Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Add Reply
House Rules
Topic Started: Nov 12 2015, 10:46 PM (390 Views)
Brad K
Member Avatar

Not everything can be done via scenarios and exe files. House rules have existed since, well, probably the second human/human game. They are always part of a pre game discussion between two people.

And maybe some things shouldn't be done via scenarios and exe files. Having house rules gives users choices about how to handle certain things while scenario and exe mods locks users into a choice.

Anyway, just as an exe has to be able to work with a scenario, both have to be able to work with house rules. Here's what I distribute with my scenarios. Some of the rules involve issues that could and maybe should, be addressed with exe or scenario mods. But whatever we come up with should also consider what house rules apply.


Attached to this post:
Attachments: Rules.txt (14.06 KB)
Edited by Brad K, Nov 12 2015, 10:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich D

Great list.

I'm curious about "IJN CVLs/CVEs must use the B5N as their torpedo bomber." I guess the the B6N and B7A were too big for the small carriers? Never heard that before.

Noticed your post on TF 56 in the "Wish List". What do you think about flak levels? Perhaps they're just modeled too high for late in the game? That's my opinion. This could be adjusted in the code if we think lower values are more accurate.

In general, I agree that some of these rules could end up in the EXE or scenario files, and others should be left as is.
Edited by Rich D, Nov 13 2015, 12:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brad K
Member Avatar

Rich D
Nov 13 2015, 12:14 PM
Great list.

I'm curious about "IJN CVLs/CVEs must use the B5N as their torpedo bomber." I guess the the B6N and B7A were too big for the small carriers? Never heard that before.
Thank you.

The IJN CVL/CVE rule was someone else's idea. Don't remember who. Lots of times my opponents contributed rules.

Some of these rules go way back. Some are from the rule sets posted to the old Pacwar mailing list.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fishbreath

Rich D
Nov 13 2015, 12:14 PM
Great list.

I'm curious about "IJN CVLs/CVEs must use the B5N as their torpedo bomber." I guess the the B6N and B7A were too big for the small carriers? Never heard that before.

Noticed your post on TF 56 in the "Wish List". What do you think about flak levels? Perhaps they're just modeled too high for late in the game? That's my opinion. This could be adjusted in the code if we think lower values are more accurate.

In general, I agree that some of these rules could end up in the EXE or scenario files, and others should be left as is.
If I were king, I'd probably want to come up with two flak values for ships: one for whole-TF air defense, and one for ship-local point defense. Aircraft attacking have to pass the sum of the whole-TF air defense from every ship, and the ship-local point defense from the target ship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich D

Fishbreath
Dec 3 2015, 10:52 AM
If I were king, I'd probably want to come up with two flak values for ships: one for whole-TF air defense, and one for ship-local point defense. Aircraft attacking have to pass the sum of the whole-TF air defense from every ship, and the ship-local point defense from the target ship.

Nice idea Fishbreath, I'll add it to the wish list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IanR

Quoted excerpts with suggestions:

Quote:
 
Aircraft Production

Export aircraft factories represent excess US aircraft production which is available to non US airgroups. ...

Factories in England may produce only British aircraft.


If you can retard production to something more historical, and the upgrade possibilities are set up well, then it should be possible to necessitate production of British aircraft types, obviating the need for this house rule; noted however that if some low use level UK sourced types are left to the 1 per turn auto production, that will be enough, so as suggested elsewhere, some UK factories can probably be omitted anyway.

Quote:
 
Atolls (Terrain 1)

Maximum garrison on an atoll ...


I am not in favour of this house rule. If it's not possible to program in some sort of geometric supply consumption increases/troop attrition mechanism for 'over stacking' then it should be left to the allied player to properly recon and isolate bases, and then hit the weakly garrisoned ones first.

Quote:
 
Garrison Requirements


Rule should not be not required, because restricted HQ units fulfill it anyway.

Australian (AMF) units should be restricted HQ, with some released in February 1943 - this means AMF units will need to be set-up (understrength) in Port Moresby and maybe Milne Bay, so nothing needs to be embarked on transports.

ABDA units should be restricted HQ. So should Malaya Army Group. The PI garrison is not a problem, as its hard to lift any of it out anyway.

Quote:
 
TF limits


The exe punishes you with inefficiency for putting too many CVs in a TF. Not sure where the 3800 flak limit comes from; looks like a rule intended to give the IJN a leg-up. Late war my USN CBGs are over 5000 flak, but the odd attacker still leaks through and takes out a CVL.

Not in favour. If you think flak is over rated, suggest changing the flak values downwards, but not really in favour of that either.

Quote:
 
Aircraft On Carriers


The modelling was changed between SSI and Matrix exes. The US CVL's are now overrated. They could spot 42 or so F8F Bearcats, because they were smaller. This was the plan for 1946 (per Charles Reynold's the Fast Carriers). The SSI figure of 32 is correct for most of the time covered in the game. So they should have a class change in the exe that combines the code for RN carriers' capacity increases (when they established deck parks) and the change of VMSBs to VMTBs - in their case, the VT detachments should alter to VF squadrons with F8F. The second may not be possible, the first should be.


Some of the IJN CVs were changed as well, but the dichotomy between operational machines, and stored spares may need attention.

The Midways should come with 134 aircraft, split into 3 groups - 2 x 36 plane F4U4 groups, and a 62 plane VA group with SB2Cs. These ought to upgrade to F8F and AD if the game goes on long enough. The latter is probably not possible. Obviously requires a class specific bit of exe coding.

Agree with the restriction of Casablancas to FM2, but they could take F8Fs for Operation Coronet. Not sure about the F4U once Admiral Towers cleared it for shipboard operations. Its not in a "carrier slot", so it may not work from a CV.

The Marines had some F4U squadrons embarked on the larger CVEs; Probably need to arrive with F4U4s from the carrier capable slot embarked.

The RN's Implacable class carriers could not spot the F4U (the hanger ceiling was too low) so that is a houserule thing. They could however spot 81 aircraft with deck parking, something not currently implemented in the exe. Implacable's air group in 1945 was 48 Seafires, 12 Fireflies, and 21 TBFs. They occasionally shipped F6F recon machines, but mostly later mark Seafires.

Quote:
 

Armored/Tank LCUs


Disagree with this. The Australian and Indian tank brigades were successfully deployed in jungle operations, albeit split up into regiments; given the size of area represented by a base in the game, the latter is not problematical.

Quote:
 

Singapore/Bataan


Yes/no/maybe. Would be fixed with a coastal gun rule where they had to be supressed/destroyed before the Landing could go in. Should Manilla be included? Probably not, you can invade Luzon south of Manila without running past Fort Drum.

Quote:
 

Protected Bases


Completely disagree with all of that. Why handcuff players to an historical script? The game should work so that it is good policy to do that which these rules require. i.e, establish dominant air zones before moving to the next target. If a player doesn't properly garrison his prime real estate, tough luck. Noted that the Artic zone effect is being beefed up so this area should be a less attractive option.

PS - ships operating in TFs in the artic zone should probably get double operational damage points added in storm weeks.

I think the rest of the houerule items are the subject of proposed exe/scenario changes.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brad K
Member Avatar

IanR
 
The modelling was changed between SSI and Matrix exes. The US CVL's are now overrated.


I have capacity of the USN CVLs at 33. I found one source, just one, at 45, which Matrix used despite all the other info.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IanR

The whole late 1945 reorganisation of USN carrier air groups is MIA, except for the Independence class - which now wrongly have it from day 1 and with too large a VT group.

I should put this late war reorg. on the exe wishlist, given various other reorganisations are already coded in.

The historical justification for this change needs to be described in the strategic and operational context prevailing. This summary mostly comes from Charles Reynolds' The Fast Carriers: The Forging of an Air Navy, written in the 1960s when plenty of the mid-level officers were still around to be interviewed, but long enough after the war that the author had access to the official records and personal diaries of the high level ones. (Pages 346 & 353ff.)

On 27 May, Halsey relieved Spruance at sea, 3rd Fleet took over command from 5th, and Spruance flew to Centpac advanced HQ on Guam to start planning 5th Fleet’s operations for Olympic. (Halsey managed to sail the fleet into another typhoon shortly thereafter). The general idea for that was that Halsey and 3rd Fleet would have the fast carrier force and everything that could keep pace with it, from the Iowas down to the CBs, and including the 28knot BBs, Spruance and 5th Fleet would command the CVEs, slower bombardment & attack transport groups, with the cruisers split between the two, taking over the prior role of 7th Fleet. 7th Fleet would be planning for Coronet, where it would come back in place of 5th Fleet. By that point the fast carrier force’s remaining role was to assist in landing operations, supress the remaining IJ airpower, and make, in effect, strategic air strikes on JHI industrial targets. (See Polmar & Allen, Codename Downfall, pp 365 – 367.)

The glorious days of the carrier spearheading the Pacific offensive ended when the spear entered the heart of the Empire. Targets are scarce. [Halsey, letter to Nimitz, 9 June 1945.]

At the same time as the Admiral’s swapped over, so did their subordinates. In particular, Mitscher handed command of TF58 over to McCain, as TF38, who hoisted his flag on the Shangri-La, by then a veteran of a month’s combat operations. “Pete”(Marc) Mitscher was by then exhausted, and ill, possibly terminally ill – his physician, Captain Ray Hege, who was killed when a kamikaze struck the Bunker Hill, did not leave a written record of the illness – and went back to Washington to become DCNO Air in mid-August. In the interim he went to work formulating the final re-organisation of the CAGs for Downfall, and in July 1945 most of his recommendations were accepted for implementation. Reynolds comments that Secretary Forrestal was a “warm admirer” of Mitscher. He died in 1947 at age 60, while commander, Atlantic Fleet .

