"Nightmare opponents" Topic

Which historical general would be the worst wargame opponent?

Not the best commander in history (who would invariably beat you into a cocked hat every game) but the worst person to actually sit across the table from on a gaming night.

Who would be unbearable? Endless arguing over line of sight? Refusing to accept the scenario brief because "my cavalry should be on the left"? Taking three hours to deploy because staff work must be exact? Demanding hidden movement for everything? Frothing at the mouth if things go pear-shaped & throwing his dice across the room?

Napoleon might insist every defeat was really the umpire's fault. Wellington would probably spend the whole evening complaining about the terrain. Montgomery might rewrite the scenario before Turn 1. Patton would move before you'd finished placing your figures.

Who would be the absolute nightmare opponent and why?

Alexander the Great would be insufferably arrogant

Fredrick the Great would turn up in a ratty old coat, spend the whole game snorting snuff and making caustic remarks

Genghis Khan would show up in a coat covered in grease, beat your butt on the gaming table and then wander over to a corner of the room to have a pee

George McClellan would spend so much time arranging and re-arranging his troops the game would never start

Grant would be quiet and unassuming. For pete's sake, show something!

Hitler would throw a temper tantrum at every setback, pounding the table and shouting "Nein! Nein! Nein! Then pull extra units that aren't in the scenario out of his transport bag and deploy them in your flank.

His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I. In addition to blaming the umpire, I'd expect loaded dice, and cheating at card draws. In his later years, he'd point-blank refuse to accept troop numbers and morale/training states for his own forces, and insist that enemy units which had fallen back had actually routed.

De Gaulle would claim that his one tank won the battle, along with a handful of civilian figures.

Charles Lee would whine and complain that HE should command that wing. Then he would panic and abandon the troops. After the game, in the Trash Talk Phase*, he would demand that everyone acknowledge his brilliant plan.

*We call it something more vulgar.

Blucher would arrive late for the game, and mutter "I see you started without me."

Japanese Naval Command would need hours to set up the time table for their game plan

Julius Caesar. Snide, arrogant, seduces your wife while he takes a pee break, expects you to kneel before him when he wins, then wants you ritualistically strangled.

Side note, worst person to be with in a team game is Pompey. Overconfident, overrated, takes all the credit.

Nelson would be impossible. He'd ignore the agreed scenario, split his fleet into two columns "because no captain can do very wrong," and charge straight through the middle of your carefully prepared line. If it worked, he'd be a hero; if it failed, everyone would still insist it was glorious.

I think playing Montgomery would be interesting. Would he move before the game ended if he didn't have a huge advantage in numbers?

Benedict Arnold would not only win the game, he would then insist that it be published in every newspaper and lauded on every newscast. Then he would sulk anyway, steal your figures and sell them to the British.

@Frederick, I suspect your biggest objection to Genghis Khan would be when we went upstairs to rape your wife/daughters. There is genetic evidence out their that suggest it was his main occupation, winning battles/wars was juts a means to an end.

The list of egotists is too long to bother with.

I have heard that Brigadier Peter Young had a bad habit of knocking the table so the figures fell over and had to be 'reset' if he was losing. While I knew him vaguely I was sadly never invited to that level.

H.G. Wells. "What do you mean you're going to shoot things at my lovingly painted figures"!

Kutuzov would be maddening. He'd spend most of the evening apparently doing nothing, nodding wisely while you advanced into all the wrong places. He'd happily concede ground, abandon half the table and let everyone accuse him of passivity—right up until you discovered your army exhausted, your supplies gone and somehow he'd won without ever seeming to be fully awake.

Calgacus would be that opponent who gives a magnificent pre-game speech about freedom, tyranny and how your army represents the end of civilisation—then immediately retreats into the hills, burns the scenery and leaves you trying to explain to everyone whether that counted as a victory.

Me. About 10 to 15 years ago! Age has a way of seeing the big picture.

An excellent point about the Great Khan