VaS camaigns and # of ships

[Jack Tar]

What are peoples thoughts on historical accuracy on the number of ships in a class when playing a campaign?

Do you limit the number of ships to the exact amount in that class, or do you create new ships within the class even though those ships never really existed, and just create new names within the class naming structure?

Just interested in what others think.

 

[Poi]

In practice you can't limit it. As soon as you have two players for one nation, you run out of ships too fast.

And what about the 'what if' ships?

Take the ruskies as an example, as I use them. Archangelsk (battle) is the best available, and there was only one. I'm happy to limit my own fleet to a single example, supported by 3 Ganguts, but what about the next ruskie player? I get my list in first, so tough? A lottery for all available ships, to see what we can use?

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

We restrict to the `number in class` per player, not the total divided over all the players.
We also run the campaigns by `side winners` and not a `player winner` so as soon as either the allies or the axis are out, the campaign ends, and players of the same side cannot attack each others targets (we have 4 players a side usually, 2 yanks, 1 brit and 1 frenchie vs 2 japs, 1 german and 1 italian). That and the fact that we run VaS campaigns as smaller parts of a year spanning ww2 campaign.

 

[Keith]

The campaign rules are a throw back to ACTA and make little historical sense in their current form. If you want historical campaigns your best bet is to look at some of the suggestions from Signs and Portents or other threads on this forum (there was one on a "Hunt the Bismark" game).

I have a Mediteranian campaign in mind based on convoy runs. Sea transport was key to the desert war for both sides. Successful convoys would earn points which could be used to purchase (or prevent the purchase) of strategic targets. Special scenarios might also be required for such purchases (e.g. an "Invasion Scenario" for the successful Axis capture of Malta).

Reinforcements would be based on historically available ships. "What ifs" could be purchaced with convoy points. Reinforcements could also be made available to the losing side (as the losing country's leaders comitt more resources to try to stem the tide).

This concept still requires a lot of effort to work it up into a playable set of rules.

 

[squiffy]

Im currently running a VaS non-historical campaign and this is something that I am thinking of bringing in.

Initally we had limits of purchases of starting fleets, which we deiced we would lift once play started so they could go voer these limits with their RR points.

However, this would allow to much unbalance play and we didnt want "Iowa" only fleets. Well the non - US players dont. lol.

So I may re-introduce this rule, or just restrict the number of ships you can have of a certian priorty class. eg no more than 4 War class ships per player.

 

[chaos0xomega]

See, my philosophy on campaigns is that unless it is a historical campaign, players should have unlimited freedom in designing their fleets. If they want 'Iowa only' fleets, then so be it. The way the campaign should be run IMO, is the players are given a max number of FAP points they can spend at the start of the campaign, a minimum # of fleets they have to build, a max size for each fleet. So long as each player meets those criteria it should be fair game.

If a player is given enough points to build say 15 Iowa's and 10 Patrol level Destroyers, and he takes that option building 5 fleets of 3 Iowa's and 2 Patrol Level craft, that should be fine. Another player can take the option of building 5 Yamato's and filling however many more points he has left up with whatever craft he'd like, building 5 fleets each with a Yamato in command of each one and the rest occupied by a plethora of smaller vessels. The two SHOULD be balanced against eachother.

Of course I understand that isn't necessarily always the case, but then that fault lies in the FAP system breakdown(I am entirely for the FAP system, however I think the breakdown's should be a bit more...linear...), where one war point could equal a multitude of possible breakdowns which aren't necessarily equivalent to eachother.

 

[squiffy]

Thats what I thought when I first started it. Hence I only set limits on initial fleet building.

The trouble is, as you say, with the priorty and FAP system. It is quite broken in places.

I think if I was to start another VaS non-historical campaign game from scratch I would assign my own point vaules to the ships.

 

[Jack Tar]

Those are some very good replies and ideas posted there

 

[juggler69uk]

I think if I was to start another VaS non-historical campaign game from scratch I would assign my own point vaules to the ships.

Burgers site has a points system or 3 for you to use

 

[Hugbiel]

I thing that what prevent player from playing with BB only fleet is why the cruiser was more needeed : a BB is realy expensive and can only be at one place at one time and is a single target for torpedos, a pack of cruiser can cover many task and take care of many torpedo carrier.