What are the general 'house rules' in pbem?

[exsonic01]

What I know is 'No preplanned arty/air' and 'No deploy/spawn zone bombardment' 

 

Are there anything I need to know? How do you guys set electronic warfare? Always no for both side? 

 

Thanks 

[Bud Backer]

I think it varies between play-partners. For example, XxGunDocxX and I play with no deploy/spawn bombardment, but both of us use preplanned arty air and expect the other to use it. It's allowed for some interesting smoke screening early on. 

[womble]

I think "no preplanned" and "no TRPs" tends to be applied only to MEs. And the former possibly to the defender in attack/defend type engagements. "No spawn bombardment" is a bit blanket for an attack/defend, since much of the map, including key terrain tends to be within the defender's deployment area (which is commensurately large, and so mitigates the problem of a lucky call wiping out significant assets early). Talk to your opponent and determine what you each want out of the game: I'd say there's an argument for the defender to be allowed T1 setup area barrages when the engagement is an Assault: the odds are so in favour of the attacker, it's almost like some losses to jumping-off-point shelling are expected.

[exsonic01]

I think it varies between play-partners. For example, XxGunDocxX and I play with no deploy/spawn bombardment, but both of us use preplanned arty air and expect the other to use it. It's allowed for some interesting smoke screening early on. 

Ok, so, it is purely depend on gamers. Thanks 

 

I think "no preplanned" and "no TRPs" tends to be applied only to MEs. And the former possibly to the defender in attack/defend type engagements. "No spawn bombardment" is a bit blanket for an attack/defend, since much of the map, including key terrain tends to be within the defender's deployment area (which is commensurately large, and so mitigates the problem of a lucky call wiping out significant assets early). Talk to your opponent and determine what you each want out of the game: I'd say there's an argument for the defender to be allowed T1 setup area barrages when the engagement is an Assault: the odds are so in favour of the attacker, it's almost like some losses to jumping-off-point shelling are expected.

I agree, I think both "no preplanned" and "no deployzone bombardment" should be there for ME game. For attack/defense game, I think attacker maybe allowed to do both or only one of them, but not for defender. 

[womble]

 

I agree, I think both "no preplanned" and "no deployzone bombardment" should be there for ME game. For attack/defense game, I think attacker maybe allowed to do both or only one of them, but not for defender. 

TRPs are entirely justified for defenders. An early task in setting up a defensive plan is registering fires on expected key locations. Less vital in the modern era, when precision first round hits are to be expected, with modern tech, though.

[exsonic01]

TRPs are entirely justified for defenders. An early task in setting up a defensive plan is registering fires on expected key locations. Less vital in the modern era, when precision first round hits are to be expected, with modern tech, though.

That makes sense. Defenders usually have more time for preparation, so set up TRPs and mines could be justified. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

In a day of satellite coverage I wouldn't consider out of the way a pre-planned arty for an attacker too.

 

By the way, another "house rule" that has been used (but not by me) would be to avoid the purchase of APS equipped units. Although last patch addressed the rarity of such units, so you might just need to keep an eye on the rarity level of your battles.

[Sublime]

i always insist on no aps units in my games. for both sides but its really essential for abrams. its hard enough as the Russian against abrams now with aps... ugh

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: TRPs

 

I think TRPs are different from deployment zones.  You sort of artificially know about where the enemy is going to come from with more precision than you should, firing off a heavy long barrage into that deployment zone as the game starts is terrible sportsmanship.  Having a TRP though on terrain you want to deny the enemy, or on a likely route out of that deployment zone is 100% fair game (and a great way to use a TRP and a Raven!)

 

Re: APS

 

Samey.  Think the're too common across the board at this point, and it makes it a bit less fun to have TOWs/AT-14s etc pretty much be a wash.

[Sublime]

its hard enough to bag abrams without aps anyways. in a game where i fought against Nidan almost my armor kills against his US were infantry at weapons on Bradleys that lurked too close and 2 abrams kills from a T90AM which felt like a super achievement. more than killing a KT in the WW2 titles. both flank kills one the laser warning detector popped smoke and turret start to traverse but T90 got a round in. the seconds LWR apparently was degraded or destroyed (arty?) even then the abrams still immediately started turning towards my T90 as soon as i popped outta the smoke. Lower left hull penetration. the T90 bought it a few minutes later.

[womble]

In a day of satellite coverage I wouldn't consider out of the way a pre-planned arty for an attacker too.

 

Artillery has been preplanned for attacks since at least the First World War. Probably right back to the invention of cannon; it was just more direct-lay than map fires.

[Melchior]

You could make pre-planned barrages ok in scenarios by affording the attacking player compensation or some such. Like affording him a somewhat larger force. This could pretty exciting actually. Since it abstracts the real-life casualties units would've sustained over pre-battle bombardments. It also presents defending players with the conundrum of choosing to blow their proverbial load early and all at once or retaining it for the battle.

Edited June 2, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Vanir Ausf B]

Pre-planned bombardment: Attacker only (and of course you can target the defender's setup zone as there would be little point in it otherwise and the defender's setup zone in an att/def is usually most of the map).

 

TRPs: typically defender only

 

Armor: can spend up to 33% of your points on armor, which is usually defined as vehicles only available under the Armored tab in the QB editor. In the WW2 titles there are often additional limits placed on certain German tanks. King Tigers and Jagdpanthers are frequently banned outright.

 

A lot of players will also place limits on the size of artillery allowed, 160mm being a good cutoff (that allows for the smallest-sized Nebelwerfer in WW2 games).

 

In Black Sea specifically the APS ban has been mentioned although I only ban Russian APS if the opposition is Ukraine. I would suggest limiting the number of Tunguska  and TRP allowed (2 and 5 respectively) because they are presently underpriced. I would also suggest only allowing anti-tank mines when purchased as "Mixed" for the same reason.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[A Canadian Cat]

As you can see there is only a slim area of consensus on "general" house rules.  Usually when you ask such a question the rule set gets bigger and bigger and more stuff gets added and before you know if you need to have a decoder ring and know the day of the week to figure out what is allowed

 

I'll play by any reasonable set of rules you might want to suggest as long as there is a discussion first.  Frankly the only one rule that is not really negotiable is the no artillery attacks on setup zones for attackers or during meeting engagements.  BTW Reasonable means short and simple and that are intended to make the game more fun.

[Sublime]

in general i use the setupzone and aps as discussed. if someone turns out to be very gamey or whiny about losing ill call them on it and end the game or perhaps finish and not play them again. one example is i played someone years ago in bn on bois de baugin. he lost the battle as Germans though i did take very heavy casualties. he then went on and on about how unfair the battle was it was unbalanced etc etc. i completely disagreed and several people who ive asked opinion wise agreed with my view that the battle isnt impossible to win as Germans at all nor is it unbalanced. some even say opposite. anyways i just declined further games with him no big fuss just an example

[John Kettler]

womble,

 

While I'm inclined to agree with you on no TRPs for in ME in WW II, even the Cold War US Army used preplanned RPs along the route of planned movement. This was clearly shown in the 1980s version of FM 6-20, which covered Fire Support.  

 

Vanir Ausf B,

 

I haven't gotten into buying CMBS forces manually yet, but I'm intrigued my your statement the Kriz is underpriced. Does your assessment take into account the Kriz we have isn't really comparable to the real one in terms of not just the elevated weapon issue but also the ability to engage two separate targets simultaneously and on divergent axes? Also, based on things I've read and watched, I believe the radar mode is a lot iffier in-game than the real world performance would suggest. I'm pretty sure the full ERP of the radar was toned down based on a major misunderstanding of vulnerability to tacair. I know this was done to the BSRs. In neither case do I believe this was appropriate, as I've previously explained.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited June 4, 2015 by John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Whoops. When I wrote that the Khrizantema-S was under priced I actually meant the Tunguska. Fixed now.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

 

Naow, you knows dem Tunguskas r thicker'n fleas on a  unwashed hound in June, so don' you be a messin' with dem prices, hear? I have no idea what they were or will be, but that is one seriously nasty weapon--apparently vs all comers! I appreciate your clarifying that the pricing issue wasn't the Kriz. How are you coming on fixing it so it can do all the nasty things in game it can do in the real world? Miracles are perfectly acceptable if they correct the various open items, preferably by expanding the capabilities of the CMx2 Game Engine.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Doug Williams]

As you can see there is only a slim area of consensus on "general" house rules.  Usually when you ask such a question the rule set gets bigger and bigger and more stuff gets added and before you know if you need to have a decoder ring and know the day of the week to figure out what is allowed

 

I'll play by any reasonable set of rules you might want to suggest as long as there is a discussion first.  Frankly the only one rule that is not really negotiable is the no artillery attacks on setup zones for attackers or during meeting engagements.  BTW Reasonable means short and simple and that are intended to make the game more fun.

 

Well said. When a prospective opponent starts ticking off a long laundry list of house rules my eyes start glazing over. Some of the most fun PBEMs I've had were no rules other than no setup zone bombardment.

[c3k]

Well said. When a prospective opponent starts ticking off a long laundry list of house rules my eyes start glazing over. Some of the most fun PBEMs I've had were no rules other than no setup zone bombardment.

 

DItto. And, as mentioned, that only applies against units which are assumed entering from off-map (meeting engagement, or vs. the attacker). I think any defender should be ready for incoming prep bombardment.

 

Long rules lists prior to the game means, to me, that my opponent has a far more structured approach (meant to gain his desired outcome) than I have. I'm up for any kind of game; fast and loose or slow and tight. I get more fun from fast and loose. (That's why I sent a piat team, armed only with grenades, in a jeep chasing after Bil's JgPzIv.  )

 

I've NEVER tried to "template" my oppo's forces. I don't care to do so. Yes, it'd give me some information and, hence, some leverage. Bah. "I fights mitt Siegel." Find the enemy, kill the enemy. Rejoice in the victory. But, I certainly don't denigrate those who do so. They are utilizing every piece of information available. If I capture a knight in chess, I know that the enemy only has one left. If I see a spaehwagen XiV ausf u crest the ridge, then I could "know" that I'm facing the "Gerbilmeister Sturmkompanie, Late, mitt autogewehr". But that takes some of the mystery out of the thing, doesn't it? Or, maybe my oppo bought a one-off vehicle to spoof me. Shrug. I just try to kill it.

 

Back in CMx1, there was a list of "accepted" rules. Something to do with 80mm armor vs. 50mm. (German bolt-on stuff, and how the game simulated it.) I never look for a "fair" fight. If my oppo wants some sort of rules, I'll try to comply, but I'll never impose any, myself. (That 80mm/50mm was meant to make the game more like chess, or rock-paper-scissors. Shrug.) Winning or losing is not as important as the fight itself. 

 

In the end, it's a game. If you have a set of rules you want to impose on the fight, then, by all means, try to do so. 

[Doug Williams]

DItto. And, as mentioned, that only applies against units which are assumed entering from off-map (meeting engagement, or vs. the attacker). I think any defender should be ready for incoming prep bombardment.

 

Yes indeed. Since the defender usually gets 3/4 of the map as his setup zone, be ready for turn 1 arty. :-)

 

Now it is sometimes fun to have a "special rules" game. Baneman and I once played a "no fully tracked vehicles, no guns larger than 37mm (IIRC)" small sized ME. It was very fast paced and quite fun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Back in CMx1, there was a list of "accepted" rules. Something to do with 80mm armor vs. 50mm. (German bolt-on stuff, and how the game simulated it.) I never look for a "fair" fight. If my oppo wants some sort of rules, I'll try to comply, but I'll never impose any, myself. (That 80mm/50mm was meant to make the game more like chess, or rock-paper-scissors. Shrug.) Winning or losing is not as important as the fight itself.

 

Yeah, it was a ban on Stugs with 30mm applique armor on top of the base 50mm. Because of a quirk in how CMBB modeled applique armor it made Stugs stupidly resistant to Soviet 76mm AP. For pre-85mm time periods those Stugs were like Jagdpanthers but with a Stug QB price.

 

Which is a good example of why I don't view most restrictions on unit types as an effort to steer force compositions into narrow confines*. Most of them are really trying to do the exact opposite by restricting overly popular or "no-brainer" units. The Russians in Black Sea have two mobile AA units: the Strela and Tunguska. The Tunguska does everything the Strela does in the AA realm plus has a very powerful and versatile ground attack in addition. But it only costs 20pts more than a Strela. In an anything goes game there is no reason to ever buy a Strela.

 

*Some people do like rules such as restricting tank platoons to being of all the same type of tank. These are mainly realism-based rules, because some people are irked by the sight of a platoon featuring a Panther, a Tiger, a Hetzer and a Wespe

[Sublime]

i often buy strelas but i like realism. though i have to admit it can be very difficult to take down abrams if your opponent has any clue what theyre doing and tunguskas are great for scouring optics off.

i have a sort of on the fly campaign with nidan and we made a qb with rules that each side gets one highly trained company inf only with four support assets and one 120mm or 2 60mm modules for support. it has to take the major vp and hold it on players honor for fifteen minites then withdraw or alternately destroy enemy force. the back story is the ukrainians fleeing my up until then lightning advance in a panic left a hq loaded with cyphers codes defense plans and NATO info. so my russ recon troops are rushing to get it while the rest of my troops try to break out of the city we were attacking into to face the new US heavy armor that appeared and essily crushed my flank protection.

this side battles value to the campaign is the victor gets plus 10℅ in the mect battle. the current battle besides the inf only has ukrainians attacking russians bit im really attacking him its to simulate me holding a good portion of the city and ukr units infiltrating around trying to slow or block my exit so the US armor can engage my main force. we track armor losses loosely and only reinforce units every several battles. infantry losses are tabulated loosely as a grand figure. e.g. 35 inf spread amongst 3 companies i delete a platoon off one formation. so i more than likely will break out of my kiev kessel and have to face Nidans US troops either with a + or - 10% advantage. its been great he.s played very realostically.our first battle i engaged a stryker unit as heavy armor couldnt arrive in theater that quick. they were crushed. second battle i entered kiev (what we.re calling his city) and crushed his UKR defense. suddenly though US heavy armor managed to make it to the scene nearby and so some hasty reserve units were sent to speedbump flank defense the city attack. despite destroyed two bradleys and immobilizing a third and destroying 2 abrams my forces were otherwise annihilated utterly and so now higher command (me) decided we have to pull out of kiev and destroy this heavy US unit. anyways its really on the fly with ideas tossed about and a consensus between us battle one in the country side was the 0 on a scale. my victory took me to his cities outskirts. that victory took me to -2. another victory would have been -3 and a campaign victory. but the US rushed in troops and changed the situation. my withdrawal puts us back on 0. if i lose it ll go three maps his way for victory. from outskirts to heavy city of my side. other rules are basic. no stupid deployment bombardment or aps. thats it we both play realistic and trust eachother to make honorable force choices. like if i lose my Russ US confrontation with the cream of my battalion tactical group (Bmp3 ERA) with a couple platoons of T90AMs and T72s in support ( though often many forces i didnt use and placed in reserve ) if i lose the battle against him ill give him 2/3 battles before he starts encountering more than the odd t90am and khriz. itll be sturms T72s T90As and most of all infantry at weapons.

sorry for long post but ive had a lot of fun with this concept with nidan and it shows you can easily do a campaign without half the work and effort many put into it in these other campaigns which im sure are fantastic but seem slightly intimidating honestly

[Vanir Ausf B]

I only understood about a third of that wall but it sounds like you have reinforcements arriving in a QB?

we both play realistic and trust eachother to make honorable force choices.

I totally understand that. It reminds me of one of the first PBEMs I ever played, back in the CMBO days. It was a QB and I was just rolling over this poor guy's force like it wasn't even there. I had like twice as much infantry as he did because he had purchased a small army of halftracks. I couldn't understand why he had handicapped himself by wasting points on units that were just target practice for my panzers. So I asked him and his response was "because they are mech infantry and the halftracks are part of their TO&E." I felt bad because I had thought it was kosher to assume the infantry was dropped off outside the map.

[Sublime]

basically my post was explaining how nidan and i are running a west under him and east under me war campaign. and we have hiuse rules but also create diversions like an infantry only company on company battle ME to grab important documents in a city. both sides have basically special forces and i have a recon battalion parsed down to the company (not the tech company) and no battalion staff plus 4 assets and one FP module which may be 120mm for either ofbus ir he can take 2 60mm modules.either side must eliminate or on honor system hold maj vp 15 min. then can withdraw all forces to 50m of map edge and withdraw or fight. now note this has nothing to do of our loose combined arms campaign except its a small scebario which gives the winner +10℅ forces in the next Russ/US battle. there really are no rules except aps and we both otherwise just seem to play as real as we could.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sublime