RE: House Rules (Full Version)

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



Message

AlessandroW -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 1:39:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

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.)



Thanks for the clarification!



Gridley380 -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 2:13:32 PM)


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.


Not sure I feel "slighted", but the rest is well said.

For me it is a commitment issue. At *best* I'd be able to flip one turn a day in PBEM. That means to do a GC I'm making about a four year commitment. Four years from now I might be on a nice, stable schedule... or I might be on a development project working twelve hour days with time for maybe one turn a week. Then there's the fact that I'd want to play as the Allies, so I'd need to find a player for the Japanese side who I can be confident won't fade away when the game turns against them. The best way to do that is pick someone who's posted an AAR... which means they're an experienced player who will kick my butt for the first year. :-}

Someday I do expect to get there, but it won't be this year.



Kull -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 2:37:00 PM)

Without diving into the "PBEM vs AI" debate, I hope that PBEM players are making use of the Andy Mac scenario update files, in particular those which he released to accompany Patch 07 (the last official AE update). Reason being that those "AI updates" ALSO include a number of database fixes. If PBEM players omit that update, they are missing out on the AA and ASW fixes that were identified by the "Da Babes" team (and included in those mods).

Scenario releases since then have included additional database fixes, all of which PBEM players will miss out on if they are dismissive about adding "AI updates".



821Bobo -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 4:10:57 PM)

Ive never noticed that scenarios were updated. Why it was no included in patch?
Also not every WitP player is here on the forum.



HansBolter -> RE: House Rules (9/25/2019 6:18:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

Ive never noticed that scenarios were updated. Why it was no included in patch?
Also not every WitP player is here on the forum.



Matrix stopped issuing official patched some time ago.

Several of the developers continued offering support after Matrix stopped and they issued the unofficial beta patches many of us now use.

Eventually, even the developer support began to wain and they very rarely appear here now.

We have michaelm to thank for the beta patches, bug fixes and added features and andymac to thank for the scenario AI updates and Ironman scenarios.

This game enjoyed considerable post release support, more than most games and the fact that this is the busiest forum on the matrix site is a testament to how popular this game remains.

Players who aren't using this forum are missing out on a lot.



rustysi -> RE: House Rules (9/27/2019 8:50:31 PM)

quote:

but 2nd Air Div air groups in Manchukuo cant move to China.


Really? Why not?

quote:

The flip side is the Allies can freely move British Indian Army land units the other way.


By the time these units are of any real use Japan should have already won.

quote:

Sweep: I though that flying your fighters at their best maneuver level would be enough to limit this problem


Problem I have with this is that I have to know all my fighters maneuver levels. For me I would use the KISS method, '43, 20k, '44, 25k, '45, 31k.

quote:

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


Reference highlight.

In a word, yes. Keep in mind that bombing is bombing in the game. Now bombing a city is different than bombing airfields or ground troops. In the game, IMHO, the emphasis has been placed on city bombing. This is what is needed for the Allies to get a more 'realistic' game outcome, particularly night bombing. The end result is that some of the rest of the nighttime bombing is, shall we say 'skewed'. This has been alluded to by at least one Dev. No, I'll not reference the thread as I've done it before in the past. Someone else may search for it if they desire.



rustysi -> RE: House Rules (9/27/2019 8:55:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

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.


I kinda like this one. Attacks like this could easily be carried out by Japan in the early going, especially in Malaya, and China. To me, at least, mass unsupported armor attacks are rather unrealistic.



rustysi -> RE: House Rules (9/27/2019 8:59:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Without diving into the "PBEM vs AI" debate, I hope that PBEM players are making use of the Andy Mac scenario update files, in particular those which he released to accompany Patch 07 (the last official AE update). Reason being that those "AI updates" ALSO include a number of database fixes. If PBEM players omit that update, they are missing out on the AA and ASW fixes that were identified by the "Da Babes" team (and included in those mods).

Scenario releases since then have included additional database fixes, all of which PBEM players will miss out on if they are dismissive about adding "AI updates".


Plan on doing this update after I end my current game, weather the next be PBEM or not.



Shilka -> RE: House Rules (6/8/2020 5:52:08 AM)

Is there a common practice regarding house rules on fragmented units?

I mean fragmented units unavoidably do exist when unloading and loading, but what do people think of their use as deliberately loading fragments of the same unit on separate TFs (by apparently deliberately not assigning enough troop and/or cargo capacity), which can be used to, e.g. invade or garrison several locations? I.e. same unit in several different locations. I.m.o the game itself provides a good mechanism for dividing a unit in three, which should be the standard of breaking up units, but of course it will allow loading a whole unit only partially as well and therefore breaking it up into two or more fragments (which can be used in two or more locations). Just wondering if, e.g. an infantry regiment is broke up in 3 or 4, it can be used to invade 3 or 4 undefended island hexes, which is kind of not that intriguing to me.

Also another question - basically if a unit gets destroyed it must mostly be bought back with PPs. Therefore would it be justified as a house rule, to prevent taking a very small fragment of some major unit and sitting it back in a well supported base, so it will build back up (free of PPs) and without delays, in case the core unit gets destroyed? (At least that's how I understand the unit respawning currently works, please correct if wrong).

Case example: I see "14th/ 1 Division" sitting in hex X, which is the bulk of the 14th division doing the fighting. The next turn SigINT tells me that "14th Division" (i.e. the parent unit not the fragment unit, which is in reality the bulk unit), is in a transport heading to hex Y, which is a well supported hex completely elsewhere, presumably in case the "14th/ 1 Division" gets destroyed in action.
Thanks.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: House Rules (6/8/2020 12:56:07 PM)

Only divisions can be broken down into A/B/C elements in the game, smaller units are not allowed to be split this way, which is somewhat unfortunate.

For this reason I think most players would accept using fragments to invade undefended islands.

However, using fragments as "sacrifical" units for recon-by-fire or to block LOCs (for example dropping a few paratroopers on undefended bases in Malaya in order to block rail movements) might be considered as unrealistic and gamey by some players.

Intentionally safeguarding a fragment of few squads (known as "cadres") in order to be able to rebuild the unit in case the parent unit gets killed was considered "necessary" in early versions of the game, before the repurchasing of destroyed units with PPs was added with a patch. Doing so now in order to save some PPs instead of paying the price to bring back destroyed units is frowned upon by some players, not at all by others.

There is no "common practice", it all depends what kind of player you and your opponent are - there is the "I'll do anything the game engine allows" crowd and the "I won't exploit the weakness of the engine" crowd, which is sub-divided with different perceptions of what exactly an exploit is. Talk to your opponent before starting a game in order to find a common ground - or a different opponent.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.53125