Fionn Kelly's New Balanced Force Rules

[RobH]

Many CM players use Fionn Kelly's 'Short-75' and 'Panther-76' Rules to play Combat Mission PBEMs. A number of Tournaments are also run either to these exact Rules or based around Fionn's Rules. Two of these Tournaments are currently the subject of AARs being posted at Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website.

Fionn's Rules have seen 2 versions published so far. The original version and then an update shortly after CM v1.12 came out to account for the changes made to Combat Mission with that release.

Although these Rules have worked effectively for a considerable time, a number of areas needed to be tightened up and certain aspects of the Rules needed clarification to avoid confusion.

The result of these changes is a new set of 'Rules' from Fionn Kelly entitled Combat Mission 'Balanced Force Rules'.

To quote Fionn, "I decided that rather than simply updating them again slightly, I would change the entire ethos behind my 'Armour Rules' and create a new Rule-set which would address the current needs of the CM community in recognition of the fact that needs today are very different from when the original 'Armour Rules' were created."

To read the new Combat Mission 'Balanced Force Rules', just proceed to the embedded link.

I am sure there will be a lot of discussion regarding these new 'Balanced Force Rules' and some people will simply not like certain aspects of them. This is entirely to be expected amongst a community as large as the Combat Mission Community. Also, please remember the 'Rules' are optional, not mandatory. If you do not like them, simply do not use them. Nobody is forcing you to play by them. The aim of the 'Balanced Force Rules' is solely to try to create a series of more balanced overall sets of forces for CM players to play by.

Now, I have one very simple request BEFORE you post anything to this thread. Please READ the entire set of 5 pages covering the Combat Mission 'Balanced Force Rules'. Some of those pages are to give a background and commentary as to how and why the 'Rules' have evolved the way they have. It is very important to understand the background and the reasons for the new 'Balanced Force Rules' since they provide a valuable insight into their development.

Having read the new 'Balanced Force Rules', all constructive comments are welcome on this thread for discussion. Just please make your comments constructive and you will receive a response.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the comments from version 2 of the 'Rules' which are retained with slight amendments at the end of the 'Balanced Force Rules':

"Despite the above so-called 'Rules' and limitations listed here, it is still up to PBEM opponents to choose whatever type of Combat Mission battle they wish to play and the rules by which they wish to play them. These guidelines can be either helpful or just plain irritating depending on your point of view. No one, least of all Fionn, is forcing you to use these 'Rules'. If you do not like these 'Rules', simply do not use them."

Having said that, I think there will be a very large number of CM players who will wish to play balanced CM battles using these new 'Balanced Force Rules' and will get one hell of a lot of fun and enjoyment from doing do.

Rob

[Echo]

Play chess if you want fair and balanced.

[Buckeye]

Gee, Echo, that's constructive.

Thanks for all your efforts in posting the updated rules, Rob. And thanks to Fionn too for taking the time and effort for what can definitely be a thankless task.

[Xavier]

Originally posted by Echo:

Play chess if you want fair and balanced.

I agree... A balanced battle can't be realistic

[Firefly]

Well if you don't like the rules don't use them. They're not compulsory.

My only comment is that banning all vehicles in the infantry only section whilst allowing ATGs and IGs will probably upset those who, for realism purposes, think that one should by tractors for guns particularly in MEs (I remember a long rancourous thread about this). I realise that this could be negotiated separately, but allowing unarmed tractors (not trucks) shouldn't unbalance things too much.

Why you'd want to buy ATGs in an infantry only battle is another matter of course .

[Gyrene]

Can we still have fun playing the game? Or will there be a set of rules governing that also?

While I appreciate where all these rules are coming from I think that a simple agreement bewteen players (Or better yet, playing scenarios or with people you trust) is a good enough solution.

Playing on the underdog side can be a lot of fun also, IMHO.

Gyrene

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Xavier:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Echo:

Play chess if you want fair and balanced.

I agree... A balanced battle can't be realistic</font>

[Herr Kruger]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Can we still have fun playing the game? Or will there be a set of rules governing that also?

