Skip to main content

Road to Nationals Part Five: Lessons Learned

It's been a while since I've updated but since my last post I've played a decent amount of games. Some of my assumptions have proven legitimate but others, I was totally off base.

This was a proxy game, those Marders are actually Semoventes
The Sherman is disappointing for its cost. In the games I've used them they have never been close to cost effective. The best they've done is kill a crusader troop. In other games they were ambushed by Semovente's, destroyed by artillery (after rolling 4 1's), or just hid from Marders. It's anecdotal as hell but so far they've been nothing but 8 point bullet magnets that can't actually take that heat. Even in tank vs tank match ups the American Sherman's still need mass. I'm sure the Sherman works fine if you're committed to them but as support to an infantry list they are simply too expensive. Instead I'm planning on using Lee's going forward. In 100 point lists the Sherman will probably be the better pick but 71 points is what I'll be playing in the immediate future.

A bunch of Crusaders mulching my infantry
For 5 points a tank, you lose one front armour, 4 inches of range on the main gun and one less AT. You also get the Stuart's gun strapped to the top giving you 3 shots total. So for 25 points worth of Lees you get 15 shots (10 75mm and 5 37mm) versus just 6 shots from 24 points worth of Shermans. Since the biggest threat to my big blobs of dough boys is being assaulted/machine gunned by lots of little tanks the lee is the better counter. Stuarts have been great at this but obviously can't tangle with more serious tanks like the lee can with it's AT 9 or 10. Again, I haven't done the hard math on this; I suspect there's some point on a curve where Shermans are more cost efficient versus certain things but I don't think 24 points of  Shermans is really justifiable in a 71 point game.

From that proxy game, they're just Italians. those ATG's and M14/41's
reduced the Stuarts to one active tanks and were wiped out in assault.
On the tactical front, I've learned that everything in American lists can't go unsupported. You really need to hedge your bets; the yanks are just going to take a lot of hits. When I lost those Shermans to some Semoventes on their flank, it could have been prevented with infantry hugging them. I've lost my Stuarts because I've neglected to fire covering smoke, and had my infantry decimated in repeated crusader assaults for want of AT support.

Comments

  1. Jordan V.21 June 2018 at 08:39

    To be clear, the Shermans killed just a troop, not a squadron.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Games and Theory Ep4 Companion and guest article!

Written by Jordan A. Vandergragt, Games and Theory special guest. This time on The Games and Theory podcast we talk about some strategies to up your game and crush your enemies in Flames of War. Much of the podcast discussion revolves around having a "theory of victory". The basic idea is that as long as you build a list that has combined arms, (infantry, mobile firepower and at least one bombardment) you can win any match with the right plan of attack. This means a bunch of different things that we ramble about in the episode, but in this article I'll attempt to explain my personal theory of victory for my tournament list, as well as discuss a bit about modeling and preparing the army. It took me far too long to decide what force to play at the upcoming tournament at FDB in Gatineau. We haven't had many local mid-war events since the new dynamic points came into effect, so there are a lot of things I wanted to try. My favourite force for mid war is the British crusad...
Post a Comment
Read more

Road to Nationals Part Four: The Most Interesting Card in the Game

Flames of war suffers from the same problem that most tactical games suffer from, the lack of interaction with the operational layer. In missions with reserves, 40% of one's force is for the most part out of your hands, even more so if you use aircraft. In V3 the only influence you had over those all important 5+ rolls was your platoon count. Hit that 9+ platoon sweet spot and put your awkward filler platoons in the reserve box, maybe see them on the board, maybe not. V4 is still very much the same in this respect but the new command cards give players some bearing on the reserves system. There are 2 basic flavours of such card thus far: cards that let you re-roll aircraft or reserves and cards which stop your opponent from rolling for reserves or aircraft. The Italians, always the outlier, have a card which nullifies cards which would stop them from rolling for reserves or aircraft.  This is the most interesting card in the game. Now that more direct means of influencing reserve...
3 comments
Read more

Road to Nationals Part Six: Finalizing the List

Having come out the other side of the July Tunisia Firestorm campaign as the highest scoring allied player, I'm quite confident in my Rifle/Lee list. The one major change from that list is that I can take a flight of P-40 Warhawks. In our firestorm, we couldn't have aircraft since aircraft were one of the firestorm units and it wouldn't make sense if someone had ended up with 2 flights of planes. The Mortars have gotten the ax to make way for a second recon patrol and a second battery of T30 assault guns. I really fear 2 things from my opponents, heavy tanks and Marders. I wont have AT above 10 so FA 9 monstrosities could be a real problem. Marders can quickly and easily wipe out my armour and hinder my ability to maneuver much more than 88's and such given my artillery and smoke. luckily I doubt heavy tanks and Marders will be combined. Despite these two threats the list I've built should be able to handle most comers. Most of my list is highly mobile and Le...
2 comments
Read more