|
krushgroove posted:Also, didn't know BA has Tank War - does that integrate at all with the infantry game? Yeah, it does. It's not super simulation but it is a good transition from 40K to historical and it's fun
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
I am absolutely enamored with Chain of Command, but the Command Dice mechanic (especially when applied to armored platoons) will mean you'll rarely be able to activate all of your tanks in a single phase. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but for people used to 1-unit = 1-activation per turn like 40K, a system like Bolt Action will probably be a more familiar mechanic.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Are there any trap-units in BA as a russkie?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
The trap is playing the Russkies to begin with. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
The trap of not only fielding KV-2 tanks. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Def. gotta get a KV-2 to gently caress up some Germans!  Got my first BA Demo lined up for next Thursday, looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Are there any trap-units in BA as a russkie? MMGs are pretty overcosted, but that's an across the board truism for Bolt Action. Just remember that your free inexperienced squad gets all of its options and is still free, so give them all grenades and throw them at a tank.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Beyond that, the staff rating deficit on the American side will likely make anything more complex than just forming lines and holding position very difficult. Is there any reason the US would have much more mediocre mid-level leadership than the UK? I get that it's 1861 and the federal war machine hasn't really come fully online yet but I'd have to think American commanders in this engagement would be more likely to have meaningful battlefield experience than the Brits, who hadn't really fought anything since Crimea. That's not exactly a long time ago given it ended in 1856. It's like saying the modern American army's leadership doesn't have meaningful battlefield experience because it hasn't fought a war since Iraq/Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
I'm planning to do 2 soviet armies. A winter army themed around Rzhev and Stalingrad, and a summer army themed around Bagration, Kursk and Berlin. To that end, are the T-34/76 and IS-2 terrible tanks?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That's not exactly a long time ago given it ended in 1856. It's like saying the modern American army's leadership doesn't have meaningful battlefield experience because it hasn't fought a war since Iraq/Afghanistan. I was just questioning why the UK would have better command all across the board than the US. And really, you could make the argument that the Crimean war era British army was a logistical basket case that was plagued with a bunch of nobles in the officer corps that led like twits anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
When did they institute a minimum number of years before you could purchase your next comission?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Fistfull of TOWs is not something I would recommend lightly. It looks like a pain when you're going one stand:one platoon representation, and going 1 mini :1 tank is even more painful. There are tanks in Five Men in Normandy/Kursk... Or was it disposable heroes? The one that has Coffin for Seven Brothers in the title. Fairly detailed, tho.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:When did they institute a minimum number of years before you could purchase your next comission? Lol if you think American armies promoted officers purely on merit, especially in 1861. 'You're some random dude from buttfuck Ohio and you recruited these guys and bought their uniforms, I guess you run the regiment now'.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Lol if you think American armies promoted officers purely on merit, especially in 1861. 'You're some random dude from buttfuck Ohio and you recruited these guys and bought their uniforms, I guess you run the regiment now'.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Lol if you think American armies promoted officers purely on merit, especially in 1861. 'You're some random dude from buttfuck Ohio and you recruited these guys and bought their uniforms, I guess you run the regiment now'. I was referring to the british.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I was just questioning why the UK would have better command all across the board than the US. And really, you could make the argument that the Crimean war era British army was a logistical basket case that was plagued with a bunch of nobles in the officer corps that led like twits anyway. Well, they did win.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
The command element of most, if not all, 19th century western armies was usually made up of a couple of decent commanders surrounded above, below and abreast with incompetent loonies.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the Oath thread: These are the first WW2 minis I've ever painted. I already have another US squad, 2 Bazooka teams, a German Tank Hunter team, and an SdKfz 222 in various stages of progress on my table. A plague upon every last one of you fuckers for being so helpful and supportive in helping me find another tabletop miniatures obsession. I hate you guys.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
"God-damnit Conrad, tie your loving laces"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:I was referring to the british.  My point is that despite not paying for commissions formally and directly, America's officer corps wasn't necessarily any better. That early in the war and given the experience the British Army had from Crimea, it's at the very least not indefensible to give the latter a higher rating.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
American officers (and soldiers) were experienced, too, from the Mexican-American War.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Yeah, but look how well that turned out for McClellan.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Lots of British officers you could say that about, too.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Took the afternoon to build a T-34/85. It's Warlord Games' kit for Bolt Action, and I'm sure it isn't up to Ensign Expendable's standards, but it works for me! Primered and assembled:   I was originally going to mask this all out and paint it perfectly, but then I started looking at reference pictures.  The crew, about to roll in to Berlin, suddenly receives orders that they need to mark their tanks so the Western Allies don't blow them up accidentally. Why can't they just learn to recognize different shapes? Well, what else can you expect from such individualist societies? Here it is weathered-up and matte varnished: 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Za Rodinu
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
I almost wanted to put some tankodesantniki on there, but Warlord's look like hobbits: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/products/soviet-tank-riders
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I think Dice Bag Lady has some coming soon, right?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
A lot of 28mm figures have that weird orc-like facial proportioning, across the board. I kind of wonder what's up with that; I get expecting them to look like Leonardo DiCaprio or whatever isn't on the cards but they have more in common with fantasy figures than actual people at times.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Currently playing the next scenario in my Trent Affair games. The british are landing marines to drive off the approaching Union army, but we sorely underestimated how durable units in buildings are, so the game is tilting pretty heavily in my favor. Ships were about as useful as normal cannons, no real surprises there, but it's really the building thing that we're learning this time around. +2 morale saves until you lose a round of combat on top of the +3 combat score means that you have to be really outnumbered to lose, even with the reduced number of attacks you get. If people liked the last screenshot-fest battle report, I'll post one for this battle too.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
moths posted:I think Dice Bag Lady has some coming soon, right?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
So i've moved cities and my mates here play BA. Any advice for starting a BA Germany army? I want a Hetzer. That much is fixed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Kommando posted:So i've moved cities and my mates here play BA. Like, what's good in a BA army, or what's a reasonable force to be supported by a Hetzer? If it's the latter, I think you could build a kickass looking army by making a Panzergrenadier army supported by Hetzers. The new plastic Panzergrens from Warlord games look spiffy, and in late 1944 and on the Hetzers would start to take the role of "proper" tanks because so many tanks had been blown up. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 10:47 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Probably whats good in a BA army, I hear 1st edition is shite, 2nd ed is balanced and 3rd is coming in a few months time and who knows what will change. so with that in mind as stated above: Swagger Dagger posted:MMGs are pretty overcosted, but that's an across the board truism for Bolt Action. I was thinking mid war and in my demo game I messed up an M10 with pioneers and grenades/flammenwerfer which leads me to think a Hetzer over a Marder. Plain Grenadiers, an army that could be anywhere in europe and i'll flesh it out with special bits as I get a few months under me, assuming the game remains interested.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Play with the .net rules, then MMGs arent overcosted. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qPaKsZK_89OF9oV2dGaXpzeUI1SzBRVkhrZWp4VXltYkc4/view
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
Kommando posted:Probably whats good in a BA army, I hear 1st edition is shite, 2nd ed is balanced and 3rd is coming in a few months time and who knows what will change. Hetzers were not produced until March 1944, so unless there's a strange definition that makes 1944 mid war, I don't think that's an option for a mid war army. EDIT: It's official - by 2016, WW2 wargaming has officially turned me into a grognard. But honestly, it's the reason why I don't have a Hetzer yet. We're slowly adding to the collection at the club, starting with early war, and we're just getting to the 1943 tanks. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 12:01 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Hetzers gonna hetz. A suggestion I would make is to look at the theatre selectors in your respective army book. That should give you an idea what you can take. I'm doing the same with my 62nd army at Stalingrad.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Hetzers were not produced until March 1944, so unless there's a strange definition that makes 1944 mid war, I don't think that's an option for a mid war army. yeah ok, lets just scrap time period and make a beginner german army.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:late 1944 and on So, like, 6 months?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:So, like, 6 months? Yeah, "until the end" would be another way to put it. Since tank destroyers were quicker and easier to build the Germans were pushing them out of their factories until they were physically overrun.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:59 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:EDIT: It's official - by 2016, WW2 wargaming has officially turned me into a grognard. But honestly, it's the reason why I don't have a Hetzer yet. We're slowly adding to the collection at the club, starting with early war, and we're just getting to the 1943 tanks. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:26
|
|
