RE: Non-scenario specific house rules

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (Full Version)

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

Message

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 7:22:03 PM)
Added one more to reflect players opinions about the over generous TF bombardment mission. Remember! These are all optional! Do whatever floats your boat!

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 7:24:13 PM)
....or sinks the other guy's[;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 10:05:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Yabbut. That only works if you're gaming with someone who's reasonable[:'(][;)] WHY would you want to play a 1600 turn game against someone who's not reasonable?

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 10:32:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Yabbut. That only works if you're gaming with someone who's reasonable[:'(][;)] WHY would you want to play a 1600 turn game against someone who's not reasonable? It's a, I say, it's a joke, son. I was giving Halsey, my eminently reasonable opponent, a hard time. See the smilies?[;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 10:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Yabbut. That only works if you're gaming with someone who's reasonable[:'(][;)] WHY would you want to play a 1600 turn game against someone who's not reasonable? It's a, I say, it's a joke, son. I was giving Halsey, my eminently reasonable opponent, a hard time. See the smilies?[;)] Your jaws a flappin' but nothin's a comin' out!

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2005 11:18:23 PM)
I've known Irrelevant for 40 years. He can't help himself! [:D] Yeah, I did pull back that Chinese Corps at Homan that morphed itself into an Army! [:D] Is what I don't understand about Irrelevant is this. Why do you keep coming back time and time again for all those thrashings! [;)] East Front anyone?[:D] A glutton for punishment, you are!

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/2/2005 4:17:36 PM)
quote: Why do you keep coming back time and time again for all those thrashings! East Front anyone? A glutton for punishment, you are! I liked driving the pretty green tanks around. The gray ones kept blowing them up though.

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/5/2005 2:00:01 PM)
This would put a stop to the gamey rush-in-at-night-to-bombard-the-airbase-to-kill-the-planes type attacks: No bombardments allowed without a friendly LCU in the hex. This could possibly be draconian in the sense that it prevents some legitimate bombardment activity (pre-invasion bombardment), but now I'm not so sure that such bombardments are much good in the game in any case. Their effect seems to be concentrated among airbase support units. Disabling support squads is always good, but it is hardly the result being sought by the bombardier.

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/5/2005 2:44:19 PM)
That kinda makes sense. After the IJA withdrew from Lunga, how many Tokyo Express bombardments went in? How many freewheeling bombardments happened? The only real way to hit LCU combat troops is with airpower. Your right, naval bombardments attack support/engs. So against LCU's defending from an invasion they have limited success.

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/5/2005 3:17:29 PM)
Should also allow bombardment to support a landing that starts in the same turn as the bombardment.

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/5/2005 7:56:45 PM)
Definitely![;)]

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (5/11/2005 3:12:26 PM)
ttt for TheElf[;)]

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (5/15/2005 4:25:22 AM)
bump for the new guys![;)]

Knavey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (5/15/2005 4:29:07 AM)
I just did a search for this one, and could not find it. Search engine was borking out on me...hence the other post.

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (5/15/2005 4:30:45 AM)
No problemo![;)]

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/30/2005 5:56:57 PM)
bump for elxaime Halsey: you should add the one about no bombardments without friendly LCUs in the hex to the top post. I forgot all about it.

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/30/2005 8:00:04 PM)
Too late! That rule has already been violated. Now you must pay.[:D] And pay. And pay.[;)]

jwilkerson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/30/2005 8:47:45 PM)
Do the friendly LCUs "in the hex" have to be unloaded ? Or can they just be aboard a ship in the hex ?

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/30/2005 9:26:38 PM)
LCU's must be on the ground. This would simulate a support mission instead of a naval strategic attack. So, the same turn as an invasion a bombardment can happen. Then can continue to happen. I imagine some kind of agreement could be reached on pre invasion sites. Allowing up to a week for preparation. That is, if you want to telegraph your intent.[;)] Airstrikes are not restricted.

jwilkerson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/30/2005 10:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey LCU's must be on the ground. This would simulate a support mission instead of a naval strategic attack. So, the same turn as an invasion a bombardment can happen. Then can continue to happen. I imagine some kind of agreement could be reached on pre invasion sites. Allowing up to a week for preparation. That is, if you want to telegraph your intent.[;)] Airstrikes are not restricted. IRW more like a day or two at most for the ones I can recall ( like Siapan ). Edit: Found a 13 day pre-bombardment by USN prior to Guam landing ... longest lead time found so far ...

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 3:37:26 AM)
I think that is a good amount of leeway. Up to two weeks if it's an invasion site. This is our attempt to stop the strategic naval bombardment mechanic. What do you think JW? Does this sound like a reasonable attempt to moderate its use?

jwilkerson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 4:40:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey I think that is a good amount of leeway. Up to two weeks if it's an invasion site. This is our attempt to stop the strategic naval bombardment mechanic. What do you think JW? Does this sound like a reasonable attempt to moderate its use? Sure does ! Edit: Of course an "exploit" would be to fast trans in a piece of a NLF ( like on 1 DD ) to satisfy the "feet on the ground" requirement. So maybe to be more complete, having a minimum AV requirement for feet on the ground would shore up that loop hole ... so either 40+ AV in the hex .. or invasion with 40+ AV planned ( with 50+ PP points at moment of first bombardment ) for the hex and "must land" within 2 weeks - how does that sound ?

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 4:51:04 AM)
Or to simplify it even further. No LCU fragments may be used to fulfill the LCU requirement to conduct naval bombardments. Naval bombardments may be conducted up to two weeks prior to an invasion. Give or take a few days leeway.[;)]

mogami -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 6:07:05 AM)
Hi, So your saying because of the "BB exploit" it is ok to pile 900 aircraft onto a base and launch 400 ac raids from a base you can't defend from naval attacks unless the enemy also sends an invasion? (So you can move in AC fly till the other side gets invasion ready and then run away) I think if you can't stop a base bombardment with your navy then you don't have any business putting aircraft there. The reason such things did not occur in WWII was neither side left exposed airfields loaded with ac. This looks like a way to cover up ineptitude and turn it to advantage. The Allies have no business planning invasions while the IJN exists. Neither side has any business putting aircraft on fields they can't defend in range of enemy surface groups. I won't use this rule. (and I use a lot of rules I don't enforce on my opponents) The best way to stop BS bombardments is to have a surface TF waiting and kick the bombardment groups butt.

jwilkerson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 6:37:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, So your saying because of the "BB exploit" it is ok to pile 900 aircraft onto a base and launch 400 ac raids from a base you can't defend from naval attacks unless the enemy also sends an invasion? (So you can move in AC fly till the other side gets invasion ready and then run away) I think if you can't stop a base bombardment with your navy then you don't have any business putting aircraft there. The reason such things did not occur in WWII was neither side left exposed airfields loaded with ac. This looks like a way to cover up ineptitude and turn it to advantage. The Allies have no business planning invasions while the IJN exists. Neither side has any business putting aircraft on fields they can't defend in range of enemy surface groups. I won't use this rule. (and I use a lot of rules I don't enforce on my opponents) The best way to stop BS bombardments is to have a surface TF waiting and kick the bombardment groups butt. Good thing the historical USN didn't have to live with this rule or the war would never have ended. Gualalcanal, Tarawa, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan ... were all planned while the IJN existed ... and without Siapan we would not have drawn the IJN out to be "destroyed" ( some might argue IJN wasn't destroyed until Leyte - we thought this at the time - but loss of IJN carrier pilots at Saipan was effective destruction in my book ). And if you want to hold out that Leyte was destruction of IJN, then fine .. but invasion of Leyte was then planned while IJN existed.

mogami -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 6:47:06 AM)
Hi, This may be a shock to you but the USN thought it had sunk all of Japans fleet CV before planning "Watchtower" Had they know Japan still had 2 fleet CV they may not have went. They thought 3 CV were sunk at Coral Sea and 4 at Midway. No bombardment can ever reach you if you are the side with operational CV and the enemy has none. Did it sound like I was suggesting you had to sink every last DD? Before Tarawa Japan had lost it's advantage in surface ships and CV. Unless the Allied player has done the same he has no right trying to land on a Japanese base. (Because the IJN will show up and ruin the party) The IJN airforce was wrecked after the Solomon campaign (before all but Watchtower ) After Guadalcanal the USN was never worried that the IJN could send a larger force to oppose a landing then the USN could dispose to defend it. Unless you can do the same stay at home. Before you can begin Island hopping you have to get the IJN into a fight and beat it. Once you can beat any force they send you can start making landings. I have encountered Allied players in WITP who are sending the USN into battle before they even bother to train the ships crews (most of the USN begins below 50 in night fighting) And they go deep into Japanese space (Tarawa in ealry 42) and they then post the game is broke moves too fast and is biased to the Japanese.

jwilkerson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 7:14:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, This may be a shock to you but the USN thought it had sunk all of Japans fleet CV before planning "Watchtower" Had they know Japan still had 2 fleet CV they may not have went. They thought 3 CV were sunk at Coral Sea and 4 at Midway. No bombardment can ever reach you if you are the side with operational CV and the enemy has none. Did it sound like I was suggesting you had to sink every last DD? Before Tarawa Japan had lost it's advantage in surface ships and CV. Unless the Allied player has done the same he has no right trying to land on a Japanese base. (Because the IJN will show up and ruin the party) The IJN airforce was wrecked after the Solomon campaign (before all but Watchtower ) After Guadalcanal the USN was never worried that the IJN could send a larger force to oppose a landing then the USN could dispose to defend it. Unless you can do the same stay at home. Before you can begin Island hopping you have to get the IJN into a fight and beat it. Once you can beat any force they send you can start making landings. Nope not a shock since this is false. USN was very much in tune with Japanese carrier strength for most of the war due to signals intercepts. USN did perhaps over estimate IJN carrier ability before Tarawa, Kwajalein, Saipan, Leyte landings ... but they did not under estimate ( i.e. think the IJN did not exist ). USN expected IJN to come and fight before each of these invasions but only Saipan and Leyte drew them out. USN probably misjudged ( over-rated ) IJN carrier strength the most prior to Leyte ... we did not realise just how hopeless IJN pilot training program was. switching topics ! Example in game I am playing now. I am Japanese. Enemy has turned Soerabaja into a fortress ... moved in 2 extra divisions as well as most of Dutch units. I am beseiging but he has lots of planes still at Soerabaja ... and so much flak ... when I bomb I lose 8 betty's per turn just to the flak. Now the USN did not "plan an invasion" in this case, I just can't take Soerabaja ... and there are no carriers around. But I did bombard Soerabaja to try to supress the airfield. Had he tried to move in a Surface force, I would've seen it comming from far away ( I have search over most of IO ) and been able to react with naval bombers. But his air is very protected by the flak - just not from the sea ( yet ! ). But in my case I do not feel guilty using bombardment, because I do have 9 divisions plus lots of supporting troops in the hex ... I definitely know where the enemy is located !!! BTW I do not know what "BB exploit" is !? !? I must have missed that thread. But I also did not know until this week that bombardment TF is immune to hitting enemy mines in target hex ... I would've bombarded much sooner had I known that !!! In general I agree with you that players can defend important port hexes with surface TF ... in several games, opponents have "come back to the well" once too many times ... and ultimately taken heavy losses trying to bombard my ports .. but Japanese ( I mostly play Japanese ) cannot defend everything early on ... and some Allied TF will get through .. but if they keep comming back ... they will get their just rewards eventually ! I do not consider the existing situation to be intolerable. But based on historical record IRL, I think the Halsey/Irrelevant house rule has merit. Edit: Oh the results I acheived when I bombarded Soerabaja ... 14,000 troops disabled, 322 runway hits ... 50+ planes destroyed ... roughly what I remember anyway ... and I had 7 BB and 8 Cx/DD ... is this the "BB Exploit" ? Edit #2: Went and checked several sources and I'm am now sure that both King and Nimitz knew that both Zuikaku and Shokaku survived Coral Sea during period immediately following Coral Sea Battle. If Mogami also believes he has attestable sources to the contrary we can compare notes. But in my book saying USN thought it had sunk all of Japans fleet CV before planning "Watchtower" is not reconcilable with both King and Nimitz knowing that both Shokaku and Zuikaku survived Coral Sea. For example, how many of you have heard of "Wounded Bear" ? This was code name for Shokaku immediately after Coral Sea battle. USN submarines were attempting to catch her and sink her on her way home from Coral Sea Battle. Why would they do this is they knew she was sunk ? ( no answer possible for this question ). And Admiral King's estimate of 17 May for Midway OOB of IJN included possibility that Zuikaku would be present in IJN striking force attacking Aleutians or CENPAC area in late May early June ( why would he do this - if he knew - or thought - she had been sunk - again - no answer possible ).

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 4:10:58 PM)
Good reading and conversion. But after thinking about what you fellows are saying concering rule #20 and what Mogami is saying I really don't like the rule either. If you can't protect it- it should not be there.[:)]

Terminus -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 4:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant It's a, I say, it's a joke, son. I was giving Halsey, my eminently reasonable opponent, a hard time. See the smilies?[;)] Why, it's Foghorn Leghorn! You've come out of retirement?[:D]

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (7/31/2005 11:59:23 PM)
Out of curiousity sake. How many deep penetration pure naval bombardments took place during the war? That were not used in support of ground forces. It's unfortunate that the game mechanics allow LBA overstacking and strategic naval bombardments. I know some of these rules are a feeble attempt to correct an oversight on this games developement. Unfortunately house rules are the only way to attempt to achieve some historical resemblance for this game.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8603516