|
Polikarpov posted:The Rubicon one is the better of the two- more details, easier to assemble, etc. Cheers for the heads up. Doesn't it also come with a bunch of stowage to spare too? The Warlord Sherman has nothing. And god drat Rubicon are going all in. They're apparently planning to make kits of every single variant of Sherman ever used in WWII. That's dedication. Guess I know where my Easy Eight is coming from.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
muggins posted:I also received my copy of Spectre Operations in the mail - looks cool! Pirate Gun is reserved for tier 1 high speed low drag delta devgru go loud operators. Meanwhile, lol at Auto Shotgun availability: nothing for trained and untrained, but militia can go wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Sorry for popping in with a dumb question but how well-regarded is Flames of War? I was considering getting a couple Soviet minis just for display and figured I might as well get a rule set attached, and there seems to be a group at my FLGS The 15mm WW2 gamer base around here seems pretty evenly matched between FoW and Chain of Command. My experience is that FoW is more "gamey", as in that it cares less about giving a real representation of WW2 warfare. So tactics and such are more "FoW tactics" than WW2. It has the advantage of being better at marketing itself to new players, as in the GW approach where you can buy complete sets of minis and sourcebooks with army lists and such. It's probably a better game if you want simple pick-up games with strangers, especially as it is more established internationally, and is made in such a way that tournaments are possible to play with it. CoC is more geared towards recreating actual tactics, using more historically correct platoon structures and support options. Tactics tend to be more similar to what you'll read about in memoirs and such IMHO. However, the makers are very much a small enterprise supporting many different rulesets, so you're much more stuck on your own as you start playing. It is Old School in the way that it gives you a rough map with a solid foundation of good basic rules, but you as a player is expected to figure out army lists through doing actual research, and find out that way what to buy and so on. It's also still in its first edition with no plans for a new one, and there are several things that need polishing, especially since the army lists have been revised by fans. Basically, there's a lot of good things out there that are made by fans, but you need to either to research yourself or hunt for that information on forums and blogs. It would be greatly helped by a second edition and an army list. So basically, FoW will hold your hand a lot more as you start your first forces, and it will give you a solid foundation for finding opponents. CoC is a bit more unusual, but has IMHO a better set of basic rules. The good thing is that you can use the same minis for both games, so you can always start out with FoW, and maybe try out other games later (including Blitzkrieg Commander if you want bigger games, as CoC is more suited for platoon-sized games, up to a company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Historical games need to be plotted on a Hollywood <-> Grog, Good ^v Bad quadrant chart imo, or if anyone can think of something better than Good-Bad for the vertical axis
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
FoW lets you do things like put 30 Matilda IIs in a list along with some support elements if you're so inclined and that's absolutely okay. That used to be one of the more effective Soviet tank lists back when I was still following the game closely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Historical games need to be plotted on a Hollywood <-> Grog, Good ^v Bad quadrant chart imo, or if anyone can think of something better than Good-Bad for the vertical axis On top of that, I think that the Hollywood vs Grog axle is one thing, and the Simulative axle is another. A game can be groggy as hell with fifty charts for ammunition availability, but still not be that good at simulating actual combat. And whether the game is good or not can be completely unrelated to both those axles. World of Tanks is, for example, very groggy in one way at the same time that it is at the extreme end of not being simulatory. If I were to rate a historical game I might rate it based on Rule Mechanics Presentation Historical Accuracy Simulatory Ambition Some of these are not right or wrong, but more of a matter of taste. So if you are not into simulatory games, it doesn't matter that the presentation is great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
The problem is basically that most of the mini wargames are designed by or heavily influenced by british designers who expect the players to do half of the work for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem is basically that most of the mini wargames are designed by or heavily influenced by british designers who expect the players to do half of the work for them. I used to think this too, but I'm also having a blast reading books about the French army after we decided to pick up Sharp Practice, something that I might not have done quite as much if the game was designed with sourcebooks with army lists for each and every army. Sure, it's more work, but this way I'm also finding out all manners of weird quirks about the army, but more importantly: reasonings about why it was designed as it was, and why it worked as it did. So I can see the point in giving your players more of an open