Fletchers

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

Wulf Corbett
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4314
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:19 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Wulf Corbett » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:46 pm

Reaverman wrote:Wulf, the point I am making is that if the Fletcher is fighting another vessel. One which has the 'Radar' trait, then immediately the Fletcher is at a disadvantage. As others have confirmed on here, the ship was equiped with 'Radar'.
I'm not disputing that, we already have an agreement that this is an error. But I cannot agree that accuracy is the MOST important aspect of a historical wargame. Playability must always come first.

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 » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:07 pm

Why does having accurate stats detract from "playability?" You think a historical game is more "playable" (this is nothing but a buzzword anyway) if units have the wrong weapons, armour or abilities? How is that possible?

What if we had an ancient world wargame? Would it eb somehow more enjoyable or easier to play if Republican Roman Legions were equipped with Lorica Segmenta instead of Loric Hamata? The only impact would be the make them harder to kill, there'd be no other effect on the way the game was played. A bit like Rome: Total War, actually. Ever nation's army was a line-up of make-believe and wishful thinking intended for ignorant "gamers" who just want some "cool" units. Did it make it more fun? No, it didn't. It detracted from the enjoyment of the game for anyone with even a passing interest in history and led to the widely-acclaimed Rome: Total Realism mod being developed.

So, why should the correct weapons, equipment and abilities for ships in VaS detract from the gameplay?
oggie x
Stoat
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: Birmingham

Postby oggie x » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:19 pm

I think that it was done to make the game flow better and be quicker. Having to look up various tables showing vertical and horizontal armour though historically accurate can be a pain in the £*?!.

Though I agree that glaring errors such as the Fletcher thing should be rectified.

oggie
"What burns apart from witches"?

"Errrm...........MORE WITCHES"!!!!
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

It can be histrically accurate and playable. Errors of a Fletcher nature shall be corrected immediately upon receiving the book - with a pen.
E Nicely
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Euless, TX
Contact:

Postby E Nicely » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:47 pm

I'm all for erratta for the Fletcher-it needs radar.
Project Lead and Contributing Designer, VaS Order of Battle
Mongoose Playtester
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:04 pm

So what is being said is that radar is in the game, but was just left off of the stats of the Fletchers? OK then, no big deal. First item that goes into the errata. Really not trying to start a historical picking of nits, but this question to the play-testers- Does the US South Dakota BB have lower secondary gun stats than its three sister ships? The reason is that as SoDak was built to be a flagship with added levels in the main tower for admirals and staff and due to stability reasons two of the dual 5" secondary guns were removed. This lowers its 5" capability from 20 to 16 guns.

While I'm on 5" USN ordnance, did anyone see the importance of the US development of the "VT" proximity fused AA round and just how deadly it was to attacking aircraft? A secret well kept, even the designation was a deliberate deception. "VT" stood for variable-timed, but it wasn't anything of the kind. They placed a miniature radio transceiver in the projectile to detonate it when the radar saw that it was close to the position of the incoming air threat. This became an extremely important feature when the Divine Wind began "operations". It was as much of a well-kept secret as was the fabulous Japanese 24" Long Lance torpedo. Say, did you guys figure in this...? (I'll stop now and give you a break, lol).
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:22 pm

I see a possible reply to my comments above that this is the road to a complicated game (defensive already, ain't I?, lol) and there are already others that do this. I do realise that detail has to give way to playability, but with some things the tactical and historical nature of a weapon or device is so overwhelming as to needing to be considered even within the framework of a simple and fast set of rules. For example, The comparison between the US 21" torp and the 24" LL torp is roughly twice the warhead (!) and three times the range (!!) of the US weapon. The batreps of the losing USN Captains was that they HAD to have run into a minefield at the same time as fighting a battle because torpedoes just couldn't go that far. They were right, US torpedoes couldn't but the Japanese ones could.
On the subject of the VT fused rounds comment, it was decided to risk the exposure of the top secret projectile in the defence of London from buzz bombs, previously only used over water because duds would sink and couldn't be captured and studied. Here is a bit of history that you brits might find interesting-

