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. |
|
|
2014/05/26 04:55:37
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4475
Maybe I'll put together a list for 512. Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung
|
'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 |
|
|
|
2014/05/26 11:40:40
Subject: Re:Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
I fancy Westfalen,just so I can have a ,"bazooka town"
|
Old warriors die hard
https://themodelwarrior.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
2014/05/27 00:25:25
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
'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 |
|
|
|
2014/05/27 16:23:27
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!
|
Im not convinced they really know too much about the 'scores of German heavy tanks' that were in the west....
Still, Germans using 35t tanks against US Shermans probably dont appeal to many FoW gamers.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/05/27 22:42:05
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Major
|
Big P wrote:Im not convinced they really know too much about the 'scores of German heavy tanks' that were in the west....
Still, Germans using 35t tanks against US Shermans probably dont appeal to many FoW gamers.
I understand,but what gets me is the scores of players that will be using the Super Perishing.If that is the case they might as well make the Maus.
I know i am one for theHollywood style of playing. Automatically Appended Next Post: col. krazy kenny wrote:Big P wrote:Im not convinced they really know too much about the 'scores of German heavy tanks' that were in the west....
Still, Germans using 35t tanks against US Shermans probably dont appeal to many FoW gamers.
I understand,but what gets me is the scores of players that will be using the Super Perishing.If that is the case they might as well make the Maus.
I know i am one for theHollywood style of playing but sometimes things may be a bit much..
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/27 23:10:21
|
|
|
|
2014/05/28 00:14:38
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!
|
Yes... its not the use of them that bothers me, but the glossing over of reality.
Its the grumpy history lecturer in me coming out... I dislike the way its twisted. In the West in early 45 there was few tanks and few fuel.
I once interviewed a Fallschirmjäger veteran, who stated that from February 45 till the wars end, he hardly remembered seeing a German tank. He recalled some StuGs on one occasion but said most of the time it was "fire a faust, then runaway and repeat..."
I know its a game, and let players use however many Jagdtiger they want, but keep the history as it was.
Sorry, rant over.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/05/28 00:36:33
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
Big P wrote:Yes... its not the use of them that bothers me, but the glossing over of reality.
Its the grumpy history lecturer in me coming out... I dislike the way its twisted. In the West in early 45 there was few tanks and few fuel.
I once interviewed a Fallschirmjäger veteran, who stated that from February 45 till the wars end, he hardly remembered seeing a German tank. He recalled some StuGs on one occasion but said most of the time it was "fire a faust, then runaway and repeat..."
I know its a game, and let players use however many Jagdtiger they want, but keep the history as it was.
Sorry, rant over.
Thing is, it's kind of hard to simulate that at this level. There no doubt were German companies that still had a decent amount of inventory. Admittedly, you might very well be able to count those companies on one hand. And it probably wasn't possible without assembling the remains of multiple units. But they did exist. It's not until you move up to the higher organizational levels that you start running into issues like the fact that the entire Western Front only had a regiment's worth of modern tanks (or however many there were).
Or 20 operational Pershings (split equally between two different armored divisions).
However, if you ever play a Total War match set during this period, encouraging the players to follow more historical force availability would probably be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
2014/05/28 00:49:08
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!
|
Its not hard to simulate at all, but it wont sell lots of tanks... besides, I think you would be hard pushed to find an single panzer company operating at a decent strength in the west in 45... and im sad enough to have all the divisional returns. Makes for grim reading. But I see your point, though im not sure I agree with it.
Better state of affairs in the east, not much though after the losses in the Ardennes.
But that ain't really my point.
Let people use wall to wall King Tigers, but make sure the book points out the reality, thats all.
Besides, the system relies on an innate balance between forces rather than being a historically driven scenario. So its not possible for the system to allow such historical encounters I guess? Certainly not in pick up games.
Its a game in a ww2 setting rather than a ww2 game, if that makes sense and its designed with an eye towards tournament style play. All fine.
But being set in a historical period kinda makes me feel the fluff should reflect the real thing a bit more.
Anyway enough of my off topic drivel!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/28 00:53:42
|
|
|
|
2014/05/28 14:08:21
Subject: Re:Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Major
|
Its a game in a ww2 setting rather than a ww2 game, if that makes sense and its designed with an eye towards tournament style play. All fine.
That is what drew us in and Keeps us playing,not as much ATM.Making are own Heros and Commanders.Most of are capaigns have been What if fictional games.As for overpowering list for LW,We all know that pretty much after d day and Bagaration that the German army started to scrape the Bottom of the BArrel and the American force go at more powerful kit.Like i said previously just dont know about the multiple Super Pershing since from what i have read their was only 1 used.
To get back on Subject it willl be nice the see the Civilian Volks models made by BF.It will be a nice alternative to the PP Dough Boys.(nothing bad against PP i own alot of the models).
I may have to do a all Partisan Battle,One last question,Since we Ottos Commandos,Will we get rules eventually for Werewolves?
|
|
|
|
|
2014/05/28 16:30:30
Subject: Re:Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
I would argue that its the game of the film of WW2. Its not a bad ruleset and it is well researched but its utter fixation of tanks drags the game down.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/05/28 20:24:04
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Big P wrote:Yes... its not the use of them that bothers me, but the glossing over of reality.
Its the grumpy history lecturer in me coming out... I dislike the way its twisted. In the West in early 45 there was few tanks and few fuel.
I once interviewed a Fallschirmjäger veteran, who stated that from February 45 till the wars end, he hardly remembered seeing a German tank. He recalled some StuGs on one occasion but said most of the time it was "fire a faust, then runaway and repeat..."
I know its a game, and let players use however many Jagdtiger they want, but keep the history as it was.
Sorry, rant over.
Nothing wrong with a rant. I have been reading the ,"Black Bull" a history of 11th armoured division and what got me was after a bad day
of losses for the allies where they lost 75 tanks there was a sense of relief on the allied commanders part as it helped free up the parking lot of
500 spare Shermans on the beach,especially as another 100 were due to land
You are right that the historical accuracy of various things has been lost,especially the allied 4-1 tank ratio but at the end of the day they
are trying to sell a product. Anyway well done for reminding us of some of the facts
|
Old warriors die hard
https://themodelwarrior.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
2014/05/29 03:22:03
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
More like a reinforced platoon of them, actually. Assuming the same points values that they've used elsewhere, you're looking at almost 1400 points for 4 King Tigers. Short of a really massive game (i.e. Total War points values), you're not going to have very many King Tigers on the table. Now admittedly, this isn't because of anything that BF has done regarding equipment availability. It's more of a game thing involving the points values that people typically play at.
Like i said previously just dont know about the multiple Super Pershing since from what i have read their was only 1 used.
Has anyone confirmed that you can get more than one Super Pershing? Battlefront is usually pretty good about restricting that sort of thing, as it doesn't take much work to include a "you can only perform this upgrade once" option in a list.
its utter fixation of tanks drags the game down.
I think it's more the players than Battlefront. Players just plain like tanks - especially great big ones. I suspect that's the reason why Late War tends to be such a popular period in comparison with the other two. Players want tanks, and they'll do whatever it takes to get tanks no matter how inappropriate that might be.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/29 16:25:51
|
|
|
|
2014/05/29 05:41:09
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
'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 |
|
|
|
2014/05/29 10:09:47
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
Eumerin wrote:
I think it's more the players than Battlefront. Players just plain like tanks - especially great big ones. I suspect that's the reason why Late War tends to be such a popular period in comparison with the other two. Players want tanks, and they'll do whatever it takes to get tanks no matter how inappropriate that might be.
Battlefront facilitates the tank fixation though.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/05/29 10:25:02
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Palindrome wrote:Eumerin wrote:
I think it's more the players than Battlefront. Players just plain like tanks - especially great big ones. I suspect that's the reason why Late War tends to be such a popular period in comparison with the other two. Players want tanks, and they'll do whatever it takes to get tanks no matter how inappropriate that might be.
Battlefront facilitates the tank fixation though.
You could say the same thing about any other miniatures manufacturer that makes tanks, or any ruleset that allows you to field a tank company. I'm not sure how BF facilitates tank love over anyone else, and they certainly make plenty of infantry and artillery miniatures as well. I think local meta-game has a lot more to do with it than anything else.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/29 10:25:45
|
|
|
|
2014/05/29 11:50:00
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Saint Louis Mo
|
Big P wrote:Im not convinced they really know too much about the 'scores of German heavy tanks' that were in the west....
Still, Germans using 35t tanks against US Shermans probably dont appeal to many FoW gamers.
At least from a game play stand point the Americans can now take the Pershing. So German Tank lists wont be as scary with a anti-tank 14.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/05/29 11:56:46
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Big P wrote:Im not convinced they really know too much about the 'scores of German heavy tanks' that were in the west....
Still, Germans using 35t tanks against US Shermans probably dont appeal to many FoW gamers.
Plenty of FOW gamers make armies based on historical OOBs.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/29 11:56:58
|
|
|
|
2014/05/29 17:38:26
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
Hordini wrote: I'm not sure how BF facilitates tank love over anyone else, and they certainly make plenty of infantry and artillery miniatures as well.
