Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Non-scenario specific house rules

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Non-scenario specific house rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 2:22:07 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
These are ideas for house rules that are non-scenario specific: PBEM only.

1. ASW TF's. No more than 6 ships allowed. No Admirals allowed to command.*


2. Night Bombing. City attacks (Manpower only) for non-game designated air units.
No restriction on night naval attacks.*

3. No forward base refueling of SS TF's in ports under size 3,unless a AO, TK, or AS
is present.

4. No 4E bomber missions under 6000', except for ASW/Search missions.*

5. Patched.

6. Political considerations. No Japanese LCU naval invasions north of Tavoy until
Singapore falls.
Play balance feature.*

7. No Corsair's allowed on US CV's until 1/44. Except for transport missions.*

8. No withdrawl of Allied LCU's from Malaya, Phillipines, or Dutch East Indies.
Until Singapore, Manila, Palembang, Batavia, or Soerabaya is under LCU attack.
This rule should be used with the CHS variant.
Play balance feature.

9. No Naval Attack by Allied land based bombers (2E bombers) under 1000', until 1/43.*

10. PT boats may not be combined with any other type ship. Except when transfering to
another base.*

11. Invasions must be within normal range of LBA or CV TF's with a minimum of 40
AC capacity.
Play balance feature.*

12. Only minelaying classed ships may use mines. For those that want to restrict mine
usage.

13. No invasions against hexes that do not contain a dot/base in them. Not every coastal
hex was suitable for amph ops.
The game mechanics do not support a defense against it.*

14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung Command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are
spent to change their command.
No China Command LCU may leave China or Manchuko witout changing their HQ.
No India Command LCU's may leave India/Ceylon unless it's HQ is changed.
Only India Command LCU's that start in Burma are exempt from this rule.
(CHS addition)
Play balance feature.*

16. Only transport type aircraft may be used to move LCU's. Unless troops are being
evacuated to another friendly base that is not currently under attack by LCU's.

17. No rearming TF's in ports smaller than 3 without an AE present.

18. No rearming of capital ships in ports smaller than 3 without an AO/TK and AE present.

19. No bombardment missions with the "no escort" bombard option allowed.
Play balance.
This is not needed if rule 20 is in force.

20. No naval bombardments against hexes that contain "no" friendly LCU's.
No fragmented LCU's may be used to satisfy this requirement.
Naval bombardments "may" be conducted on preinvasion sites up to two weeks prior
to the actual landings. This rule is to deter the use of strategic naval bombardments.

21. Airfield stacking limited to 50Xairfield level +15%.
This is the same stacking that applies to CV's.*

Before I start a game I email this list to myself. Then it gets edited, and sent to the other player. Then he edits it. We go back and forth a couple of times till we get the desired results. Then we paste a copy to the desktop, for reference.

Any other suggestions or ideas for game balance?

I'd like to thank those who have made excellent suggestions concerning this thread.

There are additions by other players in this thread. Feel free to add or dispose of them as you see fit.

Rules that have asterics at the end of the rule I consider as permanent rules, not optional.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 8/12/2007 2:58:10 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 2:36:47 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Nice list.

How about: since they used incompatible types of fuel, no refueling of PT boats from warships. Only AGPs or AVs.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 2
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 2:39:48 PM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Hi,
no nukes on Tokyo. If you kill the emperor they will never surrender.

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 3
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 4:35:04 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
The av gas solution? The AGP's have low endurance, but the AV usage seems reasonable. It would give them a mission. Instead of just sitting in port for aviation support.

The third atomic bomb? I was under the impression that Tokyo was the intended target for its use, when it was completed. Anybody have any conflicting information concerning this? Doesn't the third and additional usage of this weapon bring down the victory point spread?

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 4
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 4:36:25 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I would disagree with the China rule, it seems to me to be too much micromanaging.

However, if you use that rule, I would suggest the following additional "political" rules for balance.

Force Z follows Admiralty orders:
-The Prince of Wales, Repule and 4 DDs cannot home port at, remain more than one day at a base or enter a port other than Singapore until the Japanese torpedo at least 3 Allied cruisers using Nells/Bettys, until an aerial port attack is made on Singapore, or until either the PoW and Repulse receive more than 15 sys damage, or until Singapore is captured. These ships cannot leave move "south" or "west" of Palembang or "north" of Songkia until one of the above conditions is met.

Allies defend their colonies:
-No ground units or portions of ground units may be evacuated from the Phillipines or Malaya until only two bases are left in Allied control in either Luzon (Phillipines) or Malaya.


Non-political rules that I like:

1. You can only use carrier trained (not carrier capable) units to fly offensive missions or CAP from a carrier. (mostly this is to head off having Corsairs on carriers in early 43, but it also helps the Allies a bit)

2. No level bombing below 1000 foot altitude until 1943.

3. No ASW TFs in enemy base hexes (people somtimes use this to "scare off" submarines in invasion hexes. ASW TFs were historically used to defend sea lanes and friendly ports, not go hunting for subs in the middle of an invasion.)

