House rules

[Ian R]

The more I read in threads like this about house rules, the more they seem unnecessary.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.

That was true when the divison was created in 1938. It suffered very heavy losses in actions before Dec 1941, losing 2/3rds if its strength and was reorganized and rebuilt as a pretty much standard infantry division.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The more I read in threads like this about house rules, the more they seem unnecessary.

4E bombers under 6000 ft can become very overpowered, so there is that. But it's not totally ahistorical. 100 ft skip bombing is before 1943.

Also paying PP for crossing national borders with Restricted land units is a good rule.

Rest not that much. Strato-sweep debate has been around for many years with variable opinions. My own take is that Sweeps only on best Manouver band. Strato-sweeps can be countered with layered CAP, but that is impossible with just one fighter unit.

[RhinoDad]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad
The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.

That was true when the divison was created in 1938. It suffered very heavy losses in actions before Dec 1941, losing 2/3rds if its strength and was reorganized and rebuilt as a pretty much standard infantry division.

When entering Burma the 200th ID had been somewhat reequipped but it was unknown as to what strength. The US had sent motorized mortars, two types of medium tanks, and motorized vehicles. As the British were known to siphon off equipment for their own use it is unknown how much made it to the Chinese; there were no records kept on this. It is also unknown how many of the remaining AFV successfully made the trip from China to Burma due to lack of spare parts/breakdowns. But as you stated they would be understrength.

It was estimated that the AFV strength was at around ½ strength, when first engaging in Burma. It was in rear guard action covering the retreat in Burma that the 200th ID lost all of its AFV and heavy equipment and thus became essentially a Chinese infantry unit.

Perhaps with internet more could be found on them than the paper chase I did. As time goes on sometimes more information comes to light, and internet certainly makes it more easily accessible. Mine is mainly based on US lend lease shipments to Chinese and British/American strength estimates; and all via paper records.

Mainly was answering jdsrae's inquiry into Chinese units sent into aid in the defense of Burma. The footnote was meant to differentiate the 200th from the other Chinese units as they were an elite unit and very well equipped, for a Chinese unit and did contain AFVs. Probably should have been better stated.

Edit

became essentially a Chinese infantry unit

became essentially a standard Chinese infanty unit

[Alpha77]

Agreed keept the rules as few as possible, the 4E rules I am not sure about cause I do not know how it behaves in the game but will try, also I agree with strato sweeps as I pointed out many times in reality these max alt flights on regular basis were not the case in reality (it should cost more ops losses and fatigue at least - what we have now is not enough, ops losses are rare and fat is managaeble with these flights). But one can live/play still without a rule for that imho.

Pay PP + night bombing + an understanding with the 1 or 2 ship cheap PT boat fleets (which is more common sense anyway) are among the important HRs.

However IF you make a 4E rule also the IJN flying boats should be included imo

[ITAKLinus]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.

I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.

It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.

Hope you will pardon my late reply.

Situation hasn't been fully explained by me.

I do routinely "purchase" chinese troops and send them to guard India. Generally, I airlift them and I let them defend Calcutta, Madras and so on while they recuperate.


My problem is with people who break the HRs and pretend they didn't. In the case, the guy, after having multiple times accused me of cheating since I was running quite wild in China, has simply transferred various Chinese permanently restricted units (yeah the grey ones) to Burma.
He notified me that he found "historical" to send the Chinese units to Burma since they went there remarking I wasn't instead playing historical (whatever it means).
After he confirmed multiple times he has paid the PPs, I discover those units couldn't have been bought out.

That's what I call a "problem". It's not the violation of the HR per-se. It's the fact that he simply and plainly lied and that this situation had major strategic consequences for me, the opponent.
Since he had a huge stack of Chinese and Commonwealth units at the Burmese border, I was forced to organised a risky amphibious landing IN Rangoon in order to avoid his defences, something that, together with the inherent risks of the operation itself, has absorbed valuable and precious resources in terms of shipping, air cover, etcetc.

Funniest part is that after that he simply quitted the italian forum having his account deleted. Sometimes he chimes in here.

Here is the last exchange we had...:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#4725261


Bottom line for me is: doesn't matter what kind of HRs you are going to put in a game, the opponent is what it matters. If he's reasonable enough, you can even play with no HRs at all.

[BaitBoy]

For the House Rule about no moving restricted units with out paying political points, for the Japanese player, would this mean that he could not move Manchurian forces into Korea with out paying political points?

[Maallon]

Yes, this would be part of the House Rule.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: BaitBoy

For the House Rule about no moving restricted units with out paying political points, for the Japanese player, would this mean that he could not move Manchurian forces into Korea with out paying political points?

Not IMO. There's such a close relation between the two and in game the Korean Army is just another part of the Kwantung Area Army.

[Maallon]

It really depends on how you define it, I wasn't aware that the Korea Army is part of the Kwantung Army.
Personally, as an Allied Player myself, I wouldn't mind if my opponent shuffled troops between Manchuria and Korea.
But when in doubt: ask your opponent and see what he thinks about it.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

That's what I call a "problem". It's not the violation of the HR per-se. It's the fact that he simply and plainly lied and that this situation had major strategic consequences for me, the opponent.

I don’t do much PBEM, when I do it’s with RL friends, but this is the crux of the matter. You need to have mutual trust with your opponent, if you plan to have any house rule. There is no arbiter in the game, no third-party control authority, so if you can’t trust your opponent to respect the HR (or vice versa), you’d better not have any.

[dwesolick]

I haven't done a PBEM game since the old UV days but I've often considered one in WitPAE. Just curious if there is ever a house rule regarding the PH attack? Theoretically, the Japanese player could keep KB at PH for multiple turns, hammering the place into powder. Or he could go after the Enterprise and Lex since their positions are known and they would be highly vulnerable. Has this ever been an issue?

[RangerJoe]

There usually is a HR for no carrier hunting on turn 1.

[Oberst_Klink]

Defo the 4E port attack HS; No attacks under 10,000ft, or were the combat calculations fixed? One can create havoc in sending a few squadrons of B17 in the earlier game and cripple a whole fleet with them while they anchor. Just my 2c.

Klink, Oberst

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I haven't done a PBEM game since the old UV days but I've often considered one in WitPAE. Just curious if there is ever a house rule regarding the PH attack? Theoretically, the Japanese player could keep KB at PH for multiple turns, hammering the place into powder. Or he could go after the Enterprise and Lex since their positions are known and they would be highly vulnerable. Has this ever been an issue?

There is sometimes a rule limiting the number of Port strikes on the first turn, to avoid (for example) using the surprise on both Manila and PH. But apart of the rule mentioned by RJ about CV hunting, I have never seen a HR limiting the number of turns the IJ player may keep KB around PH (but I don’t read every single AAR, and only occasionally read the Opponent Wanted threads).

As a mostly exterior observer to PBEMs, I have noted a tendency, along the years, reducing the number of HR the players agree on at the start of a game. A lingering KB is not necessarily at the advantage of the IJN, a lot of players are wary of launching a second day strike, fearing losses (or surface ships sortying in the hope of catching a CV), so such a rule is probably not needed.

[Nomad]

A second PH attack can be painful for the IJN. If the Allied player changes out commanders and pilots and puts all the fighters on CAP he can shot down a lot of good IJN pilots and will disrupt the attacking bombers.

As far as trying to hit the USN CVs, they can move 9 hexes in any direction on turn 1, so it can be a bit hard to find them.

[RangerJoe]

As far as the KB lingering around the Hawaiian Islands, in one game the USS Arizona sallied forth and help to sink three IJN carriers.[X(] To his credit, the Japanese player continued the game.[&o]