Fionn Kelly's New Balanced Force Rules

[mchlstrt]

I'd like to second what NightGaunt said. As a very non-ladder type of player I have almost no use for these rules personally, however I appreciate their value. And as for 'cold, competitive gamesmanship' it occurs to me that if I played a dozen pbem's by these rules (& threw in 'play green troops') I'd have a firm grasp on WWII era combined arms tactics. Then I wouldn't have to keep backing up my little AI battles to figure out how I screwed up so bad.

[ May 20, 2002, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: mchlstrt ]

[Stalin's Organ]

Perhaps so - but at least they are easily killed, unlike the dreaded Sdkfz7 series!!

as for the German 75mm h/t's and a/c's - I always thought the allies had a major advantage in the recon rules with the Stuart - it's armour is thick enough to be a problem for 20mm cannon and it carried an ammo dump's worth of light

HE!!

By contrast the Puma that might be it's nemesis has a slow turret, weak armour and limited ammo.

So I reckon a couple of 75L24's in light armour may just even things up a wee bit.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I don't like the Fionn-75 rules for a simple reason. The German 75mm is better regarding penetration and Vo. The Allies 75mm is very inaccurate on the long ranges.

I prefer Scipio's medium class rules for the uninitiated, check www.warfarehq.com . They allow the Hellcat and the M-10 (Woolverine). The 76mm US gun is not much better then the German 75mm (without Tungsten rounds), while both tanks - especially the Hellcat - are relative vulnerable. I think it is a better challenge.

I also like his more detailed artillery rule.

[ May 20, 2002, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

[RobH]

Pacestick - thanks for pointing out about the Ostwind and the Wirblewind. You are correct they should have been in the "Excluded" section and were discussed when the tables were finalised. I think I must have picked up the wrong version of the tables when I was including them in the final html document.

Anyway, the last page "Detailed Balanced Force Rules" has now been corrected on the Rugged Defense site to remove these FlaK vehicles from the "Included" list.

Rob

[Lah]

Much thanks for the new rules and your effort guys.

I usually use Fionn's rules for ladder games, short 75 mainly, not to restrict the naughty boys but because I just enjoy that type of game!

Cheers

LAH

[Caesar]

Just a thought, will the rarity rules in CMBB render these types of rules largely redundant?

[Ligur]

Well, being a relative newbie of around 100 TCP/IP and PBEM games most of which have been played amongst a smallish circle of friends who know each other in Real Life[tm] the need for such guidelines is most often not necessary, but I appreciate the effort to create balanced rules.

I will surely ask my friends to use the short75 and panther-76 rules once or twice now, since without some units hardly see enough use. Also, I don't have to prepare for an über-tank every single time when you agree to some rules, which frees me to use, say, Shermans. That results in more fun. Mission accomplished.

The bad thing is I now dread ladders and tournament games which are played as quick battles or choose-your-own-force, seeing that such rulesets are required to disable taking advantage with an arm that has overpowering units. In my "friendly" games I've yet to encounter a type of unit that ruins the games one after another, albeit I am tired of meeting German SMG squads and Tigers a bit too often in small games.

Something which completely surprised me: 155mm and VT arty is that powerful? The quick battles I've played usually have such a big map and a plethora of places the enemy can hide or deceive you you have to score a true bullseye to "win it with VT only."

Is it common to keep troops immobile and so bunched up you can "win" a game by blasting "everything" with 155mm and then rolling over? Can you really get so much arty (or fortifications for another matter) in a combined arms game that it is totally decisive if included? Looking at Fionn's rules, I guess it must be. Fionn has disillusioned me about combined arms in CM:BO.

This forces me to think everyone I play with (including me) are completely unable to use artillery. Granted, in almost any victory or succesfull tactic I've witnessed artillery has been an important factor but one or two 155mm or VT FOs just don't have the ammo to destroy 2500 points of enemy. Or so I thought...

*cries*

[Ligur]

Infact I'm setting up a game right at the moment with Fionn's Short75 rules with a friend, 1500 pts assault, small map. Bye bye compulsory Tiger.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Ligur:

Something which completely surprised me: 155mm and VT arty is that powerful? The quick battles I've played usually have such a big map and a plethora of places the enemy can hide or deceive you you have to score a true bullseye to "win it with VT only."

It is very powerful, and the 105mm VT seems to be the brightest spot here, overall better than the 155mm VT.

