Switch Theme:

Brand new to FoW, British Army, Airborne and Armoured Recce Company question(s)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Flashy Flashgitz






NJ

I've just started looking to getting into Flames of War with a buddy from the FLGS, and I'm looking at the armoured recce company as a starting point. He plays Germans, and has the open fire box set, as well as some of the German mid-war monsters(like the ridiculous tank killer with an AT value of 15 or 18 or something). Obviously the lowly Cromwell can't go toe-to-toe with the German tanks, but in general, if I started with this, am I just going to get blown away every game, or will I stand a chance with the numbers/maneuverability?

Also, what infantry would be supporting a company like this? The box mentions Market Garden, so is it safe to assume the British Paratrooper company would be good support?

Are either of these boxes not good, or not a good combination together?


Thanks!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/03 22:26:23


   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

First of all, 'Mid War Monsters' are just that. They're Mid War units. If you're playing Cromwells, you're playing Late War. The different periods of the war don't mix well. It is highly recommended that you choose a period and both build forces for that period.

Secondly, 'Mid War Monsters' are very much an "opponent's permission" thing and are usually banned from most Mid War tournaments. From page 5 of 'Mid War Monsters':

Please make sure that your opponent is into playing with experimental tanks before you add them to your force.

IMHO, your best bet would be to start with Late War (as it's the most played period) and choose a campaign (Overlord, Market Garden of Battle of the Bulge) and use the matching sets of books (Overlord and Atlantik Wall, Market Garden and Bridge by Bridge, etc.). That should give you somewhat balanced forces to learn the game with.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





SoCal

You will find, however, that Mid War monsters are generally well balanced, often even not being worth their points despite how ridiculous they seem.

But, as above, it sounds like you have a mish mash of mid and late war stuff, which is unfortunately since the game is heavily segmented by Early, Mid, and Late war eras and army lists.

   
Made in us
Flashy Flashgitz






NJ

Thanks guys, he only has a few of the MWMs though, and that's really only because they're cool looking and our store had them really cheap. We did both agree when we started talking about it to play late war, so I'm not too worried, and I don't think he is either, about not using them once we get more stuff.

As far as late war stuff goes, are British paras and the recce company a good (and realistic) combination?
Based on my limited knowledge of market garden, it makes sense that they'd be fine together, but I don't know how the army lists in FoW work together exactly.

And I mostly just want to make sure im not going to get steamrolled because the units are overcosted/underpowered/whatever. (though this may just be an irrational fear caused by the traumatic experiences of a certain SciFi game that I normally play)

any input as far as that goes?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/03 15:59:29


   
Made in us
Major





Central,ILL. USA

 Awesomesauce wrote:
Thanks guys, he only has a few of the MWMs though, and that's really only because they're cool looking and our store had them really cheap. We did both agree when we started talking about it to play late war, so I'm not too worried, and I don't think he is either, about not using them once we get more stuff.

As far as late war stuff goes, are British paras and the recce company a good (and realistic) combination?
Based on my limited knowledge of market garden, it makes sense that they'd be fine together, but I don't know how the army lists in FoW work together exactly.

And I mostly just want to make sure im not going to get steamrolled because the units are overcosted/underpowered/whatever. (though this may just be an irrational fear caused by the traumatic experiences of a certain SciFi game that I normally play)

any input as far as that goes?


I have found what has been working for me lately for british Armor is the 2 firefly/2 sherman combo. The armor is gak on the shermans ,but you can out number the NAzi armor.So i usually put the 75mm shermans on point and have the Fireflies lay down the cover fire.

Please visit my Blog http://colkrazykennyswargamingblog.blogspot.com/
I play SS in flames of war ,Becuase they are KEWL... 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

The trick to Cromwells is to take Cromwells. Avopid the Challenger or Firefly upgrades, if you want the 17pdr (and why not!) take a Sherman V list, you will have plenty from the starter boxset anyway, more if you swapped minis with your opponent.

A Cromwell list replies on Cromwells backed up by Universal Carriers and infantry and air support. Cromwells have a mediocre gun, but it knocks Jerry for six if you hit him in the flank. If you start adding toys to the Cromwells, such as the 17pdr Challenger you forfeit speed and numbers. Better to just buy more Cromwells and swarm that beastly Hun. buy some priority air support so if you face Tigers you can bomb them. The Univrsal carriers are needed to port your infantry, provide MG fire and help assault with Wasp flamethrowers. As you can take a large number oUniversal Carriers to further bulk up your list.

Some Cromwell lists are Reluctant Veteran which is a good alignment for pressing the attack as it gives you skill a\nd numbers, at the expensive of overall fragility. Keep your plattons large and platoon count high.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Orlanth wrote:
If you start adding toys to the Cromwells, such as the 17pdr Challenger you forfeit speed and numbers.

The Challenger A30 is classified as a light tank, just like the Cromwell IV and shouldn't slow down the platoon unless you bog down on Difficult Going or Very Difficult Going due to it being Overloaded.

The Challenger A30 does cost about 40 to 55 points more than a Cromwell IV depending on what force you're playing, but if you're facing any big German tanks you'll need the higher AT that the tank's 17 pdr gun brings to the table.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Raw SDF-1 Recruit





Temecula, CA

Seems arty would be a good addition, no? I know American/British arty is quite good

W40k, FoW, X-Wing

Want to play FoW on Vassal?  
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

British artillery is very good, however you cant haver everything and you need numbers in a Cromwell list. Also the 25pdr is getting obsolete by late war, the AT4 for bombardments is not reliable for tank killing, which is what you need fire support for in a tank list dripping with MGs..

@Ghaz. I appreciate the Challenger is a decent tank, but you will inevitably need to flank with many of your platoons and will have to cross hedgerows or do other things that force terrain tests.
all in all you are better off with Firefly than Challenger. You get better AT are the cost of ROF, which matters less as you will be moving most of the time.

However I have heard that some lists can mix Cromwells and Firefly in platoons, I cant remember which though, Again you pay with a speed hit, but at least you don't have the Overloaded special rule to worrit over.
Most lists I see don't allow anything other than Cromwells at all anyway, and nobody appears to do a plastic Challenger kit as yet, but PSC do a 15mm Cromwell set.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here we are.

Desert Rats Armoured Recon.

Cromwells with Firefly support, and Reluctant Trained crews. No Universal Carriers though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/03 18:52:42


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Orlanth wrote:
@Ghaz. I appreciate the Challenger is a decent tank, but you will inevitably need to flank with many of your platoons and will have to cross hedgerows or do other things that force terrain tests. all in all you are better off with Firefly than Challenger. You get better AT are the cost of ROF, which matters less as you will be moving most of the time.

The Firefly and Challenger both have the same gun (OQF 17 pdr) and both have the same AT rating and both tanks have the same armour (6/4/1). The Challenger is slightly faster and has a higher rate of fire while the Firefly will have slightly less trouble with Difficult and Very Difficult Going. The deciding factor may well come down to the terrain you usually play on.

 Orlanth wrote:
However I have heard that some lists can mix Cromwells and Firefly in platoons, I cant remember which though.

7th Armoured Division (The Desert Rats) from Overlord is the only one that immediately comes to mind.

 Orlanth wrote:
Most lists I see don't allow anything other than Cromwells at all anyway, and nobody appears to do a plastic Challenger kit as yet, but PSC do a 15mm Cromwell set.

At most you'll only need two or three Challengers. That's only slightly more expensive than a box of five Cromwells. Whether or not you need the Challengers once again comes down to how many big German tanks you regularly see.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Ghaz wrote:

The Firefly and Challenger both have the same gun (OQF 17 pdr) and both have the same AT rating and both tanks have the same armour (6/4/1). The Challenger is slightly faster and has a higher rate of fire while the Firefly will have slightly less trouble with Difficult and Very Difficult Going. The deciding factor may well come down to the terrain you usually play on.


Not quite the same gun the Overlord lists give the Firefly AT14, the Challenger gets ROF 3 but will need to be moving because that the nature of the vehicle.

 Ghaz wrote:

At most you'll only need two or three Challengers. That's only slightly more expensive than a box of five Cromwells. Whether or not you need the Challengers once again comes down to how many big German tanks you regularly see.


