What type of force do you prefer?

[dougeagle]

With all of the pics on this forum as well as gamers, I figured that maybe setting up a post with a chance to see what other gamers out there like to use. This is for any era, WW1, WW2 and Modern battles.

So, what type of force do you prefer?
1) Infantry force (eg: brigade sized)
2) Tank force
3) a combined arms force of infantry and armor

I myself prefer infantry sized forces over armor sized forces, for both WW2 and Modern. Reason for this is that you can buy 2 packs of infantry with a heavy weapons pack and build at least 2-3 battalions of infantry then add some armor and such.

Now that I have started, lets see what others have to say, Please

[Timothy OConnor]

Excellent topic Doug! I hope people take the time to contribute!

I prefer infantry-focused forces with AFVs, etc. as supporting units (ie combined arms but with the focus on infantry). My WWII collection is 15mm (but I've been very tempted to sell it and switch to GHQ's 6mm...I could do so and actually come out ahead in cash given the cost difference!)

My modern collection is GHQ's 6mm for a couple of reasons. First, in 15mm, there are huge gaping holes in model availabilty. Mainstream forces up to platoon (maybe company) level are possible in 15mm, but anything slightly exotic and/or battalion level+ is nearly impossible to find. GHQ's line is comprehensive enough that a wide variety of forces is possible.

Second, GHQ's wonderful infantry figures are clean enough to be visible, even by older eyes. One can build stands of troops that make it obvious what the stand represents. This is especially true since GHQ's moderns follow a distinct pattern readily exploited to make stand type more clear (eg whether or not a platoon stand is armed with an ATRL or ATGM).

Here's the important part: why I prefer infantry-focused combined arms forces. First, at the end of the day it's the Poor Bloody Infantry who must secure , occupy, and control the typical area worth controling. Supporting arms are critical but have great difficulty in controling terrain unless one wishes to control vast stretches of open flat land devoid of cities, etc.

Second, even though infantry are required to control most ground worth having they have great difficulty in taking such ground in the absence of AFVs and/or fire support from mortars, artillery, airplanes, or helicopters.

Third, infantry focused combined arms actions usually require interesting terrain set up and tactical situations. I've enjoyed pushing tanks over rolling, open terrain, especially if the scenario designer realizes that even "open" terrain is usually rolling with somewhat limited LOS. But when infantry are the focus there's usually more terrain on the table and no one arm is dominant: infantry can control the close terrain but need fire support and AFVs to cross open areas while tanks can support the attack across open ground but need infantry support in close terrain. Arty can pummel spotted troops but has difficulty with troops in heavy cover or hidden from view.

It's a bit like renaissance warfare vs. mid-18th century warfare. In the early 16th century warfare saw lots of different troop types and both old and new technologies on the same battlefield while 18th century armies became increasingly homogeneous. From WWII to today changes in technology and the political context of war make for complex and interesting tactical and command situations more akin to the renaissance than the 18th century.

For example a scenario I'm working on for our next game session involves regular mech infantry, tanks, gunships, spec ops, insurgents, leg infantry, and arty. It also involves an insurgent cross-border raid against infrastructure followed by a retreat to a neighboring country's sanctuary. The hardware is interesting but the mission objectives and ROE for all (that's ALL!) sides make for an interesting command/political context as well.

[jb]

I just love anything military. Usually nothing like a great viewing of a War movie to get me motivated into a certain period. with tht said my preferred force may be just about anything

[DrBig]

Tanks & Jets

[chrisswim]

I prefer modern micro armor.
Prefer combined arms, with tanks being dominate. I like to have special vehicles. Working on re-transmission communication & Losat, detection, jamming, etc. vehicles. Scratch building to prefer not to do, my fingers are clumsy, buy like the unique stuff no one makes.
Japan's Ty 89 APC, CV9030 & CV9040, AIFV variants(based upon YPR-765) with machine gun buckets & vulcan, Japan's Ty 87 recon & patrol vehicle, (learned someone makes it buy I like my scratch build) or Spains Santa Barbara VEC Cavalry Scout Vehicle, Italy's OTOBREADA SIDAM 4X25mm AA, & 76mm AA; Japan's Type 87 AA.
Deploying with unique stuff is a good thing. Like seeing other creative stuff.

[Luca]

I like very much infantry. With few money you can paint a lot of them. I like it also because being oriented on WW2 period, You had lot of them, masses of men ranging from green conscript to top veteran quality troops, so you can add lot of variety to the different scenarios. Don't forget that only after WW2 armies began to be fully mechanized.

Usually when preparing an army I select a core group, it can be of infantry or armor either depending from the chosen task assigned. Then I add infantry ** CENSORED ** much is needed to fill up the "gaps" in the front and to give my force the needed reserves to exploit the gains of the action. The same I do when playng with the defenders, if I fell the front is too weak I put on the table a couple more companies of infantry.

I also like playng with infantry because armour is fast and strong, and if you're cleaver enought you get great results. On the other hand infanty is much slower to move and trying to act and react with infantry is much more difficult, and from a point of view even more challenging because you need much more carefull preparation and cohesion do lead foot soldiers in an increasingly motorized and armored environment.

[voltigeur]

I like historical organisations. I'm collecting more than playing right now but the best game have been in I was using my American ACT (Armored Cav Troop). This unit has fought outnumbered 9 to 1 and still pulled off the table 50% intact while inflicting 66% casualties on my opponent.

The unit I'm finishing up now is my Soviet Tank Regiment. It is just intimidating 94 tanks and a Infantry Battalion plus support. I wonder how many games it will win by just showing up.

I'm also wanting a USMC BLT. I've purchased the Copters and only need another company of LTVP 7's. The infantry will take forever but will be the most versatile unit I will own.

[paul]

Really depends on the type of unit. I'm working on a modern US armored, German armored and Russian Tank division. This allows me to play anything US division or lower, same for the Russians. In addition I'm working on a moern Chinese force but will probably only build about a brigade and sub in Russian pieces where I can. Likewise, I want to build a US Stryker brigade.

I want these units to be as close as possible in terms of combat units and aircraft (which is where it get's real expensive). Gotta have the artilley and infantry units as well so in short Combined arms.

[redleg]

I'm also more of a collector than a player at the moment (unfortunately). My main effort is a modern US heavy BCT (complete with all the wheeled ash n trash), but when it comes right down to it I like to play infantry fights more than purely armor ones. As far as the collecting goes, I like doing artillery more than anything else for purely personal reasons.

[shawno]

combined arms battle group based around an infantry battalion with a mix of armour and engineers/air thrown in

[Mk 1]

Oh grief! The problem is ... I LOVE IT ALL!

For me, the variety is half the fun. What do I really like? I like not knowing whether I will be facing an infantry force, a tank force, or a combined arms force.

Really, if you've never played it that way, you just gotta try it a few times. When you have a bridge in a town as an objective, and you pick up a company of tanks and a platoon of infantry, and then find that your opponent has filled the town with full battalion of infantry, generously provided with AT assets, and has a platoon of engineers who have built tank-obsticals on most approach routes, you learn a thing or two about combined arms!

I like defending with tanks against tanks. I like defending with infantry against tanks. I like taking a combined arms team against an infantry defense. I like maneuvering with a light mech force against a powerful infantry force. I like it all!

Oh, and I like early WW2. And Mid-WW2. And late WW2.

Don't forget Height-of-the-Cold-War. Oh, I like that!

And modern. As in current day. Brush wars. Oh yeah, bring it on, baby!

More, more, I'm still not satisfied!