Order of Battle. . .

[duskdealer]

don't want to sound like a namby pacafist, but why are we arguing about which ships we get to use to blow each other out of the water in a part of our global conquest
to quote Dr Strangeglove 'you can't fight in here, this is a war room!' (or something like that.)

Every gaming group is different and so is every gamer. some want one thing some don't, and theres nowt we can do about it.

Juggler told us what he wants, some don't agree, and some shake their heads sadly that everyone argues like children!

 

[DSV1]

Since I probably inflamed this I will try to end it peacefully !

VAS is a WW2 naval wargame and In "MY" humble opinion should stick to being that regardless of its flaws. By that I mean let the designers "FIX" the problems within and go from there.

This is my opinion, no one elses - Why play out a scenario that didnt happen historicaly, we might aswell play B5 or W40K - both good systems in their own right. I personally (get it) do not like historical wargames which use "WHAT IF" ships, tanks, planes or whatever.

The PL system should work regardless of country and so should probably be points based to be fair. My opinion (get it) is that you cant have 4 Yamatos because there wasn't 4!.

The rules should reflect this and state that people who want to play non-historical games can do so with the consent of their opponent but it will not be sanctioned.

I want a working VAS system in the supplement please which I will gladly buy without the "SUPER" ships.

 

[Soulmage]

I don't think that VAS "doesn't work" at present. It just could use a few tweaks.

. . . of course I never met a ruleset I didn't want to tweak!

 

[Hugbiel]

My opinion (get it) is that you cant have 4 Yamatos because there wasn't 4!.

Yes but theses 2 other could be build. It's a strategic choice made at this time. If you stay with this you cannot play an encounter that hasn't happen either, because you stick to the historical strategic choice.

It sound to limited for me for a fun game. VAS is meant to be simple IMHO.

So I think that a balance must be chose and people who want to limit themselves to an history where America win the war will be sanctioned if they don't play USN.

 

[Wishbone]

you know, France, Poland, Greece, Turkey and the British Empire AND the Commonwealth may also have played a part in the allies winning the Second World War. probably a few others as well that I'm too tired to think of!

Don't get all yankee-centric!

 

[Swan]

I find that VaS works well. Its quick to play, easy to learn, and offers plenty of options for people to test out their prefered fleets against the others that exist in the game system. Could it use a few tweaks here and there, quite possibly, does it need to be reworked, not in my oppinion.

Guess I don't get why all of these "historical" players play "historical" games and try to change the "historical" results of the battles? Just not seeing the difference in changing the outcome of the battles versus changing the forces that were in the battle, eaither way you are no longer being "historical". Besides, we play VaS so all of our nifty ship models won't collect dust on a shelf.

 

[steveburt]

Guess I don't get why all of these "historical" players play "historical" games and try to change the "historical" results of the battles? Just not seeing the difference in changing the outcome of the battles versus changing the forces that were in the battle, eaither way you are no longer being "historical".
--------------------
By replaying a historical battle, you are seeing if you can do better than the historical commanders with the forces available to them.
If you really can't see the differenece between doing that, and refighting a hypothetical battle, then I feel maybe you are just being obtuse.

 

[DM]

The vast majority of the games I play have a historical basis, but I do occasionally enjoy getting out the hypotheticals. However I tend to restrict myself to scenarios involving ships that reached a certain maturity of design and resist taking things to the extreme (some of the later so-called "Z Plan" ships were clearly implausible).

 

[Swan]

By replaying a historical battle, you are seeing if you can do better than the historical commanders with the forces available to them.
If you really can't see the differenece between doing that, and refighting a hypothetical battle, then I feel maybe you are just being obtuse.

And how pray tell can you do this? As accurate or as complex or as simple as any system is, you can not re-create all of the variables that occurred on that day at that moment. Looking down on the battlefield from 10,000' you see things that the original commanders never did, you know the deployment of enemy forces, you know the stats of their ships, and you know that any issues in crew, repair, misc. accidents etc... have been removed from the field of battle. How can you truly state that you are doing better then the originall commanders when you do not face the same descissions that those commanders faced, you have intel they could not have, a single mind is controlling the forces, and the variability of multiple command personalities are removed. All of these "historical" elitests are doing are playing a game with pieces named the same as those that were recorded, and force statted by mathematical formula, and then placed on an inaccurate board, with inaccurate variables and then they claim it is historical, but what is on that board is nothing but a pale shadow of the reality of what happened in that battle. So why is it that these "elitest" feel that the enjoyment that the "other" players get from using a rule system, and creating their own battles is baffling?

 

[Hugbiel]

you know, France, Poland, Greece, Turkey and the British Empire AND the Commonwealth may also have played a part in the allies winning the Second World War. probably a few others as well that I'm too tired to think of!

Don't get all yankee-centric!

Yes but only the Yankee and in a less measure the Britt have the opportunity to build end of the war ship. Stalin have to wait until the 50's to start building his ultimate fleet. So unless they are overpriced these ship has to be better , and better suited than the other's ship. It's peculiarly true for the French fleet who have a full batch of ship planed for 1941-1942. ( mainly Richelieu BB and Joffre CV, but also the start of the new St Louis class CA )

So it is not easy to reflect fairly for all the advance of the time in a long campaign with lot of time passing.

 

[DM]

And how pray tell can you do this? As accurate or as complex or as simple as any system is, you can not re-create all of the variables that occurred on that day at that moment.

Obviously you can't, but you can strive to get as close as you can. This, for me when I'm in "historical mode" is one of the greatest challenges but also one of the most satisfying aspects when it goes well.

Looking down on the battlefield from 10,000' you see things that the original commanders never did, you know the deployment of enemy forces, you know the stats of their ships, and you know that any issues in crew, repair, misc. accidents etc... have been removed from the field of battle.

There are a range of mechanisms available to introduce and replicate (to some extent) the "fog of war".

How can you truly state that you are doing better then the originall commanders when you do not face the same descissions that those commanders faced, you have intel they could not have, a single mind is controlling the forces, and the variability of multiple command personalities are removed.

See above. Multi player games also help a LOT in this regard

All of these "historical" elitests are doing are playing a game with pieces named the same as those that were recorded, and force statted by mathematical formula, and then placed on an inaccurate board, with inaccurate variables and then they claim it is historical, but what is on that board is nothing but a pale shadow of the reality of what happened in that battle.

Hopefully I don't regard myself as an "elitist" but I would like to think that when I'm in "historical mode" I'm getting a good appreciation of the whys and wherefores of a particular action or campaign. I've also found on many occasions it helps to illustrate WHY particular actions developed the way they did, or why particular ship designs came out the way they did (using Russian battleships in a bog-standard fleet action gives the impression they were apretty p**s poor design - pputting them in a historical context with the coastal defences of which they were an integral part suddenly reveals why that assessment is off-base.

So why is it that these "elitest" feel that the enjoyment that the "other" players get from using a rule system, and creating their own battles is baffling?

Personally I don't

 

[juggler69uk]

Pesonally I echo all of DM's comments.

I will state again as I have stated before, Any one is free to play any game of their choice whether historical of not, All are valid as wargames and all can be enjoyed

And Guys its all the sniping, backstabbing, flaming, labelling and name calling that drive people out of a forum and indeed the hobby, not one particular point of view about any one set of rules or genre.

So rather than incorrectly label someone as elitist or snipe them just for having a viewpoint of their own, live with it as their choice and put your own view as the option instead of flaming them.

Above all enjoy a wargame as you want to play it

 

[Swan]

DM - I realize that you are very open as to letting the players use the rule set how they want, and to just enjoy the game. What I don't understand is everyone who feels that because the game is listed as "historical" or has historical references, that it must only be played in a historical context. I think everyone who purchased the game should be able to utilize the game in any manner that they feel like. I am perfrectly fine with everyone who wants to re-create historical battles using these rules, I am also perfectly fine with everyone who just want to use the rules to play in fleet engagemments that never were. I just have a problem with those that feel there is only one way to play the game and that the players who do not follow this "historical" path are in the wrong and should play something else.

As I have stated before, we are 4 months in on an extremely fun campaign. No one has been totally defeated yet, but we have had some stunning battles to see. Last week the Germans and British were involved in a battle level carrier clash, and with both fleets fielding two carriers, a pair of battleships and support vessels the battle was not only fun to play, but stunning to see on the table. We had created quite a crowd at the store stopping by to watch the action. This is why I enjoy playing VaS - not because of any attachemnt I have to what happened in the past.

One side bonus of the game, I now know more about WWII ships and combat. Just playing the game has led to many searches and readings on the actual ships I am representing on the table, and finding out each of their histories.

 

[juggler69uk]

....What I don't understand is everyone who feels that because the game is listed as "historical" or has historical references, that it must only be played in a historical context. ....

This illustrates my previous post as I dont recall anyone (let alone everyone) saying it must ONLY be played in a historical way

 

[MongooseMatt]

Might be worth me chipping in here

The whole _point_ of VaS, the central design philosophy that ran through its whole creation, was this;

'It is just as cool sinking the Bismarck as it is mowing down Space Marines.'

Seriously, it was intended for a post-GW crowd whose heads were full of sci-fi and fantasy. We wanted to show them that the real world was at _least_ as fun and interesting as the make believe stuff.

We _never_ expected to get the naval grognards as well!

So, when it comes to 'what if' ships, they certainly have a place in the fleet lists. Whether or not they have a place in your games is completely up to you! I know people who only use 'canon' ships in Battlefleet Gothic. That is cool. If you want just historical ships in your games, then the game gives you everything you need (well, it will when Order of Battle comes out!). If you want to spice things up a bit, all the tools are there.

It is all good.

 

[juggler69uk]

....We _never_ expected to get the naval grognards as well!......

Im not surprised Matt, I think that a lot of Historical players want some simplicity in addition to a fair chunk of historical accuracy in their games these days, especially when you have a club that can not leave out games in mid flow. Our club has about 4 hours to set up, play and put away, so if you can use rules that allow a few games in a night all the better.

 

[Shadow4ce]

....We _never_ expected to get the naval grognards as well!......

Im not surprised Matt, I think that a lot of Historical players want some simplicity in addition to a fair chunk of historical accuracy in their games these days, especially when you have a club that can not leave out games in mid flow. Our club has about 4 hours to set up, play and put away, so if you can use rules that allow a few games in a night all the better.

I've definitely fallen on both sides of this discussion. I truly miss the days when as a young man my parents allowed me to set up entire battles in their little-used family room downstairs. I had fleet battles and entire theater operations cluttering the floor of their basement for entire summers when I was out of school.

Unfortunately nowadays, while I have an even larger family room, my own children enjoy cluttering it up, and I now enjoy breaking out my gaming table and playing a quick scenario in one night or day off of work. My daughters are getting to be quite the Admiral's in their own right, and my wife is threatening to go ACTA on us, hehe.

I definitely consider this a "bridge" set of rules, which appeal to both the "New to miniature" gaming crowd and us crusty old grognards - the "If it couldn't have happened historically - Forget it!" crowd.

In short...

This is the perfect game to satisfy the broadest audience. Thank you Matt, DM, MGP, and anyone else who assisted in it's creation!

Now, group hugs and singalongs on the poop-deck or ya walk the plank matey! 8)