Potential house rules for UV PBEM.

[Ron Saueracker]

Hey all. Does anyone have a beef they would like to suggest be utilized as a house rule? You know, beefs such as not escorting your capital ships with destroyers in SC TFs as DDs are next to useless, allowing the player to pack in the most heavy ships (I have heard that many players do this), or the docking on a dot strategy posted in another thread here in the war room. Others could have included gross misuse of Allied 4e LBA prior to the fix.

Here are a few of mine that I would like my opponent to abide by as well. Obviously, the honour system must be paramount.

1)No allied sub is allowed to simultaneously operate in the same hex as other subs as this (wolfpacking) was against USN sub doctrine at this time.

2)Submarines can only operate from size 6 ports or above, to simulate the facilities necessary and the limited number of tenders available.

3)S Boats should be sent back to Pearl by Jan 1943, and never utilized in theatre again, as they were pigs and were relegated to training duties by Jan, 1943.

4)The Argonaut should not be used as a minelayer, as she was stripped of this ability by 1942.

5)Ships sent back to Pearl or Japan must be escorted by ASW vessels.

6)Ships that suffered major flotation damage due to a torpedo hit (but negligible sys damage) should be sent back to Japan or Pearl. I dislike the way UV allows huge holes and missing bow or stern sections to be simply "pumped free of water.

[Drongo]

Personally, I think they all make good sense in forcing "historical" limits on players but I would think they would often "go out the window" (intentionally or not) during the heat of battle. Trying to remember to do something that the game system does not enforce would be difficult to keep doing consistently.

In keeping with your suggestion :

Players cannot operate land based air from CV's (except for transfer purposes) unless both players agree that the unit was carrier trained.

[Raverdave]

Hmmmm.....but is that not then missing the point of wargaming? The point is not to only historically re-inact a battle, but to improve upon and therefore try to get a different out come. For example, wolfpacks were well used the the Germans in the war, so why should not a player use the same tactics now? As for your point number six, well there is an excellent example of why not, in the last few months. A RN destroyer (I can't remember her name) hit a rock, and was a hair's breath away from sinking. The crew managed to save her, and she has now been towed to Sydney for repairs. Now i know that there is a BIG differance between a rock and a torp, but damage control in the area for floatation has changed little since the war, you still use lumber, jacks, steel and even canvas.

[Ron Saueracker]

When Nottingham hit those rocks and was damaged, was she shipshape Bristol fashion in a week? She had to go to Cockatoo shipyard for emergency repairs to allow her to return to England for more permanent repairs. I don't think Truk, Rabaul, Noumea or Luganville had any real facilities to repair the hull damage incurred to torpedoed ships, allowing them to be shipshape. Most of the torped US cruisers went to Australia to get a false bow, allowing them to make the trip to a fully developed shipyard like Pearl Harbor or Puget Sound Navy Yard. Pumps, palm tree logs, shored up bulkheads etc to stem the flow of flooding does not constitute permanent repairs. The USS O'Brien had her flooding stopped in Noumea, but broke apart on the way to PH. She was not back in the battleline when her flood level "equaled zero" because her keel was broken and her bow was blown off. Same thing happened to USS Benham, and possibly USS Jarvis.

Regarding wolfpack tactics. It was deemed by the US Navy that this was too dangerous, and might result in accidental sub sinkings by US subs. It was not tried until 1944, when a few subs were teamed up and trained in these coordinated attacks with the use of advanced radars etc. If this is to be used, then maybe those making the decisions will have to answer to their bosses why their best sub was sunk by a friendly.

Allowing CVs to operate aircraft while anchored was impossible given the need to steam into the wind to add lift to the underpowered aircraft which may or may not have had the advantage of old hydraulic catapults.

Wargaming is great, and it does allow for different approaches and different results. The same realities should apply to the gamer as was present for the historical counterpart, however. I know many aspects of context, such as wartime paranoia and technical and tactical hindsight, are difficult to simulate, but others are not.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
When Nottingham hit those rocks and was damaged, was she shipshape Bristol fashion in a week? She had to go to Cockatoo shipyard for emergency repairs to allow her to return to England for more permanent repairs. I don't think Truk, Rabaul, Noumea or Luganville had any real facilities to repair the hull damage incurred to torpedoed ships, allowing them to be shipshape. Most of the torped US cruisers went to Australia to get a false bow, allowing them to make the trip to a fully developed shipyard like Pearl Harbor or Puget Sound Navy Yard. Pumps, palm tree logs, shored up bulkheads etc to stem the flow of flooding does not constitute permanent repairs. The USS O'Brien had her flooding stopped in Noumea, but broke apart on the way to PH. She was not back in the battleline when her flood level "equaled zero" because her keel was broken and her bow was blown off. Same thing happened to USS Benham, and possibly USS Jarvis.

Nottingham! That was the name!
Then maybe we need more detailed damage indicators along with damage/flood modeling? Was there not a floating dry dock at Noumea?

Regarding wolfpack tactics. It was deemed by the US Navy that this was too dangerous, and might result in accidental sub sinkings by US subs. It was not tried until 1944, when a few subs were teamed up and trained in these coordinated attacks with the use of advanced radars etc. If this is to be used, then maybe those making the decisions will have to answer to their bosses why their best sub was sunk by a friendly.

Yep

Allowing CVs to operate aircraft while anchored was impossible given the need to steam into the wind to add lift to the underpowered aircraft which may or may not have had the advantage of old hydraulic catapults.

I agree with you that it is impossible to launch while at anchor (well you can, but you won't get very far past the flight deck!).
But the problem as I see it is the 30 mile hex. For instance, if I want to cruise say 10 mile off shore from a base, I can't, because as soon as I enter the base hex, I am deemed to either be docked or at anchor. (Also makes it hard for ASW ops in hexs with a port) . So how do I over come this limitation?

Wargaming is great, and it does allow for different approaches and different results. The same realities should apply to the gamer as was present for the historical counterpart, however. I know many aspects of context, such as wartime paranoia and technical and tactical hindsight, are difficult to simulate, but others are not.

I think that we are both on the same track here with the exception of unit tactics?

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Raverdave
[/I]
Nottingham! That was the name!
Then maybe we need more detailed damage indicators along with damage/flood modeling? Was there not a floating dry dock at Noumea?[/I]

Floating drydocks still did not replace shipyard repairs to my knowledge. Demand was great for their services so they were primarily used to expedite emergency repairs.

[/I]

I agree with you that it is impossible to launch while at anchor (well you can, but you won't get very far past the flight deck!).
But the problem as I see it is the 30 mile hex. For instance, if I want to cruise say 10 mile off shore from a base, I can't, because as soon as I enter the base hex, I am deemed to either be docked or at anchor. (Also makes it hard for ASW ops in hexs with a port) . So how do I over come this limitation?

This is something that I'm not too sure of. One can sit in a hex with a friendly dot and not lose endurance/fuel and docked TFs seem to have a sense of invulnerability to sighting/air attack.

I think that we are both on the same track here with the exception of unit tactics?

Hey, if one was to restrict the use of hindsight totally, maybe there would be even less of a market for wargames. Guess we are. My problem with wolfpacking is made a moot point because subs, and TFs for that matter, can only intercept on a limited basis (subs where they sit if a TF ends up there, or TFs if in a base hex). Makes one wonder how a TF can run into a minefield mid move but this can't be applied to TFs etc.

Messed that up a bit with the quate button:rolleyes:

[Luskan]

I think just play each game as it comes - if your opponent agrees to your rules - great - but don't try to make them standard or enforcable (I just got that vibe from the term "house" rules even though that isn't strictly what it means).

I've got to be honest though, the only rules of the game I want to abide by are exactly that - the rules included in the program (with a belief that patches will fix things like operating LBA from carriers, or destroyer surface combat effectiveness).

My command decision to alter US sub doctrine and wolf-pack is part of what makes wargaming fun. If you want to make house rules, limit them to physical impossibilities (LBA on carriers for example), not dogmatic/doctrinal/arbitrary stuff. my 2 cents.

As for damage, I thought flood damage was just that. Water. System damage is what you get when the keel is broken/bow blown off, huge holes everywhere etc. Pumping water out of ships is fast, easy, and has been around since bailing began - replacing electricals destroyed by that water is represented as system damage - like all the physical damage you mentioned - isn't it??

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker



Messed that up a bit with the quate button:rolleyes:

Fixed!:D

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Luskan

As for damage, I thought flood damage was just that. Water. System damage is what you get when the keel is broken/bow blown off, huge holes everywhere etc. Pumping water out of ships is fast, easy, and has been around since bailing began - replacing electricals destroyed by that water is represented as system damage - like all the physical damage you mentioned - isn't it??

Great explanation And it would also explain why System Damage quickly increases when there is a high flotation damage level ...

[Ron Saueracker]

I had the Wasp hit by two torps,next turn flood damage was in the eighties, system damage was 9. A week later, she was "fine". Given fog of war, floatation still represented two hits. Two gaping holes and she's back in the line a week later, 2000 miles from the nearest shipyard.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I had the Wasp hit by two torps,next turn flood damage was in the eighties, system damage was 9. A week later, she was "fine". Given fog of war, floatation still represented two hits. Two gaping holes and she's back in the line a week later, 2000 miles from the nearest shipyard.

Ron, you were very lucky

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
I had the Wasp hit by two torps,next turn flood damage was in the eighties, system damage was 9. A week later, she was "fine". Given fog of war, floatation still represented two hits. Two gaping holes and she's back in the line a week later, 2000 miles from the nearest shipyard.

Well on the other side of the coin, in a PBEM the Hornet was hit with two torps and that was about three game weeks ago, she is still in port with 76 sys damage and 35 floation damage (down from 90%). Once float % is lower I plan to send her to pearl.

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Spooky


Ron, you were very lucky

But I'm not of Irish decent.