House Rule Option

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

bush
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:32 pm
Location: san jose, ca
Contact:

House Rule Option

Post by bush »

I am thinking about having a house rule of making a squadron sit out for one month to "train" when they upgrade to a new type of aircraft. The month timing is purely arbitrary. How does that sound? Does anyone have any RL info on what happened to squadrons when they changed their plane type? Also, going way back to the original game, didn't experience levels drop by 10 points when we changed aircraft?

Thank you,

Mike
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: House Rule Option

Post by crsutton »

Well, a unit was typically pulled out of the line to get acquainted with a new aircraft. Bout a month or so sounds right. However, I don't know if it really matters enough for a HR. HRs are important but they tend to lead to arguments and end friendships. For that reason it is best to limit HR to a few agreed upon essentials.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
mussey
Posts: 682
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Cleve-Land

RE: House Rule Option

Post by mussey »

I'm curious too on how they did this. I suppose if the need was urgent things could be speeded up. Regardless, this could be a good HR especially vs the AI.
Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

My view is to find reasons to get rid of house rules, not to dream up new ones. If you use DaBigBabes mark C you will obviate many otherwise necessary house rules. This particular thing smacks of the "carrier trained" squadron thing which is of little consequence in any case. The game does not keep track of individual pilot's training on individual airframes and the squadron training level idea is superfluous. Still, you put some effort into dreaming up a new house rule. Stop it! Some of us will refuse to play with opponents who are into making up house rules. The best approach, in this humble gorn's opinion, is to find opponents who won't do wacky stuff even though they can.

User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: House Rule Option

Post by AW1Steve »

In "rl" it depends entirely on what is going on in "RL". An example: VT-8 (Torpedo 8) was undergoing a transition in June 1942 from TBD's to TBF's. Not only were the CV (USS Hornet) based TBD's committed (and slaughtered) so were it's TBF's (launched from Midway where they lost 5 out of 6 , the last one too badly damaged to fly again).

I've been in squadrons (in sort of peacetime) that still flew operationally during the transitions. Like "real life" it all depends on a number of things, the skill of the aircrew and maintainers, the quality of the new aircraft, the support facilities of the base and the experience of the leadership. The more experienced the squadron, the faster they'll assimilate the information and skills needed, and work the bugs (if they exist) out of the equipment.

It's always nice when some one comes up with arbitrary rules to simulate "real life". The problem is that "real life" is never easy to simulate.

I'd recommend any attempt to simulate the suggested rule be based on two factors. How desperate , versus how much "luxury" do you have. In June 1942 for the allies, you are desperate enough to let pilots go into combat with less flight time than it would be required for many pilots to "solo" today (20 hours). In June 1945 you can say "what the hell, take the whole month off". Factor two is what's the exp rating of the squadron. If the average pilot has 80, give them a day. If they average less than 40....never mind a one month, give them 6.


[:)]
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: House Rule Option

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My view is to find reasons to get rid of house rules, not to dream up new ones. If you use DaBigBabes mark C you will obviate many otherwise necessary house rules. This particular thing smacks of the "carrier trained" squadron thing which is of little consequence in any case. The game does not keep track of individual pilot's training on individual airframes and the squadron training level idea is superfluous. Still, you put some effort into dreaming up a new house rule. Stop it! Some of us will refuse to play with opponents who are into making up house rules. The best approach, in this humble gorn's opinion, is to find opponents who won't do wacky stuff even though they can.
My attitude is they can do any "wacky stuff" the want. I just don't like players doing (what the current military calls) "LAWFARE".[:(]
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

Steve illustrates both sides of the point in detail. On the one side house rules are arbitrary (and perhaps in other ways stupid) and on the other side are suggested algorithms to add to the house rules to make them more realistic. I'm not in a position to say "a pox on both your houses" as I reside in one of them. I'm just waiting for a landlord to evict me.

User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Macclan5 »

I think the summary of this advice is don't over complicate the game; you may inadvertently mess with balance.

Fighter units that upgrade already 'go down' for maintenance for at least day assuming you have 'way too much' air support on base. If your air support on base is too low it can take 'days' to have the squadron fit and trim and ready for action.

This already simulates the the training re-fit.

Argued to the Nth degree you would probably have to allocate AK's to deliver the actual airframes from CONUS or Canada; I am not sure I would want to have to micro manage that on top of fuel / supplies / resources.

--

The War Room FAQ thread for newbies contains the 'top 5 reasonable' house rules.

I suspect these have been hammered out by the very cordial experienced gamers here. I actually use them in so far as possible even in my games vs the AI.

tm.asp?m=2260137

The only house rule I personally feel is desperately missing is: Allied offshore / off map shipping must be accompanied by escort at a rate of 1 escort per 10 ships and 1 escort per 20 ships with ASW capability until 1944

I think this is required for the East US Coast / Capetown / Panama moves. It fairly simulated German Uboat and Commerce Raider activity.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Dili »

It is correct house rule in most cases but that implies more management in an already heavy management game. Sometimes even more than a month is necessary

But IRL there are differences, there are aircrafts that are so similar to existing ones that a change does not warrant take the unit off line, and like others have said desperate situations might change the practice. But that always implies that there is a sensible drop in unit quality/efficiency.

Also it depends if the aircraft is new to Air Force or if it is already well deployed and all the kinks are all known.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I think the summary of this advice is don't over complicate the game; you may inadvertently mess with balance.

Fighter units that upgrade already 'go down' for maintenance for at least day assuming you have 'way too much' air support on base. If your air support on base is too low it can take 'days' to have the squadron fit and trim and ready for action.

This already simulates the the training re-fit.

Argued to the Nth degree you would probably have to allocate AK's to deliver the actual airframes from CONUS or Canada; I am not sure I would want to have to micro manage that on top of fuel / supplies / resources.

--

The War Room FAQ thread for newbies contains the 'top 5 reasonable' house rules.

I suspect these have been hammered out by the very cordial experienced gamers here. I actually use them in so far as possible even in my games vs the AI.

tm.asp?m=2260137

The only house rule I personally feel is desperately missing is: Allied offshore / off map shipping must be accompanied by escort at a rate of 1 escort per 10 ships and 1 escort per 20 ships with ASW capability until 1944

I think this is required for the East US Coast / Capetown / Panama moves. It fairly simulated German Uboat and Commerce Raider activity.


In this particular game the Atlantic and Med are in effect black holes. There are escorts present and aircraft carriers and all sorts of other Allied stuff that is neither controlled by the player or visible to him. No "reasonable" house rules are needed. I'm not sure what the 5 most reasonable house rules are as I'm not sure any are reasonable. If they were reasonable you shouldn't need them in the first place. Don't do (as the Axis player) strategic bombing outside of China. Don't do it (as the Allied player) outside of Japan proper. Does there need to be a rule to keep you from doing it? Just tell your potential opponents that you can't behave yourself without agreed upon rules like that. Weed out the reasonable ones that way.

User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Lecivius »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The only house rule I personally feel is desperately missing is: Allied offshore / off map shipping must be accompanied by escort at a rate of 1 escort per 10 ships and 1 escort per 20 ships with ASW capability until 1944

I think this is required for the East US Coast / Capetown / Panama moves. It fairly simulated German Uboat and Commerce Raider activity.

Why? Separate commands. Totally unnecessary IMHO. The game is already very well laid out, and by people who spent a heck of a lot of tome investing in research. Less is better, with regards to HR.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

Well, there you go. I just behaved in an unreasonable and arrogant manner and I must apologize. But if you start a campaign PBEM try and pick an opponent who isn't going to invent wacky stuff to do that they can get away with without a rule in advance. If your opponent can imagine wacky things to do before you can, he wins. Who wants to play with them?

User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: House Rule Option

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

The only house rule I personally feel is desperately missing is: Allied offshore / off map shipping must be accompanied by escort at a rate of 1 escort per 10 ships and 1 escort per 20 ships with ASW capability until 1944

I think this is required for the East US Coast / Capetown / Panama moves. It fairly simulated German Uboat and Commerce Raider activity.

Why? Separate commands. Totally unnecessary IMHO. The game is already very well laid out, and by people who spent a heck of a lot of tome investing in research. Less is better, with regards to HR.
Right on!
The developers may have made the assumption that for the transition of the Atlantic that ships and aircraft already allocated to commands in the Atlantic theatre would take up the escort duties. Seems logical to me. The US invented 10th Fleet to track U-boats through their signals and Enigma decrypts. The British were doing similar things, and actively redirecting convoys and sending any available escorts to attack U-boats with good detection levels.

As for the OP on squadron stand-down, I think it would get messy when squadrons are in a location that is too far to fly back to a safe area for a month and too exposed to enemy attack. Once the enemy decides there is no risk from you nice new squadron of P-47s they will bomb the heck out of the airfield and destroy those precious aircraft.

I rationalize that the people managing the Air Forces would first operate the new aircraft at bases near the factories and work out the bugs plus train some experienced pilots before making the aircraft available to front-line squadrons. Those pilots would transfer with the aircraft and the existing squadron pilots would take back the old aircraft and join the ranks of the conversion trainees. The game just doesn't model the pilot swap, which I can accept as one of the game's abstractions.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Macclan5 »

No apologies necessary gentlemen......all very reasonable arguments.

I fully appreciate the separate commands issue and I considered it as well.

However in reading forum threads / tactics / AARs in associated with this game it is very very evident that Allied Player (myself included) utilize:

~ East Coast USA >> Capetown shipping of fuel and supplies on a significant and potentially non-historic level starting December 1941.

~ East Coast USA >> Panama transit of innumerable ships many of which historically would have had their shakedown cruise in the Caribbean Sea including i.e. CVs but equally AP / AK / TK and other misc. ships. I would/could potentially exclude liberty ships and LCIs etc as many were manufactured on the west coast but they show up on the west coast anyway.

Why my house rule is still required:

1) The Atlantic Shipping protection would nominally fall under USNavy 10th Fleet (general ~ Atlantic Fleet before that).

However 10th fleet and most if any dedicated assets were not established till May 1943 . In fact Royal Canadian Naval assets performed a substantial part of the early escort duty and those Canadian Assets were extremely dedicated to the corridors to the British Isles.

It is an interesting / ironic fact that the Canadian Navy was heavily involved in protecting the US East Coast from Uboats especially ports such as New York after early losses in merchant shipping including Tankers.

2) The US Coast Guard had ships !

Yes by end of war the US Coast Guard had some 80+ Corvettes and Frigates.

The US Coast Guard did an admirable job working with the US Navy in targeting U Boats and Coast Raiders.

However many of its initial ships and deployments were Icebreakers and patrol boats deployed around Greenland to protect cryolite mines and weather stations for the North Atlantic; further the US Coast Guard had to fight for ships with Lend Lease program / US Navy 10th Fleet and US Navy 4th Fleet / US Navy 12th Fleet.

3) US Navy 4th / 12th Fleet was pretty busy.

Did we note that US Navy 4th Fleet responsible for North Africa and the Med gobbled up such precious resources as USS Ranger (CV). Ranger was not patrolling the sea lanes of the Atlantic as far as I know. I stand to be corrected but I am fairly certain. It may have transited the Atlantic but it was protecting troop movements ~ not Cargo!

When US Navy 12th Fleet was formed as part of consolidated European in October 1943 it largely gobbled up US Navy 4th Fleet and all her assets; further competing with the Lend Lease / Coast Guard for more escort assets.

4) While the game does an admirable job with ship withdrawl it is heavily skewed to the Royal Navy and the fight in the med.


If the US Navy undertook the support of these huge significant (perhaps non historic) levels of cargo convoys to Capetown for example; more USN Naval assets would have been required.

Please recall that Graf Spee was scuttled in Uruguay
; I feel positive that more German hunters would have targeted CONUS to South Africa transports.

I think the house rule is a very fair balance of deploying US Naval assets to reflect the tactics of convoys off map.






A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

Just want to mention, this is not a criticism (at least not a well thought out one), I've played more than a half dozen PBEMs and I have never used the auto convoy system. I am deeply suspicious of it whether it is on map or off. I just don't do it. Don't like letting the AI, which is what you are doing if you let the game run anything, do my work for me. I'm not saying my opponents should not do it, and I wouldn't know if they didn't tell me, but I want to do everything the game lets me do myself. On the other hand, next time I advertise for an Allied opponent, consider it an advantage if you tell me up front you don't do (or actually fail to do your own work) that up front. Not that that should be considered a house rule or anything like that. [8|][:D]

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: House Rule Option

Post by geofflambert »

That makes me think. Against my last opponent I sent both subs with floatplanes and surface raiders with float planes to patrol the area around Karachi. Never saw anything. Was it because he was auto-convoying? I had stuff watching all the way up and down the coast (Bombay and etc.) and never saw anything. Where was he shipping his oil?

User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Macclan5 »

Sorry auto convoy ?

Missing perspective... [&:]

I was 'house rule' specifically speaking to East Coast USA to Capetown and East Coast USA to Cristobal and the Panama ports; neither of which qualify for auto convoy. These convoys off map must be set manually .......

....unless there is something more I have to learn.

I have not uses computer assigned convoys for this purpose either; I don't think it would work because East Coast USA to Capetown for example is beyond the endurance of most available early ships. I still think you have to set them : (1) direct to port (2) Load Fuel / Supplies and (3) home port = direct to port. Otherwise your ships are stuck nowhere (?)

I have played with the auto convoy system in my game against the AI but it only works from San Francisco / Columbia.

Frankly the auto convoy system is slightly useful but only when you are confident you have ASW / IJN submarine warfare under control and really only on the CONUS west coast. You can assign a handful of the newer bigger AKs that haul supplies and fuel (i.e. the ones that originate in Mare Island) to support Pearl / Hilo / Palmyra / Christmas Island / perhaps Canton latter in 1943...i.e. the Allied Inner defense line. Housekeeping / food / supplies for the trainees.

To your point I don't think it would be effective at all in a PBEM game.

If / when I get to play the IJN side to better understand and then if / when I try to be a PBEM opponent I would think the auto convoy would be a handicap far too easily combated. If the AI or an IJN player consistently targeted certain sea lanes between CONUS and Pearl / Hilo / Palmyra / Christmas it would be a blood bath (??!1??)
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Yaab »

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

I am thinking about having a house rule of making a squadron sit out for one month to "train" when they upgrade to a new type of aircraft. The month timing is purely arbitrary. How does that sound? Does anyone have any RL info on what happened to squadrons when they changed their plane type? Also, going way back to the original game, didn't experience levels drop by 10 points when we changed aircraft?

Thank you,

Mike

I guess a better house-rule would be to sit a submarine in a port for two,three weeks once it finishes its patrol just like RL.

If you really want an easy house-rule try this: no fuel-hauling in xAKs as cargo EVER. Fuel can only be moved by AO, YO an TK ship classes. Slows the operational tempo for the Allies, makes Japs even more constrained logistically.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Macclan5 »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

That makes me think. Against my last opponent I sent both subs with floatplanes and surface raiders with float planes to patrol the area around Karachi. Never saw anything. Was it because he was auto-convoying? I had stuff watching all the way up and down the coast (Bombay and etc.) and never saw anything. Where was he shipping his oil?

You must be referring to Computer Assigned Convoys... i.e. Establish home port / load / set destination / computer repeat.

I have only used that functionality for short runs such as resources from Hilo / Pearl - from Tasmania / Melbourne.

Again I would be surprised it was effective in a PBEM game.

There is a 'little' a non historic / game implementation notion in that you may have to set outside a "shade area" of the map to try to catch them.

In your instance I assume the opponent player set waypoints to the west ~ that little British controlled island in the top left hand corner ~ and then ran the fuel convoys from there into Goa or some place you didn't expect.

Deploying KV's from the British Fleet to escort those convoys would be the historic solution no doubt.

Using way points to create a 'wide berth' could be argued as historic / gamey depending on ones perspective.

The analogy would be the US Navy shifting Australian convoys further into the south pacific via transit routes via SF / LA / SD through Pago Pago / South of Suva for example to stay outside of IJN Naval Air attacks. Or shifting the supply runs to Australia / New Zealand by using the Panama Canal areas allowing that there would be delays getting fuel / ammo / oil down to Panama via railroads or "gulf coast - off map shipping".

But in that sense as well I would think part of the USNaval response would be to deploy ASW / AA heavy escorts.

So again whether Computer controlled or human controlled - I think it makes a legitimate argument for house rule about escorts for 'off map' movements
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: House Rule Option

Post by Macclan5 »

sorry double post



A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”