Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

40k setting and us...
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=3211		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  dafrca [ Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
In another thread, someone said that the 40k universe was stuck in WWII. In context to the thread I understood what they ment, but it made me think...

One of the things I like about the whole 40k fluff is that each army is a different era. The IG is a psudo WWII/WWI, the Orcs are the Post Apocaliptic Mad max era, etc.

So it made me curious, what era do you see your army in tactics wise and or model wise?

Do you bend them further one way or the other?
(For example I have a friends who's guard army is more WWI as he has gone infantry/Rough Rider happy with more artillery and almost no tanks)

Opinions, thoughts, and ideas are all welcome  :laugh:

dafrca
Author:  netepic [ Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
My marines are modern combined arms - I use a variety of infantry carried by APC's with air support and only a small detachment of Whirlwinds for artillery.

No tanks :).
Author:  Xavi [ Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
My IG are pure WWII as you can see in the post where you read that comment :)

My marines are basically the same style for half of them (mechanized "assault engineers" with some tank support) and the other half are paratroopers (rapid strike force in drop pods with some "armopured" support in the form of speeders and dreadnoughts).

FDor other army projects I have, i have plans for a pure paratrooper IG army (120 miniatures in 40k is a lot) and for a "zulu/WWI" british army: all infantry, some rough rider squads and heavy weapon teams (if that poo could be considered artillery) and massed light infantry formations with knives on their rifles and ordered combat drills.

Yup, i like paras & mech units ;)

Regards,

Xavi
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:50 am ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
My Imperial guard are very ww2 russian.... so far I have held off using titans etc with them, in an attempt to keep the theme.  Aslo makes fighting the monstrous creations of opponents seem very heroic if all your stuff is ww2ish.

If only the new IG vultures and valkyries were not so tempting  ???  :D
Author:  Legion 4 [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:08 am ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
Yes, I said that that 40K is stuck in WWII.  I collect 9 Epic Armies (SM, IG, Orks, Eldar, Squats, Chaos, Traitor SMs & Cultists, 'Nids and Tau)  The whole general flavors of all of these armies are (generally) a high tech version of WWII.  Save for the Tau which are much closer to modern forces.  Jervis also mentioned something like this somewhere.  True, the Orks are Mad Maxish, Chaos use demons, etc. but for the most part, they each have a lot of WWII thrown in.  Based on my study of 20th century warfare and being a participant for a number of years in my adult (?!) life, 40K = WWII ! IMO :;):
Author:  dafrca [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:36 am ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
Quote (Legion 4 @ 26 2004 Aug.,22:08)
Yes, I said that that 40K is stuck in WWII. ?I collect 9 Epic Armies (SM, IG, Orks, Eldar, Squats, Chaos, Traitor SMs & Cultists, 'Nids and Tau) ?The whole general flavors of all of these armies are (generally) a high tech version of WWII. ?Save for the Tau which are much closer to modern forces. ?Jervis also mentioned something like this somewhere. ?True, the Orks are Mad Maxish, Chaos use demons, etc. but for the most part, they each have a lot of WWII thrown in. ?Based on my study of 20th century warfare and being a participant for a number of years in my adult (?!) life, 40K = WWII ! IMO :;):

L4,

As I said I understood your point an did not disagree with the overall idea. What I have seen is that with some creative use of both models and army make up combined with interesting use of said armies I have seen other eras mixed in. (The WWI Example I gave).

This is not a thread trying to prove anyone "wrong". I too have thought the WWII example myself. Although I believe WWII had a lot less "line up and charge" then 40K does. In some games I feel more like we are playing some odd 1700's war with lasers and power armor.

dafrca
Author:  Mojarn Piett [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
My IG are a strange mix of modern and WWII and whatever. Since I am an incurable treadhead who loves superheavies my army includes 10 Superheavy tank companies plus 3 or 4 (it's been a while shice I had an inventory) Leman Russ  companies. Add to that 3 artillery and 2 rocket companies and you get the idea, namely that I try to compensate my lack of any tactical skill whatsoever with vast amounts of heavy firepower. OTOH there is a cavalry company and a leg infantry company, not very common elements in an armoured/mechanised force...

My regimantal (or maybe divisional) insignia (the so-called arrows of Lagus) is the official insignia of the only Finnish armoured division in WWII.  :;):

As a side note, the arrows have made a comaback and are nowadays used by the armoured brigade.  :)  :cool:
Author:  primarch [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
Hi!

I thought that 40k was more stuck in WWI than WII, all those trenches and sieges seem to dominate 40k fluff. True that their are some account on fast armored advances, but the size of the conflicts and attritional demeanor always struct me as WWI-ish.

Primarch
Author:  dafrca [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
Quote (Mojarn Piett @ 27 2004 Aug.,01:51)
My regimantal (or maybe divisional) insignia (the so-called arrows of Lagus) is the official insignia of the only Finnish armoured division in WWII. ?:;):

I went to the net and looked it up. Nice insignia. I must admit a fondness for the simple ones. Clean lines and clear shapes.

dafrca
Author:  Legion 4 [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
No Daf, I didn't think you disagreed with me ! (But feel free to !) ?I was just stating why I believe as I do. ?40K = WWII (the high tech version !). ? :D ?WWII was much more a War of maneuver on both tactical and stategic levels than WWI. ?The 40K rules (not Epic) lends itself to close combat because of game design, marketing etc. ?Kids have no concept of "fire & movement" but think it's cool to run into the middle and whack each other with close combat weapons. But if you read any 40K forum many adults (?) think this is cool too ! ??? ? The attritional nature of the Epic (SM2 especially) battlefield is much more attuned the massive WWII battles of the Eastern Front (Stalingrad, Kursk, etc.) or even some of the Pacific Island battles (Pelelieu, Iwo, Okinawa, etc.). ?However, there were more frontal attacks then one might think in WWII. ?For a number or reasons, from there was no other choice, commander incompetence, etc. ?Remember, according to US Army/NATO doctrine, there are only 3 forms of offensive operations, 1) Frontal, 2) Penetration and 3) Envelopement. ? And Epic has far too many AFVs and aircraft to be WWI, IMO. ?The 40K rules suck and always have. ?I believe Epic in all it's iterations is much more evolved. ? :;): ?But as I always say ... do what works for you ! :laugh:
Author:  Xavi [ Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  40k setting and us...
IIRC the 40k games were defined by somebody (dunno if in those same boards) as the assault/close-combat phase of an epic battle: you are at point blank of the enemy and wack each other to death while shooting like maniacs at close range.

I think it is a great definition.

Still *some* manoeuver is possible in 40k, but not as much as in other bigger-scale games, that is obvious. My proble is that I prefer 1:35 minis to have in my shelves, so, 40k for me right now. The fact that none of them is a GW figure so far is an other thing, tough

Regards,

Xavi
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/