|
Karandras posted:Thanks a heap! Late war Polish sounds amazing. How do they even work, are their light infantry just super super cheap? There's also rules for the Polish resistance during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. It's mainly infantry, but they can take a few tanks (hey did capture and use a few during the fighting). it's in Red Bear.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Beardless posted:There's also rules for the Polish resistance during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. It's mainly infantry, but they can take a few tanks (hey did capture and use a few during the fighting). it's in Red Bear. Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking when I thought Late War Polish and forgot about the government-in-exile forces that returned, which is weird because I had that same sort of thing for the Free French.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:My group ran three 1v1 games yesterday. The consensus was 'we can only play out of Grey Wolf and Red Bear since those are updated.' I said to hell with consensus and played Early War (Italians vs Germans out of Hellfire and Back). There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth (from everyone except me and my opponent) until I convinced them it doesn't matter if I and my opponent are fielding armies from the same book - we're only cheating ourselves. Why do they care? Panzeh posted:As a general rule, infantry lists are inferior to armor lists because tanks are a better use of points... Inferior my rear end. What on god's green earth makes you say that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Why do they care? Tanks can't be pinned is the big one, that and they can move far and shoot their machine guns at max ROF, more-so than infantry can. Infantry teams have their advantages, but Flames is ultimately a tank game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking when I thought Late War Polish and forgot about the government-in-exile forces that returned, which is weird because I had that same sort of thing for the Free French. Well they weren't forces that returned, aside from a handful of commandos, it was folks who were in Poland all along. It's pretty interesting to learn about the complexity and scope of the Polish Underground. It wasn't just partisan Activity, it was also involved in stuff like teaching kids and whatnot, because the Germans closed all the Polish schools (one fun bit of trivia is that Karol Wotjtyla, better known as John-Paul II, went to Seminary in an Underground school).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
E: loving double posts.
Beardless fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Inferior my rear end. What on god's green earth makes you say that? Then I saw my Panzer IVs get assraped by a pair of 6Lber guns deployed in ambush and immediately decided that the internets is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Beardless posted:Well they weren't forces that returned, aside from a handful of commandos, it was folks who were in Poland all along. It's pretty interesting to learn about the complexity and scope of the Polish Underground. It wasn't just partisan Activity, it was also involved in stuff like teaching kids and whatnot, because the Germans closed all the Polish schools (one fun bit of trivia is that Karol Wotjtyla, better known as John-Paul II, went to Seminary in an Underground school). Weren't there units formed in the UK and returned? I know, for example, the 1st Armoured was exactly that, they used UK tanks and were formed and trained in the UK and landed in Normandy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Tanks can't be pinned is the big one, that and they can move far and shoot their machine guns at max ROF, more-so than infantry can. Infantry teams have their advantages, but Flames is ultimately a tank game. V3 has changed all of that, but even in V2 that's flawed thinking. Tanks are certainly very flexible and powerful units but always being better than infantry is wrong. Infantry excel for defense. Sure their rifles can not hurt tanks but infantry shouldn't be charging out to meet tanks in the open (this is stupid) but dug-in in cover and gone to ground. Give them some supporting gun teams (or a few tanks) and the tanks will have to spend man turns futilely machine gunning at the infantry while being subjected to return fire from your guns and artillery. Unless they want to assault right away, and assaulting infantry in good positions is a very risky move. I have witnessed multiple times entire tank companies breaking against a line of infantry setup as such. Both on the giving and receiving end. Arquinsiel posted:It's the general internets consensus on FoW. I've seen people tell me over and over that tanks are unbeatable with an infantry list. I always have to keep in mind that local meta can be vastly different from place to place and odds are that because tanks are cool and easy to start flames with, that meta is going to more often than not be biased in favor of them. It also depends a lot of on how they place terrain. Many groups transitioning from games like 40k will layout terrain that ends up turning the board into an arena. A few tress or hills in the corner to hide their artillery behind and then a mostly empty space in the middle with little to block LOS from any one spot to any other. So their games end up huge tank shootouts (which can be fun) but do not favor infantry at all. This is such a problem with FoW that they actually have a section devoted to it in the new V3 rule book. Made me smile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Many groups transitioning from games like 40k will layout terrain that ends up turning the board into an arena. A few tress or hills in the corner to hide their artillery behind and then a mostly empty space in the middle with little to block LOS from any one spot to any other. So their games end up huge tank shootouts (which can be fun) but do not favor infantry at all. Current 40k terrain favours 25% of the board covered with a mix of LoS blocking, non LoS blocking and 'area terrain' so things like forests that you get concealment from and restricted movement but not as protective as other cover. You've said that it goes into some detail in the rule book but what sort of terrain do you use/recommend? I'd imagine there could be big variations and it'd depend on the factions and period but that open terrain isn't too uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
