"Do certain tanks make you a powergamer???" Topic

In a recent topic people mentioned that the use of a King Tiger (or more then one) makes people cheesy players. Some even said that they were out of touch with reality. Others mentioned that this was not just restricted to the se of King Tiger Tanks, but also applied to (for example) KV tanks in early Barbarossa scenarios.

For some this did not matter at all since these tanks were used in the war. Others said that it depended on the scenario. So what is you opinion?

THX,

Burkhard

OK… and here are some options:

1) Yes
2) No
3) Not as long as the tanks actually saw service
4) No, as long as the scenario is balanced
5) Yes, but only if you are playing WWII Germans
6) Use of tanks always distorts a game
7) No opinion
8) I do not use tanks

Any (reasonable) options I missed?

just depends on the situation and what is being gamed.

mjc

It's not cheesey if they're right for the scenario.

I'll go for 4. Here's an example – I had an early war game at the weekend where my four Panzer Is came in for some ridicule. Until we all saw what their twin machine guns can do to infantry in the open. In the meantime my opponent's sole KV2 (normally more of a power gamer's tank) achieved virtually nothing as it spent most of the game wreathed in smoke from my mortars.

I'd say it largely depends on the game system used.

If the rules are reasonable, the points cost (if such is used) makes it a viable, but not obligatory, option, and the tank is beatable in a reasonable way – then it's not powergaming.

If, conversely, the rules make the tank better than anything else for the point value – then it's powergaming.

(I'd say it also depends on the player motive for taking the tank in question – if it's because the rules make them great, or because you find them cute.)

Depends on the context really, if they were there in the historical battle, then no problem. If they are the product of a broken points system and cheesy min maxing, then maybethere is a problem. Arras would be bit odd with no Matildas or Mtensk with no T34s let alone Goodwood with no Tigers or Panthers.

depends on scenario. if its Ardenne 1944, then King Tigers. For all the good it did the Germans.

"If, conversely, the rules make the tank better than anything else for the point value – then it's powergaming."

I'm curious. If it is the rules that make the tank in question Super Tank, why is the gamer a power gamer for doing something obviously in the intent of the rules?

CPT Jake, I see your point, but right-thinking men will realise the rules need fixing, and not push it.

In my personal Favourite set of rules it's possible to massively over-provide for artillery support. Yes, pulverising the enemy with artillery and then moving up was SOP for some fronts, but it makes a crap game. so none of us take more than a few artillery pieces.

Pat

If you use a Tiger or KV in a game it doesn't make you a power gamer. But if it pops up in every game and every excuse to bring one along is good …

And you definitely are one if your army is a May 1945 kampfgruppe with FJ and SS über-elite troops armed with Sturmgewehr with Vampir IR scopes with Panther II, King Tigers and Maus tanks with Me262's, Coelians, Sturmtigers and enough carefully hoarded fuel and ammo to single-handedly drive back the allies all the way back to the moon.

For every one super tank there were a gazillion regular tanks . One king tinger versus a swarm of smaller tanks sounds cool

Only if you use Stuarts.

'One king tinger versus a swarm of smaller tanks sounds cool'

Well possibly, but IRL tanks tend to go around in bunches with their pals, so you are far more likely to have a platoon or company or battalion of Tigers than one on its own.

I recall from playing Close Combat II that a canny German could manage the battle for Nijmegen such that they could accumulate enough points for a Tiger II. The game was then over as when parked on the elevated road it was invulnerable frontally and able to wipe out anything sent against it. Not much fun commanding the 'swarm' then.

In the real world we are often suprised by things out of our control and must learn to deal with it. So play with what you have or walk away from the game.
My WWII Soviets have taken several poundings from my German enemies but I try something different each time. The height of one our games for me was having Fighting Girlfriend in her T-34 take out a Panther.

> For every one super tank there were a gazillion regular tanks . One king tinger versus a swarm of smaller tanks sounds cool

That sounds like…OGRE. :)

I'd go with a straight No, I think. The whole "power gamer" thing is bandied about far too much nowadays. There are guys who play that way, but taking tanks which were actually IN the war certainly doesn't fall into that category. Use proper tactics and you can probably beat them most of the time.

I must be a power gamer I love to use the OGRE!

14thBrooklyn, I think I may have started the whole thing, if we are both talking about the same thread/topic.
Was it the "favorite turret" thread?
Well, I said that Tiger players were "compensating", and it was just another OFM snarky throwaway line, not meant to be taken seriously. Some did, apparently.

The solution is called Sturmovik, P-47, Typhoon or artillery.

Yes, I find any excuse to field my uber-rare variant Tiger II with two 8.8's in it's Henschel turret, And a conning tower.

Yes John,

it as that comment but to be honest… it is this something that alos comes up a lot in earnest so I thought i might suggest it as a poll.

On my personal level… I do not really care too much.. Always try to balance it out either via the terrain, victory conditions or oposing units.

So far I find thi discussion most interesting… and that is what tis should be about!

Cheers,

Burkhard

Focusing only on choosing those elements of a game (outside of tactical skill) that lead to winning games as opposed to having a challenge, presenting an interesting situation, or having fun makes you a power-gamer.

If a particular set of rules made the panzer IV the only cost effective German tank, and a player in consequence never fields a king tiger, even in the Bulge, he is a power gamer.

"Power gamer syndrome" cannot be diagnosed from a single episode: it is a pattern of behavior.

No. In spite of what Allied "fanboys" claim, neither the M23 medium nor the M14 assault tank are the wonder weapons they are often portrayed.

Yes, the US built M5 gun is devastating, being a license-built version of the British 17 pounder. However, the old 75 mm on the Sherman had some advantages in the infantry support role. The M23 medium tank has a lower profile than its predecessor, the M4 series, and has the 17 pounder gun, but the old VVSS suspension on the initial model is a bit over-taxed, the rear-mounted Allison Hydromatic transmission is a bit testy and the over-all armor protection is similar to the Sherman. You really can't realistically use the HVSS equipped version with the up-armored turret and glacis until around August of '44, although some "power gamers" will have them coming ashore at Normandy.

The M14 is a great tank for its designed roles of assault and infantry support but it isn't invincible. Again, power gamers forget that it was somewhat slow and the suspension, derived from the M6 Heavy tank, was mechanically cranky. Also, they like to try and sneak the 105 mm howitzer version into Normandy scenarios, even though it didn't appear until Autumn of '44.

And remember kids, there were still plenty of Sherman variants around in '44-'45 since production of the M23, M14 and later M26 heavy was never quite enough to replace the M4 series completely.

The bottom line is, if you're going to use 'em, try to be realistic about it.

(For those folks tragically born without a humor gene, the preceding post was a joke.)

What must my use of R-35's say about me?

Heck, I'll swarm your R-35's with my horde of FT-17 tanks with their pitiful little gun and the variant with the 8mm MG! Of course I'll back up the FT-17's with all of the Char 2C tanks built just for good measure!

In tournaments there are such things as power gamers who crunch statistics on vehicles, infantry, artillery and air support to the point that they find a "best for this list" force which may or may not include tanks. Does taking the King Tiger list make you a power gamer – perhaps. Then again, if your opponent is AT heavy with American AT engineers and plenty of bazookas dug in on objectives, perhaps not. It depends.

On the other hand – when every gamer at a tournament fields the HS-129 with the long 7.5cm gun in pod underneath it gets OLD in a hurry. They only built around 25 of those planes the entire war. It is akin to someone fielding an infantry platoon and taking 6 JagdTigers as support, with lots of AA protection and artillery for counter battery fire.

My Panzer IIs are just lighting up everything right now…

…and actually, last week I ran a scenario for our group using the Spearhead rules. It was set in the northern sector of the Eastern front, pitting a Tiger II unit against some JS2s. I thought I had developed this clever scenario that would see the heavy tanks go muzzle to muzzle.

In the game, the German player rolled against the odds (like, Vegas against the odds), and Ju-87s with AT cannons arrived for two straight turns and pulverized the JS2s. The Tigers never had to confront them.

So I suppose you can use these big powerful tanks in a scenario, and they can end up hooped in ways you don't plan for.

I remember the old days …

"I won't play any tanks except Tigers. Well, I'll take King Tigers, but that's the limit!"

And you definitely are one if your army is a May 1945 kampfgruppe with FJ and SS über-elite troops armed with Sturmgewehr with Vampir IR scopes with Panther II, King Tigers and Maus tanks with Me262's, Coelians, Sturmtigers and enough carefully hoarded fuel and ammo to single-handedly drive back the allies all the way back to the moon.

Sounds kewl. Of course in FoW this army would probably cost a few BILLION points and for that the allied player should be able to get a few wings of Typhoons and B17s in close air support, plus enough artillery to break the table legs…. Not to mention his own Pershings or Centurion tanks…

I should add I'm with option #4. But numbers should be reasonable within historical production builds and deployments etc.

The words historicaly accurate and FOW do not go together!

Field what you want, it is just fantasy WW2

Yawn…

The words historicaly accurate and FOW do not go together!

Field what you want, it is just fantasy WW2

What is your opinion of Avalon Hill's 1964 "Battle of the Bulge"?

Do certain tanks make you a powergamer???

Only if you drive them into the gaming space.
-Kle.

"Do certain tanks make you a powergamer???"

The tendency to always take Tigers (assuming FoW or some other free-wheeling WWII game) is not powergaming. Its munchkinism.

Powergamers will actually "do the math", are known for tailoring forces to their known opponents at the metagame level, and display tactics determined solely by rules and unit stats with no regard for real life.

The difference is that munchkins *always* take Tigers and rarely display tactics of any sort.

'What must my use of R-35's say about me?'

If they are Rumanian ones in 1941, then….power gamer!

That's like Finnish T-26s.
Any time your entire armored force is stolen from the enemy, THAT is power gaming.