Rumor Control

[E Nicely]

Ok gents I'm posting this to clear up a few things that have been posted recently with regards to OoB and the WWI game. Not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but there's some that might get upset if they expect something in upcoming releases that isn't there. If I was into this game and wasn't on the design team I would want someone to do the same for me.

VaS: There won't be a revised second edition. There will be a reprint of the original core rulebook.

Order of Battle: A big fat book with new rules, ships, changes to some of the rules and Priority Levels from VaS. WWII only. No Montana, it simply wasn't statted out.

Project X (Age of Dreadnoughts): A seperate and complete WWI naval wargame. Not part of OoB. Looks very, very nice.

I hope this helps.

 

[Soulmage]

Thanks for the info. The guy at the Mongoose booth told me exactly the opposite. . . but maybe I shouldn't have believed him just because he had a Brittish accent! LOL!!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

We lie through our crooked, rotten teeth...

 

[E Nicely]

We, lie through our crooked, rotten teeth...

I KNEW it! :lol:

 

[ericski]

How about someone statting up the Montana for S&P? :wink:

 

[jbickley00]

well the montana had the same guns as the Iowa, but had one more turret. Armour was 6+. At 60,000 tons, her damage would be something like 52/18, and her crew would be 85/25 or so, witha speed of 6,
Aircraft of 3, armoured deck, radar, and torpedo belt, target would be 4+

four turrets of (3x16 in), rage 43 AD 3 DD 3 Super AP

secondary armament: range 12, 6 AD, 1 DD weak

aa: range 8, AD 18, DD-

 

[DM]

We went through a pretty comprehensive statting process for OOB which included the Montanas. Anything that doesn't make it into the book will almost certainly be published in S&P or on a website near you very soon after OOB is released, since we don't want to waste the effort!

S&P statting articles for VAS appear to be on hold just now pending the release of OOB, understandably to ensure consistency between the article material and the new publication.

 

[jbickley00]

well thats nice. I can't be that far off though

 

[DM]

Pretty close

 

[DSV1]

I'll bet the OOB could have been filled quite nicely with ships that did exist without having to add in the maybe's.

Why weren't the hyperthethical ones kept for the S&P magazine

Sorry but I can just about cope with the Graf Zepplin which was almost finished and what is the point of reprinting the original rulebook if the supplement supercedes it !. Make an effort to update the original rules and then re-release it please.

 

[Wishbone]

I do have to say, it makes more sense from a player perspective to do a 'one tome to rule them all' book, including the oob content, original content, full rules and anything so far issued in s and p.

but hey, lifes not perfect.

 

[Soulmage]

:roll:

Not the old "don't put hypotheticals in OOB!" discussion again please.

Nobody is forcing you to play with them.

Nobody is forcing you to play against anybody who uses them.

But for those who are interested in a balanced, playable GAME they can be used to fill out gaps that history didn't in terms of equalizing the playing field amongst various nations.

 

[DSV1]

thats the whole point isnt it

It should be a balanced game WITHOUT the need for super ships that never were. If you are not playing an actual battle which were hardly ever equal then the PL level should work as is

RN and Germany, Italy France just aren't in the same pond as the US and Japan and throwing in never builts doesnt solve the problem of the PL it just cheats its way around it.

No I dont have to play with them or against them but that wasnt my point.

I want a fun, playable WW2 naval game thats based on fact which VAS is or will be with OOB. The challenge is to fight it out with what you have got , so what if the KGV are outgunned and out classed by the US and Japanese BB's, there is no challenge in throwing in the LION in my opinion.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

There's no less challenge using a hypothetical RN battleship against the "superior" USN and IJN ships than there is using the apparently equal yank or Jap ships against each other.

Playing the underdog is fun, sometimes, but other times you want a fighting chance. That is, assuming the KGV is as outmatched as people claim.

 

[Soulmage]

thats the whole point isnt it

It should be a balanced game WITHOUT the need for super ships that never were. If you are not playing an actual battle which were hardly ever equal then the PL level should work as is

RN and Germany, Italy France just aren't in the same pond as the US and Japan and throwing in never builts doesnt solve the problem of the PL it just cheats its way around it.

No I dont have to play with them or against them but that wasnt my point.

I want a fun, playable WW2 naval game thats based on fact which VAS is or will be with OOB. The challenge is to fight it out with what you have got , so what if the KGV are outgunned and out classed by the US and Japanese BB's, there is no challenge in throwing in the LION in my opinion.

Its not possible to have a game based on historical reality that is balanced, because historically the fleets were very UNbalanced.

You're trying to lay the blame at the feet of the PL system. But switching to a point based system or any other type of system won't "correct" the historical imabalance between numbers of ships and their capabilities.

