What is considered gamey

[BrucePowers]

The AAR's also tells you whose having fun and whose not. You can be pretty sure the long running AAR's are enjoyable for the players.

[esteban]

I would consider the use of any kind of "picket" ships (except subs) gamey.  Yes, the U.S. had destroyer pickets, but that was mostly in Okinawa in 1945, and they had the pickets for advance radar warning of airstrikes, not to draw massive airstrikes on themselves and tire out the enemy airforce--which is why people often do it in the game. 
 
Other gamey stuff:
 
-landing small portions of ground units in an enemy retreat hex to block retreat and force a surrender. 
-Landing troops in non-base/dot hexes to bypass enemy defenses.
-landing troops from submarines or fast transports to launch "recon raids" that tell you exactly what combat units the enemy has in the hex. 
-Taking base hexes using troops landed by submarine.  The never happened during the war
-Offloading carrier-based bomber squadrons to load extra carrier-capable land based fighters.  This abuses the already very powerful CAP rules of this game.
 
 

[Feinder]

One quick note on activating Russia early, that my brother reminded me of :

If you activate Russia at game start, it eliminates the manchurian garrison requirment. So you'll want to have an understanding that Manchuko units can't move into China, so as to maintain the garrison vs. Russia until war is "really" declared.

-F-

[wild_Willie2]

I like the houserules that Przemco is setting in this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1170503
 

[Feinder]

Those house rules in your link are very good. I think I'd have trouble remembering them all, but they're excellent standards for anyone interested.

-F-

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: grunt6971

I would agree that "gamey" is in the eye-of-the-beholder. I would hope that any opponent of mine would not be restricted by what was done "historically" by the sides since that teaches nothing about "possibilities".

We know that both sides, initially, were very conservative in their apporaches to the war.[8D] The Japanese were concerned about seizing and maintianing their resources though a maticulas apporach [i.e., seize Malaya first then Burma. Sumatra, Java and Borneo, etc.] The USN was a conservation of resource [because of the war in Eurpoe] and fighting a defensive battle.

Is it "gamey" to invade Hawaii within the first months of the war? Yes, if you think it was not the historically thinking at the time. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities". Is it "gamey" to bring the entire Chinese Army into Burma to stop an IJA drive to cut-off the Burma Road? Yes, if you think it was historical folly or they could not have supplied the area to prevent capture[historically true]. No, if you want to explore "historical possibilities".

Is it "gamey" to use the rules in a "creative manner"? Yes, if it's your ox being gored. No, if it's not your ox being gored. [X(]

Look guys - we all look for rules to use to our advantage [on a small scale] - we want to win, but remember that old legal statement quid pro quo because your opponent will take note.[:(]

What is gamey is what exploits the defects in the game engine. To quote both examples here:

_ invading Hawaii at the start of the game is oK for me if you don't exploit the magic Japanese move at the start of the game... Having 10 Japanese troops convoys at some hundred miles from Hawaii on day one would never have been possible, USN will have reacted before that. On the other hand, if the convoys leave Japan on day 1 or 2, I will say: let's go.

_ sending the whole Chinese army to Burma is on the other hand gamey IMOO, because the game engine will continue to produce Chinese reinforcements even if all China is under Japanese control. The same for picking up fragments of Dutch and Philipinno units and then rebuilding them in Australia. From where came the men ?

_ night bombing is not taking into account the difficulty to fly great raids at night, and are far too much effective, so are effectively banned by most players.

Then you have OOB or map "defects" that will change the outcome of the war, but are like the game is... For example, the Alaska weather is far milder than IRL, and so operating a major offensive here is possible... In stock map, NW Australia both produces hundred of supplies and is linked by train to the E coast, so is a logical place to base hundred of heavy bombers and so on. IRL it was a backwater for both sides... Japan has probably too much transport and fuel, Allied has too much heavy bombers... For both sides, replacement arrive magically on the frontline far too fast... etc...

On the other hand, it is a game and what matters is that both sides enjoy it. So if you want to use airfield night bombing and your opponent too, let's go. But you will find that the Japanese can do nothing to stop Allied heavy bombers at night, and so is unable to defend anything with fighters in range of them...

[Nemo121]

To each their own and all that BUT I would suggest that you negotiate anything and everything you can possibly imagine BEFORE you start a game.

I'm only on my 2nd game of WiTP and was, initially, very vocal in not wanting to cripple the game by adopting any major house rules beyond banning things which didn't conform to newtonian physics, were uncounterable by one's opponent or were exploitation of game mechanics. Anything else was to be negotiated as it arose with "reasonableness" being used as the measure for compromise.

Well, you've guessed it, it turns out what I view as contrary to newtonian physics, uncounterable ( as in there is nothing a player can do to oppose a given game mechanism) and an exploitation of game mechanics is viewed by my opponent as "reasonable". Since I passed up several opportunities because they weren't "reasonable" (notably an opportunity to get a land base in India early in 1942) I feel raped. End result: while we both agreed to minimal house rules very, very different understandings of what is "reasonable" and what isn't have created a situation where both of us probably feel the other is going against the spirit of what we agreed.

We both got to our respective positions with the best of intentions and with no intention of exploiting the game in unfair ways BUT I can tell you that once you are in such a situation it is very, very difficult to row back from the precipice and continue the game in a manner enjoyable to both. We're discussing it but everything would have been so much easier if we'd just discussed things on December 6th 1941 .

So, take some advice from a convert.... House rules, which I was initially entirely opposed to, DO help make the game much more enjoyable and much more likely to last into 1946. I just started a new game and the list of house rules is about ten times as long as it was in my 2nd game. So, learn from my mistake and prevent yourself getting into a fight with your opponent because of widely differing interpretations of a grey area. The less grey areas the less chance of such a problem and the more enjoyable your game will be.


I am finishing off the house rules for my current game and have researched many of the AARs in the AAR section. MY house rules are probably a lot looser than most would like but I think they're a pretty good mix between historical possibility and minimising the major F'ups in the game's design.

[Wolfie1]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

To each their own and all that BUT I would suggest that you negotiate anything and everything you can possibly imagine BEFORE you start a game.

I'm only on my 2nd game of WiTP and was, initially, very vocal in not wanting to cripple the game by adopting any major house rules beyond banning things which didn't conform to newtonian physics, were uncounterable by one's opponent or were exploitation of game mechanics. Anything else was to be negotiated as it arose with "reasonableness" being used as the measure for compromise.

Well, you've guessed it, it turns out what I view as contrary to newtonian physics, uncounterable ( as in there is nothing a player can do to oppose a given game mechanism) and an exploitation of game mechanics is viewed by my opponent as "reasonable". Since I passed up several opportunities because they weren't "reasonable" (notably an opportunity to get a land base in India early in 1942) I feel raped. End result: while we both agreed to minimal house rules very, very different understandings of what is "reasonable" and what isn't have created a situation where both of us probably feel the other is going against the spirit of what we agreed.

We both got to our respective positions with the best of intentions and with no intention of exploiting the game in unfair ways BUT I can tell you that once you are in such a situation it is very, very difficult to row back from the precipice and continue the game in a manner enjoyable to both. We're discussing it but everything would have been so much easier if we'd just discussed things on December 6th 1941 .

So, take some advice from a convert.... House rules, which I was initially entirely opposed to, DO help make the game much more enjoyable and much more likely to last into 1946. I just started a new game and the list of house rules is about ten times as long as it was in my 2nd game. So, learn from my mistake and prevent yourself getting into a fight with your opponent because of widely differing interpretations of a grey area. The less grey areas the less chance of such a problem and the more enjoyable your game will be.


I am finishing off the house rules for my current game and have researched many of the AARs in the AAR section. MY house rules are probably a lot looser than most would like but I think they're a pretty good mix between historical possibility and minimising the major F'ups in the game's design.

So what are your house rules?

[Nemo121]

Overall Settings
Surprise is ON.
Non-Historical first turn allowed.
PDU ON.
Japanese sub doctrine can be ON or OFF at the discretion of the Japanese player.
Allied Damage control is ON.
 
Overall Mechanics:
China: Chinese units cannot be re-assigned so that when they are destroyed they re-appear elsewhere. The exception to this are Chinese SEAC units. Even for these units once all Chinese cities are taken they should have their replacements turned off.

Soviet Union: Any non-Soviet Allied forces which arrive in the Soviet Union are deemed to be interred and cannot be moved from the base or hex at which they initially arrived. Furthermore they must have their replacements set to OFF. Once the Soviet Union is activated these forces regain full functionality. If the entire Soviet Union is captured but some Soviet formation fragments remain elsewhere they should have replacements turned off as Stalin would not be sending replacements to CONUSA etc to rebuild shattered units.

India: Should the Japanese player take all of India except Karachi it is at his discretion whether or not to capture Karachi. If he captures Karachi he will withdraw from it and allow the Allied player to retake it with a shipped in BF in order to allow British and West African reinforcements to arrive. All reinforcements arriving in Karachi, EXCEPT Indian troops, must be shipped out to Australia via transport as soon as is feasible. In addition 50% of the supply, fuel and resources arriving at Karachi per month can also be shipped to Australia. If the Japanese player elects not to capture Karachi the same rules as above apply ( the only difference is that in taking Karachi the Japanese player would eliminate some currently extant units at the cost of a prolonged siege). India will, in addition, be declared Independent and Japanese forces must be withdrawn. In return Allied re-invasion of India or Ceylon is prohibited during the later course of the game.  ( This dynamic gives the Japanese player a reward for doing well in India whilst allowing British and african reinforcements to continue arriving in-theatre and is, I feel, reasonable to both sides).
Australia. Should Australia be captured in their entirety then the troops and aerial squadrons raised in Australia should have their replacements turned OFF. So long as a single base in Australia remains in Allied hands Australian forces can have replacements turned ON.
New Zealand. The same rule as applies to Australia applies here.

CONUSA: If the Japanese player can capture all bases in CONUSA then all US forces on-map have their replacements turned off.
Canada: Same rule as above.
 
 
Surprise Mechanics:
Japanese forces are allowed any number of port, airfield and ground attacks by their air force on Turn 1. IOW Japanese forces can attack Manilla, Singapore and Pearl Harbour ports on Turn 1.

Japanese forces invading the Soviet Union must activate Soviet forces 30 days before they intend to attack. E.g. If intending to attack on 1st September it would be good form to activate Soviet forces on 1st August.

On the first turn Japanese forces can use the 1st turn movement bonus to land anywhere they wish on-map or move a great distance toward any landing area which cannot be reached using the first turn movement bonus. There are no restrictions on where they can land. There is no need to limit these invasions ( or any further invasions) to areas covered by Japanese aerial forces. it is up to the allied player to make the Japanese player pay if he does this. Many times in war the side which did something insanely risky or "stupid" was the side which won so completely forbidding things which often succeeded, although risky, is invalid.

No limitation on number of Pearl Harbour attacks.

Japanese forces must NOT position subs, surface combat or carrier task forces to intercept known Allied TFs already at sea.

Allied forces cannot initiate or alter any major naval, ground or aerial unit movements on turn 1. Neither can bombing altitude be changed although CAP percentage can be changed.
 

PDUs:
There is no limit to the Japanese ability to change units from divebomber to level bomber.
In return there is no limit on Allied ability to change units from twin to four-engined bombers at will.
 
Submarines and ASW:
There is no limit on the number of ships in an ASW TF under 1.795+. Prior to 1.795+ ASW TFs are limited to a size of 6 + 1 ( per year of war)... So 6 ships in 41, 7 in 42, 8 in 43, 9 in 44 and 10 in 45.
No submarine-based invasions. If you want information then at the very least commit a half-full AP .
 
Air War:
Four-engined bombers set to naval attack can fly no lower than 15,000 feet after 1st January 1943. This is to allow the Allied player to mount desperate and costly defences in 1942 but to prevent them from turning the sea into a no-go area for Japanese forces after 1943 when the Allies are awash in B24s and, later, B29s.
No limitations on Corsair basing on CVs. In return there is no limitation on the types of planes the Japanese carriers can carry.
 
Mining:
No restrictions at all.
 
Ground
No breakdown of LCU's in combat to reduce fatigue and disruption.
No Shock Attack + Pursue in terrain with only a path which is wooded, swamp or mountainous.
 

It should be noted that this set of house rules hamstrings the Allies a LOT more than the rules under which my AAR as a Japanese player is being played. I have begun a game under these house rules as the Allies so I'm restricting myself a hell of a lot more than I restricted the Allies when I had a lot less experience with the game. IOW these are rules I DO consider fair for the Allies since I'm playing under them.

[pasternakski]

Well, let's take inventory at this late date.

There are numerous "mods" to this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "house rules" for this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "suggestions" on how to fix what's wrong with it.

Who's up for a game design that stands on its own two feet for a change?

Of course, that will be unpopular with those who start clamoring for "moddability" before a game is even published...

How can we continue to discuss the merits and faults of a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion" (think of the poor b@stards out there who bought this thing and play it raw without even knowing that all the stuff on these forums exists)?

I don't even know what WitP is anymore. As time goes by, I find myself caring less and less.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Well, let's take inventory at this late date.

There are numerous "mods" to this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "house rules" for this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "suggestions" on how to fix what's wrong with it.

Who's up for a game design that stands on its own two feet for a change?

Of course, that will be unpopular with those who start clamoring for "moddability" before a game is even published...

How can we continue to discuss the merits and faults of a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion" (think of the poor b@stards out there who bought this thing and play it raw without even knowing that all the stuff on these forums exists)?

I don't even know what WitP is anymore. As time goes by, I find myself caring less and less.

Actually ADavidb and I are playing a stock game with few house rules....

[treespider]

And when I first came into this thread today my intial thought was...


What is considered gamey?....

Hmm.. three week old deer meat that hasn't been cured came to mind

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Well, let's take inventory at this late date.

There are numerous "mods" to this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "house rules" for this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "suggestions" on how to fix what's wrong with it.

Who's up for a game design that stands on its own two feet for a change?

Of course, that will be unpopular with those who start clamoring for "moddability" before a game is even published...

How can we continue to discuss the merits and faults of a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion" (think of the poor b@stards out there who bought this thing and play it raw without even knowing that all the stuff on these forums exists)?

I don't even know what WitP is anymore. As time goes by, I find myself caring less and less.

How is this different from any other war (or other) game? Even chess has been 'modded' ... WITP is a superb game, despite it's shortcomings as a simulation and the occasional nasty bugs.

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Well, let's take inventory at this late date.

There are numerous "mods" to this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "house rules" for this game to fix what's wrong with it.

There are numerous "suggestions" on how to fix what's wrong with it.

Who's up for a game design that stands on its own two feet for a change?

Of course, that will be unpopular with those who start clamoring for "moddability" before a game is even published...

How can we continue to discuss the merits and faults of a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion" (think of the poor b@stards out there who bought this thing and play it raw without even knowing that all the stuff on these forums exists)?

I don't even know what WitP is anymore. As time goes by, I find myself caring less and less.

Last time I checked, Feinder and I were still playing a STOCK game pretty much from about version 1.2 against Kbullard and Parker. Seems that our list players is composed of 1 OVERACTIVE contributer to this board, 1 or 2 average contributors who pretty much don't complain, and 1 lurker who I figure reads Feinder's posts and tries to determine just what in the world is going through his head when he is throwing the kitchen sink in at Akyab.

Just to set the record straight that WitP is NOT "a game that is not played in its original form by anyone who is interested in contributing to the "discussion". Now, if you mean by "orignal form" the version 1.0 of the game (and I suspect that you do not), then perhaps you are right. I would venture to be that no one is playing that version.

[stldiver]

Thanks everyone.

I have truly enjoyed the many discussions, it has given valuable insight as to why some of those rules are mutually agreed upon before hand. I will definatly take all the advice into account.[&o]

Once again Thanks

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actually ADavidb and I are playing a stock game with few house rules....

Hmmm...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

still playing a STOCK game pretty much

Yep...

[6971grunt]

I appreciate the view of us that believe house rules can be used to cut down on the "gameyness" [is that a word and if so is it spelled right?][X(].

However, I have only suggested that any game should be able to explore the "what ifs" of history; for example in WITP - what strategic decisions, on both sides, would have been made if the IJN had found and sunk the two USN carriers at the out-set of the war? The over use, and maybe just the use, of house rules may well limit the exploration of such questions. The house rules that I have seen appear to limit the exploration of such educational questions.

I like games that are social and open to any type of creative thought process of any opponent - even if that includes taking advantage of some querks in the rules that allow "non-historical" or even the absurd results [i.e., 50 paratroopers blocking the retreat of a larger force - although the same rule was applied in boardgames with zones of control][:D]

[vonSchnitter]

Hi Chaps !

Coming late to the discussion, I know - but I experienced some frustrations lately, I would like to share with you. Or rather my conclusions.

"Gamey" in my book are all actions of on side, which leave the other side with very little or no means to counter. Or in other word "exploits" of the game engines blind spots.
While I think, this kind of issue is all right in short encounters with little investment of time and effort on the receiving end - on line shooters of any description - it should be ruled out in games like WitP.
This is not to say, that those with a good understanding of the "game" mechanics should not profit from it. Those "in the know" may have invested a lot of time, while "happy go lucky" new commers may have not - but this is an issue of a "pecking order" - not of "gamey" isues. On the contrary - those in the "know" should help to educate the "lesser" opponents. A good investment for the future ... And I think, this message board is doing good service for those who care to read. Not leave out, that only educated opponents are fun to play.


Now about house rules.

You can compile a list of rules as long as your fore-arm - or more - if you want to be creative. As long as both sides do not aggree to a concept of things - a code of honour if you will - your are wasting your time. I never thought it possible, but I have had this kind of experience lately.

Rule #1 of house rules: Make sure your opponent understands where you stand (pecking order) and make sure, both sides understand the "character" of the engagement.

As far as house rules go, there are a couple of concepts: (I do not rate the concepts, if you aggree to one, live with it)

Bar brawl type: No rules. Simple.
Cull the "gamey" ones - eliminate the exploits. Needs a lot of cooperation.
What if: The most tricky one. See below.
Historic: Not attainable.

If it comes to "house rules", make sure, both sides understand the other sides intentions as to what sort of game you want - as I have tried to sketch out above.
If you get a feeling, someone is trying to manipulate you - back off. Simple.

In a "what if" scenario, is is less important to discuss the size of ASW-TFs, but the application of doctrines of the time and their translation into the game engine.
You will have to fix the possible, not in rules (by the letter stuff), but by possibilities and by mutual understanding of what is considered "semi-historical".
And of course, if you feel your opponent is trespassing on agreed limits - let him know. And feel free to request a go back on moves.

I am not naming names, but I had a sort of education lately.
In my opinion, a decent undertanding of what is appropriate will go a long way to make a game "interresting" for both sides.

A black list of "morons" - or rather my "experiences with" - in the opponents thread would help a lot.

Cheers

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: esteban
-Taking base hexes using troops landed by submarine. The never happened during the war

This has been gnawing away at the back of my mind. Isn't this basically what Marine Raiders did at Makin Atoll in August 1942 when they were landed by the subs Nautilus and Argonaut? They wiped out the (admitidly tiny) Japanese garrison and had control of the island. (Not sure if they even knew it though.)