|
Ensign Expendable posted:Are you going to paint them? Unpainted plastic looks really unpleasant to me for some reason. Of course I'm going to paint them. What an odd question.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
Plastic Soldier Co. stuff looks great, going to have to use those to finish out my Germans. I'm real new to FoW still, how does this 3rd ID list look?  Four bazooka teams and AT guns, plus the pioneers assaulting for armor. HMGs and flamethrowers for infantry. Gigantic gently caress ton of artillery for everything. A&P platoon to help when I'm defending. Tiny version of my grandpa leading them.  Any glaring deficiencies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with US infantry or the books you are using them out of (I only have turning tide) but it seems like you have a lot of artillery and not much anti-tank. How I run my British infantry (Ether 50th TT or Paratroopers) is that I max out on combat platoons (3 in both cases). Then I take something to smoke, generally the cheapest artillery I can (4 guns). This is because artillery is useful for two things: Pinning bunched up infantry and smoke. Against tanks it's nearly useless. Then I take two anti-tank focused units. Generaly tanks of one type or another but anti-tank guns are fine. Max out on the platoons. If I have any points left over I go for more infantry or a second artillery unit (generally mortars) but once again only for smoke. So based on what I can see in Turning Tide (I'll assume the list you are using is similar) I would: Drop the HMGs as they are useless unless everybody you play is in love with Soviet infantry hordes. Drop the 155's, Take 4 M5 guns instead of 2, and add all bazooka teams. Add another anti-tank unit, Probably Shermans. Max out on bazookas, every a good US infantry list should have 4 bazookas per platoon. Only 4 in your entire company is shameful. If you have any points left over, tank another infantry platoon or mortars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Before you go shopping for specific minatures (i.e., past basic infantry and commanders) remember that there are new rules. This'll probably change what you want to go for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Those PSC tanks look pretty awesome. Also forget being competitive TBH, just make a historically accurate-ish list from a unit that grabs your fancy and have fun making do and learning about the mans you paint. Historicals are very very different to most other games in that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Weekend was spent umpiring Valleycon Flames of War. Here are some shots of the tables. Note: Fort isn't normally part of the table it can be added in via the list that was taken.           
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
BoBtheImpaler posted:Plastic Soldier Co. stuff looks great, going to have to use those to finish out my Germans. I would drop the M5 3" guns and the HMG platoon. Stick in a platoon of Stuarts. You really need some go forward in the list. The stuarts are great to support your attacking infantry. I would even drop the Pioneer platoon as the assault platoon is better. Your best AT is from artillery and your Assault platoon. US have the best artillery in the game. 105 and 155mm guns with time on target will destroy anything you can range in on. A better option if you need more pioneers is the Combat engineer platoon. Not sure if 3rd ID get them. Pioneer teams with the option to have 2 pioneer HMG teams. The good thing about the platoon is the the HMGs cannot be picked out from the rifle teams (unless your have 4+ or better FP) and you can sneak in a Sherman Dozer which I think is cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Pics of the armies which took part:              
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Thanks a lot guys. In rough order: Numlock - 3rd ID is in Dogs & Devils, and the one guy I know I'm playing is using a Soviet infantry horde.. I can take maybe six bazooka teams altogether. My alternate list had a bigger AT gun team and some Stuarts. I figured the US fancy artillery was better than the bleh Shermans. 155s have AT 10 in direct fire, so I was hoping that would help, along with bunker buster and jeeps for assaulting with those guns in support. I wasn't real comfortable in how much smoke I could put out, so I can probably work more into the list. KSAF Staff Report - Yeah, I'm waiting to hear the new rules, as I want to have a late Italian campaign 3rd ID force, and they were famous for outrunning their armor support, so I'd rather have artillery and air support. Arquinsiel: I'm trying to make this as historical as possible. I've got all the units assigned to this specific company, but I haven't found what equipment they were using at the time. LintMan: I was thinking of a big Stuart group rather than Shermans. 3rd ID can't take a dozer Sherman I don't believe, and I know they can't they can take combat engineer platoons. So far my main list building strategies are 1) make an American 3rd ID list with plenty of assault-y poo poo and 2) make a German army with lots of tanks including 2 Tiger IE's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Those PSC tanks look pretty awesome. This this a thousand times this. Thats why points values sort of suck. Id much rather look at a real life TOE/Orbat and develop a list based on that than just trying to work out what gives the most cheese for the points cost. I should add I dont play FOW though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 12:40
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:This this a thousand times this. FoW is kind of a crossover game, though. It has points because it's purpose is to pick up Warhams and show them historical gaming fun. There's also no reason you couldn't run historical lists with the FoW rules. You don't have to have a balanced game if you don't want. Personally, I like points anyway. Gaming an actual historical scenario, to me, isn't all that fun. I already know how it played out, and the alternate moves, &c., don't amount to much in my mind. It's much more fun to (to me) to play games as a balanced force on force scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Well as long as balance doesnt always mean equal points. Anyway:  The best tank ever: Pz3 Ausf H
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Pz 4 F1
