Historic house rules

[Lorenzo from Spain]

Some “historic house rules” proposal:

- Fighters: In West Front and in Italia, must be minimum 2 fighters each.
- Finns, Hungarians and Rumanians cańt go to Italia or West Front.
- The Pz corps or Tank armies must have, minimum, one Pz or Tank division, or mechanized division, or cavalry division. If not, they move as infantry.
- If any unit is isolated and receives air supply, this turn cańt move or attack (it was necessary airfields to be supplied).
- Leningrad: in the 41, 42 and even 43 scenarios, Leningrad falls too easy, because the Finns can attack from the north. But in reality, Finn government avoid any serious advance, off its previous frontiers previous to the Finn-Rusian war: it was a very intelligent political strategy. If Germany wins, the Finns will win too; if Germany is defeated, Finland dońt be conquered or destroyed. To simulate this, I propose: the Finns dońt attack or advance south of Vuoska river and Finns units cańt go out of Finland. But if Leningrad, Moscow or Stalingrad falls (any of the three), the Finn government thinks Germany will win, and there will be not restrictions. But even then, the Finns cańt go south of... which hex? May be Kalinin?
- If Helsinki falls, Finn government agree a separate peace. Finn units dońt fight more.

Any more suggestions, please?

[Yogi Yohan]

Good set of house rules. For the Finns, I'd set the limits to their advance in the East as far as the Svir river, they did go that far. But you need my special map then... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I would allow cut-off units to break out after air supply, ie move towards friendly lines. Otherwise a breakout might be impossible.

Also - The "beyond the Urals rule": HQ's in or adjacent to Kazan are considered to be beyond the Urals and cannot attack or be attacked by air (unless, obviously, there is ground fighting going on around Kazan - but then the game should be over anyway).

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>

[czerpak]

very good idea !
I was just about to post this on forum. Will be helpfull for newcomers (like myself - I play WiR for years now, but started PBEM not long ago).
Just one problem with Romanians and Hungarians for me - IMHO sending this troops to WestHQ was historically the best and only reasonable thing to do (only impossible for political reasons).
Now, aren't we trying to perform better then Hitler and Stalin did ?
Cause if we want to be so accurate history wise, we also should implement stupid orders to our troops, lets say at least once a month, since both of mentioned above did it.
I fully support Finn and Ural rules.
waiting for others opinion
czerpak

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by czerpak:
very good idea !
I was just about to post this on forum. Will be helpfull for newcomers (like myself - I play WiR for years now, but started PBEM not long ago).
Just one problem with Romanians and Hungarians for me - IMHO sending this troops to WestHQ was historically the best and only reasonable thing to do (only impossible for political reasons).
Now, aren't we trying to perform better then Hitler and Stalin did ?
Cause if we want to be so accurate history wise, we also should implement stupid orders to our troops, lets say at least once a month, since both of mentioned above did it.
I fully support Finn and Ural rules.
waiting for others opinion
czerpak

---

Well, IMHO as German players we take the role of Hitler. Sending the Hungarian/Romanian forces to Italy and/or the West wasn't an option to him, since these minor Allies had signed up for fighting bolshevism, not going up against the Western Allies with wich Romania at least had a history of cordial relations (Romania was a French ally before the war). So, basicly, its not our decision to make any more than letting the Finns attack Leningrad.

[Josans]

I like the Finnish restrictions over Leningrad and The Urals Rule. Very interesting.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:


Well, IMHO as German players we take the role of Hitler. Sending the Hungarian/Romanian forces to Italy and/or the West wasn't an option to him, since these minor Allies had signed up for fighting bolshevism, not going up against the Western Allies with wich Romania at least had a history of cordial relations (Romania was a French ally before the war). So, basicly, its not our decision to make any more than letting the Finns attack Leningrad.

---

Yes, and the situation with Bulgaria was even worse for Hitler. Bulgaria would not allow their army to leave the Balkans area. They never fought in the USSR, or in the West, and they never deported Bulgarian Jews to the German death camps.

[King Boris:] "The year 1918 won't happen again! Now my hands are free, I untied them just in time ... But in order to achieve this, I had to put up a terrible fight. Hitler went into a rage when I refused his demands [...] Screaming like a madman, he attacked me and Bulgaria in a torrent of accusations and threats. It was horrible. But I didn't give in one inch! He tried to frighten me, but, instead, I calmly explained the situation, saying what I had to say, clearly and unequivocally, i.e., that I have decided that we should follow our own road. My hands are now free. [...] I saved you. Even if I have to pay for it!"

---

http://www.b-info.com/places/Bulgaria/Jewish/jul12.shtml


A few days later, the King died under mysterious circumstances.

[Lorenzo from Spain]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
I would allow cut-off units to break out after air supply, ie move towards friendly lines. Otherwise a breakout might be impossible.

