|
So Blindfury and I have moved back into the early wars part of Flames of War, revisiting the invasion of France. We've dabbled here before, Blindfury usually fielding a French tank army, but also playing around with armored cars and motorcycle troops. I've been trying to make an armoured infantry army work, with mixed success. Okay, so maybe "mixed success" means "I've lost a lot", but a big part of that has been working on the proper support. Armoured infantry are a tricky force to build - being in halftracks the troops are not cheap, but being infantry they don't have the punch that an equivalent amount of tanks has. They are fantastic at holding objectives or assaulting a position, but you need to make sure that you don't charge them to their death. So by "mixed success", what I really mean is that I've learned a lot.
But part of our return to early war has meant flushing out my army. We've tended to aim to 2000 points as a target army size. It gives us a decent size army if we're looking for a long game, and gives flexibility if we are looking for something quicker.
For my 2000, I've spent a lot of time playing around with options. I started by maxing my two mandatory troop selections, which gives me two six large platoons of halftrack troops, with anti-tank rifles. That plus my HQ runs just under 600 points. I definitely wanted tanks, and since I had a P38(t) that I received as a Christmas gift, I rounded that up to a platoon of 4, for another 350. I also added a pair of pak 36 anti-tank guns, to provide a little more punch, and they're cheap at 80 points with transports. So that leaves me at 1020 points, with my mandatory troops, a small unit of AT, and a platoon of light tanks.
My desert Italians have taught me that aircraft are fun to use, so I have to add Stukas. And the additional points for the Schwerpunkt, which allows me to roll two dice and pick the best for quantity of aircraft is a must. So another 175 points down.
This leaves me with just over 800 points to spend. Looking at what options I have left, I realize that I am still short on punch. The AT guns are decent against light and medium tanks, but are useless against the French chars. My P38(t)s are also lacking in the tank-killing ability, which only leaves my stukas. And while they've changed the rules to make aircraft more effective, I'd like to have some units on the ground that I can count on. My only tank option for the army went to the P38(t)s, so I need to dig into my self-propelled gun options. These tend to have more firepower, but are also glass cannons - they don't have the armor to really take much punishment.
First to look at are the Bunkerflak - 8.8 cm flak guns mounted on halftracks - some serious punch, plenty of range, but light armour and a lot of points. I also have the Panzerjager 1s - 4.7cm AT guns mounted on a tank chassis - less punch, same crappy armour, but a lot cheaper, plus I can get a unit of 4 instead of 2. Finally, I have the Bison - a 15cm infantry gun mounted on a tank chassis - same AT as the panzerjagers, with a lower ROF but more FP.
I ultimately decided to go with the Bunkerflaks and Panzerjagers, which brings me up to 1980 points. I'm hoping that the extended range on the Bunkerflaks will help them stay out of trouble, allowing them to harass the French tanks. I'll have to be careful of the Awkward Layout, but if I can set them up outside of tank range and let them open fire, they should do fine. The Panzerjagers should work well as an ambush unit - even if they all move that's 4 shots, which should accomplish something, and if they stay put that goes up to 12 shots, which should definitely do some damage. The trick will be to keep them safe until they can do what they need to do.
So the minis are ordered and on the way, and in due time I'll have a full 2000 points of Germans ready to go. Now all I need is a chance to use them!Current Mood:  working |
|
APG
|
Mar. 13th, 2012 @ 03:13 pm
|
|---|
|
I had to hit APG this morning, to do some field work for a project we're doing. While I was there I had to stop and take a brief walk through the remains of the ordnance museum (they're shipping it to Fort Lee, VA) before grabbing lunch and heading home.
I've been thinking a bit about it. Part of it stems from being a child, being a bit of a war games and war history nut, and reading about the Proving Grounds. It was almost a mecca to my young "big guns are cool" mind. To hear about the trials and testing, to think that this is where they brought the panzers, the Tigers, to be cut apart and studied. I was always a big fan of tanks, the big lumbering beasts seemed so huge and larger than life.
Now that I'm older, my perspective has changed a bit. Tanks are still larger than life, but there is also now that sobered human element to it. They aren't just giant metal boxes, plowing through the fields and woods and killing the bad guys. They are the vehicles crewed by a bunch of kids. Hot, crowded, the sound of shots bouncing if you're lucky, the sounds of your mates getting wounded if you aren't. One of the vehicles still at APG is a Nashorn - a tank hunter that mounts an 8.8 onto the hull of a panzer 4. It has three holes in it - one on the side and two on the front - of where shots penetrated. And while it could be easy to just dismiss this as the shots that stopped the bad guy, it isn't that simple. The people on the opposite side of that armor were probably young 20-something german kids, fighting for what they thought was right. At the very least they were just following orders. But in the game of kill or be killed, I guess you don't think of that.
I often think back on high school - were it not for my mom's interference I very well may have joined the military. There was a certain romance to the idea of driving a tank or something that it would have been easy for a recruiter to convince me. I think that, combined with the fact that my mom grew up during the Vietnam era and that the first Gulf war was starting, made sure that that contact never really happened, she certainly didn't want to see her middle son blown to smithereens. Maybe I missed out on something. Maybe I really owe her. I really don't know on that one.
Another thing I find myself thinking of is the way war has changed in the past 60 years. It may be a bit romantic, but I think that the war of WW2 is significantly different than what I've seen in my lifetime. A lot of that is a result of technology - a single man can carry more firepower than a 50 ton tank could. If anything, the large vehicles become a bit of a liability, as they are easy targets and are limited to the terrain they can travel through, and today's wars seem to be as much about mobility as they do firepower. I also think the technology removes a bit of the human element that makes WW2 seem so romantic. It is people putting their lives on the line, their only tools being the rifle in their hand or the vehicle they were in. No drones, no night vision, no advanced radar, sure a lot of that stuff was just starting to be developed, but the fight was between people, and LOTS of them. Look at our casualties in the current war in Afghanistan, we've lost more american troops in a single day in WW2 than we did in the entire conflict in Afghanistan.And a lot of those troops were young, fresh faces, signing up to defeat an idea.
I dunno, I think I'm starting to ramble a bit. Something about the big tanks always makes me kinda pensive.Current Mood:  pensive |
|
So I've seen way too much of this on facebook, and felt the need for a bit of a min-rant.
Whitney Houston has died. Probably drowned as a result of drugs and alcohol - no surprise there. But the news coverage has been insane. They actually interrupted what we were watching with "breaking news" to let us know. It's been all over the radio and tv, not quite Michael Jackson level but still over saturated.
And in response, several people have been posting pictures - of our servicemen and of military cemeteries - with the tagline "Whitney Who?"
First - I get it. Thousands of soldiers have died, with nary a mention. Yet here, a cracked out singer kills herself through stupidity, and everyone is blathering on about how she was so special and how she touched their life and blah blah blah. I've never cared for Whitney Houston's music, so it's fairly easy for me to dismiss her. But I also think it's fair to say that our military has done more for our country than any single singer ever has.
But it's also not so black and white. I think of my grandparent's military - the boys of WW2. Fighting against Jerry for the freedom of the world. And then I think about the wars that have followed - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again... The first Iraq war and the initial invasion of Afghanistan, we were responding to an aggressor, someone that attacked us or an ally, and we responded in kind. But the other three wars - Vietnam, Korea and Iraq 2, they didn't have the same support. Vietnam was so unpopular they had to make people go. So why the difference?
I think a lot of it has to do with our (the homeland) perception. Take the 5 wars mentioned -
Korea. Not many people remember this one, but I think it's fair to say that it was viewed as our soldiers getting killed half way across the world for reasons the public didn't see.
Vietnam. Fairly similar. Why did we care what a bunch of jungle rats did? Why were we sending our troops to die in the jungles against someone that most people didn't even consider an enemy?
Iraq 1. Often protested as "no blood for oil", but isn't that simple. On the simple side of it, Kuwait got attacked, asked for our help, and we helped. I think we did the right thing in coming to the side of an ally. Exactly why they are our ally (no blood for oil?) may be debatable, but as a military action it was well executed. Get in, do the job, get out.
Afghanistan. A result of the 9/11 attacks, and we had a lot of backing on this. The real problem was that we attacked a nation, even though it wasn't the nation that attacked us. We overdid our response, going after guerilla groups (with the accidental civilians thrown in) with overwhelming brute force. The end result is that we got drawn into nation building. So even though the cause may have been just, the execution was poor at best.
Iraq 2. We never belonged here. Nation building from the outset, and done in a way that added a lot of fuel to the "no blood for oil" fire. If anything, this looked like our military being used at the behest of big oil. Since when did our military work for them?
So while I absolutely think our military doesn't get the respect it deserves, it isn't blameless. They haven't exactly come across as the good guys, especially when you hear about stuff like Abu Ghraib.
The Army really needs one hell of a PR campaign right about now.Current Mood: contemplative |
|
So Blindfury and I fought it out in the desert once again. This time I had a 1000 point Bersaglieri Company, against his 4th Indian. BF mixed it up this time, taking the minimum infantry, and fitting out his 1000 points with artillery and anti aircraft. It was a good chance for him to experiment with the big guns, and a chance for me to play as offense.
My forces:
HQ
Two Bersaglieri Platoons (6 teams each)
3 M11/39s
3 L3/35s
3 L3/35 lanciaflamme
4 100/17s with observers
4 75/27s with observers
Sporadic Falcos
His:
HQ
Two Rifle Platoons (4 teams each)
4 Bofors AA guns
Royal Artillery battery, with four 4.5" and four 18 pounders, plus two OP carriers
So I definitely outnumbered him, but he definitely out qualitied me.
Scenery was very interesting this time. Blindfury's side had a village on his right and some rough on his left, but was open in the middle. My side was rough left and center, with another village on the right. To add to it we rolled the khamseen - a giant dust storm that acts as night conditions. So BF set up his guns in a giant defensive position in the open area on his side, with one infantry platoon holding his left side objective. His other infantry platoon was held in ambush. I put my artillery in my two corners, 100/17s to my left and 75/27s in the village to my right. I also put my M11/39 and L3/35s in the village, my lanciaflammes and an infantry platoon in the center, and an infantry platoon on my right.
My first turn was very uneventful. With the khamseen I couldn't see him, and my movement was restricted to 8", so I just slowly advanced all of my troops. The khamseen cleared for BF, but his fire was fairly ineffective, just bailing a couple tanks.
Second turn I advanced forward some more, my M11/39s and L3/35s rushing towards their objective, with my infantry and lanciaflammes slowing up rather than advancing too quickly into a hail of fire. My left infantry decided to try and dash towards their objective, seeing as it was lightly guarded. My Falcos also came into play, but his Bofors tore them to pieces. BF's return fire dinged me a little, but for the most part I'd been able to dodge major damage.
Third turn My L3/35s stormed the objective, where they were ripped to pieces by his dug in infantry. His defensive fire managed to bail both tanks, which left them completely vulnerable. My Falcos came in again, doing minimal damage. BF's return fire again managed to ding me some, but considering the amount of guns he had, I was not taking a lot of damage.
On my fourth turn my M11/39s stormed the objective, managing to unseat the infantry there and allowing me to claim sole possession of the objective. I also decided to finally push harder with my lanciaflamme and infantry up the middle, as my other infantry continued their push towards the third objective. The Falcos came through again, this time surviving the limited AA, but not managing to cause any real damage. BF's turn started with his left infantry retreating off the board (part of the mission rules), but return fire was fairly brutal this turn. His 18 pounders opened up on my M11/39, and his infantry in the village and 4.5" howitzers managed to rout my infantry headed towards the village. He was then bombarding my lanciaflamme and infantry in the middle, trying to eliminate what few capture threat units I had left.
Unfortunately at this point we needed to call it, due to outside influences beyond our control.
So not the best showing for my Italians, seeing as I had lost three platoons and caused very minimal casualties. It was a good learning experience though, and showed some flaws in my army building and in my plans. Some quick learning points:
First, I think I need to try and make full platoons. If I had all 4 tankettes or all 5 M11/39s, instead of platoons of three, I would have survived the rush up the right flank.
Second, Bofors are nasty. Nothing more to say.
