"Who Plays Crappy Armies?" Topic

Another thread I mentioned how every WW2 game table has a King Tiger on it. So that got me thinking.

Does anyone play the lousy or weak armies on purpose?

So if you game WW2, do you pick third line Bulgarian security troops against your friends Russian Tank Shock Army? or does anyone choose Volksturm or Luftwaffe Field troops on a regular basis instead of the elite types?

Seriously, who plays armies that are pruposely lousy?

I now that for Sci-fi I used to play 40K 2ed and after collecting so many gretchin I built an army of thousands out of them. I never expect them to do well. When it is time for casualtied I normally just use two hands to scoop an uncounted number off the table rather than count casulties while my friends laugh. Funny enough, being so familiar with their weaknesses, I learned how to do quite well with them and normally won or fought to a draw.

So admit it what is your favourte army to use as a punching bag?

Oh God yeah, I love a crap army. Numidians are a particular favourite – in theory they're only moderately terrible, but against a big block of Roman Legionaries their failings are suitably magnified…. :-) I also have a soft spot for WW2 Belgians (although actually at the tactical level they're not that bad at all) and for any air force flying hopelessly outdated kit in WW2, especially biplanes….

Oh, and if I ever get my Ostfront Italians painted, they may have to take pride of place…. ;-)

I like playing the BAL in the Carlist Wars. They weren't exactly crappy but they were probably a little lower than average at the start of their service and they get their butts kicked pretty regularly. I also like playing the Isabellinos who were not always well served by their commanders.

I much prefer them to the Carlist forces actually.

I play hordes of crappy Russian infantry in WWII.

Hippies and other like protesters. It's a challenge to properly play an incoherent group superficially committed to a vague "cause" but still willing to destroy other's property and risk other people's lives.

Crappy? I don't consider my 1866 Austrians or 1870 French crappy, just because they lost. Underdogs is more like it.

But yes, I like a force that isn't loaded with elites.

Well I have WW2 Italians and Napoleonic Austrians….

I once had a small 3rd ed. Warhammer army based almost entirely around snotlings.

It was like the infamous Panzer Parking Lot, only with pump-wagons. (Note: they don't maintain that hub-to-hub formation for long)

In 40K I have Orks and I do indeed have a Luftwaffe field troops army…so yes.

Do Austrians count?

I personally love Bashi-bazouks for the black powder period, and I've never met a useless tank I didn't like.

Crappy armies? But, of course.

I have an Indian Army for FoGR. About as close to total rubbish as you can find. The only big advantage to these guys is my opponents have to kill a lot of them to make a dent and sometimes they run out of time.

Then there are my WWI Austrians…..

Thank you so much for your immediate responses.

I know I am among friends,,,

,,,or at least, like minded die hards who don't know when to quit,,,.
Again thank you.

If it's not a Third Line unit or Third Rate country, I'm not interested.

Anyone can play King Tigers…

Eric

I've just begun my first foray into moderns. the only troops painted so far are Afghan National Police – does that count?

Yes. During my time playing 40K I had IG…mostly infantry. When I played FoW, I had Romanians with huge amounts of cavalry. My Bolt Action army is Germans but themed around a Recon group, so no tanks but some horses…I like playing the underdog…

Who called my SYW Spanish crappy!!!!!

There are no crappy armies, just generals who are in over their head.

Technically my 1877 Russians are not crappy. Just following really murderous obsolete infantry tactics.

There are no crappy armies, just generals who are in over their head.

Oh, really? What about Bonapartist Spaniards? Kingdom of the Two Sicilies ("Dress them in blue, dress them in red, they'll run away just the same")? Chinese Green Standards?

I've got 'em, along with Hanseatic Legion, the other Napoleonic Spaniards, a Napoleonic Russian Recruit Division, and several other forces of questionable military value.

Who called my SYW Spanish crappy!!!!!

The British…. ;-)

In our group, when we play Empire, we fight over who gets to play the Spanish. I actually won with them once. I even got in a cavalry charge!
And when I lose, it's not my fault.

Lord help me but I love playing the Spanish Navy in Age of Sail.

I love obscure armies. Of course, many of them are also crappy.

And I fondly remember a Guilford Courthouse game where the front line of militia survived for almost the whole game, not even thinking about running away.

I used to use 7 years war French!

I now use WSS French, much better!

Oh goodness, where to begin? I love crappy armies so much that my opponents might say I have the ability to make any army crappy.

Right now my favorites are my 1806 Prussians and my 1937 US Philippine army.
The 1937 guys are a what-if based upon the premise that the Panay incident led to war. But they are big fun if you like combat cars.

I am now looking longingly at the Napoleonic Spanish…

I am now looking longingly at the Napoleonic Spanish…

Nah, REAL hardcore hardluck Napoleonic gamers play The Ottoman Empire!!

Come to think of it, I even have a platoon of ARVN.

ALL of my armies are crappy… I could field a division of Tigers and they would lose on the first turn to a single stand of French partisans.

But historically crappy armies?

WWII Italians
Skythians
Early Libyans
WSS Spanish
WFB Beasts of Chaos
Classical Indians
Anything else I play…

I love underdogs. They are much more fun to play. You have to think around their deficiency (lack of training or morale or equipment or leadership or doctrine or all).

