Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House rules of 2019/2020

 
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 >> House rules of 2019/2020 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 7:40:43 PM   
XTRG


Posts: 28
Joined: 7/30/2016
Status: offline
Hello gents,

I'd like the opinion of the WITP:AE Vets on House rules,

I've been told some aspects of house rules on AAR's past are no longer valid, such as "deathball IJA Artillery" or "no 4e below 10k naval bombing"? are these upto date?.

Has anyone thought of house rules to potentially increase the historical realism aspects of the campign?

to summarise, i'd like to see the house rules of today and what people are using now :).

Cheers.
Post #: 1
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 8:17:32 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14458
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
I don't do house rules. If I believe that it's gamey....I won't do it. PERIOD. And I hope that my opponents feel the same way. I don't need to turn this into Lawyers of the Pacific.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to XTRG)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 8:19:35 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2295
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
XTRG - "House Rules" is one of those topics where you're going to get a very diverse range of opinions. Some folks use them, others enjoy games where anything goes. What it really boils down to is the type of PBEM game you and your opponent are looking for - and both players need to want the same type of game.

In my ongoing PBEM with L_S_T, we agreed to a number of house rules at start to try to have a somewhat historical flavor in the game, and added and modified some as we went along. We're still going strong, 5yrs into it:

Here are the initial house rules we agreed on:
- No 4e naval bombing below 10k
- Dot base invasion/paradrops
- Restricted units must pay PPs to cross national borders
- Sweeps at 2nd best maneuver band
- Airfield/port/industry attacks limited to one air unit per target base in 1941/42, two in 1943, three in 1944 and four in 1945
- limiting squadron size change to a max of 36 planes

We also started with the 8 Dec scenario, which eliminated a number of 1st turn house rules such as only one port attack, landing at Mersing etc.

Many folks don't have any house rules at all - and it seems to work for them too.

(in reply to XTRG)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 8:24:51 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3122
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Stupid me, I read the title of this thread and thought it was going to be on the US House of Representatives impeachment Rules.... You can see where my mind is!!!! Sorry for the intrusion. Hal

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 8:34:16 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14458
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

XTRG - "House Rules" is one of those topics where you're going to get a very diverse range of opinions. Some folks use them, others enjoy games where anything goes. What it really boils down to is the type of PBEM game you and your opponent are looking for - and both players need to want the same type of game.

In my ongoing PBEM with L_S_T, we agreed to a number of house rules at start to try to have a somewhat historical flavor in the game, and added and modified some as we went along. We're still going strong, 5yrs into it:

Here are the initial house rules we agreed on:
- No 4e naval bombing below 10k
- Dot base invasion/paradrops
- Restricted units must pay PPs to cross national borders
- Sweeps at 2nd best maneuver band
- Airfield/port/industry attacks limited to one air unit per target base in 1941/42, two in 1943, three in 1944 and four in 1945
- limiting squadron size change to a max of 36 planes

We also started with the 8 Dec scenario, which eliminated a number of 1st turn house rules such as only one port attack, landing at Mersing etc.

Many folks don't have any house rules at all - and it seems to work for them too.



Before I play against someone I try to get to know them. Then I chat with them about the game. If a player puts out questions like "is this realistic?" or "is this gamey?" , I like them already. They are less concerned with a "rulebook" and more concerned with playing in a historic and ethical manner ? I don't really care if they do something that I feel might be "iffy". I do care how they respond when I call them on it.

My biggest complaint to the 5 million or so "what house rules" do you like , is that no one ever talks about their philosophy of the game , or their ethics. It's like we turn the important things around and focus on the trivial. IF a player has a good reputation , IF a player discusses with you the HOW and WHY that they do, then not only is the play more satisfying , you play like gentlemen..... More often then not I've seen a player debate every turn about "this violates house rule #271!


Put it another way, if you think you need more than 2 or 3 rules (basically ones recommended by someone due to a game flaw) then you might be trying hide behind the rulebook. That's the way of a scoundrel. Don't be a scoundrel. Be a good sport. Be the kind of player we all want to go up against. There have been many people who've passed through these forums trying to reinvent this game , some because they thought they were smarter than the designers , some because they though they could get an advantage. One thing that's generally true. They don't last.



