identical ships - why?

[Der Kommandant]

i just noticed that the rulebook has both the IJN AOBA and FURUTAKA listed. these ships are of the same class and are identical in every way except the AOBA has dual 3AD torpedoes whereas the FURUTAKA has dual 2AD torpedoes.

wouldnt a different ship have served better here?

 

[Der Kommandant]

heres to more to throw in. the IJN Kadai-7 class sub and the Hei-Gata class sub.
Panzer only offers the I-15 and I-400.

 

[Soulmage]

I was noticing the Panzer sub selection seems narrow. . . however one sub looks much like another to me! LOL!!!

(Don't take that the wrong way. . some of my best friends are subs!)

 

[E Nicely]

I have yet to find a good selection of Japanese subs in any scale from any manufacturer. I'm using GHQ I-19s without the catapault as proxies.

 

[Der Kommandant]

any idea LU on my original question? why 2 of the same ship?

 

[BuShips]

i just noticed that the rulebook has both the IJN AOBA and FURUTAKA listed. these ships are of the same class and are identical in every way except the AOBA has dual 3AD torpedoes whereas the FURUTAKA has dual 2AD torpedoes.

wouldnt a different ship have served better here?

Some of the historical records group these similar ships into one class, and some break them up into two classes. They were all modernised at the time of WW2 and I believe the torpedo armaments were upgraded into two quad mounts (24"), so the differences became even smaller. For a game such as VaS I would consider them to be effectively the same class. There is a cosmetic difference in the profile that you might notice that shows that these are not of the same class in a literal sense. Focus on the aft superstructure and floatplane crane placement and the smokestack appearance. They sure could be thought of as all from one class when considering armament, in the game.

 

[E Nicely]

any idea LU on my original question? why 2 of the same ship?

BuShips pretty much got it. The 2 are very similar. The VaS system loses a little detail at destroyer level.

 

[BuShips]

any idea LU on my original question? why 2 of the same ship?

BuShips pretty much got it. The 2 are very similar. The VaS system loses a little detail at destroyer level.

It's no big deal of course, but while your comment is fine about destroyers this has been about 8" gunned Heavy Cruisers :wink: . The defense for Mongoose would be that these are indeed two different classes of ships, but that they can alternately be considered as one class easily enough. It's similar to the slight differences in the United States Brooklyn class cruisers. One might say that there are nine ships in the class or also break it down to seven Brooklyns and two modified ships of the St. Louis class.

 

[E Nicely]

Should have said "loses detail when it comes to minore differences between ships" . Thinking about DDs for another project. :roll:

 

[Der Kommandant]

thanks you guys. i just thought that it would have been better to have a completely different ship in the book rather than 2 almost identical ships.

 

[BuShips]

Should have said "loses detail when it comes to minore differences between ships" . Thinking about DDs for another project. :roll:

Ah Lowly Uhlan, I understand.

Der Kommandant, I don't have the rules yet but there are probably some additional ships that might have made a better fit there. Look at it this way, you picked up some great naval trivia didn't you? :wink:

 

[Der Kommandant]

You know it BU...

 

[Agis]

i just noticed that the rulebook has both the IJN AOBA and FURUTAKA listed. these ships are of the same class and are identical in every way except the AOBA has dual 3AD torpedoes whereas the FURUTAKA has dual 2AD torpedoes.

wouldnt a different ship have served better here?

I can only agree here. During playtest I was the evil guy who always pointed out that we should only include ships that have a different game aspect / effect.
It is very easy to get carried away and just write up everthing that floated on the Seas during WW2... :wink:
Most of the time I think only relevant ships are included, some times very similar ships sneaked in. All in all I am happy with the selections of VaS.
There is enough variation to get all you need from a gamers point of view, the historical oriented gamer on the other side is not too much disappointed, or?

 

[BuShips]

i just noticed that the rulebook has both the IJN AOBA and FURUTAKA listed. these ships are of the same class and are identical in every way except the AOBA has dual 3AD torpedoes whereas the FURUTAKA has dual 2AD torpedoes.

wouldnt a different ship have served better here?

I can only agree here. During playtest I was the evil guy who always pointed out that we should only include ships that have a different game aspect / effect.
It is very easy to get carried away and just write up everthing that floated on the Seas during WW2... :wink:
Most of the time I think only relevant ships are included, some times very similar ships sneaked in. All in all I am happy with the selections of VaS.
There is enough variation to get all you need from a gamers point of view, the historical oriented gamer on the other side is not too much disappointed, or?

If the game sells well (and it looks like it is so far), MGP might be inclined to make up a "super" hardback with all of the ships. For example, I've heard that the only IJN carrier listed is the Shokaku class (Shokaku & Zuikaku), but that was only one of many designs and capacities that Imperial Japan had of course. Maybe as a suggestion the extra ships could be done up as a PDF download (for a fee) since they would be composed of graphics/stats and not really include additional rules.

 

[Soulmage]

I'd rather just see stuff continue to be released in S&P.

I think the idea of a super hard back is a good one! Probably ought to wait until there is a supplement or two or a bunch of S&P articles to include in it as well. I would definitely buy it when it comes out!!

 

[BuShips]

I'd rather just see stuff continue to be released in S&P.

I think the idea of a super hard back is a good one! Probably ought to wait until there is a supplement or two or a bunch of S&P articles to include in it as well. I would definitely buy it when it comes out!!

Yeah, this would be something for "down-the-road" next year possibly. The reason I would suggest it to Mongoose in addition to the "free" stuff in S&P would be for those that would pay for a comprehensive volume of material in one place. That, and "publishing" is what MGP does for a living. :wink:

 

[E Nicely]

A super hard back would be way down the road. By the time CTA 2E comes out the game will have been around for 3 years (and that game has made them some money).

There's a REALLY good chance you'll see new published ships this year. Along with new rules, ect.

 

[BuShips]

A super hard back would be way down the road. By the time CTA 2E comes out the game will have been around for 3 years (and that game has made them some money).

There's a REALLY good chance you'll see new published ships this year. Along with new rules, ect.

That occurred to me, but there is one difference between ACTA and VaS. With ACTA MGP can continue to release new ships like the Command Omega that will stretch out a comprehensive reference over years. VaS is based upon a finite list of historical ships that after compilation can be offered up to the gaming public as a comprehensive and finite book. I would add that maybe two years might be right to delay this, just to gauge sales over time and see what demand there might be. Of course, this can be one of many "comprehensive" lists because if MGP likes the game's reception they can expand into the "Great War" of WWI and then jump over to modern and then even back to Triremes, heh. Greek Fire anyone? :lol:

 

[E Nicely]

Man, I would love to play some triemes.

 

[Soulmage]

Triremes sounds like fun. . . but I don't know if the VaS engine is the right system for it. The style of warfare is so radically different I don't think its a good fit.

WWI is an obvious choice, a great fit and the most likely next version. Age of Sail might be good too, but I wonder how abstracted it will have to be. . . but I'm sure Matt and crew could work that out.

Modern. . . I just don't know that it is possible to make a good game out of this to be honest. . . Just doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun blasting somebody with an anti-ship missile from 100+ miles away.

Now. . . if you go ultramodern and leap forward to the point where the ships are packing rail guns. . now that might be something!!