Brooklin Class Cruiser and Japanesse slow loading topedoes

[Reaverman]

or the Aoba's 20" Torps

As for house ruling, why should you house rule it FFS (not having a rant at you DM mate). I'm sorry, but 'House Rule it' is a poor excuse for an unbalance in the game. If you 'House Rule' everything, you might as well just write your own rules :?

 

[Burger]

Brooklyn has less chance of penetrating armour with those hits though, because of Weak.

Eg against armour 5+, your 2.77 hits from the Brooklyn would do 0.462 damage, whereas the 1.33 hits from the other ship would do 0.443, plus crits. Brooklyn loses, sorry!

 

[Chernobyl]

see my point above, its better against destroyers, not cruisers. Which, are typically target 6 armor 3.

Chern

 

[DM]

As for house ruling, why should you house rule it FFS (not having a rant at you DM mate). I'm sorry, but 'House Rule it' is a poor excuse for an unbalance in the game. If you 'House Rule' everything, you might as well just write your own rules

In general I do Although the only WW2 rules in my portfolio are WW2 coastal (my other published naval rules are pre-WW1).

I don't mind rants - I'm married, I'm used to it

 

[Jammybee]

So you guys will be campaigning for a reduction in PL for Fiji class cruisers and other with weak guns in raid level?

Effectively trading 2 torps for 2 damage, extra turret and much better AA. Not a bad deal.

I think US players are just spoiled for choice for really good ships.

 

[E Nicely]

It sometimes seems like some people don't even read threads before replying!

awwwww



I did argue for the Brooklyn to go down to Skirmish during playtest. Just like I argued for the Hood to down go to Battle. It didn't end up that way.

 

[Reaverman]

It sometimes seems like some people don't even read threads before replying!

awwwww



I did argue for the Brooklyn to go down to Skirmish during playtest. Just like I argued for the Hood to down go to Battle. It didn't end up that way.

"But I did argue for [insert name of rule or statistic here]"

Common excuse used by play tester..............sorry someone needs to change that broken record!

 

[E Nicely]

"But I did argue for [insert name of rule or statistic here]"

Common excuse used by play tester..............sorry someone needs to change that broken record!

Looks like your broken record has skipped about 3900 times reaver man. You seem to think that me or any other playtester actually wrote the final version of the game. Not the way it is.

The Hood, Fiji, Gloucester, Brooklyn, and Hei-Gata
are all a little off. There was a design strategy that all battleships should be War and all heavy cruisers should be Raid. Not 100% sure about the Raid but that was the intent with the BBs. In some cases it didn't end up that way.

 

[Soulmage]

"But I did argue for [insert name of rule or statistic here]"

Common excuse used by play tester..............sorry someone needs to change that broken record!

Have you ever done any playtesting for a major game company?

If so, then you would know that you are LUCKY if 1/3 of your suggestions actually get used!!

. . . and as far as broken records go. . . does complaining about PL instead of a point system sound at all familiar to you?

 

[Reaverman]

"But I did argue for [insert name of rule or statistic here]"

Common excuse used by play tester..............sorry someone needs to change that broken record!

Have you ever done any playtesting for a major game company?

If so, then you would know that you are LUCKY if 1/3 of your suggestions actually get used!!

. . . and as far as broken records go. . . does complaining about PL instead of a point system sound at all familiar to you?

Play Testing, no I have not done it. TBH, I would not want to either. But I think there is a general minsunderstanding what a play tester is, and designer. I used to work for a major Hobby manufacturer, and the play testers just did that. Play test, and hand back results. There were usually gaming groups, or clubs. But here, it seems to be game designer not play tester. Also, you would have at least two groups of play testers, to actually balance out stats from opinion.

As PL, you prove to me the PL system works in a Historical game. If you can, which I doubt you will, then I will put my hands up and say you are right.

The other thread I raised about the PL, shows 82% of those that voted. Think there is a problem with the current PL system in VAS, so its not just my opinion its others too.

 

[DM]

There were quite a few playtesters from a range of backgrounds and wargaming experiences. Each, IIRC, played the game within their circles of wargaming chums and fed back their experiences, comments etc. Some comments went in, others didn't.

 

[Soulmage]

As PL, you prove to me the PL system works in a Historical game. If you can, which I doubt you will, then I will put my hands up and say you are right.

My point is not that the PL system is a problem or not a problem. I think there's been plenty of discussion on that issue.

My point is that you keep raising it on pretty much every thread you possibly can.

 

[Reaverman]

As PL, you prove to me the PL system works in a Historical game. If you can, which I doubt you will, then I will put my hands up and say you are right.

My point is not that the PL system is a problem or not a problem. I think there's been plenty of discussion on that issue.

My point is that you keep raising it on pretty much every thread you possibly can.

Nope, just in two or three other threads. I'd hardly say that is EVERY thread!

 

[emperorpenguin]

You're right, the Brooklyn is not worthy of being a Raid ship. Sometimes I think the ships were assigned their PL by random number generation. It is out-classed by many Skirmish ships, for example Aoba, Algerie, Chapaev, Trento, Leander, Perth........

The best solution is to go to a points-based system, since ships can't be arbitrarily tweaked for balance, because of historical accuracy.

OK I didn't playtest VaS (in fact only played one game of it and got whooped!) so I'm not sure of the validity of arguments either way. However if you're correct Burger and the Brooklyn is in the wrong PL because the playtesting didn't pick it up then logic would dictate that in a points system it would have been given an incorrect points value.
So it is not the PL system at fault but rather whether a certain ship was correctly priced surely

 

[Reaverman]

You're right, the Brooklyn is not worthy of being a Raid ship. Sometimes I think the ships were assigned their PL by random number generation. It is out-classed by many Skirmish ships, for example Aoba, Algerie, Chapaev, Trento, Leander, Perth........

The best solution is to go to a points-based system, since ships can't be arbitrarily tweaked for balance, because of historical accuracy.

OK I didn't playtest VaS (in fact only played one game of it and got whooped!) so I'm not sure of the validity of arguments either way. However if you're correct Burger and the Brooklyn is in the wrong PL because the playtesting didn't pick it up then logic would dictate that in a points system it would have been given an incorrect points value.
So it is not the PL system at fault but rather whether a certain ship was correctly priced surely

Maybe it is, but I think you are going to find other people pointing out other ships too.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

I pointed out other ships on this very thread.

 

[resQscooter]

you say Yamato, I say Yamato, lets call the whole thing off.
And stop calling me Shirley!

Sorry, couldn't pass that one up :lol:

 

[E Nicely]

As PL, you prove to me the PL system works in a Historical game. If you can, which I doubt you will, then I will put my hands up and say you are right.

Every fleet that I build is balanced against any other fleet that is built by someone who has more than say, 2 games under their belt. The priority level system evens out when you take several ships (you know, like a fleet). Every game I play is a fair fight whether I'm playing IJN or USN, the 2 fleets I have models for, it would be the same if I was playing KM or RN, or the French. My group of units vs. another group of units, both built with fleet allocation points in a game that simulates naval WWII combat. Everyone I play VaS with wants to play again too. Seems like the PL sytem works in this historical game to me.

 

[Reaverman]

As PL, you prove to me the PL system works in a Historical game. If you can, which I doubt you will, then I will put my hands up and say you are right.

Every fleet that I build is balanced against any other fleet that is built by someone who has more than say, 2 games under their belt. The priority level system evens out when you take several ships (you know, like a fleet). Every game I play is a fair fight whether I'm playing IJN or USN, the 2 fleets I have models for, it would be the same if I was playing KM or RN, or the French. My group of units vs. another group of units, both built with fleet allocation points in a game that simulates naval WWII combat. Everyone I play VaS with wants to play again too. Seems like the PL sytem works in this historical game to me.

Thats anecdotal evidence, not facts Uhlan. The game has been geared to let players of different fleets, play campaigns or tourney's. Currently, you are going to find if you ran a VAS tourney/campaign. It would be a US/IJ pacific fleet tourney/campaign, or a North Atlantic Tourney/Campaign. Deviate from those factors, and you get an inbalance. The RN, are going to have a hard time against the IJN, especially of the Yamato rolls out, the RN fleet would not cope. Then there are the Aoba cruisers, which can dominate a battle too. All I am pointing out, is that the whole system needs some sort of balance for players who want campaign, or tourney.

I'll bet in a few days, maybe a week, someone else will bring the whole issue again.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Thats anecdotal evidence, not facts Uhlan. The game has been geared to let players of different fleets, play campaigns or tourney's. Currently, you are going to find if you ran a VAS tourney/campaign. It would be a US/IJ pacific fleet tourney/campaign, or a North Atlantic Tourney/Campaign. Deviate from those factors, and you get an inbalance. The RN, are going to have a hard time against the IJN, especially of the Yamato rolls out, the RN fleet would not cope. Then there are the Aoba cruisers, which can dominate a battle too. All I am pointing out, is that the whole system needs some sort of balance for players who want campaign, or tourney.

I agree its a bit anecdotal for evidence. I do not like the idea of moving over to a points based system, especially since the game hasn't been out that long and we should give the writers time to sort out the ruffles. Remember that not ever ship that was put to sea was included in the list (look at the poor Italains). The point of this conversation is that the Brooklyn can not keep up with other cruisers at her PL or even some of the Skirmish level. The Brooklyn would preform well enough as a Skirmish ship, but as a Raid level ship she is totally inadiquate.