on the cultural and/or economic victory, and just dumping their money into "defense" so nobody stops them. They have a wonder already, and are currently in the lead.

We're bigger than Britain. Much less people though.

Invading NZ would pretty much be a nightmare. There's so much terrain for Guerrillas to hide, even major roads are in some cases just Two lands winding their way up and around a mountain. Trying to get to Napier wasn't fun in the slightest. So you're either trying to put troops over the beach again, or some Chump with a LAW makes your advance bog down for six weeks. While not to the same extreme as Australia the Farming Culture in this country would provide a large core of people used to surviving in hard circumstances, and a lot of Guns. Sure you can probably hold Auckland and Wellington, but almost anywhere else and it's going to be Guerrilla central. Think a Temperate Vietnam.

Plus there's the whole Commonwealth thing. To invade NZ means you have to deal with OZ, and the Australians have their own Aircraft Carrier, M1A1s and are on the list of people buying the F-35. Not to mention Britain and Canada.

Destroying your country with a guerilla war should be the last resort in a worst case scenario, not Plan A.

As someone said before, only Russia, all of Europe United, and the USA have the power, manpower, equipment and industrial base to resist a Chinese invasion.

Japan would stand a chance. The Chinese Navy isn't quite there yet.

>Japan would stand a chance
Before or after their 1945 surrender treaty gutted their military? Because it sure as fuck ain't after, seeing as their military is only now starting to reform.

>Civilization victory conditions

You sir, are awesome.