But I do not agree at all that VT arty is powerful enough to be banned altogether, on the contrary, I find it to counterbalance things like better German smallarms and British goodies (Wasp, 95mm) very well.

This is one of the central points why I have to reject these new more complex but more game-directing Fionn rules and started my own much simpler set of rules (in the "Quest for balanced rules" thread).

[JasonC]

I've read them, but I won't be using them. The old short-75 and panther-76 rules were useful, simple distinctions that allowed the most common vehicles to be used often in their element. But these are to me too extreme, and force the game toward one vision of WW II combat, in which maneuver strategy is artificially made more important, and attrition strategies artificially made harder.

Some of the balance considerations that matter most to me in practice are also not included. Some may like and use them - their affair. But I won't be one of them. I will try to make my comments more constructive, though, by pointing out some places for additions, other concerns, and arguing my case against some of the restrictions.

Hummels and SiG-150s are allowed while 150mm off board artillery is banned for all but the "unrestricted" setting. The Allies have no 150mm direct fire vehicles or guns. To the extent that the problem is overmodeled 150mm HE, or underpriced 150mm HE, this seems a bit perverse. But under a logic of trying to force maneuver element dominance for its own sake, it fits the rest of the scheme.

It would be easy to make the case that both are more overmodeled than e.g. 20mm flak. It is also noteworthy that German 20mm vehicles are allowed (e.g. PSW-231/1), whose shooting performance uses the same Flak overmodeling.

No mines is extreme. Saying it is unrealistic because there aren't mine roller tanks is silly, since such "funnies" were quite rare on the WW II battlefield, while mines were very common. This change obviously helps maneuver strategies and especially maneuver attackers. The standard German infantry defense actually used in practice, which relied on a mine "shield" ahead of the MLR to protect the main body of the defenders, becomes difficult to impliment. The idea of keeping the ban on mines even in an "unlimited" game is to me bizarre, as though the possibility of a hidden AT minefield is more imbalancing than King Tigers or 8 inch artillery.

With guns, there are no restrictions except the banning of all Flak. But underpriced towed guns, especially in overmodeled cases like the Puppchen, are a primary source of game imbalance, especially with "unrestrictic" force type. Compare the effectiveness of 75mm infantry guns with that of 81mm mortars or HMGs. For the same price, the guns will always do more.

I suggest a restriction on the total number of towed guns present at a battle, scaled to the point size of the scenario. The rule is at most 2 towed guns, not counting mortars or HMGs, per 500 points of force size, fractions round down. So 1000 point defenses can have a battery, but not a battalion of light guns. Players can take more expensive, more capable guns, or they can save points for other arms by taking cheaper towed gun types. What they cannot do is take 12 guns because they pick a cheap variety.

I agree with banning the flakwagens as indestructible. Banning all light Flak I see less of a need for, although I agree they are overmodeled. Prevent cheap hordes of the things with the above gun limit, though, and I don't see too big a problem. The solutions to a few light flak guns are fully armored tanks, which bounce their shells, and any form of indirect fire weapon to suppress them from outside their LOS.

I'd allow 150mm artillery under Panther-76 rules, restrict the Hummel and SiG to those rules too, 120mm under short-75 rules (where 105mm direct fire vehicles are also allowed), and allow 105mm in recon battles, but not small infantry-only fights. Artillery deserves a large role on the CM battlefield, as every bit as essential a part of the combined arms toolkit as AFVs.

The comment that it is "easy" to win with 150mm artillery then advancing, instead of "learning" to maneuver with tank-infantry teams, strikes me as both untrue and biased. It is easy to put down the 150mm too soon, waste shells, and run dry of ammo. It is easy to put tanks in the gaps blasted by artillery fire, using them for their near invunerability to unaimed fire rather than for tank dueling. The HE-infantry attrition war is a counter to the AT-armor maneuver war, and it is the interplay between them that actually generates tough tactical problems.

Attritionist coordination with fireplans driving, relying on heavy shells, is as legitimate a tactic as relying on thick front armor plates to win the armor fight. They are move and counter, and someone trained up in tank-infantry cooperation but unable to respond to such counters is not as trained up as he suspects. Splitting tank-infantry teams can be done by focusing on either component of them, with AP -or- with HE.

