No Strat Bombing in China

[JorMallester]

As a noobie, I am just curious about this ruling for PBEM games.

Does it mean both sides are not allowed to fly Airfield Attack, Ground Attack, City Attack, Port Attack, Sweeps etc. or is it linked to just specific missions types? I'd imagine sweeps are not included but I don't know.

I just want to be sure about this rule if I ever agree to it down the line.

When I think of Strat Bombing I picture those big four engine / two engine bombers flying at significant altitudes.

It may sound like a silly question, but I'd really appreciate your help.

Thank you for your time!

[Runnersan]

This means No City Attack Mission in China

[btd64]

To clarify, no strategic bombings against industry (oil, factories, etc) by either side on Chinese cities....GP

[Ian R]

Don't agree to it - house rules are in general unnecessary, and are insisted on by IJ players "for balance". Based on the reports here, most PBEM games terminate when the IJ players bail out in 1943 when they can no longer win.

That one is typical - it hurts the Chinese early ... and maybe the IJ later, in 1944, if they are still sending turns and haven't disappeared because they didn't get an auto victory.

In particular, don't agree that allied 4E should operate with some altitude minimum, because someone here tells you its "ahistorical" (it's hard to invoke the haughty tone there when conversing in print).

Air operations in the Pacific were generally performed at far lower altitudes than in the ETO. The IJ bombing Darwin came in at 8000 ft to try and suck the Spitfires down into low altitude turning fights. Even the 4Es attacked at altitudes of 5k to 8k ft at the Bismarck Sea. The B29s tried bombing Japan from above the windstream, and then binned the whole idea (they didn't hit squat) and came in at 5k ft at night and area bombed. They even offloaded most of the defensive armament and ammo and replaced it with an equal weight of incendiaries.

Say 'No' to house rules.

[RangerJoe]

Other than PPs to cross borders which they did not get to implement, few house rules are really necessary because there are counters.

If the Japanese bomb the Chinese industry into dust, then they will not be able to use it unless they repair it. If the Japanese do bomb the industry into dust with no house rules, then the Chinese Army will be will fed and equipped in India . . .

[JorMallester]

Thanks for all the replies guys! Insightful stuff indeed.

[Wirraway_Ace]

I think it fine to strat bomb oil in China. If the Japanese take it, they should have to defend it.

Industry is different problem. Chinese industry of the period was mostly cottage-style, particularly if talking LI. How would you effectively target it? B29s firebombing or using atomic bombs could take it out by turning the entire city to ashes, but not 27 Sally's or 127.

[Maallon]

I agree that most house rules, except for the basic "No crossing borders without paying PP", are actually not necessary.
But I would like to point out the reason why there are house rules to begin with.
It is to enforce a certain play style or avoid certain game mechanics that would otherwise keep a player from playing the game.
So if there is really something in the game that just annoys you and/or you don't want to deal with it, it is okay to come up with a reasonable HR and see if someone is willing to play the game with you that way. An example for this that comes to mind is the "Quiet China" HR that basically prohibits any action in and out of China for both sides. If you honestly just don't want to deal with that theater, this is a reasonable HR to enforce, just make sure it is as fair as possible for both sides.
On a similar note, HR can also serve to liven things up a little. If you already played dozens of "vanilla" games and are not all that motivated to start a new one, or just want a change of pace: Analyze what your most common tactics and strategies are and come up with a reasonable HR that will prohibit you from using that tactics and strategies and see how it goes. True to the motto: "Limitations encourage creativity".
As an example, if you are an allied player and were using a lot of sir robin in the early game, make a HR that prevents that kind of strategy and see how you can deal with it.

The "No bombing Chinese industry" HR is, as mentioned above, a two sided sword and in my opinion just takes away depth from the game without adding anything to compensate. So I don't think this is a meaningful HR to implement.

In conclusion, the most important thing is that both sides are having fun playing the game, HR are just a tool to help ensure that so use them accordingly.

[LargeSlowTarget]

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

[RangerJoe]

The raid on Makin was conducted by submarine transports so that actually is realistic. I doubt if the entire Raider battalion was carried either.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Sure, and there also were "submarine invasions" by recon forces prior to the main invasions of Attu and of Abemama. But if allowed in the game, players can (and did) resort to numerous suicide missions to take undefended bases simply to annoy the OPFOR player, or to attack defended bases to cheaply gain full intel on the OPFOR garrisons. Neither is very realistic. A HR that limits submarine invasions to SST type subs and say once a month would be a compromise.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

I would suggest the following HR's in this case:

1. Anything that both players agree to and are happy to play with. No one else's opinions matter. If you want to play with HR's to implement all the above restrictions, by all means do so and enjoy it! (As long as you can find a like minded opponent who is also happy with the same HR's) Perhaps you could find an Allied opponent happy to play with these HR's while you play the Japanese side? [;)]

[Ian R]

They don't have to have any of them, as long as they don't demand house rules to shackle the allied player while they enjoy all the non-historical benefits the developers built in to the game[;)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The raid on Makin was conducted by submarine transports so that actually is realistic. I doubt if the entire Raider battalion was carried either.

and a one squad para drop onto an enemy Army of 1 mio men can stop it for a day, day after day. You also have an example for this? I'm absolutely with LST when it comes to his assertion of hrs.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The raid on Makin was conducted by submarine transports so that actually is realistic. I doubt if the entire Raider battalion was carried either.

and a one squad para drop onto an enemy Army of 1 mio men can stop it for a day, day after day. You also have an example for this? I'm absolutely with LST when it comes to his assertion of hrs.

There is no need to do so. I have no need to search for examples either.

There were also instances of Japanese on islands surrendering to passing small boats and/or aircraft. That is not in the game either.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

Only tankers or ships with liquid storage can carry oil. AKs and AP of any type can carry fuel, this should include AMCs and other vessels with a cargo capacity including PBs.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism and to avoid exploits of game mechanics. The "no full speed off-map movement" HR comes to mind - if off-map movement would actually use fuel and accumulate sys and engine damage, nobody would be running his ships full-speed off-map. Or the limitations on night-bombings, huge tank-only stacks, submarine invasions, scattered paradrops...

Interesting. Did not know this was possible and first I've heard of this one before. The other one I just recently heard about was only Tankers being allowed to carry oil. No AKs other than the ones with liquid capacity.

Only tankers or ships with liquid storage can carry oil. AKs and AP of any type can carry fuel, this should include AMCs and other vessels with a cargo capacity including PBs.

Yes I was confused by that:

Transport fuel/oil only in TK, AO and in dedicated fuel/oil capacity of some xAKs

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5078303

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

Apples and oranges. I talk about HR to increase realism concerning exploits of existing game mechanics, you talk about increasing realism by adding things the makers of the game decided not to include as game mechanics at all. And since your list includes exclusively restraints to be imposed on the Japanese side and not a single one to be imposed on the Allied side, I maintain that your are showing a pro-Allied bias - unless you come up with a list of things to impose on the Allies for the sake of realism.