_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 9:18:09 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2310
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
I am a no house rule type of player. But, there are some that my opponents propose that I will accept because they are unimportant to me.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 9:28:51 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19748
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Concur on zero or few HRs.

Beware the notion that HRs aren't needed because you (or your opponent) won't do anything gamey. You (or he) may not be aware that Georges didn't fly from carriers; that Superforts didn't engage in sustained bombing of ground troops; etc.

There is no need for altitude-based HRs. There are ways to counter high-level fighters. 4EB aren't particularly effective against ships at sea and it doesn't matter if they're at 6k or 15k.

Other than national borders, the only post-opening-day rule I think might be necessary is something based on night bombing of ports and airfields. But be careful, because a player can really use that to advantage turning the rule into an abomination.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 9:31:38 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 2207
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
I used to be one for a few HRs, but I completely concur with the above. There is very little need for HRs of any sort in your game as there is pretty much a counter for everything. The only one I'd say is still needed is the national borders rule and paying PP to buy out restricted units, but even that can be modified to be more flexible.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/10/2019 10:41:17 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24196
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

XTRG - "House Rules" is one of those topics where you're going to get a very diverse range of opinions. Some folks use them, others enjoy games where anything goes. What it really boils down to is the type of PBEM game you and your opponent are looking for - and both players need to want the same type of game.



Yup.

In my current game versus AcePylut, we limit nighttime bombing of ports and airfields in the early war. We have a 'soft' rule about stratospheric sweeps that are ahistorical (e.g., P39s sweeping at 25,000 feet) and generally lower the ceiling on flight ops. We pay 'full retail' PPs to move troops out of historical boundaries. That's about all I can think of.

When you've found the right partner and you both see eye to eye about historical normatives, you really don't have to think much about HRs. I certainly don't brood over an indexed tome of arcana for my HRs. Keep them intuitive, fair and small in number and you'll be fine.

ETA: There's some things that we won't do that aren't 'HRs' per se. As the Japanese player, I won't burn out Chinese resource, HI and LI strategic centers-it screws the Chinese defense even more than the game already does. No 'Fortress Palembang' for the Allies and no unreasonable first turn 'magic moves' for the IJN. But these aren't House Rules so much as they are the right way to play an opponent, IMO.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 12/10/2019 10:48:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/11/2019 5:07:52 AM   
Lictuel

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 4/18/2013
Status: offline
In the campaign that I just recently started we decided on 2 houserules:
1)Pay PP to move restricted units
2)No bombing of Chinese industry

I have to say I really like your series on WitP against THG. Multiple hours spend on the first turn going over the Japanese setup really helped me wrap my head around some stuff (at least to a certain extend) keep up the good work XTRG.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/11/2019 5:11:32 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16593
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I used to LOVE HR but have really dialed it back in my recent games. Sean and I's current match has NONE. Really concur with the getting to know your opponent comments above. Be a sport and do your best to have open lines of communication. What someone may think is reasonable might not be to you...so talk about it and work through it. In that regard, Chickenboy's comments above are really good.

The House Rules topics I feel needed these days are:
1. Paying PP for crossing borders.
2. Something on 4EB but not too hard. Used to hate them but I think it has gotten better.
3. Night Attacks is a good topic to explore.
4. The No bombing of Chinese Industry, LI, Oil, etc..topic is sound.
5. Used to feel the need to limit Fighter Sweeps but found a pretty effective counter to it so not so much needed.

Most of this can be simply talked about and don't need to be put into a serious set of HR.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/11/2019 5:12:26 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/11/2019 10:14:34 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
I'm more a Lawyers of the Pacific type I guess...

I have a certain amount of HRs I always present to the future enemy before the game and I leave to him complete freedom to accept, refuse or discuss them. I had a game in which none of them got accepted for example.

1) Paying PPs to cross borders.
2) No AirHQ to buy out units
3) Korea is part of Manchuria
4) Thai units can go wherever they want. IndianHQ [R] troops can go wherever they want.
5) No crossing of Malacca Strait for surface ships for the player not owning Singapore. To define in each game where is the no-crossing line.
6) LCU labelled as "ART" can be bought out with all the means available, including AirHQs or putting an unrestricted command under a restricted one to pay them 1/4 of PPs.
7) Max 1 port strike on 7-DEC
8) Already created Allied TFs can move on 7-DEC [if I play Japan] or already created Allied TFs out of the co-prosperity sphere/historical perimeter can move on 7-DEC [if I play Allies]
9) Limitations on numbers of embarked fighters per-hex. To be defined accordingly to rule 10).
10) Max 500 embarked a/c per-hex until 1944. 700 after 1944. [very controversial HR, I have my reasons for that]
11) Clear statement regarding resizes using CVs. Either allowed or not.
12) No night bombing with less than: 90% moonlight in 1942; 70% in 1943; free after 1944. Min altitude: 10,000ft.
13) No hunt to USN CVs on the first three days of war.
14) No sub invasions
15) No para splitting. Maxmimum one paradrop per unit then it is necessary to rebuild the unit. It's possible to have fragments fight without paradropping though.
16) No strat bombing from or in China for either side.
17) Limitations to invasions coming from offmap in case some locations fall. For example, no invasion of Diego Garcia coming from Cape Town if it falls.
18) 2nd MVR band for fighters.
19) No planes other than those embarked by default on subs. Basically: no Jakes on subs.
20) No NavB for 4E-LBs.
21) Clear agreement regarding the possibility of moving an unrestricted HQ under a restricted one to buy out units at 1/4 PP expenditure. AirHQs not allowed to be used in this way, though.
22) No deep invasions with magicalTFs* on day-1. Locations excluded are all those which begin the game with at least a CD unit in the base.

Also, I am quite open to talk about:
A) Limitations to offensive to and from Burma during Monsoon.
B) "Freezing" the Chinese front in case some conditions are met.
C) Limiting operations in Aleutinans / Kurili / Hokkaido / Shakhalin during winter.
D) Single ship spam.
E) Limitations to Japanese R&D.


Each of the above points [1-22 and A-E] is optional. I make a point only of having the Thai free to move because I have an irrational affection for those troops.
I am also considering the possibility of an additional HR to propose to limit IJNAAF assets available for "ASW" air missions.



Also, I like if anyhow possible to set HRs before deciding the sides me and the opponent are going to play with. It dramatically increases the possibility of having HRs which are "fair" rather than just to have an advantage.
Playing both sides, I prefer to play against people who also play both sides since I believe they have a more complete overview regarding HRs to be set.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/11/2019 7:06:50 PM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 287
Joined: 10/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

XTRG - "House Rules" is one of those topics where you're going to get a very diverse range of opinions. Some folks use them, others enjoy games where anything goes. What it really boils down to is the type of PBEM game you and your opponent are looking for - and both players need to want the same type of game.

In my ongoing PBEM with L_S_T, we agreed to a number of house rules at start to try to have a somewhat historical flavor in the game, and added and modified some as we went along. We're still going strong, 5yrs into it:

Here are the initial house rules we agreed on:
- No 4e naval bombing below 10k
- Dot base invasion/paradrops
- Restricted units must pay PPs to cross national borders
- Sweeps at 2nd best maneuver band
- Airfield/port/industry attacks limited to one air unit per target base in 1941/42, two in 1943, three in 1944 and four in 1945
- limiting squadron size change to a max of 36 planes

We also started with the 8 Dec scenario, which eliminated a number of 1st turn house rules such as only one port attack, landing at Mersing etc.

Many folks don't have any house rules at all - and it seems to work for them too.



+1 - Be candid up front, agree on what you both want out of the game.
Have used pretty much the list above in the past to help define with PBEM.

Concur with many above posts, the "game" operates just fine without House Rules. I see HRs more as shaping the "kind of game" you want to have, historical game or period game. I like to invest my time closer to simulating historical constraints and outcomes. Others prefer to play within the games period parameters without the burden of some of history's constraints. Both are cool, just know which one you prefer and find a like minded opponent.

As an example, (for AI play only at this point...and I did it in my last PBEM and never even bother to tell my oppenent) as Allied I heavily restrict #s of TFs and LCU moves the first 30 days, reflecting confusion, poor communications, need to prioritize, mobilization challenges, et.al.. I've modified LSTs Mod to create a wave of IJ merchant ship mobilizations and initial locations over the first 90 days of the war (I think the US would have noticed if by some chance every IJ merchant ship was in port, mostly all in Japan, on 7 Dec, fully armed up). I don't allow US planes to base at UK/Commonwealth supported airfields or the reverse (unless Sqdn is a shared airframe type available to both). If I had a like minded opponent IJN and IJA planes would not mix on their airbases (am fine giving the AI that edge, it needs it). etc, etc.. I like to play within history, just me.

Kevin




(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/12/2019 9:50:07 PM   
XTRG


Posts: 28
Joined: 7/30/2016
Status: offline
Thank you everyone so far for the fantastic responses,

I think as stated above that the best approach is to be cordial and on the same wavelength as your foe but some very interesting thoughts here indeed.

Cheers,

-XTRG

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/13/2019 11:45:38 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3967
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

XTRG - "House Rules" is one of those topics where you're going to get a very diverse range of opinions. Some folks use them, others enjoy games where anything goes. What it really boils down to is the type of PBEM game you and your opponent are looking for - and both players need to want the same type of game.

In my ongoing PBEM with L_S_T, we agreed to a number of house rules at start to try to have a somewhat historical flavor in the game, and added and modified some as we went along. We're still going strong, 5yrs into it:

Here are the initial house rules we agreed on:
- No 4e naval bombing below 10k
- Dot base invasion/paradrops
- Restricted units must pay PPs to cross national borders
- Sweeps at 2nd best maneuver band
- Airfield/port/industry attacks limited to one air unit per target base in 1941/42, two in 1943, three in 1944 and four in 1945
- limiting squadron size change to a max of 36 planes

We also started with the 8 Dec scenario, which eliminated a number of 1st turn house rules such as only one port attack, landing at Mersing etc.

Many folks don't have any house rules at all - and it seems to work for them too.



"Airfield/port/industry attacks limited to..." concerns night bombing only.

After several months into the game we added a new house rule limiting the use of (independent) tank units - if there are two or more Tank Regiments engaged in combat, they must be accompanied by infantry. The game allows to assemble stacks of Tank Regiments and to pursue a kind of "Panzer Blitzkrieg" across Asia and unrealistic "tank only" attacks against fortifications. While this may have happened in the North African desert or the steppes of Russia, Ed and I concluded that this is not appropriate for the PTO where tanks were used in infantry support and not as free-roving "battering rams". It is ok to use one tank unit on its own for example when in pursuit or for flanking, but if there are two or more tank units involved in combat, there also must be accompanying infantry with them.

_____________________________


(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/13/2019 12:07:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16593
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That is a nice addition LST.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules of 2019/2020 - 12/13/2019 12:29:58 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3967
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kbfchicago
I've modified LSTs Mod to create a wave of IJ merchant ship mobilizations and initial locations over the first 90 days of the war (I think the US would have noticed if by some chance every IJ merchant ship was in port, mostly all in Japan, on 7 Dec, fully armed up).


I am honored. However, please not that due to the war in Europe, Japanese trade with Europe had been reduced to a trickle in 1941, and that the stiffening embargoes against Japan in that year reduced the number of Japanese merchant ships engaged in trade outside the Japanese influence sphere to a mere handful. Even these few were recalled back to home waters in July 1941 when the Japanese Army and Navy started requisitioning large numbers of merchant ships.
The political situation and the economic embargo plus assets freeze on July 26th also meant that non-Japanese ships ceased to visit Japanese ports.

_____________________________


(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> House rules of 2019/2020 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

0.148