And you get two Firefly is the Flames of War boxset, makes it a far easier buy in all told.

I am not pissing on the Challenger its a nice agile tank with a nasty gun, but it likes flat open terrain too much, and the Germans are happy to see overgunned, mediocre armoured, allied tanks in open ground.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Orlanth wrote:
Not quite the same gun the Overlord lists give the Firefly AT14, the Challenger gets ROF 3 but will need to be moving because that the nature of the vehicle.

It's the same gun. Both the Firefly and the Challenger have AT14 in Overlord and AT15 in Market Garden. The Challenger gets a higher rate of fire due to the larger turret which allows an extra crewman to reload the gun faster. The Firefly and the Challenger have the exact same stats with the exception of the Challenger being considered a Light Tank and being Overloaded. The 'nature' of the Challenger is not different than the 'nature' of the Firefly, Sherman or Cromwell.

 Orlanth wrote:
And you get two Firefly is the Flames of War boxset, makes it a far easier buy in all told.

And you also get six Sherman V tanks, so if money was a factor he should be playing an Armoured Company. The Firefly limits you to a single RV list that takes a little bit of finesse to use properly.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am not pissing on the Challenger its a nice agile tank with a nasty gun, but it likes flat open terrain too much, and the Germans are happy to see overgunned, mediocre armoured, allied tanks in open ground.

It's not really that different than the Firefly, Sherman or Cromwell.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/03 19:51:37


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Flashy Flashgitz






NJ

I really appreciate the input guys, this is great.

Based on the conversation, I'll probably either stick with the challenger (since I already have it) or just stick with straight Cromwells, and go arty or air support then for the Jagtigers.

So that being said, what late war planes make Jagtiger Jerry's mum cry?

Also,as far as artillery goes, is the priest any good? I love the look of it. I know you said the 25 pounder is more obsolete by late war, but how's the 105mm? Would the problem remain that I simply wouldn't have the numbers I'd need for it to be effective? After Orlanth's post about the universal carriers, I really like the idea of mechanized infantry/artillery to go with all the cromwells, especially since it was recommended.

Bearing in mind that I don't have the books of army lists yet, is that even a viable thing to do? Considering the fact that my infantry are airborne? I saw models of Jeeps with paras, but no universal carriers, so I'm not sure. Though I/he wouldn't care if the paras were proxies for standard infantry though if that's the only way to get the carriers and/or priests in there.

Finally, if I do go without the Challenger/firefly, I'll have two platoons of 3 and one command platoon of 2, and I'm assuming since nobody said anything about stuarts that they're not too good (though simply looking at them was a pretty good tell on that) So I'm guessing I'll need to pick up a box of those sweet PSC Cromwells to even out the platoons and maybe add a third? I still don't know how these equate to points yet since I still don't have the books. Sorry if these questions are stupid, the books should be shipped either tomorrow or monday, so by the end of next week I shouldn't be a such super n00b about it

Thanks again!

[Edit] So I forgot it also comes with a platoon of M10Cs, which are even more fragile, but have the same gun as the Challenger/firefly. I'm thinking it would be better to go with Challenger-less platoons of Cromwells and the one platoon of M10s then?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/03 22:30:27


   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Awesomesauce wrote:
Based on the conversation, I'll probably either stick with the challenger (since I already have it) or just stick with straight Cromwells, and go arty or air support then for the Jagtigers.

One option neither of us mentioned is a Tank Destroyer Platoon.

 Awesomesauce wrote:
Also,as far as artillery goes, is the priest any good? I love the look of it. I know you said the 25 pounder is more obsolete by late war, but how's the 105mm?

The British did not use the Priest in the Late War due to ammunition shortages. Your artillery guns are limited to OQF 25 pdr, BL 5.5" or the Sexton 25 pdr (SP). The Priests that they did have were coverted to armoured personnel carriers until they were returned to the US forces.

 Awesomesauce wrote:
... I'm assuming since nobody said anything about stuarts that they're not too good (though simply looking at them was a pretty good tell on that)...

