Historically accurate ??

[juggler69uk]

This is not an attack on anyone, or a tirade, just my observations for what they are worth (probably nothing) but “It’s Not Historically Accurate”, or similar, I see mentioned more than once in multiple threads, especially where people are saying the Priority system should be changed to points Blahhhh….. basic point systems are as open to abuse as any other system

What needs to be checked is whether the Ships have been allocated the correct Priority level is all, or more levels added.

I don’t see the fact that you could field 3 Hoods (given enough points) being lampooned as much, and that’s not historically accurate either. I mean you could introduce a min/max as in other historical games e.g. Hood min0/max1 

“What If” scenario’s aside, If you want the historically accurate then you should only field what was built and took part, and if that’s the case maybe you need to limit what can be in certain geographical locations at certain times or can the Bismarck spend the whole war off the coast of Japan, or if the battle is to take place after a certain ship was known to have been sunk maybe it cant be included in a fleet, etc, etc …..

No - Historical accuracy is left out in most cases of above cases in order to play the game and have fun

VaS is a great pick up and play game and, if all the rules are followed correctly, gives an extremely playable and enjoyable game.

IMHO There are a couple of points that would benefit the game and, once you own a copy, you are free to modify and play them as you choose, Such as allowing Secondary weapons to be unaffected by the -1 for fast moving and making Aircraft 2AD(or 3 etc) or any other modifications you want even down to making up your own points system if thats what you want. Then offer them up for all to use.

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Well put!

I'm glad somebody can see this for what it is and can put it in writing!

 

[Keith]

The point I am making with the priority level thing is that it is not fine grained enough to enable the continum of ship capabilities to classified adequately.

While VaS does provide an enjoyable game when the selections are well matched (e.g. from my experience USN / IJN) it can either lead to huge mismatches or the exclusion of the the use of certain calsses of ship. The former can cause frustration, particularly for new players (I have read comments from such players on this forum to the effect of "this was supposed to be an even fight" when it plainly was not) that have yet to get to grips with the ship stats.

A points system would lessen the tendancy to avoid weak chioces at any given priority level because they would be cheaper. This would expand the variety of the game, though I conceed that this makes the designers job more difficult because it increases the scope for mistakes in valuing the different classes of ship.

IN ACTA when ships have under or over powered for their priority level their stats have been tweaked so that they "fit the priority level". Do this for VaS and you lose any hope of calling it an "Histroical Wargame". It will just become an ACTA variant. If you don't do it then it should be made clear that the priority level of a ship in only a guide to its effectiveness and let the players make up their own rules to design even balttles. (Try fighteing a few IJN / RN or USN / Italian Navy battles it you think I am exaggerating the problem - if these disprove my point, and they may, I would like to see the battle reports).

My experience is based on a game we have used on a couple of occasions as an introductory "rules learning" battle as an example. Each side consists of two battleships, 1 war and 1 battle level. If we choose the Imperial Japanse and Royal Navys to fight this battle.
In this battle a Yamamoto / Kongo versus a KGV / QE would make a more even battle than a Yamamoto / Nagato versus a KGV / QE though both are supposed to be even according to the priority level system. As an experienced IJN player wishing to win only the latter choice makes sense (and IMO it would be a forgone conclusion, even the first choice would be really tough for the RN).

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Keith, I disagree with you but you are on! Let's cooperate on this one so that we both can benefit.

Let's try a Play-by-Email or Play-by-IM (I am on Yahoo) of exactly what you have described and we'll see. how it goes, OK?

I will use The counters from the gamebook and take pics as needed.

How about this week sometime, I am on US Central Time which is currently -5 Hours UTC

Let me know,

Cap

I still intend to try the Iowa vs. Kagero this week also.

 

[Keith]

You're on providing we can overcome the pratical difficulties. If this proves impossible we can always fight the same battles and compare battle reports. I'm looking forward to see how you get on with the Iowa / Kagero engagement

 

[Hugbiel]

The point I am making with the priority level thing is that it is not fine grained enough to enable the continum of ship capabilities to classified adequately.

I second that. The french Skirmish is an exemple of that : you have 6 000 TW cruiser DuguayTrouin in the same class of the more modern 10 000 TW Algerie.

I thing the 2:1 value ratio between level is a bit big and Half level may be usefull. ( as super skirmish : cost 1.5 skirmish space )

Aboutr the main subject, Historical accuracy is not an absolute. There are level of it. And Vas would't be the same game if he don't pretend to have a kind of recreation of what are possible during WWII.
Since it's a game every senario is a what if. But it's more historic to field two Hood than have one of them having no damage after a hundred plane attack.

 

[seldon]

Well, I think is hard to understand that the Littorio is the same points or priority level as the Yamato.

I think that the upcoming tournament you guys are going to play might be a good test for adjusting the priority levels.

It will be interesting to see the conclusion and the results

cheers

 

[DM]

Again this thread shows why I dislike PLs (and indeed any sort of points system )

 

[Captain_Nemo]

DM has a good point. The Stargrunt writer (Tuffley I think) basically said the same thing in Stargrunt 2. Points systems do not work, but everybody wants to believe that they are getting into a fair fight.
(Bit of a rant)
Most of these vessels weren't meant to go crossing all over the world and fight against each other; Richelieu and Littorio were designed and intended to go against one another in the Med not go off chasing Bismarck or Yamato which were BTW the oddball ships on the planet anyway.
(Rant over)

 

[Burger]

making up your own points system if thats what you want. Then offer them up for all to use.

I have done this already Points are generated based on each ship's armament, defences and agility. The resulting points are quite different to Mongoose's PLs.

http://vassheets.brinkster.net/compare.asp

 

[admiral_tee]

Speaking about Tuffley and Stargrunt, re the points values debate.
He also made Full Thrust, without exception one of the best 'star ship' mini rules out there (exclude the extra races crao, that was where it lost it i believe).
And that was points based... And balanced too.

Tee out.

 

[Captain_Nemo]

admiral_tee wrote:

He also made Full Thrust, without exception one of the best 'star ship' mini rules out there

Full Thrust!! Yay!!! I disagree with the need to cut out a piece of the game though. The aliens are in, besides the Kravak are cool.

I'll be back tonight with an Iowa vs. Kagero report. Unless y'all ood rather see IJN vs. GB battlewagond duking it out.

 

[juggler69uk]

In answer to Hugbielcan someone tell me how you do those quotes in pale boxes)
More Historically Accurate to field 2 Hoods than have aircraft do no damage ??, Sorry but I think not, Aicraft could possibly miss but there were never 2 Hoods, and my point at the end of the original message was to have your own amendments (I quoted aircraft specifically)

But anyway this brings me to my original message, I simply said that a points system is as open to abuse as any other system, Some people will only pick certain things off any listing (Points,/Priority Level/Min/max or whatever) you put in front of them and unless everything is factored in to the Nth degree (and even if it is) there will always be troops vehicles etc left out of a fleet/army/force As " Not worth having" in the struggle to win at all costs, Thats why i have, over the years, been moving towards scenario based historic wargames over competition style "Equal" points battles (besides how often was there an exactly even sided battle fought).

 

[Keith]

The simplest wat to quote a person is to start with the whole message (just hit the "Quote" button on the top left of the post). This places a command "

" at the begining of the text and "[/Qoute]" at he end you can of course add these in yourself to break up the original text too make specific comment. You can also delete portiond of the text if these need not be quoted for you to make your point.

As for the points systems I tend to agree that interesing, uneven historical games are the way to go.

A point I would like to make is that the priority level system is a very basic points system with the quirk that the battle level of a game modifies the cost of the ships. This was done, and IMO successfully, in ACTA to encourage the use like priority level ships in a battle, i.e. a raid level battle is primarily fought by raid level ships, A war level by war level ships etc. (In gerneral higher level ships were too expensive while lower level ships were relatively ineffective- neither were value for "money")

The basic points levels avoiding the quirk (by assuming the battles are fought at patrol level) are as follows:
1 point for all patrol ships,
2 points for all skirmish ships,
4 points for all raid ships,
8 points for all Battleships,
16 points for all war ships.

The point I have tried to make earlier it that there is no scope for a 12 point ship (the Littoro perhaps) or a 20 point ship (the Yamamoto perthaps). At least if a basically sound points system were adopted it would be easier to come up with relatively even contests.

The priority level concept provided ACTA with variety as the nature of the battles at each level were significantly different. This works well when you can modify ships stats into quantised levels. You do not have this luxury if you are trying to stat ships so that they will mimic their historical capabilities.

 

[Keith]

Most of these vessels weren't meant to go crossing all over the world and fight against each other;

Perhaps true in most cases but there were exceptions.

This is particularly important for the Royal Navy of WWI. One of the reasons for the superiority of the German battle crusiers in battle was the fact that they were designed only to operate close to their homeland. The Royal Navy believed that it should be capable of projecting its power all over the world (and given the extent of te Biitish empire at the time it had a point). Comprimises in ship design had to be made as a result.

I suspect this carried over into WWII (After all the Prince of Wales saw service in the North Atlantic and in the far east (straying to close to Japanese air power and getting sunk).

 

[Hugbiel]

In answer to Hugbielcan someone tell me how you do those quotes in pale boxes)
More Historically Accurate to field 2 Hoods than have aircraft do no damage ??, Sorry but I think not, Aicraft could possibly miss but there were never 2 Hoods, and my point at the end of the original message was to have your own amendments (I quoted aircraft specifically)

mmm we may not speaking of the same thing. They were never 2 Hoods but It would feel more "right for the times" to have one other be build (or a dozen Surcouf be build ) than having aircraft never be able to damage Battleship. I say that like I could say to have submarine be able to beat Battleships when surfaced. It would looking a little like having flying meca and wizard in the battlefield.
Amendments don't work for tounament. There not realy a full part of the game. They are usefull but I like to push the rules to be cooler, simpler, more detailed and have a more historical look. Yes I know some of these thing are competing )

About the cost sytem, I thing point system need to be at the same level of simplicity of the game to work. Full Thrust work well with simples items but become random with too many or too differents ones.
But it provide flexibility.

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Set up
We used the At All Costs setup map. I took the Iowa and my buddy took the 4 Kagero DD’s. I set up in my corner. Literally, in the corner.
He setup about halfway on the deployment line. In 2 groups each of 2 DD’s in line so as to try to box me in. Kinda scary really.

Turn 1
He was 1st and came straight at me at 7” Speed. I moved straight 5” trying to figure out what to do.

Turn 2
Once again he got initiative and moved 7” I kicked it up to 6” and began to turn to my right, these battlewagons are pigs!

Turn 3
I got init, Hey I have Radar on this crate, Doy! I spot 3 out of 4 DD’s and my friend tells me that the rule says “MORE Than 7 inches” So at Long Range with a target moving a speed that can be followed, I shoot! 6 Attack Dice1 hit, 3 Damage Dice +1 for Plunging Fire and Super AP 3 Hits = 1 dead Kagero. That leaves three to deal with and they came straight on!

Turn 4
He gets Init. Moves, makes a couple turns and uses his Agile trait to position his 2nd DD from Group 1 for a Torpedo Launch which he does from 19” away. I go a full 7” and I am now in a position to give’im a broadside. So I quote that French Pilgrim guy in “Wing Commander” and I roll 9 dice. All that noise and one lousy hit! But SAP is the **** and DD#2 goes to meet Davy Jones.

Turn 5
He gets the Init again! Ooooo that wascawy wabbit! I get really excited because the F%&^%ers are in line and launch Torpedoes from both tin cans. Now he had had that group maneuvering smartly for 2 turns so that he could get in a position to launch his Torps “wear away” and launch again. He knew that he’d lose me around turn 6 or 7 if he didn’t slow me down; so he prayed and placed Torpedo Markers on me. I targeted DD#3 and rolled 1 hit again. DD3 died.
DD2 managed to put 3 fish into my port side I took 3 Damage, No Crits Torpedo Belts are marvels of the modern age 

Turn 6
I get Init! Woohoo!
There is No Way for me to get out of the Torpedo Path. I decide to try and turn hard and Come About! I roll a 5! Yes! Turn 2 to the left Mr. Sulu! You are not getting out of My Broadside arc you IJN monster you! He rolls a 6 DD4 Also Comes About! And he gets pos for his Portside Torpedo Launch I fire first though 9 AD and the last Imperial Vessel bites it hard… End Phase: Only 4 Torpedoes end up hitting the ship Torpedo Belt rolls ROCK! 4 Hits all Critical Hits Lose 14 Damage Lose 3 Speed and a lot of crew but I’m still running.
Chalk one victory up for the USN

What did I learn? Well some of you guys out there are running your ships around like they are 6 year olds on a bad Sugar Rush during recess. So no wonder you can’t hit squat.
Also, a lot seems to depend on dice rolls like it or not there is an effect. Tonight I got lucky. You should have seen me on Saturday evening having my magnificent Italian Cruisers and Destroyers totally lambasted by the gallant French! I swear there were almost tears… No Really. Tears I say.
Talking about our game later, I also learned that the penalty for Flank Speed is not harsh enough. I have been on naval vessels when they go balls to the wall, even the modern ones shudder like a Chihuahua dog when they are at flank speed.
It’s not “Yo quiero Taco Bell”
It is more like, “I wanna stop this hell.”
Can you imagine trying to hit anything during that?
If there are Historical Inaccuracies to be found I suspect that it is because we don’t play “Historically”; we play “Hysterically”. You read that right. Whether you take that to mean funny or insane is up to you.
We tend to play at Flank Speed and make decisions at Flank Speed and pick things apart at Flank Speed.

Relax Fellas, it’s only a game.

 

[resQscooter]

Very nicely done, Nemo! Also, I agree with your closing statements. Tearing aroung on the ocean at flank speed probably should earn a bit more of a modifier. Any math wizards out there? I was thimking of the difference in net effect for "eveasive" (reroll hits) vs "flank speed"(-1 to hit).

 

[Keith]

As the rules are there is nothing to stop you from maintaing flank speed thoughout the whole game (which most of my destroyers did).

Also how should it work for a Navagatori. According to its current stats (8" move) it can get the "fast" bonus without flank speed. Also your battle might suggest that 8 Kageros to an Iowa would be more even.

 

[Court Jester]

According to its current stats (8" move) it can get the "fast" bonus without flank speed.

That is correct