From: Mordor Illlinois
CRAP! Once again , let's try to come up with unrealistic house rules for the sole purpose of making life easy for the JFB! The only way I think you could even begin to sell that hair brain idea is to prohibit IJA from landing at IJN bases and vice versa. And lets no let ANY JFB units sail from IJN bases while we are at it! Pretty silly , eh?
Let's start with that means NO USAAF in OZ, or USN or USMC either. As all bases there were RAAF (just like in England the 8th and 9th AF's operated from RAF bases). No USAAF in China either. Or Noumeau (French). Hell the USAAF in Europe even operated from RUSSIAN bases against the Germans.
Now let's also consider that such a rule in reality would mean no lend-lease. And probably no alliance. Yeah , I could just see USA papers saying "Our boys are dying there , and were are providing massive amounts of lend lease and other aid, but we can't land on their precious soil. And we are OK with that". Yeah, right. PP's were already paid. They were called "lend-lease" and "alliance". Then they were further financed in blood.
So before we jump on the band wagon echoing "oh yeah, that's a really freakin' great house rule that we can add to the other 999 we've proposed already" lets take a moment or two to actually THINK of the repercussions.
I've never been a fan of house rules. (Like no one knows this). But I freely acknowledge the possible need for SOME. This rule completely bypasses the
'smell test" and runs right to the "projectile power puke test". It absolutely totally changes the game. Not to mention mugs and rapes reality.
Wow, relax man, this is not some kind of house rule, this is genuine roleplaying, if players are into it let them live, just say that you find that such role playing is not for you and that's it...
In Barb's example he is clearly talking from the point of view of someon who likes his game to stay slower and smaller than what it tends to become because players optimize... It is very likely that his opponent enjoys the same sort of role-playing as Japan : army support for army only, no combined action of the 2 at tactical level, etc...
The main thing is : let them live, to each his own, this game is flexible and if some guys like to play it in a different way doesn't mean that it fails the "projectile power puke test" or "rapes reality"...
Take a deep breath.
What? You think I'm going to hunt them down and hurt them? Maybe you need to spend more time on this forum. The increadibly prolific birth of more and more restrictive house rules is seldom answered. Everytime some one comes up with a new proposal , the community often responds with "unhuh", like a group of slack jawed inebriated primates who can only see how this would give them a advantage in THEIR play. If my response seems violent and extreme, then GOOD!!!!!! By doing that , I can assume I got your attention. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! But I serious feel the people who need to "stop and take a break" are those who propose such ridiculous rules without seriously considering all the angles and repercussions. You are right, this something to be considered among TWO players. But with everyone posting such a rule , then nodding "Uh-huh" , you legitimize it. Now every time I try to advertise for an opponent , everyone who doesn't have four stars next to his log on name will require 472 house rules, because that's how many the latest thread has. How many threads have been started with the question "what house rules do I need?". Instead of the ,the more logical question "Do I need any and why?".
I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize the concept that to run a PBEM you need to take on as many house rules as possible , because , like a young person buying a new car "all the cool kids have them!".
My comments were and are intended to be one thing and one thing only. An old geezer smacking young pups on the head and saying "what's the matter with you? Did you even think before you posted?". Because I'm a geezer. And that's what geezers do. Now wipe your nose , and get off my front lawn ya punk kid!
Actually nothing of what I had wrote up here ever made into any House Rules I played with... Nor do I require it of my opponents... but maybe you had not really read them through ...
I usually let my opponent to know "I like to play the game closer to history" - so he can then work with, or against that information as he likes.
As for keeping the topic of this thread, I had also provided few informations (and sources) on "how things stood in those days"
All those points I wrote up, were ideas of how one can get the game closer to reality for himself - or as veji1 had pointed out: for the purpose of role-playing.
It's good that you want to play historically (but avoid role-playing...that sort of thing goes with "Dungeons and Dragons" more than WITP. But if you want to try to play historically , read history. Don't try to make up what sounds right to you. An example , at Lunga (Henerson field, Guadacanal) you had at various times USN,USMC,USAAF, New Zealand and Australians. Had their been Dutch or British forces available, they'd have thrown them in. No one said "No USA , this belongs to OZ". (Especially since the USMC recovered it from the Japanese).
VP-92 sig banner