Quick Battles - Your rules?

[Valkatox]

So I've been reading quite a bit about people's own rules in terms of quick battles recently.
Now there are the basic sort of house rules which more or less everyone plays, such as no arty on the startup zone / no TRP on meeting engagements and so forth.

But I'm more thinking about the rules that individuals set. And I was wondering -
What people's takes are on the rules, and if certain rules would stop you playing against that person in a QB match.
As so far I only really use the house rules that most people follow when setting up a game, and ask my opponent if they have any extra ones they would like to play.

"Pre Planned" rules. Mainly by this it tends to be with defenders or meeting engagements.
With defenders it tends to be with the delay, as otherwise you'd be dropping arty turn one on your enemies start up zone. Which isn't very sportsman like.
So would it bother you if the defender had a 5/10/15 minute delay arty on an area along your advance infront of your starting area?

And as for meeting engagements the pre planned tends not to be used from what I've seen, as those battles tend not to be, well... planned battles.

The "Big Cat" max Panther rules (EG - 1 max for every 5 tanks) , I've seen these used once or twice and they make the games quite fun. I can understand some players wouldn't like this, mainly those who focus their whole game plans around having shell sponges to win.
But if you're playing the Allies and come across multiple Panthers it can pretty much be a finished game before it has started, especially if you've not got much space to move your tanks around.

As I think we've all had Panther spam games which make you do this -

Spoiler: this

"Force Percentage" rules. An example as having a maximum of 40% of your points being armour, no more than 20% arty / air support and so on.
Do such rules bother you / make the game too restrictive? Or do you think they make for a more fun game due to the combined arms factor and no spamming of one particular area?

"Arty TRP" rules. And by this I mean restrictions on how many (if any) TRPs can be used and if they can be used if you're attacking or defending.

Any thoughts on these rules? If any would put you off playing an opponent or if you use some of these as the norm in your games.
Or maybe there are some other rules you use.

Thanks for any replies in advance.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Generally speaking the more rules someone comes up with the more I fear they will be annoying to fldeal with and the more I worry I will accidentally violate. Therefore the less I am interested...

Now having said that it a long time playing partner wants to experiment with some restrictions or what ifs, then cool.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I like to play H2H scenarios, because it stops people from cherry-picking.

That being said, the moment I have to start thinking up all kinds of rules to prevent my opponent from being silly is the moment I start looking for a new opponent.

 

[jobu88]

Only rule I try to follow is no Meeting Engagement quick battles. They seem totally unrealistic, I would much rather play attack-defend quick battles. And I would rather play a good scenario than a quick battle.

 

[Valkatox]

I've been leaning more towards scenarios lately myself, but I do enjoy the picking forces also.
And it's a good point that scenarios stop cherry picking.

It kind of reminds me of the cheese lists in table top gaming sometimes.

Interesting views, thanks!

 

[Nemesis]

No pre-planned bombardments for the defender and no shelling/bombing/mortaring the attacker's set up zones are standard for me. CMX2 attacker set up zones are often too small and too close to the defender.

Most of the other stuff you mention can be done on a case by case basis. The mix of the game (CMBN vs CMBS vs CMRT), nationality, map, and time period has the potential for issues or bad gameplay.

One good way to do this is for one player to propose the parameters and the rules. THEN let the other player pick the side he wants to play. The "Proposer" will try to be balanced in rule selection as he does not know what side he will play.

The important thing is that both players agree to the rules up front and then respect the product of that negotiation. You can't cry foul if you get hit by air attacks when air attacks were not prohibited.

Some of the concerns you have are related to the Germans and their "uber weapons." I recently played a US vs US game which was AWESOME. The US fields a highly varied combined arms force and lacks "uber weapons."

 

[Meat Grinder]

I usually go with no pre-planned arty/air strikes (not even with a delay) for the defender or in meeting engagements. If my opponent wants additional rules, such as limiting armor purchases to 40% and/or limiting Panthers/Tigers etc., I'm usually fine with that. I like Nemesis' method of one player proposing all the rules and picking the map first, then the other player chooses sides. Also, yes playing scenarios prevents cherry picking, but there are some very unbalanced scenarios out there. Caveat Emptor.

If you want to spice things up a bit, it can be fun to play quick battles with a no fully treaded vehicles rule and/or no guns over 40mm.

 

[Nemesis]

Also, yes playing scenarios prevents cherry picking, but there are some very unbalanced scenarios out there. Caveat Emptor.

Years ago, I knew a guy (who shall remain nameless) who was a prolific CMX1 scenario designer. He made GREAT maps and clearly spent a TON of time on them. But he firmly believed in the "3 to 1" attacker to defender ratio. So attacker forces would be literally be 3 times the size of defender forces. All of his scenarios were utter routs in favor of the attacker as a result. Many tried to explain to him that 3 to 1 adage is designed to ENSURE attacker victory.

Even in the face of these routs and user feedback, this guy stuck to his guns.

 

[Josey Wales]

One rule I have tried out after reading someones challnege post was to have no fully tracked vehicles. This has so far led to some very balanced quick battles.

I have tried the percentages rule but you need to get your calculator out and it requires trust, so instead I'll just use strict rarity as a simpler option.

I never usually allow arty into setup zones but it is dependent on the type of game and the map. I am generally more relaxed about preplanned and trps. I think it's part of the initial assessment to figure out where your opponent will try to target and up to you to try and out fox him. I've used preplanned on meeting engagements and still lost.

Again I'd say it's dependent on the terrain/situation and on maps which do not allow for multiple avenues of approach for either player then I would probably place some rules on this. I'd rather have a fair game than arbitrarily follow house rules.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Does anyone play using this house rule I just invented?

"You may not adjust any soft factors of the units you purchase"

This would mean that if you wanted tough infantry, you'd need to buy paratroopers or similar. You couldn't just purchase any old infantry company and boost them up to elite status.

Also it would prevent key tanks from always being elite or crack quality.

 

[Meat Grinder]

Nope. I would never play with that rule. Adjusting the soft factors costs points, so it is, IMO, self limiting. You want to buy a whole company of Elite +2 men, go for it. I generally buy Veteran +1 troops, as I find them to be a good compromise between combat effectiveness and points cost. I confess I will sometimes buy up certain armor to Crack status.

IIRC, the old CM1 games allowed the players to choose the general quality of their troops. If CM2 had something like that, I would be more inclined to agree to play with your rule.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Sure, elite troops cost more, but it would just be a rule for making things a bit more interesting and realistic - so you would have both good and bad units within the same formation, instead of monobloc +1 veterans. It's a no-brainer currently, if you're playing to win, as veterans cost a tiny bit more but are much more effective.

Anyway, just an idea.

 

[Meat Grinder]

No worries, and I see your point, though I'm not sure about the "tiny bit more" that veteran +1 troops cost. Hang on....

Pulled up CMBN QB purchase screen. A company of American infantry with everything set to "Typical" costs 726 points. Change it to Veteran +1 Extreme morale and it costs 937. That's a 211 point difference. You could buy a tank for that.

Anyway, I can see why some would want to play with that rule, but it's just not for me. If I want to play with substandard troops, I'll play a scenario. ;-)

 

[A Canadian Cat]

No way.

My rule about rules is they are no good if: a) they can easily be violated without intent b) it is easy to look like they were violated.

Here is how your rule fails both. The way I usually play is I leave the game set to typical and just tweak a setting or two and that's it. Let me make it clear I play to win but I don't game the game to win. Having said that there have been a couple of times that the troop settings were not set to typical because I was experimenting or working on a scenario previously - and CMBN for a while would helpfully "remember" your last choice. Ooops I just violated your rule with no intention too - your rule fails test a).

Remember that "typical" has some randomness to it that means if I am playing to win - your definition gaming the game to win - then lets say I want a really good platoon for some job I would just purchase the formation a bunch to times and keep the platoon that was the best. That violates your rule but not my test.... The corollary to that is I could honestly be just picking forces and get an above average platoon in my list. All good but when my opponent checks after the battle they get the mistaken impression that I jacked up the troops. Oops that violates test b).

I don't want to have rules that will make people (including me) feel like they were cheated or accidentally cheat. Just kept things simple and play to win. If you have an opponent that takes too much armour - make him pay for that mistake. He never takes any artillery - show him it is the king of the battlefield. Some guys likes machine gun jeeps with bulletproof windshields - fuck those jeeps up by using heavier weapons and better tactics. That's how my learned the value of a balanced force - by getting my ass handed to me by better players.

That's my fairly strong opinion

 

[Bulletpoint]

No worries, and I see your point, though I'm not sure about the "tiny bit more" that veteran +1 troops cost. Hang on....

Pulled up CMBN QB purchase screen. A company of American infantry with everything set to "Typical" costs 726 points. Change it to Veteran +1 Extreme morale and it costs 937. That's a 211 point difference. You could buy a tank for that.

As far as I remember from when I ran the numbers, it's that +1 morale boost that bumps up the price more than the veterancy ... just going to veteran level won't cost too much more (I think it was around 7 pct extra?), and it brings big benefits to pretty much everything the troops do.

Just looked at it again, and on my screen, a typical infantry company costs 738 points (it's variable because of the randomness), and changing everybody to veterans costs 799. That's 61 points extra for the veterans in this case. You could get a halftrack for that - well, actually you can't because you'd have to pay formation overhead It would cost 73 points.

 

[Meat Grinder]

Which is why I do it.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I don't want to have rules that will make people (including me) feel like they were cheated or accidentally cheat. Just kept things simple and play to win. If you have an opponent that takes too much armour - make him pay for that mistake. He never takes any artillery - show him it is the king of the battlefield. Some guys likes machine gun jeeps with bulletproof windshields - fuck those jeeps up by using heavier weapons and better tactics. That's how my learned the value of a balanced force - by getting my ass handed to me by better players.

I'm not suggesting this idea (or reporting the issue with the jeep) because I am losing. Actually I'm doing quite well.

The reason I suggested it was more for immersion, that troop quality levels would stay closer to their historical counterparts, and be more variable, so we'd have to play the hand dealt... I think that's quite fun.

Apart from that, your arguments about the problems with that house rule are of course very valid.

 

[Badger73]

I<snipped>
The reason I suggested it was more for immersion, . . .
<snipped>

I seek "immersion" when I play but often find it very subjective. I think that's an additional problem with this kind of rule. I find Combat Mission extremely immersive in and of itself.
I agree with @Meat Grinder that scenario's do the better job of learning to play the hand your dealt than QB's. However, in QB's I have to play the hand I dealt myself which often immerses me in painful humiliation . . . In the end, I find myself "immersed" in the situation at hand of evolving chaos as the battle progresses. That's good enough for me because whatever I plan to do, my opponent always gets a vote about the outcomes too which totally immerses me figuring out what to do about that!

 

[Bulletpoint]

I seek "immersion" when I play but often find it very subjective. I think that's an additional problem with this kind of rule. I find Combat Mission extremely immersive in and of itself.

[...]

In the end, I find myself "immersed" in the situation at hand of evolving chaos as the battle progresses. That's good enough for me because whatever I plan to do, my opponent always gets a vote about the outcomes too which totally immerses me figuring out what to do about that!

Sure thing, never said the game was not immersive as it is. I just think it would be a nice touch that if I wanted to field a certain quality/type of infantry, I would need to purchase a specific type of formation, in a specific time frame. As it works now, even penal battalions and Volkssturm units can just be tuned up to elite level at whim, even though in reality they were never that.

It would be cool (in my opinion) if something like for example the infamous Fallschirmjäger were completely different beasts when playing in Italy in the time of Monte Cassino, than in the Ardennes attack when they were historically a shadow of their former level.

That's why I think it's cool that we have the option to buy troops of a "typical" level, and I assume the game then dials in the values to be expected of that formation, from that faction, in that month of the war.

 

[Badger73]

@Bulletpoint - I think your proposal is better framed as the parameters for a specific QB/Scenario match request instead of a match rule. Check out http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/ladder-quick-battle-offer.26962/ for reference. Often a FGM member will pre-define the map, troops, and parameters for a proposed match he posts to the forums. Opponents are then invited to pick which side they want to play.
In effect, develop the particular kind of situation and OOB you have in mind. Then create a QB for it with all the map and troop attributes pre-selected as you wish for the immersion you desire. Save it as a new file name, zip it, and attach the zip file to a forum match request stating how you want things to work. Potential opponents can look at each side "as is" and then pick which side they want to play. Maybe you leave room for extra points to purchase TRP's or fortifications. Then, you re-check that the general parameters remain as you intended and start the match.
After you upgrade CMBN to the patched v4, remember that I prefer tiny/small (platoon to company-plus Kamfgruppe) for US and GER forces when you're ready to play . . .