Stuarts in Late War were extremely outmatched by most other armoured units. By this stage, they were primarily used as reconnaissance units for the armoured companies (and despite your Combat Platoons being 'Armoured Recce Platoons', they're not Reconnaissance Platoons). You will want at least a unit or two of recce to find ambushes ahead of your main Combat Platoons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/03 22:52:13


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi Awesomesauce.
As far as Stuarts go, if you can remember they are recon unit and not a 'proper tank unit' you will be fine.
I always forget they are recon units and try to kill things with them, and get myself in trouble!

So I use the jalopy versions (without turrets) to remind me they are recon units.OR use universal carriers as recon /scouts instead .

As far as 17pdrs go, I would use Challengers with the Cromwells to make platoons up to 4 tanks .OR take them in a separate M10 tank killer unit, and just lots of 3 tank Cromwell platoons to swarm the enemy with.

As far as infantry , I prefer standard infantry platoons, transported by truck or on Cromwell tanks.(One market garden list has special rule rule for this.)
As motorized infantry in half tracks tend to be very fragile.(I could just be rubbish with them though!)

I think the 11th Armoured from market garden list allows a special platoon made up of CS Cromwells.(Lutterells platoon i think.)
I am not sure how effective this is, but my mate Dave realy like the unit.

This is just from my limited experience ,people with more experience may correct me though.
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Ghaz wrote:


 Orlanth wrote:
I am not pissing on the Challenger its a nice agile tank with a nasty gun, but it likes flat open terrain too much, and the Germans are happy to see overgunned, mediocre armoured, allied tanks in open ground.

It's not really that different than the Firefly, Sherman or Cromwell.


This is only partly true, Firefly tanks cross hedges ok, Challengers get stuck on them, when you are having to dance into and out of terrain to get some cover from the German guns I think the difference is important. Also if a Cromwell platoon's Challenger is stuck there goes the mobility for the whole unit.

 Awesomesauce wrote:
I really appreciate the input guys, this is great.


You are welcome, we are here for you, right.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

Based on the conversation, I'll probably either stick with the challenger (since I already have it)


Getting the Challenger is not 'wrong', I think the Firefly is better, but its fairly close and with the Challenger you get to use more lists. Onlty one list mixes Firelfy and Cromwells together. And if you have the model there you go.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

or just stick with straight Cromwells, and go arty or air support then for the Jagtigers.


With straight Cromwells you keep your mobility guaranteed and cut platoon cost down consdirably. It can be difficult to mkake more than three tanks in a platoon, but you can have lots of platoons and go for a flank win.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

So that being said, what late war planes make Jagtiger Jerry's mum cry?


Typhoons, use the bomb option.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

Also,as far as artillery goes, is the priest any good? I love the look of it. I know you said the 25 pounder is more obsolete by late war, but how's the 105mm? Would the problem remain that I simply wouldn't have the numbers I'd need for it to be effective? After Orlanth's post about the universal carriers, I really like the idea of mechanized infantry/artillery to go with all the Cromwells, especially since it was recommended.


25pdr is not obsolete, its just got a poor statline for top killing tanks. AT4 and 5+ firepower. The 105 is the same but with 4+ firepower, german artiollery is similar. Medium field pieces for all factions are better than this and are very good tanjk killers, but to balance things out to take medium piece you need to take lighter artillery also. This gets expensive. The British medium piece is the 5.5 inch and it does the job.
Some lists allow you to have American allied 105's.

Now Universal carriers are not dedicated transports, you use the general transport rule. This is how they were used, Universal Carriers were allocated for any role needed at the time, it's what they were there to do, and why they were named for such, unless formally fitted with special equipment like the Wasp. The principle reason to take UCs is for the Wasp as its a very cheap and effective flamer unit. British infantry hold very well, but need help in taking ground, Wasps do that for you. Also what carriers do it allow you to mass machine guns, including AA machine guns if needed for chump change. I recommend them, and you can always feel comfortable fielding them because they were the most produced vehicle of the war, by any faction. Over 100K were made.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

Bearing in mind that I don't have the books of army lists yet, is that even a viable thing to do? Considering the fact that my infantry are airborne? I saw models of Jeeps with paras, but no universal carriers, so I'm not sure. Though I/he wouldn't care if the paras were proxies for standard infantry though if that's the only way to get the carriers and/or priests in there.


You dont really need the splatbooks, just have the core Open Fire 3rd edition rules and easyarmy.com

 Awesomesauce wrote:

Finally, if I do go without the Challenger/firefly, I'll have two platoons of 3 and one command platoon of 2,


Assuming you have Open Fire you will have Fireflys, you already have challengers so take both. Swap them about and play for fun. If you have both seriously do take both, it only because a case of restriction prior to purchase.

 Awesomesauce wrote:

and I'm assuming since nobody said anything about stuarts that they're not too good


Hold on there. Stuarts were not mentioned because in historical you get more than the odd two or three choices per unit type. We could go on until Christmas and not exhaust all the options you can have.
Stuarts are excellent tanks. I play US Armor so thats a little different, but the core raw tank works well.
British Stuarts can be converted to jalopys. This may sound stupid but often its a good idea. Scouts are there to scout, japolies make superior scouts, both in real history and on the battlefield.
If you want actual, light tanks though Stuarts work well, though you could draw from the excellent range of armoured cars though.

That being said we are discussing a Cromwell list here. All lists need recon units, take that as the Law. But you don't need light tanks as recon in general, you get role confusion, and you certainly don't need to invest in light tanks as light tanks when you have a Cromwell company on the table.

Ghaz added on this:
 Ghaz wrote:
You will want at least a unit or two of recce to find ambushes ahead of your main Combat Platoons.


You could take armoured cars for those, and of course Universal Carriers

 Awesomesauce wrote:

(though simply looking at them was a pretty good tell on that) So I'm guessing I'll need to pick up a box of those sweet PSC Cromwells to even out the platoons and maybe add a third? I still don't know how these equate to points yet since I still don't have the books. Sorry if these questions are stupid, the books should be shipped either tomorrow or monday, so by the end of next week I shouldn't be a such super n00b about it



Two to three boxes of PSC Cromwells will have you covered, one box of PSC Stuarts will cover that too, built them up normal then make your own jalopy plug-in from bitz. I would maker earlier model Stuarts for maximum versatility. When you add in the Open Fire Shermans, the Challengers you have already got you have a nice tank collection that can go several ways. All this goes beyond your 'Cromwell list' though.


 Ghaz wrote:
 Awesomesauce wrote:
Based on the conversation, I'll probably either stick with the challenger (since I already have it) or just stick with straight Cromwells, and go arty or air support then for the Jagtigers.

One option neither of us mentioned is a Tank Destroyer Platoon.


and:
 Awesomesauce wrote:

[Edit] So I forgot it also comes with a platoon of M10Cs, which are even more fragile, but have the same gun as the Challenger/firefly. I'm thinking it would be better to go with Challenger-less platoons of Cromwells and the one platoon of M10s then?


I do not recommend the Tank Destroyer Platoons. They lack the ambush rules that make US Tank Destoryers so effective, though you do get a better gun than the Yanks do.
So what you get is a regular tank with spit through armour and a priority target gun. I think you can see where this is going. Jerry can have a large number of throw in 3.7cm and 7.5cm guins, mostly long ranged AT5 to 9. M10's are a perfect target for them.
M10's are great vehicles so long as they have Americans inside and a Security section intact.
British players should pray for the Archer to be included in lists. Its a more conventional Tank Destroyer and sadly overlooked.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Awesomesauce wrote:
Also,as far as artillery goes, is the priest any good? I love the look of it. I know you said the 25 pounder is more obsolete by late war, but how's the 105mm?

The British did not use the Priest in the Late War due to ammunition shortages. Your artillery guns are limited to OQF 25 pdr, BL 5.5" or the Sexton 25 pdr (SP). The Priests that they did have were coverted to armoured personnel carriers until they were returned to the US forces.


Yep 'defrocked priests' are available in some Cromwell lists so you can have A105 chassis as a Brtish APC. It worked quite very actually, you can see the daddy of the M113 in it.


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

 Orlanth wrote:
British artillery is very good, however you cant haver everything and you need numbers in a Cromwell list. Also the 25pdr is getting obsolete by late war, the AT4 for bombardments is not reliable for tank killing, which is what you need fire support for in a tank list dripping with MGs
I'm not convinced by this. I'm using a six gun battery of 25pdrs for Six day war (up against M48s and T54s) and they always have plenty to do. If indirect AT 4 is no good in late war it never was any good as a Panther has the same top armour rating as a Panzer I.

