|
Geisladisk posted:I bought Napoleon Total War on a Steam sale and played it the last couple of days. Jesus gently caress I never realized just how brutal this period of warfare was. Reading up on Baradino is just insane. Imagine standing still, for HOURS, out of range of your own weapon, and have cannonballs randomly eat entire rows of your battalion. Just standing. In the open. Not foxholes or anything.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
lilljonas posted:Reading up on Baradino is just insane. Imagine standing still, for HOURS, out of range of your own weapon, and have cannonballs randomly eat entire rows of your battalion. Just standing. In the open. Not foxholes or anything. I'm probably not the only one in this thread who enjoys Dan Carlin's podcast and I get caught up in his meditations on just how alien some of the ideas historical folks had seem from our perspective in spite of us obviously being basically the same. I mean I would rather be a WW2 troop try to take out a machine gun pillbox with a couple grenades and an carbine, at least I can use cover and hit the dirt rather than just standing stock still waiting to see if it's my turn to die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:I'm probably not the only one in this thread who enjoys Dan Carlin's podcast and I get caught up in his meditations on just how alien some of the ideas historical folks had seem from our perspective in spite of us obviously being basically the same. I mean I would rather be a WW2 troop try to take out a machine gun pillbox with a couple grenades and an carbine, at least I can use cover and hit the dirt rather than just standing stock still waiting to see if it's my turn to die. I still think that's safer than the Napoleonic method.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:I'm probably not the only one in this thread who enjoys Dan Carlin's podcast and I get caught up in his meditations on just how alien some of the ideas historical folks had seem from our perspective in spite of us obviously being basically the same. I mean I would rather be a WW2 troop try to take out a machine gun pillbox with a couple grenades and an carbine, at least I can use cover and hit the dirt rather than just standing stock still waiting to see if it's my turn to die. Culture is a hell of a drug. I wonder what elements of modern society people in 200 years will find crazy probably most of them. Anyway, this probably belongs in the Military History thread which I loving swear exists but can't find anywhere - How exactly is something like the Bren Gun a light machine gun, and the BAR 1918 is not? I keep reading stuff that disparages the BAR as being a Bad Gun, with the sentiment that it was "just" a automatic rifle and not a MG being a very common sentiment. On the surface they look very similar. They both fire rifle-caliber bullets from a smallish magazine. The Bren had a 30 round magazine, whereas the BAR had a 20 round magazine. Yet the Bren is generally considered a Good Gun and an effective LMG. The only significant differences between the weapons that I can tell are the lower magazine capacity, the BAR being slightly heavier, and the BAR lacking a pistol grip. So - What exactly made the Bren better than the BAR? On paper the BAR looks only slightly worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Culture is a hell of a drug. I wonder what elements of modern society people in 200 years will find crazy probably most of them. I'm not a gun guy but from a brief googling on the issue, most gun guys seem to consider the BAR worse because it was kind of inbetween an automatic rifle and a machine gun, while the bren was a "true" machine gun. Things like the bigger magazine and exchangable barrel. It was simply a more modern weapon and built to be able to provide supporting fire with a higher ROF and better equipped for sustained firefights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
The current MilHist thread is here, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:Shermans still have the Ronson special rule! also from the Wiki posted:Research for tank casualties in Normandy from 6 June to 10 July 1944 conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research concluded, that from a sample of 40 Sherman tanks, 33 tanks burned (82 percent) and 7 tanks remained unburned following an average of 1.89 penetrations. In comparison, from a sample of 5 Panzer IV's, 4 tanks burned (80 percent) and 1 tank remained unburned, following an average of 1.5 penetrations. The Panther tank burned 14 times (63 percent) from a sample of 22 tanks and following 3.24 penetrations, while the Tiger burned 4 times (80 percent) out of a sample of 5 tanks following 3.25 penetrations.[96] John Buckley, using a case study of the British 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades, found that of their 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, 94 (56.6 percent) burned out. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burned out after being penetrated.[97] United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the vulnerable sponsons above the tracks. A U.S. Army study in 1945 concluded that only 10–15 percent of wet stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60–80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans.[98] And the studies on Normandy seem to indicate that Norther Europe had its fair share of dry stowage Shermans, which leads to the conclusion that for at least half of the war you had Shermans who wanted to go up in flames. Now, you can argue that the quote posted indicates that Shermans shouldn't have rules for particular flamability, and that both Panthers and Wet storage models should have rules for decreased flamability, but that's not how the argument goes, usually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Weird, Soviet data showed that 34% of dry rack Shermans burned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Might be that this is where the Britishness and overstocking the ammo comes in. Now, if somebody had quotable comparative flamability stats with sources it would help shut people up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
