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

bradfordkay -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/12/2006 7:45:51 AM)
"The game makes "night" way too long," Actually, Mike, at the equator the day tends to equal the night, with only slight variations as the seasons (!) progress. Here we have a game that represents a huge section of the globe, so it cannot be exptected to be able to recognize that in early July Seattle has 17 hours of daylight while Hobart will have only 7 hours of daylight. The twelve/twelve setup is a reasonable choice. Of course, what I have never liked is giving bombardment TFs twenty four hours of movement in those twelve hours...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/12/2006 10:27:49 AM)
Strategic bombardments of this nature are pure and utter fantasy. The only reason these ships were even still there is A) I don't play "Sir Robin". B) many have just been torped by the BS torp strikes by 2E bombers (something I think stinks and is fantasy island drivel but accept it, but must wait to move ships thanks to the equally BS flotation damage model which allows progressive flooding of weeks), and C) startegic bombardments were banned in our house rules. What can I say...I don't want to play a lunacy style game. I officially fold based on this. No sour grapes, I thought this was a serious game. Any takers?

RETIRED -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/12/2006 1:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "The game makes "night" way too long," Actually, Mike, at the equator the day tends to equal the night, with only slight variations as the seasons (!) progress. Here we have a game that represents a huge section of the globe, so it cannot be exptected to be able to recognize that in early July Seattle has 17 hours of daylight while Hobart will have only 7 hours of daylight. The twelve/twelve setup is a reasonable choice. Of course, what I have never liked is giving bombardment TFs twenty four hours of movement in those twelve hours... Acrually, what I said was "The game makes "night" way too long, and "night bombardments" way too easy for slower ships to accomplish." And I think we agree that even a 12-hour "night" that allows 24 hours of steaming is "way too long".

Sonny -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/12/2006 9:23:45 PM)
Yes the night is too long in terms of bombardment etc. It has two move phases in order to make up for daytime which has only one movement phase. If the phases were more fluid/interactive (or whatever you want to call it) then there would not be a need for two night phases. If every two hours the ships and planes moved then there would be no need for the extra night move time. Search planes set out at 6 am. when they spot a TF bombers are sent out at the next phase (say 8 am). In the mean time ships have moved two hours worth of movement etc. Then the bombardment TFs which started in toward their target at 4 pm might not get attacked until 8 am the following morning (depending of course on how fast they are and how close they started). This gives them 16 hours to get in, get 'er done and get out. I think of it as the night being two 8 hour phases (for movement) and day time as 8 hours (split into two air strike phases of 4 hours each). Isn't exactly the way it should be but for a game I guess it is ok. I would like to see an additional naval movement phase between am and pm at a minimum.

bradfordkay -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 3:51:50 AM)
There is really only one nighttime movement phase and one daytime movement phase. The fact that the daytime movement phase occurs before any air search or attack means that, in effect, all TFs perform their movement entirely under the cover of darkness (when dealing with air attack).

RETIRED -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 5:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay There is really only one nighttime movement phase and one daytime movement phase. The fact that the daytime movement phase occurs before any air search or attack means that, in effect, all TFs perform their movement entirely under the cover of darkness (when dealing with air attack). Which is really kind of stupid when you think about it. There are two "air phases" - so why doesn't one of them occur before the second naval movement phase? It's always puzzled me....

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 5:44:52 AM)
Exactly, and the fact that bombardments target everything results in airfields, port facilities, fuel and supply dumps, aircraft, ships all getting nuked by one 30 minute blind shoot. Utter pishposh! What would happen if say, San Francisco were targetted in a game by a Kongo and Haruna, the two BBs which hit Henderson Field in Oct 42 (the basis for the entire bombardment model in WITP it seems[8\|])? I'll tell you...an even bigger bag netted than in the Soerabaja example just posted. There are literally hundreds of ships all over the area in San Francisco and these two BBs would basically "nuke" the whole area...most likely half the ships in Mare Island Navy Yard, San Francisco Bay and wherever ships may be in that hex would be hit. Brilliant.[8\|] Unfortunately, this same routine is used if one were to prep a beach for a landing in the hex...even more brilliant.[:@] So yet again house rules can't fix or dance around poorly thought design. Let's add unheard of levels of detail to units etc and then place them in a bathtub.,,,which is basically what has happened here.

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 5:13:38 PM)
Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat. This has the added benefit of being realistic, as compared to having 200 ships sitting utterly undefended, yet somehow invincible and smug, in a relatively small anchorage on the front line. Where is the spot at this base where 200 ships could hide in such safety as you desire? And what is realistic about 200 ships sitting at anchor, with no covering forces whatsoever, within a couple of hours flying time of two major enemy bases?

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 6:42:26 PM)
Let's face the reality Ron. This game is unrealistic and unplayable. It doesn't give players the results that they think they should get. The mechanics give results which people think don't represent their interpretation of how it should be. Ban all naval bombardments and air port attacks, or learn to play the mechanics of the game so as to acheive a reasonable outcome. Time for us to move on. I'm unwilling to fight every outcome that you think is unreasonable. Good Luck!

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 8:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat. This has the added benefit of being realistic, as compared to having 200 ships sitting utterly undefended, yet somehow invincible and smug, in a relatively small anchorage on the front line. Where is the spot at this base where 200 ships could hide in such safety as you desire? And what is realistic about 200 ships sitting at anchor, with no covering forces whatsoever, within a couple of hours flying time of two major enemy bases? It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments, leaving ships in a very large international harbor and naval base (not a small anchorage) with aircraft, mines (rarely work anyway), coastal defence guns, and warships as defence. I accepted the possibility of air attack and absorbed two huge ones already but at least these are not restricted by house rules and but very pro aircraft (especially torpedo armed 2Es that get to smash everything in the harbor as they defy operational limitations and have no counter, many of which existed historically with anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, limted room to maneuver a 2E plane...seriously, somebody post an example). Nobody banned port air attacks however, that would be silly. But I was under the understanding that bombardments of the strategic type were banned as per Halsey's standard house rules so I took no specific action to prevent such a grossly porked bombardment model from occuring. Then it happens... Of course I am miffed. Nobody in their right mind would leave that much shipping in a port if bombardments of this type were allowed. That's why I cried foul. If it's a lunacy game we were playing, those ships would have been gone by now, screw moving resources, oil, retreating units...

bradfordkay -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 8:51:52 PM)
"Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat." This is not easy if the base is within enemy torpedo bomber range, which just about any allied front line or second line base will be. If you try to keep SCTFs at these locations, they will be devastated by air attack - thus the need to disband the TFs if you want to keep the ships handy for offensive operations.

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 10:03:44 PM)
quote: This is not easy if the base is within enemy torpedo bomber range, which just about any allied front line or second line base will be. If you try to keep SCTFs at these locations, they will be devastated by air attack - thus the need to disband the TFs if you want to keep the ships handy for offensive operations. It's rock-paper-scissors. If you scissors keep getting smashed by the other guy's rock, which is too big to be covered by your paper, then I guess maybe you don't have control of the sea around your base. If you don't have sea control, then the base is not secure enough to base operations on. The game does allow for reaction interceptions as well, your covering SCTF can loiter further back, perhaps out of air range. This is exactly how the Scott/Callaghan TFs intercepted Hiei & Kirishima on Nov 13. If you do have a significant air presence in the hex, your CAP can make it prohibitively expensive for the enemy bombers to attack your SCTF. This is absolutely realistic, setting up a mulit-layered defense, far more realistic than to just saying that bombardments are too effective. Bombardments can be very effective when they are unopposed. Bombardments can be nearly impossible to pull off in the face of an effective defense. To me, this is just about the most fun part of the game. It is why the RL campaign in the solomons is so interesting. Opposing bases within striking range of each other by sea and air, locked in a struggle for survival.

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 10:15:28 PM)
quote: It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments, Another of which would be not trying to make 200 ships immune from attack by disbanding them at a port that is on the front line. But neither of these was ruled out according to the list of house rules we agreed to. And if you had not been doing the one, we would not have done the other. It wasn't your base we were attacking, it was those 200 otherwise-invulnerable ships.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/13/2006 11:27:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant quote: It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments, Another of which would be not trying to make 200 ships immune from attack by disbanding them at a port that is on the front line. But neither of these was ruled out according to the list of house rules we agreed to. And if you had not been doing the one, we would not have done the other. It wasn't your base we were attacking, it was those 200 otherwise-invulnerable ships. Tony, you guys just attacked the port with 150 plus level bombers and scored heavy damage on the shipping with both torpedoes and bombs. This hardly describes the disbanded ships as invulnerable. At a cost of 38 2Es, it was fairly cheap. Nothing to stop you from doing so again as we can't ban port attacks simply because the designers are out to lunch on this. If there were barrage balloons (modelled in other GG games but not this one for some reason) and torpedo nets (a bad omission considering they allowed 2E torpedo attacks in port with zero historical precedent) present, this cost would have been much higher and damage limited mainly to that done by bombs. But everybody knows that the naval bombardment model is porked and that is why so much has been made of it on the forums and why it is in Halsey's house rule list, which I understood to be in effect along with any added. That's the basis for my complaint. You guys are making it sound like I want to nerf your ability get at these ships or something...I'm not being difficult or impossible, I just wanted a game that attempted to be somewhat more realistic through the use of select house rules. And this included the elimination of fast strategic bombardment TFs that are not supporting amphibious landings or in support of LCUs (these should be patrol do not retire TFs as well IMO) which are in effect more powerful than strategic bombers. Eliminate these, at least vs substantial mainland bases to allow for the odd Henderson Field situation, because the model is just to darn poor. As you guys well remember, these ships in Soerabaja are obviously not invulnerable from air attacks... Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 23,66 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 28 G4M1 Betty x 74 H6K4 Mavis x 5 Allied aircraft Hawk 75A x 6 CW-21B Demon x 3 Brewster 339D x 7 Buffalo I x 5 Hurricane IIb x 7 P-40B Tomahawk x 3 P-40E Warhawk x 12 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged G4M1 Betty: 18 destroyed, 38 damaged H6K4 Mavis: 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses Hawk 75A: 4 destroyed CW-21B Demon: 1 damaged Brewster 339D: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged Buffalo I: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged Hurricane IIb: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged Allied Ships AK Dos Hermanos, Torpedo hits 1, on fire SS KVII, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Churruca, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CL Durban, Bomb hits 2 DD Pillsbury, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Belawan, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, on fire AK Schwartenkonst, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Silindoeng, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Java, Bomb hits 1 Allied ground losses: 397 casualties reported Guns lost 12 Vehicles lost 1 Port hits 2 Port supply hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 7 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 5 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 1 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet 3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 23,66 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 26 G3M Nell x 68 H6K4 Mavis x 4 Allied aircraft Hawk 75A x 1 CW-21B Demon x 1 Brewster 339D x 2 Buffalo I x 2 Hurricane IIb x 2 P-40B Tomahawk x 1 P-40E Warhawk x 3 Japanese aircraft losses G3M Nell: 10 destroyed, 48 damaged H6K4 Mavis: 2 damaged Allied aircraft losses Hawk 75A: 1 destroyed CW-21B Demon: 1 destroyed Brewster 339D: 1 destroyed Buffalo I: 3 destroyed Hurricane IIb: 2 destroyed P-40B Tomahawk: 2 destroyed P-40E Warhawk: 6 destroyed Allied Ships ML Prins van Oranje, Bomb hits 1, on fire SS Rover, Bomb hits 1, on fire CL Mauritius, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage AK Ban Ho Guan, Bomb hits 1 AK Tasman, Bomb hits 1, on fire TK Benakat, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, on fire TK Hermes, Torpedo hits 1 CL Sumatra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire Allied ground losses: 263 casualties reported Guns lost 3 Vehicles lost 1 Port supply hits 2 Aircraft Attacking: 13 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 5 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell bombing at 6000 feet 5 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet 11 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet 1 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet 1 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 4 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 3 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 1 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet 2 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet

tsimmonds -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/14/2006 3:34:19 AM)
Should it be impossible to use ships to attack 200 enemy ships that are crowded together in a single hex? Why did you have those ships disbanded in port rather than in TFs? 1) They are invulnerable to attack by SCTFs. 2) They have better flak vs air attacks; all ships at anchor fire flak together. 3) Another reason? Those first two are as gamey as anything you are complaining about. No, you are right, they aren't invulnerable to air attacks, we can attack them using port attacks. But you complain about the port air attacks every time one happens. The only way we can attack them with ships is to bombard them. You don't like that either. Do you really think that a ship at anchor in a port should be immune to attack from the sea? Mers el Kebir, Casablanca, Oran.

