small update to House Rules

[czerpak]

Gents,
I found myself guilty of cheating recently. IN PBEM I have with Marc (forgive, mate) I hitted one target twice from one HQ. Simple mistake (shall takea bomber from other HQ), but regarding rules I am a cheater, right?
So I think we might change this one rule as follows :
each target can be air attacked only twice in a given turn, regardless of the fact from how many HQ attacks are performed.
It is simple to check for both players, should make our live easier.
regards
Maciej

[matt.buttsworth]

good idea. two or three times and the other player can see what you have done.
I agree with 2 or 3. whatever everybody else does.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
I agree with 2 or 3. whatever everybody else does.

Yes, I suggested a max of 3 attacks against one target in another thread. It makes cheating easier to spot.

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

Originally posted by czerpak
Gents,
IN PBEM I have with Marc (forgive, mate) I hitted one target twice from one HQ.
Maciej

No Problemo . Your bombers hit well dug-in troops in swamps and mud, so no great damages :p. But you are right two attacks on specific target must be fair enough and easy to manage.

MARC

[Die Kriegerin]

My sorry, I don't agree with this house rule. Each turn is a week. A lot of sorties could be flown in that time span...Another rule is the so called "supply mules". If the HQ supply is of the same nationality, there souldn't be a problem. It happened all the time. Now using Rumanian, Hungarian, or Itialian HQ's to supply German forces, or each other, should be prohibited.

Jon

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by czerpak
Gents,
I found myself guilty of cheating recently. IN PBEM I have with Marc (forgive, mate) I hitted one target twice from one HQ. Simple mistake (shall takea bomber from other HQ), but regarding rules I am a cheater, right?
So I think we might change this one rule as follows :
each target can be air attacked only twice in a given turn, regardless of the fact from how many HQ attacks are performed.
It is simple to check for both players, should make our live easier.
regards
Maciej

Maciej

3 sounds good, check our game, i rarely use even that many.
The problem comes with attacking Moscow or Leningrad for example.
Many players are going to want to hit those targets with a lot of airstrikes and realistically
the germans could very well have done so.
How about maximum of 3 except on victory cities where up to 5 could be used.

Loki

[cimamc]

Can I view a complete list of the "house rules" you guys have come up with? I am about to play my first PBEM game and don't know all the intricacies. Thanks,

Mark

[czerpak]

Originally posted by cimamc
Can I view a complete list of the "house rules" you guys have come up with? I am about to play my first PBEM game and don't know all the intricacies. Thanks,

Mark

Sure you can.
You can DL them (and other staff) from Dave's Corner

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
My sorry, I don't agree with this house rule. Each turn is a week. A lot of sorties could be flown in that time span...Another rule is the so called "supply mules". If the HQ supply is of the same nationality, there souldn't be a problem. It happened all the time. Now using Rumanian, Hungarian, or Itialian HQ's to supply German forces, or each other, should be prohibited.

Jon

I dont agree either , but the one we have now is even worse.
I think you missed long discussions about airstrikes and mules, which occured some time ago, Jon. Mules, as they were used in the past, were abuse.
Maciej

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir


Maciej

3 sounds good, check our game, i rarely use even that many.
The problem comes with attacking Moscow or Leningrad for example.
Many players are going to want to hit those targets with a lot of airstrikes and realistically
the germans could very well have done so.
How about maximum of 3 except on victory cities where up to 5 could be used.

Loki

Nick,
I am not sticked to number, I'll agree with whatever is agreed here. Or we can leave it to players to agree before play.
Maciej

[czerpak]

Originally posted by CRAZY_HORSE007


No Problemo . Your bombers hit well dug-in troops in swamps and mud, so no great damages :p. But you are right two attacks on specific target must be fair enough and easy to manage.

MARC

Marc,
sure I didnt expect you to have any problem with that. I didnt do it in purpose, but It gave me idea of changing the rule.
Anyways, we are in unsecure game so possibilities of cheating are far beyond that. But we are adults, arent we ?
Maciej

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



Yes, I suggested a max of 3 attacks against one target in another thread. It makes cheating easier to spot.

Yes, it was originally your idea,Ed. Should have mentioned it, sorry.
regards
Maciej

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

Originally posted by czerpak


Marc,

we are adults, arent we ?
Maciej

Maciej,

Yes we are, regarding cheating. For the ability of gaming and wargaming, I try to hold my child mentality. Not take it very seriouly, just and art of amusement and relaxing apart from works and familiy life.

Marc

[czerpak]

Originally posted by CRAZY_HORSE007



Maciej,

Yes we are, regarding cheating. For the ability of gaming and wargaming, I try to hold my child mentality. Not take it very seriouly, just and art of amusement and relaxing apart from works and familiy life.

Marc

Ditto

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
My sorry, I don't agree with this house rule. Each turn is a week. A lot of sorties could be flown in that time span.

That's a good point. It's also our worst problem too. We know multiple individual flights can occur in a week, so we have to make a decision whether all forms of air attack are individual attacks or the *cumulative* result of multiple attacks.
Ground Support can occur mulitple times, so we can make a reasonable assumption that those are individiaul sorites. The special, player-directed, missions are a problem though, because bomber groups are allowed to only do one in a week. Because of that restriction, I view these special missions as the cumulative result of multiple sorties. If we make that assumption, then we have to wonder how many sotires over one tartget are possible in a week, Is it likely that 4 or 5 separate strike packages can *each* fly multiple sorties over the same target in a week? I belive there must be a limit somewhere, where exactly the limit should be I don't know, but an unlimited number of sorties over one target by multple strike packages is a real stretch of the imagination for me.

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



I belive there must be a limit somewhere, where exactly the limit should be I don't know, but an unlimited number of sorties over one target by multple strike packages is a real stretch of the imagination for me.

Ed,

I was thinking why not simply not use interdiction mission, and put your bombers on ground status. Then no more discussion on that subject. For me air mission in Wir is an abstraction, it reflect the whole week activity not a particular mission on a particular target. If we put on groung mission it reflect well that concept.
What do you think about that?

Marc

[CRAZY_HORSE007]

And it reduce too, the air superiority of the german side wich is I believe a good point for the balance of the game. It reduce too, the sequence and time of order play , thus our ability to have more game in activity.

Marc

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by CRAZY_HORSE007


Ed,

I was thinking why not simply not use interdiction mission, and put your bombers on ground status.

Yes, thats basically what I do when playing solo, I let the bombers do their work during Ground Support. Its a good idea if you can get your opponent to agree, but I suspect there will be resistance to this as a default House Rule.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



Yes, thats basically what I do when playing solo, I let the bombers do their work during Ground Support. Its a good idea if you can get your opponent to agree, but I suspect there will be resistance to this as a default House Rule.

Your suspicion is just right, Ed
I see it other way around - I'd rather switch off Ground Support. I like to have as much control as possible. And for me at least half of the fun comes for air battles ( sometimes I have impression that ground combat only supports my pilots). And this wonderfull moments, when you order bombers to attack without any escort, you did the CLICK and wait if there would be any enemy fighters on CAP....
Ok, I went a bit to far, I suppose
Maciej

[Josans]

Reading again an old article of The Europa Magazine about the Air War in the East makes me think twice about this thread.

The Luftwaffe was not prepared (at least as many people thinks) to do a close support of the armies in a great scale. To the finals of 1941 the Luftwaffe sorties were in support of the army in a high percentage. The Stukas and the fighters-bombers were perfect to air close support but the level bombers were ill-prepared for this missions when this missions became the main ones for the Luftwaffe.

To reflect this I think that level bombers strenght (load) should be halved on interdictions attacks.

Also, the germans pilots had more fear of the soviet AA than the fighters (and I think more losses) so why not increase the intrinsic AA of the soviets divisions (at least Mechanized and Guards) ?

Two points that could help to stop the Luftwaffe onslaught.


So what do you think about it? or Im crazy evil spaniard for these ideas:p


Josan.