Standardized Rules for Competitive QBs

[QUOTE=" One fun type of restricted game that Baneman (on the BFC forums) showed me is a meeting engagement QB with no fully treaded vehicles. With the right map, this makes for a fast paced, fun game with armored cars and halftracks.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I've played similar games and it is a great fun. I enjoy maneuver. I often played QBs where opponents setup in opposite corners of the map. To represent a heavy / light task force, only max 1 company of infantry which all had to be mounted, the rest is tanks and mech. It allowed for a nice ME tank-centric clash.
 
Only for your information, gentlemen - there is a set of "house rules" that somebody already tried to implement as a standard
(or guideline). It was found by @Big Joe some time ago and we talked about it.

http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/House_Rules

Maybe it is helpful for the one or the other or for this thread here. I for one always negotiate with my opponent about the settings.

@TakeTheBody : Just wondering - we agreed to play a "Russian Attack" - why didn't you expect Russian tanks, mate? ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shorker - of course I expected Russian tanks - it was the amount that was surprising, mate.

No worries, of course. There's always a rematch :)
 
Reading through this thread, I am reminded of some of the things going on during CM1 days. Each iteration had its own character; In BO, you needn't worry about tanks since infantry ruled the roost and it was almost a necessity to take SMG infantry to counter the fact that your opponent was taking SMG infantry in competitive QBs.

BB infantry were much more fragile and tanks became equal in "value" picking a force with CA and overall improvements. AK seemed a blend of both.

As far as I see and from what I hear, tanks are the focus in house rules for CM2. I am curios what others think having played CM2 for a while how the arms are balanced against each other.

I love tanks and have picked fewer than I normally would in my first games back so it interests me to hear how they do in CM2, to keep that in mind with future QBs.
 
Tanks have their place. They dominate on open dry ground, but they can bog in the rain, and are easy to ambush in cities.

Anyways, these rulesets are just templates anyway. I wouldn't want to use them for every match, but it's good for copying and pasting- the format is easy to read, it covers about everything in the force selection screen, and you can easily chop parts out and edit them to your heart's content.
 
Thks for the link, Shorker. Fion Kelly ruleset was used a lot with CMx1 and I've lost them in the meantime. I personnally am a fan of the recon rules on small and medium maps.
I find tanks are more welcome on large maps with long LOS, except for the close support tanks like the Stug ( which by the way is handicaped in CMx2 by the bad habit of the loader to come out to shoot the outside MG and therefore usually dying quickly. Hope this bug is ironed out some day... )
 
That Stug with the remote controlled MG is pretty sweet though, I've used it on occasion to good effect.
 
@TakeTheBody: Ah, OK - Roger that! Now I understand.
That was just a kind of "all in" strategy ("to go for broke"?) rolling with all my tanks across an open field. :cool:
Rematch: Yes, that's the right sportsmanship! :) :cheers:
And our matches are not over yet - who knows what you still have in store for my T-34s? ;)
And what your Russians are bringing (what I could spot so far) looks also very alarming. :shocknaz:

Tanks in CMx2: I would agree with @DellieJonut - tanks have their place with advantages and disadvantages - depending on terrain and weather.

But one thing why I started with "extra rules" resp. playing with "Wynnter Green's Tank Rule" is that the German big tanks are too powerful and matches with e.g. two Tigers/Panthers placed in each rear edge of the map (left and right) by my opponent have become so boring and uninteresting and are absolutely no fun at all.

@Corsaire31: Yes, fully agree with you - stupid StuG gunner always sticking out his head on "his own initiative" allthough you told the crew to keep the hatches closed, is very annoying. There was a discussion about it over at the BFF and BF argued that the players would also complain if the StuG would not defend itself against nearby infantry...

One player said that he uses either a small target area/cover arc or the purple cover arc (for targeting tanks only) for his StuGs in such a situation so that the crew won't react/shoot if they are spotting enemy infantry. (I personally haven't tried this method yet).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shorker - I love and admire your attack. I am very fond of tanks and it is impressive witnessing them put to such good use, even though I am on the receiving end :0. I used to love tank-centric clashes in CM1 and I look forward to some in CM2.
My poor JP had a track blown off and was immobilized by your incoming arty on turn 2 or 3 (?) as he and his StuG partner were adjusting position in response to the wave of steel bearing down on the German lines. My StuG was pondering what do due next behind the perceived safety of a wood mass only to get wrecked by a shot that found its way through. What do you say in German? zu schade?

Fion Kelly! Yes, those were the rules I remember. I always enjoyed the "short -75" rule it was called? It allowed for each players' tanks to be able to kill the other's and it came down tactics not technical advantage. At least in theory.

I am devastated re: StuG and the MG issue. It is one my favorite AFVs :(
 
DellieJonut said:
@Bootie @Meat Grinder @Nathangun I updated the list. What do you think?

I restricted Churchill VI and VII from ruleset 1 because they have a 75mm gun and excessive armor. Changed to allow Iron or Elite. Added infantry only ruleset, AKA Fionna's Recon Rule. Added Ruleset 4 which places no restrictions on armor.
Click to expand...

Looks good :cool:
 
Fion Kelly's Recon rule is not infantry only, it is infantry + light vehicles and light tanks.
Infantry only is... well, only infantry ! (+ eventually trucks and command cars.)
 
Corsaire31 said:
Fion Kelly's Recon rule is not infantry only, it is infantry + light vehicles and light tanks.
Infantry only is... well, only infantry ! (+ eventually trucks and command cars.)
Click to expand...

I misspoke. Check out ruleset 3
 
My bad, didn't go back to check it out. Forget my comments... :)
 
@TakeTheBody . Thank you for the compliment but there is nothing to admire about it - I just drove my tanks forward... LOL! :D ;)

I'm enjoying our battles very much too.:)

Reconnaissance is always very important - I know - but I'm not the big sneaker scout. As we are playing an attack you have to go for it! ;) And even if you do not succeed - the thrill when you are driving with your tanks over that hill comb towards the enemy, not knowing what there is hiding in the woods ahead - this is priceless! :2charge:

You just had some bad luck behind the trees - I for myself also still must get used to the "Russian" kind of woods.
They are not very dense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom