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 chose German FJ as my first army and it seems they are quite good on the battlefield (Like they should be)

However I would really like to try some sort of oddball 2nd army. Perhaps a Finn T26/28 army or a SAS Desert force etc...

Do you find these kind of armies competitive or are they simply there to be played and have a lot of fun with.

Are there absolutely horrific armies out there?



I just watched a US vs German game where the US guy had 17 shermans compare to 3 Kings and 3 Tigers etc... That game looked good. Well balanced and the US ended up winning against all the heavy tanks which too me was a good indication that it was balanced as the German player rolled poorly etc..

How have your experiences been so far?

Oddball you want, oddball you get;

Finnish Raiding Forces, 1942-1944.

PDF at the end - cant say anything about (un)effectivenes, thou. But if there is ultra-elite infantry in FoWi, it is that.

While there are certainly bad matchups if your just doing a 'everything in an era' playstyle - try matching up a E&S Beutepanzerkompanie against an American Tank Company out of BG&G or Devil's Charge - but if you're playing armies against each other historically it shouldn't be as much of a problem.

And I'm not entirely sure a person losing because they 'rolled poorly' is a good indication of balance, but I'm confident that a person who's a decent player with a combined-arms force could slap around someone who takes 3 Kingtigers and 3 Tigers and expects to do well.

infinite_array wrote:While there are certainly bad matchups if your just doing a 'everything in an era' playstyle - try matching up a E&S Beutepanzerkompanie against an American Tank Company out of BG&G or Devil's Charge - but if you're playing armies against each other historically it shouldn't be as much of a problem.

And I'm not entirely sure a person losing because they 'rolled poorly' is a good indication of balance, but I'm confident that a person who's a decent player with a combined-arms force could slap around someone who takes 3 Kingtigers and 3 Tigers and expects to do well.

Even if (..or especially when..) you play "historically right" games, the Finnish Panssarikomppania (in LW) is pretty sure deathtrap - even in its best, with only one "really" strike-capable armored unit, one Anti-inf.-capable armored unit and one "nocando"-armored unit it really doesnt play well. Finnish jääkäri-komppania with armored assets is much better choice.

Milisim wrote:I chose German FJ as my first army and it seems they are quite good on the battlefield (Like they should be)

However I would really like to try some sort of oddball 2nd army. Perhaps a Finn T26/28 army or a SAS Desert force etc...

Do you find these kind of armies competitive or are they simply there to be played and have a lot of fun with.

Are there absolutely horrific armies out there?



I just watched a US vs German game where the US guy had 17 shermans compare to 3 Kings and 3 Tigers etc... That game looked good. Well balanced and the US ended up winning against all the heavy tanks which too me was a good indication that it was balanced as the German player rolled poorly etc..

How have your experiences been so far?

IMHO it depends on how you play the army, and how you use their strengths. It's one of the positives in this game IMHO. This isn't the kinda game where you can have 1 units that does everything well, certain units are better at doing certain things, similar to modern day militaries and historical militaries. For example in the right hands and in the right scenario yes, the SAS Desert force is very good. But like many other things if you put them inexperienced hands, and don't play to their strengths (ie speed, anti infantry firepower), then they will suck.

I think that overall, most of the armies in the game are very well balanced, though there definitely are some matchups that can be very difficult.

I started with the Italian Bersaglieri as my first army, so I have experience with one of the more difficult armies. Most of the people I play against play armored lists (which is Italy's biggest weakness in MW), so I lost a lot until I mastered the use of the army, and now I have won my last 4 MW Italian games (still working on EW). I think an example of how well balanced the Italians are is that in one game, I had most of my army as Fearless Conscripts with the 10 Million Bayonet rule, in a defensive mission. I managed to win the game through superior tactics, even though I lost a lot of troops because of their weakness.

I can't say much about the other armies that are considered weak or difficult to play, but I can say that knowing your army and playing to its strengths go a long way to its sucess.

I've had the same experieince with my Bersaglieri as well. A tough challenge to get used to at the start, but you eventually figure out the tactics involved to give a good accounting for the army list.
My biggest matchup probelm with mine is when facing a Infantry Tank company full of Matilda II's. It forces my list to use my limited AT assets to its fullest while protecting them at the same time.

Additionally, any tank horde army is still a challenge, but I've found that my tactics and knowing what I can and can't do, plus playing to the mission, always give me a "chance" lol!

My EW list is decent and I've fared well so far. The tactics are different due to the change in the 8MB chart for the era and the equipment available.

However, with all that being said, I find MW to be the most balanced between all of the different forces available for that era.

ThirdUltra wrote: I've had the same experieince with my Bersaglieri as well. A tough challenge to get used to at the start, but you eventually figure out the tactics involved to give a good accounting for the army list.
My biggest matchup probelm with mine is when facing a Infantry Tank company full of Matilda II's. It forces my list to use my limited AT assets to its fullest while protecting them at the same time.

Additionally, any tank horde army is still a challenge, but I've found that my tactics and knowing what I can and can't do, plus playing to the mission, always give me a "chance" lol!

My EW list is decent and I've fared well so far. The tactics are different due to the change in the 8MB chart for the era and the equipment available.

However, with all that being said, I find MW to be the most balanced between all of the different forces available for that era.

In EW everyone has problems with an infantry tank company filled with Matilda IIs. One of my regular opponents is a big Italian fan, actually he is really be big desert fan so has a lot of desert forces from Italy and the UK, but since I only play Brits he usually plays Italians when we play. One of the funnier moments was the unit of M14/41s that assault a full HMG platoon and actually *lost* the assault round. Lost the first round and he pressed because he couldn't believe it could happen again. Tank platoon completely wiped out. It was absolutely crazy. The Italians can get a lot of guns, though and when dealing with Matilda IIs heavy infantry and guns are near impossible for them to kill outside of assautl. Their 2pdr can't shoot at infantry or guns so will need to dislodge dug in infantry on objectives with FP 6 MGs which is a long and arduous process. I don't like using things that my opponents can barely hurt so only play Matilida IIs in EW when we are doing a pseudo historical battle re-enactment where they were present.

The only real sticking point with Italians is that you can't always play units the same way from game to game due to the command/morale rules they have. One fight a unit can do well thanks to a good command role and then in the next could be reluctant and not very useful.

As far as overall balance I have found that some of the LW Eastern front lists can be very difficult to deal with with some of the US and British LW lists. Some of the russian equipment is so numerous and so tough that it is hard for Brits to succeed against them. In a 1750 point Irish Guards armored company I can get 6 Fireflies with 17pdrs and 2 M10s with 17pdrs. The rest of my tanks are basic shermans and can't hurt a lot of the heaveir soviet stuff without some serious maneuvering and flanking going on. It is not as tough when facing the germans because their heavy stuff is rather limited in numbers. You are only going to face a certain number of tigers or king tigers in a battle, while against the russians you cold be facing that many heavy tanks PLUS another batch of heavy tanks/assault guns. Some of the later US sherman variants from the Bulge books are helping to bridge the gap for the Americans, but the brits are pretty much at the top end of their WWII tech level already.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:In EW everyone has problems with an infantry tank company filled with Matilda IIs. One of my regular opponents is a big Italian fan, actually he is really be big desert fan so has a lot of desert forces from Italy and the UK, but since I only play Brits he usually plays Italians when we play. One of the funnier moments was the unit of M14/41s that assault a full HMG platoon and actually *lost* the assault round. Lost the first round and he pressed because he couldn't believe it could happen again. Tank platoon completely wiped out. It was absolutely crazy. The Italians can get a lot of guns, though and when dealing with Matilda IIs heavy infantry and guns are near impossible for them to kill outside of assautl. Their 2pdr can't shoot at infantry or guns so will need to dislodge dug in infantry on objectives with FP 6 MGs which is a long and arduous process. I don't like using things that my opponents can barely hurt so only play Matilida IIs in EW when we are doing a pseudo historical battle re-enactment where they were present.

The only real sticking point with Italians is that you can't always play units the same way from game to game due to the command/morale rules they have. One fight a unit can do well thanks to a good command role and then in the next could be reluctant and not very useful.

Agreed.

In my experience with my Bersaglieri in MW NA, the Matildas were my bane at range; although in one game my infantry managed to destroy one in an assault (my opponent rolled a 1 lol!) and it was enough to drive-off the platoon allowing me to dig-in on the objective. I typically dig-in and await their advance and hope maybe my Semovente 75/18 SPG's can opt for flank shots in-close or for my air-support to catch them at a distance before they close. Other than ambushing them with 90/53 guns or 88/56/Lancias we're kind of stuck facing the British Dreadnoughts lol!

Still, when playing in the desert, my Italians have faced Aussie and Kiwi Divisional Cavalry and artillery-heavy infantry lists that were difficult to tangle with sometimes, but I've always done well against those lists through practice.. Like you mentioned above, the leadership role changes from game-to-game (8MB rule) so you are forced to play the same unit differently depending on these changes. With V3 rules, I've found that my Bersags have potent firepower in defensive fire (AS42 org rocks) and I have the ability to save my Elefantinos, keeping them GtG and used defensively against armor assaults (the ones i can handle of course lol!).

In EW, Matildas are much worse lol! But they're expensive, so I don't see many of them. However, my Bersags have some decent 102/35 guns (or direct firing 105/28's) and my proficient use of my Guastatori (Demolishers) allows me the abilty to deal with them. But yeah, Matilda II's seem to be the one thing they cannot deal with effectively, especially in EW.

But even for the different MW theaters, I tend to like MW the best as I see it pretty balanced among all the forces for that era,, even though I've taken the LW plunge with Eastern Front Germans.

The other minor-nation challenge is the Romanians as they have a similar leadership/skill chart (Peasant Army Rule) but they have decent equipment for the most part. Not sure how they would do in LW as I haven't seen them played in that era yet.

I've mainly played LW, and played against lists from Italy, northern Europe and the eastern front with my various lists. I do think that armoured car heavy lists do suffer compared to infantry, mech infantry and tank heavy lists. But some of the Russian heavy tank lists and some of the bulge lists do have a slight edge - but nothing I can't make a good stab at stopping

I'm currently in the process of building a late war Romanian army, and the biggest missing element I've been able to find is the lack of any weapon to really deal with heavy tanks. Romanian lists are able to put a lot of stuff down on the table, but don't have a go to weapon to deal with tigers, panthers or IS tanks (depending on who you're fighting in any given battle)

ThirdUltra wrote:But even for the different MW theaters, I tend to like MW the best as I see it pretty balanced among all the forces for that era,, even though I've taken the LW plunge with Eastern Front Germans.

Agreed...aside from Matilda IIs I really enjoy EW a little more, though, because many armored vehicles can still be taken out with small arms fire which just keeps the armor from dominating the games too much. Because the tanks are not so crazy powerful in general, even light tanks can have a big effect on battles, whereas in later periods the light tanks just get outclassed really fast. I feel bad for the Matilda II because it is so over priced in EW due to its crazy armor, but by midwar it is already next to useless because of its armament. 2pdrs are amazing in EW, but are only slightly effective in MW...I like armored cars so occasionally find myself trying to make daimler armored cars with 2pdrs useful against LW armor. At least by then they can shoot guns and infantry stands.

Happy gaming!
Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orkboy232 wrote:I'm currently in the process of building a late war Romanian army, and the biggest missing element I've been able to find is the lack of any weapon to really deal with heavy tanks. Romanian lists are able to put a lot of stuff down on the table, but don't have a go to weapon to deal with tigers, panthers or IS tanks (depending on who you're fighting in any given battle)

in LW position and manuever becomes even more important. A lot of those heavy tanks that are near impossible to kill from the front can be dropped easily from the side. Panthers are a prime example. Tough from the front, but the difference between front and side is dramatic. So you can't just make your gun line and hope to stop everything. You need to reserve stuff for ambushes and use them judiciuosly. I have to do that as a Brit player all the time. I have some 17pdrs with their AT of 13, but a lot of my guns are only AT 10. Need to use them a little smarter.

Skriker

Medium tanks in FoW are a lot more effective then they should be so any list with access to a lot of decent medium tanks tends to do better than a list that doesn't. Thats quite a big generalisation though and it doesn't hold true for all armies (MW British armoured squadrons for example are comparatively feeble).
If played within period using lists based upon historical fact then there isn't much of a issue (although there is still the tank problem).

In a tournament setting though certain lists tend to appear time and again (T-34 hordes for example) while other lists are only taken by 'non competative' players in the main (pure infantry lists).

Basically the game is better balanced than the likes of 40k but it is far from perfect.

Skriker wrote:Agreed...aside from Matilda IIs I really enjoy EW a little more, though, because many armored vehicles can still be taken out with small arms fire which just keeps the armor from dominating the games too much. Because the tanks are not so crazy powerful in general, even light tanks can have a big effect on battles, whereas in later periods the light tanks just get outclassed really fast. I feel bad for the Matilda II because it is so over priced in EW due to its crazy armor, but by midwar it is already next to useless because of its armament. 2pdrs are amazing in EW, but are only slightly effective in MW...I like armored cars so occasionally find myself trying to make daimler armored cars with 2pdrs useful against LW armor. At least by then they can shoot guns and infantry stands.

Probably one of the things I like about EW is that most AFV's are vulnerable (except Matilda II's lol!) to everything regardless of the types of lists available to the era. Another thing I do like is the usefuleness of light tanks, especially since my Italians have quite the number of them. Even in MW they appear to have a role to play when used correctly. Before the nerf to flame-throwers in V3, my Lanciaflamm L3's could wreak some havoc on the EW armor if they came across it, although now, they seem to be niched more into the anti-infantry role.

I like how armored cars work though, so i find them pretty decent for EW and MW, but when using them in MW, your support choices have to be spot-on as they can't handle anything by themselves.

With armor lists, I find that it becomes a war of manuever where bringing as many hulls to bear is the key; and this goes for the "pure" armor lists that eschew most of the common support elements.

In LW there are some evident matchup issues with armor/heavy armor lists, but I think what I like about this is it appears to reinforce the idea of balanced lists in the game. Infantry look to be the kings of the battlefield and some lists will struggle without them, but that's what I like about this game......everything has its role and works like it is supposed to.

Still like MW for its balanced approach and EW is just crazy fun; LW is where it can be hit-or-miss as the matchup problems are a little more numerous and the equipment factor surges.

Palindrome wrote:Basically the game is better balanced than the likes of 40k but it is far from perfect.

That's why I like it. As a 40k player myself, I find it refreshing, though I'm no stranger to historical gaming (Mustangs & Messerschmitts was my first historical war game).

LW imo has had some minor codex creep. The earlier 1944 lists seem mostly balanced, especially if you take opposite factions from the same book (I took my SS from Cobra and have a blast battling US forces from 2nd or 3rd Armour Division). Later lists seem to creep up with newer special rules and exceptions with each new army book. Example from River of Heroes the Soviet Engineers using captured Panzerfausts which have better stats than German Panzerfausts... Not really sure how they came up with that one o_0. Also how Western Allied players are supposed to deal with Soviet Heavies is beyond me. I struggle with AT16 at times!

Those soviet engineers were carrying large bundles of panzerfausts.

Allied players deal with soviet heavies using combined arms, artillery, planes. But most importantly, you use smoke to make it so they have almost no chance of hitting you as you close in to get flank shots.

Most soviet tanks have hen and chicks, make sure your opponent is using those rules. If they don't, they're usually RoF 1 tanks like the IS-2 and bigger ISUs. Thus if those tanks have to move, they shoot at -1 with one shot.

You do realize that an historical game will be inherently unbalanced, right? Armies in real life aren't built with "balance" in mind. A good wargame trying to recreate those armies won't be balanced, either.

So try and army you like and decide that way.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
You do realize that an historical game will be inherently unbalanced, right? Armies in real life aren't built with "balance" in mind. A good wargame trying to recreate those armies won't be balanced, either.

So try and army you like and decide that way.

IRL the commanders dont compare similiar point sized armies on the field, either.

The main focus of balance in historical game should be in points, as it (in FoW) mostly is. If you play historical scenario with allready known number of troops of some sort, the balance is propably gone, but then we talk about historical game.

Sorry, but there is a differing view...

The main point of balance in a historical game should be the scenario, thus making it historical.

Points based games, can never by virtue of being points based, be really consider historical.

I have nothing against points based games, indeed my favourite system is points based, and the ease it brings to pick-up play is brilliant for club games. Though the game I play tends to have points costs that reflect availability and as well as game ability.

And Im not digging at FOW here either. I think any points based system is inherently ahistorical by nature to a degree.

Dont mean its not fun though.

I just think for historical games the scenario is the prime driver for balance.

Big P has it spot on here, 'balance' in a historical game is ludicrous. Real wars are never balanced.

If you are interested in fairness then you should adapt the scenario to give each side a roughly equal chance of being able to achieve their objectives, but balance and history just don't mix well.

I think FOW is generally very well balanced. Obviously some matchups will be more challenging than others, but overall, good tactics will beat good troops nine times out of ten. Which is as it should be.