What "house rules" do you have?

[Feinder]

My brother and I have just rolled into June in our PBEM game. Lots of fun thus far. Mostly small ship engagements, bombing raids, and sub-attacks thus far.

But I've notice on these boards, that various folks have different "house rules". We didn't express any before hand, and we're fine at the moment, but I'd like to get some feed-back from y'all. Usually, house-rules have been implemented for good reason, to preserve play balance or historical accuracy or whatever.

Please to float some of your house-rules onto this thread, and why you choose to . I'm interested to see what you're doing.

Regards,
-F-

[mbatch729]

I don't personally have any, but I think a good one is the restriction of air groups aboard carriers. Specifically, you must keep some form of dive bomber/torp planes aboard. You can't turn a carrier into a floating fighter base to decimate your opponent's air wing. Seems a little "gamey" to do it.

[XPav]

Suggestions:

1) You shouldn't load F4Us onto carriers. Reasoning: F4Us weren't used aboard carriers in the period that UV covers and the Marines at that time weren't trained for that anyway.

2) You shouldn't use Argonaut for minelaying. Reasoning: Argonaut's minelaying equipment was ripped out in early 1942.

Any other suggestions?

[Drex]

You may be right about the Argonaut but the game allows it and everyone uses it since the US doesn't have any longrange minelaying ability without it. I don't have any problem with my opponent using the Argonaut in this fashion. Also i didn't know the F4U weren't used on carriers. that's the first time I heard it but the game allows it and it hasn't been corrected. I bet many of the players have never heard of it. I have never used them on carriers but I probably would have without knowing any better. Matrix should be able to correct that in the next patch if it is really a big issue.

[U2]

Originally posted by Drex
You may be right about the Argonaut but the game allows it and everyone uses it since the US doesn't have any longrange minelaying ability without it. I don't have any problem with my opponent using the Argonaut in this fashion.

Hi

I agree with you. Sure as the IJN its a pain sometimes but its there and thus should be used. Now with MSWs beeing more effective (thank God:) ) I dont have to loose one or two of them sweeping a field of 30 mines anymore thanks to the Argonaut.

Also it almost becomes like "The Hunt for Red October":D I want to reduce that sub to scrap metal!:)

Dan

[Feinder]

"Don't use the Argonaut for minelaying"

(* I didn't see that... move along... move along...*)


Just curious, what's the history on the Argonaut? It doesn't seem to conform to any of the US type subs. It wasn't a Free French "acquisition" like the Surcof, was it?



FYI - the point about F4Us not being used by the USN. They were intended for use by the Navy, but the extremely long nose created a large blind-spot that made it difficult for Naval pilots to see the carrier deck while making a direct approach (notice how comparatily much farther forward the cockpits of the F4F and F6F are). The F4Us were then assigned to the Marine squadrons.

Ironically, it was actually the British that figured out how best to employ the F4U. The Brits had bought a bunch, and were using them on the Victorius, and were determined to make it work. They figured out if the pilots approached the carrier from 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock, they would still have visability of the flight deck. Just before landing, the pilot would then side-slip into position and touch down. It certainly took some practice, but they made it work.

Interesting little story. I read it in one of my "World War 2 History" magazines I think.

-F-

[Pawlock]

All these house rules are fine between 2 consenting players, but the thing that irks me is people are using the Historical "well they did'nt do it during so and so time so it should'nt be done" argument to implement rules THEY consider gamey.

Lets get something clear, just cos something was'nt done at the time does not mean it could'nt have been.

Surely thats one of the beauties of this game and others, to reinvent history through different strategies? If thats not the case , why do we play these games?

So what if somebody loads up thier Cv's with fighters instead of bombers, swings and roundabouts here. They lose offensive power in preference to defensive. Instead of critisizing people for using what seems different and unorthodox strategies, look at as a challenge to conquer. Oh and btw I'd sacrifice some BB's and CA's and sail right into the fighter heavy CV tf , lets see if they keep all fighters then.

[Howard Mitchell]

One in six F4Us went to the royal Navy, who never saw a problem using Corsairs on carriers and began modifying them almost from the beginning for that - this included the oleo strut and starboard wing spoiler modifications which became standard in all US Corsairs to.

We also had to chop 8 inches off each wing to get 'em to fit in our rather smaller hangers!

[Nikademus]

In the end it all comes down to what the two players agree on and their personal tastes.

Speaking only for myself, i 'do' prefer a historical type game where one attempts to play as "realistically" as possible. Note that I consider "realistic" to be a different animal from orthodox vs unorthodox strategies.

I have no problems with unorthodox strategy, as long as it's implemented tactically somewhat within the bounds of possibility (such as the IJN using concentrated forces with simpler battle plans )

However i would be somewhat annoyed by "all-fighter" carrier TF's because of integration problems (though i will admit, a couple USN admirals "did" consider using one carrier in a multiple carrier TF as a "fighter carrier" Note however none 'ever' considered an "all fighter TF", simply not realistic stripping your carriers of any offensive ability and it places one too much on the defensive....granted its more of a sure thing in the game, but in real life it would not have been. Nothing beats real life where Murphy is concerned.

There's also a historical reason as well on this subject, but its moot to elaborate on it because i 'do' like the idea of transfering airgroups. I think its a great feature, for one it allows carrier squads to be xfrd to land bases where they can reinforce it (a tactic used by both sides during the war) as well as transfering between carriers, though this is less valuable because of the "insta" replenishment of carrier squadrons once they reach port. Stuffing all fighters on a carrier though, or worse, all carriers in a TF is a bit of a stretch though. Just my opinion, besides which, doesn't the game code reduce fighter VF's to the VB and VT authorized strengths when put into those slots? Wouldn't want that.

I'd also have a problem with F4Us on carriers early in the war, if the're Marine squadrons. I dont believe the Marine pilots were carrier qualified so that smacks a tad bit unrealistic to me, particularily given how difficult the F4U was to land on one. Yes the F4U was meant for carriers so as long as one is using carrier pilots, go for it (though to be truely realistic there should be a "Teething" period where the Corsairs suffer higher than normal operational accidents till the problems are locked down.)

I could list a few more, but the point is....use common sense and establish the boundaries before starting a PBEM. Whoops....should take my own advise.....Cap....NO all-FIGHTER TF's, or i'll invade your bases and sink all your ships!

wait......gonna do that anyway. hoo! :p

[XPav]

Originally posted by Drex
You may be right about the Argonaut but the game allows it and everyone uses it since the US doesn't have any longrange minelaying ability without it. I don't have any problem with my opponent using the Argonaut in this fashion. Also i didn't know the F4U weren't used on carriers. that's the first time I heard it but the game allows it and it hasn't been corrected. I bet many of the players have never heard of it. I have never used them on carriers but I probably would have without knowing any better. Matrix should be able to correct that in the next patch if it is really a big issue.

US players can use normal subs to their hearts content. The issue is that in the time period covered by UV, USS Argonaut was a troop carrying sub, not a minelaying sub, because its minelaying equipment was ripped out in early 1942.

Sure, its a fun what-if, but in an OOB where we're making sure that all the Japanese ships have the correct armor and Vals carry the right bombs, its amusing that there's so much defense of the decidedly ahistorical Argonaut. (Probably just because its so effective for the Allied player).

This isn't strategy or anything like that. If you want a proper OOB, then Argonaut does not have mines. Gone. Ripped out. Not there. Search for Argonaut on this forum and you'll find a detailed response from an author of WW2 sub books saying how there was no way in hell that Argonaut could be laying its Mk 12 mines after what they did to it.

Edit: Here's the thread: Confirmed: Argonaut had NO minelaying capability

In addition, I bring up: showthread.php?s=&threadid=21418, where Erik Rutins says:

As long as she still had the capability to lay mines, we have to leave it in there.

Argonaut did not have the capability to lays its Mk 12 mines. She should have them removed.



Re: F4Us. As stated by other posters, the F4U was eventually used on carriers by the USN. However, this wasn't until 1944! While not an equipment issue like the Argonaut, its stretching the bounds of realism even more so than playing mix and match with navy airgroups.

[Drex]

XPAV: I believe everything you say but Eric Rutins said it all.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Drex
You may be right about the Argonaut but the game allows it and everyone uses it since the US doesn't have any longrange minelaying ability without it. I don't have any problem with my opponent using the Argonaut in this fashion.

How about Argonaut's two 6" deck guns? Should they not be employed to shoot up barges? She hardly ever used them, but I get all gidddy when I play as Allied and I get to send them against little AG's. Hardly fair, but within the realm of things.

If Argonaut is an OOB error (as XPav said, and I remember the M/L gear being ripped out at Mare Island in March 42 IIRC to turn her into a transport), then it needs to be corrected. She needs her M/L gear deleted and her Capacity increased.

As far as F4U's go, Marine units should not be able to be based on Carriers, regardless of what plane they fly. Why? Because although the F4U was designed as a Carrier based fighter aircraft, the Marines were not trained to land on Carriers. Navy pilots assigned to a Carrier Air Group had to qualify. If they did not, they were beached.

You could argue a lot of things for "house rules". Certain commanders that are in the game, were rotated back home durning the course of the the game's timeframe. Should one of the "house rules" be i.e. "you can't use Ray Spruance after 1 June 42"?

"House rules" are for games not made well enough to be played as is. My "house rule" is that there are no house rules. If there's an error, then correct it. If not, play on MacDuck.

[Drex]

But could you use a 6" gun against barges? Morison mentions in his history that they couldn't use 5" because the barges were too small and fast. they ended up putting 37mm cannon and 40mm guns on the PTs. Still its fun to use and the game allows it so what the hell.

[ftwarrior]

Lets get something clear, just cos something was'nt done at the time does not mean it could'nt have been.

Here, here.

As long as it's operationally POSSIBLE and not precluded by some real-world engineering constraint, exploring the 'what ifs' is part of the fun. I personally don't like games that LIMIT you to historical doctrines. Historical assets?...yes, fine (exception: still need Midway result variations since it was SO far outside the bell curve). But doctrinal constraints?..... no.

I recall a recent thread about parking escort carriers at some forward base or port or something like that while still operating them as 'unsinkable' airbases ---> not operationally possible and I believe Matrix fixed the bug (I admit to not remembering all the details here).

However, all fighters in a TF?.....go for it, should be an interesting game.....you still have the burdens imposed by lack of offense and it's no picnic to win the war that way....it could very well backfire if your opponent decides to render it ineffectual by not letting you 'play your game'. Same could be said for just about any unorthodox tactic.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by ftwarrior
...However, all fighters in a TF?.....go for it, should be an interesting game.....you still have the burdens imposed by lack of offense and it's no picnic to win the war that way....it could very well backfire if your opponent decides to render it ineffectual by not letting you 'play your game'. Same could be said for just about any unorthodox tactic.

Think about this: All fighters on one CV is a monster risk. If that CV gets nailed, there goes your CAP, BABY!!

[TIMJOT]

Although I never employed the all fighter CV tactic. I dont see any reason for a house rule to stop it. Personally I think it foolish to defang your CVs, but if someone wants to do it, so be it. I for one would love my opponent to strip his CVs of offensive capabilities. Besides its not as though it wasnt historically possible to employ such tactics under certain circumstances. The US made the Enterprise and Saratoga into night fighter CVs late in the war. By the end of the war many USN CVs had oversized fighter groups inorder to combat the kamakazi threat. So there is some historical presidence. Its really not worth a house rule simply because its every bit as much a hanicap as it is an advantage.

As far as the F4Us. I agree that marine units probably should not be allowed to be used for CV operations in UV . However if you do this for UV. You need to make allowances for WitP, because marines did operate from CVs later in the war.

The Argonaut, is ok because if Nimitz had said " Hey we need a minelaying sub" the Argonaut could have been refitted relatively easily.

[XPav]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
The Argonaut, is ok because if Nimitz had said " Hey we need a minelaying sub" the Argonaut could have been refitted relatively easily.

No it couldn't have!

Did you read the thread I posted containing the email from the guy who wrote a paper article about Argonaut? They ripped out the "tweaky" minelaying gear in one week. That sort of hack job can't be undone by Nimitz waving his Admiral's wand.

One more thing occurs to me: ARGONAUT returned to Pearl Harbor from Mare Island – presumably with all her minelaying equipment still aboard – early in August 1942 and then left with Carlson’s Raiders on the 8th. This means the yard workers at Pearl had no more than a WEEK to tear out the minelaying equipment and install berthing for the Marines. All the descriptions I’ve read of her mine-handling equipment make it sound like a large and elaborate installation. Which leads me to suspect that they wouldn’t have had the time to be careful about stripping it out in any condition to be used again. Cutting torches? Power saws? Just a hunch, but we’re talking about major surgery to the interior of the submarine under emergency wartime conditions. And ARGONAUT was unique; there would have been no motivation for trying to salvage the equipment for use on another boat.
I’m not sure this has helped, because I haven’t really been able to answer any of your questions with a simple “yes” or “no.” Maybe you can do a better job than I did mining the sources I’ve mentioned above – or to try the National Archives or the Naval Historical Center at the Washington Navy Yard (since I gather you live in the DC area).
My own opinion is that crediting ARGONAUT with a mine-laying capability after August 1942 is a REAL stretch. The Solomons campaign only began in August 1942, she was lost in January ’43, and the only thing she did in between was the Makin Raid. Was post-Makin minelaying a theoretical possibility?: A grudging “yeah.” Likely?: “Nah…”

[denisonh]

So, if scenario 17 starts in May 1942, and Nimitz decides not to rip out the gear, then I got no problem, eh?

Cuase if she is out laying mines in the South Pacific, it will be hard to rip out her minelaying gear at Pearl in August.

[XPav]

If Argonaut is available before July, thats another thing wrong.

The entire UV OOB and ship data is supposed to be 100% historical. No "what-ifs", no "this would be cool", no "maybe this would have happened."

The main reason I think that people want to keep Argonaut as is is because its fun. Not because its realistic, but because its The Hunt For Red Argonaut.

Heck, I think it would be cool if USS Ranger was in the game too, but its NOT. I live with it. You people can go without 1 uberminelaying sub.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by XPav
If Argonaut is available before July, thats another thing wrong.

The entire UV OOB and ship data is supposed to be 100% historical. No "what-ifs", no "this would be cool", no "maybe this would have happened."

The main reason I think that people want to keep Argonaut as is is because its fun. Not because its realistic, but because its The Hunt For Red Argonaut.

Heck, I think it would be cool if USS Ranger was in the game too, but its NOT. I live with it. You people can go without 1 uberminelaying sub.

It's called very variable reinforcement.....

Not to mention the Argonaut's modification was for a particular tactical mission. Without the impetus of that particular mission, why would the modification be made? I think the reason is as important as the modification iteself.