The Essex classes’ air group in June 45 was 73 fighter types – F6F, F4U – 15 SB2C, and 15 TBF/M. The CVL groups included 24 F6F (two were PR variants), and 9 TBMs. Enterprise and Essex carried different, smaller airgroups because they were specialist night operations carriers by then. Saratoga had reported to Pearl Harbour as a training ship. As a result of Mitscher’s recommendations the following measures were to be implemented.

[continued next post].
Edited by IanR, Dec 22 2015, 09:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IanR

Torpedo bomber operations were no longer a priority. Mitscher recommended that the VTs be converted into VTB squadrons, once Ed Heinemann’s new BT2D (renamed AD when the ‘attack’ designation was commenced, and better known under the universal designation system as the A1 Skyraider) was available. Until then the SB2Cs and TBMs would remain, some equipped to trial the new concept of radar equipped TBMs as flying AEW pickets so the vulnerable destroyer pickets would not be needed. Reynolds comments that the new AEW radar had a 75 mile radius, and 4 carriers would operate them to allow rotation. Mitscher also recommended the SB2C be replaced by F4Us in the VBF role, once the BT2D joined operational squadrons.

On Mitscher’s recommendation, the TBY Seawolf , the proposed TBM replacement, was cancelled outright in July 1945. The F4Us in the VBF squadrons and the AD in the new VTB squadrons would give the carrier groups their bite.

The Independence class where to lose their small strike squadrons and be roled purely as fleet CAP platforms. This had cascading advantages because the 9 plane VT detachments used different ship attack procedures which required additional crew training, required provisions of torpedos, spare parts, and the like and simplified maintenance and repair activities carried out shipboard.

The F6F5 was to be taken off the CVL’s completely, because it was considered by then too slow for high altitude intercepts, and replaced with Corsairs until the F8F Bearcat arrived. The CVL’s could spot 36 F4U (or F6F), but when the smaller F8F arrived, could spot 48 machines.

The new, larger Saipan, CVL48, then due in December 45 after accelerated commissioning (query to replace the lost Princeton), would initially have a group of 48 Hellcats split into equal sized VF & VBF squadrons. Reynolds does not mention how many F8Fs it could spot. A bare mathematical calculation would suggest 64 Bearcats. Edit - Addendum: Saipan's commissioning lost priority when the war ended. It eventually commissioned in July 1946.

The two night carriers, Enterprise and Essex were retained, even though Mitscher wanted to return them to day duties. However, his recommendation that every CV carry a detachment of 6 night fighter & 6 night bombers was partly implemented – each would ship 4 night-fighter variant F6Fs or F4Us.

Mitscher’s recommendation for the Essex class was a 48 plane VF, 24 plane VBF (SB2C to be replaced by F4U as indicated above), 18 plane VTB (TBM to be replaced by BT2D), 2 PR fighters, and a VBF(N) with 12 aircraft. The total being 104 aircraft. This was not fully implemented, see below.

The Navy’s decision was that as from late July, new or reforming groups would be as follows, and that groups at sea would implement the changes as and when they could:

CVs – 32 VF with 24 day fighters, 4 PR, 4 VFN; 24 VBF; 24 VB; 20 VT, plus the CAG commander’s Hellcat makes it 101 total.

Night CV – 37 VFN, 18 VTN.

CVL – Airgroup replaced by 36 plane VF (and to be adjusted when the F8F arrived).

CVB (Midway was due to commission in September, Franklin D. Roosevelt in October) – 73 VF, 64 VB. To begin with this would consist of 65 F4U, 4 PR F6F, 4 VFN F6F, & 63 SB2C. Edit- Addendum: Midway was completing its work up on VJ day, and was commissioned on 10 September. Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned on 27 October.

Simulation Recommendations:

As of the last week of July, 1945, the exe should change the composition of the USN CAGs, as follows-. Note that I am including the VFN aircraft, but not the PR machines, and limiting this to 3 air groups per ship – although I think they can operate 4 or 5 groups successfully, the ship goes over capacity.

CVB – 2 x 36 plane VF, 63 plane VB. Or 1 x 73 VF & 2x 32 VB. These carrier’s 3 air group slots are hardwired in the exe.

CV - 60 plane VF/VBF; 24 VB, 20 VT.

CVL – increase capacity to 36 and give it 2 x 18 plane VF – requires hard coded change to VT detachment. In October 1945 increase capacity to 48, on time for the F8F deployment (and the superiority of the F8F suggests it will be deployed ASAP).

I do not suggest CV or CVB groups ought be increased when the F8F deploys. Two reasons -

1) there is a limit to how many aircraft a carrier can launch in the limited period available for a strike to form and egress to target with sufficient fuel load; &

2) There are limits to avgas and ordinance stores on a carrier that dictate a limit to airgroup size. The CVBs had proportionately larger stores to match their increased sized air groups, but even so aircraft only have fuel to orbit for a limited time waiting for launches to complete.

Edits - formatting & addenda
Edited by IanR, Dec 22 2015, 09:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IanR

And, would you please implement the forum option for posters to edit their own posts, so I can fix the italics formatting error in my above post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · House Rules · Next Topic »
Add Reply