So, why is mixing nationalities gamey?!

[Herr Kruger]

I would like a detailed, non-hostile answer please....

[Michael Dorosh]

Because CM is a game set at battalion or company level. Nationalities did not generally mix companies or battalions; way to hard to control troops. They sometimes operated next to each other (look at the Nijmegen Bridge fighting, with British armour and infantry fighting alongside US paratroops).

But it should be intuitive that both units would have different commanders, and it wasn't often that two nationalities - no matter which two we are discussing - could come to some consensus about who should be in command of such a mixed battlegroup, or willing to subordinate themselves to another nationality.

Differences in training and doctrine would also make for low inter-operability.

[aka_tom_w]

you might say it is only gamey if cherry pick only the very best/cost efficient units from each nation, it is then both gamey and ahistorical.

how's that?

-tom w

[Redwolf]

I agree with Michael. In principle

However, it would have been great if Volksgrenadiere had been made into their own force like Volkssturm are, with limited armor, vehicles and maybe artillery.

The way it is the German player can mix his heaviest or best tanks with many difference kinds of infantry. While not with Gebirgsjaeger, Fallschirmjaeger or Volkssturm, he can use normal infantry, security and Volksgrenadiere with armor that would go (division-wise) with Panzergrenadieren or Pioneers only. There is quite some cheap high-HE stuff in CMBO that was equipment of Panzer or Panzergrenadier divisions, mixing it with Volksgrenadieren or Security is no better than an Allied nationality or airborne mix. On the other hand, it would have had a good effect for many CMBO games if the Hetzer would go with infantry forces only. That means if you want Panthers (Panzerdivision) you have to go with Jagdpanzer IV and not the cheap Hetzer as a Panzerjaeger.

On tournamenthouse.com people seem to go with the rule that an airborne/army mix is allowed. Or, a newer variant, you just say ahead which infantry exactly you will take. Outside of SMG troops there is very few tactical surprise to gain, so why invest much brain power in infantry choices?

I once started proposing an Axis force split along the lines above, but it is too much rule weight for day-to-day use.

[Panzer Leader]

I think it would be pretty fair in the last 2 months of war to use *almost* unrestricted force composition for the German side, due to their breakdown in command and structure. Especially in Berlin April, May, where it seemed to be an ad-hoc defense to the extreme.

But personally I prefer either historical or historically inspired "what-if" orders of battle.

[Frenchy]

Have to agree with Michael. Of course there are always exception to the rules.

Mixing troops is rare historically, but in a few instances it did occur.

I am currently transcribing the AAR of the 274th Infantry Regiment, 70th Infantry Division (US) for actions in March 1945.

There were two occassions where a French Company was attached to the regiment during the 274th's attacks against Stiring-Wendel (n and e of Forbach, France).

However,it must be noted that the Company was not used in the attack but to mop-up bypassed units and take care of POWs.

If mixed units are to be used, I'd use them in a historical based scenario.

[tar]

Probably the best short answer about why mixing nationalities is gamey is that CM has only a single, low level model of command an d control.

In larger battles, you can manage to coordinate your individual squads as easily when they come from different battalions as you can when they are part of the same company. All that matters is the location of the platoon commander.

There is no Command and Control modeling above the platoon level. With a multi-national force, the effects that one would need to see for a realistic result would require that the higher level command and control issues be modeled in some way.

Absent that, you would get way too much coordination of effort, and thus would not be able to see why, in real life, it was considered a bad thing to do.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah, and besides. Someone would have to interpret for the Frenchmen.

[MikeyD]

We've seen the photos of U.S. troops riding to the front on the backs of Churchills so some nationality mixing should be okay.

I'm not at all sure though about combining a Polish infantry platoon with a French artillery spotter with American tanks with Brit armored cars.

[HVAP]

depends on the who or what youre playing, if I'm playing against a gamey smg rush with uber tanks I'll take whatever I choose, churchills, para/glider squads, hellcats, fireflies, HMCs UberFinns and a chupacabra riding in a wasp. I try to go for historic most of the time but back to your topic I think that a little mixing like a british tank platoon or maybe some A/C with American Inf. or something as support, course I have no clue whether this happened or not.

[PEIPER#1]

sending U.S. TD's at full speed around your units shoting at you with hope of making a lucky shot before he hides behind you is that gamey? :mad: some guy try that 3 times in a QB but he failed, lucky me!

[lcm1947]

It wouldn't be gamey in my opinion as long as both players agreed before hand. So why not just find someone else that would like to do it and I can't see what it would hurt. My opinion.

[Bruno Weiss]

Remember the gamey credo. It's only gamey if it succeeds.

[Redwolf]

"gamey" means exploiting a game problem in that a certain tactic is successful in the game and would not be so in real life. The game has an under- or mismodeling and you can use it or ignore it.

The force mix question has nothing with "gamey", it is a matter of taste and of balance. Balance works three ways, either you can allow Allied force mix to counterweight the many German choices, or you can limit German forces (e.g. sperating Volksgrenadiere), or you can accept the fact that the Germans *had* more stuff, stop complaining and just play{*}

{*}except SMG squads which profit from game mismodeling and can be considered gamey.

[Harry Yeide]

The use of Commonwealth armor to support US infantry was not at all rare, and British flail tanks worked with US armor on more than one occasion. I am not aware of any cases of US armor directly supporting British or Canadian infantry in northern Europe, but US tanks did work with the Belgian Brigade in the Peel marshes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Harry Yeide:

The use of Commonwealth armor to support US infantry was not at all rare, and British flail tanks worked with US armor on more than one occasion. I am not aware of any cases of US armor directly supporting British or Canadian infantry in northern Europe, but US tanks did work with the Belgian Brigade in the Peel marshes.

Ditto the Crocodiles of 79th Armoured Div; these British FT tanks supported US units on occasion.

Canadian Kangaroos also routinely transported British infantry IIRC.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Some people think that mixing nationalities for Quick Battles (i.e. Brits and Yanks) gives the allied player an edge because he can then select the best units on offer from each side.....this in turn can give an advantage. For example the player would probably choose American Infantry (Better than brit infantry) supported by a few Wasps, fireflys and Churchills or cromwells. Hence some will call this gamey.

Mixing forces in scenarios however should be ok, because the scenario designer would make it a balanced affair.....the "Njimegen" scenario on the CM disk is a good example of American infantry supported by british AFV. That scenario was created by Wild Bill Wilder and is one of the best on the disk IMHO.

CDIC

[Herr Kruger]

Just to clarify, I am not trying to justify mixed units for my use on the Allied side... I am trying to show my friend why it is not generally acceptable...