House Rules

[Diefledermas]

Here are some "house rules" that the group I'm part of has been evolving over the last 3 months. Always trying to refine/expand/contract them. Comments appreciated

tech sharing

(after MUCH adjusting/tweaking/play-testing)

Every country may share tech once per month to any country they choose. The nations of Germany, UK, USA, USSR, and Japan may only receive "silver" techs. France, Italy, Nationalist China, and everyone else may receive "gold" or "silver" techs. No doctrines (land/sea/air) may be shared ever. AI tech sharing (obviously) has no bearing on these rules.

supply convoys

"neutral" supply of beachheads during conflict is forbidden.

alliance switching

We generally permit alliance switching (for example France joining the Commintern) although this has been under heavy debate recently. While it hasn't happened in our games, the USA "exploitation" into joining the Axis or Commintern does lead to a need for some kind of restriction

commonwealth force control

After a player who shall go unnamed, joined the Allies and immediately took control of the Canadian, South African, and Australian forces to engage in a Greek campaign against a neutral Turkey - military control of Commonwealth partners should be restricted to the UK.

declaration of war restrictions

We don't have any.

sending of expeditionary forces to AI alliance partner to save on supply drain

Once again, an unnamed player used this in total disregard of the spirit of the game. We banned it.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Originally posted by Diefledermas
commonwealth force control

After a player who shall go unnamed, joined the Allies and immediately took control of the Canadian, South African, and Australian forces to engage in a Greek campaign against a neutral Turkey - military control of Commonwealth partners should be restricted to the UK.


sending of expeditionary forces to AI alliance partner to save on supply drain

[/B]

Would it be allowable for other Allies to take control of forces in their theatre? For example, Allied USA taking control of Australia?


What about stationing your own troops in an Allied country?(not exp.) For example, French troops in Belgium? Would the French troops use Belgian supply? Wouldn't it make sense to bolster the Belgian defenses if possible, knowing how history played out?

 

[Mr.Bigglesworth]

Re: Re: House Rules

Originally posted by varak
Would it be allowable for other Allies to take control of forces in their theatre? For example, Allied USA taking control of Australia?


What about stationing your own troops in an Allied country?(not exp.) For example, French troops in Belgium? Would the French troops use Belgian supply? Wouldn't it make sense to bolster the Belgian defenses if possible, knowing how history played out?

Die's comments were based on the actions of a certain Italy/Greece player from our last game. I think the allies can agree on who takes control of who, and to what purpose those divisions are put to. In last game's case, we figured that since he was a minor we would let him take control of some other countries so that he would have something to do. Then all of a sudden the entire Canadian and South African armies were stationed in Greece and attacking a potential ally. As long as the player taking control is competent, I don't think it matters who takes control.

 

[Diefledermas]

As long as the player taking control is competent, I don't think it matters who takes control.

Yep.

 

[Diefledermas]

Easy to implement house rule-only ship resources/supplies to port connected to capital of the receipent, though even this has some drawbacks.

Yeah Big, I second the motion.

 

[Diefledermas]

I was thinking of another good house rule:

If the alliance leader wants a (human) country to leave the alliance - they have to. The exception might be France as an allied member.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Re: Re: House Rules

Originally posted by varak
What about stationing your own troops in an Allied country?(not exp.) For example, French troops in Belgium? Would the French troops use Belgian supply? Wouldn't it make sense to bolster the Belgian defenses if possible, knowing how history played out?

This is the one I was concerned about. Wouldn't putting French troops in Belgium to use Belgian supplies be an exploit, albeit one with a logical 'excuse'?

 

[Diefledermas]

This is the one I was concerned about. Wouldn't putting French troops in Belgium to use Belgian supplies be an exploit, albeit one with a logical 'excuse'?

That "type" of exploit if the French troops are in Belgium to defend the Belgians makes sense. Of course the Belgians would contribute to their own defense. The exploits I'm talking about involved Poindexter (ok, so I said his name) playing Greece.

the case was as follows

Greece joins the Allies
Greece declares war on Turkey (which was almost totally in the Allied triangle)
Turkey joins Axis
Greece assumes military control of Canada, Australia, and South Africa
Greece gives all its troops to Canada as expeditionary forces (so Canada has to supply them)
Greece attacks Turkey with all above troops

-in the meantime- UK is in desperate need of Commonwealth help in Africa and the Aussies stop fighting the Japs in the South Pacific allowing Japan to romp

that's the exploit (okay its a multitude of exploits)

 

[unmerged(14719)]

Exploit

Damn...that would suck.

What i would like to see as a house rule though is that if nations were to join an alliance.....example France joining Axis/Comintern, It has to be influenced to that particular sphere of ideology before joining .... makes for some roleplaying and Furious DI battles ... but to the spirit of the game.

For Military Control of Allied Minors, I usually would prefer if France or a Player controlled Canada assume military control of all the minors to help UK from distractions. UK has 3 fronts to look after...adding Australia, etc....is ..... hmmmmmm ..... stressful.....

Also, i think the no Sharing of Doctrines is a good idea, though i'd rather allow all Gold/Sliver techs to be traded between all nations save for NO SHARING of Doctrines....

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Diefledermas
Yeah Big, I second the motion.

Wasn't that mine?

 

[Diefledermas]

Wasn't that mine?

]

Ok... I "third" the motion

 

[ErikHeinrichs]

Why would you people restrict the joining of USA or France to some other alliance instead of Allies ?.

I mean... how boooooring to play if you know before the game even has started who is going to attack you. USA joining Axis/Comintern would make the game more fun and not the old "Axis against everything".

Good reason why people usually don't want to play Germany is because they know SU and allies are attacking them. Trying to play "historically" isn't very fun in MP.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

There is a difference between historical plausibility and plain sillyness. Democratic USA joining comintern or fascist axis is the latter.

 

[sanjuro]

silly?

hmm, but you are aware of the fact, that in RL 1945 many US Generals (including Patton) and some senators were thinking of teaming up with what was still left of the Wehrmacht and go strait for Moscow? OK, you could say this were only some weirdos, but in the end i think everything that suits an administration is possible, the only obstacle is how sell it to the citizens. Thinking in the terms of good and evil is a bit romantic, i presume.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Re: silly?

Originally posted by sanjuro
hmm, but you are aware of the fact, that in RL 1945 many US Generals (including Patton) and some senators were thinking of teaming up with what was still left of the Wehrmacht and go strait for Moscow? OK, you could say this were only some weirdos, but in the end i think everything that suits an administration is possible, the only obstacle is how sell it to the citizens. Thinking in the terms of good and evil is a bit romantic, i presume.

It has nothing in common with USA joining Axis. In game eqivalent is USA puppeting Germany and declaring war on Comintern.

 

[sanjuro]

hmm

ok, i think you got me there