VAS: What angle exactly is considered "crossing the T&q

[nezeray]

This came up in a demo that I ran with some Navy "enthusiasts". What angle does VAS use when deciding on Crossing the T?

a) 0 degrees (he's heading straight at me)
b) 15 degrees (he's not quite heading straight for me)
c) 30 to 0 degrees (he's angled toward me)

Basically if I'm crossing in front of the target, do I have to be directly in front of it, or can I be a little ahead or behind?

A graphic might help.

Nezeray

 

[Court Jester]

I assume you are refering to the +1 to hit for firing on a ships beam or at least the lack of getting said bonus?

We use the arc template to work out if a ship is a small target or on its beam. Keeps it simple and I presume thats how it is meant to be played as the rules never really specifiy.

 

[The Chauffeur]

nez, assuming you draw a line from center to center, if that line hits the target in it's port or starboard firing arc, we've (me and the dudes i'm playing here) counted it as a beam shot.

in practice, last night the nagato made a 1 pt turn to port, and the iowa, which had been pointed right at it, made a 2 pt turn to port.

\



/

there's my crappy diagram. when we drew out the arcs, it turned out the both of us could fire into the other's beam, so we both got the firing bonus. unfortunately, my opponent was able to get the iowa's rear turret into LOS and that cost me the game.

 

[nezeray]

I got a note back from Matthew and he said you just have to be in the ship's side arc to get the bonus. That's easy enough.

Is a +1 to hit worth bring a ship's full compliment of big guns to bear on you though? :twisted:

Nezeray

 

[The Chauffeur]

i guess it depends on what's in your X and Y turrets. i think as long as you're bigger than the other guy it is. still the whole maneuver seems more of a WW1 / sino-japanese thing than a valid WW2 tactic.

when my nagato hit the iowa with full broadsides it wasn't as effective simply because i couldn't do enough damage to matter. had i hit my opponent's Baltimore CL with the same salvos it would have blown the smaller cruiser apart.

as it is i only lasted 2 turns receiving broadsides from the iowa before my ship went under. those 16" triple turrets are just monstrous.

c

 

[Burger]

Just throw a Yamato at him.

 

[The Chauffeur]

hey burger, i just saw your sig and put 2 and 2 together. i'm in F-OFF/EXE down in Esoteria. what corp are you in?

8)

 

[Burger]

Warspite Developments... in the new Rogue Drone region

 

[The Chauffeur]

never heard of it. must be some new kali thing. :lol: must be in one of those eastern regions that opened up. i would have liked to have gone out there before it gets all settled...

you guys in any wars right now? i think we're going to be heading north soon...


:roll:

 

[Burger]

Moved to PM's. Now get back on topic ya scurvy lubbers!

 

[BuShips]

None of anything said so far here is really addressing the specific question of a ship's T being crossed, however. The large silhouette or "beam" bonus is exactly the opposite of this tactical circumstance. In fact gazing through your optical rangefinder and being able to see the enemy ship's full main gun broadside is usually something to be avoided :shock: . I can understand from the perspective of seeing the largest cross-section of hull to shoot at being wanted, but even this only works well at shorter ranges. The "trick" to try for rather is to maneuver your ship into a position where you can bear your entire main gun broadside upon the enemy ship while at the same time denying said enemy ship the same opportunity. If you can place your hull as close as possible to the line drawn and extending through the bow and stern (the center-line) you disallow the turrets on the other side of the enemy ship's superstructure from bearing upon you because they are masked into the turret's blind zone. The point is to bring the maximum number of your guns to bear while at the same time limiting the enemy ship as much as possible. If there are more ships on the two sides then this becomes greatly magnified due to the lead ship of the crossed formation blocking its own trailing ships while your formation (division, squadron etc.) remains 100% effective and unmasked. I have seen some other sites on the Internet that greatly criticised Mongoose for not adding a rule rewarding this with a die modifier. My take on this at the present time would be to say that performing this tactic by a player becomes its own reward in limiting the other ship's fire to its forward unmasked guns, thus no die modifier is needed. The point where I might have a grievance would be that as the way the rules are at present stated that any trailing ships are not blocked from firing their forward arc turrets, where in 'real life' they would be masked as well. For example, if a three-ship division was crossed in a near-perfect 'T', the only guns bearable in that entire formation would be the leading ship's forward guns, with all others masked. I might suggest something to consider that would not strike the "no masking" general rule in the game. Any ships that are in a formation other than being the lead ship will be considered "crossed" if the enemy ship(s) is presenting its beam arc while at the same time as it is inside of the considered ship's bow or aft arc and is less than 20" away in range from the considered ship. This would be a worthwhile rule and reward a superior tactic of having your formation become the "top" of the T in a gunnery duel. As far as large and small silhouettes go, I would reward looking at a small silhouette at over 20" with the same +1 as the author has given facing a large silhouette and limit the large silhouette bonus to when the target is under 20". This then more accurately considers the flat trajectories at shorter ranges and the plunging fire of longer ones when firing at enemy ships. Remember that the Hood was not only racing to close the range with the Bismarck in order to unmask its own rear turrets as it was to switch the Bismarck's plunging (deck-exposed) fire to a flatter arc that was protected better by the Hood's thicker belt. Even though the Hood knew it was packing BC armor instead of BB armor, its horizontal belt was still better than its deck armor.

 

[Bullshot]

Well, keep in mind that crossing the T is more of an age of sail tactic. By turning your broadside across the bow of an enemy ship, you had a great profile on his sailing rig. Eliminating the running gear on a ship would leave it dead in the water and the the other ship can finish it off at will. Modern ships (including WW2) don't have sails to fire grapeshot through. If you turn your broadside into an oncoming ship, yes, you can bring more guns to bear, but you have a smaller target profile.

BS

 

[BuShips]

Well, keep in mind that crossing the T is more of an age of sail tactic. By turning your broadside across the bow of an enemy ship, you had a great profile on his sailing rig. Eliminating the running gear on a ship would leave it dead in the water and the the other ship can finish it off at will. Modern ships (including WW2) don't have sails to fire grapeshot through. If you turn your broadside into an oncoming ship, yes, you can bring more guns to bear, but you have a smaller target profile.

BS

Yes, but the tactic was still viable even after the sails disappeared. You are correct and accurate in the area of sails and raking fire, but in using your example while you were firing holes in their sheets all they could "do about it" was to fire off a few cannonades and verbal insults. The tactic allowed the unequal exchange of fire as its primary purpose, with the option of either going after masts and sails or firing at the hull in passing due to the target ship's inability in replying in-kind. After the sails disappeared, the primary advantage was still present in limiting the other ship's gunfire opportunities while maximizing your own. Although basically extinct in the ships of today because of missiles and aircraft, crossing the enemy's T was still something taught at academies and sought after in WW1 and WW2. If you think the main function of crossing the T became mute after the age of sail, we'll just have to agree to disagree :wink: .

 

[BuShips]

As far as target profile, Mongoose added "large silhouette" as a firing die +1 modifier (and thus a bonus to-hit over a narrow profile) which accepts that a beam target is easier to hit, but I'll add this only is an advantage at closer range in reality. At a long distance any fire will be plunging fire and will only have the beam of the ship as its target, with a bit added to include a water near-miss on the engaged side. Crossing the T really comes into its own when two competing divisions are fighting in line ahead formations. The disadvantaged group in a "perfect T" can only bear the front arc weapons of the lead ship while its hull masks all of the weapons of the ships astern of it. This allows a completely unmasked enfilading fire from the line of opposing ships that form the head of the T.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Although basically extinct in the ships of today because of missiles and aircraft, crossing the enemy's T was still something taught at academies and sought after in WW1 and WW2. If you think the main function of crossing the T became mute after the age of sail, we'll just have to agree to disagree :wink: .

This was... discussed... during playtesting.

Wulf

 

[BuShips]

Wulf, other than Mongoose deciding that no ship will block another from being able to fire, there really is no problem with not having any rules specifically covering the tactic of "T crossing" I think. Players can still attempt this and get some benefit from the physical process by halving the other line of ship's fire while unmasking your own. I would only add what I suggested above and have "an exception to the rule" of otherwise unmasked fire between ships. This could therefore be kept totally separate from any silhouette bonus (or lack thereof) and run as a separate rule. As I also stated above using the combination of short and long ranges with these circumstances considering flat and arcing projectile trajectories there would be different benefits to either facing an enemy ship's short or long profile that depending on range could be "good" or "bad" for the ship you are viewing them from. I hope I stated my thoughts clearly and I think this would add some additional tactical depth to the game while not being difficult to implement.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Wulf, other than Mongoose deciding that no ship will block another from being able to fire, there really is no problem with not having any rules specifically covering the tactic of "T crossing" I think.

Nah, I know... I just wanted a rule called 'Crossing the T' in the book... :roll:

Wulf

 

[BuShips]

Wulf, other than Mongoose deciding that no ship will block another from being able to fire, there really is no problem with not having any rules specifically covering the tactic of "T crossing" I think.

Nah, I know... I just wanted a rule called 'Crossing the T' in the book... :roll:

Wulf

I'd be right there to vote yes with you, but we both know it happened all too rarely in WW2. I still think the best example was at Surigao Straight. That was a mouse trap if I ever saw one! There's nothing wrong with making a 30-degree front arc template and imposing my "special" LOS rule onto any ships following a lead ship that is "Crossed" by blocking their main gun front arc fire, within say 20" range. Maybe it or something similar could be considered for a supplement. It wouldn't be the first time, and it would be even better to include it with any WW1 version of VaS. You really can't have Jutland without something being offered like it imho. I need to work up examples of my close and long range implications on this when I have some time as it would slightly modify the silhouette rule. I could name the rule "LOSxT" for short. :wink:

 

[BuShips]

Here is a new thought some might consider in trying to weave "XofT" into the game. In the rules already is an advantage given to a side when it opts to form ships (up to six) into squadrons. The benefits of squadrons are that the players can use the highest command score for all of the ships in the squadron and that they can move and fire at the same time. There is no offsetting disadvantage in ever doing this- unless you add this in :idea: : Any force of ships operating as a squadron that has its 'T' crossed ahead of it (even by a single ship) will not be able to fire any primary weapons from the fore gun arc from ships other than that of the lead ship in the crossed squadron. This is because of the restriction placed upon the requirement that ships within a squadron must be within 4" of each other. The previous rule is assuming that in most cases a squadron will be disposed into a "single line ahead" formation (like that of a snake). In order to be considered "crossed", any enemy ship by itself or as part of an enemy squadron must achieve a position of being within 20" distance ahead from the lead ship of the considered squadron and within the forward arc of the disadvantaged squadron. This penalty imposed upon a squadron can be considered from either the head of that squadron or the tail. In other words, you can be crossed from either (or both) ends of a squadron that you have formed. There is no consideration given to the possibilities of crossing of the T outside of squadrons.

Does that give you something to ponder as to how to slip this classic naval tactic comfortably into VaS? You can still cross a single enemy ship's T with your ship, but there is no special additional benefit needed, as the act itself is the reward. If you place my special condition above into the rules for squadrons, it should work well and can offset some the advantages in players choosing to use squadrons. I would just skip my earlier mention of a special 30-deg. arc, as this is a simpler rule and uses the existing arcs. Stated another way, a ship other than the lead ship in a squadron that is being crossed cannot fire its forward arc main guns.

 

[jfox61]

Someone mentioned earlier that by crossing the T you would limit the firepower of the enemy ships to the forward turrets. Tell me how this would benefit you if you were in combat with the Dunkerque Rodney or Richelieu. Their advantage would be to come at you head on presenting as small a target as possible and eliminating the +1 modifier for large silhouette. You get no advantage at all by crossing THEIR T. Although these were solidly built and reliable ships they weren't exactly successful designs but this rule gives them a substantial advantage early on in the game especially the Nelson Class with their larger calibre weapons