Switch Theme:

New historical gamer looking into Flames of War: A few questions.  [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
Fresh off the Train





Hello,

First post on here as well, seems like a pretty cool community even for less mainstream games and I look forward to hanging out here awhile!

Getting right into it: I've played Bolt Action for about a year and a friend is conning me into Flames of War. I'm a bit unclear on where to start, what I need, and what countries I can play. Every thread on this or analogous subjects is years old and often has a lot of dead links and is making research hard.

Countries I'm interested in, listed in order of preference

Finland
Greece
Belgium
Netherlands

Finland is the only one I know for sure I can even play. Do rules exist for the others? I have sources for models already.


With that established, what do I actually have to buy to be ready to play? Any game-specific tokens, templates, measuring apparatus, etc? What about books, is the format more like 40k of a main rulebook and army books or do I buy a supplement for a specific theatre and that's my "bible" outside the context of the main rulebook?

Thought I had more, I can't remember now. I'll ask followup questions as necessary.

Thanks!
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

With Flames of War, WW2 is broken down into 4 periods, Early, Mid, Late and Pacific war with the forces within a given period being relatively balanced. That said,balance is much better within forces that were in the same theater of operations and campaign setting, particularly with Late War with. separate books covering Normandy, Ardennes, Market Garden, Operation Bagration, Italy and Late-late war.

USSR, Germany, Italy, UK & Commonwealth are represented across all 3 periods. French forces are available early and late war. US is available mid and late (with Marines technically usable in Early War as Pacific points costs are similar). Japan can be played Early, Late and Pacific. Poland is available early and late. Also represented are a smattering of minor powers. Finland (Early/Mid/Late), Romania (Mid/Late), Hungary (Mid/Late), Greece (Early/Late).

Finland would be your best choice as they're represented in books for all 3 periods (Rising Sun, Eastern Front and Gray Wolf).
Greece wouldn't be too bad as they are in Early War in Burning Empires. In Late War, they're available in PDF http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Greek-Mountain-Brigade.pdf, but since they use british uniforms, you can also also use them as british/commonwealth troops in mid or late war.

I don't recall any belgian lists, and there is a PDF for the dutch in early war: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Early-war/Netherlands-1940.pdf.
While v4 is coming out in March, I wouldn't be too worried about starting any army (though I might hold off on MidWar as that's what getting updated) as what each army can take is based off historic OOBs & TOEs so if you stick with historically accurate forces, the only thing to worry about is points values.

The only thing you need aside from your army and the book/PDF with its rules is the main rulebook, a tape measure, dice, the artillery template and 2 or 3 objective tokens that can be subbed with large bases.. Nation specific tokens and dice are available for the major and minor powers plus lots of well known units, but aren't necessary.
   
Made in us
Fresh off the Train





cannonfodr wrote:
With Flames of War, WW2 is broken down into 4 periods, Early, Mid, Late and Pacific war with the forces within a given period being relatively balanced. That said,balance is much better within forces that were in the same theater of operations and campaign setting, particularly with Late War with. separate books covering Normandy, Ardennes, Market Garden, Operation Bagration, Italy and Late-late war.

USSR, Germany, Italy, UK & Commonwealth are represented across all 3 periods. French forces are available early and late war. US is available mid and late (with Marines technically usable in Early War as Pacific points costs are similar). Japan can be played Early, Late and Pacific. Poland is available early and late. Also represented are a smattering of minor powers. Finland (Early/Mid/Late), Romania (Mid/Late), Hungary (Mid/Late), Greece (Early/Late).

Finland would be your best choice as they're represented in books for all 3 periods (Rising Sun, Eastern Front and Gray Wolf).
Greece wouldn't be too bad as they are in Early War in Burning Empires. In Late War, they're available in PDF http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Greek-Mountain-Brigade.pdf, but since they use british uniforms, you can also also use them as british/commonwealth troops in mid or late war.

