Page 2 of 2
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:34 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Connfire
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Connfire
AW1Steve,
Very well said. Do you have a favorite short scenario?
No, not really. If I had to pick , I'd say Guadalcanal because it's the longest.
All the short ones are good , and they are generally very tough. That's because they were designed as learning devices , and the gentlemen who designed them know that you learn more from a tough uphill slug then you do from a cakewalk. Except the ones designed by Terminus. His are tough because I think he's a closet sadist! [:D] (Just kidding T!).
I strongly recommend playing each and every short scenario , then play it again from the other side. And if you are a newbie , ask you opponent to do a "mirror game". That's where you have two ,consecutive games going , but you play opposite sides at the same time. THAT way you'll really learn. Fast. [:D]
Thanks for the info, that actually is very helpful to me. I bought the game during the sale - been playing WPO for years but of course WITP-AE is in a league of its own. Played Coral Sea and Thousand Mile War as both sides so far. Right now I'm playing Guadalcanal for the first time as Allies - I'm really getting hooked. And you're right, I am learning a lot about the game mechanics in the smaller scenarios.
I think one reason I'm drawn to this topic, and what you said, is because my longtime opponent and I always played with house rules. But these were to cover some of the flaws in WPO. Most of these flaws I don't see in WITP-AE, though I'm reading that other players have other rules for other reasons. I haven't advanced to the point where I can make such a decision. However, I couldn't agree more with your emphasis on mutual trust, especially if you're making what can be a multi-year commitment to a game.
From the sounds of it, you and your opponent should be fine without anything in the way of house rules [;)]. If anything were to come up, I'd expect that in such a long gaming relationship that the two of you would be able to talk it out!
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:06 pm
by catwhoorg
Pretty much the only house rule I would consider (after turn 1) is the pay PP's to cross national borders.
Turn 1 needs to be played fair, such the Japanese player doesn't take advantage of knowing exactly where the US carriers are.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:20 pm
by Boomer Redleg
Thanks to everyone that replied. Are there any benefits attached to bases and air units being in the same headquarters?
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:25 am
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Boomer Redleg
Thanks to everyone that replied. Are there any benefits attached to bases and air units being in the same headquarters?
Not really. Not the way it worked IRL, but it's a limitation of the game engine. HQs are interchangeable and a fungible commodity.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:40 am
by Lokasenna
Air units in the same HQ seem to coordinate better.
Otherwise I have noticed nothing.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:06 pm
by Connfire
Thanks for all of the feedback, and for answering questions, some of which I never even asked, on this thread. I now feel more comfortable with WITP-AE style PBEM, and my longtime opponent and I have started our first in the Coral Sea scenario.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:11 pm
by jmalter
I've read some past posts, that gave me to think that the base-hex's assigned HQ would improve aircraft-availability percentages, if the air-squadrons were subordinate to the base-hex's chain-of-command.
Haven't been able to validate this in my game-play. My Allied 4EBs (late-war B-24s & B-29s) are getting 'orrid repair action at large airbases that have huge overage of Aviation Support devices, as well as bulk AirHQ support.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:37 am
by PetrOs
I am playing my first ever PBEM now, Scenario 2 as Allies (yes, i know, masochistic a bit
), and I did not know the opponent before. We have no gameplay bound house rules at all. Only thing was, that as we had no historical 1st turn and no surprise, to play fair and realistic first turn, with no through-the-DEI landings (Palembang, Balikpapan, Surabaya, etc) with "fast" groups. And so far, I enjoyed it.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:09 pm
by topeverest
PetrOs,
sounds like you have house rules to me. if you dont know...Allied mass by summer 43 will route any empire advances even if you have made terrible mistakes or had horrible luck.
I like playing out the game and allowing the empire to do their best without restrictions. It's the allies that need to be restrained. no 4e naval, night air, points to move divisions across countries, etc. These all have the impact of slowing down the allies and extending the game.
Auto victory is a rough tool to measure if the empire did its best. I encourage any allied player to play on even if auto victory is achieved.
Always thought playing parallel games and measuring relative speed to victory using same rules is a very good way to play.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:04 am
by Mike McCreery
Playing one with pay PP for crossing and limited plane altitude.
I prefer little to no house rules because then you do not have to worry about breaking them.
Most house rules seem to be in place to defeat tactics that are difficult or annoying to counter.
Less is better IMO.
RE: Playing without house rules?
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:11 pm
by Dili
It depends many exist because engine limitations or realism you want to play like putting other floatplanes other than Glen in submarines or dubious result coding like ubber naval search capabilityies that Glens have in submarines - offset by the dreadful port recon -