Hard Cat Rules v2I - Simple to Use Command & Control Rules - UPDATED 01 JUNE 2022

[chuckdyke]

17 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

If the unit was in C2 at the beginning of the order sequence I don't see an issue with using a Cover-Arc just because the unit temporarily loses contact while executing those orders.

I can't see any point restricting a player. This is an assault, and the team executes a battle drill. If I stop the 'assault move' two squares away from the objective and place a cover arc on the objective. There is a good chance they lob a grenade there if they get a visual. To cover outside their cover arc is the job of other units. The function of a cover arc is to make sure they look in the right direction. Anyway, it is a long time before I play Pbem and it won't be with people who make up nonsensical rules.  

[Bil Hardenberger]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Anyway, it is a long time before I play Pbem and it won't be with people who make up nonsensical rules.  

If you don't like the rules.. don't use them.

Any argument you may have to make is just getting lost in the noise of your rudeness.

Bil

[chuckdyke]

I don't use them; If somebody is rude it is you. I addressed the issue with @Sgt.Squarehead Not using cover arcs unless under C2 of your platoon commander is ridiculous. Most Sergeants are capable of assigning firing zones especially to carry out a standard drill.  

[Bil Hardenberger]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I don't use them; If somebody is rude it is you.

Right, and now I see the kind of person you are.

Oh and I want to congratulate you, because in 20 years in this forum you are the very first person I am placing on my ignore list.  Well done.

Bil

 

[chuckdyke]

Gave him a like. Where we come from, we are used of speaking our mind. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Err.....Maybe leave it? 

TBH fella I think you got the wrong end of the stick with @Bil Hardenberger's very carefully crafted rules.....But as he and others have said, if you don't like it (or part of it), don't use it!

FWIW, I'd been using a 'lite' variant of Bil's earlier rules for ages, the current rules are very streamlined and IMHO can add a lot of enjoyment to the game.

These rules can also be a real boon when plotting out action plans that will eventually be translated via the editor for use by AI controlled units. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[nathangun]

I love the rules myself, gives each engagement a realistic feel of C&C and I wish I'd played against more players who'd use them. I'd love to do a HardCat rules of engagement campaign.

Edited February 10, 2021 by nathangun

[chuckdyke]

23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Err.....Maybe leave it? 

TBH fella I think you got the wrong end of the stick with @Bil Hardenberger's very carefully crafted rules.....But as he and others have said, if you don't like it (or part of it), don't use it!

FWIW, I'd been using a 'lite' variant of Bil's earlier rules for ages, the current rules are very streamlined and IMHO can add a lot of enjoyment to the game.

These rules can also be a real boon when plotting out action plans that will eventually be translated via the editor for use by AI controlled units. 

Tells me not to use a cover arc never addressed him personally besides I am not keen playing on line anyway. I leave people who are using his rules well alone. I play strictly with relative spotting as shown by the AI. 

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Tells me not to use a cover arc never addressed him personally besides I am not keen playing on line anyway. I leave people who are using his rules well alone. I play strictly with relative spotting as shown by the AI. 

Tbh and because you perhaps don't realize: you did. 'People who make nonsensical rules', which is somewhat ironic because you basically say that you like to play in a similar fashion as what much of the rules are about. If you said you didn't agree with some subset or that you don't understand the rationale behind the arcs, that would have been a response that can be considered 'constructive'. But that's not what you said.

[Lethaface]

5 hours ago, nathangun said:

I love the rules myself, gives each engagement a realistic feel of C&C and I wish I'd played against more players who'd use them. I'd love to do a HardCat rules of engagement campaign.

I would be interested in that. 

On CMx2 level in essence it isn't even that different compared to trying to keep all platoons under command organized and in c2, which is beneficial to performance anyway (although the structure of forces becomes more important I think).

Actually considered/had plans with one of my regular PBEM opponents to play our next game with these rules. But we have gone for huge games since and while it could be technically very well possible to play huge games like that, I think the challenge of playing those in regular fashion is/was large enough to not seek 'extra challenge'.

[scrappie]

Most of these rules could be implemented within the game as an additional difficulty level above Iron, thus ensuring compliance.

Can't see it being high on Battlefront's priority list though

 

[chuckdyke]

6 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Tbh and because you perhaps don't realize: you did. 'People who make nonsensical rules', which is somewhat ironic because you basically say that you like to play in a similar fashion as what much of the rules are about. If you said you didn't agree with some subset or that you don't understand the rationale behind the arcs, that would have been a response that can be considered 'constructive'. But that's not what you said.

I never addressed the man only the non sensical rules. The best way If we play PBEM just the two players will agree how the game is played. I can't see myself playing a game in which I can't use cover arcs on squad level. Most regular infantry can be acting NCO's and capable of issuing firing zones. That's how we play on Hotseat. Area fire on anywhere on the terrain with no contact-icons once there is a contact icon for example AFV must have a contact-icon before firing. It is easy he just opens up next to infantry who has the contact icon. Cover arcs have multiple uses. Easier to see the terrain depressions, check the situational awareness of your units. If you make rules it should cover the issue in or two paragraphs. Like a battle plan must be simple to scribble down on a World War 2 era notebook. Kind regards and happy gaming. PS what he thinks about me is none of my business. 

[BletchleyGeek]

10 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I never addressed the man only the non sensical rules.

Mate, "the man" is the main author of the rules. If a random person walking down the street, took a look at your front yard and yelled in the general direction of your house "your garden is a shambles, what nonsense!" you'd probably not be amused.

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Mate, "the man" is the main author of the rules. If a random person walking down the street, took a look at your front yard and yelled in the general direction of your house "your garden is a shambles, what nonsense!" you'd probably not be amused.

If I offended anyone it was not intended and happy to apologize, I addressed only the cover arc rules. I wish him all the best with his rules, but I apply the cover arcs the way I see fit. Anyway, it is a non-issue I am not in a hurry to play anybody online soon. I bought the games to enjoy myself. You're in Oz if ever in Perth you can drop by to play on Hotseat. My backyard is not great, and anybody can say so. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by chuckdyke
spelling

[BletchleyGeek]

I got that sense Chuck  Too bad I am at Melbourne. I would route you to FGM if you don't know it, you may find someone in your same TZ to player real-time or wego live over a connection. 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by BletchleyGeek

[Freyberg]

On 2/11/2021 at 1:11 PM, chuckdyke said:

I never addressed the man only the non sensical rules...

Don't take it personally, bro - there are some very prickly characters on this forum, especially among the old-timers.

Just take a deep breath and let it go. Personally I appreciate your contribution to this being an active forum

[chuckdyke]

Yes, you never know if you catch up. Right now, your guys are in Lockdown and I wish you all the best. We just come out of ours tomorrow. I go for the ball never for the man, different folks' different culture. Keep that in mind.

[chuckdyke]

On 2/11/2021 at 8:33 AM, BletchleyGeek said:

I got that sense Chuck  Too bad I am at Melbourne. I would route you to FGM if you don't know it, you may find someone in your same TZ to player real-time or wego live over a connection. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Don't take it personally, bro - there are some very prickly characters on this forum, especially among the old-timers.

Just take a deep breath and let it go. Personally I appreciate your contribution to this being an active forum

Like a Rugby match. Go for the ball and not for the man sometimes tackle too high sometimes tackle too low. Look forward to the All Blacks visiting  

[Bil Hardenberger]

Open response to @chuckdyke: If you really do think the rules are nonsense then I am not even sure why you come in this thread and attack them... of course you are going to get a reaction from me.  This thread has always been about discussion and exploration of the topic (simulating Command & Control (C2) and C2 Friction).

The game is awesome, but it isn't perfect, my rules don't make it perfect either, but they do add a layer of command friction for the discriminating player that doesn't exist normally.  That is all we were trying to do with them.  They are about adding another level of experience that few wargames touch.

It might be that you have a point and I'd be interested in pursuing it, but let's have a civilized and open discussion.  I have made edits to the rules several times due to the feedback and discussion in this thread (and others) and am always open to new interpretations, ideas, and exceptions... maybe you'll even come to understand why a rule is worded a certain way and actually appreciate why they were created in the first place.

Peace, Bil

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Open response to @chuckdyke: If you really do think the rules are nonsense then I am not even sure why you come in this thread and attack them... of course you are going to get a reaction from me.  This thread has always been about discussion and exploration of the topic (simulating Command & Control (C2) and C2 Friction).

The game is awesome, but it isn't perfect, my rules don't make it perfect either, but they do add a layer of command friction for the discriminating player that doesn't exist normally.  That is all we were trying to do with them.  They are about adding another level of experience that few wargames touch.

It might be that you have a point and I'd be interested in pursuing it, but let's have a civilized and open discussion.  I have made edits to the rules several times due to the feedback and discussion in this thread (and others) and am always open to new interpretations, ideas, and exceptions... maybe you'll even come to understand why a rule is worded a certain way and actually appreciate why they were created in the first place.

Peace, Bil

Thank you, I will put it differently next time and sorry that you were upset. It was never the intention. My only issue is the cover arcs, I am just puzzled by it. I would be grateful if you accept my apology

[chuckdyke]

About the rules, the problem is in the AI we see things during a turn we are not supposed to see. How can you make a rule against that? A crew member in panic shares intel of the BMP completely out of contact. Only Icons should light up when the C2 of the units is in place. Troops in panic shouldn't be able to spot accurately he is out of contact too. Yes, we can make a rule that we should ignore the identified BMP. I appreciate the guidelines @Bil Hardenberger   Our crew comes out of his panic state and now he is in danger if he spots the enemy by shooting at them. You can prevent that by giving the survivor out of contact a cover arc so that he will shoot only inside a range of 50 meters. Kind regards. 

[Bil Hardenberger]

17 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Thank you, I will put it differently next time and sorry that you were upset. It was never the intention. My only issue is the cover arcs, I am just puzzled by it. I would be grateful if you accept my apology

Of course.  Let's shake and have a conversation.

Regarding Cover Arcs... those are in the Optional/Advanced rule section (page 2) so obviously you can feel free to take them or leave them as they are optional and considered Advanced rules.  But the purpose behind them is to force a player to maintain proper C2 distances... keep the squads within their Platoon Leader's command range.  A real Platoon Leader will control the zones that each of his squads cover, to ensure his entire zone of responsibility is protected.  THis is not normally a squad leader function when working within the PL's control.

Now there are two exceptions to this and both have to do with scouting, as an infantry team on a scouting mission and a dedicated Scout Platoon (on a scouting mission).  Both are really autonomous units and thus do not need a leader to dictate fields of fire, etc.

Exceptions:

1. Units performing a scouting mission
2. Recon platoons performing a scouting mission

A word about the reasoning behind exception #2 - a player could abuse a Scouting Platoon and use it in an infantry role.. in that case it should follow the same rules as a normal infantry platoon.  If it is actually performing a scouting mission, then of course it is in its element and gets its special exception.

Now if a squad from that Platoon is working independently as a maneuver element during a platoon attack drill, then of course that squad is acting as an autonomous unit and should also be able to use covered arcs as required.  This type of exception to the rule could be a player decision or I could add it as a third exception type thus:

Exceptions:

1. Units performing a scouting mission
2. Recon platoons performing a scouting mission
3. Formations/units acting as a Maneuver Element during a Battle Drill (i.e. Attack Drill) 

We have to be careful to not give too much slack, for example, if I were to say "Exception 3 is any unit acting independently" a player could then say, "well... all my units are acting independently!"  So we need to carefully spell out the exceptions.

These rules were written for myself and a small group of like minded players.. most of whom have been constant commentators in this thread, they definitely are not for everybody.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Bil

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Of course.  Let's shake and have a conversation.

Regarding Cover Arcs... those are in the Optional/Advanced rule section (page 2) so obviously you can feel free to take them or leave them as they are optional and considered Advanced rules.  But the purpose behind them is to force a player to maintain proper C2 distances... keep the squads within their Platoon Leader's command range.  A real Platoon Leader will control the zones that each of his squads cover, to ensure his entire zone of responsibility is protected.  THis is not normally a squad leader function when working within the PL's control.

Now there are two exceptions to this and both have to do with scouting, as an infantry team on a scouting mission and a dedicated Scout Platoon (on a scouting mission).  Both are really autonomous units and thus do not need a leader to dictate fields of fire, etc.

Exceptions:

1. Units performing a scouting mission
2. Recon platoons performing a scouting mission

A word about the reasoning behind exception #2 - a player could abuse a Scouting Platoon and use it in an infantry role.. in that case it should follow the same rules as a normal infantry platoon.  If it is actually performing a scouting mission, then of course it is in its element and gets its special exception.

Now if a squad from that Platoon is working independently as a maneuver element during a platoon attack drill, then of course that squad is acting as an autonomous unit and should also be able to use covered arcs as required.  This type of exception to the rule could be a player decision or I could add it as a third exception type thus:

Exceptions:

1. Units performing a scouting mission
2. Recon platoons performing a scouting mission
3. Formations/units acting as a Maneuver Element during a Battle Drill (i.e. Attack Drill) 

We have to be careful to not give too much slack, for example, if I were to say "Exception 3 is any unit acting independently" a player could then say, "well... all my units are acting independently!"  So we need to carefully spell out the exceptions.

These rules were written for myself and a small group of like minded players.. most of whom have been constant commentators in this thread, they definitely are not for everybody.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Bil

I wrote something just before you did. For me cover arcs have multiple functions. Spotting and holding your fire, by giving a short cover arc and looking in the right direction. Chuck 

[Bil Hardenberger]

17 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I wrote something just before you did. For me cover arcs have multiple functions. Spotting and holding your fire, by giving a short cover arc and looking in the right direction. Chuck 

Chuck, I saw that.  Of course in my rules the Covered Arcs (and this is how I see them) are used for formation control and fire discipline.. I argue that this is not, when acting within a Leader's/Commander's control an individual task.. it will be dictated.  When not acting within a Leader's or Commander's control then that unit will not, in most cases, have the full intelligence picture to enable it to make decisions like how to restrict fire, or what zone to cover.   

We can agree to disagree on this one subject, and of course if you do decide to use these rules feel free to not use Rule 7 Covered Arcs, or substitute it for your own house rule.  

Everybody has their own interpretations of how things work in action... mine comes from my military experience and decades of gaming, research, tactical blogging, etc.. I also work as a Wargame M&S Engineer for the USMC's Warfighting Lab (Wargame Division).

It comes down to, what makes you happy and enjoy the game?  Do what you think is correct and makes you comfortable.

Bil

Edited February 13, 2021 by Bil Hardenberger

[JoMac]

I know in my Original 'House Rules' yrs ago had part of the following:

All Units had Mandatory 'Cover Arcs, and it was wither or not you were in C2 that would determine range of that 'Cover Arc. If you were out of C2 you were in a Defensive Posture (essentially in self preservation mode) and have a limited Firing Arc...If in C2 you were capable of being in an Offensive Posture and have an extended Firing Arc.

Anyways, something of that nature...

My 'House Rules' stem way back in the CMx1 days and implemented in CMx2.

Edited February 13, 2021 by JoMac