If an enemy is heavy on infantry, you want to be heavy on artillery to counter. And properly used, it will counter. But not if the artillery is neutered at the outset by effective types just being banned. Does that mean 8" in every fight? No, of course not. But it does mean if there can be advanced tanks there should be advanced artillery, and if there are any AFVs there should be regular field artillery. Meanwhile, if the enemy is heavy on artillery, you just want fully armored tanks to counter.

One man's opinions...

[Lorak]

First,

Let me say Dia Huit Fionn.

(hope I didn't butcher the spelling)

Glad to see you have a new set of guidlines out.

As always I find that knowing who your playing is a good step in avoiding the problems your guidelines address.

For those of you who are concerned about the depth. You don't need to use these in your games.

They are just some good guidlines to take into consideration when planning your games. They also make a good starting point in game setups with those you don't know. Throw out what you don't like, change what you think needs to be changed.

They are simply a good start towards a balanced and fair game between players, if they is what they are looking for.

Lorak

[Fionn]

As regards balance ( the banning of VT, the presence of HTs armed with 7.5cm L/24s etc)...

I have checked the statistics of tournaments run under the Short 75 and Panther/76 rules. Under both rules the win/loss ratio per side was almost 50/50. In fact, for the Short 75 rules the win/loss rate for the Allies was 49/51.

IOW whenever a player commanded an Allied force in that tournament ( whether attacking, defending or in a meeting engagement) he had a 49% chance of winning the game.

A PERFECTLY balanced set of rules with perfectly balanced ( IOW identical) forces on both sides would result in a 50% chance of winning the game.

Other ratios were of a similar order. So, what does all of the above mean? Well, it basically means that over the course of over 600 personal PBEM games using the rules and many hundreds more tournament games using these rules the evidence I've seen has rather conclusively pointed to player SKILL being the deciding factor in determining who wins.

When the guidelines are applied the Germans simply do NOT have an advantage and neither do the Allies. When the rules are assiduously applied they end up with as near a 50/50 balance as one can manage. That was my aim and that is what has been achieved.

To Redwolf and others making up other rules. You're welcome to do so. I will, however, state that I don't think other rules could get as close to the perfect ( 50/50) balance as these rules do.

I can see several flaws which damage "balance" in several of the other rulesets out there.

As to those who say that the American 75mm isn't as good as the German 75mm. You're right. The American 75mm gun isn't BUT the rules aren't formulated by ONLY comparing gun to gun. They are formulated by comparing the weapons system mounting the guns to eachother ( and therefore armour, ricochet potential, vulnerability to other weapons systems etc all has to be taken into account). If the Pz IV was far superior to the Sherman in-game then the Short 75 tourney wouldn't split its wins 49% to 51% in favour of the Germans. ( The 2 % difference is quite easily explained away as chance. Even with perfectly balanced forces human players will ensure that no tourney ever ends up with a 50/50 split.)

FWIW if you put up 76mm-armed US and British tanks against German Pz IVs any competent Allied player will absolutely massacre the Pz IVs. I've commanded Pz IVs against Sherman 76s and Hellcats and I've found myself butchered in the tank on tank battles. Pz IVs vs Allied 76mm-armed tanks is simply not an even battle. Pz IVs vs 75mm-armed tanks is much, much more equal. AND remember that the balance is over the whole force not, always, within each arm of each force. That is something Puff is missing out on entirely.

Of course Puff is entirely free to use whatever rules he wishes. I just wish to correct his incorrect statements since they could mislead others reading the thread. If he prefers other guidelines then he should feel free to use them. CM is about enjoying playing and NOT about forcing everyone to play balanced games. If you like taking Pz IVs up against Hellcats then that's your business.

Ligur,

You shouldn't dread ladders BUT I think the rules serve a purpose in that they warn players new to ladders of some of what goes on in ladders. Better to forewarn newer players than have them go in and be taken advantage of. Forewarned is forearmed.

P.s. If you want to research unbalanced force picks a little check out the Tourney of Stars threads ( there are several). In one of those games a player purchased a force which was entirely unrealistic and ended up winning 99 to 1 within 3 turns ( through use of massive artillery on the enemy forming up positions). THAT sort of thing is common in ladders unless you, as on of the two players, simply insist on whatever set of purchase guidelines you feel leads to the most enjoyable game.

Football ( aka soccer) has rules too. They don't ruin the game, they help ensure the game is fun and played in a manner which both sides find acceptable. These rules should serve the same function.

As to combined arms... Play with the rules and you'll HAVE to be a good combined arms commander since the player who uses ALL arms to advantage will be far superior to a player who is brilliant with one arm ( infantry or armour or artillery) but only mediocre in the other two. I'll stand behind that statement.

[Redwolf]

(Posting deleted, my imputations of Fionn being biased to his play style were not productive)

[ May 21, 2002, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[JasonC]

Or, in a second pass at making essentially the same point - if the Germans can reach for impenetrable front plates on Panthers, then the Americans can reach for irresistable detonations from 155mm howitzers. The latter was the true practical counter to the former, not an M-10. The Allies fought assymmetrically, avoiding German strength in the armor war with a counter in the (logistics and total odds intensive) HE war.

Suppose two corps face each other, each with one armor division and two infantry divisions, with their corps level assets. Then the Germans would have 4 companies of Panthers to intervene with here or there, creating "Panther-76" fights. While the Americans would have 2 155m howitzer battalions in the infantry divisions, plus up to 6 more in the higher level artillery (and at least 2). So there would be 1-2 battalions of 155mm per company of Panthers. In a CM fight, you would see a platoon of the latter - and batteries of the former to counter them.

Where the Panthers are not present, the armor fight proceeds on more even terms. But where they are present - and suppose they let the Germans win the local armor fight - heavy firepower intervenes and strips their supporting infantry off of them. That the Germans can intervene with their own heavy guns in such cases does not change the outcome. The presence of heavy artillery firepower on one side breaks tank-infantry cooperation on the opposing side. And even with their own fire support, the tanks find it difficult to proceed.

But if instead you just ban the 155mm, but allow the Panthers, then you artificially shift the terms of the combined arms fight. You play up the importance of the armor war alone. You overemphasize tank dueling and downplay all arms coordination. You remove the assymmetric counter from the Allied arsenal (Brits would use 5.5 inch howitzers as well as 17-pdr AT shooters, but the idea is similar). You force them to "play" in the German's "long suit".

In a similar way, allowing SMGs and 2-LMG squads in any amount but severely restricting artillery preserves a German move and disallows an Allied counter. The same is true of allowing any towed gun but limited indirect fire to deal with them. They are maneuverist and pro-German changes, overall. A primary benefit of the Americans - faster artillery response times - is vastly reduced in importance, while most specifically German strengths are untouched.

Incidentally, I would also allow aircraft in the unrestricted case (along with AA systems of course, minus the invunerable unarmored flakwagens). Because aircraft were another such assymmetric counter. I can see not allowing them in the Panther-76 case, but if King Tigers and 8 inch artillery can come to the party, so can Typhoons and Thunderbolts.

What I see in the thrust of the restrictions is a sort of desire to remove everything but maneuverist coordination of tank-infantry teams, heavy on the tank dueling, from the equation. But that is not removing what is gamey, it is removing what is "war-ey". It is recreating not the combined arms symphony of WW II, but playground maneuverist conditions.

[Fionn]

Jason C,

Attrition-based strategies aren't made "harder". All that happens is that people aren't force into an arms race. IF people want to bring 155mm+ shells to the party they just agree an exemption ( e.g. "Panther/76 rules + 155mm arty exemption" ). Hardly the most onerous thing in the world.

Mine detection and clearance in CM isn't up to a realistic standard ( even when using engineers). For this reason mines are excluded. To give other reasons for their exclusion is simply to get into the game of making stuff up and then bitching about the made up stuff.

As to guns ALWAYS doing more than off-map mortars etc. I disagree. Off-map mortars can quite cheaply dispose of expensive on-map guns. Your argument here simply doesn't make sense in light of my game experience ( where on-map guns die very quickly and easily).

re: the restriction on number of guns per battle. I shied away from restricting gun or vehicle or FO numbers as I felt that would be too meddlesome. YOU are, however, free to add in any such rules you want under the heading of "exemptions" for your own tourneys and games.

re: your points about 150mm artillery. Of course some skill is required to handle artillery properly. OTOH I stand by my previous statements re: balance. Still, as I have stated repeatedly. NOTHING is stopping you making arty exemptions SOP in all your tourneys and operations. It will move the game away from its current balance but if you want to do that then that's your business.

Lastly, there seems to be a position held in your post that only heavy artillery is effective. I find this interesting. I would personally feel that 105mm or 120mm artillery is quite capable of stopping infantry in their tracks.

I've learnt that it is extremely dangerous to disagree with you but suffice it to say that those who need 155mm arty to stop infantry attacks probably aren't as good with artillery as they think they are. I know lots of people who consider 105mm and 120mm artillery to be quite heavy enough to stop any infantry they come across.

Dia's Muire Dhuit a chara Lorak. An bhfuil m'email agat?

[Olle Petersson]

Two points:

1) The lists are probably incomplete.

Allowed towed guns are defined as "Any and all IGs and ATGs".

Where are the howitzers and field guns?

2) This rule set is obviously aimed to be used by crappy strategists! (See my sig below...)

Cheers

Olle

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

1) The lists are probably incomplete.

Allowed towed guns are defined as "Any and all IGs and ATGs".

Where are the howitzers and field guns?

And recoiless rifles.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by redwolf:

...And recoiless rifles.

No, technically they're ATGs.

Cheers

Olle

[JasonC]

Well I for one will not have to negotiate such things because as I said I will not be using the suggested rules. I prefer something much simpler, like Redwolf's recent suggestions or your original 75-76 categories. And I'll negotiate any add ons like my gun limitations on a case by case basis - though I also recommend them to others, because cheap gun hordes (whatever your experience in the matter) are a serious balance problem in QBs.

On 155 artillery, I don't think you got my point. Sure, 105mm or 120mm can break infantry charges and force the enemy to spread to realistic intervals. But that is not attrition success. Attrition has to pay attention to exchange ratios, not simply the ability to effect the shape of the battlefield for 3-5 minutes.

What is special about heavy artillery is its ability to kill far more than its cost if used properly, and if the enemy does not adapt to the threat it presents (e.g. by running on each spotting round) - and to do this even against veteran quality infantry. The enemy can run out of men before you run out of shells. That is typically not the case with medium artillery, which can temporarly suppress forces in line with its cost, but rarely destroy them.

Oh, you can blast a platoon to heck with 2 minutes of 120mm mortar fire, certainly. But that is only an even exchange. Your force is smaller for the expended ammo and his for the lost platoon, but the force ratio hasn't changed. Sure, sometimes I've broken a whole company with one 120mm module and a TRP, but only because my opponent bunched up excessively and ran right through the location I predicted beforehand when placing the TRP. That was an outlier and his fault, not something one can rely on.

Meanwhile, a defending American with 105mm artillery support needs to exchange his 100 105mm shells for a *company* of attackers, not a platoon. Otherwise he is behind the curve in force-ratio terms (since he faces 3:2 point odds, and spent 214 pts on his 105 module, plus TRPs to make it more effective).

It is relatively easy to break a company's worth of attackers by the time the ammo is gone, but it is much harder to eliminate them. They will rally and be back, and the ammo will not be. But 155s kill rather than break. Medium artillery shapes the battlefield by suppressing or breaking at critical times. But to make that worthwhile in point-exchange terms, the other arms must make the most of the temporary tactical pportunities that creates. Heavy artillery can do that, but it can also do something else if the enemy does not disperse himself - flat run him out of men. It is a threat of a different order.

I see nothing wrong with restricting the heavy stuff to some battles, and not allowing it in short-75 engagements. But it is the Allied long suit. Americans have faster response times and Brits have cheap heavy modules (the 5.5 inch in particular). The German long suit is front armor plates. If one side's long suit is allowed, I want the other sides counter allowed.

As for mines not being detectable, of course they are detectable in the old fashion way, by running over them. And more to the point, they are also avoidable in ways besides detecting them. And not free. If someone buys 6 AT minefields, he can probably so place them that he will be sure to hit something. But he also is no better off for that trade, because his attacker has 135 points for the cost of his mines. And perhaps a halftrack will hit them rather than tank; then he is well down.

Once hit, the particular minefield can be cleared by engineers or simply avoided. Maps are very large compared to the mines one can afford. In reality, mine obstacles hundreds of yards deep and miles long were quite common. The Germans laid more than 20 million AT mines in WW II. They were an integral part of the combined arms situation, making infantry force defenses far more robust against armor than they would be without them.

AP mines were even more common, and were critical to making simple local odds much less decisive than they would have been without their presence. Combined with reverse slope ideas they allow the main body of defenders to avoid the bulk of an attacker's firepower, at least for a while or from the front. AP minefields in CM have limited effects. They usually pin a squad and cause 1-3 casualties, and after that are avoided. If isolated, they deny small bits of cover but little beyond that. Only the AI is dumb enough to run into them again.

Long chains of AP mines can sometimes stop a platoon, with multiple "hits", as its limits are found, and continue to act as a meaningful "shield" after discovery. But these are not extreme effects for an investment as large as an infantry platoon or medium artillery module.

It is also worth noting that in probes, the defender's front line limits of placement are so close to the objectives that AT mines are typically ineffective, since attacking vehicles never have to come that far forward to achieve LOS of the objectives. AP mines are of limited importance in probes, because they can have only a "final protective line" effect. The firefight with forces on the objective has usually already occurred before the attackers reach the placement limits.

Meanwhile, in attacks, where the distance forward the mines can be placed is large enough to be useful, the point odds are 3:2 against the defenders. Before he spends any of his budget on fortifications. If he spent 1/4 of his budget on such things, to create large obstacle belts, the odds in fighting forces become 2:1.

It is quite hard to hold off twice the forces of the enemy, even with obstacle belts. But it is true that facing such obstacle belts, a strategy based on running the defenders out of men (and ammo) is more likely to succeed than a razzle-dazzle through the prepared barriers. That just means large obstacles are a move with a particular counter, not that they are unbalancing.

Also, it is arguable that CM is generous in allowing combat engineers to clear paths through mines in combat time, because that was rarely successful in practice. It often took hours, not minutes. Using mines effectively is not so easy in CM that it is a major balance issue anyway. Puppchens stop tanks in much less historical ways than pairs of AT mines do, and 75mm infantry guns are at least as overmodeled for their price as strings of three AP mines.

[JasonC]

I also note a possible misunderstanding about "off map mortars" and "on map guns". When I speak of the unbalancing effect of hordes of on map guns, I do not mean 88mm FLAK or 75mm PAK. Those are expensive enough that it matters if you lose them, it matters how much they take out, and if artillery KOs them the attacker is not still behind in the matter.

But cheap guns are another story, because taking them out with indirect fire costs more in shell cost than the guns themselves do, even with attacker odds. Incidentally, it is not trivial to take them out with mere 81mm off map mortars. But bigger mortars will certainly do it. What does that mean, though? In practice, it means 50-100 points of artillery ammo KO a gun. The defender can afford 33-67 points of guns for that cost. One or two cheap ones.

Well, then the guns KO whatever it is they manage to KO before being spotted and targeted, and then also "take out" the ammo expended to neutralize them. Cheaper counters like on map mortars can sometimes deal with them, but proper deployments away from initial overwatch positions can limit the usefulness of that counter.

Try running a defense that includes 6-12 on map guns sometimes, using puppchens for AT, 75mm infantry guns for HE (e.g. sited on houses, woods near objectives, etc), and 75mm recoilless rifles for either. (You ban 20mm FLAK, but it is another in the same category, for dealing with light vehicles, if not banned). Seperate all the guns so that no two are under the same possible barrage footprint, and avoid locations easily spotted from initial overwatch batches of cover for the attackers.

Each gun can be taken out "quickly", sure, if enough of the attacker's force is brought to bear on it. But the attacker will run out of things to take out each easily, before the defender runs out of guns to unhide. You can trade such things for halftracks (plus whatever he later has to expend to take you out), let alone for tanks.

The solution is to allow these weapons, but not to allow unhistorical hordes of them. Gun sections and batteries would be found in company and battalion level fights. But not whole battalions of light guns for each company of infantry, or on each kilometer of front. Thus the 2 per 500 point rule. It means company level fights can have gun sections, and larger ones batteries. If the guns are light types, then the defender has that many points for added infantry, teams, artillery, or fortifications. But not dozens of the guns.

[Redwolf]

In CMBO 1.12, the larger the artillery module, the more casulties it causes for its cost, which I find quite fair since it is more difficult to bring on target. I don't see a problem here either way.

[ May 21, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Fionn]

Redwolf,

The burden on the players isn't overwhelming.

At its simplest all a player has to do is say " I'd like to play this game using the Short 75 rules. No exemptions. Ok?" If the other player says OK then that is ALL there is to it. They both make their purchases, check the page on Rugged Defence which lists the vehicles which are allowed ( if they have any doubt as to whether or not a particular vehicle is allowed or not) and then begin the game.

Complexity ONLY enters into the rules if players start negotiating exemptions. If they negotiate exemptions then they are deviating from the rules and introducing their own complexity NOT because of the rules but because they want to go BEYOND the rules. Complaining the rules being complicated in such a situation is disingenuous and unfair. They become complicated if deviated from. If adhered to there is little complexity.