People who are dead set on trumpeting old myths don't care about sources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Sure, not everyone is as insecure about their knowledge as I am. Maybe that would benefit me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
The early Shermans were fairly likely to burn upon penetration, but one of the key questions to ask when debating the validity of any kind of "Ronson" rule is "Were they actually more likely to brew up than other tanks?" Tanks in general are filled with things that want to catch on fire, and in terms of ammo stowage specifically the Sherman was hardly alone in terms of poor design and handling techniques. If I remember correctly (And I could not be, I don't have anything in front of me and it's been a while since I've read any specific literature on the subject), the Panther and Panzer IV were actually about as likely to burn after penetration as the early Shermans were-but of course, since the Americans and British were driving Shermans instead of Panthers and Panzers, it was their own tank that got the reputation for being a firetrap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:You paint them one at a time? I do. I really hate batch painting, and with one dude at a time I can have one done from start to finish in one of my evenings off, so I feel more like I've accomplished something than if I just did the pants on all six, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:So - What exactly made the Bren better than the BAR? On paper the BAR looks only slightly worse. JcDent posted:Look, I like the Sherman, and I want to love them, but unless I misunderstand something, they seem kinda flamable. Regular rear end M4A1s, M4A2s and M4A4s seem to take up the most of the production (~21K, or around 50% of Shermans going by Wiki numbers). If Wiki is to be believed, the first solutions to flamability were to weld plates on the sides in 1943, which didn't help a lot. Wet stowage models began production in 1944, which meant that you had two years of burning Shermans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The early Shermans were fairly likely to burn upon penetration, but one of the key questions to ask when debating the validity of any kind of "Ronson" rule is "Were they actually more likely to brew up than other tanks?" Tanks in general are filled with things that want to catch on fire, and in terms of ammo stowage specifically the Sherman was hardly alone in terms of poor design and handling techniques. If I remember correctly (And I could not be, I don't have anything in front of me and it's been a while since I've read any specific literature on the subject), the Panther and Panzer IV were actually about as likely to burn after penetration as the early Shermans were-but of course, since the Americans and British were driving Shermans instead of Panthers and Panzers, it was their own tank that got the reputation for being a firetrap. Yeah, this. Tanks catch fire; it's what they do when stuff explodes inside them. Modern NATO MBTs actually put an enormous amount of effort (and weight) into not exploding like that; doing so is very much a "default setting". Hell, there's even the segment of "Our World War" where, upon seeing scorch marks on a letter from a tanker, his widow assumed he'd burned to death; given those were based on memoirs it's possible tanks' reputation for being things that incinerated everyone inside of them happened pretty rapidly after they were invented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
It's important to remember that the BAR was in service through the war and into the Korean war, so it must have exceeded a certain performance level. That said, a couple of other things that make a difference: - The Bren has a quick change barrel so that in a long contact, the firers can change the barrel without burning their hands. Wiki tells me that the BAR doesn't and also has a thinner barrel, which means that heat affects it faster. As the most powerful weapon in a rifle section, it's important to minimize the down time, especially when the riflemen are manoeuvring and the gun needs to fire at intervals to make sure the enemy can't poke their heads out of cover. I don't know if the BAR had a gas regulator, but that's useful too, you can adjust the rate of fire to conserve ammunition or up it to keep it firing when it's getting all choked up with residue. - A machine gun is designed to create a 'beaten zone' or cone of fire. The idea is that a burst of fire, the bullets will drill through an area and hit any person sized target standing in it. The BAR is apparently more of a bullets go where you point it sort of a deal. Wiki tells me that the later marks of Brens were actually designed to spread the shots more to create this effect. Note this is also situational, it's for hitting targets a long way away, it doesn't mean your Bren will spray bullets everywhere when a guy pops up out of the jungle 20m away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:It's important to remember that the BAR was in service through the war and into the Korean war, so it must have exceeded a certain performance level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Yeah, it's not like say those crappy italian machine guns or chauchats which don't really persist after the main conflict they were used in. Without being much of a gun guy, and never having fired either or seen a BAR in the flesh, I think both were probably good weapons. The Bren was possibly more appropriate to the role it was used in. My gut feel is that the BAR would make a very good second heavy weapon in a section, good to create a base of fire but also light enough to manoeuvre with or fire on the move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure the BAR is a bad gun, but by WWII there were definitely better options available. At least it looked cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
I think you guys are missing the point that the BAR could fire multiple rounds with greater accuracy but lessor RoF. The Bren could fire at a greater rate with reduced specific accuracy. The MG34/42 could fire at a far greater RoF but with massively reduced accuracy. All of those things have a role and usefulness, just like the difference between an anti-armor gun and an anti-infantry gun. As for the "rhonson" rule... it's bullshit. Adjust the armor value for game terms. If the designers think a certain tank had a greater chance of getting brewed up just reflect that in its chance of getting disabled in a general sense. There's no reason to make it a special handicap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
So is there a consolidated post somewhere that lists where you can get different era's of CoC army lists from? My dad's set on late war american/british advances so probably something like that? So much for having the best tanks, RIP T-34 spam Geisladisk posted:The Consolidated Arsenal is a community project to rework inaccurate stats, and to add stats for vehicles that COC lacks rules for. It lists the MGs on each vehicle in a more coherent manner. Very cool!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
I found loads of them on the TfL website but frustratingly they're spread around forum posts, website blog posts, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I found loads of them on the TfL website but frustratingly they're spread around forum posts, website blog posts, etc. Yeah, people keep asking TFL to release a sourcebook with the new army lists and the updated old ones (the book has several errors), but last I checked the answer was no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Are there any card/paper models for 1:1200 Napoleonic ships? I've got two full fleets for Warhammer Historicals Trafalgar, which is a great game, but these models look like a nightmare to put together. I spent about 20 mins trying a dry fit, with all the teeny tiny masts and sails before thinking that lifes too short for such unpleasantness. It's likely a game that'll only be played very, very rarely so it's not a project I want to dump a lot of time into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Cassa posted:So is there a consolidated post somewhere that lists where you can get different era's of CoC army lists from? My dad's set on late war american/british advances so probably something like that? The platoons in the COC rulebook are all late war, so they fit your needs perfectly. DiHK posted:As for the "rhonson" rule... it's bullshit. Adjust the armor value for game terms. If the designers think a certain tank had a greater chance of getting brewed up just reflect that in its chance of getting disabled in a general sense. There's no reason to make it a special handicap. It's worth noting that the Ronson special rule in COC has very, very little effect on the game. When a tank in COC is shot by a AT attack and three dice hit and are not canceled by armor, the tank is destroyed on a 1-3, and on a 5-6 it also blows up, harming infantry within 4". The Ronson special rule makes it blow up on a 4-6 instead. That rule is there purely because COC is written by a couple of Englishmen, and they consider it their solemn duty to queen and country to take a crack at the Americans whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Are there any card/paper models for 1:1200 Napoleonic ships? Haha, I have four Spanish ships from Langton, and they were a nightmare to put together with tying the lines and so on. And then, they easily fall apart in transportation. Here's a link to both a basic ruleset and some printable ships: http://www.juniorgeneral.org/naval/trafalgar.html A middle of the road solution is to go with the 3D cardboard models from Pirates of the Spanish Main, which are from an earlier period, but look pretty ok and are readily available on e-bay still. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Haha, I have four Spanish ships from Langton, and they were a nightmare to put together with tying the lines and so on. And then, they easily fall apart in transportation. Perfect! Just what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The early Shermans were fairly likely to burn upon penetration, but one of the key questions to ask when debating the validity of any kind of "Ronson" rule is "Were they actually more likely to brew up than other tanks?" Tanks in general are filled with things that want to catch on fire, and in terms of ammo stowage specifically the Sherman was hardly alone in terms of poor design and handling techniques. If I remember correctly (And I could not be, I don't have anything in front of me and it's been a while since I've read any specific literature on the subject), the Panther and Panzer IV were actually about as likely to burn after penetration as the early Shermans were-but of course, since the Americans and British were driving Shermans instead of Panthers and Panzers, it was their own tank that got the reputation for being a firetrap. Shame about the whole rest of the game when it comes to historical accuracy (looking at the almost entirely 'generic' Soviet lists, as opposed to the massive amount of specialised lists everyone else gets, especially the Germans).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Has anyone tried 2FL's 'Kiss me Hardy' rules?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
