AOD Errors

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

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

AOD Errors

Postby DM » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:58 am

A few glitches in AOD have been brought to my attention, with these glitches due to me not being rigorous enough in checking where changes in one part of the rules applied to others (for which I apologise).

The "Agile" trait was affected by the change in Turn Numbers and turning. Whilst its revised effect was reflected in changes eklsewhere the description in the "traits" section wasn't updated. The trait should read:
"Some ships are very manoeuvrable, either by virtue of speed and size or advanced rudder designs. Ships with the "agile" trait have bonuses when attempting "come about" or "evasive" special actions."
And in the ship date, the Armour Value of the Queen Elizabeth class should be 6 rather than 5.

Sorry about that Matt and everybody, my bad, not MGP's :(
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
User avatar
wkehrman
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:57 am

Postby wkehrman » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:04 am

So are the turn numbers correct? Everything seems to have a "3".

I asked this in the Rulesmasters forum a couple of days ago.

It would mean that the "Come About" special action would give every ship an effective turn rate of "4" or about 120 degrees. With two turns per movement phase, well, this seems very agile.

I'm beginning to think I do not understand this rule as well as I had thought.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Counting on silashand's crappy die rolls since 2006.
Myrm
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:09 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Postby Myrm » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:04 pm

DM muttered on TMP that he had checked the turn radii of various WWI ships and found them very similar.....BBs and DDs were compared.
Brass
Mongoose
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Postby Brass » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:11 pm

FWIW, I have seen a couple of contemporary studies (admittedly pertaining mostly to British ships) that indicate the turning radii of most WWI warships, while not identical, were surprisingly similar. The single exception was armoured cruisers, whose turn rate was much slower (e.g. in general, a predreadnought battleship could out-turn an armoured cruiser by almost 2:1).

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

Postby DM » Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:16 pm

Yes, they are all supposed to be three.

FWIW I have the manoeuvring trial reports for the WW2 battleship NELSON and the destroyer COSSACk at the office,and the battleship could turn well inside the destroyer's turning circle :)
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
User avatar
wkehrman
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:57 am

Postby wkehrman » Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:31 pm

DM wrote:Yes, they are all supposed to be three.

FWIW I have the manoeuvring trial reports for the WW2 battleship NELSON and the destroyer COSSACk at the office,and the battleship could turn well inside the destroyer's turning circle :)
It is both surprising and counterintuitive, but if that's what the data says that's what it says. Who am I to argue?

To quote The Bard "There are more things in heaven and on earth..."
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Counting on silashand's crappy die rolls since 2006.
Brass
Mongoose
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 2:37 pm

Postby Brass » Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:12 pm

wkehrman wrote:
DM wrote:Yes, they are all supposed to be three.

FWIW I have the manoeuvring trial reports for the WW2 battleship NELSON and the destroyer COSSACk at the office,and the battleship could turn well inside the destroyer's turning circle :)
It is both surprising and counterintuitive, but if that's what the data says that's what it says. Who am I to argue?

To quote The Bard "There are more things in heaven and on earth..."
Counterintuitive, to be sure, but it's a function of rudder placement, propeller positioning, and hull design rather than size and speed. In WWII, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Yamato (!!!) all had tactical diameters smaller than that of a Tribal-class destroyer.

LT
Myrm
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:09 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Postby Myrm » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:31 am

Just a quick check, some British ships get an upgrade/supercharge for their old guns (12" I think) - this is listed as taking their range from 24" to 38" - is it really that big a jump?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests