My mistake. I agree with you that the T-64 needs more going for it, it at least needs to have ERA. After all the thing was a technological terror that helped to prompt the development of more heavily protected western tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, Leo 2, and LeClerc.
Xavier Smith
To continue the question I had from the previous thread, what suggestions do you have for someone and their friend to get into Team Yankee?
I got the main rulebook and Leopard, but don't have any miniatures besides a blister of heavy weapons for the NVA
Logan Wilson
just get one of starter boxes each and the an AA team is a good start
Ryder Hill
...
Isaac Perez
whoops meant for
Robert Murphy
Real talk: If being "aggressive" meant you rolled two dice in assault it suddenly would look like the 3+/4+ split was actually reflecting a doctrinal preference rather than just being strictly better, and it'd help the huge assault nerf that came when the number of stands that could get in a fight dropped massively. Afghansty might actually be the best assault troops in the game, instead of that being regular Brit line infantry.
Cameron Murphy
>Acknowledges that Soviets have different tactical and strategic approach to combat >Does not represent it positively in any form ingame
As expected of the man who won't give the Red Army smoke cover.
Parker Mitchell
Funnily enough, every time I read someone say 'cheers' in /hwg/ and elsewhere on Veeky Forums I think of Phil now. Thanks.
Michael Turner
>WARPAC gets 5+ in assault. So with the new assault rules get mowed down by machine guns before they can get enough men into assault.
>WARPAC always hit on 3+. Which is fine, except it effectively doubles the chance for them to get hit when concealed and gone to ground.
>WARPAC tanks have RoF 1 or slow firing. Ask Phil why autoloaders will always be RoF 1 and he will say it's due to their slower RoF in "bursts". The T-55 doesn't have an autoloader, but gets slow firing. The same stat that a M-109 or Carnation with 2 part ammo gets.
People wonder why there are so many BMP hordes out there. Soviet T-72s are too expensive for what they do on the table. Still need to try out T-72Ms, but the only advantage WARPAC seems to have is spam. The lack of kit support for Volksarmee certainly gives the impression that Battlefront doesn't give a shit about the NPC mook faction.
Meanwhile Mary Sue Brits are murderous in assault, are bristling with Milans, Carl Gustavs, and MGs. They have the "break glass in case of tanks" airborne Milan section. They get decent MBT for providing supporting fire, as well as Swingfires and cute little recon tanks. Their only weakness is lack of AA options, even then they have the best missile AA in game.
How can one nation be good at so much? Well at least we in the Volkspamee can spam more shit tanks and have 4+ for skill checks.
Gabriel Hall
I was digging at the fact that soviet tanks from the T-54 onwards could generate their own smoke screens, and doing so was a major part of offensive operations.
You aren't wrong however.
Also >Soviet everything from the T-64 onwards are amphibious >Not even mentioned in passing
Gavin Lopez
>I was digging at the fact that soviet tanks from the T-54 onwards could generate their own smoke screens, and doing so was a major part of offensive operations. T-34s had smoke dischargers too, rear-mounted ones; they're the weirdly shaped "fuel tanks" you see on some T-34s from 1944 onwards.
>>Soviet everything from the T-64 onwards are amphibious >>Not even mentioned in passing Not entirely BF's fault; T-(n) tanks that're amphibious have to be prepared for it, including the hilarious funnel. It was (and presumably is) also considered dangerous to do, and so likely would've only been done in cases where there were no other options.
Nathaniel Watson
Yeah, I've found people I play with don't want to make the water we put on our boards anything more than difficult going. If you were doing a campaign with proper rivers on the map, I think you could work that in.
Ryan Richardson
It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well, to the point of >Erect bow plate >Drive in water >You are now Soviet Navy
And the smoke isn't a discharger, it's an actually switch inside the tank that injects diesel fuel into the exhaust chamber, creating a great big cloud of oily smoke behind the tank.
