"AT 15 Canadian Tanks? Ouch!" Topic

My Panzer IVs got their clocks cleaned by newly upgunned Fireflies and some kind of scout car with front armor 4 last game.

Market Garden book really brought some changes to Armoured Squadron from the books I'd seen played thus far.

Anybody else faced/played the new allied armor from the compilation? Thoughts?

Don't worry. They'll increase the stats on the Pz IV next time round.

And here I was thinking if I didn't field more than a couple Panthers (and any Tigers/related heavier species) I wouldn't be seeing codex creep :)

Good thing you weren't facing the older, cheaper AT 13 Fireflies, there would have been more of them, and they're just as good at smashing through Mk IVs.

Semi-indirect fire + AT 15 versus FA6 is a little better, I'm thinking. Don't even get a dice roll.

Yeah, at long range you can equal their AT with a hard six. But, there'll be more 17pdrs in the enemy force. My Panzers would much prefer to face fewer, but more destructive Fireflies.

You are so right.

Issue with that though Lcannard, is that the Canadian AT 15 Shermans have cautious movement. They are MUCH harder to hit when herded by a competent player.

With the firefly now AT 15, it scares my Panthers in to morphing back into Panzer IV's. If they hit..big whoop I've got 15 more.

I guess my point was this was my first time noticing a codex creep type issue. I was, perhaps wrongly, under impression that FoW did have some broken stuff but that since that was largely known you could have more friendly games by avoiding, say, King Tigers.

The fact that AT, armor and other stats have possiblity of arms race (I thought the books all kept things roughly on par so there were rarely 'gotcha' moments) is not my favorite aspect.

I still like FoW but don't want to get into 40k mode of trying to figure out how to beat the new codex force (usu. done by buying new models ;)

NOT codex creep. The change was explained by the introduction of APDS rounds. Allied ammunition is getting better by September 1944 and the Mk IV is showing its age. So, repeat, let's not go down the route of comparing FoW to GW.

Introducing better weaponry (Market Garden book already existed in this edition---I think?) in a new book is codex creep by my definition.

They did a similar thing with all the do-dads for US Shermans in Blood, Guts and Glory but not as drastic as AT15.

Look, it was the same deal back in the 80s with Squad Leader: The basic game had Shermans with moderate firepower and then by the time GI Anvil of Victory came out Shermans came with HEAT and APDS giving them increased firepower. In ASL my Fireflys and Challengers…providing they could stay alive long enough…were extremely powerful.

So back to Flames of War. Your Sherman from 1942 through to August 1944 has an anti-tank rating of 10. The Sherman Firefly has an AT of 13, the 76mm Sherman has AT 12. By September, which covers Market Garden, Blood Guts & Glory and Nuts, APDS gives some Shermans an AT of 15. How else to incorporate APDS into the game? If you think it's FoW doing a Codex Creep, then there's precedent in the aforementioned Squad Leader and other rules sets that came out in the 80s and 90s that gave you the option of using the Allied improved ammunition from Autumn 1944 onwards and in some of those rules sets APDS was awesome. Some players banned others from using APDS as it was unfair.

It's not as if Battlefront are retconning the Forces Handbook, Turning Tide, North Africa and the other campaign books to give an AT 15 to Shermans. And if you think that's unfair to Mk IVs, it is. It's how the war progressed. The Mk IV, for all its ubiquitous staying power, was increasingly outclassed during the last months of the war.

Didn't say it was unfair to anything. Thanks for the analysis.

No problem

It's about time the Hun got bitch slapped.

Thats a good ploy to sell more King Tigers and Jagdtigers
I bought 4 KT's from Gamming models to try it out but they still got bitchslapped as 4 is too few.
So its back to PF/MG inf for the LW Germans IMHO

PS No talking codex creep it is just the reality of the game – Tigers and Panthers will get eaten – just like in real life
So in the game if you want a chance do not waste points on Panthers or Tigers

For the record, my codex creep refers to taking the same unit in the same timeframe and re-engineering its stats. I completely get that Allies got nastier AT weapons later on. What I was commenting on was why the earlier version of the book apparently didn't reflect this.

"What I was commenting on was why the earlier version of the book apparently didn't reflect this."

the factors seem more related to APCBC than APDS to be honest and that would be about right.

Apds before this time should really be a selective token to be used up that allows you to fire a round at AT15. and avialablity would be less for tanks than for achilles and towed guns.

There is a form of codex creep in FoW but it is not new stuff getting reasonably accurate but better stats. Where there is creep is that in the newer LW books the older not so good kit gets cheaper. Take a force from say the V3 Forces Book, compare to exactly the same force in a new briefing and you will find that the new force is never more expensive and is often cheaper.

Good logic and I do agree…. not creep, but rather a reflection of tanks getting outclassed as time went on… not by other tanks, but by better ammo… I can drink this kool-aide… it is all good.

Exactly…the Fireflies are dishing out more damage because APDS is available from autumn '44 onwards (and remember, none of the earlier incarnations of the Sherman in FoW are being altered). One thing remains, the Firefly still can't take a hit from most German guns. I'm sorry Panzer fans.

For the record, my codex creep refers to taking the same unit in the same timeframe and re-engineering its stats. I completely get that Allies got nastier AT weapons later on. What I was commenting on was why the earlier version of the book apparently didn't reflect this.

It's because Battlefront didn't want to do it in the first series of Market Garden books. They said it'd be too hard to have dual stats for a gun (which the Pak 36 already does so they're full of crap).

By the way APDS was around in V1. It was removed in V2.

Basically the new books correct a massive historical error.

And they didn't even have to go with "ultra difficult" dual stat line.

There's Codex Creep in the game (new American lists, cheaper Panzer IVs etc) but AT15 APDS is certainly not codex creep.

No but AT 15 Ve 12 without a reasonable increas in cost?
German tanks in EW increas iod 1 in At cost 45 points
Also to make it histerical they should have made it no reroll misses and extra + 1 to hit over 16"

Hi TT, I wasn't aware that points increase was minimal or that they retained Semi Indirect as I haven't seen the new books.

That would be Codex Creep!

Guards Platoons that contain 2 Fireflys went up by 45 points. Thats after the slight discount given to regular Shermans in newer books. The points went up enough that running 14 Shermans in a list is now impractical.

I have not seen new books either 9nor am I likely too!) just going by what people have said and the online lists
Cost diff 435 Vs 390 so 22 per firefly to go from At13 to At15
YMMV

"so 22 per firefly to go from At13 to At15"

Does that seem right?

Upgrade of FA6 AT10 M4 to FA7 AT12 M4 76mm is 20 points in Turning Tide.

But from memory, they use some sort of algorithm for upgrades. Going from AT10 to AT12 isn't as siginifact as going from AT13 to AT15.

@TT -- there is a big discussion of this on the FOW forum. The firefly costs went up considerably, but the plain sherman costs dropped, so the net effect for the platoon doesnt reflect the Firefly cost changes.

Also, I have the books if you want to have a look.

Thanks for the heads up Nick as I no longer frequent the boards – so did they explain why Shermans came down?

I know the APDS (discarding sabot) round started to appear in late 1944. But it was never the 'normal' ammunition and should be in short or quite modest supply. Is this covered at all?

If your Fireflies can use it every shot it's unrealistic, because they did not have enough and saved what few they had for tough targets at ranges they could hardly miss. Discarding sabot was unstable at longer ranges too.

Skarper, neither of those issues are raised.

Sturmpanzer IV's also have enough AT ammunition to fire the whole game which can sometimes mean up to 10-12 turns!

Yes I am stirring the pot. MWAHAHAHAHA!

You leave my Stumtigers alone!
They may only have 6 shots but each one should demolish a 12" square!
Not this one team rubbish BF changed it to

Sturmpanzer IV = Brummbar!

Tsk tsk TT!

I'm wondering how I can sneak some of those nice new T-54s into my Soviet lists.

According to some other players, I can use equipment from the future if it was used in the future.

…so did they explain why Shermans came down?

Medium tanks came down, Shermans, T-34s and Mk IVs all dropped slightly. BF found they were underperforming for their points cost, so they rebalanced. Fireflys jumped between 25-30 points each, but this is balanced because this is the first British lists released since the new points policy.

Actually Shermans and Panzer IVs came down in points but T-34s went up because of the 'wonders' of the new H&C rule. Sadly this has left Soviet players rather stymied as the T-34 is not really a viable option any more :(

There is a thread on the BF forum where it points out that 5 soviet M3 Stuarts cost 185 points but 5 US M5s only cost 200. For the extra 3 points a tank the US ones get +1 front armour, an AAMG, lose H&C and gain stabilisers :O

There is something awry in the BF points schedules at the moment. When they redo the Normandy books (again) in a few months then all the Western stuff will slot into line with the newer books just leaving the poor old Soviets with the short end of the stick :(

I have to say… a lot of the point changes seem to be reflective of the historical facts AND trying to keep points low enough to field the ptns in and army list.

"There's Codex Creep in the game (new American lists, cheaper Panzer IVs etc) but AT15 APDS is certainly not codex creep."

It isn't creep…. try to look at it like this….
As the war progressed, better tech and ammo became available… so…. the prices should be higher to reflect this… BUT, there is a problem… if you raise the points values for "this or that"… it will get to the point that you cannot field a decent sized force.

So, in the later books, they reduce the costs of the old stuff that used to be the good expensive stuff and then price out the new stuff… in the end, you still achieve balance…

The real kicker here that seems to upset and confuse soem peopel is that they call it creep and the cold hard truth is that they shoudl point the new vehicles in line accordingly…. meaning NOT slide the points scale for early, mid and late and instead just change the tournament points… say early war could be 600, 1500 & 1750 and then as mid and eventually late war come out, they would increase the tournament cap… thus keeping ALL points costs in line… but this woudl require a complete and new pointing of pretty much everything….

This way woudl sure beat how they do it now…. as more and better stuff comes out… in order to keep the points for tournaments "locked" in at 600, 1500 and 1750… they continually have to play wiht the points costs of everything… so, to make x affordable for an army list, they have to lower y….

The only issue here is that too often tournaments use multiple books and then you get an issue where one book has one cost and another has another costs for the same thing or even worse… the newer thing is cheaper and better.

Hindsight is always 20/20 though….

Codex Creep is bandied about like wall-to-wall tanks as a stick to beat the game with. Neither are wholly true reflections of the game but if you repeat them often enough they'll catch on.

Other, older rules sets often didn't limit the number of APDS rounds…my take on it is that with the Gun Tank rule, those Fireflies aren't going to be around long enough in the game anyway.

And I would expect very late war Panzer IVs to be cheaper. Like the Mk III in mid war, it soldiers on when tank development overtakes it.

So, in the later books, they reduce the costs of the old stuff that used to be the good expensive stuff and then price out the new stuff…

That's codex creep.

If my 1,500 point list X now costs 1,400 points, that's codex creep.

If my 1,500 point list X now has a new special rule that's free, that's codex creep.

In the case of Americans in new rules books, the lists got cheaper (e.g. cost of Shermans) as well as getting new free special rules (Winter Training)

in the end, you still achieve balance…

The problem is it's a perpetual game of catch up and balance is never attained.

WIth BF the creep is sometimes short notice – e.g. Stalina's Onslaught book was pretty much obsolete in 2 or so months with new Normandy books introducing new points for same units.

And before anyone says the following, here are the rebukes:

- It's not due to version switch. Stalins Onslaught and E&S were both V2. GW/RB were meant to be V3 compliant.

- BF has stated that books are meant to be used against each other. Indeed in some instances it's the only way to get a list (e.g. there's no E&S lists for 9 and 11 Panzer Division – you have to use generic lists out of either Forces or Grey Wolf as 21st Panzer and Lehr lists are innappropriate).

I've actually stopped buying soft cover rulebooks because they're often replaced very quickly by hardcover comps – you might get a year out of a soft cover book.

As the war progressed, better tech and ammo became available… so…. the prices should be higher to reflect this… BUT, there is a problem… if you raise the points values for "this or that"… it will get to the point that you cannot field a decent sized force.

Can you explain perpetual points downgrades in MW, where there's no tech progression and only two books? WWII was more than just 1944-45.

Luckily there is only two books too, given BF's approach to perpetual downwards points progressions.

---

My theory on Codex Creep – it's a marketing gimmick designed to sell more models/books by:

a.) Revising points downwards so people have to buy more models to field standard armies.

b.) Stimulate book sales as people rush to buy the latest book to get the points discounts and new special rules.

This is after 15 odd years of witnessing downward points progressions and special rule growth in 40K – a Space Marine has gone from about 30 points in 1995 to less than 15 in 2013. The model count in my Ork army increased from 50 to 80 to over 100 by V4 codex – all at same points.

In fact to field my V2 Ork force in terms of model numbers, I have to reduce points from 1,500 to about 500-750.

And in 5-6 years of FOW, the same thing has happened too. Other than the T-34 horde, my Russian force has been able to cram in more models in each successive rulebook. Number of special rules has grown in each book too – Steel Wall, Volley Fire, Heavy Breakthrough Gun, infiltration expanded to Tanks etc.

My Germans have grown even faster – a unit of trucked Panzergrenadiers was about 220 points when I started playing. It's now 185. For 220 points I can upgrade them to Gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers with 4 Sd Kfz 251.

And were's the "tech progression" with a unit of infantry whose stats don't change in any of the books or periods?

The infantry doesn't change much in points costs, either. AT additions tend to get cheaper (and hence more common) as the books progress, though.

Forgot to mention that I like the 'campaign' format for books, and was irked that BF arranged the Normandy books with one for Axis and one for Allies. I think that you'd have better sales with D-1, D-Day, and Bloody Omaha as one book and the others as a second book. The landings, and the breakout.

The infantry doesn't change much in points costs, either. AT additions tend to get cheaper (and hence more common) as the books progress, though

Three questions:

1. Do you play this game?

2. And if so, how long?

3. You are aware there's more to this game that Late War (1944-45)?

Point reductions for Gernman infantry started coming out with E&S – apparently to take into account MG overcostedness but in V3 MG's gained extra ROF in pinning.

As for progress, why is a Pak 40 or 45mm br 1942 or StuG cheaper in Eastern Front than in Ostfront even though both cover exact same period (1942-43) and exact same theatre (Eastern Front). Oh and both are Version 2.

Same applies to a whole heap of stuff in mid war – e.g.StuGs, ATGs, artillery (except SPG), HMGs, mortars.

Yank M3 Lees have come down in cost about 200 points since the game came out.

And the same thing is happening in Late War – there is no reason for a Sherman to be cheaper in one book than another.

Or Nebelwerfers which have come down 20-30 points – to the point where other German artilery is horrifically overpriced in comparison.

Isn't the saying "denial isn't just a river in Egypt." :P

In the past I was a playtester. I can tell you from being on that side of the coin that the revisions in points are not codex creep related as per the above statement that it's all about selling more figs. The addition of certain lists kind of borders on that, like the RT Panthers, but these points changes are all about trying to get the game to be more reflective of history. With all the cool toys coming out in the late late war period this is going to happen a lot in the future.

Don't like it, best to go back to 40k. Seriously, if the game being more accurate to history bugs you, you really shouldn't be playing a ww2 game.

Good points TH, but I still think you missed what I was saying… they don't change points for you to buy more models, they change points so that they can keep their set tournament points values.

Kind of like the MW Tiger army… A German player can get no more than 3 dang Tigers on the board and depending on their support choices, 2 ptns of support.. usually grens and nebs… We all know there were much larger battles with more Tigers…

Now, look at those points… and think about how much somehting better than a Tiger 1E would cost (beacuse as thinsg get better, they get more expensive, correct…? a better stat line or performance is directly related to the points cost.) By late war, the tanks woudl be so expensive you couldn't field more than a command tank for the points cost in a 1750 game….

So, BF reduces the points costs of x so that y is now the expensive new toy… it isn't about selling models, it is about maintaining their "rigid tournament pointing system".

Lets face it…. we are going to buy the models anyway… I have more Tigers than I could EVER field in a Mid War game… the changing of the points only has to do with keeping their tournament points system in tact… this was a bad idea… ideally, the whole system EW, MW & LW would be pointed such that someone could actually see the points progression… what they would have to do is change the points available for each era… Ew tourneys woudl max out at X, MW would max at Y and LW at Z because the stuff costs more pointwise….

Poniatowski,

There are different sets of points for each of the 3 periods that take into account each period's "progression".

E.g.

A Tiger in MW is 385 points, in LW it's 215.

A Panzer IVH is 165 points in MW, 90 points in LW.

A a Trained US Sherman is 115 points in MW and 69 in LW (Turning Tide).

However Shermans got revised downwards in later US LW books.

And I'll put it around another way.

BF reissues Turning Tide (Normandy) and Shermans are even cheaper than the Bulge era lists.

This actually happened – German forces in Earth and Steel (Normandy) were cheaper than Stalin's Onslaught (Seige of Budapest Dec 1944 – Feb 1945).

Books within same period should be balanced

However with the number of books being released for LW, maintaining balance is no longer possible.

Don't like it, best to go back to 40k. Seriously, if the game being more accurate to history bugs you, you really shouldn't be playing a ww2 game.

I don't see how constantly reducing points of things or adding new special rules that make no sense (e.g. 2ID Winter Training makes them go the speed of Stuarts through ruined buildings plus they're better at winter fighting than Finns or Soviets because they spent a month or two in Wisconsin) makes the game more accurate to history.

BF's approach to history is selective at best. Lest I remind you of their cartooned cliche approach to Soviets on which I had a big thread in TMP and from which on memory Phil got owned on the forums (e.g. Zis-3 is too big, Soviets never carried extra MG ammo, Soviets are cliched idiots).

I don't mind the Codex Creep provided it's not too ridiculous. It's an unfortunate side effect of any points based game where there's a high turnover of books.

The latest batch of US lists were ridiculous in terms of codex creep – they literally made all other US lists obsolete due to new free Special Rules, insane level of flexibility (e.g. no restrictions on 155mm artillery unlike every other US list) and points reductions.

Oh and McWong, there's more to game than Western Front June 1944-45.

No-one's still been able to explain persistent downward points revisions in Mid War yet.

And by the way I'm primarily a Soviet player.

Also McWong – I never had an issue with APDS AT15 – that's historical.

Thomas, I have a few V1 books (for the desert), most of the V2s, all the EW books, Africa and Eastern front in midwar, and a few latewar books.

I will admit that I haven't played since before v3 came out.

Points for a basic Infantry platoon haven't changed much since v1.

Depends on the force.

German Panzer and Gepanzerte Grenadiers have had big reductions in MW/LW.

On the other hand Soviet rifle platoons had a largish increase in Red Bear as well as imposition of bigger minimum platoon numbers for some lists – it actually made some of these forces relatively uncompetitive.

The American infantry have had special rules crammed in for free.

Seriously bud, unless you really enjoy putting yourself through the wringer just move on to something else. This isn't me defending BF or FoW (I have zero to do with either anymore), it's just you're never going to get the sort of resolution you may be looking for. I say this with respect, not trying to shut you down or anything!

No probs.

I'm merely trying to state that Codex Creep has happened.

Codex Creep is not necessarily good or bad – call it inflation associated with new book releases.

Denying it happens is my issue!

Anyways back on topic – so Allies now have AT15 deal with it
The Soviets have had it for ages
The same tactics for German armour apply.
1.) Make em move (smoke angles etc)
2.) Never let them get within 16"
3.) Never let them get on your flank
4.) Always stay in cover
5.) Use nasty cunning Tiger skills
If you can do that most of the time you can still win
Differences in Allies
Soviets have H&C but also have HBG and VF
W Allies have low FA but have SIF, cheap SPAT and AOP 's

Sorry I ever brought the discussion up :/

I actually like FoW.