Battle of the River Plate - Critique

[Digger]

Last night we played 3 games of the BOTRP scenario, we noted the following points:

1. The Graf Spee lost every single time.

2. The Graf Spee is at a distinct disadvantage at the start of the game, because its best advantage is that it has a longer gun range, and the scenario begins the game with the RN ships already within close range and flanking the Graf Spee either side; a very strong tactical position to start in as the Graf Spee has to split its fire.

3. The armour on the Graf Spee is too weak, it is the same value as the small RN ships, so much for being a pocket battleship!

4. The only way the Germans could effectively win the game would be to flank speed straight off the table and take no part in gunnery exchanges, which is not what most people play the game for.

So we would recommend the following adjustments:

1. The scenario should start as a closing engagement, as in fact when the Graf Spee was first spotted at extreme range, both players start at the opposite ends of the table. The German player still has to get off the table at the other end, but it doesn't mean that the RN starts in such a superior position of flanking the Graf Spee on both sides.

2. The Graf Spee should have its armour value increased to 4+ instead of 3+

This should make it a far more realistic game.

 

[Bullshot]

I don't have my book in front of me at the moment, but IIRC the British ships start out along the long table edges no more than 6" from the short edge opposite the Graf Spee. The Graf Spee starts out in the middle of the table 24" in. The standard table size I believe is something like 4ftx8ft, so that is quite a distance away. In our last run of the scenario, the Graf Spee went down, but it sank a Leander and beat the crap out of the other 2 ships. The biggest advantage the other ships had was that they were agile and could cut in on the Graf Spee and still turn at the end of their movement to bring their broadside to bear.

BS

 

[Soulmage]

I think the diagram of the scenario in the book is confusing. The diagram makes it appear that the English ships CANNOT deploy within 6" of the short edges.

Also, I have to agree about the Graf Spee armor. It struck me as being VERY under armored for what it was claiming to be. I think 4+ is a good number as well.

 

[Jammybee]

You could make the Graf spee armour 4+ but i think it already is the best ship in priority: raid

I think you should instead limit the RN ships by making them deploy 6-12" behind the GS.

 

[Soulmage]

You could make the Graf spee armour 4+ but i think it already is the best ship in priority: raid

Are you talking about for everyone, or just looking at the Kriegsmarine ships.

Personally, I don't think that even if that were true, moving the armor to a 4+ would be a problem. The Kriegsmarine just isn't that powerful. Giving them some strength in the middle of their fleet list would help make up for the lack at the top. Compare the Bismarck to the Iowa or Yamato to see what I mean. Bismarck should almost be a battle level choice!

Plus, there are only three of the Deutschland class, unless you are ignoring historical reality.

Its like the R.N. York cruisers. Awesome ships for their PL. . . but there are only two of them!

 

[captainsmirk]

You do realise that the term Pocket-Battleship was invented by the British press who knew nothing about the ships' capabilities...

The Germans called them Panzerschiffs, "Armoured Ship"

Graf Spee's armour belt was 80mm.

The HMS Exeter's armoured belt was 76mm.

The Ajax and Achilles actually had 102mm of armour in their main belt so some of their armour was better than the Graf Spee's.

Admittedly she had bigger guns and much thicker armour on the turrets, but still she was just an over gunned heavy cruiser...

Nick

 

[Soulmage]

I realize that "Pocket Battleship" was propaganda. .

Its just that 3+ doesn't seem very "heavy" to me.

 

[Jammybee]

You could make the Graf spee armour 4+ but i think it already is the best ship in priority: raid

Are you talking about for everyone, or just looking at the Kriegsmarine ships.

Personally, I don't think that even if that were true, moving the armor to a 4+ would be a problem. The Kriegsmarine just isn't that powerful. Giving them some strength in the middle of their fleet list would help make up for the lack at the top. Compare the Bismarck to the Iowa or Yamato to see what I mean. Bismarck should almost be a battle level choice!

Tried comparing the Bismarck to Hood or king george V class?

 

[holden88]

When we first played this scenario we were confused by the deployment diagram also. It appeared as is the British ships could deploy right alongside the Graf Spee at close range. After re-reading the scenario however, we discovered that the British cruisers must be deployed within 6" of the SHORT table edges. This means on a 6' table the ships will start out being at least 42" apart (assuming the British ships deploy in front of the Graf Spee and not behind her).

The diagram is misleading. The shaded area where it says Ajax, Achilles and Exeter deployment zone is not the area where they can be deployed. It's actually the corners where its marked 6". Ignore the diagram and just follow the Pre-Battle Preparation paragraph.

We found it a pity that the Graf Spee still could not use her longer ranged guns to her advantage because at extreme range she needed a 7+ to hit the Britsh cruisers (unless the British player was foolish enough to turn her cruisers broadside to the Graf Spee at extreme range).

 

[captainsmirk]

I realize that "Pocket Battleship" was propaganda. .

Its just that 3+ doesn't seem very "heavy" to me.

I believe the definition of a "Heavy" cruiser was a cruiser armed with guns of 6.1" or greater, it had nothing to do with armour weight.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cruiser


Nick

 

[chaos0xomega]

Digger- the scenario was already tested out by other players, and they have won. There is a thread about it. Obviously you guys are doing something wrong, or maybe you are just lacking in experience as of now, and will, with time, eventually be able to beat the scenario.

 

[Reaverman]

Digger- the scenario was already tested out by other players, and they have won. There is a thread about it. Obviously you guys are doing something wrong, or maybe you are just lacking in experience as of now, and will, with time, eventually be able to beat the scenario.

Digger....lacking experience :?

He's ex Navy, and a salty one at that

 

[rbax]

I believe the definition of a "Heavy" cruiser was a cruiser armed with guns of 6.1" or greater, it had nothing to do with armour weight.

Nick

Actually the idea of heavy and light cruiser (in terms of the Word War 2 time period) reallty came about with the London Treaty, which limited constuction of cruisers with 8-inch guns. As a result of the curtailment of 8-inch gunned cruisers, most nations shifted to 6-inch gun cruiser (typically with more turrets). The 8-inch gun cruisers became known as as heavy criusers while the 6-inch gun cruisers became known as light cruiser (despite the fact that they often out-weighted (or equalled in weight) their heavy cruiser precursers.

--- Rich

 

[pbeccas]

The Graf Spee is a heavy cruiser and no matter what rules you might try she always comes out second best against the RN Division. Just like the real battle.

 

[Digger]

chaos0xomega = To quote Londo Mollari freely: "Stupidity and arrogance in the same simple package - How economical of you!"

I was attempting to draw attention to what I believed were deficiencies in the drawings attached to the scenarios, like the incorrect spelling of Bismarck and vague indication of where the ships should start from. I also believe that the armour should be increased on a so called pocket battleship, which has the same armour value as a much smaller ship.

I was giving an opinion on the scenario, not calling for radical change! To therefore state that I am doing something wrong or lacking experience is unjustified.

It is an opinion, thats all. For instance: In my opinion, you Sir may be an ass!

 

[Renny]

Digger- the scenario was already tested out by other players, and they have won. There is a thread about it. Obviously you guys are doing something wrong, or maybe you are just lacking in experience as of now, and will, with time, eventually be able to beat the scenario.

Erm, patronising much?

i'm one of the players in that group and frankly, between us we have plenty of experience , thanks. The scenario was played three times, with different players playing each side. If the scenario comes out with the same result each time then I would suggest there may be issues with it.

Renny

 

[captainsmirk]

I also believe that the armour should be increased on a so called pocket battleship, which has the same armour value as a much smaller ship.

As I commented above the "so called" is just that, it was called that by the British press who had no knowledge of its true capabilities. Its armour was no better and in some cases worse than that of the three ships it faced at the River Plate. It was in reality a cruiser with Battleship calibre guns, a raider not a ship of the line.


Nick

 

[DM]

There was a tendancy to portray the other side's ships as "ten feet tall" when the need arose, whereas in reality the designs were often rather less scary. Unfortunately the "popular view" propagated by default and in sme cases remains even today. Bismarck is another example.

 

[Digger]

As I said, it was my opinion - I agree there is justification for it remaining at 3+.

What I object to was the assertion by ChaosOxomega that because I had this opinion, I lacked experience and was doing something wrong!

 

[captainsmirk]

Well I can agree with you on that one, especially as the scenario seems to have been somewhat fudged when they printed it.


Nick