Historical vs. "What If"
- Thread starter E Nicely
- Start date
Lowly Uhlan said:
Well I just voted historical only on that reasoning...
I'll be doing historical recreations *and* what if recreations, but never, ever maxing the PL system out. I'll want to put this, this, and that ship against this, that, and this one but it'll be based upon the ship roles... In most games I don't even look at the stats until I've decided what I'm taking, and I tend to pick that on the background info alone. Some may choose to emphasise the "Game" in "Wargame", but I prefer emphasising the "War". Commanders in battles usually have to fight with what they are given, and don't get the luxury of calling fleet command and asking to swap a couple of this ship for one of that ship, so I really dislike building a fleet or army based on their in-game effectiveness.
Not that I expect anyone else to follow suit or want to pretend that my way is "better", it's just how I prefer to play
mthomason said:Lowly Uhlan said:
Well I just voted historical only on that reasoning...
I'll be doing historical recreations *and* what if recreations, but never, ever maxing the PL system out. I'll want to put this, this, and that ship against this, that, and this one but it'll be based upon the ship roles... In most games I don't even look at the stats until I've decided what I'm taking, and I tend to pick that on the background info alone. Some may choose to emphasise the "Game" in "Wargame", but I prefer emphasising the "War". Commanders in battles usually have to fight with what they are given, and don't get the luxury of calling fleet command and asking to swap a couple of this ship for one of that ship, so I really dislike building a fleet or army based on their in-game effectiveness.
Not that I expect anyone else to follow suit or want to pretend that my way is "better", it's just how I prefer to play
There's a a lot to be said for sticking to historical integrity and accuracy.
Building within the PL system can be done while going for the ships I've liked (Mogami, Nagato, Takao, Kongo) just because I liked them has actually turned out some pretty competitive fleets. I'm not going with 2 Yamato class and a Shokaku carrier every chance I get.If I'm playing the US I won't go with the Mighty Mo but will try to squeeze a few New Orleans and Pensacolas in, I like cruisers, and those ships work well without being top level ships. Building effective forces in this game is easy, there's no broken fleets.
It will be interesting to see what tourney fleets end up looking like. I fully intend to run tournaments. That will probably blow all accuracy and integrity to hell, but it will be fun.
I am curious about tournament fleets also.
During playtesting it became obvious that you are better of when using a very balanced fleet selection.
Example: In VaS only Destroyers are able to attack Subs with their depth charges.
So if you only go for the big and shiny ships and did not take any DDs and are facing a Sub only fleet, you might get into some kind of trouble...
:wink:
At PL Raid most fleets are able to take one BB, 1 - 2 Cruiser or CV, 3 DDs and 3 Subs or Aircraft flights.
Which translates in a good game and a balanced fleet...
During playtesting it became obvious that you are better of when using a very balanced fleet selection.
Example: In VaS only Destroyers are able to attack Subs with their depth charges.
So if you only go for the big and shiny ships and did not take any DDs and are facing a Sub only fleet, you might get into some kind of trouble...
:wink:
At PL Raid most fleets are able to take one BB, 1 - 2 Cruiser or CV, 3 DDs and 3 Subs or Aircraft flights.
Which translates in a good game and a balanced fleet...
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Sounds good to me.
For myself, I generally use units I like even if they're not terribly effective, in wargames. In 40K (holds for boos) I take some Scouts even though they don't perform particularly well, because it amuses me to see the little guys on the table.
For VaS I'll use the ships I like for the most part, which probably means as many battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers I can lay my grubby hands on. Of course there's always room for variety, so I don't always play with the same list. So I'll probably end up with a few of everything and mix and match.
For myself, I generally use units I like even if they're not terribly effective, in wargames. In 40K (holds for boos) I take some Scouts even though they don't perform particularly well, because it amuses me to see the little guys on the table.
For VaS I'll use the ships I like for the most part, which probably means as many battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers I can lay my grubby hands on. Of course there's always room for variety, so I don't always play with the same list. So I'll probably end up with a few of everything and mix and match.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Nice... :lol:
Agis said:
I've been thinking the same thing for a while. If everything remains like it is now evry competitive fleet would need at least a couple destroyers just to be on the safe side to protect from submarines. It is too early to talk about tourney rules, but I'm thinking that submarine deployment really shouldn't be restricted. It's very in character for the Kreigsmarine, and the US used subs very effectively, even in mixed forces (ships and subs together).
And Raid would be good, you'd have the option to play 1 BB if so desired.
But it's probably too early to talk about tournaments.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
The Royal Navy made use of submarines in the Med, too. They had a right old time of it, torpedoing Italian supply ships and transports trying to keep their blokes in North Africa going.
The Med was about the limit of RN submarine ops, though, from what I've gathered. They weren't much use in the Atlantic for ASW and the Germans didn't have masses of convoys to attack.
The Med was about the limit of RN submarine ops, though, from what I've gathered. They weren't much use in the Atlantic for ASW and the Germans didn't have masses of convoys to attack.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I'm sure I'll use a few in high seas battles. Subs are cool, right? 8)
Ever been to sea on one? I'm sure your opinion would change after a few days under the oggin. IIRC I'd had enough after a week, although learning how to conduct manual torpedo attacks and pretending to sink ferries was fun for a while, as was having the run of the sonar suite for an afternoon
VaS is unusual for a set of WW2 naval rules in that it appears to encourage players to operate submarines in close concert with surface forces. That may be "cool" but its pretty unrealistic (its something that is pretty unusual even today, and for good reasons).
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I've never been to sea on anything more militant than a car ferry. I was Army, thank you very much. I had much more sense than to join the Navy... :wink:
DM said:
It kind of fits for the US, subs cut down Mogami and some other ships as they tried to flee from the Leyte Gulf. It was a mixed (surface and subs) force that worked out pretty good for Uncle Sam. As far as the submarine rules in VaS they are good enough for me (not overly complex), the slow speed of subs comes into play quickly (try to catch up to a light cruiser in one). That swings the sub rules a little more in the realistic dircection. You agree?
I have yet to try an all-sub force though.
They did (as did a Japanese sub at Midway) but they weren't coordinated with the surface forces and, in many cases, came under totally different operational commands even whilst operating in close proximity. I usually treat subs as a sort of "random event" in my naval campaigns that are predominately surface based, or ensure that the sub and surface commanders have realistic levels of comms in multi player games (which usually means none at all
). I think the system for VaS works OK to a point, but I shudder to think about games involving large surface fleets and hordes of submarines :shock: As an aside one of the early iterations worked OK for convoy actions (with the attackers having only submarines) with a few tweaks - definitely some scope for a VaS article there.
