Surprised there is no national trait for Artillery. US Artillery Doctrine was incredibly advanced for the time, using pre-computed firing data to coordinate batteries in different locations into precise Time on Target barrages on a single target. Additionally, the Americans had an abundance of modern radios, and forward observers (both air and ground) all the way down at the battalion level that were constantly calling down and coordinating these barrages. Furthermore, the guns themselves benefitted from Americas heavy mechanization allowing them to keep pace with American advances. Couple all of this with the Americans seemingly never ending supply train, and you had a monsterously powerful tool that was available to support nearly every assault or defense with rapid, massed, accurate artillery fire. Combined with Allied Air Superiority, the Americans had a nearly insurmountable advantage when it came to dealing out damage from afar.
Well, nobody mentioned it, so I will. According to some historians and researchers, The stabilizer was fully functional, but as is common with technical equipment in conscripted armies - not every unit was trained in or understood its use. This was interesting, because it meant it wasn't a matter of experience, but training.
I’ve heard continuously conflicting information on this over the years. Honestly I can’t say either of us is right or wrong in any capacity. But I do know they were more or less universally ignored or removed by crews, which makes it a bit of an ahistorical component. But honestly it fits with the armies overall theme and I’m totally cool with it being in the game. We should take our inquiries to the Chieftain and Bovington Tank Museum’s pages to find out.
@@HollywoodWargaming Well as a matter of fact, "the Chieftain" explains in part 2 of his M4A1 sherman tour how the actual stabilizer works. 23 minutes into the video he explains that almost nobody received any training on its use. I recall another of his videos where he explains that there was an armoured division trained in the use of the stabilizer, but I can't seem to find it in a reasonable amount of time.
Jordan Smith I too remember that bit and I 100% believe him. But as it stands with the BA rules I just don’t think it was common enough occurance to call “Historically Accurate”. One could also argue that even if they worked mechanicaly, the fact that nobody knew how to use them means they didn’t truly “work” in practice. So like Tiger Fear its something that the BA rules uses in a false, or at least exaggerated historical context. My choice of words in the video may not have properly reflected what I mean by that. I also want to emphasize that I’m in no way disagreeing with you and it’s good that you pointed that out, as these kinda of conversations are exactly what researching history is all about. And as I mentioned earlier and in other videos, I’d much rather have BA encompass features like this than flat out be like “Nope, stabalizers werent used, so theyre not in the game”. It’s definitely one of those things that adds a lot of fluff to the mechanica of the game and if you do want to play a force that represents the clever few who learned how to use that equipment, you can. Absolutely an overall + to the army and I don’t think I docked any points of the US for that perk.
@@HollywoodWargaming by the way, the stabilizer was mainly used as a quick stop stabilizer. As it was only a single axis stabilizer, effective shots on the move were difficult for anyone except for very skilled gunners. However, the tank could quickly stop and thanks to the stabilizer, get an accurate shot off faster than other tanks in the war. This is assuming that the tankers know how to maintain the stabilizer, which was the primary training deficiency. It was mostly sorted by the late war.
Really enjoying these videos. Very detailed and insightful. Since I’ve yet to play a game, I don’t understand the value of some of the points you make so I will be sure to revisit these videos as I get a few games under my belt
I used to watch all your videos these 3 years ago and it helped me get into BA. I stumbled upon that video and had to rewatch it and guess what. Nothing changed, I still fully agree with everything you said and I am glad someone makes videos like that. On top of it, I thought you stopped making those videos but now I see you started adding new content! I will have to check it out, but I am very glad you didn’t give up on your channel! It is great! Keep going :)
I’m looking into getting into Bolt Action and I love the way the US seems to play. The idea of being able to fire an maneuver every turn in particular, because I hate being penalized in games for not sitting perfectly still all the time. I came here to move models and outmaneuver my enemy, not just win in the listbuild stage and get good roles! When I play tabletop, it’s like I’m off my ADD meds, and this faction caters to that hard. And the Sherman! Holy cow the Sherman! A veteran Sherman in reserves seems so powerful, being able to hide off the board, then come onto the board and get the first shot off on an enemy -again at no move penalty- means you can with a little patience turn that medium AT gun into a super-cheap *Heavy* AT gun, by getting a clean shot at the enemy vehicle’s flanks. I am sad about your verdict on the FAC though, because I was planning on building a hyper-mobile list with no artillery, and the FAC (along with the Sherman’s HE special rule) were gunna fill the role of my veterans-in-buildings buster. But between you and mordianglory it seems like it’d be better for me and my opponent if I dumped them for mortars. Ah well, can’t have it all!
