The quest for simpler balancing Rules...

[Redwolf]

These rules are a second set of updates to Fionn's armor rules. I don't like his new rules.

Basic differences:

- default to allow, more vehicles included, selection only by armor plates, not gun. As long as you can defeat it, it is allowed.

- "soft" limits on certain underpriced units, but the limit doesn't require a pocket calculator.

These rules are intended to be as simple as possible. Strong emphasis

has been put on in doubt allowing a unit. In special, the tank limits

are not longer classified by "carries such and such gun and has armor

somehow appropriate for that", but instead, these rule only evaluate

vulnerability to a given gun. That means, the short-75 rule now only

forbids those vehicles which as not vulnerable to Sherman 75mm guns.

Vehicles carrying a heavier gun but have thin enough armor are

allowed. If you think the slow ROF and high price of the Nashorn are

great to shoot up Stuarts, then go for it. You are allowed to since

the Nashorn is vulnerable to the return fire.

On the other hand, a number of units are extremely effective for their

CMBO price, and these new rules put a soft limit on them, while

keeping the complexity of the limitation at a minimum. A few clicks

do.

These rules are only about play balance, they do not improve realism

or consider rarity issues (that is totally hopeless without opening

cans of worms).

Defaults:

=========

Unless said otherwise, the choice of one armor limit does not include

one artillery limit. You have to agree on one armor and one arty

limit for each game. See below for reasons.

Unless said otherwise, force mix is not allowed.

Unless said otherwise, the "Combined Arms" setting is in effect.

Always forbidden:

=================

- SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2

- Airplanes

- 14" naval gun FOs

- Pillboxes, except in the heavy rule

Clarification: other fortifications, including the MG bunker are

allowed. Remember that TRPs also increase AT shot precision.

Limits on overused units (sorry, has to be):

============================================

For each of the following infantry platoons you will have to get an

infantry platoon not on this list or a Hotchkiss:

- Volksgrenadier SMG platoon

- Volksgrenadier Fusilier SMG platoon

- Gebirgsjaeger (obviously that only works when force mix is allowed)

Note: these are the squads with more than 4 SMGs. There is other

high-firepower Axis infantry, but that is considered to have a high

enough price and it hence not limited. The UK parachute squad with 4

SMGs is at the edge, but comes with 2" mortar and PIAT and is hence

expensive enough, too.

For each of the following guns you will have to buy a towed gun

not on this list or a Hotchkiss:

- Axis 20mm Flak

- Axis 37mm Flak

- Axis 50mm AT gun

- Axis 75mm infantry gun

- Axis Pueppchen

- Allied 40mm Bofors

For each of the following vehicles or armor pieces you will have to

buy an armor piece shooting >= 75mm AP (not HC) not on this list or a

Hotchkiss:

- Allied M8 HMC

- Allied Wasp

- Axis all StuH

- Axis Hetzer

- Axis Panzer IV/70

Armor classes:

==============

redwolf-"recon" class:

----------------------

The old Fionn recon rule, no changes. If it has a gun, it has to be 50mm or under, no exceptions.

redwolf-"fireworks" class:

--------------------------

The class of vehicles vulnerable to 37mm guns:

- all armor up to 50mm gun allowed

- all vehicles allowed (including short-75mm armed)

- all open-top thin SP arty allowed: Wespe, Hummel, Priest and Sexton

- all open-top thin TDs alloed: all Marders and Nashorn

- but towed 20mm and 37mm Flak and 40mm Bofors AA guns excluded

- but VT artillery excluded (open-top vehicles die like flies)

Clarification: yepp, the M8 HMC is not allowed. HE-intensie vehicle should be vulnerable to .50cal/20mm fire for this rule.

Intended play style: vehicles are fast, cheap and fragile. You really

want to get rid of the big HE shooters. This can represent early-war

fighting, formations of small-gun light tanks maneuver to kill the

opponent's support. A reduction of the "last vehicle wins" symptom is

expected, since all HE shooters are pretty vulnerable to close

infantry attack.

Explanation: the Flak guns and VT artillery would destroy this play style, they cannot be allowed

redwolf-"Sherman-75" class:

---------------------------

The class of vehicles vulnerable to the US 75mm gun.

German armor excluded due to not being vulnerable to reference gun:

- Hetzer and Flammpanzer 38(t)

- all Jagdpanzer IV

- Panzer IV/70

- all Panthers

- Jagdpanther

- all Tiger

- Jagdtiger

- all King Tiger

American excluded:

- all Jumbo Sherman

- Pershing

- Super Pershing

British excluded:

- Thick Churchills - VII, VIII and Crocodile (VI and AVRE allowed)

redwolf-"76mm" class:

---------------------

The class of vehicles vulnerable to the Panther and 76mm guns.

German excluded:

- Jagdtiger

- all King Tiger

US excluded:

- Pershing

- Super Pershing

British excluded:

- (none)

"heavy-only" class:

-------------------

The "what the f.ck?" rule:

- Stuarts, Daimler AC, Puma, Greyhound excluded

- 95mm Cromwells excluded (VI and VIII)

- M8 HMC excluded

- Ostwind and towed 37mm Flak excluded

- Pillboxes are allowed unless players forbit them pre-game

Note: this setting is meant to prevent players from deliberately

exploiting shot traps, gun damage and weak spot penetration by the

high rate of fire of the small guns and/or abusing certain fast close

support HC-shooters as tank destroyers. You can also use pillboxes

and have them shot up the hard and painful way instead of by

Greyhounds.

Intended play style: experience late WW2 - expensive tanks with armor

thickness inflation and the struggle to keep them reasonably mobile.

Feel the real pain a Bazooka or cheap TD can cause. But don't whine

about game mechanics limitations.

Artillery classes:

==================

As said, there is no automatic coupling of one armor limit to one arty

limit. I don't see why small vehicles should automatically mean small

artillery. The smaller-vehicles games are usually very infantry-heavy

and hence you may want heavy artillery as part of infantry fighting.

Or not. Speak to your opponent.

Clarification: these limits only apply to off-map artillery, not towed

on-board guns or on-board SP artillery.

Reminder - these arty limits always apply:

- VT always excluded for redwolf-"fireworks" rule

- 14" naval always excluded

81mm:

-----

All artillery FOs up to 81mm caliber allowed.

107mm:

------

All artillery up to 105mm allowed, plus the British 4.2" mortar, but

not the US 4.2" mortar, and not the 105mm VT and 25pdr VT modules.

Note: the inclusion of the British 4.2" is needed because of the

unusual characteristic of the 25pdr module in CMBO. The 25pdr module

fires for 10 turns, plus targeting, possible target drop, adjustments

and delays while moving the spotter and is hence drastically different

from any other module in the game. Some people may even like that,

however the 4.2" is included to provide the British with one "normal"

module that is heavier than in the 81mm rule.

120mm:

------

All artillery up to 120mm allowed, including 105mm VT and 25pdr VT.

Note: This appears to be a pretty balanced limit, all large mortars

included, plus the British have the fairly useful 4.5". The 105mm VT

rocks, but it is believed to be fair overall due to other "goodies"

like British 95mm tanks and excellent German smallarms.

170mm:

------

All artillery up to 170mm allowed, including all VT.

Note: the 155mm VT and 5.5" VT modules are not excluded because they

don't appear to be that much more powerful than the 105mm VT. The

Axis 170mm module is allowed to balance VT. It is expected that the

price and ammo load of VT and 170mm prevent abuse nicely.

Heavy artillery:

----------------

Not a new class, but a reminder: the 14" naval is always excluded.

[ June 20, 2002, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Thanks for the input redwolf. I esp. like the "Bingo-Heavy" guideline, with its emphasis on keeping the heavy tanks from being raped by hordes of thin historically rarely-deployed-vs.-heavy tanks OPFOR units (Daimler, M8HMC, 37mm flaK).

Are you actually serious about the widespread "Hotchkiss" requirement...that cracks me up.

[ May 22, 2002, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

Thanks for the input redwolf. I esp. like the "Bingo-Heavy" guideline, with its emphasis on keeping the heavy tanks from being raped by hordes of thin historically rare OPFOR tanks (Daimler, M8HMC, 37mm flaK).

Me, too.

Are you actually serious about the widespread "Hotchkiss" requirement...that cracks me up.

I thought the rule-haters would like to a see a small lighten up in the cold world of regulations.

[Redwolf]

Competing for the most shameless ... BUMP ... in history.

[Count Zero]

I like these rules a lot.

Not too complicated while still adressing the most underpriced/overmodeled units that you see a lot of in "competetive" games.

Wouldn`t mind seeing them posted in a nice format over at TH-forums or something... :cool:

[JasonC]

I'd take the "VG Fusilier" platoon off the list. It is not that SMG-heavy. In fact, it has only 1 5-SMG squad, along with 2 2-SMG squads. The number of SMGs in the platoon is the same as for Security infantry, they are just split differently among the squads.

Only VG SMG, VG Fusilier SMG, and Gebirgsjaegers need to be on the list. Those are effectively allowed up to half the infantry force, but not more than half. Notice that allows VG companies and VG Fusilier companies if one additional VG Rifle or VG Fusilier platoon is added. Which are realistic company forces.

While I realize the idea is to keep it simple, I would also provide a global exception to the force mixing rules, for infantry. German Rifle 44 and Rifle 45 infantry types should be allowed for any German force. (SS Rifle 44 or 45 in the case of an SS force, obviously). This lets the needed platoon balancing be done easily, and is also realistic, because many special force types had no better armament than that, in practice.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I'd take the "VG Fusilier" platoon off the list. It is not that SMG-heavy. In fact, it has only 1 5-SMG squad, along with 2 2-SMG squads. The number of SMGs in the platoon is the same as for Security infantry, they are just split differently among the squads.

Ups, you are right, thanks for the hint. I was looking at just one squad. I guess the correct criterium would be "more than 12 SMGs in a platoon".

Only VG SMG, VG Fusilier SMG, and Gebirgsjaegers need to be on the list. Those are effectively allowed up to half the infantry force, but not more than half. Notice that allows VG companies and VG Fusilier companies if one additional VG Rifle or VG Fusilier platoon is added. Which are realistic company forces.

That was my thinking. Axis can still build fairly powerful forces of half SMG, plus discounted Rifle Volksgrenadier, plus veteran Panzergrenadier or whatever. So axis infantry can still be very teethy, most teethy of all forces, under these rules, but the player has to pay a fair price now.

While I realize the idea is to keep it simple, I would also provide a global exception to the force mixing rules, for infantry. German Rifle 44 and Rifle 45 infantry types should be allowed for any German force. (SS Rifle 44 or 45 in the case of an SS force, obviously). This lets the needed platoon balancing be done easily, and is also realistic, because many special force types had no better armament than that, in practice.

I was actually thinking about some more designed force mix rules to make some forces playable without outright free mixes. In special, I was thinking about giving Volkssturm access to all open-top or open-turret vehicles to make them playable. Volksgrenadier can also be put into their own force with crippeld vehicles but all-SMG allowed.

However, for now I have a bad desire to keep the rules as simple as possible and would like to defer this force mix stuff until later.

[Agua]

I like these RW. Especially the purchase limits on cheap armour and inf. along with the towed gun requirement (or a hotchkiss..LOL).

As a practical matter, I'd like to note that the small cheap armour problem could likewise be dealth with a limit of no more than 3 of any single armoured vehicle per 1,000. I think the way the purchase works out in a combined arms match, it has no effect on the more reasonably priced armour because you can't afford more than 3 anyway.

[ May 21, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

[Ligur]

Where I play the games are infantry heavy and thus I shun "rules" that opt heavy artillery out altogether unless you discuss them separately. Whilst I have no doubt Fionn's rules create more balanced games or at least rid the players from Super Pershings and King Tigers I would feel uncomfortable without the chance to get some heavy artillery.

