What are the general 'house rules' in pbem?

[Melchior]

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.

Hell I think attackers should be ready for prep bombardments. Setup zones in the most the games just need to be bigger, or feature entrenchments since it was standard practice in just about every Army ever for troops to dig in if they were going to sit still in any spot for more than an hour. If setup zones were bigger the defender would really have to guess where his fire should go, and could be taking a real risk blowing it off early. I just don't buy this idea of gentlemen's rules in a game so chaotic and unpredictable as CM. These games aren't like Company of Heroes or Starcraft that are so broken no house rules basically just mean t-minus 8min to the Kangaroo Carrier doom rush.

If my troops get shattered the first min of a battle because they had all congregated around a 400x400m area to pull straws for latrine duty then I damn well deserve that for being so callous about their safety.

[womble]

Hell I think attackers should be ready for prep bombardments. Setup zones in the most the games just need to be bigger, or feature entrenchments ...

But since they aren't and don't, it's quite a lot simpler to disallow pre-emptive strikes than redraw every damn map. Even maps that have quite large deployment areas often have only very restricted areas which are out of LOS of defensive positions. Starting "under the guns" is all very well if that's been catered for in the narrative of a scenario, but for QBs, which are necessarily simplified affairs, it's not practicable.

[Kieme(ITA)]

From a map maker point of view:

the problem with large deploy areas is that you have to take into consideration that units can be placed on the very border of the area, in order to get as close as possible to objectives and/or points of interest (especially in meeting engagements). Maps in CM games can be large but not that large to ignore few hundred meters of distance. Not only larger zones bring the travel time problematic, they also require the units to be not spottable in the very first turn by the enemy, so you need to take some special care for the deploy areas, otherwise there will be an unpleasant situation at the very start of the match (again, especially for meeting engagements).

 

So, even a single rule such as no arty in the first minute in the deploy area is good practice.

[Melchior]

But since they aren't and don't, it's quite a lot simpler to disallow pre-emptive strikes than redraw every damn map. Even maps that have quite large deployment areas often have only very restricted areas which are out of LOS of defensive positions. Starting "under the guns" is all very well if that's been catered for in the narrative of a scenario, but for QBs, which are necessarily simplified affairs, it's not practicable.

Yes the QB's have poorly designed setup areas, so compensate for this by either choosing a larger map with a proportionately larger deployment area of stupid or simply allow attacking players to have pre battle entrenchments too or a correspondingly larger force. Their are literally so many ways around this problem that aren't game breaking. Maybe if war gamers understood that "full strength" was an exception rather than the rule we wouldn't be discussing ways to make a broken situation more broken.

 

So, even a single rule such as no arty in the first minute in the deploy area is good practice.

It's not, by virtue of its existence because it could only exist to fix a problem that has been poorly handled. Bad deployment zones are not universal either, plenty of the game's maps have very well thought out deploy zones with lots of options for mixing up the original plan. Few things in CM make me cringe more than those rainbow deployment zones of "ONLY 3RD PLATOON CAN DEPLOY AROUND HERE/NO ENTRENCHMENTS THERE". Issues of troop spotting can be handled by disclaimers "deploy beyond the 400m area at your own risk." Troop setup has literally been the most contentious issue with the game since CMSF and veterans will probably tell me long before then too.

Edited June 11, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Mord]

When I play DC we usually play at around 6000 pts or so, so one of our main rules is no off board arty 'cause it just seems like it throws the game out of whack—too easy to annihilate a guy in a couple turns when you don't have that much equipment. Then we usually try to be kinda historical in our picks. But sometimes we mix it up, no tanks, or whatever. We played one once where we couldn't use any vehicles bigger than a Stuart/Lynx.

 

But in the couple CMBS games we have had it was no-holds barred because of all the new features. Our last game he kicked my *** so hard I still can't sit down. It was horrible. He's not allowed to b**** for the next two games because he wailed me so bad. I tried an experiment and bought ALL green troops, that will never happen again.

 

 

Mord.

[womble]

Yes the QB's have poorly designed setup areas, so compensate for this by either choosing a larger map with a proportionately larger deployment area of stupid or simply allow attacking players to have pre battle entrenchments too or a correspondingly larger force. Their are literally so many ways around this problem that aren't game breaking. Maybe if war gamers understood that "full strength" was an exception rather than the rule we wouldn't be discussing ways to make a broken situation more broken.

That's frankly laughable. Bigger map to solve the "maps are finite" problem? Yeah, right. That really doesn't leave the defender's arse hanging in the wind, does it? It's a game, and games have boundaries, no, repeat, no getting round that in a practical manner; gamers just have to live with it. Games have known start points; it's not a surprise that the assault is moving through the deployment area at T-time for the defender, though it ought to be IRL, so those 15 minute modules that could, theoretically be dropped at T+00:00:30 if preplanned arty were allowed for the defender in the game are thoroughly "unrealistic". TRPs in the setup zone? Sure, if the context seems right, but even then, to save having to create a whole backfield for the attacker on every map, just to avoid having to make one house rule is a pretty big ask. It's not like it's complicated. Unlike any of your suggestions.

 

That said, for Assault missions, specifically, I have in the past wondered whether the attacker is given so many points because it's expected that they'll suffere a minute-one arty stonk.

 

And what on earth does "full strength" have to do with who can do pre-battle bombardments? The defender's squads are going to be at full paper strength in any QB anyway, and the points buy would just buy two companies at 50% rather than one at 100%. Scenarios relatively often have reduced strength elements.

 

The attacker can already buy themselves fortifications. Maybe they should use some of their excess points for that, so they are attacking at even odds, like all the manuals of tactics recommend.

[Baneman]

... There are literally so many ways around this problem that aren't game breaking. ...

 

And is not the "No arty on deployment zones in Turn1" rule one of these ways ?

 

Just "simply allow attacking players to have pre battle entrenchments too or a correspondingly larger force" will not work in all circumstances - if the attacker has a larger force in case of first turn bombardment - what happens if there is NOT a first turn bombardment ?

As soon as you go that route, then the defender MUST bombard on Turn 1 or face instant ( pretty quick, anyway ) annihilation. So that just breaks it in the other direction.

[Kieme(ITA)]

When I design a QB map for a meeting engagement there's no room for "better deploy areas", because they must be as much respectful of both players as possible. Perfect balance is no achievable, because a symmetric terrain map would be unrealistic and boring, but at the same time it's not possible to ignore completely the issue of giving both players as equal chances as possible, in the end, it's a videogame.

 

So, deploy areas can't be very large for the size/map fitting problems cited before, they can't be much different than an obvious shape because a meeting engagement is a meeting engagement (otherwise you design a scenario, which can depict even extreme situations), as a consequence an immediate strike artillery with a lot of arty is going to ruin the game for both players if both make such decision (and if no rule is applied they will both be forced to do it because it's a nash equilibrium).

 

I have no problem playing with many people using this very simple rule, neither did them. So until now I enjoy multiplayer. I am sorry, but I would not play with you. 

[Melchior]

And is not the "No arty on deployment zones in Turn1" rule one of these ways ?

Sure it is, it's just a bad way. Look, what i'm prescribing here are precautions not solutions to pre-battle bombardment. If you lose enough of your force to a bombardment then just call the attack off. Inform the defender he got lucky and reload the map. It's a game after all turns out you can do that sort of thing.

 

As soon as you go that route, then the defender MUST bombard on Turn 1 or face instant ( pretty quick, anyway ) annihilation. So that just breaks it in the other direction.

I do not see how. Artillery is such a roll of the dice I do not see how the defender is substantially crippled by either holding out on bombardments or starting his morning off with a fine breakfast to the tune of M2 Howie's Greatest Hits. The force adjustment does not need to be ridiculously slatted in the attacker's favor or it can be mixed with the other solutions i've prescribed. House rules are forced, in game solutions are organic.

 

It's not like it's complicated. Unlike any of your suggestions.

House rules are a complication. Evocative of nothing except fragile egos.

 

I have no problem playing with many people using this very simple rule, neither did them. So until now I enjoy multiplayer. I am sorry, but I would not play with you.

Well that's ok because I almost never play video games competitively against other players anymore. Most video gamers simply take the games they play way, way, way, way, way, too seriously. I'm not directly accusing you of that though. I'm just saying that things like house rules are the punch line of a bigger joke to me.

Edited June 11, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Sublime]

i disagree house rules are indicative of a small ego. fifty possibly. but no rocket deployment zone stonk? or the aps rule?, aps now destroys hellfire missiles. khz25

missiles everything. it makes the abrams nigh on invincible. yeah aps doesnt counter AP. a T90AM SIDES can be penetrated ny a abrams amd as soon as an abrams os targetted its LWR goes off amd ot faces direction of threat. you need A LOT of practice and skill to knock out abrams with russian tanks alone and luck and numbers too usually. the situations the same without APS except suddenly you have a whole class of weapons available -atgms.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sublime

[Vanir Ausf B]

Look, what i'm prescribing here are precautions not solutions to pre-battle bombardment. If you lose enough of your force to a bombardment then just call the attack off. Inform the defender he got lucky and reload the map. It's a game after all turns out you can do that sort of thing.

 

That sounds like fun.   Particularly for players such as myself who tend to play with battalion+ sized forces. It can take a couple of hours to place units and issue first turn orders. Then Turn 1: BOOM!. Game over. "Hey, let's do it over again and see if I get lucky!"

 

I do not see how. Artillery is such a roll of the dice I do not see how the defender is substantially crippled by either holding out on bombardments or starting his morning off with a fine breakfast to the tune of M2 Howie's Greatest Hits. The force adjustment does not need to be ridiculously slatted in the attacker's favor or it can be mixed with the other solutions i've prescribed. House rules are forced, in game solutions are organic.

It's not complicated. If you give the attacker extra forces in the expectation that some portion will be eliminated via prep bombardment and then that doesn't happen it's a free bonus, so the defender is almost obligated to at least try.

 

As has been pointed out, enlarging the setup zone without enlarging the map creates other problems. Enlarging the map is a lot of work.

 

As for "organic" solutions... please. Combat Mission is a game, not reality. Like any other game it is essentially a rules set. Whether those rules are enforced by BFC via the game programing or by the players via mutual agreement, they are all rules. Setup zones are an artificial construct to begin with. Sure, you could make a map large enough to accommodate an attacker setup zone big enough to where a first turn bombardment is a crap shoot, but when you are dealing with a force size of nearly 2 battalions that is a lot of real estate that serves no other function. How many map makers are going to do that to solve one problem that has a much easier solution? None that I have seen.

 

House rules are a complication. Evocative of nothing except fragile egos.

 

Foolishness. Unless you always play as the attacker or always play as a particular nation all of the rules discussed in this thread will sometimes help and other times hinder you. I would not want to win a game with a first turn stonk. But if I played someone who wanted to play no-rules I would probably agree to it and then do everything I normally disallow just to prove a point. Come to think of it, that might be kinda fun for one game

 

Well that's ok because I almost never play video games competitively against other players anymore. Most video gamers simply take the games they play way, way, way, way, way, too seriously. I'm not directly accusing you of that though. I'm just saying that things like house rules are the punch line of a bigger joke to me.

So we are being lectured on how to play multiplayer by someone who doesn't actually play multiplayer. Okaaayyy....

Edited June 12, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

i disagree house rules are indicative of a small ego. fifty possibly. but no rocket deployment zone stonk? or the aps rule?, aps now destroys hellfire missiles. khz25

missiles everything. it makes the abrams nigh on invincible. yeah aps doesnt counter AP. a T90AM SIDES can be penetrated ny a abrams amd as soon as an abrams os targetted its LWR goes off amd ot faces direction of threat. you need A LOT of practice and skill to knock out abrams with russian tanks alone and luck and numbers too usually. the situations the same without APS except suddenly you have a whole class of weapons available -atgms.

 

Something else I forgot to mention regarding CMBS: the Russian Zala UAV. In Black Sea the US Army is completely incapable of detecting them* (Ukrainians can because they have Tunguskas).   Needless to say, this is not particularly realistic. People can decide for themselves whether disallowing them is borne out of a desire for realism or "fragile egos", LOL.

 

* The US Grey Eagle is also undetectable as long as it remains in observe mode, but it is also much more expensive.

[exsonic01]

That sounds like fun.   Particularly for players such as myself who tend to play with battalion+ sized forces. It can take a couple of hours to place units and issue first turn orders. Then Turn 1: BOOM!. Game over. "Hey, let's do it over again and see if I get lucky!"

I agree with this point. I don't particularly care about pre-planned for meeting engagement game and for attackers, but for defenders, they should not allowed to use pre-planned. In some maps, defender's pre-planned can do really harsh cheese rush right at the opening, even before attacker's troops spread out enough. And some map's attacker's deploy zones are really small with only limited number of possible approaching options (bridges and rivers, or thick forests). There, defender's pre-planned can ruin the game at the 1st turn. 

[Stagler]

Yeah the Grey Eagle is a nifty piece of kit. I have a sneaky suspicion that one is watching me at the moment in the game with Waltz im having...

 

SA-19 GRISON has a missile flight ceiling of roughly 3600m and the MQ-1C is about 6000m I believe. If SA-15 GAUNTLET made a sudden appearance in an expansion I wouldnt be complaining, it would topple this monopoly.

 

I did not know that about the Zala, and will take more of these instead.  I always have been using the Pchela. Its a gamble in PBEM whether your opponent will be taking aircraft and you bringing along air defence. Luckily Stinger and Igla teams are cheap. I might even suggest that for what it is, the SA-19 GRISON is actually too cheap.

[Sublime]

Something else I forgot to mention regarding CMBS: the Russian Zala UAV. In Black Sea the US Army is completely incapable of detecting them* (Ukrainians can because they have Tunguskas). Needless to say, this is not particularly realistic. People can decide for themselves whether disallowing them is borne out of a desire for realism or "fragile egos", LOL.

* The US Grey Eagle is also undetectable as long as it remains in observe mode, but it is also much more expensive.

not only does the gray eagle cost as much as atk a/c but i could way more realistically see the US havin a lead in drones. the Zala thing idk. house rule #3