Getting that many LAV-25’s is the only thing stopping me from running a Trials squadron! I have a healthy respect for for my ANZAC list after I rolled up a Soviet T-80 Shock list once. And now we have some serious teeth! The M1A1’s look to be a blast.
That was a good talk about WW3 ANZACs. I've been playing around with the Force Builder for almost a week now. ANZAC forces are an extension of British forces but not a stand-alone 1st tier force on its own. The background appears to be that these are just ANZAC forces that were rotating units with the British Army at the time, and the war would be over by the time full forces would have arrived. This is a pity they went this way, I think. What about the Gulf war? We are missing our UH-1s and our towed artillery. So we are missing the ability to bring in our infantry by helicopter while our artillery would arrive by Chinook. It would be up to our forces on the ground to cover the air landings. Our group is looking to correct this in friendly games as the Air Landing rules in Red Dawn. Your army list for the Scorpions was interesting. It would work very well on a table with a lot of terrain. It screames to me what about some Landrovers. It would be a highly aggressive force for hit and run attacks for a game that is about fast movement and concentration of fire power. I prefer starting a game on the defence and switching to the attack at the right moment to finish the game. I do like changing my play from time to time to keep things fresh. However, the Scorpion force is all attack from the very beginning. It still needs air defence and artillery for dropping mines and some very helpful smoke to cover your force's withdrawal into cover before you strike again. It is by its very nature a fragile force, which only adds to the challenge and fun of using this list. I would play it several times with friends to refine and mature the list. For me, I'm waiting for NATO forces book and cards to arrive, and then I have to start from scratch as this will be a new Army for me as I wait for the stores to get new stock in. I've been using Force Builder for years building FoW forces and since mid last year for Team Yankee. I probably spend too much time on Force Builder creating new lists or refining them.Once again, a great first look and chat. Thank you.
There were regular training rotations with British units in the 1980s, as far as I was aware. But they were fairly small. Usually troop-size deployments. Certainly not the large-scale unit deployments envisioned in the game!
ANZAC forces are not my cup of tea, but i can see why people are interested in them. Looking at their forces in videos (i dont have the book until my french arrive), i have to wonder how Battlefront balances formations. Im more a narrative player so i dont know how forces perform in a competetive scene, but sometimes i look at the layout of a formation and i see like 4 units, which i find very fragile. This isn't even consistent across nations. Lets pick the AMX-30 Escadron Blindé & Leopard 1 Panzer Kompanie as an example. The tanks are relatively compareable, but the formation is way deeper for the Leopard 1, than the AMX one. The AMX-30 formation has HQ + 3 units of tanks + 1 tank or infantry, no "supporting" units at all, while the Leopard 1 formation has 1 less tank unit, but that is comensated by 6 possible support choices. At first i thought, that the Leopard formation was updated V1 (Leopard) to V2 (West Germans), but it was not, the formation remained the same, so the french formation is just ... well ...worse. There are other formations across different books that suffer the same way, so this is just an example. Some might agrueably ended up with the intention to be a "second" formation in a list, like some of the paratrooper-formations. Any ideas for a reason?
As far as I know, this is based on research. Doctrine varies from one nation to another, and from one time period to another. For example, some of the changes they made to the ANZACs in this release reflects later research about how many LRVs and MRVs were fielded in a Cavalry Troop. Now it is possible to field historically accurate mixes that weren't possible in Free Nations. But as for your point about organic units within a Troop or Platoon, as far as I know that is driven primarily by historical research. This means some units have plenty of attached units, while others don't. That's not usually a Battlefront issue. That's a reflection of the doctrine of the nation and the force in question. As far as I know...
love the rundown mate, the new cavalry troop option is going to be very popular with anzac players! i do love the skyhawk with the mavericks attached does have an answer for almost every situation you can use air support for
Thanks Trekan. However I think I have an extra blister of TY ANZAC infantry in my stash somewhere. 1 extra rifle team and a couple of CG teams coming up…
Im hoping that this leads to more build / vids!
We'll have to see!
4 A10s are 20pts and 4 Doomhawks are 18? I didn't realize they were that expensive!
The Doomhawks are cheap. Maverick missiles are expensive…
Getting that many LAV-25’s is the only thing stopping me from running a Trials squadron! I have a healthy respect for for my ANZAC list after I rolled up a Soviet T-80 Shock list once. And now we have some serious teeth! The M1A1’s look to be a blast.
