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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 7:45:51 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"The game makes "night" way too long,"

Actually, Mike, at the equator the day tends to equal the night, with only slight variations as the seasons (!) progress. Here we have a game that represents a huge section of the globe, so it cannot be exptected to be able to recognize that in early July Seattle has 17 hours of daylight while Hobart will have only 7 hours of daylight. The twelve/twelve setup is a reasonable choice. Of course, what I have never liked is giving bombardment TFs twenty four hours of movement in those twelve hours...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 181

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 10:27:49 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Strategic bombardments of this nature are pure and utter fantasy. The only reason these ships were even still there is A) I don't play "Sir Robin". B) many have just been torped by the BS torp strikes by 2E bombers (something I think stinks and is fantasy island drivel but accept it, but must wait to move ships thanks to the equally BS flotation damage model which allows progressive flooding of weeks), and C) startegic bombardments were banned in our house rules. What can I say...I don't want to play a lunacy style game.

I officially fold based on this. No sour grapes, I thought this was a serious game. Any takers?

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 8/12/2006 10:30:17 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 182

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 1:54:04 PM

RETIRED

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The game makes "night" way too long,"

Actually, Mike, at the equator the day tends to equal the night, with only slight variations as the seasons (!) progress. Here we have a game that represents a huge section of the globe, so it cannot be exptected to be able to recognize that in early July Seattle has 17 hours of daylight while Hobart will have only 7 hours of daylight. The twelve/twelve setup is a reasonable choice. Of course, what I have never liked is giving bombardment TFs twenty four hours of movement in those twelve hours...

Acrually, what I said was "The game makes "night" way too long, and "night bombardments" way too easy for slower ships to accomplish." And I think we agree that even a 12-hour "night" that allows 24 hours of steaming is "way too long".

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 183

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2006 9:23:45 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

Yes the night is too long in terms of bombardment etc. It has two move phases in order to make up for daytime which has only one movement phase. If the phases were more fluid/interactive (or whatever you want to call it) then there would not be a need for two night phases.

If every two hours the ships and planes moved then there would be no need for the extra night move time. Search planes set out at 6 am. when they spot a TF bombers are sent out at the next phase (say 8 am). In the mean time ships have moved two hours worth of movement etc. Then the bombardment TFs which started in toward their target at 4 pm might not get attacked until 8 am the following morning (depending of course on how fast they are and how close they started). This gives them 16 hours to get in, get 'er done and get out.

I think of it as the night being two 8 hour phases (for movement) and day time as 8 hours (split into two air strike phases of 4 hours each). Isn't exactly the way it should be but for a game I guess it is ok. I would like to see an additional naval movement phase between am and pm at a minimum.

< Message edited by Sonny -- 8/12/2006 9:24:35 PM >

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to RETIRED)

Post #: 184

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 3:51:50 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

There is really only one nighttime movement phase and one daytime movement phase. The fact that the daytime movement phase occurs before any air search or attack means that, in effect, all TFs perform their movement entirely under the cover of darkness (when dealing with air attack).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 185

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 5:06:50 AM

RETIRED

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: Kansas City, Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

There is really only one nighttime movement phase and one daytime movement phase. The fact that the daytime movement phase occurs before any air search or attack means that, in effect, all TFs perform their movement entirely under the cover of darkness (when dealing with air attack).

Which is really kind of stupid when you think about it. There are two "air phases" - so why doesn't one of them occur before the second naval movement phase? It's always puzzled me....

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 186

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 5:44:52 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Exactly, and the fact that bombardments target everything results in airfields, port facilities, fuel and supply dumps, aircraft, ships all getting nuked by one 30 minute blind shoot. Utter pishposh! What would happen if say, San Francisco were targetted in a game by a Kongo and Haruna, the two BBs which hit Henderson Field in Oct 42 (the basis for the entire bombardment model in WITP it seems

)? I'll tell you...an even bigger bag netted than in the Soerabaja example just posted. There are literally hundreds of ships all over the area in San Francisco and these two BBs would basically "nuke" the whole area...most likely half the ships in Mare Island Navy Yard, San Francisco Bay and wherever ships may be in that hex would be hit.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately, this same routine is used if one were to prep a beach for a landing in the hex...even more brilliant.

So yet again house rules can't fix or dance around poorly thought design. Let's add unheard of levels of detail to units etc and then place them in a bathtub.,,,which is basically what has happened here.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to RETIRED)

Post #: 187

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 5:13:38 PM

tsimmonds

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

Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat.

This has the added benefit of being realistic, as compared to having 200 ships sitting utterly undefended, yet somehow invincible and smug, in a relatively small anchorage on the front line. Where is the spot at this base where 200 ships could hide in such safety as you desire? And what is realistic about 200 ships sitting at anchor, with no covering forces whatsoever, within a couple of hours flying time of two major enemy bases?

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 8/13/2006 7:29:49 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 188

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 6:42:26 PM

Halsey

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

Let's face the reality Ron.
This game is unrealistic and unplayable.
It doesn't give players the results that they think they should get.
The mechanics give results which people think don't represent their interpretation of how it should be.

Ban all naval bombardments and air port attacks, or learn to play the mechanics of the game so as to acheive a reasonable outcome.

Time for us to move on.
I'm unwilling to fight every outcome that you think is unreasonable.
Good Luck!

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 189

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 8:02:36 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat.

This has the added benefit of being realistic, as compared to having 200 ships sitting utterly undefended, yet somehow invincible and smug, in a relatively small anchorage on the front line. Where is the spot at this base where 200 ships could hide in such safety as you desire? And what is realistic about 200 ships sitting at anchor, with no covering forces whatsoever, within a couple of hours flying time of two major enemy bases?

It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments, leaving ships in a very large international harbor and naval base (not a small anchorage) with aircraft, mines (rarely work anyway), coastal defence guns, and warships as defence. I accepted the possibility of air attack and absorbed two huge ones already but at least these are not restricted by house rules and but very pro aircraft (especially torpedo armed 2Es that get to smash everything in the harbor as they defy operational limitations and have no counter, many of which existed historically with anti torpedo nets, barrage balloons, limted room to maneuver a 2E plane...seriously, somebody post an example). Nobody banned port air attacks however, that would be silly. But I was under the understanding that bombardments of the strategic type were banned as per Halsey's standard house rules so I took no specific action to prevent such a grossly porked bombardment model from occuring. Then it happens...

Of course I am miffed. Nobody in their right mind would leave that much shipping in a port if bombardments of this type were allowed. That's why I cried foul. If it's a lunacy game we were playing, those ships would have been gone by now, screw moving resources, oil, retreating units...

_____________________________

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 #: 190

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 8:51:52 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"Fortunately, there is an easy and effective work-around available to the owner of these bases: maintaining a couple of SCTFs in the hex will deter this type of bombardment, and if it does not deter the enemy, it will punish him harshly, as bombardment TFs don't do so well in surface combat."

This is not easy if the base is within enemy torpedo bomber range, which just about any allied front line or second line base will be. If you try to keep SCTFs at these locations, they will be devastated by air attack - thus the need to disband the TFs if you want to keep the ships handy for offensive operations.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 8/13/2006 8:52:18 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 191

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 10:03:44 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

This is not easy if the base is within enemy torpedo bomber range, which just about any allied front line or second line base will be. If you try to keep SCTFs at these locations, they will be devastated by air attack - thus the need to disband the TFs if you want to keep the ships handy for offensive operations.

It's rock-paper-scissors. If you scissors keep getting smashed by the other guy's rock, which is too big to be covered by your paper, then I guess maybe you don't have control of the sea around your base. If you don't have sea control, then the base is not secure enough to base operations on.

The game does allow for reaction interceptions as well, your covering SCTF can loiter further back, perhaps out of air range. This is exactly how the Scott/Callaghan TFs intercepted Hiei & Kirishima on Nov 13.

If you do have a significant air presence in the hex, your CAP can make it prohibitively expensive for the enemy bombers to attack your SCTF. This is absolutely realistic, setting up a mulit-layered defense, far more realistic than to just saying that bombardments are too effective. Bombardments can be very effective when they are unopposed. Bombardments can be nearly impossible to pull off in the face of an effective defense. To me, this is just about the most fun part of the game. It is why the RL campaign in the solomons is so interesting. Opposing bases within striking range of each other by sea and air, locked in a struggle for survival.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 192

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 10:15:28 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments,

Another of which would be not trying to make 200 ships immune from attack by disbanding them at a port that is on the front line. But neither of these was ruled out according to the list of house rules we agreed to. And if you had not been doing the one, we would not have done the other. It wasn't your base we were attacking, it was those 200 otherwise-invulnerable ships.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 193

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/13/2006 11:27:09 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

It was my choice to gradually move ships out of Soerabaja because we agreed to realistic limitations, one of which is no strategic fast nuke bombardments,

Another of which would be not trying to make 200 ships immune from attack by disbanding them at a port that is on the front line. But neither of these was ruled out according to the list of house rules we agreed to. And if you had not been doing the one, we would not have done the other. It wasn't your base we were attacking, it was those 200 otherwise-invulnerable ships.

Tony, you guys just attacked the port with 150 plus level bombers and scored heavy damage on the shipping with both torpedoes and bombs. This hardly describes the disbanded ships as invulnerable. At a cost of 38 2Es, it was fairly cheap. Nothing to stop you from doing so again as we can't ban port attacks simply because the designers are out to lunch on this. If there were barrage balloons (modelled in other GG games but not this one for some reason) and torpedo nets (a bad omission considering they allowed 2E torpedo attacks in port with zero historical precedent) present, this cost would have been much higher and damage limited mainly to that done by bombs. But everybody knows that the naval bombardment model is porked and that is why so much has been made of it on the forums and why it is in Halsey's house rule list, which I understood to be in effect along with any added. That's the basis for my complaint. You guys are making it sound like I want to nerf your ability get at these ships or something...I'm not being difficult or impossible, I just wanted a game that attempted to be somewhat more realistic through the use of select house rules. And this included the elimination of fast strategic bombardment TFs that are not supporting amphibious landings or in support of LCUs (these should be patrol do not retire TFs as well IMO) which are in effect more powerful than strategic bombers. Eliminate these, at least vs substantial mainland bases to allow for the odd Henderson Field situation, because the model is just to darn poor.

As you guys well remember, these ships in Soerabaja are obviously not invulnerable from air attacks...

Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 23,66

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 28
G4M1 Betty x 74
H6K4 Mavis x 5

Allied aircraft
Hawk 75A x 6
CW-21B Demon x 3
Brewster 339D x 7
Buffalo I x 5
Hurricane IIb x 7
P-40B Tomahawk x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 18 destroyed, 38 damaged
H6K4 Mavis: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hawk 75A: 4 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 1 damaged
Brewster 339D: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
Hurricane IIb: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Dos Hermanos, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
SS KVII, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Churruca, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Durban, Bomb hits 2
DD Pillsbury, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Belawan, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AK Schwartenkonst, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Silindoeng, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Java, Bomb hits 1

Allied ground losses:
397 casualties reported
Guns lost 12
Vehicles lost 1

Port hits 2
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
5 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 8000 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
1 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 6000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty launching torpedoes at 200 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Soerabaja , at 23,66

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26
G3M Nell x 68
H6K4 Mavis x 4

Allied aircraft
Hawk 75A x 1
CW-21B Demon x 1
Brewster 339D x 2
Buffalo I x 2
Hurricane IIb x 2
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
P-40E Warhawk x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 10 destroyed, 48 damaged
H6K4 Mavis: 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hawk 75A: 1 destroyed
CW-21B Demon: 1 destroyed
Brewster 339D: 1 destroyed
Buffalo I: 3 destroyed
Hurricane IIb: 2 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 6 destroyed

Allied Ships
ML Prins van Oranje, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Rover, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Mauritius, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AK Ban Ho Guan, Bomb hits 1
AK Tasman, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Benakat, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 1, on fire
TK Hermes, Torpedo hits 1
CL Sumatra, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

Allied ground losses:
263 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
Vehicles lost 1

Port supply hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
5 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
4 x G3M Nell bombing at 6000 feet
5 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet
11 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet
1 x G3M Nell bombing at 8000 feet
1 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
1 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
2 x G3M Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 8/13/2006 11:42:56 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 194

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/14/2006 3:34:19 AM

tsimmonds

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

Should it be impossible to use ships to attack 200 enemy ships that are crowded together in a single hex?

Why did you have those ships disbanded in port rather than in TFs?
1) They are invulnerable to attack by SCTFs.
2) They have better flak vs air attacks; all ships at anchor fire flak together.
3) Another reason? Those first two are as gamey as anything you are complaining about.

No, you are right, they aren't invulnerable to air attacks, we can attack them using port attacks. But you complain about the port air attacks every time one happens. The only way we can attack them with ships is to bombard them. You don't like that either. Do you really think that a ship at anchor in a port should be immune to attack from the sea? Mers el Kebir, Casablanca, Oran.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 195

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/25/2006 1:37:22 AM

ETF

Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Guys is there a up tp date listing of your house rules?

Thx

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 196

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/25/2006 10:12:14 PM

Halsey

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

Not lately.
Been too busy playing.

OK, modified changing HQ's for India Command LCU's for CHS.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 12/25/2006 10:26:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ETF)

Post #: 197

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/26/2006 4:26:37 PM

ETF

Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

haha ok............just D/L CHS with the experimental scenario. Wow I can't believe I have been playing Stock all this time!!!
Is there a comprehensive change log for all the changes made to CHS. I have been to the site and see several info area but they don't seem to list say for example the OOB changes etc for all nation? I take it this is a work in progress.
The MOD is amazing!!

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 198

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/26/2006 4:44:36 PM

Halsey

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

Welcome to CHS!
It's all I've played for almost a year and a half.

It pretty much complete, except for some tweaking by AB every now and then.

I consider it a lot more realistic.
It is a lot tougher on the Japanese than stock.
That's for sure, and the Chinese have teeth in this game.
The China and Burma fronts WILL require extra muscle if the Japanese plan to do well there.

Go to Spooky's and get the ship graphic mods for CHS.
You won't regret it.
It's a compilation of all the artists that visit this forum.

Went back and updated the listings.

For the new players, and old alike.

< Message edited by Halsey -- 12/26/2006 5:21:44 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ETF)

Post #: 199

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/26/2006 7:51:56 PM

SgtSwanson

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Long Branch, NJ
Status: offline

A lot of these rules could have been wiped out by implimneting a decent Chain of Command model. For example: Watchtower didn't start until AFTER SoPac HQ was established and in Noumea. But in the game you can move practically any unit from just about any command and park them on the Canal from day 1.

_____________________________

Sgt Swanson
87-93 5/502 Inf. Berlin Bde
93-95 2/502 Inf. 101st Airborne Div.
Freedom is never free!!

Patch of the Week: 6th Infantry Division

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 200

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/27/2006 1:01:39 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF
Is there a comprehensive change log for all the changes made to CHS. I have been to the site and see several info area but they don't seem to list say for example the OOB changes etc for all nation? I take it this is a work in progress.

It is very much a "work in progress" instead of a completed mod, although there really isn't any "progress" on CHS these days. Nearly all of the original regular contributors have moved on, and nobody has taken over the coordination of further scenario updates. It is supposed to be playable in its current form though.

And sadly, as is often the case, documentation is always the last thing to be completed...

Having said that, I am compiling a list of bugs in CHS that I intend to fix. This is just bugs, plus a few tweaks - not enhancements or new features. So there should be another CHS update out fairly soon, alomg with a map update which fixes two faults that have been on my map "fix list" for ages - putting Mandalay on the proper side of the river, and the railway in Cambodia.

Andrew

(in reply to ETF)

Post #: 201

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 12/27/2006 1:03:50 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

A lot of these rules could have been wiped out by implimneting a decent Chain of Command model. For example: Watchtower didn't start until AFTER SoPac HQ was established and in Noumea. But in the game you can move practically any unit from just about any command and park them on the Canal from day 1.

I agree. I would love to see a proper chain of command added to WitP.

Note that I removed SOPAC (and SWPAC) from the US at start forces in CHS, but as you say this doesn't translate to a real handicap for Allied players.

Andrew

(in reply to SgtSwanson)

Post #: 202

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 1/17/2007 1:22:29 AM

Halsey

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

For the newer players.

The more I play with the airfield stacking restriction, the more I like it.
You don't need any air to air/ flak mod when playing this way.

You'll see very few bunny stomps in the air unless you can organize coordinated strikes with other airfields.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 203

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 5/31/2007 11:05:32 PM

Halsey

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

Bump

Before this thread get buried again under a myriad of posts.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 204

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 6/14/2007 7:50:49 PM

Halsey

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

Bump for players now realizing that there are a lot of exploits concerning this game and it's mechanics.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 205

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 8/12/2007 2:52:23 PM

Halsey

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

We need a sticky for this inflamatory thread.

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 206

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/29/2008 5:53:30 PM

Halsey

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

bump

_____________________________

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 207

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 3/31/2008 5:10:13 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung Command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are
No India Command LCU's may leave India/Ceylon unless it's HQ is changed.
Only India Command LCU's that start in Burma are exempt from this rule.
(CHS addition)
Play balance feature.*

Stock game doesn't have an "India" command...only a Southeast Asia Command, to which India and Burma both belong. How do you keep Indian SEA command units from being deployed to the Burma area of the the SEA command and why do you do this?

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 208

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 4/1/2008 10:55:37 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

From "Small Ship, Big War" by Cuttlefish:
"He trusts his ability, of course, but only a fool gives his opponent a fair chance at victory."

Couldn't this comment also apply to house rules (at lest some of those we've seen posted)?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 209

RE: Non-scenario specific house rules - 6/13/2009 6:48:02 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

I'm wondering if the list on the first page of this thread still includes stuff that is now irrelevant based on the latest patch?

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 210

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

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