|
Post by sherlock on May 2, 2015 14:02:24 GMT -5
First of all Hi! (new to the forum here and to the sport, but a huge history nut probably why I am here)
Basically i was looking and thinking about creating or going towards a allied resistance type impression. The resistance existed and collaborated and fought along the allies in all fronts, would be a different kind of interesting to do I think.
Also from my standpoint of potentially entering the hobby its a bit easier to be civilian ish, you can adjust to like a polish resistance, french resistance, or italian/austrian etc for all the different theaters without much effort. You dont have to match any given unit so if you go to a differents locations event you arent a lone Airbourne trooper or a lone 1st infantry on the western front.
To me too it would seems alot more forgiving on armament that you can use, because the resistance used weapons from both sides as well as many older weapons and stuff that may have been squirreled away pre-war (like one of my more favorite guns from history c96). It also seems quite interesting to mess around with creating some custom guns based around some of the homemade or improvised ones the resistance created ex: from bicycle frames. (i am quite handy with tools)
Any thoughts along these lines? Or would a resistance fighter be a bad idea or frowned upon?
Thanks for any input!
(apologies if this is in the wrong spot)
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on May 2, 2015 14:59:13 GMT -5
While resistance impressions are interesting, I don't think they currently hold much place in the hobby. this hobby is very, very small- we have a hard time, out here in the NE at least, getting 15 people to an event. I think it would be of better interest to save and get a proper military impression.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 2, 2015 17:45:12 GMT -5
I agree, a military impression is best, as it will allow you to realistically integrate into a fighting unit rather than being the awkward backstory that has to be explained as to why you are fighting with regulars: Despite what we see in movies, having a resistance guy in with the squad was such a rare happening that it really should be avoided if at all possible.
Obviously the benefit of doing resistance is that it's cheaper, as you say. The other benefit for games-- though depending on your point of view, not for you-- is that you can (and for most planners, will) be put on whatever side you fit better. A Normandy scenario will likely have you fighting on the Allied side (though there were civilian French "collaborateurs," so you might find yourself being Axis even there) and if you are at a Huertgenwald or Ruhr scenario, you can bank on being called "Volkssturm" and being put into the German lines. Likewise on Eastern front games (we should be so lucky in the NE) you may come wanting to be Polish resistance, but find that the organizers need you on the Axis side, so now you're a HiWi (yuck!). Another thing to keep in mind, if there is an imbalance and the organizers have loaner impressions and decide that players need to be moved around to make the game play better, it's a good bet that the resistance guy will get reassigned before anyone with even the most bare-bones military impression. I know that's how I would manage it, and from the other game organizers I've played with I imagine they'd do the same thing.
It's all food for thought. If all you have money for is a weapon and a decent looking civilian impression, by all means start there. It will at least get you into the field and into games, which is what we need moe than anything. But if you can swing even the very basics of a military impression, that's probably what to do.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 2, 2015 19:23:52 GMT -5
I like resistance impressions and having role players in events. Typically they are event staff used to serve as guides, inside information sources used to set up mission phases or bring food for a meal phase. The cost of doing it properly with period looking clothing would probably rival a basic military look that no doubt could be supplemented with loaner gear from other players who are consistently happy to help out.
I would see it as a desireable back up impression rather than primary. A long wool overcoat, sufficiently tattered with a suit vest, shirt, and beret or billed roadster hat and appropriate shoes and trousers would probably suffice. We used french civilians (male and female) at Jump to Destiny and their presence added a lot. An old vintage bycycle adds to the look.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 2, 2015 20:13:11 GMT -5
Thanks, i guess it was more of to test the waters sort of a thing. My brother and his work buddies started airsofting and me being a WWII buf was like hrmm looks at WWII guns. maybe i can use these for that and then try out some historical re-enactment version of air-soft as well. No reason why WWII weaponry is not effective in airsoft against modern plus it looks really cool. Just not sure about the entry price to air-soft and the entry price to Military impression at the same time.
Thanks for the inputs, but I bet getting into the game then checking out any local events before diving into the more costly impression building of uniform and unit (as well as joining a regional unit).
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 2, 2015 20:41:39 GMT -5
Resistance typically fought behind the front lines wreaking havoc and whatnot. They may have fought on the front lines in some instances, but not as much as toward the back. I'd get a military impression. Then maybe later you could work on a partisan impression once everything is done
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 2, 2015 22:07:06 GMT -5
Only slightly off topic, but one thing I always thought would be cool would be to have a small number of civilians whose roles change hourly or at some other interval. They draw a card or have some other random way to determine their allegiance for the next segment. In France, say, most cards would be anti-German non-combatant. A few would be pro-German non-combatant, and you'd have a very small number of active resistance. Civilians could be stopped, their papers checked, and asked questions about anything they might have seen. It would add a squeaky wheel, especially to the German side, but no one could be 100% sure who they could or could not trust. Kind of like the civilian population in an actual war.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 2, 2015 23:22:49 GMT -5
That's a pretty good idea. I have thought about that before too. However you're gonna need higher numbers to make full use of something like that. However I would assume one would be able to pool a derby amount of civilians together per game.
|
|
|
Post by droopaille on May 3, 2015 1:53:45 GMT -5
resistance is pretty cool it a real benefit for scenarii : i'm just reminding when we are in faction in machine gun hole, talking with resistant members we know But suddenly a grenade falls at our feet : they had changed sides. i'm surprised that you are just 15 for OP, airsoft players are not numerous or it is only for WW2 ?
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 3, 2015 3:13:27 GMT -5
It's WWII airsoft. Modern airsoft events typically see 60-80+ players.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 24, 2015 22:53:23 GMT -5
Droop, your French resistance fighter looks convincingly French! I bet he sounds convincingly French as well!
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 25, 2015 9:15:40 GMT -5
+1 on 2nd Bat's assessment. I can practically see Droopaille spitting on the ground and muttering "sale boche!"
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 25, 2015 11:50:25 GMT -5
As with any role players. resistance fighters, civilians, partisans etc can set up a scenario with a chance encounter, excited report and serve as guides to insure units are properly staged for action. Their presence when done well really help with emmersion. They can also deliver food and water in the field and add a little variety to a typical event.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 25, 2015 12:14:51 GMT -5
"I surrender!"
|
|
|
Post by droopaille on May 27, 2015 15:58:19 GMT -5
Droop, your French resistance fighter looks convincingly French! I bet he sounds convincingly French as well! C'est normal je suis Français !!
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 27, 2015 19:12:12 GMT -5
Oui, Touche!
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 27, 2015 20:58:58 GMT -5
Droop, your French resistance fighter looks convincingly French! I bet he sounds convincingly French as well! C'est normal je suis Français !! Es muy bueno. I took French for one year. I kinda forgot almost everything
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 27, 2015 20:59:21 GMT -5
Not that I remember Spanish either
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 27, 2015 22:18:09 GMT -5
Not sure I understand this post-- a dig on the French as cowards? I know jokes about the French are an old saw in armchair military history circles, but it's not really borne out by facts. The problems with the French Army at the outbreak of WWII were many-- bad officers, bad logistics, bad communications, bad tactics, and bad strategy. It was these factors that put French troops in untenable positions that led to few options BUT surrender, but when French troops were well-led and well-equipped using good plans, they fought very well. Look at the few isolated actions where tanks were concentrated on the French side during the battle of France and beat back the Wehrmacht (until lack of air support and collapsing neighboring lines forced retreat), and how the Free French fought at places like Bir Hakeim in North Africa. French troops were every bit as capable of fighting with valor and determination as any other army, but like any other army-- including the German and US armies at certain points-- a lack of proper leadership, logistics, or equipment can make even the best soldiers look like hopeless losers. Anyway, maybe I was wrong and that wasn't your intention, but either way it's an interesting point of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 27, 2015 22:51:17 GMT -5
Oh I am well aware that French soldiers were fierce fighters, just some of the officers and situations weren't very fortunate. The same could be said about the Italians.
It was just a little joke.
|
|
|
Post by droopaille on May 28, 2015 12:47:42 GMT -5
may be american people should still be english if Lafayette didn't cross the sea !!! 1 - 1 . ball in the center
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 28, 2015 13:10:52 GMT -5
America did everything during the American Revolution by itself. Just like WWII started December 7, 1941 and the only beach during DDay was Omaha Beach. Berlin was also captured by the Americans
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 28, 2015 13:11:13 GMT -5
(Joke^for those that didn't catch it)
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 28, 2015 15:38:40 GMT -5
Oh I am well aware that French soldiers were fierce fighters, just some of the officers and situations weren't very fortunate. The same could be said about the Italians. It was just a little joke. No worries. Yeah, as for the Italians, I've heard the same too. I know Heinz Werner Schmidt for one had good things to say about the way the Italians fought-- but only when they were under German officers. It begs a wider question: Is there really a difference (or at least a significant difference) in the basic "fighting spirit" of nations? Or does it all come down to external factors of leadership, equipment, tactics, and the all-important ability to instill morale and a sense of purpose? Part of me wants to buy into the idea of "warlike nations," or "military bloodlines," but the other part of me is willing to believe that people are people, there are cowards and heroes in every population, and given the right conditions any group of men can be molded into an effective fighting force-- or become a directionless mob waiting to surrender. That's not to say that the conditions in certain countries may be more or less conducive to creating effective armies: A democracy like America will probably create more dedicated and motivated soldiers based on ideals of freedom and a call to duty than a totalitarian army like the Soviets could build through internal intimidation and fear. But the base populations themselves wouldn't make intrinsically better soldiers: Take 100,000 Americans off the streets, train and equip them poorly, put them in a culture of suspicion and distrust, and they probably don't fight too much better than the Soviets would. And certainly, when the Soviets were fighting for something more than the Soviet state, when they were fighting for their very lives, they fought incredibly fiercely and bravely. Again, all very interesting stuff to discuss.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 28, 2015 16:21:04 GMT -5
There are definitely cultures that support and nurture a warrior spirit. The ancient Spartans vs other Greek States. The Vikings, the Samurai of Japan. Countries that have long standing celebrations honoring past heros set examples that the generations who follow want live up to. All nations do so although there may be some exceptions. There is no doubt in my mind however that some cultures do it better than others and these traditions are cyclical.
Within families there are warrior traditions and this influences the quality of soldiers produced. Honor, sacrifice and Courage are more nurture than nature. How one is raised has more to do with marshall skills than the DNA flowing thru ones veins. As great as a soldier might be his or her success on the battlefield largely falls outside their control but the collective influence of many has great power.
Selflessness is the greatest attribute of a true warrior. Without leadership it is squandered.
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 28, 2015 16:36:27 GMT -5
I think insterburger is talking more like physical traits, like some countries have people just born better warriors. But yes, there are cultures that nurture the warrior spirit more and they tend to be better fighters
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 28, 2015 17:39:23 GMT -5
There is within individuals a warrior spirit. A few rare individuals posess it in abundance while a certain amount of it presides i think in all of us. As a young man i envisioned myself as a warrior. Military traditions were strong in my family. Once in the army and in the presence of a few TRUE warriors I realized that if I saw myself in that light I was dillussional. It is hard to put your brain around just what it is but it is unmistakable when you see it. Thankfully there is a certain amount of contagiousness in it and it tends to elevate the marshall skills in most of the soldiers exposed to it.
A true warrior has an outlook unlike most men. There are aspects that do not endear men to others in time of peace and non combat surroundings. Garrison duty rarely provides them an outlet for their strengths. Often the true warrior is the last one others would have expected. Many of my soldier friends are people that I have the utmost respect for and yet they are people I probably would never have socialized with were it not for the military.
military friendships are often the strongest relationships one will ever know because through strife and hardship one sees the essence (both good and bad) of what humanity means. This thread of course taken a wide swing from resistance impressions which of course is the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on May 28, 2015 20:40:07 GMT -5
2nd Bat-- you bring up some interesting points, and I do fully agree that there is a "warrior mindset" that makes soldiers great. Definitely that can be passed on in families (and most certainly is), as well as cultures, and I agree 100% that it is more nurture than nature. I think part of what I'm asking (and I am asking, I don't really know what side I would come down on) is how much of this can be picked up rather quickly from effective military enculturation. There will always be people who are faultlessly brave and self-sacrificial no matter what organization they're part of or how the battle fares, and there will always be scumbag, selfish cowards who only care about saving their own skin in every army too. But what about the guys in the middle? To what extent are they formed by their leadership and comrades? You do hear quite a few stories of rather unassuming and in many cases decidedly "unmilitary" men-- sometimes from very undisciplined and self-centered backgrounds-- who, when called to serve their country, come into their own and become shining examples of the warrior code. Perhaps this discussion is going clear off the rails of military prowess and asking the larger sociological question of how we are enculturated, and to what degree that enculturation can be overcome through external inputs. Is there a Doctor of Sociology in the house?
|
|
|
Post by ssgjoe on May 28, 2015 21:53:20 GMT -5
I'll steer a separate thread for this.
|
|
|
Post by youonlywish on Jul 10, 2015 8:30:05 GMT -5
Do what you want to do. Pay respect to history. Be unique.
|
|