'>>92582598
>Why is nazi germany a focus for ww2 wargames???
Are you retarded?';

'One player must always play as Germany in most scenario. There is more variation in what exact allied armies players prefer. Sure, there are other axis nations too, but the war in Europe has always been the main focus of WW2 wargames.';

'>>92582669
Also in BA in particular Japan have really retarded rules that pigeonhole them into one extremely ahistorical playstyle. So yes, Nazis will overwhelmingly be the antagonist force in scenarios.';

'Why do you complain about a surfeit of targets?';

'Because they're really fucking cool. Same reason everyone wants to play stormtroopers. There's not many things where the evil grunts aren't favored for fanart and merch.';

'>>92582842
Who the fuck wants to play stormtroopers?';

'>>92582598
When people talk like this I genuinely wonder if they're retarded. Why would anyone NOT want to play as the side with objectively the best uniforms, camo, weapons, tanks, aircraft and propaganda. Not to mention all the wonderwaffe and occult mystery evil nonsense attributed to it post war. Why would you not want to play as that? "Cuz I lerned in skool bout muh 6 million"';

'>>92583396
More people than want to play rebels, that's for sure.';

'>>92582598
Because Germany had all the toys anon, they literally actually built all those panzer variants and rebranded their infantry for every little thing, it's part of their collective autism and thus the autism of a historical game.
>Why do WW2 historical wargames focus so much on the Nazis?
They kinda started the war and were in every theatre bar the Pacific.
>the Nazis have the most and the best special rules too
Bullshit they do. Japan has blanket Fanatics and the Soviets have a selector that also hands it out to every unit and gives them a free unit of inexperienced riflemen that are just as good as regular between commissars and free Fanatics. The US fire and maneuver is the best infantry rule in the game period. The UK gets to play 100 points up every game with the free arty observer and CYOA army rule (it's rapid fire like 80% of the time).
Germany gets good tanks, but not necessarily efficient tanks, and they don't get the Stuart like every allied faction does. They get an extra shot on their machine guns which is great on lights and makes mediums usable instead of a waste of time. Their officers get another unit to Snap To which is a real rule, and they can replace their NCOs which is worthless because any precision shots are going straight into the expensive LMGs or fausts once those are gone. They're not Italy, but they're far from the apex predators of the game. They don't have anything like Ghurkas.';

'>>92584184
UK gets stupid overpowered special rules too, i don't know what that stupid faggot in the OP is saying and i hope he gets raped to death in a russian prison';

'>>92582598
you have to understand that after world war 2, everybody had Nazi memorabilia everywhere as souvenirs and every major power that fought the Nazis deliberately played up their opponents and downplayed the contributions of their allies to make their own achievements seem more impressive in comparison. This is the world that people like Rick Priestly grew up in.';

'>>92582598
Despite what any modicum of research will show you, the common perception of the germans is still that they were a super powerful mechanized force with tech and ideas ahead of their time. And that tends to appeal to the kinds of people who play historicals';

'>>92582598
People want to play the good guys. What a surprise.';

'>>92582710
PRIDE
FEET';

'>>92582598
1. Bolt action sucks
2. Nazis fought almost everyone the entire war and had the resources/autism to make a lot of different units and vehicles so it's very easy to use them in games
3. Boomers are obsessed with nazis for some reason so German WW2 stuff always sells

Nobody's stopping you from making that Hungarian reservist battalion though, just play a good game that isn't WW2 warhammer with special rules from boomer war flicks';

'>>92582598
Nazis are more or less the toybox faction for scenario fags to make something for the Allied teams to play against.';

'>>92582598
>>92583396';

'>>92589588
To be fair, the Rebel commandos in RotJ are way better than your average good guy aesthetic in pulp. Also, this Pic always makes me think of Killzone, but the Helghast are unironically the real good guys in that setting.';

'>>92584184
The Stalingrad selector doesn't hand out the Fanatics tag to every unit, it's an option that must be bought if you want to have it, even for the free inexperienced riflemen. The book specifies ... "at an additional cost of +3 per man".';

'>>92590593
I have been cheated by a goddamn commie player.';

'>>92586367
americans get butthurt at this but as an european whose nation was on the axis side they were 100% the good guys by anyones description who lived back then
meanwhile soviets raped and killed their way through europe with american equipment';

'>>92583396
Wehraboos who really like the technically advanced weaponry. Aestheticfags who dig the Hugo Boss. Jewish kids trying to offend their parents. Dyed in the Wool NeoNazis. History buffs and any of the previously mentioned masquerading as them.
Absent those someone who's cool with playing the bad guy because the scenario is interesting.';

'>>92582598
>Bad guys

NGMI';

'>>92582598
are you per chance one of those youtubers reviewing BA and crying they had to paint nazis?

wargame is not neutral game like football or billard, even nazi aspect aside, it is about guys and broads killing each other';

'>>92582700
What's ahistorical about the Japanese?';

'>>92593982
idk anything about bolt action, but according to 1d4chan they can spam cheap infantry armed with nothing but bamboo sticks that ignore pinning and count losing a melee fight as a tie, so that sounds pretty silly.
https://2d4chan.org/wiki/Bolt_Action';

'>>92591980
Americans didn't get butthurt up until recently, nazi anything didn't really rustle any jimmys. Conversations regarding them were quite nuanced. It wasn't til constant history channel propaganda and pants on head tier retarded, neurotic fifth column college professors started to change that narrative to the puppet client state propaganda you're used to in Europe.';

'>>92594043
I think they practice face to foot style.';

'>>92594043
They don't ignore pins and when you lose a melee your entire unit is destroyed, so it just means they fight to the death or until two remain, then and only then do they make a break test.

The Japanese did engage in way more hand to hand fighting than any other army outside of maybe Stalingrad Soviets and they were well known for being fanatical fighters. They repeatedly killed large numbers of Marines and British/Australians with banzai charges so I'm not seeing how any of that is ahistorical.';

'>>92583396
I do

Rebels are fucking lame';

'>>92582598
The German units are usually shittier versions of other units driven by desperation in the last stages of the war. Their special rules kick ass, kinda, and being the main antagonist of every theater bar the pacific means they're going to get a spotlight, but overall I've never had an issue with them. My Soviets grind them to mulch under tread and my Commandos regularly eat them for breakfast and ask for seconds in melee.';

'>>92593982
nothing about BA is really historical
but you know those banzai shouting kamikaze charging japs from movies? thats what they are like in bolt action';

'>>92594043
90% of complaints I hear about bolt action sound like they'd be fine if they just leaned a little harder on movie theming and didn't play it up as a historical.

I respect historicals, but something in my brain broke a little bit reading a discussion about a bike mounted german force in chain of command that had no bikes. Because historically, they got off the bikes long before they'd ever fight. But then you have no bike models in your bike mounted force and something about that is just incredibly sad to me.';

'>>92594428
Many of the most famous engagements of Japanese forces were Marine positions facing off against banzai charges, and the Japanese were noted for their propensity towards hand to hand combat. Even on Okinawa they had one last hurrah by infiltrating an entire company into the Marine backlines and murdering hundreds in their tents while the Marines desperately fought them off. The diggers noted that the Japanese preferred to engage them danger close and infiltrated deep into enemy lines to strike from unexpected angles.

How exactly is Bolt Actions ruleset, encouraging the Japanese player to rush enemy units while pinning them with snipers and mortars, ahistorical?';

'>>92594428
>nothing about BA is really historical
Did Germans not have initiative training or fast firing MGs?
Did the American forces not have air superiority and a doctrine focused on fire and manuever?
Did the British not coordinate with their massive artillery?
Did the Russians not mass batteries against the Germans and fight despite overwhelming odds while throwing a wall of conscripts at the foe?
Did the Japanese not surrender to a point that it was considered exceptional when a SQUAD surrendered in totality?

Yeah the weapon ranges are short as fuck, but honestly BA does a fine job recreating war movies and small unit actions. Don't be dumb.';

'>>92582598
Because they are the most interesting and coolest. Even I know this and I play Hungarians Chinese and Pacific British';

'>>92594150
I could see how cheap infantry that are exceptional tarpits in melee could push players who use them into weird ahistorical playstyles. Especially given their relative paucity in terms of armor.
>>92594492
yeah, although it'd be cooler if they had katanas instead of bamboo sticks. Even if it doesn't perform any differently statistically, katanas are cool.';

'>>92582598
I mean, Nazis are cool.
Your other choices for antagonists are the Japanese (who had ONE tactic), the Italians (Utterly useless) or for more modern conflict, the Vietnamese or 'terrorist forces'.
The Nazis were the last time we fought a sophisticated, civilized European army in the field.';

'>>92594806
>while throwing a wall of conscripts at the foe?
That part is a popular myth that even Russia likes to project because it sounds neat to most people, but Soviet Union could not actually afford this when they were already struggling with manpower as is.';

'>>92594806
>Did Germans not have initiative training or fast firing MGs?
Every army had initiative training, except for maybe the Soviets and Japanese who frowned upon soldiers taking individual initiative.
>Did the American forces not have air superiority and a doctrine focused on fire and maneuver?
They did, but the issue is that the Americans basically don't get penalized for firing and moving wheras everyone else does.
>Did the British not coordinate with their massive artillery?
This is more of a Soviet thing.
>Did the Russians not mass batteries against the Germans and fight despite overwhelming odds while throwing a wall of conscripts at the foe?
No. The Germans actually outnumbered the Soviets in most engagements until 1943.
>Did the Japanese not surrender to a point that it was considered exceptional when a SQUAD surrendered in totality?
Yes, and they also got mowed down in droves which the Bolt Action 2nd Edition rules make very hard to do. If you charge out of a forest at a machine gun team, because of how reaction fire works the enemy gets to enjoy the benefits of any range/cover penalties against the unit firing at them. It in no way is a representative of what would happen, as by RAW its as if the unit just decides to stop firing once the charging enemy gets within optimal range.';

'>>92596562
i wonder if in the new edition range wont effect hit rolls if they are in the open

making japs more guerilla force like instead of Banzai army would still relate to history and be more in line with the rules. I.e. if a squad hasn't moved and are in cover 2 actions in a row, they get "camouflaged" and are harder to hit';

'>>92595226
Anon have you heard of the doctrine of reconnaissance in force? It consists of throwing a wave of troops at the enemy and punching through when weak points present themselves. That's what the Soviets did on the offensive. My Russian history professor put it best, "The Russian battle plan does not take casualties into consideration"

Enemy at The Gates wasn't totally accurate since they did indeed have enough rifles, but throwing waves of dudes into the meat grinder was exactly the plan. Tanks rolled off the assembly line and right into battle without gunsights. Shit, they executed over a thousand of their own men in Stalingrad alone. Decimation was the order for cowardice in the face of the enemy. The Soviets didn't give a shit about running out of men. They knew they were gonna win regardless once Barbarossa failed. It was just a matter of time.';

'>>92595226
So you're telling me the USSR was more conservative with its men than the Russians who have a fraction of their manpower?';

'>>92596562
>Every army had initiative training
They didn't teach subordinates to do the job of their immediate superiors like the Germs
>the Americans don't get penalized for moving and firing
Representing their fire and maneuver training translated to game terms. That's how it works autism-kun
>British weren't known for artillery
Germans would disagree with you. In France alone they coordinated fire between both land artillery and naval cannons to the point that Panzers were "tossed like playing cards". In the Battle of the Bulge the British preferred to annihilate the advancing Germans with artillery rather than risking their precious few troops in engagement.
>Recon in force didn't happen
Memoirs of the time disagree with you. It doesn't matter that the Germans outnumbered them. Nobody said they didn't. But the Soviets favored wide offensives and exploited breakthroughs, an evolution of the blitzkrieg that wound up making it obsolete. You'll find you didn't disagree with the other two points about massed batteries and desperately fighting on despite overwhelming odds. Both of them are part of the games mechanics.
>I want my troops to be mowed down in droves for daring to use one of the mechanics of the game
If your machine gun team is within charging distance you've already fucked up. By your logic then every reaction fire to a charge should get Point Blank bonuses and thus make charging into melee the worst possible option available when it was used by every single army in the close quarters battles you simulate with Bolt Action. It's an abstraction to ensure the melee aspect isn't totally rendered pointless and can represent the gunners running low on ammo, not swinging fast enough to get them all, or panicking as the enemy approaches, or anything else. Banzai charges worked against unprepared or shell-shocked foes and evaporated against well prepared defenses and only disappeared late into the war as Japan ran out of men.

You're being dumb anon.';

'>>92598084
He's flat out wrong if he believes that but whatever, it never stopped an anon from believing some dumb shit.';

'>>92594492
>a bike mounted german force in chain of command that had no bikes

I've made that force, but I do have a few uncrewed motorcycles as jump-off points';

'>>92582598
Wehraboos are the biggest consumers of WW2 games. It’s been this way for over 50 years when the hex and counter games of Avalon Hill and SPI were sold in stores.';

'>>92598255
I didn't know there were African German divisions';

'>>92589588
True. Bad guys look cooler more often than not. Simple as. Give me some cool armor and I'll kill anyone you want me to kill.';

'How are the Italians in this? I want to play as the funny guys';

'>>92598464
Generally acceptable';

'>>92598315
This. Anyone who owns a German army for historical wargaming is a wehraboo Nazi sympathizer. It's a 1-1 correlation. You don't put all that time and effort into painting and modeling and collecting if you don't agree with their ideology.';

'>>92598833
This but for all wargaming. Obsession with war is a nazi trait.';

'>>92582638
fpbp';

'>>92582598
>why does ww2 have so much germans in it
you'll figure it out someday
>why does napoleonic wars have so much french in it
you'll figure it out someday';

'>>92599082
Warfare has been endemic to man for thousands and thousands of years before the idea of a nazi even existed. You just have a fucked up compartmentalization of the world due to your ideological lense and lack of real understanding and knowledge.';

'>>92583418
The germans weapons were not the best though, from bombers to trucks and artillery, ground attack, carriers battleships yes even tanks. Obviously the propaganda worked on some though, like you';

'>>92599135
nta but in a way he is correct, the nazis believed that war was a form of social darwinism for nations and peoples and that war was the highest ideal of the state as the people.';

'>>92598358
I just haven't prayed hard enough to Mannstein to unlock them';

'>>92599082
I think owning measuring tapes for gaming is also Nazi because it infers some dkstances are less equal than others. Also, using dice to randomly generate numbers. You wouldn't take a chance on liberty, would you? Very sus';

'>>92599157
And now they wear socks and sandals. Ironic';

'>>92599203
Don't worry anon, Steiner's counterattack will unlock all the paid DLC';

'>>92598833
Nah. When I started BA with a group, we were only playing Warhammer and decided to get some tanks just to play tank battles. I picked germs because the panzer iv is sexy as fuck and the tiger not far behind it. Then they decided to play full games and I was okay with how dapper the Germans looked.';

'>>92595226
Don’t start this. They did use human wave tactics even at the seelow heights. Not every Soviet general was a retard, but some were';

'>>92599785
It wasn't being retarded in a lot of cases. Even Zhukov did it. If you were a Soviet commander and didn't meet your schedule, you had a good chance of being Gulag'd or executed for incompetence. With such top down pressure on their heads, you don't have to imagine why Soviet commanders just stopped giving a shit about casualties.';

'>>92599146

Part of this is due documentaries being assembled with healthy doses of propaganda stock footage which will inevitably show the absolutely BEST equipment and readiness possible.';

'>>92582598
Who would you prefer they focus on?';

'>Are historical games just doomed to overfocus on the bad guys?
Bad guys?';

'>>92594043
haha, pokey stick go BRRR.';

'>>92594043
Use 1d6chan now, seeing as it actually has actual participation and 1d4chan isnt coming back.
https://1d6chan.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page';

'>>92599856
>Even Zhukov did it. If you were a Soviet commander and didn't meet your schedule, you had a good chance of being Gulag'd or executed for incompetence. With such top down pressure on their heads, you don't have to imagine why Soviet commanders just stopped giving a shit about casualties.

I can very well imagine it. It does not change it being a retarded tactic, even if they deemed it necessary to save their own necks.';

'>>92589588
Literally Kotor. Old Republic soldiers are the biggest dorks in the galaxy.';

'>>92603736
Assault through to break enemy lines is a common tactic, not a "retarded tactic" that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. You can easily review various WW2 encounters if you wish to confirm this yourself.';

'>>92603736
As that other Anon said, a wave tactic, at the strategic scale, is just a concentrated attack on a section of the front lines.';

'>>92599146
You're a moron. Me262, Stg44, V1 & V2 rocket, Panther tank. They werent able to field any of them in large numbers due to logistical issues. But by all means regale me on the merits of the Sherman tank.';

'>>92598833
I'm a darkie and I had an army of nazis desu, it's pretty easy to separate tabletop from irl and if you're store is any good it'll have a NO POLITICS sign right at the entrance.

They look cool and their tanks are immediately recognizable. One aspect that maybe not everyone has encountered is that some US/UK players can get really weird when fighting Soviets, far weirder than even the average wehraboo weirdo can, so if those guys are there I pull out the 3. Panzerdivision instead of my Guards. I have no hypothesis as to why this happens but it's happened to me across several states. Maybe it's an American thing.';

'I mean Germany is literally the Imperium in 40K of course it has the main focus.';

'>>92582598
>the nazis
I think you mean the
Germans asshole';

'>>92604564
You don't need to qualify yourself to these shitbags. They're either a non ironic commie or a Jew. Either one is far worse and have caused far more death and destruction then any nazis or "wehraboos".';

'>>92582598
its cool to be bad';

'>>92599082
>wrote an epic story about a war
>today i learned that Homer was a nazi';

'>>92595156
>Hungarians, Chinese, and Pacific British
you fucking gigachad';

'>>92598833
this is either bait
or a literal idiot.';

'>>92604564
>some US/UK players can get really weird when fighting Soviets
...in what way do they get weird?';

'>>92603736
What would you suggest, smart guy? Slow, painstaking guerilla action?';

'>>92599785
>>92603736
>>92599856

Well, this is complicated. If we look broadly at the literature, there are a plenty of indications that the Red Army on the tactical level was resorting to a rather blunt approach.

>David Glantz notes: “The worst of these bad habits was the propensity of some commanders, particularly Stavka representatives and front and army commanders, to squander valuable manpower and equipment needlessly, particularly by planning and conducting costly frontal assaults during penetration operations, sometimes repeatedly, after it was apparent the penetration could not succeed, when other less costly methods of penetrating defenses might have succeeded.”

Similarly, another author notes that:

>“Only speedy reactions would result in preemption of the enemy’s deployment and seizure of the initiative. Hence the Soviet preference at the tactical level for simple, easily understood, and rapidly implemented battle drills.”

This was also related to the limited time the Red Army spent on training, since the priority was mostly on recruiting and training by some units was just an afterthought. For this, we need to look at the bigger picture, which means understanding the basic difference between tactics, operations and strategy. Simply put, if the space/time and force levels are lower, it is closer to tactics, if they are high it is closer to strategy.

Now, the issue is that the Soviets focused more on the operational and strategic level, as such they were willing to sacrifice on the tactical level not only in training, but also when it came to combat losses. There main focus was to achieve a breakthrough as fast as possible in order to allow for the exploitation and thus avoid a war of attrition. This likely led to fewer losses in the long run, but initial assaults led to high losses.';

'>>92608668

This was of course in stark contrast to the Western Allies, as noted by a German veteran in Normandy:

>“They [the Germans] were surprised that artillery barrages were not followed up by determined infantry assaults. An experienced They (the Germans) were surprised that artillery barrages were not followed up by determined infantry assaults. An experienced corporal in the German 275th Infantry corporal in the German 275th Infantry Division summed up German attitudes: ‘Americans use infantry cautiously. If they used it the way Russians do, they would be in Paris now.’”

Whereas the Western Allies focused on keeping their losses low and relied more on firepower, the Red Army focused on speed in order to overwhelm the Wehrmacht:

>“And the key to success in the offensive was speed. If tempo was not being gained from the start, the Germans would not be destabilized and forced into an increasingly belated reactive posture, and the battle would become an attritional grind after the fashion of the Orel Operation of the previous year. Casualties would be high, and the result inconclusive. Better that the first echelon endured heavy losses to ensure a quick breakthrough so that the exploitation echelon could accomplish the enemy’s destruction through fast-moving,lower-cost, and decisive maneuver.”

Of course, on the German side, these assaults often – especially for regular soldiers – appeared just like human wave attacks that were unsophisticated. The sophistication usually only becomes apparent if one looks at the operational map in late war.

The Red Army of the summer of 1944 demonstrated a growing subtlety in its conduct of operations, even while tactics remained supremely, if necessarily, unsubtle.

Over time the Soviets, especially the mobile formations also became
very capable on the tactical level, but this was in late war and brunt of the fighting –
especially in the initial breakthroughs – was done by the infantry.';

'>>92608668

Red Army fought like an unsophisticated meat grinder is clearly wrong. However, on the tactical level the Red Army for most of the war had limited capabilities. Additionally, it did not help that some generals did not care much about losses. Therefore, it is not surprising that many Russians today still categorize some Red Army marshals and generals as ‘bloody’ and others as ‘human. Yet, on the operational and strategic level the capabilities of the Red Army in late war
were quite sophisticated.';

'>>92582598
It is because of how the IIIed Reich armed forces were constructed. You had two military organisations, the Army and the SS, both had access to infantry foot/mechanized, armoured divisions etc Then with in the SS you had the regular SS and the "ally" units like SS Nord, Wlasovs units etc On top of that Germans went crazy with the number of units their developed.
The US had the Grant(fast found out to be bad), the Sherman and its variants and that is it. Same goes with the british, and their vehicle projects. On top of that Germans didn't just do a small test runs of 10-20 and be done with a vehicle type, no they did big (for a trail run) series of 200-300 units, sometimes even more.

Then there is the fact that german gear, uniforms etc were being used by the slovaks, hungarians etc. So you could similary armed and uniformed dudes, who represent different countries. The ally did the same, mostly with Pole who fought for the western ally and the soviets armed the same way their fundators were armed. There were also the free French, but in totaly of ally forces those were very small % of all units on the western or Italian front.

That is why the germans have so many types of units. It is based on historical units used by the IIIed Reich.';

'>>92582598
Maybe try playing a good WW2 wargame rather than a crap one?

Any good WW2 game should represent *most* of the vehicles / units that each faction has. You can't expect every single unit, as there's always some obscure hybrid vehicle or unit that isn't worth covering, but all the main combat units from each faction should be there.

For example if you look at Fist Full of TOWs, it has pretty much every vehicle for every faction in WW2, as well as moderns.

Main problem is Warlord - they are all about making money, and German units sell (or at least they've decided they do)';

'>>92598358
Not divisions, but there were infantry regiments.';

'>>92591759
He's playing to type, at least. :^)';

'>>92608668
>This likely led to fewer losses in the long run, but initial assaults led to high losses.

looks at Studzianki, Lenino, the breaking through the Pommernstellung near Kołobrzeg. The Berlin operation etc.
The turn over of soldiers and officers was huge.';

'>>92595226
They are doing the same shit in Ukraine now, throwing bodies at enemy's positions is Russia's favorite tactic.';

'>>92594806
>Did Germans not have initiative training or fast firing MGs?
The MG-42 did fire pretty fast, but research indicates they were no more powerful than a Vickers or any other tripod mounted HMG. [source - Bobs Rules of Infantry Combat, "Rule 6d: Machine guns are awesome but some are more awesome than others"
https://testofbattle.com/upload/bob/Rules%20of%20Infantry%20Combat.htm#6d ]
The Bren is worth around 9 riflemen, MG-34 worth about 11 riflemen, while the MG-42 and Vickers are worth around 28 riflemen.

>Did the British not coordinate with their massive artillery?
Not really, at least to start with they were woefully underfunded and relied on fast cruiser tank attacks, lacking a lot of the heavier artillery support.

>Did the Russians not mass batteries against the Germans and fight despite overwhelming odds while throwing a wall of conscripts at the foe?
Not really, Soviet artillery was pretty woeful for the first half of the war due to poor recon. Training was certainly an issue for the first half, but by around 1942 they pretty much work out how to use combined arms and have a decent level of training. Even in Barbarossa the Soviets still had pretty crack Siberian units, albeit in small numbers.

>BA does a fine job recreating war movies
Sure, but there are almost 0 realistic WW2 movies (except maybe Come and See, but there isn't really any combat in that). Once you start reading real accounts of these wars, you want something a little more accurate and not just a cheesy action film.';

'>>92609655
>MG-34 worth about 11 riflemen, while MG-42 is worth around 28 riflemen.
lol, lmao even.';

'>>92589588

I think it's normal for white and spiritually-white dudes to secretly "cheer" for the Nazis in movies. I think it's a combination of lingering teenage edginess, wondering how history would have been different, and aesthetics. And of course Cold War era politics when we basically turned around and put a lot of Nazis to work for us.

I do the same thing with the American Civil War. I don't really have any connection to Southern culture(I'm Catholic, from the North, etc) but I always root for the Confederates in documentaries. There's something appealing about their bravado, rebel yells, cavalry tactics, and their charismatic generals(eg in contrast to L*ncoln firing any general who cared about the lives of his men until he was left with a core of autistic butchers like Grant and Sherman).

>>92582598

>the Nazis have the most and the best special rules too.

I'd argue against this, actually. Promoting a squad member to a new NCO easier and getting +1 shot with machine guns is pretty meh compared to the free artillery observer for UK. Americans being able to move and shoot without penalty is good for actually doing objectives and attacking. Tiger Fear got (rightly) nerfed by an FAQ and that only came up in late war games anyways(like assault rifles and panzerfausts).';

'>>92582598
>Way better than France and Romania
>The two factions who get to take a Medium Howi for ZERO (0) points
The Romanian rule is seriously undervalued, being able to just delete something for free is absurd, especially with any force 1000 points or less.';

'>>92611747
yes but you are playing r*manians then';

'>>92607734
Lately leaning really hard on anti-Russian... ism?? I don't know whether to call it racism, but really going hard on "filthy subhuman Russian hordes" thing to a degree that goes beyond the historically-adjacent ribbing that you may get from someone playing Wehrmacht (I only play people with SS armies if they've been thoroughly vetted to behave so your mileage may vary on other kinds of Axis players). And like I'm not Russian nor particularly invested in Russia so the fact that it makes me uncomfortable when I can banter during a Zulu War game (I'm always Cesthwayo) tells you something. It's like when a warhammer Slaanesh player starts going off on one about all the graphic sex pervert shit they're gonna do to your forces and it goes too far, like you can tell there's something behind it and it's not banter. There's also the usual le drumpf sympathizer trash that some politicsbrains bring in every game, and when I lived in Mississippi I had one UK player (that I declined a match against) start grilling me on culture war shit because he thought I was sneakily bringing whatever /pol/'s latest buzzword is into the store by making communism acceptable (there were more Soviet players but I was one of maybe 3 coloreds at that local).';

'>>92582598
Can I just use my DKoK recasts in this?';

'>>92611282
There is no such thing as spiritually white. I know what subversive game you're playing at and we aren't falling for it.';

'>>92612722
no, its a historical game';

'>>92582598
>Why do WW2 historical wargames focus so much on the Nazis?
Because WW2 wargaming is heavily anglocentric and Germany was an existential threat to the UK rather than being a colonial conflict like the other two axis powers, thus Nazis are seen as the default enemies. People like Priestley also grew up on a heavy dose of WW2 media that we barely got a snapshot of when BoB and Saving Private Ryan was around. From a design point of view germans are much easier to balance than Japanese, who would pretty much always lose after they got into contact with not-second rate Allied units, and the Italians who were the comic relief of the conflict and it pains me to admit it because they're usually my favorite faction.

>Bolt Action has over 200 German units in it, way more than any other faction, and like 4 or 5 different sourcebooks just for Germany.
See above, from a gaming perspective it's hard to balance out Japanese or Italians with Allied powers. From a historical point of view WW2 Germany was a mini-empire on its own with multiple ethnicities fighting for the Reich, voluntarily or not, so you get a broad selection of different forces for each front . From an autistic point of view you get the various crazy equipment that germans were experimenting with to counter the sherman/t-34 spam, Germans just get better table centerpiece toys for your army and to impress your buddies with. From a commercial point of view Germans just sell, simple as. Keep the printer rolling, Rick.';

'>>92613154
>Italians who were the comic relief of the conflict and it pains me to admit it because they're usually my favorite faction.
this is what happens when you get all your historical knowledge from reddit memes';

'>>92600047
>1d6chan
Public Reminder it's run by a faggot who astroturfed his site for a while, censored it, and refused to provide any of the shit he erased until 2d4chan.org came back online:
self-admitted censorship: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92052290/
comparison: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92056354/#q92082544

An anon made an archive of the stuff he tried to get rid of too:
https://files.catbox.moe/mdvx9t.7z';

'>>92609023
Indian as well.';

'>>92609655
Well it's a good thing the rules only give the MG42 a single extra bonus die to shoot, and no bonus to damage. Ditto with the Vickers.
>The English didn't have offshore artillery support.
Depends on the sector but in most of the famous ones it is noted in memoirs how the Brits called in naval gunfire.
>Russians had woeful artillery
But they had shitloads of it.';

'>>92603736
Zurg rush won D-Day and a half dozen beach assaults in the Pacific. America did it just as much as the Soviets and a lot of the time it paid off.';

'>>92613154
>and Germany was an existential threat to the UK
I'm under the impression that the Albion was really hot and bothered about all the german grannies and babies that would soon burn while Hitler, at the very least, would've supported a Vichy-regime style solution for Great Britain.';

'>>92582598
Globalists are turning us into hores and faggots, while flooding us with arabic immigrants that start forcing their way of life onto us (stabbings, rapenings, islam and speaking arabic) - hey at least we don't have to speak german right?';

'>>92621426
This only occured in the late 50s onward to rebuild cheaply after the war Germany caused. The war destroyed the ability of the workers and industry to function as they did prior to Germany's shitfit over being the last man standing after WWI, when the remaining of the Cntral Powers broke themselves apart.';

'>>92582598
tl;dr: Boomers and GenX are obsessed with nazis and they buy/built most historical wargames.

>be american/brit/whatever
>learn growing up that the germans were bad and did evil things
>grow up enough that school/research/edutainment programs can begin articulating more complete information
>learn that allies did some bad things too
>learn that the germans weren't all cartoon villains
>have teenage angst reaction, kind of like when you first realize your dad is just a man
>since they "discovered" this on their own, they're hardwired to reject contradictory information
>most people never mature and stay as perpetual adolescents, and so continually buy in to their own ideas
That kind of person is the wheraboo, who forms the tent pole which keeps the german love fest going. They in turn are supported by closet case nazi simps and people who enjoy playing the bad guys.

It doesn't help that the Boomers and a lot of GenX were fed movies that made the nazis seem all powerful and dangerous. The war movies they had growing up needed high stakes as a plot device, so they pumped up the germans as smart, powerful, and dangerous adversaries. Millenials never got this, so they are less inclined to the german obsession.';

'>>92612425
lol you type like someone that can’t actually handle banter AND like a NAFO troon';

'>>92621426
>at least we don't have to speak german right?
Worth mentioning this was never going to happen in any scenario. (Among other matters).';

'>>92622905
without America and the rest of the commonwealth joining the war, we could have lived, at least, in a world without British.';

'>>92582598
>Nazis have the [...] best special rules
Getting an extra attack with your MGs is good, but compared to Yanks ignoring move and fire penalties for their BAR infantry, or the Soviets literally getting an entire unit for free? At the very best you could say it's a contender. Hell, the Finns are up there as well with their super-elote infantry.';

'>>92621912
>NAFO troon
Can you even read?';

'>>92612873
Yes there is';

'>>92611282
Confederates also had the better music';

'>>92622947
No, I mean even in any hypothetical German victory, British people ending up "speaking German" wasn't in the cards.';

'>>92611282

Sherman being an autistic butcher is what made him the coolest general of the war. He predicted the industrial meatgrinder that would be 20th-century conflicts and fought to win, not to abide by antiquated notions of "good war."

"You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success."';

'>>92625760
What a baller.';

'>>92612425
These people are complete lunatics. Wouldn't expect that in BA players.

>>92621912
>reading comprehension';

'>>92625760
Him and Ludendorff would get along well, at least in their as least in their attitude in how war should be waged. Now WHY it should be waged on the other hand…';

'>>92598063
>the doctrine of reconnaissance in force? It consists of throwing a wave of troops at the enemy and punching through when weak points present themselves.
It entails using force, not human wave tactics. Current US doctrine often includes recon in force, it’s why armored cavalry includes main battle tanks.';

'>>92598063
>>92626607
In the WW2 period the US tended to recon with jeeps, which led to some famous quotes afterward about how the roads ahead of main US forces were riddled with friendly casualties, which they contrasted against Germans using tanks for recon.
The US buzzword 'fighting for information' i.e. using tanks for ground recon units didn't get fully institutionalized until the Gulf Wars IIRC when RPG ambushes made it clear jeeps were not viable.
Ofc today it's moot. Drones fill the roles recon teams used to.';

'>>92583396
WW1 dweebs.
More of an Arditi guy myself but I understand the appeal.';

'>>92621912
>Ivan in charge of reading';