Flames of War / Team Yankee: looking back edition

How so? Looks fine to me.

PACT Question Time:

Which makes for the better AA unit, Gaskins or Gophers?

I would say the 9К35 Cтpeлa-10 (SA-13 Gopher). It is more mobile, slightly better armour, and with more range and firepower (Enough that if you sit them in the center of a long edge, they can cover the board except for the last inches of the far corners). The 9К31 Cтpeлa-1M (SA-9 Gaskin) does cost half as much (giving you twice as many shots for the same points), has enough range to still cover most the board, and has much better road speed. The Gopher kills from hitting the target and passing firepower, Gaskin kills from hitting the target so many times it gets knocked off-course and crashes. I don't like spamming too many things, so that probably influences my view.

>tl;dr Gopher is good, Gaskin is 'good enough'

Alternatively: Gopher is a 'proper' AA, Gaskin is a 'spam' AA. Looking at the +100% RoF for -33% firepower, you are more likely to actually get a kill for the same amount of points, assuming that the Gaskin is in position/range to shoot in the first place.

Hills because real tables have curves

Rivers, particularly ones with limited crossing points. Forces players to actually plan their advance rather than just having a nilly willy shoot out.

It also triggers the fuck out of many NATO players.

Yeah, rivers are one of those things that should be present more often on battlefields.

Something as simple as a river with 3 crossings (some mix of bridges and fords) and roads/paths connecting them instantly leads to key chokepoints to fight a battle over, especially if there's cover nearby, which would almost always be the case on a realistically set-up battlefield.

Road networks in general can also add a lot of interesting matter; not a single road just going across, but several paths criss-crossing so you get fast paths for certain unit types.

>let’s play the river as a small stream
>come on user, it wouldn’t be fair if I couldn’t cross it and your amphibious BMPs could

I play NATO and even i hate those types of people

I want to play interesting games not the most convenient to win games

I have had several games where NATO players have refused to play the moment they see a bit of water terrain.

Only around a third went through the motions that explained.

>My opponent is forced to pay points for amphibious units? Hmm, how about a water-less board? Only way to be fair :)

How true is it that a board with a water obstacle is instantly PACT-sided? As the user above said, any linear water obstacle should have multiple crossings which serve as chokepoints but which also offer multiple routes of advance. If it is just two or less crossings then board set-up was bad and it should be fixed (the rules even say a minimum of three crossings).

The fact that PACT/U.S. mech inf can cross it does not end the game in an instant victory. Airmobile inf (which most nations have now) can also negate not only water obstacles but ALL obstacles. In both cases once they are over the river they will likely be cut-off from any sort of heavy direct support (ie tanks that can take hits for them) since they went over an obstacle that the rest of the force cannot follow. Even though amphibious is an option, it is usually better to take a crossing that doesn't isolate units from one another.

PACT players wanting to get some use of out their mandatory amphibious abilities and play a different board layout should not be viewed as a crime. If they insist that all maps have a water obstacle, then you can call them out for being a goddamn munchkin. If they ask every once in a while though, what is the real harm?

>Get asked to set up the table for a Rhine crossing scenario
>NATO players wig out about the river despite having heavy cover and and five(!) bridges to cross it

Jesus Christ these people. Turns out what they wanted was something akin to pic related with a stream down the middle. Because the fucking Rhine is known for being narrow and shallow with gentle currents. I wish the player base here wasn't comprised of so many of these natoboo Twat Clancey manchildren.

>the game is meant to be 100% fair so the table should be set up fair for both sides

Okay, maybe it’s just me, but aren’t rivers and the bridges over them a luge part of warfare?

Two obvious examples from World War II are Operation Market-Garden and Remagen.

Both of those were about capturing and controlling vital bridges over major rivers so that the Allied forces could advance into Germany.

Sure, from a game play perspective it forces you into a bit of a bottleneck, but the reality is that bridges are very important to military operations.

I think it's only a bottleneck if you let it be. As pointed out, airmobile can go wherever they want, and if there are roads attached to the bridge you should be able to exploit decent road dash speeds to get into position on the other side. God forbid you cover your advance with smoke or protect your flank with minelets.

I think some players need to get out of their comfort zones and into the enemy lines.

Okay, sure. Airmobile does change that up a bit, but for nations without airmobile, like West Germans, or players who don’t own air mobile, rivers can still be significant obstacles.