By conspicuously promoting tanks over other new releases. The rules are a little too kind to pure tank armies as well, at least in late war infantry generally have a chance against assaulting tank platoons.
|
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/05/29 18:34:47
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote: I'm not sure how BF facilitates tank love over anyone else, and they certainly make plenty of infantry and artillery miniatures as well.
By conspicuously promoting tanks over other new releases. The rules are a little too kind to pure tank armies as well, at least in late war infantry generally have a chance against assaulting tank platoons.
Infantry can rock tanks if you integrate your defense properly with infantry AT assets like Panzerknackers, fausts, schrecks, bazookas, pioneers/engineers etc. and AT guns. Even more so if you use concealing terrain. In MW tank armies can be tricky due to high points cost, and in LW you get more tanks, but enemy infantry has a lot more AT assets available, for a lot fewer points.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/06/03 06:22:33
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Annoyed Blood Angel Devastator
|
Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote: I'm not sure how BF facilitates tank love over anyone else, and they certainly make plenty of infantry and artillery miniatures as well.
By conspicuously promoting tanks over other new releases. The rules are a little too kind to pure tank armies as well, at least in late war infantry generally have a chance against assaulting tank platoons.
British Heavy Cruisers with rerolling AT6/FP1+ , teleporting AT 14 Jacksons (the TD rules being a flat out abortion of history, btw) APDS/catkiller, bazoojas and fausts everywhere... you really think pure tank armies are favored?
|
|
|
|
2014/06/07 03:21:42
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
BaalSNAFU wrote: Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote: I'm not sure how BF facilitates tank love over anyone else, and they certainly make plenty of infantry and artillery miniatures as well.
By conspicuously promoting tanks over other new releases. The rules are a little too kind to pure tank armies as well, at least in late war infantry generally have a chance against assaulting tank platoons.
British Heavy Cruisers with rerolling AT6/FP1+ , teleporting AT 14 Jacksons (the TD rules being a flat out abortion of history, btw) APDS/catkiller, bazoojas and fausts everywhere... you really think pure tank armies are favored?
I remember a few years ago someone on the FOW forums was complaining about how powerful a Panther company could be. While I agree it is a powerful tank, I suggested playing a roadblock mission against an infantry company with AT guns in ambush and seeing what happens. There are a lot of good ways to take apart tank companies with judicious use of AT assets, concealing terrain, and ambushes.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/06/08 06:45:19
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
BaalSNAFU wrote:
British Heavy Cruisers with rerolling AT6/FP1+ , teleporting AT 14 Jacksons (the TD rules being a flat out abortion of history, btw) APDS/catkiller, bazoojas and fausts everywhere... you really think pure tank armies are favored?
Very Limited (and are a serious threat to everything, not just tanks), are tanks, are tanks(mostly) and essentially only available in late war, as indeed is everything on that list. I don't think that pure tank armies are favoured as such but they aren't discouraged by the rules in the same way that pure infantry armies are.
In late war pure tank armies have problems with infantry companies with access to a decent number of infantry AT weapons, in mid/early war though.....
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/08 07:09:05
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/06/09 17:16:33
Subject: Re:Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
The Pershing boxed set is up on the front page. And it has a note about a question that used to pop up in far too many forum posts by newbies back in the day - "Where are the Pershings?"
The entry on the front page closes with tiny print mentioning that there's a bet in the office that the new most popular question will now be, "Where is the Maus?"
|
|
|
|
2014/06/16 18:10:20
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Palindrome wrote:BaalSNAFU wrote:
British Heavy Cruisers with rerolling AT6/FP1+ , teleporting AT 14 Jacksons (the TD rules being a flat out abortion of history, btw) APDS/catkiller, bazoojas and fausts everywhere... you really think pure tank armies are favored?
Very Limited (and are a serious threat to everything, not just tanks), are tanks, are tanks(mostly) and essentially only available in late war, as indeed is everything on that list. I don't think that pure tank armies are favoured as such but they aren't discouraged by the rules in the same way that pure infantry armies are.
In late war pure tank armies have problems with infantry companies with access to a decent number of infantry AT weapons, in mid/early war though.....
How are infantry companies discouraged by the rules? In EW/ MW tanks are a lot more expensive in terms of points, and heavy tanks like Tigers are huge points sinks. Infantry companies in EW/ MW don't have as much access to things like Panzerfausts, but most of them have access to towed AT guns as well as some self-propelled AT guns that can make short work of tanks, especially with judicious use of ambushes, not to mention Panzerknackers and pioneers.