I don't recall any belgian lists, and there is a PDF for the dutch in early war: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Early-war/Netherlands-1940.pdf.
While v4 is coming out in March, I wouldn't be too worried about starting any army (though I might hold off on MidWar as that's what getting updated) as what each army can take is based off historic OOBs & TOEs so if you stick with historically accurate forces, the only thing to worry about is points values.

The only thing you need aside from your army and the book/PDF with its rules is the main rulebook, a tape measure, dice, the artillery template and 2 or 3 objective tokens that can be subbed with large bases.. Nation specific tokens and dice are available for the major and minor powers plus lots of well known units, but aren't necessary.


Invaluable info, thank you.

I think the Dutch'll be a side project, good to know they indeed can be played in some capacity. That means Finland (or Greece) it is!

I've found a few alternative minis for both (I like BF's ranges a lot but I also like to diversify). Recommend any in particular for any of these countries?

As far as books go, do I simply decide early/mid/late war for my given country, and use the Flames website to find the appropriate supplemental book, and in 40k terms that's essentially my codex?

How would you recommend I spend about $150? That's my approximate buy-in to a given game, if I can't evaluate whether it's fun at that level of play then it's probably too much of a money pit to both, as I play many games nowadays haha.

Thanks again.
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

It's been awhile, but recall seeing some Finnish infantry put out by a company called Legions East. Not sure if theyr'e still around though. I've gotten some alternates from Eureka, Old Glory and Peter Pig. The Peter Pig infantry were a little bulkier than the Battlefront ones, Old Glory are a bit weedier so I avoid mixing and matching. Price-wise, Old Glory has the best price point as infantry come in bags of 50. One bag of command, support weapons and regular infantry plus battlefront bases and you've got a good core infantry company.

So for choosing where to start, first choose a time period (early/mid/late) that interests you and that interests others in your club. That will dictate what books and lists are available. Then choose an army that you're interested in. The nice thing about Finns is that aside from some special kit, most of the infantry can be used across all 3 time periods so you can expand your forces later. With Finns, I'd probably start with late war (Gray Wolf) as you'll typically want a friend to start Soviets (Red Bear is the companion to Gray Wolf, but Desperate Measures/Berlin would also work) and it's much easier to start soviets in late war. Their infantry companies (so while the FoW scale for most nations on the table is company-level, soviets get to bring a battlalion) get large in mid-war and are ridiculous in early-war.

If I was limiting myself to about $150, then I'd recommend getting the Open Fire boxed set. While it contains a plastic German infantry company and British armor company with some supporting units. It gives you 2 forces that you can quickly flesh out and play to get a feel for the game and you can use the Germans as allies for your Finns if you decide to get them. Typically the core of a force is a Headquarters section (2 command stands on small bases with an optional heavy weapons/support section that can be attached out or 1 or 2 vehicles if an tank company) and 2 platoons. The nice thing about the battlefront infantry blisters is that they're usually self-contained units so a command blister will build your your HQ section with options and an infantry platoon blister will give you a complete infantry platoon. Downside is that it's more expensive than some of the alternatives.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

cannonfodr wrote:

While v4 is coming out in March, I wouldn't be too worried about starting any army (though I might hold off on MidWar as that's what getting updated) as what each army can take is based off historic OOBs & TOEs so if you stick with historically accurate forces, the only thing to worry about is points values.


I would be very careful with that, as there is a valid concern with the direction the new lists are going. The leaked Afrika Korp lists have started quite the controversy, and I think it is too early to say that the original TO&Es will be followed as closely as they were before. Especially when considering a meager buy in of $150, some caution and patience would not go amiss.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




The Mid War force list books aren't for sale, and haven't been for a while now. So I wouldn't worry about that era for the moment.

The Early War and Late War lists will still be used in V4.

But you need to find out which era your local group is playing in.
   