If you stick with history. . . Germany will NEVER be able to field a fleet to match the U.S. fleet led by FOUR Iowa class battleships, a couple dozen fleet carriers, hundreds of escort carriers, destroyers, cruisers, subs, etc.

There are still only two Bismarck class.
There are still only two Scharnhorst class.
etc.

In a game based on historical reality. . . the U.S. fleet SHOULD crush the Kriegsmarine every time.

If you want a "challege", sure I'll bring my historical numbers of my Iowas against your historical numbers of Kriegsmarine battlecruisers and up.

I win.

Wasn't that challenging?

Want to play again?

The simple truth is, if you want a purely historical game, you should stick to only those ships that actually existed and play only those scenarios that actually took place.

But a historical game is not a balanced game and I see no reason why OOB cannot accomodate both the players who want to play historical scenarios, as well as the players who like to play a balanced game.

 

[Swiss Tony]

Soulmage I think you mised the point possibly on purpose.....

If you use only historical ships and assign them a fair points value then you should be able to create a balanced game, it would not be a historical scenario, but a fair game without the need to resort to ships like the Z Plan which were never very likley to ever be built.

On the premise that VAS is a WWII game I don't see the need to include ships that were never going to be built. However, I don't have problems with their inclusion as items of interest, but not from a fleet balance point of view, but equally I would not expect them to be allowed in a tournament.

 

[DSV1]

What Tony said :wink:

Which is what I said :roll:

oh and how about we play in 1941 then and the US get bugger all good ships ?

Sorry soulmage but I disagree with you , If I want hyperthetical ships I will play B5

There rant over, goes to order OOB

 

[Soulmage]

Soulmage I think you mised the point possibly on purpose.....

If you use only historical ships and assign them a fair points value then you should be able to create a balanced game.

No, I just disagree with the above assertion due to the limitations of using only historical ships and only in historical numbers.

As I pointed out above. If we play a point value game that allows me to field all 4 of my historical Iowa class battleships. The Kreigsmarine will be blown out of the water. You could make the Bismarcks cost 1 point each and you still couldn't take more than 2 when really you would need more like seven Bismarcks to play on a level field. Its an extreme example, but it makes the point.

A point value system using only historical ships might work in a certain range of small point value games, but anything outside that the quality and quantity of some nations fleets will overpower others simply because the smaller fleets simply cannot field enough and powerful enough ships to compete effectively.

But, we've both stated our position, OOB will include what OOB will include. Not much point in debating anymore.

 

[Duncan]

The problem is..... VaS uses in the first book mainly what was there or being built.

Nice, but as stated by others, since the fleets were never on an equal level it will be problematic if you just stay with historical numbers. You can either limit all fleets to the level of the the weakest fleet. But this would rightly be a source of complaints from USN, RN or IJN gamers.

So, we can´t go this way.

Other solution would be: Filling the gaps with ships that might have been so fleets can fight on a roughly equal level. If you wan´t to make all gamers happy, this is the way to do. If you want to make the historical gamers happy, the other way. But they are just a subgroup of all gamers and most are mainly in the game for the joy it brings.

The point some do not realize is that of course you could create fleets that are on the same level, but one of the players would have a rather limited choice, while the other has all the bells and whistles. So.... we have to upgrade the weaker fleets to give them choices.

If you don´t want the commanders of the weaker fleets to have a least comparable choices (Graf Zeppelin vs US CV anyone?) then I have to say that you do not understand the meaning of the word game. Game for most means competing on an equal level where maybe experience might give you an advantage, but not the tools you are using.

 

[juggler69uk]

.... then I have to say that you do not understand the meaning of the word game....

I think that is somewhat harsh, as anyone who games has some understanding of the word GAME.

However some (I stress the word "SOME" here and not aimed at anyone and is NOT limited to VaS) competition gamers take that word to the limit by fielding only the very best ships certain navies have to offer, completely putting out of the game any lesser ships. These "win at any cost" gamers only seem to enjoy a game they win and not so much the playing of it

Now in VaS, both general and competition games, the restriction of numbers of ships allowed in any navy is not limited to those actually built so all that needs to happen to provide a fair chance for any navy to beat any other is to ensure that the correct priority level is applied to ships of differing navies in order for numbers to stack up against the Iowa's and Yamato's of the larger Fleets.

Maybe this would mean a rework of the priority levels or setting some ships at double or half points in their level or a combination of levels (e.g. in a war level game Iowa could cost 1 war + 1 battle or 2 War or 1 war and 2 raid etc etc) <<< dont pick on these figures as ithey are not based on any calcs merely speculating on possibilities

For historical accuracy you can play scenario driven games or limit your games to certain years and only use numbers in class if built etc.

As I have said before I dont have a problem with "hypothetical ships" being in the book, but if the game is billed as a WW2 naval game, then they should be "optional" as agreed by both players, not just to be selected on the fact they are in the book.