Terrain is very important in any wargame. In FOW the type of terrain and placement greatly impact not only how the game plays but also what types of armies people take. Infantry have always been powerful in the hands of the players who know their strengths. I generally recommend new players start and army they like as simply buying figures because the internet said they are good is never a way to learn a game. For terrain here are some example of terrain we put together for our local tournament Valleycon:     
LintMan fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Tanks can't be pinned is the big one, that and they can move far and shoot their machine guns at max ROF, more-so than infantry can. Infantry teams have their advantages, but Flames is ultimately a tank game. Tanks can't go to ground or hide behind bullet-proof cover, either. And a lot of this has changed in 3rd so that the disadvantages are lessened. Arquinsiel posted:It's the general internets consensus on FoW. I've seen people tell me over and over that tanks are unbeatable with an infantry list. Yeah my Tankovy Batallon has been beaten by infantry. The other thing people seem to ignore is that FoW is not a "kill everything" game, it's an objectives game, and infantry is better at holding an objective. Karandras posted:Current 40k terrain favours 25% of the board covered with a mix of LoS blocking, non LoS blocking and 'area terrain' so things like forests that you get concealment from and restricted movement but not as protective as other cover. You've said that it goes into some detail in the rule book but what sort of terrain do you use/recommend? I'd imagine there could be big variations and it'd depend on the factions and period but that open terrain isn't too uncommon. FoW really uses terrain a lot more than 40k. 25% would probably not be enough for most games. And that, actually, is another advantage given to infantry. They handle most terrain much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
STEP ONE: Play Soviets. STEP TWO: Make entire army based on infantry piggybacking tanks into battle. STEP THREE: Name it Uncle Stalin's Wild Ride. STEP FOUR: Profit(?!) STEP FIVE: Even if not profit, laugh at how  the whole army would look in real life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Tanks can't go to ground or hide behind bullet-proof cover, either. Well, terrain isn't universally a good thing for infantry, because they rely on anti-tank guns to get it done, which need long sight lines more than tanks because their mobility is fairly poor. I'm not saying tanks are unbeatable, I just think tanks are point for point a better investment than infantry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Weren't there units formed in the UK and returned? I know, for example, the 1st Armoured was exactly that, they used UK tanks and were formed and trained in the UK and landed in Normandy. Well, the Polish Independent Parachute Brigade was formed with that in mind, but instead of jumping into Poland to help with the uprising they fought in the clusterfuck that was Market Garden. The other Polish units, the Polish II Corps in Italy, and the 1st Armored were never meant to fight in Poland itself. Also, Polish pilots played a big role in the battle of Britain, and in fact the squadron with the most kills was the Polish 303 Squadron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
I'm waiting for polish forces that the Soviets formed to be in Flames of War before I get my polish fix going.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:I'm waiting for polish forces that the Soviets formed to be in Flames of War before I get my polish fix going. Good news! They're in Red Bear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Good news! They're in Red Bear. Dammit I got the wrong book of the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, terrain isn't universally a good thing for infantry, because they rely on anti-tank guns to get it done, which need long sight lines more than tanks because their mobility is fairly poor. I suppose that really depends on the army list. I run Americans and Italians, and I usually run infantry lists more than anything else. Common wisdom at my LGS is if you run Americans, run arty-heavy (at least a set of 105s and 155s and if you can take a FDC, priority air as well). This works out 'decently' and if you want to add some extra hurt, get a set of 57's. Of course, I like to add in some M10s/Wolverines, which can wreck poo poo. I try to change things up a bit, because I hate the idea of being pigeon-holed into one type of list, because then your opponent knows exactly what you're bringing before you do. For Italians, they have the same tanks in pretty much every era, so while awesome in early war, not so much in the others. However, in Mid-War, it's very obvious that their infantry were geared for defense (Early War Fuscilieri are also a defensive army). Every basic unit gets at least two 47/32 guns, which can bail Shermans/PIVs within 16", and knock out lesser tanks. For heavier armor, there is, of course, the 88/56 (8.8cm FlaK 36, iirc) and the 90/53. Italians also have the advantage, at least at my local store, of people not knowing what to expect. Though I may have to change up my list once people get use to it. Regarding terrain: My group uses the random charts in the 2nd Ed rule book. We determine terrain after 'building' our lists. So basically it goes 1) who are you playing? 2) make army 3) what terrain 4) roll random terrain 5) select/roll random mission. Not sure if that's how you're suppose to do it, as it does allow things to happen like having an army that's designed for the attack being forced to defend (which doesn't work well - if I knew I was going to play a defensive battle in EW, I would have taken Fuscilieri).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
