New Additions

[vitalis6969]

We go one of two ways, and since there is only two of us that play, it is pretty easy to decide how we are going to do a game.

We either play a run-what-you-brung fight using any of the ships that have stats...

Or, we play by In Service Dates.

Both of these rules are to aid my poor Kriegsmarine..

My opponent plays U.S. navy.

If we just did what was actually fielded without In Service Dates, I would just be eating the raw end of the stick shoved down my throat by the nasty nasty Iowa class BBs... :roll:

Though, I must say in all fairness that out of the Z-Plan BBs I ONLY use the H-39 because they were actually started. That is a self imposed limitation as my friend could care less what ships I used as long as we play.

Like I said before for us, we are playing a simulation, not a recreation. To each his own there...

-V

 

[Swan]

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

Unfortunately that can never be done, since no wargame can account for all of the factors that occured at the original event. Life has too much randomness, and no matter how much Monday morning quarterbacking we do, we can never be certain if our sure fire plan that waorked on the table last eve would have stood up to the realities that occured at the time. Hence, by strict definition, aren't all historical games truly fantasy.

 

[juggler69uk]

Unfortunately that can never be done........aren't all historical games truly fantasy.

Did you feel stung or something ????
Gaming is all about choices

Fantasy !!! If thats what you want to call it, then you call it that, I choose not to, I call Orcs and Golins etc. Fantasy.

If you are happy to play "What if the pearl harbour fleet had nukes" style games with other like minded people then do so. I choose not to.

If you are happy setting up endless what if discussions and debates and then playing the games, then thats also fine. I choose not to and just choose from actual forces and for an enjoyable game

 

[jfox61]

When we play at our club we use only historically accurate list of ships that were actually in service. The only ship we relax these rules for is the Graf Zeppelin and the Italian Carrier Aquila. The premise for this is that both were more than 95% complete and the Aquila had even passed first static test. Secondly It just adds a little balance to games in that without them the Axis ships would have no air cover in deep water battles. Further more we only allow them in games post 1943. This in effect puts the Aquila under the command of allied fleets and not axis. But there is nothing wrong in assuming that Italy did not surrender and so therefore they fight as an axis fleet. WE don't fight with paper ships as these were only projected designs and not actual started. As for the H class the reason we don't use these is basically although they were ordered and the keel was laid for 1 of them only about 700 tons of materials had been used so in effect all you really had was a keel. If you don't draw a line somewhere then you couls have an argument for playing games with allsorts of designs from all nationalities and then it wouldn be fighting history it would be purely a fantasy game based on ww2 weapons .

 

[jfox61]

I am with you on that one Juggler with the exceptions posted above

 

[juggler69uk]

I am with you on that one Juggler with the exceptions posted above

I can live with that

 

[Swan]

Did you feel stung or something ????
Gaming is all about choices

Stung? By what, a question of semantics?

Do you need to feel that your way is the only way to play a game?

History is decided by choices that were made at that time, just like the outcomes of various battles were decided by the decisions that were made at that time.

Playing with ships that were likely to have been built and comissioned had the leaders of that time changed their allocation of resources is no more historically inaccurate then trying to recreate a battle with "representations" of the forces that were at that battle and seeing if doing things a different way would have changed that battles outcome.

If you wish to equate ships that were ordered, or under construction to orcs and goblins that is up to you, but saying that using as force list that simplifies the realities of of units for game play and names that unit with the name of one that truly existed is in no way any more real then an elf or a goblin.

 

[juggler69uk]

Stung? By what, a question of semantics?

Do you need to feel that your way is the only way to play a game?

Stung enough to make the sort of attacking reply you did (twice now)

Now if you read my post, I was saying its about choices, Not even hinting that the way I choose to play is the only way any game should be played, I even went as far as to say your way is fine if thats how you want to play it, just that I choose it otherwise.

As you clearly decry the other forms in your posts, You seem to be the one attempting to have your viewpoint on the game justified and accepted as the way to play not me, personally I hope everyone plays games as they choose not as someone else tells them

You also twist words out of context , one example, by saying

...If you wish to equate ships that were ordered, or under construction to orcs and goblins that is up to you..

implying thats how I equate it, wheras all I actually said was

Fantasy !!! If thats what you want to call it, then you call it that, I choose not to, I call Orcs and Golins etc. Fantasy.

no x-reference to ships whatsoever. Now whether thats a misread on your part or an attmept at something more subtle I really dont care at this point

Again if you read my earlier post where I mentioned setting up original events, what I said in the next paragraph is that I preferred scenario driven games, I did not say anyone else should or has to play that way

Ill repeat my viewpoint for you in one sentence.

All forms of wargaming are equally acceptable, Re-creation, re-playing, simulation, equal ponts, etc, etc both with actual or imaginary forces, Its your choice that matters as long as you enjoy it, as for me thats what its all about

 

[Swan]

Wow, it is nice to know that someone has decided what style of play I enjoy.

My original point, lost though it was from the start it seems, had nothing to do with you or how you play your games, it was to point out that however any of us like to play our games, it is just amusing to see the terms "historical" and "fantasy" thrown in side by side. When it comes down to it we are playing with little toy boats, not recreating any great battles, but building new battles under the construct of a rules system that has no chance in ever re-creating the actual battles. So yes, all we are doing is playing fantasy here and not history. No matter what name you give to that wonderously painted piece of model metal, it never was and never will be the York, or the Iowa, or any other historical ship, it will remain just a toy boat that we enjoy moving across a sea that is not even made of water.

I am sorry if you mistook my point, and amused to death that you feel either of my posts were attacking in any such way, since neither of them were meant to be. Must be my sense of humor, I did not realize there was such thin skin on the boards. :lol:

 

[Kevin Clark]

I only wanted to know if there were any stats for the Vanguard.

Still it was worth the post cos I haven't laughed so much in ages. :lol:

 

[vitalis6969]

Wow, it is nice to know that someone has decided what style of play I enjoy.

Im prolly missing something here, but just who has decided what style of play you enjoy?

-V

 

[DM]

When it comes down to it we are playing with little toy boats, not recreating any great battles, but building new battles under the construct of a rules system that has no chance in ever re-creating the actual battles

Whilst agreeing with Kevin's comment above I thought this statement gives a great disservice to those players who devote a lot of time and energy to the historical research that underpins their hobby and supports the generation of the historically based scenarios and campaigns that they create or recreate.

My one and only comment on the subject

 

[Hugbiel]

My vie of the toy point it that this game still cary the feeling of " Historicness" and addig a few what if ship don't hurt that. ( But adding thing like the modern Nimitz certainly will )

One good thing about VaS is that it is simple and fast, so many game may be played, and different style can be played in nearly the same time.

Althought, it would be a good thing to have, competitives lists ( early and late war not to be mix for example ) distinct from the full historic book of ship.

 

[Brass]

I only wanted to know if there were any stats for the Vanguard.

Still it was worth the post cos I haven't laughed so much in ages. :lol:

Never thought you would end up being a limb of the Horned One, eh? Sometimes I think that if gamers didn't have trivialities to argue about some of us would never talk at all. Of course, having provided the catalyst for the present discussion I guess I'm as guilty as anyone :lol:.

Now, as to the matter of how many Vanguards can sail on the head of a pin ...

LT

 

[Kevin Clark]

Now, as to the matter of how many Vanguards can sail on the head of a pin ...

As many as want to....

The only casualty of irrevent banter is pride and that's only if you don't see it coming. :twisted:

 

[Brass]

Now, as to the matter of how many Vanguards can sail on the head of a pin ...

As many as want to....

The only casualty of irrevent banter is pride and that's only if you don't see it coming. :twisted:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The correct answer is: as many as Her Majesty, acting through the Minister of Defence and the Lords of the Admiralty, shall direct, contingent upon the appropriation by Parliament of such funds as may be necessary for construction of a pinhead the size of the City of London, a squadron of Vanguards the size of hydrogen atoms, or both.

Either that or "One, and it would really hang over the edges."

LT

 

[Kevin Clark]

Now, as to the matter of how many Vanguards can sail on the head of a pin ...

As many as want to....

The only casualty of irrevent banter is pride and that's only if you don't see it coming. :twisted:

Tsk, tsk, tsk. The correct answer is: as many as Her Majesty, acting through the Minister of Defence and the Lords of the Admiralty, shall direct, contingent upon the appropriation by Parliament of such funds as may be necessary for construction of a pinhead the size of the City of London, a squadron of Vanguards the size of hydrogen atoms, or both.

Either that or "One, and it would really hang over the edges."

LT

The World hates a smart arse, remember that :lol:

 

[juggler69uk]

I just knew he had to have the last word/jibe on the subject, so I will let him

 

[Kevin Clark]

I just knew he had to have the last word/jibe on the subject, so I will let him

Jolly civil of you. :wink:

 

[juggler69uk]

Jolly civil of you. :wink:

Hey I'm just a good all round nice guy

And my apologies for part hijacking your thread