Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 2:04:11 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Is there any historical data concerning landings that didn't happen at dot/base hexes?
Were there any amph ops in the Pacific against places that had no strategic significance?

If there is, I'd be willing to change this for my mates.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 31
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 3:31:59 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there any historical data concerning landings that didn't happen at dot/base hexes?
Were there any amph ops in the Pacific against places that had no strategic significance?

If there is, I'd be willing to change this for my mates.


Good questions. For the Pacific I don't know. However my view is that just because it didn't happen in the Pacific doesn't mean it couldn't be done. This leads to another point though - IMHO the real world difficulty with invading away from a useable port was the difficulty in supplying forces over the beaches (e.g. Normandy). Is the supplying of forces in such situations too easy in the game perhaps? If so, then making this more difficult could be considered, and would obviate the need for a house rule.

This brings up yet another point - again using Australia as an example. There are MANY small and medium size ports that exist but are not represented in the game, mainly due to redundancy and the limit on the number of bases in the game. Some of these ports are larger then some ports that ARE represented in the game. Many of the 'non-base' coastal hexes in the game ARE 'base' hexes in real life. In this context a house rule preventing forces from landing in these coastal hexes seems unreasonable.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 32
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 5:21:58 AM   
tsimmonds


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

LCUs belonging to the Kwangtung command can't leave Manchuria unless they burn the PPs to change commands (the game allows them to march out).

No warships larger than CLs can be used in Fast Transport TFs (yeah, I know they used CAs. Once).

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 33
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 5:33:38 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		The Kwantung Army rule is a good one. Has anyone tried using Kwantung Army air units in China?

I like the idea of making the 1st and 2nd marine divisions West Coast Command units as well. Maybe we can lobby for that in patch 1.31?

< Message edited by esteban -- 10/16/2004 3:36:23 AM >

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 34
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 5:35:12 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Air units belonging to the Kwangtung command can only transfer to bases belonging to the Kwangtung command.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 35
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 5:45:37 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Oh, here's one that is a problem, and was brought up in another thread in the War Room.

No night bombing for non-night trained units, except for city raids. (Night bombing is way to accurate against ports, airfields, resource/oil centers)

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 36
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 8:56:41 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I guess the point I'm trying to make is this.

Amph ops were not instituted in the Pacific for the sole purpose of cutting off retreat paths. Operations were carried out with the intent of taking strategic bases.
Besides, how useful would a coastal fishing village be in reality?

If you allow any coastal hex to be used then you open up all kinds of improbable actions. One I like the most is sending in squad sized raiders to land (by submarine) on coastal transportation lines to disrupt the flow of supplies and resources.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 37
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 9:05:39 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks Esteban. I have that listed #2. I haven't been able to figure out how to protect the resource targeting though. Maybe making Manpower as the only allowable target at night for non-night airgroups? Night trained units can still perform any of the missions.

_____________________________


(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 38
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 9:26:00 AM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		On the Salween river rule, isn't that a little extreme? It pretty much says that you can't move troops past Bangkok. I would say a better rule would be that the Japanese cannot take any "Burmese" bases excpet Pt. Vicky and Tavoy (or whatever the next airfield is above Pt. Vicky.

Regarding Thailand, should Thailand really start the game as Japanese territory? There were no Japanese troops there, and the Thais did briefly put up a fight.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 39
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/16/2004 10:53:16 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		You've got to remember though. This rule would only last till Singapore has fallen. Three maybe four weeks tops? The Japanese were more threatened by the Singapore forces, and not with what was in Burma.

Does anyone know exactly when the Japanese went into Burma? Did they send forces into Burma before Singapore was taken? I don't have the answer.

Remember these extra rules are not written in stone. They can be added or discarded as anyone sees fit. I'm just trying to decide how I would like to approach my PBEM games.

Thanks for all of your input so far. It's been a big help. Many good ideas have been brought to light.

_____________________________


(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 40
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/21/2004 9:33:13 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		16. Only Transport aircraft may perform troop transport missions.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 41
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/21/2004 10:54:07 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Tokyo is only the city/base of the Tokagawa Shogunate.
The Emperor lives and always did live in Kyoto.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 42
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/21/2004 11:23:18 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline 		I agree with the rule, with the following exception: Any aircraft that has the capability to perform troop transport missions may evacuate troops.


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

16. Only Transport aircraft may perform troop transport missions.


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 43
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/25/2004 8:58:15 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

Regarding Thailand, should Thailand really start the game as Japanese territory? There were no Japanese troops there, and the Thais did briefly put up a fight.


Now I am not 100% on my memory, but didn't japan threaten to invade Siam/Thailand and therefore the dictator (I want to say King, but I could be wrong on title) agreed to allow Japanese access to all military bases and permission to move through and base units there in return for staying in his position and ruling Thailand ? The Japs didn't care about Thailand, they just wanted easy access to Malaya and Burma... And if you look, there are no japanese troops in Thailand at game start.. The closest troops are in Bangkok - which Japan stole from the French (along with Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos)...

Thats why on turn one a complete division is dropped off in Thailand (at Songkha I think). Both to protect Thailand from Malaya forces and to cut off their retreat up into Burma.

Xargun

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 44
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/25/2004 10:43:37 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		I don't have any additions to this nice list, I have some comments/questions, though.

Rules 1,2 and 5 are a must and hopefully they will be addresed in some of the future patches. Numbers 9 and 10 also sound good to have in the game, as they also try to enhance the game mechanics. And maybe a patch will deal with them too, we hope.

Rule 14 (Kwantung LCUs) is logical - if you pay for AC transfer, why don't you pay for LCUs that walk out.

Rules 8 and 15 sound as they are partially connected. For example if you implement rule 15, you will probably run out of PPs to pay for USAFFE and ABDA withdrawals, because you would try to go for Marines first.

I would also logically connect a part of rule 8 "withdrawal from Malaya" with part of the rule 6 "no Early Burma advance". If you use one you must use both. But I must admit that I'm not familiar with the political implications behind rule 6, so I'm not an expert. What are those?

In any case it's a good thing to have this list compiled, so thanks for your effort.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 45
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/25/2004 10:52:27 PM   
tsimmonds


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

On the Salween river rule, isn't that a little extreme? It pretty much says that you can't move troops past Bangkok.

No, I believe the Salween is the river that runs between Moulmein and Rangoon. There's lots of ground to cover between Bangkok and Moulmein.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to esteban)
Post #: 46
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 1:49:43 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Some people have complained that the Marine Divs are too readily available. Quoting later arrival dates and deployments. No there won't be enough PP's. That's the point. As a supreme commander in the Pacific a player has to weigh his deployment options. Do you send in fresh troops from the West Coast? Or, do you try to save units cut off in a different area of operations. That's a tough call in any war.

The Salween River proposal will only allow a few weeks for the Allies to set up some kind of defense until Singapore falls. It is a temporary rule.

Pick and choose which rules you like. Discard the ones you don't. This was thread started to help list possible choices.

_____________________________


(in reply to pfnognoff)
Post #: 47
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 8:45:46 AM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		I just remembered one that is not yet on the list: "No IJN fleet/ship should be allowed to move through Malaca Strait on the first turn."

I saw this idea in another thread, and since it is not on the list, thought I should mention it. Although I'm axis fanboy deep inside, the idea that British high command would not react somehow to such a move... If allowed it could even be used to step arround the rule 6 which deals with LCUs "moving" over the river, "I didn't move, I've unloaded!" And Rangoon is in LBA recon range from some of the bases under IJ control.

That brings me to one more question, since I'm not familiar with the original "mogami rule", how do you decide what is in range, and from which bases do you measure?

Thanks

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 48
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 9:05:43 AM   
forranger

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Switzerland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Does anyone know exactly when the Japanese went into Burma? Did they send forces into Burma before Singapore was taken? I don't have the answer.



One of my sources mentions january 15th '42 as the beginning of the invasion of Burma from Thailand. According to the same source Singapore surrendered one month later (feb 15th).
Interesting site btw: http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/asia-and-the-pacific/asian-mainland/asian-mainland-index-1942.htm

And thanks from my side too. I'm happy about this input concerning house rules, as I'm preparing to start my first pbem.

< Message edited by forranger -- 10/26/2004 1:39:16 PM >

_____________________________

Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning. (Rommel)

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 49
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 12:21:31 PM   
WhoCares


Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline 		According to this map, the invasion of Burma started 15th January: Link: Burma Campaign

PS: Some more nice maps can be found here: Link: Maps of WW II
PPS: Thanks to Tanaka, as I found this links in a link list of a page he recommended previously...

(in reply to forranger)
Post #: 50
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 2:27:22 PM   
tsimmonds


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

That brings me to one more question, since I'm not familiar with the original "mogami rule", how do you decide what is in range, and from which bases do you measure?

You could conduct recon missions. That would be definitive. No invasion without a prior recon mission.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to pfnognoff)
Post #: 51
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 3:22:31 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I don't have Mogami's link to his turn 1 rules. Does anyone have it?

For the recon, the use of the Mavis and Emily units would be ideal.
Going to add 1/15/42 as the time limit on the Salween rule. Thanks for the heads up!

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 52
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/26/2004 11:07:53 PM   
pfnognoff


Posts: 631
Joined: 5/6/2003
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You could conduct recon missions. That would be definitive. No invasion without a prior recon mission.


I guess it would mean that recon on the same turn as the invasion unloads is enoguh? If not then there is no landings on the first turn?

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 53
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/28/2004 5:38:22 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		This is a way to limit unhistorical and highly improbable invasion sights. Going through the motions on turn one helps to balance invasion possibilities.

The Malacca Strait suggestion could be added to your own game. Make a list of rules that you think need tweaked and send them to your opponent. Let both sides decide which ones to use.

Only use house rules if you think the game needs them. They can always be thrown out or modified later if you see that they are unbalancing the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to pfnognoff)
Post #: 54
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/28/2004 2:10:14 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline 		I suggest that the keything about house rules is;

1. Simple, so people remember to apply them - NOT 'max number of amphib invasions allowed is two minus the date of first taking the 'Canal divide by number of Australian brigades in desert war..'

Date related ones are are always easy to forget

2. Not too many - so people remember them

3. Clearly divided into 'tech' ones eg when Corsairs on US carriers, number of divs sat on an atoll and 'political' eg no bypassing Philipines

4. Generic where possible ie 'all atolls allowed no more than x div to be parked there all war' NOT all atolls except blah and blah

5. Maybe clearly divided into ones where applicable to AI play (where house rules help a lot) and pbem. AI play probably needs good 'political' house rules to improve playing experience .

6. Agreement when you start playing on how to resolve turns where house rules got broken by accident - may be rerun of saved turn (ouch...)

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 55
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/28/2004 2:28:15 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Good ideas! Communication and printed rules being used helpful, also.
I also agree with the "oops I forgot rule". Others players might not be so forgiving, but if it would ruin a game in progress, why not?

_____________________________


(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 56
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/28/2004 2:31:26 PM   
Bodhi


Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Tokyo is only the city/base of the Tokagawa Shogunate.
The Emperor lives and always did live in Kyoto.

Mike


Incorrect. Meiji upped and went to live in Tokyo after the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate. There's still an Imperial palace (or two) in Kyoto, but the Emperor has lived in Tokyo since Meiji did his bunk. Of course, Kyoto residents refuse to believe he's actually left and expect him back any day.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 57
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 11/4/2004 3:21:11 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		For those getting ready to start "THE BIG ONE". Just thought I'd move this thread up so it doesn't vanish.

_____________________________


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 58
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 11/4/2004 4:27:23 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Here's a couple of good house rules from Xargun and rroberson's AAR game:

quote:

3. No rearming TFs in ports smaller than 3 without an AE present
4. No refueling of capital ships in ports smaller than 3 without an AO or TK present (Capital ships are cruisers and larger)


Takes a small step towards curbing the unrealistic frenzied pace at which naval operations can proceed in this system.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 59
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 11/6/2004 1:44:45 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		These have been added to the list.
My only concern with this is, a player will have to turn off all auto-refueling options from all combat TF's and do them manually each time. So it will also cost an additional day for the manual application.

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules Page: <<   < prev  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

3.031