Terrain for me has always been guided by the old 2nd ed 40k rulebook advice: "more is better". The game I was playing with the horrible Panzer death was on relatively dense hills but with some open areas. It wasn't as crowded as I'd have liked due to lack of correct scale stuff. That said, shifting one HMG platoon from an objective in some woods took a lot of firepower. Two Grenadier platoons, one HMG platoon and the StuG III platoon that eventually Stormtrooper'd up to capture. Numlock posted:Many groups transitioning from games like 40k will layout terrain that ends up turning the board into an arena.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:STEP ONE: Play Soviets. How is this different from real life? I've seen photos of T-34s with a dozen men sitting on the back and on the sides. It would work better with tank destroyers, since they could sit on the "turret" too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, terrain isn't universally a good thing for infantry, because they rely on anti-tank guns to get it done, which need long sight lines more than tanks because their mobility is fairly poor. Get what done? If you are defending and sitting on the objectives then you don't technically have to kill anything. It may change in V3 (better saves and all that) but what I often do is put my anti-tank guns in ambush or if I can I put them in LOS blocking terrain near an objective such that you need to be within 6 inches of them to even see them. Since I'm sitting on the objective the tanks have two options, sit there and risk being assaulted or assault into bog check forcing terrain. Or not attempt to take the objective and lose. Karandras posted:Current 40k terrain favours 25% of the board ... Seems I've been beaten but yeah 25% cover is far too little for Flames of war. Arquinsiel posted:I think you need to play 40k with someone older than 12 if you ever do again. Fair the last time I played 40k was against a 12 year-old and I was 16, but I'm going by what I see at the local GW store when I drop in to pick up a paint every now and then. The Boards are basically empty but for a building or two. Fairly good mix of age ranges there. Don't get me wrong in case anybody thinks I'm hating on 40k, but what works terrain wise for 40k is not what works for FoW. So if you starting FoW after being a long time 40k player (which seems to be the case with 80% of FoW players) then getting used to the amount of terrain FoW requires can be hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
My local GW has bins of terrain out the back to spread on the tables. There's a few pieces here and there stuck to the board but mostly there's movable bits to make things messier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
I generally pop in on the weekends and this GW store is usually packed but I don't see them use much in the way of terrain. And its no where near the amount you would want for FoW even allowing for the difference in scale. Edit: It could just be this one store, which is the only place I've so far ever witnessed a game of 40k being played (they don't seem to be big on fantasy). But its not like I have cameras in every garage and store around these parts to give a complete survey on terrain usage in war-games. Numlock fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Whats actually good for a 40k game =/ how people set up terrain for one. Terrain heavy 40k games are super fun, they just favor the kinds of units that mainstream (IE 12 year olds and smellbads) 40k players salivate over (walkers and big tanks) and they promote a more FoW style "capture and hold" play style as opposed to the more loved "shoot the mans" style of game. Thats why I stopped 40k. Because all the people who played the style I liked (with objectives and other fun) weren't very nice people and were sore losers. And the nice and fun people were all in it to paint land raiders and have big open firefights between masses of orcs and marines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
What is the most common scale for wargaming? I really like the look of Elheim's stuff, but it seems like everybody plays FoW, which is much smaller. I'm not a big fan of the FoW stuff I've seen up close, since being able to paint equipment and camo and stuff accurately is fun and the FoW stuff was super tiny and looked like it had a metric assload of mold lines everywhere. Do enough people play with 1/72 scale minis to be worth it? I'd mostly be looking for small modern engagements like Ambush Alley, but I'd also like the opportunity do to some larger WW2 scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
