Tournament pack rules updates
- Thread starter Soulmage
- Start date
Soulmage
Mongoose
BuShips said:Leadman placed a good response as a play-tester of OoB. As one myself I don't feel the need to add to his comments other than to say he did a good job of defending our 'honor / honour'.
There, that should save a few bytes. :wink:
Well, I do appreciate some comments back. I do find it unfortunate that people are getting defensive about 'their baby' and start posts with long versions of . . . "our ideas are kewl and they work! Don't try to change them."
As I have limited time, I will just respond to a few.
Flank Speed - The proposed change as written may do something to bring it more historically in line. . . but it does nothing to fix a major gameplay issue. Namely destroyers charging forward at flank speed then turning broadside and "skidding" around to bring their torpedoes into broadside arc.
As I stated before. . . the fun of the game is in making choices. With the proposed rule there is no reason whatsoever to use any other tactic and continue to flank speed every turn thereafter. That reduces the "tacticalness" (yes, I did invent that word) of the game and pushes it more in the direction of a die rolling excersise. Nobody here is going to convince me that reduced need for tactical decision making is more fun. Sorry.
Damage/Weak Weapons - As was noted. . . with the alternate damage rules I presented, you WILL score more criticals with heavier shells against lighter armored opponents. . . and fewer criticals with lighter shells against heavily armored opponents. That is exactly the point. . . as well as preventing weak weapons from scoring criticals against battleships.
This modified approach has been tested extensively as well in our own group. The proposed version in the tournament pack are definitely more complicated and cumbersome to use, rather than a single integrated system that applies to all weapons. Its bad game design to have lots of "fiddly" sub-systems. Its good to have clear, unambigious rules that apply the same way in call cases.
Nightfight/Bad Weather - Sure, the proposed rules may work mechanically. But they are still a royal pain to use. The spotting rules are still a mess.
NOTHING was said about my other primary beef with them that adding additional negative modifiers to hit, just results in the game being dragged out. Basically all they do is make you have to make more rolls to achieve damage. That's not something that enhances the fun of the game at all.
The alternate rules I presented maintain the fun and the pace of the game, while still making bad weather and night conditions an important tactical consideration. With the addition of the excellent star shell rule, they present an opportunity for fun tactical decision making that enhances rather than detracts from the game.
With the bad weather and night fight rules as written in the book. . . our group NEVER opted to use them because they just weren't fun. The tournament pack proposed rules do nothing to fix that problem. My suggestion does.
Soulmage
Mongoose
A few more points in detail.
We're not throwing it out the window, and its not B.S. its called making a fun game.
What is people's major malfunction with the torpedo reload issue? I said it was fine as proposed. Perhaps if people would take the time to actually read posts before becoming defensive, things like that would be more clear.
Ummmm. . . no. You have failed to make a rule clear and easily understandable. If you are going to write rules for a living, or even semi-professionally, you need to be able to write them in a fashion that makes sense to somebody with absolutely no background on what went into that rule. In this regard, you failed. . . especially considering that I am hardly a "lay user" of the system.
You should have stopped right there. When things start getting complicated, that's a sign you need to re-think your approach and see if there is any possible way to do it easier.
. . . and this still doesn't address the fun issue.
Leadman said:
We're not throwing it out the window, and its not B.S. its called making a fun game.
What is people's major malfunction with the torpedo reload issue? I said it was fine as proposed. Perhaps if people would take the time to actually read posts before becoming defensive, things like that would be more clear.
Leadman said:
Ummmm. . . no. You have failed to make a rule clear and easily understandable. If you are going to write rules for a living, or even semi-professionally, you need to be able to write them in a fashion that makes sense to somebody with absolutely no background on what went into that rule. In this regard, you failed. . . especially considering that I am hardly a "lay user" of the system.
You should have stopped right there. When things start getting complicated, that's a sign you need to re-think your approach and see if there is any possible way to do it easier.
. . . and this still doesn't address the fun issue.
Thats not a gameplay issue its a reality issue. Destroyers charged in to make torpedo runs. Its what they did.
Fiddly? Noting a target ships armor rating for Weak guns? I don't think so. Still simple and very playable.
Adding modifiers? Wouldn't that make it fiddly?
VaS is one of the simplest naval rules systems out there. If its a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 then OoB takes it to a 5, still really simple. Games are more fun with the rules changes unless you don't know anything about the history or technology of WWII naval warfare. Historical games have to simulate the source material. The VaS core rules missed on a few points and the forthcoming material fixes it. Everyone on the design team that came up with those rules played several games, what was clunky got thrown out. Not having the existing rules mesh with reality is the single biggest complaint about VaS and those points have been addressed in a way that best simulates historical fact and capablities within the VaS framework. With enough in the way of hypothetical ships and build your own scenarios rules to keep the what if gamer happy.
BTW leadman didn't write the night fighting rules.
1st of all, I am loving this thread as it is very informative and entertaining. I hope I'm adding to both.
Okay, let's see, first let's discuss Torpedo Reloads...
Everyone is in agreement, the new OoB has it right, so we can stop trying to ram it down each other's throats. :lol:
I believe this goes for firing torpedoes while Evasive! is in effect.
Whew, got the tough ones out of the way. :roll:
Flank Speed: Soulmage, you know I love you brother, but yeah, E got it right when he said this is exactly what destroyers did. I seem to recall a certain US task force vs. some really heavy hitters from Japan and a certain destroyer making a "banzai" charge of it's own to get to Torp range. I think the OoB is gonna be just fine for this rule. I liked the flavor of your proposed change, but have to say the OoB is closer to reality imo, and involves less things to remember. I'm a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle... Keep it Simple Stupid, as I sometimes resemble the last S.
Smoke Rule: I will quote the rule as written in the Tourney packet...
Okay, I sorta understand the AA portion, as it is pretty cut and dried. But what the heck "range penalties" are enforced upon the fleet using smoke when they fire through it? Nowhere does it say anything whatsoever about Radar or Detected ships as targets as Leadman refers to a few posts back. And considering this rule appears before the Night Fighting rule, one can't reasonably expect the reader is even thinking along those lines yet.
I think something definitely got left out on this rule in the Packet. So Leadman, ripping Soulmage for "missing the boat" was not warranted here, nor was it very appropriate as a rep of MGP in my book. Of course, this assumes you were referring to the above rule as written in the Tourney Packet itself, and didn't just assume the entire rule was included. And you know what we both get when we assume. :wink:
Don't forget that those of us who have not play-tested the new rules, don't have anything more to go on (knowledge-base wise) than what it presented to us. The rule I quoted above is the sum total of what we had to go on, and is confusing at best. From my perspective it is appears to be lacking a clarifying phrase or two.
Night Fighting: After a reread of this, with the appropriate markers, I can see where this would add tons of realism and enjoyment without too much record-keeping. Without the markers, this will grind the game to a screeching halt as folks will argue who is or is not illuminated, using searchlights, or exactly where the Starshells are. This is definitely an "Invest in markers or leave out" rule set, imho.
Observation Aircraft, Torpedo Belts, and Weak weapons will work as written in OoB without detraction and will add enjoyment to the game.
Last but not least, I still am not convinced DM's (with or without Soulmage's Weak addition) revised damage rule is not without merit. I have a few questions re: this one still:
I am not saying anyone got this wrong. I'm sure the rules as written are going to be great! I just want to know if the playtesters even tried this mod in actual play and not just the mathematical statistics of probability listed above. BTW, I really like what Mark Twain had to say about statistics...
Okay, let's see, first let's discuss Torpedo Reloads...
Everyone is in agreement, the new OoB has it right, so we can stop trying to ram it down each other's throats. :lol:
I believe this goes for firing torpedoes while Evasive! is in effect.
Whew, got the tough ones out of the way. :roll:
Flank Speed: Soulmage, you know I love you brother, but yeah, E got it right when he said this is exactly what destroyers did. I seem to recall a certain US task force vs. some really heavy hitters from Japan and a certain destroyer making a "banzai" charge of it's own to get to Torp range. I think the OoB is gonna be just fine for this rule. I liked the flavor of your proposed change, but have to say the OoB is closer to reality imo, and involves less things to remember. I'm a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle... Keep it Simple Stupid, as I sometimes resemble the last S.
Smoke Rule: I will quote the rule as written in the Tourney packet...
:?MGP Author of the Admirals of the High Seas II Tourney Packet said:
Okay, I sorta understand the AA portion, as it is pretty cut and dried. But what the heck "range penalties" are enforced upon the fleet using smoke when they fire through it? Nowhere does it say anything whatsoever about Radar or Detected ships as targets as Leadman refers to a few posts back. And considering this rule appears before the Night Fighting rule, one can't reasonably expect the reader is even thinking along those lines yet.
I think something definitely got left out on this rule in the Packet. So Leadman, ripping Soulmage for "missing the boat" was not warranted here, nor was it very appropriate as a rep of MGP in my book. Of course, this assumes you were referring to the above rule as written in the Tourney Packet itself, and didn't just assume the entire rule was included. And you know what we both get when we assume. :wink:
Don't forget that those of us who have not play-tested the new rules, don't have anything more to go on (knowledge-base wise) than what it presented to us. The rule I quoted above is the sum total of what we had to go on, and is confusing at best. From my perspective it is appears to be lacking a clarifying phrase or two.
Night Fighting: After a reread of this, with the appropriate markers, I can see where this would add tons of realism and enjoyment without too much record-keeping. Without the markers, this will grind the game to a screeching halt as folks will argue who is or is not illuminated, using searchlights, or exactly where the Starshells are. This is definitely an "Invest in markers or leave out" rule set, imho.
Observation Aircraft, Torpedo Belts, and Weak weapons will work as written in OoB without detraction and will add enjoyment to the game.
Last but not least, I still am not convinced DM's (with or without Soulmage's Weak addition) revised damage rule is not without merit. I have a few questions re: this one still:
- Ben2, you mention DM is in complete agreement with the OoB amendments, so I have to ask...
- Was DM part of the Play-Test group?
- Even if he was not, were his modifications play-tested by the group in depth?
- Finally, while I see why one would not want to allow an Armor 4 Target to be Critted by Weak guns (easily corrected by utilizing the Armor 3 or less rule), what is wrong with the Big Boys having a greater chance to Crit the little bath-tub toys? Was this not historically accurate?
I am not saying anyone got this wrong. I'm sure the rules as written are going to be great! I just want to know if the playtesters even tried this mod in actual play and not just the mathematical statistics of probability listed above. BTW, I really like what Mark Twain had to say about statistics...
I wonder what he would think of our little hoby and all of this wargaming stuff? :roll:Mark Twain said:
Shadow4ace:
Yeah DM was a playtester and contributing writer, involved every step of the way. He was the project lead at the beginning, I took over. I'm not going to speak for him.
As far as the big boys having a greater chance to crit smaller ships, that's where AP and SAP come into play. More hits means more chances for crits. Might seem a little artificial in it's implementation but it works out.
Yeah DM was a playtester and contributing writer, involved every step of the way. He was the project lead at the beginning, I took over. I'm not going to speak for him.
As far as the big boys having a greater chance to crit smaller ships, that's where AP and SAP come into play. More hits means more chances for crits. Might seem a little artificial in it's implementation but it works out.
E Nicely said:
I was fairly certain he was involved heavily in this project, but didn't have an official word till now. And yeah, I'd love to see him drop a comment or two in this thread. I'll glean all I can until I get to hold the OoB hot off the presses in my hands.
E Nicely said:
Works for me. But still curious if any official playtesting was done on the optional damage rules from Mr. Manley's VaS mod page.
Now, any aircraft rules any of you playtesters wish to share?
*cough - non - cough - disclosure - cough - agreements - cough - are - cough - evil - cough* :lol: :lol: :lol:
Regarding main guns hitting destroyers and the chances of causing criticals:
If a min gun hits a destroyer then that destroyer is usually screwed. Almost all destroyers have 3 damage points. If a 14 inch shell hits a destroyer then that is 2 dice of AP damage vs armour 2+. This means anything but a 1 is damage, with two 16.67% chances of a critical chance. As long as you don't roll 1s then you've crippled it, if you do get any criticals it is sunk.
There is not a big problem with destroyers surviving main gun hits. Hitting them is a big problem, but now a battleships weak secondary guns can track and hit them more often, and can cause criticals on them. A single weak hit followed by almost any critical will sink or cripple a destroyer.
The mathmatical probabilities I listed above I pulled out of my...well somewhere.
AFAIK DM originated the new weak rules as well, but I'm sure he'll post at some point.
On the smoke rules - this isn't worded amazingly well, but RAW in the current book mean you can fire through smoke using radar AND you ignore the penalty for long range fire and the penalty for fire at extreme range is reduced to -1.
The change means that you get range penalties as normal if you are using radar to fire through smoke. This cuts down on the beardiness of radar when you lay smoke in front of your Iowa with Fletchers and then shell your opponent at extreme or long range when they cannot hit your escorting destroyers.
Now this tactic isn't as good.
But the rule needs to be worded a little more clearly so everyone understands what it means.
For Star shells I've been using pennies, and coloured glass beads for illuminated ships. If you want to hassle gale force nine to do a fancy counter set, go ahead, but I'm happy with pennies and glass beads. Substantially cheaper, and I already have them.
If it bothers people, I can do some pdf counters for it so people can print them out and stick them to card.
If a min gun hits a destroyer then that destroyer is usually screwed. Almost all destroyers have 3 damage points. If a 14 inch shell hits a destroyer then that is 2 dice of AP damage vs armour 2+. This means anything but a 1 is damage, with two 16.67% chances of a critical chance. As long as you don't roll 1s then you've crippled it, if you do get any criticals it is sunk.
There is not a big problem with destroyers surviving main gun hits. Hitting them is a big problem, but now a battleships weak secondary guns can track and hit them more often, and can cause criticals on them. A single weak hit followed by almost any critical will sink or cripple a destroyer.
