Fionn Kelly's New Balanced Force Rules

[Ligur]

After playing it out a few times I've come to the conclusion I would participate in a tourney with these rules. I think they cater well when you want to minimize exploitation or very heavy use of über-units.

Regarding redwolf's rules, I find them good as well Maybe they offer different nyances but both achieve what I'd be looking for in a competitive game albeit in a different manner.

Yay for rules!

[JasonC]

To Andrew - I was not suggesting that the Germans be restricted to 120mm in Panther-76 games. On the contrary, they can use 150mm too. As for the statement that the Americans will have more armor than historically, I don't quite see it, expect for one tweak to the old Panther-76 rules that I use anyway.

Jacksons are fine. There were quite a few Jacksons in the Bulge and they had an important impact on some key battles (tip of Peiper's column e.g.) And they aren't uparmored. But I agree that Jumbos are more than that. I restrict true Jumbos and the uparmored Churchill varieties to the "unrestricted" game type, just like Pershings. I don't allow them in Panther-76 (my own use of Fionn's older categories, not his new revision).

In my own tweaked Panther-76, the Allies have access to many upgunned AT shooters, and the Germans have access to their common forms of heavier armor (Panther, Tiger I, Jagdpanzers, Hetzers). But the historically quite rare Allied heavy armor (Jumbos, heavy Churchills, Pershings), and the rarest German beasties (Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther and King Tiger), are unrestricted only.

This winds up cutting off the vehicles with production runs with only 3 digits, while allowing the types fielded in the thousands. While the short-75 rules winds up allowing only types closer to 5 digits than to 4. The line up with rariety isn't exact, but it is close.

The broader point of artillery to counter armor is not simple one of historical realism, however. It is about tactical complexity. To me, half the interest of WW II combined arms is the paper-scissors-rock stuff, the move and counter in ways other than directly mimicking enemy force composition. The last thing I want is anything that tends to force both side's forces to have the same overall structure (n infantry plus m tanks plus p artillery...) to be competitive.

To Fionn - of course balanced restrictions on force types allowed can alter the balance between attrition and maneuver strategies. No, they are not just in the commander's head, they are also in force composition choices. If someone said "any tanks, any amount, but no artillery allowed at all" ("its overmodeled"), no mines, no towed guns, and nor more than a single company of infantry, then obviously that would make attrition strategies dramatically weaker compared to maneuver ones. Going for infantry numbers or for HE dominance would not be feasible, and winning the armor war would be everything.

I am not saying yours do that; they don't. But the extreme example shows that such effects on strategies can result from "even" rules (between two *sides*, not possible *methods*).

Similarly, it would be easy for a rule set to place greater restrictions on something nation A gets more out of than nation B. I quite agree that short-75 makes for more balanced games and thus for more even outcomes, but then I think it did that as the old simple short-75 rule, without all the new restrictions on artillery and mines, etc. And I assume everyone knows that short-75 is relatively better for the Allies (in the sense of equal, not superior - and especially for the Americans), while Panther-76 is relatively better for Germans.

As for the comment about an infantry screen easily dealing with a horde-of-guns defense, it sounds to me like the gun defense user didn't know how to run such a defense. Naturally the guns are not used alone or left naked in front of the whole position. The doctrinal ideal is infantry on a reverse slope with guns farther back with LOS to the crestline. HMG teams cover open ground areas to pin scouts without the guns needing to reveal themselves. Routes into the interior of the defensive position, deep enough to get at the guns, are held by infantry platoons, AP minefields, or TRP artillery registrations. The guns are supposed to engage targets 250-500 yards from themselves, but closer to contact with the infantry ahead of them.

I assumed all that was well known to anyone used to fighting infantry force type defenses. The effect of a dozen cheap guns used correctly is out of proportion to their CM point cost in such cases. Thus my own contribution to balance ideas (besides ammo tweaks in scenarios - on old issue) - the gun number restriction, 2 per 500 points of scenario size. It tends to encourage the use of the more expensive, more capable towed gun types. And it discourages "suicide exchanges" based on CM prices, with little regard for the lives of the gun crews.

Fionn reasonably asks for my own balance ideas. I like his old short-75 vs. panther-76 vs. unrestricted rules, with the above tweak about Jumbos and heavy Churchills added. I like Redwolf's infantry allowed rules (only 1/2 infantry platoons VG SMG, Fus. SMG, or Gebirg). I add my number of guns rule, 2 per 500 points, round down. I ban the unarmored flakwagens. I like Redwolf's rule on cheap AFV types, that you must have a full priced AFV for each cheap one (under 75 points). I'd make an exception for the first 2 (so 2 M8HMCs alone are OK, but 3 require 3 heavier AFVs). I also like a rule on Brit 95mm tanks, that you must buy at least 2 of the non-95mm type for each 95mm of that type you buy. (Redwolf requires one each if I understand him right, and that would be close enough and easier to remember). I already explained my ideas on artillery - 150mm-155mm allowed in Panther-76, above that in unrestricted only (and no naval).

The reason I have gone through the whole subject is to inform a maker of a rule why one of his potential "customers" won't be using a particular recommended set. As I've said repeatedly, if other pairs of players like them of course they will use them. I've explained why I won't - not liking the mine ban, finding the artillery restrictions too tight (for the Americans in panther-76 games in particular), unlimited guns, infantry, and cheap armor types, all flak ban too extreme. In my opinion the rules together push toward "parallel" forces based on tank-infantry teams, while leaving open many-cheap force mixes (or guns or HMCs) that I consider more of a problem.

If instead of my preferred settings an opponent wants to use redwolf's simpler rules I will probably just say yes. If an opponent wants to use Fionn's old short-75 rule and maybe one or two other tweaks (like banning flakwagens) then I will probably say yes. If he wants to whole new Fionn rules I will say no.

One man's opinion...

[ May 22, 2002, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Fionn]

Fair enough Cawley. We can agree to disagree amicably over it.

I'm glad to see you seeming to state that the issues between us as regards the rules are more matter of opinion and "style" than of inherent absolute flaws. The rules do what they are intended to do very well. Unfortunately you would prefer them to have taken a different but pretty valid approach to the problem. As I see it that is where the problem lies.

If you want any help formulating your rule set just drop me a line. I'd be glad to help out as I'm all for player choice when it comes to playing guidelines etc.

[RobH]

Just to let everybody know, Fionn's Combat Mission 'Balanced Force Rules' have been updated on Rugged Defense with all known omissions/corrections made and a Word 2000 document version has been made available for download. A pdf version will be available for download shortly.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Robert Hall:

... a Word 2000 document version has been made available ...

Why not RTF?

Smaller filesize, guaranteed free from macro virus, and readable to all.

Cheers

Olle

[RobH]

Olle, I guarantee you the Word file on RD is free from virus and I did try saving it in rtf format but it was 3 times bigger than the Word file so the Word format won and I am more comfortable with that. The reason there will be a pdf file is to cater for all users.

Rob

[ June 19, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Robert Hall ]

[Samppa]

First I have to say that only play against AI, so these rules don't affect me in. Anyway, I have a couple of questions.

First, if there needs to be a rule to stop people from using the heaviest armor and arty available in the game, doesn't this implicitly mean that the cost of heavy armor is too low ? In the games that I have played I found that sometimes it would be nice to have a King Tiger, but sometimes I would rather have two cheaper tanks. So, I haven't really found heavy armor too cheap or expensive for its worth. In any case, any unit can be killed, so even the heaviest ones are not invincible.

As I said, this is just my impression from games against AI. Maybe against humans the heavy tanks and heavy artillery are more worth than their cost. If this is really the case, I hope, in CMBB their price will be increased to reflect this.

So, are these rules used only because the pricing of units in the game is wrong, or is there some other reason ? If the pricing is ok, why would all games end up Super Pershing vs. King Tiger duels or heavy artillery barrages, when all other units are just as useful (for their price) as the big ones ?

Second, Fionn pointed out that when using the rules, the games are very balanced. My question is, how about without rules ? Does either side have an advantage then ?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Samppa:

First, if there needs to be a rule to stop people from using the heaviest armor and arty available in the game, doesn't this implicitly mean that the cost of heavy armor is too low ?

No. In die-hard laddergaming, which pushes cheap units to the max, noone rolls in with expensive tanks.

They don't really win games, but people buy them nontheless and it hurts play fun if someone rolls in with them. The other player is also restricted to buy stuff that wins against King Tigers.

Second, Fionn pointed out that when using the rules, the games are very balanced. My question is, how about without rules ? Does either side have an advantage then ?

Very many people claim that CMBO is favoured to one side, but half of them say German and half of them Allies

[Fionn]

" Very many people claim that CMBO is favoured to one side, but half of them say German and half of them Allies "

LOL!!!

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I've always said that my opponent is favored over me whether he is Axis or Allies. It doesn't seem to matter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

They don't really win games, but people buy them nontheless and it hurts play fun if someone rolls in with them. The other player is also restricted to buy stuff that wins against King Tigers.

So you're saying it is not possible to play CM, lose, and still have fun doing it?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

They don't really win games, but people buy them nontheless and it hurts play fun if someone rolls in with them. The other player is also restricted to buy stuff that wins against King Tigers.

So you're saying it is not possible to play CM, lose, and still have fun doing it?</font>