RE: House rules (Full Version)

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



Message

Ambassador -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 8:23:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

That's what I call a "problem". It's not the violation of the HR per-se. It's the fact that he simply and plainly lied and that this situation had major strategic consequences for me, the opponent.


I don’t do much PBEM, when I do it’s with RL friends, but this is the crux of the matter. You need to have mutual trust with your opponent, if you plan to have any house rule. There is no arbiter in the game, no third-party control authority, so if you can’t trust your opponent to respect the HR (or vice versa), you’d better not have any.



dwesolick -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 3:58:47 PM)

I haven't done a PBEM game since the old UV days but I've often considered one in WitPAE. Just curious if there is ever a house rule regarding the PH attack? Theoretically, the Japanese player could keep KB at PH for multiple turns, hammering the place into powder. Or he could go after the Enterprise and Lex since their positions are known and they would be highly vulnerable. Has this ever been an issue?



RangerJoe -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 4:43:18 PM)

There usually is a HR for no carrier hunting on turn 1.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 5:57:01 PM)

Defo the 4E port attack HS; No attacks under 10,000ft, or were the combat calculations fixed? One can create havoc in sending a few squadrons of B17 in the earlier game and cripple a whole fleet with them while they anchor. Just my 2c.

Klink, Oberst



Ambassador -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 6:20:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I haven't done a PBEM game since the old UV days but I've often considered one in WitPAE. Just curious if there is ever a house rule regarding the PH attack? Theoretically, the Japanese player could keep KB at PH for multiple turns, hammering the place into powder. Or he could go after the Enterprise and Lex since their positions are known and they would be highly vulnerable. Has this ever been an issue?

There is sometimes a rule limiting the number of Port strikes on the first turn, to avoid (for example) using the surprise on both Manila and PH. But apart of the rule mentioned by RJ about CV hunting, I have never seen a HR limiting the number of turns the IJ player may keep KB around PH (but I don’t read every single AAR, and only occasionally read the Opponent Wanted threads).

As a mostly exterior observer to PBEMs, I have noted a tendency, along the years, reducing the number of HR the players agree on at the start of a game. A lingering KB is not necessarily at the advantage of the IJN, a lot of players are wary of launching a second day strike, fearing losses (or surface ships sortying in the hope of catching a CV), so such a rule is probably not needed.



Nomad -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 6:26:57 PM)

A second PH attack can be painful for the IJN. If the Allied player changes out commanders and pilots and puts all the fighters on CAP he can shot down a lot of good IJN pilots and will disrupt the attacking bombers.

As far as trying to hit the USN CVs, they can move 9 hexes in any direction on turn 1, so it can be a bit hard to find them.



RangerJoe -> RE: House rules (2/27/2021 6:42:15 PM)

As far as the KB lingering around the Hawaiian Islands, in one game the USS Arizona sallied forth and help to sink three IJN carriers.[X(] To his credit, the Japanese player continued the game.[&o]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875