DM's VAS HRs Qs

[Soulmage]

DM. . . how was that for an obscure post title?

Included in your houserules is the following modification:

Revised Damage
When rolling Damage Dice use the following system to determine damage and whether critical hits are caused:

If the DD roll is less than the target's armour value - no damage scored
if the DD roll is equal to the target's armour value - 1 point of damage scored, critical inflicted on second roll of 6+
If the DD roll exceeds the target's armour value - 1 point of damage scored, critical inflicted on second roll of 5+

Can I ask:

1. What is the intent of this change?
2. What effect has it had on the frequency of criticals?

You also have the following rule:

"Weak" Guns

In the current rules guns that are listed as "Weak" cannot cause critical hits. This is OK for hits by small guns against capital ships but is less satisfactory for gunfire against and between smaller vessels. Instead, allow weak 6" guns to cause criticals on hits where they cause damage (see above). They still suffer the -1 Damage Dice penalty. Secondaries are allowed to cause critical hits on any vessel with an Armour value of 2.

What would you think of combining these two rules into the following simpler approach:

Revised Damage
When rolling Damage Dice use the following system to determine damage and whether critical hits are caused:

- If the damage dice rolled is LESS than the target's armor value after all modifiers have been applied no damage is caused.

- If the damage dice rolled is EQUAL to the target's armor value after all modfiers have been applied, the hit causes 1 point of damage.

- If the damage dice rolled is GREATER than the target's armor value after all modifiers have been applied, the hit causes 1 point of damage, and will also cause a critical hit on a subsequent roll of 5+

My thinking is that using this approach no special rules are needed for Weak weapons. They will automatically be incapable of causing criticals on any ships with an armor value of greater than 4+

Do you think it still achieves the goal?

Also, on fires. . . you have the following:

Fire

Fire, whilst serious, appears to pose a risk only the crew and not to the ship itself. It is suggetsed that all references to "crew" are deleted and instead fires result in the chance for additional critical hits. Roll a d6- if the result is equal to or less than the number of fires on the ship the vessel takes another critical hit. Roll seperately for each batch of 5 fires (so a ship with 6 fires rolls once agsinst 5 fires, and once against 1 fire).

I like the idea, but dislike the idea of adding an additional roll with its own unique rule mechanisim.

What would you think of the following:

Fire

Fire, whilst serious, appears to pose a risk only the crew and not to the ship itself. It is suggetsed that all references to "crew" are deleted and instead fires result in the chance for additional critical hits.

When making damage control checks to extinguish fires, any natural rolls of 1 result in the possibility of critical damage. Roll 1d6. On a 4+ (or 5+ depending on how playtesting goes with regards to frequency) the ship suffers a critical hit.

I get the question all the time, "Hey, you wrote these rules. What do you think of X?" To which my response generally is, "Its your house rule -- do whatever you think would be fun!"

So I hate to find myself in the position of asking basically the same question of you. . . but I was just wondering how these rules would fit against the rationale that made you want to modify the rules in the first place.

 

[DM]

I think there is great merit in both suggestions. Planning to amend what's in my variant at the moment when I get the chance

 

[Soulmage]

With respect to my suggestion on fires:

When making damage control checks to extinguish fires, any natural rolls of 1 result in the possibility of critical damage. Roll 1d6. On a 4+ (or 5+ depending on how playtesting goes with regards to frequency) the ship suffers a critical hit.

I rolled a few dice last night to see what the results would be at 4+ and at 5+. Seems to me like 5+ is the way to go as far as frequency. . . which also keeps it nicely consistent with other critical rolls from weapon damage.

 

[Soulmage]

. . . coming up with a number of house rules to both reduce unnecessary complexity where appropriate or increase historical accuracy (based on comments I have read in various places.)

Once Order of Battle comes out I will make any modifications necessary, and post a comprehensive list of all my house rules for people who might be interested.

 

[Soulmage]

Is it fair to say that in reality, it was easier to hit a ship with its bow pointing towards you than it was to hit one that was broadside to you?

I read a comment somewhere that it wasn't too difficult to point the guns AT a particular ship with a fair degree of accuracy. . . but getting the correct range was much more difficult. Hence a ship pointing towards you is easier to hit with guns (because of the length of the ship) than a ship that is broadside to you (that requires a more accurate range calculation.)

Torpedoes would be just the opposite. Correct?

Or am I just making this stuff up?

 

[Hugbiel]

Well Soulmage it depend of the gun and the period. At short range ( below 5km) and at flat trajectories the dispersion is less than the range accuracy so having the whole length of the ship help. At long range dispersion is bigger than the ship so it become less a factor, in the meantime be able to have more of the tiny picture of a ship in the range finder give a better range value so a better accuracy for salvo. salvo is important because the average of many shell is less hazardous than one or two.

Also with fast ship pointing the gun may be a problem because their angular movement must be calculated more precisely. ( It's easer if the enemy ship go straight on you )

Torpedo are affected by the angular distance of the intersecting course who is generally maximum when crossing perpendicularly the length of the ship for the time of the impact ( It's often easier to fire on a ship who is moving to the front of you than on one who is going away ). And they are generally fired at very short range when compared to the guns. 1km vs 10km.

 

[DM]

You also need to remember that, due to the curvature of the earth and atmosspheric effects at sea level, at ranges of more than a few miles only the upperworks of the target will be visible to a firing ship (obviously this depends on the size of the ship); having the target broadside on significantly increases the profile of the target and eases the fire control problem a little. IIRC we debated this point during the development of the supplement. One useful snippet I found at work was a report on US naval gunnery trials firing at representative battleship targets at typical engagement ranges. This supported the view that broadside targets were hit more often than bow or stern on targets (by a factor of about 2 in some cases)