emperorpenguin
Mongoose
msprange said:
by that rationale though you'd never see a game featuring Romans and Gauls though!
World At War Listing
- Thread starter Proteus454
- Start date
by that rationale though you'd never see a game featuring Romans and Gauls though!
As I said, that shouldn't matter. There are plenty of Late war WW2 games, early ones would be great. Then have expansion rules for the later fights, with new army lists.msprange said:
I would definately like to see MGP publish some WW1 rules, this could be more difficult with the trench warfare and whatnot, but for those skirmishes not in the trenches, it could be fun. :?
Proteus454
Mongoose
Isn't Warhammer Historical already going that route?
(That said, HOW many WWII skirmish-level rulesets are there out or slated to come fairly soon? A competition of one isn't going to kill us, I would think ^^)
(That said, HOW many WWII skirmish-level rulesets are there out or slated to come fairly soon? A competition of one isn't going to kill us, I would think ^^)
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Rob_A said:
ahem, when did the USA enter the war? December 1941.
So who did most of the fighting and dying prior to that date? Not the British, not the French, not Canada or Australia.
Between June and December 1941 the Soviets had already lost more troops, killed more Germans and tied down more German resources
If any one nation won the war it was the USSR
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Games are usually set in 44 because:
You get all the impropable superweapons that mostly didnt work, but which wargamers are enamoured of.
Most gamers base their knowledge of history on Saving Private Ryan.
You get all the impropable superweapons that mostly didnt work, but which wargamers are enamoured of.
Most gamers base their knowledge of history on Saving Private Ryan.
Col_stone
Mongoose
If you ever see me thanking one nation before the others, then that thanks goes to the soviets,, not many things bugs me quite as much as the "american"emperorpenguin said:
-well europeans owe us for ww2-
no offence to those who fought to stop hitler, it was a team effort, but some people seem to believe that some US superheroes flew in and saved everyone
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Heck, give it up for the Poles who fought despite the staggering odds they were up against, attacked from both sides and with no help forthcoming from their supposed allies and various "defenders of freedom" around the world, only to be abandoned behind the Iron Curtain once the shooting stopped.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
weasel_fierce said:
but they lost! :wink:
you're right about Saving Private Ryan. I know some people whose sole knowledge about the war is based on "Enemy At The Gates"
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
"enemy at the gates" is a very enjoyable movie. Just dont mistake it for actually depicting ww2 
Well, if it weren't for Captain America, Red Skull wouldn't have been stopped...Col_stone said:no offence to those who fought to stop hitler, it was a team effort, but some people seem to believe that some US superheroes flew in and saved everyone
If you want an era where many combatants were fighting on the same continent, you have to go late war, otherwise half of those same combatants are fighting in Africa.
Col_stone
Mongoose
i stand corrected :wink:
question is tho, the true red skull,(the nazi) or the later that served the soviet interests.. :lol:
american comics,, gotta love 'em,.. soon here will be decepticons trying to insure health insurance for everyone :lol
and a discalaimer, i love marvel comics
Proteus454
Mongoose
*lunges desperately in a, er, desperate attempt to pull this thread back on-topic*
So, the cover. Honestly, I quite like it - except for the guy's face, which contains a strong element of OMG What Was That Dude/Dudette THINKING?!?
So, the cover. Honestly, I quite like it - except for the guy's face, which contains a strong element of OMG What Was That Dude/Dudette THINKING?!?
rvrratt said:msprange said:
Yep, I am a Yankee and that is what I wanted....late war so I can get my Shermans! Thank you!
Shermans were in the war from early on for the US. They used Shermans all through their involvment, from their first landings in in North Africa, through the mediterranean campaign and into France and beyond. Don't need late war for Shermans.
Of course, if you want a REAL tank - go for a nice Churchill instead - Crocodile style for extra crispy flaming fun.
G.
rvrratt said:msprange said:
Yep, I am a Yankee and that is what I wanted....late war so I can get my Shermans! Thank you!
Shermans were employed by the Brits as well because they were cheap and effective. A true tank would be the Churchill, heavy, thick armoured and effective weapons.
For treadheads, late war is good. For yanks, late war is more personal I guess. It's also easier to perform horribly unaccurate war films that have spewed from the US media.
Late war - good tanks, everyone is in at that point, everyone is fighting on the same continent, and the Nazis aren't winning.
France 1940 and everyone has crappy tanks and crappy AT weapons, and it was historically pretty one sided.
And no Americans, and America is a big market to sell books and minis too for historical games.
France 1940 and everyone has crappy tanks and crappy AT weapons, and it was historically pretty one sided.
And no Americans, and America is a big market to sell books and minis too for historical games.
