New Additions

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

Kevin Clark
Stoat
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:26 am
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk

Postby Kevin Clark » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:36 am

Name me one converstion that doesn't fly off at a tangent at some point during the proceedings. Especially amongst gamers, who are, lets face it, the champions of pfaff.
It's not true that Ipswich is the edge of the World, but you can see it from there.
juggler69uk
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:44 pm

Postby juggler69uk » Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:04 pm

errrr...... Probably one that does not get any replies
Its not whether you win or lose.......
....... oh wth win anyway
Keith
Mongoose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 7:41 pm

Postby Keith » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:04 pm

I write this at the risk of returning to the (or at laeast a) point. If Mongoose is short of space in the supplement, why not have two. If you have do this one could contain the historical ships and the other the "what ifs"?

This might make everbody happy.
juggler69uk
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:44 pm

Postby juggler69uk » Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:17 pm

Keith I suggested this in the thread with the Poll on the supplement and hypothetical ships
Its not whether you win or lose.......
....... oh wth win anyway
Brass
Mongoose
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Postby Brass » Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:54 pm

Keith wrote:I write this at the risk of returning to the (or at least a) point. If Mongoose is short of space in the supplement, why not have two. If you have do this one could contain the historical ships and the other the "what ifs"?

This might make everbody happy.
I'm not really sure space would be an issue. After all, the original rulebook devoted just over half its length to ship data and still contained enough ships to make the game playable. I don't recall seeing any hard data as to the projected length of the supplement but even if Mongoose were to stick to the same length (96 usable pages) , they could include a reasonable number of historical notes, new scenarios, and (hopefully) much-needed rule amendments - say, 20 pages total -, and still have room for 150+ ships using the current two-to-a-page format. That would cover the rest of the major ships and most of the minor ones for the major navies, enough for the minor navies to make them playable, and most - maybe all - of the hypothetical ships (in all honesty, there weren't that many).

My only concern is that ships that actual served but have a low "way cool" factor will get short shrift in favor of ships that had no effect whatsoever on the conduct of World War II at sea but are seen as much cooler, e.g. the US Casablanca-class escort carrier (a workhorse in both Atlantic and Pacific - 50 built) versus the much cooler Montana-class battleships (interesting if not particularly innovative design - 5 planned - none launched - project cancelled in July 1943).

Of course, Mongoose may fool me and either publish a supplement long enough to contain everything or go back to publishing the data for hypothetical ships as S&P articles. I think either of these might be preferable, since there really weren't enough ships that could conceivably have seen service but didn't, e.g. HMS Vanguard, to justify a complete supplement and even if you added in the pie-in-the-sky projects like the super-Yamatos I'm not sure you could fill a whole book.

The grognard has spoken - or maybe just grumbled :lol:

LT
juggler69uk
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:44 pm

Postby juggler69uk » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:39 pm

Brass wrote:My only concern is that ships that actual served but have a low "way cool" factor will get short shrift in favor of ships that had no effect whatsoever on the conduct of World War II at sea but are seen as much cooler
Hence the reason I would prefer to stick with historical limits to quantities built (unless previously agreed with opponent) so no more than one hood for me.

It probably wont stop the selection of cool over uncool, Unless you play scenario driven games where the list of ships is already given
Its not whether you win or lose.......
....... oh wth win anyway
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:40 pm

US design teams worked on over 50 potential battleship designs of varying compexity between the wars so there's no shortage of material. The RN list at present has a hell of a lot already. I was going to work up the US and Japanese fleets for "Plan Orange" but haven't had time yet (next project after the ironclads, which are coming on apace) and they'd take up quiet a few pages, so I don't think there would be any shortage of material for a second supplement :)
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
Brass
Mongoose
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Postby Brass » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:17 am

juggler69uk wrote:
Brass wrote:My only concern is that ships that actual served but have a low "way cool" factor will get short shrift in favor of ships that had no effect whatsoever on the conduct of World War II at sea but are seen as much cooler
Hence the reason I would prefer to stick with historical limits to quantities built (unless previously agreed with opponent) so no more than one hood for me.

It probably wont stop the selection of cool over uncool, Unless you play scenario driven games where the list of ships is already given
But I'm not talking about what gets selected for someone's game, I'm talking about what gets selected for the book. My concern is that, if there are indeed space restrictions to be dealt with, the coolness factor will play a larger role in the selection of units for the supplement than it should. Hence my harping on the necessity of making data available for real ships, planes, and navies before getting all het up about the hypothetical ones.

