|
lilljonas posted:CoC shines when it's infantry on infantry, it's not really amazing for tank-on-tank battles. Or even worse, tank-on-infantry battles. Yeah, agreed. Most of my experience so far is my Soviets versus other people's Germans; it's fun to play and gives us a good game. I'm working on those Poles to have something else to fight Germans with. I've seen the Vietnam add-on and think it would work very well for that - I have yet to play it, but it looks really good and I think the system is just perfect for "a bunch of grunts in the jungle" games. Cessna fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Jul 3, 2018 |
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Yeah, the armor vs infantry balance in CoC is as fraught in the game as it was during the war. In the early war, armor was generally relatively thin and ATRs were decent. Things were fairly well-balanced. Then in the mid-war, armor technology raced ahead of AT weapons, making man-portable AT capabilities basically worthless. From mid '42 to late '44, most infantry units' response to armored vehicles amounted to, "poo poo, run!" Then, once they worked the kinks out of the bazooka (and subsequently the PIAT and panzerschreck entered service) it went entirely the other way - tanks didn't want to be anywhere near infantry, because a team of 2 dudes could make a decent go at taking out pretty much anything on tracks. It takes a little bit of work to make CoC balance out well in the mid-war period. But yeah, dudes running around in the jungle is a perfect adaptation for CoC. I haven't played with the Vietnam port yet, but it looks really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
The PIAT was an early 1943 weapon first used in Sicily but thanks to the design it required balls of steel to use it. You needed to get up very close to get a hit in, but if you did it was pretty likely to gently caress up whatever it hit. "Very close" was literally rock throwing distance though. IIRC the Bazooka was issued early on too, but I know less about US weapons than British ones. It was later on that it went from one per platoon to "everyone who wants one" though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Ilor posted:In the early war, armor was generally relatively thin and ATRs were decent. That's why I'm thinking 1939 will work well. A Pz II or a 7TP is an MBT, and an ATR will take them out...
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Tank platoons in Soviet formations were 3 tanks per platoon (4 in infantry divisions... because reasons) BF doesn't work like that, though; the game just makes use of "units". For NATO (or... everyone except a couple of weird lists in WW2), the platoon is the "unit", yes, but Pact in TY and the Soviets in WW2 use a tank or infantry company as the "unit". It's why you've got, for example, 20-odd infantry stands all in coherency, when their equivalent in the german ranks would be 7 or 9 stands. It's slightly less notable in TY because there's a similar number of stands but a bunch of them are on small bases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
I find that COC shines brightest when you let balance take a back seat and instead just make cool poo poo happen in extremely asymmetric scenarios. My favorite COC game to this day is when, as part of a campaign, a Soviet platoon supported by an entire platoon of T-34-85s attacked a German platoon with a couple of towed AT guns and Panzerschreck teams. The Soviet player could get a fresh platoon of T-34s if his tanks were ever knocked out. The terrain massively favored the Germans - We were playing lengthwise, and the Soviet player's half was more or less an empty field, while the German player's was heavily wooded. The Soviet player had to get at least two T-34-85s to exit at the German player's table edge before a certain number of turns. In scenarios like that, Tanks add a lot to the game. In balanced scenarios where both sides have a tank or two, whoever knocks out the enemy's tank basically has a giant upper hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:IIRC the Bazooka was issued early on too, but I know less about US weapons than British ones. It was later on that it went from one per platoon to "everyone who wants one" though. It was issued to units for Operation Torch in '42 but they forgot to send along any instructors to train the troops, so it was largely ineffective until at least the Italian campaign. The Germans reverse engineered the ones they captured either there or from the Soviets to make the Panzerschreck in '43
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
spectralent posted:BF doesn't work like that, though; the game just makes use of "units". For NATO (or... everyone except a couple of weird lists in WW2), the platoon is the "unit", yes, but Pact in TY and the Soviets in WW2 use a tank or infantry company as the "unit". It's why you've got, for example, 20-odd infantry stands all in coherency, when their equivalent in the german ranks would be 7 or 9 stands. It's slightly less notable in TY because there's a similar number of stands but a bunch of them are on small bases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:It was issued to units for Operation Torch in '42 but they forgot to send along any instructors to train the troops, so it was largely ineffective until at least the Italian campaign. The Germans reverse engineered the ones they captured either there or from the Soviets to make the Panzerschreck in '43
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The PIAT was an early 1943 weapon first used in Sicily but thanks to the design it required balls of steel to use it. You needed to get up very close to get a hit in, but if you did it was pretty likely to gently caress up whatever it hit. "Very close" was literally rock throwing distance though. Didn't the PIAT break your shoulder if you held it slightly wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Yup, it was not an easy weapon to use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The thing I find really weird about how Team Yankee does that is that your list is a battlegroup of some form, and there is a concrete list of how many of a thing available to your entire Brigade or Division or whatever somewhere in the book, but for literally no reason at all it's stuck with the stupid WWII Soviet Hordes mentality. It also has a weird thing where the tanks are arranged as a company but you've still got scout platoons or whatever. Also, it leads to stuff like the MGs and ATGM teams coming on large bases and ending up less effective than their NATO counterparts. Also the soviets don't get battalion mortars which is actually very significant because NATO forces generally do get a (cheap) source of pinning and smoke. Granted, very bad soviet skill would probably minimise it's usefulness anyway, but eh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Well, if WWII FoW is based on German memoirs read uncritically, TY is based on a NATO-wanking book and the need to sell to audience that swallows the "ASIATIC HORDES" myth hook, line and sinker. Historicity and actual TO&Es ain't got nothing to do with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
How is Fistful of Tows 3? Is it streamlined or groggy? How realistic is it? What size forces do you need? Company? Battalion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Realistic? Very. It is really groggy, but good as far I know. As for the forces, it all depends on whether you use use 1:1 or reg rules. 1:1 it's squad/tabk a base, regular it's platoon. Tiny Tanks 3mm blog had some amazing batreps, but he was using some house rules about pre-planning movement, hexes and so on. Had amazing sabot bases for dismounted mech infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Doe anyone know how the PSC 15mm 251/16 conversion kit fits together? The fuel tanks in the back seem to have two choices, but neither really fits well
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
I had my second game of Battlegroup, I think I'm hooked. The only snag is the composition of the lists. We use the greggfarrell builder as a go-to, but it's a bit defunct so checking the lists is necessary. I'm looking up online sources for the correct number of men in a squad, so I guess I'm a grog now.  Again a beautiful table. I asked some more and this is the work of a couple of years. He started out with fow, then transitioned to battlegroup. I'm not going to do a full battle report, but I'll give some of the highlights of the game. Scenario was flanking attack, I got to choose the deploying side first.  A couple of Stugs rush to claim two objectives, on the right flank (or left I guess) two sdfkz 233 try to get on the road through some nasty bocage   A victorious stug. They're not the best but I love those stubby tanks. By turn three I've got about 75 percent of my stuff where I want it. Ally reinforcements are fragmentary due to dice fuckery.   Closest objective is reinforced  And gets hit by artillery  Air attack!  Also pesky bazooka team. Never run your tanks without infantry support I guess.  Second Sherman got blowed up  And ended with a tense standoff in the woods In fact, everything got blowed up. Lessons learned; -don't overextend yourself -sdkfz 233 is not really useful -bocage sucks 'more for my opponent) It was a really close game, at the end I had 27 battlecounters out of 28;, he had 26 out of 28. I really liked the constant shifting odds (not really shown in the pictures). I pretty much had the upper hand in the first half, but was scrambling to get to the right objectives with the right equipment in the second half. I've bragged about my friend's painting skill last post, caught some pics that prove it. I got a new phone, so if the quality of the pics suck that's on me    a stand of my Germans in the front  -not mine-
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
15mm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Yup. He's a devil with the airbrush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
So according to the breakthrough assault podcast, we're getting three options for soviet infantry in Enemy at the Gates: Blob strelk hordes with 4+ saves, 3+ tohit, and 6" assault range, smaller survivor infantry companies, with normal saves but poorer morale and lacking the 6" charge, and... 4+ tohit assault groups. I had to go back and check I heard that right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
You forgot the best part, Soviet tanks will be 2+ to hit because of the "suicidal charges".  A bunch of dudes from my club are getting excited about it and are building a Stalingrad terrain. All of them are going to play Germans. Surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
It's a Good Game
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Goddamnit, flames.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
I was maybe unclear; assault groups being 4+ tohit would put them on par with the old "veteran" rating, which is something BF's never done before. Old conscript tanks were 2+ tohit so I'm not surprised to see those; my surprise is that a veteran soviet unit is apparently going to be core.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:A bunch of dudes from my club are getting excited about it and are building a Stalingrad terrain. All of them are going to play Germans. Surprise. Gamers are the worst