Made in us
Major





Central,ILL. USA

Pm sent

Please visit my Blog http://colkrazykennyswargamingblog.blogspot.com/
I play SS in flames of war ,Becuase they are KEWL... 
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

From what I've read, units should still be organized the same way. eg: An infantry platoon will have a command team and typically 2 or 3 squads each consisting of 2 teams with possible option for add-ons (light anti-tank/light mortar). Tank platoons (German) will have 3 to 5 tanks of which you can choose between the standard Panzer III and IV variants from the era (III short 50mm, III long 50mm, III Long 50, uparmored, III short 75, IV short 75, IV long 75). Companies will be a HQ section with 2 compulsory core selections (infantry or tank platoons depending on company type) and then optional supports. I can see some tweaking of optional supports and expect points to change a bit, but things shouldn't be radically different. Admittedly, DAK infantry is a bad example since their structure was a bit varied even in the v2/v3 lists with the Schutzen platoons being able to take upgrade out the wazoo while the Tunisia Grenadier/Infanterie platoons following the more traditional model. I'm not convinced the leaked Afrika Rifle platoon corresponds to the existing Schutzen/Grenadier/Infanterie platoons.

That said, if Battlefront does decide to go full Fantasy WW2, I can always jump ship and use my stuff with another rule system as they aren't the only game in town.

 KillerAngel wrote:
cannonfodr wrote:

While v4 is coming out in March, I wouldn't be too worried about starting any army (though I might hold off on MidWar as that's what getting updated) as what each army can take is based off historic OOBs & TOEs so if you stick with historically accurate forces, the only thing to worry about is points values.


I would be very careful with that, as there is a valid concern with the direction the new lists are going. The leaked Afrika Korp lists have started quite the controversy, and I think it is too early to say that the original TO&Es will be followed as closely as they were before. Especially when considering a meager buy in of $150, some caution and patience would not go amiss.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

cannonfodr wrote:
... but things shouldn't be radically different.


I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced of that yet, especially with most information out there just being conjecture. The lack of any choice in support options in those leaked lists (all three of them) certainly gives one reason to be cautious. The hope is that digital lists pick up the slack.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




It's possible that platoon command teams will disappear. Team Yankee platoons don't have them (you pick any team in the platoon to act as the leader).

However, the important thing to remember is that new organizational structures will likely only exist in Mid-War. And Mid-War list books for the Eastern Front won't be available until next year.


In any event, the entire discussion is irrelevant until a simple question gets answered - what era is Hammerghast's friend playing in? Until we know that, there's not much point arguing over the importance of changes to Mid-War.
   
Made in ca
Posts with Authority




I'm from the future. The future of space

If you're playing with a friend or two that you know and play with regularly (from your Bolt Action gaming) then it's a simple matter to play the historical formations and just pay the points on a per model basis.

This works for non-historical reasons as well. The points system (or any points system) only works so well anyway. The game works fine if you do things like include a one of a tank you think is cool attached to another platoon.

Keeping strictly to the army lists only matters if you're playing non-regular opponents. Or if one of you tries to game things and take one off vehicles and whatnot because they are the strongest things. No points system survives that approach and army lists do at least some work to mitigate it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/13 21:07:27


Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. 
   
Made in us
Fresh off the Train





Eumerin wrote:
It's possible that platoon command teams will disappear. Team Yankee platoons don't have them (you pick any team in the platoon to act as the leader).

However, the important thing to remember is that new organizational structures will likely only exist in Mid-War. And Mid-War list books for the Eastern Front won't be available until next year.


In any event, the entire discussion is irrelevant until a simple question gets answered - what era is Hammerghast's friend playing in? Until we know that, there's not much point arguing over the importance of changes to Mid-War.


Well said, and a good discussion all around regardless. That's a good question, as I would lean towards saying they're looking at late war since I've seen a friend's Panthers and other higher tec stuff. However, I personally am fascinated most by the early war, irrespective of my choice of country (which is TBD as I've said).

Nevertheless, am I correctly reading the implication that unlike, say, Bolt Action, this ruleset just straight up CAN'T accommodate lists clashing from different eras? I have to concern myself that much with an era (read: have to maintain essentially 3 collections, 1 per era) or be forced a particular direction if the small group of people I will be playing with have already decided (on a given era) ? That's a bit of a turnoff. But I'm admittedly quite ignorant here, if the game can still actually be played and enjoyed, I'm in. It was mentioned that from the Winter War to Lapland Finnish forces are quite interchangeable so maybe I'm making up a problem that isn't one, would appreciate elaboration anyway.

Thanks.
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




Armor and anti-tank weapons changed dramarically over the course of the war. So each era uses a different set of points values. As an example, the T-34 tank exists largely unchanged in all three eras. In Late War, you can build a list with dozens of the things. But an Early War list set at the same amount of points probably won't have more than 2 or 3 of them due to how expensive they are points-wise.
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

If you're worried about being able to re-use as much as you can across all 3 periods, your best bet is to go with infantry. Finnish and Soviet infantry can pretty much be used across all 3 eras and if you're careful, you can also do the same with Germans. I can use my Soviet infantry across all 3 eras and only have to swap out tanks. For my Germans, I keep separate AT teams and command teams for each era so I just swap out AT Rifles for Panzerschrecks and plain command teams with panzerknackers or panzerfausts depending on which era I'm in. For example, here is a Finnish Jalkavaki platoon from all 3 periods:

EW: Command Rifle Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier), 6 Rifle Teams (NCO + 3-4 Riflemen or 4-5 Riflemen on medium base)
MW: Command Rifle/MG Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman/LMG on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier), 6 Rifle/MG Teams (NCO + 3-4 Riflemen or LMG + 3-4 Riflemen on medium base)
LW: Command Rifle/MG or SMG Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman/LMG/SMG on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier or Panzerfaust), 6-8 Rifle/MG Teams or SMG Teams

Generally, people aren't too picky about how you represent your infantry teams as long as you can easily tell which platoon each stand belongs to and you can clearly tell if a given platoon is equipped differently from another. It's really hard to pick out a LMG gunner from a rifleman or even an NCO without looking closely at a stand. With separate command teams to represent the basic command vs close-defence command vs panzerfaust command, you can represent a platoon armed with rifles across all 3 periods (all SMGs would be a LW only unit though if you could just use your regular platoons if everyone is getting SMGs).

Your HMG and Mortar platoons pretty much remain unchanged across all 3 periods. Really the only thing that changes are what tanks and what AT guns you can take and there are some tanks you can take across all 3 periods (T-26s and T-28s).

The main reason that you can't have say an Early War list fight against a Late War list is that infantry costs are pretty much consistent across all 3 periods, but armor and anti-armor saw rapid evolution. Compared against LW, EW tanks have paper thin armor and tiny guns, but compared to what AT equipment was available, they were very effective against infantry. In fact, even with tank vs tank duels in EW, you get a lot of bailed tanks and not so many kills. By LW, the armor levels of the medium tanks are like the heavy tanks from EW, but AT firepower has increased to the point where tank vs tank duels result in a table full of burning wrecks. Despite the fact that they use the same rule mechanics, EW is a different game from LW and once v4 comes out, MW will be a different game with different mechanics.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 KillerAngel wrote:
cannonfodr wrote:
... but things shouldn't be radically different.


I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced of that yet, especially with most information out there just being conjecture. The lack of any choice in support options in those leaked lists (all three of them) certainly gives one reason to be cautious. The hope is that digital lists pick up the slack.

The way company diagrams are done an the way armies are built have undergone a major change in v4. The diagram you may have seen is basically what would have been the Combat and Weapons platoons under the old rules. Additional support choices can also be attached to that, and if you want you can field more than one company as a single force (ex. A German Rifle Company and a German Panzer III company as one force).
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

 mdauben wrote:
 KillerAngel wrote:
cannonfodr wrote:
... but things shouldn't be radically different.


I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced of that yet, especially with most information out there just being conjecture. The lack of any choice in support options in those leaked lists (all three of them) certainly gives one reason to be cautious. The hope is that digital lists pick up the slack.

The way company diagrams are done an the way armies are built have undergone a major change in v4. The diagram you may have seen is basically what would have been the Combat and Weapons platoons under the old rules. Additional support choices can also be attached to that, and if you want you can field more than one company as a single force (ex. A German Rifle Company and a German Panzer III company as one force).


I am aware of the change to formations, and I don't doubt that future equipment can (and will be) added, but the fact stands that the only German AT gun (singular) in the lists are the Pak38s, only two options for artillery, and the Panzer III is limited to a "7.5cm, short 5cm, or long 5cm gun." No indications of the different Ausf designations, or corresponding armor values. If your desire is to play mid war v4 Afrika, I would be very cautious about running out and buying a bunch of stuff thinking you'll get to play with it anytime soon.

http://www.amsterdam6shooters.nl/aggregator/sources/8
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oJSDQ4CdUm4/WJOQHD86o3I/AAAAAAAAGgg/8xzIiMk-gSMUBSDZS13gPQfCfTJotJjlACLcB/s1600/pz3.JPG
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

From the leaks I saw, the lists seem to be adequate for the early North Africa portion of mid-war. While I don't see any infantry guns or pioneers, but I haven't seen the detailed list for the infantry company yet and there's an 80 page gap in the leaked preview. (google flames of war v4 leak and go to 4chan. The PDFs should be the 2nd or 3rd post down)

All of the correct Panzer III types appear represented to me and armor values match up with their previous values.

Short 5cm - Panzer IIIJ
Long 5cm - Panzer IIIJ Special
Uparmored Long 5cm - Panzer IIIL or IIIM
Short 7.5 cm - Panzer IIIN
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 KillerAngel wrote:
I am aware of the change to formations, and I don't doubt that future equipment can (and will be) added, but the fact stands that the only German AT gun (singular) in the lists are the Pak38s, only two options for artillery, and the Panzer III is limited to a "7.5cm, short 5cm, or long 5cm gun." No indications of the different Ausf designations, or corresponding armor values. If your desire is to play mid war v4 Afrika, I would be very cautious about running out and buying a bunch of stuff thinking you'll get to play with it anytime soon.

Ah! I misunderstood your comment. I quite agree that these new MW lists are a very poor effort. One of the BF people has been on the FOW forum trying to justify them, but most people are not buying his excuses. IMO its reflective of their attempt to dumb down the lists in the mistaken belief that somehow new players will have an easier time getting into the game.

My local gaming club started planning a big MW campaign as soon as BF announced that MW was going to be the focus this year. It probably would have involved at least a half dozen members starting new MW Africa armies. Now? If we still want to do that we'll have to stick with the old v3 lists, as there is not enough variety and scope in these two paltry books to play the games we were planning to run.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/14 23:32:36


 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




cannonfodr wrote:
From the leaks I saw, the lists seem to be adequate for the early North Africa portion of mid-war. While I don't see any infantry guns or pioneers, but I haven't seen the detailed list for the infantry company yet and there's an 80 page gap in the leaked preview. (google flames of war v4 leak and go to 4chan. The PDFs should be the 2nd or 3rd post down)

All of the correct Panzer III types appear represented to me and armor values match up with their previous values.

Short 5cm - Panzer IIIJ
Long 5cm - Panzer IIIJ Special
Uparmored Long 5cm - Panzer IIIL or IIIM
Short 7.5 cm - Panzer IIIN


I think the complaint is that they're not using the model designations. I can see the rationale for switching it over, especially with the variants of the Sherman that are all functionally identical (aside from the gun in the turret). Instead of having a new player freak out over whether they need an M4, M4A1, M4A2, or M4A3, you just tell them "M4 Sherman with 75mm gun". But I still personally prefer an actual model designation.

We'll see what happens. If the players don't like it six months from now, then it would be pretty easy for BF to change it back.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

cannonfodr wrote:From the leaks I saw, the lists seem to be adequate for the early North Africa portion of mid-war.

Panzer III L and M's in early mid war? Tigers?!

mdauben wrote:Ah! I misunderstood your comment. I quite agree that these new MW lists are a very poor effort. One of the BF people has been on the FOW forum trying to justify them, but most people are not buying his excuses. IMO its reflective of their attempt to dumb down the lists in the mistaken belief that somehow new players will have an easier time getting into the game.

My local gaming club started planning a big MW campaign as soon as BF announced that MW was going to be the focus this year. It probably would have involved at least a half dozen members starting new MW Africa armies. Now? If we still want to do that we'll have to stick with the old v3 lists, as there is not enough variety and scope in these two paltry books to play the games we were planning to run.


Completely agree! The only argument they have made that makes sense to me, is that it's a poor business strategy to flood the market with content, forcing retailers to invest in large stock and reducing the incentive for players to buy multiple armies.

Unfortunately it still alienates most of your core base who are then left with three options: stick with v3, play the v3 mid war lists with v4 rules, or leave most of your models on the shelf.

Personally, I think our group will chose the middle one, especially considering most of our forces are Mid War focusing on Eastern Front (I'm the only desert geek). This means that, while I'll definitely be buying some plastic Crusaders and Grants, I will not be buying the v4 rule books or lists. In a year or so, if I'm not turned off by the dumbing down (no real unit names, etc, which is a huge reason I play: to learn!), I'll make the plunge into the new lists. Despite all the doom and gloom, a chance of a good update is better than no chance at all. Cautiously optimistic...

Truth be told, I've already bought the Battlegroup rulebook, and we're playing our first game this weekend. Guess we'll see which rule set comes out ahead...

Eumerin wrote:I think the complaint is that they're not using the model designations. I can see the rationale for switching it over, especially with the variants of the Sherman that are all functionally identical (aside from the gun in the turret). Instead of having a new player freak out over whether they need an M4, M4A1, M4A2, or M4A3, you just tell them "M4 Sherman with 75mm gun". But I still personally prefer an actual model designation.

We'll see what happens. If the players don't like it six months from now, then it would be pretty easy for BF to change it back.

Once unit cards are printed, that's a hard train to stop. I wish I could be so optimistic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 15:12:56


 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




What v3 Mid-War lists? The only v3 lists are some play test British lists that were released in PDF format.

And both Mid-War books have been out of print since shortly after v3 was released.


Changing over is easy. You just do the second printing with the swapped info.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

All v2 North Africa and Eastern Front lists were re-released as official v3 lists through Forces. Are they perfect? No, but they exist and people use them (myself included).

I'm glad you're confident that changing over is easy, and I really hope it is, but I have seen content go to print with known errors due to the cost of retooling. Hopefully circumstances at Battlefront allow for that possibility if enough of us complain.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Eumerin wrote:
What v3 Mid-War lists? The only v3 lists are some play test British lists that were released in PDF format.

And both Mid-War books have been out of print since shortly after v3 was released.

All the NORTH AFRICA book lists are available in the Forces of War web app, and the book itself can still be bought as an ebook in the Battlefront app. Not the best option, I admit, but the lists are still available if you want them.
   
Made in us
Fresh off the Train





cannonfodr wrote:
If you're worried about being able to re-use as much as you can across all 3 periods, your best bet is to go with infantry. Finnish and Soviet infantry can pretty much be used across all 3 eras and if you're careful, you can also do the same with Germans. I can use my Soviet infantry across all 3 eras and only have to swap out tanks. For my Germans, I keep separate AT teams and command teams for each era so I just swap out AT Rifles for Panzerschrecks and plain command teams with panzerknackers or panzerfausts depending on which era I'm in. For example, here is a Finnish Jalkavaki platoon from all 3 periods:

EW: Command Rifle Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier), 6 Rifle Teams (NCO + 3-4 Riflemen or 4-5 Riflemen on medium base)
MW: Command Rifle/MG Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman/LMG on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier), 6 Rifle/MG Teams (NCO + 3-4 Riflemen or LMG + 3-4 Riflemen on medium base)
LW: Command Rifle/MG or SMG Team (Officer, NCO, Rifleman/LMG/SMG on small base, optionally replace Rifleman w/ AT Grenadier or Panzerfaust), 6-8 Rifle/MG Teams or SMG Teams

Generally, people aren't too picky about how you represent your infantry teams as long as you can easily tell which platoon each stand belongs to and you can clearly tell if a given platoon is equipped differently from another. It's really hard to pick out a LMG gunner from a rifleman or even an NCO without looking closely at a stand. With separate command teams to represent the basic command vs close-defence command vs panzerfaust command, you can represent a platoon armed with rifles across all 3 periods (all SMGs would be a LW only unit though if you could just use your regular platoons if everyone is getting SMGs).

Your HMG and Mortar platoons pretty much remain unchanged across all 3 periods. Really the only thing that changes are what tanks and what AT guns you can take and there are some tanks you can take across all 3 periods (T-26s and T-28s).

The main reason that you can't have say an Early War list fight against a Late War list is that infantry costs are pretty much consistent across all 3 periods, but armor and anti-armor saw rapid evolution. Compared against LW, EW tanks have paper thin armor and tiny guns, but compared to what AT equipment was available, they were very effective against infantry. In fact, even with tank vs tank duels in EW, you get a lot of bailed tanks and not so many kills. By LW, the armor levels of the medium tanks are like the heavy tanks from EW, but AT firepower has increased to the point where tank vs tank duels result in a table full of burning wrecks. Despite the fact that they use the same rule mechanics, EW is a different game from LW and once v4 comes out, MW will be a different game with different mechanics.


Very informative, thanks.

I would say that my concern is more than I can actually fight in mock battles against countries I historically didn't, as idk how mired in historical immersion the locals want to get, and as I said they're all (so far) playing boring mainstream countries, specifically (as far as I currently know) just what comes in the Open Fire box. I want to make sure I can play against them with an actually cool country like Finland

I've got a demo game scheduled with a couple of them soon, at this point it's a matter of finding out what era they want to play and going from there. Looks like I'll be collecting early, middle and late war armies though. I guess I mistakenly assumed that that would be roughly the same as playing 3 distinct countries or, say, 3 different armies in something like 40k, but as you and others have said the way they swap out virtually nothing but tanks, it would seem that to play all eras is not actually that much. Would that be fair to say?

Just trying to figure out everything I need to know to get started; Even Bolt Action, also WW2, seems a lot more straightforward and though nigh identically subdivided into eras, it's per army, and there's a generic force creation format alternative so you can largely play (fairly) against most any force of the same point value if I understand it right.

   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

 KillerAngel wrote:
cannonfodr wrote:From the leaks I saw, the lists seem to be adequate for the early North Africa portion of mid-war.

Panzer III L and M's in early mid war? Tigers?!


Battlefront typically lumps the Panzer III L and M variants together. From what I can remember of the tank, their are some cosmetic and functional differences that don't really have any representation in Flames and that the M would have armored skirts.

The mid-war desert campaign is also broken down into 3 periods, North Africa, Tunisia and Sicily. I believe the III L did see action in North Africa though I suppose they could have bolted on extra armor to existing III Js with the long 50mm.

According to Battlefront, Tigers were available in North Africa (even in the v2 via PDF). I didn't think any saw action until Tunisia, but the ability to take Tigers in North Africa in Flames has been around for awhile regardless of historical accuracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 hammerghast wrote:

I would say that my concern is more than I can actually fight in mock battles against countries I historically didn't, as idk how mired in historical immersion the locals want to get, and as I said they're all (so far) playing boring mainstream countries, specifically (as far as I currently know) just what comes in the Open Fire box. I want to make sure I can play against them with an actually cool country like Finland


I've had blue on blue encounters with my British Paras fighting America Armored Rifles, other Brit infantry and even Soviets. I didn't think balance was too much of an issue, there are some slight points and capability discrepancies between campaigns (eg: improved AT ratings on 6 pdrs and 17 pdrs in lists after Normandy), but the differences are small enough that I didn't think it changed the outcome of the game in the ahistorical matchups I've had.

 hammerghast wrote:

I've got a demo game scheduled with a couple of them soon, at this point it's a matter of finding out what era they want to play and going from there. Looks like I'll be collecting early, middle and late war armies though. I guess I mistakenly assumed that that would be roughly the same as playing 3 distinct countries or, say, 3 different armies in something like 40k, but as you and others have said the way they swap out virtually nothing but tanks, it would seem that to play all eras is not actually that much. Would that be fair to say?


If you're playing infantry this is correct. If you're playing armor, not so much though the US can do pretty well transitioning between mid and late war if you stick with a core of Priests, Shermans, Stuarts and Halftracks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 05:12:16


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Maryland

Belgian PDF

summary
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108&art_id=1597&kb_cat_id=18

pdf
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/Belgian-Brigade-Piron.pdf

   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

cannonfodr wrote:
 KillerAngel wrote:
cannonfodr wrote:From the leaks I saw, the lists seem to be adequate for the early North Africa portion of mid-war.

Panzer III L and M's in early mid war? Tigers?!


Battlefront typically lumps the Panzer III L and M variants together. From what I can remember of the tank, their are some cosmetic and functional differences that don't really have any representation in Flames and that the M would have armored skirts.

The mid-war desert campaign is also broken down into 3 periods, North Africa, Tunisia and Sicily. I believe the III L did see action in North Africa though I suppose they could have bolted on extra armor to existing III Js with the long 50mm.

According to Battlefront, Tigers were available in North Africa (even in the v2 via PDF). I didn't think any saw action until Tunisia, but the ability to take Tigers in North Africa in Flames has been around for awhile regardless of historical accuracy.



I don't think we disagree, but my point was that the new lists are not intended to represent the early Mid War Africa campaign, as indicated by the Panzer M/N, Tigers, and 17/25 pounders. It's more indicative of "what can we throw together that looks sexy and sells" as opposed to the more traditional focus of historical OOB. The original v2 lists you refer to do a much better job of capturing the breadth of changes that were seen during Mid War Africa.
   
Made in us
Sinister Chaos Marine




DC Metro

True. In addition to the v4 rules looking similar to Team Yankee, the army lists also have the Team Yankee feel as they don't seem to be complete of what is available to the DAK during that particular time period. My biggest concern is how many lists do I have to buy in order to field what units I already have.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Virginia

Seems my fears were unfounded. I'm slowly moving from cautiously optimistic, to full on optimistic.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5465
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






 KillerAngel wrote:
I don't think we disagree, but my point was that the new lists are not intended to represent the early Mid War Africa campaign, as indicated by the Panzer M/N, Tigers, and 17/25 pounders. It's more indicative of "what can we throw together that looks sexy and sells" as opposed to the more traditional focus of historical OOB. The original v2 lists you refer to do a much better job of capturing the breadth of changes that were seen during Mid War Africa.

Bingo.

The contents of the books have more to do with the available MW plastics than with any coherent attempt to represent a specific date or battle in the MW era.

 KillerAngel wrote:
Seems my fears were unfounded. I'm slowly moving from cautiously optimistic, to full on optimistic.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5465

Yes, these new command cards, while looking like a tacked on attempt to address the meager lists in the two army books, do seem to add a lot of missing variety to the possible army lists you can do for MW. Still not enough details about exactly what the two sets of cards add, beyond the examples given in the article so although I'm not a fan of the cards in general I'm cautiously optimistic that they will make the v4 MW at least playable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/28 15:10:59


 
   
 
Forum Index » Historical Miniature Games: WW1 to Modern
Go to: