View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:39 pm




Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
V4 EW Autoplay Motostrelkovy 
Author Message
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:35 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Korbel, CA
I've been putting together a SS infantry list for 2017 EW Nats. If I saw this set up against me in missions like FW or BT, I know it would be an auto loss. Even with the increased capability of mortars (I'm taking six), it'd be a slog. With the loss of unlimited smoke bombardments, it doesn't matter how fast the infantry move now if there are three templates able see me and pin down my attacking elements, and if they survive long enough to get within assault distance, who knows how many survivors there are to bust through the endless commie horde. Sure, you can say "tactics" and "terrain," and blah blah blah but in 2.5 hours you only have one shot to do it right. And I'm notorious for not doing it right.

This is what I'm running. Run of the mill, little bit of everything German inf.

SS Infantry
CHQ+Panzerknackers, transports
SS Inf: 3 squads, atr, lt mortar, +panzerknacker, transports
SS Inf: 3 squads, atr, lt mortar, +panzerknacker
SS HMG: 2 sections
SS Mortar: 3 sections
SS AT plt: 3 PaK36s, trucks
Mixed Panzerspah Patrol
Beutepanzer plt: 3 BT-7s
Luftwaffe Heavy AA: 2 FlaK36, extra crew, transports.

It's 1650 points. V4 would definitely make me rethink this. More templates, definitely. Loss of KG made things tricky.


Last edited by Josh on Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:41 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
I'm not sure your SS List could be counted on to even have a close game, let alone win, against the AutoMotoStrelk even in V3, and yes even worse so in V4. Perhaps you'll face a similar list at EW Nats and get to find out for yourself on the V3 side.

There are and always be lists that will have "no chance" against certain opponents and or in certain missions. I don't think that has been different under any edition of FoW and I'm not sure it’s a realistic goal to hope for a game system were every force has an equal chance to beat every other force in any mission. If it was, I think we might have seen it by about now.

Good luck at the EW Nationals.


Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:33 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:35 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Korbel, CA
I agree, but it's still disheartening as loooong time infantry player that you simply can't do anything. If I 'win' the attack roll, then I may as well pack up my stuff and kill some time until the next round.


Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:52 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
I hear you brother! Long time infantry player myself! Even though I was a tanker while in the US Army, I've always preferred playing infantry in FoW starting with my first FoW purchase, the 1500 British Rifle Co set. Actually, it is because 15mm infantry look so much better than 6mm even 10mm figures that I even play this scale at all! Trained infantry has been pretty good on the defense for me, but I dreaded attacking where I knew closing the charges would always be an issue.

At least your force is veteran (I think they are Vets?). That makes it smaller, but it helps when it comes to not picking up those five pins when trying to assault and in V4 when trying to use those Move Orders. One thing that may be useful to your force in V4 is the "Follow" me move order. Even if you are not vets, being Fearless you have better a chance at getting this order to work, making your charge reach a good bit longer than you, and hopefully your opponents, are used to. Not saying that will fix all your woes, it's still an uphill fight with a force like yours in most situations I can envision in V3 or V4.


Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:50 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:35 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Korbel, CA
Everything but the BT-7s and 88s are Veteran, yes.

I'd like to see the motostrelk go up against a mirror image list of itself. That would be a good test.

Only after I graduated college and got a real job could I afford mech transports for infantry, and that seems to work. It satisfies my own mental requirements of speed, ability to advance under armor (sorta...), and insane amounts of MG dice. Works sometimes, doesn't other times. Thought about using them for EW Nats.


Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:26 pm
Profile
Corporal

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 129
Location: Fresno, CA
The moto art in EW are not listed as a gun battery, but by platoon. As such they are still a combined unit. Pg 73, Sov spec rules, Steel Wall, for referance.

This is likely to to changed through adddendum, but at the moment it needs to be treated as a single unit, not 6 two gun units. This makes it very easy to pin and prone to fail morale under v4 due to the 6" cmd range.

I am very familiar with this type of list and there are many counters to it. Agreed, if you run right at it it will break your teeth, but working the flanks works well against it.


Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:57 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
Thanks for the note!

Ed...I do wish you lived near by. Would love to test the crap out of V4 with you. Fortunately I have another "Ed" nearby. He's a good guy and a good friend and he has a lot of Soviets too. He really loves the EW Soviets, but he plays a lot of other forces and period as well. Not quite he Red devotee that you are!

I think when we set this game up we'll allow the two big gun units to set up as two separate units since we are expecting a change anyway. With the 6" command deployment bubble the "uber" unit otherwise would have to set up in a big fat dense block that would be easy pickings for bombardment with way too mean team being stuck under it.

EdForbes wrote:

I am very familiar with this type of list and there are many counters to it. Agreed, if you run right at it it will break your teeth, but working the flanks works well against it.


Thanks for the heads up! ;)


Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:47 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Ed, I know you «play by the errata» to the point that you prefer not to use the updated version of a list to gain advantage of a rules loophole... but its obvious steel wall applies also to EW artillery batalions.

Remember in v4 you can «block/kill» enemy reserves. Also since in V4 tanks cannot move trough other tanks if your opponent moves by mistake a tank pass one of his tanks demand that both his teams are inmediatly destroyed... Im sure you can find other ways to win many 8-1 without actually playing the game. Personally I find such way of thinking tedious on the internet and toxic on the actual tabletop.


Last edited by Soviet Pride on Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:56 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Any way If I was playing in the xxxxxxxx Republic while the Rules Lawyer comitee of xxxxxxxxx decides when a rules can or cant be applied I could simply reduce the artillery battalion to 8 guns that can be deployed in a 20cm radius and reinforce the other indirect fire assets.

Soviet Motostrelkovy Batalon

Infantry Company, from Barbarossa, page 64


Compulsory Motostrelkovy Batalion HQ (p.65) - CinC Battalion Komissar, 2iC Rifle (20 pts)

Compulsory Motostrelkovy Company (p.65) - Command Komissar, 18x Rifle (175 pts)
- Maksim HMG (20 pts)

Compulsory Motostrelkovy Company (p.65) - Command Komissar, 18x Rifle (175 pts)
- Maksim HMG (20 pts)

Motostrelkovy Regimental Gun Company (p.67) - Command Komissar, 4x 76mm obr 1927 gun (70 pts)

Light Tankovy Company (p.58) - Command BT-5, 7x BT-5 (330 pts)
- 8x Replace BT-5 with BT-7 (40 pts)
- 5x AA MG for T-26 obr 1939 or T-26E or BT-7 (25 pts)

Motorised Artillery Battalion (p.80) - Command Komissar, Staff, 8x 76mm obr 1902/30 gun (410 pts)

Guards Rocket Mortar Battalion (p.82) - Command Komissar, 3-ton truck, Komissar, 8x BM-8 Katyusha (160 pts)
- Observer Rifle (15 pts)
- 8x Equip Katyusha with additional crew (40 pts)


1500 Points, 6 Platoons

The list is still basically autoplay with a huge amount of indirect firepower and more than enough direct AT.


Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:43 pm
Profile
Corporal

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 129
Location: Fresno, CA
SP...the rules are what they are, not what you "feel" they should be.


Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:11 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:11 am
Posts: 1781
Location: BLACK COUNTRY England
EdForbes wrote:
The moto art in EW are not listed as a gun battery, but by platoon. As such they are still a combined unit. Pg 73, Sov spec rules, Steel Wall, for referance.



Yep Wayne@BF has already wrote that's on his list of clarifications for V4 . :o

LES

_________________
We stand at the gates of Berlin With two and a half million men With six thousand tanks in our ranks


Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
Played against list one last night with a Czech Panzers. Ended up with a 3-2 attacking the Soviet list in Counter Attack. We used the "More Missions" matrix.

German force was:
HQ - 2 x PzKw-38T
Plt 1 - 4 x PzKw-38T
Plt 2 - 4 x PzKw-38T
Plt 3 - 2 x PzKw-IV
Spt 1 - 4 x 10.5cm NBsw35 Mortars, Observer Rifle
Spt 2 - 1 x SdKfz 221, 1 x SdKfz-222
Spt 3 - Limited Stuka

In the end the Germans lost one of the PzKw-38T platoons and the armored cars. An additional single PzKw-38T was KO'd I lost one mortar. The Soviets lost the BT Tanks, the 76mm 1927s, the Katyusha, and all but one of the 76mm 1902/30's (these ended up KO'ing only a single Panzer). The Soviets also lost 5 HMGs and bunches form the two infantry platoons, but none of these three units was at 50%, let alone down to "Poor Spirits Level."

In retrospect I could have done much better with the Germans if I had pushed the German objective as far away from the Soviet deployment area as I could instead of as close to my deployment area as I could. This let the Soviet infantry move up to it much easier than I was anticipating and concentrate in a way that continued to block my movement toward the Soviet obective. Played 8 turns in 2.5 hours.

BTW, my opponent insisted that the 76mm 1903/30s had to be a single unit of eight. I informed him of our discussions here, but told him I'd go with one unit of 8 or two units of 4 as he wished. He was instant on keeping it as one unit of 8.

Detailed AAR to follow on WWPD, possibly next week.


Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:55 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Nice report, who won the game?


Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:49 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
It was a draw. Germans with 3 VPs, Soviets had 2 VPs.


Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:02 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2840
Location: Madison, WI
There are no draws... :-)

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com


Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:30 pm
Profile WWW
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
Too true!


Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:11 pm
Profile WWW
Sergeant

Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm
Posts: 289
Mutual defeat... the bread and butter of V4 games. :)


Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:03 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
I'm not so sure that's really a problem. I played good game against an equally skilled opponent, with supposedly balanced forces, in a supposedly balanced mission and we ended up with nearly equal result. And I'm supposed to feel bad about that outcome? The problem is semantics. We have been conditioned by the rules to think a draw is bad because of a single statement like "there are no draws." But I'm not seeing any problem really with the term "draw." It is an outcome that I think we would see more of in game that is actually balanced.

After all, is this not what the FoW community asked for in the cries for against "Sitzkrieg?" Apparently we had issues with defensive players winning by "sitting." I suppose the assumption of attack minded players was that BF should change the game to make it easier for them to win against a defensive minded players. But no, BF simply made it harder for defensive minded players to win by "sitting," but that did not mean necessarily that the attack minded player would be winning any more either. If you think about it, this might have been the only option BF had to address "Sitzkrieg" while keeping various force types balanced in the game. "Voila," we'll now see more "draws" in V4 that otherwise would have been defensive wins under V3.

Now some will say "But Tom, we HAVE to have a winner so we'll know who won the tournament!" I'll just say it does not matter how many more draws we will see in tournaments, somebody will still be at the top somehow. We are not going to see tournaments where all players will get nothing but draws. Many games will have actual winners, the players that get more of those actual wins will migrate to the top of the standings. If the rest of us have more draws (or "non-draw" losses)...so what? Really, BF did more harm than good with the inclusion of phrase "there are no draws."

So let's like this bring this back to the OP. The presumption there being that this Motostrelkovy list is an "autoplay" in V4. Maybe it's not so much. In our V4 game above, the list was able to achieve a single VP and was unable "win." It ended up with 2 VPs. If we had been playing V3 the game would have been at least a 4-3 win. So maybe a list like this is in fact hard to beat under V4, but that by no means it's more likely to win. In fact it does not even get the satisfaction of a "draw" because "there are no draws." If it's likely to see a lot of "there are no draws" results (3-2/2-3, 2-2, 1-2/2-1, 1-1) in Fair fights, mobile battles, like we saw here, and now even in many defensive battles, is it really an "auto play" list I'm thinking maybe not so much in V4 and that it might have had better chances for true wins under V3 where it could win more by sitting.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:45 pm
Profile WWW
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 2840
Location: Madison, WI
Tom -

I merely pointed out the term "draw" because I hear it a lot and it does not exist in the game. It is an issue with me, not you or anyone else.

I made the following point in another thread about V4. I think I will expand (a little) on the thought:

We all have a view of the game. Some people have the view of winning - after all, you play the game to win, right? True. But... sometimes we forget the single, most important aspect of the game...

Fun

As in, is it fun? I loved playing Chutes and Ladders with my kids when they were young. Is it a mindless game? Of course! But guess what, it was fun. Hungry Hippos is also fun! And if the only way to get a game in with Wilcox, Desch, Lauterbach, Greenwald, Moore, Sulek, Merrick, Dorais, Leland, Abrisz, Jacobs, Fretts, Hopson, Burgess, etc. is to play V4, then I will play V4. Who cares if the rules are perfect, good or sucks?! I want to play with my friends.

Now, we get caught up in the tournament perspective and min-max building, etc. And yes, this can have a huge impact on the fun aspect of the game. But if I choose not to play V4, but someone new does and they like the game, who the hell am I to rain on their parade!

So draw... er... lose to your heart's content! Just have fun!

Allen

PS - I KNOW I would have fun over the table with you amigo!

_________________
Follow me at:
http://fowarmymen.blogspot.com


Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:51 pm
Profile WWW
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
Totally tracking my brother!

That's mostly what I was trying to get at but maybe not as well as I hoped. I had a good game with a good friend and we both played hard and came out with a nearly equal result. I think I should feel good about that! Even if that were in a tournament setting I should feel good about that! But no..."there are no draws" so we are both "losers" and should both feel bad? Is that really the intent here? We can't enjoy our nearly equal results?

Since BF bumped up the VPs for "wins" by 2 pts, I think they might have also not made "draw" a bad word. Maybe even bump up a draw's VPs by 1 point. This would make the best draw result, i.e. you did not win, did not lose, but killed three enemy units worth 5 VPs. Still lower than the lowest win VP of 6, but still worth something without the stigma of being the "best loser."

I also think there should be extra VPs for each formation that is broken...but that's another discussion.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:25 pm
Profile WWW
Corporal

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 129
Location: Fresno, CA
Tom
The problem by vp awarded by units broken, braking a unit of 2 KT gives the same vp as breaking a unit of 2 light AA guns. Not quite the same.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:31 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2265
Location: Oak Hill, VA
webgriffig wrote:
And if the only way to get a game in with Wilcox, Desch, Lauterbach, Greenwald, Moore, Sulek, Merrick, Dorais, Leland, Abrisz, Jacobs, Fretts, Hopson, Burgess, etc. is to play V4, then I will play V4. Who cares if the rules are perfect, good or sucks?! I want to play with my friends.



My buttocks of death Armored Rifle halftracks stand ready to do battle!


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:32 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:42 pm
Posts: 2265
Location: Oak Hill, VA
EdForbes wrote:
Tom
The problem by vp awarded by units broken, braking a unit of 2 KT gives the same vp as breaking a unit of 2 light AA guns. Not quite the same.


I was thinking of tiebreakers (after wins) instead of BF platoon points just using real points of the broken units to mitigate this issue. With the prevalence of Forces at tournaments, it's not hard.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:34 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: Fortress Knox
Not a bad idea, especially when the 100pt option is spread across all periods.


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:38 pm
Profile WWW
Corporal

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 6:13 am
Posts: 129
Location: Fresno, CA
Tom

Off topic...where did you get your art strike markers you used?
http://www.wwpd.net/2017/03/no-retreat- ... mment-form


Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:56 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

37,709,800 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y