Hello! If you ever do these for Minor nations, I encourage you to review the Greeks! Historically speaking they played a major-minor roll, defeating the Italians before Germany had to step in to secure the region. Your videos are quite good to highlight the rules and give an idea to us new players what we should use to build our armies. Thank you for taking the time to do these videos!
Though I am far from being an expert, I have read someplace of other that close air support was pioneered by the USMC in the island-hopping campaigns, and in any case would not be controlled at the level represented by a skirmish game. Even artillery observers are pushing things for WW2. German radios, for instance, were typically controlled at battalion level and up, while the US had more radios at platoon/company, many officers were not qualified forward observers.
Thanks for the video 😊 I love using my AFO, mainly because I actually place a real airplane model on a stand. It looks great on the table and since I am a casual player…who cares about the game imbalance. Lets see what v3 brings on. Cheers and thanks again
The real elephant in the room that really hurts bolt action as a credible wargame is their handling of MMG's and HMG's. The rule reduce these dominant battlefield weapons to an sub par choice.
13:10 Thank you so much... An American Plane kinda Ended my Game today.... I didn't really Play. I entered the Scenario with my Germans....The Enemy had a few lucky Dice... and that 18 Inch Airstrike took out my AT Gun and Pinned 80% of my Army entering the Board.
Just a historical point about semi-auto rifles: the Soviets had the SVT-40 which was due to become the standard issue Soviet infantry rifle (like the M1 for the US). However the outbreak of war disrupted production and it was never issued to all soldiers though they did get it to around 1/3. In total the Soviets produced 1,750,000 semi-auto rifles during WW2. The Germans used around 500,000 Gewher 41 and 43 semi auto rifles during the war. They also used several hundred thousand SVT-40s captured from the Soviets. The Germans only ever produced around 450,000 STG "assault" rifles so they actually uses more SLRs than the more famous STG. The British, Japanese and Italians used no appreciable quantities of self-loading rifles. At least in the British case this was a result of doctrine that aimed shots were preferable to volume of fire (bizarre given rapid fire training and experience from WW1). Post-war studies conclusively showed that number of casualties directly correlated with volume of fire and marksmanship was not particularly relevant.
No air observers I think taking a Stuart and a Chaffee tank is two of the US best armored unit you can use I’m still torn between taking vet or regular infantry I think that the regular infantry can hold its own with its fire Maneuver but that’s just me
I'm gonna go on record and agree with you on the air observer. I play US (and British and Germans) and I think that the air observer is just a total waste of time. The rules are a pain in the ass and way too swingy and situational. I never take the air observer.
RJ LaRose Yes they are very forgiving due to their mobility national characteristics. They also have very ergonomic and simple armor so you dont fall into the pit trap of buying something like a Panther in a 1k list
I figured. With being a troop focused game it seems like a down the road buy. I plan to try airborne, so to go with that I figured lite and fast tanks and armored cars to start.
@@rjlarose5271 i went with the U.S. Paras as my first army. I wasnt planning on tourney play until i got peer pressured. I quickly found that the Marines are the U.S. bread and butter to the operation. in my personal Opinion. they are almost over powered and now my tournament friends dont want to play them. of course i went all out and got the pershing and a colliope.
Hi, with the national traits you are right they are good and they fit the US by equipment and doctrin, but they are absolutly perfect in the game mechanics Bolt Action uses, which annoys me. If these thing were so decisive in the war, well the american would have won instanly, :-). To rest of you video i think you put the right mixture on it. Thanks for this review.
The Americans would of won instanty with a working port, as soon as Antwerp was up and running things ended very quickly. The Germans were uttery out matched in equipment, air power, and manpower :)
@@dannyhalas9408, in a world where germany would not fight on the eastern front and germany would have sovjet suppoert on oil, no chance for america. In TV and so the Amercans are great. In reality they never won a war on their own in almost 200 years and i do not talk about Granada and so. The americans are either late in the war or they bunch up so many friends that loosing is no option.
@@tabletopgeneralsde310 Even if you take the Soviets out of the equation, which I don't think you can, the Germans would have lost heavily. One of the reasons is the resource crisis which started before the war in the East, fortunately the Germans had massive deficits in food, oil, and essential metals which meant they could never compete with a superpower like America. Trade with the Soviets wasn't enough to even build much of a stockpile let alone fight a protracted war. I think you're being a bit childish here so I'm sorry if you were just being playful, but world wars generally weren't fought alone! Germany had plenty of allies too, not to mention the territory they'd annexed before 1939. But these were poor nations, without the industry to compete with the Allies which backs up my point. Saying the Americans were late isn't really fair either, they'd been propping up the other allied nations from the start. The amount of lend lease supplies given to Germany's enemies was staggering, for example two months after operation Barbarossa the Soviets received enough tanks and spare supplies to build the equivalent of twelve Panzer divisions in the first Artic convoys. That was just the tip of the iceberg. Had the American and Commonwealth armies had to fight the Germans without the Soviets fighting in the East, I could imagine a vast air war which the Germans simply could not compete in. Henry Ford built a 10 km factory which produced one B-52 bomber every half hour, whereas the axis nations couldn't even build four engine bombers.
@@dannyhalas9408, if you put it that way you are running ww2 with russia as a white spot. The vast support of russia would allow germany probably to invade britain, win in north africa, all the fighters which were in russia could defend the heartland europe. You can seperate these things. I only meant from playing point of view, the rules prefer the us forces like no other nation and that im imo a pitty.
@@tabletopgeneralsde310 The US are bloody strong. But I don't think they're unbeatable, like certain factions in another game. Oh, and the Russians were actively planning to attack Germany. And even with Russian oil and rare metals the German air force disintegrated over Britain. I can't understand the life of me what a win in North Africa would really mean for the Nazis. Shipping had to go around Africa anyway and there was precious little oil discovered there at the time and no infrastructure to exploit what we did know about.
while the flavor of fire and maneuver is good, i think the ability is way over the top and overpowered. best ability in the game by FAR, the only thing that can compete is japans fanatics rule - but its not even close imo. a BAR is 5 points and it is affected by fire and maneuver, theres no reason not to fill all of your infantry squads with as many bars as possible, its such a no-brainer that its already ridiculous. now that doesnt make it overpowered in itself, but the fact that your squads can take like 3 bars brings your squad up to 6 shots for 15 points at long range which is way more efficient than taking a lmg for 20 points at 4 shots (even if youre playing germans with 5 shots for 20pts)... so you pay 15 points for 6 shots at 32" which also gets assault from your faction trait. there is no competition for this and its completely over the top in my opinion. also when comparing the germans +1 shot vs basicly getting assault on almost all weapons, hitting better with all of your dice is WAY better than getting a single extra dice. also also, as a japanese player (and many other players will do the same even if they dont play japan), with a typical lmg you trade 2 more men for 1 more shot, because you pay 20 for the gun (which could be two men) and then you also need 1 loader, but 4 shots have longer range. so you rather go 2 more men for staying power (in most cases). BUT with the BAR you trade 2 more men for 6 more shots, which is almost another rifle squad more in damage output AND with semi assault AND with longer range its so dumb balance wise, i cant even. this ability coupled with BARs makes every other infantry unit in the whole game a total pleb...
I agree Fire and Maneuver is the best national trait. Going from Double 6 to 6, and 6 to 5 is some of the most significant statistic improvements you can make in the game and this trait helps make that happen every match multiple times.
even if BARs were 15 points, this would still be a very strong ability (because it also affects ALL of your rifles, which cost nothing). but with BARs being only 5 points its completely overpowered as F i dont even know how my friend loses to my japanese, honestly if i played USA id just spam the hell out of mixed vet/reg BAR squads , take one HE piece and one AT piece, done. playthrough completed. i dont know how you could ever beat this unless you knew my list or i rolled very bad
reinforced platoon sec lieutenant reg 5x9man marines with 3 bars each, two of them vet, rest reg (each squad has 12 shots at 105 points (reg) and 135 (vet), without movement penalty (6 shots at 30")), this shots/point economy alone is just dumb already - even without the faction trait, because bars are just way too cheap. med mortar inex med howitzer reg with spotter and gunshield M4A1 76mm sherman with pintle MG simple, 60 shots with 45 men - 30 shots at 30", all fire and maneuver, med tank with heavy AT and 3 MGs, 2 HE pieces. easiest and probably strongest list ive ever build, took like 10 minutes the med howitzer can also pin out 90% of all vehicles if the sherman fails/need arises
i probably couldnt even beat this with 100men bamboo spam and bamboo spam is absolute cheese and yes i am salty, even though i won the last two battles against my friend. just because of principle. if he knew what he was doing my winrate would probably drop below 20%. maybe even below 10% thank god he doesnt i honestly dont know how every tournament is not won by americans. but then im not a tournament player
the fact that it counts for BARs is even worse, i cant stress this enough. a BAR is basicly other nations lmg. it has half the shots, but its 1/4th of the cost. so its already way too cheap, considering you can cram 3 in a squad. thenadd the fact that american lmg "equivalents" also have semi assault. its so bad dude, there is nothing more overpowered in the whole game as 10pt assault lmgs @@HollywoodWargaming
![MAF Teeski - Whole Thing (feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SHWEj-ndz6g/mqdefault.jpg)
Surprised there is no national trait for Artillery.
US Artillery Doctrine was incredibly advanced for the time, using pre-computed firing data to coordinate batteries in different locations into precise Time on Target barrages on a single target. Additionally, the Americans had an abundance of modern radios, and forward observers (both air and ground) all the way down at the battalion level that were constantly calling down and coordinating these barrages. Furthermore, the guns themselves benefitted from Americas heavy mechanization allowing them to keep pace with American advances. Couple all of this with the Americans seemingly never ending supply train, and you had a monsterously powerful tool that was available to support nearly every assault or defense with rapid, massed, accurate artillery fire. Combined with Allied Air Superiority, the Americans had a nearly insurmountable advantage when it came to dealing out damage from afar.
Well, nobody mentioned it, so I will. According to some historians and researchers, The stabilizer was fully functional, but as is common with technical equipment in conscripted armies - not every unit was trained in or understood its use. This was interesting, because it meant it wasn't a matter of experience, but training.
I’ve heard continuously conflicting information on this over the years. Honestly I can’t say either of us is right or wrong in any capacity. But I do know they were more or less universally ignored or removed by crews, which makes it a bit of an ahistorical component. But honestly it fits with the armies overall theme and I’m totally cool with it being in the game. We should take our inquiries to the Chieftain and Bovington Tank Museum’s pages to find out.
@@HollywoodWargaming Well as a matter of fact, "the Chieftain" explains in part 2 of his M4A1 sherman tour how the actual stabilizer works. 23 minutes into the video he explains that almost nobody received any training on its use. I recall another of his videos where he explains that there was an armoured division trained in the use of the stabilizer, but I can't seem to find it in a reasonable amount of time.
Jordan Smith I too remember that bit and I 100% believe him. But as it stands with the BA rules I just don’t think it was common enough occurance to call “Historically Accurate”. One could also argue that even if they worked mechanicaly, the fact that nobody knew how to use them means they didn’t truly “work” in practice. So like Tiger Fear its something that the BA rules uses in a false, or at least exaggerated historical context. My choice of words in the video may not have properly reflected what I mean by that. I also want to emphasize that I’m in no way disagreeing with you and it’s good that you pointed that out, as these kinda of conversations are exactly what researching history is all about. And as I mentioned earlier and in other videos, I’d much rather have BA encompass features like this than flat out be like “Nope, stabalizers werent used, so theyre not in the game”. It’s definitely one of those things that adds a lot of fluff to the mechanica of the game and if you do want to play a force that represents the clever few who learned how to use that equipment, you can. Absolutely an overall + to the army and I don’t think I docked any points of the US for that perk.
Since the Sherman the US has always had the best gyro-stabilizers, so I think it helps a lot with tone.
@@HollywoodWargaming by the way, the stabilizer was mainly used as a quick stop stabilizer. As it was only a single axis stabilizer, effective shots on the move were difficult for anyone except for very skilled gunners. However, the tank could quickly stop and thanks to the stabilizer, get an accurate shot off faster than other tanks in the war. This is assuming that the tankers know how to maintain the stabilizer, which was the primary training deficiency. It was mostly sorted by the late war.