LT
Brass
Mongoose
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Postby Brass » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:42 am

DM wrote:US design teams worked on over 50 potential battleship designs of varying compexity between the wars so there's no shortage of material. The RN list at present has a hell of a lot already. I was going to work up the US and Japanese fleets for "Plan Orange" but haven't had time yet (next project after the ironclads, which are coming on apace) and they'd take up quiet a few pages, so I don't think there would be any shortage of material for a second supplement :)
Well, that's wandering a bit from World War II, though. Nobody would like to see a Lexington-class battlecruiser (an elegant vessel if there ever was one) or a 1920s South Dakota with its 12 16-inch guns more than I but now we're moving from ships that never served in a war that actually happened to ships that never existed in a war that never took place. Meantime, the Italians still don't have an airforce and the Dutch still don't have a navy (although I did download the Dutch navy file from your web site :) )

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

Postby DM » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:38 am

True, but for the purposes of supporting a second supplement I think it would be perfectly justifiable to look to the 1930s and the various "war plans" and potential designs. Hector Bywater's "The Great Pacific War" is an excellent source of inspiration and there's no reason why the rules wouldn't support an excusrion back to an earlier era like this.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
Leadman
Mongoose
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:38 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Postby Leadman » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:08 am

DM wrote:True, but for the purposes of supporting a second supplement I think it would be perfectly justifiable to look to the 1930s and the various "war plans" and potential designs. Hector Bywater's "The Great Pacific War" is an excellent source of inspiration and there's no reason why the rules wouldn't support an excusrion back to an earlier era like this.
I would love a chance at gaming with the various pre-war ships that the treaties killed :D I think that it would make a great second supplement after all of the historicals are taken care of.

Dannie
VAS Play Tester
vitalis6969
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Michigan, East Side

Postby vitalis6969 » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:19 am

But where exactly do you cut the historicals off at? I mean, with the limitations imposed by a D6 system, there aren't really going to be that many differences between certain Light Cruisers for example. A common sense judgment is going to have to be made on judging the difference between every ship that served in the war or two classes that were virtually identical.

Look at the great variety of US destroyers. Does every one really need to have a stat card? They will be pretty much the same. Same as the current Heavy Cruiser with stats for the US and the Baltimore class. Pretty close game wise. Sure, make both, but what if there were six classes of heavy cruiser, all basically the same. Does each class get space or do they get mushed as representative of whats most like each other?

Just a thought,

-V
B5 ACTA, Tanked... Battlefield Evolution, Tanked... Mongoose Traveller, this is your last chance...
Thunder
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:18 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Postby Thunder » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:46 am

I agree, in a game like VaS there is going to be some kind of grouping with the units into classes. Using a d6 limits the delineation between the classes alot.

Peace
juggler69uk
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:44 pm

Postby juggler69uk » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:35 pm

Woohoooo upgrade VaS to a D10 and redo all the stats in the book yay

A good idea giving more scope for ships stats, but like thats ever going to happen
Its not whether you win or lose.......
....... oh wth win anyway
Swan
Weasel
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:37 pm

Postby Swan » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:12 pm

Though moving away from a d6 system does open up avenues to better differentiate ships just changing dice size would have a very limited impact on the ship stats. It would allow for more modifiers to be added reflecting the relative strengths and weaknesses each class had against various weapons. Such as the Littorio class Pugliese system for torpedo defense. Though not as good as the torpedo belt it was more effective then not having any defense at all. Under the current rules the Littorio has no torpedo defense, with a wider spectrum of numbers to chose from some type (though not as strong) of torpedo defense could be shown. Unfortunately, adding in all of the possibilities will move VaS from the quick, simple and fun game we know today.
lastbesthope
Executive Mongoose
Posts: 19697
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Postby lastbesthope » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:37 pm

Changing to a d10 from a d6, this discussion seems reminiscent of the ACTA boards in times past :lol:

LBH
I'll live forever, heaven won't let me in and hell's afraid I'll take over!!!

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

Postby DM » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:59 pm

And Spearhead (and MSH) which, IIRC, have workable d8 and d10 variants :)
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
Keith
Mongoose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 7:41 pm

Postby Keith » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:53 am

juggler69uk wrote:Woohoooo upgrade VaS to a D10 and redo all the stats in the book yay

A good idea giving more scope for ships stats, but like thats ever going to happen
One of the things that came out of the ACTA threads was that statistically there is little extra scope gianed by adding sides to a dice. Similar effects can be achieved just by rolling more dice.

Rule rewrites would be required in either case if the feel of the game was to be maintained (e.g. using d10s would you only have a chance of a critical on a natural 10? If so this would significantly reduce the frequency of critcals and thence character of the game).
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:22 pm

One of the things that came out of the ACTA threads was that statistically there is little extra scope gianed by adding sides to a dice. Similar effects can be achieved just by rolling more dice.
Reducing or maintaining the number of dice thrown would, of course, be an excellent thing to do.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

ships

Postby rcbecker1 » Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:29 am

I would just like stats for all the ships that acually served in the real war.
Fantasy units are fine but not before ships that were acually there. :D
"Official Naval Boffin"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests