First Game - not happy with results.

[BuShips]

I have an idea. A crazy idea.

Eliminate carriers altogether. In place of carriers, buy carrier air groups to use in game as one-off weapons. The planes are deployed on the board at the start of the game, make their attacks, then immediately fly off the nearest table edge to return to the carrier.

No unrealistic carrier vs battleship duels, and you can reduce the cost of the aircraft instead of getting a few flights for a battle point, or however carriers are priced now.

What do you lot think?

As VaS is a bit written toward the abstract anyway (for fast play), that would surely be something to consider. As a slight modification to your suggestion, maybe in some games two game "stages" could be presented and played. In a force with carriers deployed, split the total ships into two groups, one operating as a rear-deployed "carrier force" and one as a forward-deployed "battle force". The carrier-owning player must decide how to use his small destroyers at deployment. Either he then leaves them with the battle force for torpedo attacks in the first stage or assigns some or all to escort the carrier. Only if a carrier's battle force is defeated can the carrier be challenged by an opposing battle force. A new table set up would be done (stage 2 of the game) and the "foxy" carrier has to make a run for it with the "hounds" in pursuit. The carrier can use one air strike in the first "battle force" fight, and can use 1/2 of that again in the final run for its life. This second air attack strength would be modified for any air casualties suffered in their first use. Have I played this? Nope. It just occured to me as a spinoff option to look at. It might be a waste of game time, or possibly though save a side from a total defeat that was in progress. Depending on how many escorting destroyers are assigned to the carrier, a victory-flushed player deciding to pursue the carrier for a clean sweep might get a real bloody nose for his efforts :wink: . If the surviving battle force in pursuit had also owned a carrier, it too gets to send a 1/2 strike at the other carrier. For those that think that aircraft were muted a bit too much, this second attack (maybe allowed even at full strength for the second attack) gives back a little bite to the aircraft. One thing I know, and that is that if the aircraft were allowed to have their historic attack values the game would be called "Victory Over the Sea". :roll:

 

[DM]

Funny old thing. Here I am, ridden with the pox (aka "manflu" as Mrs M calls it, but I'm dying here, honest) and, in amongst writing up the Poles and the Dutch (now 75% complete) I turned back to my notes on "carrier Clash" and developed it into something almost identical to what Mr B has just posted!

I also had fun with combinations of VAS variant rules yesterday, in particular my suggestion for how to aproach torpedo belts, and also increasing air power by tripling the number of aircraft in play (now assuming a "flight" is 2 rather than 6 aircraft). It did seem to run very well, and in one of my test cases the Swordfish attack on Bismarck ended up with 3 hits, two of which were expended agsinst the torpedo protection, the third hitting aft and knocking out Bismarck's rudder!

 

[pbeccas]

DM. I really like your Aircraft Endurance rule. I am going to apply that once I get my opposing carrier forces up and running. Well done.

 

[Fitzwalrus]

I think I'd go with increasing an individual Flight's AD rather than increasing the number of Flights to accomplish the same thing (there are already a heck of a lot of Flight counters on the table), but I agree that it's pretty obvious the combat capabilities of aircraft are too low when compared to historical results.

What's "Aircraft Endurance Rules", precious? We wants it, yes we does.... :lol:

 

[BuShips]

What's "Aircraft Endurance Rules", precious? We wants it, yes we does.... :lol:

We wants it too! Yes! :lol: Hmm, somehow I missed it as well (hey I can't read all of the threads here!).

DM, you calling me "B" now? :? :lol: If so, I'll bet you were thinking of the carrier as "just over the horizon" on an adjacent map area, hmm? BTW, I hope you don't feel too miserable and can get back on your feet soon!

 

[pbeccas]

What's "Aircraft Endurance Rules", precious? We wants it, yes we does.... :lol:

You can find it on DM's website plus a lot of other good idea's.

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.manley/naval/VAS/VAS.html

The only one I don't like is pre-measuring. Smells like Flames of War.

 

[DM]

I'm making a speedy recovery. I've been moaned at by a chum about torpedo side protection systems (funnily enogh I'm working on this kind of thing at work right now, so there's a happy coincidence!) and have had some more thoughts which I'll post when I have time. Shout at me tomorrow night if I haven't posted anything. Oh, and if the Dutch aren't finished. And did someone say they wanted Swedes in a hurry too? :roll:

 

[E Nicely]

First time I've seen most of that stuff DM. Good work. I'm wondering whether I should put my alternate turning rules up somewhere.

 

[Steelwhip]

What's "Aircraft Endurance Rules", precious? We wants it, yes we does.... :lol:

You can find it on DM's website plus a lot of other good idea's.

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.manley/naval/VAS/VAS.html

The only one I don't like is pre-measuring. Smells like Flames of War.

~scratches head~ hungh?

whats wrong with pre-measuring? Aside from the "evil-empire game company that shall not be named" I cant think of any games that dont allow premeasuring.

 

[BuShips]

The only one I don't like is pre-measuring. Smells like Flames of War.

I have a compromise, heh. For those that like pre-measuring then they should only use late-war allied radar-equipped ships. Those that do not like pre-measuring should use early radar or no-radar ships. Seems only fair, and represents the advantage that the radar-equipped ships had against the non-radar ones. I'm joking of course, well mostly... :wink:

 

[Fitzwalrus]

What's "Aircraft Endurance Rules", precious? We wants it, yes we does.... :lol:

You can find it on DM's website plus a lot of other good idea's.

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.manley/naval/VAS/VAS.html

The only one I don't like is pre-measuring. Smells like Flames of War.

Thanks, pbeccas and DM: some very interesting ideas there indeed.
In our carrier game last week one of the players (the Seekrieg fan) mentioned the same idea about Fighters having limited ammo: he'll be glad to see this.

 

[pbeccas]

[The only one I don't like is pre-measuring. Smells like Flames of War.

~scratches head~ hungh?

whats wrong with pre-measuring? Aside from the "evil-empire game company that shall not be named" I cant think of any games that dont allow premeasuring.[/quote]

I have only come across one game that let's you pre-measure and that was Flames of War. My issue is pre-measuring bogs the game down and takes twice as long because anal players slowly and painfully place their miniatures. Not much fun in that. Takes out an element of suprise and worry that estimating achieves. Depends what you are looking for in a game?

 

[Steelwhip]

I have only come across one game that let's you pre-measure and that was Flames of War. My issue is pre-measuring bogs the game down and takes twice as long because anal players slowly and painfully place their miniatures. Not much fun in that. Takes out an element of suprise and worry that estimating achieves. Depends what you are looking for in a game?

hmmm..I guess that could be an issue....never really noticed though....at my LGS we can easily get in 2 or 3 games in the time it takes the warhammer 40K guys to finish 1. Most of our 1500point games are usually over in an hour-hour and a half tops.......in fact the only game crew that tends to finish quicker than us are the mechwarrior guys

and I can see yer point about the anal people taking way to much advantage of it....but then again I have found that anal people who play like that tend to drag games out no matter what the situation is.