VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Discuss the Victory at Sea range of naval games.

Moderator: rcbecker1

User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14984
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby MongooseMatt » Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:34 pm

We have just updated Planet Mongoose with some more hints about the forthcoming Victory at Sea!

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
hdan
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:11 am
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby hdan » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:13 pm

That looks very good.
/hdan
User avatar
AdrianH
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby AdrianH » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:49 am

Minor spelling correction before VaS 2.0 goes to print - it's Kriegsmarine. ;)

The USS Iowa looks nicely detailed, with one exception which is common to the other preview pictures. Can the funnels have holes added? Granted, WW2 ships usually had a grating over the funnel to stop someone from dropping a bomb down it, but if detail such as small AA guns can be added then funnel caps which look as though they can emit smoke should also be possible. ;)
Smiert Spam
Myrm
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:09 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Myrm » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:34 pm

It mentions resin - has the recent issues with resin and ACtA affected that decision in any way (or indeed informed it) - a brief commentary on that front would make me much more confident in going for those models over the many that exist (or sticking with my V1 counterset)

Tim
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14984
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby MongooseMatt » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:01 pm

Myrm wrote:It mentions resin - has the recent issues with resin and ACtA affected that decision in any way (or indeed informed it) - a brief commentary on that front would make me much more confident in going for those models over the many that exist (or sticking with my V1 counterset)

Tim
The methods use to cast the VaS ships are completely different from those used with Star Fleet. In any case, you will have plenty of chances to see the VaS range before it goes on sale.
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
AdmiralGrafSpee
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby AdmiralGrafSpee » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:07 pm

I'm really looking forward to this book! While our group didn't play the last version very much (no point values didn't work well for our group dynamic) I really enjoyed the book and all the writeups for the ships. Now with point values added, a rules update, and more historical fluff, what's not to like?!

-Tim
Thunder
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:18 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Thunder » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:31 pm

That looks great!

I am really glad all the naval elements are coming together. Battleships, Destroyers, Aircraft, Torpedo Boats, Submarines, etc. Great stuff.

If it is not too late, I would LOVE to see a fleet list for both the Allies and the Axis minor fleets. C'Mon, Canadians!

I play this game mostly via historical scenarios with little real interest in "build a fleet" tournament play. I love the historical scenarios, especially small fleet scenarios.

Peace
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:54 am

There will be list for the allies of the major nations. The problem is do you list it as Canadian if the crew is Canadian but the ship is British. Or list it that way if they built it and man it themselves?
Most of the time the ship falls under British Leadership but is stated to be Canadian crewed. Same goes for the others. I have some ideas but would like to hear what others have to say.
Ray
"Official Naval Boffin"
Viktor_Renquist
Shrew
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Viktor_Renquist » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:09 am

rcbecker1 wrote:There will be list for the allies of the major nations. The problem is do you list it as Canadian if the crew is Canadian but the ship is British. Or list it that way if they built it and man it themselves?
Most of the time the ship falls under British Leadership but is stated to be Canadian crewed. Same goes for the others. I have some ideas but would like to hear what others have to say.
Ray
It gets messier than that. There was a "New Zealand Division" of the Royal Navy until 1941, when the RNZN was formed. How would ships like HMS (Later HMNZS) Achilles be classified? In addition, much of the RAN at this point consisted of vessels transferred from the RN, often with at least part of the Officer Cadre intact. This occurred with smaller, as well as larger vessels. I've got a mate here who's father served on Flower-class corvettes on the Murmansk run, and he was on one of the ships transferred to the RAN in 1945, along with the whole crew!

Additionally, IIRC, all of the Commonwealth navies served under the overall administration of The Admiralty. My inclination would be to group these forces together, under a heading like "Royal and Dominion Navies" and identify on a ship by ship basis when needed
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:05 pm

Viktor_Renquist wrote:
rcbecker1 wrote:There will be list for the allies of the major nations. The problem is do you list it as Canadian if the crew is Canadian but the ship is British. Or list it that way if they built it and man it themselves?
Most of the time the ship falls under British Leadership but is stated to be Canadian crewed. Same goes for the others. I have some ideas but would like to hear what others have to say.
Ray
It gets messier than that. There was a "New Zealand Division" of the Royal Navy until 1941, when the RNZN was formed. How would ships like HMS (Later HMNZS) Achilles be classified? In addition, much of the RAN at this point consisted of vessels transferred from the RN, often with at least part of the Officer Cadre intact. This occurred with smaller, as well as larger vessels. I've got a mate here who's father served on Flower-class corvettes on the Murmansk run, and he was on one of the ships transferred to the RAN in 1945, along with the whole crew!

Additionally, IIRC, all of the Commonwealth navies served under the overall administration of The Admiralty. My inclination would be to group these forces together, under a heading like "Royal and Dominion Navies" and identify on a ship by ship basis when needed
I was thinking title Commonwealth navies but "Royal and Dominion Navies" could work if thats the correct name for it.
Now this would need to have list of ships, nations and dates for ships controled.
If you guys want ill head this and you guys can help check info and offer info at my email.
PM me if interested.
Ray
"Official Naval Boffin"
Thunder
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:18 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Thunder » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:11 pm

Thanks for the responses!

Sometimes it is easy to forget that other nations did play a part in these wars. It is always welcome to see a nod to those who served under different flags. There is no harm in doing so, the upside is huge, the downside is minimal.

Regarding the "it gets more messy". Well, most of the ship stats are a "snap shot" of the ship at a certain time period, so the whole stat thing is kinda messy anyways. The Hood for example has a flaw based upon one critical hit. If that hit had been in a different location, or never happened, then war games would not even put that flaw in the stats. But they do because that is the colourful part of the Hood's history and folks associate the Hood with that moment.

The HMCS Haida (Tribal Class) was a great ship. Yes, the Tribal class served different nations, but the Haida served the Canada well, sinking 14 ships. Quite an accomplishment....for any nation. The Haida is also the sole survivor of the Tribal Class.

I know listing individual ships is outside the scope of Victory at Sea. The preference is not to duplicate information in different sections. But an Order of Battle that referenced these ships is a good idea.

Peace
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:42 pm

I already have an OOB for those fleets and others which will be in the new rules, listing out classes and individual ships
"Official Naval Boffin"
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:56 pm

Thunder wrote:Thanks for the responses!


Regarding the "it gets more messy". Well, most of the ship stats are a "snap shot" of the ship at a certain time period, so the whole stat thing is kinda messy anyways. The Hood for example has a flaw based upon one critical hit. If that hit had been in a different location, or never happened, then war games would not even put that flaw in the stats. But they do because that is the colourful part of the Hood's history and folks associate the Hood with that moment.

I know listing individual ships is outside the scope of Victory at Sea. The preference is not to duplicate information in different sections. But an Order of Battle that referenced these ships is a good idea.

Peace
1st. Hood not an issue in this game. Do you play WAS?
2nd. VAS list the differnces between ships in classes including upgrades and such.
3rd. something tells me you will greatly enjoy VAS 2.0
"Official Naval Boffin"
Thunder
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:18 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Thunder » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:16 pm

Howdy,

1) Why...yes I do play WaS! :)

I was hoping when Mongoose announced their own ships they would be in the 1/1800 scale so they would be compatible. Alas, they are not so I will unfortunately not be buying any. I buy complete sets of the WaS stuff when it comes out. I have the entire line.

2) That's true. I remember that now that you mention it. The special things about the ships is what gives the game its flavour. Otherwise I would be happy using counters.

3) I am really excited about VaS 2.0. I get the impression that the system is being looked at as a whole this time, instead of mixing and matching the different elements. That is a HUGE step in the right direction. Getting Subs, Ships and Planes all working coherently and in a manner that feels right is not an easy task. However, if it is done right, this is a game that will be played for a LONG time. It fills an interesting niche...not too heavy, not too light. I can't wait.

Peace
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:00 am

I to have played WAS its just a little to simple and dice heavy for me. But fun for quick games.
Did you come over from the A&A forum. Im also a member there. They (Mongoose) have to go for the most common size ships, I understand and wont buy a bunch either just enough for small games, as I own most of the WAS line myself. I have all the navies in that scale. My wife assumes Ive lost my mind. I think from what Ive seen the new VAS will be very thorough. But its gonna take time as its a big project.
Ray :D
"Official Naval Boffin"
Spence
Mongoose
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:46 am
Contact:

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Spence » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:43 am

Been away a while so....

Are there plans to support WW1 and before? I usually avoid any naval war game that includes aircraft since the games premise and play radically shifts from warship-vs-warship to long range out of sight duels between carrier air-wings.

Not a problem if that is what you like. But I have always enjoyed a heavy gun slugfest.

That said, are there any plans for on down the line?
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:41 am

The WWI game is fine and has an expansion coming out soon. I believe there is also stuff coming out for russo japanese stuff in the future.
"Official Naval Boffin"
Thunder
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 12:18 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Thunder » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:32 pm

My favorite way to play WaS now is either the official Long Distance rules, or afilter's Large Map rules.:

http://rallyroundtheflag.blogspot.com/

They really change the game in a subtle but significant fashion. Carriers are now far away from the battle, historical battles become possible. Playing this way is just like being Nimitz overlooking a huge battle.

Not many naval miniature games will allow you to play the Battle of Calabria with a FULL order of battle in 3 hours and get a good feel for the battle.

http://beerandpretzel.webs.com/apps/pho ... d=12901209

Oh what fun! I recommend you give it a try sometime. It is a different scale.

Peace

PS. I recognize this is totally off topic from the original (and much anticipated) subject. If the mods move or even delete this post I completely understand.
User avatar
rcbecker1
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Jacksonville, Florida

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby rcbecker1 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:28 pm

Being the mod, Ill not worry about it for now.
"Official Naval Boffin"
User avatar
Nerroth
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: VaS 2.0 Development Progress

Postby Nerroth » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:48 am

For a second, when I saw "WaS", I thought someone was quoting a certain fictional officer...

"Wictory at Sea! A Russian inwention."
The above post is 100% unofficial.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests