Flames of War General: 64 Point West German List Edition

Hinds Motherfucka. People might even be able to afford AA, and last time I went against Birdy at this kind of points limit, I had Hinds, he did not have AA. It was slaughter.

Played team yankee today and holy moley it's the first time my helicopters did anything. Two of these nugs proceeded to kill 5 chieftains over 3 rounds.
My opponent basically gave up since he had nothing that could kill them by the end.

...

I liked Eastern Front ;_;

It's workable I suppose. To be honest 80 would have been the bees knees what what I've seen.

>If they're is one constant in Flames of War, it's that Soviet players will always find something to complain about.
Have you considered it's because BF have never done Soviets particularly well?

But what defines "done well"?

What criteria must be met before Soviet players will actually look at something Battlefront has done and actually say "This is exactly what I wanted. Phil finally got it right."?

I don't see that ever happening. No matter what kind of effort Battlefront puts in.

Soviet players look at every little thing from the point of view of "How did they fuck up this time?".

With that kind of mindset, they'll never be happy with anything Battlefront does.

Why Churchills? Why not an assault gun list?

Why not Rota or Forward Detachment?

Probably because this is meant to be generic lists and those aren't actually terribly generic (also because the forward detachment is fairly easy to do with V4 company rules). But the Russian Churchills are anything but generic...

BF no doubt has plastic Churchill IIIs coming, useful for Brits in Tunisia and Soviets Lend Lease.

i miss Fortress Europe where they had an all comers Panzer Kompani and then they threw in the motherfucking Fallschirmjager hell yeah motherfucker!

no shit. where the fuck is the existing mold love and the mainline of soviet booshka?

As a soviet player I resent that. I see more bitching about soviet players bitching than actual soviet players bitching around here. I said this threads ago and all I heard was muh forums and muh local players.
I'm pretty tired of this mantra and it discourages me from posting here. It's bad enough with the V4 negativity.
At least bitch anonymously next time.

"Soviet players look at every little thing from the point of view of 'How did they fuck up this time'?"

It's kind of hard not to, considering Battlefront have failed to provide any sort of decent representation of the Soviet armed forces - either in WW2 or the Cold War.

It's not some circle-jerk mindset you fanboy dolt - people aren't being 'upset for the sake of being upset' - Battlefront have never represented the Soviets in any light other than as some sort of yammering army of wave attacks peasants. There's no attention to detail, and any 'good' strategy is so far apart from actual reality it dissolves any sort of vague realism that would draw people into the game.

A good job would be historically accurate lists, and a departure from Battlefront's atrocious, Weharboo/NATOboo narrative of brave westerners fighting off hordes of sub-humans.

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=yTg-worGBWo

Company-level lists that don't require me to spam one unit over and over and over to be halfway viable in even a casual setting. Basically more of the Hero Cossack list.

Fucking Bolt Action gives a more realistic presentation of the Soviets than Flames does. That should tell you something.

How is Rota Razvedki going to be an easy list for starters? So many transports...

They must have some Churchills collecting dust in the warehouse.

>oh hey since you don’t know how to read allow me to take 12 and a half minutes to drag out this information that other sites have already covered.

Bumping with best tank.

>At least bitch anonymously next time.

I wanted my screen name attached to it. I wanted to clearly express this as MY opinion, so I posted with my SN.

Even I admit that Soviet players have some legitimate complaints. It comes across as beating a dead horse since we here on Veeky Forums can't actually change the rules, but there are some legitimate complaints. Even if the complaints start to sound like a broken record after a while because we see them so often.

Which is why I am legitimately asking with zero sarcasm, what *exactly* is it that Battlefront will have to do with their next Soviet release for Soviet players to actually be happy with it?

Because the last time Soviet players got something they were asking for, (T-34s without Hen & Chicks), they began bitching and moaning that it was actually worse!

>you fanboy dolt

Fanboy Dolt, Battlefront Shill, No Tallent Hack...

Please continue. I actually enjoy seeing how creative people can get with their ad hominems.

>people aren't being 'upset for the sake of being upset

It comes across that way. After so many posts about what people don't like about Soviets or what people don't like about V4, it certainly comes across as complaining for the sake of complaining. It's not like any of us have the power to force Battlefront to rewrite the rules.

You're unhappy. We know. It's completely understandable.

But Veeky Forums can't actually do anything about it.

The best we can do is potentially agree with you.

If you want the rules to be better for Soviets, for V4, for TY, etc, the people to complain to are Battlefront.

All complaining here on Veeky Forums does is reinforce the "Never Happy" stereotype.

>Because the last time Soviet players got something they were asking for, (T-34s without Hen & Chicks), they began bitching and moaning that it was actually worse

Hero Tankovy? Or being 2+ to hit instead, as Phil tries to introduce into the last round of V4 changes.

Hero Tankovy is a lot better with movement orders in V4. I have more or less been running it instead of regular Tankovy. I think people were rightfully upset when it first came out, that they weren’t vets. For the longest time, aside from the very last DLC releases there were no veteran Soviets, aside from Razvedki recon and spetznaz.

If you were talking about making all Soviet tanks 2+ to hit... then yeah. Even if there are situations where they’d be better on paper, it plays off the subhuman Conscript memes.

>If you want the rules to be better for Soviets, for V4, for TY, etc, the people to complain to are Battlefront.

Battlefront have routinely demonstrated that they have no intentions of doing much with soviets outside of making them a meme spam horde. People voicing their opinion on the forum is what gave rise to the Cheers meme.

>so what do you want?

I think said it best. It would be nice to have some choice of infantry that aren’t pure conscripts. I also really hope they add in some options for KV tanks.

Do the TY forces have different playstyles? I'm torn between Soviets (Hinds and T-72s are bae), West Germans (Leo 2 :D ), and Brits (Chieftains, also I'm a brit). I'm looking at the 3 starter armies and I simply can't decide.

/NVA/

Yeah, they do have separate playstyles.

The Soviets and East Germans need to push aggressively with their tanks an infantry so they can overwhelm the enemy with shear firepower before they take too many losses. They are supported by ATGM support from helicopters and APCs. Sadly the T-72 is a bit lacking unless you want to run them as East German. The T-64 is the one you want to go with if you are thinking Soviet tanks.

West Germans have small platoon sizes for pretty much everything, but are among the best trained. They rely on their skill and mobility along with thermals (when night fighting) to best a superior force.I’d recommend against the West German starter. The Leo 2 is a nice but expensive tank, but I don’t think the helicopters are that great for what you spend on them. If you want Leo 2s just buy the box of 5 and save some money on better Support assets like Marders.

The British are defensively focused, but their tanks can be really good at digging out infantry if need be. Their infantry get over 9000 Milans (so do west Germans if you run a panzertruppen list) so they are hard to shift from a defender position. The chieftain is weak from the sides, but has really (unhistorically) good front armor, and can really do a lot of damage from a hull down position. They also get tiny tank Scorpions with good firepower against infantry. Again, pass on the box set, unless you want airmobile infantry. ATGM helicopters are kinda shit with how strong AA is in TY.

Cool, thanks. Looking like West Germany might be the way to go, I prefer smaller, more elite lists; makes painting faster. It'll be a nice change to my tradition of always playing Soviets, as well!

follow up question: Is there an online list builder for TY? I know there used to be, but has battlefront been going GW-style on stuff like that?

Still no forces of war available for TY.
Try fowlists.blogspot.com . I know they have something up, but I don't think it tells you any stats.

That's fine, I only need to estimate the size of a list, really. Thanks.

How about stuff everybody else has like Smoke and Veterans (not just Scouts and Digital lists)?
Or the same AT values for using the same equipment like with the 76mm Sherman (alternatively some form of explanation)

In general BF should treat soviets a bit less "special" meaning no Battalion sized forces just for them as those tend to lead either to spam or are simply bad.

Lastly more consistency with stuff that is included or not across all factions (York vs. T-80). That would be a start and an improvement for most involved.

AT is because US tanks get HVAP. Soviets don't. That said, HVAP issue was hardly universal. It should really be one-shot.

>AT is because US tanks get HVAP. Soviets don't.
The 57mm for the US and 6pdr for the brits is another example of not sharing ammo (they're the same gun). Brit ones are AT 10 with HE and go to AT 11 with HE for the (late), US ones go from AT 10 with no HE to AT 10 with HE for the (late). Brits also have the AT 12 for the 3" and 76mm guns like the soviets do, since the HVAP wasn't given to them either.

>That said, HVAP issue was hardly universal. It should really be one-shot.
If the HVAP was one-shot it'd have to have an AT in the high teens instead of just +1 to AT. They do the same with the APDS for the 17pdr and 6pdr with the brits, it's +1 AT on all shots instead of a 16+ AT for one shot. Flames isn't an ammo tracking kind of game, so it's a reasonable way to handle it.

The main difference being APDS was a widely-issued round. HVAP was specific to tank destroyer units and any M4s that have it have scrounged for it; even if you're SUPER late war the allocation was no higher than 2 rounds per tank, compared to maybe a dozen for the firefly.

Fair point, should probably be a limited number upgrade instead of an automatic +1 AT then. I figured it was more like the APDS in prevalence.

Saw this on another website.

Which one of you magnificent bastards is responsible for this?

Since we're discussing Soviets, how viable are those big blocks of Zis-3s now with the improved survivability of gun teams and increased lethality of smaller guns in bombardment?

Well they are broken up into individual batteries for firing, so no more god of war. The buff to firepower and the increased armor save both make Zis-3s a lot better than they were in V3.

So 3 bombardments vs 1 powerful bombardment. Seems like it would tear up infantry heavy lists and its extremely cheap too, at 285 points for 12 guns and an observer out of Red Bear, then a few points off for losing the staff team and command stand

Zooming in on both the soviet card box and starter set (which has much fuzzier stat cards displayed) it appears the ones in the starter box do NOT have hen and chicks. The area it says that and tank unit on the card box is much longer than that displayed on the starter box. Everything else is indecipherable.

Starter box ones are organized like Hero T-34s, so that's not surprising.

Taking my shitty training Panzers to a V4 tournament tomorrow. Frig off medium mortars.

Best of luck, user.

Hello my friends and I play V3 early war. I want to try and play Yugoslavia but the only PDF that is around is crap. I was wondering if any of you would like to help me make this? I have a few ideas already.

I've had an interest in their partisan forces, but that's more mid war and late war period. Afraid I haven't done any real research on their early wary existence.

They got a mix of french tanks FT-17s and R-35s and a few Czech tankettes armed with 37mm guns

So from what I've heard IPM1s will be a unit upgrade much like stillbrew 2pts per tank for FA19 and +1 to remount rolls for the blowout panels.

M1 already have 2+ remount. Did you mean IPM1 will remount automatically?
I don't think people want paying addtional 2 points for FA 19. 10 points per vehicle is massive, I don't think even FA 20 is worth buying for the points.

>10 points per vehicle is massive, I don't think even FA 20 is worth buying for the points.

West Germans pay 11pts for FA18

They're also paying for the 120mm.

>implying 105mm or 120mm makes a difference to the T-55/BMP/East German T-72 horde meta.

It's really just a tax to counter that 1 Soviet player who uses T-64s.

IPM1 is going to be 1pt for +1 front, +2 side.

+2 side mean SA10 kinetic or SA18 against HEAT?

No. The way the Chobham rule is worded it makes your armour 16 regardless of what it was before.

So if you have SA 1 or SA 20 both with chobham they will both be SA 16 against HEAT.

Except the T-64 wasn't in the game yet when the West Germans were added to the game.

We're fucking 40K now, all we do is complain and stir the cauldron hoping the company sinks.

Nothing will happen, sorry to break it to you.

> Which one of you.
> /pol/.

>/pol/
>blue board
>no country tags

Pretty much. Flames is going to go on regardless of how they make the Russians. Look at how may people have East German spam hordes. Unless you have Razvedki or something, I imagine your list will play similarly to how it did out of Eastern Front.

>you can change theme colours
>pol didn't have nation tags in 2014

>Flames is going to go on regardless of how they make the Russians.
It'll continue to slowly leak players while alienating and confusing new people?

>when you cheers your games to death

That's not the first time that image has been posted it's just the first time you've seen it.

>thinking the game being confusing for beginners is a new thing

Even during V3 people were constantly asking about how to get started. People had to explain the multiple eras the multiple company types, which books to buy, and 100 other things.

That's hardly new to V4.

I never said it was new, I was poking fun at the idea that "continuing on as it is currently" is fine. BF have lost shitloads of older players and still aren't getting new players in; that's a terrible position for them to be in.

What year is Team Yankee set in?

1985

THEN WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY CHALLENGER 1S :(
srsly, Chieftains a shit. I want Challys.

>THEN WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY CHALLENGER 1S

I dunno, probably the same place the T-62, T-80, and integrated motor rifle ATGMs ended up.

Somewhere down a Kiwi toilet?

>You are now picturing Phil running screaming from the bathroom as GSFG explodes out of the plumbing

>CHALLENGER 1S
I can give you A30 Challengers. They're only a bit out of date.

no thanks

I'm the guy from the last thread asking about play styles; The West German playstyle sounds like the one for me, but I can't shake the patriotic feeling of wanting Brits... Damnit.

1984 actually.

The back of the rulebook literally says "It's 1985 and the cold war got hot".

My mistake. I was going off the top of my head, and I would have sworn it was 1984.

>Flames site is down
Neat. Anyway here are some things I learned from designing a FOW replacement that might help anyone who wants to beat my lazy ass to it:
>reference material to truly understand a period is expensive
>norms in games exist because there are only so many ways to approach design problems--my game started VERY unconventional but took on more and more conventions as it became clear there are only so many ways to grapple with a setting, particularly when your game is parasitic
>what is the time scale? ground scale was remarkably easy to set but time scale can MASSIVELY change how a game plays--see Dropzone Commander, where a turn is so short infantry move 2" flat-out
>formatting is tedious
>playtesting with as many different pieces of equipment fow handles, even for only one year of the war, is also incredibly tedious
This was your annual blogpost dun let ur dreams b dreems playtest that shit idea you have.

List did much better than how I thought it would. Fought the overall winner to a 2-2 draw, and would have had another 7-1, but the guy was new and I basically walked him through how to play so we timed out. I’m going to run it again even though not having artillery makes me sad.

So what does everyone think will be in the next British release?

Challanger
Tornado
Royal Marines/Parachute Regiment?
Land Rovers?
105mm fieldgun?

I can't really think of anything else. I know you have variations of the FV430 but I can't see BF fucking on with Sultans and stuff. It's not going to be the most exciting release.

ANZACs were promised at some point.

That will be small release though, you already have 90% of the models they just need a list writing.

Warrior IFV and wombat troops?

The Warrior didn't come into service until 1988 and the Milan pushed the Wombat out of service. Some special forces continued to use it but it will probably just be an extra bit for the Land Rover.

I'd love to say the Challenger, but probably the Land Rover, in various forms. I'm not sure what year it was introduced but the WMIK Milan would probably be a good choice.

>The Warrior didn't come into service until 1988
The York didn't come into service. Service dates are meaningless.

>all the new starter boxes include almost exactly the same number of tanks
>in the LW card box backs, everything except Russians are hit on a 4+
In the event that things turn out in the most likely way, how do I explain to new players that playing starter box v starter box will be unbalanced as fuck, at least in the Soviet case?

Just read this article to the Soviet player.
>flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4983

Just use the Chieftan with skillbraw with chally models

>All are hit on +4 but the Soviets
Is that true?
If yes, i am going to be pretty butthurt. What i liked about FOW was the variety of gimmicky lists and ratings.

You can still play all those gimmicky lists using the V3 army books and the EW/LW conversion.

Brits are pretty clearly 7th armoured, who are rightfully vet by LW but can be Reluctant or Confident depending on the stage in the war. US is LLW with the Pershings, which again means CV or RV. The Germans being 4+ is disappointing, that force is way too cat heavy for vet to work with points, makes it very biased without points, and just plays into the "germans most skilled forever" memeshit when they were probably fresh ass crews by that point in the war.

Bump

Not meaningless at all.

The York was actively undergoing testing in the early 80s.

I ultimately got cancelled, but had it been approved it could have been in service by 1985.