'Pure' historical armies vs. competitive play

[PatrickWR]

What's everyone's take on playing pure armies (those grounded in historical context)? I've noticed that a lot of posted army lists have KV-1s right alongside Garand riflemen and Renault tanks (for example) despite the fact that those units never really saw side-by-side action in the entire war.

I'm not a WWII nitpicker or anything; I'm a 23-year-old fan of the History Channel. I'm more in favor of historical games rather than exploiting combos. As in "Dang, if you team up a Soviet T-34 and have it carry around a Vickers MG along with the Red Devil Captain you can really kick some major BUTT!" That strikes me as kinda lame, but it is a game after all...thoughts?

[ChristopherGroves]

As the organized play environment matures (and more sets are released), I'd love to see a more rigid format where you not only chose axis/allies but perhaps chose a nationality-faction. That would be excellent ...

Still, at this point really you can only do that with a few of the nationalities and only to a limited degree. As more and more figures are released representing each nation's full-capabilities, that should become a more realistic possibility.

[Stojakovic]

Speaking of mix if I was able to mix germans and americans I can do some damage... but you all know why I can't

[mecra]

Game after all is my opinion.

The tanks and units themselves don't completely represent what they were during the war. Thus, it's a game and make any combo you want.

If you desire to make your own campaign with specific units able to side with specific units, more power to you!

But if there were to be what you are asking, the game would've required more though into the unit design and available units right off the get go.

[Tenechs]

It is a game that will let you impose historical guidelines.

[KillZooka]

:eek: Its a game based on WWII. I was a little disappointed to see a couple of players flaming a new player because his army wasn't 'historically' correct. Shame on them. We should be thankful the game is gaining interest from younger and new players alike, including crossovers from the original board game or other Table Top Mini games. As far as Im concerned its a great game that is over in 45 minutes and with a lot of possibilities. It has good game mechanics, endless potential for strategy, and a good dice rolling battle system that can have quirky results. Sorta like the 'Sticky Bomb' from Saving Private Ryan.

If you are looking for a 'historically' correct game that runs the Gambit, go find one of those obscure bookcase box games and then spend the next 12 months trying to convince one of your friends to play it. :D

[Stojakovic]

I will play the game with a twist to it such as make a army with russians and germans for fun and also play the correct way... oh yeah I have a interest in history as most of you do my favorite periods are the american civil war and WWII... I like others but those two are my Fav.

[SeattleGamer]

I intend to play historical armies only. And at this scale, that really means no mixing. True, allied nations fought alongside each other - but in their own units.

I can't imagine a situation where 3 british soldiers and a lone 6pdr team up with two american GIs and a sherman. Those guys would have been in their own units, had their own sectors of the battlefield to cover, own commanding officers, etc.

Now, the Italians were handed some French tanks by the Germans once France fell, so I can see fielding an R-35 with Italians (several in fact). And it's true that through lend lease, US equipment found it's way into the hands of our allies, so I have no problem doing that.

But mixing infantry? Don't see that at all.

[Rob Irwin]

I'm more in favor of historical games rather than exploiting combos. As in "Dang, if you team up a Soviet T-34 and have it carry around a Vickers MG along with the Red Devil Captain you can really kick some major BUTT!" That strikes me as kinda lame, but it is a game after all...thoughts?

Have a read through the rules. While combos are allowed, the combo you propose is not.

For instance, the rules state that no Russian forces should be combined with other nationalities, ie: the Russians always fight alone. Similarly, it says that the Chinese and Germans should never fight together.

Conversely, a US/UK pairing is OK. And so on. So I think you're really worrying over nothing.

[PatrickWR]

So my example isn't grounded in the rules. But the spirit of what I was suggesting -- setting aside any semblance of history in the name of pulling off a crushing second turn victory -- remains the same. Some favor it, others don't. At the end of the day we're all pushing little painted blobs of plastic around on a piece of paper, anyway.

[Tannhauser]

The nationality-mixing rules in the rulebook are optional, not mandatory. Which is a good thing, given that we do not yet have a wide selection of models to choose from for all nations.
Enforcing those rules also isn't the wisest course of action when it comes to players just starting to get into the game. It's not easy for someone to make an effective army using only the contents of a starter and a booster, and that's without imposing restrictions based on nationality. Not everyone can afford to buy an entire case (or more) of boosters before playing their first game.

[Blair46]

*coughs*.. About the anti-russian and other ally nations pairing up. That was in the rules under heading having to do with optional rules I believe.

[Zhukov]

:eek: Its a game based on WWII. I was a little disappointed to see a couple of players flaming a new player because his army wasn't 'historically' correct. Shame on them. We should be thankful the game is gaining interest from younger and new players alike, including crossovers from the original board game or other Table Top Mini games. As far as Im concerned its a great game that is over in 45 minutes and with a lot of possibilities. It has good game mechanics, endless potential for strategy, and a good dice rolling battle system that can have quirky results. Sorta like the 'Sticky Bomb' from Saving Private Ryan.

If you are looking for a 'historically' correct game that runs the Gambit, go find one of those obscure bookcase box games and then spend the next 12 months trying to convince one of your friends to play it. :D About the youger audiance... why wouldnt anyone not want to play this game, i saw on the back of a hsitory magazine for this and i came here right away. This is like something ive always wanted a miniature game WWII styled I love war and histry and am only 13 tand i think its crazy that only one other kid in my entire school shares this interest! Well I havnt gotten a starter yet but i know how to replie from playing games like this before, new players should be allowed to mix russians i mean if you have a starter kit and a booster your not gonna get enough good armours or soliders to make a good army you will have to mix and match. once people start having a lot more then the rules should be placed in. And why people would want to do histroical only is well i would because i could simulate being a commander during wwII even if its not that accurate it still could be fun.

[Plagued]

*coughs*.. About the anti-russian and other ally nations pairing up. That was in the rules under heading having to do with optional rules I believe.

Yeah, this seems to be a common misunderstanding of the rules.
Even TMP's review of the game had this wrong.

You can mix any French, American, British and Russian units together in an allied army. The same goes for any axis units in axis armies.

[Rob Irwin]

You can mix any French, American, British and Russian units together in an allied army. The same goes for any axis units in axis armies.

Right, but the same rules also suggest that you don't do it, if you want to have a realistic game.

And, ultimately why wouldn't you want to have a realistic game? If you're going to go to the trouble of playing a historical game, why wouldn't you want to do it right? Seems nonsensical to want to get 95% the way there, then muck it up with your choice of minis.

So, yeah, if someone is a 40K kid with no concept of history, or one of those people who plays WWII FPS computer games and thinks it's reality, or perhaps still just collecting enough minis to make an army, yeah, it's possible.

But I'd like to bet when it comes to actual competition, however, you won't be seeing Russians fighting with anyone, or Japanese and German combos. I think the majority of people playing this game are going to care too much about history (again, why else play a historical game?!?), to make such a small, yet fundamental error in their army building.

[Tannhauser]

Right, but the same rules also suggest that you don't do it, if you want to have a realistic game.

And, ultimately why wouldn't you want to have a realistic game? If you're going to go to the trouble of playing a historical game, why wouldn't you want to do it right? Seems nonsensical to want to get 95% the way there, then muck it up with your choice of minis.

Refer to my earlier post, particularly the bits where I mentioned that there isn't a wide selection of models for every nationality, and where I also said not everyone can afford to buy a lot of boosters. I know it must come as a surprise, but not everyone is willing to spend $100+ on a game before they play it.

[Rob Irwin]

That's why my reply includes the line:

So, yeah, if someone is a 40K kid with no concept of history, or one of those people who plays WWII FPS computer games and thinks it's reality, or perhaps still just collecting enough minis to make an army, yeah, it's possible.

So I acknowledge people who don't have enough minis to make a proper force. Please don't be confused and think that I don't.

[ManimalX]

Well, speaking from a viewpoint of a Star Wars Miniature player (most recently, anyway), I would say that if Tournament construct rules are not tightly defined you will have any uber-combo that will win the game. Some people are in it just for the thrill of using the mechanics of a game to win. Some people love recreating historical battles.

If there is a prize at stake you will see completely 'innacurate' armies probably 9 out of 10 times.

In SW, would Han Solo ever be in a squad with Boba Fett? He would if a tournament was on the line.

[Rob Irwin]

In SW, would Han Solo ever be in a squad with Boba Fett? He would if a tournament was on the line.

OMG, that's just... stupid.

[Plagued]

I think the majority of people playing this game are going to care too much about history (again, why else play a historical game?!?), to make such a small, yet fundamental error in their army building.

I think a majority of people who are going to be playing this game won't have an in-depth knowledge of WW2 history. This is probably the best introduction to the genre that anyone could have asked for. It's accessible, easy to play and quick to pick-up. Players don't -need- to know all of that extra material to enjoy it.

Hell, I know a lot of local players who picked up Flames of War without any prior knowledge of WW2, and they enjoyed the game just as much as those who could spout off the deployment history of their favorite panzer division by memory.

If someone is really so dead set about preserving historical accuracy, they probably shouldn't play the game.

[CdtWeasel]

Ever hear of 'what if' scenarios. Thats another reason to not play historical forces. Maybe you want to see if your US and German force can take the fight to a Russian army. Its a game, its meant to be fun, not a lesson.

[Rob Irwin]

If someone is really so dead set about preserving historical accuracy, they probably shouldn't play the game.

No, I think you're missing my point - either intentionally or unintentionally.

What I am trying to say is that if you pick up a WWII game, more often than not, you will have an expectation that you will be using it to see the US fight the Germans, or whatever.

You don't generally pick up these games with a burning desire to see the UK fight the US, or whatever. To do so, you'd either be (i) A bit of a die hard gamer who is interested in a 'what if' scenario - but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of game you'd want to play all the time or, (ii) An idiot.

So I don't think it necessarily takes a die hard military buff to want to see countries used realistically. Because, heck, if that kind of realism doesn't matter - why don't we start tossing out other kinds of realism and allow F-16s or X-Wing fighters into the mix? It's the same principle.

As you can guess, I lean towards historical realism, however, I'm certainly not **** enough to decry other aspects of this game which are, let's be frank, rather unrealistic. I'm treating this very much as a fun beer'n'pretzels game (which is its mission statement, if it had one), yet I still think there are limits and expectations from it.

And one of those is that people won't be building super armies with Russian Tanks, Japanese Infantry, British machine gunners and US jeeps or something...

[Vulturedoodle]

You don't generally pick up these games with a burning desire to see the UK fight the US, or whatever. To do so, you'd either be (i) A bit of a die hard gamer who is interested in a 'what if' scenario - but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of game you'd want to play all the time or, (ii) An idiot.
Categorizing other people's motivations according to your own, especially in a public forum like this, is generally unwise. It tends to become a flame war, sooner or later. Just a friendly word of caution from one history lover to another. :)

Regards,
Steve F.

[Bobsalt]

I think we all need to remember this was just the first release. Come a year from now, you'll probably have enough units avaliable to play a full-size realistic force of whichever major country you want.

[Blair46]

The thing is, I just ordered 1 starter kit and 2 booster kits yesterday, so I have no idea if I will be able to create two armies that are just based on nationality so I can play against my bro or a friend who doesn't have any pieces.. In this case I will either have to a) mix nationalities based on their standing in the war (axis or allies), or just mix up all of the units to come up with two BALANCED armies. Because when playing for fun with a friend who doesn't know much about the game at all, I think the first step to get him to enjoy it would be to keep it fair moreso than 1 nation or side has all of the good units while the other side is stuck with a bunch of crappy units that don't have good chemistry together. All of the pulls are pretty much random (besides the fact of 1 rare, 3 uncommon and 5 common) so I could get a weird mixture of units.

[Plagued]

You don't generally pick up these games with a burning desire to see the UK fight the US, or whatever. To do so, you'd either be (i) A bit of a die hard gamer who is interested in a 'what if' scenario - but it certainly wouldn't be the kind of game you'd want to play all the time or, (ii) An idiot.

I'm going to have to second Steve. You're really progressing into flame bait territory here. I really can't respond to your arguments when you refuse to even accept that someone who disagrees with you could be in the right.

[Rob Irwin]

Well, I've provided both the logical and illogical side of the argument. People would be, I assume, on one side of the other, no?

I think it would be flame bait if I just provided the illogical side and poked fun at it - but I'm looking at both sides of the mixed army equation and even acknowledging that there are valid reasons for doing so.

[KillZooka]

No, there are always going to be median of people who have varied levels of tolerance and others who are on the fence about any one subject in a community setting like this. :eek:

I play the Peace card :D hopefully the moderator will lock this thread before a heated debackle about the historical inaccuarcy of one gamers army takes over the world known as A&A Minis... sigh.

I cant believe there aren't more questions about the rules and army building strategies? cmon? bring it! :)

[Blair46]

If I ever played competitively at the venues that will be having organized games of this, I will definately be more for the whole nationality specific rules to try and be as historically accurate as possible. The thing is, if I play with a friend who doesn't have any minis and if I only have the pieces to make 1 full-blown nationality army and only very few of another nationality, then I will mix them to create a fun, balanced atmosphere to try and lure my friend into pickin some up. I mean, to me that fits right in the middle of the spectrum of logical and illogical playstyles, does it not?

[Commissar]

My own feeling is, I'm going to build armies according to the nationality restrictions and play against other people who build armies according to the nationality restrictions. Because to me that's more fun, and has greater historical fidelity (avoiding the hot-button word "accuracy").

I'll echo the sentiments of the earlier poster noting that, if you want to play a game about WWII anyway, I don't see why someone would find it fun to pair up, say, German and Japanese units since they never fought together in the actual war called WWII. Which I personally think is a more pressing fact than the that the tread width on the Panther is off by .043% in the (tread width : gun width) ratio, or whatever.

However, I do understand why the liberal pairing rules are in place. For one thing, sealed tournaments will basically make it a necessity. For another, someone who just picks up one starter, or a starter and a few packs, will still want to play as complete a game as he can... which he might not be able to do otherwise. Third, it might be the case the somebody has 90 points of Japanese and wants to play them... this way he can just toss in an MG42 and be good to go.

So while I don't object in principal to the liberal pairing policy, I don't plan on using myself or gaming with those who do... since it would just "defunnerize" the experience for me.

[Rob Irwin]

There are going to be 1001 reasons why you might deviate from the historical path - some are valid (as I've repeatedly said), but some are just plain silly, too. I think when I talk in broad terms of "the game" I'm not necessarily taking into account those 1001 variations, but simply speaking in broad terms, ie: there's an expectation that, in a WWII game, you will conceivably play the US versus the Germans or something along those lines, rather than a fantasy force of Germans, Japanese and British versus the Russians, Italians and US or something. It's nothing more sinister than that.

[Browning]

Generally speaking. don't mix nationalities at all. The scale is wholly inappropriate - with less than a company organization possible with 15 figures.

The balance of the first set depends on using a mix for the Allies if you are collecting by buying the random packs.

Note however that the difference among many of the vehicles' statistics are smaller than a serious grognard's set of rules would give to differences in green or veteran crews in identically named vehicles.

As it stands, with the contents of a starter and 3 boosters I have set up a rather accurate replay of a German SS Panzergrenadier scout platoon running into some US tanks and then fighting their way back onto their supports. [Jan 1945] Admittedly, not every figure was exactly right, but it was not horrible. And it was a heck of a fight!

[Rob Irwin]

That sounds like a GREAT scenario, B!

[dracos42]

I'm a historical gamer, been playing wargames for 25 years. And I would rather have historical forces than ahistorical ones. But, I do plan on mixing nationalities. I also like alternative history scenarios. And the main reason for mixing nationalities is that the figures don't have to represent what the card and the bottom of the base say they are. The Commonwealth and the Russians also used American tanks. The 57mm/6pdr was a common anti-tank gun caliber for the Allies. Jeeps were everywhere and can represent a variety of small utility vehicles. The German halftrack can be used for a US halftrack if needed. Infantry, mortars, machine guns, mix and match to get the units you want.

Michael Lyons

[komichido]

I personally cannot field a mixed army, I am driven by some unseen paranoia to be historically correct. I get an icky feeling if I mix troops. I will allow some British troops to join my Yaniks if it was done in real life but that is it for me. I do not impose or judge anyone else who does though, and they are probably better off for it.

Now if I play alternate history or fantasy I will add Gear Krieg units and or Zombies like in another thread, but I still for some crazy reason will not mix troops. I know I am weird that way but hey.....game on!

Komi

[Ben W]

Competive Play - is using the best of a side for advantage. Nationalities mean nothing, history is forgotten you are playing to win. Using a combination of stats/points and abilities. As new sets come out competive armies will add new 'wonder' units to enable maximun advantage.

WHFB and 40K are good examples of this. With the phrase of 'fluff' and 'cheese' armies.

Fluff armies - supposedly follow some theme of the army you are playing. You use units which you know are bad or not worth the points, simply because you like to. The fun element is imagining you are an Orc Warlord, Dwarf or Space Marine and leading your army warts and all.

In AAM you would play an Italian Tank force in North Africa.

Cheese armies - only ever includes the good stuff. No points are wasted on 'silly' units. Everything is about maximization of cost effectiveness and combinations of magical (wargear) items that will remove your armies weakness and enhance its strengths. The fun is derived from thinking up such combinations and creating the army you want because the rules let you.

In AAM you want to led experimental 1945 German Armies with King Tigers, Assault Rifle wielding SS Panzer Grenadiers with maybe a Maus or two thrown in.

Historical Play - Well for AAM that is playing WWII with what the sides had. So no Commissar's with US Riflemen.

Proxying is acceptable. Using the Vickers until US forces get a 30 cal, having French tanks in certain German units to recreate a historical battle, lend lease tanks/equipment in a Soviet army. The 6lb'ders filling the role of a 57mm AT gun. Or using the German Halftrack until the Yanks get their own.

For a WWII based game such as AAM it seem's a waste to create fantasy WWII armies. So many of the units will be in the never use catagory as they represent 'crap' value.

I am a definate historical player. AAM will allow me to fight battles in every theatre of WWII. I won't shy at using my R35 because I know it won't be facing Panthers.

Ben.

[Anpu42]

I don't know if this could bring things to a boil or not, but there was some mixing here and ther. and thern there is Leadn Lease.
The UK and SU got M3 Lee, Jeeps, and Stewarts.

As for the Mixing.
The US set did not give me any MGs, also I have goten 2 M! Garands and 5 Bazookas, how am i supose to make a balanced unit with that.
So i grabed some Brits and came up with this
1st Infantry Company [96 Points]
HQ
o 1x Red Devil Captain 7 [7]
o 1x Vickers MG-Gun Team 8 [18]
o 2x 6 lb Anti-Tank Guns 18 [33]
o 1x Bazooka 4 [37]
1st Platoon
o 1x Inspiring Leftenant 10 [10]
o 2x M1 Garand 8 [18]
o 1x Vickers MG-Gun Team 8 [26]
o 1x M2 Mortar 6 [32]
2nd Platoon
o 1x Inspiring Leftenant 10 [10]
o 3x SMLE No.4 Rifle 9 [19]
o 1x Vickers MG-Gun Team 8 [26]

[bsmart]

Although the idea of intermixed units doesn't sit well with me there are a few situations that makes sense

1) Vickers machine gun - Everybody had a watercooled rifle caliber machinegun similar to this. Ranges, rates of fire and mobility were all about the same so until they come up with a Soviet or American counterpart I think it is fair to use it. Of course I can't wait for the American 'Ma Duece' to show up. There is a machine gun that was unique.

2) 6 pdr AT gun - This should be used by American units as the 57mm AT gun. The American 57mm was a license built version of the 6pdr Mk II. Ammunition was interchangeable although there is some question if The British supply system stocked HE rounds or APDS (Sabot) was available to American units.

3) Everybody used captured equipment at sometime. One British armored unit used a Panther for long enough that it actually got a name and shows up in the unit history. The American army created Firing Tables for German 88s and 105mm howitzers and used them to relieve the ammunition shortage in late '44 because they had so many of them. Instructions for Panzerfausts were translated and printed so that captured weapons could be used. Small arms were a different matter. The MG42 was an excellent weapon but the distinctive sound could also get the firer targetted.
The Germans used all sorts of captured tanks. The R-35 has already been mentioned I'll have to check the history of the R-35 at Aberdeen but I know it was used by the Italians and some were captured in Sicily. The Germans actually had a numbering system for captured equipment.

4) Special situations like the movie Sahara - An American M-3 medium tank with mixed support from British, Free French, and Colonial infantry. Yea it's tongue in cheek but it might make an interesting game.

Bob Smart (bsmart@monocacy.com)

[rondom]

Right, but the same rules also suggest that you don't do it, if you want to have a realistic game.

And, ultimately why wouldn't you want to have a realistic game? If you're going to go to the trouble of playing a historical game, why wouldn't you want to do it right? Seems nonsensical to want to get 95% the way there, then muck it up with your choice of minis.

So, yeah, if someone is a 40K kid with no concept of history, or one of those people who plays WWII FPS computer games and thinks it's reality, or perhaps still just collecting enough minis to make an army, yeah, it's possible.

But I'd like to bet when it comes to actual competition, however, you won't be seeing Russians fighting with anyone, or Japanese and German combos. I think the majority of people playing this game are going to care too much about history (again, why else play a historical game?!?), to make such a small, yet fundamental error in their army building.
I have to disagree. Certainly if I'm building a force for a competition I shall be using (what I regard as) the most effective units in whatever consitutes a legal grouping. In particular, since the Russian infantry are utter crap, any Russian force I build will use non-Russian infantry (I have no problem using a Vickers since the Russians did have an effective HMG, but I wouldn't balk at Bazookas, frankly).

You may not agree with this, and that's your right and privilege - but I'll bet 90+% of people at a tournament will be in my camp.

[Der Leiter]

Personally I would like to see the restrictions on nationalities enforced for competitive play, but only after the next set is released. Nationalities, like the Russians, need to be fleshed out some more before they can field a decent force of their own.

For sealed/draft then you obviously wouldn't follow the restrictions, as it would be very difficult to do so.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I strongly agree Leiter!

But I could imagine that for Sealed/Draft a certain amount of Units/points can be brought. E.G 100pt game. everyone may bring a leader, a MG and a 2-3 troopers (what i call basic infantry - Mauser Mosin Nagant; NOT PzGren) for not more than 25 pts.

[werebob]

Personally I would like to see the restrictions on nationalities enforced for competitive play, but only after the next set is released. Nationalities, like the Russians, need to be fleshed out some more before they can field a decent force of their own.

IMO enforcing restrictions on nationalities is a bad idea.

1) You'll be forcing people to buy $100 worth of boosters to be able to join the organized play. For a lot of people the only play available.

2) There will be some nationalities that will never get 'fleshed out' and will be totally useless to all but the hardcore collector.

It's little Johnny's dollars that will make the game successful and keep the expansions rolling out - after all there's 100 little Johnnys for every historical purist. Little Johnny wants to be able to play in the weekly tournaments with his starter contents and he should be able to.

I will not field a historical inaccurate army but enforcing that across the board is financial\organized play suicide. IMO

[Sharn Inquisitor]

I have invested heavily in DDM b/c I can use them for both RPG and the Skirmish game. I view AAM as a skirmish game and nothing more, it is to be exploited (in regards to neat combos) like any other. I care nothing for the Historical context of the figures, dates or otherwise. I can't afford to buy the complete set or spend gobs of money collecting 5 French or Italian tanks to keep all nationality armies, what with my DDM habits.

[PatrickWR]

Well hey, great discussion guys! It seems (as we all predicted) that the responses run the gamut from "It should be called SS Totenkopf vs. Soviet 11th Guard, not Axis and Allies" (the hardcore wargamers) to "As far as I'm concerned it should be called Micromachine Tank vs. Micromachine Tank, that's the only part I care about" (competitive gamers).

Me, I cast my lot in with those historical guys. I'll play Ogre or some other generic tank game if I want to avoid any context...I choose AAM because WWII is damn interesting and I'm happy to live that history via gameplay one hour at a time.

Edit: What we historical gamers should do at this point is continue to build our themed or faction-specific armies -- and then use them to wipe the floor at tournaments and competitive play. This will go a long way towards showing everyone else that you can win the game and still throw a nod to the history behind the events. Who's with me?

[DocD]

ME!!

Historical gaming is the only way to go.

[Bobsalt]

IMO enforcing restrictions on nationalities is a bad idea.

1) You'll be forcing people to buy $100 worth of boosters to be able to join the organized play. For a lot of people the only play available.

2) There will be some nationalities that will never get 'fleshed out' and will be totally useless to all but the hardcore collector.

It's little Johnny's dollars that will make the game successful and keep the expansions rolling out - after all there's 100 little Johnnys for every historical purist. Little Johnny wants to be able to play in the weekly tournaments with his starter contents and he should be able to.

I will not field a historical inaccurate army but enforcing that across the board is financial\organized play suicide. IMO

I also agree that enforcing historically accurate forces is a bad idea, and I honestly don't see why it's an issue. Personally, I much prefer playing historical forces, but with the unit mix that’s available now, that isn’t always possible without having to accept some handicaps in your forces. For casual play, I mean, really – who cares? This game is supposed to be FUN. I say this especially when you’re trying to get someone new interested in the game. Let them play with what they want. Nothing will turn off a potential new player faster than telling them they “have” to do it this way or that way. Let people play with what they want, or if you can’t agree, roll for it.

They don’t enforce historical forces in official events – why enforce it in a casual game? Once more units are released I can see (and would agree with) WOTC possibly running different tournaments – maybe a historical and a “build what you want.”

Remember - it's just a game.

[TheFoeHammer]

Different formats are also important for keeping a game alive.

Little Johnny and the casual gamer are only a portion of the market, the historical gamers and the "suitcase" players make up the other portions.

I agree there has to be an open play format to eliminate any chance of prohibiting younger or limited income players from doing well. But different venues will have different desires in terms of play formats, and the store and tournament organizers should listen to what the players want and occasionally run special events like Historical, Historical by year, Scenarios, Tank-Only games, Infantry Only games, etc.... That's what makes gaming fun for me, some variety every now and then to keep me thinking and not just showing up with the same semi-broken mix of Tier 1 figures.

Just my two cents from experience with other collectible games.

[Bobsalt]

Different formats are also important for keeping a game alive.

Little Johnny and the casual gamer are only a portion of the market, the historical gamers and the "suitcase" players make up the other portions.

I agree there has to be an open play format to eliminate any chance of prohibiting younger or limited income players from doing well. But different venues will have different desires in terms of play formats, and the store and tournament organizers should listen to what the players want and occasionally run special events like Historical, Historical by year, Scenarios, Tank-Only games, Infantry Only games, etc.... That's what makes gaming fun for me, some variety every now and then to keep me thinking and not just showing up with the same semi-broken mix of Tier 1 figures.

Just my two cents from experience with other collectible games.

What you suggest here is exaclty what I'd like to see. Several different tournaments - I know years ago that Star Fleet Battles did this. Maybe WOTC could do something like this. Have a 100-point Anything Goes (this is what they did for league play at Gen Con in Indy), purely historical, Early War, etc. From the popularity I've seen so far, I don't think they'd have any trouble filling up the slots for each.

[Comassion]

Ultimately, combined forces will win out over historical ones because you have a wider variety of units to choose from. If a single nationality happens to have the best units, you can always go with that.

Even though I'd rather play with a historically accurate army, in these sets, as has been pointed out, many of the nationalities are lacking in important troop types. The Japanese really need a medium tank (The Chi-Ha) or some other form of anti-tank capability to be able stand up to allied armor - just some fanatical infantry which can take out tanks would be fine. Of course, there were pretty much no heavy allied tanks to deal with in the Pacific, so in fighting the Japanese a Sherman is about the heaviest tank that should be fielded by the Allies. Historicaly accurate should work both ways.

There's also units that should probably be assigned to more than one nationality, like the Sherman and the Stuart. If they've got a limit on nationalities per unit, the Stuart should have been an American tank.

The Germans are just about the only 'complete' force, with a selection of light and heavy armor, mechanized transport, regular and elite troops, a machinegun and a mortar (they could sure use a better mortar).

The Americans have no machinegun or anti-tank gun.

The British lack anti-tank infantry (the Piat) and a mortar.

The Russians just plain lack everything but tanks and basic infantry.

Given that, I'd say that the Axis sides can potentially muster a 'pure' force (especially the Germans, the Japanese are hard-pressed to be as effective as the Germans). The Allies either need to play the United States or Britian and sacrifice certain components, or at best use substitute units, like M-1 Garands for Soviet Guards and Vickers for .30-50 cals or Maxims.

I agree with the previous posters about not enforcing historical armies for official play, because the people who bought a starter and a booster deserve to join the rest of us. It's a game that more people can enjoy that way.

[crash beedo]

I definitely got about five straight minutes of pure entertainment discovering this thread... :D

The purists vs the cheesey-tournament-players - didn't take long for this classic flame-war to reach AAM. Woot!

I've been playing Heroclix on and off for the past 3 years, and the # 1 gripe that seems to split the community is "theme teams" vs "competitive teams". (And by competitive, people mean: cheesy. Exploiting combos to achieve tactical benefits). The Heroclix rules allow you to mix heroes, villains, Marvel, DC, whatever you want to do when building a competitive team - Heroclix build rules are very liberal. And there is an entire legion of (fanboy) players out there crying foul - "Batman would *never* team up with Doctor Doom, never!" - "I can't believe you're using Superman on your team with Jean Grey, he's a DC character, that's soooo cheeeeesy" - and similar complaints about team builds that make competitive sense but don't agree with comic-book-universe "logic". Sounds a lot like, I can't believe you put a Commissar on a team with a Jeep and a Vickers. :D

And Star Wars has the same issues... Han Solo on a team with Boba Fett? Darth Maul showing up with Lobot and an Ewok? Yoda and a bunch of bounty hunters? Star Wars has a little more interal logic than Heroclix, since Rebels have to team with Rebels, Imperials with Imperials, etc - only the alien "Fringe" can show up on any team (allowing team-ups like Boba Fett with anybody).

What am I getting at? In every collectible game where a strong back-story exists (whether its fictional or historical) there are going to be players who build their forces within the letter of the rules, for competitive benefit. Because it's a game. And because it's fun to develop nifty combos and exploit benefits.

And there will be a legion of purists who are going to point fingers at the metagamers and call the competitive players names. The name calling is a constant, regardless of the actual game - star wars, heroclix, axis and allies.

I love the fact that AAM has scenarios, and that Avalon Hill is posting them on the site. (I have high hopes for an "ultimate missions" style book for Axis & Allies, aggregating a bunch of historical scenarios). Historical scenarios are my favorite part of the game. But it's unrealistic to expect people at DCI sanctioned events to build forces that don't take advantage of the rules of the game. And the rules of the game allow mixing forces of the same allegiance.

[jeff1981]

i don't really see the point to arguing over historical or made up stuff, i have created historical forces and i have even experimented with random pieces from both sides like a t34 and a panzer IV on the same side, point is i think its game where you choose your own way of playing it instead of telling others how they should play it.

[Y2UAsk]

Well, as they say, 'it's a free country.' Meaning that one camp is free to preach its views to everyone within earshot, and everyone within earshot is free to do whatever they want anyway. But the grumbling and the preaching are half the fun. Frankly, I think some people get involved in these sorts of games entirely because it gives them an opportunity to grumble and preach. (And that comment isn't aimed at any person or specific camp -- grumblers and preachers are universal.)

I fall squarely in the middle. Casually, I prefer historically plausible armies fighting historically plausible foes. But I'm enough of a competitor to use whatever gives me the best chance for a win at a tournament where there's a prize and reputation on the line.

Steve

[Bobsalt]

I fall squarely in the middle. Casually, I prefer historically plausible armies fighting historically plausible foes. But I'm enough of a competitor to use whatever gives me the best chance for a win at a tournament where there's a prize and reputation on the line.

Steve

I agree. I MUCH prefer using historical forces because that was the way it really was. In a tournament, when you're keeping score, though, I'm not at all above using the force combination that gives the best chance to win within the tournament rules versus possibly losing with an historical force on principle. I do think that those who prefer mixing forces up might back off a bit when more units come out and give a better chance of fielding historical forces that are also balanced.

On general principle, though, I have a hard time telling people that they "have to" or "can't" do something. Like I said. It's just a game. Have fun. Blow stuff up. Stay alert. Trust no one. Keep your laser handy. Oh, wait, wrong game...

[Major Adler]

the one formal tournament I have helped organize...required all to bring a pre-built Axis army and Allied army...after gamer match-ups...the first roll-off was for force choice...the winner choosing to play either his Axis or Allied army...and the looser playing his opposing army...

Adler...out...................

[Krieger]

My view is this: It's a GAME! I personally like to stick to historically "pure" armies, but I have no problem pitting my Germans against an American/Anglo/French/Russian force, or pitting my American or Anglo force against a combined German/Italian/Japanese force. I play for fun, and I'm not about to **** in someone else's cheerios just because they play the game differently than I do. First and foremost rule of any game-HAVE FUN :D !

[Ben W]

To ignore the historical aspect of AAM is to miss out on so much.

I can imagine newer players starting out who do not have much knowledge on WWII. But they saw the tanks and thought "Hmm this will be like the History channel or Band of Brothers."

It could just be me but when I started gaming WWII I also began to buy books on WWII as well. I started to read all about the Eastern Front so I could better learn about the forces I was playing. This slowly expanded as I would then read books on German tanks, or a particular battle or just anything on the subject so that I could learn more.

Even now I have began to re-read certain books. Especially my German tank books (my sources on WWII Soviets easily outnumber everything I own though). I might even buy something on the Brits and Americans especially regarding the Easy Eight. I would love to know if anything about the vehicle could lead someone to give it the same armour as a Tiger or Panther.

So many younger and newer players have taken a chance to purchase some AAM mini's. But to me the other part of the hobby is to learn about the subject.

These players will screw their noses up at certain tanks or will wonder how come the Germans didn't lose WWII as they had all the real 'kewl' tanks and SS Panzergrenadiers. Or decide, no wonder the French lost they had R35's and the German Tigers kicked their arses. Where as the Pnz II made up the bulk of the Panzer Armies in 1940.

So much can be learnt from reading about the combatant nations of WWII. Otherwise some players will think "No worries its only a Tiger my Easy Eight can take it out."

Oh! the travesty :)

Ben.

[Anpu42]

I think the best way to deal with the 40k [Both Game and Income] is to play a few times and then sugest a mini campain.
The basic Rules
1] Play by the basic Alliances Rules
2] Set 2 games in each year.
39
Germany vs France, Germany vs France/UK
40
Italy vs UK, Italy/Germany vs UK
41
Germany vs Uk, Germany vs SU
42
Germany vs US, Japan vs UK
43
Italy/Germany vs US, Japan vs US
44
Germany Vs UK, Japan vs UK
45
Germany vs US, Japan vs US

Just watch them start to pick up what "Low Level" Games can be like. If you know what you are doing you can tech them some history wile you are at it. Show them "The Road to Burma" and them set up an all Infantry game [or just 1 light tank each].
At a Con once the phraze "Your Sargent has only a SMoke Laucher, Why?" came out. 5 turns later after I had cut up his forces, ran the GM out of smoke marker and lost only a few men becouse he could not bring his big guns to bear wile my small arms chewed him up taught every one i play with a lesson. the next time we played he had 1 tank and four rilfle squads and was crunching opponents left and right., and they werew Munchy.

[jeff1981]

it is fun to play the historical scenarios like na. it would also be fun to play the what ifs as well. at the start of the war hitler had an accord with stalin, us didn't get involved until 1942. so what if germany and russia allied. just a thought though. i would love to see the operation overlord scenario one day. or try to recreate okinawa, and i would try battle of kursk but i do not enough tanks.

[sanguine]

i would love to see the operation overlord scenario one day. or try to recreate okinawa, and i would try battle of kursk but i do not enough tanks.

I doubt anyone has enough for that -- there were over six thousand tanks at Kursk.

[Richter von Manthofen]

.

Edit: What we historical gamers should do at this point is continue to build our themed or faction-specific armies -- and then use them to wipe the floor at tournaments and competitive play. This will go a long way towards showing everyone else that you can win the game and still throw a nod to the history behind the events. Who's with me?

Me To! R.v.Manthofen

[Hiro]

Edit: What we historical gamers should do at this point is continue to build our themed or faction-specific armies -- and then use them to wipe the floor at tournaments and competitive play. This will go a long way towards showing everyone else that you can win the game and still throw a nod to the history behind the events. Who's with me?

Competitive play will beat the purists every time. It just means that the guys in the purists armies can take the same boat home. Sure your army looks nice, but it doesn't get the job done. As a competitive gamer, I think you should try that and get as many people to follow that ideal so I can win as many tournaments as possible. Winning is everything. Besides History is written by the victors anyway.

[PatrickWR]

Competitive play will beat the purists every time. It just means that the guys in the purists armies can take the same boat home. Sure your army looks nice, but it doesn't get the job done. As a competitive gamer, I think you should try that and get as many people to follow that ideal so I can win as many tournaments as possible. Winning is everything. Besides History is written by the victors anyway.

Thus we reach the crux of the situation: you won't SEE me at tournaments. I'll be playing the invasion of Sicily campaign in my living room with like-minded players, or demo-ing the game at my LGS, or maybe just reading a book about SS tank units on the Eastern Front. I'm not at all interested in competitive play with this game -- but I'm overwhelmingly interested in campaign and faction-specific casual play. Our two groups can coexist. One day we'll have enough different models to where it won't even be hard to field an all-Italian force. But really, between the two of us who's more likely to field British SMLE riflemen? :D

[jeff1981]

i like the idea of two different tourneys, i more historical correct and one for competitive play

[Bobsalt]

I doubt anyone has enough for that -- there were over six thousand tanks at Kursk.

No - with all of the Shermans and Pz IV's I have, it just SEEMS like I have that many... :rolleyes:

[Bobsalt]

i like the idea of two different tourneys, i more historical correct and one for competitive play

Exactly what I think. Also a third tourney for early war. Sure, you can win with a Tiger - how well can you do with a Pz II platoon....?

[jeff1981]

so i need 3k t34's and kv1's and 3k panthers and tigers?