Matrix Games Forums

All the better.

To each their own, just wanted to state my opinion: All of these rules are too restrictive and complicated for me to ever agree to them.

I'd make a much shorter, much simpler list if you really need house rules. Seems a bit too much trying to just re-enact history.

Again, everyone does what they like - this won't be something you can gain consensus on. If rules are needed, the developers will put them in, is my feeling.

What about these two rules:

(a) No cooperation between American and British forces before Jan 14, 1942; this date marks the end of the ARCADIA conference, which stablished the Allied high command for the war.

(b) No cooperation between ABDA and American or British forces before Jan 10, 1942; this date marks the establishment of the ABDACOM command.

(c) No intentional attacks from ABDA forces on Japan before Jan 11, 1942 - that's when Japan declared war on the Netherlands. Of course, if Japan attacks first, that is void.

F.

While I applaud the efforts at realism, I do think you guys are going a little bit overboard. "No cooperation before such and such date", NO landings at such and such island. If we are going to get so historical, after turn 1 of the PBEM save yourself the trouble of playing and congratulate the Allied player on his inevitable victory. The whole point of a PBEM game is to try to do better. For the Japanese, this means try to take more ground, inflict more losses, etc. For the Allies, it means trying to hold on to the Phillippines and DEI for as long as possible, and f the enemy presents himself, counter attack. I can agree with some of the houserules such as 1 port attack on Dec. 7, or only X amount of landings on turn one, but if you guys impose too many rules, especially of an anal nature, instead of a game you are going to be playing a history lesson. Part of the fun is trying to do the unexpected, not being herded to do what had failed in real life.

Just my .02 USD.

then again my fanorite ho rule, Ron's forces alway must lose.. he must drink lots before his turn.. get stinkin drunk, he can never ever attack my unescorted shiops, either side

What I do is to let the other player decide which rules he agrees with, and which ones he doesn't. Then we throw them out. It is also by mutual agreement that if a rule sucks later on we will throw it out. Total flexibility.[;)]

So for those wanting to play WW2 science fiction, feel free to do so. I promise my friends and I won't come to your house and force you to use these rules at gunpoint.

Or better yet, an electrified mouse, that shocks the user when he violates a house rule.

The only rules TOPHAT and I have are as follows:

1. No night bombing except for naval attack with dedicated night aircraft. (To deal with bugs in this area.)

2. The Kwatang area forces must change to China command in order to go to China.

3. No JP activity in China for first two turns except for Hong Kong. (These 2 rules and a little of the next are to try and balance China out a bit.

4. JP gets one port attack on turn one and executes a "reasonable" historical first turn. Allied player can move existing task forces and China/Burma units only on turn one. Reasonable for me is that other than the at start invasions I keep all new TF's within one days travel of some JP base. I let TOPHAT decide how to apply that rule for his JP turn but we've communicated enough to have a feel for what that means.

Only rules 1 and 2 apply after the first two turns and they are fairly minor in impact. Everything else is free play and you can go and do whatever you want. If he wants to invade Karachi, Brisbane or LA early on thats just fine so long as they travel the bulk of the distance by normal movement and not teleport via the first turn rules.

The existing rules of the game allow free movement of BOTH SIDES on turn one. If players want a more historical turn which includes the PH attack, some negotiated rules are needed for the start. Other than that I think very little is needed.

if you guys impose too many rules, especially of an anal nature, instead of a game you are going to be playing a history lesson. Part of the fun is trying to do the unexpected, not being herded to do what had failed in real life.

The point of this is not to force anyone to re-create history, it is to rein in a little bit on the free-wheeling nature of the game, so that what takes place in PBEM looks and feels more like history than do some of the things we read about in this forum. It is a matter of personal taste.

What I do is to let the other player decide which rules he agrees with, and which ones he doesn't. Then we throw them out. It is also by mutual agreement that if a rule sucks later on we will throw it out. Total flexibility.

Exactly. What works for me and him might not work for me and you, or for you and him, and certainly won't work for you and that other guy. It's all about what kind of game you want to have. If there are things the system allows you to do, that you simply cannot live with, just draw a box around them. Anyway, this thread is not a prescription, it's a shopping list. Pick and choose, or throw it away.

greetings....

i followed this thread with great interest. Also, found very good ideas for house rules. But, keep in mind that to many house rules (especially house rules which "force" players to the "historical behaviour") are game-killers. Also to many house rules puts you in a danger to lose a WiTP friend.

I think the WiTP is great prouduct, the best and most real strategy ever already. For example, Japan player "must" attack in historical way (DEI, PI), Allied player has to plan his offensive early in the war very carefully... etc....

However, house rules are needed in certain casses - preventing from exploit game mechanic.

I use this house rules.
1. as japan stay in the air cover, landings are allowed on "non-historic" places, but my invasion fleet is set four hexes from enemy base (Mogami-tm)- TURN 1
2. No night TACTICAL air bombing (no port, airfield, land unit attack) except naval targets on the open sea.

I have enough friends.[:D]

Besides, if I haven't run them off in 35 years of wargaming, they probably won't leave now. Hard headed I guess.[;)]

Those are all good suggestions that you have. If it works for you then it's no problem.
As long as both sides agree, it will be a good game. No matter how each of you approach it.[8D]

Dont have many house rules but two i follow as Allied or request if playing as Japanese are:

1. Closure of the Manchurian road. (Loophole allows Kwangtung army to xfr to China without PP)
2. No early evac by Dutch, particularily ENG. Must at least wait till Japanese actually invade the possession in question.

ORIGINAL: Halsey

This was just a play balance thing that some other players have used. So subs couldn't stay at sea for a year at a time. It forces a player to rotate subs back and forth.

This is another reason which just fairly screams for morale and fatigue to be modelled for ship crews. Without it, players either leave their frigging ships at sea the entire darn game or are forced to adopt yet more house rules to get around the liberal game mechanics. Naval game with no sailors.[8|]

Interesting point.
Morale and fatigue is modeled in for aircraft and land units, but not for ship crews.
Not sure how house rules could solve that. The only thing that comes to mind is not being able to use any ships that have any sys damage after they return from a mission. Unfortunately damaged ships throw that idea way out of whack.

Sounds like an additional patching request is needed.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Or better yet, an electrified mouse, that shocks the user when he violates a house rule.

I actually like that idea..... [:D]

What do people think about taking the pursuit attack out of land combat?

Yeah or Nay?

ORIGINAL: Halsey

What do people think about taking the pursuit attack out of land combat?

Yeah or Nay?

I'd like to see retreat by full hex taken out. Hexes needed some sort of subdivision for Land Combat. We have movement point storage for LCUs moving on land but this is abandonned when a unit attacks/retreats. Perhaps a (-) movement point storage for retreating/falling back units. Units don't retreatout of hex until they retreat the required movement cost. Maybe even having a "moving point of contact" representing a forces territorial possession of a hex.

This kinda stuff needed to be done in Alpha. Can't see much changing at this point.

Speaking of house rules... Ron, are we game? What are we going to use for ours?

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Speaking of house rules... Ron, are we game? What are we going to use for ours?

I like many of the ones in the initial post in this thread. 12 and 13 can be skipped as subs could and did lay mines. Waste of a sub but hey, it was done when torpedoes were in short supply. Want to wait for either Lemurs! or Pry's PBEM only scenarios.

Am I still Japan? I have not bothered with Japan as yet so it will be a real task for me regarding industry/resource management. You played as Japan yet?

Here is a special house rule for Ron and Tankerace.

1.Each person must drink one shooter for every ship lost.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Speaking of house rules... Ron, are we game? What are we going to use for ours?

I like many of the ones in the initial post in this thread. 12 and 13 can be skipped as subs could and did lay mines. Waste of a sub but hey, it was done when torpedoes were in short supply. Want to wait for either Lemurs! or Pry's PBEM only scenarios.

Am I still Japan? I have not bothered with Japan as yet so it will be a real task for me regarding industry/resource management. You played as Japan yet?

Nope. Actually, I haven't played WiTP for about a month now. We can wait, or do whatever scenario, that's fine. I have been busting my *** on War Plan Orange, and then my oh so wonderful Political Theory professor dumped a paper on me. I hate college sometimes. I can take Japan if you'd like, and start fiddling with the production. Doesn't matter to me.