PBEM House Rules for AE

[BeastieDog]

Do any of the playtesters have recommended PBEM house rules for AE?

[Andy Mac]

Only one because we weren't able to implement it if a unit is restricted don't let it march across national borders without paying PP's
 
e.g. India command units marching to Burma, Thai Units to Burma, Chinese Units to Burma, Kwantang Units to China etc etc

[treespider]

These may be addressed in a future patch --

But any house rules would involve the use of LCUs in areas that they could reach marching overland such as -

1. Kwantung Army and subordinate commands marching into China
2. Indian Command units marching into Burma
3. Thai units

As I mentioned there are several proposals to address these issues some more involved and complex than others. The simplest solution is a house rule.

Other than that I cannot think of any.

Edit: Andy beat me to the punch...

[BeastieDog]

How about the no sub invasions and no 4E bombing under 10,000ft? Are they relevant to AE?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

How about the no sub invasions and no 4E bombing under 10,000ft? Are they relevant to AE?

Nope.

[BeastieDog]

The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release!

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release!

Of course, if it doesn't you have more time for AE... So it's win-win! [:D]

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

The news keeps getting better and better. Great job guys! I hope my marriage holds up after the release!

Of course, if it doesn't you have more time for AE... So it's win-win! [:D]

Maybe I'm lucky I'm already divorced and have nothing to worry about.[:D]

[Yamato hugger]

Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head):

1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned.
2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect).
3) No max alt sweep missions.
4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP.
5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated.
6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities.
7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless.

[tigercub]

lol

[Andy Mac]

nm

[Andy Mac]

My views on YH's HR's

I guess the point is play the game yourselves and look at it v the AI before deciding on HR's

No.1 is the only one that I think is fundamental because we did not implement borders the way we wanted to.

Andy

1) I am ok with
2) I dont thinkis a massive problem becauseof th edraft of ships but each to his own.
3) I thought was fixed
4) is per stock so if you wanted a HR in stock you will need one in AE - BUt remember that Airbone unit replacements are much more limited in AE
5) No View
6) Only v the AI
7) Is fixed and not a problem anyore

Andy

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head):

1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned.
2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect).
3) No max alt sweep missions.
4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP.
5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated.
6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities.
7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless.

[Yamato hugger]

When people refer to house rules, they generally dont have to reach an agreement with an AI [;)]

I was of course referring to PvP.

[Dili]

No max alt sweep missions.

What was this problem? Shouldn't player choose the best altitude for it's aircraft while sweeping?

[String]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

When people refer to house rules, they generally dont have to reach an agreement with an AI [;)]

I was of course referring to PvP.

Well the way I see it if a player leaves important industrial sites undefended to be bombed from 6000 feet then he deserves what he gets. Surely even a jap AA unit should extract a toll from the attacking bombers if they come in low and slow?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Oh I can think of a few house rules I would recommend (this is a partial list off thetop o my head):

1) The marching across borders thing already mentioned.
2) No enemy operations in river port hexes (subs, bombardment, invasions, ect).

Certain ships cannot operate in rivers as is...invasions I don't have an issue with....subs iirc the DL of subs is increased in rivers.

3) No max alt sweep missions.

Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow...

4) Some limit should be put on airborne operations. Several discussions in the dev forum seemed to favor requiring the attacker to be prepped at least to a level 10 before a drop was allowed. As it stands it subject to the same abuses as WitP.

As Andy points out replacements are reduced...no real issue here for me

5) The more I see of it the more I am convinced that sub react distances should be limited or eliminated.

Still not sold on this one

6) City bombing should have a minimum altitude. Flying strikes at 6000 feet will dust the entire industrial output of most cities.

Up to the players...perhaps limiting City Attacks to 2E and 4E.

7) Limiting the numbers of units in "reserve". As it stands, a player can put his entire force in reserve mode and only a few of them will actually retreat if so required (despite what the manual says on this). So a player can put a stack of 20 units in reserve and 3 or 4 will retreat leaving the rest. By the time the attacker has it whittled down, the other guy can have moved some right back in and put them in reserve again. The attacker will take no losses against this tactic, but I see it as gamey regardless.

Fixed

[BeastieDog]

3) No max alt sweep missions.


Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow...

treespider, can you eleaborate on the problem and the solution or point me to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: BeastieDog

3) No max alt sweep missions.


Now that I've figured out the air system I plan on staying low and slow...

treespider, can you eleaborate on the problem and the solution or point me to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks.

There is no problem....certain aircraft have slow climb rates and poor performance at high altitude.

Even if you set 100% CAP it does not mean that 100% of your defending CAP is airborne 100% of the time. A goodly portion are, but the rest are on the ground in a ready status.

So if you set your CAP low and the Sweep comes in high the two perform a merge at some point in between which is lower than the high sweep...this allows the CAP the opportunity to get more aircraft into the fight due to climb rates....and the combat is fought at a lower altitude where the MVR setting may be more optimal....

If you try and out altitude the other guy with your CAP sure you may gain a temporary altitude bonus but the combat will be fought at an altitude that may deny your Ready aircraft from joining the fight.So by flying lower you may still be at a disadvantage on a per plane basis but you will have more planes in the fight than had you set the CAP in the stratosphere.

SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft...

This works for me at least early on when climb rates of aircraft are slow and poor radar are prevalent....the tactics may change as better aircraft and raid detection become more prevalent.

And on some occasions a high sweep and a low CAP will not engage each other...

[treespider]

Here are the A2A losses through January 3, 1942...

Discounting the P-35's and P-26's most of the combats were fought over the Manila, Clark, Bataan triangle and Singapore

A2A Losses:
Buffalos - 54
P-40E's and P40B's -36
Total - 90

Zero's and Oscars - 66

OP losses also account for an additioanl 43 Allied fighters and 56 Japanese fighters

TOTALS 133 Allied fighters vs 122 Japanese fighters

A respectable exchange rate IMO because my pilots generally survive since I am over my base...

[BeastieDog]

SO IMHO it is better to set the CAP low which brings the combat to lower altitude allowing the defender to get more guys in the fight and fight at a better performance altitude for the aircraft...

Would this be a disadvantage for bomber intercept? I'm thinking Midway.