Really enjoying these videos. Very detailed and insightful. Since I’ve yet to play a game, I don’t understand the value of some of the points you make so I will be sure to revisit these videos as I get a few games under my belt
Hey this was immensely helpful.
I'm just getting in and I knew I wanted to play US but I had no idea what made them special *in* game.
I used to watch all your videos these 3 years ago and it helped me get into BA. I stumbled upon that video and had to rewatch it and guess what. Nothing changed, I still fully agree with everything you said and I am glad someone makes videos like that. On top of it, I thought you stopped making those videos but now I see you started adding new content! I will have to check it out, but I am very glad you didn’t give up on your channel! It is great! Keep going :)
Great video keep up the great work!
US Paratroopers now have stubborn, but you can only find that out from the assembly guide find in their box set.
Just use boltaction.easyarmy.com
Free official army Builder with all units from campaign books
I’m looking into getting into Bolt Action and I love the way the US seems to play. The idea of being able to fire an maneuver every turn in particular, because I hate being penalized in games for not sitting perfectly still all the time. I came here to move models and outmaneuver my enemy, not just win in the listbuild stage and get good roles! When I play tabletop, it’s like I’m off my ADD meds, and this faction caters to that hard.
And the Sherman! Holy cow the Sherman! A veteran Sherman in reserves seems so powerful, being able to hide off the board, then come onto the board and get the first shot off on an enemy -again at no move penalty- means you can with a little patience turn that medium AT gun into a super-cheap *Heavy* AT gun, by getting a clean shot at the enemy vehicle’s flanks.
I am sad about your verdict on the FAC though, because I was planning on building a hyper-mobile list with no artillery, and the FAC (along with the Sherman’s HE special rule) were gunna fill the role of my veterans-in-buildings buster. But between you and mordianglory it seems like it’d be better for me and my opponent if I dumped them for mortars.
Ah well, can’t have it all!
Hello! If you ever do these for Minor nations, I encourage you to review the Greeks! Historically speaking they played a major-minor roll, defeating the Italians before Germany had to step in to secure the region. Your videos are quite good to highlight the rules and give an idea to us new players what we should use to build our armies. Thank you for taking the time to do these videos!
Finally I see your Videos blowing up
Thank you so much for This One!
Though I am far from being an expert, I have read someplace of other that close air support was pioneered by the USMC in the island-hopping campaigns, and in any case would not be controlled at the level represented by a skirmish game. Even artillery observers are pushing things for WW2. German radios, for instance, were typically controlled at battalion level and up, while the US had more radios at platoon/company, many officers were not qualified forward observers.
Thanks for the video 😊
I love using my AFO, mainly because I actually place a real airplane model on a stand. It looks great on the table and since I am a casual player…who cares about the game imbalance. Lets see what v3 brings on. Cheers and thanks again
The real elephant in the room that really hurts bolt action as a credible wargame is their handling of MMG's and HMG's.
The rule reduce these dominant battlefield weapons to an sub par choice.
They have their use in BA but it is very niche. I wouldn't mind a points decrease
Machine guns need a rule change
Id like a set up bonus to show how deadly they are if you walk into their dedicated corridor of fire
13:10 Thank you so much... An American Plane kinda Ended my Game today.... I didn't really Play. I entered the Scenario with my Germans....The Enemy had a few lucky Dice... and that 18 Inch Airstrike took out my AT Gun and Pinned 80% of my Army entering the Board.
Just a historical point about semi-auto rifles: the Soviets had the SVT-40 which was due to become the standard issue Soviet infantry rifle (like the M1 for the US). However the outbreak of war disrupted production and it was never issued to all soldiers though they did get it to around 1/3. In total the Soviets produced 1,750,000 semi-auto rifles during WW2.
The Germans used around 500,000 Gewher 41 and 43 semi auto rifles during the war. They also used several hundred thousand SVT-40s captured from the Soviets. The Germans only ever produced around 450,000 STG "assault" rifles so they actually uses more SLRs than the more famous STG.
The British, Japanese and Italians used no appreciable quantities of self-loading rifles. At least in the British case this was a result of doctrine that aimed shots were preferable to volume of fire (bizarre given rapid fire training and experience from WW1). Post-war studies conclusively showed that number of casualties directly correlated with volume of fire and marksmanship was not particularly relevant.
That said I’ve played Americans , love ❤️ the Patton style hit ‘em hard , hit ‘em fast play style
I think the American paratroopers get stubborn fighter. It was added in the FAQ. Let me know if i miss read the FAQ
It annoys me that there’s ‘Tiger Fear’ but no ‘Achtung! Jabo!’ rule. One was anecdotal, the latter was a fact.
What's jabo? Explain it, please. It sounds interesting.
Well the paras get stubborn now but still no bloody BARs
No air observers I think taking a Stuart and a Chaffee tank is two of the US best armored unit you can use I’m still torn between taking vet or regular infantry I think that the regular infantry can hold its own with its fire Maneuver but that’s just me
Love fire and maneuver, its why i play with chindits 😂
We went ahead with a house ban on Air Observers for your same reasons.
I'm gonna go on record and agree with you on the air observer. I play US (and British and Germans) and I think that the air observer is just a total waste of time. The rules are a pain in the ass and way too swingy and situational. I never take the air observer.
Would you recommend them as a good starter force?
RJ LaRose Yes they are very forgiving due to their mobility national characteristics. They also have very ergonomic and simple armor so you dont fall into the pit trap of buying something like a Panther in a 1k list
Thanks good to know. I'm assuming that also gose for the Pershing as well is if do a late war force?
RJ LaRose Pershing is pretty underwhelming in Bolt Action, but buy what you want.
I figured. With being a troop focused game it seems like a down the road buy. I plan to try airborne, so to go with that I figured lite and fast tanks and armored cars to start.
@@rjlarose5271 i went with the U.S. Paras as my first army. I wasnt planning on tourney play until i got peer pressured. I quickly found that the Marines are the U.S. bread and butter to the operation. in my personal Opinion. they are almost over powered and now my tournament friends dont want to play them. of course i went all out and got the pershing and a colliope.
i lernt that the us can have 3 mmg teams per platoon
*Stars & Stripes Forever intensifies*
Don’t forget the Brits we’re fighting Hitler on there own for years before pearl harbour
Hi, with the national traits you are right they are good and they fit the US by equipment and doctrin, but they are absolutly perfect in the game mechanics Bolt Action uses, which annoys me. If these thing were so decisive in the war, well the american would have won instanly, :-). To rest of you video i think you put the right mixture on it. Thanks for this review.
The Americans would of won instanty with a working port, as soon as Antwerp was up and running things ended very quickly. The Germans were uttery out matched in equipment, air power, and manpower :)
@@dannyhalas9408, in a world where germany would not fight on the eastern front and germany would have sovjet suppoert on oil, no chance for america. In TV and so the Amercans are great. In reality they never won a war on their own in almost 200 years and i do not talk about Granada and so. The americans are either late in the war or they bunch up so many friends that loosing is no option.
@@tabletopgeneralsde310 Even if you take the Soviets out of the equation, which I don't think you can, the Germans would have lost heavily. One of the reasons is the resource crisis which started before the war in the East, fortunately the Germans had massive deficits in food, oil, and essential metals which meant they could never compete with a superpower like America. Trade with the Soviets wasn't enough to even build much of a stockpile let alone fight a protracted war.
I think you're being a bit childish here so I'm sorry if you were just being playful, but world wars generally weren't fought alone! Germany had plenty of allies too, not to mention the territory they'd annexed before 1939. But these were poor nations, without the industry to compete with the Allies which backs up my point.
Saying the Americans were late isn't really fair either, they'd been propping up the other allied nations from the start. The amount of lend lease supplies given to Germany's enemies was staggering, for example two months after operation Barbarossa the Soviets received enough tanks and spare supplies to build the equivalent of twelve Panzer divisions in the first Artic convoys. That was just the tip of the iceberg.
Had the American and Commonwealth armies had to fight the Germans without the Soviets fighting in the East, I could imagine a vast air war which the Germans simply could not compete in. Henry Ford built a 10 km factory which produced one B-52 bomber every half hour, whereas the axis nations couldn't even build four engine bombers.
@@dannyhalas9408, if you put it that way you are running ww2 with russia as a white spot. The vast support of russia would allow germany probably to invade britain, win in north africa, all the fighters which were in russia could defend the heartland europe. You can seperate these things.