Gyrene

Hmm, that's very constructive, Gyrene. Give your head a shake. NO ONE is saying you have to use these, understand? What's with all this negativity... So what if people like to play MEs or other QBS or others play only scenarios.... does it matter?! God forbid some people have fun with CM in different ways! These rules and the other rulesets people have created take time to make and test out, just like any MOD, and are designed to help with people having fun in this game! If don't like it, don't use it...

[ May 19, 2002, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Herr Kruger ]

[Agua]

Ya, I was surprised by the absence of any treatment with regard to towing vehicles for ATG/IG in the face of such a thorough parsing / balancing of other elements of the game.

Also, conspicuous by its absence, is any treatment of purchase/price related imbalances; specifically the M8HMC - in small battles, 1,000 points and under, I think 5 regular / 4 vets can be purchased in a ME combined arms game - the dreaded "M8 Horde".

[Randl]

I like these rules. I think they can be particularly useful for players new to ladder play. I like them when playing new people in CM for the first times. I also think they can be great in tournament play. After having played a few games with a new CM friend it is true that the rules typically go out the window as we know each other and have found someone with which to try different things with the game.

Between strangers I think the rules can really help the stepping off on the right foot

A question: why isn't the Hotchkiss tank be considered for Recon play?

--Randl

[Walker]

I’m not a particularly experienced player so all I can say about the new set of guidelines for a balanced game is that it sounds good – well thought out and convincingly explained, and nicely presented too. The main thrust of the rules seems to be to ensure battles ‘where the skill of the player, rather than purchase screen antics, determines the victor’. And that is definitely a Good Thing! However, when I came to the ‘Negotiating exceptions’ and ‘Commentary and notes for the unwary’ sections I could hardly believe what I was reading. Some excerpts:

‘…to help players avoid some serious potential pitfalls unscrupulous players may exploit to severely skew the balance of a game.’

‘…doing otherwise leaves you open to all the pre-game machinations and advantage seeking…’

‘Players are advised to keep a copy of the email where any exceptions are agreed in case their opponent decides the exception made was detrimental to his cause and tries to get the game declared void.’

‘You may, of course, question the sportsmanship of a player who seeks utterly outrageous exceptions when facing an inexperienced player,…’

‘Be wary of players attempting to trick you by using specific wording.’

‘…the whole issue of exceptions to the 'Rules' is fraught with pitfalls for the unwary and opportunities for un-sportsmanlike conduct.’

‘As Chester L Karrass, a noted negotiator and author once noted, "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate".’

Well, I’m speechless. Almost, anyway. And here I was thinking CM was a game that brought together people from all walks of life to have a good time playing on a simulated battlefield, under the motto ‘may the better player win’.

I sincerely hope that these points were included to deal with a tiny minority of yobs who have long been banished from all CM tournaments, and that un-sportsmanlike conduct as anticipated above is just a vague possibility in the mind of the author, that they were included as a pre-emptive measure and not in response to current real-life occurrences.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest!

Afterthought: All the people (not a lot, but quite a few) I've played to date have been absolutely honourable opponents in every respect so things can't be that bad.

[Michael Dorosh]

Why are there restrictions on fortification in the "unrestricted" category?

Edit - yeah, I know only the Germans can buy them, but still....seems kinda funny.

[ May 19, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Hans]

The solution of course is at some point (after CM II) that a cm variant be produced that has exactly the same types of vehicles and units for both sides. (Like the perfect general, etc) That will give you the "eveness" that some want.

Heck give me random anyday!

The rules are good for those looking for some structure and excellent for newbies to learn the ropes without having to deal with a Royal Tiger & Flamerthrower assault backed with 240mm

[PiggDogg]

The new Balanced Force Rules are quite useful. They certainly are not perfect, but they seem pretty darn good & efficient.

Fionn, thanks.