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I was maybe unclear; assault groups being 4+ tohit would put them on par with the old "veteran" rating, which is something BF's never done before. Old conscript tanks were 2+ tohit so I'm not surprised to see those; my surprise is that a veteran soviet unit is apparently going to be core. I might be unpopular in the thread but I enjoyed the conceit of conscript soviet armor. Good, cheap tanks that are really easy to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I might be unpopular in the thread but I enjoyed the conceit of conscript soviet armor. Good, cheap tanks that are really easy to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I might be unpopular in the thread but I enjoyed the conceit of conscript soviet armor. Good, cheap tanks that are really easy to hit. I don't mind the existence of Soviet unskilled shitblob armies. What I mind is that they are the only Soviet armies. Let me take lovely unskilled 2+ hit second-rate tanks from garbage divisions but also let me take skilled 4+ hit veteran tanks from Guards divisions. Conversely, it bothers me that there are no lovely unskilled German armies. Same thing in TY. I'm fine with there being low-skilled blob Soviet armies - I'm not immune to the appeal of a huge number of Soviet AFVs rushing into the Fulda Gap against outnumbered NATO defenders - But also let me take low model count, high-skill Soviet armies. I'm new to Flames though, only having picked up Flames of Yankee in v4. Maybe these issues will resolve themselves with more books with more diverse army choices. Maybe EATG Soviets will be cool and good. In the meantime I'll stick to late-war Americans. Flames of Yankee is still basically fine and I enjoy the game, but I'm still not gonna stop pushing Battlegroup on my club. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I don't mind the existence of Soviet unskilled shitblob armies. What I mind is that they are the only Soviet armies. Let me take lovely unskilled 2+ hit second-rate tanks from garbage divisions but also let me take skilled 4+ hit veteran tanks from Guards divisions. berlin hero lists quote:Conversely, it bothers me that there are no lovely unskilled German armies. berlin volkssturm battlegroup BF are exceptionally dumb and terrible at rules but they've been slowly, *slowly* caving to the iron glacier of pissed off Soviet players.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Everyone knows that Enemy at the Gates is 100% historically accurate. Every time Soviet infantry shoot, roll a d6. On a 1-3 its the dude with the bullets that attempts, and nothing happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:You forgot the best part, Soviet tanks will be 2+ to hit because of the "suicidal charges". FFS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:They're good if they're support units for a decent Infantry army, but when they're the primary platoon you end up with parking lots. v4 is parking lot heavy to me, haha, they let you do it with pretty much everyone if you want. May not be good on the aesthetics, though. Geisladisk posted:I don't mind the existence of Soviet unskilled shitblob armies. What I mind is that they are the only Soviet armies. Let me take lovely unskilled 2+ hit second-rate tanks from garbage divisions but also let me take skilled 4+ hit veteran tanks from Guards divisions. Conversely, it bothers me that there are no lovely unskilled German armies. The performance of Soviet tank corps before Uranus was absolutely abysmal and it had nothing to do with the hardware. I wouldn't mind seeing trained tanks but stuff like hero tankovy was really boring because it's like playing LW americans without anything particularly interesting, same for hero strelk. Though TBQH BF doesn't really need to do the platoon = company thing any more because you can already get infinite platoons. Just price it out and let it fly, whatever. I can play a US list with 39 Stuarts and good support if I want already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
I still toy with the idea of a late war BeutePanzerKompanie made entirely out of French tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I still toy with the idea of a late war BeutePanzerKompanie made entirely out of French tanks. I'd absolutely be down for that in v4 where there's no practical platoon limit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:berlin hero lists Yeah, it seems like the new book is a continuation of that trend. Also most of the berlin lists that aren't hidden on Forces are Trained with a special rule that gives them 3+ assault/dig in. They're not proper vets. Panzeh posted:I can play a US list with 39 Stuarts and good support if I want already. Yeah, battalion soviets is now a weird anachronism given it's entirely possible to take battalions of anything if it's cheap enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
A better game could simulate the issues that the Soviet army had by, say, splitting infantry and tanks, and just putting one of them in reserves, with odds of it not arriving in time. Or roll for tanks to run out of ammo/fuel. Or making cheap and expensive versions of tanks like Tiger II: a cheap version could be rolled to break down on the way on the table. Or do some fuckery with command, battle counters and whatever. But since we need to sell miniatures to people who love that ASIATIC HORDES coolaid. .
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
In a science fiction or fantasy setting, having a big horde of cheap dudes army wouldn't be a problem. In historicals though, you do have a sort of obligation to portray history in a roughly genuine fashion. I'm not saying games need to attempt to be as accurate as humanly possible, but you need to get the tones right and not deliberately proliferate false information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
It's me, I'm the Ronson rule for Shermans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
Endman posted:In a science fiction or fantasy setting, having a big horde of cheap dudes army wouldn't be a problem. The Soviets never discovered radio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
I've kind of hosed up in assembling my stuff. With fow in mind I've loaded up all my bases with dudes. Using plastic cement. I'm considering cutting up the bases and prying off the troops, or starting over and painting a couple of companies with the right number of men. I'm pretty set on battlegroup right now, and I'd like to have the proper squad count. Fiddling around with dice is a hassle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 18:16
|
|