Jump to content

Yuck! Not these guys!


Recommended Posts

Is there a nationality or subdivision of a nationality that you can't stand in CM?

I know that if I do a QB and get the French, the urge to do-over is very strong. I have nothing against the French, but if I am going to get US stuff than I want US troops using it.

Oddly enough, I like playing the Poles. Any other wierd preferences out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty:

I can't stand the Klingon's.

Hmmm, are the Klingon's in CM ? :confused:

Sorry,wrong Forum

Beam me up Scotty!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No intelligent life in this thread?

I don't like playing SS, but they hardly qualify as nationality. I enjoy playing the British Army ( lots of infantry ) and Heer ( with lots of Rifle squads ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

originally posted by the esteemed Michael Emrys: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ROFLMAO!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I just make this up as I go along.

So, Schugger, one vote against the SS. Just a political thing, or is there something within the game that you don't like about them? Why the British army?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Why do I envisage this thread turning into a flamewar? You're encouraging people to pick on a nationality and explain why they don't like it? Good basis for some serious discussion there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree... re-read his post. Even when saying he didn't like PLAYING the the French as Allies, he had nothing against him. He was asking which troops you don't like using. I think that there is a HUGE difference betweent the two.

I lived in England for 3 years. Love England and the English.. But I don't like using British troops when playing CM. It doesn't mean I don't like the English or England... It means I don't like using English troops in CM, nothing more. That's what he was asking.

To tell you the truth. I'm not really fond of any of the Allied troops in CMBO, from the beta demo until now, I have been dreaming of German VS Soviet troops. I have more books on the Eastern Front than the western front. It's my favorite. It doen's mean I don't like America, Canada, Poland, France... etc. When playing a war game I am most interested in the Eastern Front.

I think it was an interesting question. I am curious what Allied nationality other members like and don't like playing. I agree this shouldn't degrade into discussions about nationalities... just keep it on what troops you like or don't like to use in CM. I see no problem with that.

My 3¢

Scott Karch

combat@karchfamily.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, everyone is going to prefer playing their own nationality. If their own isn't included, they'll play the one they can most closely identify with. Those people whose nationality is included are unlikely to be happy playing other nationalities, but for everyone else it probably won't matter.

The exception would probably be those who play to win, who will always choose the troops which offer them the highest firepower, regardless of the nationality.

I'm Scottish and, surprise surprise, if I'm Allies I mostly choose the British. If I'm German I usually go for regular infantry or Sicherung troops, rather than Sturmgruppen or Volksgrenadier SMG squads.

So, what are the reasons for disliking a particular kind of troops in CM, other than 1) you think their firepower is lacking, or 2) you just have something against their nationality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that is what I was asking. I have no logical reason for not playing the French. On the other hand, my knowledge of British tanks and vehicles is limited, and I am lazy so I am missing out on the Brits through my own ignorance.

I am sure from reading other posts that the Brits have some interesting gear to play with, but I look at an Archer or a Cromwell and since I know little about them, I have a tendency to stick with stuff I know.

Perhaps a good book could cure this. Since I have read a fair bit on Market-Garden, I am more comfortable with the British airborne forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I play most of the time as Waffen-SS. When I do play as the Allies, 75% of the time I'll play as the U.S. The rest is mostly the British. As far as equipment, and especially when it comes to tanks for the Allies, the British and U.S. pretty much have the full spectrum of gear. The French, Polish, and Canadians pretty much have equipment from these two nationalities. In infantry units & gear though things will spice up with the nationalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

So, Schugger, one vote against the SS. Just a political thing, or is there something within the game that you don't like about them? Why the British army?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think it is both. It is that my cyber SS Heinis smell that I don't hold them in high regard and, consequently, they do their best to dissapoint me in any battle.

For the Brits, I just like the their army organisation in CM ( TO&E?). Even in a small QB with 1500pts you can afford two full companies, get a lot of Piats and 2" mortars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll be nice. tongue.gif

I'll even try to address the topic. I haven't yet played the Germans. Aside from my moral qualms about the Nazi regime, I don't like playing losers. I don't claim that either of these reasons really have much to do with CM.

The odd thing in a way is that when we get to CM2, I will probably play the Germans in the first couple of years of the war and the Soviets in the second two years.

I don't really want to identify with either regime. I regard the Nazis as somewhat more reprehensible to the extent that they began this war and prosecuted it with particularly savage brutality. The Soviets responded with their own brand of ruthless savagery.

It was an interesting war for a variety of reasons, but there was very little that was lovely or glorious about it, even less than is usually the case in war. In a way, it will be somewhat of a relief for me when we get to CM3 and 4.

Michael

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

I like the PIATS, but the 2" mortars leave me cold. They just don't seem to have the umph! of the American 60mm.

Any German squad based around the LMG seems a good one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gah! I hates them PIATs almost as much as I hates them Vickers MGs. Heavy, slow ROF, lousy hit percentage (at least the times I've used them). Most vivid memory of them is 2 teams targeting a Puma at <100m. No hits. Shots, 20; hits, 0.

The only thing the PIAT has going for it is there is no telltale plume, which makes them sneaky.

Churchill is a joy against infantry and most armor, even though turtle-slow. Crommies are challenging to use effectively ... much like the PzIV. Been using the Brits alot recently because I don't know much about using them well. I don't like that their squads don't have any AT capabilities, and are a bit light in the firepower, but you can get a bunch of them.

I like using the Poles ... can't understand a word of what they're saying, but I like listening to the language. I know it's only perception, but the times I've used them, they almost seem to fight with more attitude.

As for the Germans, I usually stick to the FJs and Heer units. I can lose equally well with either.

Have yet to play as the French.

edited for stupidity.

[ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

I like the PIATS, but the 2" mortars leave me cold. They just don't seem to have the umph! of the American 60mm.

Any German squad based around the LMG seems a good one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gah! I hates them PIATs almost as much as I hates them Vickers MGs. Heavy, slow ROF, lousy hit percentage (at least the times I've used them). Most vivid memory of them is 2 teams targeting a Puma at <100m. No hits. Shots, 20; hits, 0.

The only thing the PIAT has going for it is there is not telltale plume, which makes them sneaky.

Churchill is a joy against infantry and most armor, even though turtle-slow. Crommies are challenging to use effectively ... much like the PzIV. Been using the Brits alot recently because I don't know much about using them well. I don't like that their squads don't have any AT capabilities, and are a bit light in the firepower, but you can get a bunch of them.

I like using the Poles ... can't understand a word of what they're saying, but I like listening to the language. I know it's only perception, but the times I've used them, they almost seem to fight with more attitude.

As for the Germans, I usually stick to the FJs and Heer units. I can lose equally well with either.

Have yet to play as the French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Moriarty wrote:

Been using the Brits alot recently because I don't know much about using them well. I don't like that their squads don't have any AT capabilities, and are a bit light in the firepower, but you can get a bunch of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The PIAT is supposed to stay with its platoon. The squads may not carry AT weapons, but the platoon PIAT should never be far away.

The advantage of Vickers and similar machineguns is their sustained fire abilities, but this isn't modelled in CM. They may be heavy and have a slow rate of fire, but once in position they should be able to keep firing without risk of overheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Aitken. PIATS are not so bad and if you look at a Brit battalion TOE there are lots of extras above the one per platoon number. I always buy more and I really like the sneaky aspect. You can fire off three shots and if the target is buttoned they are often none the wiser.

As for the 2" mortar they were found very handy in the pacific jungles and I have found them good in woods terrain. They're not for killing units, just for laying down a bit of suppression on that MG position while you assault it.

The Vickers modelling is a bit annoying because they seem far less potent than they should be. It should be less firepower per burst but more bursts per turn for the Vickers. They shouldn't be moving more than a short distance on foot. That's why the Brits invariably used carriers to move them around. Dopey scenario designers (like Rune!) persist in giving every Brit platoon a Vickers with no transport for the thing :rolleyes: They're just a waste of time in an attacking or meeting engagment without something to move them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The PIAT is supposed to stay with its platoon. The squads may not carry AT weapons, but the platoon PIAT should never be far away.

The advantage of Vickers and similar machineguns is their sustained fire abilities, but this isn't modelled in CM. They may be heavy and have a slow rate of fire, but once in position they should be able to keep firing without risk of overheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learned long ago (the hard way) to keep squads-platoons and their associated weapons, i.e. PIATs and mortars, together ... at least within supporting-fire range.

To be more precise, the slow ROF I was referring to was that of the PIAT in comparison to the zook or schreck.

The Vickers MG team is slow as molasses in terms of movement ... unless you have a Jeep to taxi them about. That's livin' large.

Other than the first time I played the Poles, when I had a pair of PIATs that could not miss, I have found the accuracy of these weapons, even at 100m or less, to be less than inspiring. And I realize these things were heavy, hard to move around and hard to load ... all of which takes a toll on the crew.

From a tactical standpoint, I do love the fact you can fire them and not give away your position. That's sweet.

As for the 2-inch mortar, it's pretty decent at taking out fixed gun assets, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just started wondering why 2in mortars can be knocked out. All they are is a tube with a foot at the bottom and a bit of canvas for holding them by. How is one of those going to be "knocked out" by artillery when the crew gets away unscathed? I think I'll have to start a new thread to annoy BTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...