Yamato

[BuShips]

Actually lots of nations were, in today's parlance, "WMD Owning States" since gas is regarded as a WMD and quite a few of the major nations had it and had used it. RN ships even exercised against the threat of gas deployed form submarines in the 1930s.

Yes granted as a "real" WMD you are correct even going back to WW1. My own perspective on my comment was I remember back in 1987 I had to do an English paper on the old "comparison-contrast" subject and I picked out the 1922 Washington Treaty and the SALT I talks fifty years later. I compared battleships and nuclear weapons both as a measure of a nation's strength and ranking in the world, and then contrasted them when the battleship became a target in the Able and Baker Bikini atomic tests. In its day, the battleship was considered the most powerful concentration of military power on the Earth, only to be eclipsed by the nuclear bomb. Ironic, isn't it?

As a small point of trivia, did anyone notice the slight typo in the Yamato having (2x18 in.) rather than (3x18 in.). I wonder if someone was daydreaming of the 20" gunned "never-was" design? :wink:

 

[Reaverman]

I know it sounds daft, but I think the game's been aimed more towards conventional WWI tactics. Since Torps, and Carriers have been nerfed a little.

 

[Burger]

I'm working on something for my ship viewer, that will calculate the "power" of a ship with customizable parameters such as how highly you rate firepower, defensive capability, etc. Should be interesting to see the results, and which ships have higher power than their class should allow

My bet is that Yamato is head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[BuShips]

I know it sounds daft, but I think the game's been aimed more towards conventional WWI tactics. Since Torps, and Carriers have been nerfed a little.

You're not daft (well, at least not regarding your comment :wink as aircraft carriers and their little fellows don't "play fair" with surface craft or heck even surfaced subs for that matter. I fully expect that the next version of VaS will be a ww1 game, with very few zeppelins :wink: .

My bet is that Yamato is head and shoulders above the rest.

I may not be telling you anything you don't already know, but here are a few points of trivia to digest. One of the best overall comparisons on the web is over at http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm. While on the surface the Yamato stands heads above other battlewagons, the Iowa and even the South Dakota come closer than you might think, with the Iowa finally getting the win. I've done quite a bit of research and do not have any complaints with that assessment, and while a Yank I have a great love for the Imperial Japanese fleet designs in WW2. The two were well matched opponents. Yamato and Musashi were immenently impressive ships that I have a soft spot for. I was frankly surprised when I learned that the cruiser-like layout of the Iowa hid some of the more brute force traditional battleship qualities. Six knots faster speed, inclined face-hardened armor, and "magnum" projectiles (nearly a thousand pounds more than a Bismarck's) make the Iowa at least a match for the magnificent design of the Yamato imho.

This is a piece of 26" turret faceplate armor test-shot with a 16"/45 (not the 16"/50) gun post-war. It was from the left over parts when the third Yamoto class (Shinano) was converted into a carrier. This is much thicker than the Yamato belt of an inclined thickness of 16". Although shot at a 0-degree angle, the charge was reduced to simulate a range of 30,000 yards and would have been a plunging shot into a turret face (which is what this armor is from) that was inclined on a turret at 45-degrees. Thus, if a 26" armored plate taken from one of the most protected and critical parts of the ship (the front of the main turret) could be penetrated by a 2,700lb. AP round (granted, under test conditions), it should go through just about any other part of the entire ship including the belt armor. While the 18.1" guns of the Yamato outrange the 16"/50 guns by about 3,000 yards, the 'super' 16" round came very close to the hitting power of the bigger gun. Here is another great reference page on the battleships-

http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm

Cheers from a Yamato & Iowa fan :wink:

 

[MongooseMatt]

Why should ISD affect the PL?
What about tournaments or campaigns or "what if" scenarios, where ISD is irrelevant?

Actually, I would make ISD very relevant in a tournament. . .

 

[Poi]

Actually, I would make ISD very relevant in a tournament. . .

Why? A campaign type event, yes, but a tourney? Explain please.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I've played a Yamato against TWO Iowas, and it took their pounding without sinking (4 points left, only 4 crew dead) Our fleet wound up sinking the Missouri, but the Essex got away...hid behind an Island!

Chern

*IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT PLs*

People have run into similar situations in CTA, and there is a good reason for this. . .

The PL system was not and never will be designed for one on one duels (actually, that is a little lie - we have recently found another type of wargame where spreads between units are even narrower than space combat/naval games - but I digress).

You can find superior ships at every PL. That is not the issue. The PL system was designed for fleet actions, and assumes several units will be involved and interacting. In other words, the PL system is balanced at fleet level, not unit level.

This is all well and good, and because of the narrow spread of units (or rather, how they clump together on the power scale) it works at fleet level.

Just two things a designer has to be wary of (and now I mention these, I am guessing some are going to be going through the lists like hawks ). First, that a fleet does not dominate the game at a certain PL. This has happened in CTA in the past, and is one of the things we are rigourously squeezing out of 2e (mostly - Vorlons and Shadows remain top heavy, Raiders are still underdogs). Now, this is actually not important for campaigns, and can actually add another level of strategy to them, but it is not so good for tournaments.

Second, you have to be wary of one ship being a little too high in its PL that an entire fleet of them can push the game over. We'll call that the Sagittarius Syndrome.

It all comes down to what you expect of the system. A duel can be fun, but the game is just not geared towards it (and that goes right through the mechanics, such as Special Actions). In fleet games, however, you always have a counter to a ship like the Yamato - you don't have to play to your opponent's advantage and simply match it with your big ships. Certainly did not happen in real life!

Historical scenarios are, of course, something completely different.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Why? A campaign type event, yes, but a tourney? Explain please.

Well, for example, if I were to run a tournament at Mongoose Halls, I might say that it was an early years setting, and restrict ships to '40 and before. Or maybe I might run a six game tournament, and have a game in '39, '40, '41, etc.

This would force players to consider whether they want to bring an early ship to a later battle, and also get them thinking about playing to their fleet's weaknesses, as well as its strengths.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The Yamato is deffinitely the most powerful ship but not by much. Agile is useless on a battleship with such a small turning amount anyway. Don't forget the Iowa has Radar, that makes a LOT of difference beyond 20 inches, which is where you should be when fighting a Yamato.

I reckon it would be more realistic to say the Yamato was about 20-25% better than an Iowa, so make it Armageddon level and it will be useless which to be quite honest would be more historically accurate.

Easy to just pick on the Iowa and the Yamato, particularly as I have those ships but what about other sad pieces of cack like the Hood and a few other battleships that are pretty naff for their points level.

Hey I just had an idea, operating within the confines of the points level you have a real problem that some ships will be better than others. Take all the naff ones and say they get 1 to x free flights of aircraft of your choice to even up the points. So Yamato would get 0 flights, Iowa may get 1 flight, some sad pieces of cack may get 3-4 flights.

What do you reckon??

Cpt Kremmen

 

[MongooseMatt]

Easy to just pick on the Iowa and the Yamato, particularly as I have those ships but what about other sad pieces of cack like the Hood and a few other battleships that are pretty naff for their points level.

Hey! At least stand up and salute when you profane the Hood!

 

[Court Jester]

Actually, I would make ISD very relevant in a tournament. . .

Why? A campaign type event, yes, but a tourney? Explain please.

You know, for a while there I was wondering how an Imperial Star Destroyer would help a tournament.

But don't worry I figures it out... 8)

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

It WAS the Yamato after all, the top BB ever build. US sailors weren`t happy when they saw him steaming in their direction. Deal with it, they had to as well...

An historic game will never be fair, things will be overpowered, that is human nature! Not a single japanese designer will ever have thought `hey, make the yamato smaller cause the american vessels can`t keep up`, nor did the inventor of the crossbow ever had such claims about the `poor` knights in full plate that suddenly where in major trouble.

Sorry this sounds harsh, but some ships where in the same `categorie` as others and where just plain better, and I am so sick of forumnaggers that always cry this and that and such and blahblahblah, what ruined acta for me as well after the `i do not know the how maniest anymore` revision of the white star. if it`s better, DEAL with it, outsmart your opponent, find a decent tactic or go play Tetris. Then again, then you can go nagg that there are not enough long blocks in that game as well.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

When people have a legitimate complaint about something in this or any other game, they're entitled to state their opinion. Ships in ACtA were horribly broken. There are those who moaned about ships that weren't really broken, but people always moan.

