identical ships - why?

[BuShips]

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.

I agree, you'd pretty much use the ramming rules, heh.

WWI is an obvious choice, a great fit and the most likely next version.

Yuppers, and you don't have those pesky aeroplanes either, other than the occasional zepplin that is. :wink:

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!!

Yes, but I'd still use my "old" anti-ship missile and blast you from 100+ miles away (or from space, lol). But then if I hit you from space, we would come full circle back to ACTA wouldn't we? :lol:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

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.

I'm working on it... but so far I'm relying on counters/bases of fixed size, and that doesn't sit well with me.

Wulf

 

[Reaverman]

Triremes and the VAS system will not work, its like getting the Unreal engine and using it for Tic-Tac-Toe. In other words you would be over engineering the rules, for a Ram'n Board based game. Vas is more geared towards ranged combat, not move about the table for ages and then ram.

 

[BuShips]

Triremes and the VAS system will not work, its like getting the Unreal engine and using it for Tic-Tac-Toe. In other words you would be over engineering the rules, for a Ram'n Board based game. Vas is more geared towards ranged combat, not move about the table for ages and then ram.

Well, we could always change history and let the secret of Greek Fire fall into the hands of the ancient version of the MEA. Then each side could do ranged fire (literally!) besides ramming. The truth is that they didn't have a clue and were so bad at military intelligence they mistook the Greeks for Romans and called it "Roman Fire". They didn't even know who was killing them, lol.

 

[DM]

I agree the system creaks a lot for oared galley warfare. If anyone wants a fun fast play set of galley rules let me know by PM and I'll send you a PDF.

 

[jfox61]

Oh come on Greek ancient would be awesome They were the first to Use chemical and Biological warfare it would be great lol. Chemical would be their greek fire pots and quicklime and their bilogical are huge pots of P*ss angry Bees. Just think of the Fun.

 

[DM]

Oh come on Greek ancient would be awesome

I'm not saying it isn't (I've played ancient naval for many years). I'm just saying the VAS system isn't a good starting point for an ancient set.

 

[jfox61]

Just a tongue in cheek post DM. I actually use Rod Langtons set Naumachiae for my Naval. not really fast play but I have had a game where we have used 10 ships apiece and finished the game a little under 4 hrs. Highly realistic too. I agree with you DM these rules would be awful as a set for ancients they are a ranged ased set of rules whereas ancients was a ram and board with marines type of warfare with ranged weapons of secondary importance.

 

[Court Jester]

We have used the Fire and Fury ACW rules for Galley Battles... worked quite well...

 

[DM]

Thats good news - any feedback on the rules?

 

[Chernobyl]

regarding "completing" the VAS ship selection, a buddy of mine just picked up "Janes Fighting Ships of WW2" He's ready for pretty much anything now...!
Also trying to figure out where the torpedoes came from on the french carrier...

Chern

 

[DM]

Be careful with this one. I've not checked it myself but I've been told that there is a lot of information in Janes that was supposition and subsequently shown to be incorrect. For a really good reference (which is, IIRC, the one that is being used by most of those people developing stats for the rules) is Conways Worlds Warships, 1922-1946 edition.

 

[Fitzwalrus]

Be careful with this one. I've not checked it myself but I've been told that there is a lot of information in Janes that was supposition and subsequently shown to be incorrect. For a really good reference (which is, IIRC, the one that is being used by most of those people developing stats for the rules) is Conways Worlds Warships, 1922-1946 edition.

I'll have to second this. I have the "Janes WW2" collection and three of the four Conway's myself, and while the Janes is fun as a "what they thought they knew at the time" reference it has very little to do with reality in many cases. Even at the end of the war some information was being withheld for security reasons, and data on enemy ships was often still of a "best guess" nature.

The Conway's series are not cheap, but they are definitely the best "one stop" reference I've seen for virtually all the vessels afloat in the various time periods they cover.

 

[BuShips]

Allow me to "pile on" along with DM and Fitzwalrus. If you want a laugh Chern, look up the Yamato :wink: . It is listed with Iowas stats of 45,000 tons standard displacement and armed with 9-16" guns. This was of course due to the incomplete intelligence of the Allies and the well-kept secret of the Yamato and Musashi's true capabilities. Like said before, it's fun to look at what was thought at the time and then go to the Conway's for the "true facts".

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Is it just me or is the Aoba missing its torpedo launchers in that picture?

 

[DM]

Which picture?

 

[Chernobyl]

yes, it will be interesting to see what the ONI CD-Roms I've ordered say...though I bought them more for the imagry than the data.

Chern

 

[BuShips]

yes, it will be interesting to see what the ONI CD-Roms I've ordered say...though I bought them more for the imagry than the data.

Chern

The Office of Naval Intelligence. That would be fun to go through. :wink: I got very lucky a few years ago and bought a bound set of the WW2 Strategic Bombing Survey from a library sale once. This was full of "Top Secret" stamps on every page, and was a compilation of a U.S. Govt. "magazine" that was published to inform each war theater what ideas were being developed from the others. This way good ideas got spread around and used world-wide. It is a gem of a reference for a "look inside" of history being made and a rather unique frame of reference. For example, there is a history of the development of the technique of masthead-high bombing called "skip bombing". Where high altitude level bombing was only like 1-2% effective, the percentage of a hit using skip bombing flipped the hit percentage on its head and rose to nearly 100%. What is really interesting, it was a tactic developed "in the field" and specially-modified bombers that became the B-25H & J (iirc) outgunned the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-29 Super-fortress. I've always liked the B-25 and always remembered those "special" models. I'm not sure how VaS would benefit any from adding skip-bombing though, because you would probably be accurate in not using any AD and just "skip" over to the DD, lol. From a history perspective, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea resulted in the slaughter of a convoy and thousands of troops and would shock most readers and would be considered highly controversial today. The tactic is very much like that used by the British in dam-busting raids.

 

[Myrm]

%. What is really interesting, it was a tactic developed "in the field" and specially-modified bombers that became the B-25H & J (iirc).

D'you mean the one with racks of .50 cals either side of the cockpit?

There's one flying that Ive seen at Duxford Flying legends a few times...got a nice piccy or two somewhere from my flight line walk past it

 

[DM]

IIRC we developed some "on the fly" skip bombing rules and posted them on the forum a few weeks back. Darned if I can find them now!!