Example: IF no exemptions are wanted then the only 4 steps needed are:

1. Proposal regarding which rule to play under.

2. Agreement to this proposal from the other player.

3. Both players consult the page on the Rugged Defence website which hosts the rules to ensure their forces are legal

4. One of them does his setup and they begin playing.

Hardly the over-complex situation which overburdens players you try to paint. In any case I REALLY don't see why you are trying to persuade people who like them and don't find them too cumbersome that they are actually being overwhelmed by the rules etc? Surely these players are adult enough to decide for themselves if the rules are too complex etc without having to have you persuade them of these things? If they find the rules too complex they simply won't use them. I'm entirely happy to leave this up to the players. They're adult enough and smart enough to deal with these rules.

As to them being biased towards one idea of what World War II combat should be like. I believe that is incorrect and unfair. They are biased towards creating even matchups. THAT IS ALL. If I were creating rules to force historical matchups on players then I'd write VERY different rules. The rules enforce neither a manoeuvrist or attritionist outlook on players. They simply create a level playing field. Attrition and manoeuvre has nothing to do with the RULES. Attrition and manoeuvre has to do with how the two players command their forces in the field. I could take the same force onto the same field and play it in two such different ways that you'd swear two different players were in command with one of those players being an attritionist and one a manoeuvrist. Attrition and manouevre are in the commander's mind, not the force purchase.

Also you keep telling me and others that the rules do x when they MUST do y etc. Redwolf, the rules are a series of compromises between two extremes. I drew the compromises where I drew them by dint of my 600+ PBEMs, advice from tourney organisers and reports of the results of hundreds of games undertaken under the rules. If you don't like where I drew the compromises then that's fine but to step in here saying that the rules MUST do x and MUST use bands instead of limits etc is to go too far IMO. If you don't like the rules then make your own ( as I see you have) and publish them and make them available to others. I fundamentally disagree with many of your decisions BUT I respect your right to draw the line in different places to me and you'll note I haven't gone posting to your thread with a multitude of criticisms etc ( something I could easily do if I wanted since I think there are flaws). My advice is to concentrate on making all the changes you say need to be made in these rules in your own rules and THEN see the effects of those changes before coming in here and saying a lot of things which are extremely questionable and are, at the end of the day, only matters of opinion. If you do that you may realise why I decided not to make those changes... or, maybe, your rules are shown to be absolutely superior to the ones I've come up with. If that happens I'll be happy to bin this rule set and tell everyone to use yours. For that to happen you have to move from criticising others to actually implementing something concrete and thought out yourself which can be utilised by a wide variety of skill bases to achieve the end result you want ( in my case I sought to create balanced games which would be decided by skill. I'm satisfied I've done that.).

JasonC,

All of this "pro-German" stuff you claim is in the rules is just a result of selective viewing on your part. If the rules were biased then Germans would be winning 70% or more of games played instead of just 2% more ( well within a margin of chance as I'm sure you know). It seems that everyone who does something different to how you'd do it is either ignorant or biased. It's amazing but actually quite funny if you don't take it too seriously .

In any case I'm playing two games now pitting my British rifle troops ( 1944 rifle squads) against attacking German forces. There is no limit on the number of SMG squads or LMG-heavy squads the Germans can buy. If I had stacked the rules against the Allies I wouldn't have chosen to face hordes of attacking German SMG units under Panther 76 ( 120mm arty limit) and recon rules ( 81mm arty limit). Now I'm sure you can come up with some strange reason I might have done the above but, frankly, that's just a case of using your intelligence (which is considerable) to come up with far-fetched reasons for things so you don't have to admit that the most likely answer is, in fact, true. It all comes down to the simple truth that the rules aren't biased towards any side. They simply create balanced games. That's all there is to it. If they didn't then the hundreds ( and quite possibly thousands) of people who use them would simply stop using them.

If you don't like it then please remember that I'm not holding a gun to your head forcing you to use the rules. For all I care you can make up your own rules, name them "Fionn's guidelines are really crappy and I hate them and he smells and I don't think he can dance. Oh BTW, I think these are much better" and make them freely available to anyone and everyone. I'm more than happy to leave it up to CM players.