Actually most forces I work lately are such armies:

- sci-fi irregulars
- sci-fi corporate securit forces
- interwar Muslims
- interwar (fictional) Sultanat of Hattai
- WW2 Italy
- WW2 British Indians (not Sikh)
- WW2 Romanians
- WW2 pre1943 Soviets
- WW2 Chinese
- WW2 French
….

I have a couple "lesser quality" armies (WWI Russians and a WWII volksturm platoon – the latter being a work in progress, but I look forward to fielding them!), but I mainly prefer average quality troops. My SYW Austrians are a bit top heavy, though, as are my Marian Romans.

I love to play with unusual armies.

Ancient/Medieval
-Indian
-Burgundian
-Hussite
-Chinantec
-Tupi
-Skraeling (SAGA)
Renaissance
-Colonial Spanish
-Colonial Portuguese
- Tupi
I once took a Trastamara Spanish army to a tournament where everyone else showed up with a TYW army.
WW1
- Bulgarian
- Greek
- working on Turk
trying to find Romanians and Portuguese.
WW2
I'm going to start with Romanians.

Napoleonic Spanish.

I play confederate during the American Civil War all the time. :-)

Sorry, just a drunken joke to troll. It's been a very rough day. And it was a funny thought that I thought I'd share.

45th, That is funny!

I have the following armies.
Burgundian
Napoleonic Austrian
Napoleonic Prussian, lots of Landwehr.
Zulu's
I had WW2 Hungarians, but sold them.

Crappy armies are the best.

I have a ton of 40K Imperial Guard infantry

The Little Prince wanted a massive Goblin horde for WarHammer, so I have one of those two

I have not one but two Mexican Revolutionary armies – rebels and Federales

A Chinese Warlord army and an army of Chinese rebels/Boxers

Plus Austrian armies from not only the SYW but also the Napoleonic Wars

Plus both sides in the English Civil War – with the WH ECW rules the winner is the last to run away

If you need a superior army to win, you're not much of a gamer.

Rumanians in WW2, I love those guys. man for man as tough as any, put them in a unit that is on the defence and suddenly they've got the staying power of cream cheese.

And yes, luftwaffe field divisions. So poor they should have made a comedy TV series about them.

Hey… how about playing with the Roman Republic army (ex Papal States)…. Couple of raw "legions" with a high deserter rate (over 60%). Between the old "religious Papal soldiers and the new "republican ideas" individuals those units rate low on any standard. There again… fun with my Tyrolean rebels against the Bavarians.

Other painted 25/28mm "Low grade" armies in the collection….

FRW/Imperial periods:
Army of Conde (1793-5)
Vendee revolt
Joseph's Spanish
Indian Princes of the subcontinent
British Yeomanry and militia units
Ottomans and Islamic N. African states like Egypt and the Barbary States
Spanish armies of 1808 and 1812 eras

Yep…. Storage shed of losers… but fun on the tabletop

My favorite are Napoleonic-era Neapolitans--possibly the only army worse than the Spanish, at least in the Peninsular War. Who can resist troops that run faster than any cavalry could possibly catch in pursuit, and do so garbed in chartreuse, lavender, and pink?

Well, I got enthusiastic and ordered figures to convert into 1897 Greeks. The books on the campaign took longer to find. To my dismay, I ultimately realized that I had managed to field what was, quite possibly, the worst army in late 19th Century Europe!

Aside from that, I have WWII Italians.

I'm also a fan of bashi-bazouks, Individually, they are good fighters (in a thuggish sort of way), but as units, they are not so good.

I'm not at all sure I have anything because it is the super-doper elite force. I do have Byzantines, and I am getting Romans to fight my Celts.

Grelber

As always, I have a range, including WW2 Italians and Rumanians.

My very worst army is probably Neapolitan, but Austrians of whatever period give them a run for their money.

Certainly: Napoleonic Neapolitans, Spanish, Josefine Spanish, Sicilians. And some Spanish ships, too.

When you do Imagi-Nations in everything, as I do, almost all the armies are purposely made to be crappy armies.

I purposely make them so. Two elite armies is like watching a head on collision, interesting for the first moment or two, rather boring after that.

With crappy armies you have the possibility of wide swings of fortune, dramatic recoups, and critical failures all of which add a lot of excitement to the game.

Elite armies may be admirable but only crappy armies can be loveable.

I love my Spanish because they fought longer, with less, and less to show for it, than any other of Napoleon's opponents. They got lucky at Bailen and spent the next few years thinking every battle could be the next Bailen. Plus, they had more generals per capita than any other nation out there.

Funny the Italians and Romanians get such a bad rap for WW2.

I never really ollowed Napoleonic wars. I just may have to start out a new thread in order to understand how bad the Spanish were.

I am surprised that none of you have the potentially worse army in the 1800-1900 period, the 1894 Chinese Army (both the Beiyang modernized forces and the Imperial forces mobilized later on). We are talking about any army that did not even win one battle in the First Sino-Japanese war.

The Napoleonic Spanish won a battle.

The Austrian's barring the 1805 Campaign won battles, and quite a bit.

Even the 1897 Greeks won Velestino and Grimbovo.

THe 1894 Chinese lost every encounter from what I know of.