In this case, the Yamato being so superior to other ships at the same PL is a legitimate complaint. It might be historically accurate, but it's a bit of a pain for someone playing against a Japanese fleet having to try to cope with a ship too good for its PL. As stated, matchin the Yamato against a King George V-class battleship isn't a fair fight, but the PL system charges the same for a KGV as the Yamato. That's the complaint, and it isn't "whining" or any other slur you can think of. It's a perfectly reasonable issue to raise.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

...nor did the inventor of the crossbow ever had such claims about the `poor` knights in full plate that suddenly where in major trouble.

The longbow was just as capable of penetrating plate as the standard crossbow, had a longer range, was more accurate, and had a far faster rate of shot*. The only advantage the crossbow has was ease of training and mass production. It took a lifetime of training and specially-grown copised woodlands to make longbows. Crossbows could be knocked out by the dozen, and any idiot could aim & shoot.

Here endeth the rant...

Wulf

* you do not 'fire' a bow, you shoot it or loose the arrow. There's no combustion involved, 'firing' a weapon is a term originating with gunpowder. Here endeth rant the second...

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

A fight is never fair.

The british saw the KG-V as their best of the bunch, the japanese see the yamato as theor best of the bunch... so they both are the best of their bunch even though between each other Yamato WAS vastly superior. Hence they are completely legimite in the same PL for my buck.

And before anyone thinks, I do not field Japanese.

 

[Twin-Linked Aldades]

...nor did the inventor of the crossbow ever had such claims about the `poor` knights in full plate that suddenly where in major trouble.

The longbow was just as capable of penetrating plate as the standard crossbow, had a longer range, was more accurate, and had a far faster rate of shot*. The only advantage the crossbow has was ease of training and mass production. It took a lifetime of training and specially-grown copised woodlands to make longbows. Crossbows could be knocked out by the dozen, and any idiot could aim & shoot.

Here endeth the rant...

Wulf

* you do not 'fire' a bow, you shoot it or loose the arrow. There's no combustion involved, 'firing' a weapon is a term originating with gunpowder. Here endeth rant the second...

Hence the problems for the knights who now had mass bolts flying towrds them instead of elitist arrows arcing down

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Hence the problems for the knights who now had mass bolts flying towrds them instead of elitist arrows arcing down

Actually, you'd have more archers than crossbowmen, due to the changing battlefield.

The real difference was, you could train crossbowmen for a couple of hours a week, then lock the crossbows up in the armoury. Longbowmen had to train daily (at one point football was banned as it was distracting men from archery practice...), and the bows were tailored to the individual archer, leaving you with a lethally-armed and trained peasant army right outside your door...

Wulf

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Wulf, you're totally wrong. A longbow arrow can only penetrate plate armour at very close range, with a bodkin arrowhead and a lucky strike. Armour is designed to make blows glance off, and bodkin arrowheads are the easiest thing in the world to deflect.

A good heavy crossbow or arbalest had a draw weight around 300lbs, about double the biggest longbows, and delivered a solid iron quarrel at much higher velocities. It both outranged the longbow and outperformed it as an armour-piercing weapon.

The true value of the longbow was rate of fire (or shot, but rate of shot sounds daft), allowing the famed "rain of arrows" to be produced. What happened at Crécy and Agincourt was the arrows wounding horses and knights/heavy cavalry that weren't wearing plate. Combined with the marshy terrain this stopped the French heavy horse cold. Not because the longbows turned the knights into tinned meat, but because they lost their horses and couldn't move about properly in the marsh they were trying to cross. The English foot was able to repel any that made it across the marsh and attacked uphill.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Wulf, you're totally wrong. A longbow arrow can only penetrate plate armour at very close range, with a bodkin arrowhead and a lucky strike. Armour is designed to make blows glance off, and bodkin arrowheads are the easiest thing in the world to deflect.

I wonder if you and I have been at the same reference material. Thing is, I am not sure I entirely buy the conclusions. I have a feeling it is impossible to fully replicate a longbow and the arrows used so long ago, and there is just too much anecdotal evidence (stories) of the effect of the longbow.

Not convinced, not convinced. . .

 

[Poi]

We start with the largest battleship of WW2, and arrive at medieval weapons.

Time to end this topic methinks.