RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 6/26/2021 11:27:01 AM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: JagWars

There are few house rules we use when playing the board game:
1.) Subs cannot leave the Mediterranean unless Gibraltar is neutral or friendly controlled. Enemy subs did not leave the Med during WWII. If anyone has reference that refutes this, I should be very interested in learning of it. Enemy subs entered the Med by cutting their engines and allowing the current to pull them through.However, this was not entirely successful either as many were detected during the attempt.

Since a lot of Italian submarines left the Mediterranean for the Atlantic without any losses, I suggest that the German U-boats could have left as well. At least 28 Italian submarines were deployed into the Atlantic theatre after Italy had entered WWII.

Picture from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BETASOM

True. The actual number of Italian SUB's operating in the Atlantic was a lot higher...

So: that house rule is not historical at all.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 6/26/2021 11:30:24 AM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 31

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 6/28/2021 11:04:28 PM

ajds

Posts: 44
Joined: 11/1/2006
From: Apple Valley, California USA
Status: offline

Your Scandinavian house rule seems like an awful lot of work to stop an initial ploy (deployment to take Murmansk initially) that should be self-correcting. The ploy should require the Finnish HQ-I up there or sea supply - sea supply you can stop with one Commonwealth cruiser. Or stack one setup Soviet corps in Murmansk (which is standard) and toss a reserve in there if threatened - are you telling me the Finns can take an arctic forest city with two corps in it? Even if they try, you should then be walking into Helsinki, which renders the ploy moot. Or am I missing something?

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 32

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 6/30/2021 8:54:33 PM

Courtenay

Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline

One change I would like is the alignment of Siam: Instead of being able to align Siam only before Japan is at war with the west, Japan should be able to align it only after Japan is at war with the CW. After all, Thailand only declared war on 25 January, 1942.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 33

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 6/30/2021 9:35:26 PM

rkr1958

Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ajds

Your Scandinavian house rule seems like an awful lot of work to stop an initial ploy (deployment to take Murmansk initially) that should be self-correcting. The ploy should require the Finnish HQ-I up there or sea supply - sea supply you can stop with one Commonwealth cruiser. Or stack one setup Soviet corps in Murmansk (which is standard) and toss a reserve in there if threatened - are you telling me the Finns can take an arctic forest city with two corps in it? Even if they try, you should then be walking into Helsinki, which renders the ploy moot. Or am I missing something?

Too complicated I agree. I also agree with all you wrote. The house rule isn't intended to counter an all out push by the Finns to captured Murmansk, which as you so eloquently have pointed out isn't necessary anyway. What I was trying to counter is that the Finns with 1 ski div can easily cut the rail line leading from Murmansk to Soviet proper. If fact, with a couple of divisions the axis can cut the rail line in such a way that it would require a major effort and a Soviet HQ just to uncut it.

Maybe a better and certainly simpler house rule is that the axis are "forbidden" to cut this rail line until either they've capture Murmansk or Vologda?

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 6/30/2021 9:41:31 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to ajds)

Post #: 34

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 7/1/2021 5:21:20 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

USSR had major forces against Finland during the war. At the outbreak of the continuation war the Soviet Northern District had around 450,000 men against Finland. Shouldn't there be a major effort from the Soviet side to protect the railway? And it is a railway that doesn't seem to need protection for US aid since they can just use the historical Soviet Far East, and Persian Gulf, routes with your rule HHR-3.

And why is it that Leningrad has no play in the HHR-4? As Finland used Leningrad as an excuse to not advance further into USSR.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 35

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 7/1/2021 5:32:11 AM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
(Have always thought night PARA missions have historical precedent)

Excellent point. Will add para missions and their fighters to strat bombing.

(revised) HHR-5. Night Mission Limitations. Only night missions allowed are strategic bombing, para drops and their associated fighter escorts and intercepts.

Night PARA missions do have a historical precedent. And the lesson learned from it was 'do not drop paras at night'. Therefore I suggest some sort of penalty if PARA missions are done at night. Maybe removing the +1 attacking bonus for the PARA if it is dropped at night would work?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to rkr1958)

Post #: 36

RE: Potential House Rules for More Historical Play - 7/1/2021 8:01:21 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JagWars

1.) Subs cannot leave the Mediterranean unless Gibraltar is neutral or friendly controlled. Enemy subs did not leave the Med during WWII. If anyone has reference that refutes this, I should be very interested in learning of it. Enemy subs entered the Med by cutting their engines and allowing the current to pull them through. However, this was not entirely successful either as many were detected during the attempt.

warspite1

This is not true. The Italians sent many subs to the North Atlantic.

The reason German subs didn't return to the Atlantic was not was because of the risk, but was political and the reason Donitz never wanted his precious u-boats sent to the Mediterranean in the first place. He knew once a sub was ordered to the Med he would not get it back. And he was right.

The problem is that because of the sub counter sizes it is difficult to reflect losses. The option is binary. The counter survives or gets sunk - both are unsatisfactory. A compromise could be that any counter would have to be holed up in port for x number of turns. Its not ideal but at least gives some pain for those attempting to pass the Straits.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 7/2/2021 3:12:20 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805