วีดีโอ

Good point Soren. We were too focused on the units and not on the assault bubble. Thanks for watching!

@@tomdudley5314 good aggression from Brian and Dave nearly drove him off.

@@charliefells6870 hello Charlie, all good here. It was an interesting game. I did think Dave might turn it around at the end there.

Thanks, it was a great game that swung back and forth. We have another on Friday. Thanks for watching!

@@Anvilarm07 they didn't stand much of a chance. The Brits needed to roll a few poor saves and that didn't really happen.

Last man standing!

@PanzerSchule if peter had passes did the Germans have anything within 8 inches. A whole battle based on a 50:50 roll.

@@valleygamingfowmesbgswl I think there was a Pz III in the wood within 8 but the Yanks may have killed that or the Germans may have failed their last stands. Very much everything on the roll of one dice.

@@Anvilarm07 thanks! What works for you is the best option to take. You'll know yourself if you want to try something new.

No, "hull down" is the same as being in cover.

@ plz cite the page number in the rulebook for declaring units hull down. It aint there - is it?

@@soerenkepler hull down is a way to express concealment by hills. See page 54 of the rulebook.

@soerenkepler I take it you've not read my comment providing the page number? It's 54.

@@PanzerSchule it takes 50% concealment to claim concealment. You cant just put tanks on a hill and declare them hull down, if LOS reveals more than 50%. There is no "declaring hulldown". You move your models, and check that 50% or less is revealed in which case the tank is concealed. Should the opponent engage in such a way to get more than 50% los, then concealment is lost. Nowhere in the rules is it stated that you declare a model hulldown. There is a historic reference to it, but thats all

@@richardasher4602 it was a great watch. Good moves by both players but fate intervening turn by turn.

@@vandpubsell shame there had to be a loser in this one. It was a great game.

@@tomdudley5314 it was a great game to watch. Could have gone either way even in that last turn.

@@PanzerSchule A sign of a great game when both sides are needing last stands to potentially to win the game!

@tomdudley5314 I was worried the game might fold in just one turn with small armoured forces on each side. But Flames can be very dramatic.

Cheers and thanks for watching!

Fingers crossed for a re-release!

Thanks! I do miss the character of the resin sculpts. Have a great Xmas!

Willing to sell some

@ alas still need what I have at the moment but perhaps one day

Thanks! I've been painting FOW for 15 years but I've painted for a lot longer than that. I was a regular finalist at the early Golden Demons. I paint a lot of classic sets as I'm a full time commission painter which is great.

Thanks! a great project and something different from my usual diet of LW Germans.

Thanks! BF are often led by what's popular in the media so there may be a chance for a re-release. Fingers crossed. Enjoy painting these yourself when you get round to them. They are very characterful.

Thanks Phil! Have a great Xmas and enjoy any painting time you can fit in.

@@raineycollinslawyers cheers Alan. All the best to you too.

I was worried about the infantry having no personal weapons against the armour. Not like LW at all! Peter may have done better if he was more aggressive with the Tiger and if my reserves hadn't arrived perfectly.

@PanzerSchule did laugh at your howitzers and their firepowers. Especially the crucial one against the tiger lol

@valleygamingfowmesbgswl that was a classic FOW moment.

Looking forward to seeing it Rob.

I don't have any real experience of Hungarians myself in MW. I might try their infantry in a game.

I always like to get some Lees in my MW Soviet games. Thanks for watching!

@@FrogB44 Vallejo can be a fragile paint especially on metal. It shouldn't flake off though. I've not experienced that. I rarely if ever apply the shade coat by airbrush. Perhaps brush painting it on will help.

Thank you! Makes sense as paint in the airbrush is thinner than brush on, I’ll go over them again with a brush just to be sure! Thanks panzer

@@valleygamingfowmesbgswl it was a brave effort but Italian armour doesn't present much of a threat.

@PanzerSchule it really doesn't

I use a light/dry earth colour pigment. When it is washed on it acts like a shade but in reverse. So it brings the base features into focus, lighten things up and gives an earthy finish. Glad you are enjoying the videos. Thanks for your support!

I would normally take HMGs too to round off my infantry. But the force build at 95 points meant I couldn't fit them in. My MW collection isn't evry big or flexible.

@PanzerSchule I really liked those Grants, have you done a painting video on those?

@@adambrooker5649 The Brits had the best camo schemes in MW. This is 2RTR or 3RTR, I can't quite remember. I painted these before I was in full flow with tutorials.

I just find the system a tad tedious now but have and will continue to support Frank for his efforts and because I know how hard it is to keep pushing stuff out on TH-cam . That said I find the system is reall not based on a historical grounding, no real tactics and might as well be is one sense space marines vs panzers which alas I am sure is next steps. Tables just too crowded and no space for manoever or deeper thinking . No one doing fow here anymore where we are but we continue to develop what we are doing and just loving that with big Italian infantry battles as we prepare to fight the whole North African campaign in 2026. Next year is finish the campaign and complete the rules and MWG handbook. Frank does his best but I think we need fresh systems, games and ideas in wargaming but heck that’s just me.

I've never used Italians myself but I get the impression that Infantry are the stronger element in their force.

@@PanzerSchule The less weak element would be a more accurate description :)

@@militarywargaming7840 Italian armies very much epitomise this problem with FOW. Don't get me wrong, I think v4 is a wonderful wargame system (with the emphasis very much on the game) - it's certainly better than v3 but in order to make the Italians competitive historical liberties have had to be taken. For example: The principle tank, the M14/41, is nowhere near as capable as it appears on the table. There is no way they should have six mg shots - they only had an AA mg because the co-axial one was taken out and mounted on the top, and the Breda mod 38 mg is by far the worst tank machine gun ever devised...its inaccurate, it has a very low rate of fire and a terrible tendency to jam. Similarly, they've been given HEAT to compensate for their low AT stats. Ok the Italians did indeed develop a HEAT round for the 47mm gun, but it didnt work because that is just too small a calibre to make a decent HEAT beam, and the round was withdrawn in less than six months. Italian tankers were incredibly brave, but a 2+ remount is really stretching it, particularly for a tank that was nicknamed "the mobile coffin". It goes on and on. The ultimate expression of this is the absence of a v4 Eastern front Italian option. Hungarians and Rumanians yes, Italians no. And at their peak the Italian army in Russia was a quarter of a million men. Its a substantial force. My suspicion as to why they are not included is that Battlefront have realised that no amount of jinking with the equipment and stats is going to make them competitive. Eastern Front Italians (which is how I started in FOW) have basically broken v4.

@ in my humble opinion FOW is a game of war per se not a wargame. Wargames require a lot more in terms of planning and decision making and it certainly is not about points but Orbats. People spend hours on points and it appears very little time on planning or tactics because this is purely a game and this is the grist behind the system. More beer and pretzel than useful for wargaming for us, although I love many principles notably the faster play as we use pressure testing. However, again FOW is too reductive and really geared I sense to competition. Given this, as you say, it is hardly surprising all you see are tanks and better quality Italians. BF don’t represent the capabilities well or include the lesser known vehicles any more, it being all plastic box sets which they just squeeze into lists. The old kit I collect because it is really great but for me a prescriptive tactical system is a limited one. It depends what you want and of course what you can re create but I believe the table size is way too small for the amount of vehicles and this just makes it look and play poor, because range, cover and visibility, crucial to modern wargaming, is again very limited in the system. Anyways we shall be covering lots of this in the handbook. My best wishes in the meantime and we will be doing some big Italian infantry battles in the New year in our campaign once the new wargames room is finished.

@@tomdudley5314 fauling firepower was fine. The Italians remount was only 2+...

I've asked when they will be back in stock!

It would probably have to be my first, Romanian. All sorts of infantry and guns, cavalry and lots of vehicle types.

Cheers Glenn!

Cheers Alan, Peter has put a lovely table together.

Cheers Alan, thanks for watching.

@@tomdudley5314 cheers Tom. I'll need to play my Jagdtigers again sometime.

and that would be a flocking nightmare!

@@whips_and_buckets thanks! I hope you found the guide useful.

Here is a link to the MIG website but it will be available from many other sources too if convenient for you. www.migjimenez.com/en/tools-brushes/524-camouflage-masking-putty-amig-8012.html

@@misterballista currently, most of my commissions are FOW. Probably about 90%. As for gaming, I only play one or two games a month and that is FOW. I may have the opportunity to start another game type next year. If things go to plan!

​@@PanzerSchuleWow, I'm surprised that FoW alone keeps your business going. I assumed it's popularity had taken a hit after 4th hit. I guess I was wrong!

@misterballista I've painted FOW full time over a total of 7 years of the last 14 and always had more work than I can cope with. But that is still not a huge pool of clients. But it is enough for me.

@@glenngosline1710 cheers Glenn!

@@basicminiaturepainting thanks! And thanks for watching.

You can if the tanks are in the gun's arc of fire. LFTF covered it too.

@PanzerSchule read up on it too. Not that it comes up much

@@valleygamingfowmesbgswl most assaults against AT guns do tend to come in from the flank.

@@PanzerSchule you didn't like your grants for some reason that game

The Grant's did do better than I could have expected against the AT fire. It could have been over in a couple of turns.

I have quite a lot of armies covering all the late War Nations and some Mid War too. There should be a lot of Mid War battle reports coming up on the channel in the next few months. Any questions, just ask. Thanks!

@PanzerSchule hard to find here

@Mikedadof2 that's a shame. Must be very frustrating.

Cheers and thanks for watching!

Cheers and thanks for watching!