Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

General concenus on Armour rules

Titan

Titan

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
785
Reaction score
611
Age
61
Location
New Zealand
Is there any unsaid parameters players normally use on ratio of armour....Currently playing a game, medium attack defence in which the defender has bought 5 Panthers that i know about and parked them up in strategic spots with a sprinlkng of inf and motors and as attacker looks like about 15-16 tanks. For the size of battle this is a total imbalance....I remember the old CMBO on mixed setting wouldnt let that happen? Not really complaining as i suppose if the focus is on winning only it has a good chance of winning, And i gotta say its not very enjoyable game to play and it does have the feeling of cheapening what is a good tactical game to one of a tank fest that feels more like some sort of RTS game like Red alert or a sudden strike kinda game
 
Last edited:
For the record, @Titan is not talking about me. I purchased infantry only in our current Mixed Forces game. :)

I think this is a battle parameter that needs to be discussed between players on an individual, case by case basis, before force purchase. I doubt you will find a consensus here, or anywhere, on what is "fair" regarding armor purchases, or anything else. War is hell, and the goal is to win, not be "fair". :) Cheers!
 
Unless it's a scenario I will usually ask my opponent for a 40% limit on tracked armor. That works out well. I don't limit the size of armor (big cats, etc). this is done prior to game set up obviously.
 
Yea, this comes up on occasion, especially among newer members. There is no set rule per se. The best practice regarding QB's is for both players to discuss and agree on any constraints they would like in place before the battle begins. Most often QB restraints are no prep-arty/air on attackers set up zones and a 33%-40% of total points armor restriction. I've sometimes seen a 3:1 German armor rule where three (3) other track (tank/tank destroyer) types must be purchased for every one (1) Big Cat (Panther/Tiger) combination.

One discussion earlier this year is at http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgm...ore-than-25-tanks-per-side.27440/#post-250472

I feel your pain @Titan. Going uphill against +2 leadership, fanatical, SS Gebirgsjaeger's mounting a platoon of KonigsTiger's is a hard slog indeed. Is this a Ladder Match?
 
Ok....As i said, im not complaining, as this is the first time ive come across a game so dominated by armour but will take up a discussion before game start. I guess its one of those rules i need to have before hand....In this case it would of been easy to buy 6 panthers plant them on opposite hill cover the corner where opponent starts each time something tried to break out it would be costly...Not fun for him. CMBO did a great job of managing this within purchase suprisingly this has no restriction.

We learn as we move i guess.....One needs more rules to have more fun a bit like a Football game where players know the rules but no reff....imagine that. Dont think anyone would have fun
 
Last edited:
Titan said:
Is there any unsaid parameters players normally use on ratio of armour....
Click to expand...


What others said plus I think the rarity setting is also useful. And if you looking for a more equal head to head battle a meeting engagement or maybe a probe with -10% for the attacker. There are only so many purchase points to go around and a player will be more inclined to spend them wisely/realistically.
 
I usually go back to my early experiences with a very good player. His solution was to pick a balanced combined arms force and kick my ass with it. When I chose an armour heavy force he would strip my infantry away and eventually defeat the tanks. If I went armour light he would blast my infantry to Valhalla with HE form his tanks while keeping my infantry at bay with his.

Create a balanced force and kick his ass with it.

My usual rule of thumb is as soon as people start talking about force percentages - I'm out. :) It is too complicated and therefore to easy to violate the rules accidentally or by perception or get to a place where I can only afford 2.95 tanks and so have to settle for 2 when I would have chosen 3. I'm just not interested in play where the other side is going to say "no fair, you have too many Panthers", or where I say "dam it I cannot create an interesting combined arms force because of these dumb ass rules".

If other people are happy with such restrictions, that's awesome have fun paying. I have no problem with people being happy and playing the game. :)
 
It also depends a lot on the map. On a flat, open landscape, Panthers will tend to dominate - that's what they were made for after all.

If you both know the map will be open, you can safely assume the opponent will go armour heavy. Plan/purchase accordingly.

If the map is randomly chosen (without preview), taking lots of armour is a risky strategy, because you could end up fighting in a city.

And it's a boring strategy too, because it will turn the game into a game of luck. Either you win massively, or lose massively, and in either case not much skill is required.

If you find yourself with a balanced force facing lots of Panthers on flat, open ground, you're pretty much out of luck. Even Bil Hardenberger had to throw in the towel once, in a similar AAR situation.
 
Last edited:
Bulletpoint said:
If you find yourself with a balanced force facing lots of Panthers on flat, open ground, you're pretty much out of luck. Even Bil Hardenberger had to throw in the towel once, in a similar AAR situation.
Click to expand...

I hope you aren't referring to his game against me, because it was hilly terrain, and I only had two Panthers. :)

Anyway it's easy to lose a game on the purchase screen, or by allowing your opponent to dictate the map and weather conditions. "Just throw something together mate. I'm fine with anything you pick." It's happened to me several times. :)
 
Meat Grinder said:
I hope you aren't referring to his game against me, because it was hilly terrain, and I only had two Panthers
Click to expand...

Yes, but as I recall, you only needed one, so clearly you choose twice as many as would have been appropriate. :D

But seriously, I believe @A Canadian Cat has the right idea. And going back to your game against BillH (I read the AAR a while ago, and don't remember the details), should he have quit, or did he have enough to go on? On a hilly and wooded map, I'd tend to think that Panthers will have some disadvantages that can be exploited.
 
JTimo said:
Yes, but as I recall, you only needed one, so clearly you choose twice as many as would have been appropriate. :D
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously.

And going back to your game against BillH (I read the AAR a while ago, and don't remember the details), should he have quit, or did he have enough to go on? On a hilly and wooded map, I'd tend to think that Panthers will have some disadvantages that can be exploited.
Click to expand...

No, he was right to surrender. He had little chance to win at that point. As he told me before he even agreed to play, he doesn't like playing opponents who insist on playing to the last man. He considered that ahistorical in most situations, meaning that most commanders cared enough about the welfare of their men (or not getting fragged) to order a retreat before casualties became extreme.
 
In my experience if somebody stacks up on tanks you have an easy time killing the little infantry he brings:). Then his tanks are going to be alone and going to be easy pickings:)
My favourite thing is coming up against a crack Infantry Company and a couple of crack tigers and panthers, when I myself is packing a battlegroup with an infantry battalion reinforced with a reduced Tank Regiment and supporting artillery:)
 
Last edited:
A Canadian Cat said:
I usually go back to my early experiences with a very good player. His solution was to pick a balanced combined arms force and kick my ass with it. When I chose an armour heavy force he would strip my infantry away and eventually defeat the tanks. If I went armour light he would blast my infantry to Valhalla with HE form his tanks while keeping my infantry at bay with his.

Create a balanced force and kick his ass with it.

My usual rule of thumb is as soon as people start talking about force percentages - I'm out. :) It is too complicated and therefore to easy to violate the rules accidentally or by perception or get to a place where I can only afford 2.95 tanks and so have to settle for 2 when I would have chosen 3. I'm just not interested in play where the other side is going to say "no fair, you have too many Panthers", or where I say "dam it I cannot create an interesting combined arms force because of these dumb ass rules".

If other people are happy with such restrictions, that's awesome have fun paying. I have no problem with people being happy and playing the game. :)
Click to expand...


I don't Disagree however The point is about what kind of game you want to play...Do you prefer one that is dominated by tanks...As in Medium sized game with 15 tanks plus one side or one that is more combined arms focused ...Its not about whether you have a strategy to defeat it or not but more about the experience of game play. In the case of the one i.m playing its a medium sized game and is totally dominated by tanks the attacker has gone with about 15 tanks or so and is adopting a simple strategy of bulking up and blasting everything in site...then moving in with inf...Very little inf on inf combat, i'm not enjoying this game anywhere near as a few of the others i have going. Its more about watching positions getting systematically blasted turn after turn and ensuring your troops keep out of harms way as much as possible. While it is a strategy within the scope of this game, the question is would you prefer to play against that style or one where force mix is a a little more realistic/balanced and what game plays better?Ive played alot of games and other than this one and each player has gone with balance without such an abundance of armour so my take on it is most people here prefer balance. Therefore If one said to you lets work with a 40/60 rule as an example give or take without being to rigid about it, would you say that is fair?....The message i would be sending is i want to play a game that is not totally dominated by tanks.

I use to play CMBO and CMBB and it was very good in when one selected mixed force that's what it meant you could not buy that much armour....This new series it means you can go nuts on armour
 
Titan said:
I use to play CMBO and CMBB and it was very good in when one selected mixed force that's what it meant you could not buy that much armour....This new series it means you can go nuts on armour
Click to expand...

I would also like to see some option to limit armour in an easy, fair way. For example a slider that set the percentage of points available for armour.
 
Hapless said:
Its possible to balance the asymmetrical quality of the armour... you just need to use the right weights ;)

View attachment 15802I know which of these I'd rather spend my points on.
Click to expand...

Wow, what's that? The rocket points bug is now in the air support?

In one of the recent releases, I think it was Red Thunder, rockets cost only one tenth of their intended cost, due to a typing error. Seems like the same now happens for the planes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top