House rules to live by......

[jeffs]

The B-17s did actually manage to nail a few ships (including a few DDs, from the 15,000 ft range..
They were not "good" in the anti-shipping role...But they did hit on occassion.
 
While I agree land based planes should not fly from carriers, both sides extensively used CV planes from land bases in the south pacific.

[borner]

This one may draw some fire... but in a recent AAR, it is noted that you should put your US BB's in a seperate TF, as the AI will send the strikes that way. While this is very good from a game standpoint, it would be what I consider somewhat questionable. Another example - In playing IKE, he would send invasion forces in with only 1-2 ships per TF at times, but dozens of them in the same hex. If you get lucky, and surfase combat group can go in and pound several of them, but air strikes are very ineffective.
I would vote for some basic understands that doing things like this with the intention of "beating the system" not be allowed. The problem is, it would be an honor-system only type of deal, as it would be hard to enforce or even see until these showed up somewhere.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: borner

This one may draw some fire... but in a recent AAR, it is noted that you should put your US BB's in a seperate TF, as the AI will send the strikes that way. While this is very good from a game standpoint, it would be what I consider somewhat questionable. Another example - In playing IKE, he would send invasion forces in with only 1-2 ships per TF at times, but dozens of them in the same hex. If you get lucky, and surfase combat group can go in and pound several of them, but air strikes are very ineffective.
I would vote for some basic understands that doing things like this with the intention of "beating the system" not be allowed. The problem is, it would be an honor-system only type of deal, as it would be hard to enforce or even see until these showed up somewhere.

I think honor systems can work very well. As soon as some one shows himself to be dishonorable he stops getting games.

[tocaff]

Single ship TFs are a no no unless you're trying to slip a single transport into a base or it's a fast transport.  To send numerous ships as single vessel TFs in the same hex to the same destination is a flat out effort to get around an opponent's air strikes.  It's a gamey tactic, see the "Gamey" thread.

Again, if 2 people agree on things at the start of a game and deal with eachother's concerns during it the only outcome will be an enjoyable game for both and that's what PBEM is all about.  Win, lose or draw I play for the fun of it, not to abuse or be abused.

[borner]

I would suggest sending single ML's out on missions is also acceptable.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Single ship TFs are a no no unless you're trying to slip a single transport into a base or it's a fast transport.  To send numerous ships as single vessel TFs in the same hex to the same destination is a flat out effort to get around an opponent's air strikes.  It's a gamey tactic, see the "Gamey" thread.

Again, if 2 people agree on things at the start of a game and deal with eachother's concerns during it the only outcome will be an enjoyable game for both and that's what PBEM is all about.  Win, lose or draw I play for the fun of it, not to abuse or be abused.

Todd, you're starting to drive me nuts, buddy. I wish you would be more clear with me about these things.

We started our game with no house rules but with the agreement to use common sense with regard to realism.

I was sending in one ship transport TFs to "trickle" supply into PM without having to sacrifice my inexperienced fighters trying to provide LRCAP over large transport TFs. I accepted that this, coupled with air supply, was about enough to sustain the base, but not enough to build it up or allow it to sustain any kind of concerted bombing effort.

You later sent me an email with a list of your standard house rules asking me if you had sent them to me before as apparently you did not remember. I reminded you that we had not set any house rules, but in the interest of being fair I immediately started abiding by them. I stopped sending single ship supply TFs to PM and decided to bight the bullet and run the gauntlet with some sizeable TFs.

Your printed house rules also listed no 4E planes below 12,000 ft. I immediately raised my B-17s from the 8,000 ft. altitude I had been operating them at to the 12,000 ft. limit you preferred.

Now in this thread you say it OK to send single ship supply TFs as long as the gamey move of sending multiple single ship TFs is not exploited (I know that some people feel that even single ship supply TFs is gamey as it exploits the game engines lack of responsiveness toward single ship TFs from a naval bombing standpoint). You also state here that you don't want to see 4E's being used below 20,000 ft.

Please clarify things for me so I know what to do in our game. Are single ship supply TFs ok as long as the arrive solo and not in droves of multiple single ship TFs?

I am not sure I am willing to agree to a minimum altitude of 20,000 ft. for 4Es. Historically, they bombed from 15,000 ft. Yes, I know your argument that bumping them to an ahistoric setting of 20,000 ft. is what you propose to offset their ahistorical bombing accuracy, but in point of fact, all planes in this game have better bombing accuracy than they did historically. I don't feel it is fair to penalize B-17s to offset their greater bombing accuracy without doing so to all planes accross the board. I've bumped mine to 15,000 ft. which is 3,000 ft. above what was listed in the house rules you sent me, but 5,000 ft. below your presently stated (in this thread) preference of 20,000 ft.

I think we have played long enough for you to recognize that I am more than willing to be reasonable in aggreeing to anything that increases realism and historical accuracy even in the face of no prior agreed upon house rules. All I ask is that we be certain we are clear in what we are asking for.

Merrill


p.s. Incidentily, I was using the single ship supply TF to PM method against both you and Ralf as a result of my experience against the AI which always seems to have both it's bombers and escorts poised to strike hard at any attempt to get large supply TFs into PM. Once I dropped this tactic (and I did so in BOTH games unilaterally) I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. [:)] It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.

[tocaff]

HB

I have no problem with the way we're playing our game. 

I'm just feeding some of the HRs in response to this thread.  If you want to send an AK or an AP on a daily basis into PM all by it's lonesome that's fine.  The HR is to prevent 20 single ship trans TFs (# as an example) all at once together in the same hex to take advantage of the game mechanism that only allows an airstrike to target the 1 TF and thus only 1 ship.


If you want the B-17s hitting my ships at 11K and we didn't have HRs that's painfully fine with me too.

I never thought that I was sending mixed signals to you.  This could be an offshoot of my playing the multiple games at once.  Sorry for the confusion.  Now stop putting the hurt on the IJN, will ya?

[HansBolter]

Todd,

I'm glad we both take an amicable approach to things. Since I discovered that I am actaully coming out ahead (at least a few times) by sending in the large supply TFs to PM I will probably continue to do so until you put a hurting on them.

I've resolved to fly my fortresses at the historically accurate altitude of 15,000 ft. in all my games.

And no problemo on what I was seeing as mixed signals. It was less about me being miffed over any mixed signals than me being concerned with upsetting an opponent becuase I might not be abiding by any restrictions my opponent may have felt I should be abiding by.

And last, but not least, no way in hell am I gonna stop putting the hurt on the IJN. [:'(]

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. [:)] It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.

You "easily" got them in...yes. This clearly indicates I need to adjust some things! Hope you stocked well in the past... [:D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I found that the live opponents must have had their Rabaul based bombers and escorts prioritized for other things as I was easily able to get several large supply TFs into PM unopposed against both of you. As a result, I am now much better off in PM than I would have been if I had stuck with the "trickle" approach. [:)] It shows how experience against the AI can't be used as a guideline of how to operate against a live opponent.

You "easily" got them in...yes. This clearly indicates I need to adjust some things! Hope you stocked well in the past... [:D]

I did say I would "probably" keep it up until my opponents put a hurting on it. Just another dimension for you to need to hammer me in. [:D]

After Todd's recent KB hunting trip along the Aussie coast that sunk most of my Aussie based transport fleet I may have to go back to the trickle method in that game.

[tocaff]

Supplies are the name of the game...........although there isn't an unimportant unit or platform on the roster.

[borner]

How is this for a list so far?


keep USN / Marine Air attached to ground bases in SOPAC/ no SWPAC.
No Marines on Carriers unless they're hitching a ride somewhere.
Austrailian fighters are limited to SWPAC or Noumea.
If a ground unit arrives at SOPAC or SWPAC they stay in that theatre.
Japan's land units must stay in either 8th army or Combined fleet areas, depneding on where they are assigned, once PM has fallen. ( Note, this is as if the US make a full effort to hold PM, the 8th army will not be strong enough to take it alone)
B-17's operate at at least 10k feet unless on search missions.
no carrier night air strikes.
no intentional formation of TF's to aviod air strikes. (honor system and common sence here)
No sub invasions.

[tocaff]

I think that a player should be able to shift LCUs and air units from SOPAC to SWPAC or reversed as the situation dictates.  IJA units can shift locale also as needed. Just because something is assigned to a given area shouldn't mean that it can't be reassigned.  HRs are primarily to stop abuses allowed by the game system.

Look at it this way, if the Japanese player is going for an auto victory why shouldn't he be able to use any and all troops at his disposal?  On the other hand to prevent this why shouldn't the Allied player be able to bring over some P-39s (for example) and the Aussie 3rd Div to garrison Noumea while he sends the  Americal Div to EPV?  If you ban this I can take Luganville almost every game as the Japanese and your chances or retaking as the Allies it become slim.  Allow the use of units depending on the situation.  If you strip Oz then the Japanese will punish you for it by attacking it.  Leave Noumea with no protection and what do you expect from an average or better Japanese player?

[borner]

Interesting point Tocaff. I have no problem with the air units, and maybe Aus units to Noumea is not such a bad deal
 
I also added no sub invasions to the list of things I would not like to see

[tocaff]

Borner
Send me your email so I can send the complete list a bunch of us worked up.  Sometimes I use it and sometimes not.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: borner

How is this for a list so far?

... no intentional formation of TF's to aviod air strikes. (honor system and common sence here)

Are we talking abt. 1 ship convoys, or combining transports w/surface and carrier fleets to make massive TFs?

[borner]

todd you email is hidden on here.
 
mine is borneruv@yahoo.com
 

[borner]

no, massive TF's or groups of TF's are ok in my opinion, it's making 20-30 single or 2 ship inasion TF's, and similiar things I have an issue with. For example, in a game with IKE, he moved to Lugna and my air would only find a couple of ships at a time. I sent some CA's in, and ran into an endless supply of these small TF's.

[decaro]

I'm talking abt using transports and other ancilllary ships in TFs as a screen for your CVs; it's almost impossible to get at the carriers in this uber formation, but they can easilly hit you.

[borner]

My opinion wold be yes, as the intent is not to escort transports somewhere, but if I understand right, to take advantge of what the Ai targets when it sends strikes from your carriers. This would fall under the "honor system" though, as in some cases your CV's could be escorting.