Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House rules to live by......

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> House rules to live by...... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules to live by...... - 6/1/2008 3:49:53 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		What are the house rules you play by either personally against the AI or against an opponent?

I try to stay historical as much as possible to my knowledge anyway.

Mine are-
I keep USN / Marine Air attached to ground bases in SOPAC/ no SWPAC.
No Marines on Carriers unless they're hitching a ride somewhere.
Austrailian fighters are limited to SWPAC.
If a ground unit arrives at SOPAC or SWPAC they stay in that theatre.

With the knowledge last week that someone was using IJN night attacks that would definately go on my list of house rules. I'd like to hear some others if anyone would be inclined. Thanks ...




< Message edited by SuluSea -- 6/1/2008 3:52:08 PM >

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
Post #: 1
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/1/2008 4:06:23 PM   
bigbaba


Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline 		hi cpt. sulu.

this night attacks kill you. holding PM is very important to the allies and when you can not do anything against 120 val and 130 kates devouring supply at PM and destroying the AF, that has a huge huge impact at your strategy as the allied. in my last game, i had a nearly 1:1 lose ratio in day air combat (my opponent lost around 230 kates+vals, 240 zeros and 100 bettys+nells until october 1942..most of them in day combat) as allied but the night attacks caused most of the aircraft lose (on the ground) with sometimes 37! aircrafts destroyed in one attack.

i even made some tests with 2 NF-groups at PM against massive carrier night attacks but even with this radar equiped NF, the japs lost only 2-3 aircrafts on they attack. the same thing happend when i had 70 FB flying night cap and they only shoot down 1-2 japs planes.

in my next game (i would like to play the allied), i would have only 2 house rules:

-no carrier night attacks (land based night attacks are totaly ok and also realistic!).
-no corsairs on CV (fair is fair).

beside that, anything goes for me.


< Message edited by bigbaba -- 6/1/2008 4:16:22 PM >

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/1/2008 4:09:24 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		those are all very good. I usually to the SOPAC/SWPAC also, but out of habbit, not house rule. I generally do the same as Japan, with the 8th army taking from Gili-Gili West, and the Combined fleet units taking the islands. The usual exception being that if the US is putting a lot of troops there or PM, I will send one or both of the combined fleet divisions that way.

Another common one i have seen a lot is to limit how low B-17's can operate. Usually not below 10k feet. As for the night carrier operations, I had never even considered that before, but I agree, that is going on my list from this point on

< Message edited by borner -- 6/1/2008 4:34:36 PM >

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/1/2008 4:10:52 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I would also say no land based F4F units on carriers

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/1/2008 6:31:42 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		PT boats limited to 4 per TF and can't be mixed in with other types of ships.  They could follow another TF, but not be a part of it.  The USN operated PTs in 3s on patrols.

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 5:35:09 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		As I noted elsewhere, if you want to restrict the USN from using Corsairs on their CV/CVL/CVEs, then the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs also. Fair is fair.

_____________________________


(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 7:14:29 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs.


which one do you have in mind?

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 7:30:26 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Good points all I will take these into account in my games going forward.

quote:

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.
Todd, I thought the B-17s at Midway were operating between 9,600 and 20,000 feet depending on the sortie. Asking your opinion, would there be that much difference in a B 17 attack from say 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 feet?

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 7:30:46 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.


Half of that statement is manifestly incorrect. US 4ebs were as good at hitting stationary targets, even from 20K feet as, for example, IJN Kates (who often level-bombed from 12-18k feet).

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 7:43:48 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs.


which one do you have in mind?


Any of the Zeros, Vals, Kates that are not attached to a ship but to Combined Fleet and arrive as Land Based reinforcements.

_____________________________


(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 8:09:58 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		How do most players feel about operating carrier air from land bases?

It seems to cause a big stir when it happens in games with some forum posters vociferously against it.

Both sides did this in the real war, but not as a matter of doctrine or for extended periods.

I KNOW the AI does it as it is known to come down to PM from Rabaul with 200 zeroes when it only has 75 land based zeroes.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 8:12:07 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

PT boats limited to 4 per TF and can't be mixed in with other types of ships.  They could follow another TF, but not be a part of it.  The USN operated PTs in 3s on patrols.

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.




That seems excessive Todd. They operated at 15000 historically. Are you saying to bump them up another 5000 feet to offset ahistorical bombing accuracy?

I think you only called for a minimum altitude of 12000 feet for them on the copy of the house rules you sent me.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 8:31:10 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		I'd exempt the PB4Ys from that rule in any event.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/2/2008 9:30:46 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		The altitude for B-17s is not the point, it's to prevent them from being super weapons in UV.  Historically the Norden bombsight wasn't near what it was cracked up to be so a level bomber (4E), such as the B-17, was a carpet bombing weapon for land based targets, not moving ones.  For 1 bomb out of a stick to hit a docked ship would be a minor miracle, but not in UV.  The rule goes deeper and does, to an extent, exempt the PB4Y.

All LBA units, even if they fly a naval type plane should be restricted to land basing.  Marine F4Fs, SBDs, TBFs and F4Us on CVs?  No way!

Naval air on a land base?  Why not if the CV is crippled and being repaired in Tokyo or PH?  As a way of keeping the planes in the game and hiding the CVs to deny VP opportunities to your opponent?  GAMEY


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/3/2008 5:40:38 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		all good points ToCaff, although allied land based air, especially b-25's were killers against shipping when it got in range.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/3/2008 7:09:59 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		There's always been a chicken or the egg argument concerning B-17s. Were they poor anti shipping weapons because they were inherently flawed as such or did their limited numbers and few opportunities not allow for an improvement in tactics and proficiency? The fact that PB4Ys became excellent ship killers would argue that B-17s would have gotten better at attacking shipping irl if production had been diverted to SwPac or SoPac and the IJN had been stupid enough to park it in range.

Gamewise uber Betties cancel out uber B-17s in naval attacks. If you don't want to lose shipping either protect it or don't send it w/i range of lba.

The only air related house rule I ever played with was no F4Us on carriers. Maybe something about night attacks as well.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/3/2008 8:13:02 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		B-17s conducted "precision" bombing in Europe.  The area surrounding the actual target was considered a hit!  I don't know what the actual radius was.  B-17s couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside!  Now, if they had been a British plane they might've been fitted to carry fish.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 17
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/4/2008 1:02:58 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Don't tell that to the crew from the Mutsuki.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 18
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/4/2008 6:10:44 AM   
daveja vu

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff
Naval air on a land base? Why not if the CV is crippled and being repaired in Tokyo or PH? As a way of keeping the planes in the game and hiding the CVs to deny VP opportunities to your opponent? GAMEY


Historically I believe the Wasp's aircraft operated from Henderson Field for awhile after she was sunk. VS-7, in particular, was a crack squadron of Wasp's SBD's that took a heavy toll on Japanese shipping during the Guadalcanal campaign.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 19
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/4/2008 1:44:04 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Don't tell that to the crew from the Mutsuki.



Murphy had an eagle eye trained on that ship.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 20
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/4/2008 3:33:00 PM   
jeffs


Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline 		The B-17s did actually manage to nail a few ships (including a few DDs, from the 15,000 ft range..
They were not "good" in the anti-shipping role...But they did hit on occassion.

While I agree land based planes should not fly from carriers, both sides extensively used CV planes from land bases in the south pacific.

_____________________________

To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 21
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/5/2008 5:00:30 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		This one may draw some fire... but in a recent AAR, it is noted that you should put your US BB's in a seperate TF, as the AI will send the strikes that way. While this is very good from a game standpoint, it would be what I consider somewhat questionable. Another example - In playing IKE, he would send invasion forces in with only 1-2 ships per TF at times, but dozens of them in the same hex. If you get lucky, and surfase combat group can go in and pound several of them, but air strikes are very ineffective.
I would vote for some basic understands that doing things like this with the intention of "beating the system" not be allowed. The problem is, it would be an honor-system only type of deal, as it would be hard to enforce or even see until these showed up somewhere.

< Message edited by borner -- 6/5/2008 6:13:46 AM >

(in reply to jeffs)
Post #: 22
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/5/2008 1:55:41 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: borner

This one may draw some fire... but in a recent AAR, it is noted that you should put your US BB's in a seperate TF, as the AI will send the strikes that way. While this is very good from a game standpoint, it would be what I consider somewhat questionable. Another example - In playing IKE, he would send invasion forces in with only 1-2 ships per TF at times, but dozens of them in the same hex. If you get lucky, and surfase combat group can go in and pound several of them, but air strikes are very ineffective.
I would vote for some basic understands that doing things like this with the intention of "beating the system" not be allowed. The problem is, it would be an honor-system only type of deal, as it would be hard to enforce or even see until these showed up somewhere.



I think honor systems can work very well. As soon as some one shows himself to be dishonorable he stops getting games.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 23
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/5/2008 5:16:25 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		Single ship TFs are a no no unless you're trying to slip a single transport into a base or it's a fast transport.  To send numerous ships as single vessel TFs in the same hex to the same destination is a flat out effort to get around an opponent's air strikes.  It's a gamey tactic, see the "Gamey" thread.

Again, if 2 people agree on things at the start of a game and deal with eachother's concerns during it the only outcome will be an enjoyable game for both and that's what PBEM is all about.  Win, lose or draw I play for the fun of it, not to abuse or be abused.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 24
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 5:52:49 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I would suggest sending single ML's out on missions is also acceptable.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 25
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 3:48:02 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Single ship TFs are a no no unless you're trying to slip a single transport into a base or it's a fast transport.  To send numerous ships as single vessel TFs in the same hex to the same destination is a flat out effort to get around an opponent's air strikes.  It's a gamey tactic, see the "Gamey" thread.

Again, if 2 people agree on things at the start of a game and deal with eachother's concerns during it the only outcome will be an enjoyable game for both and that's what PBEM is all about.  Win, lose or draw I play for the fun of it, not to abuse or be abused.




Todd, you're starting to drive me nuts, buddy. I wish you would be more clear with me about these things.

We started our game with no house rules but with the agreement to use common sense with regard to realism.

I was sending in one ship transport TFs to "trickle" supply into PM without having to sacrifice my inexperienced fighters trying to provide LRCAP over large transport TFs. I accepted that this, coupled with air supply, was about enough to sustain the base, but not enough to build it up or allow it to sustain any kind of concerted bombing effort.

You later sent me an email with a list of your standard house rules asking me if you had sent them to me before as apparently you did not remember. I reminded you that we had not set any house rules, but in the interest of being fair I immediately started abiding by them. I stopped sending single ship supply TFs to PM and decided to bight the bullet and run the gauntlet with some sizeable TFs.

Your printed house rules also listed no 4E planes below 12,000 ft. I immediately raised my B-17s from the 8,000 ft. altitude I had been operating them at to the 12,000 ft. limit you preferred.

Now in this thread you say it OK to send single ship supply TFs as long as the gamey move of sending multiple single ship TFs is not exploited (I know that some people feel that even single ship supply TFs is gamey as it exploits the game engines lack of responsiveness toward single ship TFs from a naval bombing standpoint). You also state here that you don't want to see 4E's being used below 20,000 ft.

Please clarify things for me so I know what to do in our game. Are single ship supply TFs ok as long as the arrive solo and not in droves of multiple single ship TFs?

I am not sure I am willing to agree to a minimum altitude of 20,000 ft. for 4Es. Historically, they bombed from 15,000 ft. Yes, I know your argument that bumping them to an ahistoric setting of 20,000 ft. is what you propose to offset their ahistorical bombing accuracy, but in point of fact, all planes in this game have better bombing accuracy than they did historically. I don't feel it is fair to penalize B-17s to offset their greater bombing accuracy without doing so to all planes accross the board. I've bumped mine to 15,000 ft. which is 3,000 ft. above what was listed in the house rules you sent me, but 5,000 ft. below your presently stated (in this thread) preference of 20,000 ft.

I think we have played long enough for you to recognize that I am more than willing to be reasonable in aggreeing to anything that increases realism and historical accuracy even in the face of no prior agreed upon house rules. All I ask is that we be certain we are clear in what we are asking for.

Merrill


p.s. Incidentily, I was using the single ship supply TF to PM method against both you and Ralf as a result of my experience against the AI which always seems to have both it's bombers and escorts poised to strike hard at any attempt to get large supply TFs into PM. Once I dropped this tactic (and I did so in BOTH games unilaterally) I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 26
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 4:02:27 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		HB

I have no problem with the way we're playing our game. 

I'm just feeding some of the HRs in response to this thread.  If you want to send an AK or an AP on a daily basis into PM all by it's lonesome that's fine.  The HR is to prevent 20 single ship trans TFs (# as an example) all at once together in the same hex to take advantage of the game mechanism that only allows an airstrike to target the 1 TF and thus only 1 ship.


If you want the B-17s hitting my ships at 11K and we didn't have HRs that's painfully fine with me too.

I never thought that I was sending mixed signals to you.  This could be an offshoot of my playing the multiple games at once.  Sorry for the confusion.  Now stop putting the hurt on the IJN, will ya?


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 27
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 4:09:11 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Todd,

I'm glad we both take an amicable approach to things. Since I discovered that I am actaully coming out ahead (at least a few times) by sending in the large supply TFs to PM I will probably continue to do so until you put a hurting on them.

I've resolved to fly my fortresses at the historically accurate altitude of 15,000 ft. in all my games.

And no problemo on what I was seeing as mixed signals. It was less about me being miffed over any mixed signals than me being concerned with upsetting an opponent becuase I might not be abiding by any restrictions my opponent may have felt I should be abiding by.

And last, but not least, no way in hell am I gonna stop putting the hurt on the IJN.


(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 28
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 5:07:00 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.


You "easily" got them in...yes. This clearly indicates I need to adjust some things! Hope you stocked well in the past...

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 29
RE: House rules to live by...... - 6/6/2008 5:16:03 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.


You "easily" got them in...yes. This clearly indicates I need to adjust some things! Hope you stocked well in the past...



I did say I would "probably" keep it up until my opponents put a hurting on it. Just another dimension for you to need to hammer me in.

After Todd's recent KB hunting trip along the Aussie coast that sunk most of my Aussie based transport fleet I may have to go back to the trickle method in that game.

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> House rules to live by...... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906