RE: House Rules

RE: House Rules (Full Version)

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

Message

Oldguard1970 -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:56:08 PM)
Hi Feltan, As I recall, the idea of limiting the size of ASW TFs grew out of the belief that the game engine did screwy things with large ASW TFs (I don't recall the details, but the thought was that 18 ships in a single TF would be far more effective than the same number of ships in fewer TFs, and the increase in effectiveness was not a designed feature, but an unintended consequence of the code.) If my memory is correct, then a rule to restrict the size of a single ASW TF is a virtuous one. It is supposed to compensate for a code problem rather than to limit the realistic operational creativeness of the opponents. Can anyone confirm my memory of the ASW TF size glitch? Is it still around? I am playing with that HR, but perhaps the problem never was, or perhaps the problem has been corrected. By the way, I include my vote with those who want to be able to do what was possible to do rather than to be restricted to doing what was actually done.

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 3:59:55 PM)
I can say it won't be a problem in AE..., which limits ASW TF's to 6 ships.

Oldguard1970 -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:02:01 PM)
Thanks Mike, I'll continue to use the HR.

Feltan -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 Hi Feltan, As I recall, the idea of limiting the size of ASW TFs grew out of the belief that the game engine did screwy things with large ASW TFs (I don't recall the details, but the thought was that 18 ships in a single TF would be far more effective than the same number of ships in fewer TFs, and the increase in effectiveness was not a designed feature, but an unintended consequence of the code.) If my memory is correct, then a rule to restrict the size of a single ASW TF is a virtuous one. It is supposed to compensate for a code problem rather than to limit the realistic operational creativeness of the opponents. Can anyone confirm my memory of the ASW TF size glitch? Is it still around? I am playing with that HR, but perhaps the problem never was, or perhaps the problem has been corrected. By the way, I include my vote with those who want to be able to do what was possible to do rather than to be restricted to doing what was actually done. OldGuard, If that is true, it predates my experience with the game. However, I can understand the need for a HR if there is some unintended synergistic affect of large ASW task forces. And I am somewhat disappointed by what Mike wrote -- why limit an ASW task force to six ships? Wouldn't AE be the best opportunity to fix the code that, if true, gives extra benefit to large ASW TF's? Regards, Feltan

GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:13:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 Hi Feltan, As I recall, the idea of limiting the size of ASW TFs grew out of the belief that the game engine did screwy things with large ASW TFs (I don't recall the details, but the thought was that 18 ships in a single TF would be far more effective than the same number of ships in fewer TFs, and the increase in effectiveness was not a designed feature, but an unintended consequence of the code.) If my memory is correct, then a rule to restrict the size of a single ASW TF is a virtuous one. It is supposed to compensate for a code problem rather than to limit the realistic operational creativeness of the opponents. Can anyone confirm my memory of the ASW TF size glitch? Is it still around? I am playing with that HR, but perhaps the problem never was, or perhaps the problem has been corrected. By the way, I include my vote with those who want to be able to do what was possible to do rather than to be restricted to doing what was actually done. IIRC the limit to ASW TF size was due to the old game engine which was far too effective against submarines. This was fixed in one of the last patches so that ASW is not as lethal. So I'm not sure why AE will be limiting ASW TFs to 6 ships. [&:]

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:35:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan And I am somewhat disappointed by what Mike wrote -- why limit an ASW task force to six ships? Wouldn't AE be the best opportunity to fix the code that, if true, gives extra benefit to large ASW TF's? Regards, Feltan Probably had more to do with historical reality. Check out the composition of Allied "Hunter-Killer" ASW TF's during the war. Even when CVE's were included, six was pretty much the "upper limit" size-wise. But you would really have to ask someone on the "design team", I'm just a "testor".

emek -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:47:21 PM)
[/quote] Based on your reasoning we could easily see carriers packed solely with fighters, and G¤d onyl knows what (nevr in IRL). [/quote] [/quote] How do you know it was never used? Anyway if you want to play historically that’s fine but then you limit your and your opponent options. I think it is fun to play both styles.

Charbroiled -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior Based on your reasoning we could easily see carriers packed solely with fighters, and G¤d onyl knows what (nevr in IRL). What would be unrealistic about putting only fighters on a carrier???? Just because it was never done, doesn't mean it could not have been done. Maybe I'm attacking an island and do not feel I need to bombard the island with DBers of TBers...do not expect any enemy ships in the area....but really feel the need to maintain air cover above my landing. If Doolittle hadn't put B-25s on a carrier, nobody would ever believe it was possible.

GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:49:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan And I am somewhat disappointed by what Mike wrote -- why limit an ASW task force to six ships? Wouldn't AE be the best opportunity to fix the code that, if true, gives extra benefit to large ASW TF's? Regards, Feltan Probably had more to do with historical reality. Check out the composition of Allied "Hunter-Killer" ASW TF's during the war. Even when CVE's were included, six was pretty much the "upper limit" size-wise. But you would really have to ask someone on the "design team", I'm just a "testor". So because the Allies didn't traditionally do it, then it should not be done by anyone? It sort of sounds at face that these are precisely the sort of house rules which I find aggrivating. The Japanese never adopted a convoy system during the war. Should we therefore limit Japanese supply TFs to 1-2 ships max?

GaryChildress -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:52:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charbroiled If Doolittle hadn't put B-25s on a carrier, nobody would ever believe it was possible. I can see it now. "He put B-25s on a carrier and raided Tokyo, allowing his B-25s to ditch in the ocean or else try to make it to China or the USSR. That is so gamey! No one ever would have done that in the real war!"

Charbroiled -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 4:54:40 PM)
quote: Probably had more to do with historical reality. Check out the composition of Allied "Hunter-Killer" ASW TF's during the war. Even when CVE's were included, six was pretty much the "upper limit" size-wise. But you would really have to ask someone on the "design team", I'm just a "testor". IIRC, there was some heated conversations here on the forum about the sub routines being "borked". There were no "near misses" or "DD xxxx dropping DCxxxx", and every anti-sub ship would get an attack run on the sub. After 1.804 (I think) the routine was reworked and has really elliminated the need for the HR, but people still seem to want it because it was used a lot.

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 6:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress So because the Allies didn't traditionally do it, then it should not be done by anyone? It sort of sounds at face that these are precisely the sort of house rules which I find aggrivating. The Japanese never adopted a convoy system during the war. Should we therefore limit Japanese supply TFs to 1-2 ships max? Believe the total had more to do with maximizing assets historically. More that 5-6 was unnecessary, because 5-6 already maximized the chances of a "kill". Why AE chose to do it I don't know..., unless it was one of the "requests" that recieved high vote totals back when they were starting. Like I said, you'll have to ask someone on the "design team".

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 6:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: Charbroiled If Doolittle hadn't put B-25s on a carrier, nobody would ever believe it was possible. I can see it now. "He put B-25s on a carrier and raided Tokyo, allowing his B-25s to ditch in the ocean or else try to make it to China or the USSR. That is so gamey! No one ever would have done that in the real war!" Like the Makin raid, it was more a pinprick "morale-raising" effort than an actual military operation. As that's basically all it's good for---and as Civilian Morale isn't really tracked like that in the game---I'd like to see both left out. It's small, "one-shot" operations that are often the cause of rules that end up being "exploited" by the "loophole lawyers" among us.

mdiehl -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 7:37:54 PM)
"and as Civilian Morale isn't really tracked like that in the game" But political points are. Probably there should be a way for the Allied player to generate surplus PPs through raids &c. and Allied PP expansion for sinking Japanese combat vessels.

bradfordkay -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 7:57:05 PM)
"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? " IIRC, in early '43 when the Victorious was on loan to the USN (and designated USS Robin), for use in the Solomons, the TF commander moved all the fighters to one of the two carriers (Saratoga was the other) and all of the strike aircraft to the other. So there was an historical occasion where this occured. As far as the ASW TF size in concerned, IRL the US and Brits came to understand that more than 4 or 5 ships involved typically caused problems for the sonar operators in that there was too much extraneous noise making it difficult to locate the submarine. In WITP's early versions every ASW asset in a TF was allowed to attack a submarine, nearly guaranteeing a kill if you had twenty-plus ships in that ASW TF. A later versionchanged that to only six ships in the TF actually making an attack, but it allowed more than that number of ships to search for the sub until six attacks were made. Thus, having an ASW TF of, say, eighteen ships would nearly guarantee that six would attack - whereas in WW2 eighteen ASW ships searching for a sub would merely have caused way too much extraneous noise, making it difficult for the sub to be located. This is why people often have the six ships in an ASW TF HR, and probably why AE is limiting the ASW TFs to six ships.

jwilkerson -> RE: House Rules (2/1/2008 8:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress ASW is not as lethal. So I'm not sure why AE will be limiting ASW TFs to 6 ships. [&:] As of 1.7.9.5 Surface ASW was made less lethal (in stock). However, overall ASW is still very lethal, especially combination of air and surface ASW (in stock).

Ursa MAior -> RE: House Rules (2/2/2008 7:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: Charbroiled If Doolittle hadn't put B-25s on a carrier, nobody would ever believe it was possible. I can see it now. "He put B-25s on a carrier and raided Tokyo, allowing his B-25s to ditch in the ocean or else try to make it to China or the USSR. That is so gamey! No one ever would have done that in the real war!" Like the Makin raid, it was more a pinprick "morale-raising" effort than an actual military operation. As that's basically all it's good for---and as Civilian Morale isn't really tracked like that in the game---I'd like to see both left out. It's small, "one-shot" operations that are often the cause of rules that end up being "exploited" by the "loophole lawyers" among us. Exactly. And if the AI in AE will be up to the challenge I would not like to see it making such moves regularly. As of an all VF CV TF ([:D]) why on Earth did not even the desperate Japanese use it in the Phillipines? It is the abuse of the game engine just like sub transported panzers. We had a forum about it a year ago or so. Like someone before me said, if you like an all out game feel free to do it but please in the name of common sense dont pretend it is nornal!

Nomad -> RE: House Rules (2/2/2008 8:54:52 PM)
The USN did try out some of the all ( or mostly ) fighters on a CV. It just never was fully developed and it caused some of it own problems. The idea was to have one or two CVs use 72 - 80 Fighters to provide Fleet CAP while the other CVs used their Fighters for escort duties. The idea was that the CAP could be controled by one or two Directors and not have every director in the fleet trying to vector Fighters.

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/2/2008 9:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad The USN did try out some of the all ( or mostly ) fighters on a CV. It just never was fully developed and it caused some of it own problems. The idea was to have one or two CVs use 72 - 80 Fighters to provide Fleet CAP while the other CVs used their Fighters for escort duties. The idea was that the CAP could be controled by one or two Directors and not have every director in the fleet trying to vector Fighters. Didn't Enterprise see some duty as a "Night Fighter Carrier"? I know it was proposed....

Nomad -> RE: House Rules (2/2/2008 9:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad The USN did try out some of the all ( or mostly ) fighters on a CV. It just never was fully developed and it caused some of it own problems. The idea was to have one or two CVs use 72 - 80 Fighters to provide Fleet CAP while the other CVs used their Fighters for escort duties. The idea was that the CAP could be controled by one or two Directors and not have every director in the fleet trying to vector Fighters. Didn't Enterprise see some duty as a "Night Fighter Carrier"? I know it was proposed.... Dunnigan lists CVL Independence, CV Enterprise, and CV Bon Homme Richard as being fitted for "Night operations." They had aircraft of all type fitted for night operations. To me, house rules should restrict things that were physically impossible, not those that were just not done. The gray area is where things were not done for reasons that are not modeled ( or poorly modeled ) in the game. The other area for house rules are where the game mechanics are plainly wrong. But even with these restrictions there are many disagreements.

JeffroK -> RE: House Rules (2/3/2008 11:35:02 AM)
If you dont like the restriction on ASW TF size, just make 2-3 TF's????

JeffroK -> RE: House Rules (2/3/2008 11:36:43 AM)
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..... Yep, andits why I dont bother.

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/3/2008 2:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK 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..... Yep, and it's why I dont bother. As I've said a number of times..., "To each his own". It's your game..., play it the way you want. Just don't insist that everyone has to...

emek -> RE: House Rules (2/11/2008 7:46:31 PM)
After some search i suggest using 6 rules used by Nemo when playing CHS. 3 of which are purely to account for code issues and 3 of which have to do with game balance: 1. No dive-bombers can attack naval targets above 25,000 feet. 2. High-altitude kamikaze attacks cannot be higher than 25,000 feet. 3. Aden is off-limits to invasion - everything else can be invaded including CONUSA. 4. No aerial mining by allies as the Japanese cannot intercept it - code bug. 5. G9Ms cannot be used for port attacks --- their torpedoes would just dive into the bottom of the harbour. 6. Me-264 Behemoths CANNOT fly below 20,000 feet --- this is nothing to do with history but has to do with hit rates and game code issues. Have Fun [:)]

witpqs -> RE: House Rules (2/11/2008 10:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: emek 3. Aden is off-limits to invasion - everything else can be invaded including CONUSA. Many map-edge bases are special, not just Aden. On example, Karachi is actually not situated at the edge of the world! [:D] IRL units can retreat from there to the West (Up on the map). All such bases should be off-limits for capture because capturing them invokes limitation in the game engine/map combination. That last base on the road in the USSR (forget the name) is another. 'Canada' and 'USA' bases too (although the game is done if the IJ player has gotten that for so the point is moot), maybe a couple of others. Other bases within Canada and US certainly are open to capture.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: House Rules (2/12/2008 1:36:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Gary Childress quote: ORIGINAL: Charbroiled If Doolittle hadn't put B-25s on a carrier, nobody would ever believe it was possible. I can see it now. "He put B-25s on a carrier and raided Tokyo, allowing his B-25s to ditch in the ocean or else try to make it to China or the USSR. That is so gamey! No one ever would have done that in the real war!" Like the Makin raid, it was more a pinprick "morale-raising" effort than an actual military operation. As that's basically all it's good for---and as Civilian Morale isn't really tracked like that in the game---I'd like to see both left out. It's small, "one-shot" operations that are often the cause of rules that end up being "exploited" by the "loophole lawyers" among us. Yeah, like the Japanese first turn move bonus, which was added to allow KB and subs to be off PH and the Malaya TFs to be off Northern Maalaya on the first turn. The devs were lazy and did not restrict this to a few Sub TFs, a few Transport TFs, one KB AO TF and one CV TF. So...what happens? A completely BS first turn by Japanese players abusing the intentions of the rule and other major loopholes like no civilian economy allowing 100% utility of the merchant marine for offensive ops for example. Ever try to get this move bonus restricted, either officially or as a house rule? The JFBs now think it has historical merit and is physically possible to achieve light speed.

treespider -> RE: House Rules (2/12/2008 1:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker ... like no civilian economy allowing 100% utility of the merchant marine for offensive ops for example. That's being dealt with...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: House Rules (2/12/2008 2:37:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker ... like no civilian economy allowing 100% utility of the merchant marine for offensive ops for example. That's being dealt with... I know that TS, great stuff. I was just pointing out how design oversights can be unceasingly abused. Anyone notice how many design concepts and details, despite having been debunked for years by players, history etc still remain? Especially in games by the same designer or dealing with the same topic. It seems assumptions, after years of not being questioned or removed, become fact so to speak. For example, just having purchased Carriers at War, light cruisers of every nationality are used as destroyer screen leaders in naval combat. This, despite the fact that CLs actually equalled or exceeded the displacement and firepower of heavy cruisers.

Mike Scholl -> RE: House Rules (2/12/2008 5:40:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I know that TS, great stuff. I was just pointing out how design oversights can be unceasingly abused. Anyone notice how many design concepts and details, despite having been debunked for years by players, history etc still remain? Especially in games by the same designer or dealing with the same topic. It seems assumptions, after years of not being questioned or removed, become fact so to speak. For example, just having purchased Carriers at War, light cruisers of every nationality are used as destroyer screen leaders in naval combat. This, despite the fact that CLs actually equalled or exceeded the displacement and firepower of heavy cruisers. Well, the Japanese did use their CL's that way. And the Omaha's were theoretically designed for that purpose. But you are right that it's hard to see a Brooklyn or a Colony Class in such a role.

mlees -> RE: House Rules (2/12/2008 6:36:00 PM)
Older CL's (those built at or near the end of WW1) were intended to be flotilla leaders and/or fleet scouts. (U.S. Omaha, British C class, IJN Kuma classes.) The ones built in the late 20's or later were being counted in the treaty tonnage totals, and so were built with expanded mission capabilities in mind.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125