Pyewacket Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I would like to know what you think about QBs where the Allied side purchases Brits and US troops, means mix them up. Is that gamey? why? I remember one of my first games where I did that and my opponent was pissed off. Then I never did that anymore and found out that it was sometimes difficult to choose the side, I mean it depended on what I had in mind in the battle. So the question precisely is: Is there an advantage when mixing up Allied nations from the point of view of spending money to the best available unit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Of course there is an advantage to spending points on getting the best available. You just might win. Since there appeared to be no pre-game agreement about mixing nationalities (or QB parameter settings for that matter), your opponent who was pissed-off had absolutely no legs to stand on. You did the right thing. No pre-game agreements about the game means "do whatever you want, its all legal." Everyone should know that by now. All it takes is a little thinking (and communicating) before you start. Your opponent did his best to purchase the best troops available so as to bring about your demise. Why shouldn't you in regards to him? Nope. Don't feel bad about it --at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 I heard that U.S. and British troops were actually allies in real WWII as well... No really, with all these Shermans and Stuarts and HTs and Jeeps that are already part of the British OBBs, I don't really see what much difference it makes. And Infantry really isn't that much different anyway. There are like twice as much German tank variants than allied tanks alone, so your opponent should have quite something to choose from himself - and if that's not enough, he could try mixing it with Italian units. So tell that whimp to shut up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 If you didn't say anything in advance it is OK to mix. You see, the Germans may be one country, but they get a lot more variety. They have more useful tanks and SP gun than either UK or US. And you can pick infantry which is very different from vanilla infantry, SS, motorized and armored, airborne, luftwaffe, volksgrenadier and whatnot. If you restrict the Allied player to choose between US and UK, you should narrow down the Axis player to one type of division for fairness. I wonder what people do about the artillery situation in Quickbattles. Just accept that the Germans can have heavier artillery? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: [snip] I wonder what people do about the artillery situation in Quickbattles. Just accept that the Germans can have heavier artillery? so far, yes. not liked it but accepted it. and prayed for the patch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 It is gamey because in real life it basically wouldn't have happened, command and control being just one good reason. Which is not to say that forces did not get mixed up and fight together due to circumstances but that is not the situation here. Glad that I'm not so desperate to win that I'd even think of doing that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 No matter which side your play, nor what force mix you choose in a game of CMAK, the important thing is to always shoot the Australian troops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Seanachai: No matter which side your play, nor what force mix you choose in a game of CMAK, the important thing is to always shoot the Australian troops. Shouldn't you be at work, you horrid little man? Posting away like a hummingbird on speed because you don't want Rambo to overtake your post count? How...plebian of you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I recall a post-D-day photo that showed U.S. troops riding on the backs of Churchills. And of course Brit armor was forever supporting Canadian infantry. There was armor assigned to support other units, there's butting commands (Brits on the left, Yanks on the right). I'm not too sure how often an American artillery spotter would show up to support Brits on the ground, for instance. A lone BAR team in a battalion of aussies might stand out a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: A lone BAR team in a battalion of aussies might stand out a bit. As the only ones sober, if nothing else. Wasn't there a thread a few months ago about this sort of thing, where several of the grogs wrote in about small unit actions conducted by mixed national forces? I thought there were at least a handful where Brits and Americans fought in the same action jointly. Where's Dorosh? He's always going on about this sort of thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Boo Radley: Shouldn't you be at work, you horrid little man? Posting away like a hummingbird on speed because you don't want Rambo to overtake your post count? How...plebian of you. I am at work. You don't think I'd be posting this early in the morning if I wasn't, do you? I mean, unless I hadn't yet been to sleep... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Boo Radley: Shouldn't you be at work, you horrid little man? Posting away like a hummingbird on speed because you don't want Rambo to overtake your post count? How...plebian of you. I am at work. You don't think I'd be posting this early in the morning if I wasn't, do you? I mean, unless I hadn't yet been to sleep... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I have just got a QB where it is a meeting engagement and the Americans have a Firefly. I must admit I had never considered it as it seems fairly ahistorical. In an attck etc I am aware that the US borrowed Crocodiles to overawe the defenders in Cherbourg. And very effective they were! Obviously there is a considerable advantage in being ahistorical as the UK ATG's , Fireflies and Crocdiles were worth having. American artillery and squads are also very effective. I am surprised though that so many people have leapt up to say it is OK - without any provisos. I suppose they are the people who bought lots of flakwagons in CMBO : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think on reflection the onus must be on the player who wishes to be ahistorical to mention it before the game. I do not wish to have to write a list of possible gamey things to be answered before I play someone simply to accomodate 1 out of the 30 or so people I have played. Edit. P.S. Actually I do not consider much to be gamey at all. The mixing of Commonwealth troops etc is common knowledge, and certainly there were times when Germans and their Allies were in action together. However in general it would be helpful , if only out of politeness, that you say you may or may not do it, of course if you only wish to play someone once this must be a highly effective way of dissing opponents. [ September 03, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I think you can point to more photos of US troops with British tanks and the other way around than you can point to photos of Volksgrenadiere supported by Tigers or Jagdpanthers. I still thing the big mass of Germans options that CM puts in one basket makes it fair play to mix Brits and Americans. The most sensible thing would probably be that you have to choose infantry and support weapons from one nation, AFVs from one nation and air support independently of that. That way you get U.S. paratroops with Fireflies, but no Greyhounds scouting for Crocodiles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I had not realised we were comparing photo opportunities! It is one thing to pose for photos for fun and propaganda and entirely another to be fighting a battle. In my particular case in a thousand point battle we apparently have a sole Firefly, two Shermans US and American infantry , - there may yet be British mortars. I do not care particularly if I win or lose and I am not a deep history grog but the mixing is a little bit off. I also suspect that I may be out on a limb regarding having transports for my artillery in meeting engagements. These things we do as they appear to be the correct thing ........ mumble mumble In a desperate defence may be a 1% chance it happened for all manner of forces to be mixed. But as deliberate Allied policy complete fantasy as the radios presumably are different, different ammo, different rations - and as for command structure - complete cobblers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.