|
Numlock posted:I don't know about Land Speeders but the Open Fire Shermans aren't that bad and it doesn't take that much work to make them fit together perfectly. Having just put some together...two of them literally do not fit together, period, even after trimming and cutting. The others and the Fireflys were fine once I realized how to hold them together. It looks like the upper hull shrunk lengthwise by about half a mm on one side or something, making it literally incapable of fitting correctly since it's simply not long enough to fit over the back of the bottom chassis tightly. It 'fits' well enough to glue, but it can't sit flush and I know it, despite it being almost unnoticable when you're actually playing.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Numlock posted:
I think you might be just slightly misrepresenting non FoW historical gaming. Also there are plenty of non Brit war gamers playing these games if the forums I frequent are any indicator. Here's some WW2 suggestions as alternatives to FOW. At the same game scale as FoW, ie a supported company or so, I would suggest I Ain't Been Shot Mum 3 ( don't be put of by the odd title, it makes sense to us Brits) by Two Fat Lardies which is a fantastic card driven game with some wonderful rules ideas that handles fog if war, and command and control issues brilliantly. For larger scale games, ie you want to put a few battalions down, Blitzkrieg Commander 2 is perfect. Based on the old GW Warmaster rule set weirdly enough, it's a great game to throw down whole divisions of armour, but you still need to pay attention to combined arms as infantry are vital to success. Both the above games work perfectly well with FOW based troops, both games are no more complex than FOW ( I'd argue less so although IABSM3 shines with a GM which can add another layer of complexity to game set up), both games represent the tactics of the era very well and both rule sets more importantly are a lot of fun. Cheap to pick up too. Serotonin fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Having just put some together...two of them literally do not fit together, period, even after trimming and cutting. The others and the Fireflys were fine once I realized how to hold them together. It looks like the upper hull shrunk lengthwise by about half a mm on one side or something, making it literally incapable of fitting correctly since it's simply not long enough to fit over the back of the bottom chassis tightly. It 'fits' well enough to glue, but it can't sit flush and I know it, despite it being almost unnoticable when you're actually playing. The problem is, I understand, the Open Fire plastic Shermans were sculpted rather than CAD/CAM designed, which is a terrible thing because it doesn't take into account the shrinkage that occurs during making the molds. e: So now that I have some samurai on the way thanks to lilljonas, what is a good rule system for 6mm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Worse than the old Space Marine Land Speeders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Hail Caesar would work as a rule set but you might need to do some research into army lists. I'm sure you would find stuff online for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:e: So now that I have some samurai on the way thanks to lilljonas, what is a good rule system for 6mm? For small armies you can even try DBA, you'll only need to get 24 stands finished to have two opposing armies. It's not very close to how they fought though. A good resource, if you can find it, is Killer Katanas II. I haven't tried the actual rules, since I find them a bit complicated and not really the type of rules that I normally like ("calculate a lot of modifiers, multiply by number of troops, check combat results on a chart"). However, there are tons of information in the book on army composition (down to 3-5 suitable compositions of major clans depending on year), hundreds of named generals with very basic stats, special rules for the major clans, plenty of scenarios, etc. Simply put, it's a useful book if you want to use a more generic ruleset (such as mentioned Hail Caesar/Black Powder) and make it more suitable for the period. I'd pay a buck or two for a slash ruleset that mixes these two, or even a Hail Caesar/Black Powder expansion for samurai warfare. I might even make an attempt in the future. Also, two bookmarks for you: Classical Asian Warfare sub-board on TMP. Actually one of the better and more helpful of the TMP boards. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/topics.mv?id=232 Samurai Archives Forums. By far the best compilations on stuff like heraldry etc., Evalero who posts his illustrations there is among the best illustrators of Samurai in the world, and definitely the best English-speaking one. http://forums.samurai-archives.com/index.php?sid=3867060871641ac103c246cebefb2958 lilljonas fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Awesome, will definitely have my research cut out for me.Serotonin posted:Hail Caesar would work as a rule set but you might need to do some research into army lists. I'm sure you would find stuff online for it. As often as this and Black Powder get mentioned, I probably should buy into them already. They tried to get BP going here, but made the mistake of only doing it on Thursday nights, and being very sporadic about it (it's usually some kind of zombie game, Malifaux, or Wild West, and once in a blue moon, another historical game). Otherwise, made my first steps into correcting how we play FoW. I actually read the whole damned rule book today, using sticky notes to mark rules we were doing wrong or just didn't know about. Also cut about ten 2" disks out of plywood to use as smoke markers. We'll see how things go tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Browsing around for Samurai stuff I foudn this on Warlord Games forum http://www.warlordgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4372 quote:Re: Japanese Warfare wih Hail Caesar? Sounds nice and simple, which is always a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Browsing around for Samurai stuff I foudn this on Warlord Games forum The problem with Japanese medieval warfare is that the unit structures were quite different from the type of European warfare that the rules are made to play. This goes for pretty much all generic systems though, and the solution seems to, most of the time, be to just ignore that there is a problem. This thread has some excellent discussions about how Japanese units were deployed and how each group would consist of a mix of different types of troops: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=277195 It's pretty much impossible to recreate in most wargame systems, so the closest you get is to mix up your troop types but still count them as infantry or cavalry or whatever. So for example, on my 6mm bases, I will mix in infantry running along with the horses. And for my 28mm missile troops I will mix handgunners and archers. At least it looks more appropriate. And while I trust Jervis o Co when it comes to detailed research of Western warfare, I neither expect or demand the same from them when it comes to other theaters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Knowing that I was facing A soviet heavy tank force, I would put together my list along the following lines... Just got back from playing another 2 vs. 2 game, 2000 points a person. I know, I know. I ran Fallschirmjagers from Italy with a partner running Jagdtigers against one person running 9th Armored out of Remagen (no Pershings) and the LGS owner running his same list of IS85s and full god of war (one platoon of four IS85s, one platoon of three). Really tried talking people down to 1500, but was a moot point, and nobody wanted to break off into 1 vs. 1 (mainly because there were no other free tables since tonight was also a HeroClix tourney). Anyways, followed this advice, only catch was we rolled a random mission and got counter attack, which forced my Panthers into reserve because my partner was running an armored company. Despite the points, I think I did well following this set up; had both PaK40s and 8.8s, but it was my pioneers that did the heavy lifting, killing three IS85s in assault (the owner assaulted the pioneers twice in two different turns with both platoons of IS85s; killed two from the first, one from the second). There are definitely things I could improve on, but I like this set up. May try it as an Italian Paracadutisti list if we ever get back to 1500 points. Game was called at the end of the attacker's fourth turn, due to closing time (owner showed up late so it took a while to get things going). Owner said he thinks the game could go either way, I honestly think if the game continued I and my partner would've won. quote:The main problem though is that this kind of advice is useless if you are not playing FoW but "FoW as per the mood of the FLGS owner" I insisted on the rules being followed by the book. Which lead to a lot of "show me where that says that in the book!" which I was able to thanks to my post-it note covered rule book. Finally came to a head with line of sight rules, where I was able to draw line of sight from an 88 to a Jumbo from the base of the 88, but not from the model of the gun itself. Rules say this is how you're suppose to do it. Owner argues with me about how thats not how we've been doing it, and that measuring from the gun is how "we" do it, and "you know that's how we've been doing it", and even after reading him the rules he's arguing that isn't how we've been doing it and that we should continue to do it the way we've been doing it, and my response was more or less "this is what the rules say, just because we've been doing it that way doesn't mean it's correct. There's a lot of things we've been doing wrong." I know it probably seemed like a cheap thing to do, as it did let me get three shots from an 8.8 against the side armor of a Jumbo (albeit, I missed). Still, if the rules say I can do it, I can do it, and I guarantee that if I had went along with that idea that I can't shoot the Jumbo because of where the gun was placed, that Jumbo would've shot at my 8.8 since it could see my base and that would've been fine by his rules; never mind the bigger rule of "If I can see you, you can see me/If I can't see you, you can't see me," means that if the Jumbo can shoot me, I can shoot the Jumbo, regardless of where on the base the model of the gun is (which is very subjective anyways to the whims of the player who builds the model). Ah, well, whatever. I haven't been kicked out of the store or the games, but we'll see if I don't get ostracized like the newbie players and told I can't play on the grown-up table any more. I've learned my lesson and have had it with 2,000 point games, and would really like to get back to 1 vs. 1 as well. Sorry for the words and leaking E/N into the thread, thanks for the advice, I think I'm going to focus on building up this army, and probably do the fun stuff on the side. I still want to be able to run Hermann Goring PIIIs and RSI Fanteria, and one day, a Tetrarch company.