Discussion thread regarding House rules for player vs. player.

[juv95hrn]

Hello,

I am by no means an expert on house rules and balance of the game. But I would like to get some input and discussion from experienced players, what are the arguments for the house rules preferred nowadays.

Let´s start with the easy ones.

Temporary motorization seems to be a big no-no. I am not going to contest this.

Amphibious invasions: Seems to be either altogether forbidden or just allowed East of Sevastopol or only on Kerch, etc. I feel it would be nice to have this "chrome" in the game, but it shouldn´t be unbalancing. My argument is that the Axis have enough Axis minors to use a few in the backline for invasion defense.

Paradrops: Forbidden or allowed near the front. I think I have seen within 5 hexes of the front, which seems very hard to defend against. Maybe 2-3 hexes behind the front would be a good balance? I would like to hear arguments for or against.

Open or closed TBs. I guess this one is really very much up to taste and benefits both almost equally?

Reduced retreat attrition: This is a hard one. Its very likely the Soviets are overwhelmed with losses and encirclements in 1941-42. Of course it should be possible to deliver a knock out this way. But should it be an almost mathematical certainty vs. an experienced player? Maybe lower the retreat losses, which after all benefits both sides, depending on when in the war, in exchange for something else.

Axis Minor Morale: Some players increase Axis minors morale, fx. from 1942 onwards to make them somewhat viable. Well Russia has 45 NM during summer of 1942, when they are the most likely to break. I have no strong opinion either way. What is your preferred modifier, if any, here?

Any other regular house rule I forgotten?

Hope we could reach some insights and maybe consensus for our next games.

Cheers!

[Light4bettor]

Yah, for some reason (which I'm curious to see some discussion on) some players prefer no Ground Attack directives after the Axis turn 1 (for both sides)- what I've read on this forum is that early game Panzer spearheads (being out of range of friendly air cover) are suffering disproportionate losses from massed Soviet ground attack directives. Again the argument is not that there shouldn't be Soviet Airforce harrassing/ targeted attacks on extended Panzer spearheads- the issue is how much damage those attacks are doing over the first so many turns (i.e., the impression I get from this forum is that the damage done is disproportionate and leads to debilitation of the spearheads- which they should be (debilitated) as they were historically- but of all the factors that caused the debilitation, ground attacks cause a disproportionate amount of it in the game- at least this is partly an assumption made by me, understanding this is the impulse that encouraged the development of this rule). Of course this is only aimed at Soviet side players who have the skill set/ knowledge/desire to wield this strategy. As an aside, in a possible related house rule - Leumas puts the rule ground attack directives must be set at default altitude. (which I infer may be a way to somehow weaken the damage done by Soviet ground attack directives without outright banning them). Full disclosure- I'm facing an opponent who seems to be taking VVS notes from an experienced Soviet player on this forum and implementing this strategy on me.

[tyronec]

Here are my suggestions:

TB control - Off
Miscellaneous Leader Deaths - Reduced
Amphib invasions - Limited
No temp motorisation - On
No airborne ops - On
Extended play.

Morale mod.
Germany/Finland/Slovakia - Early +0. Late +5.
Italy/Romania/Hungary - Early +10. Late +10.
Soviet - Early. +0, Late +0.

No city fort in Kerch.
No Axis allies (SUs, aircraft...) in the Northern zone.


TB control. Some players like it. Too much admin for my taste and makes the game less historical.
Leader deaths. Vanilla game has too many.
Amphib invasions. Not historical outside of the Crimea. The Soviets could potentially get a major advantage if they pulled a good one off, I don't see how that adds to the game.
Temp motorisation. This is potentially a significant exploit if used effectively.
Paradrops. Probably not going to do too much harm but I don't thing they add to the game. Like the amphibs, if successfully brought off they could give one side an advantage but much of it is going to be guesswork and luck - do you really want to put 100s of hours into playing a game and then have a paradrop be a significant factor.
Extended play - why not, you can always agree to end a game if one side has it won.

Morale mods. Axis allies are underpowered, even on +10 they are still not great. Their on map display CV overrates their combat power.
The +5 for Germans late war should help to rebalance the later game which is pro-Soviet, I don't know if this is not enough or too much.

The city fort in Kerch is an exploit, Kerch cannot be isolated early war and it makes the Kerch hex almost impregnable.
Axis allies SUs and aircraft in the Northern zone should not be allowed in the game, but it is not a big deal.


Now for some that I would not suggest using because they create play balance issues. This is a hugely complex game and years have gone into play balancing, so major changes are going to take a lot of testing to make it fair for both sides.

No Ground Attack directives after the Axis turn 1 (for both sides). I was a proponent of this and have tried it in a few games. GA is a huge boon to the Soviets early war, there is a lot of admin for the player to use it effectively but if it is done properly it constricts Axis play. It is also totally unhistorical. However if you take it out of the game it swings the balance in favor of Axis.

Reduced retreat attrition (not Combat Delay Effects as originally written) - Reduced. This is a major boon to the Soviets. The reason for using it is that without it there is the possibility that Axis have a major advantage in '42 and can win the game by 'grinding'. So no strategic manoeuvre required, just lots of frontal attacks that will trash enough Soviet units to get a win.

Combat Delay Effects - Reduced. Again, this is a major change and is largely untested. Will help Axis early war and Soviet late war.

[Shupov]

Combat Delay Effects - Reduced. This is a major boon to the Soviets. The reason for using it is that without it there is the possibility that Axis have a major advantage in '42 and can win the game by 'grinding'. So no strategic manoeuvre required, just lots of frontal attacks that will trash enough Soviet units to get a win.

Combat Delay Effects - Reduced. Again, this is a major change and is largely untested. Will help Axis early war and Soviet late war.

Combat Delay Effects is repeated - I assume one or the other should be changed to Reduced Retreat Attrition.

I agree with most if not all of Tyronec's suggestions except "No Ground Attack Directives". I'm seeing too many games between good players end with early Soviet resignations or decisive Axis victories at the end of 1944. The current M60A3TTS vs jubjub game may be the definitive test case.

[Leumas06]

In order to avoid WW I game, I had some games playing with combat delay reduce and reduce attrition but I cannot take a conclusion because games didnt get long.

Yah, for some reason (which I'm curious to see some discussion on) some players prefer no Ground Attack directives after the Axis turn 1 (for both sides)- what I've read on this forum is that early game Panzer spearheads (being out of range of friendly air cover) are suffering disproportionate losses from massed Soviet ground attack directives. Again the argument is not that there shouldn't be Soviet Airforce harrassing/ targeted attacks on extended Panzer spearheads- the issue is how much damage those attacks are doing over the first so many turns (i.e., the impression I get from this forum is that the damage done is disproportionate and leads to debilitation of the spearheads- which they should be (debilitated) as they were historically- but of all the factors that caused the debilitation, ground attacks cause a disproportionate amount of it in the game- at least this is partly an assumption made by me, understanding this is the impulse that encouraged the development of this rule). Of course this is only aimed at Soviet side players who have the skill set/ knowledge/desire to wield this strategy. As an aside, in a possible related house rule - Leumas puts the rule ground attack directives must be set at default altitude. (which I infer may be a way to somehow weaken the damage done by Soviet ground attack directives without outright banning them). Full disclosure- I'm facing an opponent who seems to be taking VVS notes from an experienced Soviet player on this forum and implementing this strategy on me.

I have the feeling air has been balanced mainly in default settings. I know also some players can find very strong set up for missions making the air game very unbalanced so that is why I am prosposing default settings. Also limited micro on air what is pretty anoying.

TB off is a must if you like also more historical aproach. Too much admin as Tyronec mention.

For the rest of settings, there is kind of a general acceptance. Busting axis minors, no airbone, no moto, limited anphibius.

[Wiedrock]

I agree with most if not all of Tyronec's suggestions except "No Ground Attack Directives". I'm seeing too many games between good players end with early Soviet resignations or decisive Axis victories at the end of 1944. The current M60A3TTS vs jubjub game may be the definitive test case.

+1.
I don't see how one could argue about the general Balance of a game without using all the assets and ending the war with 70k planes in the Pool (or tens of thousands of tanks, for that matter).

The issue with GA ADs usually lies in "GA Unit" and its complete devastation of single Units by multiple thousand sorties/week (usually like 3k+). Which causes both, enemy planes and enemy Flak to shoot (Flak rather quickly after just 4 Mission of 200 Sorties it already stops shooting).
All you have to do is to reduce the Sorties/week in a single Hex to, I argue 800. And reduce the amount of ADs to, I argue one AD per Air Army/Luftflotte per week. This two rules will still have an effect but they remove the Fantasy-World of Russians being able to make 3k+ Sorties on one Hex in a single week or devastating whole German Armies. But it does not take this GA mission as an asset off the table.
One could add potential period based limits (like "Soviets no GA between turns X and Y"...and so on) to more reflect historic actual capabilities.

Similarly "GA Airfield" has no reason to be forbidden. It's not too strong (generally) and with some applied rules it is just fine.

The only bad thing about GA imo is that Germans can lure out Soviet fighters to shoot them down, but this can equally be done with AS ADs, so this would be another topic.

To me the only legitimate excuse to ban GA ADs is if both players don't want to be bothered setting up ADs for that. But arguing about history (...and ending the war with bazillion of planes in Pools) or balance without even attempting to balance it with rules, is wrong.

[Light4bettor]

Reduced retreat attrition (not Combat Delay Effects as originally written) - Reduced. This is a major boon to the Soviets. The reason for using it is that without it there is the possibility that Axis have a major advantage in '42 and can win the game by 'grinding'. So no strategic manoeuvre required, just lots of frontal attacks that will trash enough Soviet units to get a win.

Yah, its curious that while historically the Germans did not have the resources/manpower to execute a grinding strategy across the whole front - by at least Nov 1941, the game system seems to allow it (otherwise if the Germans had calculated it had a good chance at success, they would have used it in 1942). Maybe, it would better reflect the 1942 campaigns static front situation of the North and Middle of the map if in 1941 the retreat attrition was normal but sometime in late Oct 1941- Jan/Feb 1942 the reduced retreat attrition was activated? (to better reflect stiffening/more effective Russian resistance at the front). That way the German can at least get closer to the historical numbers of Soviet losses in 1941- or is this an irrelevant point? But even so, places like Yelnya in late July- late August indicate that a logistical/force push wall was met with concentrated Soviet forces - that were not worth pushing against vs losses sustained. Not to mention- how the Soviets were able to viciously attack/bombard the Yelnya sailent, and the Germans did not have the force to straighten out their line so the salient would not protrude as it did. (and as you probably know the losses became so prohibitive that German forces were finally withdrawn from the salient). Whereas in this game its probably fair to say that a Yelnya type of situation would never develop in the early extended July/August time frame.

I mean without going too deep, those German infantry divisions were worn the hell out by the June-November (not to mention what happened in Dec/Jan/Feb) campaign- and its hard to reconstitute/train up a division that's permanently at the front- just by adding replacements. Adding replacements by itself does not automatically bring a unit back to combat effectiveness. In real life you need to pull units off the line for extended periods of rigorous training to get some proficiency back (at least proficiency approaching what they had at the start line of Barbarossa in June 1941). Of course, I imagine if they wanted to have an offensive capability that was close to what some of them had in June 1941 a division would have to pull out at least a regiment at a time (so they could conduct regimental level training maneuvers in training areas behind the lines- that's a minimum prerequisite for divisional level attacks- of course the optimal level would be to pull the entire division out to conduct the training attack as a division. But you get my point- which is if the division had enough losses to render it less effective as an offensive unit (in terms of equipment/ manpower/ Officer/NCO experience), it would need to pull out of the line to get some of that back. The point of this paragraph was also to add weight to why grinding infantry division attacks across the front in 1942 seems historically unreasonable. (This is borne out by OKHs own assessment -in early 1942- of offensive capabilities of German infantry divisions for a 1942 summer campaign- and at least 70 percent were in the "limited offensive only" category.)

[tyronec]

+1.
I don't see how one could argue about the general Balance of a game without using all the assets and ending the war with 70k planes in the Pool (or tens of thousands of tanks, for that matter).

The issue with GA ADs usually lies in "GA Unit" and its complete devastation of single Units by multiple thousand sorties/week (usually like 3k+). Which causes both, enemy planes and enemy Flak to shoot (Flak rather quickly after just 4 Mission of 200 Sorties it already stops shooting).
All you have to do is to reduce the Sorties/week in a single Hex to, I argue 800. And reduce the amount of ADs to, I argue one AD per Air Army/Luftflotte per week. This two rules will still have an effect but they remove the Fantasy-World of Russians being able to make 3k+ Sorties on one Hex in a single week or devastating whole German Armies. But it does not take this GA mission as an asset off the table.
One could add potential period based limits (like "Soviets no GA between turns X and Y"...and so on) to more reflect historic actual capabilities.

Similarly "GA Airfield" has no reason to be forbidden. It's not too strong (generally) and with some applied rules it is just fine.

The only bad thing about GA imo is that Germans can lure out Soviet fighters to shoot them down, but this can equally be done with AS ADs, so this would be another topic.

To me the only legitimate excuse to ban GA ADs is if both players don't want to be bothered setting up ADs for that. But arguing about history (...and ending the war with bazillion of planes in Pools) or balance without even attempting to balance it with rules, is wrong.

Would agree with what you have written, and there may well be an intermediate solution rather than the outright ban which I was playing.
However there is a game balance issue. GA is a major boon to the Soviets, in particular during '41 and '42 when Axis may be advancing beyond fighter cover and their units will often not be entrenched. If 'GA Unit' is neutered to a reasonable/historical level then that is going to benefit Axis and I would argue that the game needs to be rebalanced.
'GA Airfield' is an odd one, if the Soviets can work out where Axis fighters are based then they have the potential to take out a lot of fighters with overwhelming strikes, but if they try this and miss the right airbase then they will take heavy losses for nothing. Not a good feature for the game so probably needs to be restricted.

[M60A3TTS]

Playing Soviets, I would insist on a ban of the Rovno Pocket on T1. If it means restricting how many units PG2 can move south on that turn, so be it. But it needs to go. Far too much of the Southwestern Front is getting pocketed on top of what already gets taken in within the Northwestern and Western fronts.

[Wiedrock]

Playing Soviets, I would insist on a ban of the Rovno Pocket on T1. If it means restricting how many units PG2 can move south on that turn, so be it. But it needs to go. Far too much of the Southwestern Front is getting pocketed on top of what already gets taken in within the Northwestern and Western fronts.

There is an alternative in reducing MPs for German units (modding/asking Devs to change them) for explainable reasons (unhistoric advances in first week).
Similar to someone on discord who showed that you can encircle Kursk/capure Kursk city in the Kusk opening scenario.