House Rules (Full Version)

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



Message

AlessandroW -> House Rules (9/21/2019 8:35:08 PM)

Hi guys,

after a very long stop I just started a small scenario PBEM and it has been immediately clear that I need to learn again a lot of stuff.

The next step would be to play the grand campaign, therefore I'm wondering after several patches and a better understanding of the game which house rules you think are needed but to pay PPs to change units to an unrestricted command.

Thanks in advance.



RangerJoe -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 8:44:44 PM)

The only times that you really need to pay for a ground unit is if you want to load it onto ships and/or air transport it to another base.



BillBrown -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 8:45:26 PM)

My viewpoint is no house rules are needed at all.



RangerJoe -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 9:20:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

My viewpoint is no house rules are needed at all.


If you make the mess, clean it up. [;)]



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 9:54:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The only times that you really need to pay for a ground unit is if you want to load it onto ships and/or air transport it to another base.


Yes, but what about Kwantung Army units? Do you move them to China without paying PPs?


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

My viewpoint is no house rules are needed at all.


If may I ask, why do you think are not neeeded?



RangerJoe -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 10:11:40 PM)

Yes, you can move them by land all the way to Karachi if you want to.



jdsrae -> RE: House Rules (9/21/2019 11:46:46 PM)

I dont think house rules are needed, but you can agree whatever you want with your pbem opponent.

Without house rules, Kwangtung Army ground units can move freely to China, Burma, India given enough time to walk there, but 2nd Air Div air groups in Manchukuo cant move to China.
The flip side is the Allies can freely move British Indian Army land units the other way.
So Japan has the initiative early war but the allies will get it later.




AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 8:58:46 AM)

I'm in the no HRs needed way of thinking too but lot of players still ask for them, therefore my post.

I don't have a in game experience to know what is better yet.



Encircled -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 11:16:00 AM)

PP for crossing national borders is a very common house rule for a reason.

You also need one at the start for stuff like Mersing Gambit (on the first turn, nothing wrong with it on 2nd turn!) or anything that would be impossible not to have been spotted as it is a "magic move"




btd64 -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 12:00:11 PM)

I just use the pp's for crossing national boundaries....GP



Trugrit -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 1:08:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

PP for crossing national borders is a very common house rule for a reason.

You also need one at the start for stuff like Mersing Gambit (on the first turn, nothing wrong with it on 2nd turn!) or anything that would be impossible not to have been spotted as it is a "magic move"



+1

I would say play with no house rules except national borders, you will learn a lot that way.

But, there is a major non-historical exploit that veteran players know about.
In Scenario 1 and 2 the Japanese have a move bonus.

If you don’t play the historical start the KB starts in the Kurile Islands (Etorofu).

The first turn move bonus is enough to allow it to transit to the west coast of the U.S.
and take it’s refuel tankers with it.

It can then strike San Diego and sink the Saratoga which is in port.

The other thing it might do is to locate off Manila and attack the 27 Allied subs in port there.

Or it can position off Singapore and take out the British warships.

In fact with the move bonus it can position off Sydney if it wants to on the first turn.

If you have a good Japanese opponent he won't use it this way.

PS: The other thing.
Players generally make a house rule to prevent the Japanese player from hunting Allied carriers on turn one.

I don't ask for that and I won't do it if I'm playing the Japanese.

As the Allies, it is a good Fly Trap.
If the Japanese player hunts your carriers on turn one because he knows where they are
you need to quit the game and find a good opponent.

Life is too short, and this game is too long to play an A-Hole.






BillBrown -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 2:43:21 PM)

I do separate turn 1 rules from house rules.

This is what I usually ask for as the Allies( I would do the same as Japan also )

1. Allied TF that exist on turn one can change their orders, no new TFs can be created
2. Only ground and air units either in China or attached to China Command can be given orders on turn 1.
3. No deep penetrations by the Japanese( No Mersing turn 1, no Palambang, etc. )



Dili -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 2:49:05 PM)

If you don't have house rules you can break the game.
You can use battleships to bombard every day but IRL they would need to get to port/shipyards to get their guns relined after maybe 500 shots (basically 3 resupplies) - Yamato i think did even need to get the whole tube replaced. You turn the game into Bombard in Pacific game.

You can get many hits with torpedo bombers with bombs, you can shut airfields by level bombing by night or sink many ships in port also by night.

Of course many players are not upset by this.



Chickenboy -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 3:27:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlessandroW
which house rules you think are needed but to pay PPs to change units to an unrestricted command.


Technically speaking paying PPs to change units to an unrestricted command isn't a house rule so much as a regular aspect of gameplay.

You'll find that nearly everyone plays with some HRs, even if it's just the most common one (can't move restricted ground units out of national boundaries).

There's not as many as used to be required IMO because of the patches fixing the most obvious ones. However, there are still abundant issues with 'stratospheric sweep' and nighttime tactical bombing of airfields / ports. Some people use a limitation on 4E bombers with naval attack, but that's not one I am too hung up on.



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 3:51:28 PM)

Thanks for all your feedbacks so far!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
However, there are still abundant issues with 'stratospheric sweep' and nighttime tactical bombing of airfields / ports. Some people use a limitation on 4E bombers with naval attack, but that's not one I am too hung up on.


Can you give me some more details?

Sweep: I though that flying your fighters at their best maneuver level would be enough to limit this problem, is diving on your enemy the only best chance to win the dogfight?

Nightime: no clue here, too powerul? Is so what is the HR for that?

4E bombers: I thought it was more a commonplace that a real issue, therefore no under 10000 feet?



IdahoNYer -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 6:42:18 PM)

AllesandroW - in our PBEM, Large Slow Target and I agreed on a number of house rules at start, and have modified/added a few during our 5yr journey.....

We limited sweeps to second best maneuver band to prevent those "stratospheric sweeps" Chickenboy mentioned. To me, its been a good solution. CAP is not limited by this altitude restriction, only the sweepers.
We've also reduced night bombing a bit by reducing the squadrons able to target a specific base - 1 in '42, 2 in '43 and 3 in '44. Its helped, but night bombing can still be effective for the Allied once they get the B-24. We've also limited 4E on naval to the 10k foot minimum altitude, but frankly that has had limited effect as I wouldn't use Heavies against naval targets much.




Trugrit -> RE: House Rules (9/22/2019 9:17:57 PM)


AlessandroW,

You should not worry too much about stratospheric sweeps.

You will see a lot about this on the forum. Discussions, Arguments, Sandbox runs,
Borked/Not borked, get off my lawn type threads…..etc.

There are counters to it so it won’t wreck your game.

The truth is that it is a slight problem that should have been fixed.
The Elf has acknowledged as much in posts.

But, the Devs had a lot on their plate so you can’t fault them too much.
They produced an outstanding game and it still works very well.

The way to fix it is to add much greater pilot and plane fatigue if a player flies those missions.
That would discourage players from flying both range and altitude missions all the way
out to the edge of the envelope.

Like the ships running at full speed you would cause much more damage to the air frame and pilots.
But, maybe it is not an easy thing to fix.





Chickenboy -> RE: House Rules (9/23/2019 12:22:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlessandroW

Thanks for all your feedbacks so far!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
However, there are still abundant issues with 'stratospheric sweep' and nighttime tactical bombing of airfields / ports. Some people use a limitation on 4E bombers with naval attack, but that's not one I am too hung up on.


Can you give me some more details?

Sweep: I though that flying your fighters at their best maneuver level would be enough to limit this problem, is diving on your enemy the only best chance to win the dogfight?

Nightime: no clue here, too powerul? Is so what is the HR for that?

4E bombers: I thought it was more a commonplace that a real issue, therefore no under 10000 feet?


AlessandroW,

My post was to clarify examples of HRs that are IMO in commonplace usage. Not to recommend HRs for you or to revisit the concept of HRs that you do (or don't) need for a productive game. This is a 'can of worms' with some deeply held views about if and how the game models what we want it to. Many people want this game to reflect different levels of nuanced 'reality' than it does or can. Where we run into problems on the forum is arguing that *our* desired reality somehow should be a more universally accepted reality and arguing for that.

Make your own decisions about your gaming reality, don't assume my own. You may find that you don't need the same HRs that I (and others) do. Good on you either way.



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/23/2019 2:45:02 PM)

Thanks for all your inputs, much appreciated [:)]



Gridley380 -> RE: House Rules (9/23/2019 3:09:02 PM)

One rule I've recently adopted myself (self-enforced, as I only play vs. the AI at this point) is to only carry fuel in "liquid" storage space; no loading fuel in dry cargo space. This has a significant effect on gameplay, to say the least.



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/23/2019 4:23:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

One rule I've recently adopted myself (self-enforced, as I only play vs. the AI at this point) is to only carry fuel in "liquid" storage space; no loading fuel in dry cargo space. This has a significant effect on gameplay, to say the least.


To be honest I never used xAK/AK to carry fuel too, not for some self-rule but only because it seems right.
Surely can be a bad choice if you want to haul more fuel.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 3:27:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

AllesandroW - in our PBEM, Large Slow Target and I agreed on a number of house rules at start, and have modified/added a few during our 5yr journey.....

We limited sweeps to second best maneuver band to prevent those "stratospheric sweeps" Chickenboy mentioned. To me, its been a good solution. CAP is not limited by this altitude restriction, only the sweepers.
We've also reduced night bombing a bit by reducing the squadrons able to target a specific base - 1 in '42, 2 in '43 and 3 in '44. Its helped, but night bombing can still be effective for the Allied once they get the B-24. We've also limited 4E on naval to the 10k foot minimum altitude, but frankly that has had limited effect as I wouldn't use Heavies against naval targets much.



And we have ruled-out "tank only" attacks above regimental size, i.e. if a hex holds more than one tank regiment, the tanks must only attack if accompanied by infantry which is attacking as well. This was done to avoid unrealistic "Armoured Blitzkrieg" with stacks of multiples tank units combined.



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 5:21:10 PM)

Thanks LST for your suggestions!

Btw, I'm going to read your AAR!



HansBolter -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 5:48:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlessandroW

Hi guys,

after a very long stop I just started a small scenario PBEM and it has been immediately clear that I need to learn again a lot of stuff.

The next step would be to play the grand campaign, therefore I'm wondering after several patches and a better understanding of the game which house rules you think are needed but to pay PPs to change units to an unrestricted command.

Thanks in advance.




Just Say No!



btd64 -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 5:58:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

One rule I've recently adopted myself (self-enforced, as I only play vs. the AI at this point) is to only carry fuel in "liquid" storage space; no loading fuel in dry cargo space. This has a significant effect on gameplay, to say the least.


Go to PBEM, You'll never look back. I also use the no dry space rule....GP



AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 8:43:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

One rule I've recently adopted myself (self-enforced, as I only play vs. the AI at this point) is to only carry fuel in "liquid" storage space; no loading fuel in dry cargo space. This has a significant effect on gameplay, to say the least.


Go to PBEM, You'll never look back. I also use the no dry space rule....GP


[&:]



Dili -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 9:31:37 PM)

Yep you get bad habit playing the AI, your brain even starts to feel scripted... PBEM is completely different



Canoerebel -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 10:33:20 PM)

Alessandro was probably question-marking the "no dry space" phrase. If so, Allessandro, that's a reference to cargo ships (xAKs) having "dry space" and tankers (TKs) having "wet space." btd64 and other players are saying they prefer to use only TKs to carry fuel, using xAKs only to carry supplies (dry stuff). That's because xAKs can carry fuel at half capacity, which doesn't sit right with these players as it increases the ability to move fuel dramatically. (Some xAKs carry both supplies and fuel, with most of the space for supplies but a small capacity for fuel, and these players consider it fine to use them in those capacities.)



Canoerebel -> RE: House Rules (9/24/2019 10:35:07 PM)

PBEM is a heckuva lot of fun but a bunch of players (perhaps a decided majority) play AI because of time constraints or other preferences. It's pretty clear they feel slighted or left out or demeaned by us PBEM players that harp on the fact that PBEM is more challenging (due to AI limitations) and more fun. Nearly everybody acknowledges those things but we do well to respect the choices of our brethren and to avoid diminishing the quality of their gaming.



jagsdomain -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 2:46:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

PBEM is a heckuva lot of fun but a bunch of players (perhaps a decided majority) play AI because of time constraints or other preferences. It's pretty clear they feel slighted or left out or demeaned by us PBEM players that harp on the fact that PBEM is more challenging (due to AI limitations) and more fun. Nearly everybody acknowledges those things but we do well to respect the choices of our brethren and to avoid diminishing the quality of their gaming.

I will try a email game when I get more Experance. The AI sent 1 heavy 1 light cruiser and 2 dd do dock in a town they dont own. And a bb .ca and dd were 5 hexs away but was 2 different groups.
Dont think a real person would have dobt that.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.90625