Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 2:22:48 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline 		Many thanks to all you experienced players out there that have responded to these inquiries on house rules. And thanks to Dave for the sticky thread that addresses these questions head-on. From all this information, I think it is possible to have a very limited number of house rules that will allow maximum realistic flexibility to each player and avoid 'gamey' exploits. Here they are:

1 - Units belonging to restricted HQs must pay full PP to transfer to unrestricted HQs. No cheap HQ buyouts.

2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1.

3 - No strategic bombing in China before 1944.

4 - Amphibious landings allowed anywhere as long as they are at least a brigade in size.

That's it. What do you guys think?
Post #: 1
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 2:31:20 PM   
sprior


Posts: 7575
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Nottingham, UK
Status: offline 		I would play a game with those HRs

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 2
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 2:41:22 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13698
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I question #4. There are a lot of Japanese units that are smaller than that (SNLFs, Nav Gds, etc.) that do not have the option to combine to larger units. Does this mean that they can not engage in amphibious operations by themselves? Also, there are a lot of unoccupied dot hexes that the Japanese must take. They need to use brigade sized units to do this? As the Japanese player, I'd not be happy with that HR. I understand the idea behind it, but I don't like it.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 3
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 2:51:35 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I question #4. There are a lot of Japanese units that are smaller than that (SNLFs, Nav Gds, etc.) that do not have the option to combine to larger units. Does this mean that they can not engage in amphibious operations by themselves? Also, there are a lot of unoccupied dot hexes that the Japanese must take. They need to use brigade sized units to do this? As the Japanese player, I'd not be happy with that HR. I understand the idea behind it, but I don't like it.


Hi Mike - Since I will be playing as the Japanese side, I appreciate your input. How would you rephrase the rule to prepserve the intent, but not limit the units you mention from performing landings.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 4
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 2:53:34 PM   
sprior


Posts: 7575
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Nottingham, UK
Status: offline 		You might want to change it to non-dot, non-base hexes.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 5
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 4:19:18 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 6199
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		I would not play with #4 in place.

The SNLF units that operated independantly are all of battalion or company size...you completely limit the Japanese player's ability to take the undefended islands in a timely manner (timely meaning historical).

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 6
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 4:25:45 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Many thanks to all you experienced players out there that have responded to these inquiries on house rules. And thanks to Dave for the sticky thread that addresses these questions head-on. From all this information, I think it is possible to have a very limited number of house rules that will allow maximum realistic flexibility to each player and avoid 'gamey' exploits. Here they are:

1 - Units belonging to restricted HQs must pay full PP to transfer to unrestricted HQs. No cheap HQ buyouts.

2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1.

3 - No strategic bombing in China before 1944.

4 - Amphibious landings allowed in non-base/non-dot hexes as long as they are at least a brigade in size.

That's it. What do you guys think?



Thanks for the suggestions! With the change in #4, how does this look?

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 7
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 4:59:53 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I think it should be battalion size, not brigade. So that japanese player can use battalion sized Naval garrisons and SNLF units.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 8
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 7:24:44 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 1368
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline 		Paul I agree with Puhis, certainly that size should be reduced to battalion.... remember your intent, not to allow "fragments" of a unit to do Herculean tasks, such as a dropped of squad blocking the retreat of a division. A well place battalion can do lots of bad things. Hal

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 9
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 7:33:05 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 569
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Many thanks to all you experienced players out there that have responded to these inquiries on house rules. And thanks to Dave for the sticky thread that addresses these questions head-on. From all this information, I think it is possible to have a very limited number of house rules that will allow maximum realistic flexibility to each player and avoid 'gamey' exploits. Here they are:

1 - Units belonging to restricted HQs must pay full PP to transfer to unrestricted HQs. No cheap HQ buyouts.

2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1.

3 - No strategic bombing in China before 1944.

4 - Amphibious landings allowed in non-base/non-dot hexes as long as they are at least a battalion in size.

That's it. What do you guys think?


That works for me. How do these look now?



(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 10
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 8:25:13 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online 		Even a company-sized unit can capture small, undefended places. Half a platoon seizes the town hall and that's it. The best way is to rely on the players with "Don't be gamey."

