Opinions about "Game rules as used by players"

[Weasel]

I applaud having some standard set of rules that most people also appreciate.


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.

I hope these rules do help you find a happy place in your games that are balanced for your style of play. 

As pertaining to rule B above, the rule as written is thus:  any infantry can shoot at a tank that is adjacent to them, regardless of their A.T. capability (in other words, they can always close assault).  Otherwise they may only shoot out to their A.T. range and must stop once their A.T. shots are finished (now sitting at 0).  This second part is designed to prevent players from hosing down tanks with MGs, rifles, bows and arrows etc to build up suppression, soak off defensive shots and change the facing of the tank so that once the target no longe responds to fire the attacking player can move his tank out without fear of return fire and thus blast away.

Is it restrictive?, yes if you prefer a wide open game, but is it more realistic, in my opinion I think it is and is also adds complexity to the game, you must think more.

Anyway, as stated these rules are not forced house rules, they are presented as an option and players may use some, none or all of them if they wish.

As always I am more than willing to discuss things like this and am open to ideas that are playtested to improve these rules.

@Bigduke66:  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.

If you mean the 50mm mortars then no, you don't need a FOO as they are organic just like an MG and have a very short range.  If you are speaking of 60mm with a 1500m range, then yes you need a FOO.

[BigDuke66]

Sorry if I start nitpicking here but the way the rule is written is a bit unclear:
"2. Infantry can only shoot at tanks if the infantry have AT weapons within range, this is only for ranged fire, infantry can always attempt to close assault a vehicle even if they have no AT weapons."
It sounds like you can shoot with every weapon(even none AT weapons) at a tank as long as that tank is within the range of one of your AT weapons. So infantry with bazookas could fire everything as long as the tank is within the range of a bazooka. I guess that is not intended.

If it's indented to allow none AT weapon fire(rifle, MG, etc.) at tanks only neighboring the infantry the rule has to be rephrased. Like this:
"2. Infantry can shoot their AT weapons like they see fit but their none-AT weapons(those with zero pen/HEAT/APCR value) at tanks only in the same or adjacent hexes. Infantry can always attempt to close assault a vehicle even if they have no AT weapons."
By this infantry can fire all the none penetrating weapons but only if the tank is so close that the reaction might turn out deadly for that infantry. And I want to remember that infantry can panic and move 1 hex away if tank gets adjacent to the infantry, with 2 hex distance the rule would not allow none AT weapons to be fired on the tank.

Anyhow the main intend seems to prohibit the provocation of tank so that they are not reacting to infantry and so allow friendly tanks to close in unmolested for a kill. That's fine but that tanks can drive into infantry and only fear close assaults while being totally unsuppressed(aka hatches open) also seems not too realistic.


Regarding artillery, I wonder why the size & range of the tube should matter and not its organic position within the force and the way operations where conducted.
Good example again the German WW2 battalion structure, the 4th company usually provided heavy MG and mortar(81mm) support to the 1st-3rd infantry company, either from behind the 1st-3rd infantry company or I think on occasion they were directly attached to a specific infantry company to support it. The same is unthinkable regarding the guns of the divisional artillery assets as they usually never were under the command of an infantry CO.
Besides that in-game I don't see anything bigger than a group of mortars that can be bought what is not even a platoon, that is far away from a battery of artillery for which an FO would be acceptable.

[Spledge]

Perhaps this would be an alternative...



Infantry attacking an armored unit (i.e. tank) with non-AT (nAT) weapon/s:

A. nAT weapons may be fired at an armored target until that target shows some suppression (i.e. not "Ready" status). Once the target shows some suppression NO nAT weapons may be fired at the target unless it's by close assault (within 1-0 hexes).

B. Each nAT weapon may be fired at an armored target, either separately or as part of the attacking unit's barrage of multiple weapons firing at once, if the target is within one third the maximum distance of the each attacking weapon. [Example: Attacking unit has two nAT weapons attacking a tank at a range of 300 meter. One nAT has a max range of 1000m, the second has a max range of 300m. In this case, the second weapon may not fire at all.]



This set of guidelines offer the ability to suppress an armored unit with nAT, however the shortcoming is in the target unit will only me mildly suppressed.

Good thought experiment though...

[Weasel]

Hi
for what its worth here is my rule set so far for what its worth.
These rules are easily enforceable and relatively simple.

No ammo resupply.  No Z fire(except for pillboxes, HMG and MMG when defending and mortars(for mortars one z fire per turn which is considered a ranging shot.).
No aircraft including helicopters.  No allies, foreign, captured, experimental or prototype kit.
No zero sized Scouts, Snipers or LMG groups except those included in companies or platoons
One demolition per engineer section.  No Direct support or General support Artillery.
Artillery  effectiveness 10%.  Searching 40%. Rout/Rally 200%, exchange passwords at the end.

Hi Percy:  why is searching so low, don't you find it makes troops almost impossible to find?  I find at 100% that they are too hard to spot myself, just ask Walrus he has had to put up with my "blind paras" comments for 44 turns now.  Why exchange passwords when you see the full map and sides at the end?

[Weasel]

Sorry if I start nitpicking here but the way the rule is written is a bit unclear:
"2. Infantry can only shoot at tanks if the infantry have AT weapons within range, this is only for ranged fire, infantry can always attempt to close assault a vehicle even if they have no AT weapons."
It sounds like you can shoot with every weapon(even none AT weapons) at a tank as long as that tank is within the range of one of your AT weapons. So infantry with bazookas could fire everything as long as the tank is within the range of a bazooka. I guess that is not intended.

If it's indented to allow none AT weapon fire(rifle, MG, etc.) at tanks only neighboring the infantry the rule has to be rephrased. Like this:
"2. Infantry can shoot their AT weapons like they see fit but their none-AT weapons(those with zero pen/HEAT/APCR value) at tanks only in the same or adjacent hexes. Infantry can always attempt to close assault a vehicle even if they have no AT weapons."
By this infantry can fire all the none penetrating weapons but only if the tank is so close that the reaction might turn out deadly for that infantry. And I want to remember that infantry can panic and move 1 hex away if tank gets adjacent to the infantry, with 2 hex distance the rule would not allow none AT weapons to be fired on the tank.

Anyhow the main intend seems to prohibit the provocation of tank so that they are not reacting to infantry and so allow friendly tanks to close in unmolested for a kill. That's fine but that tanks can drive into infantry and only fear close assaults while being totally unsuppressed(aka hatches open) also seems not too realistic.


Regarding artillery, I wonder why the size & range of the tube should matter and not its organic position within the force and the way operations where conducted.
Good example again the German WW2 battalion structure, the 4th company usually provided heavy MG and mortar(81mm) support to the 1st-3rd infantry company, either from behind the 1st-3rd infantry company or I think on occasion they were directly attached to a specific infantry company to support it. The same is unthinkable regarding the guns of the divisional artillery assets as they usually never were under the command of an infantry CO.
Besides that in-game I don't see anything bigger than a group of mortars that can be bought what is not even a platoon, that is far away from a battery of artillery for which an FO would be acceptable.

Geez, I just read this, sorry I never responded.  OK, part 1:  Yep, you can blast away with everything (supporting fire so the AT team isn't a "sore thumb" target all by themselves).  Part 2:  we have since changed this rule, all on board assets can be called in by a 0 unit, but he can only call in those pieces on board, not off.  A FOO can call in both on and off board assets onto a target.  Thus if you have 4 FOO you get 5 shoots, 4 FOO which can be on or off board artillery, and a shoot that can only be on board (mortars, field guns etc).  We also play with a FAC rule too:  a FOO/S must be renamed FAC and can only call in air strikes, targets limited to the number of FAC you own.  He cannot call artillery.

Our games easily see 5 or 6 FOOs for a medium big game now.

[oldrocky]

There has been much reaction and it is obvious that there are differing opinions on what rules to use. What it boils down to however is you use the rules that are negotiated between the opponents before the game. You agree on a set of rules then play. It can be different every game and I know I have tried many different rules over the years.

But my point still stands and that is: The sticky post says: "Game rules as used by players". That is false and totally misleading and should be changed to something that reflects the truth because it is NOT game rules as used by players, it is in fact game rules used by a SELECT FEW PLAYERS. But some potential recruit doesn't know that when visiting the Ladder because it doesn't say that the rules are used by only some of the players. It infers that these rules are used as a standard of play. I'm not saying that the rules should be changed. (Play by any rules you negotiate before a game.) I'm saying that the Sticky post wording should be changed to reflect something truthful instead of being bent so to favor a personal preference in game play.

[BigDuke66]

If you don't trust your opponent, why play against them at all?
Besides that, a lot rules are taking place right in front of the eyes of your opponent, so there is no need for trust just watch the replay.

The "flow" is also not hampered because the rules a rather naturally, or do you think it's natural to drive tanks through woods? Of course not and that is why these rules are no problem to follow.

I agree that to many rules just make the game a trouble to play, but here are just 2 pages in a very generous formating(could likely boil it down to 1 page) with some optional points in it that one can let out to make it even smaller. In the field of wargaming there are much more complicated rule sets, even sets that almost completely change the game. The rules here are a cakewalk against them.