IJN Long Lance Torps

[Pavlov Grenadier]

Hi all! We just played our 4th game of VaS and had a quick question on the IJN Long Lance Torps. Let me preface with this: I play IJN so this is not a complaint or rant, Im just curious.

At 20 inches and sometimes up to 5AD/5DD, they seem a little (and I cant believe I am about to say this ) overpowered? The ability to reach out and hit someone from my DDs and be almost impervious to counter attack from the target ship (target 5+ to 7+ based on speed and facing)

So what’s the defense? Here are a few things I thought of on the drive home last night but wanted to get your take on it:

1) If shot at over 10”, the defending ship should try the Evade SA on his next turn to minimize the damage when it hits in that End Phase.

2) Defender needs to have a good screen of destroyers well out in front of fleet (that is pretty obvious but with a 20” range, he would have to be pretty far out to avoid his bigger ships getting tapped by a Long Lance).

Anything else? Has anyone else seen this or have we just not played enough times yet? Any changes to the Long Lance in OOB?

Thanks!
Curtis

 

[Myrm]

Well, I think the reputation of the Long Lance and its use were pretty good.

How to play against it - well you pretty much got it. A screen of smaller ships is the way to go. They stay out so either they get targetted and suck up the steaming levels of HiEx that is the Long Lance or they gun the launching ship to pieces when it approaches.

Whether the ship is single shot torps or slow loader makes a BIG difference. Against a single shot IJN ship you can play a stand off game. Against one that can reload you have to be more aggressive.

Note: All this is based on not having got OOB yet so I have no idea if air power is a useful tool under the new rules

 

[juggler69uk]

.............Note: All this is based on not having got OOB yet so I have no idea if air power is a useful tool under the new rules

Plus, on reading the other posts, I think there has been a limit added to the number of reloads available

 

[Evil Monkey]

Used these for the first time last night - what seemed a little odd was that you could fire at long range against the beam of the opponent and as we read it it would then follow the ship hitting it at the end of the next turn on the beam even if the opponent had since manouvered into a new position. Maybe we read it wrong or maybe it's just an abstraction but they did feel a bit like heat-seeking missiles vs fairly agile cruisers, not a problem as I was firing them

 

[juggler69uk]

Used these for the first time last night - what seemed a little odd was that you could fire at long range against the beam of the opponent and as we read it it would then follow the ship hitting it at the end of the next turn on the beam even if the opponent had since manouvered into a new position. Maybe we read it wrong or maybe it's just an abstraction but they did feel a bit like heat-seeking missiles vs fairly agile cruisers, not a problem as I was firing them

Another question that was answered was that a surfaced sub at over 10" range, being fired at by a long lance, can dive next turn to escape it.

Another question could be, what happens if the target moves out of arc?, but I suspect the answer will be that the long lance moves with it

 

[MektonZero]

While not exactly a rules expert, everyone is free to use common sense rulings to make the game more enjoyable.

If the ship isn't there when the torpedoes arrive (mainly by becoming a submarine), the torpedoes can't hit. While I don't have the rules sitting in front of me, I believe that the torpedoes don't actually attack until the second turn and on that second turn the target is a sub which isn't eligible to be attacked by torpedoes.

As for the beam attack aspect changing, I'd say it still counts. For one thing it avoids book keeping, you'd have to record the start position of every torpedo attack and then recheck angles on the second turn to determine if the ship turned enough to get it off the beam. For another, shots made on the beam were more accurate because on the beam you can get a much better estimation of the target's speed and distance than you can from the bow or stern; which is critical when trying to hit a target that far away.

Also, in real life you couldn't see if the enemy fired torpedoes at you from 10 nautical miles away. You want to start plotting your movements a turn in advance so we can see if you'd really have turned without the god view of the battle letting you know torpedoes were incoming; I'll do the work and measure it.

As for out of arc, it won't be much of an issue, torpedoes were pretty capable of turning far outside of launcher arcs, it is more of an issue of the director being able to see the target and set up the shot. Heck, a couple of US torpedoes managed to hit the sub launching them. :twisted: Besides, we're back to book keeping again; for the same reason I wouldn't worry about ships that end up outside of the maximum range before impact. If the target wants to simulate this kind of thing, they can go evasive.

Even so, Long Lance torpedoes fired at long range were all but useless in practice. In the Battle of Komondorski Islands, the US ships made absolutely no effort to avoid torpedoes as they believed themselves to be out of range so just sailed in mostly straight course legs to engage the Japanese line. Japanese torpedo crews had as perfect a target as they could ever expect to see in combat and missed 43 times out of 43 shots.

If anything torpedoes over 10" so should get another -1 to hit.

 

[juggler69uk]

While not exactly a rules expert, everyone is free to use common sense rulings to make the game more enjoyable.

If the ship isn't there when the torpedoes arrive (mainly by becoming a submarine), the torpedoes can't hit. While I don't have the rules sitting in front of me, I believe that the torpedoes don't actually attack until the second turn and on that second turn the target is a sub which isn't eligible to be attacked by torpedoes.....................................

I wasnt really looking for a ruling or an argument, merely espousing, but the same argument you use about the target not being eligible also applies to "out of arc" and "out of range" as well as submerged subs (you cant target them to fire at) However "official" game rulings have ruled them as subs that submerge are not a target and any ship that moves over 20" away is still a target. Its all good and anyone still unhappy can always house rule them as they see fit

 

[DM]

Another question that was answered was that a surfaced sub at over 10" range, being fired at by a long lance, can dive next turn to escape it.

This ruling is, of course, pure cheese

 

[MektonZero]

I wasnt really looking for a ruling or an argument, merely espousing, but the same argument you use about the target not being eligible also applies to "out of arc" and "out of range" as well as submerged subs (you cant target them to fire at) However "official" game rulings have ruled them as subs that submerge are not a target and any ship that moves over 20" away is still a target. Its all good and anyone still unhappy can always house rule them as they see fit

It's not the same thing. Long rage torpeodoes are launched at any eligible target in one turn and attack the target in the second. These two steps are independent of each other, for the first step, the only thing that matters is that the target is on the surface, in range and in arc. For the second the only thing that matters is that the target is still eligible to be attacked by a torpedo, it doesn't matter where it moves to.

As for a ruling or an argument, I'm merely espousing too. It's how I rationalized the rules as written. This game is fun and fast playing; to get there a few corners had to be cut. But I'm more than OK with that, after all, I've played plenty of Seekrieg. I'm more than willing to cut the designers a fair amount of slack in the interests of playability and reduced book keeping.

 

[MektonZero]

Another question that was answered was that a surfaced sub at over 10" range, being fired at by a long lance, can dive next turn to escape it.

This ruling is, of course, pure cheese

I'd call it fair though. In combat, Long Lance torpedoes fired at long range had a about one-half of one percent hit rate against cruiser sized targets. Allowing even a 17% hit rate against submarines at that range would pretty damn cheesy. On the beam it would be 33%, are these WW2 torpedoes or 1980s era Mk46 ADCAP active sonar guided torpedoes?

 

[DM]

LOL, don't get me started on torpedoes in general

(PS : Mk48 ADCAP -broadly equialent to a Spearfish - the Mk 46 is an air dropped lightweight )

 

[MektonZero]

LOL, don't get me started on torpedoes in general

(PS : Mk48 ADCAP -broadly equialent to a Spearfish - the Mk 46 is an air dropped lightweight )

Heh, been far too long since I've played any Harpoon.

 

[DM]

Now where did I put that modern VAS variant?

 

[juggler69uk]

........ I'm more than willing to cut the designers a fair amount of slack in the interests of playability and reduced book keeping.

So am I, I like VaS a lot for its simplicity. I wish there was some other land based more historical rules that were as simple and kept a flavour for the period

Its why (coupled with the historically argued lack of successes they had, you actually called them "all but useless in practice") i felt that long lances targets should still be in range etc when trying to work out if they were successfully attacked, thus simulating said lack of success.

So if ship moves out of range then torp misses or ship can stay in range and go evasive to get any successful attack re-rolled

However its played or ruled Im ok with, as long as theres no arguments, and therein lies the problem with trying to apply logic or common sense rulings. Dont get me wrong, they are fine locally but, too many differing logical or common sense points cause arguments (how many times have I heard the statements "its obvious from the way its written" or "logically that means" preceeding a long rules discussion)

 

[MektonZero]

So am I, I like VaS a lot for its simplicity. I wish there was some other land based more historical rules that were as simple and kept a flavour for the period

Its why (coupled with the historically argued lack of successes they had, you actually called them "all but useless in practice") i felt that long lances targets should still be in range etc when trying to work out if they were successfully attacked, thus simulating said lack of success.

