JoMac Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 What 'House Rules' does everyone use, wither against the AI or Human Opponent to make CM alittle more realistic in your opinion. Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 I think one rule universally accepted is that defenders may not pre-plot artillery on or near the attacker's set-up area. (Attackers are usually densely packed and unprotected there, but in real life there would be no map edge to suggest to the defender where they are.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Another common rule for QBs is that underpriced rocket artillery isn't allowed. Then there's "no TRPs or preplanned arty in Meeting Engagements". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 In addition to those listed above, most H2H QB rules place some limits on the amount and type of armor purchased so that not every game turns into the Battle of Prokhorovka. There's no one standard, but some common rules are limiting total points spent on armor to 30% of the total with "armor" generally defined as fully tracked vehicles with some Commonwealth troop carriers (Bren carrier, Kangaroos) exempted. Fionn's Rules are still used, or some will limit "heavy" tank (KT, Panther, ect.) purchases to 1 per every 3 medium or light tank. I also like to cap artillery size at 155mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 As a rule, I do not use area fire except against a spotted enemy unit, or a lost contact marker. When calling in air support, I always use an area target, and set the diameter to at least 200 meters. And when playing against the AI, I never plot orders more than 1 turn ahead, to allow the AI time to "react" to my movements. Those are the only three actual rules I can think of, but when I'm playing against the AI, my general rule is 'slow and steady'. I try not to implement any complicated plans, or try to out think the scenario designer, I just try to react to developments accordingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 ... some will limit "heavy" tank (KT, Panther, ect.) purchases to 1 per every 3 medium or light tank... Panther is a heavy tank now ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Panther is a heavy tank now ? Close to it. By far the best "medium" tank in the game. The PZIV is a joke compared to a Panther, as you well know. As for QB house rules, if my opponent doesn't say anything prior to Turn 1, then I just assume no defender 1st turn pre-planned arty strikes and no TRPs or pre-planned arty strikes in meeting engagements, and anything else goes. If my opponent wants more stringent house rules, I usually go along with them. I had one opponent who gave me a long laundry list of house rules, which I found quite tiresome, then he wanted to play an Assault, with him attacking, which of course gave him a tremendous points advantage. I went along with it, for the first and last time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Close to it. By far the best "medium" tank in the game. The PZIV is a joke compared to a Panther, as you well know. .... Yes, but in essence it's still a medium. "Heavies" to me means Tigers ( I or II ) and IS ( 1 or 2 ). If you want to forbid/restrict Panthers, then you should also forbid/restrict T34/85's ( T34/76 vs PzIV is quite an interesting matchup actually - especially since, without riders, those little T34 suckers are fast ! ). Edit: Oops, forgot I was in the Normandy forum ! Still, replace T34/85 with 17-pounder tank/Sherman 76 and it still applies roughly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I put "heavies" in quotes because for CM it's more about classifying capability than size. A Panther weighs much less than a Tiger I, but in most combat situations is just as capable if not more so. It's true that the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank because that was its intended role on the battlefield, but in terms of size/weight it was a heavy tank by any other nation's standards. At 45 tonnes it is only a tonne lighter than the IS-2 and is heavier than both the Churchill and the T-26 Pershing -- all three of which were classified as heavy tanks by the Allies. A Panther outweighs the T-34/85 and Sherman 76 by about 11 tonnes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I put "heavies" in quotes because for CM it's more about classifying capability than size. A Panther weighs much less than a Tiger I, but in most combat situations is just as capable if not more so. It's true that the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank because that was its intended role on the battlefield, but in terms of size/weight it was a heavy tank by any other nation's standards. At 45 tonnes it is only a tonne lighter than the IS-2 and is heavier than both the Churchill and the T-26 Pershing -- all three of which were classified as heavy tanks by the Allies. A Panther outweighs the T-34/85 and Sherman 76 by about 11 tonnes. True, but as you say, it's about capability. Panther has very vulnerable sides. You can't restrict Panthers without similarly restricting Allied armour of similar capability ( the Sherman 76/17 pounder armed British tanks/T34-85's ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 I find the caparison's with the Tiger interesting because it and the Panther have very different strengths and weaknesses, but neither is clearly better than the other. As you say, the Tiger has better side armor. The Tiger also has better front turret armor (although there appears to be some game engine limitations that result in it not being quite as good as it should be). But the Panther has better front hull armor, which is where more shots hit than any other area. The Panther's gun also has better penetration, although it's a little weaker against soft targets. I like the Tiger for it's pure sexiness, but if I were playing a QB and really just cared about winning I would take the Panther over the Tiger. I don't think of the Sherman 76 or T-34/85 as being in the same class as the Panther. Head to head the Panther can kill them much more reliably than the other way around. The 17 pdr helps, but even it can't normally penetrate the Panther upper hull (assuming unflawed armor). But despite that, if someone wanted to tie Panther availability to Sherman 76 or T-34/85 I would probably agree to it. The Jagdpanther is another hard vehicle to classify. It weighs the same as a Panther tank, but I would call it a heavy because it has an even better gun and armor combination at the cost of no turret, and really crappy spotting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 And when playing against the AI, I never plot orders more than 1 turn ahead, to allow the AI time to "react" to my movements. I'm not sure that it does "react". I seem to remember that all of its moves are plotted at the start of the game. Any changes (eg a vehicle reverse from contact) are down to the TacAI. I'm sure someone will correct me if not so though. Arguably if you plot 3 mins of moves for your troops and then don't adjust them you are giving the AI a better chance, in that you are hamstringing yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I'm not sure that it does "react". I seem to remember that all of its moves are plotted at the start of the game. Any changes (eg a vehicle reverse from contact) are down to the TacAI. I'm sure someone will correct me if not so though. Arguably if you plot 3 mins of moves for your troops and then don't adjust them you are giving the AI a better chance, in that you are hamstringing yourself. Yep. The opponent (AI or human) has no knowledge of your forward planning, anyway, so planning a minute at a time or 20 is irrelevant: if your foreknowledge was perfect, the exact same result would eventuate. Since your foreknowledge probably isn't perfect, all you can do by voluntarily lengthening your decision cycle is give the opponent an advantage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 I'm not sure that it does "react". But it will at some point. CMRT has added the ability for the AI to be programmed to trigger based on what the player does. Presumably that will be part of the 3.0 update for CMBN and the 2.0 update for CMFI. Of course that has to be programmed into the scenario so it will not magically change existing scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 My number one rule for a decent game against the AI is "no do-overs." The temptation is always there to go back to an earlier save and try again when something goes wrong. You can't do this against against a human opponent, and of course the AI can't do it, so don't do it against your poor hapless computer. I break this rule all the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 But it will at some point. CMRT has added the ability for the AI to be programmed to trigger based on what the player does. Presumably that will be part of the 3.0 update for CMBN and the 2.0 update for CMFI. Of course that has to be programmed into the scenario so it will not magically change existing scenarios. And it won't change whether the human player is plotting one minute at a time or more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 My number one rule for a decent game against the AI is "no do-overs." The temptation is always there to go back to an earlier save and try again when something goes wrong. You can't do this against against a human opponent, and of course the AI can't do it, so don't do it against your poor hapless computer. That is a good rule. One that I sometimes struggle to follow, but a good rule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChappyCanuck Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Against the AI, I am always the attacker (exception: meeting engagement). The AI is decent in the defence, but I find it lacks the ability to properly manage and adjust in the attack. Also, I never look at the AI force allocation, set up positions, objectives, etc. Everything is a total surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Arguably if you plot 3 mins of moves for your troops and then don't adjust them you are giving the AI a better chance, in that you are hamstringing yourself. I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I only plot one movement at a time when playing the AI. What that means is my troops tend to sit in one spot for up to a minute until the next turn. This gives AI troops a chance to shoot at me a bit and make life more interesting. And as for the reaction thing, I certainly don't mean the AI actually plans around my own actions, what I mean is that I give the AI time to spot my troops before moving them again. I also try to maintain a slow rate of advance to allow the AI plan to continue, without simply suppressing everything I see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I only plot one movement at a time when playing the AI. What that means is my troops tend to sit in one spot for up to a minute until the next turn. This gives AI troops a chance to shoot at me a bit and make life more interesting. And as for the reaction thing, I certainly don't mean the AI actually plans around my own actions, what I mean is that I give the AI time to spot my troops before moving them again. I also try to maintain a slow rate of advance to allow the AI plan to continue, without simply suppressing everything I see. Actually Slim, I do about the same procedures as you do against the AI. Basically, I will move my troops until they get to their desired locations, then wait a min of one full turn, rinse and repeat. Also, I will never advance Troops who are worse then 'Tired' ( anything that's in Red ). I also think players should follow same or similar procedures as thier normal form of Combat, not only against the AI, but other players...This will closer represnet RL Combat situations where HQ's evaluate the situation, give orders, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 Also, I never look at the AI force allocation, set up positions, objectives, etc. Everything is a total surprise. Not even looking to find your own objectives...Now, that's Hard Core. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaddyO Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 My number one rule for a decent game against the AI is "no do-overs." ... I break this rule all the time. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this. Well done, sir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 As soon as you know what the enemy is going to do or his set-up, the fun is spoiled. So "no do-overs" is good. However, there are numerous instances when one's own side's AI screws up - especially silly pathing issues that cause massive casualties - doors to buildings that are not usable etc. In those instances I think that a do-over of the offending turn(s) is acceptable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 As soon as you know what the enemy is going to do or his set-up, the fun is spoiled. So "no do-overs" is good. However, there are numerous instances when one's own side's AI screws up - especially silly pathing issues that cause massive casualties - doors to buildings that are not usable etc. In those instances I think that a do-over of the offending turn(s) is acceptable. Sometimes, for sure. But I've found that swallowing those mistakes against the AI (just as I would in a human PBEM) makes the game feel more dramatic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ...what I mean is that I give the AI time to spot my troops before moving them again. I also try to maintain a slow rate of advance to allow the AI plan to continue, without simply suppressing everything I see. Pausing for a turn or three also gives your own troops an enhanced opportunity to spot more of the enemy. So it cuts both ways. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.