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

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> House rules Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules - 2/4/2021 5:58:19 PM   
BaitBoy

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		I am looking to get into a PBEM Game and was wondering what the most common house rules are?

Thanks

_____________________________

"You go over there and attract their attention while I . . . "

Member Henchmen and Sidekicks Local 272
Post #: 1
RE: House rules - 2/4/2021 6:34:15 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		It will depend on who you ask. My answer is none are necessary, although an understanding about turn 1 is needed.

_____________________________


(in reply to BaitBoy)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules - 2/4/2021 10:13:40 PM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BaitBoy

I am looking to get into a PBEM Game and was wondering what the most common house rules are?

Thanks


As Nomad said, none are really needed. However there are two common one:-

Paying PPS to leave your command area for restricted LCU. Ie. Restricted Indian troops can't leave India. Another way to look at is if you can't load them onto a ship or a plane you gan't move them out of the area. The problem is the game will let you, were as it prevents you loading them onto a ship or plane unless you pay PPs.

No 4e naval bombing below 10000ft. Bombings to accurate.

(in reply to BaitBoy)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules - 2/5/2021 7:55:17 AM   
Maallon


Posts: 196
Joined: 12/27/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline 		+1 on the PPS and no 4e Naval Bombing rules

There are a lot of House Rules out there and they mostly depend on what kind of game you want to play.
Some House Rules are designed to enforce a certain playstyle, some are there because the author was annoyed by some of the mechanics of the game and didn't want to deal with them
and some are there to enforce a more historical gameplay overall(though this probably can be counted to enforcing a certain playstyle).
Personally I think that every game mechanic and strategy in the game can be countered one way or another so restricting game mechanics is really something you should only do if you really just don't want to deal with it and it would keep you from playing the game otherwise.

But if it is your first PBEM I wouldn't worry too much about House Rules except for the two mentioned above.
Just make sure that you and your opponent are looking for the same type of game you want to play.
This is really the most important part: Talk to your opponent for a bit before starting the game, so you can make sure you both are on the same level.
And if he wants certain House Rules enforced, you can decide for yourself if you want to engage in such a type of game or look for a different opponent.

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules - 2/5/2021 11:54:03 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		+1 on getting to know your opponent. Most of the games that are abandoned after only a few months of game play are because one side or the other did not have the fortitude to take a hard loss of a battle when there was a whole lot of war remaining to play catch-up or forestall-and-delay. The most mature players rise to the challenge of playing with a handicap.

And sometimes players who are just in it for the fun will allow their opponent a mulligan when his mistakes cost him dearly. You need to know if you are both playing for fun, both playing for the long run or incompatible on either count.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Maallon)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules - 2/5/2021 3:43:13 PM   
AtParmentier

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 12/15/2019
Status: offline 		The most important house rules are for the first turn. As no rules allow allied players to move any ship, thus negating any surprise. This would mean most attacks by KB on the first turn would be negated.
Other rules that might be needed is the prevention of searching for carriers in the first turn, even if the allies are allowed to move their carriers, it's rather easy for Japan to catch them (known initial location, limited coverage).
No rules at all allow for anything. Some rules hurt both sides, others hurt one side more. If people are not careful and the rules aren't written correctly, it could mean issues later on.
Limiting the rules to a minimum fixes most issues that can happen when different interpretations or unintended results happen.

Some house rules are outdated, because the issue was patched out.
Main rules in this category:
- limiting 4 engined bombers naval attack below 10k feet.
- Limiting Japanese artillery to 2 independent units per division.

Rules against somethings that might be considered gamey, like the use of small units to surround units and force surrenders might be needed, but this can be fixed by having a good talk.
'Gamey' things like using multiple small cargo ships to soak torpedoes from carriers, or magical movement of planes (sending planes from squadrons into the pool and then getting them into another squadron) should be talked about.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules - 2/5/2021 4:08:24 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline 		I would say that it comes to the "shape" we want to give to the game.

Personally, I am quite open to putting a decent amount of HRs but it's up to everyone to decide. I have nothing against playing a "no hr game" for example.


Broadly speaking, the more you and your opponent know about the game and the less HRs are needed since you can solve everything through a good honest talk. When the opponent knows less than you, it's a mess. He will for sure do gamey things in order to compensate and pretend they are "historical" bull@hit. Had many experiences of this.
Including my first PBEM in which my opponent (a seasoned player with several PBEMs done) was quite upset he was losing in '42 and he openly cheated the HRs bringing chinese units in Burma.
Then he started the talk about the fact he paid the PPs and that "Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!" and bla bla bla thinking I couldn't / wouldn't check the fact those units couldn't have been purchased from China (permanently restricted).

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.


So. What I mean is that some brain is needed by both sides and the less one of the two ones wants to f@ck the other one, the better.



I find a very fundamental rule the one about paying PPs to "free" units from restricted HQs. That's perhaps the only HR over which I tend not to compromise.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to AtParmentier)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 12:50:04 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.



I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

quote:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.


It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.


< Message edited by Ian R -- 2/6/2021 1:00:25 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 4:24:18 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.



I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

quote:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.


It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.


There are a couple of Chinese corps that can be bought out to be eligible to go elsewhere. The ones ITAKLinus was objecting to were the permanently restricted ones that historically never left China.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 5:57:49 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 2716
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: Gandangara Country
Status: offline 		I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma that are perm restricted in game.
I did some inter web research on this a few years back so will try to find the details of which ones later.
It isn’t many, and they didn’t venture too far into Burma, but there were a few.
For some reason there isn’t much history available on Nationalist units on the inter web...

Here's a summary. The red borders are units that are perm restricted in game.
In 1942 the 66th Army moved to Lashio and Mandalay as a reserve force.

From what I've read, in 1944/45 Y Force units only advanced as far as Lashio, so maybe only a few of the restricted units shown here assigned to Y Force crossed into Burma.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by jdsrae -- 2/6/2021 12:14:52 PM >

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 6:19:42 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma that are perm restricted in game.



Yes, that could be it.


_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 5:13:43 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 6:41:54 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.


Thanks for the reminder this is something I want to try out.. with 4Es. While 2E ARMY bombers do not hit much when it comes to ships even from 3k or so and somewhat trained eg. the Dutch ones. 4E bombers have more chances to hit with more bombs and are more durable. I did not see many hits from 4Es also from 3k - 12k for example. With eg. 50 nav bombing skill (this is April 42 and not many bomber pilots are trained fully up).

I had some good experience with B25s not only the "attack bombers" but also normal level bombers at 100 and 1000 ft. I noted on the receiving end attack bombers at least can be quite deadly low down. So far I had not heavy ships attacked like a CA or BB (in the PBM I mean)..in my AI game I can try out something like 4E at 100ft will be interesting.

Can someone say if level bombers use the straf skill exclusivly at 100ft or also the low nav skill?

I only hope the AI does not post here, that I break the rules

As for the topic I think a night bombing rule is important, more for the Japanese then Allies...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/6/2021 6:44:51 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 6:41:59 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma

Chinese units that were sent to help defend Burma in ’42. With fall of Burma some retreated back towards China others to India.

Fifth Army: 22nd, 96th, 200th division
Sixth Army: 49th, 55th, 93rd division
Sixty Sixth Army: 28th, 38th, 29th division

Chinese – Approximate British equivalent
Division – Brigade
Army – Division

The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.



< Message edited by RhinoDad -- 2/6/2021 6:48:20 PM >

_____________________________

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome

Success is how you bounce on the bottom

Experience is a comb life gives us after we have lost our hair

(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 7:05:37 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I have 3 I usually use

1. Restricted units cannot cross national borders with no PP paid
2. No heavy bombers on naval attack below 6 or 10k feet - (I recently discovered a wrinkle on this HR as all japanese patrol planes are 4E still working that one through my starter for 10 is they are patrol so exempt from rule but happy to discuss as I hadnt previously considered this point - I normally play as allies so personally would allow 4E flying boats to bomb wherever they want - although mods with super planes are a bit more iffy on this point)
3. No multiple waves of small SCTF's to same hex from same hex - ie if you sending a SCTF to a hex from a hex all TF's originating from the same hex have to be a minimum of 6 ships bar the last TF - e.g. if I have 26 DD's at Rabaul and I spot an allied carrier fleet at Gasmata - I can send 4 TF's of 6 DD's and 1 of 2 DD's from Rabaul - I may have other ships coming from other ports as well which are subject to their own origin port limit so its hard to police but its the best I can do - its not perfect but I use this to avoid 26 1xDD or 13x2 DD TF's coming along exhausting my screens ammo and using all my ops points - basically the game engine is not designed for it



< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 2/6/2021 7:08:34 PM >

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules - 2/6/2021 7:14:39 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline 		Not marching restricted troops across borders they shouldn't cross shouldn't be a house rule, it should be a rule rule. Just don't do it.

_____________________________



(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 1:12:56 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.


Thanks for the reminder this is something I want to try out.. with 4Es. While 2E ARMY bombers do not hit much when it comes to ships even from 3k or so and somewhat trained eg. the Dutch ones. 4E bombers have more chances to hit with more bombs and are more durable. I did not see many hits from 4Es also from 3k - 12k for example. With eg. 50 nav bombing skill (this is April 42 and not many bomber pilots are trained fully up).

I had some good experience with B25s not only the "attack bombers" but also normal level bombers at 100 and 1000 ft. I noted on the receiving end attack bombers at least can be quite deadly low down. So far I had not heavy ships attacked like a CA or BB (in the PBM I mean)..in my AI game I can try out something like 4E at 100ft will be interesting.

Can someone say if level bombers use the straf skill exclusivly at 100ft or also the low nav skill?

I only hope the AI does not post here, that I break the rules

As for the topic I think a night bombing rule is important, more for the Japanese then Allies...


Level bombers will not use strafe, to my knowledge. They will use low ground.

Attack bombers, I think, use the strafe skill while doing their bombing runs. I think.

I haven't tested it, nor do I wish to.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 17
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 1:23:50 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Attack bombers use both low ground/naval and strafe on low level attacks.
B-25D1s on 1000 foot airfield attack






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 18
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 2:10:45 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		The more you know...

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 19
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 10:30:45 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I have 3 I usually use

1. Restricted units cannot cross national borders with no PP paid
2. No heavy bombers on naval attack below 6 or 10k feet - (I recently discovered a wrinkle on this HR as all japanese patrol planes are 4E still working that one through my starter for 10 is they are patrol so exempt from rule but happy to discuss as I hadnt previously considered this point - I normally play as allies so personally would allow 4E flying boats to bomb wherever they want - although mods with super planes are a bit more iffy on this point)
3. No multiple waves of small SCTF's to same hex from same hex - ie if you sending a SCTF to a hex from a hex all TF's originating from the same hex have to be a minimum of 6 ships bar the last TF - e.g. if I have 26 DD's at Rabaul and I spot an allied carrier fleet at Gasmata - I can send 4 TF's of 6 DD's and 1 of 2 DD's from Rabaul - I may have other ships coming from other ports as well which are subject to their own origin port limit so its hard to police but its the best I can do - its not perfect but I use this to avoid 26 1xDD or 13x2 DD TF's coming along exhausting my screens ammo and using all my ops points - basically the game engine is not designed for it




Patrols on patrol missions should not have altitude restrictions, since optimal ASW altitude is 1000 ft and search altitude is 6000 ft.

I use myself vs. AI with:

No 4E Naval attack under 6000 ft until 1943. Skip bombing was invented using B-17s about start of 1943, so that is the reason.

No 2E Naval attack under 1000 ft (100ft is skip bombing) until 1943.

No fighters above 30k ft (flying that high is massive strain without pressurized cockpit). Fighter sweeps with best Manouver altitude only.

In my next game will also use "Restricted units must pay PP to cross borders". I have more PP in my ongoing game that I can shake stick at in 1943 and 1944, so that should make early war bit more interesting and forcing some dire choices.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 2/7/2021 10:33:26 AM >

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 20
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 10:42:16 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		The more I read in threads like this about house rules, the more they seem unnecessary.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 21
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 11:05:44 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.


That was true when the divison was created in 1938. It suffered very heavy losses in actions before Dec 1941, losing 2/3rds if its strength and was reorganized and rebuilt as a pretty much standard infantry division.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 22
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 11:07:58 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The more I read in threads like this about house rules, the more they seem unnecessary.


4E bombers under 6000 ft can become very overpowered, so there is that. But it's not totally ahistorical. 100 ft skip bombing is before 1943.

Also paying PP for crossing national borders with Restricted land units is a good rule.

Rest not that much. Strato-sweep debate has been around for many years with variable opinions. My own take is that Sweeps only on best Manouver band. Strato-sweeps can be countered with layered CAP, but that is impossible with just one fighter unit.



_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 23
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 6:13:33 PM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.


That was true when the divison was created in 1938. It suffered very heavy losses in actions before Dec 1941, losing 2/3rds if its strength and was reorganized and rebuilt as a pretty much standard infantry division.

When entering Burma the 200th ID had been somewhat reequipped but it was unknown as to what strength. The US had sent motorized mortars, two types of medium tanks, and motorized vehicles. As the British were known to siphon off equipment for their own use it is unknown how much made it to the Chinese; there were no records kept on this. It is also unknown how many of the remaining AFV successfully made the trip from China to Burma due to lack of spare parts/breakdowns. But as you stated they would be understrength.

It was estimated that the AFV strength was at around ½ strength, when first engaging in Burma. It was in rear guard action covering the retreat in Burma that the 200th ID lost all of its AFV and heavy equipment and thus became essentially a Chinese infantry unit.

Perhaps with internet more could be found on them than the paper chase I did. As time goes on sometimes more information comes to light, and internet certainly makes it more easily accessible. Mine is mainly based on US lend lease shipments to Chinese and British/American strength estimates; and all via paper records.

Mainly was answering jdsrae's inquiry into Chinese units sent into aid in the defense of Burma. The footnote was meant to differentiate the 200th from the other Chinese units as they were an elite unit and very well equipped, for a Chinese unit and did contain AFVs. Probably should have been better stated.

Edit
quote:

became essentially a Chinese infantry unit

became essentially a standard Chinese infanty unit


< Message edited by RhinoDad -- 2/7/2021 7:40:34 PM >

_____________________________

Improvise, Adapt and Overcome

Success is how you bounce on the bottom

Experience is a comb life gives us after we have lost our hair

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 24
RE: House rules - 2/7/2021 7:09:22 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline 		Agreed keept the rules as few as possible, the 4E rules I am not sure about cause I do not know how it behaves in the game but will try, also I agree with strato sweeps as I pointed out many times in reality these max alt flights on regular basis were not the case in reality (it should cost more ops losses and fatigue at least - what we have now is not enough, ops losses are rare and fat is managaeble with these flights). But one can live/play still without a rule for that imho.

Pay PP + night bombing + an understanding with the 1 or 2 ship cheap PT boat fleets (which is more common sense anyway) are among the important HRs.

However IF you make a 4E rule also the IJN flying boats should be included imo

(in reply to RhinoDad)
Post #: 25
RE: House rules - 2/8/2021 4:37:56 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.



I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

quote:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.


It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.




Hope you will pardon my late reply.

Situation hasn't been fully explained by me.

I do routinely "purchase" chinese troops and send them to guard India. Generally, I airlift them and I let them defend Calcutta, Madras and so on while they recuperate.


My problem is with people who break the HRs and pretend they didn't. In the case, the guy, after having multiple times accused me of cheating since I was running quite wild in China, has simply transferred various Chinese permanently restricted units (yeah the grey ones) to Burma.
He notified me that he found "historical" to send the Chinese units to Burma since they went there remarking I wasn't instead playing historical (whatever it means).
After he confirmed multiple times he has paid the PPs, I discover those units couldn't have been bought out.

That's what I call a "problem". It's not the violation of the HR per-se. It's the fact that he simply and plainly lied and that this situation had major strategic consequences for me, the opponent.
Since he had a huge stack of Chinese and Commonwealth units at the Burmese border, I was forced to organised a risky amphibious landing IN Rangoon in order to avoid his defences, something that, together with the inherent risks of the operation itself, has absorbed valuable and precious resources in terms of shipping, air cover, etcetc.

Funniest part is that after that he simply quitted the italian forum having his account deleted. Sometimes he chimes in here.

Here is the last exchange we had...:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4721221&mpage=1&key=�


Bottom line for me is: doesn't matter what kind of HRs you are going to put in a game, the opponent is what it matters. If he's reasonable enough, you can even play with no HRs at all.



_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 26
RE: House rules - 2/27/2021 1:11:26 AM   
BaitBoy

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		For the House Rule about no moving restricted units with out paying political points, for the Japanese player, would this mean that he could not move Manchurian forces into Korea with out paying political points?

_____________________________

"You go over there and attract their attention while I . . . "

Member Henchmen and Sidekicks Local 272

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 27
RE: House rules - 2/27/2021 6:00:56 AM   
Maallon


Posts: 196
Joined: 12/27/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Yes, this would be part of the House Rule.

(in reply to BaitBoy)
Post #: 28
RE: House rules - 2/27/2021 6:21:30 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BaitBoy

For the House Rule about no moving restricted units with out paying political points, for the Japanese player, would this mean that he could not move Manchurian forces into Korea with out paying political points?


Not IMO. There's such a close relation between the two and in game the Korean Army is just another part of the Kwantung Area Army.

(in reply to BaitBoy)
Post #: 29
RE: House rules - 2/27/2021 8:12:53 AM   
Maallon


Posts: 196
Joined: 12/27/2020
From: Germany
Status: offline 		It really depends on how you define it, I wasn't aware that the Korea Army is part of the Kwantung Army.
Personally, as an Allied Player myself, I wouldn't mind if my opponent shuffled troops between Manchuria and Korea.
But when in doubt: ask your opponent and see what he thinks about it.

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> House rules 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

3.969