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Ah, well, whatever. I haven't been kicked out of the store or the games, but we'll see if I don't get ostracized like the newbie players and told I can't play on the grown-up table any more. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:The problem with Japanese medieval warfare is that the unit structures were quite different from the type of European warfare that the rules are made to play. This goes for pretty much all generic systems though, and the solution seems to, most of the time, be to just ignore that there is a problem. Fair enough, not something I know much about. Although there must be some decent rulesets out there for the era otherwise it wouldnt be popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Teach the newbie players right, make another meta in your area, host events, make the grogs complain about those loving kids on their lawn it's not how we behaved at their age~ Grogs not playing to the ruleset? Surely thats in breach of the stereotype!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
There's that Osprey ruleset for Samurai (called Ronin), but it seems really complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:...Measuring from the model of a gun team.... No wonder you were having problems with heavy tanks. How convenient that the way "we have always done it" massively favors the list the FLGS owner runs. It's bad enough with terrain setup where a good bit of it is subjective and you see people try to set it up to give themselves an advantage. Not that I can judge, if I have any say in the matter I remove any and all water features from tables. I'm tired of every goddamn table looking like I'm fighting in a half flooded river delta. "Oh you play infantry? I see..." Out of morbid curiosity, how were you guys handling infantry? Did you have to trace LOS from every little man so make sure they could "see" something to shoot at? Reminds me of the guys I see every now and then (often at the bigger tournaments that tend to draw out guys from isolated groups like yours) that turn up and do the weirdest crap and you don't understand why they did it, until you try to move past the half-tracks he's been bizarrely moving around sideways only to find that the way his group has always been doing it is that you can't move through enemy vehicles and is dumbstruck when I point out that the rule book says that vehicles don't block movement through them. On the 2000 point per player, 4+ player battle. These things can be fun once in a while, but long term they will kill your group dead. They just take too long and players will just get bored and frustrated with them. "oh 4 players and 2000 point each?.... Uh I'll pass today and play MtG/X-Wing instead" is the sound you hear when your group dies. On the occasions that my group doesn't have enough tables (or players) for everybody to do a 1v1, some players are just SOL. No hard feelings, we will make sure that people get in a game somehow and do go weeks without out one if at all possible. Getting banished to the noob table is the best thing that could happen to you. TEACH THEM and teach them right (don't be a weirdo though about it) and soon the way you have always done it will resemble the actual rules of FoW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Grogs not playing to the ruleset? Surely thats in breach of the stereotype! You would know...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I've learned my lesson and have had it with 2,000 point games, and would really like to get back to 1 vs. 1 as well. I realize the E/N answer to everything is "server," but I think you could probably do better to just refuse 2v2 games entirely and only bring 1500 points to the store.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
I like that we've now labeled Serotonin as our resident Grognard, even though the rules he prefers are generally the most loose and open of any of the rulesets we discuss in here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:There's that Osprey ruleset for Samurai (called Ronin), but it seems really complicated. Thats a skirmish game, and its not complicated, actually the rules seem very similar in terms of combat as they do for the fantasy skrimish game Bushido
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Numlock posted:No wonder you were having problems with heavy tanks. How convenient that the way "we have always done it" massively favors the list the FLGS owner runs. It's bad enough with terrain setup where a good bit of it is subjective and you see people try to set it up to give themselves an advantage. Not that I can judge, if I have any say in the matter I remove any and all water features from tables. I'm tired of every goddamn table looking like I'm fighting in a half flooded river delta. "Oh you play infantry? I see..." Yeah, it's funny how now I realize just how bent things are when I know what the rules are, and much easier to understand the why behind them. On the plus side of things, I'm usually the one setting up the tables, so I only ever have myself to blame if terrain doesn't work in my favor. Though generally I rather try to make terrain that works against everybody than work for one person (I don't make dense boards, but I try to break up or limit firing lines). Probably why nobody wants to run bocage except the one resident British player. quote:Out of morbid curiosity, how were you guys handling infantry? Did you have to trace LOS from every little man so make sure they could "see" something to shoot at? I think infantry was being handled "correctly" or it may have been from 'center of base' which is how we've been doing a lot of things, though our group meta has been to not be aggressive with infantry, better to stay gone to ground and let your enemy assault you than to actually fight, so this issue hadn't really come up with infantry. This I think is because of the amount of armor we run, I'm the only person who really runs pure infantry on a semi-consistent basis, only one other person will get into mechanized infantry. Otherwise, I've never been a big tourney guy, but I might just have to put together an army and get myself to one just to have that experience, to see how things are run. But yeah, I know what you mean about group-death, I was tempted to go play with the HeroClix guys, and I don't really like HeroClix. moths posted:I realize the E/N answer to everything is "server," but I think you could probably do better to just refuse 2v2 games entirely and only bring 1500 points to the store. Yeah, pretty much what I've concluded. Of course, last time I brought only 1500 points and the group decided on a 2000 point battle, the owner basically said "you should come prepared for anything!" Yeah, screw that, I'm not in the Boy Scouts, and nobody plans these things more than 5 minutes in advance. If things start getting terrible I'll eat the cost of gas and start going to Akron. I believe there's a few groups up there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I like that we've now labeled Serotonin as our resident Grognard, even though the rules he prefers are generally the most loose and open of any of the rulesets we discuss in here. Yeah serious misrepresentation coz I dare to say I dont think Flames of War is that good of a game. Im the least competitive/rules lawyering grogy person there is when it comes to wargaming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:I like that we've now labeled Serotonin as our resident Grognard, even though the rules he prefers are generally the most loose and open of any of the rulesets we discuss in here. I'm just poking fun at him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
However, if liking historical accuracy (or best guess) is Grogy then I guess I am. I did once research snakes in Western Europe in order to paint a 15mm Early Saxon druid type. I can accept this isnt normal behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Nevermind
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:If things start getting terrible I'll eat the cost of gas and start going to Akron. I believe there's a few groups up there. heh, I work not even 5 minutes away from a place where there is a war gaming club that regularly plays FoW. They play in one of those self-storage places that have offices available and I can see it from my cubicle!!! I don't play with them but instead drive an hour (sometimes more) through rush hour traffic to go to another place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Picked up a new Ancients ruleset today and it looks pretty interesting. http://meeples.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/sword-spear-the-holy-grail-of-ancients-rules/ Seems pretty decent. Its very generic one size fits all but has enough little tweaks to mkae most Ancient gaming work, Im less sure on the Dark Ages/Medieval personally. Its got a command system that seems very much like Bolt Action- each unit generates a command dice, throw all dice for both sides into a bag, draw 7 dice a time, roll em, then if you match or exceed the command value of that unit you can activate it, and depending on your roll it can add bonuses to move, combat etc. Going to give it a road test using my 6mm Romans V Gauls. Its designed for element style basing. Also its 6 quid for a pdf, so everyones a winner. Off to the new wargames club tonight. Had hoped to get a game of Warmachine in (I know heresy, call yourself a grog eh) but no ones about to play that so got invited to play Trafalgar instead. Ive only played it once years back, but it struck me as fun. RIP GW Historical. 
