Matrix Games Forums

What are the house rules you play by either personally against the AI or against an opponent?

I try to stay historical as much as possible to my knowledge anyway.

Mine are-
I keep USN / Marine Air attached to ground bases in SOPAC/ no SWPAC.
No Marines on Carriers unless they're hitching a ride somewhere.
Austrailian fighters are limited to SWPAC.
If a ground unit arrives at SOPAC or SWPAC they stay in that theatre.

With the knowledge last week that someone was using IJN night attacks that would definately go on my list of house rules. I'd like to hear some others if anyone would be inclined. Thanks ...[:)]

hi cpt. sulu.

this night attacks kill you. holding PM is very important to the allies and when you can not do anything against 120 val and 130 kates devouring supply at PM and destroying the AF, that has a huge huge impact at your strategy as the allied. in my last game, i had a nearly 1:1 lose ratio in day air combat (my opponent lost around 230 kates+vals, 240 zeros and 100 bettys+nells until october 1942..most of them in day combat) as allied but the night attacks caused most of the aircraft lose (on the ground) with sometimes 37! aircrafts destroyed in one attack.

i even made some tests with 2 NF-groups at PM against massive carrier night attacks but even with this radar equiped NF, the japs lost only 2-3 aircrafts on they attack. the same thing happend when i had 70 FB flying night cap and they only shoot down 1-2 japs planes.

in my next game (i would like to play the allied), i would have only 2 house rules:

-no carrier night attacks (land based night attacks are totaly ok and also realistic!).
-no corsairs on CV (fair is fair).

beside that, anything goes for me.

those are all very good. I usually to the SOPAC/SWPAC also, but out of habbit, not house rule. I generally do the same as Japan, with the 8th army taking from Gili-Gili West, and the Combined fleet units taking the islands. The usual exception being that if the US is putting a lot of troops there or PM, I will send one or both of the combined fleet divisions that way.

Another common one i have seen a lot is to limit how low B-17's can operate. Usually not below 10k feet. As for the night carrier operations, I had never even considered that before, but I agree, that is going on my list from this point on

I would also say no land based F4F units on carriers

PT boats limited to 4 per TF and can't be mixed in with other types of ships.  They could follow another TF, but not be a part of it.  The USN operated PTs in 3s on patrols.

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.

As I noted elsewhere, if you want to restrict the USN from using Corsairs on their CV/CVL/CVEs, then the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs also. Fair is fair.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs.

which one do you have in mind?

Good points all I will take these into account in my games going forward.
 

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.

Todd, I thought the B-17s at Midway were operating between 9,600 and 20,000 feet depending on the sortie. Asking your opinion, would there be that much difference in a B 17 attack from say 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 feet?

This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.

Half of that statement is manifestly incorrect. US 4ebs were as good at hitting stationary targets, even from 20K feet as, for example, IJN Kates (who often level-bombed from 12-18k feet).

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

ORIGINAL: Nomad

the Japanese player should be restricted to not using LB, carrier capable, Aircraft on his CV/CVL/CVDs.

which one do you have in mind?

Any of the Zeros, Vals, Kates that are not attached to a ship but to Combined Fleet and arrive as Land Based reinforcements.

How do most players feel about operating carrier air from land bases?

It seems to cause a big stir when it happens in games with some forum posters vociferously against it.

Both sides did this in the real war, but not as a matter of doctrine or for extended periods.

I KNOW the AI does it as it is known to come down to PM from Rabaul with 200 zeroes when it only has 75 land based zeroes.

ORIGINAL: tocaff

PT boats limited to 4 per TF and can't be mixed in with other types of ships.  They could follow another TF, but not be a part of it.  The USN operated PTs in 3s on patrols.

Allied 4E bombers can't attck shipping below 20K feet.  This is to reduce their effectiveness sine in RL they couldn't hit moving targets and only by luck a stationary target the size of a ship.

That seems excessive Todd. They operated at 15000 historically. Are you saying to bump them up another 5000 feet to offset ahistorical bombing accuracy?

I think you only called for a minimum altitude of 12000 feet for them on the copy of the house rules you sent me.

I'd exempt the PB4Ys from that rule in any event.

The altitude for B-17s is not the point, it's to prevent them from being super weapons in UV.  Historically the Norden bombsight wasn't near what it was cracked up to be so a level bomber (4E), such as the B-17, was a carpet bombing weapon for land based targets, not moving ones.  For 1 bomb out of a stick to hit a docked ship would be a minor miracle, but not in UV.  The rule goes deeper and does, to an extent, exempt the PB4Y.

All LBA units, even if they fly a naval type plane should be restricted to land basing.  Marine F4Fs, SBDs, TBFs and F4Us on CVs?  No way!

Naval air on a land base?  Why not if the CV is crippled and being repaired in Tokyo or PH?  As a way of keeping the planes in the game and hiding the CVs to deny VP opportunities to your opponent?  GAMEY

all good points ToCaff, although allied land based air, especially b-25's were killers against shipping when it got in range.

There's always been a chicken or the egg argument concerning B-17s. Were they poor anti shipping weapons because they were inherently flawed as such or did their limited numbers and few opportunities not allow for an improvement in tactics and proficiency? The fact that PB4Ys became excellent ship killers would argue that B-17s would have gotten better at attacking shipping irl if production had been diverted to SwPac or SoPac and the IJN had been stupid enough to park it in range.

Gamewise uber Betties cancel out uber B-17s in naval attacks. If you don't want to lose shipping either protect it or don't send it w/i range of lba.

The only air related house rule I ever played with was no F4Us on carriers. Maybe something about night attacks as well.

B-17s conducted "precision" bombing in Europe.  The area surrounding the actual target was considered a hit!  I don't know what the actual radius was.  B-17s couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside!  Now, if they had been a British plane they might've been fitted to carry fish.

Don't tell that to the crew from the Mutsuki.[:D]

ORIGINAL: tocaff
Naval air on a land base? Why not if the CV is crippled and being repaired in Tokyo or PH? As a way of keeping the planes in the game and hiding the CVs to deny VP opportunities to your opponent? GAMEY

Historically I believe the Wasp's aircraft operated from Henderson Field for awhile after she was sunk. VS-7, in particular, was a crack squadron of Wasp's SBD's that took a heavy toll on Japanese shipping during the Guadalcanal campaign.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Don't tell that to the crew from the Mutsuki.[:D]

Murphy had an eagle eye trained on that ship.