Question about house rule

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Question about house rule

Post by LoBaron »

Actually this thread reminded me of an old idea I had, which basically was that all units arrive under restricted command. Then you allow, or better force, the player to create new
command HQs using PP, and afterwards unrestrict and assign units to those commands further using PP.

What you currently pay for is a deviation from the historical path, with the modification you could entirely create your own command structure from the start.

It could be an interesting mod, but balancing would be extremely hazardous.
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Question about house rule

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Actually this thread reminded me of an old idea I had, which basically was that all units arrive under restricted command. Then you allow, or better force, the player to create new
command HQs using PP, and afterwards unrestrict and assign units to those commands further using PP.

What you currently pay for is a deviation from the historical path, with the modification you could entirely create your own command structure from the start.

It could be an interesting mod, but balancing would be extremely hazardous.

It would be an interesting mod, but I don't think it would work without extensive EXE changes. The reason being you'd need variable PP award levels by era, at least for the Allies. You'd need a whole lot in 1942 to survive, and next to nothing in 1945 once the OOB was on-map and baked in.
The Moose
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Question about house rule

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If the opponent is paying full PPs what's the complaint?

Not that I see evidence of it here but regarding single ship task forces

I'm not a big fan of the single ship TF as I've witnessed first hand (over many turns) to what an abundance of them does to the game engine. Every game has it's own set of rules but I view it as fair if the opponent is using single ships to escape the Japanese during the first few weeks but if it's an operational procedure to head north with supply, use numbers of them to confuse or make opponents use up sorties and ammo, and/or saturate the area with one point singe ship task forces to confuse the game engine is really not someone I'd enjoy playing.



+1

I like your distinction. Ships fleeing an area for the purpose of making an undetected escape is perfectly fine. But the other instances you point out - 100% gamey.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Question about house rule

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.

+1

Sounds like you, Sulu Sea and I should form an anti-single-ship-TF club!
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”