General Questions

[DM]

I hope that this will be changed back to War in the future.

Maybe this'll be addressed in the official OOB errata?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

What's the justification for dropping her to battle level? Surely she out-guns the QE and Renown-class by a large margin?

 

[steveburt]

The Nelson doesn't outgun the QE class - she only has 1 extra gun, and the British 16" isn't much better than the 15". Slightly longer range is all. Hitting power is exactly the same.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Indeed? Well, I'm no naval scholar. Maybe she belongs at battle level, then?

 

[Soulmage]

The problem with the Hood is that the Warspite is available with the same guns and radar plus and armored deck and a target size of 5+. It may not seem like much, but at extreme range, unless the enemy has radar, the Warspite can’t be hit (target 5 + 2 = 7). While the same ship can hit the Hood on a die roll of 6.

[mini rant]
This is why I'm a firm believer that there ought to be SOME mechanism for hitting target numbers above 6.

Technically the Warspite could be hit if it were broadside. . . but why turn broadside if you are completely invulnerable end on and have unlimited ammo.

TNs of 7+ being un-hittable encourages people to game the rules, instead of the ships/scenario.
[/mini rant]

 

[ebar]

I would have thought going down the route of two 6's = one hit is probably the most simple way of doing thing. It means that only cap ships that throw lots of dice, stand any serious chance of hitting and even they will struggle.

 

[Leadman]

Indeed? Well, I'm no naval scholar. Maybe she belongs at battle level, then?

The issue here is not really the number or power of the guns though it is a big factor. It is really an issue of where does this this ship "fit" with respect to other ships. In VAS, the Nelson had armor 5+, no radar and was given a PL of War. During OOB development, the PL was moved to Battle because it fit better at Battle when compared to other similar ships. Later, we discovered more data that indicated that the armor should be raised the 6+ and that radar should be added. IMHO, these changes make the Nelson a better fit at War.

Dannie

 

[Leadman]

I would have thought going down the route of two 6's = one hit is probably the most simple way of doing thing. It means that only cap ships that throw lots of dice, stand any serious chance of hitting and even they will struggle.

Long range fire didn’t occur very often during WW2 because of two factors. First, the probability of getting a hit was very, very low. Second, ships carried limited amounts of ammunition. Captains were very reluctant to waste their shells when the probability of a hit was just greater than 1%. VAS doesn’t model this issue. Allowing hits on 7’s or double 6’s is actually moving further from reality. IMO, there are three solutions.

First, leave things the way they are and accept that VAS/OOB doesn’t model ammo limitations and very low hit probabilities. Not great, but better than adding in more chances to hit at long range.

Second, add ammunition stats and require the tracking of ammo expenditure. While probably the solution closest to reality, this solution doesn’t really fit with the quick play nature of VAS.

Third, add a couple of rules that simulate the results of limited ammo and low hit probability. For example: Don’t allow shooting at greater than 26 inches. Change the Long Range category to 15 – 20 inches and the Extreme Range category to 20+ - 26 inches. DM and Rich Bax would know better than I where to set the ranges.

My two cents worth,
Dannie

 

[ebar]

Well there is an element of different strokes for different folks. I know I find it irritating when my HMS Warspite is getting pegged at by some bloody Italian battleship that out ranges (original stats) it in game terms. I know we tried the two 6's = 1 hit when we had a bit of hot submerged sub on submerged sub action. The result was a lot of expended torps to no effect.

 

[MektonZero]

"This will allow players to use a single Fleet Allocation Point to buy ships of different levels rather than of one Priority Level only."

This allows you to split an FAP between 2 different PLs, but doesn't limit the number of FAPs that can be split.

Dannie

It states that players are allowed to use a SINGLE point to buy ships of different levels.

No, it doesn't.
Dannie

"This will allow players to use a SINGLE Fleet Allocation Point to buy ships of different levels rather than of one Priority Level only."

Emphasis mine, but that's a direct quote from the rules. Your denial doesn't change what they state.

 

[Swan]

It states that players are allowed to use a SINGLE point to buy ships of different levels.

No, it doesn't.
Dannie

"This will allow players to use a SINGLE Fleet Allocation Point to buy ships of different levels rather than of one Priority Level only."

Emphasis mine, but that's a direct quote from the rules. Your denial doesn't change what they state.

remove the emphasis and you get that a single point can be used to buy ships of 2 different priority levels. For EACH single point you can buy ships of different priority levels. There is no statement that this can only be done once, and since ships pf each priority below the priority of the game are always purchased with a single Fleet Allocation Point (because you can not decide to split a FAP in a battle priority game by purchasing 1 Raid and 2 Patrol. Everything is purchased using a SINGLE FAP for the purchase.

 

[jbickley00]

I would have thought going down the route of two 6's = one hit is probably the most simple way of doing thing. It means that only cap ships that throw lots of dice, stand any serious chance of hitting and even they will struggle.

Long range fire didn’t occur very often during WW2 because of two factors. First, the probability of getting a hit was very, very low. Second, ships carried limited amounts of ammunition. Captains were very reluctant to waste their shells when the probability of a hit was just greater than 1%. VAS doesn’t model this issue. Allowing hits on 7’s or double 6’s is actually moving further from reality. IMO, there are three solutions.

First, leave things the way they are and accept that VAS/OOB doesn’t model ammo limitations and very low hit probabilities. Not great, but better than adding in more chances to hit at long range.

Second, add ammunition stats and require the tracking of ammo expenditure. While probably the solution closest to reality, this solution doesn’t really fit with the quick play nature of VAS.

Third, add a couple of rules that simulate the results of limited ammo and low hit probability. For example: Don’t allow shooting at greater than 26 inches. Change the Long Range category to 15 – 20 inches and the Extreme Range category to 20+ - 26 inches. DM and Rich Bax would know better than I where to set the ranges.

My two cents worth,
Dannie

Actually long range fire was very common in both WWI and WWII. USN tactical doctorine was to engage at extreme ranges. Getting 4%-5% hits was considered good gunnery, as target ranges were 22-30,000 yards in daylight. In night actions, without radar, the ranges were considerably reduced.

Ammo expenditure was a consideration, but most US battleships carried 1200 or more rounds. say it fires 300 in action, at 5% that is still 15 hits. Against deck armour. Very few ships could withstand 15 hits from 16" projectiles and remain combat effective. But, lets say every gun on the Iowa fires 100 times, or 900 shots. This is forty five hits. Even the Yamato would be sunk. and the Iowa would still have 300 shots left.

Ultimately, ammo is expendable, ships are not. So a good captian would stay at extreme range, and fire on his opponent. Hoping to inflict significant damage before his opponent closed.

 

[DM]

4%-5% hits

At the lower end of the range bracket you quoted, yes (and in good conditions with a vaguely compliant target, as it was likely to be if it was engaged in long range gunnery itself). not at the upper end though, as the USN trials and analysis documents I've mentioned show - closer to 1%.

So a good captian would stay at extreme range, and fire on his opponent.

Actually they would attempt to maintain a range which gave them the best overall compromise of own weapon effectiveness and damaging ability. That was likely to be somewhat less than maximum range (don't forget the enemy's incoming fire would also be "plunging" (although thats a relative term and a significant proportion of any hits scored would be against the side of the ship as well as the deck). For many ships there was a "sweet spot" at around the 18,000 to 24,000 yard range where the combination of range and angle of impact of incoming fire afforded the best protection. (Hmm, another - and probably more appropriate way to express that is that from the gun's perspective there is a range band where the combination of range and impact angle gives it the worst probability of penetrating the combination of armour and other plating that the shell is likely to see). VAS models this to some degree with the +1 for long range fire, but its approach with a "one size fits all" classification of range bands fails to capture the nuances of real world naval gunnery. To do it well would require a "monster" like Seekrieg, but you could have fun experimenting with varying the distances for the range bands for different calibres of gun.

 

[Leadman]

MektonZero wrote:
"This will allow players to use a SINGLE Fleet Allocation Point to buy ships of different levels rather than of one Priority Level only."

Emphasis mine, but that's a direct quote from the rules. Your denial doesn't change what they state.

This isn't an issue of denial. It's a matter of correctly interpreting the words that are written. Even with your emphasis, you are just wrong. Arguing this issue with you is pointless for both of us. Enjoy the game.

Dannie

 

[DM]

Perhaps another point that will be clarified in the OOB errata?

Why not just post the question to the "Rulesmasters" board - I'm sure someone from MGP HQ will post something there and once that has happened "its the law".

 

[Leadman]

jbickley00 wrote:

Actually long range fire was very common in both WWI and WWII. USN tactical doctorine was to engage at extreme ranges. Getting 4%-5% hits was considered good gunnery, as target ranges were 22-30,000 yards in daylight. In night actions, without radar, the ranges were considerably reduced.

Ammo expenditure was a consideration, but most US battleships carried 1200 or more rounds. say it fires 300 in action, at 5% that is still 15 hits. Against deck armour. Very few ships could withstand 15 hits from 16" projectiles and remain combat effective. But, lets say every gun on the Iowa fires 100 times, or 900 shots. This is forty five hits. Even the Yamato would be sunk. and the Iowa would still have 300 shots left.

Ultimately, ammo is expendable, ships are not. So a good captian would stay at extreme range, and fire on his opponent. Hoping to inflict significant damage before his opponent closed.

I guess the discussion depends on what one considers long range. You seem to be saying that 20,000 – 30,000 yards (20 -30 inches in VAS terms) is long range or extreme range in VAS terms. I don’t disagree with you. I did suggest 26,000 yards as a limit, but I don’t have a problem 30,000 yards. I suggested 26 inches (VAS) because I believe that that is the longest shot that actually hit a target. The problem I am concerned with is the ability of some ships in VAS to shoot 40+ inches. The Italian Littorio class can shoot 47,000 yards for example. Last weekend, we played a French versus Italian 8 point Battle game. The Italian Littorio class began exchanging fire with the French Dunkerque and Richelieu classes at 45 inches or 45,000 yards. Even though the guns had the range, shots were not fired at those ranges. The issue of what distance represents the horizon (30 inches I think) hasn’t even been considered.

So, if you are saying that shots were often fired at less than 30,000 yards, then I am in agreement. I still would like to see the firing range in VAS capped at something less than 30 inches unless firing at land targets with spotter aircraft or radar assistance.

Dannie

 

[DM]

LOL, I have avagie recollection of this being suggested before

It came up as a proposal during playtesting of the original VAS rules but didn't make it through the editing process.

 

[Leadman]

LOL, I have avagie recollection of this being suggested before

It came up as a proposal during playtesting of the original VAS rules but didn't make it through the editing process.

We talked about it briefly during OOB play testing, but dropped it when we were told it didn't make it through VAS.

Dannie

 

[steveburt]

"This will allow players to use a SINGLE Fleet Allocation Point to buy ships of different levels rather than of one Priority Level only."

Which clearly doesn't limit you to doing it with only one FAP - it just says you can use a single point to buy ships from different levels.

I can see how it might be read the other way though.

 

[Soulmage]

If you change the extreme range modifier to +3, that almost puts a cap on ranges above 30,000 yards. The only way it can be overcome is via radar or broadside to a 4+ BB, or both to a 5+ BB/CA/CL.