It’s not an insurmountable challenge by any means, but it is still a challenge.

And players should try to step up to the challenge instead of complaining about it, or never facing it at all.

For example, I could just as easily complain about WarPac players who are seemingly afraid of the dark.

Solution is obvious. River crossing in the dark.

Pasta Dump

Looks like you either can either build the 47 mm armed M14 or the short 75mm armed Semovente assault gun.

100mm howitzer which is also in the starter. Includes meltymen gun crew.

Italians get discount 88s too. (I presume 8 million memes will make them cheaper).

47 mm meatball launcher with meltymen crew. I think they'll be AT 6, which will at least be decent to spook tanks in defensive fire.

Fug I forgot the image. I guess this is a good time to mention that everything besides the infantry get the 8 million bayonets rule (they all have dice that come in the box).

Lancia-carried 90mm gun. Are these the guns that everyone was in love with in V3? I think they are going to be a little vulnerable in the desert.

Armored Car Aesthetic

Tiny tenk

Cool plane, but what is it even armed with? Bombs?

Lets take the only AA option and put it on a softskin so it can be taken out in one strafing run. Brilliant!

Where did you find these? I can't seem to find them. Thanks btw!

the battlefront online store. Sorry for the shit quality.

Thank you, dont be sorry! You informed us of what we wanted to know, if we want to know more we can just check FoWs site. Thanks!

> Lorenzo's Rams

kek ....baaaaaad name.

Looking forward to the plastic tanks though.

What, should it have been “Fettuccini’s Alfredos”?

No worries. Battlefront is never consistent with how they spoil their new products, so I usually try to post here.

I assume that they're called that because of the Ariete armoured division, which used a ram's head as their logo

More than likely, but a ram is hardly a fearsome animal.

Compare that to the Bears, Wolves, and Eagles that have been used as names for other starter sets, and the Ram feels out of place.

t. someone who has never been attacked by a ram

I’ve never been attacked by a wolf, bear, or eagle before either, but those at least are known for being powerful predators.

I think I'd much rather fight an eagle than a ram to be honest.

Claws are hardly fun, but a ram will fuck you up.

Are melty man really that bad? I've seen some user painted his in another thread and it doesn't look that awful compare to PSC's soft detail.

The faces look real bad up close and personal, and it's true, they could have more detail. But 90% of the time they'll be about three foot away from your eyeline or across the table. So, not really a big deal.

Any recomendations on basing your 6mm Infantry for TY? My tanks are all based on 3x4cm bases, and I think about putting the Infantry ether on the same, but sideways, or medium or small regular FoW bases.

Noob question for TY: can I use the Blitz order to mount and dismount transports?

Pretty stoked for these.

The starter actually looks like a good deal, although I'm a little irked that you can build *either* 14/41s or Semoventes. I do like that it comes with the 100 Howitzers since I still need a battery of those.

I am also a little bugged that we got another 88 is plastic, especially because it looks weedy compared to the metal one. I would have preferred a stationary 90/53 over that or the lancia.

Still, I'll at least be grabbing a starter and a Lancia just because. Maybe grab another tank box to try and do an armored company in the future.

I like that they come with an 8 million bayonets die.

Yes. Also to land or take off Helicopters.

Did the Italians have 88s?

lasercraftart.com/cube/6mm-accessories.html
These folks make 6mm FOW style bases.

Yeah, they had 88's and they had their own 90/53 which was, roughly, equal.

I have tons of the small bases lying around, question was more intended on, what looks good, what plays right.

What are you impression of the new Italian models?

...now i have homework to do.

I like what I’m seeing so far. I’m not an Italian player myself, but I know a few who will likely be pleased by the new releases.

The thing that surprises me from looking at the packaging is that it seems that they have kept the 8 Million Bayonets rule.

I wasn’t sure that they would do that, since it adds randomness to what has otherwise been a rather strait forward game so far stat-wise.

Of course they kept it, they have no idea what else to do. MW is pretty much just a re-hash of the V2 list with much reduced options and a few tweaks for the sake of tweaking.

BF has not had an original idea in a very, very long time, and it shows.

Would you also have been complaining if they removed it?

Were StugIII's around in Africa during WWII? If so will FoW have them for the Afrika Korps?

Very limited numbers, and I think mostly in Tunisia they're not in Afrika Korps

I think they were mostly used on the Eastern front.

Battlefront’s 2018 Preview video is revealing as all hell.

Guess who’s finally doing plastic T-55s and plastic Leopard 1s after they’ve already been beaten to the punch in both cases...

Serves them right.

youtu.be/ncIZzA6aQ74

Eight Million Bayonets now only goes up in ratings
Plastic Valentina and Fat Man
Armoured Fist for the British.
If you already have regular British, and you buy Armoured Fist, get a free Churchill.
Card packs to update pre-existing Vietnam Books.
Plastic T-55 for Nam, makes AM2 as well as regular versions.
Free Nations book for TY, Canadians, French, Dutch and Ozzies.
Plastic Leopard Ones.Plastic Leopard makes both variants.
Amx 30 and AMX IFV plastic
Gazelle Helo
Dutch IFV in Resin
Arab Israeli Wars will now cover Yom Kippur war.
Update Card packs for AW.
Plastic Churchill makes AVRE
Eyetie tanks for TANKS and other new tanks for TANKS

my group is lookignat starting FOW. what era is best, is it midwar? whats the best way to get started?

If you guys are absolute beginners with no previous experience with Flames of War, then yes. Mid-War is probably the place for you to start.

It is the era that the latest version of the rules was built around, and as such is the easiest to get into.

Early War and Late War are both using rules that convert old previous edition content to the new edition, so that can be a bit complicated. Even for players who are experienced with the game.

One thing to note is that the current Mid-War releases have focused on North Africa, so anyone looking to play Russians is kinda out of luck until Mid-War Eastern Fron content starts to come out.

For North Africa you have 3 nations currently available; Germans, British, and Americans.

The 4th nation, the Italians, were just put up for pre-order, and will be released in February and March.

things i like
>Eight Million Bayonets now only goes up in ratings
>If you already have regular British, and you buy Armoured Fist, get a free Churchill..
>Plastic T-55 for Nam, makes AM2 as well as regular versions.
>Free Nations book for TY, Canadians, French, Dutch and Ozzies.
>Plastic Leopard Ones.Plastic Leopard makes both variants.
>Arab Israeli Wars will now cover Yom Kippur war.
>Update Card packs for AIW.
>Plastic Churchill makes AVRE

Good to see there's finally a date for MW Eastern Front, even if it is vague and "after the Brits" (so likely June earliest).

That said, I'm pretty concerned it's going to be a narrow first foray, with mention only of Germans and Soviets. No Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, etc.

>Plastic Fat Man

There was me thinking there was going to be a custom Nagasaki objective.

From what I remember there was literally 1 platoon sent over.

>The Sonderverband 288 deployed three StuG Ausf.Ds (short barrel version), which participated in the Gazala campaign with Kampfgruppe Menton. One was lost in Piraeus Harbor, and one captured by British armored cars en route. The two surviving were apparently in action at El Alamein (2nd battle). One was apparently used with the 90th Light Division until the surrender in Tunis. When reinforcements arrived in Tunisia, six F/8s from the 1./Sturmgeschütz-Abt. 242 were sent to serve with the Xth Pz. Div., but only four survived the crossing. These were placed with the Fallschirm Regiment Barenthin and Fallschirm Brigade Ramcke and lost in May 1943. StuGs were a rarity in North Africa, contrary to other theaters of operations.

Taken wholesale from Tanks Encyclopedia on the StuG III, not sure how it is as a source, but according to it there was sweet fuck all, but they were there.

Interesting that they are spending resources on matching PSC kit for kit. They must think that Vietnam is really going to take off this time under TY rules, because most people who are doing spam for TY have already bought it.

The Leopard 1 is also an interesting decision, because I believe PSC will solve their commanders hatch troubles before the Battlefront kit come out.

As for Valentine kits, I’m looking forward to buying both PSC and Battlefront’s. Gib mor Balendines pleb.

Then again this is the company that chose to make Pershings in plastic, so they could be doing worse. Still makes me wonder if we are ever getting to the Eastern Front.

>Only TY book mentioned is Free Nations (French, Dutch, Canadians and Ozzies).

Well looks like the rumors of French/Lowlands and Commonwealth as next books were both correct. I wonder how large the book will be/how many formations will be included. Also curious how the force (division) diagram(s) will look. Will French and Dutch be together in one and Canadian and Australian in another? I am somewhat worried about the lack of mention for any new PACT book, but I was also expecting that, so...

Still, looking forward to the French and Canadians.