And Jacksons are tank destroyers, not tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/06/16 18:25:55
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
Hordini wrote:
How are infantry companies discouraged by the rules?
And Jacksons are tank destroyers, not tanks.
Have you tried attacking an armored company, or anything else with a lot of mobile machine guns, with an infantry company? That's fine and accurate but it strongly discourages pure infantry armies, I used to run pure infantry until the game were a single carrier patrol near enough wiped me out. Tanks on the other hand can assault infantry in rough terrain, even buildings, and all they have to worry about is bogging and possible infantry AT weapons. That is certainly not accurate, an 'infantry terror test' imposed on all tank teams attacking infantry teams in difficult terrain/buildings would go a long way towards remedying this. Pure tank armies are viable, albeit not particularly stellar, but pure infantry armies are not.
Jacksons are tank teams, just like all the other tank destroyers in the game.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/16 18:31:09
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/06/16 21:04:13
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Palindrome wrote:Have you tried attacking an armored company, or anything else with a lot of mobile machine guns, with an infantry company?
Which mission were you playing that forced you to attack armour?
Sure you can assault into buildings with tanks (fully armoured, not any old tank teams) but it's damned risky, you can lose the whole platoon without the infantry ever firing a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/06/17 01:48:20
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
All the German lists in Remagen are auto defend.
Some Allied infantry lists can get AutoAttack by adding engineering tanks.
|
|
|
|
2014/06/17 02:24:56
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Palindrome wrote: Hordini wrote: How are infantry companies discouraged by the rules? And Jacksons are tank destroyers, not tanks. Have you tried attacking an armored company, or anything else with a lot of mobile machine guns, with an infantry company? That's fine and accurate but it strongly discourages pure infantry armies, I used to run pure infantry until the game were a single carrier patrol near enough wiped me out. Tanks on the other hand can assault infantry in rough terrain, even buildings, and all they have to worry about is bogging and possible infantry AT weapons. That is certainly not accurate, an 'infantry terror test' imposed on all tank teams attacking infantry teams in difficult terrain/buildings would go a long way towards remedying this. Pure tank armies are viable, albeit not particularly stellar, but pure infantry armies are not. Jacksons are tank teams, just like all the other tank destroyers in the game. You shouldn't be attacking an armored company with an infantry company. Is there any mission where you actually have to do that? If you're not using cover and concealment, mobile MGs should be taking out infantry (I think you agree). If you're not integrating AT guns into your infantry platoons when fighting armor, you're doing it wrong. I wouldn't be opposed to an "infantry terror" test, but in my experience most armored players have been extremely reluctant to attack infantry platoons that are anywhere close to AT guns. In addition, tanks bogging down in difficult terrain can be deadly, and even non-pioneer infantry can bail tanks with top armor 1. Plus infantry assaulting tanks out of concealing terrain often have the advantage, which makes tank units reluctant to stay too close to infantry in difficult terrain and building.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 02:28:14
|
|
|
|
2014/06/17 16:38:15
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
The fair fight missions require you to cross the table to win.
I should clarify that I didn't really mean armies with the 'tank' classification, its not exactly rare for infantry companies to spend far more on tanks than they do on infantry. Anything that is armoured, can move and has at least a machinegun is death to attacking infantry because there is little or nothing that you can do to protect them once they have left your AT gun screen, aside from having your own tanks. That is why I think that pure infantry armies don't work.
George Spiggott wrote:Sure you can assault into buildings with tanks (fully armoured, not any old tank teams) but it's damned risky, you can lose the whole platoon without the infantry ever firing a shot.
Of course yet the tank crews seem very unconcerned about the significant risks involved. In a game where infantry have to take a skill check to enter an unoccupied building its more than a little strange where tanks can literally drive through buildings occupied by enemy infantry, or happily drive through woods filled with panzerfaust toting grenadiers or......
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/17 16:39:32
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
|
|
2014/06/17 17:59:29
Subject: Bridge at Remagen Design Notes
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
Palindrome wrote:I should clarify that I didn't really mean armies with the 'tank' classification, its not exactly rare for infantry companies to spend far more on tanks than they do on infantry. Anything that is armoured, can move and has at least a machinegun is death to attacking infantry because there is little or nothing that you can do to protect them once they have left your AT gun screen, aside from having your own tanks. That is why I think that pure infantry armies don't work.
Version 3 of the rules took steps to combat the worst offenders in this area with the "Armored Reserves" rule. True, it won't deal with everything. But it does cut down on the number of tanks that an infantry or mechanized company can have on the table at the start.
|
|
|
|
|