Victory at Sea!

Matt Sharp

Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
Nomad said:
I don't know of any historical example of a captain turning his ship end-on to the enemy to become a smaller target against surface gunnery. To open or close the range, yes; to comb incoming torpedoes, yes; but not to avoid shellfire. Unless there are such examples, (please correct me if there are!) I don't think it's an important enough factor to be in the rules.
But the rules are already, essentially, there, in that you get a bonus when the target is broadside on, a factor that wouldn't be relevant with plunging fire. It's not so much what the commanders do, as where the ships are.
As I said earlier, my understanding is that at the range she blew up, plunging fire would not have been an issue.
Given the state of Hoods wreck revealed on the recent Channel 4 documentary - broken into four parts, the central hull lying upside down on the seabed and the stump of the stern upended like a tombstone - the exact cause must remain speculative.

It was a TV documentary I saw. It wasn't plunging fire as such, but the angle was such that a shell penetrated the thin deck and travelled within the hull back to the aft magazine. The explosion and fire spread within the hull along corridors meant to ferry ammo fore to aft. A crit 6-6 in game terms.

Hmm... given the need to ratify crits in this system, it could have been a 666... :twisted:

Wulf


Talking of documentaries, anyone in the UK might be interested in seeing Timewatch on Friday (27/01/06) which is a dramatisation of the Battle of the River Plate...
 

Lane Shutt

Mongoose
msprange said:
And can anyone tell me why US ships cram their sailors in like sardines? :)

A total lack of concern for human dignity or privacy?
So more people can hear when you bitch about your superiors?

Probably a combination of cost, manpower and tradition.
Berthing areas and crew activity areas are unproductive compared to mission oriented components. Adding 50' to the length of a destroyer would only add 50 square feet per person but add 10% to the size of the ship plus higher build price and operational cost. In return you get about double the space per person and still have it cramped.

The US also tends to over crew their ships. This allows them to take a certain percentage of casualties and still man all stations. Watch station manning also tends to be conservative, many areas have close to full combat manning at all times. Depending on the ship this means you have 3-6 people per watch station. In combat the remainder serve as damage control teams or double up on watches.

Tradition? Once they started to pack people in it became the norm, after that any slight increase in crew space could be claimed as an improvement.
 

soulman

Mongoose
A big many thanks to Matthew, for keeping us updated on VAS, i got a second hand book on ww2 ship battles and was a nice read, about the washington naval treaty in 1922, and counties trying to get around it..!!!
Naughty boys indeed..!!!

" Japan said that rumours of them building a ship of 40,000 to 50,000 tons was not true, infact unknown to the world it was building a ship of 65,000 tons..!!!! ( graf spee was 14,000 only )
The Yamato, with 9 x 18" guns....

Sorry for going on..!!!
I`m also the one playing around with the same rules for " stat trek" too, and look forward to the news around ACTA, which will make players dippy..!!!


2 rules questions when you have a free moment matt..
When you do a point of ship damage, do you also do a point of crew as well ?
And second, when you turn your ship, do you use up a 1" of movement for each point turned, or it turning free..?

Many thanks all
Alan
 

MongooseMatt

Administrator
Staff member
soulman said:
A big many thanks to Matthew, for keeping us updated on VAS, i got a second hand book on ww2 ship battles and was a nice read, about the washington naval treaty in 1922, and counties trying to get around it..!!!

Did you know that while the Washington Treaty did not (obviously) stop the Second World War, British strategic thinking at the time was not aimed at France, Japan or Germany - but America. So, it might well have stopped the Anglo-American War of the 1930's :)

soulman said:
2 rules questions when you have a free moment matt..
When you do a point of ship damage, do you also do a point of crew as well ?
And second, when you turn your ship, do you use up a 1" of movement for each point turned, or it turning free..?

No, and it is free!
 

soulman

Mongoose
Thanks for clearing the rules up, it just when my ships sunk last week, their was no crew deaths in the end, just the death of my 3 ships..

Looking forward to seening the next set of rules, as you talked about the future the options of ship design if needed of course.

I hope you go into the ww2 28mm man to man rules this year also, if so you can win hands down at salute in 2007.

Keep up the good work matt.

Alan
 

MongooseMatt

Administrator
Staff member
28mm WWII is a long way off yet - very unlikely to be this year, if at all. However, I think I have found the right format for Victory at Sea, and it is looking very likely. In fact, we have just commissioned a test model of the Hood from one of our sculptors - we are going to see how 1/2000 scale looks.

That is not all that we are doing in 'real world' gaming, however. We are trying to put together a project right now that could leapfrog over everything else, if only we can resolve the logistical nightmare (it is not exactly a small project :)).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Speaking of Japan's super battleships (and to add to the navy trivia section), did you know that during construction of the Yamato and Musashi (and numbers 3 & 4 - never completed as battleships) Japan faced a nationwide steel crisis? There simply wasn't enough to build the ships and meet other requirements!

Immense :shock:

Maybe Mongoose can come up with a scenario where the super battleships actually manage to sink something....

Cheers,

Eisho
 

Wulf Corbett

Mongoose
Anonymous said:
Speaking of Japan's super battleships (and to add to the navy trivia section), did you know that during construction of the Yamato and Musashi (and numbers 3 & 4 - never completed as battleships) Japan faced a nationwide steel crisis? There simply wasn't enough to build the ships and meet other requirements!
Not quite on the same scale, but I work in Greenock, one of Scotland's major ports. Every time a big cruise liner docks to restock on fresh water, the local mains supply is so drained we (local council buildings) are told not to flush the toilets unles absolutely necessary, as there isn't pressure to fill them back up!

hmm... a fully active Shinano carrier...