Third, the falcos are still worth the points. Even just to tie up the AA to allow me to advance. Since AA can not fire the turn after they fired as AA, I could drop the falcos in, and even if they didn't survive that was a lot of ROF that could not be pointed at me. Granted, BF learned that and by the end was not devoting full fire to AA, but it still makes an impact.
Fourth, I still need to learn how to advance my flamethrowers under protection. They'll tear up dug in troops once I get them close enough. I think that I need to run them up behind a screen of vehicles, moving them with the troops was too slow. If I had them moving up with the vehicles, they could have been shielded well enough to get in and open fire.
Fifth, pinning is very important, especially when trying to advance on prepared positions. Pinning the Bofors reduces their ROF from 4 to 1, and also really diminishes the defensive fire I face before an assault.
Sixth, I probably spread my army way too thin. I was hoping that a three pronged assault would have forced BF to split his fire up, but all it really meant was that I didn't have a single prong strong enough to reach their goal. My middle attack still had a chance, but my left and right attacks were done. I probably should have focused on the two less guarded objectives, and used my artillery to counter his guns, or I should have rushed everyone up the middle, hoping to just overwhelm.
But win lose or draw, it was a good dame. A little difficult to play amidst a triple birthday FND, but still a good time and some good lessons learned.
|
|
So we have another FND coming up at our place. Blindfury is one of the birthday guests, so who am I to deny a request for more FoW? :-)
But, seeing as this is an FND and not an all day type of thing, we decided to tone it down to 1000 points. More than a 600 point skirmish, but not quite full blown war either.
Rebuilding my army for 1000 points was tricky. I still need to keep my platoon count high enough that I won't get screwed by reserves, and I still need to maintain both fortified positions (at 600 points I only need one). I tend to be a guy that builds my army based on maxing out the base troop choice (my fortified positions in this case) and filling in with support options. But if I want to maintain a high number of platoons, I really only have one option - reduce the expense of my units.
The issue really revolved around my fortifications. They can be super cheap - a 1 squad platoon with the basic nests and trenches is only 130 points. Deck them out with both squads and a full contingent of barbed wire and minefields and they run 375. Swap out anti tank obstacles for the minefields, and they're 475! Seeing as I need two for a 1000 point list - that's way too much. But I've grown used to my fortifications a certain way - the barbed wire keeps my nests safe from troops and the minefields are needed to help slow down his valentines. Even though I never have enough minefields to completely block his path (max of one per squad per fortified platoon) it does allow me to steer him a little. So ultimately I decided to just shrink my units to 1 squad each, and keep the barbed wire and minefields.
The smaller units will admittedly have a huge effect on their impact on the game - I'm losing two HMG nests as well as the squad of troops, and I also can only take one minefield and up to three barbed wire per fortified platoon. This will make is a lot harder to block off portions of the table with my fortifications, which is really what allowed me to do as well as I did last game. I could use my fortified platoons to deny access to parts of the board, which made it a lot easier for my artillery and aircraft to do their work. Funnel his troops into a tight position and bombard the crap out of them - it worked rather well. So I am going to lose some of that funneling capability, but it was either that or lose my bombarding capability.
So here is the final result:
HQ
Two Fortified Platoons, each with 1 squad, 1 minefield and 2 barbed wire
A battery of 4 100/17s with observer
A platoon of 3 M11/39s
A platoon of 3 L3/35s
A platoon of 3 L3/35 lanciaflammes
Sporadic Falcos
Grand Total of 995 points. We'll see how they do.Current Mood: working |
| » More Italians v Indians |
|---|
Blindfury's honey was out of town this past weekend, so we decided to take advantage and get a good game of FoW in. The usual 1500 points of Italians vs Indians, with some slight tweaks from our last fight. I had two full fortified platoons, a battery of 75/27s, a battery of 100/17s, a platoon of three M11/39s, a platoon of three L3/35s, a platoon of three L3/35 flamethrowers, and my trusty Falcos. 8 Million Bayonets was not that kind to me, I ended up with a lot of Reluctant Conscript troops, but I guess that's the risk I take. Blindfury brought two full Rifle platoons, two full HMG platoons, a full mortar platoon, a platoon of three 2 pdr portees, a platoon of three valentines, and sporadic air interceptors.
We set up the terrain per the book. FoW's random terrain generator has actually been fairly good to us, and helps eliminate a lot of the blind spots and terrain clumps that I'd always run into playing 40k. So we split the table up into six 2'x2' sections, and rolled the dice. We ended up with a village, a blank spot and two oases on one long edge, with a blank spot, two rocky outcroppings and a blank spot along the other. So a lot of open space, with a couple obvious choke points.
This time the mission was "Breakthrough", where the defender picks two opposing corners of the board, and the attacker sets up in the third corner, with two objectives going in the remaining corner. I picked the corner with the village and it's opposite, which left me with decent terrain to secure, and left blindfury with a lot of open space. He opted to put the objectives in near the oases, so that he'd have some cover when he was trying to take them.
My setup was a fortified platoon and my 75/27 battery in the village, and a fortified platoon, my 100/17 battery and my L3/35 tankettes in the other corner. My M11/39s and L3/35 flamethrowers were left in mobile reserve. Blindfury set his Valentines, his portees and both infantry platoons as close to the rock outcroppings as possible, trying to find cover from the village. He left both HMG and his mortar platoon in reserves.
A couple interesting things about this mission. First - victory conditions don't take effect until round 6. So Blindfury couldn't just march his valentines in and take the objective. We both had reserves, but his reserves actually came in right behind the objective as a flanking maneuver. And finally, Blindfury exercised his right to do this battle as a Night Fight, which limits range and movement and keeps my Falcos grounded until day breaks.
Turn 1: BF's first turn saw him moving forward through the rocks, in an attempt to close in and crush my one fortified position. His one infantry platoon rushed one of my artillery observers that had been up on the rocks, and his valentines moved up screening most of his troops. His fire was actually minimal - Night Fight! and I survived unscathed. My first turn saw my tankettes backing away from his advancing troops, and I unloaded on anyone I could see. That was primarily his infantry that rushed my observer, and I managed to eliminate three stands and pin the unit.
Turn 2: BF's second turn saw his troops rally (damned fearless!), and launch an assault on my poor observer. His valentines also managed to punch into my fortified position - taking out some of the barbed wire but leaving the troops and nests unharmed. My plucky tankettes advanced, opening fire on the already injured infantry troop. Three more died and they were pinned, but the fearless bastards wouldn't rout! My HQ called down an artillery barrage on the advancing valentines, managing to bail one out.
Turn 3: BF's valentines remounted and continued the charge into my fortified platoon, killing four stands and forcing them to retreat. His portees moved up on my advancing tankettes and knocked one out. My tankettes continued to go after the wounded infantry group and managed to reduce them to one single stand, but again fearless saves the day. The real surprise came from my fortified platoon. My 100/17 battery fired directly into the oncoming valentines, bailing one. My 45/27 nest with my fortified platoon managed to bail out another. With only one remaining tank, my HQ launched an all or nothing assault. They managed to bail the last tank, which resulted in my winning the assault, automatically destroying all bailed tanks. The number of ones that BF needed to roll was legendary, but the end result was that his invincible valentines fell to a couple guys with binoculars.
Turn 4: Despite the stunning loss of BF's valentines, he pressed on with his portees and remaining infantry in through the gap between the rocky outcroppings. His portees unloaded and wiped out my platoon of tankettes. Daylight finally broke, and my fortified position finally eliminated his injured infantry platoon, but the rest of my fire fell harmless.
Turn 5: BF's remaining infantry unit moved forward towards the objective. He also had both of his HMGs come in from reserves, and they moved to the objectives. One HMG platoon managed to reach his objective outright, the other needed to move it doubletime. Both of my reserves made it onto the board, and both did a mad dash towards the HMG units holding the objectives. I unleashed artillery hell on both of them as well, pinning the unit that doubletimed it, but completely missing the other unit. It was up to my Falcos to come in and neutralize them - but they were chased off by BF's air interceptors.
Turn 6: BF's HMG unit managed to hang on to the one objective, so the day is his.
So despite some amazing turns in misfortune, Blindfury pulls out an incredible last minute win.
As with every game, there's always tons of "what-ifs". What if my artillery had pinned his HMGs on turn 5? What if my HQ didn't take out his valentines? What if night had ended earlier or hung around longer? What if I had decided to move my troops from the village position towards the objectives? But despite that, I feel like it was a game well played. BF's tactics continue to baffle me, he is a much more aggressive player than I tend to be. Last game I didn't handle it so well, but I feel like I did it right this time, by setting up my artillery to have full fields of fire, and by keeping my flamethrowers in reserve so they could come in where the threat was. Had his valentines continued to roll through my position, my flamethrowers would have dropped right in, nice and close and ready to fire.
I also feel like we are getting the rules down, which makes for a much smoother game. We still take forever, but that's part of the enjoyment. Taking your time, enjoying an adult beverage, and talking everything out makes for a good time, as opposed to the super-competitive atmosphere I've seen at con games (especially in 40k). The win isn't as important, so it's easier to just enjoy the play.
I've also really enjoyed the better documentation of the games. This time I snapped pics at the end of each turn, and by flipping through them I can get a real sense of how the game went, which makes it a lot easier for me to look back and see what strategic errors I may have made.
Dec. 16th, 2011 @ 11:24 am
|
| » L3/35 lanciafiamme |
|---|
So I've been rummaging through the Italian army list, looking for a way to deal with the Valentines. Aircraft help, and artillery can too, but they both have their issues. Aircraft can not strike within 16" of friendlies, and artillery are subject to deployment issues and pinning. There has to be another option. So I started combing through the lists.
What I stumbled upon were the L3/35 lanciafiamme. I've always ruled out L3/35 tankettes before, their armour is super thin, and even with the anti-tank rifle upgrade they can't do much. But add a flamethrower, we might be on to something! So I checked the flamethrower rules.
Turns out they are incredibly dangerous, but have severe drawbacks too. Their range is 4", they can't fire if the unit moved more than 6", and may only fire a single shot. Add the terrible L3/35 armor to that (zero), and it's easy to understand why I overlooked them.
But they have some positives too. To Hit is a skill test, which with my 8 Million Bayonet rule, is likely a 4+ as trained, with no cover modifiers. It is ROF 3, even on the move, and auto penetrates with a 5+ firepower to kill. The 5+ firepower isn't great, but with an auto penetrate, all I need is two hits to kill anyway. So a unit of 3 gets 9 dice, about 4-5 hits on average. So I'm probably looking at 1 killed outright, and if I'm lucky, it may be more.
But then I look at the downsides again. They are EXTREMELY short range, and super fragile. So while they may deliver the knockout punch, I'll need to be very careful with them if they are going to survive long enough to deliver it.
At least they are cheap - under 100 points for a unit of 3. Now all I need to do is get them on the field and see how they play.
Posted via m.livejournal.com.
Nov. 22nd, 2011 @ 04:20 pm
|
| » Better to run and survive to fight another day |
|---|
At least that's what my 75/27 battery seems to think, since they never bothered to show up. :)
So ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6) blindfury1 and I duked it out in the sands of Africa again. His 1500 point 4th Indian Division against my 1500 point Posizione di Fucilieri. I had two full fortified platoons, a battery of 75/27s, a battery of 100/17s, a full platoon of five M11/39s, and my trusty Falcos. He brought three full Rifle platoons, two full HMG platoons, a platoon of three 2 pdr portees and a platoon of three valentines.
The mission was "No Retreat", which meant I was set up on half the board with two objectives, and blindfury's job was to break my defenses and take them from me. I had to leave three platoons in reserves and one in ambush, which just left one of my fortified platoons on the field. Fortunately all of my fortifications made it down, so despite my lack of troops I had tons of barbed wire, minefields, trenches and gun nests to hold him off. He had his full force to bear, and set up to make a quick charge up my right flank at the unoccupied fortifications.
The game went pretty much as expected, with his valentines moving up to clear the way, while his infantry and HMGs and portees staying back out of the way of my HMG and 47/32 nests. Unfortunately his valentines are immune to my nests, so he can move up without risk. My Falcos managed to do a little damage to them, but my two biggest anti-tank threats, my artillery, started off the board. My 100/17 battery came in, but got pinned down and never recovered well enough to do what they needed to do, and my 75/27s never came in to play.
