Matrix Games Forums

I am interested to hear what PBEM and Multi-player House Rules people would suggest. Maybe we can create a short Master List of house rules for players who want things to be somewhat realistic (if not actually 'historical').

To give you a few examples, I will start off with:

HOUSE RULES for WiTE PBEM

#1. Between Turns 1 and 2 all Soviet formations (except Cossack and Elite armour) are too shocked to try to cut off Axis panzer spearheads. After turn 2, anything goes.

#2. Airborne units should never be used to assault a major urban area unless they have been reached by ground forces - they would lack the capacity in reality.

#4. No Soviet amphibious invasions before Spring 1942 and then only along the original June '41 Soviet coastlines.

#5. No Soviet amphibious invasions on the Rumanian coast before Spring 1944, unless Odessa has been recaptured by the Soviet player.

Any other ideas?

I don't like any of those. Many of these are quite ahistorical, btw.

Well, do you have any alternatives to suggest?

"I am interested to hear what PBEM and Multi-player House Rules people would suggest."

You're basically giving the Panzers four free turns of movement - that's not good. I wouldn't even think about accepting that as a Russian player.

Gents, I asked for suggestions. I haven't "given" anyone anything - it's a discussion. I listed some ideas as examples.

Do you have some suggestions of your own that we can discuss? Or do you object to having any House Rules for PBEM?

There is the potential for "Cheesy" amphibious invasions so I would agree with most of those.

The game already prevents units <25% from being combat effective, as they will probably be in "unready" state, so additional rules are not necessary. Players may have to put unready units in the line in dire emergencies, but they rout when attacked.

I haven't played any PBEM games yet, but given the massive scope and complexity of the game, I would be disinclined to use any house rules which make things even more complicated...

For example, I just don't see German amphibious landings as being that big of a threat...

To Anorak - Thanks - makes sense to me

Hi. If you play WiTP AE PBEM most players will send you a much longer list of House Rules. WiTP is at least as complex, probably more complex.

There might need to be discussion about the 7th Flieger(airborne) division too. I captured Rostov with it and everyone told me it was cheesy.

Hmmm... not so convinced myself. the decision not to use airborne or air landing units after the losses in Crete was optional and could have been changed at any time. If you can fly them in, supply them and relieve them, why shouldn't you use them?

I would draw the line at suicide missions to capture Moscow etc. It's got to make 'historical' sense

Or maybe airborne units should never be used to assault a major urban area? Bridges and rail junctions are their main objective anyway...

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

There might need to be discussion about the 7th Flieger(airborne) division too. I captured Rostov with it and everyone told me it was cheesy.

It was, but I still wouldn't insist on a house rule.

Frankly, Rostov should have had a garrison. By that point in the game I have divisions digging in on any city within 100 miles of the front.

That drop wasn't even a big deal. It got scattered within a few turns so it wasn't that big of a threat anyways.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

There might need to be discussion about the 7th Flieger(airborne) division too. I captured Rostov with it and everyone told me it was cheesy.

It was, but I still wouldn't insist on a house rule.

Frankly, Rostov should have had a garrison. By that point in the game I have divisions digging in on any city within 100 miles of the front.

I think time will tell whether House rules are needed. I know Andy (Sabre21)tried to "Break" the game doing lots of cheesy stuff like Bombing Ploesti(sp?) on every turn with the long range bombers, for example, but I don't think the game broke, and he lost a ton of bombers.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Hi. If you play WiTP AE PBEM most players will send you a much longer list of House Rules. WiTP is at least as complex, probably more complex.

Yikes...

Note to self: don't play WiTP PBEM...

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Hi. If you play WiTP AE PBEM most players will send you a much longer list of House Rules. WiTP is at least as complex, probably more complex.

Yikes...

Note to self: don't play WiTP PBEM...

Don't play PBEM with players who want to redesign the game.

For myself, I am perfectly happy to play this game as is with no rules changes.

If one side or another feels it needs a handicap, then use the actual tools the game provides to handicap them. These are plenty strong.

No house rules are needed. We already have a nearly 400 page rulebook, read it and live by it.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
#1. Between Turns 1 and 4 all Soviet formations (except Cossack and Elite armour) are too shocked to try to cut off Axis panzer spearheads. After turn 4, anything goes.

I am not sure what do you mean by "too shocked to try cut off Axis panzer spearheads".

Do you mean that the SU player can't maneuver to escape (potential) encirclement? I see a problem with both players agreeing at an exact and fair definition for "potential encirclement".

If you mean that attacks aren't allowed, well, if I were playing the Axis I would love to see those counterattacks coming my way. It's much easier to rout the disorganized, demoralized and undersupplied Red Army forces in the open than having to dislodge them from fortified positions (which isn't that hard either).

My opinion - and I am just an amateur not a military historian specialized on the Eastern Front - is that the big encirclements achieved by the Axis during the war had its cause, more than in orders coming down from the Kremlin, in one (or more) of the following:

* Careless deployment. Modeled by the at-start deployments in the scenarios and the fact that any player can make a mistake deploying his units.
* The Wehrmacht had practical knowledge of mobile warfare (Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb, Balkans) and there was the will (sometimes with scarce means) to implement it. Meanwhile the Red Army only had the theories developed during the early 30s and abandoned after the purges, the very limited experience of the Spanish Civil War and the victories over the Japanese at Khalkin Gol. I consider this aspect to be mostly modeled by experience, morale and leader ratings.
* The fact that if you have the initiative you choose the schwerpunkt, not the defender. And you just can't plan for anything a crafty and creative player can devise.

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

No house rules are needed. We already have a nearly 400 page rulebook, read it and live by it.

That's kind of what I was thinking. At least in the campaign games, I would think that most gamey tactics would be pretty much irrelevant in the big scheme of things, and that the campaign will be won by the person with the better tactics and--probably more important--better understanding of the rules.