Flames of War General - "Read The Freaking Rules!" Edition

>merc'd
Do you mean merked?

Shouldn't they be killing like 20 T-55s a turn?

I don't even want to think about how spammy a list like that would be.

If T-55s are already 10 for 16 points, I could only imagine what T-34/85s would be...

10 T-34/85s for 8 points?

>Had a big game of TY about 200pts per player about 11 players.

So, about 1000 points per side? How huge was the table?

>I had ten leopard 2 kill about 30 t-55s

So a 110 point investment killed 48 points worth of stuff?

Not too bad, as long as everything else was keeping up as well.

I don't foresee that anytime soon. The sheer amount of spam would cover the entire board in T-34s or wrecks of T-34s. How would you even point out T-34/85Ms if a T-55AM2 is around 1.5 point per tank? Besides they would be crewed by guys who were conscripts like 15 years ago. The board would be covered in spam.

If they ever release the T-34/85, I will buy 12 more Gepards and run a 16 Gepard list at every nearby tournament until I face a T-34 Spam list.

Regional spellings are apparently weird.

I've often thought a platoon for a point, +1 point for the commander. So, 10 for 4 points.

Aren't Germans still able to assault with halftracks, though? I've yet to have time to properly read through the v4 rulebook, but I was under the impression that mounted assault means the dudes inside get to try to hit from inside, essentially. So if you somehow manage to get all 4 Sd Kfz 251s into contact, you will roll the full 7 dice to hit of a regular german platoon.

Actually gonna try out some Soviet Engineer-Sappers later this week, so I'll see how possible it will be to get into melee.

On reflection this might be too cheap; BMP-1s are essentially 0.75 points each, and have:

Less range
Less armour
Fewer MGs

Though, they also have an AT missile of reasonable usefulness and for all that FA 7 is actual armour it's still toast up against basically everything but .50 cal and 14.5mm MGs.

Probably yes because CHEERS, but then there's the huge issue of the point system breaking down at this extreme.

Yeah, it works the same. That might be the only way of making assault worthwhile though.

It's not "getting an assault off"; that still happens sometimes. It's that you get like 2 teams in and they get annihilated on the counterattack.

But, I'd be interested to see how EW/LW works out; we're trying out desert.

>It's not "getting an assault off"; that still happens sometimes. It's that you get like 2 teams in and they get annihilated on the counterattack.
Well, tell that to my Strelkovy company (without integrated AT) getting assaulted by StuGs for several turns. I ended up with 4-6 teams fighting in most rounds of combat.

Also, increased Tactical move means you can get at least as many teams striking on the first round.
Counter-assaults are in fact the ones that get disadvantaged the most since you can only move stuff up that's already close in.

In general, assaults are now more small-scale.

>tell that to my Strelkovy company (without integrated AT) getting assaulted by StuGs for several turns
Yeah, "getting assaulted" is the big bit here. You've got much more ability to respond to assault than you do to launch one since you have the stuff that was in already plus everyone in 4" (when everyone was in a 6" bubble already).

Honest question: Who here would play a DDR-as-czechs list using T-34s subbing for T-55s and OT-810s subbing for BTR-60s?

Yeah, I have no idea if they can do the T-55A without breaking the points system, let alone the T-34/85M.

Really the AM should've been better, and the T-55A should be where the AM is now.

So chaps what's rumoured for stripes and red tide?

T-64 with FA 17, ERA, and missiles.

T-64BV?

For the US its confirmed we're getting Bradleys and some form of Air Cav, as far as I know. Rumored is M60s, Humvees, M1A1s, Chaparrals, and stingers.

I'd say a T-34-85M is probably right at 0.75 points like BMP-1. It's got better range on the main gun, RoF 2, and anti-materiel armouring, but lacks missiles and IR and, while the armour's better, it's still 7 front so anything that's got a proper AT value will be straight-through.

Is it just me or are the germans way fucking underpowered? I've never seen a german player that didn't get tabled turn two...

TY or FoW?

In TY they have some real glass cannon tank lists and some surprisingly fragile infantry in the corebook. Panzetruppen lists are generally a bit more resilient. I could see someone playing uncautiously with Leo 2s losing real quick.

In FoW I have no idea what's going on because Germans are great.

Germans were pretty great in v3. There were a small number of allied lists - mainly US - which were consistently stronger, but Germans were always a solid pick.

v4, I just don't know yet. They can't always get huge platoon sizes, so I'm thinking FJs and Panzer Lehr might be strong lists for infantry; not aware of any tank lists with platoon size above five. The nerf to heavy artillery helps heavy tanks, but the Formation Morale rules definitely hurt the 510. Schwere Panzer list - the common version has only three core units.

the leo2 is a good tank stat wise, good armour, good movement, good gun, good crew but it's 11ps and you can only have three per zug.

But it does hurt when you lose a single tank.
Their infantry insn't that bad on the small size but three G3 rifle mg teams with panzerfausts

I find leo 2s fun to play since i'd like the game not to turn into we spam our cheapest options.

Then warpac needs more decent tanks. You can't blame us for spam when that's the entire faction as-presented.

>T-55AM is gimped for reasons
>T-72 is a made up mish-mash of the A and B

At this point they need to make a major effort on the next WarPac release.

>T-72G is just a straight up worse version of the aforementioned franken T-72

>>T-72 is a made up mish-mash of the A and B
With worse armour than either.

>At this point they need to make a major effort on the next WarPac release.

If they fuck up the next WARPAC release, any interest for me to spend more on TY is going to vanish. Volksarmee is serviceable, but the spamminess annoys me.

>If they fuck up the next WARPAC release, any interest for me to spend more on TY is going to vanish

I know that feel. I was waiting to hop in when the NVA came out. Then Volksarmee killed any desire I had to do that. If the next release is good I may yet get stuck in, but the trend seems to be set and that worries me.

I don't think there's any interest in doing anything different for warpac. Look at AIW and Vietnam, they always have "guys you should play" and "NPCs".

As a noobie is it just me or in TY and FW feel like they go off memes of nations? Speak of TY they just boiled the soviets down to spam and it's a shame.

Hey guys in team yankee or fow new edition what would be roughly the equivalent of a 1500 point list ? 50 points? 75?

I think that's common of most wargame. A bit of exaggerated characteristics is good imo to add variety. You could do a VDV helo landing company for elite small soviets tho.

>You could do a VDV helo landing company for elite small soviets tho.

Except we got an air assault company - they are less elite than unblooded US troops.

Warpac forces are always tricky because they all just have the same Soviet export shit though.

Unless you did something random with a mix like Finland.

Well fingers crossed on new releases then...

Both the Poles and Czechs built their own variants of Soviet gear, and Romania went crazy with developing new vehicles and weapons based off Soviet stuff.

Problem is that the dev team hasn't shown any sort of interest in Warpac stuff - they seem to prefer super special NATO forces.

Yes, even if the big hardware is the same (BMPs, T-72s, Fishbeds, Fitters and Floggers), they do have their homegrown APCs, artillery systems, modernisations, a couple local variations of planes and tanks, not to mention that in the case of Czechoslovakia, the small arms were radically different.

It would be cool to have WarPac extended to include the Poles with their T-55 Merida, SKOT-64, Topas/PT-76 mounted naval infantry, and their airborne units equipped with the ASU-85, or even, if we can dream, Romania with its cool T-55 modernisations (including some with 1000+hp West German engines and composite armor). Too bad Yugoslavia wouldn't realistically fight along with the USSR, otherwise they could bring very interesting stuff to the table, from their boner for Malyutka modifications to their StG-44 armed paratroopers, including their homegrown APCs and IFVs, and the M-84 as an upgrade to the T-72A.

Another thing that would be cool to see are second line units, equipped with T-55s and T-34s, but they would end up clogging the tables with the sheer spam. This, and airborne units from both sides, Americans with Sheridans and Humvees, West Germans with Wiesels, and Soviets with BMD variants, ASU-85s and Nona mortars.

Oh, and on NATO side, I've heard that a Spanish company is going to make the Spanish (duh), French and Italian armies in 15mm. I can't wait to HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s and FAMAS armed infantry popping out of their AMX-10Ps and VABs.

>HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s

Would France be the spam army for NATO?

Looks like they might be, the Leclerc wasn't available during the TY timeframe

I'm not actually all that familiar with the Leclerc. I know its got the same 120mm gun as the Leo 2 and M1A1, but did it have comparable protection?

To my limited knowledge, it was essentially a French Challenger.

Yeah, there was absolutely no reason to bother including the T-55AM2 with the stats they gave it - and no Bastion.

5+ cross rating? I still can't fucking believe it. Cheers.

I feel as though the T-72M was statted fairly accurately. Similar RHA values to the T-72A but without the turret composite, less AP on the gun due to slightly older ammo. If they do advance the timeline I'd like them to give the T-72M1 better ammo and make it a bit of a can-opener.

I think the problem is that the base T-72 isn't very well represented. It's got the turret of the T-72 Ural, the laser range finder off the A, and the upgraded gun off the B. On top of that the ubiquitous ERA is missing.

So basically T-72M is off because they fucking blew it on statting the standard T-72.

To be fair, the gun stats for both tanks are accurate enough.

Actually the clause that makes smg rof 1 if pinned covers flame thrower as well

>I can't wait to HONHON the shit out of the Pact with AMX-30B2s
HONHON

HONHON'd in my pants to an extent

if they gimme FFL in kepé blanc i may explode.

>Warpac forces are always tricky because they all just have the same Soviet export shit though.

Which is why it was probably a really bad idea to peg it all so low and samey.

Example: T-72AB mashup vs T-72M. In reality, the T-72A's armour is far better: it's about 50mm better against HEAT and around 100mm better against sabot. In practise it's worse than the Chieftain's armour, which is comparable to the T-72M's, because reasons.

However, because of that initial lowball, now all soviet tanks fit in a 14-16 range, and presumably will always fit into that range, meaning all new and shiny NATO guns are going to increasingly turn soviet tank armour into overcosted .50 cal protection.

>It would be cool to have WarPac extended to include the Poles with their T-55 Merida... Romania with its cool T-55 modernisations (including some with 1000+hp West German engines and composite armor)...

You realise both of these would also just get "Slow firing, overloaded, +2 FA" right? There were reasons to expect volksarmee to have a somewhat unique tank, but as-is I can't see how it'll be any different from the T-55A.

Cross 4+ actually.

And as I said, T-72A should be a significant jump over the T-72M; T-72A has 410–500mm front turret and 360–420mm front hull vs sabot vs 380mm for turret and 335mm for hull on the T-72M. That's a big leap in armour protection.
I was giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they were just going off really generous sources for the abrams when the level of protection should be roughly similar (lack of protected ammo notwithstanding), but then they released chieftain at FA 17. Fucking 17.

(If anyone's wondering, Chieftain has 390mm for the turret and 350mm hull. Now you know why FA 17 is a fucking joke)

>(If anyone's wondering, Chieftain has 390mm for the turret and 350mm hull. Now you know why FA 17 is a fucking joke)
+15mm of armour is equal to +2 front armour.

Cheers.

Russian steel is inferior to western steel.

Cheers

Russians have less eyes and only one arm
so nato are hit on a 6+ and rof is always 1

Underfed conscripts can't lift the heavy ammunition so every tank without an autoloader must have slow firing.

Cheers

I don't doubt your source but there was a lot of variability within the "T-72M" designation. Including upgraded Russian T-72 Urals, export version T-72As, Czech and Polish indigenous builds, an up-armoued East German version.

I suggest these be made into memes and part of the thread image folder.

>be 2017
>battlefront finds the threads
>Battlefront chooses to turn our memes into rules

I'm sure BF automatically disregards us becuase of the 'Eww Veeky Forums' effect.

I don't understand where you are going with this.
Are you trying to imply the Chieftain's stats are somehow justified because there were multiple types of T-72M?

Nothing to do with the Chieftan. Just saying in some cases the T-72M could be close to the T-72A in terms of raw steel protection excluding (not insignificant) addition of the composite.

Veeky Forums is a known hotbed of Russian/Soviet apologists.

Cheers.

I have honestly no idea where the numbers for vehicles in TY come from; even the lowest bands of armour I can find on most reference sites aren't as low as the stuff quoted in the stats in TY books.

A few years ago I tried to convert Flames of War into Cold War based of real numbers. I couldn't really make it work. A tank would be impervious to some weapons while being automatically destroyed by other weapons.

I do think the Soviet gear is under represented. They could have gone a totally different way with resetting the AV stats. Having Anti-Tank 20 and AV ranging from 0 up to 18 in a d6 system leads to complications..

If I was captain I would maybe start the t-55 and leo1 as Shermans in WW2 Flames of War (FA 6, SA 4, TA 1 and a similar gun) and work up or down from there, but maybe it would be too much of the same game?

I see. Only problem with that is as points out, we don't actually have the T-72A as such, just BF's unidentified 'Red Banner T72'.

I bet the M60 is going to be FA16 for 'reasons'.

so basicly V4 is load of crap and arty edition ?

Arty and AT guns edition. Gun teams are really king; infantry are just screening them.

so fook this unbalanced pice of shit - drops mike ...

It's not quite that bad, but it absolutely needed better proof reading.

I suspect it will get better from here, but for now I am unimpressed.

Yeah that's all a load of shit. Try actually playing the friggin' game first. Gun teams are good and all, but they suffer from their lack of mobility, in an edition where Mobility has suddenly become king.

Artillery has gotten better against infantry, but worse against most other stuff.

Infantry have gotten tougher against a lot of stuff, but are very weak against artillery bombardments.

Planes seem to be best used for bombing or rocket strikes, while their cannons aren't quite as strong anymore.

Everything has its weaknesses, and strengths. They just aren't necessarily the same as they used to be in V3.

We're playing mid-war desert. Our experience is that anything with armour can't stand up to the 4+ gun teams that are now the norm and are very hard to remove; manuevering to get objectives tends to be done later-game with things like SPAA and UCs, after guns have broken holes.

get gud

>I don't agree with what you're saying about V4, so I'll pretend you haven't played it
fuck off sheep shagger

This is our experience either way around (brit tanks or german tanks, with a couple of different players playing both) but okay.

It's been raised before but this might be a demographic issue; we're a group that's played V3 for a long time so we have a LOT of gun teams to be able to field. Two companies with all their requisite AT guns is doable for most of us. It's possible this is another case where BF haven't considered spammability; 1 or 2 AT platoons probably isn't as much of an issue to try and attack as 5 is.

how about planes ? Would stuka not budge those teams ? 2+ firepower seems nice and all ?

Gotta make those bombs connect first, and the infantry still have to fail their saves before you can kill them.

how much is normal game in MW ? 100 points ?

Yes. You can go higher if you want, but the risk of encountering impenetrable tiger tanks increases as you do.

Isn't 2 tigers like more then half of the army :P ?

I mean from reading the rules I get that you should go for objectives - arty wont go for objecitves - tanks or inf has to do it. So how can an army based around antitunk guns and arty win any game in Mid War ?

75-100.

The cramp isn't as bad at 100 but 80-85 is definitely a lot nicer looking.

>Isn't 2 tigers like more then half of the army

It is at 100. Which is why if you play more than that they become easier to work in while maintaining support. And that support will make keeping the 17 pounders alive to kill them more difficult.

Tigers are a lot of points in MW. 29 points each if I'm remembering correctly.

So yeah, at 100 points even 1 Tiger is going to be a significant portion of your army.

As for AT guns and artillery, they'll play a big role in defending your own objectives, but won't be capturing any on their own.

So all in all it's not as unbalanced as people make me think.

You need something to hold your own objectives and something to go after enemy. You need inf to hold ground - art to take care of inf planes to take care of art and tanks to capture objectives and some antitank guns ... Ill try to get some AK list and you tell me how it looks like ...

Well, that is sort of accurate for the desert. Both sides tended to have tank attacks broken up by anti-tank gun-lines/strong points.

>As for AT guns and artillery, they'll play a big role in defending your own objectives, but won't be capturing any on their own.

Yes, but tanks can't capture objectives with enough guns on them. Emergent play is very trench-warfare-like.

Maybe a dumb question but have you tried playing it with the idea that you can only have one of each company, i.e. a max of 2-3 AT guns (depending on faction)?

>i.e. a max of 2-3 AT guns
Uh, you may want to look at the lists. The brits can get several 6 and 25pdr batteries, as well as some 17/25s, in a single formation.

2 6pdrs, 1 17pdr, which are what he's complaining about, surely?