Matrix Games Forums

I`m a newbie in playing witp by email. I read about some houserules. Can anybody give me some hints. A kind of list of all houserules. Maybe with a little explanation. „rule 1 is because...“
Many thanks

You agree with your PBEM opponent on house rules. Examples could be:

- Allied player can issue no orders for December 7th turn to simulate the surprise of the Japanese attack. Exception: orders can be issued to Chinese units, since China had been at war with Japan for years.

- ASW task force size is no more than 4-5 ships. This avoids a smothering effect on the submarines.

- The various preferences and game options settings in the game can also be used as house rules. Turning off Japanese Sub Doctrine, for example, makes Japanese submarines much more likely to attack Allied merchant ships.

Here is a link to a good thread about house rules.

I would add one house rule of great relevance. Limit the American player to no more then 2 CV in a TF through 1942. It seems American players love to put nearly all their eggs in one basket. While beneficial to the American navy, it is TOTALLY unrealistic! The US Navy thought, through doctrine, that carriers should operate in independent TF near each other. Not once in 1941-1942, and well into 1943, did the Americans place their carriers (3 or more) all in one TF.

Even at Midway, Enterprise and Hornet were in one group and Yorktown in another.

Puting them all in one basket gets you burned too. They take their chances when they do it.

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]

I'm just saying that most of the dice rolls for the air groups are per the TF so puting them all in the same basket you are at the mercy of those dice rolls.

Split them up and you get more chances on the dice rolls.

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]

They weren't. Hornet and Enterprise in TF 16 under Spruance, Yorktown in TF 17 under Fletcher. Both in the same 60-mile hex, of course....[;)]

Thank you Irrelevent! I was about to correct the statement when I saw your posting.

I was to going to add to my original post that the Americans still kept their carriers within supporting range of each other. That worked well but they were still formed into seperate TFs.

When I play the Japanese, I keep the KB together as much as possible but will frequently split them up into Carreir TF of 2-3 Carriers. They have enough punch to stand up and do well and it enables me to spreadout my fighting power some at the start of the war. Eventually, they must all pool together to fight the Americans but that usually takes a while.

ORIGINAL: John III

Thank you Irrelevent! I was about to correct the statement when I saw your posting.

I was to going to add to my original post that the Americans still kept their carriers within supporting range of each other. That worked well but they were still formed into seperate TFs.

I think this is a good example of the realism of house-rules.
As far as I recall, Yorktown was in a separate TF due to the time she left PH after her dockyard repair. She had to organise on her own, and a TF is more than just CVs. Its an organisation working together with a special purpose and cannot be joined with another one without temporarily loosing efficiency.
Had Yorktown been ready earlier (E and H left before Y arrived at PH) she maybe would have joined them. But if I rcall it right again, later she was kept separate intentionally due to the fact, that Fletcher was the only americal admiral with experience in a air-naval engagement.

So, I would leave it to the players to decide about the number of CVs in one TF. Each alternative has pros and cons, as it was in reality.

if you put too many CV in same TF (so that the max number of aircrafts in the CV exceeds the coordination limit which is 200 for japs and 100 for US in '42) you are just looking for trouble.

the only time i ignored and put all CV in same TF was the one where i nearly lost KB to a weaker enemy CV TF simply cause my strikes were scattered and so easy meat for enemy CAP.

so why putting an houserule to prevent your enemy to make a mistake? [;)]

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]

I think you missed the Sgt's point. I have to agree totally with him. I don't like any rules. It would be like playing a Gettysburg scenerio in a civil war game with a rule you had to make Pickets Charge. I don't like the fact that there are restricted units either. If I'm the supreme commander, then, I "AM" the supreme commander. Just like putting 20 destroyers together for ASW. If I wanted to do that in 41 - 45, then I would have. They need to create a "Hitler" campaign, where there are no "Political" points. Just go do what I say, or report to Berlin. [:D] None of this "the Americans would have never.." BLAH! [:-] It's a game. Kick some A$$ and have some fun.

ORIGINAL: Ddog

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

The beauty of the game is the fact that you can do what wasn't done. And what was Midway? A fanticy? 3 CV's were in one TF on that occation. Or did we just conviently forget?[&:]

I think you missed the Sgt's point. I have to agree totally with him. I don't like any rules. It would be like playing a Gettysburg scenerio in a civil war game with a rule you had to make Pickets Charge. I don't like the fact that there are restricted units either. If I'm the supreme commander, then, I "AM" the supreme commander. Just like putting 20 destroyers together for ASW. If I wanted to do that in 41 - 45, then I would have. They need to create a "Hitler" campaign, where there are no "Political" points. Just go do what I say, or report to Berlin. [:D] None of this "the Americans would have never.." BLAH! [:-] It's a game. Kick some A$$ and have some fun.

Home rules are not made to restrict player's strategic or tactical choices, but to correct the game design. In the real world, when subs attacked convoys escorted by 25 ASW ships they were only searched and eventually attacked by a part of them. In WITP every ship will try to attack. The end result is that the mortality rate for subs is far higher than in RL, without having to commit much ships and planes to do that.

Same thing for the land war, without home rules, Japan can easily conquer Siberia and China in totally unrealistic fashion, that is with the troops historically available that were unable to do that.

You can also use massive night airraids. They are banned by most players because they are totally unrealistic.

The first Japanese move is also "gamey" in design. Sending 100+ ships deep in DEI and denying the Allied side any iniative is just ..... Japanese convoys off Indochina were followed for 2 days by British patrol planes before the landing (and one was shot down the day before PH), so there was no surprise in Malaya, the only question for British being where the troops will land, in Malaya (starting the war) or in Siam. Dutch were also ready, with submarines and patrol planes deployed to watch Japanese activity.

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]

How will you be screwed ? Perhaps you will not launch an effective air strike but with 20+ DDs in the TF you will be nearly invincible to enemy air attacks due to the amount of flak your TF will have. I wish there was a built in limit to the number of escorts you can put in a CV TF.. I don't believe the USN ever had 1-2 CVs at sea with like 20+ escorts like I have seen in some games.

Xargun

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You don't need houserules with the CV airgroup coordination roll.
Put too many in a TF and you WILL be screwed.[;)]

How will you be screwed ? Perhaps you will not launch an effective air strike but with 20+ DDs in the TF you will be nearly invincible to enemy air attacks due to the amount of flak your TF will have. I wish there was a built in limit to the number of escorts you can put in a CV TF.. I don't believe the USN ever had 1-2 CVs at sea with like 20+ escorts like I have seen in some games.

Xargun

Read page 76 of the rules. 15 ships is better than 25. Look again at AA ratings of DDs vs BBs or cruisers. Optimum US CV group in early '42 is 2 CV, 7 CA/CL, 6 DD (and the DDs only for ASW protection).

With a 100 plane limit on coordination in 1942 for the Allies.
Take the chance if you want to.

You might get lucky.Then you might not.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Read page 76 of the rules. 15 ships is better than 25.

It says 15 ships or less is "most efficient". Unless I'm horribly wrong it means that in absolute terms 15 ships are not 'better' than 25, but that there is a rule of diminishing returns at work, starting with the 16th ship.
Up to 15 ships will participate in the air defense of the TF with 100% of their AA value, but any additional ship will only participate with a reduced percentage - in order to simulate that not all ships in a big TF could bring all their guns to bear all the time because they might be too far away on the disengaged side of the TF, or their field of fire might be masked by another ship nearby etc..
25 ships in a TF will still throw more deadly steel fragments and bullets into the air than 15 in a TF will do, although the amount will not be as high as the sum of 25 ships placed in individual TFs.
So a TF with 25 ships is better protected than one with 15 ships - provided you have enough crusiers and DDs to spare for beefing-up the screen.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

It says 15 ships or less is "most efficient". Unless I'm horribly wrong it means that in absolute terms 15 ships are not 'better' than 25, but that there is a rule of diminishing returns at work, starting with the 16th ship.

Well when it says "most effient" then obviously 15 IS better than 25. If its programmed the way I would program it, the AA rating would be averaged and multiplied by 15 (ie 16 ships AA ratings added, divided by 16, and times 15) and thus you would actually have more AA rating with 15 than 16 ships (or 25). I would be very surprised if this isnt what they did, but only one way to know for sure.

More ships will always have more AA. "Less efficient" just means that ships #16-25 will not contribute their full power, as ships #1-15 did. Why would 25 ships have less AA effect than 15?