In game turns it could have been as simple as >Skill check with these tanks in the front >On a success everyone else get concealed and GtG
Brayden Foster
>It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well, Well, they do have the Amphibious rule in TY.
I would actually quite like to play some TY games with more deep river stuff to make them (and M113 stuff for NATO) more interesting.
Adrian Richardson
>T55AM2 the final upgrade of the venerable T54, served reliably all over the world for 3rd world dictators, crewed by dumb arabs and africans in locations with crumbling infrastructure. >Cross check 4+
>Chieftan, an overweight tank renown amongst its crews for poor engine performance and constant breakdowns. >Cross check 2+
Cheers Phil
Samuel Young
>It's more than that in both cases. The BTR, BRDM, BMP, and BMP are also amphibious as well
Yeah, but those are amphibious at all times. The T-72 is probably not amphibious because it needs prep to go underwater.
>And the smoke isn't a discharger, it's an actually switch inside the tank that injects diesel fuel into the exhaust chamber, creating a great big cloud of oily smoke behind the tank. Yeah, but the T-34 could also "generate it's own smokescreen", it just had an externally mounted discharger.
NATOboos love night-fighting where the soviets are straight-fucked but never want to play on boards with rivers because "only one of us can use that bit of the board".
David Evans
The point I was trying to make was built in function vs add-on equipment, but I guess in the end the point is moot because they both do the same thing.
>NATO afraid of a little water, but not the dark
God forbid they have to force a crossing or take a bridge for once.
Julian Hill
>God forbid they have to force a crossing or take a bridge for once. It really is some bullshit. Honestly NATO players are probably the reason TY's struggling now, there's so goddamn many of them and they always want to play stuff that favours NATO (100 points, "but no spam", dawn, no rivers or rivers are just slow-going streams). I've been trying to get more people to come Warpac-side but nobody wants to because the NATO guys don't want to lose their toys and new players are intimidated by the size of the armies you need. I am pretty worried for TY's future.
Mason Perez
I've always wanted to play a game of any system with rivers and bridges in any game but nobody wants to have them because it's not easy to play.
It kinda suffers from the you saw in warhammer fantasy where they hated playing on tables with any terrain on because the terrain got in the way of their charges.
Gavin Scott
It's the exact same problem that plagued FoaN and ToD - one side is a faceless horde with only numbers to count on, and the other side is pretty much just the best troops with the best toys. So everyone flocks to one side, and few if any go to the other, because who wants to be the targets in shooting gallery every game? And the most disappointing thing, is that this didn't need to be the third time they've done this, because everyone is a modern standing army in this fight, and both sides have plenty of toys to spare.
But no, we got FoaN: Fulda Gap Edition
The worst part is I keep hoping that BF and Phil will see that the game's long term viability is a stake, and make an attempt to remedy it, but I know that would take a major effort on their part that they just aren't willing to make.
Julian Cruz
I was thinking of starting to play Flames of War since so many people at my university already plays.
How big are the average games? How expensive is the game? How long do they take?
I would probably play soviets.
Jaxon Barnes
Welcome aboard.
The average size for a game of FoW (1500 points in most eras) has you field about a company of troops plus some supporting elements. However, the exact force size can vary a lot because of troop quality: well-motivated and highly skilled troops are worth more points, even if they use the same models as their less-elite comrades. This also means the price of a force can vary a lot depending on the models used; stuff that has plastic kits available (including most common tanks and a fair amount of support stuff) will generally be a lot cheaper than an army requiring a lot of resin/metal. I'd say a mid-sized game takes 2-3 hours, though some of that will depend on the kinds of forces on both sides. Two poor-quality infantry-focused forces can often take a while to get to a decisive result, while two elite armoured armies can have things end really quickly, especially if mistakes are made.
Speaking for Soviets in particular, most of your stuff will be of decent quality and have basic training standards. You can field big units, which are robust moralewise but can be a bit of a hassle to maneuver effectively. Soviet armour is often a bit less efficient than their stats would indicate (especially fighting on the move) but also cheap for their stats. Some of the heavy armour does suffer from a poor rate of fire. Later in the war, the Soviets also get access to more elite forces, although they still have the least access to veteran-rated troops of all the major powers. Still, that doesn't have to be an obstacle to success.
As for the expected cost getting started: it'll depend quite a bit on what kind of force you'd be interested in playing. Would you prefer to focus on infantry or armour? Are there any vehicles/weapons you particularly like the looks or history of?
Liam Carter
My idea of an army would be lots of T-34s, a few light vehicles, a few big units of infantry and its all supported by a big battery of katyushas.
I have no idea what that would be in points though.
Jaxon Lopez
Stelkovy with a t-34 company and some BA-64 & katyusha battery.
Pretty decent in MW/LW and even easily converted to EW.
Luis Jones
How long will it take for early-war to get the mid-war treatment?
Alexander Roberts
Sounds like a solid above-average sized force there.
Depending on if you'd want to focus on infantry as suggests or on tanks, you'll be playing either a Strelkovy formation with Tankovy support or the other way around. BA-64 for decent recce and some basic Katyushas for arty should indeed make for a pretty decent list.
Still, if you plan to focus on infantry I'd also try to bring some anti-tank guns to protect them. 76mm ZiS-3 and 57mm ZiS-2 are both pretty effective guns to pick there.
There's also plenty of plastic kits available from multiple manufacturers for this typical Soviet stuff, which should also make things more affordable.
Dylan Peterson
Probably a couple of years, since it looks like they want to focus on fleshing out MW and Team Yankee for now.
Grayson Nelson
Long enough that you probably don't have to worry too much about what your EW force will look like until well after they've put out the eastern front MW stuff
Landon Reyes
So I can probably leave the Matilda's and Valentine's for now.
Dominic Fisher
To the guy who wanted the penetration figures, here's the most comprehensive collection of them I've been able to find. Keep in mind this is more than 20 different sets of figures, just presented in one document. Don't try to compare between different pages unless the testing criteria and range are the same.
Xavier Diaz
>because who wants to be the targets in shooting gallery every game It's not even just that; it's that you NEED spam if you want to play a competitive soviet list, and that's pricey when you could get an entire NATO army for 1/2 the price.
Camden Williams
Man, those are some crazy numbers for HVAP.
Jordan Jenkins
Terrain in Fantasy was a fucking nightmare. Breaking the regiments up was torture.
Best thing was to just have some LoS blocking towers or something that would break up shooting but you could still wheel around them.
In regards to Team Yankee.
The Soviets need more tank options to make non-spam a more viable option.
I think the tanks in Team Yankee are all over the place. The chieftain seems too good because they obviously wanted to keep the Challenger back for wave 2 but didn't want to put people off starting Brits.
Meanwhile the T-72 is dog shit when really it should get more credit for being battle-tested.
Bring out the T-80's and make them unrealistically good or something, IDK.
Gavin Collins
Episode 18 of the Panzerfunk Podcast is live!
Panzerfunk Episode 18: VolkSpamee
In this Episode the Funkmeisters discuss:
Recent Hobby Activities.
VolkSpamee - Our review of Volksarmee for Team Yankee.
Ask the Funkmeisters - Questions from YOU, our listening audience about our last minute thoughts on 4th Edition just before it's release, generating interest in less commonly played eras, and more.
All we need is for the T-80U from Wargame equivalent and we'd be fucking set for Soviets actually having a choice
Jonathan Robinson
It was kinda a novelty when the Soviets had the best tank in Wargame: ALB. Then RD opened the floodgate for all sorts of post-1991 nato bullshit.
Ethan Baker
>T-80U >isn't very good in the game has to be spammed to be useful >PHIL!
Nathaniel Carter
Great document! Thanks for sharing.
Blake White
> autobiographies as sources
These really aren't good sources for information when it comes to a company level game.
Ethan Thompson
"Well, as we all know, the T-80U was just a prototype, so therefore it had a lot of reliability issues, which we've chosen to represent in game so that the soviet player gets to play with more of them"
Fucking hell, I wrote it, and still read it in his voice...
Mason Rogers
The valentines are still interesting in MW, then again, I'm one of those people that take a Soviet Lend Lease battalion in LW, because off colour shermans and churchills gets my cheers hard
Levi Rivera
or just a single bonus die in assault.
you forget how outright lethal assault dice are.
Ryan Ortiz
who wants me to photoshop that head onto a porn star body?
Michael Rivera
explain why people want to do crudaser spam or honey hoses in V4 then?
Levi Wood
because spamming is an easy non thinking mans tactic
Logan Cruz
I have no problem with spamming being an option.
It's only a problem when it's the only option.
Thomas Price
This
I have no problem with 41 T-55's being viable, just make it a hard decision over 10 t-64's, we have that in MW now with the british to a small extent, and the germans (big surprise) large extent!
Justin Morales
BF seems to feel that every matchup needs an unwashed horde to spam on everything. Therefore British stats were altered to create the Anglo tide of garbage for "fun".
Easton Ortiz
"If someone doesn't get 100 tanks, and the other player doesn't get 100 kills, we have failed as a games company"?
William Brooks
>Soviet maintenance crews were frequently over-worked and tired, often failing to install ERA packages properly. >It is for this reason we given the T-80U a frontal armour value of 17.
Cheers
Andrew Fisher
And then the Italians will be the Axis horde and the Americans will be the Allied elite. Remember though that playing elite vs elite is against the spirit of the game.
Jose Hernandez
Why stop there, T-80's are going to be cheaper than T-72's.
Jason Lee
As a new guy to team yankee...
What the fuck is up with this guy and basically boiling down the soviets to spam? I really want the T-80 but I have a sneaking hunch they're going to be shit because this fuck has some retarded biases.
Jayden Thompson
Obligatory reminder than a 4 man team of Soviets/East Germans with assault rifles are worse in assault than 2 British blokes manning a Milan.
Angel Roberts
This will probably be the case and annoy me greatly when the Brits had loads more experience at fighting in the desert when the US arrived.
One of the reasons for the US even entering the North Africa theatre was to get some experience.
Leo Cox
Don't worry. The'll make the T-80U decent purely because it will have a plastic kit to sell.
They better anyway, because fuck buying and painting that many tanks. Makes a 6x4 board look like a T-72 factory park.
Angel Gomez
Eh, I'm expecting US armour in particular to be rated Agressive to hit. After all, they're about as good as Late-War Soviets according to Phil.
Also remember that basically all US stuff available in the desert so far was Confident Trained before.
John Thomas
That genuinely made me angry, I gotta take a break from this thread, because I feel like I just peered into an abyss and saw the future
Bentley Cox
Thing is: I would torally play a "baddie" army if they jad more versatility. All my WW2 armies are axis because they have their own charm and character(whereas the allies have basically no minor powers outside EW or they all just use Shermans anyway).
I wish Soviets or Volksarmee had something that wasn't just "take this unit, crtl-c and then ctrl-v until points limit reached" because it would make them more appealing to me(okay, maybe not Soviets).
The main reason I'm aiming for Brits right now is I think a lot of their stuff looks cool, and the Harrier is one of my favorite jets of all time. Just sucks I'll have to go out of my way to not appear to be "that guy" while playing them.
I would love to play a board with a river running across it with like 2 or 3 bridges. Would lead to some interesting fights, and could make arty and air support really valuable.
Joseph Torres
The "Charm and Character" thing is 100% valid to me, you have no idea how badly I'd get into Italy, Hungary -and- Romania if I had a decent local group into the MW stuff, Hell, I'd even go for Greece and Poland EW if I could
Thomas Baker
My goal is to have two armies for each period. Finns and Italians in EW, Itliand and Hungarians in MW and Finns and Hungarians in LW. Gives me plenty of options to mix up my lists and playstyles.
Nothing sucks worse than playing that one guy who you know CAN mix things up, but just runs the same list over and over because "it's really good you guys!"
Nathaniel Powell
>Nothing sucks worse than playing that one guy who you know CAN mix things up, but just runs the same list over and over because "it's really good you guys!" But, my Finns!
Lincoln Jenkins
>>It is for this reason we given the T-80U a frontal armour value of 17. >17 >not 14
Brody Perry
Wait until we get around to Mid War Soviets...if the *British* can spam 60 Stuarts or Crusaders at release, what the hell are the Soviets going to be able to bring?!?
Josiah Sullivan
And you have multiple lists to pick from.
It's the guy I knew who played Americans, who have about 50 bajillion lists, and only played the same airborne list over and over again. Not because they were his favorites, not because his grandfather was airborne or something. No. It was because they were a stupid good list that did well at tournaments.
It's the same mentality as the people who go "why would you play anything less than fearless vets?"
Charles Perry
There are lists other than Jaakari?
Mason Sanchez
>It's the same mentality as the people who go "why would you play anything less than fearless vets?" Uh, because FV is often overcosted and CV or even RV can do the same job just as well with more men? At least when talking about tanks.
Charles Gray
Lord Viruscide, you online?
We're waiting for you to record Panzerfunk.
Daniel Young
Well, based of 3 Crusaders in V3 being 150 points, and now being 5, that makes for a very rough translation of the spam tanks of 30pts = 1 pt.
Based off that, I expect we'll see T-60s, T-70s, Valentines, and Stuarts for about 1pt per tank (at conscript).
Who's ready to cover their deployment zone in tanks?
Oliver Diaz
Virus, we are in motion.....
Cooper Carter
Crusaders IIs are 5 Pts for three...hit on 2+ Soviets with Hen and Chicks might be 1 Pt for 2-3 tanks, depending on model. Maybe they'll alleviate it a bit and make the Soviets all hit on 3+.
Yeah. Who am I kidding...
Julian Gray
60 crusders why would even want to spam that many tanks?
Josiah Russell
Always a good idea in historics.
Bring both sides and you'll never be disappointed.
Also, that feel when you have a brigade from early war to the end.
Jace Perry
Probably not as scathing as I would've been, but I think you all reflected the sentiment here pretty well.
Michael Phillips
Well I don't really have both sides; all those armies are axis.
Jaxon Foster
Oh right, sorry. I'll admit I didn't read it.
Still, my advice stands.
Lucas Rogers
We call bullshit when we need to, but we try not to be overly harsh.
Cameron Jenkins
Decided to whip up a list for both V3 and V4, with the intent of using my newly acquired Comets in a reasonable way. It's got three infantry platoons, two mortar platoons, recce, the Comets, and 6 pdrs.
V3: Being a Mechanized company always hurts when you're not in halftracks, but hopefully this list can handle it. On the attack, I have two platoons dropping smoke to cover the advance while everyone slogs up into position. The carriers will take an active role in silencing enemy spotters and such, since without that I'm rather vulnerable on the advance. On the defense, much of my reserves may be a bit slower than desired but 6pdr ambushs cover many sins.
V4: 7 formation platoons, so it'll take a lot of work to force me from the field entirely. 40% reserves means I stick the Comets and a lorried rifle platoon in the back while defending. Two smoke bombardments helps close when I have to attack, as does the Recce spearhead. And of course, this list gets to abuse the absurdly good new mortar stats.
Thomas Lopez
And the alternate version, with one less Lorried Rifle platoon, but with armored SAS jeeps for assaulting and Flamethrowers for burning. Also everyone (except the 3" mortars) has transports now for extra mobility.
Aiden Powell
Say, anons and namefags, if German command style is referred to as "Mission-type Tactics", and the Soviets have "Centralized Command", what do you think would be an apt title for the Brits/US?
Juan Hughes
So I'm interested in getting into Team Yankee, especially a Soviet Motor Brigade themed army, but from this thread it seems WARPAC is kinda shit. Will I regret buying into them? Or are the balance issues mainly in competitive play?
Jack Ross
Soviet BMP-2 lists are pretty effective since the BMP-2 has an effective AT 21 missile, a decent cannon, and infantry that stick around even if it dies. The annoying thing is that you have to buy and paint a lot more than if you were playing NATO.
Lincoln Hill
I pretty much always play horde armies so that's not an issue. So is it just WARPAC tanks that are shit?
Luis Nguyen
It depends on which tank.
By far the spammiest of the spammy is the East German T-55AM2.
Slightly better, and probably at the sweet spot for points cost vs effectiveness, is the East German T-72M. You lose some armor and AT compared to the full Soviet T-72, but it feels like you're getting a better deal.
And probably the least worthwhile is the Soviet T-72. They were decent when it was just the US and Russia in the game, but with West Germany and England in the game, NATO guns have gotten more powerful, and the T-72 isn't quite as good as it once was.
Cameron Rodriguez
i dunno. something about Sargent Majors running the show while junior officers give vague but spirited orders.
Luis Sanchez
"Man, the new Lieutenant sure knows fuck all about why we're here, but damn does he have a nice mustache, so what're we gunna actually be doing sarge?"
It's not really in the templating though, is it?
Wyatt Watson
The T-7w has a gun that's the same AT as the Chieftan, with 1 point less front armor(not counting stillbrew) and 2 points better side armor.
Yes the Chieftan can get off an extra shot if it doesn't move, but other than that it's not really all that much weaker until you take into consideration the hit on 3+ and shit skill ratings.
Alexander Scott
"sarge... sarge they're shootin at us"
Jacob Barnes
"so shoot back"
Ryan Harris
HOW TO START FIGHTING FOR GLORIOUS MOTHER RUSSIA? I DO NOT CARE HOW, JUST TO DROWN THE ENEMY IN VODKA, BLOOD AND TREADS
Joshua Murphy
Question. How do I simplify Flames of War for convention play for people who have never played before? I was considering dropping national rules completely but not sure how much they factor into points costs.
Jaxon Lewis
Starting Flames of War with Brits. I picked up the plastic soldier company late war British infantry company box what else do I need for a well rounded list?
Tyler Sanchez
Have you ever had your faced bashed in with 15kg of missile tube?
Cheers
Thomas Watson
You see Ivan, now is not of good moment to be army of motherland. It was never of good moment if i am honest. If you want of start fighting for our glorious leader Joseph Stalin i suggest you go of asking Red Bear book at the state's library, comrade librarian can be of help with that. Зa Poдинy!
Evan Howard
The thing is the chieftain has AT 22, as everything now does. At the game's launch, AT 20 was the primary antitank value, because everyone had Abrams, and the T-72 could shrug off hits from it with some regularity. Against Leos and Chieftains you glance on 6s, so any hit knocks your tank out at least.
This changed the calculus on shoot-outs a lot; if NATO gets front armour the T-72 gets wrecked. The only tactic that still wins you that now is flanking... for which any kinetic damage value over 15 will do. The soviet T-72 accordingly pays too many points for a useless +1 AT.
Dominic Parker
An accurate representation of what truly cheeky lads are capable of.
William Jenkins
Have you looked at the new 4th Edition rules? They are significantly streamlined and less complicated than the Version 3 rules.
Some Shermans and Sherman Fireflies are a good choice.
After that, perhaps some artillery or mortars would be a good addition as well.
William Wood
> England.
Out.
Xavier Clark
Get the Open Fire box, you get 8 British Sherman's, two of which are Firefly's.