House rules?

[JimboJangles]

I don't know if there are a lot of differing opinions, but what house rules do most people play with?

Thanks!
-Jimbo

[Istfemer]

There are two sets of house rules I have some knowledge of. Zeke's simple house rules and Zeke's & Brad's more complex ones.

These are the ones we are playing with in our current game:

Zeke PAC House Rules
to keep it simple:
---
CV TF max. 10pts
US CV = 3pts
other CV + US CVL = 2pts
other CVL + CVE = 1pt

Max. TF AD 3000 pts
(the program counts small caliber AA MG / MC into TF total air defence value while these guns could only protect the ship where installed due to the short range)

Amphibious TF max can have only one Div or 2Reg/Brig (eng do not count)
*/means either one division or its equivalent: 2 brigades, 4 regiments, 8 battalions or an equivalent mix of those. Armoured Divisions/Brigades/Regiments are the same as regular ones for this purpose. All SBFs are considered regiments. Armies can't be used in amphibious invasions. LCU's actual size does not matter, only its size designation does./*

No landings @ Bataan & Singapore (coastal guns)
No landings on Japan before the Philippine bases are taken
No landings @ Cylon (Colombo and the other base) to keep front in India alive, may be attacked by TF though.

No “ships in port” air or naval attacks on the convoy ports LA and Nagoya.
*/I probably have to clarify this one further with Zeke/*

Japan: 1 Div has to stay in Indochina */Phnom Penh – Saigon – Haiphong/*
UK : 8th Aus Div has to stay in Singapore (Churchill's order)

Aircraft restrictions
Allied CVE can only use F4 fighters */F4F and FM2 Wildcats/* due to space limitations.
Vengeance DB must not be produced. Became a super killer in that version.
P61 Black Widow does only night combat.
---

These are simple enough to follow and to remember.
*/.../*s are my clarifications. If I got something wrong then please correct me, Zeke.

BTW, in light of my recent findings some particular exploits need to be adressed in all house rules.

[Istfemer]

The much more complex and probably more balanced version — Zeke's & Brad's house rules.


PACIFIC WAR HOUSE RULES

Article I - Definition
For purposes of construing rules described below, the following terms have the meanings assigned to them:
1. “Carrier Points” mean points for calculating the maximum number of carriers assigned to one "Air combat Task Force.”
Each unit has the following Carrier Points:
(a) USN CV = 3 points, (b) USN CVL and non-USN CVs = 2 points, (c) non-USN CVLs and all CVEs = 1 point.
2. “Garrison” means a non-movable land combat unit (“LCU”) that shall be located in the area specified under this Rule.
3. “One Division or its Equivalent” means:
a) one division, b) 2 brigades, c) 4 regiments, d) 8 battalions, e) undivided one SBF, or f) one armored division or brigade, regardless of their shipping costs or unit size.
4. “Offensive Mission” means bombardment mission or surface combat mission for offensive purposes.
5. “Japan Mainland” means cities located in the Japan homeland, including Karafuto but excluding Sakishima, Okinawa, Amami Oshima, and Etorofo Jima.
6. “Formosa” means the bases of Taiwan, i.e. “Takao” and “Keelung.”
7. “Marianas Islands” mean Guam, Tinian, Saipan, and Pagan.

Article II - Task Force
2.1. TF Carrier Points. A total of Carrier Points in a single TF will not exceed “ten” (10).
2.2. Battleship. The maximum number of BBs assigned to a single TF will be “five” (5).
2.3. Limitation of Offensive Mission. BBs or CAs that sustain more than 25 system damage will not be participated in Offensive Missions. Despite the preceding sentence, such warships may conduct surface combat mission solely for defending friendly ports.
2.4. TF Flak Limit. The maximum TF flak rating will be “3000.”
2.5. Port Attacks on Nagoya or LA. Each player shall not conduct a port strike on Nagoya or LA.

Comment to Article 2.2.: This rule is aimed to counterbalance Allied user’s disadvantage caused by Article 2.4. Without this rule, due to low flak ratings of IJN warships, a single IJN TF may have far-outnumbering BBs than a USN TF. Limiting the maximum number of BBs attached in one TF may mitigate such concern.

Comment to Article 2.3.: This rule was initially suggested by brad K in the Matrix forum. I favor this rule for the following reasons:
(1) it reflects the historical reality about operating such warships; and
(2) this rule may reduce unrealistic efficiency of BB’s bombardment missions, given BB’s anti-aircraft fire is strong enough to ignore continual air strikes in PW.

Article III – Aircraft
3.1. Mission of P61. P61 squadrons must be set to night combat.
3.2. Allied CVEs. Allied CVEs shall use only the F4F or FM2 for fighter squadrons until June 1945.
3.3. Vengeance DB must not be produced. Became a super killer in that version.

Article IV - LCU
4.1. Indochina Garrison. Japanese player shall deploy at least one division in Indochina.
4.2. 8th Aus Div has to stay in Singapore (Churchill's order)
4.3. Atoll Garrison. The maximum number of garrisons assigned to a single atoll is one Division or its Equivalent plus one construction LCU. After capturing an atoll, any LCU other than the atoll garrison shall leave the atoll immediately. Any LCU other than garrison LCU shall not be stationed in any situation.
4.4. Armored LCUs. Any armored-type LCUs shall not be stationed in bases of terrain 1, 8 or 9.

Article V - Amphibious Invasion
5.1. LCU Number Limitation by Terrain Type. The maximum number of LCUs that may be participated for a single amphibious invasion mission will be:
(a) “5” divisions or their equivalent if the target base’s terrain type is not “atoll”; and
(b) “2” divisions or their equivalent plus single construction LCU if the target base is an atoll.
5.2. LCU Number limitation by Departing Port Size. The maximum number of LCUs that may depart from “one” port per turn for purpose of "amphibious invasion missions" will be subject to the following restrictions determined by its port size:
1) Port size 1: 1 division or its equivalent;
2) Port size 2~3: 2 divisions or their equivalent;
3) Port size 4: 3 divisions or their equivalent;
4) Port size 5: 4 divisions or their equivalent;
5) Port size more than 5: 5 divisions or their equivalent;
There is no such limitation if LCUs are loaded for moving to friendly ports or withdrawing from enemy bases.

Comment to Article 5.1:
(a) Ordinary Base
Historically, US navy could succeed a large scale of amphibious operation mobilizing 5 divisions after the end of 1944 and Japan had never gained such capability. I restrict the maximum number of divisions for single amphibious mission to five (5).
(b) Atoll
We have discussed a lot about the atoll rule. The justification of this rule is:
1) to curtail the importance of atolls, which often become too valuable in this game; and
2) to reflect the historical reality where just few LCUs could have participated in atoll warfare due to its small size.

If LCUs can land over the atoll for passing-by purpose, the atoll effectively operates as an ordinary big front-base in this game. However, in reality, because the atoll lacks port facility, landing LCUs on the atoll even for passing-by purpose itself takes huge amount of time and costs. That's why US marines departed from Hawaii when attacking Marianas, not from Marshall Islands, even though Marshall Islands are by far close to Marianas. For another example, Marcus Island had never been an important target for US in history, but without the atoll rules, this island will become a very valuable base to invade the Japan Mainland.

Comment to Article 5.2:
This rule exactly follows the approach of “War in the Pacific” and “Uncommon Valor.”
Port facility was very important in the real war, particularly because it was an essential factor to determine the speed of landing or unloading supplies and LCUs. So, in the case of “UV” or “WITP,” if you load 2 divisions and required supplies for amphibious mission purposes in Truk featuring a 9 port size, you can complete this task within "one week," but the same task will not be completed for "a month" in Santa Cruz having 1 port size.

PACWAR doesn't give a player any benefits arising from a big port size, except for PP bonus. However, ports having good facility have served as important front bases in history. For example, US troops that were participated in Guadalcanal departed from New Caledonia, the biggest port in South Pacific, even though Santa Cruz and Espiritu Santo are much closer to Guadalcanal. The same was true for IJN to deploy reserve LCUs on Rabaul and Truk, not Kolombangara or Bougainville. This rule is designed to reflect such reality. In PACWAR, one turn is just 7 days. It's unreasonable that for 7 days, any party can load 4 or more divisions and required supplies for an amphibious mission in a base like Kolombangara surround by jungles. In effect, this rule will escalate the strategical significance of historically important bases, like New Caledonia, Rabaul and Truk.

For your understanding, I'll give some examples. Suppose that you want to invade Guadalcanal. To invade this base, 3 divisions can depart from New Caledonia having 4 port size per turn. Additionally, 2 divisions simultaneously can depart from another base, like Espiritu Santo having 2 port size. In sum, 5 divisions will be maximum for one amphibious mission - invasion of Guadalcanal - and according to a port size, 3 divisions can depart from New Caledonia having 4 port size and 2 from another base having less than 4 port size. For another example, suppose that you want to attack Guadalcanal and Rennell Island simultaneously in one turn. By virtue of construction, New Caledonia has a 7 size port. You can load 4 divisions for attacking Guadalcanal and also load 1 division for Rennell in New Caledonia per one turn.

Also, as clarified, this limitation will be applicable only with respect to an amphibious mission. It reflects the reality that when LCUs just move to another base or withdraw from enemy base, it would not take much time because they need not load many supplies or abandon much of supplies. Sounds like complicated, but actually it is very simple. I think that's a very realistic rule and historically important bases become "really important" in this game.

Article VI - Condition to Invasion of Japan Mainland.
6.1. Landing over Japan. For LCUs to land on any cities in Japan Mainland, Allies must gain control of:
(i) 11 of the 14 bases in the Philippines or 7 of 14 plus all of Formosa (“MacArthur Route”); or
(ii) all bases of Marianas Islands and all bases of Formosa (“Nimitz Route”)
6.2. Condition to Invasion of Marianas Island. Before attempting to invade Marianas Islands, Allies must gain control of at least 3 bases of 8 Solomon Islands bases. Rennell is a part of Solomon Islands, but Santa Cruz is not.
6.3. Aftermath of Fall of Philippines. If Allies fulfill the condition articulated under Article 6.1.(i) (MacArthur Route), the number of Japanese TKs running for automatic convoy missions will not exceed “5”.

Comment to Article 6.1.:
This rule serves two purposes:
(1) give Allies player discretion to determine the attacking route; and
(2) have a Japanese player struggle to anticipate Allies' invasion route.

Allies players freely choose either Nimitz Plan or MacArthur Plan. Also, it helps a talented Allies player to deceive a Japanese player. Historically, the reason why Japan's defense line was collapsed easily was that they failed to anticipate (1) where and (2) when Allies would come. In the last game with you, I had deployed more than 10 divisions in Philippines since the beginning of 1944 because the rule adopted in that game required Allies player to capture many of Philippine bases before invading the Japan mainland. But, historically, Japanese had never been convinced that Allies would come to Philippines, and they were reluctant to deploy many divisions in Philippines because they were fearful about the possibility that Allies might invade North Japan or Okinawa instead of Philippines. Under this rule, an IJN player will suffer from the same concern.

Comment to Article 6.2:
Even if choosing Nimitz route, entirely ignoring Solomon Islands is unrealistic. For several historical reasons, US navy had to suppress IJN power in Solomon Islands. Particularly, Allies supply route would have been affected by Solomon airpowers if they had not weakened Japanese force in Solomons, although PACWAR could not reflect well the realism about the supply route. For that reason, I have created the rule requiring the capture of 3 Solomon bases before attempting to invade Marianas. Just capturing 3 Solomon bases is not a difficult mission and doesn't restrict much Allies player's strategic choice.

Comment to Article 6.3.:
This rule is designed to create the fictional situation where the connection between Japan and oil resource areas was entirely cut off due to the fall of Philippines. Unfortunately, PACWAR cannot make such a situation, and Japanese TKs still can run through Indonesia and other oil bases. So, after losses of Philippine bases, an IJN player should withdraw all TKs from an auto-convoy port except for 5 TKs. Under this fictional situation, 5 TKs are supposed to get oil from China and Japan for purposes of this rule, although the game display may show they get oil from Southern Asia.

Also, this rule gives Allies players a strong motive to invade Philippines. MacArthur route is not an easy route compared with Nimitz route, because there are many bases of terrain level 7 in Philippines. But, the strategic benefits of cutting off Japanese oil routes may make Allies player consider attacking this area even after capturing Marianas Islands. Also, as long as Philippines are still important to maintain the supply route, an IJN player also has a strong justification to defend this area. A genius Allies player may give a false signal of attacking Philippines to an IJN player, thereby making IJ LCUs to be dispersed across Philippines, which creates a wonderful chance to attack Taiwan or even Japan Mainland.
---

That's one big wall of text. I took the liberty to fix many, many typos in these rules for your convenience.
Again, if I got something wrong let Zeke correct me.

[JimboJangles]

Wow, thanks lstfemer, I didn't realize the house rules were so extensive. I'll have to study up to be ready for pbem.

[Istfemer]

Wow, thanks lstfemer, I didn't realize the house rules were so extensive. I'll have to study up to be ready for pbem.

You do that. [;)] And while you're at it, read about my PACWAR discoveries. I'll soon post the next batch.

[Capt. Harlock]

I believe there are also usually agreements not to use the "Reinforce" or "Get Transport" commands, since they cause ships to teleport.

[bradk]

I can't claim authorship of what's identifed as the Zeke/Brad rules. Some of my concepts are there but its better written than the last rule set I created and has some modifications. I also want to add that almost everyone creating a rule set borrows liberally from what has been written before. Some of the concepts in the rules mentioned here are originally from discussions on the old PacWar mailing list from the 90s!

Simple rules are good, where possible. What happens to those simple rule sets, though, is people use them, their opponent does something they consider to be gamey, and the simple rule set then gets an addition. And then another, and another, until it isn't simple any more. Just an observation of what has happened for a couple of decades.

The real test of the fairness of a rule set is this: Would you play either side under those rules?

[JimboJangles]

I like simple rules, makes it easy to remember. [;)]

[bradk]

Actually only one rule is needed: If it couldn't or wouldn't be done in real life, don't do it. [;)]

But if that were tried, there would be an argument on every turn!