Questions PBEM rules

[TomRatCat]

Hi guys,

some people play pbem games with additional game rules. I would like to understand why this rules are required?

I dont unterstand the following rules. Can anbdoy tell me what the following rules mean?

No 4e naval bombing below 10k? 4e???
Sensible use of paratroopers ?
Player must pay PP to move restricted units across borders ?
No gamey air unit resize using carriers ?

Another question. How can i ensure that my opponet player comply the rules?

Regards
Tom

[RogerJNeilson]

No Naval bombing.....

There is a feeling that 4E bombers are too powerful and used unhistorically can hit shipping that they would never be tasked to attack - their role being strategic bombing. Some people like to make sure this is what happens in the game. Low bombing attacks can make a mess of ships... by forcing them to fly at least at 10K it is thought their effects will be far less, and actually the enemy will probably not bother. Applies pretty much to the Allies only - JFBs don't like Allied 4Es.

Sensible use of paratroops

You could select a whole load of different drops for para units along an axis of advance and drop a small group on each base where there was not a defense in place. You then have a series of bases which are linked and you can start move units at superspeed across the map - some AARs in India have done this. It used to be the case that you could also drop a few paras on any hex and thus deny the logistical path for the enemy and cut them off even by dropping a tiny force. this is no longer possible outside of bases. if you prefer a historical approach then this is 'gamey'. if its a game and anything goes its not. best to agree in advance otherwise a game can suddenly change dramatically

Paying PP

A lot of units are restricted and cannot move from their home - e.g. Australian forces. Try loading many onto ships and they won't board. Now look at ground units in large land masses. as you simply move them from hex to hex there is no hindrance on moving them to an area where politically they would not have gone... move all the troops out of India for example. The idea that you have to pay PPS to permit them to move across national borders is to recognize the political cost of doing so. Again a player who wants a historical game will like this idea, a player who wants no hold barre game will not approve this at all.

Haven't a clue abut the resize one sorry.

In most cases there is no way you can check that the enemy is abiding by these rules until they blatantly ignore them - by which time it is too late really.

I tend to see such rules and a discussion in advance of agreeing a game - one game may take years to complete and you want to be sure that your view and that of your potential opponent are close, otherwise you will start and then have to stop after putting a lot of effort in.

Roger

[pws1225]

Welcome TomRatCat - Here's a translation:

4E - four engine bomber such as B-17. In the original release of the game, these bombers appeared to have unrealistic abilities to hit moving naval target when operating below 10K feet. This house rule addresses this issue. Note that the rule does not apply to Mavis/Emily patrol planes, or 4E allied naval patrol planes.

Sensible use of paratroopers - the game code allows for a unit of paratroopers to be broken into several segments by attempting to load the entire unit aboard a few transport aircraft. This results in a small portion of the unit to be dropped on an undefended hex such as a roadway, and can be repeated several times to indict supply routes. This rule requires that the entire unit be used for interdiction. Note that the use of paras addressed by this rule is considered "gamey", as in being unrealistic and exploiting the game engine.

Paying PP points - Restricted Units are units that were historically restricted to certain theaters. For example, Japanese troops in China were under the command of HQs that only operated in China. For those units, such as an infantry division, that is assigned to a restricted HQ, a player may pay political points (PPs) to change the HQ of the unit to an unrestricted HQ and thereby move the unit to other theaters. This rule addresses the political realities of the period that there was a political cost that resulted from reassigning units from one command to another.

Gamey air unit resizing - on aircraft carriers with more than one squadron aboard, a player may transfer all but one squadron to another base then "resize" the remaining squadron to fill out to the max capability that the carrier can hold. Some players feel this is unrealistic and so this rule addresses this issue.

In general, people who play this game are honest. I have yet to find one who is not. I remember a similar question from several years ago which asked "What keeps your opponent from breaking the rules?" The simple response was "Integrity". That pretty much sums it up.

[Erkki]

To me even more serious than 4E ability to score hits on manoeuvring warships moving at 30 knots or more(if they attack at low altitude) is how they work against CAP. They have long strike range so it is possible to manufacture a CV battle where 4Es will hit Kido Butai among carrier planes. This leads to the 4Es literally sweeping away the entire fighter CAP and leaves all ships very vulnerable to strikes performed by real attack aircraft that also will have a much, much higher accuracy. It is not possible to tell Zeros not to engage 4Es level bombing at 30,000 or something, so one can basically take out great majority of KB CAP by flying B-17s very high or even above Zero's ceiling altitude, even if they don't hit a thing at that altitude. Of course the planes may not launch at long range or find target even if you get the bombers close to KB while your carriers are about to engage it, but its still one nasty and IMHO unfair way to lose irreplaceable assets. One doesn't even need too many B-17s or B-24s to do it, a couple of squadrons only.

Hence the many altitude and naval bombing mission rules.

[AW1Steve]

You know I must not be living right. I keep hearing how devastating the B-17 is against ships , but in five years of operating at all kinds of altitudes I've scored one 500lb hit on a CV , and a couple on AK's or AKL's. Usually sitting at dockside. This "wall of destruction" I keep hearing about? Never seen it.

As far as damage that unarmored Japanese fighters receive at it's hands , what is so unrealistic that a Zero type plane going up against 10+ B-17E's ( that means at least 100 50 cal guns , with a minimum of half tracking it at any time) gets its self chewed up? FW-190s and ME-109's had the same problem and they had armor and self sealing tanks.

In other words I'm not sure a rule is needed. What IS needed is the Japanese player shouldn't take on B-17's with early war fighters in anything less than overwhelming force.

You don't take on the Yamato with a row boat , but I haven't seen anyone propose a house rule banning Yamato . Let's be a little easier on house rules , and a little more "pro-active" on common sense. [:)]

[dr.hal]

In answer to your last question, as Paul said, integrity on your opponent's part and trust on yours.

[Erkki]

4Es did not shoot down fighters in even 1:1 ratio in West front. Despite usually outnumbering attackers and flying in "boxes". Something is wrong when bombers score damaging hits and shoots-down many times more than the much, much faster fighters that attack them.

Their durability I think OTOH is OK. The ways to counter them is dealt in another thread and at least to me includes equally unrealistic plane R&D program.

[Gaspote]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

As far as damage that unarmored Japanese fighters receive at it's hands , what is so unrealistic that a Zero type plane going up against 10+ B-17E's ( that means at least 100 50 cal guns , with a minimum of half tracking it at any time) gets its self chewed up? FW-190s and ME-109's had the same problem and they had armor and self sealing tanks.

Just to say, the ratio fighter destroyed vs 4E destroyed was in favor of the german before P51 show up. 4E are more precious than fighter too. We are speaking of raid of 300 bombers so it's not like 10+ raids like in pacific.

In my opinion, the result aren't well reflecting reality. The main defense of 4E wasn't their gunners like in game but altitude and speed. Allmost impossible to catch for the slow A6M2 over 10000 feet.

Under 10000 feet a B17 catch by A6M will get destroyed or severly damaged. When I see B17 destroying 3+ A6Ms and the A6Ms not scoring a single hit, it's a joke for me (a virtual fighter pilot). If a fighter is destroyed by a bomber, the bomber is supposed to get damaged too, it's not like fighter pilot with only one able to shoot the other at a time.

[BattleMoose]

Any comparisons to the Western Front should consider that ME109s were armoured and had self sealing fuel tanks, unlike the much less survivable zero.

[wdolson]

The game engine can't model every single thing realistically and there are some things that are ahistorical that a player can do. Some were quite possible in the real war, but nobody did them or they were rarely done because of factors the game just can't manage.

So a lot of PBEM players have what are called house rules here to compensate. Some PBEM players prefer to play with no house rules. A lot boils down to whether you are in the "this is a simulation" camp or "this is a game" camp. In a game, you take advantage of every rule and every loophole in the rules to your best advantage. In a simulation, you go for as much realism as possible.

Bill

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Any comparisons to the Western Front should consider that ME109s were armoured and had self sealing fuel tanks, unlike the much less survivable zero.

Its not about the survivability when hit - its how a formation of even a dozen B-17s will score vastly more hits on any fighters attacking them than the other way around. Even Bf 109 only had an armoured seat and windshield(as did, at best, all other "armoured" fighters).


Back on topic, paratroopers: I believe that in many PBEMs the paratroopers are limited to attacking one target at a time and only base or dot base hexes. Since in the game even a single squad can stop a multi-division force for a day or deny a route of withdrawal or supply, it would be too easy to just drop the paratroopers all across the countryside.

[Numdydar]

I just finished a PBEM in Jan 2014 (yes actually 'finished' versus someone quitting lol in Jan '45 with an Allied AV and I was Japan) and we started out with no house rules other than paying PP to cross borders. Otherwise Japan can freely take anything in Manchuria/China and send it off to Burma/India since it is all in the same land mass. Very unrealistic to be sure.

Sometime in late '42 we both decided that night bombing was fubar, so we just decided to stop all night bombing for both sides. Regardless of the people's opinions here about night bombing, in our experience removing night bombing from the game made zero difference to the game. But if you feel you have to have it because the real war had night bombing, then there definitely needs to be some HR about it since the game engine does not do a very good job with it. At least based on what we experienced.

We had no HRs on anything else. No altitude limits, no restrictions on 4E bombing, etc. and the game was very enjoyable for both of us. We did upgrade the game with the betas over the course of the game which imho really improved the game experience.

You and the person you are playing with can do something simple like in my game or go down the rabbit hole with levels of moonlight restrictions, alt caps, etc. It just depends on how much more minutia you want to deal with in a game that already has more than enough of that already [:D]

[wdolson]

Historically night bombing in the Pacific was not very effective. The Japanese sent harassment raids against bases to keep troops awake and they sent Netties after carriers at night once US CAP got good. The USN started putting night fighters on carriers to counter the threat, but I don't think a nocturnal torpedo strike on carriers ever hit anything.

Bill

[TomRatCat]

he, thank you all for the great response.

Now, i have a better understanding why some rules are in use. Primarily it looks like these rules will fix weaknesses in the game engine or hold up a realistic gameplay. I was afraid some people would like to create another game experience, for comparison - knife only in counterstrike. In my future games i will use these rules too

pws1225
In general, people who play this game are honest. I have yet to find one who is not. I remember a similar question from several years ago which asked "What keeps your opponent from breaking the rules?" The simple response was "Integrity". That pretty much sums it up.

yes, i think so too. I a small game community in any case.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

In answer to your last question, as Paul said, integrity on your opponent's part and trust on yours.

Definitely.....GP