|
It'd work fine in a smaller tank vs tank game, with maybe a platoon max per side. As it is, Battlegroup games are too messy for it.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
spectralent posted:NORTHAG in about ten months. Any info on this? Can read about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:We had a great game of GdA yesterday. We finally have enough brigades to make for some interesting games, with reserves and manoeuvres and stuff. I even had time to assemble my new 4ground La Haye Sainte! Looking nice, I think you choose a great scale for GdA. Meanwhile, I'm doing a classic mistake: Step 1: buy enough cheap plastic sprues for a platoon during Warlords sprue sales (in this case, Fallschirmjägers) Step 2: assemble your men. Realize that there are different ways that they deployed, and that you'll need extras for that as well as for support options. Step 3: spend far more on beefing up your platoon than you ever spent on step 1. Also, now you're painting twice as many duded. Step 4: think "hmm, maybe I should just bump these up to two zugs, since I'm almost there anyway and spent so much on support options?" Rinse and repeat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
I'm holding out on all these sales. Footsore are going to put preorders for Gang of Rome out soon and I want me some of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:6' x 4' which gives us limited space to manoeuvre. I also deployed the forces on the wrong axis, which left even less room than we could have had. I don't know why, but I thought a bit of space to march up to the front line was more important than width to manoeuvre on. Yeah this is why I built a 12'x6' table which gives you the best of both worlds. Populating it with terrain is uh, a big deal though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Finally getting a start on my own terrain. I'm working on industrial stuff since the club has farmland and wintery forests covered pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Yeah this is why I built a 12'x6' table which gives you the best of both worlds. Populating it with terrain is uh, a big deal though. Even though I would love a huge table, in a 2-room apartment, that's simply not an option. This is even the first time I've had my regular sized table out since having a child last year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Looking nice, I think you choose a great scale for GdA. This is how I ended up with an entire infantry company for bolt action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Anybody have opinions about which is better between Perry and Warlord napoleonic Russians? Warlord stuff is buy 2 get 1 free at NWS but if Perry is better I’ll just buy them over time instead of in one big chunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:Anybody have opinions about which is better between Perry and Warlord napoleonic Russians? Warlord stuff is buy 2 get 1 free at NWS but if Perry is better I’ll just buy them over time instead of in one big chunk. I think Perry’s Russians look better. Our Russian player has used them exclusively and no Warlord at all, and he’s a huge russophile, so I assume he has a reson for that. Warlord’s French are a mixed bag, where I much prefer their late French, while I have yet to see a bad box from Perry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
I think a big part of Battlefront's problem comes from the fact that they painted themselves into a corner, time-frame wise. FoW started off covering mid-war WWII only. There were lists out on the net covering early and late war, but nothing official. Over time they moved into these eras. Early war was covered. Late war pushed later and later - first through D-Day (six books on Normandy, WTF), then the Bulge, then Bagration, and on and on. Eventually they finally hit Berlin. Then what? Yes, they've pushed into non-WWII in Europe areas with Team Yankee, the Pacific, Vietnam, and Arab-Israeli games, but their main line has always been WWII in Europe. And now that this has been covered - there's nowhere to go after Berlin - it looks like they got desperate and tried to pull a reboot with v4. And there's no way I'm going through all of that again. I've already bought huge piles of toys, more than I will ever need. I'm not going through a reboot and re-buying armies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
The saddest thing about it is that with V3 they could probably have just kept releasing different timeframes without stupid OpFor Hen and Chicks armies and milked a solid ruleset forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
I might not be popular but i think hen and chicks makes sense in the context of soviet armored forces of mid-late 42.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I think a big part of Battlefront's problem comes from the fact that they painted themselves into a corner, time-frame wise. Lots of other rulesets did it just fine, though. I guess in most case they released just one set of rules and then released lists for different parts of the war that worked with the core rules. Panzeh posted:I might not be popular but i think hen and chicks makes sense in the context of soviet armored forces of mid-late 42. You're not popular, no, not with that opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I might not be popular but i think hen and chicks makes sense in the context of soviet armored forces of mid-late 42. Early-War, yes, perhaps. But not all Soviet armour (excpet for one or two exceptions) for the entire rest of the war, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Early-War, yes, perhaps. But not all Soviet armour (excpet for one or two exceptions) for the entire rest of the war, no. It's a rule that makes sense for mid-war Soviet tank battalions. There are alternatives, but these organizations were raw, hastily organized and punched well below their weight. I kinda think the other ways to model this would be way less interesting in play. They're still quite powerful in mid war because the T-34 and KV-1 are very good in and of themselves, even with the problems that h&c has to offer. FoW was developed as a mid-war game and plays best in that time period. They just.. kept the same special rules all around. Then they applied them to other periods, other forces, it's bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I do not think it is accurate that mid-war Soviet tank battalions were raw and hastily organized. The mid-war period is when the Germans ground to a halt in the East, despite the Soviets not having developed the overwhelming superiority in manpower and materiel of the late war period. H&C is arguably representative in the early war period when most tanks did not have radios, Obviously, there is no definite date where the Soviets stopped being an organizational mess, but in the mid-war, most Soviet forces were competent and on par with the Germans. Some forces were definitely not very good, while others were poor, just like in every other army. It'd be easy to represent both simply by allowing you to remove H&C for a points cost. H&C is disliked so much because it is part of the larger context of BF always shoehorning Soviet forces into the Zerg archetype of numerically superior but individually poor, which is awful because it draws from the "Asiatic Hordes" myth. BF is literally keeping Nazi propaganda alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:H&C is disliked so much because it is part of the larger context of BF always shoehorning Soviet forces into the Zerg archetype of numerically superior but individually poor, which is awful because it draws from the "Asiatic Hordes" myth. Near as I can tell, FoW is a wargame based on movies of WWII. For the Soviets this means their army is sword-swinging cossacks, cruel commissars, and human wave attacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Near as I can tell, FoW is a wargame based on movies of WWII. For the Soviets this means their army is sword-swinging cossacks, cruel commissars, and human wave attacks. I mean, I think the Soviets play heavily into the stereotypes, but I think the WAllies actually aren't too bad; Shermans are pretty good, you see Arty play its proper role, and the allied penchant for shooting things rather than assaulting things is shown pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
I've just assembled that new box of plastic Universal carriers (they're so cute!) and the crew for them is the new bad "plastic" battlefront is hyping. My god.... the faces are completely gone. horrendous mold lines too! Give me metal or resin instead of this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Thanks for the warning. I've been thinking of doing a "Brits in the Pacific" army - Burma, etc. - and I'll avoid those plastic Carriers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Thanks for the warning. I've been thinking of doing a "Brits in the Pacific" army - Burma, etc. - and I'll avoid those plastic Carriers. PSC do plastic Carriers, although I don't think they have the right uniform for the Pacific as options for the crew.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Thanks for the warning. I've been thinking of doing a "Brits in the Pacific" army - Burma, etc. - and I'll avoid those plastic Carriers. The carriers are great! it's the crew that's sad to look at  You get options for Bren, AA mount bren, Vickers and Boy's AT rifle. Plus the bits for WASP. I'm not even sure where they found detail enough to do the faces as seen here https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5623
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:The carriers are great! it's the crew that's sad to look at Those are probably the prototypes in much higher-quality material.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:H&C is disliked so much because it is part of the larger context of BF always shoehorning
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:I mean, I think the Soviets play heavily into the stereotypes, but I think the WAllies actually aren't too bad; Shermans are pretty good, you see Arty play its proper role, and the allied penchant for shooting things rather than assaulting things is shown pretty well. v3 as time went on gave the US in LLW lists a lot of love. Lots of new special rules, new toys, etc. Honestly, though, mid war was probably the best-developed period despite v3's laser-focus on late war and early war content. The lists worked better together, the various aspects were balanced more(For example, this was a meta where Italian armor, Romanian motorized, Soviet tank, German infantry, and US armored rifles could all work pretty well). v3 was not kind to Soviet infantry hordes(assault rules and QoQ weren't their friends), but H&C was a bit better and more easily worked around. One of the big problems BF had with periods is that early war and late war are huge periods- both Blitzkrieg and Barbarossa are in the same era, for example, and the power levels of the lists are not remotely the same. Same for Late War. Battlefront is really bad at designing games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
So hypothetically, if I wanted to throw money away, does anyone do any plastic Napoleonic Austrians other than Perry Minis? I hate metal, so if we can avoid any metal minis, that'd be great....
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
tomdidiot posted:So hypothetically, if I wanted to throw money away, does anyone do any plastic Napoleonic Austrians other than Perry Minis? I hate metal, so if we can avoid any metal minis, that'd be great.... Victrix has you covered for everything but cavalry. Their boxes even come with mounted officers: https://www.victrixlimited.com/collections/28mm-napoleonics
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Cross posting some 6mm Seleucids!    6mm continues to be gods own scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Cross posting some 6mm Seleucids! Nice! Meanwhile, I'm almost done with gluing together my Fallschirmjäger zug. drat, Warlords WW2 dudes are beefy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Victrix has you covered for everything but cavalry. Their boxes even come with mounted officers: Ooh, pretty. If I didn't have a gigantic pile of untouched Russians I'd consider getting Austrians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Ooh, pretty. Is that an excuse? I have 400-500 French in my wardrobe, and I just ordered the start of a Polish force from Murawski.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Is that an excuse? Good point. Why worry about completing armies now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Good point. Why worry about completing armies now? I haven't done it before, so no hope that I'll start to do so anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Define "complete"...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
The secret to expanding an army quickly can be told in two syllables: Greatcoats. Eight sprues of Warlord's Late French:  https://krigetkommer.weebly.com/napoleonic-blog/french-reinforcements-line-infantry-and-sappers-warlord-brigade Overall I kind of liked them, the cartoony style was far less annoying than in Warlord's other French box. A+ would paint up boring uniforms as a speed-paitning crutch again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Those look pretty cool for being "boring" uniforms. I've always liked the greatcoat look in sci-fi games and it still looks good ranked up for historicals. edit: I have a question that will reveal my total ignorance of the era: What exactly is the role of grenadiers? They didn't actually have explosives, did they? edit edit: holy poo poo grenades/grenade launchers are that old? long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
By that era, it was mostly a legacy term. They didn't use grenades much, if at all. But yes, grenades are actually pretty old. They generally had a burning slow match in a little brass contianer on their chest to light them, which they also kept even after they no longer used grenades much. http://gggodwin-com.3dcartstores.com/Grenadier-Slow-Match-Case-246H_p_750.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Early grenades were heavy and cumbersome, so it made sense to give them to the tallest, strongest men in the army, as they could chuck them further. Now, take your strongest soldiers, give them special, hilariously risky job, and you have an elite unit with a high status. That's just how armies work. So, while the grenades themselves were out of the picture by the Napoleonic era, the name "grenadier" for elite infantry (and even some cavalry!) stuck. Different armies used grenadiers differently. The French way was to keep a company of grenadiers in each battalion: selected from the tallest, hardiest veterans. Their job was to secure their flank, and to be generally tough buggers who could stand for long firefights or get stuck in with the bayonets and chase off less experienced troops. Other armies, like the Austrians, pooled their grenadiers into grenadier battalions, or even brigades of just grenadiers. The idea was to make a crack unit that could gain a local advantage against more mixed troops. The general results of the Napoleonic Wars points towards the French style being more efficient IMHO, as it was very helpful to have some grenadiers close to each line company. Austrian grenadier battalions generally performed excellent and were feared by their opponents, but that doesn't help when the lines collapse around them. The exact measurements for grenadiers differed over time, but at the start of the era the French army required them to be 173.5 cm (5'7") and have fought in two campaigns. But there are lots of stories of well performing soldiers being told by their officers to put some cloth or playing cards in their boots before doing the measuring... lilljonas fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Same with Dragoons. Dragoons evolved to just be heavy cavalry but stuck with the designation
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:47
|
|