sandbox to explore and fill with content, but I can also understand just how hard it is the first time you encounter such a game for the first time, and how reliant you are in a thriving community that can help you. That said, I'd much rather argue about whether or not it is valid to consider that a KV tank has heavy armour even at the back, based on historical accounts, than it is to argue whether a Terminator Librarian actually has a Terminator armour, because the official army lists writer forgot to include one in the equipment list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Does anyone here have any experience with Muskets & Tomahawks? I'm considering getting it as an alternative to Sharp Practice with a smaller model count. Period would be the American War of Independence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I used to think this too, but I'm also having a blast reading books about the French army after we decided to pick up Sharp Practice, something that I might not have done quite as much if the game was designed with sourcebooks with army lists for each and every army. Sure, it's more work, but this way I'm also finding out all manners of weird quirks about the army, but more importantly: reasonings about why it was designed as it was, and why it worked as it did. So I can see the point in giving your players more of an open sandbox to explore and fill with content, but I can also understand just how hard it is the first time you encounter such a game for the first time, and how reliant you are in a thriving community that can help you. I've found historical wargames to be wonderful for this just in general. History isn't just fascinating, it's also real, which adds something Warhammer will never have - a sense of meaningfulness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Endman posted:I've found historical wargames to be wonderful for this just in general. History isn't just fascinating, it's also real, which adds something Warhammer will never have - a sense of meaningfulness. Eh, considering that you aren't replaying actual battles by actual reports and troop strengths, I don't know how meaningful and historical that is. Historical, however, will have T-55s and good rulesets, and neither of those things are ever gonna apply to 40K. lilljonas posted:That said, I'd much rather argue about whether or not it is valid to consider that a KV tank has heavy armour even at the back, based on historical accounts, than it is to argue whether a Terminator Librarian actually has a Terminator armour, because the official army lists writer forgot to include one in the equipment list. 40K Kill Team lets me take 0-1 Elite, 0-2 Troop, and 0-1 Fast Attack choices. A techpriest in the Imperial Guard Codex has no force org slot. Can I take him? A bloody scuffle ensues; there are no victors, only survivors
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem is basically that most of the mini wargames are designed by or heavily influenced by british designers who expect the players to do half of the work for them. If you don't already know what colour decoration goes on your shakos, then really
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:If you don't already know what colour decoration goes on your shakos, then really A shameful grognard. *hopes that nobody sees that I painted the incorrect design on my Voltigeur cartridge boxes before I get around to repaint them*
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Endman posted:Does anyone here have any experience with Muskets & Tomahawks? I'm considering getting it as an alternative to Sharp Practice with a smaller model count. Period would be the American War of Independence. Tons! I even wrote some batreps in the thread for it. It's one of my absolute favorite games, although it does need some FAQing and maybe houseruling here and there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Eh, considering that you aren't replaying actual battles by actual reports and troop strengths, I don't know how meaningful and historical that is. I find it's more meaningful because it could have happened and the men involved could have been real people, or are at least a close enough approximation that you can imagine who they are. I've never had that feeling with Warhammer, despite how much I love my Guardsmen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:FoW lets you do things like put 30 Matilda IIs in a list along with some support elements if you're so inclined and that's absolutely okay. That used to be one of the more effective Soviet tank lists back when I was still following the game closely. It's basically autowin against early late-war armies since there's not much that can drive you off, but now that we've got 5-bazooka americans and all-panzerfaust german teams the odds of them hitting two tanks on a 4 have gone up considerably. Soviets never got or used smoke, apparently, and are never veteran (outside of two gimmick berlin lists) so you're not getting into assault. Further to that, once you're actually in assault, they're not going to rock over loving everything anymore, either; back when Red Bear was out and that list was decent you had maybe 3 bazookas in a platoon, and most armies just had one command pfaust or PIAT or something, so there were only a couple of things that could hurt you back in the platoon (and a little intelligent positioning to kill them first meant you won). Now that you have LLW German and American AT you're looking at 5 things, at minimum, that can easily wreck you. It's now awful against infantry in a competitive context, since the assumption always has to be that infantry are going to annihilate tanks that charge them unless there's like one stand left. The list was, of course, pretty much awful against tank lists, and was entirely reliant on the SUs it had for AT work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Oh, and before I leave, a reminder: don't worry too much about getting everything "right". I just saw this excellent example of how even 20th Century centralized mass production will give you vastly different results when it comes to uniforms, so finding that perfect shade for a coat or tank or whatever is not something you should sweat over too much: All of these are "field grey".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Tons! I even wrote some batreps in the thread for it. It's one of my absolute favorite games, although it does need some FAQing and maybe houseruling here and there. I'd love to read some of those, but I understand if you don't want to go digging back in the thread for them. I might do it myself once my uni work is squared away. I'm glad to hear it's a good ruleset. I have to say it looks damned attractive on a good table. I'll pick it up when I've got the dosh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Oh, and before I leave, a reminder: don't worry too much about getting everything "right". I just saw this excellent example of how even 20th Century centralized mass production will give you vastly different results when it comes to uniforms, so finding that perfect shade for a coat or tank or whatever is not something you should sweat over too much: Tanks even more so; even discounting factory changes (which could shift due to paint shortages, changes in pigment ingredients, etc etc), camouflage was often applied in-field (what did they water it down with? How good were the people painting it? Did they follow the style guide properly?), and vehicles weathered in the elements, which could change the appearance of the colour pretty dramatically, and depending on where the vehicle was the resultant look could be very different. The sand-blasted near-white of British tanks that'd been in the desert versus the ones that'd only been in the more Mediterranean areas springs to mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Tanks even more so; even discounting factory changes (which could shift due to paint shortages, changes in pigment ingredients, etc etc), camouflage was often applied in-field (what did they water it down with? How good were the people painting it? Did they follow the style guide properly?), and vehicles weathered in the elements, which could change the appearance of the colour pretty dramatically, and depending on where the vehicle was the resultant look could be very different. The sand-blasted near-white of British tanks that'd been in the desert versus the ones that'd only been in the more Mediterranean areas springs to mind. I love how people can not even agree on things like the various paint jobs used by the Brits in North Africa, despite having access to tons of living participants, army documentation, etc. Despite all this, you still see arguments about which colours were actually used in the Caunter camo scheme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Dang, it looks like I could get an Armoured Fist box set of 3 half tracks and a box of infantry for not much more than 3 Rubicon half tracks. Then again, I do already have a box of infantry, that should be enough, right? Does anyone have advice for building an Armoured Rifle platoon? I'm fairly out of touch with BA conventional wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'd love to read some of those, but I understand if you don't want to go digging back in the thread for them. I might do it myself once my uni work is squared away. I have 25 pages worth of posts, apparently. But here you go. I love the card-initiative system, and the goals. You have your main objectives, of course, but you can have stuff like a British officer looking for revenge against the American officer who cuckolded him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I have 25 pages worth of posts, apparently. Wonderful, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Oh, and before I leave, a reminder: don't worry too much about getting everything "right". I just saw this excellent example of how even 20th Century centralized mass production will give you vastly different results when it comes to uniforms, so finding that perfect shade for a coat or tank or whatever is not something you should sweat over too much: I remember someone making GBS threads up /hwg/ thread with arguments over feldgrau. Not good times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Endman posted:I've found historical wargames to be wonderful for this just in general. History isn't just fascinating, it's also real, which adds something Warhammer will never have - a sense of meaningfulness. I don't know if i'd use the word meaningful but history is more interesting than some guy trying to make everything absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Dang, it looks like I could get an Armoured Fist box set of 3 half tracks and a box of infantry for not much more than 3 Rubicon half tracks. Then again, I do already have a box of infantry, that should be enough, right? It's not any different from building a regular rifle platoon, you just spend points on half-tracks instead of other support options. The vehicles can drive around and shoot after the squad gets out of it now, which is cool. long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't know if i'd use the word meaningful but history is more interesting than some guy trying to make everything absurd. I guess Adventure Time fans disagree Swagger Dagger posted:The vehicles can drive around and shoot after the squad gets out of it now, which is cool. Is there anything preventing the halftracks from being mobile cover/sacrificial victims for the infantry, like Rhinos happen to be in 40K?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Oh, and before I leave, a reminder: don't worry too much about getting everything "right". I just saw this excellent example of how even 20th Century centralized mass production will give you vastly different results when it comes to uniforms, so finding that perfect shade for a coat or tank or whatever is not something you should sweat over too much: *joins German army to get one of those sweet Hugo Boss uniforms* *is given turquoise uniform and sent to the Eastern Front during winter to die*
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I love how people can not even agree on things like the various paint jobs used by the Brits in North Africa, despite having access to tons of living participants, army documentation, etc. Despite all this, you still see arguments about which colours were actually used in the Caunter camo scheme.  " argument, which we all know is pure 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Also partly because people's memories of colours are both poo poo and also affected by language. My uncle said Shermans were "brown", by which he meant US OD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I guess Adventure Time fans disagree Haha, I recently read a column that I think came from TFL, about his complete astonishment at an opponent dismounting his squad, and then driving the lorry straight at a MG nest, planting it square in front of it, blocking LOS. "No driver would EVER do such a thing!" "But the rules allow it!" That is pretty much a definition of how different mindsets you can have towards historical wargaming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:It's not any different from building a regular rifle platoon, you just spend points on half-tracks instead of other support options. The vehicles can drive around and shoot after the squad gets out of it now, which is cool. Well I'm not really up on how to build a regular rifle platoon either, except for 'give every squad a BAR'. I'm super new at this!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Haha, I recently read a column that I think came from TFL, about his complete astonishment at an opponent dismounting his squad, and then driving the lorry straight at a MG nest, planting it square in front of it, blocking LOS. You should read TFL's rant about point systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Haha, I recently read a column that I think came from TFL, about his complete astonishment at an opponent dismounting his squad, and then driving the lorry straight at a MG nest, planting it square in front of it, blocking LOS. I have to wonder what kind of shitlord gets into CoC while still mainting a Hams-induced WAAC attitude. Surely there are easier and more popular games to abuse and win in. I actually like FoW for saying that transports gently caress off after dismounting dudes. Panzeh posted:You should read TFL's rant about point systems. Link or quote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I have to wonder what kind of shitlord gets into CoC while still mainting a Hams-induced WAAC attitude. Surely there are easier and more popular games to abuse and win in. Don't hate the playa hate the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I love how people can not even agree on things like the various paint jobs used by the Brits in North Africa, despite having access to tons of living participants, army documentation, etc. Despite all this, you still see arguments about which colours were actually used in the Caunter camo scheme. Contrary to popular belief, most people are dumb and have terrible memory. Veterans definitely not excluded from that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
I think Bolt Action takes the stance that transports count as destroyed if they get closer to the enemy than friendly units (if it's empty) to stop that sort of thing. So dudes can hide behind their half tracks (like they did irl) but you can't send them off on adventures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I think Bolt Action takes the stance that transports count as destroyed if they get closer to the enemy than friendly units (if it's empty) to stop that sort of thing. So dudes can hide behind their half tracks (like they did irl) but you can't send them off on adventures. All is right in the world in that case. A halftrack is too young to run off on its own; it needs to mature into an armored car, which can roam freely and eventually return to the loving combined arms of the infantry as a wise and learned tank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Haha, I recently read a column that I think came from TFL, about his complete astonishment at an opponent dismounting his squad, and then driving the lorry straight at a MG nest, planting it square in front of it, blocking LOS. Sounds like Matrosov got himself a set of wheels
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Crosspostin!Grey Hunter posted:Oath Complete! And for more Vietnam goodness, have a FNG battle report!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
