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 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/1/2005 4:52:44 AM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

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.

The only ones I can think of were the 2-3 bombardments in support of the early war CENPAC USN carrier raids .. but these were by a handfull of cruisers and did little damage. Other than that, the bombardments supported invasions or troops ashore.

As is often the case in our discussions - we really have two groups debating in two different directions - one group saying that "in the game" you don't need this rule because there are usually / always things the base defender can do to mitigate - and I'm not sure I have a big issue with this position. I don't think bombardments are a game breaker - if you know you need to consider that they might happen and then act accordlingly. But the other group is saying - they are a-historical - and wanting a house rule to restrict them - and I certainly don't have a problem with this position either !!! Sometimes we "think" we are disagreeing but we are really just debating history versus the game and those are different universes !!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 151

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/1/2005 4:56:35 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

how about restatingthe end of game points options, I am trying to get to 2-1 before Historical VJ day without the bomb

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 152

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/1/2005 5:27:34 AM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

how about restatingthe end of game points options, I am trying to get to 2-1 before Historical VJ day without the bomb

I think that does it ... 2:1 in 1945 is "VP Victory" ... but were you asking or reminding ?

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 153

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/1/2005 7:11:15 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

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.

Hear hear.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 154

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/1/2005 11:34:02 PM

Halsey

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

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.

Hear hear.

The way I handle it in my games.

If the IJN doesn't do strategic naval bombardments. I restrict my airfields to 150% capacity. Also I won't do strategic naval bombardments.

If the IJN uses strategic naval bombardments. I throw out my self placed restrictions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 155

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/26/2005 10:16:28 AM

Halsey

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

Bump again.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 156

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 9/10/2005 1:47:00 PM

Halsey

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

bump for Knavey.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 157

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/13/2005 1:38:27 AM

Halsey

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

Bump for the new guys!

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 158

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/13/2005 2:44:10 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

I am another in the camp that there are way too many rules on this list, at least for me. I will use the forces available to me as the designers intended, in any way I chose. Now, if part of the game is broken, such as uber4E bombers, then I can see a house rule till fixed. But if the game has too many restrictions on movement of forces or the tactics then it's not worth playing IMO. We are trying to do better than history, not repeat it. I have plenty of books where I can read the real history. I plan to sink the most of the US Fleet and take India by end of 42, didn't happen in real life but why not try? Again, Mogami has it right as usual - massing your forces somewhere means you are weak elsewhere - exploit that.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 159

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 10/13/2005 2:50:57 AM

Halsey

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

After over 2000 turns played. All I can say is good luck!

These were designed to help offset some bad mechanics with the game.
It's pick and choose, you don't have to use them at all.

_____________________________

(in reply to brisd)

Post #: 160

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/15/2006 10:53:58 PM

Halsey

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

bump

Some of these are outdated due to the release of patches up to 1.8.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 161

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/16/2006 3:33:17 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
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. So you are saying that the IJN "didn't exist" in August of 1942? Or that the US cheated by invading Guadalcanal? Obviously it could be bombarded by the IJN..., and just as obviously (from the results) they couldn't supress it enough to get their transports ashore except by beaching the remnants.
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. Agreed, but remember that the Japanese never made any game style (night shoot and scoot) bombardments with Battleships. They used the "Fast BB/ BattleCruisers" of the Kongo class. The game makes "night" way too long, and "night bombardments" way too easy for slower ships to accomplish.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 162

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/16/2006 1:41:01 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

Could someone wrap these up since I lost count around somewhere page 4.

BTW Is it possible to hold all of these continously in sight while playing?

THX in advance.

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 163

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/16/2006 5:56:23 PM

Mike Scholl

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

the ONE THING that six pages of house rules and discussion DOES PROVE is that the game has a LOT of weak points and problems.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 164

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/17/2006 12:09:36 AM

Halsey

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

Amen to that brother!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 165

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 1:21:50 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Bump!

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/10/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 23,66

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CL Kinu
DD Kuroshio
DD Oyashio
DD Hatsukaze
DD Natsushio
DD Maikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Nowaki

Allied Ships
AK Vitorlock, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 23,66

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CL Kinu
DD Kuroshio
DD Oyashio
DD Hatsukaze
DD Natsushio
DD Maikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Nowaki

Allied Ships
AP Rooseboom, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 23,66

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CL Kinu
DD Kuroshio
DD Oyashio
DD Hatsukaze
DD Natsushio
DD Maikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Nowaki

Allied Ships
AK Magallanes, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 23,66

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CL Kinu
DD Kuroshio
DD Oyashio
DD Hatsukaze
DD Natsushio
DD Maikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Nowaki

Allied Ships
AK Paz, Shell hits 27, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 23,66

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
CL Kinu
DD Kuroshio
DD Oyashio
DD Hatsukaze
DD Natsushio
DD Maikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Nowaki

Allied Ships
SC OJR-4, Shell hits 4, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 27,69

Japanese Ships
DD Nagatsuki, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Inazuma
CL Naka
DD Mikazuki
DD Fumizuki
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Hayashio
DD Yukikaze

Allied Ships
SS O20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Soerabaja, at 23,66 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
Hawk 75A: 1 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 6 destroyed
Martin 139: 5 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed
A-24 Dauntless: 1 destroyed
Hurricane IIb: 1 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 1 destroyed

101 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Yamagumo
DD Yamakaze, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
DD Suzukaze
DD Umikaze
DD Kawakaze
CA Ashigara, Shell hits 7
CA Myoko, Shell hits 7
CA Haguro, Shell hits 11
CA Nachi
DD Hato
CA Atago
CA Takao
BB Haruna
BB Kongo

Allied Ships
CL Java, Shell hits 4
CL Dragon, Shell hits 5, on fire
CL Sumatra, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AK Cremer, Shell hits 2, on fire
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AK Elout, Shell hits 1
TK Merula, Shell hits 1
AD Black Hawk, Shell hits 1
CL Danae, Shell hits 3, on fire
AK Senang, Shell hits 1
DD Jupiter, Shell hits 2, on fire
MSW Bittern, Shell hits 1, on fire
PT TM-12, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PG Soerabaja, Shell hits 1
CL Durban, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
AP Legazpi, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Latrobe, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Kortenaer, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Pieter de Bitter, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Zaandam, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Tromp, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 1, heavy damage
DD Van Nes, Shell hits 2, heavy damage
AK Tomohon, Shell hits 1
AK Maayo, Shell hits 1
MSW Boeroe, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AR Roogeveen, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 3
MSW Bantam, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Vampire, Shell hits 1, on fire
TK Talang Akar, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Rochussen, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Stagen, Shell hits 1
AK Don Esteban, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Sarangami, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Anakan, Shell hits 1, on fire
AVD Fazant, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Reijnist, Shell hits 1
ML Krakatau, Shell hits 1
AK Sigli, Shell hits 1
PG Soemba, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Bisayas, Shell hits 1
AK Van Lansberger, Shell hits 1, on fire
TK Manatawny, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Evertsen, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PC Genesee, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
4841 casualties reported
Guns lost 66
Vehicles lost 26

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 34
Port hits 23
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 34,63

Japanese Ships
AK Chuko Maru
AK Nasusan Maru
AK Hukko Maru
AK Heimei Maru
PC Shonan Maru #2
PG Kanko Maru

Allied Ships
SS Searaven

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Nanchang , at 48,38

Allied aircraft
SB-2c x 6

Allied aircraft losses
SB-2c: 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SB-2c bombing at 10000 feet
3 x SB-2c bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wuchow , at 42,39

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 8
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 7
Ki-51 Sonia x 12
Ki-15 Babs x 2

No Japanese losses

Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 7

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar bombing at 2000 feet
8 x Ki-27 Nate bombing at 2000 feet
12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Pisanuloke , at 31,37

Allied aircraft
Lysander I x 4
Wirraway x 8
Blenheim I x 22

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 8

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Blenheim I bombing at 2000 feet
6 x Blenheim I bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Blenheim I bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Blenheim I bombing at 2000 feet
3 x Blenheim I bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 22,51

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 47
Ki-15 Babs x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 6 destroyed, 35 damaged

Allied Ships
LCVP LCP(L) No. 183, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
LCVP LCP(L) No. 182, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
296 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
10 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
8 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
2 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Amboina , at 40,74

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 4
B-17E Fortress x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
3 x B-17D Fortress bombing at 17000 feet
1 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
1 x B-17D Fortress bombing at 17000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 31st Chinese Corps, at 39,38

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-I Lily x 9

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 3000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 50th Chinese Guer. Corps, at 49,39

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 31
Ki-30 Ann x 19
Ki-51 Sonia x 8
Ki-46-II Dinah x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
31 x Ki-27 Nate bombing at 2000 feet
9 x Ki-30 Ann bombing at 2000 feet
8 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 51st Chinese Guer. Corps, at 50,33

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x Ki-27 Nate bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 75th (Div) Chinese G Corps, at 48,41

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-15 Babs x 1

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x Ki-27 Nate bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Manila , at 43,52

Japanese aircraft
C5M Babs x 1
Ki-21-II Sally x 95
Ki-48-I Lily x 25
Ki-15 Babs x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-II Sally: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Maetsuycker, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AK Opon, Bomb hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
PC Napa, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied ground losses:
73 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Vehicles lost 1

Runway hits 14
Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
6 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
9 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
7 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
13 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
4 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
2 x Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Admiralty Islands , at 59,84

Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing at 3000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hollandia

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1393 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 40

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 38 - adjusted assault: 21

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 21 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hollandia base !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kuantan

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 508 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 40

Defending force 1510 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 47

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 50,33

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 6899 troops, 29 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 160

Defending force 1968 troops, 7 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 74

Japanese max assault: 308 - adjusted assault: 278

Allied max defense: 69 - adjusted defense: 18

Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
78 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
57 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 8/12/2006 1:24:36 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 166

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 1:34:22 AM

Halsey

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

This was a sweet attack!

200 ships in Soerbaya port, within normal range of IJN LBA.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 167

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 1:34:29 AM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

ouch....luckily it will be awhile before those 14in guns replenish their ammo after a long night of blowing up allied war material

< Message edited by KDonovan -- 8/12/2006 1:35:20 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 168

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 1:39:34 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

This was a sweet attack!

200 ships in Soerbaya port, within normal range of IJN LBA.

I already took the 200 2E port attack, and while I've already argued since development of UV and WITP, there is nothing any house rule can do to rectify this...it is hardcoded (thanks alot for another major fantasy feature we can't irradicate

) and asking that torpedo armed 2Es not bomb ports because torps inevitably get dropped is too much for even me.

This was the result of a single fast BB strategic bombardment. Thought these were caca. I can also accept bombardment TFs hitting atolls because of the size of atolls but mailand bases should be off limits to the blitz bombardment for obvious reasons, dispersed facilities for one.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 8/12/2006 1:53:12 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 169

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 3:23:49 AM

Halsey

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

We lost 50 irreplaceable pilots on that raid too.

I figure you would have vacated the port after Balikpapan fell.
Instead you dug in and disbanded you ships.

Airstrike, naval strike, this is what you do when you plan an invasion.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 170

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 3:23:59 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

This was a sweet attack!

200 ships in Soerbaya port, within normal range of IJN LBA.

20. No naval bombardments against hexes that contain "no" friendly LCU's.
No fragmented LCU's may be used to satisfy this requirement.
Naval bombardments "may" be conducted on preinvasion sites up to two weeks prior
to the actual landings. This rule is to deter the use of strategic naval bombardments.

I don't see any rule stating that these nuke shoot and scoot strategic bombardments are allowable if within LBA range?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 171

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 3:53:39 AM

New York Jets

Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I dont agree with the no removal of forces from PI and DEI either. The Japanese are given FREE reign to change history all they want with troop deployment and ship deployment.

If the allies want to allow the Japanese free reign it is a strategic decision they should be allowed. They are already penalized with PP limits on what they can move. And if they move engineers from bases with oil or resources they are giving undamaged assets to the Japanese.

I am new to the game but I agree with this just based on my knowledge of WWII and war gaming. It seems the Japanese player is allowed many various ways to change history whether it be through deployment or initial attack targets. Why shouldn't the Allied player be given the same option?

While I agree with a few of the options like limiting the size of ASW TF's to say 5 units. But most of the rules proposed seem designed to mostly limit the Allied player a chance to try something different from the way it was done historically. The "none of this before 1/44" or "none of that before 1/43" or "none of the other before this event happens" because that's how it happened historically gives the Allied player no chance at all to "play with history".

If the Japanese player is given free reign to concentrate his initial attacks in directions that were not done historically then why should the Allied player be limited to history in his response?

There are two subjects that I have wargamed extensively in the strategic sense. They are WWII and The American Civil War. Given equally experienced opponents one knows that the heavy odds are that the Japanese are going to lose in the Pacific and the Confederates are going to lose the Civil War. Given variances in player skill the odds will change. Sometimes dramatically. (In a game of Advanced Third Reich against an adult opponent I once invaded Germany's north plain and had armor in Berlin in Winter '39.) So the challenge as the Japanese or Confederate player is to see how long you can delay the inevitable or even change history in the final result. (I've also pulled out a win or two, over the years, against an equal opponent with me playing as the Confederate.)

So if you're going to play as the Japanese player in this game against an opponent of equal or greater skill then you have to be prepared to get your @ss kicked. HARD. A few modest "house rules" to cover some game functions that aren't addressed are fine. In "The Battle of New Jersey" AAR the opponents actually worked out a rule to represent the fact that if Karachi fell that British reinforcements in the Pacific would not just disappear. They would just take longer to get there. That's reasonable. I've played games against equal opponents knowing that the odds were, that given the historical nature of the game, I was most likely going to lose. My challenge was to see how far I could stretch it out and how much I could "bloody his nose". Most games victory conditions represent that.

But if the Japanese get free reign the Allies shoudn't get handcuffed to go along with it. If you don't want the challenge of playing the Japanese (or Confederate), then don't play them. If the game is a good game you'll play it. Over and over.

< Message edited by Chris Trog -- 8/12/2006 4:16:05 AM >

_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 172

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 3:54:06 AM

Halsey

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

Wait till you see the KB strike against Soerbaya within the next few turns.

It'll make this combat report look like a cat fight.

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!

This is what you do before an invasion.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 173

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 3:56:33 AM

New York Jets

Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline

BTW.

What does LCU mean?

Land Combat Unit?

_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 174

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:00:56 AM

Halsey

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

This is a pretty old thead Chris.

A lot of these rules aren't needed anymore due to bug fixes.
Quite a few of these rules are at the suggestion of others, and aren't necessarily my view.
Though I included them so they would be noted down to others for future play.

Some are doctrine related.
Those are the ones mostly with date restrictions.

Most players only use a handful of these rules.
Others have made their own up.
To each his own.

Good luck, and welcome to our dysfunctional family!

< Message edited by Halsey -- 8/12/2006 4:01:43 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to New York Jets)

Post #: 175

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:01:52 AM

Halsey

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

Yup!

You got it!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to New York Jets)

Post #: 176

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:12:11 AM

New York Jets

Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

While I applaud the efforts at realism, I do think you guys are going a little bit overboard. "No cooperation before such and such date", NO landings at such and such island. If we are going to get so historical, after turn 1 of the PBEM save yourself the trouble of playing and congratulate the Allied player on his inevitable victory. The whole point of a PBEM game is to try to do better. For the Japanese, this means try to take more ground, inflict more losses, etc. For the Allies, it means trying to hold on to the Phillippines and DEI for as long as possible, and f the enemy presents himself, counter attack. I can agree with some of the houserules such as 1 port attack on Dec. 7, or only X amount of landings on turn one, but if you guys impose too many rules, especially of an anal nature, instead of a game you are going to be playing a history lesson. Part of the fun is trying to do the unexpected, not being herded to do what had failed in real life.

Just my .02 USD.

Agreed and BEER!

_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 177

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:14:17 AM

New York Jets

Posts: 2087
Joined: 6/25/2001
From: St. Louis, MO but stuck in Bremerton,WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

This is a pretty old thead Chris.
A lot of these rules aren't needed anymore due to bug fixes.
Quite a few of these rules are at the suggestion of others, and aren't necessarily my view.
Though I included them so they would be noted down to others for future play.

Some are doctrine related.
Those are the ones mostly with date restrictions.

Most players only use a handful of these rules.
Others have made their own up.
To each his own.

Good luck, and welcome to our dysfunctional family!

I just checked the date on the first post. I did not realize this thread was that old.

_____________________________

"There comes a time in every man's life, and I've had plenty of 'em."

- Casey Stengel -

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 178

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:48:37 AM

tsimmonds

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

I've posted this a half dozen times; the way to prevent a bombardment is to have an SCTF in the hex. There were enough ships at anchor there for 3 or 4 decent SCTFs. And that's just looking at the ships that got damaged. There were almost 200 ships anchored in the port, with only 5 AKs defending?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to New York Jets)

Post #: 179

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 4:51:47 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Nothing wrong with an old thread like this one. It gets bumped because some of the rules get revised, and new players like to see a list of what people can use.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to New York Jets)

Post #: 180

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