house rules for my next game

[gwgardner]

Starting a new PBEM game, and am passing the following house rules suggestions by my opponent to see what he thinks. What do you think?:

These borrow heavily from Uxbridge, and others (you know who you are!).

1) as before all new purchases are at division level, deployed in home country, AND to form a corps three divisions must be combined. To form an armored corps, two armored divisions and 1 mech division required. To form a mech corps, 2 mech divisions and one infantry division required (the infantry division representing artillery, etc.). To form an infantry corps, 3 inf divisions required. So that upon creation of the corps, two of the divisions are immediately disbanded (giving some PPs back as a side-effect). The three divisons have to be within 3 hexes of the one which will be upgraded.

2) on the first turn of the quarter (Jan, April, July, October), after doing any production for that turn, have to use F11 to immediately reduce all accumulated PPs by half, for every active country.

3) leaders may only be attached to a division sized unit, level 1, representing an HQ. Such a unit may not be upgraded above level 1.

[Harbinger]

To form an armored corps, two armored divisions and 1 mech division required.

Are these assets subject to further restrictions?

...Example; Positioning a L3 Armor Div within range of a L1 Mech Div and L1 Armor Div meets the requirements to create a L3 or a L1 Armor Corps as outlined by the criteria above...

3) leaders may only be attached to a division sized unit, level 1, representing an HQ. Such a unit may not be upgraded above level 1.

Very interesting.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Harbinger


Are these assets subject to further restrictions?

...Example; Positioning a L3 Armor Div within range of a L1 Mech Div and L1 Armor Div meets the requirements to create a L3 or a L1 Armor Corps as outlined by the criteria above...

Hadn't thought of that factor. To discourage gameyness, perhaps the unit being upgraded has to be the lowest level of the three, for the given type being created.

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

1) as before all new purchases are at division level, deployed in home country, AND to form a corps three divisions must be combined. To form an armored corps, two armored divisions and 1 mech division required. To form a mech corps, 2 mech divisions and one infantry division required (the infantry division representing artillery, etc.). To form an infantry corps, 3 inf divisions required. So that upon creation of the corps, two of the divisions are immediately disbanded (giving some PPs back as a side-effect). The three divisons have to be within 3 hexes of the one which will be upgraded.

2) on the first turn of the quarter (Jan, April, July, October), after doing any production for that turn, have to use F11 to immediately reduce all accumulated PPs by half, for every active country.

3) leaders may only be attached to a division sized unit, level 1, representing an HQ. Such a unit may not be upgraded above level 1.

I like # 1 a lot, it requires the player to plan ahead instead of reacting to the current situation. I don't think you need to worry about mixing different level units, it would be prudent to create corps from level one units in the first place.

#2 has a loop hole why would you not spend down all available PPts to avoid losing half of what is in the bank.

#3 is a good way to keep track of where your leaders are and to balance there effect on units within their bonus range. I think you should use level one mech units like Uxbridge does.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever





#2 has a loop hole why would you not spend down all available PPts to avoid losing half of what is in the bank.

That's the intent, to force players to use their PPs, or lose them. In my current solo game I have the Germans at 1600 PPs saved in March 41. In my recent PBEM with Chocolino, at one point in '41 I think it was I had the Russian PPs at 3000 saved (taking advantage of that exploit where the russkies get a boost in War Economy by attacking Finland. Hopefully 1.7 does away with that exploit.)

I've had the US PPs saved up to 7000 in one game.

[cpdeyoung]

In our current ETO game we are using "all points above 300 are halved" which I like better. This allows you to spend down, but still save a bit for an aircraft carrier, or whatever.

Chuck

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

That's the intent, to force players to use their PPs, or lose them. In my current solo game I have the Germans at 1600 PPs saved in March 41. In my recent PBEM with Chocolino, at one point in '41 I think it was I had the Russian PPs at 3000 saved (taking advantage of that exploit where the russkies get a boost in War Economy by attacking Finland. Hopefully 1.7 does away with that exploit.)

I've had the US PPs saved up to 7000 in one game.

OK, you see I thought you were trying to simulate waste or loss of production resources. One of the first games I played as the USSR I had enough production to build 3 fleets in the Med, since then I setup any Human players at Very Hard (-50%PP). Wouldn't that suffice to reduce banking of PPts.

[Harbinger]

Or...modifying the War Economy, Civil Order, resource and production values for the at start "Normal" settings....

[Flaviusx]

I continue to not understand this zeal for constructing corps out of individual divisions in a game without unit stacking.
 
Mileage most definitely varies.
 
 

[AH4Ever]

Yes, that would be the best solution.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I continue to not understand this zeal for constructing corps out of individual divisions in a game without unit stacking.

Mileage most definitely varies.

To me there's two reasons:

1) adds historical flavor (this is the most important reason as far as I'm concerned)
2) helps to limit gaming the system, like Germany fighting deep inside Russia and instantly building 7 corps in Rostov, or some such

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

OK, you see I thought you were trying to simulate waste or loss of production resources. One of the first games I played as the USSR I had enough production to build 3 fleets in the Med, since then I setup any Human players at Very Hard (-50%PP). Wouldn't that suffice to reduce banking of PPts.

It would be one way to do it. But all these production levels, difficulty levels, etc. are just arbitrary numbers. Just as cutting them by half is arbitrary. Just one way to do it.

Actually, item 3 in my house rules list may no longer be useful in 1.7, with the new 'wastage' events. I'm very pleased to see them included.

[Harbinger]

ORIGINAL; gwgardner
2) on the first turn of the quarter (Jan, April, July, October), after doing any production for that turn, have to use F11 to immediately reduce all accumulated PPs by half, for every active country.

