Kevin Clark
Mongoose
Name me one converstion that doesn't fly off at a tangent at some point during the proceedings. Especially amongst gamers, who are, lets face it, the champions of pfaff.
New Additions
- Thread starter Kevin Clark
- Start date
juggler69uk
Mongoose
errrr...... Probably one that does not get any replies
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Keith I suggested this in the thread with the Poll on the supplement and hypothetical ships
Keith said:
I'm not really sure space would be an issue. After all, the original rulebook devoted just over half its length to ship data and still contained enough ships to make the game playable. I don't recall seeing any hard data as to the projected length of the supplement but even if Mongoose were to stick to the same length (96 usable pages) , they could include a reasonable number of historical notes, new scenarios, and (hopefully) much-needed rule amendments - say, 20 pages total -, and still have room for 150+ ships using the current two-to-a-page format. That would cover the rest of the major ships and most of the minor ones for the major navies, enough for the minor navies to make them playable, and most - maybe all - of the hypothetical ships (in all honesty, there weren't that many).
My only concern is that ships that actual served but have a low "way cool" factor will get short shrift in favor of ships that had no effect whatsoever on the conduct of World War II at sea but are seen as much cooler, e.g. the US Casablanca-class escort carrier (a workhorse in both Atlantic and Pacific - 50 built) versus the much cooler Montana-class battleships (interesting if not particularly innovative design - 5 planned - none launched - project cancelled in July 1943).
Of course, Mongoose may fool me and either publish a supplement long enough to contain everything or go back to publishing the data for hypothetical ships as S&P articles. I think either of these might be preferable, since there really weren't enough ships that could conceivably have seen service but didn't, e.g. HMS Vanguard, to justify a complete supplement and even if you added in the pie-in-the-sky projects like the super-Yamatos I'm not sure you could fill a whole book.
The grognard has spoken - or maybe just grumbled :lol:
LT
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Hence the reason I would prefer to stick with historical limits to quantities built (unless previously agreed with opponent) so no more than one hood for me.Brass said:
It probably wont stop the selection of cool over uncool, Unless you play scenario driven games where the list of ships is already given
US design teams worked on over 50 potential battleship designs of varying compexity between the wars so there's no shortage of material. The RN list at present has a hell of a lot already. I was going to work up the US and Japanese fleets for "Plan Orange" but haven't had time yet (next project after the ironclads, which are coming on apace) and they'd take up quiet a few pages, so I don't think there would be any shortage of material for a second supplement 
juggler69uk said:
But I'm not talking about what gets selected for someone's game, I'm talking about what gets selected for the book. My concern is that, if there are indeed space restrictions to be dealt with, the coolness factor will play a larger role in the selection of units for the supplement than it should. Hence my harping on the necessity of making data available for real ships, planes, and navies before getting all het up about the hypothetical ones.
LT
DM said:US design teams worked on over 50 potential battleship designs of varying compexity between the wars so there's no shortage of material. The RN list at present has a hell of a lot already. I was going to work up the US and Japanese fleets for "Plan Orange" but haven't had time yet (next project after the ironclads, which are coming on apace) and they'd take up quiet a few pages, so I don't think there would be any shortage of material for a second supplement
Well, that's wandering a bit from World War II, though. Nobody would like to see a Lexington-class battlecruiser (an elegant vessel if there ever was one) or a 1920s South Dakota with its 12 16-inch guns more than I but now we're moving from ships that never served in a war that actually happened to ships that never existed in a war that never took place. Meantime, the Italians still don't have an airforce and the Dutch still don't have a navy (although I did download the Dutch navy file from your web site
)LT
True, but for the purposes of supporting a second supplement I think it would be perfectly justifiable to look to the 1930s and the various "war plans" and potential designs. Hector Bywater's "The Great Pacific War" is an excellent source of inspiration and there's no reason why the rules wouldn't support an excusrion back to an earlier era like this.
I think that it would make a great second supplement after all of the historicals are taken care of.vitalis6969
Mongoose
But where exactly do you cut the historicals off at? I mean, with the limitations imposed by a D6 system, there aren't really going to be that many differences between certain Light Cruisers for example. A common sense judgment is going to have to be made on judging the difference between every ship that served in the war or two classes that were virtually identical.
Look at the great variety of US destroyers. Does every one really need to have a stat card? They will be pretty much the same. Same as the current Heavy Cruiser with stats for the US and the Baltimore class. Pretty close game wise. Sure, make both, but what if there were six classes of heavy cruiser, all basically the same. Does each class get space or do they get mushed as representative of whats most like each other?
Just a thought,
-V
Look at the great variety of US destroyers. Does every one really need to have a stat card? They will be pretty much the same. Same as the current Heavy Cruiser with stats for the US and the Baltimore class. Pretty close game wise. Sure, make both, but what if there were six classes of heavy cruiser, all basically the same. Does each class get space or do they get mushed as representative of whats most like each other?
Just a thought,
-V
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Woohoooo upgrade VaS to a D10 and redo all the stats in the book yay
A good idea giving more scope for ships stats, but like thats ever going to happen
A good idea giving more scope for ships stats, but like thats ever going to happen
Though moving away from a d6 system does open up avenues to better differentiate ships just changing dice size would have a very limited impact on the ship stats. It would allow for more modifiers to be added reflecting the relative strengths and weaknesses each class had against various weapons. Such as the Littorio class Pugliese system for torpedo defense. Though not as good as the torpedo belt it was more effective then not having any defense at all. Under the current rules the Littorio has no torpedo defense, with a wider spectrum of numbers to chose from some type (though not as strong) of torpedo defense could be shown. Unfortunately, adding in all of the possibilities will move VaS from the quick, simple and fun game we know today.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Changing to a d10 from a d6, this discussion seems reminiscent of the ACTA boards in times past :lol:
LBH
LBH
juggler69uk said:
One of the things that came out of the ACTA threads was that statistically there is little extra scope gianed by adding sides to a dice. Similar effects can be achieved just by rolling more dice.
Rule rewrites would be required in either case if the feel of the game was to be maintained (e.g. using d10s would you only have a chance of a critical on a natural 10? If so this would significantly reduce the frequency of critcals and thence character of the game).
Similar threads
