PBEM House Rules for AE

PBEM House Rules for AE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

BeastieDog -> PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:24:43 PM)
Do any of the playtesters have recommended PBEM house rules for AE?

Andy Mac -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:35:19 PM)
Only one because we weren't able to implement it if a unit is restricted don't let it march across national borders without paying PP's e.g. India command units marching to Burma, Thai Units to Burma, Chinese Units to Burma, Kwantang Units to China etc etc

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:37:03 PM)
These may be addressed in a future patch -- But any house rules would involve the use of LCUs in areas that they could reach marching overland such as - 1. Kwantung Army and subordinate commands marching into China 2. Indian Command units marching into Burma 3. Thai units As I mentioned there are several proposals to address these issues some more involved and complex than others. The simplest solution is a house rule. Other than that I cannot think of any. Edit: Andy beat me to the punch...

BeastieDog -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:54:12 PM)
How about the no sub invasions and no 4E bombing under 10,000ft? Are they relevant to AE?

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog How about the no sub invasions and no 4E bombing under 10,000ft? Are they relevant to AE? Nope.

BeastieDog -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 2:59:11 PM)
The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release!

erstad -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 6:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release! Of course, if it doesn't you have more time for AE... So it's win-win! [:D]

ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/19/2009 10:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release! Of course, if it doesn't you have more time for AE... So it's win-win! [:D] Maybe I'm lucky I'm already divorced and have nothing to worry about.[:D]

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 1:26:29 AM)
Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head): 1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned. 2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect). 3) No max alt sweep missions. 4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP. 5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated. 6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities. 7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless.

tigercub -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 1:43:21 AM)
lol

Andy Mac -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 7:36:54 AM)
nm

Andy Mac -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 7:42:57 AM)
My views on YH's HR's I guess the point is play the game yourselves and look at it v the AI before deciding on HR's No.1 is the only one that I think is fundamental because we did not implement borders the way we wanted to. Andy 1) I am ok with 2) I dont thinkis a massive problem becauseof th edraft of ships but each to his own. 3) I thought was fixed 4) is per stock so if you wanted a HR in stock you will need one in AE - BUt remember that Airbone unit replacements are much more limited in AE 5) No View 6) Only v the AI 7) Is fixed and not a problem anyore Andy quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head): 1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned. 2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect). 3) No max alt sweep missions. 4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP. 5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated. 6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities. 7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless.

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 9:25:32 AM)
When people refer to house rules, they generally dont have to reach an agreement with an AI [;)] I was of course referring to PvP.

Dili -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 10:19:30 AM)
quote: No max alt sweep missions. What was this problem? Shouldn't player choose the best altitude for it's aircraft while sweeping?

String -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 10:45:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger When people refer to house rules, they generally dont have to reach an agreement with an AI [;)] I was of course referring to PvP. Well the way I see it if a player leaves important industrial sites undefended to be bombed from 6000 feet then he deserves what he gets. Surely even a jap AA unit should extract a toll from the attacking bombers if they come in low and slow?

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 12:35:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head): 1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned. 2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect). Certain ships cannot operate in rivers as is...invasions I don't have an issue with....subs iirc the DL of subs is increased in rivers. quote: 3) No max alt sweep missions. Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow... quote: 4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP. As Andy points out replacements are reduced...no real issue here for me quote: 5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated. Still not sold on this one quote: 6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities. Up to the players...perhaps limiting City Attacks to 2E and 4E. quote: 7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless. Fixed

BeastieDog -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 12:58:05 PM)
quote: 3) No max alt sweep missions. Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow... treespider, can you eleaborate on the problem and the solution or point me to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks.

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 1:28:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog quote: 3) No max alt sweep missions. Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow... treespider, can you eleaborate on the problem and the solution or point me to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks. There is no problem....certain aircraft have slow climb rates and poor performance at high altitude. Even if you set 100% CAP it does not mean that 100% of your defending CAP is airborne 100% of the time. A goodly portion are, but the rest are on the ground in a ready status. So if you set your CAP low and the Sweep comes in high the two perform a merge at some point in between which is lower than the high sweep...this allows the CAP the opportunity to get more aircraft into the fight due to climb rates....and the combat is fought at a lower altitude where the MVR setting may be more optimal.... If you try and out altitude the other guy with your CAP sure you may gain a temporary altitude bonus but the combat will be fought at an altitude that may deny your Ready aircraft from joining the fight.So by flying lower you may still be at a disadvantage on a per plane basis but you will have more planes in the fight than had you set the CAP in the stratosphere. SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft... This works for me at least early on when climb rates of aircraft are slow and poor radar are prevalent....the tactics may change as better aircraft and raid detection become more prevalent. And on some occasions a high sweep and a low CAP will not engage each other...

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 1:40:37 PM)
Here are the A2A losses through January 3, 1942... Discounting the P-35's and P-26's most of the combats were fought over the Manila, Clark, Bataan triangle and Singapore A2A Losses: Buffalos - 54 P-40E's and P40B's -36 Total - 90 Zero's and Oscars - 66 OP losses also account for an additioanl 43 Allied fighters and 56 Japanese fighters TOTALS 133 Allied fighters vs 122 Japanese fighters A respectable exchange rate IMO because my pilots generally survive since I am over my base... [image]local://upfiles/15342/4A6913DB7D49485E996C9445331B15D2.jpg[/image]

BeastieDog -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 1:53:42 PM)
quote: SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft... Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway.

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 3:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog quote: SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft... Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway. I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat.

BeastieDog -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 3:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog quote: SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft... Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway. I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat. Would setting CAP at a lower altitude to optimize reaction to sweeps be less effective against bombing missions?

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 4:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: BeastieDog quote: SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft... Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway. I was strictly speaking of Land Based CAP...not sure how Sweeps interact with CV v CV combat. Would setting CAP at a lower altitude to optimize reaction to sweeps be less effective against bombing missions? Depends on the altitude the bombers come in at ...notice in the above screen shot Yammy likes to bring in his bombers at 6000' ...my Buffalos have exacted a price especially when he is unescorted...if it forces the bombers higher he suffers from reduced accuracy and starts to get hit by heavier AA. Speaking of which the flak "Gap" is "fuzzy" now...meaning 6000' is no longer a "safe" altitude.

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/20/2009 11:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider Depends on the altitude the bombers come in at ...notice in the above screen shot Yammy likes to bring in his bombers at 6000' ...my Buffalos have exacted a price especially when he is unescorted...if it forces the bombers higher he suffers from reduced accuracy and starts to get hit by heavier AA. Speaking of which the flak "Gap" is "fuzzy" now...meaning 6000' is no longer a "safe" altitude. Its true. A lot of my bombing raids have come in unescorted because my escorts have been assigning themselves to other missions. A lot of my escorts flew with the sweeps and left the bombers to face 20+ Buffs alone and I took a lot of losses. Since I switched back to max alt sweeps (I didnt start the game doing it and most of the sweep losses shown by Tree occurred with these lower altitude sweeps) and moving those sweeps to other bases and leaving just the bombers and escorts at the base of origin, the bombers have been flying with escort most of the time. Although a lot of the time (almost always) fighters escorting naval attack "lose contact" with their bombers and thus the bombers come in alone on land based naval attack missions. I believe this issue is being worked on. As for the 6000' thing: I do that because of my WitP days. Extra fatigue for flying at 5000- so I fly at 6000 ft. to avoid the fatigue penalty. Frankly, I dont even know if that still applies in AE. That would involve reading the manual [;)] But I dont do it to avoid AA. I do it for bombing accuracy.

Kull -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 5:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger 5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated. How much of this success is due to the fairly sophisticated interlocking patrol system that you utilize? Based on your AAR, you have 2-3 subs patrolling in the same area, backed up by a float plane carrying sub. In effect, you are replicating the radio-based coordination that made u-boat wolfpack tactics so successful. Have you tried out some isolated (i.e. single sub), non-interlocking, non-float plane supported sub patrols to see if the intercept rate is the same? If single subs can follow follow targets, then this is a big problem. Otherwise it's just a reflection of the successes which the technology of that era allowed - but it took years to figure out (a learning curve the modern day hind-sighter doesn't have to climb).

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 11:55:35 AM)
Well, Ive attacked and sunk 2 TKs in 1 turn off Java and a loaded AP the next with a single sub on a single patrol route. It wasnt a Glen boat and I have no search aircraft close enough to spot in the area. Also several attacks (a few hits but I dont think any sinkings) off Sumatra as well (including the ill fated attack on the PoW). Again, no Glens or land based air to spot and some of these attacks were well off the patrol lanes. I doubt this issue will be addressed before release (I could be wrong of course but Don has been hit with the busy stick as of late) and therefore I recommend a house rule in the mean time. Just my personal observation based on 3 days of trial in 1 game. Until now I have never tried putting subs on react.

EUBanana -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 12:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Well, Ive attacked and sunk 2 TKs in 1 turn off Java and a loaded AP the next with a single sub on a single patrol route. It wasnt a Glen boat and I have no search aircraft close enough to spot in the area. Also several attacks (a few hits but I dont think any sinkings) off Sumatra as well (including the ill fated attack on the PoW). Again, no Glens or land based air to spot and some of these attacks were well off the patrol lanes. I doubt this issue will be addressed before release (I could be wrong of course but Don has been hit with the busy stick as of late) and therefore I recommend a house rule in the mean time. Just my personal observation based on 3 days of trial in 1 game. Until now I have never tried putting subs on react. This sounds like they are reacting against units with no detection factor? Are they actually reacting?

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 12:51:04 PM)
They are well off their patrol routes. If not react, how did they get there? [;)] And they seem to be reacting from the places they reacted to, drawing them out still further. Its hard to track this in a live game because I cant see both sides so frankly I cant really comment on what exactly is going on with them. Here is the start of the current turn, pretty sure these are all react attacks (including the allied subs) except Jolo. Note sub names and the hex numbers. Before I turned on react, I was lucky to have more than 1 attack every other day. Edit: Note: I-18 made 5 separate attacks today. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 04, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 41,85 Japanese Ships SS I-153 Allied Ships xAKL Parigi, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage SS I-153 is sighted by xAKL Parigi SS I-153 attacking on the surface -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Tambelan Islands at 53,90 Japanese Ships SS I-18 Allied Ships xAKL Lee Sang, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Lee Sang SS I-18 attacking on the surface -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Pontianak at 54,90 Japanese Ships xAK Iwashiro Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships SS KXI Japanese ground losses: 10 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled SS KXI is sighted by xAK Iwashiro Maru SS KXI launches 2 torpedoes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89 Japanese Ships SS I-18 Allied Ships xAKL Prominent, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent SS I-18 attacking on the surface SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASW attack near Jolo at 74,90 Japanese Ships DD Hokaze DD Yakaze DD Okikaze DD Minekaze Allied Ships SS S-37 S-37 bottoming out .... DD Hokaze fails to find sub and abandons search DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Okikaze fails to find sub and abandons search DD Minekaze fails to find sub and abandons search DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Yakaze fails to find sub, continues to search... Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Muntok at 50,89 Japanese Ships SS I-18 Allied Ships xAKL Prominent, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Prominent SS I-18 launches 2 torpedoes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Siberoet Island at 42,86 Japanese Ships SS I-153 Allied Ships xAP President Madison, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage SS I-153 is sighted by xAP President Madison SS I-153 launches 8 torpedoes Submarine under attack near Billiton at 52,92 Japanese Ships SS I-9 Allied Ships xAKL Sibolga SS I-9 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga SS I-9 attacking on the surface Kanda B. decides to submerge SS I-9 due to damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93 Japanese Ships SS I-18 Allied Ships xAKL Sibolga, Shell hits 1, on fire SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga SS I-18 attacking on the surface SS I-18 low on gun ammo, Araki N. breaks off surface engagement and submerges -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submarine under attack near Toboali at 51,93 Japanese Ships SS I-18 Allied Ships xAKL Sibolga, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage SS I-18 is sighted by xAKL Sibolga SS I-18 launches 6 torpedoes

Yamato hugger -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 12:57:20 PM)
You can see how far she is off her patrol route and her current ammo status (I-18): [image]local://upfiles/14252/D6048F0DD5C6446C9BE72F8D22619103.jpg[/image]

treespider -> RE: PBEM House Rules for AE (6/21/2009 2:15:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger You can see how far she is off her patrol route and her current ammo status (I-18): [image]local://upfiles/14252/D6048F0DD5C6446C9BE72F8D22619103.jpg[/image] I would say she is returning to port to replenish and passed through a target rich environment.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875