3) leaders may only be attached to a division sized unit, level 1, representing an HQ. Such a unit may not be upgraded above level 1.

Actually, item 3 in my house rules list may no longer be useful in 1.7, with the new 'wastage' events. I'm very pleased to see them included.

I'm sure you meant to refer to item 2.

1) ...to form a corps three divisions must be combined. The three divisons have to be within 3 hexes of the one which will be upgraded.

To discourage gameyness, perhaps the unit being upgraded has to be the lowest level of the three, for the given type being created.

To me there's two reasons:
1) adds historical flavor (this is the most important reason as far as I'm concerned)
2) helps to limit gaming the system, like Germany fighting deep inside Russia and instantly building 7 corps in Rostov, or some such.

I don't understand what is meant by "gameyness" and "gaming the system". Could someone elaborate or even provide a defintion of these terms?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I continue to not understand this zeal for constructing corps out of individual divisions in a game without unit stacking.

Mileage most definitely varies.

To me there's two reasons:

1) adds historical flavor (this is the most important reason as far as I'm concerned)
2) helps to limit gaming the system, like Germany fighting deep inside Russia and instantly building 7 corps in Rostov, or some such

This has never particularly bothered me, to be honest. STAVKA reserves to the rescue.

As a matter of fact something very much like this happened to the Germans in 1941 near Rostov, where they got a nasty surprise and had to quit the place and fall back to the Mius.

Heck, on a larger scale, that's the entire story of the Battle for Moscow. Germans thought the Sovs were toast and didn't have anything in the kitty. Surprise! Say hi to my Siberians!

So, from my standpoint, a player who has PP's stashed away for a rainy day is just doing the smart thing and keeping reserves hidden away.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


This has never particularly bothered me, to be honest. STAVKA reserves to the rescue.

As a matter of fact something very much like this happened to the Germans in 1941 near Rostov, where they got a nasty surprise and had to quit the place and fall back to the Mius.

Heck, on a larger scale, that's the entire story of the Battle for Moscow. Germans thought the Sovs were toast and didn't have anything in the kitty. Surprise! Say hi to my Siberians!

So, from my standpoint, a player who has PP's stashed away for a rainy day is just doing the smart thing and keeping reserves hidden away.

I meant the Germans deploying newly produced corps in Rostov.

For the Russkies it's certainly suitable in their home country, as you outlined. The only caveat is that in other house rules we play with, all newly produced and deployed units are at division level, deployed in the home country. In my latest PBEM game, I thought it worked well as the Russians - I had to deploy divisions, move them up to the front, upgrade - took me several turns to get a decent unit.

Many times, for instance in the defense of Stalingrad, which took Chocolino about two-three months to take once he was adjacent, I wished I could create and deploy a corps right there where I needed it. Instead, it would take me a 5 or 6 weeks to deploy a division elsewhere, upgrade it, and move it in by rail or across the Volga. When Chocolino finally cut my rail lines, all I could do was deploy a new division in Stalingrad itself, which he was able to take down fairly quickly.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Harbinger

I don't understand what is meant by "gameyness" and "gaming the system". Could someone elaborate or even provide a defintion of these terms?

What I mean by gamey is anything allowed by the game system which is in some way counter to common sense. In this example, it is legal in ToW to produce and deploy a 100% full strength German corps 2000 miles away from Berlin. That seems to me to be an exploit of the game system, contrary to what would have happened in real life. Thus I call it gamey.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

What I mean by gamey is anything allowed by the game system which is in some way counter to common sense. In this example, it is legal in ToW to produce and deploy a 100% full strength German corps 2000 miles away from Berlin. That seems to me to be an exploit of the game system, contrary to what would have happened in real life. Thus I call it gamey.

I'd just look at it as they were trained and outfitted in Germany and then transported to their destination with the cost of building them covering the cost of moving them there. All games abstract the details to one level or another or they would be unplayable. Of course all of us have a different view on how much should be abstracted. [;)]

[Manalishi]

Seems to me that if someone wants to establish house rules that enhance their personal enjoyment of the game, then power to them. Play it the way you want to. That is why ya bought it. It is all about the fun.

However, I dont agree with the assertion that all of these rules are simply "common sense." This is an extremely subjective phrase, and in this case, appears to imply that the creation and adoption of these rules as accepted game systems has been agreed upon by the community at large. I'd venture to say that the jury is still out, because I, for one, do not agree.

Yet.
~


My position on house rules is that I'll study them, put them through some paces and let you know. I hope other players do the same. My primary mission is to determine whether or not such rules create unintended or unforseen imbalances or exploits. After that, I will look for what they may add to the overall gaming experience. Only after the accumulation of this kind of empirical data from which to draw conclusions can I offer any kind of recommendation for any given rule.

To me, this is the more common sense approach.

[gwgardner]

Well, I guess if common sense is such a subjective phrase I got just as much right to use it as anyone else!

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: Manalishi

Seems to me that if someone wants to establish house rules that enhance their personal enjoyment of the game, then power to them. Play it the way you want to. That is why ya bought it. It is all about the fun.


My position on house rules is that I'll study them, put them through some paces and let you know. I hope other players do the same. My primary mission is to determine whether or not such rules create unintended or unforseen imbalances or exploits. After that, I will look for what they may add to the overall gaming experience. Only after the accumulation of this kind of empirical data from which to draw conclusions can I offer any kind of recommendation for any given rule.

To me, this is the more common sense approach.

Seems to me you are employing much more than common sense, being as subjective as I can, does the scientific method sound familiar.

You be careful out there and let's have some fun.