The mathmatical probabilities I listed above I pulled out of my...well somewhere.
AFAIK DM originated the new weak rules as well, but I'm sure he'll post at some point.
On the smoke rules - this isn't worded amazingly well, but RAW in the current book mean you can fire through smoke using radar AND you ignore the penalty for long range fire and the penalty for fire at extreme range is reduced to -1.
The change means that you get range penalties as normal if you are using radar to fire through smoke. This cuts down on the beardiness of radar when you lay smoke in front of your Iowa with Fletchers and then shell your opponent at extreme or long range when they cannot hit your escorting destroyers.
Now this tactic isn't as good.
But the rule needs to be worded a little more clearly so everyone understands what it means.
For Star shells I've been using pennies, and coloured glass beads for illuminated ships. If you want to hassle gale force nine to do a fancy counter set, go ahead, but I'm happy with pennies and glass beads. Substantially cheaper, and I already have them.
If it bothers people, I can do some pdf counters for it so people can print them out and stick them to card.
Soulmage
Mongoose
Ben2 said:
The problem isn't destroyers. They're generally not around long enough to have to worry about criticals. The problem is with cruisers.
Unfortunately, that is not true at all. Under the tournement pack rules AP and SAP have absolutely NO EFFECT on the number of critical hits that are scored. The percentage of a critical hit is 16.67% per damage die, regardless of the size of the shell and the thickness of the targets armor.
Under my system AP and SAP DO influence the number of criticals caused as does how well armored the target is. Your AP and SAP shells are far more likely to cause a critical than a non AP or SAP shell. Additionally, less armored ships are more likely to recieve criticals than more armored ships.
My damage system produces the more historically accurate result, has simpler rules for weak weapons than the proposed version, and remains very simple and easy to use overall.
Ben2 said:
Yeah, I used the Yamato and a destroyer as an extreme example. Light Cruisers are the ones that are going to get some extra life. But, your point is well taken, and the addition of Weak's being able to crit is good enough to satisfy my overall bloodthirstiness as an Admiral. :twisted:
I think the other way is more consistent, but as a member of the MI Demo team, I really prefer RaW as much as possible. 8)
Ben2 said:
Reading both the VaS original smoke rules, followed immediately by the new rules as an addition and not a self-contained rule helps. However, it should be further clarified before going to print in a hard-bound book players are going to wear out the first weekend looking for further meaning. :lol:
*edited by author to remove creative license infringement once it was pointed out to me.
Shadow4ce said:
I am afraid we are going to have to ask you to stop right there. At Mongoose, we have a very open policy when it comes to fan made materials. By all means, create new counters and put them on a site for download.
However, as soon as someone starts charging money for products based on our games (whether that person is the actual fan or not), then I am afraid we have to put a stop to it. We have to protect our creations, and I am sorry to say this is the only way we can do so.
You have my apologies, but this is the way it has to be.
msprange said:
No apologies necessary Matt. That section of my post has been removed and you may feel free to delete this post and yours if you wish.
If anything, please accept my apology for not knowing any better. I in no way meant to infringe on your creations.
I do have a question which I will PM you however, as I wish to not do anything whatsoever to offend MGP or affect my status as a MI.
*edited for spelling.
David M is currently unable to get onto the forum at the moment (he has just moved house and is broadband isn't installed yet). However, when the debate over his house rules from his website was mentioned to him, he said that those are up because he didn't want to post the OoB/tourney pack changes!
Stuart
Stuart
I'm sorry what I meant was AP and SAP (not chnged in the tournament pack) sink more ships. A guns barrel size and quantity has everything to do with increased crits no matter what percentage you've come up with since bigger guns (with larger shells) have more DD. Unless you're going to tell me that turrets of 8" guns will do the same number of crits on average as a 16" turret. Your system adds complexity where none is needed. How could unecessary rules add to fun? You've already said that playability is more important to you than historical accuracy so it sounds to me your reasoning on this contradicts itself.
I think the issue here is that hits from non AP guns on a battleships will be critical hots 50% of the time (because they can only cause damage on a 6), whereas a hit from an AP gun will only be a critical 25% of the time, and a hit from a Super AP will only be a critical 17% of the time. This seems very odd.
The modified system makes the bigger gunes more likely to have hits which are critical hits. And since the system in the rulebook requires you to roll a second dice for possible criticals, I don;t see how the modified system is more complex.
The modified system makes the bigger gunes more likely to have hits which are critical hits. And since the system in the rulebook requires you to roll a second dice for possible criticals, I don;t see how the modified system is more complex.
The house rules posted in this thread add complexity becuase they change the core damage rules, core mechanics. Not one trait but the core damage procedure. Any change to the RAW adds complexity. As few changes as possible were made when it came to changing anything in the core book.