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Train vs Desert fort??? Sign me up! Love those pictures.Serotonin posted:This this a thousand times this. Maybe I'm operating under a different impression of what "cheese" is but I haven't encountered anything that remotely resembles cheese in FoW. Cheese is an army or unit that's ether inherently overpowered or makes use of rules exploits/loop holes to totally dominate the game? Right? If anything is overpowered it's smoke in 2nd edition (I've heard its going to change in 3rd). I guess you mean that tailoring your force so that it can handle situations that the force you are based it on never encountered historically (like say a US armor Company against a Soviet Tank Company) is cheese? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Cheese is trying to work out the most powerful force you can for your points regardless of whether it was fielded in real life. I guess theres a cross over with powergaming and is always going to happen to an extent in a points system. Gamers try and get as much bang for their buck. Apparently FOW is much better now that it was in first edition, but its always going to be a risk of a points system. EDIT- maybe I mean power gaming rather than cheese then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
It's not so much cheese in Flames of War as everyone fields tigers and panthers and nobody is ever going to field a Marder IIIM or something in late war. That's what happens in a point system game, and it kinda bothers me, but it's not going to go away nohow so not that much point in complaining about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
LintMan posted:Pics of the armies which took part: I'm soo jealous. I've been itching to run Early War Italians, and I've been putting them together as such, but nobody wants to play early war at my local game store. Then again, there's only been one guy who has been showing up consistantly every week that I've been playing and he only likes to run MW/LW British (granted he has been experimenting with Germans and Americans). For some reason he hates my Italians. Serotonin posted:Pz 4 F1 I think you've convinced me to get some PSC PIIIs and PIVs, even if I don't run that list I posted up thread again. To bad they don't make Italian stuff... Devlan Mud posted:It's not so much cheese in Flames of War as everyone fields tigers and panthers and nobody is ever going to field a Marder IIIM or something in late war. That's what happens in a point system game, and it kinda bothers me, but it's not going to go away nohow so not that much point in complaining about it. This, and 8.8's. I think I've only ever played against one German list that didn't have an 8.8 somewhere. Also, it's annoying that the Germans can spread their 8.8's out, but I can't do the same with my Italians. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Yeah thats what I was thinking. Im not complaining, I just wont play those sort of games. Dont get me wrong some of the games I play do have points systems- Blitzkrieg Commander is a good example, but I only use the points as a rough value for balance, and all my armies are worked out using things like Micromark Army Lists http://www.wargamevault.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=3426
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
I don't really get how making a historical army using the equipment available is cheese. Maybe you have some off-kilter lists. But there were plenty of engagments where the forces available were not what was on the ToE. Hell, most engagements throughout history did not have what was on the ToE. Yes, this results in play being off-balanced with regard to what was historically present. But I would bet that, to use Devlan Mud's example, the majority of German tankers would be overjoyed to get out of a Marder III and into a Panther. There just weren't enough Panthers to go around. So why wouldn't a player want to use a better tank? And I agree with Colonial Air Force on the use of points. I really have little interest in playing out, say, the fighting on Tuesday, July 34, 1942 at 0915. I know what happened there. And knowing what happened ruins the interest. If I know what the enemy had and how they fought and the errors made, I will correct those. That's why I like scenarioes. The generic ones about location-based combat that FoW uses. So rarely in war does the battle come down to a killfest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Whos talking about killfests? In fact point based games and their offspring 'meeting engagement' is the very antithesis of what Im talking about. I tend to only play GMd scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Oh yeah I agree on the power gaming. But people like winning and hate losing. I kind of regret building my 7th armored list because its the same as every other 7th armored list (seriously go check it out) and its one of the "best" lists. I didn't know when I started HONESTLY I DIDN'T KNOW. Now I feel like everybody thinks I only have the army because some guy won a tournament with it. I just like ugly tanks. I'm going to make up for it by playing some of the wackier Axis lists. Luchs, Turans and Butepanzers oh my!!! I wish tournaments were better about being themed (Eastern front only for example) and organized (being Axis vs Allied only) but its hard to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Oh yeah I agree on the power gaming. But people like winning and hate losing. Thats another problem with points- tournaments! ;p I seriously couldnt give a gently caress about winning or losing, and nor does anyone in my gaming group really. Its more about story telling. God that sounds lame, but I know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
You either like it or you don't. I enjoy Flames of War for several reasons the biggest for me is that I can travel around the country and even the world, play the same game with many different people. I can do this without stressing over the details. Period/points and we can have a fun game. The downside is a points system is list optimizing. However you can easily play flames of war without points but trying to add a points system to other games is a nightmare. Tournaments are what the organizer wants it to be. Open events where people can bring and play what they want or themed events. Both are offered this year here in NZ. I will post pics next month where my Kiwis take part in the invasion of Italy 1943. Both events can be done with the ruleset and list structure. LintMan fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
For example the Hungarians (depending on which source you use) got anywhere from 2-5 panthers and like 3-10 tigers sometime during the fighting prior to the siege of Budapest so that means you can field lots of Panthers or Tigers in your Hungarian forces. Probably like 2-3 at most would be a better representation of it. But then you can only field Turan II's and Zrínyi II's (the only decent native Hungarian tanks) in penny packets of 3 which is too small to accomplish anything and is actually punished by how the morale rules work in FoW. If you aren't going to be terribly historical at least be unhistorical in good ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Stop tempting me into starting WW2, no-one plays it around here anyway.  Now I'm just trying to figure out how much money I'm gonna give to Plastic Soldier Co. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
LintMan posted:Tournaments are what the organizer wants it to be. Open events where people can bring and play what they want or themed events. Both are offered this year here in NZ. I will post pics next month where my Kiwis take part in the invasion of Italy 1943. Both events can be done with the ruleset and list structure. Numlock posted:But then you can only field Turan II's and Zrínyi II's (the only decent native Hungarian tanks) in penny packets of 3 which is too small to accomplish anything and is actually punished by how the morale rules work in FoW. If you aren't going to be terribly historical at least be unhistorical in good ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:How does the Toldi fare? I have a soft spot in my heart for it after getting to play on one as a kid. By Late War standards it's a medium tank that has slightly thicker armor than your typical armored car but (upgraded with a better gun) it can hurt most tanks (if you get them in the side). It's a Recce team and dirt cheap as far as tanks go, just make sure your opponent has more important targets to shoot! Edit: Sero is this you??? Edit2: Sorry wrong post (they are all awful). Some grog over at TMP posted:
 FoW is a bad game because you roll dice in it to see what happens when you do stuff. Just like Warhammer (a popular and successful game) so it must be bad. Also tweaking the rules every six years???? UNBELIEVABLE!!! Numlock fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Having organised a tournament or two in my time (Warhammer) let me assure you that this is not the case. The tournament tends to be whatever the attendees want it to be, and those who can best bend the game system tend to win easily by bending the tournament system the same way. If we were talking about the Warhammer community in this country (NZ) I would agree. However the Flames of war players here are very accepting of fun and interesting themes for events. The Italian invasion themed tournament is run in Timaru. A small town in our South Island. It has drawn players from all other the country and is full up due to restrictions in the size of the hall to run it in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
Screw my so called "life" I'm gonna finish these FoW companies Ive been avoiding. Now to go base thousands of points in Estonians. Because right now what I have in need of basing (that's otherwise painted): 3 Tigers 3 Panthers Two full units of heavy MG's Rocket Batteries (single shot) Rocket Batteries (NW's) Objectives Gonna be a fun couple of days. Maybe if I get crazy I'll start painting and basing the Jews as well, and if I lose my loving mind I'll work on my Mid War Army.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
What were we saying about FOW and powergaming again? :p
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:What were we saying about FOW and powergaming again? :p See here is where you show your ignorance of FoW. According to the super serious "every list must be competitive or else you are dumb" players, Tiger I's are worthless and in fact are the worst tank in the game because they only have front armor 9 and anti-tank 13. There is no situation ever that is even possible in FoW where their long range and superior side armor could possibly be useful. We all know that 4-6 panthers hiding behind a hill never get smoked or flanked. That's also impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
Plus the Tigers are expensive. You get more bang for your buck without them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
They also have top armor 2 which makes infantry assaults by non-sappers unprofitable against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
The new assault rules may change that, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:What were we saying about FOW and powergaming again? :p Thats hardly an example of power gaming. I have yet to see the Heavy tanks do as well as they look on paper. They cost a lot of points and need to work hard to get their value back. On attack often they need to assault objectives or advance beyond their infantry support. Due to FoW missions they will most likely be attack a dug in infantry company to win the game. Every Late war infantry platoon has at least 1 infantry AT weapon which can hurt the Tigers or Panthers and with the assault rules that PIAT or Bazooka will be the last to die. Defensive fire in V3 also changed, Fire happens within 8" so AT guns spread out across your line will play havoc with any assaulting tanks. The list proposed does have artillery. Most games will revolve around bombardments and direct fire from the tanks to weaken the defenses before a breakthrough by the armour. Does this situation not play out the same in other rules sets? LintMan fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Nebelwerfers are artillery, but they're really just a cheap way to lay down smoke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Edit: Sero is this you??? Not only has it been over 6 years since they've revised their rules, the new rules don't invalidate the army books nearly as much as GW does when they release new rules. Not to mention all the free rules, army lists, and updates Battlefront gives out. They may be doing stupid things like GW on occasion (like what they did with Maelstrom), but they're a far cry from GW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Funny how no one has focused on the units of heavy MGs...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
I don't think the previous books have been invalidated at all actaully. They just are a bit less easily understood. Are Heavy MG that bad in FoW? I've had fun with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
I just really like to have all my options covered. I don't routinely take Tigers every game unless its mid war, Just like I don't routinely take the single shot rocket batteries, I just find them hilariously goofy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2012 21:48
|
|