Preview Available

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

Greg Smith
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8822
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:58 am
Location: Kettering UK
Contact:

Postby Greg Smith » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:55 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:I also notice that some of the cruisers and battlecruisers in the preview don't have any secondary guns. I was under the impression every capital ship carried seconday batteries to fend of destroyers and other such riff-raff with wasting their priciple armament on them.
The point of a ship having only one size of main gun was that it made it easier to find ranges.

In the pre-Dreadnought days ships carried guns of multiple calibres, including quick-firing, low calibre guns. But the splashes from the smaller guns obscured the splashes of the bigger guns, making it difficult for the gunners to determie ranges.

Also the Battle of Tushima was won primarliy by the big guns at range - hence the switch to all-big-gun battleships.
"Bringer of Warmth, Carrier of Carrion, Prophet of Dilgarness, Speaker of all thing Llort!"

Part-time Narn.

ACTA playtester
Victorious Grand Admiral
captainsmirk
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Limbo

Postby captainsmirk » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:03 pm

Most still have small guns for the purpose LDtD states...

Although as I don't know which specific ships he's talking about, they may not have had much secondary armament.

Nick
Captain Sheridan you're under arrest for a clear violation of the laws of physics!
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:10 pm

Greg Smith wrote:The point of a ship having only one size of main gun was that it made it easier to find ranges.

In the pre-Dreadnought days ships carried guns of multiple calibres, including quick-firing, low calibre guns. But the splashes from the smaller guns obscured the splashes of the bigger guns, making it difficult for the gunners to determie ranges.

Also the Battle of Tushima was won primarliy by the big guns at range - hence the switch to all-big-gun battleships.
This was the justification for removing the smaller guns, but they were soon added back on as defence against destroyers and torpedo boats.
rbax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

A Question of Game Scale

Postby rbax » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:20 pm

The question of secondary values, i.e. Range, AD, Individual turrets, etc. are largely dominated by the scale of the game. Victory at Sea was largely dominated by large gunned battleships.

I.e, An 11 inch gun is modeled in VAS with 1 AD and 1 DD per barrel. An 11 inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 720 lbs.

An 8-inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 270 lbs. Obviously it can't have a 1 AD damage per barrel. The shell weighs a third as much. The answer was to combine the guns in an individual turret. Thus twin 8-inch turrets are rated 1 AD and 1 DD.

A 6-inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 100 lbs. Again we combine the guns in a given turret but this time, because the shell is half the 8-inch, the new stats are 1 AD, 1 DD, with the special trait, Weak.

Now we get to secondary weapons. The are weapon in the 5" and smaller category. A 5-inch gun fires a 54 lb projectile. It takes alot of 5" shells to approximate the throw of a single 11-inch gun.

The weight of 13 5-inch shells is needed to equal the weight of a single 11" shell. However, the firing rate of the 5" is faster than the 11" so it actually works out to be about 1 AD for every 2 or 3 5-inch guns.

BUT, Secondary weapons have been genericised(?) down to a single catch all entry which involves all secondary guns immaterial of emplacement (turret versus casement mounted) or firing arc. Because of that, the number of AD is further reduced to account for the fact that only some of the secondary weapons can fire in any given direction.

Does this reduce the overall firepower of some ships secondary? Yes. But, typically the big ships are only every firing in one direction so the lack of accuracy was deemed acceptable.

Had this game been done on the scale, of say cruisers, then the destroyers would have been much more accurately portrayed.

---- Rich
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:49 pm

Also the Battle of Tushima was won primarliy by the big guns at range - hence the switch to all-big-gun battleships.
Are you sure? :) (cue "big gun vs. hail of fire" debate!)
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: A Question of Game Scale

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:53 pm

rbax wrote:The question of secondary values, i.e. Range, AD, Individual turrets, etc. are largely dominated by the scale of the game. Victory at Sea was largely dominated by large gunned battleships.

I.e, An 11 inch gun is modeled in VAS with 1 AD and 1 DD per barrel. An 11 inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 720 lbs.

An 8-inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 270 lbs. Obviously it can't have a 1 AD damage per barrel. The shell weighs a third as much. The answer was to combine the guns in an individual turret. Thus twin 8-inch turrets are rated 1 AD and 1 DD.

A 6-inch gun fires a projectile that weighs approximately 100 lbs. Again we combine the guns in a given turret but this time, because the shell is half the 8-inch, the new stats are 1 AD, 1 DD, with the special trait, Weak.

Now we get to secondary weapons. The are weapon in the 5" and smaller category. A 5-inch gun fires a 54 lb projectile. It takes alot of 5" shells to approximate the throw of a single 11-inch gun.

The weight of 13 5-inch shells is needed to equal the weight of a single 11" shell. However, the firing rate of the 5" is faster than the 11" so it actually works out to be about 1 AD for every 2 or 3 5-inch guns.

BUT, Secondary weapons have been genericised(?) down to a single catch all entry which involves all secondary guns immaterial of emplacement (turret versus casement mounted) or firing arc. Because of that, the number of AD is further reduced to account for the fact that only some of the secondary weapons can fire in any given direction.

Does this reduce the overall firepower of some ships secondary? Yes. But, typically the big ships are only every firing in one direction so the lack of accuracy was deemed acceptable.

Had this game been done on the scale, of say cruisers, then the destroyers would have been much more accurately portrayed.

---- Rich
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of lumping a ship's total secondary firepower into one weapon system, but I can't really argue with the AD and DD numbers. Ultimately, I might not have done the same thing as you lot did, but I didn't design it and it does make sense in those terms. Thanks for the explanation.

Just for the record, none of this puts me off the game, I just wanted to hear the reasoning for these decisions. Cheers. 8)
DM wrote:Are you sure? Smile (cue "big gun vs. hail of fire" debate!)
Big guns all the way. Weight of fire doesn't matter if your shells can't penetrate the target's armour. Try firing an MG at a main battle tank. You put a lot of fire down, but the tank is still immune... :twisted:
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:08 pm

Big guns all the way. Weight of fire doesn't matter if your shells can't penetrate the target's armour. Try firing an MG at a main battle tank. You put a lot of fire down, but the tank is still immune...
ah, my point has been missed :). At Tsushima the ranges and quality of armour were such that even 6" guns could penetrate battleship armour with little difficulty. There has been a continual debate ever since over what caused the msot damage - slow firing and inaccurate 12" guns or faster firing 6". It was only when improved fore control systems were developed that could consistently allow engagements at 10,000 yards or more that the "big gun" side of the house won out.

This is one of the reasons why a straight translation of the VaS system to other periods isn't as straightforward as it might otherwise appear!
captainsmirk
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Limbo

Postby captainsmirk » Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:35 pm

Plus the general poor quality of Russian naval training during this era and the poor state in which most of the Russian ships were in during the battle...

Nick
Captain Sheridan you're under arrest for a clear violation of the laws of physics!
rbax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby rbax » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:04 pm

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of lumping a ship's total secondary firepower into one weapon system, but I can't really argue with the AD and DD numbers. Ultimately, I might not have done the same thing as you lot did, but I didn't design it and it does make sense in those terms. Thanks for the explanation.
There was early dicussion about the lighter weapons and their general lumping into the all-round Secondary Weapons. Some thought we should track individual turrets or at least have a Port Side set and a Starboard Side set. There was also allot of discussion about Dual Purpose Secondary weapon and how to handle them. Mathew pushed for simplification and we stayed with the Secondary Weapon baseline. This is a perfect example of accuracy versus speed of play tradeoff
Just for the record, none of this puts me off the game, I just wanted to hear the reasoning for these decisions. Cheers.
Nor should it. What it does tell you is that, if you want to really explore the Destroyer, MTB.....light vessel world of engagements, then VAS is not going to be the most accurate representation of those engagements. It should be fun, just not as accurate.

--- Rich
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:14 pm

That's alright. I like battleships more anyway... 8)
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:15 pm

Yes, its impoertant to remember that the "mission statement" for VaS called for a game that was predominately battleship and carrier based, so the smaller stuff could be considered as getting something of a raw deal. However, it does handle DDs and even smaller craft quite well within those constraints. There is also the possibility of developing a "small ships" version of VaS that centred on DDs and smaller ships (possibly aimed at 1/1200 or 1/600 models), which would be relatively straightforward to do.
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:18 pm

The preview isn't very clear on PLs of ships, actually. How are destroyers and the like included in a fleet? Are they skirmish or patrol level or do you get them in squadrons?
Wulf Corbett
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:19 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Wulf Corbett » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:25 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:The preview isn't very clear on PLs of ships, actually. How are destroyers and the like included in a fleet? Are they skirmish or patrol level or do you get them in squadrons?
Destrouers, aircraft squadrons and subs are patrol level, individual ships, commonly 3-4 flights of aircraft.

Wulf
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:28 pm

Subs are at patrol level? I'm having visions of sub packs hunting battleships between the lines...
Wulf Corbett
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:19 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Wulf Corbett » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:31 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:Subs are at patrol level? I'm having visions of sub packs hunting battleships between the lines...
What's wrong with a wolfpack game :twisted: Sub hunters are pretty successful, actually, and equally as plentiful.

Wulf
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:36 pm

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Several battleships were sunk by subs in the Second World War. HMS Barham being one of them.

Do the FAPs split the same as in ACtA?
E Nicely
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Euless, TX
Contact:

Postby E Nicely » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:55 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Several battleships were sunk by subs in the Second World War. HMS Barham being one of them.

Do the FAPs split the same as in ACtA?
The Japanese navy took a beating from US subs.

You're kind of getting into what can and can't be talked about before the book's released, but the PL breakdown is per 1E ACTA.
Project Lead and Contributing Designer, VaS Order of Battle
Mongoose Playtester
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:59 pm

I see. Mum's the word, then, old chap... :wink:
E Nicely
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Euless, TX
Contact:

Postby E Nicely » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:01 pm

No worries mate ( a yank just said mate) the S&P "lite" version did have a PL breakdown right?
Project Lead and Contributing Designer, VaS Order of Battle
Mongoose Playtester
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:03 pm

Didn't see one in the preview on the VaS section. Only thing in S&P I saw was the Bismark vs Hood battle report.

Since when do yanks say "mate?" You lot hi-jacking our slang now instead of the other way round? :P

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests