Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here we go, The sales flyer with the comet stats.
http://www.crnaluknja.si/files/Nachtjager%20Sales%20Brief.pdf

NJ's out on Forces of War as of 3 days ago, if anyone didn't know.

Looks alright, but the Comet list gets expensive quickly, especially factoring in that Comets don't get DF smoke and having to shell out for some Arty smoke.

The Cromwell list looks alright, with 3 Cromwells coming out at 10pts cheaper than a platoon of 3 from Market Garden at the cost of losing the Guards 'Unflappable' rule. The main quirk is that the Cromwell HQ is made up of either 1 Cromwell and 1 Cromwell CS, or 1 Cromwell and 2 Cromwell CS; there's no option for 2 Cromwells, or to swap out either of the CS tanks.

I'm pretty torn, to be honest. The mandatory Challenger platoon is 200pts more expensive for 4 Challengers than for 4 M10s, for an extra 4 shots in total, and no real change in effectiveness on the move. I have a feeling that huge, non-optional investment will spend the entire game sitting under smoke, so I'm tempted to keep playing with the Guards AR, both for Unflappable, and the spread out Challengers. The Guards also get a wider range of support options, although their infantry is slightly more expensive.

I can't help but feeling like the Hussar list is going to be fairly ineffectual in the end, unless it comes up against a tankovy, or another tank list without smoke support. Even a token platoon of Nebs will render those expensive Challengers useless whilst standing still, and no better than far cheaper Fireflies or Achilles on the move. The only way I can see Challengers being used here is a platoon of 2 or so (2 costing 100pts more than 2 Achilles, and 3 costing 245pts more than 2 Achilles) as Ambushers, at which point I'd still prefer the Guards list, and would just take M10s to fill the exact same role for less.

Had a quick look through. It looks like there's no attempt to justify the IR gear historically but they're a standard option in the lists.

I've said it before, Battlefront allows the players to determine the level of historical accuracy in their games.

Unless you play Soviets. That they've simply run out of new things for the Germans may be closer to the truth.

 Ghaz wrote:
I've said it before, Battlefront allows the players to determine the level of historical accuracy in their games.

Yes, and no. I was part of the group that was arguing about US 90mm guns in Mid-War on the official forums a while back. The British heavy AA guns were included in lists because they were used to defend an air field once or twice. But the fact that the US had actually placed its 90mm guns on the front lines during Kasserine Pass to cover the withdrawal (the Germans didn't move forward until after the screen had pulled out) wasn't enough to justify their inclusion in the MW US lists. So up until now, there's been a very basic "it got used in a battle at least once" test. I'm of the opinion that by presenting IR as part of two specific formations that even BF appears to admit didn't use it, BF is violating this test.

I can agree with that. I had a similar discussion regarding the structure of the Soviet Lend Lease tank lists in Barbarossa.