Flames of War General /fowg/ Stronger, Soviet, Better edition

How does this look? I'm going in green, so let me know if anything is particularly screwy. This is from the Battle of the Bulge book, Tank Company, 7th Armoured Division (Confident, Trained)

Combat:
2x m4 (HQ) - 130
3x M4 - 190
3x M4 - 190

Support:
3x Priest - 170
2x .50cal & 2x 37mm AA - 150
Armoured Rifle w/ 2x Rifle Squads - 225
Armoured Rifle w/ 2x Rifle Squads - 225
Corps TD w/ 2x M36 90mm GMC - 205

You have too many small, vulnerable platoons, especially so Combat platoons.

Scrap one of the Armored Rifle Platoons (one will have to do), replace the priests with M4 Mortar carriers (they're almost as good in V4, and good enough in V3). Either get 4 or no Tank Destroyers.
Use the points gotten from this to buff up your tank platoons. First get 4 tanks in each, then get one or two 76mm tanks in each platoon.

Revised:

Combat:
2x M4 (HQ) & 1x Improvised Armour (on Company Command) - 135
3x M4 & 1x M4A1 76mm - 295
3x M4 & 1x M4A1 76mm - 295

Weapons Teams:
3x Armoured Mortars - 85

Support:
2x .50cal & 2x 37mm AA - 150
Armoured Rifle w/ 2x Rifle Squads - 225
4x M18 Hellcat (Late) - 315

You are better of playing armored rifles with tank support instead.

Battlefront has trouble with the idea that Soviet infantry tactics advanced beyond what they were at the beginning of the war.

BF has trouble with the idea that the West stole late war Soviet tactics. They especially have trouble with the idea that Israeli tactics were based heavily on Soviet strategy while the Jordanians and Iraqis used Western tactics (taught by the Brits) and lost.

That version is much better.

They also seem to completely neglect the mi-8 airborne tactics refined in Afghanistan in the 80s

tl;dr
>Battlefront has trouble with ideas that conflict with popular 'western' opinions. Even if that popular opinion is based on ignorance.

>tl;dr
>>Battlefront has trouble

Soviet tactics were never wave attacks - even at the beginning of the war.

In fact in most cases, wherever the Soviets took massive casualties in battles, it was because of small, piecemeal attacks that didn't coordinate with one another.

Huh, didn't actually know that. Could you give more detail on that? I'm rather curious now.

V4 is an utter failure. The only good thinf about V4 are the new shooting rules, which are slick. Morale, special rules, list diversity, it is all shit.

What FoW needs at this point is a season with reduced points levels, new scenarios, and random events to spice up the stale play.

The current state of thr game is a line abreast of tanks shoulder to shoulder in one quadrant of the board. It is embarrassingly boring and ugly, but caters to the "tournament player that wants to use FoW to show how smart they are."

Yes and no. Soviet doctrine evolved into the modern Motor Rifle Regiment in Battle which has been studied ad nauseum by the west.

Soviets have historically planned to have a 5:1 force ratio in the offence. The success they have had with this concentration of force is difficult to show on a table unless you neuter their individual abilities.

However, Soviet doctrine also sees lower ratios used for deception and spoiling attacks, which can be 1:1 or lower, which would likely not be successful in achieving their tactical objective.

For more information consult FM 100-2-1

>Soviets have historically planned to have a 5:1 force ratio in the offence.
What armies didn't employ the "massive concentration at the decisive point" concept? This is so basic that when Mao and co set about codifying their doctrine during the civil war, they listed Germany as a major inspiration for 9:1 local superiority in the attack.

You are right. Concentration of force is a principle of war.

The difference is the force ratio that was doctrinally adopted. Other countries adopted lower lower ratios in the offence because of their historical experience.

Notably, Soviets had larger force ratio requirements than NATO after the war, and likely in the war as well, using the Cold War as a proxy for its experience in WW2.

The problem is putting this on the tabletop. Either they ignore the foce ratio bias, or they gimp Soviets into Asiatic Hordes. Either way someone is angry.

Personally, I think getting the option to do either would be nice.

>The problem is putting this on the tabletop.
Isn't this a major reason for the reserves rule existing? The attacker will seriously outnumber the defender in almost any scenario in FOW initially. I think that's more than adequate.

There is also the option of an unfair fight, with victory dependent on completing objectives that take into account the fact that it is an uneven fight.

The defenders could be heavily outnumbered (as in a major attack), and need to only hold out for a short time before retreating, giving the defender the ability to negate the ratio by holding onto a small section of the front while the attacker can try flanking and whatnot, or the defender can shoot and scoot across the length of the board with the hope of slowing the attacker everywhere long enough.

A different victory condition is probably better, but the idea is that you can make objectives that fit into the uneven fight.

We can also just let the attacker be unfair, in a campaign-style (with map/persistent forces) game this can be fine and even encouraged.

Or just accept that we don't play every major attack, and give the soviets some decent stats to make the game 'even'.

What I think he is saying is to make the game 'fair' the soviets are given two options; have stats that reflect them at their best (ie, crew not as good as NATO, but equipment that is still good with maybe 3:2 ratio), or give them the numbers that they planned to use but give them a big nerf.

Reserve rule is still good and can give the attacker a nice ratio at the start of the battle, but it does not give the soviets both the stats they could have had with the numbers they would have had.

It all comes down to the problem how to make it 'fair' but still representative of reality.

Totally. Soviets should have two options to please both types of players. It is a frigging game, so why not?

BF tried to do this with hero lists in Berlin with some degree of success. This should be done for TY as well. Giving more options to a player is always more fun than less options.

Personally, my biggest gripe with the FoW missions is that they concentrate all excitement into a small corner of the table. They should be redesigned to have more manoeuvre and be more realistic.

Current BF missions are not realistic and lame. At the Coy level, youre not going to see a "pincer attack" because that would be a C2 nightmare and peopke would die.

We should have more missions based on actual Coy tasks with realistic force ratios. Here is an idea:

I am defender. I have half forces of the attacker full stop. I am tasked with an area defence and I have to destroy 40pct of the enemy while preserving 60 pct of my force.

Or I have to delay the enemy by X number of turns while preserving a certain amount of my force.

Or I have to BLOCK the enemy from passing through at all costs.

I want the game to be asymmetric and u equal. Being up against insurmountable odds is fun. Getting a shitty task is shitty but a fun planning exercise.

What do you guys think, in principle?

Hey so if I wanted to start a mid war German army for fourth edition what book would I need other than the core rules?

Afrika Korps, it's the only German book out for them for now until Eastern Front is redone.

I see that now, I couldn't really tell the difference between v3 and v4 books. Thank you though!

>nobody survived long enough to become veterans
>here's a CV panzerkompanie from jan 45

Is there a listbuilder for team yankee that allows fairly large formations ?

What would a North Korean battalion look like in TY?
I imagine a lot more RRs (B-40s) instead of AT-3s?

They'd make the Soviets look highly competent by comparison.

In follow up what's the normal points level for 4th ed, it was 1500 in v3. but im guessing its 150 in 4th?

100 points now. 150 would be like 2000 points of the old system.

Oh okay, then Rommel's Afrika Korps seems like a pretty good deal then, 80$ for a 50-60 point force.

What would you add to bring the army up to 100.

I am all for it, and you can work on a list of such missions yourself (who needs the official ones?)

Noice

A 1980s North Korean Battalion would be T-62 knock-offs and lots of chinese APCs + rifles + other equipment. Everything would be 10+ years old by the time it reaches NK hands. So get ready to fight NATO troops with 1970s weapons, like if in the AIW the Isrealis had Leopard 2s and Milans.

Would have serious issues deploying

The North Korean infantry were still usimg SU-76Ms as support guns during the TY time period. It would be so much spam.

Light tank battalions with 4 PT-85 companies,
Tank battalions with 3 T-55A companies,
Elite(or guard) Tank battalions with 4 T-62 companies,
Mech battalion with 3 BTR-60 or VTT-323 companies.
VTT-323 would be rated as BMP with twin 14.5mm MGs and AT-3 missiles.
Infantry armed with B-10/11 RR, SA-7 as heavy weapons, less RPG-7 than Soviet(1 RPG-7 in a 12-men squad instead of 2 tubes)
100mm SPG or M1977 130mm SPG as direct AT support,
M1981 122mm SPG or M1974152mm SPG as indirect fire support,
M1984 ZPU-4 or M1985 twin 57mm as non-radar AA, some ZPU-23-4 shilkas as radar AA, SA-13 as guided AA.
Su-25 would be air support, mi-24 as attack helicopter.
Some MD-500 armed with AT-3 missiles would be light attack helicopter with Enemy disguises.

>The only good thing about V4 are the new movement rules

FTFY

serious. the movement is the best thing outta Team Yankee of War.
no more at the double trouble for non-infantry
no more perma bog
(wasted) potential to have seperate speed ratings per unit.

>North Korea
i'm gonna say actual 2+ to be hit troops. reckless goes into TY.

i am just gonna say 150 is a Bullshit points level. Even my Worst Germans only get to 130 on a hard push. and i have a few....

Considering that they would be facing SK troops also armed with hand-me-down stuff from the US, and even though US troops in SK were combat ready like their counterparts in TY, their equipment were quite old as well (they had M48s in 1985 to be compatible with SK troops)

There's a reason our local V3.5 has pretty much just taken movement, hit allocation, and reserves from V4. There's other bits we've taken inspiration from, but not directly copied (morale now being focused on the company proper, for example).

Did they at least have the up gunned 105mm M48s?

Yeah 105mm M48A5s. Koreans still had some A3s but were in the process of switching over (as well as getting K1s into service).

Norks may be reckless, but Soks were pretty bad as well (massive conscription with an extremely oppressive government that had its own literal CIA).
I envision it as FC/FT vs. RT/CV(troops led by officers from Vietnam).

SK army and marines retreated from Vietnam in '73, and that mean a second lieutenant commissioned in '71~72 would becomes at least major in '85. It is hard to believe SK platoon or company would had experienced officer from Vietnam.

"Rock" marines had the same reputation as "normal" marines (tough as NAILS) and would probably be CV/FV in TYverse.
The units that went to Vietnam (Tigers and White Horses) were still the most loyal units to the junta back then, and most of their officers and NCOs would probably be from Vietnam giving them the most experience, well more experienced, trained, and motivated than random Park who had to interrupt his college study to do two years of soldering.

Eh, remember NK only became a joke relatively recently.

Lay it out for me boys: Why wouldn't I take an M4 105mm over the Priest or Mortar MC? Better armour, similar or greater gun stats, less range than the Priest but 10 points cheaper for the same amount of vehicles. Seems like a no brainer.

Does anyone have a decent 100 point West German force they can list?

...

Ranged artillery is still worth it’s points in my opinion.

And mortars have gotten better in the switch over to V4.

THe M4(105) can still do service as ranged artillery. Better than they did in V3.

Priests have Time on Target (which is arguably less important now, when all artillery have something similar on Repeat Bombardments), while M4 MMC are cheaper.

I think Vet Priests can still be handy as you can bounce around your bombardment as needed and still (hopefully) get the rerolled saves, but if you are using trained units, I'd go with the 105 shermans.

What kind of list?

Infantry, Leopard 1, or Leopard 2?

I don’t have the book with me at the moment, but a mix of infantry and Leopard 1s backed up by a single platoon of Leopard 2s would probably form a pretty solid core of a West German force.

And make sure to bring some Gepards for AA.

Thanks guys, I'm thinking of doing a PzGren list with some tanks as support. I didn't realize the Leopard 2 was going to be the equivalent of the Tiger in terms of points in this game. I don't really like if I lose 1 tank I'm down in terms of fighting effectiveness.

Are PSC Leopard 1s any good?

Like little children, both of you.
Here , allow me to show you what a real West German force looks like.

Soviets had better strategy and tactics than the Germans by 1944.

Also better men too.

Sure, if you want to spend 77 points on 7 tanks, you can do that.

I’ve certainly been tempted.

But it seems like you’re relying a bit too much on having a several Super-Tanks that aren’t quite as invulnerable as you’re pretending they are.

Can you give an example of superior strategy and tactics in 1944-5?

How do you mean?

I am all aboard the 'soviets don't get enough recognition' wagon, but I would say that the balance of power in 44-5 changed not just because of improved strat/tactics and having the luxury of time to properly train personnel, but also because the Germans ran out of well-trained and supplied troops and Hitler regularly refused to let the OKH do things right (like retreating to reform the line, and not throwing understrength units into half-assed offensives).

It became a flipped version of operation barbarossa, where the german dictator let his men become encircled and killed by superior forces because he would not allow retreat.

They aren't super tanks. They're panthers; potent, tough, but not unkillable and not autokill except against really shit stuff. You didn't get a lot of panthers at 1500 either.

It’s a fair analogy, and one that has been made before.

But if you’re calling the Leopard 2 a Panther, then the Leopard 1 is a Panzer IV.

They have lighter armor and a lighter gun, but you get more of them, and they’re still pretty good against most of the things they will come up against.

And the things they can’t handle are what the various missile-firing tank-hunter units are for.

If irrecoverable loss ratios count, it was 1:1 in 1944 and 2:1 in 1945. For a more specific engagement, there's the 33rd Motorized Rifle Brigade (3,200 men at this time) which took the heavily fortified Tiergarten area against an enemy force of equal size and containing liberal amounts of artillery. German losses: total, at least 250 of which died. Soviet losses: 5 dead 41 wounded.

>not just because of improved strat/tactics and having the luxury of time to properly train personnel, but also because the Germans ran out of well-trained and supplied troops and Hitler regularly refused to let the OKH do things right (like retreating to reform the line, and not throwing understrength units into half-assed offensives).
Soviet tactics changed around the time of Kursk - they had been learning from the Germans the entire way through Barbarossa. By the time Kursk comes around they are capable of excellent combined arms actions and co-ordination.
Even the use of combined arms in 1939 in Khalkin Gol was incredibly well handled and the main reason the Japanese kept well away from Russia throughout the war.

I wouldn't say superior, but they could match the Germans in tactics and had the manpower and materiel to keep hitting over and over again until the Germans had to withdraw or were encircled.

Imo German and Soviet tactics and ability were even by about 1943.
With even tactics the main deciding factor is the overwhelming production and manpower the Soviets could draw on. The Germans would never be able to win a battle of attrition against them, let alone against the US and UK at the same time (as shown in pic related).

Hitler actively interfering in the strategic level didn't help either, forcing his armies to "hold ground at all costs" instead of a more fluid defensive approach.

The combination of this overwhelming materiel and manpower and the inflexibility of the German army post Stalingrad gives us the outcome: Soviets roll back all German gains in the east all the way to Berlin.

>1944
>operation bagration
>"improved soviet tactics"
>4:1 forces ratio
>soviets lost more men than germans had

yeah, the Soviet method of war is seen from the top down.

"for the people" my ass.

Bagration was something like 2:1 to 1.5:1 and inflicted somewhere between 2-3 more irrecoverable losses on the Germans than the soviets lost. People think it was 4-5:1 because German intelligence though that given the secrecy of Soviet operational preparation, so congrats on getting suckered through time.

Even official soviet stats give more killed than Germans dead

Another example: 1945, Berlin
Russians list 400k dead acc. to soviet info
Germans lost 80k dead

Let's talk air support: What's everyone's experience? Do they wreck shit, or are just another angle of attack? Are you fucked without Dedicated AA? Is that Dedicated AA as good at ripping through infantry and guns as it appears to be on paper?

/NVA/
youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ

You mean Air Support or Anti-Air?

I figured they would be closely related. Is air support so good that you have to take anti-air just in case? Can anti-air hold it's own if there is no enemy air support? That kind of thing.

Depends on if we are talking EW/LW, MW, or TY.

EW/LW- planes are really hard to actually bring down. Their main use is for bombing/rocketing the enemy armor and gun positions. You really need a Flakvierling or 37mm/40mm AA battery to have a shot to shoot planes down. AA range leaves much to be desired, so I would really only be investing in AA if you have some kind of heavy tank like KT’s you need to babysit.

MW- similar to EW/LW except there aren’t any flying tanks or jets. Pricing is more fair, as you buy planes in twos. The Stuka seems best used for bombing while the American and Brit planes are for shooting up lightly armored vehicles or side armor of tanks (the P-40 can bomb... but 5+ skill). SPAA is still vulnerable and all AA have limited range, so I would only bring it if I was running Shermans or had a bunch of light support to cover.

TY- Air is a lot more vulnerable to being shot down than in V4, but it can still be useful. The Frogfoot and helps are best used against tanks, while the Tornado and Harriers are best against APCs (without AA MGs). The A-10 can do a bit of everything. I’d either bring a minimum amount of air (to keep your opponent honest or hold out until you kill their AA) or go all in on air and try to overwhelm their AA. As far as AA goes Gepards/VADS/Yorks/Shilkas are pretty much mandatory because they also are one of the few tools that can actually dig up infantry in game. Missile AA can be useful if you just want something to stick in the corner and piss your opponent off. Biggest brain solution is to bring Wessies redeye teams because they are near impossible to dig up without assaulting.

Which edition?

V3 air support is MOSTLY just another angle of attack. If your opponent lacks AA it can be a particularly potent one, but if they have AA then you can be in for a rough ride. AA is quite effective at AA duties, and with help from recon units can be useful for dealing with infantry and guns (or at least pinning them).

V4 Air support is now made of titanium because of the addition of a 3+ save and having a base to-hit of 5+ before penalties. AA guns also lost their range boost vs aircraft which makes them very ineffective at their job. The only reason aircraft aren't the most overpowered thing ever right now is that BF nerfed their stats, and they're still really good. Air is still well worth taking, but AA is meh at best.

Seconding this.

That is a pretty good explanation of Air Support and AA in the various eras.

>Which edition?

If someone is new to the game, they’re most likely talking about the current edition.

>Russians list 400k dead acc. to soviet info
It was 80,000 dead, are you high?

No part of that indicates that it must be a new player. It's asking for people's opinions and experience, which I've done several times when considering something that I just haven't messed with before (like really light 1-1-1 armor tanks in LW).

Also the current edition sucks balls and I know at least some new guys are getting into V3 instead, so still a relevant question.

Both of you provide a damn source. If you won't then we have to go by wiki, which says you're both lying cunts.

That is your opinion. And you’re certainly entitled to it.

But from the standpoint of what is new, what is current, what is being officially supported by the company, what all the official tournaments are using, from that standpoint it makes no sense to get someone started on a previous edition of the game.

From a quality of game and ease of understanding standpoint, it makes no sense to start anyone on V4.

MW is easy to get into, but most of the old hands have no interest in it because it either wiped their MW armies out, fucked everything up, or most commonly just does not support their theater and army. EW/LW requires 5-6 documents just to play a single game (army book, V4 errata, V4 missons errata, V4 rulebook, V4 special rules and warriors book, and some units still need the V3 errata doc as well). It's unbalanced as fuck because nothing got repointed, despite MASSIVE changes in game design that were completely unneeded. V4 is currently a giant messy turd that BF shat out and expected people to eat up.

I'm going by the wiki you incompetent boy-molesting fruit.

What fucking wiki page is that? Bagration gives the numbers I posted.

>Bagration gives the numbers I posted.
Ok, we have to go back a bit:
>Another example: 1945, Berlin
>Russians list 400k dead acc. to soviet info
And then we go to me, which is in response to his Berlin claim:
>It was 80,000 dead, are you high?
And then the next step in the chain is you posting information about Bagration.

Is in response to
Which states:
>
Bagration was something like 2:1 to 1.5:1 and inflicted somewhere between 2-3 more irrecoverable losses on the Germans than the soviets lost. People think it was 4-5:1 because German intelligence though that given the secrecy of Soviet operational preparation, so congrats on getting suckered through time.
Please tell me how the post about Bagration is about Berlin.

is at

Nevermind, I can't read, brings up berlin in particular and I missed that, having skimmed over that line.

Force Ratios are not applied at the operation or theatre level. These are applied at the company or battalion level. Operation Bagration had a lot of battles within it.

Look at it this way: If I have 5x as many men as you have in this small village, im going proceed with the assault even though you have many more men in theatre.

Using Operation statistics are not, at all, indicative of required force ratios for the assault.

There are too many open source resources covering Soviey company and regiment level operations to justify this conversation.

So, how bout that Stripes?

Murica got some nice kit, like the 'Leo1 on steroids' package (M60A3), which for +1pt and slower dash gives you a bunch of extra armour, thermals, +1 AT, and a .50cal AAMG. A bunch of other options are added, like more AA than anyone but the Soviets, and new formations similar to the unique ones the Krauts and Bongs had (armoured recon, airmobile, etc). The release isn't perfect, and people (as always) have things to gripe about, but US players now have a LOT of extra options to play with and most of it is not bad.

I think stripes is going to create everything I would want in TY, I think a Marine Recon Force would be pretty bad ass.

I haven’t had a thorough look at it, but it’s giving me a few ideas for new forces I’d like to try out.

Here's my first iteration for Stripes at 60 points

Patton Company: 40 Points
HQ: 2x Patton

3x Patton
3x Patton

HMMWV Scout
HMMWV Anti-Tank

4x LAV Platoon
Support: 20 points
6x M109
4x M163

I'm concerned about the lack of infantry but I feel I have enough anti-infantry firepower to remove my opponents force.