Possible House rules for QB's? - Comments

Z

Zinzan

Guest
Greetings all,

Inspired by a comment about house rules for QB's on another site (The Blitz) I thought I'd start a thread here. Just for interest as I tend to play scenarios H-H rather than QB's. your thoughts and input would be appreciated.

Some ideas

1. No Preplanned arty in meeting engagements.
2. Preplanned arty allowed by attacker on attacks.
3. TRP's only allowed for defence on Prepared attacks on defences (defender allowed pillboxes etc)
4. Max 1 battery of rocket artillery.
5. Defender cannot hit attackers setup zone with arty in 1st 5 mins of game. (assumming they know where this is :)

Comments please.
 
Yeah, I searched after posting (newbie mistake 101 I know) and found a few threads.

I was mainly interested in getting it into a new thread before I derailed the one it first came up in first. Personally I'm not a fan of too many house rules - these are mainly to deal with the gamier (?) aspects and rule oddities (Rocket arty are very cheap). I'd simply use these as a guidline if I ever played a QB.

As you say, many would be agreed before start e.g. Iron difficulty; historical availability etc.
 
Yes quoting Nathangun we do have house rules already, I beleive Johnsy went down this road and set up the rules for the FGM ......The only difference being the first 5 minuets of the game, so if you take in account of the waiting time after after the first turn that would work out the same more or less

If defending you can't use any preplanned arty in the first turn.
If attacking you can use preplanned arty in the first turn.
In meeting engagements you can't use preplanned arty on setup zones or routes out of setup zones, but you can use preplanned arty elsewhere.
You can't buy any extra arty, except that which is organic to the main force purchased, unless negotiated before the battle starts.
 
I'd ban attackers from hugging the edge of the map when advancing into enemy territory.

To counteract this gamey tactic you could insist attackers need to leave 30m -50m (depending on the size of the map) between the edge of the map and their attacking units, when they are advancing into enemy territory.
 
^Werd.

My .02 is that any rules should be decided between opponents and not as club wide policies. That would just sap the fun out of playing, tbh. If a player has a particular way of playing with a particular ruleset, then that should be posted in his or her battle solicitation. That way others can see the terms and decide whether or not to accept them.
 
@Rambler To be fair I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that these "house" rules be club policy. I think that it's kind of a discussion paper for two players to pick and choose from. There are some gentlemanly rules that all should abide by like

  • no blasting set-up zones with arty on first turn.
  • over purchasing cheap but lethal arty on a small map
But other than that it's up to the players to decide the kind of game they want to play.
 
Exackerrly Right Odin - very interested in how others see House rules. As I don't play QB's (as a rule) I was just interested in the thoughts others had.

All Rules are meant to be broken anyway (At the right time & place and if you are prepared to pay the price.)
 
Zinzan said:
As I don't play QB's (as a rule) I was just interested in the thoughts others had.
Click to expand...

Might be straying off topic, but I've encountered a couple of other people who don't like to play QBs. I love a good scenario as much as the next person, but, to me, QBs are the purest form of the game. I think of a QB like a chess match, with the added bonus that you get to pick your own forces. Pick poorly and you have no scenario designer to blame for your bad decisions.

I've played a lot of scenarios, both H2H and against the AI. A well designed scenario is a joy to play, but some of them seem to be...."on rails"....and only have a certain set of actions that can be done to have a chance of winning. Also, many of them can only be played once or twice before one learns the "trick" to winning. Further, if playing H2H and one player has previously played the scenario and the other has not, the one that has played it before has a considerable advantage.

Discuss?
 
Meat Grinder said:
Might be straying off topic, but I've encountered a couple of other people who don't like to play QBs. I love a good scenario as much as the next person, but, to me, QBs are the purest form of the game. I think of a QB like a chess match, with the added bonus that you get to pick your own forces. Pick poorly and you have no scenario designer to blame for your bad decisions.

I've played a lot of scenarios, both H2H and against the AI. A well designed scenario is a joy to play, but some of them seem to be...."on rails"....and only have a certain set of actions that can be done to have a chance of winning. Also, many of them can only be played once or twice before one learns the "trick" to winning. Further, if playing H2H and one player has previously played the scenario and the other has not, the one that has played it before has a considerable advantage.

Discuss?
Click to expand...

I like to use QB's to experiment -- see what happens if you fight with that kit on that terrain -- not really too bothered with outcome -- if it's a good, FUN fight and I manage to do my best without too many of my usual tactical blunders ... it's been a good day.
 
@Meat Grinder : I second your remarks.
One thing I really miss with QBs is the automatic map generator we had in CMx1.
I know a lot of people complained about the "ugly" maps it produced but I always enjoyed the challenge of "reading" an unknown terrain.

For me its hard to comprehend why one should lay down a lot of house rules altogether.
All those rules have the effect that the games are very similar. IMHO its pretty boring to face the usual suspects again and again.
I see that some people don't like to face threats that are difficult to overcome (big cats, hvy arty, SMGs, etc).
But instead of banning those threats one should take on the challenge and find a tactical answer!
Remember: All is fair in love and war!
 
@Mehlsack Completely agree. And yes, I also miss the automatic map generator from CMx1. Picking a map is the most tedious part of CMx2, IMO. I also miss the "combined arms" QB setting from CMx1, which limited the points that could be spent on armor. Sure, you can do that as a "house rule" but just selecting "combined arms" was easier.
 
My simple 2 cents is that the OP has it right keep it simple. As soon as people start adding edge hugging and percentages etc. I start to get concerned that I'll "violate" the rules without meaning to. Having said that the final agreement between the two players needs to be what rules the day. I have many times played games with percentages allocated for armour etc - I just don't like to be concerned about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom