Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The raid on Makin was conducted by submarine transports so that actually is realistic. I doubt if the entire Raider battalion was carried either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The raid on Makin was conducted by submarine transports so that actually is realistic. I doubt if the entire Raider battalion was carried either.

and a one squad para drop onto an enemy Army of 1 mio men can stop it for a day, day after day. You also have an example for this? I'm absolutely with LST when it comes to his assertion of hrs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

Only tankers or ships with liquid storage can carry oil. AKs and AP of any type can carry fuel, this should include AMCs and other vessels with a cargo capacity including PBs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

Apples and oranges. I talk about HR to increase realism concerning exploits of existing game mechanics, you talk about increasing realism by adding things the makers of the game decided not to include as game mechanics at all. And since your list includes exclusively restraints to be imposed on the Japanese side and not a single one to be imposed on the Allied side, I maintain that your are showing a pro-Allied bias - unless you come up with a list of things to impose on the Allies for the sake of realism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

I would suggest the following HR's in this case:

1. Anything that both players agree to and are happy to play with. No one else's opinions matter. If you want to play with HR's to implement all the above restrictions, by all means do so and enjoy it! (As long as you can find a like minded opponent who is also happy with the same HR's) Perhaps you could find an Allied opponent happy to play with these HR's while you play the Japanese side?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

Apples and oranges. I talk about HR to increase realism concerning exploits of existing game mechanics, you talk about increasing realism by adding things the makers of the game decided not to include as game mechanics at all. And since your list includes exclusively restraints to be imposed on the Japanese side and not a single one to be imposed on the Allied side, I maintain that your are showing a pro-Allied bias - unless you come up with a list of things to impose on the Allies for the sake of realism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

quote:

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias"

I would suggest the following HR's in this case:

1. Anything that both players agree to and are happy to play with. No one else's opinions matter. If you want to play with HR's to implement all the above restrictions, by all means do so and enjoy it! (As long as you can find a like minded opponent who is also happy with the same HR's) Perhaps you could find an Allied opponent happy to play with these HR's while you play the Japanese side?

Very well said. In terms of fairness, my golden rule is to only suggest HRs I would be happy to play with as the other side. For instance if the above listed HRs are what one thinks a Japanese opponent should accept, then you have to be willing to play by those same rules as Japan. I think part of the problem is that too many players consistently take only one side and thus begin to think of these HRs in ways that would only advantage their preferred faction.

Ultimately however whatever HRs are decided upon is only the business of the two consenting adults playing the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree about not using units to get Intel when they are on suicide missions for the Allies but the Japanese did suicide missions - including transport planes full of troops destroying as many aircraft, equipment, and supplies as well as killing ground personnel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
... the Allied side gets ahistorical advantages as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
... the Allied side gets ahistorical advantages as well.

Ok, rounds out. What are they then? A dot point summary will do to start.