Ballistic penetration

[holden88]

I think one of the big things that the VAS system misses out on is simulating the fact that naval shells strike with more hitting power at short ranges rather than long ranges.

Do you think it's worth trying to add a damage dice modifier to the game based on range? I was thinking of maybe giving a +1 to DD rolls for hits at point blank range (5" or less). Or maybe subtract 1 from DD rolls for hits at long and extreme range (20" or more).

 

[Reaverman]

I thought the idea of the Damage bonus, was to represent plunging fire. Maybe at shorter ranges, you could have target bonuses. Mind you, the germans already get something like that :?

 

[chaos0xomega]

Shouldn't it be: close range- + to damage, - to targetting(tracking, perhaps only to smaller faster vessels?)
mid range +tracking
longrange - to damage, - targetting

 

[Hugbiel]

Well IMHO it's useless to simulate the fact that naval shells strike with more hitting power at short ranges rather than long ranges, since ship of the era is already more protected ( belt armour ) from direct shell than for plunging ones.

 

[chaos0xomega]

while that may be true, they should probably recieved an armor penetration bonus for close range(not a strength bonus, I dont have VaS yet so I dont know how shooting and whatever is handled), whatever that may be...

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I think one of the big things that the VAS system misses out on is simulating the fact that naval shells strike with more hitting power at short ranges rather than long ranges.

Do you think it's worth trying to add a damage dice modifier to the game based on range? I was thinking of maybe giving a +1 to DD rolls for hits at point blank range (5" or less). Or maybe subtract 1 from DD rolls for hits at long and extreme range (20" or more).

I can answer this. A ships Belt armour is spefically designed to resist these kinds of attacks. Though defences aren't perfect.

 

[holden88]

I can answer this. A ships Belt armour is spefically designed to resist these kinds of attacks. Though defences aren't perfect.

Sorry Joe. I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. What question are you refering to?

This thread is pretty meaningless. There is already another thread dicussing this very same topic (must remember to read down a bit before starting a new thread).

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I can answer this. A ships Belt armour is spefically designed to resist these kinds of attacks. Though defences aren't perfect.

Sorry Joe. I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. What question are you refering to?

This thread is pretty meaningless. There is already another thread dicussing this very same topic (must remember to read down a bit before starting a new thread).

Okay, Belt armour is the armour around the side of the ship. This armour is rather thick. It is also the main target of an attacking ship (you want to put holes in the waterline to sink the ship). Most ships posses 6-18" (depending on the type of vessel we're talking about) of reinforced armour. It is tested for short range attacks because this is the worst attack it will suffer. High velocity shells can still penetrate it, but it has to be a large calibre weapon. A battleship being attacked by a destroyer has little to worry about, but the destroyer is in serious trouble if the gunnery officer turns his attention to it.

Better?

 

[Joe_Dracos]

To be blunt, no.

 

[holden88]

Sorry Joe, not to be daft or anything, but it seems to me like you're just spewing out a bunch of info and opinions. It almost looks like you are replying to a different thread altogether.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that there should be no bonus to damage dice rolls at close range because ships were built to withstand this type of fire? Not sure if this is what you mean, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Darilian]

I think the greater problem, Holden, is that with a d6 system, its hard to really just add a +1 here, a -1 there. Do you really think that the +1 for close range that you are suggesting is equivalent to the difference in armour of the Hood vs. the Yamato. Becuase that, effectively, is what you are saying.

If you do, then by all means, go with your mod. For one, I think that you will make an already bloody system even MORE bloody at close range, but hey- try it out!

Darilian

 

[holden88]

I think the greater problem, Holden, is that with a d6 system, its hard to really just add a +1 here, a -1 there. Do you really think that the +1 for close range that you are suggesting is equivalent to the difference in armour of the Hood vs. the Yamato. Becuase that, effectively, is what you are saying.

If you do, then by all means, go with your mod. For one, I think that you will make an already bloody system even MORE bloody at close range, but hey- try it out!

It's kind of difficult to compare the ballistic penetration advantages of close range shots with the difference of armour between the Yamato and the Hood. Sort of like apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure that if the Hood pulled up alongside the Yamato at point blank range and started blasting she could penetrate the armour.

