Desired scans : Rank and File supplements Harpoon 3 & 4 supplements Force on Force supplements Hind Commander At Close Quarters War and Conquest Modern Spearhead
Justin Lee
October 19th in military history:
202 BC – Second Punic War: At the Battle of Zama, Roman legions under Scipio Africanus defeat Hannibal Barca, leader of the army defending Carthage. 439 – The Vandals, led by King Gaiseric, take Carthage in North Africa. 1466 – The Thirteen Years' War ends with the Second Treaty of Thorn. 1649 – New Ross town, County Wexford, Ireland, surrenders to Oliver Cromwell. 1781 – At Yorktown, Virginia, representatives of British commander Lord Cornwallis handed over Cornwallis' sword and formally surrendered to George Washington and the comte de Rochambeau. 1805 – Napoleonic Wars: Austrian General Mack surrenders his army to the Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Ulm. Thirty thousand prisoners are captured and 10,000 casualties inflicted on the losers. 1812 – Napoleon Bonaparte retreats from Moscow. 1813 – The Battle of Leipzig concludes, giving Napoleon Bonaparte one of his worst defeats. 1864 – Battle of Cedar Creek: Union Army under Philip Sheridan destroys a Confederate Army under Jubal Early. 1864 – St. Albans Raid: Confederate raiders launch an attack on Saint Albans, Vermont from Canada. 1914 – The First Battle of Ypres begins. 1921 – Portuguese Prime Minister António Granjo and other politicians are murdered in a Lisbon coup. 1943 – The cargo vessel Sinfra is attacked by Allied aircraft at Souda Bay, Crete, and sunk. Two thousand ninety-eight Italian prisoners of war drown with it. 1944 – United States forces land in the Philippines. 1950 – The People's Liberation Army takes control of the town of Chamdo. 1950 – The People's Republic of China joins the Korean War by sending thousands of troops across the Yalu River to fight United Nations forces. 1976 – Battle of Aishiya in Lebanon. 1987 – The United States Navy conducts Operation Nimble Archer, an attack on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf.
Jeremiah Wright
It is 2,219 years since the Battle of Zama, the deciding engagement in the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). A Roman army led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Scipio), with crucial support from Numidian leader Masinissa, defeated a Carthaginian force led by the commander Hannibal, despite Hannibal possessing numerical superiority. This was because many in his army were recent conscripts, and the vaunted Numidian cavalry which Hannibal had employed with great success in Italy had by then switched sides to the Romans. Scipio had conceived of a strategy to confuse and defeat Hannibal's war elephants, and then his force routed the Carthaginian infantry, thanks in part to superior Roman cavalry. Defeated on their home ground, the Carthaginian ruling elite sued for peace and accepted humiliating terms.
At the beginning of the War in 218 BC, the Carthaginian general Hannibal had boldly crossed the Alps and attacked into Italy, sweeping Roman armies aside. In the wake of these triumphs, he marched south looting the country and attempting to force Rome's allies to defect to Carthage's side. Stunned and in crisis from these defeats, the Romans avoided battle with Hannibal's army, instead raiding the Carthaginian supply lines and practicing attritional warfare. Rome soon proved unhappy with these methods and but an invasion was routed at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC.
Following his victory, Hannibal spent the next several years attempting to build an alliance in Italy against Rome. As the war on the peninsula descended into a stalemate, Roman troops, led by Scipio Africanus, began having success in Iberia and captured large swaths of Carthaginian territory in the region. In 204 BC, after fourteen years of war, Roman troops landed in North Africa with the goal of directly attacking Carthage.
Gabriel Cruz
Led by Scipio, the Romans succeeded in defeating Carthaginian forces led by Hasdrubal Gisco and their Numidian allies commanded by Syphax at Utica and Great Plains (203 BC). With their situation precarious, the Carthaginian leadership sued for peace with Scipio. This offer was accepted by the Romans who offered moderate terms. While the treaty was being debated in Rome, those Carthaginians who favored continuing the war had Hannibal recalled from Italy.
