Matrix Games Forums

Guys,

I don't think anyone is recommending you use F11 for PP transfer except with specific house rules allowing it. Remember you can save all that "bothersome" and costly air recon by simply setting fog of war off, but no one would use recommend you use this method. There are things you can do, but should not do.

Chuck

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Guys,

I don't think anyone is recommending you use F11 for PP transfer except with specific house rules allowing it. Remember you can save all that "bothersome" and costly air recon by simply setting fog of war off, but no one would use recommend you use this method. There are things you can do, but should not do.

Chuck

House rules? This house rules thing are for board games like WIF not a computer game where programmers can put code in so that when pp's are deducted say from Germany the same amount would go to whoever on its side, it wanted it to go to and you would not have to do it by keyboard it would be done internally in the program. You push F11 and a pop up asks how much you want sent [pp's] by land or by sea and to who and the program does it and does all the cacluations, not us. It has nothing to do with cheating.

Bo

Many of us use house rules to introduce offsets which adjust playability isues. Limiting the convoy rules, which are very wide open, is an example. Others use house rules to introduce factors which may reflect a certain view of historical accuracy, but which, for one reason or another are not generally accepted. The limits on repair of warships to one DP per turn is an example. The ever inventive Gary Gardner once limited his builds to those he preplotted in a spreadsheet.

House rules are a great way for two or more players to "slide" the game a little towards some "version" they want to play. Some players even place limits on themselves in games against the AI. Limiting your use of paratroops is an example.

Long live "house rules", they are for computer games too.

Chuck

"House Rules" are for any game that has shortcomings.

I know, nothing's perfect but does that mean we should stop striving for it?

I am afraid there are too many versions of "perfect". I, for one, would have to think long and hard about any "house rule" that made this game any more complex or time consuming. I am sure there are WitP and AE players who think this is a walk in the park, but it is taking me a really long time to play my current game. I am begining to think the old model of a core set of rules, and then carefully matched sets of optional rules might be best. There were big debates about Vichy France, Air-Naval interaction, the Soviet German balance, weather, etc.

I doubt the developers can find a golden mean that everyone thinks is "perfect". Even now I hear rumblings about the current Soviet German balance, and in anything naval it seems difficult to select a ruleset that pleases everyone. House rules allow you to pick and choose rules sets that make the game good for the players, but optional rules would be nice too. As doomtrader and Uxbridge have been pointing out players can select CSV filemods which they both prefer. I would like to see the players play the game the developers deliver as much as possible, so we are all able to understand the play of the game as seen in AARs, etc. Getting an opponent for PBEM who wants the same rule set you do might become iffy when there is too much variation.

Every once in awhile I like to mention that all this blather is just me stating how I feel, nothing but my opinion.

Chuck

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I am beginning to think the old model of a core set of rules, and then carefully matched sets of optional rules might be best. There were big debates about Vichy France, Air-Naval interaction, the Soviet German balance, weather, etc.

I doubt the developers can find a golden mean that everyone thinks is "perfect".

I would like to see the players play the game the developers deliver as much as possible.

I understand that "House Rules" are a reality and to some of us the best way to deal with a game's gray areas.
It's just that to me a game heavily reliant on Modding, House rules and what have you becomes less and less enjoyable.

I have no idea what the debate about Vichy France entailed but given the illustrated Diplomatic Situation.

Will someone tell me why it still exists?

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Many of us use house rules to introduce offsets which adjust playability isues. Limiting the convoy rules, which are very wide open, is an example. Others use house rules to introduce factors which may reflect a certain view of historical accuracy, but which, for one reason or another are not generally accepted. The limits on repair of warships to one DP per turn is an example. The ever inventive Gary Gardner once limited his builds to those he preplotted in a spreadsheet.

House rules are a great way for two or more players to "slide" the game a little towards some "version" they want to play. Some players even place limits on themselves in games against the AI. Limiting your use of paratroops is an example.

Long live "house rules", they are for computer games too.

Chuck

In the context of you and your playing partners wanting to change a few things in the game and add some flavor to it is a great idea I have no problem with it, I dont play pbem and dont intend to, not negative towards pbem I would just rather play the AI because if I am losing I just turn the computer off[:D] But house rules dont cut it in some instances here such as pp's moving around the board at someones whim, or maybe they used wire transfers ooops they didnt have wire transfers in the 1940's [not sure] maybe a courier carrying 50 million bucks on him or her, or someone carrying gold with them maybe a little heavy but what the hell! Not one ounce of a dig at you Cpdeyoung just trying to use some common sense of how things should be.

Bo

I DO like pzpat's suggestion of a popup reporting the use of F11 in a pbem game. Doesn't mean it was wrong, just means you know about it, not necessarily what it was used for.

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

"House Rules" are for any game that has shortcomings.

I know, nothing's perfect but does that mean we should stop striving for it?

I think every game has shortcomings, I like to think house rules are used to spice up a game, make it better from your point of view.[:)]

"House Rules" work, they are good in many ways. Yes all games have shortcomings but where is the tipping point? How many is too many? The general response will most likely be a subjective "It's a matter of opinion"

Well, IMHO - Less is better, none required would be heavenly. Something developers should shoot for don't you think?

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

"House Rules" work, they are good in many ways. Yes all games have shortcomings but where is the tipping point? How many is too many? The general response will most likely be a subjective "It's a matter of opinion"

Well, IMHO - Less is better, none required would be heavenly. Something developers should shoot for don't you think?

Yes less is better.[:)]