I think they are making Plastic Leo1 and T-55 because of the new nations they are adding to TY and beyond. Some people don't play West or East Germans atm but would want to play Dutch/Canadian/Ozzie/Polish/etc which use leo 1s or T-55s, thus there could be future customers for BF plastics. That and anyone going into Vietnam/AIW can use those T-55s.

In fact, almost any post-ww2 conflict could use some plastic T-55s, so if BF is looking to do some other wars sometime it makes sense as a matter of future-prep.

>Will French and Dutch be together in one and Canadian and Australian in another?
Lolno.

At that point in time, the French were more of a thing on their own, to the point where the Soviets considered it possible to fight in western Europe without them intervening if the US/NATO fucked up diplomatically.

I'm expecting Canuck mech, Canuck armoured (leo 1), French mech, French armoured (AMX), Dutch Mech (YPR), Dutch Armoured (Leo 1/Leo 2, might be different formations) and Aussie motor infantry.
Inter-operation would probably be an implementation of the allies options already present.

I ask about combined Force Diagrams because there cannot be many non-french Formations, so force diagrams for the individual nations would be insanely sparse (here are your two formation options and 6-7 regular support options, plus an optional allied formation) and people will probably (as usual) complain. I am not implying that in reality there was close military control/deployment between the above nations but that BF might try to combine the force diagrams.

If Canada has a separate force diagram from everyone else, there will be no end to the death by PACT airpower... (unless they add ADATS, but then people will complain about ADATS)

Volksarmee already has the Soviet Su25 directly in their Divisional Support, murmurs say the Australians will be able to take UK support units in their Divisional Support so it will probably be the same deal for the Canadians.

What I find funny is that the French are being included at all.

At some point during the 80s, France actually withdrew from NATO.

Le westie is bestie... HONHONHONHONHONHON

1966.

they withdrew fully in 1966

They recommit themselves to NATO just before the war starts in the book.

France withdrew from NATO because it did not want it's nuclear weapons under joint/committee control (which would limit France's options and likely make launch release much slower). France was still committed to the alliance and had at no point stopped working alongside it. In terms of the game's scenario, France formally declared that it stood alongside NATO the day before the war started and two days after the call to mobilize in the USA. This just means they were not forward deployed on the inter-German border like the NATO countries so would be late to the party by a few days.

I do wonder why the French have been rolled into the "minor allies" book. They deserve their own release. Are BF rushing to tie up the European theatre so they can move elsewhere?

Blind Speculation: I think it's because Battlefront realised how much people hated the Volksarmee, Afrika Korps, Desert Rats releases, and are trying to move back to more "Substantial" releases.

I would like for that to be true, but it doesn't necessarily match the other releases trailed for 2018, e.g. Armoured Fist.

Counter-speculation: They know they have 80-90% of what they need to do these other NATO nations, but don’t want to release another 4 or 5 books about additional NATO countries.

So it’ll be one book.

And then maybe we’ll get a Warsaw Pact book with 4 or so additional nations as well.

>And then maybe we’ll get a Warsaw Pact book with 4 or so additional nations as well.

I pray to the cheersgods to make it so.

Italians for TY when?

So long as they release the common equipment (Mi-8) and fun stuff from them (T-55AM2B wé ATGM)

What would be a good book in the links above to start with? The books for the Armies in Africa? I really want to do Afrika Korps, but I love StuGs. There were only 7 that ever saw service, but then again it is my dudes so I guess I can field them... I'm torn

Looking now there aren't evne StuGs in the Afrika Korps book... Fortress Italy is for me then, I think

The three current Mid-War Africa books are:

Afrika Korps for Germans
Desert Rats for British
Fighting First for Americans

You’ll also want the 4th Edition Mid-War rule book.

Out in February will be Avanti for the Italians.

As for StuGs, they don’t have an official stat line or points cost in Afrika Korps, since something like only 7 of them were ever even shipped to North Africa.

StuGs will likely get stats and point values when they release forces books for Mid-War Eastern Front.

Cool, thanks for the info. I only play my Dad or Friends for tabletop wargames anyways, so I'm sure they won't mind if I use a couple StuGs with everything else

Just proxy in StuGs for Panzer IV shorts

It depends on what gun they’re armed with.

And armor-wise, they were built on a Panzer III chassis .

I was going to use them with Panzer III stats, except use the 75mm stats from the Panzer IV. That seems to hit it pretty well