House Rules Discussion

[Smeulders]

Battle of Bismarck Sea ? It's also curious that you concede that 4E bombers did attack and sink ships when on patrol, but then you turn around and say that because they didn't do that often when in formation that shouldn't be in the game. If they can sink a ship when they are on their own, then there seems little reason why they couldn't when flying in larger groups.

It's a moot point anyway, if 4E were really that bad at naval bombing, than that should be modelled in the game and not be disallowed by a HR. If the modelling is bad, maybe then you can start talking about HR, but so far I haven't heard too many reports of 4E slaughtering ships in AE.

[ChezDaJez]

and this means it´s not correct I assume. Guess 99.5% of all posts on the forum are without ANY quotations. And I can´t even see a reason for the need for it because IMO, noone that is just slightly interested in this matter here on the forum can even think about arguing about the number of IJNAF torpedo attacks in WITP or AE. If he does, then he knows nothing about the PTO, easily put. There are things that don´t even have to be argued, I wouldn´t argue about the number of A-bombs dropped on Japan either. I guess there were two, do I have to provide any data?

Not intending to start a flame war but to use VPB-117 as an example of 4E effectiveness in killing ships on the open sea is to misstate the truth. The stats you provided vis a vis VPB-117 are very misleading. Granted, VPB-117 was one of, if not the most successful VPB squadron in the PTO but it recorded no ships sunk by torpedo. The majority of ships sunk by VPB-117 were under 500 tons and were sunk by strafing. In other words, the majority were very small coastal frieghters and/or patrol craft. They did have successes against larger ships but they were the exception not the norm and many of these were anchored or navigating restricted waters. The largest ship VPB-117 sank using bombs was a 7500 merchant at anchor near Saigon and a 4500 ton merchant ship in the Mekong Delta. And, as was common with air and submarine warfare, these were claims and many were not substantiated at the end of the war.

Limiting 4Es against naval targets in WitP was absolutely required. However, with the need to train pilots in AE to perform various missions, the HR requirement is greatly reduced though I would still want to limit the number of squadrons performing low level naval interdiction to one at a time per base. I don't care if several squadrons are based there so long as the rest are performing missions other than naval strike.

And Bettys and Nells are now much more limited in their ability to employ torpedo attacks by the need to have torpedo capable HQs present. That was a much needed change.

Chez

[War History]

A lot of the torpedo problem with Bettys in the game is how the allied player plays. In my particular game, the allied player has pretty much played the same way his real life counterpart "played" the real war, ie not exposing himself unnecessarily to Betty attack. Part of the problem in the game vs real world also I believe is crew fatigue. In the game missions can be flown just about every day (I'm talking both sides here - long range Bettys and long range 4E allied bombers) when in reality they rarely flew more often than every 3 days.

Smeulders: Come on. You know as well as I that there is very little "modelled <sic> in the game" that works the way it did "in the real world". I'm not even going there. But as to your other comment, yes 4E bombers attacked individually and had some successes. Why? Because they attacked at mast height for the most part. Try running an 18 plane box at 100'.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: War History

A lot of the torpedo problem with Bettys in the game is how the allied player plays. In my particular game, the allied player has pretty much played the same way his real life counterpart "played" the real war, ie not exposing himself unnecessarily to Betty attack.

Certainly a factor.

Another improvement in AE is how the Betty is now the flying zippo it was described as, I recall in WITP they were tougher. Now, Betties die like flies against LRCAP, so it's not like you have no options.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

and this means it´s not correct I assume. Guess 99.5% of all posts on the forum are without ANY quotations. And I can´t even see a reason for the need for it because IMO, noone that is just slightly interested in this matter here on the forum can even think about arguing about the number of IJNAF torpedo attacks in WITP or AE. If he does, then he knows nothing about the PTO, easily put. There are things that don´t even have to be argued, I wouldn´t argue about the number of A-bombs dropped on Japan either. I guess there were two, do I have to provide any data?

Not intending to start a flame war but to use VPB-117 as an example of 4E effectiveness in killing ships on the open sea is to misstate the truth. The stats you provided vis a vis VPB-117 are very misleading. Granted, VPB-117 was one of, if not the most successful VPB squadron in the PTO but it recorded no ships sunk by torpedo. The majority of ships sunk by VPB-117 were under 500 tons and were sunk by strafing. In other words, the majority were very small coastal frieghters and/or patrol craft. They did have successes against larger ships but they were the exception not the norm and many of these were anchored or navigating restricted waters. The largest ship VPB-117 sank using bombs was a 7500 merchant at anchor near Saigon and a 4500 ton merchant ship in the Mekong Delta. And, as was common with air and submarine warfare, these were claims and many were not substantiated at the end of the war.

Limiting 4Es against naval targets in WitP was absolutely required. However, with the need to train pilots in AE to perform various missions, the HR requirement is greatly reduced though I would still want to limit the number of squadrons performing low level naval interdiction to one at a time per base. I don't care if several squadrons are based there so long as the rest are performing missions other than naval strike.

And Bettys and Nells are now much more limited in their ability to employ torpedo attacks by the need to have torpedo capable HQs present. That was a much needed change.

Chez

absolutely correct Chez and as you may read in my first post I´ve said "I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers"

VB-117 can not be seen as the norm, nor can the POW/Repulse sinking be seen as the norm as these squadrons were elite and most IJNAF naval strikes were flown with bombs and not torpedoes as in the game (again, now a better situation than in WITP). And I never said VB-117 would have sunk a ship with torps, nor did I wanted to intend to say it had. With PB4Y-1 or 2? [&:]

I nearly totally agree with your post and it doesn´t say much against what I´m thinking as you also seem to think that the WITP situation was off. We may differ in the opinion on AE because IMO there are still by far too many torp attacks as an experienced PBEM player exactly knows where to put his air HQs. Again, it was a big step forward from WITP. The same goes for the 4E menace and that was the reason for me even starting posting in this thread, because still restricting ALL 4Es to 10000ft or higher is something I wouldn´t accept as long as every Betty/Nell squadron still is allowed to drop torps. I´ve got a hr in my PBEM about no non Navy 4E squadron below 10000ft, just to reduce the number of 4E bombers capable of lownav attacks to around 10%. Again, agreed that it´s harder for the Betties now in AE, but by far not the same as it was in real life with very limited torpedo capabilities.

edit: if someone asks for a statistic how many IJNAF strikes were flown with bombs and how many with torps to back up my claim above, I´m sorry, I don´t have a statistic for this. I make this claim from my readings (mostly the same as every common forum member here got too) and you usually read only about a couple instances of IJNAF medium bombers attacking low level with torps. Everyone knows about POW/Repulse, probably everyone knows the great pics of Betties flying through flak bursts at minimum alt to attack shipping at Guadalcanal with torps. Can you name a dozen more instances out of your head? I can´t to be honest. [&:]


edit 2: that´s the pic I´ve meant

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: War History

A lot of the torpedo problem with Bettys in the game is how the allied player plays. In my particular game, the allied player has pretty much played the same way his real life counterpart "played" the real war, ie not exposing himself unnecessarily to Betty attack. Part of the problem in the game vs real world also I believe is crew fatigue. In the game missions can be flown just about every day (I'm talking both sides here - long range Bettys and long range 4E allied bombers) when in reality they rarely flew more often than every 3 days.

Smeulders: Come on. You know as well as I that there is very little "modelled <sic> in the game" that works the way it did "in the real world". I'm not even going there. But as to your other comment, yes 4E bombers attacked individually and had some successes. Why? Because they attacked at mast height for the most part. Try running an 18 plane box at 100'.

only one question: why do you think they would fly as a "box" when a squadron attacks ships at low level?

If you read about 5th Airforce´s attacks against ships throughout the war and how they did it then you will see how dispersed the aircraft were and that they mostly attacked in pairs and not in full squadron sized attacks dropping all their bombs as soon as the lead bomber drops them. Not to mix up a strategic high alt attack with a squadron sized low level attack on ships.

[War History]

Right. 100% correct. They attacked in 1s and 2s. In GAME TERMS, this is called "naval search" not "naval attack". I rest my case.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

edit 2: that´s the pic I´ve meant

One of my favourite pics of WWII.
So freaking LOW LEVEL. [&o]

[AW1Steve]

Naw, that's not low level, just because you see their shadows. Low level is when they leave a wake from their engines![X(]

[Sun Tempest]

"No use of portions of parachute units to seize hex's"

I don't think that there should be a rule for this. Sometimes I use paras to seize empty airbase, just before the landing, mainly because it is the only way to occupy an air base without needing to wait 1 day after the landing to launch an attack. It would nice to have the possibility to attack immediately after landing, but afik, this is possible only in case of atolls.

[War History]

ORIGINAL: Sun Tempest

"No use of portions of parachute units to seize hex's"

I don't think that there should be a rule for this. Sometimes I use paras to seize empty airbase, just before the landing, mainly because it is the only way to occupy an air base without needing to wait 1 day after the landing to launch an attack. It would nice to have the possibility to attack immediately after landing, but afik, this is possible only in case of atolls.

Which is the primary mission of WWII airborne units. To seize undefended or lightly defended airfields.

[vettim89]

G4M's (with G3M help) sunk POW and Repulse with bombs then torpedoes. They attacked USS Lexington off Bougainville with bombs (where Butch O'Hare won the MoH). They took out X turret on USS Houston with bombs (not sure which model). They sunk USS Chicago with torpedoes off Rossell Island. They sunk another USN cruiser off Truk with torpedoes (ship name eludes me)


But........

They made zero, nada, zilch, nil (you get the picture) torpedo attacks against US CV's during the entire war! So they had their successes but they were really not the Uber-plane that WITP and to a much lesser extent AE makes them. I think two factors play into that: first the whole flying zippo thing and second the attack profile for torpedo attacks was more deadly for the air crews than the ships. Look at that picture above: one serious hit and there is no margin of error to recover. Once the USN upgraded their low AAA with all those 40 mm and 20 mm, TB of all ilks were up against it.

[Canoerebel]

You mean Allied ships in World War II had effective flak?&nbsp; Interesting....
&nbsp;

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You mean Allied ships in World War II had effective flak?  Interesting....

Not only that but it was earlier than some (most?) people think. I have read at least one anecdotal report that some of the Japanese carrier pilots returning from the raids during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands were so shook up they couldn't fly right away citing the murderous AAA. This is well before the USN put a small caliber AAA mount on practically every exposed surface on ever ship DD size and larger. The threat to USN from air launched torpedoes should be reduced by mid-war not by decreasing the effectiveness of the Japanese aircraft but instead by making the survivability of TB so dicey that Japanese players should be hesitant to even try. Just like realy life

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You mean Allied ships in World War II had effective flak?  Interesting....

lol, I had to smile when I read that comment [:D]

[pws1225]

Hi Dave - I just now saw this thread. This is very helpful in getting a handle on appropriate (and hopefully minimal) house rules. Thanks for your efforts!

Paul

[DavidTheGreat]

In the near future I intend to play a game without any rules. My opponent and I think that anything the game allows can be used. No need for replaying history. Most of the house rules are political or tactical, the players should have the freedom to choose, with all pro and cons and not be limited by a desire to replicate history and be limited by the mistakes made by the person in charge at that moment in time.
Why the desire to repeat historical mistakes ?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

RESTRICTED UNITS should be prohibited from crossing national borders. This is a necessary rule.

One issue this rule would cause is that it would remove the possibility of a Japanese attack on Russia from the game. This is fine by me, but some like to keep the option open.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: War History

Right. 100% correct. They attacked in 1s and 2s. In GAME TERMS, this is called "naval search" not "naval attack". I rest my case.

I will disagree here. Naval Search has the aircraft dispersed over a very wide area (see the search arcs that you can set in the game) whereas Naval Attack has the squadron attacking in the same search quadrant, even if the aircraft do break up into elements to prosecute the actual attack. Surely you can understand the difference?

[bigred]

Hi Topeverest. Interesting, What is your only house rule?

ORIGINAL: topeverest

OK, here are a few thoughts on some.  I think you know by now I believe in few and play with only one.

1.  If american CV's dont replot on T1, why shouldnt they be targets for KB
2.  Naval attack skill must be trained to be effective in LB's.  there should be no definitive extra hurdle.  
3.  Sub raiding / attacks have historical basis.  There is no reason to remove this.
4.  Attack only at bases...no historical basis for this.
5.  IJN restriction on Malacca straight.  Why would you limit the empire this way?
6.  PT boat 'fragment' TF's.  I get the target here, but disagree there is a need.  Also, Are players not allowed to have mulitple single DD TF's or any other ship type also?
7.  Artillery is a marginal multiplier.  no cutdown is needed
8.  prep points required for para...why?
9.  Uber A2A altitude advantage fix.  No need for this.