"The failure of FOW on Eastern Front" Topic

I think that while for the most part, FOW gets it right in the Western front, they have conistently failed to create reasonably historically accurate and balanced game wise Soviet forces.

Battlefront have decided that FOW Soviets should be a cliched parody complete with idiotic pseudo-political propaganda as unit descriptive text and the assumption that Soviets were still mindless hordes even in 1944-45.

REFUSAL TO CREATE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE FORCES.

- In real life, an IS-2 could knock out a King tiger with a frontal hit. NOT in Flames of War.

- In rea life, a Zis-3 could penetrate a Tiger I from close range on a side shot. NOT in Flames of War.

- In real life Katyushas would relocate to avoid counter battery fire. NOT in Flames of War (but allowed for German Panzerwefers).

- In real life, Su-122 was not that successful, in FOW it's the best value Soviet assault gun. Su-76Ms are nearly completely absent from the game.

- No consideration of Soviet tactics from Kursk onwards. E.g. BF still allow hordes of infantry when in fact Soviets were running out of manpower and relying heavily on artillery and armour.

- Soviet Zis-2/-3 unable to ambush in close range (Heavy Gun). A similar sized Pak 40 can as can a much heavier American 3" gun (using TD rules).

- Soviet SU/ISU-152 cannot ambush within close range. So much for Zvjeroboj (Beast Killer).

- Ahistorical treatment of Kommissars as well as their continued heavy saturation in LW lists (company level commissars were eliminated in 1943 and had already had their power curtailed by 1942). In FOW Commissars are heavily present at Company level in 1944/early 1945 and actually have positive tactical abilities (unlike in real life where they contributed to losses due to no tactical abilities).

- Inability to field many of the 1942 tank forces (e.g. T-60/KV brigade, BT tanks etc).

BATTLEFRONT HANDICAPS SOVIETS

- V3 made Quality of Quantity less useful due to new restrictions.

- V3 limited usefulness of Soviet tanks due to ability to stop an assault with 2 successful hits.

- V3 Volley Fire reduced in effectiveness (no longer can be used in Defensive Fire/Ambush)

- V3 made Zis-2/-3s and Su-152/ISU-152s even more inneffective.

- No veteran troops (other than regimental scouts). By 1944 Soviet artillery and infantry should have access to veteran troops. In FOW Soviet troops are never rated as veteran.

It's interesting to note a high level of pessimism on the BF forums with regards to BF treatment of Soviets. BF has been unwilling to make any changes to Soviets even when provided with historical evidence that is contrary to their approach (e.g. Katyushas).

Some BF forumites have expressed an opinion that no-one on the BF design team is interested in Soviets. Given poor quality of Soviet lists and general approach to Soviets when compared to Germans, Americans and even Minor Axis/Allied forces, this would be seem correct.

APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC FACTORS IN A TACTICAL WARGAME.

- Quality of Quantity
- Sabotage rule in EW
- Low ammo rule in EW
- Soviet heavies always in reserve in EW.

Somehow these sort of rules aren't applied to Germans in 1944.

Playing the Soviets in FOW has always required a special kind of masochism. I've been playing the game since v1, and I've had British, German, and Soviet armies in all sorts of forms and flavors, and my Soviets are the saddest and un-winningest by far.

Interestingly, I've found that when you play with much higher levels of points (such as 2000-2500), then they do much better because you can take better advantage of the economies of scale. But most FoW tourney-style games are at lower point levels, and the Russkies are often hopeless as a result.

"- In real life Katyushas would relocate to avoid counter battery fire. NOT in Flames of War (but allowed for German Panzerwefers)."

The Panzerwerfers became a super weapon with v2. There are probably more of them in FoW than the Wehrmacht ever managed to put into the field in the war.

"- In rea life, a Zis-3 could penetrate a Tiger I from close range on a side shot. NOT in Flames of War."

The same applies to the 6-pdr, which killed several Tigers in Normandy, but which can't do so in FoW. That's just a result of the limitations of a d6-based system. I'll accept that sort of limitation, in return for the fast and simple combat system.

The old v1 codexes used to offer historical scenarios, but I suspect that nobody ever played them, and they gradually stopped appearing. Since the game is probably 100% fictional scenarios, then those sorts of issues are less important.

"- Ahistorical treatment of Kommissars"

Hey, leave my Kommisars alone! That rule is one of the few bright spots for me, and always makes me smile.

" In FOW Soviet troops are never rated as veteran."

That's because "veteran" in FOW is a statement of doctrinal skill and flexibility, not so much literally about experience. Much as I'd love to have Veterans for my Russkies, I can understand this rating, since it would change the Soviets from a rigidly plan-based doctrine, to an improvisational doctrine like the Germans, which doesn't seem right.

Having been a historical gamer for over 36 years and started with WW2, I still play and have interest in it.
My understanding is that FOW a game, not a historical simulation.
When I see games being played with Germans on both sides, or 1942 Desert war British troops trying to take on 1944 Germans in tournaments, I cringe.
Designers have their own problems trying to make it playable but still give a decent feel. Some, as Thomas states have trouble getting it right with reasonable accuracy.
This is why I play Rapid Fire.

I've always thought of FoW as 'World War 2 – the movie version'.

It has never been a good simulation, but is an adequete _game_. I dropped out of it because of the seemingly endless revision and churning of army books.

Captain Cornelius Butt,

6 pdr can penetrate a Tiger with a flank shot (AT10 v SA8). A Soviet Zis-3 cannot.

As for doctrine, that's a questionable one given how Flames of War approaches doctrine/training (e.g. Tank Destroyer rules as an obvious one but other anomalies exist).

The Germans are for the most part overrated, especially for 1944-45.

Mr Pumblechook,

If this was the game of WWII the movie, then T-34s and Katyushas would be a much better proposition than what they are.

I don't recall Su-122s and IS85s as typical movie fodder.

You should email them directly with your concerns, they're all ears.

I agree with the OP. By Bagration, many Soviet forces should be, at least, as good as any that the German could launch at them.

One of the things I dislike from FOW is the tournament mentality it promotes. In some sense, I thing that Battlefront is shooting themselves in the foot. I have seen lists, competitive lists, with so few miniatures on the tabletop that commercially don't make sense: allowing lists with 3 King Tiger, some artillery and one Panzergrenadier platoon is not the best way to sell tons of miniatures, in my opinion.

Been a scenario FOW player since 2004 thru Ver1.0 to 2.0 and now 3.0. Never played in a tourney. Just not my personal style for multi-player convention games.

With scenarios, I don't worry about even point games. Just the fun and gamesmanship with what you have for manpower and equipment. Always seem to have another unit in the reserve pool to keep all players active on the tabletop.

Normally play each scenario by exchanging sides for a double game format. Then combine the results for the winner determination.

WR

Not trolling, but if you want historical accuracy maybe you should consider a different set of rules?

It is a game, have a look at Battlegroup Kursk which will give a more accurate feel. I had to chuckle at a FOW AAR where some Stalin Organs were engaged by German Pumas, then took them out with a bit of DF!

Tally Ho!

I had to chuckle at a FOW AAR where some Stalin Organs were engaged by German Pumas, then took them out with a bit of DF

I would be amused too because there is nothing a Katyusha can do to hurt a Puma in defensive fire. If there was an AA platoon with 37mm guns then yes but a Katy is pretty much dead meat if it runs into an armoured car.

That said I do agree with pretty much everything the OP said. Flames of War is not exactly a good game if you are a fan of the Eastern front (which is a pity because I am :( )

I have considered Battlegroup Kursk but my investigations so far suggest that it is probably not the game I am looking for. I will see about giving it a go but the AARs and info I have seen so far make me feel that it is not quite right.

"All models and figures appearing in Flames of War are fictitious. Any resemblance to real soldiers, living or dead or any military actions and historical facts, is purely coincidental."

To misquote the Too Fat Lardies : "Play the rules, not the period."

If you play FOW expecting to play a historical wargame you are like the guy who walks into a McDonalds and complains the waiters ignore you, you're not given any cutlery and the quality of the Boeuf Bourguignon is appalling.

Grab another set of rules and stop pretending that FOW is anything else than Warhammer 40K which happens to use the wrong models.

HISTORICALLY ACCURATE FORCES.

I can see why you would be upset if you thought "historically accurate" and FoW were anywhere near each other.

The sooner you realize you're playing 40K with WWII models, the happier you will be.

Yes, if they don't work for what you want to do, then use another set of rules. It isn't like there is a global shortage of WW2 rules….

FOW based stuff works with most other sets of rules in any case.

Yes, if they don't work for what you want to do, then use another set of rules. It isn't like there is a global shortage of WW2 rules….

FOW based stuff works with most other sets of rules in any case.

Actually, while there are a lot of other WWII rules out there none that I have found seem to hit the same sweet spot in terms of game play or representational level for me that FoW does.

I have copies of lots of different WWII rules and most of them I wish I had never bothered buying. At least I have played FoW a lot but it does still have weaknesses in the way some (mainly Soviet vs German) interactions pan out.

What I am looking for in a WWII game is roughly:
Reinforced company as the base level with the option to play larger games
One model vehicle = one vehicle, one figure = one man representational scale
Points based so I can simply arrange a pick up game at the club rather than having to spend hours planning a scenario. I am happy to play scenario games but there must be a points system or random force generation system.
A standard game plays in 2 – 3 1/2 hours
The game is a reasonable reflection of the actual capabilities of historical units and equipment

Out of the above FoW manages to meet pretty much all bar the last point. I am open to suggestions as to other games that fill the same slot.

What about IABSM? It ticks all of those boxes as far as I can see. It doesn't have points but it does have a scenario and force generator.

jameshammyhamilton,

Have you played 'Poor Bloody Infantry' by Peter Pig its a bit abstract and the board is split into sections but the army lists are all contained within the rule book and they are era specific so a T34 will be from x to xx date

As others have said FOW is GW rules for WWII which has to make some sacrifices to reality to have a quicker and more fun game.

Few of the guys at our club have been experimenting with playing BKCII at 1-1 in 15mm, and have given it positive marks. Your mileage may differ of course, and there are many people who will tell you that BKC is equally as unhistorical as FoW. I tend to disagree, but then, I like the system.

I have not played IABSM, PBI or BKC but I have looked at all of them and none of them really looked like what I am after. All have plus points but for me the minus points outweigh the pluses.

IABSM is possibly the game I am most interested in of the three but I am not sure it fits the scale and playing time I am looking for.

Not a FOW player so I have been following with distant interest

As to the tactics, I agree that in 1943/early 44 the Russians were often on a tactically roughly equal level with the Germans – however, by late 1944/45 the Russians were as noted running very short of well trained troops so that "mindless horde" could apply to a good part of the Russian army – good troops mixed with very, very raw recruits

Well, it is what it is…. I don't play tournament level and I make tweaks for Historical scenarioes. It worke well… play the rules.. I rathe rlike that.

Now… I have mentioned this many times before…
FoW = Squad Leader…. without the hexes… do the math, make the conversions for range… and you will find yourself playaing an altogether new game…

Note.. I said SL NOT ASL!!!!

I am a FoW fanboi… I recognize it's limitations and still play through… it is a lot of fun. It si what you make of it. AT least it a good game to transition from 40K to Historicals….

"As others have said FOW is GW rules for WWII which has to make some sacrifices to reality to have a quicker and more fun game."

Unless you are playing soviets.

"IABSM is possibly the game I am most interested in of the three but I am not sure it fits the scale and playing time I am looking for."

Both PBI and IABSM use 1 vehicle = 1 model, play in a couple of hours an handle a reinforced company fine. The infantry are element based (just as in FOW) but you can easily use 1 fig = 1 man.

The old WRG 1925-50 rules are also aimed at that sort of representation. We used to get through a battalion sized game in a day, so arenforced company in a few hours is not problem.

All have points systems apart from IABSM which instead has a scenario generator.

I remain unconvinced by BKC as a 1:1 scale game due to damage model for armour.

"6 pdr can penetrate a Tiger with a flank shot (AT10 v SA8)"

Well, that shows you how long it's been since I've played Brits! The 6-pdr used to be AT9, which meant the only chance it had against a Tiger was an astronomically-unlikely close-range double bail.

"I've always thought of FoW as 'World War 2 – the movie version'."

That's how I feel about it, and that's usually been good enough for me. Before FoW I played a number of games that were more like: "World War Two: the Doctoral Dissertation." Whatever "accuracy" or "realism" they purported to achieve with all the extra math, sequence steps, and charts, was totally mooted in my opinion by the gruelingly slow pace of the game. If it takes you four hours of chart-consulting to play a little firefight that supposedly lasted ten minutes, then that's not much of a simulation, and it's not much fun, either.

Where FoW really made a breakthrough, in my opinion, was getting away from "Spotting" rules. It's easy to forget now, but before FoW, almost every WW2 game had some sort of very tedious hidden-placement and/or "spotting" mechanism, in several cases quite absurd, since you could obviously see the enemy units that your game pieces supposedly couldn't "see." The FoW guys understood that we play games for the Bang Bang, so they cut straight to that scene.

I doubt that many people would admit it, but the pressure of FoW in the hobby has changed WW2 games for the better, by forcing new game designers (A) to think competitively against an existing "hobby-standard" game that dominated the marketplace, and (B) killing some sacred cows. I suspect that that has spurred a lot of creativity and new-thinking for many recent designs.

I guess you are right FoW designers said "Hey lets make this more arcade/fun so it will be easy and fast to play, except for the Soviets. Soviets suck and we hate you if you play them"

"sacred cows" like any pretence at historical accuracy?

"Bring up those Long Tom AT guns – I wonder if any one has thought of using them as artillery?"
"Don't be silly – we need them right on the front line to take out the thousands of JagdTigers rumbling towards us"

;-)

I think Patrick R said it pretty well. As others have said, based on your specific issues with FoW, you might want to give BKC a look.

Doug

That's how I feel about it, and that's usually been good enough for me. Before FoW I played a number of games that were more like: "World War Two: the Doctoral Dissertation." Whatever "accuracy" or "realism" they purported to achieve with all the extra math, sequence steps, and charts, was totally mooted in my opinion by the gruelingly slow pace of the game. If it takes you four hours of chart-consulting to play a little firefight that supposedly lasted ten minutes, then that's not much of a simulation, and it's not much fun, either.

Yeah, that hits the nail on the head. FoW is not perfect by a long way but it is a lot better than many of the alternatives.

In the end when you look at a situation like for example a T-34 firing at a Tiger then all you need to know is does the T-34 destroy the Tiger, damage it or do nothing. It might do nothing because it could not see it, or because it failed to hit or because it failed to penetrate etc. The end result is what matters.

Where things IMO fall down a little is that a T-34 should realistically have a small chance against a Tiger. As things stand in FoW the T-34s just don't bother shooting because they know they can't hurt it.

I don't mind the warts of FoW, but I don't see them as the end-all/be-all WW2 rule set, either. It's something I can play with my friends and have fun. They found it more enjoyable than F&F's Battlefront WW2, so that's what we play.

The only reason RF/BKC/IABSM/PBI/et al. don't generate the same amount of vitriol is because they don't have a big enough audience for everybody else to get resentful. It's like we're a hobby full of hipsters that can't stand to see a band get popular, and are ready to rattle off a litany of reasons why THEIR favorite underground set of rules is actually SO MUCH BETTER.

"It's like we're a hobby full of hipsters that can't stand to see a band get popular, and are ready to rattle off a litany of reasons why THEIR favorite underground set of rules is actually SO MUCH BETTER."

Quoted for Truth!!

" a T-34 should realistically have a small chance against a Tiger. As things stand in FoW the T-34s just don't bother shooting because they know they can't hurt it."

It's true, although I can see where they're coming from. I used to play a lot of naval wargames, and the standard was always to give all this data for every gun type, rated for accuracy and effectiveness out to its absolute maximum theoretical range. So a big gun like a 16" might theoretically be able to hit something at 35k yards…. Never mind that nobody EVER hit anybody at more than about 26k yards. Never mind that a billion modifiers would mean that you, also, won't hit anybody at that maximum distance.

But if it's in the game, then people try to use it. So those games would bog down with people taking shots at ridiculous maximum range, because there was a 0.01% chance of a hit, so why not?

As a general design principle, I much prefer cutting away all of that, and just getting to the likely realistic ranges and effectiveness. FoW wasn't the first game to do that. Arty Conliffe did it with Spearhead, too.

It's a bit like playing the Lottery. Many people just refuse to accept that the odds against winning are so astronomical that They Won't Win. As long as the chance exists, they will instinctively go for it. But if ten million people play the Lottery, then somebody will definitely win.

So if you had ten million T-34s, then your Tiger is toast. But since we're playing little skirmish games, with only a few vehicles on the table, then realistically your Tiger doesn't have much to worry about.

T-34 can and did regularly penetrate tiger 1 armor from the sides at several hundred meters distance. Side armor was 80mm.

OK. We all know the standard pro and con arguments for FoW. FoW, by its own admission, empahsizes the game over "accuracy". Fine. Now, given that, why would they construct the Soviet forces as mentioned here? Wouldn't giving them a chance against the Germans aid playability?

Pan Marek, I think you nailed it.

I'm willing to be less of a stickler for historical accuracy if it is a good game, but my Soviets face enough of an imbalance to make me question the "game" there…

Oh dear, last time I borrowed my brother's Germans and took on the commie hordes I got creamed……….Must have been playing with the wrong Germans!

^ Or not playing them correctly.

The Germans have a very specific way of beating the Russians, it's all about keeping them at arms length and keeping them under smoke. Two things the Russians CANNOT do.

That was the only way I beat the spankovy in V2 (when they were very dangerous). Was three Panthers hull down, and some nebs…smoke one pack…work on the rest. Rinse and repeat and you were a shoe in for victory.
----------------

One thing I have learned from years of figure painting…the Nazis pay the bills.

The Germans have a more expanded range, they get new models sooner, and are the most diverse nation. I once saw the BF warehouse in the UK…and it had more Germans in it than anything else. Even with the Uber Yanks I doubt it'll change.

I agree with Captain Cornelius Butt.

Of course, 2 months from now if anyone bothers to read this ancient thread, that comment will make no sense, since he will have changed his name a half dozen times by then.

Speaking for myself, and begging no one to agreee with me, I am getting pretty damn sick and tired of followers of The True Faith™ (or those who know the real unheretical way to play with toy tanks) telling me what I am doing wrong.
I PLAYED all those stupid SPI games with counters as tanks in the 70s. I PLAYED all thse asinine games with armor thickness and alloy analysis of the projectiles (with the "more realistic" D20).
All those games did was put me off WW2 gaming, with a vengeance.
I was dragged kicking and screaming into playing Flames of War, and I am glad I was. I enjoy it immensely. So, sue me.

And by the way, I love Komissars too. The foirst time I explained the Komissar rule to a FoW game we put on for the whold club, several players whose opinions I respect had their eyes light up at all the fun that would bring. And even though I run Bolshevik Horde™, I LOVE when that hapens.

In another club game, a player was upset that I sprnag an ambush with my Wolverine tank destroyers on his Tigers and smote them hip abd thigh. He blamed the rules. (Not me, oddly.) Everyone knows Flames of War is a crap game. Stupid ambush rules, even stupider tank destroyer rules, etc.
My retort? "I thought you know WW2 gaming. What rules system rewards you for doing recon with Tigers?"

So, you can and moan all you want about tiny irrelevant factors. GoW DOES punish stupid tactics. Isn't that what it's all about?

As Marc Antony might say "I come to praise the game, but to bury the gits who run the company."

I don't have a problem with FOW as a ruleset. It's the treatment of Soviets that's the issue.

Say the T-34/Zis-3 issue. Easy fix is make the gun AT10 instead of AT9 and voila, problem fixed.

Katyushas – give them Stormtrooper (like Panzerwerfers) and voila, problem fixed.

Etc etc,

However Battlefront seem to neglect Soviets for the most part.

FINALLY…
Russians rarely rate "Veteran" status because the main benefit of that is that you are harder to hit. I suspect that the designers feel that this means that they are more likely to take cover, etc. When "in real Life", such careful, taking no risks behavior, was frowned upon. Russians are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING COVER. They are supposed to be advancing and killing the Hitlerite Scum.

(I lied about "finally"…)

*******************
BF "upgraded" the Yank 76mm guns because enough American players (who buy a LOT of stuff) whined that it was too hard to kill Germans. You will never convince me otherwise. Use this economic argument on the T-34/Zis3 issue if you want. You have to buy a lot more tanks as a Bolshie than Yanks do, so maybe that might fly.

********************

As for the Katyushas, they are SUPPOSED to be easy to hit. The "smoke trails" rule says as much. FoW WANTS them to suffer. So, move them your next turn! It's a matter of target priorities for the Dastardly Hun. I hardly ever move my Katys, because the Germans have more important and pressing things to shoot at.

Tank Destroyers don't even get "Stormtrooper" move. Why should any Russians get it?
Unlike Youth Soccer Leagues were every 8 year old gets a trophy at the end of the season, not eveybody is or should be "special".

I don't have a problem with FOW as a ruleset. It's the treatment of Soviets that's the issue.

Say the T-34/Zis-3 issue. Easy fix is make the gun AT10 instead of AT9 and voila, problem fixed.

Katyushas – give them Stormtrooper (like Panzerwerfers) and voila, problem fixed.

Etc etc,

However Battlefront seem to neglect Soviets for the most part.

I agree 100%.

To make matters worse the points system seems to be biased against Soviets as well so they don't seem to have that some iconic Soviet forces don't have a fair chance in LW.

One possible reason for this is that actually the LW Soviets are rather potent against the Western allies so in a standard FoW style tournament where anyone can play anyone the fact that T-34s are garbage against Germans is 'balanced' by the fact that they are pretty good against Shermans.

So, you are upset that a Russian gun that kicked ass against Germans in 1941 cannot do the same in 1945?

JohnOFM,

So why do the Panzerwerfers get Stormtrooper yet Katyushas don't. They used to redeploy after firing a battery to avoid counterbattery fire. That's what the Stormtrooper for Panzerwerfer is.

As for TD's stormtroopering no idea what you're referring to. I wasn't saying Soviet TDs need Stormtrooper (German ones do get it but that's fine given it's a national rule).

Also Zis-3 was not doing any arse kicking in 1941. BF is ignoring improvements in ammunition though (much like they've done for Brits and APDS).

As John the OFM says:

"I PLAYED all those stupid SPI games with counters as tanks in the 70s. I PLAYED all thse asinine games with armor thickness and alloy analysis of the projectiles (with the "more realistic" D20)."

So did I. I remember the year AH Panzerblitz came out.
Many, Many WW2 games later….and we argued constantly about how to create a realistic simulation. I really don't think it can be done. John likes FOW, it's fun and playable.
I like RF it's fun and playable.

Differences of opinion will be just as varied as the number of rulesets out there.
There is also implementing house rules for your own gaming group, which can resolve any issues you have about a certain set of rules. We have done this quite successfully, and we have 13 gamers.

So why do the Panzerwerfers get Stormtrooper yet Katyushas don't.

Because "Stormtrooper" is a German rule, and not a Russian rule.
Geez, "Kids today!" Couldn't pour out of a boot if you put the directions on the sole…

I have a brilliant idea! Play something else. It may prolong your life for another week by draining all the evil humours from your body that Fow engenders.

As for TD's stormtroopering no idea what you're referring to. I wasn't saying Soviet TDs need Stormtrooper (German ones do get it but that's fine given it's a national rule).

I was referring to AMERICAN tank destroyers. Sorry if I was unclear. At Arracourt, if you follow the episode on the Military Channel, the Yank TD behavior certainly looked like "Stormtrooper" to me. And yet, the only time Yanks get "ST" is if colonel Creighton Abrams is a platoon commander. Yank TDs in FoW only get to attempt to run away after the Hun gets off first shot. I can live with that, and not whine about it, since it's a special rule that only American get.

"Because "Stormtrooper" is a German rule, and not a Russian rule."

It's not like BF hasn't recycled national rules for other units – e.g. Australians and Canadians get Mission Tactics as do some paras from memory.

So why do Commonwealth forces get German rules but a similar proposition for a Russian unit is not feasible?

As I said earlier in this thread, the geniusses at BF see Russians as ferocious yet clumsy. That is why you see few "veterans", because it does not fit their image of Soviets.

And, as I also pointed out, the "smoke trail" rule for Katyushas means that BF WANTS them to get pounded the next turn. Why have a "smoke trail" rule if you are going to give them Stormtrooper? It is the responsibility of the Soviet commander (you are only a company commander, excuse me "Batalon", yet you have access to corps assets like Katyushas) to limber up and move them the NEXT turn. I never do. I want to fire them off until they get wiped out, and I guess that makes me a prototypical ruthless Soviet commander.

To repeat. Battlefron DOES NOT WANT THE KATYUSHAS TO SURVIVE LONG. They are there to:
1) Sell a lot of models (mine are old Glory!)
2) Give you an initial Big Bang
3) Let the Germans, if they can spare the assets, have the opportunity to cream them.

Good point about the "veterans" issue, John. I haven't thought about it in that way, but it does make sense.

So BF see the Soviets as fitting into their "Warhammer 40,000 Orks" slot then. :P

As for Germans creaming the Soviets (at least Katyushas) this is the bit where the Soviets (Orks) exist purely so the Germans (Space Marines) have something to beat up. :P :D