Page 5 of 11
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:40 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
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.
I'd rather be Allied as I have no experience with Japan much outside of UV. My turns will go much faster as Allied as a result. I'm easy as well, though.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:41 pm
by Tankerace
Hrm.... perhaps we should edit it, so its Britain vs America, and then we would be equally at home [:D]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:30 am
by TheElf
Found it! Thanks
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:33 am
by strawbuk
ORIGINAL: sveint
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.
Yep - as I posted before I'm too thick/too busy to rember which atoll I'm not suuposed to take until turn x
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:11 pm
by Halsey
Actually the only date driven house rule in this thread is the Salween River option. It will last only 5 weeks at most.
The only other rule that comes close is the evacuation rule. It is based on objective hexes.
The other date modifcations are doctrine driven. They all start at the first of the year.
No atolls mentioned at all.[;)]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:23 pm
by strawbuk
ORIGINAL: Halsey
Actually the only date driven house rule in this thread is the Salween River option. It will last only 5 weeks at most.
The only other rule that comes close is the evacuation rule. It is based on objective hexes.
The other date modifcations are doctrine driven. They all start at the first of the year.
No atolls mentioned at all.[;)]
I, Strawbuk, hearby apologise for paraphrasing, curtailing, strawman building, quoting out of context, and hooharing previous posts to mine own nefarious purposes. I furthermore promise to maintain (<certain trolls we know>)-like adherence to alleged rules of debate. (uh huh..)
But you knew what I meant. Simple=good. Complex (on top of Japanese aircraft production) = bad. And must be elsewhere that Apollo highlights units and eng stacking on atolls....
While I'm here rules should break down into three not two types that allow better pick'n'mix and allow for political freewheelers ('Burma first' policy for China) and the historical nutters.
Technical (troops on atoll limits)
Doctrine (no landings on site not air recced first)
Politics (philippines first)
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:40 pm
by Halsey
No problemo. If you don't like them, don't use them. Most of these additions are for players looking for a more historical flavor anyway.
Notice though, I haven't put every suggestion made into the list. I leave that up to the individual.[;)]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:00 am
by Halsey
bumpity bump
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:21 am
by Feinder
Knavey and I are a team, playing two separate games. One against U2, and another vs Kbullard and Ltfighter (team also). We actually don't have any house rules. I had said up front that no house rules meant that nobody would be upset if they ever got broken. Wasn't trying to be arrogant, just practical.
That being said, we're having a "good clean fight" in both our games. Nobody that I know of, is doing anything untoward anyways.
Don't get me wrong, these are some great ideas. I didn't even know about 70% of these thing being an issue to begin with.
If I really had to make a call tho, I'd say no attacks on Russia. That's gamey that you CAN'T do anything about. You CAN'T move Soviet units, so a concentrated attack into USSR (where you destroy everything piecemail) is gamey, and I'm quite sure I'd be very disappointed if I saw that happen in our own PBEM games.
-F-
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:31 pm
by Halsey
I think the majority of players are non-gamey. These additional rules have only been posted for those who feel that the mechanics of this game may be exploited.
They might also help newer players starting to play. If anything, a forewarning of what may happen if they are not familiar with this gaming system.[:)]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:15 pm
by Halsey
BUMP!
For you guys who just got WITP for Xmas.[;)]
Newcomers to this gaming system may want to check this thread.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:50 pm
by jwilkerson
A variation and a comment.
Variation - one house rule we've used since early UV - which has stuck. Non Day fighters flying other than strafe mission may not have altitude set at lower than 1000 feet times number of engines. However, note that WITP flak seems stronger and hence reason for this house rule may have been mitigated ( in UV low level bombing was effective but flak was not sufficiently effective you make one avoid it ).
Comment - Avoidance of invasions against base hexes ( non-dot ). Two issues, one a "counter-example" ( Guadalcanal ) ... and then poiting out that dots become non-dots after building a level 1 something .. hence the coast becomes unsuitable !? I'd avoid this one. If your opponent is doing something specific that seems wildly a-histirical or geographically impossible ( in the real world versus the WITP one ) ... then forbid the specific ... this one is too general.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:59 pm
by Halsey
That's what was meant. I have edited it to make it clearer. Thanks for the heads up.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:11 am
by jwilkerson
Because "Burma" technically includes Tavoy and Vickie's Point" ... you really want to know when they went against Moulmein and hence towards Rangoon. This was on 20 January 1942 ( page 412 Empires in the Balance, Willmott ), 15th Army ( Iida ) with 33 and 55 Divisions. However, it was not until 8 March 42 that Rangoon was captured. The the 56th Division was then landed as a ( Japanese ) reinforcement in Rangoon, and 18th Division came as well, bringing 15th Army up to 4 divisions. Lashio was captured ( by the Japanese ) on 29 April 42. Can't find exact date for Mandalay but probably between 12 and 20 May 42. Also no date for Mytchina ( the allies seem to have simply melted away in May. Same story for Akyab - no date for Japanese capture - but it was captured and held as were Mytchina and Lashio ( and Andaman too ).
In my current game ( scenario 16 - mid-March ) I am way short of resources to go after Akyab, Lashio or Mytchina ... and am "driving" on Akyab while holding Mandalay. But I still only have 33 and 55 divisions.
In the game ... the power of fortifications tends to make the IJ player want to move more quickly ... but you have to balance that against the requirement to "close out" your campaigns ... as you need the troops from one, the finish the other. So careful planning and execution are absolute requirements ... for my money any house rules restricting the Japanese advance in the early going are unecessary ... but that's my two cents.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:45 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Because "Burma" technically includes Tavoy and Vickie's Point" ... you really want to know when they went against Moulmein and hence towards Rangoon. This was on 20 January 1942 ( page 412 Empires in the Balance, Willmott ), 15th Army ( Iida ) with 33 and 55 Divisions. However, it was not until 8 March 42 that Rangoon was captured. The the 56th Division was then landed as a ( Japanese ) reinforcement in Rangoon, and 18th Division came as well, bringing 15th Army up to 4 divisions. Lashio was captured ( by the Japanese ) on 29 April 42. Can't find exact date for Mandalay but probably between 12 and 20 May 42. Also no date for Mytchina ( the allies seem to have simply melted away in May. Same story for Akyab - no date for Japanese capture - but it was captured and held as were Mytchina and Lashio ( and Andaman too ).
In my current game ( scenario 16 - mid-March ) I am way short of resources to go after Akyab, Lashio or Mytchina ... and am "driving" on Akyab while holding Mandalay. But I still only have 33 and 55 divisions.
In the game ... the power of fortifications tends to make the IJ player want to move more quickly ... but you have to balance that against the requirement to "close out" your campaigns ... as you need the troops from one, the finish the other. So careful planning and execution are absolute requirements ... for my money any house rules restricting the Japanese advance in the early going are unecessary ... but that's my two cents.
There are no terrain and weather restrictions hampering Japan in WITP. Good luck keeping anything up to Mandalay by Feb1/42.[8|]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:02 pm
by Halsey
This is to thank those of you who have decided that some of these are good rules to implement in your game.[&o][&o]
When this thread was started there was a considerable amount of negativity towards them. I see now that some players want to augment what this outstanding game already includes. Thanks![8D]
For those who dislike optional rules. Remember this. In boardgaming there are always optional rules. Go look at any of the old SPI games. They can be used, discarded or modified as seen fit by the players.[:'(]
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:53 pm
by Grotius
Thanks for the suggestions. One question: what is the bug (or "feature") that makes night bombing by "day" aircraft objectionable?
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:02 pm
by Halsey
Night bombing, until patch 1.40 was acutely over accurate. Some still say it is, even after the patch. In addition, night fighters are worthless, or will crash the game sometimes.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:29 pm
by Grotius
Thanks for the explanation. I did a search and found some of the other threads on night bombing. In my first little PBEM (Scenario 3), my Allied opponent indeed is night-bombing me every night, and I seem to have no defense. I tried setting a Zero squadron to night-CAP (Sweep with a 50% CAP setting) but it didn't contest the bombing raid. Still, the losses so far have been minimal.
So in a PBEM, what might be the "top five" house rules? I don't want to have to remember two dozen.
RE: Non-scenario specific house rules
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:35 am
by tsimmonds
ORIGINAL: Grotius
Thanks for the explanation. I did a search and found some of the other threads on night bombing. In my first little PBEM (Scenario 3), my Allied opponent indeed is night-bombing me every night, and I seem to have no defense. I tried setting a Zero squadron to night-CAP (Sweep with a 50% CAP setting) but it didn't contest the bombing raid. Still, the losses so far have been minimal.
So in a PBEM, what might be the "top five" house rules? I don't want to have to remember two dozen.
Here's my five.
1. ASW TF's. No more than 6 to 8 ships allowed. No Admirals allowed to command.
2. Night Bombing. City attacks (Manpower only) for non-game designated air units.
No restriction on night naval attacks.
11. GT1 landings, for the Japanese, must be within range of Japanese LBA recon. (Mogami rule?)(scenario specific)Play balance feature.
13. No invasions against hexes that do not contain a dot/base in them. Not every coastal hex was suitable for amph ops. Play balance feature.
14. LCU's belonging to the Kwangtung command may not leave Manchuria unless PP's are spent to change their command. Play balance feature.