House rules and gameyness

[Disco Duck]

I have been looking over a lot of the topics and I have become very interested in various house rules and why. Also the topic of what is gamey and why so I decided to start a new thread.

Possible house rule
At the beginning of the war cost has to be considered. Moving all of the ships out of Pearl Harbor would be a huge expense and not likely to happen. This is doublely true since no one seemed to think an attack on PH was credible. However submarine attacks were credible. So moving patrol units to other islands to give better coverage of approach routes would be credible. This would be true from the West coast to India. Also valid would be single ship ASW patrols. Hunter Killer groups did not show up unit more resources were available.

On the gameyness side there has been a discussion of taking the best pilots out of units that have to be withdrawn. I haven't been in the military but from my experience in industry I would say this would be common and not gamey.

Looking forward to other house rules.

[AW1Steve]

House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? [:)]

[topeverest]

Got to agree with Steve...I dont believe in house rules on the whole. Isnt the point of the game for you, the player, to take command - and pay the price for impetuous deployment of forces!

I make an exception for the first turn...cant move ships out of PH or any other allied port and no Mersing Gambit (on turn one only).

I am playing no strategic bombing until 43 for either side in a PBEM. I dont think it changes the game materially unless the allies are far ahead.

[Charbroiled]

I don't think having house rules at the beginning of a game are for cry babies, but "after-the-fact" HRs may be in that catagory.  I do agree that there aren't many HRs needed for AE.
 
The no allied first turn move is fair in order to represent the surprise of December 7th.
Not moving restricted units across borders is another good HR to at least account for some of the "political" happenings that aren't represented in AE.
No CV hunting for Japan is also a fair rule.

[AW1Steve]

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

But these leaves no alternative route for the japanese player.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

But these leaves no alternative route for the Japanese player.

EXACTLY! The Japanese player receives all kinds of "bonuses" based on his pre-war planning. Starting on the 8th means he has executed those plans and earned those bonuses. If you want to start "wild and wooly" on the 7th, then let both players have free reign to do as they please to exploit hindsight.

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.

Call me foolish, but keeping the ships clusterd like a herd of cattle in a under defended location just cuts against the grain. If you must keep them in a vunerable position, then spread them out in penny packets. Even if I had to keep them in Hawaiian waters , you could at least use some of the other harbors. Not to mention, flying some search patterns. And keeping part of the fleet on alert. Richardson got into trouble by flying heavy PBY patrols, and always keeping no less then 1/2 the fleet at sea or dispersed. Normally that worked out to 1/4 of the fleet.

I don't think FDR would gain anything from a PH attack either. But I don't think he had enough imagination to accept the possibility of one.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

I don't see any reason why anyone would move the fleet on that specific day. Now having the fleet at Battle Stations until the all clear is sounded (no surprise) and flying CAP and aggresive patrols I can see.

I looked up a couple of pages on JO Richardson and found the articles interesting. I wonder the IJN would have invaded Pearl Harbor if the fleet was on the west coast. I know it was discussed inside the Japanese high command. Or for that matter if PH had been flying aggresive patrols from say about December 1st would the attack even have happened?

I have never been a fan of FDR but I have never understood what advantage he gained by a major defeat at Pearl Harbor.

Call me foolish, but keeping the ships clusterd like a herd of cattle in a under defended location just cuts against the grain. If you must keep them in a vunerable position, then spread them out in penny packets. Even if I had to keep them in Hawaiian waters , you could at least use some of the other harbors. Not to mention, flying some search patterns. And keeping part of the fleet on alert. Richardson got into trouble by flying heavy PBY patrols, and always keeping no less then 1/2 the fleet at sea or dispersed. Normally that worked out to 1/4 of the fleet.

I don't think FDR would gain anything from a PH attack either. But I don't think he had enough imagination to accept the possibility of one.

I totally disagree with Steve, my PBEM opponent. As Allies, I recommend bunching of ships at sea with no air cover, scant ASW screens and a one-eyed myopic cowardly admiral in command.

Banzai!

[AcePylut]

No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.

Quite right! It would be total "hindsight". Sort of like switching the PH strike to Manila because you've run the attack several times and know the deployment and the program will allow you to sink a lot of subs. In reality, Japan's "opening moves" were a carefully balanced "crap shoot" which came out a whole lot better than even the Japanese optimists believed possible.

This is why the 8th start is preferable. It avoids the temptation of either player to exploit "hindsight" to the max. The people fighting the war didn't have any "hind" to "sight"..., why should you? OK, it's a game, so it's inevitable..., but at least we can stop the worst exploits.

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

This is why the 8th start is preferable. It avoids the temptation of either player to exploit "hindsight" to the max. The people fighting the war didn't have any "hind" to "sight"..., why should you? OK, it's a game, so it's inevitable..., but at least we can stop the worst exploits.

Who is it preferable to? Just one opinion here but I'd say that any setting is only preferable to those playing that particular game. What is preferable certainly varies by the individual. Personally I wouldn't want to play either side starting on 12/8. I'd rather fight my own fight; both sides can use a lot of hindsight so it is not limited to Japan. I also would not try to impose my opinion on others. There is no right way and wrong way to start a GAME. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

No one believed the ships were "at risk" in PH. Moving them "the day before" is gamey to the extreme.

No one except Richardson,Bellinger,Martin and a few dozen others who were "squashed" because FDR knew more than they did. Politics drove the decisions , not good clear military thinking. Military thinkers consider possibilities, politicians only consider what best suits them. The "leaders" in DC thought that the ships and forces in Hawaii were safe because they felt that the Japanese leaders , like good politicians (which they weren't) would realize what was "reasonable" and come around to their way of thinking. The military, especially the USN , knew better. But of course , they knew nothing about how to run a navy![:(]




Pearl Harbor had been "attacked" from the air 3 times before Dec 7, 1941. Reeves,Leahy and King had all commanded forces who did it in various fleet problems in the 1930's. Obviously SOMEBODY in the USN thought it could be done. Maybe the fact that Richardson was a little to vocal in his objections to FDR's "grand scheme" , and Kimmel was VERY "Deep selected" for his job (Nimitz turned it down and took BUPERS instead) and those worthies were worried about also becoming "beached" had something to do with their silence.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

Absolutely right. Aside from the peculiarity of freezing all military forces multiple time zones away from Pearl (Force Z anyone?), is the assumption that all commercial vessels would not be active in their usual movements but would be waiting patiently at the docks for the first turn to end.

[derhexer]

"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

I've been thinking about this, although with a different idea. As game players we have a God-like view of the Pacific that was unrealistic given the technology of the day. I've been playing the Allied commander in a campaign game against the computer. I've been trying to limit myself to what the Allied leaders would have reasonably known and been able to carry out on December 8th.

On December 8th, would Kimmel and Short even have known of the Japanese landings in Malaya on December 8th? Would Percival in Singapore have known that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and what the extent of the damage was? Would Blaney in Australia have heard about the attacks on PH and Malaya and what would he have known?

I am trying to restrict myself to what the commanders of the time could have reasonably done given their lack of detailed intelligence and the communications tools they had.
Pearl Harbor
- Send up what fighter planes are available over PH as escorts
- Send what bombers are available north and west to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send any subs in the area north and west of PH to possible area of Japanese fleet
- Send my Catalinas up to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send some DDS out as ASW forces to look for Japanese subs
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training
- Order transports and cargo vessels to steer away from PH and to go to the nearest port

Philippines
- Send up surviving fighters as escorts over Manila and Clark Field
- Send all the subs in Manila out to patrol and attack Japanese ships along the north coast of Luzon, the Chinese coast and around some Japanese harbors (I'm assuming the sub commanders would have had pre-written orders on what to do if hostilities broke out.)
- Send surviving bombers out north of Luzon to attack the Japanese fleet
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training

Singapore and Malaysia
- Send up fighters as escorts over airfields
- Send up bombers to attack landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Send subs to investigate the landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Order surface ships at sea to the nearest port

General
- At all airfields, put fighters up as escorts
- Order all surface ships to nearest port

Comments?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: derhexer

"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

I've been thinking about this, although with a different idea. As game players we have a God-like view of the Pacific that was unrealistic given the technology of the day. I've been playing the Allied commander in a campaign game against the computer. I've been trying to limit myself to what the Allied leaders would have reasonably known and been able to carry out on December 8th.

On December 8th, would Kimmel and Short even have known of the Japanese landings in Malaya on December 8th? Would Percival in Singapore have known that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and what the extent of the damage was? Would Blaney in Australia have heard about the attacks on PH and Malaya and what would he have known?

I am trying to restrict myself to what the commanders of the time could have reasonably done given their lack of detailed intelligence and the communications tools they had.
Pearl Harbor
- Send up what fighter planes are available over PH as escorts
- Send what bombers are available north and west to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send any subs in the area north and west of PH to possible area of Japanese fleet
- Send my Catalinas up to search for the Japanese fleet
- Send some DDS out as ASW forces to look for Japanese subs
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training
- Order transports and cargo vessels to steer away from PH and to go to the nearest port

Philippines
- Send up surviving fighters as escorts over Manila and Clark Field
- Send all the subs in Manila out to patrol and attack Japanese ships along the north coast of Luzon, the Chinese coast and around some Japanese harbors (I'm assuming the sub commanders would have had pre-written orders on what to do if hostilities broke out.)
- Send surviving bombers out north of Luzon to attack the Japanese fleet
- Order all ground units into combat mode
- Order air units into their most likely mode if the are in Training

Singapore and Malaysia
- Send up fighters as escorts over airfields
- Send up bombers to attack landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Send subs to investigate the landing sites along the Malaya Coast
- Order surface ships at sea to the nearest port

General
- At all airfields, put fighters up as escorts
- Order all surface ships to nearest port

Comments?

I for one could live with this. It's not a perfect solution (as if such a thing exhists!) but it's a very effective and elegant one! Well done![&o]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: derhexer
"House rules are for cry babies! Unless Matrix people suggest that there is something so inherently "gamey" in the program that they suggest house rules, why would we need them except to strenghten "weak" players? "

Ouch .. that's harsh.
House rules are there because this is a computer game. The game engine has certain limitations, and a large degree of flexibility has been built in. As with all computer programs, it is quite stupid unless it is doing precisely what it is programmed to do, and precisely when it is programmed to do so.

Such being the case, it is very easy to cheat it. The program’s flexibility is the cause and people who can figure it out can always find a way to cheat it; something that is endemic to every computer gaming program ever written. The problem is compounded by the existence of certain battles that have been researched to the extent of identifying what some pilot had for breakfast that morning and the DEMAND that those battles have historical results: ignoring the fact that those results depended on purely human, psychological factors that a computer is not able to deal with. So tweaking for those specific, historical, and unusual results will skew the base paradigm and pull everything else out of whack.

But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.

So House Rules aren’t bad. Intelligent players tend to understand where the holes are and obviate the cheats by making House Rules that attempt to limit things to the middle of the program’s mathematical distribution. House Rules allow players to define their own particular takes on the location of the 50 yard line and the extent of the sidelines and the location of the endzone. Flexibility is the key. Self-absorbed persons won’t understand it, but the flexibility of the game system allows a huge play space that can be narrowed and defined by suitable House Rules.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
My suggestion to both of you gentlemen would be to start the senario on Dec. 8th. Best of both worlds. Having the allies not move on the 1st turn would mean Kimmel would be in command, not you. Kimmel may have left the fleet where it was , but that doesn't mean anyone else would. JO Richardson certainly would not have (And that's part of the reason that he was fired and Kimmel deep selected to replace him!). The question isn't should you move the fleet , but is "would anyone else have left it in PH that Sunday morning?

Absolutely right. Aside from the peculiarity of freezing all military forces multiple time zones away from Pearl (Force Z anyone?), is the assumption that all commercial vessels would not be active in their usual movements but would be waiting patiently at the docks for the first turn to end.

My own, admittedly eccentric and purely personal, opinion is that the war didn’t really start till the evening of Dec. 7, Washington D.C. time. Anything that happens before that (no matter how justifiable or rational) happens in a vast echoing cave filled with ganga smoke, mirrors, fever dreams and peyote visions. I guess my point is the game was devised to be a fun way to play out the Pacific war, rather than a mechanism by which one can realign the initial politico/military situation on Dec. 6. Call me naïve, but that’s why so much time was spent on a Dec. 8 scenario.

It wasn’t till the Dec. 8 sun rose over the Oahu hills and the morning air carried the stench of burning ships, planes and men, that reality hit home. It was a rather profound “Oh my God! .. I don’t believe this! .. What the hell do we do now!” kind of moment for the participants. A rather violent and intrusive wake-up-call, yeah? Although the commanders were professionals, nothing like this, nowhere, nowhen, nohow, had ever happened to American arms before. It just wasn’t in the experiential lexicon and they just weren’t prepared for the degree of shock and awe that smacked them on the brookie. Bad cess for Kimmel and Short.

Ok, enough with the transcendental owl manure. Ya'll know where I'm coming from. Ciao. J

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ouch .. that's harsh.

But people DEMAND that flak kill precisely their opinion of attacking planes. People DEMAND the PH strike kill precisely their opinion of BBs. People DEMAND that artillery causes their opinion of casualties. People DEMAND that each and every engagement in the game unfolds just like the Victory at Sea DVD. Accommodating this nonsense causes the code to get even more skewed when applied to more general cases.

I carp occasionally about the game code. I did just that this afternoon re late-war ASW sink rates, and CAP range spinner settings.

BUT, a big but, usually, when I stop carping and play some more and think about the Big Picture, I reflect that every single time I push the Refuel From Port button, my ships get refueled. Every time, if there is fuel and Ops Points. Year after year, TF after TF, the fuel flows in that 12-hour phase.

Except, it doesn't work that way. You know, and I know, that Seaman Schmuckatelli sometimes loses the O-ring for the fuel coupling, and his friend Seaman W.T. Door loses the cotter pins. One DD in that TF is 2-hours late getting underway, and misses an engagement. But that's OK, because the IJN CO on that other DD isn't feeling that good due to some bad fish he ate, and is 30-seconds too slow giving an order, and takes a torpedo he shouldn't.

When I reflect on how much Real Life Accidental S . . . Stuff is embedded in mass routines, Ops Points budgets, port unloading hard-codes, etc. I calm down and enjoy the ride. This isn't real life, as you say. It isn't even real history (I own the complete "Victory at Sea" DVD collection for that.)

There will never be a meeting of the minds between the "it's a game" crowd and the "show me history" crowd. So, "Play on!" I say.