DiHK posted:I think you guys are missing the point that the BAR could fire multiple rounds with greater accuracy but lessor RoF. The Bren could fire at a greater rate with reduced specific accuracy. The MG34/42 could fire at a far greater RoF but with massively reduced accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Are there any card/paper models for 1:1200 Napoleonic ships? Not sure about paper ones, but you could go the cheap(ish) pre-painted route with ships from Sails of Glory. Then you could also play Sails of Glory. Fish and Chimps posted:Has anyone tried 2FL's 'Kiss me Hardy' rules? I have them but have not played them. I guess I could do like above!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Bolt Action Rules Question: When you add an LMG or flamethrower to a squad, one additional guy gets designated loader/assistant. Can he still act independently as a rifleman/submachinegunner, for example if your LMG gets sniped out, and during assaults? That's how I thought it was but now that I'm looking at the way they tell you to assemble the squads for the starter set (loader and gunner on the same base) it looks like maybe the loader and LMG operator have a suicide pact?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Sails of glory are apparently only Kickstarter or insanely expensive. £73 for the starter kit!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:Sails of glory are apparently only Kickstarter or insanely expensive. £73 for the starter kit! I think they haven't reprinted the starter kit for some reason, but Amazon has ships form $10-$20 depending on size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:There's next to nothing stopping the higher RoF guns just firing one round if desired. This extends right up to stuff like using an M2 to snipe. Sure but I'm referring to short burst accuracy. THis guy is a cliche goldmine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJs6expvT8&t=914s I'm "Tito Bandito"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:The platoons in the COC rulebook are all late war, so they fit your needs perfectly.That rule is there purely because COC is written by a couple of Englishmen, and they consider it their solemn duty to queen and country to take a crack at the Americans whenever possible. I appreciate you! lilljonas posted:Yeah, people keep asking TFL to release a sourcebook with the new army lists and the updated old ones (the book has several errors), but last I checked the answer was no. It would be super useful, I grabbed the 2017 summer special as it seemed to have a fair amount of CoC stuff, and it mentions a few forces in generalities. Which isn't really that good and turns out searching 'Chain of Command Royal Marines' isn't that effective. Just feels a little impenetrable with lots of expected knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Actually, Rich is in the process of adding to the FAQ, which (last I perused the thread) included a list of all of the updated Force Ratings for all of the various unit types published so far in various expansions, downloads, and specials. But if you don't want to wait, TFL Forum user Seret maintains the current "master list" on his website. Handy link: http://tinyhordes.com/updated-chain-of-command-force-ratings/ That page also contains a link to the official "CoCulator," the system used to calculate force ratings. In terms of specific knowledge, simply playing the game doesn't really require any - just take the forces as listed and get cracking. What does require more specific knowledge is when you're going a little farther off the rails, either by creating scenarios to represent specific actions or coming up with army lists for specific (usually niche) unit types. So if you wanted to field a platoon of Feldgendarmerie or a US Merchant Marine crew, for instance. That requires a bit more research to determine how said unit was structured, and at that point you'd apply the CoCulator to figure out its cost. Are you looking to do Royal Marine Commandos? EDIT: Also, most of the entries in the Consolidated Arsenal list include when the vehicle or weapon in question was first fielded. But if you're doing Late War, pretty much anything is on the table. Ilor fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
That link is great, thanks! And no, for the most part we'll probably start with a German Panzergrenadier Platoon vs a British Infantry Platoon or Soviet Rifle Platoon. It's just the Bridge at Saindoux mission looked fun, and having an obvious objective would be good to start with, but the Patrol mission works just as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Well these certainly are 32 Hanoverians I never have to paint again. "20 mm" Newline dudes, although they're closer to large 18 mm. I think.    Still need to do varnish, bases and flag tho Fish and Chimps fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Latest After Action Report. http://carportgaming.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/que-sera-sera.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:11
|
|
