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.

Balance wrote:
I don't know how historically accurate 40k is, either, really.

There's certainly room for preferences, but after a point a game has to break historical accuracy as by design a game is kind of a 'What if?' scenario. If not, we'd jsut be palying through the same battles with never a change. FoW is pretty loose, and sometimes seems to venture into 'cinematic' territory, I notice.

Not trying to say it is! Or that it should!

My only point is that FoW seems really loose and gives you the ability to make Cinematic What if Scenarios for WWII! The established point value and army construction is equivilant to that of 40k.

If you are looking for historical accuracy down to the fact that Stugs or AT groups assigned to FJ companies were actually operated by Luftwaffe Personal with Fallschirmjager Helments you are probably playing the wrong rule set.

Well Fallschrimjagers were the German light infantry( since Hitler banned them from jumpping), so there saw service everywere.. and were deployed along with regular troops as elite scouts or to foward postions were they wanted too break thur....
They were always with armour Stugs and panzer divisions... ( especailly the hvy armour, tigers and king tiger and panthers) as they were about to keep up with them being light infanty....

StarGate wrote:Well Fallschrimjagers were the German light infantry( since Hitler banned them from jumpping), so there saw service everywere.. and were deployed along with regular troops as elite scouts or to foward postions were they wanted too break thur....
They were always with armour Stugs and panzer divisions... ( especailly the hvy armour, tigers and king tiger and panthers) as they were about to keep up with them being light infanty....

They were never 'banned' from jumping.

they conducted their last drop, Operation Strosser, during the Ardennes Offensive.

They were not deployed as 'elite scots', thats just utter fiction. They were also not 'light infantry'.

They were employed in the same manner as any other infantry formation, though they suffered from a lack of transport assets, as did many Heer formations.

Only Panzer Grenadiers were used to support panzer divisions directly as they were the only ones fully mobile to do so.

Sorry, but most of what you wrote is sheer fantasy and kinda proves the problem of FOWs potted history.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Comintern wrote:

If you are looking for historical accuracy down to the fact that Stugs or AT groups assigned to FJ companies were actually operated by Luftwaffe Personal with Fallschirmjager Helments you are probably playing the wrong rule set.

Sorry, but why does being historically correct have anything to do with rules?

Two different things. The rules I use for WW2 are no more realistic than FOW.

I get my stuff as historically corrects because I have a passion for history and it was a real conflict, where real men died, in their millions, not a made up world like 40k. That to me, means I treat it with a little respect.

Big P wrote:

StarGate wrote:Well Fallschrimjagers were the German light infantry( since Hitler banned them from jumpping), so there saw service everywere.. and were deployed along with regular troops as elite scouts or to foward postions were they wanted too break thur....
They were always with armour Stugs and panzer divisions... ( especailly the hvy armour, tigers and king tiger and panthers) as they were about to keep up with them being light infanty....

They were never 'banned' from jumping.

they conducted their last drop, Operation Strosser, during the Ardennes Offensive.

They were not deployed as 'elite scots', thats just utter fiction. They were also not 'light infantry'.

They were employed in the same manner as any other infantry formation, though they suffered from a lack of transport assets, as did many Heer formations.

Only Panzer Grenadiers were used to support panzer divisions directly as they were the only ones fully mobile to do so.

Sorry, but most of what you wrote is sheer fantasy and kinda proves the problem of FOWs potted history.

Not trying to be insulting to either poster here, but I just have to say, this doesn't prove anything about the "problem of FOWs potted history," because none of the misinformation posted here comes from Battlefront or any FOW book or article that I know of. I don't want to sound like a BF fanboy, because I like other WWII rules and miniature lines as well, but a lot of the claims being made here just seem to be caused by lack of experience. A brief perusal of some of the historical articles on Battlefront's website would confirm that wherever the ideas like Fallschirmjäger being "elite scouts" came from, it wasn't the BF website. While not perfect, BF's articles tend to give a more thorough description than this "potted history" that seems to keep coming up. While it is certainly possible to play FOW as a tourney style game, it is just as well-suited to scenario play as any other WWII ruleset, and Battlefront also puts on scenario games at events, and many of their new campaign books feature multiple historical scenarios.

And Aldramelech, if you don't agree with Battlefront's justification for not including Polish AA or Air in EW, that's fine. I'm not saying I agree with it either, I certainly don't agree with all of BF's choices (I really don't care for Mid-war Monsters, if you want an example). However, I think it is pretty far-fetched to claim that it was because of some conspiracy to keep Germans at the top of the tournament heap. Are Germans even at the top as it is? For all the local tournaments I've been to, I never got the feeling that Germans were far and away superior to the other armies. I've seen one player's Soviet armor absolutely annihilate all comers in tournaments, and I'm talking MW medium armor, mostly T-34s with 76mm guns with a few light tanks thrown in, and none of the heavy IS or KV tanks. I'm just saying, the balance in FOW overall tends to be pretty good. At least in my local gaming community, Germans were a solid army, but they weren't ruthlessly dominating everyone else, and to be honest, most experienced players on the FOW boards don't seem to fear Germans more than other armies. I just tend to hear a lot of new players complain about things like Stormtrooper movement, until they figure out it's not the be-all-end-all. Personally I'd be a lot more worried about Russian armies, especially in the hands of a good player.

No Hordini, you are quite correct.

Perhaps I should have phrased it to mean a general lack of accuracy in mainstream history of WW2.

History Channel taken as gospel for example.

Indeed the FOW articles on their site aint bad... A few clangers, but mainly only spotable by rivetcounters.

Big P wrote:No Hordini, you are quite correct.

Perhaps I should have phrased it to mean a general lack of accuracy in mainstream history of WW2.

History Channel taken as gospel for example.

Indeed the FOW articles on their site aint bad... A few clangers, but mainly only spotable by rivetcounters.

I definitely agree with you on the lack of general accuracy in mainstream history of WW2. I've seen some really sketchy documentaries on the History Channel and Military Channel, especially ones that deal with tanks and vehicles and other technical subjects, although from time to time they'll put out something decent. It's usually not WW2 related though, unfortunately.

Hordini wrote:
Disadvantages
If tanks are assaulted by infantry who did not move in the movement phase and assault from concealing terrain, the tanks get no defensive fire. This makes heavily wooded and urban terrain very deadly for tanks. Also, if tanks assault into difficult terrain (a bad idea), they have to make repeated bog checks, basically any time they move or counterattack, or retreat.

I'm not familiar with this rule ... what page is it on?


And I just want to add that I don't think Germans are the top of the heap by any means. Soviets have better morale rules, more infantry and tanks, and a metric ton of artillery. Not to mention the best planes in the game. I'm seriously thinking about playing Soviets because I have a decent German force and no one at our store plays Soviets right now. But it's just soooo many models to paint!

Also, American Shermans are *awesome* compared to other countries tanks. They are mobile and still shooty thanks to stabilizers. I think an American tank company can easily out maneuver and out shoot a German company, or even a Soviet company because of hens and chicks.

Seriously, I've won a few games with my Fallschirmjagers, but it's usually a close game, and I usually win because I held the objective with the last 3 bases in a platoon (because FJ platoons run 10 bases instead of 7). Though there was one game I got annihilated by a German panther company ...

Of course I just bought 5 Tigers and 5 Panzer IV's for my birthday/christmas present, so I don't think I'll be doing Soviets anytime soon.


Oh, and I play Germans because they are the "bad guy" army and they fought everyone. It was that or Soviets and at the time we had 2 Soviet players and 3 American players (Americans were my second choice).

Noisy_Marine wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Disadvantages
If tanks are assaulted by infantry who did not move in the movement phase and assault from concealing terrain, the tanks get no defensive fire. This makes heavily wooded and urban terrain very deadly for tanks. Also, if tanks assault into difficult terrain (a bad idea), they have to make repeated bog checks, basically any time they move or counterattack, or retreat.

I'm not familiar with this rule ... what page is it on?

You mean the no defensive fire rule, right? It's on page 78 of the mini rulebook. I'm guessing the page number is different in the big rule book, but it's in the "Assault" section, under the "Tanks Contacted by Infantry" heading. I forgot to add one caveat though, the infantry can't shoot that turn either. So basically they have to start their charge in concealing terrain, and cannot move or shoot that turn (except for their charge movement).

I think that all the historical fluff from the website/company is to help engross people in the atmosphere of the game and not provide a degree. Its a game...well thought out and very fun...but a game. I like that they try to add a little history into your armies and units...its the one thing that war hammer 40k did really well. I like the Fallschirmjagers because as an army they go go a lot of different ways depending on time period and support. They are a solid infantry unit and can hold there own....throw in some good support options and they can be brutal. But as with all German Armies I think they excel in the assault. Same with American Paratroopers. That's their bread and butter. The armor and guns just help round out the list. I have a pretty hefty Fallschirmjager army for Hell's Highway...and I think its awesome. But your wasting points not using the FV in an aggressive manner IMO.

dreager96 wrote: I have a pretty hefty Fallschirmjager army for Hell's Highway...

Well you are doing better than Student then.

I have built up a pretty good sized FJ force. i use Fortress Europe and the Hells Highway books.

my group's only stipulation is that 2 opponents use forces from the same time pieriod.


the only tanks i have are 3 Tigers and i have found that they compliment the FJ infantry really well. i haven't tried Stugs much, but they would work well too.

the main difference between HH and FE is that in FE the FJ have better tank access. in HH they can get more anti-tank things for their infantry(all troops can get Fausts and you can get more Shreks then in FE) HH also allows access to Jagdpanthers.


if you get some anti-tank guns and liberally give your guys panzerfausts you don't NEED tank support. the main weakness of the FJ is that they don't have any transport platoons avaliable to them.

Also, American Shermans are *awesome* compared to other countries tanks. They are mobile and still shooty thanks to stabilizers. I think an American tank company can easily out maneuver and out shoot a German company, or even a Soviet company because of hens and chicks.

I'll tell you from first-hand experience in my North Africa campaign, that Brit Shermans can use sem-indirect fire, meaning when they sit still, they get to re-roll misses when shooting at targets beyond 16" range. My German ally (I was running Italian Bersaglieri) was outshot by Shermans and Grants in the desert when he was fielding his Panzer-III's and IV's. Shooting full ROF and re-rolling misses can be huge; granted there are counters to it, but if you don't have it (like we did) we suffered.

What's funny about the BF rules on the Shermans though, is the Americans don't get this rule, yet, technically, they're the same tank. Heck even the LW Cromwells can get this...lol!
So, yeah, all that stuff looks good on paper with American Shermans and German Panzers, but there's still alot of stuff out there that can really change things.

Another thing, since you mentioned the "no defensive fire rule" which someone has already mentioned was on pg 78 of the rule book; my Italians, when using Demolishers, usually use this technique to assault tanks. Except, we can use our Avanti move to get us an extra 4" move in the shooting step to get us closer to assault. Granted, you miss-out on shooting, but, when you're hunting tanks, it's not such a big deal....lol! Though, I love my flamethrower teams, so yeah, sometimes I really want to shoot....lol!

Soviet Guards Heavy Tank company does not use Hen & Chicks, but that's neither here nor there when comparing skill-levels, but still, when going against Soviet tank hordes, you have to really kill alot of their stuff very quickly to be effective. If the Soviet player cannot manage his casualties (which really is the trick with Russian horde forces) then you can turn the tide. However, if he manages to keep you busy, he sure has whole lot more of his army to use against what little you have on the field by comparison.

Anyway, interesting discussion.....just my .02!

ThirdUltra wrote:

Also, American Shermans are *awesome* compared to other countries tanks. They are mobile and still shooty thanks to stabilizers. I think an American tank company can easily out maneuver and out shoot a German company, or even a Soviet company because of hens and chicks.

I'll tell you from first-hand experience in my North Africa campaign, that Brit Shermans can use sem-indirect fire, meaning when they sit still, they get to re-roll misses when shooting at targets beyond 16" range. My German ally (I was running Italian Bersaglieri) was outshot by Shermans and Grants in the desert when he was fielding his Panzer-III's and IV's. Shooting full ROF and re-rolling misses can be huge; granted there are counters to it, but if you don't have it (like we did) we suffered.

What's funny about the BF rules on the Shermans though, is the Americans don't get this rule, yet, technically, they're the same tank. Heck even the LW Cromwells can get this...lol!
So, yeah, all that stuff looks good on paper with American Shermans and German Panzers, but there's still alot of stuff out there that can really change things.

Nice post ThirdUltra, you made some good points. As someone who has also been on the receiving end of British semi-indirect fire in the desert, I can sympathize - it hurts! I wanted to mention though, that you are right that the British and American Shermans are the same tank, but that the semi-indirect fire rule is based more on British tank doctrine and training, rather than the technical capabilities of the tank itself, which is why both British Shermans and Cromwells have that ability.

Nice post ThirdUltra, you made some good points. As someone who has also been on the receiving end of British semi-indirect fire in the desert, I can sympathize - it hurts! I wanted to mention though, that you are right that the British and American Shermans are the same tank, but that the semi-indirect fire rule is based more on British tank doctrine and training, rather than the technical capabilities of the tank itself, which is why both British Shermans and Cromwells have that ability

Yeah, I hadn't really thought about it in that way...lol!

Still, being on the receiving end of that was painful...lol!

The Brits have just a massive buffet of points-effective equipment and personnel/lists to choose from to get a good match-up. I cringe every time I see 25 pounders being deployed on the field along with all of the other crazy stuff they can field...lol!