RE: Non-scenario specific house rules

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: Non-scenario specific house rules

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/29/2004 12:15:23 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

BUMP!

For you guys who just got WITP for Xmas.

Newcomers to this gaming system may want to check this thread.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 91

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/29/2004 12:50:32 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

A variation and a comment.

Variation - one house rule we've used since early UV - which has stuck. Non Day fighters flying other than strafe mission may not have altitude set at lower than 1000 feet times number of engines. However, note that WITP flak seems stronger and hence reason for this house rule may have been mitigated ( in UV low level bombing was effective but flak was not sufficiently effective you make one avoid it ).

Comment - Avoidance of invasions against base hexes ( non-dot ). Two issues, one a "counter-example" ( Guadalcanal ) ... and then poiting out that dots become non-dots after building a level 1 something .. hence the coast becomes unsuitable !? I'd avoid this one. If your opponent is doing something specific that seems wildly a-histirical or geographically impossible ( in the real world versus the WITP one ) ... then forbid the specific ... this one is too general.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 92

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/29/2004 12:59:48 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

That's what was meant. I have edited it to make it clearer. Thanks for the heads up.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 93

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/29/2004 11:11:38 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Because "Burma" technically includes Tavoy and Vickie's Point" ... you really want to know when they went against Moulmein and hence towards Rangoon. This was on 20 January 1942 ( page 412 Empires in the Balance, Willmott ), 15th Army ( Iida ) with 33 and 55 Divisions. However, it was not until 8 March 42 that Rangoon was captured. The the 56th Division was then landed as a ( Japanese ) reinforcement in Rangoon, and 18th Division came as well, bringing 15th Army up to 4 divisions. Lashio was captured ( by the Japanese ) on 29 April 42. Can't find exact date for Mandalay but probably between 12 and 20 May 42. Also no date for Mytchina ( the allies seem to have simply melted away in May. Same story for Akyab - no date for Japanese capture - but it was captured and held as were Mytchina and Lashio ( and Andaman too ).

In my current game ( scenario 16 - mid-March ) I am way short of resources to go after Akyab, Lashio or Mytchina ... and am "driving" on Akyab while holding Mandalay. But I still only have 33 and 55 divisions.

In the game ... the power of fortifications tends to make the IJ player want to move more quickly ... but you have to balance that against the requirement to "close out" your campaigns ... as you need the troops from one, the finish the other. So careful planning and execution are absolute requirements ... for my money any house rules restricting the Japanese advance in the early going are unecessary ... but that's my two cents.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 94

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/29/2004 11:45:13 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Because "Burma" technically includes Tavoy and Vickie's Point" ... you really want to know when they went against Moulmein and hence towards Rangoon. This was on 20 January 1942 ( page 412 Empires in the Balance, Willmott ), 15th Army ( Iida ) with 33 and 55 Divisions. However, it was not until 8 March 42 that Rangoon was captured. The the 56th Division was then landed as a ( Japanese ) reinforcement in Rangoon, and 18th Division came as well, bringing 15th Army up to 4 divisions. Lashio was captured ( by the Japanese ) on 29 April 42. Can't find exact date for Mandalay but probably between 12 and 20 May 42. Also no date for Mytchina ( the allies seem to have simply melted away in May. Same story for Akyab - no date for Japanese capture - but it was captured and held as were Mytchina and Lashio ( and Andaman too ).

In my current game ( scenario 16 - mid-March ) I am way short of resources to go after Akyab, Lashio or Mytchina ... and am "driving" on Akyab while holding Mandalay. But I still only have 33 and 55 divisions.

In the game ... the power of fortifications tends to make the IJ player want to move more quickly ... but you have to balance that against the requirement to "close out" your campaigns ... as you need the troops from one, the finish the other. So careful planning and execution are absolute requirements ... for my money any house rules restricting the Japanese advance in the early going are unecessary ... but that's my two cents.

There are no terrain and weather restrictions hampering Japan in WITP. Good luck keeping anything up to Mandalay by Feb1/42.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 95

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/23/2005 5:02:54 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

This is to thank those of you who have decided that some of these are good rules to implement in your game.

When this thread was started there was a considerable amount of negativity towards them. I see now that some players want to augment what this outstanding game already includes. Thanks!

For those who dislike optional rules. Remember this. In boardgaming there are always optional rules. Go look at any of the old SPI games. They can be used, discarded or modified as seen fit by the players.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 1/23/2005 9:03:13 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 96

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/23/2005 5:53:21 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Thanks for the suggestions. One question: what is the bug (or "feature") that makes night bombing by "day" aircraft objectionable?

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 97

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/23/2005 6:02:46 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Night bombing, until patch 1.40 was acutely over accurate. Some still say it is, even after the patch. In addition, night fighters are worthless, or will crash the game sometimes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 98

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/27/2005 12:29:05 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Thanks for the explanation. I did a search and found some of the other threads on night bombing. In my first little PBEM (Scenario 3), my Allied opponent indeed is night-bombing me every night, and I seem to have no defense. I tried setting a Zero squadron to night-CAP (Sweep with a 50% CAP setting) but it didn't contest the bombing raid. Still, the losses so far have been minimal.

So in a PBEM, what might be the "top five" house rules? I don't want to have to remember two dozen. :)

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 99

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/27/2005 5:35:48 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for the explanation. I did a search and found some of the other threads on night bombing. In my first little PBEM (Scenario 3), my Allied opponent indeed is night-bombing me every night, and I seem to have no defense. I tried setting a Zero squadron to night-CAP (Sweep with a 50% CAP setting) but it didn't contest the bombing raid. Still, the losses so far have been minimal.

So in a PBEM, what might be the "top five" house rules? I don't want to have to remember two dozen. :)

Here's my five.

quote:

1. ASW TF's. No more than 6 to 8 ships allowed. No Admirals allowed to command.
2. Night Bombing. City attacks (Manpower only) for non-game designated air units.
No restriction on night naval attacks.
11. GT1 landings, for the Japanese, must be within range of Japanese LBA recon. (Mogami rule?)(scenario specific)Play balance feature.
13. No invasions against hexes that do not contain a dot/base in them. Not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops. Play balance feature.
14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are spent to change their command. Play balance feature.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 100

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/9/2005 2:40:04 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Bump. Don't want to lose this thread

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 101

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/10/2005 7:07:15 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

1. ASW TF's. No more than 6 to 8 ships allowed. No Admirals allowed to command.
2. Night Bombing. City attacks (Manpower only) for non-game designated air units.
No restriction on night naval attacks.
11. GT1 landings, for the Japanese, must be within range of Japanese LBA recon. (Mogami rule?)(scenario specific)Play balance feature.
13. No invasions against hexes that do not contain a dot/base in them. Not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops. Play balance feature.
14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are spent to change their command. Play balance feature.

I can't see much to argue about with this list, but a couple of points come to mind. One
is that nobody made much use of ASW TF's (except Ernie King running DD squadrons up and down the East Coast at high speeds and accomplishing nothing) until late 1942. In
a current game, we've limited ASW TF's to 3 ships (no Admirals) and still had some success. 6-8 seems excessive for such s specialized use---have you tried reducing it to 4?
Secondly, given the tremendous range of Betties/Nells, limiting Japanese attacks to with-
in such a boundry isn't really much of a handicap. Historically they tended to stay within Fighter range when making their jumps (Though where there are Zeros this can be quite an distance). Has that been suggestted?

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 102

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/10/2005 8:04:56 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Having just played in a game where the Allies stripped India to reinforce DEI and did not have to pay 1 PP to do so ... I'd vote against any house rule restricting Japanese invasions or requiring PP to be paid to walk out of Manchuria.

Now if Allies agree to pay PP to have units leave India then I'd consider re-accepting the Manchurian restriction. If you want to restrict Japanese invasion options then just play S16 instead of S15. The bonus move doesn't exist in S16.

I have yet to see [ or hear of ] the Japanese capturing the entire SRA by 1 May 42 ... i.e. starting with S15 or S16 to acheive the S13 base position by 1 May 42 ... has anyone done this PBEM ? And if so ... were the players of approximately equal experience ?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 103

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/10/2005 9:02:15 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, While I am known to be a very slow player I have captured the entire SRA by 19 Mar 1942 in PBEM. Most of the time I am still there in June.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 104

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/10/2005 10:34:09 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

I play with my own intrinsic house rule for India and the DEI.
No large scale land reinforcements to these areas from any others. Only in the event of a catastrophe would I send outside troops to India. Also only SEAC Chinese units may leave China.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 105

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/11/2005 4:31:18 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Bump.

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 106

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/11/2005 7:34:48 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

House rules that cover gamey issues are fine but I dislike the ones that try to enforce play balance. War isn't balanced. The war was very unbalanced towards the Japanese early and towards the Allies late. I want to be free to try any operations that were historically possible (but not necessarily historically attempted). House rules can cover the historical impossibilities that the game allows such as the rearming of BBs at size 3 ports.

The biggest problem with house rules is that the majority are virtually unenforceable and can be ignored when out of sight. Obviously, a player who would do that isn't one worth playing. And sometimes the game will prevent you from doing anything about it. For example the BB that pulls into a size 3 port for fuel automatically gets rearmed. Can't very well say a player can't refuel.

I would also like to see the idea of "restricted units" removed. I think the best way to handle Dutch and US units in the SRA and Philippines is to have the game give the Jap player Victory Points based on the size of the unit being withdrawn. Withdraw too many units and you've dug a deep hole.

But anyways, any rules that 2 players agree to are between them, just don't expect everyone to agree.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 107

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/11/2005 8:02:49 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I would also like to see the idea of "restricted units" removed. I think the best way to handle Dutch and US units in the SRA and Philippines is to have the game give the Jap player Victory Points based on the size of the unit being withdrawn. Withdraw too many units and you've dug a deep hole

Well then, what the heck are Political points for? Then give points to allies when Japan transfers units from China to the South Pacific.

If the allied player pulls forces out of the DEI, the Japanese player should be jumping for joy. You have fewer damaged resources and oil. Your units are going to be ready for more offensives, sooner.

You want to pile on points as well?

Your house rule doesn't seem very fair.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 108

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/11/2005 9:29:54 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

You must be playing against the AI. When playing PBEM, any mass exodus will get slaughtered by a competent IJN player.

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 109

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/28/2005 6:09:42 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Here is a semi-upgraded list.

#4 is the big one! This would seem to be a fair trade off to balance 4E allied naval strikes against the lethargic allied submarine doctrine/mechanics. This is for the original game. The new mods may require a different standard.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 3/29/2005 12:53:09 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 110

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 12:43:14 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Here's a proposal that might perk up submarine operations somewhat:

Neither side may form ASW TFs until after the other side has attained "significant success" with his submarine ops. "Significant success" could be defined as (for example) x number of AK/AP sunk, or y number of TK/AO sunk, or z number of CV/CVL/CVE torpedoed (not necessarily sunk), or some combination. This would return the subs to the role of hunters rather than hunted.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 111

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 12:45:20 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

I noticed Ron has added a 1/44 time limit for when ASW TF's can be formed. This sounds good too.
So, limit 4 ships to a SCTF for anti- sub warfare before 1/44. Then 1/44 the ASW TF option becomes available. Still with the 4 ship restriction.

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 112

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 12:48:13 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Could use both. Form them earlier if the other side is kicking your ass

, and w/o restriction (except for # ships, and no admirals) afterwords.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 113

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 12:50:19 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Well that's one of the cool things about house rules. If it seems unfair after a time, throw it out.

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 114

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 12:56:14 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Yabbut. That only works if you're gaming with someone who's reasonable

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 115

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 1:17:23 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

What do you think of #4? Mogami uses the 200 ship restriction in his own games. 4E bomber attacks were rare and far between, and hardly as successful as they are with these game mechanics.

As a note. These ships "will" be sunk by 4E naval attack missions. They are a lot more effective at destroying merchant shipping than the Allied subs are.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 3/29/2005 1:47:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 116

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 5:01:00 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Seems ok in principle, got more AKs than I can use. Have to take inventory though, before I commit to 200.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 117

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 2:29:36 PM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Don't know what the balance is for shipping with the Stock scenario vs the CHS. That's probably the deciding factor. Run a test game to see. That's the only thing I can think of.
I do know that in the stock scenario they are overstocked. Not sure on the CHS though.

Load pt availability for the IJN in both games. Anyone have that? Probably not.

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 118

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 2:42:56 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Stock scenario is easy enough, 301 large AK and 169 small AK at start, total capacity of 2,698,500 load points.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 119

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2005 3:11:27 PM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

That doesn't sound too far out of whack. I think that they lost around 8 million tons during the war; so, if they build 1.5 million a year, that's 6 million more to add to the 3 million that they have.

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Non-scenario specific house rules