House rules

[BaitBoy]

I am looking to get into a PBEM Game and was wondering what the most common house rules are?

Thanks

[Nomad]

It will depend on who you ask. My answer is none are necessary, although an understanding about turn 1 is needed.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: BaitBoy

I am looking to get into a PBEM Game and was wondering what the most common house rules are?

Thanks

As Nomad said, none are really needed. However there are two common one:-

Paying PPS to leave your command area for restricted LCU. Ie. Restricted Indian troops can't leave India. Another way to look at is if you can't load them onto a ship or a plane you gan't move them out of the area. The problem is the game will let you, were as it prevents you loading them onto a ship or plane unless you pay PPs.

No 4e naval bombing below 10000ft. Bombings to accurate.

[Maallon]

+1 on the PPS and no 4e Naval Bombing rules

There are a lot of House Rules out there and they mostly depend on what kind of game you want to play.
Some House Rules are designed to enforce a certain playstyle, some are there because the author was annoyed by some of the mechanics of the game and didn't want to deal with them
and some are there to enforce a more historical gameplay overall(though this probably can be counted to enforcing a certain playstyle).
Personally I think that every game mechanic and strategy in the game can be countered one way or another so restricting game mechanics is really something you should only do if you really just don't want to deal with it and it would keep you from playing the game otherwise.

But if it is your first PBEM I wouldn't worry too much about House Rules except for the two mentioned above.
Just make sure that you and your opponent are looking for the same type of game you want to play.
This is really the most important part: Talk to your opponent for a bit before starting the game, so you can make sure you both are on the same level.
And if he wants certain House Rules enforced, you can decide for yourself if you want to engage in such a type of game or look for a different opponent.

[BBfanboy]

+1 on getting to know your opponent. Most of the games that are abandoned after only a few months of game play are because one side or the other did not have the fortitude to take a hard loss of a battle when there was a whole lot of war remaining to play catch-up or forestall-and-delay. The most mature players rise to the challenge of playing with a handicap.

And sometimes players who are just in it for the fun will allow their opponent a mulligan when his mistakes cost him dearly. You need to know if you are both playing for fun, both playing for the long run or incompatible on either count.

[AtParmentier]

The most important house rules are for the first turn. As no rules allow allied players to move any ship, thus negating any surprise. This would mean most attacks by KB on the first turn would be negated.
Other rules that might be needed is the prevention of searching for carriers in the first turn, even if the allies are allowed to move their carriers, it's rather easy for Japan to catch them (known initial location, limited coverage).
No rules at all allow for anything. Some rules hurt both sides, others hurt one side more. If people are not careful and the rules aren't written correctly, it could mean issues later on.
Limiting the rules to a minimum fixes most issues that can happen when different interpretations or unintended results happen.

Some house rules are outdated, because the issue was patched out.
Main rules in this category:
- limiting 4 engined bombers naval attack below 10k feet.
- Limiting Japanese artillery to 2 independent units per division.

Rules against somethings that might be considered gamey, like the use of small units to surround units and force surrenders might be needed, but this can be fixed by having a good talk.
'Gamey' things like using multiple small cargo ships to soak torpedoes from carriers, or magical movement of planes (sending planes from squadrons into the pool and then getting them into another squadron) should be talked about.

[ITAKLinus]

I would say that it comes to the "shape" we want to give to the game.

Personally, I am quite open to putting a decent amount of HRs but it's up to everyone to decide. I have nothing against playing a "no hr game" for example.


Broadly speaking, the more you and your opponent know about the game and the less HRs are needed since you can solve everything through a good honest talk. When the opponent knows less than you, it's a mess. He will for sure do gamey things in order to compensate and pretend they are "historical" bull@hit. Had many experiences of this.
Including my first PBEM in which my opponent (a seasoned player with several PBEMs done) was quite upset he was losing in '42 and he openly cheated the HRs bringing chinese units in Burma.
Then he started the talk about the fact he paid the PPs and that "Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!" and bla bla bla thinking I couldn't / wouldn't check the fact those units couldn't have been purchased from China (permanently restricted).

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.


So. What I mean is that some brain is needed by both sides and the less one of the two ones wants to f@ck the other one, the better.



I find a very fundamental rule the one about paying PPs to "free" units from restricted HQs. That's perhaps the only HR over which I tend not to compromise.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.

I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.

It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

... pretend they are "historical"....

"Chinese went in burma! it's historical anyway!"

He still roams on the forum here sometimes. Nickname: Longstrett.

I agree with Longstreet, the Chinese, historically, deployed a significant force to Burma. They also sent a significant force to India where it was housed, fed, equipped and trained, by the US Army (under Stilwell's overall tutelage), to fight in Burma. So he wasn't pretending, it wasn't bull.


Edit: I just noticed you said this in another thread:

I am always quite open to give my perspective and "explain" (as much and as good as I can) something that is immediately labelled as cheating and so on.

It sounds to me like Longstreet tried to do that.

There are a couple of Chinese corps that can be bought out to be eligible to go elsewhere. The ones ITAKLinus was objecting to were the permanently restricted ones that historically never left China.

[jdsrae]

I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma that are perm restricted in game.
I did some inter web research on this a few years back so will try to find the details of which ones later.
It isn’t many, and they didn’t venture too far into Burma, but there were a few.
For some reason [;)] there isn’t much history available on Nationalist units on the inter web...

Here's a summary. The red borders are units that are perm restricted in game.
In 1942 the 66th Army moved to Lashio and Mandalay as a reserve force.

From what I've read, in 1944/45 Y Force units only advanced as far as Lashio, so maybe only a few of the restricted units shown here assigned to Y Force crossed into Burma.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma that are perm restricted in game.

Yes, that could be it.

[Lokasenna]

Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.

Thanks for the reminder this is something I want to try out.. with 4Es. While 2E ARMY bombers do not hit much when it comes to ships even from 3k or so and somewhat trained eg. the Dutch ones. 4E bombers have more chances to hit with more bombs and are more durable. I did not see many hits from 4Es also from 3k - 12k for example. With eg. 50 nav bombing skill (this is April 42 and not many bomber pilots are trained fully up).

I had some good experience with B25s not only the "attack bombers" but also normal level bombers at 100 and 1000 ft. I noted on the receiving end attack bombers at least can be quite deadly low down. So far I had not heavy ships attacked like a CA or BB (in the PBM I mean)..in my AI game I can try out something like 4E at 100ft will be interesting.

Can someone say if level bombers use the straf skill exclusivly at 100ft or also the low nav skill?

I only hope the AI does not post here, that I break the rules [:D]

As for the topic I think a night bombing rule is important, more for the Japanese then Allies...

[RhinoDad]

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

I think there were a few Chinese units that historically did move into Burma

Chinese units that were sent to help defend Burma in ’42. With fall of Burma some retreated back towards China others to India.

Fifth Army: 22nd, 96th, 200th division
Sixth Army: 49th, 55th, 93rd division
Sixty Sixth Army: 28th, 38th, 29th division

Chinese – Approximate British equivalent
Division – Brigade
Army – Division

The 200th division was a mechanized division equipped with around 100 tanks of various types and 60 some Armoured cars and several hundred trucks. Very well equipped for a Chinese unit of the time.

[Andy Mac]

I have 3 I usually use

1. Restricted units cannot cross national borders with no PP paid
2. No heavy bombers on naval attack below 6 or 10k feet - (I recently discovered a wrinkle on this HR as all japanese patrol planes are 4E still working that one through my starter for 10 is they are patrol so exempt from rule but happy to discuss as I hadnt previously considered this point - I normally play as allies so personally would allow 4E flying boats to bomb wherever they want - although mods with super planes are a bit more iffy on this point)
3. No multiple waves of small SCTF's to same hex from same hex - ie if you sending a SCTF to a hex from a hex all TF's originating from the same hex have to be a minimum of 6 ships bar the last TF - e.g. if I have 26 DD's at Rabaul and I spot an allied carrier fleet at Gasmata - I can send 4 TF's of 6 DD's and 1 of 2 DD's from Rabaul - I may have other ships coming from other ports as well which are subject to their own origin port limit so its hard to police but its the best I can do - its not perfect but I use this to avoid 26 1xDD or 13x2 DD TF's coming along exhausting my screens ammo and using all my ops points - basically the game engine is not designed for it

[geofflambert]

Not marching restricted troops across borders they shouldn't cross shouldn't be a house rule, it should be a rule rule. Just don't do it.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Lots of people play with the no naval bombing by 4Es under 10K feet rule. This rule doesn't really do anything, because the bombing is not, in fact, "too accurate" - unless you train the pilots for it, in which case you're wasting expensive strategic bombing assets on a low reward tactical play. If you're playing Japan and your opponent is bombing ships at sea with 4Es, I highly suggest you encourage them to keep doing so. And at some point spring a CAP trap on them, which 4Es would be especially vulnerable to as they can ignore mission cancellations based on not having escorts/presence of enemy CAP.

Thanks for the reminder this is something I want to try out.. with 4Es. While 2E ARMY bombers do not hit much when it comes to ships even from 3k or so and somewhat trained eg. the Dutch ones. 4E bombers have more chances to hit with more bombs and are more durable. I did not see many hits from 4Es also from 3k - 12k for example. With eg. 50 nav bombing skill (this is April 42 and not many bomber pilots are trained fully up).

I had some good experience with B25s not only the "attack bombers" but also normal level bombers at 100 and 1000 ft. I noted on the receiving end attack bombers at least can be quite deadly low down. So far I had not heavy ships attacked like a CA or BB (in the PBM I mean)..in my AI game I can try out something like 4E at 100ft will be interesting.

Can someone say if level bombers use the straf skill exclusivly at 100ft or also the low nav skill?

I only hope the AI does not post here, that I break the rules [:D]

As for the topic I think a night bombing rule is important, more for the Japanese then Allies...

Level bombers will not use strafe, to my knowledge. They will use low ground.

Attack bombers, I think, use the strafe skill while doing their bombing runs. I think.

I haven't tested it, nor do I wish to.

[Nomad]

Attack bombers use both low ground/naval and strafe on low level attacks.
B-25D1s on 1000 foot airfield attack

[Lokasenna]

The more you know...

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I have 3 I usually use

1. Restricted units cannot cross national borders with no PP paid
2. No heavy bombers on naval attack below 6 or 10k feet - (I recently discovered a wrinkle on this HR as all japanese patrol planes are 4E still working that one through my starter for 10 is they are patrol so exempt from rule but happy to discuss as I hadnt previously considered this point - I normally play as allies so personally would allow 4E flying boats to bomb wherever they want - although mods with super planes are a bit more iffy on this point)
3. No multiple waves of small SCTF's to same hex from same hex - ie if you sending a SCTF to a hex from a hex all TF's originating from the same hex have to be a minimum of 6 ships bar the last TF - e.g. if I have 26 DD's at Rabaul and I spot an allied carrier fleet at Gasmata - I can send 4 TF's of 6 DD's and 1 of 2 DD's from Rabaul - I may have other ships coming from other ports as well which are subject to their own origin port limit so its hard to police but its the best I can do - its not perfect but I use this to avoid 26 1xDD or 13x2 DD TF's coming along exhausting my screens ammo and using all my ops points - basically the game engine is not designed for it

Patrols on patrol missions should not have altitude restrictions, since optimal ASW altitude is 1000 ft and search altitude is 6000 ft.

I use myself vs. AI with:

No 4E Naval attack under 6000 ft until 1943. Skip bombing was invented using B-17s about start of 1943, so that is the reason.

No 2E Naval attack under 1000 ft (100ft is skip bombing) until 1943.

No fighters above 30k ft (flying that high is massive strain without pressurized cockpit). Fighter sweeps with best Manouver altitude only.

In my next game will also use "Restricted units must pay PP to cross borders". I have more PP in my ongoing game that I can shake stick at in 1943 and 1944, so that should make early war bit more interesting and forcing some dire choices.