THEY are smart enough to figure out what works, what gives them enjoyable games and smart enough to keep using what they like. So, I strongly encourage you to DO something about it. Come up with your alternative and publish them and if they are better people will use them instead ( hell, if they ARE better I'll definitely use them. I'm interested ONLY in getting the most balanced games.).

As to your example. Again you mix up getting historical force mixes onto the virtual battlefield with getting balanced forces on the battlefield. A historical force isn't necessarily a balanced force and a balanced force isn't necessarily a historical force. I do NOT call the "Balanced Force Rules" the "Historical Force Rules" for a reason. That reason is that the rules do NOT create historical force mixes. They do, however, create balanced forces where the skill of the player determines who wins and who loses. If you want to promote more historical forces then I suggest you go and create a Historical Force Rule. I'd be happy to help you however possible in doing so as I think a historical force rule could be valuable.

As to your "gun" example... I've run into that and every other possible defence in CM. I deal with that sort of defence by advancing my infantry screen with some arty support. I have absolutely no problem in clearing the ATGs and IGs with nothing but my forward screen infantry, a little bit of arty and only the very occasional piece of support from tanks most of the time. Occasionally I do it a little differently and lead with tanks etc but that's only when I'm demonstrating the tank vs ATG battle or demonstrating mechanised break-ins or something along those lines.

Anyways, I prefer to rely on player common sense to limit those sorts of abuses. You may prefer to make a rule for them ( logically redwolf would be against this as more rules would, undoubtedly, over-burden the players even more to his thinking... please you two feel free to fight amongst yourselves ) and that's fine. I won't change my rules but, as I said above, you are more than welcome to make your own, make them publicly available and see if they take. I wish you the best of luck.

[ May 21, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Redwolf]

Fionn,

sorry I was carried away in my above posting (which I edited away), it was in fact unfair and in any case I should have stayed to my original idea of just posting my rules and not theorizing about yours.

I think my core opinion about simpliticity is clear, people sit in IRC ready to do TCP battle and just want to blow some **** up. Complex rules, rules with large tables, many excluded units or rules involving multiplications ("I have a 1500 points game, how many SMG platoons does that make when 3 are allowed for 1000?") are from my experience just not accepted. People do appreciate rules that allow them to make richer choices of **** to blow up for an acceptable mental burden.

"Richer choices" - I think that pretty much sums up what I want from a set of rules.

[ May 21, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Andrew H.]

These rules seem pretty good. They are pretty complicated, but I don't think that they are more complicated than they need to be. Sometimes things just have to be complicated to work.

Jason - your point about arty as a counter to big front armor is historically correct, but you only really get the balance if the Allies have their traditionally undergunned armor. For much of the bulge fighting, the only tanks around were the 75mm Shermans, plus a smattering of 76mm TDs and towed AT guns. But there was lots of artillery.

The *game* problem is that if you permit, say, 155mm arty in a Panther 76 game, you aren't recreating the common situation faced by US troops because, as a practical matter, they US troops will come to the game much with something much closer to parity than was often the historical case - there'll be Jumbos and Jacksons, and any number of 76mm Sherms. So the unbalance comes in when you have close to armor parity *and* the arty imbalance.

I suppose if you had the US player play by the Short 75 rule, but gave him arty up to 155, and made the German use the Panther-76 rule, but limited him to 120mm arty, you might sort of recreate the historical imbalances you were interested in.

But I think that the real answer to these historical concerns will be the rarity rules, at least for CMBB, of course.

[Fionn]

Redwolf,

It is good to see your latest post. I completely understand where you're coming from. As I think you've come to realise whether or not you like these rules or simpler rules which don't balance a game as finely as these rules really has a lot more to do with your "taste" in CM games than it has to do with any real superiority in either rule set.

Some folks will prefer simpler rules ( and I'm happy to see you cater for them). Others will prefer more finely balanced rules ( particularly tourney players... I'm interested in providing that and I feel that's what I've done).

The basic end-point is that you want to provide for a different "market" than I do. I think that's great and if you want someone to bounce ideas off ( with a view to keeping the rules simple as opposed to seeking the most balanced rules possible and accepting whatever complexity that brings) I'd be delighted to help if you want.

I will just state that if you're looking to achieve perfectly balanced and simple rules you'll quickly come to realise, as I did, that you have to sacrifice either balance or total simplicity. I opted for balance, when you make your rules I suggest you opt for simplicity ( so that players have a wider variety of rulesets to choose from).