Historically accurate ??

[juggler69uk]

As the rules are there is nothing to stop you from maintaing flank speed thoughout the whole game

Although torpedo attacks do suffer the -1 on the attack dice for the special action "Flank speed" (page 11 it says All attack dice for weapons fired from this ship suffer a -1 penalty), however the text starts "Straining the Engines...." This may be a case for changing the rules if you need it for competition, or house rule it and stop the permanent Flank Speed,

Perhaps as a special action it cant be chosen two turns in a row.
Or maybe a risk of engine damage if used on multiple turns

 

[juggler69uk]

The simplest wat to quote a person is to start with the whole message ...

Thanks Keith i was doing that but the quotes were not appearing in the boxes, I figured it out now, the disable bbcode box was ticked

 

[juggler69uk]

Turn 6...........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. .

Yep Torpedo belts are good, Did you not get them to reroll only the crits, as the rule says "any" (not all) damage dice that affects the ship MAY be re-rolled , or were they lucky and all the re-rolls crits as well ?

If there are Historical Inaccuracies to be found I suspect that it is because we don’t play “Historically”; we play “Hysterically”. .....

This I agree with you on

I also wonder if there shouldn't be a deduction for bad weather that would hamper the flank speed ???

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Juggler wrote:

Yep Torpedo belts are good, Did you not get them to reroll only the crits, as the rule says "any" (not all) damage dice that affects the ship MAY be re-rolled , or were they lucky and all the re-rolls crits as well ?

Yes the re-rolls were all crits, It was still better than the 20 DD he rolled and hit with half of them! Very Ugly :shock:

So he rerolled and that's what we ended up with.

And:

I also wonder if there shouldn't be a deduction for bad weather that would hamper the flank speed ???

I agree, I think the penalties for extreme movement and conditions do not reflect the effects to the vessels' capabilities very well. They seem to have left this a space game or maybe a Modern game. I do not believe that vessels of that era had the ability to engage targets well or at all at speeds approaching full speed, let alone flank speed. There is a difference between the two AFAIK anyway.

What does DM think?
I ask because you're kind of our resident SME.
(Subject Matter Expert)

 

[DM]

It varied considerably depending on a host of circumstances. In smooth conditions afarster platform was just as good agun platform as at lower speeds. In some cases increased speed could resutl in increased stability. Heightened sea states would make things worse, but agsin some hull forms worked well in any kind of sea, others had "sweet spots" depending on sea state and attitude, whilst others were pigs in anything other than a millpond (e.g. German DDs with the twin 5.9" turrets). Unfortunately tying down performance data is VERY difficult and one has to rely on anecdotal evidence in the main unless you can get access to real trials data, action reports etc.

 

[juggler69uk]

Dm

Did ships travel as fast in rough seas or were they slowed down , that being the reason for my query a few posts back about reducing flank speed in bad weather

 

[seldon]

From what I read from the battle of the Denmark Strait most of the battle happened whith ships going at their max speed. Even when both of the sides were willing to engage. If going slower would have been better I would have expected the Germans to slow down while shooting on the approaching brits, since at that point no one was running away.

I really don't like the flank speed special action :?

seldon

 

[DM]

Sorry Juggler, yes ships generally do have to ease off in high sea states. The degree of speed reduction depends on size, ship motions etc. (for example ships with hulforms that are well designed for seakeeping are likely to experience smaller degrees of pitch and hence less slamming, less emergence of the propellers, and so on).

 

[juggler69uk]

Sorry Juggler, yes ships generally do have to ease off in high sea states. The degree of speed reduction depends on size, ship motions etc. (for example ships with hulforms that are well designed for seakeeping are likely to experience smaller degrees of pitch and hence less slamming, less emergence of the propellers, and so on).

So it might be realistic in bad weather to reduce movement to a (arbitary) maximum figure of say 6inch max esp for the smaller ships like destroyers. thus easing the penalty for fast moving on top of any for weather