Serotonin fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Just got back from playing another 2 vs. 2 game, 2000 points a person. I know, I know. I ran Fallschirmjagers from Italy with a partner running Jagdtigers against one person running 9th Armored out of Remagen (no Pershings) and the LGS owner running his same list of IS85s and full god of war (one platoon of four IS85s, one platoon of three). Really tried talking people down to 1500, but was a moot point, and nobody wanted to break off into 1 vs. 1 (mainly because there were no other free tables since tonight was also a HeroClix tourney). Anyways, followed this advice, only catch was we rolled a random mission and got counter attack, which forced my Panthers into reserve because my partner was running an armored company. Despite the points, I think I did well following this set up; had both PaK40s and 8.8s, but it was my pioneers that did the heavy lifting, killing three IS85s in assault (the owner assaulted the pioneers twice in two different turns with both platoons of IS85s; killed two from the first, one from the second). There are definitely things I could improve on, but I like this set up. May try it as an Italian Paracadutisti list if we ever get back to 1500 points. Game was called at the end of the attacker's fourth turn, due to closing time (owner showed up late so it took a while to get things going). Owner said he thinks the game could go either way, I honestly think if the game continued I and my partner would've won. Glad to hear you did better this time around. IS-85s are in the sweet spot against medium tanks and medium AT guns. They've got a front armor and side armor that's really good against medium AT assets, and their gun is powerful enough to deal with mediums with ease. Add in the turret rear MG and top armor 2 against infantry and it's the closest thing the Soviets have as a good all arounder tank. I've found that their inability to deal with big cats is their biggest weakness. They're slow tanks, so it's hard for them to land side shots, and AT 12 is pretty undergunned against anything with front armor 9 or 10. I feel like Jagdpanthers would be pretty optimal against IS-85s. It sounds like you're in a tough situation with always playing doubles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I enjoy playing big games, and doubles games, but only playing big doubles games sounds like an easy way to give everyone a case of burnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Yeah serious misrepresentation coz I dare to say I dont think Flames of War is that good of a game. Im the least competitive/rules lawyering grogy person there is when it comes to wargaming. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Also I'd like to add my opinion which is that Pershings are just really loving dumb. In Late War, there is a ton of AT assests which put FA10 in the own-zone and a CV Pershing is priced just over a single CV Panther, and the Panther would have all the German special rules like Stormtrooper. By taking Pershings, you'd be lowering the amouint of tanks a US Tank Company has and honestly it's one of it's biggest strengths, especially now that the 76mm gun is everywhere. The Super Pershing is a little different, only because with FA13 you are insured against pretty much everything bar Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers from the front. Yes sure, you are still vulnerable to the long 88 but you've got a fair chance of living and the Jagdpanther only has FA10. Screen it with other tanks and it'll be a hard group to counter effectively. I usually play Germans and I really would love to see more Pershings, only because they are so similar to my Panthers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
3 Pershings should run you about the same as the trusty Jumbo + 2 Easy Eights + 75mm M4A3 combo so you're not losing too many tanks, but they are less flexible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Pershings get slightly better side armor and top armor 2 on top of .50 cals and all the other US rules. I think it's a pretty good comparison with the Panther, but I think the Jumbo + E8 is probably mechanically better. I do have a soft spot for Pershings though. I ordered a box + Bridge at Remagen from my FLGS yesterday. I'm also seriously considering one of those great war sets, but I suck at painting infantry and I'm afraid no one around here will play it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I decided to put try to put together a Panzer Ausbildungs Verbande from Desperate Measures, and found some pretty  things. For starters, a Panzergrenadier Ausbildungs Platoon from a Mechanized School is 170 points base, which is HQ Section plus 3 Squads of MG Teams plus the halftracks. Adding Panzerfausts to the whole platoon makes it 240 