Fionn's short-75 rule Question

[Shapeshifter]

Greetings

I have one question about the

short-75 rule allow up to and including 105mm calibre artillery from Fionn.

Let's say I would play under this rule in an PBEM game and I would use the British forces when I look in the included list under short 75 rule for the British then I can see that the Churchill AVRE is in the allowed section included so this is meaning I can purchase it in my game without violating the rule right ?

But the Churchill AVRE has a gun 290/48 is that not too big because of to heavy calibre?

I thank for any tip

[ June 18, 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Shapeshifter ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Shapeshifter,

Yes you are correct. 75 does not really refer to the caliber allowed. Notable exceptions include: British Cromwell VI with 95mm gun. StuH with 105mm gun, Wepse 105mm, Hummel 150mm, etc.

Mainly it has to do with what can or can't penetrate certain armor. The AVRE has a huge "gun" but in most cases is unsuited for anti-armor wrok because it "tosses" the explosive at the target at a low muzzle velocity.

Also bear in mind that the short 75 armor rules take into account only armor versus armor balance and does not account for other unbalancing effects such as ammo load or effectiveness versus infantry or buildings.

Hope this answers your question. As an aside, it is interesting to me to do a variation on these rules which realy is 75mm tanks only. Reason being it eliminates AFVs that can really deal damage to buildings and infantry in droves.

Of course, 2 players can agree on almost any set of rules.

Cheers,

Sarge

[ June 18, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

The new "Balanced Force Rules" do take into account infantry damage potential etc.

Basically though Saunders is correct re: why certain large bore guns are allowed.

[Shapeshifter]

I thank for your reply's Sarge Saunders and Fionn.

I was asking my question because I was afraid

to make maybe an violation of the short 75 rule

when I would buy the AVRE tank because of Avre's heavy calibre size.

But now that I know that the Avre can not very good fight against other Armor it is clear to me why he is included in the short 75 rule.

Yesterday night I maked an very interesting experiment.

I set two AVRE side by side and comand tham to fire against each other in the side of the tanks.

The result after each tank fired 5 shot's against each other was ZERO ! and after some more 5 shot's from each tank the one Avre had an not funktion main gun that was all, so I think this tank is maybe very great for smashing or supressing infantry but not against other Tank's.

Shurly this because the low muzzle velocity as Sarge Saunder's had explaned in his post.

Strange is only why this tank is called

Assault Tank.

Maybe a better name would be heavy support Tank or artillery Tank because of his heavy calibre but this is an other matter never mind.

I just thank again for the help

[Sarge Saunders]

Yes, As has been posted before: The AVRE is actually designed for busting bunkers. The max range is something like 500 meters or so. I was given one in a scenario once. It was quite fun to use but it actually did not do very well at killing infantry either. This is because it is a shaped charge and not a big booming explosive pouch such as engineers carry.

If you want a nice big gun as British to carry on a short 75 QB then pick a Cromwell VIII which carries a 95mm gun and usually a few shaped charges for anti-tank. However, since there are no Panthers and such you should use it primarily against infantry.

I also noted with pleasure that Fionn has included the 88mm Sexton self-propelled artillery in short 75 under the "newest" version of his rules. A good choice for HE work also. The Sexton was sorely missed by me under the old short 75 rules.

-Sarge

[Shapeshifter]

Hi Sarge

I thank for your suggestion about the Cromwell VIII.When I get the change I will put him in good use.

Also it is very good that the Sexton now is included,this is a very fine artillery pice,with it I have maked mostly good experience in the past.

Just today I have seen the new rules from Fionn in them is the example about why the AVRE is included very good explaned.

However I thank for your interest and your very interesting postings.

[Fionn]

Sarge, Shapey...

If you guys have ANY questions re: the rules just post here and I'll answer them. I'm more than happy to answer honest questions and, frankly, you couldn't ask anyone better

FWIW the Churchill AVRE is a waste of points. No, if you want to REALLY do some damage check out the Churchill and Sherman crocodiles. 75mm main gun, multiple MGs AND a Flame-thrower. Talk about infantry-killers

IMO the 95mm-armed British tanks are marginal AT killers. They are definitely good for HE but I see some people buying them as Panther killers. If they hit they can kill but at 500m+ ranges their odds of hitting are very poor ( again, why they were included ).

Personally I've always subscribed to the idea that artillery kills enemy infantry and guns and your tanks kill the enemy tanks. Your infantry, meanwhile, tries to advance and lure the enemy tanks, infantry and guns into firing/over-runs their positions.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Fionn:

FWIW the Churchill AVRE is a waste of points.

It is indeed a waste.

Originally posted by Fionn:

IMO the 95mm-armed British tanks are marginal AT killers. They are definitely good for HE but I see some people buying them as Panther killers. If they hit they can kill but at 500m+ ranges their odds of hitting are very poor ( again, why they were included ).

They are marginal because a) the Panther will hit with the first shot far more often than the 95mm gun. and still seems like the "C" charge does not get used as early/often as it should in armor v armor engagements. Same with "T" but that is another topic.

Originally posted by Fionn:

Personally I've always subscribed to the idea that artillery kills enemy infantry and guns and your tanks kill the enemy tanks.

Artillery can be killer to infantry but it has more area and suppressive effect unless 150mm or greater caliber is used. I like to use the 95mm HE as target area fire into trees or buildings. The idea is the same as artillery where close is all you need. But with direct fire....you can get even closer.

For short 75 tank killers, I like the Cromwell VII or Churchill VI (but it is slow). The Sherman V 75mm carries a good amount of HE usually and IIRC a .50 caliber that is handy.

Again, I am glad to see the 88mm Sexton in the new short 75 list. I just started a city game with the old list and found that my opponent had some mean, nasty 150mm Hummels to take out gobs of my greenies in heavy buildings. I was seriously lacking a self-propelled artillery piece.

Next time, it shall not be a problem.

-Sarge

[Fionn]

" and still seems like the "C" charge does not get used as early/often as it should in armor v armor engagements."

Well that happens if the Allies don't properly ID the German tank. If it is well ID'ed that problem should occur much less frequently.

As re: the Sexton. Yup, that was a mistake. Feedback from players led to it being fixed. And on that note let me say any such comments are welcome here too.

[Redwolf]

The big problem with HC charges against Panthers is that the tank/gun will (reliably) shoot smoke instead of HC or HE. But the British 95mm isn't affected by that because BTS errornously didn't give it smoke rounds.

I think the main nicety of the 95mm Cromwell is killing Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV/70 from the front. Especially the IV/70 can be a major problem to get rid of with "normal" allied medium tanks. But the 95mm HC does the job of penetrating, and the bad turn rate and screwy TacAI of the IV/70 give the fast Cromwells a chance to close in. A Jagdpanther is substancially tougher.

All that doesn't affect the availablity of the 95mm in short-75 rules since these opponents are not allowed.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Fionn:

" and still seems like the "C" charge does not get used as early/often as it should in armor v armor engagements."

Well that happens if the Allies don't properly ID the German tank. If it is well ID'ed that problem should occur much less frequently.

Well I've griped about this in another thread I started a few days ago. If the tank is ID'ed as Panther? instead of Panther G, etc. then it's time to shoot the "C" or "T" right off because there will rarely be a second chance.

Of course this should emphasize the importance of scouts, especially high quality, to ID armor threats. But still, the misidentification / special round issue puts all allied armor at a disadvantage.

Axis tanks are not affected at all by this.

While we are discussing the new Fionn rules....I think from an HE standpoint under recon rules, if the SPW 251/9 Assault HT and SPW 250/8 Assault HT are allowed for axis then the M8 HMC ought to be allowed for Americans. Now the British don't have anything to match this capability. The only thing about the axis assault HTs is vulnerability to .50 caliber MG fire.

Still, I see a substantial advantage for axis under recon rule. I think the old recon rule had 50mm maximum for all vehicles.

Your thoughts?

-Sarge

[Fionn]

" While we are discussing the new Fionn rules....I think from an HE standpoint under recon rules, if the SPW 251/9 Assault HT and SPW 250/8 Assault HT are allowed for axis then the M8 HMC ought to be allowed for Americans. "

Disagree. Those HTs can be killed by American HMGs. The M8 is a proper little tank and so isn't anywhere near a comparison to the fragile German HTs In any case no competent Allied commander should have any difficulty slaughtering 251/9s or 250/8s whereas a competent German commander could/would find his Pumas etc being slaughtered by M8 HMCs in-game.

" Now the British don't have anything to match this capability. The only thing about the axis assault HTs is vulnerability to .50 caliber MG fire."

And that is certainly enough. Also, the Balanced Force Rules are not JUST about weapon vs armour equations. They are about overall force balance so comparing 1 item with another often doesn't yield the precise reason a change was made.

" Still, I see a substantial advantage for axis under recon rule. I think the old recon rule had 50mm maximum for all vehicles."

You should tell that to Warren who just lost his mechanised German force to my Stuarts. No, the recon rules are balanced. The better player will win and, FWIW, Warren is complaining that the Allies have an advantage in recon rules . I always say that when half the people think the rules give the Axis an advantage and half think they give the Allies an advantage then I've probably got the rules "just right" .

[Shapeshifter]

Hi Fionn

You know,I think the new Balanced rules are now very better then the old one's.

I played mostly in the past hack and slash QB's,but this is not so interesting,because of the Big Tank Fiesta's.

Sometimes I tryed to play meeting engagement as it realy should be,including truck's for the infantry,and some smaller command vehicle for the HQ's,but then I get quickly toasted because my opponend misliked my trucks,he was prefering to have K.Tiger's and such stuff included in his arsenal.

From that time I prefered to play with rules,the rules give the game more reality and interest.

However your new balanced rule set is great,but

how it would be when you include as a must purchase at least a small command vehicle for each HQ into the rule's,since HQ are higher ranked officer's they should have their own vehicle and stick with it during the battle as long as possible.

What do you think about this idea ?

[Fionn]

Shape,

Well, that's a valid point BUT:

1. If you read accounts of Bn-level battles from WW2 you generally seldom see infantry Bn COs racing around the field of battle in Kubelwagens and jeeps.

2. It is the sort of prescribed purchasing rule which I don't like. I much prefer to simply create broad guidelines regarding balanced forces and leave the exact nature of those forces to the players.

Mostly though I don't think that requiring each Bn or company HQ to have an on-map vehicle is actually historically realistic.

[Shapeshifter]

I understand your viewpoint,never mind

[Wolfe]

I'd have to partly agree with Sarge on the 75mm German HTs. The Allies don't have an equivalent mobile HE belcher. To me Recon is meant to be using your fast vehicles to spot and harrass the enemy, use small arty to soften them up, MGs to cover the advance, and wipe them out with infantry supported by recon vehicles (which are essentially mobile MG carriers).

The 75mm guns change that significantly. Instead of being used as scouts, these vehicles are used like Churchill tanks: digging out enemy infantry single-handedly and even dropping buildings where enemy units are suspected (like Fionn is currently doing with his M8 HMCs in his AAR against Warren). That, to me, isn't the intent of Recon.

While the 250/8 and 251/9 may have been used historically in the recon role, they're not called 'Assault' HTs for nothing. And CM's QB point structure was even fundamentally changed because of these vehicles (the Allies now have more armor points because of this).

I really don't think they belong in the recon section, regardless of their vulnerability to the .50cal. They just don't fit the intent of the Recon Rule, IMO.

- Chris

[Fionn]

Have you ever looked at the organisation and equipment of a German schwere auflkarung zug or kompanie?