Tat the lack of success had little to do with targets moving out of range. They went 0 hits for 43 shots against ships that did absolutely nothing to avoid the attacks as they absolutely believed that no attack was possible at that range. :?

So if ship moves out of range then torp misses or ship can stay in range and go evasive to get any successful attack re-rolled

My main objection is book keeping, since the firing ships will have moved by the time the attack occurs, you will also need to track the origin point for every long range torpedo attack which occurs and in some of the games I've seen, that could be a dozen or more in one turn.

Also, moving out of range wasn't a possible defense decision for a captain to make. You couldn't have seen torpedoes launched from 10 nautical miles away and by the time you saw them, assuming your lookouts spotted them, you had neither the time, nor the speed to decide to move out of range. The only way I can see to avoid giving the opponent too much information is not tell opposing ships they are under attack until they have moved in the second turn, then let them know about the torpedoes so they can decide if they want to go evasive or not. Now you're tracking torpedo attacks on paper. This seems to be a lot of overhead for a minor realism gain.

 

[DM]

How about something like this?

1) resolve torpedo attacks at>10" in the same turn rather than the second turn.
2) Represent the extended range effects by having the attacking player roll for hits as normal, but then having to make a second successful AD roll for each hit scored.

 

[juggler69uk]

............ The only way I can see to avoid giving the opponent too much information is not tell opposing ships they are under attack until they have moved in the second turn, then let them know about the torpedoes so they can decide if they want to go evasive or not. Now you're tracking torpedo attacks on paper. This seems to be a lot of overhead for a minor realism gain.

Unfortunately Special actions have to be chosen before the ship is moved, so that options not viable anyway

How about something like this?

1) resolve torpedo attacks at>10" in the same turn rather than the second turn.
2) Represent the extended range effects by having the attacking player roll for hits as normal, but then having to make a second successful AD roll for each hit scored.

This looks good

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

How about something like this?

1) resolve torpedo attacks at>10" in the same turn rather than the second turn.
2) Represent the extended range effects by having the attacking player roll for hits as normal, but then having to make a second successful AD roll for each hit scored.

Yeah, I like that as well. If for nothing else, it keeps down on book keeping ("Ok, this small black dice indicates this destoryer fired these torps but cant hit you until next turn"...etc.).

Might have to play around with that.

 

[DM]

It was an off-the-cuff idea so it might not work, but its not dissimiar to the way torpedoes currently work in the prototype WW1 rules.

 

[MektonZero]

Unfortunately Special actions have to be chosen before the ship is moved, so that options not viable anyway

Hey, if I'm going to house rule it, what's another change. Besides, it's not like evasive actions will alter where the ship ends up or how far it mvoes.

How about something like this?

1) resolve torpedo attacks at>10" in the same turn rather than the second turn.
2) Represent the extended range effects by having the attacking player roll for hits as normal, but then having to make a second successful AD roll for each hit scored.

It's an elegant solution, but why not just resolve them in the next turn as normal? You don't have to worry about tracking the origin point anymore, just giving the attack dice an extra reroll.

A single normal reroll is still way too high based on historical attacks, hit rates in the neighborhood of 45% for a beam shot against a battleship or carrier still look out of whack. Instead of a simple reroll against the target rating, make the reroll target number 6. You make your normal attack rolls (rolling again for evasive if required), then roll all the resulting hits again with a 6 needed for success against the target.

Against the beam of a carrier or battleship you end up with roughly an 11% chance of hit per attack dice (which represents two actual tubes firing). This doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Since evasive maneuvers use the original attack roll and won't affect a reroll to 6 mechanic, even an evading carrier is going to get hit 7.5% of the time, which still seems reasonable. Cruiser shots on the beam come in at 8%, 4% if the target evades, also reasonable per two torpedoes. Destroyers end up at 5%, 2% if evading.

It reduces the 20 mile away long lance shots to the nuisance they historically were, a way to disrupt enemy formations and tactics and if the occasional ship gets unlucky and nailed by a torpedo along the way, so much the better.