Non-scenario specific house rules

[TheElf]

Bump. Don't want to lose this thread

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Grotius

1. ASW TF's. No more than 6 to 8 ships allowed. No Admirals allowed to command.
2. Night Bombing. City attacks (Manpower only) for non-game designated air units.
No restriction on night naval attacks.
11. GT1 landings, for the Japanese, must be within range of Japanese LBA recon. (Mogami rule?)(scenario specific)Play balance feature.
13. No invasions against hexes that do not contain a dot/base in them. Not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops. Play balance feature.
14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are spent to change their command. Play balance feature.

I can't see much to argue about with this list, but a couple of points come to mind. One
is that nobody made much use of ASW TF's (except Ernie King running DD squadrons up and down the East Coast at high speeds and accomplishing nothing) until late 1942. In
a current game, we've limited ASW TF's to 3 ships (no Admirals) and still had some success. 6-8 seems excessive for such s specialized use---have you tried reducing it to 4?
Secondly, given the tremendous range of Betties/Nells, limiting Japanese attacks to with-
in such a boundry isn't really much of a handicap. Historically they tended to stay within Fighter range when making their jumps (Though where there are Zeros this can be quite an distance). Has that been suggestted?

[jwilkerson]

Having just played in a game where the Allies stripped India to reinforce DEI and did not have to pay 1 PP to do so ... I'd vote against any house rule restricting Japanese invasions or requiring PP to be paid to walk out of Manchuria.

Now if Allies agree to pay PP to have units leave India then I'd consider re-accepting the Manchurian restriction. If you want to restrict Japanese invasion options then just play S16 instead of S15. The bonus move doesn't exist in S16.

I have yet to see [ or hear of ] the Japanese capturing the entire SRA by 1 May 42 ... i.e. starting with S15 or S16 to acheive the S13 base position by 1 May 42 ... has anyone done this PBEM ? And if so ... were the players of approximately equal experience ?

[mogami]

Hi, While I am known to be a very slow player I have captured the entire SRA by 19 Mar 1942 in PBEM. Most of the time I am still there in June.

[Halsey]

I play with my own intrinsic house rule for India and the DEI.
No large scale land reinforcements to these areas from any others. Only in the event of a catastrophe would I send outside troops to India. Also only SEAC Chinese units may leave China.

[byron13]

Bump.

[ChezDaJez]

House rules that cover gamey issues are fine but I dislike the ones that try to enforce play balance. War isn't balanced. The war was very unbalanced towards the Japanese early and towards the Allies late. I want to be free to try any operations that were historically possible (but not necessarily historically attempted). House rules can cover the historical impossibilities that the game allows such as the rearming of BBs at size 3 ports.

The biggest problem with house rules is that the majority are virtually unenforceable and can be ignored when out of sight. Obviously, a player who would do that isn't one worth playing. And sometimes the game will prevent you from doing anything about it. For example the BB that pulls into a size 3 port for fuel automatically gets rearmed. Can't very well say a player can't refuel.

I would also like to see the idea of "restricted units" removed. I think the best way to handle Dutch and US units in the SRA and Philippines is to have the game give the Jap player Victory Points based on the size of the unit being withdrawn. Withdraw too many units and you've dug a deep hole.

But anyways, any rules that 2 players agree to are between them, just don't expect everyone to agree.

Chez

[Bradley7735]

I would also like to see the idea of "restricted units" removed. I think the best way to handle Dutch and US units in the SRA and Philippines is to have the game give the Jap player Victory Points based on the size of the unit being withdrawn. Withdraw too many units and you've dug a deep hole

Well then, what the heck are Political points for? Then give points to allies when Japan transfers units from China to the South Pacific.

If the allied player pulls forces out of the DEI, the Japanese player should be jumping for joy. You have fewer damaged resources and oil. Your units are going to be ready for more offensives, sooner.

You want to pile on points as well?

Your house rule doesn't seem very fair.

[Halsey]

You must be playing against the AI. When playing PBEM, any mass exodus will get slaughtered by a competent IJN player.[;)]

[Halsey]

Here is a semi-upgraded list.

#4 is the big one! This would seem to be a fair trade off to balance 4E allied naval strikes against the lethargic allied submarine doctrine/mechanics. This is for the original game. The new mods may require a different standard.

[tsimmonds]

Here's a proposal that might perk up submarine operations somewhat:

Neither side may form ASW TFs until after the other side has attained "significant success" with his submarine ops. "Significant success" could be defined as (for example) x number of AK/AP sunk, or y number of TK/AO sunk, or z number of CV/CVL/CVE torpedoed (not necessarily sunk), or some combination. This would return the subs to the role of hunters rather than hunted.

[Halsey]

I noticed Ron has added a 1/44 time limit for when ASW TF's can be formed. This sounds good too.
So, limit 4 ships to a SCTF for anti- sub warfare before 1/44. Then 1/44 the ASW TF option becomes available. Still with the 4 ship restriction.

[tsimmonds]

Could use both. Form them earlier if the other side is kicking your ass[;)], and w/o restriction (except for # ships, and no admirals) afterwords.

[Halsey]

Well that's one of the cool things about house rules. If it seems unfair after a time, throw it out.[:D]

[tsimmonds]

Yabbut. That only works if you're gaming with someone who's reasonable[:'(][;)]

[Halsey]

What do you think of #4? Mogami uses the 200 ship restriction in his own games. 4E bomber attacks were rare and far between, and hardly as successful as they are with these game mechanics.

As a note. These ships "will" be sunk by 4E naval attack missions. They are a lot more effective at destroying merchant shipping than the Allied subs are.[;)]

[tsimmonds]

Seems ok in principle, got more AKs than I can use. Have to take inventory though, before I commit to 200.[;)]

[Halsey]

Don't know what the balance is for shipping with the Stock scenario vs the CHS. That's probably the deciding factor. Run a test game to see. That's the only thing I can think of.
I do know that in the stock scenario they are overstocked. Not sure on the CHS though.

Load pt availability for the IJN in both games. Anyone have that? Probably not.

[tsimmonds]

Stock scenario is easy enough, 301 large AK and 169 small AK at start, total capacity of 2,698,500 load points.

[tabpub]

That doesn't sound too far out of whack. I think that they lost around 8 million tons during the war; so, if they build 1.5 million a year, that's 6 million more to add to the 3 million that they have.