If you have you'll see that the Germans actually used these exact vehicles in the recon role in WW2. So, I'd say that if the Germans used them to support their recon troops then they are entirely fitting with the "ethos" of the recon rules.

Oh and FWIW the recon rules' ethos isn't to create a game in which there are nothing but light recon vehicles doing recon. Their ethos is to create a game in which the lightest vehicles get a work-out. Recon rules can be used for attack/defend scenarios etc in which great combat power must be generated.

In any case the recon rules result in "balanced games" and THAT is their over-riding ethos. All else is subsumed to that. I don't want people using the rules to play a reconny game and then find out that no matter how good the German is the Allies win 80% of the time ( or vice versa). The intention is that with equal skill levels each side has a 50/50 chance of winning. I've achieved that ( IMO and when perusing the statistics from some ladders) and so I've achieved my aim.

OTOH, as I've always said, people are free to go off and make up their own rules and/or exceptions to create the types of battle they want. If they do I'm quite sure they'll find them unbalanced though.

Oh and FWIW I almost never buy the 250/8 or 251/9 or whatever they are called. That 7.5cm gun is worthless vs enemy tanks ( compared to the 5cm gun on the Puma at least) and I'd rather have 2 MGs than the 7.5cm gun versus infantry.

In fact I think the Stuart is a BRILLIANT infantry killer (not cause of the gun... which is crap) but because of all those MGs. Tanks should use their MGs to kill infantry, not their main guns. Doctrinally speaking the main gun was reserved for very tough, dug-in infantry and ATGs and wasn't used to fire at the sorts of targets CM players waste their HE on. 9 times out of 10 CM players would be better just spraying more MG fire around from their tanks instead of using them to fire HE shells.

[Sarge Saunders]

Wolfe, Thanks for your agreement. Fionn, Thanks for your explanation.

Wolfe clarified my points well. I played a game under the old recon rules that was specifically to give infantry a workout, but to still have some vehicles which could shape the battlefield. It was very interesing in the 50mm and under guns where not a huge threat to infantry unless unanswered. e.g., an axis puma pins down a position means the allied player needs to swing around a Stuart to engage. So the flavor of AFV combat was still present but infantry had less to fear from AFV main guns.

Now Fionn, as you have stated, does not consider AFV main guns to be the primary infantry killers on the battlefield. For that, you use Artillery and MGs from AFVs. That is fine but I consider it a preference but not really the sytle of every player.

So with that being said, the dominance of a 75mm gun on the battlefield where none other exists, though not necessarily unbalancing, DOES changes the flavor of the recon rules match IMO.

BTW, and I am not a grog to be sure, but I remember seeing the M8 HMC on the 1944 TO&E of the American armored division recce squadron. Which included 4 x recce troops, 1 x light tank coy (Stuarts), and 1 x assault gun troop (75mm SPG). {source: Reynolds, Michael; Steel Inferno, Appendix VII}

The M8 HMC is on a Stuart chassis anyway, so why would that make it less susceptable armor-wise to whatever recon rules has to throw against it? In fact, the M8 has less turret armor than the Stuart and has an open turret making it highly susceptable to close infantry assault!

Anyway Fionn, I hope these posts are not wasted totally. Your mind seems to be set already. Yet, you did open this thread up to questions regarding the new rules earlier.

[ June 20, 2002, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Fionn:

If you have you'll see that the Germans actually used these exact vehicles in the recon role in WW2. So, I'd say that if the Germans used them to support their recon troops then they are entirely fitting with the "ethos" of the recon rules.

Though mostly used in Korea, the M24 Chaffee would also fit this description, no?

This isn't Warcraft, and not everything is equal, but this type of mobile HE gives one side a capability the other does not have. What other unit has the capability to drop buildings? These vehicles are consistently used as HE fountains in games and are ripe for abuse under the new Recon rules, IMO.

Fionn wrote:

OTOH, as I've always said, people are free to go off and make up their own rules and/or exceptions to create the types of battle they want. If they do I'm quite sure they'll find them unbalanced though.

Is there something about the previous Recon Rule that you consider to be so unbalanced that the 75mm HTs needed to be included in the new rules? Are the tourneys and ladders that use the old rules lopsided? Or is it just the historical use of the weapons that swayed you to include them? Because you could also make a case for the M10 and Hellcat under Short-75 rules, historically.

People certainly can play by any rules that they want, but I think you may get a decent amount of grumbling about the inclusion of these HTs.

- Chris

[ June 20, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Redwolf]

In my humble opinion, there is room for two rulesets around the light vehicles:

1) the old recon rule with no 75mm shooters. With the exception of the Flakpanzers the vehicle cannons won't do much against infantry here.

2) the class of vehicles vulnerable to 37mm guns, thus including the 75mm halftracks/ACs, but also thin SP artillery. Some vehicles can shoot up infantry very well, but they are thin and very vulnerable (.50cal and 20mm fire). The "fireworks" rule

I allow the M8 HMC in neither one. The gameplay fun of the second variant requires that a vehicle must be either a good HE shooter or invulnerable to .50cal/20mm, but the M8 HMC is both. To kill it you need a Puma or an Ostwind (which is not allowed in Fionn's new rules). And the open turret does not create a vulnerablity comparable to bathtub-style SP artillery.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by redwolf:

In my humble opinion, there is room for two rulesets around the light vehicles:

1) the old recon rule with no 75mm shooters. With the exception of the Flakpanzers the vehicle cannons won't do much against infantry here.

2) the class of vehicles vulnerable to 37mm guns, thus including the 75mm halftracks/ACs, but also thin SP artillery. Some vehicles can shoot up infantry very well, but they are thin and very vulnerable (.50cal and 20mm fire). The "fireworks" rule

I allow the M8 HMC in neither one. The gameplay fun of the second variant requires that a vehicle must be either a good HE shooter or invulnerable to .50cal/20mm, but the M8 HMC is both. To kill it you need a Puma or an Ostwind (which is not allowed in Fionn's new rules). And the open turret does not create a vulnerablity comparable to bathtub-style SP artillery.

Who in their right mind would try to engage an M8 HMC with a 20mm cannon from the front? Of course people are going to bring the 37mm or 50mm gun to these battles. I agree with your comment on the old rules, but why have new rules if the old ones will be played also?

If your second variation allows vehicles vulnerable to 37mm fire then both the 251/9 and M8 HMC are in that category. Let's not over rate the .50 caliber here. You need to get close to make the .50 caliber work against vehicles. Who is going to let that happen to a standoff HE chucker? PSW 243/3 75mm AC is both a good HE chucker and not vulnerable to the .50 caliber. In the axis list there are 3 choices for 75mm vehicles under recon rules and zero for the allies.

OK, let's look at it again:

PSW 243/3 75mm AC carries a similar HE load to the M8 HMC. Has simlar front armor. 251/9 HT has tons of HE rounds, usually more than the M8 HMC but is lightly armored.

I remain unconvinced. I know that it is typical for ladder players to load up on M8s whenever possible because of price. Some may even consider it abuse. But is the M8 HMC really that much better than the PSW 243/3 or 251/9?

BTW, Flakpanzers will rip infantry to shreds in no time.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Who in their right mind would try to engage an M8 HMC with a 20mm cannon from the front? Of course people are going to bring the 37mm or 50mm gun to these battles. I agree with your comment on the old rules, but why have new rules if the old ones will be played also?

I don't want to pollute a thread on Fionn's new rules with my proposals, feel free to visit the "Quest for simpler balancing rules" thread if you want to discuss the second variant or see the details of allowed units.

As for the M8 HMC, in both Fionn and my rules: there is no single good reason to exclude it. But in practice it is pretty unkillable if you don't have the 37mm Flak. It is too fast for the slow Puma turret and usually for Panzerschrecks.

Plus it has a .50cal which can kill the Axis light armor and you can even control .50cal ammo usage by buttoning. Contrary to what you say the 234/3 is vulnerable to .5c0al fire from the sides. I killed one that way in my first PBEM. A Jeep MG will do fine.

It is true that the M8 HMC and the 234/3 look quite similar on paper, but they are not. The fast turret makes all the difference in the world. The speed of the light tracked vehicles on difficult ground makes another one.

I remain unconvinced. I know that it is typical for ladder players to load up on M8s whenever possible because of price. Some may even consider it abuse. But is the M8 HMC really that much better than the PSW 243/3 or 251/9?

Yes. In addition to what I said above it is less expensive than both.

BTW, Flakpanzers will rip infantry to shreds in no time.

But their price is appropriate. The M8 HMC's is not.

[Sarge Saunders]

I think I have been going about this all wrong. Since the PSW 234/3 and SPW 251/9 are included in Fionn's new recon rules, I have argued for the inclusion of the M8 HMC.

I am willing to drop that argument, but I guess I still would not like to use the 75mm gun in recon rules because of effectiveness versus infantry.

Fionn argued, among other things, historical use of the assault HT in recon units. I argued historical use of the HMC in recon units. Yet this is not a "historical" ruleset. It is a balance ruleset.

So I will try a different angle (which I alluded to earlier). I, and many others, use Fionn's rules not for balance, but for some variation on the typical flavor of games. I don't think having a "no rule" game is inherently unabalanced anyway. Ladder players might feel differently, but I am not a regular ladder player. It is all about flavor and variety to gameplay to me. That flavor with the old recon rules was that infantry did not have too much to fear from the main gun of any enemy AFV fielded.

Now this has changed dramatically. The allied player must win the armor battle to win the infantry battle in recon under the new rules. If they don't then they will be HE'd to oblivion by direct fire. Under the old rules this was not really the case.

This is just my opinion, but I am hope that others who play recon rules might agree.

Please chime in when you geta chance Fionn.

(and thanks Redwolf for the interesting discussion once again. )

-Sarge

[ June 20, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

" That is fine but I consider it a preference but not really the sytle of every player."

And I consider it a point of WW2 doctrine. The German and Allied tank manuals of the time are all pretty explicit. Hell, some of the German ones even go to great lengths to make exactly the point I made .

" , the dominance of a 75mm gun on the battlefield where none other exists"

WHOA!!! That's simply not correct. Buy a load of SPW251/9s and infantry and give the US a load of Stuarts and infantry. THEN play the game and you won't be talking about the dominance of the 75mm gun . It is a 75mm L/24 for God's sake. The stuarts will crush infantry more quickly AND they will win the armour battle. So, no dominance of the 75mm at all.

As to my mind being set. Hmm, sounds VERY prejorative to me Saunders.... Let's just put it this way. I have 600 personal PBEMs backing me up PLUS the results of numerous ladder games. I also have a few people whose opinions I listen to who know the game very well. Now given ALL of that backing me up I AM going to need you to PROVE your case... not just express some vague preferences or statements which can't be backed up by hard data or experience.

Nothing personal but I am absolutely correct NOT to make any changes until you PROVE they are necessary. I've made changes in the past when people have proven the need BUT I'm not going to make changes unless you actually show the rules are better with the changes made. That is NOT the same as being closed-minded and I'm sure we can all appreciate that. I just need you to really prove your points.

" But is the M8 HMC really that much better than the PSW 243/3 or 251/9"

YES . With equal points worth of M8 HMCs vs 251/9s the US player would want to be a lobotomised moron to lose. Apologies to anyone who has lost to equal points worth of 251/9s

[Fionn]

" If they don't then they will be HE'd to oblivion by direct fire. "

Only if they are poor tacticians. I have a stated position that I will NOT coddle poor players. I'll set out balanced rules and if players can't handle what happens then they'll just have to learn and improve.

It may be tough but it is better than saddle-soaping them and penalising the good players who;ve actually put the time in.