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.

I am new to playing flames of war so I would like to share some thoughts with others who may be interested in starting.

First of all the rule book is gorgeous. Easy to read with well written rules with good examples of play. After my first read through I have to say I am very glad I purchased the rule book set.

With a working knowledge of the rules fresh in my mind. I had to break out the few minis I had build to try the system.

I had 5 plastic soldier company 76mm shermans built as well as 2 plastic soldier panzer 4s.

I decided to pit 3 of the shermans vs the 2 panzers. Each plt was placed a little more than 16 inches apart with no terrain in sight. The panzers won first turn and stayed put. Needing 4+ to hit trained shermans at long range the panzers destroyed one Sherman and bailed another. I was quite surprised. I thought the shermans would have fairer better at long range because they had 7 front armor which became 8 at long range.

On the shermans turn they remount the bailed Sherman and I decide that they might as well push forward because they are getting killed at long range any way. They both hall ass 12 inches a little to the left of the panzers. I thought that if they survive this round then they will be able to get flank shots on the panzers. The shermans shoot 4 shots with stabilizers needing 5+ to hit. They score one hit and the panzer promptly fails his armor save. AT 12 is just nasty. One firepower test later and the panzer is destroyed.

The last panzer gets revenge on his turn. I decide not to move the panzer so I can fire two shots. I thought since the AT 12 would probably blow through the front armor any way I might
as well shoot twice . 3+ to hit trained shermans so two hits. I am sure you cam guess what happens next. Two failed armor saves and two passed firepower rolls later equals no more shermans.

This post is getting too long. I will post my after action thoughts in a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My first thoughts after the battle was. Who ever can get the first shots to hit has a big advantage.
Also trained vs veterans. You really need twice the number of trained tanks to take on veteran tanks.

Terrain should be included. I think it would make a big difference on who can shoot effectively first.

Well first shots on an open field with weapon systems that can kill each other you are correct.

Keep in mind that standard play is usually 1500+ points and that usually a fair amount of terrain of involved. Terrain and company composition can matter alot.

Change it to Vets gone to ground in concealing terrain at long range or even short range and the first shot doesnt matter as much. As the at long range you cant even hit the vets...and at short range you are only hitting on a 6.

Is alot of variables and how different troop ratings/company compositions affect the game. An open field will just favor the biggest tanks with the hardest to hit number. Add in terrain.

Warboss Brokentoof wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My first thoughts after the battle was. Who ever can get the first shots to hit has a big advantage.
Also trained vs veterans. You really need twice the number of trained tanks to take on veteran tanks.

Terrain should be included. I think it would make a big difference on who can shoot effectively first.

Unlike 40k terrain is huge in this game, it makes or break the game. You board should be 50%-75% terrain on it. Also yes unit experience does make a huge difference, and your comment about needing twice as many trained units vs. veterans is accurate. You should go see some of the Soviet lists. They are huge!

Agreed with the terrain. I'll get a picture up of the table a friend and I played the Pincer scenario on a couple nights ago. Thanks to the hedgerows which made up a good 3rd of the table, the single platoon of Fallschirmjagers he had deployed managed to hang on to the objective I was going for while I threw 3 Cromwells, a Firefly, 3 Universal Carriers, and a Rifle Platoon at him.

I managed to win the game, but it was a 4-3 after he ambushed a pair of Pak 40's, and had 2 StuGs, a Fallschirmjager platoon and his mortar platoon come on from reserves all at once before I could consolidate around the objective. I barely got out a win by having my second Rifle platoon - which I had held back, dug in, on the other flank - make a mad dash for the second objective. They had to fight off the 2 StuGs and the second Fallschirmjager platoon after my friend had completely wiped out the first force I had sent in!

Thanks for the responses guys. Yeah I figured that terrain is very important. I just wanted to share my initial thoughts about flames of war. I can gladly say that I made a good decision to start it up. Now I just need to get some warhammer friends interested in starting.