VAS rule query on damage

[Captain Kremmen]

I had forgotten this one.

I think the rules say one DD does one point of damage unless a critical is caused. It does NOT say that one crew casualty is also inflicted (as ACTA).

I presume you do get one damage and one crew don't you??

Cpt Ishido Kremmen

 

[Burger]

No, crew damage is not inflicted ffrom normal hits like it is in ACTA.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

OK thanks, surprising, but fine by me, sounds as though "fire" is potentially the big crew killer.

K

 

[Soulmage]

Our experience has been that fire doesn't actually kill all that many. We've never had a ship even close to skeleton crewed.

So we have actually houseruled it to 1 point of crew in addition to 1 point of damage. We will play it that way for a while and see how it works out!

 

[The Greek]

I decrewed the Prince of Wales once - lotsa fires!!!!!!!

(And the Hood blew up as well (heh heh)

 

[captainsmirk]

I believe that in reality ships tended to sink due to damage long before their crew were wiped out by damage (the crew may have been wiped out in the sinking however... ).
Not having a vacuum outside does wonders to crew survivability when you have holes blown in your hull...


Nick

 

[DM]

To be honest the question of crew casualties vs. combat effectiveness is, IMHO, enough of a non-issue to make it worthwhile ignoring the crew rule completely. I can see why its there but I don't think much would be lost through its deletion.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I tend to agree, disregarding crew losses altogether would probably not detract from VAS. Not sure it would make much difference in ACTA either to be honest

Cpt Ishido Kremmen

 

[musmusculus]

I assumed that the damage functioned like ACTA. We have been playing this way, and it offers some risk to crew, although in practice it hasn't threatened too much. Not scoring normal DD to crew makes it not worth keeping track, as damage stands.

I am in favor of tracking the damage like ACTA, and our club will likely continue to do so until a clear and official report is given.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I am in favor of tracking the damage like ACTA, and our club will likely continue to do so until a clear and official report is given.

Just read the rules as written, without preconceptions of what you THINK they say, and you'll find they do not include any rule whatsoever for Crew damage from non-Critical hits. You don't need an official report just for that, do you?

Wulf

 

[E Nicely]

I assumed that the damage functioned like ACTA. We have been playing this way, and it offers some risk to crew, although in practice it hasn't threatened too much. Not scoring normal DD to crew makes it not worth keeping track, as damage stands.

I am in favor of tracking the damage like ACTA, and our club will likely continue to do so until a clear and official report is given.

What Wulf said is as official as you're likely to get. We firmly established in playtest that Crew only gets hit by crits. If it was different it would say so in the rules. You're playing VaS not CTA.

 

[Reaverman]

I assumed that the damage functioned like ACTA. We have been playing this way, and it offers some risk to crew, although in practice it hasn't threatened too much. Not scoring normal DD to crew makes it not worth keeping track, as damage stands.

I am in favor of tracking the damage like ACTA, and our club will likely continue to do so until a clear and official report is given.

What Wulf said is as official as you're likely to get. We firmly established in playtest that Crew only gets hit by crits. If it was different it would say so in the rules. You're playing VaS not CTA.

It also makes sense too

 

[Soulmage]

I have to agree with the other posters. . .

If you don't house rule crew losses to correspond to damage taken, there is very little point in tracking crew losses at all really. . .

 

[E Nicely]

I have to agree with the other posters. . .

If you don't house rule crew losses to correspond to damage taken, there is very little point in tracking crew losses at all really. . .

I seriously want to disagree with you every time you bring this up

Beleive me crew loss will average out the more games you play. I've played games where 5-7 fires were going at one time on 1 ship. Nasty.

 

[BuShips]

I have to agree with the other posters. . .

If you don't house rule crew losses to correspond to damage taken, there is very little point in tracking crew losses at all really. . .

I seriously want to disagree with you every time you bring this up

Beleive me crew loss will average out the more games you play. I've played games where 5-7 fires were going at one time on 1 ship. Nasty.

Wow, get out the marshmallows! :lol:

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Beleive me crew loss will average out the more games you play. I've played games where 5-7 fires were going at one time on 1 ship. Nasty.

I have had that many, but the ship always sank on the same turn...

Wulf

 

[Dan Hodges]

I'm not generally a stickler for 'logic' when a good game mechanic will
do instead, but as the rule currently stands, is it the case that, say, an
Aircraft Carrier could be gradually torn apart without any Crew Losses at all?

Seems a bit strange...

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I'm not generally a stickler for 'logic' when a good game mechanic will
do instead, but as the rule currently stands, is it the case that, say, an
Aircraft Carrier could be gradually torn apart without any Crew Losses at all?

While it's possible, it's incredibly unlikely. All bar a single crit result cause Crew loss. To cause 20-30 Damage (typical for a carrier) without a crit would be strange indeed. And many cause fires, which are a major killer. Each Crew point represents around 25 men, so even a few points Crew loss is a lot of men.

Wulf

 

[DM]

Anyone care to guess how many fatalities there were when the Ark Royal was torpedoed and sunk?

From my analysis of crew casualties in WW2 the numbers were either low or very high. General damage doesn't actually kill or injure that many people. It wasn't uncommon for ships to go down in gunfights having suffered no more than a handful of casualties. At the other end of the scale if a ship sank as a result of catastrophic damage the percentage of casualties could be very high or total, whilst survivable near-catastrophic events could affect much of the crew (and generally wiped out the combat capability of the ship at the same time).

There's a similar trend with sinkings. Ships either went down quickly (rapid loss of stability / buoyancy) or after long periods of several hours (frantic Dc effort to save the ship that was ultimately unsuccessful). Of course the distributio of times was a "bathtub" but the trends were quite interesting. As an aside the results of the analysis have been fed into developing warship lifesaving arrangements, so there was a serious side to all of this as well as providing useful background information to wargamers

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Anyone care to guess how many fatalities there were when the Ark Royal was torpedoed and sunk?

I'd be more interested in how many of the Bismark's Crew were recovered (I guess fear of U-Boats would limit the RN's desire for humanitarian action). The Ark Roya wasn't pounded to death, I'd say only a handful of losses.

Wulf