Have the allies been spoiled?

When I first saw the title of this thread, and then read the poll inside; I was quite shocked - and as yet have kept quite with my views until debate had died down a little;

Well basically, out of all the WW2 airsoft events I've attended over the past 8 years (Gunman/CiA/Dough-Boy/AGS), the premise has been "landed Allied forces push back the German war machine" games, with the allies always on the attack. I'd love for once to participate in a game where the Allied forces were in defence (I don't really count sneaky sneaky SOE avoidance and front-line defence, BTW.)

Op Ariel covered that quite well, with a push back to the Dunkirk perimeter. In skirts, too.

I'd love for more early war games, like you say, most of the time, the Germans are in defense.

Yes... but at ariel... what were we doing most of the morning?

Attacking!!!

Then in the afternoon we had to do sneaky beaky...

Yes... but at ariel... what were we doing most of the morning?

Attacking!!!

Then in the afternoon we had to do sneaky beaky...

We were attacking on the defensive, as it were, though. The Germans were in fairly good control of the site and we were attacking in order to clear the way to get out, from what i remember.

It certainly felt like a different sort of game for the allies, that's for certain.

Epsom was a German attack (well counter attack), so was one of the Senny battle (Nijmegen I think) also all the Eastern front games so the germans on the advance (to start with).

Real its about how the scenario is written and at what part of the historical battle your playing out. History does dictate who attacks and defends to be fair!

I dont think the allies are spoilt, guys just havent been going to the right games....nearly quoted Eric Morecambe then

I'd just like to point out that the very first game CiA organised was The Battle of the Bulge, which some may remember feature some rather attacky Germans.

Yes, the problem is that people equate the strategic situation with the tactical one, so unless the game is 'set' in a famous strategic counter attack by the Germans then it tends to have them on the defensive.

And I agree with McV', sometimes it gets where the 3rd 'we gotta push them back' of the day can wear a little thin. However I much prefer the 'combat missions' (I have solidified this preference over the last year) style over the 'constant regen' scenarios. These allow for a break up between attacking/defending, and a cost of death, and have in fact been some of my favourite days - Alsos and Lightning really stand out. They just require some careful thought about how one can 'link' each mission together without breaking the feel and flow of things.

But if our main hang up is the strategic situation where we set our fun, we could just treat it much more loosely. I mean Anzio was one of the games I really loved, but it did have nothing to do with 'the landings and breakout from Anzio' at all. Likewise Devils Hill was great (on day 1 ), but was the opposite of what was going on there in 1944. Didn't stop them being great, or most people getting into the mindset, so perhaps we should be less obsessive over who was doing what*.

*note I was guilty of said exigency at Eagles over the Rhine, as the battle was historically defensive for the Paratroopers I was too pre-occupied in 'redressing' an imbalance in the perceived role of airborne-y types, and the game would have benefited from an Allied attack scenario - lest anyone think I let myself of the hook.

I think the main problem is that the almost all of the German players are really rather poor at attacking.

I think the main problem is that the almost all of the German players are really rather poor at attacking.

Fighting talk if ever I heard it!......time and place you allied Dog

Fighting talk if ever I heard it!......time and place you allied Dog

At a guess, I'd imagine 1944, and North-Western Europe...

Fighting talk if ever I heard it!......time and place you allied Dog

At a guess, I'd imagine 1944, and North-Western Europe...