Anyone want to play this one? CMBN

Will S

FGM Colour Sergeant
REGISTERED USER
Messages
281
Likes
136
Location
West Coast, USA
#1
Anyone want to play the setup pictured below?

Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 10.35.55 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 10.26.52 AM.png Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 10.36.34 AM.png

Standard house rules. Defender will not pre-plan any arty/air missions or target the attackers setup zone. Attacker will only use their setup zone for staging troops. Otherwise, attacker has the initiative and can do as they see fit.

Iron level. Ladder.

Looking for someone who will follow through with the game once it is started. It's a long one and I understand life happens and turns can't get out everyday, absolutely no problem with that. I will almost certainly be away for a couple weeks during this one....BUT looking for an opponent who will get turns out when they are around and able, and who will not quit/leave the game until it is finished by surrender, cease fire, or time limit.

I exist in GMT -7.

Cheers - WS
 

Will S

FGM Colour Sergeant
REGISTERED USER
Messages
281
Likes
136
Location
West Coast, USA
#5
Looking forward to facing off with you again. I remember you sometimes like to start off with a song. Well here's one that's somewhat fitting since you handed me my first ass-whoopins, and also timely with the passing of Walter Becker.

If you have the ability, loud, through the best speakers you own.

 

Will S

FGM Colour Sergeant
REGISTERED USER
Messages
281
Likes
136
Location
West Coast, USA
#12
@Meat Grinder

Loving it.

Sure was good shooting on your armor's part, especially how they smoked two of my tanks that were positioned behind hedgerows. It was nice to be able to get off the first shot or two though...it's possible my guys caused a bit of damage before becoming fireballs. Not the first time I've seen that happen, always take a chance going up against those Panthers, even with some extra protection up front.

Hedgerow fighting is tough, eh?
 

axxe

FGM Private
REGISTERED USER
Messages
37
Likes
28
Location
Switzerland
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
1 game.
#14
Standard house rules. Defender will not pre-plan any arty/air missions or target the attackers setup zone. Attacker will only use their setup zone for staging troops. Otherwise, attacker has the initiative and can do as they see fit.
Couple of honest questions from a newbie:

What exactly does "will not target setup zone" mean? If the enemy penetrates to your setup zone on turn 5 and you have some guys sitting there is he expected to not shoot at them?

What else would the attacker use the setup zone for but "for staging troops"?
 

Will S

FGM Colour Sergeant
REGISTERED USER
Messages
281
Likes
136
Location
West Coast, USA
#16
@axxe Happy to explain my thinking to you.

To start off, these are MY "standard house rules". I am sure other people agree/play by the same standards. Others probably do not and that is okay.

About the defender in a battle not targeting the attackers setup zone. These maps have a size limitation in order to make them playable. In many of the maps the setup zone for the attacker is quite small. Often a thin strip along an edge of the map or even just a small corner section. That zone is also very well known by the defender, since it is where their larger defensive setup zone is not, or they have seen the map from the other side and know exactly. This area is where the entirety of the attacking force starts the battle, which can range from a couple platoons to multiple companies and vehicles depending on the size of the battle. I think the attacker should be able to recon the battlefield, make their initial advance, hold troops in reserve, without the fear of getting blown off the map by gamey superpowers. In actuality clustering of troops in that density, in a location known by the opposing side just would never be a good idea, yet the map and game limitations force it. The attacking force cannot withdraw, fallback, take cover, or otherwise hide or maneuver out from enemy fire, even if that would be the prudent thing to do. So if the defender was able to target that small area full of clustered attacking troops I believe it gives the defender too much of an advantage, and an advantage that is based on game limitations and not combat tactics, making the game (in my opinion) not fun.

Want to know why I say no pre-planned arty/air at all from the defender? Read this.

A few examples, first based on your question of the defending force penetrating the attackers setup zone on turn 5. I would say that would fall under the defender taking advantage of the game map, instead of having a more tactical fight on the battle map. Why should the defensive force be allowed to rush troops forward and try to score fast knockout blows, when they know they have the attackers full force pinned against an map edge or corner with no space to maneuver or fall back? To me that just doesn't seem right. The attacking force should be given the opportunity to find the defenders position and attack the objectives. And vice versa the defender should have to defend those objectives, which can easily be done without targeting the attacking force in their setup zone. This in no way means the defense can not counter attack, there is a whole maps worth of space for that, just don't target the attacking force in their setup area. For example, if my rule was not in place and American troops were attacking a German occupied area. The German player could spend all their purchase Panther and Tiger tanks, place them as far forward as possible in their setup area, immediately drive them to where they know the attacking troops are clustered and obliterate the attacking force. In my opinion that is just not fun or the point of these games for me.

My "don't target the attackers setup zone" covers it all. No loopholes, no "what if this what if that" scenarios, no "well maybe the attacker should have moved faster". Covers pre-planned arty in the attackers zone, covers trp's in the attackers zone, covers the defender advancing on turn one into the attackers setup zone, etc. It's simple and I do not think it takes anything away from the ability of the defender to defend their objectives. I have won many defensive setups following my own rules, and that includes mirrored games in which I won both games. So it is not some rule I made up to give me advantages when I play as the attacking force. (Although I did once have an opponent tell me I created a set of identical mirror games and forced him into these very rules which in his mind gave me all the advantages from both sides, even though we played each side, by the same rules, in the same exact conditions)

I have experience when the defending player pre-planned massive artillery bombardments into my setup zone as the attacker. Again I do not think this makes the game fun. The defender knows exactly where the attackers troops are, whereas the attacker has very little to no specific info on the defenders force at the start of a game. In this circumstance the defender told me I should have rushed my troops forward out of the setup zone and into buildings (exposed death traps he had targeted), without doing recon, without setting up a base of fire, etc. I do not think the only options given to the attacker should be to stay in their setup zone and get bombarded or to make a rushed and sloppy advance into the waiting sights of the defender. So that is why I have that agreement as a standard. This still goes for 5, 10, 15 minutes into the game, and continuing that throughout the whole game makes sense to me.

A few things the attacker could use his setup zone for other than staging troops... Having their on map mortars setup and make fire missions from the setup zone. If the attackers setup zone contained any point in which their troops could engage or target the defenders position, then putting units in that spot would not be using it for staging. It forces the attacker to leave their setup zone and attack, which is what the point is, but allows them to do it on their own timeframe, which is how attacking forces plan. I also word it how I do because people always try to find loopholes with things, so I think saying that the attackers setup zone will only be used for staging is a nice juxtaposition for saying the defender will not target the attackers setup zone. It's simple, thorough and in my opinion makes games more balanced and enjoyable.

Of course some caution and prudence should be taken by the attacker in setting up their force and looking about to see if it's in obvious LOS to the defenders possible positions. In my opinion good maps will make most of those problems irrelevant, but I have enough experience to know there are always exceptions and always players looking to take advantage of whatever they will. I think my standards are simple, thorough, direct, clear and make it hard to exploit loopholes.

Is someone does not like those standards they don't have to play me.

Hope that helps. - WS
 
Last edited:

axxe

FGM Private
REGISTERED USER
Messages
37
Likes
28
Location
Switzerland
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
1 game.
#17
Thanks for the clear and detailed explanation, @Will S I think I understand what you are trying to achieve with your house rules and I appreciate how the attacker’s setup zone is often small and easily targeted (esp. with artillery).

I’ve only got two h2h games under my belt, but I’m curious about your opinion about them.

Below are the starting views I have from the first 6 moves of my first game against @Meat Grinder . My setup zone was anywhere behind the wide cross street.

I would not know how to fight this battle without risking violating your rules.

In the first scene the arrow depicts a clear LOS for the headquarters unit. Am I expected to place a cover arc for this unit to restrict fire to the edge of where I think your setup zone might be? Is the unit allowed to return fire if a unit that might be in the setup zone fires at him? Maybe I should not even put him in that house since he can see into the setup zone?


As the game progresses, I see MG apparently pushing up the left-center of the map.




I chose to send some scouts up the flanks to try to see / fire down the cross streets, and ultimately ended up with scouts on both sides at the edge of his likely setup zone. In the last pic you can see what the forward-leftmost unit sees. Have I broken the rules yet? Do I only break the rules if the scout opens fire? Is he allowed to return fire? Maybe he should have stayed on my side of the main cross street?




As for the attacker only using the setup zone for deployment, does that mean MG couldn’t have used the open space at his end of the map to move forces laterally later in the game? What about if some of his Panicked units flee into the setup zone. Can I shoot them? If they recover to Shaken in his setup zone had he cheated? Can he send them up into the battle again?

In our second game the map involved a tall hill in the center with good visibility to MG’s end of the map. At one point some of his forces which had been deployed on one side of the map fell back and moved laterally near(ish) his back edge toward the other side of the map. I don’t know exactly where his setup zone was, so I can’t say if he broke the rules. Would I have maybe broken the rules to fire at them?

I’m not trying to be a rules lawyer - I honestly would not have known what to do in these situations.

As I’ve been thinking about your post I keep coming back around to my preferred “solution” being the attacker having a deeper and more defensible setup zone. As you say, this would require more computing resources for playability, but it would avoid what seem to this newbie to be some limitations of using rules to restrict the defender’s ability to exploit the small setup zone issue.

It would also make the Panther blitz by the defender much more risky.

It feels to me like the edge-hugger issue. If the edge is off limits, exactly how many action squares do I have to stay away from it? Etc.

MG, how was it for you when my scouts fired into your setup zone in the first game? I know it didn’t last long because you killed them so quickly, but if you hadn’t and they had hosed down a could of squads is that my bad or your bad?
 
Last edited:

axxe

FGM Private
REGISTERED USER
Messages
37
Likes
28
Location
Switzerland
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
1 game.
#18
For that matter, if I'd blitzed a Panther and killed your tanks plus a platoon or two, would that be my bad or your bad?

How about a couple TRPs on your first row of buildings and a heavy arty barrage 3 minutes in?

My personal tendency is to be what you'd call gamey, but at the same time I obviously don't want to piss everyone off by violating FGM etiquette ;)
 
Last edited:

Meat Grinder

FGM Major
REGISTERED USER
Messages
3,561
Likes
2,669
Location
Tennessee
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
2-4 games.
#19
@axxe For the record, you didn't do anything in either game that bothered me, gaming etiquette wise. I think the first map is a rather poor map. No room for maneuver. I was also rushed by the 30 minute time limit, but I shouldn't complain since I agreed to both the map and the time limit. Caveat emptor!

My personal "house rules" on games that I setup are no pre-planned arty/air strikes (not even with a delay) in meeting engagements, and no pre-planned arty/air strikes for the defender in a probe/attack/assault. My opinion regarding the defender being able to shoot into the attacker's setup zone(s) is that is best handled by choosing appropriate maps.

Edit: With that said, a truly gamey player could get around my rule by plastering the attacker's small setup zone with TRPs and still be able to unload some very quick and accurate arty without technically breaking my "no pre-planned" rule. I have yet to encounter a player that gamey, however. :)
 
Last edited:

Will S

FGM Colour Sergeant
REGISTERED USER
Messages
281
Likes
136
Location
West Coast, USA
#20
@axxe

My personal tendency is to be what you'd call gamey, but at the same time I obviously don't want to piss everyone off by violating FGM etiquette
First off, I do not speak for the FGM or any other player in any way shape or form. As I said before those house rules/agreements/guidelines whatever you want to call them are mine and mine only.

Secondly, the map you and MG are playing looks very poorly designed in my opinion and I would not play a game on it. I see it as being a very dry game board style map, and not at all a representation of any real world terrain. This would solve the problems you have with my rules and your tactics before it even was an issue.

Thirdly the micro di-section of my standard rules, (what is allowed and not, the "what if this, what if that" scenarios), is exactly what I am trying to avoid when I play any game. I'm sorry if my explanation of my agreements and the reasoning behind them was not clear. Maybe I could use different verbiage in the future. I am not going to answer for each what if scenario you came up with. Most of them don't seem like they would matter or aren't related to my standard agreement/rules/guidelines I explained earlier. No offense.

I would not know how to fight this battle without risking violating your rules.
That would be very easy to do, even with the small setup area. I would imagine the empty green setup zone is sloping away from your LOS as the defender. If not it is an even worse map than I imagine. Secondly I see no reason why you would need to attack into the blank setup zone, which is obviously not part of the urban environment in which you are fighting a battle. You can disagree and that's okay. However, I have never once ever felt I needed to shoot into the attackers setup zone, at any time, in any game I have ever played. I have won many battles where I was defending. I have never felt I was kept from counterattacking by following my own guidelines.

It feels to me like the edge-hugger issue. If the edge is off limits, exactly how many action squares do I have to stay away from it? Etc.
I have no rules against edge hugging, and never said anything about it. If you feel that is an issue, you can address it with your opponents. Personally I think it's great when my opponents hug the edge of a map because they usually get pinned against it, are unable to maneuver and are killed quite quickly.

If you think my agreements are not in line with what you enjoy about this game, then we should not play, which is totally fine. I believe the basic guidelines I give are reasonable and easily understood by most people, and add to my experience with this game rather than detract from it.

@Meat Grinder
Edit: With that said, a truly gamey player could get around my rule by plastering the attacker's small setup zone with TRPs and still be able to unload some very quick and accurate arty without technically breaking my "no pre-planned" rule. I have yet to encounter a player that gamey, however. :)
Exactly why I just say don't target the attackers setup zone, covers it all.

And Axxe, yeah I would think plastering TRP's just outside the setup zone would be in poor gamey form and I would not do anything like that in a game. I don't make any rules about it though, back to I am trying to keep it simple and basic. If someone wanted to do that, I would probably figure it out fairly quickly, take some casualties, let them run out of arty rounds, know they probably have less troops defending their objectives because of it, bring up my reserve units and advance on the objectives. Say good game and know that person and I have different standards by which we play and call it good.

Cheers - WS