Agua

Gen, Your response indicates that you found my example of the means of communicating limitations offensive. I did not represent those limitations to address tactics. I was simply offering an example of how quickly you can communicate limitations. In fact, those limitations are simply a to-the-nub expression of the short 75/Panther - 76 rules plus the CAL towed gun/transport requirement. I probably do not play with such limitations in half the games I play, just sometimes the mood strikes me and, when you're playing a new opponent just communicating the limitations, even if that opponent does not agree to all of them, gets the point across pretty quickly that you're not interested in a game against 10 puppchen and 8 volkstrum platoons. The mere communication has a value in itself. I did not represent those limitations as solving the "gamey" problem, and in fact expressly noted that the limitations were not a complete solution. I simply find that referring new opponents to the CAL rules, provides a convenient starting point for discussion of parameters on a single website. As I stated, I don't play ladder games because of that competitive "edge", but nevertheless, I don't enjoy playing a wildly unbalanced game either (being on either side of it). For that reason, a lot of times when I play a new opponent, I'll simply throw out "short '75, all guns must have transports". I suppose that sounds a lot less offensive than enumerating all the details of the rules, but also, does not convey the information as to what those limitations are.

Treeburst - I never got to participate in any of your tourneys as I suppose "tcp/ip only" tourney was the only one that never filled out. But for GOODNESS SAKES, screw the tourney, but DON'T LEAVE THE FORUM man... for the Lord's sake, DON'T. You've been here long before I ever came on board, and your enthusiasm is greatly needed in the community. You just bit off a bit more than you could chew dealing with organizing your first tourney, and unexpected clashes between types of gamers just arose. Just walk away from the tournies and let them go (easy for me to say ... he he he), but DON'T leave man.

John, I've read your posts on p. 5 of the "Tourney of the Stars" thread. You raise a good point here. When someone plays amongst just a few folks who adhere to tacitly understood conceptions of what is "reasonable", it can be a real surprise when that person steps out to play new opponents. You may even come to agreement as to certain limitations and still be amazed at some purchases/tactics utilized because you simply never concieved of using the units in the manner that the new opponent does. This is not making a value judgment on anything, here: those folks may be just as surprised at your own "gamey" purchases/tactics which seem quite reasonable to you. In hindsight, I can see how the issue that Treeburst raised (e.g., competition v. "historic") tore the tournament apart. If you have to come to an agreement with your opponent, well, by default, those who employ an anything goes approach will have the upper hand in negotiations as, I suppose, they don't HAVE to agree to anything. But, that having been said, for future games, I'd suggest that a simple method of finding an acceptable, generally all encompassing set of limitations, would be to use the CAL rules posted over at the TH CAL site (I don't have a link, but will post one later if you're interested). These rules utilize, as bases, the short '75/Panther-76 rules for armoured battles, with several additional limitations concerning force selection. There are also limits placed on mechanized, infantry and heavy armour battles as well. The reason I recommend these rules is simply that they are all listed in one spot and seem pretty reasonable. You and your opponent can look over them quickly and if you wish to change anything, it can be done pretty simply. Although I'm listed on the board over there, I presently do not play ladder games. I personally just don't like the "edge" that those types of games have when everything is so serious. However, I frequently utilize those rules, or elements thereof, in my games. Personally, if I choose to play a limited game, I can throw out the limitations that matter to me pretty easily: "Panther/76 - No pillboxes, air strikes, or arty over 150, all Guns (if ME or opponent is attacker) must have transport, no mixing of forces, no more than 3 of any single armoured vehicle per 1,000 points. Those rules, each being fairly well known, will pretty much eliminate gamey purchases. I don't have a solution to the problem you raise, but I think quick reference to the CAL guidelines provides a good framework towards eliminating a lot of things folks refer to as "gamey".

I have little doubt that this is a very temporary thing. Keith was not on the verge of burnout or anything of the like.

Yes, I believe two scenarios have been created depicting the battle in "Ramelle".

Welcome Verboten as well!! Danzig, yes there is a ton of information not contained within the manual concerning the game. Just check out some of the sites with tutorial articles hosted and look through the "tips and techniques" forum on this site. You seem to NEVER quit learning with this game. Depth, my man, depth.

Yup, 10 meters.

If he can run that resource PIG known as ww2ol, he'll have no problem with all hi-res everything.

Hey if you guys like to max out on m8 HMC's, volkstrum smg's, puppchen or whatever, that's cool. But understand that just as you may see no problem with it, there are folks who do and won't play an opponent who engages in that sort of thing. All this crap can really be resolved by just discussing it beforehand. Live and let live.

Welcome Danzig! Glad you found your way over. If you're interested in adding the mods, you might want to start dl now before the CD arrives as you'll want to spend all your time playing the game. Wait, no, I think a lot of folks spend all there time modding the game. Well, whichever camp you fall into, you'll be doing something useful by dl'ing ahead of time.

Moriarty, I think that is a good rule of thumb to go by in general. Personally, I think 3 of any AFV / 1000 QB in a CA is pretty fair.

CA, Send it over to me when you're ready for some testing.

I've got over 800 cmb's and approximately 80 - 90 cmc's. I've probably played between 120-150 scenarios and maybe 15 of the operations. I dl them because I can. Seriously, I don't know, I enjoy the comfort of knowing I'll never run out of new scenarios and I enjoy looking at the maps.

Thanks VERY MUCH Peter!! Great info to have. Thanks Rex and Wreck as well. All of this stuff makes its way to my personal CM Guide.

Hmmmm.... I haven't done tests with the JgPz IV/70 v. super pershing. I'm not certain it is a slam dunk in favor of the Germans from the front. If it has the same gun as a Panther, it's been my experience that a Panther can sit there a while and ricochet shots off the front of a regular T-26 before getting a penetration. Hetzer has no chance v. front. BUT, the IV/70 has a real low silhouette and if you're in hull down, you'll probably out last the Pershing.

These things, if they are used in large numbers, well, there's no other way to say it other than they can be plain out gamey. They are so cheap, in a one thousand point match, you can purchase 5 regular crews (I think). They are hard to hit because of their small profile, they are quick, and if you purchase vets, they down right resemble a pack of cagey roaches scrambling for cover. They have 4 c charges (I believe), and can take out anything the germans have smaller than a panther from the front. A panther can be killed from the front sides by these little bugs. These things are just plain killer in moderate woods or heavy woods. One will pound your infantry from the edge of a copse of trees and when you move anything in, it will pop smoke and back into cover, while one of its brethren knocks your armour out from the side. About the only way to combat these critters in moderate to heavy woods is to purchase several schrecks. Because of the point allocation, in combined arms QB's of 1,000 or less, it presents a problem for the german player: do you anticipate an M8 horde and go for the extra schrecks, or do you play a normal full infantry company battle and risk getting toasted by these things.

Just differences in use, I suppose. StuG III's are my consistent choice in a short-75 game. They work well for me held back a support role for the groundpounders. They Also work well for me in flank support along with a panther in wide open QB's around 1500 points.

Going to have to agree with David here. Towed guns should have transport in meeting engagements and (by practical necessity) should be purchased by the attacker in the other game parameters. BUT, the transport/towed gun requirement is the sort of thing that you should agree to beforehand with your opponent.

Thanks for the info Max.

Kingfish or Franko, could one of y'all send the non-tourney version to me as well? Franko - Thanks for the TAA scenaio!!

Sounds like its designed for multiplayer only.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: i do recall that comment, but does that mean that the platoon HQ bonus' that are shown are more effective for combat? or is there just a greater chance of the platoon HQ getting better combat bonus'? just curious and trying to learn more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK, the platoon HQ with no bonus has the same influence upon his troops as the higher echelon HQ's with the same experience and no bonus. It is, as you said, a greater chance that the platoon HQ will have a combat bonus and a company HQ and higher will have a command bonus.

Thank you for everything you've given to CM. Please come back as soon as you tire of the new task, and every spare entertainment moment in between!! Good luck

You know, that really isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't mind folks watching me (even though I get my pants dusted regularly) and I really would enjoy watching other games as well.

Franko, please send my way!!! agua@bellsouth.net