Rumor Control
- Thread starter E Nicely
- Start date
juggler69uk
Mongoose
I did not suggest any such thingDuncan said:
jbickley00
Mongoose
Well I don't think the purpose of incuding optional ships is to balance the lists, the purpose of optional ships is to provide interesting scenarios and what ifs?
If you build a list around fleet composition, without regard for the nature of naval warfare, then you will get some odd results. People we exploit particular variances in the rules, and lists will be beuilt according to rules exploits rather than capturing the historical essence of the game. This is an issue faced by all historical games as the hobby moves from historical re-creation to a GW tournament style of play.
As far as the navies are concerend, as I have said before, in terms of Capital ships, the US and Japs may have an advantage at the top end of the list (in a PL War game perhaps). But as you move inot the realm of cruisers and destroyers (the workhorses of the raid scenario) all the nations are fairly well balanced.
If you build a list around fleet composition, without regard for the nature of naval warfare, then you will get some odd results. People we exploit particular variances in the rules, and lists will be beuilt according to rules exploits rather than capturing the historical essence of the game. This is an issue faced by all historical games as the hobby moves from historical re-creation to a GW tournament style of play.
As far as the navies are concerend, as I have said before, in terms of Capital ships, the US and Japs may have an advantage at the top end of the list (in a PL War game perhaps). But as you move inot the realm of cruisers and destroyers (the workhorses of the raid scenario) all the nations are fairly well balanced.
I'd take a fleet of German detroyers against the Iowa anytime.
Just because it's big and has huge guns doesn't mean it's particularly effective. Especially if the opposition is small enough to be totally unhittable by those big guns until it's too late....
Army/fleet lists are always open to abuse by those who take pleasure in finding a way to compile 'the deadliest' army. Even when lists have a load of conditions thatlimit it's composition, you will be able to get the killer armies if you look hard enough.
But in this specific case, the ships are just listed, you could work out the factors if you worked haard enough - someone has done it for OOB.
Just because they are listed doesn't mean you have to use them. The rules stand alone, the ship lists are essentially a supliment.
regards
Si
Just because it's big and has huge guns doesn't mean it's particularly effective. Especially if the opposition is small enough to be totally unhittable by those big guns until it's too late....
Army/fleet lists are always open to abuse by those who take pleasure in finding a way to compile 'the deadliest' army. Even when lists have a load of conditions thatlimit it's composition, you will be able to get the killer armies if you look hard enough.
But in this specific case, the ships are just listed, you could work out the factors if you worked haard enough - someone has done it for OOB.
Just because they are listed doesn't mean you have to use them. The rules stand alone, the ship lists are essentially a supliment.
regards
Si
jbickley00
Mongoose
Personally, If we are talking american Capital Ships, you can bring the J/K's and I'll bring the Yorktown, Enterprise and Lexington.
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Yorktown and Enterprise are Raid while Lexington is Battlejbickley00 said:
And JKN's are patrol So
Thats either
a 4 point Raid = 12 JKN's
a 2 point Battle = only 8 JKN's
Somehow 12 torpedos does not sound enough to do the damage needed to me, never mind only having the 8, and once the torps are used you will be out gunned and ranged in the secondaries battle. Plus the Aircraft from the carriers can get at the destroyers without all the penalties associated with main guns
It also begs the question of balance here of how the same US fleet can end up with lesser opponents purely down to the level of engagement.
Im sure this is only one example of many where this type of imbalance occurs, but perhaps this is all fixed in OOB, we shall see......
jbickley00
Mongoose
Frankly you really cannot balance this out. In point of fact, the carriers should probably not even be on the same table as the J/K's and with three carrier air groups, well the fight should be no contest. They tried to downplay the impact of carriers in the VaS book, my guess is they will be better performers in OOB.
Look, the grim reality of WWII is that airplanes are a major factor. You cannot, nor should you, make an effort to "balance" the game in this way. (one of the reasons WWI Naval Gaming is popular-its still about the ships!) Anyone who brings twelve J/K destroyers to a table with three aircraft carriers deserves the pasting he is going to get. Or, deserves the huge accolades they should get from winning. I chose the example because it creates a situation where the "unhittable" destroyers really have a minimal chance at victory.
Historical games, are notoriously difficult to balance, because you get wierd extremes. If you make it so that 12 J/K destroyers are the equivalent of three carriers, then you utter lose the "historical balance" of the game. Ultimately you are trading "tournament balance" for proper historical feel. Compromises will always be made, but the idea is not to create ACTA at sea.
One of the reasons sci-fi and fatasy games are so easy to make tournanment freindly is that the designers control the capabilities from scratch. This is not the case in historical gaming, where the desing parameters of your unit is preordained.
Now, add into this mix, the odd, and unusual and heroic, and historical gaming adds a whole new level of complexity in balance: how do you account for the sinking of the Hood or the incredible stand of the US destroyers at Samar during the Leyte gulf Battle. In point of fact much of military history is stories about people doing the things that, in theory, they should not beable to do. So based on historical performance, we get a slightly skewed vision of ship capability.
As players we want to count on our destroyers always dodging the main guns and getting in close to play hell with the battleships and cruisers. So the designers make it so that destroyers have a good chance at doing this, but in that process, create a tournament list that is "unbeatable." So now we are off to solve the destroyer issue in the name of balance.
In reality, the battle of Samar, would have gone differently 9 times out of ten. Its just that on that day, with those crews, the tin can navy rose above itself, and did the impossible.
Look, the grim reality of WWII is that airplanes are a major factor. You cannot, nor should you, make an effort to "balance" the game in this way. (one of the reasons WWI Naval Gaming is popular-its still about the ships!) Anyone who brings twelve J/K destroyers to a table with three aircraft carriers deserves the pasting he is going to get. Or, deserves the huge accolades they should get from winning. I chose the example because it creates a situation where the "unhittable" destroyers really have a minimal chance at victory.
Historical games, are notoriously difficult to balance, because you get wierd extremes. If you make it so that 12 J/K destroyers are the equivalent of three carriers, then you utter lose the "historical balance" of the game. Ultimately you are trading "tournament balance" for proper historical feel. Compromises will always be made, but the idea is not to create ACTA at sea.
One of the reasons sci-fi and fatasy games are so easy to make tournanment freindly is that the designers control the capabilities from scratch. This is not the case in historical gaming, where the desing parameters of your unit is preordained.
Now, add into this mix, the odd, and unusual and heroic, and historical gaming adds a whole new level of complexity in balance: how do you account for the sinking of the Hood or the incredible stand of the US destroyers at Samar during the Leyte gulf Battle. In point of fact much of military history is stories about people doing the things that, in theory, they should not beable to do. So based on historical performance, we get a slightly skewed vision of ship capability.
As players we want to count on our destroyers always dodging the main guns and getting in close to play hell with the battleships and cruisers. So the designers make it so that destroyers have a good chance at doing this, but in that process, create a tournament list that is "unbeatable." So now we are off to solve the destroyer issue in the name of balance.
In reality, the battle of Samar, would have gone differently 9 times out of ten. Its just that on that day, with those crews, the tin can navy rose above itself, and did the impossible.
juggler69uk
Mongoose
I think you missed the point here...
I was not arguing that 12 JKN's should balance 3 carriers
I was pointing out the fact that theres an imbalance between raid and battle giving a differing amount of JKN's for the same choice in US carriers, so the JKN player would choose 4 point raid (and get 12 JKN's) but if the USA player had the choice he would choose 2 point battle (only giving his opponent 8 JKN's)
plus the fact I felt that given those forces the JKN looked as though it would lose (by some margin) even with the 12 JKN choice.
balance would mean you need enough JKN's on the table to do enough damage to the carriers to win, as I pointed out 12 did not seem enough
as to gaming historically I would advocate scenario driven gaming rather than equal pointing
I was not arguing that 12 JKN's should balance 3 carriers
I was pointing out the fact that theres an imbalance between raid and battle giving a differing amount of JKN's for the same choice in US carriers, so the JKN player would choose 4 point raid (and get 12 JKN's) but if the USA player had the choice he would choose 2 point battle (only giving his opponent 8 JKN's)
plus the fact I felt that given those forces the JKN looked as though it would lose (by some margin) even with the 12 JKN choice.
balance would mean you need enough JKN's on the table to do enough damage to the carriers to win, as I pointed out 12 did not seem enough
as to gaming historically I would advocate scenario driven gaming rather than equal pointing
That's an interesting scenario, and one that is easily tried out.
I don't think 12 destroyers would be outgunned in terms of secondary arms by aircraft carriers. With 12 ships that's 48 ADs of secondary fire coming in...a POSSIBLE 48 points of damage - per turn.
What have three carriers got to return?
Maybe 12 dice? they need sixes to hit. If the Destroyers are going 'evasive' then they can't be hit.
OK - AA is poor from the destroyers, but chances to hit?? Again tiny with single shot weapons...
I'd like to play this one out - we're gaming tonight, maybe even do that!
As far as the fleet points level imbalance goes...Hmmm, I like it!
Forcing the level high seems to favour the big ships and removes the destroyer swarm advantage. I'd like to work the maths through in terms of Victory points though, level has an effect there that might be substantial.
What do you reckon Ev?? US or RN? - although I originally suggested Japanese destoyers. WHo can shoot torps from outside 10" and not be subject to return fire from the carrier.
Interesting stuff...
Si
I don't think 12 destroyers would be outgunned in terms of secondary arms by aircraft carriers. With 12 ships that's 48 ADs of secondary fire coming in...a POSSIBLE 48 points of damage - per turn.
What have three carriers got to return?
Maybe 12 dice? they need sixes to hit. If the Destroyers are going 'evasive' then they can't be hit.
OK - AA is poor from the destroyers, but chances to hit?? Again tiny with single shot weapons...
I'd like to play this one out - we're gaming tonight, maybe even do that!
As far as the fleet points level imbalance goes...Hmmm, I like it!
Forcing the level high seems to favour the big ships and removes the destroyer swarm advantage. I'd like to work the maths through in terms of Victory points though, level has an effect there that might be substantial.
What do you reckon Ev?? US or RN? - although I originally suggested Japanese destoyers. WHo can shoot torps from outside 10" and not be subject to return fire from the carrier.
Interesting stuff...
Si
Swiss Tony
Mongoose
Si,
If it's JKN Destroyers they only have 1AD each, Tribal destriyers get 2AD but with 12 ships that would only give you 12 or 24 dice a turn.....
If it's JKN Destroyers they only have 1AD each, Tribal destriyers get 2AD but with 12 ships that would only give you 12 or 24 dice a turn.....
juggler69uk
Mongoose
Yes JKN only has 1AD not 4, see the FAQ, so a maximum of 12DD assuming there was no casualties from all the aircraft attacks
EgstonVonBrick
Mongoose
Si,
So, i guess from this that for our next battle i will have a carrier and you will have some Japanese destroyers?
Will chat tonight and hopefully we can get some ships sorted out for next week!
Cheers
Ev
So, i guess from this that for our next battle i will have a carrier and you will have some Japanese destroyers?
Will chat tonight and hopefully we can get some ships sorted out for next week!
Cheers
Ev
juggler69uk
Mongoose
gazman said:
As stated above, you could always use the Tribal Class or German Zerstorer 1936 destroyers and get TWO AD but the torpedos are not as good then
jbickley00
Mongoose
juggler69uk said:
You are correct, I did miss that point completely, and its a good one.
