Feinder
Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
|
While I might take issue with some of Trollelite’s other rantings, I *don't* actually see anything glaring with most of these those house rules. Many of them become irrelevanat, so I'm don't really see the point of squawking about them. As a primarily Allied player (and one who has had 3 games as Japan, on currently), these would be my responses:
Regard to 4-e
1.No 4-engine bomb under 15000 feet, except for british 4-e squadrons (FE) ( they use a single 4000 lb bomb), this only apply to the mission of : anti-ship, airfield or port attack, ground attack, city attack.
I usually play -no- bombers on attack under 12,000' because of the problems the game has with handling flak between 6k and 12k. But if you say -only- 4e bombers above 15k (and all others can go anywhere), I suppose that's ok.
2.no B-29 under 20000
I understand the "historical precedent" for this; and that being the case I'd like to be able to drop them in say, March 45 and/or convert them to night-bombers (and back to day) without penalty (although maybe have to sit them out for turn between).
3.no B-29 anti-ship
Hm. I don’t see the point of this, but frankly, this goes into the “irrelevant” category. It’s a pretty safe assumption that by the time the B-29s are out in force, there are plenty of other things to kill whatever may be left of the IJN. So I’d say “ok” to it on the grounds that I actually don’t think it’ll make any difference.
4. bombers must be below 30,000 to prevent ueber ceiling.
Ok. Just keep you Kamis below 30,000’ and we’ll call it even.
Regard to strategical bombing and night bombing
4.no strategy bomb on resource under 100, and any other thing (oil, heavy industry, aircraft factory,etc) under 50
You mean altitude? I thought bombers were supposed to be above 15k anyway? Hm. As I type, I think you’re talking about the SIZE of the facilites. Sorry, wouldn’t comply with this. I guess it depends on the mod, but many facilites are 100 or less, and the “big ones” are generally very into the interior, and/or it means those are really the only ones you need to protect. Frankly, by the time you could mount a serious campaign against the large facilities, your production could have stockpiles such that start bombing is completely irrelevant.
5 strategical bomb must be done by level bombers, and the altitude not below 10000, for 4-e see above.
That’s fine. It goes in the “don’t really care” category, because most light bombers generally don’t do well vs. strat targets anyway. I will point out that (Trollelite probably hasn’t thought of it), that this is potentially hamstrings some fun adventures with KB. In my current game as Japan, I used mega-KB to cruse down the Oz East coast, and smashed all the strat targets from Tville to Newcastle (had to turn around at Sydney for fuel, but I’ll be back). Besides the shipping I sank, the strat attacks garnered about 500 pts and will help to delay offensives from Oz/Noumea because now the supplies/fuel have to be brought in. KB can do the same to India (hm… maybe next op…? J ). Frankly, I think saying “only level bombers on strat-attack” takes away a useful mission away from Japan, more than it hurts the Allies.
5. No night mission except for night fighter and Patrol boat units. Any side could convert normal bomber unit to night bomber unit. To do so, these squadron first have to be announced, after this, they act as night units and cannot henceforce be given day missions and cannot be converted back.
That’s fine, mostly because I rarely use night attack anyway. But from above, B-29s should be able to fly both missions (with standing down for a turn or so between switching).
I would add 6 – No strat bombing of Chinese targets. To control the Chinese resources was the very reason Japan started this whole thing, so it doesn’t make much sense for them bomb them. I would agree as Allies to not bomb Japanese controlled resources in China. And beyond the “historical” reasons, bombing resources in China can all but starve China (less so in CHS, but still to a degree), creating some implausible situations.
Regard to PT, asw and AG and AK
6 PT not allowed for both sides, current PTs must be disbanded to port .
Wouldn’t agree to this. My stardard house-rule on PTs is no more than 2x TFs of 6x PTs in a hex, and folks are happy with it.
7.Allied asw group not exceed 6 ships, no restriction to japanese.
While I think this it silly to put a limit on the Allies (I know you want it more because the IJN ASW –sucks-, but in truth, they did suck in comparison). It also goes in the “irrelevant” category. Why? Because the game engine already restricts the number of attackers to be 8(?) to begin with. The only real benefit you get is “chances to detect” (which is significant). But I could live with it.