Like with para drops. A para drop halves the defenders AS, and is effective when used in conjunction with an amphibious assault or conventional land assault. So along with troops attacking over land, drop a para company on a defending regiment. Good.

But would it be realistic to do the same with a para regiment dropping on a stack of 100,000 defending troops to cut their defending AS for the simultaneous over-land attack? No. The game engine doesn't know the difference, and a house rule against para drops along with other attacks would rule out many realistic tactics. So the way to handle that is for the players to use good judgement. This is just one example of why I prefer to severely limit actual house rules and rely more on the players' joint integrity and communication.

My 2 cents worth. YMMV

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 11
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 9:49:18 PM   
Hotschi

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 1/18/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline 		I wonder about "2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1."

According to "At Dawn We Slept", on the voyage from Hittokappu Bay to Pearl, Genda prepared for Nagumo a couple of plans regarding action to be taken after the initial two-wave attack. One of his proposals was to stay in the area for a couple of days to hunt down US carriers, should there be none present at the time of attack.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 12
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 10:21:22 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1174
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

I wonder about "2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1."

According to "At Dawn We Slept", on the voyage from Hittokappu Bay to Pearl, Genda prepared for Nagumo a couple of plans regarding action to be taken after the initial two-wave attack. One of his proposals was to stay in the area for a couple of days to hunt down US carriers, should there be none present at the time of attack.



Problem with this is that the Japanese PLAYER knows exactly where the US CV's start the game..., but Genda and Nagumo had no clue where in 6,000, 000 square miles of ocean they might be.

(in reply to Hotschi)
Post #: 13
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/4/2010 10:37:39 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2611
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

I wonder about "2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1."

According to "At Dawn We Slept", on the voyage from Hittokappu Bay to Pearl, Genda prepared for Nagumo a couple of plans regarding action to be taken after the initial two-wave attack. One of his proposals was to stay in the area for a couple of days to hunt down US carriers, should there be none present at the time of attack.



Problem with this is that the Japanese PLAYER knows exactly where the US CV's start the game..., but Genda and Nagumo had no clue where in 6,000, 000 square miles of ocean they might be.



I usually set both USN CV TFs at full speed and send them each in a different direction. Seems that as long as Japs pound Pearl u should get away. If the Japs opt not to pound pearl then you could be in trouble. Strangly it is in the allied interest to get the japs to pound pearl. I dont think of myself an old pro, just my .02cents.

< Message edited by bigred -- 12/5/2010 12:24:45 AM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 14
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/5/2010 8:16:53 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 567
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225



quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

Many thanks to all you experienced players out there that have responded to these inquiries on house rules. And thanks to Dave for the sticky thread that addresses these questions head-on. From all this information, I think it is possible to have a very limited number of house rules that will allow maximum realistic flexibility to each player and avoid 'gamey' exploits. Here they are:

1 - Units belonging to restricted HQs must pay full PP to transfer to unrestricted HQs. No cheap HQ buyouts.

2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1.

3 - No strategic bombing in China before 1944.

4 - Amphibious landings allowed in non-base/non-dot hexes as long as they are at least a battalion in size.

That's it. What do you guys think?


That works for me. How do these look now?






I would play with those HRs.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 15
RE: Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal - 12/7/2010 9:43:57 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5266
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi

I wonder about "2 - No hunting Allied CVs in turn 1."

According to "At Dawn We Slept", on the voyage from Hittokappu Bay to Pearl, Genda prepared for Nagumo a couple of plans regarding action to be taken after the initial two-wave attack. One of his proposals was to stay in the area for a couple of days to hunt down US carriers, should there be none present at the time of attack.


What he means is that you can't move your CV's to be able to attack the USN CVs on December 7th. Certainly that would be gamey. Even if the USN is allowed to move TF's at sea Dec 7th (pretty typical start), you could make a good guess and nail them. That should all be off-limits. Bomb a port instead.

Dec 8th, though, the gloves are off. Any USN player will get those CVs well away from Pearl Harbor immediately, to avoid an encounter with KB.

(in reply to Hotschi)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Old Pro Question #3: House Rules Proposal Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.547