Sturmgruppe Fallschrimjagers and Mountain Troops VS Vanilla Amis

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

Most of the trouble with human choose troops games (as opposed to computer choose troops) is the following: all paratrooper/fallshrims, all Hetzer, all Jumbo, all uber tank, all nuclear arty armies. :eek:

Oh, ... I forgot the all gerbil trooper (yeah, I know, gebirgsjager) armies. <hr></blockquote>

What is the problem with this? Generally speaking it is more realistic to play with homogenous armored platoons and infantry forces. Taking one of this and two of that and one of those is cherry picking. If you are going to use Gerbils there is nothing wrong with using all Gerbils, if you are going to use Hetzers there is nothing wrong with using all Hetzers. Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

[moosehead]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

What is the problem with this? Generally speaking it is more realistic to play with homogenous armored platoons and infantry forces. Taking one of this and two of that and one of those is cherry picking. If you are going to use Gerbils there is nothing wrong with using all Gerbils, if you are going to use Hetzers there is nothing wrong with using all Hetzers. Or am I misunderstanding what you said?<hr></blockquote>

You make a valid point, in that if you are going to choose Gerbil troops, then it should be ALL Gerbil troops. But, HOW often are you choosing the "all gerbil" troop configuration. And how many of your victories were using this configuration? Maybe your nick should be "The Gerbil Master"

:eek:

[Vanir Ausf B]

In the 16 games I have played on the RD ladder (including current) I have used Gerbils twice.

I have never used FJ or Sturmgruppen against another human player. I usually use SS Rifle as Germans.

Does that answer your question?

Gerbil Master...

BTW, in neither of those 2 games were the type of infantry I chose a deciding factor. They were both fairly lopsided games.

In fact, I have never played a game in which I felt the type of infantry used decided the outcome.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[PiggDogg]

Vanir,

My opinions are only opinions (& opinions are like noses, everyone [well, at least most people] has one):

Please understand, I can choose troops with the best of them & I enjoy doing so because I love playing CM any way that I can.

However, I prefer computer choose troop games (CCG) as compared to human choose troops games (HCG) because CCGs seem to have a more realistic feel. Yes, I know that many will say that HCGs are more realisitic. I respectfully disagree.

Generally (this means, most of the time), in CCGs everyone gets run of mill units (which, at the time of the game, seems like one is getting unmitigated crappe) & each player must improvise & make do with what he has gotten. In real life, a commander has whatever survived the last battle plus whatever came out of the repair & replacement pools.

In HCGs, excellent players & myself (& I'm not claiming that I am excellent) pick the best buy for the cost troops. I feel that this is less realistic than the CCGs where everyone gets crappe. This is just an opinion and nothing more.

Indeed, if you or anyone else wishes, I would be pleased to play y'all in a 1500 or so point pbem ME, CCG or HCG, rated on Band Of Brothers BAR or not. (Hey, I'm easy, at least that is what my wife says. ) Yep, my guys will bite your guys kneecaps.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Cheers, Richard (richardcuccia@home.com)

[Chad Harrison]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

However, I prefer computer choose troop games (CCG) as compared to human choose troops games (HCG) because CCGs seem to have a more realistic feel. Yes, I know that many will say that HCGs are more realisitic. I respectfully disagree.

<hr></blockquote>

i would agree with that in some aspects and disagree in others. what makes computer pick so historical is that you get what you get. a battlefield commander could never say that he wanted this or that, he just worked with what he had. thats what i like about computer pick, and thats what i REALLY like about scenarios.

what i dont like about computer pick is that sometimes is can be a little wierd. even though, you are proboably a lot more likely to see three king tigers, than to see just one. but for balance and fun of play, i like human pick or scenarios.

scenarios are the best of both worlds IMO. you get the feeling of 'this is what i have, work with it' and a human picked them, and if they put some effort into it, you will find a pretty good historically accurate mix.

human pick does come with all of its flaws, and there sure are a lot of cherry pickers out there, but it gives variety to play some who prefer more atry or armor or whatever.

for me, i prefer human pick for that reason.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

However, I prefer computer choose troop games (CCG) as compared to human choose troops games (HCG) because CCGs seem to have a more realistic feel. Yes, I know that many will say that HCGs are more realisitic. I respectfully disagree.<hr></blockquote>

Computer pick is more realistic for the reasons you note. It is less realistic in that you tend to get a hodge-podge of different unit types mixed together. This doesn't bother some people. That's fine. As you say, everyone has their own preferences and opinions.

My main problem with computer pick is that you can sometimes end up with some rather unbalanced forces, such as getting an army of halftracks while your opponent gets a Hetzer, a Panther and 2 Stugs. This may be realistic in a way, but it isn't very fun IMO. There is also the issue of the map peek cheat that is much worse for computer pick games.

But to each their own. I'm not telling anyone how to play their games. All that I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with picking homogenous forces, regardless of unit type. For example, I have never used a KT in a game, but if I did get a wild hair up my ass for one game I would likely buy nothing but KTs as my armored force in that game. That would be more realisic than buying a KT, a JPz IV/70, a Hetzer, a MK IV and a Wespe. And I would be annoyed if my opponent gave me a hard time about it especially if he were losing. Now, if I were buying KTs in every game I played, or in even half of them, that would be a problem, but that is a separate issue.

I understand that if you play someone for the first time and they have KTs or FJ it is natural to assume they must use them all the time, even though there is no way to know that (unless you ask them). The new rarity system in CM2 should go a long way toward changing that. Until then I will continue my policy of never bitching about what my opponent buys unless it violates some pre-game agreement. I go into every game I play more-or-less assuming my opponent will buy some cherry-picked force. I have never had much trouble beating these types of forces, so I don't get too excited when I see them, nor do I feel too guilty on the rare occasions I may use one myself. In my expirience the better player (or the luckier player) will win almost every time regardless of forces picked. Maybe others have had different expiriences.

In any case, have a Happy Thanksgiving!

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[PiggDogg]

Vanir,

Good points.

You mention a hodge-podge of different units types as being less realistic than, I assume, a more homogeneous human choose force. Actually, my opinion (& yes, it is only and opinion) is that a hodge-podge is generally more historically accurate.

Other than an attacker at the beginning of an important or major offensive where the attacker is plumped up for the offensive, units on an active battle front would suffer from attrition and, to a lesser extent, wear & tear. The subsequent erraticness of repair & replacement pools would 'probably' produce some substantial hodge-podge within units.

You mention that computer choose forces sometimes end up with rather unbalanced forces. Actually, 'generally', but not all of the time, I have found that the computer has a generally devilishly nasty way of giving each player just barely enough of what he needs to counter his opponent.

You are of course correct for the time that the damn computer ( lol) gave me an army of attacking flamethrower infantry in medium woods. :eek: I got my head handed to me in that one.

Hey, I'll 'cherry pick' with the best of them. Gimme my Hetzers, Jumbos, paras, hull down JpzIV/70s, & nuclear arty. No regular line units for me. Gimme those uber troopers, Allied & Axis.

Cheers, Richard

[moosehead]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

In the 16 games I have played on the RD ladder (including current) I have used Gerbils twice.

When playing as Germans I pick them maybe half the time or a little less, and use vanilla infantry the rest of the time

Now, if I were buying KTs in every game I played, or in even half of them, that would be a problem, but that is a separate issue.

<hr></blockquote>

Now I'm confused.