Non-scenario specific house rules

[Halsey]

PT's supported ground operations in the Solomons. They provided close in fire support along the coast. They were also used for evacuating isolated troops. Though that isn't modeled into the game.

I am not saying these additional rules are written in stone. I am looking for input to balance the games I wish to play. Others may pick and choose their own to portray their own style of gaming.

If a withdrawl limitation is used, the Dutch have to be included. Is anyone familiar with their history in Indonesia? They would have been the least likely to have left their homes. No matter what the circumstances were.

[Toro]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I see Singapore and Manila as the two places the Japanese have to control.

If the Japanese ignore them they are commiting seppuku very early in the game. The majority of Allied LCU's will be in either or both of these bases. Will the Japanese player ignore either of these two places to knock off some extra LCU's? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just wonder if anyone would ignore those two places, because I wouldn't. These two locations are critical for Japanese survival.

Completely understood, of course (sarcasm or not [;)] ). My point is only that if you get too specific, gameiness is reinserted into the picture and allows a situation where one player can manipulate circumstances to control an outcome.

On another point, another rule I have for myself (against the AI -- haven't suggested in in PBEM) is that no PPs can be used by the Allies (aside from assigning leaders) until the level reaches 700 (I think that's the level I set?). This prevents the Allies from w/d anyone until much later along in the game (a month or so). And, they cannot go below that number until March or so.

[Halsey]

No problem. I appreciate others experience with this game. This is just for me and my mates. If anyone else thinks some of these are good ideas, then feel free to add or delete what you want.[:)]

[crsutton]

All are reasonable, but in my long experience of wargaming, house rules just create more confusion and end friendships. Best to get some of these patched up instead.

[Halsey]

1.I would love to see some of these issues patched![:D]
2.I'm getting old and I want to play before I'm unable to.[:D]
3.I remember two years worth of patching on UV, and it still needed house rules.[:D]
4.You are right. House rules are a pain in the butt, but so are gamey moves and tactics.

I probably won't even use all of these. Too hard to remember in the heat of battle.[:)]

[WhoCares]

ORIGINAL: Halsey
...
3. No forward base refueling of SS TF's in ports under size 4,unless a AO or TK is present.
...

Why this? Couldn't subs refuel on open sea? Refueling in small bases would just be like refuel from TF. The AS could always be used as a tanker for subs.

[Halsey]

This was just a play balance thing that some other players have used. So subs couldn't stay at sea for a year at a time. It forces a player to rotate subs back and forth.

[JohnK]

Well,

Probably the most important house rule is to require the US 2nd Marine Division and the 1st US Marine Division to be broken up in thirds with each third only being shipped out of the US on the date when it was actually shipped out....I think you'll have to fudge this a bit and ship out 1/3rd of the 2nd MarDiv to represent the first 1/3rd of the 1st MarDiv shipped out...I'll have to find my notes on this.

They've stated this will never be patched so it will always have to be a house rule.

Otherwise the US simply has too much elite-quality land power lying around at the beginning of the game when in reality they were really desperate for manpower....really unbalances the game and makes Japanese offensives into the SW Pacific that were possible in reality impossible.

I'm no Japanese fanboy, if anything I'm an Allied fanboy, but the Allies really have too much avaliable mobile high-quality landforces at the beginning....

[Halsey]

This one concerning the two US Marine Divs could be addressed by changing their controling HQ's to the West Coast.

IIRC the latest patch will see the 2nd Div with more disabled squads.
With a HQ change it would force an Allied decision to use a lot of PP's to deploy either of them.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Halsey
13. No invasions against non-dot base hexes. Play balance, as not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops.

This seems far too restrictive and unrealistic. For example, the Australian coastline has innumerable places where troops could land, not just the handful of bases along the coast.

I agree that there should be some stretches of coastline in some locations that should not be invadeable (sp?), but IMHO I would say that such stretches of coast would be the exception rather than the rule.

[Halsey]

Is there any historical data concerning landings that didn't happen at dot/base hexes?
Were there any amph ops in the Pacific against places that had no strategic significance?

If there is, I'd be willing to change this for my mates.[:)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there any historical data concerning landings that didn't happen at dot/base hexes?
Were there any amph ops in the Pacific against places that had no strategic significance?

If there is, I'd be willing to change this for my mates.[:)]

Good questions. For the Pacific I don't know. However my view is that just because it didn't happen in the Pacific doesn't mean it couldn't be done. This leads to another point though - IMHO the real world difficulty with invading away from a useable port was the difficulty in supplying forces over the beaches (e.g. Normandy). Is the supplying of forces in such situations too easy in the game perhaps? If so, then making this more difficult could be considered, and would obviate the need for a house rule.

This brings up yet another point - again using Australia as an example. There are MANY small and medium size ports that exist but are not represented in the game, mainly due to redundancy and the limit on the number of bases in the game. Some of these ports are larger then some ports that ARE represented in the game. Many of the 'non-base' coastal hexes in the game ARE 'base' hexes in real life. In this context a house rule preventing forces from landing in these coastal hexes seems unreasonable.

[tsimmonds]

Coupla more ideas:

LCUs belonging to the Kwangtung command can't leave Manchuria unless they burn the PPs to change commands (the game allows them to march out).

No warships larger than CLs can be used in Fast Transport TFs (yeah, I know they used CAs. Once).

[esteban]

The Kwantung Army rule is a good one. Has anyone tried using Kwantung Army air units in China?

I like the idea of making the 1st and 2nd marine divisions West Coast Command units as well. Maybe we can lobby for that in patch 1.31? [:'(]

[tsimmonds]

Air units belonging to the Kwangtung command can only transfer to bases belonging to the Kwangtung command.

[esteban]

Oh, here's one that is a problem, and was brought up in another thread in the War Room.

No night bombing for non-night trained units, except for city raids. (Night bombing is way to accurate against ports, airfields, resource/oil centers)

[Halsey]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this.

Amph ops were not instituted in the Pacific for the sole purpose of cutting off retreat paths. Operations were carried out with the intent of taking strategic bases.
Besides, how useful would a coastal fishing village be in reality?

If you allow any coastal hex to be used then you open up all kinds of improbable actions. One I like the most is sending in squad sized raiders to land (by submarine) on coastal transportation lines to disrupt the flow of supplies and resources.

[Halsey]

Thanks Esteban. I have that listed #2. I haven't been able to figure out how to protect the resource targeting though. Maybe making Manpower as the only allowable target at night for non-night airgroups? Night trained units can still perform any of the missions.

[esteban]

On the Salween river rule, isn't that a little extreme? It pretty much says that you can't move troops past Bangkok. I would say a better rule would be that the Japanese cannot take any "Burmese" bases excpet Pt. Vicky and Tavoy (or whatever the next airfield is above Pt. Vicky.

Regarding Thailand, should Thailand really start the game as Japanese territory? There were no Japanese troops there, and the Thais did briefly put up a fight.

[Halsey]

You've got to remember though. This rule would only last till Singapore has fallen. Three maybe four weeks tops? The Japanese were more threatened by the Singapore forces, and not with what was in Burma.

Does anyone know exactly when the Japanese went into Burma? Did they send forces into Burma before Singapore was taken? I don't have the answer.

Remember these extra rules are not written in stone. They can be added or discarded as anyone sees fit. I'm just trying to decide how I would like to approach my PBEM games.

Thanks for all of your input so far. It's been a big help. Many good ideas have been brought to light.[8D]