modern - well 80's..
- Thread starter gazman
- Start date
Harpoon and... Harpoon 
We didn't have sufficient time to play to completion in one night. We started c. 120NM apart, I was tasked with destruction of ASW assets with no losses of my own, so in that respect I failed - the carrier simply had too many escorts.
By COP I had closed to within 60NM in order to launch the Moskits, and went all - out hoping to penetrate the destroyer screen and land a hit on the carrier.
Unfortunately it ended with severe overkill of one of the destroyers (Sheffield) whilst the 60s technology from the Kynda just barely scraped a kill on the Penelope.
At the end I was looking at a lengthy reload of my shaddocks in order to engage them again - possibly with more of a chance to kill given the loss of one of their Sea Dart ships, but most likely not. I wouldn't want to take my chances against up to 16 sea eagles coming towards me.
We didn't have sufficient time to play to completion in one night. We started c. 120NM apart, I was tasked with destruction of ASW assets with no losses of my own, so in that respect I failed - the carrier simply had too many escorts.
By COP I had closed to within 60NM in order to launch the Moskits, and went all - out hoping to penetrate the destroyer screen and land a hit on the carrier.
Unfortunately it ended with severe overkill of one of the destroyers (Sheffield) whilst the 60s technology from the Kynda just barely scraped a kill on the Penelope.
At the end I was looking at a lengthy reload of my shaddocks in order to engage them again - possibly with more of a chance to kill given the loss of one of their Sea Dart ships, but most likely not. I wouldn't want to take my chances against up to 16 sea eagles coming towards me.
Another game of Harpoon - more differently interesting.
This time the soviet CG group (same ships) was moving in to attack a wounded Illustrious, but had to run the gauntlet past a single Trafalgar.
Despite my best efforts at manouvering my other ships to take the missiles, the 5 sub-launched harpoons were just too quick, and the Sovremeny (my main asset) caught 2 in broadside, knocking out a radar and starting a fire that burned for a good half hour on the bridge.
Happily I was quite canny about screening one of my flanks with a wall of sonobuouys, and my Helix managed to run down the Trafalgar - but not before he launched a second, fatal salvo, one missile getting through to finish the game.
We ended with the Trafalgar sat directly under a fully armed Helix, with torpedoes already in the water from the Kara class cruiser running her down. Close one...
This time the soviet CG group (same ships) was moving in to attack a wounded Illustrious, but had to run the gauntlet past a single Trafalgar.
Despite my best efforts at manouvering my other ships to take the missiles, the 5 sub-launched harpoons were just too quick, and the Sovremeny (my main asset) caught 2 in broadside, knocking out a radar and starting a fire that burned for a good half hour on the bridge.
Happily I was quite canny about screening one of my flanks with a wall of sonobuouys, and my Helix managed to run down the Trafalgar - but not before he launched a second, fatal salvo, one missile getting through to finish the game.
We ended with the Trafalgar sat directly under a fully armed Helix, with torpedoes already in the water from the Kara class cruiser running her down. Close one...
Red Storm Rising style this week - Invincible, 2x 42, 1x 22 and 1x 21 had to fend off an attack by 10 TU-22s; some adroit manouvering of destroyers, heavy defensive missile fire and effective projection Harriers meant that they had to launch at long range, and not many missiles got through.
Sheffield however took about 3 AS-4s in broadside, Amazon bought one (those Sea Cats just didn't cut it) and Invincible managed to down two in the very final phase.
Sea Dart performed very well overall...
Sheffield however took about 3 AS-4s in broadside, Amazon bought one (those Sea Cats just didn't cut it) and Invincible managed to down two in the very final phase.
Sea Dart performed very well overall...
Hehe nice
Wish I had someone to play a naval game with around here. A few play VaS but I'm more interested in modern era.
Acquiring books is also problematic and ships
I ordered the Skytrex ruleset in an american online store (because skytrex doesn't accept Paypal) and its costing me 50 euro's to get it here
Wish I had someone to play a naval game with around here. A few play VaS but I'm more interested in modern era.
Acquiring books is also problematic and ships
I ordered the Skytrex ruleset in an american online store (because skytrex doesn't accept Paypal) and its costing me 50 euro's to get it here tiepilot1138
Banded Mongoose
I'd love to find a fairly simple ruleset for moderns. I have a 1/2400 USS Roosevelt from GHQ just waiting to set sail.
I think its been mentioned before - you ight want to give "Shipwreck", from Vandering Publications in Barrow, UK a try. For a slightly more complex set (but still not approaching Harpoon levels of complexity) the old Skytrex modern rules (whic, IIRC, were reprinted by Navwar a few years ago) are what I'd go for.
I've played all of these. None have really satisfied me, falling down in one regard whilst being good in others. They are all decent sets though (I'm just difficult to please, apparently). One day I'll just have to write my own
I've played all of these. None have really satisfied me, falling down in one regard whilst being good in others. They are all decent sets though (I'm just difficult to please, apparently). One day I'll just have to write my own
I've never strayed far from Harpoon - I remember many years ago when my dad first got me playing the original Larry Bond game on the PC (which yes, is derivative of the minis game we're playing atm), and remember cursing the screen every time one of my boats done got sunk and the Soviet anthem played in tinny PC speaker sound.
It can get obscenely complicated - and it does seem to push the realms of feasibility for 80s tech. For instance we've had missiles shooting down missiles left, right and centre in almost all of our games - yet to my knowledge there's only ever been a single validated case in real life, and that was much more recent. The % chances to hit seem rather high vs. most, and incredibly low vs. sea skimmers, especially with terminal pop-up.
We have no figures for reload rates for most missiles (the Shaddocks being an exception) so assume firing every other phase (which is probably being over-generous) with most magazine fed systems like Sea Dart.
It can get obscenely complicated - and it does seem to push the realms of feasibility for 80s tech. For instance we've had missiles shooting down missiles left, right and centre in almost all of our games - yet to my knowledge there's only ever been a single validated case in real life, and that was much more recent. The % chances to hit seem rather high vs. most, and incredibly low vs. sea skimmers, especially with terminal pop-up.
We have no figures for reload rates for most missiles (the Shaddocks being an exception) so assume firing every other phase (which is probably being over-generous) with most magazine fed systems like Sea Dart.
I don't know how well VaS would deal with extremely long range standoff engagements, submarine warfare, and lots of aircraft - which are what really define the modern naval battlespace.
That's not to say that it can't be done, but it would require a real revision of the turn, timescales, missile speeds, sonar, radar...
Also, damage and so forth would really need re-working away from the gunnery basis of VaS.
I remember having difficulty trying to do relatively simple historical ww2 carrier based engagements, before taking onboard some of DMs suggested amendments...
That's not to say that it can't be done, but it would require a real revision of the turn, timescales, missile speeds, sonar, radar...
Also, damage and so forth would really need re-working away from the gunnery basis of VaS.
I remember having difficulty trying to do relatively simple historical ww2 carrier based engagements, before taking onboard some of DMs suggested amendments...
VaS (and B5) do have the advantage of being quick to learn and play
I was working on a VaS mod some time ago but got stuck with some major problems.
Scale:
I did try to solve this with some sort of nonlinear scale. For example: 1NM = 1inch, 10NM = 10 inch, 50NM = 24 inch, 150NM = 40inch. Something along these lines anyway.
Limited Ammunition:
I hate bookkeeping, so I made a new weapon trait for ASMs: Salvo x. Which meant the weapon system could be fired x times in a game (AD are adjusted to incorporate the number of missiles in a salvo). It is still bookkeeping but a whole lot easier than keeping track of individual missiles.
For SAMs I just counted the number of missiles onboard and divided it by 10 (counting for 10 turns) to have the SAM AD.
Layered defences:
As of yet I have found no solution as of yet for this. I'm thinking of every ASM being resolved in the end phase (in the same way as torpedoes in VaS) together with CIWS and allowing ships to shoot at the counter with SAMs in the shooting phase.
But as I said I'm stuck for the moment.
I was working on a VaS mod some time ago but got stuck with some major problems.
Scale:
I did try to solve this with some sort of nonlinear scale. For example: 1NM = 1inch, 10NM = 10 inch, 50NM = 24 inch, 150NM = 40inch. Something along these lines anyway.
Limited Ammunition:
I hate bookkeeping, so I made a new weapon trait for ASMs: Salvo x. Which meant the weapon system could be fired x times in a game (AD are adjusted to incorporate the number of missiles in a salvo). It is still bookkeeping but a whole lot easier than keeping track of individual missiles.
For SAMs I just counted the number of missiles onboard and divided it by 10 (counting for 10 turns) to have the SAM AD.
Layered defences:
As of yet I have found no solution as of yet for this. I'm thinking of every ASM being resolved in the end phase (in the same way as torpedoes in VaS) together with CIWS and allowing ships to shoot at the counter with SAMs in the shooting phase.
But as I said I'm stuck for the moment.
It is a tough one - to be honest, I don't think it's easily workable without losing too much 'resolution' - going 'three dimensional' to include a well represented sub-sea and low/mid/high altitude airspace just makes things far too convoluted.
You need to consider AA weapons at those altitudes, miss/hit chances of various weapons would vary - active vs. passive sonar etc. etc. etc.
VaS is just handier for straight up gunnery duels in my experience - even throwing basic aircraft and submarines into the mix makes it troublesome.
You need to consider AA weapons at those altitudes, miss/hit chances of various weapons would vary - active vs. passive sonar etc. etc. etc.
VaS is just handier for straight up gunnery duels in my experience - even throwing basic aircraft and submarines into the mix makes it troublesome.
I've been looking at a modern VAS for a while, after Matt asked me to look at a few period variants. Actually I think a modified version of Shipwreck is what will make me happiest, but that doesn't mean that the modern VAS project is dead
Hpefully the near-completion of my wargaming den will allow me to devote more time to this conundrum!
Hpefully the near-completion of my wargaming den will allow me to devote more time to this conundrum!
There are some pretty fundamental changes you need to make to start with: game turn time (how long is a turn, and be accurate) - this will dictate distances various things can travel.
Then you need a set ground scale, and one that makes missile movement times realistic - people need the time to react to incoming missiles with their movement (if they can detect them) given that engagements can plausibly happen out to 250NM or even beyond on a typical 'table'.
I think the basic change you'll have to make is a move away from AD for shooting (or really change the amount of 'damage' for each ship, as well as upping the AD for individual missiles), and away from aircraft 'groups' - aircraft will become discrete, but be at higher PLs - most aircraft these days can individually carry sufficient ordnance to cripple a warship outright.
Then you need to consider different altitudes - the only really key ones, I suppose - are very high (where certain aircraft can't operate, but others can) and very low (where sea skimming missiles buzz around, and where helicopters need to be in order to deploy dipping sonars).
Some missiles and guns will be capable against very low, but not very high targets. Some against all... so on and so forth.
For submarines you probably could do with 'deep' and 'shallow' - in the latter case, you need to be shallow in order to deploy most anti-surface weapons, like sub-harpoon or sub launched tomahawks.
For simplicity's sake, you could adjust detection chances depending on the depth the boat is at.
Then you need to apply appropriate sonar ranges to the various different sonars, but consider issues like masking and propeller noise (some sort of 'pie plate template with the appropriate wedge taken out).
For towed arrays, you need to throw in a special action that disallows turns and restricts speeds when deployed, and takes a certain amount of times to throw it out or reel it in.
Then you need a set ground scale, and one that makes missile movement times realistic - people need the time to react to incoming missiles with their movement (if they can detect them) given that engagements can plausibly happen out to 250NM or even beyond on a typical 'table'.
I think the basic change you'll have to make is a move away from AD for shooting (or really change the amount of 'damage' for each ship, as well as upping the AD for individual missiles), and away from aircraft 'groups' - aircraft will become discrete, but be at higher PLs - most aircraft these days can individually carry sufficient ordnance to cripple a warship outright.
Then you need to consider different altitudes - the only really key ones, I suppose - are very high (where certain aircraft can't operate, but others can) and very low (where sea skimming missiles buzz around, and where helicopters need to be in order to deploy dipping sonars).
Some missiles and guns will be capable against very low, but not very high targets. Some against all... so on and so forth.
For submarines you probably could do with 'deep' and 'shallow' - in the latter case, you need to be shallow in order to deploy most anti-surface weapons, like sub-harpoon or sub launched tomahawks.
For simplicity's sake, you could adjust detection chances depending on the depth the boat is at.
Then you need to apply appropriate sonar ranges to the various different sonars, but consider issues like masking and propeller noise (some sort of 'pie plate template with the appropriate wedge taken out).
For towed arrays, you need to throw in a special action that disallows turns and restricts speeds when deployed, and takes a certain amount of times to throw it out or reel it in.
I don't know if you have to complicate it that much if you're after a VaS mod.
No need for air layers and seperate accuracies for SAMs. I'm not after a simulation but a fastpaced game. Or maybe have a weapon trait for that.
The same with radar/sonar types. Just give an air and underwater detection rate to each ship that is used as a bonus in detection checks.
No need for deep sea layers. Just have a 'go deep' special action for subs with bonuses and drawbacks.
Damage of ships I have lowered so a missile hit (1 AD) can really hurt. For example a SS-N-12 has 1 AD (1 missile) but 8DD (I roughly counted 1 DD per 125kgs warhead)
Aircraft do have tremendous firepower I concur. I counted 1 flight as 4 craft (2 pairs of leader and wingman = standard flight group?). But then I had the problem of 1 flight of Su-34 Fullbacks with 3 Yakhonts on each craft being a plain pain in the ****, even though they were one shot only.
No need for air layers and seperate accuracies for SAMs. I'm not after a simulation but a fastpaced game. Or maybe have a weapon trait for that.
The same with radar/sonar types. Just give an air and underwater detection rate to each ship that is used as a bonus in detection checks.
No need for deep sea layers. Just have a 'go deep' special action for subs with bonuses and drawbacks.
Damage of ships I have lowered so a missile hit (1 AD) can really hurt. For example a SS-N-12 has 1 AD (1 missile) but 8DD (I roughly counted 1 DD per 125kgs warhead)
Aircraft do have tremendous firepower I concur. I counted 1 flight as 4 craft (2 pairs of leader and wingman = standard flight group?). But then I had the problem of 1 flight of Su-34 Fullbacks with 3 Yakhonts on each craft being a plain pain in the ****, even though they were one shot only.
Well, unless you actually deal with radar, sonar and missile flight times etc. I think you'd really be missing out on all the interesting and dynamic aspects of modern naval warfare...
If an aircraft just gets reduced down to 3AD of 120 inch range firepower that instantly wipes out any ship, what's the point?
The really important thing is that most offensive naval weapons will be operating at massive ranges, but firing weapons that can move extremely quickly...
If an aircraft just gets reduced down to 3AD of 120 inch range firepower that instantly wipes out any ship, what's the point?
The really important thing is that most offensive naval weapons will be operating at massive ranges, but firing weapons that can move extremely quickly...
And therein lies thr crux of the problem. Modern engagement ranges have the potential to be extreme, and modern fleet actions (if such a thing should ever happen) will range across vast areas of ocean. If a set of rules were to be able to cope with that on a tabletop the ground scale would be such that you'd efefctively have all the models in a task group shoehorned into a very small space. Which got me thinking once that a way to deal with this was to use a scale of say 1cm = 2 nautical miles, have a single model or marker on the table representing a task group and then have separate areas where you lay out the ships in each task group in their cruising formation. Except then it becomes a lot like a board game. Having said that I've used this system many times for WW2 carrier battles, and a few modcern campaigns using my modern GQ variant (although we used hex maps rather than a "campaign table" and they worked really well.
The above probably explains why the only modern rules I've had published so far cover coastal forces and fast attack craft - the ranges there are sooo much more amenable to wargaming
The above probably explains why the only modern rules I've had published so far cover coastal forces and fast attack craft - the ranges there are sooo much more amenable to wargaming
Similar threads
- Question
