Remind me never to play my Cromwells against you...

@@FogofWar I'd be worried a bit if you had some Challengers with them

Ah. Cool. Thanks for the information!

If these are your third set of Jagdtigers, you are *very* dedicated! I quite liked the Zvezda Jagdtiger kit - but it does have the limitations of a snap-fit kit.

The pricing on the Battlefront website is very odd. You can buy 1 sprue for £8, the clash of steel box with 2 for £16 or the flames of war box with 3 (and a decal sheet) for £32. The decal sheet is therefore worth £8.

@@rorythomas9469 Yeah. The prizing is a bit odd. But I guess most wargamers have decals at home. And the decal sheet that comes with the three vehicle box has just division markings, not markings for a tank hunter bataillon at all.

Thanks Trekan. Good point about the 2-kit box for Clash of Steel. That's a good option.

That’s an interesting viewpoint. I consider myself a “historical” player because I try and use lists that align with real units and TO&E. Even tactics where the game system allows it. I suspect you are making a cynical comment about the ruleset. There are certainly abstraction in the game, and mechanics that simplify or abstract real-world tactical considerations. It’s a game, not a simulation. Any game has to decide on a balance it is comfortable with between realism and playability. Clash of Steel and World of Tanks draw this line in different places than Flames of War. You need to find the game system that strikes the right balance for you.

@@FogofWar There are no official Battlefront products that depict historical scenarios/OOBs with any attempt at accuracy and completeness, their products typically ship with/provide as options only tanks and a few support units, many starter sets not even including infantry - not a complete line of products that would allow a true historical OOB at anything except perhaps a very small unit level. If you look at the multitude of pictures of FOW games, and the competition games you can see if you have the opportunity to attend events with FOW players, they look like tank parking lots. I see no attempt at historic realism from Battlefront. I get that it is a game - a non-historical game that uses a subset of actual historical weaponry. I have played FOW more than once and the experience established my opinion. By all means have fun playing FOW if it is your cup of tea, but don't kid yourself about it being historically accurate. Not trying to hate on you, I just thought it highly ironic to hear you say "historical".

Thanksfor that.

The Maus is already available in Flames of War through the Late War Leviathan’s PDF released recently. It’s on Battlefront’s website if you want to download it.

The M113 Fire Support Vehicle was uniquely Australian. The US never fielded it. So unless you can take this as a support choice, I think the answer would be no.

Welcome aboard!

We do like to waffle, but we try and keep it within reason!

@@FogofWar Seriously, yours is minimal plus it’s interesting and relevant. I’ve listened to some other channels and thought “we’re 90 minutes in and talked about everything BUT the subject matter”.

My metal pair are unassembled, and will likely stay that way.

Thanks for that!

Thanks Les. I knew someone did!

Thanks you. Glad you enjoyed it.

Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching.

Yeah. We discussed that in the Team Yankee Dynamic Points livestream. Early/Mid/Late would help, but it might be too late to make that work with all the published books that would change. I guess the DP is another way to address this.

Isn't that what checkpoint Charlie is going to be?

@@el-cee CC is pre-TY era.

@@Subcomandante73 This depends on how you look at things. If we go stricly by years, Team Yankee is 1984 - around 1995 or lets be generous and say 1990 with a war ongoing tech would have developed faster. So yes, by this Checkpoint Charlie is NOT Team Yankee. But if people say "We want early Team Yankee", most mean, they want a Cold War gone hot with "1. gen" MBTs. The 1. gen/early time line would be Checkpoint Charlie (1961) - Nam (1963-72) and Fate of a Nation 1967. Using that logic 1961 is very early, lets expand shis a bit and say ~1960-75, when Leo 1, M60, T-55 and Chieftains were the new stuff and M48 or Centurions were already getting older (and got upgraded to keep up). With a "mid war" being 1975(+)-1985, when the next generation of tanks entered service, basically what we had for Team Yankee V1. So by the logic of "Team Yankee" early war can not exist, but this is what people want more. In game terms, there is not a staggering difference between a Leopard 2 A4 and A5, but between a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 this is the case, so this would be, where a split would be interesting.

It does make a difference, doesn’t it!

@@FogofWar Indeed it does!👍

So, the Aussie one goes on the bustle rack. The original M1 didn’t have one at all. An interim one was added to the hull rear for a while before they settled on the bustle ravk.

@@FogofWar Thanks for the info

We just BF to get off their bums and add AC IV to the Clash of Steel game ;)

That’s only for export. Emu Export…

Yeah. This sort of stuff is exactly what 3D printing is best at. Detail pieces, conversions, tweaks and the like.

I'm not an expert in South African tanks, but it looks like a 20-pdr armed, Meteor-engined build would work as a Mk.1, while a Continental-engined, 105mm-armed would work as a Mk.2. After that, you'd need to 3D-print the correct turret, I think. Hope that helps.

Thanks for that! I’m excited for the M103 as well, and another viewer is really hanging out for the M48 in plastic.

That would look impressive!

You have great excitement and enthusiasm there! As a historical player, I’d be cautious about folding too much prototype and fantasy stuff into Flames of War, but having the option for people who do want to is great.

It is coming!

Yeah. I prefer my building mistakes to be my own! You can see the turret construction on my example was pretty rough.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed the video. The WoT card should translate fairly easily to Tanks, shouldn’t it?

@@FogofWar I would think so but I'll likely make up my own numbers. Fortunately the people I play with are good sports so won't complain if it is overpowered. And if so, I'll just make a new one !

Yes. That’s going to be the issue with many of these. I want to build the kits, but am not convinced about playing some of the more fantasy tanks.

Yeah. The assembly was a bit rough in places. It can be variable on the pre-assembled kits. That’s why I’d prefer to build one from scratch. At least any screw-ups are my screw-ups that way!

Hi there?

@@FogofWar idk I'm new here I saw your ztz99a vid

Cool! Thanks for watching. Welcome to the channel. The ZTZ-99 video was fun to make.

@@FogofWar are you going to make videos for the other 4d model kits??

Mine came from the British Armoured Squadron box set. Not sure what decals are in the Troop box.

It is a great tank.

It is designed as a “gateway drug” to introduce new gamers to this sort of game with a view to playing TY and FoW later.

Eric - I have always had a soft spot for the T-44. However I did enjoy the new T-54-1 as well. I expect these will work in Checkpoint Charlie if it ever makes an appearance.

Of all the nations in LWL, the Soviets are the most grounded in reality. A 1946 scenario with them is not a big stretch…

@@FogofWar Yeah, the Germans either get cancelled vehicles that were never due for mass production of completely fictional amalginations like Panther II being a combination of a new production type hull, a smaller turret and a larger gun that all cannot work with eachover due to the fact it all literall collides with eachover. The US gets vehicles that were far too heavy to actually transport across the atantic or make bridges that could let them cross rivers, honourable exceptions to the T28/T95 which got cancelled and the T29/30/34 series of technology demonstrators again not intended for service.

The T-44 was used in action in Hungary, but in 1956. They were part of Soviet efforts to suppress an uprising, operating in Budapest.

The T-54-3 (1951) and T-54A/B were visually similar and by far the most produced version of the platform that formed the bases for the early T-55

There were three units issued T-44, but they were trials units and not used in action. I’m sure it wouldn’t take much imagination to craft a quasi-historical scenario where these were used operationally.

Glad the Leviathans PDF will be useful. Good luck with all this. It sounds like it’s really going to suit you.

I love the idea of the kids coming to Uncle Rick’s to play tanks. My best friend’s kids played Tanks and FoW when they came to visit. People play for different reasons, and historical gamers are drawn to FoW by history, in many cases. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for ahistorical and fun games too. PS. The Australian distributor has a pile of starter sets they can’t shift. I know that doesn’t help you. But it might help Adam after I stole this one from him.

It is a problem. The tank that looks wonderful on paper will always look better than the real thing that proved to have limitations - even limitations like the laws of physics that paper tanks don't have to deal with! They do make the Soviets cheap to try and balance it. However there are fun things like IS-7, T-10 and so on coming for the Russians. Maybe this will help? But the Soviets are the underdogs as the game stands at launch.

Yeah. Yay for the T-44/T-54!

There wasn’t enough “new” plastic for me to order the Brit/German set. I’ll buy a Tortoise box set instead.

@@FogofWar I don't have the KT2s and the Maus so it is worth it for me and it will fill the commet list I am making as well.

Thank you. It is fun.

Thank you. It's no fun without the added history. Good luck with developing your game!

@@FogofWar cheers. I have some WW1 Americans, a "Great War" boxed set that should start me off with Infantry and field artillery for a more realistic setting

Good luck on the table!

@@FogofWar Thank you!! Keep up the great content!

I think the only place it is available is from Blitz&Peaces in Singapore.

Glad you found the video helpful!

Forgot to add, the 4D Model version also doesn't seem to have a hole at the end of the barrel like your kit does, it is solid at the end.

It's likely you are correct. The marketing wasn't easy to follow, and the seller didn't include a box.

It was a good kit.

Challenger I was in service from 1983 until 2001 with the British army. So plenty of scope for using them in the late Cold War. If you are asking why my force didn’t use them, they hadn’t been released for Team Yankee back then.