Campaign Rules and Regulations.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 3:05 am

Here's all the rules, numbered, and extra things that I can think of. Lets see what we think is possible, practical, fair or too time consuming.

1.The Japanese may not conduct amphibious landings directly on Singapore or Bataan. Nor can they bombard them with surface forces.

**With the built in reductions in sealift and supply, further restrictions on the Japanese are probably not necessary.

2.Allied LCU's that have suffered a reduction in experience due to hard fighting may regain their former level by a 4 month (16 turn) stay at a major rear area base. These are Calcutta, or Columbo for the British. For American, and Australian troops the following:
Melbourne
Sydney
Brisbane
Auckland
Pearl Harbor
Seattle
Any US West Coast base.

(a) Obviously if the bases above are under attack, they are not rear area, and thus may not rest and refit LCU's

(b) This does not apply to units completely destroyed in combat and reappearing in their home country.

** This rule is an attempt to make good on the heavy losses that may occur to Allied landings on coral atolls**

3. The size of Allied amphibious Landings are limited as follows:
Start thru Dec
1942 one division
1943 two divisions
1944 four divisions
1945 no limit

(a) For the purpose of this rule 2 Brigades or 4 Regiments equal a Division.

** This rule is simply to take into account Allied shortages in landing craft until after June of 44.

4. To simulate the small size and barren condition of coral atolls
(terrain type 1) the follow applies:

(a) Garrisons of coral atolls are limited to one regt, (or 2Bn's).

(b) SBF and engineer units may be added on over the garrrison limit.

(d) Landings on Coral atolls may be made only one division at a time. Example: in 1943 a landing of up to two divisions is possible (see rule 3 above). At a coral atoll however these two divsions must be landed from different TF's. Thus one at a time even though its the same turn.

(e) Divisions used to conquer an Atoll can only remain on the island for approximately 2 turns after all enemy resistance is eliminated.

** I always felt there should be some limitaion on the number of troops a Coral atoll can support, both as garrision and for attack. This rule is an attempt at making those limitations. I don't know if it will work.

(NOTE: I am not entirely sure about this one. Atolls were usually a series of small islands grouped together. Mankin Island on Tarawa Atoll held 1 SNLF Regiment, 1 SBF, plus 2 Engineer Regiments of approximately 2000 Labourers. This was only one island in the chain, albiet the largest one. Possibly an entire division could be stationed on an Atoll, spread out among all of the Island chains in the Atoll? Any thoughts?)

5. Only Japanese LCU's attached to the CEF (China expeditionary force) may fight in China. Only Chinese LCU’s attached to the Nationalist China HQ may fight in China, no other allied formation is allowed past Kunming.

(NOTE: I am not sure about the use of Engineers from other HQ’s)
(NOTE: Some allied forces attached to North CAC may appear at Chunking, they must be immediately sent to Lashio/Kunming)

6. Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor may be raised by the Allied player at the rate of two for every three sunk. Ships raised are available again in Jan 44.

** This is simply giving the Allied player what the Allies obviously had the ability to do. Old BB's are weaker and air dropped weapons are more powerful in this OB, so more BB's are likely to be sunk at Pearl. Personally I think that any capital ship sunk in a large enough harbor (8 or 9) should have a 75% chance of being raised. This includes Japanese battleships sunk at Kure, etc.. This only happens if the ship is sunk IN PORT. They will reappear in approximately 90-100 turns. This must be done through the editor.

7. The "Get Transport" command may not be used.

8. The "pool" command may only be used between ships in the same port or at Player national bases I.E. Home Island bases for Japan, US West Coast bases, Australia bases, Columbo and Calcutta. The exceptions to this are PT boats and Daihatsu barges.

9. You cannot move the 73rd and 129th IJA Brigades along with the 88th and 89th IJA Divisions until the arrival of the 91st IJA Division. These formations were included in the OBC to stop an early American exploitation of the weak areas of Northern Japan. Historically these units didn’t appear until late 1943 / early 1944.

10. Chinese air force units should not leave Nationalist Chinese territory. They can be based at North CAC bases IN China (not Burma). The Chinese weren’t too big on sending any war material outside China, even Burma was given very low priority.

11. The Japanese MAY NOT leave any US force defending the Philippines from 1942 alive and in control of a base by January 1, 1943. Unless the US makes a determined act to try and liberate/supply the islands the Japanese player cannot let a small garrison go unmolested. If allowed to happen, no matter where the US forces are the Japanese get Kamikaze aircraft in 1944 (due to American units being in the Philippines). It is not a difficult job to dislodge the American forces from Bataan, before mid 1942, just bring in more formations from other fronts if you are having trouble. If they aren’t destroyed by 1943 the Japanese player forfeits the game.

12. NO RAIDING ENEMY HOME BASES. The Allies cannot land any unit on Japan, nor can the Japanese land any unit on the West Coast (not including Alaska), India (the new India base, formerly Calcutta) or Melbourne and Sydney UNLESS it is part of an invasion force to try and capture the base. It would not be fair for the Allies to throw away a regiment of troops in 1942 in an attempt to land in Northern Japan, or any other undefended base for the sole reason to permanently destroy the factories on that base. Nor can the Japanese do the same to the Allies.

(NOTE: I am not sure about this one, possibly one could say that it would be someone’s own fault for leaving these important bases undefended, impressions?)

13. No Allied landings in China (except for a possible British landing in Hong Kong). It would be unfair to allow the Allies to land forces in Japanese controlled China/Manchuria with the new set up of IJA Armies.

14. The two Thailand Armies (1st and 2nd) and the 1st Indian National Army Division may not leave 15th Army Controlled Bases, and/or historical Thailand/Burma (The following Bases... Singora, Bangkok, or any former British base in Burma/India). The Thai and Indian forces were nominal allies of the Japanese, but, were very unwilling to send forces too far from home. They can retreat into Indo-China (Phnom Phen, Saigon, etc...) or into Malaya if the British conquer all of Burma and Thailand.

15. Australian Militia units assigned to SW Pacific may not leave Australian Territory. This includes all of New Guinea, Rabul, Soloman Islands, Gilbert Islands, or basically any base attached to ANZAC at the beginning of the game. These units are...
3rd Infantry Division (Australian, 3rd NZ Division is free to go anywhere)
5th Infantry Division
11th Infantry Division
7th Infantry Brigade
11th Infantry Brigade
23rd Infantry Brigade
30th Infantry Brigade

16. Allied air forces must use the correct type of aircraft. USAAF Groups cannot use British or Australian aircraft, but, the RAF, RAAF, NEIAF and RNZAF may use USAAF aircraft.

17. Monsoon, for the following bases, no offensive action can take place during the months of June-November: India, Dacca, Imphal, Diampur, Mandalay, Lashio, Rangoon, Bangkok. Units can move, but, cannot be in the same base as an enemy LCU (Must be moved back to closest friendly base if the LCU does not have posession of base)

------ Possible Extras

18. Paratroopers. The 'God' player can move specific LCU's (1-4 Yokohama IJN Bn's, 1-4 Parachute IJA Regt's, 50 Parachute IND Bde, 503 Parachute USA Regt, 11 Airborne USA Div, 1-3 Parachute USMC Bn's) FROM an airbase IF:

A. enough Transport aircraft to carry these troops (ie. must have enough Cargo Capacity to lift these units, like ship capacity).

B. there is no enemy Air-Zones of control (it will be too complicated to figure in possible enemy interception)

C. the target base is within the range of the transports.

'God' then determines the readiness of the unit parachuted. Ranges from scattered drop(unit divided with low readiness 25%) regular drop (undivided with low readiness 25%) to good drop (undivided with readiness at 50%)

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 3:13 am

Here are some of my suggestions to use the list as follows.

1. Good, but applies to Allies after Japanese take these bases.

2. Doesn't make much sense anymore with result of 2.1 patch

3. Possibly complicate game too much? What about the British?

4. Again, this might complicate the game, as, what if the US land with 2 divisions, and the IJA counterland another 3 divisions, can they sit there and fight it out with the rules? How long can a division remain on an atoll after it took it?

5. This seems fair.

6. 'God' could do this.

7. Too complicated for me.

8. Too complicated for me.

9. This seems fair.

10. This seems fair.

11. This seems fair.

12. How about this one? If we allow raiding to occur, then both sides will have to worry about defending their home bases instead of just allowing everything to go to the Pacific. Maybe we should allow raiding.

13. This seems fair.

14. This seems fair. These forces were not subject to the total whim of the Japanese IGHQ and still had some limited independence.

15. This seems fair.

16. I am sort of torn on this one.

17. This should break up an a-historical constant battle in Burma.

18. I like this one, but, it could complicate the game too much.

Anyone else post their suggestions and we can find out which rules to use. Also, if you can think of a few more, then post them as well.

folgore · Post by **folgore** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 3:43 am

I agree on 5,7,9, 12 ,13,14,15,16,17
i dont like the
1) because there is alway a risk to do that and doing that the japanese loose time and get risks with submarines .
2) ok to not do that
3) let the players free to risk
4) let the players get the risks
6) no let them rest in peace the US player have enough BBs around 44 .
8) too diffult to remember when playng and too restrictive remember that we remove the get transport too !!
10) the japanese will suffer too gratly from this remember that we accept the 9
11) not that important IMO
18 ) it will slow the game and will raise discussion let it be simple .
my Opinon only

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 10:09 am

Way too hard for me. Play the game..if it is not hard coded in it aint a rule. Particullarly, get transport saves tons of time and really just says that your staff was planning ahead knowing what you were thinking (communication). Add all that stuff nad your pac way game will take 5 years to play. I hope I wans't too negative. I takes a smart person to think all that stuff up.

Seth

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 11:55 am

Hi, I don't want to butt in but just point out something for Major Tom to consider while he is working on 2.2 patch.
OK you don't want allies landing on N Japan Islands so you add IJA units to defend them.
Invasion was a might be but now you have added real units to game where they did not exsist and every Jap player I have played uses them to capture Dutch Harbour or Midway please git rid of them. If Jap player wants to guard these Islands let him split the 7th Division to do it. Get rid of all the (unreal) Aussie units too, thats why SW Pacific exsists to make allied player send units there other wise they are used for landings instead of guarding aussies. Remove all the safe guards you put in to prevent "unreal" things from happening, that requre "unreal units. They generate more "unreal" things that really effect game.

AP's are amphip landing ships (its what USMC used to land on cannal) Liners should not be used for landings just transport)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited December 01, 2000).]

folgore · Post by **folgore** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 11:55 pm

the game will start in a week so all the whiners will have something else to do

if the game will last 4 years it will mean that it was realistic lol .
I need more opinions about the GET TRANSPORT option

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:04 am

Personally, I have never used the Get Transport option. It usually just takes ships away from bases that I need them. But, I have no problem in letting anyone else use it.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 2:10 am

I think using the Get transport command will cause problems between the theaters. I also think it is unrealistic. Like Major Tom I never use it.

Andrew Brown · Post by **Andrew Brown** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 3:06 am

OK, here is my take on the suggested house rules:

I think that the game should be kept as simple as possible, ie. close to the standard game. House rules should only be used if they help in removing unrealistic tactics. My omments on the above rules are:

1) I can live without this.

2) Seems a bit complex. Can live without it.

3+4) Tend to cancel out. Simpler without them.

5) Seems reasonable, but I do think that Allied Engineers should be able to enter China to build up airfields. I also think that it would be reasonable to allow North CAC units free movement in China but am willing to be corrected on that.

6) The few times I have played, some BBs get sunk, the rest are heavily damaged and I repair them. I don't think this rule is necessary.

7) I never use the 'Get Transport' command when playing against the computer. It seems more 'realistic' to have to micromanage transports,which means more planning ahead. I
don't mind either way with this one.

8) I usually don't do this either, as per above, but don't mind either way. Using this rule would add a bit of complexity.

9) Agree with this one.

10) Agree.

11) If the Japanese try this trick 'God' can intervene and smite the units in question.

12) Seems a bit restrictive, but my experience with playing this game against humans is limited (read non-existent).
Include it if is absolutely necessary to prevent gamey tricks, otherwise leave it alone and make the players look after the home territories properly.

13) I don't know enough about the changes in the Japanese dispositions in China to comment. It sounds reasonable.

14) Agree with this one.

15) This is realistic and I agree with it.

16) Don't know if this is really necessary. What major problems would develop if the US DID want to use British or Aussie aircraft?

17) Seems reaonable.

18) I like the idea of the added chrome of this one, but if it has not been playtested it might cause problems. Also, it does add complication. Undecided.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 3:27 am

The Spitfire VIII appears earlier than the P-51D, this would give the USAAF a spectacular interceptor (better than the P-47) much earlier. Also, if the USAAF changes a lot of its tac-bomber groups into Wellingtons, then when they auto-upgrade to B-24's the USAAF could have a lot more heavy bomber groups than historically. The Sunderland is also a better scout than the PBY.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 4:00 am

Hi, Get transport also uses ships that are in the pool. The only way for the allied player to get the APA(L) is to use get transport. I would recommend only using get transport in SF/LA/SD Tokyo/Nagoya. Also Japan can not make an effective first turn without using get transport (lets assume they did some planning before they went and started a war). The best way to use this option is to load all the ships everywhere and then use get transport in places you did not have enough to start with. It is not magic it just shows the HQ staff's planned ahead and the ships get where they are needed when they are needed. Also the computer adds to each group every turn so you should be allowed to return these additions to the ship pool with out penalty (you didn't ask for them). Just MHO

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

folgore · Post by **folgore** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 4:07 am

the 16th is accepted without reserve and as God i dont want discussion over it , if i see a US unit equipped with spitfires i give the japanese atomic bombs lol .

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 6:51 am

I do not use get transport a lot because it burns hard to get PPs. I think it is relistic to assume that you could have gotten the ships to support whateve you are trying to do over the previous week. Actualy, I think get transport should be free. This would save a lot of the BS I have to do sending ships back to pools and making sure bases have a couple of one transport units that I can build by get pool when I need it. Gee isnt that much more realistic that Get transport. Get pool might as well be called transport spawning. I mean we could get real technical and force all non damaget transports into task forces. and that is th only way to get them around ... by moving them and transfering them around. I really do not think I would play though. Actually the way transports are handled is the most anoying part of the game.

I would love to have less "control" over transports and have a way through rutine convoys to say I want 3000 supply and 1000 fuel right there next turn or you are fired!!!! Maybe if I define my expectations to my employees beter it will happen for me. Please Mr Tanaka put lots of goodies in broome, we are trying to take all of Australia and not just a corner of it.

Love,

Seth

Seth

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 8:53 am

This thread reminds me how great it's going to be when WitP comes out.
Because all these many fixes, realism enhancements and optional rules
will be built in from the ground up. It'll save lots of time and effort.

Won't that be cool?

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 9:30 am

Gee I hope their are not to many realism enhansments or it will not be real!

Seth

GET TRANSPT · Post by **GET TRANSPT** » Mon Dec 11, 2000 7:48 am

HI!
I used to play PACWAR years ago, but this Matrix Games version is so much better. It rocks.

I saw the post my Major Tom on proposed changes, and I wanted to comment. Thanks!

my post conserns play balance, but also exitement/slowness of play. I particular, I support amph landings and variable ground comabt in the CBI theater.

1.This rule makes sense, but it would fo course hurt the Japanese in play balance terms. Any human Allied in '41 is better than the lethargic historical Allies. I favor deleting this rule when "Japanese computer".

2.Good rule, but favors the Allies again.I'd use it for "Allied computer".

3. There are plenty of landing craft in the early years. What about understrength divsions? How about a restriction on CAPACITY? (e.g 1500, 3000, etc.). This rule slightly favors the Japanese, and makes the game slower/less exciting.

4. Not all atolls are alike, like you said. It would be simpler in a game that had "LCU capacity". Of course, research would have to be made into every atoll to determine individual "LCU capacity". I Prefer unit size (eg 1300) not echelon (div, bde, etc.) to determine LCU limit. But the current system works well, and simply.

5. Allow for at least one non Chinese unit in China. US Engineers upgraded airfields in Chengtu/Chunking. If not, this rule favors the Japanese. Allow it in "Japanese Computer". If you use rule 13, it is balanced, but slower less exciting.

6. Nice rule. Why do it through the editor? Ship constrcution points should be used, not just a freebie.

7. NO WAY. GET TRANSPT saves time and makes constant TF shuffling unnecessary. Rule 7 adds to slowing and ship accounting headaches. If applied,rule favors Japanese at start, Allies later in war.

8. Favors the Allies. Once again, ecourages tiny TF's using up PP's and slows play.

9. Good rule, but favors Allies. Play with "Japanese computer".

10. This rule favors the Japanese. Used together with rule 5, it favors Japan more. To balance out, allow Chinese on CAC airfields regardless of location.

11. Good rule. Tiny Allied advantage.

12. I don't support this rule. Important bases (e.g. Tokyo, S.F. Pearl) are lightly defended often in crisis moments. Makes the game slower and duller.

13.This favors the Japanese slightly, more so in late war. I favor scrapping this rule and rule 5. They make China a permanently dull campaign.

14. Good rule.

15. Good rule, if one assumes other Australian units (e.g. ABDA) can move freely. Slightly favors Japanese in early war.

16. The lower experience for changing A/C type already simulates this. It would favor the Japanese throughout the war. Keep it for "Japanese as computer".

17. It's tough enough to dislodge troops from those bases. Slows down the game, excitement again.
------ Possible Extras

18.Good rule. It's high time