Search found 96 matches

by Keith
Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:46 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Historically accurate ??
Replies: 28
Views: 8000

The point I am making with the priority level thing is that it is not fine grained enough to enable the continum of ship capabilities to classified adequately. While VaS does provide an enjoyable game when the selections are well matched (e.g. from my experience USN / IJN) it can either lead to huge...
by Keith
Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:53 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Iowa Vs Kagero
Replies: 19
Views: 5161

The radar was not of much help. Unless we have miss read the rules it only provides the -1 mofier at long range, which simply negated the +1 modifier for such range. The Kageros were at flank speed throughout the game so the Iowa could only fire when the Kageros were beam on (when the +1 for speed w...
by Keith
Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:47 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Iowa Vs Kagero
Replies: 19
Views: 5161

The above battle raised some points regarding the rules. The following are my opinions on these. Spotter Aircraft Speed This should be increased, even if they are only allowed to "spot" when moving at slower speeds. The magazine explosion meant that the Iowa had to flee for 3 turns. As a result itss...
by Keith
Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:29 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Iowa Vs Kagero
Replies: 19
Views: 5161

Iowa Vs Kagero

A number of issues have been raised in the "Hitting on a 7+" thread. As a result I suggested a test game. This was a single Iowa Class Battleship versus 4 Imperial Japanese navy Kagero class destroyers. I fouth such an engaement on Friday using the Victory at Sea scenario and feel its battle report ...
by Keith
Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:48 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: New User..
Replies: 7
Views: 2304

I might use them to base the models as I get them.
by Keith
Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:18 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: German Torpedo boats...
Replies: 13
Views: 4044

IMO the torpedo boats are overstated. Most were small, with almost no armour and a single hit from any naval gun (probably 4", but definitely 6" or above - i.e. secondary weapons in game terms) and they were just match wood. Max 1 hit 1 crew, 1+ armour (gives them a slight chace against weak guns).
by Keith
Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:11 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Hitting on 7+
Replies: 10
Views: 2743

A possible sneaky tactic. A Japanese sub (I think its the Hi-gato) has a 6+ target number and a surface speed of 5". It has front firing tubes (not long lance though) so can all ahead 7.5" bow on and launch from its front. It can always crash dive if things get hairy.
by Keith
Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:06 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Hitting on 7+
Replies: 10
Views: 2743

It was notoriously difficult to hit a destroyer moving at speed with the unwieldy primary armament. In ACTA patrol choices were almost useless in Battle level games and above. (I know there are exceptions but this is a VaS forum so I'm keeping it simple). I find the fact that fielding destroyers in ...
by Keith
Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:46 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Depth Charges - Italian Destroyers
Replies: 10
Views: 3854

You might not be able to delete the whole thread but you can, I believe delete your own posts. Just click the edit button on the offending entry (there is a delete tick box at the bottom of the edit screen that appears).

It will only work for your own stuff of course.
by Keith
Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:27 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Aircraft Movement
Replies: 7
Views: 2585

If you think dogfighting bombers etc is bad What about dogfighting observation planes, the one with the most obs planes could just place his obs plane in contact (dogfight) with the opponents and then they wipe each other out (no combat rating so automatically destroyed) Unless of course anyone kno...
by Keith
Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:18 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Are Aircraft Underpowered?
Replies: 15
Views: 4333

Another Historical Example of the devistation cause by Naval Airpower. Midway. A single US Squadron of Dautless dive bombers (12 planes I think) attacked Nagumos main carrier strike force consiting of 4 strike carriers; Akagi, Hiryu, Kaga and Soryu (4 of the 6 used to attack Pearl Harbour). In the c...
by Keith
Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:46 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Are Aircraft Underpowered?
Replies: 15
Views: 4333

Are Aircraft Underpowered?

By way of a test Kevin and I played a battle simulating the Japanese attack on the HMS Repulse and HMS Pince of Wales. We chose this because it was the simplest historical example of Naval air combat we could find. The Japanese planes chose not to attack the destroyers for historical accuracy. Histo...
by Keith
Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:09 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: German Torpedo boats...
Replies: 13
Views: 4044

Very awkward one hit wonders I guess. Too short for a beam on bonus perhaps? Treat as a flotilla? You also have the US PT boats and the British MTBs
by Keith
Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:06 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: VaS and crossing the enemy's 'T' suggestion
Replies: 76
Views: 18123

The +1 beam attack has nothing to do with gunnery, It's a targeting bonus for having more target to analyse in optics. So it's not something to change from flat to ballistic. The distinction between ballistic and flat trajectory is was trying to make was that for a ballistic shot the range is criti...
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:30 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: The joy of destroyers
Replies: 41
Views: 13388

Also when Kevin passed my destroyers he loosed torpedoes (nothing to loose because he could reload). I reciprocated (nothing to loose because the odds of my destroyers surviving to hit a better target were almost nil). Overall result: scratch 2 destroyers and no Japanese reload. Maybe If he held his...
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:21 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Wish list for ships
Replies: 20
Views: 5787

I know there was an HMS Suffolk in survice during WWII (it shadowed the Bismark along with HMS Norfolk for a while). This suggests at least one more UK cruiser class, unless its stats are identical to an existing class (in which case which class?).
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:17 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: Aircraft Movement
Replies: 7
Views: 2585

I think it just means you have to be careful how to place your aircraft; you have to thimk ahead to the next turn as well as the current one. One rule you might toy with is the possibility of allowing bombers to withdraw in subsequent turns if (and only if) any enemy fighters in contactct are being ...
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:56 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: VaS and crossing the enemy's 'T' suggestion
Replies: 76
Views: 18123

The +1 beam attack makes perfect sense for torpedo attacks and flat trajectory gunnery (or maybe it should be a -1 for a bow or stern attack) but is highly qestionable for ballistic gunnery. I think it important to make the distinction between the two.
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:05 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: VaS and crossing the enemy's 'T' suggestion
Replies: 76
Views: 18123

Minor techical point about Trafalgar and the fleet dispositions as the battle was joined. It was the combined French and Spanish fleet that was crossing Nelsons "T" s.

If crossing the "T" is so effective should the +1 to hit a ship showing you its beam apply to gunnery?
by Keith
Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:59 pm
Forum: Victory at Sea
Topic: quick question on crew
Replies: 6
Views: 2142

De-crewing by fires; am I missing something? I don't see how this can happen on a big ship unless you are very unlucky. My understanding of the rules is that in each repair phase you foll 1d6 for each fire and only if you roll a 1 or a 2 (assuming military grade crews) will you lose any crew. Even w...