Making a standard basic ruleset for CM - would this be useful?

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
I saw so many people ask about houserules on the forums, so I thought I would make a post that can be used as a reference so that people can just link to this post in the future instead of having to explain everything over and over.

I didn't invent these rules, but I thought they could be useful to to standardise. Then people can use them as a starting point and add their own houserules as they like. For example, people could just say "Let's play a game with the standard rules, and no fully tracked vehicles".

The only thing I added myself was the part about the 1/10 "artillery safe zone". I've seen a lot of confusion about how to allow pre-planned artillery but still prevent one player from bombing out the opponent's deployment zone. Hopefully my idea helps prevent misunderstandings.

Let me know if you think I missed anything or if any of the following is unclear:

Standard Houserules for Combat Mission

"Attack" and "Assault" type battles
  • No pre-planned artillery or air support for the defender.

  • Attacker is allowed pre-planned artillery and air support, with or without delay.

  • Artillery safe zone: Attacker may pre-plan artillery and air support to target anywhere on the map, apart from the last 1/10th of the length. This is a safe zone, representing units stationed further away. So if the map is 1km long from friendly map edge to enemy map edge, the attacker may not target the last 100m towards the enemy map edge with pre-planned artillery. However, the attacker may target this zone manually with artillery once the game begins.

  • The artillery safe zone rule only applies to off-board artillery. Both players may fire into and out of the safe zone with all other weapons, including mortars.

  • If pre-planning air support using a target area, there must be an additional space of at least 100m from the edge of the target circle to the safe zone. This is because aircraft often stray outside of their target area.

Meeting Engagements
  • No pre-planned artillery or air support for either side.

  • Support may be called in by spotters as normal once the game begins.
 
Last edited:

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
It just occurs to me that maybe it would be simpler to just say the safe zone is always the last 100m towards the defender's side of the map, instead of making it a percentage.
 

holoween

FGM Sergeant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
113
Reaction score
84
Location
Germany
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
2-4 games.
It just occurs to me that maybe it would be simpler to just say the safe zone is always the last 100m towards the defender's side of the map, instead of making it a percentage.
Tbh i dont see the point of the safe zone at all. The defender has an easy enough time to deploy his troops in safe areas anyways.

Also gereally you dont need to specify something youre allowed to do but only what you arent.

So the simpelest ruleset would be:

-No shooting into and out of the attackers deployment zone. both sides count as attackers during meeting engagements.

-No preplanned arty/air support for the defender.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
Tbh i dont see the point of the safe zone at all. The defender has an easy enough time to deploy his troops in safe areas anyways.
The idea was to protect the defender in those cases where the map gives him a very small deployment zone. But maybe you're right it's redundant.

Also gereally you dont need to specify something youre allowed to do but only what you arent.
That's a good point.

-No shooting into and out of the attackers deployment zone. both sides count as attackers during meeting engagements.
This assumes the defender knows where the attacker's deployment zone is. I like to play scenarios "blind". Also, some maps might be based on the attacker starting with good fields of fire...
 

holoween

FGM Sergeant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
113
Reaction score
84
Location
Germany
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
2-4 games.
This assumes the defender knows where the attacker's deployment zone is. I like to play scenarios "blind". Also, some maps might be based on the attacker starting with good fields of fire...
Id go with if the attacker fires from the deployment zone the defender is clear to fire back.

The point of th rule is to have a good game and not just wipe the attackers infantry in the first few turns because they are forcibly bunched up.
Problem is with any rule that depending on scenario and map design there will always be exceptions.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
Id go with if the attacker fires from the deployment zone the defender is clear to fire back.
In some scenarios, the attacker might have a very large setup zone. And in any case, the defender won't know where the setup zone is, exactly. Must say I don't really like limiting direct fire in this way.

I'm still trying to find some good basic rule that can be applied to any scenario, so both players can be on the same page from the start.
 

Howler

FGM New Member
FGM MEMBER
Joined
May 13, 2020
Messages
23
Reaction score
10
Location
Canada
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
5-8 games.
Email
marcr545@gmail.com
Is there a reason for not including Probes with Attack/Assaults?

If not, then basically we can say no pre-planned missions for the defender regardless of battle type.

No pre-planned missions for either side in a Meeting Engagement.
 

Lethaface

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
452
Reaction score
354
Location
The Netherlands
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
2-4 games.
In some scenarios, the attacker might have a very large setup zone. And in any case, the defender won't know where the setup zone is, exactly. Must say I don't really like limiting direct fire in this way.

I'm still trying to find some good basic rule that can be applied to any scenario, so both players can be on the same page from the start.
I think the magic word in this is 'some', and the exception confirms the rule ;-). If a scenario is 'special', rules should be 'special' imo. A generic rule which can handle every exception, only distracts from the generic rule. I think you covered the basics with those (although I would allow preplanned artillery not in setup zones for defender and in ME, and same goes for air (especially in CMRT)):

"Attack" and "Assault" type battles
  • Defender isn't allowed to order pre-planned artillery or air into attacker setup zone .
Meeting Engagements
  • No pre-planned artillery or air into setup zone for either side.
Edit: I tweaked them according to my liking :). I think defense should be allowed terrain denying fires and or paused strikes predicting enemy attacks. Perhaps probes should be excluded from this, but in most cases attacks weren't 'surprise' attacks so I don't see why defense shouldn't be able to preplan fires. Just not into setup zone, because that would be silly indeed.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
Is there a reason for not including Probes with Attack/Assaults?

If not, then basically we can say no pre-planned missions for the defender regardless of battle type.

No pre-planned missions for either side in a Meeting Engagement.
I just forgot about the probes. I don't think anyone really plays those?
 

Lethaface

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
452
Reaction score
354
Location
The Netherlands
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
2-4 games.
The point of th rule is to have a good game and not just wipe the attackers infantry in the first few turns because they are forcibly bunched up.
Problem is with any rule that depending on scenario and map design there will always be exceptions.
I think this is exactly what it's about at the core.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
Edit: I tweaked them according to my liking :). I think defense should be allowed terrain denying fires and or paused strikes predicting enemy attacks. Perhaps probes should be excluded from this, but in most cases attacks weren't 'surprise' attacks so I don't see why defense shouldn't be able to preplan fires. Just not into setup zone, because that would be silly indeed.
The defender could still do area denying fires, just not preplanned. The rule is not so much for realism as to give the attacker more of a chance. In many maps, there are some key locations that it's obvious that the attacker has to either stay at or pass through. An 81mm mortar barrage can completely smash an infantry advance or delay it for a long time. I did this in a game and while my opponent didn't complain, I must admit it felt a bit cheap on my part.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
But yeah it does seem like people have different ideas about what the basic rules should be. So I'm not sure it makes sense to try to make a standard ruleset.

I just wanted to avoid situations where players suddenly find out they have different ideas about fair play. So it could be nice to just point to a standard ruleset before the game and say do we agree about these rules?
 

Lethaface

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
452
Reaction score
354
Location
The Netherlands
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
2-4 games.
The defender could still do area denying fires, just not preplanned. The rule is not so much for realism as to give the attacker more of a chance. In many maps, there are some key locations that it's obvious that the attacker has to either stay at or pass through. An 81mm mortar barrage can completely smash an infantry advance or delay it for a long time. I did this in a game and while my opponent didn't complain, I must admit it felt a bit cheap on my part.
I agree that with certain scenario's balance can be needed, especially smaller short timed scenario's. But in larger scenario's I don't really see the validity, and a TRP is better in most situations anyway as it isn't blind firing. The other way around, it can be quite unbalanced (certain maps) for an attacker to buy a battery of heavy rockets and shell the objective with a preplanned (delayed) strike. I think those 'issues' are more of a gentleman agreement type of thing. And that's difficult if not impossible to put in rules, I'd say.

But yeah it does seem like people have different ideas about what the basic rules should be. So I'm not sure it makes sense to try to make a standard ruleset.

I just wanted to avoid situations where players suddenly find out they have different ideas about fair play. So it could be nice to just point to a standard ruleset before the game and say do we agree about these rules?
While I never really have an issue about rules, I don't think it's a bad idea to have some basic ruleset agreed to. Imo everybody agrees no preplanned strikes into attacker setup zone, so that would be the perfect rule in my eyes. No gamey unit selections could be another, or rambo scouting with vehicle crews. But I guess every extra rule will create extra chance for different opinions, so the less rules the better.
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
I agree that with certain scenario's balance can be needed, especially smaller short timed scenario's. But in larger scenario's I don't really see the validity, and a TRP is better in most situations anyway as it isn't blind firing. The other way around, it can be quite unbalanced (certain maps) for an attacker to buy a battery of heavy rockets and shell the objective with a preplanned (delayed) strike. I think those 'issues' are more of a gentleman agreement type of thing. And that's difficult if not impossible to put in rules, I'd say.



While I never really have an issue about rules, I don't think it's a bad idea to have some basic ruleset agreed to. Imo everybody agrees no preplanned strikes into attacker setup zone, so that would be the perfect rule in my eyes. No gamey unit selections could be another, or rambo scouting with vehicle crews. But I guess every extra rule will create extra chance for different opinions, so the less rules the better.
Yes. The less rules the better. That's also why I don't play ladder games or people who are very competitive. I like a hard fought game, but there are some things you can do if it's about winning the game as a game at any cost. Last minute Jeep rush or 'home run' to flip an objective for example. Luckily most of my opponents have been quite sensible though.
 

Meat Grinder

FGM Colonel
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
7,176
Reaction score
6,599
Location
Tennessee
Turn Rate
1-2 pw
Games
1 game.
I just forgot about the probes. I don't think anyone really plays those?
A LOT of people play Probes. That's about the only type of QB I will play, other than a Meeting Engagement. The idea being that many players believe that Attack (and even more so, Assault) QBs give the attacker too much points advantage.

I don't like the 1/10th rule. Too complicated and unnecessary, IMO. Attacker should be able to pre plan arty anywhere the game engine allows him to, IMO.

Other than that, I can't find any objections. But, good luck creating a standard set of house rules everyone will agree on. I admire your effort. :)
 

Lethaface

FGM Company Sergeant Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
452
Reaction score
354
Location
The Netherlands
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
2-4 games.
Yes. The less rules the better. That's also why I don't play ladder games or people who are very competitive. I like a hard fought game, but there are some things you can do if it's about winning the game as a game at any cost. Last minute Jeep rush or 'home run' to flip an objective for example. Luckily most of my opponents have been quite sensible though.
I do enjoy different types of games. Different opponents, different games/types, different playstyles. Some like to play more realistic or even hardcat rules, which I also find interesting. Others like a more 'full spectrum, gloves off' type of game, so to speak. I find both enjoying, as long as they end in TV's! :p
 

Bulletpoint

FGM 2nd Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
863
Location
Danmark
Turn Rate
6+ pw
Games
1 game.
A LOT of people play Probes. That's about the only type of QB I will play, other than a Meeting Engagement. The idea being that many players believe that Attack (and even more so, Assault) QBs give the attacker too much points advantage.
That's interesting. I always found defending was quite easy. But then again I mostly played bocage maps, that I got pretty good at defending. Probably the more open maps change the balance a bit.
 

A Canadian Cat

FGM Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
1,164
Location
Ontario, Canada
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
5-8 games.
Email
ian.leslie@lesliesoftware.com
I just forgot about the probes. I don't think anyone really plays those?
A LOT of people play Probes. That's about the only type of QB I will play, other than a Meeting Engagement. The idea being that many players believe that Attack (and even more so, Assault) QBs give the attacker too much points advantage.
^^^ This. Probe is really the only time a defender has much of a chance.
 

A Canadian Cat

FGM Lieutenant
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
1,164
Location
Ontario, Canada
Turn Rate
3-5 pw
Games
5-8 games.
Email
ian.leslie@lesliesoftware.com
  • Artillery safe zone: Attacker may pre-plan artillery and air support to target anywhere on the map, apart from the last 1/10th of the length. This is a safe zone, representing units stationed further away. So if the map is 1km long from friendly map edge to enemy map edge, the attacker may not target the last 100m towards the enemy map edge with pre-planned artillery. However, the attacker may target this zone manually with artillery once the game begins.
Yeah, to much calculation.

In fact there shouldn't be a safe zone anywhere. This is not elementary school tag where you can declare a tree or a wall a safe zone. :D
 
Top