ETF -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/25/2006 1:37:22 AM)
Guys is there a up tp date listing of your house rules? Thx

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/25/2006 10:12:14 PM)
Not lately. Been too busy playing.[;)] OK, modified changing HQ's for India Command LCU's for CHS.[;)]

ETF -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/26/2006 4:26:37 PM)
haha ok............just D/L CHS with the experimental scenario. Wow I can't believe I have been playing Stock all this time!!! Is there a comprehensive change log for all the changes made to CHS. I have been to the site and see several info area but they don't seem to list say for example the OOB changes etc for all nation? I take it this is a work in progress. The MOD is amazing!!

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/26/2006 4:44:36 PM)
Welcome to CHS! It's all I've played for almost a year and a half.[:D] It pretty much complete, except for some tweaking by AB every now and then. I consider it a lot more realistic. It is a lot tougher on the Japanese than stock. That's for sure, and the Chinese have teeth in this game. The China and Burma fronts WILL require extra muscle if the Japanese plan to do well there. Go to Spooky's and get the ship graphic mods for CHS. You won't regret it. It's a compilation of all the artists that visit this forum.[&o] Went back and updated the listings.[;)] For the new players, and old alike.[:D]

SgtSwanson -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/26/2006 7:51:56 PM)
A lot of these rules could have been wiped out by implimneting a decent Chain of Command model. For example: Watchtower didn't start until AFTER SoPac HQ was established and in Noumea. But in the game you can move practically any unit from just about any command and park them on the Canal from day 1.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/27/2006 1:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ETF Is there a comprehensive change log for all the changes made to CHS. I have been to the site and see several info area but they don't seem to list say for example the OOB changes etc for all nation? I take it this is a work in progress. It is very much a "work in progress" instead of a completed mod, although there really isn't any "progress" on CHS these days. Nearly all of the original regular contributors have moved on, and nobody has taken over the coordination of further scenario updates. It is supposed to be playable in its current form though. And sadly, as is often the case, documentation is always the last thing to be completed... Having said that, I am compiling a list of bugs in CHS that I intend to fix. This is just bugs, plus a few tweaks - not enhancements or new features. So there should be another CHS update out fairly soon, alomg with a map update which fixes two faults that have been on my map "fix list" for ages - putting Mandalay on the proper side of the river, and the railway in Cambodia. Andrew

Andrew Brown -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (12/27/2006 1:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson A lot of these rules could have been wiped out by implimneting a decent Chain of Command model. For example: Watchtower didn't start until AFTER SoPac HQ was established and in Noumea. But in the game you can move practically any unit from just about any command and park them on the Canal from day 1. I agree. I would love to see a proper chain of command added to WitP. Note that I removed SOPAC (and SWPAC) from the US at start forces in CHS, but as you say this doesn't translate to a real handicap for Allied players. Andrew

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (1/17/2007 1:22:29 AM)
For the newer players.[;)] The more I play with the airfield stacking restriction, the more I like it. You don't need any air to air/ flak mod when playing this way.[;)] You'll see very few bunny stomps in the air unless you can organize coordinated strikes with other airfields.

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (5/31/2007 11:05:32 PM)
Bump Before this thread get buried again under a myriad of posts.[;)][:D]

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (6/14/2007 7:50:49 PM)
Bump for players now realizing that there are a lot of exploits concerning this game and it's mechanics.[;)]

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (8/12/2007 2:52:23 PM)
We need a sticky for this inflamatory thread.[;)][:D]

Halsey -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (3/29/2008 5:53:30 PM)
bump

HansBolter -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (3/31/2008 5:10:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey 14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung Command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are No India Command LCU's may leave India/Ceylon unless it's HQ is changed. Only India Command LCU's that start in Burma are exempt from this rule. (CHS addition) Play balance feature.* Stock game doesn't have an "India" command...only a Southeast Asia Command, to which India and Burma both belong. How do you keep Indian SEA command units from being deployed to the Burma area of the the SEA command and why do you do this?

bradfordkay -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (4/1/2008 10:55:37 PM)
From "Small Ship, Big War" by Cuttlefish: "He trusts his ability, of course, but only a fool gives his opponent a fair chance at victory." Couldn't this comment also apply to house rules (at lest some of those we've seen posted)?

Anthropoid -> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules (6/13/2009 6:48:02 PM)
I'm wondering if the list on the first page of this thread still includes stuff that is now irrelevant based on the latest patch?

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875