Invincible Destroyers!
- Thread starter hyndridge
- Start date
Typically, in many games, take Command at Sea or Avalanche's Great War at Sea (both fine games), for example, Destroyers fall into "what is the biggest thing I can kill in one shot" category. Destroyers were, historically, clearly more survivable than they are represented in many games, so good for VaS making them tough to kill, are they too tough to kill? Possibly...
The night battles in the Solomons were fought at night in restricted waters, ships weren't given to tearing around at flank speed in such circumstances, something hard to recreate in a game. At Leyte Gulf, the U.S. Destroyers Johnston, Hoel, and Heerman took an astonishing amount of punishment before sinking, including large caliber guns hits.
I would suggest two "fixes":
1) Secondary guns, (or say guns under 6") were lighter and faster, and didn't have them same difficulting in engaging a fast moving destroyer that a 14" triple turret did. That's why they were installed, to help fend off light ships. How about secondary batteries lower the target rating of 6+ ships to 5+?
2) Shouldn't be easier to hit as you get closer? Perhaps targets within, say 10" (torpedo range) should get a +1 to be hit.
3) Radar and spotters do help, but remember the Japanese continually outspotted U.S. Radar for a good portion of the Solomons campaign...Advanced Radar and Spotting Rules (Search Radar, GFC Radar, Japanese Night Optics and ESM, etc) might make a neat little advanced module.
4) Destroyers tend to be nimble, perhaps nimble ships could get a "saving throw" of somekind against catastrophic damage?
Thoughts?
The night battles in the Solomons were fought at night in restricted waters, ships weren't given to tearing around at flank speed in such circumstances, something hard to recreate in a game. At Leyte Gulf, the U.S. Destroyers Johnston, Hoel, and Heerman took an astonishing amount of punishment before sinking, including large caliber guns hits.
I would suggest two "fixes":
1) Secondary guns, (or say guns under 6") were lighter and faster, and didn't have them same difficulting in engaging a fast moving destroyer that a 14" triple turret did. That's why they were installed, to help fend off light ships. How about secondary batteries lower the target rating of 6+ ships to 5+?
2) Shouldn't be easier to hit as you get closer? Perhaps targets within, say 10" (torpedo range) should get a +1 to be hit.
3) Radar and spotters do help, but remember the Japanese continually outspotted U.S. Radar for a good portion of the Solomons campaign...Advanced Radar and Spotting Rules (Search Radar, GFC Radar, Japanese Night Optics and ESM, etc) might make a neat little advanced module.
4) Destroyers tend to be nimble, perhaps nimble ships could get a "saving throw" of somekind against catastrophic damage?
Thoughts?
gbierl said:
Have just played another game and started off using spotters and the +1 they get certainly helped but keeping track of which spotter belonged to which ship was a nightmare!
Half way through the game we scrapped the spotters and +1 for ships moving over 7" and it worked well.
So my suggestion, and one we will use in future, is that there is no penalty for shooting at ships that move over 7"
Roland
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
I am ALL in favour of scrapping spotters!
K
K
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
In our last post-game discussion we had two options on how to deal with this: using the old GW system for rolling 7+ on a D6, or simply eliminating the -1 for firing on ships moving at Speed 7+.
For now we're going to use the GW method (reroll "sixes": on the reroll "four"= 7, "five"= 8, and "six"=9), keep the -1 Speed modifier, and see how that goes. This has an advantage over simply dropping the Speed modifier in that it also deals with other situations that may come up during the game where a higher die result than "6" may be needed.
I do like the "secondaries fire at size 6+ ships at +1" idea as well, but I think making it possible to roll 7+ will accomplish the same thing.
Another can of worms is the Speed of the ships themselves, and resolving that will get rid of a lot of these problems. As currently written, an inch of movement equals about five knots of speed, so a Fletcher at 36 knots moves 7", a Navigatori at 38 kts. does 8" and a Le Fantasque at 42 kts. makes 9" a turn :shock:.
The difficulty comes in when they (or any ship) choose "Flank Speed" and increase their speed by 50% for a turn. At "Flank Speed" the three ships above would be doing the equivalent of 52.5 kts., 60 kts. and 67.5 kts. per turn, and no WWII vessel could turn numbers like that unless you shot them out of a cannon.
I've been poking at this in hopes there would be a simple formulaic solution, but it appears the only way to fix it without winding up with movement in fractions of a inch is to give each ship two speeds: a "Flank Speed" (their current printed Speed) used only when they choose that Special Action, and a "Standard" speed of about 2/3 their current Speed rating. This would both conform to standard WWII practice and eliminate some of the problems mentioned above of hitting fast-moving ships, as they would no longer qualify for the reduction unless they were deliberately moving at their fastest possible speed.
The other alternative would be to just drop the "Flank Speed" action altogether. I presume this is a carryover from the ACTA rules: it makes some sense in a space game, but not in a historical game where using it makes ships perform far in excess of their known capabilities.
As to Spotters, it's fun having the models on the table, and they are yet another mechanisim to overcome the limitations of a D6-range combat system, but they were never used historically as widely as they seem to be in the game. (To spot fall of shell in shore bombardments historically, yes: for ship-to-ship not so much.) Again, allowing 7+ to be rolled on a D6 helps eliminate the necessity for the Spotter in the first place.
For now we're going to use the GW method (reroll "sixes": on the reroll "four"= 7, "five"= 8, and "six"=9), keep the -1 Speed modifier, and see how that goes. This has an advantage over simply dropping the Speed modifier in that it also deals with other situations that may come up during the game where a higher die result than "6" may be needed.
I do like the "secondaries fire at size 6+ ships at +1" idea as well, but I think making it possible to roll 7+ will accomplish the same thing.
Another can of worms is the Speed of the ships themselves, and resolving that will get rid of a lot of these problems. As currently written, an inch of movement equals about five knots of speed, so a Fletcher at 36 knots moves 7", a Navigatori at 38 kts. does 8" and a Le Fantasque at 42 kts. makes 9" a turn :shock:.
The difficulty comes in when they (or any ship) choose "Flank Speed" and increase their speed by 50% for a turn. At "Flank Speed" the three ships above would be doing the equivalent of 52.5 kts., 60 kts. and 67.5 kts. per turn, and no WWII vessel could turn numbers like that unless you shot them out of a cannon.
I've been poking at this in hopes there would be a simple formulaic solution, but it appears the only way to fix it without winding up with movement in fractions of a inch is to give each ship two speeds: a "Flank Speed" (their current printed Speed) used only when they choose that Special Action, and a "Standard" speed of about 2/3 their current Speed rating. This would both conform to standard WWII practice and eliminate some of the problems mentioned above of hitting fast-moving ships, as they would no longer qualify for the reduction unless they were deliberately moving at their fastest possible speed.
The other alternative would be to just drop the "Flank Speed" action altogether. I presume this is a carryover from the ACTA rules: it makes some sense in a space game, but not in a historical game where using it makes ships perform far in excess of their known capabilities.
As to Spotters, it's fun having the models on the table, and they are yet another mechanisim to overcome the limitations of a D6-range combat system, but they were never used historically as widely as they seem to be in the game. (To spot fall of shell in shore bombardments historically, yes: for ship-to-ship not so much.) Again, allowing 7+ to be rolled on a D6 helps eliminate the necessity for the Spotter in the first place.
"All Secondary armaments do not suffer from the -1 to hit any target which moves more than 7". "
I like it. Only some play will shake out if that or the D6+ option is better.
"give each ship two speeds"
I noticed the Flank speed issue as well. I like your idea. I don't think ships spent a lot of time at flank even during battle but someone else with more knowledge may know otherwise. If flank speed was rare than reducing movement and keeping the rule would make sense. Otherwise I'd say dropping it makes more sense otherwise folks are gonna go full bore AND go flank and start warping around the board.
I like it. Only some play will shake out if that or the D6+ option is better.
"give each ship two speeds"
I noticed the Flank speed issue as well. I like your idea. I don't think ships spent a lot of time at flank even during battle but someone else with more knowledge may know otherwise. If flank speed was rare than reducing movement and keeping the rule would make sense. Otherwise I'd say dropping it makes more sense otherwise folks are gonna go full bore AND go flank and start warping around the board.
Court Jester
Mongoose
So um... is there any aspect of VaS you guys don't have issues with? :wink:
Der Kommandant
Mongoose
apparently not. i think theres a house rule in effect for EVERY aspect of the game.Court Jester said:
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
Court Jester said:
:lol:
I actually like VaS quite a bit. The basic mechanics are good, and the ship specs (for the most part) do a good job of individualizing the various classes and types of ships within what is admittedly a fairly simple game framework.
What VaS needs is about six months' playtesting by historical naval players to identify the (in some cases) glaringly ahistorical effects of some of the rule interactions, and then to decide which of these need to be addressed and how. I'm not trying to turn this game into Seekrieg by any means, but you also can't have torpedo-proof battleships, nearly invulnerable destroyers, and 60-knot ships in a WWII game and expect anyone who knows anything about the period to take the game seriously.
I'd really like to see a set of WWII naval rules that are as fun and easy to play as Flames of War is in it's area, and I suspect there are a lot of naval gamers like me out there. I think VaS has the potential to be that ruleset: I'm trying to nudge it in that direction, not tear it down.
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
mbtanker said:
In one of it's earlier incarnations General Quarters dealt with this rather well in their Campaign Rules. (GQ makes me crazy: totally broken combat rules mated with the best Campaign and Logistics system I've ever seen.)
In the tactical system moving at flank speed got you around quicker but that was about it. On the Campaign side you could send your fleets screaming around at maximum speed, but doing so drastically increased your fuel consumption. Use too much fuel in Campaign movement and your tactical speed was limited in the next battle you fought, or you could even run your tanks dry. It gave a nice feel as to the restrictions logistics places on a fleet without overburdening the rules with a lot of bookeeping.
Standard cruising speed for most WWII fleets was 20 knots or slower, depending on the ships in the fleet. This was done to conserve fuel, and also because for the most part the ASW gear of the day was ineffective at higher than 20 knots due to excessive "noise" generated by the hull moving through the water. Fleets needing to move faster could do so, but then had to rely on their speed making them tougher targets for any enemy subs that might be out there: while moving at higher speeds their escorts wouldn't be able to "ping" a sub and give warning unless they were very, very lucky.
In battle ships tended to crank up to the best speed they could manage to make themselves harder to hit, particularly if they were under air attack.
The VaS "High Speed Target" rule is not historically inaccurate: it is the interaction with other modifiers (Night, Target size, Range, etc) that causes the problems within a D6 range of potential results.
Court Jester said:
I can name one area I certainly have no issues with, the willingness of players who are interested in this game to play, critique and attempt to fix some fairly large loopholes in the rules. We do this so that the game might evolve and become even better. We do this so that this might become a game we all still play a year from now instead of just another rulebook gathering dust on our shelves.
What are you doing to help? :roll:
Court Jester
Mongoose
gbierl said:
Please be stepping off your lofty moral high horse...
I was messing about but I obviosuly touched a nerve... :roll:
I know the game has certain issues, but I am not looking to it to be the be all and end all in WWII naval wargaming because it isn't. I am quite happy to have my destoryers unhittable in the dark when moving at flanks speed. I have no problem with the speed values of the ships and how that transposes into real life. I have no problem with how the ships turn.
However I do have a problem with obsure and ambiguous rules.
Court Jester
Mongoose
gbierl said:
I am playing the game and enjoying myself.
Der Kommandant
Mongoose
shouldnt this have been done before i bought the game? mongooses lack of support in the answer column isnt making me feel a lot better either.gbierl said:
Soulmage
Mongoose
Ummmm. . . . no.
I really think hard core history types would be better served by just finding another ruleset. VaS is just supposed to be a fun naval wargame based on WWII. It is NOT supposed to be a recreation of WWII naval combat.
I could CARE LESS whether the "flank speed" action makes ships move a 60 kts. What I do care about is whether its fun to have that available or not.
I think there might be an area or two where the rules could be tightened up, but I don't think ANY additional rules should be implemented just in the name of historical accuracy. For two reasons:
1. You're never going to turn this ruleset into a highly accurate model of WWII naval combat anyway. There's always going to be lots of concessions for gameplay.
2. The more cumbersome the rules get, the less fun the game becomes.
Crusaderminis
Mongoose
I played another game this afternoon and think the rules do need a few tweeks.
These are what I'd like to try next time.
1. Secondary armament ignores the -1 mod for speeds over 7"
2. Get rid of spotting planes entirely.
3. Make the current speeds 'flank speed' and make the 'normal' speed 2/3 of this amount.
One because these guns are easier to lay onto a fast target.
Two because spotter planes are a pain in the arse.
Three because ships are dashing around much too fast for my taste.
Having said all that I like the game but as it is written in the rule book it wouldnt be something I'd play too often. If these mods work I'll be looking forward to getting involved in a campaign and spalshing out on some 1:3000 ships.
These are what I'd like to try next time.
1. Secondary armament ignores the -1 mod for speeds over 7"
2. Get rid of spotting planes entirely.
3. Make the current speeds 'flank speed' and make the 'normal' speed 2/3 of this amount.
One because these guns are easier to lay onto a fast target.
Two because spotter planes are a pain in the arse.
Three because ships are dashing around much too fast for my taste.
Having said all that I like the game but as it is written in the rule book it wouldnt be something I'd play too often. If these mods work I'll be looking forward to getting involved in a campaign and spalshing out on some 1:3000 ships.
I like the "beer and pretzels" aspect of VaS, like lots of die-rolling and critical hits, its ok if its not the last word in historical accuracy. Having said that, the system could work a bit better in one or two areas, and I think its not churlish to suggest that. I don't think the argument is to ignore historical reality, I mean the King George V doesn't fire the wave motion gun or magic moonbeams, it fires a trusty British 14" gun...as an example, I have quibbles about the ranges of some of the guns, but don't care, it works ok...not sure that high-speed destroyers work well enough.
I don't have my rules handy, but what if FLANK SPEED just added an inch of moement (that's what I thought it did)?
Under the "simple is better" theory, I'd let secondaries take a -1 against 6+ targets...
Flank speed is a neat rule, I's just limit it to an extra inch (unrealistic still, but also still fun!)
Summing up, minor quiblles can be dealt with by the "quibbler", but one or two major issues, when identified and a consensus is found, could reasonably be changed...games produce errata or addenda all the time, and as a former staff member for STAR FLEET BATTLES I am well aware what happens when players "improve a game to death"!
I don't have my rules handy, but what if FLANK SPEED just added an inch of moement (that's what I thought it did)?
Under the "simple is better" theory, I'd let secondaries take a -1 against 6+ targets...
Flank speed is a neat rule, I's just limit it to an extra inch (unrealistic still, but also still fun!)
Summing up, minor quiblles can be dealt with by the "quibbler", but one or two major issues, when identified and a consensus is found, could reasonably be changed...games produce errata or addenda all the time, and as a former staff member for STAR FLEET BATTLES I am well aware what happens when players "improve a game to death"!
Fitzwalrus
Mongoose
Soulmage said:
Ummmm.... yes.
If the rules as is work for you, then by all means have at it. That wasn't my point.
I agree this game is never going to be a highly accurate model of WWII combat: if I want that I'll play Seekrieg or some other exhaustively detailed system. I can dealt with some concessions (like the simplified surface gunnery and torpedo systems) with no problem so long as they give reasonable results.
I'm not saying the rules have to be cumbersome: the current format works quite well. It is the content of the rules and their effect on how the game plays that is at issue.
It is just as possible to write a set of rules like this that play well and get things right historically as it is to do one that gets things wrong: it is those suggested corrections that I and others here on these threads have been trying to come up with while still maintaining the ease of play that drew us to VaS in the first place.
A fun WWII naval wargame that is not at least an approximation of WWII combat as well is indeed fated to wind up collecting dust on a shelf in six months, as another poster said earlier.
Of course there are folks who don't particularly care how accurate the game may be, but there is a far greater market out there of folks who will care, and those are the folks (and sales) Mongoose stands to flush away if at least some of the current inaccuracies in the rules aren't addressed. It is just as easy to play a fun accurate game as it is an inaccurate one, and the latter will do far better in the marketplace.
"1. Secondary armament ignores the -1 mod for speeds over 7"
2. Get rid of spotting planes entirely.
3. Make the current speeds 'flank speed' and make the 'normal' speed 2/3 of this amount. "
I like them. I'll try those as well this weekend.
I also wouldn't be against simply adding x inches to the stated movement for flank. If flank speed was commonly used in battle this would perhaps be better.
2. Get rid of spotting planes entirely.
3. Make the current speeds 'flank speed' and make the 'normal' speed 2/3 of this amount. "
I like them. I'll try those as well this weekend.
I also wouldn't be against simply adding x inches to the stated movement for flank. If flank speed was commonly used in battle this would perhaps be better.
