Balanced Quick Battle Rules

[BlackVoid]

Balanced quick battle rules

Beta version

These rules were inspired by Fionn’s rules, but they are NOT a copy of them. It is based on the experience I had in more than 50 games playing against human opponents. The goal of this ruleset is to provide a balanced game for both sides in quick battles fought with 1500 pts or less, while keeping the rules easy to use and remember.

All rules and rulesets can be changed if both players agree to it.

Why the need for special rules?

First of all, in the smaller battles both players can only buy a very limited number of tanks. In these battles luck can be a decisive factor. Let’s say you are defending as allies and you bought one 17pdr AT gun to take out the expected german heavy. Unfortunatley the german player’s arty takes out your gun in th 4th turn, then his King Tiger appears. He is clever enough to keep it protected by infantry at all times and the KT is able to dominate the battle.

This situation happens all too often in small battles. By limiting the armor purchase to lesser tanks the game becomes more balanced for BOTH sides. Let tactics decide the battle instead of luck. Let’s replace the KT in the previous example with a regular Panzer IV. With clever tactics the allied player can get rid of it by using smaller At guns, Shemans or even armored cars.

Differences to Fionn’s rules

I really like Fionn’s short 75 mm rules, they make for a good and balanced battle. The Panther-76 rule however is flawed, there are two points where I have to strongly disagree with them. First is the Churchill, which has no place in the ruleset as it can be taken out only by a very limited number of expensive german equipment. The second is the Tiger which is excluded on the basis of it’s gun. I’m puzzled, because the Tiger’s gun and front armor is actually weaker than the Panther’s.

The greatest difference is that these rules are based on much simpler criteria (with the exception of the advances Sherman – Panzer IV rule). This makes the use of the rules easier, as the player can decide without difficulty whether a piece of equipment is allowed or not, he does not have to keep a list of the rules nearby.

General rules

These rules should be valid in all situations regardless of the ruleset choosen.

1. Map veto

Each player has a choice to reject the generated map. If someone insists to play on a map that favours him, simply do not play that person. After 2 tries if the map is still not good, different terrain should be chosen.

2. If the players met on a forum or chat on a ladder website, the game is automatically a ladder game unless agreed otherwise by both.

3. Time limit is disabled for setup.

The rulesets

These allow balanced games, the rules are intentionally kept very simple.

Sherman – Panzer IV rule

This is very simple. Under these rules only Panzer IV and normal Sherman tanks are allowed as armor. Shermans that have more than 90 mm armor or bigger than 75 mm gun, are not allowed.

Advanced Sherman – Panzer IV rule

This rule gives more choice than the Sherman – Panzer IV rule, but it is also more complicated.

Excluded stuff:

Vehicles that have greater than 90 mm armor, except open top vehicles

Vehicles that have greater than 30 degrees armor slope

Vehicles that have greater than 75mm guns, except infantry support vehicles which only have a few hollow charge rounds (Sherman 105, Wespe, Hummel, etc…)

Excluded heavies rule

This rule excludes only a few heavies for more balanced play. All vehicles that have more than 140mm armor are excluded.

Excluded armor:

Sherman Jumbo

Churchill VII-VIII

King Tiger

Jagdpanther

Jagdtiger

This rule is my personal favourite as it allows for a wide-range of selection and it is also very simple.

Recon rule

This game should be played as a mechanized infantry game.

Excluded stuff:

AA guns and vehicles

75mm or larger vehicle mounted guns

Larger than 100mm arty

Infantry rule

This game should be played as a mechanized infantry game. It makes for a fun halftrack battle.

Excluded:

AA guns and vehicles

All armored cars

German 20mm halftrack, german assault HT

Larger than 100mm arty

Comments welcome.

I am working on putting these rules on a website, especially if they are well received here.

[Vanir]

Too many rules to keep track of. Fionn has some recon rules posted at the Rugged Defense site. I can't remember if they're the same as yours.

I agree the 76 rule is flawed, but in a different way than you. I actually feel it favors the Germans. The problem is the Panther. It is way better than anything the Allies can get under the rules as written. When I play with the 76 rule I like the following modifications:

No Panthers

Tiger I is allowed

Nashorn is allowed

I also recommend playing with random weather, which will limit Churchhills, if they bother you. If the weather is nice, the Nashhorn can deal with them.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Guest Napoleon1944]

I think adding another 20-30% on to the Germans might make it a little better for competitive play.