Cheers, Richard

[TexasToast]

I realize that on first glance these rules may appear over-the-top and even overwhelming, but they serve a valuable purpose to many in trying to eliminate misunderstanding and bad feelings between players trying to have fun yet play competitively. Thanks Fionn for taking the time to put all this together.

Charles

[Wolfe]

I'd have to disagree with the inclusion of the 75mm-armed German HTs in the Recon section. Historical or not, this inclusion gives the German player highly mobile HE belchers which the Allied player has no answer for. I don't think that their being vulnerable to various light guns makes up for the fact that they give the German player a highly useful and deadly unit that is not available to the Allied side. Particularly since the M8 HMC and M24 Chaffee are both excluded from purchase. I realize this isn't Warcraft where all units always have an exact counterpart, but still ...

Very nice work, otherwise! Thanks for the effort you put into it.

Hopefully with CMBB's large number of varied units, force balance will become much less of a concern.

- Chris

[WineCape]

Fionn,

I like your summary note on SOP on exceptions. A "meeting of minds" with these pre-match negotiations, especially with regard to tournament play, should be encouraged as all these guidelines are underpinned by the striving for fairness in tourney play. Your efforts in this regard to be commended!

I refuse to refer to your notes postulated as "Rules", but merely guidelines, as you indicated.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[ May 20, 2002, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Fionn]

Randl, Hans,

Precisely. You’ve grasped the central point of the rules. They exist, in part, to help newer players ( and old-timers) set pretty fair force parameters quickly in order to ensure that whoever wins their game will be the better player and not just the guy with the biggest tanks or arty.

Walker,

All of what you quoted was said in the interests of forewarning newbies of what a small number of players might do. Is it really common? No, on the other hand I’m sure you’d agree that you are better forewarned than left uninformed and vulnerable. As to the specifics of cases listed. I’ve seen each and every case several times… often attempted by my opponents on me.

TexasToast highlights another point… If it weren’t for the rules negotiations for tourneys would be absolutely horrific. Even still some newbies find tourney negotiations almost unbearable. I’d also like to point out that probably the greatest impact of the rules lies avoiding a lot of fights which would break out due to misunderstandings etc if they weren’t used. I find that most people forget that the greatest boon of the ruleset is hidden. If you ever wonder if they’re worth it just try organising a 32 person strong competitive tourney with a good prize and see how long it is before people start bitching about opposing force structures or negotiations etc.

Charl,

Guidelines is fine. That is, after all, all they are.

Firefly,

To allow trucks in infantry-only games would open up the possibility of players using them to create motorised infantry forces and various other dodges. I prefer to officially disallow such planning. OTOH I continuously stressed the fact that so long as exceptions were agreed to by both ( for PBEMs) or all ( for tourneys) players then absolutely anything could supercede the rules. I know certain tourneys ( TH for example) specify that trucks MUST be purchased for each gun purchased. As far as I am concerned such rules fall under the heading of "House Rules". I would expect TH to rule that such House Rules would supercede any portion of the Balanced Force Rules. That's absolutely fine by me.

As far as I’m concerned players should be free to play infantry only games with 210mm artillery if they want. Will it lead to a balanced force in which command of infantry is as important in determining the winner as command of artillery? No but if both players agree to it then it’s their business.

Think of the rules as a lover’s guide book. They tell you what you might both find enjoyable but don’t ban you from experimenting with something else which you heard about somewhere else and think might be fun. If King Tigers are your fetish then so long as you can find a partner willing to let you indulge you should feel free to go ahead and buy them . A somewhat salaciously made point but true nonetheless.

Echo,

Fair point. OTOH not that many people enjoying taking 5 Sherman 75s up against 3 King Tigers time and time again. If you do you are welcome not to use any rules. As I have said before, the rules do NOT exist to straightjacket players and games. They exist to protect players from unenjoyable overmatch situations they may otherwise get into by virtue of inexperience or unscrupulous opponents.

Xavier,

You miss the point. The aim of the rules is NOT to create realistic battles. The aim is to simply create a battle in which no one type of tank reigns supreme by virtue of its armour being impenetrable to enemy guns and in which no one arm of service ( artillery, armour, infantry) is so much more powerful than the others on a per unit basis that the game is decided by that arm of service. If you want ultra-realistic battles resulting from rules then you should use another rule set.

Anyone can blast every position in front of them with 155mm VT and then advance. To do so requires no skill and leads to players who never improve their co-ordination and tactics. To take the same position with only some infantry and an 81mm FO is another matter entirely and forces one to improve in order to succeed. Many CM players are “lazy” and are happy to simply win games instead of seeking to constantly improve. These players hit on a winning solution and then use it in game after game. Such “winning solutions” can only work if one weapons system/arm of service is far more powerful than the others. The Balanced Force Rules seek to prevent this ( or at least limit it without becoming unduly restrictive) and force players to excel with all arms in order to secure victory. If that is something you don’t wish to see happening then you are, of course, free not to use them.

Gyrene,

Experienced players like you who know their opponents certainly have the experience and trust to agree to broad strokes rules with only minimal discussion. OTOH I’ve seen newbies getting totally screwed by experienced players when it comes to force purchases. I do NOT wish the rules to be a straightjacket for experienced players. I do, however, think they are very valuable to newcomers who really would appreciate a ruleset which allows them to quickly ensure their opponent won’t bring some superb tank they’ve never heard of to the battlefield and beat them terribly NOT because of superior tactical ability but simply because they didn’t know what they were getting into.

You might find yourself thankful of such a rule set when it comes time for CM:BB and you try to figure out if a KV-1 skorotniy is a match for a Pz IVF1 while a KV 1b isn’t. Of course maybe I’m wrong and you would enjoy finding yourself going up against KV-1s with Pz Iis. If that’s the case then please feel free never to use any rule set. As I’ve said many times, I amn’t forcing ANYONE to do ANYTHING. I have given my time freely to refining these rules in the hope that some might find them useful. If you don’t find them useful then simply don’t use them. No-one here is forcing anyone into anything, least of all me.

Agua,

Despite what some others might intimate I felt that setting limits on how many vehicles of type x one can buy when given y points was too much micro-management. I amn’t interested in almost determining force structures. I am simply interested in making sure that no one tank is so powerful that the enemy can’t kill it and in making sure that no one of arm of service is so powerful as to be able to secure victory all by itself.

You’ll note that there are no limits on SMG squad numbers in my rules either. The reason is that I seem to be one of the few who doesn’t believe them under-priced and overcapable… and yes I regularly fight off SMG hordes when commanding ordinary US 1944 rifle troops.

Dorosh,

You’ve answered your own question there. Giving one side a list of specific units which are entirely unavailable to the opposing side under the same circumstances would be unbalancing. If players want to play with fortifications then they can do so. Just because no rules exist for something doesn’t mean people can’t play it.

And to restate something I thought was a pretty good comment: “Think of the rules as a lover’s guide book. They tell you what you might both find enjoyable but don’t ban you from experimenting with something else which you heard about somewhere else and think might be fun. “

So, what are the rules for:

1. To prevent newbies being taken advantage of.

2. To create a set of parameters allowing as wide a selection of forces as possible whilst ensuring that no one unit or arm of service will, on its own, determine the winner.

3. To encourage the player to become a better combined arms commander.

4. To allow players to refer to a widely accepted set of rules when negotiating game parameters AND to have that set of rules act in such a way as to ensure that the “best player wins”.

5. To act as a simple, widely accepted set of rules around which tournaments can be based with minimal hassle.

What they are NOT for:

1. Forcing everyone to play in the same way.

2. Forcing everyone to play with the same units.

3. Forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want.

When push comes to shove and you are trying to begin playing someone who really wants a certain set of rules used you ALWAYS have the option to just say no and decline playing them at all. There are enough other players out there who don’t like using rules to give you a lifetime’s worth of opponents.

I amn’t looking to convert anyone to a certain rule set or anything. I’m just looking to give the best damn rule set I can come up with to those who WANT to use it and find it helpful.

P.s. I’d also like to welcome all constructive comments and criticism to the thread.

[ May 19, 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Fionn]

Randl,

Good catch. That's a mistake and will be corrected ASAP. A couple of different people worked on the rules and between us that omission slipped through.

Thank you,

Fionn

[RobH]

Thanks Randl. The Recon Rule table of allowed vehicles has now been corrected to reflect the inclusion of the H-39 Hotchkiss. I think the limited availability of the Hotchkiss resulted in us overlooking it .

Rob

[NightGaunt]

I'd just like to say thanks to teh makers of the ruleset because I believe it is useful for what they want.

I don't play ladder matches, and I don't use the ruleset.

But after being on this board since the game was released and seeing countless threads about

"is this gamey" and "this guy cheats by doing x" Fionns rules does one great thing:

IT GETS OPPONENTS TO AGREE ON THE RULES. Cause I for one am tired of the same old threads re hashed by players complaining because they didn't bother to agree before the game started.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:

IT GETS OPPONENTS TO AGREE ON THE RULES. Cause I for one am tired of the same old threads re hashed by players complaining because they didn't bother to agree before the game started.

How will yet another set of rules prevent whiners from complaining about the rules after the game has started? I should think there are some players who will commit to finishing a game that doesn't go their way without whining about some artificial rule that was or wasn't in play.

I am not knocking these new rules, and if it keeps any two people happy at any given time, so much the better...but to think that these rules will instantly turn unrepentant whiners and cheaters into honourable men is a bit of a far fetched hope.

Then again, there is the lengthy process you may have to go through just to get someone to agree to which set of rules to play...

The best bet is still to go to the scenario depot and download a highly rated scenario from there.

So explain this to me again - am I right in assuming that these rules are designed not for those who desire historical play or play simply for fun (win or lose), but to ensure a balanced chess-like strategy game, to test the player's ability to use the CM system (not exercise historical real world tactics - the two are not always the same thing.)

In other words, not to impart any kind of flavor of playing a wargame at all, but simply in ensuring some sort of artificial parity between the combatants that likely would never have existed in real life, in order not to determine who the better (or more lucky) tactician is, but to who is best able to crunch the same numbers that the computer does and arrive at a better "solution" than his opponent?

Sounds kind of sterile to me. Are there really that many players out there who bail out of games because the force picks turned out to be "unbalanced"?

I suggested something in a thread a week or so ago but no one jumped at it. Let me reintroduce it here.

Has anyone ever set up two identical PBEM games against the same opponent and played them simultaneously - once from each side? I'd be interested in hearing about anyone who has experienced CM in such a manner - surely also an alternative way of ensuring competitive play.

One might argue that knowing one's precise force mix takes away from the fun, and alters the decision making process.

Doesn't knowing that buddy lacks King Tigers also affect the decision making process in the same fashion?

[Bruno Weiss]

WB Fionn. Thanks for this new version. I've played pbem almost exclusively with either the P76 or S75 rule with opponents for a long time now. The parameters eliminate all sorts of potential disagreements and provide a good foundation from which to discuss preferences. Wonderful to see your keeping it paced with the evolution of CM. Outstanding and thanks to all who worked on it. I'll be putting this to good use.

Now, if a feller misses the nostalgia of the big whoosh bang effects we used to get excited over when throwing dirt clods at plastic soldiers, then for goodness sake just don't use any rules. I've seen plenty of mods come out that either I don't use, or on occasion thought a tad less attractive than someone elses mod. But I usually at least commented "good job", and let it go at that. Recognizing instead that someone actually did somefink who wasn't paid for it and really didn't have to contribute anything at all.

[ May 19, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Pacestick]

I would have thought that the Wirble and Ostwinds are Flak platforms yet are allowed under the short 75 rules?

[Sir Uber General]

Dammit Pace you beat me to it

It would be nice if these rulesets were added to the game, along with the ability to customise / create them so we dont need a third party to set the games up.

[ May 20, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]