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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 7:22:03 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Added one more to reflect players opinions about the over generous TF bombardment mission.

Remember! These are all optional! Do whatever floats your boat!

_____________________________


(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 121
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 7:24:13 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		....or sinks the other guy's

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 122
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 10:05:35 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 123
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 10:32:40 PM   
tsimmonds


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


_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 124
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 10:39:11 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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


_____________________________





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

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 125
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2005 11:18:23 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I've known Irrelevant for 40 years. He can't help himself!

Yeah, I did pull back that Chinese Corps at Homan that morphed itself into an Army!

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? A glutton for punishment, you are!

< Message edited by Halsey -- 4/2/2005 12:08:19 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 126
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/2/2005 4:17:36 PM   
tsimmonds


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

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 127
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/5/2005 2:00:01 PM   
tsimmonds


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

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 4/5/2005 2:22:35 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 128
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/5/2005 2:44:19 PM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 129
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/5/2005 3:17:29 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Should also allow bombardment to support a landing that starts in the same turn as the bombardment.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 130
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/5/2005 7:56:45 PM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 131
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/11/2005 3:12:26 PM   
tsimmonds


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

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 132
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/15/2005 4:25:22 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		bump for the new guys!

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 133
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/15/2005 4:29:07 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		I just did a search for this one, and could not find it. Search engine was borking out on me...hence the other post.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 134
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/15/2005 4:30:45 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		No problemo!



_____________________________


(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 135
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/30/2005 5:56:57 PM   
tsimmonds


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

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 7/30/2005 6:02:24 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 136
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/30/2005 8:00:04 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Too late!

That rule has already been violated.
Now you must pay.
And pay.
And pay.

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 137
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/30/2005 8:47:45 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Do the friendly LCUs "in the hex" have to be unloaded ? Or can they just be aboard a ship in the hex ?

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 138
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/30/2005 9:26:38 PM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 139
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/30/2005 10:04:11 PM   
jwilkerson


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



< Message edited by jwilkerson -- 7/31/2005 2:30:13 AM >

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 140
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 3:37:26 AM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 141
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 4:40:34 AM   
jwilkerson


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



< Message edited by jwilkerson -- 7/31/2005 4:44:19 AM >

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 142
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 4:51:04 AM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 143
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 6:07:05 AM   
mogami


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

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/31/2005 6:09:11 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 144
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 6:37:53 AM   
jwilkerson


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




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 145
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 6:47:06 AM   
mogami


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

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/31/2005 6:54:57 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 146
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 7:14:45 AM   
jwilkerson


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



< Message edited by jwilkerson -- 7/31/2005 10:16:57 AM >

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 147
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 4:10:58 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 148
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 4:17:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 149
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 7/31/2005 11:59:23 PM   
Halsey

 

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

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.125