It is a simple fact of naval warfare that the closer you are to your target, the more damage your guns will inflict. This isn't reflected in the VAS system (and I realize VAS has abstracted many rules to facilitate faster play). Except for plunging fire (which is a rule I like), every shell in VAS functions as a torpedo and carries its penetration qualities along with it, regardless of range.

I agree that it is difficult to tinker too much with a D6 based system though. This will require more thought.

 

[BuShips]

holden88, as far as "house-ruling it", sure. Others have said to play the game as-is, and that is all fine too. I'm running off with similar ideas, but I've been rather focused upon LOS not being in the game but wanting to do more with crossing the T than what the game has at present. For my suggestions as well as yours, it sounds fine to experiment with little tweaks to the basic rules system for fun, but then play the game as-is when going to an event or a game store demo session. What you are mentioning is to break up the damage into range bands. This is a very factual and quite important component in naval fighting, and if the rules were intended to be designed with more detail than Mongoose decided then it would have been included. For the level of game that VaS seems to be designed for the game can certainly work without yours and my additions, but it doesn't take a redesign to toss in some additional tweaks. As far as battleships for the most part, the armor belt of a given ship was intended to be immune to the fire of its own guns (as a rule of thumb) but reality was sometimes very different. VaS doesn't "work" well with too much detail, or it defeats its intended purpose. I believe you are talking about a very "rough" guide that maybe uses the three range bands and varies the damage dice, right? Reaverman came the closest so far, reminding us that the long and extreme range +1 DD bonus already recognizes that plunging fire is hitting thinner deck armor than at side armor. Reaverman is right that in a sense the game already includes a correction for this range difference and adds the +1 bonus. Maybe all you might decide to try would be to add one additional 10" range band, splitting the 20" 'normal' range. You then would have-

GUN RANGE BANDS            AD Modifier                    DD Modifier 
0-10"   = Close Range           +1                             +1 (H)
>10-20" = Normal Range           0                              0 (H)
>20-30" = Long Range            -1                             +1 (V)
>30"    = Extreme Range         -2                             +1 (V)

The three modifiers already in the rules (really there are four :wink: ) are included in the above table (+1 DD bonus for Long and Extreme Ranges, -1 AD penalty for Long Range and -2 AD penalty for Extreme Range). This suggestion adds more of course to the rules than what are presented, but only inserts an increased AD and DD if within the 10" band. Accuracy is increased as well as higher belt penetration effects. The (H) and (V) are stated as Horizontal (flat) or Vertical (plunging) projectile trajectories. Sure, you could add more bands such as your 5", but all of this is outside the written rules and subject to personal taste. Thus, here are my comments as to what you were thinking over.

 

[Darilian]

Interesting stuff...
I'd need to roll out some simulations before I completely say yes or no, but I do know that in my club we are thinking of using Manley's mod that ships can't fire over 30" anyway, except with the aid of a spotter plane. (Which we are also getting rid of). I DO know that when we played with the spotter planes as they stand, close range gunnery was REALLY REALLY lethal- and the planes were fiddly and a bit silly. But thats my opinion. I'll roll some dice and think on this.

Darilian

 

[DM]

I've been playing with a +1 on DD at <=10". It works well.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I was thinking of maybe giving a +1 to DD rolls for hits at point blank range (5" or less).

Getting a little frustrated. Okay, Okay, Okay. Going to try this one more time. Take this question, take everything I said about ships armour resisting "Projectile speed" and then add the answer NO.

 

[seldon]

DM,
do you mean you add one extra die to the DD or + 1 to each die just like the plunging shot ?

Also, with AP and plungin shot and other modifiers, if I roll a 5 + 1 = 6 , is that a possible crit or ar possible crits only natural 6 ?

If the latter apply would that be something to think about when thinking about damage, making some modes + 1 to the die and some -1 to armour ?

Of course all this within BuShip's comments about the intended level of complexity of the game, I understand his point and it makes a lot of sense.

Seldon

 

[DM]

I'd go for a +1 modifier to the die roll and I think, (if using the extant system) check for criticals on a natural 6 to keep things simple.