Food for thought and house rules (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

bigjoe96912 -> Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 2:58:25 AM)

I am reading "At Dawn We Slept" excellent book about PH and a great stratigy source for playing WITP. In the book they discribe the turmoil and btn the General Naval Staff and the Combined Fleet. Basically the GNS was totally against the PH attack because it took resources away from the Southern Operations. Only with the threat of a Yamamoto resignation did they allow it. However there was one big and in game situations a big condition. Upon conclusion of the attack Nagumo was to post haste the KB into the support of the southern operations. So what does that mean in game turns, For teh Jap players that do the whole fishing expedition around PH trying to catch carriers and shipping, it was expressly forbidden by the GNS. It would not be out of the realm that a major house rule would be one and only one attack at PH on 12/7 and no further attackes until the fall of the DEI. Plus I would highly recommend the book, it is fasinating look at the behind the scenes lead up to PH



Nomad -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 3:03:58 AM)

I usually have a house rule that KB can attack a second day( this simulates that KB was able to attack with at least a 3rd wave on Dec 7 - in fact Nagumo has been criticized for not launching more attacks on the 7th ). But, then KB must return back to Japanese waters.



John 3rd -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 3:55:40 AM)

I agree with the division between the two headquarter units; however, I totally disagree with the premise.  As a fervent Japanese player, I will do whatever I can (within reason) to further my cause: 

1.  If that mean using only 4 CVs to launch the PH attack then I will.
2.  If I want to use ALL the CVs in the attack I will.
3.  If I want to split off a portion and go trolling to the east-northeast I will.
4.  If I want to hunt the American CVs I will.

These are individual player choices.  Don't like too MANY house rules.

For the record, I play in a reasonable manner.  I press the envelope but do not go crazy as some do.  Just don't like to be bound to the historical outcome.  If I was--why play?



bigjoe96912 -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 4:16:44 AM)

if that is the cast then why play historical at all. Why not let the allies move there ships around. At teh time the Japs didn't know the location of the carriers or if the BB's where really there, why not allow for carriers to happen to be in Darwin, or a old BB SAG visiting Singapore hmmm. There should be some historical pretexts. The big arguement at GNS was what if the Americans know we are coming. What would you think about 6 groups of P-40's and P-39's and 4 groups of B-17 and 3 American Carriers steaming hard and fast north from Johnston Island and 8BB SAG steaming east from midway. This is what happened during there first wargame when Nagumo ventured to far south. So a basis of historical background should always accompany the game just to make it balanced. Me personally. I think PH was a waste of time. Much more damage can be wrought on the British if you sent 6 carriers into the DEI and Indian Ocean. You could clean up on ships and shipping there. PH becomes to powerful too quick anf I have yet to actually sink an american BB at PH.



Joe D. -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 4:46:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjoe96912

I am reading "At Dawn We Slept" excellent book about PH and a great stratigy source for playing WITP. In the book they discribe the turmoil and btn the General Naval Staff and the Combined Fleet. Basically the GNS was totally against the PH attack because it took resources away from the Southern Operations. Only with the threat of a Yamamoto resignation did they allow it ...


I understand that the entire staff of the Combined Fleet intended to resign over this. Yamamoto had already made many enemies in the GNS by supporting the London Treaty, advocating naval air and opposing an alliance w/Nazi Germany.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 5:13:56 AM)

Joe, the problem is that restricting how and where KB can be used, you force the Japanese player into following many of the same strategic mistakes Japan did IRL. If the Allied player knows that KB can't stick around PH, he no longer has to play historically. One of the biggest allied fears was that KB would return for additional attacks or attack the West coast.

If we impose this restriction , what others should be imposed? The Japanese didn't invade Australia or India IRL. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to in the game? Should the allies only be allowed to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons?

To me, the game is about exploring alternate strategies within a historical tactical context as much as possible. But each player should be free to employ different strategies than was IRL. House rules should be used to limit the exploitation of game loopholes first. After that, then its whatever the two players agree to.

Chez



Mike Scholl -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 6:05:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Joe, the problem is that restricting how and where KB can be used, you force the Japanese player into following many of the same strategic mistakes Japan did IRL. If the Allied player knows that KB can't stick around PH, he no longer has to play historically. One of the biggest allied fears was that KB would return for additional attacks or attack the West coast.
Chez



True Chez..., but one of the major Japanese fears was that KB would be discovered and pounded at PH. Should we make all the Allied Pilots at PH level 99's and let all the A/C fly on turn one? Lot's of "fears" during the War were later proved to be groundless.



John 3rd -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 6:18:16 AM)

I agree with you guys.  There is no sense in forcing EITHER into unreasonable rules that limit creative, strong game play.  The inspired risks and strategy that each sides takes is what makes each campaign so different and enjoyable to play.




ChezDaJez -> RE: Food for thought and house rules (10/7/2007 6:33:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Joe, the problem is that restricting how and where KB can be used, you force the Japanese player into following many of the same strategic mistakes Japan did IRL. If the Allied player knows that KB can't stick around PH, he no longer has to play historically. One of the biggest allied fears was that KB would return for additional attacks or attack the West coast.
Chez



True Chez..., but one of the major Japanese fears was that KB would be discovered and pounded at PH. Should we make all the Allied Pilots at PH level 99's and let all the A/C fly on turn one? Lot's of "fears" during the War were later proved to be groundless.



But it was these fears that fueled many early war strategies and deployments. That's why I don't believe they should be removed by house rule.

Most players already house rule going after the US carriers on the first couple of turns (which I believe is very reasonable). If we now also say KB can't do anything after PH except go home, the allied player is then able to deploy his units free of any potential interference. The key word here is potential. Players will play more historically if they believe there is a risk of attack.

Besides, this proposed house rule wouldn't reflect reality anyhow. KB wasn't exactly in any hurry to support the GNS operations in the SRA. Witness their sending 2 carriers from KB post-PH to aid in the attack on Wake. KB then returned to Japan and only Hiryu and Soryu headed for the SRA to support operations therein mid-January. Akagi, Kaga, Shokaku and Zuikaku all headed for Truk to support the operation against Rabaul in mid-January.

And players do already have a choice to turn "surprise" off for the first turn to replicate the potential discovery of KB.

Chez



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75