PBEM Player Guidelines

[Artkin]

4 minutes ago, Jackal2100 said:

Do you consider sound contacts a good enough spot for area fire? If I see an atgm fired from a position and hear the crew there, but don't see the crew itself, would you consider it wrong to fire at the area? I would imagine the area fire would be quite logical.

No lol in no universe is a running vehicle getting an accurate sound location and pinpointong the exact location of the enemy. Similarly c2 is no excuse for this unless youre playing CMBS as the Americans who have a battle managment system in their vehicles. 

Area fire would be fine if people use it logically. You can maybe determine the angle of the fire within a certain few degrees but thats only one of three axises covered. You also have distance and height. Over a long distance that shootet could be absolutely anywhere. 

If the vehicle had a spot, they would engage the target. It's that simple. Otherwise you might as well go play Wargame or Armored Brigade. 

[Jackal2100]

If your vehicle sees gunfire coming from a bush, you should be able to shoot at it even if you can't see the gun itself. To assume that vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response is kind of ridiculous. 

[Centurian52]

Just now, Artkin said:

As I said it's the lesser of two evils imo.

And I'm trying to explain that it would be the greater of two evils. By a very wide margin.

1 minute ago, Artkin said:

You similarly can't possibly tell me that the area target command is more often used realistically in PBEM than not. 

My PBEMs still represent a very small sample size. So whether unrealistic uses outnumber realistic uses or not, I can't say. But what I can say, with an extremely high degree of confidence, is that the game (in all modes) would be far less realistic without it. How often has your lack of use of the target command been unrealistic?

[Artkin]

4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

And I'm trying to explain that it would be the greater of two evils. By a very wide margin.

My PBEMs still represent a very small sample size. So whether unrealistic uses outnumber realistic uses or not, I can't say. But what I can say, with an extremely high degree of confidence, is that the game (in all modes) would be far less realistic without it. How often has your lack of use of the target command been unrealistic?

Not very unrealistic. Also my opponents have no problems with the rule. I also rarely play with regulars or higher veterancies who instantly stop shooting the millesecond enemies die.. especially in houses/buildings. 

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

1 hour ago, Jackal2100 said:

Do you consider sound contacts a good enough spot for area fire? If I see an atgm fired from a position and hear the crew there, but don't see the crew itself, would you consider it wrong to fire at the area? I would imagine the area fire would be quite logical.

No lol in no universe is a running vehicle getting an accurate sound location and pinpointong the exact location of the enemy.

I know it is common for us to call them sound contacts but they are not all sound contacts. They are unclear or unestablished contacts. Sound is one way but just spotting something but not being sure what it is exactly is also depicted by the same symbol.

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

I know it is common for us to call them sound contacts but they are not all sound contacts. They are unclear or unestablished contacts. Sound is one way but just spotting something but not being sure what it is exactly is also depicted by the same symbol.

Sure but the vehicle in question usually isnt getting the partial spot. And it makes no difference to a player who plays this way. 

[Chibot Mk IX]

CM's AF is way to accurate. 

Image you are a BAR gunner, now look at a grove that is 200m away from you. Image the sergeant shouting, fire at the woods. I see movement at the left side of the woods.

OK , so you are going to shoot left side of the woods, but what is the exactly aiming point? You probably just fire a short burst here and there. Spray the bullets in an area that cover part of the woods. So area fire should have longer reaction time and larger dispersion。

 

Hopefully in the future we will have a separate command that cover the area fire.

[Artkin]

4 hours ago, Jackal2100 said:

If your vehicle sees gunfire coming from a bush, you should be able to shoot at it even if you can't see the gun itself. To assume that vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response is kind of ridiculous. 

I'd advise you to watch combat footage and see just how blind modern day equipment is. Vehicles are not able to see muzzle flashes like a human eye can. 

CM already has a mechanic if a vehicle spots an enemy. The turret will turn and the entire vehicle will rotate toward the threat IF it gets a partial, a sound, or a full contact. Or even if it gets hit and can determine where the gunfire is coming from.

That's not even what I'm talking about. 

I never said that "Vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response".

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't abuse CM's interface like a cheese ball either. It's not how the game is meant to be played.

Edited March 28 by Artkin

[Jackal2100]

13 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I'd advise you to watch combat footage and see just how blind modern day equipment is. Vehicles are not able to see muzzle flashes like a human eye can. 

CM already has a mechanic if a vehicle spots an enemy. The turret will turn and the entire vehicle will rotate toward the threat IF it gets a partial, a sound, or a full contact. Or even if it gets hit and can determine where the gunfire is coming from.

That's not even what I'm talking about. 

I never said that "Vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response".

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't abuse CM's interface like a cheese ball either. It's not how the game is meant to be played.

1. I don't "abuse" CM. Don't accuse me of something that is untrue.

2. How the game is "meant" to be played? I didn't know there was a right and wrong way to play a game, other than by the rules you set up with your opponent beforehand and those imposed by the engine itself.

[Vacillator]

The area fire is certainly flying here .  It's just a game and we can play it how we like, with agreement if another human is involved. 

Being the naive person I am, I've never even mentioned house rules to anyone but it's never been a problem.  Except for when I was sent a full page of house rules that I didn't quite understand.  That game stalled there as no explanations were forthcoming.

[Artkin]

32 minutes ago, Jackal2100 said:

1. I don't "abuse" CM. Don't accuse me of something that is untrue.

2. How the game is "meant" to be played? I didn't know there was a right and wrong way to play a game, other than by the rules you set up with your opponent beforehand and those imposed by the engine itself.

It wasn't directed at you. Don't play like a cheeseball in general. 

But what's funny is that you did abuse this mechanic against me in the PBEM we are currently playing. So yeah, you abuse it. 

Your opponent could buy all javelin teams and wipe the field of your troops, or he could buy a balanced force and have a decent game with you. Be decent unless your opponent is indecent.

Edited March 28 by Artkin

[JoMac]

Ops...I think @Vacillator was probably referring to me...Anyways, my 'House Rules' below.

1. No Off-Map Preplanned or On-Map Arty from Attacker or Defender on turn 1 of a Meeting Engagement...Attack/Defense Games are exempt as Attacker may call-in Preplanned Arty on turn 1. 

2. Player will let the Computer AI choose what Targets to shoot at. However, you can still Area-Fire at any spot on Map and set Firing Arcs.

3. When a Player checks LOS at any given Waypoint, then he must keep that Waypoint (and make no adjustments) for duration of turn (next turn you can delete all old Waypoints and start again)...AKA, once you take your hand off the Chess piece you can't redo move. 

4. Vehicle Smoke Dischargers will be handled by Computer AI. 

5. Turn Off Armor Detailed Hits.

6. Install 'No Tracer Mod'.

7. Install 'RH Invisible Icons' Mod...(However, only install the Invisible Axis mod if you are playing Allied, and vice-versa).

8. Only use Green Troops.
 

Edited March 29 by JoMac

[Erwin]

Are we talking WEGO or RL play?  Or both?  

I still don't understand why no preplanned in ME's. 

Also, very hard to have the discipline to do "3. When a Player checks LOS at any given Waypoint, then he must keep that Waypoint..."  That would require a much slower pace of play and very long scenarios.

And...  why "Tracers off"?  That is how one sees enemies in RL and how your own troops see where the shells are landing in RL.  

Manually ordered smoke dischargers are needed to provide cover.  I thought that was also a RL tactic.  

Not sure about "5. Turn Off Armor Detailed Hits."  Would one not know where one is getting hit?

I like the idea of Green troops.  That would make troops act in a normal "less heroic" manner.

[Centurian52]

13 hours ago, JoMac said:

Ops...I think @Vacillator was probably referring to me...Anyways, my 'House Rules' below.

1. No Off-Map Preplanned or On-Map Arty from Attacker or Defender on turn 1 of a Meeting Engagement...Attack/Defense Games are exempt as Attacker may call-in Preplanned Arty on turn 1. 

2. Player will let the Computer AI choose what Targets to shoot at. However, you can still Area-Fire at any spot on Map and set Firing Arcs.

3. When a Player checks LOS at any given Waypoint, then he must keep that Waypoint (and make no adjustments) for duration of turn (next turn you can delete all old Waypoints and start again)...AKA, once you take your hand off the Chess piece you can't redo move. 

4. Vehicle Smoke Dischargers will be handled by Computer AI. 

5. Turn Off Armor Detailed Hits.

6. Install 'No Tracer Mod'.

7. Install 'RH Invisible Icons' Mod...(However, only install the Invisible Axis mod if you are playing Allied, and vice-versa).

8. Only use Green Troops.
 

Most of these just seem to be handicaps for the sake of handicaps, with no regard to realism.

1. I agree with no turn 1 arty into a setup zone in meeting engagements, but I disagree with no turn 1 arty at all.

2. I've already expressed my opinion on this one, and it is not favorable.

3. WHY?!?!?

4. ?????????? Why would you disallow a perfectly sensible tactic?????? If you find yourself in a situation where manually using vehicle smoke would make sense, then why wouldn't you use it (especially if you play the Soviets in CMCW, in which the vehicle smoke is not intended for quick getaways like NATO vehicle smoke, but to lay down screens to maneuver behind)? Are we going to just start disallowing any tactic that might have a chance of working until we are left with nothing but unsupported frontal assaults?

5. I do this sometimes when reviewing the action just for the spectacle. But it makes no sense to insist on it as a rule for your opponent. How would you even enforce it? It's impossible to know what visual aids your opponent has on or off.

6. Again, I've installed the no tracer mod on all of my CM games just because I think it improves the visual realism. But it makes absolutely no sense to insist on this as a rule. And again, how would you enforce it? It's impossible to know what mods your opponent has installed.

7. You do know that as a Combat Mission player you are in the shoes of every officer and NCO on the battlefield, not just the overall commander, right? The overall commander may not be able to see all of his units. But each of his units can see themselves. In real life if the overall commander forgets that one of his units exists (which seems rather unlikely (the commander may not have up to date info on where his subordinates are or what they are doing, but it seems doubtful that he'll forget that they exist), but that's the possibility you are modeling by turning icons off) and fails to give it any orders, that unit will still by capable of making its own decisions. If you forget that one of your units in Combat Mission exists, it will just sit there doing nothing. Again, I turn off icons sometimes when reviewing the action for the spectacle, but it makes no sense to insist on this as a rule. And again, how could you ever know if your opponent is abiding by this rule?

8. This only matters for quick battles, which I don't play (in scenarios the experience of your troops is whatever the scenario designer decided it should be). But as I understand it part of the game in quick battles is to decide on the tradeoff between troop quality vs troop cost. Why eliminate that element of the game?

Edited March 29 by Centurian52

[PEB14]

My post below refers to WW2 games only (I don't play modern titles).

Well, I understand the interest to add house rules for balance and fair play, but as far as realism is concerned, I really feel most are pointless in a CM game context...

I mean, however realistic CM is, it still lacks some very basic mechanisms or components which would make all those "realistic house rules" necessary or even relevant.

The C2 chain by example : you lack field phones, which remained an important C2 component until the end of the war. Radios are always OK, while they were particularly unreliable (I don't think I've ever read a WW2 book not mentioning radio troubles). And CM misses one of the most important C2 component during WW2: the runner!

Considering all these missing components, why put a house  rule forbidding to area fire on a position where the player knows there is an enemy? In RL, the firing tank or squad would get the information, because some runner from a nearby squad would relay it, especially to a tank! In CM I shall move an entire team to reliably convey the information to a nearby tank, while only ONE runner would do the job. I personally don't and just shoot. Is it THAT unrealistic? I don't think so.

Regarding armor fighting in closed terrain (basically: all CMFI and CMBN scenarios), CM definitively lacks the one-man scout: the tank leader getting out of his tank to scout on the ridge or at the street's edge; the tank leader or foot soldier, hidden 10-50 meters in front of the tank, who directs its fire, hidden behind the crest, on a soft target that the gunner barely sees (or doesn't see).

And so on, so forth.

In conclusion, I generally only one house rule: no artillery fire on round 1, except for the attacker on a set-up position. And I've started to apply another one: surviving AFV crews shall move only towards the closest cover, and thereafter only towards the friendly edge. No more suicide tank scout-crews!

[Artkin]

7 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

Considering all these missing components, why put a house  rule forbidding to area fire on a position where the player knows there is an enemy? In RL, the firing tank or squad would get the information, because some runner from a nearby squad would relay it, especially to a tank! In CM I shall move an entire team to reliably convey the information to a nearby tank, while only ONE runner would do the job. I personally don't and just shoot. Is it THAT unrealistic? I don't think so.

That's not whats being talked about. 

Many players are not comprehending what's being said despite numerous explanations. Maybe they just have limited PBEM experience and are naive. 

If you have an infantry team get into a fight with another infantry team, and you use your tank 1km away to snipe that enemy team the very next turn - this is completely unrealistic and sets CM on a lower bar than armored brigade for realism... which is already a really low bar. 

Or if you use a tank with destroyed optics to area target the enemy's locations. Even if the commander is turned out. 

I'll make it perfectly clear: Just let your troops do the targetting. A hard rule has to be set because people can't control themselves and turn every game into a pride match. 

The inability of CM's infantry to perform suppressing fire is partly because of the veterancy system which is also completely out of proportion with reality. Conscripts and even greens will perform much more realistically and wont disengage the millisecond the enemy dies/disappears from view. 

 

[Centurian52]

5 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I'll make it perfectly clear: Just let your troops do the targetting. A hard rule has to be set because people can't control themselves and turn every game into a pride match. 

You may insist on that rule for your own opponents. I, and I expect many others, will never abide by it. 

[Centurian52]

So I think the obvious conclusion at this point is that the rules are whatever you and your opponent agree to beforehand. I don't think it's possible, or even desirable, to have universal community-wide rules for H2H play.

[PEB14]

22 minutes ago, Artkin said:

If you have an infantry team get into a fight with another infantry team, and you use your tank 1km away to snipe that enemy team the very next turn - this is completely unrealistic and sets CM on a lower bar than armored brigade for realism... which is already a really low bar.

I 100% agree with you there; but that's also where my post is relevant: by forbidding this (compleately unrealistic) behaviour, you also forbid more relevant ones, the kind of which I mentioned in my post.

 

22 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Or if you use a tank with destroyed optics to area target the enemy's locations. Even if the commander is turned out.

That's where I'm starting to lose you. What's "completely destroyed optics", CM wise?

Practically, I'm not able to target vehicles anymore, but area fire should remain possible even without periscopes and lenses... With a loss of precision, of course...

[PEB14]

11 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

So I think the obvious conclusion at this point is that the rules are whatever you and your opponent agree to beforehand. I don't think it's possible, or even desirable, to have universal community-wide rules for H2H play.

And the less home rules, the less risk of cheating - even unwillingly: "oops, I think I think I just broke rule #12.5..."

[Vacillator]

14 hours ago, JoMac said:

.I think @Vacillator was probably referring to me

I was, but I meant no disrespect.  I think your rules have added to the conversation here .

[Thewood1]

One of the reasons I started following CM back in 1999 was I was tired of the rules lawyers in ASL.  This just seems like the same thing, with extra steps.

[Myles Keogh]

What about the people who do really gamey stuff?

There is a video by a once-prominent CMx2 YouTuber in which his opponent used trucks to both scout and be "bait" for the TacAI.  He was placing trucks near his armor in the obvious hope that opposing tanks would choose to fire at the trucks and thus open themselves to a retaliatory fire by his armor.  (It also appears he dismounted the truck drivers in order to keep TacAI from retreating the trucks (i.e. keep them in place as bait.)  Of course, that's allowable by game engine and maybe even "smart" gameplay, but it's a total cheese/gamey tactic.  (Frankly, if an opponent did that in one of my matches, then I'd never play that person again.)

Do people make house rules about the "appropriate" use of trucks/jeeps/damaged vehicles?

[Vacillator]

11 minutes ago, Myles Keogh said:

Do people make house rules about the "appropriate" use of trucks/jeeps/damaged vehicles?

Well, that reminds me of a 3 hour long battle I played recently as PBEM where it turned out my opponent had totally crack Germans (and lots of them) against my totally green GIs.

The endless 'be seen, be shot at, die or run away' got to me eventually and I started playing around with making roadblocks between bocage with trucks (of which I had plenty).  I sort of communicated this to my opponent.  Did it work?  No.  Was it realistic?  Definitely not, but I couldn't exit them in that game so they were destined to burn anyway.

[Centurian52]

This is reminding me of why it took me so long to even give H2H a try. I want a challenge. I want to face an enemy with human-like intelligence and flexibility. I just wish there was a way to get that without having to interact with actual humans (I'm not complaining about any of my current opponents, you have all been great so far). The only really satisfactory solution would be a better AI.