House Rules (Full Version)

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



Message

emek -> House Rules (1/30/2008 8:50:34 PM)

I feel many players use house rules too much to block unconventional moves.
I looked at suggested HR in this forum. Most of them limit potential legitimate tactics both sides can use and others were fixed or made irrelevant in recent patches and/or CHS and other modifications.

The fact is that war is neither fair nor balanced. Good player can win as Japan as well as Allies in this game if he will use his strengths and hide his weakness even when HR are not used. I know that playing as Japanese is more difficult but this is the beauty of this game. I think encouraging players not to use HR will expose them to the real dilemmas of art of war.


I suggest creating two lists:
1) Optional HR for balancing WITP but could not exist in real life. If someone wants a balanced game then he can pick HR from this list.
2) Bug workarounds
3) Other (Not recommended for players)

What do you think?




castor troy -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 9:20:28 PM)

Just recently there has been a thread about house rules. If you use the search function you might find it.



Mistmatz -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 9:59:58 PM)

Most house rules I see are meant to prevent gamey behaviour or the exploit of game flaws, thus keeping the thing more realistic which is IMO a good thing.



niceguy2005 -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 10:00:47 PM)

Each player has his (or her) own tolerance for fantasy.  What I have found is that some players have become very (extremely) good at manipulating the mechanics of the game.  There is and should be no established set of house rules, that should be up to players to negotiate.



rubisco -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 10:29:41 PM)

If I want to play a game to win where I'll do everything possible to rinse every last ounce of advantage from the game mechanics, I play Chess.

When I play WitP, I play as a hobbyist who has a passion for military history and so I play for the immersion factor rather than to win. I play to get a sense of replaying history and so I prefer to limit myself (as much as is reasonable) to strategies and tactics that I feel are in keeping with a historical flavour.

That's why I'd never play a no-holds-barred game with no house rules.

Although having said that, each to his own![:)]



marky -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 10:36:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

If I want to play a game to win where I'll do everything possible to rinse every last ounce of advantage from the game mechanics, I play Chess.

When I play WitP, I play as a hobbyist who has a passion for military history and so I play for the immersion factor rather than to win. I play to get a sense of replaying history and so I prefer to limit myself (as much as is reasonable) to strategies and tactics that I feel are in keeping with a historical flavour.

That's why I'd never play a no-holds-barred game with no house rules.

Although having said that, each to his own![:)]


agreed

should see the stuff in the battlefield games that people do [X(]



crsutton -> RE: House Rules (1/30/2008 11:52:27 PM)

In my experience, house rules tend to end friendships. That said, there are a few that I use and find beneficial. Make sure your opponent fully understands them and be ready for a few incidents where they are misunderstood or accidently breached. Be ready to cut them some slack.

We are not playing for money here......



Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 12:03:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

In my experience, house rules tend to end friendships. That said, there are a few that I use and find beneficial. Make sure your opponent fully understands them and be ready for a few incidents where they are misunderstood or accidently breached. Be ready to cut them some slack.



A discussion of "house rules" may be the only chance you have to get a "feel" for an unknown opponant..., and decide if he's someone you want to invest a large amount of time with. If you want to play an historically-based game, and your perspective opponant is fighting you for every "loophole"---find someone else! You'll both be happier.



JeffroK -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 12:10:18 AM)

HR should be kept to a minimum, there are a few circumstances which do need control.

But in the main, the players should be allowed to try different tactics from those used IRL, just because dugout Doug went to Bataan shouldnt foce an Allied player to copy him.




madgamer2 -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 2:05:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Each player has his (or her) own tolerance for fantasy. What I have found is that some players have become very (extremely) good at manipulating the mechanics of the game. There is and should be no established set of house rules, that should be up to players to negotiate.


SHE? You mean there ARE females that Play this game? I wonder if there are any females out there who Play?

Madgamer



castor troy -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 9:42:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Each player has his (or her) own tolerance for fantasy. What I have found is that some players have become very (extremely) good at manipulating the mechanics of the game. There is and should be no established set of house rules, that should be up to players to negotiate.


SHE? You mean there ARE females that Play this game? I wonder if there are any females out there who Play?

Madgamer



Couple of years ago, I "forced" my girl friend to try to play it! She didn´t like it... [:D]



Ursa MAior -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 11:33:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rubisco

If I want to play a game to win where I'll do everything possible to rinse every last ounce of advantage from the game mechanics, I play Chess.

When I play WitP, I play as a hobbyist who has a passion for military history and so I play for the immersion factor rather than to win. I play to get a sense of replaying history and so I prefer to limit myself (as much as is reasonable) to strategies and tactics that I feel are in keeping with a historical flavour.

That's why I'd never play a no-holds-barred game with no house rules.

Although having said that, each to his own![:)]



Second to that. I even go as far as to cling to the combined attack tactics of th IJN alas if one arm of a CAG is weak then I rest the whole CarDiv (unless in a really desperate situation) as in IRL.

It should be fun not a 'who-can-abuse-the-game-engine-more' fest.



crsutton -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 7:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Each player has his (or her) own tolerance for fantasy. What I have found is that some players have become very (extremely) good at manipulating the mechanics of the game. There is and should be no established set of house rules, that should be up to players to negotiate.


SHE? You mean there ARE females that Play this game? I wonder if there are any females out there who Play?

Madgamer


Ok, it had to come out sooner or later. I am a woman trapped in a man's body.....I sank my all my opponents carriers but then sent him a note asking if he was "OK" with all of that and did he want to share his "feelings" with me.

I never heard from him again......[;)]



Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 8:18:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
But in the main, the players should be allowed to try different tactics from those used IRL, just because dugout Doug went to Bataan shouldn't foce an Allied player to copy him.



Never said it should. But if you prefer to play within the boundries of actual historical possibilities..., and your opponant is proposing "House Rules 'ala TROLLELITE"---you probably want to look for someone else. That's what I mean by "feeling out" a potential PBEM partner.....



bradfordkay -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 10:36:52 PM)

"That's what I mean by "feeling out" a potential PBEM partner..... "


Ohhh...THAT's what you meant!

Chez I guess I did deserve that broken jaw when we got together  to discuss a possible game. I was misreading Mike's advice....



Charbroiled -> RE: House Rules (1/31/2008 11:17:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
But in the main, the players should be allowed to try different tactics from those used IRL, just because dugout Doug went to Bataan shouldn't foce an Allied player to copy him.



Never said it should. But if you prefer to play within the boundries of actual historical possibilities..., and your opponant is proposing "House Rules 'ala TROLLELITE"---you probably want to look for someone else. That's what I mean by "feeling out" a potential PBEM partner.....



Some people seem to be unable to distinguish between "historical possibilities" and "historical tactics and/or policies". For instance, one favorite HR is that no allied bomber can land at a Russian base enroute to India because the "political" situation would not allow it. This is not a "historical impossibility", but is based on "historical policies". It is possible that that political negotiations might have allowed it, but in RL, the negotiations were never pursued because they were unneeded or undesired.



Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 2:56:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
Some people seem to be unable to distinguish between "historical possibilities" and "historical tactics and/or policies". For instance, one favorite HR is that no allied bomber can land at a Russian base enroute to India because the "political" situation would not allow it. This is not a "historical impossibility", but is based on "historical policies". It is possible that that political negotiations might have allowed it, but in RL, the negotiations were never pursued because they were unneeded or undesired.



Yes, you are. The Japanese were allowing Russian Ships carrying "Lend/Lease" cargoes from America to sail into Vladavostok unhindered. Both we and the Russians had an interest in maintaining this, so the "negotiations" would have had to have arisen from real desperation as long as the route across Aftica was open.



madgamer2 -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:08:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
But in the main, the players should be allowed to try different tactics from those used IRL, just because dugout Doug went to Bataan shouldn't foce an Allied player to copy him.



Never said it should. But if you prefer to play within the boundries of actual historical possibilities..., and your opponant is proposing "House Rules 'ala TROLLELITE"---you probably want to look for someone else. That's what I mean by "feeling out" a potential PBEM partner.....



Some people seem to be unable to distinguish between "historical possibilities" and "historical tactics and/or policies". For instance, one favorite HR is that no allied bomber can land at a Russian base enroute to India because the "political" situation would not allow it. This is not a "historical impossibility", but is based on "historical policies". It is possible that that political negotiations might have allowed it, but in RL, the negotiations were never pursued because they were unneeded or undesired.


Where will we be if we start basing HR or games for that matter on what could have happened. I think that there are enough what if MOD's floating around out there already. I enjoy putting myself into the historical situation as much as possible and house HR are thinks that keep the game from getting gamey or allowing things to happen that give an advantage. Requiring no one ship TF except as a result of combat might be such a reason to have a HR requiring at least 2 ships. What it come down to is creatin g a game atmosphere that both players are comfortable with because it will take a great deal of time to play the average WitP game.

Madgamer
can cause the game system to be used in ways to create an advantage like not allowing



TOMLABEL -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:40:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


We are not playing for money here......


What!?!?!?!?!?[X(]

Big B, please give me a call - right away!!!

TOMLABEL



Feltan -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:38:34 AM)

It would seem that from among this august group, a handful of simple HR could be established to form a base, a default, from which further agreements could be forged.

I don't want to play against a "rules lawyer" who can quote chapter and verse about alowable 4E bomber altitudes for different missions, but neither do I want an opponent who will take advantage of game engine weaknesses and loopholes. I don't demand historical accuracy with scientific precision, but I don't want to play against someone who is going to do silly things just to win. The rule-of-thumb I use is this: if an opponent can punish you for doing it, it should be OK to do in game.

You want to invade unoccupied islands with small detachments via submarine? Fine with me, I can counter that -- seems like a silly tactic except for certain situations, but I don't think it should be prohibited by HR. Gonna try and block a retreat path for a large stack with a single platoon? Yeah, I got problems with that -- the game engine allows it, but no way would that happen in real life.

I suspect others here might be of like mind based on the posts I have read.

So, from a general sense that we want opponents who will do "reasonable" things -- could we potentially develop a list of, say, a dozen rules (no more) that capture a simple sense of fair play?

Regards,
Feltan






GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:39:53 AM)

I suppose I'm alone in this as with most things in life but I really find most house rules aggrivating and annoying. I don't like to handcuff myself nor my opponents with a lot of "may" and "may nots". I just want to play a game and have fun figuring out ways of winning it without worrying maybe I've done some horrible sacreligious blesphemy "gaming the system" by upgrading some B-25s to 4Es. I encourage my opponents to do the same to me.

For me the fun is in trying to come up with strategies to out do my opponent or to prevent him from out doing me. Constantly worrying whether my opponent will think doing X is gamey because no one really did that in the Pacific during the war is just more aggrivation than it is worth. Just my opinion.



Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 5:35:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I suppose I'm alone in this as with most things in life but I really find most house rules aggrivating and annoying. I don't like to handcuff myself nor my opponents with a lot of "may" and "may nots". I just want to play a game and have fun figuring out ways of winning it without worrying maybe I've done some horrible sacreligious blesphemy "gaming the system" by upgrading some B-25s to 4Es. I encourage my opponents to do the same to me.

For me the fun is in trying to come up with strategies to out do my opponent or to prevent him from out doing me. Constantly worrying whether my opponent will think doing X is gamey because no one really did that in the Pacific during the war is just more aggrivation than it is worth. Just my opinion.



And nobody's "knocking" your preference..., hope you and TROLLELITE have a fine time "gaming" each other. Just don't ask me to join you. For me the "fun" is in dealing with the "choices" available to my "real world counterparts", and not the failings of game designers. Too each his own...



bradfordkay -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 8:22:57 AM)

For me it is not whether they did it or not in the war, but whether they had the capability to do it in the war. If it doesn't pass the latter test, then it's out as far as I'm concerned.



Ursa MAior -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 9:57:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
For me the "fun" is in dealing with the "choices" available to my "real world counterparts", and not the failings of game designers. Too each his own...


Exactamento!



emek -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 10:11:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I suppose I'm alone in this as with most things in life but I really find most house rules aggrivating and annoying. I don't like to handcuff myself nor my opponents with a lot of "may" and "may nots". I just want to play a game and have fun figuring out ways of winning it without worrying maybe I've done some horrible sacreligious blesphemy "gaming the system" by upgrading some B-25s to 4Es. I encourage my opponents to do the same to me.

For me the fun is in trying to come up with strategies to out do my opponent or to prevent him from out doing me. Constantly worrying whether my opponent will think doing X is gamey because no one really did that in the Pacific during the war is just more aggrivation than it is worth. Just my opinion.



And nobody's "knocking" your preference..., hope you and TROLLELITE have a fine time "gaming" each other. Just don't ask me to join you. For me the "fun" is in dealing with the "choices" available to my "real world counterparts", and not the failings of game designers. Too each his own...



I think you and Gary share same values more then you think.
I liked Brad's definition "For me it is not whether they did it or not in the war, but whether they had the capability to do it in the war”. HR that fall this test are either bugs and should be treated as such or HR created as a new attempt to balance a specific scenario e.g. scenario customization (or mod). What Nik (and others) did in large scale in his mod HR do in small scale.

So common sense and sometimes historical research is required to check if it is a bug or valid strategy.



Joe D. -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 2:34:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

... You want to invade unoccupied islands with small detachments via submarine? Fine with me, I can counter that -- seems like a silly tactic except for certain situations, but I don't think it should be prohibited by HR.


Well, there was the Makin island raid by sub; it took and (briefly) held the island until the IJA sent reinforcements, so I don't think this should be banned either, but sometimes it is.

Some house rules look like legal contracts; maybe a "no nonsense/no tricks" clause would suffice.



GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 2:51:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

And nobody's "knocking" your preference..., hope you and TROLLELITE have a fine time "gaming" each other. Just don't ask me to join you.


Oouch.



Ursa MAior -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 2:55:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: emek
I think you and Gary share same values more then you think.
I liked Brad's definition "For me it is not whether they did it or not in the war, but whether they had the capability to do it in the war”. HR that fall this test are either bugs and should be treated as such or HR created as a new attempt to balance a specific scenario e.g. scenario customization (or mod). What Nik (and others) did in large scale in his mod HR do in small scale.

So common sense and sometimes historical research is required to check if it is a bug or valid strategy.


Common sense is something rarely found nowadays. Based on your reasoning we could easily see carriers packed solely with fighters, and G¤d onyl knows what (nevr in IRL). I've seen way too long HR lists nad I agree that most can be ruled out by using simply common sense.
After say 10-20 turns you will find out how historically your opponent plays (spirit of the rules not the letter of the rules), and in the next game you can lower their numbers, but I myself would cling to at least 15 HRs were I to start a PBEM campaign with someone I dont know.



GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

quote:

ORIGINAL: emek
I think you and Gary share same values more then you think.
I liked Brad's definition "For me it is not whether they did it or not in the war, but whether they had the capability to do it in the war”. HR that fall this test are either bugs and should be treated as such or HR created as a new attempt to balance a specific scenario e.g. scenario customization (or mod). What Nik (and others) did in large scale in his mod HR do in small scale.

So common sense and sometimes historical research is required to check if it is a bug or valid strategy.


Common sense is something rarely found nowadays. Based on your reasoning we could easily see carriers packed solely with fighters, and G¤d onyl knows what (nevr in IRL). I've seen way too long HR lists nad I agree that most can be ruled out by using simply common sense.
After say 10-20 turns you will find out how historically your opponent plays (spirit of the rules not the letter of the rules), and in the next game you can lower their numbers, but I myself would cling to at least 15 HRs were I to start a PBEM campaign with someone I dont know.



Why would anyone pack carriers only with fighters unless the carrier TF also had attack planes in it somewhere? Wouldn't it be kind of a waste to be all defense and no offense?



Feltan -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:20:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

... You want to invade unoccupied islands with small detachments via submarine? Fine with me, I can counter that -- seems like a silly tactic except for certain situations, but I don't think it should be prohibited by HR.


Well, there was the Makin island raid by sub; it took and (briefly) held the island until the IJA sent reinforcements, so I don't think this should be banned either, but sometimes it is.

Some house rules look like legal contracts; maybe a "no nonsense/no tricks" clause would suffice.



Yes, one would hope that would suffice.

I also frequently see restriction in HR about ASW stacks, and negative press about uber-ASW efforts. I find this curious. In the ETO, didn't the Allies do exactly this -- hunter-killer groups that by '44 were making the life expectancy for U-Boats very short? In the absence of some game bug for large naval stacks, I don't see this as an exploit -- rather an application of resources that actually has some historical examples behind it.

Regards,
Feltan



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625