PBEM Rules

[JohnO]

I would like to know out of curiosity on what rules if any, do players stipulate to your opponents? For example Arty, CAS, so on?

[The Steppenwulf]

Golden Rule No 1: If you start a game, you finish it - or notify your opponent that you are surrendering it. Walking away from a game because you lost the will to win - or enjoy it any longer - is just sheer bad manners.

[HerrTom]

In regards to artillery - usually no barrages planned on the set-up turn unless you're doing an attack/defense scenario, in which case the attacker can do it.  Otherwise it's pretty poor sportsmanship!

And Steppenwulf's rule is definitely #1 in anyone's book, I'm sure!

[Airdrop01]

Both of these! 

 

[gnarly]

Amen to the above.

 

Some additional info/thoughts/approaches on arty rules, that is a must for having a discussion with your opponent before kicking of the game. It's in FB, but equally applicable to BS:

 

Also, for new players, personally I think no CAS is a good start point, just to learn the basics of ground war without additional (difficult to mitigate) parameters. Possibly also no drones.

 

[Kinophile]

I personally have no problem with 1st turn Arty strikes.

My DAR with @TheForwardObserverwe both dropped significant ammo loads off the top. He very nearly ruined my initial right bank advance but I was across the strike line before it landed. Sometimes I'll wait out the first few turns while the oppo drops his load on empty ground. 

That said, TFO nailed an entire platoon in the Barracks with a on opening barrage, which to me was my own bad positioning.

I tried to suppress a lot of the taller buildings on his side,  dunno how effective I was. 

To me,  Arty strikes off the top are fine,  so long as they are not into the narrow setup zones (TFO and I had very deep, custom setup zones, which if anything made it much harder to not waste ammo on empty structures).  

Other than that I say suck it up. If you in know it's a possibility and you still do the big standard 00:01 charge forward well... You only have yourself to blame. 

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by kinophile

[HerrTom]

8 minutes ago, kinophile said:

To me,  Arty strikes off the top are fine,  so long as they are not into the narrow setup zones (TFO and I had very deep,  custom setup zones, which if anything made it much harder to not waste ammo on empty structures).  

I'd say that's pretty much the crux of it, I think.  If it's a zone where you'll be hard pressed to miss the enemy, then it's a little gamey.  Hence why on the attack/defense scenarios (where there are many places they can be) it makes more sense.

[Ivanov]

1. No APS on the vehicles. 2. No air assets - it's pointless to have them, because they get totally negated by the air defence. I prefer to have more cash on the ground units.

My favorite setup is Russian vs Ukrainians - they are fairly balanced or Russians vs disadvantaged US forces . For example heavy tactical Russian combat group built around tanks vs US Stryker force with no tanks.

[gnarly]

37 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

 

My favorite setup is Russian vs Ukrainians - they are fairly balanced or Russians vs disadvantaged US forces . For example heavy tactical Russian combat group built around tanks vs US Stryker force with no tanks.

Do you do/not do drones in both those situations? I presume not (as UKR don't have any anyways, which is therefore a significant bonus to RUS).

 

 

[Ivanov]

33 minutes ago, gnarly said:

Do you do/not do drones in both those situations? I presume not (as UKR don't have any anyways, which is therefore a significant bonus to RUS).

 

 

No drones in Ukr vs Rus. They are allowed in Rus vs US. 

[gnarly]

 

Just now, Ivanov said:

No drones in Ukr vs Rus. They are allowed in Rus vs US. 

Cheers

[Kinophile]

This is where there are some critical awkward kins in this otherwise superb game, and also why opening the game core files to kidding would be essentially a good thing -  it would allow the community to find &  fix flaws that BFC could adapt/change/smoothen,  essentially doing BFC legwork..

But,  ach,  that is for a different thread. 

I've played QBs essentially as Scenarios in order to give UKR some US drones. However I find that UKR Tunguska do great short work of RUS drones, plus I find the BTR 4  a far more flexible and effective IFV, balancing out the better RUS BMP  thermals with quicker movement and more accurate (I find) ATGMs... 

RUS v UKR is easily my favourite type, as a much better balanced* fight. Of course SOME PEOPLE insist on their on their unobtanium-clad, xray-vision gauss gunned MBT crutches... :-P

*to clarify,  the game is balanced,  in that it reasonably accurately reflects real life technological imbalances. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by kinophile

[gnarly]

3 minutes ago, kinophile said:

even if SOME PEOPLE insist  on their on their unobtanium-clad, xray-vision gauss gunned MBT crutches... :-P

aka  Force Field protected Land Battleships???

 

[Kinophile]

After our current scrap finally kicks off I'm actually really interested in a battalion+, full CAS & drones,  US v US deep urban fight. 

I think it would be an insanely vicious and fast affair. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by kinophile

[c3k]

I'm much simpler than some of these.

As stated:

1. Finish. I'll keep running my one survivor trying to stab my enemy's commander, unless he asks for a ceasefire. (Sometimes it's fun to clean the map. If I'm the guy getting mopped, that's okay. I'm there for you.  )

2. No opening turn artillery unless previously agreed. (I have a great oppo with whom I play regularly. In one game, I got some solid spots in what I knew was his setup zone...at turn 20. That was okay (in my book), since I had eyes-on the enemy, and it was NOT the first turn.)

You want APS? Do it. UAV? The more, the better. Unbalanced, unrealistic forces? Buy 'em. It's a game. Play.

[JohnO]

All good answers, the reason asking I'm thinking on doing a PBEM scenario "Bridagehead at Kharalyk" and wondering what rules if any is needed.

[HerrTom]

Remembered two more.

Golden Rule #2: Trash talk to your buddies as much as possible.  Even better if you're Kino and rolled a natural twenty on the trash talking skill check.

Golden Rule #3: Do a DAR!

 

[A Canadian Cat]

18 hours ago, HerrTom said:

I'd say that's pretty much the crux of it, I think.  If it's a zone where you'll be hard pressed to miss the enemy, then it's a little gamey.  Hence why on the attack/defense scenarios (where there are many places they can be) it makes more sense.

Yes, this.  Typically the attacker's setup zone is pretty small and obvious - blasting that is crappy, hence the no first turn arty for the defender - but having a large area with multiple avenues of approach than that changes things.

 

16 hours ago, kinophile said:

This is where there are some critical awkward kins in this otherwise superb game, and also why opening the game core files to kidding would be essentially a good thing -  it would allow the community to find &  fix flaws that BFC could adapt/change/smoothen,  essentially doing BFC legwork..

I am not 100% sure if "kidding" means user fixes or tweaks then I could not disagree more.  Having end users tweaking core behaviours of the game or properties of armour or weapons systems would mean that this would end:

16 hours ago, kinophile said:

*to clarify,  the game is balanced,  in that it reasonably accurately reflects real life technological imbalances. 

 

15 hours ago, c3k said:

I'm much simpler than some of these.

As stated:

1. Finish. I'll keep running my one survivor trying to stab my enemy's commander, unless he asks for a ceasefire. (Sometimes it's fun to clean the map. If I'm the guy getting mopped, that's okay. I'm there for you.  )

2. No opening turn artillery unless previously agreed. (I have a great oppo with whom I play regularly. In one game, I got some solid spots in what I knew was his setup zone...at turn 20. That was okay (in my book), since I had eyes-on the enemy, and it was NOT the first turn.)

You want APS? Do it. UAV? The more, the better. Unbalanced, unrealistic forces? Buy 'em. It's a game. Play.

+10 Less rules are better.  The only thing I insist on is the standard artillery rules we already discussed - nothing else.  @c3k is right.  And if you get an attacker setup area that is big enough then I would ditch the first turn artillery rules too. Some people have all this complex stuff with percentages and bans and it just makes things complex for no good reason (setting an environment so that favourite gear X is more relevant and hated gear Y is limited is *not* a good reason:-)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Interesting that most people seem OK with arty strikes on the attacker's setup zone, just as long as it's not on the first turn. I usually disallow it for the first 30 minutes, probably because I typically play large or huge scenarios and QBs in which the attacker could have a couple of battalions stuffed into that zone. They're not all leaving in the first 5 minutes.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

 They're not all leaving in the first 5 minutes.

Good point. 

IanL, typo,  I meant modding. 

I don't see the issues with modding. It's entirely personal and voluntary, with 100% rollback to the vanilla game. I mod the heck out of Civ5,  with my own and other people's, and it drastically improves the single player game (I've never played MP Civ5). Some of the AI mods are orders above the core builds. 

But again,  a subject for another thread. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by kinophile

[DMS]

Hm, Noone mentioned target area limitations.

Does someone restrict area fire when there is no question mark on place? If tank doesn't know that infanry is in that house - is it ok to order him destroy that house?

[JoMac]

28 minutes ago, DMS said:

Hm, Noone mentioned target area limitations.

Does someone restrict area fire when there is no question mark on place? If tank doesn't know that infanry is in that house - is it ok to order him destroy that house?

This is one "House Rule' (along with no Defensive Arty on First Turn) that I like to use with my PBEM Opponents in Meeting Engagements...You can use 'Area-Fire' within roughly One Action Spot of any type of Enemy Contact (transparent or solid). Of course, if it's an 'Attack/Defense', then you should be able to 'Area-Fire' anywhere you like. 

Another 'House Rule'...I also don't allow actual Targeting of Enemy Units, and just let the Computer AI do the shooting (this is where Firing Arcs become important).

Joe 

[gnarly]

57 minutes ago, DMS said:

If tank doesn't know that infanry is in that house - is it ok to order him destroy that house?

In BS, those houses make excellent hiding places for all sorts of anti-tank hurt, be they javelins, corsars, etc.  And infantry can be 100m away from the house and still not detect infantry or heavy weapons team hiding within....

If its a likely hiding spot, demolish with anything you got, otherwise you'll be deaded real quick...  ;D

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, DMS said:

<Snip> Does someone restrict area fire when there is no question mark on place? If tank doesn't know that infantry is in that house - is it ok to order him destroy that house?

IMO, and as @gnarly said, level that house if you think it may be a threat to your command.  If you decide not to then be prepared to suffer the consequences.    

In a PBEM the fewer house rules the better.  About the only house rule that is really necessary is no firing into the attackers setup zone.  Even this rule could be modified some as in: No firing into the attackers setup zone for the first 15 minutes (depending on game length).  Or the attacker has a secure area for his air defense units and on map mortars to sit the entire game.  When playing single against the AI it may be a good idea to introduce a few more house rules to make the AI more competitive and give yourself a more challenging game.  A human player (PBEM) does not need this extra help.        

Probably the important thing to take away from this thread is to discuss ahead of time any potential house rules with your opponent before you even start to think about a PBEM. I will agree to some odd house rules sometimes just to make my opponent happy and be able to play however there are some rules in this thread I would not agree to.  Humans are sneaky, crafty, dangerous SOBs.  That's part of what makes PBEMs fun.    

[sburke]

On 12/15/2016 at 4:31 PM, kinophile said:

This is where there are some critical awkward kins in this otherwise superb game, and also why opening the game core files to kidding would be essentially a good thing -  it would allow the community to find &  fix flaws that BFC could adapt/change/smoothen,  essentially doing BFC legwork..

 

I am one of those people who would normally be okay with folks doing whatever they want, however in a thread a while back Steve posted a fairly long reply on this subject. It boiled down to when would 2 people ever agree to what actually should be changed and then how would you manage version control? How would you know a pbem opponent did not crank up his force unbeknownst to you? How would we even evaluate the game as to what should be corrected for if there was not a standardized version? From his reply it was pretty clear that Steve isn't likely to ever open up the core. If it doesn't go though a vigorous process of both validation how it should function in the real world and in game testing, it will not get changed. One very good reason for that is an underperforming item could be a simple bug (like a tank commander facing the wrong direction and therefore not doing any spotting) that someone would instead try and correct through some other way never fixing the actual problem (and creating a different problem once the actual problem was fixed).