My M11/39s were surprisingly effective, coming in in Ambush behind his lines, and being able to take out a platoon of infantry and his portees, while suffering moderate casualties in the process. A couple of my HMG nests also managed to do some damage, inflicting moderate casualties on one of his HMG units that wandered too close.
But the end result was the same, his effectively invulnerable valentines rushed forward and took some damage from my Falcos, but could roll through the barbed wire and push my infantry unit off of the objective to secure the win.
At first, I found myself really disappointed. It was another example of me not being able to deal with his valentines, as they marched through and won the day. But thinking on it, that's not really a fair assessment - the way the scenario played out really impacted some of my anti-tank effectiveness. The Falcos did what they were supposed to - they took one valentine out as he mad rushed across the desert. The real failing was with my artillery - they never fired a bombardment. Starting off the field didn't help, and having my one unit get pinned down and never rally was the nail in the coffin. That pinned unit was forced to fire direct, which really reduces their effectiveness against the tanks. If I could have dropped another bombardment or two on them, it would have been an entirely different fight. If I could have effectively neutralized his valentines, that would have left his infantry trying to rush against barbed wire and HMG nests, and we all know how that tends to go.
So I find myself thinking of what I need to do differently. My first thought is to upgrade my 100/17s to 105/28s. For the additional 130 points I gain direct fire AT9 instead of AT7, and I gain an additional 8" in bombardment range. Although those points would need to come from somewhere. I don't want to lose the 75/27 battery, as they still provide effective bombardments. I don't want to lose my M11/39s, as they provide a mobile anti-infantry force. I don't want to shrink either of my fortified platoons, as I feel that would defeat the purpose of playing a fortified army list. I'd most likely reduce my five M11/39s to three L3/35 tankettes. They still have twin machine guns, which should prove to be an effective mobile infantry deterrent. But I'm not sold that the reduction of my tanks is worth the increase in my direct fire artillery strength. In theory, my artillery should never be direct firing, that ability is supposed to be a worse case scenario. Granted, as that last game proved, worst case does happen.
Another reason I don't want to do it is that I feel like I'll be tailoring my army too much to defeat a specific unit. I've never been one to see what my friends are playing, and then build an army specifically designed to beat them. It just seems unsporting and kinda lame. So I think I'm going to stick with my current army build for now, and give it a couple more games before I decide that I need to change something.
*Edit*
It turns out that we messed up the fortification placement, and that I should have only had the fortifications associated with the platoon that I could deploy. Extremely frustrating, as the fortifications cost a lot of points, and are really the point of my army list. I think what I need to do is find some way to add another platoon, so that a mission that pushes at least half into reserves and one into ambush still leaves me the two fortified platoons to place on the table. I don't really want to lose anything, but I think my best option is going to be to take that M11/39 platoon and replace it with two platoons of L3/33 tankettes. I'll have to look at the numbers and see what that does.
*More Edit*
So it turns out my understanding of how we screwed up was screwed up. Turns out fortified platoons in reserves do NOT get their fortifications, and that the bunkers count as their own platoon for set up. So I had six platoons - bunkers, fortified, fortified, howitzers, cannons and tanks. Three had to go into reserves and one into ambush, leaving my bunkers and a fortified platoon on the field. So that much was correct, but placing the barbed wire and minefields from the platoon in reserves was incorrect.
So I think I have this straight, but I clearly need to look at my list. To make sure that my bunkers and fortified platoons make it into the field, I really need to have a minimum of 8 platoons. Seeing as the max platoons for a Posizione di Fucilieri is 10, it should be interesting. But I think I can squeeze some points for a couple units of tankettes, I should be fine.
Nov. 14th, 2011 @ 11:20 am
|
| » Lots of little Indians |
|---|
Hm. That subject line could easily be taken wrong. All I'm trying to say is that I've finished assembling Blindfury1's FoW minis. :-)
It took a while, but amounting to 2000 points of infantry, I can't really be surprised by that. 4 full infantry platoons, a full mortar platoon, two full platoons of Valentine tanks and a full platoon of 2 pounder portees. Not everything that he has, but all that he has to date.
Overall, I'm really happy and impressed. Last game we played was using what we had assembled and on hand, and even though things are still unpainted, I really love seeing all of our stuff represented by actual minis. Shoot, with everything that Blindfury has I look like a shlub - I may have minis but they're typically proxies. Granted, if I just decided to field Germans instead of Italians I'd have been okay, but where's the fun in that?
So from here I go on to building scenery. I have my minefields, trenches and barbed wire to build. I'll need to pick up some big guns too, but the minis budget isn't exactly overflowing with funds.
Posted via m.livejournal.com.
Oct. 27th, 2011 @ 09:36 pm
|
| » Italians vs. Indians, attempt one |
|---|
So blindfury1 and I had a chance to put some of our Hellfire and Back armies to the test. We were able to get a quick pick-up game in at the last FND. The set up was not ideal, on a 32"x32" card table, but it gave us an opportunity to play with some of the rules for the new guys.
Points were around 900, we started with what I had assembled for Blindfury1, which was two full rifle platoons, his HQ and a platoon of three valentines. That brought him up to mid 800s, and adding sticky bombs to his two rifle platoons brought him fairly close to an even 900. I fished through what I could proxy, and came up with about 900 as well, consisting of my HQ, two rifle platoons, a platoon of two anti-tank guns, four M13/40s, five M11/39s and some sporadic Falco air support. I opted for a standard bersaglieri company, as I didn't have the scenery needed to really field the fortified company I am ultimately planning.
Working with a small table, we picked a scenario that put a lot of our troops into reserves, so that we weren't jamming all of our units onto the table. This left Blindfury fielding his valentines, and I started with a rifle platoon and my four M13/40s. The quick and dirty sum up is that his valentines zipped across the table, closing in so that my aircraft couldn't hit them, and knowing that he was just about immune to my other anti-tank ability. I needed to be able to get back and side shots against his heavy armour. Once his valentines were near my objective I turned my focus to keeping that, although once my final reinforcements made it onto the board I decided to make a rush to his side. Only issue being that his valentines could tear my M11/39s to pieces first turn they were on the board, so my desperate attempt to rush his objective was DOA. End result was that I lost all of my tanks, my platoon of AT guns and one of my two rifle platoons, and he had lost a rifle platoon, when he had soundly taken the objective.
A coupe things of note. The small table really hurt me. We started about 30" away from each other, and since he had first move he could move at the double and get his valentines close enough to be safe from my aircraft. Normally moving at the double leaves you fairly wide open, but since his front armour was impervious to anything I had on the field, he could safely do it. If we had a full 4'x4' table, I should have still been able to make at least one good pass against his tanks. I also got to learn the full side effects of the Italian "8 million bayonets" rule. When the Italians built their armies for WW2, their push for quantity led to some sacrifices in quality. The rule means that each platoon rolls a random motivation and training level. They typically aren't too bad - confident trained on average, but my M11/39s came in as fearless conscript. So while they were hard to flap, when the time came for Blindfury to shoot them (which he happily did) he only needed a 2+ to hit them. So his first volley into them he destroyed two and bailed out the other three, effectively taking them out of the fight before they were ever in it. We also got to learn the double edged sword that is sticky bombs. What they do is list your troops as "improvised tank assault 3", it makes them nastier against tanks, but the "improvised" part means there is a chance to accidentally kill yourself. So when he did rush my couple M13/40s he managed to take one out and chase him off, but when he went to clean up my M11/39s (previously neutered by his valentines) he could easily wipe them out, but also managed to take out two of his own guys in the process.
So some lessons learned... Italian tanks are no good against other tanks. I need to focus them on infantry, and let my artillery and aircraft pick up the heavy armour. The fortified company will also help by adding in minefields and other static defenses that he won't be able to just roll over. The artillery will be important, as they do not suffer from the "no friendlies in 16 inches" rule that kept my aircraft limited. His valentines had a very hard time against my dug in troops - the lack of HE ammo meant he needed to stick to machine guns to dig them out, and my bulletproof cover makes that very difficult to do.
But I think the most important lesson to be learned here - no small tables.
Oct. 9th, 2011 @ 02:37 pm
|
| » Magnets on tanks?!? |
|---|
Why didn't I do this before?
Really, it only made sense. I love rare earth magnets, and I hate the turrets falling off of my tanks. Especially after Gencon, where I had a couple tanks lose MGs because somebody picked up the tank to look at it, and then promptly turned it upside down, only to dump the turret to the table.
Battlefront's website details magnetizing some of their stuff, but their tanks are solid resin bodies and turrets, so it's a fairly simple matter of drilling out some holes and gluing in magnets. Most of my tanks are made by Old Glory, which means they are cast metal, with hollow turrets and bodies. But after sitting down and magnetizing the turret of my BF P38(t), I decided I really needed to play around with magnetizing my OG tanks.
The solution was actually quite easy. I filled the turrets with modelling putty to mount a magnet in, and using a piece of bent paper clip, I put a little metal support bar in the turret hole on the body. The bar bends up and in a little, so it actually contacts the magnet, and holds quite well. Not as well as magnet to magnet contact, but well enough to hold it in place against accidental tipping, and also only uses one magnet per tank. I also had an issue where direct magnet on magnet would sometimes strip the magnet out of the putty, so bent paper clips it is.
So it looks like now on my hobby to-do list is magnetize all of my other tank turrets. At the very least, I'd like to get magnets on one set of my "Tanks in the Desert" sets. That plus some unit number decals would finally "finish" them off, so I can wipe them off the slate and fully focus on other stuff. Between all of the early war stuff I have to assemble and paint, as well as all of the terrain I have to build, I'll be plenty busy.
Sep. 29th, 2011 @ 04:17 pm
|
| » Scenery: buy or build? |
|---|
So blindfury1 and I have been moving forward on our respective FoW H&B armies. I've decided to initially proxy my troops and tanks with models from my current panzerschutzen army, and will probably use cardboard cutouts for my artillery.
But that's only part of my army - the big part is all the fortifications. As a fortified platoon, I'll have barbed wire, minefields, trenches, and gun nests and pits protecting most of my troops. We'll probably start with just using duct tape for fortifications, but ideally I'll have actual terrain. Fortunately Battlefront sells all of that, so drop down the charge card and I'm good to go, right?
I'll admit, part of me is tempted. The scenery looks good, and it's easy. But going all the way back to my early 40k days, terrain was something to be made. It's a two fold thing, really. Part of it is that when I was in high school, time was more plentiful than money, and this was also before the internet (shudder), which has made buying specialty items so easy. Another part of it is the hobbyist in me. I get a lot of joy out of assembling and painting things, terrain included. It's the part of me that loves Hirst Arts molds, the part that loves model railroading. So whipping together some barbed wire and trrenches should be a piece of cake, right?
Although that leads me back to the crux of it - that right now I have more money than time. Not that I have lots of money, I just have even less time. So there is something very appealing about just ordering the terrain and calling it done. Honestly though, I'll probably make it. The $100ish I would spend would just as easily become an artillery battery and some troops or tanks, and that's something I can't make.
Sep. 22nd, 2011 @ 02:35 pm
|
| » So it turns out teaching and running a game isn't as easy as playing. |
|---|
This past Gencon, I decided to take the game running much more seriously. I signed up to run my "Tanks in the Desert" Scenario 9 times, and upsized it so I could run two scenarios side by side. It pushed me just past the prerequisite 70 player-hours needed to get my badge reimbursed, and gave me lots of time to enjoy some FoW.
I decided to go all out this year (I ran the same basic scenario last year) by making portable 4'x4' terrain boards, as well as an assortment of hills, rough terrain and oases. So each game was now run on a desert painted piece of board, with a village, and oasis, a hill, and a couple patches of rough ground; all painted. It was actually a nice touch, as I would get quite a few people stopping by to take a look or take pictures. The stuff was a bit of a nuisance to haul around, but not nuisance enough to where I wouldn't do it again. I also put a lot of time into preparing the cheat sheets. I made sure that all of the relevant info was done, and tried to keep it well organized. I still ended up fielding a lot of basic questions, but that is to be expected. The sheets did what they were supposed to, in that every player had something in their hand that they could refer to.
The armies were basic 600 points of tanks, based on the North Africa book. The Brits had an HQ squad of three stuarts, a platoon of three stuarts, and a platoon of three grants. The Germans varied slightly, one army was an HQ of a Panzer 3L and Panzer 4F2, and a platoon of three Panzer 3J(late)s. The other army had an HQ of a Panzer 3N and a Panzer 4F2, and a platoon of three Panzer 4Es. All armies came in around 550 points.
The idea was to create a British army of speed and numbers against a German army of strength and armour.
For the most part the games have run well. Sometimes the Brits crush the Germans, other times it's the other way around. Dice would be a big factor, because no amount of tactics can overcome bad dice luck. But I did come upon a few flaws in the scenario as well. The first few I ran I put the oasis on the German side, which would result in the German HQ holing up and just obliterating the Brits. Being veteran troops, with cover, they were very hard to hit, and their thick armour was even harder to penetrate. The stuarts were all but useless, their 37mm pop guns really needed to be shooting at the sides or backs to be effective. The grants could be more effective with their 75mm hull guns, but once the grants were gone the Brits really suffered. I decided to move the oasis to the Brit side, which then gave the grants a place to shoot from with a little bit more survivability.
The hardest part was that people didn't seem to know what to do with the stuarts. They are fast, but paper thin. To work well, all six really needed to push around a unit, and hope that they put enough shots out to take out a tank or two. People tended to hesitate, and just leave them out in the open to get shot. They also tended to prefer to shoot at the front armor with full ROF, rather than move for a single flank shot. The extra shot is always nice, but against the front armour of the panzers it wasn't very effective.
For the most part people seemed to enjoy the games. There was obvious frustration with some of the earlier imbalances, and definite frustration with bad dice luck. But all in all it went well. I even had one kid who would swing by a couple times, just to watch. He's apparently more interested in minis, but his dad was there as a D&D guy. Being younger he didn't really have the budget for minis, so enjoyed the chance to watch, and definitely enjoyed the chance to sit down and play.
I'm thinking of making some changes for next year - maybe sticking to 4'x4', but moving up to around 900 points. It'd let me add some Deacons or the like, something to add some extra firepower. I still want to keep the Brits primarily stuarts, but having all of their big gun eggs in the grant basket meant that I saw a few games that were over way too quickly. A couple more minis would also fill the time a little better. I ran it for two hours this year (as opposed to one), which gave me more time to set up and go over the rules. It also meant that fast players could get two games in.
We'll see. We may not even go to gencon next year, and I may or may not want to run two scenarios side-by-side like I did. It was kind of nice - it let me get up to 70 hours more easily, but also meant I had to split my attention. Granted, with the no-show rate I had, that was only so much of a problem. :/
Sep. 19th, 2011 @ 03:38 pm
|
| » hello again. |
|---|
Heh, so it's just been over a year since I've last posted. I know I'd been slacking, but seeing that my last post was from Ceri's last birthday... :)
But I decided to get my butt back on here and typing again, mostly encouraged by blindfury1's gaming blog stuff. Since we've been pushing through a new FoW army, he sent me a link to a post of his about the ins and outs of his current ideas. I thought that was a neat use of the ol' LJ, so here we are.
So, to start. My name is wmtrainguy, and I've been playing minis since high school. I started in 40K, mostly because it was what my brother played. So I jumped in feet first to an ork and a marine army, and was hooked pretty quickly. Moving little dudes around, fighting it out, as an introverted high school boy it was perfect. I started with 40K's Rogue Trader, which progressed through a couple revisions. I had a couple moments where I was less than pleased with GW on their revisions, as units that used to be legal were no longer legal. But for the most part it was still a fun game, and the people I'd played with were very easy going.
Enter college, and a lot of my minis stuff took a back burner. It wasn't until much later - my mid twenties I guess, that I looked at all of the minis I had and decided to play some more. I'd known Blindfury at this point, and we'd played a couple games. There were some serious changes to the rules, which really seemed to push the game towards close and dirty. No more slogging it out in the trenches that I had grown up with, it seemed to be more about having the right "super units", and getting in quick and killing even quicker. The beloved 72" range of my missile launchers was gone, replaced by a future where a gun had an in-scale range of 100 feet. But what really lost me was an afternoon in the local GW store, when the clerk told me that I couldn't play my army there, because the minis were old, and they would only let you play what they could sell. Smurf that.
But I still loved minis games. I stumbled upon Flames of War, and it filled two loves - minis and World War 2. I gave it a test at Gencon, and despite a bad teaching scenario, I liked it enough to buy it and give it a chance. The problem with the scenario was that it was about 2000 points, and had three guys a side. The game took too long, and it wasn't easy to get a feel for the game when you were only playing for 15 minutes of a given hour. But I digress.
So I picked up the main rules and the North Africa supplement, and put together a small teaching scenario - some brit tanks vs. some german tanks. Playing that cemented that I needed to get more FoW - I just can't get enough of marching little dudes across battlefields. And FoW is still kinda light and fluffy for a historical game (apparently some rule sets are crazy detailed), but the scale is better, and it's nice knowing there won't be much "codex creep". It's hard to change the stats of something when it's all based on history.
Blindfury and I moved on from mid war North Africa, to early war France, with he grabbing some french tanks, and my grabbing some german panzerschutzen. I decided I wanted to try infantry, and guys in halftracks was too much to pass up. Blindfury also dabbled in french recon, proxying armoured cars and motorcycle troops. As we've learned the additional rules, the games have certainly gotten more interesting. Going from just tanks to infantry changes things, and then adding in artillery adds even more. We've certainly messed up quite a few of our games, we've both lost and won based on messing up the rules, but fortunately we're there for the good times, and not necessarily the win.
After dabbling in early war europe, we moved back to Africa, only this time in early war. We're currently building two armies - Blindfury with his 4th Indian Division against my Italian fortification. Haven't played yet, but the army building alone has been interesting. The Italians just weren't that great, but having gun pits and barbed wire and airplanes and artillery at my command, I'm hoping they'll prove to be a tough nut to crack.
So that's where I stand at the moment - up to my nipples in 15mm World War 2. My brother has pointed me towards another WW2 ruleset - "I Ain't Been Shot Mum", which looks interesting. Nice thing about IABSM is that I can use all of my FoW stuff. So we'll hopefully give that a go, just for some variety. I also finally got my Warmachine stuff done and painted, so I'll have to refresh my memory on that as well.
Sep. 18th, 2011 @ 09:34 pm
|
| » Some things that suck |
|---|
I consider myself a pretty easy going guy. I typically don't make waves, and I'll put up with a fair amount of garbage from people. Bad service at restaurants, bad products... I tend to not make a stink. But sometimes, I have to make exceptions.
Comcast... YOU SUCK
( Let me count the ways you suck... )
Bank of America... YOU SUCK
( Yeah, you suck too... )
So I had to get some of that off my back.
Aug. 19th, 2010 @ 09:16 am
|
| » Back from Gencon |
|---|
and back to the grind...
So Gencon 2010 is over, and it's back to work time. A little sooner than I'd like (the bad part of new job and the vacation time reset), but it was bound to happen. And if being tired and at work today helps me keep some time for Ceri's birthday, than it is for a good cause.
( The Games )
( The Trip and Stuff )
I know I'm missing stuff, but that's an unfortunate side effect of the way my brain works. I really need to get on to what I should be doing, which unfortunately is not Gencon anymore. :(
Aug. 10th, 2010 @ 09:54 am
|
| » braiiiinz hurt.... |
|---|
Just needed to distract myself a little, I'm going through these PE prep questions, and realizing I don't remember a damn thing. I can work my way through it with a little guidance, and by the time I'm done a problem, I understand it. The issue is the amount of time it takes to finish them, I only have 8 hours for the exam. Sheesh, I never thought I'd think of it as only 8 hours...
I'm at least thankful that I'm allowed to sit here at work and do this. Originally I was going to take an in-class course, but that was canceled. Turns out to be a good thing, as the class would have been 2 nights a week for something like 10 weeks. Instead, I am doing an online course, which means I can sit here at work and do it, leaving my evenings free(ish). It's also meant that my days are busyish, as opposed to the slowness that is the current Xanadu slump. Granted, things are picking up on that end, so we'll see.
But I am currently going through electrical circuit theory. Not the stuff I do here at work, mind you, but garbage like Kirchoff's laws, and node analysis, and all that entails. I'll have to admit I've had my brain asplode a few times - it's been a long time since I've done any of this!
But I'll consider myself successfully distracted for a bit, so I guess it's time to get back to work.
Aug. 6th, 2009 @ 03:35 pm
|
| » AAAAGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|---|
Just have to get a bit of frustration out - I'm getting tired of all the stupid right wing shit that people are spewing. I've learned better than to argue with them about it - I'd have better luck convincing the pug that he doesn't want to eat something!!!
I guess what really sent me off this time is something on Facebook - an old friend of Ceri's posted a link about health care and taxes, and how there is a good probability that taxes will go up for health care spending. I guess what really pisses me off isn't the link, it's the comments. People with there "see, I told you a democrat would raise taxes!", even using the term 'sheeple', as if we were all livestock that will do anything as long as Obama says it (never mind that they can act like livestock to whatever the Rush Limbaughs say) - it really pisses me off! I fully know that people have different opinions, and I can get behind that. But the lack of respect really gets me. I voted for Obama because I think he has a better idea for where the country needs to go. Not because he is black, or because he is a democrat, or any other stupid reason people come up with.
But someone always throws out that eventual "tax and spend liberal" shit, and it really sends me through the roof. The data for the US deficit isn't hard to find, and the FACTS clearly show that the democrats tend to reduce the national deficit, and the republicans tend to increase it. OH NOES - TEH TAX AND SPENDERS ARE COMING!!! It's better than the fucking spend and spenders! But for some reason the fact that Republicans are increasingly selling this country and it's assets to China is okay with them. FUCKING IDIOTS!!!!
Here, take a look: Wiki's deficit page
They even have a convenient table and graph, which clearly shows that for the past 40 FUCKING YEARS that every Republican has left office leaving A GREATER FUCKING DEFICIT, and that every Democrat has LOWERED IT. Now I'm not saying that Obama is going to be the next messiah, and I have no idea what actual effect his current fiscal policies will have in the long run. But the fact still remains, all you people bitch about "tax and spend liberals", even thought "tax and spend" is actually "fiscal responsibility". So please, SHUT UP.
Aug. 3rd, 2009 @ 10:06 am
|
| » Memeage |
|---|
I know, I do tend to like the memes. Borrowed from deathquaker
Pick ONE artist and answer the questions using their song titles, trying to describe yourself as best you can.
I am using Pink Floyd. Maybe it's cheating, since they do have an extensive song library (I've been listening to it for the past three days straight, no repeats), but I'm going to go with the "I have an anime chick wearing a Dark Side of the Moon shirt tattooed on my arm" and use it anyway. :P
( Cut to avoid mega-long post )
Jul. 23rd, 2009 @ 09:50 am
|
| » *grumble grumble grumble* |
|---|
So I officially HATE UMBC. They were supposed to be doing a PE prep course this fall, one that would be conveniently located, would run twice a week, and would help me ace my exam. Well, they apparently decided against, and when I called to find out what the deal was, I got a "sorry, well run it in the spring". Never mind the cock suckers said last spring "we'll run it in the fall". But taking it in the spring is a bit too late for my October exam date!
At least I did find another option, an online class. Only problem is that it started yesterday, and it'll probably be a week before the course material gets to me. So, thanks again UMBC, for completely FUCKING me! Yay!
Not that it'll be too big a deal in the end. It's a mostly self-paced course, so if I am a week behind, I'll be able to make that up. It's more of a nuisance than anything, if UMBC had canceled their class sooner, I would have been able to start this class on time, rather than spending next week trying to play catch up. But, I guess it is what it is.
So dinner at Pie Day is in order, where I can at least have a nice dinner and a beverage with my honey tonight. I'll take it.
Jul. 21st, 2009 @ 04:29 pm
|
|
|
|