"During 1944 the intense warfare in the European theater of operations necessitated the lifting of the ban against the use of the fuze where it might be recovered by an enemy. On 12 June 1944 the first V-1 "buzz bomb" fell on London marking the start of Hitler’s massive effort to level the city by rocket. The all-out valiant effort of the Royal Air Force was not able to devise a good defense against this new weapon.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff reluctantly agreed upon the necessity of using the proximity fuze in the defense of London. Large numbers of anti-aircraft guns were moved to the channel coast where they could fire at the bombs over water. Success in destroying the V-1 rocket bombs by gunfire increased proportionally with the increase in the use of VT-fuzed projectiles. In the last month of the terrifying 80 days, 79 percent of the bombs engaged were destroyed as compared with the 24 percent destroyed during the first week of the attacks. On the last day of large-scale attacks only 4 Of 104 bombs succeeded in reaching their target. Some of the 100 destroyed are credited to the Royal Air Force and to the barrage balloons, but the majority of the V-1’s were victims of proximity-fuzed projectiles. There was little profit to the enemy with such a small percentage of success so Hitler turned the weapon on the port of Antwerp, which at that time was vital to the Allied supply lines. In the autumn of 1944 the devastating damage wrought while the Allies were redeploying anti-aircraft guns threatened to close the port. As the number of guns firing the proximity fuze increased, the damage decreased and the Allies were able to move their guns closer and to assume the offensive against the aerial targets. The defense of Antwerp resulted in the Combined Chiefs of Staff removing all bans against the use of the fuze which was most fortunate for the allied soldiers fighting there.

In late December 1944, von Rundstedt launched a counterattack which developed into the Battle of the Bulge. The use of the fuzes entered a new field, that of artillery fire against ground forces. The results of this usage was devastating to German troops and put fear into their hearts. No longer were their foxholes heavens against shrapnel burst, for with the use of the "funny fuze," as it was termed by General Patton, the shrapnel bursts occurred before the projectiles hit the earth, and high-velocity fragments rained down on the German attackers!"


One of the great things about historical gaming is the history we learn as a side effect, eh?
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
E Nicely
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1288
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Euless, TX
Contact:

Postby E Nicely » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:44 am

Yeah there is radar in the game.
Project Lead and Contributing Designer, VaS Order of Battle
Mongoose Playtester
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:31 am

The VT was orginally German in design, since british intelligence was handed the component by a German scientist (turncoat). Who was trying to help the allies, from the inside. I was watching something about it on the history channel a few weeks ago, I think the show was called 'Hitlers War'.
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:22 am

Reaverman wrote:The VT was orginally German in design, since british intelligence was handed the component by a German scientist (turncoat). Who was trying to help the allies, from the inside. I was watching something about it on the history channel a few weeks ago, I think the show was called 'Hitlers War'.
I'm not making a try at escalation here (and I believe you're an honest chap too, heh) but this is from the History Channel show on "Deadliest Weapons" (not sure if that was what you saw):


Another deadly invention of the Second World War was the proximity fuse, or VT fuse. The proximity fuse made it possible for artillery to detonate within a predetermined range of an enemy target, a marked improvement over the contact and timed fuses used earlier in the war.

The result was increased lethality for anti-aircraft weapons and mortar shells. Developed under the utmost secrecy at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, the VT fuse destroyed numerous Japanese aircraft in the war for the Pacific Ocean. Later it was an effective anti-personnel weapon that killed countless Germans during the Battle of the Bulge leading General Patton to claim that it was the most important invention of the war.


here is the full link, with an interesting end to the article: (This article was done in the 1990's, Information in the UK was since then de-classified showing they had a larger part in the process I have been told.)
http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

At the very least, History Channel has a split personality :wink:. I've always thought that the VT was a U.S. creation, as it was so very top secret.

Ah, as I'm writing this I did a little search and maybe have found something to link the two seemingly contradictory statements into an agreeable piece of history-

After the arrival, in September 1940, of the British Technical Mission, headed by Sir Henry Tizard, the NDRC received a report from the British that, although they were consuming supplies, they had not made a workable fuze. The Tizard mission claim to fame was in bringing a magnetron to the United States. This early magnetron was to be used as a pattern that set us into production of better radar equipment!

This might explain things, as radar was being played with in Germany Britain, France and the US from the 1920's (I just a little searching on the web). Heinrich Hertz discovered radio waves in 1886, but one could consider radar a British invention. Radar was patented (British patent) in April, 1935. I think a magnetron is the main component of radar (and microwave ovens, but that's another story! :lol: ). Maybe a german device was brought to the US for further improvement (this I'm not sure about). Here are some tidbits I've just grabbed onto, and I'll link to the page it's from for those bored souls that are curious further.

The idea behind pulsed radar was straightforward, and in fact Watson-Watt was not the first to come up with it. Crude radars had been around for decades. A radar had been demonstrated and patented by a German engineer named Christian Huelsmeyer as far back as 1904.

The Americans had actually beaten the British to the first demonstration of pulsed radar by several weeks. However, the British were the first to grasp radar's potential, quickly envisioning a national network of radar stations to provide advance warning of an attack. This gave Britain a step ahead in what would turn into a race for electronic supremacy.


http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz1.html
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:30 am

Now this you have to love! My memory got triggered from looking into this tonight and I remembered a story that I saw earlier this year about the history of radar being triggered from a rumor that Hitler had a death ray in the mid-1930's. Public outcry in England was so strong that radar was developed from the threat of what was propaganda from Germany. Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard, as that bit Germany in the bum in the Battle of Britain for sure. Now it seems radio (radar) waves might indeed make a death ray for real, lol (maybe not lol actually!).

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... 2,,00.html
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:39 am

Naval radars have been used as impromptu "death rays" for some time, albeit not designed as such and more often as not unintentionally. The power involved and the developing ability to steer beams, concentrating that power, means there can be a real risk to electronics in "target" platforms. The Talos FC radar was used as a "soft kill" weapon in Vietnam and 've heard unofficially that similar systems were used to fry the electronics of Russian AGIs that got too close to NATO ships from time to time
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:29 am

DM wrote:Naval radars have been used as impromptu "death rays" for some time, albeit not designed as such and more often as not unintentionally. The power involved and the developing ability to steer beams, concentrating that power, means there can be a real risk to electronics in "target" platforms. The Talos FC radar was used as a "soft kill" weapon in Vietnam and 've heard unofficially that similar systems were used to fry the electronics of Russian AGIs that got too close to NATO ships from time to time
Same with shuting down aircraft radars on board ships.
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:23 am

Or (in extreme cases) personnel!
Jellicoe
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:22 pm
Location: London

Postby Jellicoe » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:47 am

DM wrote:Or (in extreme cases) personnel!
I heard about this first in conjunction with RN Sea Harriers, their radars and carrier deck personnel, but it could be just one of those urban naval myths.
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Jellicoe wrote:
DM wrote:Or (in extreme cases) personnel!
I heard about this first in conjunction with RN Sea Harriers, their radars and carrier deck personnel, but it could be just one of those urban naval myths.
There are places in modernal naval ships, painted bright yellow. With warning signs, saying "Do not Stand here" (well to that effect).
Last edited by Reaverman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
rbax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby rbax » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:30 am

BuShips wrote:So what is being said is that radar is in the game, but was just left off of the stats of the Fletchers? OK then, no big deal. First item that goes into the errata. Really not trying to start a historical picking of nits, but this question to the play-testers- Does the US South Dakota BB have lower secondary gun stats than its three sister ships? The reason is that as SoDak was built to be a flagship with added levels in the main tower for admirals and staff and due to stability reasons two of the dual 5" secondary guns were removed. This lowers its 5" capability from 20 to 16 guns.
Correct. Radar in the game. It was simply left of the Fletcher by accident.

In the case of the South Dakota. No the the fact that the S.D. was outfitted as flagship with 16 instead of 20 5" guns was not factored. At release, VAS ship stats were intended to represent the class as a whole an not specific ships. Thus individual variations including, radar fits, updated AAA and individual ships variations was not captured. The intention is to release a set of S&P values to capture individual variations, or, if the game is super popular, do a series of fleet suppliements.
While I'm on 5" USN ordnance, did anyone see the importance of the US development of the "VT" proximity fused AA round and just how deadly it was to attacking aircraft? A secret well kept, even the designation was a deliberate deception. "VT" stood for variable-timed, but it wasn't anything of the kind. They placed a miniature radio transceiver in the projectile to detonate it when the radar saw that it was close to the position of the incoming air threat. This became an extremely important feature when the Divine Wind began "operations". It was as much of a well-kept secret as was the fabulous Japanese 24" Long Lance torpedo. Say, did you guys figure in this...? (I'll stop now and give you a break, lol).
The VT fuzed shell was discussed and tabled to coincide with the introduction of kamikaze rules.

--- Rich
rbax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby rbax » Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:34 am

BuShips wrote:I see a possible reply to my comments above that this is the road to a complicated game (defensive already, ain't I?, lol) and there are already others that do this. I do realise that detail has to give way to playability, but with some things the tactical and historical nature of a weapon or device is so overwhelming as to needing to be considered even within the framework of a simple and fast set of rules. For example, The comparison between the US 21" torp and the 24" LL torp is roughly twice the warhead (!) and three times the range (!!) of the US weapon. The batreps of the losing USN Captains was that they HAD to have run into a minefield at the same time as fighting a battle because torpedoes just couldn't go that far. They were right, US torpedoes couldn't but the Japanese ones could.
Warhead sizes for the various torpedo warheads was accounted for to a certain degree. Some effort was also done to explore warhead filler type to account for the explosive variation of say Torpex to more standard TNT derivatives.

Torpedo Ranges was no modeled as tightly though the long lance does have twice the range of their contemporary opponents.

--- Rich
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:56 am

rbax (Rich!), I'm fine with what you've answered, and thanks! In trying to keep with various compromises within the framework of a fast-play set of rules, the choices seem acceptable. If all other torpedoes were the same and with a sole exception being that the Long Lance 24" is given twice the range, I could live with that. Also, if the initial scope of the game is simplicity, "averaging" ships within a class to a generic description goes along with the stated goal of fast play. As an example of this, you probably then kept the US light cruisers St. Louis and Helena as extentions to the Brooklyn class of seven ships. Pulling the focus back a bit one can group them as all the same. In truth, the St. Louis and Helena were considered as a separate class as the 6" main guns were of a slightly different caliber and the 5" guns fitted were of the newer 38 cal. dual enclosed mounts instead of the older 25 cal. open mounts. For those that like Long Lance trivia, the Helena was "chopped" into three pieces by those torpedoes and she was larger than many "heavy" cruisers. As you know, the USN considered a CL as armed with 5-6" main guns and a CA as mounting 8" sized guns.

I think grouping the VT AA round with the intro of the Kamikazes works as well. Good call.
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
rbax
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:31 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby rbax » Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:04 pm

BuShips wrote:As an example of this, you probably then kept the US light cruisers St. Louis and Helena as extentions to the Brooklyn class of seven ships. Pulling the focus back a bit one can group them as all the same. In truth, the St. Louis and Helena were considered as a separate class as the 6" main guns were of a slightly different caliber and the 5" guns fitted were of the newer 38 cal. dual enclosed mounts instead of the older 25 cal. open mounts.
Your quite correct here. The St. Louis and Helena stayed in the Brooklyn Class though they were clearly one-off designs. Besides playability the other other main reason for these groupings was space. Or lack there-of while trying to cover the major navies. As it was, the Italians missed out on a lot of their units. Something that will dealt with sooner rather than later. Though whether in the format of an S&P article or a suppliment is yet to be determined. Massive sales will result in full on suppliments. Otherwise it will be S&P articles.

--- Rich

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests