I like both the Tiger and the 2 types of Puma. I am not sure I like that the Tiger 1E 88mm gun is only as good as the long 75mm of the Panther. It seems like it should be a little better. I guess the Tiger II will have a firepower of 6 making it the same as the Super Pershing and the IS-2.

I agree that they probably could have given the Tiger I one more attack die. I also think that it could have had a higher points cost. (35 - 38)

At the end of the day I am pretty happy with what they did with it. Looking forward to playing against them.

Edited by user Sunday, October 23, 2016 6:27:33 AM(UTC)  | Reason: clarification

Well, I am gonna buy a BUNCH of Pumas and Tigers. Got an idea...and it seems good :P

Brace Yourself for a Wall-o-text...



In terms of penetration value 8.8cm Kwk 36 L/56 (Tiger I gun) was actually slightly worse than 7.5cm Kwk 42 L/70 (Panther gun), but it had a bigger, heavier round. And in the light of Attack rating 6 for 8.8cm Pak/Kwk 43 L/71 (respectively JagdPanther and Tiger II gun), which was a massive improvement over it's predecessor Attack rating 5 is pretty much spot on.



Eee... Puma's rating is given on it's card. And frankly we seem to be talking about completely different things here, as Puma did not have to fare against Tiger and Panther. First, all vehicles served in the same Army, second, their tasks were completely different (recce, heavy tank, medium tank respectively).

As for ratings, Puma's gun (5cm Kwk 39 L/60) was vastly inferior to Panzer IV's gun (7.5cm Kwk 40 L/48), yet it ended with the same Attack value.

But I agree that it's nice to finally have a Fast German.



It's nice, but You highlighted another missed chance that is Doctrine cards. As someone was saying in a thread dedicated to them it's a pity that Doctrine does not encompass the whole of the force You're fielding. I'm coming from a point of view of someone who is using Radio Coordinator regularely and I like the additional layer of internal synergy it gives to my tank company. It allows for more elaborate tactics than just teleport a tank and roll dice. Recon as is and Doctrine as a single tank upgrade just seem a wasted opportunity to make the game even better.



To finish my rant off I'll just say that Puma's Recon from a number crunching point of view just gives it back the Defence rating of 1 under condition that You're hugging cover.

Bloody hell, I think I need some happy pills...

Edited by user Sunday, October 23, 2016 10:38:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I would've been tempted to lump all the 37mm, 40mm (e.g. the British 2-pounder), and 50mm guns together in the Attack 3 "tier". Not so much because of the technical details, which I'm not too familiar with, but because historically they fit into a category of guns that worked early in the war but were not very useful by the middle of it. It'd be intuitive.

It would also differentiate the Panzer III from the IV, if GF9 intends to release mid- or early-war tanks in this game. (Flames of War is going to focus on midwar in the next year, so new plastic tanks that aren't for Team Yankee should be from that era... looks like there'll be an M3 Lee/Grant too - what would you do with a 2-gun tank?)

On the other hand, some quick numbers that I'm finding show the Puma's 50mm to be similar in performance to the T-34/76's gun, which might be on the lower end of the Attack 4 tier, maybe even better at short range with certain ammo (I'm not looking at HEAT or anything, but composite AP shells).

Meanwhile, the PaKwagen did have slightly better muzzle velocity than the Panzer IV's gun.

Just thought I would point out that the Puma on their site only has two of its five cards spoiled...

So looking at a local store here in London and they have the Puma for a release of 12th November.....and the Tiger 1 for release on the 17th December.

All I want for Christmasss is yoouuuu (Tiger)

I really dislike how it has the same armour as the is2. ok i get it simplification and all, tiger has 100 mm at 81º ok fine is1 has 120mm with a bit more inclination. But the is2 with 100/120 mm at 60º? same armour same hp? thats a no no for me. One thing is simplification another one is throwing historical accuracy through the window because people really like te tiger and has to sell well.

Personally I do not see that the armor rating on the Tiger is a big deal. Even if looking at it from a more historical point of view. There is more to consider than armor thickness and angles.

Frankly; I thought the Christmas Tiger would be a miracle anyways. Especially here in the U.S.A..
Had hoped for the Puma though. Sadly; one thing I have come to terms with in WW2 war gaming is that release dates are typically not something you can count on pretty much with any of the companies I deal with.
Maybe it's me?