During this same period, Carthaginian forces captured a Roman supply fleet in the Gulf of Tunes. This success, along with the return of Hannibal and his veterans from Italy, led to change of heart on the part of the Carthaginian senate. Emboldened, they elected to continue the conflict and Hannibal set about enlarging his army. Marching out with a total force of around 40,000 men and 80 elephants, Hannibal encountered Scipio near Zama Regia. Forming his men in three lines, Hannibal placed his mercenaries in first line, his new recruits and levies in the second, and his Italian veterans in the third. These men were supported by the elephants to the front and Numidian and Carthaginian cavalry on the flanks.
To counter Hannibal's army, Scipio deployed his 35,100 men in a similar formation consisting of three lines. The right wing was held by Numidian cavalry, led by Masinissa, while Laelius' Roman horsemen were placed on the left flank. Aware that Hannibal's elephants could be devastating on the attack, Scipio devised a new way to counter them. Though tough and strong, the elephants could not turn when they charged. Using this knowledge, he formed his infantry in separate units with gaps in between. These were filled with velites (light troops) which could move to allow the elephants to pass through. It was his goal to allow the elephants to charge through these gaps thus minimizing the damage they could inflict.
Joshua Cruz
As anticipated, Hannibal opened the battle by ordering his elephants to charge the Roman lines. Moving forward, they were engaged by the Roman velites who drew them through the gaps in the Roman lines and out of the battle. In addition, Scipio's cavalry blew large horns to frighten the elephants. With Hannibal's elephants neutralized, he reorganized his infantry in a traditional formation and sent forward his cavalry. Attacking on both wings, the Roman and Numidian horsemen overwhelmed their opposition and pursued them from the field. Though displeased by his cavalry's departure, Scipio began advancing his infantry.
This was met by an advance from Hannibal. While Hannibal's mercenaries defeated the first Roman assaults, his men slowly began to be pushed back by Scipio's troops. As the first line gave way, Hannibal would not allow it to pass back through the other lines. Instead, these men moved to the wings of the second line. Pressing forward, Hannibal struck with this force and a bloody fight ensued. Ultimately defeated, the Carthaginians fell back to the flanks of the third line. Extending his line to avoid being outflanked, Scipio pressed the attack against Hannibal's best troops. With the battle surging back and forth, the Roman cavalry rallied and returned to the field. Charging the rear of Hannibal's position, the cavalry caused his lines to break. Pinned between two forces, the Carthaginians were routed from the field.
Exact casualties are not known. Some sources claim that Hannibal's casualties numbered 20,000 killed and 20,000 taken prisoner, while the Romans lost around 2,500 and 4,000 wounded. Regardless of casualties, the defeat at Zama led to Carthage renewing its calls for peace. These were accepted by Rome, however the terms were harsher than those offered a year earlier. In addition to losing the majority of its empire, a substantial war indemnity was imposed and Carthage was effectively destroyed as a power.
Owen Ortiz
Zama is a defintive kind of Classical battle, fought in a sandpit between relatively even armies, where only the calibre of the troops and the quality of the general made the difference. Who wouldn't want to step into the sandals of Hannibal and Scipio?
The current community project is for a Garrison, Milita, or Second-Line-type unit
Christian Williams
I think I'm starting to get into Historical Mini's, certainly not learning how to play, but to collect and paint.
Whats a good place to look at some sets to buy for the U.S civil war?
James Young
>Whats a good place to look at some sets to buy for the U.S civil war? If you want cheap and plentiful, there's a pile of 1:72 plastics you can choose from With metal there's a great range in 15mm via Old Glory, and 28mm with Foundry There are several 40mm ranges too If you're looking specifically to paint up some nice models for collection and display, then those Foundry ones would be a good choice
>1781 – At Yorktown, Virginia, representatives of British commander Lord Cornwallis handed over Cornwallis' sword and formally surrendered to George Washington and the comte de Rochambeau. Didn't he initially want to surrender to Rochambeau, who insisted he surrendered to Washington instead?
Nathaniel Ramirez
some bloke asked for Japanese lists for Chain of Command
Blake Collins
...
Dylan Reed
Thanks for the Japanese CoC, user I'll add it to the folder when I do a heap of uploading today
Jayden Foster
...
Joshua Miller
Oh boy, you chose the best fucking time for 1/72 ACW.
Strelets is in the middle of creating some bloody nice ACW figures - the first wave hit the market last month I think, containing lots of infantry for both sides, marching or march attack, and a really nice set of US cavalry with both mounted and dismounted skirmishing. Also, Italeri re-released the old Esci figures somewhat recently too, those are nice figures - although not unified enough to make large bodies of men marching, etc. And as other anons suggested, PSR will be your best friend.
Ayden Davis
Regarding Bolt Action as babbies first "wargame", I have seen both ASL and Chain of command mentioned. I was wondering what make those better and what separates those from BA and each other.
Also, the pain of not having plastic or resin Caroleans to paint.
Brayden Reyes
Furthermore, are they more compatible with 15mm or 28mm?
William James
Well, ASL is a hex-and-chit game.
Lots of boxes and expansions, but fundamentally different.
CoC is a bit more grog-style and loosely balanced than BA, with a bigger focus on historical platoon sizes. Also puts more focus on unreliable command and control to simulate the fog of war while still being quite playable, unlike some grog-tier wargames.
Levi Phillips
I still can't believe that won an award for 'best table'.
There were easily better options even amongst this year's mediocre selection at Salute.
Camden Torres
>Dutch East India Company vs Sweden Alright... what battle is that supposed to be? Did Sweden even have any Asian colonies?
Michael Lopez
Hi, I'd be so happy if I could get my hand on the old but excellent Vietnam 1965-1975 from Victory Games. Had it but stupidly sold it.
North America yo! Sweden tried to colonize the future states but was defeated by the Dutch and they were defeated in turn by the British.
Search for New Sweden and read if you like.
David Smith
Chain of Command is more historical in the sense that it uses historical correct platoon structures. so no minmaxing point based army list building a la "I take one Waffen-SS squad and one Osttruppen Squad and one Volkssturm Squad with the Flammpanzer II and everyone has Assault rifles lul". Commanders are A LOT more valuable than in BA because they really command troops to do things. Has a little bit more crunch than BA (rules for throwing hand grenades e.g). also CoC has GREAT campaign rules.
John Young
Question then: since I live in an area with no CoC players and with a 40+ person Bolt Action community, should I jump in with BA or should I not play at all until I can convert people over to CoC?
Difficulty: the local game store which is friendly to historicals play sells BA stuff, and doesn't like it when you play games they don't sell.
Nathan Foster
Looking for flames of war substitute and I heard battlegroup is pretty good. That true?
Alexander Johnson
You could get started with BA and then maybe see if you can get people to try CoC with the same minis.
Since it's the same minis people would also buy for BA, it would probably not be too hard to convince the store owner to allow it either. In fact, it might encourage people to buy more BA minis so that they can field the appropriate platoons for CoC.
Lucas Hill
Well CoC isn't bound to any specific game. You can play it with Warlord Games miniatures and others, same for BA. So as long as they sell WW2 stuff, there shouldn't be any real problem.
You ALWAYS should play the game you actually have people to play it with, obviously. So the question is kinda redundant, really. Since you need miniatures anyways and you can play CoC as well as BA using the same miniatures (though for CoC one needs more infantry models than the common BA player usually possesses) there is no problem in starting with BA and than try to find poeple to play CoC with. I mean, one can play BA historical too by using historically correct platoon structures. depends on who you play with.
Jeremiah Lopez
If historicals are what you want, its better to play no game at all than a game that's impossible to play historically like BA.
Don't play, wait for a CoC community to develop once people realize how shit BA is.
Justin Hernandez
no idea why I wrote "specific game" I meant "specific miniature manufacturer" ...
Joseph Gutierrez
Just completely disregarding the BA - historicals REEEEE stuff that you constantly bring up, this is still a terrible suggestion. If you want people to play CoC, they need to know it exists and that they can in fact use the minis they've already spent cash on for it.
Robert Perez
BA is fun though.
Jose Bailey
Are you this much of a gigantical faggot on purpose?
Daniel Reyes
>Asking this question to someone looking for (You)s
You are encouraging this.
Hudson Morales
Hey, are those new Char b1's warlord are doing for french as well or are they captured vehicles only?
It seems warlord is doing a good early war range. Wondering if they're prepping for a battle of france book.
Nicholas Bailey
Battlegroup seems ok, it's quite in-depth with regards to spotting. The AT rules seem a bit complex and retarded though. It also uses individually based infantry iirc
If you want something a bit more straight-forward and balanced, try ostfront - it would work perfectly at FoW scale and with multi-based infantry
Jeremiah Lee
Seems likely and it would be wonderful.