I only meant from playing point of view, the rules prefer the us forces like no other nation and that im imo a pitty.
@@tabletopgeneralsde310 The US are bloody strong. But I don't think they're unbeatable, like certain factions in another game.
Oh, and the Russians were actively planning to attack Germany. And even with Russian oil and rare metals the German air force disintegrated over Britain.
I can't understand the life of me what a win in North Africa would really mean for the Nazis. Shipping had to go around Africa anyway and there was precious little oil discovered there at the time and no infrastructure to exploit what we did know about.
We never use forward air observers ... seems like a foreign thing to the game.
One thing that could have made US even better is letting them field assault rifles (M2 Carbine) on late war units.
while the flavor of fire and maneuver is good, i think the ability is way over the top and overpowered. best ability in the game by FAR, the only thing that can compete is japans fanatics rule - but its not even close imo.
a BAR is 5 points and it is affected by fire and maneuver, theres no reason not to fill all of your infantry squads with as many bars as possible, its such a no-brainer that its already ridiculous. now that doesnt make it overpowered in itself, but the fact that your squads can take like 3 bars brings your squad up to 6 shots for 15 points at long range which is way more efficient than taking a lmg for 20 points at 4 shots (even if youre playing germans with 5 shots for 20pts)... so you pay 15 points for 6 shots at 32" which also gets assault from your faction trait. there is no competition for this and its completely over the top in my opinion.
also when comparing the germans +1 shot vs basicly getting assault on almost all weapons, hitting better with all of your dice is WAY better than getting a single extra dice.
also also, as a japanese player (and many other players will do the same even if they dont play japan), with a typical lmg you trade 2 more men for 1 more shot, because you pay 20 for the gun (which could be two men) and then you also need 1 loader, but 4 shots have longer range. so you rather go 2 more men for staying power (in most cases). BUT with the BAR you trade 2 more men for 6 more shots, which is almost another rifle squad more in damage output AND with semi assault AND with longer range
its so dumb balance wise, i cant even. this ability coupled with BARs makes every other infantry unit in the whole game a total pleb...
I agree Fire and Maneuver is the best national trait. Going from Double 6 to 6, and 6 to 5 is some of the most significant statistic improvements you can make in the game and this trait helps make that happen every match multiple times.
even if BARs were 15 points, this would still be a very strong ability (because it also affects ALL of your rifles, which cost nothing). but with BARs being only 5 points its completely overpowered as F
i dont even know how my friend loses to my japanese, honestly
if i played USA id just spam the hell out of mixed vet/reg BAR squads , take one HE piece and one AT piece, done. playthrough completed. i dont know how you could ever beat this unless you knew my list or i rolled very bad
reinforced platoon
sec lieutenant reg
5x9man marines with 3 bars each, two of them vet, rest reg (each squad has 12 shots at 105 points (reg) and 135 (vet), without movement penalty (6 shots at 30")), this shots/point economy alone is just dumb already - even without the faction trait, because bars are just way too cheap.
med mortar inex
med howitzer reg with spotter and gunshield
M4A1 76mm sherman with pintle MG
simple, 60 shots with 45 men - 30 shots at 30", all fire and maneuver, med tank with heavy AT and 3 MGs, 2 HE pieces. easiest and probably strongest list ive ever build, took like 10 minutes
the med howitzer can also pin out 90% of all vehicles if the sherman fails/need arises
i probably couldnt even beat this with 100men bamboo spam and bamboo spam is absolute cheese
and yes i am salty, even though i won the last two battles against my friend. just because of principle.
if he knew what he was doing my winrate would probably drop below 20%. maybe even below 10%
thank god he doesnt
i honestly dont know how every tournament is not won by americans. but then im not a tournament player
the fact that it counts for BARs is even worse, i cant stress this enough. a BAR is basicly other nations lmg. it has half the shots, but its 1/4th of the cost. so its already way too cheap, considering you can cram 3 in a squad. thenadd the fact that american lmg "equivalents" also have semi assault. its so bad dude, there is nothing more overpowered in the whole game as 10pt assault lmgs @@HollywoodWargaming
U reduced a Faction Trait because u don’t like a game unit? Instant Dislike