8.Any ag and ak in a port hex, so long as they are not disbanded in port, must be combined in one TF. Except those ag and ak that are loaded with troopers ( this is to prevent multiple single ak/ag tf shield the port from naval bombardement).
Actually, I’d extend this to include all transports, so you don’t get the single-ship TFs that evade the targeting routines of WitP. I don’t have a problem with single-ship TFs per se, except if your’re going to say no single-ship TFs vs. bombardment, then just be consistant and say no single-ship (transport) TFs. Frankly, I think I’d actually prefer a rule that said minimum of 2 ships per TF unless otherwise prohibited (meaning “do you best” to make min 2 ship TFs, but I don’t care about a lone supply ship to Kodiak Island, as long as Kodiak island isn’t under attack.
Regard to soviet and china and other area restriction
9.No allied units (land, naval or air) can enter soviet territory.
That’s probably fine. However I’ve never played where SovUn was actually attacked, so I don’t know if there are issues to exploit. I’d request a “line in the sand” where if IJA troops pushed to a certain point, that Allied air and troops could be brought to SU. Stalin isn’t stupid. If all of Kamchatka and Siberia is about to fall, he’s –going- to ask for help.
10. Except initial chinese exp.force, only 2 other chinese corps could be changed to southeast asia command and be able to fight in burma and india. There is no restriction to support units, however. Those 2 corps should be announced.
that’s fine. I rarely most stuff out of China anyway (besides the initial 5 divs); I’ve found it’s generally a bad idea to denude China.
11.chinese forces under china command can fight in manchuria, korea,taiwan, vietnam, but not siam, burma,DEI,or india, etc.
I’d want Clarity on where you define Siam, but over-all this ok. Keep your Machuko boys in Manchuko while you’re at it, unless you pay PP conversions.
12,Philippine could only be landed on US and local forces.
Landed “on” or landed “with”. Not sure what you mean. I would fully expect to be able to evac units if I pay PPs. But if I have to land with a US unit on counter-offensive, I suppose that’s ok. This also goes in the “mostly irrelevant” catageory.
13. No allied offensive action in northern pacific before soviet enter war. They can take back any amercian territory occupied by japanese, however.
A bit restrictive, but I’m not really one that concentrates on the northern route anyway, so it goes in the ok fine, “mostly irrelvent” category.
Regard to carrier aviation
14. No US corsair units on board carriers before 1, Jan, 1945. There is no restriction to British Corsair units. If Japanese ever use kamikaze before 1945, this restriction would be removed.
A bit restrictive, but I’d agree.
15. Japanese can only use those aircrafts designed for carrier, such as N1K1-J or J2M are not allowed. Submarines have only 2 aircraft to choose from. E14A Glen or M6A1
that’s fine, whatever.
Regard to respawn
16. Only 6 carriers, 12 cruisers can be reconstructed by allied. Of these, 2 should be used to replace australian cruisers and not allowed to use on US units (NO new Zealand ships replacement). Only Heavy cruisers and american "10000-tons" light cruiser could be replaced. Those reconstruced ships should be announced before enter service.
Frankly, the whole cruiser business seems hard to keep track of, but that’s fine, whatever.
Regard to sub-landing and air-borne
17. Only jap airborne unit and allied airbone ( regiment or below size) and raider unit could be sub-landed.
that’s fine.
18. Any airbone unit cannot air-assualt multiple target in the same turn. One target every turn for one single unit. However, they could do that in different turns.
That’s fine. I’d also apply this to the sub-invasions, that you need to have enough capacity to land the –entire- unit during your invasion.
I’d also throw in, regarding ground combat –
19 – No shock w/ pursue attacks except by armor.
20 – No “unnecessarlily” dividing units into regiments during (or under) attack. This causes issues with the ground attack routines. There are plenty of occasions to divide units which are perfectly harmless (sending 3x Rgts to different hexes), that’s not what I’m talking about. Keepign a Div broken into regts during an attack is problematic (I won’t go into the mechanics of the problems, unless you want).
21 – All units in a stack attack, or none. Issue with one unit from a stack attacking – bug causes an additional bombardment round to occur.
-F-
< Message edited by Feinder -- 1/11/2008 4:29:47 PM >
_____________________________
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me  |
Printable Version
As my house rule in the game against GH - 
so until now we only have one game. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread