Suggestion for including House Rule #1 for the Z-League. Vote pls!

[zappsweden]

NOTE: Currently there are no house rules for the Z-league. There might be in the future though, but I will try to avoid it.

In the recent days I have learnt (from Rambo) that there is a practically unstoppable way for Allies to declare war against, attack and defeat Italy already on turn 5, before Italy can react. Previously, there have been several variations of Italian Gambits, all aiming towards destroying Italian fleet or take an Italian city. However, this one is much more poweful. It wipes out every Italian unit and makes reconquering the whole Italy a major headache for Axis. There is no counter to it.

The "Rambo Rome Invasion" consist of 3 armies, 1 corps, 3 UK air units and a carrier attacking Rome on turn 5 and most certainly taking it i.e Italy surrenders.

The following suggestion would prevent all Italian gambits so make your vote, Z-league players. The proposal still means that Allies can attack Italy AFTER Italy has joined voluntarily.

PROPOSAL (House Rule #1):

No naval LANDINGS in Italy or Russia until they made their first move.

This means that you can still DOW Italy, attack them, kill their fleet but you may NOT LAND units there until they have reacted (made their first move).

[ June 03, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

I vote for the proposal #1.

[ June 01, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Jollyguy]

Even though I'm not in the league, I also vote no Rome gambit. These type of moves are gamey, but also important to discover, because they reveal shortcomings in the game. Hubert has fixed previous such gamey strategies, maybe he'll fix this one, too. Putting a six entrenched army from the French frontier in Rome instead would solve it, as the Italians don't need a starting army in the Alps anyway.

I have also experimented with a similar "Norway" gambit in an Allied handicap self hotseat game, where I've pulled two French armies off the line and attacked Oslo, supported by the two two carriers, followed up by a Brit HQ, army, corps, and air. It didn't always work the turn of dow, but Norway did fall eventually. But IMO it would be a pretty stupid move, as once the Axis was finished in France, they would turn their attention north. Plus, it would set back US readiness, and not bump up the Russian's on an Axis dow.

It was fun to experiment with, but a loser Allied strategy.

Bob

[jon_j_rambo]

I vote for a NEW-PATCH. If Italy gets special rules, so should USA, Greece, Sweden, Russia, & Spain.

Also change that crap defect Terif pulled on me w/ UK invasion which doesn't effect USA-readiness. That's another bug.

[ June 01, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Terif]

I vote for the house rule: no Rom gambit.

(its not necessary to forbid the "normal" italian gambit)

[ June 01, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Iron Ranger]

As stated somewhere else if you put in one house rule, everyone will be asking for more.

This game is loosely based on WW2 but germany never follows this route, becaue we know they lost. Now if the allies try to conter the known Itialian activaton (remember people weren't sure untill the summer of 1940 what italy would do, she screwed the central powers in WW1) we need a house rule to 'force' the game back to a 'normal' path? If so why not make several rules to keep going on this path?

1) Germany needs to attack USSR in the summer of 1941 or before (june, july)

2) Only corps and HQs can land outside of a port (stops this gambit).

3) No DOW during the winter months (Nov, Dec, Jan, Fed)

and on and on.... most of these would be more 'historical' but better for game play?

I think Rambo has now taken the wheel off the cart, question is can we really put it back on with House Rules or do we need to wait for SC2 / patch v1.08 (remember v1.07 was the last and final but we still are in the beta 'times')

My vote: Still thinking but if need today - put in one house rule start planing on more.

(Didn't we have a vote on the early version of the Itialian gambit? But with the increased cost of allied DOW it disappeared with v1.07?)

[Terif]

Iron Ranger and others:

You are right: if one house rule is introduced, the danger is that people are asking for more rules against this and that.

In general I am against house rules, cause they limit the possibilities and normally the fun.

But in this particular case, I think a house rule could be necessary. Only against the Rom invasion and knocking out of Italy in turn 5. DoW on Italy should still be allowed.

This is because:

1. to every other thing/gambit - if historical accurate or not - exists a counter. And every average player can learn how to counter. The game is still balanced and both sides (Axis/Allies) have the same chance to win. And thats the most important for me: a good strategical/tactical and balanced game. It is not even close to history, but thats unimportant for me. If you want a historical simulation, then you need to play another game .

2. But the Rom invasion has no real counter. Allies dont need ships to do it. Only the one carrier already in the Med. So no early Sealion, like someone proposed. The only advantage for Germany is a 3 turn window, where UK air and 2 french armies are operated to southern France and transported. After they landed in Rom, they are immediately operated back. UK receives around 900 mpp and a lot of mpp per turn. Italy looses 1250 mpp in ground forces, the whole navy and some thousand mpp from missing ressources. With this the game is not balanced any more.

3. The most important one and the real reason why I am against this Rom gambit: As far as I can see, if both players are equal, then Axis will loose the game. Axis has to be very efficient and experienced to get Paris. So there is also a minimum experience requirement for the Axis player.

This can become very annoying for new players. They wouldnt have a chance to win any game as Axis if Allies do the Rom gambit. It really makes no fun winning or loosing a game in the first 5 turns. This should be a long term strategical game. We already have not that much online players and this gambit is a real killer. It kills fun and new members...

Maybe this is a bit overexagerated. I dont think that everyone will use the gambit all the time. Its in the long run boring even for the one who uses it. I hope it will be used 1-2 times for experiment and then forgot. Then we dont need a house rule.

A house rule is only necessary if the Rom gambit would become a standard strategy, used at every occasion. This would ruin the game and lots of players wouldnt play it any more.

[ June 02, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[zappsweden]

I thinkg I agree with you Terif. Instead of banishing the DOW against Italy you can banish the Rome invasion (and still allow the gambit).

A rule would then be "not allowing landing on Italian mainland (including Africa) until Italy made their first move".

I do see a similarity in the Russian wars too. Building a big naval invasion force near baltic states hence avoiding the "Russian buildup readyness increase" is just as gamey. Landing 5-6 units around Riga and taking it against a major nation is not just right. Since Russia has this border rule, I think it is very odd if u can build up naval invasion forces in Russian water.

Another proposal could be like, "No attacks on Rome until Italy makes their first move", but we would still see thos gamey landings. It is almost ok when u attack neutrals, but the major nations should have their fully right to enter the war in a proper way.

I am changing the proposal now.

House Rule #1 :

No naval landings in Russia or Italy until those countries made their first moves.

Important: Breaking a house rule will lose the game.

[ June 02, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Kuniworth]

I agree to proposal #1. However house-rules really should be avoided, a new patch per favor.

[GoldenPanda]

How about we make state this simple rule to all Z-league games: the allies must be at war with italy to end a transport's turn anywhere on italy's shoreline

personally I'd like to see this apply to minor countries and for both sides, to prevent ahistorical outcomes in places such as Greece. This can also make Norway a more resource intensive invasion -- which I don't know if people will favor for fun reasons.

[GoldenPanda]

In terms of the "it's a slippery slope" argument against house-rules, I can't see why we can't let suggestions be decided on a case-by-case basis. NO, we don't want house-rules all over the place to satisfy every individual preference; YES, we do want to include the few simple rules which will improve the game for everyone!

[Shaka of Carthage]

GoldenPanda

I tried that approach. But I got the standard "house rules are evil" response.

Maybe you should consider the solution Immer Etwas came up with in another thread. Activate Italy, reduce the forces to represent the early entry and make sure the early turns provide enough MPPs to build up the Italian forces to the current scenario numbers.

[ June 04, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Comrade Trapp]

[ June 06, 2003, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Comrade Trapp ]

[Codename Condor]

Stop callin it the 'Rambo-Rome-Invasion' the guy is gonna think he has discovered something! :eek:

web page

Date: March 14

If any move at all is gamey then that move is GAMEY. i just cant comprehend why any1 would do it, well, except some crappy fellows. Let em try it, he would know the type of players there are out there and no1 would play em.

[zappsweden]

Condor, the problem is where should wedraw the line?

Is landing in UK without approaching cities (delaying the Russia+USA readyness) gamey ?

Is building a naval invasion force outside Russia gamey (since there is no border limit on transports) ?

Is taking Rome before Italian reaction gamey ?

Is a full attack on all enemy HQ's (i.e until all are destroyed) before making any frontal advances gamey?

In my opinion, what is allowed is allowed. What is gamey should NOT be allowed. If every person have their own set of moralic invisible rules we would kill the most important thing i.e a standardised gameplay. we would get asrguments, accusations and alot of pissed ppl if there is no line drawn. As long as Rome invasion is allowed, u can use it. If players vote towards forbidding it then it will be forbidden. simple.

[ June 05, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Maybe you should consider the solution Immer Etwas came up with in another thread. Activate Italy, reduce the forces to represent the early entry and make sure the early turns provide enough MPPs to build up the Italian forces to the current scenario numbers.

Thank you Shaka.

There is... a NEW CAMPAIGN! on the way, even as we speak!

Details forthcoming, but ther WILL be an Italian Pre-War Mobilization campaign, thoroughly play tested! within a week or so.

Now, there can be OTHER solutions to some of the "gambits" that seem to be bothering some players, and no doubt they will work just fine, as Zapp has suggested.

Here, you will have the opportunity to play the Grand Campaign, and there will be NO NEED for any house rules.

This will merely be an attractive alternative (I am confident) until such time as proper corrections to some of the "gamey strategems" are made.

As I said, more details will be available, probably within the next several days.

[zappsweden]

Since I do not seem to get any good support for the proposal I will probably not activate this house rule #1. I am sorry to say it, but I will use the Rome invasion until it is forbidden. If some of you think it is gamey, then vote for the house rule.

[Codename Condor]

Zapp

You are a good player i wouldnt expect people like u using it.

The Rome Invasion cannot be avoided and knocks italy out of war without a single move, plus plunder, plus end of game...

I can stand the other issues they dont afect my final victorys. The carrier-air bug (1.06) was much more important than all of those u mention and we still had good & balanced games.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Also change that crap defect Terif pulled on me w/ UK invasion which doesn't effect USA-readiness. That's another bug.

what's this?

[Hueristic]

It would seem to me that the players could agree to not use it in a game and if they choose to use it then it would affect the bidding. Sure go ahead and use it but i'll take allies with 700 or some such thing. But in my opinion Rome should have a fully entrenched army and all italian cities on the mainland should have a corp. Butt opinions are like.... LOL

[Comrade Trapp]

I have given this some more thought and have decided to change my vote.

For most Axis players, loseing Italy that early in the game would be a auotmatic win for the Allies. If the Axis player didn't surrender right then and there, he would have to accept the fact that any expansion in the Med would be impossible, and he could not count on the help of Italian units in Russia or the Balkins. Not to mention, the UK could rush troops to Southern Italy or at the very least Sicily and keep the Axis busy so they would not have alot of time to counqer any neutral countries.

My changed vote: House Rule against "Rambo Rome Invasion".

Comrade Trapp

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

votes for house rule