VaS 2.0 confirmed!

[Nerroth]

In light of the recent blog entry confirming the second edition of Victory at Sea for a 2012 release, I figured it may be an idea to start a new thread up to discuss the confirmation (and the preliminary details listed in the blog entry at this point):

Victory for Victory at Sea
4/01/2012

The decision has been made. Vx Racing (working title) has been consigned to another round of developmental tweaking until we are happy with it, and our new miniatures game for 2012 will be Victory at Sea, accompanied with a full range of finely detailed models covering just about everything that floated during World War II!

Some of the ships have already had their digital modelling previewed, and we’ll continue to showcase new designs until we have some painted examples ready for you. While Sandrine concentrates on the miniatures, the rest of us have gathered a coven of Naval Boffins (including the Seamaster himself, David Manley), and we have been busy picking apart the old rules set, getting rid of the things we didn’t like and concentrating on playability and historical accuracy both.

A great deal of progress has been made already, though we are far from saying ‘this is definitely how it is going to be.’ However, I can say we have already made the following changes;

Crew stat has gone (fairly obvious, that one). But then, so has Turning…
Critical hit system, is now a blend of the old and that of Noble Armada/Star Fleet. Most critical hits will degrade performance but a tiny few will be catastrophic, blasting turrets free, igniting magazines or even destroying a ship completely – for those ‘Hood’ moments.
Torpedoes are now different according to type, are way more inaccurate but far more devastating. Get hit by one of these, and you’ll know it. Still, now we have proper rules to evade them too.
Looks like submersibles will not be in the main fleet lists, but instead used for special ‘convoy’ or ‘raid’ scenarios.
There will be a pre-game scouting phase, though the details of this have not been completely worked out yet.
Critical hits are now nastier but ships can take more damage overall (well, until the torpedoes start swimming).
Armament, ranges and damage potential will all be far more accurate.
Fires have been integrated into the critical hit and Crew Quality system. Your battleship can be on fire on all decks, but you no longer have to track every individual flame.
AP and Super AP are now gone, replaced by an AP stat for each weapon.
All ships will have points values.

Lots more work to do, of course. Barely started looking at aircraft, and only the Royal Navy and Kriegsmarine lists have thus far been rejigged for the new rules. However, it is shaping up to be a corker and one well worth keeping an eye out for.

We’ll do some more previews on Planet Mongoose in the near future, as well as showcase some of the new minis. Right now, I am off to see if Sandrine has finished off her rendition of the Scharnhorst!

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

Yay point values!

I like the take on subs. I love my german subs, and its nice that there will be an outlet to use them without sullying up the typical surface engagements.

I wonder if aircraft will have a similar type of treatment (i.e. only used in special scenarios).

-Tim

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

That would make the entire pacific theatre a special scenario.

I like the idea of a scouting phase, I hope the implementation matches.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

That would make the entire pacific theatre a special scenario.

I like the idea of a scouting phase, I hope the implementation matches.

I didn't quite articulate that very well. I was thinking more of 3 different modes of play:

1) Sub/Convoy hunting (subs vs. transports + escorts)
2) Surface action (no subs, planes limited to maybe 1 wave per game)
3) Carrier battle (turns represent longer periods of time, multiple waves of aircraft attacks, different scale required).

I also was not a big fan of how armour and gun penetration worked in the last edition. For one I didn't feel there was enough granularity in armour values to reflect the differences between certain ships. Same goes for guns. The devil was of course the "save" system for armour, which limited it to 6 values.

I'd recommend treating both armour and armour piercing as both positive values. To determine if you penetrate roll a die, add armour piercing and compare it to the armour value. This way you can have a much larger range of both values to refine the differences between ships. It also lends itself well if you want to model that a certain gun cannot or automatically penetrates a ships armour. You can even do over-penetrations if you want.

-Tim

 

[Nomad]

This looks like a huge improvement over the original VaS.

I might just indulge in it...

 

[rcbecker1]

The changes look really good so far.

 

[Nerroth]

The first draft of one of the historical articles set for the new book is in the latest blog entry.

 

[Lex_Moose1210]

What im curious about is with an specific Ap stat for each gun, this reads like there might be a standardized range/str/ap for different classes of gun (12/14/15/16 inch etc). So my question is were this the case would there be a seperation for say the 16" 45 cal and say 16" 50cal....

 

[MongooseMatt]

What im curious about is with an specific Ap stat for each gun, this reads like there might be a standardized range/str/ap for different classes of gun (12/14/15/16 inch etc). So my question is were this the case would there be a seperation for say the 16" 45 cal and say 16" 50cal....

We use standard APs as a starting point, and adjust from there.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

We won't be sad if you give us some previews :wink:

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Any chance we'll be getting an All Stop! special action? :wink: Coming over from B5 ACTA, that kind of threw me for a loop.

Will the AP be a bit like the new version of ACTA with AP1 being the same as the old AP, AP2 being SAP, etc, or will it be an entirely new mechanic?

 

[Lex_Moose1210]

Whilst i can understand there being little difference between the 16" 42/45 Cal, there was a marked distance improvement and on that accuracy. Will this be shown as well between say the south dakota and the Iowa. Kinda nit picking the small stuff, i know. But im a stickler for accuracy.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Whilst i can understand there being little difference between the 16" 42/45 Cal, there was a marked distance improvement and on that accuracy. Will this be shown as well between say the south dakota and the Iowa. Kinda nit picking the small stuff, i know. But im a stickler for accuracy.

We are only really just starting to work on these differences but yes, where apparent they will be reflected in the game.

 

[Thunder]

VaS 2.0? Awesome News!

Love this system, even with all its warts and holes. I have been playing since VaS 1.0 first came out and we have filled in the holes ourselves over time.

The Order of Battle was well received, but again brought a few warts and holes of its own, which we once again have filled over time.

Any idea of a possible release date? Now I am all jazzed and can't wait!

Peace

PS. The historical-political discussion, while interesting really ought to be moved.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Love this system, even with all its warts and holes. I have been playing since VaS 1.0 first came out and we have filled in the holes ourselves over time.

The Order of Battle was well received, but again brought a few warts and holes of its own, which we once again have filled over time.

Any idea of a possible release date? Now I am all jazzed and can't wait!

No date yet set, but we are working hard on it right now (next door, a playtest is going on with the Rodney vs. the Prinz Eugen and Gnesienau!), and we are currently thinking Summer/Autumn-ish. Don't be surprised to see new minis before the actual book.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

Don't be surprised to see new minis before the actual book.

Good plan! People can always use v1 with the new figs.

-Tim

 

[McKinstry]

I really like seeing torpedoes as way more inaccurate. As I recall, the accuracy of surface launched torpedoes for both the US and IJN in the battles around Guadalcanal was 3%, and this with low ranges and the IJN at the height of their skill. Short of a very slow to stationary target, I would hope we don't see torpedoes ever exceeding about a 5-6% accuracy.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I really like seeing torpedoes as way more inaccurate. As I recall, the accuracy of surface launched torpedoes for both the US and IJN in the battles around Guadalcanal was 3%, and this with low ranges and the IJN at the height of their skill. Short of a very slow to stationary target, I would hope we don't see torpedoes ever exceeding about a 5-6% accuracy.

One of the first things we worked on

 

[Viktor_Renquist]

Just a passing thought for Matt et alia

When OoB was in production, and even after its release, some of the most bitter exchanges on here occurred between those who felt that OoB should include only historical ships and those who wanted hypotheticals and other what-if type options

Given that, since you aren't going to be able to get every vessel used and/or planned statted out (and the simple proof of that is the ongoing questions regarding ship stats on this forum) in a single volume, of whatever size, would the easiest answer be to perhaps issue two supplementary stat books, one with historical data and one with hypotheticals?

 

[Capt'n Krunch]

Will it have counters? Those of us that are budget restricted have gone for VAS because it comes with ship counters. :?