First Game - not happy with results.

[captainsmirk]

Well I think the problem here will be that if aircraft were accurately portrayed they would be overly powerful for the battle areas portrayed, most aircraft had do a fair searching to find their targets (not difficult when your nearly in gun range much of the time).

Also Captain K. I have to ask, what exactly were you expecting destroyers to do once they'd fired their torpedoes?


Nick

 

[The Chauffeur]

re: big guns not being able to damage destroyers, think of what would happen if a salvo of 16 inch shells hit the water 50 feet from your destroyer?

i don't know if they were set to detonate on impact or not but i imagine the splash and kinetic forces involved could cause some pretty serious structural damage.

as for the plane thing, i'm not pleased with either plane damage or the dogfighting situation. i don't think BBs are overpowered, i think aircraft are so underpowered that they make BBs super by default.

c

 

[Poi]

Has anyone tried an air-raid game yet? No attacking ships, just aircraft vs ships.

This should be the real test of airpower vs AAA.

 

[Bullshot]

On the battleship and carrier mentality, keep in mind that, at least in the beginning, the carrier was not seen as the centerpiece of the fleet as it is now. It was dropped in the water to protect and escort the battleship. As the war progressed and the power that aircraft possessed was demonstrated, the roles began to shift. As far as the game goes, if aircraft were given the power they had in WW2 as far as dive bombers and torpedo planes had, there are those that would take a fleet of nothing but carriers all the time and flood the air with planes. IMO, keeping the aircraft toned down leads to a more balanced fleet composition. In VaS, you can only target aircraft with AA guns at a short range. If you walked into a tournament and someone took 3 carriers and filled the sky with planes, unless you did the same, you would pretty much be shite outta luck. A smart player would launch planes early and from far away, never risking the carriers. The planes would kill the capital ships. As it is now, even if you hit the plane with AA, there is a chance for a dodge. Spotters can't shoot down aircraft and you can't change the plane loadouts on carriers. Also, planes are far faster than any ship in the water.
If we lived in a world where players wouldn't cheese the fleet lists, we could power up the fighters. Unfortunately, for every system out there, there are players that will cheese the lists and make the game not fun, thus killing the player base. I like VaS as is. It has some quirks, but I will take those for the speed of play and simplicity it has. If I want the detail of plotting my torpedos with a compass and ruler (been there, done that), I will play a more detailed rule set that will take all day to play the same encounter I can play with VaS in an hour or so.

Just my 2 cents on the rules.

BS

 

[Chernobyl]

Kremmen, a High explosive shell would be appropriate against a lightly armored target rather than an armor piercing one. big guns have nore than one type of shell. In fact, I found an online article about the yamata describing an 18" anti-aircraft round - a "beehive" flechette type weapon, developed after all the carriers were sunk.

Chern

 

[Bob Hume]

I'm with Bullshot on this. I don't think the game is broke. I think some of you are trying to make it something it's not. It's a very playable, fun game. That means it is not very complex and sacrafices ALOT of historical accuracy for playability. It seems to be a simulation designed to allow you to play the big gun, big ship duels that didn't really happen. I agree that battleships are the king in this game. I like it for that reason. I avoided WWII naval games in the past because they all devolved into air games. In this game air and subs are included but the emphasis is on the big gun. There are other rules to use if you want superior air or more historical accuracy. I'll play this game because it is what it is.

 

[DM]

re: big guns not being able to damage destroyers, think of what would happen if a salvo of 16 inch shells hit the water 50 feet from your destroyer?

To be honest, not a lot (and yes, I have done the sums )

 

[DM]

Kremmen, a High explosive shell would be appropriate against a lightly armored target rather than an armor piercing one. big guns have nore than one type of shell.

True, but battleships were often only outfitted with very limited amounts of HE because their primary role was to enagge the other guy's battleships and for that HE was next to useless. There were exceptions, for example the US battleline at Surigao Strait was loaded predominately with HE, but thats because they were tasked with shore bombardment rather than engaging battlewagons.

 

[DM]

If I want the detail of plotting my torpedos with a compass and ruler (been there, done that),

Me too, against my will - and totally unrealistic. In a waragme you are taking on the role of a ship's CO, or a commodore or admiral. They didn't have to worry about what angle the torpedoes were fored, what sort of spread they used etc. Thats what the Torpedo Officer was for. In game terms the CO should be able to say "shoot at that thing over there" and the game system should be able to cope. Anything more detailed is, IMHO, overburdening the players with minutiae that their real life counterparts wouldn't have had to face.

 

[Poi]

We're getting away from the game here. Victory at Sea. Not Victory in the Air.

I want a naval game to be dominated by ships rather than aircraft.

As Mongoose are working on an air combat game, let's keep aircraft simple in VaS.

 

[Soulmage]

I agree. I like the fact that the aircraft do not dominate the game as they would in a more realistic rule set. I love the fact that the big battleships rule the waves. There are plenty of other rulesets out there for more realism. The fun of VaS and blasting away with big guns is why I play!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Me too, against my will - and totally unrealistic. In a waragme you are taking on the role of a ship's CO, or a commodore or admiral. They didn't have to worry about what angle the torpedoes were fored, what sort of spread they used etc. Thats what the Torpedo Officer was for. In game terms the CO should be able to say "shoot at that thing over there" and the game system should be able to cope.

And likewise movement should be "Left hand down a bit"...

Wulf (listening to The Navy Lark, Series 2, Episode 13: The Trip Up The Thames)

 

[DM]

Thats the main reason why I hate "range estimation" games. The last time I played in one I ended up suggesting to the author of the rules that he replace the movement system with a system requiring layers to juggle boiler pressures, propeller revolutions and rudder angles, but he didn't see the joke

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Hi all,

Not trying to stress people up, just making observations.

You want victory at sea not victory in the air?

Well do something about the darned dozens of spotter planes all over the place cluttering things up.

I am sure battleship commanders wanted aircraft to be powerless as well but sad fact is they weren't and this is not B5 ACTA it is based on reallity, we can't pretend aircraft don't exist.

The rules could say we want to concentrate on sea power not airpower so have not modelled aircraft and carriers, that would be a fair statement. they didn't they put them in so put them in properly.

Destroyers - I don't have a big problem with destroyers, only making a small observation.

I also want a simple game, I don't want to start measuring torpedoes and did not make many comments about torpedoes, my only real problem with torpedoes is the torpedo bulges on the battleships which make them unduly resistant to torpedoes.

I have not the slightest idea what an HE 16inch round does at 50 feet? But I take your point, personally I have no problem potting destroyers with 16" guns it is great fun. I enjoyed blowing the fletcher to kingdom come with a single shot. I don't know how histroic it is, but I can live with it.

I also do not think the gae is busted. Well maybe attack aircraft, but nothing else.

Cpt Kremmen
PS What do I have to worry about, I have the Yamato on my side

 

[Reaverman]

K,

you bought a Jap fleet. Its based on big guns, and air power. The pacific war developed the 'Air Power' principles, that are used even today. You can't buy that sort of fleet, and then say you don't want to use one of its strengths

 

[H]

well, he can say it, but it is indeed what the Japs were well known for, and developed. look at the attempts by the fleet air arm to take out the Bismarck then look at how the Japs took out Pearl Harbour!!
yes yes, I know, different types of situation, but the distances involved, the huge number of aircraft, the navigation, the sheer amount of ordnance etc. . They knew what naval air power really was. take your pick, fairy swordfish, mitsubishi zero?

 

[Wulf Corbett]

you bought a Jap fleet. Its based on big guns, and air power. The pacific war developed the 'Air Power' principles, that are used even today. You can't buy that sort of fleet, and then say you don't want to use one of its strengths

People are currently complaining that aircraft and carriers are not powerful enough, and are not historically accurate therefore. Make them accurate, and still allow tournament play and ahistorical force selection, and people - no doubt many of the SAME people - will be howling and whining that the fleets are broken and unbalanced because they themselves will quickly figure out the 'best' ships and forces. Just as happens with ACtA. In that game, people blame the system for the faults of poor players. Now here we have the system blamed because it was created to curb them.

Wulf

 

[H]

Every system will have it's detractors, yup, me included (nope, I'm not a system but can be a detractor).
you can't please everyone. And from what I have seen, VAS seems a lot more balanced than ACTA, probably because matt designed it in fear of the raging players you get on the ACTA forum

 

[Wulf Corbett]

you can't please everyone. And from what I have seen, VAS seems a lot more balanced than ACTA, probably because matt designed it in fear of the raging players you get on the ACTA forum

The logical alternative is a separate tournament list. And look how popular THAT was...

Wulf

 

[H]

I actually liked the balance in it, was very dissapointed it didn't become THE ship list for Armageddon :-(
but yes, one fleet list only, multiple lists causes too many arguments!