Wulf
 

Eisho

Mongoose
Guest post was mine...forgot to log in...

Not strictly on topic, but...

If anyone is interested, I've just finished reading 'For God and Glory' by Joel Hayward. It's about Nelson and is a very interesting read. The author is an expert on tactics in warfare and, rather than examine Nelson's life as a biographer, he analyses the man's military career from a variety of different points of view. He's even critical of Nelson (shock! gasp! horror!) and his ability to conduct land warfare (or his lack of ability).

Cheers,

Eisho
 

MongooseMatt

Administrator
Staff member
Anonymous said:
Maybe Mongoose can come up with a scenario where the super battleships actually manage to sink something....

I have just finished writing the two battles of the Bismarck. . .
 

MongooseMatt

Administrator
Staff member
Eisho said:
If anyone is interested, I've just finished reading 'For God and Glory' by Joel Hayward. It's about Nelson and is a very interesting read. The author is an expert on tactics in warfare and, rather than examine Nelson's life as a biographer, he analyses the man's military career from a variety of different points of view. He's even critical of Nelson (shock! gasp! horror!) and his ability to conduct land warfare (or his lack of ability).

It was a Nelson biography that got me on to naval warfare - inspiring stuff.

The man was probably a greater 'hero' than Churchill and, in his own way, effected the Empire in far greater way (Churchill saved it over a 5 years period, Nelson ensured it would expand and grow for nearly 100 years before another major battle was fought at sea - until then, the seas belonged to Britain, 'nuff said).

However, talk about your flawed heroes. He and Lady Hamilton really were the Posh and Becks of their time - but twice as vulgar in taste. His home had gold-inlaid furniture everywhere, on the walls he had massive portaits of himself.

'Well, Mr Nelson, how would you like this room decorated?'

'Well, a big picture of _me_, right there would be a good start. . .'

You wouldn't want to have anyone else next to you in battle, and he must have been a laugh down the pub - but Lord, his ego would have been irritating.

I have wondered in the past whether he knew there would be a huge monument to him in the middle of London, and whether his ship would preserved all this time (and still in commission!). And then I think, yes, he probably thought it would be fitting for a man of his stature :)
 

VonTed

Mongoose
msprange said:
..... In fact, we have just commissioned a test model of the Hood from one of our sculptors - we are going to see how 1/2000 scale looks.

Darnnit, doing an odd scale :cry:
 

Eisho

Mongoose
I think you would enjoy the book then. The author argues that it was Nelson's ego that got him into trouble on land: the self-delusion that he could basically do anything better than anyone else, including army experts actually trained to fight on land.

Whatever his ego, he could certainly walk the walk and he was always ready to pay the ultimate price if he ever got things wrong.

There's an interesting account provided by Wellington who met Nelson without the latter knowing who the former was (obviously before 1805 and before Wellington became notorious, but I can't remember the year) and Wellington couldn't believe the ego of the man either. Then Nelson went off for a meeting, seems to have been told who Wellington was and then had a second conversation which Wellington then described as being (something like) the most intellectually stimulating 'chat' he had ever had in his life.

Unfortunately the genius and charisma of people like Nelson, Patton, Rommel, Yamamoto etc. are impossible to really capture in a game.

Shouldn't stop us from trying though, huh?

Cheers,

Eisho
 

soulman

Mongoose
That is not all that we are doing in 'real world' gaming..!!!!

I cannot sleep at night now, if only i could be a fly on the wall in your office....

Keep up the good work
Alan

Ps.. whens the next s&p come out..?
 

Wulf Corbett

Mongoose
msprange said:
In fact, we have just commissioned a test model of the Hood from one of our sculptors - we are going to see how 1/2000 scale looks.
It looks like an outlandish abberation amongst every other manufacturers' scales.

Wulf
 

Nomad

Mongoose
No point in going for a common scale such as 1/1200 or 1/3000 - pretty much everything has already been released by someone or other.
 

mthomason

Mongoose
It seems to me that the danger to Mongoose of picking an uncommon scale is that everyone picks up the rules and just ignores their choice of scale and goes with whats already on the market (and possibly in their collection), this hitting sales a lot worse than being "just another manufacturer in a common scale". Therefore I'd second the sentiments above that picking something that is already being done by another manufacturer can only help sales as people will

a) Start looking at Mongoose instead of their existing manufacturer.
b) Be more likely to pick up the game as they can use existing models and mix+match with other manufacturers to fill in the inevitable holes in the Mongoose range at the beginning.

Personally I'd much rather use Mongoose minis for a Mongoose game, while still being able to buy the things they don't make (yet) from alternative manufacturers. Case in point is SST - while I had access to a crapload of GW Imperial Guard minis at discount price, I still went for official Mongoose M.I. However, I'm able to use GW accessory sprues and scenery made to the same scale, and can even do cross-manufacturer conversions to the benefit of both (such as my still-uncompleted Pat-Wagon from a Rhino kit for GOMC1, and numerous headswaps). Apologies for wandering off into 25mm land for this, but it was easier to come up with examples :)
 
Top