points. A trained Panzergrenadier platoon with exactly the same loadout comes to a mere 215 points, and they get Stormtrooper and Mission Tactics. Other interesting things of note is that the loss of Stormtrooper, Mission Tactics and Wide Tracks and the addition of Unreliable for a platoon of 3 Panthers only equals a 25 point saving. Just to test this interesting thing out, I built two identical lists using the Trained Panzer Kampfgruppe and the Ausbildungs Verbande list. The Panzer Kampfgruppe list was 1295 points, while the Verbande was 1230 points. I'm not really convinced that the loss of a ton of special rules and Unreliable is worth a mere 65 points across the board, seeing as the lists are the same. I feel the Ausbildings force is only good if you really wanted something like 'flavour' or take two platoons of infantry, otherwise it'd be a better bet to take the Panzer Kampfgruppe.I'm interested to know if Battlefront actually have a design plan for the late-late war books, as I'm pretty confused about the 'Enjoy the War' rule. So you have every list in Desperate Measures with Enjoy the War, but in Remagen you only have SS Platoons, even where forces from Desperate Measures are represented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
I'd imagine that the justification is that German soldiers fought hard in the East because they knew the Soviets were angry as hell, and anyone taken prisoner would expect the same treatment the Germans gave to Soviet prisoners. In the West, however, pretty much everyone but the most fanatical of troops realized the war was nearly over, and if anything were even more willing to surrender to American or British forces than continue to fight for a doomed regime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I'd imagine that the justification is that German soldiers fought hard in the East because they knew the Soviets were angry as hell, and anyone taken prisoner would expect the same treatment the Germans gave to Soviet prisoners. In the West, however, pretty much everyone but the most fanatical of troops realized the war was nearly over, and if anything were even more willing to surrender to American or British forces than continue to fight for a doomed regime. This is pretty much it; in Band of Brothers they mention that in the last four months or so the 101st would have their trucks drive up one side of the autobahn while entire battalions of German POWs would walk back the other side smiling, laughing and generally relaxed because hey, the war was over and they weren't getting sent to Siberia!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
I guess that's a pretty good justification, although the Ausbildungs Verbande in DS is also for Western Front. I'm really digging the idea of these ad-hoc units however, I guess my only problem is I just like Panthers too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:Also I'd like to add my opinion which is that Pershings are just really loving dumb. In Late War, there is a ton of AT assests which put FA10 in the own-zone and a CV Pershing is priced just over a single CV Panther, and the Panther would have all the German special rules like Stormtrooper. By taking Pershings, you'd be lowering the amouint of tanks a US Tank Company has and honestly it's one of it's biggest strengths, especially now that the 76mm gun is everywhere. They get an .50cal AA MG, Top Armor 2, 1 extra side armor (meh), and DF smoke. It's clearly better than the Panther so that is why its priced more. But yeah, the name of the game in FoW is to have as many tanks as possible with a decent AT rating. Armor and high AT are nice but not needed. quote:Ausbildungs The KT Ausbildungs is doable, but yeah the other Ausbildungs list is just bad. I tried for a long time to make a trained tank swarm (using the Trained Panzer Kampfgruppe list) and it could win, but the second you had a run of bad luck or made even one mistake in deployment/placement then it just fell apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
My Desperate Measures theorycrafting was 14 Hetzers, some Luchs, a Panzersturm and a trio of nebs. Just drown the enemy in Czechnology. IIRC if you went trained you could get 17 Hetzers, 3 with Tiger Ace skills, a pair of Ostwinds, some Aufklarer 38(t)s, some panzergrens and a pair of nebs for cheap smoke in 1650. Hetzers, man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Hetzers are amazing but I literally don't have any and right now I'm just trying to smash together an alright list with what I have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:You hate all the big company games except Warmahordes. Grognard Surely that makes me a wargame hipster. Anyway I like Warlord Games stuff and I like GW Historicals. Serotonin fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 07:07
|
|