Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League is up and ready for sign-ups!

[Abbott]

Yobobo@TH has been busy all weekend writing the new CGI scripts for the Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League. It is now up and ready for player sign-up and use!

Sign-ups are located here http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CAL/TNewMembers.shtml both existing members and new members may sign-up.

CAL’s homepage is located here http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CAL

CAL is a new league that is based on Fionn’s Kelly’s excellent Short 75 rules system. Looking forward to some great gaming! See you there!

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[aka_tom_w]

I'm in!

-tom w

[Abbott]

Glad to see you on the player list Tom. As soon as your schedule permits let's setup a CAL PBEM game.

[Abbott]

The updated CAL guidelines (updated from suggestions of the players) can be found from the link on the CAL sign-up page. Here is the link for your convenience

http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CAL/THCAL.shtml

The guidelines are open for discussion and updating as CAL progresses, let’s build the league CAL players want!

[Redwolf]

Here is my suggestion for a new "Volksgrenadier" force that player may treat as a seperate group like airborne is. The purpose is to balance forces with respect to their SMG versus high-end equipment ratio. As stated before, I think this is the better way to good gameplay than to free Allied players to mix airborne and army.

Once one VG infantry unit is selected, the rest of the unit selection should be subject to the following restrictions.

There had been some threads on what Volksgrenadier units are, so I came to the following characteristic for their equipment:

- at least reasonably mobile

- high firewpoer

- protection not a priority

- usually no high-end frontline material

- but easy access to material from within Germany, like heavy Flak

So here is my suggestion for allowed equipment:

- all Flak guns including 88 are allowed, since VG is assumed to have access to batteries in Germany when they need them

- AT guns only up to 75mm, the high-velocity 88 is assumed to be high-end front material

- all other guns allowed

- Flamethrowers only as part of a pioneer platoon

- No SdKfz 234/anything, these are assumed to be available to front-line troops as reconnaissance vehicles only and have no

business to drive around behind the front spotting for troops that will not dash through enemy lines anyway

- All Halftracks including Flak vehicles allowed, truck and Kuebelwagen as well

- All tanks allowed except Tiger and variants, Panther and variants, Panzer IV/70, Flammpanzer 38(t) and Flakpanzer IV (Wirbelwind and Ostwind). Nashorn is allowed.

- Artillery up to 105mm guns, 120mm mortars and all rockets.

Why allow the self-propelled version of the AT 88 L/71 (Nashorn) and not the same gun in towed form? Because IRL the Nashorn can be moved to reinforce a threatend VG unit quickly, the towed gun much less so, especially given the lack of gun tractors. I also think it is good for gameplay, since the complete absense of this gun would mean that the allied player gains enourmous freedom for Churchill tanks and the like once he identifies any VG unit. The small ammo load, good spottability and sensibility against AT rounds of the Nashorn should make it manageable.

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Abbott]

Martin, would you e-mail me please. i have been wanting to discuss this with you and have been unable to find your address.

Abbott@tournamenthouse.com

[Redwolf]

Abbot and me will discuss this in email. I would like people to wait with criticism until my suggestions are polished enough to pass him. Thanks.

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[aka_tom_w]

more about this later

"

British Wasps some players have noticed them being used to set terrain on fire intentionally, as a sort of mobile minefield projector. They could be agreed to be excluded as

any flame projector vehicles could be. It would be much better to just avoid this type of play. "

??????

I don't think that is a gamey tactic or a gamey unit

more later

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

"British Wasps some players have noticed them being used to set terrain on fire intentionally, as a sort of mobile minefield projector. They could be agreed to be excluded as any flame projector vehicles could be. It would be much better to just avoid this type of play."

OK

There is nothing inherently gamey about this unit. It is NOT unrealistically hard to kill like the, VERY powerful German 37 mm AA HT, that is a gamey unit and a special rule should be agreed upon as a 3 or 4 of those things can really unbalance a scenario.

But no the little British wasp, is was designed to be fast and nimble and to set things on fire. and it does that. This is not a gamey unit so much a comment on tactics which are suggested to be "gamey" or ahistorical. I'm not a Proffessional Grog that way some here are, BUT the tactic of set Everything and anything on fire with a few wasps has a "real " name I think and it goes somthing like "opportunity denial to the enemy"

I thought the CAL was about dealing with power gamers and cherry picking, the British wasp is not an uberweapon, not like the German 37 mm AA HTs anyway, NO the Wasp is very easy to kill, I know I have used them recently, and suceptible to all kinds of weapons.

I am confused about this because I did not think it was in the spirit of CAL to ban certian supposedly objectional TACTICS,but instead to ban cherry picking and the play of power gamers who optimized the unit selection phase to take advantage of the game where possible, the use of the Britsh wasp does not really do that.

Sorry for the rant....

you comments?

-tom w

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But no the little British wasp, was designed to be fast and nimble and to set things on fire. and it does that. This is not a gamey unit so much a comment on tactics which are suggested to be "gamey" or ahistorical. I'm not a Proffessional Grog that way some here are, BUT the tactic of set Everything and anything on fire with a few wasps has a "real " name I think and it goes somthing like "opportunity denial to the enemy"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless I am quite mistaken, the real wasps did not have the capability to flood entire 20x20m squares with petrol, enough to make such areas permanently uninhabitable. The real units were to be used for reducing strongpoints -- inhabited ones. Indeed, given that there was no such thing as little flags stuck in the earth to tell the leaders what to fight over, the very idea that an area of 75m around a point could be as important as it is in CM, would almost never occur to a commander in WWII. If it had, and if they could guarantee that fires would burn indefinitely, they might well have set fires to try to prevent enemy access to those points. However, in the real world fires burn out, there are no time limits, and 75m circles are rarely of high importance.

Using flamethrowers for area denial is gamey. It is not a particularly strong nor egregious exploit, but that does not mean we have to accept it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I am confused about this because I did not think it was in the spirit of CAL to ban certian supposedly objectional TACTICS, but instead to ban cherry picking and the play of power gamers who optimized the unit selection phase to take advantage of the game where possible, the use of the Britsh wasp does not really do that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cherry picking and tactics are interlocked. You need to know the tactic for the unit to be a cherry. With some units, it is fairly obvious how to use them to get advantage. I.e. our favorite German tank, the PzIV/70. Use: keep front armor pointed at enemy, fire gun at enemy. Other units are a bit harder to use optimally, like say VGs, but it is still pretty easy. Wasps are down at the low end of the cherry spectrum. I really doubt people would buy them much if they could not fire up areas.

That said, it is not, and should not be the place of CAL to ban tactics. The idea is to ban certain actions on the setup screens, then let the players do whatever they can in the game itself. That's why I think the wasp, SD7/2s, and VGs should simply be banned.

In any case, after the league gets some games played, I think it will become clearer whether or not various units (and the tactics to go with them) are gamey, overused, bad for the league, etc. And then we can adjust the rules.

[Wreck]

Hey yo: it would be really helpful if the CAL rules were prominently linked off of the CAL page. People are going to want to refer to them.

[aka_tom_w]

"that said, it is not, and should not be the place of CAL to ban tactics. The idea is to ban certain actions on the setup screens, then let the players do whatever they can in the game itself. That's why I think the wasp, SD7/2s, and VGs should simply be banned. "

OK I agree completely with this..

I'm perfectly happy playing either the Allies or the Germans if you ban all these units, I think it is unfortunate that the British wasp is percieved in the same league of gameyness as the VG SMG units and the SD7/2 AA Ht, but I guess thats ok.

So lets move on....

Wreck? Are you signed up for the CAL?

Ah! I see that you are

We must play sometime !

-tom w

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[yobobo@TH]

Done

[Abbott]

Custom maps for CAL QB play.

I have been designing several maps for a campaign game that is going to launch in the near future. I have several 1200X1200 blank maps available. I would be pleased to offer these maps if any CAL players would be interested in using them to add a change from the Vanilla QB maps.

If you are interested both players can e-mail me with game parameters and force selection or points to be spent. I would then purchase and place the forces for both players and return the file as a “T” save.

[Redwolf]

Regarding Wasp:

The problem with banning it is that it is the only non-tank Allied flamethrower. If you forbit it, the Axis player has an advantage due to the 251/16. The German player also has lots of other anti-foxhole toys like infantry guns.

If you say "one force only", the only other flamethrower vehicle for the British player is the Churchill Crocodile, which is so expensive that it annoys the British player and so powerful that it annoys the German player.

I think it will be up to a player pair. If the German player wants the Wasp to be banned or not used for buring in advance, just tell the opponent so. You could also agree on a price raise.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"that said, it is not, and should not be the place of CAL to ban tactics. The idea is to ban certain actions on the setup screens, then let the players do whatever they can in the game itself. That's why I think the wasp, SD7/2s, and VGs should simply be banned. "

OK I agree completely with this..

I'm perfectly happy playing either the Allies or the Germans if you ban all these units, I think it is unfortunate that the British wasp is percieved in the same league of gameyness as the VG SMG units and the SD7/2 AA Ht, but I guess thats ok.

So lets move on....

Wreck? Are you signed up for the CAL?

Ah! I see that you are

We must play sometime !

-tom w

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all for fair forces and all but christ, it seems like half the units in CM are "off the list" for CAL due to their gameyness. Is this really necessary? I am especially not happy about the proposal of getting rid of the Wasp. After all, there are only so many flame tanks out there. This leaves only the Badger for the Allies (in it's price range) which begs the question, "Why is the Badger okay for the CAL league while the Wasp isn't?"

I fear that so many units are going to be banned for one reason or another that we'll only be using a few selected units to play our CAL games with, thus eliminating all the different levels of strategy that are possible in CM. It will be like playing chess and only being able to use pawns.

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[QB

OK

There is nothing inherently gamey about this unit. It is NOT unrealistically hard to kill like the, VERY powerful German 37 mm AA HT...[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, are you talking about the Ostwind here or something else?

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Tom, are you talking about the Ostwind here or something else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SdKfz 7/2. The problem is that the unarmoured vehicles is currently (much) harder to kill than the armoured one. See the thread I recently started on the topic.

It is not that bad, however, I just killed one yesterday.

As far as I am concerned, we shouldn't forbit any unit, but restrict excessive combinations like SMG squads with heavy tanks, like I proposed with the virtual Volksgrenadier force.

Or to put it the other way round, I can think of so many single units that will be overly effective when studied intensivly that we will have a hard time keeping up.

Let player pairs agree at the start of single games. Have a standard email blurb that you send to every new opponent with what you won't like to see in a games.

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I'm all for fair forces and all but christ, it seems like half the units in CM are "off the list" for CAL due to their gameyness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Half? We are talking about:

Sd7/2 (1 unit)

Wasp (1 unit)

VGs (~3-4 units, don't recall exactly)

If you also throw in the short-75 rules, then yes it is a lot of units. However short-75 is optional in CAL. You can always play the Heavy Armor rules which are hardly limiting at all.

BTW the Sd7/2 is the unarmored flak truck with 37mm cannon. Not the Ostwind. It is gamey because it turns out to be impossible to shoot at soft vehicles, per se. Rather you shoot at their area. This gives them much better survivability than the equivalent armored 37mm flak halftracks, which cost more.

[aka_tom_w]

Wreck Says:

"Unless I am quite mistaken, the real wasps did not have the capability to flood entire 20x20m squares with petrol, enough to make such areas permanently uninhabitable. Indeed, given that there was no such thing as little flags stuck in the earth to tell the leaders what to fight over, the very idea that an area of 75m around a point could be as important as it is in CM, would almost never occur to a commander in WWII. If it had, and if they could guarantee that fires would burn indefinitely, they might well have set fires to try to prevent enemy access to those points."

OK I see the point here, BUT ANY flame thrower unit not just the WASP can set the WHOLE area on fire around a VL Flag. This in NOT just an issue for the Wasp but is in fact a clearly gamey tactic.

Just to recap the gamey tactic is to set a HUGE area perimeter around the flag on fire so that the enemy cannot get to it, I have never seen this done but it sounds like a great idea. The Fire never goes out and burns till the end of the game and nothing can pass through it, so it is the ideal defense.

The issue here is that the Wasp is not the only offending unit that can do this.

so we now have the next gameing tactic... "The Burning Ring of Fire" around VL's, very creative.

How shall we deal with that one?

Just say no flame throwers at all in CAL?

Thats a tough call!

-tom w

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Abbott]

Let's not jump the gun. Here is the listing as it now stands in CAL under the listing of

Optional/Suggestions

British Wasps some players have noticed them being used to set terrain on fire intentionally, as a sort of mobile minefield projector. They could be agreed to be excluded as any flame projector vehicles could be. It would be much better to just avoid this type of play.

--------------

There is no ban. CAL's purpose is to offer a change from the "Anything Goes" play style that has emerged. Players using the CAL guidelines should keep this ideal in mind while playing. There are plenty of other Ladders and sites available that cater to other play styles.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck:

Half? We are talking about:

Sd7/2 (1 unit)

Wasp (1 unit)

VGs (~3-4 units, don't recall exactly)

If you also throw in the short-75 rules, then yes it is a lot of units. However short-75 is optional in CAL. You can always play the Heavy Armor rules which are hardly limiting at all.

Ya, true. I WAS looking at the Short-75 rules right after reading that which started to freak me out. I still think that getting rid of units is not the answer though. Restricting a player from purchasing these units in mass qualities would be a better solution. That way, we can still use most of the units but the gaminess factor is reduced considerably.

[Abbott]

I still think that getting rid of units is not the answer though. Restricting a player from purchasing these units in mass qualities would be a better solution. That way, we can still use most of the units but the gaminess factor is reduced considerably.-Col_Deadmarsh

--------------

I agree. Getting rid of units is limiting. alternatives/limitations would be much preferred. If any suggestions are thought of let them be heard so we may come up with a simple/solid ruling for the League.

As of now the SDKFZ 7 I refrain from purchasing and ask others I play to do the same. It does seem to be bugged.

[Redwolf]

People, I don't think that TH:CAL can be about banning specific single units for gamey tactics. That is a can of worms that 20 or more players cannot agree on.

It is up to a player pair to say whether they want to trade exclusion of specific units and/or whether they want to ban certain tactics.

It is an entirely different issue to limit all units like in the Fionn rules or to shape the forces so that all forces are more equal from start (like making VG their own force with tank limits or extent Gebirgsjaeger to have *some* vehicles).

For the SdKfz 7/2 see the thread I recently started, it answers all the questions. And yes, you can kill it, just don't approach it like you would approach a tank.