Matrix Games Forums

I want to start a new game as Japanese with RHS-EBO.

House Rules:
1. No allied 4e unter 10.000 ft
2. No allied ASW group with more than 6 ships
3. Not more than 3 PT per group and not more than 2 groups per base(one PT has the firepower of 3 in RHS)
4. No cutting off of enemy units with fragments. Whole armies shouldn't be cut off and forced to flee into the woods or even surrender with just a couple of men.
5. No unfair exploiting of game mechanics. So no sucidal paradrops on bases to avoid enemy retreats, sucidal attacks on enemy bases to burn supplies etc...
6. Phillipinean and Dutch Units mustn't leave their country. I am very bad in land warfare so I must insist on this to weaken the enemy at least a bit in the beginning. With the huge political points, all PI and DEI units may be evacuated by a Sir Robin player...
7. The RHS rules for ground forces count. So no NZ militia off their homlands, no extra chinese units off china, no Austrian Units (except AIF) off Austriala etc...
8. No aerial mining. (Can't be intercepted)

Soviet Union:
As the Soviet Union is aktive, there have to be special rules about it:
9. No fighter/fighter-bomber units with more than 20% CAP. This should simulate that there can't be high alter all the time
10. Soviet ships mustn't leave their harbours before there's war. If you want to regarrison land forces by sea (i.e. to Okha) it has to be announced that the ships aren't attacked. If you don't announce ship movements, attacks on your ships are your fault and musn't be retaliated.
11. Sovied planes mustn't fly naval search units with more than 3 hex range.
12. Soviet Union musn't attack Japan before 8/45 with one exception: If Allied troops entered the Home Islands or Manchuko with force (more than 3 bases conquered), the Soviet Union may try to get its part of the cake, too. But even then not before 1/45.
Generally: The Soviet Union is in danger to collaps, so offensive actions against Japan are absolutly unrealistic!

Allowed:
1. Sub invasions
2. Invasions off bases. (It brings enormous logistical problems, but if you like it, do it! )
3. Paradrops off bases. Why not cutting off a supply line by dropping paras on it? It was historically done, so why not here?

One turn per day, on weekend more if possible.

Turn one:
No restrictions for both sides...

Seperate AARs would be fine, especially some which aren't entered by the opponent.

German speeking opponents prefered, but not necessary. Interested? PM me!


Additional HRs:
13. No Levelboming under 3000ft before 1/43

Technical comments:

1) On bombers - note that in EBO (and all EOS family) there are Japanese 4 engine bombers. They might well have operated at exactly the same norms re altitude as the Betty's, Nells, and Ki-67s did - because the reason they went for 4 engines were range load related. But it might not be fair to restrict one side and not the other side.

2) On bombers - note that there is a problem with very low altitude bombing - it is too accurate - and this is not related to the number of engines on the plane. It might be better to adopt a convention like Scot and I did in UV - don't bomb at very low altitudes before a date in 1943 - when skip bombing was invented (and could have been imitated even if the Japanese didn't invent it - about which I don't think we know). We never used any horizontal bombers below 3000 feet unless the mission was ASW- or late in the war skip bombing was intended.

3) ASW in the new RHS is very difficult. Restricting ship count is not clearly a good idea. Nor should it be restricted to one side. Before now I often used ASW groups of 10 - 12 units as Japan - and if I never saw any Allied ones - they should have been using them. You now need to consider that there is only one shot per pattern - and that shot is less effective than it once was. To that, add that in EBO Japanese ideas re ASW are fully implemented - including widespread use of ahead throwing weapons - and a kind of DE that might be effective (except code makes any Japanese ship less effective at ASW even if it is otherwise identical). Anyway - if a player has 30 ships - and divides them into 5 TFs of 6 - I am not sure he is going to be worse off than with one TF of 30 ships; he might be better off. Why not let the players decide - experiment - and do what they wish?

4) Units fragment when moving by ship or air. If a unit is at sea - and some of the ships carrying it are lost - it is possible only a fragment remains. Do you wish to imply that such a unit cannot be used any more? It is not clear that results in more realistic play - since a real unit fragment might be used for an appropriate mission. And LOC cutting is probably one of the best of all possible missions - happened a great deal in the Port Moresby/Buna campaign - to such an extent it was not clear who was on whose LOC? We do not come close to the detail permitting this to be done on an operational scale anywhere nearly as often as it should be done. Nor are all hexes really large in area - some represent narrow coastal bands or even points - some have passes in mountains (See Baguio/Balinta Pass - a hex in which there are literally thousands of points where a few men could stop any size force - for a while - where the roads hang off cliffs and cross bridges over swift rivers at the bottoms of steep revenes. Even in the Gobi desert - what matters is the few points that have water and roads - so the contest is remarkably small unit oriented. The vast PTO is mainly an area where the contest is over bases - what is in between is not often critical. We have a poor land combat system in which skill is not a very large factor - only basic competence (don't expect much of demoralized, disrupted and out of supply units). Then too - in RHS - unlike other mods or stock - you have vast numbers of "pre fragmented" land units - tiny units INTENDED for LOC cutting -- or defending. This proposal more or less misses the point of why RHS has them - making the use of such a unit legal if it is stand alone - but not if it is part of a bigger one.

ad1:
The allies aren't allowed to do kamikaze missions, nore do their forces hold out in a base even after it is conquered...
4e Bombers are extremely expensive in production, while the allied player gets them for free in extremely growing numbers, so when one 4e costs several times more than a small one, is it needed to force the Japanese to use it not with highest efficiancy, if he wants? In later phases of the game, the allied AAA is that strong, that flying them low is suicide anyway. I don't think it's unfair to limit only the Allied here as they have huge advanteges nearly everywhere...

ad2:
That's a good idea. So no level bombing under 3000ft before 1/43

ad3:
My experience until now was, that the allied asw is very efficient, while the Japs hardly sink one. If this has changed now (one must test it), such a rule is no longer needed, indeed

ad4
Where have you read: "fragments have to be put out of game" or "it's forbidden to use fragments any longer?"
In witp, a single support squad - so  a handfull of men can block the road for 30 divisions. if there's 1 support in every possible escaperoute, even 50 divisions will surrender - which is a misuse of game mechanics and totally ahistoric.

Apart from that, I don't think this is the right place to discuss such things - as it isn't a "HR discussion" but a "Opponent wanted" thread. If you have more proposals for changing HR, do it per PM or eMail, please [:)]

The proposals made by el cid again and your answers are interesting for every one i think, especially for someone like me who is always looking for more realistic HR.
So, why should you do it secretely?

For the reason I already wrote in the last break. I'm seeking an opponent here and are not interested in discussing HRs with persons who aren't interested in playing with me.
My experience shows, that every opponent will say "one more HR" and "But not this HR" anyway. This HRs are here to show possible opponents what kind of game I seek and not to create an universal set of houserules.

Since we are playing - I think it is fair to say I am willing to play.

But my basic attitude is

house rules should be limited to structural matters where not having them is clarly a big deal -

for example the special rules needed to address shipping channels in RHS are not really optional

in general I like as few as possible - and I tend to favor a loose general case - if it seems to you
wrong - don't do that.

I have yet to find a big problem in a game - the one possible exception being our first game - when
you felt justified moving barefoot Philippine colonial troops to New Guinea - and similar things - which
would never have been considered useful - never mind politic. But note none of the issues were a big
deal - not even when your Russian subs got lost and raided Japanese waters.