Luke Young
Pretty much any game can be made to work with any scale simply by changing the distances involved.
The CoC authors even admit their ground scale is closer to 15mm, despite it being nominally a 28mm game.
Angel Richardson
>Battlegroup seems ok, it's quite in-depth with regards to spotting.
Spotting was and is "in-depth" so you want the rules to reflect that, otherwise the game becomes little more than "PanzerBush".
>>The AT rules seem a bit complex and retarded though.
They are complex because of the era being modeled. Between '39 and '45 tanks and the weapons used against them underwent an absolutely insane amount of progress - an amount of progress probably only equaled by that seen by aircraft between '14 and '18.
Any rules trying to model AT rifles AND panzerfausts, Matildas AND IS-2s, 2pdrs AND 88s is going to be complex.
I'm not saying Battlegroup is perfect, far from it. I am saying that Battlegroup's designers at last acknowledged that such complexity exists and tried to model it.
There's a spectrum here or a dial or min/max curves or whatever analogy you want to use. The more a game can tends towards accurate simulation, the "harder" or more "complex" it will be. Conversely, there are rules which tend towards the "just a game" or "ease of play" style. Neither is "better" and neither is "worse", but both are different.
Equally importantly, you need to acknowledge and accept the "level of accuracy" inherent in whatever rules set you're currently using. Worrying about historical accuracy or plausibility while playing Bolt Action is a waste of your time. The designers didn't worry about it and the rules certainly don't support it, so why why should you waste time worrying when you could be playing instead?
Tailor your worries about OOBs and expectations about historical accuracy to the rules you're using. If BA says Chindits can have tanks, give them a tank. If you were worried about plausibility you wouldn't be playing BA in the first place. Just play and have fun.
Bentley Wright
>They are complex because of the era being modeled. Between '39 and '45 Thats generally what WW2 games model. Doesn't mean it has to be complex.
>Any rules trying to model AT rifles AND panzerfausts, Matildas AND IS-2s, 2pdrs AND 88s is going to be complex. Strongly disagree. Look at PDF related and see how simply Mr. Tarr handles these things. The power of a weapon can be modeled quite simply. Granted he doesn't cover every single weapon in WW2, you can see his system could easily be extended to cover all the weapons and vehicles, without adding any extra complexity. 6 pages and he still has time to include rules about map artillery fire, smoke, visibility, mines, gliders and paratroops.
>The more a game can tends towards accurate simulation, the "harder" or more "complex" it will be Not always, often you can create a very realistic and accurate simulation with very simple rules - its just a matter of writing very simple but effective rules. Research carefully based on first-hand accounts and then think about what is the simplest way to represent what actually happened.
An example of Battlegroup's AT rules being retarded is that you have a bunch of rules about spotting, specific attack and defense values and a cross reference sheet (iirc from the example game I watched) but then the only 2 outcomes from an attack are that the tank is destroyed or not. There is no "tracks damaged" or "main weapon knocked out" or "immobilized". So in one way they're treating spotting and AT fire with a medium level of complexity, and then on the other hand they're treating tank damage with the most simplest level of complexity possible (unless of course this wasn't covered in the example game I watched and they do represent thing like crews bailing out or tanks becoming immobilized)
>BA You don't really need to mention BA in a serious discussion about WW2 rules , aside from 'what not to do' :^)
Luis Cruz
continued from looking at the battlegroup rules, they do have rules for tank morale and being immobilized, although for immobilization it is an "across the board" every time double 1's are rolled the vehicle is immobilized, regardless of the kind of vehicle or armor. Something like a Maus would be immobilized as easily as a Stuart, so its still quite simplified.
Compared to the many modifiers for range, spotting, target moved, firer moved, ace gun crew etc. the damage rules are still quite simplified. I guess they chose to make some areas of their rules very detailed and other areas very simple - which is one design choice. Personally I prefer consistency though - either make it all simple and abstract, or all medium complexity and abstraction, or go hardcore and have detailed damage and/or morale tracking.
The battlegroup rules do look pretty good for a medium complexity rule-set, provided you're prepared to spend 5 minutes working out the modifiers for a single AT shot (in the example game I watched the guy had to look up a bunch of stuff - and he was the game's designer!)
David James
>>lots of stuff about Battlegroup
In your rush to point out various problems with Battlegroup, you managed to ignore this sentence.
"I'm not saying Battlegroup is perfect, far from it".
If you're going to be a pedantic sperg, read and understand the ENTIRE post you're sperging on before posting. Okay?
As you wrote towards the end of your frothing - "make it all simple and abstract, or all medium complexity and abstraction, or go hardcore and have detailed damage and/or morale tracking." - consistency can be a design goal. Designers, however, often try to split the difference rather than have every aspect of a game one thing or another.
They'll emphasize certain aspects they believe adds to game play while all but ignoring others they believe adds nothing to game play (coughcough logistics coughcough) Those choices are, in the end, a matter of personal taste which brings us right back to the point in my post you completely missed.
Every rules set has a given level historical accuracy "baked" into the design. Fretting about OOBs while using Bolt Action or ignoring the same when playing ASL means you're not using the rules as they were intended. Pick the rules you like, use them as they were meant to be used, play the game, and have fun.
It's really just that simple.
Andrew Reed
"Fort Mosquito was the semi-historical setting for a battle between Swedish and Dutch colonial forces in mid-17th century Delaware."
Asher Williams
>lots of stuff about Battlegroup that's what we were discussing.
>pedantic sperg >sperging >frothing eh, at least I didn't use capitals :^)
There isn't really much to reply to your post here, you state some things that are common sense/knowledge like games having different levels of accuracy, and some things that I covered in my post when I mentioned design choice.
I just wanted to set you straight that not all rules have to be complex in order to accurately represent a conflict. Try using less caps in future, it may help you seem less emotional about the subject at hand
German Soldier vs Soviet Soldier - Stalingrad 1942-3 (Osprey Combat 028)
By the end of the first week of November 1942, the German Sixth Army held about 90 per cent of Stalingrad. Yet the Soviets stubbornly held on to the remaining parts of the city, and German casualties started to reach catastrophic levels. In an attempt to break the deadlock, Hitler decided to send additional German pioneer battalions to act as an urban warfare spearhead. These combat engineers were skilled in all aspects of city fighting, especially in the use of demolitions and small arms to overcome defended positions and in the destruction of armoured vehicles. Facing them were hardened Soviet troops who had perfected the use of urban camouflage, concealed and interlocking firing positions, close quarters battle, and sniper support. This fully illustrated book explores the tactics and effectiveness of these opposing troops during this period, focusing particularly on the brutal close-quarters fight over the Krasnaya Barrikady (Red Barricades) ordnance factory.
At a time when most handguns were limited to six rounds, the ten-shot Mauser caught the attention of the world for its unprecedented firepower and formidable high-velocity 7.63×25mm cartridge. This saw its ultimate expression in the first-ever select-fire handgun - the ‘Schnellfeuer' machine pistol, fed by a detachable magazine and offering both full-automatic and single-shot modes. The C 96 was the first semi-automatic pistol to see combat, arming both sides in the Second Anglo-Boer War, and seeing service with the German, Russian, Chinese and other militaries. Widely purchased commercially, it was carried by none other than Winston Churchill in the Sudan and South Africa, became prized by the Irish Republican Army and Soviet revolutionaries, and even armed Han Solo in the ‘Star Wars' movies. Featuring full-colour artwork and an array of revealing photographs, this is the engrossing story of the C 96 Broomhandle Mauser, the ground-breaking semi-automatic pistol that armed a generation of military personnel, adventurers and revolutionaries at the turn of the 20th century.
Sturmgeschütz: Panzer, Panzerjäger, Waffen-SS And Luftwaffe Units 1943–45 (Osprey General Military)
First established in 1940, the Sturmgeschütz assault guns were purpose-built vehicles intended to support the infantry during the phase of attack and breakthrough of enemy positions. During the eastern campaign the Sturmgeschütz proved to be potent tanks destroyers, able to reliably defeat even T-34 and KV heavy tanks. Cheaper and quicker to produce than the German Panzers, it was deployed widely and with great success forming an integral part of armoured units, particularly in the final desperate days of the war when tank production could not keep up with the needs of the war effort. Drawing on original material from German archives and private collections, and replete with over 200 images, this book tells the thrilling story of the Wehrmacht's unsung workhorse in the final years of World War II.
Added some more Ospreys to the Aero Wargaming folder (thanks for all the Duels last thread), contributions of any kind always welcome Perhaps a quarter of Osprey Publishing's stuff revolves around aviation, it was their original subject, and they keep creating new lines Consequently I can't add every relevant title to that folder, but I'll throw up what I've collected and will track down and add stuff on request
Jeremiah Allen
Took a photo at Warlord's open day, they appear to be both french and captured, with options for the flamethrower attatchment and 2 adapted cuppola types
Grayson Evans
The 38t and Marder are far more interesting to me :)
Owen Murphy
...
Bentley Murphy
Some terrain pieces which I would assume are to go with their incoming "Road to Berlin" book.
Juan Stewart
Always had a soft spot for the Marder, because I had a bunch of the old Esci battlesets as a kid and the Arnhem box had a Marder III/H with it It was a bit of a buzz seeing one in Saving Private Ryan (albeit a mocked-up III/M)
I like the panzerfaust-wielding lady in the foxhole
Tyler Thomas
...
Joseph Parker
...
Aiden Martinez
talked to warlord, apparently he chindits being made fixed head is not a one off, it will happen to other armies but only bolt action.
I suspect the 'new'' ss artillery blisters are fixed as some of the crew look like they have been taken from the FOO blister and given different fixed heads.
I for one like it as separate heads are fiddly and I find that in most cases people fill out forces using plastics and dont buy multiples of most metal box sets.
Peoples thoughts?
Benjamin Mitchell
That's quite disappointing, I really like Warlord's head system. It makes individualising models quite easy.
Samuel Rivera
Anyone have General d' Armee. Also searching for Programmed Wargames Scenarios. Thanks in advance
Mason Rodriguez
I wonder if they're a single kit for both vehicles? That'd be brilliant for me; I've wanted to make a Diana for my DAK for ages, and that gun's the right one for it (without the muzzle brake); it'd be a shame to not be able to make a tank with spare parts afterwards. Unless I put a PaK in the turret instead...
Nathan Hughes
This may be of interest.
>I scanned and added "Setting up a Wargames Campaign" by Tony Bath to the snip /EPTrove.
That's snip.li, if you don't know the site, it's an url obfuscator thing. Good book that, and well worth picking up.
Cameron Barnes
Thnx for the heads-up!
Ayden Reyes
Bath's Setting Up A Wargames Campaign's also available as part of the History of Wargaming reprint of his Ancient Wargaming, which is a good book that also includes stuff about his Hyborian campaign: wargaming.co/recreation/details/tbcampaigns.htm
I think it's on kindle too.
One of these days someone's actually going to finish the book and publish his Hyborian stuff, it's loosely fantasy but really just an excuse to play ancients with little concern for geography and a lot of elephants - he just placed historical groups over a map he enlarged from a conan group and recruited players.
He's also basically the father of ancient wargaming, or at least one of them. It's his ancient rules in Featherstone's War Games, for example.
Juan Young
How do you get these so early?
Evan Jenkins
So I'm still plugging away at a low figure-count skirmish game set in 1630's France with musketeers etc.
Figured I'd share the character creation/army builder with you guys, see what you think.
Aaron Thompson
Isn't everyone a bit of a StuG fetishist?
Wyatt Martinez
How many points should I use?
Nicholas Hernandez
Smallish battles are like 200, so that's a good place to start
Lucas Peterson
im sure it does although ive never really seen it, metal packs tend to get built with the head displayed on the box, in some box sets the heads kinda only suit the ones they are displayed with, like the polish box sets or the brit foo team.
The only time I see separate heads widely used is to convert plastic kits which isnt bad.
I reckon its down to two things, ease of production/packaging and complaints as some of the separate head stuff makes the minis look awful (looking at you german veteran grenadier squad!)
Anthony Moore
I've heard rumors that they have alternate heads planned for the Gates of Antares models, so they are not moving away from the idea in principle at least.
David Cooper
I wouldn tthink so, it works on antares as the often armoured neck means good-looking miniatures with separate heads are possible, it works less well for example on the marine bolt action range where lots of minis have uncovered necks.
Jason Reyes
...
Jace Hughes
bumpen
Parker Watson
A fantastic score, and definitely worth checking out, added to Wargaming folder too mediafire.com/file/wakk434raz3l2wh/Tony Bath's Setting Up A Wargames Campaign.pdf As user here notes Bath is a real legend, even among the ranks of the original grogs His Hyborian campaign was the envy of his peers He used 40mm flats, something no-one's done before or since I think Recently his old wargaming club announced they had found them stashed away and brought them out to be played with again, which is very nice
JaZZ knows the score! Seriously though it's thanks to a handful of Russian dudes on certain sites who work 24/7 on this stuff They're converted PDFs at the moment but the True PDF versions come along eventually Really looking forward to the upcoming Elite covering European Counter-Terrorist Forces 1973-2017
Some of those aforementioned Tony Bath flats in action
Michael Brooks
...
Adam Wright
...
Alexander Myers
...
Josiah Bell
MAJESTIC ELEPHANTS
Yeah, he had to import them from Germany (and then recast them to save money) because this was waaaay back in the day when there weren't many other options.
They do look amazing though, well-painted flats just have a different style to rounds.
Isaiah Reyes
Well they've done a plastic French tank and Germans, US, UK and USSR already have plastic infantry, so never say never.
William Ortiz
Some Footsore Late Roman commanders and Lady Guinevere with orange hair (yuck) because I was told to make it orange. I still have two that need painting and then I'll base them all at once + do their shields.
Nolan Rivera
>Lady Guinevere with orange hair (yuck) because I was told to make it orange It does work well with the general colour scheme
Nicholas Johnson
Nah mate, the market demands plastic Hitler Jügend.
Cameron Hernandez
>Jügend. I appreciate the effort, but that's one word where the Ü does not belong.
Completely unrelated, but I recently started watching Grimm, so I'm kind of sensitive about terrible faux German atm. Sorry, if that seems anal.
Camden Miller
>motherfuckers can't compound noun
Brandon Nguyen
You better shut your mouths, I have the rank of Überstürmbandführer and Hitler gave me supreme grammar powers.
Christopher Cooper
>orange hair (yuck)
Philistine
Alexander Thomas
Hey man I was just quoting the other user I love the gingers
Ryder Russell
Well, seriously. I like "light" osprey books, they are good train reading.
But how many times they can do "German Soldier VS Random thing"? Isn't this one the seventh or eight book?
(and by the way, the T10 book was ever scanned?)
Daniel Rogers
>But how many times they can do "German Soldier VS Random thing"? Isn't this one the seventh or eight book? I sympathize with you on this
William Kelly
German Soldier vs Rene Artois - France 1942-3 (Osprey Combat 125)
By the end of the first week of June 1940, the German Army held about 90 per cent of France. Yet the French stubbornly held on to the remaining parts of the country, and German casualties started to reach catastrophic levels. In an attempt to break the deadlock, Hitler decided to send additional German Gestapo officers to recover the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies. These Germans were skilled in all aspects of city fighting, especially in the use of ways to make people talk and in the destruction of armoured vehicles. Facing them were hardened French bartenders who had perfected the use of urban camouflage, pissing by the window, close quarters battle, and sausages. This fully illustrated book explores the tactics and effectiveness of these opposing troops during this period, focusing particularly on the brutal close-quarters fight over Herr Flick's painting.
Carter King
I have always dreamed of doing some kind of fun Allo Allo game Like 7TV meets Ain't Been Shot Mum
Jackson Lopez
You'd more likely need GURPS or something ...
Cameron Brooks
>(and by the way, the T10 book was ever scanned?) We have it now!
Soviet T-10 Heavy Tank and Variants (Osprey General Military)
When it was introduced into service in 1953, the T-10 represented a return to the "classic" Soviet heavy tank. Although considered a major threat to NATO tank forces, it also represented the end of an era. All gun heavy tanks like the T-10 would eventually be made effectively redundant by later models like the T-62 which had powerful next generation armament and new ammunition types. The tank was gradually withdrawn from service in the 1970s, though the last tanks would only leave Russian service, by decree of the President of the Russian Federation, in 1997. As such the T-10 outlived the Soviet state that had created it. Never exported outside of the Soviet Union and rarely used in combat, the T-10 has remained a mysterious tank, with many of its variants unknown in the West until very recently. This study, written from original Russian and Ukrainian primary source documents that have only recently been made available, uncovers the history of this enigmatic tank using 130 stunning contemporary and modern photographs of the T-10 as well as full colour side-view artwork.