I just played a few TCP/IPs with Fionn's Short75 rules and as an attacker had a pretty rough time dislodging a well fortified enemy with a combination of 105mm and 81mm. Infact I spent hundreds of ammo and they didn't mind unless they were caught on the move. A level or suppression was reached with combined shelling, direct fire from SP guns and infantry small arms which resulted in a breakthrough and VL capture.

However it is impossible to identify a strongpoint and then smash it to smithereens with 81mm mortars. If someone tells me its because my mad artillery skills aren't up to par I'll die.

[Ligur]

One more thing, in any set of rules I've read experience is omitted. I've read a load of AARs from prominent über-players and noticed heavy usage of crack, veteran and sometimes even elite troops. Is the general concensus that the higher cost makes them balanced?

As a player with historical tendencies I might pick a veteran company to spearhead an assault but after that its regulars all the way. Before you make fun of me yes I know the rules spinning around are not made for historical play, just balanced.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Ligur:

One more thing, in any set of rules I've read experience is omitted. I've read a load of AARs from prominent über-players and noticed heavy usage of crack, veteran and sometimes even elite troops. Is the general concensus that the higher cost makes them balanced?

I fail to see how that can be a problem. The quickbattle generator does not have an "open" selection for unit quality. Unless people say otherwise it is "medium", whihc means regular or veteran. You cannot abuse cracks since they are not available unless explicitly checked.

[Pud]

What the heck! I have had some rules of my own for quite some time (updated from time to time). Check my sig for the site.

They seem to work well in our group (i have yet to play someone I dont know), see what you think. Like it or dislike them, its a personal thing, but they work for us to give us a good game.

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

big bump

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Pud:

What the heck! I have had some rules of my own for quite some time (updated from time to time). Check my sig for the site.

They seem to work well in our group (i have yet to play someone I dont know), see what you think. Like it or dislike them, its a personal thing, but they work for us to give us a good game.

I dig those rules; esp. interesting/unique is that you can only buy 1 FO per full Company.

Personally I like Scipio's rules the best (at www.warfarehq.com ), the armor/restricted unit purchasing rules are nice. Although I've never his Arty rules, they seem quite good, too. Interesting that you can only get 1 105/120/4.5" FO and that's if you are at the 1500pts. level or greater.

[ May 22, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Fionn]

Ligur,

You are, generally, better going with regular troops. I used to by vets and crack troops etc in the past but really regulars are the way to go. It forces you to play more skillfully ( since they are less ueber-troops) and also is more historical making any victory gained more satisfying.

If, however, you want to maximise your winning potential then most players would probably go with Vets.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

I dig those rules; esp. interesting/unique is that you can only buy 1 FO per full Company.

But that pretty problematic, isn't it?

For one, the British constantly come with modules that are cheaper and have less ammo than comparable US modules. This obviously means the British gets less arty.

Then, there are some very cheap companies out there, especially for the Germans. Having the Germans have more artillery than the British doesn't seem right.

I fully recognize that in all-open games artillery is often used in an amount and caliber that is a distortion of historical combat mechanisms, but so far I have not seen a convincing simple idea to correct that, nor do I see it as a big problem.

I have thinking about new puchase point percentages for infantry, support, vehicles, armor, artillery, forts, with equal distribution for both sides, more armor, less artillery. But first informal talks with players revealed that this is a can of worms, some are very passionate about the different settings for Axis and Allies since it was introduced in one of the patches,some regard armor as useless anyway, some fear Panzer IV/70 etc.

[Pud]

Originally posted by redwolf:

But that pretty problematic, isn't it?

Nope, since my guidelines are all based on a Rifle company (44/45). Axis Rifle44 cost 372, british Rifle44 cost 379. If anything it limits the axis FO when compared to now QB open selection.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The quickbattle generator does not have an "open" selection for unit quality. Unless people say otherwise it is "medium", ...

Personally I prefer the "random" option for QBs. Then you can't tell what you're up against until you face the opposition.

Cheers

Olle

[Wreck]

Ligur:

Regarding troop quality I agree with Fionn. Regular is all you need; in fact on defense I would probably use greenies if I could. (In a QB, of course, regular is typically the lowest quality available.)

You get two things when you pay for better infantry: better firepower (10% more/quality level) and better morale. You pay 20% more per level, though. What you don't get, is better resistance to HE -- a shell is a shell. So with a fixed infantry budget, buying lower quality you can buy more platoons. This gets you ~8% more potential firepower, and more HE resistance (since you are buying more total men), but less resistance to enemy fire. Generally I find it is a good tradeoff; in particular HE resistance is something you need since the enemy is likely to bring arty and AFVs to the dance.

So why not push it all the way to conscript? Well, conscripts (and greens to a lesser extent) don't stand fire very well; they tend to panic and then get annihilated. So the morale of better troops is worth paying for, but only up to a point. Generally speaking, if you find that in a battle your troops are almost never having morale problems, then you might well do better buying one level down in quality.

[Ligur]

Very intresting stats Wreck, I didn't have the numbers. I'm pretty adjusted to regular like I posted, and consider them the best quality level myself.

Now that we started talking about it, I've thought about playing a large (2500pts and up) defending battle using greens (or 50% greens) but my gripe is the poor staying power (they run away or get so suppressed they are of minor use). You'd have to have some serious depth and use the withdraw command like nobodys business. Not to mention the reaction time of green troops under fire... This reminds me of the clumsy quality system in QB's, I'd think green/regular is one of the most historically accurate mixes but you can't pick that in a QB. Durrr. I'd love to try though.

I could imagine trying to use them as a formidable (by numbers) first line of defence that is supposed to collapse/withdraw and then bolster a secondary line of regulars. The regular company commanders could rally the poor sods before they run out of map. Or the other way around with the regulars making a fighting retreat and using the added firepower of massed green troops against the enemy later.

Veteran infantry serves one role for me: staying power at a certain critical location, be it defence or attack, usually attack. They will fight well under punishing fire, thus I use them to spearhead attacks or bring them in seconds after the first wave, establishing a beachhead or a breakthrough. IMHO in defence the high morale and firepower can be lost since you can't always choose where to commit the veterans, i.e. I'm talking about Wreck's HE resistance thingy, your opponent might target them for annihilating artillery / direct HE fire and the veterans are mauled badly before you have a chance to use their "special ability."

[/end thread hijack, sorry redhawk]

[ May 22, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Redwolf]

(Edited away: I proposed to make a new force like combined arms, but vehicles and armor points not limited. People don't seem to be interestedt in that)

[ June 20, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Bump.

I am going to polish this up and put it on a website. If you have any additional remarks, please let me know now.

Thanks

[Hans]

Nice set of rules (but hey Hotchkisses!)

There are only two REAL ways to get a balanced game

1. Adjust points until powerful units are very expensive - however getting agreement will be difficult, probably a vote by all existing forum members might give you an idea. In general this will give you at best a balanced game, maybe.

2. When you get to CM V create "sets" of soldiers and equipment that ARE equal, ie non-historic. Sterile and non-historic but the only way to make the battles truly balanced.

3. Yeah I know I said two, the easiest way is to just play the game and not worry about "balance", because you'll never get it. Except by using #2.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I think 'balanced forces' is something that was rarely seen in reality, because it is against the basic principels of warfare. So why the whole complication? Of course, within the game it makes sense to have some kind of guideline, cause otherwise the battles could get boring.

I prefer to play with Scipio's QB purchase rules. They are simple & more senseful then Fionn's 75/76. For example, I play a battle with many tanks in the medium class, facing many Hellcats and M10. It is the most reaslistic performance I have seen within the CM typical engine limitations.

[Redwolf]

I would appreciate it if only people would post who are interested in using rulesets like these. Why do you even bother to respond, it does not serve a purpose for you and it is needlessly cluttering up the thread.

Thanks.