Opinions about "Game rules as used by players"

[Percy]

Hi Big Duke
I only have the free game so Im not sure if I can block AA?
I think the UHF was for calling the air strikes onto targets already located by the ground forces, not the other way round. Any way sure troop concentrations is Ok "Theres Frenchies in the woods" but what happens in the game is that the ground units don't just know theirs enemy at so and so place they can now actually see them even if they are out of LOS and so then bring down artillery on them. This sort of thing quickly wrecks a carefully prepared defensive position by removing the element of surprise from the defender.

Percy

[Weasel]

You turn off AAA by clicking on your AAA MG in the unit information screen so it is greyed out instead of red. If you have the cd version then you can set up a filter and set NO to "allow AAA fire".

[BigDuke66]

A question to the artillery rules, how far down does this count?
I guess it does not count for mortar within a platoon, but what about the extra mortars attached on a higher level.
An example is the 4th company within a German infantry battalion of WW2, these had MG but also Mortars in it, do I need an FO for these assets or do I use the company/platoon leader to assign them?
And what about the need to fire them as battery?

[BigDuke66]

As for the artillery, my opponent pointed out that he sees no problem when battalion assets are controlled by the Bn. or Co. leader and I agree to that.
Not sure if you can add a general explanation to the artillery rule, but as the FOs a rather expensive the need for those should maybe be limited to assets that are:
A. Not subordinate assets of infantry battalions/companies(for example mortars of infantry companies or heavy/MG companies don't need FOs).
B. That had assets(reconnaissance/communication) as part conducting its operations(an example would be the artillery regiments & batteries of a German division).


Now another suggestion, we had talked about the AFV rule and how tanks behaved.
I think there should/could be a more differentiated rule to the stacking limits. I understand that in combat the tanks didn't mass in a very tiny area but spread out.
Now I doubt that this was the case for a marching column, of course it depends on the circumstances, air threat could have impact on how the march was conducted but in the end that would be up to the player if he wants to risk more tanks in a single hex for a tighter but more vulnerable march.
I suggest that a stacking of at X tanks is allowed while marching on roads and similar terrain.
Not sure what X should be but as we have 50 hexes even a tank as big as the Maus would fit 4 times into that so it's not unreasonable to set X to 3.


And as AFV also covers armored cars, I wonder what their usual way of operating was as their main purpose wasn't combat but recon. I have never paid much attention to that vehicle class as I'm grateful for any enlightenment.

[wulfir]

And as AFV also covers armored cars, I wonder what their usual way of operating was as their main purpose wasn't combat but recon. I have never paid much attention to that vehicle class as I'm grateful for any enlightenment.

Eike Middeldorf's 1956 book Taktik im Russlandfeldzug has some text on the use of German and Soviet Armoured Recon.

Middeldorf argues that:

1) Armoured Recon is combat.
2) The Armoured Recon Battalion must always be used as a unit, never divided up.
3) The Armoured Recon Battalion in both defence and attack is to find the strong and weak deployments of the enemy.
4) The Armoured Recon Battlion must never stubbornly hold ground where the enemy is strong but if it finds the enemy weak spot it is to hang on and create a start point for the division attack.

German Armoured Recon on the Eastern Front:

During the initial fighting in the east the Armoured Recon Battalion was too weak and often had to be paired up with the Division Motorcycle-infantry Battalion. Later Battalion organisations were established where the idea was to have a mixed unit capable of independent action. Because the German industrial capacity was insufficient the battalion organisation was still a sort of emergency solution. Often (esp. late war) the battalion was wrongly used - not for Recon - but as a mobile battlegroup or had elements detached which eroded the battalion strength and ability to perform the recon mission. Panzer-Divisions that tried to attack with weak or no recon effort usually suffered heavy losses.

The Soviet Armoured Recon on the Eastern Front:

Normally used witin a limited geographic location, and divided up into smaller recon detachments. Although fairly strong the battalion was not used for mobile operations over bigger distances.

[Weasel]

As for the artillery, my opponent pointed out that he sees no problem when battalion assets are controlled by the Bn. or Co. leader and I agree to that.
Not sure if you can add a general explanation to the artillery rule, but as the FOs a rather expensive the need for those should maybe be limited to assets that are:
A. Not subordinate assets of infantry battalions/companies(for example mortars of infantry companies or heavy/MG companies don't need FOs).
B. That had assets(reconnaissance/communication) as part conducting its operations(an example would be the artillery regiments & batteries of a German division).


Now another suggestion, we had talked about the AFV rule and how tanks behaved.
I think there should/could be a more differentiated rule to the stacking limits. I understand that in combat the tanks didn't mass in a very tiny area but spread out.
Now I doubt that this was the case for a marching column, of course it depends on the circumstances, air threat could have impact on how the march was conducted but in the end that would be up to the player if he wants to risk more tanks in a single hex for a tighter but more vulnerable march.
I suggest that a stacking of at X tanks is allowed while marching on roads and similar terrain.
Not sure what X should be but as we have 50 hexes even a tank as big as the Maus would fit 4 times into that so it's not unreasonable to set X to 3.


And as AFV also covers armored cars, I wonder what their usual way of operating was as their main purpose wasn't combat but recon. I have never paid much attention to that vehicle class as I'm grateful for any enlightenment.

You may do as you wish.  These rules that I have posted are the ones that I play with, they are not mandated to be used by SP players, they are simply there for reference and to be picked and chose as players see fit.  So by all means change them as you please and if you like submit them to me and I will post them with the others.  I just ask that if you make changes that you play test the results first and not just "spur of the moment" it.

BTW - I try to never stack my vehicles no matter where they are as being stacked is a good way to lose them to cluster munitions or air strikes.

[Spledge]

I applaud having some standard set of rules that most people also appreciate. Having only played a few PBEMs (but wanting to play more), to me "setting up" a game with someone becomes way to stressful out of concern that some rule would be over-looked (or not known about by this PBEM newbie) that could/should have been discussed before a game is undertaken. There have been a few times where an ASSumption is made in setting up a game that one later regrets as a game takes on a gamey aspect midway through thus leading to being dissatisfied with their investment of time.

A. The rules pertaining to the use of artillery/FO sounds interesting; i.e. a welcomed challenge to utilize.

B. The rule regarding restricting infantry from firing on an armored unit doesn't seem "right" for two reasons: 1) It's what I am/was used to doing over a decade plus of playing SP while some of the time being coached by more senior players that were also interested in NOT using gamey tactics. And 2) it seems that in reality an infantry unit may take a few shots at a tank in the effort of catching the tank's crew riding around with their heads out of a porthole or maybe hitting a sensor or optical piece.

C. Lastly, I can appreciate the sentiment of restricting grabbing VHs "cheaply" at the end of a game through some incoherent desperate scrabble, however requiring that a platoon capture a VH seems very restrictive too.

Thanks for opening this discussion.

Best to all.

[BigDuke66]

@Weasel
Regarding artillery, I think a good way to distinguish the need for an FO is to see at what level the artillery unit was attached and how it participated in combat.
Taking German WW2 as example, there is surely no need to buy FOs for mortars attached at platoon level, fire by those units should simply be plotted by the platoon/company CO of the infantry. Same counts for the mortars of the MG/heavy weapon company as these directly support the 1st to 3rd infantry company. Fire by them should simply be plotted by the company CO of the MG/heavy weapon company or the battalion CO which the MG/heavy weapon company serves.
Same counts for infantry guns.

It makes a lot sense to make FOs mandatory for artillery elements that are not part of the infantry or armor assets. Taking Germany in WW2 again, the artillery regiments of a infantry division needs such FOs that already comes from the way they conducted operations.

While a general rule is easy to follow it's in my eyes nicer to differentiate the forces by the way they conducted operations and by the way they were structured, in this case the rules should differentiate between direct infantry support assets attached in platoon/company/battalion level and higher artillery assets.
This helps the player to decide the need for FOs and it also "carves out" the characteristics of a country and it's forces stronger.


@Spledge
I was thinking about the infantry vs tank fire too. Some points must be considered.
1. Is that AFV transporting anything on it?
If so I think it's a legal target because I doubt that infantry would let the opportunity pass to hit enemy infantry that is so exposed.

2. Is that AFV buttoned up already?
If not, I think that a tank that has its hatches open and its commander standing in the hatch is a legal target, also because the infantry can't kill any of the crew unless they are out of the tank, all they can achieve is to button the tank up for the price that they expose themselves.

3. In the rules we have already the rule to Z fire up to 2 hexes away, and it doesn't seem to restrict fire on tanks.
But is that enough?

Overall the question is, at what point does it get gamey to shoot on a tank?
All infantry assets firing like mad over all ranges at a tank just to button him up seems wrong but then a tank driving by infantry positions simply invites to fire on it if unbuttoned especially if it carries infantry assets.


A bit propaganda on that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZKbD2Turo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4eYO_0C5So
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67dgSI-lMw

[Weasel]

The most important thing to remember is that the rules, as myself and play testers designed them, is to keep them simple to learn, simple to use, and simple to police. We could make the rules incredibly detailed, but they would be an elephant in a Volkswagon to use.

A prime example of this is the following rule which we discarded and no one seems to think of: FOOs must have LOS to target. A FOO is designed to bring artillery onto a target that he sees, not one that is 5 miles away that a scout unit bumped into, however we did away with this since in game showed the foo was always singled out for special attention and by the time he got to the forward area the need for artillery passed.

However, as stated earlier, by all means create your own rules, play test them, and present them to the community if you like, I am more than willing to post them.

[Walrus]

Hey Guys
For me most of the rules we have come up with are about trying to limit gamey play and force more realistic fighting.
That being said, what is 'realistic'?

For me the FOO rules Weasel has created are more about trying to stop the classic '1 tube= 1 target' thing that happens with SP where 20 mortars are shooting at 20 targets, none in LOS or anyone with a radio, added to the fact that no-one bothers to by FOO as any '0' unit can call in arty. Tying each 'shoot' to an FOO means you have to think about how much to spend on FOOs (expensive in the game, for a good reason) vs how many 'shoots' you think you'll realistically need on the defence / attack to get the results you are after.

As Weasel keeps saying, these rules are just a start point for your negotiations at the set up phase. If you play the same opponents often, you start to know what a happy rules set will be for your games.
maybe you'll do away with the FOO rule because neither of you really play 'one tube = 1 target' type arty...but maybe you'll end up agreeing that the rule for on-board arty deployment is a good idea...1 hex max between units. That makes CB fire more effective and you can't split up your arty formations to take advantage of each wee bit of protective rough terrain etc...thus forcing you to think about moving your arty now and again to avoid CB fire...etc...

Shooting at AFV with inf that have no AT capability is generally used in the game to distract the afv, spin it to present it's rear to another AT unit perhaps, or to force op-fire and 'soak off' shots to allow a close assault or to allow another of your units to engage without fear of op-fire etc.
You could make the rule that you can't shoot at a buttoned afv. That's going to be harder to police in a large game for sure...so perhaps a more simple rule 'no inf shooting at AFV if you have no AT weapon' keeps it easier to police and easily stops any gamey play.

Again, you could just ignore that rule and blast away at anything with anything.
Same goes for Z-fire, helo use, amount of zero sized units allowed, how to take flags at the end of a game (single units, only platoons etc), use of smoke grenades by infantry and dischargers by afvs...and on and on.
The last thing any of us needs is a week exchanging emails at the start of a battle, just to get a happy rule set happening.
Weasels rules ideas give that process a head start and are not supposed to be 'hard and fast' rules at all.

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. I find them a pretty good start at getting the game fairly realistic, less gamey and keeping things fun, fairly easy to police and not turning everything into a game-lawyer festival.

Happy fighting!!