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?

General concenus on Armour rules

I have used the percentage of armor rules method quite a bit.....however, lately I've just gone with an anything goes rules set (other than the first turn bombardment in the setup zone...that by now should be standard). I really think the rarity and point limits are more than adequate. Panthers are expensive folks!
I also find that when a player gets his ass kicked, his first response is to try and pick apart the opponent's force selection. In my experience, that is usually way down the list of reasons why that player lost. I for one always pick a balanced force, not because I am trying to be fair, but because it gives me the best overall chance to win. I have no idea what my opponent is going to select, so to try and guess with a counter selection is a good way to get a lopsided loss.
Lastly, I always play with map preview toggled to on and on maps with a lot of terrain. This is the most critical part of selecting your force. Use the terrain to your advantage.
 
Last edited:
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 - I fully agree with your overall thoughts about balanced mixed forces as both a better reflection of how history played out and the way historical forces are generally organized. I concur with other opinions expressed about combined arms choices as well. But , we're both prior military and tend to think that way in general.

I think what you're confronting in this particular match is that your opponent took you literally when you said, "I need more scalps". He chose a force mix that echoes Leonidas of Sparta's response to the Persians, "Molon labe" - "Come and take them!".
It appears that some heads are harder to hunt and some matches more fun than others. :shocknaz:
Recall the Infantryman's prayer before battle, "For what we are about to receive, Oh Lord, may we be truly thankful!". Good luck, compadre. The fortunes of war are fickle indeed.
 
To clarify the air power point: in Final Blitzkrieg you can buy ten P47s with no bombs or rockets for less than a Panther, ignoring rarity. I don't think the costs are bugged, the prices for US air support seem pretty reflective of Allied air superiority at this stage of the war and once things start carrying a payload they quickly start getting expensive:

CM Final Blitzkrieg 2018-09-09 17-47-53-524.jpg
(Hopefully that was big enough :p )

I am a 'full contact' CM player though- as far as I'm concerned any rules beyond not bombarding setup zones is too much to regulate- and I'd imagine people would find it just as bad to fight against 10 P47s (that's 80 flying .50cals with a total of 34,000 rounds!) as they would to fight against 10 Panthers.

That's not something that bothers me. Within the limits of the QB system or the scenarios, everyone should be trying to maximise their chances by making life as difficult as possible for their opponent. Part of the experience of Combat Mission is trying to create a situation for your opponent where he has no chance, no options but bad options and an urge to hit that ceasefire button, while sidestepping those situations yourself. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily generate exciting gameplay when one side has been outmaneuvered- before or after the force selection screen- but I would rather accept the possibility as part and parcel of the game, pick apart what happened, learn from it, and come back swinging than manipulate the game beforehand to create a more predictable experience.

I don't want to be sitting there looking at the intel I've gathered on the enemy, filtering it through predetermined percentages for each arm before calculating exactly what I'm up against and exactly what my opponent's options are without any room for doubt, misinterpretation or guesswork... or for my opponent to do the same to me. If my opponent thinks he has a better chance by spending 80% of his points on tanks then either he is heading for a rude reminder that historically everyone practiced combined arms for a damn good reason or we're playing on some kind of hideously open map where tanks are the sensible choice. Just like it would be a bad idea to take 10 Panthers onto an urban map, there are great big open maps where it would be a bad idea not to bring 10 Panthers. Preset force percentages can potentially take a lot away from the game.

That's my opinion- your mileage may vary. The flipside is that CM games take a lot of time and effort to set up and play through and I can fully understand people who want to create a predictable experience to avoid feeling that they've wasted that time and effort. There are a lot of different ways to play this game, part of the trick is finding people who play it the same way that you do.
 
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


So as it turns out, I am the offending opponent. :)

Titan and I have discussed the battles amicably via PM. But to correct some things that are not correct.

1) We are playing two mirrored LARGE sized games. They are not MEDIUM sized games as Titan keeps saying. The attacker has exactly 5599 points to spend and the defender has 3399. Sherman tanks start at 204 points for Reg/Normal/0. Light tanks are a little more than half that. As the attacker, you can buy an infantry battalion and still field A LOT of tanks.

2) On defense, I have 4 Panthers, not 5. That is an under-strength tank platoon that is supported by two companies of infantry and some mortars. That did not seem like an insane force pick to me. Ironically, Titan has also 2 Panthers and another armored vehicle that I have not made out yet. So he could have 3 or more Panthers for all I know.

3) The map is large and is pretty open. It has a couple orchards that could be mistaken for woods, but the low density of trees and the hilly nature of the map is such that you can see far into them. It is an insanely dangerous place for infantry. WW2 British commanders called infantry a "liability" in North Africa. I tend to agree on open maps.

4) Titan has chosen "quality" and I have chosen "quantity." I have plenty of infantry on both the attack and the defense. In fact, I am betting that I have more riflemen than Titan. Titan's infantry are clearly very high quality and are lavishly equipped with medium mortars, light mortars, schreks, snipers, heavy machine guns, TRPs, scouts, etc.. My boys are just as numerous, but are much poorer cousins by comparison......

5) Yes, we did agree to all rules up front. Yes, Titan did threaten to scalp me. :censored:

6) As I tried to tell Titan, the tough thing about CM is that you really don't know how badly your opponent is suffering. Titan may be taking some hits, but my boys are also suffering losses. Neither game is won or lost at this point and Titan is an excellent opponent.
 
To clarify the air power point: in Final Blitzkrieg you can buy ten P47s with no bombs or rockets for less than a Panther, ignoring rarity. I don't think the costs are bugged, the prices for US air support seem pretty reflective of Allied air superiority at this stage of the war

Point costs are not to reflect historical availability, but only how powerful the asset is. The rarity regulates the historical side of the equation.

Based on that price list you posted, I think the cheapest strafe elements were supposed to cost 130 points each, not 30 points.
 
A quick check and they actually cost that much all the way through CMBN too (I don't have CMFI, so I can't check that one), so if its a mistake its one that's been there for a long time and has crossed from game to game.

On a side note, I'm starting to think I might be the only person round here who regularly brings the air force to the party :p
 
As stated in an earlier post this subject regarding historical record against Germany's uber tanks (Pz V and above) taking a five to one ration to defeat them (as poorly portrayed in the movie "Fury") the best thing to do is to discuss with opponent how many uber tanks he or she can have as Germans but also consider the date of the battle, i.e. a guy asking you to be Allies against his uber's in say '43 really limits the Allies side. As mentioned above a map preview would be a must too. All this to avoid bad feelings as the game progresses or misunderstandings. An Allied player with M36 Jacksons (90mm gun) and 76mm-armed Shermans stands a chance depending on terrain and clever use of smoke and snipers in my opinion. I'm playing a game with Titan now and he has set his ubers on hill tops overlooking a river valley and I have taken losses moving up but I knew the map and that there were opportunities to get forward despite the ubers. LOL I recall a game many years ago when my Russian 45mm AT gun took out an opponents Panther (point blank shot to the rear end) and the howls of outrage.

The best thing to do is to make sure of the game parameters up front so there are no misunderstandings. Opponents have asked me for restarts when it was hard to understand the terrain effects for example (this on a crazy Spanish club map with high hills overlooking a major city) and these were happily granted... it is only a game, gentlemen.
 
"On a side note, I'm starting to think I might be the only person round here who regularly brings the air force to the party :p
Pretty much. But, more use of air would be interesting.
 
A quick check and they actually cost that much all the way through CMBN too (I don't have CMFI, so I can't check that one), so if its a mistake its one that's been there for a long time and has crossed from game to game.


Checking up on it, I find that in CMBN:

British Spitfire 134 points
British Typhoon IB 92

German Focke-Wulf 257

US P-47 Thunderbolt 273
US P-51 Mustang 167
US P-51D Mustang 218


But here's the interesting part: My CMBN is still running version 3.12!

I then start up my CMFB, which is running v. 4.0, and find that US strafing planes now cost 30-40 points, while the German plane cost is 259, nearly unchanged.

So, in conclusion, I think these cheap US strafing options are a bug introduced in V.4.0
 
Tell Battlefront to add rarity to ALL German tanks (even PZ IVs) while you are at it. That would resolve some of the issues discussed.
 
Only 8000 Panzer IVs were built. Only 6000 Panthers were built.

And those tanks have zero rarity versions?


49,000 Shermans were built.

The vanilla Shermans earn their zero rarity rating. Panthers do not.
 
Battlefront's understandable reluctance to expose what goes on under the hood in CM aside, more info in general about how the costs are calculated would be interesting. What we'd do with that information except moan about it, I don't know, but it'd be interesting.

Belatedly back to Titan's original point- other things to factor in are player skill, psychology and sheer dumb luck. Things like the German big cats can be an expensive waste of points if they're handled poorly and end up in close terrain with no infantry support, if the controlling player has been intimidated into being overly careful with them or if a lucky mortar round drops through the commander's hatch. This is part of what's great about Combat Mission- there's so much to consider.
 
ARMOUR: Found this on my travels: House Rules

PLANES: In Red Thunder the Soviet strafe version of of the Pe-2 is available for 12 points. The cheapest around I believe.
 
Talking about strafe planes... I've purchased 6 or maybe 8 strafe Pe-2 in the RT game I'm actually playing against Titan and I could say that 12 point looks expensive to me because they have caused more losses to my troops than in those of Titan :shocknaz:.
 
Talking about strafe planes... I've purchased 6 or maybe 8 strafe Pe-2 in the RT game I'm actually playing against Titan and I could say that 12 point looks expensive to me because they have caused more losses to my troops than in those of Titan :shocknaz:.

Maybe they are the aerial form of Soviet Blocking Detachments.
 
Back
Top