New Additions

[Kevin Clark]

Having purchased some new additions to my RN fleet at the weekend, has anyone seen stats anywhere for the Vanguard, I was sure it was in the book but having checked again I find not.

Were they in a back issue of S&P or have I just imagined the whole sorry affair?

 

[Ben2]

You imagined it.

However the supplement may well solve your problems.

 

[gazman]

"the suppliment"

When and where is this "suppliment"??

 

[DM]

Its coming. Vanguard is (at the moment) in the list of ships to be included.

 

[Kevin Clark]

Hurrah for our side!

 

[DSV1]

is it any good or are those old 15inch guns going to let her down :?

 

[juggler69uk]

Still may be better than the 11 inch the kreigsmarine had

 

[DM]

The RN 15" as actualy regarded as one of the best battleship guns of WW2

 

[Brass]

Just out of curiosity, with all the units that haven't been added yet, e.g. the entire Regia Aeronautica, why would you include the stats for a battleship that wasn't commissioned until a year after the end of WWII and never fired its guns in combat against anybody?

LT

 

[juggler69uk]

prob a similar reason as to why the graf zeppelin was in there

 

[Brass]

prob a similar reason as to why the graf zeppelin was in there

Ah, so it's actually a fantasy game then? :lol: I must admit, I've never really understood people's fascination with the Graf Zeppelin (same size as an Essex and twice as many guns but only half as many aircraft and those inferior to US carrier planes - not to mention that there was only one of them) and, given how incomplete the lists for VaS are regarding ships that actually served, I would have hoped that Mongoose would save the non-starters for a later supplement or a few O&P articles.

LT

 

[vitalis6969]

Yeah, but for those of us who want to play a naval simulation game and a Kriegsmarine list we would like to have a carrier.

For those who want to play a historical simulation game, they don't have to use the "non starter" ships.

But I for one appreciate them being there.

-V

 

[jfox61]

I for one am a little on the fence sitter side here. I can see both points of the argument. Especially since if you don't include the Graf Zeppelin then the germans can't use half the rules in the book. On the other hand as for the Vanguard I agree it wasn't even completed till after the war so technically there should be no need for it. So on the one hand you have an aircraft carrier that was nearly completed but cancelled due to ongoing political decisions and the other where you have a Battleship that basically just didn't get finished in time. So would personally include the GF but not the Vanguard because you can always play a what if Hitler hadn't changed his mind type scenario for the GF but you can't do that with Vanguard because it was technically a post war ship.

 

[Brass]

I for one am a little on the fence sitter side here. I can see both points of the argument. Especially since if you don't include the Graf Zeppelin then the germans can't use half the rules in the book. On the other hand as for the Vanguard I agree it wasn't even completed till after the war so technically there should be no need for it. So on the one hand you have an aircraft carrier that was nearly completed but cancelled due to ongoing political decisions and the other where you have a Battleship that basically just didn't get finished in time. So would personally include the GF but not the Vanguard because you can always play a what if Hitler hadn't changed his mind type scenario for the GF but you can't do that with Vanguard because it was technically a post war ship.

Actually, the Vanguard was launched in '44, so I guess you could apply the same argument to it that people are using in favor of the Graf Zeppelin.
My main objections to including the non-starters are:

a. if you're going to do a World War II naval game, I think you ought to finish the fleets that actually fought before you get going on the ones that didn't. I mean, we've already seen the Z-Plan ships in O&P but the Italians still don't have any aircraft.

b. almost inevitably, the introduction of German and Italian aircraft carriers, super-Yamatos with 20" guns, American Montana-class BBs, you name it, is going to lead to the sort of "arms race" that tends to do things like separate tournament-oriented players ("the rules say I can use it and I can't win if I don't") from scenario-oriented ones ("that's fascinating, but the British never actually built any Lion-class battlecruisers") , especially those of us who prefer historical scenarios. In the overall scheme of things I'm not sure that amounts to much but for those of us who live in areas where gamers are thin on the ground, it tends to mean either playing games you don't enjoy or not playing at all.

In the end, I guess it's just a matter of what floats your boat. I'd rather see the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Regia Aeronautica, and a better representation of just about everybody's destroyers than more fantasy ships.

LT

 

[DM]

that's fascinating, but the British never actually built any Lion-class battlecruisers

Actually we built two in 1912

We did start building two Lion class battleships in 1939 and ordered another two, we just didn't finish them.

Anyway,this could be an interesting thread for those putting the supplement together. Is the mood from the masses that hypotheticals shouldn't be included, or that they should? Perhaps the subject of a poll?

 

[jfox61]

I personally don't own any what if types I think there is enough of the real stuff out there. In the interests of play balance then I wouldn't have any objection to the use of a Graf Zeppelin in a game played by me. After all it was almost completed when Hitler decided against using it. But as for paper ships like the H class and such like I am not interested at all in using them

 

[Hugbiel]

prob a similar reason as to why the graf zeppelin was in there

Ah, so it's actually a fantasy game then? :lol: I must admit, I've never really understood people's fascination with the Graf Zeppelin (same size as an Essex and twice as many guns but only half as many aircraft and those inferior to US carrier planes - not to mention that there was only one of them) and, given how incomplete the lists for VaS are regarding ships that actually served, I would have hoped that Mongoose would save the non-starters for a later supplement or a few O&P articles.

LT

Prospective don't necessary mean fantasy. Ship who actually fight is much a matter of how the whole war was done and the objective of a good strategy is to unballance the fights to advantage your side.
Just an exemple lack of ressource and the RN threat prevent the german to build ship they may have opted for if the war was started later.

This game can be played in different way. With different reason behind them. You can play for the game as in touney, you can play in "historical" senario, and you can play in a prospective setting.

The rule are to light to simulate the whole historical accuracy. But historical thing can be set. You can play with near historical fleet with near historical objectives.

But for touney it may usefull to have some set of fleet with prospective ship to field in order to have balanced list.

But I thing that in the end three list may be needed : a touney list with limited choice in each fleet, a full historical list for historical game, and a campain list with campain rules for campain play.

 

[Swan]

I am going to have to agree with Hugbiel on this one. Many factors led to what ships were and were not built, and ships that could have been uilt. Having access to what each nations fleets could have been allows the recreation of battles that could have been, and would have been if the politics had been different at the time. Why would I want to play a historical battle, with the historical fleets, I know the outcome, its in the historical records. If a different outcome occurs, doesn't that make the game Fantasy? How is playing the game with possible units not a historical game, when playing the game and having a different outcome then what history showed us happened a historical game? I would like to se more of the ships that were actually in service, as well as having the ships that were on the drawing board. If we go with pure historically constructed ships, then the game will lose its balance when comparing nations with smaller navies against those who had the resources for huge navies.

 

[juggler69uk]

well for a start you cannot recreate something that never happened, you create it.

As for your query about different outcomes:-

Wargamng is as much about setting up a historical battle and seeing if you can outthink or outplay the tactics of the original event with the same foces available in order to get an enjoyable game without knowing the result from the start, recreating the actual battle where a known outcome happens is but a part of the hobby and a part that is not enjoyed by all

Personaly of late I favour scenario driven games over equal points

 

[Brass]

that's fascinating, but the British never actually built any Lion-class battlecruisers

Actually we built two in 1912

We did start building two Lion class battleships in 1939 and ordered another two, we just didn't finish them.

Anyway,this could be an interesting thread for those putting the supplement together. Is the mood from the masses that hypotheticals shouldn't be included, or that they should? Perhaps the subject of a poll?

Naturally, it was the Lion BBs I was referring to - senior moments are considerably less amusing when they're mine :? . KGVs with 16" guns - gotta love it.

As to the hypothetical ships, my suspicion is that consensus of opinion will be in favor of them, largely in pursuit of play balance (a specious concept at best in historical games) and, of course, the "way cool" factor. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other but I sincerely hope Mongoose puts at least as much effort into the filling some of the gaping holes in the current lists of real ships as it does into putting out stats for ships that never sailed.

LT