VAS vs. ACTA

The aim was to achieve a decent level of realism and "feel" whilst maintaining a fast play and fun game. We've suceeded in many areas, possibly fallen below some people's expecations in others but where a perceived conflict existed the decision was made in favour of the "fast play and fun" option. I suspect there will be some proposals made for variants that increase the realism with some effect on playability, although I suspect that the system itself is capable of having its realism index cranked up quite abit with no appreciable impact on game play.

Current stuff in the works includes the Soviet Navy, German "Plan Z" ships, "might-have-been" ships of the Royal Navy and Coastal Forces. Also some thought on WW1, although noting official on that yet.
 
In terms of historical accuracy the designs were intended to be as accurate as possible within the confines of the rules system.

Thus the various main guns were examined for actual range and projectile weight. So a 15" gun from the Royal Navy is going to behave slightly differently then say a 15" gun from the Italian Navy (its mostly a range variation). Not much but somewhat differently. Similarly the 16" gun from the Rodney or Nelson is not going do any more damage than the 15" from the Queen Elizabeth because the projectiles weights were essentially the same, 2048 versus 1938 lbs. Where as the 16" Guns from the later generation battleships are going to be much better as they fired a 2700 lb projectile.

Simarly, the secondary weapons were likewise examined for range, projectile weight and fire rate to establish the generic Secondary Weapons listings.

Finally, AAA light weapons were examined for projectile weight, fire rate and elevation to estabnlish the range and Attack Dice.

Ships were similarly examined in terms of deep load tonnage, which was equated to damage, length and width to establish target numbers, crew sizes to establish crew numbers etc.

Armor was also investigated to establish the armor values. These are bit skewed at the high end because we wanted cruisers to have resaonable armor values and yet they have only 3 to 5 inch belts compared with the Yamato's 20 odd inches. Deck armor was also examined for determining Armored Deck Conditions, and weather or not ships had torpedo bulges, radar and so forth for the other special traits.

Now because the game has been simplified to increase play speed, some of these historical accuracy become a bit muffled and blurred. But the fact remains that the base numbers (disreguarding the occasional error) are based on historical/statistical values.

--- Rich

VAS Playtester
 
So far the preview looks very promising indeed and its great work. On most threads already people are debating how much historical accuracy is necessary. It’s a game that’s supposed to be fast moving and you are not going to get every detail into it. I for one am happy to lose some accuracy in the interests of game play.

It’s a bit difficult to get a proper feel from just a page of rules and a few stats.

It appears that the gunnery ranges are worked out on the idea that 1inch represents 1000y/m. And then the theoretical maximums are used. Range and projectile weight are important, but not exclusively as especially for long range fire fire control systems, training, air spotting, radar etc… are key.

It would be going way too far to simulate factors such super firing charges, barrel ware etc.., but just to take historical/statistical values is not really reflective of actual events.

The idea that the Littorio-class Battleship has a range of 47” is well pushing it a bit. Maybe on paper, but not in reality. One of the longest effective anti-ship shoots of WWII was by HMS Warspite in the Mediterranean against the Italians. And that was below the Warspite’s theoretical max of 33000 or 33”. The idea that the Italian navy could regularly engage at such long (or longer) ranges and hit is just not true.

This game is obviously going to cause a few friendly exchanges of opinion, but that’s inevitable. People who want more detail have the choice to play something else. Thanks to mongoose and the playtesters for putting something like this together.
 
The idea that the Littorio-class Battleship has a range of 47” is well pushing it a bit. Maybe on paper, but not in reality.
Click to expand...

lol, this was another area of "vigorous debate" over the last few months.
 
DM said:
lol, this was another area of "vigorous debate" over the last few months.
Click to expand...
I will keep an open mind about this until seeing the full rules and playing a few games. If an Italian fleet suddenly becomes very popular then well…..

A few weeks into the Normandy landings one of the Nelson’s did a few shoots at extreme range (about 33000m) in the British sector against German armour concentrations. But that was from stationary, in perfect summer conditions with accurate air spotting against area targets. Hitting while at sea, under speed, in poor conditions, maybe at night, untrained crews, equipment failures is a different game altogether.

If my memory serves me correctly the USS Washington did some accurate long range shooting at night off Guadalcanal. So much for not pre-measuring :). At the same time thought Prince of Wales could not use her radar against the Bismarck.
 
I make a few minor tweaks to the games I play to reflect my own personal take on the subject (plus my own naval gunnery experiences which, I admit, don't extend to 16" shells!) - I restrict gunnery without spotter planes to 30" and I do allow pre-measuring, since IMHO, radar and rangefinders of tghe period wwre perfectly capable of giving you a decent result. I also have radar "fall over" with annoying regularity just through use with a chance to repair, and decreased chances of system failure for late war scenarios.

One of the things I like about the VaS system is that it is so simple and straightforward that it is easily possible to make additions and alterations to the core rules whilst minimising the occurrence of "unintended consequences"
 
DM said:
I make a few minor tweaks to the games I play to reflect my own personal take on the subject (plus my own naval gunnery experiences which, I admit, don't extend to 16" shells!) - I restrict gunnery without spotter planes to 30" and I do allow pre-measuring, since IMHO, radar and rangefinders of tghe period wwre perfectly capable of giving you a decent result. I also have radar "fall over" with annoying regularity just through use with a chance to repair, and decreased chances of system failure for late war scenarios.

One of the things I like about the VaS system is that it is so simple and straightforward that it is easily possible to make additions and alterations to the core rules whilst minimising the occurrence of "unintended consequences"
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good house rule solution (he goes to find a piece of paper to note this down). This could well be the strength of the VaS system. Simple enough for beginners but potential for much more. I love the look of games like Harpoon, but simply don't have the time for it nor know enough people who would have time.
 
As an aside I've been looking at the applicability of the VaS system to modern naval warfare. dooable, defintely dooable..... :)
 
DM said:
As an aside I've been looking at the applicability of the VaS system to modern naval warfare. dooable, defintely dooable..... :)
Click to expand...

That is most a interesting proposition. Playable modern naval combat. It would require rearranging the furniture in the dining room and possibly going down to 1/6000 to get the right scale of the battlespace.

Although it might be a case of USN gets initiative +6. Without going to far down the Harpoon line, modifiers for equipment like satellite reccon. Ok getting a little ahead here. Would be great to see if you do get a chance to think about it.
 
I'm just glad a naval game is finally being released that is easy to teach to new players...

Now all I do is just pray that it won't become the next acta in that it is all about whining of priority levels, earth alliance skirmish ships, and 'balance' for tournament play. History isn't balanced imho, never was, never will. The british needed a fleet to get a single battleship after all, no chance for the fritzies to get a fleet of their own in :lol:

It would be a shame if VaS would go down that road (like FoW, Semovento 90/53's and Lancia da 90 truck's in the same fucilieri company on the russian front? Like hell) of competition before 'semi-accuracy'.

On the other hand, since Mongoose isn't making mini's for this, there will be way less ranting of the not making of release dates...

edit: just saw VaS has been moved from december to january... sigh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sigtrygg
New to Traveller? Some tips...
Replies
19
Views
1K
rinku
R
P
Starship operations reality vs expectations
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
rinku
R
Terry Mixon
Passenger Staterooms: Single Travellers vs Couples
11 12 13
Replies
245
Views
6K
Condottiere
C
ottarrus
Electronic Warfare in Space, a Helpful Tip
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
ottarrus
ottarrus
A
2300AD - A suggestion
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
6K
ottarrus
ottarrus
Back
Top