Matrix Games Forums

Just my 2 ct. on house rules.

I usually agree to them but do not feel as strong about most rules as others do. Playability is more important for me. So I weigh the hassle against the benefit. If a house rule fixes a glaring problem, then I am happy to use it of course. I also agree that most of these rules add flavor and realism. But often they just make you play "gamey" at a different level.

In this context, I see the corps building rule out of 3 divisions a problematic one. All what it will do is that I form corps well in advance at home so that I can still ship them at a moments notice to where ever I want. Sure, I have to pay maintenance on those reserve corps in advance. I also cannot upgrade an existing unit in the field easily and have to move it aside and then ship the new unit in. But most units at the front are corps anyways. So there are only a very few scenarios left where it really makes a difference.

Whether the rule is useful is still a question of taste of course. There are no hard criteria to judge it.

ORIGINAL: Chocolino

Just my 2 ct. on house rules.

I usually agree to them but do not feel as strong about most rules as others do. Playability is more important for me. So I weigh the hassle against the benefit. If a house rule fixes a glaring problem, then I am happy to use it of course. I also agree that most of these rules add flavor and realism. But often they just make you play "gamey" at a different level.

In this context, I see the corps building rule out of 3 divisions a problematic one. All what it will do is that I form corps well in advance at home so that I can still ship them at a moments notice to where ever I want. Sure, I have to pay maintenance on those reserve corps in advance. I also cannot upgrade an existing unit in the field easily and have to move it aside and then ship the new unit in. But most units at the front are corps anyways. So there are only a very few scenarios left where it really makes a difference.

Whether the rule is useful is still a question of taste of course. There are no hard criteria to judge it.

I think those are good effects of the corps building rule. Excellent!

However, I propose rule 4: in any game I play with Chocolino, he is not allowed to strat move any corps out of his home country!

I'ts not clear to me that forcing corps building well in the rear is especially realistic. Actually, I'm fairly sure it's not. But that is indeed the effect of these house rules, once again, because the game lacks stacking. The only reason you cannot do it at the front is a purely mechanical one: there's no room to do it. It's a traffic control problem imposed by abstract game mechanics. Realism has nothing to do with it.
 
Yet a fair number of folks here seem to like this corps business. I don't really think it works in this game.
 
 

All of your comments above, re abstraction and the probable effect of a corps building house rule, are duly noted.

How about an alternative:

no upgrade of division to corps, when in a ZOC, unless the division has been in position long enough to get a 5% entrenchment bonus at least. There ought to be some time factor, at least, involved in the abstract integration of divisions into a corps, with all the administrative and logistical factors that are involved in real life.

The upgrade to corps rule is kind of iffy, in my opinion. I understand the concept and reasoning, but am not sold on the application or net value with regard to actual playability. That does not make it a bad rule, it only means that I do not agree with it at this time.

Seems like if you wanted to make it hard to upgrade to corps, you would just modify the cost of that action. Make it expensive to do so. But, my feeling is that this is not the point. Rather, I get the feeling that the whole point of this rule is to force the player to establish and execute the rote activity of reconstituting existing units into a new command structure in the field. In this regard, I do not understand what is gained by this a rule other than a player may find such bureaucracy an enjoyable aspect of their game.
~


As far as House Rule #2: Quarterly Audits
Again, not entirely sold on this concept either. Primarily because of the term "unreasonable savings." Can someone define this and perhaps explain why these various sums are deemed unreasonable? Taxing any savings does not encourage me to spend; it encourages me to save. In fact, in game terms, it nearly demands it. Since I know the taxman cometh, I am forced to save PP if I want to "grow" my bank account. 

The idea that spending PP allows you to appease the taxman is misguided. The taxman cometh whether you have 10PP or 10000PP. His cut is the same. Converting PP into units to avoid the audit only compounds the problem. You have just made yourself even more expensive to maintain, and therefore even more vulnerable to the very thing you are trying to mitigate. Woe to the player who neglects to save enough PP so that his allotment plus the new revenues on the turn following the audit is enough to pay his bills. This, in fact, is something I would "game" to death, as this very turn appears to be a good time to launch an offensive. Hit 'em when they are most likely to be financially vulnerable. The sooner the better.
~


House Rule #3: Leaders
This rule appears to nerf leaders in favor of pure aesthetics. It might make the board look nicer with those "new" HQ units, but the effect those same units have on the game has been severely reduced. The heroes are now so regulated as to almost nullify their original purpose. It seems unlikely they will ever actually get to use their full potential. Those countless Soviet 3/0 leaders might as well break out the vodka. They have effectively been demoted to one paygrade above useless.
~

These are only my opinions and speculations, and I dont expect everyone to agree or even like them. They are always open to discussion. I think the whole reason house rules are publicly posted is to encourage discussion and exploration for what works and what does not, AND to find new ways to have fun with the game. House rules do not need to be firmly rooted in historical accuracy or balanced gameplay. They can exist just because they make the game more fun.


  <M>


Manalishi edit: regarding the Leader rule. After some further thought, this might not be so bad. It does have the effect of somewhat leveling the playing field with regard to front line combat. It makes many more attacks a matter of pure unit vs unit. <M>