house rules (Full Version)

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



Message


wieschi -> house rules (5/25/2005 9:26:36 PM)

I`m a newbie in playing witp by email. I read about some houserules. Can anybody give me some hints. A kind of list of all houserules. Maybe with a little explanation. „rule 1 is because...“
Many thanks




Terminus -> RE: house rules (5/25/2005 9:32:12 PM)

You agree with your PBEM opponent on house rules. Examples could be:

- Allied player can issue no orders for December 7th turn to simulate the surprise of the Japanese attack. Exception: orders can be issued to Chinese units, since China had been at war with Japan for years.

- ASW task force size is no more than 4-5 ships. This avoids a smothering effect on the submarines.

- The various preferences and game options settings in the game can also be used as house rules. Turning off Japanese Sub Doctrine, for example, makes Japanese submarines much more likely to attack Allied merchant ships.





tsimmonds -> RE: house rules (5/25/2005 10:14:33 PM)

Here is a link to a good thread about house rules.




John III -> RE: house rules (5/25/2005 10:46:44 PM)

I would add one house rule of great relevance. Limit the American player to no more then 2 CV in a TF through 1942. It seems American players love to put nearly all their eggs in one basket. While beneficial to the American navy, it is TOTALLY unrealistic! The US Navy thought, through doctrine, that carriers should operate in independent TF near each other. Not once in 1941-1942, and well into 1943, did the Americans place their carriers (3 or more) all in one TF.

Even at Midway, Enterprise and Hornet were in one group and Yorktown in another.




rogueusmc -> RE: house rules (5/25/2005 11:02:26 PM)

Puting them all in one basket gets you burned too. They take their chances when they do it.




SgtSwanson -> RE: house rules (5/26/2005 3:39:54 AM)

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]




rogueusmc -> RE: house rules (5/26/2005 4:03:14 AM)

I'm just saying that most of the dice rolls for the air groups are per the TF so puting them all in the same basket you are at the mercy of those dice rolls.

Split them up and you get more chances on the dice rolls.




tsimmonds -> RE: house rules (5/26/2005 4:22:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]

They weren't. Hornet and Enterprise in TF 16 under Spruance, Yorktown in TF 17 under Fletcher. Both in the same 60-mile hex, of course....[;)]




John III -> RE: house rules (5/27/2005 6:39:57 PM)

Thank you Irrelevent! I was about to correct the statement when I saw your posting.

I was to going to add to my original post that the Americans still kept their carriers within supporting range of each other. That worked well but they were still formed into seperate TFs.

When I play the Japanese, I keep the KB together as much as possible but will frequently split them up into Carreir TF of 2-3 Carriers. They have enough punch to stand up and do well and it enables me to spreadout my fighting power some at the start of the war. Eventually, they must all pool together to fight the Americans but that usually takes a while.




Thilo -> RE: house rules (5/28/2005 12:43:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John III

Thank you Irrelevent! I was about to correct the statement when I saw your posting.

I was to going to add to my original post that the Americans still kept their carriers within supporting range of each other. That worked well but they were still formed into seperate TFs.



I think this is a good example of the realism of house-rules.
As far as I recall, Yorktown was in a separate TF due to the time she left PH after her dockyard repair. She had to organise on her own, and a TF is more than just CVs. Its an organisation working together with a special purpose and cannot be joined with another one without temporarily loosing efficiency.
Had Yorktown been ready earlier (E and H left before Y arrived at PH) she maybe would have joined them. But if I rcall it right again, later she was kept separate intentionally due to the fact, that Fletcher was the only americal admiral with experience in a air-naval engagement.

So, I would leave it to the players to decide about the number of CVs in one TF. Each alternative has pros and cons, as it was in reality.




kaiser73 -> RE: house rules (5/28/2005 1:33:51 AM)

if you put too many CV in same TF (so that the max number of aircrafts in the CV exceeds the coordination limit which is 200 for japs and 100 for US in '42) you are just looking for trouble.

the only time i ignored and put all CV in same TF was the one where i nearly lost KB to a weaker enemy CV TF simply cause my strikes were scattered and so easy meat for enemy CAP.

so why putting an houserule to prevent your enemy to make a mistake? [;)]




Halsey -> RE: house rules (5/28/2005 2:45:13 AM)

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]




Ddog -> RE: house rules (6/6/2005 12:34:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]



I think you missed the Sgt's point. I have to agree totally with him. I don't like any rules. It would be like playing a Gettysburg scenerio in a civil war game with a rule you had to make Pickets Charge. I don't like the fact that there are restricted units either. If I'm the supreme commander, then, I "AM" the supreme commander. Just like putting 20 destroyers together for ASW. If I wanted to do that in 41 - 45, then I would have. They need to create a "Hitler" campaign, where there are no "Political" points. Just go do what I say, or report to Berlin. [:D] None of this "the Americans would have never.." BLAH! [:-] It's a game. Kick some A$$ and have some fun.





AmiralLaurent -> RE: house rules (6/6/2005 1:13:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ddog

quote:

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]


I think you missed the Sgt's point. I have to agree totally with him. I don't like any rules. It would be like playing a Gettysburg scenerio in a civil war game with a rule you had to make Pickets Charge. I don't like the fact that there are restricted units either. If I'm the supreme commander, then, I "AM" the supreme commander. Just like putting 20 destroyers together for ASW. If I wanted to do that in 41 - 45, then I would have. They need to create a "Hitler" campaign, where there are no "Political" points. Just go do what I say, or report to Berlin. [:D] None of this "the Americans would have never.." BLAH! [:-] It's a game. Kick some A$$ and have some fun.



Home rules are not made to restrict player's strategic or tactical choices, but to correct the game design. In the real world, when subs attacked convoys escorted by 25 ASW ships they were only searched and eventually attacked by a part of them. In WITP every ship will try to attack. The end result is that the mortality rate for subs is far higher than in RL, without having to commit much ships and planes to do that.

Same thing for the land war, without home rules, Japan can easily conquer Siberia and China in totally unrealistic fashion, that is with the troops historically available that were unable to do that.

You can also use massive night airraids. They are banned by most players because they are totally unrealistic.

The first Japanese move is also "gamey" in design. Sending 100+ ships deep in DEI and denying the Allied side any iniative is just ..... Japanese convoys off Indochina were followed for 2 days by British patrol planes before the landing (and one was shot down the day before PH), so there was no surprise in Malaya, the only question for British being where the troops will land, in Malaya (starting the war) or in Siam. Dutch were also ready, with submarines and patrol planes deployed to watch Japanese activity.




Xargun -> RE: house rules (6/6/2005 8:21:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]


How will you be screwed ? Perhaps you will not launch an effective air strike but with 20+ DDs in the TF you will be nearly invincible to enemy air attacks due to the amount of flak your TF will have. I wish there was a built in limit to the number of escorts you can put in a CV TF.. I don't believe the USN ever had 1-2 CVs at sea with like 20+ escorts like I have seen in some games.

Xargun





Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/6/2005 11:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]


How will you be screwed ? Perhaps you will not launch an effective air strike but with 20+ DDs in the TF you will be nearly invincible to enemy air attacks due to the amount of flak your TF will have. I wish there was a built in limit to the number of escorts you can put in a CV TF.. I don't believe the USN ever had 1-2 CVs at sea with like 20+ escorts like I have seen in some games.

Xargun




Read page 76 of the rules. 15 ships is better than 25. Look again at AA ratings of DDs vs BBs or cruisers. Optimum US CV group in early '42 is 2 CV, 7 CA/CL, 6 DD (and the DDs only for ASW protection).




Halsey -> RE: house rules (6/7/2005 2:43:30 AM)

With a 100 plane limit on coordination in 1942 for the Allies.
Take the chance if you want to.

You might get lucky.Then you might not.[;)]




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: house rules (6/7/2005 2:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Read page 76 of the rules. 15 ships is better than 25.


It says 15 ships or less is "most efficient". Unless I'm horribly wrong it means that in absolute terms 15 ships are not 'better' than 25, but that there is a rule of diminishing returns at work, starting with the 16th ship.
Up to 15 ships will participate in the air defense of the TF with 100% of their AA value, but any additional ship will only participate with a reduced percentage - in order to simulate that not all ships in a big TF could bring all their guns to bear all the time because they might be too far away on the disengaged side of the TF, or their field of fire might be masked by another ship nearby etc..
25 ships in a TF will still throw more deadly steel fragments and bullets into the air than 15 in a TF will do, although the amount will not be as high as the sum of 25 ships placed in individual TFs.
So a TF with 25 ships is better protected than one with 15 ships - provided you have enough crusiers and DDs to spare for beefing-up the screen.




Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/7/2005 7:17:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

It says 15 ships or less is "most efficient". Unless I'm horribly wrong it means that in absolute terms 15 ships are not 'better' than 25, but that there is a rule of diminishing returns at work, starting with the 16th ship.



Well when it says "most effient" then obviously 15 IS better than 25. If its programmed the way I would program it, the AA rating would be averaged and multiplied by 15 (ie 16 ships AA ratings added, divided by 16, and times 15) and thus you would actually have more AA rating with 15 than 16 ships (or 25). I would be very surprised if this isnt what they did, but only one way to know for sure.




tsimmonds -> RE: house rules (6/7/2005 8:07:31 PM)

More ships will always have more AA. "Less efficient" just means that ships #16-25 will not contribute their full power, as ships #1-15 did. Why would 25 ships have less AA effect than 15?




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: house rules (6/7/2005 11:50:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Well when it says "most effient" then obviously 15 IS better than 25. If its programmed the way I would program it, the AA rating would be averaged and multiplied by 15 (ie 16 ships AA ratings added, divided by 16, and times 15) and thus you would actually have more AA rating with 15 than 16 ships (or 25). I would be very surprised if this isnt what they did, but only one way to know for sure.


As I read it, 'most efficient' means that up to 15 ships will use the entire 100% of their AA capabilities, thus being most efficient in the use of this assets. Any additional ship will use less than 100% of its AA capabilites and therefore will be considered less efficient in the use of its AA assets. But the total projectile weight thrown up against enemy planes will be higher with 25 ships than with only 15 ships (15 x 100% plus the less efficient but still sizeable output of the 10 additional ships). More projectiles in the air tend to procure more hits on enemy planes.

Imagine 15 ships being able to fire 15 tons of AA ammo against an incoming strike, while 25 ships only manage to shoot 20 tons into the air due to mutual interference, masking of fields of fire and so on - that means one ton of ammo per ship in the 15-ship-TF, but only 0.8 tons per ship in the 25-ship-TF > therefore the 15-ship-TF is more efficient. But the total output of AA in the 25-ship-TF is five tons higher than in the 15-ship-TF.

But be it as it may, USN AAA tends to get really nasty later in the war even with only 15 ships per TF - and early in the war the USN does not have enough cruisers and destroyers to form a 23-ship screen around each of the three possible 2-CV-TFs anyway.





Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 5:40:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

More ships will always have more AA. "Less efficient" just means that ships #16-25 will not contribute their full power, as ships #1-15 did. Why would 25 ships have less AA effect than 15?


Well thats easy to answer. Typical deployment vs air attack was to put the important ships in "the core". Core could only accomidate 3 - 4 ships, usually CV/CVLs, but sometimes BBs would be included in the core. 6 - 8 ships around "the core" were the screening units, usually 3000 yards out. The remainder of the forces were beyond this range usually deployed in the direction an air attack was expected from. Over 50% of AA shoot downs were credited to 40mm and lesser guns. What this means in game terms is that 10 ships maximum should get 100% (that would be the 4 core units and the 6 ships facing the side the attacking a/c are comming from). Any ships further away than this from the bombers target simply could not fire its 40mm and lesser guns. Its a matter of range and effectiveness of the weapons. Its physics. Only about 12% of AA shoot downs were credited to long range 5" fire (and the vast majority of those where the attackers were directly approaching the guns and after the prox fuse was used and these are for the whole war, so while the early war lack of prox fuse would make the 5" less effective, the latter war versions should be better).

AA is a point defense, and only a limited number of ships can bring their weapons to bear. Any ships outside the 8 - 10 in core and screen should lose their 40mm and less (thus cutting their AA fire to 50% at best) simply because the enemy is out of range.

This is of course just the AA that would shoot prior to bombs being released. After dropping, the attackers would fly out through the least amount of AA fire, which of course would be the backside where only 2 or 3 ships would typically be. Keep in mind also that any given ship can only bring about 75% of its AA weapons to bear in any given direction.

At Coral Sea, there was a ring of 7 vessals around the carriers (in each TF), and the remaining ships were deployed to the north of the TF to shoot at incomming A/C. They scored no hits. At Midway, the same pattern was used and they scored minimal damage. As the war went on, they did a little better, but was never truely effective. Realistically, only 12 or so ships should be able to fire, based on something as minor as history. [;)]

Edit: By "scored no hits" I am refering to the ships outside the immedate "screen". Also something I noted in my research, 70% of all prox fuses failed to detonate. I found that facinating, and it also explains why they didnt use them anywhere near land. Too easy for the enemy to find a dud, and take it apart.

So for example 2 CVs, 7 CAs, and 6 DDs in a TF. The 2 CVs and possibly 1 CA would be in the core, with the remainder of the CAs in a circular screen 3000 yards from the carriers. The DDs would deploy ahead searching for subs during movement and deploy in a ring 2000 to 3000 yards from the screen on the side that air attack is expected from in a battle formation, 6000 yards from the ships in the core (or a little over 2.5 miles from the carriers you would have us believe they get 100% of their fire to protect).




tsimmonds -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 6:16:18 AM)

I agree with everything you just said. And in addition, I believe that a TF with 25 ships would put more total flak on target than would the same TF with ten fewer ships. Call it a character flaw.[;)]




Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 6:24:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I agree with everything you just said. And in addition, I believe that a TF with 25 ships would put more total flak on target than would the same TF with ten fewer ships. Call it a character flaw.[;)]


Well the point is, 25 ships wouldnt be shooting. And after a point, ships get in each others way. Ships firing at one another did 1 of 2 things (typically). Either they each fired at a different target, or they use diffterent colors of dye in their shells so they knew where their shells were landing and could ajust fire accordingly. Otherwise, they are just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something.

Same thing with AA fire. The more people shooting, doesnt translate to more hits. The more you have shooting, the less effective you are going to be because you dont know where your shells are hitting, so you have no basis to make adjustments, and thus lose a lot of effectiveness (exacept tracer fire of course, which just so happens to be 40mm and less, amazing how that works out).




tsimmonds -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 6:31:27 AM)

In the game, Yamato hugger; in the game.....[;)]




Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 6:38:53 AM)

Heh, well we will never know how it works "in the game". Lots of things dont work in the game as in history (one of the reasons I have to laugh at those that think this will ever turn into a "simulation"). Ammo for example. DDs typically carried 20 mins of ammo at full firing. If every ship in the TF fired full bore at every air attack that came in, they would have to withdraw after 3 attacks maximum (which seems to be somewhere in the realm of what they did in the war), but AA ammo in game is a bit more than 3 shots. [;)]




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 3:06:28 PM)

YH - you simply explained in detail what I have summarized as 'mutual interference' and 'masking of fields of fire'. I agree with most of what you said regarding the disposition of core and screen and some ships too distant to contribute much etc., but that's excactly what is covered by 'less efficient' and doesn't change the fact that 25 ships put more lead and steel fragments into the air than 15, even if 10 of the 25 are only using their 5" guns. And I don't buy your comparison between air defense and ship-to-ship engagements in regards to targeting - the confusion of who is shooting at what should be much lower with directly-aimed (i.e. eye-hand) quick-firing AA guns shooting a stream of tracers than with the dyed splashes of slow-firing heavy guns aimed by a data calculating process. In fact, larger guns in the AA role were too slow in their responses to be aimed at individual planes, so the 5" DPs where in fact "just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something" i.e. fired barrage accross the path of incoming planes hoping to cause enough damage with shell fragments - direct hits by 5" guns on a plane must have been rare.

But it's only a game, so I rest my case.




Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 3:49:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

In fact, larger guns in the AA role were too slow in their responses to be aimed at individual planes, so the 5" DPs where in fact "just throwing lead downrange hoping to hit something" i.e. fired barrage accross the path of incoming planes hoping to cause enough damage with shell fragments - direct hits by 5" guns on a plane must have been rare.

But it's only a game, so I rest my case.



As I said, 5" accounted for 12% shoot-downs total for the war. Until the prox fuse was used, it was much lower, around 5-6%. And they knew that. 5" AA ammo takes up space in a ship, a lot of space on a DD, and a typical load for DDs was 20 mins of full fire. IF they fired at every opportunity and a full rate of fire, they run out of ammo very quickly. This is why they didnt. They saved it for when they could have effect.




tabpub -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 4:02:24 PM)

Your synopsis of AA fire in the prior posts would definitely hold true for torpedo planes, with their low attack profile; but, it begins to not be as accurate for level bombers and dive bombers.

Level bombers would be engaged by more of the supporting ships either before or after the attacks, with their altitude being the being the main determinant of which guns can engage them. Dive bombers have to run the full cone of fire that is coming up from the supporting vessels. I think that the best visualization is an upside down ice cream cone with the CV at the center of the cone and the support ships at the rim and the apex of the cone above the CV.

Additionally, I think that your distances might be a little on the long side for the dimensions of the formation. For example, using Santa Cruz as a guide, South Dakota was noted for only being 1000 yards from Enterprise in the formation. And this is a quote
The Hornet was ready for attack, with no planes on deck and with the protecting ships in their 2,000 yard circular screen. from here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-SantaCruz/index.html#page1

Which would put the 40mm Bofors well within its 4000 yard effective range over the CV.

But, as has been mentioned, this is a game and I have no idea how the program handles the calculations for effective AA against a target plane. It might be very simple or inordinately complex. It might account for the simultaneous attack pattern flown by torpedo planes and the successive wave attack used by dive bombers...or it might not. Those are questions that others might/may answer..




Yamato hugger -> RE: house rules (6/8/2005 4:14:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Additionally, I think that your distances might be a little on the long side for the dimensions of the formation. For example, using Santa Cruz as a guide, South Dakota was noted for only being 1000 yards from Enterprise in the formation. And this is a quote
The Hornet was ready for attack, with no planes on deck and with the protecting ships in their 2,000 yard circular screen. from here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-SantaCruz/index.html#page1


South Dakota was in the core, 1000 yards from Enterprise (minimum distance between ships is 1000 yards btw). Thats what I said earlier about 4 ships max in the core.

quote:


Which would put the 40mm Bofors well within its 4000 yard effective range over the CV.


Dont forget to think in 3 dimentional terms. You not only have 4000 yards distance from the target, but up as well. So as you move away from the target (ie CV) you not only increase range by the distance away from the CV, but add some for the altitude of the A/C also (A squared plus B squared equals C squared). Plus you are also adding deflection (ie the angle to the A/C from the firing ship) and as deflection angle increases the odds of hitting frop dramatically. Thus the reason for putting a high AA value ship like South Dakota in the core to begin with.

quote:


But, as has been mentioned, this is a game and I have no idea how the program handles the calculations for effective AA against a target plane. It might be very simple or inordinately complex. It might account for the simultaneous attack pattern flown by torpedo planes and the successive wave attack used by dive bombers...or it might not. Those are questions that others might/may answer..


Well, I'd like to know their thoughts when they programmed it, but Im guessing thats another secret that we will never know.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125