Jump to content

what country do you like to play as when wargaming WW2


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Germanboy

In Combat Mission I like to play the Allies much more. It is much more challenging to work with their sub-par equipment. I look forward to playing the English, because their infantry squads are probably the worst equipped in terms of fire-power. I also look forward to using the Mk II Brew Up Kit, mounted on an Universal Carrier. A weapon with fearsome implications for German morale!

Where's the humour in driving around the battlefield in something almost invincible?

------------------

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play Americans, and British once in a while. I like to see the Nazis die. It's twice as good when they're SS. How about a few red spots to go with your brown and green, chums?

That "substandard weapons" stuff is a bunch of bull. The Americans had better infantry weapons, better artillery, better combined-arms tanks, better fighter-bombers, and more of everything.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

First post here, and I'm waiting on my copy too...oh the agony!

Anyways, for side preference in general, I prefer the Soviets. Quantity over quality is fun to play with IMO. Also, on the upper levels, I 100% agree with Soviet doctrine, the primacy of the offensive etc. I also like their unit organizations from about '43 onward.

I cut my teeth playing modern (at that time 80's) wargames and fell in love with the Soviet ToE's and the ridiculous quantities of Arty that they possesed ; )

For CM, I dont really have a preference until the Red Army makes its debut.

Talenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my comletely blind game against Berli (scenario picked at random) in get to play the Red Devils.

Should be lots of fun.

For the next couple of months, i'll concentrate on playing my CMMC battalion. I hope my CO's can whip up some scenarios (or point some out) that my side can train with.

After the CMMC starts, i'll probably want to play anything BUT my CMMC battalion.

Jason

------------------

Betas available to everyone are just publicity stunts anyways. -FK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

In Combat Mission I like to play the Allies much more. It is much more challenging to work with their sub-par equipment. I look forward to playing the English, because their infantry squads are probably the worst equipped in terms of fire-power.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh, some truth there, Andreas. I've been playing Quick Battles as the Brits with the full version, and although it's only been two scenarios of use, those PIATs have been all but useless to me so far. I read about them on one of the links I found on this Board, and remember thinking at the time they sounded like an odd execution. So far, although their 'stats' say they're max range is 200m, I've had no luck using them beyond 100m (falling short on every single shot). And this was at stationary, side-on halftrucks where for 5 shots the Piat crew wasn't even being fired at. I think the Brits should have opted for lend-lease Bazookas.

As far as sides, I've been mostly playing Commonwealth troops, because there were none in the Demo, and it's interesting to see the differences in equipment and organization.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest aka PanzerLeader

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That "substandard weapons" stuff is a bunch of bull. The Americans had better infantry weapons, better artillery, better combined-arms tanks, better fighter-bombers, and more of everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey watch it Dan...

MG42?

ME262?

PzV, PzVIE, PzVIB?

"More of everything", yes...But it is a fact that before Jan.1945 the German Army was generally superior, in quality, to its Allied counterparts.

Why do you think it took almost a year for the Allies to finish off Germany? Superior leadership, superior quality most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why do you think it took almost a year for the Allies to finish off Germany?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One person, Montgomery. One does not lead an offensive in Europe with an ultra-conservative CinC of European Ground Forces. However due to politics, Monty had a secure position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have some problems with all this "germans with all their superior equipment" stuff.

They didn't have very much of it and most formations had very little in the way of transport (other the horses and by foot). I read peoples reports of battles involving heaps of german troops in heaps of sdkfz251 halftracks and so forth - it didn't happen, you could have only seen that in parades (early in the war).

Hell - smaller anti-tank guns were dragged around by horses not dedicated trucks !

And these battles involving elite groups of german troops made up of, I presume, SMG and HSMG squads - looking at pictures and film from the 1944-1945 period (in the west) alot of german troops seem to armed with the rather (!) venerable KAR 98 and the normal length version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Allies. I've said before that I find no challenge in using an invulnerable behemoth. I also love artillery, air support, and speedy tanks, so especially the Americans. My father-in-law served under Patton, and I had three grand-uncles die on the Eastern Front, so I have sympathy for all the grunts. However, I'm also with Dan Weaver in liking to see SS die. Hey, Ubermensch, looks like you weren't bulletproof after all. When they are around, I need a button for "No quarter asked or given."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...