Victory at Sea!

[rbax]

As for Radar directed Gunnery,it was first used to effect in December 1943 by Duke of York and Belfast when they sank Scharnhorst.Though it was tried very unsuccessfully by British Shore battery's during the channel dash in Feb 1942.

Correct. The Duke or York had just been fitted with a fire control radar but was still fine tuning her main guns with the Type 284 artillery radar detection and pointing system.

However, the opening shots by the Duke of York began at about 12000 yards and only began after a flight of star shells. The actual engagement was based on standard range finders. The radar fire control system was actually relegated to testing, comparing its predicted fire patterns to that which was actually being fired as directed by the optical range finders.

Of course, it was the radar that made it possible for the Duke of York to sneak up on the Sharnhorst in the first place. That and the fact the Sharnhorst's primary radar had been knocked out earlier in the engagement.

--- Rich

 

[Anonymous]

It also told them that Scharnhorst had sunk,they watched a none moving radar image disapear of the scope.Also at night at 12,000 yds in the heavy seas of the Artic circle ships would have been unlikely to have even seen each other never mind plot accurate fall of shot,therefore any radar plot must have been a significant factor.Acording to Jacobsons book (the Norwegian who found the wreck)Scharnhorst was picked up at range of 42 kilometres by Duke of York.They could have opened fire at a much earlier point but Fraser held his fire until he felt sure that she could not escape and waited till he had closed to 12 kilometres.They were fairly sure were the target was before they used starshells.

Later on to quote from the same book.
'At 18.24 the Duke of Yorks fire control radar broke down. By then the range had increased to almost 20,000 metres. The battleship ceased fire , to have continued firing would have only been to waste ammunition'.

In other words without the fire control radar it was pointlesss to continue the action.Only a flucky hit just prior to this which slowly caused the Scharnhorst to lose speed and the DOY to catch up allowed the action to continue.

 

[Bigwig_mark]

Have played a 4 point Raid level games and surprise, surprise the Germans got completely destroyed with the British suffering only minor damage to one ship!

Our biggest gripe was ranges and more importanty what they represent. Are they theoretical maximums, effective ranges, or a function of calibre?

Previous posts have given an estimated maximum engagement range of 25,000 yards. which is fair enough. but what should this be on the tabletop?

My concern is how far away from a model is the horizon. if the distance is too short then the models are relying on 20-20 gamervision or subject to unnecessarily complex "not being seen" rules.

For main guns there need to be four distinct ranges.

the horizon (should be the edge of the table)

maximum visibility range

Maximum engagement range

close engagement range (no to hit modifiers)

Another worry is how are smaller vessel going to be reprented. The current going rate has 1000 tons of displacement equalling 1 damage point. Therefore destroyers and similar craft are going to be rated as 3 or 4 damage points. These vessels are not going to last very long against ships of a similar size and even less time against something bigger and more dangerous!! or even worse a torpedo salvo.
Maybe they should be represented as flotillas rather than individual ships?

Which brings me to my last point, is "Victory at Sea" meant to be a Battleship dualing game or a cruiser level game with battleships being brought in as "extras"


Apart from the Germans being completely outclassed it was an enjoyable game and we are looking forward to the next installment. bring on the dive bombers!!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

For main guns there need to be four distinct ranges.

I'd say this is too complex for this type of game (assuming it keeps to the Call to Arms model it's developed from). Two ranges would do me fine,
Direct Fire
Maximum Range.

After the Direct Fire range there would be a modifier for accuracy, and some Plunging Fire rules about penetrating deck armour. Maximum range would be limited by rangefinders and technology, there's no real need to note theoretical maximums for game stats. After this, visibility rules could impose a shorter maximum, but I see no need for, admittedly more accurate, degredation of visibility and accuracy before a maximum.

Another worry is how are smaller vessel going to be reprented. The current going rate has 1000 tons of displacement equalling 1 damage point. Therefore destroyers and similar craft are going to be rated as 3 or 4 damage points. These vessels are not going to last very long against ships of a similar size and even less time against something bigger and more dangerous!! or even worse a torpedo salvo.
Maybe they should be represented as flotillas rather than individual ships?

I note firstly that there are no Destroyers on the list so far... However, if the Damage is inflated to, say, 6-8 points or even up to 10, I see no problem with individuals being represented. Even 8" gun turrets are only doing 1 Damage Die per hit, after all, and it's quite likely that light ships will have an Evade (or Dodge) ability.

Which brings me to my last point, is "Victory at Sea" meant to be a Battleship dualing game or a cruiser level game with battleships being brought in as "extras"

Again I note there are no Destroyers so far, which does worry me... However, again I see this being quite akin to A Call To Arms, where Patrol-level ships (which Destroyers inevitably will be) can have quite satisfactory battles amongst themselves, but are out of their depth (so to speak...) with the Big Boys, while Battleships are less common, but when they do appear instantly become the centre of attention...

Wulf

 

[lastbesthope]

Maybe they could borrow some of the firing spread rules from SST Minis game?

LBH

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Maybe they could borrow some of the firing spread rules from SST Minis game?

Tell me of these firing spread rules, for I know not of them.

Wulf

 

[VonTed]

I am glad that I am not the only German player that got clobbered by the Royal Navy.

My only thought to try to help the battle would be to sacrafice one Raid level ship to hopefully allow the 2 other Raid's and the Battle to close in to firing range (since ships block line of sight firing).

Not sure how well it would really work since I tried it in mid-game and managed to only get one extra turn out of my fleet.

 

[Renny]

Has anyone tried statting up ships from different nations? One of my chums is proposing that we try and refight the Battle of Midway using VAS and is starting to think about stats for US Navy and Japanese ships. We'll wait until we see the rules for aircraft obviously but i'd be interested in seeing what others have come up with so far.

Regards

Renny

 

[Asroc_2000]

Being a big fan of CtA, I was intrigued by the concept of someone adapting them to WW2 Naval combat.

I could see many pitfalls, the 2 main ones being the sheer complexity of the subject matter and the fact that there is a lot of historical data and existing rules available. This means a lot of people will have opinions and expectations.
While be can discuss the relative merits of a Centauri Battle laser vs a Minbari Neutron laser, at the end of the day its is all fiction and if the designer picks a value we pretty much accept it.
As can be seen from previous posts, all the quirks and oddities of these rules will be open to disection and mass debate
One serious decision we could do with knowing is what the target audience is for these rules, another is how much detail they want to put in.

A few of my own gripes include :-
* the odd ranges of 11" guns - they seem more like the WW1 vintage guns on the Schliesen and Schleswig-Holstein than the later ones on the PB and BC class ships.
* torpedos get slow loading - they should of course be one shot only, as far as I know only Japanese ships carried reloads, and even then only one set, and loading time was quite long [Nelson/Rodney probably had reloads for thier 24.5" submerged tubes.
* the "points system" is not flexible enough. The German?British system has been highlighted, but even within the British list, thereis no way York and Exeter are anywhere near a match for a QE class battleship.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

* the odd ranges of 11" guns - they seem more like the WW1 vintage guns on the Schliesen and Schleswig-Holstein than the later ones on the PB and BC class ships.

Yes, ranges in general are a bit odd.

* torpedos get slow loading - they should of course be one shot only, as far as I know only Japanese ships carried reloads, and even then only one set, and loading time was quite long [Nelson/Rodney probably had reloads for thier 24.5" submerged tubes.

Thanks I was having this discussion with Matt Sprange, you've confirmed what I said.

* the "points system" is not flexible enough. The German?British system has been highlighted, but even within the British list, thereis no way York and Exeter are anywhere near a match for a QE class battleship.

I don't know, I don't care much over that, as a campaign fleet you'll have to take a good mix anyway, so things should even out. What would be better would be a rarity factor by year - no more than 'x' cruisers of this class in 1941, etc.

Wulf

 

[Anonymous]

I think it generally took about 30mins to reload torps(I may be very wrong on this it was a footnote I saw years ago)Japs may have been quicker as they had reload rails all over their ships and and specificaly looked at it in the inter war years.U.S. torps were famous for not going off during the early war years,particulalry the magnetic type(So were the Brits but they gave up with them fairly quickly).In fact there is a fairly hilarious(though not for the poor buggers who had to use them) documentary on the History channel about the cocks up they had with them.

 

[Zee Zee]

Damn that was me again keep forgetting to log in.

 

[Asroc_2000]

Wulf, depends on how detailed you want it, but a lot can be gleaned from the data, as sister ships are listed so you can tell how many were in the class. Also depends on how historical you want to be.
As an example, to a real purist, there is only one British Admiral class battlecruiser in WW2, HMS Hood. She was sunk by Bismarck, so really should not appeasr in a game after that date, however, she had 3 sisterships planned., so using a "what if" licence all four could fight Bismarck, Tirpitz, and Scharnhorts and Gneisenau with the 15" gun refit they had planned but never got!

true in a campaign, the points system applied to individual battles is irrelevant, but how many people actually play campaigns as opposed to one off battles? My own expereince would indicate less than 10%.

For a quick battle you need a decent points system that will give a balanced game 9 times out of 10. Fighting 2 small heavy cruisers against a battleship is unlikely to give that, and in fact you would probably strugle to get the reverse, a 1 in 10 balanced game.

Certainly there were times when cruisers fought heavier ships, and even times when they won, but I doubt many cruiser captains would relish the chance to do so, and would only engage if some vital objective depended upon it (eg protecting a convoy or beachhead)

 

[lastbesthope]

Maybe they could borrow some of the firing spread rules from SST Minis game?

Tell me of these firing spread rules, for I know not of them.

Wulf

Well it's pretty much a way of determining a radial range error from rolling 2d6. You get the shot to go in the right direction automatically, pick your aim point and then roll the dice, depending on which option for lookup table you choose, the die roll determines how long or short the shot falls.

Of course this is motre useful for area effect weapons rather than shells, but still, it might be useful.

You're better asking someone on the SST forums about it, they'll know better.

LBH

 

[Zee Zee]

Use the rules your on about,Our club member who is ex artillery frowns whenever these rules are metioned(then again he frowns at most rules).I know Matt is uncomptable with them,and on first glance they seem strange,but result wise have yet to see glaring errors game wise,though him above moans that not how it works.

Like Asroc I was intrigued by the idea of CTA handling naval games,but as of yet am not convinced for many of the reasons described on the forum.But saying that much depends on the complexity and the level at which the game is set. Then again I never thought some one could write a space game to reflect B5 which is as quick to play and as much fun as CTA so Matt and co may again pull another one out of the bag(SST is a very good squad inf level game which his Stalingrad game may prove to everyone)so who knows.

Mongooses biggest problems on this with wobbly woolly hat brigade(and I number myself in this one when it comes to things naval)who have a percieved veiw on naval games ,and who date back(almost) to the Feltcher Pratt naval games of the 1920's.

 

[Asroc_2000]

I noticed the Hipper class cruisers, with 4.1" DP secondaries get an attack value, but British cruisers with 4" secondaries do not, presumable only counting as AA factors.
QE and Renown with 4.5" also get secondary factors.
Is it a case that guns must be over 4-inch to count?
If so this is bad news for the RN and other navies using secondary guns less than 4".
I know you have to draw the line somewhere, but this seems an odd place.

 

[Agis]

Hi everybody,

boys I feel stupid. I have pestered Matt a couple of times about VaS just to find this topic after weeks...


Most of my question were also raised here. One of them the Torpedo question.

But first the questions so far and Matts answers:
* How is the Command rating of the 3 English ships in the test
scenario?

>>Assume a default of 4.

* Am I right that no ship in the test scenario can fire at
extreme or long ranges, since no ship has guns firing that far?

>>Correct.

* Same goes for Fast Moving target, since the fastest ships are
the 3 British with 7". So the only modifier we can get in the test
scenario is +1 for large silhouette?

>>Correct.

* How to establish the large silhouette modifier? Do we use the
Fire Arcs abstraction? Or is it exactly the whole beam facing with no
degree deviation?

>>Use the fire arcs.

* Is the Fire Arc of the main guns 360 degree? I presume NO! It
seems impossible to shoot to the rear for a front turret. So basically
we have 3 fire arcs for each turret: Both sides and front or back
(depending where the turret is located.). Right?

>>Correct!

S&P #29 P.15; Crippled: “In addition the AD of the ship’s secondary and anti-aircraft
weapons will be halved (rounded down).“
Is this also true for Torpedoes?

>> At the moment, yes.

S&P #29 P.16; Damage Control: “Many critical hits have special effects that further debilitate a ship beyond the raw damage they cause. Weapons can be put out of commission, sections can be flooded and flashbacks from ammunition stores can cause terrible harm. These special effects are the only things Damage Control can repair – it cannot be used to restore Damage or Crew points. “

Let’s presume I lose a main turret because my crew is at crippled level. Can I “repair” it in the End phase (manning the guns again etc.)?

>> No - that is not a critical hit.

Some critical effects read “no damage control permitted”. Is this for the rest of the game?

>> Yes.

Weapons table 5 – Turret destroyed - Can I “repair” it in the End phase?

>> Of course.


On to the Torpedoes:
S&P #30 P.20; Torpedoes: “The Torpedo counter is moved 8” forward at the start of the Attack Phase of the next turn. “

· This can lead to strange situations. Since the counter is moved at the start of the next turn’s attack phase the firing ship has to move over the Torpedo in next turns movement phase.
Is this intended?
Or is it moved immidiately and then (presuming it does not strike a target) moved again in the next attack phase?
Or should the sentence read: “The Torpedo counter is moved 8” forward at the start of the Movement Phase of the next turn.”

Matt already admitted that he is not THAT happy with the torpedo rules.

What about the following rule:
Torpedos are moved in the attack phase. Basically like a short range shot.

 

[Agis]

One more thing: Feel free check out my growing VaS section on my website! (see the signature)...

 

[Agis]

I just updated my website again.
The painted GHQ Bismarck and Rodney are here...
http://www.agisn.de/html/victory_at_sea.html

Todays game was again a crushing defeat for the Kriegsmarine. I have a gut feeling that the PL system might not work for VaS. The topic was raised before. I am not going to argue against the PL system, but the stats are just too different at each level IMO. Best example is the Graf Spee vs Queen Elisabeth class...
:wink:
Also: We tried my above proposed Torpedoes rules (fire Torpedos in the attack phase, move Torpedos before all other minis in the next movement phase).

Worked like a charm!

 

[captainsmirk]

I'll admit that I'm no expert but on the subject of destroyers I don't see their having low damage points as that much of a problem.

Their not meant to be mixing it with the battleships head on, nor are the big boys going to be wasting their main guns ammunition on them.

Although thinking about it, they're going to be much more difficult to hit than larger ships when weaving around to avoid fire, so purhaps giving them something like Dodge would increse their suvivability. (You only want them in close long enough to make a torpedo attack anyway :wink: ).

Nick