Yeah. I want to build one, but can't get any LAV kits at the moment. I'll keep hunting!
I was going to update my Dutch and French……… and now I’ve bought a 100 pts ANZAC force. With 4 Skyhawks naturally. Ozzy camo will look great!
Welcome to the Australian side. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! Oi, Oi, OI!
That was a good talk about WW3 ANZACs. I've been playing around with the Force Builder for almost a week now. ANZAC forces are an extension of British forces but not a stand-alone 1st tier force on its own. The background appears to be that these are just ANZAC forces that were rotating units with the British Army at the time, and the war would be over by the time full forces would have arrived. This is a pity they went this way, I think. What about the Gulf war? We are missing our UH-1s and our towed artillery. So we are missing the ability to bring in our infantry by helicopter while our artillery would arrive by Chinook. It would be up to our forces on the ground to cover the air landings. Our group is looking to correct this in friendly games as the Air Landing rules in Red Dawn.
Your army list for the Scorpions was interesting. It would work very well on a table with a lot of terrain. It screames to me what about some Landrovers. It would be a highly aggressive force for hit and run attacks for a game that is about fast movement and concentration of fire power. I prefer starting a game on the defence and switching to the attack at the right moment to finish the game. I do like changing my play from time to time to keep things fresh. However, the Scorpion force is all attack from the very beginning. It still needs air defence and artillery for dropping mines and some very helpful smoke to cover your force's withdrawal into cover before you strike again. It is by its very nature a fragile force, which only adds to the challenge and fun of using this list. I would play it several times with friends to refine and mature the list. For me, I'm waiting for NATO forces book and cards to arrive, and then I have to start from scratch as this will be a new Army for me as I wait for the stores to get new stock in. I've been using Force Builder for years building FoW forces and since mid last year for Team Yankee. I probably spend too much time on Force Builder creating new lists or refining them.Once again, a great first look and chat. Thank you.
There were regular training rotations with British units in the 1980s, as far as I was aware. But they were fairly small. Usually troop-size deployments. Certainly not the large-scale unit deployments envisioned in the game!
ANZAC forces are not my cup of tea, but i can see why people are interested in them. Looking at their forces in videos (i dont have the book until my french arrive), i have to wonder how Battlefront balances formations.
Im more a narrative player so i dont know how forces perform in a competetive scene, but sometimes i look at the layout of a formation and i see like 4 units, which i find very fragile. This isn't even consistent across nations.
Lets pick the AMX-30 Escadron Blindé & Leopard 1 Panzer Kompanie as an example. The tanks are relatively compareable, but the formation is way deeper for the Leopard 1, than the AMX one. The AMX-30 formation has HQ + 3 units of tanks + 1 tank or infantry, no "supporting" units at all, while the Leopard 1 formation has 1 less tank unit, but that is comensated by 6 possible support choices. At first i thought, that the Leopard formation was updated V1 (Leopard) to V2 (West Germans), but it was not, the formation remained the same, so the french formation is just ... well ...worse.
There are other formations across different books that suffer the same way, so this is just an example. Some might agrueably ended up with the intention to be a "second" formation in a list, like some of the paratrooper-formations.
Any ideas for a reason?
As far as I know, this is based on research. Doctrine varies from one nation to another, and from one time period to another. For example, some of the changes they made to the ANZACs in this release reflects later research about how many LRVs and MRVs were fielded in a Cavalry Troop. Now it is possible to field historically accurate mixes that weren't possible in Free Nations.
But as for your point about organic units within a Troop or Platoon, as far as I know that is driven primarily by historical research. This means some units have plenty of attached units, while others don't. That's not usually a Battlefront issue. That's a reflection of the doctrine of the nation and the force in question. As far as I know...
Where are our Bob semples? You know us kiwis aren't there without our legendary tanks
Armour-piercing, fin-stabilised, discarding-sabot Bob Semple!
@@FogofWar the corrogated roofing armour can literally stop anything!
love the rundown mate, the new cavalry troop option is going to be very popular with anzac players! i do love the skyhawk with the mavericks attached does have an answer for almost every situation you can use air support for
Glad it was helpful.
If you need some minis (Carl-Gustav teams) only looking for STL filse for your 3D printer might be an option.
Thanks Trekan. However I think I have an extra blister of TY ANZAC infantry in my stash somewhere. 1 extra rifle team and a couple of CG teams coming up…