"What armies will you never play?" Topic

Hello everyone,

Only for historical reasons etc, whatever the period and therefore without the question of wargames, which armies you will never play and why?

Salvation?

Eh, no armies for any kind of political or religious beliefs, it's a game and one need opponents.
But do have a life long streak going that now want to continue. Have been a life long Napoleonic player, have thousands of miniatures but never commanded a French army,

Armies are never the deal-breaker with me. Rules and scenarios can be.

None

+1 Pimu Meson

also any state acting in the same manner.

I'll play any army. But if I don't like them personally, I will admit to throwing them into more suicidal situations. 😉 sometimes they win anyway.

None

Romans. Historical reason isn't about evil it's a reflection of EIR armies are boring and should roll over opponents

Modern terrorists— Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Iran), etc., etc.. At best they'd need to be automatons controlled by the game rules, not by a player (or even really the GM), with the objective for the players being to eliminate them entirely. Nobody should be expected to root for these scum, and anybody who would, I wouldn't play a game with.

But I avoid modern games anyway. WWII is about as close as I come, unless you count things like Cold War era cinematic espionage (James Bond), which I see as just silly fun.

I will never play WWII armies. While I love reading about WWII, watching WWII movies and documentaries, and had numerous relatives serve in the war, I have never had an interest in gaming the period. Not sure why.

Smithsco, like the 19th century British Empire, the EIR had good troops but certainly didn't win all the time. But like the British they had the strategic capacity to keep coming back until their enemies were defeated.

Note – the following is how I feel about playing specific periods, not a comment on what other people choose to do. That said…
I play games. I don't want to set my games in certain situations – the Ukraine of today, and since the war began in 2014; the Africa of AK47 Republic. And probably not any of the wars of this century.
As the distance in time gets greater, I get less sensitive. The Second World War is history to me, and while I don't collect SS units, I'll use my Germans to represent them if a scenario calls for it. . 17th Century Poles, Cossacks and Tatars? Nasty in the extreme to one another I'm sure, but I don't look too closely. It's not about logic, but about how I feel.

Certainly they didn't win all the time but decent generalship should almost always guarantee a win. Just not my thing. I love reading and learning about Rome. Not gaming it though.

I will play almost anything except terrorists or VC/NVA but I won't build or paint SS.

NVA/VC

Somebody has to play the baddies, I don't mind taking my turn.

I can separate playing an historical wargame from any past or present ideology.
There's plenty of armies I'm not that interested in and would never bother collecting, but if someone provides the army I would play it. It's a social game of toy soldiers.

I'm not very interested in playing anything after 1910 pre WW1, although maybe skirmish games in Back and Beyond era and WW2 might be ok.

Zombies

Pretty much willing to play anything else but do prefer Union to Traitor ((sorry, Confederate) in ACW and like Austrians in Napoleonic/SYW

Rarely anything after 1900….I am easily bored by the era. I used to play Squad Leader a lot….30 years ago but not into the minis. I have my preferences in many wars but have no issue playing the other side to get a good game.

I was in the US Army Reserve during the Cold War and I have a massive Cold War collection of US and Soviet stuff.
I have many friends who went to Vietnam in the Army and Marines and I have a large collection of Vietnam War stuff.
My dad was in the US Army in WWII, no combat, but disabled in an accident, but I have a large WWII collection of US, Soviet, and German including SS and NKVD.
It's all about learning about history, and then playing a game. They are little plastic figure not real people.
Sometimes in real life evil wins but eventually it loses, maybe not today and maybe not next week but they lose.
I play Little Big Horn, and Pearl Harbor and maybe gain insight to what others were thinking or how things could have been done differently or what we are doing right or wrong today.
Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Good ones! – Almost invariably my friends get the flashiest and best armies, leaving me to get the opposition. (sigh!)

Unpainted ones,

Tally Ho!

Another vote for no unpainted. Never has and never will see action on my table.

I don't have any SS in my WWII collection, however, I do have NKDV, Italians, Romanians, volksstrum, and even a few Hungarians.

@ochoin
What evil or disastrous situation do you want to be saved from?

@14Boron
And why have you never "commanded" a French army?

@robert piepenbrink
For me it's exactly the opposite.

@Flashman14
Is it only the game that interests you?

@Cavcmdr
State acting in what way?

@35thOVI
I've never played any army.

@Deucey
You have no army?

@smithsco
If I don't play an army, it's always for historical reasons etc…

@Parzival
Well done at least you understood the question, for example for WWII, I noticed that a maximum of players preferred the Germans, that is to say only their armored, mechanized and motorized troops but never the Waffen SS (I suppose it is for fear that they will be blamed).

@Perris0707
I won't go to that point…

@advocate
It is true that the more the distance in time increases, the less sensitive we are.

@StoneMtnMinis
You I will not build or paint an SS, yet their combat outfits are magnificent.

@miniMo
So you must have success with your friends?

@Bandolier
Me, I cannot separate the fact of playing a historical wargame from any past or present ideology.

@Der Alte Fritz
Yes but for what reasons?

@Frederick
My tastes are exactly opposite to yours except for Zombies.

@Saxondog
I never play on the other side even to get a good match.

@Bunkermeister
Yes it's well thought out, sometimes, in real life, evil wins, but it ends up losing, maybe not today or maybe not next week, but they lose, but who was evil to Little Big Horn?

@Herkybird
Good ones! –What matters is that you play the good guy. (sigh!)

@nickinsomerset
Me too LOL and now also only 25 Minifigs figures…

@Col Durnford
The WWII collection without SS is possible.

There are some periods I can't be bothered to paint the Figures for, but they are only games. I'll play anything and any side, whether it is with my own stuff or someone else's.

@Martin Rapier
Are there certain periods that you play with unpainted miniatures?

I won't play anything and everything, whether it's with my own stuff or those of others…

Pascal- Started playing my own army and someone else had French, then played solo but goal was finishing my Prussians then Russians the British/ allies so no French.
Then at conventions gravitated to play side I knew best. Then after many conventions realized I never played the French in 43 years.
Why start now?

Play only pre 1910.

@14Boron
Out of curiosity, to see how it works.

@oldjarhead
Why not before 1911?

But I would have to learn how the French companies and divisions and Corp go together.
Besides maybe now I am a royalist at heart, at least at a game table

I have limited bandwidth but it cuts along periods rather than particular armies.

For all intents and purposes, I'd never play either side of a WW1 naval game, but it has nothing to do with the ideology of their commanders; I just have no interest in that type of combat.

@14Boron
So plays a French royal army.

@Flashman14
And on an ideological level?

@Count Ignatief
Yes, for me it's history with a capital "H" first, I'm not interested in the game for the game.

"I can separate playing an historical wargame from any past or present ideology.
There's plenty of armies I'm not that interested in and would never bother collecting, but if someone provides the army I would play it. It's a social game of toy soldiers."

Pretty well says it for me, too. Thanks, Bandolier!

I'm also just not terribly interested in miniatures game settings post 1955 or so.

@piper909
I too can separate the fact of playing a historical wargame from any past or present ideology provided that it is very ancient and even only ancient, that is to say at least before the 18th century.

The majority of armies don't interest me and I would never bother collecting them and even if someone provided me with the army I wouldn't play with it even if it was just a miniatures game, but easily against it because of my passion for history.

That's what I'm saying is pretty good too, right?

At Historicon a couple times a game of Dien Bien Phu was being played, Hell in a Very Small Place is a important book to me and would have loved to play, either side. And just finished 2 Vietnam books on evil of the Communists. A historical game needs two sides

@14Bore
Between my passion for history and gaming, the choice is never very difficult for me.

The list is too long and the reasons too irrational and I might change my mind.

@Mark J Wilson
Yes and like in times of war you can even change sides.

@Paskal, generally I'm very unfussy about sides, which is why I always paint both, although then it gets frustrating if I end up using the same one every time.

@Mark J Wilson,
For me, history, politics and religion, because it all mixes, comes before the game, so there are definitely armies that I won't play but that I would like to face.

The game for the game's sake, it's impossible for me when it comes to wargaming.

@ Paskal, so if you face an army you won't play with for political and religious reasons do you dislike the person who's playing it on the assumption he supports the views of the figures he's using.

@Mark J Wilson
In most cases, players don't support the opinions of the characters they use, but that's not always the case, so…

But have you never experienced that?