PDA

View Full Version : USA as a starting army?



Skewiff
03-05-2012, 03:47 PM
Hi, Im about to take the plunge into the world of FOW, but there are many books, and to be frank (and earnest) , Im a little confused.

I would like to play the USA, as no one else has , but wanted to know what book I should get that contains a good army list for a tank oriented battle force?

Or is it that the USA and their "weak" tanks are a little weak themselves still?

thanks in advance for the advice.

Grovel
03-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Are you looking at Early, Mid or Late war? Might help with getting a response if you could narrow it down.

Skewiff
03-05-2012, 04:17 PM
Apologies, My fellow new starter is interested in playing Mid War on the basis that it allows you to move forward or backward in time once we find our way ...

GrogDaTyrant
03-05-2012, 05:05 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, most Mid-War lists for the Western Allies (Brits and US) will be found in the North Africa book. Since the US entered the war during what Flames of War considers 'Mid War', you probably won't be seeing any US lists for Early War. However in Late War there are quite a few options open in the forms of Casino, Turning Tide, and a few other splat-books.

Regardless of this, Mid War tank oriented lists work alright for US. Sure you don't have anything that can engage a Panther or Tiger1e to the front, but you're not exactly hurting on options. The standard Sherman 75mm is still capable of flanking either of those, and the M10 can still bust through the front of a Tiger (with some luck). The drawback however, is that Mid-War tank lists tend to be a bit slim, as tanks in general during Mid War are costed rather high. Still you shouldn't have too much issue, and for all the 'big toys' the Germans get, they pay tooth and nail for them. A platoon of Panthers or Tigers are not cheap at all, and will set a German player back considerably. And that's saying nothing of other 'seemingly invincible' MW wonder weapons like the Ferdinand.

Another thing to consider is that Flames of War is a combined arms force. You will probably want some other supporting elements in your list(s) beyond just tanks. Infantry, Artillery, Air Support, or Recon are all solid investments. And air support in particular has gotten a much needed boost from the v3 rules, now that it auto-ranges in on anything in the open and over 2" from cover/buildings. For all the armor of a big cat, it's top armor is still at best a 2... and Air Support has a nasty tendency of blowing through that. Likewise Bazookas tend to give your US troops some substantial power when in combat with big tanks, since they have a nice Tank Assault rating and will always hit Top Armor, or at least Side during Defensive Fire.

Ultimately the US have plenty of dirty tricks up their sleeve, so don't think for an instant that you've picked 'the weak army'. You'll find that Flames is pretty well balanced (well, more so than other game systems), and spamming the 'biggest and best' stuff isn't always the best idea. A Tiger 1e for instance, is really no more threatening to a Strelkovy Horde than a Pz4.

Enigmai
03-06-2012, 08:43 AM
Mid-War US is only found in North Africa so that makes things a bit easier (to confirm Grog's post)

Late-War is a bit more complicated because there are numerous briefings for US forces. If you purchase the Hard Cover 3rd rule book I believe a lot of what is in Fortress Europe will be included and this gives you a very good starting point for US Late-War forces. You also have Casino (IVarious Forces that were in Italy), Hells Highway (Paratroopers), Turning Tide (Normandy and Western Europe), and Dogs and Devils (Special Forces List).

My recomendation is to start out with Mid-War and build a force from there. That will be a great starting piont.

GrogDaTyrant
03-06-2012, 11:48 AM
My recomendation is to start out with Mid-War and build a force from there. That will be a great starting piont.

Indeed it is. I second your recommendation in it's entirety. The US and Brits have the (questionable) luxury of having most of their Mid War equipment carry over to Late War. Barring a few exceptions, building up a LW list from Mid War US/Brit is mostly about adding a few new things to what you already have.

on the other hand Germany adds a lot of stuff to their preexisting MW lists, while making expensive units like Tigers or Panthers a lot more viable. But Soviets probably have the most radical change from Mid War to Late War. For instance the T-26s, BA-10 armored cars, KV-2s, and SU-76i are nowhere to be found in Late War. And a lot of the units that do carry over, have different formations, options, or platoon sizes (soviet company).


Going US (or Brit) for Mid War really is the most ideal way to get a solid mix of stuff that can be applied to either Mid or Late War without too much problem.

bladeofdeath3
03-22-2012, 03:27 AM
US are pretty good Mid War and are excellent Late War. The problems US armies face in mid war is that most of the armies trained. While it isn't the end of the world, german vets will definitely ruin your day. In late war, the americans have a lot more veteran lists which is good. Operation Cobra has exellent american lists, especially the 2nd armored division

Speed Freek
03-22-2012, 09:47 AM
I went with US Paratroopers because they can be used in both Mid War and Late War with the same troops. Also - since they are pretty pricey points wise (but not money wise) I could get a regular sized force pretty economically.

Brother Glacius
03-23-2012, 10:50 AM
US has some nice stuff. Personally, I think a lot of power for the US comes in the form of their infantry lists. Big units, good stats, and equipment to handle anything. Tanks are good support for them. However, the new LW book might actually make an all US tank list a more viable army. I've always felt that combined arms worked best in FoW. US excells at that. With the new rules though, I think you could make a MW tank list that did well. Just depends on the support choices you take.

Misty
03-30-2012, 10:05 AM
My boyfriend swears by the US as the easiest but I always have trouble with them.