Spain in Flames: Flames of War (Spanish Civil War 1936-39) Flames of War: Czechs and Slovaks (WWI & WWII) Sheffield & Rotherham Wargames Club

"I'm cancelling you, I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf." - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Orlanth wrote:
This is only partly true, Firefly tanks cross hedges ok, Challengers get stuck on them, when you are having to dance into and out of terrain to get some cover from the German guns I think the difference is important. Also if a Cromwell platoon's Challenger is stuck there goes the mobility for the whole unit.

Again, it's dependent on the terrain the players use. Not every game will be in the bocage of Normandy.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

Also one tank getting stuck doesn't prevent the rest of the platoon from moving away and leaving it behind.

Spain in Flames: Flames of War (Spanish Civil War 1936-39) Flames of War: Czechs and Slovaks (WWI & WWII) Sheffield & Rotherham Wargames Club

"I'm cancelling you, I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf." - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 George Spiggott wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
British artillery is very good, however you cant haver everything and you need numbers in a Cromwell list. Also the 25pdr is getting obsolete by late war, the AT4 for bombardments is not reliable for tank killing, which is what you need fire support for in a tank list dripping with MGs
I'm not convinced by this. I'm using a six gun battery of 25pdrs for Six day war (up against M48s and T54s) and they always have plenty to do. If indirect AT 4 is no good in late war it never was any good as a Panther has the same top armour rating as a Panzer I.


25pdr's were asvailable all through the war, they do very good work as direct fire in early and mid war, ther indirect fire is largely the same throughout the war for the reasons given.
However where the 25pdr suffers is the indirect fire is 5+ firepower, this is distinctly inferior to its competition, and when you add in the randomness of artillery anyway and the AT4 you have an inefficient tank hunting unit.
25pdrs are perfectily servicable field pieces for most roles, they arent a good option for tank hunting because their direcf fire is inadequate in late war and their indirect fire was always unreliable for that task. They are still cheap and worth taking, mid and early war 25pdrs were downright nasty, and you had to pay through the nose for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ghaz wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
This is only partly true, Firefly tanks cross hedges ok, Challengers get stuck on them, when you are having to dance into and out of terrain to get some cover from the German guns I think the difference is important. Also if a Cromwell platoon's Challenger is stuck there goes the mobility for the whole unit.

Again, it's dependent on the terrain the players use. Not every game will be in the bocage of Normandy.


Good terrain coverage is a fair assumption for european theatre battles, and it need not be hadgerows, hedges were a simple example, Challengers can get stuck on anything,

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/04 23:47:07


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Orlanth wrote:
Good terrain coverage is a fair assumption for european theatre battles...

And how much terrain the players actually have and use is not a 'fair assumption'. You're telling him to give up any chance the platoon has to take down the bigger German tanks and at the same time make the platoon more vulnerable since the Challenger is the only way for the platoon to have four tanks, all because he might have to move into Difficult or Very Difficult Going and the Challenger might bog down? That sounds like poor advice from where I'm sitting.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Flashy Flashgitz






NJ

Is the archer really that worth it? Armor 1 sounds like a joke, is it really cheap or something? Although really, I suppose against AT15, the difference between armor 8 and armor 1 means very little... I had to look it up, and by the description, it sounds like it can ambush, does that really make it worth it? Would a normal 17 pounder field gun be able to ambush as well? And if so, wouldn't that be more survivable with (If I remember correctly) a 5+ save?

Have to say though, I like the way it looks, and if I can do a mech army I'd probably take it over field guns if it sounds reasonably worth it.

I looked up wasp carriers too, will definitely get some of those too if one of the lists I can take permits them.

Also, I think that I heard in passing in a video that Shermans can still shoot their full ROF 2 after having moved, is this correct? If so, we've been playing this wrong from the get-go. He may have been talking about the soviet T34 though, or I completely misheard the whole thing, sometimes it's hard to understand those Scottish accents

   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Awesomesauce wrote:
Is the archer really that worth it? Armor 1 sounds like a joke, is it really cheap or something? Although really, I suppose against AT15, the difference between armor 8 and armor 1 means very little... I had to look it up, and by the description, it sounds like it can ambush, does that really make it worth it? Would a normal 17 pounder field gun be able to ambush as well? And if so, wouldn't that be more survivable with (If I remember correctly) a 5+ save?

No, the Archer is not worth it but not just for the reasons you've stated. The Archer's fatal flaw is that it has the Awkward Layout rule. That means that the Archer can not fire in their own Shooting Step if they move in the Movement Step. For Tank Destroyers whose main tactic is to burst from Concealment/Gone to Ground and open fire on the enemy tanks that is practically a death sentence. Tank Destroyers are not Tanks. They do not have the armour to win in a stand up fight. The only reason to ever take an Archer is if you absolutely must have a historically accurate force.

Additionally, the Archer currently can only be fielded by the Canadians. Canadian Armoured Recce Companies were equipped strictly with Sherman V or Sherman V and Firefly VC tanks (Overlord or Market Garden). The Canadians did not use the Cromwell.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




 Awesomesauce wrote:


Also, I think that I heard in passing in a video that Shermans can still shoot their full ROF 2 after having moved, is this correct? If so, we've been playing this wrong from the get-go. He may have been talking about the soviet T34 though, or I completely misheard the whole thing, sometimes it's hard to understand those Scottish accents


American Shermans, well tanks in general, have the stabilizers national rule so they can shoot twice on the move, your commonwealth ones cannot.

Have you heard of http://www.easyarmy.com/ ? It's a great tool for building lists at a limited cost. Although it is going to be replaced soon by an official Battlefront version so I would just spend $2 on the Market Garden book for now. If you have the open fire box set, Shermans and Fireflys supported by American paratroopers is certainly not a bad place to start. Next thing to add would be recce, either universal carriers or stuarts. If you like cromwells I would recommend the PSC box and then some BF challengers. The challenger can be a bit of a waste since you are paying for that ROF 3 which drops to 1 when you move, which you will want to. The alternative would be to go all Crom's in you combat platoons and then get some Achilles tank destroyers to bring the big guns. Don't underestimate the value of speed though. And the game is point costed so those big german tanks are not overpowerful. If a jagdtiger has to move it only gets one shot and then it's going to miss a minimum half the time against Vets anyways. So if your opponenet has two, he is still only killing a max of two tanks a turn.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Orlanth wrote:


I do not recommend the Tank Destroyer Platoons. They lack the ambush rules that make US Tank Destoryers so effective, though you do get a better gun than the Yanks do.
So what you get is a regular tank with spit through armour and a priority target gun. I think you can see where this is going. Jerry can have a large number of throw in 3.7cm and 7.5cm guins, mostly long ranged AT5 to 9. M10's are a perfect target for them.
M10's are great vehicles so long as they have Americans inside and a Security section intact.
British players should pray for the Archer to be included in lists. Its a more conventional Tank Destroyer and sadly overlooked.



Archers? They can't fire and move... I'm genuinely really interested to hear how you use them effectively. With M10s at least you can hide and come out and shoot when a good opportunity to kill a heavy tank surfaces...

@OP

I like M10 17 pdrs. In a straight slugging match against German heavies they've got a much better chance of success then a sherman platoon (2 ff 2 normal). It doesn't matter if you have no Armour or a little bit of Armour, when you are up against AT 14 weapons, if your get hit your afv is either bailed or dead.. The fact of the matter is that if you have 4 VET AT 15 17 pdrs, like in the market garden lists, you have a very, very good chance of knocking out German super heavies, if you maneuver properly. You can also just take two 17 pdrs for extra AT 15 support...

The important thing is to ditch this unrealistic PC game/COH logic of health bars. If your shot penetrates and manages to mince the crew or set something on fire... dead tank.

75 mill Shermans are decent (maybe) at picking off dug in infantry and guns...

IMO the market garden lists are the best for brit Armour

Don't forget semi-indirect fire.


Brit Armour is all about maneuver. It's expensive and fragile, but played properly gets good results... You need to know when to hold back, avoid enemy platoons, snipe, hug cover and charge... Also you need to know what to preserve...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/06 14:21:57


 
   
Made in gb
1st Lieutenant







I think you need to not compare the archer to the M10, but compare it to the static 17pdr. It has the advantages of mobility (I know not much but a bit) and also is easier to conceal (that's a stretch but it isn't that hard) it's also more durable vs small arms fire.

If you consider a static 17pdr is great for area denial, but if you shoot is a really easy kill with a 5+ save and firepower role, the ability to reposition is not awful - just not good!

My FOW Blog
http://breakthroughassault.blogspot.co.uk/

My Eldar project log (26/7/13)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5518969#post5518969

Exiles forum
http://exilesbbleague.phpbb4ever.com/index.php 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

The Archer is a Slow Tank. A towed 17 pdr should be just as fast as the Archer.

Anyway, you're comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison is the Archer to the M10C 17 pdr SP Achilles since they're both Tank Destroyers equipped with the same weapon. The Achilles has 4/2/0 armour compared to the Archers 2/1/0, the Achilles is faster and more importantly the Achilles can move and fire. Yes, you do pay a little over 20 points more per Achilles, but you're more likely to earn back your investment with the Achilles than you would the Archer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/06 22:53:23


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 Awesomesauce wrote:


Also, I think that I heard in passing in a video that Shermans can still shoot their full ROF 2 after having moved, is this correct?


That's the Stabilizers US special rule, only US Shermans generally get that (it has to be listed in the unit entry).. Look at the back of the rulebook in the US special rules section for details on it.
   
Made in gb
1st Lieutenant







I'd disagree - look at the points (Canadian rifle list) 4 archers is 290 points, 4 17pdrs 295 points 4 m10 17pdrs 380.

The way I see it it's all about being able to move your static 17pdrs (static are immobile so add 5 points more for transports - 300)

It's not an awful deal - but the m10 is superior to the archer if you have the extra 90 points

My FOW Blog
http://breakthroughassault.blogspot.co.uk/

My Eldar project log (26/7/13)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5518969#post5518969

Exiles forum
http://exilesbbleague.phpbb4ever.com/index.php 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

British players should pray for the Archer to be included in lists. Its a more conventional Tank Destroyer and sadly overlooked.


Clarity on Archers.
I added them as a wish list as a historical point because i had yet to see them in the game. And didn't know they already were (as I dont play Canadians).

In RL Archers were effective AT platforms, and were used by the British forces, which was why I lamented them being overlooked from British lists and thought it was just yet another vehicle battlefront didnt carry in its game..
The Archer does deserve Awkward Layout, but in its layout lowered its profile and enabled it to shoot from ambush, and with a Valentine chassis deserves a fairly decent armour rating also. It had thicker armour than the M10, so the given armour value stats simply dont add up. It was Slow Tank though, they got that right.
Anyway ignore the wishing for Archers as they have evidently been hit with the nerf bat and then made Canadian only.


 Ghaz wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
Good terrain coverage is a fair assumption for european theatre battles...

And how much terrain the players actually have and use is not a 'fair assumption'.


Yes it is. There is also a fair assumption about the density of terrain in say Warhammer battles. Modern historical; gaming is usually terrain intense, most rulesets encourage this, some proactively so.
You can still play on what terrain you like but the usually bowling green with a couple of woods and hills is great for Warhammer but not good for modern tank games.



 Ghaz wrote:

You're telling him to give up any chance the platoon has to take down the bigger German tanks and at the same time make the platoon more vulnerable since the Challenger is the only way for the platoon to have four tanks, all because he might have to move into Difficult or Very Difficult Going and the Challenger might bog down?


That is something I am not doing. First I did not say don't use the Challenger, I simply gave a preference for the Firefly. So please stop the "telling him to give up any chance the platoon has to take down the bigger German tanks".
However bogging down is a fatal flaw with a mobile list, especially as the key assets will be the ones bogged down.

 Ghaz wrote:

That sounds like poor advice from where I'm sitting.


Until you stop sitting on false assumptions on what someone else said.. Read more carefully please.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/07 16:07:35


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
 
Forum Index » Historical Miniature Games: WW1 to Modern
Go to: