tank buster Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 However I do totally agree with you on the Airborne pluss armored support aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 15, 2001 Author Share Posted June 15, 2001 I was sure hoping this question wouldn't come up. I've been pondering it myself for a week now. The Sturmgruppen squads definitely do not fall under the 3 platoon SMG rule IMO. The reason being they are not cheap. It is my understanding that the developer of the CAL rules (Abbott?) was trying to limit the CHEAP SMG squads like Volksgrenadiers. Using the same reasoning I see no reason why a person couldn't buy as many Gebirgsjaegers as he wants. They are not especially cheap AND that player gives up all armor. In fact, when using Gebirgsjaegers they will have trouble using all their 1,500 points in a combined arms engagement since all those armor points are wasted. Fusilier SMG platoons definitely fall under the CAL restriction. Regular Fusilier platoons do not as they only have one SMG squad per platoon. Panzergrenadier platoons (motorized) do not fall under the restriction because they cost more than a regular platoon for the 50% SMG capabilities. Judge Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Obviouslym the Allied player can choose airborne to bring things a little closer to even, but at the price of having ZERO armored units. Not very sporting, I would say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's worse than that, cos if the Brit Airborne are attacking or in a ME they can't even bring on-table guns - no trucks y'see!! So their AT support = PIATs and off-table artillery - 4.2 max IIRC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Wasn't sure about the cost but this definatly makes sense due to the fact that the allied player should be able to afford substantially more Infantry than an axis player purchasing smg troops. MrSpkr is just mad cause I laid waste to his Allied force utterly and completly with a Battalion of mountain troops and a Sturmgruppe squad. I didn't force him to buy that airplane Also it would be only fair to state that it was a probe battle so I got a few extra points to play around with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tank buster: MrSpkr is just mad cause I laid waste to his Allied force utterly and completly with a Battalion of mountain troops and a Sturmgruppe squad. I didn't force him to buy that airplane Also it would be only fair to state that it was a probe battle so I got a few extra points to play around with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I am not irritated by that at all, TB -- I chalk it up to a learning experience because (a) it wasn't a game in this tourney and ( it wasn't a ladder game. I planned for a map with a few more open spaces - istead, for a map with supposedly "moderate" trees I got the feckin' Mirkwood Forest! Besides, you mixed force types in that engagement anyway, you cheating gamey bastiche! I am just concerned because in some of the matches in this tournament, players only have about 1000 pts - in those low point engagements a few platoons of SMGs can make a heck of a difference. Besides, right now, I am killing more of you than you are of me in our little Tournament soiree'! I don't have a problem with the decision as to Gebirgjägers in any engagement other than one governed by Recon Rules or Infantry only. Same with Sturmkompanies. I still have one question, your honor (that's Treeburst, Tankboy, not you!): What is the ruling on mixing Allied Airborne with any ONE other force type (for the purposes of getting a little armored or vehicular support)? MrSpkr [ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 15, 2001 Author Share Posted June 15, 2001 Hmmm... Gebirgsjaegers and Sturmkompanies under Recon rules. Let me ponder that one in my chambers for an hour or so. I'll get back to you. To the issue of mixing Allied airborne with ONE other force type. I like this idea and think it is an improvement to the CAL rules as they relate to our tourney. My reasoning goes like this. CAL rules limit the German to 3 SMG heavy platoons which I've defined in my previous post. This restriction is not really very restricting in a 1,500 point battle. Also, an Allied airborne platoon is not cheap because of the piats, MGs, and small mortars that come with them. For that reason the following CAL Rules Amendment is now in effect for this tournament. The Allied player may violate the "one force type" CAL rule SOLEY for the purpose of purchasing Allied Airborne Infantry Units. He may purchase a maximum of ONE company of these units. They can be paratroops or glider platoons. No other purchases in the Allied Airborne force types are allowed unless the player chooses to stick with the "one force type" rule. That force, being Airborne of course. Edit: To the question of Gebirgsjaegers and Sturmkompanies in Recon games. Because Gebirgsjaegers are not allowed any vehicles or armor they are fine in a Recon game and can be purchased without restriction. Sturmkompanies are also allowed without restriction in a Recon game because the German player is forced to buy MGs and 81mm mortars. He must also buy an entire Kompanie. He gets short range firepower but he pays for it. Judge Treeburst155 out. [ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Thank you, your honor! A wise and judicious decision! All hail Judge Treeburst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 15, 2001 Author Share Posted June 15, 2001 Bailiff!! Whack his peepee! Judge Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually I am not irritated by that at all, TB -- I chalk it up to a learning experience because (a) it wasn't a game in this tourney and ( it wasn't a ladder game. I planned for a map with a few more open spaces - istead, for a map with supposedly "moderate" trees I got the feckin' Mirkwood Forest! Besides, you mixed force types in that engagement anyway, you cheating gamey bastiche! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Twang! Must of hit a sore nerve there. BTW I am glad to see that I have not violated the new law. And as for you you uncouth briggand, MrSpkr we have just in the last turn or two finally engaged each other, the battle is still young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank buster Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Orriginally by MrSpkr Besides, you mixed force types in that engagement anyway, you cheating gamey bastiche! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um you were the one who picked no restrictions remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedbump Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 A Public Service announcement: From MrSpkr, the voweless one: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am stuck in Internet Purgatory here in rural Oklahoma. My wife assured me that her father was connected to the internet - I'm sorry, but I don't consider a 28.8K dialup a "connection" any more than I consider two cans and a string to be a "telephone." Anyway, it will be impossible for me to send or receive files here due to the enormously slow connection. Additionally, it seems someone from this local ISP has been banned by BTS because when I try to post from this IP server, I get the "your IP address is banned from posting" message. Either tha, or my ultraliberal father- in-law carries on a secret second life as EuroWarrior or EternalJusitce. But I digress. I am in Berli's idea of an Internet connection and I will not be able to return ANY turns until Monday night, when I get back to the civilized world of broadband internet connections. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For those of us with a "normal" dial-up connection: Sucks to be you! Speedbump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StugIII Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Just a thought, Do you guys think, um, that, um, maybe we should have ironed these little rules out BEFORE MY TROOPS LEFT THE SETUP AREA??!! The good thing is I'm not in violation but I certainly could have added a better mix to my ally-side games. I would like to add that most of the games a rolling smoothly. Just a couple of updates from the top of my head: Tank Buster- A grooling knockdown dragout recon rules affair. Before the fighting got heavy there was plenty of conversation, now it's "here file..uhg" Chuckles & MrSpkr: Playing both in HEAVY fog. This works to my advantage because both I'm sure are superior opponents. The fog is negating their better use of terrain. The disadvantage for me is I have no idea where I'm going. I'm pretty sure I will advance right out the back of my set up area. :mad: Tincan: The action is just starting but I think I may have terrain advantage. The rest are just getting going. To all: Good Luck. [ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: StugIII ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 17, 2001 Author Share Posted June 17, 2001 Sorry StugIII, It's hard to foresee what sort of questions may come up. The CAL rules give players lots of choices. This tends to complicate things sometimes. I try to interpret the CAL rules based on the "spirit" of the rules, the reason they were set down in the first place. In a sense we are beta-testing these rules since they are fairly new. We are discovering the little loopholes and plugging them up. I don't think we'll find many more loopholes, if any. Abbott did a great job coming up with this rule set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StugIII Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 No apology needed. You (Treeburst) are doing a great job with this. Now if I'm reading into the CAL rules correctly I think one of them said "StugIII will be spotted 20 pts. by all opponents in tourney games" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 18, 2001 Author Share Posted June 18, 2001 I read that rule too. Let me make another ruling based on that. StuGIII, when playing in tourneys, must always spot his opponents twenty points because of his gamey use of StuGIIIs. Bailiff!! You know what to do. Judge Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StugIII Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 I've really got to stop violating my parole. Also, maybe some other participants could post the progress of their matches. I'm very interested in knowing how the other fronts are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 18, 2001 Author Share Posted June 18, 2001 Yeah, I'd like to hear how these games are going too. It takes time to post however, and people quite often are pressed for time. I'll post any results I get promptly to this thread. You can count on that. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Treeburst155, Did you get the E-mail I sent you? In it I forgot to mention that I was barely functioning through several days of the response period. Kingfish can verify this. Lately he's seen long turn delays and other things highly uncharacteristic of me in PBEM. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 19, 2001 Author Share Posted June 19, 2001 TeAch and BradleyH have completed their secure version of the BadCo Endgame Randomizer. I think the BER adds to the fun and realism of the game, especially QB's. I highly recommend you guys use it in your tourney games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 19, 2001 Share Posted June 19, 2001 I can't post any progress reports here yet - it would spoil too many surprises. Wouldn't want to ruin Christmas, would we? [ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 22, 2001 Author Share Posted June 22, 2001 The first completed game of this tourney has been reported. Fangorn jumps into first place with 75 points, having beaten Tincan 75-21. I believe there are several games at the "BER" stage so more updates are coming soon. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted June 24, 2001 Author Share Posted June 24, 2001 Another game result has come in. Chuckle beat MikeD 94-6. This puts Chuckle in first place. Here's the standings: Chuckle 94 Fangorn 75 Tincan 21 MikeD 6 Don't surrender MikeD! Fight to the bloody end, or try to extract your guys and get 'em off the map. The enemy gets more points for captured troops than dead ones, and no points at all for units that run off the map. You might have picked up 20 points or so. Remember guys, every point counts! I think it's kinda fun to attempt extracting guys from a very bad situation. I find myself doing it often in my games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Mike_D Posted June 24, 2001 Share Posted June 24, 2001 ... [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Mike_D ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckle Posted June 25, 2001 Share Posted June 25, 2001 Ack! What appears to be a genuine misunderstanding turns into my dis-honourable dealings. LOL. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Question: Would a reasonable man except a balanced side of American only against SS(mot) men in a tourney? I don't think so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In any game where i take US Army i am prepared to face anything. No, they are not an equal and opposite force to everything the axis has, they have different strengths and weaknesses - that is why this game is FUN. You didn't actually bring the most balanced force... no arty and weak AT assets... HMC's and Stuarts. Heer Motorised have pretty similar FP ratings to SS Motorised anyway, almost identical over the 40m range and SS are more pricey. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is a person who discussed setups before hand and actually had the longest conversation about how Heer outweighing Americans with SMG etc. only to be turned against SS without understanding why anyone would want to discuss in length about SMG and balance only to change to SS and expect it overlooked. BTW, The SS(mot) had a firepower of 264 if you are interested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, we discussed a point of rules - whether security squads were counted as smg squads... i pointed out that the relative costs/FP of these were very similar to rifle, and stated i didn't think they were 'restricted' by CAL rules, but that i wouldn't be buying them as i didn't rate them... nothing saying i would only take heer. I do not usually discuss the composition of my forces with an opponent. I just agree to buy only one force type, with whatever rulesets we want to use. I believe this is the way a lot of people play CM, in CAL and other matches too, could be i am wrong - but this is my experience. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For the record can all that are playing against me please state if I do not say one side American one side Heer. This is the format I used period in all games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is unfortunate that we misunderstood eachother, you didn't state one side this one side that though, you actually said : <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Either Heer for me or American you may decide I am going to try and do 5 of each side and this is first response. One force of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I misunderstood this, i just thought you were sounding off how you would beat me with any force, i NEVER said i was Heer, ALWAYS Axis (many many times) and you had said "one force", i understood this to mean any single force. My bad for not being more explicit about my understanding of the Single-Force rules... I don't think my having SS affected the game a whole lot. We mainly engaged at longer ranges than 40m, my Heer Motorised would have had a very similar FP ratio to your men as my SS Mot did at this range. And for every other reason... i cannot be bothered to give the AAR in this context, but we both know you were beat. All this after you surrendered instead of processing a BER turn that might have given you a ceasefire !!! It really is a shame it has ended like this... I am an honourable person, and i am pretty annoyed at your suggestion. Lets see what Judge Treeburst has to say... i will abide by his ruling of course. -ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Mike_D Posted June 25, 2001 Share Posted June 25, 2001 ... [ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Mike_D ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts