markrusell
Mongoose
I am an living contestant of permits state, WOTC conflict at ocean and I desire to step up my game a little these are the things I would be looking for in a game system.
Rules "Slipping Away"?
- Thread starter DM
- Start date
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
The thing about consumers is that they are extremely fickle. If hype is built up for a game but then it suddenly falls off the radar then it is going to end up in somebodies closet. I can see why players are begining to feel that the game is "slipping away". There has been precious little in the way of anything since it was released.
If a new version was to be released it would have to have some kind of improvement and the only area I can see this being in is the background. There is plenty out there, but considering the size of the fleets involved this could get out of hand quite quickly. On the other hand a rudimentary fleet could be released in the core book with historical back ground on each ship class (more then a couple of sentences) sighting achievements, important ships and the ultimate fate of some ships (but only those that are notable). Every six months a new supplement could add more ships, a few cursory rules and historical battle scenerios as well as further background. Smaller fleets could even be introduced providing a whole host of new possibilities.
It is important to keep a game fresh and new so that people will feel that they are investing there money wisely.
On the other hand, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
If a new version was to be released it would have to have some kind of improvement and the only area I can see this being in is the background. There is plenty out there, but considering the size of the fleets involved this could get out of hand quite quickly. On the other hand a rudimentary fleet could be released in the core book with historical back ground on each ship class (more then a couple of sentences) sighting achievements, important ships and the ultimate fate of some ships (but only those that are notable). Every six months a new supplement could add more ships, a few cursory rules and historical battle scenerios as well as further background. Smaller fleets could even be introduced providing a whole host of new possibilities.
It is important to keep a game fresh and new so that people will feel that they are investing there money wisely.
On the other hand, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Lincolnlog
Mongoose
Victory at Sea is a great set of WWII naval wargaming rules. I only wish it would get the attention it deserves.
When Victory at Sea was published, the authors obviously knew they were going to need to supply more ship material, so they published Order of Battle. In doing so, however, they also made significant changes to the origial rules (and added some new rules). OOB made V@S practically unplayable without both volumes.
Granted as a company, the idea is to sell material, a product needs to turn a profit. Okay, we all get that. But even in the original rules, there were some writing organizational issues. On other boardds and I believe even on this board the primary complaint about Victory at Sea is that the rules are not formatted in a user friendly, logical order. For instance to get all the rules on torpedo usage you have to look in three different sections of the main rule book and then add the additional material from OOB. Same with aircraft, and there were major changes in aircraft rules between V@S and OOB.
I own both volumes, but would gladly pay for a new version 2 that incorporated all the errata and rules alterations as well as possibly some new new mechanics from player experience with the game.
This game isn't dead it's not even severely injured, but could it use improvement? Absolutely!
Kudos to David Manely for providing players with stats on ships and aircraft and Ray for keeping people stirred up and discussing the product.
When Victory at Sea was published, the authors obviously knew they were going to need to supply more ship material, so they published Order of Battle. In doing so, however, they also made significant changes to the origial rules (and added some new rules). OOB made V@S practically unplayable without both volumes.
Granted as a company, the idea is to sell material, a product needs to turn a profit. Okay, we all get that. But even in the original rules, there were some writing organizational issues. On other boardds and I believe even on this board the primary complaint about Victory at Sea is that the rules are not formatted in a user friendly, logical order. For instance to get all the rules on torpedo usage you have to look in three different sections of the main rule book and then add the additional material from OOB. Same with aircraft, and there were major changes in aircraft rules between V@S and OOB.
I own both volumes, but would gladly pay for a new version 2 that incorporated all the errata and rules alterations as well as possibly some new new mechanics from player experience with the game.
This game isn't dead it's not even severely injured, but could it use improvement? Absolutely!
Kudos to David Manely for providing players with stats on ships and aircraft and Ray for keeping people stirred up and discussing the product.
Sorry Guys I have been lax. I have a bunch of scenaros and Ideas for stuff for VAS to put in S&P but have been busy with work learning new rules for Noble Armada and others, painting fleets, punching counters. If anyone is interested in helping or working together on an article for S&P let me know.
ray
ray
Lincolnlog
Mongoose
I thought S&P was on hiatus. My understanding is there will not be another issue until 2012.
Bob
Edit: Yep, issue 93, June 2011 has an announcement in it.
Bob
Edit: Yep, issue 93, June 2011 has an announcement in it.
Howdy Folks,
I don't come here often anymore because there is little activity. Nice to see things picking up a bit.
I use the WAS plastic pre-paints from WotC exclusively. They are roughly 50% larger than the rules scale, so I just multiply everything by 1.5 and the scales look about right. There is a guy who sells full sets of each set that gets published. I just buy 1 rare, 3 uncommon, 5 commons, no collecting, no booster boxes, etc. The reason I am stating that is because unless Mongoose comes out with fully compatible pre-painted plactic ships then...I will never buy them.
The suggestions for a VAS 2.0 is really what is needed. Seriously. The original and OoB make a great combo, but there are still holes and piecing the game together from two manuals is not going to attract new folks.
There was a suggestion/hint that in the VAS 2.0 system that Crews would disappear...that would make the game way more accessible. Now it is really book keeping without a purpose.
Just my two cents, love the game, holes and all.
Thanks especially to DM who pops off all the wonderous stats and stuff.
Peace
I don't come here often anymore because there is little activity. Nice to see things picking up a bit.
I use the WAS plastic pre-paints from WotC exclusively. They are roughly 50% larger than the rules scale, so I just multiply everything by 1.5 and the scales look about right. There is a guy who sells full sets of each set that gets published. I just buy 1 rare, 3 uncommon, 5 commons, no collecting, no booster boxes, etc. The reason I am stating that is because unless Mongoose comes out with fully compatible pre-painted plactic ships then...I will never buy them.
The suggestions for a VAS 2.0 is really what is needed. Seriously. The original and OoB make a great combo, but there are still holes and piecing the game together from two manuals is not going to attract new folks.
There was a suggestion/hint that in the VAS 2.0 system that Crews would disappear...that would make the game way more accessible. Now it is really book keeping without a purpose.
Just my two cents, love the game, holes and all.
Thanks especially to DM who pops off all the wonderous stats and stuff.
Peace
If there were to be a VaS 2.o, I would like to see the PL system replaced with points system. Just my opinion, but I find that there are just too many wide variations of ships within the same PL.
Agree re crew, we have never had a ship reduced to skeleton crew. Anyone tried it using 1 pt of damage = 1 crew loss as well?
Agree re crew, we have never had a ship reduced to skeleton crew. Anyone tried it using 1 pt of damage = 1 crew loss as well?
The idea of a new miniatures range is quite tempting. Many of the 1/3000th scale miniatures I have seen are looking rather tired. The 1/6000th ones are nice though not to everyone’s tastes but now seem awfully expensive. Other scales seem to be more specialised. Aircraft miniatures would surely be rather important as well.
Whether or not Mongoose takes the plunge what would the optimal scale be? Obviously this is era and focus dependant, a larger scale would be desirable for a coastal forces game than would be desirable for a fleet action.
Incidentally the Mediterranean seems a superb choice for a campaign book who two sort of balanced forces and some really interesting ships on the Italian side. If new rules and miniatures were released this would be the perfect companion especially if you had miniature sets to go with it.
Whether or not Mongoose takes the plunge what would the optimal scale be? Obviously this is era and focus dependant, a larger scale would be desirable for a coastal forces game than would be desirable for a fleet action.
Incidentally the Mediterranean seems a superb choice for a campaign book who two sort of balanced forces and some really interesting ships on the Italian side. If new rules and miniatures were released this would be the perfect companion especially if you had miniature sets to go with it.
I'd like to see plastic sprues of various destroyers - they're the most common ship deployed, but (at least in 1:3000 scale) the most fragile when in metal (I've bent a few trying to strip them) but also the most "generic" ship available. Maybe pick one or two cruiser classes to fill out the sprue.
Plastic would be the way I'd go - with the current metal prices continuing to go up... assuming you could find a non-oil-based plastic that would do the job...
Plastic would be the way I'd go - with the current metal prices continuing to go up... assuming you could find a non-oil-based plastic that would do the job...
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
I would certainly pick up a v2 of VAS if it had a points system instead of the priority system. The priority system was a great idea to simplify force construction. However with all the "real world" variations between ships, its quite clear that some ships in a priority level are much better than others - and in game groups like mine that means only certain ships keep coming up!
One thing that I consider to be the main strength of VAS is that it included both Subs and Aircraft on the table and handled them in a relatively efficient way. Other similar games to VAS treat subs and aircraft more abstractly and focus in on the surface battle. That may be fine for WWI, but for WWII I really want to mix it all up with fighters and subs. I've got the figs from War at Sea, and I want to use them on the table!!!
One thing that I didn't like that much about VAS was the relatively large increments used for the armour rating. I know it would be a tonne of work, but I think moving from a d6 to a d10 (or d12) base would help distinguish ships a bit better.
One thing that I consider to be the main strength of VAS is that it included both Subs and Aircraft on the table and handled them in a relatively efficient way. Other similar games to VAS treat subs and aircraft more abstractly and focus in on the surface battle. That may be fine for WWI, but for WWII I really want to mix it all up with fighters and subs. I've got the figs from War at Sea, and I want to use them on the table!!!
One thing that I didn't like that much about VAS was the relatively large increments used for the armour rating. I know it would be a tonne of work, but I think moving from a d6 to a d10 (or d12) base would help distinguish ships a bit better.
rc: might want to wait until ACTA: SF is out first - there might be rules in there that are appropriate (with some modifications) to VaS and the guys in charge of that project are probably the ones you want for VaS...
I'd like them to bring out a destroyer/light cruiser pack for each of the major races in decent detail and in plastic or resin, but I suspect a scale war would ensue.
I'd like them to bring out a destroyer/light cruiser pack for each of the major races in decent detail and in plastic or resin, but I suspect a scale war would ensue.
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
rcbecker1 said:
Good to know.
I had a thought about my armour rating suggestion - and its not really necessary to change dice (because that is a big big change in the game). Some armour ratings could just have a second number to them. The second armour value would have to be rolled against if you rolled exactly what you needed on the first.
For example say you have a ship that is really on the fence between armour 5+ and 6+. It could be given a rating of 5+/4+ - meaning that if you rolled exactly a 5 on the d6 you'd have to roll that die again and get a 4+ to damage (and of course any original roll of 6 would damage as well).
Anyway, just a suggestion. I know going through and re-evaluating all the armour ratings on all the ships would be a huge task.
-Tim
Agreed I have been on the fence for some time helping to finish the expansion for WWI VAS. which is looking really good if your into WWI. Im a WWII guy myself. I myself and a friend have created a version 2 set of rules for VAS but they are for personal play only. Im waiting till the time is right to open up the cage on this big boy since Mongoose has so much going on at this time. I am very happy with ACTA as a game but its going to be tough getting into SF as Im already heavy into the first game and the cost of ships are alot when your doing 4 fleets. But hoping they set up some deals similar to past deals to help people get started.
Ray
Ray