< Message edited by esteban -- 10/15/2004 2:49:18 PM >

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 5
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 4:46:32 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
The Allied LCU withdrawl restriction seems reasonable. I would even include Dutch forces in the group.

The Singapore defeat rule is a short term rule. It allows the Allies a few weeks to make or break its defensive land game in Aisa. I had it in mind because of the blitzkreig like movement that the LCU's can employ against small units.

_____________________________


(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 6
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 4:47:10 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The av gas solution? The AGP's have low endurance, but the AV usage seems reasonable. It would give them a mission. Instead of just sitting in port for aviation support.

The third atomic bomb? I was under the impression that Tokyo was the intended target for its use, when it was completed. Anybody have any conflicting information concerning this? Doesn't the third and additional usage of this weapon bring down the victory point spread?


Somewhere around here I have the list of cities to A-bomb, and I don't think Tokyo was on it. Maybe I am wrong. I do remember that Kyoto was intentionally removed to from the A-bomb list.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 7
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:20:29 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
I don't see how to include this in the rules. The damn things will always refuel off of other ships in the hex. Any ideas how to implement the PT fuel restriction?

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 8
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:25:21 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
I was thinking of it mainly as a way to curb the 1DD 8PT LRRP.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 9
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:33:33 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Except moving PT boats from one base to another, PT boats should never be allowed in a task force with other ships. Simple rule really.

As for the AV or AGP rule, simply stipulate no PT can group with any other ship type except them.

I can think of no reason tactically to include PT boats in a combat task force with non PT boats. While it might be a valid tactic, it allows to much gamey behavior, like allowing PT boats to suddenly become strategic assets.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 10
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:35:10 PM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline
I see an issue with restricting LCU w/d from areas based on specific bases falling or being attacked. For instance, if we say "no w/d from PI until Manila is being attacked," then as Japan, I'd attack Manila last. Rules like this have to be more generalized, I think.

Perhaps something along the line of no LCU w/d until 1/2 of 'occupied' bases are being attacked? Something along that line.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 11
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:37:21 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
How about this?

No DE and above sized combat vessels may be used in a PT boat TF. PT's may be used in AMPH TF's.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/15/2004 9:38:44 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 12
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:37:48 PM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline
And another item: when dealing w/ PT boats, they really weren't that useful as combatants in the war, so this is what I've been playing with: restrict PTs to PT-only TFs, restrict them to 6 boats per TF, and do not allow more than one PT-TF to work together (except in home port, and be realistic about 'home port').

< Message edited by Toro -- 10/15/2004 10:39:48 AM >

(in reply to Toro)
Post #: 13
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:38:08 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Except moving PT boats from one base to another, PT boats should never be allowed in a task force with other ships. Simple rule really.

As for the AV or AGP rule, simply stipulate no PT can group with any other ship type except them.

I can think of no reason tactically to include PT boats in a combat task force with non PT boats. While it might be a valid tactic, it allows to much gamey behavior, like allowing PT boats to suddenly become strategic assets.

A better idea than mine.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 14
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:43:11 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Whats the point of a PT boat in an invasion fleet? They werent used to draw shore fire as far as I recall. They wouldnt last long in that role and their main armament would be useless.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 15
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:45:48 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Point defense vs enemy SCTFs

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 16
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:46:48 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

I see an issue with restricting LCU w/d from areas based on specific bases falling or being attacked. For instance, if we say "no w/d from PI until Manila is being attacked," then as Japan, I'd attack Manila last. Rules like this have to be more generalized, I think.

Perhaps something along the line of no LCU w/d until 1/2 of 'occupied' bases are being attacked? Something along that line.


What I suggested was no withdrawl until the Allies are down to 2 base hexes in Luzon (for USAFFE units) or Malaya.

As for the DEI, I can agree to an extent, but the DEI is so large that you might have units on one island that should definitely be withdrawl candidates (for example, pretty much all of Borneo is overrun, and the remains of the Dutch forces are starving in the jungle) and other islands such as Java or Sumatra haven't been touched yet. Besides, the only thing really worth evacuating from the DEI are some of the Dutch base forces, and there are so many of those that I am sure that the Allies will get out cadres on at least 5-10 of them, whatever the Japanese do.

(in reply to Toro)
Post #: 17
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:48:38 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
I see Singapore and Manila as the two places the Japanese have to control.

If the Japanese ignore them they are commiting seppuku very early in the game. The majority of Allied LCU's will be in either or both of these bases. Will the Japanese player ignore either of these two places to knock off some extra LCU's? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just wonder if anyone would ignore those two places, because I wouldn't. These two locations are critical for Japanese survival.

_____________________________


(in reply to Toro)
Post #: 18
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:50:17 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
I dont agree with the no removal of forces from PI and DEI either. The Japanese are given FREE reign to change history all they want with troop deployment and ship deployment.

If the allies want to allow the Japanese free reign it is a strategic decision they should be allowed. They are already penalized with PP limits on what they can move. And if they move engineers from bases with oil or resources they are giving undamaged assets to the Japanese.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 19
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:53:27 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I see Singapore and Manila as the two places the Japanese have to control.

If the Japanese ignore them they are commiting seppuku very early in the game. The majority of Allied LCU's will be in either or both of these bases. Will the Japanese player ignore either of these two places to knock off some extra LCU's? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just wonder if anyone would ignore those two places, because I wouldn't. These two locations are critical for Japanese survival.

Definitely at the top of my list.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 20
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 5:58:57 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
PT's supported ground operations in the Solomons. They provided close in fire support along the coast. They were also used for evacuating isolated troops. Though that isn't modeled into the game.

I am not saying these additional rules are written in stone. I am looking for input to balance the games I wish to play. Others may pick and choose their own to portray their own style of gaming.

If a withdrawl limitation is used, the Dutch have to be included. Is anyone familiar with their history in Indonesia? They would have been the least likely to have left their homes. No matter what the circumstances were.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/15/2004 10:26:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 21
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 6:28:50 PM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I see Singapore and Manila as the two places the Japanese have to control.

If the Japanese ignore them they are commiting seppuku very early in the game. The majority of Allied LCU's will be in either or both of these bases. Will the Japanese player ignore either of these two places to knock off some extra LCU's? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just wonder if anyone would ignore those two places, because I wouldn't. These two locations are critical for Japanese survival.


Completely understood, of course (sarcasm or not ). My point is only that if you get too specific, gameiness is reinserted into the picture and allows a situation where one player can manipulate circumstances to control an outcome.

On another point, another rule I have for myself (against the AI -- haven't suggested in in PBEM) is that no PPs can be used by the Allies (aside from assigning leaders) until the level reaches 700 (I think that's the level I set?). This prevents the Allies from w/d anyone until much later along in the game (a month or so). And, they cannot go below that number until March or so.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 22
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 6:34:15 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
No problem. I appreciate others experience with this game. This is just for me and my mates. If anyone else thinks some of these are good ideas, then feel free to add or delete what you want.

_____________________________


(in reply to Toro)
Post #: 23
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 6:43:02 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
All are reasonable, but in my long experience of wargaming, house rules just create more confusion and end friendships. Best to get some of these patched up instead.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 24
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 6:55:30 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
1.I would love to see some of these issues patched!
2.I'm getting old and I want to play before I'm unable to.
3.I remember two years worth of patching on UV, and it still needed house rules.
4.You are right. House rules are a pain in the butt, but so are gamey moves and tactics.

I probably won't even use all of these. Too hard to remember in the heat of battle.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 25
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 6:55:30 PM   
WhoCares


Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
...
3. No forward base refueling of SS TF's in ports under size 4,unless a AO or TK is present.
...

Why this? Couldn't subs refuel on open sea? Refueling in small bases would just be like refuel from TF. The AS could always be used as a tanker for subs.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 26
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 7:02:40 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
This was just a play balance thing that some other players have used. So subs couldn't stay at sea for a year at a time. It forces a player to rotate subs back and forth.

_____________________________


(in reply to WhoCares)
Post #: 27
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/15/2004 7:19:50 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline
Well,

Probably the most important house rule is to require the US 2nd Marine Division and the 1st US Marine Division to be broken up in thirds with each third only being shipped out of the US on the date when it was actually shipped out....I think you'll have to fudge this a bit and ship out 1/3rd of the 2nd MarDiv to represent the first 1/3rd of the 1st MarDiv shipped out...I'll have to find my notes on this.

They've stated this will never be patched so it will always have to be a house rule.

Otherwise the US simply has too much elite-quality land power lying around at the beginning of the game when in reality they were really desperate for manpower....really unbalances the game and makes Japanese offensives into the SW Pacific that were possible in reality impossible.

I'm no Japanese fanboy, if anything I'm an Allied fanboy, but the Allies really have too much avaliable mobile high-quality landforces at the beginning....

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 28
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 1:17:25 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
This one concerning the two US Marine Divs could be addressed by changing their controling HQ's to the West Coast.

IIRC the latest patch will see the 2nd Div with more disabled squads.
With a HQ change it would force an Allied decision to use a lot of PP's to deploy either of them.

_____________________________


(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 29
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 1:58:17 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
13. No invasions against non-dot base hexes. Play balance, as not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops.


This seems far too restrictive and unrealistic. For example, the Australian coastline has innumerable places where troops could land, not just the handful of bases along the coast.

I agree that there should be some stretches of coastline in some locations that should not be invadeable (sp?), but IMHO I would say that such stretches of coast would be the exception rather than the rule.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Non-scenario specific house rules Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

2.000