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[Guest Space Thing]

Nice effort. I certainly cannot disagree with creativity when it comes with a sincere desire to be constructive.

A listing of the different AFVs (just like Fionn's) would be easier to follow. I really don't have the time to look up the exact armor thicknesses or the different angle slopes of all the AFVs and make my own list.

Also, a different web-site may be a better place to list all the AFVs than here on the discussion boards (due to the obvious size requirements). Maybe COMBAT MISSIONS or CMHQ would host it. Good luck.

[photon]

First of all, in the smaller battles both players can only buy a very limited number of tanks. In these battles luck can be a decisive factor. Let’s say you are defending as allies and you bought one 17pdr AT gun to take out the expected german heavy. Unfortunatley the german player’s arty takes out your gun in th 4th turn, then his King Tiger appears. He is clever enough to keep it protected by infantry at all times and the KT is able to dominate the battle.

I guess there are two differnt mindsets among CM players these days. I would see a battle result of what you describe as good tactics by your opponent. He identified your primary anti-tank asset before exposing his armor and removed it. Then he employed his armor in a decisive way from a protected situation. That isn't luck - it's skill. Now, it he hit your AT gun with a random barrage without spotting it, well, that is luck and you just have to deal with it and fight on! (at least IMO)

It seems to me that even if you only have Shermans and Panzer IVs (A Panzer IV is pretty much as hard to kill as a KT with infantry and schrecks) running around unopposed they will wail on you. The solution isn't to restrict what tanks are available, the solution is to learn how to maul tanks without a heavy hitter. I once took out both Stugs and the Tiger in Last Defense with *only* riflemen. It can be done, and the challenge is what makes the game fun.

If you want to play a game where you get all the heavy armor you want and I get only infantry I'd love it. I'll even give you a +50% modifier. It's all about challenge and learning from others tactics!

- Photon

[tailz]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Why the need for special rules?

First of all, in the smaller battles both players can only buy a very limited number of tanks. In these battles luck can be a decisive factor.

To sum up, if you have an agreeable opponent, you don't need a bunch of house rules. In over six months of QB/ME's, averaging 1000 points or less, I have encountered one Tiger tank (yeah you Commisar!). If it is that widespread an issue, you're playing with/against the wrong people. A brief exchange of email and all the parameters are agreed on, with no need for addenda. Heck, I've only used Fionn's rules once (and that was kind of superfluous because my opponent and I were in rather the same mindset re:historicity, anyway.)

I'll take this opportunity to plug www.thegrognards.com because I have yet to find a bad/disagreeable/cheating opponent on their ladder, and from what I see here, good players must be in short supply.

Don't get me wrong... good luck in your endeavour.

hmmph... shoulda used the spell check

[This message has been edited by tailz (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Isn't it a bit unfair to ban AA guns while not banning aliied aircraft. I have been suprised by unopposed CAS and it is no joke.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[BlackVoid]

Thanks for the grognard link. I'll try it out.

I planned to include a detailed vehicle listing with the final version.

I only posted these rules here for comments and opinions.

I may be playing the wrong people, but I prefer ladder games as it adds a lot of tension.

Good point on the 76 rules, although I think that the Panther is really way too expensive in smaller battles. And I don't think a Panther can survive a flank attack by Hellcats, so there is a great counter tactics in the hand of the allied player.

I banned AA guns, because they are lethal against light armor. I see now that aircraft also should be banned in these types of games.

I was also thinking about banning aircraft all together as it is a luck affair too.

What do you think about heavy arty?

[BlackVoid]

One more thing: it's one thing to take out the slow turreted Tiger or the turretless Stug with infantry. Taking out a fast turreted Churchill is an entirely different matter. I tried it once and I lost a whole platoon. And the Churchill was only protected by a lone machinegun!

[Guest wwb_99]

Personally, I fall in with the inherint unfairness of war side. If I wanted something playbalanced perfectly, I would play Clone & Conquor.

But wargames allow one to work with what was avaliable, both the good and the bad. Allied armor getting reamed? Deal with it. Axis infantry raped by VT arty? Deal with it.

In the KT situation you refered to, you must force your opponent to come within arm's reach. I am horrible with armor, usually losing all mine rapidly. But my infantry holds on well. If you have the objective, then he has to clear out your riflemen. Make the opponent pay for this. While I might not get major victories, I seldom get much less than a draw.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Leonidas]

I wonder how difficult it would be for BTS to make an open architecture quick battle generator, so that someone like BlackVoid could write a set of specific battle generation rules along the lines of these rules. Let the computer figure out these rules instead of the players.

A big weakness of generated battles is that each side has to know what the parameters are before they agree to the battle. Consequently, each side can slant its purchasing toward the expected battle. Example: If you know you're attacking an entrenched infantry position, forget the tank killers and buy extra self-propelled artillery.

An automatic generator would be particularly fun because - if the underlying rules are well written - it would guarantee a good battle without each side knowing exactly what the parameters are. Depending on the underlying rules, maybe each side receives only a vague intelligence briefing, kinda like the first time you play a scenario. As it is, the only way to get this kind of satisfying quick battle is to have a trusted third party who will set everything up ahead of time.

[Atlas]

Bump

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

1) Let’s say you are defending as allies and you bought one 17pdr AT gun to take out the expected german heavy. ..., then his King Tiger appears. ...

2) ... the Churchill, which has no place in the ruleset as it can be taken out only by a very limited number of expensive german equipment.

1) Suppose instead that the Germans appear with a couple of lighter tanks or assault guns, then it would have been better to have a couple of 6pdrs instead of one 17pdr...

2) Expensive equipment like the Panzerschreck, you mean? I recently lost a couple of Churchill VIII to frontal hits from 'Schrecks...

Panzerfaust will probably do almost as well.

Cheers

Olle

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

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

1) Suppose instead that the Germans appear with a couple of lighter tanks or assault guns, then it would have been better to have a couple of 6pdrs instead of one 17pdr...

2) Expensive equipment like the Panzerschreck, you mean? I recently lost a couple of Churchill VIII to frontal hits from 'Schrecks...

Panzerfaust will probably do almost as well.

Cheers

Olle

Being paranoid of the Church is similar to being paranoid about the Greyhound or for that matter thinking that the Germans will need 20-30% more points for a fair fight -- it is based on the concept that these units unbalance the game by being too good so much they give the Germans no chance to win.

Facts are, Fionn's rule of 75 and rule of 76 were not designed to balance the game at all. The game is already balanced. They were designed at a time when many ladder players, me included, saw a trend toward repitition in games, with some diehard axis players choosing only the Axis heavies, and the Allied player switching more and more to relying on a few tanks that could fight them (the Churchill not being one of them). The rule of 75 and the rule of 76 in fact was more aimed at bringing variety back to the game to avoid King Tiger versus Pershing madness that gripped players.

The best way to eliminate the issue to to play a QB with random forces. No fuss, no muss, no bother, and both sides likely to get screwed by force set up in new and unusual ways. Fionn's rules keep the battles from being slug fests of the heavies, but they are a might complex.

Another interesting factor in all this is how the concept of uber unit changes over time. The true uber units are very rare, maybe the King Tiger and the Jagdtiger when enployed correctly are the best example of an uber unit because you had better be on your game. In larger setup with some room to move the Hellcat is an uber unit.

But like fashions in hats, uber unit fashions change for no reason, mostly by naming an OK allied unit of armour as an uber unit. For a while, some players thought the M8 Greyhound was the best unit in the game for the least money (the Puma is better for the same cash) and people would quake in fear of it when a simple Lynx was often its undoing. The Firefly got the ubertag for a while, the Jumbo was rumored to be able to kill 24 King Tigers in a single turn, and the Pershing was seen running circles around a pile of dead Jagdtigers while 40 chrecks bounced rockets off its hull. Each claim of uberness was of course uber hogwash. The feelings about the Churchill just add to the trend.

Olle points out one reason why. In fact, the allies do not have a tank as well balanced as the Panther, or a cheap for its capability as the Stug, both of which show up in random battles below 2000 points a lot more often than a Church. So if you are all that worried, request random force assignment, which is more fun anyway.

[Ksak]

Why not just do the best with ya' got and have fun with it?