Ladder Opponents CM:FI and CM:RT and a House Rule trial

A

Artemis258

Guest
Hi all,

After an unplanned and undesired absence over the new year I find I'm a month in to 2016 and have only one game going!

Hence, I'm looking for ww2 opponents for either CM:RT or CM:FI (+GL and 3.0 upgrade)!

I'm open to QB's, up to large size,

Also, if opponents are open to it, I'd like to use this opportunity to trial what I'm calling the "Formation Rule". Though someone else might have thought of iut before and called it something else. I don't know.

60% minimum of points spent on a 'core' unit - ie an infantry or armour company from one of the battalion lists. Whatever is picked the command structure must be preserved (ie if you pick a pzrgrdr company, the company CO and platoon co's must be present for each unit down) but forces inside the structure can be removed or modified- e.g. say you pick an armoured company, but want more points for specialist teams, removing a tank from each platoon to represent a 'depleted' company.

Specialist teams and vehicles can be added within a certain reason - e.g. it's perfectly reasonable to decide your panzergrenadier company has had some extra panzershrecks or some snipers assigned to it, but a single King Tiger tank is not. But if you picked a heavy panzer company, maybe they DO have a king tiger or two, if points allow...

-Vehicles purchased that would not be considered 'organic' to your core unit must be purchased in discrete units - e.g. panzergrenadier company from before might have a platoon of tanks assigned to it from somewhere, or a company.... and visa versa with a panzer core unit. This allows for flexible combined arms but again negates the 'my infantry and their pet king tiger tank!' effect.

- 'Non organic' artillery limited to 10% - eg you can have all the artillery you like included in the oob of the core unit, but 'extras' are limited to 10% of total points


The basic idea is to create a less 'gamey', more semi-historical selection while not overtly restricting the use of specific units.


I also like to play qb's on a map size larger than a force selection - to add to the tactical options and lessen the 'edge hugging' effect. I've had lots of good feedback on this before too, so if you've not tried it - give it a go!


Also if anyone has any cool maps they have made/know of I'm very open to such custom content!
 
That's sort of a stop-gap to avoid adding bits within the rest of the ruleset. In a quick test in Red Thunder it didn't seem to penalize that much either - 356/1705 pts/rarity when added to a Heavy Pnz plt. 409/1970 in a Sicherungs Plt. 480/2335 in a gndr plt. Maybe that balance woudl be worth it to someone, but it wouldn't fit with the 'vibe' of what these house rules are trying to achieve.

I might be missing something there though - I'm not the world's best minmaxer. However I've done my fair share of formation-whittling and blending. But without opponents I cannot test this form! This is a test out to try and make a battle with a slightly more structured make-up, but without opponents it's tricky to see how it plays out or what people will bring to the table! I can muck around with my own fantasy army builds but everyone has their own tastes and I want to see how others find it as a theory. I also wanted something that avoided "no Kings" or "only 2 cats" - partially because that creates an obvious chunk. If I get told I have a 3-1 cat-medium ratio then my opponent has a decently safe bet that I'll have 3 panzers and a panther or tiger. The base idea here is also to bring a bit more uncertainty- I could bring an armoured company as my core formation (with lots of tanks)!


P'raps you'd like to give them a go, on or off the ladder? I've read some of your DAR/AAR's and I think you'd give me a very tough challenge to crack either way!
 
Well, I'm not really that good. My win/loss PBEM ratio is about 50/50. I'm pretty happy with that because I try to play skilled opponents (Like Cargol, DJ, and several others). Only way to get better is to play quality opponents, IMO. But sure, if you need a PBEM opponent, I can manage something. I have a lot of games going right now, so can we keep it Medium or smaller?

You should have no trouble finding all the opponents you want right here on FGM, and it's good to play different opponents rather than the same person all the time, IMO.

I'm having a bit of trouble completely understanding your house rules however. Are you saying if I bought a company of Panzergrenadiers it would be against the house rule to assign two Panthers to that core unit? I would probably never do that anyway. If I wanted two Panthers, I would buy a separate company (or battalion) of Panthers and whittle it down to one platoon of two Panthers (platoon HQ tank and one subordinate tank). That would cost fewer purchase and rarity points than buying them as single vehicles under the command of the Panzergrenadier company commander. Or would I have to keep the company HQ tank under your rule?

House rules are a subject that comes up fairly often here. It's almost universally agreed that in meeting engagements there should be no pre-planned arty and in attack/defend QBs it's ok for the attacker to pre-plan arty (even turn 1 arty), but not the defender. Some people like the 33% armor rule for combined arms. Some people like to limit big cats. And some people, like Cargol, like to play mirror games.
 
Hey Artemis

If you are still looking Im up to give it a go maybe RT as I have it but havent played it yet
 
Meat Grinder said:
If I wanted two Panthers, I would buy a separate company (or battalion) of Panthers and whittle it down to one platoon of two Panthers (platoon HQ tank and one subordinate tank). That would cost fewer purchase and rarity points than buying them as single vehicles under the command of the Panzergrenadier company commander.
Click to expand...
Yup - you just have to preserve the command element of the smallest unit - in this case the Platoon commander. This IS also cheaper too.


Meat Grinder, are you up for an FI battle?
Crocky said:
If you are still looking Im up to give it a go maybe RT as I have it but havent played it yet
Click to expand...

Sounds good!
 
Artemis, your house rule is one that I like and while I don't make a "rule" per se I do like to keep my formations as historical as possible when I'm playing an opponent of like intent. Some people really want that, so it's a great fit, others want the freedom to buy whatever suits the battle and that's fine too, as long as everyone is on the same page.
 
Sure! I'm not suggesting a club rule by any means, just testing something out that might turn into a house rule I'll employ from time to time, when my opponents agree. After a game at all Anshlag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom