Brits or US of A?

[Chad Harrison]

when playing as the allies and you have a choice, who do you play as?

i have always played as the americans. having a 12 man squad gives me peace of mind. the zooks are cheap, and the .50cal works wonders.

what advantages/disadvantages do you see for each side (regardless of which you play most)?

chad 'harrison'

[Redwolf]

More firepower for the Americans, more nice toys for the British. British can be cruel if you can use them and have a bit of good luck. US can be devastating if you can deliver raw firepower at the right moment and don't run out of ammo later.

There have been many threads about British sweet spots in previous threads. Also some people actually like smaller squads.

[Warmaker]

For those rare times I play as the Allies I usually pick the Yanks. I'm much more familiar with them and their equipment so the transition isn't as rough as say trying to sort out the differences between U.S. and Commonwealth equipment.

I don't mind smaller squads. I just care about firepower. The relatively small 9-man Panzergrenadier squads pack alot of firepower. But that this can lead off into another thread in itself.

[Cogust]

It's the Brits for me, they have the best tanks and the best ATGs. They also have Wasps, Daimlers, PIATS and 2" multi purpose death ray launchers. The 3" variant is very cool too.

They have slightly inferior infantry and they don't have as good artillery as the Americans, but 17pdrs are really sweet.

[Jarmo]

British fit me better. I have trouble getting good use out of all those US support weapons. Especially when attacking.

And I like Cromwells, and Churchill's are a bargain.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cogust:

2" multi purpose death ray launchers <hr></blockquote>

Ain't it the truth. That is one nifty lil tube.

[Chad Harrison]

to add to what i had said, i make the choice of firepower per man with all the support that comes with the amis. those support weapons CAN be very crucial in battle, but its just getting them in the right place at the right time.

i would argue that outside of the firefly, the american armour is just as good as the brits armour. each has its strong and weak points.

for the brits however, i do LOVE the 3" mortar. that thing is heaven sent. increased ammo and FP over the 81mm! the firefly are excellent, and the carriers make for good, safe transports (not as vulnerable as jeeps).

and if you dont mind what you pick, brit airborne costs just as much as regular vanilla troops, and they get cool hats (and on mine, the unit picture is Sean Connery from 'a bridge too far'; how can you lose with sean connery leading your troops!!! ) the vickers gives a lot of ammo, but not quite the same terror as the .50cal.

i suppose you could group canadian troops and brit troops in the same bag because they use a lot of the same equipment.

the main reason i bring this up is just that i have played only one person who picked anything but amis. maybe its just who i play.

is that a trend for others also?

[Cogust]

I think Surlyben did some statistical analysis on the reported battles at Band of Brothers and came to the conclusion that the Brits had the highest win percentage of all nations closely followed by the Germans and the Americans was a distant third. And when he checked out the top ranking players he foudn that they had an even higher win precentage for the Brits, so one can argue that they might be better than the Americans.

I'd take a Cromwell over a Sherman any day and the Churchills are really mean machines. Archers, Challengers and Fireflies carry an awesome punch and you can't beat the Wasp and Churchill Croc when you want to have a BBQ.

[109 Gustav]

I also go with the brits, mostly because I can buy 4 platoons instead of 3 american ones. That gives me a lot more flexibility when setting up a defense, since I can have a reserve or plug all the holes in my lines.

The paratroopers are also better, since you don't get all the 3 man 1919s and other supporting weapons that come with the ami platoons. I prefer to get my support weapons individually so I can have exactly what I want.

Then there's the 4.2" mortars for arty. Nice and cheap with good Boom. Right, Tanker?

[Pzman]

Well I don't mind which type I use, as both American and Commonwealth units have ups and downs. Its not like comparing Volkssturm to SS units. I too like the evil that is the 17 pounder.

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Commander]

So far I have played this game as Allies. I prefer playing as American (pride thing) and beating on German troops hard. I have also played as French and British. SuperTed's Newbie Tournament will be my FIRST game as an evil German. I won't know what to do with all that power! The German's have got some great AT infantry units! Do you think always playing against Germans will give me an advantage when I play as Germans?

[Sergei]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Commander:

Do you think always playing against Germans will give me an advantage when I play as Germans?<hr></blockquote>

A good question. I prefer playing with the allies, because that way I emphasize the tactics. Germans were famous for their tactics, but I have noticed that many people just take the Überpanzers and go with blazing guns for a frontal assault.

I just hope that this "strategy" won't let me down when CM:BB comes out. As it stands, I know my enemy, but I don't know how my own forces are going to act (Soviets, that is). And of course in CM:BB there are others than Krauts as well. A totally new dimension! Can't wait.

[Redwolf]

I think the Germans are a bit easier to play, because they have infantry that is superiour to Allied infantry and they have AFVs that are superiour. In a combined arms battle that may not mean much, however, in many battles you see plans and coordination falling apart for both sides, so that you really have single-platoon again platoon and single-tank against tank clashes, and then the Germans have the edge. Especially for new players that risk is considerable and it is no wonder that the Axis have a better score rate when looking at all CMBO games, which are probably many more games by inexperienced players.

Once you get coordination and the Allies have equal win chance, I think the Americans are a bit easier to play. Just concentrate fire and infantry and push it. For the British, you have need some toys that are more delicate to use. Also, the British infantry is even more vulnerable on occasional screwups.

I have seens claims that the British win a higher percentage of games that the Americans. I explain that effect with the fact that British are much more likely to be chosen by experienced players, so the better win chance reflects that the better player has the bigger win chance, not his force.

[Slapdragon]

This may or may not still be true, but a year ago when we looked at this question using two of the ladders, we found that the players with the highest win / loss records generally played exclusively Germans, in several cases never playing allies, but that if you took an average win / loss record then the best side to play by a nose was the British followed by the Germans followed by the Americans.

Still, the game must be balanced fairly well because no single side was out rageously represented in wins as an overall precentage and the numbers had a huge amount of play. Apparently in Quickbattles terrain has more to do with determining victory than what side you play, and in small battle luck seems to have a lot to do with who wins, since a single tank bogging down or artillery falling on just the right place can tilt the game one side or the other.

Very large games, on large boards bring out more national characteristics because luck and terrain is minimized, but they also bring out more personal tactics and strategy as a deciding factor.

[Slapdragon]

This is an anecedote instead of a more serious look at the issue as the previous post discussed, but I also asked a number of the best players why they usually played Germans in tourney play. They replied that the Germans have more flexibility in choosing forces.

The previous discussion really needs to be looked at again, and will need to be looked at in CM:BB, to determine if any factors are causal in establishing a winning strategy for the game. Not an issue for casual play, but those who play tourney style death matches will liek to know how things stack up.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

This is an anecedote instead of a more serious look at the issue as the previous post discussed, but I also asked a number of the best players why they usually played Germans in tourney play. They replied that the Germans have more flexibility in choosing forces.

<hr></blockquote>

That is certainly true. A certain number of items in CMBO are underpriced for the typical Quickbattle.

The Germans have way more different units and when every 100th unit is underpriced they get more. Enough to fill most arms with one bargin or onother: SMG infantry, small guns, guns that are easy to spot (infantry guns), big mortars with few ammo.

And what is the typical quickbattle: in good weather, on a small map and a game for knockout (not terrain) and high unit density with absolute spotting leading to good knowledge about enemy positions. Also few AFVs, at least few of one kind, so proper platoon or company tactics for armour.

The Germans in fact develop a number of weapons that are very useful in the environment, more than in the typical historic engagement

- Panzerschreck's superiority really matter when you can send them to a tank spotted behind two hills

- Jagdpanzers do not suffer nearly as much from being used alone than tanks or thin TDs.

- cheap crappy HE-throwing vehicles like the 251/9 and 234/3 and SP sIG33 (Bison, in CMBO Hummel) are great for isolated infantry fighting when the tough stuff just isn't available because the tank divisions drive around with it

[Chad Harrison]

weve just recieved a newsflash:

commander chad 'harrison' has started a PBEM game as the british! the battle is a 3000 pt ME. double news flash! i just started another PBEM as the germans! :eek: also a 3000 pt ME!

this is a real breakthrough for me to play as something besides the americans! maybe its just american pride? or maybe i just like having 12 man squads with garands? or maybe i just like my good old sherman 75/105's?

[CombinedArms]

When I started playing this game I almost exclusively took the Americans--this was part national pride, part anti-Nazi sentiment, part greater familiarity with American over British equipment. Probably, this was good training, because, as the stats seem to indicate, in some ways the American forces are the hardest to play with effectively in the CM context (in part because they lack two of their main strengths: smothering doses of accurate artillery--including heavy stuff like 155mm + which could be effective against tanks--and readily available swarms of air support. These elements are of course, present, but not in terms of constant superiority--you have to "pay" for tools in CM that US commanders had readily on call, except in unusual circumstances.) The American insistance on uniformity of arms, a necessity for a gigantic and quickly assembled army that had to be shipped across two large oceans, also works as a disadvantage in CM, with its various specialized terrains and contexts, esp. without the leveling effects of massive HE and airpower.

Ultimately, I've come to appreciate the strengths of all the different national arms, and particularly the British. The US forces have no equivalent for the 17 pounder gun, which makes the Firefly and Challenger so effective (my experience is that the US 90mm isn't nearly so accurate). The Churchill's heavy frontal armor makes it a great assault tank. The Churchill Croc is a monster. The piat, and 2" and 3" mortars are also nifty weapons. The British vanilla infantry is underpowered for close combat, but you can work around that. So I'm never sorry, at this point, to get the Brits, or the similarly equipped Poles or Canadians. And definitely it's a good idea to practice playing with all the different forces.

[Redwolf]

Good post, CA,

a few remarks:

the American artillery in CMBO is faster than the other nation's. And the modules come with more ammo and are appropriately more expensive than the British equivalents. So you really get no choice than to have artillery with enough ammo to attack more than one target (that applies to 105m, 155 and 4.2" mortars alike). That dramatically changes play style compared to the British where you generally buy one module to attack one target and then think about other toys.

One remaining problem I have with the British is that some of the equipment is expensise, as in appropriate price in purchase, but it can really hurt to get the stuff knocked out. A firely is worth its money when buying it, but it is 173 points when it dies, maybe plus crew. A wasp with its 67 or so points is worth in buying, but it is vulnerable to 20mm fire, so the 67 points may be gone pretty fast. A platoon comes with PIAT, 2" mtr and more HQ for each rifleman. Loosing the average man in a British platoon costs way more points than in an US platoon. Of course, Fallschirmjaeger are worse The Churchill Crocodile is good and in many games will pay off, but it really hurts to loose it to a Panzerfaust, much more than loosing a Flammpanzer 38 would.

On the other and, the arty spotters are cheap, if you loose a British spotter with 2/3 of their ammo it hurts less than loosing an US team with 2/3 of their ammo.

[Spook]

Similar with Combined Arms, I recognize that each nationality has its unique set of strengths & weaknesses, but am more inclined to the Commonwealth in most situations if playing Allied. The reason being that in terms of armor & artillery, I prefer the options available under the UK.

If a close-quarters, broken-terrain situation limits the usage of armor & of artillery, then in "vanilla infantry" terms (not airborne), I think that the US infantry is a bit better in terms of firepower, squad manpower, & support weapons so to "close in."