Bruceov Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Recently I played with an opponent with 2 57mm antitank guns and 4 M 10s. I did not let my antitank guns open fire until they could both fire at a jadgpanther. They held their fire 3 turns rather then shoot at light armor. He asked me whether I towed the guns into position first. Having to to a gun means they will be spotted. Can you place guns at the first turn in a me. Often it is the only chance to disable a big cat 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 You can certainly place an AT gun during setup. Just select the gun and click 'place' it will be disembarked and placed. You can only do this within your setup zone, however, so I'm not sure how much use it'd be in an ME. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 A good idea when setting up an AT gun during the battle (disembarking) is to have some 60mm mortars with some smoke available if necessary. The TacAI tends to "forget" targets over time ... I usually use AT guns and AA guns in AT role as flank protection and let M10s or M18s do the job ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 You can ofcos place them during setup, however, everyone can have house rules. Me for example insist that if I play ME the guns starts towed. This is told before the battle and I expcet my opponents honour all agreed upon rules. This is sadly not the case sometimes. And, on a another note, I grow damn tired of bad losers quitting games on me!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruceov Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 There were no house rules in this game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: You can ofcos place them during setup, however, everyone can have house rules. Me for example insist that if I play ME the guns starts towed.Why do you use such a rule? :confused: Just curious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Probably because ME stands for 'Meeting Engagement' and not 'Many Emplaced (defensive units)'. If ya wanna play a defensive game with emplaced units don't pick ME! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................................... Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Hehe, I love bringing small-to-medium towed guns into an ME. Pushing them through woods isn't usually a problem, and they often cause all kind of problems out of proportion to what a jeep/carrier and the gun combined cost. Like others say though, they have to be towed at the start, it's only fair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Interesting discussion of house rules. I would not have ever thought of using a "fairness doctrine" to request my opponent keep towed items limbered for a ME. Do the practitioners of this type of house rule also require all infantry to be on riders or passengers of all possible conveyences (to the maximum extent possible)? Do all vehicles have to be in a column formation, un-buttoned, on a road? I'm curious... not trolling. It brings to focus the pre-conceived notions inherent to the term "Meeting Engagement". Does it represent two forces being mutually surprised? Or, have the tactical commanders been informed through their screening/recon elements that there's an enemy ahead? In that case, deployments would be fine. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Usually the additional rules you suggest are not required. The limbered gun rule prevents Turn 1 use which, depending on the terrain, some would consider gamey. It also effectively increases the cost of towed guns (they now require transport as well). This reduces the chance of players effectively creating a defensive front in a ME which could unbalance things. Personally, I don't require such things as I feel it all balances out in the end. I usually buy some transport for guns voluntarily as without it, the randomness of terrain makes their use a crap shoot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
With Clusters Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 In my first ME game ever (against a buddy who'd been playing CM since CMBO - way to learn the hard way!), I bought two guns, and 'oops!', I forgot to get any transport. I had loads of fun watching my force get decimated, while the guns ever so slowly trundled toward the action. I never made that mistake again... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 I usually buy transports for my guns (and I like to have guns in all types of missions, whether I'm attacking or defending) because it's wise, but often only one jeep/truck for two guns. One gun will provide cover for the other while it is taken forward, then the truck moves back to pick the other. I don't see anything bad about deploying guns in the start up, I guess if one wants to see an initial 'rush' it's okay but I believe in a less hurried tempo. Knowing that there might be guns on that hill is a great way to enforce better use of cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flenser Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Indeed, I've never understood the "guns must be towed rule". People usually say something about it not being "realistic". Nevermind the fact that meeting engagements like the kind depicted in a QB almost never happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
................................... Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Well for us Ken, in ME's in addition to the towed gun house rule, we also ban artillery On map stuff is fine, but no off map bombardments. Just our preference, not a right or wrong way of doing it. We rationalise that the situation is fluid and it is not immediately available, plus we generally think that pasting someone with a big artillery stonk is a cheesey way to try to win a game anyway. I guess we are on the 'suprise encounter' side of your argument, forces exploiting into new territory bumping into fresh units on the way up perhaps. However I'm sure there are many other explanations available for however people choose to play. We have no 'house rules' for any other kind of scenario, anything goes. But we do ban 'uber' tanks at times, specifically Matildas in'41 or before, and Tigers mid '44 or before. Not that they didn't fight of course, just for us that we've realised there isn't as much fun in winning or losing with them involved. Because we force the Commonwealth player to use cruiser tanks in the early war, we ban those ludicrously cheap Italian 20mm guns and ATRs, which for 15 points can knock out a full size cruiser frontally, and at long range, in CMAK. So two rules for ME's, and three based on time periods played. All arrived at after hours of fun TCP experience purely to give us a better game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beady Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Originally posted by Flenser: Indeed, I've never understood the "guns must be towed rule". People usually say something about it not being "realistic". Nevermind the fact that meeting engagements like the kind depicted in a QB almost never happened. Well, in *the* classic meeting engagement, Gettysburg, no one was surprised, and everyone, for the most part, knew where everyone else was (except Lee didn't know where Stuart was, but that's another matter). Meeting Engagement doesn't necessarilly mean that someone is surprised, it just means that everyone is arriving on the field at the same time. As far as the limbered/unlimbered question, who's to say that the guns weren't unlimbered the turn before the game started? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrich0000 Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 I'm new to this game, but an ex-Armor Officer. I have to say 'guns must be towed' is in itself gamey as far as I am concerned. Tactical use of AT/towed arty guns on the offense would be to cover advancing forces; that is at the essence of what one uses an AT/towed arty gun FOR. That's doctrine. Catch me moving forward without covering fire? Not likely! Also, a ME does NOT mean that the two forces do not know there is an enemy approaching, not if the commander and higher headquarters are doing their jobs. An ME takes place where forces know enemy is in the vicinity but have not localized them, and there is an objective to be seized. Otherwise, proper tactics would be to halt and form a Hasty Defence and send out patrols/scouts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 The beauty of a house rule is, if you dont like it, dont play with it. If some one doesnt like my house rule, hey, np, but I wont play ya. If you do agree to play me with my house rules, I do expect you to follow the ageed upon rules. As for the reason for "towed at start", I say its "semi-realistic" in an unrealistic situation In QBs the terrain can be very favourable or unfavourable, you do not know. But if the start up pos has excellent vantage points to the enemy and his lines of advances, lining up cheap ATGs (cos they dont require transport) covering large portions of the map... well, not my vup of tea. And, you can deploy immobile guns which otherwise you couldnt have even brought to the game. For instance, in the early yrs the sovs can buy their dirt cheap 45mm ATGs and 76mm guns in large numbers, and all the axis AFVs are vurnable. Not to mention the HTs! If you think that stimulates a fun game, good on ya, I dont. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I've been aware of that rule/idea since CMBO but have not ever been asked to use it. I guess because I have a rather narrow list of opponents. But I do agree it has its merits. J Kruger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrich0000 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: The beauty of a house rule is, if you dont like it, dont play with it. If some one doesnt like my house rule, hey, np, but I wont play ya. If you do agree to play me with my house rules, I do expect you to follow the ageed upon rules. As for the reason for "towed at start", I say its "semi-realistic" in an unrealistic situation In QBs the terrain can be very favourable or unfavourable, you do not know. But if the start up pos has excellent vantage points to the enemy and his lines of advances, lining up cheap ATGs (cos they dont require transport) covering large portions of the map... well, not my vup of tea. And, you can deploy immobile guns which otherwise you couldnt have even brought to the game. For instance, in the early yrs the sovs can buy their dirt cheap 45mm ATGs and 76mm guns in large numbers, and all the axis AFVs are vurnable. Not to mention the HTs! If you think that stimulates a fun game, good on ya, I dont. You have a point there. But the whole idea of the game is to have fun. If I ran into the kind of situation you describe above, I would resign, let my opponent know exactly why I did resign, and not play him or her again. On the other hand, I would also object to your house rules for much the same reasons. Blanket rules like that take some of the fun out of the game for me; it seems like you, my opponent, is dictating my choices for me. I would much rather my oponent explain up front what you did in your post. Then we could mutually decide on guidelines. After all, the game is in some ways secondary to the interaction between the players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by jrrich0000: Also, a ME does NOT mean that the two forces do not know there is an enemy approaching, not if the commander and higher headquarters are doing their jobs. An ME takes place where forces know enemy is in the vicinity but have not localized them, and there is an objective to be seized. Otherwise, proper tactics would be to halt and form a Hasty Defence and send out patrols/scouts. I agree with that, that's how I seee the tactical situation presented in a meeting engagement. But then, since I pretty much only play scenarios, the problems of picking certain rules for a balanced, fair fight are way beyond me anyway... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Originally posted by jrrich0000: Blanket rules like that take some of the fun out of the game for me; it seems like you, my opponent, is dictating my choices for me. I would much rather my oponent explain up front what you did in your post. Then we could mutually decide on guidelines. At the end of the day we play for different reasons, but having fun is pretty darn important. Facing PaK fronts on turn 1 make the game LESS fun for me, so I have the towing as a house rule. If my opponent does not agree upon that, fine, no problem, we can play some one else. That way, we *both* can have fun. I like to set up house rules, because within those, the player can do whatever he chooses. As another poster said, if he had run into a large PaK front he would resign the game because, I guess, he feels it is somehow gamey. If we agree on house rules first, we wont have those problems. If my opponent still wants to buy loads of ATGs, fine, but I know he has to buy the transport, I know he has to transport them. Anyhow, its a double edged sword, the same holds true for me also ofcos, its not like "no Tigers in 43" if I play Allies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.