AOD Errors

[DM]

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

 

[wkehrman]

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.

 

[Myrm]

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]

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

 

[DM]

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

 

[wkehrman]

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..."

 

[Brass]

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]

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?