Also - The "beyond the Urals rule": HQ's in or adjacent to Kazan are considered to be beyond the Urals and cannot attack or be attacked by air (unless, obviously, there is ground fighting going on around Kazan - but then the game should be over anyway).

[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]

---

I agree. If not, the isolated units can &#8216;t do anything but wait to be destroyed. Sometimes, in reality, they tried to break.

[PMCN]

Some additional house rules to consider...

1. All air attacks from one HQ agaisnt one target must be combined.
2. The Italians will contribute at most 1 figher and 2 bomber groups to whichever HQ has the italian expitionary force attached to it.
3. The starting german air power in the med must remain there so long as there is german troops fighting in africa (this represents the attempt to block the convoys which was critical if they were to have a hope of winning). You can obviously rotate it or enhance it but this minimum must stay.
4. Hungarian and Rummainian units can not be in the same Korps.
5. The Finns will only occupy up to the river just north of small town just north of lenningrad (this may be still to far north but I find the WIR map confusing compared to real ones). If Lennigrad falls they maybe deployed anywhere within 6 hexs of lennigard.
6. No Korp or Army can move unless it contains at least 1 Division sized unit.
7. The german player is required to deal with the Partisans by moving a Korp next to them to supress them (basicly the security divisions are excellent for this since this is what they were intended for).
8. No use of supply mule HQs.
9. Due to attrition the fighters in the west front can be withdrawn to OKH or OKW if the player wants.

A question on historical accuracy. I always convert the Italian Exp. Force into a Pz Korp (the 16th) since it is 2 motorised Divs, plus 1 Cav. I usually attach extra JPz and Pz Batt to it (total ends up being 3 Pz Bn, and 1 JPz). What do people think about this?

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul McNeely ]</p>

[Tom1939]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Some additional house rules to consider...

4. Hungarian and Rummainian units can not be in the same Korps.
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul McNeely ]

---

Yes, it would be an extremely good historical houserule! If there would be no german intrests of keeping us the hungarians and the rumanians, then we would have had an all out war against each other preatty likely. So rumanian and hungarian units in a korps would be preatty much occupy themselves with at least angering the other nationality and even less combat value for the korps.

[Tom1939]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Some additional house rules to consider...

4. Hungarian and Rummainian units can not be in the same Korps.
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul McNeely ]

---

Yes, it would be an extremely good historical houserule! If there would be no german intrests of keeping us the hungarians and the rumanians, then we would have had an all out war against each other preatty likely. So rumanian and hungarian units in a korps would be preatty much occupy themselves with at least angering the other nationality and even less combat value for the korps.

[Tom1939]

sorry, trying to many time with bad connection <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[czerpak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
[QB]Some additional house rules to consider...

1. All air attacks from one HQ agaisnt one target must be combined.
------------------------------------------------

cant agree with this one, since 1 turn is one week long, so its realistic to perform multiple attacks against one target from one HQ

quote
5. The Finns will only occupy up to the river just north of small town just north of lenningrad (this may be still to far north but I find the WIR map confusing compared to real ones). If Lennigrad falls they maybe deployed anywhere within 6 hexs of lennigard.
-------------------------------------------------

Finn rule is good, but we dont realy know what could hapened to Finn's attitude if Leningrad falls. It was to long ago I read Manerheims memories, must have another look into it...

quote
A question on historical accuracy. I always convert the Italian Exp. Force into a Pz Korp (the 16th) since it is 2 motorised Divs, plus 1 Cav. I usually attach extra JPz and Pz Batt to it (total ends up being 3 Pz Bn, and 1 JPz). What do people think about this?
------------------------------------------------

I put it this way : if you ever play against me and you do this, I wont say a word against.

czerpak
p.s. I learned more about PBEM WiR in last few days then in previuos few years. Means this forum works really well.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:


not going up against the Western Allies with wich Romania at least had a history of cordial relations (Romania was a French ally before the war). So, basicly, its not our decision to make any more than letting the Finns attack Leningrad.

---

True about Romanians - thanks to them thousands polish soldiers escaped to France after fall of Poland, which allowed polish fighters save Britain in Battle of Britain and gave them enough time to teach western allies how to fly a fighter plane
<img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[PMCN]

1. All air attacks from one HQ agaisnt one target must be combined.
------------------------------------------------
cant agree with this one, since 1 turn is one week long, so its realistic to perform multiple attacks against one target from one HQ

---

The reason that I suggest this rule is exactly the reason you do not like it. Since the attack represents the effects of a weeks bombardment it makes no sense that a HQ could launch more than 1 "effective attack" against a single target. If 3 bomber groups attack from HQ-A against target-1 they will over the week be combined into a single attack realistically. Not as 3 single bomber attacks.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:


The reason that I suggest this rule is exactly the reason you do not like it. Since the attack represents the effects of a weeks bombardment it makes no sense that a HQ could launch more than 1 "effective attack" against a single target. If 3 bomber groups attack from HQ-A against target-1 they will over the week be combined into a single attack realistically. Not as 3 single bomber attacks.

---

----------------------------------------------

it's not the question if I like or dislike the rule, I just dont really understand it and here is why :
air units are already limited comparing to ground forces by game engine itself. When resolving ground combat you have "pulses", right?
So ground unit can attack the same target few times in one turn, or attack one after another (even 5 for Pz corps). And then air unit will ground support all of those attacks. And player can use bomber for interdict (or any other mission) only once in single turn. And you want to further limit player regarding air attacks.
Thats why I didnt agree, but I wait for your opinion on what I just explained. Does it make sense for you?

[g00dd0ggy]

I understand the point, but I think that it misses the very real problem created.

I say it is fine to use different air groups for different missions (eg use some for anti airfield, some to AT, some to interdict etc.) but the problem arises when you use multiple groups to interdict (particularly).

The impact of this is multiple reductions in readiness for the defender. In a 43 campaign I am playing the German player has complete air superiority, and will counterattack my tank armies by hitting them with 7 or 8 (or more) air attacks in a turn. Each is protected by the same group of fighters, so defending is very difficult as the fighters are high quality and tear mine up. The repeated bombings massively reduce readiness and the fround attack will frequently inflict massive casualties (10-20,000)as a result.

I haven't raised any complaint about it - after all air superiority is important and you could argue this reflects it, but I had never even realised you could do this and found it very annoying. It means you need to dispers your strength alot.

In 43 scenario it is annoying but not critical...but in say 42 when Russians start to concentrate their forces into tank armies, but Germans have air supremacy this is a major pain...even a decisive advantage for the German - perhaps not offensively, but certainly defensively - you can always break through an encirclement and deep russian penetrations become a nono.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by g00dd0ggy:
I understand the point, but I think that it misses the very real problem created.

I say it is fine to use different air groups for different missions (eg use some for anti airfield, some to AT, some to interdict etc.) but the problem arises when you use multiple groups to interdict (particularly).

The impact of this is multiple reductions in readiness for the defender.

---

The real problem is the game, IIRC, has a fixed penalty for readiness from an interdiction. This means that a raid with only a dozen bombers will cost the defender the same in readiness versus an attack with 200 bombers. If the readiness losses, (ground losses are already based on attacker strength), were porportional to the attacker's bomber strength, then I wouldn't have a problem with multiple attacks on one target, interdiction especially. Since they aren't however, I would have to agree with the house rule that was mentioned.

[PMCN]

The reason I suggested the house rule was due to the fact it prevents the abuse of the readiness penelty due to being bombed that everyone mentioned. It also makes no logical sense. If you send 2 bomber groups to attack a target they will be combined since you are looking at the effects of a weeks bombardment. The thing to keep in mind that an interdiction attack is not a single attack it just represents the fact that you order your bombers to go out looking for targets of opportunity for that week.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



The real problem is the game, IIRC, has a fixed penalty for readiness from an interdiction. This means that a raid with only a dozen bombers will cost the defender the same in readiness versus an attack with 200 bombers. If the readiness losses, (ground losses are already based on attacker strength), were porportional to the attacker's bomber strength, then I wouldn't have a problem with multiple attacks on one target, interdiction especially. Since they aren't however, I would have to agree with the house rule that was mentioned.

---

------------------------------------------------
I agree readiness loss is a problem.
But there are 2 points which make me not accept the abovementioned rule :
1. if one takes Rudel's memories into account Stuka divisions were doing exactly what you ( I mean in general, not personally you, Ed) are complaining about - flying even several missions a day inflicted massive losses to concentrated soviet tanks, in some cases stopping their advance ( the same in Normandy for the Allies)
2. interdiction - effective use of tank killers needs player to know where the tanks are ! As far as I know the only way to know is to interdict an army or corp with lets say one bomber unit and then proceed with main interdict attack, if they found tanks. And sorry, but I dont believe that field commanders didnt know enemy forces ( in general of course, with fog of war and so on)
They had other tools which we dont have in the game.

But still, as I said readiness loss is a real problem

czerpak

[RickyB]

Arnaud, in tweaking the affect of bombing from earlier versions, made it more difficult to reduce readiness from bombing, I believe. It can still happen, but in general a small bomber squadron is not going to do it. I will try to set up a test of this, but I don't believe there is any readiness loss unless the unit shows some kind of disruption message. Unlike v 1.13x and earlier, it is at least a little more difficult already to accomplish this, especially with just a few bombers.

The issue I see with the multiple attacks is the ability of strong highly experienced fighter units to escort numerous attacks, even though a bomber unit can only fly once, in the player directed part, beating the defending fighters into the ground. I will check the readiness affect of this, but to me the defensive fighter issue is a bigger one until I check that out.