Seeking RHSEBO Test Series 9 opponent: House Rules Open Discussion

[el cid again]

More or less stock RHS rules - but I play with open rivers - and depend on player integrity to prevent ocean ships entering interior river systems. This is particularly useful to the Allies - who can enter and leave such systems at will - without being noticed by the enemy (who notices if we change the pwhex file).

[el cid again]

RHSEBO was done in response to a proposal by Historiker that we put in a Dutch BC.

So it is fitting he wants to play - using it. But EBO has a number of other interesting ships - many of them
Allied ships:


1) A version of the US South Dakota modified to Soviet standards was built as a prototype - this nearly happened -
and taken over by USN after the war in Europe began. This ship starts early in 1942.

2) Construction of the Washington class began sooner - and two vessels of an early design exist when the game starts -
but won't be lost at PH because they are not there.

3) RN KGV are armed with nine 15 inch guns

4) USN builds the last two Iowas

5) RN builds the first two Lions

6) The CB race has the USN getting the entire Alaska class. Lsst to enter the race, USN gets twice as many ships as everyone
else combined - six of them. This is a very early Alaska design - faster and less armored than the version built later in the war.

7) The Dutch manage to get both of the CLs which were proposed to replace Java and Sumatra - these because they are build sooner than IRL due to the peculiar political assumptions of the scenario. The Java and Sumatra are scrapped.

8) The Dutch probably would have built at least two of the BC, but the war in Europe begins before more than one is completed - and so number two is captured on the stocks. Soerabaja - an ancient coast defense ship - is srapped to help man and fund the comleted one.

9) HMS Bellerophon (CL) is completed as designed - she took forever to complete and her design was recast after building began - suspended - and recast again - finally emerging as HMS Tiger (which is in BBO series in her second form - but here is in her first form - in 1944).

[el cid again]

In private mail Historiker wrote:

I qould suggest quite common HRs:

1. Japanese ships must'n enter the "shipping channels" nor invade their bases like Muscat, Aden, Captown, etc.
.


This is well covered by RHS rules in the RHS manual - and in spirit you have it right.

Although Aden is NOT closed in CHS or RHS Level 5 or RHS Level 6, in RHS Level 7 it is a "meta base" and for technical reasons it
is not possible to have combat near it. It is far off the Western edge of the map - and none of the units that defend it are present in the game.
The Japanes are NOT allowed to attack it or recon it - nor to enter the two shipping channels approaching it. They can patrol right up to the edge of the "neutral zone" and in the hexes that these channels actually enter the Indian Ocean or Arabian Sea in, but they must be IN the actual Arabian Sea hexes - not in the ship channels - under all circumstances.

In a similar way, the ship channels BETWEEN Capetwon and the Panama mini map - (NOT including either) are stricly off limits. These are off map movement areas for the Allies and may not be subject to recon or attack by Axis forces - period.

An intermediate case is the Madagascar mini map - and the ship channels approaching it. Madagascar is Axis - and neutral - when the game begins. These units may NOT be used aggressively unless the Allies invade - which the Allies may do at any time. BUT

Japanese ships CL and below ARE permitted in ALL the ship channels between the Indian Ocean and the Madagascar mini map

ANYTHING a Japanese ship can carry IS permitted to go to the Madagascar mini map

JAPANESE units in the Madagascar mini map MAY behave aggressively at ANY time

UNDEFINED is the matter of CVS ships in this respect: the Allies have NO restrictions - and they have a CVS in the area (HMS Albatross, formerly HMAS Alabatross). RHS manual says the Japanese player SECRETLY decides if CVS are permitted or not - and does NOT tell the Allied player.

In this area a ship with planes IN A SHIP CHANNEL must range limit the planes to ONE hex - period.

In this area ALL air units must range limit themselves so they do NOT enter another body of water:

a) An air unit on Madagascar MAY patrol ship channels but NEVER ENTER ANY hex of the Indian Ocean.

b) An air unit in South Africa MAY patrol ship channels or the Madagascar map but may NEVER ENTER ANY hex of the Indian Ocean

c) An air unit in the Indian Ocean MAY patrol ship channels but man NEVER ENTER ANY hex of the Madagascar map

Note that this means an air unit on Madagascar MAY attack Capetown or Durban - and vice versa.

Note that AXIS SHIPS may NOT enter the south map edge ship channel - so Capetown or Durban may NOT be invaded or bombarded

Special case - ALLIES ONLY may transfer air units between Durban or Capetown or Madagascar (if they hold any base on the mini map)
and the main map ONLY if they fly to Aden or Addu atol first.

Special case - ALLIES ONLY may transfer air units between Aden and the main map ONLY if they fly to Karachi, Muscat, Bombay or Addu Atol - and vice versa.



Final case: as in CHS PANAMA is ON THE MAP and MAY be invaded or attacked in any and all ways. This includes the ship channels to the Panama mini map. The defense units are present. ONLY the Caribbean Sea is off limits to the Axis player. Also - the Axis may never move SOUTH of the Panama mini map in a ship channel.

As with Madagascar, ships with air unts IN a ship channel must limit range to one hex

As with the Madagascar case, air units in the Panama Mini Map may NOT cross into the Pacific Ocean - and vice versa - but MAY patrol the ship channels

ALLIED UNITS ONLY may air transfer between Panama and the USA - and vice versa - but NOT to points in the Pacific Ocean.

[el cid again]

The full message from Historiker was:

I qould suggest quite common HRs:

1. Japanese ships must'n enter the "shipping channels" nor invade their bases like Muscat, Aden, Captown, etc.
2. Paradrops only on bases
3. No surrounding with little fragments, so 50 men can't permit 100.000 to flee
4. No sub invasions
5. Invasions only in bases and dots
6. No exploitations...

For turn 1:
7. only one attack on a harbour
8. I am allowed to move TF that are already at sea
9. No exploitation of the turn 1 move

is that ok to you?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The full message from Historiker was:

I qould suggest quite common HRs:

1. Japanese ships must'n enter the "shipping channels" nor invade their bases like Muscat, Aden, Captown, etc.

REPLY: Covered above already.

2. Paradrops only on bases

REPLY: RHS has deliberately added many tiny units - and many map hexes of coastal land - specifically to permit raiding - of all kinds. The Allies even have two units of sub company size - 2 platoons at Kavieng and 3 at Tulagi. The point of paras - and sub raiders - and many guerilla units - is that they can gather intel and mess with LOC. I have 5 human tests running and I am so far pleased that this is working better than expected.

3. No surrounding with little fragments, so 50 men can't permit 100.000 to flee

REPLY: WITP fragments units - and retreats them into the wilderness. Further - some positions are inherently very strong - see Balinta Pass - which RHS added to the game: a battalion was deemed able to hold it vs any normal challenge - and being defined as a mountain - it is hard to take if you defend it. I never deliberately fragment units - and I send whole units on missions - except air transport and ship transport/landing mechanics will fragment these units in many cases. One of the important aspects of RHS is it is LOGISTICALLY oriented - and my intent is not so much to simulate "stopping their retreat" as it is "stopping their supply." Each hex is about 2600 sq miles - but roads or rail roads are only 3 meters wide per lane/track. These can be challenged. Note the Allies have many guerilla units - I have yet to kill even one - and these are INTENDED to both supply intelligence and to block enemy units. IF the Japanese can do this on a smaller scale - let them.

4. No sub invasions

REPLY: RHS has added MANY submarine transports - and if they are mainly for logistical applications - they also are for raiders. There is the famous Makin Island Raid - and Japan even had submersable APCs for submarine deck delivery. We are supposed to be testing RHS concepts - not ignoring them - so I do not agree.

5. Invasions only in bases and dots

REPLY: If there were more slots - I would put a dot in almost every hex. The areas are too vast to say "nobody can go there." And a general must worry about the hinterland. Not much happens in them for logistical reasons - supplies essentially do not flow - and cost 100 to 1 or something horrible like that. But I added many hexes - in Japan for example -so the Allies CAN land at some unpredictable point - and Japan must "defend everywhere." It is the classic connundrum of amphib ops - they don't know where you will land. My first ship was an APA and I do not know why gamers don't like this idea - but it is not good simulation. You never know what he (I) might do. I don't do this much for LOGISTICAL reasons - and that is the ONLY reason I don't.


6. No exploitations...

For turn 1:

REPLY: I almost never set exploitations - but why should they be forbidden? I cannot think of a single useful case on turn one - but
if I could - why would it be inappropriate?

7. only one attack on a harbour

REPLY: I do not understand this idea? What does it mean? In general - if I attack a place in a major way - I will do so by every means possible - and do so more than once unless it is a raid. Or do you mean "you can attack only ONE harbor on a given turn, or on the first turn" - I think this is nonsense. I might attack Singapore, Manila and Pearl - and certainly Hong Kong - all on turn one. Maybe even Rangoon.

Note however that I do NOT require you to STAY in a harbor waiting for me to attack it on turn one. IF you think the Allies would have moved a unit - you may move it.

8. I am allowed to move TF that are already at sea

See the Tag Team threads: you may do ANYTHING you believe makes sense. You may move any TF that is at sea - and you better or you will lose carriers. There is not enough uncertainty - and I need you to be a moving target to be a challenge.

NOTE you MAY form ANY NUMBER of TFs on turn one and move them ALL. UNLESS you think they would not do that: if you believe Kimmel would stay in port - stay in port. I stay in PH because I think I will survive better than if I go to s ea. I HOPE you go to sea - to be sunk. But you MAY go to sea - in a new TF - and you can be as tricky as you like about it.

a) Send battleships at full speed to the USA - or to Islands like Christmas - get them out of harms way;

b) Send battleships on three different 120 degree axis - a division each - and try to catch KB at sea with heavy units - I have seen it done and one player got shells into Kaga that way

c) Send cruisers destroyer groups similar to b above - or do both b and c at the same time - covering most of the hexes KB might launch from

d) Send BB to ports you think I might invade - have invasion transports opposed by heavy ships -

e) Do d with light ships or PT boats or cruisers - or any combination of the above

f) Use warships as fast transports and move TROOPS to islands you think I might invade

g) Lay mines with minelayers

h) ANYTHING else you can think of that YOU think is reasonable IF intel indicates a serious enemy attack is inbound. I think that strategic surprise means you have what you have there - but I do NOT require tactical surprise.

9. No exploitation of the turn 1 move

is that ok to you?

9 duplicates 6 and it is not likely to be an issue with me - since I exploit about once a year - but in principle I believe you should never be sure I won't. I think we should maximize uncertainty - that is what real commanders face to a degree we cannot fully duplicate in a canned scenario. I want MORE options for both sides - not less. This is an important aspect of RHS - and I want to confirm it works. So far I really think we are onto something - and players seem to like the great detail and uncertainty we have added to WITP. I am not sure why this sort of restriction has become popular either? I prefer a more wide open and unpredictable contest.

The RHS limit is - reason. If it is impossible - don't do it. If you don't think the commander would do it for political or other reasons - don't do it either. But YOU decide the limits for you - and you cannot be sure what I think - or vice versa.

[Historiker]

ad1
I can accept this, but I think as the Japs knows where the ships will come, there should be a limitation for the channels around Panama. I would suggest not more than 2 SS at the same time, no limitation to surface ships

ad2
Sorry, I don't understand what you try to tell me. Anyway, I'm not interested in playing against someone, who cuts off my armies with paradrops somwhere in the nowhere. 50 Men could never stop whole armies, but in witp, the retreating units will not care how much are there, they will try another way or if not possible - surrender! This is stupid in my eyes, so I don't want to face this. There are enough bases to paradrop at...

ad3
In witp, even unarmed engineers can stop 200.000 men from fleeing and forcing them to surrender. Do you want an enemy, that does this? I don't!

ad4
ok

ad5
ok

ad6
I ment no exploiting of witp mechanics. I read GHs AAR against trollelite and see some nasty things. I.e. paras are dropped each day in sucidal missions to prevent fleeing units heading in this direction or daily attacks with tiny units against heavily defended bases to force the defender in burning supplies... This is - in my eyes - an obvious exploitation of the game mechanics.

ad7
it's almoust common that ships mustn't leave their harbour on turn one. If this is allowed, there don't need to be restrictions, of course!

ad8 and 9
that doesn't matter after point 7

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ad1
I can accept this, but I think as the Japs knows where the ships will come, there should be a limitation for the channels around Panama. I would suggest not more than 2 SS at the same time, no limitation to surface ships

.

The problem with Japan is it has too few submarines - and the ocean is too large. The historical comment they should have contested the SLOC more is valid - but implies they could do so effectively. They could only hope to divert more resources to defending them than the cost of contesting them - not to actually do something serious. Japan is never able to send more than one submarine to a distant point - and often there is none at all. Again - I do not agree to be limited - because you need to worry about what might happen - but in fact - there are not enough submarines to concentrate UNLESS they denude other areas of them - which is not something I think makes sense in most situations.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.ad2
Sorry, I don't understand what you try to tell me. Anyway, I'm not interested in playing against someone, who cuts off my armies with paradrops somwhere in the nowhere. 50 Men could never stop whole armies, but in witp, the retreating units will not care how much are there, they will try another way or if not possible - surrender! This is stupid in my eyes, so I don't want to face this. There are enough bases to paradrop at...

.

In general - the game is focused on the "dots" - after that on the roads, rail lines and trails between the dots - and anything not on either is not going to be in supply - or able to move more than about 1 or 2 miles a day. For that reason - a truly empty hex is not often a candidate for battle. But a LOC is very often the focus of a contest - and it is not possible to move from Kota Bahru to Singapore without going down a long line of hexes - fighting in every one.

But there are special cases - and I spent man months adding bits of terrain so an Allied player in particular could land on some tip of a pennensula - and walk overland to a LOC or port or base hex - and Japan would have to cover the threat or lose the position. Lots of land was on the map but not coded as land - and I recoded both hexes and hex sides to permit and facilitate invasions and raids - particularly where it is really feasible - and after half a century of study and travel in this area - I pretty much know where that is the case.

Therei s a school of thought in the Forum - and led by Matrix people - that says WITP should NOT have small units - and that the system is not able to work with them - that indeed they will not be effective. This is not my view: I added hundreds of small units - on both sides- and went to a lot of trouble to give them special characteristics. I find in testing that the system works far better than anyone has suspected - and that such units - IF you think of them as they would be treated by a REAL staff - do just what small units could/should do:

a) They provide detail recon of what is in a hex - even in bad weather preventing air recon

b) They can take an undefended hex (except - in RHS - where there is a major supply sink - the locals are too strong even without soldiers at a major economic center - and I think that is right too)

c) They close momentarily a LOC - and I used this thing you don't seem to like to make China in particular a rats nest of guerillas. There aer also guerillas in other places - mostly but not always Allied - and they sometimes can survive without local sources of supply. These tiny units in tests work just like real guerillas do - and tie up must vaster forces - at least for a while. In many cases they regenerate too - in China they come back in 30 days. Anyway - as a sailor trained to be in a landing party of 14 (or 15 if they give us an officer) - I must dispute your concept that 50 men cannot tie up a much larger force: I once defeated a battalion with my squad (although I was supported by 12 untrained local militia - that is still only 26 men). I mean defeated - wholly disorganized - and we had to bury well over a hundred of them. If you don't understand how this is possible - and possible in particular in the jungles of SE Asia - you are not familiar with how things really work.

This is a showstopper - potentially. I don't hit non LOC hexes enough to notice - mainly only if forced to retreat into them - but I hit non dot LOC hexes at every opportunity that looks promising.

I think it is wholly wrong to say there are hundreds of miles of LOC that are immune to raiders when IRL it is total nonsense - there is virtually never a 60 mile hex that could not be hit - unless they cannot get there. And cutting a LOC is critical to a logistical mod - which is the very heart of RHS. We care about supply flow - because it is not available locally it needs to flow from whereever it is coming from. And those LOC must be defended. This is the point of RHS. But I admit this is the way professionals think, real operations are done, and simulations are designed - not games where the point is to have a wonderful big battle. It might not be your cup of tea.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

2
ad3
In witp, even unarmed engineers can stop 200.000 men from fleeing and forcing them to surrender. Do you want an enemy, that does this? I don't!

.

This is a misunderstanding of WITP: there are NO "unarmed engineers" in stock or CHS - only RHS introduced them (they are called "labor squads" - and even they have one weapon per squad).

And in RHS we had a big problem with these ALMOST unarmed squads being far too strong: I had to do tricky things to insure they don't overpower major military units with support of all kinds.

So - in the first place - engineers are concieved of in WITP as military engineers = combat units.

In the second place - ALL squads count equally - except only support - and these count at 1/10 of a squad for squad count purposes. Squad count matters MORE than weapons values - not exactly my preference - but that is the way code is written.

So your assertion is based on a misunderstanding of what engineers are.

Further - in some organizations at least - it does not require line infantry to be combat effective. US Marines require ALL units to be combat units - the Marine band is an infantry company -- and in the current war it went to the field AS INFANTRY. I saw a USMC communications company relieve a battalion in trouble on the line - and hold the line. In USN - every ship has a unit of trained infantry - and it is man for man far more effective than any army infantry outside special forces (because the more educated soldiers are, the more effective they are, and Navy guys have a lot more education and training than line soldiers get). When told my squad was in the way of a battalion assault, my XO is alleged to have said something about he hoped none of our people got hurt - he had no doubt whatever I would both engage and win. He was right on both counts, but we suffered no casualties. How many army squads can hold a village against a battalion assault and not take casualties? Of course - we cheated - we used every asset we could get - including local volunteers and weapons not even issued to navy guys on which we had no training whatever. But techs can read manuals and figure it out. In this theater in WWII engineers on New Guinea were particularly effective at confounding the enemy - and did so without regard for numbers. If I could do so - I would put a lot more of this in the game. In AE - where supply sinks are not needed - RHS will STILL have supply sinks - SO civilian engineers static to a location will defend it - even if the Allies do not send ANY troops as IRL.

In game terms operations are semi abstract in a large area - but with point (city) or line (LOC) assets in those 2500 sq mile areas. We do not get to know the details of tactical combat. But in principle - the main thing that matters is "is anybody in that hex opposing us" - and if the answer is "yes" - it is not safe to send supplies through it - or to retreat into ambushes. This is far more like IRL than having guaranteed enemy free territory in almost every direction. A real commander must face unexpected - often minor - opposition - and at times it can be critical - preventing a planed or emergency movement. These are real world problems - and games free of them are not simulations of real combat operations. If I could make this more possible in the game I would - and I certainly will not consider removing uncertainty from a system which at is heart is flawed most of all because you know too much for sure.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.ad6
I ment no exploiting of witp mechanics. I read GHs AAR against trollelite and see some nasty things. I.e. paras are dropped each day in sucidal missions to prevent fleeing units heading in this direction or daily attacks with tiny units against heavily defended bases to force the defender in burning supplies... This is - in my eyes - an obvious exploitation of the game mechanics.

.

You need to play a reasonable opponent.

RHS has one PRIMARY house rule: if it would not be done IRL - do not do it.

I would never do anything that is gamey - a technical thing that has no rational counterpart IRL.

And I expect you not to either.

That rule alone protects you from all such matters - you need not think of it. I hear Allies can "teleport" from US West Coast to Aden - but this rule forbids it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.
ad7
it's almoust common that ships mustn't leave their harbour on turn one. If this is allowed, there don't need to be restrictions, of course!

.

This came out in the tag team threads - everyone was supprised at the attitudes I, Nemo and Mifune had:

we EXPECT you to boss your ships - you are the boss - right?

Japan IRL had - eight I think - contingencies for PH - and the one they executed with Tora Tora Tora was regarded as very UNLIKELY to happen. They DID NOT KNOW if Kimmel was at sea - if the carriers were at sea - or to what end? They did NOT expect NO fighter opposition over the target - and had to change their attack order to exploit if that happened.

The ONLY limit is what YOU believe is imposed by the situation - if YOU do not believe they would go to sea with this - or in that direction - don't do that. But don't tell me - I play as if there is a real opponent out there.

[Historiker]

Well, you try to simulate reality most historical correct - which is permitted by witp... I will not play anyone who takes a case where 20 men defeated 800 as an argument for a house rule, which means that whole armys may surrender because of 20 cooks blocking a whole hex - so 60 miles against 100.000 soldiers trying to retreat... This is no pass which can be blocked by 2 MGs and an AT gun, we talk about wide plains blocked by a handful of cooks, clerks and nurses...

I'm sorry, but you should play with someone else.

Moreover, House Rules are nothing - at least what I think - to be discussed here and in public...

[el cid again]

RHS is a public project of the Matrix Games Forum. House rules are necessary for the special features - like ship tracks - and yes also the many tiny units - to be properly used instead of misused (not as designed). I want open testing - in public - to generate understanding of what is intended and why things happen - and I have 5 current AAR threads to that end. I think house rules by the coordinator help others design workable house rules.

Your concerns are far too theoretical - and not really an issue when playing a sensible person. I have four ongoing games and I will send replays to you if you provide an email address by pm - and you will see that in NONE of them do I do anything like what you are worried about - but the ALLIES pretty much have to do so - because of the nature of deployment in China for one thing.

The game mechanics have their biggest problems re land combat - to be sure. In spite of this, they work remarkably well - and I think your problem is far more psychological than real: you must get into the spirit of the game system or always be frustrated by it. The fact is that
the serious problems with using non dot hexes is sufficient to insure the majority of action is in them, and almost every exception to that is going to be on a line of communications - which units properly move into by marching down the line. RHS is logistically oriented - and logistics mean sending units where there is no supply is pretty much to guarantee their rapid attrition. I command as if these were real people - and don't like to see anybody get lost - and I don't risk them without a good reason. I also do not think it is easy to fight big units with little ones - and I prefer to use supported major formations (that is, I like to have HQ, artillery, armor and air or naval support for an attempt to kill a major enemy unit). This works. I am not sure what your concerns are - but I don't think they are related to what I normally do. On the other hand, I refuse to be limited where I can send people if I have a reason to send them there - and I don't need to explain that reason to the enemy at the time either.

I do have a couple of test games apparently - one to start - and one either to continue or restart - so this is not critical. But YOU are the person who caused EBO to be done - and I think you should play it to help me evaluate if I got what you wanted - or not? But since it is RHS - you do need to respect the design intent of the mod as a whole. This was to simulate actual operations.

If we disagree - it is about the impact of small units. I can only say that I have found so far that small units are sometimes hard to kill - but none survives more than three days vs a major one - unless the position is heavily supported by new major units - or they evacuate.
I am finding fewer problems than I expected and I think they are working well.

I myself do not usually divide a unit - except when it happens because it does not drop/load completely - because I think bigger units are more likely to survive combat and other attrition.