Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ideas for new (house) rules.

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> The War Room >> Ideas for new (house) rules. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/5/2005 11:02:44 AM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
Being a board gamer of many years I cannot help but consider what house rules I think would add to the game.

Combined Arms
It somewhat annoys me to see in particular the WA entirely ignore Armor. I would prefer an elaborate scheme with combat bonuses or penalties for combined arms but thats obviously not possible without coding - so I instead suggest the following as a possible house rule.

1. Combined Arms
1.1 No more than 10 INF+MIL+PARA may attack together unless atleast one ARM is also attacking.
1.2 For each ARM attacking an additional 3 INF/MIL/PARA may attack.

Tech restriction
Its just too fast to tech up once past the WS - the extra cost isnt enough. Only exception being wrt the A-bomb.

2. Tech restriction
2.1 No more than 5 points may be spent on any single tech during the same phase.
2.2 Land attack for Heavy Bombers is exempted from this restriction.

Amph Assault restriction
I find that its too easy to invade just about anywhere - often pooling transporters from all over the world to do so. This also means that the South Pacific is completely ignored.

3. Amph Assault restrictions
3.1 A transporter may only be used to invade from if there is a chain og transporters back to a port of no more than 3 in lenght (including the transporter being used to invade from.
3.2 For this purpose the following islands are considered to have a port: Samos, Ryukyu Islands and Wake Island.
3.3 A transporter may only be used to invade from if it moved a maximum of 5 areas during the turn.
3.4 No unit may trace across more than 3 transporters and still make an amph assault unless the territory being invaded is empty of enemy land units.

Raider range restriction.
I find it somewhat too easy to have HF and LF raid deep into enemy territory even against opposition - this was the domain of subs mostly.

4. Raider range restriction
4.1 A HF, LF, CV or TRS may only enter a sea area with an enemy HF or LF if either of the following two conditions are met
4.1.1 The unit spent half or less of its movement including moving into the territory OR
4.1.2 The sea zone being entered is no more than 3 sea zones from a port controlled by the major power moving (including the territory being entered).
4.2 For the purpose of this rule the islands mentioned in 3.3 are considered to contain a port.

Production restriction.
The game favors building one of two kinds of units at the expense of all others far too much for my liking. This is hard to avoid entirely - but lets try anyway.

5. Production restriction
5.1 No major power may finish the production of more than 5 units of the same kind in any single production phase.
5.1.1 The production of MIL and INF is exampt from this restriction.
5.1.2 The production of ARM for Germany and Russia is exempt from this restriction.
5.1.3 The production of TRS for WA is exempt from this restriction.

This is just a rough draft - but I think it would add several interesting things to the game. Wrt the extra ports these can be added by a minor mod. The rest would require coding and as such is rather unlikely to be part of the game except as house rules.

Comments and other ideas as most welcome.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 11/5/2005 11:15:38 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/6/2005 2:21:35 PM   
a511


Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline
imo, most, if not all, of the suggestions are good (esp those address to combined arms and amph assault). but in reality, most of them are difficult to impliment and cross-check ...

it will be great if the changes are incorporated in WAW ... instead of WAW2 ...

AN

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 2
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/6/2005 3:28:53 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
Thank you for the kinds words a511.

I rather doubt that any of all of these will be coded though - atleast not for WaW - so I expect they would need to be house rules that the players in a particular game agreed upon following.

So, if anyone want to play a game using these extra rules + v1.070 (ladder or not) then do speak up :)

(in reply to a511)
Post #: 3
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/6/2005 4:57:32 PM   
BigSnig

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline
I like the idea of house rules but obviously there will be wide and deep disagreements. The only thing that really bothers me is super units.

I would like to cap tec at something like 2 or 3 over the world standard. No more 10/10 armor. Unlike a lot of possibile house rules, this one would be easy to put in place and monitor.



(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 4
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/6/2005 5:27:38 PM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
I have nearly completed testing my mod which does have a big impact on super units. Amongst many other things the mod converts WALLY infantry to Motorised with move 2 but cost 3. To provide the WALLIES with an alternate foot infantry Militia is upgraded to be cost 2. There are some other changes for SU and Axis.

My first tests of this shows that the Wallies have to spend much more FP's on producing their improved units and hence for a while at least have less FP's to devote to R&D.

My only comment on the house rules is that when you have heavy combat rounds there will be various units put back in the build queue so controlling whether 5 are there or not is not really possible without some contortions.

Regards

Mike

(in reply to BigSnig)
Post #: 5
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/6/2005 6:16:22 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BigSnig

I like the idea of house rules but obviously there will be wide and deep disagreements. The only thing that really bothers me is super units.

I would like to cap tec at something like 2 or 3 over the world standard. No more 10/10 armor. Unlike a lot of possibile house rules, this one would be easy to put in place and monitor.


You are entirely correct that most of my suggestions are somewhat hard to monitor.

I actually like your suggestion to limit techs in relation to the WS because its so easy to monitor. My suggestion would be to make it cap at WS+2 (with Heavy Bomber LA being the exception). That way INF would cap at 8-8 and ARM at 10-9. This might even entice the WA to use atleast some ARM when 9-9 INF isnt an option.

(in reply to BigSnig)
Post #: 6
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/7/2005 4:14:32 AM   
a511


Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline
quote:

My suggestion would be to make it cap at WS+2 (with Heavy Bomber LA being the exception).


in fact, i have suggested sth similar in another thread last month. and i agree that it works as a hse rule. although, it will give WA more incentive to go for the a-bomb AV.

quote:

3.3 A transporter may only be used to invade from if it moved a maximum of 5 areas during the turn.
3.4 No unit may trace across more than 3 transporters and still make an amph assault unless the territory being invaded is empty of enemy land units.


i think the above two are impossible to monitor, unless under FOW off.

AN

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 7
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/7/2005 11:48:05 PM   
silodhlehan

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 10/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcaryf

I have nearly completed testing my mod which does have a big impact on super units. Amongst many other things the mod converts WALLY infantry to Motorised with move 2 but cost 3. To provide the WALLIES with an alternate foot infantry Militia is upgraded to be cost 2. There are some other changes for SU and Axis.

My first tests of this shows that the Wallies have to spend much more FP's on producing their improved units and hence for a while at least have less FP's to devote to R&D.

My only comment on the house rules is that when you have heavy combat rounds there will be various units put back in the build queue so controlling whether 5 are there or not is not really possible without some contortions.

Regards

Mike

I think kind of along your lines.

Everytime a unit teks up make them cost more. Want a 9-9 infantry pay 2 or 3 a turn maybe add turns. When you add this there are costs from unequipped 1940 infantry compared to the ones roaming in 1945.

(in reply to mcaryf)
Post #: 8
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/8/2005 12:58:21 AM   
Forwarn45

 

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I actually like your suggestion to limit techs in relation to the WS because its so easy to monitor. My suggestion would be to make it cap at WS+2 (with Heavy Bomber LA being the exception). That way INF would cap at 8-8 and ARM at 10-9. This might even entice the WA to use atleast some ARM when 9-9 INF isnt an option.


Limiting tech to a maximum is not a bad idea. But I agree with Jan's original point that tech can advance too quickly. Perhaps a more complicated - but still easily checkable thing - would be to limit tech based on the year in the game. You could have a maximum limit and a lower limit for say - 1943. For example, the pre-1944 maximum (for certain units) could be one over the WS and the subsequent maximum could be 2.

On a side note - I think there are some inherent advantages to the WA building armor. Although I have played very good and effective WA players who don't build it, their inability to threaten territories two spaces away (or to attack and then move back to their original space) is helpful to the Axis. Also - not having any armor means any German armor gets to take on your other units instead. Indeed, a lack of armor means the WA are much less threatening during the 1941-early 1943 period -- when armor is a good bit superior to infantry. I guess what I am trying to say is that I usually build armor myself.

< Message edited by Forwarn45 -- 11/8/2005 1:01:52 AM >

(in reply to silodhlehan)
Post #: 9
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/8/2005 5:27:42 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2142
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Combined Arms
Yes thats nice to see in the game. For the most part its present everywhere, except the WA usually skip building armor. But then so do the Japs. But thats due to the fact that their tanks suck. Its not to hard for the WA to tech up their tanks to 9/9 or even 10/10 since they don't need them until after D-day. So why don't they? Well because the WA is usaully looking for the imediate payoff and will focus research into infantry instead even though it is more expensive than the tank route. I'd like to see the WA's build tanks out of necessity rather than flavor. Once tanks are more encouraging for the WA's to build, they can represent the highly mobile infantry that is all the craze with some at the moment. Instead of giving the infantry a movement of 2 and raising their cost lets try to find ways to encourage the building of tanks to represent the mobile infantry of the US.

Tech restriction
I don't see a problem with any nations tech advancement other than the WA's. Russia Germany and Japan have no need to be throttled in this way since they just can't spare the FP's on to much research. The WA's on the other hand can spend way more than was historical on tech. Its not uncommon to see the WA's have better everything than the Germans. Good balance should see the WA's leading in some areas while they lag behind in others. Instead of limiting what the WA's can spend per turn on techs, just realize that the problem is not inherit to the tech mechanics but with how much extra FP's the WA's got left over after they build their stuff. It's this huge left over to spend on tech that is the problem.

Production restriction
Once again if a player is buying to much of one unit it must be because its over teched and therefore good for everything. Like the WA's super infantry. Reducing the amount the WA's spend on tech would curb this building of one super unit. When I play most other countries I feel the variety is there. But one that could be improved is Russia. I wish the Russian tac air had a better starting evasion, then I would probably add them into the build mix. The Russian tac air starts at 4 evasion. That's 2 under the Germans tac air. Making it 5 would probably be enough to make it a more popular build. This would then have an effect on the German way of playing to counter this. The result would be a slight increase in arms variety.

The solution to these problems is, as I said before, to adjust the US production multiple so that the WA's player does not have a ton of excess FP's to toss into the tech pool. Many may feel its sacrilege to suggest moving America's x4 back one year to 1944. That America is suposed to be able to build lots of stuff. I agree, but America did not build all this stuff in addition to surpasing the Germans in every tech category mid war which is what this game now allows. Using a x3 multiple through 1943 would cut US spending in the tech pool up to 18 points each turn. The result would be more historic levels in the tech tree. The WA's would likely continue heavy reaseach into ASW and aircraft related tech since its so important to them, but would have less to spend on land unit techs. When the WA's look to spend on land units the tank becomes a more atractive option.

Amph Assault restriction
I agree a distance of 3 sea zones is about right. This forces island hopping. But trying to remember and enforce the other rules would be too hard. If we could just get 2by3 to see the need to increase the combat penalty then this problem would solve itself since most would not want to try an assult that would probably fail. From rule 8.5.4 it says:
Penalty during amphibiuos invasion: Whenever a land unit conducts an amphib invasion, for every region moved over 2, the unit substracts one die from the total attack it rolls(ie 1 or 2 regions no penalty, 3 regions -1, 4 regions -2, etc.)
I would think increasing the penalty starting at 3 regions to -2 and 4 regions to -3, etc. would be a vast improvement that would force players to stage in areas nearby before launching an assult. This is a simple way to get the effect you are looking for without all the complicated house rules. Lets just twist their arms to get this into the next patch.

Raider range restriction
This problem is a symptom of a broader problem, which is the Japanese inability to place air on islands to provide op-fire on ships that attemt this. I don't mean the Japs can't, I mean they don't want to because they are needed back at the home islands because of the threat of a US thrust into those seas thus cutting off Japan from their resources. Its instant death when this happens so the Japs must prevent this above all else. Thus US ships slip past islands without facing op-fire. If Japan can more effectively protect the seas surrounding the home island then they can spare some forces to place on the outer islands. One of the ways to acomplish this is to raise the Jap production sooner so that they can field more forces quicker. My suggestion to forbid the US x3 production multiple apon the Jap attack went a long way to encurage an earlier attack. The old US strategies were based on low Jap production until 1943 when they just took the DEI and begun to repair. The Japs under this strategy had a hard time getting these resources repaired because the US was breathing down their necks with a x4PM. Now the lastest patch uses my suggestion and the Japs can attack the DEI whenever they feel ready. The overall effect would be that the japs will have more to counter the US with should the US shoot for the home island blockade. Then the Japs may just have enough to spread air over some islands to reduce cheap shot raids by the Americans. Since this revised multiple is now standard, combining this with the increased penalty during amphibiuos invasion that I suggested above can lead to greater confidence in the Jap players security of his home island. Thus he can more freely distrubute his forces on some islands without having to worry so much.

In short most if not all of these problems can be solved without house rules if two simple things were changed.
1. Move the x4 US production multiple to 1944
2. Increase the amphibiuos invasion penalty starting at 3 regions to -2 and 4 regions to -3, etc

(in reply to Forwarn45)
Post #: 10
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/8/2005 9:20:07 AM   
mcaryf

 

Posts: 159
Joined: 7/11/2003
From: Uk
Status: offline
I guess what is trying to be achieved with house rules is to substitute for code changes that are unlikely to happen. Thus whilst Lebatron's suggestion of a penalty on amphibious invasion distance is obviously sensible it needs code changes so I presume cannot be implemented.

To be effective a house rule has to be both simple and easily enforced/monitored. One possibility might be to limit the overall tech changes that any one unit is allowed, thus if infantry is teched up to a certain attack power then that could limit the total power it is allowed to have in defence. If the limit was, say, 16 then having an attack of 9 limits defence to a max of 7 so the choices could include 9/7, 8/8, 7/9. This might encourage players to choose different units to specialise so infantry becomes the stronger defence unit for holding ground whilst armour specialises in attack strength for taking it. I would guess in this environment that 10/6 artillery could be used as a shock attack weapon as in WW1 or the SP Gun in WW2, whilst FLAK might become a strong 6/10 defence unit as with the German 88 or US TD in WW2!

With respect to raiders versus Japan, there are two possibilities. First give the Japanese the capability to have more low cost air units. I have previously advocated these as Kamikaze units but they could also provide the Op Fire capability that Lebatron wants stationed on islands. Second, to reduce the impact of Japan being cut off, if the Japanese have some real production capability on the mainland provided by pop points in Manchuria then they at least have some opportunity to try to break a blockade.

Mike

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 11
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/8/2005 1:24:09 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
@Lebatron
Amph: Upping the penalty for invading from further away would do very little imho. More often than not invading those small islands is simply a matter of invading with enough units that you are ensured retreating the defender. As such actual casulties are of little consequence. Thats my personal experience atleast. Thus a hard cap rather than a soft cap on invasions are needed.

Production: Imho, the fact that the US production was lowered with the patch was simply a 2nd rate solution to give the Japanse some reason to attack sooner. The optimal solution would have been a variable end game date based on when the war became truly global. That would have taken coding that the Devs didnt want to commit time to do though - while the suggestion to lower production was easy to implement. So, I simply consider the lowering of US production to have been taken because it was easy to implement and "good enough". We obviously wont agree on that - nor do we need to.

I also find that lowering US production even further is wrong. I would much rather tweak the rules so the US player actually needs the production he actually did have in the real world than lower his production. I find that making amph operations significantly harder as well as requiring the use of a more balanced force rather than one kind of super unit does that. So, we definitely wont agree that lowering US production is the way to do it. Again, we dont need to agree.

@mcaryf
Wrt raiders. I find that the problem is that nomatter how far away from you came - you are still equally effective. Optimally I would like a system somewhat akin to that in WiF where a naval unit is less effective than further it has sailed. As that would require significant coding and is thus not likely to happen - I had to go for something else. I simply find that ports as supply bases play far too small a role in the pacific war - where in the actual war they played a huge part. Thats the reason for quite alot of my suggestions.

quote:

I guess what is trying to be achieved with house rules is to substitute for code changes that are unlikely to happen.

Correct. I dont for a second believe its possible to agree on such a set of house rules though - so its more a brain storm of ideas that could be used I suppose. As such I am not overly worried about them being easy to monitor either - honorable play has to be assumed anyway.

< Message edited by JanSorensen -- 11/8/2005 1:26:55 PM >

(in reply to mcaryf)
Post #: 12
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/9/2005 3:25:09 AM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2142
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

@Lebatron
Amph: Upping the penalty for invading from further away would do very little imho. More often than not invading those small islands is simply a matter of invading with enough units that you are ensured retreating the defender. As such actual casulties are of little consequence. Thats my personal experience atleast. Thus a hard cap rather than a soft cap on invasions are needed.


Ya, I see what you mean. 3 inf attack 1 defender and regardless of hits the US takes the island because they meet the 3 to 1 ratio needed to force a retreat. Or is it 4 to 1 thats needed in rough terrain? Anyway If just a few more defenders were added then the US would need 9 or more just to force 3 defenders off the island. I'm leaving out air to simplify this. So in that case the US would have to hope for some hits rather then just reley on numbers to force a retreat. So the increase in combat penalty I mentioned above would benefit island defenders as long as they beefed up their island some. example If 5 US infantry invade an island defended by 2 inf from a long distance and got no hits on the defender due to their combat penalties, then they would not force a retreat since they don't meet the 3 to 1 ratio. So if the combat penalty became huge starting at a distance of 3 then staging would become necessary. This has been brought up many times before and many IIRC wanted to see the penalty increased. I haven't seen any arguments proclaiming the current penalty values to be better.


Back to house rules:
We all want to see island hopping take place in the Pacific. That we can all agree on. The US taking the most northern sea zones and camping out close to the Jap homeland is a fundamental problem with this game design. Yes, as everyone says it should be necessary to capture and secure island ports before creeping ever closer to Japan. But that doesn't happen because ports don't have a function in this design other than to hide your ships inside. If we want to see island hopping take place without adding a lot of transport house rules that are hard to enfore and monitor, we just need to make it a reqirement that such and such island must be taken before moving on to the Jap homeland. This is not hard to monitor since its capture is witnessed by both sides, plus we don't have to confirm that the US followed house rules to do so. This is the simplest solution I can think of. If we want the game to have some South Pacific action then make it a reqirement that the US capture some of those islands. Its as simple as that.

I'm not an expert on WW2 history so I don't know the historical order the US island hopped. This is just a rough outline.
1. Bismark Arch, Carolina and Marshall Islands should be first US targets. Unless the US needs to recover Midway. Then Midway 1st.
2. Once these 3 are in Allied hands then the US can target Wake, Mariana, Guam, or Palau. Take at least 2 before moving to step 3.
3. Liberate the Philippines. Did they do this at about this time or later?
4. Take either Bonin or Ryukyu Islands
5. Once one of these 2 islands is in US hands then the Jap homeland can be assulted.

What this list tries to do is keep the US player honest by preventing him from going directly to step 5 just because the machanics of this game allows it. If others think its a good idea, lets try and come up with a list that satisfies most. I would like comments on where the DEI should be added, if at all, and other areas the Allies recaptured before moving to the final step. This list can be called the "hop list" for short and those how would like to play using it could just state so in their game options. Just like you do with the VC and exploits.

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 13
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/11/2005 7:59:25 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
Optimally I would like a system somewhat akin to that in WiF where a naval unit is less effective than further it has sailed.


Lebatron mentioned a solution to this at some point ... add interdiction points for every sea zone traversed. His hack, I believe, was to create invisible unreachable islands in every sea zone, you could make one owned by Axis and one by Allies.

This could be done with data files alone.

It is, however, probably too strong. I imagine that the correct balance would probably be more like 1/2 an IP for each sea zone, plus 1IP everywhere you get an IP today. Which would require coding changes. But it is probably not all that difficult, given that the interdiction mechanism already exists.

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 14
RE: Ideas for new (house) rules. - 11/11/2005 8:09:56 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
@Lebatron
Amph: Upping the penalty for invading from further away would do very little imho. More often than not invading those small islands is simply a matter of invading with enough units that you are ensured retreating the defender. As such actual casulties are of little consequence. Thats my personal experience atleast. Thus a hard cap rather than a soft cap on invasions are needed.


I prefer soft caps. Can't we define an appropriate one?

Here's an idea, though probably too complicated to implement (and impossible as a house rule).

1. all amphib assault land units must initiate their invasion from the same land zone. Note that this does not preclude moving units from point A, B and C to point D, and then launching them all from point D. It also does not prevent successive disjoint attempts from different launch pads, but a single combat would have amphib units from only one staging area.

2. existing penalties apply (i.e. distance from A, B or C as appropriate for each unit).

3. outnumbering ratio required for victory is the maximum of the usual number (2 or 3) or the number of zones traversed from the launching point.

It would reflect the fact that landings must be coordinated, and make you want to coordinate them close to the target. It would consume more transport resources to group units onto the staging area and then get them off. A drawback (or benefit, depends on point of view) would be that you really could not easily coordinate attacks from two unconnected sides, but in many cases that seems to make sense because it would indeed be harder to coordinate. And in my experience it would almost never matter anyway, you're generally coming from one direction.

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> The War Room >> Ideas for new (house) rules. 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

0.105