That question is as old as wargaming itself, and I doubt you'll ever get a real answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Yes, the answer is usually to check if anyone around you plays the period that you are interested in, and then. If not, you'll likely have to start with painting up two sides yourself to begin with, or find someone else who is also keen on picking up the period. Then you decide on scale etc.. So you end up like me, with 1/1200, 6mm, 15mm, 1/144 and 28mm, depending on the game. But 1/72 seems quite popular for Ambush Alley in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Well Elheim stuff ends up in the FoF rulebooks so you can't go wrong there. I'd advise buying a squad or so of one regular force and then grabbing around four times as many insurgent types to play against and build up from there if people like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
The Road to Pochinok. An "I Aint Been Shot Mum 3" battle report. quote:The Germans were tasked with advancing in to a lightly held village in order to hold a cross roads. The village was surrounded by a lot of light woodland, and just to the north of the village was a small river bisecting the board with 2 road bridges and a small ford (middle of the board not shown on map). The woodland on either bank was marshy and difficult ground.  quote:The Germans advanced in column down the two roads, scouts on the right flank exposed a Russian infantry platoon hidden in the woodsj ust south of the river. Panzer Zug 2, 3 Panzer 4s advanced onto the eastern bridge, braving the desperate fire of the Russians, who having failed to cause any problems for the armour (even when a anti tank rifle opened up at almost point blank range and in its fear missed totally). The German armour opened fire on the Russians causing heavy losses with their HE fire into the woodland as splintered trees became deadly shrapnel. As this was happening Panzer Zug 1 (three Pz3's and a Pz2) crossed the ford and hit the Russians from the other side. The Russians heavily outgunned and now having taken heavy losses decided to try retreating, but by the time they made the farm buildings to the south their was pretty much only 1 platoon that was combat effective. Sorry for no photos- a lot of the forces aren't painted and I'm a bit anal so didn't want to show my laziness off! A very fun game- it was our first time playing with anything other than basic infantry, so it went a bit slower than our first 2 games as we tried to get our heads around the armour and indirect fire rules, which to be fair, didn't take too long. IABSM3 proved again to give a very fun and realistic feeling battle and we all went away happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Has anyone here actually played Black Powder? They say repeatedly in the text that the rules were designed with big games on big tables in mind, I was wondering if it scales down ok? I've had it since it was released, but I can't justify the insane amount of time and effort to get a decent sized Napoleonic force together (two if I realistically want to ever get a game),
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Has anyone here actually played Black Powder? They say repeatedly in the text that the rules were designed with big games on big tables in mind, I was wondering if it scales down ok? I have yet to actually play it, but the way I resolved that is by going to 10mm. And I think Serotonin or one of those dudes plays it in 15mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Yes, I've read some positive reports from people trying Black Powder in 6mm, and I plan to try it when my opponent finally gets his dissertation finished and becomes an unemployed academic instead of a busy academic. We have two 6mm French and British armies based for Lasalle, so it should be easy enough to use for Black Powder as well. Example: http://ncc1717.wordpress.com/category/miniature-wargames/6mm-miniatures/
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Has anyone here actually played Black Powder? They say repeatedly in the text that the rules were designed with big games on big tables in mind, I was wondering if it scales down ok? Ive played it at least half a dozen times. I use 6 and 10mm figures for it, although in 3 weeks time we are having a 28mm game of ACW. As lilljonas says, you just change the ranges and it works well. Instead of inches we use cm for 6 or 10mm, and you end up with the equivalent of a huge table in 28mm. I do know a few players who have also played it with small forces, just one division a side (3 or 4 units each) and they claim it plays just fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
I mean, 28mm looks great and all, but for Napoleonics I'm set with 6mm. I finished most of the Baccus starting army I got, and I can not imagine the time it woud have taken to paint the same amount of miniatures in 28mm. In 6mm though, less than a month of on and off painting:
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Heres mine 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Also just made a start on my new project- Vietnam! Just bought a 10mm US Infantry company with mechanized infantry support (some lovely ACAVS) all from Pendraken. Will be buying some Hueys and Cobras soon too. Then on to the VC/NVA! I also bought 200 palm trees from ebay to make jungle scenery. I got my first hot glue gun too, and its a revelation. As a tester for when the palm trees arrive I made some woodland bases using some old trees I found in my bits box. Took no time at all!  Reckon I should be able to make a good looking jungle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Okay, so I'm committed to purchasing some PSC stuff. Just want to know if there is a preffered dealer/seller for someone in the States like myself. I know Battlewagon is there, but the seem to either be out of stock or still 'preorder' on half the stuf they list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Oh god this thread makes me want to start more games that no one else at my LGS plays. Why do you do this to me goons? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Because we love you. We love you hard and fast, right in the wallet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 20:15
|
|
