Fire & Rubble Tournament - Sign Up

Absolutely.
Welcome aboard. (y)

(Just as an aside and probably showing my age but that line always reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode. "Room for one more Honey")

Adding Bill to the 1st post to Players Signed Up

Players Signed Up

Stafford
Lews Therin
Aurelius
Artkin
Sspoom
OnePingOnly
Lethaface
Paleolithic Monk
MeatEtr
Bill
 
Edit: I'm going to choose the Round 1 opponents on Thursday the 14th and move the Start date to Sunday the 17th.
This should give time in the beginning for everyone to contact their opponent before jumping off by Sunday.
This also gives Lethaface and Slysniper a chance to contact their opponent and maybe pick their forces before going on vacation.
I don't think there will be a mad rush to join this weekend and we can always add players as we go along.
 
I've started a Rules and Description thread under the Fire & Rubble Tournament sticky.

Redwolf had a question about pre-planned artillery.
I believe it is OK for attackers to have 1st turn or pre-planned artillery but not the defender and put it in the Rules.
Do you have any opinions on that?
 
Gunner said:
I've started a Rules and Description thread under the Fire & Rubble Tournament sticky.

Redwolf had a question about pre-planned artillery.
I believe it is OK for attackers to have 1st turn or pre-planned artillery but not the defender and put it in the Rules.
Do you have any opinions on that?
Click to expand...

Personally I'm in favor of not allowing defender preplanned artillery into the attacker deployment zone, or putting TRPs inside the attacker deployment zone.
I don't mind preplanned artillery or TRPs outside the attacker deployment zone, or lets say 100m away from the zone.

For attackers I think preplanned artillery & TRP should be allowed.
 
Gunner said:
I've started a Rules and Description thread under the Fire & Rubble Tournament sticky.

Redwolf had a question about pre-planned artillery.
I believe it is OK for attackers to have 1st turn or pre-planned artillery but not the defender and put it in the Rules.
Do you have any opinions on that?
Click to expand...
My *opinion* :):
No pre-planned arty for Meeting Engagements.
Attackers can have pre-planned arty for probes, attacks, and assaults. They know when they are initiating the attack.
Defenders should not have pre-planned arty. They don't know exactly when the enemy is coming.

TRPs are a bit situation/scenario-dependent, from a realism perspective. A defender who has had time to prepare his/her positions may have TRPs as an option. An attacker who has had time to do recon before the time of the game may have TRPs as an option. Your Scenario 2 (Berlin) sounds like part of a larger fluid battle where that type of preparation would not exist. Scenario 1 (Reitwein) sounds like it could go either way.

There should be no defender pre-planned arty or TRPs in the attacker's set-up zone.
 
My go-to rule has always been pre-planned for attacker, TRP for the defender. No shooting into deployment zone (maybe until a certain time? 10 mins? Not sure it matters by then). Neither for MEs.

I think TRPs are overpowered for the attacker as he can set them up along his attack route, bringing down massive firepower at will without warning on the defender. Conversely, the defender has to guess what route the attacker will use and set up TRPs accordingly, if he's wrong, they're useless. Allowing the attacker to use pre-planned means he can set barrages on delay from the game start, but has to be able to keep up his attack in order to take advantage of them, so I feel this is a decent compromise.
 
OnePingOnly said:
My *opinion* :):
[...]
Defenders should not have pre-planned arty. They don't know exactly when the enemy is coming.

[...]
Click to expand...

It's a rather small detail, but I don't agree :). We are not simulating surprise attacks, otherwise the defender shouldn't have the option to change the deployment at all. And only have limited outposts manning the frontline, probably only sentries/outposts.
So when the CM battle starts the defender knows the attack is coming, but doesn't know where exactly (which is true in CM, because you don't know what the attacking player will do). But imo the defender should have the option to use preplanned artillery for area denial strikes.

Stafford said:
My go-to rule has always been pre-planned for attacker, TRP for the defender. No shooting into deployment zone (maybe until a certain time? 10 mins? Not sure it matters by then). Neither for MEs.

I think TRPs are overpowered for the attacker as he can set them up along his attack route, bringing down massive firepower at will without warning on the defender. Conversely, the defender has to guess what route the attacker will use and set up TRPs accordingly, if he's wrong, they're useless. Allowing the attacker to use pre-planned means he can set barrages on delay from the game start, but has to be able to keep up his attack in order to take advantage of them, so I feel this is a decent compromise.
Click to expand...

I get the idea behind this, but I feel TRPs are part of the game and reality as well. You are attacking and registering fires on key area's is important part of attack preparation (unless you are simulating a surprise attack). The preplanned options are rather limited (not past 20min) and not flexible, so imo this will disadvantage the attacker artificially.
Although I do agree that it's more easy for attacker to identify key terrain to place TRPs, as a defender you can also choose to not deploy on the most obvious places (or take precautions).
Perhaps limit the number TRPs allowed?

Although I'll be fine with whatever @Gunner decides, as long as the rules are clear.
 
I thought that these were understood rules but will clarify them in the Rules thread just in case.

No 1st turn artillery for the Defender and no Defender artillery in to an Attackers setup zone.

I'm adding to the Rules
No TRP's for the 1st Scenario. (I imagined the two forces to be quickly moving units who had no time to pre-register artillery.)
No Airpower.
 
I'm adding Redwolf to the Players Signed Up on the first post

Players Signed Up

Stafford
Lews Therin
Aurelius
Artkin
Sspoom
OnePingOnly
Lethaface
Paleolithic Monk
MeatEtr
Bill
Menofwar93
SlySniper
Redwolf
 
Lethaface said:
I get the idea behind this, but I feel TRPs are part of the game and reality as well. You are attacking and registering fires on key area's is important part of attack preparation (unless you are simulating a surprise attack). The preplanned options are rather limited (not past 20min) and not flexible, so imo this will disadvantage the attacker artificially.
Although I do agree that it's more easy for attacker to identify key terrain to place TRPs, as a defender you can also choose to not deploy on the most obvious places (or take precautions).
Perhaps limit the number TRPs allowed?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. In an 'attack' battle, I feel that the points allocation already favours the attacker. Probe is more in line with a fair amount (around 70%).

You're right in that you can choose not to deploy in obvious defensive areas, and is often wise not to at the outset, but sooner or later you will have to commit to battle in a location where the terrain works to your favour, but unless it's a very large map, there are only so many of those areas. If the attacker has TRPed them, he forces you to make a stand.... and then drops a train on you without warning.
You may counter that the defender can do likewise, and so he should, but he has less points to blow on luxuries such as TRPs - and if he gets it wrong, those are points he doesn't have for other defensive measures.

Either way whatever @Gunner decides I will play along with.
 
Stafford said:
Here's the thing. In an 'attack' battle, I feel that the points allocation already favours the attacker. Probe is more in line with a fair amount (around 70%).

You're right in that you can choose not to deploy in obvious defensive areas, and is often wise not to at the outset, but sooner or later you will have to commit to battle in a location where the terrain works to your favour, but unless it's a very large map, there are only so many of those areas. If the attacker has TRPed them, he forces you to make a stand.... and then drops a train on you without warning.
You may counter that the defender can do likewise, and so he should, but he has less points to blow on luxuries such as TRPs - and if he gets it wrong, those are points he doesn't have for other defensive measures.

Either way whatever @Gunner decides I will play along with.
Click to expand...

Agreed that attack battles need to have proper terrain / objectives, with reasonable good defensive terrain. And large enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom