Fionn's short-75 rule Question

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by 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 .

Fine, fine. But does everyone play CM using WW2 doctrine exactly? It is your preference to do so. It may also be attributive to your numerous victories.

Originally posted by Fionn:

As to my mind being set. Hmm, sounds VERY prejorative to me Saunders....

Did you mean "pejorative"? If so, then no I meant no disparaging remark. That would be too personal and I don't know you that well. Excuse me for sounding so.

Originally posted by Fionn:

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.

Look Fionn, I am not running an experimental laboratory in my spare time OK. Jusy having a discussion on a discussion forum. I guess I do not know the game as well as those you mentioned. But I have played my share and I am speaking from experience (just not as vast as yours I suppose).

So take my opinion with a grain of salt if you want. You asked for questions. I had one re: 75mm assault HTs in recon rules. You answered. I asked for clarification and attempted to back up my opinion with some data from historical sources and also CM. Redwolf and I discussed some finer points. All is well.

I don't think I am just throwing out random unsupported opinions. I must warn that you are beginning to sound pejorative with:

...just express some vague preferences or statements which can't be backed up by hard data or experience.

because I DID attempt to give hard data and I DID relay one of my own experiences with recon rules.

I am really not being ultra critical here and am becoming sorry I opened up this can of worms.

-Sarge

[ June 20, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

Saunders,

I'll try clarify.

1. Re: Mgs vs DF HE... Whether it is style or doctrine is, in the end, irrelevant. I don't believe imbalance exists and I haven't seen anything in this thread to make me change that belief. (whether you rely on MGs or main guns for your infantry kills).

2. Yes, I meant pejorative. English is my 3rd language so allowances must be made.

3. Saunders... You were the one who raised the spectre of "closed-mindedness" with the following: " 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."

Did I think the above was uncalled for (with the implication that discussion was wasted because I wasn't about to change my stance one iota) ? Hell yes. Did I react accordingly? Hell yes (I have a long-standing policy of reflecting back what I consider to have been projected... for good or ill).

As to the substantive points...

Yes you made some points. I felt some of them were entirely incorrect ( dominance of 7.5cm HTs under recon rules ) others had some value but were points I'd already taken into account when balancing the various pluses and minuses of the various nations and weapons systems in creating the rules. In short you didn't present anything new and correct which would make me change my mind.

You are welcome to continue trying to do so BUT I'll point out that I am (from my point of view) absolutely correct to stick by the rules as written until I'm convinced they need to be changed. Expressing a willingness to listen to comments doesn't mean that I should set a low standard of proof for changes.

None of the above (perhaps with the exception of commenting on the "waste of time" comments) is in any way personal. I just don't see you having proved your case at all. The instant I feel you've pinpointed an error that needs changing I'll make the changes. The current rules have already had at least 4 changes made since release in response to comments on the forum or in emails to me.

[ June 20, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Fionn, I don't want this to get too carried away so I'll explain myself and assure you that I meant nothing ill.

You took offense to:

Your mind seems to be set already.

I said this because both Wolfe and I agreed that 75mm HTs in recon might be unbalancing. To quote:

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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.

Responded by:

Originally posted by Fionn:

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... {snip} ....No, the recon rules are balanced....

Then:

Originally posted by Wolfe:

I'd have to partly agree with Sarge on the 75mm German HTs. The Allies don't have an equivalent mobile HE belcher...{snip}...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.

Responded by:

Originally posted by 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....{snip}...In any case the recon rules result in "balanced games" and THAT is their over-riding ethos. All else is subsumed to that....{snip}...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.

Quotes are snipped and cut to be sure, but my impression was that you disagreed and were very sure of it. Did I say you had a closed mind? No. But there is nothing wrong with having your mind set. You obviously have good reasons previously stated. I just don't want to waste my time in that case. I did not say that before the discussion. I said it after you responded to our questions.

Now it might be easy for me to get offended too when you came back with:

Originally posted by Fionn:

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.

I could think, well he does not value my opinion because I don't have 600 PBEMs or numerous ladder games, etc. Then about me being vague. Hell, I even gave a book reference.

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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...

How is that vague?

The above is really my best and only argument for the M8. Perhaps it's not proof enough for you. Fine. They are your rules and it is clear you have thought them out well. I honestly did not expect you to change them. Just some discussion was what I'd hoped for.

You are a hard man to talk to Fionn. I have nothing to prove and neither do you. So we can leave this dsicussion as it is since I have said what I thought about 75mm in recon and you have responded in numerous ways.

I took a few minutes before getting down to this last post because there is no reason to be angry. I do want to be able to post and discuss with you from time to time so let's understand that this typing / internet medium is not the best way to communicate person to person. Things can be misunderstood as reflecting ill intention or disrespect. I meant none.

Take care.

-Sarge

[ June 20, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

Again, I am open to change but two people disagreeing and presenting only such light evidence in their support isn't exactly the "compelling evidence" I'd need to justify a change.

Also... pot... kettle... black.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Also... pot... kettle... black.

You win Fionn Kelly.

My disagreement with your rule has been met with extreme hubris. For that reason, I shall not use them anymore. End of Discussion.

-Sarge

[Fionn]

Saunders,

This isn't about winning and it isn't about hubris especially since I never repelled your comments with hubris. I merely disagreed with you and asked you to PROVE the changes were needed. YOU were the one who couldn't be bothered putting in the time and effort to prove the changes would be beneficial so don't say that I didn't listen. I listened and said I required more proof. You were the one who couldn't be bothered to provide it ... and then, disgustingly, went ahead and painted me as someone who wouldn't listen... I am STILL prepared to listen to any further proof you can come up with. That you can't seem to be bothered to actually do any research is your problem, not mine.

It is simply that you never presented any acceptable level of evidence to convince me change was necessary. THAT is all it was. I could have saddle-soaped you etc but I chose to simply tell you exactly what was lacking and why and leave you the option of supplying more evidence. You didn't seem to like that. Fine but you HAVE to realise that if you want something changed in a game ( CM:BB for example) or rulesets etc then the onus is on YOU to provide all the proof possible that it must be changed.

If you fail to provide the necessary proof then I don't see how you can reasonably feel hard-done by when someone tells you that they're not accepting your "wish" for change.

P.s. To clarify the "pot...kettle...black" thing.

You stated " You are a hard man to talk to Fionn. " Well, imagine how I feel. I invite comments. You make your points and invite response. I respond saying there isn't enough proof there and next thing I know you're talking about needing to calm down before posting.

So, I have felt it very tough to talk to you ( hence, pot---kettle---black). It seems to me that I'd have been better of lying to you and coming up with some BS excuse not to make the change since when I told you the truth you, by your own admission, got angry about some aspect of the reply.

It really would be a lot easier if people on the forum would state whether they wanted to hear honest replies or just what THEY want to hear. It seems to me that a large number of people are only prepared to read answers if those answers tell them what they want to hear ( how great their tactics are, how wonderful their ideas are etc). Where's the willingness to acknowledge that disagreement isn't taken personally? GEES!!!!

[ June 21, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Fionn]

You know, this is one of the reasons there is so much wrong in America.

I know a lot of Americans who are eminently reasonable etc but, unfortunately, there is another group I know (both in RL and on the net) who seem to feel that being told they have done something incorrectly or stated something wrong is some sort of oppression of their right to free speech. They don't seem to accept that there are such things as "correct and incorrect" and that if they REALLY want something to be added to a game/be true then it is a fascist oppression to tell them that, objectively, that thing isn't true/cannot justifiably be added.

I come across this most when people say "X should be added or subtracted from the rules". WHen I ask for proof these people end up producing the weakest of support and then get enraged when I say "No, not good enough. You'll have to provide more proof" as though I'm violating their human rights to ask them to actually PROVE their case.

Don't they teach you guys logic and/or how to debate/discuss/order your thoughts logically in college anymore? Do they even teach you that you need to PROVE changes are necessary before expecting others to make them or is it so individualistic that anything you want SHOULD be made happen?

Sorry for venting to the forum but this attitude is really disturbing. What's next, saying that 2 + 2 =5 if you REALLY want it to or that you can change the laws of gravity if you "think" there should be a modifier to account for some unproven but postulated confounder?

So to be clear Saunders:

1. If you want a change then you must PROVE it is necessary. If you prove it then I'll make the change (I've already made at least 4 since the new rules came out... ALL because people PROVED the need for the change.)

2. That you don't want to spend the time and effort to PROVE the need isn't my problem. If it is such a big deal you should make the time as opposed to getting angry at me for not acceding to your lightly supported request.

3. When I disagree with you and tell you you aren't providing sufficient proof that is NOT personal. It simply means that I think your contention is incorrect and that you haven't provided sufficient proof to back it up.

4. You were the one who brought closed-mindedness into play AND you were angry first. I wasn't angry at all during the thread... just rather bemused that you couldn't seem to understand that none of what you said proved a need for a change in-game... I am, however, annoyed now since I think your most recent position is typically individualistic.

5. I couldn't give a flying t**s whether or not you use or don't use the rules. Saying you won't use them because you got pissed off that I didn't make the change you wanted in the absence of you actually putting anything close to the amount of effort required to prove your point is just childish but fine by me.

Overall though I'm not prepared to let you away with your disregard for facts and proof and the fact that you got angry because someone told you to actually PROVE the changes you called for were necessary. That you didn't want to invest the time to get the proof is YOUR problem, not mine.

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

So, a horse walks into a bar. The bartender says "why the long face?"

[Sarge Saunders]

Fionn, I was hoping to be done with this discussion but some of what you just said is mischaracterizing. I was having a discussion which turned into a debate when you reacted to my saying "It seems your mind is already set". That statement by me was rather benign but you started in with the PROVE, PROVE, PROVE stuff. I did not really have much more to add but you continued with saying I had a weak argument, blah blah....

You are having a hard time differing between discussion and debate.

Now I take extreme exception to some of these remarks.

Originally posted by Fionn:

You know, this is one of the reasons there is so much wrong in America.

I know a lot of Americans who are eminently reasonable etc but, unfortunately, there is another group I know (both in RL and on the net) who seem to feel that being told they have done something incorrectly or stated something wrong is some sort of oppression of their right to free speech.

Don't you dare put me into this category publicly! And what is your problem that you would paint Americans (or any group of people) in such a broad way?

Originally posted by Fionn:

Don't they teach you guys logic and/or how to debate/discuss/order your thoughts logically in college anymore? Do they even teach you that you need to PROVE changes are necessary before expecting others to make them or is it so individualistic that anything you want SHOULD be made happen?

More hubris. I have been called many things. But being illogical has never been one of them......until now. What are YOU trying to PROVE with a statement like that? Your superiority? Your colleges are better?

You are taking my lack of PROOF to a level far beyond what it really is!!!

Originally posted by Fionn:

1. If you want a change then you must PROVE it is necessary. If you prove it then I'll make the change (I've already made at least 4 since the new rules came out... ALL because people PROVED the need for the change.)

I don't need to prove anything to you. I will not use the rules.

Originally posted by Fionn:

2. That you don't want to spend the time and effort to PROVE the need isn't my problem. If it is such a big deal you should make the time as opposed to getting angry at me for not acceding to your lightly supported request.

I am not angry about your not acceding to the request. Now I am angry because you began ranting. Do YOU enjoy this sort of Free Speech?

Originally posted by Fionn:

3. When I disagree with you and tell you you aren't providing sufficient proof that is NOT personal. It simply means that I think your contention is incorrect and that you haven't provided sufficient proof to back it up.

Being incorrect is not a problem for me. This is not personal to me either. However, your continued rant is making me think less of you personally. But that does not really matter. What matters is that I was discussing and then you started ranting about PROVE, PROVE, etc. and inferring a low ability on my part for not having such proof.

Originally posted by Fionn:

4. You were the one who brought closed-mindedness into play AND you were angry first.

I did NOT say closed-minded. I said your mind seemed set. I know the difference because English is my native language. P.S. I learned these sort of subtle word meanings in College, in America.

Originally posted by Fionn:

I am, however, annoyed now since I think your most recent position is typically individualistic.

Yes it was. Mainly because I extended an "olive branch" by writing:

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

I do want to be able to post and discuss with you from time to time so let's understand that this typing / internet medium is not the best way to communicate person to person. Things can be misunderstood as reflecting ill intention or disrespect. I meant none.

and you continued on with your rant.

Originally posted by Fionn:

5. I couldn't give a flying t**s whether or not you use or don't use the rules. Saying you won't use them because you got pissed off that I didn't make the change you wanted in the absence of you actually putting anything close to the amount of effort required to prove your point is just childish but fine by me.

No Fionn. I think I am not childish. I really am unhappy that you did not let this argument drop. It's too bad but fine by me also.

Originally posted by Fionn:

Overall though I'm not prepared to let you away with your disregard for facts and proof and the fact that you got angry because someone told you to actually PROVE the changes you called for were necessary. That you didn't want to invest the time to get the proof is YOUR problem, not mine.

Look, I don't have the time to start a crusade to include M8s or whatever. I only have time to discuss a bit of this or that. I leave the long-winded debates to others on this board who are more knowledgable than myself.

I read the tone of your posts following my "your mind seems set" comment as ranting and annoyed. That is why I had to stop and consider that maybe there is no reason to be angry since this board is a bad way to communicate intentions and I did not want to infer anything. I am NOT angry. But now I am annoyed.

I can tell now that I have hit a sore spot for you with my Lack of Proof and "Seems like you mind is set" comment. I am sorry. they are your rules. You can write them as you like.

So one more offer for "Peace"....

I do not dislike you. I respect your experience. I did not mean anything ill regarding close-mindedness. I did infer hubris and annoyance in some of your posts. You infered illogical anger and "childishness" in mine. We are probably both wrong. Again, the typing medium is very poor at relaying human intention and things can come off the wrong way.

Until next time....

-Sarge

[ June 21, 2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

Saunders,

I am a tad upset about some of your comments re: college and native languages etc. They seem a bit inflammatory BUT, to be fair, I got annoyed too.

I refer you to the other thread ( general forum, u know the one). I made my reply there. Suffice it to say that I did NOT want a fight with you (and the tone after your "mind seems set" comment was NOT "ranting and annoyed". I was quite fine until your 2nd post on this page when you made the comment about being angry with me) and am willing to say Sorry, forget about it and move on. I'm not concerned about right or wrong. I'm just sick.

[Sarge Saunders]

Fionn, I responded in the other thread too. You read the word "angry" but what I was trying to say was that I saw no reason to be angry.

We should all stop and think about what we post before we overreact (myself included).

Anyway, Let's let it pass. No hard feelings. I hope we can have discussions in the future.

-Sarge

[edited for spelling]

[ June 21, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

I concur.

[Shapeshifter]

Friend's Calm down

After so many post's specialy at this page,I feel very sorry that my topic start had such an bad outcome at the end.

Sarge Saunders and Fionn,I feel very sorry that two smart people like yourself's becoming angry about each other's because of a game and some rules.

Dont take the crap too personaly it is a game nothing more,nothing less.

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I concur.

me too

Editing one of two words...you know what I blame.

[ June 21, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Hiram Sedai ]

[Shapeshifter]

good to see that you have find an sulution.

must been happend in the same time when I was posting

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Shapeshifter:

good to see that you have find an sulution.

must been happend in the same time when I was posting

Shapeshifter, don't feel bad about starting this thread. Keep asking questions and you will get answers.

Heck, a person could start a thread about trucks and get a heated argument about pasta salad or some such nonsense.

-Sarge

[Shapeshifter]

thanks for your reply Sarge

[Fionn]

Aye Shape,

In any case the "fight" had less to do with this thread than it had to do with my frustration at what people NOT part of this thread were doing elsewhere on the forum. This thread just happened to get in the way so to speak.

[Redwolf]

I ordered my thoughts and reviewed my past recon rule gaming experience and I think I came up with good reasoning why the M8 HMC should not be included, no matter whether the 75mm halftracks are included or not.

Interesting or pointless by now?

[Shapeshifter]

I understand,and thanks for your reply Fionn.

I would like to ask you something in your balanced short-75 rule where you say:Towed Guns

Any and all Towed Guns excluding Light and Medium FlaKs - see Notes page

So as British can I purchase the under support 57mm/6prd Antitank gun,and the 76mm/17prd AT in an battle plus any howitzer with calibre antil 105mm correct ?

And by vehicles I must not buy any vehicles that carry an mounted with the declaration AT gun over 75mm right ?

[ June 21, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Shapeshifter ]

[RobH]

Shapeshifter - I can respond to your question by saying ALL towed guns are allowed in a Short-75 battle under Fionn's Rules except the small and medium Flaks. Therefore there is no limit to the size of towed gun you can purchase for a Short-75 battle.

By all means purchase the 76mm/17pdr AT gun for your Short-75 game if you really must but you will find it is generally overkill for the tanks you will be facing and the 57mm/6pdr will be much more cost effective for you and will penetrate all the tanks you meet.

Again, there is no limit to the size of Howitzer towed gun you may use. The 105mm limit only refers to offboard arty from FOs, not from towed guns.

Regarding vehicles, there are tables in the Rules which tell you specifically which armoured vehicles you can purchase for your battle. Some of these vehicles will have guns larger then 75mm but they mount primarily HE guns rather than AP guns.

Hope this helps,

Rob

[Shapeshifter]

Thanks Robert

Your post was very interesting

[Redwolf]

Hopefully not boringeveryone to death:

forbitting too big guns in rules for small armor is not neccessary. The long 88 PaK looks very impressive, but its power has no great effect on a thin target which gets hit. On the other hand, the slow turn rate, the slow rate of fire and the easier spottability make the big gun the worse choice than a small one with the same muzzle velocity. So if you want to shoot Pumas with 17pdr tungsteen rounds because it's more fun for you, go for it, it does not steal fun from the opponent.

[Fionn]

Martin,

I'd be interested in the M8 points.

[Redwolf]

To put some harder data into the discussion about the M8 HMC, I reviewed my own recon rule game record (not nearly as big as that of Fionn) to see what the balance effect were if 75mm halftracks and M8 HMC would be allowed.

I see these claims statistically supported:

The 75mm halftracks are vulerable to basically every American armed vehicle and every British gun-armed vehicle. The most dangerous threats are Stuarts, and the armored cars, due to high-precision gun in fast turret and high ROF.

The M8 HMC and Stuarts are vulnerable only to the Puma and the 37mm Flak on the Ostwind. I think the Ostwind is a very special case as it is forbidden under Fionn's new rules, not available in many months and costs 120 points. So I assume its the Puma for this discussion. My game record shows that the Stuart and the Greyhound are very common Allied purchases in recon rules. The Puma is by far not as common. It has has the slower turret, which is a major factor in CMBO vehicle combat and is vulnerable to .50cal fire from the sides, it does not have overly useful MGs and bad going in difficult ground. The M8 HMC is fast enough even on non-road ground to be substancially hard to hit with Panzerschrecks, including the reason that the Schreck gets only one shot off while it is in good range.

So, in the recon games I looked on, people were buying lots of Stuarts and Greyhounds, but the Axis player relies much more on 20mm autocannon armed vehicles, with few Pumas. The Puma effectivly assumes the role of a tank hunter to counter the Stuarts, but not during the regular mixed work.

Now, this is all fine. Because the few Pumas may succeed or not, even if they do not the Stuarts do no catastrophal damage. Their gun is pretty ineffective and to use the CMBO MGs they have to be pretty near infantry. To use the hull MG, they usually have to move slow and rotate the hull directly to the target. To use the flex MG, they have to unbutton. They may wreck your infantry, but the Stuart owner has a tough choice to make, their effectivity is better with close range.

Now, the M8 HMC, while theoretically as easy to knock out as a Stuart, plus having an open turret, can shoot up infantry from any distance. And it is much cheaper than the Stuart, 58 versus 99 points. Three M8 HMC parked in a map edge are an entirely different story than two Stuarts either parked in the same map edge or hard working near near your Panzerschrecks.

In effect, adding the M8 HMC to a recon rule game will force the Axis player to buy as many Pumas as possible. Even letting aside that this is exactly the no-fun choices theme all these rules want to avoid, it still isn't fair since the Puma is more expensive, but by far not as powerful against the threats populating the recon rule battlefield.

The 75mm halftracks do not force the Allied player to narrow his choices. (Although as I said in other postings, I would prefer to allow all paper-thin HE shooters in a "fireworks" rule, which would still ban the M8 HMC).

[ June 21, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]