Colorado versus Nagato

[jfox61]

could they not just list all the stats in a sort of reference type book and you fill these out into your own blamk ship card surely that way you get max info for minimal effort. Also wouldn't many ships be identical statwise. You could then just link these ships to the one type which is listed in full

 

[Alexb83]

Well, I doubt we will see a distinguishing card between say South Dakota and the rest of her class; but you would expect to see appropriate differences between North Carolina and South Dakota.

Yes, there will be some ships with negligible differences, whereas there will also be very similar ships at the same PL which might've been built only a few years apart but one may have a decisive advantage over another.
There will be some where you say 'why would I take this one over that - it's worse at the same PL' (based solely on dates). I think it just means that in competetive play, dates are strictly adhered to.

With regards to all the talk of radar recently, it might be worthwhile adding a Radar(xxxx) trait to some ships, indicating the year when they gain the trait. Similar for other traits which may have been refitted onto a ship or class of ships.

 

[Evil Trev]

As the main problem appears to be dropping a specific ship into a PL, of which there are only 5, would it not be a possibility to give each ship a Points value instead, and then fleets could be selected to a total points value?

Having only 5 points for a fleet size severely limits the choices a player can make. I must admit that I do quite like the existin PL system for selecting fleets, as it is simple and quick. It also is a part of the VaS flavour in that the simplicity is kept and a playable game is still there, which may not be wholely historical but IMO is a good trade off.

Trev

 

[juggler69uk]

There will be some where you say 'why would I take this one over that - it's worse at the same PL' (based solely on dates). I think it just means that in competetive play, dates are strictly adhered to.

Well imho for the best result you should only field what was available historically, never mind having 4 yamotos etc, and that may well make you take the lesser ships as well

As to Points sheesh, points are just as bad for selection when you can choose ahistorically (plus people will still argue "why is this ship x points and that ship y points when ......."). If ships PL is correctly allocated then there should not be a problem.

If we are not careful we will end up with yet another game that loses playability due to competitiveness or just a clone of another game, VAS produces a good fun game with an element of historical accuracy there if you want to use it, especially if scenario driven, or you can go all out competetive and try and squeeze the "BEST FLEET" you can out of a ruleset regardless of historical accuracy.

 

[DSV1]

far be it from me to point out the obvious but

There are real problems with the PL at the moment so how hard can it be to issue an ERRATA document in PDF with a revised PL on :?

This could be used up until the supplement or Encyclopedia is released or (shock/horror) updated as the game is played more. Many rules sets issue FAQ's throughout the lifespan of a game.

I know Mongoose are trying to get it right but a little help along the way wouldnt hurt.

 

[jfox61]

I agree with most points that juggler makes. The main problem I think is that some ships seem to be in a pl where they are completely out of their class. For instance in a 5 point tournament at pl battle would you honestly take Kongo over Nagato because it looks better on the table. No of course not you would always take Nagato because it mcuh more capable for the same points. Just look at the US PL list, who in their right mind would selct a Colorado class ship at war class than any of the others in that class. I would rather take 2 New York Classes. As juggler said if the pl's are allocated properly you don't need a points sytem. I think creating 1 more pl would pretty much sort this out. Anyway as far as that goes once you have bought the rules then you can pretty much house rule what you don't like anyway. We also play historically at our club 2 Yamoto class then thats all you can buy, 1 Hood so be it. I also think it is much more fun to play historical scenarios anyway as then PL has no bearing whatsoever

 

[Alexb83]

I suppose ultimately what it comes down to is how you equate ships or the PL system to real life. Yamato and Iowa at the same PL? Strictly speaking do you think they were equally matched ships? We've already had quibbles over whether or not Yamato had radar (the only real advantage that Iowa has over her) But far as the game system is concerned, they are of equal worth.

Then you have early war games - surely in the early war, those at war level should be the refurbished pre-war ships for the USN (their most effective available ships) or Colorado/Marylands, whereas those might be relegated to the Battle slot in late war engagements when compared to N. Carolinas/South Dakotas/Iowas...

You would end up with year-by-year fleet lists for each fleet, in effect, based on historical fact - that's one of the few ways I can see of maintaining balance between and within each list.

 

[BuShips]

I suppose ultimately what it comes down to is how you equate ships or the PL system to real life. Yamato and Iowa at the same PL? Strictly speaking do you think they were equally matched ships?

There are quite a few knowledgeable folks that would say that the Iowa was every bit up to the challenge, but since TF34 was not given the opportunity to put it to a test at the Battle of Leyte Gulf it can only be an endless debate. I have a lot of love for the Yamato (who wouldn't?), but the Iowa-class in short was a contemporary of the Yamato and at least a "contender" with its primary gun rate of fire and ship's defensive measures. It could be argued the the Iowa and Yamato could be placed into their own PL, or at the very least swap the Montana for the Iowa and place the two "a head over" the War PL.

 

[Evil Trev]

I agree with most points that juggler makes. The main problem I think is that some ships seem to be in a pl where they are completely out of their class. For instance in a 5 point tournament at pl battle would you honestly take Kongo over Nagato because it looks better on the table. No of course not you would always take Nagato because it mcuh more capable for the same points. Just look at the US PL list, who in their right mind would selct a Colorado class ship at war class than any of the others in that class. I would rather take 2 New York Classes. As juggler said if the pl's are allocated properly you don't need a points sytem. I think creating 1 more pl would pretty much sort this out. Anyway as far as that goes once you have bought the rules then you can pretty much house rule what you don't like anyway. We also play historically at our club 2 Yamoto class then thats all you can buy, 1 Hood so be it. I also think it is much more fun to play historical scenarios anyway as then PL has no bearing whatsoever

Interesting comments.

Playing historically, must be the only way to go. I also feel that ISD should have a from and too date, and a part in this discussion. IMHO it is not historical to use Hood in say a 1942 scenario. It has already been lost. This style of approach affects the Germans far more than the Americans and the Japanese, as the latter 2 nationalities appear to have built more multiples of the same classes of ships. Does'nt help the Jap players with Nagato though as there were only a couple in the class. It would also help to get over a tournament player picking 10 Bearn class carriers, when there was only one. And I hate to say it but I understand this has already happened!

I have played tournaments for over 35 years, and I find it hard to understand so called tournament players wanting to use vessels that were not even built, such as in the Russian lists with Sovietski Soyuz. There is a place for these in friendly and campaign games that are designed to encompass them. I also understand that not everybody agrees with my point of view!

Trev

 

[Ben2]

I'm not sure about placing arbitrary restrictions on tournaments. While I can see why the Z-plan navy has been banned from tournaments things like the Sovietski soyuz (or indeed any Russian ship designed but not deployed) is that some navies become far less desirable choices. I'd leave it up to players to make up their minds, though my first instinct is to hit them with sticks and make them play it the way I tihnk they should.

As long as tournament play is facilitated by balanced forces I'd leave it up to players. Stupid fleets will lose games and thus be self eliminating. I've seen a 3 US carrier fleet but not a 10 Bearn fleet, where on earth was that?

 

[jfox61]

To be honest any restrictions to a tournament should and would be stated pre tournament. I don't play tournament play unless it's a fun event from within my own club. My problem is I have seen too many players with a must win at any cost attitude producing ahistorical fleets just because they can. Like for instance 4 yamato class ships because the Yank navy he is going to be up against has 4 Iowa class and it would be the only way he would have a chanceof winning . Personally if I was running a tournament I would restrict any Navy to 1 each of War or Battle class and the rest of your 5 points made up of the lesser class ships I would also restrict the PL to battle class so your war classes would be restrictively expensive. This would then give the likes of Brit French Italian and German a much better chance of making a fight of it. Personal points which a lot of people won't agree with but it is the way I would go

 

[Evil Trev]

Has anybody done 5 pt Patrol level, or thought of that yet? That certainly has an adverse affect on the larger ships.

I think that we all like to use the larger ships (naturally), but if you take all the actions in to consideration, then seriously big ship actions did not occur at all regularly. None of us want to be restricted to cruiser and destroyer actions only. So we will end up with clubs doing whatever they want, and tournaments setting guidelines, that other players will take up. As a tournament organiser (with a major longstanding interest in this period), I am very interested to see how this is coming out, as my opinions may very well not concur with the majority.

Trev

 

[jfox61]

you are pretty much thinking along the way I am Trev. Yes parol level would be a good restrictor but then you would have some people complaining about it being too restrictive and not alowwing big ships in tournaments and you may then have a low turnout. I think it is all about balance. Get that right and I think you please the majority regardless of what ships they like using in a game

 

[timberwolf a]

Here is another one I stumbled across. Why is the Brooklyn class cruiser for the Americans Raid when the Portland and the Pensacola classes are Skirmish. :shock:

 

[Court Jester]

Here is another one I stumbled across. Why is the Brooklyn class cruiser for the Americans Raid when the Portland and the Pensacola classes are Skirmish. :shock:

This one was hashed out a month or so ago on these very Forums (along with points vs PL and ships at the wrong Pl...). Almost all the issues in this thread have been brought up time and again and the general answer always seems to be "wait of the suppliment it will solve world peace and all your VaS problems..." :wink:

 

[timberwolf a]

So I am a month out of fashion. Got it. :wink:

 

[Evil Trev]

If you want to chuck in a query on ships, its not the PL of the Queen Elizabeth and the Arkangelsk, but 2 ships that are almost ldentical in all respects, but for one (their length)

Queen Elizabeth..........640'
Arkangelsk (Royal Sovereign until 1944)......620'

Beam and overall sizes similar, and yet Target for QE class is a 4+ and for the Arkangelsk is a 5+. My thoughts here are for players who have R Class ships in a British fleet, and I would certainly want to take the R class in place of a QE as it is 1/6 harder to hit, for no other discernible difference!

Trev

 

[Swiss Tony]

Trev, I think the whole Russian fleet needs a big rethink, for a navy which did nothing remarkable at all during the War it is one of the "Uber" Fleets in VaS.

As you point out in games terms the Royal Sovereign(Arkangelsk) and the Queen Elizabeth are virtyually the same ship, but in the Russian navy you become harder to hit........

 

[jfox61]

20 foot smaller it is obviously much much harder to hit and the Russian crews were miles better than the British and also the ship was much better maintained than the british :wink:

 

[DM]

Maybe the QE is wrong.........